MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6990452088

Development and Comparison of 3D Dynamic Models of Golf Clubhead-Ball Impacts

2023· dissertation· en· W6990452088 sur OpenAlexafffund

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Établissements canadiensBlackberry (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of Waterloo
Mots-clésBall (mathematics)Mathematical modelImpact assessmentSimulation modelingModel validationPredictive modellingExperimental data
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The scientific understanding and modeling of impacts has led to major advancements in golf equipment performance. The latest generation of drivers allow golfers to hit the ball farther compared to previous models. Simultaneously, new clubs are more forgiving, resulting in poor shots to land closer to the target. Impact models are an important tool as they allow for computer simulations and optimizations to inform design decisions. Several driver impact models have been published for this purpose. Impulse-momentum (IM) and other analytical contact models offer fast simulation times. While finite element (FE) models are used to design clubs, they were not considered here as they require orders of magnitude more compute time. Many existing impact models have no or limited experimental validation to support their conclusions. From a literature review, several impact models were considered to develop golf-specific impact models. A significant portion of this research was identifying model parameters and quantifying the accuracy of these models. This was achieved using experimental data consisting of driver and 7-iron shots by elite players. This allowed for the accuracy of these models to be compared against each other.
\n
\nThree IM-based impact models were used to predict the initial ball conditions for driver and 7-iron shots. The first model was referred to as the standard IM model as it followed the general methodology in the literature. The second IM-based model adds a small amount of mass to the clubhead and moves the ball centre of gravity slightly downwards to improve accuracy. These adjustments are intended to compensate for neglecting the shaft and ball deformation. The third IM-based model replaces the pure rolling assumption to allow a prescribed amount of slip at the contact point. This was motivated from experiments in the literature. The standard and adjusted IM models have been used to predict driver impacts. However, no published IM-based models exist to predict iron shots.
\n
\nThree continuous analytical models were also used to model golf impacts. The first model was a volumetric normal force contact model with a two-layer ball and velocity based friction model. This model captures the tangential force reversal observed in experimental studies and FE models. From a literature review, two other non-FE models were considered as they also predict this tangential force reversal. These models were extended to be suitable for modeling golf impacts. A damping parameter was added to the normal force equations to make the predicted collisions inelastic. These models were originally developed for 2D collisions against a rigid plate. Here they were extended to a 3D multibody dynamics model to predict the collision between a golf club and ball.
\n
\nFor modeling driver impacts, the adjusted IM-based model was the most accurate overall. Ball speed was the most accurate launch condition with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 1%. The MAE for vertical launch angle and backspin was less than 10%. However, the MAE for sidespin and horizontal launch angle (azimuth) was between 30%-50%. The relative error of these two launch conditions was considerably greater for all impact models considered. For modeling iron shots, the two-layer ball with a volumetric normal force model was the most accurate of the models considered. The MAE for ball speed was 2%. The remaining relative errors were similar to the driver model. 
\n
\nFrom separate experimental testing, it was shown that amateur golfers hit the ground before the ball on nearly one-third of iron shots hit off the ground. Soil mechanics models were applied to the clubhead to extend the iron impact model to predict this type of mishit. This new model with ground reaction forces was used to predict the behaviour of iron strikes for off-centre hits. This model shows that irons follow the same trends as a driver for off-centre shots. Including the ground model results in a greater distance loss and the shot being significantly offline compared to the no ground model. While no rigorous experimental validation was performed for the ground model, the decrease in ball speed is consistent with experimental observations in the literature. This new iron impact model allows for design optimizations, previously performed for drivers, to be completed with iron type clubs.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,710
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,964

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,208
Écart entre enseignants0,196 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsTravaux en français237 207