際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

GolfProject

A
Austin Richards

This document presents a final class project on materials design for golf balls based on their dynamic impact behavior. It discusses the history of golf, how golf balls are compressed around 1 cm during impact reaching forces over 10 kN, and the theory behind the launch speed of the golf ball off the club head. The objective is to develop a composite material structure to improve impact characteristics over current technologies while meeting regulations. Various golf ball layers and materials are evaluated based on their impact strength, hardness, coefficient of restitution and other properties to select the most suitable options.

1 of 18
Download to read offline
Materials Design based upon Dynamic Impact Behavior of Golf Ball Materials Final Class Project Austin Richards Dr. Srinivasan Srivilliputhur Materials Selection and Performance (MTSE 4060), Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of North Texas, 3940 North Elm Street, Denton, TX 76207, USA; http://www.mtsc.unt.edu; amr0165@unt.edu
History of Golf The modern game of golf was originally developed by the Scottish around the 15th Century.
Impact Behavior The golf ball is typically compressed ~1 cm during clubface impact reaching forces above 10 kN.
Theory If we are to idealize the situation, considering this to be a one-dimensional collision, the speed of the golf ball as it launches off the golf club head will be as follows: = (1 + ) 1 + / Where the launch speed and mass of the golf ball are represented as and and the velocity and mass of the club head are represented as and . The symbol e is known as the coefficient of restitution which is the most important property in consideration for our determinations.
Function / Objective Develop composite golf ball material structure to improve impact characteristics compared to current technologies. Material cost is normally a very important part, but is being neglected to produce the best golf ball materials. Golf ball must meet all regulations to ensure proper competitive play.
Constraints 1. The actual weight of the golf ball must not exceed that of 45.93 grams. 2. The actual size of the golf ball must not be less than 42.67 mm. 3. The golf ball must be intentionally designed to be one hundred percent symmetrical in every way. The shape is specifically called spherically symmetrical ball. 4. The velocity of the golf ball initially must not exceed the specific limit that is specified by the particular apparatus that is approved by the above organizations. The velocity limit is about 250 ft/s or approximately 76 m/s. There is a tolerance level of 5 ft/s or 1.52 m/s. 5. The distance in which the golf ball travels must not exceed the standards set by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews (R&A) and the United States Golf Association (USGA). In these tests, the ball is launched at 120 MPH, or 53.64 m/s and not travel further than 317 yds with a 3 yd discrepancy.
List of Components/Subsystems Pass out 3 different golf balls: 1. (BLACK) Wilson 3 two layer structure consisting of a black synthetic rubber core and elastomer cover which is commonly used in practice and exhibition golf games. 2. (BLUE) Titleist 3 V1 three layer structure consisting of a blue synthetic rubber core with thin thermoplastic mantle region covered by elastomer outer coating which is the go-to golf ball of tour pros. 3. (PINK) Bridgestone B330 Tour three layer structure consisting of a pink synthetic rubber core with thicker mantle region followed by covering material which is considered to be high-end golf technology.
Materials Selection and Design Function: Core layer of golf ball Constraint: Adequate impact strength: 190-200 (kJ/m2) Avoid glass transition regions Within service temperature ranges(-10属C )- (-65属C ) Withstand environmental conditions Must be extruded and moldable Objective: Minimize compression set at 23属C Maximize coefficient of restitution Free Variable: Choice of material CORE
Materials Selection and Design Impact Strength per Hardness / Compression Compression set at 23属C (%) 1 2 5 10 20 50 Impactstrength,notched23属C/Hardness-ShoreD 0.1 1 10 100 Butyl / halobutyl rubber (IIR, unreinforced) Natural rubber (unreinforced) Polyisoprene rubber (unreinforced) Natural rubber (15-42% carbon black) CORE
Materials Selection and Design Tan delta times density / Compression Compression set at 23属C (%) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Mechanicallosscoefficient(tandelta)*Density 0.01 0.1 1 Limitations Applied: Hardness, Impact Strength, Service Temperature, Durability CORE
Materials Selection and Design Function: Mantle layer of golf ball Constraint: Adequate impact strength: 190-200 (kJ/m2) Avoid glass transition regions Within service temperature ranges(-10属C )- (-65属C ) Withstand environmental conditions Able to be molded Objective: Minimize compression set at 23属C Maximize coefficient of restitution Gradation of Hardness H > Core Free Variable: Choice of material MANTLE
Materials Selection and Design MANTLE Limitations Applied: Modulus, Impact Strength, Durability- fluids and sunlight
Materials Selection and Design Function: Crust layer of golf ball Constraint: Adequate impact strength: 190-200 (kJ/m2) Avoid glass transition regions Within service temperature ranges(-10属C )- (-65属C ) Withstand EXTREME environmental conditions Able to be molded Objective: Minimize compression set at 23属C Maximize coefficient of restitution Gradation of Hardness H > Mantle Free Variable: Choice of material CRUST
Materials Selection and Design CRUST Objective: Gradation of Hardness Limitations Applied: Modulus, Impact Strength, Durability
Process Selection
*Current price to manufacture such golf ball would confidently result in the most expensive golf ball ever to be sold! Conclusions
1. Maruoka, K., Sakagami, S., Yamada, K., Nakagawa, N. and Sekiguti, Y. (2001) Dynamic Impact Characteristics of Golf Ball Materials. ed Froes, F. H. TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society) pp 145-159 2. Cochran, A. J. (1999) Science and Golf III. ed Farrally and Cochran (Leeds: Human Kinetics) pp 486-92 3. Ekstrom, E. A. (1996) The Engineering of Sport. ed Haake (Rotterdam: Balkema) pp 215- 22 4. Mittendorf, A. and Reyes, M. G. (1997) http://www.Golfphysics.com 5. Penner, A. R. (2003) The physics of golf. Institute of Physics Publishing. 66 pp 131-171 6. Kai, M. (2008) Science and engineering technology behind Bridgestone Tour golf balls. Sports Technology. 1 pp 57-64 7. Podpirka, A. and Suo, P. Finite Element Analysis of a Golf Driver and Golf Ball. 8. Online sources: 9. http://www3.lgm.gov.my/irpec/prd_golf.html 10. http://www.answers.com/topic/golf-ball#ixzz2OZL1MNPv 11. http://www.golf.com/instructions/science-impact-recent-breakthroughs-prove-you- need-two-swings-score-low#izz2O6HosMbL 12. http://realestatescorecard.com/news/real-estate-news/national/best-community-year- 2013-bliss-awards Works Cited
Questions?

More Related Content

GolfProject

  • 1. Materials Design based upon Dynamic Impact Behavior of Golf Ball Materials Final Class Project Austin Richards Dr. Srinivasan Srivilliputhur Materials Selection and Performance (MTSE 4060), Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of North Texas, 3940 North Elm Street, Denton, TX 76207, USA; http://www.mtsc.unt.edu; amr0165@unt.edu
  • 2. History of Golf The modern game of golf was originally developed by the Scottish around the 15th Century.
  • 3. Impact Behavior The golf ball is typically compressed ~1 cm during clubface impact reaching forces above 10 kN.
  • 4. Theory If we are to idealize the situation, considering this to be a one-dimensional collision, the speed of the golf ball as it launches off the golf club head will be as follows: = (1 + ) 1 + / Where the launch speed and mass of the golf ball are represented as and and the velocity and mass of the club head are represented as and . The symbol e is known as the coefficient of restitution which is the most important property in consideration for our determinations.
  • 5. Function / Objective Develop composite golf ball material structure to improve impact characteristics compared to current technologies. Material cost is normally a very important part, but is being neglected to produce the best golf ball materials. Golf ball must meet all regulations to ensure proper competitive play.
  • 6. Constraints 1. The actual weight of the golf ball must not exceed that of 45.93 grams. 2. The actual size of the golf ball must not be less than 42.67 mm. 3. The golf ball must be intentionally designed to be one hundred percent symmetrical in every way. The shape is specifically called spherically symmetrical ball. 4. The velocity of the golf ball initially must not exceed the specific limit that is specified by the particular apparatus that is approved by the above organizations. The velocity limit is about 250 ft/s or approximately 76 m/s. There is a tolerance level of 5 ft/s or 1.52 m/s. 5. The distance in which the golf ball travels must not exceed the standards set by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews (R&A) and the United States Golf Association (USGA). In these tests, the ball is launched at 120 MPH, or 53.64 m/s and not travel further than 317 yds with a 3 yd discrepancy.
  • 7. List of Components/Subsystems Pass out 3 different golf balls: 1. (BLACK) Wilson 3 two layer structure consisting of a black synthetic rubber core and elastomer cover which is commonly used in practice and exhibition golf games. 2. (BLUE) Titleist 3 V1 three layer structure consisting of a blue synthetic rubber core with thin thermoplastic mantle region covered by elastomer outer coating which is the go-to golf ball of tour pros. 3. (PINK) Bridgestone B330 Tour three layer structure consisting of a pink synthetic rubber core with thicker mantle region followed by covering material which is considered to be high-end golf technology.
  • 8. Materials Selection and Design Function: Core layer of golf ball Constraint: Adequate impact strength: 190-200 (kJ/m2) Avoid glass transition regions Within service temperature ranges(-10属C )- (-65属C ) Withstand environmental conditions Must be extruded and moldable Objective: Minimize compression set at 23属C Maximize coefficient of restitution Free Variable: Choice of material CORE
  • 9. Materials Selection and Design Impact Strength per Hardness / Compression Compression set at 23属C (%) 1 2 5 10 20 50 Impactstrength,notched23属C/Hardness-ShoreD 0.1 1 10 100 Butyl / halobutyl rubber (IIR, unreinforced) Natural rubber (unreinforced) Polyisoprene rubber (unreinforced) Natural rubber (15-42% carbon black) CORE
  • 10. Materials Selection and Design Tan delta times density / Compression Compression set at 23属C (%) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Mechanicallosscoefficient(tandelta)*Density 0.01 0.1 1 Limitations Applied: Hardness, Impact Strength, Service Temperature, Durability CORE
  • 11. Materials Selection and Design Function: Mantle layer of golf ball Constraint: Adequate impact strength: 190-200 (kJ/m2) Avoid glass transition regions Within service temperature ranges(-10属C )- (-65属C ) Withstand environmental conditions Able to be molded Objective: Minimize compression set at 23属C Maximize coefficient of restitution Gradation of Hardness H > Core Free Variable: Choice of material MANTLE
  • 12. Materials Selection and Design MANTLE Limitations Applied: Modulus, Impact Strength, Durability- fluids and sunlight
  • 13. Materials Selection and Design Function: Crust layer of golf ball Constraint: Adequate impact strength: 190-200 (kJ/m2) Avoid glass transition regions Within service temperature ranges(-10属C )- (-65属C ) Withstand EXTREME environmental conditions Able to be molded Objective: Minimize compression set at 23属C Maximize coefficient of restitution Gradation of Hardness H > Mantle Free Variable: Choice of material CRUST
  • 14. Materials Selection and Design CRUST Objective: Gradation of Hardness Limitations Applied: Modulus, Impact Strength, Durability
  • 16. *Current price to manufacture such golf ball would confidently result in the most expensive golf ball ever to be sold! Conclusions
  • 17. 1. Maruoka, K., Sakagami, S., Yamada, K., Nakagawa, N. and Sekiguti, Y. (2001) Dynamic Impact Characteristics of Golf Ball Materials. ed Froes, F. H. TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society) pp 145-159 2. Cochran, A. J. (1999) Science and Golf III. ed Farrally and Cochran (Leeds: Human Kinetics) pp 486-92 3. Ekstrom, E. A. (1996) The Engineering of Sport. ed Haake (Rotterdam: Balkema) pp 215- 22 4. Mittendorf, A. and Reyes, M. G. (1997) http://www.Golfphysics.com 5. Penner, A. R. (2003) The physics of golf. Institute of Physics Publishing. 66 pp 131-171 6. Kai, M. (2008) Science and engineering technology behind Bridgestone Tour golf balls. Sports Technology. 1 pp 57-64 7. Podpirka, A. and Suo, P. Finite Element Analysis of a Golf Driver and Golf Ball. 8. Online sources: 9. http://www3.lgm.gov.my/irpec/prd_golf.html 10. http://www.answers.com/topic/golf-ball#ixzz2OZL1MNPv 11. http://www.golf.com/instructions/science-impact-recent-breakthroughs-prove-you- need-two-swings-score-low#izz2O6HosMbL 12. http://realestatescorecard.com/news/real-estate-news/national/best-community-year- 2013-bliss-awards Works Cited