Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Why ASTM F2219? SGMA Annual Meeting Dallas, Texas, October 2, 2003 Lloyd Smith, Washington State University.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Why ASTM F2219? SGMA Annual Meeting Dallas, Texas, October 2, 2003 Lloyd Smith, Washington State University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Why ASTM F2219? SGMA Annual Meeting Dallas, Texas, October 2, 2003 Lloyd Smith, Washington State University

2 ASTM F1890 Fire ball at 60 mph impact the bat at its COP record the ball pitch speed and bat recoil speed calculate performance metric (BPF) compare against association’s limit

3 ASTM F2219 Fire ball at 110 mph impact the bat at the COP, 6 in from tip, or multiple locations record the ball pitch and ball rebound speeds select a performance measure (BBCOR, BPF, BESR, BBS) calculate the average performance at each impact location compare the bat’s highest performance with the association’s limit

4 Motivation For Change Science –increased understanding of the bat and ball –increased understanding of test methodology Field Study Results –Montgomery, Alabama (November 2002) ASA Championship play, A & D level

5 Some science results

6 Impact Location bat performance depends on the impact location –the highest performance was thought to occur at the bat’s COP –models and experiments show that the sweet spot and COP do not necessarily coincide (COP depends on the location of the pivot point)

7 Bat Scanning scanning –measure impact from the pivot point –impact at ½ inch intervals –scanning interval should encompass the maximum performance measure –each location impacted with 6 balls (once each) bat performance vs. impact location is relatively constant near the sweet spot

8 Normalizing Performance Fundamental dynamics allow variation in ball weight and COR to be accounted for Performance is normalized to the properties of a nominal ball selected by the governing association ???Normalizing relations will be proposed for adoption into ASTM F2219???

9 Normalizing Performance No current proposal to normalize for ball compression or diameter –Normalizing for variation in ball compression requires further study –The effect of variation in ball diameter in laboratory tests is small short ball flight distances

10 Experimental Accuracy ball-out vs. bat-out ideally, performance from “bat-out” and “ball-out” measurements would be equivalent momentum is used to find the unmeasured quantity mv i r + I  i = mv o r + I  

11 Experimental Accuracy consider a 1% variation on the “out speed” in the test of a 10,000 MOI high performance metal bat at 110 mph –change in bat-out measurement: 1.2% BBS, 2.6% BPF –change in ball-out measurement: 0.2% BBS, 0.5% BPF

12 Experimental Accuracy ball-out measurements require light curtains (rather than point measurements), rebound angle should be within 5 o bat-out measurements can be affected by bat vibrations that increase for impacts away from the sweet spot

13 Bat oscillations from impact

14 Measuring Bat Speed

15 Boundary Conditions in the laboratory –the bat is constrained to rotate about a fixed center –the bat is held in a rigid grip in play –the bat motion is described by an instantaneous center that is constantly moving –during impact the hands of the player impart relatively little force to the bat (i.e. free)

16 Boundary Conditions the bat-ball contact duration is short (~1ms) –constraint forces are small (negligible) during impact –only the bat motion during impact (not before or after) is needed to represent performance

17 Montgomery Field Study

18 Pitch speed (slow pitch) Was thought to be 10 mph –from high speed video measures in-plane speed average – 23 mph standard deviation - 2 mph –predicted speed from projectile motion (in-plane/total) 50 ft, 12 ft arc  22/28 mph 50 ft, 6 ft arc  34/36 mph

19 Swing Speed Was thought to be 60 mph

20 Field Study Observations the 60 mph ball speed currently used to certify bats is significantly below the relative bat-ball speed observed in play (~110 mph) swing speed should scale with bat MOI not weight bats should be tested at their sweet spot (found by scanning) not the COP

21 Laboratory Observations

22 BBS vs. BPF many results are presented as BBS there is a strong correlation between BBS and BPF similar trends should be observed using BPF

23 Does Test Speed Matter? The trampoline effect increases with impact speed –a ball dropped on a wood and hollow bat would rebound to similar heights Test speeds representative of play conditions will improve the comparison of the relative performance of bats

24 Does Test Speed Matter? the performance of a solid bat would be constant

25 ASTM 2219 vs. ASTM 1890 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 Doublewall Techonology High Performing Aluminum High performing Composite bat Very high performing composite bat BBS (mph) ASTM 2219 ASTM 1890

26 ASTM F2219 era study

27 Effect of bat MOI

28 Ball Compression (90 mph)

29 Ball Compression Results from Charlotte field study, 2002 90 95 100 105 110 115 40/30040/37544/37547/525 BBS (mph) Alum. Comp. ASTM F2219, 2003

30 Ball Conditioning Increase RH by 20% Ball compression decreases 40 lbs

31 Summary Test speeds should represent play conditions Impact location should be found experimentally “Ball-Out” measurements reduce experimental variation Ball compression can be used to control the ball speed in play

Download ppt "Why ASTM F2219? SGMA Annual Meeting Dallas, Texas, October 2, 2003 Lloyd Smith, Washington State University."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google