Improved accuracy and reliability of sweepback angle, pitch angle and hand velocity calculations in swimming

Lauder, Mike A.; Dabnichki, Peter; Bartlett, Roger

doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(00)00166-4

Cited by 37 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For the calculations, hand model angles of attack of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°, with a sweep back angle of 0° (thumb as the leading edge) were used (Schleihauf, 1979). Steady-state CFD analyses were performed using the Fluent code, and the drag and lift coefficients were calculated for a flow velocity of 2.0 m·s -1 (Lauder et al, 2001;Rouboa et al, 2006). We used the segregated solver with the standard K-epsilon turbulence model because this turbulence model was shown to be accurate with measured values in previous research (Moreira et al, 2006).…”

Section: Cfd Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Swimming Propulsion Forces Are Enhanced by a Small Finger Spread

Marinho

Barbosa²,

Reis³

et al. 2010

Journal of Applied Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main aim of this study was to investigate the effect of finger spread on the propulsive force production in swimming using computational fluid dynamics. Computer tomography scans of an Olympic swimmer hand were conducted. This procedure involved three models of the hand with differing finger spreads: fingers closed together (no spread), fingers with a small (0.32 cm) spread, and fingers with large (0.64 cm) spread. Steady-state computational fluid dynamics analyses were performed using the Fluent code. The measured forces on the hand models were decomposed into drag and lift coefficients. For hand models, angles of attack of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°, with a sweep back angle of 0°, were used for the calculations. The results showed that the model with a small spread between fingers presented higher values of drag coefficient than did the models with fingers closed and fingers with a large spread. One can note that the drag coefficient presented the highest values for an attack angle of 90° in the three hand models. The lift coefficient resembled a sinusoidal curve across the attack angle. The values for the lift coefficient presented few differences among the three models, for a given attack angle. These results suggested that fingers slightly spread could allow the hand to create more propulsive force during swimming.

show abstract

Section: Cfd Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Swimming Propulsion Forces Are Enhanced by a Small Finger Spread

Marinho

Barbosa²,

Reis³

et al. 2010

Journal of Applied Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lauder, et al 65 previously reported the smallest frame found in a swimming related study, measuring just 0.4 m 3 (1.0 m x 0.5 m x 0.8 m). These studies focused on specific aspects of swimmer's arm movements and the relationship of these with propulsion.…”

Section: 63mentioning

confidence: 84%

“…38,55-57, 65 Payton, et al 57 used a frame measuring 1.3 m x 0.93 m x 0.88 m (1.06 m 3 ) and digitized six anatomical landmarks on the shoulder, forearm and hand in order to determine the movements of one arm during a single stroke. Lauder, et al 65 previously reported the smallest frame found in a swimming related study, measuring just 0.4 m 3 (1.0 m x 0.5 m x 0.8 m).…”

Section: 63mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…45,69 Recent studies have used either two, four or eight cameras positioned either in waterproof housings, behind viewing windows or with a periscope system and have digitized between 4 and 12 anatomical landmarks in order to measure these angles. 45,50,65,69 Similarly velocity, stroke rate and stroke length have been variously derived using static cameras, 29 or cameras with a trolley setup, 53 both with and without 87 digitization procedures. Such diversity in approaches is undoubtedly due to the specific nature of different studies, but may lead to confusion among practitioners as to the best methods to employ in their own environments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Application of Video-Based Methods for Competitive Swimming Analysis: A Systematic Review

Quinlan

Laighin²,

Mooney³

et al. 2015

Sport Exerc Med Open J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the application of video-based methods for the analysis of competitive swimming performance. A systematic search of the existing literature was conducted using the following keywords: swim*, performance, analysis, quantitative, qualitative, camera, video on studies published in the last five years, in the electronic databases ISI Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and SPORT discus. Of the 384 number of records initially identified, 30 articles were fully reviewed and their outcome measures were analysed and categorised according to (i) the processes involved, (ii) the application of video for technical analysis of swimming performance and (iii) emerging advances in video technology. Results showed that video is one of the most common methods used to gather data for analysing performance in swimming. The process of using video in aquatic settings is complex, with little consensus amongst coaches regarding a best-practice approach, potentially hindering usage and effectiveness. Different methodologies were assessed and recommendations for coaches, sport scientists and clinicians are provided. Video is an extremely versatile tool. In addition to providing a visual record, it can be used for qualitative and quantitative analysis and is used in both training and competition settings. Cameras can be positioned to gather images both above and below the water. Ongoing advances in automation of video processing techniques and the integration of video with other analysis tools suggest that video analysis will continue to remain central to the preparation of elite swimmers.

show abstract

“…Angles of attack of hand models of 0º, 15º, 30º, 45º, 60º, 75º and 90º, with a sweep back angle of 0º (thumb as the leading edge) were used for the calculations (Schleihauf, 1979). Steady-state analyses were performed using the Fluent ® code and the drag and lift coefficients were calculated for a flow velocity of 2.0 m/s (Lauder et al, 2001;Rouboa et al, 2006). We used the segregated solver with the standard k-epsilon turbulence model because this turbulence model was shown to be accurate with measured values in a previous research (Moreira et al, 2006).…”

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%