Bend It Like Zhang Jike: Spin In Table Tennis

Levi Dudte
11-27-2012

Abstract
We discuss the role of aerodynamic forces in table tennis shots with topspin and
backspin, solving for the trajectories of these shots numerically. We use our numerical
model to characterize the effect of spin on shot accuracy and speed.

Introduction

The game of table tennis would be much different were it played in a vacuum or with
frictionless paddles. A players ability to impart spin onto the ball fundamentally alters the
characteristic trajectory of his or her shot and represents a distinct competititive advantage
over spinless opponents. We discuss here this physical origins of this effect, and attempt to
quantify its role in shot selection in the game of table tennis.

Model

We can write the drag force FD (Fig. 1) on a translating sphere as

1
FD = R2 U 2 CD v.
2

(1)

A typical Reynolds number of a competitive table tennis shot is 2Rv0 / = 0.5 105 , where
kg
m
kg
= 1.2 m
3 , R = 0.02m, v0 = 20 s and 1.98 10 5 ms . In this high Reynolds number
regime, we can write the transverse force FL (Fig. 1) on a translating, spinning sphere as
FL = 2R3 0 U Cn n

(2)

where n
= 0 v/|0 v|. We assume that the angular velocity of the ball remains constant at
its initial value 0 through the shot trajectory. See [3] for a discussion of the time evolution of
angular velocity due to viscous torque. The derivation and experimental confirmation of this
expression is discussed in [2] and [7]. There are two widespread explanations for the onset of
FL , termed the Magnus effect after the German physicist Heinrich Magnus, who described the
effect in 1852.1 The first explanation attributes the transverse force to Bernoullis principle.
The reasoning for this is quite simple: the pressure is greater on the side of the ball spinning
opposite the direction of the surrounding flow, because the fluid on this side is made to slow
Zhang Jike, a member of the Chinese team that dominated the mens table tennis competition in the 2012
Summer Olympics, won singles and doubles gold medals.
1 See [2] for an engaging account of Magnuss investigation of the effect, which he conducted using curved
musket barrels.

FL
0

FD

FD

FG

FG

FL

Figure 1: The forces on backspin (left) and topspin (right) shots in table tennis: drag force FD ,
lift force FL and gravitational force FG .
down by the balls rotation. Bernoullis principle states that along streamlines the following
expression is constant:
p
v2
+ gz +
(3)
2

where z is the height. It follows that a decrease in flow speed on one side of the ball would yield
an increased pressure relative to the other side. This simple explanation suffers from one
serious flaw: even in flow regimes dominated by inertial forces an extremely small viscosity can
cause a breakdown of the no-slip condition at the boundary of an object, which predicates
Bernoullis principle. This breakdown occurs by flow separation, wherein the viscous boundary
layer flow around an object becomes detached and vortical. The separated flow exerts a
profound influence over what could otherwise be considered simple inviscid flow outside the
boundary layer. The Magnus effect can be understood in terms of asymmetric flow separation
on opposite sides of the ball. On the side spinning opposite the direction of the surrounding
flow, the boundary layer flow separates earlier than on the side spinning with the surrounding
flow, which may not even undergo separation. The separated flow carries momentum away
from the surface of the ball, inducing our transverse force FL . Predicting the onset of flow
separation remains a challenge in boundary layer theory. The basic argument for early flow
separation on side spinning opposite the surrounding flow is that the adverse pressure gradient
along this side is greater. We can write the Navier-Stokes equations for two-dimensional
rectilinear flow along a plate as
u

u
u
1 p
2u
+v
=
+ 2
x
y
x
y

(4)

where x and y are coordinates along and normal to the plate, respectively, and u and v are the
corresponding velocities. At the plate boundary this reduces to
v

2u
u 1 p
+
= 2
y
x
y

(5)

assuming the no-slip condition. Assuming v < 0 at y = 0, then we can see from this expression
that as the pressure rises along x the value of u/y must at some point become negative.
2

Flow separation will occur at this transition point, whose location is clearly dependent on the
value of p/x. The higher adverse pressure gradient on the side of the ball spinning opposite
the wind will then produce an earlier flow separation than on the other side of the ball.

Significance of Spin

While the competitive advantages of spin are evident to anyone who has played table tennis,
there are several quantitative measures by which we can convince ourselves of its significance.
As discussed in [4], we compute the spin number Sp = FL /FD as
Sp = 4

R0 Cn
.
v0 CD

(6)

Additionally, we compute the ratio Li = FL /FG for the case of coplanar FL and FG (i.e. for
topspin and backspin shots in table tennis) which we call the lift number:
Li =

3 0 U0
Cn .
2 b g

(7)

A typical spin number in table tennis is .36, higher than in any other sport analyzed in [4] (the
authors disregard the dimensionless term 4Cn /CD ). A typical lift number in table tennis is .46,
m
calculated using linear (20 m
s ) and angular (100 s ) velocities from [6] and with Cn = .1,
CD = .4 and b / = 67 [4]. These ratios indicate that lift forces due to spin play a fundamental
role in the game of table tennis, as they are comparable in magnitude to both drag and
gravitational forces.

Numerical Model

Our first-order system for shot velocity takes the form

mv = FD (v) + FL (v) + FG .

(8)

Because of the dependence of FG on we cannot integrate this expression directly, so we solve

numerically using the explicit Euler numerical integration scheme:
yn+1 = yn + hf (yn , t)

(9)

where h is the time step size. This yields a discrete solution for velocity of a shot over time,
which we integrate using the trapezoidal rule to determine a trajectory (Fig. 2). Our
simulation results illuminate several aspects of the role of spin in table tennis. Looking at Fig.
3a, we can see the importance of modulating the linear velocity of a shot especially when
hitting with backspin, as these shots tend to travel further than their spinless and topspin
counterparts. We can also see why topspin shots are the mainstay of aggressive or attacking
table tennis play, as their final shot velocities tend to be higher than shots with no spin or
backspin (Fig. 3b). And although we did not quantify this, the variance of the shot length
distributions (Fig. 3a) seems to decrease with an increase in 0 . Verifying this quantitatively
would offer an explanation for the use of backspin in conventionally conservative or defensive
play: adding backspin automatically increases your accuracy.

0.2

Topspin (100 1/s)

No Spin
Backspin (+100 1/s)

0.18
0.16
0.14

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0

0.5

1.5

Figure 2: Sample shot trajectories from simulation. Each shot has 0 = 10 and v0 = 20 m
s . The
only varied parameter is 0 .
4
3.5
3

2.5

2.5

2
1.5
1

2
1.5
1

0.5
0

Topspin (100 1/s)

No Spin
Backspin (+100 1/s)

3.5

P(Final Velocity)

P(Length)

Topspin (100 1/s)

No Spin
Backspin (+100 1/s)

0.5
1

1.5

Length (m)

0
3.5

2.5

4.5

5
5.5
Final Velocity (m/s)

6.5

Figure 3: a) distribution of shot length, b) distribution of final shot velocity. Each probability
distribution function aggregates data from 200,000 simulation trajectories with v0 = 20 m
s and
an initial height of 0. We model human error in 0 by a Gaussian distribution with = 10 and
= 2 .

Conclusion

We have looked briefly at the fluid dynamics which govern the onset of the Magnus effect in
table tennis and we have initiated a simulation-based study of the effects of these dynamics on
shot selection. Much work remains in understanding the role of spin in table tennis. From a
theoretical standpoint, we could develop a model of the initiation of flow separation on a

spinning, translating sphere and establish a quantitative relationship between flow separation
and the lift force. We have also only considered two-dimensional trajectories. It would be
interesting to allow for a tilt in the initial angular velocity of a shot, and to study these
three-dimensional trajectories in simulation.

References
[1] D.J. Acheson. Elementary Fluid Dynamics. Oxford Applied Mathematics and Computing
Sciences Series, (1990).
[2] L.J. Briggs. Effect of Spin and Speed on the Lateral Deflection (Curve) of a Baseball; and
the Magnus Effect for Smooth Spheres. American Journal of Physics, 27 (1959).
[3] G. Dupeux, A. Le Goff, D. Quere and C. Clanet. The spinning ball spiral. New Journal of
Physics, 12 (2010).
[4] G. Dupeux, C. Cohen, A. Le Goff, D. Quere and C. Clanet. Football curves. Journal of
Fluids and Structures, 27 (2011).
[5] A.M. Nathan. The effect of spin on the flight of a baseball. American Journal of Physics,
76 (2008).
[6] R. Seydal. Determinant Factors of the Table Tennis Game: Measurement and Simulation
of Ball-Flying Curves. International Journal of Table Tennis Sciences, 1 (1992).
[7] R.G. Watts and R. Ferrer. The lateral force on a spinning sphere: Aerodynamics of a
curveball. American Journal of Physics, 55 (1987).