The Effect of Temperature and Surface Type on the Coefficient of Restitution of

Tennis Balls

Julie Pisarski and Frosilda Pushani

Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center

Physics/IDS

11B

Mr. McMillan/Mrs. Cybulski/Mrs. Tallman

8 June 2016
 The Effect of Temperature and Surface Type on the Coefficient of Restitution of
Tennis Balls

Through experimentation, the effects of temperature and surface type were tested

to compare the coefficient of restitution of numerous tennis balls. Tennis balls were

cooled, heated, or remained at room temperature, and then bounced on grass, cement, or

clay courts. Each drop height and rebound height was then recorded in order to calculate

the coefficient of restitution of each ball. The coefficient of restitution (COR) compares

the rebound height and drop height of an object as well as the retention of kinetic energy

before and after an object collides with another object. This concept relates to all sports

involving the use of balls, including the mental game of tennis where players have to

adapt to the type of court they play on as well as the temperature of that specific day in

order to adjust their game and ultimately defeat their opponents. After recording the

rebound height of the tennis balls using the LoggerPro software, the COR was calculated

using the formula involving the ratio of the balls drop and rebound heights. After using a

two-factor DOE to analyze the data, it was concluded that the highest range of

temperature and the cement courts would yield the highest coefficient of restitution. This

was in accordance with the hypothesis, which stated that the heated balls bounced on the

cement surface would have the highest coefficient of restitution.

 Table of Contents

Introduction.........1

Review of Literature...4

Problem Statement.11

Experimental Design.12

Data and Observations...14

Data Analysis and Interpretation...20

Conclusion.26

Acknowledgements32

Appendix A: Coefficient of Restitution.....33

Appendix B: Prediction Equations.34

Works Cited.......35
 Introduction

The game of tennis is more than endless training and limitless conditioning.

Strategy and a keen mental game have proved to be essential in successful execution of

the sport. Some of the finest tennis players across the globe, including Novak Djokovic

and Serena Williams, are trained to make accommodations to their game no matter what

is thrown at them. With more than 160 different tennis court types used, it is essential for

players to adapt to the conditions given to succeed. The most common courts used for the

game are cement, clay, and grass. However, contrary to popular belief, these courts have

rather distinct differences among them. Cement or hard courts are referred to as "fast"

surfaces resulting in short rallies that favor hard serves; grass surfaces favor serve-and-

volley players who rush the net following serve to take advantage of an opponent's

slower foot speed following return; clay surfaces allow the ball to move more quickly

than the traditional cement courts, but permit slower volleys (Bigelow).

The coefficient of restitution (COR) compares the rebound height and drop height

of an object as well as the retention of kinetic energy before and after an object collides

with another object. Measuring the coefficient of restitution can be valuable in

applications such as the regulation of tennis balls used in official United States Tennis

Association (USTA) matches. The USTA has taken critical measures in ensuring that the

game of tennis is equal. It has recently discussed implementation of new testing

procedures to enable tests that provide accurate results of the coefficient of restitution and

coefficient of friction on tennis balls. The tests feature an air-powered ball cannons and a

pair of laser photocell arrays, which can precisely measure the velocity and angle of ball
movement. These tools allow the USTA to rank every tennis surface in terms of its

coefficient of restitution ("The Physics of Grass, Clay, and Cement").

Besides the plethora of different tennis courts players have to adjust to, tennis

players are also left to play in weather outside of their control. If it is hot or cold, players

have to adjust their game. Moreover, if a game takes place indoors, new strategies are

still necessary for a smart match. This knowledge is essential to tennis players who seek a

smart and strong game and thus inspired a research project to test if that knowledge is

valid. The objective of this experiment was to explore which combination of factors,

temperature and surface type, would produce the highest coefficient of restitution of a

tennis ball. The COR was measured by finding the square root of the rebound height

divided by the drop height. Using prior experiments and research on the topic, a new and

effective experiment was developed in order to analyze certain factors that affect the

rebound height of a ball. For the experiment, three types of tennis courts were used:

grass, clay, and cement and three temperature ranges were used: (35 C, 2022 C,

and 2931 C). The results of the rebound height were analyzed individually using the

LoggerPro software to determine which combination of temperature and surface type

would yield the highest COR.

Measuring the effects on the coefficient of restitution can be applied to many

sports, not just tennis. Golf balls also contain strict regulations on the coefficient of

restitution for game play. However, unlike tennis balls, golf balls are solid, and therefore

gas laws do not apply. While this means that the temperature of the ball would not have a

big effect on the game, the temperature of the turf or grass in which the game is played on

would indeed by altering the coefficient of restitution of the balls. This research can more
closely be related to soccer balls. With differing surfaces including turf or natural grass,

and the same temperature effects, the coefficient of restitution plays a key factor. The

bounces off the ground as well as off one's foot can change the game play and can

determine a fair or unfair match.

Where this debacle of surface truly was tested was at the famous Battle of

Surfaces match between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in Nadals homeland. Half of

the court was a grass court which represented Federer's undefeated matches while playing

on these courts. The other half was clay which represented Naders undefeated streak on

these courts as well. This battle provided a strong emphasis on how players need to adjust

their games in different circumstances.

With such a heavy emphasis on the mental side of tennis, players must be familiar

with all the changes the game can throw at them. By having available knowledge on

bounce heights (coefficient of restitution), they can easily rise above competitors. By

testing the effects of temperature and surface type on the coefficient of restitution of

tennis balls, the true effects they had on tennis were revealed.
 Review of Literature

When a tennis ball is dropped, its rebound is affected by many factors including

various temperatures and surface types. This drop and rebound can be evaluated through

a change of relative velocity, a concept known as the coefficient of restitution (COR). The

coefficient of restitution can be defined as a measure of the relative velocity between two

objects before and after they collide (Coefficient of restitution (COR)). The equation

below displays vA and vB, the velocities of the two objects. The i and f

subscripts represent the initial and final velocities of those objects, respectively.
vB vA f
COR= f
vA ivBi
The COR can also be determined by finding the square root of the the rebound

height of an object (the height at which the object bounces) divided by the drop height of

that object (the height at which the object was dropped).

COR=
rebound height
drop height
The law of conservation of energy supports the two different methods or

equations of solving for COR. This is due to the fact that before the drop of a ball, all

energy is gravitational potential energy. This gravitational potential energy (product of

mass, the acceleration of gravity, and height) can be set equal to kinetic energy (product

of the mass and velocity squared).

Gravitational Potential Energy =mgh
1
Kinetic Energy= m v 2
2
1 2
mv
2 mgh
=
1 mghi
m v i2
2

2
v h
2
=
v i hi
 COR=
h
hi
Figure 1. Relative Velocity Ratio to Height Ratio COR Formula
Figure 1 above displays how the COR can be calculated using two different

formulas: the ratio of velocities and the square root of ratio of heights.
The coefficient of restitution (COR) describes the elasticity of collisions. When

calculated, the value is within 0 and 1. If the COR is 1, the collision is perfectly elastic

and kinetic energy is conserved. A COR of zero represents a perfectly inelastic collision

where after the collision, the objects stick together and, in the center-of-mass frame, have

zero velocity.
Temperature fluctuations and regional climates can affect the density of the air,

consequently causing changes in the air resistance on objects, therefore, affecting one's

performance and changing the coefficient of restitution of said objects. The COR is

dependent on the elasticity of any given object. Elasticity is a measure of how well an

objects kinetic energy is converted to elastic potential energy. Changes in temperature

cause changes in air pressure within a ball. According to Amonton's Law of Pressure-

Temperature, if a gass temperature increases, then so does its pressure, if the mass and

volume of the gas are held constant ("Gas Laws"). Therefore, lowering air pressure by

lowering the temperature has an effect similar to deflating the ball itself. Moreover,

increasing the temperature and thus increasing the air pressure within the ball has an

effect similar to over-inflating a ball. Temperature also affects the COR because when a

ball is heated it becomes more elastic, meaning the molecular bonds are able to move

more freely, causing them to stretch more than those in a cooler ball (The Influence of

Temperature on Bouncing Balls). Less energy is lost, thus resulting in the ball being able

to bounce higher. Under cold conditions, instead of transferring energy, the ball actually
absorbs energy because of how rigid the ball becomes, resulting in a lower rebound

height (The Influence of Temperature on Bouncing Balls).

In the case of tennis, three main court surface types are used throughout the

United States Tennis Association (USTA) games: grass, hard, and clay. The COR of a ball

depends on the amount of energy lost during a collision. Each court type has its own

restitution based on the density and friction given off by the surface. Courts with high

frictional coefficients interfere with the movement of the ball, disputing the forward

momentum. Cement courts exert more friction and its harder surface, when compared to

a softer or more elastic clay court, results in less energy lost during the collision to the

surface, producing a higher rebound height. Because grass courts are the softest surface

and lack friction, they cause the rebound height of an object to be significantly less than

the drop height because of the loss of energy ("The Physics of Grass, Clay, and Cement").

This means that the COR on grass would be much smaller than on any other surface.

Therefore, an object or tennis ball bouncing on a cement surface will yield a higher COR

than its counterparts of clay and grass ("The Physics of Grass, Clay, and Cement").

The bounce of a ball is dependent on the amount of energy lost in the form of

thermal energy when the ball hits the ground and compresses. When the ball compresses,

its energy changes from kinetic to elastic potential. The loss of energy in the form of

thermal energy depends on the friction and heat of the specific surface. After being

compressed, the ball attempts to return to its original shape, pushing down on the ground

with a certain amount of force. The bounce of the ball is caused by the force with which

the ground pushes back on the ball, which follows Newtons Third Law of Motion,

stating that when one body exerts a force on another body, the second body

simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Once the ball
reaches the peak of its rebound (maximum rebound height), the kinetic energy of the ball

changes to gravitational potential energy. This process repeats itself until the ball has lost

all of its kinetic energy.

Figure 2. Energy Change in the Falling of the Ball after Release until Hitting the Ground
Figure 2 above displays how gravity pulls the ball toward the ground and thus the

ball falls leading to the loss of its gravitational potential energy. According to the Law of

Conservation of Energy, the ball must gain kinetic energy, so it falls towards the ground

with an increasing velocity. Subsequently, the ball hits the surface with a high velocity.

Figure 3. Energy Change in the Ball during its Rebound

 Figure 3 displays how after losing all the kinetic energy when the ball hits the

ground, the ball is briefly at rest where velocity is equal to zero. The distorted ball (where

elastic potential energy takes place) simply acts like a compressed spring where the ball

pushes the ground with a force proportional to its displacement from the equilibrium

position; this concept is known as Hookes Law. In turn, the ground pushes back on the

ball with a force of equal magnitude but opposite in direction (Newtons Third Law of

Motion), which is why the ball bounces upward. During the rebound, the stored elastic

potential energy is released as the kinetic energy of the ball which is eventually converted

to gravitational potential energy as the ball moves upward. However, because the ball

loses some gravitational potential energy through thermal energy (friction), the ball does

not bounce back to its initial drop height. The process continues until the ball loses all of

its energy and stops bouncing ("Chapter 5: The Science of Soccer").

Measuring the coefficient of restitution applies to any type of ball. A similar

experiment, conducted by Adli Haron and K.A. Ismail from the School of Manufacturing

Engineering at the Universiti Malaysia Perlis, involved the construction of an adjustable

drop tower with a releasing system that inclined various sports balls (golf, table tennis,

hockey, and cricket) at angles of 0 and 45 degrees. A changeable target platform was
placed below the tower to test the COR on steel and wood platforms, representing hard

and soft impact surfaces. A high speed camera was used to capture the impact, then

analyzed using Fastec. InLine Monitoring System. The drop height of 1.30 m was held

constant and the surface and ball type were changed through the process. For the steel

target, the golf ball consistently yielded the highest COR value of 0.897. However, when

the target surface was changed to wood, a softer surface, the table tennis ball consistently

yielded the higher COR value of 0.786 (Haron and Ismail).

Just as the COR can be calculated using drop and rebound heights, there is an

alternate formula that takes the quotient of the velocity after the bounce over the initial

velocity. Andre Roux and Jennifer Dickerson from the International School of Bangkok

used this formula to find the COR of tennis balls when hit against a standard wall. A high

speed camera was used to capture the collision and the data was analyzed using

LoggerPro software. By recording the initial and final velocities, the COR was

calculated. The results showed that their average COR of 0.5 was significantly less than

the USTA regulations require, 0.75. The researchers concluded that using new balls

instead of used balls could have avoided the issue (Roux and Dickerson).

This experiment differs from the above experiments because the COR was

calculated using the initial drop height and rebound height of a tennis ball, opposed to

using the relative velocities. However, since both formulas calculate the COR, the results

of Roux and Dickerson's experiment can be used as a comparison for this experiment.

The experiment conducted by Haron and Ismail differs from this one in the fact that they

used an incline and various balls to detect differences, while surface type and temperature

were used in this experiment. However, Haron and Ismail did switch out the surface types

for hard and soft surfaces. Because three unique surfacesclay, grass, cementwere
used, the results can also be used as comparisons due to the hardness and softness of

said surfaces. This experiment expanded their research to test the effect of temperature,

which influences the elasticity and pressure of a tennis ball, creating an expansion on the

research of the coefficient of restitution.

Problem Statement
Problem:
 The purpose of this experiment was to determine what effects different

temperatures and different surfaces have on the coefficient of restitution of a tennis ball.

Hypothesis:

After testing tennis balls at different temperatures on different surfaces, the tennis

ball at the highest temperature and bounced on a cement surface will have the highest

coefficient of restitution.

Data Measured:

The independent variables of this experiment were the surfaces used: cement,

grass, and clay and the temperatures: (35 C, 2022 C, and 2931 C). The

dependent variable was the coefficient of restitution of the tennis balls, which is

measured by the square root of the rebound (bounce) height divided by the drop height.

The height of the tennis ball was measured in meters (m); a sample calculation can be

found in Appendix A. The initial pressure of the tennis balls was kept constant as new

balls were used for each trial. To analyze and test the significance of this data, a two-

factor design of experiment (DOE) was used to compare the effects of the different types

of surfaces and temperatures on the coefficient of restitution of tennis balls; a total of 21

trials were conducted: three for each combination of lows and highs and nine for the

standard trials.

Experimental Design
Materials:
(21) Wilson Tennis Balls Grass Court
Meter Stick Clay Court
Coleman Insulated Cooler Bag Refrigerator
Camera Calculator
Sunbeam Heating Pad Logger Pro Software
Temperature Probe Duct Tape
Hard Court (Cement) White Board
 Procedure:
1. Place a heating pad inside of the insulated cooler bag at its highest setting.
2. Depending on the trial, either place a tennis ball in a freezer overnight allowing it to cool
between 3 C to 5 C (-), or place the ball in the cooler containing the heating pad for at
least 30 minutes to heat the ball up to around 29 C to 31 C (+), or if the trial is to be
done at room temperature, leave the ball as is (standard).

3. Make sure to record the temperature with the temperature probe and along with any other
observations made.

4. If the trial being conducted is (+, -) or (-, -), use the grass court; if the trial being
conducted is (-, +) or (+, +), use the cement court; if the trial being conducted is standard,
use the clay court.

5. Place a meter stick on the surface so that it is completely vertical, and attach it to the
white board with duct tape as seen in Figure 4 below.

6. While recording with the camera, drop a tennis ball (depending on the trial) with the
center of the ball at the one-meter mark.

7. Import the video into the Logger Pro software, set the scale according to the meter stick,
place the origin, and plot the points of the tennis ball as it falls and rebounds.

8. Record the initial drop height (one meter) and the rebound height given by the Logger
Pro analysis and any observations made during the trial being performed.

9. Repeat steps 1-8 until all trials have been completed; there are nine standard trials and
three trials for each combination of factors tested.

Diagram:
Figure 4. Experimental Setup
Figure 4 above shows the setup for dropping the tennis ball and recording the

results. As clearly seen above, the ball was dropped from a fixed point at the one-meter

mark. The camera recorded the drop and the footage was used in the Logger Pro software

to gather and analyze the data. Each trial was run for about thirty seconds.

Data and Observations

 Factors + Standard - Table 1
Temperature (C) 29-31 20-22 3-5 DOE
Surface Cement Clay Grass Independent
Factors and Levels

Table 1 above shows the independent factors of this experiment. The balls were

heated/cooled to 29 31 C for the high, 20 22 C for the standard, and 3 5 C for the

low temperatures. The surfaces in Table 1 refer to the surface types of the courts the balls

were dropped on. The drop height remained constant at 1.0 meter as well as the type

tennis ball used, each was new and came from the same brand for each trial.

Table 2
DOE Trial 1
Tennis Ball Drop
Order Runs Initial Drop (m) Final Drop (m) COR
1 Standard 1.0 0.5856 0.7652
4 ++ 1.0 0.7284 0.8535
5 -- 1.0 0.1958 0.4425
2 Standard 1.0 0.6210 0.7880
6 +- 1.0 0.3015 0.5491
7 -+ 1.0 0.4659 0.6826
3 Standard 1.0 0.5993 0.7741

Table 2 above shows the raw data collected during the DOE. The coefficient of

restitution of the tennis ball was calculated after each trial.

COR=
rebound height
drop height
This coefficient of restitution was calculated by taking the square root of the final

drop height divided by the initial drop height (refer to Appendix A for a sample

calculation). It is important to note, as seen above, while each initial drop height

remained the same, the rebound height decreased with it. The ratio of the two heights was

used to determine the effect of each factor.

Table 3
DOE 1 Observations
Trial Observations
The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
1 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 21.3 C. There appeared to be no wind.
The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
2 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 21.7 C. There appeared to be no wind.
The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
3 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 20.6 C. There appeared to be no wind.
The cement court was dry clear of debris. There appeared to be no wind. The
4
temperature of the ball was 30.2 C.
The grass used to imitate a grass court was dry and trimmed to an 8mm height
5 (Wimbledon regulations). The surface was level and there was no wind present.
The ball temperature was 4.1 C
The grass used to imitate a grass court was dry and trimmed to an 8mm height
6 (Wimbledon regulations). The surface was level and there was no wind present.
The ball temperature was 3.9 C
The cement court was dry clear of debris. There appeared to be no wind. The
7
temperature of the ball was 30.8 C.

Table 3 above shows the observations made through DOE trial 1 (Table 2).

Table 4
DOE Trial 2
Tennis Ball Drop
Order Runs Initial Drop (m) Final Drop (m) COR
1 Standard 1.0 0.5895 0.7678
4 ++ 1.0 0.7395 0.8599
5 -- 1.0 0.1798 0.4240
2 Standard 1.0 0.6120 0.7823
6 +- 1.0 0.3070 0.5541
7 -+ 1.0 0.4683 0.6843
3 Standard 1.0 0.6017 0.7757
Table 4 above shows the raw data collected during the DOE. The coefficient of

restitution of the tennis ball was calculated after each trial. This coefficient of restitution

was calculated by taking the square root of the final drop height divided by the initial

drop height. It is important to note, as seen above, while each initial drop height remained
the same, the rebound height decreased with it. The ratio of the two heights was used to

determine the effect of each factor.

Table 5
DOE 2 Observations
Trial Observations
The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
1 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 21.7 C. There appeared to be no wind.
The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
2 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 20.3 C. There appeared to be no wind.
The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
3 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 21.2 C. There appeared to be no wind.
The cement court was dry clear of debris. There appeared to be no wind. The
4
temperature of the ball was 30.9 C.
The grass used to imitate a grass court was dry and trimmed to an 8mm height
5 (Wimbledon regulations). The surface was level and there was no wind present.
The ball temperature was 3.7 C
The grass used to imitate a grass court was dry and trimmed to an 8mm height
6 (Wimbledon regulations). The surface was level and there was no wind present.
The ball temperature was 4.4 C
The cement court was dry clear of debris. There appeared to be no wind. The
7
temperature of the ball was 30.0 C.

Table 5 above shows the observations made through DOE trial 2 (Table 4).

Table 6
DOE Trial 3
Tennis Ball Drop
Order Runs Initial Drop (m) Final Drop (m) COR
1 Standard 1.0 0.5981 0.7734
4 ++ 1.0 0.6985 0.8358
5 -- 1.0 0.2031 0.4507
2 Standard 1.0 0.5968 0.7725
 6 +- 1.0 0.2940 0.5422
7 -+ 1.0 0.4563 0.6755
3 Standard 1.0 0.6347 0.7967

Table 6 above shows the raw data collected during the DOE. The coefficient of

restitution of the tennis ball was calculated after each trial. This coefficient of restitution

was calculated by taking the square root of the final drop height divided by the initial

drop height. It is important to note, as seen above, while each initial drop height remained

the same, the rebound height decreased with it. The ratio of the two heights was used to

determine the effect of each factor.

Table 7
DOE 3 Observations
Trial Observations
The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
1 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 21.5 C. There appeared to be no wind.
The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
2 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 20.5 C. There appeared to be no wind.
 The clay courts used were HydroCourts meaning they were watered from the
3 bottom keeping traction consistent and water coverage uniform and even. The
temperature of the ball was 21.5 C. There appeared to be no wind.
The cement court was dry clear of debris. There appeared to be no wind. The
4
temperature of the ball was 30.7 C.
The grass used to imitate a grass court was dry and trimmed to an 8mm height
5 (Wimbledon regulations). The surface was level and there was no wind present.
The ball temperature was 3.9 C
The grass used to imitate a grass court was dry and trimmed to an 8mm height
6 (Wimbledon regulations). The surface was level and there was no wind present.
The ball temperature was 4.6 C
The cement court was dry clear of debris. There appeared to be no wind. The
7
temperature of the ball was 30.3 C.

Table 7 above shows the observations made through DOE trial 3 (Table 6).
 Drop Height Ball falling Ball hits the Rebound Height
ground

Figure 5. Successful Trial

Figure 5 above shows one of the standard trials. The drop height starts at 1.0

meter marked by the top of the meter stick. The ball was then dropped straight down and

once it hit the clay surface, it returned with a lower rebound height. The video of this trial

was imported to LoggerPro and analyzed.

 Data Analysis and Interpretation

To determine the greatest effect on the coefficient of restitution, an experiment

was conducted testing the effects of surface type and temperature on the coefficient of

restitution of a tennis ball. It was predicted that when the tennis ball was heated to the

highest temperature (29 C 31 C) and dropped on the cement surface, the highest

coefficient of restitution would be produced. To analyze the data, a two-factor design of

experiment or DOE was used. A DOE tests the effect of multiple variables in an

experiment. This test was deemed appropriate because the factors of temperature and

surface type were tested on the dependent variable: the coefficient of restitution.

To make the results of the experiment as valid as possible, two out of the three

basics for a good statistical experiment were utilized: control and repetition. The control

group (standards) was used to help reduce the effect of lurking variables because it allows

the analysis to see if the data occurred by chance alone or if there really was a significant

effect by the highs and lows. In the case of a DOE, a group of standards with common

results help to show trendless data and provide evidence that trials ran properly.

Repetition was also utilized. Each combination of temperature and surface type was

tested three times to provide consistency. Randomization, another way to validate an

experiment, of the trials helps to lessen the effect of bias, or the systematic favoring of

one outcome over another. However, due to the location of the courts, randomization was

not able to be used on the experiment. This difficulty may be responsible for any

skewness or deviation in the data.

 Factors + Standard -
Table 8
Temperature (C) 29-31 20-22 3-5
DOE Independent Factors
Surface Cement Clay Grass
and Levels

Table 8 above displays the independent factors of this experiment. The balls were

Runs
First DOE Second DOE Third DOE Average
Temperature Surface
+ + 0.8535 0.8599 0.8358 0.8497
- - 0.4425 0.4240 0.4507 0.4391
+ - 0.5491 0.5541 0.5422 0.5485
- + 0.6826 0.6843 0.6755 0.6808
Grand Average 0.6295
heated/cooled to 29 C 31 C for the high, 20 C 22 C for the standard and 3 C 5

C for the low temperatures. The surfaces in Table 8 refer to the surface types of the

courts the balls were dropped on. The drop height remained constant at 1.0 meter. The

tennis balls also remained constant because ball was new and came from the same brand,

Wilson, for each trial.

Table 9
DOE Results and Averages of the COR for Each Trial

Table 9 above displays the data for all the trials (excluding the standard trials) and

their averages. In order to analyze the data using a two-factor DOE, the averages were

used.
 Temperature
(-) 3 C 5 C (+) 29 C 31 C
0.4391 0.8497
0.6808 0.5485
Average = 0.5600 Average = 0.6991

0.7
0.56

-1 1
Temperature

Table 10
Effect of Solution Type

T+

T-

Figure 6. Effect of Temperature

Figure 6 and Table 10 above show the relationship between the temperature and

the coefficient of restitution of the tennis balls. Because two different temperature ranges

were used, it was determined that the higher temperatures (29 C 31 C) yielded a

higher COR than its counterpart, the lower temperatures (3 C 5 C). On average, the

COR increased by 0.1392 as the temperature changed from low to high.

 0.77

0.49

-1 1
Surface Type

Table 11
Effect of Electrode Size
Surface Type
(-) Grass (+) Cement
0.4391 0.8497
0.5485 0.6808
Average = 0.4938 Average = 0.7653

Figure 7. Effect of Surface Type

Figure 7 and Table 11 above display the relationship between surface type and the

coefficient of restitution of the tennis balls. Because two different surfaces were used, it

was determined that the cement yielded a higher COR than its counterpart, grass. The

effect suggests that on average, as the surface type changed from low to high or from

surfaces that exerted less friction to more friction, the COR increased by 0.2715.

Table 12
 Temperature

(-) 3 C 5 C (+) 29 C 31 C

Solid (+)
0.6808 0.8497
Surface Segment Cement
Type Dotted (-)
0.4391 0.5485
Segment Grass

0.85

0.68
0.55
0.44

-1 1
Inte raction of Tempe rature and Surface Type
Interaction Effect of
Temperature and Surface Type
Figure 8. Interaction Effect of Temperature and Surface Type

Figure 8 and Table 12 above show the interaction between temperature and

surface type on the coefficient of restitution of tennis balls. To find the interaction effect,

the slope of the high surface type was subtracted from the slope of the low surface type.

Shown on the graph, when the surface type was high and temperature range was high, the

average COR was the greatest. The interaction effect for this combination is 0.0298,
meaning that the slope of the lines is not equal and that there may be a slight interaction

between the two variables.

12

10

6
COR
4

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Standard Trial Numbe r
Fig

ure 9. Graph of Standards

Figure 9 above displays the graph of the standard trials. These trials help

determine if the data was consistent. The maximum standard trial was recorded at 0.7967,

and the minimum at 0.7652, which produces a range of 0.0315. As seen above, there is no

trend present and the small range of data indicates little variability in the experiment; this

supports that the results are reliable.

TS T S

Figure 10. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 10 above displays the dot plot of effects. Each individual factor and

interaction factor are noted with their abbreviation: temperature (T) and surface type (S).

This chart conveys which factors are deemed significant. Significant factors must be

greater than two times the absolute value of the range of standards, which is 0.063
(dashed lines in the graph). Therefore, the factors of temperature and surface type were

deemed significant. The only insignificant factor was the interaction effect between the

two variables.

Through the two-factor DOE testing the effects of temperature and surface type

on the coefficient of restitution on tennis balls, the hypothesis that the high temperature

and high surface type was supported. Both of the individual effects were deemed

significant and there appeared to be a slight interaction between the factors. A

parsimonious prediction equation was used to determine which factors or effects were

deemed significant (Appendix B).

 Conclusion

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effects of temperature and surface

type on the coefficient of restitution of tennis balls. Tennis balls were dropped from a

constant 1.0-meter height and their rebound height was recorded with the aid of the

LoggerPro software. Each ball was either heated or cooled at three different temperature

ranges (35 C, 1921 C, 2931 C) and the surface type (grass, clay, cement) also

varied for each trial. The square root of the ratio of the heights allowed for the calculation

of the coefficient of restitution (Appendix A). After using a two-factor DOE (Design of

Experiment) to analyze the data, it was revealed that the optimal combination to produce

the highest coefficient of restitution was the high temperature range (2931C) and the

high surface type (cement). This resulted in the acceptance of the hypothesis that the

heated tennis balls dropped on the cement surface would yield the highest coefficient of

restitution. An in-depth analysis of the data provided evidence that the results of this

experiment were conclusive.

Temperature in the experiment appeared to have a significant effect because its

effect value was higher than twice the range of standards (0.063), therefore passing the

significant test. The average COR when temperature was held high was 0.6991 and the

average COR when temperature was held low was 0.5600; therefore, the COR increased

by 0.1392 as the temperature changed from low to high, further supporting the

acceptance of the hypothesis. When the experiment was conducted, the balls were either
heated or cooled using a standard freezer or a heating pad. According to Amonton's Law

of Pressure-Temperature, if a gass temperature increases, then so does its pressure if the

mass and volume of the gas are held constant ("Gas Laws"). Therefore, lowering air

pressure by lowering the temperature of the ball had an effect similar to deflating the ball

itself. Moreover, increasing the temperature and thus increasing the air pressure within

the ball had an effect similar to over-inflating a ball, resulting in a higher rebound height.

Temperature also affects the COR because when the ball was heated it became more

elastic, meaning the molecular bonds were able to move more freely ("The Influence of

Temperature on Bouncing Balls"), causing them to stretch more than those in a cooler

ball. Less energy was lost, thus resulting in the ball being able to bounce higher. Under

cold conditions, instead of transferring energy, the ball actually absorbed energy because

of how rigid the ball became (The Influence of Temperature on Bouncing Balls).

The surface type also played a significant role in the experiment and was indeed

deemed significant statistically as well. The average COR when surface type was held

high was 0.7653 and the average COR when surface type was held low was 0.4938. This

means that the surface type had a large effect value of 0.2715 which exceeds twice the

range of standards (0.063). The effect suggests that on average, as the surface type

changed from low to high or from surfaces that exerted less friction to more friction,

the COR increased by 0.2715. Each court type used had its own restitution based on the

density and friction given off by the surface. Courts with high frictional coefficients

interfere with the movement of the ball, disputing the forward momentum. The cement

courts exerted more friction and restitution on a ball when it was compared to a softer

or more elastic clay court, resulting in less energy lost during the collision to the surface,
therefore producing a higher rebound height. Because grass courts had the lowest

restitution and lack of friction, the rebound height of the ball was significantly less than

the drop height because of the loss of energy ("The Physics of Grass, Clay, and Cement").

The bounce of a ball was dependent on the amount of energy lost in the form of

thermal energy when the ball hit the ground and compressed. When the ball compressed,

its energy changed from kinetic to elastic potential. The loss of energy in the form of

thermal energy depended on the friction and heat of the specific surface, meaning there

was an interaction between the two factors. After being compressed, the ball attempted to

return to its original shape, pushing down on the ground with a certain amount of force.

The bounce of the ball was caused by the force with which the ground pushes back on the

ball, which follows Newtons Third Law of Motion, stating that when one body exerts a

force on another body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude

and opposite in direction. Once the ball reached the peak of its rebound (maximum

rebound height), the kinetic energy of the ball changed to gravitational potential energy

and the ball continually bounced until it lost all of its kinetic energy.

As for the interaction of the two factors, the interaction effect of temperature and

surface type was 0.0298 m, indicating that the two factors slightly affect each other

because the slope of the lines when surface type was held high and low were different

and bound to eventually intersect. When the temperature increased, the gas molecules

inside the tennis ball expanded. As the molecules expanded, their energy increased as

they bounced around more erratically. This increased energy and movement resulted in a

higher bounce, as indicated by the highest COR achieved by the experiment using the

high temperature and high surface type. On the other hand, a temperature decrease of the
ball caused the gas molecules to contract and move around more sluggishly. As a result, a

cold ball had a much lower bounce, as indicated by how the COR of the tennis balls

bounced on the high surface type decreased using the low temperature when compared to

the high temperature and how the low surface type and low temperature had a lower COR

than the low surface type and higher temperature.

Errors in the experimental design negatively affected the data and data analysis.

An initial error was the inability to randomize the trials. The locations of the three

surfaces were quite distant and resources were not readily available for such

transportation, making it almost impossible to randomize each trial. Because randomized

trials help to minimize lurking variables, there was a greater chance for such confounding

to occur. Another error in the experiment was the courts themselves. The clay courts used

were not typical clay courts, but Hydrocourts. Hydrocourts are a form of clay courts,

which instead of being watered from above, are watered through an underground water

reservoir. Unlike most above-ground irrigation systems, the water coverage on these

Hydrocourts is uniform and even, keeping traction safe and consistent. Because these

courts slightly differ from traditional clay courts, the data could have been slightly

different when compared to the more common clay courts. Another error presented in the

experiment was that the grass and hard courts were not completely representative of the

official courts. Due to lack of availability, the grass used to simulate a grass court was

traditional grass. The grass was trimmed to 8 mm (the official Wimbledon grass court

length) and the same grass area was used each day of trials. The surface type used to

simulate hard courts was cement. The most common types of courts are hard courts on

cement that have a layer of water based paint. This paint is formulated with a blend of
silica sands, fibers, and aggregates to provide filling and strength under aggressive play.

Although the thin layer of paint was not predicted to have much of an influence, there

was still the chance that the lack of this in the experiment could have led to slightly

inaccurate or inconsistent data. The final error was the inability to control the outside

temperature. There was no way to account for the weather, therefore during the

transportation of balls, they could have gained or lost heat depending on the trial. This

was attempted to be controlled by setting intervals that the temperature of the ball had to

fall in. However, the difference within the interval or in the time between the drop and

when the temperature was taken could have also affected the data.

This experiment offered useful information for future research on the topic.

Factors that significantly affected the coefficient of restitution are outlined in this

research and could be expanded upon. Another experiment could explore other court

types available. This could be done by selecting other surfaces from the 160 tennis court

surfaces known to this date; some of these include carpet, acrylic, wood, and turf. Other

research could also include finding the effect of such factors on the COR of tennis

racquets, baseball bats, or golf clubs. Overall, future research based off of this experiment

would be able to provide more accurate and applicable results for others in the scientific

community on the coefficient of restitution on not only tennis, but all sports. These

results can allow athletes to examine their own games and make adjustments as needed as

well as allow manufacturers to make quality balls that follow strict COR guidelines like

those listed for golf and tennis by elite associations.

Current research in the field supports the experiment conducted this including the

effects of surface type because as a surfaces restitution decreased, the COR of the tennis
ball increased as indicated by the data (see Data Analysis and Interpretation). Current

research also supports the effect of temperature because as temperature increases, the

coefficient of restitution also increases. Overall, the highest COR of the tennis balls was

yielded by the highest temperature range and the highest surface type, allowing for the

acceptance of the hypothesis. Errors presented in the experiment such as the lack of clear

representation of the courts and the lack of randomization could have affected the data,

however the data analyzed accurately represented outside research on the field. This

experiment on the coefficient of restitution of tennis balls allows for further exploration

on other surfaces, other temperatures, and other balls.

 Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to thank the Birmingham Athletic Club, specifically,

owner, Mr. Tim Gardella, and Tennis Facility Manager, Mr. Greg Tester. The Birmingham

Athletic Club was able to provide the Hydrocourts for data collection over a series of

visits.
Also the researchers would like to recognize Mrs. Cybulski for the constant

support and help with formatting and development of the research paper as well as Mr.

McMillan for his guidance and knowledge through the scientific aspects of the

experiment, and Mrs. Tallman for her expertise in making sure the data analysis was

correct.
 Appendix A: Coefficient of Restitution

The coefficient of restitution, the dependent variable, was used to determine any the level

of effect each factor had on the tennis balls.

COR=
rebound height
drop height

The COR can also be determined by finding the square root of the rebound height

of an object (the height at which the object bounces) divided by the drop height of that

object (the height at which the object was dropped).

COR=

rebound height
drop height
COR=

0.5856 m
1.0 m
COR = 0. 7652

Figure 11. Sample Calculation of COR

Figure 11 above displays a sample calculation of the coefficient of restitution on

trial 1 of DOE 1.

Appendix B: Prediction Equations

Prediction Equation:
 Effect (T ) Effect ( S ) Interaction Effect ( TS )
^y =Grand Avg .+ T+ S+ TS+ noise
2 2 2
0.1392 0.2715 0.0298
^y =0.6295+ T+ S+ TS+ noise
2 2 2

Figure 12. Prediction Equation

Figure 12 above is the prediction equation. This prediction equation contains half

the effect value of both variables, temperature and surface type, as well as the interaction

effect. The effect values are divided by two, then added to the grand average and noise.

Parsimonious Prediction Equation:

0.1392 0.2715
^y =0.6295+ T+ S +noise
2 2

Figure 13. Parsimonious Prediction Equation

Figure 13 displays the parsimonious prediction equation. The parsimonious

prediction equation only contains half the value of the effects of the variables that were

deemed statistically significant. Therefore, the parsimonious prediction equation contains

the grand average, the effects of temperature and surface type plus noise.

Works Cited
Bigelow, Lisa. "Differences Between Types of Tennis Court Surfaces." Healthy Living.

Demand Media, n.d. Web. 12 May 2016.

<http://healthyliving.azcentral.com/differences-between-types-tennis-court-

surfaces-1141.html>.

"Chapter 5: The Science of Soccer." How Things Work (PHYS1055) / Revealing the

Magic in Everyday Life (PHYS0612). Web. 21 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.physics.hku.hk/~phys0607/lectures/chap05.html>.

Coefficient of restitution (COR) Yale Physics Department. PDF file.

<http://www.eng.yale.edu/physicsofgolf/Coefficient%20of%20Restitution.pdf>.

"Gas Laws" Web. 21 Apr. 2016. <http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html>.

Haron Adli, K. A. Ismail. Coefficient of Restitution on Sports Balls: A Normal Drop

Test 1st International Conference on Mechanical Engineering Research 2011.

PDF file. <http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-

899X/36/1/012038/pdf>.

Roux Andre, Dickerson Jennifer. Coefficient of Restitution on a Tennis Ball. ISB

Journal of Physics. June 2007. PDF file.

<http://isjos.org/JoP/vol1/Papers/JoPv1i1-2Tennis.pdf>.

The Influence of Temperature on Bouncing Balls University of Virginia. PDF file.

<http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/EIC/2013/QldAssessm

ent/tp-20Mar2013-Assignment.pdf>.

"The Physics of Grass, Clay, and Cement." Grantland. 2011. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.

<http://grantland.com/features/the-physics-grass-clay-cement/>.