Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports

Engineering and Technology
http://pip.sagepub.com/

Fluid dynamics of cricket ball swing

James A Scobie, Simon G Pickering, Darryl P Almond and Gary D Lock
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology published
online 30 October 2012
DOI: 10.1177/1754337112462320

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pip.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/30/1754337112462320
A more recent version of this article was published on - Aug 19, 2013

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and
Technology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pip.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pip.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Version of Record - Aug 19, 2013

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 30, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part P:

J Sports Engineering and Technology
0(0) 1–13
Fluid dynamics of cricket ball swing Ó IMechE 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1754337112462320
pip.sagepub.com

James A Scobie, Simon G Pickering, Darryl P Almond and

Gary D Lock

Abstract
Swing describes the lateral deviation of a cricket ball in its trajectory towards the batsman. Conventional swing is effective
with a new, or well-preserved, ball, and the fluid dynamics governing this phenomenon was first explained in 1957. In
2012, many test-match fast bowlers are able to swing, at high speed, an older ball in the reverse direction. This reverse
swing of a ball aged under match conditions has never been explained fully. A cricket ball is asymmetric with six seams of
80–90 encircling stitches, protruding approximately 1 mm proud of the surface. Both conventional and reverse swings
are a consequence of asymmetrical flow separation leading to a skewed wake and a net pressure force on the ball per-
pendicular to the flight trajectory. Here, experimental evidence is presented for the first time showing that the forma-
tion of a laminar separation bubble is the prominent flow feature creating the flow asymmetry for reverse swing. A new
flow visualisation technique to capture the fluid dynamics of boundary-layer separation using an infrared camera is also
introduced here.

Keywords
Cricket ball, reverse swing, boundary layer, flow visualisation, fluid dynamics

Date received: 25 April 2012; accepted: 28 August 2012

Introduction Conventional and reverse swing

In the opening overs of a cricket match, much of the
radio and television commentary will discuss the swing
of the new, shiny ball. As the match progresses and the
ball ages, this conventional form of swing will tend to
reduce until it no longer poses a threat to the batsmen.
However, after approximately 25–30 overs, a skilful
bowler will find that an older, worn ball can be made to
swing significantly, at high speed, in the reverse direc-
tion. This reverse swing (RS) occurs only under condi-
tions where the surface of the ball has been carefully
manipulated by the fielding side.
The fluid dynamics of conventional swing (CS) was
first explained in 1957.1 This well-understood phenom-
enon applies to the new, or well-preserved, ball and has
been demonstrated in experiments (see Barton,2 Bentley
et al.3 and Mehta et al.4). RS was introduced controver-
sially to game of cricket by Pakistan’s quicker bowlers
during the 1990s. In 2012, many test-match fast bowlers
are able to swing, at high speed, an older ball in the
reverse direction. In contrast to CS, the reverse form
has never been fully understood by cricketers or fluid
dynamicists. This article will demonstrate, with refer-
ence to the fluid dynamic boundary layer and by means
of novel flow visualisation experiments, how RS arises
and why it occurs at high speed.
In cricket, swing is a consequence of the asymmetry of
the ball. In other sports (e.g. football, tennis and golf),
a virtually symmetric sphere under the influence of the
Magnus effect can be made to swerve in flight due to
significant spin. The asymmetry of a cricket ball is
inherently created by the six seams of 80–90 encircling
stitches protruding about 1 mm proud of the surface.
This seam is exploited by the bowler to create a net
transverse pressure force resulting from the asymmetric
separation of the fluid dynamic boundary layer5 on the
two sides of the ball. In the boundary layer, the viscous
fluid (i.e. air) sticks to the ball; in this thin region near
the ball, the relative air velocity increases from zero at
the surface to the undisturbed freestream velocity. For
typical bowling speeds in a cricket match, this bound-
ary-layer thickness is approximately a millimeter.3
Figure 1(a) illustrates the fluid dynamics of CS in a
polar view, that is, one looking in the direction of
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK
Corresponding author:
Gary D Lock, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
Email: ensgdl@bath.ac.uk

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

2 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 0(0)

Figure 1. Current theories for (a) conventional and (b) reverse swing (boundary layer greatly exaggerated for clarity).

gravity. The seam is inclined at a small angle (typically
15°) to the airflow. By imparting a small backspin, the
bowler can create enough gyroscopic inertia to stabilise
this seam position during the trajectory towards the
batsman. As the flow accelerates around the ball, the
thin boundary layer (greatly exaggerated in thickness
for clarity) separates from the surface. The separation
angles are asymmetric as the encircling seam trips this
boundary layer into turbulence, which would otherwise
remain laminar, on one side of the ball. The turbulent
boundary layer, by virtue of its increased momentum,
is more robust than the laminar layer. Consequently,
on the seam side, the turbulent boundary layer remains
attached up to a greater angle (’120°) compared to the
laminar side (’80°) where no seam is present to trip
the boundary layer. The asymmetrical separation leads
to an angled wake and a net pressure force on the ball
perpendicular to the flight trajectory. At the start of a
match, the new ball has a shiny surface, which
encourages the laminar flow on the side opposite of the
seam. During the course of play, the fielding side will
vigorously polish the ball to help maintain this smooth
condition. The ball will wear and roughen as the match
progresses, causing natural transition to turbulent flow

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

Scobie et al.
on side of the ball without the seam. Match experience
suggests that this typically occurs after 10–15 overs,
when asymmetry and CS are lost.
Fluid dynamicists (see Brown and Mehta,6 Barrett
RS and Wood,7 Sayers8 and Mehta,9 including the
Lock et al.10) have previously described RS as illu-
strated in Figure 1(b). RS is encountered when the ball
is bowled at speeds greater than 35.8 m s21 (80 mile/h)
with turbulent flow present on both sides of the ball.
This explanation (proved in this article to be incom-
plete) suggests that the seam thickens the turbulent
boundary layer on one hemisphere causing the separa-
tion angle to move upstream relative to the side with
the undisturbed boundary layer.6 The reverse in pres-
sure asymmetry will create a net side force in the oppo-
site direction to that for CS.
Here, a novel method of flow visualisation (using an
infrared camera) has provided new insight into the
structure of the separating flow around the cricket ball
under conditions of RS. These flow visualisation experi-
ments were linked to simultaneous measurements of
pressure distribution and side force. Large-scale cricket
balls as well as those aged in first-class match condi-
tions were examined. Experimental evidence is pre-
sented for the first time that reveals that the formation
of a separation bubble with late turbulent reattachment
is the primary fluid dynamic feature associated with
RS. It should be stated that this explanation of RS was
first postulated by Grant et al.,11 though no clear evi-
dence was produced.
Boundary-layer separation around spheres
Achenbach12 investigated experimentally the fluid
dynamic boundary layer governing the drag coefficient
of a hydraulically smooth metal sphere. These experi-
mental results are reproduced as curves in Figure 2.
Figure 2(a) shows the drag coefficient (Cd) of the
smooth sphere as a function of the Reynolds number
(Re), obtained by direct measurement of the drag force
by strain gauges; Figure 2(b) shows the position of
boundary-layer separation obtained from skin-friction
measurements. For Re \ 2 3 105 (subcritical flow),
Achenbach showed that the boundary layer is laminar
and separates at uL ’ 80°. At increased Re, the bound-
ary layer encounters a critical condition where the drag
coefficient reduces dramatically at Re ’ 4 3 105; here
the attached boundary layer is now turbulent and the
separation points move downstream to uT ’ 120°. As
the Reynolds number is increased further, the boundary
layer enters the supercritical and ultimately a transcriti-
cal region. The attached boundary layer is predomi-
nantly turbulent, and the angle of transition translates
upstream; the turbulent flow thickens the boundary
layer, causing a gradual reduction in the angle of
separation (uT \ 120°).
Achenbach13 also investigated the effect of surface
roughness on the fluid dynamics of flow around a
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014
3
sphere. As shown in Figure 2(a) and (b), an amount of
roughness (k/d ’ 0.0025) was shown to significantly
reduce the critical Reynolds number. The roughness ele-
ments disturb the boundary layer causing transition to
turbulence at lower Reynolds number. The separation
angle is a maximum at the critical Reynolds number and
then significantly decreases in the transcritical region.
The prominent fluid dynamic feature at the critical
Reynolds number is a separation bubble,14 which
Achenbach’s experiments (at 5° resolution) were not
sensitive enough to determine. Separation bubbles
occur when the laminar boundary layer, under the
influence of the adverse pressure gradient, separates
from the surface and then undergoes a transition to
turbulence with characteristic rapid thickening. This
thickening can cause the now turbulent shear layer to
come back into contact with the surface and reattach
as a turbulent boundary layer. A bubble of circulatory
fluid is consequently trapped under the separated shear
layer between the separation and reattachment points,
as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 4(a) to (c) illustrates the flow patterns over a
sphere in the subcritical, critical and transcritical
regions. In Figure 4(b), uL, uR and uT indicate the lami-
nar separation, turbulent reattachment and turbulent
separation points, respectively, for the separation bub-
ble over a sphere at the critical Reynolds number. The
second point of separation, which takes place in a tur-
bulent layer, is located significantly suddenly down-
stream due to the better resistance to the adverse
pressure gradient by the turbulent layer, resulting in a
narrow wake and a significant reduction in drag.
Taneda14 measured 92° \ uL, \ 110°, 107° \ uR \ 127°
and 123° \ uT \ 147° (depending on Re) for smooth
spheres. In the transcritical region, the width of the
wake increases as the turbulent separation points move
upstream towards uT ’ 120° round the rear surface
with a consequential increase in drag.
Achenbach13 measured the critical Reynolds number
on the smooth sphere to be Re ’ 150–175 3 103. This
value will be less for the double-scaled cricket ball (as
well as the balls aged under match conditions) due to the
seam; even on the non-seam side, the inherent surface
roughness will reduce this critical Reynolds number.
Experiments
Two wind tunnels were used in the experiments
reported here. The University of Bath wind tunnel,
with a maximum speed of 20 m s21, featured a circular
open-jet test section 0.77 m in diameter and working
length of 1.5 m. Additional experiments were con-
ducted in the University of Bristol’s larger wind tunnel
(octagonal test section of 2.1 m 3 1.5 m), which was
capable of reaching speeds of up to 60 m s21. The free-
stream turbulence intensity in both tunnels was less
than 1%. A range of cricket balls (71.3 mm \ d \ 71.9
mm, measured not including the seam), used for 8–80
4 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 0(0)

Figure 2. (a) Variation of the drag coefficient with the Reynolds number for a smooth and slightly roughened sphere and (b)
separation angles (with respect to the stagnation point) for a smooth and slightly roughened sphere.
Adapted from Achenbach.12,13

overs under first-class match conditions, was supplied
by Warwickshire County Cricket Club. To assess the
static pressure distribution at 44 locations around the
circumference, a hollow, scaled cricket ball with twice
the diameter (i.e. 142 mm) was manufactured from
rapid prototype nylon. This model was complete with
an accurate, scaled representation of the seam.
The experimental set-up is illustrated in Figure 5. A
strain gauge was used to measure the side force S per-
pendicular to the flow. The gauge was located on a

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

Scobie et al. 5

Figure 3. Laminar separation bubble.

Adapted from Houghton and Carpenter.15

supporting cantilever beam, which acted as an aerody-

Figure 4. Flow patterns over a sphere in the (a) subcritical
(400 \ Re \ 3 3 105), (b) critical (3 3 105 \ Re \ 3 3 106)
and (c) transcritical regions (Re . 3 3 106).
Adapted from Houghton and Carpenter.15
namic sting. The side force was non-dimensionalised
by the projected area of the ball and the dynamic
head of the fluid (see CS in Appendix 1). In this form,
the actual force is proportional to the square of the
air speed. The aerodynamic sting was positioned
within the wake with the vertical beam 250 mm
behind the ball in order to ensure minimal influence
on the flow. The dimensions of the cantilever (13 mm
3 6.5 mm) were designed so that the beam was stiff
enough to avoid resonance and severe vibration but
able to provide sensitivity to very low forces.
Vibrational effects were taken into account by sam-
pling measurements at 10 Hz over a time period of
1 min and calculating a mean.
A new, qualitative, flow visualisation technique to
capture the fluid dynamics of boundary-layer separa-
tion using an infrared camera is introduced here. As
illustrated in Figure 6, heated air was injected upstream
at the rear of the ball in a similar manner to which
smoke is used in flow visualisation experiments. The
heated air is entrained into the separated boundary
layer near the surface of the ball. In the steady state,
the heat propagates upstream until it is met by the cold
mainstream air near the separation point. An infrared
camera was used to capture thermal images of the sur-
face of the ball. The flow visualisation technique used
here is qualitative, rather than quantitative, as there is a
competing mechanism between upstream heat conduc-
tion along the surface and convective cooling. Ideally,
the surface of the ball would be perfectly insulating; the
double-sized ball used here is made of nylon, which is a
good insulator so the separation points can only be
determined approximately.
The thermal imaging camera was a Cedip Jade III
mid-wave infrared that used a cooled indium antimo-
nide focal plane array with a resolution of 320 3 256
pixels and a noise-equivalent temperature difference of
approximately 21 mK.

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

6 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 0(0)

Figure 5. Experimental set-up.

Figure 6. Flow visualisation technique implemented during the study (see online version for colour illustration).

Experimental results ball. At low Re (flight velocity \ 20 mile/h), laminar

Side force measurements
Figure 7 shows the non-dimensional side force mea-
sured using both the double-sized and actual cricket
balls aged under match conditions plotted against
Reynolds number. Also, the equivalent bowling speed
based on the actual ball diameter in miles per hour is
shown, which allows the data to be presented in the
context of the game and in terms the cricket audience
would be familiar. For consistency, all the experiments
were performed with the seam angle set at 15° to the
air stream.
The measurements, over the range of bowling
speeds, demonstrate the behaviour expected from expe-
rience. Consider first the data from the double-sized
separation is expected on both sides of the ball, with a
symmetric pressure distribution and zero side force. As
Re increases, the seam trips the boundary layer to tur-
bulent flow (critical Re ’ 70 3 103), while the bound-
ary layer on the non-seam side remains laminar. Thus,
between 8.9 and 33.5 m s21 (20 and 75 mile/h), the ball
experiences CS, with a positive side force of non-
dimensional magnitude approximately 0.3 \ CS \ 0.4.
The critical Reynolds number for the non-seam side is
Re ’ 170 3 103 (’75 mile/h); here, both sides of the
ball experience turbulent flow and the CS is lost. RS is
measured for Re . 170 3 103. Figure 7 shows the non-
dimensional side force; the RS is significant because the
lateral force is proportional to the square of the
velocity.

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

Scobie et al.
Figure 7. Variation of non-dimensional side force with speed for cricket balls at different stages of wear.
Consider now the data obtained from the cricket
balls used in first-class matches. The results are again
consistent with expectations. The balls begin to experi-
ence CS at approximately the same bowling speed. The
magnitude of the side force and speed at which each
ball begins to swing in the reverse direction are then
directly related to the age of the ball and hence surface
roughness. Considering a speed of 35.8 m s21 (80 mile/
h), the approximate bowling speed of a fast- to
medium-paced bowler, the ball aged between 8 and 10
overs swings the most in the conventional manner.
Once the ball has aged sufficiently, that is, approxi-
mately after 25–40 overs, CS cannot be obtained at this
speed. However, as the ball wears further, negative side
force measurements are produced, indicating RS.
Significant RS can only be achieved at bowling speeds
greater than 38–40.2 m s21 (85–90 mile/h) with a used
or worn ball. Based on the speed at which RS first
appears, the results suggest that the roughness of the
double-sized model was equivalent to an actual ball
aged between 25 and 50 overs.
The data confirm that it is the medium- to fast-paced
bowlers who generate CS using a new or well-preserved
polished ball. It is only the quicker bowlers who achieve
RS. A ball that is scuffed, worn or conditioned (legally
or illegally) during the course of play will exacerbate
the effect of RS.
Pressure measurements
Figure 8 illustrates the variation of pressure coefficient,
Cp, with angle u from the stagnation point for the
double-sized cricket ball; the seam was positioned at
15° to the mainstream. Note that there is a region on
the seam side where no data could be recorded (because
of the seam itself) and the data do not show Cp = 1, as
the stagnation point lies on the seam of the model. The
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014
7
data for three Reynolds numbers are Re = 20 3 103,
150 3 103 and 200 3 103, which correspond to full-sized
cricket ball velocities of ’4, 30 and 40 m s21, respec-
tively, that is, ’9, 67 and 89 mile/h. These three speeds
fall in the regime for no-swing (NS), CS and RS, respec-
tively. Although the 9 mile/h case has no context in
terms of the game, it was performed in order to demon-
strate the NS condition. Also, the pressure distribution
expected from an inviscid fluid where there is no flow
separation is shown.16
In Figure 8, the constant-pressure region on both
sides of the ball at angles of u . 120° is an indication
of separated flow at the downstream rear. The angle of
boundary-layer separation is indicated by the end of
the rise in pressure (i.e. the adverse pressure gradient)
to this constant level. At low Re (9 mile/h), laminar
separation occurs before transition to turbulent flow,
even on the seam side. Here, the pressure distribution is
symmetric with separation angles uL ’ 80°, and the
side force (see Figure 7) is measured to be zero with
NS. As Re increases, the seam trips the boundary layer
to turbulent flow (critical Re ’ 70 3 103) while the
boundary layer on the non-seam side remains laminar.
At Re = 150 3 103 (67 mile/h), there is relatively lower
pressure on the hemisphere with the seam, which cre-
ates a net side force, or the CS illustrated in Figure
1(a). The separation angle on the non-seam side of the
ball is still uL ’ 80°, but this angle has been delayed to
uT ’ 120° on the seam side. The critical Reynolds num-
ber for the non-seam side is Re ’ 170 3 103 (’75 mile/
h), where there is natural turbulent flow on both sides
of the ball and the CS is lost. These angles follow the
trends measured by Achenbach,12,13 as shown in
Figure 2.
At Re = 200 3 103 (89 mile/h), turbulent separation
still occurs on the seam side of the ball, although in this
8 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 0(0)

transcritical flow, the separation point has moved
upstream to uT ’ 110°. This again accords with the
observations of Achenbach. On the non-seam side,
however, a dramatic change has taken place: the pres-
sure recovers to the base level at uT ’ 135°. (Note that
it was not possible to measure pressure beyond this
angle). Thus, the angles of separation on the seam and
non-seam side are 110° and 135°, respectively. There
has been an inversion of the pressure asymmetry, with
relatively lower pressure on the hemisphere without the
seam; this again creates a net side force, but now this is
the RS. An explanation for the delay in separation on
the non-seam side is indicated by the region of rela-
tively constant pressure between approximately
95° \ u \ 110°, followed by a sharp downstream pres-
sure recovery. This is evidence for the formation of a
laminar separation bubble, as discussed earlier and is
consistent with the findings of Fage.16 With reference
to Figures 3 and 4, uL ’ 95°, uR ’ 110° and uT ’ 135°
(the angles of laminar separation, reattachment and
turbulent separation, respectively) are marked in
Figure 8. These angles agree well with those measured
by Taneda14 for a separation bubble on a smooth
sphere.
Flow visualisation
Thermal flow visualisation images were acquired using
the double-sized cricket ball model using the three
orientations, as shown in Figure 9. The temperature
distributions are presented in Figure 10 for the NS, CS
and RS conditions. These conditions correspond to
equivalent speeds of 9, 67 and 89 mile/h, respectively,
consistent with the speeds presented in the pressure dis-
tribution in Figure 8.
In Figure 10, the mainstream air is cold and heated air
has been injected upstream. As discussed with reference
to Figure 6, the flow visualisation provides qualitative

Figure 8. Variation of pressure coefficient with the angle from the stagnation point.
NS: no-swing; CS: conventional swing; RS: reverse swing.

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

Scobie et al. 9

Figure 9. Orientation of flow visualisation experiments; air is moving into the page.

Figure 10. Flow visualisation for NS, CS and RS conditions; airflow is from right to left with heated air from the opposite direction;
red indicates hot and blue cold (see online version for colour illustration).
NS: no-swing; CS: conventional swing; RS: reverse swing.

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

10 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 0(0)

Figure 11. Flow visualisation for polar view with superimposed boundary layer: (a) NS, (b) CS and (c) RS conditions.
NS: no-swing; CS: conventional swing; RS: reverse swing.

information, and boundary between the hot (red) and
cold (blue) flows gives an indication of the angle of
boundary-layer separation (see online version for colour
illustration). Red in the thermal images indicates the
regions where the flow is not attached, that is, the bound-
ary layer has separated from the surface of the ball.
Conversely, blue indicates that the cool air from the
mainstream is attached to the surface. The polar view in
Figure 10 (i.e. Figure 10(d) to (f)) corresponds to the view
presented in Figure 1, and the expected fluid dynamic
boundary layer (again exaggerated for clarity) is superim-
posed on this polar view in Figure 11.

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014

Scobie et al.
Figure 12. Flow visualisation repeated using an actual cricket ball aged 25 overs.
NS: no-swing; CS: conventional swing; RS: reverse swing.
At the NS condition (9 mile/h), symmetrical laminar
separation is indicated on both sides of the ball. At a
larger Re (67 mile/h), the seam trips the boundary layer
to turbulent flow, while the boundary layer on the non-
seam side remains laminar. The separation of the turbu-
lent boundary layer on the seam side is delayed result-
ing in the asymmetry causing CS.
At 89 mile/h, the ball experiences RS. On the seam
side of the ball, the angle of separation moves marginally
upstream relative to the CS condition. On the non-seam
side, the laminar separation bubble indicated in the pres-
sure measurements is clearly visible (especially Figure
10(i)). The isolated region of heated surface indicates
that laminar separation, followed by turbulent reattach-
ment, has occurred. The second point of (turbulent)
separation is not clear but appears to be located near the
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014
11
trailing edge of the seam. The separation bubble has
trapped a pocket of hot air in the manner indicated in
Figure 4. The break in the centre of the bubble is attrib-
uted to the increased roughness caused by the pressure
tapping holes arranged around the circumference; this
disturbance locally trips the flow into turbulence. It
should be noted that the separation bubble is only visible
to the infrared camera when the downstream heated
source is activated before the cold mainstream flow is ini-
tiated and the surface is pre-heated; if the heated flow is
activated after the mainstream flow has been activated,
the bubble is not detected by the camera as the heat is
unable to propagate forward to the trapped region.
With reference to Figure 7, it was noted that the
roughness of the double-sized model was equivalent to
an actual ball aged between 25 and 50 overs. To ensure
12
that the fluid dynamics observed on the scaled ball
takes place with realistic surface roughness created
under match conditions, the flow visualisation experi-
ments were repeated using an actual cricket ball aged
25 overs in a first-class match. The flow visualisation is
shown in Figure 12. The faster wind tunnel at the
University of Bristol was used for these experiments
and, relative to the images collected in Figure 10, the
infrared camera has less resolution due to the larger
distance to the ball and the smaller diameter of the ball
itself. Although the results in Figure 12 are less clear
than the double-sized model, they indicate a consistent
pattern in terms of flow visualisation and hence fluid
dynamics. At the highest speed on the non-seam side,
the laminar separation bubble is observed.
As a final point, it should be noted that during the
course of play, a swing bowler, as discussed earlier, usu-
ally imparts a small degree of backspin on the ball. The
influence of this rotation on the formation and stability
of the separation bubble was not tested in the experi-
ments reported here.
Conclusion
This article provides new insight into boundary-layer
separation for the flow around a cricket ball, clearly
demonstrating the fluid dynamics of both conventional
and reverse swing. A novel method of flow visualisation
(using an infrared camera) was linked to simultaneous
measurements of pressure distribution and side force on
large-scale cricket balls as well as those aged in first-
class match conditions. A cricket ball is asymmetric due
to the six seams of 80–90 encircling stitches protruding
about 1 mm proud of the surface. This seam is exploited
by the bowler to create a net transverse pressure force
resulting from the asymmetric separation of the fluid
dynamic boundary layer on the two sides of the ball.
CS is experienced for Reynolds numbers in the range of
70–170 3 103 (’35–75 mile/h). On the seam side of the
ball, the boundary layer is tripped into turbulent flow
and remains attached to an angle of ’120°; the flow on
the other side of the ball separates at an angle of ’80°
as there is no seam to trip the laminar boundary layer.
RS is a consequence of the asymmetry inverting at
Reynolds numbers . 170 3 103. Experimental evi-
dence is presented for the first time that reveals that the
formation of a separation bubble with late turbulent
reattachment is the primary fluid dynamic feature asso-
ciated with RS.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgements
Professor GD Lock has been awarded a prize for
Excellence in Teaching by the Royal Academy of
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014
Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 0(0)
Engineering/Exxon-Mobil. A series of cricket balls,
worn under known first-class match conditions, were
supplied by Dougie Brown of Warwickshire County
Cricket Club. The authors also thank Dr Raf
Theunissen of the University of Bristol.
References
1. Lyttelton RA. The swing of a cricket ball. Discovery
1957; 18: 186–191.
2. Barton NG. On the swing of a cricket ball in flight. P
Roy Soc Lond A Mat 1982; 379: 109–131.
3. Bentley K, Varty P, Proudlove M, et al. An experimental
study of cricket ball swing. Imperial College Aero. Tech-
nical note 82-106, 1982.
4. Mehta RD, Bentley K, Proudlove M, et al. Factors
affecting cricket ball swing. Nature 1983; 303: 787–788.
5. Prandtl L. Über Flüssigkeitsbewegung bei sehr kleiner
reibung [On the motion of fluids of very small viscosity].
In: Verhandlungen des III internationalen Mathematiker-
Kongresses (ed A Krazer), Heidelberg, Germany, 8–13
August 1904, pp.484–491. Leipzig, Teubner.
6. Brown W and Mehta RD. The seamy side of swing bowl-
ing. New Sci 1993; 139: 21–24.
7. Barrett RS and Wood DH. The theory and practice of
reverse swing. Sports Coach 1996; 18: 28–30.
8. Sayers AT. On the reverse swing of a cricket ball – mod-
elling and measurements. Proc IMechE, Part C: J
Mechanical Engineering Science 2001; 215: 45–55.
9. Mehta RD. An overview of cricket ball swing. Sports
Eng 2005; 8: 181–192.
10. Lock GD, Edwards S and Almond DP. Flow visualiza-
tion experiments demonstrating the reverse swing of a
cricket ball. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering
and Technology 2010; 224: 191–199.
11. Grant C, Anderson A and Anderson JA. Cricket ball
swing-the Cooke-Lyttleton theory revisited (Proceedings
of the second international conference on the engineering of
sport, Sheffield, UK, July 1998). In: Haake S (ed.) The
engineering of sport. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp.371–
378.
12. Achenbach E. Experiments on the flow past spheres at
high Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Mech 1972; 54(3): 565–
575.
13. Achenbach E. The effects of surface roughness and tun-
nel blockage on the flow past spheres. J Fluid Mech 1974;
65(1): 113–125.
14. Taneda S. Visual observations of the flow past a sphere
at Reynolds numbers between 104 and 106. J Fluid Mech
1977; 85(1): 187–192.
15. Houghton EL and Carpenter PW. Aerodynamics for engi-
neering students. 4th ed. London, UK: Edward Arnold,
1993.
16. Fage A. Experiments on a sphere at critical Reynolds num-
bers. Aeronautical Research Committee reports and
memoranda, no. 1766, 1936.
Appendix 1
Notation
d diameter
k size of roughness element
pN static pressure in the freestream
Scobie et al. 13

pu static pressure at angle u m dynamic viscosity

vN freestream velocity fs separation angle
Cp pressure coefficient, r density
Cp = (pu p‘ )=(1=2(rv2‘ )) u angle from the stagnation point
Cs non-dimensional side force, uL laminar separation angle
Cs = 8S=rv2‘ pd2 uR turbulent reattachment angle
Re Reynolds number, Re = rv‘ d=m uT turbulent separation angle
S side force

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST SCI on August 24, 2014