Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
ROWING PROPULSIVE MECHANISM BASED ON ROWER
BIOMECHANICS AND BLADE HYDRODYNAMICS
AB AZIZ BIN MOHD YUSOF
i
.
ROWING PROPULSIVE MECHANISM BASED ON ROWER
BIOMECHANICS AND BLADE HYDRODYNAMICS
NOVEMBER 2017
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Biomedical Engineering)
AB AZIZ BIN MOHD YUSOF
iii
Specially dedicated to:
My beloved father (Mohd Yusof bin Ayob).
My beloved mother (Rahimah binti Abdul Rahman)
My beloved wife (Nurul Hazuwa binti Muhamad Ramli)
For your endless support and encouragement
DEDICATION
iv
Alhamdullilah, all praises to Allah S.W.T who gives me graces of
opportunity, physical and mentally strength and valuable time to complete this
study. A special dedication of appreciation is given to my supervisors, Dr
Muhammad Noor Harun, Dr Ardiansyah Syahrom and Prof. Dr Abdul Hafidz bin
Hj. Omar from Sports Innovation Technology Conter (SITC), for help, guide, idea
and advices through the data collection, computational and experimental study and
thesis preparation. I would like to thank to Abdul Malik hj. Abdul Ghani, President
of PERDAMA for the trustworthy and opportunity given to make use of the
facilities and equipment to achieve my objectives of the study. I highly
acknowledge for his and association expertise in rowing. I would like to extend my
deepest gratitude to all my family and family in law members for your
understanding and providing consistence support, patience and love. Finally, I
would like to express my gratitude to all MEDITEG and SITC members for their
assistance over the last few year. It is pleasure to me to work with all of you and the
experience that I gain made me a better person. I would like to thank to my
wonderful friends of their friendship, encouragement and assistance, particularly
for Abdul Hakim, Nor Syahiran, Amir Putra, Abdul Hadi, Fakhrizal Azmy, Hadafi
Fitri, Rabiatul Adibah. Last but not least, special thank for the Government of
Malaysia through the KPM MyBrain15 scheme for the scholarship and granted
research grant to smooth the study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
v
Rower biomechanics, stroke style, and hydrodynamic of the blade are
among the important factors which influence rowing performance. Deeper
understanding of these aspects will help the rower and rowing fraternity to decide
the best rowing style and blade model in order to perform better. There are three
objectives outlined in this study. The first objective was to evaluate the coupling
mechanism between rower biomechanics and blade hydrodynamic, using rowing
dynamic simulator. The second objective was to assess the fluid flow behaviour
around the blade by using Computational Fluid Dynamic method (CFD). The third
objective was to compare two different stroke styles which focused on the rower
leg and trunk. During the experimental work, the rowers rowed and accelerated the
boat. An average handle force of 512 N, and a blade hydrodynamic force of 231 N
were obtained by using the strain gauge sensor. From the result, the oar mechanism
was in agreement with the first class lever of 45% mechanical advantage. CFD
analysis was validated and had good agreement with experimental result with 8.3%
error. Blade was identified to work based on drag-induced propulsive and the fluid
flow behaviour was dominated by leading edge vortex (LEV). The highest
hydrodynamic force was generated by asymmetrical type of Fat blade followed by
asymmetrical type of Big blade and symmetrical type of Macon blade with a peak
force of 347 N, 307 N and 231 N respectively. Finally, two types of rowing style
emphasized on the leg and trunk were compared and evaluated. The leg-typed
rowing style was 17% better in increasing the handle force higher as compared to
the trunk-typed rowing style. In conclusion, the study explored the connection
between rower-oar-boat. Rowing performance showed a 28% enhancement of boat
acceleration by the use of leg-type rowing style. Further enhancement of
performance was achieved via the asymmetrical type of Fat blade, which increased
the hydrodynamic force up to 51%.
ABSTRACT
vi
Biomekanik pendayung, gaya strok, dan hidrodinamik bilah adalah antara
faktor-faktor penting yang mempengaruhi prestasi mendayung. Pemahaman yang
mendalam tentang aspek-aspek ini membantu pendayung dan komuniti mendayung
menentukan gaya mendayung yang terbaik dan model bilah yang sesuai bagi
meningkatkan prestasi perlumbaan. Terdapat tiga objektif telah digariskan dalam
kajian ini. Objektif pertama, menilai mekanisme gabungan antara biomekanik
pendayung dan hidrodinamik bilah menggunakan simulator dinamik mendayung.
Objektif kedua, menaksir aliran pergerakan air di sekitar bilah menggunakan
pengiraan analisis dinamik bendalir (CFD). Objektif ketiga, membandingkan antara
dua gaya strok yang berbeza yang memfokuskan pada kaki dan batang belakang.
Semasa eksperimen dijalankan, pendayung mendayung dan memecutkan bot.
Purata daya pemegang yang terhasil adalah 512 N, dan daya hidrodinamik purata
231 N diperoleh menggunakan alat pengukur terikan. Daripada keputusan ini,
mekanisme dayung didapati mematuhi konsep tuil kelas pertama dengan 45%
kelebihan mekanikal. Analisa CFD disahkan menyamai kaedah eksperimen dengan
peratus ralat sebanyak 8.3%. Bilah didapati bekerja berdasarkan dorongan seretan
dan sifat aliran dipengaruhi oleh pusaran pinggir hadapan (LEV). Daya
hidrodinamik yang paling tinggi dihasilkan oleh bilah jenis tidak simetri Fat diikuti
dengan bilah jenis tidak simetri Big dan bilah jenis simetri Macon sebanyak 347 N,
307 N dan 231 N daya puncak yang terhasil. Dua gaya dayungan yang menekankan
pada kaki dan belakang badan telah dibandingkan dan dinilai. Gaya dayungan yang
memfokuskan pada kaki didapati lebih berkesan dalam meningkatkan daya
pemegang sebanyak 17% lebih tinggi berbanding dengan gaya dayungan belakang
badan. Kesimpulannya, kajian ini menerokai hubungan antara pendayung-oar-bot.
Prestasi mendayung menunjukkan peningkatan 28% pecutan bot menggunakan
gaya dayungan kaki. Peningkatan prestasi selanjutnya dicapai mengunakan bilah
tidak simetri Fat, yang mana meningkatkan daya hidrodinamik sehingga 51%.
ABSTRAK
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION Error! Bookmark not defined.
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS xx
LIST OF APPENDICES xxiii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of study 1
1.2 Problem statement 3
1.3 Objectives of the study 4
1.4 Scope of the study 4
1.5 Significant of the study 5
1.6 Thesis organisation 7
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
viii
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Rowing overview 8
2.2.1 Rowing racing strategies 10
2.2.2 Rowing stroke phase 10
2.2.3 Free body diagram of rowing 12
2.2.4 Rowing oar mechanism 14
2.3 Biomechanics of rower 17
2.3.1 Rower force profile 18
2.3.2 Research gaps for biomechanics of rower 22
2.4 Hydrodynamic of the blade during stroke 24
2.4.1 Blade hydrodynamic force 24
2.4.2 Hydrodynamic force components 26
2.4.3 Lift and drag force generated on the blade 27
2.4.4 Force coefficient of the blade 30
2.4.5 Blade design and features 32
2.4.6 Research gaps for biomechanics of rower 33
2.5 Numerical method of blade hydrodynamic force 35
2.6 Computational fluid dynamic of oar blade 38
2.7 Summary 39
3 MATERIAL AND METHOD 40
3.1 Introduction 40
3.2 Operational frame work 41
3.3 Coupling mechanism between biomechanics and
hydrodynamics of rowing 43
3.3.1 Problem formulation 43
3.3.2 Experimental approach 43
ix
3.3.2.1 Description of experimental device 44
3.3.2.2 Description of measurement device 45
3.3.2.3 Finite element analysis of the oar
bending for strain gauge placement
location 47
3.3.2.4 Data acquisition system 49
3.3.2.5 Calibration of the strain gauge 50
3.3.2.6 Sensor accurancy and repetability test 51
3.3.3 Experimental procedure 53
3.3.4 Oar efficiency 54
3.4 Hydrodynamics of the blade during the drive phase
of the start 55
3.4.1 Problem formulation 55
3.4.2 Experimental data collection 55
3.4.3 Computational fluid dynamic analysis 56
3.4.4 CFD analysis of domain model configuration
effect 57
3.4.4.1 The effect of domain size to normal
force of the blade 57
3.4.4.2 The effect of shaft attachement to
normal force of the blade 58
3.4.4.3 The effect of free surface to normal
force of the blade 59
3.4.5 Computatinal Fluid Dynamic model 60
3.4.6 Boundary condition of CFD analysis 62
3.4.7 Mesh convergence study 64
3.5 Analysis of blade design features 65
3.5.1 Problem formulation 65
3.5.2 Computational fluid dynamic approach 65
x
3.5.3 Convergence study of quasi-static analysis 66
3.5.4 Boundary condition for CFD and validation 67
3.5.5 Full scale blade model 69
3.5.6 Blade design features 70
3.6 Analysis of body segment emphasis rowing styles 71
3.6.1 Problem formulation 71
3.6.2 Experimantal subject 72
3.6.3 Kinetic and kinematic setup for assesing
rowing style 73
3.6.4 Testing procedure 73
3.6.5 Video analysis of rower kinematic 75
3.6.6 Data post-processing and statistical procedure 76
3.6.7 Computational fluid dynamic analysis 77
3.7 Summary 78
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: COUPLING MECHANISM
BETWEEN BIOMECHANICS AND HYDRODYNAMICS OF
ROWING 79
4.1 Introduction 79
4.2 FEA of oar bending for strain placementlocation 79
4.3 Calibration of the strain gauge sensor 81
4.4 Sensor accuracy and repetability test 82
4.5 Rower kinematic during the drive phase of the stroke 84
4.6 Force profile of the drive phase of the stroke 86
4.7 Speed profile of the oar and boat 89
4.8 Combination between biomechanics and
hydrodynamics of rowing 43
4.9 Summary 93
xi
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: HYDRODYNAMIC OF THE
BLADE DURING THE DRIVE PHASE OF THE
START STROKE 94
5.1 Introduction 94
5.2 Computational simulation of dynamically moving blade 94
5.2.1 CFD model configuration effect on the normal
force of the blade 95
5.2.1.1 The effect of domain size tonormal
force of the blade 95
5.2.1.2 The effect of shaft attachement model
on the normal force of the blade 96
5.2.1.3 The effect of free surface on normal
of the blade 97
5.2.2 Mesh convergence study 98
5.2.3 Computational fluid dynamic validation 99
5.2.4 Blade projection path of the drive phase 100
5.2.5 Pressure contour of the blade 101
5.2.6 Leading edge vortex (LEV) around the blade 103
5.2.7 Normal, shear and hydrodynamic force of the
drive phase 105
5.2.8 Lift and drag force of the drive phase 107
5.3 Computational simulation of blade design features under
quasi-static condition 109
5.3.1 Mesh convergence study 110
5.3.2 Computational fluid dynamic validation 110
5.3.3 Full scale blade model 112
5.3.4 Analysis of blade design features 114
5.4 Summary 119
xii
6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ANALYSIS OF BODY
SEGMENT EMPHASIS ROWING STYLES 120
6.1 Introduction 120
6.2 Comparison between leg and trunk emphasis 120
6.3 Kinematic of the rower 124
6.4 Boat and oar kinematic during the stroke 127
6.5 Blade projection path and pressure generated 129
6.6 Summary 132
7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 133
7.1 Conclusion 133
7.2 Future recomendation 135
REFERENCES 136
Appendices A-E 151-161
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE PAGE
2.1 The force profiles database applied by the rower during
drive 21
2.2 Database of hydrodynamic force generated on the blade 29
2.3 Database of the force coefficient related to the blade
hydrodynamic 31
3.1 The detail of blade design features used 62
3.2 Features categories, blade design features and notation
of the study 70
3.3 The blade design features used in the study 71
4.1 Data of the compression strain on the inboard shaft for
test and re-test 83
4.2 The Pearson correlations test result for test-retest 83
5.1 Detail of convergent study 99
5.2 Result of the hydrodynamic parameters of the blade 116
7.1 The list of limitation and future recommendation of the
rowing study 135
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE PAGE
1.1 Thesis organization chart 7
2.1 Rowing stroke cycle 11
2.2 Force and velocity act on the rowing system 12
2.3 The resultant hydrodynamic force acting during stroke 13
2.4 Blade force components act on the rowing oar 14
2.5 Components and parts of rowing oar 15
2.6 Oar installation on the rigging, force applied, oar
motion and force acting 16
2.7 Rowing rowing styles practically applied by the rower 18
2.8 Rower force profile applied during drive 20
2.9 The different between static, dynamic and total pressure 25
2.10 Force components acting on the submerged blade
during the drive phase due to the relative speed of oar
angular speed and boat translation speed 26
3.1 Project flow chart 41
3.2 Experimental equipment used in the study; (a) complete
setup of rowing equipment which consists of the
simplified boat, rail, and water tank. (b) model of the
rail and how the simplified boat was placed.and (c)
model of the simplified boat that replicated the real
model of the rowing boat 45
3.3 Sensors setup and locations used in the study; a) sensors
placement on the outboard side, b) sensor placement on
the inboard side c) Simplified rowing boat on the rail
xv
and (d) Encoder placement on the simplified boat to
read the boat velocity. 46
3.4 Sensor setup and connection 47
3.5 Oar model and boundary condition assigned for the
FEA study 48
3.6 Quarter bridge 1-single active stain gauge 49
3.7 Strain gauge calibration setup 51
3.8 Encoder setup for angle accuracy test. 52
3.9 Rower row during testing and blade positioned by
submerging in water during the test 53
3.10 Experimental setup for the study 54
3.11 Boat translation and oar angular speed obtained from
the experiment that used as the input for CFD 56
3.12 CFD domain size used; (a) original size of CFD model
according to the water tank (b) smaller size of the CFD
model. 58
3.13 Blade model for CFD study (a) Blade with shaft
attachment model (b) Blade without shaft attachment
model Domain size effect. 59
3.14 Free surface of water during CFD study 59
3.15 Isometric view of the fluid domain and boundary
condition of the CFD 61
3.16 Blade model used is CFD analysis where θs is
submerged angle a) Macon blade and it is position in
water b) Big blade and it is position in water c) Fat
blade and it is position in water 61
3.17 Hydrodynamic force components acting on the blade
during the drive, where Fn is normal force, Ft is shear
force, Fh is hydrodynamic force, Fx is force in X
direction and Fy is force in y direction, Fd is drag force,
Fl is lift force, Vr is relative speed, Vo is boat translation
and θC is the catch angle. 63
3.18 CFD model meshed using hexa element which
contained fluid domain and blade model. 64
xvi
3.19 Fluid and rectangular model meshed with hexa element
provided by the software 66
3.20 Boundary condition for validation purpose; (a) plan
view, and (b) side view. 67
3.21 Comparison between quarter and full scale blade 67
3.22 CFD model and boundary condition of the investigation
using the full scale blade 69
3.23 Body segment measurements 72
3.24 Body emphasis rowing style as referred to V.
Kleshnev(2006) (a) Leg emphasis stroke style (b)
Trunk emphasis stroke style 74
3.25 Rower position during the start stroke of the study 74
3.26 Body segment velocity analyses using Kinovea
software 76
3.27 CFD model for the rowing style 77
4.1 Strain distribution on the oar due to the force applied 80
4.2 Compression strain happen on the oar shaft due to the
force applied 80
4.3 The strain-force graph for the strain gauge calibration. 82
4.4 a) Rower equipped with the marker for video analysis
b) Kinematic of rower for the first stroke 85
4.5 Handle and blade force act on the oar 86
4.6 Angular speed of the oar during the start and rowing
boat velocity profile 90
5.1 Comparison between normal force of the blade for big
CFD domain size and small CFD domain size. 96
5.2 Comparison between normal force of the blade for the
blade model with shaft attachment and without
attachment 97
5.3 Comparison between normal force of the blade for CFD
study which considered the free surface effect and CFD
study ignore the free surface effect 98
xvii
5.4 Plotted total pressure acting on the blade at the 0.0 to
0.4 m of distance which show by the dot line for the
different mesh sizes 98
5.5 Comparison between normal force obtained using
experimental approach and computational study for
Macon blade model. 100
5.6 The blade projection path during drive phase 101
5.7 Pressure distribution on the blade during the stroke (a)
Blades projection during the 1.4 s drive phase for
Macon, Big blade and Fat blade (b) Pressure
distribution at the peak force or 0.6 s drive time. 102
5.8 LEV circulation around the blade (a) LEV circulation of
Macon blade (b) LEV circulation of Big blade (c) LEV
circulation of Fat blade (d) Distance between LEV
circulation and tip of Macon blade (e) Distance
between LEV circulation and tip of Big blade (f)
Distance between LEV circulation and tip of Fat blade 104
5.9 Plotted graph of force component acting on the blade;
(a) comparison between experimental and CFD result of
the normal force of Macon blade model and CFD result
of the normal force acting on the Big and Fat blade, (b)
shear force acting on the blade models and (c)
hydrodynamic force acting on the blade models 105
5.10 Force acting on the blade according to the boat direction
(a) Drag force, Fx (b) Lift force, Fy 108
5.11 Mesh convergence study of the model 110
5.12 Comparison of current simulation study with the
previous CFD and experimental measurement; (a) blade
drag coefficient and (b) blade lift coefficient. 111
5.13 Comparison between; (a) drag coefficient of the blades
and (b) lift coefficient of the blades 112
5.14 Pressure distributions on the blade; (a-c) Macon blade,
Big blade and Fat blade positioned at 45 degrees of
xviii
angle of attack and (d-e) Macon blade, Big blade and
Fat blade positioned at 90 degrees of angle of attack. 113
5.15 Fluid streamline around the blade and pressure
distribution on the blade; (a)-(c) blade aspect ratio,
respectively for AR1, AR2 and AR3, (d)-(f) blade
curvature respectively for C1, C2 and C3, (g)-(j) Blade
profile respectively for BP1, BP2, BP3 and BP4 and
(k) Blade positioning for IB. 115
6.1 Comparison between mean value and standard deviation
of parameters for leg and trunk emphasis rowing style 121
6.2 Body segment speed during stroke; (a) at early stroke
and (b) approximate near to finish 125
6.3 Comparison between speed obtained from encoder
sensor and speed obtained from video analysis using
Kinovea software. 126
6.4 (a) Leg emphasized rowing style (b)Trunk emphasized
of the rowing style 128
6.5 Blade projection path during stroke; (a) blade projection
path of the leg emphasized of the rowing style and (b)
blade projection path of the trunk emphasized of the
rowing stye 130
6.6 Total pressure counter around the blade during the drive
phase for leg and trunk emphasis 131
xix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3D - Three dimensional
CFD - Computational fluid dynamic
FEA - Finite Element Analysis
FISA - International Rowing Federation
FSI - Fluid structure interaction
ISAK - International standards for anthropometric assessment
LEV - Leading edge vortex
NI - National Instruments
RANS - Reynold average Navier-Stoke
SD - Standard deviation
SST - Menter's Shear Stress Transport
xx
LIST OF SYMBOLS
∇ - Nable operator
Ao - Projection area
Cd - Drag coefficient
Cl - Lift coefficient
Cp - Hydrodynamic coefficient
d - Outboard length
dr - Degree of freedom
f - External force
Fd - Drag Force
FD - Skin drag force
Fl - Lift force
Fn - Normal force
FP - Hydrodynamic force
Fr - Handle force
FT - Boat thrust force
Ft - Shear force
Fx - Force in x direction
Fy - Force in y direction
Fx - Force in x direction
Fy - Force in y direction
g - Gravity
h - Depth of fluid
h - Parallel axis to blade surface
I - Identity matrix
K - Number of pulse
xxi
k-ω - k-omega turbulence model
l - Inboard length
lb - Travelling boat distance
mboat - Mass boat
mcrew - Mass crew
�� �� - Mass flow rate of water
n - Normal axis to blade surface
nr - Number of rower
p - Fluid pressure
P - Significant level
Pdynamic - Dynamic pressure
Pstatic - Static pressure
Ptotal - Total pressure
q - The distance of the vector to the axis of blade rotation
r - Correlation coefficient
R - Electrical Resistance
t - Time
T - Transpose for matrix calculation
tt - t-value of t-test
�́��́ - Reynold stress tensor
v - Fluid velocity v = (v1,v2,v3)
- Kinematic viscosity
v́ - Turbulence velocity fluctuating.
v� - Average fluid velocity
v � - Mean velocity component in xi direction
Vboat - Velocity boat
Vcrew - Velocity crew
VExt - External voltage
vf - Normal component of water velocity
vfs - Normal component of free surface velocity
v - Mean velocity component in xj direction
vr - Relative speed
xxii
Xboat - X boat axis
xi - xi direction
xj - xj direction
Yboat - Y boat axis
�� - Oar efficiency
θt - Oar accuracy test angle
θ - Oar swing angle for calibration
θ� - Angle between Fp to boat direction
θ� � - Oar angular speed
θ� � - Oar angular rotate the fulcrum
θc - Catch angle
θs - Submerge angle
� - Fluid dynamic viscosity
ρ - Fluid density
σn - Strain of blade shaft
σr - Strain of handle shaft
τij - Fluid shear stress
ω - Rotational rate
xxiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE PAGE
A Rowing dynamic engineering drawing 150
B Oar blade engineering drawing 152
C Star CCM+ sumarry report 155
D Publication 160
E SPSS Statistical data 161
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Rowing is one of the oldest Olympic sports. The first rowing event is held
in 1900 Olympic games [1, 2]. Basically, the rowing boat is propelled by using the
oar where the blade is submerged, and the handle is pulled to generate the
hydrodynamic force. The performance is depending on the use of the human's
ability and sport equipment. Both of aspects should match properly to successfully
competing for the highest level such as World competition or Olympic Games.
A clear understanding of the rower biomechanics is very well related to
kinetic, kinematic, physiological, and anthropometrics of the rower and it brings
major attention to the sport community. By altering the function and utilization of
the body segment, it enables the responsible party to cope with demand of the sport
performance.
The stroke of the rowing involves the coordination of legs, trunk and arms
segments at certain sequences which are categorized as a cyclic type of sport [3, 4].
The stroke is divided into four phases which are catch, drive, finish and recovery
phase [4, 5].
2
Rowing style involving body position of the catch, timing and body
segment emphasis [6]. Rowing style and boat performance can be evaluated using
the handle force profile generated during the stroke. Currently, researchers begin to
explore the definition of the ideal force profile to enhance the performance and
maximise the utilization of rower biomechanics [5]. Normally the highest work
generate by the rower produces the fastest boat speeds. However as there is a
limitation on the physiological of the rower’s body, thus the most suitable rowing
style needs in depth exploration.
The hydrodynamics force is used to overcome the boat drag and thereby
accelerate the boat. Skillful rowing technique enhances the hydrodynamic force and
improves the boat speed. In addition, the use of advance technology in producing
better equipment accelerates the enhancement process. In the competition, there are
three types of commonly used blade: Macon, Big blade and Fat blade [7-9]. Thus, a
proper understanding of the fluid flow around the blade is necessary to improve the
blade performance. Meanwhile, the blade slips problem and the inefficiency in
blade propulsive are among the main problem which affects the rowing
performance [10, 11]. Further assessment of each blade’s features towards the
hydrodynamic force deepens the understanding of the fluid mechanics of the blade
propulsive.
Selection of the best rowing style and the blade design are the important
factor that contribute to the increase of rowing performance. Varieties of blade
design and rowing styles used by the rower contribute to variety of rower kinematic
and hydrodynamic performance of the blade. Rower kinematic can be assessed by
using video analysis where interested body segments are emphasised. Meanwhile,
the hydrodynamic force of the blade associated fluid flows around the blade of the
different rowing styles can be extracted by using computational study due to the
limitations of the experimental study.
3
1.2 Problem statement
Rower forces profile, physiological and anthropometry of the rower, fluid
dynamic around the blade and optimization of blade design have been explored by
the previous researchers [5, 9, 12-16]. However, coupling mechanism between
biomechanics of the rower and hydrodynamic of the blade during the stroke
received less attention. Biomechanics is interested in figuring out how the rower
converts his physiological capacity in order to propel the boat by using
hydrodynamic force. Even so, most of these studies that focus on the blade have
simplified the rowing stroke mechanism which causes the analysis to be regarded
as not optimum. The deficiency is happening due to the complexity of the rowing
system that leads the analysis of biomechanics and hydrodynamics as undefined.
Moreover, most of the researchers tend to analyse the biomechanics’ aspect directly
with the boat speed by neglecting the hydrodynamics effect on the oar blade or the
other way around.
To date, there is limited research related to the fluid flow around the oar
blade that considering the factor human power [7, 9, 17-19]. A study of this topic
would elucidate the unsteady fluid mechanics around the oar blade of the drive
phases. In the competition, there are three types of commonly used blades.
However, the issue has been raised and the question needs to be answered is how
the blade really works. It is lift-induce or drag-induced mechanism and how the
force is generated [4, 9, 20, 21]. This issue deserves to be questioned since there are
several studies focused on the blade but the conclusions gained are different.
Besides that, this study also allows further investigation into areas for optimization
and improvement. The blade designs have been changed several times, however its
performance has not been tested for a detailed qualitative assessment of what would
constitute as an effective design and utilization.
Besides that, the biomechanics evaluation of the rower stroke is limited and
the related studies do not cover the effect of the stroke styles to the rowing
performance. Usually on-the-water evaluation, a method known as ‘seat racing’ is
4
used [22-24]. It is done by using a boat of four where the boats are lined up to race
against each other. After the established and fixed distance, the coach would
measure the disparity between the two boats based on the racing time. Through the
method, technique assessment applied is not precise because the evaluation
depends on the coach‘s experience and judgment is made based on the visual
consideration. Previously V. Kleshnev (2006), reported the four rowing styles are
classified according to the body position, timing and body emphasis [6]. This is a
good approach to enhance the rowing biomechanics. However, the advantages of
each style towards the performance are not reported which leaves a big question.
1.3 Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study are outline as follow:
1. To evaluate the coupling mechanism between rower biomechanics and the
blade hydrodynamics
2. To assess the fluid flow around the blade and the hydrodynamic force generated
on existing blade designs by using Computational Fluid Dynamic analysis.
3. To compare between two different stroke styles which focusing on the rower
leg and trunk.
1.4 Scope of the study
In investigating the biomechanics and the hydrodynamics of the rowing, a
dynamic rowing simulator is used to replicate the actual rowing mechanics under
control condition. The study is carried out using two main methods, experimental
and computational study. The experimental study is used to obtain the rower handle
and blade force, kinematics, angular speed of the oar and the boat translation speed.
5
The oar angular speed and the boat translation speed are then assigned as the input
into the computational study. The scope of the study is simplified as the following
list:
a) Boat motion is controlled using rail and allowed to move in one degree of
freedom
b) Biomechanics of rowing is focused on the single rower for the sweep type oar
and boat.
c) Rower kinematics is captured using video and analysed using motion
software
d) Biomechanics of the rower is fixed to the handle force profile and rower
kinematic for each rowing style.
e) Blade designs and features are only focused on commercial blade model:
Macon blade, Big blade and Fat blade.
f) Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) and experimental study are used in order
to assess the effect of the rowing styles to hydrodynamic of the blade.
g) The study is focused on the start of the race which the data of the first three
strokes are captured.
1.5 Significant of the study
There are several studies reported in force profile, biomechanics influenced
factor, rower kinematic, flow around the blade, and blade design towards the
performance [7, 12, 13, 22, 25, 26]. However, the studies of those aspects are done
separately although the real rowing system combined all of them together as one
system. Thus there are missing information especially in the study coupling
mechanism between rower and oar blade need to be taken into account, thus a new
comprehensive study is necessary to deepen our knowledge about rowing.
6
The existing blade designs used in competition indicates the improvement
in performance especially for Macon blade and Big blade. However, there is no
paper reported on Fat blade. In previous study, it is stated that under the quasi-static
condition, Big blade is assessed to improve the performance about 2% higher
compared to Macon blade [7]. Unfortunately, there are only a few studies
comparing the performance of each blade design specifically under the dynamic
condition in which hydrodynamic force is generated due to the relative speed
between the oar and boat. Therefore the computational simulation applied in the
study improvises the previous study by providing the hydrodynamic force of the
blade which moving dynamically due to rower stroke of the drives phase.
The rowing style can influence the rowing performance through the
optimization of the rower biomechanics [6, 13]. The study explores the differences
in rowing style and contributes to deepen the knowledge to enhance the
performance by helping the rower to maximise the power produced and minimise
the energy lose [27, 28].
Finally, the development of the method and analysis bring the rowing to
great progress in the biomechanics as well as hydrodynamic aspect. The coach
does not need to solely rely on his or her eyes only as has been applied on the
training session [24]. Besides that, the introduction of the proposed study would
help to bring this sport technology to the new levels in sport engineering. Through
further research, a definition of the ideal force profile, as well as other parameters,
may transpire. The efforts of the rowing crew could be reviewed after the
assessment session. The method could also provide the rower and coach with
important technical information. Besides, monitoring stroke timing and force
generated. Optimization of force application also could be analysed and the rower
could inspect his or her performance for each of the stroke.
7
1.6 Thesis organization
This thesis consists of seven chapters (Figure 1.1). Chapter 1 is an
introduction which consists of the background study, problem statement, the
objective of the study, the scope of the study, significant of the study and thesis
organization. Chapter 2 contains literature review which reviews all papers related
to the study and place the research work in the right boarder. Chapter 3 elaborates
the method used in the study and it is organised into three main subtopics. The first
subtopic is experimental study used to evaluate the coupling mechanism between
biomechanics and hydrodynamics of the rowing. The second subtopic is followed
by a computational study which replicated the real mechanics of blade propulsive
and investigates the blade features based on quasi-static condition. The third
subtopic elaborates the method used to asses rowing styles. An elaborated
assessment of the coupling mechanism analysis is delivered on Chapter 4.
Meanwhile, in chapter 5, it elucidates the topic about blade propulsive mechanics.
Chapter 6 then focuses more on the rowing styles which expands the previous two
chapters in detail. Chapter 7 is the final chapter which describes the conclusion of
the study other than discussing some limitation and recommendations for further
improvement the future work.
Figure 1.1: Thesis organization chart.
136
REFERENCES
1. B. P. De Coubertin, “The Meeting of the Olympian Games,” The North
American Review, vol. 170, no. 523, pp. 802-811, 1900.
2. C. M. Hernández, "History of Olympic Rowing in Cuba." p. 100.
3. V. Kleshnev, “Segments contribution to the stroke length and rower power.
Higher percentage of the trunk power helps to achieve higher boat speed,”
Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 2, no. 2, February, 2002.
4. N. Caplan, A. Coppel, and T. Gardner, “A review of propulsive mechanisms
in rowing,” Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P:
Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2010.
5. A. Baudouin, and D. Hawkins, “A biomechanical review of factors affecting
rowing performance,” British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 36, no. 6, pp.
396-402, December 1, 2002, 2002.
6. V. Kleshnev, “Rowing styles,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 6 no.
60, March, 2006.
7. N. Caplan, and T. N. Gardner, “A fluid dynamic investigation of the Big
Blade and Macon oar blade designs in rowing propulsion,” Journal of Sports
Sciences, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 643-650, 2007.
8. T. G. A. Coppel, N. Caplan, D. Hargreaves, “Oar blade force coefficients and
a mathematical model rowing,” 27 International Conference on
Biomechanics in Sports (2009), 2009.
9. N. Caplan, and T. N. Gardner, “Optimization of oar blade design for
improved performance in rowing,” Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 25, no.
13, pp. 1471-1478, 2007/11/01, 2007.
10. V. Kleshnev, "Propulsive efficiency of rowing." pp. 224-228.
11. K. Affeld, K. Schichl, and A. Ziemann, “Assessment of rowing efficiency,”
International journal of sports medicine, vol. 14, pp. S39-41, 1993.
137
12. A. Baudouin, and D. Hawkins, “Investigation of biomechanical factors
affecting rowing performance,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 37, no. 7, pp.
969-976, 2004.
13. R. S. Barrett, and J. M. Manning, “Relationships between rigging set-up,
anthropometry, physical capacity, rowing kinematics and rowing
performance,” Sports biomechanics / International Society of Biomechanics
in Sports, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 221-235, 2004/07//, 2004.
14. M. M. Doyle, A. Lyttle, and B. Elliott, “Comparison of force-related
performance indicators between heavyweight and lightweight rowers,” Sports
Biomechanics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 178-192, 2010.
15. A. Sliasas, and S. Tullis, “The dynamic flow behaviour of an oar blade in
motion using a hydrodynamics-based shell-velocity-coupled model of a
rowing stroke,” Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 9-24,
2010.
16. A. Coppel, T. Gardner, N. Caplan, and D. Hargreaves, "Numerical Modelling
of the Flow Around Rowing Oar Blades (P71)," The Engineering of Sport 7,
pp. 353-361: Springer, 2008.
17. A. Coppel, T. N. Gardner, N. Caplan, and D. Hargreaves, “Simulating the
fluid dynamic behaviour of oar blades in competition rowing,” Proceedings
of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports
Engineering and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 25-35, 2010.
18. A. Sliasas, and S. Tullis, “Numerical modelling of rowing blade
hydrodynamics,” Sports Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 31-40, 2009/12/01,
2009.
19. A. Leroyer, S. Barré, J.-M. Kobus, and M. Visonneau, “Experimental and
numerical investigations of the flow around an oar blade,” Journal of Marine
Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-15, 2008.
20. D. Kim, and M. Gharib, “Characteristics of vortex formation and thrust
performance in drag-based paddling propulsion,” Journal of Experimental
Biology, vol. 214, no. 13, pp. 2283-2291, 2011.
21. T. Kinoshita, M. Miyashita, H. Kobayashi, and T. Hino, "Rowing Velocity
Prediction Program with Estimating Hydrodynamic Load Acting on an Oar
138
Blade," Bio-mechanisms of Swimming and Flying, N. Kato and S. Kamimura,
eds., pp. 345-359: Springer Japan, 2008.
22. K. C. Pilgeram, and M. J. Delwiche, “Device for on-the-water measurement
of rowing output,” Sports Engineering, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 165-174, 2006.
23. J. Lok, and M. De Rond, “On the plasticity of institutions: Containing and
restoring practice breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club,”
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 185-207, 2013.
24. Y. Koutedakis, “The role of physiological assessment in team selection with
special reference to rowing,” British journal of sports medicine, vol. 23, no.
1, pp. 51, 1989.
25. A. Leroyer, S. Barré, J.-M. Kobus, and M. Visonneau, “Influence of free
surface, unsteadiness and viscous effects on oar blade hydrodynamic loads,”
Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1287-1298, 2010/10/01, 2010.
26. P. N. Page, and D. Hawkins, “A real-time biomechanical feedback system for
training rowers,” Sports Engineering, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 67-79, 2003.
27. V. Kleshnev, “Trends of the race strategy over the last 10 years in different
placeholders; Prognosis till 2008. Optimal race strategy.,” Rowing
Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 2, no. 19, 2002.
28. V. Kleshnev, “Racing strategy in rowing during Sydney Olympic Games,”
Australian rowing, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 20-23, 2001.
29. B. Laschowski, V. Nolte, M. Adamovsky, and R. Alexander, “The effects of
oar-shaft stiffness and length on rowing biomechanics,” Proceedings of The
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering
and Technology, pp. 1754337115582121, 2015.
30. A. Greidanus, R. Delfos, and J. Westerweel, “Rowing faster by surface
treatment,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 34, pp. 361-366, 2012.
31. R. Smith, "The relationship between seat movement and boat acceleration
during sculling."
32. J. M. Steinacker, W. Lormes, M. Lehmann, and D. Altenburg, “Training of
rowers before world championships,” Medicine and science in sports and
exercise, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1158-1163, 1998.
33. H. Perkin, “Teaching the nations how to play: sport and society in the British
empire and Commonwealth,” The International Journal of the History of
Sport, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 145-155, 1989.
139
34. R. Sport, and D. Paintworks, “FISA Rule Book.”
35. U. R. R. Committee, “Rules of Rowing,” Princeton, NJ: The United States
Rowing Association, 2008.
36. V. Kleshnev, “Analysis of the race start,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter,
vol. 9, no. 1, 2009.
37. T. S. Nilsen, T. Daigneault, and M. Smith, Basic rowing physiology: FISA
Development Commission, 1990.
38. V. Kleshnev, “Stroke rate vs. distance in rowing during the Sydney
Olympics,” Australian Institute of Sport Australian Rowing, vol. 24(2), , pp.
18-22, April 2001, 2001.
39. V. Kleshnev, “The effect of stroke rate on biomechanical parameters and
efficiency of rowing,” XIV symposium ISBS, proceeding, Lisboa, Portugal,
pp. 321-325, 1996.
40. F. Akça, “Prediction of rowing ergometer performance from functional
anaerobic power, strength and anthropometric components,” Journal of
human kinetics, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 133-142, 2014.
41. V. Kleshnev, “Race strategy on the last Worlds; Race tactics in the finalist
and countries specifics. Marker on the oar shaft and blade depth,” Rowing
Biomechanics Newsletter, vol. 1, no. 10, 2001.
42. N. H. Secher, “Physiological and biomechanical aspects of rowing,” Sports
medicine, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 24-42, 1993.
43. V. Kleshnev, “Moving the Rowers: biomechanical background,” Australian
Rowing, Carine, WA, vol. 25, pp. 16-19, 2002.
44. A. Sliasas, and S. Tullis, “Modelling the effect of oar shaft bending during
the rowing stroke,” Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, vol. 225, no. 4, pp.
265-270, 2011.
45. V. Kleshnev, “Segments contribution to the stroke length and rowing power.
Higher percentage of trunk powerb help to achieve higher boat speed,”
Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter, vol. 2, no. 2, February, 2002.
46. “Oar Length,” http://www.concept2.com/oars/oar-options/length.
47. V. Kleshnev, “Biomechanics of rowing,” Rowing Faster. Second edition.
Serious training for serious rowers. Human Kinetics, pp. 105-121, 2011.
140
48. C. L. Rao, J. Lakshinarashiman, R. Sethuraman, and S. M. Sivakumar,
Engineering Mechanics: Statics and Dynamics: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2003.
49. N. Sclater, and N. P. Chironis, Mechanisms and mechanical devices
sourcebook: McGraw-Hill New York, 2001.
50. J. McLester, and P. S. Pierre, Applied biomechanics: concepts and
connections: Nelson Education, 2007.
51. V. Nolte, “Shorter oars are more effective,” Journal of applied biomechanics,
vol. 25, no. 1, 2009.
52. F. K. Fuss, S. Fundel, Y. Weizman, and R. M. Smith, “Smart Oar Blade for
Hydrodynamic Analysis of Rowing,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 147, pp.
735-740, 2016.
53. D. Cabrera, A. Ruina, and V. Kleshnev, “A simple 1+ dimensional model of
rowing mimics observed forces and motions,” Human movement science, vol.
25, no. 2, pp. 192-220, 2006.
54. D. Cabrera, and A. Ruina, “Propulsive efficiency of rowing oars,” Submitted
to Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2006.
55. D. Pendergast, P. Zamparo, P. E. di Prampero, C. Capelli, P. Cerretelli, A.
Termin, A. Craig, D. Bushnell, D. Paschke, and J. Mollendorf, “Energy
balance of human locomotion in water,” European Journal of Applied
Physiology, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 377-386, 2003.
56. W. C. Atkinson, “Oar blade efficiency,” Retrieved Feb. 1, 2005 from the
World Wide Web:http://www.atkinsopht.com/row/rowrpage.htm . 2004.
57. R. M. Alexander, “Mechanics of animal movement,” Current biology, vol.
15, no. 16, pp. R616-R619, 2005.
58. H. Hatze, “The meaning of the term ‘biomechanics’,” Journal of
Biomechanics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 189-190, 1974.
59. V. Nolte, “Introduction to the biomechanics of rowing,” FISA coach, vol. 2,
no. 1, pp. 1-6, 1991.
60. V. Kleshnev, “Experimental data on comparison of rowing on-water with
Concept-II and RowPerfect ergometers.,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters,
vol. 5, no. 3, 2005.
61. C. Soper, and P. A. Hume, “Towards an ideal rowing technique for
performance,” Sports Medicine, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 825-848, 2004.
141
62. B. Sanderson, and W. Martindale, “Towards optimizing rowing technique,”
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 454-468,
1986.
63. L. Formaggia, A. Mola, N. Parolini, and M. Pischiutta, “A three-dimensional
model for the dynamics and hydrodynamics of rowing boats,” Proceedings of
The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports
Engineering and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 51-61, March 1, 2010,
2010.
64. V. Kleshnev, “Power in rowing,” International research in sports
biomechanics, pp. 224-230, 2002.
65. M. N. Macrossan, and N. W. Macrossan, Back-splash in rowing-shell
propulsion, 2006.
66. V. Kleshnev, “Vertical seat force; Lift force and the height of the handle and
foot-stretcher. Optimal height of the handle; Push foot-stretcher with toes at
catch; Horizontal drive.,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 2, no. 5,
2002.
67. V. Kleshnev, “Force and power in rowing,” Rowing Biomechanics
Newsletters, vol. 14, no. 156, 2014.
68. R. M. Smith, and C. Loschner, “Biomechanics feedback for rowing,” Journal
of Sports Sciences, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 783-791, 2002.
69. V. Kleshnev, “Vertical Handle Force,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters,
vol. 13, no. 143, 2013.
70. V. Kleshnev, “Comparison of measurements of the force at the oar handle
and at the gate or pin,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 10, no. 108,
2010.
71. P. Schwanitz, “Applying biomechanics to improve rowing performance,”
FISA coach, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1-7, 1991.
72. P. Pudlo, A. Pinti, and F. Lepoutre, “Experimental laboratory apparatus to
analyze kinematics and 3D kinetics in rowing,” Sports Engineering, vol. 8,
no. 1, pp. 39-46, 2005.
73. T. Černe, R. Kamnik, and M. Munih, “The measurement setup for real-time
biomechanical analysis of rowing on an ergometer,” Measurement, vol. 44,
no. 10, pp. 1819-1827, 2011.
142
74. M. N. Macrossan, and M. Kamphorst, Computational study of the Froude
number effects on the flow around a rowing blade, 2009.
75. A. L. Coppel, “A computional fluid dynamic investigation of rowing oar
blades,” PHD Thesis, The University of Birminghan, School of Sport and
Exercise Sciences, 2010.
76. S. Pati, A Textbook on Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines: Tata
McGraw Hill, 2012.
77. W. Benenson, J. W. Harris, H. Stöcker, and H. Lutz, Handbook of physics:
Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
78. R. W. Johnson, Handbook of fluid dynamics: Crc Press, 2016.
79. R. Smith, and C. Draper, "Quantitative characteristics of coxless pair-oar
rowing ".
80. R. Smith, and C. Draper, "Controlling yaw in a pair rowing boat."
81. A. Sliasas, and S. Tullis, “A hydrodynamics-based model of a rowing stroke
simulating effects of drag and lift on oar blade efficiency for various cant
angles,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2857-2862, 2010.
82. S. Barre, Kobus, J-M, “Comparison between common models of forces on
oar blades and forces measured by towing tank tests,” Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering
and Technology, , vol. vol. 224, pp. 37-50, Mar 2010 2010.
83. S. Barré, and J. Kobus, “Comparison between common models of forces on
oar blades and forces measured by towing tank tests,” Proceedings of The
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering
and Technology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 37-50, 2010.
84. I. H. Abbott, Theory of wing sections, including a summary of airfoil data:
Courier Dover Publications, 1959.
85. N. Caplan, and T. Gardner, “A mathematical model of the oar blade–water
interaction in rowing,” Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1025-
1034, 2007.
86. T. Chacón Rebollo, and R. Lewandowski, "Incompressible Navier–Stokes
Equations," Mathematical and Numerical Foundations of Turbulence Models
and Applications, pp. 7-44, New York, NY: Springer New York, 2014.
143
87. M. A. Olshanskii, and A. Reusken, “Navier--Stokes Equations in Rotation
Form: A Robust Multigrid Solver for the Velocity Problem,” SIAM Journal
on Scientific Computing, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1683-1706, 2002.
88. R. Bhaskaran, and L. Collins, “Introduction to CFD basics,” Cornell
University-Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 2002.
89. J. Anderson Jr, "Governing equations of fluid dynamics," Computational
fluid dynamics, pp. 15-51: Springer, 2009.
90. R. Adrian, K. Christensen, and Z.-C. Liu, “Analysis and interpretation of
instantaneous turbulent velocity fields,” Experiments in Fluids, vol. 29, no. 3,
pp. 275-290, 2000.
91. G. Cowles, and L. Martinelli, "A viscous multiblock flow solver for free-
surface calculations on complex geometries."
92. Y. Giga, K. Inui, A. Mahalov, and S. y. Matsui, “Navier-Stokes equations in
a rotating frame in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with initial data nondecreasing at
infinity,” no. 2, pp. 321-364, 2006/05, 2006.
93. R. Codina, “Numerical Solution of the Incompressible Navier–Stokes
Equations with Coriolis Forces Based on the Discretization of the Total Time
Derivative,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 148, no. 2, pp. 467-496,
1999/01/20, 1999.
94. V. Kleshnev, “Blade propulsive efficiency; Hydro-lift and drag forces on the
blade.,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol. 7, no. 81, 2007.
95. V. Kleshnev, “Points of force application to the oar and efficiency of various
blade designs,” www.biorow.com/Papers_files/, 2003.
96. E. Meier, "The wood database," View, 2013.
97. A. Smith, S. J. Wilkinson, and W. N. Reynolds, “The elastic constants of
some epoxy resins,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 547-550,
1974.
98. Ibtihal-Al-Namie, “Study the Mechanical Properties of Epoxy Resin
Reinforced With silica (quartz) and Alumina Particles,” The Iraqi Journal
For Mechanical And Material Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, 2011.
99. H. Rahmani, S. H. Mahmoudi, and A. Ashori, “Mechanical performance of
epoxy/carbon fiber laminated composites,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics
and Composites, pp. 0731684413518255, 2014.
144
100. V. Micro-Measurements, “The three-wire quarter-bridge circuit,” Application
note TT, vol. 612, pp. 221-223, 2010.
101. V. Kleshnev, “Boat acceleration, temporal structure of the stroke cycle, and
effectiveness in rowing,” Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, vol. 224,
no. 1, pp. 63-74, 2010.
102. C. Y. Piaw, "Mastering Research Statistics," Shah Alam, Malaysia: Mc Graw
Hill Education, 2013.
103. M. Wunderlich, T. Rüther, D. Essfeld, T. C. Erren, C. Piekarski, and D. Leyk,
“A new approach to assess movements and isometric postures of spine and
trunk at the workplace,” European Spine Journal, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1393-
1402, 2011.
104. L. Machado, J. Ribeiro, L. Costa, A. Silva, A. Rouboa, N. Mantripragada, D.
Marinho, R. Fernandes, and J. Paulo, "The effect of depth on the drag force
during underwater gliding: a CFD approach."
105. J. F. a. M. Peri´, Computational methods for fluid dynamics: Berlin: Springer,
2002.
106. G. Houzeaux, B. Eguzkitza, R. Aubry, H. Owen, and M. Vázquez, “A
Chimera method for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations,”
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol. 75, no. 3, pp.
155-183, 2014.
107. S. Binning, and C. Fulton, “Non‐lethal measurement of pectoral fin aspect
ratio in coral‐reef fishes,” Journal of fish biology, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 812-818,
2011.
108. A. C. DeVoria, and M. J. Ringuette, “Vortex formation and saturation for
low-aspect-ratio rotating flat-plate fins,” Experiments in Fluids, vol. 52, no.
2, pp. 441-462, 2012.
109. M.-C. Hsu, and Y. Bazilevs, “Fluid–structure interaction modeling of wind
turbines: simulating the full machine,” Computational Mechanics, vol. 50,
no. 6, pp. 821-833, 2012.
110. M. Beddhu, L. K. Taylor, and D. L. Whitfield, “Strong conservative form of
the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations in a rotating frame with a
solution procedure,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 128, no. 2, pp.
427-437, 1996.
145
111. V. Kleshnev, Rowing Biomechanics: Biorower, 2006.
112. M. J. Marfell-Jones, A. Stewart, and J. de Ridder, International standards for
anthropometric assessment, 2012.
113. A. Russell, P. L. Rossignol, and W. Sparrow, “Prediction of elite schoolboy
2000-m rowing ergometer performance from metabolic, anthropometric and
strength variables,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 749-754,
1998.
114. C. Balsalobre-Fernández, C. M. Tejero-González, J. del Campo-Vecino, and
N. Bavaresco, “The concurrent validity and reliability of a low-cost, high-
speed camera-based method for measuring the flight time of vertical jumps,”
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 528-
533, 2014.
115. J. Charmant, "Kinovea Version 0.8. 15," 2012.
116. H. Galbraith, J. Scurr, C. Hencken, L. Wood, and P. Graham-Smith,
“Biomechanical comparison of the track start and the modified one-handed
track start in competitive swimming: an intervention study,” Journal of
applied biomechanics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 307-315, 2008.
117. A. Hohmann, U. Fehr, R. Kirsten, and T. Krüger, “Biomechanical analysis of
the backstroke start technique in swimming,” E-Journal Bewegung und
Training, vol. 2, pp. 28-33, 2008.
118. M. L. Novais, A. J. Silva, V. R. Mantha, R. J. Ramos, A. I. Rouboa, J. P.
Vilas-Boas, S. R. Luís, and D. A. Marinho, “The Effect of Depth on Drag
During the Streamlined Glide: A Three-Dimensional CFD Analysis,” Journal
of Human Kinetics, vol. 33, pp. 55-62, 2012.
119. M. N. Macrossan, and N. W. Macrossan, Energy efficiency of the rowing oar
from catch to square-off, 2008.
120. V. Kleshnev, “Oar inertia forces,” Rowing Biomechanics Newsletters, vol.
170, 2015.
121. A. M. Wing, and C. Woodburn, “The coordination and consistency of rowers
in a racing eight,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 187-197,
1995.
122. M. Kaya, et al, "Motion analysis of optimal rowing form by using
biomechanical model." pp. 1281-1282.
123. F. M. White, "Fluid Mechanics,(2003)," McGraw-Hill, 2003.
146
124. R. Harbig, J. Sheridan, and M. Thompson, “The role of advance ratio and
aspect ratio in determining leading-edge vortex stability for flapping flight,”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 751, pp. 71-105, 2014.
125. N. Phillips, K. Knowles, and R. J. Bomphrey, “The effect of aspect ratio on
the leading-edge vortex over an insect-like flapping wing,” Bioinspiration &
biomimetics, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 056020, 2015.
126. K. Hord, and Y. Lian, “Leading Edge Vortex Circulation Development on
Finite Aspect Ratio Pitch-Up Wings,” AIAA Journal, pp. 2755-2767, 2016.
127. M.-H. Chung, “Numerical study of rowing hydrofoil performance at low
Reynolds numbers,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 313-
335, 2008.
128. A. H. Day, I. Campbell, D. Clelland, and J. Cichowicz, “An experimental
study of unsteady hydrodynamics of a single scull,” Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the
Maritime Environment, vol. 225, no. 3, pp. 282-294, August 1, 2011, 2011.
129. V. Kleshnev, “Estimation of biomechanical parameters and propulsive
efficiency of rowing,” Australian Institute of Sport, 1998.
130. J. V. Akwa, H. A. Vielmo, and A. P. Petry, “A review on the performance of
Savonius wind turbines,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol.
16, no. 5, pp. 3054-3064, 2012.
131. M. R. Ahmed, M. Faizal, and Y.-H. Lee, “Optimization of blade curvature
and inter-rotor spacing of Savonius rotors for maximum wave energy
extraction,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 65, pp. 32-38, 2013.
132. M. Anbarsooz, “Aerodynamic performance of helical Savonius wind rotors
with 30° and 45° twist angles: Experimental and numerical studies,”
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of
Power and Energy, pp. 0957650916648828, 2016.
133. M. Sadraey, Aircraft Performance: Analysis: VDM Publishing, 2009.
134. S. Mansoorzadeh, and E. Javanmard, “An investigation of free surface effects
on drag and lift coefficients of an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV)
using computational and experimental fluid dynamics methods,” Journal of
Fluids and Structures, vol. 51, pp. 161-171, 2014.
147
135. A. D. Lyttle, B. Blanksby, B. Elliot, and D. G. Lloyd, “The effect of depth
and velocity on drag during the streamlined guide,” Journal of Swimming
Research, vol. 13, pp. 15-22, 1998.
136. A. L. Claessens, J. Bourgois, K. Van Aken, R. Van der Auwera, R.
Philippaerts, M. Thomis, J. Vrijens, R. Loos, and J. Lefevre, “Body
proportions of elite male junior rowers in relation to competition level,
rowing style and boat type,” Kineziologija, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 123-132, 2005.
137. P. Droghetti, K. Jensen, and T. Nilsen, “The total estimated metabolic cost of
rowing,” FISA coach, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-4, 1991.
138. C. D. Gayer, Physiological Discriminators of Rowing Performance in Male,
Club Rowers: Washington State University, 1993.
139. K. Tachibana, K. Yashiro, J. Miyazaki, Y. Ikegami, and M. Higuchi, “Muscle
cross-sectional areas and performance power of limbs and trunk in the rowing
motion,” Sports Biomechanics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 44-58, 2007.
140. H. Akima, Y. Kano, Y. Enomoto, M. Ishizu, M. Okada, Y. Oishi, S. Katsuta,
and S.-Y. Kuno, “Muscle function in 164 men and women aged 20-84 yr,”
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 220-226,
2001.
141. W. R. Frontera, V. A. Hughes, R. A. Fielding, M. A. Fiatarone, W. J. Evans,
and R. Roubenoff, “Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-yr longitudinal study,”
Journal of applied physiology, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 1321-1326, 2000.
142. H. Kanehisa, S. Ikegawa, and T. Fukunaga, “Comparison of muscle cross-
sectional area and strength between untrained women and men,” European
journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp.
148-154, 1994.
143. T. J. Overend, D. A. Cunningham, J. F. Kramer, M. S. Lefcoe, and D. H.
Paterson, “Knee extensor and knee flexor strength: cross-sectional area ratios
in young and elderly men,” Journal of gerontology, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. M204-
M210, 1992.
144. R. J. Rodriguez, R. P. Rogriguez, S. Cook, and P. Sandborn,
“Electromyographic analysis of rowing stroke biomechanics,” The Journal of
sports medicine and physical fitness, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 103-108, 1990.
148
145. J.-M. J. Wilson, D. G. E. Robertson, and J. P. Stothart, “Analysis of lower
limb muscle function in ergometer rowing,” International Journal of Sport
Biomechanics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 315-325, 1988.
146. B. Blanksby, L. Nicholson, and B. Elliott, “Swimming: Biomechanical
analysis of the grab, track and handle swimming starts: an intervention
study,” Sports Biomechanics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11-24, 2002.
147. M. Cosgrove, J. Wilson, D. Watt, and S. Grant, “The relationship between
selected physiological variables of rowers and rowing performance as
determined by a 2000 m ergometer test,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 17,
no. 11, pp. 845-852, 1999.
148. C.-J. Huang, T. W. Nesser, and J. E. Edwards, “Strength and power
determinants of rowing performance,” J Exerc Physiol Online, vol. 10, no. 4,
pp. 43-50, 2007.
149. N. H. Secher, “The physiology of rowing,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 1,
no. 1, pp. 23-53, 1983.
150. F. C. Hagerman, “Applied physiology of rowing,” Sports medicine, vol. 1,
no. 4, pp. 303-326, 1984.
151. R. M. A. El-Raheem, R. M. Kamel, and M. F. Ali, “Reliability of using
Kinovea program in measuring dominant wrist joint range of motion,” Trends
in Applied Sciences Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 224, 2015.
152. C. Pollock, I. Jones, T. Jenkyn, T. Ivanova, and S. Garland, “Changes in
kinematics and trunk electromyography during a 2000 m race simulation in
elite female rowers,” Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 478-487, 2012.
153. M. J. Hofmijster, A. Van Soest, and J. J. De Koning, “Rowing skill affects
power loss on a modified rowing ergometer,” Medicine and science in sports
and exercise, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1101, 2008.
154. H. Takagi, S. Sugimoto, N. Nishijima, and B. Wilson, “Swimming:
Differences in stroke phases, arm‐leg coordination and velocity fluctuation
due to event, gender and performance level in breaststroke,” Sports
Biomechanics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 15-27, 2004.
155. K. Thompson, R. Haljand, and D. MacLaren, “An analysis of selected
kinematic variables in national and elite male and female 100-m and 200-m
149
breaststroke swimmers,” Journal of sports sciences, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 421-
431, 2000.
156. A. Von Loebbecke, and R. Mittal, “Comparative analysis of thrust production
for distinct arm-pull styles in competitive swimming,” Journal of
biomechanical engineering, vol. 134, no. 7, pp. 074501, 2012.