Proceedings of PACAM XII 12th Pan-American Congress of Applied Mechanics

J anuary 02-06, 2012, Port of Spain, Trinidad

BIOMECHANICAL STUDY OF THE SHOT PUT AND ANALYSIS OF THE
FLIGHT PHASE
Daniel Vecchio, daniel.vecchio87@gmail.com
Carmen Muller-Karger, cmuller@usb.ve
Biomechanics Research Group, University Simon Bolivar, Caracas, Venezuela

Edgar Salazar, edgarsalazar2@yahoo.com
National Institute of Sport, Biomechanics Laboratory, Caracas, Venezuela

Abstract. In this research a biomechanical study of an athlete during a shot put competition was conducted. The aim
of the study was to gain understanding of the athlete performance and to communicate the knowledge to the coaches to
generate accurate recommendations. The experimental values are the performance results of a Venezuelan female
athlete in the shot put event at the Alba Games held in la Habana in 2009. All attempts, except the first one, were
video-recorded with a high speed camera. A digital anatomical model of the athlete was created using the software hu-
m-an version 5.0. The main biomechanical aspects of the shot put were analyzed; results are presented for joints
angles and velocities, as well as the trajectory of the shot. Subsequently, the release conditions that dictate the flight
phase in each attempt were obtained. A numerical model of the flight phase was developed as a problem of initial
conditions. A comparison between the numerical results and experimental values is presented. A sensitivity analysis of
the parameters that affect the flight and distance of the shot put was performed. The result of the numerical model
showed a maximum relative error of 7.35% respect to the experimental values with a conservative approximation
always less than the real value. The numerical results confirm that the parameter that most affect the final result is the
release velocity.

Keywords: Runge-Kutta, Trajectory, Joints, Release conditions.


1. INTRODUCTION

The final result in a shot put depends essentially on the release conditions and the wind speed, because once it is
launched, the athlete can not influence the flight phase; numerically defined as a problem of initials conditions. To
comply with optimal release characteristics, the athlete must perform a set of previous specifics movements that
requires a high physical preparation and technique. During the flight, the shot is affected by the drag force opposite to
the relative velocity. Environmental characteristics inherent to the regions (pressure, temperature, latitude, and altitude),
presents a lesser rate influence in the flight distances.
The science devoted to study the performance of an athlete, through the analysis of the human movement using the
laws of physics, is the sport biomechanics. In this article the analysis is done using three-dimensional photogrammetric
techniques to quantify the most important kinematics parameters in a throw.
In several articles published, the principal biomechanical characteristics of the shot put are studied to contribute with
the performance of the athletes. Paulino et. al., (2000), conducted a deep analysis of the technique of an athlete of
Extremadura, while Young and Li (2005) determined critical parameters for the seven best places in the 2002 USA
women's national championship. Ariel et. al. (2005) published a study of the Olympic Games held in Athens 2004 for
the best male athletes, evaluating the release conditions of each one. On the other hand Mizera and Horvth (2002)
carried out numerical simulations considering the environmental factors and the Coriolis acceleration. Finally, this
study is born with the need for further evaluation of the shot put biomechanics in Venezuela and will serve as support
and assistance to coaches to optimize the performance of national athletes and get better results at international level
competitions.

2. NOMENCLATURE

rel
v Relative velocity
p
v Shot velocity
w
v Wind velocity
D Drag force
Air density
A Shot area
D
c Drag coefficient
m Mass of the female shot
Release angle
Standard deviation
F1 Initial phase
F2 Sliding phase
Proceedings of PACAM XII 12th Pan-American Congress of Applied Mechanics
J anuary 02-06, 2012, Port of Spain, Trinidad


F3 Transition phase
F4 Final phase
vo Release velocity
h Release height

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Equations of motion

A numerical model of initials conditions has been developed; the equations used are presented in this section.
During the flight, the shot is affected by the drag force, which always opposes the direction of the relative velocity,
wherein Eq. (1):


rel p w
v v v =
uuur uur uur
(1)

Where
p
v
uur
and
w
v
uur
are the velocity vector of the shot and the wind respectively. The magnitude of the drag force
expressed in terms of the drag coefficient
D
c is defined as Eq. (2):


2
1
2
D rel
D A c v = (2)

Where is the air density in the region and A the projected area of the shot (Mizera and Horvth, 2002).
A free body diagram in the transversal plane in a generic instant of the flight phase of the shot put is shown in Fig. 1.
Applying the second law of motion, the equations governing the flight Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) are obtained:



Figure 1. Free body diagram of the shot

1
( cos( )) x D
m
=

(3)

1
( sin( )) y g D
m
= +

(4)

Where m is the shot mass of 4 kg and the release angle, defined by Eq. (5):

tan
w
y
a
x v

(5)

Finally, we only consider the horizontal component of the wind speed. The value of
D
c is 0.47 (Mizera and
Horvth, 2002).

3.2. Experimental data

All the attempts, except the first, of the athlete were video recorded with two high speed cameras of 60 Hz,
separated 65 to each other. Table 1 shows the results obtained by the athlete during the Alba Games in 2009.
Proceedings of PACAM XII 12th Pan-American Congress of Applied Mechanics
J anuary 02-06, 2012, Port of Spain, Trinidad


The digitization of the anatomical landmarks was performed manually frame by frame for the body segments and
the shot, with a posterior smoothing procedure (Garca and Hernndez, 2006). An anatomical model of 23 points, 14
body parts and the shot was used. With the digital model, the software hu-m-an V 5.0 calculates the absolute
coordinates of each anatomical landmark in each frame. A Direct Linear Transformation (DLT), through the software
hu-m-an V 5.0 was performed to obtain the digital model in a three dimensional space. A reference parallelepiped of 18
points, 2 meters long, 1 meter wide and 2 meters high, is used in order to ensure the transformation of the two-
dimensional coordinates.

Table 1. Results for a national (Venezuelan) athlete at Alba Games 2009

Attempt Distance (m)
1 15.23
2 14.51
3 14.80
4 15.24
5 15.13
6 15.05

For the numerical simulations, the differential expressions governing the flight of the shot were resolved using the
four order Runge-Kutta method with the program MathCad and the function rkfixed. The program simulates the flight
for the given initials conditions: release velocity, release angle, release height and wind speed. The integration interval
was 0.05s ensuring a positive convergence.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSION

For this study, the following phases of reference were established (Grande, 2000), as shown in figure 2:
Initial phase (F1): from the first move towards the front of the left leg until the right foot take off the ground.
Sliding phase (F2): stating when the right foot leaves the ground until it resumes contact with the ground again.
Transition phase (F3): from the moment in which the right foot makes contact with the ground until the left foot
makes contact with the ground.
Final phase (F4): since the left foot makes contact to the first instant without contact between the shot and the hand.



Figure 2. Phases of shot put. a) Initial phase. b) Sliding phase. c) Transition phase. d) Final phase.

Using the described events for the experimental results the time duration in each phase is shown in Table 2:

Table 2 Duration in each phase

National athlete Time (s) in each phase
Attempt F1 F2 F3 F4
2 1.07 0.13 0.13 0.27
3 1.17 0.13 0.17 0.25
4 0.98 0.13 0.15 0.27
5 1.03 0.12 0.13 0.28
6 1.02 0.13 0.15 0.25
Average 1.05 0.13 0.15 0.26
0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01

Proceedings of PACAM XII 12th Pan-American Congress of Applied Mechanics
J anuary 02-06, 2012, Port of Spain, Trinidad

Table 2 shows that the duration of the initial phase is excessive [Paulino et al. (2000)], compared to the top athletes
who present duration about half a second approximately [(Lanka, 2000); (Grande, 2000)]. The national Athlete present
an excessive high position of the left leg that increase instability, this represent an increase in time when she has to
descend to maximum flexion to start displacement. This initial position represents losses in release velocity due to an
angular displacement of the trunk respect to the horizontal, losing the linearity of the trajectory of the shot in the hand.
Table 3 compares the angles of the most important joints in the initial position of the national female athlete during the
competition with the referential values described in Lanka 2000.

Table 3. Angular positions of the most important joints in the initial instant of national athlete compared to
referential values (Lanka 2000).

Attempt Right knee () Right hip () Left knee () Right elbow ()
2 151 61 128 93
3 155 64 140 102
4 144 51 134 102
5 145 52 131 83
6 151 57 134 93
Average 149.2 57 133.4 94.6
4.6 5.6 4.4 7.9
Lanka (2000) 108 11.9 109 24.8 80 10.9 65 7.1

Due to these differences in the relative angular position of the joints, the trajectory of the shot in the hand is not
linear and does not comply with the principle of the optimal acceleration, leading to losses in the release velocity of the
shot. Figure 3 shows the behavior of the trajectory of the shot in the hand for the national athlete during competition.



Figure 3.Trajectory of the shot in the hand

Figure 4 shows the behavior of the throw of the national athlete in the overhead view. It is noted that the trajectory
of the shot in the hand is considered adequate since it fulfills almost all the travel characteristics of good throws
described by Lanka, 2000.



Figure 4. Trajectory in overhead view

4.2. Release conditions

After analyzing the most important biomechanical aspects in the throw, the release conditions that dictate the flight
phase of the shot put are known as shown in Table 4.


Proceedings of PACAM XII 12th Pan-American Congress of Applied Mechanics
J anuary 02-06, 2012, Port of Spain, Trinidad


Table 4. Release conditions

National athlete Release conditions
Attempts vo (m/s)
()
h (m) Distance (m)
2 10,89 38,5 2,21 14,51
3 10,94 41,2 2,26 14,80
4 11,22 37,6 2,29 15,24
5 10,96 37,5 2,25 15,13
6 10,87 38,3 2,19 15,05
Average 10,98 38,62 2,24 14,95
0,14 1,51 0,04 0,29

For all the throws, the parameters that most affects the distance achieved is the release velocity [Lanka, (2000)].
Clearly the attempt four has the highest velocity and therefore the best result during the competition for the national
athlete; also had the best release height. However, the average release velocity registered is far from the average
reported by Young and Li (2005), where for the National Championship in USA 2002 was 12.5 m/s.. The release
conditions are the result of all previous described movements. The nonlinearity in the trajectory of the shot in the hand,
caused fundamentally by the initial position taken, generated considerable losses in the velocity.

4.3. Numerical analysis of the flight phase

Next the numerical model, described by Equation (1) to (5) was solved using fourth order Runge-Kutta and the
MathCAD software, considering the initials values shown in Table 4, and wind velocity equal to zero. The Table 5
shows the numerical result with the percentage of relative error.

Table 5. Numerical results

Attempt Result (m) Numerical results. (m) Error (%)
2 14,51 14,02 3,38
3 14,8 14,19 4,12
4 15,24 14,78 3,02
5 15,13 14,17 6,35
6 15,05 13,94 7,38

Figure 5, shows the experimental and numerical curves of the trajectory of the shot in the flight phase for the
attempt four having a relative error of 3.02 %. The experimental curve was obtained as a quadratic approximation with
the known values of release height, result in competition and the slope (release angle).



Figure 5. Trajectory of the shot in the flight phase. Attempt 4.

Table 5 shows that the maximum relative error is 7.35 % in the last attempt. Graphically all the attempts shows a
very similar behavior, being the 4 the one with less percentage of error. It is worth noting that the numerical
approximation always yields a result less than the real.
Proceedings of PACAM XII 12th Pan-American Congress of Applied Mechanics
J anuary 02-06, 2012, Port of Spain, Trinidad

It is very important to be aware that the horizontal distance between the center of mass of the shot and the container
was not considered at the moment of release [Paulino et.al., (2000)], which may increase or decrease the relative error
in a small percentage. The same applies to the wind velocity which was not recorded during the competition and it was
considered negligible for the numerical simulation.
Finally in Figure 6, each release parameter (height, angle, velocity) are studied to assess their contribution to the
final result.

0 10 20 30
0
2
4
6
8
5 m/s
8 m/s
10 m/s
12 m/s
15 m/s
5 m/s
8 m/s
10 m/s
12 m/s
15 m/s
X(m)
Y
(
m
)
0 5 10 15
0
2
4
6
1.5 m
1.8 m
2.2 m
2.6 m
1.5 m
1.8 m
2.2 m
2.6 m
X(m)
Y
(
m
)


Figure 6: Left: Height in function of the distance for diferent release velocity, assuming h = 2 m and = 40.
Center: Height in function of the distance for different release angle, assuming h = 2 m and v= 11m/s. Right:
Height in function the distance for diferent release height, asuming = 40 and v= 11m/s

According to the Figure, the release angle must be around 40 (though not very noticeable) and with higher release
height it is possible to achieve a better result but neither is an influential parameter.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The numerical results confirm that the parameter that most affects the final result is the release velocity, the higher
it is, the greater the distance reached. The same applies to the release height but the improvement is not very significant.
Regarding the biomechanical analysis, the initial position taken by the national athlete generates losses in velocity and
linearity of the trajectory of the shot in the hand.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To the National Institute of Sport for their valuable support for the development and implementation of this project
in all its phases.

4. REFERENCES

Ariel, G., Probe, J., Penny, A., Buijs, R., Simonsen, E., Finch,A. (2005). Biomechanical Analysis of the Shot-Put Event
at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Track and Field Quarterly Review.

Garca, R. E., and Hernndez, C. (2006). Especificidades en el uso de los mtodos de suavizado de curvas en el anlisis
de los movimientos deportivos. Deporte del siglo XXI , 2, 87-103.

Grande, I. (2000). Cinemtica del modelo tcnico individual del lanzamiento de peso. Len: Universidad de Len.
Departamento de Fisiologa. Memoria para optar al grado de Doctor en Ciencias de la Actividad Fsica y el Deporte.

Lanka, J. (2000). Shot Putting. In V. Zatsiorsky, Biomechanics in sport: performance enhancement and injury
prevention (pag. 436-455). Wiley-Blackwell.

Mizera, F, and Horvath, G.. (2002). Influence of environmental factors on the shot put and hammer throw range.
Journal of Biomechanics , 785-796.

Paulino, J. M., Bote, A., Carrillo, G. (2000). Evaluacin de la tcnica de lanzamiento de peso basado en anlisis
biomecnico con fotogrametra tridimensional. Rendimiento Deportivo, 231-239.

Young, M., & Li, L. (2005). Determination of Critical Parameters among Elite Female Shot Putters. Sports
Biomechanics, 131-148.