Sports Eng (2011) 14:85–94

DOI 10.1007/s12283-011-0075-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Multi-physics modelling and sensitivity analysis of olympic rowing

boat dynamics
Andrea Mola • Mehdi Ghommem • Muhammad Hajj

Published online: 11 November 2011

Ó International Sports Engineering Association 2011

Abstract A multidisciplinary approach is implemented to Cdw Hull wave drag coefficient

model and analyse the performance of Olympic rowing Cv Hull viscous drag coefficient
boats. A reduced-order model that couples rowers motions FXmax Maximum value of the longitudinal oarlock
with the hull, oars and hydrodynamic and hydrostatic for- force
ces is detailed. This model is complemented with a sensi- FXmin Minimum value of the longitudinal oarlock force
tivity analysis carried out by means of a non-intrusive FZmax Maximum value of the vertical oarlock force
polynomial chaos expansion. Sensitivity analysis results FZmin Minimum value of the vertical oarlock force
for two different boat classes, namely, a lightweight single Folj Left oarlock force of jth rower
scull and a coxless four are presented and discussed. This Forj Right oarlock force of jth rower
analysis contrasts, for both classes, the effects of varying Fw Water force on the hull
forces exerted by the rowers, weights of rowers and Gh Coordinates of the hull centre of gravity in the
cadence of motions on the boat performance. global reference frame
_h
G Surge velocity
X
Keywords Rowing  Sensitivity analysis  Water forces  _h Velocity of the hull centre of gravity in the
G
Rigid body motions  Rowers biomechanics global reference frame
Hp Hermite polynomial of order p
List of symbols i Index running on body parts of each rower in
A Wave amplitude the equations of motion
akX Coefficients of the polynomial approximation of IhG Inertia tensor of the boat centered at the hull
the active phase of the longitudinal oarlock centre of gravity
force; k = 0, 1, 2, 3 j Index running on the number of each rower in
akZ Coefficients of the polynomial approximation of the equations of motion
the active phase of the vertical oarlock force; L Oar length
k = 0, 1, 2, 3 Lb Boat length
bkX Coefficients of the polynomial approximation of mij Mass of the ith body part of jth rower
the passive phase of the longitudinal oarlock mrj Mass of the jth rower
force; k = 0, 1, 2
MTot Total mass of rowers and hull
bkZ Coefficients of the polynomial approximation of
Mw Water moment on the hull
the passive phase of the vertical oarlock force;
n Number of random parameters
k = 0, 1, 2
N Number of samples used for polynomial chaos
expansion analysis
A. Mola  M. Ghommem  M. Hajj (&) nr Number of rowers on the boat
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, P Number of random modes considered in the
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA truncated expansion
e-mail: mhajj@vt.edu
86 Mola et al.

p Maximum degree of polynomial bases q Probability density function

considered in the expansion ra  Vector of the standard deviations values of each
pd Dynamic pressure due to secondary motions of the random parameters considered in the
q Number of body parts of the rowers dynamical system
R Rotation matrix, obtained from the Euler angles Ch0 Hull hydrostatic wet surface
values sa Time length of the stroke active phase
R Total resistance due to the mean motion h Pitch Euler angle
r Rowing cadence, i.e., number of strokes per n n-Dimensional random variable representing the
minute varying parameters in the stochastic problem
rh Distance between each rower’s hand and the
oarlock
rgi Boat hull radii of gyration 1 Introduction
T Duration of the stroke
T2 - T1 Duration of 15 strokes Rowing is a sport with a long tradition, where the best
t Generic deterministic time variable performance is based on athletic skill, boat shape and
g Energy ratio configuration. The boats are narrow and long with nearly
VX Mean surge velocity semicircular cross sections designed to reduce drag to a
x Generic deterministic space variable vector minimum. The shells are usually made of carbon-fibre
xij Position of the ith body part of jth rower in the reinforced materials to increase the stiffness and reduce the
boat reference frame mass. In rowing configurations, the rowers sit in the boat
a Generic variable representing stochastic boat facing backwards (towards the stern). They use oars that
motions are attached to the boat at pinned points (oarlocks) to
Ms Radiative potential added mass matrix propel the boat forward (in the direction of the bow). The
Ss Radiative potential damping mass matrix oarlocks are held from outriggers away from the hull;
x Angular velocity of the boat with respect to the thereby, reducing its cross-sectional area. By sitting on
global reference frame axes sliding seats, the rowers are able to apply more power to
X olj Position of the left oarlock of j-th rower in the the oars and increase the distance they can pull with each
global reference frame stroke. Furthermore, using their legs to slide along the seat
X orj Position of the right oarlock of jth rower in the rails, they add their leg power to the stroke. Clearly, rowing
global reference frame involves coupled complex dynamics that span across many
X hlj Position of the left hand of jth rower in the fields including fluid dynamics, rigid body dynamics, and
global reference frame biomechanics.
X hrj Position of the right hand of jth rower in the Developments over the past decades in the fields of
global reference frame composite materials, geometric modelling and computing
power and methodologies have contributed to improving
Cb Boat surface area
the design of rowing boats. More recently, rowing athletes
CbX Projection of Cb on the plane with a normal
and coaches started to consider with growing interest
vector in the X-axis
muscoloskeletal mechanics as a part of the training process
CbZ Projection of Cb on the plane with a normal to improve overall performance [11, 12]. While advance-
vector in the Z-axis ments made in individual fields can contribute to perfor-
qf Fluid density mance enhancement of rowing boats, the multidisciplinary
k Wave length nature of rowing necessitates the development of model-
la Vector of the mean values of each of the ling and analysis tools that couple the different disciplines
random parameters and would be used to optimise the boat and rowers per-
N Generalized normal vector formance. Most of the previous studies on the dynamics of
/ Roll Euler angle rowing boats including those by Atkinson [2], Dudhia [3],
Ur Total radiative potential due to secondary van Holst [21] and Lazauskas [13] have considered hori-
motions zontal forward motions only. Yet, inertial forces due to the
Us Radiative potential due to a small harmonic movement of the rowers cause unsteady boat motions in all
motions onto the sth degree of freedom of the degrees of freedom. These secondary motions result in
boat hull generation of gravity waves that radiate from the boat and
w Yaw Euler angle dissipate energy. As such, it is not possible to optimise
Wi ith random basis function rowers’ weight distribution, applied forces, rowing
Multi-physics modelling and sensitivity analysis 87

frequency, and other relevant parameters without consid- from a local to a global reference frame. Each of the nr
ering the unsteady boat motions and coupling them with rowers is considered as a sum of q = 12 components of
the rowers’ motions. known masses mij corresponding to their main body parts.
The objective of this work is to model the sensitivities More specifically, mij denotes the mass of body part i of
of mean surge and oscillatory motions to variations in rower j. The indices i and j vary from 1 to q and 1 to
magnitude and frequency of applied forces and rowers’ nr, respectively. The rowers’ body parts move according
weights and distributions. Such a model and its analysis to the motion laws xij ðtÞ that are specified in the local
can be used as an assessment tool in the preliminary reference frame of the boat. The last component of the
design stages of rowing boats. Furthermore, since it dynamical system is that of the oars, which are assumed
incorporates the rowers’ motions with sufficient detail, it to act as perfect levers and have negligible masses. This
could be used by trainers to understand the effects of assumption results in a significant simplification of the
different rowing styles or crew compositions. The governing equations at the price of disregarding short
dynamic model for the boat motions is based on the delays and small differences between the hand motions
earlier work of Formaggia et al. [4, 5]. It is defined mainly and curves of oarlock forces. Under such assumption, the
through the boat geometry, the rowers’ motions, the forces forces at the handles, oarlocks and oar blades only differ
at the oars and the hydrodynamic forces. As for the by scaling factors depending only on the oar length L, and
rowers’ motions and the forces at the oars, which con- on the distance rh between the rower hand and the oar-
stitute the inputs of the system, data taken from various lock. The latter is assumed to be a perfect spherical joint.
experiments are used. The sensitivity analysis is carried Based on these assumptions, the translation motions G _h
out by means of a non-intrusive polynomial chaos tech- and angular velocities x of the boat hull, are governed by
nique. In this analysis, variations are introduced in input the following system of ordinary differential equations (A
parameters such as rowers’ mass, forces, and frequency of full derivation and more details on this model are given in
motion, and propagated through the reduced-order model Formaggia et al. [4, 5]).
dynamical system. Rates of variations of output parame-
X rh X
ters such as the mean forward velocity or efficiency of the € h þ x_ 
MTot G mij RT xij ¼ ð2Folj þ Forj Þ
rowing action, in terms of energy ratio of oscillatory and i;j
L j
X X
mean surge motions, with variations in input parameters  T
mij R x€ij  mij x  x  RT xij
are determined. i;j i;j
X
 mij 2x  R x_ ij þ MTot g þ Fw
T
ð1aÞ
i;j
2 Dynamic model for boat motions X
€ h þ RI h R1 x_
mij RT xij  G G
2.1 Equations of motion for the boat hull i;j
X
þ mij RT xij  x_  RT xij ¼ x  RIG R1 x
The earlier work of Formaggia et al. [4, 5] is used as basis i;j
X X
for the derivation of the dynamic model for boat motions.  mij RT xij  RT x€ij  mij RT xij  x  x  RT xij
In the framework of the derivation, capital letters are used i;j i;j
X X
to denote vectors in the global earth-fixed reference frame  T
mij R xij  2x  R x_ ij þ T
RT xij  mij g þ Mw
centered at a starting point. Lower case letters are used to i;j i;j
denote vectors in the relative reference frame attached to X L  rh   

h h
the boat hull and centered at its centre of gravity. The þ X olj  G  X hlj  G  Folj
j
L
superscript h is used to refer to the boat hull, which is
X  L  rh  

considered as a rigid body. As such, Gh is used to denote þ h
X orj  G  X hrj  G h
 Forj
the surge, sway, and heave positions of the centre of j
L
gravity of the hull in the global reference frame. The hull ð1bÞ
tensor of inertia IhG is computed from the hull material
properties and shape. where, MTot is the total mass of rowers and hull. To close
The model computes the motions of the hull in all six Eq. (1a, b) and integrate them using a Runge–Kutta–Fehl-
degrees of freedom, namely, the vector Gh(t), and the berg 45 numerical scheme, it is necessary to provide ade-
yaw, pitch and roll Euler angles wðtÞ; hðtÞ and /ðtÞ: These quate models for the motions of the rowers xij ðtÞ; for the left
angles express the orientation of the boat hull with respect and right oarlock forces, Folj and Forj , respectively, and the
to the earth-fixed frame, and define the rotation matrix water forces and momenta Fw and Mw , respectively. The
Rðw; h; /Þ; which allows for the conversion of vectors modelling of these quantities is discussed next.
88
2.2 Modelling of oar forces
Longitudinal oarlock forces are relatively easy to measure.
Experimental data are available in the literature [20] for
athletes rowing on a machine. In this work, in water
measurements obtained by placing load cells on rowing
boat oarlocks, and described in [15] are used. For instance,
the longitudinal component of the jth rower left oarlock
force is modeled by (see Fig. 1):
 equations performed on the boat set in steady state of
a3X t3 þ a2X t2 þ a1X t þ a0X for 0\t\sa
Foljx ¼
b2X t2 þ b1X t þ b0X for sa \t\T
ð2Þ
where the akX and bkX coefficients depend on the specific
athletes maximum and minimum values of the rowing
force, FXmax and FXmin respectively, and on the active
phase sa of the stroke duration T. Values of FXmax and
FXmin are obtained from measurements performed during
rower’s training on rowing machines.
Experimental measurements of the vertical component
of the oarlock force Foljz show that the time history of this
force component, is qualitatively similar to that of the
longitudinal component [15]. As such, the vertical com-
ponent of the oarlock force is modeled with the same
functions used to reconstruct the longitudinal component.
The corresponding akZ and bkZ coefficients are determined
using the specified values for FZmax and FZmin. In general,
these values are about 10–20 times smaller than the values
of the longitudinal component.
2.3 Modelling of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces
The hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces are decomposed
into forces acting on the hull as caused by components related
to the mean motions and the oscillatory secondary motions.
The hydrodynamic forces and momenta induced on the hull by
its mean motions are decomposed into components due to
wave drag and viscous effects. They are written as:
1 _ h jG_ h þ 1 qf Cv jCb ðtÞjjG
_ h jG
_h
R ¼ qf Cdx jCbX ðtÞjjG X X X X
2 2
1 _ h jG_ h:
þ qf Cdw jCbZ ðtÞjjG X X ð3Þ
2
Fig. 1 A portion of the oarlock
force function time series
corresponding to a full stroke.
The different curves represent:
measurements [15], active phase
reconstruction, passive phase
reconstruction
Mola et al.
where the three terms on the right-hand side represent the
shape, viscous and wave drag, respectively. G _ h is the surge
X
velocity. The drag coefficients, Cdx, Cv, and Cdw, are based
on projections of the boat surface area, jCb ðtÞj; on planes
with normal vectors in the X, jCbX ðtÞj; and Z, jCbZ ðtÞj;
directions. These coefficients can be obtained either from
the literature [1] or computed by fitting values from ‘‘off-
line’’ simulations of Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes
motion in the water [16, 18]. In this work, the latter
approach was followed to compute the drag coefficients.
As for forces due to secondary motions, it is assumed
that the water flow induced by these motions is irrotational.
Under these conditions, there exists a potential
Ur ðt; X; Y; ZÞ such that the water velocity is equal to rUr :
Denoting by Lb the length of the boat and assuming that the
wavelength of the generated gravity waves k ’ Lb and that
their amplitude A  Lb ; the dynamic pressure pd induced
by secondary motions is approximated using the general-
ised Bernoulli equation. Neglecting the nonlinear terms
[14] yields
oUr
pd ¼ qf : ð4Þ
ot
Using the principle of superposition, the potential Ur is a
linear combination of six different potential fields Us ;
where s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is used to denote the six different
degrees of freedom. Once the potential fields Us are
computed by means of a suitable radiative potential
problem [14], the forces and moments exerted by the
water on the boat undergoing secondary oscillatory
motions are computed as the integral of the pressures
over the hull hydrostatic wet surface Ch0 : Projecting these
forces and moments in the direction of the six degrees of
freedom results in a 6 9 6 matrix of restoring forces. It
turns out that these forces can be split into two terms; one
is proportional to the boat secondary acceleration, and the
other is proportional to the secondary velocity. Thus, the
hydrodynamic forces and moments due to the secondary
motions of the rowing boat are represented as added mass
and damping terms in the equations of motion. These terms
Multi-physics modelling and sensitivity analysis
account, respectively, for the momentum and energy
conveyed by the boat to the surrounding fluid through
the wave radiation. Hence, it is very important to add their
contributions which account for a small—but not
negligible—fraction of the energy dissipated in the surge
degree of freedom, but are the principal energy dissipation
mechanism for all other motions. The matrices of added
mass and damping coefficients [14], indicated respectively
by Ms and S s ; are then written as
Z combine nonlinearly which renders the assessment of the
S
Mst ¼ qf ReðUs ÞN t dc; s; t ¼ 1; . . .; 6 ð5Þ
Ch0
Z complemented by a sensitivity analysis that is based on non
Ssts ¼ qf x ImðUs ÞN t dc; s; t ¼ 1; . . .; 6; ð6Þ
Ch0
where N ¼ ½N 1 ; N 2 ; N 3 ; N 4 ; N 5 ; N 6 T ¼ ½nx ; ny ; nz ; ynx
xny ; xnz þ znx ; ynz þ zny T is the generalised normal
vector, which allows for the projection of the pressure
forces and moments on each of the six degrees of freedom
of the boat. These symmetric and positive definite [14]
matrices, only depend on the boat geometry. For this rea-
son, they are conveniently computed ‘‘off-line’’, and suc-
cessively introduced as a part of the water forces and
moments in Eq. (1a, b). Specifically, the damping com-
ponent is computed as the product of the damping matrix
and a vector containing the secondary velocity values along
all six degrees of freedom. Similarly, the added mass
component is computed as the product of the added mass
matrix and the acceleration vector.
2.4 Validation of reduced-order model
To validate the dynamical model described above, actual
World Championship races are simulated for two different
boat classes. In the first case, a female lightweight single
scull is considered. The rower weighs 60 kg, the horizontal
and vertical components of the oarlock force are set to the
realistic values of 1,100 and 100 N respectively, and the
stroke rate is set to 30 strokes per minute. The computed
mean surge velocity is 4.51 m/s, which results in a time of
7:24 min needed to complete a 2,000-m race. This time is
3% less than 7:36 min; the time of the winner of this boat
class in the 2009 World Championship in Poznan, Poland.
The second test case is that of a coxless four. In this case,
each of the rowers weighs 85 kg. The horizontal and ver-
tical components of the oarlock force are set at 1,300 and
100 N, respectively, and the stroke rate is set to 36 strokes
per minute. The computed mean surge velocity is 5.52 m/s,
corresponding to a race completion time of 6:02 min. This
values is within 1% of 6:07 min which is the time of the
winning crew in the 2009 World Championship.
89
3 Sensitivity analysis via non-intrusive polynomial
chaos expansion (PCE)
The reduced-order model, as described above, simulates the
dynamics of a rowing boat in race conditions. The input
parameters for this model include boat geometry and hull
shape, density of water, forces exerted on the oarlocks by the
rowers, the weights, heights and cadence of motion of the
rower(s). The effects of varying these parameters might
importance of a single parameter particularly difficult. To
address this issue, the model for the rowing boat dynamics is
intrusive polynomial chaos techniques. In this analysis, vari-
ations in the input parameters are introduced and propagated
through the reduced-order model dynamical system to deter-
mine rates of variation of output parameters, such as the mean
forward velocity or the efficiency of the rowing action, to
variations in input parameters. In this section, a summary of
polynomial chaos expansion and its implementation and
validation is provided as a first step of for the sensitivity
analysis that is performed in the following section.
3.1 Polynomial chaos expansion
The spectral representation of varying parameters is based on
the decomposition of a random function (or variable) into
separable deterministic and stochastic components [10, 19].
Here, for example, any generic variable a is expressed as:
X
P
a ðx; t; nÞ ’ ai ðx; tÞWi ðnÞ ð7Þ
i¼0
where P þ 1 ¼ ðnþpÞ!
n!p! is the number of output modes, which
is a function of the order of the polynomial chaos p and the
number of random parameters n. ai ðt; xÞ is the determin-
istic component which is the amplitude of ith fluctuation
and Wi ðnÞ is the random basis function corresponding to
the ith mode. It is worth pointing out that a is taken as a
function of independent deterministic variables x and t, and
the n-dimensional random variable vector n ¼ ðn1 ; . . .; nn Þ
which has a specific probability distribution.
In practice, the series will be approximated by the finite-
term summation in which the highest order terms of the
polynomials are set according to the accuracy requirement.
For the basis function, multi-dimensional Hermite poly-
nomials are taken to span the n-dimensional random space
which follows Gaussian probability distribution. It is well
known that Hermite polynomials form an orthogonal set of
basis functions in terms of Gaussian distribution 6]. Many
other choices are possible for basis functions depending on
the type of the probability distribution selected for the
representation of variations in input parameters [7, 17, 22].
90 Mola et al.

Any Hermite polynomial in the nth dimensional random 3.2 Implementation

space is given by [6]
1 T op In the implementation, variations in the number of strokes
12nT n
Hp ðn1 ; . . .; nn Þ ¼ ð1Þp e2n n
c1 cn e ð8Þ per minute (or cadence) r, the maximum horizontal and
oðn1 Þ . . .oðnn Þ
Pn vertical forces per each stroke, FXmax and FZmax respectively,
where k¼1 ck ¼ p; and cks are integers. These polyno- and the mass of the rower mr are considered. To generate
mials form a complete orthogonal set of basis functions in samples, these variations are assumed to follow Gaussian
the random space. distributions. The mean and standard deviation for each of
An alternative way to obtain the coefficients of the poly- the above parameters are presented in Table 1. It should be
nomial expansion aðx; tÞ has been presented by Hosder et al. noted that, based on the assumed ranges of input parame-
[10]. Such method is based on the following matrix equation ters, the stability of the boat is guaranteed.
8 9 2 38 9 For each simulation, after the steady state solution was
>
> a0 >> W1 ðn0 Þ W2 ðn0 Þ    WP ðn0 Þ > a0 >
< a1 >
> = 6 W1 ðn1 Þ W2 ðn1 Þ    WP ðn1 Þ 7> < > = reached, a set of 15 strokes was used to compute two
6 7 a1
.. ¼ 6 . . . . 7 .. performance metrics. The first is the mean surge velocity
>
> . >
> 4 .. .. .. .. 5>> >
: >
> ; : . > ; VX. The second is a performance index defined as the ratio
N N N aP
aN W1 ðn Þ W2 ðn Þ    WP ðn Þ of the kinetic energy associated with the surge motion
ð9Þ (usable in terms of wining the race) to the energy associ-
ated with secondary motions. This energy ratio is defined
which represents the discretised form of Eq. (7). If the
as
number of samples N is selected to be equal to the number,
VX
P ? 1, of polynomials in the expansion, the matrix in g¼
P3 R 1=2 P R 1=2
T2 _ h T2
Eq. (9) is square, and can be inverted to obtain the 1
i¼1 T2 T1 T1 ðGi ðtÞ  Vi Þ2 dt þ 3i¼1 T2 T
1
1
2
T1 ðrgi xi ðtÞÞ dt

expansion coefficients ai from the outputs ai : However, as ð12Þ

pointed out in [10], the solution obtained, when following
this approach, is not unique due to the arbitrariness in the where rgi are used to denote the values of the radii of
choice of the sampling vector. This fact might lead to gyration of the hull. T2 - T1 is the duration of 15 strokes.
errors in the estimation of the PCE coefficients ais . Because
in the present work, the number of samples N is higher than 3.3 Validation
the number of polynomials in the expansion P ? 1, the
system of equations (9) is solved by minimising the errors For validation, a set of 256 normally distributed sampling
in the least squares sense. This approach is referred to as points are used to perform 256 rowing boat dynamics
linear regression method and allows for flexibility in simulations and obtain the output parameters values
choosing the sampling points. As such, it enables the use of a ðx; t; n j Þ: In the framework of Monte Carlo simulations,
efficient sampling strategies such as Latin hypercube it is possible to compute the statistics of such output, in
sampling (LHS) [8, 9]. terms of probability distribution function, mean values and
Having computed the PCE coefficients as described standard deviation. Although important, this information
above, the mean la and variance r2a of the output a are does not allow for an effective evaluation of the influence
given by that each input parameter has on the system output. The
polynomial chaos expansion, being a polynomial approxi-
X
P
la ðx; tÞ ¼ \a ðx; t; nÞ [ ¼ \ ai ðx; tÞWi ðnÞ [ mation of the functional dependence between input and
i¼0 output parameters, is able to provide such information, and
¼ a0 ðx; tÞ to allow for the computation of the output sensitivity to
ð10Þ variations in input parameters. It is important to note, that
the non-intrusive PCE places many fewer demands on the
and computational resources and time to compute the statics of
the performance measures. Furthermore, the PCE coeffi-
r2a ðx; tÞ ¼ \ða ðx; t; nÞ  la ðx; tÞÞ2 [
cients were used to perform a sensitivity analysis as will be
X
P X
P
discussed below.
¼ ai ðx; tÞaj ðx; tÞ\Wi ðnÞ; Wj ðnÞ [
i¼1 j¼1 Figure 2a shows a comparison of probability distribu-
X
P tion functions of the mean forward velocity obtained with
¼ ai ðx; tÞ2 \Wi ðnÞ2 [ ð11Þ Monte Carlo simulations and those obtained from the PCE-
i¼1
Multi-physics modelling and sensitivity analysis 91

Table 1 The mean and standard deviation values used for each of the four parameters considered in the PCE expansion
Parameter r ¼ l1 þ r1 n1 FXmax ¼ l2 þ r2 n2 FZmax ¼ l3 þ r3 n3 mr ¼ l4 þ r4 n4

li 30 ðstrokes/minÞ 1100 ðNÞ 100 ðNÞ 60 ðkgÞ

ri 1:5 ðstrokes/minÞ 55 ðNÞ 5 ðNÞ 3 ðkgÞ

based analysis. Clearly, the PCE reproduces correctly the
linear relationship between input parameters and mean
forward velocity. Furthermore, it also yields good esti-
mates of the (small) coefficients of the higher order terms
in the expansion. In other words, keeping only the first-
order coefficients in the PC expansion is enough to
reproduce accurately the variations in the mean forward
velocity and the inclusion of higher order terms does not
To illustrate how sensitivities are obtained from PCE
expansion coefficients, the case of the single scull is con-
sidered. As shown above, the first-order PCE polynomials
yield a good approximation of the functional dependency
of the mean forward velocity on the input parameters.
Thus, the first-order terms in Table 1; namely,
VX ðr;FXmax ;FZmax ;mr Þ ¼a1 þa2 n1 þa3 n2 þa4 n3 þa5 n4

r l1 FXmax l2

lead to errors in the estimated output. Figure 2b plots ¼a1 þa2 þa3
probability distribution functions obtained with Monte r1 r2

Carlo simulations and those obtained from PCE-based FZmax r l3 mr l4
þa4 þa5
analysis. Clearly, the energy ratio is related to the inputs in r3 r4
a nonlinear fashion since Monte Carlo simulations show ð13Þ
non-Gaussian PDF (slightly skewed to the right). Thus,
increasing the order of PCE improves the accuracy of the provide a fairly accurate approximation of the effects of
estimated variations energy ratio. As such, the results show variations in input parameters on the boat surge velocity.
an excellent match between the data obtained form the The performance sensitivities with respect to changes in
Monte Carlo simulations and those from third-order PCE. each input parameter are then obtained by computing the
It is important to note that the mean value for the energy derivatives of this linear function with respect to
ratio is about 3.8. Based on Eq. (12), this implies that the r;FXmax ;FZmax and mr, namely
relative energy of the secondary motions is about 6% of the
surge motion for this class of boats. oVX a2 oVX a3 oVX a4
¼ ; ¼ ; ¼ ;
or r1 oFXmax r2 oFZmax r3
oVX a5
3.4 Computation of sensitivities to input parameters ¼ :
omr r4
The PCE expansion, as presented above, provides a simple It is important to note here that, due to the linear
and yet accurate representation of the relationship between approximation used, the sensitivity values here are
the input parameters and performance metrics. This rep- constants. In a more general case, the relationship
resentation gives a better understanding of the physics of between input and output parameters may not be linear.
the system, and provides qualitative and quantitative For these cases, the local sensitivity of the output a to
information which can be used by rowing boat athletes and changes of the ith input parameter ni would be computed
coaches in training to improve their performances. by means of

Fig. 2 Comparison of the

probability distribution
functions of mean velocity
(a) and energy ratio (b) obtained
with Monte Carlo simulations
and PCE expansions of different
orders

(a) (b)
92
oa XP
oWp ðnÞ
ðx; t; nÞ ¼ ap ðx; tÞ : ð14Þ
oni p¼0
oni
4 Application of the sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis as detailed above, is applied to
study the performance of two different kinds of Olympic
boat classes, with the objectives of evaluating how input
parameters affect the boat response and determining how
they can be changed to enhance the boat’s performance.
The first boat class analysed here is that of a light single
scull with a female rower. The four varying parameters
include the number of strokes per minute, r, the maximum
horizontal and vertical forces per each stroke, FXmax and
FZmax respectively, and the mass of the rower, mr. The
second boat class considered is a male coxless four. Being
a sweep boat, it undergoes full three-dimensional second-
ary motions, which can be minimised if the rowers forces
are balanced. So, in order to understand the effects of slight
variations in the rower forces, and which rower’s position
is the most critical for the overall crew performance,
variations are introduced in the values of the rowers
maximum horizontal forces FXmax1 ; FXmax2 ; FXmax3 ; FXmax4 ; in
the rowers’ masses mr1, mr2, mr3, mr4, and in the cadence r.
4.1 Female light weight single scull
The computed sensitivity values for the mean velocity to
variations in different parameters are presented in Table 2.
In this case, given the fact that the relationship between
input and output parameters is particularly close to a linear
one (as illustrated in Sect. 3.3), the sensitivity values are
constant. The results indicate that increasing both the
maximum horizontal oarlock force and the rowing cadence
results in an increase of the forward mean velocity. Fur-
thermore, as expected, increasing the weight of the rower
leads to a reduction in the forward speed. The maximum
vertical oarlock force on the other hand, does not seem to
have significant effects on the boat performances.
The ratios between the sensitivity values also provide
important information, which can guide rowing athletes and
coaches in their decisions concerning rowing techniques and
training strategies. For instance, if the rowing cadence is
reduced by 1 stroke/ min, the rower will have to increase the
maximum horizontal oarlock force by approximatively 15 N
in order to obtain the same surge velocity. Likewise, if the
Table 2 Sensitivity values obtained for each of the four parameters considered in the PCE expansion
Parameter r FXmax
Sensitivity m=s
0:0438 strokes= min 0:0028
Mola et al.
mass of a rower is increased by 1 kg, she will need to be able
to generate a maximum force which is roughly 8 N higher in
order to compensate for the increase in weight and keep the
same surge velocity.
Since the relation between the energy ratio and input
parameters is nonlinear, the sensitivity values for g are not
constant. Clearly, they depend on the point of the parameters
space in which the computation is performed. Figure 3 dis-
plays contours of g as function of the the rowing cadence
r obtained while keeping maximum vertical oarlock force
and the rower mass at the constant values FZmax = 100 N and
mr = 60 kg, respectively. As expected, the contour plot of
the energy ratio in Fig. 3 suggests that a higher value of
FX max leads to higher values of energy ratio, as increasing the
horizontal force is the principal way to introduce energy in
the horizontal motion mode. On the other hand, the plot
shows that for a given force, there is a rowing cadence value
that maximises g. It is noted here that the cadence sensitivity
sign changes near r ¼ 30:2 strokes=min; which is remark-
ably close to the cadence 30 strokes=min; of rowers in race
conditions. Furthermore, it is possible to compute that at the
point (r ¼ 30 strokes=min; FX max = 1,100 N, FZmax = 100
N, mr = 60 kg) of the parameter space, a cadence increase of
1 stroke=min is equivalent to an increase in the horizontal
oarlock force of about 31 N. On the other hand, a mass
increase of 1 kg has to be compensated by a force increase of
approximately 28 N. These ratios are considerably higher
than those obtained when the mean horizontal velocity is the
Fig. 3 Contours of the PCE expansion of the energy ratio for fixed
weight and vertical oar force, and variable horizontal oar force and
cadence
FZmax mr
m=s m=s m=s
N 0:0001 N 0:0230 kg
Multi-physics modelling and sensitivity analysis
Table 3 The mean and standard deviation values used for the parameters considered in the PCE expansion for the case of a four sweep boat
Parameter FXmax i ¼ li þ ri ni ; i ¼ 1; . . .; 4
li 1;200 ðNÞ
ri 60 ðNÞ
Fig. 4 Comparison of the
probability distribution
functions of mean velocity
(a) and energy ratio (b) obtained
with Monte Carlo simulations
and PCE expansions of different
orders for the four boat
(a)
performance index considered. This suggests that to increase
the energy ratio, an increase of the rowing cadence and a
decrease of the rowers weight become relatively more
competitive strategies with respect to a force increase, than
they are if the mean horizontal force is considered.
4.2 Male four sweep
For the male four sweep boat, nine parameters were varied.
These include each of the rowers maximum horizontal
force and weight, and the rowing cadence. The sampling
points in the input parameter space were chosen according
to the Latin hypercube sampling strategy, imposing the
mean and standard deviation values reported in Table 3.
Considering nine parameters, the minimum number of
samples needed to obtain a sixth-order expansion is
ð9 þ 6Þ!
nmin ¼ ¼ 5; 005:
9! þ 6!
As such, a sample size nsamples = 10,000 was used. The
probability distribution functions of the mean surge
velocity and of the energy ratio g are presented respectively
in the a and b plots of Fig. 4. It is clear that, for the mean
surge velocity, the polynomial reconstruction provides a
very good approximation of the output, in particular when
higher order terms are included. On the other hand, the plot
of the energy ratio shows that small differences between
probability distribution function curves obtained from PCE
and Monte Carlo simulations. Although the results show
that matching of the sixth-order expansion with Monte
Carlo simulations is slightly worse than that of the
93
mr i ¼ liþ4 þ riþ4 niþ4 ; i ¼ 1; . . .; 4 r ¼ l9 þ r9 n9
80 ðkgÞ 35 ðstrokes/minÞ
4 ðkgÞ 1:75 ðstrokes/minÞ
(b)
matching of the fifth-order expansion, it was noted that the
root mean square error monotonically converges to zero as
the expansion order is increased.
The values of the sensitivity computed at the origin of the
parameter space n ¼ f0g (the sensitivities cannot be con-
sidered constant if, as in the case at hand, the relationship
between input and output parameter is not linear) are
reported in Table 4. At this specific point, the mean velocity
sensitivities with respect to the maximum horizontal forces
variations of all the athletes have similar values, with the
rower in the front having a slightly higher sensitivity than the
others. Also, when the weight is considered, the velocity
sensitivities show small differences between the different
rowers. It is interesting to note, however, that with this boat,
to compensate a mass increase of 1 kg, each rower has to be
able to increase his maximum horizontal force of about 8 N, a
value that is similar to the one found analyzing the female
single scull. In addition, the effect of an increase in the pace
of one stroke per minute on the velocity, is equivalent to an
increase of approximatively 40 N in the maximum force. The
higher value with respect to the single case, seems to indicate
that brute force is less important in this boat class, than it is
for the single scull case.
The sensitivities of the energy ratio to variations in input
parameters have more complex characteristics. From the
obtained values, it appears that one possible way to
increase g would be to reduce the rowing pace r, as the
value of qg/qr is negative. An energy ratio increase would
be also obtained by decreasing the weight of the rowers;
however, the sensitivity to the first rower weight is
approximately twice that of the second and third rower, and
94 Mola et al.

Table 4 Sensitivity values obtained for each of the nine parameters References
considered in the PCE expansion, at the point n ¼ f0g of the
parameters space 1. Adler JB (1958) Coefficients for international towing tank con-
ference 1957 model-ship correlation line. Tech. Rep. David
Input param. VX sensit. g sensit.
Taylor Model Basin, Washington, DC
FXmax1 m=s 0:0014 1=N 2. Atkinson WC (2002) Modeling the dynamics of rowing. http://
8:38  104 N www.atkinsopht.com/row/rowabstr.htm
FXmax2 8:41  104 m=s
N
0:002 1=N 3. Dudhia A (2001) The physics of rowing. http://www.atm.ox.ac.
uk/rowing/physics
FXmax3 8:34  104 m=s
N
0:0015 1=N
4. Formaggia L, Miglio E, Mola A, Montano A (2008) A model for
FXmax4 8:37  104 m=s 0:0003 1=N the dynamics of rowing boats. Int J Numer Methods Fluids
N
6:119–143
mr1 0:066 m=s 0:0287 1=kg 5. Formaggia L, Miglio E, Mola A, Parolini N (2008) Fluid-struc-
kg
mr2 m=s 0:0176 1=kg ture interaction problems in free surface flows: application to boat
0:064 kg dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 56:965–978
mr3 0:065 m=s 0:0142 1=kg 6. Ghanem RG, Spanos PD (2003) Stochastic finite elements: a
kg
spectral approach. Dover Publications, Inc., New York
mr4 0:063 m=s 0:0086 1=kg 7. Ghommem M, Hajj MR, Pettit CL, Beran PS (2010) Stochastic
kg
r m=s 0:1589 1=ðstrokes=minÞ modeling of incident gust effects on aerodynamic lift. J Aircraft
0:0343 strokes= min 47:1720–1727
8. Helton JC, Davis FJ (2000) Sampling-based methods. In: Sensitivity
analysis, chapter 6. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque
four times that of the fourth rower. Thus, it is reasonable to 9. Helton JC, Davis FJ (2003) Latin hypercube sampling and the
assume, on the basis of an energy analysis, that it is better propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems.
to place the heaviest rowers behind the boat barycentre, in Reliabil Eng Syst Safety 81:23–69
seats three or four, while lighter rowers should be kept 10. Hosder S, Walters RW, Rafael P (2006) A non-intrusive poly-
nomial chaos method for uncertainty propagation in CFD simu-
closer to the boat bow. The sensitivities to variations of the lations. AIAA Paper 2006-891 AIAA. 44th AIAA Aerospace
rowers maximum oarlock forces seem to confirm that the Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada
first three rowers have a higher influence on the boat 11. Kleshnev V (2000) Power in rowing. In: Proceedings of XVIII
energetic efficiency than the fourth one. The values pre- international symposium on biomechanics in sports, Hong Kong,
Department of Sports Science and Physical Education. The
sented in the table show in fact that the energy efficiency Chinese University of Hong Kong, pp 662–666
sensitivity to fourth maximum oarlock force variations, is 12. Kleshnev V (2006) Method of analysis of speed, stroke rate and
five to six times lower than the corresponding values of stroke distance in aquatic locomotions. In: Scientific proceedings,
each of the first three rowers. XXII international symposium on biomechanics in sports, Salz-
burg, pp 104–107
13. Lazauskas L (1997) A performance prediction model for rowing
races. Tech Rep. L9702 Department of Applied Mathematics
5 Conclusions University of Adelaide, Australia
14. Mei CC (1989) The applied dynamics of ocean surface waves.
World Scientific Publishing, Singapore
In this work, a multidisciplinary approach for the model- 15. Milani L (2009) Validazione del software Kimé per imbarcazioni
ling and analysis of the performance of Olympic rowing da canottaggio. Master’s thesis Dipartimento di Matematica,
boats is presented. The model couples the rowers motions Politecnico di Milano
with the hull, oars and hydrodynamic and hydrostatic for- 16. Pandini S (2004) Simulazione numerica della dinamica di imb-
arcazioni da canotaggio. Master’s thesis Dipartimento di
ces. Sensitivity analysis to determine variations in output Matematica, Politecnico di Milano
parameters with varying rowers weights and exerted forces 17. Pettit CL, Hajj MR, Beran PS (2010) A stochastic approach for
and with cadence of motions is then carried out using non- modeling incident gust effects on flow quantities. Probabil Eng
intrusive polynomial chaos expansion approach. The sen- Mech 25:153–162
18. Pischiutta M (2008) Dinamica di una imbarcazione da canot-
sitivity analysis contrasts the effects of increasing exerted taggio: simulazioni numeriche con un modello RANS. Master’s
forces by rowers with decreasing their weights for two thesis, Dipartimento di Matematica, Politecnico di Milano
different boat classes, namely, a lightweight single scull 19. Reagan M, Najm HN, Ghanem RG, Knio OM (2003) Uncertainty
and a coxless four. quantification in reacting flow simulations through non-intrusive
spectral projection. Combust Flame 132:545–555
20. Steer RR, McGregor AH, Bull AMJ (2006) A comparison of
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Alessandro kinematics and performance measures of two rowing ergometers.
Placido of Filippi Lido s.r.l., maker of competition rowing boats, for J Sports Sci Med 5:52–59
providing data of the boats geometry. They would also like to thank 21. van Holst M (2004) On rowing. http://home.hccnet.nl/m.holst/
Laura Milani, lightweight single scull vice World Champion, who RoeiWeb.html
contributed to the validation of the rowing boat model in the frame- 22. Xiu D, Karniadakis GE (2003) Modeling uncertainty in flow
work of her Bachelor Degree final project at Politecnico di Milano. simulations via generalized polynomial chaos. J Comput Phys
This validation helped in setting up simulations using realistic values 187:137–167
of world class athletes.