In the early morning light, young photographer Max Wood captured this coot escaping a fight. With wings flapping, the bird runs across the water surface. Each slap and stroke of a foot provides a portion of the vertical force needed to stay atop the water; lift from its wings provides the rest. With enough speed, the bird will take off. Some birds, however, are born water-walkers; certain species of grebe don’t need to use their wings to run on water. (Image credit: M. Wood; via BWPA)
Tag: running
COVID-19 and Outdoor Exercise
By now you’ve probably come across some blog posts and news articles about a new pre-print study looking at the aerodynamics of running and the potential exposure to exhaled droplets. And you may also have seen articles questioning the accuracy and validity of such simulations. I’ve had several readers submit questions about this, so I dug into both the research and the criticisms, and here are my thoughts:
Is this study scientifically valid?
I’ve seen a number of complaints that since this paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed, we shouldn’t trust anything about it. That seems like an unreasonable overreaction to me considering how many studies receive press attention prior to their actual peer-reviewed publication. This is not a random CFD simulation produced by someone who just downloaded a copy of ANSYS Fluent. This work comes from a well-established group of engineers specializing in sports aerodynamics, and long-time readers will no doubt recognize some of their previous publications. Over the past decade, Blocken and his colleagues have become well-known for detailed experimental and simulation work that indicates larger aerodynamic effects in slipstreams than what we generally recognize.
In this paper, they lay out previous (biological) studies related to SARS and droplet exhalation; they use those papers and several wind tunnel studies to validate computational models of droplet evaporation and runner aerodynamics; and then they use those inputs to simulate how a cloud of exhaled droplets from one runner affects someone running alongside, behind, or in a staggered position relative to the first runner.
In other words, their work includes all the components one would expect of a scientific study, and it makes scientifically justifiable assumptions with regard to its methods. (That’s not, mind you, to say that no one can disagree with some of those choices, but that’s true of plenty of peer-reviewed work as well.) All in all, yes, this is a scientifically valid study, even if it has not yet undergone formal peer-review*.
Can simulations actually tell us anything about virus transmission?
One complaint I’ve seen from both biologists and engineers is that simulations like these don’t actually capture the full physics and biology involved in virus transmission. While I agree with that general sentiment, I would point out two important facts:
1) Blocken et al. acknowledge that this is not a virology study and confine their scientific results to looking at what happens physically to droplets when two people are moving relative to one another. Whether those droplets can transmit disease or not is a question left to biological researchers.
2) Most medical and biological research also does not account for the physics of droplet transmission and transport. For the past century, this research has focused almost exclusively on droplet sizes, with the assumption that large droplets fall quickly and small droplets persist a little longer. To my knowledge, some of the only work done on the actual physics of the turbulent cloud produced by coughing or sneezing comes from Lydia Bourouiba’s lab at MIT. And, to me, one of the fundamental conclusions from her work is that droplets (especially small ones) can persist a lot longer and farther than previously assumed. Can those droplets facilitate transmission of COVID-19? The general consensus I’ve seen expressed by medical experts is no, but, to my knowledge, that is based on opinion and assumption, not on an actual scientific study.
The bottom line
In my opinion, there’s a big disconnect right now between the medical/biological community and the engineering community. To truly capture the physics and biology of COVID-19 transmission requires the expertise and cooperation of both. Right now both sides are making potentially dangerous assertions.
Honestly, based on what I know about aerodynamics, I am personally skeptical as to whether 6 ft of physical separation is truly enough; whether it is or not seems to depend on how transmissible the novel coronavirus is through small droplets, which, again, to my knowledge, is unestablished.
Should we leave more distance than 6ft between us when exercising outdoors? Absolutely. Aerodynamically, it makes perfect sense that following in someone’s slipstream would put you inside their droplet cloud, which needs time and space to disperse. Personally, I’ve sidestepped the question entirely by doing all my cycling indoors while quarantined.
tl;dr: There are a lot of open questions right now about COVID-19 transmission and what qualifies as safe distancing, but it’s smarter to err on the side of more distancing. Don’t hang close to others when running or cycling outdoors.
(Image and research credit: B. Blocken et al.; submitted by Corky W. and Wendy H.)
*I will add that, with my training, I have and do occasionally peer-review studies such as this one, and I read the full paper with the same sort of critical eye I would turn to a paper I was asked to review.
Ig Nobel Fluids: Running on Water
While insects are small enough to use surface tension to stay atop water, larger species like the basilisk lizard run on water by slapping their feet against the surface hard enough to generate the force to stay above the surface. A. Minetti and colleagues won this year’s Ig Nobel Prize in Physics for demonstrating that humans, too, can achieve this feat – when outfitted with stiff, large area fins and exposed to gravity less than 22% of Earth’s. The researchers adapted a model for the running lizard to human scales and then tested the model using subjects suspended by harness and running in place atop a wading pool while subjected to various lighter-than-earth simulated gravities. Both the model and experiment agreed that human muscles were unable to produce sufficient force to stay above the water at higher than 0.22g. Interestingly, the authors also observed that the water-running gait for both lizards and humans has more in common with the pedaling motion of cycling than a human’s bouncing gait for terrestrial running. (Video credit: A. Minetti et al.)
Reader Question: Drafting in Triathlons
Reader juleztalks writes:
I’ve just entered an amateur triathlon, and there’s a whole load of rules about not “drafting” in the cycle stage (basically, not sitting in other cyclists’ slipstream). However, there are no such rules for the swim or run stage; I thought the effects would be the same from drafting other swimmers and runners. Any ideas?
As in many endurance sports, it’s all a question of energy savings from drag reduction. Drag on an object, like a triathlete, is roughly proportional to fluid density (air for cycling or running, water for swimming), frontal area, and the velocity squared. Because drag increases more drastically for an increase in velocity, it makes sense one would worry most about drag when one’s velocity is highest – on the bike.
Drafting has major benefits in cycling and can reduce drag on a rider by 25-40%. Aerodynamic drag accounts for 70% or more of a cyclist’s energy expenditure, so that reduction can really add up. The energy saved by drafting during cycling can even increase a triathlete’s speed during a subsequent running leg. So it makes sense for a sport’s governing body to be concerned with it.
That said, there’s plenty of room for drag reduction in swimming as well. Even though the velocities are much lower, water’s density is 1,000 times higher than air’s, generating plenty of drag for an athlete to overcome. For swimmers at maximum speed, drafting can reduce drag by 13-26%, depending on relative positioning. Such drafting has been found to increase stroke length and may (or may not) improve subsequent cycling performance.
Although a similar reduction in drag is possible by drafting when running, drag on a runner only accounts for about 8% of his/her energy expenditure so such savings would matters very little next to the swimming and cycling legs. There could be some psychological benefits, though, in terms of pacing oneself. (Photo credit: Optum Pro Cycling p/b Kelly Benefit Strategies)
London 2012: Running Aerodynamics
Running is not an event typically associated with aerodynamics, though any runner will tell you that a headwind can slow them down. For comparison, a swimmer on world record pace sees 40 to 50 times the drag force of a runner over the same distance. But despite the relatively small influence of drag on a runner, there are measurable effects due to wind and altitude when races are judged by hundredths of a second. Given this, it comes as no surprise that researchers (and presumably manufacturers) are starting to considering how to optimize aerodynamics in running. The video above describes results of a study on running shoes that suggests modest savings may be derived from shoes with dimpled surfaces, much like a golf ball. Socks, on the other hand, don’t show any aerodynamic savings from special surfaces. Of course, the bulk of a runner’s drag comes from their hair and clothing; this is, in part, why runners wear form fitting clothes. While there may be some aerodynamic savings to be had, I don’t think we’ll see world records falling like crazy in Rio because of the latest new shoes.
FYFD is celebrating the Olympics by featuring the fluid dynamics of sport. Check out our previous posts on how the Olympic torch works, what makes a pool fast, the aerodynamics of archery, the science of badminton, how cyclists get “aero”, and how divers reduce splash.
