0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

12 просмотров202 страницыIntroduction to Impact Dynamic

Sep 28, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Introduction to Impact Dynamic

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

12 просмотров202 страницыIntroduction to Impact Dynamic

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 202

Bernard Brogliato, INRIA Grenoble-Rhone-Alpes, France

General objectives

modeling approaches with a focus on multiple impacts.

General objectives

Single impacts

models, Darboux-Keller approach)

With Coulomb friction

Multiple impacts

limitations; introduction to multiple impact laws)

General requirements on an impact law (dissipation and

dispersion; connection with the numerical integration)

Extension of the Darboux-Keller approach to multiple impacts

in chains of balls

0.05 and 10 m/s).

3

There is no reason to believe that, in general, an accurate

continuum model can be well approximated by treating the body

as rigid everywhere except in a localized quasi-static region

describable by ordinary differential equations (as demanded by

incremental laws).

modeling or exhaustive experimentation has a tractable

summarizing description with standard functions or even lookup

tables that apply equally well to a wide variety of bodies and their

collisions (as is demanded by algebraic collision laws).

Any generally applicable collision law, whether coming from

detailed continuum modeling, approximating ordinary differential

equations, or summarizing functions, will be highly approximate

unless applied to a narrow range of collisional situations.

represent a complex dynamical process (deformable bodies that

collide: = PDEs of continuum mechanics) by a law or rule

of the form:

V + = Function of (V , parameters, configuration)

Is it reasonable to assume that a finite number of parameters

(sometimes very small number) can well approximate bodies

deformation ?

authors of the same paper propose a new impact law...

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Single impacts

Here we consider two bodies which are locally convex around the

contact point.

If more than one contact closes at the same time we shall speak of

multiple impacts.

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Single impacts

We are going to review some collision mappings:

q + = F(q , q, parameters)

(a) Provide a unique solution for all data

(b) Be numerically tractable

(c) Possess mechanically sound parameters (like restitution

coefficients)

(d) Be able to span the whole subspace of admssible

post-impact velocities

(e) Be able to correctly predict impact outcomes for various

types of bodies (shapes, material) so that it may be validated

through experiments.

Meeting all of these requirements is not an easy task, even for

single collisions.

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Single impacts

Classes of impact dynamics modeling:

(b) Quasi-static (Darboux-Keller, or Routh in 2D)

linear or nonlinear)

(b) FEM analysis

Models (2) may feed models (1) with analytical expressions for

restitution coefficients.

10

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (algebraic impact dynamics)

Single impacts

Assuming that the impact is instantaneous, then it is an easy

matter to deduce that the contact force is impulsive (a Dirac

measure) and that the impact dynamics is an algebraic relation

between velocties and impulses (the impulse being the Dirac

measure magnitude). For two bodies colling at a single point this

gives a relation of the type :

+

i

i

= Pi , i = 1, 2

(1)

MAi

VA+i VAi

matrix of each body, i is the angular velocity vector, VA,i is the

linear velocity of Ai , Pi is the impulse acting on body i .

11

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (algebraic impact dynamics)

Single impacts

Pi = (0 0 0 0 0 pi ,n )T

so that p1,n = p2,n (= pn )

+

It remains 13 unknowns +

i , VAi for i = 1, 2, and pn . We have 12

equations. The system may be completed by a restitution law:

which is Newtons law and en is a kinematic restitution coefficient.

12

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (algebraic impact dynamics)

Single impacts

Notice that if MAi is not diagonal (inertial couplings between

normal and tangential directions) then even without friction or

tangential deformation one may have jumps in i and Vt,Ai .

The system is solvable with a unique post-impact velocity and a

unique impulse with Newtons rule of impact.

The kinetic energy loss is given by:

TL =

1 m1 m2

(e 2 1)(nT (VA1 VA2 ))2

2 m1 + m2 n

implies nT (VA+1 VA+2 ) 0 so that e 0: e [0, 1].

13

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (algebraic impact dynamics)

TL =

X 1

[0 PiT ](A+i + Ai )

2

i =1,2

PiT = (0 0 pn,i ) one obtains

TL =

X 1

+

+ vn,i

pn,i (vn,i

2

i =1,2

+

) = pn,i , pn,1 = pn,2 and the Netwons impact law

vn,i

mi (vn,i

the result follows.

14

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

Let us turn our attention to the Darboux-Keller dynamics of

impact.

Three main definitions of the restitution coefficient:

Kinematic (Newton)

Kinetic (Poisson)

Restitution coefficients are a macroscopic model of a complex

phenomenon involving local and global effects of the two bodies

that collide each other.

15

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

The Darboux-Keller model is based on some assumptions:

expansion phase

These assumptions may not be verified, as well as the fact that the

impact is instantaneous, or that it should not create kinetic energy

(vibrating bodies that collide may create energy at the impact

macroscopic level...).

This is an extension of Rouths graphical method that applies to

2D impacts only.

16

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

m

q (t) = F (t)

(2)

The collision

occurs on [0, tf ], and F (t) > 0 on (0, tf ) so that

R

p(t) = [0,t] F (s)ds is strictly increasing: one can safely perform a

time-scale, replacing t by p.

(there exists a strictly increasing f () such that p = f (t), f (0) = 0,

so that t = f 1 (p), v (t) = v f 1 (p) = v (p)).

17

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

mdv = F (t)dt = dp

dv

dp (p)

1

m

(3)

p(0) = 0 and p strictly increases until its maximal value

(unknown) p(tf ).

The maximal compression corresponds to the time ptc such

that v (ptc ) = 0.

18

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

We obtain:

v (p) v (0) =

1

p

m

so that

1

1

(ptc p(0)) = ptc = v (0)

m

m

and thus ptc = mv (0) > 0 since v (0) < 0 (there is an impact).

Poissons restitution model states that

v (ptc ) v (0) =

ep =

p(tf ) p(tc )

( 0)

p(tc )

19

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

p(tf ) = (1 + ep )mv (0)

and

v (p(tf )) = ep v (0)

In this case Poisson and Newtons rules are equivalent and yield

the same post-impact velocity for equal values of en and ep .

20

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

The energetic model of restitution (Stronge) states that:

elastic energy released during the expansion phase

elastic energy released during the compression phase

and is found to be equal to

e2 =

e2 =

Wn,e

( 0)

Wn,c

where

Wn,e =

v (p)dp, Wn,c =

[p(tc ),p(tf )]

v (p)dp

[0,p(tc )]

are the works performed by the normal force during the expansion

phase (resp. compression phase).

(it was used that F (t)v (t)dt = v (p)dp, and due to infinite tangential

stiffnesses the elastic energy is entirely due to the normal deformation).

21

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

One computes (recall that v (p(tc )) = 0):

Wn,e =

so that

e2 =

1

1 2

v (p(tf )) and Wn,c = (v 2 (0))

2

2

v 2 (p(tf ))

and v (p(tf )) = e v (0)

v 2 (0)

Again in such a simple case the energetical and the kinematic

(Newton) laws are equivalent and provide the same impact

outcome for e = en .

22

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

It easily follows that the loss of kinetic energy is given by

1

TL = T + T = m(e 2 1)v 2 (0)

2

so that TL 0 e [1, 1].

(4)

implies since v (0) < 0 that e 0. We conclude that

e [0, 1]

But such bounds will not always be true in more complex collisions

(friction, multiple impacts).

23

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Comparison of the three coefficients

Single impacts

In the previous one degree-of-freedom case all three coefficients are

equal. Lets consider a 2-dimensional problem of a lamina colliding

a plane (without friction).

f0

h0

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Figure: Lamina colliding an anvil.

24

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Comparison of the three coefficients

Single impacts

The kinematics at the contact point yields:

vn = f0 and vt = h0

so that in particular if f0 and h0 6= 0 one has

vn (p(tc )) = 0 vt (p(tc )) = 0 :

sliding vanishes when compression ends. So from the basic

assumptions the collision is:

(compression vn < 0 + sliding vt > 0)

followed by

(expansion vn > 0 + sliding vt < 0 )

25

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Comparison of the three coefficients

Single impacts

f ) = en (0).

and (t

Poissons law: Let I be the moment of inertia of the lamina

w.r.t. the rotating point O. Then after integration over the

compresion and expansion phases:

n (tf )) (0))

I ((p

= f0 pn (tf )

So ep =

p(tf )p(tc )

p(tc )

f ))

= (p(t

= en .

(0)

26

Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Comparison of the three coefficients

Single impacts

e2

R

v (p )dpn

[0,pn (tc )] n n

one obtains:

e2 = ep en

planar 2D case) each time there is no tangential velocity reversal

(when friction is present).

27

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Single impacts

Let us now pass to the case where friction is present during the

collision between two bodies.

28

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

According to [Whittaker, 1904] one writes the Coulombs model in

terms of the contact impulses, not the contact forces:

pt = f pn sgn(vt )

or more precisely (we deal with instantaneous impacts that imply

discontinuous velocities):

pt f pn sgn(vt+ )

Obviously this may introduce some errors when the tangential

velocity changes its sign (velocity reversal) during the impact,

because then the ratio tangential/normal impulses is no longer

equal to the ratio tangential/normal forces.

29

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Indeed:

TO BE DONE

30

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

direction, then ||pt || pn .

p is on the friction cone boundary.

31

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

Lets first define an impulse ratio

=

pt

pn

Newtons law.

Lets consider two particles moving in the plane and colliding with

friction. Then

TL =

1 m1 m2

(vr ,n (t ))2 (1+en )[(en 1)+2r +(1+en )2 ] (5)

2 m1 + m2

vr,t (t )

two particles, r = vr,n

(t ) .

Adding friction complicates much the expression for TL .

32

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

The case of a particle against a wall

The impact dynamics is

Lets try

m(v + v ) = m

vt+ vt

vn+

vn

pt

pn

pt = f pn sgn(vt+ )

with f > 0, and

vn+ = en vn , vn < 0

33

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

Simple calculations yield:

(6)

boils down to computing the intersection between the graph of the

multifunction

vt+ 7 f (1 + en )vn sgn(vt+ )

and the single-valued function

vt+ 7 vt+ vt

34

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

vt+ = f (1 + en )vn + vt and pt = fpn .

vt+ = f (1 + en )vn + vt and pt = fpn .

|vt | f (1 + en )|vn |, then vt+ = 0 and |pt | fpn .

sticking vt+ = 0.

35

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

the sign multifunction is maximal monotone so the

generalized equation has a unique solution.

The generalized equation for vt+ is simple and monotone

because of no inertial couplings between the normal and

tangential directions.

Easy calculations show that for en [0, 1] one has TL 0 for

all vt and vn because of decoupling, and |vt+ | |vt |.

36

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

Lets try an explicit way: pt = f pn sgn(vt ), then we obtain:

vt+ = vt + f (1 + e)vn sgn(vt )

Let vt > 0, then vt+ = f (1 + e)vn + vt and the sign of vt+

depends on f , e and the pre-impact normal velocity magnitude: is

there some sound mechanical behaviour behind this?

Moreover vt = 0 implies vt+ f (1 + e)|vn |[1, 1], so the

mapping is multivalued (no single value of the post-impact

velocity) and the energetical behaviour is not clear.

It is always better to work with implicit formulations of the

unilateral inclusions.

37

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

The effect of inertial couplings

Lets consider a rod falling on the ground. The dynamics is given

by, with q = (x, y , )T :

0

0

1

n +

t

m

q = mg +

1

0

0

l sin()

l cos()

(7)

0 n h(q) = y l cos() 0

t = f n sgn(x + l sin())

38

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

The impact dynamics is deduced as:

m(x + x ) = pt

m(y + y ) = pn

n

t

+ + l + sin() = e(y + l sin())

y

p 0, y + l sin() 0, y + + l + sin() 0

n

(8)

data (x , y , ) and e, f , with unknowns (x + , y + , + ) and pn ,

pt .

39

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

Let us denote =

pt

pn ,

1

M(, )

TL = m(1 + en )N(, ) (1 en ) + r 2

2

M0

(9)

with:

N(, ) =

M(, ) =

(y +l sin())2 mI

I

2

+l sin2 ()l 2 sin() cos()

m

mI +l 2 cos2 () l 2 cos() sin()

I

+l 4 cos2 () sin2 ()

m

40

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

When sgn(vt+ ) = sgn(vt ) then one may have TL > 0 for

e [0, 1], = f sgn(vt+ ), f > 0, see [Kane and Levinson, 1985]

for the double-pendulum.

The fundamental reason for this loss of coherency is that the

orthogonality of tangent and normal velocity in the local contact

frame (euclidean metric), does not transport to orthogonality in

the configuration space of generalized coordinates (in which the

natural metric is the kinetic metric: x T M(q)y ).

Similar issues exist for sliding motions and Painleve paradoxes.

41

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

This has motivated researchers to propose various extensions of

Whittakers law to avoid such drawback.

e.g. extension of Coulombs law at the impulse level [Smith, JAM

1991]:

|vr,t |vr,t + |vr+,t |vr+,t

pt

=

pn

|vr,t |2 + |vr+,t |2

1997] proves the existence of a solution in his PhD thesis.

velocities (why not simply trying a method and fitting the

parameter ?)

42

Single impact with Coulombs friction

The impulse ratio

Single impacts

About the use of an impulse ratio =

pt

pn :

TL 0, however this is not an accurate enough mechanical model

(Coulombs friction ? Tangential restitution ?)

Fact: in general 6= f but < f . Experimental results are reported

in [Calsamiglia et al, JAM 1998], with disks striking a wall.

incidence angle

predictable with Darboux-Kellers model!)

43

Single impact with Coulombs friction

The impulse ratio

Single impacts

These experiments show the limitations of neglecting the possibly

finite tangential stiffness.

44

Single impact with Coulombs friction

The impulse ratio

Single impacts

JAM 1998] show that even in the case of spheres/disks where the

basic (en , f ) law of Whittaker is mathematically sound and

assures TL 0, it may be too poor to correctly represent the

impact phenomenon at a reasonable degree of realism.

So even for the simplest cases this law satisfies the requirements

(a) (b) and (c) but fails to satisfy (d) and (e).

45

Single impact with Coulombs friction

The impulse ratio

Single impacts

[Wu et al, Proc. R. Soc. A, 2009] conducted FEM simulations of a

disk against a half-space, and computed the ratio f as a function

of:

occurs throughout the impact c = 71

,

2(11 )

21

= c1 + c2 tanh(c3 + c4 )

f

where ci s are material property dependent and fitted, and

for c .

=1

46

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts

Tangential restitution versus Coulombs friction:

Mimicking the normal restitution model:

vt+ = et vt

Remark: In an instantaneous impact framework ( algebraic

impact dynamics) all four coefficients , en , et , f satisfy

relationships. For instance for two particles colliding one has

=

1 + et vr,t

1 + en vr,n

et = 1 + (1 + en )

vr,n

vr,t

47

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts

Physical meaning of et :

tangential deformation!)

48

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts

Some authors [Lun and Bent, Powder and Grains 1993] choose to

the following model for disk against wall:

+

vt = et,0 vt if sticking (|pt | < fpn )

+

vt = et vt

if sliding (|pt | = fpn )

with:

et = 1 + f (1 + en ) 1 +

(10)

mR 2

2

|vn |

|vt |

experiments in [Maw et al, Mech. Res. Comm. 1977].

49

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

The works of Maw, Barber and Fawcett 1976, 1977, 1981, that

evidence the role of Coulomb friction, stick, slip, and the incidence

angle.

TO BE DONE

50

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts

Some works [Brach, 1991; Walton 1992; Jenkins JAM 1992]

propose the use of a bilinear law of the form:

pn = (1 + en )mvn

pt = min{pn , (1 +

et )m|vt |}

(11)

sgn(vt )

Compared with the basic (en , f ) law there is one more parameter

et and this law is shown to better fit with the above experimental

data (figure 2).

This is further extended in [Chatterjee and Ruina, JAM 1998].

[Moreau 198] also adds a tangential restitution.

51

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts

Some experimental results for en and et [Antonyuk et al, Granular

Matter 2010]:

52

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

initial tangential velocity magnitude |vt | [Garland and Rogers, JAM

2009].

TO BE DONE

53

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts

Those analytical and experimental results indicate that:

The normal deformation process is independent of the

tangential one (impact angle varied from 0 to 80 degrees)

confirming other experiments [Calsamiglia et al, JAM 1998].

The tangential restitution coefficient varies with the impact

angle (transitions from rolling without slipping, to sliding at

large angles), which demonstrates that Coulombs like

phenomena are behind it (so et is a super-macroscopic

coefficient!).

For sphere/sphere or sphere/plane oblique impacts, f may

vary with |vt .

The problem raised by inertial couplings and Kane-Levinsons

example with TL > 0 is a fundamental issue: one can estimate

separately en and f from suitable experiments, but inserting

them into the Whittakers law of impact with friction no

longer works: the physical validity of en and f seems to be

54

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts

The underlying issue is that using Newtons coefficient and

Coulombs friction model at the impulse level does not yield a

generalized equation for the post-impact velocities, with good

properties like maximal monotonicity (that would assure existence

and uniqueness of the solutions).

This has motivated researchers to use other approaches:

by Moreaus superpotentials (problem: not easy to discover

the right superpotential function so that the resulting law has

good parameters)

or:

(energetic) coefficients.

55

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Comparison of the three coefficients (Darboux-Kellers approach)

Single impacts

Lets consider a 2-dimensional problem of a lamina colliding a

plane (with friction).

f0

h0

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Figure: Lamina colliding an anvil.

56

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Comparison of the three coefficients (Darboux-Kellers approach)

Single impacts

one finds that [Lubarda, JAM 2010]:

ep =

f0 +fh0

f0 fh0 en

e2 = ep en

where f > 0 is the friction coefficient.

57

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Comparison of the three coefficients (Darboux-Kellers approach)

Single impacts

1

2

0

e , so that:

en = ff00 fh

+fh0

f0 +fh0

f0 fh0

1

2

e and

en < e < ep

(12)

rebound after the impact))

58

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Bounds on the restitution coefficients

Single impacts

TL = 12 I (2 (p(tf )) 2 (0)) = 12 I (en2 1) 2 (0)

2

0 fh0 )

= 21 I 2 (0) 1 ep2 (f

(f0 +fh0 )2

(13)

+fh0

.

relationships between both coefficients: ep ff00 fh

0

59

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Bounds on the restitution coefficients

Single impacts

By construction of the energetical coefficient one has necessarily

e 1 (which is the advantage of using it). The above upper

bounds may then be refined:

ep

2fh0

1+

f0 fh0

2

2fh0

1

f0 fh0

2

en

stiffness may be a limitation of the model)

60

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Bounds on the restitution coefficients

Single impacts

Lower bounds:

normal force is always positive.

e 0 by definition.

61

Single impact with Coulombs friction

The tangential restitution

Single impacts

Let us consider the impulse ratio

R

pt (tc )

[0,t ] Ft (s)ds

= R c

=

pn (tc )

[0,tc ] Fn (s)ds

From the Coulomb model Ft = f Fn sgn(vt ) and the fact that the

sliding reverses at p(tc ) we get that Ft = f Fn sgn(p(t) p(tc )).

It follows that

if pn pn (tc )

fpn

pt (pn ) =

(14)

62

Single impact with Coulombs friction

The tangential restitution

Single impacts

It follows that

=

f (1 ep )

f ((2pn (tc ) pn (tf ))

=

pn (tf )

1 + ep

f , but < f 1 .

Using the bounds derived for ep one can also compute bounds for

.

63

Single impact with Coulombs friction

The tangential restitution

Single impacts

The parameter

fh0

f0

fh0

f0

normal velocity)..

fh0

f0 = 1: from the obtained relations linking en and ep we infer

that there is no rebound (plastic impact with vanishing

post-impact normal velocity).Then the angle (AO, n) is the

friction cone angle (= arctan(f )).

fh0

f0 > 1: case of large friction. Relying on the kinematics at

the contact point and the Darboux-Keller dynamics one

obtains that on the expansion phase:

n ) = (f0 fh0 )(pn pn (tc )) for pn [pn (tc ), pn (tf )]

I (p

expansion phase, and the impact terminates when pn = pn (tc )

with ep = 0 (similarly e = 0 in this case).

64

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Conclusions (2D impact)

Single impacts

relationships between the three most well-known restitution

coefficients, as well as bounds from kinetic energy constraints

and post-impact velocity admissibility.

The advantage of the energetical coefficient is that it is

intrinsically (under the stated assumptions) inside [0, 1].

The tangential frictional effects influence the normal ones in

the sense that if friction is large enough (the friction cone

contains the center of rotation) then the impact is plastic.

Notice that until now we made no particular assumption on

the type of contact model (viscoelastic, viscoplastic,

elastoplastic..). The normal coefficient of restitution

encapsulates all kinds of energy losses (but not the tangential

stiffness!).

65

Single impact with Coulombs friction

Conclusions (2D impact)

Single impacts

Logically, impacts with friction should be prone to the same

difficulties as sliding motion with friction (frictional paroxisms for

some configurations).

However some of the Painleve paradox effects may not exist in

shock dynamics since one works with impulses and not forces: as

shown in [Genot and Brogliato, EJM A/Solids 1998] at some

plane, Fn while its impulse pn < .

points of the (, )

We retrieve here a big advantage of working with impulses,

similarly to what happens in time-stepping schemes `a la

Moreau-Jean.

66

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Single impacts

Proceeding in the same way, the case of two bodies colliding with

Coulomb friction gives the dynamics:

dvr,n

dpn

dvr,t1

dpn

dvr,t2

dpn

f cos()

1

= M f sin()

1

(15)

local contact frame, the mass matrix inverse is given by expressions

of the form:

1

m11

=

i =1,2

1

1

1

r3i2 Ii1

,12 + r3i r1i Ii ,32 + r3i r2i Ii ,13 r2i r1i Ii ,33

67

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Single impacts

The 3D case is much more involved. Darboux in his 1880 paper

states some results:

Proposition

If during a soft shock process a sliding phase ends, and if sliding

resumes before the end of the collision, then the direction and

orientation of the relative tangential velocity on this subsequent

period is constant.

This of course relies on the above stringent assumptions on the

impact behaviour...

To the best of the speakers knowledge, no experimental results

exist that corroborate any of the studies on Darboux-Kellers approach...which is somewhat worrying...

68

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Geometrical analysis of the impact laws (impulse space)

Single impacts

cover all possible admissible post-impact outcomes, under three

main constraints:.

69

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Geometrical analysis of the impact laws (impulse space)

70

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Geometrical analysis of the impact laws (impulse space)

Single impacts

See Chatterjees PhD thesis for a comparison of various above impact

laws in terms of reachable admissible points in the impulse space.

71

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

the impact law (Newtons like) in the generalized coordinates q of

a lagrangian system subject to frictionless unilateral constraints

h(q) 0 as:

M(q)(q + q ) NT (q) (w )

+

+en q

, = {q Rn | h(q) 0}, T (q) is the tangent

with w = q 1+e

n

cone to at q, NT (q) (w ) is the normal cone to the tangent cone,

evaluated at w .

72

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

convex analysis: let x, y Rn , M = M T > 0, then

1

M(x + y ) NC (x) x = argmin (z y )T M(z y )

2

zC

We deduce that:

1

q + = en q + (1 + en ) argmin (z q )T M(z q )

zT (q) 2

73

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

An equivalent formulation is [Payr and Glocker 2005]:

q = v + v , q + = v en v

T (q) v (q)

v (q)

(16)

N (q)

and N (q) are polar cones.

Hint: let C Rn be a non empty convex cone, and C o is polar

cone. Then

C o x y C x NC (y )

74

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

q + T (q), q T (q)

one can deduce the lower limit en 0.

75

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

M(q)(q + q ) = h(q)p

U + = hT (q)q + , U = hT (q)q

0 U + + en U p 0

(17)

distance function (the gap function, see later).

76

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

TL = (v ,+ )T (v ,+ ) (v , )T (v , ) = 0

and we obtain en = 1 (hence en [0, 1]) and:

v = proxT (q) (q ), v = proxN (q) (q )

77

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

Graphical interpretation:

78

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

boundary Bd() has singularities) and therefore provides a clear

mathematical framework for frictionless multiple impacts.

furnish automatically a restitution mapping satisfying all of the

above requirements (in particular the physical meaning of all the

parameters in the multiple impact case).

The analysis is also led with Poissons CoR in [Payr and Glocker

2005].

[Payr and Glocker 2005] analyze various impact rules and extend

Moreaus restitution law to comply with some of the basic

requirements (like spanning of the whole admissible post-impact

velocity space).

79

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

First conclusions

Single impacts

The algebraic impact law using en and some tangential restitution

et of f or , has been the object of many analysis and extensions

in order improve the basic Whittakers law.

All of these models are gross approximations of the impact phenomenon.

It seems difficult to meet all the requirements (even for 2D

impacts!):

coefficients)

80

Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case

First conclusions

Single impacts

post-impact velocities

types of bodies (shapes, material) so that it may be validated

through experiments.

the price of not being able to estimate them through simple

experiments.

The model has to be taylored to the application.

Fitting the parameters may also work!

81

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Single impacts

82

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

sphere/sphere or sphere/plane impacts. They mainly arise from:

coefficient

83

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

The CoR obtained from a linear spring/daspot model

m = c k (sometimes called Kelvin-Voigt):

en = exp

1 2

c .

2 km

84

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

85

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

!!

2 1 2

arctan

en = exp

22 1

1 2

86

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

rigidity, as it can be applied to compliant contact:

= (t) that is a

0 Fn (t) + (t) (t) 0 and m(t)

linear complementarity system x = Ax + B,

0 w = Cx + D 0.

These two models are rather poor since en does not depend

on vn (0), contradicting experiments and more sophisticated

analysis.

systems simulations.

exist (like the Zener model), all sharing the same deficiencies.

87

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

The compliance relations obtained from Hertz theory

(statical theory of elastic contact)

Basic assumptions:

state, i.e. all the external dynamic loads are taken to be in

equilibrium, the contact pressure increases slowly and the

analysis can be based on a static contact theory.

propagation time of released elastic waves along the whole

length of each impacted body.

88

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

In case of two identical spheres with radii R and mass m colliding

one may then write for the collision dynamics (rate independent

materials):

m

3

d 2 n

2

=0

+

k

n

dt 2

m2

2RE

with m = mm11+m

, k = 3(1

2 )m and n is the local normal

2

deflection. For rate dependent materials:

3

p dn

d 2 n

2

+

k(

=0

n

+

c

n

dt 2

dt

where c is a constant that is a function of viscosity parameters

(not obvious to determine analytically).

the viscous dissipation is nonlinear as well...

89

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

Remark: the widely used (in some fields like robotics) Hunt and

Crossley model [Hunt and Crossley, JAM 1975]:

Fn = c||m km

3

viscous term c|| 2 and not c n d n ). It is rather used because

of its integrability property.

For low velocities it gives en 1 vn (0) for some constant and

thus reproduces a general tendency (for some materials) that en

decreases with increasing vn (0) and en = 1 for very small impact

velocity.

90

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

Phys. Rev. E 1996]:

en = 1 b

with b = 1.15

3Ad

2

2

3E

2

5

vn (0)

m2

, Ad =

1

1 (32 1 )2 (1 2 )(12)

.

3 32 +21

E 2

91

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

According to [Johnson, Contact Mechanics, 1985] the relation

Fn (n ) for elasto-plastic contact is not precisely defined, so one has

to resort to approximate analysis.

Assumptions:

deformation) and equal to 3.0Y where Y is the yield stress in

simple compression.

2

R2

.

surface radius, R = RR11+R

2

92

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Then

r

en 3.8

Yd

E

1 mvn2 (0)

2 Yd R 3

81

that depends on Youngs and Poissons moduli) are material

parameters of the bodies. Below the minimum value for vn (0) that

1

93

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

The obtained value of en in [Johnson, 1985] when compared to

experimental data (steel, aluminium alloy, brass) provides

overestimation of the real CoR.

several subsequent studies to enrich Johnsons works to better

match with experimental measurements.

[Mangwandi et al, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007] compared various

expressions of en with experimental measurements with granules

(calcium carbonate, polyethylene glycol).

They conclude that the existing results (elastoplastic with full

plasticity during the loading phase [Johnson, 1985]; same but with elastic

contribution during loading [Thorton, 1997]; finite plastic deformation

[Wu et al 2003) yield over- or under-estimation of the CoR.

94

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Their new model incorporates strain hardening [Mangwandi et al,

Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007]. It is given by:

en = 3

with

x=

9Ry

4El

2n+4

3

10

15El

16R 2

y2

Eul (x

(x + y )

and y =

+ y ) 2n+4

5

2n+4

i 12

k

(2+n)R n+1

(18)

i 1

(2n + 4)R n+1 mvn2 (0) 885735R 3

k

2

16394El4

95

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Here are the results from [Mangwandi et al, Chem. Eng. Sci.

2007]:

96

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

97

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

98

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

This raises two fundamental questions:

point of view (or something similar) with some kind of bilinear

model and constant coefficients ?

off-line from material properties (E , , geometry). Hoever

what is really gained by using such rather awful expressions

for an impact in so simple conditions (no friction, colinear

impact, sphere/sphere or sphere/plane), since we know that

friction may drastically change the picture ?

99

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Further results:

[Steven et al, Powder Techn. 2005] compared 8 definitions of the

CoR with experiments of stainless/stainless and

chrome-steel/chrome-steel collisions of two spheres:

Hertz contact

Lee and Hermann (Hertz + meff vr ,n )

Walton and Braun (elasto-plastic, bi-stiffness model for

loading and unloading phases, constant en )

Walton and Braun (elasto-plastic, bi-stiffness with variable en )

Thorton (elasto-plastic, see above; fitted parameters)

Thorton (elasto-plastic, see above; non-fitted parameters)

100

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Excerpts of the results for the CoR:

(stainless/stainless).

101

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Excerpts of the results for CoR continued:

steel/chrome steel).

102

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Excerpts of the results for collision duration:

durations (stainless steel/stainless steel).

103

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Phys., 1987] and [Walton and Braun, J. Rheol., 1896] (with

variable en ), both for prediction of en and collision duration.

fitted parameter predicts well the plastic deformation effects

and collision duration, but overestimates the dependency of en

on vn (0).

104

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

CoR dependence on bodies temperature

The CoR may also depend on the temperature of the materials

that collide:

1975].

105

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

force/identation F ()

collision duration

106

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impact

Also [Antonyuk et al Granular Matter 2010] show that the energy process

during pure compression (very low velocity vn (0) = 0.02 m/s) is not at

all the same as that during an impact (0.5 vn (0) 4.5 m/s): energy

absorption during pure compression than during impacts.

107

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impact

than during pure compression, independently of:

However Hertz theory predicts well the impact process during the

elastic phases.

108

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

The effect of repeated impacts on plastic deformation

A recursive formula for the successive CoRs from one impact to

the next is given by [Weir and Tallon, Chem. Eng. Science, 2005] :

!

3

8

8

8

5

v

n,1

2

3

3

3

en,k+1

en,k

1 2.7

= en,k

+ en,1

c0

and en,k 1 as k +: plastic deformation becomes less and

less important.

[Weir and Tallon, Chem. Eng. Science, 2005] conducted

experiments of a sphere colliding an identical sphere and proved

that their analytical prediction fits well (errors 5% compared to

20% with Johnsons expression).

109

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

110

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Similar tendency for rods impacting spheres (sphere/plane contact)

in [Seifried et al, Int. J. Imp. Eng. 2005] (aluminium alloy, steel):

111

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Wave effects and the validity of the quasistatic assumption

Single impacts

Wave effects

In [Weir and Tallon, Chem. Eng. Science, 2005] the following CoR

expression is proposed for low velocities:

3 !

c0 vn (0) 5

en = exp 0.6

c2

c0

that takes into account wave losses, c2 and c0 are the shear and

the compressional waves velocities (resp.). When plastic

deformation holds (intermediate velocity):

en = 3.1

Yd

E

5

8

R1

R

3

8

c0

vn (0)

1

4

112

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Wave effects and the validity of the quasistatic assumption

Single impacts

It seems from the above that even in the case of two spheres

colliding, some wave effects may be important for an accurate

prediction of the impact outcome.

even for perfectly elastic materials the wave effects may be

significant (up to 5% energy loss). Therefore the quasistatic

assumption may not be suitable.

significant role in multiple impacts, but for a different reason

(dispersion of energy rather than dissipation of energy).

113

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Conclusions

Single impacts

Some general tendencies:

The normal CoR tends to 1 for zero normal incidence velocity vn (0),

and decreases exponentially with vn (0) for metals (steel, aluminium

alloy).

114

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Conclusions

Single impacts

like zeolite or sodium benzoate spheres [Antonyuk et al Granular

Matter 2010].

2010].

115

Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Conclusions

Single impacts

impacts, so that usually en increases with the number of

impacts (not always true however, for some materials

softening, microcracking and breakage produce the reverse

phenomenon [Tavares et al, Powder Tech. 2002]).

impact, and call into question quasistatic assumptions (even

for very simple geometries like disks impacting an anvil).

116

General conclusions on single impact models

Single impacts

Many theoretical and experimental studies that concern:

its dependence on mechanical parameters (local effects) for

sphere/plane, starting from Hertz theory.

deduce some general guidelines?

117

General conclusions on single impact models

Single impacts

The impact with friction phenomenon is extremely complex and

involves (too) many physical phenomena. Two general directions

may be drawn:

sphere/plane), may use a refined complex expression of the

restitution coefficient if needed.

algebraic law (at the price of fitting, may be). Then you may

want the law to provide a unique and admissible solution for

any initial data, and be numerically tractable.

to the application.

118

General conclusions on single impact models

Single impacts

two sequences of single impacts:

1

119

General conclusions on single impact models

Single impacts

Initially no vibrations inside the bodies. Scenario:

P

1

2

Initial velocities and initial kinetic energy ( 4

i =1 2 mi vGi (0))

so that en < 1 at both contacts

1 and 4 leave

(kinetic energy of the mass enter + vibrational energy) into

mass centers velocities so that en > 1.

The

kinetic energy is equal to the initial one and is

P4 final

1

2

i =1 2 mi vGi (0)

120

General conclusions on single impact models

Multiple impacts

121

Definitions

The gap functions

Multiple impacts

Let q Rn denote the vector of independent generalized

coordinates of the system in a free-motion mode (i.e. the contact

points of interest are supposed to be inactive). The inertia matrix

is denoted as M(q) assumed to be symmetric positive definite.

The gap functions hi (q) 0, 1 i m, are used to state the

non-penetrability of the contacting bodies. They are signed

distances.

We define the m gap functions hi : Rn R as differentiable

functions.

In general they are hard to compute analytically, so a numerical

estimation is necessary (collision detection algorithms).

122

Definitions

The gap functions

Multiple impacts

M(q)

q + F (q, q,

t) = h(q)

0 h(q) 0

123

Definitions

A multiple impact in a multibody system

Multiple impacts

Definition

Let = {q Rn | h(q) 0} be the admissible domain of the

mechanical system. A multiple impact of order p (or a pimpact)

is an impact that occurs at a codimension p singularity of the

boundary bd().

124

Definitions

A multiple impact in a multibody system

Multiple impacts

125

Definitions

The kinetic angle between two hypersurfaces

Multiple impacts

kinetic angle ij between i and j is defined by

cos(ij ) = q

q

hiT (q)M 1 (q)hi (q) hjT (q)M 1 (q)hj (q)

trajectories with respect to the initial data (example: particle in an

angle).

126

Definitions

The kinetic angle between two hypersurfaces

Multiple impacts

case >

case =

(q0 , q 0 )

(q0 , q 0 )

0

(restitution coefficient e = 0)

(restitution coefficient e = 1)

127

Definitions

The kinetic angle between two hypersurfaces

Multiple impacts

A result of [Paoli, 2005] states that continuity with respect to

initial data holds under certain conditions, roughly:

hhi (q), M 1 (q)hj (q)i 0 if en = 0

(19)

(20)

(0 ij 2 )

(ij = 2 )

128

Definitions

The kinetic angle between two hypersurfaces

Multiple impacts

with Coulombs friction ?

frictionless orthogonality properties (due to the fact that euclidean

and kinetic metrics do not match).

129

Definitions

Examples

Multiple impacts

The rocking block

L

y

b'

h()

-g

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAA

b

f()

a'

130

Definitions

Examples

Multiple impacts

h1 (q) = + M (y ) 0, h2 (q) = M (y ) 0

where

M (y ) = arcsin

or equivalently

h1 (q) = y

2y

2

l + L2

l

arctan

L

L

l

L

l

cos() sin(), h2 (q) = y cos() + sin()

2

2

2

2

The two constraints are ortogonal in the kinetic metric if and only

if

l=

2L

131

Definitions

Examples

Multiple impacts

The rod with two contact points

h2 (q)

h1 (q)

132

Definitions

Examples

Multiple impacts

The rod at the impact:

L

d0

d1

d2

133

Definitions

Examples

Multiple impacts

h1 (q) = y cos()+(d1 x) sin(), h2 (q) = y cos()+(d2 x) sin()

The (unnormalized) kinetic angle at the impact with the 2 points

(a 2-impact) is given by:

12

L

L

1

+

(d1 d0 )(d2 d0 )

12 =

m mL2

2

2

so 12 depends on the rod length and on its position w.r.t. the 2

points at the impact time:

1+

12

L

L

(d1 d0 )(d2 d0 ) > 0 12 [0, )

L2

2

2

2

1+

12

L

L

(d1 d0 )(d2 d0 ) < 0 12 ( , )

2

L

2

2

2

134

Definitions

Examples

Multiple impacts

stable impacts, while some others yield impact outcomes quite

sensitive to initial data.

135

The lagrangian impact dynamics

Multiple impacts

the acceleration q . Positions q remain constant and velocities q

undergo a discontinuity.

M(q(t))[q(t

+ ) q(t

)] = h(q(t))pt

where = pt t , pt being the percussion at time t.

There are n + m unknowns: q(t

+ ) and pt . We have n equations,

so we need m more equations just to solve the problem.

136

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

Let us now transform the Lagrange impact dynamics using some

specific state vetcor change.

The unitary normal vector to each hypersurface of constraint

hi (q) = 0, 1 i m, in the kinetic metric is

nq,i = q

M 1 (q)hi (q)

hiT (q)M 1 (q)hi (q)

T

tq,j

hi (q) = 0

the configuration space, at q. We collect all nq,i into nq Rm and

all tq,j into tq Rnm .

137

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

Lets perform a specific state vector change as follows: Let

T

nq

=

tT

q

and let

M(q) = M(q)

The new vector of velocities is:

q norm

= M(q)q

q tan

that splits the generalized velocity into a normal and a

tangential components (in the kinetic metric).

138

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

Then the Lagrange dynamics is transformed into:

qnorm + F1 (q, q,

t) = nq Fq

qtan + F2 (q, q,

t) = 0

(21)

Fq = pq t . The term pq = h(q)p Rn is the generalized

percussion vector, p Rm .

At an impact time t we get:

q norm (t + ) q norm (t ) = nq pq

and

q tan (t + ) = q tan (t )

139

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

problem in configuration space is equivalent to the simple particle

case...

But this is not true!

One example of the limitations of the Lagrange formalism (gain for

mathematicians, not for mechanicians...)

140

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

dynamics as:

T

nq,i

M(q)nq,j = hiT (q)M 1 (q)hj (q) = 0

impact dynamics being decoupled (the impact on i does not

influence the impacts on j for all j 6= i ).

(The Delassus matrix is hT (q)M 1 (q)h(q) Rmm .)

141

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

One may write a generalized frictionless impact law as follows for

each constraint hi (q). 1 i m:

+

= en,i q norm,i

q norm,i

(22)

m

1X 2

)2

(en,i 1)(q norm,i

TL =

2

(23)

i =1

implies |en | 1 similarly to the frictionless two-particle case.

142

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

Remark

applying Moreaus rule.

using directly the q tan components.

restitution coefficients et,i , 1 i n m and construct a

generalized restitution mapping. However will this be quite

useful if such a restitution mapping does not satisfy most of

the requirements for a good impact law (see few slides below)

?

143

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

Rocking block example

Considering only the left contact point one has:

q T q f1 (q)

q norm,1 = p

q f1 (q)T M 1 (q)q f1 (q)

2

y

l +L2 4y 2

with q T q f1 (q) = 2

q tang,1 =

and

+ ,

mx

)

2I

m

(t

y(t

k

k

4I +mL2

L 4I +mL2

(24)

144

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

Applying the above generalized Newtons rule to the first contact

point (i.e. q norm,1 )

2

2

+

+

y (t ) + (t ) = en

y(t

) + (t )

L

L

because at the impact times = 0, y =

l

2

2

l +L2 4y 2

and 2

= L2 .

y (t + ) =

and

y (t )

l 2 + 4L2

2

2

2

2

)

+ ) = (2en + 1)(L + l ) + 4(l + L ) (t

(t

4l 2 + 16L2

145

The lagrangian impact dynamics

A state vector change

Multiple impacts

This is to be compared with the widely used Housners model that

treats the rocking block as a one degree-of-freedom system and

states that

+ ) = e (t

)

(t

This tends to indicate that such a e depends on the block

dimensions and on en .

two normal generalised restitution coefficients certainly not

enough to describe rocking motion (already noticed by Moreau).

Well introduce later a matrix of generalised restitution coefficients.

146

The lagrangian impact dynamics

First conclusions

Multiple impacts

This allows us to point out two important features:

trajectories properties

the analysis because the local orthogonality (euclidean) does

not transport to generalized (global) orthogonality (kinetic).

147

Features and properties of a restitution mapping

Multiple impacts

involved in the pimpact,

initial data,

contacts,

(6) the ability of the impact rule to span the whole admissible

post-impact velocities domain,

be identified from experiments,

148

Features and properties of a restitution mapping

Multiple impacts

velocities in agreement with experimental results,

impact rule is incorporated in it,

general mechanical systems,

149

Features and properties of a restitution mapping

Some items are peculiar to multiple shocks, like item (4) about

wave effects: waves through the bodies are responsible for the

dispersion of the energy.

Energy dispersion

This characterizes the fact that the kinetic energy is distributed

among the bodies of the system during the shock, as a result of

waves effects that travel throughout the mechanical system.

150

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Multiple impacts

impacts: looks simple, but is not at all!

151

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Textbooks solutions and experimental results

Multiple impacts

The textbooks solution concerns solely the case of one ball that

impacts a chain of balls at rest and in contact. Then q n+ = q 1 ,

while q i+ = 0 for all 1 i n 1, i.e. all the energy is transferred

from the first to the last ball.

apparent that q i+ 6= 0 for all 1 i n 1!

effects of the dispersion of the kinetic energy in the chain, due

to waves that travel throughout the chain (this is a mechanical

tsunami).

152

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Multiple impacts

Let us illustrate here the issue of continuity of the trajectories with

respect to the initial data. We consider chains impacting a wall:

(a)

(b)

(c)

153

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Multiple impacts

The dynamics with two balls impacting a wall is given by:

m1 q1 (t) = m1 g + 1

m2 q2 (t) = m2 g 1 + 2

0 1 h1 (q) = q1 q2 R1 R2 0

0 2 h2 (q) = q2 R2 0

(25)

m1

cos(12 ) =

<0

(26)

m1 + m2

so that 0 < 12 < 2 and from [Paoli 2005] one may expect

discontinuity w.r.t. initial data when en 6= 0.

154

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Multiple impacts

restitution coefficients en,1 and en,2 , respectively. When there are

several impacts we indicate it as ++ or + + +. The sequence of

impacts B2 /wall (2 ) and B1 /B2 (1 ) produces the outcomes:

men,1

1+en,1

+

(27)

q ++ = m(1+en,1 ) q e 1en,1 m q

n,2 1+m

1

2

2

1+m

with m =

m1

m2 .

155

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Multiple impacts

The sequence of impacts B1 /B2 (1 ) and B2 /wall (2 ) and then

B1 /B2 (1 ) again, produces the outcomes

q 1++ =

men,1

1+en,1

men,1

q + 1+m

q 2

1+m

1+m

n 1

o

1en,1 m

1+en,1 m(1+en,1 )

q

+

q

en,2 1+m

1

2

1+m

1+m

(28)

n

o

m(1+en,1 ) men,1

1+en,1

+++

=

q

+

q

1+m

1+m

1+m 2

o

n 1

1en,1 m m(1+en,1 )

1en,1 m

en,2 1+m

q

+

q

1

2

1+m

1+m

156

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Multiple impacts

Clearly the final values in (27) and (28) are not the same.

restitution mapping when the collision occurs at 1 2 , by

studying sequences of impacts.

multiple-impact law for this system.

157

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Multiple impacts

Similar calculations and conclusions may be drawn for the

three-ball chain by considering two different sequences of

impacts.Let us now consider the three-ball chain with initial gaps

equal to zero, and Newtons law at each contact. Calculations give:

+ 1

q 1 = 3 [(1 2en,1 )q 1 + (1 en,2 + 2en,1 )q 2 + (1 + en,2 )q 3 ]

+ 1

q 3 = 3 [(1 + en,1 )q 1 + (1 + 2en,2 en,1 )q 2 + (1 2en,2 )q 3 ]

(29)

158

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Multiple impacts

Suppose that q 2 = q 3 = 0:

en,2 .

2

TL 0 en,1

1

So if en,i

2

2

TL 0 en,1

+ en,2

+ en,1 en,2 3

2

= 0 one has en,j

3 > 1, i 6= j.

159

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

in the generalized coordinates. In particular if en = 0 in Moreaus

law then

1

q 1+ = q 2+ = q 3+ = (q 1 + q 2 + q 3 )

3

the three balls are stuck together after the impact.

Notice: maximum dissipation does not mean that the three balls

come to rest after the impact...

160

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

First conclusions

Multiple impacts

coefficients (associated to pairs of balls) are unable to model

neither the dissipation nor the dispersion effects.

The upper bounds of the coefficients vary with the initial data!

There is not a unique choice for en,1 and en,2 even for a given

2 + e2 + e e

energetical behaviour: TL = 0 means en,1

n,1 n,2 = 3

n,2

in the second case.

between the balls.

161

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

springs the fact that under a constant energetical behaviour (here

no energy loss) the impact outcome may vary a lot with the

stiffness ratio and the initial velocities.

162

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

Three-ball chain with linear springs

The governing equations at the instant of impact are (before at

least one contact opens) :

dP1

(t) = k(x1 (t) x2 (t))

dt

dP2

(t) = k(x1 (t) x2 (t)) k(x2 (t) x3 (t))

dt

dP3

(t) = k(x2 (t) x3 (t))

dt

(30)

the stiffness ratio, the quantity is the mass ratio.

Clearly the impact is lossless.

163

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

It is possible to show (analytically) that:

If + then q 1+ = 13 m/s

lim0 q 1+

If 0 then

lim0 q 3+ = 1 m/s.

= 0 m/s,

q 2+ = q 3+ =

lim0 q 2+

2

3

m/s

= 0 m/s,

Several detailed studies of such chains have been published in the

American J. of Physics. For instance [Reinsch, Am. J. Phys. 1994]

shows that the dispersion-free outcome (the second one) can

appear for an infinity of suitable and in nball chains.

164

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

drawn for linear elastic contacts, since the right stiffness for chains

of balls is Hertz nonlinear stiffness [Falcon et al, 1998].

It is not clear whether or not linear springs may well model wave

effects through the chain, because Hertz contact brings

nonlinearity which makes waves behave differently (even in the

case of pre-compression in the chain).

165

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

Complexity of the force/displacements in the three-ball chains:

from [Acary and Brogliato MIT Conf. Comp. Fl. Solid Mech., 2003]

166

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

167

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

very rich dynamics:

stiffness does not seem to simplify a lot the process.

168

Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)

Further analysis of nball chains

Multiple impacts

[Reinsch 1994, Am. J. Phys.] computes masses and stiffnesses ratios so

that a linear chain is dispersion-free, which means that if n left-balls

impact m right-balls at rest, then n right-balls leave the chain while m

left-balls stay at rest after the shock.

Some contacts may last very long under some configurations and

initial data.

else) elasticity, independently of pre-loading or not (the nonlinear

modes play an important role). So the validity of studies based on

linear elastic contact may be questioned for chains of balls.

rods are dispersion-free.

dissipation due to the viscoelastic property of the material) ?

169

First conclusions

Multiple impacts

simple multibody systems show that excepted some extremely

particular cases, this is a hopeless path to get a multiple

impact law because there is not a unique limit as the gaps

tend to zero (kinetic angle 6= 2 ).

Compliant contact models show that the multiple impact

process may be extremely complex and may display a variety

of behaviours (dispersion, dispersion-free, short contact, long

lasting contacts), even if the kinetic energy loss is fixed.

How to represent wave effects (dispersion of kinetic energy)

with constant parameters within a perfect rigid body

framework and algebraic impact dynamics ?? (in particular

satisfying item (8) above).

Personal conjecture: this is impossible...

170

Multiple impact restitution mappings

A generalized Newtons law

Multiple impacts

One may start from a quite general point of view and derive a

general restitution mapping for generalized velocities using for

instance the above (q norm , q tan ):

+

q norm

q norm

(31)

=E

+

q tan

q tan

the coefficients values to each system configuration (see items (4)

(7) (8) (9) above).

171

Multiple impact restitution mappings

A generalized Newtons law

Multiple impacts

stick after the impacts).

rebound.

They may have to be changed depending on the initial data.

172

Multiple impact restitution mappings

A generalized Newtons law

Multiple impacts

meaningless depending on the superpotential choice)

coefficient; energetical behaviour not always guaranteed)

correlation ratio unfortunately dependent on systems data,

numerical implementation not obvious)

173

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

results on chains of balls and bouncing dimers.

174

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

Darboux-Keller approach is extended to the case of multiple

impacts:

energy effects like plastic deformation

else)

contact point

e,i [0, 1]

175

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

Starting from the Lagrange equations and proceeding for instance

as Pfeiffer and Glocker (1995,1996) we may obtain the shock

dynamics as:

Md q WdP = 0

The mass matrix M and the jacobian matrix W remain unchanged

during the impact by assumption. The relative velocity of the

contact points is expressed as

i (q, t)

i (q, t) = wiT (q, t)q + w

The matrix W collects the terms wi , and dP is the vector of

normal impulses.

176

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

We suppose that the force/indentation mapping at the contact

point i is:

i = Ki (i )

(32)

kind of contacts between bodies ( = 23 is for Hertz contact, = 1

is linear elasticity).

Let Pi (t) denote the total normal impulse

accumulated during the

Rt

i

time interval [0, t]: Pi (t) = Pi (0) + 0 i (s)ds. So dP

dt (t) = i (t)

and:

di dPi

di

di

=

= i

(33)

dt

dPi dt

dPi

177

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

In terms of the compliant model expressed by (32), we have

di

= Ki (i )1 i = Ki (i )1 wiT q

dt

(34)

i =

i

Ki

1

(35)

1

i

i di = Ki wiT qdP

(36)

178

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

and the contact force before impact is i (0) = 0 for the case

without initial precompression energy.

The integration of equation (36) leads to

"

Z

i (Pi (t)) = ( + 1)

Pi (t)

0

i

Ki wiT qdP

+1

(37)

179

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

space, the ratio of the changes of normal impulses at the contact

points i and j can therefore be expressed as

dPi

=

dPj

Ki

Kj

1

+1

Pi (t) T

i

wi qdP

R0

Pj (t) T

j

wj qdP

0

+1

(38)

180

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

Ei =

Pi (t)

i,

wiT qdP

Ej =

Pj (t)

0

j

wjT qdP

(39)

points i and j from the beginning of impacts to the instant Pi

(resp. Pj ), in which the energy is mapped into the velocity-impulse

level.

These terms can also be thought of as the potential energy stored

in the springs at contact points i and j.

181

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

Let us introduce the ratios of contact stiffnesses ji = Kj /Ki , and

define

R Pj (t) T

j

wj qdP

Ej

0

0, (j = 1, 2, . . . , s, j 6= i ) (40)

Eji =

= R P (t)

i

Ei

i

wT qdP

0

and j. It follows that we obtain a distributing rule for the normal

impulses:

1

+1

dPi , j = 1, 2, . . . , s, j 6= i

(41)

182

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

multiple impacts and depend only on the properties of the

contact constraints: the relative stiffness and the relative

potential energies accumulated in the contact points.

Since the potential energy at contact points will change

during impacts, the assumption that the distribution of

normal impulses are constant (as stated in [Ceanga and

Hurmuzlu, JAM 2001] by defining a constant ICR) is invalid

in most cases. Confirmed by [Acary and Brogliato, 2003] from

calculations of ICRs with Hertz elasticity.

As indicated e.g. in [Falcon et al, Eur. J. Phys. 1998] and

[Luding et al, Phys. Rev. E, 1994], the wave effects are due

to the elastic properties of the bodies (though it seems that

the local dissipations at the contacts may influence them).

183

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

Energetical constraints for local energy loss

According to the definition given by Stronge and his predecessors

like Routh and Boulanger, the energetic constraint es,j is given by:

2

e,j

R Pj (tc ) T

R Pj (tc )

j dPj

j

wj qdP

Wr ,j

0

= R P0 (t )

= R P (t )

=

j

j

f

f

Wc,j

j

wT qdP

j dPNj

Pj (tc )

Pj (tc )

(42)

contact force at point j during the compression phase [0, tc ] and

the expansion phase [tc , tf ], respectively.

184

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multipe impacts

the residual potential energy Ej (Pj (tf )) will be dissipated

based on the energetical constraint expressed by (42):

2 )

Ej (Pj (tf )) = Wc,j Wr ,j = Wc,j (1 es,j

contact point can be obtained if it doesnt again participate

into impacts.

mono-stiffness model, takes the same force/indentation

relationships for the compression and expansion phases.

Physically speaking, the energy loss should be consistent with

the contact model. A bi-stiffness contact model that satisfies

the energetical constraint can be used (see later).

185

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

example, the contact point may experience multiple

compression/expansion phases due to the interactions between

contact points. The model cam handle such cases.

186

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Summary of the dynamical equations

Dynamical equation:

M

d q

dP

=W

if Eji (Pj , Pi ) 1 for all j 6= i

dPi

dPi

(43)

with

1

+1

dPj

= ji+1 (Eji (Pj , Pi ))

dPi

Eji =

Ej (Pj ) =

Pj (t)

(44)

Ej (Pj )

, 1 i m, 1 j m

Ei (Pi )

j , Wr ,j =

wjT qdP

Pj (tc )

0

j , Wc,j =

wjT qdP

(45)

Z

Pj (tf )

Pj (tc )

j

wjT qdP

(46)

and the time tc at the contact j is calculated from j (tc ) = 0, while tf is

2

calculated from the energy constraint Wr ,j = es,j

Wc,j .

187

Multiple impact restitution mappings

The distributing rule for the bi-stiffness model

Multiple impacts

This is an extension of the mono-stiffness model, in which the

stiffness varies fom the compression to the expansion phases.

The relationship for the compression phase at the contact point j

is expressed as:

c,j = Kj (c,j )

and the one for expansion phase is

e,j r ,j

e,j = m,j

m,j r ,j

(47)

(48)

to the maxima of the normal contact force and normal deformation

at the end of the compression phase (when j = 0).

188

Multiple impact restitution mappings

The distributing rule for the bi-stiffness model

Multiple impacts

O

OM

Gr

GM

189

Multiple impact restitution mappings

The distributing rule for the bi-stiffness model

Muliple impacts

Remarkably enough, the distributing rule adapts to the bi-stiffness

model with several compression/expansion phases, and to impacts

with pre-compression:

O

OM1

M1

OM2

M2

OR

B GR

GM2 GM1

190

Multiple impact restitution mappings

The distributing rule for the bi-stiffness model

Multiple impacts

The bilinear stiffness model for energy loss: may be mechanically

justified, see for instance [Antonuyk et al Gran. Matter 2010]

forces (zeolite, sodium benzoate, Al2 O3 .

191

Multiple impact restitution mappings

The distributing rule for the bi-stiffness model

Multiple impacts

192

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

Multiple impacts

Numerical results have been obtained for:

Three-ball chains

Five-ball chains

Bernoullis system

experimental results found in the literature:

[Ceanga and Hurmuzlu, JAM 2001]

[Falcon et al, Europ. J. Phys. B, 1998]

193

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

Multiple impacts

Let us consider the column of beads studied in [Falcon et al,

Europ. J. Phys. B, 1998]:

1

h

Wall

194

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

Multiple impacts

2.05 103 kg.

Wall made of stainless steel.

= 0.276, for stainless steel

Contact stiffness bead/bead K = 6.9716 109 N/m3/2

N/m3/2

Initial height h

sensor.

Hertz elasticity

195

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

N influences very little the maximum force during the impact (waves

effects).

196

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

197

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

the experimental ones of [Falcon et al, 1998]:

Fmax 71N for h = 5.1 mm

32.4 1s (numerically 32s) for h = 3.1 mm.

198

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

estimation.

199

Multiple impact restitution mappings

Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

200

Multiple impacts with friction

Multiple impacts

contacts. Has been successfully applied to the problem of a

bouncing dimer (a sort of small-scale rocking block).

References:

Z. Zhao, C. Liu, B. Brogliato, Physical Review E, 2008

C. Liu, Z. Zhao, B. Brogliato, Proc. Royal Soc. A, 2008 and 2009

Z. Zhao, C. Liu, B. Brogliato, Proc. Royal Soc. A, 2009

201

Multiple impacts with friction

Wave effects

An important point for multiple impact modeling is: how may the

studies on waves in chains of balls be used in a multiple impact law

?

For instance: [Nesterenko] solitary wave in a window of 5 balls

when no pre-compression

most probably good parameters should be estimated from

groups of 5 balls in the chain (if the chain is long enough)

Problem: high sensitivity w.r.t. initial data (initial velocities and

initial pre-compression, type of elasticity linear or nonlinear)

However it seems that much more has to be done on waves

analysis to be able to really enrich a multiple impact law with some

macroscopic model that reflects the waves transmissions

throughout the chain, for any initial data.

202

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.