Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 202

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Bernard Brogliato, INRIA Grenoble-Rhone-Alpes, France

June 2010, Aussois

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

General objectives

Objective of these lectures: give an overview of various impact


modeling approaches with a focus on multiple impacts.

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

General objectives

Single impacts

Without Coulomb friction (restitution coefficients, compliant


models, Darboux-Keller approach)
With Coulomb friction

Multiple impacts

The three-ball chain (sequential impacts, compliant contacts:


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

Notice: only low velocity impacts are analyzed (typically between


0.05 and 10 m/s).
3

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

Some (pessimistic) philosophy

Quoted from [Chatterjee and Ruina, JAM 1998]:


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).

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

Some (pessimistic) philosophy, continued

Finally, there is no reason to expect that the outcome of detailed


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.

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

Some (pessimistic) philosophy, continued

Fundamentally, the source of the difficulty is that one wants to


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 ?

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

Fortunately enough, after their pessimistic introduction, the


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Single impacts

An impact is said single when two systems collide at one point.


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.

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Single impacts
We are going to review some collision mappings:
q + = F(q , q, parameters)

Which are the desirable properties for an impact mapping?


(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.

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies

Single impacts
Classes of impact dynamics modeling:

(1) Rigid bodies:

(a) Purely algebraic


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

(2) Deformable bodies:

(a) Compliant model (elastic, visco-elastic, elasto-plastic;


linear or nonlinear)
(b) FEM analysis

Models (2) may feed models (1) with analytical expressions for
restitution coefficients.
10

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

where Ai is the contact point on each body, MA,i is the inertia


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies
Rigid body model (algebraic impact dynamics)

Single impacts

We assume a frictionless point contact so that


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

Action/reaction law is supposed to hold at the impulse level


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:

nT (VA+1 VA+2 ) = en nT (VA1 VA2 )


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

12

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

that is 0 for all e 2 1. Since nT (VA1 VA2 ) < 0 then rebound


implies nT (VA+1 VA+2 ) 0 so that e 0: e [0, 1].
13

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies
Rigid body model (algebraic impact dynamics)

The proof may be done by using Kelvins formula which reads


TL =

X 1
[0 PiT ](A+i + Ai )
2

i =1,2

where Ai is the body i twist at the contact point Ai . Since


PiT = (0 0 pn,i ) one obtains
TL =

X 1

+
+ vn,i
pn,i (vn,i
2

i =1,2

where nT (VAi = vn,i . Using the impact dynamics

+
) = pn,i , pn,1 = pn,2 and the Netwons impact law
vn,i
mi (vn,i
the result follows.

14

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

Energetic (Stronge, Per`es, Boulanger)

Other definitions exist (Ivanovs ratio of kinetic energies).


Restitution coefficients are a macroscopic model of a complex
phenomenon involving local and global effects of the two bodies
that collide each other.
15

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies
Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts
The Darboux-Keller model is based on some assumptions:

Positions q remain constant during the shock

There is no tangential compliance

All other forces than the impact ones are negligible

The collision consists of a compression phase followed by an


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies
Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

Lets start from the simplest one degree-of-freedom case:


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies
Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

Let us denote the velocity as v . Since dp = F (t)dt we get:


mdv = F (t)dt = dp

dv
dp (p)

1
m

(3)

The new variable is v (p) and the dum integration variable is p:


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies
Rigid body model (Darboux-Kellers impact dynamics)

Single impacts

After some simple calculations we get that


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

(since v (0) < 0, v (p(tf )) > 0 and e 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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

Then the final velocity admissibility states that v (tf ) 0 which


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies
Comparison of the three coefficients

Single impacts

Newtons law: vn (tf ) = en vn (0) so that vt (tf ) = en vt (0)


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 )

while pn (tc ) = I (0).


So ep =

p(tf )p(tc )
p(tc )

f ))
= (p(t
= en .

(0)

26

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Frictionless single impacts between two bodies
Comparison of the three coefficients

Single impacts

Energetical law: from

e2

[pn (tf ),pn (tc )] vn (pn )dpn


R

v (p )dpn
[0,pn (tc )] n n

one obtains:

e2 = ep en

So we conclude that en = ep = e . This is in fact true (in the


planar 2D case) each time there is no tangential velocity reversal
(when friction is present).

27

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Friction at the impulse level

Indeed:

TO BE DONE

30

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Friction at the impulse level

A more physical friction rule is stated by [Peres, 1954]:

if there is velocity reversal or change in sliding velocity


direction, then ||pt || pn .

If unidirectional sliding velocity during the whole impact then


p is on the friction cone boundary.

31

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts
Lets first define an impulse ratio
=

pt
pn

(not necessarily equal to the friction coefficient) and work with


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

with vr , the relative (normal or tangential) velocity between the


vr,t (t )
two particles, r = vr,n
(t ) .
Adding friction complicates much the expression for TL .
32

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts
Simple calculations yield:

pn = m(1 + en )vn > 0

(6)

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

so we have to solve a generalized equation to compute vt+ . This


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

There are three possible cases:

vt < 0 and vt < f (1 + en )vn : then vt+ < 0 and


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

vt > 0 and vt > f (1 + en )vn : then vt+ > 0 and


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

The model tells us that there may be slipping vt 6= 0 followed by


sticking vt+ = 0.

35

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts

In the above case there is a unique solution for vt+ because


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

where the contact force is = (t , n )T ,

0 n h(q) = y l cos() 0
t = f n sgn(x + l sin())
38

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

m(+ ) = l sin()p + l cos()p


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

pt = fpn sgn(x + + l + cos())

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

(8)

which we may see as a generalized equation to be solved with the


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

39

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Friction at the impulse level

Single impacts
Let us denote =

pt
pn ,

then the kinetic energy loss is given by:




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

M0 = M(, 0 , 0 ) is the maximal value of such that TL < 0.

40

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

Advantage: TL 0 in 2D (but not always in 3D). [Chatterjee,


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

Drawback: nonlinear equations, difficult to solve in 3D.

Notice: this is a kind of method averaging pre- and post-impact


velocities (why not simply trying a method and fitting the
parameter ?)
42

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
The impulse ratio

Single impacts
About the use of an impulse ratio =

pt
pn :

This may be useful to calculate some upper bounds that guarantee


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.

Normal restitution independent of the impact incidence angle

Tangential (kinematic) restitution depends on the impact


incidence angle

Impulse ratio depends on the impact incidence angle

Observe reversal of vt due to finite tangential stiffness (not


predictable with Darboux-Kellers model!)
43

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
The impulse ratio

Single impacts
These experiments show the limitations of neglecting the possibly
finite tangential stiffness.

Figure: The impulse ratio for various collision models.


44

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
The impulse ratio

Single impacts

The experimental results disks colliding a wall in [Calsamiglia et al


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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:

the critical normalized impact angle above which sliding


occurs throughout the impact c = 71
,

the normal contact stiffness =

2(11 )
21

and found by fitting that

= c1 + c2 tanh(c3 + c4 )
f
where ci s are material property dependent and fitted, and
for c .

=1

46

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts

Physical meaning of et :

Can et be independent of friction ? ( no friction no


tangential deformation!)

How can one mix et and f into a single tangential rule ?

48

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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 |

where it is made use of = f sgn(vt ). This is validated from


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

49

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Kinematic tangential restitution

Single impacts
Some experimental results for en and et [Antonyuk et al, Granular
Matter 2010]:

Figure: Normal and tangential restitution coefficients.


52

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Kinematic tangential restitution

The friction coefficient during the impact may depend on the


initial tangential velocity magnitude |vt | [Garland and Rogers, JAM
2009].

TO BE DONE

53

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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:

Fremond: recast such laws into a general framework inspired


by Moreaus superpotentials (problem: not easy to discover
the right superpotential function so that the resulting law has
good parameters)
or:

Darboux-Kellers approach with Poissons or Stronges


(energetic) coefficients.
55

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Comparison of the three coefficients (Darboux-Kellers approach)

Single impacts

The same calculations as in the frictionless case may be done and


one finds that [Lubarda, JAM 2010]:
ep =

f0 +fh0
f0 fh0 en

e2 = ep en
where f > 0 is the friction coefficient.

57

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Comparison of the three coefficients (Darboux-Kellers approach)

Single impacts

It is then easily calculated that ep =


1

2
0
e , so that:
en = ff00 fh
+fh0

f0 +fh0
f0 fh0

1
2

e and

en < e < ep

(12)

(provided of course that f0 fh0 > 0 en > 0 (there is a


rebound after the impact))

58

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Bounds on the restitution coefficients

Single impacts

The loss of kinetic energy is given by:


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)

from which one deduces that en 1. Then from the above


+fh0
.
relationships between both coefficients: ep ff00 fh
0

59

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

(larger than 1 upper bound) and


en

(smaller than 1 upper bound, confirms that infinite tangential


stiffness may be a limitation of the model)
60

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Bounds on the restitution coefficients

Single impacts

Lower bounds:

en 0 for otherwise vn (p(tf )) < 0 that is not admissible.

ep 0 because obviously p(tf ) p(tc ) since the contact


normal force is always positive.

e 0 by definition.

61

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

f (2pn (tc ) pn ) if pn pn (tc )


62

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

Except if ep = 0, this ratio is not equal to the friction coefficient


f , but < f 1 .
Using the bounds derived for ep one can also compute bounds for
.

We saw this earlier and with experimental evidence.


63

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
The tangential restitution

Single impacts
The parameter

fh0
f0

plays a particular role:

fh0
f0

< 1: rebound (elastic impact with non zero post-impact


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

Hence during the whole impact one has vn < 0: there is no


expansion phase, and the impact terminates when pn = pn (tc )
with ep = 0 (similarly e = 0 in this case).

64

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Single impact with Coulombs friction
Conclusions (2D impact)

Single impacts

Relying on the Darboux-Keller approach one can derive


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

where is the angle between the two tangential velocities in the


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

with Ai Gi = (r1i r2i r3i )T in the local frame.


67

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Geometrical analysis of the impact laws (impulse space)

Single impacts

One desirable property of an impact law is that it should be able to


cover all possible admissible post-impact outcomes, under three
main constraints:.

Loss of kinetic energy,

Admissible post-impact velocity,

Impulse inside the friction cone.

69

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Geometrical analysis of the impact laws (impulse space)

Analysis of the impact process in the impulse space

70

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Geometrical analysis of the impact laws (impulse space)

Single impacts

Figure: Impulse space, allowable impulses.


See Chatterjees PhD thesis for a comparison of various above impact
laws in terms of reachable admissible points in the impulse space.
71

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

J.J. Moreau proposed in [Moreau, 1983, 1985, 1988] to formulate


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

In order to understand this formulation one must use some basic


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

which is a cone complementarity problem and we recall that T (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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

From the kinematics constraints


q + T (q), q T (q)
one can deduce the lower limit en 0.

75

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

Still another equivalent formulation is as follows:

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

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

0 U + + en U p 0

(17)

where U is a local velocity, i.e. it is the derivative of the signed


distance function (the gap function, see later).

76

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

The upper limit is obtained with


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts
Graphical interpretation:

Figure: Geometry of Moreaus impact law [Glocker and Payr].


78

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
Moreaus framework (generalized kinematic CoR)

Single impacts

Moreaus framework is formulated for multiple impacts (when the


boundary Bd() has singularities) and therefore provides a clear
mathematical framework for frictionless multiple impacts.

This provides a nice and powerful framework however does not


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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!):

(a) Provide a unique solution for all data

(b) Be numerically tractable

(c) Possess mechanically sound parameters (like restitution


coefficients)
80

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Darboux-Kellers dynamics: the 3D case
First conclusions

Single impacts

(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.

One always faces the classical problem: add more coefficients at


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)

Single impacts

Lets now analyse compliant models of contact/impact.

82

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

A lot of expressions for en have been proposed, most for


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

linear or nonlinear spring/dashpot models (viscoelastic)

viscoplastic, elasto-plastic, visco-elasto-plastic models

FEM simulations to numerically estimate the restitution


coefficient

83

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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):

Termination conditions = 0 and > 0:





en = exp
1 2

c .
2 km

Positive total impulse, however Fn < 0 during the collision!

84

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

Figure: Force/identation relation for various spring/dashpots.


85

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

Termination conditions Fn = c k = 0 and Fn 0:


!!

2 1 2

arctan
en = exp
22 1
1 2

86

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

Notice in passing that complementarity doesnt mean perfect


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.

Such models may yield stiff ODEs when used in multibody


systems simulations.

Other, similar models made of linear springs and dashpots


exist (like the Zener model), all sharing the same deficiencies.
87

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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:

the two bodies are at the time of impact in a quasistatic


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.

waves in the bodies are neglected, i.e. impact duration


propagation time of released elastic waves along the whole
length of each impacted body.

the surfaces in contact are non-conforming surfaces.

88

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

is not deduced from a rigorous Hertz analysis (m = 32 gives a

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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
Expressions for the kinematic restitution coefficient

Single impacts

The CoR for nonlinear visco-elastic behaviour [Brilliantov et al,


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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:

The mean contact pressure is constant (during plastic


deformation) and equal to 3.0Y where Y is the yield stress in
simple compression.
2

The Hertz relation n = aR is still valid, where a is the contact


R2
.
surface radius, R = RR11+R
2

92

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

where Yd (dynamic yield stress) and E (equivalent elastic modulus


that depends on Youngs and Poissons moduli) are material
parameters of the bodies. Below the minimum value for vn (0) that
1

causes yielding, then en 1. Above this value en vn 4 (0).

93

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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]:

Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs.

96

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs.


97

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs.


98

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts
This raises two fundamental questions:

isnt it better and more mechanically sound to use Brachs


point of view (or something similar) with some kind of bilinear
model and constant coefficients ?

The appeal of such methods is to enable one to calculate en


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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:

Linear spring/dashpot with bad termination conditions


Hertz contact

Kuwabara and Kono (visco-elastic: Hertz + )


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts
Excerpts of the results for the CoR:

Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs


(stainless/stainless).
101

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts
Excerpts of the results for CoR continued:

Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs (chrome


steel/chrome steel).
102

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts
Excerpts of the results for collision duration:

Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical collision


durations (stainless steel/stainless steel).
103

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Conclusions drawn in [Steven et al, Powder Techn. 2005]:

The best models are [Kuwabara and Kono, Jpn. J. Appl.


Phys., 1987] and [Walton and Braun, J. Rheol., 1896] (with
variable en ), both for prediction of en and collision duration.

The model of [Thorton and Ning, Powder Tech., 1998] with


fitted parameter predicts well the plastic deformation effects
and collision duration, but overestimates the dependency of en
on vn (0).

104

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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:

Figure: CoR dependency on temperature [Pouyet et al, J. Mat. Sci.


1975].

105

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Remark: Other quantities than the CoR are worth considering:

force/identation F ()

energy lost during compression and during expansion

collision duration

106

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impact

During impacts the granules lose between 15 and 27 % less energy


than during pure compression, independently of:

the impact velocity (in the experimental tests range)

the maximum compression force.

However Hertz theory predicts well the impact process during the
elastic phases.

108

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
The effect of plasticity on the CoR

Single impacts

Figure: Continuous lines: theoretical predictions [Weir and Tallon, 2005].


110

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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):

Figure: CoR evolution under repeated impacts.

111

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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.

Many experimental and analytical studies have proved that


even for perfectly elastic materials the wave effects may be
significant (up to 5% energy loss). Therefore the quasistatic
assumption may not be suitable.

Well see later in these lectures that waves also play a


significant role in multiple impacts, but for a different reason
(dispersion of energy rather than dissipation of energy).

113

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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).

Figure: CoR as a function of vn (0) [0.05 1] m/s [Seifried et al, 2005].

114

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
Conclusions

Single impacts

However en may be independent of vn (0) for some other materials


like zeolite or sodium benzoate spheres [Antonyuk et al Granular
Matter 2010].

Figure: CoR as a function of vn (0) [0.5 4.5] m/s [Antonyuk et al,


2010].

115

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
Conclusions

Single impacts

Plastic dissipation effects play a role only during the first


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]).

Elastic waves may dissipate energy even in elastic bodies that


impact, and call into question quasistatic assumptions (even
for very simple geometries like disks impacting an anvil).

116

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


General conclusions on single impact models

Single impacts
Many theoretical and experimental studies that concern:

(a) macroscopic coefficients and algebraic impact laws

(b) detailed studies on the normal restitution coefficient and


its dependence on mechanical parameters (local effects) for
sphere/plane, starting from Hertz theory.

(c) incorporation of wave effects (global effects)

Which conclusions may be drawn from all these works? Can we


deduce some general guidelines?
117

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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:

If the impact is very simple (colinear, sphere/sphere or


sphere/plane), may use a refined complex expression of the
restitution coefficient if needed.

If the impact is complex, better use constant coefficients and


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.

In any case if a fine model is needed then it has to be taylored


to the application.

Next we shall deal with multiple impacts!


118

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


General conclusions on single impact models

Single impacts

Conjecture about impacts between perfectly elastic disks

Consider four disks moving on a line without friction, subject to


two sequences of single impacts:
1

Figure: Four elastic disks on a line.

119

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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))

impact between 1 and 2, and between 3 and 4

the bodies are excited by vibrations transmitted by the impact


so that en < 1 at both contacts

1 and 4 leave

2 and 3 collide again and transfer all their pre-imact energy


(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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


General conclusions on single impact models

Multiple impacts

Let us now pass to the problem of multiple impact modeling.

121

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Definitions
The gap functions

Multiple impacts

The (frictionless) Lagrange equations of the system are:

M(q)
q + F (q, q,
t) = h(q)

0 h(q) 0

Impact law: q + = R(q , q, parameters)

123

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Definitions
A multiple impact in a multibody system

Multiple impacts

Figure: A multiple impact in the configuration space


125

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Definitions
The kinetic angle between two hypersurfaces

Multiple impacts

Let i = {q Rn | hi (q) = 0 and q bd()}. At a point q the


kinetic angle ij between i and j is defined by

cos(ij ) = q

hiT (q)M 1 (q)hj (q)


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

The kinetic angle has a great influence on the continuity of the


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

126

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

Figure: Impact at a corner.

127

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

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

(20)

(0 ij 2 )

(ij = 2 )

hold for all indices i , j I (q), i 6= j.


128

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Definitions
The kinetic angle between two hypersurfaces

Multiple impacts

Remark: what does this become when one considers constraints


with Coulombs friction ?

Indeed the presence of dry friction usually destroys the nice


frictionless orthogonality properties (due to the fact that euclidean
and kinetic metrics do not match).

129

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Definitions
Examples

Multiple impacts
The rocking block
L

y
b'

h()

-g

AAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAA
b

f()

a'

Figure: Planar rocking block.


130

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Definitions
Examples

Multiple impacts
The rod with two contact points

h2 (q)
h1 (q)

Figure: A rof colliding with two points.

132

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Definitions
Examples

Multiple impacts
The rod at the impact:
L

d0
d1
d2

Figure: A rof colliding with two points.

133

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Definitions
Examples

Multiple impacts

The analysis indicates that some configurations may be yield quite


stable impacts, while some others yield impact outcomes quite
sensitive to initial data.

135

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


The lagrangian impact dynamics

Multiple impacts

At a time t when a shock occurs, is a Dirac measure and so is


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

Unitary tangent vectors are defined as


T
tq,j
hi (q) = 0

for all 1 i m. So we have constructed an orthonormal frame in


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

137

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

because the constraints are frictionless. At an impact time one has


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


The lagrangian impact dynamics
A state vector change

This transformation may make us think that the generalised


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


The lagrangian impact dynamics
A state vector change

Multiple impacts

The pairwise orthogonality of the constraints is stated in the new


dynamics as:
T
nq,i
M(q)nq,j = hiT (q)M 1 (q)hj (q) = 0

which corresponds to the Delassus matrix being diagonal and the


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

that yields if all constraints are impacted simultaneously:


m

1X 2

)2
(en,i 1)(q norm,i
TL =
2

(23)

i =1

Let m = 1 (one contact), or let en,i = en for all i . Then TL 0


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

142

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


The lagrangian impact dynamics
A state vector change

Multiple impacts
Remark

Applying the normal restitution in (22) is equivalent to


applying Moreaus rule.

There is no generalized formulation of Coulombs friction


using directly the q tan components.

Clearly we may also define some generalized tangential


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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 .

After few calculations we obtain:


y (t + ) =
and

2L2 l 2 2en (L2 + l 2 )


y (t )
l 2 + 4L2

2
2
2
2
)
+ ) = (2en + 1)(L + l ) + 4(l + L ) (t
(t
4l 2 + 16L2
145

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


The lagrangian impact dynamics
First conclusions

Multiple impacts

The impact dynamics may be stated in the configuration space.


This allows us to point out two important features:

The kinetic angle between the constraints plays a role in the


trajectories properties

The fact that contacts are of a local nature may complicate


the analysis because the local orthogonality (euclidean) does
not transport to generalized (global) orthogonality (kinetic).

The three-ball chain will serve as an illustration.

147

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Features and properties of a restitution mapping

Multiple impacts

(1) the kinetic angle between the surfaces i , 1 i p


involved in the pimpact,

(2) the (dis)continuity of the solutions with respect to the


initial data,

(3) the kinetic energy behavior at the impact,

(4) the wave effects due to the coupling between various


contacts,

(5) the local energy loss during impacts,

(6) the ability of the impact rule to span the whole admissible
post-impact velocities domain,

(7) the ability of the parameters defining the impact rule to


be identified from experiments,
148

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Features and properties of a restitution mapping

Multiple impacts

(8) the (in)dependence of these parameters on the initial data,

(9) the physical meaning of the parameters of the impact rule,

(10) the ability of the impact rule to provide post-impact


velocities in agreement with experimental results,

(11) the well-posedness of the nonsmooth dynamics when the


impact rule is incorporated in it,

(12) the law should be applicable (or easily extendable) to


general mechanical systems,

(13) the determination of the impact termination,

(14) the impact law has to be numerically tractable.

149

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

Multiple impacts

Lets focus on chains of balls.

Why study chains of balls ?

Chains of balls are a widely studied system with multiple


impacts: looks simple, but is not at all!

May be seen as the simplest granular material.

151

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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.

This is however contradicted by most experiments where it is


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

Figure: Chains of balls against a wall.


153

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

The kinetic angle between the two surfaces 1 and 2 is given by

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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)
Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Multiple impacts

We associate a Newtons impact law to each contact, with


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
+

q 1 = 1+m q 1 en,2 1+m q 2


(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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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.

For such a simple system it is not possible to deduce a


restitution mapping when the collision occurs at 1 2 , by
studying sequences of impacts.

One therefore has to follow another path to obtain a


multiple-impact law for this system.

157

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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 ]

q 2+ = 13 [(1 + en,1 )q 1 + (1 en,2 en,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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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:

Necessarily one has q 2+ = q 3+ whatever the values of en,1 and


en,2 .
2
TL 0 en,1
1

Suppose that q 2 = 0, q 3 = 1 m/s, q 1 = 1 m/s: then

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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)
Sequential impacts and the necessity of a multiple impact law

Notice that this is equivalent to applying Moreaus law formulated


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

Multiple impacts

It is inferred from this simple example that the kinetic


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.

Lets examine now what happens when some compliance is added


between the balls.
161

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)
Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

Let us illustrate on a linear chain with linear or Hertz unilateral


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

where P1 = mv1 , P2 = mv2 and P3 = mv3 . The quantity is


the stiffness ratio, the quantity is the mass ratio.
Clearly the impact is lossless.
163

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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,

one retrieves two familiar outcomes.


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)
Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

One may however question the usefulness of such conclusions


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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]

Figure: Deformations during the impact, Hertz spring, stiffness ratio.

166

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)
Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

Figure: Deformations furing the impact, linear spring, stiffness ratio.


167

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)
Compliant contacts (lumped flexibilities)

Multiple impacts

This suggests that multiple impacts in chains of balls encapsulate


very rich dynamics:

The impact termination may not be easy to determine

Impacts may be sequential or not at all!

The right model for balls is Hertz model, however linear


stiffness does not seem to simplify a lot the process.

168

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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.

This is however very sensitive with respect to the parameters.

Some contacts may last very long under some configurations and
initial data.

Waves depend a lot on whether this is linear of nonlinear (Hertz or


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.

Notice however that [Bayman, 1976] shows that chains of elastic


rods are dispersion-free.

And what about the effect of dissipation on the dispersion (wave


dissipation due to the viscoelastic property of the material) ?
169

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


First conclusions

Multiple impacts

Sequential impacts analysis based on pair-wise collisions on


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

Drawback: no clear physical meaning of the coefficients, adapt


the coefficients values to each system configuration (see items (4)
(7) (8) (9) above).

171

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
A generalized Newtons law

Multiple impacts

Consider for instance the rocking block:

Rocking motion implies that en,1 = en,2 = 0 (the contacts


stick after the impacts).

Now for other configurations one needs en,i 6= 0 to allow for


rebound.

So the mechanical meaning of such coefficients is not clear.


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

172

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
A generalized Newtons law

Multiple impacts

Other impact mappings:

Fremond (use of Moreaus superpotential; coefficients may be


meaningless depending on the superpotential choice)

Pfeiffer and Glocker (use two LCPs and a Poisson-like


coefficient; energetical behaviour not always guaranteed)

Ceanga and Hurmuzlu (Rouths method, e,i , and impulse


correlation ratio unfortunately dependent on systems data,
numerical implementation not obvious)

173

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

Lets describe now a recent approach that seems to provide good


results on chains of balls and bouncing dimers.

We first deal with frictionless multiple impacts.

174

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts
Darboux-Keller approach is extended to the case of multiple
impacts:

rate independent materials

bilinear stiffness model to represent non reversible loss of


energy effects like plastic deformation

possibility to vary the elasticity coefficient (linear, Hertz, or


else)

allow for several compression/expansion cycles at each


contact point

energetic coefficients of restitution at each contact point with


e,i [0, 1]

numerical results match well with several experimental results

175

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

where Ki is the contact stiffness, the exponent determines the


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

Notice that i can always be expressed as


i =

i
Ki

1

(35)

Substituting (35) and (34) into (33) leads to


1

i
i di = Ki wiT qdP

(36)

178

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

The initial value of the normal impulse can be set to Pi (0) = 0,


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

Noticing that i = dPi /dt and only considering the variation in


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

The work functions at both contact points are defined as:


Ei =

Pi (t)

i,
wiT qdP

Ej =

Pj (t)
0

j
wjT qdP

(39)

Ei and Ej are the works of the normal contact forces at contact


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

to represent a ratio of the energies stored at the contact points i


and j. It follows that we obtain a distributing rule for the normal
impulses:
1

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

+1

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

(41)

182

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

These expressions reflect the wave behaviors generated in


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

where Wc,j 0 and Wr ,j 0 are the works done by the normal


contact force at point j during the compression phase [0, tc ] and
the expansion phase [tc , tf ], respectively.

184

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multipe impacts

The process of energy transfer at contact point j will finish as


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

At this time, the outcome of the post-impact velocities at this


contact point can be obtained if it doesnt again participate
into impacts.

The contact model expressed in (32), denoted as


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Extension of the Darboux-Kellers approach

Multiple impacts

Remark: some complex situations may appear in the process. For


example, the contact point may experience multiple
compression/expansion phases due to the interactions between
contact points. The model cam handle such cases.

186

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Summary of the dynamical equations

Contact parameters: ij , es,j , 1 i m, 1 j m, (1, 23 ).


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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)

where r ,j is the plastic deformation, and m,j and m,j correspond


to the maxima of the normal contact force and normal deformation
at the end of the compression phase (when j = 0).
188

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
The distributing rule for the bi-stiffness model

Multiple impacts
O
OM

Gr

GM

Figure: The bi-stiffness compliant contact model

189

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

Figure: The contact point with two compression phases.


190

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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]

Figure: Loading-unloading curves at different maximum compressive


forces (zeolite, sodium benzoate, Al2 O3 .
191

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
The distributing rule for the bi-stiffness model

Multiple impacts

Figure: Loading-unloading effect on the contact stiffness (zeolite).

The contact stiffness varies because the contact area varies.


192

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

Multiple impacts
Numerical results have been obtained for:

Three-ball chains

Five-ball chains

Long chains ( 15 balls)

Bernoullis system

Columns of balls impacting a wall

and compared to either analytical results (when available) or


experimental results found in the literature:
[Ceanga and Hurmuzlu, JAM 2001]
[Falcon et al, Europ. J. Phys. B, 1998]

193

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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

Figure: A column of beads colliding against a wall.


194

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

Multiple impacts

1 N 40 identical stainless steel beads, 8mm in diameter,


2.05 103 kg.
Wall made of stainless steel.

Young modulus E = 21.6 1010 N/m2 , Poisson ratio


= 0.276, for stainless steel
Contact stiffness bead/bead K = 6.9716 109 N/m3/2

Contact stiffness bead/wall (sphere/plane) K = 9.858 109


N/m3/2

Initial height h

The contact forces felt at the wall are recorded by a force


sensor.

Hertz elasticity
195

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

N influences very little the maximum force during the impact (waves
effects).
196

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

197

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

These results are very close (qualitatively and quantitatively) from


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

Experimental values: Fmax 52N for h = 3.1 mm,


Fmax 71N for h = 5.1 mm

Experimental period of oscillation of the contact force


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

198

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

Robustness of the impact law: lets vary es,s a little.

The method allows for some reasonable uncertainty in the CoR


estimation.
199

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impact restitution mappings
Numerical results and comparisons with experiments

200

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


Multiple impacts with friction

Multiple impacts

The method extends to the case where there is friction at the


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

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics


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