Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 202

# An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

Bernard Brogliato, INRIA Grenoble-Rhone-Alpes, France

## 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

## 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).

## 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.

## 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 ?

## 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:

## (a) Purely algebraic

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

## (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)

## 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:

## 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 )

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

e2

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

## 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:

(6)

## 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

## 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

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.

## 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.

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.

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
,

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!)

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]:

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

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

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:

## 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)

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
.

63

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

Single impact with Coulombs friction
The tangential restitution

Single impacts
The parameter

fh0
f0

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

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:.

69

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

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

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!):

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

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:

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):




en = exp
1 2

c .
2 km

84

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

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

Single impacts

85

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

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

Single impacts

!!

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.

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

2



2
3E

2
5

vn (0)
m2

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

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]:

96

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

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

Single impacts

97

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

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

Single impacts

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:

Hertz contact

## Kuwabara and Kono (visco-elastic: Hertz + )

Lee and Hermann (Hertz + meff vr ,n )
Walton and Braun (elasto-plastic, bi-stiffness model for
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

## 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:

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 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

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):

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).

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].

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:

## (b) detailed studies on the normal restitution coefficient and

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

## 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.

118

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

General conclusions on single impact models

Single impacts

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

two sequences of single impacts:
1

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))

## 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

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

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

0 h(q) 0

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

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)

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)

(20)

(0 ij 2 )

(ij = 2 )

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'

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)

132

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

Definitions
Examples

Multiple impacts
The rod at the impact:
L

d0
d1
d2

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

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)

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 .

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).

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,

initial data,

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

## (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,

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

## Chains of balls are a widely studied system with multiple

impacts: looks simple, but is not at all!

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)

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:

en,2 .
2
TL 0 en,1
1

So if en,i

2
2
TL 0 en,1
+ en,2
+ en,1 en,2 3

2
= 0 one has en,j
3 > 1, i 6= j.

159

## 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]

166

## An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

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

Multiple impacts

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 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

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

stick after the impacts).

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

## 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.

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:

## bilinear stiffness model to represent non reversible loss of

energy effects like plastic deformation

else)

contact point

e,i [0, 1]

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)

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

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

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

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]

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

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

## 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

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

N/m3/2

Initial height h

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

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