An Introduction To Impact Dynamics: Bernard Brogliato, INRIA Grenoble-Rh One-Alpes, France

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics
Bernard Brogliato, INRIA Grenoble-Rhône-Alpes, France
June 2010, Aussois
1
General objectives
Objective of these lectures: give an overview of various impact

modeling approaches with a focus on multiple impacts.
2
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
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).
4
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.
5
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 ?
6
Fortunately enough, after their pessimistic introduction, the

authors of the same paper propose a new impact law...
7
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.
8
Single impacts
We are going to review some collision mappings:
q̇ + = F(q̇ − , 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. 9
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
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 :
 +
Ωi − Ω−

i
MAi   = Pi , i = 1, 2 (1)
VA+i − VA−i
where Ai is the contact point on each body, MA,i is the inertia
matrix of each body, Ωi is the angular velocity vector, VA,i is the
linear velocity of Ai , Pi is the impulse acting on body i .
11
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 Ω+ +
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 (VA−1 − VA−2 )

which is Newton’s law and en is a kinematic restitution coefficient.
12
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 Ωi and Vt,Ai .
The system is solvable with a unique post-impact velocity and a

unique impulse with Newton’s rule of impact.
The kinetic energy loss is given by:

1 m1 m2
TL = (e 2 − 1)(nT (VA−1 − VA−2 ))2
2 m1 + m2 n
that is ≤ 0 for all e 2 ≤ 1. Since nT (VA−1 − VA−2 ) < 0 then rebound

implies nT (VA+1 − VA+2 ) ≥ 0 so that e ≥ 0: e ∈ [0, 1].
13
The proof may be done by using Kelvin’s formula which reads

X 1
TL = [0 PiT ](τA+i + τA−i )
2
i =1,2
where τAi is the body i twist at the contact point Ai . Since

PiT = (0 0 pn,i ) one obtains
X 1
+ −
TL = pn,i (vn,i + vn,i
2
i =1,2
where nT (VAi = vn,i . Using the impact dynamics

+ −
mi (vn,i − vn,i ) = pn,i , pn,1 = −pn,2 and the Netwon’s impact law
the result follows.
14
Rigid body model (Darboux-Keller’s 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, Pérès, Boulanger)
Other definitions exist (Ivanov’s 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
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 Routh’s graphical method that applies to

2D impacts only.
16
Single impacts
Let’s start from the simplest one degree-of-freedom case:
mq̈(t) = F (t) (2)

The collision
R occurs on [0, tf ], and F (t) > 0 on (0, tf ) so that
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
Single impacts
Let us denote the velocity as v . Since dp = F (t)dt we get:
dv 1
mdv = F (t)dt = dp ⇔ dp (p) = 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
Single impacts
We obtain:
1
v (p) − v (0) = p
m
so that
1 1
(ptc − p(0)) = ptc = −v (0)
v (ptc ) − v (0) =
m m
and thus ptc = −mv (0) > 0 since v (0) < 0 (there is an impact).
Poisson’s restitution model states that
p(tf ) − p(tc )
ep = (≥ 0)
p(tc )
19
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 Newton’s rules are equivalent and yield
the same post-impact velocity for equal values of en and ep .
20
Single impacts
The energetic model of restitution (Stronge) states that:
elastic energy released during the expansion phase

e∗2 =
elastic energy released during the compression phase
and is found to be equal to
Wn,e
e∗2 = − (≥ 0)
Wn,c
where
Z Z
Wn,e = v (p)dp, Wn,c = v (p)dp
[p(tc ),p(tf )] [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
Single impacts
One computes (recall that v (p(tc )) = 0):

1 2 1
Wn,e = v (p(tf )) and Wn,c = (−v 2 (0))
2 2
so that
v 2 (p(tf ))
e∗2 = 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
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) (4)
2
so that TL ≤ 0 ⇒ e ∈ [−1, 1].
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
Comparison of the three coefficients
Single impacts
In the previous one degree-of-freedom case all three coefficients are
equal. Let’s consider a 2-dimensional problem of a lamina colliding
a plane (without friction).
f0
h0
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Figure: Lamina colliding an anvil.
24
Single impacts
The kinematics at the contact point yields:
vn = f0 θ̇ and vt = h0 θ̇
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
Single impacts
◮ Newton’s law: vn (tf ) = −en vn (0) so that vt (tf ) = −en vt (0)

and θ̇(tf ) = −en θ̇(0).
◮ Poisson’s 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:
I (θ̇(pn (tf )) − θ̇(0)) = f0 pn (tf )

p(tf )−p(tc )
while pn (tc ) = −I θ̇(0). So ep = p(tc ) = − θ̇(p(t f ))
θ̇(0)
= en .
26
Single impacts
R
[pn (tf ),pn (tc )] vn (pn )dpn
◮ Energetical law: from e∗2 =− R
v (p )dpn
one obtains:
[0,pn (tc )] n n
e∗2 = 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
Single impact with Coulomb’s friction
Single impacts
Let us now pass to the case where friction is present during the
collision between two bodies.
28
Friction at the impulse level
Single impacts
According to [Whittaker, 1904] one writes the Coulomb’s 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
Indeed:
TO BE DONE
30
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
Single impacts
Let’s first define an impulse ratio
pt
µ=
pn
(not necessarily equal to the friction coefficient) and work with
Newton’s law.
Let’s consider two particles moving in the plane and colliding with
friction. Then
1 m1 m2
TL = (vr ,n (t − ))2 (1+en )[(en −1)+2µr +(1+en )µ2 ] (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
Single impacts
The case of a particle against a wall
The impact dynamics is
vt+ − vt−
   
pt
m(v + − v − ) = m  = 
vn+ − vn− pn
Let’s try
pt = −f pn sgn(vt+ )
with f > 0, and
vn+ = −en vn− , vn− < 0
33
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
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
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
Single impacts
Let’s try an “explicit” way: pt = −f pn sgn(vt− ), then we obtain:
vt+ = vt− + f (1 + e)vn− sgn(vt− )

Let vt− > 0, then vt+ = f (1 + e)vn− + vt− and the sign of vt+
depends on f , e and the pre-impact normal velocity magnitude: is
there some sound mechanical behaviour behind this?
Moreover vt− = 0 implies vt+ ∈ f (1 + e)|vn− |[−1, 1], so the
mapping is multivalued (no single value of the post-impact
velocity) and the energetical behaviour is not clear.
It is always better to work with implicit formulations of the

unilateral inclusions.
37
Single impacts
The effect of inertial couplings
Let’s consider a rod falling on the ground. The dynamics is given

by, with q = (x, y , θ)T :
 
    
 0 0 1
mq̈ =  −mg  +  1  λn +  0  λt (7)
0 l sin(θ) l cos(θ)

where the contact force is λ = (λt , λn )T ,
0 ≤ λn ⊥ h(q) = y − l cos(θ) ≥ 0
λt = −f λn sgn(ẋ + l θ̇ sin(θ))
38
Single impacts
The impact dynamics is deduced as:



 m(ẋ + − ẋ − ) = pt
m(ẏ + − ẏ − ) = pn




 m(θ̇ + − θ̇ − ) = l sin(θ)p + l cos(θ)p

n t
+ + l θ̇ + sin(θ) = −e(ẏ − + l θ̇ − sin(θ)) (8)

 ẏ
pt = −fpn sgn(ẋ + + l θ̇ + cos(θ))




 p ≥ 0, ẏ − + l θ̇ − sin(θ) ≤ 0, ẏ + + l θ̇ + sin(θ) ≥ 0

n
which we may see as a generalized equation to be solved with the

data (ẋ − , ẏ − , θ̇ − ) and e, f , with unknowns (ẋ + , ẏ + , θ̇ + ) and pn ,
pt .
39
Single impacts
pt
Let us denote µ = pn , then the kinetic energy loss is given by:

1 M(θ, µ)
TL = m(1 + en )N(θ, µ) (1 − en ) + µr 2 − (9)
2 M0
with:
(ẏ − +l θ̇ − sin(θ))2 mI
N(θ, µ) = I
+l sin2 (θ)−µl 2 sin(θ) cos(θ)
2
m
µ mI +l 2 cos2 (θ) −l 2 cos(θ) sin(θ)
( )
M(θ, µ) = I
+l 4 cos2 (θ) sin2 (θ)
m
M0 = M(θ, µ0 , µ0 ) is the maximal value of µ such that TL < 0.
40
Single impacts
When sgn(vt+ ) = −sgn(vt− ) then one may have TL > 0 for

e ∈ [0, 1], µ = −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 Painlevé paradoxes.
41
Single impacts
This has motivated researchers to propose various extensions of
Whittaker’s law to avoid such drawback.
e.g. extension of Coulomb’s law at the impulse level [Smith, JAM
1991]:
pt |vr−,t |vr−,t + |vr+,t |vr+,t

=µ
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 θ−method averaging pre- and post-impact

velocities (why not simply trying a θ−method and fitting the
parameter ?)
42
The impulse ratio
Single impacts
pt
About the use of an impulse ratio µ = pn :
This may be useful to calculate some upper bounds that guarantee

TL ≤ 0, however this is not an accurate enough mechanical model
(Coulomb’s friction ? Tangential restitution ?)
Fact: in general µ 6= f but µ < 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 µ depends on the impact incidence angle
◮ Observe reversal of vt due to finite tangential stiffness (not
predictable with Darboux-Keller’s model!)
43
The impulse ratio
Single impacts
These experiments show the limitations of neglecting the possibly
finite tangential stiffness.
Figure: The impulse ratio µ for various collision models.

44
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
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 µf as a function
of:
◮ the critical normalized impact angle above which sliding
occurs throughout the impact θc = 7κ−1κ ,
2(1−ν1 )
◮ the normal contact stiffness κ = 2−ν1
and found by fitting that
µ
= c1 + c2 tanh(c3 + c4 θ)
f
µ
where ci ’s are material property dependent and fitted, and f =1
for θ ≥ θc .
46
Kinematic tangential restitution
Single impacts
Tangential restitution versus Coulomb’s friction:
Mimicking the normal restitution model:
vt+ = et vt−
Remark: In an instantaneous impact framework (⇒ algebraic

impact dynamics) all four coefficients µ, en , et , f satisfy
relationships. For instance for two particles colliding one has
1 + et vr−,t vr−,n
µ= ⇔ et = −1 + (1 + en )µ
1 + en vr−,n vr−,t
47
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
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 ) (10)



mR 2 |vn− |

 with:

et = −1 + f (1 + en ) 1 + 2 |vt− |
where it is made use of µ = −f sgn(vt− ). This is validated from

experiments in [Maw et al, Mech. Res. Comm. 1977].
49
The works of Maw, Barber and Fawcett 1976, 1977, 1981, that
evidence the role of Coulomb friction, stick, slip, and the incidence
angle.
TO BE DONE
50
Single impacts
Some works [Brach, 1991; Walton 1992; Jenkins JAM 1992]

propose the use of a bilinear law of the form:
 pn = −(1 + en )mvn−

(11)
pt = − min{µpn , (1 + et )m|vt− |} sgn(vt− )

Compared with the “basic” (en , f ) law there is one more parameter
et and this law is shown to better fit with the above experimental
data (figure 2).
This is further extended in [Chatterjee and Ruina, JAM 1998].

[Moreau 198] also adds a tangential restitution.
51
Single impacts
Some experimental results for en and et [Antonyuk et al, Granular
Matter 2010]:
Figure: Normal and tangential restitution coefficients.
52
The friction coefficient during the impact may depend on the

initial tangential velocity magnitude |vt | [Garland and Rogers, JAM
2009].
TO BE DONE
53
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 Coulomb’s 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-Levinson’s
example with TL > 0 is a fundamental issue: one can estimate
separately en and f from suitable experiments, but inserting
them into the Whittaker’s law of impact with friction no
longer works: the physical validity of en and f seems to be 54
Single impacts
The underlying issue is that using Newton’s coefficient and
Coulomb’s 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:
◮ Frémond: recast such laws into a general framework inspired
by Moreau’s superpotentials (problem: not easy to discover
the right superpotential function so that the resulting law has
good parameters)
or:
◮ Darboux-Keller’s approach with Poisson’s or Stronge’s
(energetic) coefficients.
55
Comparison of the three coefficients (Darboux-Keller’s approach)
Single impacts
Let’s consider a 2-dimensional problem of a lamina colliding a
plane (with friction).
f0
h0
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Figure: Lamina colliding an anvil.
56
Single impacts
The same calculations as in the frictionless case may be done and

one finds that [Lubarda, JAM 2010]:
f0 +fh0
ep = f0 −fh0 en
e∗2 = ep en
where f > 0 is the friction coefficient.
57
Single impacts
1
f0 +fh0 2
It is then easily calculated that ep = f0 −fh0 e∗ and
1
2
en = ff00 −fh0
+fh0 e∗ , so that:
en < e∗ < ep (12)

(provided of course that f0 − fh0 > 0 ⇔ en > 0 (there is a
rebound after the impact))
58
Bounds on the restitution coefficients
Single impacts
The loss of kinetic energy is given by:
TL = 12 I (θ̇ 2 (p(tf )) − θ̇ 2 (0)) = 12 I (en2 − 1)θ̇ 2 (0)

(13)
2
= 21 I θ̇ 2 (0) 1 − ep2 (f 0 −fh0 )
(f0 +fh0 )2
from which one deduces that en ≤ 1. Then from the above

+fh0
relationships between both coefficients: ep ≤ ff00 −fh0
.
59
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:
2
2fh0
ep ≤ 1+
f0 − fh0
(larger than 1 upper bound) and
2
2fh0
en ≤ 1−
f0 − fh0
(smaller than 1 upper bound, confirms that infinite tangential
stiffness may be a limitation of the model)
60
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
The tangential restitution
Single impacts
Let us consider the impulse ratio

R
[0,t ] Ft (s)ds pt (tc )
µ= R c =
[0,tc ] Fn (s)ds pn (tc )
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

 fpn if pn ≤ pn (tc )
pt (pn ) = (14)
f (2pn (tc ) − pn ) if pn ≥ pn (tc )

62
Single impacts
It follows that
f ((2pn (tc ) − pn (tf )) f (1 − ep )

µ= =
pn (tf ) 1 + ep
Except if ep = 0, this ratio µ is not equal to the friction coefficient
f , but µ < f 1 .
Using the bounds derived for ep one can also compute bounds for
µ.
1
We saw this earlier and with experimental evidence.
63
Single impacts
fh0
The “parameter” f0 plays a particular role:
◮ fh0 < 1: rebound (elastic impact with non zero post-impact
f0
normal velocity)..
fh0
f0 = 1: from the obtained relations linking en and ep we infer
◮
that there is no rebound (plastic impact with vanishing
post-impact normal velocity).Then the angle (AO, n) is the
friction cone angle (= arctan(f )).
fh0
f0 > 1: case of large friction. Relying on the kinematics at
◮
the contact point and the Darboux-Keller dynamics one
obtains that on the expansion phase:
I θ̇(pn ) = (f0 − fh0 )(pn − pn (tc )) for pn ∈ [pn (tc ), pn (tf )]

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
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
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 Painlevé paradox effects may not exist in

shock dynamics since one works with impulses and not forces: as
shown in [Génot and Brogliato, EJM A/Solids 1998] at some
points of the (θ, θ̇) plane, Fn → ∞ while its impulse pn < ∞.
We retrieve here a big advantage of working with impulses,

similarly to what happens in time-stepping schemes à la
Moreau-Jean.
66
Darboux-Keller’s 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 −f cos(ζ)
dvr,t1 −1
 = M  −f sin(ζ)  (15)
 
 dpn
dvr,t2 1
dpn
where ζ is the angle between the two tangential velocities in the

local contact frame, the mass matrix inverse is given by expressions
of the form:
X
−1
m11 = −r3i2 Ii−1 −1 −1 −1
,12 + r3i r1i Ii ,32 + r3i r2i Ii ,13 − r2i r1i Ii ,33
i =1,2
with Ai Gi = (r1i r2i r3i )T in the local frame.

67
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 speaker’s knowledge, no experimental results

exist that corroborate any of the studies on Darboux-Keller’s ap-
proach...which is somewhat worrying...
68
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
Analysis of the impact process in the impulse space
70
Single impacts
Figure: Impulse space, allowable impulses.
See Chatterjee’s PhD thesis for a comparison of various above impact

laws in terms of reachable admissible points in the impulse space.
71
Moreau’s framework (generalized kinematic CoR)
Single impacts
J.J. Moreau proposed in [Moreau, 1983, 1985, 1988] to formulate

the impact law (Newton’s like) in the generalized coordinates q of
a lagrangian system subject to frictionless unilateral constraints
h(q) ≥ 0 as:
M(q)(q̇ + − q̇ − ) ∈ −NTΦ (q) (w )
+en q̇+
with w = q̇ 1+e
−
n
, Φ = {q ∈ Rn | h(q) ≥ 0}, TΦ (q) is the tangent
cone to Φ at q, NTΦ (q) (w ) is the normal cone to the tangent cone,
evaluated at w .
72
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 )
z∈C 2
We deduce that:
1
q̇ + = −en q̇ − + (1 + en ) argmin (z − q̇ − )T M(z − q̇ − )
z∈TΦ (q) 2
73
Single impacts
An equivalent formulation is [Payr and Glocker 2005]:

 −
 q̇ = v + v ⊥ , q̇ + = v − en v ⊥
(16)
TΦ (q) ∋ v (q) ⊥ v ⊥ (q) ∈ NΦ (q)

which is a cone complementarity problem and we recall that TΦ (q)

and NΦ (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
From the kinematics constraints
q̇ + ∈ TΦ (q), q̇ − ∈ −TΦ (q)

one can deduce the lower limit en ≥ 0.
75
Single impacts
Still another equivalent formulation is as follows:
M(q)(q̇ + − q̇ − ) = ∇h(q)p






U + = ∇hT (q)q̇ + , U − = ∇hT (q)q̇ − (17)




0 ≤ U + + en U − ⊥ p ≥ 0

where U is a local velocity, i.e. it is the derivative of the signed

distance function (the gap function, see later).
76
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 = proxTΦ (q) (q̇ − ), v ⊥ = proxNΦ (q) (q̇ − )
77
Single impacts
Graphical interpretation:
Figure: Geometry of Moreau’s impact law [Glocker and Payr].

78
Single impacts
◮ Moreau’s framework is formulated for multiple impacts (when the

boundary Bd(Φ) 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 Poisson’s CoR in [Payr and Glocker
2005].
◮ [Payr and Glocker 2005] analyze various impact rules and extend
Moreau’s restitution law to comply with some of the “basic”
requirements (like spanning of the whole admissible post-impact
velocity space).
79
First conclusions
Single impacts
The algebraic impact law using en and some tangential restitution

et of f or µ, has been the object of many analysis and extensions
in order improve the basic Whittaker’s 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
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
Compliant contacts (spring/dashpot, plasticity)
Single impacts
Let’s now analyse compliant models of contact/impact.
82
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
Single impacts
The CoR obtained from a linear spring/daspot model

mδ̈ = −c δ̇ − kδ (sometimes called Kelvin-Voigt):
◮ Termination conditions δ = 0 and δ̇ > 0:

απ
en = exp − √
1 − α2
α= √c .
2 km
Positive total impulse, however Fn < 0 during the collision!
84
Single impacts
Figure: Force/identation relation for various spring/dashpots.
85
Single impacts
◮ Termination conditions Fn = −c δ̇ − kδ = 0 and Fn ≥ 0:

√ !!
α 2α 1 − α2
en = exp − √ arctan
1 − α2 2α2 − 1
86
Single impacts
◮ Notice in passing that complementarity doesn’t mean perfect

rigidity, as it can be applied to compliant contact:
0 ≤ −Fn (t) + λ(t) ⊥ λ(t) ≥ 0 and mδ̈(t) = λ(t) that is a
linear complementarity system ẋ = Ax + Bλ,
0 ≤ λ ⊥ w = Cx + Dλ ≥ 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
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
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):
d 2 δn 3
2
m + kδn =0
dt 2
√
with m = mm11+m
m2
2
2RE
, k = 3(1−σ 2 )m and δn is the local normal
deflection. For rate dependent materials:
d 2 δn 3
2
p dδn
+ k(δ
m n + c δn =0
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
Single impacts
Remark: the widely used (in some fields like robotics) Hunt and
Crossley model [Hunt and Crossley, JAM 1975]:
Fn = −c|δ|m δ̇ − kδm
is not deduced from a rigorous Hertz analysis (m = 32 gives a
3 √
viscous term c|δ| 2 δ̇ and not c δn dδ˙ n ). It is rather used because
of its integrability property.
For low velocities it gives en ≈ 1 − βvn (0) for some constant β 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
Single impacts
The CoR for nonlinear visco-elastic behaviour [Brilliantov et al,

Phys. Rev. E 1996]:
1
vn (0) 5
en = 1 − b
m∗2

3Ad

2 ∗
√ 2
5 1 (3η2 −η1 )2 (1−ν 2 )(1−2ν)
with b = 1.15 2 3E R∗ , Ad = 3 3η2 +2η1 E ν2
.
91
The effect of plasticity on the CoR
Single impacts
According to [Johnson, Contact Mechanics, 1985] the relation

Fn (δn ) 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 δn = aR is still valid, where a is the contact
surface radius, R = RR11+R
R2
2
.
92
Single impacts
Then
r − 81
1 mvn2 (0)

Yd
en ≈ 3.8
E∗ 2 Yd R 3
where Yd (dynamic yield stress) and E ∗ (equivalent elastic modulus
that depends on Young’s and Poisson’s 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
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 Johnson’s 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
Single impacts
Their new model incorporates strain hardening [Mangwandi et al,

Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007]. It is given by:
i 12
σy2
q h 3
3
en = 3π 10 Eul∗ (x + y ) 2n+4
(18)
h 5
i− 1
15El∗ kπ 2
× 16R 2
(x + y ) 2n+4 + (2+n)R n+1
with
2n+4
(2n + 4)R n+1 mvn2 (0) 885735R 3

9πRσy
x= and y = −
4El∗ kπ 2 16394El∗4
95
Single impacts
Here are the results from [Mangwandi et al, Chem. Eng. Sci.
2007]:
Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs. 96

Single impacts
Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs.

97
Single impacts
Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs.

98
Single impacts
This raises two fundamental questions:

◮ isn’t it better and more mechanically sound to use Brach’s
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 , ν, 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
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 + δ δ̇)
◮ 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
Single impacts
Excerpts of the results for the CoR:
Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs

(stainless/stainless).
101
Single impacts
Excerpts of the results for CoR continued:
Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical CoRs (chrome

steel/chrome steel).
102
Single impacts
Excerpts of the results for collision duration:
Figure: Comparison between experimental and theoretical collision

durations (stainless steel/stainless steel).
103
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
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
Single impacts
Remark: Other quantities than the CoR are worth considering:

◮ force/identation F (δ)
◮ energy lost during compression and during expansion
◮ collision duration
106
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
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
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
3
8
3
8
3
v n,1 5
2
en,k+1 = en,k + en,1 1 − 2.7 − en,k
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 Johnson’s expression).
109
Single impacts
Figure: Continuous lines: theoretical predictions [Weir and Tallon, 2005].

110
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
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):
5 3 1
Yd 8 R1 8 c0 4
en = 3.1
E∗ R vn (0)
112
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.
◮ We’ll 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 2 3 4
Figure: Four elastic disks on a line.
119
Single impacts
Initially no vibrations inside the bodies. Scenario:

◮ Initial velocities and initial kinetic energy ( 4 1 2
P
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
P4 final kinetic energy is equal to the initial one and is
1 2
i =1 2 mi vGi (0)
120
Multiple impacts
Let us now pass to the problem of multiple impact modeling.
121
Definitions
The gap functions
Multiple impacts
Let q ∈ Rn denote the vector of independent generalized

coordinates of the system in a free-motion mode (i.e. the contact
points of interest are supposed to be inactive). The inertia matrix
is denoted as M(q) assumed to be symmetric positive definite.
The gap functions hi (q) ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ m, are used to state the

non-penetrability of the contacting bodies. They are signed
distances.
We define the m gap functions hi : Rn → R as differentiable

functions.
In general they are hard to compute analytically, so a numerical
estimation is necessary (collision detection algorithms).
122
Definitions
The gap functions
Multiple impacts
The (frictionless) Lagrange equations of the system are:



 M(q)q̈ + F (q, q̇, t) = ∇h(q)λ



0 ≤ λ ⊥ h(q) ≥ 0




Impact law: q̇ + = R(q̇ − , q, parameters)

123
Definitions
A multiple impact in a multibody system
Multiple impacts
Definition
Let Φ = {q ∈ Rn | h(q) ≥ 0} be the admissible domain of the
mechanical system. A multiple impact of order p (or a p−impact)
is an impact that occurs at a codimension p singularity of the
boundary bd(Φ).
124
Definitions
A multiple impact in a multibody system
Multiple impacts
Figure: A multiple impact in the configuration space

125
Definitions
The kinetic angle between two hypersurfaces
Multiple impacts
Let Σi = {q ∈ Rn | hi (q) = 0 and q ∈ bd(Φ)}. At a point q the

kinetic angle θij between Σi and Σj is defined by
∇hiT (q)M −1 (q)∇hj (q)

cos(θij ) = 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
Definitions
Multiple impacts
π
case θ > 2 case θ = π
2
(q0′ , q̇0 )
(q0 , q̇0 )
0 0
(restitution coefficient e = 0) (restitution coefficient e = 1)
Figure: Impact at a corner.
127
Definitions
Multiple impacts
A result of [Paoli, 2005] states that continuity with respect to

initial data holds under certain conditions, roughly:
h∇hi (q), M −1 (q)∇hj (q)i ≤ 0 if en = 0 (19)

(0 ≤ θij ≤ π2 )
h∇hi (q), M −1 (q)∇hj (q)i = 0 if en ∈ (0, 1] (20)

(θij = π2 )
hold for all indices i , j ∈ I (q), i 6= j.
128
Definitions
Multiple impacts
Remark: what does this become when one considers constraints

with Coulomb’s 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
Definitions
Examples
Multiple impacts
The rocking block
L
Y l
θ
y G
b'
B -g
h(θ)
A
AAAAAAAAAAAA
b
AAAAAAAAAAAA
0
f(θ)
X
AAAAAAAAAAAA
a x a'
Figure: Planar rocking block.
130
Definitions
Examples
Multiple impacts
h1 (q) = θ + θM (y ) ≥ 0, h2 (q) = θ − θM (y ) ≤ 0
where

2y l
θM (y ) = arcsin √ − arctan
l + L2
2 L
or equivalently
l L l L
h1 (q) = y − cos(θ) − sin(θ), h2 (q) = y − cos(θ) + sin(θ)
2 2 2 2
The two constraints are ortogonal in the kinetic metric if and only
if
√
l= 2L
131
Definitions
Examples
Multiple impacts
The rod with two contact points
θ
L
h2 (q)
h1 (q)
Figure: A rof colliding with two points.
132
Definitions
Examples
Multiple impacts
The rod at the impact:

L
d0
d1
d2
Figure: A rof colliding with two points.
133
Definitions
Examples
Multiple impacts
h1 (q) = y cos(θ)+(d1 −x) sin(θ), h2 (q) = y cos(θ)+(d2 −x) sin(θ)
The (unnormalized) kinetic angle at the impact with the 2 points

(a 2-impact) is given by:

1 12 L L
θ12 = + (d1 − d0 − )(d2 − d0 − )
m mL2 2 2
so θ12 depends on the rod length and on its position w.r.t. the 2
points at the impact time:
12 L L π
1+ (d1 − d0 − )(d2 − d0 − ) > 0 ⇔ θ12 ∈ [0, )
L2 2 2 2
12 L L π
1+ 2
(d1 − d0 − )(d2 − d0 − ) < 0 ⇔ θ12 ∈ ( , π)
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
The lagrangian impact dynamics
Multiple impacts
At a time t when a shock occurs, λ is a Dirac measure and so is

the acceleration q̈. Positions q remain constant and velocities q̇
undergo a discontinuity.
M(q(t))[q̇(t + ) − q̇(t − )] = ∇h(q(t))pt

where λ = pt δt , pt being the percussion at time t.
There are n + m unknowns: q̇(t + ) and pt . We have n equations,

so we need m more equations just to solve the problem.
136
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
M −1 (q)∇hi (q)
nq,i = 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 ∈ Rn−m .
137
Multiple impacts
Let’s perform a specific state vector change as follows: Let

T
nq
Ξ=
tT
q
and let
M(q) = ΞM(q)
The new vector of velocities is:

q̇norm
= M(q)q̇
q̇tan
that splits the generalized velocity into a “normal” and a
“tangential” components (in the kinetic metric).
138
Multiple impacts
Then the Lagrange dynamics is transformed into:

q̈norm + F1 (q, q̇, t) = nq Fq
(21)
q̈tan + F2 (q, q̇, t) = 0
because the constraints are frictionless. At an impact time one has
Fq = pq δt . The term pq = ∇h(q)p ∈ Rn is the generalized
percussion vector, p ∈ Rm .
At an impact time t we get:
q̇norm (t + ) − q̇norm (t − ) = nq pq
and
q̇tan (t + ) = q̇tan (t − )
139
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
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 Σi does not
influence the impacts on Σj for all j 6= i ).
(The Delassus’ matrix is ∇hT (q)M −1 (q)∇h(q) ∈ Rm×m .)
141
Multiple impacts
One may write a generalized frictionless impact law as follows for

each constraint hi (q). 1 ≤ i ≤ m:
+ −
q̇norm,i = −en,i q̇norm,i (22)
that yields if all constraints are impacted simultaneously:
m
1X 2 −
TL = (en,i − 1)(q̇norm,i )2 (23)
2
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
Multiple impacts
Remark
◮ Applying the normal restitution in (22) is equivalent to
applying Moreau’s rule.
◮ There is no generalized formulation of Coulomb’s friction
using directly the q̇tan 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
Multiple impacts
Rocking block example
Considering only the left contact point one has:
q̇ T ∇q f1 (q)
q̇norm,1 = p
∇q f1 (q)T M −1 (q)∇q f1 (q)
2
with q̇ T ∇q f1 (q) = √ 2 ẏ + θ̇, and
l +L2 −4y 2
√ !
mẋ
q̇tang,1 = − (24)
√ m
4I +mL2
ẏ(t k ) − √ 2I
L 4I +mL2
θ̇(tk− )
144
Multiple impacts
Applying the above generalized Newton’s rule to the first contact
point (i.e. q̇norm,1 )

2 + + 2 − −
ẏ (t ) + θ̇(t ) = −en ẏ(t ) + θ̇(t )
L L
2
because at the impact times θ = 0, y = l
2 and √ 2 = L2 .
l +L2 −4y 2
After few calculations we obtain:
2L2 − l 2 − 2en (L2 + l 2 )

ẏ (t + ) = ẏ (t − )
l 2 + 4L2
and
−(2en + 1)(L2 + l 2 ) + 4(l 2 + L2 ) −
θ̇(t + ) = θ̇(t )
4l 2 + 16L2
145
Multiple impacts
This is to be compared with the widely used Housner’s model that

treats the rocking block as a one degree-of-freedom system and
states that
θ̇(t + ) = −e θ̇(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).
We’ll introduce later a matrix of generalised restitution coefficients.
146
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
Features and properties of a restitution mapping
Multiple impacts
◮ (1) the kinetic angle between the surfaces Σi , 1 ≤ i ≤ p

involved in the p−impact,
◮ (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
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
Some items are peculiar to multiple shocks, like item (4) about
wave effects: waves through the bodies are responsible for the
dispersion of the energy.
Energy dispersion
This characterizes the fact that the kinetic energy is distributed

among the bodies of the system during the shock, as a result of
waves effects that travel throughout the mechanical system.
150
Simple chains of balls (3-ball, 2-ball and wall)
Multiple impacts
Let’s 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
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 q̇n+ = q̇1− ,
while q̇i+ = 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 q̇i+ 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
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
Multiple impacts
The dynamics with two balls impacting a wall is given by:



 m1 q̈1 (t) = −m1 g + λ1
m2 q̈2 (t) = −m2 g − λ1 + λ2

(25)

 0 ≤ λ1 ⊥ h1 (q) = q1 − q2 − R1 − R2 ≥ 0
0 ≤ λ2 ⊥ h2 (q) = q2 − R2 ≥ 0

The kinetic angle between the two surfaces Σ1 and Σ2 is given by

√
m1
cos(θ12 ) = − √ <0 (26)
m1 + m2
so that 0 < θ12 < π2 and from [Paoli 2005] one may expect
discontinuity w.r.t. initial data when en 6= 0.
154
Multiple impacts
We associate a Newton’s 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 (Σ2 ) and B1 /B2 (Σ1 ) produces the outcomes:
1+en,1 −
 m−en,1 −
+
 q̇1 = 1+m q̇1 − en,2 1+m q̇2

(27)
 q̇ ++ = m(1+en,1 ) q̇ − − e 1−en,1 m q̇ −

2 1+m 1 n,2 1+m 2
m1
with m = m2 .
155
Multiple impacts
The sequence of impacts B1 /B2 (Σ1 ) and B2 /wall (Σ2 ) and then
B1 /B2 (Σ1 ) again, produces the outcomes
 n o
m−en,1 m−en,1 − 1+en,1 −
 q̇1++ = q̇ + 1+m q̇2
1+m n 1
1+m


 o
 1+en,1 m(1+en,1 ) − 1−en,1 m −
−en,2 1+m q̇ + q̇



 1+m 1 1+m 2
n o (28)
 +++ m(1+en,1 ) m−en,1 − 1+en,1 −
q̇ = q̇ + q̇


2 1+m n 1
1+m 1+m 2


 o
 1−en,1 m m(1+en,1 ) − 1−en,1 m −
−en,2 1+m q̇ + q̇


1+m 1 1+m 2
156
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 Σ1 ∩ Σ2 , by
studying sequences of impacts.
One therefore has to follow another path to obtain a

multiple-impact law for this system.
157
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 Newton’s law at each contact. Calculations give:
 + 1

 q̇1 = 3 [(1 − 2en,1 )q̇1− + (1 − en,2 + 2en,1 )q̇2− + (1 + en,2 )q̇3− ]



q̇2+ = 13 [(1 + en,1 )q̇1− + (1 − en,2 − en,1 )q̇2− + (1 + en,2 )q̇3− ]




 + 1
q̇3 = 3 [(1 + en,1 )q̇1− + (1 + 2en,2 − en,1 )q̇2− + (1 − 2en,2 )q̇3− ]
(29)
158
Multiple impacts
◮ Suppose that q̇2− = q̇3− = 0:

◮ Necessarily one has q̇2+ = q̇3+ whatever the values of en,1 and
en,2 .
2
◮ TL ≤ 0 ⇔ en,1 ≤1
◮ Suppose that q̇2− = 0, q̇3− = −1 m/s, q̇1− = 1 m/s: then
2 2
TL ≤ 0 ⇔ en,1 + en,2 + en,1 en,2 ≤ 3
2 ≤
√
So if en,i = 0 one has en,j 3 > 1, i 6= j.
159
Notice that this is equivalent to applying Moreau’s law formulated

in the generalized coordinates. In particular if en = 0 in Moreau’s
law then
1
q̇1+ = q̇2+ = q̇3+ = (q̇1− + q̇2− + q̇3− )
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
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
energetical behaviour: TL = 0 means en,12 + e2 + e e
n,2 n,1 n,2 = 3
in the second case.
Let’s examine now what happens when some compliance is added

between the balls.
161
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 γ and the initial velocities.
162
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)) − γk(x2 (t) − x3 (t)) (30)
dt
dP3
(t) = γk(x2 (t) − x3 (t))
dt
where P1 = mv1 , P2 = αmv2 and P3 = αmv3 . The quantity γ is
the stiffness ratio, the quantity α is the mass ratio.
Clearly the impact is lossless.

163
Multiple impacts
It is possible to show (analytically) that:

◮ If γ → +∞ then q̇1+ = − 13 m/s q̇2+ = q̇3+ = 2
3 m/s
◮ If γ → 0 then limγ→0 q̇1+ = 0 m/s, limγ→0 q̇2+ = 0 m/s,
limγ→0 q̇3+ = 1 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 γ and α in n−ball chains.
164
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
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, κ stiffness ratio.

166
Multiple impacts
Figure: Deformations furing the impact, linear spring, κ stiffness ratio.
167
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
Further analysis of n−ball 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
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= π2 ).
◮ Compliant contact models show that the multiple impact
process may be extremely complex and may display a variety
of behaviours (dispersion, dispersion-free, short contact, long
lasting contacts), even if the kinetic energy loss is fixed.
◮ How to represent wave effects (dispersion of kinetic energy)
with constant parameters within a perfect rigid body
framework and algebraic impact dynamics ?? (in particular
satisfying item (8) above).
Personal conjecture: this is impossible...

170
Multiple impact restitution mappings
A generalized Newton’s 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 (q̇norm , q̇tan ):
+ −
q̇norm q̇norm
+ =E − (31)
q̇tan q̇tan
Drawback: no clear physical meaning of the coefficients, adapt

the coefficients values to each system configuration (see items (4)
(7) (8) (9) above).
171
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
Multiple impacts
Other impact mappings:
◮ Frémond (use of Moreau’s 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 (Routh’s method, e∗,i , and impulse
correlation ratio – unfortunately dependent on system’s data,
numerical implementation not obvious)
173
Extension of the Darboux-Keller’s approach
Multiple impacts
Let’s 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
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
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 q̇ − 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
δ̇i (q, t) = wiT (q, t)q̇ + ŵi (q, t)
The matrix W collects the terms wi , and dP is the vector of

normal impulses.
176
Multiple impacts
We suppose that the force/indentation mapping at the contact

point i is:
λi = Ki (δi )η (32)
where Ki is the contact stiffness, the exponent η determines the
kind of contacts between bodies (η = 23 is for Hertz contact, η = 1
is linear elasticity).
Let Pi (t) denote the total normal impulse

Rt accumulated during the
time interval [0, t]: Pi (t) = Pi (0) + 0 λi (s)ds. So dP
dt (t) = λi (t)
i
and:
dλi dλi dPi dλi
= · = λi (33)
dt dPi dt dPi
177
Multiple impacts
In terms of the compliant model expressed by (32), we have
dλi
= ηKi (δi )η−1 δ̇i = ηKi (δi )η−1 wiT q̇ (34)
dt
Notice that δi can always be expressed as
1
λi η
δi = (35)
Ki
Substituting (35) and (34) into (33) leads to

1 1
λi η dλi = ηKi η wiT q̇dPi (36)
178
Multiple impacts
The initial value of the normal impulse can be set to Pi (0) = 0,

and the contact force before impact is λi (0) = 0 for the case
without initial precompression energy.
The integration of equation (36) leads to

" # η
Z Pi (t) 1
η+1
λi (Pi (t)) = (η + 1) Ki wiT q̇dPi

η (37)
0
179
Multiple impacts
Noticing that λi = 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
R  η
1 Pi (t) T η+1
wi q̇dPi

dPi Ki η+1
 R0
= Pj (t) T
 (38)
dPj Kj wj q̇dPj
0
180
Multiple impacts
The work functions at both contact points are defined as:

Z Pi (t) Z Pj (t)
Ei = wiT q̇dPi , Ej = wjT q̇dPj (39)
0 0
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
Multiple impacts
Let us introduce the ratios of contact stiffnesses γji = Kj /Ki , and

define
R Pj (t) T
∆ Ej 0 wj q̇dPj
Eji = = R P (t) ≥ 0, (j = 1, 2, . . . , s, j 6= i ) (40)
Ei i
wT q̇dPi
0 i
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 η+1
dPj = γji η+1 (Eji (Pi , Pj )) η dPi , j = 1, 2, . . . , s, j 6= i (41)
182
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
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:
R Pj (tc ) R Pj (tc ) T
2 Wr ,j δ̇ j dPj 0 wj q̇dPj
e∗,j =− = − R P0 (t ) = − R P (t ) (42)
Wc,j j f
δ̇j dPNj j f
wT q̇dPj
Pj (tc ) Pj (tc ) j
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
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 doesn’t 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
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
Summary of the dynamical equations
◮ Contact parameters: γij , es,j , 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ m, η (1, 23 ).

◮ Dynamical equation:
d q̇ dP
M =W if Eji (Pj , Pi ) ≤ 1 for all j 6= i (43)
dPi dPi
with
dPj 1 η+1
= γjiη+1 (Eji (Pj , Pi )) η (44)
dPi
Ej (Pj )
Eji = , 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ m (45)
Ei (Pi )
Z Pj (t) Z Pj (tc ) Z Pj (tf )

Ej (Pj ) = wjT q̇dPj , Wr ,j = wjT q̇dPj , Wc,j = wjT q̇dPj
0 0 Pj (tc )
(46)
and the time tc at the contact j is calculated from δ̇j (tc ) = 0, while tf is
2
calculated from the energy constraint Wr ,j = −es,j Wc,j .
187
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:
λc,j = Kj (δc,j )η (47)

and the one for expansion phase is
δe,j − δr ,j η

λe,j = λm,j (48)
δm,j − δr ,j
where δr ,j is the plastic deformation, and λm,j and δm,j correspond

to the maxima of the normal contact force and normal deformation
at the end of the compression phase (when δ˙j = 0).
188
Multiple impacts
O
OM M
G
2 Gr GM
Figure: The bi-stiffness compliant contact model
189
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 R
B GR GM2 GM1 G
2 A
Figure: The contact point with two compression phases.

190
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
Multiple impacts
Figure: Loading-unloading effect on the contact stiffness (zeolite).
The contact stiffness varies because the contact area varies.

192
Numerical results and comparisons with experiments
Multiple impacts
Numerical results have been obtained for:

◮ Three-ball chains
◮ Five-ball chains
◮ Long chains (≥ 15 balls)
◮ Bernoulli’s 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
Multiple impacts
Let us consider the column of beads studied in [Falcon et al,
Europ. J. Phys. B, 1998]:
Wall
Figure: A column of beads colliding against a wall.
194
Multiple impacts
◮ 1 ≤ N ≤ 40 identical stainless steel beads, 8mm in diameter,

2.05 ×10−3 kg.
◮ “Wall” made of stainless steel.
◮ Young modulus E = 21.6 × 1010 N/m2 , Poisson ratio
ν = 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
N influences very little the maximum force during the impact (waves
effects).
196
197
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 ± 1µs (numerically ≈ 32µs) for h = 3.1 mm.
198
Robustness of the impact law: let’s vary es,s a little.
The method allows for some reasonable uncertainty in the CoR

estimation.
199
200
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
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

An Introduction To Impact Dynamics: Bernard Brogliato, INRIA Grenoble-Rh One-Alpes, France

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To Impact Dynamics: Bernard Brogliato, INRIA Grenoble-Rh One-Alpes, France

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

An Introduction to Impact Dynamics

Bernard Brogliato, INRIA Grenoble-Rhône-Alpes, France

June 2010, Aussois

Objective of these lectures: give an overview of various impact

Some (pessimistic) philosophy

Quoted from [Chatterjee and Ruina, JAM 1998]:

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

Some (pessimistic) philosophy, continued

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

Any generally applicable collision law, whether coming from

Some (pessimistic) philosophy, continued

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

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

Is it reasonable to assume that a finite number of parameters

Fortunately enough, after their pessimistic introduction, the

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

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

Classes of impact dynamics modeling:

◮ (1) Rigid bodies:

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

◮ We assume a frictionless point contact so that

nT (VA+1 − VA+2 ) = −en nT (VA−1 − VA−2 )

Notice that if MAi is not diagonal (inertial couplings between

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

The kinetic energy loss is given by:

that is ≤ 0 for all e 2 ≤ 1. Since nT (VA−1 − VA−2 ) < 0 then rebound

The proof may be done by using Kelvin’s formula which reads

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

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

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

Three main definitions of the restitution coefficient:

Restitution coefficients are a macroscopic model of a complex

The Darboux-Keller model is based on some assumptions:

This is an extension of Routh’s graphical method that applies to

Let’s start from the simplest one degree-of-freedom case:

mq̈(t) = F (t) (2)

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

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

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

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

After some simple calculations we get that

p(tf ) = −(1 + ep )mv (0)

elastic energy released during the expansion phase

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

Again in such a simple case the energetical and the kinematic

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

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

The kinematics at the contact point yields:

sliding vanishes when compression ends. So from the basic

(compression vn < 0 + sliding vt > 0)

◮ Newton’s law: vn (tf ) = −en vn (0) so that vt (tf ) = −en vt (0)

I (θ̇(pn (tf )) − θ̇(0)) = f0 pn (tf )

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

According to [Whittaker, 1904] one writes the Coulomb’s model in

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

Adding friction complicates much the expression for TL .

The case of a particle against a wall

The impact dynamics is

vn+ = −en vn− , vn− < 0

Simple calculations yield:

 pn = −m(1 + en )vn− > 0

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