Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences &
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
8th International Conference on MultibodyAugust 28-31,
Systems,
August 28-31, 2011, Washington, DC, USA
INVESTIGATION OF RESTITUTION COEFFICIENT AND SPRING-DAMPER
MODELS FOR THE BOUNCING BALL PROBLEM
Alexandre Carbonelli*
Laboratoire de Tribologie et Dynamique des
Systèmes, UMR CNRS 5513
Ecole Centrale de Lyon, Université de Lyon,
69134 ECULLY cedex, France
Email : alexandre.carbonelli@ec-lyon.fr
ABSTRACT
The non linear system under study consists on the
bouncing ball problem. Focusing on the n-T periodic solutions
and the permanent contact motion, simulations performed
underline the effect of spring-damper contact model in
comparison with the classical restitution coefficient. Both
approaches are implemented in an adimensional way. For the
restitution coefficient approach, iterating maps are easy to
obtain after some assumptions. On the contrary, the spring-
damper model leads to transcendental equations needing the
use of numerical continuation methods. The damping ratio is
defined as a function of the restitution coefficient. The effect of
the contact stiffness is studied. For high values of the contact
stiffness, the spring-damper model has the same behavior as
the restitution coefficient model as the impact duration gets
shorter. Predictions of the two models diverge when the contact
stiffness decreases. Results are illustrated by time histories and
Poincaré Maps of dynamic responses. This paper aims to be
guideline to quantify the error made by making the assumptions
required for a restitution coefficient model.
INTRODUCTION
The bouncing ball problem has been widely studied in the
literature [1-7], especially for the well-known n-T periodic
solutions with one impact per period. One reason of this interest
comes from the rich variety of nonlinear behaviors that stems
from that simple system. Indeed the system consists in a ball
which rebounds on vibrating table of infinite mass under the
effect of the gravity. A very short duration of impacts is
assumed compared to the excitation period. Several impact-pair
models have also been introduced based on a restitution
coefficient [7-12]. For instance, rattling gears can efficiently be
approached by a simple model of impact-pair with restitution
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
IDETC/CIE 2011
2011, Washington,
Nonlinear DC,
Dynamics, and USA
Control
IDETC/CIE 2011
DETC2011-4
DETC2011-47870
Joël Perret-Liaudet
Emmanuel Rigaud
Mohamed-Saïd Feki
Laboratoire de Tribologie et Dynamique des
Systèmes, UMR CNRS 5513
Ecole Centrale de Lyon, Université de Lyon,
69134 ECULLY cedex, France
coefficient, gears being unloaded [13]. On the contrary, for
gears hammering phenomenon, restitution coefficient model is
more disputable. Indeed, the large torque variation lead to large
deflection and the contact duration is not necessarily small
compared to the external excitation period [14].
Anyway, the stereo-mechanical impact is usually described
by a restitution coefficient to model the contact dissipation.
Thus an instantaneous change of the velocity occurs at the
impact. According to frequency and amplitude of the vibrating
table and the restitution coefficient, periodic, subharmonic or
chaotic motions can be observed. Considering the free flight
amplitude is large compared with the excitation amplitude, the
restitution coefficient approach allows a complete analytical
study of this deterministic problem using direct iterated map.
In this paper, we focus on the spring-damper approach to
deal with the contact. No assumptions are needed to solve the
motion problem but the transcendental equations describing the
problem cannot be solved analytically. Thus numerical
continuation methods are used to study the particular n-T
periodic solutions, with one impact per period. A damping ratio
in relation with the coefficient restitution is needed to compare
the models. The damping ratio suggested by Nagurka and
Huang [15] is used for the spring damper model. The main
difference is the impact duration which gets longer as the
contact stiffness decreases. Moreover, for lower values of the
contact stiffness, the existence conditions of the n-T periodic
solutions change compared to the restitution coefficient
approach. The conditions of permanent motion are also
investigated for both models.
As the restitution coefficient model is much simpler, this
paper aims to define when this approach is reasonably justified
according to the impact duration and thus to the contact
stiffness. This paper provides an estimation of the error made
when the restitution coefficient is used to describe the contact.
1 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
  () = −
( −  ) +  ( )
!() = −
( −  )% + ( −  ) ( ) + ( )'
NOMENCLATURE



Physical variables
%
(1)
 <  < 

gravity


table infinite mass


displacement of the ball
For an impact occurring at time  , the velocity changes
where the overdot denotes the time derivative.

velocity of the ball
instantaneously according to the restitution coefficient :

acceleration of the ball


displacement of the table
  ( ) −  ( ) = −) * ( ) −  ( )+

velocity of the table
(2)

time
  ( ) and  * ( ) are respectively the ball velocities just
amplitude of table vibration
after and before the impact.  * ( ) is written as follows
frequency of the table
phase of the table
 * ( ) = −
( −  ) +  ( )
mass of the ball
(3)
contact stiffness


damping Dimensionless Equations
natural frequency of the contact The dimensionless equations are obtained by introducing

  = 
Dimensionless variables the following dimensionless variables:

′
- time
,-.
 =
displacement of the ball

′′ /
velocity of the ball - excitation amplitude
 =
0

acceleration of the ball
,
- ball displacement
′ 1 = 
0
displacement of the table

′′ ,-
velocity of the table - ball velocity
 = ,
2

acceleration of the table
- table displacement
′ 1 = 
2
relative displacement ball/table
,-
′′
relative velocity ball/table - table velocity


relative acceleration ball/table

 dimensionless time  the system of Eqn. (1) becomes:

excitation amplitude where the prime denotes the dimensionless time derivative. At


damping ratio

  ′ = −( −  ) +  ′
frequency ratio

 3 '
time
 = − ( −  )% + ( −  ) ′ + 


restitution coefficient (4)
%


"apparent" restitution coefficient
The dimensionless time dependency is noted  instead
periodic family index of the orbits
of ( ) for instance. The following phase and velocity
mapping can be written:
DYNAMICS OF THE BOUCING BALL PROBLEM WITH
 −  = 4
RESTITUTION COEFFICIENT APPROACH

! )sin( + 4 ) – sin( )+ = 4 1 − % 4 '

% 
The bouncing ball system for the restitution coefficient
(5)
 = −(1 − 4 ) + (1 + ). cos( + 4 )
approach is described Fig. 1.
1

C ()
() = . BE( )

In system of Eqn. (5), velocities are expressed just after

=∞
impact.

Existence Conditions and Stability of the n-T Periodic

Solutions
Figure 1. BOUNCING BALL SYSTEM WITH THE The fixed points of the map, which represents the n-T
RESTITUTION COEFFICIENT MODEL periodic responses, with one impact per period (see Fig. 2) are

() is the ball motion under the effect of the gravity g. flight duration is exactly equal to 4 = 2 ′. That leads to:
studied (existence and stability). For these responses, the free

() is the table motion of amplitude  and frequency . The

 =  + 21 ?@(2A) '
motion of the ball between two impacts occurring at times  > 1
table is assumed having an infinite mass M. The free flight
 = . 1 + (1 + ). ?B( + 2 ′)
and  is written as follows:
(6)

2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Permanent Contact Condition

When then table does not restitute enough energy, the ball
sticks to the table. The dimensionless external force acting on
the ball being -1, the existence of permanent contact motions is
determined by:

|′′| " |sin | & 1 →  & 1 (9)

The threshold value is noted ST " 1.

DYNAMICS OF THE BOUNCING BALL PROBLEM

WITH SPRING-DAMPER APPROACH
 A spring-damper approach is now introduced to describe
the contact. The model is described Fig. 4.

C 
 = 0.85,  " 1
Figure 2. 1-T PERIODIC RESPONSE

Solving Eqn. (6), we find the bouncing off velocity equal

to 1 " A and the impact time  " . sin   $ )
J*
 ?@2A " I ?BA ⁄. Then the n-T periodic
J
"∞
responses exist for:

*J
A & (7)
J Figure 4. BOUNCING BALL SYSTEM WITH THE
SPRING-DAMPER MODEL.
Furthermore, the stability study can be performed (see for
instance Holmes [1]). We find that the previous condition The dynamic contact is then governed by the
Eqn. (7) corresponds to saddle-node bifurcation. Moreover, a following equation:
period-doubling bifurcation occurs at:
 U $  U #   $ U #  " #
(10)
*O %
 " L1 $ nπ% N P (8)
O The subscript c stands for the contact part of the motion
and is the ball mass. We introduce a phase for the table
These results are summarized Fig. 3. motion for some later simplifications.

Dimensionless Equations
The same dimensionless variables are used to perform easy
n=1
comparisons between the two models. Following variables are
n=2 also introduced:
- a damping ratio  " /2√ ,
"X / ,
n=3
- a natural frequency
n=4 - a frequency ratio ϖ " Ω/ω
n=5 stable orbit
unstable orbit
period-doubling The equation of dynamic contact (10) becomes:
saddle-node
U ′′ $ 2U ′ # ′ $  %U #  " #1 (11)


Figure 3. EXISTENCE CONDITIONS OF THE FIVE
FIRST PERIODIC ORBITS FOR r=0.85

3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Analytical response is easily found as follows:

1  " 1.00 ;  " 0.8

U  " \ *]^_ ) ?B `  $ aBE ` + #
%
$ b. ?B $  $ c. BE $   " 0.85 ;  " 1
(12)
1 U  " \ *]^_ )# $ ` a ?B ` 
 " 0.65 ;  " 1
#a $ BE ` + # b. BE $  $ c. ?B $  
(13)
In Eqn. (12) and (13)
` " X1 # ²,
b " #2/e,
c " )2² $ ²² # 1+/e,
with e " ² # 1² $ 2².  " 0.10 ;  " 2.6
Previous variables are only function of the system 
parameters. However, variables A and B depend on the initial
contact conditions, i.e. the time f the ball impacts the table and Figure 5. EVOLUTION OF THE "APPARENT"
the ball velocity f ′ at the impact. RESTITUTION COEFFICIENT VS.  FOR DIFFERENT 

The higher the frequency ratio  is, the more  is close
The free flight motion remains of the same form as stated
before:
to .
 Figure 6 displays the evolution of  vs.  for a
g  " #  #  % $  #  1  $ . BE $ 
restitution coefficient  " 0.65 and for three different . The
(14)
%
g ′ " # #   $ ′ (15) behavior of  depends on . For  " 1.2 as example, 
decreases slighty before it tends to 0.81 at  " 1.
where  ′ is bouncing off ball velocity and  the time at which
the ball bounces off the table. Notice that now  h f contrary
to the restitution coefficient approach.

The Damping Ratio

In order to compare the two models, a damping ratio must
be introduced in relation with the restitution coefficient. As the
restitution coefficient is a constant, the damping ratio used to

 " 0.7
model the contact is assumed to be constant too. Thus we
choose use the relation Nagurka and Huang [15] suggest in a
context of a bouncing ball on a static table: "1
 " 1.2
ij J
"# (16)
Xk²ij J²

Notice that  → 0 leads to the subcritical case  → 1 and

 " 1 leads to no damping at all, i.e.  " 0. Equation (16) is 
perfectly valid for a static table but not necessarily for a
vibrating one. Contrary to the restitution coefficient approach, Figure 6. EVOLUTION OF THE "APPARENT"
the velocities of the table before and after the impact are RESTITUTION COEFFICIENT  VS.  FOR  " 0.65
different, as the impact duration is no longer zero. So an AND FOR DIFFERENT 
"apparent" restitution coefficient  is defined by:
The different cases presented Fig. (5) and (6) show that the
lm n *m n  difference between  and  are negligible for  q 100.
 " # (17)
lm o *m o 

Figure 5 displays the evolution of  vs. ϖ for several

values  and Λ. The frequency ratio ϖ is directly linked to the
contact stiffness k and thus to the impact duration ∆τ.

4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Computational Method for the n-T Periodic Solutions Existence Conditions and Stability of the n-T Periodic
Figure 7 displays the 1-T periodic solution. Solutions
Existence conditions are directly obtained by continuation
methods. Furthermore, the study of their stability is performed
g  in a classical way [19-20], i.e. considering the perturbed
′ system. Figures 8-10 show the existence domains of the 1-T
and 2-T periodic solutions for ζ " 0.052 , i.e.  " 0.85, in the
cases of three different frequency ratio  " 10u , 10 and 2.
U   Phase φ of the contact beginning and bouncing off time  need
to be plotted.
′%
′f

"2

 " 10
f  %
τ
Figure 7. LOOK OF THE 1-T PERIODIC SOLUTION ,  " 10u
FOR THE SPRING-DAMPER APPROACH

The n-T periodic solutions can be exactly computed

considering the periodicity. The response is determined by:  " 10
- f , is the initial time at which the contact starts with an "2
initial velocity ′f
-  , is the time at which the ball bounces off the table
with a velocity ′
- % , is the time at which the ball impacts again the table 
after a free flight motion with a velocity ′% Figure 8. EXISTENCE AND STABILITY DOMAINS
The time origin is set and two equations ensure the system  " 1, ζ " 0.052
periodicity:

f " 0 (18)
"2
% " f $ 2A (19)
 " 10
′% " ′f (20)

 " 10u
Finally, the system has six unknowns to be found, i.e.
{f ′, ′, , } and for convenience the two additional variables
,
A and B of Eqn. (12) and (13). The equations needed to solve
the problem are obtained using Eqn. (12, 13, 16, 17):
 " 10
"2
U f , , , a " BEf  (21)
′U f , , , a " ′f (22)
U  , , , a " BE $ f  (23)
′U  , , , a " ′ (24)
g  , ′ , , %  " BE% $ f  (25) 
′g  , ′ , , %  " ′% (26) Figure 9. EXISTENCE AND STABILITY DOMAINS
 " 2, ζ " 0.052
The analytical solution cannot be found as some equations
are transcendental. Numerical continuation method, i.e. COMMON LEGEND:  stable
Predictor-Corrector method with pseudo-arclength continuation  unstable
[16-18], is used. The bouncing off velocity ′ is expressed in stable
function of these coordinates in order to compare results unstable
between the two models. saddle-node
period-doubling
′ " ′f $ 2A #  (27)

5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The domains for  and are superimposed for the high Its analytical solution is thus:
value of  and diverge for decreasing , which is an expected

result. The saddle-node and period-doubling bifurcations "# $ v. sin $  $ v% . cos  $  (30)
^.
slightly move respectively on lower and higher values of .
Thereby, the stability range of the solutions is extended as where
v "  % # 1⁄e
shown in Table 1.
v% " #2⁄e
STABILITY RANGE OVER  OF THE THREE
remembering e " ² # 1² $ 2²
Table 1.
FIRST n-T PERIODIC SOLUTIONS
Equation (30) becomes:
 n=1 n=2 n=3
10u [0.255-1.032] [0.509-1.122] [0.764-1.259]
 w
10 [0.238-1.035] [0.495-1.126] [0.750-1.262] "# $ ) % # 1 sin $  # 2cos  $ +
^. x
2 [0.187-1.082] [0.463-1.170] [0.733-1.298]
(31)
The stability ranges for  " 10u are the same as those
Noticing maximum value of the term in brackets is
obtained with the restitution coefficient approach. Moreover,
the bouncing off velocity is not longer equal to nπ as for the X % # 1% $ 2% " √e, the permanent contact condition
restitution coefficient approach. As an example, Fig. 10 can be expressed as follows:
displays the evolution of the bouncing off velocity ′ vs. ϖ for
 w
the 2-T periodic solution, for ζ " 0.052 and three different . "# $ &0 (32)
^. √x

2A or, as a function of Λ:

%%] . * 
 & L1 $ $ (33)
^. ^y

Figure 11 displays the evolution of the threshold value z{ ,

 ′ vs. the frequency ratio  for a given  corresponding to
 " 0.65.

"2
 ζ " 0.052
 " 1.1, 1.0 I@ 0.6


Figure 10. BOUNCING OFF VELOCITY ′ VS. z{
FREQUENCY RATIO 

The bouncing off velocity ′ starts to diverge from the

value of 2A when the frequency ratio ϖ is lower than 100. The
bouncing off velocity  ′ is not affected by .
2X1 #  %
Permanent Contact Condition
Permanent contact condition of the spring-damper model is 
also investigated in this study. It can be obtained considering Figure 11. THRESHOLD EXCITATION z{ VS.
Eqn. (12) without taking into account the transient part. A FREQUENCY RATIO  FOR  " 0.136
relative motion variable  is defined:
Notice that:
 "# (28) lim^→ z{ " 1 " ST
lim^→f z{ " $∞
Without the transient motion Eqn. (12) becomes:  " 1 → z{ " 2
 11 $ 2 1 $  % " #1 $ ′′ (29)

6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Writing z{ % " 1 $
%%] . * 
$ y leads to a second order With increasing ,
^. ^
polynomial equation for  whose solutions are:
% - bouncing off velocity increase (see Fig. 10),
- maximum free flight amplitude increase,
- phase the ball impacts the table and phase  the ball
1 # 2 % $ L1 # 2% % $ z{ % # 1 bounces off it converge to the unique impact phase 
 "% of the restitution coefficient.
1 # z{ %
(34) Figure 13 displays the Poincaré map built considering
phase-velocity map at impact time.
1 # 2 % # L1 # 2% % $ z{ % # 1
* "%
, 1 
1 # z{ %
restitution coefficient
 , f1  spring-damper approach
(35)  ,  ′ spring-damper approach

The permanent contact motion remains stable over all 

when
z{ & 2X1 # % (36) 1 /A


RESULTS AND COMPARISON OF THE TWO
APPROACHES
The dynamic behaviors, the existence domains of the
periodic solutions and the permanent contact conditions are
compared for both approaches. Some significant cases are ‡IB\/A
chosen to underline the differences. Figure 13. POINCARE MAP (PHASE-VELOCITY)
 " 1,  " 0.65,  " 0.136,  " 1
Effects of €
Figure 12 displays the dynamic response of both models Figure 14 displays the maximum amplitude of the free
for the 1-T periodic solution for different value of the frequency flight with the threshold ,% , which ensures a relative
ratio . error less that 1%. This threshold is defined as:

ƒmax z{ ,%  # ITS ,% ƒ

" 0.01
max TS ,% 
(37)
The subscripts CR and SD denote respectively the
restitution coefficient approach and the spring-damper
approach. According to Fig. 14, the threshold is ,% † 82.
, 


Figure 12. DYNAMIC RESPONSE VS.
DIMENSIONLESS TIME  FOR THE TWO MODELS
 " 1,  " 0.65,  " 0.136,  " 1
RESTITUTION COEFFICIENT APPROACH
SPRING-DAMPER APPROACH
TABLE MOTION

7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Permanent Contact Conditions
A threshold ˆT,% is defined for the permanent contact
condition:

ƒw‰Š ^‹Œ,n% *wŒ ^‹Œ,n% ƒ

" 0.01 (38)
wŒ ^‹Œ,n% 

An example is given for a restitution coefficient  " 0.65

max z{ 

which leads to damping ratio  " 0.1359 according to

Eqn. (16). Figure 11 is completed just below:

,% † 82
ˆT,% † 6

 ST
Figure 14 MAXIMUM FREE FLIGHT AMPLITUDE VS.  z{
 " 1,  " 0.65,  " 0.136,  " 1

Existence Conditions and Stability of the n-T Periodic

Solutions.
The existence and stability domains of the 2-T periodic
solution are compared Fig. 15, for a restitution coefficient
 " 0.65 and thus a damping ratio  " 0.136.

Figure 16. THRESHOLD EXCITATION AMPLITUDE
z{ VS. FREQUENCY RATIO  FOR  " 0.1359

The restitution coefficient approach leads to permanent

contact motion condition which differs from the spring-damper
Saddle-node
approach only for really low frequency ratios, i.e.   6.
Period-Doubling bifurcation
CONCLUSION
Restitution coefficient approach leads quickly to analytical
solutions which gives phase and velocity maps easily.
Unfortunately, this approach also requires some assumptions on
the impact duration and thus on the frequency ratio which can,
according to the problem, lead to an error. This paper aims to
provide guidelines to estimate the error made for coefficient
restitution model. For instance, we set a maximum relative
Figure 15. EXISTENCE AND STABILITY DOMAINS error of 1% between results of both models as a validity limit.
 " 2,  " 0.65,  " 0.136,  " 1 ,  " 10 The study only concerns n-T periodic solutions, with one
LEGEND: impact per period, and permanent contact motions. Considering
 stable all the results presented, we can safely say that a frequency
 unstable
Restitution Coefficient
ratio higher than 100 makes the restitution coefficient the good
 stable stable approach for bouncing-ball-like problems.
 unstable
Spring-Damper
unstable

The restitution coefficient approach remains representative ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

even a small error is made on the stability range. This work has been supported by ANR (National Research
Agency, contract number: ANR-08-VTT-007-02), ADEME
(French Environment and Energy Management Agency) and
Lyon Urban Trucks&Bus competitiveness cluster. The authors
acknowledge gratefully this support.

8 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 REFERENCES
[1] Holmes, P. J, 1982. “The dynamics of repeated impacts with
a sinusoidally vibrating table”. Journal of Sound and Vibration
84(2), 173–189.
[2] Bapat, C.N., Sankar, S., Popplewell, N. 1986. “Repeated
impacts on a sinusoidally vibrating table reappraised”. Journal
of Sound and Vibration 108(1), 99-115.
[3] Barroso, J.J., Carneiro M. V. and Macau E.E.N, 2009.
“Bouncing ball problem: Stability of the periodic modes”.
Physical Review E, 79(2), 26206.
[4] Luck, J. M. and Mehta, A.,1993. “Bouncing ball with a
finite restitution: Chattering, locking, and chaos” Physical
Review E, 48(5), 3988–3997.
[5] Tufillaro, N.B. and Albano, A.M., 1986. “Chaotic dynamics
of a bouncing ball” American Journal of Physics, 54(10), 939–
944.
[6] Luo, A.C.J. and Han, R.P.S., 1996. “The dynamics of a
bouncing ball with a sinusoidally vibrating table revisited”
Nonlinear Dynamics, 10(1), 1-18.
[15] Nagurka, M. and Huang, S, 2006. “A mass-spring-damper
model of a bouncing ball” International Journal of Engineering
Education, 22(2), 393.
[16] Allgower, E.L. and Georg, K., 2003. Introduction to
numerical continuation methods. SIAM.
[17] Bernd Krauskopf, Hinke M. Osinga, and Jorge Galán-
Vioque, Numerical continuation methods for dynamical
systems: path following and boundary value problems
(Springer, 2007).
[18] Govaerts, W.J.F., 2000.Numerical methods for bifurcations
of dynamical equilibria. SIAM.
[19] Nayfeh, A.H. and Balachandran, B., 1995. Applied
nonlinear dynamics: analytical, computational, and
experimental methods. John Wiley and Sons.
[20] Seydel, R., 2010. Practical Bifurcation and Stability
Analysis. Springer.

[7] Goldsmith, W., 2001. Impact: the theory and physical

behaviour of colliding solids. Courier Dover Publications.

[8] Popplewell, N., Bapat, C.N. and McLachlan, K., 1983.

“Stable periodic vibroimpacts of an oscillator”, Journal of
Sound and Vibration 87(1), 41-59.

[9] Bapat, C.N., Popplewell, N. and McLachlan, K., 1987.

“Stable periodic motions of an impact-pair”, Journal of Sound
and Vibration 87(1), 19-40.

[10] Heiman, M.S., Sherman, P.J., and Bajaj, A.K., 1987. “On
the dynamics and stability of an inclined impact pair”, Journal
of Sound and Vibration 114(3), 535-547.

[11] Bapat, C. N., 1995. “The general motion of an inclined

impact damper with friction”, Journal of Sound and Vibration
184(3), 417-427.

[12] Han, R. P. S., Luo, A. C. J. and Deng W., 1995. “Chaotic

motion of a horizontal impact pair”, Journal of Sound and
Vibration 181(2), 231-250.

[13] Karagiannis, K. and Pfeiffer, F., 1991. “Theoretical and

experimental investigations of gear-rattling”, Nonlinear
Dynamics 2(5), 367–387.

[14] Pfeiffer, F. and Prestl, W., 1994. “Hammering in diesel-

engine driveline systems”, Nonlinear Dynamics 5(4), 477-492.

9 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/26/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use