Impact problems arise in many practical applications. The need for obtaining an accurate model for the inelastic impact is a challenging problem. In general, two approaches are common in solving the impact problems: the impulse-momentum and the compliance based methods. The former approach included the coefficient of restitution which provides a mechanism to solve the problem explicitly. While the compliance methods are generally tailored to solve elastic problems, researchers in the field have proposed several mechanisms to include inelastic losses. In this paper, we present correlations between the coefficient of restitution in the impulse-momentum based method and the contact stiffness in the compliance methods. We conducted numerical analysis to show that the resulting solutions are indeed identical for a specific range of impact conditions. The impulse-momentum based model is considered as a reference case to compare the post impact velocities. The numerical results showed that, the impulse-momentum and the compliance based methods can produce similar outcomes for specific range of coefficient of restitution if they satisfied a set of end conditions. The correlations lead to introduce a new contact force model with hysteresis damping for low coefficient of restitution impact.

References

References
1.
Brach
,
R. M.
, 1991,
Mechanical Impact Dynamics: Rigid Body Collisions
,
John Wiley and Sons
,
New York
.
2.
Brogliato
,
B.
, 1999,
Nonsmooth Mechanics
,
Springer
,
London, UK
.
3.
Stronge
,
W. J.
, 2004,
Impact Mechanics
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, UK
.
4.
Aeberhard
,
U.
,
Payr
,
M.
, and
Glocker
,
C.
, 2006, “
Theoretical and Experimental Treatment of Perfect Multi-Contact-Collision
,”
Proceedings of the ACMD06
, Tokyo, Japan, Paper No. A00602.
5.
Newton
,
I.
, 1686,
Philosophiae Naturalis Principa Mathematica
,
Regional Society Press
,
London, UK
.
6.
Poisson
,
S. D.
, 1817,
Mechanics
,
Longmans
,
London
.
7.
Stronge
,
W. J.
, 1990, “
Rigid Body Collisions with Friction
,”
Proc. R. Soc. A
,
431
, pp.
169
181
.
8.
Hertz
,
H.
, 1896,
Hertz’s Miscellaneous Papers
,
D. E.
Jones
, and
G. A.
Schott
, eds.,
MacMillan and Co. Ltd.
,
London
, pp.
146
183
.
9.
Johnson
,
K. L.
, 1987,
Contact Mechanics
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, UK
.
10.
Hunt
,
K. H.
, and
Crossley
,
F. R. E.
, 1975, “
Coefficient of Restitution Interpreted as Damping in Vibroimpact
,”
ASME J. Appl. Mech.
,
42
, pp.
440
445
.
11.
Herbert
,
R. G.
, and
McWhannell
,
D. C.
, 1977, “
Shape and Frequency Composition of Pulses From an Impact Pair
,”
ASME J. Eng. Ind.
,
99
, pp.
513
518
.
12.
Lee
,
T. W.
, and
Wang
,
A. C.
, 1983, “
On the Dynamics of Intermittent-Motion Mechanisms. Part 1: Dynamic Model and Response
,”
J. Mech. Trans. Autom. Des.
,
105
, pp.
534
540
.
13.
Lankarani
,
H. M.
, and
Nikravesh
,
P. E.
, 1990, “
A Contact Force Model With Hysteresis Damping for Impact Analysis of Multi-Body Systems
,”
Mech. Des.
,
112
, p.
369376
.
14.
Gonthier
,
Y.
,
McPhee
,
J.
,
Lange
,
C.
, and
Piedboeuf
,
J.
, 2002, “
A Regularized Contact Model With Asymmetric Damping and Dwell-Time Dependent Friction
,”
Forum 2002
,
SCGM Queens University
,
Kingston, ON, Canada
.
15.
Zhang
,
Y.
, and
Sharf
,
I.
, 2009, “
Validation of Nonlinear Viscoelastic Contact Force Models for Low Speed Impact
,”
ASME J. Appl. Mech.
,
76
(
5
), p.
051002
.
16.
Lankarani
,
H. M.
, and
Nikravesh
,
P. E.
, 1994, “
Contineous Contact Force Models for Impact Analysis on Multibody Systems
,”
Nonlinear Dyn.
,
5
, pp.
193
207
.
17.
Ismail
,
K. A.
, and
Stronge
,
W. J.
, 2008, “
Impact of Viscoplastic Bodies: Dissipation and Restitution
,”
ASME J. Appl. Mech.
,
75
, p.
061011
.
You do not currently have access to this content.