Regular and Chaotic Dynamics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 20–36 | Cite as

The complexity of a basic impact mapping for rigid bodies with impacts and friction

Article

Abstract

We consider two impact mappings, the Brach impact mapping and an energetic impact mapping, for rigid-body mechanisms with impacts and friction. The two impact mappings represent the opposite end of the spectrum from basic to advanced impact mappings. Both impact mappings are briefly derived and described. For the Brach impact mapping we will introduce the concept of impulse ratio and discuss how the kinetic energy changes during an impact as the impulse ratio is varied. This analysis is used to further extend the Brach impact mapping to cover situations that were previously omitted. Finally, we make comparisons between the two impact mappings and show how the Painlevé paradox appears in the two impact mappings. The conclusion of the comparisons is that while the basic impact mapping seems easy to implement in a computer simulator it may in the end be more complex and also introduce unnecessary complications that are completely artificial.

Keywords

rigid-body mechanics Coulomb friction impact law non-smooth Painlevé paradox 

MSC2010 numbers

34-XX 70-XX 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Stronge, W. J., Impact Mechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000, pp. 1–3.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stronge, W. J., Rigid Body Collisions with Friction, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 1990, vol. 431, no. 1881, pp. 169–181.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brogliato, B., Nonsmooth Mechanics: Models, Dynamics and Control, 2nd ed., London: Springer, 1999, pp. 228–230.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keogh, P. S. and Cole, M.O.T., Rotor Vibration with Auxiliary Bearing Contact in Magnetic Bearing Systems: P. 1. Synchronous Dynamics, in Proc. of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 2003, vol. 217, no. 4, pp. 377–392.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budd, C. J. and Dux, F., Chattering and Related Behaviour in Impact Oscillators, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 1994, vol. 347, pp. 365–389.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Budd, C. J. and Piiroinen, P. T., Corner Bifurcations in Non-Smoothly Forced Impact Oscillators, Phys. D, 2006, vol. 220, no. 2, pp. 127–145.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brach, R.M., Mechanical Impact Dynamics, Rigid Body Collisions, New York: Wiley & Sons, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nordmark, A., Dankowicz, H., and Champneys, A., Discontinuity-Induced Bifurcation in Systems with Impacts and Friction: Discontinuites in the Impact Law, Int. J. Nonlinear Mech., 2009, vol. 44, pp. 1011–1023.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ivanov, A.P., Energetics of a Collision with Friction, Prikl. Mat. Mekh., 1992, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 624–631 [J. Appl. Math. Mech., 1992, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 527–534].MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ivanov, A. P., The Problem of Constrained Impact, Prikl. Mat. Mekh., 1997, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 355–368 [J. Appl. Math. Mech., 1997, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 341–353].MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldsmith, W., Impact: The Theory and Physical Behaviour of Colliding Solids, Mineola, NY: Dover, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Popov, V. L., Contact Mechanics and Friction: Physical Principles and Applications, Berlin: Springer, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nordmark, A.B., Non-Periodic Motion Caused by Grazing Incidence in Impact Oscillators, J. Sound Vibration, 1991, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nordmark, A.B. and Piiroinen, P. T., Simulation and Stability Analysis of Impacting Systems with Complete Chattering, Nonlinear Dynam., 2009, vol. 58, nos. 1–2, pp. 85–106.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nordmark, A., Dankowicz, H., and Champneys, A., Friction-Induced Reverse Chatter in Rigid-Body Mechanisms with Impacts, IMA J. Appl. Math., 2011, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 85–119.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sahinkaya, M. N., Abdul, A.G., and Keogh, P. S., On the Modelling of Flexible Rotor/Magnetic Bearing Systems When in Contact with Retainer Bearings, in Proc. of the 9th Internat. Symp. on Magnetic Bearings, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Painlevé, P., Sur les lois de frottement de glissement, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 1905, vol. 141, pp. 564–552.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Génot, F. and Brogliato, B., New Results on Painlevé Paradoxes, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids, 1999, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 653–677.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stronge, W. J., Friction in Collisions: Resolution of a Paradox, J. Appl. Phys., 1991, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 610–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shen, Yu. and Stronge, W. J., Painlevé Paradox during Oblique Impact with Friction, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids, 2011, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 457–467.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hall, B., Why Does Chalk Squeak?, Master’s Thesis, University of Bristol, Department of engineering Mathematics, 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leine, R. I., Brogliato, B., and Nijmeijer, H., Periodic Motion and Bifurcations Induced by the Painlevé Paradox, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids, 2002, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 869–896.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Routh, E. J., A Treatise on the Dynamics of a System of Rigid Bodies: P. 2. The Advanced Part, 6th ed., New York: Macmillan, 1905. See also: New York: Dover, 1955 (reprint).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glocker, Ch., Set-Valued Force Laws: Dynamics of Non-Smooth Systems, Lecture Notes in Appl. Mech., vol. 1, Berlin: Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brach, R. M., Moments between Impacting Rigid Bodies, Trans. ASME J. Mech. Design, 1981, vol. 103, pp. 812–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brach, R. M., Friction, Restitution and Energy Loss in Planar Collisions, Trans. ASME J. Appl. Mech., 1984, vol. 51, pp. 164–170.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brach, R. M., Rigid Body Collisions, Trans. ASME J. Appl. Mech., 1989, vol. 56, pp. 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brach, R. M., Classical Planar Impact Theory and the Tip Impact of a Slender Rod, Int. J. Impact Eng., 1993, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brach, R.M., Formulation of Rigid Body Impact Problems Using Generalized Coefficients, Int. J. Eng. Sci., 1998, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 61–71.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stronge, W. J., Smooth Dynamics of Oblique Impact with Friction, Int. J. Impact Eng., 2013, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics, Statistics & Applied MathematicsNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations