Advertisement

International Applied Mechanics

, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 557–562 | Cite as

Modeling the Collision with Friction of Rigid Bodies

  • A. G. Zabuga
Article
  • 51 Downloads

Different models of a perfectly inelastic collision of rigid bodies in plane motion are compared. Formulas for the impact impulses are derived for the Kane–Levinson–Whittaker model based on the kinematic restitution factor, the Routh model based on the kinetic restitution factor, and the Stronge model based on the energy restitution factor. It is shown that these formulas coincide if the collision of rough rigid bodies in plane motion is perfectly inelastic

Keywords

perfectly inelastic collision restitution factor rigid body limiting friction factor Amontons–Coloumb law 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    N. V. Butenin, Ya. L. Lunts, and D. R. Merkin, Course of Theoretical Mechanics [in Russian], Vol. 2, Nauka, Moscow (1979).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. N. Bukhgol’ts, Basic Course in Theoretical Mechanics [in Russian], Part 2, Nauka, Moscow (1966).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. F. Zhuravlev, Fundamentals of Theoretical Mechanics [in Russian], Fizmatlit, Moscow (2001).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. P. Ivanov, Dynamics of Systems Undergoing Mechanical Impacts [in Russian], Mezhd. Progr. Obraz., Moscow (1997).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. V. Kosarchuk and A. V. Agarkov, “Predicting the life of rails based on a contact fatigue crack initiation criterion,” DETUT, Ser. Tekhn. Tekhnol., 20, 77–90 (2012).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ya. G. Panovko, An Introduction to the Theory of Mechanical Shock [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Gilardi and I. Sharf, “Literature survey of contact dynamics modeling,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, 37, 1213–1239 (2002).MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Goldsmith, Impact: The Theory and Physical Behavior of Colliding Solids, Edward Arnold London (1960).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. T. Kane and D. A. Levinson, Dynamics. Theory and Applications, McGraw-Hill New York (2005).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. D. Kubenko, “Stress state of an elastic half-plane under nonstationary loading,” Int. Appl. Mech., 51, No. 2, 121–129 (2015).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. B. Larin, “Algorithms for solving a unilateral quadratic matrix equation and the model updating problem,” Int. Appl. Mech., 50, No. 3, 321–334 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. A. Martynyuk and N. V. Nikitina, “On periodic motion in three-dimensional systems,” Int. Appl. Mech., 51, No. 4, 369–379 (2015).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. P. Plakhtienko, “Translation of a rigid body with gravity–friction seismic dampers,” Int. Appl. Mech., 45, No. 7, 786–796 (2009).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. J. Routh, Dynamics of a System of Rigid Bodies, Edward Arnold London (1860).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. J. Stronge, Impact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. J. Stronge, “Unraveling paradoxical theories for rigid body collisions,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 58, No. 4, 1049–1055 (1991).ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. T. Whittaker, A Treatise on the Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1917).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.S. P. Timoshenko Institute of MechanicsNational Academy of Sciences of UkraineKyivUkraine

Personalised recommendations