Research Papers

Interplay Between Dissipation and Modal Truncation in Ball-Beam Impact

[+] Author and Article Information
Arindam Bhattacharjee, Anindya Chatterjee

Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur,
Kanpur 208016, India

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND NONLINEAR DYNAMICS. Manuscript received December 22, 2016; final manuscript received April 19, 2017; published online September 7, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Przemyslaw Perlikowski.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 12(6), 061018 (Sep 07, 2017) (8 pages) Paper No: CND-16-1634; doi: 10.1115/1.4036830 History: Received December 22, 2016; Revised April 19, 2017

We study a ball-beam impact in detail; and in particular, we study the interplay between dissipation and modal truncation. With Hertzian contact between a solid ball and an Euler–Bernoulli beam model, we find using detailed numerical simulations that many (well above 60) modes are needed before convergence occurs; that contact dissipation (either viscous or hysteretic) has only a slight effect; and that contact location plays a significant role. However, and more interestingly, we find that as little as 2% modal damping speeds up convergence of the net interaction so that only about 25 modes are needed. We offer a qualitative explanation for this effect in terms of the many subimpacts that occur in the overall single macroscopic impact. In particular, we find that in cases where the overall interaction time is long enough to damp out high modes yet short enough to leave lower modes undissipated, modal truncation at about 25 modes gives good results. In contrast, if modal damping is absent so that higher mode vibrations persist throughout the interaction, final outcomes are less regular and many more modes are needed. The regime of impact interactions studied here occurs for reasonable parameter ranges, e.g., for a 3–4 cm steel ball dropped at speeds of 0.1–1.0 m/s on a meter-long steel beam of net mass 1 kg. We are unaware of any prior similarly detailed numerical study which clearly offers the one summarizing idea that we obtain here.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Ahn, J. , and Stewart, D. E. , 2006, “ Existence of Solutions for a Class of Impact Problems Without Viscosity,” SIAM J. Math. Anal., 38(1), pp. 37–63. [CrossRef]
Palas, H. , Hsu, W. C. , and Shabana, A. A. , 1992, “ On the Use of Momentum Balance and the Assumed Modes Method in Transverse Impact Problems,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 114(3), pp. 364–373. [CrossRef]
Yigit, A. S. , Ulsoy, A. G. , and Scott, R. A. , 1990, “ Dynamics of a Radially Rotating Beam With Impact—Part 1: Experimental and Simulation Results,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 112(1), pp. 65–70. [CrossRef]
Yigit, A. S. , and Christoforou, A. P. , 1998, “ The Efficacy of the Momentum Balance Method in Transverse Impact Problems,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 120(1), pp. 47–53. [CrossRef]
Christoforou, A. P. , and Yigit, A. S. , 1998, “ Effect of Flexibility on Low Velocity Impact Response,” J. Sound Vib., 217(3), pp. 563–578. [CrossRef]
Goldsmith, W. , 1960, Impact: The Theory and Physical Behavior of Colliding Solids, Edward Arnold, London.
Stronge, W. J. , 1990, “ Rigid Body Collisions With Friction,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 431(1881), pp. 169–181. [CrossRef]
Chatterjee, A. , and Ruina, A. , 1998, “ Two Interpretations of Rigidity in Rigid-Body Collisions,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 65(4), pp. 894–900. [CrossRef]
Rakshit, S. , and Chatterjee, A. , 2015, “ Scalar Generalization of Newtonian Restitution for Simultaneous Impact,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 103, pp. 141–157. [CrossRef]
Hurmuzlu, Y. , 1998, “ An Energy-Based Coefficient of Restitution for Planar Impacts of Slender Bars With Massive External Surfaces,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 65(4), pp. 952–962. [CrossRef]
Gilardi, G. , and Sharf, I. , 2002, “ Literature Survey of Contact Dynamics Modeling,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 37(10), pp. 1213–1239. [CrossRef]
Khulief, Y. A. , 2013, “ Modeling of Impact in Multibody Systems: An Overview,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 8(2), p. 021012. [CrossRef]
Lee, Y. , Hamilton, J. F. , and Sullivan, J. W. , 1983, “ The Lumped Parameter Method for Elastic Impact Problems,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 50(4a), pp. 823–827. [CrossRef]
Goyal, S. , Pinson, E. N. , and Sinden, F. W. , 1994, “ Simulation of Dynamics of Interacting Rigid Bodies Including Friction—I: General Problem and Contact Model,” Eng. Comput., 10(3), pp. 162–174. [CrossRef]
Chatterjee, A. , and Ruina, A. , 1998, “ A New Algebraic Rigid-Body Collision Law Based on Impulse Space Considerations,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 65(4), pp. 939–951. [CrossRef]
Hunt, K. H. , and Crossley, F. R. E. , 1975, “ Coefficient of Restitution Interpreted as Damping in Vibroimpact,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 42(2), pp. 440–445. [CrossRef]
Yigit, A. S. , Ulsoy, A. G. , and Scott, R. A. , 1990, “ Spring-Dashpot Models for the Dynamics of a Radially Rotating Beam With Impact,” J. Sound Vib., 142(3), pp. 515–525. [CrossRef]
Lankarani, H. M. , and Nikravesh, P. E. , 1994, “ Continuous Contact Force Models for Impact Analysis in Multibody Systems,” Nonlinear Dyn., 5(2), pp. 193–207.
Pashah, S. , Massenzio, M. , and Jacquelin, E. , 2008, “ Prediction of Structural Response for Low Velocity Impact,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 35(2), pp. 119–132. [CrossRef]
Seifried, R. , Schiehlen, W. , and Eberhard, P. , 2005, “ Numerical and Experimental Evaluation of the Coefficient of Restitution for Repeated Impacts,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 32(1), pp. 508–524. [CrossRef]
Wagg, D. J. , 2007, “ A Note on Coefficient of Restitution Models Including the Effects of Impact Induced Vibration,” J. Sound Vib., 300(3), pp. 1071–1078. [CrossRef]
Qi, X. , and Yin, X. , 2016, “ Experimental Studying Multi-Impact Phenomena Exhibited During the Collision of a Sphere Onto a Steel Beam,” Adv. Mech. Eng., 8(9), pp. 1–16. [CrossRef]
Singh, S. J. , and Chatterjee, A. , 2004, “ Nonintrusive Measurement of Contact Forces During Vibration Dominated Impacts,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, 126(3), pp. 489–497. [CrossRef]
Lazan, B. J. , 1968, Damping of Materials and Members in Structural Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
Biswas, S. , Jana, P. , and Chatterjee, A. , 2016, “ Hysteretic Damping in an Elastic Body With Frictional Microcracks,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 108–109, pp. 61–71. [CrossRef]
Chatterjee, A. , 2004, “ The Short-Time Impulse Response of Euler–Bernoulli Beams,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 71(2), pp. 208–218. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Transverse impact of a Hertzian ball on a pinned-pinned Euler–Bernoulli beam at a distance b away from the end. The displacements of the beam and the ball are referred to as y(x, t) and zb(t), respectively. (b) The ball-beam contact. The unbroken lines show the actual configuration at contact. P is the notional contact point on the undeformed ball (i.e., the ball without localized contact deformation). Q is the notional contact point where the ball hits the beam. The distance from P to Q is the compression (positive in the sense shown); and a contact force exists when the compression is positive.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

F-ξ hysteresis loops seen for input ξ=sin(2πt)+0.5 sin(8πt), see Eqs. (17) and (18). Parameters used here are Kh=1, K¯=4, θm=1.6,  β=1.4,  ε=1×10−4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Impact with purely Hertzian contact with N = 25 modes and b = 0.4. The top figure shows the ball and beam motions during impact, using SI units but with displacements scaled up by a factor of 1000. In other words, the velocity scale is m/s and the displacement scale is mm. The middle figure shows the contact force F in Newtons. The bottom figure shows details of F on a magnified time scale (see color figure online).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Hertz contact, see Eq. (13) for F. Two impact locations are considered, left: b = 0.4, and right: b=(5−1)/2. Top: net restitution, and bottom: number of subimpacts, both against number of modes retained (N). For b = 0.4, mode numbers 5, 10, 15,…, are not excited at all. For this reason, it serves as a check to note that results for N = 4 and 5 are identical; results for 9 and 10 are identical; and likewise 14 and 15, 19 and 20, etc. For b=0.618034…, no such simple check is available.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Impact with N = 0. The viscous contact force F is plotted against ξ for ball impact velocities of 1.2 m/s, 0.9 m/s, and 0.6 m/s. The loops are rounded at the ends.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Impact with N = 27 modes. Left: F versus t, right: F versus ξ. The F versus ξ loops indicate dissipation of energy.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

With and without viscous contact dissipation, see Eqs. (13) and (16). Two locations, left: b = 0.4, and right: b=(5−1)/2. Top: net restitution and bottom: number of subimpacts, both against N.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Impact with N = 0. Parameters used are θm=1.6,  β=1.4, K¯=0.4, ε=5×10−8, see Eqs. (17) and (18). The hysteretic force F is plotted against compression for ball impact velocities of 1.2 m/s, 0.9 m/s, and 0.6 m/s. The restitution values obtained are close to 0.95 in each case, decreasing very slightly with increasing impact velocity.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Impact with N = 27 modes. Left: the hysteretic contact force against time, right: hysteresis loops in the contact force, including minor loops.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

See Sec. 3.4. Impact with rate-independent contact dissipation (red crosses) and without (blue circles). Left: b = 0.4 and right: b=(5−1)/2. Top: restitution and bottom: number of subimpacts, against N (see color figure online).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

With modal damping (red crosses) and without (blue circles). Left: b = 0.4 and right: b=(5−1)/2. Top: restitution and bottom: number of subimpacts, against N. Convergence of a sort is seen for increasing N; certainly the variability is greatly reduced (see color figure online).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Ball-beam motion with N = 40 during impact at b=(5−1)/2 for damping ratios ζ = 0 and ζ = 0.02. In these two particular simulations, the final subimpacts differ dramatically; other pairs of simulations show differences in details, but the qualitative effect of light modal damping is the same.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Restitution against N for different impact velocities, with b=(5−1)/2, for ζ = 0.02 (red crosses) and ζ = 0 (blue circles) (see color figure online)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Impacts with ball diameters, of 4 cm and 2 cm at b=(5−1)/2, for ζ = 0.02 (red crosses) and ζ = 0 (blue circles). Top: restitution and bottom: number of subimpacts, against N (see color figure online).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

See Sec. 4.2. Impacts with a ball diameter of 4 cm, for different contact locations b, with ζ = 0.02 and N = 40. Top: restitution and bottom: number of subimpacts, against b.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In