Modelo de Coef de Rest

International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 317341
Modeling the dependence of the coecient of restitution on the

impact velocity in elasto-plastic collisions
Xiang Zhang
1
, Loc Vu-Quoc*
Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics & Engineering Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Received 17 January 1999; received in revised form 18 February 2001; accepted 16 August 2001
Abstract
We discuss the modeling of the coecient of restitution as a function of the incoming velocity in elasto-
plastic collisions with normal frictionless impact, and compare the results from nonlinear nite-element
analysis to those of two recent normal force displacement models: One by Thornton (ASME J. Appl. Mech.
64 (1997) 383) and one by Vu-Quoc and Zhang (Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 455 (1999) 4013) which is the
displacement-driven counterpart of the force-driven model proposed by Vu-Quoc, Zhang, and Lesburg
(ASME. J. Appl. Mech. 67 (2000) 363). The resulting values of the coecient of restitution are also
compared to those from the model proposed in Stronge (in: R.C. Batra, A.K. Mal, G.P. MacSithigh (Eds.),
Impact Waves and Fractures, ASME AMD 205 (1995) 351). The relationships among the coecient of
restitution, the incoming velocity, the collision time, the contact force/displacement, the normal pressure
distribution are presented and discussed. These results establish the better accuracy provided by the model
proposed by Vu-Quoc, Zhang, and Lesburg, when compared to previously proposed models. r 2002
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Elasto-plastic collision; Finite element analysis; Contact mechanics; Coecient of restitution
1. Introduction
The collision between deformable objects has been the subject of intensive investigation by
many researchers using theoretical, numerical, and experimental methods (e.g., [15]). Our work is
motivated primarily by the need to develop more accurate and reliable contact forcedisplacement
(FD) models for granular ow simulations using the discrete-element method (DEM) (see [6,9]).
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-352-392-6227; fax: +1-352-392-7303. URL: www.aero.u.edu/~vql/.
E-mail address: vu-quoc@u.edu (L. Vu-Quoc).
1
Graduate research assistant; now with Siemens Corporate Research, Princeton, New Jersey.
0734-743X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0 7 3 4 - 7 4 3 X( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 5 2 - 5
For elastic contact, Hertzian contact mechanics (see [7,8]) provides an accurate nonlinear elastic
model. In granular ow simulations, often much simpler (linear) models are used.
When plastic deformation is involved, the collision/contact problems become so complicated
that an accurate theoretical solution is dicult to obtain. In most collisions, plastic deformation
occurs, causing energy to be dissipated, and resulting in a coecient of restitution less than unity.
For elasto-plastic collisions, Walton and Braun proposed a simplied linear model based on nite
element analysis (FEA) results. A more rened model was proposed in Thornton [10]. More
recently, a new elasto-plastic normal FD (NFD) model based on an additive decomposition of the
contact radius and a generalization of Hertzian contact mechanics to the nonlinear materials is
proposed in Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11]. Even though experimental results were presented in
Goldsmith [1] and in Kangur and Kleis [4], the material and geometry properties were not given in
detail for use in a model (which could be either a nite element model or a forcedisplacement
model for granular ow simulations).
In the present work, we use the nonlinear FEA code ABAQUS [12] to model the dynamic
process of the collision between a deformable sphere and a rigid, frictionless planar surface. Both
elastic material and elasto-plastic material are considered. The results from the elastic material are
compared to Hertz contact to calibrate the FEA model. After we switch to an elasto-plastic
material in the FEA model, the results are then used to compare to those obtained from the
elasto-plastic FD models by Thornton [10] and by Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11]. Such a comparison
can be viewed as a validation of these FE models for granular ow simulations. Note that we are
considering here the case of normal frictionless impact of spheres. For oblique impacts of
deformable bodies, friction plays an important role in the coecients of restitution; we refer to
Stronge [13] and Vu-Quoc et al. [5] for more details.
2. Finite element model
Fig. 1 shows a sphere colliding against a frictionless rigid planar surface, a situation equivalent
to two identical spheres with the same velocity amplitude colliding against each other. In our
nonlinear dynamic FEA, the size and the material properties of the sphere are chosen to be, radius
Fig. 1. A sphere colliding with a frictionless rigid planar surface.
X. Zhang, L. Vu-Quoc / International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 317341 318
R 0:1 m; Youngs modulus E 7:0 10
10
N=m
2
; Poissons ratio n 0:3; and density r
2:699 10
3
kg=m
3
: For elasto-plastic collisions, elasto-perfectly plastic model with von Mises
yield criterion is employed. The yield stress of the material is chosen to be s
Y
1:0 10
8
N=m
2
:
Since there is no rotation of the particle about itself in the collision that we study, axisymmetric
FE models are employed to carry out the analyses. All axisymmetric elements used are CAX6
elements of the nonlinear FE code ABAQUS [12]. Fig. 2 shows one of the meshes employed in our
FEA. In this FE model, the half sphere is discretized into 1640 axisymmetric six-node triangular
elements (Fig. 2(a)) with a total of 3288 nodes, and with three levels of mesh renement around
the contact area (Fig. 2(b)). The nodes 13288 were numbered from top to bottom of the half
circle shown in Fig. 2(a), with nodes 12503288 concentrated in the more rened area around the
contact point (Fig. 2(b)). We designate this FE model as model B. The other two FE models,
models A and C, employed in our analyses are similar to the one shown in Fig. 2, but with
dierent number of levels of mesh renement and dierent number of elements. Model A has 928
axisymmetric six-node triangular elements and 1886 nodes, with two levels of mesh renement
around the contact area. Model C has 2951 axisymmetric six-node triangular elements and 5892
1
2
3
1
2
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. Axisymmetric nite element model of the sphere. (a) Sphere discretization. (b) Zoomed-in view around the
contact area.
nodes, with four levels of mesh renement around the contact area. When not specied, the FEA
results presented later are obtained using model B (Fig. 2).
For low velocity impacts, the deformation of the sphere during a collision is concentrated in a
small region around the contact area (see later results, such as the contours of Mises stress
presented in Sections 3.2 and 4.2). In order to accurately represent the overall response, we rene
the FE mesh in the small region close to the contact point (Fig. 2(b)). The mesh renement is
achieved by the use of incompatible interelement matching at the boundary of the dierent zones
of rened mesh, as illustrated in Fig. 3. In our FE models, these incompatible elements are
connected to each other using multi-point constraints (MPCs). In Fig. 3, the second order
triangular elements ; ; and are connected using quadratic MPCs. Node m of element and
node n of element do not have independent degrees of freedom (DOF); their displacements are
determined by the quadratic functions of the displacements of nodes i, j, and k, which are
common to elements ; ; and :
The contact detection and contact analysis between the sphere and the rigid surface are carried
out using the 1D IRS21A contact elements of ABAQUS [12]. For the FE model shown in Fig. 2,
the size of the contact elements around the contact area is about 1:02 10
4
m (half of the size of
the triangular element), which is much less than the radius of the contact area. For example, the
maximum radius of contact area is about 2:32 10
3
m for the elasto-plastic collision with an
incoming velocity v
in
0:10 m=s (see Section 4.2). Therefore, it can be concluded that the
discretization of the sphere is ne enough to describe the collision behavior accurately.
3. Elastic collisions
Using the nonlinear FE code ABAQUS [12], with the FE models described in Section 2, we
carry out a series of dynamic FEA for elastic collisions between an elastic sphere and a frictionless
rigid surface with dierent incoming velocities. As mentioned in Section 1, the behavior of such
collisions can be solved theoretically using Hertz theory through a quasi-static procedure. In this
i
m
j
n
k
Fig. 3. Incompatible elements connected by multi-point constraints (MPCs).
section, we compare our dynamic FEA results of elastic collisions with the corresponding results
obtained by applying the Hertz theory through a quasi-static procedure. In addition, the
errorFwhich may be caused by the energy dissipation due to wave propagation and possible
numerical stability problem in the case of extremely soft materialFis discussed by comparing the
results of collision.
3.1. The Hertz theory for elastic contact
Fig. 4 depicts the contact between two spheres subjected to normal load P: The equivalent
elastic modulus E
n
and the equivalent contact curvature
1
R
n
are given as follows:
2
E
n
:
1
i
n
2
i
E

1
j
n
2
j
E
_ _
1
3:1
and
1
R
n
:
1
i
R

1
j
R
_ _
; 3:2
Fig. 4. Two spheres in contact, subjected to normal load P:
2
The symbol : designates equal by denition.
where
i
R is the radius of sphere i;
i
n and
i
E the Poisson ratio and Youngs modulus of the
material of sphere i; respectively. Similarly,
j
R;
j
n , and
j
E are the same properties for sphere j:
The contact area is a circle radius a (Fig. 5(a)). On the contact surface, the distribution of the
Hertz normal pressure p is axisymmetric and shaped as half of an ellipse. At a point A
of a distance r from the center of the contact area (Fig. 5(a)), the normal pressure pr can be
expressed as
pr p
m
1
r
a
_ _
2
_ _
1=2
: 3:3
The normal pressure is related to the normal force P by
p
m

3P
2pa
2
: 3:4
Fig. 5(b) depicts the elliptic prole of the Hertz normal pressure across the diameter of the contact
area.
With the radius a of the contact area given by [8, Eq. 4:22]
a
3PR
n
4E
n
_ _
1=3
; 3:5
the approach of two distant points on the two spheres can be expressed as [8, Eq. 4:23]
i
a
j
a
a
2
R
n

9P
2
16R
n
E
n
2
_ _
1=3
: 3:6
Introducing Eq. (3.5) into Eq. (3.4), we obtain
p
m

3P
2pa
2

6PE
n
2
p
3
R
n
2
_ _
1=3
: 3:7
Hertzs theory assumes that the contact area is much smaller than the size of the spheres, i.e.,
a5
i
R and a5
j
R: Vu-Quoc et al. [5] present a number of FEA results dealing with elastic and
elasto-plastic contact of two identical spheres, and a comparison to Hertzian contact results. Their
goal is to use these numerical experiments to construct forcedisplacement models for elasto-
plastic contact based on a generalization of Hertz contact mechanics. Consider the case when an
Fig. 5. Contact area and Hertz normal pressure. (a) Circular contact area. (b) Hertz normal pressure p at Section B-B:
elasto-perfectly plastic sphere is in contact with a frictionless rigid surface. According to the Hertz
theory with the von Mises yield criterion, the relationship between the yield stress s
Y
and the yield
normal load P
Y
Fi.e., the normal load at which an incipient yield occurs inside the sphereFcan
be expressed as follows (see [14])
P
Y

p
3
R
2
1 n
2
2
6E
2
A
Y
ns
Y
3
; 3:8
where A
Y
n is a function of the Poisson ratio n: In order to give an idea of the magnitude of
A
Y
n; for a material with n 0:3; we have A
Y
0:3 1:613; and for n 0:4; we have
A
Y
0:4 1:738:
In an elastic normal collision between a sphere and a rigid surface, the forcedisplacement
relation during the collision can be described using the Hertz theory as if there is a nonlinear
spring acting between two objects; the duration of the collision is given by [3,15].
t 2:94
1:25
2
_
pr1 n
2
E
_ _
2=5
R
2v
in
1=5
; 3:9
where t is the contact time during the collision, r the density of the sphere material, and v
in
the
incoming velocity. Relation (3.9) between the contact duration time t and the incoming velocity
v
in
for elastic collisions is validated by Walton [3] using dynamic FEA.
3.2. FEA results
An important result from our dynamic FEA of elastic collisions is the coecient of restitution.
By denition, the coecient of restitution in a collision in the normal direction (Fig. 1) can be
calculated using
3
e :
v
out
v
in
: 3:10
In our FEA, the incoming velocity v
in
of the sphere is an input parameter, whereas the outgoing
velocity v
out
of the sphere is obtained by averaging the velocities of all nodes of the FE mesh at a
time right after the sphere is separated from the rigid surface. The coecient of restitution
obtained from FEA is presented in Table 1. The results show that by using either model A, B, or
C, the coecient of restitution obtained from FEA of elastic collision is close to one, i.e., more
Table 1
Coecient of restitution for elastic collisions
v
in
m=s Model A Model B Model C
0.02 0.9976 0.9997 1.000
0.06 0.9983 0.9970 1.000
0.10 0.9923 0.9984 0.9975
0.20 0.9993 0.9999 1.000
3
In this paper, v
in
and v
out
are the magnitudes of the velocity (i.e., positive value), and not the algebraic quantity.
than 99% of the kinetic energy is recovered from the collision, and the sphere rebounds with an
outgoing velocity of about the same magnitude as that of the incoming velocity, but in the
opposite direction. The following conclusion can be drawn: For low-velocity elastic collision
between a sphere (with properties described in Section 2) and a frictionless rigid surface, the
energy dissipation caused by the elastic wave inside the sphere is very small, thus can be ignored.
More results and discussion on this issue will be presented in Section 3.3 below.
Fig. 6 depicts the plot of the normal contact force P versus the normal displacement
4
a for the
elastic collision with incoming velocity v
in
0:20 m=s: The unloading path of the force
displacement (FD) curve from FEA results is almost on top of the loading path of the FD curve,
meaning that there is almost no energy dissipation. The loading curve produced using the Hertz
theory by Eq. (3.7) is also presented in Fig. 6, which shows that the FEA results agree well with
the Hertz theory for elastic contact. At the points with the highest normal contact force P
max

1:144 10
4
N; the maximum normal displacement obtained from FEA results is a
max
4:95
10
5
m; while the corresponding normal displacement produced using the Hertz theory by
Eq. (3.7) is a
max
Hz
4:99 10
5
m: The dierence between the result from dynamic FEA and
the result from the Hertz theory is only 0.8%.
We also extracted the collision duration time t from our dynamic FEA by subtracting the time
t
c
; when the sphere comes into contact with the rigid surface, from the time t
s
; when the sphere
completely separates from the rigid surface, i.e., t t
s
t
c
: The maximum possible error
committed on t is the integration time-step size, which is very small; for example, the time-step
Fig. 6. Forcedisplacement curve for elastic collision with incoming velocity v
in
0:20 m=s:
4
In a granular-ow simulation using the soft-particle technique, the normal displacement a is the normal penetration
into the particle in question, and is either
i
a or
j
a in Eq. (3.6). For identical spheres, we have a
i
a
j
a: See [6] for
more details on the discrete element method (DEM) employed.
size around the separation of the sphere for the collision with incoming velocity v
in
0:10 m=s
using FE model B is 3:207 10
6
s: The results from FEA using dierent models are presented in
Table 2 and Fig. 7, and are compared with the theoretical prediction using the Hertz theory, i.e.,
Eq. (3.9). Compared to the time-step size, the error of the computed collision duration time for
the collision with incoming velocity v
in
0:10 m=s is about 0.38%, or less than 1%. Again, our
FEA results agree closely with the theoretical prediction using the Hertz theory with a quasi-static
procedure.
Fig. 8(a) and (b) show the distributions of the normal pressure on the contact surface obtained
from our dynamic FEA results. In these gures, the Hertz normal pressure by Eq. (3.3) is
represented by the solid line; the original FEA results are represented by the small circles 3. In
order to remove the spurious oscillations in the original FEA results, we perform an averaging
process to produce a much smoother curve, shown by the symbols x. The oscillations in the
original FEA results are probably due to the type of contact elements employed. The contact
Table 2
Collision duration (in s) versus incoming velocity for elastic collisions
v
in
m=s Hertz theory Model A Model B Model C
0.02 1:200 10
3
1:16 10
3
1:16 10
3
1:16 10
3
0.06 9:298 10
4
9:33 10
4
9:27 10
4
9:30 10
4
0.10 8:395 10
4
8:38 10
4
8:36 10
4
8:38 10
4
0.20 7:308 10
4
7:28 10
4
7:28 10
4
7:30 10
4
Fig. 7. Collision duration versus incoming velocity for elastic collisions.
radius a from FEA results is obtained by using cubic spline interpolation at zero normal pressure
p 0: This cubic spline is based on the two averaged data points that are closest to the r-axis, and
their two mirror symmetric points about the r-axis. The distribution of the normal pressure p for
the elastic collision with the incoming velocity v
in
0:02 m=s at the time when the normal contact
force P reaches its maximum value P
max
716:6 N is shown in Fig. 8(a). Even though the original
FEA results oscillate around the Hertz normal pressure, the averaged normal pressure from FEA
results agrees closely with the Hertz theory. In addition, the contact area radius a 0:000877 m
from FEA results agrees with that from the Hertz theory, a
hz
0:000887 m; with a small
dierence of 1.1%. In this case, from Fig. 8(a), there are nine contact elements involved in the
contact. Similarly, the distribution of the normal pressure p of the collision with incoming velocity
v
in
0:10 m=s at the time when the normal contact force P is at its maximum value P
max

4938 N is presented in Fig. 8(b). Again, we observe good agreements between FEA results and the
Hertz theory. In Fig. 8(b), there are 17 contact elements involved in the contact.
Figs. 9a, b shows the contour of the Mises equivalent stress inside the sphere during the
collision at some selected time stations. The Mises equivalent stress is dened as (see [12])
q
3
2
S : S
_
; 3:11
where S is the stress deviatoric tensor. This Mises equivalent stress q is actually another form of
the second invariant J
2
in terms of the stress deviator. In elasto-plastic problem, the Mises
equivalent stress q by Eq. (3.11) can be used to check the plastic deformation. When the von Mises
yield criterion (see [15,16]) is applied, the region where qos
Y
is elastic, and the region where
q s
Y
is plastic.
Fig. 9(a) shows the contour of the Mises equivalent stress inside the sphere for the elastic
collision with incoming velocity v
in
0:10 m=s at time t 9:90 10
5
s when the normal contact
Fig. 8. Normal pressure prole over contact area. Original dynamic FEA data (3); averaged data (). (a) Collision with
v
in
0:02 m=s; at maximum normal force P
max
716:6 N: (b) Collision with v
in
0:10 m=s; at maximum normal force
P
max
4938 N:
force increases to P 999:1 N: It shows that the highest Mises stress is not on the contact surface,
but inside the sphere, at about half of the radius a of contact area above the contact
surface. During a collision, high stress levels are concentrated in a small region close to the contact
surface.
Fig. 9(b) shows the contour of the Mises equivalent stress inside the sphere for the elastic
in
0:20 m=s at time t 5:06 10
4
force decreases to P 8279 N after it reaches its maximum value. We observe that the stress state
inside the sphere changes gradually, i.e., without any dramatic changes, going from loading to
unloading. This feature in elastic collisions is very dierent from that of elasto-plastic collisions
(see Section 4.2 below).
3.3. FEA results for the elastic collision of soft spheres
In order to show the eect of the elastic modulus on the collision behavior, we also carry out
dynamic FEA using the FE model B described in Section 2, with exactly the same impact velocity
and material properties except the Young moduli.
Fig. 9. Contour of Mises stress inside the sphere during elastic collisions. (a) Collision with v
in
0:10 m=s; loading at
t 9:90 10
5
s and P 999:1 N: (b) Collision with v
in
0:20 m=s; unloading at t 5:06 10
4
s and P 8279 N:
Fig. 10 shows the distributions of the rebounding velocity of all the nodes in the FE model right
after the sphere separates from the rigid surface. When the Youngs modulus of the sphere
material is E 7:0 10
10
N=m
2
; the one that we use for most dynamic FEA in this paper, the
rebounding velocities of most nodes are almost equal to the impact velocity, except at a very small
region close to the contact area, where there is some uctuation in the magnitude of the
rebounding velocity. Similar results can be observed from Fig. 10(b) for a softer material with
E 7:0 10
6
N=m
2
: Even with a Youngs modulus as 10
4
times soft as that of the material we
employed in most of the simulations that we present in this paper, we observe that the energy
dissipation caused by the internal elastic wave propagation is still very small. The coecient of
restitution obtained from FEA by averaging the rebounding velocity of all nodes in the model is
shown in Table 3.
Clearly, from Fig. 10, the computation of the coecient of restitution as shown in Eq. (3.10)
depends on the material properties such as Youngs modulus E; mass density r; etc. In other
words, when the ratio E=rR is smaller, the time for the elastic wave propagating across the
sphere is longer; thus, the eect of elastic wave propagation on average rebounding velocity v
out
is
larger. For most of the elastic and elasto-plastic collisions studied in this paper, the ratio E=rR is
large, resulting in a much higher elastic wave propagation speed. In the case where Youngs
modulus E 7:0 10
10
N=m
2
; mass density r 2:699 10
3
kg=m
3
; and sphere radius R
Fig. 10. Rebounding velocity in the sphere versus node numbers for elastic collision with incoming velocity v
in

0:10 m=s: (a) Sphere with E 7:0 10
10
N=m
2
; at time t 9:24 10
4
s: (b) Sphere with E 7:0 10
6
N=m
2
; at time
t 3:27 10
2
s:
Table 3
Coecient of restitution for the sphere with dierent Youngs moduli in elastic collisions, v
in
0:10 m=s
E N=m
2
7:0 10
10
7:0 10
6
e 0.9984 0.9890
0:1 m; the collision duration time t is hundreds of times longer than the time for the elastic wave
to propagate across the size of the sphere, thus validating the use of a quasi-static force
displacement (FD) model at the contact point. Such an FD model will be presented shortly in
Section 4.
4. Elasto-plastic collisions
In this section, we present the dynamic FEA results for elasto-plastic collisions between a sphere
of elasto-perfectly plastic material and a frictionless rigid planar surface. In addition, we compare
our FEA results with the results of DEM simulation using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] elasto-
plastic NFD model to show the correctness of the NFD model. At rst, a brief introduction of the
Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] elasto-plastic NFD model is given below.
4.1. Elasto-plastic NFD models for DEM simulation
The elasto-plastic NFD model proposed in Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] (displacement-driven
version) is developed for simulating elasto-plastic contact between two spheres; in the present
version, the spheres have the same material properties. For two spheres in contact as shown in
Fig. 4, when the normal contact force P is less than, or equal to, the yield normal force P
Y
given
by Eq. (3.8), the behavior of the contact can be determined by the Hertz theory as described in
Section 3.1.
In the case when P > P
Y
; i.e., plastic deformation occurs, to obtain correct simulation results,
the eect of the plastic deformation on the forcedisplacement relation should be accounted for.
Let us rst consider the case in which the normal force P increases (i.e., the loading case). When
the normal force P is greater than the yield normal force P
Y
; plastic deformation occurs, and
causes the contact area radius to be larger than that in elastic contact. Let a
ep
be the contact area
radius for elasto-plastic contact. We split the elasto-plastic contact radius a
ep
into
a
ep
a
e
a
p
; 4:1
where the radius a
e
corresponds to the elastically recoverable part, and the radius a
p
is the plastic
correction part, which can be modeled according to
a
p
0 for PpP
Y
;
C
a
P P
Y
for P > P
Y
;
_
4:2
based on our FEA results (see [5,11]), and where C
a
is a constant depending on the properties of
the spheres. For the elasto-plastic contact between the sphere (with the same properties as
described in Section 2), in contact with a frictionless rigid surface, we obtain C
a
2:33
10
7
N=m: Further, we assume that the relationship between a
ep
and a still follows Eq. (3.6), but
with a modied radius of local contact curvature R
n
ep
; i.e.,
a
a
ep
2
2R
n
ep
; 4:3
where
R
n
ep
C
R
R
n
; 4:4
C
R

1:0 for PpP
Y
;
1:0 K
c
P P
Y
for P > P
Y
;
_
4:5
with K
c
being a constant determined by the properties of the contacting spheres. For example, for
the elasto-plastic contact between two identical spheres with the same properties as those
described in Section 2, we obtain K
c
2:69 10
4
1=N (see [11]).
In the displacement-driven version of this new NFD model, with the known input parameters
P
Y
; C
a
; K
c
; and with a given normal displacement a; we can construct a nonlinear equation in
terms of the unknown normal contact force P; by combining Eq. (4.1) to Eq. (4.5). This nonlinear
equation is then solved by using the NewtonRaphson method for the normal contact force P:
Now let us consider the case where the normal contact force P (and also the normal
displacement a due to contact) is decreasing (unloading). If the maximum force P
max
is greater
than the yield force P
Y
; there will be plastic deformation, and the residual normal displacement
a
res
should be computed by
a
res
a
max

a
ep
max
a
p
max
2
2C
R
max
R
n
; 4:6
where C
R
max
is determined by Eq. (4.5) with P P
max
: Similar to the plastic strain during a
stress unloading in the continuum plasticity theory, the plastic correction contact radius a
p
of an
elasto-plastic contact remains constant during unloading, i.e.,
a
p
a
p
max

0 for P
max
pP
Y
;
C
a
P
max
P
Y
for P
max
> P
Y
:
_
4:7
Unloading is performed elastically following the Hertz theory, but accounting for the plastic
deformation that have occurred.
5
Therefore, the elastic contact radius a
e
during unloading can be
expressed as a function of the normal contact displacement a and the normal residual
displacement a
res
given in Eq. (4.6) as follows:
a
e
2C
R
max
R
n
a a
res
1=2
: 4:8
Note that in both Eqs. (4.6) and (4.8), the elastic radius of curvature R
n
is used, instead of the
elasto-plastic radius of curvature R
n
ep
dened by Eq. (4.4). The normal contact force during
unloading can be computed using the Hertz theory as follows:
P
2E
3R
n
1 n
2
_ _
a
e
3
: 4:9
Thornton [10] proposed an NFD model that also accounts for the eect of plastic deformation
on the NFD relationship. In this NFD model, Thornton [10] assumed that quasi-static contact
mechanics theory is valid during a collision between two spheres. In this model, during elastic
5
Elastic unloading following the Hertz theory is a good approximation of the numerical-experiment results. For more
details, see [11,14].
loading, the normal traction (i.e., the distribution of normal pressure on the contact area) and the
NFD relationship follow the Hertz theory; when plastic deformation occurs, the normal traction
is equal to a contact yield stress denoted by s
Y
Th
everywhere inside the contact area, as shown in
Fig. 11.
6
Based on the above assumption, Thornton [10] derived a linear relationship between the
normal displacement a and the normal contact force P after the incipient plastic deformation. For
unloading after the plastic deformation had occurred, Thornton [10] followed the NFD
relationship in elastic Hertzian contact mechanics, but with a larger radius of relative contact
curvature R
n
p
that resulted from irreversible plastic deformation.
The coecient of restitution e
Th
from the Thornton [10] NFD model can thus be derived to be a
function of the incoming velocity v
in
; and is expressed as follows:
e
Th

6
3
_
5
_ _
1
1
6
v
Y
v
in
_ _
2
_ _ _ _
1=2
v
Y
v
in
_ _
v
Y
v
in
_ _
2
1:2 0:2
v
Y
v
in
_ _
2
_
_
_
_
1
_
_
_
_
_
_
1=4
;
4:10
where v
Y
is dened as the yield velocity, i.e., the relative incoming velocity when incipient plastic
deformation develops (below this velocity, no plastic deformation occurs), and is given by
v
Y
3:194
s
Y
5
Th
R
n
3
E
n
4
m
n
_ _
1=2
; 4:11
where m
n
is the equivalent mass dened as m
n
1=
i
m 1=
j
m
1
: The contact yield stress
s
Y
Th
is the maximum normal pressure on the contact area p
0
when yield begins. We employ the
Hertz theory together with the von Mises criterion to obtain s
Y
Th
1:61 s
Y
(see [11,14]), where
s
Y
is the yield stress of the sphere material. The radius R
n
of the relative contact curvature and the
equivalent Youngs modulus E
n
are given by Eqs. (3.2) and (3.1), respectively, according to the
Hertz theory.
Fig. 11. Normal traction in the Thornton [10] NFD model.
6
The subscript Th in s
Y
Th
is mnemonic for Thornton.
4.2. FEA results
Similar to the FEA of elastic collisions presented in Section 3.2, we carry out dynamic FEA of
elasto-plastic collisions between the sphere described in Section 2 and a frictionless rigid surface
with various incoming velocities using the nonlinear FE code ABAQUS [12]. Elasto-perfectly
plastic material properties as described in Section 2 are used. The coecient of restitution for
collisions with dierent incoming velocities obtained from FEA results are listed in Table 4. The
coecient of restitution in Table 4 are all less than one, showing that there are energy dissipations
caused by plastic deformation. The coecient of restitution decreases with increasing incoming
velocity, because the larger the incoming velocity, the higher the level of plastic deformation, and
thus the higher the level of energy dissipation.
Fig. 12 shows coecient of restitution versus the incoming velocity with results coming from (i)
FEA, (ii) discrete element method (DEM) simulations using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] elasto-
plastic NFD model (denoted by VZ NFD model), (iii) the Thornton [10] NFD model, and (vi)
the Stronge model [17].
7
The results from FEA using FE models A, B, and C (see Section 2) are
presented using the symbols ,
*
, and 3, respectively. For collisions with incoming velocities
v
in
0:02; 0:06 and 0:10 m=s; the results from DEM simulation using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang
[11] NFD model agree well with the FEA results. For the collision with incoming velocity v
in

0:20 m=s; which is about 120 times of the yield velocity
8
v
Y
and for which the maximum normal
contact force reaches P
max
8373 N; the coecient of restitution from FEA is e 0:5853; while
that from the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model is e
vz
0:4773; the dierence between the two
results is 18.5%. We will discuss the cause of this dierence later.
The coecient of restitution from the Thornton [10] NFD model given by Eq. (4.10) is also
shown in Fig. 12 for comparison. Note that in Eqs. (4.10) and (4.11), the incoming velocity v
in
and
yield velocity v
Y
are the relative incoming velocities of two spheres in collision, we need to double
the incoming velocity when considering the collision between one sphere and a frictionless rigid
surface which is equivalent to the collision of two identical spheres with doubled relative incoming
velocity. In comparison with our dynamic FEA results, the coecient of restitution from DEM
simulation using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model is clearly superior to that obtained
from the Thornton [10] NFD model, for the incoming velocity in the range shown in Fig. 12,
Table 4
Coecient of restitution for elasto-plastic collisions
v
in
m=s Model A Model B Model C
0.02 0.8076 0.8132 0.8132
0.06 0.6951 0.6858 0.6930
0.10 0.6352 0.6524 0.6229
0.20 0.5635 0.5853 0.5481
7
The results of Stronge [17] are obtained using Eqs. 2426; from Stronge [17] with k 1:1:
8
Plastic deformation begin to develop inside the sphere for the incoming velocity v
in
v
Y
1:667 10
3
m=s
computed by Eq. (4.11).
namely, when v
in
=v
Y
p120: We refer the readers to Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] for a more detailed
comparison of the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model and the Thornton [10] NFD model.
Fig. 13 shows the normal contact force P versus the normal displacement a for the collisions
with incoming velocity v
in
0:02 m=s (v
in
=v
Y
12) and v
in
0:06 m=s (v
in
=v
Y
36). The results
Fig. 12. Coecient of restitution versus incoming velocity, as obtained from various models.
Fig. 13. Normal contact force P versus normal displacement a: (a) Collision with v
in
0:02 m=s: (b) Collision with
v
in
0:06 m=s:
produced by the DEM simulations using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] elasto-plastic NFD model
agree closely with the corresponding FEA results. The maximum normal contact force P
max
; the
maximum normal displacement a
max
; and the residual normal displacement a
res
caused by plastic
deformation are listed in Table 5.
Similar to Fig. 13, Fig. 14 shows the normal contact force P versus the normal displacement a
for the collisions with incoming velocities v
in
0:10 m=s (v
in
=v
Y
60) and v
in
0:20 m=s
(v
in
=v
Y
120). In Fig. 14(a), with v
in
=v
Y
60; the NFD relation produced by the DEM
simulations using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] elasto-plastic NFD model agrees reasonably well
with the corresponding FEA results. By Eq. (3.8), the incipient-yield contact force is P
Y

36:45 N for the sphere with properties given in Section 2. In this case, the maximum normal
contact force is P
max
3922 N from FEA results (Table 5), and thus the ratio P
max
=P
Y
107:6:
In Fig. 14(b), with v
in
=v
Y
120; there is a clear departure of the results using the Vu-Quoc and
Zhang [11] NFD model from the FEA results. In this case, the maximum normal contact force
P
max
8373 N is much larger than the yield normal force P
Y
by a ratio of P
max
=P
Y
229:7: Such
a large maximum normal force is the reason for the departure of the results using the Vu-Quoc
Table 5
Maximum force P
max
; maximum displacement a
max
; and residual displacement a
res
versus incoming velocity v
in
v
in
P
max
N a
max
m a
res
m
m=s FEA VZ NFD FEA VZ NFD FEA VZ NFD
0.02 647.8 635.7 8:25 10
6
8:48 10
6
2:78 10
6
2:22 10
6
0.06 2224 2341 2:11 10
5
2:12 10
5
1:07 10
5
1:05 10
5
0.10 3922 4404 3:30 10
5
3:21 10
5
1:90 10
5
2:00 10
5
0.20 8373 1.045 10
4
6:08 10
5
5:55 10
5
4:01 10
5
4:31 10
5
Fig. 14. Normal contact force P versus normal displacement a: (a) Collision with v
in
0:10 m=s: (b) Collision with
v
in
0:20 m=s:
and Zhang [11] NFD model from FEA results, because the parameters C
a
and K
c
employed in the
Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model were extracted for maximum normal force less than 1500 N
(i.e., P
max
=P
Y
41:1). Clearly, the maximum normal force P
max
8373 N is way outside the
range of validity of the parameters employed. In other words, in order to make the results using
the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model work up to P
max
8373 N; we need to extend the range
of P
max
to this force level in the extraction of the model parameters C
a
and K
c
:
The collision duration time t for the elasto-plastic collision obtained from our FEA and from
the DEM simulations using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model is shown in Fig. 15 and in
Table 6. The computation method is the same as that explained in Section 3.2. Since the
integration time-step size for the nonlinear dynamic FEA is automatically chosen by ABAQUS,
and the time-step size for elasto-plastic analysis is even smaller compared to that for elastic
analysis, the error for the data presented in Fig. 15 and in Table 6 is much smaller than 1%. For
example, the time-step size around the separation time of the FE model B from the rigid planar
Fig. 15. Collision duration time for elasto-plastic collision versus incoming velocity.
Table 6
Comparison of collision time t versus incoming velocity v
in
v
in
m=s Hertz (elastic) FEA (elasto-plastic) VZ NFD (elasto-plastic)
0.02 1:16 10
3
1:12 10
3
1:18 10
3
0.06 9:30 10
4
9:01 10
4
8:99 10
4
0.10 8:40 10
4
8:22 10
4
7:64 10
4
0.20 7:31 10
4
7:31 10
4
5:97 10
4
surface, for v
in
0:10 m=s is 7:663 10
7
s; making the error on t of about 0.09%. For the results
using DEM simulation, the time-step size is xed at 1:0 10
6
s; thus making the error on t about
0.13%. The collision duration time for elastic collision obtained using the Hertz theory as given by
Eq. (3.9) is also presented for comparison. Again, when v
in
=v
Y
p60; the results from DEM
simulation using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model agree accurately with those from FEA.
It is also observed that the collision duration time from FEA for elasto-plastic collision is very
close to the collision time for elastic collision from the Hertz theory, meaning that the eect of
plastic deformation on the collision duration time is very small, at least for the cases in which
12pv
in
=v
Y
p120: Such an observation deserves further study.
Fig. 16 shows the distribution of the normal pressure on the contact surface obtained from our
dynamic FEA for elasto-plastic collisions. The Hertz normal pressure as given by Eq. (3.3) (for
elastic contact) is also presented; the original FEA data are presented by the symbols 3. Similar
to that presented in Fig. 8, we average the original oscillating FEA data to obtain a much
smoother curve shown in Fig. 8 using the symbols x. The contact area radius a from FEA results
is obtained by using cubic spline interpolation in the same manner as for results shown in Fig. 8.
The distribution of the normal pressure p for the elasto-plastic collision with incoming velocity
v
in
0:02 m=s at the time when the normal contact force P reaches its maximum value P
max

647:8 N is shown in Fig. 16(a). The contact area radius a 1:07 10
3
m from the FEA results
for the elasto-plastic collision is larger than the contact area radius a
hz
8:58 10
4
m from the
Hertz theory for the elastic collision under the same normal force level. Similarly, the distribution
of the normal pressure p for the elasto-plastic collision with incoming velocity v
in
0:10 m=s at
the time when the normal contact force P reaches its maximum value P
max
3922 N is presented
in Fig. 8(b). Again, we observe that the contact area radius from the FEA results for the elasto-
plastic collision is larger than that from the Hertz theory for the elastic collision under the same
normal force level. In both Fig. 16(a) and (b), the magnitude of the normal pressure on the
Fig. 16. Normal pressure over the contact area for elasto-plastic collisions. (a) Collision with v
in
0:02 m=s; at
maximum normal force P
max
647:8 N: (b) Collision with v
in
0:10 m=s; at maximum normal force P
max
3922 N:
contact surface inside the contact area is roughly constant, and is more than twice that of the
material yield stress s
Y
: The normal pressure distribution on the contact surface from the dynamic
FEA results agrees with that obtained from the static FEA results for elasto-plastic contact
problems presented in Vu-Quoc et al. [5] (Fig. 17). We refer the readers to Vu-Quoc et al. [5] and
Vu-Quoc et al. [14] for more detailed discussions, on the static FEA results of elasto-plastic
contact problems.
Remark 4.1. The static results shown in Fig. 17 were obtained with an FE mesh that was much
denser than the FE meshes in models A, B, and C employed in the present paper. Even in this
static analysis, one can still see some oscillations, which are due to the properties of the nite-
element formulation employed, and clearly not due to numerical instability in dynamic analyses;
see also Section 3.3.
Fig. 18(a) shows the contour of the Mises equivalent stress inside the sphere for the elasto-
plastic collision with incoming velocity v
in
0:10 m=s at time t 1:15 10
4
s when the normal
contact force increases to P 999:7 N: The sphere material is modeled by the elasto-perfectly
plastic model with the von Mises yield criterion, according to which the material will yield when
the Mises equivalent stress q (given by Eq. (3.11)) is equal to the yield stress s
Y
: With s
Y

1:0 10
8
N=m
2
; the area encircled by the contour line marked a in Fig. 18(a) is the plastic zone.
The same applies to Figs. 18(b), 19(b), and (a). Fig. 18(a) shows that the plastic deformation is
rst developed not on the contact surface but at a point inside the sphere, and close to the contact
area. When the normal contact force increases, the plastic zone expands to reach the contact
surface, beginning from the edge of the circular contact area, while the material on the contact
surface and around the center of the contact area remains elastic. Comparing Fig. 18(a) with
Fig. 9(a), we see that the maximum Mises stress inside a sphere with elastic-perfectly plastic
material is limited to the material yield stress s
Y
; which is much lower than the stress reached in an
elastic collision.
Fig. 17. Normal pressure distribution on contact surface from a static FEA at P 1500 N:
Fig. 18(b) shows the contour of Mises equivalent stress inside the sphere for the elasto-plastic
in
0:20 m=s at time t 4:41 10
4
force increases to P 8373 N: When the normal loading is high, the plastic zone develops to the
contact surface on most parts inside the contact area. Fig. 19(b) shows the contour of Mises
equivalent stress inside the sphere for the elasto-plastic collision with incoming velocity v
in

0:20 m=s at time t 4:74 10
4
s when the normal contact force decreases to P 8347 N; right
after the normal contact force reaches its highest value, and when the sphere starts to separate
from the rigid surface. At this time, even though the normal contact force P 8347 N is much
larger than the incipient yield force P
Y
36:45 N; once the normal force starts unloading, the
Mises equivalent stress inside the sphere immediately decreases to a level qos
Y
everywhere. With
the plastic deformation frozen, the material behaves elastically during the normal contact force
unloading session.
Fig. 19(a) shows the contour of Mises equivalent stress inside the sphere for the elasto-plastic
in
0:20 m=s at time t 6:93 10
4
force decreases to P 1017 N after this force reaches its highest value and after the sphere is
separated from the rigid surface. Comparing Fig. 19(a) (P 1017 N; unloading) and Fig. 18(a)
Fig. 18. Contour of Mises stress inside the sphere during elasto-plastic collisions. (a) Collision with v
in
0:10 m=s;
loading at t 1:15 10
4
s and P 999:7 N: (b) Collision with v
in
0:20 m=s; loading at t 4:41 10
4
s and
P 8373 N:
(P 999:7 N; loading), we observe that the stress distribution during unloading with plastic
deformation can be very dierent from the stress distribution during loading, even at the same
normal force level. Unlike elastic collision, the distribution of stress inside the sphere in an elasto-
plastic collision is dependent on the loading history.
5. Conclusion
We presented the dynamic simulations of the collisions between a sphere and a frictionless rigid
planar surface using the nonlinear nite-element code ABAQUS. Such collisions are equivalent to
the collisions between two identical spheres. The results of the collisions using an elastic sphere
obtained from our FEA agreed closely with the results produced by applying the Hertz theory in
various aspects. Such an agreement validated the reliability of the FEA models used in our FEA.
Fig. 19. Contour of Mises stress inside the sphere during elasto-plastic collisions. (a) Collision with v
in
0:20 m=s;
unloading at t 6:93 10
4
s and P 1017 N: (b) Collision with v
in
0:20 m=s; beginning unloading at t
4:74 10
4
s and P 8347 N:
The distribution of the Mises stress (3.11) produced by FEA conrmed the prediction based on
the Hertz theory and von Mises yield criterion that the rst yield during a contact occurs not on
the contact surface, but inside the sphere (see [14] for more details). In addition, we carried out a
series of FEA of the elastic collision using spheres with dierent elastic moduli. Observations
based on FEA results supported the conclusion that the energy dissipation caused by the elastic
wave propagation inside the sphere body could be ignored for most of the collisions discussed in
this paper, except for one case in which the sphere material was extremely soft (see Section 3.3).
9
We also presented dynamic FEA results of elasto-plastic collisions. We compared both the
results from DEM simulationsFusing the elasto-plastic normal forcedisplacement (NFD)
model presented in Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11], the Thornton [10] NFD model, and the Stronge [13]
modelFto the FEA results. The comparison among the coecients of restitution obtained using
dierent methods showed a close agreement between the FEA results and the results from the
DEM simulation using the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model, even with the model parameters
obtained from an analysis with only low-level contact-force for elasto-plastic collisions, especially
for the collisions with incoming velocity v
in
=v
y
p60: Such an agreement is also observed when
comparing the forcedisplacement (FD) curves from FEA and those from the Vu-Quoc and
Zhang [11] NFD model. The dynamic FEA validated the Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model,
and also revealed that the application range of Vu-Quoc and Zhang [11] NFD model may be
aected by the choice of model parameters.
It was also observed that plastic deformation inside the sphere did not aect the collision time
much, under low-velocity collision v
in
=v
y
p120: We also provided information on the development
of the plastic zone inside the sphere. Other interesting phenomena described in this paper deserve
further investigation. For a comparison of our NFD model and the resulting coecient of
restitution with experiments, we refer the readers to Zhang and Vu-Quoc [19]. The readers are also
referred to references [2023], which are related to the same topic discussed in the present paper.
Acknowledgements
We thank our colleagues, Dr. Otis Walton and Mr. Lee Lesburg, for their discussions, and Mr.
Tam Trinh for his help in post-processing of the FEA results. We also thank Dr. W.J. Stronge for
his papers and discussion. The support of the National Science Foundation is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Goldsmith W. Impact: the theory and physical behaviour of colliding solids. London: Edward Arnold, 1960.
[2] Ning Z, Thornton C. Elastic-plastic impact of ne particles with a surface. In: Thornton C, editor. Powders and
Grains. Netherlands: Balkema, Rotterdam, 1993. p. 338.
[3] Walton OR. Numerical simulation of inelastic, frictional particleparticle interactions. In: Roco MC, editor.
Particulate Two-Phase Flow, Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993. p. 884911 [chapter 25].
9
A reviewer informed us that the issue of whether quasi-static analysis was representative of dynamic deformation
was also addressed in Tsai [18].
[4] Kangur KF, Kleis IR. Experimental and theoretical determination of the coecient of velocity restitution upon
impact. Mech Solids 1988;23(5):1825.
[5] Vu-Quoc L, Zhang X, Lesburg L. Contact forcedisplacement relations for spherical particles accounting for
plastic deformation. Int J Solids Struct 2001;38(3637):645590.
[6] Vu-Quoc L, Zhang X, Walton OR. A 3-D discrete element method for dry granular ows of ellipsoidal particles.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2000;187:483528.
[7] Hertz H.
.
Uber die Ber. uhrung fester elastischer K. orper (On the contact of elastic solids). J Reine Angewandte
Math 1882;92:15671.
[8] Johnson KL. Contact mechanics, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[9] Walton OR, Braun RL. Viscosity, granular-temperature, and stress calculations for shearing assemblies of
inelastic, frictional disks. J Rheol 1986;30(5):94980.
[10] Thornton C. Coecient of restitution for collinear collisions of elastic perfectly plastic spheres. ASME J Appl
Mech 1997;64:3836.
[11] Vu-Quoc L, Zhang X. An elasto-plastic contact forcedisplacement model in the normal direction: displacement-
driven version. Proc R Soc London, Ser A 1999;455(1991):401344.
[12] ABAQUS, Version 5.6-1, Hibbitt. Pawtucket, RI: Karlsson & Sorensen, 1995.
[13] Stronge WJ. Coupling of friction and internal dissipation in planar collision of restitution. In: Raous M, editor.
Contact Mechanics. New York: Plenum Press, 1995a. p. 41726.
[14] Vu-Quoc L, Zhang X, Lesburg L. A normal forcedisplacement model for contacting spheres accounting for
plastic deformation: force-driven formulation. ASME J Appl Mech 2000;67(2):36371.
[15] Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. Theory of elasticity, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
[16] Malvern L. Introduction to the mechanics of a continuous medium. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
[17] Stronge WJ. Theoretical coecients of restitution for planar impact of rough elasto-plastic bodies. In: Batra RC,
Mal AK, MacSithigh GP, editors. Impact, Waves, and Fracture, ASME AMD Vol. 205, 1995b. p. 35162.
[18] Tsai YM. Dynamic contact stresses produced by the impact of an axisymmetrical projectile on an elastic half-
space. Int J Solids Struct 1971;7(6):54358.
[19] Zhang X, Vu-Quoc L. A method to extract the mechanical properties of particles in collision based on a new
elasto-plastic normal forcedisplacement model. 2001; submitted for publication.
[20] LoCurto GJ, Zhang X, Zakirov V, Bucklin RA, Vu-Quoc L, Hanes DM, Walton OR. Soybean impacts:
Experiments and dynamic simulations. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
1997;40(3):78994.
[21] Vemuri BC, Chen L, Vu-Quoc L, Zhang X, Walton OR. Ecient collision detection algorithms and accurate
contact mechanics for granular ow simulation. Graphical Models and Image Processing 1998;60(6):40322.
[22] Vu-Quoc L, Zhang X. An accurate and ecient tangential force-displacement model for elastic-frictional contact
in particle-ow simulations. Mechanics of Materials 1999;31(4):23569. Erratum 1999;31(11):7612.
[23] Zhang X, Vu-Quoc L. Simulation of chute ow of soybeans using an improved tangential force-displacement
model. Mechanics of Materials 2000;32(2):11529.

Modelo de Coef de Rest

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Modelo de Coef de Rest

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 317341

Modeling the dependence of the coecient of restitution on the

Anda mungkin juga menyukai