Validation of Nonlinear Viscoelastic Contact Force Models for Low Speed Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compliant contact force modeling has become a popular approach for contact and impact dynamics simulation of multibody systems. In this area, the nonlinear viscoelastic contact force model developed by Hunt and Crossley (1975, “Coefficient of Restitution Interpreted as Damping in Vibroimpact,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 42, pp. 440–445) over 2 decades ago has become a trademark with applications of the model ranging from intermittent dynamics of mechanisms to engagement dynamics of helicopter rotors and implementations in commercial multibody dynamics simulators. The distinguishing feature of this model is that it employs a nonlinear damping term to model the energy dissipation during contact, where the damping coefficient is related to the coefficient of restitution. Since its conception, the model prompted several investigations on how to evaluate the damping coefficient, in turn resulting in several variations on the original Hunt–Crossley model. In this paper, the authors aim to experimentally validate the Hunt–Crossley type of contact force models and furthermore to compare the experimental results to the model predictions obtained with different values of the damping coefficient. This paper reports our findings from the sphere to flat impact experiments, conducted for a range of initial impacting velocities using a pendulum test rig. The unique features of this investigation are that the impact forces are deduced from the acceleration measurements of the impacting body, and the experiments are conducted with specimens of different yield strengths. The experimental forces are compared with those predicted from the contact dynamics simulation of the experimental scenario. The experiments, in addition to generating novel impact measurements, provide a number of insights into both the study of impact and the impact response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".