A Contact Force Solution for Non-Colliding Contact Dynamics Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rigid-body impact modeling remains an intensive area of research spurred on by new applications in robotics, biomechanics, and more generally multibody systems. By contrast, the modeling of non-colliding contact dynamics has attracted significantly less attention. The existing approaches to solve non-colliding contact problems include compliant approaches in which the contact force between objects is defined explicitly as a function of local deformation, and complementarity formulations in which unilateral constraints are employed to compute contact interactions (impulses or forces) to enforce the impenetrability of the contacting objects. In this article, the authors develop a novel approach to solve the non-colliding contact problem for objects of arbitrary geometry in contact at multiple points. Similarly to the complementarity formulation, the solution is based on rigid-body dynamics and enforces contact kinematics constraints at the acceleration level. Differently, it leads to an explicit closed-form solution for the normal forces at the contact points. Integral to the proposed formulation is the treatment of tangential contact forces, in particular the static friction. These friction forces must be calculated as a function of microslip velocity or displacement at the contact point. Numerical results are presented for three test cases: 1) a thin rod sliding down a stationary wedge; 2) a cube rotating off the stationary wedge under application of an external moment and 3) the cube and the wedge both moving under application of a moment. To ascertain validity and correctness, the solutions to frictionless and frictional scenarios obtained with the proposed formulation are compared to those generated by using a commercial simulation tool MSC ADAMS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".