Comparison of Two Impact Simulation Methods Used for Nonlinear Vibroimpact Systems with Rigid and Soft Impacts

<table>Characteristics of (2,1) periodic movement for vibroimpact system with soft impact (<svg height="15" id="M182" style="vertical-align:-3.276pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 71.925003 15" width="71.925003" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,.062,10.862)"><path d="M766 88q-40 -45 -83.5 -72.5t-63.5 -27.5q-39 0 -16 103l49 224q15 68 -10 68q-36 0 -112.5 -78.5t-105.5 -133.5q-27 -101 -38 -165q-35 -4 -77 -18l-6 6q42 153 70 288q12 55 10 78t-19 23q-38 0 -114 -80.5t-101 -131.5q-24 -68 -41 -165q-36 -3 -76 -18l-8 6
q56 202 87 347q7 33 -3 33q-8 0 -31.5 -17.5t-41.5 -35.5l-12 28q42 45 84 72t63 27q44 0 10 -124l-20 -75h2q92 121 193 178q36 21 64 21q62 0 28 -159l-8 -37h2q50 67 103.5 112t94.5 65q39 19 62 19q60 0 23 -156l-45 -189q-9 -39 2 -39q17 0 71 49z" id="x1D45A"></path></g>
<g transform="matrix(.012,-0,0,-.012,13.475,14.938)"><path d="M412 140l28 -9q0 -2 -35 -131h-373v23q112 112 161 170q59 70 92 127t33 115q0 63 -31 98t-86 35q-75 0 -137 -93l-22 20l57 81q55 59 135 59q69 0 118.5 -46.5t49.5 -122.5q0 -62 -29.5 -114t-102.5 -130l-141 -149h186q42 0 58.5 10.5t38.5 56.5z" id="x32"></path></g>
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,24.525,10.862)"><path d="M535 323h-483v50h483v-50zM535 138h-483v50h483v-50z" id="x3D"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,39.229,10.862)"><path d="M456 178h-96v-72q0 -51 12.5 -62.5t72.5 -16.5v-27h-256v27q65 5 78 17t13 62v72h-260v28q182 271 300 426h40v-407h96v-47zM280 225v295h-2q-107 -148 -196 -295h198z" id="x34"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,47.388,10.862)"><path d="M153 550l-26 -186q79 31 111 31q90 0 141.5 -51t51.5 -119q0 -93 -89 -166q-85 -69 -173 -71q-32 0 -61.5 11.5t-41.5 23.5q-18 17 -17 34q2 16 22 33q14 9 26 -1q61 -50 124 -50q60 0 93 43.5t33 104.5q0 69 -41.5 110t-121.5 41q-53 0 -102 -20l38 305h286l6 -8
l-26 -65h-233z" id="x35"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,55.548,10.862)"><path d="M241 635q53 0 94 -28.5t63.5 -76t33.5 -102.5t11 -116q0 -58 -11 -112.5t-34 -103.5t-63.5 -78.5t-94.5 -29.5t-95 28t-64.5 75t-34.5 102.5t-11 118.5q0 58 11.5 112.5t34.5 103t64.5 78t95.5 29.5zM238 602q-32 0 -55.5 -25t-35.5 -68t-17.5 -91t-5.5 -105
q0 -76 10 -138.5t37 -107.5t69 -45q32 0 55.5 25t35.5 68.5t17.5 91.5t5.5 105t-5.5 105.5t-18 92t-36 68t-56.5 24.5z" id="x30"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,63.707,10.862)"><path d="M241 635q53 0 94 -28.5t63.5 -76t33.5 -102.5t11 -116q0 -58 -11 -112.5t-34 -103.5t-63.5 -78.5t-94.5 -29.5t-95 28t-64.5 75t-34.5 102.5t-11 118.5q0 58 11.5 112.5t34.5 103t64.5 78t95.5 29.5zM238 602q-32 0 -55.5 -25t-35.5 -68t-17.5 -91t-5.5 -105
q0 -76 10 -138.5t37 -107.5t69 -45q32 0 55.5 25t35.5 68.5t17.5 91.5t5.5 105t-5.5 105.5t-18 92t-36 68t-56.5 24.5z" id="x30"></path></g>
</svg> kg).</table>

Journal of Nonlinear Dynamics

fig13

Figure 13

Figure 13: Comparison of Two Impact Simulation Methods Used for Nonlinear Vibroimpact Systems with Rigid and Soft Impacts 