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

<table>Bodies’ displacements for vibroimpact system with rigid impact (impact simulation by boundary conditions at <svg height="11.125" id="M95" style="vertical-align:-0.1638pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 34.737499 11.125" width="34.737499" 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="M391 364q0 -28 -20.5 -53.5t-50 -43.5t-70 -34t-73.5 -25t-68 -17v-29q0 -48 20 -81t65 -33q73 0 157 76l16 -23q-107 -113 -221 -113q-21 0 -40.5 6.5t-39 22t-31.5 47t-12 75.5q0 69 33.5 139.5t95.5 114.5q77 55 143 55q42 0 69 -24.5t27 -59.5zM313 350
q0 26 -14.5 40.5t-37.5 14.5q-32 0 -44 -7q-82 -46 -104 -175q200 49 200 127z" id="x1D452"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,11.809,10.862)"><path d="M535 323h-483v50h483v-50zM535 138h-483v50h483v-50z" id="x3D"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,26.513,10.862)"><path d="M384 0h-275v27q67 5 81.5 18.5t14.5 68.5v385q0 38 -7.5 47.5t-40.5 10.5l-48 2v24q85 15 178 52v-521q0 -55 14.5 -68.5t82.5 -18.5v-27z" id="x31"></path></g>
</svg> and <svg height="11.125" id="M96" style="vertical-align:-0.1638pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 46.775002 11.125" width="46.775002" 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="M391 364q0 -28 -20.5 -53.5t-50 -43.5t-70 -34t-73.5 -25t-68 -17v-29q0 -48 20 -81t65 -33q73 0 157 76l16 -23q-107 -113 -221 -113q-21 0 -40.5 6.5t-39 22t-31.5 47t-12 75.5q0 69 33.5 139.5t95.5 114.5q77 55 143 55q42 0 69 -24.5t27 -59.5zM313 350
q0 26 -14.5 40.5t-37.5 14.5q-32 0 -44 -7q-82 -46 -104 -175q200 49 200 127z" id="x1D452"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,11.809,10.862)"><path d="M535 323h-483v50h483v-50zM535 138h-483v50h483v-50z" id="x3D"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,26.513,10.862)"><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,-.017,34.672,10.862)"><path d="M113 -12q-24 0 -39.5 16t-15.5 42q0 24 16 40.5t40 16.5t40 -16.5t16 -40.5q0 -26 -16 -42t-41 -16z" id="x2E"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,38.548,10.862)"><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>
</svg> and by Hertz contact force).</table>

Journal of Nonlinear Dynamics

fig9

Figure 9

Figure 9: Comparison of Two Impact Simulation Methods Used for Nonlinear Vibroimpact Systems with Rigid and Soft Impacts 