Theoretical and experimental study of the “superelastic collision effects” used to excite high

Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 2291 (2023) Cite this article

308 Accesses

Metrics details

The excitation technology for high-g-level shock environment experiments is currently a topic of interest, for which velocity amplification by collisions of vertically stacked bodies has been used to develop high-g shock tests with great success. This study investigated the superelastic collision effects generated during high-velocity one-dimensional three-body impacts. Theoretical formulae were derived in brief for an analytical investigation of the collisions. Four experiments were performed with different initial velocities obtained from free-falls from different heights. Velocity gains larger than 5 were obtained for the three-body collisions, and coefficients of restitution larger than 2.5 were observed for the second impact. The experimental results well verified the existence of superelastic collision effects in the one-dimensional three-body impacts.

To maximize the damage and effectiveness of advanced penetrating weapons, such as ordnance penetrators, a smart fuse or missile-borne recorder is used to sense environmental information and control the burst point when striking the target. During the striking process, the components of such systems and the systems themselves generally experience shocks equal to tens of thousands of g (1 g = 9.8 m/s2) for durations of several milliseconds. All components and the systems themselves must survive such shock loading events and be qualified for severe environments1,2,3,4. Therefore, it is undoubtedly essential to assess the survivability and the working performance of the components and systems by testing them in such high-g shock environments during the development and production processes.

At present, high-g shock tests can be divided into two categories: laboratory tests and live ammunition tests. A live ammunition test, such as actually firing a projectile from a gun or mortar, can provide an appropriate test environment that is closest to the actual use environment. However, live ammunition tests are difficult to conduct and very costly 3; therefore, they are impractical for engineering development tasks that require countless iterations to achieve the desired results for individual components as well as for their assemblies. Various high-g shock testing methods can be adopted under laboratory conditions, including the drop table5,6, Machete Hammer7,8, Hopkinson Bar9,10 and gas gun methods4,11. These testing methods have their own advantages and limitations, which will not be repeated here. These limitations promote the development of high-g shock testing technology. As early as the 1960s, it was found that velocity amplification could be achieved through one-dimensional multi-body collisions12. Some detailed discussions about this issue can be found in subsequent literature13,14,15. Therefore, dual mass shock amplifiers (DMSAs), combined with conventional drop tables, have been given increasingly more attention for use in high-g shock testing. They claim a range of obtainable accelerations during drop testing from 5000 g to as much as 100,000 g by using secondary impacts16,17,18,19. However, their limitations are also obvious because they use conventional impact tables. In addition, Rodgers et al.20,21,22,23,24 developed a four-mass vertically stacked shock amplifier. However, their test results revealed that the four-mass vertically stacked shock machine did not have any advantages over the Hopkinson Bar or even the drop table methods. To date, generating various high-g shock testing environments with good reliability, repeatability, convenience, and low cost is a long-standing problem with significant difficulties. Driven by the technical demands of high-g shock tests and inspired by existing ideas, a compact high-g shock tester with a three-body vertically stacked shock amplifier was developed by the current authors. The experimental results confirmed that this design was successful25,26,27. However, a detailed study of the velocity amplification seems to have been deliberately ignored, most likely because the primary focus was on the shock acceleration pulse parameters.

The objective of this work is to further probe the subtlety behind the success of this design. The superelastic collision effects involved in the one-dimensional three-body collisions were examined specifically, both theoretically and experimentally.

It is well known that acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity with time. This provides a hint for the development of a high-g shock tester. As presented in the authors’ earlier publications, the core operating principle of their high-g shock tester was based on one-dimensional three-body collisions. The schematic and model for a one-dimensional three-body collision is shown in Fig. 1.

High-g shock tester and model of a one-dimensional three-body collision (m0 > m1 > m2). m1, L, and v0 represent the mass, length, and initial velocity of the drop rod assembly, respectively, m2 and v0 are the mass and initial velocity of the impact table, respectively, and m0 is the mass of the anvil. The diameters of m1 and m2 are both d, v1b is the rebound velocity of m1 after striking m0, k1 and k2 are the stiffness coefficients of equivalent impact springs when m1 strikes m0 and m2 collides with m1, respectively, and v1bb and v2b are the velocities of m1 and m2 after m2 collides with m1, respectively.

It is known that the coefficient of restitution describes the ratio of the relative velocities of two bodies after a collision to their relative velocities before the collision. Figure 1 shows that the anvil is fixed. If the coefficient of restitution when m1 strikes m0 is e1,0, then the rebound velocity of m1 is given by

In Eq. (1), it is assumed that the velocity is positive when a particle moves upward.

Then, m1 impacts the approaching m2. Conservation of momentum yields the following equation:

The definition of the coefficient of restitution yields the following equation:

For a perfectly elastic collision, the conservation of kinetic energy yields the following equation:

Introducing the mass ratio r2,1 = m2/m1 and combining Eqs. (1)–(4) yield the following equations:

The velocity gain of mass m2 after the impact is expressed as follows:

Equations (6) and (7) suggest that larger values of e1,0 and e2,1 and a smaller value of r2,1 should yield a higher high-g shock environment for m2.

It is known that the value of the coefficient of restitution is equal to one if a collision is perfectly elastic and zero if a collision is perfectly inelastic. This fact suggests that for any dissipative collision that falls between perfectly inelastic and perfectly elastic, the coefficient of restitution lies between zero and one. Even assuming a perfectly elastic collision, the maximum velocity gain tends to be equal to three and is limited by r2,1 and increases as r2,1 decreases. One case of real design information for the three bodies is presented in Table 1. For this case, r2,1 = m2/m1 = 0.191 and G2 = 2.359 for perfectly elastic collisions. The directions of v1bb and v2b from Eqs. (5) and (6) are usually both upward in this design.

To cause a collision between m2 and m1, a certain gap between m2 and m1 is necessary, and it must be ensured that m2 does not collide with m1 before m1 rebounds. Therefore, an elaborate suspension spring was selected to accomplish this objective. Its configuration is shown in Fig. 2.

Configuration of the suspension spring and other parts.

Accounting for the effect of the suspension spring, the model for a one-dimensional three-body collision is transformed into the form shown in Fig. 3.

Model for a one-dimensional three-body collision that includes a suspension spring. In the figure, Ep represents the initial elastic potential energy of the suspension spring before the collision, gmin is the required minimum suspension gap, \(v_{0}^{s}\) and \(v_{1b}^{s}\) are the velocities of m1 and m2 before the collision, respectively, and \(v_{2b}^{s}\) and \(v_{1bb}^{s}\) are the velocities of m1 and m2 after the collision, respectively.

It must be noted that the compression displacement of the suspension spring is gmin before m1 strikes m2, implying another elastic potential energy, which can be denoted as Eg. Of course, this additional elastic potential energy will slightly influence the initial velocities of m1 and m2. Therefore, \(v_{0}^{s}\) is slightly less than \(v_{0}\), and \(v_{1b}^{s}\) is also slightly less than \(v_{1b}\).

However, the total elastic potential energy, Es (Es = Ep + Eg), of the suspension spring certainly performs work on m1 and m2 at the moment of separation following the collision. Then, \(v_{1bb}^{s}\) will be slightly less than \(v_{1bb}\), but intuitively, \(v_{2b}^{s}\) may be significantly larger than \(v_{2b}\) because the direction of \(v_{1bb}^{s}\) is upward. In essence, because the energy outside the collision system acts on the collision objects, there are superelastic collision effects, and the collision can be referred to as a superelastic collision. This implies that e2,1 is larger than one and that the velocity gain, G2, may be ecstatic.

The test configuration is shown in Fig. 1. For a 7-mm-thick PA6 pulse shaper (used to adjust the shock acceleration, pulse width and pulse waveform) and a 7A09 shock rod (L = 1000 mm, d = 20 mm), tests were conducted with various initial velocities obtained from the free-fall motion of m1 and m2 from preset heights of 300 mm, 400 mm, 500 mm, and 600 mm. By neglecting both friction and air resistance, it is deduced that the corresponding values of the initial velocities (listed in Table 2) are approximately 2.425 m/s, 2.800 m/s, 3.130 m/s, and 3.429 m/s, respectively. Acceleration–time curves were obtained by a B&K 8309 accelerometer (Fixed on the impact table with bolt) and a B&K 2692–0S1 charge amplifier, as well as by an Advantech 610 L data acquisition card, a computer, software, and a monitor. Figure 4 shows the measured acceleration–time curves, and integrating the acceleration time history into velocity28,29, we can obtain the corresponding velocity–time curves shown as Fig. 5.

Acceleration–time curves of tests.

Velocity–time curves of tests.

Figure 4 shows that the shapes of the measured acceleration–time curves which are all closed to half-sine curves. Using the recommended methods for determining peak acceleration amplitudes and pulse widths according to MIL-STD-810G29 standards, referring to Fig. 4, we can determine the peak acceleration amplitudes and pulse widths. The peak acceleration amplitudes are 225,607 m/s2, 260,272 m/s2, 287,387 m/s2, and 359,233 m/s2, and the corresponding shock pulse widths are 107 \(\mathrm{\mu s}\), 106 \(\mathrm{\mu s}\), 105 \(\mathrm{\mu s}\), and 91 \(\mathrm{\mu s}\), respectively.

From Fig. 5, it is known that the stage where the velocity–time curves change rapidly is during the process of m2 colliding with m1. Corresponding to the collision start and end times determined from the acceleration history, the velocity change (denoted as \(\Delta v\) r) represents the difference between the corresponding times in the velocity history. The velocity changes for the four tests are 14.702 m/s, 16.815 m/s, 19.791 m/s, and 21.668 m/s, respectively. These initial velocities, results of peak acceleration amplitudes, pulse widths and velocity changes are all listed in Table 2.

It is known that for an ideal half-sine shock pulse, the velocity change can be expressed as follows:

where ap and \(\tau\) are the peak value and duration of the shock pulse, respectively.

When reconsidering the working principle of the shock tester, it is very obvious that a perfectly elastic collision, not to mention a superelastic collision, between m1 and m0 is impossible, meaning that e1,0 < 1. From a combination of the theory and test results presented previously, some parameters are determined and also listed in Table 2 for easier analysis, where e1,0 = 1.

It is noteworthy that the relative errors associated with the velocity changes are all less than ± 5% for the four tests. This proves that the method of determining the velocity change by integrating acceleration time history into velocity is effective. Additionally, it is observed that the velocity gains of mass m2 after the impacts are all larger than 5 and that the coefficients of restitution while m2 collided with m1 are all larger than 2.5. Considering that e1,0 < 1, e2,1 should be slightly larger than the values listed in Table 2. These results go far beyond the case of a perfectly elastic collision, indicating that the collisions between m2 and m1 are all superelastic collisions. In brief, the tests results verify the qualitative conclusions of the theoretical analysis. Obviously, this represents an unexpected gain derived from using the suspension spring.

The authors believe that this work coincidentally reveals the most essential reasons for the great success of their previously developed high-g shock tester.

This paper presents a theoretical and experimental study regarding superelastic collision effects when one-dimensional three-body collisions are used to excite a high-g shock environment. The investigations were conducted, and primary conclusions were drawn from the study as follows.

Theoretical formulae were derived for the second of the one-dimensional three-body collisions according to conservation of momentum, the definition of the coefficient of restitution, and conservation of kinetic energy. When accounting for a suspension spring, the qualitative analysis indicates that a larger coefficient of restitution will be achieved and highlighted the possibility of a higher high-g–level shock environment for m2.

Tests were conducted with initial collision velocities of 2.425 m/s, 2.800 m/s, 3.130 m/s, and 3.429 m/s. Measured acceleration–time curves and velocity–time curves obtained by integrating the acceleration data were plotted. Then, peak acceleration, duration, and velocity change values were accurately extracted. The tested velocity gains are all larger than 5 for m2 and the relative errors between the experimental and the theoretical values for the velocity change are less than ± 5%. The most important result is that the coefficients of restitution for the second collision are all larger than 2.5 when the first collision is perfectly elastic, which well verified the conclusion of theoretical analysis. From the perspective of the theoretical analysis and the experimental results, it is confirmed that superelastic collision effects play a crucial role in the authors’ previously developed high-g shock tester.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Stewart, L. K., Durant, B., Wolfson, J. & Hegemier, G. A. Experimentally generated high-g shock loads using Hydraulic Blast Simulator. Int. J. Impact Eng. 69, 86–94 (2014).

Article Google Scholar

Douglas, S. T., Al-Bassyiouni, M., Dasgupta, A., Gilman, K. & Brown, A. Simulation of secondary contact to generate very high accelerations. J. Electron. Packaging. 137(3), 031011 (2015).

Article Google Scholar

Rastegar, J. A new class of high-G and long-duration shock testing machines. In Smart Structures and NDE for Industry 4.0 (Vol. 10602, p. 106020I), International Society for Optics and Photonics, March, 2018.

Juncheng, L., Gang. C., Yonggang, L., & Fenglei, H. Investigation on the application of taylor impact test to high-G loading. Front. Mater. 356(2021).

Zhang, L., Yang, F., Li R., Guan, T.T., He, J., Fu, F.S., Li, D., Zhang, D.C. A novel impact tester for in situ evaluating the shock reliability of micro-structures. IEEE 29th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), 942–945. https://doi.org/10.1109/MEMSYS.2016.7421787.2016 (2016).

Wu, M.L., Chang, Y.T. Simulation study of the high-G Drop impact testing of microelectronic packaging products. 20th IEEE Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (iTherm), 751–755. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITherm51669.2021.9503272 (2021).

Lian, J., Li, Y., Tang, Y., Li, J. & Xu, L. Analysis of the vulnerability of MEMS tuning fork gyroscope during the gun launch. Microelectron. Reliab. 107, 113619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2020.113619 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Grzadziela, A., Kluczyk, M. Shock absorbers damping characteristics by lightweight drop hammer test for naval machines. Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 14(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14040772 (2021).

Miao, Y. G. Critical appraising of hopkinson bar techniques for calibrating high G accelerometers. Metrol. Meas. Syst. 26(2), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.24425/mms.2019.128362 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Xu, L., Li, Y. & Li, J. Analysis of the failure and performance variation mechanism of MEMS suspended inductors with auxiliary pillars under high-g shock. Micromach.-Basel 11(11), 957. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11110957 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Fernando, P. L. N. et al. Experimental, numerical and analytical study on the shock wave propagation through impedance-graded multi-metallic systems. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 178, 10562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105621 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Mellen, W. R. Superball rebound projectiles. Am. J. Phys. 36(9), 845–845 (1968).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Harter, W. G. Velocity amplification in collision experiments involving superballs. Am. J. Phys. 39(6), 656–663 (1971).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Kerwin, J. D. Velocity, momentum, and energy transmissions in chain collisions. Am. J. Phys. 40(8), 1152–1158 (1972).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Patrıcio, P. The Hertz contact in chain elastic collisions. Am. J. Phys. 72(12), 1488–1491 (2004).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Zhang, A. High acceleration board level reliability drop test using Dual Mass Shock Amplifier. IEEE 64th Electronic Components and Technology Conference (ECTC), pp. 1441–1448. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECTC.2014.6897483 (2014).

Douglas, S. T., Al-Bassyiouni, M., Dasgupta, A., Gilman, K. & Brown, A. Simulation of secondary contact to generate very high accelerations. ASME J. Electron. Packag. 137(3), 031011. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4030685 (2015).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Lall, P., Pandurangan, A.R.R., Suhling, J., Deep, J. Non-perpendicular orientation high-G impact reliability of electronics potted assemblies. International Electronic Packaging Technical Conference and Exhibition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 84041: V001T01A007. https://doi.org/10.1115/IPACK2020-2648 (2020).

Meng, J., Douglas, S. T. & Dasgupta, A. MEMS packaging reliability in board-level drop tests under severe shock and impact loading conditions–part i: Experiment. IEEE T. Comp. Pack. Man. 6(11), 1595–1603. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCPMT.2016.2611646 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

Rodgers, B., Goya, S., Kelly, G., Sheehy, M. The dynamics of shock amplification through multiple impacts. 8th World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Venice, Italy, 2008.

Kelly, G., Sheehy, M., Rodgers, B., Punch, J., Goyal, S. Analysis of high acceleration shock pulses part I: geometry of incident mass. SEM Annual Conference and Exposition, Springfield, MA, 2007.

Sheehy, M., Kelly, G., Rodgers, B., Punch, J., Goyal, S. Analysis of high acceleration shock pulses part II: pulse shaper material. In SEM Annual Conference and Exposition, Springfield, MA, 2007.

Rodgers, B., Goyal, S., Kelly, G. & Sheehy, M. The dynamics of multiple pair-wise collisions in a chain for designing optimal shock amplifiers. Shock Vib. 16(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.3233/SAV-2009-0467 (2009).

Article Google Scholar

Kelly, G., Punch, J. & Goyal, S. Shock pulse shaping in a small-form factor velocity amplifier. Shock Vib. 17(6), 787–802. https://doi.org/10.3233/SAV-2010-0521 (2010).

Article Google Scholar

Duan, Z. Y., Zhao, Y. L. & Liang, J. A simply constructed but efficacious shock tester for high-g level shock simulation. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83(7), 075115. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4737888 (2012).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Zhang, X. F., Zhao, Y. L., Duan, Z. Y. & Li, X. B. A high-g shock tester with one-level velocity amplifiery. Meas. Sci. Tech. 24(4), 045901. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/24/4/045901 (2013).

Article ADS CAS Google Scholar

Duan, Z. Y., Tang, C. S., Li, Y. & Han, J. L. Pulse shaping techniques for a high-g shock tester based on collision principle. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87(9), 095104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4962710 (2016).

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Mechanical vibration and shock—Signal processing—Part 4: Shock response spectrum analysis. ISO/WD 18431-4 (2002).

Environmental engineering considerations and laboratory tests. MIL-STD-810G (2008).

Download references

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the general project of the Chongqing Natural Science Foundation (cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0392), the Yongchuan District Natural Science Foundation Project (Ycstc, 2019nb0801), the Science and Technology Research Project of the Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (KJQN201901330), and the Chongqing Municipal Education Commission Science and Technology Research Project (KJQN202001309).

Chongqing University of Arts and Sciences, 319 Honghe Avenue, Yongchuan District, Chongqing, 402160, China

Zhengyong Duan, Qihang Zeng, Dayong Tang & Yingchun Peng

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Correspondence to Zhengyong Duan or Qihang Zeng.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Duan, Z., Zeng, Q., Tang, D. et al. Theoretical and experimental study of the "superelastic collision effects" used to excite high-g shock environment. Sci Rep 13, 2291 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29538-4

Download citation

Received: 01 November 2022

Accepted: 06 February 2023

Published: 09 February 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29538-4

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.