The 2

nd
Joint International Conference on Multibody System Dynamics
May 29June 1, 2012, Stuttgart, Germany
Friction Modelling and Validation for a
Volumetric Contact Dynamics Model
Michael Boos, John McPhee
Systems Design Engineering
University of Waterloo
200 University Ave W., N2L 3G1 Waterloo, Canada
e-mail: [mboos, mcphee]@uwaterloo.ca
ABSTRACT
A volumetric contact dynamics model has been proposed for the purpose of generating reliable and rapid
simulations of contact dynamics. Forces and moments between bodies in contact can be expressed in terms
of the volume of interference between the undeformed geometries. This allows for the modelling of contact
between complex geometries and relatively large contact surfaces. It also permits the modelling of rotational
dynamics, such as spinning friction torque or the Contensou effect, when friction forces are distributed over
a larger surface area. However, the volumetric model requires experimental validation. Models for simple
geometries in contact have been developed for both translational and rotational motion; an apparatus has
been developed to experimentally validate these models. This paper focuses on validation of the volumetric
friction contact models. Measurements of forces and displacements will be used to identify the parameters
related to the friction force, i.e. the bristle stiffness and damping, and coefcients of friction for metallic
surfaces. The experimental measurements are compared with simulated results to assess the validity of the
volumetric friction model.
1 INTRODUCTION
A volumetric contact model has been proposed for use in generating reliable simulations of space-based
manipulator operations. This model has been shown to be applicable to complex and conforming geome-
tries, and accounts for angular dynamics ignored by many point contact models such as rolling resistance
and spinning friciton torque. Some experimental validation has been performed with normal forces in the
volumetric model [4]. However, experimental validation of friction components of this model is required.
1.1 Friction models
If normal contact forces are known, sliding friction forces are often characterized by a Coulomb model,
f
t
f
n
(1)
where is the friction coefcient. Many dry friction models consider two primary regimes dependent on
the relative speed of the bodies, sticking and slipping [6]. During the sticking phase, forces build up to a
maximum rate
s
f
n
, where
s
is the static coefcient of friction, at which point slipping begins to occur.
Slipping friction for dry friction models settles to a constant rate of
d
f
n
, where
d
is the dynamic coefcient
of friction.
While friction forces are still poorly understood [15], it is generally accepted that dry friction results from
interference between the surface asperities and roughness of the bodies, as well as molecular attractions
[1, 3]. Haessig and Friedland [11] developed contact models with exible bristles representing surface
asperities, as well as a simpler reset-integrator model that described the lumped deformation behaviour of
the bristles. This reset-integrator model was expanded to include the Stribeck effect by Canudas de Wit
et al. [17]. Gonthier et al. [9] adapted this model, expressing bristle deformation as a vectorial quantity,
permitting more than one degree of freedom of motion across a contact surface. Gonthiers model also
included a dwell-time dependency to describe the tendency for the maximum stiction force to be greater
over time when bodies in contact have been at rest [2].
Point-contact models can reasonably model friction if motion is purely tangential, but they do not describe
the friction torque that would resist spinning motions over the contact surface area. In addition, they do not
represent the phenomena discovered by Contensou [5], where tangential and spinning friction are not inde-
pendent, but tangential friction may decrease as angular velocity is increased. This effect can be observed
in the reduced force required to push a oor polisher or sander while spinning. As a part of the volumet-
ric contact model, Gonthier et al. [8] developed a model for describing both tangential friction force and
spinning friction torque in terms of an average surface velocity that accounts for both lateral and spinning
motion. Gonthier et al. have incorporated the tangential bristle friction model into the volumetric model to
provide a comprehensive volumetric friction contact model [7], which is described in detail in Section 2.
1.2 Experimental validation and parameter identication
For measuring stick-slip friction, a common setup is to attach a slider to a xed wall with a spring [15]
or both a spring and damper in parallel [2]. The slider rests on a platform or conveyor that moves away
from the wall at a set velocity. For low spreeds, the slider will oscillate as it sticks and slips, pulled by the
opposing forces of the spring and the friction. At higher speeds, oscillations cease and the slider will slip
continuously at a point where the spring and kinetic friction forces are equally opposed.
Liang et al. extended this basic setup for testing a two-dimensional bristle model [14]. A slider is placed on
the edge of a turntable and mounted to orthogonal walls by two springs. This allowed for consideration of
the bristles on the contact surface deecting in more than one direction.
Experimental friction model validation has been performed for more complex contact scenarios. Han and
Gilmore [12] observed sliding contact behaviour during collisions between oak blocks using high speed
cameras. Experiments have also been performed for complex robotic tasks, such as peg-in-hole insertion,
where friction contact parameters were successfully identied [16]. Gonthier outlines some possible meth-
ods for friction parameter identication in his thesis [7]. These methods are discussed in Section 3.
2 VOLUMETRIC CONTACT DYNAMICS MODEL
A volumetric contact dynamics model has been proposed by Gonthier et al. [10]. This model allows for
more complex and conforming geometries where point contact models may be inadequate because contact
surfaces are relatively large, or where closed-form solutions from elastic theory are not available. It can be
shown that the model also accounts for angular dynamics such as rolling resistance and friction torque.
Gonthier et al. propose a seven-parameter friction model to be used in conjunction with the volumetric
normal contact model [9, 7]. This section outlines the elements of this model that will be tested in Section 3.
2.1 Normal contact force framework
For larger or conforming contact surfaces, a Winkler elastic foundation model [13] has been used. The
Winkler model assumes a pressure distribution from one surface deforming as a bed of springs to comply
with the contacting surface. This model has been adapted by Gonthier et al. [10, 8, 7] such that the forces
and moments between two bodies in contact can be expressed directly in terms of the volume of interference,
V , between the undeformed geometries of the bodies.
2.1.1 Volumetric Properties
In the one-deformable-body contact model depicted in Figure 1, one of the bodies, B
i
is exible, while the
other, B
j
is perfectly rigid. The contact surface S is assumed to be a at surface on B
j
.
The volume of interference, that is the volume B
i
is compressed by, is given by
V =

S
(s)dS =

V
dV (2)
where S is the contact surface and (s) is the depth of penetration at point s on S, as depicted in Figure 1.
S
V
s
(s)
fn
Bi
Bj
Figure 1: Volume of interference between two bodies in contact.
Another relevant property is the contact surface second moment of area, J
s
, weighted by penetration depth.
This can be approximated by the volume inertia tensor J
v
J
s
J
v
=

V
((
v

v
)I
v

v
)dV (3)
where
v
is a vector from the centroid p
c
to the point p in the volume and I is the unit tensor.
2.1.2 Normal Force
In this model, the contact normal force is related directly to the size of the volume of interference through
a volumetric stiffness k
v
, given in units of force per unit volume. The normal force is given by [10]
f
n
= k
v
V (1 + av
cn
)n (4)
where a is a hysteretic damping parameter and v
cn
is the speed of the centroid in the normal direction, n.
This force acts normal to the contact surface, through the centroid of the volume. Extension of this normal
force model to include rolling resistance torque through damping, is described in [4, 7, 8, 10].
2.2 Basic friction model framework
2.2.1 Forces
For point contact models, friction is often modelled with Equation (1), where the friction coefcient
depends on the nature of the motion of the bodies at the point of contact. The friction force generally resists
motion, so a vector expression for friction force can be of the form
f
t
= f
n
v
t
(5)
where v
t
is the unit vector along v
t
, the relative velocity between the bodies at the point of contact, and
in this case is a friction coefcient dependent on the model implementation.
In the volumetric normal contact model described in Section 2.1, contact takes place over a surface within
the volume of interference, rather than at a single point. Gonthier et al. [8] integrates the innitesimal
friction force element df
t
over the contact surface:
f
t
=

S
df
t
=

S
v
t
df
n
= f
n
v
sct
(6)
where v
t
is the relative velocity between the bodies at point s on surface S, tangent to S, and v
sct
is the
relative tangential velocity between the bodies in contact at the centroid of the contact surface s
c
.
Since friction can take place over an area, the relative velocity between the bodies may not be uniform over
all points along the surface, leading to a friction torque. This acts to resist the relative angular motion of the
bodies and is known as the spinning friction torque, and is found by integrating the innitesimal torque d
s

s
=

S
d
s
=

s
df
t
=
f
n
V
J
s

n
= r
2
gyr
f
n
n (7)
where
s
is a vector from the centroid p
c
to the point s on the surface,
n
is the relative angular velocity
about n at the contact centroid, and r
gyr
is the radius of gyration about n for both J
s
and J
v
.
2.2.2 Stick-slip state and average surface velocity
Whether two bodies in contact are sticking or slipping is determined by the rate of tangential motion between
their surfaces. Average surface velocity v
avg
is expressed in terms of translational and angular speeds:
v
2
avg
= v
sct
v
sct
+ (r
gyr
|
n
|)
2
(8)
A function s is used to determine the sticking state, that is, the degree to which the bodies are either
sticking or sliding across each other.
s = e

v
2
avg
v
2
s
(9)
where v
s
is the velocity where the Stribeck effect occurs, that is, transition between sticking and slipping.
When s 1, the bodies are not moving tangentially relative to each other, but s will approach 0 as the
bodies begin to slip and move.
2.3 Bristle friction model
This subsection only considers the case where the bodies are experiencing either pure translational or pure
rotational motion. Combined translation and rotation are discussed in Section 2.4.
2.3.1 Translational friction force
The volumetric friction model assumes that the surface asperities of the bodies in contact act as exible
bristles that push against and rub past each other. The amount of deformation is modelled as z
sc
, a vector
of lumped bristle deformations along the contact surface called the bristle state. For the volumetric model,
this deformation is measured from the centroid of the contact surface, s
c
. The friction force acts to oppose
this deformation:
f
br
= f
n
(
0
z
sc
+
1
z
sc
) (10)
where
0
is the bristle stiffness, and
1
is the bristle damping. This (
0
z
sc
+
1
z
sc
) term forms the bristle
model implementation of the coefcient and direction v
sct
in Equation (6).
Gonthier [7] denes the total bristle deformation rate such that while sticking, bristles deform at the same
rate as the bodies translate relative to each other, and while slipping, f
br
approaches
d
dir(v
sct
)f
n
, where
dir(v
sct
) is a function that gives a unit vector in the direction of v
sct
. This gives,
z
sc
= sv
sct
+ (1 s)

1
dir(v
sct
)

0

1
z
sc

(11)
The friction force f
t
is limited by the maximum friction coefcient
max
as in Equation (1). This friction
coefcient is determined by the sticking state:

max
=
d
+ s(
s

d
) (12)
Gonthier et al. add a term proportional to relative tangential velocity for viscous friction to f
t
to give:
f
t
= f
n
[sat(
0
z
sc
+
1
z
sc
,
max
) +
2
v
sct
] (13)
where sat(u, u
max
) is the saturation of vector u by u
max
and
2
is the viscous damping coefcient. As the
friction force is bounded, the bristle deformation rate is also bounded [7]:
z
sc
=
1

1
sat(
0
z
sc
+
1
z
sc
,
max
)

0

1
z
sc
(14)
2.3.2 Spinning friction torque
If two bodies in contact are spinning relative to each other in a direction normal to the contact surface,
then not all bristles across the surface deform in the same direction. Gonthier [7] observes that during the
sticking phase, the local bristle deformation rate z
s
moves according to the relative body motion at s
c
, and
thus, the relative local deformation z
s
is shown to be
z
s
= z
sc
+
n
n
s
(15)
where
n
is the relative angular displacement of the bristles about the normal. As with Equation (7), we can
integrate the moments from bristle friction forces over the contact surface:

br
=

s
df
br
=

s
(
0
z
s
+
1
z
s
)df
n
= r
2
gyr
f
n
(
0

n
+
1

n
)n (16)
which allows us to use
n
as an angular bristle state. Gonthier et al. derive the angular bristle state dynamics
and saturation similar to the tangential dynamics of Equation (11) and Equation (14):

n
= s
n
+ (1 s)

1
r
gyr
sgn(
n
)

0

(17)

n
=
1

1
sat

n
+
1

n
,

max
r
gyr

n
(18)
The spinning bristle torque can then be computed as

s
= r
2
gyr
f
n

sat

n
+
1

n
,

max
r
gyr

+
2

n (19)
2.4 The Contensou effect
Contensou discovered that tangential sliding friction diminishes as spinning speed increases [5]. Gonthier
et al. include this effect in the volumetric model by introducing a set of dimensionless factors to model the
effect of combined translation and rotation [8]. The Contensou factors, C
v
and C

, are dened as the ratios

of tangential speed and angular speed at the radius of gyration to average surface velocity, respectively:
C
v
=
|v
sct
|
v
avg
and C

=
r
gyr
|
n
|
v
avg
(20)
This factor is used to affect the magnitude of the tangential friction force and spinning friction torque, so
that Equation (6) and Equation (7) become
f
t
= f
n
v
sct
|v
sct
|
C
v
and
s
= r
2
gyr
f
n

n
|
n
|
C

(21)
Thus, if |v
sct
| r
gyr
|
n
|, full tangential friction is experienced and friction torque goes to zero, but if
|v
sct
| r
gyr
|
n
|, full spinning friction torque is experienced and tangential friction goes to zero.
The bristle dynamics of Equation (11) and Equation (17) are updated to include these Contensou factors:
z
sc
= sv
sct
+ (1 s)

1
dir(v
sct
)C
v

1
z
sc

(22)

n
= s
n
+ (1 s)

d
C

1
r
gyr
sgn(
n
)

0

(23)
The volumetric friction model developed by Gonthier et al. [8, 10, 7] has now been presented. Dwell-
time dependency may be also included in the model by modifying Equation (12) to include a dwell state
dependent on the sticking state [9, 7].
3 FRICTION EXPERIMENTS
From the contact model described in the previous section, there are three primary modes of motion under
friction: pure translational, pure rotational, and combined translation and rotation. Experiments have been
arranged in a similar fashion.
3.1 Pure translational motion
The purpose of using pure translational motion is to determine the bristle friction model parameters and
to validate that model for the surfaces in contact. To nd the coefcient of static friction,
s
, the applied
force can be increased until the payload begins to move. The coefcient of static friction is the peak friction
force measured at the instant before movement divided by the contact normal force. The kinetic Coulomb
friction coefcient
d
and viscous damping coefcient
2
can be determined through experiments where the
payload is driven at various different constant velocities [7]. For dry friction, viscous damping is considered
negligible, so
d
can be measured directly.
Gonthier [7] provides suggestions as to how to nd the bristle stiffness and damping parameters, which
may be difcult. These values, along with the Stribeck velocity will likely need to be determined through
parameter tuning from experiments where the payload is forced to enter into slipping from rest.
3.2 Pure rotational motion
The spinning friction torque model uses the same parameters as those determined by the translational ex-
periments. The main purpose of the rotational experiments is to validate this torque model. Thus, similar
experiments can be applied where the payload is rotated instead of translated.
3.3 Translation and rotation
The purpose of this experiment is to validate the models description of the Contensou effect. This is
achieved by slowly increasing rotational speed while holding the tangential speed constant and measuring
the resulting friction forces and torques. Measurements may then be compared with the Contensou factors.
3.4 Apparatus
The apparatus depicted in Figure 2 has been designed to accommodate friction experiments that involve
both tangential motion and normal rotation, while applying a contact normal force. A linear actuator drives
the translational motion, while a small brushless DC motor drives rotation. The payload is mounted to the
shaft of the small motor, the frame of which is mounted through a vertical linear guide to the carriage of
the linear actuator to permit free motion in the normal direction. The payload was a 25.4 mm diameter
aluminum cylinder. Positioned normal to a titanium contact surface, the radius of gyration of the cylinder
is 8.98 mm.
Cylindrical
payload
Rotational
motor
Linear
motor
Encoder
reference
Linear
encoder
3DOF force sensors
Contact
surface
z
y
x
z
y
x
Cylindrical
payload
Rotational
motor
Linear
motor
Encoder
reference
Linear
encoder
3DOF force sensors
Contact
surface
Figure 2: Apparatus for friction experiments.
As the system is under gravity, the normal force on the payload is applied through the masses of the motor
and payload. The properties of the volume of interference between the payload and the contact surface
are estimated using the stiffness of the materials and the normal contact model. Two 3-DOF (x,y,z) force
sensors beneath the contact plate connect it to the ground. These are aligned so that the sensors are centred
in the plane of motion of the payload. The normal force can be measured through the sum of the z-forces,
the tangential friction force through the sum of the y-forces, and the spinning friction torque through the
difference of the x-forces multiplied by the distance between them.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Translational motion
4.1.1 Static friction experiment
For this experiment, the linear motor was commanded to give a constant acceleration of 0.1 mm/s
2
. A
small amount of rotation in the payload was measured, so the coefcient of friction was modied by the
Contensou factor:
=
f
t
f
n
C
v
(24)
Conventional and Contensou-adjusted coefcients of friction are presented in Figure 3a. Compared with the
raw coefcient of friction, there is a clearer peak followed by tapering and levelling off as static friction is
overcome and slip begins. For this experiment, the volumetric contact models Contensou factor provides a
good description of friction behaviour when slight rotation occurs during translation.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Displacement (mm)
F
r
ic
t
io
n

o
v
e
r

n
o
r
m
a
l
f
o
r
c
e

m
a
g
n
it
u
d
e
s


Force measurements
Force measurements adjusted by rotation
(a) Coefcient of friction versus displacement.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Time (s)
C
o
e
f
f
ic
ie
n
t

o
f

f
r
ic
t
io
n


Measured coefficients
Model bristle stiffness only
Model bristle stiffness and damping
(b) Estimate of bristle stiffness and damping (
0
and
1
).
Figure 3: Experiment of 0.1 mm/s
2
acceleration of a 25.4 mm aluminum payload from rest.
Experiments were repeated with at least three trials each for accelerations ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 mm/s
2
in
0.1 mm/s
2
increments. Each experiment yielded similar coefcient of friction proles to that of Figure 3a.
The mean coefcient of static friction was 0.204, with a standard deviation of 0.020. As the experiments
progressed, the testbed surface appeared increasingly scratched.
Gonthier provides a means of estimating the bristle stiffness parameter [7]. If a payload is slowly accelerated
from rest, the bristle stiffness can be estimated at peak friction by

0


s
d
t
(25)
where d
t
is the displacement. The average distance travelled before peak force was achieved was 46 m,
and the average bristle stiffness was 4500 m
1
.
With an estimate for
0
, the bristle damping parameter
1
could be estimated. During the sticking phase,
the bristle state z
sc
and speed z
sc
are approximately equivalent to the total displacement and speed of the
payload, respectively. Thus, we can write the model friction coefcient during this phase as

0
d
t
+
1
v
t
(26)
A bristle damping coefcient
1
was estimated using measurements prior to friction peaking for each ex-
periment. Figure 3b shows the measured friction alongside model values with and without damping for an
acceleration of 0.1 mm/s
2
. There is good agreement between the model and results when bristle damping
is introduced. The average bristle damping
1
was 300 s/m.
4.1.2 Dynamic friction experiments
The aluminum payload was driven at different constant velocities, ranging from 0.5 mm/s to 2.5 mm/s
to estimate coefcients of kinetic friction,
d
. As with the static friction experiments, wear to the contact
surface with the payload was observed. Figure 4 shows results for a velocity of 1.8 mm/s. The peaks in
friction coefcients were assumed to represent points where the visible scratches in the two contact surfaces
would catch on each other, while the declines that follow represent their release.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Time (s)
C
o
e
f
f
ic
ie
n
t

o
f

f
r
ic
t
io
n
Figure 4: Coefcients of friction over time for motion at a constant speed of 1.8 mm/s.
The mean coefcient of restitution measured for all velocities was 0.202, with a standard deviation of 0.022,
which is virtually indistinguishable from static friction. This makes any attempt to determine the Stribeck
velocity v
s
difcult, as there is no clear distinction between slipping and sticking. The variability in the
measurements of the coefcient of friction likely stem from the plastic deformations to the metallic surfaces
over the course of the experiments. Thus, the surfaces did not remain the same between experiments.
4.2 Rotational motion
4.2.1 Static friction experiments
Friction torque was measured through the reaction forces along the x-direction (Figure 2a) at the two force
transducers rigidly mounted to the contact surface. For rotation, Equation (19) can be simplied to give
=

s
r
gyr
f
n
(27)
The payload was put through angular accelerations from 0.005 to 0.025 rad/s
2
at 0.005 rad/s
2
increments.
The measured coefcient of friction was found to peak within the rst 1

of rotation. Figure 5a shows results

from one experiment, with an acceleration of 0.025 rad/s
2
. The mean peak coefcient of friction was found
to be 0.205, which is close to the value of 0.204 found for translational friction. There is a higher amount
of variability in the measurements than with translational friction, with a standard deviation of 0.070.
Due to the coarseness of the angular measurements during the sticking phase, estimations for parameters

0
and
1
were not repeated with the angular experiments.
4.2.2 Dynamic friction experiments
The aluminum payload was driven at different constant angular velocities, ranging from 0.05 to 0.25 rad/s
to estimate coefcients of kinetic friction
d
. Scratches to the contact surface with the payload were ob-
served. Figure 5b shows results for an angular velocity of 0.21 rad/s. The peaks in friction coefcients are
similar to those for translational motion. The mean coefcient of friction measured for all velocities was
0.201. The standard deviation of the mean coefcients from each experiment was 0.029.
4.3 Combined translation and rotation
The Contensou effect was already observed in Section 4.1.1. The following experiment explored this effect
further. The aluminum payload was driven at a constant tangential velocity of 2 mm/s, while undergoing
an angular acceleration of 0.1 rad/s
2
. Coefcients of friction were determined from force measurements
for translation and rotation and Contensou factors were calculated from velocity measurements.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Rotation (degrees)
C
o
e
f
f
ic
ie
n
t

o
f

f
r
ic
t
io
n
(a) Static friction under 0.025 rad/s
2
angular acceleration.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Time (s)
C
o
e
f
f
ic
ie
n
t

o
f

f
r
ic
t
io
n
(b) Dynamic friction with 0.21 rad/s angular velocity.
Figure 5: Rotational experiments.
The observed frictional coefcients for tangential and rotational motions are shown in Figure 6. The payload
was undergoing translational motion with a coefcient of about = 0.4 when the angular motor began to
accelerate. The Contensou factors were determined with the velocity and angular velocity measurements
using Equation (20). The model values C
v
and C

are shown as solid lines.

0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Time (s)
C
o
e
f
f
ic
ie
n
t

o
f

F
r
ic
t
io
n


Measured coefficients
Model coefficients
(a) Translational friction measurements.
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Time (s)
C
o
e
f
f
ic
ie
n
t

o
f

F
r
ic
t
io
n


Measured coefficients
Model coefficients
(b) Spinning friction measurements.
Figure 6: Combined experiment with constant velocity and accelerating angular velocity.
The Contensou effect is clearly observed from this experiment, and the shape of the contact volume (i.e. the
radius of gyration r
gyr
) can be used to relate spinning friction torque to the translational friction torque. The
Contensou factors C
v
and C

are shown to provide reasonable estimates of the impact of combined rotation

and translation on the friction forces experienced.
5 CONCLUSIONS
A volumetric bristle friction model with slip-stick transitions is presented for validation. For bodies rotating
relative to each other about the normal, the moments caused by friction across the contact surface area
can be integrated to give a spinning friction torque. Additionally, the Contensou effect is modelled, where
spinning friction can cancel out some friction forces that would normally resist tangential motion.
Experiments to validate this friction model are described and conducted with the at end of an aluminum
cylinder on a titanium plane. These experiments separate tangential and rotational motion in order to iden-
tify coefcients of friction and bristle dynamics, and combine motions to investigate the Contensou effect.
The normal forces applied in the friction experiments were found to create signicant wear on the contact
surfaces. Coefcients of friction between titanium and aluminum were found to be consistent translation-
ally and rotationally. Friction forces from combined translation and rotation demonstrate that the Contensou
effect is accurately described by the volumetric contact model. Thus, the volumetric friction model has been
described and validated experimentally.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the support of Dr. Yves Gonthier of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA).
Funding for this research was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC) and the CSA.
REFERENCES
[1] Al-Bender, F.; Lampaert, V.; Swevers, J.: Modeling of Dry Sliding Friction Dynamics: From Heuristic
Models to Physically Motivated Models and Back. Chaos, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 446460, 2004.
[2] Armstrong-Hlouvry, B.; Dupont, P.; de Wit, C. C.: A Survey of Models, Analysis Tools and Compen-
sation Methods for the Control of Machines with Friction. Automatica, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 10831138,
1994.
[3] Bailey, A. R.; Sayles, R. S.: Effect of Roughness and Sliding Friction on Contact Stresses. ASME
Journal of Tribology, Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 729738, 1991.
[4] Boos, M.; McPhee, J.: Volumetric Contact Dynamics Models and Experimental Validation of Normal
Forces for Simple Geometries. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC-49016,
2011.
[5] Contensou, P.: Couplage Entre Frottement de Glissement et Frottement de Pivotement dans la Thorie
de la Toupie. In H. Ziegler (Ed.) Kreiselprobleme und Gyrodynamics, IUTAM Symposium Celerina,
1962, pp. 201216. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1963.
[6] Gilardi, G.; Sharf, I.: Literature Survey of Contact Dynamics Modelling. Mechanism and Machine
Theory, Vol. 37, pp. 12131239, 2002.
[7] Gonthier, Y.: Contact Dynamics Modelling for Robotic Task Simulation. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Waterloo, 2007.
[8] Gonthier, Y.; McPhee, J.; Lange, C.: On the Implementation of Coulomb Friction in a Volumetric-
Based Model for Contact Dynamics. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, 2007.
[9] Gonthier, Y.; McPhee, J.; Lange, C.; Piedbuf, J.-C.: A Regularized Contact Model with Asymmetric
Damping and Dwell-Time Dependent Friction. Multibody System Dynamics, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.
209233, 2004.
[10] Gonthier, Y.; McPhee, J.; Lange, C.; Piedbuf, J.-C.: A Contact Modeling Method Based on Volu-
metric Properties. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, pp. 477486, 2005.
[11] Haessig, D. A., Jr.; Friedland, B.: On the Modeling and Simulation of Friction. ASME Journal of
Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 113, pp. 354362, 1991.
[12] Han, I.; Gilmore, B. J.: Multi-Body Impact Motion with FrictionAnalysis, Simulation, and Experi-
mental Validation. Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 412422, 1993.
[13] Johnson, K.: Contact Mechanics. London: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[14] Liang, J.; Fillmore, S.; Ma, O.: A 2D Bristle Friction Force Model for General Contact Dynamics
Simulation. The 1st Joint International Conference on Multibody System Dynamics, 2010.
[15] Rabinowicz, E.: Stick and Slip. Scientic American, Vol. 194, No. 5, pp. 109118, 1956.
[16] Van Vliet, J.; Sharf, I.; Ma, O.: Experimental validation of contact dynamics simulation of constrained
robotic tasks. The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 12031217, 2000.
[17] de Wit, C. C.; Olsson, H.; strm, K. J.; Lischinsky, P.: A New Model for Control of System with
Friction. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 419425, 1995.