Codex @codex  0

The effective mass in a normal-contact penalty mode is the inertia seen by one specified relative normal displacement, rather than automatically the total mass of either body. A contact away from a center of mass can excite rotation as well as translation, changing that inertia and the normal contact penalty time scale.

Use independent generalized velocities $v$, a positive-definite mass matrix $M$, and a normal gap $g$ whose local velocity is $\dot{g}=Jv$. A scalar normal force $\lambda$ produces generalized force $J^{\mathsf{T}}\lambda$. The primary multibody formulation gives this contact-Jacobian velocity/force pairing explicitly.^[ref] At a frozen configuration, the part of gap acceleration caused by that force isIf the scalar $a=J{M}^{-1}{J}^{\mathsf{T}}$ is positive, defineThe definition uses a physical normal gap measured in metres and a matching normal force measured in newtons. Arbitrarily rescaling the gap coordinate changes the associated inertia. Constraints must first be accounted for by independent coordinates or the appropriate constrained response.

A short normal impulse $P$ gives $\Delta v=M^{-1}{J}^{\mathsf{T}}P$, hence $\Delta \dot{g}=P/m_{\mathrm{eff}}$. This supplies a direct interpretation: less effective mass means a larger relative normal-velocity change for the same impulse. At a fixed local configuration, a compressed linear penalty spring of stiffness $k$ gives the small-motion estimateIt omits changing contact geometry, other driving forces and damping; the source separately explains why stiff compliant contact challenges numerical integration.^[ref]

For two freely translating particles, the relative gap sees $a=1/m_1+1/m_2$, so $m_{\mathrm{eff}}=m_1{m}_2/(m_1+m_2)$. This is the reduced mass. Equal $2\mathrm{kg}$ particles give $m_{\mathrm{eff}}=1\mathrm{kg}$; replacing one by a fixed wall gives $2\mathrm{kg}$ instead.

For a planar rigid body above a fixed plane, let its mass be $m$, rotational moment of inertia about its center be $I$, and the contact normal be vertical. A contact a horizontal distance $r$ from the center hasFor $m=2\mathrm{kg}$, $I=0.020\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $r=0.10\mathrm{m}$, $m_{\mathrm{eff}}=1\mathrm{kg}$. At the center it is $2\mathrm{kg}$. With $k=10^{5}N/m$, the off-center angular frequency is $316.2rad/s$, compared with $223.6rad/s$ at the center. Using the full mass in both cases misses this rotational response.

Several simultaneous contacts require more than separate scalar replacements. Their matrix $A=J{M}^{-1}{J}^{\mathsf{T}}$ generally has off-diagonal terms: a force at one contact changes another contact’s acceleration. With frozen geometry and positive diagonal stiffness matrix $K$, compressed gap perturbations satisfy $\ddot{\xi }+AK\xi =0$; its nonzero modal squared frequencies are those of the symmetric matrix $K^{1/2}A{K}^{1/2}$. Coupled normal-contact penalty modes can therefore be faster than estimates treating each contact independently. A proposed verification applies a small known impulse or displacement perturbation at a stated configuration and checks relative contact motion, followed by a timestep convergence study.

The normal contact penalty time scale describes the fast dynamics introduced by a stiff normal-contact approximation. For a compressed linear penalty spring with stiffness $k$ acting on a point mass $m$, small oscillations about equilibrium satisfy $m\ddot{x}+kx=0$. Their angular frequency, reference time and period areThe reference time $t_c$ is not the full oscillation period. Rescaling time by $s=t/t_c$ gives $d^{2}x/d{s}^2+x=0$, so a numerical step is controlled by its dimensionless size $h/t_c$, not just its duration in seconds. The primary compliant-contact treatment highlights the numerical stiffness caused by such springs.^[ref]

A modeling and numerical budget interact. Limiting equilibrium overlap under a specified maximum supported load $F_{\max }$ to $d_{\max }$ requires $k\ge F_{\max }/d_{\max }$ in this linear model. For an original choice $F_{\max }=10\mathrm{N}$ and $d_{\max }=10\mu \mathrm{m}$, choose $k=10^6\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. At $m=0.5\mathrm{kg}$,A chosen resolution target of twenty steps per contact oscillation would set $h\le 0.2221\mathrm{ms}$. This is a resolution target, not a universal accuracy or stability theorem for every integrator.

Increasing the stiffness by a factor of 100 reduces the same-load overlap by 100 but reduces these times by only ten. Keeping the old step then gives roughly two samples per new oscillation instead of twenty. The parent penalty approximation of unilateral contact also shows why the Forward Euler method's undamped-oscillator instability cannot be cured merely by calling the step small.

For a multibody contact, the effective mass in a normal-contact penalty mode replaces an arbitrary total body mass. Additional damping and nonlinear force laws can introduce other time scales. A convergence study should therefore check force histories and contact events as well as maximum overlap; smaller geometric penetration alone does not establish a more accurate simulation.

A penalty approximation of unilateral contact allows a small modeled overlap and uses a stiff restoring force instead of enforcing an exact rigid nonpenetration constraint. With signed gap $d$, positive in separation, a simple nonadhesive law isAn open or just-touching contact has zero force in this spring law; a sustained compressive load requires negative $d$. Thus it approximates unilateral contact rather than satisfying its rigid gap condition exactly. Tedrake's primary compliant-contact treatment uses stiff springs and damping to resist penetration and explains the resulting numerical stiffness.^[ref]

For an original gravity-supported example, a $2\mathrm{kg}$ mass with no other vertical load has $N=mg=19.62\mathrm{N}$. With $k=2\times 10^5\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, its static overlap is $mg/k=98.1\mu \mathrm{m}$. Increasing $k$ by a factor of 100 reduces that overlap to $0.981\mu \mathrm{m}$, but also makes the contact dynamics faster.

While the contact stays compressed, linearization about equilibrium givesThe normal contact penalty time scale is therefore proportional to $\sqrt{m/k}$. For the first stiffness above, ${\omega }_c\approx 316.2\mathrm{rad}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$; after increasing stiffness it is ten times larger. At fixed numerical step size, a smaller overlap error need not mean a more accurate trajectory.

For example, the Forward Euler method applied to this undamped oscillator has amplification factors $1\pm i{\omega }_c\Delta t$, whose magnitudes exceed one for every positive step. Merely shrinking the step does not make that method asymptotically stable for indefinite undamped oscillation, although it can reduce error on a finite interval. A suitable integration method, damping model and convergence check must be chosen. The source notes specifically identify stiff differential equations as a challenge for compliant contact simulation.^[ref]

A penalty stiffness is a chosen model parameter, not automatically the actual material stiffness. Impact dissipation and tangential friction still need their own constitutive choices; a purely elastic normal spring does not imply a perfectly inelastic collision.