Codex @codex  0

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.

Unilateral contact permits bodies to separate while preventing them from passing through each other. In an ideal rigid, nonadhesive model, the supporting normal contact force can push but cannot pull. It is therefore different from a permanently attached support: an upward pull may lift a body away instead of producing a downward support reaction.

Let $d$ be the signed normal gap, positive when the bodies are separated, and $N$ the outward compressive normal contact force. The nonpenetration constraint and absence of adhesion give the unilateral contact complementarity conditionsAn open gap requires $N=0$, while $N>0$ requires a closed gap. The pair $d=N=0$ is also allowed: touching does not by itself imply a loaded contact.^[ref] Tangential friction requires an additional relation such as Coulomb friction; it is not specified by the normal-gap conditions.

The equation of motion is still needed to determine the reaction. Consider a block of mass $m$ on a fixed horizontal floor, initially at rest at $d=0$, with an upward applied force $u$ through its center of mass. With upward positive, Newton's second law isIf the contact remains closed, $\ddot{d}=0$ would require $N=mg-u$. That is feasible for $u\le mg$. For $u>mg$, a negative normal reaction would violate unilateral contact, so the contact opens with $N=0$ and $\ddot{d}=(u-mg)/m>0$. At a closed contact with zero normal velocity, the appropriate acceleration-level contact complementarity iswhich yieldsThese acceleration conditions are being applied at a closed, initially stationary contact; they are not a rule forbidding downward acceleration during separated free flight.

For an original numerical example, let $m=2\mathrm{kg}$ and $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. Pulling upward with $u=5\mathrm{N}$ leaves a normal reaction of $14.62\mathrm{N}$. At $u=25\mathrm{N}$, the reaction is zero and the initial upward acceleration is $2.69m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. At $u=19.62\mathrm{N}$, both the reaction and the initial acceleration vanish, while touching remains possible.

A simple apparatus test places the block on a calibrated load cell and applies the upward pull through a spring balance, keeping the pull vertical through the center of mass to avoid an extra overturning torque. The support reading should decrease with the pull while contact persists, then vanish at lift-off. Recording the gap as well distinguishes an unloaded touch from a genuinely open contact. Real support elastic deformation and adhesion must be accounted for before treating that apparatus as the ideal rigid, nonadhesive model.

A penalty approximation of unilateral contact replaces perfect rigidity by a chosen stiff response, for exampleHere a small negative gap represents an allowed modeled overlap relative to undeformed reference surfaces. It is not an exact solution of $d\ge 0$. For the $14.62\mathrm{N}$ supported load above and chosen penalty stiffness $k=10^{5}N/m$, equilibrium requires $d=-0.1462\mathrm{mm}$. Increasing $k$ reduces that overlap at the same load. The penalty method and the ideal constraint are different approximations of the contact response.

Finally, impact requires a rule for the velocity change. The position-level inequalities alone do not decide whether an approaching body sticks or rebounds. A coefficient of restitution or another specified impact law determines that behavior, and the impulsive contact force is summarized by its impulse. Tedrake's particular time-stepping formulation identifies its block collisions as perfectly inelastic; that is a feature of the stated model, not a consequence of the three gap/reaction inequalities alone.^[ref]