HERTS SMASH: COLLISIONS OF METALS SPHERES Wes Laney Abstract: The purpose of this lab was to test Hertzian

theory of elasticity, and determine the elastic modulus, E, the elasticity, of stainless steel. To conduct our experiment we used four stainless steel spheres in which a pendulum like apparatus allowed for the spheres to swing and collide with a metal plate. Releasing the spheres at different set heights, we measured the duration of the collision and area of impact between the plate and the sphere. To measure the time elapsed within the collision, we constructed a digital timer that would record the duration, in microseconds. To do this, the start and stop mechanism was the collision itself having the plate colliding sphere acts as the stitch. To measure the area of impact, we place a thin piece of aluminum foil over the plate. After the collision we were then able to measure the displacements area in the foil. With these measurements and using Hertzs force equations [Eq. (1)] we were able to derive and calculate the elasticity of the spheres, and thus the elasticity value. Dependent on the duration in time in which the collision occurred, we found the elasticity value to be The other method  depended on the area of impact after the collision which resulted 20.5% error with a value of However, this value is based on  the fact that we omitted some of the values in our averaging. Introduction: Since the time of Sir Isaac Newton, physicists have pondered about the elastic behaviors and properties in materials. One physicist in particular, Hertz, was able to devise a quasistatic, elastic theory to describe the behavior of colliding object such as cylinders and spheres. Interested in the amount of compression within colliding object, Hertz calculated the deformation at contact between isotropic, homogenous bodies with spherical surfaces in the static, linear, elastic approximation.1 Using the dimensions and elastic moduli of two bodies, Hertz devised a formula that relates the compressions, z1 an z2, at the two surface to the force between them. We conducted our own experiments, in which we could measure the deformation upon impact and the duration of contact between the objects. Using stainless steel balls of various sizes, we stage numerous collisions, preforming several iterations at a specific height, against a conducting metal plate. As the sphere comes in contact with the metal plate, the surface of impact begins to deform and compress inward as the kinetic energy of the sphere gets converted into potential energy. To create a controllable collision, we configured a pendulum like apparatus, in which we were able to release the spheres, acting as the suspended mass, from a desired height. By measuring the release (initial) height, H, of the spheres and applying the laws of conservation of energy, we can determine the kinetic energy and velocity of each sphere, immediately preceding its impact with the plate. As the sphere initiates contact, the area of contact compresses (see Figure 1). At this moment, the sphere begins to experiences a force, as the kinetic energy is converted into potential energy within the sphere. This force, F(x), F(x) = (1) was derived from Hertz model, for small deformations of elastic objects, where is called the Poisson ratio, M is the mass of the object, and R and E represent the radius and elasticity respectively. We will assume as a value of .3,

which is accepted for most metals. Evidently, this force [Eq. (1)], resembles a similar equation of force, which is a result of compressing a spring, F = -k x. However, the amount of force, resulting from the compressing sphere is much greater than that produced by the spring force, if they both undergo the same amount of displacement, x. The spring force shares a linear relationship with the displacement but the power of compression in the sphere system is non-linear. In other words if we double the displacement of compression, we more than double the force. This is due to the exponent governing, x, F  Unlike in a spring compression, the area of contact between the sphere and its surface area undergoing compression increases. This due to the geometry of the sphere, and is why we find why we find the radius of the sphere in the equation for the resulting force. To determine the amount the sphere compresses we use conservation of energy as mentioned before. The velocity of the sphere dropped from a height H, will have a velocity  when it first contacts the table. Its kinetic energy is . There is also a potential energy, of compression in the steel ball. Using [Eq. (1)] we can derive a general expression for  

Using Newtons Third Law can derive another equation, in which the velocity U(x), of the sphere, is in terms of the compression distance of the sphere: 

Then by applying the chain rule we can say,

Simplifying, we a left with the equation for velocity dependent on compressional distance.

(3) The duration, of which the sphere is compressed during the collision, is represented by . To solve for the compressional time, we can write  in [Eq. (3)] and separate the x and t terms onto each side of the equation. Allowing , to be the total duration in which the sphere is in contact with the plate, we can assume that , is the time required for the sphere to go from no compression, i.e. x = 0, to full compression, at x = h. Substituting h from [Eq. (2)] we get,

Using conservation of energy and setting we can solve for the maximal compression distance h (which we are unable to directly measure, because it is extremely small for steel),

(4) Below we have shown the derivation for [Eq. (4)]. Beginning with  and separating the variables we have,

and substituting

we get

or

(2)

(7) Procedures: After integrating both sides we are left with . This is a hypergeometric expression parameters are as follows:  function, we find whose The procedures for conducting the experiment are very straightforward but require the construction for two apparatus to aid in our measurements. We began by constructing a digital timing circuit. The purpose of the timer is to record the duration of which the plate and sphere are in contact. To do so, our timer must be able to accurately measure and record, in the order of 100 , the event. The circuit constructed consists of three components: a clock oscillator, counters and hexadecimal displays. Every microsecond, the clock oscillator generates on pulse. When contact was made between the ball and plate, the circuit was completed. The generated pulse was then sent to the first counter, increasing its output by 1. Refer to the spec. sheets 4 5 for additional information on the oscillator and counters. The three counters were assembled such that the highest interval measured to be of 4096 Each counter was then connected to its own hexadecimal display6 allowing us to read the hexadecimal it produced. Arranging the displays from right to left, produces a thee-digit hexadecimal number. Figure 1 shows the suggest arrangement of circuit components. Four different sized steel balls were used to conduct our experiment. For three of the balls, we measured the mass and radius, allowing us to determine the density the balls. The density was then used to determine the fourth balls mass, as it was too large to measure. Resembling a pendulum, the second apparatus was then constructed, allowing us to control the wanted collisions and create a switch for the digital timer. For each sphere, we conducted a series of measurements releasing the ball at a set height. Each of these was then repeated to ensure the best accuracy. Before each collision we placed a thin piece of aluminum foil over the plate, allowing us to measure the area of impact.

Setting z = 1 in the hypergeometric . After substituting this

value into [Eq. (2)] we are left with [Eq. (4)] and our expression for time. Measuring for different values of R and (determined from different dropping heights) we are able to use [Eq. (4)] to calculate the values of Elasticity of steel, E. So far, all of our equations are velocitydependent. We will now construct several expressions in which we will be able to use the measurable area of impact A, to estimate the value of maximum compression, h. To measure A, we placed a thin piece of aluminum foil over the face of the plate in which contact occurred. After the collision, we examine and measured the area A of indentation in the foil. The contact area corresponds to the maximum contact area between the sphere and the plate. Based on geometry3 of the sphere, we can show that A is proportional to the maximum compression distance h, as 

(5)

As mentioned before we are unable to measure the compression distance h directly, but by measuring A, we can extract h. Using [Eq. (2, 4 and 5)] we can construct a few interesting and useful relations that are independent of the impact velocity of the colliding sphere:  and

(6)

Wolfram Mathematica

4 http://www.ecsxtal.com/store/pdf/ECS 100.pdf. 5http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn74ls93.pdf. 6 http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/til311.pdf

3 http://www.oxfordcroquet.com/tech/gugan/index.asp#refcite=R1

Figure 1:Counter and respective display unit arrangement with ball and plate (shown in black) acting as the switch mechanism. Values displayed are of no significance.

Results:
Table 1: Measurements of each sphere

Ball Number Radius (cm) Mass (g) Density (g/cm3) Sphere 1 0.625 8.029 7.851 Sphere 2 1.27 67.343 7.849 Sphere 3 2.35 427.919 7.872 Sphere 4 3 888.998 7.860

Table 2: Resulting collision duration for each sphere and height dropped M (g) Drop H (cm) Rest H (cm) ( s) 427.919 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 70 70 70 70 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 70 70 70 70 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 805 843 570 730 201 317 222 206 234 115 197 220 55 88 100 64 140 146 166 175 167 153 126 114 120 137 125 127 92 72 63 93 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998

30 30 30 30 45 45 45 45 60 60 60 60 75 75 75 75 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 55 55 55 55 65 65 65 65

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

908 965 930 925 444 477 490 501 209 233 225 229 135 201 133 171 555 570 666 559 538 550 539 544 540 544 550 464 500 499 508 505

Table 3: Area of impact for each height in which the sphere was dropped. M (g) Drop H Rest H (cm) Collision Width A (cm2) 67.343 (cm) (cm) 427.919 8.029 30 12.5 0.12 0.0113 427.919 8.029 30 12.5 0.1 0.0079 427.919 8.029 30 12.5 0.11 0.0095 427.919 8.029 40 12.5 0.1 0.0079 427.919 8.029 40 12.5 0.14 0.0154 427.919 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 8.029 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 67.343 40 50 50 50 70 70 70 30 30 30 40 40 40 50 50 50 70 70 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.0154 0.0133 0.0154 0.0133 0.0201 0.0227 0.0201 0.0380 0.0380 0.0415 0.0346 0.0380 0.0380 0.0380 0.0491 0.0531 0.0491 0.0531 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 427.919 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998 888.998

70 30 30 30 40 40 40 50 50 50 70 70 70 30 30 30 40 40 40 55 55 55 65 65 65

11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.3 0.3 0.29 0.3 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.4 0.4 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.42

0.0531 0.0573 0.0573 0.0531 0.0531 0.0573 0.0707 0.0707 0.0661 0.0707 0.0962 0.0855 0.0855 0.0804 0.0855 0.0804 0.0962 0.1018 0.1018 0.1257 0.1257 0.1195 0.1320 0.1385 0.1385

Analysis:

Sphere 1
A (cm2) Collision area vs. R2 U04/5 2.50E-02y = 0.0007x - 0.0091 2.00E-02 1.50E-02 1.00E-02 5.00E-03 0.00E+00 0 10 20 30 40 50 R U04/5 cm14/5s-4/5 R = 0.7618

Figure 2: Contact area versus

for sphere 1

A (cm2)

Sphere 2 Collision area vs. R2 U04/5

6.00E-02 y 5.00E-02 = 0.0002x + 0.0116 R = 0.587 4.00E-02 3.00E-02 2.00E-02 1.00E-02 0.00E+00 0 50 100 R2 U04/5cm14/5s-4/5 150 200

Figure 3: Contact area versus

for sphere 2

A(cm2) 1.20E-01 1.00E-01 8.00E-02 6.00E-02 4.00E-02 2.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

Sphere 3 Collision area vs. R2 U04/5

y = 0.0002x - 0.0088 R = 0.829

200

400 R2 U04/5 cm14/5s-4/5

600

800

Figure 4: Contact area versus

for sphere 3

A(cm2) 1.60E-01 1.40E-01 1.20E-01 1.00E-01 8.00E-02 6.00E-02 4.00E-02 2.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

Sphere 4 Collision area vs. R2 U04/5

y = 0.0002x - 0.0154 R = 0.9817

200

400 600 R2 U04/5 cm14/5s-4/5 for sphere 4

800

1000

Figure 5: Contact area versus

Using the figures above (figures 2-5) and the density of each sphere we were able we to calculate the elasticity E. It should follow that the slope be

Thus the course leading to the collision varied.

and . The resulting values are shown in table 4. Reviewing the values, we can see that sphere 1 is an outlier among the rest of our values. If we neglect the first Table 4: Calculated values for E from based on the area of impact. sphere, the average becomes  The cause of its Slope from above figures 2-5 Calculated E from  (cm-4/5s-4/5) Slopes (g/cm*s2) difference is due to its small size. Sphere 1 0.0007 7.61E+10 Upon release, the small sphere was Sphere 2 0.0002 1.74E+12 unable to produce enough Sphere 3 0.0002 1.75E+12 momentum to follow the required Sphere 4 0.0002 1.75E+12 arc, overcoming the stiffness in the wire due to the wires malleability. Average 1.33E+12

t(s) 9.00E-04 y 8.00E-04 = 0.0258x - 0.005 7.00E-04 R = 0.7988 6.00E-04 5.00E-04 4.00E-04 3.00E-04 2.00E-04 1.00E-04 0.00E+00 -1.00E-04 0.19 0.195

Sphere 1 Collision time vs. R U0-1/5

0.2

0.205

0.21

0.215

0.22

0.225

R U0-1/5cm4/5s1/5 Figure 6: Contact area versus for sphere 1

t(s) 2.00E-04 1.50E-04 1.00E-04 5.00E-05 0.00E+00

Sphere 2 Collision time vs. R U0-1/5

y = 0.0016x - 0.0005 R = 0.7204

0.39

0.4

0.41

0.42

0.43

0.44

0.45

R U0-1/5cm4/5s1/5 Figure 7: Contact area versus for sphere 2

t(s)

Sphere 3 Collision time vs. R U0-1/5

1.20E-03 y = 0.0088x - 0.0063 1.00E-03 R = 0.9747 8.00E-04 6.00E-04 4.00E-04 2.00E-04 0.00E+00 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 R U0-1/5cm4/5s1/5 Figure 8: Contact area versus for sphere 3

t(s) 7.00E-04 6.00E-04 5.00E-04 4.00E-04 3.00E-04 2.00E-04 1.00E-04 0.00E+00 0.94

Sphere 4 Collision time vs. R U0-1/5

y = 0.0007x - 0.0002 R = 0.5187

0.96

0.98

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

R U0-1/5cm4/5s1/5 Figure 9: Contact area versus for sphere 4

Here, the slopes of figures 6-9 follow , with the dependent variable Rearranging this relationship we find , giving us the elasticity for each sphere. These values, in table 5, vary significantly with those found in table 4. Elements for error in this experiment were fairly high. As mentioned before, the flight path of the first sphere continually varied. Unable to reproduce a consistent flight path within a set height, resulting in an inconsistent measurement, the measurements for this sphere were

unreliable. During the trials involving the third sphere, the stabilizing string for our pendulum . system broke. Even though attempts were carefully made to reconstruct the system to its previous state, we Table 5: The calculation of the value of the elasticity determined were from the length of collision measurements unabl
Sphere 1 Sphere 2 Sphere 3 Sphere 4 Average Slope from above figures 6-9 (cm4/5s4/5) 0.0258 0.0016 0.008 0.0007 Calculated E from Slopes 7.81E+06 8.15E+09 1.46E+08 6.45E+10 1.82E+10


e to replace the string, mimicking the initial apparatus. However, the significance in which error can be at fault is most likely minimal. The conspired source of significant error was most like due to our lack of ability to consistently release the ball from the same height as we acted as the releasing mechanism for the sphere. This made it plausible to add additional force on the spheres upon release. Omitting these values from our calculated average, our new average of elasticity is E = . Upon comparing the more  accurate averages to the actual value of elasticity of , we find our results to steel,    be off by 20.5% error. Although high, it is much more pleasing than the calculated elasticity values derived from the relationship between the duration of impact. These values resulted in 100% error.

Conclusion: The purpose of this experiment was to test the Hertzian theory on collisions and elasticity. To conduct our experiment we used four stainless steel spheres in which a pendulum like apparatus allowed for the spheres to swing and collided with a metal plate. Releasing the spheres at different set heights, we measured the duration of impact and area of impact between the plate and the sphere. With these measurements and using Hertzs force equations, [Eq. (1)], we were able to derive and calculate the elasticity of the spheres in two different methods. Dependent on the duration in time of which the collision occurred, we found the elasticity value to Resulting in a 100% error be  when compared to accepted value. The other method depended on the area of impact after the collision which resulted 20.5% error with a value of However, this value is based on  the fact that we omitted some of the values in our averaging.