Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Coefficient of restitution

The coefficient of restitution, denoted by e, is a dimensionless quantity in that quantifies the elasticity of a collision between two objects by measuring the degree to which is conserved. It is defined as the ratio of the magnitude of the of separation to the magnitude of the of approach along the line of impact, mathematically expressed as e = \frac{|v_2 - v_1|}{|u_2 - u_1|}, where u_1, u_2 are the initial velocities and v_1, v_2 are the final velocities of the two bodies. This parameter directly relates to the fraction of retained after the collision, with values typically ranging from 0 to 1: e = 1 indicates a perfectly where no is lost, e = 0 represents a perfectly where the bodies stick together and all relative is dissipated, and intermediate values describe partially collisions. The concept was first introduced by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687 as part of his experimental law of impacts in the , predating the formal definition of by over a century and serving as a phenomenological description of collision outcomes based on empirical observations. Newton's formulation emphasized the relative velocities, making it Galilean invariant and applicable to a wide range of material pairs, though the value of e depends on factors such as the materials involved, surface conditions, and impact velocity. For practical measurement, such as in a , e can be approximated as the of the ratio of rebound height to initial drop height, assuming constant . In and , the coefficient of restitution is essential for modeling and predicting the behavior of colliding systems, enabling the solution of momentum conservation equations alongside restitution to determine post-collision velocities. It finds widespread applications in fields like —for regulating equipment such as bats via the batted ball coefficient of restitution () standard, which limits the effective coefficient of restitution to 0.50 to ensure performance comparable to wood bats— automotive crash analysis to assess energy absorption in safety designs, and granular flow simulations in and materials processing. These uses highlight its role in bridging theoretical collision dynamics with real-world phenomena, where deviations from ideal values often reveal material deformation or frictional effects.

Fundamentals

Definition

The coefficient of restitution, denoted by e, is a dimensionless empirical parameter in that characterizes the elasticity of a direct collision between two bodies, ranging from 0 for a perfectly to 1 for a perfectly one. It is mathematically defined along the line of impact as e = -\frac{v_2' - v_1'}{v_2 - v_1}, where v_1 and v_2 are the pre-collision of the two bodies, and v_1' and v_2' are their post-collision , with the velocities taken as signed scalars in the direction of the line connecting their centers at impact. The negative sign ensures that e is positive for cases where the bodies rebound (i.e., the reverses direction), as the separation velocity after collision opposes the approach velocity before collision. This parameter serves as an empirical measure for direct central collisions, capturing the fraction of relative conserved without deriving from fundamental forces. The concept was introduced by in his 1687 work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, where it was presented as a measure of the "resiliency" or relative velocity after impact in collisions of hard bodies.

Physical interpretation

The coefficient of restitution, denoted as e, serves as a dimensionless that quantifies the elasticity of a collision between two bodies by measuring the degree to which they rebound relative to their approach speed. It classifies collisions along a spectrum: a value of e = 0 corresponds to a perfectly , where the bodies adhere upon impact and exhibit no rebound, resulting in maximum deformation and energy loss. In contrast, e = 1 indicates a perfectly , in which the bodies separate with the same relative speed as their approach, conserving all without dissipation to deformation, , or other forms./7%3A_Linear_Momentum_and_Collisions/7.3%3A_Collisions) Values between 0 and 1 describe partially collisions, where some rebound occurs but is partially converted into other forms, such as internal deformation energy, , or . A lower e signifies greater , reflecting more irreversible deformation during the brief contact phase, while higher values approach ideal behavior with minimal loss. This links e directly to the efficiency of transfer versus in the collision process. Intuitive examples illustrate these extremes: a made of soft clay or dropped onto a hard surface typically yields a low e (around 0.1), with the material deforming permanently and barely rebounding as kinetic energy is largely absorbed into plastic deformation. Conversely, polished spheres colliding can achieve a high e (up to 0.95), rebounding vigorously with most restored, due to the materials' rigidity and elastic recovery. Unlike the coefficient of static , which measures the maximum frictional force opposing the onset of relative motion between surfaces before sliding, the coefficient of restitution specifically addresses the normal component of reversal in impacts, independent of tangential effects./7%3A_Linear_Momentum_and_Collisions/7.3%3A_Collisions)

Range of values

The coefficient of restitution e satisfies $0 \leq e \leq 1, where e = 0 indicates a perfectly with no relative rebound , and e = 1 indicates a perfectly with full recovery of relative . Values exceeding 1 are theoretically impossible for isolated systems, as they would require an increase in , violating . The value of e depends on the specific pair of colliding objects rather than being an intrinsic property of a single material, as deformation and energy dissipation occur at the between them. For example, colliding with typically yields e \approx 0.65 for standard surfaces, but up to 0.95 for polished spheres, whereas colliding with results in lower values due to greater in the softer material. Typical values for common material pairs, often measured in drop tests onto hard surfaces, illustrate this variability:
Material PairApproximate eNotes/Source
Superball on hard surface0.9High elasticity from polymer composition.
Glass marble on hard surface0.85Measured in controlled drop experiments.
Tennis ball on hard court0.7–0.8Varies with ball pressure and surface; average from sports testing.
Golf ball on hard surface0.8From impact studies on practice balls.
Modeling clay on hard surface~0.1Near-inelastic due to plastic deformation.
Ice on ice0.5Varies with temperature and velocity; average from low-speed collisions.
Near-perfect elasticity, with e \approx 1, occurs in many atomic-scale collisions, where minimal energy dissipation allows nearly complete reversal of relative velocities./7%3A_Linear_Momentum_and_Collisions/7.3%3A_Collisions)

Mathematical Formulation

Core equation

The coefficient of restitution, denoted as e, is fundamentally defined for one-dimensional collisions between two bodies through the ratio of the relative velocity of separation to the relative velocity of approach. This is expressed by the core equation: e = -\frac{v_2' - v_1'}{v_2 - v_1} where v_1 and v_2 are the velocities of the two bodies before the collision, and v_1' and v_2' are their velocities after the collision, with the negative sign ensuring e is positive by accounting for the direction reversal upon separation. This equation applies under specific assumptions for direct central impacts, where the bodies collide head-on along the line connecting their centers, resulting in one-dimensional motion. Additionally, the collision is assumed to occur impulsively, with no external forces (such as gravity or friction) acting significantly during the brief interaction period, allowing conservation of linear momentum to hold without interference. The notation uses unprimed variables (v_1, v_2) for pre-collision states and primed variables (v_1', v_2') for post-collision states, a common in collision to distinguish temporal phases. For collisions, where the impact is not head-on, the coefficient of restitution is applied specifically to the components of the normal to the contact surface at the point of impact, while tangential components may be influenced by .

Derivation

Consider the one-dimensional collision between two point masses m_1 and m_2, with initial velocities u_1 and u_2, and post-collision velocities v_1 and v_2, respectively. Assuming no external forces act along the line of impact during the brief collision interval, conservation of linear momentum yields m_1 u_1 + m_2 u_2 = m_1 v_1 + m_2 v_2. This equation alone is insufficient to determine the two unknowns v_1 and v_2. The coefficient of restitution e provides the second relation, defined as the negative ratio of the after collision to the before collision: e = -\frac{v_2 - v_1}{u_2 - u_1}. This definition quantifies the elasticity based on the reversal (or lack thereof) of the components of along the line of centers at the moment of maximum deformation. Solving the system of the and the definition of e simultaneously yields expressions for the final velocities: v_1 = \frac{m_1 u_1 + m_2 u_2 + m_2 e (u_2 - u_1)}{m_1 + m_2}, \quad v_2 = \frac{m_1 u_1 + m_2 u_2 - m_1 e (u_2 - u_1)}{m_1 + m_2}. These solutions incorporate the effects of both conservation and the degree of elasticity parameterized by e. When e = 1, the expressions reduce to those for a perfectly , where is also conserved in addition to . In contrast, for e = 0, the after collision vanishes, so v_1 = v_2 = \frac{m_1 u_1 + m_2 u_2}{m_1 + m_2}, representing a perfectly inelastic case where the masses adhere and share a common .

Collision Dynamics

Post-collision velocities

The post-collision velocities of two undergoing a one-dimensional collision along the line of impact can be determined by solving the conservation of linear together with the coefficient of restitution e, which relates the relative velocities before and after the collision as e = -\frac{v_2 - v_1}{u_2 - u_1}, where u_1 and u_2 are the initial velocities, and v_1 and v_2 are the final velocities of with masses m_1 and m_2, respectively. The resulting explicit formulas for the final velocities are: v_1 = \frac{u_1 (m_1 - e m_2) + u_2 m_2 (1 + e)}{m_1 + m_2} v_2 = \frac{u_2 (m_2 - e m_1) + u_1 m_1 (1 + e)}{m_1 + m_2} These expressions show how the coefficient of restitution modulates the velocity exchange, with e = 1 yielding perfect elastic reversal of and e = 0 resulting in both bodies moving with the center-of-mass velocity after sticking together. In special cases, the formulas simplify notably. For bodies of equal mass (m_1 = m_2), if e = 1, the velocities are exchanged such that v_1 = u_2 and v_2 = u_1, fully transferring the initial motion. If one body is initially stationary (e.g., u_2 = 0), the incident body's rebound velocity becomes v_1 = \frac{m_1 - e m_2}{m_1 + m_2} u_1, and the target's velocity is v_2 = \frac{m_1 (1 + e)}{m_1 + m_2} u_1; for a light incident body against a heavy stationary target, the rebound approximates v_1 \approx -e u_1. For collisions in two or three dimensions under the frictionless assumption (no tangential forces), the coefficient of restitution applies only to the normal components of along the line connecting the centers at , while tangential components remain unchanged due to conservation of momentum in those directions. Thus, if \mathbf{u}_1 and \mathbf{u}_2 are initial vectors, the final velocities \mathbf{v}_1 and \mathbf{v}_2 have their normal projections modified per the one-dimensional formulas, with tangential projections preserved: \mathbf{v}_{1,t} = \mathbf{u}_{1,t} and \mathbf{v}_{2,t} = \mathbf{u}_{2,t}. From an perspective, the coefficient of restitution characterizes the ratio of the impulse during the restitution (separation) phase to that during the (deformation) phase of the collision, determining the and of the overall \mathbf{J} that alters the : the impulse reverses the relative velocity by a factor of e, while tangential impulse is zero in frictionless cases.

Kinetic energy outcomes

In collisions between two bodies of masses m_1 and m_2, the total before impact is given by KE_{\text{before}} = \frac{1}{2} m_1 u_1^2 + \frac{1}{2} m_2 u_2^2, where u_1 and u_2 are the initial velocities, while after impact it becomes KE_{\text{after}} = \frac{1}{2} m_1 v_1^2 + \frac{1}{2} m_2 v_2^2, with v_1 and v_2 as the post-collision velocities. For a perfectly elastic collision where the coefficient of restitution e = 1, the total is fully conserved, retaining 100% of the value. In inelastic collisions where $0 \leq e < 1, is lost, with the fraction retained determined by e^2; specifically, the energy loss corresponds to (1 - e^2) times the associated with the \mu = \frac{m_1 m_2}{m_1 + m_2}. The magnitude of the kinetic energy loss \Delta KE is quantified as \Delta KE = \frac{1}{2} \mu (1 - e^2) (u_1 - u_2)^2, where u_1 - u_2 is the initial ; this loss is zero for e = 1 and maximum for e = 0, representing a perfectly . The squared coefficient e^2 thus represents the ratio of recovered post-collision relative to the initial reduced-mass , highlighting the degree of elasticity. This lost energy is primarily dissipated through mechanisms such as material deformation, internal , and heat generation during the impact.

Measurement and Influences

Experimental determination

One of the earliest methods for determining the coefficient of restitution involved pendulum impacts, such as the ballistic pendulum apparatus developed by C.V. Boys in the late for testing elasticity. In this setup, a strikes a suspended , and the resulting pendulum swing is measured to calculate pre- and post-collision velocities, from which the coefficient is derived as the ratio of relative separation speed to approach speed. A related historical approach, the two-pendulum method described in , uses one pendulum to launch a into a second pendulum holding the test object, recording deflections on smoked glass or similar media to quantify velocity changes and compute the coefficient. These techniques provided foundational measurements but were limited by manual timing and in the apparatus. The drop test method remains a simple and widely used laboratory technique for measuring the coefficient of restitution, particularly for spheres impacting a fixed surface. A is dropped from a known h onto a rigid surface, and the rebound h' is measured using a meter stick or video ; the e is then calculated as e = \sqrt{h'/h}, assuming negligible air resistance and that is proportional to the square of the . This method exploits the fact that the rebound ratio equals the square of the ratio, allowing indirect determination of e without direct speed measurements. For improved accuracy, multiple drops from varying heights (e.g., 100–300 mm) are performed, and logarithmic plots of rebound heights versus drop number yield the from the slope as $2 \log e. In the projectile method, the test object is launched toward a fixed rigid surface at controlled speeds (typically 10–50 m/s), and velocities before and after impact are captured using high-speed cameras, light gates, or sensors to compute e as the ratio of relative rebound velocity to incident velocity along the line of impact. This approach, standardized for sports equipment like baseballs in ASTM F1887, involves firing the ball at a wood or metal wall and measuring speed changes with photoelectric sensors, ensuring reproducibility for quality control and research. Recent standards, such as the 2024 reapproval of ASTM F1887 and the introduction of paddle-ball coefficient of restitution (PBCoR) testing by USA Pickleball in 2024, continue to refine measurement protocols for sports applications. It is particularly suitable for oblique or high-speed collisions where drop tests fall short, though it requires calibration to account for launch inconsistencies. Modern techniques enhance precision through non-contact and sensor-based measurements, such as , which uses to track particle or object velocities with micrometer accuracy during impacts. In LDV setups, the incident and rebound velocities are directly measured for microparticles or spheres colliding with surfaces, enabling calculation of e even at high speeds (up to 100 m/s) without physical . Accelerometers attached to the impacting body provide an alternative, capturing deceleration profiles during contact to integrate and derive velocities; for instance, a portable device with a triaxial on a dropped ram allows determination of e from time-between-rebounds data. These methods are favored in materials testing for composites and granular flows due to their ability to resolve microsecond-scale events. Experimental measurements are subject to errors from air resistance, which reduces rebound heights nonlinearly at higher velocities (e.g., introducing up to 5% deviation in drop tests at 10 m/s), and surface imperfections like roughness or elasticity variations, which can alter local contact and scatter results by 10–20%. To mitigate these, standards such as ASTM F1887 prescribe controlled environments, multiple trials (at least 10 impacts), and rigid, polished surfaces for within ±0.01 of e. against known elastic references and statistical averaging further minimize uncertainties in both lab and field settings.

Factors affecting value

The coefficient of restitution (COR) is influenced by the intrinsic properties of the colliding materials, particularly their and . Harder materials, such as metals, typically exhibit higher COR values due to reduced plastic deformation during , while softer or more ductile materials experience greater energy dissipation through permanent deformation, leading to lower COR. For instance, metals like typically exhibit high COR values, often around 0.9 or higher under low-velocity impacts due to their high , while ductile alloys show more variability as strength plays a key role in limiting elastic recovery. Viscoelastic effects are prominent in polymers, where time-dependent relaxation during collision reduces the COR compared to purely metals; plastics thus display variable COR, often between 0.5 and 0.8, depending on and molecular structure. Impact conditions, including velocity and , significantly alter the COR by affecting deformation mechanisms. At higher impact velocities, the COR generally decreases for many materials due to increased deformation and localized heating. Conversely, influences are material-specific: for polymers, warmer conditions enhance molecular , raising the COR by up to 20% near or above the , while metals show minimal variation unless approaching melting points. Surface characteristics, such as and , modify contact area and energy transfer during collision. Increased reduces the COR by promoting micro-slip and additional dissipative mechanisms at asperity contacts, with experimental data showing a 10-15% drop for roughness values exceeding 1 μm on metallic surfaces. introduces a fluid film that can either mitigate losses to slightly elevate the effective COR in tangential directions or lower it in normal impacts by altering , particularly in lubricated multibody systems where multiple contact points amplify these effects compared to idealized two-body collisions. Environmental factors have subtler impacts, with gravity exerting negligible influence on COR as collisions are dominated by short-duration contact forces far exceeding . Humidity, however, can affect moisture-sensitive materials like or organic composites by softening surfaces and increasing energy absorption, reducing COR by 5-10% at relative humidities above 60%. Non-ideal effects such as and introduce tangential components that deviate from purely restitution. Rotational motion generates additional stresses, lowering the overall COR through frictional , while tangential forces from friction coefficients above 0.1 can reduce normal rebound by coupling energy into sliding or spinning modes, particularly in impacts.

Applications

Sports and recreation

In sports and recreation, the coefficient of restitution (COR) is integral to equipment design, dictating bounce characteristics, energy retention, and gameplay dynamics. Regulatory standards for balls ensure uniformity and fairness, with the mandating a COR range of 0.728 to 0.759 for approved balls, determined via a from 254 cm yielding a rebound of 135–147 cm on a rigid surface. Similarly, golf balls achieve a typical COR of approximately 0.78 through multi-layer constructions, enabling efficient energy transfer while complying with limits that cap overall club-ball interaction at an effective COR of 0.83 to control distance. These values balance performance with playability, as higher COR promotes longer flights and rebounds but must adhere to rules preventing excessive speed. For striking implements like bats, rackets, and clubs, COR limits curb "trampoline effects" that could amplify ball exit velocities beyond skill-dependent levels. In , the regulation enforces a maximum of 0.50 across the bat barrel, simulating the lower energy return of traditional wooden bats (around 0.48–0.49) and reducing injury risks from high-speed batted balls. rackets and clubs face analogous constraints, with designs optimizing COR in the 0.40–0.50 range for controlled power transfer without exceeding governed thresholds. Bouncing games highlight COR's influence on control and pace. Billiard setups feature high inter-ball COR near 0.95 for precise collisions, while ball-table interactions on felt-covered surfaces yield a moderate COR of 0.5–0.7, enabling smooth rolls and predictable cushion rebounds (e ≈ 0.6–0.9) essential for strategic play. In basketball, dribble height correlates directly with COR; official NBA balls, inflated to 7.5–8.5 psi, must rebound to 49–54 inches (124–137 cm) when dropped from 6 feet (183 cm), equating to e ≈ 0.82–0.87 and ensuring consistent responsiveness during fast-paced action. A higher COR generally enhances performance by producing longer bounces and faster rallies, accelerating game tempo while demanding greater athletic precision. Material innovations, such as pressurized rubber cores in tennis and basketballs, sustain elevated COR (0.7–0.85) by minimizing energy dissipation through hysteresis, unlike early deflated designs. Historically, sports balls evolved from low-COR natural materials—leather stuffed with wool or cork in 19th-century tennis (e < 0.5)—to synthetic polymers and vulcanized rubber by the early 20th century, boosting COR to 0.7+ for reliable bounce. This shift, seen in basketballs transitioning from laced natural rubber (low e, erratic rebound) to pebbled synthetics, optimized durability and consistency, transforming recreational play into professional standards.

Engineering and materials science

In engineering and , the coefficient of restitution (COR) plays a critical role in impact testing protocols designed to evaluate structural integrity and absorption under dynamic loads. Drop-weight tests, commonly employed to assess automotive , utilize COR to quantify behavior and predict deformation patterns in components like bumpers and frames, enabling engineers to optimize designs for reduced secondary impacts. For instance, in low-speed collision simulations, COR values derived from such tests help model dissipation, with experimental data showing typical values ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 for vehicle barriers depending on velocity. Similarly, helmet certification standards incorporate COR measurements for padding materials, such as expanded (EPS) foams, where low COR (around 0.3) indicates effective absorption to minimize criteria during simulations. The National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) projectile tests explicitly define COR as the ratio of to inbound , ensuring liners exhibit controlled for protective . In , COR is essential for predicting bullet trajectories and assessing projectile-surface interactions, which informs safety protocols and forensic analysis. Mathematical models for resolve pre- and post-impact velocities using COR, with values typically between 0.1 and 0.4 for metal projectiles on hard surfaces like , allowing accurate estimation of deflection angles and residual . For armor design, COR evaluates the elastic response of composite materials under high-velocity impacts; studies on Kevlar-rubber laminates demonstrate that optimizing COR (often below 0.2) enhances and reduces back-face deformation, correlating with improved ballistic limits against projectiles. These parameters are derived from drop-tower or gas-gun experiments, linking COR to overall armor efficacy without relying on full-scale live-fire testing. Within and , COR facilitates collision modeling for safe operation and in automated systems. In assembly lines, it parameterizes impact events between robotic end-effectors and parts, enabling predictive control to minimize damage; for example, compliant are tuned with COR values around 0.5-0.8 to simulate gentle contacts, reducing defect rates in precision . processes leverage COR in non-destructive testing, such as drop tests on components, where deviations from expected rebound (e.g., e ≈ 0.6 for metallic parts) signal material flaws or assembly errors, as validated in vibro-impact models for industrial robots. Materials research employs COR to correlate impact response with mechanical properties like , particularly in standardized tests. While Charpy and impact tests primarily measure absorbed energy, advanced analyses link COR to by quantifying rebound after initiation; for ductile metals, lower COR (e.g., 0.1-0.3) post-impact indicates higher deformation and , as seen in nano-modified composites where COR helps predict propagation. At the nanoscale, COR governs collisions in , where molecular dynamics simulations reveal values approaching 0.9 for elastic rebounds but dropping due to ; this informs lubricant design and wear prediction in micro-electro-mechanical systems (), with seminal models showing COR's sensitivity to at scales. Simulation software integrates COR into finite element analysis for virtual prototyping, accelerating design iterations in engineering workflows. In LS-DYNA, COR is a key input for algorithms in discrete element and multibody models, simulating impacts with restitution values calibrated from experiments to predict deformation in automotive or components; for instance, values of 0.4-0.6 replicate real-world crash scenarios, enabling optimization of energy-absorbing structures without physical prototypes. This approach, grounded in elasto-plastic collision theories, ensures high-fidelity predictions of rebound and failure modes.

References

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Coefficient of restitution: Derivation of Newton's Experimental Law ...
    Historically, Newton introduced his formula in 1687 [3], one hundred and fifty years before the concept of kinetic energy as we use it today was given by ...
  3. [3]
    31.1: The Coefficient of Restitution
    ### Summary of Coefficient of Restitution
  4. [4]
    [PDF] The BESR (Ball Exit Speed Ratio)
    The coefficient of restitution is defined as the ratio of the relative speed of the ball and bat after the collision to that before the collision. Suppose that, ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] 8.01SC S22 Chapter 15: Collision Theory - MIT OpenCourseWare
    Jun 15, 2022 · called the coefficient of restitution and denoted by the symbol e, v. B e = . (15.3.1) v. A. If the magnitude of the relative velocity does not ...
  6. [6]
    Newton's 'Experimental' Law of Impacts - jstor
    For many years candidates (and teachers) involved in A-level work have quoted Newton's experimental law of restitution as one of the principles.
  7. [7]
    8.3 Elastic and Inelastic Collisions - Physics - OpenStax
    Mar 26, 2020 · In an elastic collision, the objects separate after impact and don't lose any of their kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion ...Missing: interpretation | Show results with:interpretation
  8. [8]
    What are elastic and inelastic collisions? (article) - Khan Academy
    The coefficient of restitution is a number between 0 and 1 which describes ... Modern vehicles are designed to make use of both inelastic and elastic collisions ...
  9. [9]
    The restitution coefficient: A new interpretation - AIP Publishing
    Apr 1, 1998 · The restitution coefficient, used up to now to describe binary inelastic collisions between macroscopic bodies, is interpreted here as a ...
  10. [10]
    Coefficients of Restitution - The Physics Factbook - hypertextbook
    The coefficient of restitution is the ratio of speeds of a falling object when it hits a surface to when it leaves, measuring bounciness.Missing: hyperphysics | Show results with:hyperphysics<|control11|><|separator|>
  11. [11]
    (PDF) The coefficient of restitution for collisions of happy balls ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · It is shown that when an unhappy ball collides with a happy ball, the COR increases from zero to unity as the stiffness of the happy ball decreases from ...
  12. [12]
    8.5: Relative Velocity and the Coefficient of Restitution
    Sep 20, 2023 · In practice, use of the coefficient of restitution is mostly limited to the elastic-to-completely inelastic range, that is, 0 ≤ e ≤ 1. 2You may ...Missing: hyperphysics | Show results with:hyperphysics
  13. [13]
    The importance of parameter-dependent coefficient of restitution in ...
    The coefficient of restitution (COR) is an important constant that represents the energy dissipation during contact between two objects.
  14. [14]
    A Beginner's Guide to Coefficient of Restitution
    Oct 11, 2025 · Applications of the Coefficient of Restitution · 1. Sports Equipment Design · 2. Automobile Safety · 3. Robotics and Automation.
  15. [15]
    Toy physics | IOPSpark
    Super balls are a well-known toy made from an elastic polymer so that they have very high coefficients of restitution (around 0.9) meaning that they bounce ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Determining the Coefficient of Restitution for Imperfect Elastic ...
    In the initial trial, the average coefficient of restitution for the glass marble was approximately. 𝜀1st ≅ 0.86, with the marble dropped from a height.
  17. [17]
    The Coefficient of Restitution - Quintic Sports
    Newton s law of restitution. Applications to direct impact of two particles and normal impact of a particle with a plane surface.
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Methods for measuring the coefficient of restitution and the spin of a ...
    The variation of the coefficient of restitution of golf balls with impact speed and with temperature is experimentally determined, and a method for determining.
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Model of a Viscoelastic Solid—C.E. Mungan, Fall 2012 refs
    Mechanical energy is lost during the inelastic collision, corresponding to a coefficient of restitution of 45% determined by measuring the rebound speed.
  20. [20]
    Ice Multiplication by Breakup in Ice–Ice Collisions. Part I: Theoretical ...
    The coefficient of restitution thus defined was equal to the square root of the ratio of the CKEs after and before impact [see Eq. (3)], which equals the square ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Collisions of small ice particles under microgravity conditions
    Coefficients of restitution were evenly spread between 0.08 and 0.65 with an average value of 0.36, leading to a minimum of 58% of translational energy being ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Collisions Impulses - MIT OpenCourseWare
    Feb 26, 2007 · v2 − v1 e = = Relative Velocity Before Collision v1 − v2. This provides us with the second equation: v2 − v1 = e(v1 − v2). (2) e must be ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Notes on Dynamics | Cal State LA
    See motion equations in the 10.2 Handbook on pp. 117 ... Coefficient of restitution : e = velocity of separation velocity of approach. = ′ v 2 − ′ v 1 v1 −v2.Missing: formula | Show results with:formula
  24. [24]
    Impact
    where e is the coefficient of restitution, an empirical constant between 0 and 1. ... In an elastic collision the magnitude of the normal component of the ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Two-Body Collisions and the Coefficient of Restitution
    The coefficient of restitution is a dimensionless, non-negative number that measures the degree of elasticity of the colliding bodies. As shown in class, the ...
  26. [26]
    Particle Collisions in Two Dimensions - Mechanics Map
    Adding to that, momentum as a whole is conserved in the normal direction and the coefficient of restitution equation can be applied to the normal direction ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Impulse and Momentum - Maplesoft
    The coefficient of restitution is a ratio of the magnitudes of impulse between the period of restoration to the period of deformation. ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Linear Impulse and Momentum; Collisions - MIT OpenCourseWare
    We assume that v1 > v2 so that collision will occur. We can introduce the position of the center of mass xG = (m1x1 +m2x2)/m, where m = m1 +m2. The.
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Chapter 15 Collision Theory
    called the coefficient of restitution and denoted by the symbol e, e = v. B v. A . (0.4.1). If the magnitude of the relative velocity does not change during a ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Collision-Is-Perfectly-Elastic.pdf
    Energy Dissipation Mechanisms. Most materials exhibit internal friction, plastic deformation, or heat generation upon impact, all contributing to energy loss.
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Laboratory 4: Coefficient of restitution
    The coefficient of restitution is a convenient way of specifying how much energy in a collision is transferred to internal energy.
  32. [32]
    Standard Test Method for Measuring the Coefficient of Restitution ...
    Dec 19, 2024 · This procedure is intended to standardize a method of measuring the coefficient of restitution (COR) of baseballs and softballs.
  33. [33]
    Experimental and numerical studies on rebound characteristics of ...
    Tabakoff et al. [21,22] used high-speed photography and Laser Doppler Velocimeter (LDV) to study the rebound behavior of quartz sand and fly ash particles ...
  34. [34]
    Novel Methodology for Measuring the Coefficient of Restitution from ...
    The determination of the coefficient of restitution is of major interest in the design of balls and surfaces. Tennis courts are required to be resurfaced ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Effect of mechanical properties on erosion resistance of ductile ...
    An increase in hardness near the eroded surface led to an increase in restitution coefficient. Also, the stress rates imposed below the eroded surface were ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Effect of restitution coefficient on inertial particle separator's efficiency
    The oblique collision of a spherical particle with a target wall can be illustrated by Figure ... the coefficient of restitution and subtract the change */.
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Quantifying deformation and energy dissipation of polymeric ...
    The coefficient of restitution of the pendulum-polymer system e was calculated by differentiating the measured displacement-time response and was observed to be ...
  38. [38]
    [PDF] Material and particle size sensitivity analysis on coefficient of ...
    While the metal–metal impacts show a significant dependency on impact velocity, the metal–polymer impacts show only little influence of the impact velocity.
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Influence of Temperature and Impact Velocity on the Coefficient of ...
    Tests were performed on a variety of material combinations to understand the effects of tempera- ture and impact velocity on the coefficient of restitution (COR) ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Incorporation of Velocity-dependent Restitution Coefficient and ...
    They also found that the coefficient of restitution e decreases as the impact velocity becomes small, which is contrary to the conventional belief that e is ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] The influence of temperature on bouncing balls
    The positive correlation between temperature and coefficient of restitution is expected. An increase in temperature would have both increased the elasticity ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Effect of Grain Size and Surface Roughness on the Normal ...
    Feb 1, 2020 · Variation of the coefficient of restitution with surface roughness of 3 mm in diameter glass balls (impact velocity = 2.43 m/s). Figure 7 shows ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Lubricated contact model for numerical simulations of suspensions
    May 15, 2020 · As pointed out by some authors, though, the restitution coefficient as well as the distance at which lubrication is turned off are.
  44. [44]
    Influence of a humidor on the aerodynamics of baseballs
    For example, Kagan8 found that a 20% increase in the relative humidity reduces the ball's coefficient of restitution, resulting in about a 6 ft reduction in the ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Restitution in Point Collisions - Brach Engineering
    The concept of a coefficient of restitution serves as an artifice for energy loss and its use can be extended to cover tangential and torsional deformation. The ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] On the friction/tangential restitution problem
    Dec 5, 2022 · The normal and tangential coefficients of restitution can be related with the mechanical properties of the materials (Young's modulus, Poisson's ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Coefficient of Restitution of a Tennis Ball
    An object with a coefficient of restitution of 1.0 will have no loss of speed after it bounces. If it is released from a certain height, that object will fall ...
  48. [48]
    (PDF) The physics of golf - Academia.edu
    By integrating the normal time histories Gobush also found that both the two-piece and three-piece balls had a coefficient of restitution of 0.78 at this impact ...
  49. [49]
    A Guide to BBCOR Bat Regulations | BaseballMonkey
    Apr 12, 2022 · 50 figure stands for the “trampoline effect” a baseball bat has. A BBCOR bat cannot exceed .50, but most pass the test at around .48 or .49. By ...
  50. [50]
    What Happens in the Collision Course Between Club and Ball?
    May 5, 2025 · To calculate COR, you take the ball speed after impact and subtract the club speed after impact, then divide that number by club speed before ...
  51. [51]
    Pool Physics Property Constants - Dr. Dave Pool Info
    ball-rail coefficient of restitution (e): 0.6-0.9; ball-table coefficient of restitution (e): 0.5-0.7; cue-tip-ball coefficient of friction (μ): 0.6; cue-tip ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Applying Dynamics to the Engineering of the Perfect Bounce
    NBA basketballs must have 7.5-8.5 psi internal pressure. Increasing pressure increases rebound height, compensating for higher drop heights.
  53. [53]
    [PDF] history of tennis balls | itf
    Early tennis balls used India rubber, then rubber with flannel. Yellow balls were introduced in 1972. Type 1 and 3 balls were introduced in 2002. Current mass ...
  54. [54]
    Basketball Life Cycle
    Dec 1, 2016 · The material chosen does change the properties the ball exhibits during use. For example a leather ball will bounce higher than a synthetic ...