How to model and resolve a static non-interpenetration constraint

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on modeling N spherical points in R3 with masses and bounding radii, establishing inequality constraints for unique pairs of spheres. The constraints are defined as Ci,j: ||pi - pj|| - ri - rj >= 0, leading to a geometric projection approach for resolving non-interpenetration. The author explores the configuration space, suggesting that for two spheres in contact, the degrees of freedom may range from 4 to 5, indicating a complex solution surface that is not a hyperplane. The problem is identified as potentially involving quadratic programming rather than linear equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of geometric projections in R3
  • Familiarity with inequality constraints and their formulations
  • Knowledge of degrees of freedom in mechanical systems
  • Basic concepts of quadratic programming
NEXT STEPS
  • Research geometric projections in multi-dimensional spaces
  • Study the formulation of inequality constraints in optimization problems
  • Explore degrees of freedom in contact mechanics
  • Learn about quadratic programming techniques and applications
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers involved in computational geometry, optimization, and mechanical systems modeling will benefit from this discussion.

fermipasta
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
*Constraints (sorry the title got mangled)

I want to model N spherical points pi in R3 with masses mi and bounding radii of ri for 1 <= i <= N.

So I can write (N2-N)/2 inequality constraints:

Ci,j : ||pi - pj|| - ri - rj >= 0

for unique pairs of i,j.

Looking at the same problem for three independent "spheres" (intervals) in 1D, it is possible to visualize clearly since the configuration space is then R3, the solution is a geometric projection to the "planes" defined by each unique pair, and to take into account the mass is just to project the point in configuration space along the "mass plane" which is perpendicular to the "mass vector" (m1, m2, m3) to the solution. The solution (if the configuration point is inside one of these forbidden regions) is the nearest "external" point defined by these planes intersecting in the configuration space. This is not too hard to do, it's either the nearest plane (one contact) or a line defined by the intersection of two planes (two contacts).

I'm not sure how think about the configuration space for N spheres in R3. A single pair of spheres would create a 6D configuration space. My thinking may be: if two spheres are in contact, they have either 4 or 5 degrees of freedom in which they "stay in contact", so the configuration manifold for that constraint would be either 4D or 5D. Either sphere may move in two dimensions tangent to the contact point (4 total degrees of freedom). They could both move perpendicular to the contact in the same direction, maybe giving a 5th degree of freedom?

Anyway it seems (?) like a well-defined problem, I'm just not familiar with the usual formulation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess the solution surface is not a hyperplane! If I write the constraint explicitly in terms of x,y,z:
$$
(x_1-x_2)^2 + (y_1-y_2)^2 + (z_1-z_2)^2 - C = 0
$$
I think it defines some kind of hypercylinder. So at least it seems that its not a system of linear equations, maybe it's a quadratic programming problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K