A Study of the Motion of Rolling Balls Before and

After Head-on Collision

Cui Zizai
September 21, 2016

Abstract
This paper investigates the motion of rolling balls before and after head-on collision,
as well as the relevant parameters affecting the motion. Specifically, it researches on
the conditions for second collision to take place.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my thanks to my mentor Mr Sim Mong Chea, who cultivated
my interests in Physics. I would also like to thank my teammate Chris Zhang Yanjun
who spent countless time with me discussing the question, and Robert Wang Haojia,
who did the experiments with Yanjun and me.
Special thanks goes to my seniors Wang Jinhui, Chen Xuhui, Wang Ziwei, Lu Shengwei, and Wu Yikai. Their mastery of Physics motivated me to work hard and move
to a higher level.
I am also immensely grateful to Ryan Wong for his comments on an earlier version
of the manuscript and teaching me HTML and LATEX, among many other things,
although any errors are my own and should not tarnish the reputation of this esteemed figure. I would also like to express my gratitude to Joyce who polished the
choice of language of this paper. I am, however, the most grateful to Pan Yue, for
the enormous comic relief she has given to me.

Cui Zizai
September 21, 2016
in Singapore
3

Contents
1 Introduction

1.1

Original Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2

Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Objectives

3 Materials and Procedure

10

3.1

Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

3.2

Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

3.2.1

Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

3.2.2

Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

3.2.3

Controlled Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

3.3

Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

3.4

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

3.5

Limitations and Attempts to Minimise them . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

4 Observations and Results

15

4.1

Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

4.2

Qualitative Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

4.3

Quantitative Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Theoretical analysis

16

24

5.1

Assumptions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

5.2

Interpretations of the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

5.3

Right Before the Collision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

5.4

Right After the Collision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

5.5

Some Time After the Collision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

5.6

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

5.7

Correction to the Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

6 Conclusion and Further Exploration

35

7 References

37

List of Figures

38

1
1.1

Introduction
Original Question

The research question was adopted from question 11, 14th IYPT 2001, Rolling
Balls:
Place two equal balls in a horizontal, V-shaped channel, with the walls
at 90 degrees to each other, and let the balls roll towards each other.
Investigate and explain the motion of the balls after the collision. Make
experiments with several different kinds of ball pairs and explain the
results.
Besides, this phenomenon is also commonly observed in billiard games and many
other aspects of life. Therefore, this research is of relevance and significance.

1.2

Literature Review

As such, we are able to gain access to two of the past year solutions, done by Georgian
and Austrian teams.
From the solutions, we learnt that it is possible for a second collision to occur after
the first collision. This counterintuitive phenomenon is worth attention. Therefore,
6

we decided to investigate the motions of the balls before and after the collision as
well as the relevant parameters which might affect the motion. We started by doing
experiments and ultimately came up with the conditions for the second collision to
take place.

1.3

Hypotheses

After reading relevant research papers, The following hypotheses were made:
1. Most balls willl collide more than once.
2. The motion of the balls during the collision is dependent on the elasticity and
mass of the balls.
3. As only normal forces, weight, and friction acts on the balls after the collision,
the number of collisions is dependent on the coefficient of kinetic friction of the
surface of the balls.
4. Smooth balls (balls with small coefficient of kinetic friction) generally experience more than one collision.
5. Number of collisions increases as the elasticity of the balls and the coefficient
of kinetic friction between the ball and the track increases.

6. Should there be no second collision, the distance travelled by the balls before
they stop increases as the elasticity and mass of the balls increases and the
coefficient of kinetic friction between the ball and the track decreases.
7. Whether the balls are hollow has no effect on the result of the experiment.

Objectives

To investigate the motions of the balls before and after the collision as well as the
relevant parameters which might affect the motion. We started by doing experiments
and ultimately came up with the conditions for the second collision to take place.

Materials and Procedure

3.1

Material

1. V-shaped track
2. Retort stand
3. Blue tack
4. High speed camera
5. Meter ruler
6. Force ruler
7. Different Balls

3.2
3.2.1

Variables
Independent Variables

1. Material of balls
2. Mass distribution of balls
3. Elasticity of balls
10

4. Initial Velocity (Height of retort stand)

3.2.2

Dependent Variables

1. Number of collisions
2. Final velocity of the balls
3. Distance travelled by the balls before they stop

3.2.3

Controlled Variables

1. Material of the track

2. Shape of the track
3. Height from which the balls were released

3.3

Experimental Design

1. A flexible track was used. There were two parts of the track, one being the
inclined track and the other being the track with walls

rad to each other as

mentioned in the question. The first part was constructed with two pieces of
flexible track with equal length. They were connected to two retort stands at

11

each end of the track. The other end of each flexible track was placed onto the
steel track. The latter part of the track came pre-made using steel.
2. To make sure the angle of inclination of the tracks to be equal, each retort
stand was placed equidistant from each end of the metal track.
3. The track was secured by blue tack.
4. A ruler was placed near the area of impact so that analysing would be easier.
5. The balls were then rolled down from each retort stand and collided, and the
motion was then recorded by a high speed camera.
Figure 1: The V-shaped Channel with Walls

12

rad to Each Other

3.4

Procedure

Firstly, the balls were placed on both ends of the track. The balls were then simultaneously released and allowed to slide down and collide. At the point of collision, a
high speed camera (300fps) was placed and recorded the collision. This process was
repeated 5 times for each type of ball, namely ping-pong ball and different sizes of
steel ball, and for each initial velocity. To change the initial velocity, the height of the
retort stand on both sides was adjusted up and down to achieve different velocities.
The videos recorded of the collisions were then analysed using the open source software video tracker which provided the initial velocity, final velocity, change in velocity
and change in displacement.

13

Figure 2: Experimental Set Up 1

3.5

Limitations and Attempts to Minimise them

There were several limitations in the experimental design, including the accuracy of
the initial heights of retort stands. For one, each of the balls were released by people,
and this might result in inaccuracy for the initial velocity. To minimise this human
error, multiple readings were taken and the average was analysed.

14

Figure 3: Experimental Set Up 2

4
4.1

Observations and Results

Accuracy

To estimate the accuracy of the experiment, we calculated the coefficient of kinetic

friction between the ball and the track by analysing the motion of the balls after
the collision. This deviated from the value of coefficient of kinetic friction measured
using the textbook method by 6% . This proves that the errors are insignificant and
do not affect the readings by much. The following graph is the table of data used to
calculate coefficient of kinetic friction.
15

Figure 4: Calculations of the Coefficient of Kinetic Friction Between the Steel Ball
and the Track

4.2

Qualitative Observations

Experiments with pingpong balls have indeed shown that second collisions occur for
the ping pong balls but not the metal balls. Also, by comparing experimental data for
the metal ball with that of the ping pong ball, ceteris paribus, more time is needed
for it to decelerate to stop. Pingpong balls would stick together after the second
collision, whereas steel balls would stop at a certain distance from each other.

4.3

Quantitative Observations

On average, steel balls with initial velocity 1.500 m/s would travel 0.160 m before
coming to a halt. The following were various velocity-time and displacement-time
graphs of the motions of steel balls after the collision.
Results for experiments were analysed using the software Tracker and the following
were examples of the results of the analysis.
16

Figure 5: Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 1

Figure 6: Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 1

17

Figure 7: Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 2

Figure 8: Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 2

18

Figure 9: Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 3

Figure 10: Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 3

19

Figure 11: Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 4

Figure 12: Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 4

20

Figure 13: Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 5

Figure 14: Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 5

21

Figure 15: Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 6

Figure 16: Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 6

22

Figure 17: Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 7

Figure 18: Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 7

23

5
5.1

Theoretical analysis
Assumptions and Definitions

As the mass distribution of the balls are unknown, the moment of inertia of the balls
is defined as,
I = mr2

(1)

Assuming that the balls were rolling without slipping before the collision,
v(t1 ) = r (t1 )

(2)

v(t1 ) = (t1 ) r

(3)

The coefficient of restitution of the linear collision is defined as

e=

vf
vi

(4)

Therefore,
v(t2 ) = e v(t1 )

24

(5)

5.2

Interpretations of the Results

The results showed that elasticity, mass, material, coefficient of kinetic friction between the ball and the track as well as mass distribution of the balls may affect the
motion of the balls. In this experiment, epingpong = 0.94, esteel = 0.75, pingpong = 23 ,
steel = 0.4, steel = 0.29, pingpong = 0.2

5.3

Right Before the Collision

As the balls are identical, and were released from the same height, according to the
conservation of mechanical energy, (amount of energy transformed into heat is also
obviously identical as the path traveled by the two balls as well as the magnitude of
the frictions are identical)
mgh Q = mv12 (t1 )

(6)

mgh Q = mv22 (t1 )

(7)

hence, (magnitudes of vectors could only be positive)

v1 (t1 ) =

gh Q/m

(8)

v2 (t1 ) =

gh Q/m

(9)

25

therefore, the velocities right before the collision have the same magnitude and opposite directions, i.e.:
v1 (t1 ) = v2 (t1 )

(10)

v 1 (t1 ) + v 2 (t1 ) = 0

(11)

The angular momentum of the two balls, therefore, satisfy the following relationships:
L = I =

Iv
r

(12)

L1 (t1 ) =

Iv 1 (t1 )
r

(13)

L2 (t1 ) =

Iv 2 (t1 )
r

(14)

L1 (t1 ) = L2 (t1 )

(15)

1 (t1 ) = 2 (t1 )

(16)

Therefore,

As L = I, it is obvious that,

As the masses of the two balls are the same, their momentum right before the collision
have the same magnitude and opposite directions, i.e.:

P1 (t1 ) = P2 (t1 )
26

(17)

Ptotal (t1 ) = P 1 (t1 ) + P2 (t1 ) = 0

5.4

(18)

Right After the Collision

According to the impulse-momentum theorem for linear motions,

Z

t2

P =

F dt

(19)

t1

Considering the horizontal component of the total momentum for linear motion, we
have
Px = 0

(20)

, as there is no external force applied to the two-ball system. Therefore, the horizontal
component of total momentum remains zero, i.e.:
Ptotal (t2 ) = P1 (t2 ) + P2 (t2 ) = 0

(21)

This implies that the velocities right after the collision have the same magnitude and
opposite directions, i.e.:
v1 (t2 ) = v2 (t2 ) = e v(t1 )

(22)

v1 (t2 ) + v2 (t2 ) = 0

(23)

27

Similarly, According to the impulse-momentum theorem for angular motion, ignoring

the angular impulse produced by the friction between the ball and the ground as
t = t2 t1 0, we have,
L1 = L2 = 0

(24)

L1 (t1 ) = L1 (t1 ) = L1 (t2 ) = L2 (t2 )

(25)

Hence,

As L = I, it is obvious that,

1 (t1 ) = 2 (t1 ) = 1 (t2 ) = 2 (t2 )

(26)

1 (t1 ) + 2 (t1 ) = 1 (t2 ) + 2 (t2 ) = 0

(27)

v(t2 ) = e v(t1 ) = e r

(28)

Hence,

5.5

Some Time After the Collision

Now the only force that the two balls experience are the friction exerted by the
ground. Without the loss of generality, let us consider the motion of ball one only.
After shown above, the velocity of the ball is v(t2 ) and the angular velocity is (t2 ).
The only external forces exerted on the balls are frictions and the normal forces

28

exerted by the walls 2f , 2N and

G = mg

(29)

According to Newtons Second Law for linear motion,

Fnet,x = max

(30)

Fnet,y = may

(31)

therefore,

2N + G = may = 0

(32)

2N = mg

2
mg
N=
2

(33)

2f = max

(35)

f = N

2
f = N =
mg
2

(36)

(34)

and

Since

(37)

Hence,
ax =

2g

29

(38)

Define the friction that it experiences to be 2f . Thence, the only external torque
exerted on the ball with respect to the center of the ball, , is,
net = r 2f

(39)

According to Newtons Second Law for angular motion,

net = I

(40)

net = I = mr2

(41)

Hence,

r 2 22 mg
r 2f
=
=
=
mr2
mr2

2
rg
r

(42)

Recalling Equation (28)(38)(42),

v = er

(43)

v = 2g

2g
=
r

(44)
(45)

Solving the differential equations,

v(t) = er(t2 )

2gt

(46)

2g
t
r

(47)

(t) = (t2 )

30

Therefore, the time taken for one type of motion to stop is, respectively,

2 r(t2 )
tlinear =
e
2 g

2 r(t2 )
tangular =

2 g

5.6

(48)
(49)

Analysis

From the above theory, if tlinear < tangular , e < , the linear motion would come
to a stop first, and a second collision would take place; If tlinear tangular , e ,
the angular motion would come to a stop first, and no second collision would take
place. Furthermore, e measures the elasticity of the material and e [0, 1], whereas
measures the mass distribution of the ball, and [ 52 , 23 ]
In this experiment,epingpong = 0.94, esteel = 0.75, pingpong = 32 , steel = 0.4. According to the theory, neither a ping pong ball nor a steel ball should undergo second
collisions. However, in the experiment, the ping pong balls did undergo second collisions. This indicated that there was something wrong with the theory.

5.7

Correction to the Theory

After examining the assumptions made for the theoretical analysis, it is decided that
the balls might be rolling and slipping at the same time before the collision.
31

Let the angle of the track from horizontal to be . Hence, 0 < <

.
2

The forces

acting in the direction perpendicular to the track are normal force and a component
of its weight, hence,
N = mg cos

(50)

the forces acting in the direction parallel to the track are frictional force and component of its weight.
f = k N

(51)

f = k m cos g

(52)

If the component of weight is larger than the friction,

Fnet = m sin g k m cos g = mg(sin k cos )

(53)

Fnet = 0

(54)

net = m(k cos )r g

(55)

Otherwise,

Hence,
r =

k cos g
rm(k cos )r g
=
2
mr

(56)

a = (sin k cos )g

(57)

r
k cos
=
a
(sin k cos )

(58)

32

If
r
>1
a

(59)

k cos
>1
(sin k cos )

(60)

k cos > (sin k cos )

(61)

(1 + )k cos > sin

(62)

(1 + )k
> tan

(63)

i.e.:

The balls would be slipping backward.

Similarly, if
r
<1
a

(64)

(1 + )k
< tan

(65)

i.e.:

The balls would be slipping forward.

Here slipping means that the tangential velocity of the ball at the point of contact
with the track is not equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the velocity of
the center of mass of the ball. As they are not equal, the velocities do not cancel out
and slipping occurs.
33

For ping pong balls, pingpong = 32 , pingpong = 0.2, therefore, LHS=0.5. Hence, for
< 0.46 rad, the balls would be slipping backward; for > 0.46 rad, the balls would
be slipping forward. In our experimental set up, = 0.2 rad. Therefore, the ball was
slipping backward, and
r
= 110.7
a

(66)

110.7 is too large a number to be ignored. This explained the reason why ping pong
ball would experience a second collision. That the balls were rolling without slipping
was a bad assumption. Actually, the ping pong experienced significant slipping
during the accelerating stage. From this, it is concluded that the angle at which
the accelerating track is set up largely affects the motion of the balls. This was not
foreseen during the planning stage.

34

Conclusion and Further Exploration

The motion of the balls after collision cannot be predicted if only the kinetic frictional coefficient between the ball and the channel, the initial velocity, coefficient of
restitution, mass and moment of inertia are known, as the shape of the track also
matters. Information about the shape of the track is also needed.

In the future, the experiment shall be repeated with more ball types and datas shall
be analysed greater details, thus the relationship between the variables that were not
included in our experiments and the motions of the balls shall be studied.

Further investigations of the motions of the balls after the second collision and conditions for third collisions shall be made. Besides, the accelerating tracks could be
made into different shapes, which would answer the following question: If the balls
were made to roll without slipping, would the motion of the balls follow the predictions of our theory?

In addition, cases where initial velocities of the balls are different are worth special
attention, as there will be loss in angular momentum during the collision. Possibly,
35

one of the balls might jump up due to this friction and impulse exerted by the other
ball.

36

References

[1] Coefficient of friction, Rolling resistance, Air resistance, Aerodynamics, Retrieved

August 23, 2016, from
http://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/cof.htm
[2] International Table Tennis Federation - ITTF, Retrieved August 23, 2016, from
https://search.24img.com/International Table Tennis Federation ITTF-2.htm
[3] Quintic 4 Education Sports Video Analysis Software Education Package
http://www.quintic.com/education/case studies/coefficient restitution.htm

37

List of Figures

The V-shaped Channel with Walls

rad to Each Other . . . . . . . .

12

Experimental Set Up 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

Experimental Set Up 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Calculations of the Coefficient of Kinetic Friction Between the Steel

Ball and the Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 1

17

Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 1 . . .

17

Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 2

18

Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 2 . . .

18

Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 3

19

10

Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 3 . . .

19

11

Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 4

20

12

Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 4 . . .

20

13

Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 5

21

14

Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 5 . . .

21

15

Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 6

22

16

Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 6 . . .

22

17

Displacement Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 7

23

38

18

Velocity Time Graph of the Ball before and after the Collision 7 . . .

39

23