Advertisement

Multibody System Dynamics

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 315–359 | Cite as

A path following method for identifying static equilibrium in multi-body-dynamic systems

  • Geoffrey K. RoseEmail author
  • Brett A. Newman
  • Duc T. Nguyen
Article
  • 178 Downloads

Abstract

Determining states of static equilibrium for multi-body-dynamic (MBD) systems can be challenging and may result in convergence failure for nonlinear static solvers. Analysts are often faced with uncertainty in regards to the values of candidate equilibrium states or whether a state of minimum potential energy was found. In the event of static solver failure or uncertainty with regards to a candidate solution, equilibrium could be obtained through a dynamic simulation which may require the addition of artificial damping. However, this method can have significant computational expense as compared to static solution procedures. Using MBD systems representing a pendulum, two variations of a spring supported arch, and a seven-body mechanism, arc-length solvers were found suitable for identifying equilibrium states through a robust production of static solution curves thereby avoiding dynamic simulation. Using these examples, a procedure for finding the correct equilibrium state for general systems is proposed.

Keywords

Path following Arc-length method Nonlinear equations Multi-body-dynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Advanced Degree Program at NASA Langley Research Center.

References

  1. 1.
    Rose, G., Nguyen, D., Newman, B.: Implementing an arc-length method for a robust approach in solving systems of nonlinear equations. In: IEEE Southeast Conference (2016) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wempner, G.A.: Discrete approximations related to nonlinear theories of solids. Int. J. Solids Struct. 7, 1581–1599 (1971) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riks, E.: An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling problems. Int. J. Solids Struct. 15, 529–551 (1979) MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crisfield, M.A.: A fast incremental/iterative solution procedure that handles snap-through. Comput. Struct. 13, 55–62 (1981) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meirovitch, L.: Methods of Analytical Dynamics. Dover, New York (2003) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Negrut, D., Dyer, A.: ADAMS/Solver Primer. MSC Software Corporation, Santa Ana (2004) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nastran Nonlinear User’s Guide. SOL 400, MSC Software Corporation (2016) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abaqus Analysis Users Guide. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp. (2014) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allgower, E.L., Georg, K.: Numerical path following. In: Handbook of Numerical Analysis, Vol. V. Techniques of Scientific Computing (Part 2), pp. 3–207. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allgower, E.L., Georg, K.: Numerical Continuation Methods: An Introduction. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 13. Springer, Berlin (1990) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nonlinear finite element methods, course notes for ASEN 6107, http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cas/courses.d/NFEM.d/Home.html, accessed 3 March 2017
  12. 12.
    About ADAMS/Solver. C++ Statements, MSC Software Corporation (2016) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bathe, K.J.: Finite Element Procedures. Klaus-Jürgen Bathe (2006) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rose, G., Nguyen, D., Newman, B.: Parallel Computation of the Jacobian Matrix for Nonlinear Equation Solvers Using MATLAB. NASA/TM-2017-219655 (2017) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schiehlen, W. (ed.): Multibody Systems Handbook. Springer, Berlin (1990) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    MapleSim User’s Guide. MapleSoft, Waterloo Maple Inc. (2017) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    MapleSim Model Gallery, https://fr.maplesoft.com/products/maplesim/ModelGallery/Index.aspx, accessed 21 December 2017
  18. 18.
    De Borst, R., Crisfield, M.A., Remmers, J.J.C., Verhoosel, C.V.: Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (2012) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramm, E.: Strategies for tracing the nonlinear response near limit points. In: Proceedings of the Europe–U.S. Workshop on Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics (1981) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ascher, U.M., Petzold, L.R.: Computer Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations and Differential-Algebraic Equations. SIAM, Philadelphia (1998) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meirovitch, L.: Fundamentals of Vibrations. McGraw-Hill, New York (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Menrath, M.: Stability Criteria for Nonlinear Fully Implicit Differential-Algebraic Systems. University in Cologne, Germany (2011) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shabana, A.: Computational Dynamics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (2010) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bader, B.W.: Tensor-Krylov methods for solving large-scale systems of nonlinear equations, in: Sandia Report SAND2004-1837 (2004) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    MATLAB R2015b Documentation. The MathWorks, Inc. (2015) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Negrut, D., Ortiz, J.: On an approach for the linearization of the differential algebraic equations of multibody dynamics. In: Proceedings of the ASME/IEEE International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications (2005) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Modelica®—A Unified Object-Oriented Language for Systems Modeling, Language Specification, Version 3.4. Modelica Association (2017) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maple User Manual. MapleSoft, Waterloo Maple Inc. (2017) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Structural Dynamics BranchNASA Langley Research CenterHamptonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations