Geometrically exact beam equations in the adaptive DCA framework

Part 1: Static example
  • Jeremy J. LaflinEmail author
  • Kurt S. Anderson


This work examines the suitability of two popular methods of modeling bodies that undergo large deformation for use in the adaptive divide-and-conquer framework. In this framework, the method used to form and solve the equations-of-motion must handle a mixed set of bodies using different formulations, such as rigid-bodies that use a Newton–Euler formulation or flexible-bodies that use a floating frame of reference. Importantly, the method must treat all bodies indiscriminately of underlying formulation since the goal is to have adaptive changes in body definition, e.g., various rigid-bodies to a highly-flexible body. This work shows that the absolute nodal coordinate formulation is not immediately suitable for this purpose and derives the geometrically exact beam formulation equations that are compatible with these adaptive changes in body definition.

An example problem that demonstrates the accuracy of this work is presented for the static case since the solution is known analytically and can be used for comparison. This work lays the foundation for adaptive changes in body definition because the DCA can now deal with bodies that are rigid, flexible, and highly-flexible, indiscriminately. Furthermore, using the DCA to solve the equations-of-motion for systems of mixed body types, some of which undergo large deformations, does not require the rigid or FFR body to be discretized, as would be necessary with some software packages using finite element method type approach. This greatly reduces the number of degrees-of-freedom and therefore the computational effort required to simulate such systems.


Large deformation Divide-and-conquer Mixed formulation systems 



This work was completed under grant 1161872 from the National Science Foundation and the authors are grateful for this support.


  1. 1.
    Bauchau, O.A.: Flexible Multibody Dynamics. Solid Mechanics and Its Applications, vol. 176. Springer, Dordrecht (2011). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauchau, O.A., Epple, A., Heo, S.: Interpolation of finite rotations in flexible multi-body dynamics simulations. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Proc., Part K, J. Multi-Body Dyn. 222(4), 353–366 (2008). Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauchau, O.A., Han, S.: Interpolation of rotation and motion. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 31(3), 339–370 (2014). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauchau, O.A., Han, S., Mikkola, A., Matikainen, M.K.: Comparison of the absolute nodal coordinate and geometrically exact formulations for beams. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 32(1), 67–85 (2014). MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bauchau, O.A., Trainelli, L.: The vectorial parameterization of rotation. Nonlinear Dyn. 32(1), 71–92 (2003) MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhalerao, K.D., Anderson, K.S., Trinkle, J.C.: A recursive hybrid time-stepping scheme for intermittent contact in multi-rigid-body dynamics. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 4(4), 041,010 (2009). Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhalerao, K.D., Crean, C., Anderson, K.S.: Hybrid complementarity formulations for robotics applications. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 91(5), 386–399 (2011) MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhalerao, K.D., Poursina, M., Anderson, K.S.: An efficient direct differentiation approach for sensitivity analysis of flexible multibody systems. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 23(2), 121–140 (2009) MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bosson, M., Grudinin, S., Redon, S.: Block-adaptive quantum mechanics: an adaptive divide-and-conquer approach to interactive quantum chemistry. J. Comput. Chem. 34(6), 492–504 (2013). Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crisfield, M.A., Jelenic, G.: Objectivity of strain measures in the geometrically exact three-dimensional beam theory and its finite-element implementation. Proc. R. Soc. A, Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 455(1983), 1125–1147 (1999). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Featherstone, R.: A divide-and-conquer articulated-body algorithm for parallel \(\mathrm{O}(\log(n))\) calculation of rigid-body dynamics. Part 1: Basic algorithm. Int. J. Robot. Res. 18(9), 867–875 (1999) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Featherstone, R.: A divide-and-conquer articulated-body algorithm for parallel \(\mathrm{O}(\log (n))\) calculation of rigid-body dynamics. Part 2: Trees, loops, and accuracy. Int. J. Robot. Res. 18(9), 876–892 (1999) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hughes, T.J.R.: The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis. Dover Civil and Mechanical Engineering Series. Dover, Mineola (2000) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jelenić, G., Crisfield, M.: Geometrically exact 3D beam theory: implementation of a strain-invariant finite element for statics and dynamics. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 171(1–2), 141–171 (1999). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jourdain, P.E.B.: Note on an analogue of Gauss principle of least constraint. Q. J. Pure Appl. Math. 40(1909), 153–157 (1909) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kane, T.R., Levinson, D.A.: Dynamics, Theory and Applications. McGraw–Hill, New York (1985) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khan, I.M., Ahn, W., Anderson, K.S., De, S.: A logarithmic complexity floating frame of reference formulation with interpolating splines for articulated multi-flexible-body dynamics. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 57, 146–153 (2013). Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan, I.M., Anderson, K.S.: Divide-and-conquer-based large deformation formulations for multi-flexible body systems. In: ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 7B. ASME, Portland (2013). Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khan, I.M., Anderson, K.S.: A logarithmic complexity divide-and-conquer algorithm for multi-flexible-body dynamics including large deformations. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 34(1), 81–101 (2015). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan, I.M., Poursina, M., Laflin, J.J., Anderson, K.S.: A framework for adaptive multibody modeling of biopolymers. In: ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 7A. ASME, Portland (2013). Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laflin, J.J., Anderson, K.S., Khan, I.M.: Strategies for model reduction in adaptive DCA-based multibody modeling of biopolymers. In: Terze, Z., Vrdoljak, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Multibody Dynamics. University of Zagreb Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb (2013) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laflin, J.J., Anderson, K.S., Khan, I.M., Poursina, M.: New and extended applications of the divide-and-conquer algorithm for multibody dynamics. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 9(4), 041,004 (2014). Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malczyk, P., Frączek, J.: A divide and conquer algorithm for constrained multibody system dynamics based on augmented lagrangian method with projections-based error correction. Nonlinear Dyn. 70(1), 871–889 (2012). MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Malczyk, P., Frączek, J., Cuadrado, J.: Parallel index-3 formulation for real-time multibody dynamics simulations. In: Proceedings of the 1st Joint International Conference on Multibody System Dynamics, Lappeenranta, Finland (2010) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morin, S., Redon, S.: A force-feedback algorithm for adaptive articulated-body dynamics simulation. In: Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3245–3250. IEEE, Roma (2007). Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mukherjee, R.M., Anderson, K.S.: Orthogonal complement based divide-and-conquer algorithm for constrained multibody systems. Nonlinear Dyn. 48(1–2), 199–215 (2006) MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mukherjee, R.M., Anderson, K.S.: A logarithmic complexity divide-and-conquer algorithm for multi-flexible articulated body dynamics. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 2(1), 10–21 (2007). Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mukherjee, R.M., Bhalerao, K.D., Anderson, K.S.: A divide-and-conquer direct differentiation approach for multibody system sensitivity analysis. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 35(5), 413–429 (2008). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mukherjee, R.M., Malczyk, P.: Parallel algorithm for modeling multi-rigid body system dynamics with nonholonomic constraints. In: ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 7A. ASME, Portland (2013). Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poursina, M., Anderson, K.S.: An extended divide-and-conquer algorithm for a generalized class of multibody constraints. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 29(3), 235–254 (2013). MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poursina, M., Anderson, K.S.: Canonical ensemble simulation of biopolymers using a coarse-grained articulated generalized divide-and-conquer scheme. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184(3), 652–660 (2013). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Poursina, M., Bhalerao, K.D., Flores, S.C., Anderson, K.S., Laederach, A.: Strategies for articulated multibody-based adaptive coarse grain simulation of RNA. In: Johnson, M.L., Brand, L. (eds.) Computer Methods, Part C, Methods in Enzymology, vol. 487, pp. 73–98. Academic Press, Cambridge (2011). Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Praprotnik, M., Delle Site, L., Kremer, K.: Adaptive resolution molecular-dynamics simulation: changing the degrees of freedom on the fly. J. Chem. Phys. 123(22) (2005).
  34. 34.
    Redon, S., Galoppo, N., Lin, M.C.: Adaptive dynamics of articulated bodies. ACM Trans. Graph. 24(3), 936–945 (2005). Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roberson, R.E., Schwertassek, R.: Dynamics of Multibody Systems. Springer, Berlin (1988). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rossi, R., Isorce, M., Morin, S., Flocard, J., Arumugam, K., Crouzy, S., Vivaudou, M., Redon, S.: Adaptive torsion-angle quasi-statics: a general simulation method with applications to protein structure analysis and design. Bioinformatics 23(13), i408–i417 (2007). Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schiehlen, W.O., Kreuzer, E.J.: Symbolic computerized derivation of equations of motion. In: Magnus, K. (ed.) Dynamics of Multibody Systems SE-24, International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, pp. 290–305. Springer, Berlin (1978). Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simo, J.C.: A finite strain beam formulation. the three-dimensional dynamic problem. Part I. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 49(1), 55–70 (1985). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Simo, J.C., Vu-Quoc, L.: A three-dimensional finite-strain rod model. Part II: Computational aspects. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 58(1), 79–116 (1986). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Simo, J.C., Vu-Quoc, L.: A geometrically-exact rod model incorporating shear and torsion-warping deformation. Int. J. Solids Struct. 27(3), 371–393 (1991). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and NuclearRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations