A divide-and-conquer direct differentiation approach for multibody system sensitivity analysis

  • Rudranarayan M. Mukherjee
  • Kishor D. Bhalerao
  • Kurt S. Anderson
Research Paper

Abstract

In the design and analysis of multibody dynamics systems, sensitivity analysis is a critical tool for good design decisions. Unless efficient algorithms are used, sensitivity analysis can be computationally expensive, and hence, limited in its efficacy. Traditional direct differentiation methods can be computationally expensive with complexity as large as O(n4+n2m2+nm3), where n is the number of generalized coordinates in the system and m is the number of algebraic constraints. In this paper, a direct differentiation divide-and-conquer approach is presented for efficient sensitivity analysis of multibody systems with general topologies. This approach uses a binary tree structure to traverse the topology of the system and recursively generate the sensitivity data in linear and logarithmic complexities for serial and parallel implementations, respectively. This method works concurrently with the forward dynamics problem, and hence, requires minimal data storage. The differentiation required in this algorithm is minimum as compared to traditional methods, and is generated locally on each body as a preprocessing step. The method provides sensitivity values accurately up to integration tolerance and is insensitive to perturbations in design parameter values. This approach is a good alternative to existing methodologies, as it is fairly simple to implement for general topologies and is computationally efficient.

Keywords

Multibody dynamics systems Sensitivity analysis Direct differentiation Divide- and-conquer formulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson KS, Hsu YH (2001) Low operational order analytic sensitivity analysis for tree-type multibody dynamic systems. J Guidance Control Dyn 24(6):1133–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson KS, Hsu YH (2004) ‘Order-(n+m)’ direct differentiation determination of design sensitivity for constrained multibody dynamic systems. Struct Multidisc Optim 26(3–4):171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bestle D, Eberhard P (1992) Analysing and optimizing multibody systems. Struct Machines 20:67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bestle D, Seybold J (1992) Sensitivity analysis of constrained optimization in dynamic systems. Archive Appl Mech 62:181–190MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bischof CH (1996) On the automatic differentiation of computer programs and an application to multibody systems. In: Proceedings of the IUTAM symposium on optimization of mechanical systems, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  6. Chang CO, Nikravesh PE (1985) Optimal design of mechanical systems with constaint violation stabilization method. J Mech Trans Autom Des 107:493–498Google Scholar
  7. Dias J, Pereira M (1997) Sensitivity analysis of rigidflexible multibody systems. Multibody Syst Dyn 1(3):303–322MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eberhard P (1996) Analysis and optimization of complex multibody systems using advanced sensitivity methods. Math Mech 76:40–43MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Etman L (1997) Optimization of multibody systems using approximation concepts. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. Featherstone R (1999a) A divide-and-conquer articulated body algorithm for parallel O(log(n)) calculation of rigid body dynamics. Part 1: Basic algorithm. Int J Robot Res 18(9):867–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Featherstone R (1999b) A divide-and-conquer articulated body algorithm for parallel O(log(n)) calculation of rigid body dynamics. Part 2: Trees, loops, and accuracy. Int J Robot Res 18(9):876–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haug E, Ehle PH (1982) Second-order design sensitivity analysis of mechanical system dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 18:1699–1717MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haug E, Wehage RA, Mani NK (1984) Design sensitivity analysis of large-scaled constrained dynamic mechanicsl systems. Trans ASME 106:156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsu YH, Anderson KS (2002) Recursive sensitivity analysis for constrained multi-rigid-body dynamic systems design optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 24(4):312–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jain A, Rodrigues G (2000) Sensitivity analysis of multibody systems using spatial operators. In: Proceedings of the international conference on method and models in automation and robotics (MMAR 2000), Miedzyzdroje, PolandGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim SS, VanderPloeg MJ (1986) Generalized and efficient method for dynamic analysis of mechanical systems using velocity transforms. J Mech Trans Autom Des 108(2):176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mukherjee R, Anderson KS (2007) An orthogonal complement based divide-and-conquer algorithm for constrained multibody systems. Nonlinear Dyn 48(1-2):199–215CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Nikravesh PE (1990) Systematic reduction of multibody equations to a minimal set. Int J Non Linear Mech 25(2-3):143–151CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Pagalday J, Aranburu I, Avello A, Jalon JD (1995) Multibody dynamics optimization by direct differentiation methods using object oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the IUTAM symposium on optimization of mechanical systems, Stuttgart, Germany, pp 213– 220Google Scholar
  20. Serban R, Haug EJ (1998) Kinematic and kinetics derivatives for multibody system analyses. Mech Struct Machines 26(2):145–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tak T (1990) A recursive approach to design sensitivity analysis of multibody systems using direct differentiation. PhD thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rudranarayan M. Mukherjee
    • 1
  • Kishor D. Bhalerao
    • 1
  • Kurt S. Anderson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical, Nuclear and Aerospace EngineeringRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations