Computational Mechanics

, 44:103

# A frame-invariant scheme for the geometrically exact beam using rotation vector parametrization

• S. Ghosh
• D. Roy
Original Paper

## Abstract

While frame-invariant solutions for arbitrarily large rotational deformations have been reported through the orthogonal matrix parametrization, derivation of such solutions purely through a rotation vector parametrization, which uses only three parameters and provides a parsimonious storage of rotations, is novel and constitutes the subject of this paper. In particular, we employ interpolations of relative rotations and a new rotation vector update for a strain-objective finite element formulation in the material framework. We show that the update provides either the desired rotation vector or its complement. This rules out an additive interpolation of total rotation vectors at the nodes. Hence, interpolations of relative rotation vectors are used. Through numerical examples, we show that combining the proposed update with interpolations of relative rotations yields frame-invariant and path-independent numerical solutions. Advantages of the present approach vis-a-vis the updated Lagrangian formulation are also analyzed.

## Keywords

Geometrically exact beam Finite rotation Rotation manifold Tangent space Relative rotation Objective strain Path-independence

## References

1. 1.
Simo JC (1985) A finite strain beam formulation. The three-dimensional dynamic problem. Part I. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 49: 55–70
2. 2.
Simo JC, Vu-Quoc L (1986) A three-dimensional finite rod model part II: computational aspects. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 58: 79–116
3. 3.
Vu-Quoc L (1986) Dynamics of flexible structures performing large overall motions: a geometrically-nonlinear approach. Ph.D. thesis, UC Berkeley, Dissertation, ERL Memorandum UCB/ERL M86/36Google Scholar
4. 4.
Cardona A, Géradin M (1988) A beam of the finite element nonlinear theory with finite rotations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 26: 2403–2438
5. 5.
Simo J, Vu-Quoc L (1988) On the dynamics in space of rods undergoing large motions: a geometrically exact approach. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 66: 125–161
6. 6.
Simo JC, Vu-Quoc L (1991) A geometrically exact rod model incorporating shear and torsion warping deformation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 27: 371–393
7. 7.
Ibrahimbegović A, Frey F, Kozar I (1995) Computational aspects of vector-like parametrization of three-dimensional finite rotations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 38: 3653–3673
8. 8.
Ibrahimbegović A (1995) Finite element implementation of reissner’s geometrically nonlinear beam theory: three dimensional curved beam finite element. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 122: 10–26Google Scholar
9. 9.
Jelenić G, Saje M (1995) A kinematically exact space finite strain beam model finite element formulation by generalized virtual work principle. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 120: 131–161
10. 10.
Smolenski WM (1999) Statically and kinematically exact nonlinear theory of rods and its numerical verification. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 178: 89–113
11. 11.
Mäkinen J (2007) Total lagrangian reissner’s geometrically exact beam element without singularities. Int J Numer Methods Eng 70: 1009–1048
12. 12.
McRobie F, Lasenby J (1999) Simo-vu quoc rods using clifford algebra. Int J Numer Methods Eng 45(4): 377–398
13. 13.
Pimenta PM, Campello EMB, Wriggers P (2008) An exact conserving algorithm for nonlinear dynamics with rotational DOFs and general hyperelasticity. Part 1: Rods. Comput Mech 42(5): 715–732
14. 14.
Botasso CL, Borri M (1998) Integrating finite rotations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 164: 307–331
15. 15.
Betsch P, Steinmann P (2002) Frame-indifferent beam element based upon the geometrically exact beam theory. Int J Numer Methods Eng 54: 1775–1788
16. 16.
Atluri S, Cazzani A (1995) Rotations in computational solid mechanics. Arch Comput Methods Eng 1: 49–138
17. 17.
Pimenta PM, Campello EMB (2001) Geometrically nonlinear analysis of thin-walled space frames. In: Waszczyszyn Z, Stein E (eds) Second European conference on computational mechanics. Cracow, Poland (2001)Google Scholar
18. 18.
Campello EMB, Pimenta PM, Wriggers P (2003) A triangular finite shell element based on a fully nonlinear shell formulation. Comput Mech 31(6): 505–518
19. 19.
Nikravesh PE (1988) Computer aided analysis of mechanical systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
20. 20.
Géradin M, Cardona A (2001) Flexible multibody dynamics: a finite element approach. Wiley, New York, ISBN 0-471-48990-5Google Scholar
21. 21.
Spring K (1986) Euler parameters and the use of quaternion algebra in the manipulation of finite rotations: a review. Mech Mach Theory 21: 365–373
22. 22.
Géradin M, Rixen D (1995) Parametrization of finite rotations in computational dynamics: a review. Revue européenne des éléments finis 4: 497–553
23. 23.
Pimenta PM, Yojo T (1993) Geometrically exact analysis of spatial frames. Appl Mech Rev 46(11): 118–128
24. 24.
Jagan Mohan S (2004) Group theoretic framework for FEM analysis of symmetric structures. Ph.D. thesis, Deptartment of Mechanical Engineerig, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
25. 25.
Ritto-Corrêa M, Camotim D (2002) On the differentiation of the rodrigues formula and its significance for the vector-like parameterization of reissner-simo beam theory. Int J Numer Methods Eng 55(9): 1005–1032
26. 26.
Ibrahimbegović A (1997) On the choice of finite rotation parameters. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 149: 49–71
27. 27.
Ibrahimbegović A, Taylor RL (2002) On the role of frame invariance in structural mechanics models at finite rotations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191: 5159–5176
28. 28.
Crisfield MA, Jelenić G (1999) Objectivity of strain measures in the geometrically exact three-dimensional beam theory and its finite element implementation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 455: 1125–1147
29. 29.
Jelenić G, Crisfield M (1999) Geometrically exact 3D beam theory: implementation of a strain-invariant finite element for statics and dynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 171: 141–171
30. 30.
Romero I (2004) The interpolation of rotations and its application to finite element models of geometrically exact rods. Comput Mech 34: 121–133
31. 31.
Romero I, Armero F (2002) An objective finite element approximation of the kinematics of geometrically exact rods and its use in the formulation of an energy-momentum conserving scheme in dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 54(12): 1683–1716
32. 32.
Ghosh S, Roy D (2008) Consistent quaternion interpolation for objective finite element approximation of geometrically exact beam. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198(3–4): 555–571
33. 33.
Reissner E (1972) On one-dimensional finite-strain beam theory: the plane problem. J Appl Math Phys 23: 793–804Google Scholar
34. 34.
Antman SS (1976) Ordinary differential equations of one-dimensional elasticity: foundations of the theories of nonlinearly elastic rods and shells. Arch Rational Mech Anal 61: 307–351
35. 35.
Varadarajan VS (1984) Lie Groups, lie algebras and their representation. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol 102. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
36. 36.
Jelenić G, Crisfield M (1998) Interpolation of rotational variables in nonlinear dynamics of 3D beams. Int J Numer Methods Eng 43: 1193–1222
37. 37.
Engø K (2001) On the bch-formula in so(3). BIT Numer Math 41(3): 629–632
38. 38.
Bathe KJ, Bolourchi S (1979) Large displacement analysis of three-dimensional beam structures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 14: 961–986