Acta Mechanica Sinica

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 482–492 | Cite as

Partition method and experimental validation for impact dynamics of flexible multibody system

Research Paper
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

The impact problem of a flexible multibody system is a non-smooth, high-transient, and strong-nonlinear dynamic process with variable boundary. How to model the contact/impact process accurately and efficiently is one of the main difficulties in many engineering applications. The numerical approaches being used widely in impact analysis are mainly from two fields: multibody system dynamics (MBS) and computational solid mechanics (CSM). Approaches based on MBS provide a more efficient yet less accurate analysis of the contact/impact problems, while approaches based on CSM are well suited for particularly high accuracy needs, yet require very high computational effort. To bridge the gap between accuracy and efficiency in the dynamic simulation of a flexible multibody system with contacts/impacts, a partition method is presented considering that the contact body is divided into two parts, an impact region and a non-impact region. The impact region is modeled using the finite element method to guarantee the local accuracy, while the non-impact region is modeled using the modal reduction approach to raise the global efficiency. A three-dimensional rod-plate impact experiment is designed and performed to validate the numerical results. The principle for how to partition the contact bodies is proposed: the maximum radius of the impact region can be estimated by an analytical method, and the modal truncation orders of the non-impact region can be estimated by the highest frequency of the signal measured. The simulation results using the presented method are in good agreement with the experimental results. It shows that this method is an effective formulation considering both accuracy and efficiency. Moreover, a more complicated multibody impact problem of a crank slider mechanism is investigated to strengthen this conclusion.

Keywords

Partition method Impact dynamics Experimental investigation Efficiency and accuracy Partition principle 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants 11772188, 11132007).

References

  1. 1.
    Wriggers, P.: Computational Contact Mechanics. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laursen, T.A.: Computational Contact and Impact Mechanics: Fundamentals of Modeling Interfacial Phenomena in Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nsiampa, N., Ponthot, J.P., Noels, L.: Comparative study of numerical explicit schemes for impact problems. Int. J. Impact Eng. 35, 1688–1694 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, J., Liu, C.S., Zhao, Z.: Non-smooth dynamics of a 3D rigid body on a vibrating plate. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 32, 217–239 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Machado, M., Moreira, P., Flores, P., et al.: Compliant contact force models in multibody dynamics: evolution of the Hertz contact theory. Mech. Mach. Theory 53, 99–121 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tian, Q., Zhang, Y., Chen, L., et al.: Dynamics of spatial flexible multibody systems with clearance and lubricated spherical joints. Comput. Struct. 87, 913–929 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, J., Han, S.R., Chang, W.K., et al.: An efficient and robust contact algorithm for a compliant contact force model between bodies of complex geometry. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 23, 99–120 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shabana, A.A.: Dynamics of Multibody Systems. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauchau, O.A.: Flexible Multibody Dynamics. Springer, Netherlands (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sherif, K., Witteveen, W., Mayrhofer, K.: Quasi-static consideration of high-frequency modes for more efficient flexible multibody simulations. Acta Mech. 223, 1285–1305 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benson, D.J., Hallquist, J.O.: A simple rigid body algorithm for structural dynamics programs. Int. J. Number. Methods Eng. 22, 723–749 (1986)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ambrosio, J., Pombo, J., Rauter, F., et al.: A memory based communication in the co-simulation of multibody and finite element codes for pantograph-catenary interaction simulation. Multibody Dyn. 12, 231–252 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lankarani, H.M., Nikravesh, P.: Continuous contact force models for impact analysis in multibody systems. Nonlinear Dyn. 5, 193–207 (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, S.W., Misra, A.K., Modi, V.J., et al.: Modeling of contact dynamics of two flexible multibody systems. Acta Astronaut. 45, 669–677 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seifried, R., Schiehlen, W., Eberhard, P.: The role of the coefficient of restitution on impact problems in multibody dynamics. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part K J. Multibody Dyn. 224, 279–306 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dong, F.X., Hong, J.Z., Zhu, K., et al.: Numerical and experimental studies on impact dynamics of a planar flexible multibody system. Acta. Mech. Sin. 26, 635–642 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Mousawi, M.M.: On experimental studies of longitudinal and flexural wave propagations: an annotated bibliography. Appl. Mech. Rev. 39, 853–865 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hariharesan, S., Barhorst, A.A.: Modelling, simulation and experimental verification of contact/impact dynamics in flexible multibody systems. J. Sound Vib. 221, 709–732 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khemili, I., Romdhane, L.: Dynamic analysis of a flexible slider-crank mechanism with clearance. Eur. J. Mech. A Solid 27, 882–898 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rossikhin, Y.A., Shitikova, M.V.: Dynamic response of a prestressed transversely isotropic plate to impact by an elastic rod. J. Vib. Control 15, 25–51 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rossikhin, Y.A., Shitikova, M.V.: Dynamic response of a viscoelastic plate impacted by an elastic rod. J. Vib. Control 22, 2019–2031 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shin, H., Yoo, Y.H.: Effect of the velocity of a single flying plate on the protection capability against obliquely impacting long-rod penetrators. Combust. Explos. Shock Waves 39, 591–600 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, M., Yoo, Y.H.: Assessment of a new dynamic FE-code: application to the impact of a yawed-rod onto nonstationary oblique plate. Int. J. Impact Eng. 29, 425–436 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, J., Wang, Q.: Modeling and simulation of a frictional translational joint with a flexible slider and clearance. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 38, 367–389 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lundberg, O.E., Nordborg, A., Arteaga, I.L.: The influence of surface roughness on the contact stiffness and the contact filter effect in nonlinear wheel-track interaction. J. Sound Vib. 366, 429–446 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weyler, R., Oliver, J., Sain, T., et al.: On the contact domain method: a comparison of penalty and Lagrange multiplier implementations. Comput. Method Appl. Mech. Eng. 205, 68–82 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen, P., Liu, J.Y., Hong, J.Z.: An efficient formulation based on the Lagrangian method for contact-impact analysis of flexible multibody system. Acta. Mech. Sin. 32, 326–334 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics; Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations