A Lie Algebra Approach to Lie Group Time Integration of Constrained Systems

  • Martin ArnoldEmail author
  • Alberto Cardona
  • Olivier Brüls
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 565)


Lie group integrators preserve by construction the Lie group structure of a nonlinear configuration space. In multibody dynamics, they support a representation of (large) rotations in a Lie group setting that is free of singularities. The resulting equations of motion are differential equations on a manifold with tangent spaces being parametrized by the corresponding Lie algebra. In the present paper, we discuss the time discretization of these equations of motion by a generalized-\(\alpha \) Lie group integrator for constrained systems and show how to exploit in this context the linear structure of the Lie algebra. This linear structure allows a very natural definition of the generalized-\(\alpha \) Lie group integrator, an efficient practical implementation and a very detailed error analysis. Furthermore, the Lie algebra approach may be combined with analytical transformations that help to avoid an undesired order reduction phenomenon in generalized-\(\alpha \) time integration. After a tutorial-like step-by-step introduction to the generalized-\(\alpha \) Lie group integrator, we investigate its convergence behaviour and develop a novel initialization scheme to achieve second-order accuracy in the application to constrained systems. The theoretical results are illustrated by a comprehensive set of numerical tests for two Lie group formulations of a rotating heavy top.



The work of this author was supported by the German Minister of Education and Research, BMBF grant 05M13NHB: “Modelling and structure preserving discretization of inelastic components in system simulation”.


  1. Arnold, M., & Brüls, O. (2007). Convergence of the generalized-\(\alpha \) scheme for constrained mechanical systems. Multibody System Dynamics, 18, 185–202. doi: 10.1007/s11044-007-9084-0.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, M., Brüls, O.,& Cardona, A. (2011a). Convergence analysis of generalized-\(\alpha \) Lie group integrators for constrained systems. In J. C. Samin & P. Fisette (Eds.), Proceedings of Multibody Dynamics 2011 (ECCOMAS Thematic Conference), Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  3.  Arnold, M., Brüls, O.,& Cardona, A. (2011b). Improved stability and transient behaviour of generalized-\(\alpha \) time integrators for constrained flexible systems. In Fifth International Conference on Advanced COmputational Methods in ENgineering (ACOMEN 2011), Liège, Belgium, 14–17 November 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, M., Burgermeister, B., Führer, C., Hippmann, G., & Rill, G. (2011c). Numerical methods in vehicle system dynamics: State of the art and current developments. Vehicle System Dynamics, 49, 1159–1207. doi: 10.1080/00423114.2011.582953.Google Scholar
  5. Arnold, M., Cardona, A., & Brüls, O. (2014). Order reduction in time integration caused by velocity projection. In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint International Conference on Multibody System Dynamics and the 7th Asian Conference on Multibody Dynamics, 30 June–3 July 2014. BEXCO. Korea: Busan.Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, M., Brüls, O., & Cardona, A. (2015). Error analysis of generalized-\(\alpha \) Lie group time integration methods for constrained mechanical systems. Numerische Mathematik, 129, 149–179. doi: 10.1007/s00211-014-0633-1.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Betsch, P., & Leyendecker, S. (2006). The discrete null space method for the energy consistent integration of constrained mechanical systems. Part II: Multibody dynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 67, 499–552. doi: 10.1002/nme.1639.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Betsch, P., & Siebert, R. (2009). Rigid body dynamics in terms of quaternions: Hamiltonian formulation and conserving numerical integration. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 79, 444–473. doi: 10.1002/nme.2586.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Bottasso, C. L., & Borri, M. (1998). Integrating finite rotations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 164, 307–331. doi: 10.1016/S0045-7825(98)00031-0.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Bottasso, C. L., Bauchau, O. A., & Cardona, A. (2007). Time-step-size-independent conditioning and sensitivity to perturbations in the numerical solution of index three differential algebraic equations. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 29, 397–414. doi: 10.1137/050638503.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Brenan, K. E., Campbell, S. L., & Petzold, L. R. (1996). Numerical solution of initial-value problems in differential-algebraic equations (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: SIAM.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Brüls, O., & Arnold, M. (2008). The generalized-\(\alpha \) scheme as a linear multistep integrator: Towards a general mechatronic simulator. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 3(4), 041007. doi: 10.1115/1.2960475.Google Scholar
  13. Brüls, O., & Cardona, A. (2010). On the use of Lie group time integrators in multibody dynamics. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 5, 031002. doi: 10.1115/1.4001370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brüls, O., & Golinval, J. C. (2006). The generalized-\(\alpha \) method in mechatronic applications. ZAMM—Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, 86, 748–758. doi: 10.1002/zamm.200610283.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15.  Brüls, O., Arnold, M.,& Cardona, A. (2011). Two Lie group formulations for dynamic multibody systems with large rotations. In Proceedings of IDETC/MSNDC 2011, ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Brüls, O., Cardona, A., & Arnold, M. (2012). Lie group generalized-\(\alpha \) time integration of constrained flexible multibody systems. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 48, 121–137. doi: 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2011.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cardona, A., & Géradin, M. (1989). Time integration of the equations of motion in mechanism analysis. Computers and Structures, 33, 801–820. doi: 10.1016/0045-7949(89)90255-1.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Cardona, A.,& Géradin, M. (1994). Numerical integration of second order differential-algebraic systems in flexible mechanism dynamics. In M. F. O. Seabra Pereira & J. A. C. Ambrósio (Eds.), Computer-Aided Analysis of Rigid and Flexible Mechanical Systems, NATO ASI Series (Vol. E–268). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-1166-9_16.Google Scholar
  19. Celledoni, E., & Owren, B. (2003). Lie group methods for rigid body dynamics and time integration on manifolds. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 192, 421–438. doi: 10.1016/S0045-7825(02)00520-0.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Chung, J., & Hulbert, G. (1993). A time integration algorithm for structural dynamics with improved numerical dissipation: The generalized-\(\alpha \) method. ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 60, 371–375. doi: 10.1115/1.2900803.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Crouch, P. E., & Grossman, R. (1993). Numerical integration of ordinary differential equations on manifolds. Journal of Nonlinear Science, 3, 1–33. doi: 10.1007/BF02429858.Google Scholar
  22. Deuflhard, P., Hairer, E., & Zugck, J. (1987). One-step and extrapolation methods for differential-algebraic systems. Numerische Mathematik, 51, 501–516. doi: 10.1007/BF01400352.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Erlicher, S., Bonaventura, L., & Bursi, O. (2002). The analysis of the generalized-\(\alpha \) method for non-linear dynamic problems. Computational Mechanics, 28, 83–104. doi: 10.1007/s00466-001-0273-z.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. García de Jalón, J., & Bayo, E. (1994). Kinematic and dynamic simulation of multibody systems: The real-time challenge. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. García de Jalón, J., & Gutiérrez-López, M. D. (2013). Multibody dynamics with redundant constraints and singular mass matrix: Existence, uniqueness, and determination of solutions for accelerations and constraint forces. Multibody System Dynamics, 30, 311–341. doi: 10.1007/s11044-013-9358-7.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Gear, C. W., Leimkuhler, B., & Gupta, G. K. (1985). Automatic integration of Euler-Lagrange equations with constraints. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 12&13, 77–90. doi: 10.1016/0377-0427(85)90008-1.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Géradin, M., & Cardona, A. (2001). Flexible multibody dynamics: A finite element approach. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Géradin, M., & Cardona, A. (1989). Kinematics and dynamics of rigid and flexible mechanisms using finite elements and quaternion algebra. Computational Mechanics, 4, 115–135. doi: 10.1007/BF00282414.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Golub, G. H., & van Loan, Ch. F. (1996). Matrix computations (3rd ed.). Baltimore London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hairer, E., & Wanner, G. (1996). Solving ordinary differential equations. II. Stiff and differential-algebraic problems (2nd ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Hairer, E., Nørsett, S. P., & Wanner, G. (1993). Solving ordinary differential equations. I. Nonstiff problems (2nd ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Hairer, E., Lubich, Ch., & Wanner, G. (2006). Geometric numerical integration. Structure-preserving algorithms for ordinary differential equations (2nd ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Hilber, H. M., & Hughes, T. J. R. (1978). Collocation, dissipation and ‘overshoot’ for time integration schemes in structural dynamics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 6, 99–117. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290060111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hilber, H. M., Hughes, T. J. R., & Taylor, R. L. (1977). Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 5, 283–292. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290050306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Iserles, A., Munthe-Kaas, H. Z., Nørsett, S., & Zanna, A. (2000). Lie-group methods. Acta Numerica, 9, 215–365.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Jay, L. O., & Negrut, D. (2007). Extensions of the HHT-method to differential-algebraic equations in mechanics. Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis, 26, 190–208.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Jay, L. O.,& Negrut, D. (2008). A second order extension of the generalized-\(\alpha \) method for constrained systems in mechanics. In C. Bottasso (Ed.), Multibody Dynamics. Computational Methods and Applications, Computational Methods in Applied Sciences (Vol. 12, pp. 143–158). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8829-2_8.
  38. Kelley, C. T. (1995). Iterative methods for linear and nonlinear equations. Philadelphia: SIAM.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39.  Kobilarov, M., Crane, K.,& Desbrun, M. (2009). Lie group integrators for animation and control of vehicles. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 28(2, Article 16), 1–14. doi: 10.1145/1516522.1516527.Google Scholar
  40. Lubich, Ch. (1993). Integration of stiff mechanical systems by Runge-Kutta methods. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik ZAMP, 44, 1022–1053. doi: 10.1007/BF00942763.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Lunk, C., & Simeon, B. (2006). Solving constrained mechanical systems by the family of Newmark and \(\alpha \)-methods. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, 86, 772–784. doi: 10.1002/zamm.200610285.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Müller, A. (2010). Approximation of finite rigid body motions from velocity fields. ZAMM—Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, 90, 514–521. doi: 10.1002/zamm.200900383.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Müller, A., & Terze, Z. (2014a). On the choice of configuration space for numerical Lie group integration of constrained rigid body systems. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 262, 3–13. doi: 10.1016/ Scholar
  44. Müller, A., & Terze, Z. (2014b). The significance of the configuration space Lie group for the constraint satisfaction in numerical time integration of multibody systems. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 82, 173–202. doi: 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2014.06.014.Google Scholar
  45. Munthe-Kaas, H. (1995). Lie-Butcher theory for Runge-Kutta methods. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 35, 572–587. doi: 10.1007/BF01739828.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Munthe-Kaas, H. (1998). Runge-Kutta methods on Lie groups. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 38, 92–111. doi: 10.1007/BF02510919.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47.  Negrut, D., Rampalli, R., Ottarsson, G.,& Sajdak, A. (2005). On the use of the HHT method in the context of index 3 differential algebraic equations of multi-body dynamics. In J. M. Goicolea, J. Cuadrado & J. C. García Orden (Eds.), Proceedings of Multibody Dynamics 2005 (ECCOMAS Thematic Conference), Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  48. Orel, B. (2010). Accumulation of global error in Lie group methods for linear ordinary differential equations. Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis, 37, 252–262.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Petzold, L. R., & Lötstedt, P. (1986). Numerical solution of nonlinear differential equations with algebraic constraints II: Practical implications. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7, 720–733. doi: 10.1137/0907049.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Quarteroni, A., Sacco, R., & Saleri, F. (2000). Numerical mathematics. New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanborn, G. G., Choi, J., & Choi, J. H. (2014). Review of RecurDyn integration methods. In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint International Conference on Multibody System Dynamics and the 7th Asian Conference on Multibody Dynamics, 30 June–3 July (2014). BEXCO. Korea: Busan.Google Scholar
  52. Simo, J. C., & Vu-Quoc, L. (1988). On the dynamics in space of rods undergoing large motions—A geometrically exact approach. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 66, 125–161. doi: 10.1016/0045-7825(88)90073-4.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Sonneville, V., Cardona, A., & Brüls, O. (2014). Geometrically exact beam finite element formulated on the special Euclidean group. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 268, 451–474. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2013.10.008.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Walter, W. (1998). Ordinary Differential Equations. Number 182 in Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Wensch, J. (2001). Extrapolation methods in Lie groups. Numerische Mathematik, 89, 591–604. doi: 10.1007/s211-001-8017-5.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Arnold
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alberto Cardona
    • 2
  • Olivier Brüls
    • 3
  1. 1.Martin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  2. 2.Universidad Nacional Litoral - CONICETSanta FeArgentina
  3. 3.University of LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations