Advertisement

A Comparison of Numerical Integration Methods With a View to Fast Simulation of Mechanical Dynamical Systems

  • J. P. Meijaard
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 69)

Abstract

Mechanical dynamical systems, as they occur for instance in machine dynamics and robotics, often give rise to systems of moderately stiff ordinary differential equations. In this paper it will be shown that one of the most widely used classes of integration methods, multistep methods with variable step size and order, is not always optimal, especially not for systems with small damping. The classical fourth-order Runge-Kutta method has a small advantage in this case and methods that exploit the second-order structure of the equations of motion again have an advantage over these.

Implicit integration methods, which allow of a larger step size than explicit methods, but require more work for each step, will be compared to the given explicit integration methods. The Runge-Kutta-Rosenbrock methods, a class of so-called semi-implicit methods, appear to be superior in efficiency to fully implicit methods such as the Gauss-Legendre methods or the Newmark method, notwithstanding the weaker stability properties.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Bakr, E.M., and Shabana, A.A. (1986), Geometrically nonlinear analysis of multibody systems. Computers k Structures 23, pp. 739–751.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dekker, K., and Verwer, J.G. (1984), Stability of Runge-Kutta methods for stiff nonlinear differential equations. CWI Monograph 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam/New York/Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Henrici, P. (1962), Discrete variable methods in ordinary differential equations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York/London.Google Scholar
  4. Gear, C.W. (1971), Numerical initial value problems in ordinary differential equations. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  5. Jonker, J. B. (1988), A finite element dynamic analysis of flexible spatial mechanisms and manipulators. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft.Google Scholar
  6. Jonker, J.B. (1989), A finite element dynamic analysis of spatial mechanisms with flexible links. To appear in Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Eng.Google Scholar
  7. Koppens, W.P. (1989), The dynamics of systems of deformable bodies. Dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  8. Rosenbrock, H.H. (1963), Some general implicit processes for the numerical solution of differential equations. Computer J. 5, pp. 329–330.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Shampine, L.F., and Gordon, M.K. (1975), Computer solution of ordinary differential equations. The initial value problem. W.H. Freeman and company, San Francisco..Google Scholar
  10. Song, J.O., and Haug, E.J. (1980), Dynamic analysis of planar flexible mechanisms. Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Eng. 24, pp. 359–381.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. Meijaard
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations