Abstract:The dynamics simulation of multibody systems (MBS) using spatial velocities (non-holonomic velocities) requires time integration of the dynamics equations together with the kinematic reconstruction equations (relating time derivatives of configuration variables to rigid body velocities). The latter are specific to the geometry of the rigid body motion underlying a particular formulation, and thus to the used configuration space (c-space). The proper c-space of a rigid body is the Lie group SE(3), and the geometry is that of the screw motions. The rigid bodies within a MBS are further subjected to geometric constraints, often due to lower kinematic pairs that define SE(3) subgroups. Traditionally, however, in MBS dynamics the translations and rotations are parameterized independently, which implies the use of the direct product group $SO\left( 3\right) \times {\Bbb R}^{3}$ as rigid body c-space, although this does not account for rigid body motions. Hence, its appropriateness was recently put into perspective. In this paper the significance of the c-space for the constraint satisfaction in numerical time stepping schemes is analyzed for holonomicaly constrained MBS modeled with the 'absolute coordinate' approach, i.e. using the Newton-Euler equations for the individual bodies subjected to geometric constraints. It is shown that the geometric constraints a body is subjected to are exactly satisfied if they constrain the motion to a subgroup of its c-space. Since only the $SE\left( 3\right) $ subgroups have a practical significance it is regarded as the appropriate c-space for the constrained rigid body. Consequently the constraints imposed by lower pair joints are exactly satisfied if the joint connects a body to the ground. For a general MBS, where the motions are not constrained to a subgroup, the SE(3) and $SO\left( 3\right) \times {\Bbb R}^{3}$ yield the same order of accuracy.

Local coordinates on Lie groups for half-explicit time integration of Cosserat-rod models with constraints

Evaluation and implementation of Lie group integration methods for rigid multibody systems

Efficient and Stable Simulation of Inextensible Cosserat Rods by a Compact Representation

Geometric numerical methods for Lie systems and their application in optimal control

Krylov-based Adaptive-Rank Implicit Time Integrators for Stiff Problems with Application to Nonlinear Fokker-Planck Kinetic Models

Stability conditions for the explicit integration of projection based nonlinear reduced-order and hyper reduced structural mechanics finite element models

Discrete Adjoint Method for Variational Integration of Constrained ODEs and its application to Optimal Control of Geometrically Exact Beam Dynamics

Reducing the Constrained Multibody Dynamics Problem to the Solution of a System of ODEs via Velocity Partitioning and Lie Group Integration

A Time Integration Method Based on Galerkin Weak Form for Nonlinear Structural Dynamics

The significance of the configuration space Lie group for the constraint satisfaction in numerical time integration of multibody systems

The SO(3) and SE(3) Lie Algebras of Rigid Body Rotations and Motions and their Application to Discrete Integration, Gradient Descent Optimization, and State Estimation

Regularizing Numerical Extremals Along Singular Arcs: A Lie-Theoretic Approach

Efficient Reachable Sets on Lie Groups Using Lie Algebra Monotonicity and Tangent Intervals

Projective Integration Methods in the Runge-Kutta Framework and the Extension to Adaptivity in Time

Screw and Lie group theory in multibody dynamics

A low-rank Lie-Trotter splitting approach for nonlinear fractional complex Ginzburg-Landau equations

Linear-Time Contact and Friction Dynamics in Maximal Coordinates using Variational Integrators

Nonlinear dynamic analysis of shear- and torsion-free rods using isogeometric discretization and outlier removal

A family of total Lagrangian Petrov-Galerkin Cosserat rod finite element formulations

Multi-Level Solution Strategies for Implicit Time Discontinuous Galerkin Discretizations

Is there an optimal choice of configuration space for Lie group integration schemes applied to constrained MBS?