Sufficient conditions for penalty formulation methods in analytical dynamics

The axiomatic derivation of constraints in analytical mechanics as the limiting case of motion in a potential field that grows asymptotically in strength has been known for years. However, with the emergence of the need for robust simulation methods for complex, multi-degree-of-freedom, nonlinear mechanical systems, researchers have shown renewed interest in these “penalty formulations” as practical computational schemes. While much empirical evidence has been collected regarding the efficiency of these methods, relatively few convergence results are available for a wide class of the nonlinear simulation methods.This paper derives sufficient conditions for the convergence of a class of penalty methods by extending the Rubin-Ungar theorem. One advantage of the approach taken in this paper is that considerable simplification of the original Rubin-Ungar derivation is achieved for the convergence of transverse constraint velocities. This paper also emphasizes the importance of maintaining a rank condition on the Jacobian of the constraint matrix. This is of particular importance in that one claimed benefit of certain penalty methods is that they are effective in cases in which the constraint Jacobian loses rank. For the class of penalty methods considered in this paper, if the Jacobian does not meet the specified rank conditions, a diverse collection of spurious, pathological responses can be obtained using this method. In one sense, this type of pathological response is worse than encountering a “configuration-singular” generalized mass matrix and having a simulation diverge; indeed, the regularized solution procedure can proceed along some incorrect trajectory with little to no indication that something is amiss.

[1]  J. Tinsley Oden,et al.  Qualitative methods in nonlinear mechanics , 1985 .

[2]  John G. Papastavridis The Maggi or Canonical Form of Lagrange's Equations of Motion of Holonomic Mechanical Systems , 1990 .

[3]  S. N. Rasband,et al.  Chaotic Dynamics of Nonlinear Systems , 1990 .

[4]  P. Ungar,et al.  Motion under a strong constraining force , 1957 .

[5]  R. Goldberg Methods of Real Analysis , 1964 .

[6]  J. Junkins,et al.  On the existence of limit cycles for a class of penalty formulations of dissipative multibody systems , 1990 .

[7]  George M. Lance,et al.  A Differentiable Null Space Method for Constrained Dynamic Analysis , 1987 .

[8]  Giovanni Gallavotti,et al.  The elements of mechanics , 1983 .

[9]  R. Glowinski,et al.  Augmented Lagrangian and Operator-Splitting Methods in Nonlinear Mechanics , 1987 .

[10]  E. Zeidler Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications , 1988 .

[11]  Leonard Meirovitch,et al.  Methods of analytical dynamics , 1970 .

[12]  N. Kampen,et al.  Elimination of fast variables , 1985 .

[13]  E. Haug,et al.  Generalized Coordinate Partitioning for Dimension Reduction in Analysis of Constrained Dynamic Systems , 1982 .

[14]  A. Kurdila,et al.  Role of Maggi's Equations in Computational Methods for Constrained Multibody Systems , 1990 .

[15]  V. Arnold Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics , 1974 .

[16]  C. W. Gear,et al.  Simultaneous Numerical Solution of Differential-Algebraic Equations , 1971 .

[17]  S. Wiggins Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos , 1989 .

[18]  M. A. Serna,et al.  A modified Lagrangian formulation for the dynamic analysis of constrained mechanical systems , 1988 .

[19]  J. Junkins,et al.  Linear substructure synthesis via Lyapunov stable penalty methods , 1991 .

[20]  J. A. Walker,et al.  Dynamical Systems and Evolution Equations , 1980 .

[21]  Eduardo Bayo,et al.  Penalty Formulations for the Dynamic Analysis of Elastic Mechanisms , 1989 .

[22]  S. S. Kim,et al.  QR Decomposition for State Space Representation of Constrained Mechanical Dynamic Systems , 1986 .

[23]  Suresh M. Joshi,et al.  Control of Large Flexible Space Structures , 1989 .

[24]  Vimal Singh,et al.  Perturbation methods , 1991 .