Forward Dynamics, Elimination Methods, and Formulation Stiffness in Robot Simulation

The numerical simulation problem of tree-structured multi body systems, such as robot manipulators, is usually treated as two separate problems: 1) the forward dynamics problem for computing system accelerations, and 2) the numerical integra tion problem for advancing the state in time. The interaction of these two problems can be important, and has led to new conclusions about the overall efficiency of multibody simula tion algorithms (Cloutier, Pai, and Ascher 1995). In particular, the fastest forward dynamics methods are not necessarily the most numerically stable, and in ill-conditioned cases may slow down popular adaptive step-size integration methods. This phenomenon is called formulation stiffness. In this article, we first unify the derivation of both the com posite rigid-body method (Walker and Orin 1982) and the articulated-body method (Featherstone 1983, 1987) as two elimination methods for solving the same linear system, with the articulated-body method taking advantage of sparsity. Then the numerical instability phenomenon for the composite rigid- body method is explained as a cancellation error that can be avoided, or at least minimized, when using an appropriate version of the articulated-body method. Specifically, we show that a variant of the articulated-body method is better suited to deal with certain types of ill-conditioning than the composite rigid-body method. The unified derivation also clarifies the un derlying linear algebra of forward dynamics algorithms, and is therefore of interest in its own right.

[1]  David E. Orin,et al.  Efficient Dynamic Computer Simulation of Robotic Mechanisms , 1982 .

[2]  R. Featherstone The Calculation of Robot Dynamics Using Articulated-Body Inertias , 1983 .

[3]  Martin Otter,et al.  A very efficient algorithm for the simulation of robots and similar multibody systems without invers , 1986 .

[4]  Giuseppe Rodriguez,et al.  Kalman filtering, smoothing, and recursive robot arm forward and inverse dynamics , 1987, IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation.

[5]  Roy Featherstone,et al.  Robot Dynamics Algorithms , 1987 .

[6]  Edward J. Haug,et al.  A Recursive Formation for Constrained Mechanical Systems Dynamics: Part I, Open Loop Systems , 1987 .

[7]  E. Haug,et al.  A Recursive Formulation for Constrained Mechanical System Dynamics: Part II. Closed Loop Systems , 1987 .

[8]  Edward J. Haug,et al.  A Recursive Formulation for Constrained Mechanical System Dynamics: Part III. Parallel Processor Implementation , 1988 .

[9]  Jorge Angeles,et al.  Dynamic Simulation of n-Axis Serial Robotic Manipulators Using a Natural Orthogonal Complement , 1988, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[10]  Abhinandan Jain Unified formulation of dynamics for serial rigid multibody systems , 1991 .

[11]  Abhinandan Jain,et al.  A Spatial Operator Algebra for Manipulator Modeling and Control , 1989, Proceedings, 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[12]  Ch . Engstler,et al.  MEXX - Numerical Software for the Integration of Constrained Mechanical Multibody Systems , 1992 .

[13]  R. E. Ellis,et al.  Numerical stability of forward-dynamics algorithms , 1992, Proceedings 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[14]  R. Ellis,et al.  Two Numerical Issues in Simulating Constrained Robot Dynamics , 1994, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst..

[15]  D.K. Pai,et al.  The formulation stiffness of forward dynamics algorithms and implications for robot simulation , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[16]  Uri M. Ascher,et al.  Sequential Regularization Methods for Nonlinear Higher-Index DAEs , 1997, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[17]  Abhinandan Jain Uniied Formulation of Dynamics for Serial Rigid Multibody Systems Uniied Formulation of Dynamics for Serial Rigid Multibody Systems , 1997 .