On the choice of configuration space for numerical Lie group integration of constrained rigid body systems

Standard numerical integration schemes for multibody system (MBS) models in absolute coordinates neglect the coupling of linear and angular motions since finite positions and rotations are updated independently. As a consequence geometric constraints are violated, and the accuracy of the constraint satisfaction depends on the integrator step size. It is discussed in this paper that in certain cases perfect constraint satisfaction is possible when using an appropriate configuration space (without numerical constraint stabilization). Two formulations are considered, one where R^3 is used as rigid body configuration space and another one where rigid body motions are properly modeled by the semidirect product SE(3)=SO(3)@?R^3. MBS motions evolve on a Lie group and their dynamics is naturally described by differential equations on that Lie group. In this paper the implications of using the two representations on the constraint satisfaction within Munthe-Kaas integration schemes are investigated. It is concluded that the SE(3) update yields perfect constraint satisfaction for bodies constrained to a motion subgroup of SE(3), and in the general case both formulations lead to equivalent constraint satisfaction.

[1]  S. Buss.  Accurate and efficient simulation of rigid-body rotations , 2000 .

[2]  Janusz,et al.  Geometrical Methods in Robotics , 1996, Monographs in Computer Science.

[3]  H. Munthe-Kaas.  Runge-Kutta methods on Lie groups , 1998 .

[4]  Olivier Bruls,et al.  Lie group generalized-α time integration of constrained flexible multibody systems , 2012 .

[5]  E. Celledoni,et al.  Lie group methods for rigid body dynamics and time integration on manifolds , 2003 .

[6]  H. Munthe-Kaas,et al.  Computations in a free Lie algebra , 1999, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[7]  Nathan M. Newmark,et al.  A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics , 1959 .

[8]  Arne Marthinsen,et al.  Simulation of ordinary differential equations on manifolds : some numerical experiments and verifications , 1997 .

[9]  H. Munthe-Kaas.  High order Runge-Kutta methods on manifolds , 1999 .

[10]  L. Einkemmer.  Structure preserving numerical methods for the Vlasov equation , 2016, 1604.02616.

[11]  Jari Mäkinen,et al.  Critical study of Newmark-scheme on manifold of finite rotations , 2001 .

[12]  Oreste S. Bursi,et al.  The analysis of the Generalized-α method for non-linear dynamic problems , 2002 .

[13]  K. Engø,et al.  A Note on the Numerical Solution of the Heavy Top Equations , 2001 .

[14]  P. Crouch,et al.  Numerical integration of ordinary differential equations on manifolds , 1993 .

[15]  W. Blajer.  Methods for constraint violation suppression in the numerical simulation of constrained multibody systems – A comparative study , 2011 .

[16]  Olivier Bruls,et al.  Two Lie Group Formulations for Dynamic Multibody Systems With Large Rotations , 2011 .

[17]  A. Müller.  Approximation of finite rigid body motions from velocity fields , 2010 .

[18]  Herman Bruyninckx,et al.  Symbolic differentiation of the velocity mapping for a serial kinematic chain , 1996 .

[19]  Olivier Bruls,et al.  On the Use of Lie Group Time Integrators in Multibody Dynamics , 2010 .

[20]  Zdravko Terze,et al.  DAE Index 1 Formulation for Multibody System Dynamics in Lie-Group Setting , 2012 .

[21]  Richard M. Murray,et al.  A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation , 1994 .

[22]  A. Marthinsen,et al.  Modeling and Solution of Some Mechanical Problems on Lie Groups , 1998 .

[23]  Arne Marthinsen,et al.  Runge-Kutta Methods Adapted to Manifolds and Based on Rigid Frames , 1999 .

[24]  Petr Krysl,et al.  Explicit Newmark/Verlet algorithm for time integration of the rotational dynamics of rigid bodies , 2005 .

[25]  A. Iserles,et al.  Lie-group methods , 2000, Acta Numerica.