Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Sound and Vibration

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsvi

Study of nonlinear system stability using eigenvalue analysis:

Gyroscopic motion
Ahmed A. Shabana a,n, Mohamed H. Zaher a, Antonio M. Recuero b, Cheta Rathod c
a
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 842 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
b
Department of Mechanical and Material Engineering, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
c
ANSYS Inc., 1007 Church Street, Suite 250, Evanston, IL 60201, United States

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: General computational multibody system (MBS) algorithms allow for the linearization of
Received 22 May 2011 the highly nonlinear equations of motion at different points in time in order to obtain the
Received in revised form eigenvalue solution. This eigenvalue solution of the linearized equations is often used to
29 June 2011
shed light on the system stability at different configurations that correspond to different
Accepted 12 July 2011
time points. Different MBS algorithms, however, employ different sets of orientation
Handling Editor: L.N. Virgin
Available online 6 August 2011 coordinates, such as Euler angles and Euler parameters, which lead to different forms of the
dynamic equations of motion. As a consequence, the forms of the linearized equations and
the eigenvalue solution obtained strongly depend on the set of orientation coordinates
used. This paper addresses this fundamental issue by examining the effect of the use of
different orientation parameters on the linearized equations of a gyroscope. The nonlinear
equations of motion of the gyroscope are formulated using two different sets of orientation
parameters: Euler angles and Euler parameters. In order to obtain a set of linearized
equations that can be used to define the eigenvalue solution, the algebraic equations that
describe the MBS constraints are systematically eliminated leading to a nonlinear form of
the equations of motion expressed in terms of the system degrees of freedom. Because in
MBS applications the generalized forces can be highly nonlinear and can depend on the
velocities, a state space formulation is used to solve the eigenvalue problem. It is shown in
this paper that the independent state equations formulated using Euler angles and Euler
parameters lead to different eigenvalue solutions. This solution is also different from the
solution obtained using a form of the Newton–Euler matrix equation expressed in terms of
the angular accelerations and angular velocities. A time-domain solution of the linearized
equations is also presented in order to compare between the solutions obtained using two
different sets of orientation parameters and also to shed light on the important issue of
using the eigenvalue analysis in the study of MBS stability. The validity of using the
eigenvalue analysis based on the linearization of the nonlinear equations of motion in the
study of the stability of railroad vehicle systems, which have known critical speeds, is
examined. It is shown that such an eigenvalue analysis can lead to wrong conclusions
regarding the stability of nonlinear systems.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The stability of linear systems can be examined using an eigenvalue analysis that employs constant eigenvalues and
eigenvectors. For such a linear system the mass, stiffness and damping matrices are constant and are independent of time and

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shabana@uic.edu (A.A. Shabana).

0022-460X/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2011.07.010
 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022 6007

independent of the system configuration [1–4]. For linear systems, negative, positive and zero eigenvalue real parts imply,
respectively, stable, unstable and sustained (constant amplitude) oscillation modes. Furthermore, a linear coordinate
transformation does not change the eigenvalues of a linear system. For nonlinear dynamical systems, on the other hand, the
mass, stiffness, and damping matrices are not in general constant and they can depend on time as well as the system
configuration. A common practice used in the literature is to linearize the nonlinear system equations of motion at different
time points in order to shed light on the system stability at particular configurations. This approach is frequently used in
multibody system (MBS) computer algorithms and codes to study the stability of complex systems. The MBS dynamics is
governed by a coupled set of differential and algebraic equations [5–7]. The differential equations represent the equations of
motion, and the nonlinear algebraic equations describe the kinematic constraints imposed on the system motion. In order to
solve the eigenvalue problem in MBS algorithms at a selected configuration [8], a minimum set of independent differential
equations expressed in terms of the system degrees of freedom is obtained by eliminating the algebraic equations and the
redundant coordinates using the embedding technique. A standard linearization procedure is then used to obtain a set of linear
equations that can be used to determine the eigenvalues and the associated eigenvectors. Because MBS generalized forces are
in general highly nonlinear and depend on the velocities, a state space formulation is often used to determine the eigensolution.
Examples of the nonlinear velocity dependent forces are the gyroscopic forces [5,6,9,10]. The derivatives of such gyroscopic
forces with respect to the coordinates and velocities define, respectively, stiffness and damping terms in the linearized
equations of motion. The reader interested in the study of the gyroscopic motion and gyroscopic stabilization can consult with
the literature on this subject [11–17].
Different computational MBS algorithms and computer codes employ different sets of orientation parameters in
the formulation of the dynamic equations of motion. The three Euler angles and the four Euler parameters are among the
most widely used sets of orientation parameters. The four Euler parameters are related by an algebraic constraint
equation that must be satisfied at the position, velocity, and acceleration levels. Euler angles and Euler parameters lead to
very different forms of the dynamic equations of motion. As a consequence, the linearized equations of motion obtained
using these two different sets of orientation parameters will also have different forms that will lead to different eigenvalue
solutions. As recently demonstrated using a simple one-degree-of-freedom torque-free rotating disk, the equation of
motion expressed in terms of angles leads to zero eigenvalue associated with the rigid body motion, while an equation of
motion expressed in terms of Euler parameters does not lead to zero eigenvalue associated with such a rigid body motion
[18]. Euler angles can assume any large value, while all Euler parameters are bounded and their absolute values cannot
exceed one. This simple example demonstrated the fundamental issue associated with the study of nonlinear system
stability using the eigenvalue analysis based on the linearization of the nonlinear equations of motion. It was also reported
that the eigenvalue obtained from the linearized equations should not be interpreted as the system frequency but as the
frequency of oscillations of the coordinates used in the formulation of the system equations of motion [18].
In the simple rotating disk example, however, there are no gyroscopic forces since the rotation is assumed to be about a
single fixed axis. Gyroscopic forces characterize many MBS applications including railroad vehicle systems which are known to
have critical speeds that define the stability margins. No attempt has been made, however, to study the effect of using different
orientation parameters on the eigenvalue solution in the case of a general gyroscopic motion. Such a study will shed light on
the validity of using and interpreting the eigenvalue results obtained in MBS algorithms by linearizing the highly nonlinear
dynamic equations of motion. It is, therefore, the objective of this investigation to provide a detailed study of the effect of the
use of the orientation parameters on the eigenvalue solution obtained from the linearization of the more general nonlinear
gyroscope dynamic equations of motion. To this end, two different sets of orientation parameters are used; Euler angles and
Euler parameters. Two different forms of the gyroscope equations of motion can be obtained using these two different sets of
orientation parameters. In order to obtain the eigenvalue solution, the nonlinear algebraic constraint equations imposed on the
motion of the system are systematically eliminated using the embedding technique. This leads to a minimum set of differential
equations expressed in terms of the system degrees of freedom. The independent differential equations of motion are then
linearized in order to obtain a linear system of equations that can be used to solve for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors at
different configurations that correspond to different time points. Because of the general gyroscopic forces used in this study, a
state space approach is used to solve the eigenvalue problem. It is shown in this study that the use of different sets of
orientation parameters leads to different forms of the nonlinear and linearized equations of motion. It is also shown that the
use of two different sets of orientation parameters leads to different eigenvalue solutions. In order to have a better
understanding of the eigenvalue results, the time-domain solution of the linearized equations is also obtained. The behavior
of the solution of the linearized equations at a given configuration is compared with the behavior of the time-domain solution
of the nonlinear equations in order to draw a conclusion on whether or not the eigenvalue solutions of the linearized MBS
equations can be used to judge the system stability. The concepts and procedures developed are then applied to examine the
validity of using the eigenvalue solution in the study of the stability of railroad systems. Railroad systems have known critical
speeds that define known stability margins.

2. Background

In this section, the procedure used in MBS algorithms to solve for the eigenvalue problem at different configurations
that correspond to different time points is summarized. The equations of motion of a constrained system that consists of nb
6008 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

bodies can be written as

Mq€ þCTq k ¼ Q e þ Q v (1)

where M is the system symmetric mass matrix, q€ is the vector of the generalized accelerations, Cq is the Jacobian matrix of
the kinematic constraint equations, k is the vector of Lagrange multipliers which can be used to evaluate the generalized
constraint forces, Qe is the vector of the generalized external forces, and Qv is the vector of the generalized inertia forces
that absorbs terms that are quadratic in the velocities, including the gyroscopic forces. The vector of nonlinear constraint
equations at the position and acceleration levels can be written, respectively, as
Cðq,tÞ ¼ 0, Cq q€ ¼ Q d (2)
In this equation, t is the time, Qd is a vector that absorbs terms that are quadratic in the velocities and results from the
second derivative of the constraint vector C with respect to time, and q is the vector of generalized coordinates that can be
h iT
written in a partitioned form as q ¼ qTi qTd , where qi and qd are the vectors of the independent and dependent
coordinates, respectively.

2.1. Augmented equations of motion

In MBS algorithms, Eq. (1) and the second equation of Eq. (2) are used to form the following augmented form of the
equations of motion [5,6,10]:
" #" # " #
M CTq q€ Qe þQv
¼ (3)
Cq 0 k Qd

This equation is solved for the accelerations and Lagrange multipliers. The independent accelerations can be identified and
integrated to determine the independent coordinates and velocities. The dependent coordinates and velocities are
determined using the constraint equations at the position and velocity levels [10,19]. This coordinate partitioning scheme
ensures that the constraint equations are satisfied at the position, velocity, and acceleration levels.

2.2. Elimination of dependent variables

In order to solve for the eigenvalue problem at different configurations that correspond to different time points, the
embedding technique is used at these time points to reduce the differential equations to a minimum set expressed in
terms of the degrees of freedom (independent coordinates). To this end, the constraint equations at the acceleration level
(second equation of Eq. (2)) can be written as Cqi q€ i þ Cqd q€ d ¼ Q d , where Cqi and Cqd are, respectively, the Jacobian sub-
matrices associated with the independent and dependent coordinates. Using this partitioning of the acceleration vector,
one can write the dependent accelerations as q€ d ¼ C1 €
qd ðCqi q i Q d Þ. The total vector of system accelerations can then be
written in terms of the independent accelerations as q€ ¼ Bi q€ i þ ci , where Bi is the velocity transformation matrix and ci is
the vector that absorbs terms that are quadratic in velocities; both are defined as
" # " #
I 0
Bi ¼ , ci ¼ (4)
C1 qd Cqi C1
qd Q d

In this equation, I is an identity matrix. Using the relationship between the total vector of system accelerations and the
independent accelerations, the system independent equations of motion can be written in terms of the degrees of freedom
at the selected configurations as
Mi q€ i ¼ Q i (5)
where Mi ¼ BTi MBi
is the system mass matrix, and Q i ¼ BTi ðQ e þ Q v M i Þc is the vector of generalized forces associated with
the system degrees of freedom [5,6,10].

2.3. Linearization of the equations of motion

In order to obtain the eigenvalues and eigenvectors at different configurations that correspond to different time points,
a standard linearization procedure is used with Eq. (5) to define the system damping and stiffness matrices associated with
the system degrees of freedom. In order to obtain the system stiffness and damping matrices Ki and Ci, the vector of
generalized forces Qi is differentiated with respect to the generalized independent coordinates and the generalized
independent velocities, respectively, as
9
Q i ðqi þ Dqi ÞQ i ðqi Þ
Ki ¼  @Q i
@qi ¼  Dq i
=
@Q i Q i ðq_ i þ Dq_ i ÞQ i ðq_ i Þ ;
(6)
Ci ¼  @q_ ¼  Dq_
i i
 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022 6009

Using the stiffness matrix Ki and the damping matrix Ci, the linearized equations of motion can be written in the following
form:
Mi q€ i þCi q_ i þ Ki qi ¼ 0 (7)
This equation can be written in the following state space form:
" #" # " #
0 I qi q_ i
¼ € (8)
M1i Ki M1i Ci q_ i qi

The use of the state space formulation is necessary because of the gyroscopic and other velocity dependent forces. Using
Eq. (8), a standard procedure can be used to solve for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors at different configurations that
correspond to different time points.

3. Orientation parameters and gyroscopic motion

The four Euler parameters are used in MBS algorithms and computer codes in order to avoid the singularities associated
with Euler angles. Nonetheless, Euler angles are still widely used in MBS algorithms. The simulation code, SAMS/2000,
used by the authors employs Euler parameters for formulating the equations of motion [10]. The procedure described in
the preceding section can be used to determine independent differential equations expressed in terms of the independent
Euler parameters of the system. In order to obtain the eigenvalue solution in the case of Euler angles, the same equations
must be expressed in terms of Euler angles before the linearization. To this end, the relationship between Euler angles and
Euler parameters must be established in order to be able to perform the comparative study presented in this investigation.

3.1. Euler angles and Euler parameters relations

The Euler angle sequence used in this study is the one commonly used in railroad vehicle formulations. In this
i i
sequence, for a body i, the three Euler angle rotations c , f and yi are performed about the three axes Z i ,X i , and Yi,
respectively. Because in railroad applications the pitch angle increases with time while the yaw and roll angles remain
small, the rotation about the Yi axis is selected as the third rotation in order to avoid Euler angles singularities.
The transformation matrix using the Euler angles rotations is given by
2 i i i i i i i i i i i i
3
cos c cos y sin c sin f sin y sin c cos f cos c sin y þsin c sin f cos y
6 i i i i i i i i i i i i 7
Aia ¼ 6
4 sin c cos y þ cos c sin f sin y cos c cos f sin c sin y cos c sin f cos y 7 5 (9)
i i i i i
cos f sin y sin f cos f cos y

The four Euler parameters y0, y1, y2, and y3, on the other hand, are related by the nonlinear algebraic quaternion constraint
i i i i
equation ðy0 Þ2 þ ðy1 Þ2 þðy2 Þ2 þ ðy3 Þ2 ¼ 1. The transformation matrix in terms of Euler parameters can be written as
2 2 2 3i
12ðy2 þ y3 Þ 2ðy1 y2 y0 y3 Þ 2ðy1 y3 þ y0 y2 Þ
6 2 2 7
Aip ¼ 6
4 2ðy1 y2 þ y0 y3 Þ 12ðy1 þ y3 Þ 2ðy2 y3 y0 y1 Þ 5
7 (10)
2 2
2ðy1 y3 y0 y2 Þ 2ðy2 y3 þ y0 y1 Þ 12ðy1 þ y2 Þ

Using the two transformation matrices presented in Eqs. (9) and (10), it is possible to determine Euler angles from Euler
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
parameters. For example, f ¼ sin1 ð2ðy2 y3 þ y0 y1 ÞÞ, c ¼ ðsin1 ð2ðy1 y2 y0 y3 ÞÞÞ=cos f , and y ¼ ðsin1 ð2ðy1 y3 y0 y2 ÞÞÞ=
i i
cos f . In railroad vehicle system applications, the roll angle f remains small, and therefore, no singularities will be
encountered in determining Euler angles from Euler parameters.

3.2. Velocity relations

In order to obtain the independent equations of motion in terms of Euler angles from the equations of motion expressed
in terms of Euler parameters, it is necessary to obtain the velocity transformation matrix that defines the relationship
between the time derivatives of Euler angles and Euler parameters. This velocity transformation matrix can be determined
using the expressions of the angular velocities. The absolute angular velocity vectors defined in the global and the body
coordinate systems are given, respectively, in terms of Euler parameters by
i
xi ¼ Gip h_ ip , xi ¼ Gp h_ ip (11)
h i
i i i i T
where h_ ip is the derivative of the set of Euler parameters hip ¼ y0 y1 y2 y3 , and
2 i 3 2 3
y1 yi0 yi3 yi2 i
y1 yi0 yi3 yi2
6 i 7 i 6 7
Gip ¼ 26
4 y2 yi3 yi0 yi1 7 6 i
5, Gp ¼ 24 y2 y3
i
yi0 yi1 7
5 (12)
i i
y3 y2 yi1 yi0 i
y3 yi2 yi1 yi0
6010 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

Similarly, the same absolute angular velocities can be expressed in terms of Euler angles derivatives as
i
xi ¼ Gia h_ ia , xi ¼ Ga h_ ia (13)
h iT
where h_ ia is the derivative of the set of Euler angles hia ¼ ci fi yi , and
2 i i i
3 2 i i i
3
0 cos c sin c cos f cos f sin y cos y 0
i
6 i i i 77 i 6 i 7
6
Ga ¼ 4 0 sin c 6
cos c cos f 5, Ga ¼ 4 sin f 0 17 (14)
5
i i i i
1 0 sin f cos f cos y sin y 0

It follows that Gip h_ ip ¼ Gia h_ ia . Using the following Euler parameters identities GiT i i iT _ iT i
p Gp ¼ 4ðI4 hp hp Þ, and h p hp ¼ 0, one can
show that the derivatives of Euler parameters can be expressed in terms of the derivatives of Euler angles as h_ ip ¼ Bdi h_ ia ,
where Bdi ¼ ð1=4ÞGiT i _i 1 _i
p Ga . One can also show that h a ¼ ðGa Gp Þh p . Differentiating the velocity relationship, one can show that
€ i € i
the accelerations are related by h p ¼ Bdi h a þ cdi , where cdi ¼ ð1=4ÞGiT _ i _i
p Gaha.

3.3. Independent coordinates

In order to make sure that the configurations at which the equations of motion are linearized are the same in the case of
Euler angles and Euler parameters representation, the dynamic simulation is carried out using only one set of orientation
parameters, selected to be Euler parameters. At the desired configurations, the Euler parameters equations of motion are
converted to Euler angles equations of motion using the velocity transformation previously defined in this section. Euler angles
equations of motion are then linearized in order to solve for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors at the desired configurations.
In the case of constrained systems, the solution for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, as previously mentioned, requires
the formulation of the state equations expressed in terms of the system degrees of freedom. When Euler parameters are used,
h iT
the system coordinates are denoted as qTp ¼ R
T
hTp , where R is the vector that describes the translations of the bodies in
the system, and hp is the vector that contains all the sets of Euler parameters that define the orientation of all the bodies in the
system. The vector qp includes redundant coordinates because of the kinematic constraints imposed on the motion of the
system. These constraints include Euler parameters constraints; one for each body. In order to define the independent
state equations, one must identify the set of independent coordinates (degrees of freedom) qpi. This can be achieved using a
Gauss-Jordan procedure applied to the constraint Jacobian matrix Cqp as described in the literature [10,19].
h i
T T
In the case of Euler angles, the vector of system coordinates is defined as qTa ¼ RT ha , where ha is the vector
that contains all the sets of Euler angles that define the orientation of all the bodies in the system. Using the relationship
between the derivatives of Euler parameters and Euler angles, one can write q_ p ¼ Bpa q_ a , where Bpa is a velocity
transformation matrix. The constraint Jacobian matrix associated with the Euler angles representation can then be
written as Cqa ¼CqpBpa. This constraint Jacobian matrix can be used to identify the independent system coordinates qai
when Euler angles representation is used. One can then use the constraint Jacobian matrix Cqa to write q€ a in terms of q€ ai .
This will ensure that the equations of motion expressed in terms of Euler angles and used to obtain the linearized
equations for the eigenvalue solution satisfy the kinematic constraint equations.
i i i i
Because the quaternion constraint ðy0 Þ2 þ ðy1 Þ2 þðy2 Þ2 þ ðy3 Þ2 ¼ 1 applies only to Euler parameters, it is important to
eliminate the dependent Euler parameter before using the velocity transformation procedure discussed in this section in
order to avoid over-constrained systems. A relationship between the derivatives of the remaining Euler parameters and
the derivatives of Euler angles can then be obtained and used to determine the correct number of independent equations
of motion associated with the Euler angles representation.

3.4. Gyroscopic forces

The Newton–Euler equations for a rigid body i are defined as

" #" i # " i #
mi I 0 R€ Fe
i ¼ i i
(15)
0 Iyy ai Me xi ðIyy xi Þ

where mi is the mass of the rigid body, Ri is the vector that describes the translation of the body reference, I is the 3  3
i
identity matrix, Iyy is the inertia tensor defined with respect to the centroidal body coordinate system, Fie is the resultant of
i
the external forces defined in the global system, Me is the resultant of the external moments defined in the body
i _i i
coordinate system, and ai ¼ G h€ i þ G h_ i ¼ G h€ i is the angular acceleration vector defined in the body coordinate system. In
a a a a p p
the case of pure rotations, the equations of motion reduce to
i i i
Iyy ai ¼ Me xi ðIyy xi Þ (16)
 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022 6011

When Euler angles or Euler parameters are used, the preceding equation can be written as
iT i i iT i i
ðGk Iyy Gk Þh€ ik ¼ Gk ðMe ðQ v Þy Þ, k ¼ a,p (17)

where
i iT i i _i
ðQ v Þy ¼ Gk ½xi ðIyy xi Þ þ Iyy Gk h_ ik , k ¼ a,p (18)
 
_i i i iT i
In the case of Euler parameters, Gp h_ ip ¼ 0, and Q v reduces to ðQ v Þy ¼ Gk ðxi ðIyy xi ÞÞ. The global definition ðQ iv Þy of the
y
i i i i
vector ðQ v Þy can be obtained by replacing xi with xi, Gk with Gik , and Iyy with Iiyy ¼ Aik Iyy AiT
k . Note also that in the case of
Euler parameters, the Euler parameters constraints must be combined with Eq. (15) in order to avoid the singularity of
iT i i
Gk Iyy Gk . Another alternate approach that can be used is to eliminate one of the Euler parameters in order to define a
positive definite inertia matrix.

4. Time-domain solution of the nonlinear equations

In order to examine the effect of the gyroscopic forces, the disk, denoted as body i, shown in Fig. 1 is considered. The three
moments of inertia of the disk defined in the body coordinate system are assumed to be ixx,iyy, and izz. The products of inertia
are assumed to be zeros. The translation of the disk center of mass is not allowed, while the disk is allowed to have arbitrary
rotations; that is, the disk has three rotational degrees of freedom. The mass moments of inertia of the disk are assumed to be
ixx ¼izz ¼ 656 kg m2, and iyy ¼168 kg m2. The assumption ixx ¼izz corresponds to the important case of a rotating uniform wheel.
The initial conditions of the disk are assumed to be oxo ¼ 10 rad/s, oyo ¼ 20 rad/s, and ozo ¼ 30 rad/s. Fig. 2 shows that two of

Fig. 1. Rotating disk.

35

30

25

20
Angle (rad)

15

10

-5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 2. Euler angles obtained using the nonlinear equations (—— c, – – – f, -.-.-. y).
6012 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

the Euler angles of the disk rapidly increase with time. Fig. 3 shows that the time derivatives of Euler angles are oscillatory and
their maximum values do not increase with time. Figs. 4 and 5 show that Euler parameters and their derivatives are bounded as
expected since the absolute value of any of the Euler parameters cannot exceed one; while there is no upper bound on Euler
angles. Fig. 6 shows that for this torque-free system the components of the angular velocity vector ox and oz are oscillatory
with an amplitude close to 31.6 rad/s; while the component of the angular velocity vector oy remains constant and is equal to
20 rad/s. This behavior is due to the effect of the gyroscopic forces and the inertia distribution of the disk. Because ixx ¼izz, one
can show that the equations of motion of the disk are ixx aix ¼ oiy oiz ðizz iyy Þ, iyy aiy ¼ 0, and izz aiz ¼ oix oiy ðiyy ixx Þ. The
second equation shows that oy remains constant, and it is equal to its initial value. Because ixx ¼izz, the first and third equations
can then be written as aix ¼ boiz , and aiz ¼ boix , where b ¼ ðoiy ðizz iyy ÞÞ=izz . The solution of these equations is
ox ¼ Cx sinðbt þ fx Þ, and oz ¼ Cz sinðbt þ fz Þ, where Cx and Cz are the constants of integration. Using the data given for this
example, one can show analytically that b ¼14.878 rad/s, Cx ¼Cz ¼31.6227, fx ¼18.43491, and fz ¼  71.56551. These analytical
results can be used to confirm the simulation results presented in Fig. 6 as well as the results of the angular accelerations and
i
the gyroscopic forces xi ðIyy xi Þ presented in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The results presented in Figs. 2–8, however, were
obtained using the general purpose MBS computer program SAMS/2000 in which the general nonlinear differential/algebraic
equations of motion are solved numerically [10]. An explicit numerical integration method was used with a computational
algorithm that ensures that the algebraic constraint equations are satisfied at the position, velocity, and acceleration levels. It is
also important to point out that separate simulations were conducted using Euler angles and Euler parameters.

40

30
Angular velocity (rad/s)

20

10

-10

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)
_, – – – f
Fig. 3. Euler angle derivatives obtained using the nonlinear equations (—— c _ , -.-.-. y_ ).

1.00

0.75

0.50
Euler parameter

0.25

0.00

-0.25

-0.50

-0.75

-1.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 4. Euler parameters obtained using the nonlinear equations (—— y0, – – – y1, -.-.-. y2, yy y3).
 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022 6013

20

15

Euler parameter derivative

10

-5

-10

-15

-20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 5. Euler parameters derivatives obtained using the nonlinear equations (——y_ 0 , – – – y_ 1 , -.-.-. y_ 2 , yy y_ 3 ).

30
Local angular velocity (rad/s)

20

10

-10

-20

-30

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 6. Angular velocities defined in the body coordinate system (——ox , – – – oy , -.-.-. oz ).

500
400
300
Local acceleration (rad/s2)

200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 7. Angular accelerations defined in the body coordinate system (—— ax , – – – ay , -.-.-. az ).
6014 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

300

200

Gyroscopic forces (kNm)

100

-100

-200

-300

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 8. Gyroscopic forces defined in the body coordinate system (—— x-axis, – – – y-axis, -.-.-. z-axis).

5. Linearization and eigenvalue analysis

The motion and stability of a dynamic system do not depend on the parameters used to describe the orientations of the
body. Euler angles and Euler parameters must produce the same absolute motion results despite the fact that the forms of
the equations in terms of Euler angles and Euler parameters can be different. Therefore, the orientation parameterization
should not be an issue when conclusions are made regarding the system stability. The time-domain solution obtained
using the nonlinear equations of motion should not depend on the set of orientation parameters selected. As previously
mentioned, different MBS computer algorithms and codes employ different sets of orientation parameters that lead to
different forms of the dynamic equations. When these equations are linearized for a stability analysis based on the
eigenvalue solution, different forms of the linearized equations and different eigenvalue solutions are obtained. A sound
interpretation of these solutions is important if a correct decision regarding the system stability is to be made. This
important issue is discussed in this section in the general case of gyroscopic motion. However, before discussing this
general case, a simple example from the literature is used to provide background materials that can help to better
understand the motivation for examining the more general gyroscopic motion.

5.1. Fixed axis of rotation

In the case of a disk rotating about the fixed Y-axis, Euler angles c ¼ f ¼0; and in the case of torque-free motion, the
i
Newton–Euler equations of motion reduce to iyy y€ ¼ 0. The eigenvalue solution of this equation leads to one zero
i i
eigenvalue that corresponds to a rigid body mode. For given initial conditions y ð0Þ ¼ yo and y_ ð0Þ ¼ y_ o , the angle yi
i i
i i i
_
increases linearly according to the equation y ðtÞ ¼ yo þ y o t, where t is the time. These results show that, when Euler angles
used in this simple example, the rigid body mode is associated with a zero eigenvalue [18].  T
Recall that Euler parameters can be written in terms of the components of the axis of rotation v ¼ v1 v2 v3 and
i
the angle of rotation y as

yi yi yi yi
yi0 ¼ cos , yi1 ¼ v1 sin , yi2 ¼ v2 sin , yi3 ¼ v3 sin (19)
2 2 2 2
i i
In the case of a simple rotation about the Y-axis, one has y1 ¼ y3 ¼ 0. In this special case, the Euler parameters
i i i
constraint equation becomes ðy0 Þ2 þðy2 Þ ¼ 1. Using this constraint equation, and considering y2 as the independent
parameter, one can show that the Euler parameters equation of motion of the disk is
i i
y€ 2 þ ð1ðyi2 Þ2 Þ1 ðy_ 2 Þ2 yi2 ¼ 0 (20)
i
Qi ¼ ð1ðy2 Þ2 Þ1 ðy_ 2 Þ2 y2
i i
One can define and use this expression to define the following stiffness and damping
i i
coefficients that define the linearized equation y€ 2 þ Ci y_ 2 þ Ki y2 ¼ 0 as [10]
i

i i i
ðy_ 2 Þ2 ð1þ ðy2 Þ2 Þ 2y2 y_ 2
i
@Qi @Qi
Ki ¼  i
¼ i
, Ci ¼  i
¼ i
(21)
@y2 ð1ðy2 Þ2 Þ2 @y_ 2 ð1ðy2 Þ2 Þ
 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022 6015

It is clear from this equation that the stiffness and damping coefficients depend on the configuration and the initial
conditions. Using the Euler parameters identities, the stiffness and damping coefficients can also be written in terms of the
angle of rotation yi as
i !
ðy_ Þ2
i
2 y i yi
Ki ¼ 1 þ 2tan , Ci ¼ y_ tan (22)
4 2 2

This equation shows that the form of the linearized equation obtained using Euler angles is significantly different from the
form of the linearized equation using Euler parameters. Since in MBS computer codes, the equations are linearized at
selected configurations that correspond to different time points, the assumption of small angles cannot be used.
The absolute value of any Euler parameter cannot exceed one because of the quaternion constraint on the magnitude of
these parameters. Furthermore, the solution of the linearized Euler parameters equation is oscillatory. While the stiffness
coefficient in Eq. (21) is always positive, the damping coefficient can change the sign, leading to positive or negative real
part of the eigenvalue depending on the configuration at which the equation is linearized. This fact was demonstrated by
the results presented in a previous publication [18]. This simple example, therefore, demonstrates that, for the same
system, the eigenvalue solutions obtained using two different sets of orientation parameters can be significantly different.
It is also clear from the preceding equation that singularities in the expression of the stiffness and damping coefficients
can be encountered when yi ¼ p. As discussed in previous publications, MBS algorithms are designed to allow changing the
system degrees of freedom to avoid singularities and ill-conditioned matrices. In the computer implementation, the
numerical properties of the constraint Jacobian matrix are used to determine the optimum set of independent coordinates.
i
Hence, when singularities are encountered when y2 is selected as the independent coordinate, the computer code
i
automatically selects y0 as the degree of freedom and evaluates the stiffness and damping coefficients associated with this
new degree of freedom [18].

5.2. General gyroscopic motion

The procedures described in Sections 2 and 3 are used to obtain the eigenvalue solution in the case of the general
gyroscopic motion. The equations of motion of the system are formulated using Euler parameters. At the selected
configurations at which the eigenvalue solutions are determined, the independent equations of motion can be expressed in
terms of Euler angles or Euler parameters. These independent equations are linearized to define the stiffness and damping
matrices. The state space formulation as defined by Eq. (8) is used to solve for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
system. Tables 1 and 2 show the eigenvalue results obtained in the two cases of Euler angles and Euler parameters for the
rotating disk discussed in Section 4. The disk has three degrees of freedom, and therefore, the dimension of the state space
equation is six. Two complex conjugate modes can be combined into one real mode as discussed in the literature.
The results presented in Table 1 show that in the case of Euler angles the eigenvalues of the system can have zero,
positive and/or negative real parts at the selected configurations. At the start of the simulation, there are zero eigenvalues
which are interpreted in the literature to correspond to rigid body modes (non-oscillatory motion). Nonetheless, the

Table 1
Eigenvalue results for three disk configurations (Euler angles).

Mode number t ¼0 s t ¼0.504 s t ¼0.942 s

Real Imaginary Real Imaginary Real Imaginary

1  0.932Eþ 01 0.000E þ00  0.193Eþ 02 70.938E þ01  0.401Eþ 01 0.000E þ 00

2 0.000Eþ 00 0.000E þ00 0.311Eþ 02 70.181E þ02  0.174Eþ 01 0.000E þ 00
3 0.000Eþ 00 0.000E þ00  0.121Eþ 02 70.421E þ02 0.118Eþ 02 70.244E þ 01
4 0.932Eþ 01 0.000E þ00  0.104Eþ 02 70.142E þ 03
5 0.118E  04 70.196E þ02

Table 2
Eigenvalue results for three disk configurations (Euler parameters).

Mode number t¼ 0 s t¼ 0.504 s t ¼ 0.942 s

Real Imaginary Real Imaginary Real Imaginary

1  0.823E þ01 7 0.106Eþ02  0.900E þ01 7 0.141E þ02 0.488E þ01 70.195E þ02
2 0.822E þ01 7 0.106Eþ02 0.776E þ01 7 0.187E þ02 0.199E þ02 70.241E þ02
3 0.405E 04 70.355E þ02  0.450E þ01 7 0.438E þ02  0.216E þ02 70.354E þ02
6016 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

results presented in Figs. 2 and 3, which are obtained using time-domain analysis of the original equations, show different
oscillatory behavior. For example, the imaginary part of the eigenvalue is associated with the frequency of oscillations. The
state space results presented in Table 1 show at t ¼0 that there is only one eigenvalue that has non-zero imaginary part.
The value of this non-zero imaginary part does not correspond to the frequencies shown in Fig. 3. Furthermore, the results
presented in Fig. 3 show that the amplitudes of Euler angle derivatives remain constant and do not increase with time.
More detailed discussion on the Euler angle results will be presented when considering the stability of railroad vehicles in
the following section. The time-domain results of the linearized equations will be presented in order to shed more light on
the relationship between the eigenvalue results of the linearized equations and the stability of railroad vehicle systems.
While Euler angles may increase indefinitely, Euler parameters by definition are bounded because of the quaternion
constraint, and therefore, such parameters may not increase indefinitely. The rotating disk example previously discussed
in this section also show that when Euler parameters are used, rigid body motion is not associated with zero eigenvalue of
the linearized equation of the disk. Table 2 show the eigenvalue results in the case of Euler parameters at the same
configurations used to report the Euler angle results of Table 1. In the case of Euler parameters, complex conjugate
eigenvalues are obtained at these selected configurations, and therefore, the six complex modes obtained using the state
space formulation can be reduced to three real modes only. It is clear that the eigenvalue results presented in Table 2 are
very different from the Euler angle results reported in Table 1. Furthermore, the results presented in Table 2 show also that
some of the eigenvalues have positive real parts; an indication that Euler parameters may become unstable, a violation of
the quaternion constraints that must be satisfied by Euler parameters. As previously mentioned, a time-domain solution of
the linearized equations of a railroad vehicle system will be presented in the following section in order to have a better
understanding of the eigenvalue results in applications where stability margins are known.

6. Stability of railroad systems

Railroad vehicle systems have known critical speeds; above these speeds the system becomes unstable, and below this
critical speed the system is stable. The system critical speed depends on many parameters that include the inertia,
suspension characteristics, and wheel and rail profiles. Therefore, such railroad vehicle systems are good examples to
check the validity of using the linearization of the highly nonlinear equations of motion to study the system stability.
A wheelset of a railroad vehicle system experiences gyroscopic motion. Nonetheless, two of the rotation angles,
ci (yaw) and fi (roll) remain small, while the pitch angle yi that represents the rotation of the wheelset about its axis can
increase with time. Therefore, the rotational motion of the wheelset can be considered as a special case of the general
gyroscopic motion previously discussed in this paper. Wheelsets, however, are subjected to contact forces as the result of
their interaction with the rail. The wheel/rail contact forces include normal force and tangential creep force; this is in
addition to a spin moment in the direction of an axis perpendicular to the contact surfaces. Fig. 9 shows the suspended
wheelset used as an example in this investigation. The wheelset is connected to the frame using longitudinal and lateral
springs and dampers which have the coefficients cl1 ¼cl2 ¼1 kN s/m, ct1 ¼ct2 ¼0, kl1 ¼kl2 ¼13.5 kN/m, and kt1 ¼kt2 ¼25 kN/m.
The wheelset is assumed to have the same mass moments of inertia as the disk example discussed in the preceding sections,
and a mass m¼1568 kg. The wheelset is assumed to travel on a tangent track with frame forward velocity of 20 m/s; a speed
below the critical speed which is equal to 22.4 m/s. The wheelset is assumed to have an initial lateral velocity of 0.05 m/s. All
other degrees of freedom of the frame are constrained. The wheel/rail contact is modeled using the elastic contact

cl1 kl1 kl2 cl2

kt1 kt2

ct1 ct2

Fig. 9. Suspended wheelset model.

 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022 6017

formulation (ECF-A) [20]. Therefore, this simple railroad system has six degrees of freedom that define three wheelset
translations and three rotations. The lateral displacement (displacement in the horizontal plane in a direction perpendicular
to the direction of travel) and yaw angle of the center of mass of the wheelset are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. The
results presented in these two figures, which were obtained using Euler parameters, clearly show that the wheelset has
stable motion since the forward velocity is below the critical speed. The results presented in these two figures show that
lateral displacement and yaw angle oscillations have the same frequency and have a constant phase shift. This behavior is
typical for wheelsets that experience hunting.
It is expected in this example that the pitch angle and the translation in the longitudinal direction (direction of travel)
will continue to increase during the simulation. The time derivatives of Euler angles also remain very small. These results
are confirmed from the simulation output. Two of the Euler parameters and their derivatives, however, oscillate as shown
in Figs. 12 and 13. The state space equation in this example has dimension 12. Table 3 shows the eigenvalue results
obtained at two configurations when Euler angles are used. The results presented in this table show that the real parts of
the eigenvalues can be positive or negative. Table 4 shows the results at the same configurations in the case of Euler
parameters. There are also positive and negative real parts, depending on the configuration. The mode shapes obtained
using the linearized equations in the case of Euler angles and Euler parameters at time 3.13 s are shown in Figs. 14 and 15,
respectively.
In order to better understand the effect of the linearization, the time-domain solution of the linearized equations
is obtained at the 3.13 s configuration. The state of the system at this configuration is used as the initial conditions.

0.0006

0.0004
Lateral displacement (m)

0.0002

0.0000

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Fig. 10. Lateral displacement.

0.0080

0.0060

0.0040
Yaw angle (degrees)

0.0020

0.0000

-0.0020

-0.0040

-0.0060

-0.0080
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Fig. 11. Yaw angle.

6018 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

1.0

0.5

Euler parameter
0.0

-0.5

-1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 12. Euler parameters obtained using the nonlinear equations (——y0, – – – y1, -.-.-. y2, yy y3).

25
20
15
Euler parameter derivative

10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 13. Euler parameters derivatives obtained using the nonlinear equations (—— y_ 0 , – – – y_ 1 , -.-.-. y_ 2 , yy y_ 3 ).

Table 3
Eigenvalue results for two wheelset configurations (Euler angles).

Mode number t ¼0 s t¼ 3.13 s

Real Imaginary Real Imaginary

1  0.851Eþ 03 0.000E þ 00  0.465Eþ 03 0.000E þ 00

2  0.395Eþ 03 0.000E þ 00  0.208Eþ 03 0.000E þ 00
3  0.149Eþ 03 0.000E þ 00  0.149Eþ 03 0.000E þ 00
4  0.735Eþ 01 0.000E þ 00 0.993Eþ 01 0.000E þ 00
5 0.000E þ 00 0.000E þ 00 0.157Eþ 01 7 0.193Eþ 01
6 0.649Eþ 00 0.000E þ 00  0.806Eþ 00 7 0.391Eþ 01
7  0.424Eþ 00 7 0.335Eþ 01  0.372Eþ 02 7 0.132Eþ 04
8  0.694Eþ 02 7 0.160Eþ 04  0.869Eþ 02 7 0.138Eþ 04
9  0.176Eþ 03 7 0.168Eþ 04

The Cartesian coordinates of the center of mass of the wheelset obtained as the solution of the linearized equations are
shown in Figs. 16 and 17 for the two cases of Euler angles and Euler parameters, respectively. It is shown from the results
presented in these figures that the linearized equations predict an unstable solution for this stable system. Euler angles
 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022 6019

Table 4
Eigenvalue results for two wheelset configurations (Euler parameters).

Mode number t¼ 0 s t ¼ 3.13 s

Real Imaginary Real Imaginary

1  0.850E þ03 0.000E þ00  0.431E þ03 0.000E þ00

2  0.393E þ03 0.000E þ00  0.205E þ03 0.000E þ00
3  0.143E þ03 0.000E þ00  0.149E þ03 0.000E þ00
4  0.122E þ02 0.000E þ00 0.252E þ00 0.000E þ00
5  0.330E þ00 0.000E þ00 0.681E þ00 70.250E þ01
6  0.530E  01 0.000E þ00 0.852E þ01 7 0.198E þ02
7  0.583E þ00 70.132E þ02  0.371E þ02 7 0.132E þ04
8  0.278E þ02 70.162E þ04  0.873E þ02 7 0.135E þ04
9  0.218E þ03 70.165E þ04

Mode shape 1 (0 Hz) Mode shape 2 (0 Hz)

Mode shape 3 (0 Hz) Mode shape 4 (0 Hz)

Mode shape 5 (0.31 Hz) Mode shape 6 (0.62 Hz)

Mode shape 7 (209.7 Hz) Mode shape 8 (219.0 Hz)

Fig. 14. Wheelset mode shapes obtained using linearized Euler angles equations.
6020 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

Mode shape 1 (0 Hz) Mode shape 2 (0 Hz)

Mode shape 3 (0 Hz) Mode shape 4 (0 Hz)

Mode shape 5 (0.41 Hz) Mode shape 6 (3.1 Hz)

Mode shape 7 (209.7 Hz) Mode shape 8 (214.4 Hz)

Fig. 15. Wheelset mode shapes obtained using linearized Euler parameters equations.

15000

10000
Cartesian coordinates (m)

5000

-5000

-10000

-15000
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time (s)

Fig. 16. Time-domain Cartesian coordinate solution of the linear Euler angles equations (—— Rx, – – – Ry, -.-.-. Rz).
 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022 6021

150000

100000

Cartesian coordinates (m)

50000

-50000

-100000

-150000
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Time (s)

Fig. 17. Time-domain Cartesian coordinate solution of the linear Euler parameters equations (—— Rx, – – – Ry, -.-.-. Rz).

15000

10000

5000
Angle (rad)

-5000

-10000

-15000
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time (s)

Fig. 18. Time-domain Euler angle solution of the linear equations (—— Yaw, – – – Roll, -.-.-. Pitch).

15000

10000
Euler parameter

5000

-5000

-10000

-15000
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Time (s)

Fig. 19. Time-domain Euler parameters solution of the linear equations (—— y1, – – – y2, -.-.-. y3).

and Euler parameters as predicted by the time-domain solution of the linearized equations are shown in Figs. 18 and 19,
respectively. The results in Fig. 19, in particular, show that Euler parameters can increase without bound since the Euler
parameters constraint cannot be imposed using the six independent linearized equations.
6022 A.A. Shabana et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 330 (2011) 6006–6022

The results presented in this section demonstrate that the eigenvalue solution and the time-domain solution obtained
using the linearized equations do not shed light on the stability of the wheelset. The wheelset example used in this
investigation has a stable motion since the forward velocity is below the critical speed. Numerical results obtained in this
study have also shown that for a forward velocity above the critical speed, the eigenvalue solution and the time-domain
solution of the linearized equations fail to shed light on the system stability at some configurations.

7. Conclusions

A common procedure used in MBS computational algorithms to study the stability of nonlinear dynamical systems is to
linearize the nonlinear equations of motion at selected configurations that correspond to different time points. The
linearized equations are used to obtain an eigenvalue solution that is used to shed light on the system stability. This paper
discusses the validity of using this approach by considering two sets of orientation parameters that are widely used in MBS
computational algorithms. To this end, Euler angles and Euler parameters are used to formulate the eigenvalue problem.
In order to ensure that the same state at the selected configurations is used in both cases of Euler angles and Euler
parameters, the nonlinear equations of motion are formulated using Euler parameters. At the selected configuration, the
independent state equations are obtained in terms of the system degrees of freedom by eliminating the constraint
equations. In the case of Euler parameters, these state equations are linearized in order to obtain the stiffness and damping
matrices that enter into the eigenvalue formulation. When Euler angles are used, the relationship between Euler angles
and Euler parameters is used to write the nonlinear state equations at the selected configurations in terms of Euler angles.
The resulting nonlinear equations are then linearized in order to obtain the stiffness and damping matrices associated with
the Euler angles formulation. The eigenvalue solution obtained using Euler angles and Euler parameters are compared
using a rotating disk and a suspended wheelset. The results obtained in this study demonstrate that the eigenvalue
solution strongly depend on the set of orientation parameters used. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the suspended
wheelset example, the eigenvalues may fail to shed light on the system stability. These results were confirmed by the
time-domain solution of the linearized equations of motion at the selected configurations.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC, and by the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation under project reference TRA2007-66808.

References

[1] R.W. Clough, J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
[2] L. Meirovitch, Elements of Vibration Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986.
[3] A.A. Shabana, Vibration of Discrete and Continuous Systems, second ed., Springer, New York, 1997.
[4] W.T. Thomson, Theory of Vibration with Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
[5] R.L. Huston, Multibody Dynamics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1990.
[6] R.E. Roberson, R. Schwertassek, Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
[7] A.A. Shabana, Dynamics of Multibody Systems, third ed., Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[8] A.G. Lynch, M.J. Vanderploeg, A symbolic formulation for linearization of multibody equations of motion, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design
117 (1995) 441–445.
[9] A.H. Passos Morgado, On the determination of inertial and gyroscopic forces in multibody systems, International Applied Mechanics 35 (12) (1999)
1293–1300.
[10] A.A. Shabana, Computational Dynamics, third ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2010.
[11] S.A. Agafonov, Stability of non-conservative systems and applications, Journal of Mathematical Sciences 125 (4) (2005) 556–578.
[12] O.N. Kirillov, Gyroscopic stabilization of non-conservative systems, Physics Letters A 359 (2006) 204–210.
[13] W. Kliem, C. Pommer, J. Stoustrup, Stability of rotor systems: a complex modeling approach, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und
Physik—ZAMP 49 (1998) 664.
[14] W. Kliem, A.P. Seyranian, Analysis of the gyroscopic stabilization of a system of rigid bodies, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik—ZAMP
48 (1997) 840–847.
[15] J. Li, Z. Wang, Stability of non-conservative linear gyroscopic systems, SU Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 17 (12) (1996) 1171–1175.
[16] J. Li, X. Li, Z. Wang, New theorems on stability of mechanical systems with circulatory forces, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und
Physik—ZAMP 50 (1999) 839–843.
[17] O.A. Peregudova, Stabilization of the motions of non-autonomous mechanical systems, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 73 (2009)
124–133.
[18] A.A. Shabana, On the definition of the natural frequency of oscillations in nonlinear large rotation problems, Journal of Sound and Vibration 329 (15)
(2010) 3171–3181.
[19] R.A. Wehage, 1980, Generalized Coordinate Partitioning in Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems, PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
[20] A.A. Shabana, K.E. Zaazaa, H. Sugiyama, Railroad Vehicle Dynamics: A Computational Approach, Taylor & Francis, CRC, Boca Raton, 2008.