147

Efficient calculation of the inertia terms in floating

frame of reference formulations for flexible
multibody dynamics
U Lugrís∗ , M A Naya, A Luaces, and J Cuadrado
Laboratory of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Coruña, Ferrol, Spain

The manuscript was received on 26 May 2008 and was accepted after revision for publication on 17 February 2009.
DOI: 10.1243/14644193JMBD164

Abstract: One of the characteristics of floating frame of reference (FFR) formulations for flexible
multibody dynamics is the fact that the inertia terms are highly non-linear. At every time-step,
both the mass matrix and the velocity-dependent forces vector must be updated, and this can
become the most CPU intensive task. This work studies the efficiency of two different methods
for performing this operation, when applied to both a formulation in absolute coordinates and
another in relative coordinates.
The first method calculates the inertia terms by projecting the finite element (FE) mass matrix
into the generalized coordinates, by means of a variable projection matrix. The second one
calculates the inertia shape integrals at a preprocessing stage and uses them for obtaining the
inertia terms in a more efficient way, at the cost of a more involved implementation. Both methods
have been tested when used in combination with either the FFR absolute or relative formulation,
by simulating a vehicle with 12 flexible elements. The results show that the performance can be
considerably increased by means of the preprocessing method, especially in the case of large FE
models, whereas, for small models, the projection method can be more convenient due to its
simplicity.

Keywords: real-time, flexible multibody dynamics, floating frame of reference, inertia shape
integrals

1 INTRODUCTION calculated analytically, but in more general geometries

One of the most efficient methods for the simulation of
flexible multibody systems is the floating frame of ref-
erence (FFR) approach [1]. In this method, each flexi-
ble body is attached to a moving frame of reference, in
such a way that the elastic displacements are obtained
in local coordinates, with respect to the moving frame
that, in turn, undergoes the large translations and rota-
tions. The local elastic displacements are in most cases
calculated by means of approximation techniques
such as the Rayleigh–Ritz method [2–4], obtaining the
elastic displacement as a linear combination of shape
functions, whose coefficients are the so-called elastic
coordinates or modal amplitudes. These shape func-
tions, in some particular cases such as beams, can be
∗ Corresponding author: Laboratory of Mechanical Engineering,
University of La Coruña, Mendizábal, s/n, Ferrol, La Coruña, 15403,
Spain.
email: ulugris@udc.es
the use of finite element (FE) models [5] becomes
necessary.
Unlike what happens to absolute formulations such
as the ANCF proposed by Shabana [1], where the mass
matrix of a flexible body is constant and the compu-
tation time is mostly spent in evaluating the elastic
forces, in FFR methods the elastic forces are linear, but
the evaluation of the highly non-linear mass matrix
and velocity-dependent forces vector (i.e. the inertia
terms) can become the most demanding task. In the
present work, two different methods for evaluating the
inertia terms are compared in terms of efficiency, in
order to provide practical criteria of use.
The first one, referred to as the projection method in
what follows, is based on the corotational approach
proposed by Géradin and Cardona [6], and con-
sists of projecting the constant FE mass matrix into
the generalized coordinates, by means of a variable
projection matrix. This results in a very simple-to-
implement method, its main drawback being the fact

JMBD164 © IMechE 2009 Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics
148 U Lugrís, M A Naya, A Luaces, and J Cuadrado
that, despite using component mode synthesis, the
CPU-time depends on the size of the original FE
model, so that performance can be seriously affected
when complex FE models are used.
In order to address this problem, the preprocessing
method uses the inertia shape integrals obtained in
a preprocessing stage [1, 7, 8] in such a way that the
CPU-time will only depend on the size of the reduced
model (i.e. the number of deformation modes used);
this means that the mesh can be refined as much
as needed without introducing any penalty to the
simulation time, but only to the preprocessing time.
In the present work, the implementation of the
preprocessing method into two existing FFR formu-
lations, which already use the projection method,
is first addressed. One of the formulations [9] uses
absolute coordinates, more specifically natural coor-
dinates [10], whereas the other one is based on
dependent relative coordinates [11]. The preprocess-
ing method has been already implemented in a formu-
lation in natural coordinates by Cuadrado et al. [12],
although the modelling differs from that used in
reference [9], leading to very involved expressions for
the inertia terms.
In order to assess the efficiency improvement
obtained by introducing the inertia shape integrals,
the same benchmark system used in reference [11] for
comparing absolute and relative coordinates is cho-
sen, i.e. the Iltis vehicle [13]. In the present work,
the vehicle is modelled considering always 12 flexible
elements, which can be discretized using a variable
number of finite elements. The same manoeuvre is
simulated several times, by using the projection and
preprocessing methods, both in absolute and relative
coordinates, and with different levels of refinement of
the FE models.
2 DYNAMIC FORMULATIONS
In the absolute formulation, the equations of motion,
stated through an index–3 augmented Lagrangian for-
mulation [14], are the following for a system whose
position is defined by a set of natural coordinates q
Mq̈ +
Tq αΦ +
Tq λ∗ = Q
where M is the mass matrix, Φ is the constraints vec-
tor,
q is its Jacobian matrix, Q is the vector of elastic,
externally applied, and velocity-dependent forces, α is
the penalty factor, and λ∗ is the Lagrange multipliers
vector, obtained from an iteration process carried out
within each time step
λ∗i+1 = λ∗i + αΦi+1 , i = 0, 1, 2, . . .
which starts with λ∗0 equal to the value of λ∗ obtained
in the previous time-step.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics
The formulation in relative coordinates is an O(n3 )
semi-recursive formulation, which can be consid-
ered as an extension of the composite rigid-body
method [15] to the flexible case. The dynamic terms
are first obtained in an intermediate set of Cartesian
coordinates q, being then projected into the relative
coordinates z by means of a recursive procedure [11].
Therefore, the equations of motion have exactly the
same form seen in equation (1), but expressed in terms
of z instead of q.
In order to integrate the equations of motion, they
are first combined with the equations of the numerical
integrator, leading to a non-linear algebraic system of
equations, with the dependent positions as unknowns,
which is solved by means of a Newton–Raphson itera-
tion [14]. Once convergence is attained into the time-
step, the velocities and accelerations are corrected for
them to satisfy the first and second derivatives of the
constraints. This is carried out by means of a modi-
fied version [14] of the mass-orthogonal projections
introduced by Bayo and Ledesma [16].
3 FLEXIBLE BODY MODELLING
The position of an arbitrary point of a deformed elas-
tic body r can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 1, from
the absolute position of the origin of its FFR r 0 , the
three orthogonal unit vectors that define the axes of
the frame of reference u, v, and w, and the position
of the point in local coordinates r̄, which can be in
turn decomposed into the undeformed local position
r̄ u and the elastic displacement r̄ f . If a rotation matrix
A is defined, containing the three unit vectors of the
FFR as columns, the position r can be written
r = r 0 + Ar̄ = r 0 + A(r̄ u + r̄ f ) (3)
The local elastic displacement is approximated by
means of the Rayleigh–Ritz method, by expressing it
as a linear combination of nm deformation modes,
whose coefficients are the so-called modal amplitudes
or elastic coordinates. For each point of the body, a
(1)
(2)
Fig. 1 Generic flexible body
JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
 Efficient calculation of the inertia terms in FFR formulations
mode shapes matrix X can be defined, containing in
each column the displacements vector correspond-
ing to one deformation mode. Accordingly, the modal
amplitudes can be grouped into a vector y, therefore
allowing to express the linear combination in matrix
form as
r̄ f = Xy
The deformation modes X are chosen, as done
in [9, 11], according to the Craig–Bampton reduction
method [3], using a set of static boundary modes and
fixed interface normal modes, although the methods
discussed in the present work are applicable to any
Rayleigh–Ritz based reduction.
4 VELOCITY TRANSFORMATION
The generalized coordinates q of a flexible body can
be considered as divided into reference and elastic
coordinates. The first subset, the reference coordi-
nates, describe the motion of the frame of reference
as a rigid body, and they are different depending on
the formulation. The second subset consists of the
elastic coordinates y, which are the same regardless
of the formulation used, since the elastic displace-
ments are considered in local coordinates. The velocity
of an arbitrary point of a flexible body, no matter
what type of reference coordinates are used, can be
expressed as a function of the generalized veloci-
ties q̇ by means of a position-dependent projection
matrix B
ṙ = Bq̇
The key difference between the projection and the
preprocessing methods is how this velocity transfor-
mation, along with the FE discretization, is introduced
into the kinetic energy.
B matrix in the FFR absolute formulation. The ref-
erence coordinates of a flexible body in the absolute
formulation include the position of the origin of the
frame of reference r 0 and its three unit vectors u, v,
and w, making a total of 12 variables [9]. If the elastic
coordinates are added, the generalized velocities of a
body in the absolute formulation result
q̇ T = {ṙ T0 u̇ T v̇ T ẇ T ẏ T }
to which more points and vectors might be added if
required, along with the corresponding kinematic con-
straints, although these points and vectors in excess
must be added with zero mass.
The position of an arbitrary point described in
equation (3) can be differentiated with respect to time,
and the resulting expression of the velocity depends
JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
149
linearly on the generalized velocities q̇, so that it can
be expressed in product form as in equation (5), with
the following B matrix
B = [I3 r̄1 I3 r̄2 I3 r̄3 I3 AX] (7)
where I3 is the 3 × 3 identity matrix and each com-
(4) ponent r̄i of the local deformed position can be
expressed as
r̄i = r̄ui + X i y, i = 1, 2, 3 (8)
In this equation, r̄ui and X i are the ith rows of r̄ u and X,
respectively, i.e. the undeformed position and modal
displacements in the i direction.
B matrix in the FFR relative formulation. The for-
mulation in relative coordinates uses an intermediate
Cartesian coordinate set q to calculate the dynamic
terms, which are later projected into the relative coor-
dinates z [11]. This intermediate set is formed, at
velocity level, by the velocity of the point of the body
that instantly coincides with the origin of the global
frame of reference, ṡ, and the vector of instant rotation
velocity ω, as done by Featherstone in the compo-
site rigid-body method [15]. After adding the modal
amplitudes, the q̇ vector remains
q̇ T = {ṡ T ωT ẏ T } (9)
By using these reference coordinates, the projection
of the dynamic terms into the relative coordinates can
be evaluated in a very efficient way, since all the inter-
mediate inertia terms are obtained with respect to the
(5)
same point [11, 17].
The velocity of an arbitrary point can be expressed
as a linear function of the generalized velocities, as it
happened to the formulation in absolute coordinates
ṙ = ṡ + ω × r + Ar̄˙ = ṡ − r̃ω + AXẏ (10)
where r̃ is the skew-symmetric matrix associated to r.
This equation can be again expressed as a Bq̇ product,
leading to the following expression for the B matrix
B = [I3 −r̃ AX] (11)
5 PROJECTION METHOD
(6)
The method used in references [9] and [11] to obtain
the inertia terms is based on the corotational approach
proposed by Géradin and Cardona [6]. This approxi-
mation assumes that the FE interpolation matrices N
can be used for interpolating the absolute velocities,
which is not fully consistent with the interpolation
used in the strain energy. By introducing this inter-
polation into the kinetic energy, it can be expressed in
Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics
150 U Lugrís, M A Naya, A Luaces, and J Cuadrado
the following discrete form, when isoparametric FEs
are used

In practice, the projection matrix for non-
1 1
T = ṙ T ṙ dm = ṙ ∗T M∗ ṙ ∗ (12)
2 V 2 were isoparametric, thus using the already described
where M∗ is the integral of NT N, which is nothing but
the well-known FE mass matrix, and ṙ ∗ is a vector con-
taining the absolute velocities of all the FE nodes. In
the case of non-isoparametric elements, the angular
velocities of the nodes must be added to the the vec-
tor of nodal velocities. Moreover, the nodal velocities
must be rotated to the local frame of the body, in order
to be consistent with the FE mass matrix. In isopara-
metric elements this is not necessary since the same
interpolation is used in the three directions of space,
so that the interpolation matrices, and consequently
the FE mass matrix, are invariant to rotation.
In the isoparametric case, a B∗ matrix can be
defined, containing the B matrices evaluated at all the
n FE nodes, in such a way that
⎧ 1⎫ ⎡ 1⎤
⎪
⎪ ṙ ⎪ ⎪ B
⎪ ṙ 2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ B2 ⎥
⎨ ⎬
⎢ ⎥
ṙ ∗ = .. = ⎢ .. ⎥ q̇ = B∗ q̇
⎪
⎪ . ⎪
⎪ ⎣ . ⎦
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩ n⎪ ⎭ Bn
ṙ
Then, by substituting ṙ ∗ into equation (12), the mass
matrix in generalized coordinates can be found to be
M = B∗T M∗ B∗
The velocity-dependent forces vector Q v can be
obtained by introducing this mass matrix into the
Lagrange equations. Taking into account that Bq q̇ = Ḃ
and that M∗ is symmetric, it can be found that
∗
Q v = −B∗T M∗ Ḃ q̇
The procedure is, in short, the following: first the B∗
∗
matrix and its derivative Ḃ must be assembled, cal-
culating B and Ḃ at all the FE nodes by using either
equation (7) or equation (11), depending on the for-
mulation used. Then, the B∗T M∗ product is performed
and used to obtain M and Q v . The projection method
is very simple to implement but, as can be seen, the
CPU-time will depend on the size of the FE model,
regardless of the number of mode shapes chosen,
which is not desirable since it does not allow one to
take full advantage of the model reduction.
Non-isoparametric finite elements include infinite-
simal rotations as nodal coordinates, along with the
displacements. This implies that the Bi matrix of a FE
node needs three extra rows for the angular velocities,
and all its 3 × 3 blocks must be rotated to the body
frame, in which the FE mass matrix has been defined.
Consequently, B∗ has twice as many rows as in the case
Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics
of isoparametric elements and, moreover, the blocks
become less sparse due to the rotation.
isoparametric elements can be approximated as if they
B∗ matrix with three rows per node. Since it is not com-
patible with the original FE mass matrix, a custom one
is used, obtained as the mass integral of NT N, being
N the isoparametric interpolation functions. By apply-
ing this approximation, the CPU-time is significantly
improved with almost no effect on accuracy.
6 INERTIA SHAPE INTEGRALS METHOD
In the preprocessing method, the velocity projection
for a generic point is applied first, and after taking q̇
out of the integral, the kinetic energy is obtained as



1 1 T
T = ṙ ṙ dm = q̇
T T
B B dm q̇ (16)
2 V 2 V
which means that the mass matrix expressed in the
body coordinates q is equal to


(13)
M = BT B dm (17)
V
This expression can be introduced into the Lagrange
equations in order to obtain the velocity-dependent
forces vector


(14) Qv = − T
B Ḃ dm q̇ (18)
V
In isoparametric FEs, the inertia terms calculated by
using this method do not differ from those obtained
with the projection method, since the only differ-
ence is that the velocity transformation is moved from
the last to the first step. In the projection method,
(15) the FE discretization is introduced, then the inte-
gration by means of the interpolation functions is
performed, and finally the velocity transformation is
applied, whereas in the preprocessing method, the
velocity transformation is applied in the first place,
then the integration step is carried out. In the case
of simple bodies such as beams, the integration can
be performed by using the analytical functions of the
deformation modes, otherwise the FE discretization
must be introduced.
The integrals needed for obtaining the mass matrix
and the velocity-dependent forces vector can be effi-
ciently calculated by matrix and vector operations if
some invariant matrices are extracted. The complete
set of invariants consists of 16 mass integrals, includ-
ing the undeformed positions, the mode shapes, and
several combinations of products among them. These
integrals can be divided into two sets. The first set
consists of three mass integrals, where only unde-
formed positions appear so that they lead to inertia
JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
 Efficient calculation of the inertia terms in FFR formulations 151

terms associated to the undeformed body motion. The The complete set of undeformed geometry integrals
inertia shape integrals [1, 7, 8] are the remaining 13 and inertia shape integrals here defined, along with the
ones, which include the mode shapes so that they are generalized coordinates vector q and its time deriva-
used to obtain the variation of the inertia properties tive q̇, contain all the necessary information needed to
associated to deformation. calculate the mass matrix and the velocity-dependent
The first three integrals can be obtained from forces vector of a deformable body. In order to make
the undeformed geometry of the body, and include the procedure clearer, the inertia terms can be consid-
the mass of the body m, the static moment m̄ u , and the ered as divided into blocks, according to the structure
planar inertia tensor P̄u , all of them calculated in the of the generalized coordinates vector
local frame ⎡ ⎤ ⎧ ⎫



Mrr Mrθ Mrf ⎨ Q vr ⎬
M=⎣ Mθθ Mθf ⎦ , Q v = Q vθ (25)
m= dm, m̄ u = r̄ u dm, P̄u = r̄ u r̄ Tu dm ⎩ ⎭
V V V
sym. Mff Q vf
(19)
where the subindex r refers to the inertia associated to
The first integral does not need to be calculated unless the position of the frame of reference, θ to that of its
the mass of the body is unknown. The static moment rotation, and f to the inertia of the elastic coordinates.
m̄ u can also be directly obtained without integration,
if the mass and the undeformed position of the centre 6.1 Implementation in absolute coordinates
of gravity r̄ Gu are known

6.1.1 Mass matrix
m̄ u = r̄ u dm = mr̄ Gu (20)
V In order to obtain the mass matrix, the BT B product
can be developed
The planar inertia tensor can be derived from the


undeformed inertia tensor J̄u in case it is available
M = BT B dm


1
3 V
⎡ ⎤
P̄u = r̄ u r̄ Tu dm = (J̄u )ii I3 − J̄u = J̄u I3 − J̄u (21) I3 r̄1 I3 r̄2 I3 r̄3 I3 AX
V 2 i=1
⎢ ⎥
⎢ r̄12 I3 r̄1 r̄2 I3 r̄1 r̄3 I3 r̄1 AX ⎥
= ⎢ ⎢ r̄22 I3 r̄2 r̄3 I3 r̄2 AX ⎥ dm
⎥
where J̄u being the moment of inertia of the unde- V ⎣ ⎦
sym. r̄32 I3 r̄3 AX
formed body with respect to the origin of the local
frame of reference. XT X
All the remaining integrals involve the mode shapes (26)
X; therefore, they will be used to obtain the variable In what follows, the evaluation of the different terms by
part of the inertia terms. Three kinds of these integrals means of the inertia shape integrals will be addressed
can be defined, generating a total of 13 constant matri- in detail.
ces. The first one is the integral of the mode shapes,
which results in a 3 × nm matrix, being nm the number
Mass terms associated to the reference coordinates.
of columns in X, i.e. the number of deformation modes
The first three blocks Mrr , Mrθ , and Mθθ contain the
chosen for the reduction of the FE model

inertia terms related to the motion of the frame of ref-
S = X dm (22) erence. They have the same physical meaning as in
V rigid body dynamics, although most of their terms are
now variable.
If the mode shapes X are multiplied by the three
The first block Mrr is a constant 3 × 3 diagonal
components of the undeformed position r̄ui and
matrix, representing the translational inertia of the
integrated, three more 3 × nm constant matrices are
body
obtained



S = r̄ui X dm, i = 1, 2, 3
i
(23) Mrr = I3 dm = mI3 (27)
V V

The remaining nine matrices, of size nm × nm , include The second block Mrθ contains the mass terms that
the integrals of the products between the three direc- couple the translational and rotational inertia of the
tions of the mode shapes reference frame



Sij = X Ti X j dm, i, j = 1, 2, 3 (24) Mrθ = [r̄1 I3 r̄2 I3 r̄3 I3 ] dm (28)
V V

It must be noted that only six of these integrals need to and its calculation requires the integration of the three
be calculated, since Sji is equal to the transpose of Sij . components of the deformed local position r̄. The

JMBD164 © IMechE 2009 Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics
152 U Lugrís, M A Naya, A Luaces, and J Cuadrado

integral of r̄ is by definition the static moment m̄ in the most involved of the mass matrix. If the rotation matrix
deformed configuration, which, after decomposing r̄ A is taken out of the integral in each block, the remain-
into its constant and variable terms and integrating, is ing integrals are those of r̄i X. It can be observed that
easily found to be these integrals are analogous to the inertia shape inte-
grals Si , but, in this case, the factors that multiply the
m̄ = m̄ u + Sy (29) mode shapes are the components of the deformed
local position; so they might be named Sid
Therefore


Mrθ = [m̄1 I3 m̄2 I3 m̄3 I3 ] (30) Sd = r̄i X dm, i = 1, 2, 3
i
(37)
V

In the centre of the mass matrix the block Mθθ is and after some manipulations, they result as
found. It contains the rotational inertia of the frame of ⎡ T i1 ⎤
reference, and it is itself formed by nine diagonal 3 × 3 y S
blocks Sid = Si + ⎣y T Si2 ⎦ , i = 1, 2, 3 (38)
⎡ 2 ⎤ y T Si3

r̄1 I3 r̄1 r̄2 I3 r̄1 r̄3 I3
Mθ θ = ⎣ r̄22 I3 r̄2 r̄3 I3 ⎦ dm (31) therefore leading to the following expression for Mθ f
V sym. r̄32 I3
⎡ 1⎤
ASd
In this case, the terms to be integrated are the compo- ⎢ ⎥
nents of the deformed planar inertia tensor P̄ Mθf = ⎣AS2d ⎦ (39)
3

ASd
P̄ij = r̄i r̄j dm, i, j = 1, 2, 3 (32)
V Mass terms associated to the elastic coordinates. The
Each r̄i r̄j product can be calculated by first decompos- last nm × nm block of the mass matrix is constant, as
ing r̄i and r̄j into their constant and variable parts, then it happened to the mass inertia associated to the ori-
integrating, leading to gin of the reference frame r 0 . The value of this block,
according to equation (17), is equal to XT AT AX. Since
j
P̄ij = (P̄u )ij + (S ij + S i )y + y T Sij y, i, j = 1, 2, 3 (33) the vectors of the frame of reference u, v, and w have
been defined as unit orthogonal vectors, the rotation
j
where S ij and S i are the jth row of Si , and the ith row of matrix A is orthogonal, and this makes the product AT A
Sj respectively. This result can be used to assemble the identically equal to I3 independently on the orienta-
rotational inertia submatrix tion of the frame, thus making this block constant. This
⎡ ⎤ block, once eliminated the orientation dependency,
P̄11 I3 P̄12 I3 P̄13 I3 is nothing but the well-known modal mass matrix,
Mθ θ = ⎣ P̄22 I3 P̄23 I3 ⎦ (34) widely used in the structural dynamics field. It can be
sym. P̄33 I3 obtained as


Mass terms coupling the reference coordinates to the XT X dm = S11 + S22 + S33 (40)
elastic coordinates. The first four blocks of the last V

column, all of them of size 3 × nm , represent the iner-

6.1.2 Velocity-dependent inertia forces
tia coupling between the reference and the elastic
coordinates. The velocity-dependent inertia forces are obtained by
The first one, which depends on the orientation but means of equation (18), so that the first step to be
not on the deformation state, couples the translational performed is the B matrix differentiation, a straight-
inertia to the elastic deformation and is easily obtained forward operation if the structure of the local position
by taking A out of the integral components, shown in equation (8), is taken into

account
Mrf = AX dm = AS (35)
V Ḃ = [0 X 1 ẏI3 X 2 ẏI3 X 3 ẏI3 ȦX] (41)
The second, third, and fourth blocks couple the large
If the Ḃq̇ product is evaluated, not forgetting that Ȧ
rotations to the elastic deformation
⎡ ⎤ contains the vectors u̇, v̇, and ẇ as columns, it can be

r̄1 AX easily found that it is equal to the Coriolis acceleration
Mθ f = ⎣r̄2 AX⎦ dm (36)
V r̄3 AX Ḃq̇ = X 1 ẏ u̇ + X 2 ẏ v̇ + X 3 ẏ ẇ + ȦXẏ = 2ȦXẏ (42)

These are the only terms that depend both on the ori- It is observed that this product includes the velocity of
entation and on the deformation state and are the deformation ẏ. This means that, if this velocity is zero,

Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
 Efficient calculation of the inertia terms in FFR formulations
i.e. the body is behaving like a rigid one, there exist no
velocity-dependent inertia forces, which is consistent
with what happens in the absolute formulation when
a rigid body is modelled by using a point and three unit
vectors.
The different blocks of the velocity-dependent
forces vector can be obtained after evaluating
the product BT Ḃq̇ and performing the integration.
The forces associated to the reference coordinates
are straightforward if the inertia shape integrals are
already known. The first block includes the integral of
the mode shapes
Q vr = −2ȦSẏ
and the second needs the integrals of the deformed
local position components times the mode shapes
⎡ ⎤
ȦS1d
⎢ 2⎥
Q vθ = −2 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ȦSd ⎦ ẏ
ȦS3d
The last term Q vf is the integral of −2XT AT ȦXẏ, which
can be obtained as
Q vf = −2[u T v̇(S12 − S21 ) + u T ẇ(S13 − S31 )
+ v T ẇ(S23 − S32 )]ẏ
6.2 Implementation in relative coordinates
6.2.1 Mass matrix
The procedure to obtain the mass matrix of a flexi-
ble body is essentially the same as that used in the
formulation in absolute coordinates. In this case, the
mass matrix is noted as M̄, in order to indicate that it is
expressed in the intermediate coordinates q. The first
step is to develop the integral of BT B
⎡ ⎤


I3 −r̃
M̄ = BT B dm = ⎣ −r̃ r̃
V V
sym.
There is a key difference between this expression of
the mass matrix and that obtained when using abso-
lute coordinates: the integrals involve the absolute
position, as opposed to those in equation (26), where
only the local deformed position components appear.
This makes the inertia terms somewhat more com-
plicated to calculate, despite being fewer than in the
formulation in absolute coordinates.
Mass terms associated to the reference coordinates.
The 3 × 3 block corresponding to ṡ, as it happened in
the absolute method, contains the translational iner-
tia of the body, being a diagonal matrix containing the
JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
153
total mass of the body


M̄rr = I3 dm = mI3 (47)
V
The terms that couple ṡ and ω contain the integral of
−r̃, which is the skew-symmetric matrix associated to
the static moment of the deformed body with respect
to the global origin of coordinates, m


M̄rθ = −r̃ dm = −m̃ (48)
V
(43) This integral can be easily derived from the static
moment of the deformed body in local coordinates m̄,
which can be calculated by using equation (29), and
then expressed in global coordinates by rotation and
translation
m = mr 0 + Am̄ (49)
(44)
The integral of the terms related to rotation is the
inertia tensor, expressed in global coordinates, and
calculated with respect to the global origin


M̄θθ = −r̃ r̃ dm = J (50)
V
(45)
If the r̃ r̃ product is developed and integrated, the
expressions obtained are quite involved since the
absolute position is the sum of three vectors. It is much
easier to obtain J from the deformed planar inertia ten-
sor in local coordinates P̄, whose calculation is already
described for the formulation in absolute coordinates.
First, the deformed inertia tensor in local coordinates
J̄ is obtained by using equation (21). Then, it can be
translated to the centre of gravity by means of the
Steiner theorem, rotated into the global coordinates,
and finally translated again from the centre of gravity
to the global origin, thus resulting
AX
J = A(J̄ + mr̄˜ G r̄˜ G )AT − mr̃ r̃
G G
r̃AX⎦ dm (46) (51)
XT X
where r̄ G and r G , the local and absolute positions of the
centre of gravity in the deformed configuration, are
easily obtained by dividing the corresponding static
moments m̄ and m by the mass m.
Mass terms coupling the reference coordinates to the
elastic coordinates. The block containing the inertia
coupling the translation to the deformation is exactly
the same as in absolute coordinates, and it can be
obtained directly by rotating the inertia shape integral
S, as shown in equation (35).
The coupling between the rotation and the elastic
deformation is the most complicated term. If the rota-
tion matrix A is divided into three rows A 1 , A 2 and A 3 ,
Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics
154 U Lugrís, M A Naya, A Luaces, and J Cuadrado

and the product is developed, it can be found, after to the absolute position r̃, which is equal to
some manipulation, that the skew-symmetric matrix associated to the static
⎡ ⎤ moment. The second term is directly obtained from


A 3 r2 X − A 2 r3 X
the integral of the modes S. Therefore, the translational
M̄θ f = r̃AX dm = ⎣A 1 r3 X − A 3 r1 X⎦ dm (52)
forces result
V V A 2 r1 X − A 1 r2 X
Q̄ vr = ω̃m̃ω − 2ȦSẏ (60)
Naming Sia the integral of the ith component of the
absolute position times the mode shapes matrix, this
The second section are the rotational inertia forces,
can be rewritten as
⎡ ⎤ where the deformed inertia tensor in absolute coordi-
A 3 S2a − A 2 S3a nates is recognized in the first term
⎢ ⎥ 

M̄θ f = ⎣A 1 S3a − A 3 S1a ⎦ (53)
A 2 S1a − A 1 S2a Q̄ vθ = −ω̃Jω − 2 r̃ ȦX dm ẏ (61)
V

The Sia
integrals can be obtained by means of the and the second one is calculated as done for the
following expression integral of r̃AX in equation (53), but using Ȧ instead

of A

3
j ⎡ ⎤
Sia = ri X dm = r0i S + Aij Sd dm, i = 1, 2, 3
Ȧ 3 S2a − Ȧ 2 S3a
V j=1 ⎢ ⎥
r̃ ȦX dm = ⎣Ȧ 1 S3a − Ȧ 3 S1a ⎦ (62)
(54) V
Ȧ 2 Sa − Ȧ 1 Sa
1 2

The Sid integrals might be previously stored, since they

are needed to calculate the inertia tensor.
Mass terms associated to the elastic coordinates. As it
happened to the translational inertia and the coupling
between translation and elastic deformation, the mass
associated to the elastic coordinates is the same as
in the absolute formulation, being again the constant
modal mass matrix already shown in equation (40).
6.2.2 Velocity-dependent inertia forces
The velocity-dependent forces vector in the inter-
mediate Cartesian coordinate system is obtained by
evaluating the integral of −BT Ḃq̇. First, the Ḃq̇ prod-
uct is calculated, by developing the acceleration r̈ and
substituting it into
r̈ = Bq̈ + Ḃq̇
In this case, the product Ḃq̇ can be found to be equal
to the centrifugal and Coriolis accelerations
Ḃq̇ = ω̃ω̃r + 2ȦXẏ =⇒ Ḃ = [0 −ω̃r̃ 2ȦX]
After several manipulations, the following expressions
for the three sections of Q̄ v can be obtained

lated between its values at the nodes, represented by
Q̄ vr = (ω̃r̃ω − 2ȦXẏ) dm (57)


V ments vector q ef , by means of the same interpolation
Q̄ vθ = (ω̃r̃ r̃ω − 2r̃ ȦXẏ) dm (58)
V

r̄ = Nq e ;
Q̄ vf = [(r̃ ȦX)T ω − 2XT AT ȦXẏ] dm (59)
V
The integral of the first section corresponds to
the translational forces. The first term includes the
integral of the skew-symmetric matrix associated
The last section of Q̄ v is related to the elastic coordi-
nates

T 

Q̄ vf = r̃ ȦX dm ω − 2 XT AT ȦX dm ẏ (63)
V V
The integral in the first term is the transpose of
equation (62), and the second term is exactly the
same as the Q̄ vf forces that appear in the absolute
formulation, so that it can be calculated by means of
equation (45).
6.3 Efficient calculation of the inertia shape
integrals
The calculation of the inertia shape integrals might
appear a priori as a cumbersome task, but it is actually
(55) much faster than the calculation of the deformation
modes themselves. This is because the integrals are
calculated by using interpolation functions, which can
be integrated independently of the nodal values. When
(56) isoparametric FE are used, the same interpolation
is applied to the geometry and the elastic displace-
ments [5]. The position r̄ or the elastic displacement
r̄ f of any point within a FE e can be therefore interpo-
the nodal coordinates vector q e or the nodal displace-
matrix N
r̄ f = Nq ef (64)
The interpolation matrix N, according to the type of
FEs used, will depend on one or more parameters
or material coordinates, but it is the same for all the
elements of the same type. The integral of the position

Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
 Efficient calculation of the inertia terms in FFR formulations
r̄ over the whole volume of an element Ve can be
expressed in terms of the nodal coordinates



r̄ dm = Nq e dm = Ne q e (65)
Ve Ve
where Ne being the integral of the interpolation matrix
over the volume of the FE e, which is a constant
matrix. The same procedure can be employed to
integrate the square of the position, the square of
the displacement, or the product between them. For
instance, the integral of the position times the elastic
displacement is



r̄ r̄ f dm =
T
q eT NT Nq ef dm = q eT Me q ef (66)
Ve Ve
where in this case Me , the integral of NT N, is the mass
matrix of the FE.
The integral of positions or displacements over the
full body can be obtained as the sum of the integrals
over all the FE. For example, the integrals of r̄ or r̄ T r̄
over the total volume V of a body discretized into ne
elements are


ne

ne
r̄ dm = e e
Nq ; r̄ T r̄ dm = q eT Me q e (67)
V e=1 V e=1
The integration of the interpolation functions is
somewhat more complicated in non-isoparametric
elements. These elements do not use the same interpo-
lation for positions and displacements and, moreover,
they depend on the orientation of each element within
the model. This means that the interpolation matrices
must be integrated in the local frame of each element,
and then rotated into the frame of the FE model.
7 NUMERICAL EXAMPLE AND RESULTS
7.1 Description of the test model
The Iltis vehicle, which is a well-known benchmark
model for multibody system dynamics, is used as the
base system for the tests. The vehicle consists of four
identical suspensions, each having three flexible ele-
ments, plotted in dashed line in Fig. 2: the A–arm, the
steering track rod (fixed in the rear suspensions), and
the upper bar that links the top part of the stub axle
to the chassis. All of them share the same mechanical
properties: a Young’s modulus of 2 × 105 MPa, a den-
sity of 7500 Kg/m3 , and a Poisson’s coefficient of 0.3.
The details about geometry, shock absorber and spring
characteristics, etc. can be found in reference [13].
With respect to the wheel model, a simple penalty force
depending on the vertical distance to the ground is
used, since its accuracy is irrelevant for the purposes
of the present work.
Each A–arm is formed by two bars converging at the
connection to the stub axle. These bars are discretized
JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
155
Track rod (R)
1/4 chassis
Spring
Shock absorber
Upper link (L)
Stub axle
A-arm (A)
Fig. 2 Sketch of the front left suspension of the Iltis
into ne FE of the three-dimensional beam type, plus
an additional element for the shock absorber attach-
ment, meaning that each A–arm has 2ne + 1 FE. In the
multibody model, four deformation modes are used:
two vertical static modes (shock absorber and stub axle
attachments) and the first two dynamic modes. The FE
models of the A–arms are considered as isoparamet-
ric when the projection method is used to calculate
the inertia terms since, if the full B∗ matrices with six
degrees of freedom per node are used, the CPU-time is
much higher, without any noticeable difference in the
results.
The mode shapes of the remaining bodies have been
obtained analytically, since they are simple straight
beams. The resulting mode shapes (two transversal
static modes and the first four transversal dynamic
modes are used) are discretized into ne elements,
since the projection method is based on a FE dis-
cretization. The M∗ matrices for these elements are
calculated as the integrals of the isoparametric inter-
polation functions, as done for the A–arms. This makes
a total of 12 flexible bodies for the full model of the car,
with 16ne + 4 FE and 64 modes.
7.2 Tests and results
In the test, the Iltis performs the same manoeuvre used
in reference [11] for comparing the performance of
absolute and relative coordinates, which consists of
running over the profile shown in Fig. 3, with an initial
velocity of 5 m/s. An instant of the violent manoeuvre
can be seen in Fig. 4. The simulation is carried out by
using both the absolute and the relative formulations,
either with the projection method or with the inertia
shape integrals preprocessing, with a time-step of 10
ms, and with four different FE discretizations (5, 10, 50
and 100 elements per bar). The full multibody model
in absolute coordinates has 304 variables, whereas the
model in relative coordinates has a total of 98.
The results obtained with each formulation do not
depend on the method used for obtaining the iner-
tia terms. In the case of isoparametric elements, the
operations performed for obtaining the mass matrix
and the inertia forces are exactly the same, being
Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics
156 U Lugrís, M A Naya, A Luaces, and J Cuadrado

5 x 0.3 2.5
2.0 Absolute
0.5
Relative
5.0 10.0 5.0 5 x 1.0 15.0 2

Wheel center height (m)

Fig. 3 Road profile used for the simulations 1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)

Fig. 6 Time history of the z coordinate of the centre of

the left front wheel

Table 1 CPU-times (s) for different FE mesh sizes

ne (total) 5 (84) 10 (164) 50 (804) 100 (1604)

Abs. + B 4.19 4.48 7.58 12.59

Fig. 4 Iltis vehicle performing the simulated manoeuvre Abs. + P 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85
Rel. + B 1.11 1.48 4.32 8.21
Rel. + P 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
3
Absolute
2.5 Relative Absolute coordinates Relative coordinates

12 Projection
Chassis height (m)

2 Preprocessing
10
CPU-time (s)

1.5 8
6
1
4
0.5 2

0 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
Fig. 5 Time history of the z coordinate of the local origin
of the chassis
the only difference that the preprocessing avoids to
repeat operations by calculating them before the exe-
cution time. This is not true for non-isoparametric
elements, but approximating them as isoparametric
when using the projection method yields practically
the same results. Figures 5 and 6 compare the vertical
trajectories of the local origin of the chassis and the
centre of the front left wheel, obtained with both the
absolute and the relative formulations.
As can be seen in Table 1 and Fig. 7, if the projec-
tion method (B) is used, the CPU-time varies when
the resolution of the FE mesh is modified whereas,
in case preprocessing (P) is used, the CPU-time (not
including preprocessing) remains constant regard-
less of the number of FE. Both the absolute and the
10 50 100 5 10 50 100
6 7 8 Elements per bar Elements per bar
Fig. 7 CPU-time versus number of FEs
relative formulations benefit from the use of prepro-
cessing, especially in the case of large FE models,
where the projection method needs a significantly
larger amount of time.
8 CONCLUSIONS AND CRITERIA OF USE
From the obtained results it can be said that, for a given
set of deformation modes, the use of inertia shape inte-
grals preprocessing always improves the performance
with respect to the B∗ matrix projection. Preprocess-
ing is more efficient even for simple FE models such
as those described in the present work, where only
two-node beam elements in relatively small numbers
are used; in case of large models including higher-
order elements, the difference between projection and

Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
 Efficient calculation of the inertia terms in FFR formulations
preprocessing would become more significant, since
preprocessing keeps the CPU-time dependent only on
the number of deformation modes, whereas in the pro-
jection method the number of arithmetic operations
grows with the size of the FE model.
Apart from the higher difficulty of implementation,
the only drawback of the method could be the prepro-
cessing time but, in practice, it is negligible, especially
if compared to the calculation of the mode shapes by
solving the FE system, since all the integrals can be
obtained by direct matrix multiplication after integrat-
ing the interpolation functions. In the present work,
the preprocessing has been carried out in MATLAB,
and it takes less than 0.02 s for an A–arm with 100
elements per bar (i.e. 201 elements).
The projection method, on the other hand, is much
easier to implement, and the only input data it needs
from FE software are the mass and mode shapes matri-
ces, along with the undeformed local positions of the
nodes. This might make it more convenient for certain
applications where the implementation time is more
relevant, as long as the size of the FE models is not too
large. It can be also a good choice for simulating geo-
metrically non-linear beams, since it enables to easily
introduce the foreshortening effect [18] in the kine-
matic model, leading to a very accurate and efficient
method to capture geometric stiffening in FFR formu-
lations [19]. In this case, the preprocessing method
would become pointless, since the foreshortening ren-
ders the mode shapes, and consequently the inertia
shape integrals, variable.
With respect to the comparison between the for-
mulations in absolute and relative coordinates, the
latter seems to have an advantage when using the pre-
processing method, despite its more involved inertia
terms, achieving a CPU-time around five times faster
than the formulation in absolute coordinates. The
manoeuvre has a duration of 8 s, so that the relative
method with preprocessing can simulate the full vehi-
cle ten times faster than real-time. It is also observed
that the improvement with respect to the preprocess-
ing method is always more noticeable in the case of
the formulation in relative coordinates; for instance,
in the case of 100 elements per bar, the simulation
in absolute coordinates is three times faster when
using preprocessing, whereas in relative coordinates
it becomes up to ten times faster.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research has been sponsored by the Spanish MEC
(Grant no. DPI2006–15613–C03–01).
REFERENCES
1 Shabana, A. A. Dynamics of multibody systems, 1998
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
JMBD164 © IMechE 2009
157
2 Hurty,W. C. Dynamic analysis of structural systems using
component modes. AIAA J., 1965, 3(4), 678–685.
3 Craig, R. R. and Bampton, M. C. C. Coupling of sub-
structures for dynamic analyses. AIAA J., 1968, 6(7),
1313–1319.
4 Agrawal, O. P. and Shabana, A. A. Dynamic analysis of
multibody systems using component modes. Comput.
Struct., 1985, 21(6), 1303–1312.
5 Bathe, K. J. Finite element procedures, 1998 (Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).
6 Géradin, M. and Cardona, A. Flexible multibody dyna-
mics: a finite element approach, 2001 (John Wiley & Sons,
New York).
7 Wallrapp, O. Standardization of flexible body modeling
in multibody system codes, part I: definition of standard
input data. Mech. Struct. Mach., 1994, 22(3), 283–304.
8 Sugiyama, H., Shabana, A. A., Omar, M. A., and Loh, W.
Development of nonlinear leaf spring model for multi-
body vehicle systems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng., 2006, 195(50–51), 6925–6941.
9 Cuadrado, J., Gutiérrez, R., Naya, M. A., and Morer, P. A
comparison in terms of accuracy and efficiency between
a MBS dynamic formulation with stress analysis and a
non–linear FEA code. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 2001,
51(9), 1033–1052.
10 García de Jalón, J. and Bayo, E. Kinematic and dynamic
simulation of multibody systems: the real–time challenge,
1994 (Springer–Verlag, Berlin).
11 Lugrís, U., Naya, M. A., González, F., and Cuadrado, J.
Performance and application criteria of two fast formu-
lations for flexible multibody dynamics. Mech. Based Des.
Struct. Mach., 2007, 35(4), 381–404.
12 Cuadrado, J., Cardenal, J., and García de Jalón, J. Flexible
mechanisms through natural coordinates and compo-
nent synthesis: an approach fully compatible with the
rigid case. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 1996, 39(20),
3535–3551.
13 Frik, S., Leister, G., and Schwartz, W. Simulation of the
IAVSD road vehicle benchmark bombardier Iltis with
FASIM, MEDYNA, NEWEUL and SIMPACK. In Multibody
computer codes in vehicle system dynamics, 1993 (Swets
and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam).
14 Cuadrado, J., Cardenal, J., Morer, P., and Bayo, E. Intelli-
gent simulation of multibody dynamics: space–state and
descriptor methods in sequential and parallel computing
environments. Multibody Syst. Dyn., 2000, 4(1), 55–73.
15 Featherstone, R. Robot dynamics algorithm, 1987
(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts).
16 Bayo, E. and Ledesma, R. Augmented Lagrangian and
mass–orthogonal projection methods for constrained
multibody dynamics. Nonlinear Dyn., 1996, 9(1–2),
113–130.
17 Cuadrado, J., Dopico, D., González, M., and Naya, M. A.
A combined penalty and recursive real–time formulation
for multibody dynamics. J. Mech. Des., 2004, 126(4), 602–
608.
18 Mayo, J., Domínguez, J., and Shabana, A. A. Geo-
metrically nonlinear formulations of beams in flexible
multibody dynamics. J. Vibr. Acoust., 1995, 117, 501–509.
19 Lugrís, U., Naya, M. A., Pérez, J. A., and Cuadrado, J.
Implementation and efficiency of two geometric stiff-
ening approaches. Multibody Syst. Dyn., 2008, 20(2),
147–161.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics