Computers

& Sfruc~wes Vol.33,No. 3,pp.801-820.

1989 004S-7949/89
S3.OOf0.00
in Great Bntain.
Printed 8 1989Pngamon Press
plc

TIME INTEGRATION OF THE EQUATIONS OF MOTION

IN MECHANISM ANALYSIS

A. CARDONA~and M. GLXADIN
L.T.A.S., Dynamique des Constructions MCaniques, Universite de Liege, Rue Ernest Solvay, 21,
B-4000 Liege, Belgium

(Receiued 12 October 1988)

Abstract-The formulation of time integration algorithms for mechanism analysis problems is discussed.
Particular aspects to be considered are the treatment of constraints and of the finite rotation associated
terms. It is shown that in order to time integrate constrained systems, the algorithmic damping at
infinite frequency is of utmost importance. It is demonstrated that the Newmark trapezoidal rule is
unconditionally unstable in the presence of constraints. The use of second order accurate dissipative
algorithms like the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor scheme is recommended. Finally, the integration of finite
rotation associated terms is performed by projecting the equations onto the tangent space to the rotation
group. In this way, well-known results of accuracy and convergence can be applied. Several examples
illustrating the covered topics are presented.

1. INTRODUCTION where M is the structural (tangent) mass matrix, S is

Spatial and temporal discretizations are usually per-
formed independently in structural dynamics compu-
tations; spatial discretization is performed first, and
the response of the dynamic system is then computed
by time integrating a system of second order differ-
ential equations. In the particular case of mechanism
analysis, this system can be seen as consisting of two
subsystems, one for the position degrees of freedom
(including both translational and rotational par-
ameters) and the other for the Lagrange multipliers:
G: ((%3 x SO(3))N x %“) x !-R++ (!R3 x !Kt’)Nx R”
(1)
where N is the number of nodes of the discretization
and m is the number of equations of constraint,
and where SO(3) is the special orthogonal group
of rotations. Particular forms of this system of
equations were presented in [1] for the rigid body and
for the beam element. In [2, 31 a superelement and a
series of mechanical joints were also presented using
the same formalism.
Two particular aspects that require special concern
when analyzing system (1) are the presence of con-
straints and the presence of finite rotations.
Constraints introduce a destabilizing effect into
the system. This fact can be better understood by
looking at the tangent undamped eigenproblem at an
arbitrary time instant t:
$7 i]{;:}i
=[_; -:‘I{;;},C2)
tBecario Extemo y Miembro de la Carrera de1 Investi-
gador de1 Consejo National de Investigaciones Cientificas y
T&micas de la Republica Argentina.
801
the structural tangent stiffness matrix and B is the
matrix of constraint gradients. If we divide both sides
of (2) by uf, we obtain:
[Y:]{;:}.=g-;
-:‘]{;:}.
t3)
We can now easily verify that there exist m linearly
independent eigenpairs (03, (OT, ef)‘), with e, being
the unit vector with a 1 at the ith row. Then, we can
infer that the behavior of the algorithm at infinity
plays a preponderant role: in fact, in order to obtain
physically meaningful solutions, the algorithm ought
to be capable of filtering out these components while
retaining accuracy in the computations. In Sec. 2, we
give a full discussion about integration algorithms
and their stability properties when applied to con-
strained systems.
If we look only at the positional degrees of free-
dom, we note that the translational part is entirely
equivalent to the equations we use in standard struc-
tural dynamics and does not present any particular
difficulty (except the treatment of constraints). On the
other hand, the rotational equations take values on
the differentiable manifold SO(3), so their treatment
offers a special challenge. The procedures we follow
to describe large finite rotations were presented in [4],
and in Sets 3.1-3.5 we make a brief description of
them.
In Sets 3.6 and 3.7 we focus our attention on the
procedures to time-integrate the subsystem:
G: SO(3) x YI+ +!-R3. (4)
At each time instant we work with rotation incre-
ments that lie in a particular reference tangent space
to SO(3). The approach can be assimilated to an
802 and M. GERADIN
A. CARDONA
updated Lagrangian method (see Sets 3.1-3.5).
Some integration algorithms employ values at only
one time instant in order to determine the new
configuration, like the Newmark scheme. Then, their
application to solve eqns (4) is straightforward, as
described in Sec. 3.6. Some other algorithms employ
values at various time instants in order to determine
the new configuration (we will refer to them as
multistep algorithms). The Hilber-Hughes-Taylor
scheme, for instance, employs forces evaluated at t, + ,
and at t, to compute the configuration at t, + ,. In
order to make forces comparable, they should lie on
the same tangent space; this is achieved by projection
onto the tangent space at t,+ ,, as pointed out in
Sec. 3.7.
In Sec. 4 we present a series of examples illustrating
the different theoretical findings of the paper. In
particular, the equations of motion for a pendulum
and a spinning top are integrated by using the
Newmark and Hilber schemes. An example analyzing
motion of a squeezer mechanism is also shown.
2. TIME INTEGRATIONOF CONSTRAINED
DYNAMICSYSTEMS
2.1. Constrained dynamic systems and d@erential/
algebraic equations
In fact, the equations of motion for a constrained
mechanical system do not form a system of ordinary
differential equations (ODE system); they are a mixed
set of algebraic and differential equations, called
a system of differential/algebraic equations (DAE
system).
One popular technique in mechanism analysis for
dealing with these equations consists of modifying
the constraints by introducing a stabilization
term [5,6]. Then, the constraints are no longer exactly
satisfied but they oscillate with given stabilization
periods and damping constants about the exact verifi-
cation point, tending to it in the long-term. In this
way, the DAE system is transformed into an ODE
system and standard ODE integrators can be applied
without trouble. This technique has the drawback of
depending on arbitrary constants that influence the
solution, and that the constraints are never exactly
satisfied.
A second technique involves the algebraic elimi-
nation of constraints previous to the integration of
the equation of motion. This technique was not
followed here since it is rather costly and it cannot be
applied to all kinds of constraints [3,7].
Park and coworkers [8,9] employed a staggered
stabilized procedure to formulate a two-stage stag-
gered explicit algorithm. They obtained a specialized
algorithm for multibody dynamics systems, with
some characteristics that made it quite different
from standard integration formulas for structural
dynamics. However, some theoretical questions still
remain unanswered such as, for instance, a detailed
stability analysis of the procedure. Our objective is to
apply standard algorithms to constramed dynamic
systems, trying to rest within well-known results of
convergence.
Gear [IO] and Petzold and Lotstedt [I I] presented
a numerical theory for DAE systems. They showed
that the use of integrators developed for treating
ordinary differential equations could lead to accept-
able solutions when applied to differential/algebraic
equations under mild conditions, and advocated the
use of techniques based on backward differentiation
formulas. The proposition of Gear and Petzold co-
incides in some sense with that of dynamicists.
Equations (2) and (3) indicate that the numerical
integration of these systems is strongly influenced by
the properties at infinity of the particuiar integrator
at hand; as is widely known, backward difference
formulas completely filter out the high frequencies, so
that the scheme could lead to physically acceptable
solutions.
The widely accepted concern m structural dy-
namics IS that algorithms of Integration should
provide at least a small dissipation at high
frequencies [12]. We will show that this aspect is
crucial when solving systems like (I), and that the
Newmark integrator without numerical dissipation
(/I = f. y = i) presents a weak instability which is
excited for all values of the time step, preventing the
use of this algorithm in constrained systems (the
scheme becomes unconditionally unstable!). The
introduction of a small numerical damping, via
the Newmark-p damping scheme, stabilizes the inte-
gration at the cost of reducing the accuracy to only
first order.
Several unconditionally stable implicit algorithms
have been developed in the last few years which
provide both second order accuracy and numerical
dissipation in the high frequency range. i.e. the
method of Houbolt. the method of Park. the
a-method of Hilber and the cr,-method of
Bossak [12-141 (this list does not pretend to be ex-
haustive, since this held is still the object of active
research; see e.g. [15. 161).
The Houbolt and Park methods do not permit
parametric control of the amount of dissipation
present, while the a-methods do. The spectral radii of
the Park and Houbolt methods approach zero as
h/T + x. as is typical of backward difference
schemes. The z-methods are seen to own strong
damping in the high frequency regime, with typical
values of spectral radius at infinity ranging from
0.55 to I. All of them coincide with the Newmark
trapezoidal rule in the limit, when a = 0.
The Houboh method affects the lower modes much
too strongly. Park’s method has good lower mode
damping properties; however. its period error is
higher than the a-methods. Also, the relative period
errors of the Houbolt and Park methods are greater
than those of a-methods.
The spectral properties of the algorithms are
derived from the three eigenvalues of the amplifi-
 Time integration of equations of motion in mechanism analysis 803

cation matrix. The spurious root plays an important and by considering that E 4 1 the eigenproblem (6) is
role in the behavior of the algorithms. For low transformed into the eigensystem
frequencies, it must be small or zero to guarantee a
good approximation. For high frequencies, the root
causes the desired dissipation. The spurious root of
the trapezoidal rule is zero over the entire frequency
range, while only the a-method of Hilber has ideal The matrix of constraint gradients B is assumed to
properties of the spurious root: zero in the low be well determined, in the sense that all rows are
frequencies and nonzero for the high range. linearly independent; then, the rank of B is m and
The asmethod has a nonzero spurious root in the there exist (n - m) linearly independent eigenvectors
low frequency range that affects its convergence with frequency CD:*= 0 [which correspond to the
properties [ 161. already mentioned (n - m) finite frequencies of (5)].
Another important measure of the performance of We will now compute the 2m eigenvectors of
unconditionally stable algorithms is called overshoot, nonzero frequencies. Since the mass matrix M is
a tendency to violently oscillate for a short time due positive definite, we can express, from (8), that
to certain initial conditions, or discontinuous loading.
Some schemes have been reported as behaving patho-
1&j, = --$M-‘Br(d;),. (9)
logically with respect to overshoot. This is the case in I
collocation methods and the Wilson-8 method [12].
After replacing the latter equation into (8), we get the
The algorithms considered here perform acceptably.
m-dimensional fourth order auxiliary eigensystem:
In particular, the Houbolt and Park algorithms pro-
duce no overshoot. The trapezoidal rule (Newmark
(c0;~1- BM-‘Br){4;}, = 0. (10)
with /I = $, y = i) does not evidence overshoot in the
computed displacements, but the computed acceler-
ations diverge at infinite frequency. The solution of (10) is given by the following 2m
Based on these general considerations we selected, eigenpairs:
from all those algorithms with numerical dissipation
and second order accuracy, the Hilber-Hughes- {(4C c,), (-4, r,), (4, v*), . . . (-tl:, &II>). (11)

Taylor scheme. However, the conclusions of the

analysis can be extended to any other algorithm. Now, using eqn (9), we obtain the 2m solutions with
nonzero frequency of the eigensystem (8):
2.2. Eigenvalue analysis of a constrained system
Let us consider the eigenproblem for the con-
strained dynamic system:

with M the structural mass matrix, S the stiffness

(d,[
-fi}),...(
-q?})} (12)

matrix, and B the matrix of constraint gradients.

It is easy to verify that the first (n - m) solutions
where
of (5) is a set of finite frequencies w: with associated
eigenvectors (4:4f),? such that c$~, verifies the
equations of constraint and C&gives the correspond- w, = M-‘BTv,. (13)
ing force of constraint. Next we show that the rest of
the spectrum is composed by m couples of frequencies Finally, using (7) we see that the full eigenspectrum
+ cc and -co associated to a unique eigenvector of (6) is given by the set
(Ore,‘)rwith ei being the unitary vector with a 1 at
the ith row.
We introduce a small parameter E into the mass
matrix of the system (5) in order to eliminate the
singularity:

By making the transformations

(14)
804 A. CARDONA and M. GERADIN

By making E +O, we see that the eigenspectrum

corresponding to eqn (5) is composed by (n -m)
finite eigenfrequencies of plus 2m eigenvalues that
tend to plus and minus infinity. The latter values have
only m associated linearly independent eigenvectors
that span the subspace 9P of Lagrange multiplier;
then, by linear combinations between them we obtain
the full set of eigensolutions

It is easy to verify that, by appropriately scaling the

last 2m vectors, the set {Y} satisfies the relations of
orthonormality:

!PrM*P = 1 (18)

where
(15)

11
M 0
M*=
(19)
0 1
2.3. Stability analysis of a constrained system
Let us now analyze the following homogeneous
Then, we are able to expand the solution of (16) in
linear system of motion equations:
the basis ‘P:

[: :I{}+[-;-:J{:}={:}
U6) {;}=!Q (3=Y% (20)

with M the structural mass matrix, S the stiffness

matrix, and B the matrix of constraint gradients. Yr=(Y,,Y,,. . . y,,,) being the vector of generalized
Since the corresponding undamped eigensystem amplitudes and the inverse transformation given by
does not have (n + m) linearly independent eigen-
vectors, we cannot transform as usual the equations
of motion into (n + m) independent equations to
make the stability analysis of the time integration
scheme. Let us consider instead the following set of
y=Ip?M*
11
q
A
(21)

(n +m) vectors We project the system matrices onto the basis Y to

get

[ 01 00,1
..

1
1 0

I-
[ 0 0,

(22)

1.
a -b
-b 0,
..
 Time integration of equations of motion in mechanism analysis 805

with form:

WfSWi vfBM_‘SM-‘Bv,
a, --rlf=
rlf

1
v:Bwi vfBM-‘Bvj
b,awT’ =q’ * yn (301
'li rt: A(Q,)

and where q,, i = 1, M are the frequencies of the

auxiliary eigenproblem (10).
Then, the behavior of the time integrators when
dealing with constrained dynamic systems is charac-
terized by their ability to treat a system of the form:
In order to analyze the latter system, we will again
introduce a small parameter E so as to eliminate the
singularity of the mass matrix:
where f2, equals the product of the frequency of the
oscillator i by the time step h = tn+ , - t, and where
the amplification matrix A@,) is a particular function
of the numerical time integrator.
After some algebraic manipulations, we compute a
6 x 6 amplification matrix A which gives the relation
between the solutions of (25) at t#+, and tn:
Z a+1 =A& (31)

where
(25)
Z n+i= (z ,rr+~bi~,+,hZi’,,+,z~+,h~2n+,h2~~+~)r
This system leads to the eigenproblem

(32)

and with
The eigenfrequencies of (26) are
4b2A(fl,)+s2(a -&??+S&)
(27) A,, =

with the eigenvectors

After projecting (25) onto this basis, we get the

uncoupled equations

By taking the limit when E + 0, the sampling frequen-

ties St,, R, tend to:

n;=(o,h)=-+ -m (34)
= 0. (29)
and the amplification matrices take the form:
The discrete solution of (29) is given through the
amplification matrix of the chosen integrator, in the &,+(A,+A_,)=A,

CAS 33/3-M
806 A. CARDONA
and M. GERADIN

&,+fCACC -A_,)=0 and where R = oh.

The amplification matrix at infinity is obtained by
A,, --+;(A, -A_,)=0 computation in the limit, when R-+oo, giving:

A22-‘f(Ac+A_x,)=Aa. (35)

Here, we have used the fact that A, = A_,, which

can easily be verified for most standard integrators.
Hence, the spectral properties of A are those of A,,
and the stability of the algorithm is determined by
making a stability analysis of A,, as was inferred in
a rather intuitive way in Sec. 1.
The coefficients /3 and y are selected to be:
2.4, The Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algorithm [ 131
The Hilber integration scheme, when applied to /!I =6(1 -c()’
the homogeneous second order model equation, is
written in the form: ‘I’=i(l-2a) (40)

q,+,=q,,+k,+;((l
-Vk+Wn+,) m order to attain maximum accuracy in compu-
tations [13]. By placing them into eqn (39). we obtain:

1
A,=- (41)
(1 -a)2 1+LY
-4
-4 r’--2a - 1
I+a I

An eigenvalue analysis of this matrix gives the

three roots:

4l+.,l+ (1 + cr)2&~j.+, - a2&xj,

+(l+cl)w*q,+,-cw*q,=O. (36) 22,3= -I+r.

l-r
(42)

After some algebraic manipulations, the amplifi-
cation matrix A is constructed such that:
A numerical computation shows that i, and I, have
only one associated eigenvector.
In order to get stability, we require that all powers
of the amplification matrix be bounded. The follow-
ing theorem by Gear [17] indicates the conditions to
be fulfilled for a matrix A of arbitrary dimension:

where

1 + ~(1 + a)25n
c:- PI -
K +/?aR* >
1 +(Y +Ya -BYxQ

+(P-z>o
P(1 + a)XQ

1
A= 1 + (1 + a)Q(2<y + /?a)
-y@
(.(gl+$y&*) I -Y $-a)@
(1 + r)((y - 1mn

I -Cl* -2<Q - (1 + a)R*

( +@ - f)fi2) >
 Time integration of equations of motion in mechanism analysis 807

If the matrix A has eigenvalues Iz,corresponding
sets of elementary divisors of rank m,, then:
6) if all Irli)<: 1, all elements of A”+0 as n + 00;
(ii) if any l&l> 1, some elements of A” > O(n;)
when n ‘co;
(iii) if all [Aild 1, and the largest mi such that
11,1=1 is m, then some elements of
A”= O(nm-‘) when n + co.
Condition (iii) imposes that the maximum number
of unit roots with a common eigenvector should be
one for stability. The Newmark trapezoidal rule,
which is recovered by setting a = 0 in (36), violates
this condition at n + cc, giving:
a,-0 vT=(l -2 4)
a,= a,= -
to Clearly, the term Dz3 is the one which causes the
instability of the Newmark trapezoidal rule, when
I r3=-l.ThetermDr, = nlj3 IS
’ also responstble for
the slight overshooting behavior of the Hilber
scheme [ 181. Figure 1 represents the evolution of ID,, I
with n for different values of the constant a.
By differentiation, we note that the maximum of
1Dz31 occurs after n = (ln(1 + a)/(1 -a))-’ steps.
For a +O * n + co, the algorithm diverges. This
behavior is evidenced in the computed accelerations
of any numerical example (see example 4.1).
With further analytical development, the Jordan
form of the Newmark amplification matrix at infinity
A, is obtained as the product of the matrices
D = Y-‘A,Y (46)
with

1
1 v&=(0 0 1). (43) 10 0
For this reason, time integration of eqns (16) with
the Newmark trapezoidal rule gives unconditionally Y= [ -2 41 0 0
-0.25
unstable results for any value of the time step. and
Further insight into the short time behavior of the
Hilber algorithm can be gained by looking at the
powers of A. The Jordan matrix corresponding to (47)
matrix A is

Then, the nth power of A, results

. (44
A;=yD”y-‘=

I
0 0 0
The nth power of this matrix has the form
2(- 1) (-1) 0 . (48)
-4(-l)“-8n(-l)“-’ -4n(-l)“-’ 0
(45)
We see that both the initial conditions in displace-
ments and velocities will be amplified without bound

/
/’

/ - alpha - -B.Bl

Fig. 1. Evolution of (&( with n.

808 A. CARDONA and M. GERADIN

during the computation of the accelerations; sign of the determinant distinguishes rotations
meanwhile, the computed velocities oscillate between from reflections, which are characterized by negative
bounds. values of the determinant.
Some investigations [19,201 showed that for simple Although R is a 3 x 3 matrix, the orthonormality
nonlinear dynamics examples with a suddenly soften- requirement leaves only three free parameters:
ing stiffness, an increase of energy appears in the
numerical model if the Newmark trapezoidal rule is R = R(Y,, Yy,, Y’;) (50)
applied with certain step sizes. It was also shown that
the energy growth can be suppressed by numerical where ( Yy,, Yy, I,) form the rotational vector, whose
dissipation. In that case, the instability was motivated components express the rotation about the direction
by a completely different mechanism: an accumu- n (Fig. 2):
lation of the error in the strain energy [15]. The
already mentioned weak instability of the Newmark Y =nY. (51)
integrator can also be excited by abrupt variations in
stiffness (see example 4.3) thus introducing new The exponential map gives the rotation operator in
elements that indicate that the Newmark trapezoidal terms of the rotational vector:
rule does not represent a good choice for nonlinear
dynamics. R=I+!$+&Y’+...=exp@) (52)
Finally, we remark that the energy method for the
analysis of stability of an integrator [ 121is not able to
detect this instability, since it looks at the computed where I is the skew-symmetric matrix formed by the
displacements and velocities of the oscillator to assess components of Y:
stability, and in this case only the accelerations
gr, = - E,lk yk
diverge.
Y,= --fE,lkY,k. (53)
3. TIME INTEGRATION AND FINITE ROTATIONS
It can be shown that the series representation of R,
Owing to finite rotations, the dynamic equations eqn (52) can be put into the following closed form
take values on a differentiable manifold and not on expression [4]:
a linear space. as is usual. Then, standard time
integration algorithms cannot be directly used and a
special treatment should be considered. Simo and
R=l+
Vu-Quoc [21] proposed an implicit time stepping
algorithm that provides an extension of the classical
Newmark algorithm to the rotation group SO(3).
Their approach led to a configuration-dependent 3.2. Composite rotations
nonsymmetric tangent mass matrix which gave a Let R be the rotation operator mapping a rec-
quadratic rate of convergence. However, their formu- tangular Cartesian frame (0; E,, E,, E,} into the
lation is restricted, in principle, to the only algorithm orthonormal frame {0 ‘; t, , t,, t, }:
for which they have shown convergence in the paper.
We give here an alternative form of integrating t, = RE,. (55)
rotations, which can be applied to any time inte-
gration scheme. To illustrate the procedure, we Physically, it can be interpreted as a rigid body
consider the Newmark and Hilber-Hughes-Taylor rotation from the initial to the actual configuration,
schemes. We give, in Sets 3.6 and 3.7, the necessary and{O;E,,E,,E,}and{O’;t,,t,,t,}canbeviewed
modifications to these algorithms to integrate the as a material frame and a body-attached or moving
dynamic equations of systems involving large finite frame respectively.
rotations. Let us now consider an incremental rotation which
carries the actual frame {t,) to an updated configur-
3.1. The special orthogonal group-parametrization of ation {tj}. There are two ways of describing this
rotations incremental rotation: via a left translation or via a
Let SO(3) be the group of proper orthogonal linear right translation. The second approach, also called
transformations: material rotation, is followed in this paper. In it, the
total rotation from the initial basis is given by the
sO(3)={R: !l13+9131RrR=1,detR= +l}. (49) right-application of an incremental rotation operator
R,,, to the actual rotation R:
Geometrically, each element R of SO (3) represents a
finite rotation, so that SO(3) equipped with the R’ = RR(,,
matrix product (or composition of rotations) forms
the noncommutative group of rotations. The positive t; = RR,,, E,. (56)
 Time integration of equations of motion in mechanism analysis 809

y (the axial vector fJ) as vectors in 91 3 :

(62)

The relation between incremental angular vari-

ations and rotation parameter variations (variations
of the rotational vector) is given by:

(63)

where the matrix T('P) is given by:

z
sin II'~' I sin II'~' II)
( 1-~
Fig. 2. Rotational vector. T('P)=~l+ n(8)n

The incremental rotation can thus be seen as a

-~(sin([[ 'P [[!2))2 ljJ (64)
rotation applied to the material frame {E1 }.
2 ell'~' ll/2)

3.3. Derivatives of the rotation operator and where the unit vector n gives the direction of
rotation:
Linearized incremental rotations are obtained by
differentiating the rotation operator:

- d
DR·fJ=- I - -
Rexp(efJ)=RfJ. (57)
de ,~o
A derivation of this formula is given in [4].
e
The skew-symmetric tensor represents infinitesimal
or linearized material incremental rotations about 3.4. Angular velocities and accelerations
the eigenvector e associated with the only zero
eigenvalue: The tensor of angular velocities gives the variation
in time of rotations. It is expressed in terms of
material components of rotations as follows:
ee=o. (58)

The axial vector e and the skew-symmetric tensor @

(65)
are mutually related by eqns (53). The set of skew-
symmetric matrices form the linear vector space
so(3): where n represents the skew-symmetric tensor of
material angular velocities. The corresponding axial
vector n, related to n
by eqns (53), is the material
vector of angular velocities.
Given any R E S0(3) and any e E so(3), the lin- The skew-symmetric tensor of material angular
earized incremental rotations form the tangent space accelerations is defined by time-differentiating the
TaS0(3) at a point R E S0(3): angular velocities:

TaS0(3) = {R@ VeE so(3)}. (60)

Geometrically, an element R@ E TaS0(3) corre-
sponds to a finite rotation superposed onto an
e
infinitesimal rotation E S0(3). The elements of this
tangent space are also called rotation variations,
and are accordingly written in terms of material
components of angular variations:
(61)
By extension, we say that so(3) forms the tangent
space of S0(3) at the identity 1 E S0(3), and we
employ the notation so (3) = T1 SO (3).
The tangent space TaS0(3) is isomorphic to W,
and so we can talk of linearized rotation increments
(66)
The angular accelerations A are given by the
corresponding axial vector.
We have mentioned in Sec. 3.3 that angular vari-
ations are related to the variation of the rotation
parameters by the matrix T. If we now specialize the
variation to the case of a time differentiation, it is
easy to recognize in (63) the expression for the
material angular velocities:
n = T('P)Vi. (67)
The latter equation is stated in terms of the (material)
rotational vector and its time derivative.
810 A. CARDONAand M. GERADIN
The angular accelerations are computed by time-
differentiating equation (67):
A = T(P)Bb + T(F)-yb. (68)
An expression of T(P) can be found in [4].
3.5. Incremental rotations as unknowns (updated
Lagrangian point of view)
Dynamic nonlinear structural problems are formu-
lated in a sequential form: step-by-step algorithms
are used to time integrate the nonlinear ordinary
differential equations that constitute the nonlinear
dynamic problem. Then, we are able to express the
problem to be solved in an incremental way: we know
a previous solution at a time instant t, and we want
to determine the increment necessary to obtain the
new admissible configuration.
We will treat rotations in an updated incremental
form. At each stage of the solution process we will
determine the incremental rotation necessary to carry
from the previous converged conjuration (or refer-
ence configuration) to the current one:
R(r) = R,R,,,(t). (69)
This equation is rewritten in terms of rotational
vectors as follows:
exp(p) = exp(p,)exp@,,J (70)
where Y(t) is the rotational vector corresponding to
the actual rotation R(t), Ip, is the rotational vector
corresponding to the reference rotation R,, and
PIpi, is the rotational vector corresponding to the
incremental rotation R,,(t).
This approach can be seen as an updated
Lagrangian point of view. The reference rotation is
fixed, so the expressions of variation of angular
displacements, velocities and accelerations are simply
obtained in terms of the rotational vector of the
incremental rotation by replacing !F by Yrincinto eqns
(63), (67) and (68):
A = T(Y’,,)‘P,“, + “Qpi,,)*Pmc* (7la-c)
3.6. One-step algorithms: the Newmark scheme
Let G be a system of second order differentia1
equations such that:
G: SO(3) x 9l+ +9X3. (72)
Let the system state at t, be given by its ro-
tation, angular velocity and angular acceleration
(R,, a,,, A,).
Time integration schemes are based on finite differ-
ence and/or interpolation formulas of the primary
variables; then, these should lie on a vector space in
order to allow us to perform the mentioned oper-
ations. We will consider the system of equations (72)
as being projected onto T,,.SO(3); in this way we
define a system of second order differential equations
with values on a vector space, for which standard
time integrators can be applied.
Next, we will develop the equations corresponding
to the Newmark scheme, in its predictor/multj-
corrector form.
By noting that T(0) = 1, starting values for the
integrator are stated as follows:
pp,, n = A,. (73)
Then, the predictor and corrector equations are
written in the usual form:
(74)
(75)
t,) is the time step and /I and y are
whereh=(t,+,-
the parameters of the Newmark scheme. Corrected
values for R,+l, a”+,, A,,,, are computed by using
eqns (69), (71b) and (71~).
Iterations are pursued until the system reaches
an equilibrium state, which is characterized by the
vanishing of the virtual work:
6?Ir1=. G$ , = 0 (76)
where 6P,,,c lies in the tangent space to %X3) at R,.
In practice, eqn (76) is considered to be satisfied
whenever the inequality ]lG$“!,(1-z Eis satisfied, where
ilGf$, jj is any suitable norm of the residual vector
Glf’! i and E is a prespecified tolerance.
The iteration increment A!#“” is determined by
requiring that the linearized equilibrium equations at
the current state vanish:
ay@. .t(G$i,)=6F.
‘IIC *“=(Gj(“,,+S$‘OAY”k’)==O
(77)
 Time integration of equations of motion in mechanism analysis 811

where the dynamical pseudo-stiffness matrix is The term c, = T(P,,)-r G, is the projection of the
defined as follows: forces conjugated to increments in TI. _ ,SO(3) to
the space of forces conjugated to increments in
St&=iM+S
Bh* TRBSO (3). Now we are able to compare them directly
to the forces G,, 1, and the modified equation of the
HHT algorithm takes the form:
where M and S are the mass and stiffness matrices of
the problem at hand.
We note that the widely known properties of MA,+L+(l +aN%.tR+l,Qn+~)
accuracy and stability held by the Newmark schemes
are naturally extended to the integration in SO(3). In - a&,t@,,W = (1 + a%tn+l - a&,,. (81)
fact we should speak of a linearized stability prop-
The same technique of projection can be employed
erty, which provides necessary (but not sufficient)
to implement any other multistep algorithm.
conditions for stability in nonlinear systems [22].
By following this simple procedure, any standard
3.7. Multistep algorithms: the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algorithm of time integration can be applied to
scheme integrate the rotation equations.
In this section, we discuss particular aspects for the
implementation of algorithms which consider terms
4. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
evaluated at various time instants to determine the
new configuration. The term multistep is employed to 4.1. Simple pendulum
differentiate from algorithms that, in their actual
The first test-case involves the analysis of a simple
computer implementation, need values at only one
rigid pendulum, with a lumped mass at its free end.
time instant to determine the new configuration.
We compute the system response to an initial velocity
We have shown in Sec. 2.4 that the Newmark
distribution, as shown in Fig. 3. Figure 4 displays the
scheme develops a weak instability at /3 = $, y = 4
evolution in time of the vertical and horizontal
for constrained systems. Introducing numerical
position of the tip of the pendulum.
damping re-establishes the stability at the expense of
in Fig. 5, we show the computed vertical and
giving only first order accuracy. The Hilber-Hughes-
horizontal accelerations at the free end, when using
Taylor algorithm was proposed as an alternative
the Newmark scheme. We can appreciate the diver-
scheme, since it retains second order accuracy while
gent oscillations that characterize the weak instability
imposing a small numerical damping that stabilizes
of the integrator.
the integration.
Figure 6 shows the computed horizontal acceler-
The HHT scheme is obtained by retaining the same
ations when using the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algor-
finite difference equations of the Newmark scheme
ithm. Two runs were made, the first by fixing the
[eqns (74) and (791, but by replacing the internal and
damping constant a to -0.05, and the second with
external forces in the equilibrium equation by a mean
a = -0.1. We see that the oscillations have almost
evaluated at t = t,+., giving in the linear case:
disappeared, the former case presenting more oscil-
lations than the latter one. In both cases, the oscil-
m%+,+(lfa)c4.+,-acq,+(l+a:)kq,+, lations are completely damped after some time steps.
In Fig. 7 we compare the accelerations for a = 0
- akq, = (1 + ax+, - af (79)
(the Newmark trapezoidal rule) and for a = -0.05.
We see that the Newmark results oscillate around the
where m, c and k are the mass, damping and stiffness
true solution, and that this one, in this simple case,
constants of a 1-DOF oscillator, and fis the external
could have been recovered by a filtering/smoothing
force.
post-processing.
We see that the equation of motion now involves
forces evaluated at two different time instants. When
treating rotations, we cannot directly compare forces T------T-----
--”
at t,, with those evaluated at t,+ ,, since they are
conjugated to different angle variations (see Sec. 3.5).
In effect, G, is conjugated to the variations of angular
increments with respect to R, _ 1 while G, + , takes as
a reference the rotation R, evaluated at t,. Then, in A
I
I
l-4
2
1.
order to make the integration by using an HHT-like
m; 1.
algorithm, we have to project the forces G, onto the Vo’ l.so5
space conjugated to Tp. SO (3): h =&OS

6Ym. GM= (T(Yi,)-’ Se) *Gn = 68 *T(ri,)-‘G”.

I I “0
g=s.Elr

(80) Fig. 3. Simple pendulum problem.

812 A. CARDONAand M. GERADIN

8.50% u- .._ ,_-----.._,

f- .~x.._ _z ..‘. ‘.
._-_ _.__
0.40%
Y” __
MRT. DISPL“‘-.-_--rr
0.30%

0.208
_I
_’

0.tae
T
/
cr
0.188 0.200 0.300 8.40% e.sea 0.680 0.78% ti..see 0.988 1.08
-0. req ,f’
1\ /’
-0.20% I. _ _ ,.
!

-0.30% i
/ HORIZ. DISPL.
‘k
-0.40; Y,
*..
.c-_ __*/’ 0,;’
I
-0.50%

Fig. 4. Evolution of positions of the tip of the pendulum.

20.0 Ixc.

15.0
f

-5.00

-10.8

-15.8

-20.0

-25.8

-38.0

Fig. 5. Horizontal accelerations of the tip of the pendulum with the Newrnark scheme; B = f, y = f.

Fig. 6. Horizontal accelerations of the tip of the pendulum with the Hilber scheme.
 Time integration of equations of motion in mechanism analysis 813

Fig. 7. Horizontal accelerations of the tip of the pendulum. Comparison between the trapezoidal rule
(a = 0) and the Hilber scheme (a = 0.05).

4.2. Spinning top [23] 11

Y (1= ILto remain within the zone of differentiability
of rotations. We appreciate that the disk made a total
The second example is a gyroscope consisting of a
of 12 revolutions around the top axis in the period of
uniform thin disk of radius a = 0.25 and mass m = 15
analysis.
spinning about one end of a rigid massless rod of
Figure 11 displays the evolution in time of the
length I= 1 whose other end is freely articulated at
spatial components of the angular velocity. It can be
a fixed point 0 (Fig. 8). The top is immersed in a
verified that at each time instant, the modulus of o
gravity field with constant g = 9.81 and is subjected
equals the spinning velocity o,,. The material com-
to the initial conditions:
ponent of the angular velocity in a direction normally
oriented to the spinning axis is shown in Fig. 12. We
R, =o can appreciate that the oscillations induced by the top
are accurately solved.
Q2= WI, 00 = 150.
In Fig. 13 we compare the x-accelerations of the
disk center computed by fixing a = -0.05 and a = 0
*,=2a20
a’+41 O
in the integrator. The latter case, which coincides with
the Newmark trapezoidal rule, exhibits a divergent
oscillation that resembles an aliasing phenomenon.
For these initial conditions, the rod moves through
the bottom position at z = - 1. Figure 9 illustrates
the spatial evolution of the top. The simulation was
performed by time integrating the equations of
motion with 100 time steps of 0.05, and by using the
Hilber-Hughes-Taylor algorithm with a = -0.05.
Figure 10 displays the evolution in time of the
y-component of the rotational vector. We note the
discontinuity introduced in the representation when

Fig. 8. Spinning top in a gravity field g. Fig. 9. Evolution of the spinning top.
814 A. CARDONA and M. GERADIN

3.00 4
2.50

2.00

1.58

1.00

0.50e

-0.50

-1.W

-1.58

-2.08

-2.58

-3.08

Fig. 10. Evolution in time of the y-component of the rotational vector.

150.

125.

100.

75.0

50.0

25.8

-25.0

-50.0

-75.0 \
-100. - \
‘~ ome z
-125. _ ,: -
.. ,,
‘- . . _A”
-150.

Fig. 11. Evolution in time of the spatial angular velocity.

8.08 ‘JIT
?

Fig. 12. Time evolution of the component normal to the body axis of the material angular velocity.
 Time integration of equations of motion in mechanismanalysis 815

-58.8

-106.

-158.

Fig. 13. x-acceleration of the disk center. Continuous line: a = -0.05; dash and points: a = 0,

Figure 14 displays the same component of acceler-
ations for the cases a = -0.05 and /I = 0.275625,
y = 0.55 (Newmark+ damping scheme). The inte-
grator constants are 6xed so that the amount of
numerical damping is the same for both analyses. We
see that the accelerations are damped by following
almost the same pattern, but there exists a progressive
separation between the responses, signaling that the
low frequency response is not the same for both of
them. Figure 15 displays a comparison, for the three
integrations, of the trajectory of the disk center
projected onto the x-y plane. The exact solution
corresponds to the passage of the disk center through
the origin of coordinates. We see that in this case the
Hilber scheme, with a = -0.05, gives the better
accuracy followed by the Newmark trapexoidal rule,
while the least accurate results are those given by the
Newmark+ damping scheme. We think that the
Newmark trapezoidal rule departs from the correct
trajectory because the oscillations begin to perturb
the results.
4.3. Squeezer mechanism [24]
The squeezer mechanism shown in Fig. 16 is a
planar mechanism formed by seven links and a spring
(see Table I). Links are articulated between them and
to the foundation by means of hinge joints.

48.8

38.0

20.8

18.8

-10.B

-20.1

-3e.e

-4a.a

-5e.e

Fig. 14. x-acceleration of the disk center. Contjnuo~ line Q = -0.05; dashed line: /I = 0.275625,~ = 0.55.
816 A. CARLWNA
and M. GE~UD~N

0.800.

_ 0.600

0.500

_ 0.400.

0.300.

0.200.

0. ’ 00 , /’

$9 u
P
-0.8 -Ia
-.__-_ -8149 - _w 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800
-0.100

Fig. 15. Trajectory of the disk center on the x-y plane. Continuous line: u = -0.05; dashed line:
/? = 0.275625, y = 0.55; dash and points: a = 0.

SAKEF - BACON : Lbrsion 2.1-1 21-JUL-88 15:52:37

z x

Fig. 16. Squeezer mechanism.

The prestressed spring H acts on the mechanism computed at node 5 for two analyses: the first by
through link A and provides a reaction to the input using the Hilber scheme (a = -0.1) and the second
solicitation which is materialized by a time varying employing the Newmark trapezoidal rule. We
moment applied at node 2. Since the mechanism only see a slight phase difference between them.
is entirely contained in the x-y plane, the hinge Discrepancies are greater when plotting accelerations
joints are simply modeled by means of Boolean at the same node: Figs 19 and 20 plot the evolution
assignments [3]. Links are modeled by using beam
elements, in which flexibility effects are neglected by
setting a high value to the Young modulus. Table 1. Links forming the squeezer mechanism
Figure 17 displays the system configurations in Link NOdas Link Nodes
time, for a simulation performed by using the A 12-10-13-29 E 27-29
Hilber-Hughes-Taylor scheme with a set to -0.1 B 5-29 F 22-19-17
and with a total of 400 time steps made from t = 0 c: 2-5 G 22-24-27
to t = 0.02. Figure 18 compares the positions in time
6 17-29 H @p&9) 13-14
 Tie integration of equations of motion in ma&anism analysis 817

SMCEF - BRCON : l4raion i?.i-t 21-Jui-88 36:61:18

LX
Fig. 17. System evolution. Dashed line: initial caption; ~ntin~~ line: lotion at t = 0.005,
0.0075 and 0.01.

-8.86h .._ .. .. .......... .....~ j ,..,.: .._ _.,........... .,.

Fig. 18. Positions at node 5. Continuous line: Hikr (a = -0.1); dashed line: Newmark trapezoidal rule.

6.0eE 6

5.seE 6

S.86E 6

4.SBE 6

4.BBE 6

3.505: 6

3.e6E 6

2.S6E 6

t.%6E 6 :: i... L.
:

1.566 6 . .. . .. . .. .. . . . .,... ..i...

j i j

l.BBE 6 *.
;
“,., ,,i., !

5.8SE 5 i: i:,_,..,_,,,....
___
,._di
-S.68E I ...”
i .,...
,.....:: ..... . ..,._.,.,. ..,,_ .... .

Fig. 19. x-accelerations at node 5. Analysis with Hilbcr scheme.

818 A. CARDONAand M. GERADIN

E 70 f .ACC.

3.88 . ^

I...I
-1.88 _ _ : .

-2.88 ,

-3.88

-4.88

Fig. 20. x-accelerations at node 5. Analysis with Newmark trapezoidal rule.

A
0.888 u

8.688

a.488

8.288

T
P
2.0eE-2

-0.288

I
-8.488
I
I
-0.600

Fig. 21. x-positions at node 5. Continuous line: Hilber (a = -0.1); dashed line: Newmark- damping
scheme.

13.8 4U
/’
12.0 /
/”
11.0 - - /’

/1.
le.0

9.ee
:
8.00
,I’
7.88 - - ,/.A:
6.ee

5.e0

4.88

3.08

2.60

1 .ee

I ---- P

1 2.eeE-3. 6.WE-3 1.8BE-2 1.48E-2 2.BBE-2

Fig. 22. Angle of rotational node 2. Continuous line: Hilber (a = - 0.1); dashed line: Newmark- damping
scheme.
 Time integration of equations of motion in mechanism analysis
6.eeE 6 KC.
5.58E 6
5.00E 6
4.5eE 6 _
4.00E 6
3.5eE 6 5
3.eeE 6 II
2.5eE 6
2.eeE 6
1.56E 6
i.eeE 6
5.eeE 5
-5.eeE !
Fig. 23. x-accelerations at node 5. Continuous line: Hilber (a = - 0.1); dashed line: Newmark-/? damping
scheme.
of the x-acceleration for both analyses. We see that
the Newmark results diverge owing to the weak
instability phenomenon.
We remark that in this example, no Lagrange
multipliers are introduced in the model; the instability
is excited by the large sudden variations of stiffness
that appear, for instance when links B and C are
aligned.
If one tries to solve the same problem by using
the Newmark-fi damping method, the computed
response is completely in error as presented in Fig. 21.
What has happened is that since the method provides
only first order accuracy, the computed response was
such that the spring overpowered the accumulated
inertia of the system, and the input axis turned back
at t = 0.11, as shown in Fig. 22. However, we see in
Fig. 23 that the oscillations are almost completely
damped out, as when the Hilber scheme has been
used.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The implementation of time integration algorithms
for solving multibody dynamics systems was dis-
cussed. Two principal aspects were treated: the time
integration of constrained systems, and the time
integration of systems in which large finite rotations
are modeled.
A stability analysis of constrained dynamic systems
was presented. It was found that the Newmark
trapezoidal rule cannot be used to integrate con-
strained system equations, since this scheme has a
weak instability which in this case is excited for all
values of time step, resulting in an unconditionally
unstable algorithm. It is also concluded that this
algorithm is not suitable for nonlinear dynamic prob-
lems since this weak instability can also be excited by
sudden variations of stiffness. It is shown that one of
the better choices to solve constrained dynamic sys-
819
_ -
i
II
T
-E-2
terns is to employ a second order accurate dissipative
algorithm like, for instance, the Hilber-Hughes-
Taylor scheme.
Different aspects concerning the time integration of
equations involving large finite rotations have been
discussed. We showed that these equations can be
accurately solved by appropriately projecting the
concerned quantities onto the tangent space to the
rotation group SO(3). In this way, all magnitudes lie
in the same vector space and the well known results
of convergence of the employed integrator can be
applied.
Some examples illustrating the different topics
covered in the paper have been presented, showing a
good agreement with the theoretical predictions.
REFERENCES
1. A. Cardona and M. Geradin, A beam finite element non
linear theory with finite rotations. Inr. J. Numer. Meth.
Engng 26, 2403-2438 (1988).
2. A. Cardona and M. Geradin, A superelement formu-
lation for mechanism analysis. Compur. Meth. appl.
Mech. Engng (submitted).
3. A. Cardona and M. Geradin, On the formulation of
joints for mechanism analysis. LT.4S Report, University
of Lidge, Belgium (1988).
4. M. Geradin, K. C. Park and A. Cardona, On the
representation of finite rotations in spatial kinematics.
LTAS Report, University of LiZge, Belgium (1988).
5. J. Baumgarte, Stabilization of constraints and integrals
of motion in dynamical systems. Compur. Merh. uppl.
Mech. Engng 1, 1-16 (1972).
6. P. E. Nikravesh, Some methods for dynamic analysis of
constrained mechanical systems: a survey. In Computer
Aided Analysis and Opti.&ation of Me&mica1 S$em
Dynamics (Edited by E. J. Haua). NATO ASI Series
Vbl. F9, pi. 351-36b. Springer, -&lin (1984).
7. R. A. Wehage and E. J. Haug, Generalized coordinate
partitioning for reduction dimension in analysis of
constrained dynamic systems. J. Mech. Design 104,
247-255 (1982).
820 A. CARDONAand M. GERADIN
8. K. C. Park and J. C. Chiou, Evaluation of constraint
stabilization procedures for multibody dynamics
systems. Proc. 28th Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference, AIAA Paper No. 87-0927. DV. _. 769-773
(1987).
9. K. C. Park, J. C. Chiou and J. D. Downer, A compu-
tational procedure for large rotational motions in multi-
body dynamics. Proc. 2gh Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, AIAA Paper No. 88-2416,
pp. 1593-1601 (1988).
10. C. W. Gear, Differential-algebraic equations. In Com-
puter Aided Analysis and Optimization of Mechanical
System Dynamics (Edited by E. J. Haug), NATO ASI
Series Vol. F9, pp. 323-334. Springer, Berlin (1984).
11. L. Petzold and P. Lotstedt, Numerical solution of
nonlinear differential/algebraic systems from physics
and engineering. In Inn&ative Methods for Nonlz’near
Problems (Edited bv W. K. Liu. T. Belvtschko and K. C.
Park), pp.’ 155-163. Pineridge’Press, Swansea (1984).
12. T. J. R. Hughes, Algorithms for hyperbolic and
parabolic-hyperbolic problems. In The Finite Element
Method. Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element
Analysis, Ch. 9, pp. 490-569. PrenticeHall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ (1987).
13. H. M. Hilbcr, T. J. R. Hughes and R. L. Taylor,
Improved numerical dissipation for time integration
algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthquake Engng
Struct. Dyn. 5, 283-292 (1977).
14. W. L. Wood, M. Bossak and 0. C. Zienkiewicz, An
alpha modification of Newmark’s method. In?. J.
Namer. Merh. Engng 15, 1562-1566 (1981).
15. C. Hoff and P. J. Pahl, Development of an implicit
method with numerical dissipation from a generalized
single-step algorithm for structural dynamics. Compuf.
Meih. appl. Mech. Engng 67, 367-385 (1988).
16. C. Hoff and P. J. Pahl, Practical performance of the
B,-method and comparison with other dissipative algor-
ithms in structural dynamics. Compur. Meb. appl.
Mech. Engng 67, 87-l 10 (1988).
17. C. W. Gear, Numerical Initial Value Problems in
Ordinary Dzfirentiai Equations. Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ (1971).
18. H. M. Hilber and T. J. R. Hughes, Collocation, dissi-
pation and ‘overshoot’ for time integration schemes in
structural dynamics. Earthquake Engng Sfruct. Dyn. 6,
99117 (1978).
19. T. J. R. Hughes, Stability, convergence and growth and
decay of energy of the average acceleration method
in nonlinear structural dynamics. Comput. Struct. 6,
313-324 (1976).
20. K. C. Park, Evaluating time integration methods for
linear dynamic analysis. In Finite Element Analysis of
Transient Nonlinear Structural Behavior (Edited by
T. Belvtschko. J. R. Osias and P. V. Marcal). Aodied
Mechanics Symposia Series, pp. 35-58. ASME: ‘New
York (1975).
21. J. C. Simo and L. Vu-Quoc, On the dynamics m space
of rods undergoing large motions-a geometrically
exact approach. Comput. Meth. appl. Mech. Engng 66,
1255161 (1988).
22. T J. R. Hughes, Analysis of transient algorithms with
particular reference to stabihty problems. In Compu-
tational Methods for Transient Analysis (Edited by
T. Belytchsko and T. J R. Hughes). North-Holland,
Amsterdam (1983).
23. J. B. Jonker, Dynamics of spatial mechanisms with
flexible links, Reporf N. 804, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Delft University of Technology (1984).
24. D. R. A. Giles, A Comparison of Three Problem-oriented
Simulatzon Programs for Dynamic Mechanzcal Systems.
University of Waterloo, Ontario (1978).