## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY

APPLICATIONS

Jorge A.C. Ambr´ osio ´

IDMEC Instituto Superior Tecnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal ´

Abstract Simple or complex systems characterized by large relative motions be-

tween their components ﬁnd in the multibody dynamics formalisms the

most general and eﬃcient computational tools for their analysis. Ini-

tially restricted to the treatment of rigid bodies, the multibody methods

are now widely used to describe the system components deformations,

regardless of their linear or nonlinear nature. The ease of including in

the multibody models diﬀerent descriptions of the contact problems,

control paradigms or equations of equilibrium of other disciplines is

demonstrated here to show the suitability of these approaches to be

used in multidisciplinary applications

Keywords: Flexible multibody dynamics, contact, biomechanics, vehicle dynamics,

railway dynamics, crashworthiness.

1. Introduction

The design requirements of advanced mechanical and structural sys-

tems and the real-time simulation of complex systems exploit the ease

of use of the powerful computational resources available today to cre-

ate virtual prototyping environments. These advanced simulation facili-

ties play a fundamental role in the study of systems that undergo large

rigid body motion while their components experience material or geo-

metric nonlinear deformations, such as vehicles, deployable structures,

space satellites, machines operating at high speeds or robot manipula-

tors. Some examples of engineering and biological systems for which

the large overall motion is of fundamental importance are exempliﬁed

in Fig. 1. If on the one hand the nonlinear ﬁnite element method is the

most powerful and versatile procedure to describe the ﬂexibility of the

system components, on the other hand the multibody dynamic formula-

tions are the basis for the most eﬃcient computational techniques that

61

W. Gutkowski and T.A. Kowalewski (eds.), Mechanics of the 21st Century, 61–88.

© 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.

62 ICTAM04

Figure 1. Natural biological and artiﬁcial engineering systems for which multibody

dynamics provides irreplaceable modeling methodologies.

deal with large overall motion. Therefore, it is no surprise that many

of the most recent formulations on ﬂexible multibody dynamics and on

ﬁnite element methods with large rotations share some common features.

In multibody dynamics methods, the body-ﬁxed coordinate frames are

generally adopted to position each one of the system components and

to allow for the speciﬁcation of the kinematic constraints that represent

the restrictions on the relative motion between the bodies. Several for-

malisms are published suggesting the use of diﬀerent sets of coordinates,

such as Cartesian [1], natural [2] and relative coordinates [3]. Depend-

ing on the type of applications, each of these types of coordinates has

advantages and disadvantages. Due to the ease of the computational

implementation, their physical meaning and the widespread knowledge

of their features, all the formalisms presented in this work are based on

the use of Cartesian coordinates.

The methodological structure of the equations of motion of the multi-

body system obtained allows the incorporation of the equilibrium equa-

tions of a large number of disciplines and their solution in a combined

form. The description of the structural deformations exhibited by the

system components by using linear [5] or non-linear ﬁnite elements [6] in

the framework of multibody dynamics is an example of the integration

of the equations of equilibrium of diﬀerent specialties. Of particular

importance for the applications pursued with the methodologies pro-

posed is the treatment of contact and impact, which is introduced in

the multibody systems equations by using either unilateral constraints

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 63

[7] or a continuous contact force model [8]. The availability of the state

variables in the multibody formulation allows for the use of diﬀerent

control paradigms in the framework of vehicle dynamics, biomechanics

or robotics and their integration with the multibody equations [9]. The

coupling between the ﬂuid and structural dynamics equations allows for

the development of applications, where the ﬂuid-structure interaction is

analyzed, especially for cases with large absolute or relative rotations in

the system components, are of importance [10, 11].

The research carried at IDMEC provides the examples oﬀered in this

work. Application cases involving the modeling of realistic mechanisms,

passive safety of road and rail vehicles, impact and human locomotion

biomechanics, automotive and railway dynamics are used to demonstrate

the developments reviewed here.

2. Rigid Multibody Dynamics

A multibody system is deﬁned as a collection of rigid and/or ﬂexible

bodies constrained by kinematic joints and eventually acted upon by

a set of internal and/or external forces. The position and orientation of

each body i in the space is described by a position vector r

i

and a set of

rotational coordinates p

i

, which are organized in a vector as [1]:

q

i

= [r

T

, p

T

]

T

i

. (1)

According to this deﬁnition, a multibody system with nb bodies is

described by a set of coordinates in the form:

q = [q

T

1

, q

T

2

, . . . , q

T

nb

]

T

. (2)

The dependencies among system coordinates, which result from the

existence of mechanical joints interconnecting several bodies, are deﬁned

through the introduction of kinematic relationships written as [1]:

Φ(q, t) = 0, (3)

where t is the time variable, which is used only for the driving con-

straints. The second time-derivative of Eq. (3) with respect to time

yields:

¨

Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q, t) = 0 ≡ D¨ q = γ, (4)

where D is the Jacobian matrix of the constraints, ¨ q is the acceleration

vector and γ is the vector that depends on the velocities and time.

The system kinematic constraints are added to the equations of mo-

tion using the Lagrange multipliers technique [1]. Denoting by λ the

64 ICTAM04

vector of the unknown Lagrange multipliers, the equations of motion for

a mechanical system are written as

_

M D

T

D 0

_ _

¨ q

λ

_

=

_

f

γ

_

(5)

where M is the global mass matrix, containing the mass and moments

of inertia of all bodies, and f is the force vector, containing all forces

and moments applied to the system bodies plus the gyroscopic forces.

The Lagrange multipliers, associated with the kinematic constraints,

are physically related with the reaction forces generated between the

bodies interconnected by kinematic joints, given by [1]

f

(c)

= −Φ

T

q

λ, (6)

The usual procedures to handle the integration of sets of diﬀerential-

algebraic equations must still be applied in this case in order to eliminate

the constraint drift or to maintain it under control [1, 2].

Forward Dynamics

The computational strategy used to solve the forward dynamics of

the system, represented by Eq. (5), is outlined in Fig. 2. The solution

procedure starts by the determination of the initial positions and velo-

cities of the system components. Next, the system inertia, the Jacobian

matrices, the forces and the right-hand-side of the kinematic accelera-

tion constraint equations vectors, are calculated and assembled in the

equations of motion. Equation (5) is then solved to ﬁnd the system ac-

celerations, and in the process the Lagrange multipliers. By integrating

the current velocities and the system accelerations, at time t, the new

positions and velocities for time t +∆t are calculated by using a variable

Figure 2. Solution of the forward dynamic analysis of a multibody system.

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 65

order, variable time-step integration procedure [1, 2, 4]. The forward dy-

namics simulation proceeds until the previously set ﬁnal time is reached.

The procedure outlined in Fig. 2 is used in general purpose multibody

dynamics codes, such as DAP-3D [1]. Throughout this work it is demon-

strated that all engineering applications foreseen here are implemented,

either by developing speciﬁc kinematic constraints or by implementing

force models in Eq. (5).

Application Example of a Roller Coaster. When a body travels

along a guide, not only its path has to be followed, but also its spa-

tial orientation has to be prescribed, according to spatial characteristics

of the curve. The formulation adopted to implement these kinematic

constraints, using the moving Frenet frame associated with the track

centerline based on the work by Pombo and Ambrosio [12], is outlined ´

next.

Prescribed Motion Constraint. The objective here is to deﬁne the

constraint equations that enforce that a point of a rigid body follows the

reference path [12]. Consider a point R, located on a rigid body i, that

has to follow the speciﬁed path depicted in Fig. 3. The path is deﬁned

by a parametric curve g(L), which is controlled by a global parameter

L that represents the length travelled along the curve until the current

location of point R. The kinematic constraint is

Φ

(pmc,3)

= 0 ≡ r

R

i

−g(L) = 0, (7)

where r

R

i

= r

i

+A

i

s

R

i

represents the coordinates of point R with respect

to the global coordinate system (x, y, z), r

i

is the vector that deﬁnes

the location of the body-ﬁxed coordinate system (ξ, η, ζ)

i

, A

i

is the

transformation matrix from the body i ﬁxed coordinates to the global

reference frame, and s

R

i

represents the coordinates of point R with re-

Figure 3. Local frame alignment constraint.

xxxxxxx

66 ICTAM04

spect to the body-ﬁxed reference frame. For notational purposes (·)

**means that (·) is expressed in body-ﬁxed coordinates.
**

The second part of the constraint ensures that the spatial orientation

of body i remains unchanged with respect to the moving frame of the ref-

erence path represented in Fig. 3. Consider that (u

ξ

, u

η

, u

ζ

)

i

represent

the unit vectors associated with the axis of the body-ﬁxed coordinate

system (ξ, η, ζ)

i

. Let the Frenet frame of the general parametric curve

g(L) be deﬁned by the principal unit vectors (t, n, b)

L

. At the ini-

tial time of analysis, the relative orientation between the body vectors

(u

ξ

, u

η

, u

ζ

)

i

and the local frame (t, n, b)

L

leads to

Φ

(lfac,3)

= 0 ≡

⎧

⎨

⎧⎧

⎩

⎨⎨n

T

· u

ξ

b

T

· u

ξ

n

T

· u

ζ

⎫

⎬

⎫⎫

⎭

⎬⎬

−

⎧

⎨

⎧⎧

⎩

⎨⎨a

b

c

⎫

⎬

⎫⎫

⎭

⎬⎬

= 0. (8)

This kinematic constraint ensures that the alignment remains constant

throughout the analysis. The transformation matrix from the body i

ﬁxed coordinates to the global coordinate system is:

A

i

= [u

ξ

u

η

u

ζ

]

i

(9)

deﬁning the following unit vectors as:

u

1

= {1 0 0}

T

; u

2

= {0 1 0}

T

; u

3

= {0 0 1}

T

. (10)

Equation (8) is now rewritten in a more usable form as:

Φ

(lfac,3)

= 0 ≡

⎧

⎨

⎧⎧

⎩

⎨⎨n

T

A

i

u

1

b

T

A

i

u

1

n

T

A

i

u

3

⎫

⎬

⎫⎫

⎭

⎬⎬

−

⎧

⎨

⎧⎧

⎩

⎨⎨a

b

c

⎫

⎬

⎫⎫

⎭

⎬⎬

= 0, (11)

which constitutes the second part of the path following constraint.

Roller-Coaster Dynamics. Let the roaller-coaster rail be deﬁned

with the spatial geometry described in Fig. 4. The path-following con-

straint is used to enforce the vehicles to follow the rail for the prescribed

geometry.

The roller coaster vehicle consists of a train with three cars that are

interconnected by linking bars, represented in Fig. 5. The multibody

model of the vehicle is assembled using eleven rigid bodies, corresponding

to 3 car bodies, 6 wheelsets and 2 connection bars.

The complete vehicle model only has 1 d.o.f., which is the longitudinal

motion of the cars. The motion of the vehicle is guided by the dynamics

described by Eq. (5). A view of the motion of the roller coaster is dis-

played in Fig. 6 and the details of the analysis are found in reference [13].

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 67

Figure 4. View of the roller coaster as used in the simulation.

Figure 5. Multibody model of the roller coaster vehicle.

Figure 6. Snap shots of the roller coaster motion as observed from the second car.

Note that the study of these vehicles only requires the use of the path-

following constraint. The contact forces are not explicitly used but they

can be calculated from the Lagrange multipliers associated to the path

constraint.

Inverse Dynamics

In many applications all external forces are known and the motion of

the system is also known. Therefore, the only unknowns are the internal

forces. Let the ﬁrst row of Eq. (5) be re-written as

M¨ q +D

T

λ = g (12)

z

3

1 2 4 5

7

x

9

6

8

10

11

68 ICTAM04

which is

D

T

λ = g −M¨ q. (13)

Equation (13) emphasizes that the only unknowns of the system are

the Lagrange multipliers. The reaction forces at the joints are given by:

g

(c)

= −D

T

λ. (14)

The solution of the equations of motion in inverse dynamics can be

used to solve for the internal forces of the human body, i.e., muscle and

anatomical joint reaction forces, that develop for known motions.

Application to Biomechanics: Gait Analysis

For biomechanical applications in gait a three-dimensional model, pre-

sented in Fig. 7, is used [14]. It has a kinematic structure made of thirty-

three rigid bodies, interconnected by revolute and universal joints, in

such a way that sixteen anatomical segments are represented.

3

11 1

16 16

5

12 2

2

13

7

44

6

9

1

10

15

14

8

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

13

14

15

16

v1

v2

v3

v3

v7

vv88

v6

v6

v5

v5

v4

vv4

v211

v99

v10

v11

v11

vvv22

v12

v12

v13

v13

vv15

v14

v15

v16

v16

v17

v20 20

v20

v17

v18

vv19 99

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

7

6

8

4

5

2

3

1

9

10

11

12

13

31

32 25

24 26

27

28

29

30

33

Figure 7. The biomechanical model, its kinematic structure and a detail of the

ankle joint.

Joint Moments-of-Force: A Determinate Problem. To drive

the biomechanical model in the inverse dynamic analysis, joint actuators

such as the one represented in Fig. 8 for the knee joint, are speciﬁed. The

actuators are the kinematic constraints in which the angle between two

adjacent segments is a known function of time. These additional equa-

tions are added to the system kinematic equation so that the number of

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 69

m

1

m

2

m

3

O

m1

I

m1

I = O

m2

I

m2

=

2

O

m3

I

m3

Figure 8. Joint actuator associated with the knee joint and muscle actuator.

non-redundant constraint equations becomes equal to the number of co-

ordinates. Equation (13) is solved to obtain the Lagrange multipliers as-

sociated with the joint actuators, representing the net moments-of-force

of the muscles that cross those joints. The inverse dynamics problem,

as stated here, is totally determined.

Muscle Forces: A Redundant Problem. The solution of the

inverse dynamics problem with muscle actuators introduces indetermi-

nacy in the biomechanical system, since it involves more unknowns than

equations of motion. By using optimization techniques to ﬁnd the mus-

cle forces that minimize a prescribed objective function, a solution for

the problem is obtained. The optimization problem is stated as:

minimize F

0

(u

i

)

subject to

⎧

⎪

⎧⎧

⎨

⎪⎪

⎪

⎨⎨

⎩

⎪⎪

f

j

f (u

i

) = 0, j = 1, ..., n

ec

,

f

j

f (u

i

) 0, j = (n

ec

+ 1) , . . . , n

tc

,

u

lower

i

u

i

u

upper

i

i = 1, . . . , n

sv

(15)

where u

i

are the state variables bounded respectively by u

lower

and

u

upper

, F

0

(u

i

) is the objective or cost function to minimize and f

i

ff (u

i

)

are constraint equations that restrain the state variables.

The minimization of the cost functions simulate the physiological cri-

teria adopted by the central nervous system when deciding which muscles

to recruit and what level of activation to obtain the adequate motion.

Several cost functions have been proposed for the study of the redundant

problem in biomechanics [15]. The minimization of the sum of the cube

of the muscle stresses [16] is often used in applications involving human

70 ICTAM04

Figure 9. Lower extremity muscle apparatus.

Figure 10. Muscle forces for the hamstrings and triceps surae.

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 71

locomotion

F

0

=

n

ma

m=1

_

¯ σ

F

m

l

FF F

m

˙

l

FF

F

m2

0

FF

a

m

_

3

(16)

where n

ma

are the number of muscle actuators and ¯ σ is the speciﬁc

muscle strength with a constant value of 31.39 N/cm

2

[17]. The human

locomotion apparatus, represented in Fig. 9, is modeled having the mus-

cles with the physiological data described in Yamaguchi [17]. The state

variables associated with muscle actuators represent muscle activations

that can only assume values between 0 and 1.

To illustrate the type of results obtained for the muscle forces in a case

of normal cadence gait of a 50%ile male, the muscle forces for the ham-

strings and triceps surae are presented in Fig. 10.

3. Contact and Impact

Let a triangular patch, where point k of the body shown in Fig. 11

will impact, be deﬁned by points i, j and l. The normal to the outside

surface of the contact patch is deﬁned as n = r

ij

×r

jl

. The position of

the point k with respect to point i of the surface is

r

ik

= r

k

−r

i

(17)

which is decomposed in a tangential and a normal component, given by

r

t

ik

= r

ik

−

_

r

T

ik

n

_

n; r

n

ik

=

_

r

T

ik

n

_

n. (18)

The necessary conditions for contact are that node k penetrates the

‘front’ surface of the patch, but not through its ‘back’ surface, with

which a thickness e is associated. These conditions are written as

0 r

T

ik

n e. (19)

n

jl

r

j

li

r

l

ij

r

ij

ik

r

i

( ) ( ) ( ) n r

ik

nnn

ik

rr =

( ) n r r

ik ik

rr

tt

ik

rr − =

i

j

l

k

k

*

Figure 11. Contact detection between a ﬁnite element node and a surface.

72 ICTAM04

The remaining necessary conditions for contact result from the need

for the node to be inside of the triangular patch. These three extra

conditions are

_

˜r

t

ik

r

ij

_

T

n 0;

_

˜r

t

ik

r

jl

_

T

n 0 and

_

˜r

t

ik

r

ki

_

T

n 0. (20)

Equations (19) and (20) are necessary conditions for contact. How-

ever, depending on the contact force model actually used, they may not

be suﬃcient to ensure eﬀective contact.

Unilateral Constraints

If contact between a node and a surface is detected, a kinematic con-

straint is imposed. For ﬂexible bodies let us assume a fully plastic nodal

contact, i.e., the normal components of the node k velocity and acceler-

ation, with respect to the surface, are null during contact

˙ q

k

= ˙ q

(−)

k

−

_

˙ q

(−)T

k

n

_

n; ¨ q

k

= ¨ q

(−)

k

−

_

¨ q

(−)T

k

n

_

n (21)

where ˙ q

(−)

k

and ¨ q

(−)

k

represent the nodal velocity and acceleration imme-

diately before impact respectively . The kinematic constraint implied by

Eqs. (21) is removed when the normal reaction force between the node

and the surface becomes opposite to the surface normal, i.e.,

f

n

k

f = −f

T

k

f n > 0. (22)

It should be noted that the contact force is related to the Lagrange

multiplier associated by the kinematic constraint deﬁned by Eqs. (22).

Therefore, the change of sign of the force is in fact the change of sign of

the multiplier.

This contact model is not suitable to be used directly with rigid body

contact. The sudden change of the rigid body velocity and acceleration

would imply that the velocity and acceleration equations resulting from

the kinematic constraints would not be fulﬁlled. Other forms of this

contact model can be found in the work by Pfeiﬀer and Glocker [7].

Continuous Contact Force Model

An alternative description of contact considers this to be a continuous

event where the contact force is a function of the penetration between

the surfaces. This leads to the continuous force contact model, proposed

by Lankarani and Nikravesh [8], and brieﬂy described here. Let the

contact force between two bodies be written as

f

s,i

f =

_

Kδ

n

+ D

˙

δ

_

u (23)

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 73

where δ is the pseudo-penetration,

˙

δ is the pseudo-velocity of penetra-

tion, K is the equivalent stiﬀness, D is a damping coeﬃcient and u is

a unit vector normal to the impacting surfaces. Using the hysteresis dis-

sipation model and the equivalent stiﬀness, calculated for instance for

Hertzian elastic contact [18], the nonlinear contact force is

f

s,i

f = Kδ

n

_

1 +

3

_

1 −e

2

_

4

˙

δ

˙

δ

(−)

_

u (24)

where

˙

δ

(−)

is the initial contact velocity and e is the restitution coeﬃ-

cient. Note that K is a function of the geometry and material properties

of the impacting surfaces.

Application to Railway Dynamics – The Wheel-Rail

Contact Problem

One of the interesting applications of multibody dynamics with con-

tact mechanics is the description of the wheel-rail contact in railway

dynamics, represented in Fig. 12. The stability of the running vehicle

depends ultimately on the rail-wheel contact and on the vehicle primary

suspension. Therefore, methodologies that provide accurate models to

represent the phenomena are of particular importance.

In a general case of a railway vehicle one or two points of each wheel

are in contact with the rail, as shown in Fig. 12. The diametric sec-

tion that contains the wheel ﬂange contact point makes an angle s

f

Rw

with the diametric section that contains the wheel tread contact point.

The possibility of detecting contact in diﬀerent diametric sections allows

predicting derailment and it is, therefore, of utmost importance.

Let the generalized geometry of the rail and wheel be described by

generalized surfaces resulting from sweeping the rail proﬁle along the rail

Figure 12. Two points of contact in the rail and wheel surfaces: lead contact.

Tr Tr

Fla Fla Fla Fla

(Le (Le (Le (Le

Tr Tr Tr Treeee

con con con con

ct ct ct ct

ct) ct) ct) ct)

74 ICTAM04

centerlines and the wheel proﬁles around the base circle of the wheel.

In order to ensure that the search for the contact points is between

convex surfaces, the wheel proﬁle is divided in treat and ﬂange proﬁles.

The contact between the rail and one of the wheel surfaces is described

generically in Fig. 13, where the mating surfaces are represented as free

surfaces.

Figure 13. Candidates to contact points between two parametric surfaces.

The geometric conditions for contact between the convex surfaces are

deﬁned by vector products deﬁned between the surfaces. The ﬁrst condi-

tion is that the surfaces normals n

i

and n

j

at the candidates to contact

points have to be parallel. This condition means that n

j

has null pro-

jections over the tangent vectors t

u

i

and t

w

i

:

n

j

×n

i

= 0 ⇔

⎧

⎨

⎧⎧

⎩

⎨⎨

n

T

j

t

u

i

= 0,

n

T

j

t

w

i

= 0.

(25)

The second condition is that the vector d, which represents the dis-

tance between the candidates to contact points, has to be parallel to the

normal vector n

i

. This condition is mathematically written as:

d ×n

i

= 0 ⇔

⎧

⎨

⎧⎧

⎩

⎨⎨

d

T

t

u

i

= 0,

d

T

t

w

i

= 0.

(26)

The geometric conditions (25) and (26) provide four nonlinear equations

with four unknowns, the four parameters u, w, s and t that deﬁne the

two surfaces. This system of equations provides solutions for the location

of the candidates to contact points that have to be sorted out.

x

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 75

The coordinates of the candidates to contact points are determined

by solving an optimal problem and the distance between such points is

calculated in the process. The points are in contact if

d

T

n

j

0. (27)

When contact is detected, the normal force is calculated using Eq. (24)

and the tangential forces are evaluated using the Kalker theory, the

Polach formulation or the Heuristic nonlinear creep model. It has been

found that the Polach formulation provides the best approach for the

tangent forces, and it is used hereafter [13].

The wheel-rail contact model outlined here is used to model the ML95

trainset, shown in Fig. 14, which is used by the Lisbon subway company

(ML) for passengers’ traﬃc.

The multibody model of the trailer vehicle of the train, developed

in the work by Pombo [13], is composed of the car shell suspended by

a set of springs, dampers and other rigid connecting elements on the

bogies. This assembly of connective elements constitutes the secondary

suspension, sketched in Fig. 15, which is the main one responsible for

the passenger’s comfort.

The connections between the bogies chassis and the wheelsets, also

achieved by another set of springs, dampers and rigid connecting ele-

Figure 14. Schematic representation of the ML95 trainset.

Figure 15. Secondary suspension model of the ML95 trailer vehicle.

76 ICTAM04

Figure 16. Primary suspension model of the ML95 trailer bogie: a) Three-

dimensional spring-damper elements; b) Suspension model with springs and dampers.

Figure 17. Lift of the right wheel of the leading wheelset for vehicle forward velo-

cities of 10 and 20 m/s, using the Kalker linear theory.

ments, constitute the primary suspension represented in Fig. 16. The

primary suspension is the main suspension responsible for the vehicle

running stability.

The simulation results of the vehicle, running in a circular track with

a radius of 200 m with velocities of 10 and 20 m/s, show that the predic-

tion of ﬂange contact is of fundamental importance. Fig. 17 shows that

contact forces obtained with the Kalker linear theory originate the lift of

the outer wheel of the front wheelset at the entrance of the curve. De-

spite this wheel lift, derailment does not occur and the analysis proceeds

up to end. Nevertheless, such results are not realistic since the existence

of ﬂange contact involves high creepages, which makes the Kalker linear

theory inappropriate to compute the creep forces. Therefore only the

Heuristic and the Polach creep force models must be considered.

Another aspect to note is that ﬂange contact is detected with all creep

force models. Even when running at the speed of 10 m/s, where the cen-

trifugal forces eﬀect is balanced by the track cant, ﬂange contact occurs.

Lateral ﬂange forces develop on the wheels of both wheelsets of the front

bogie as presented in Fig. 18 for a vehicle forward velocity of 10 m/s and

a)

Three-dimensional

spring-damper elements

Bogie frame Axlebox

Wheelset

b)

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 77

using the Polach creep force model. During curve negotiation, the outer

wheel of the leading wheelset and the inner wheel of the rear wheelset

have permanent ﬂange contact.

Referring to Fig. 19, for the velocity of 10 m/s, the ﬂange contact oc-

curs on the outer and in the inner wheels of the vehicle. For the velocity

of 20 m/s, only the outer wheels have ﬂange contact. This is explained

by the fact that, when running at 20 m/s, the vehicle negotiates the

curve with a velocity higher than the balanced speed.

4. Flexible Multibody Dynamics with Plastic

Hinges

Many applications of multibody dynamics require the description of

the ﬂexibility of its components. For structural crashworthiness it is

-5 000

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Time [s]

L

a

t

e

r

a

l

F

l

a

n

g

e

F

o

r

c

e

[

N

]

Left Ws 3 ( Pol ach)

Right Ws 3 ( Pol ach)

Left Ws 4 ( Pol ach)

Right Ws 4 ( Pol ach)

Figure 18. Lateral ﬂange forces on the wheels of both wheelsets of the front bogie

for a vehicle forward velocity of 10 m/s, using the Polach creep force model.

Front

wheelset

(Ws 4)

Flange

contact

Rear

wheelset

(Ws 3)

Flange

contact

Figure 19. Contact conﬁguration during curve negotiation.

78 ICTAM04

often unfeasible to use large nonlinear ﬁnite element models. The use

of multibody dynamics with plastic hinges is an alternative formulation

that allows building insightful models for crashworthiness.

Formulation of Plastic Hinges

In many impact situations, the individual structural members are

overloaded giving rise to plastic deformations in highly localized regions,

called plastic hinges. These deformations, presented in Fig. 20 for stru-

ctural bending, develop at points where maximum bending moments

occur, load application points, joints or locally weak areas [19]. Multi-

body models obtained with this method are relatively simple, which

makes the procedure adequate for the early phases of vehicle design.

The methodology described herein is known in industry as conceptual

modeling [20].

Figure 20. Localized deformations on a beam and a plastic hinge.

The plastic hinge concept has been developed by using generalized

spring elements to represent constitutive characteristics of localized plas-

tic deformation of beams and kinematic joints to control the deforma-

tion kinematics [21], as illustrated in Fig. 21. The characteristics of

the spring-damper that describes the properties of the plastic hinge are

obtained by experimental component testing, ﬁnite element nonlinear

analysis or simpliﬁed analytical methods.

The plastic hinge constitutive equation can be modiﬁed to account

for the strain rate sensitivity of some materials. A dynamic correction

factor is used to account for the strain rate sensitivity given by [21].

P

d

PP /P

s

PP = 1 + 0.07V

0.82

0

VV , (28)

where P

d

PP and P

s

PP are the dynamic and static forces, respectively, and V

0

VV is

the relative velocity between the adjacent bodies. The force or moment

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 79

Analytical

Test

Rotation ( Rad)

M

o

m

e

n

t

(

k

N

m

)

0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25

0

1

5

3

0

4

5

6

0

Figure 21. Plastic hinge bending moment and its constitutive relationship.

to apply due to the plastic hinge is multiplied by the ratio calculated in

Eq. (28) before it is used in the force vector of the multibody equations

of motion.

Application of the Plastic Hinge Approach to

Crashworthiness of Surface Vehicles

The multibody of an oﬀ-road vehicle with three occupants, shown in

Fig. 22, is used to demonstrate the plastic hinge approach to complex

crash events. The model includes all moving components of the vehicle,

suspension systems and wheels, and a tire model [16]. The biomechanical

models for the occupants are similar to those described in Fig. 7.

The three occupants, with a 50%tile, integrated in the vehicle are

seated. Two occupants in the front of the vehicle have shoulder and lap

Figure 22. Initial position of the vehicle and occupants for the rollover.

80 ICTAM04

seat belts while the occupant seated in the back of the vehicle has no

seatbelt.

The rollover situation for the simulation is such that the initial condi-

tions correspond to experimental conditions where the vehicle moves on

a cart with a lateral velocity of 13.41 m/s until the impact with a water-

ﬁlled decelerator system occurs. The vehicle is then ejected with a roll

angle of 23 degrees.

The results of the simulation are pictured in Fig. 23 by several frames

of the animation. The vehicle ﬁrst impacts the ground with its left tires.

At this point the rear occupant is ejected. The rollover motion of the

vehicle proceeds with an increasing angular velocity, mainly due to the

ground – tire contact friction forces. The occupants in the front of the

vehicle are held in place by the seat belts. Upon continuing its roll

motion, the vehicle impacts the ground with its rollbar cage, while the

ejection of the rear occupant is complete. Bouncing from the inverted

position, the vehicle completes another half turn and impacts the ground

with the tires again. The HICs for all occupants largely exceed 1000,

which indicates a very high probability of fatal injuries for the occupants

under the conditions simulated.

An experimental test of the vehicle was carried out at the Transporta-

tion Research Center of Ohio [22], being an overview of the footage ob-

tained shown in Fig. 24. The outcome of the experimental test, which

is rather similar to the outcome of the simulation, is further used to

validate the vehicle model [21].

Figure 23. Views of the outcome of the rollover simulation of a vehicle with three

occupants.

Figure 24. View of the experimental test for the truck rollover.

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 81

5. Flexible Multibody Dynamics with Finite

Elements

General Equations of Motion of a Single Body

Let the principle of the virtual works be used to express the equi-

librium of the ﬂexible body in the current conﬁguration t+∆t and let

an updated Lagrangean formulation be used to obtain the equations of

motion of the ﬂexible body [23]. Let the ﬁnite element method be used

to represent the equations of motion of the ﬂexible body. Referring to

Fig. 25, the assembly of all ﬁnite elements used in the discretization of

a single ﬂexible body results in its equations of motion written as [6]

⎡

⎣

M

rr

M

rf

M

rf

M

φr

M

φφ

M

φf

M

fr

M

fφ

M

ff

⎤

⎦

⎡

⎣

¨r

˙ ω

¨ u

⎤

⎦

=

⎡

⎣

⎡⎡

g

r

g

φ

g

f

⎤

⎦

−

⎡

⎣

⎡⎡

s

r

s

φ

s

f

⎤

⎦

−

⎡

⎣

⎡⎡

0

0

f

⎤

⎦

−

⎡

⎣

⎡

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 K

L

+K

NL

⎤

⎦

⎤⎡

⎣

⎡

0

0

u

⎤

⎦

⎤

(29)

where ¨r and ˙ ω

**are respectively the translational and angular accelera-
**

tions of the body-ﬁxed reference frame and ¨ u

**denotes the nodal accele-
**

rations measured in body ﬁxed coordinates. The local coordinate frame

ξηζ attached to the ﬂexible body, is used to represent the gross motion

of the body and its deformation.

Figure 25. General motion of a ﬂexible body.

ted updated

ation

′ t

b

∆ b

t

b

t t

h

t

ζ

t

ηη

tt ∆

ζ

t ∆

00

ζζ

0

η

82 ICTAM04

Linear Deformations of Flexible Bodies

In many situations it is enough to consider that the components of

the multibody system experience only linear elastic deformations. Fur-

thermore, assume that the mode superposition technique can be used.

Then, the ﬂexible part of the body is described by a sum of selected

modes of vibration as

u

= Xw (30)

where the vector w represents the contributions of the vibration modes

towards the nodal displacements and X is the modal matrix. Due to the

reference conditions, the modes of vibration used here are constrained

modes. Due to the assumption of linear elastic deformations the modal

matrix is invariant. The reduced equations of motion for a linear ﬂexible

body are [5]

_

M

r

M

rf

X

X

T

M

fr

I

__

¨ q

r

¨ w

_

=

_

g

r

X

T

g

f

_

−

_

s

r

X

T

s

f

_

−

_

0

Λw

_

(31)

where Λ is a diagonal matrix with the squares of the natural frequencies

associated with the modes of vibration selected. For a more detailed

discussion on the selection of the modes used the interested reader is

referred to [5].

The methodology is demonstrated through the application to the si-

mulation of the unfolding of a satellite antenna, the Synthetic Aperture

Radar (SAR) antenna that is a part of the European research satellite

Figure 26. The European satellite with the folded and unfolded conﬁgurations of

the antenna.

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 83

ERS-1, represented in Fig. 26. During the transportation the antenna is

folded, in order to occupy as little space as possible. After unfolding,

the mechanical components take the conﬁguration shown in Fig. 26(a).

The SAR antenna consists in two identical subsystems, each with

three coupled four-bar links that unfold two panels on each side. The

central panel is attached to the main body of the satellite. Each unfold-

ing system has two degrees of freedom, driven individually by actuators

located in joints A and B. In the ﬁrst phase of the unfolding process

the panel 3 is rolled out, around an axis normal to the main body, by

a rotational spring-damper-actuator in joint A, while the panel 2 is held

down by blocking the joints D and E. The second phase begins with

the joint A blocked, next the panels 2 and 3 are swung out to the ﬁnal

position by a rotational spring-damped-actuator.

The model used for one half of the folding antenna, schematically

depicted Fig. 27, is composed of 12 bodies, 16 spherical joints and 3

revolute joints. The central panel is attached to the satellite, deﬁned

as body 1, which has much higher mass and inertia. The data for this

antenna is reported in the work of Anantharamann [24].

Figure 27. The SAR antenna: a) half unfolded state b) folded antenna; c) multibody

model.

In the ﬁrst phase of the unfolding antenna, the rotational spring-

damped-actuator is applied in the revolute joint R

3

. For the second

phase, the revolute joint R

3

is blocked and the system is moved to

the next equilibrium position by a spring-actuator-damped positioned

in joint R

1

. The unfolding processes for rigid and ﬂexible models are

shown in Fig. 28, only for its ﬁrst phase.

The diﬀerent behavior between the rigid and the ﬂexible models is

noticeable in Fig. 28. Though not shown here, the rotational actuator

moment responsible for the start of the unfolding is not correctly pre-

dicted by the rigid multibody model. Being a very light and ﬂexible

structure, the discrepancies, if not identiﬁed during the design stage,

would lead to the failure of the unfolding process.

1.3 1.3

a) a)

Actuator ( Actuator (1) 1)

b) b)

Panel 3 (B3) Panel 3 (B3)

Panel 2 (B2 Panel 2 (B2))

Panel 1 (B1) Panel 1 (B1)

c) c) c) c)

84 ICTAM04

Figure 28. First phase of the unfolding of the SAR antenna (rigid and ﬂexible

models).

Nonlinear Deformations in Multibody Systems

For ﬂexible multibody systems experiencing nonlinear geometric and

material deformations, the equations of motion for a ﬂexible body are

given by Eq. (29). However, due to the time variance of all its coeﬃcients,

Eq. (29) is not eﬃcient for computational implementation. Instead, by

considering a lumped mass formulation for the mass matrix and referring

the nodal accelerations to the inertial frame, the equations of motion for

a single ﬂexible body take the form of [6]

⎡

⎣

mI +

¯

AM

∗

¯

A

T

−

¯

AM

∗

S 0

−

_

¯

AM

∗

S

_

T

J

+S

T

M

∗

S 0

0 0 M

ff

⎤

⎦

⎤⎡

⎣

⎡

¨r

˙ ω

¨ q

f

⎤

⎦

⎤

=

⎡

⎣

f

r

ff +

¯

AC

δ

n

−

˜

ω

J

ω

−S

T

C

δ

−

¯

I

T

C

θ

g

f

−f −(K

L

+K

NL

) u

⎤

⎦

(32)

where the absolute nodal displacements are written as

¨ q

kf

≡

_

¨

d

¨ α

_

k

= ¨ u

k

+

_

A

T

−

_

˜ x

k

+

˙

δ

k

_

0 I

_

_

¨r

˙

ω

_

+

_

˜ ω

˜ ω

(x

k

+δ

k

)

+ 2˜ ω

˙

δ

k

˜ ω

˙

θ

k

_

(33)

with x

k

being the position of node k in the reference conﬁguration. In

Eq. (32) M

∗

is a diagonal mass matrix containing the mass of the n

boundary nodes,

¯

A

T

= [A. . . A]

T

, S =

_

_

˜ x

1

+

˜

δ

1

_

T

. . .

_

˜ x

n

+

˜

δ

n

_

T

_

T

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 85

and

¯

I = [I . . . I]

T

where A is the transformation matrix from the body

ﬁxed to global coordinate coordinates and x

k

denotes the position of

node k. Vectors C

δ

and C

θ

represent respectively the reaction force

and moment of the ﬂexible part of the body over the rigid part, given

by

C

δ

= g

δ

−F

δ

−(K

L

+K

NL

)

δδ

δ

−(K

L

+K

NL

)

δθ

θ

,

C

δ

= g

θ

−F

θ

−(K

L

+K

NL

)

θδ

δ

−(K

L

+K

NL

)

θθ

θ

.

(34)

The coupling between the rigid body motion and the system deforma-

tions is fully preserved. For a more detailed description of the formula-

tion, and the notation, the interested reader is referred to reference [6].

As an application example of the nonlinear formulation for ﬂexible

multibody systems, a sports vehicle with a front crash-box is analyzed

for various impact scenarios, represented in Fig. 29, where the angle of

Angle 10º

no friction

Angle 20º

frict ion = 0.5

Angle 10º

frict ion = 0.5

10 10 cm ramp

Angle 20º

no friction

(a) (e) (d)

Figure 29. Diﬀerent impact scenarios for the sports vehicle.

Figure 30. Motion of the vehicle for a 20

◦

oblique impact without contact friction

and for impact with an oblique surface for a vehicle traveling over a ramp.

86 ICTAM04

impact and the topology of the road are diﬀerent. The simulations are

carried until the vehicle reaches a full stop.

The vehicle motion, for the oblique impact scenario presented in

Fig. 29, is characterized by a slight rotation of the vehicle during im-

pact. This rotation is more visible in the case of frictionless impact. At

the simulated impact speed the inﬂuence of the car suspension elements

on the deformation mechanism is minimal.

6. Conclusions

The multibody dynamics formalisms provide an extremely eﬃcient

framework to incorporate diﬀerent disciplines. The behavior of a good

number of phenomena in diﬀerent problems can be represented by kine-

matic constraints (e.g., contact, muscle action, guidance) or by contact

forces (e.g, impact phenomena, control, general interactions). However,

diﬀerent disciplines use diﬀerent preferred numerical methods to solve

their equilibrium equations which lead to diﬃculties in the co-simulation

of diﬀerent systems. The use of multibody formalisms in biomechanics

presents a strong increase due to the suitability to model contacts, mus-

cles, anatomical joints, data processing, etc. The treatment of structural

components with large rotations or of rotating bodies with structural de-

formations ﬁnds in the ﬂexible multibody dynamics eﬃcient methods to

deal with the problem. A continued eﬀort to close the gap between the

ﬂexible multibody dynamics and the nonlinear ﬁnite element method is

required. The need for more robust and eﬃcient numerical methods to

handle the speciﬁc forms of the MBS equations and the discontinuities

associated to intermittent and ‘fast’ behaviors are still required.

Acknowledgements

The contents of this work result from a team eﬀort and collaborations

with many co-workers among which the contribution by Miguel Silva,

Joao Gon¸ ˜ calves, Jo˜ ¸ ao Pombo, Manuel Seabra Pereira, Jo˜ ˜ ao Abrantes, ˜

Augusta Neto and Rog´erio Leal are gratefully acknowledged. ´

References

[1] P. Nikravesh, Computer-Aided Analysis of Mechanical Systems, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliﬀs, New Jersey 1988.

[2] J. Garcia de Jalon, E. Bayo, Kinematic and Dynamic Simulation of Mechanical

Systems – The Real-Time Challenge, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1994.

[3] P. Nikravesh and G. Gim, Systematic construction of the equations of motion

for multibody systems containing closed kinematic loops, Journal of Mechanical

Design, Vol. 115, No.1, pp.143–149, 1993.

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 87

[4] C.W. Gear, Numerical solution of diﬀerential-algebraic equations, IEEE Tran-

sactions on Circuit Theory, Vol. CT-18, pp.89–95, 1981.

[5] J. Gon¸calves and J. Ambr´osio, Complex ﬂexible multibody systems with applica- ´

tion to vehicle dynamics, Multibody System Dynamics, Vol. 6, No.2, pp.163–182,

2001.

[6] J. Ambr´osio and P. Nikravesh, Elastic-plastic deformation in multibody dyna- ´

mics, Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol. 3, pp.85–104, 1992.

[7] F. Pfeiﬀer and C. Glocker, Multibody Dynamics with Unilateral Contacts, John

Wiley and Sons, New York 1996.

[8] H. Lankarani and P. Nikravesh, Continuous contact force models for impact

analysis in multibody systems, Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol. 5, pp.193–207, 1994.

[9] M. Valasek, Z.

ˇ

Sika, Evaluation of dynamic capabilities of machines and robots,

Multibody System Dynamics, Vol. 5, pp.183–202, 2001.

[10] H. Møller and E. Lund, Shape Sensitivity Analysis of Strongly Coupled Fluid-

Structure Interaction Problems, [in:] Proc. 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO

Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA.

AIAA Paper No.2000–4823, 2000.

[11] H. Møller, E. Lund, J. Ambr´osio and J. Gon¸ ´ calves, Simulation of ﬂuid loaded ¸

ﬂexible multiple bodies, Multibody Systems Dynamics, Vol. 13, No.1, 2005.

[12] J. Pombo and J.Ambr´osio, General spatial curve joint for rail guided vehi- ´

cles: kinematics and dynamics, Multibody Systems Dynamics, Vol. 9, pp.237–264,

2003.

[13] J. Pombo and J. Ambr´osio, ´ A multibody methodology for railway dynamics ap-

plications, Technical Report IDMEC/CPM-04/002, IDMEC, Instituto Superior

T´ecnico, Lisboa, Portugal, 2004. ´

[14] M. Silva and J. Ambr´osio, Kinematic data consistency in the inverse dynamic ´

analysis of biomechanical systems, Multibody System Dynamics, Vol. 8, pp.219–

239, 2002.

[15] D. Tsirakos, V. Baltzopoulos and R. Bartlett, Inverse Optimization: Functional

and Physiological Considerations Related to the Force-Sharing Problem, Critical

Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 25, Nos.4&5, pp.371–407, 1997.

[16] M. Silva and J. Ambr´osio, ´ Human Motion Analysis Using Multibody Dynamics

and Optimization Tools, Technical Report IDMEC/CPM-04/001, IDMEC, In-

stituto Superior T´ecnico, Lisboa, Portugal, 2004. ´

[17] G.T.Yamaguchi, Dynamic Modeling of Musculoskeletal Motion, Kluwer Acad-

emic Publishers, Boston 2001.

[18] H. Hertz Gesammelte Werke , Leipzig, Germany 1895.

[19] N.W. Murray, The static approach to plastic collapse and energy dissipation in

some thin-walled steel structures, [in:] Structural Crashworthiness, N. Jones and

T. Wierzbicki [eds.], pp.44–65, Butterworths, London 1983.

[20] C.M. Kindervater, Aircraft and helicopter crashworthiness: design and simula-

tion, [in:] Crashworthiness Of Transportation Systems: Structural Impact And

Occupant Protection, J.A.C. Ambrosio, M.S. Pereira and F.P Silva [eds.], NATO ´

ASI Series E. Vol. 332, pp.525–577, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

1997.

88 ICTAM04

[21] P.E. Nikravesh, I.S. Chung, and R.L. Benedict, Plastic hinge approach to vehicle

simulation using a plastic hinge technique, J. Comp. Struct. Vol. 16, pp.385–400,

1983.

[22] 30 mph Rollover Test of an AM General Model M151-A2 1/4 Ton Jeep, The

Transportation Research Center of Ohio, Test Report, 1985.

[23] K.-J. Bathe and S. Bolourchi, Large displacement analysis of three-dimensional

beam structures, Int. J. Num. Methods in Engng., Vol. 14, pp.961–986, 1979.

[24] M. Anantharaman and M. Hiller, Numerical simulation of mechanical systems

using methods for diﬀerential-algebraic equations, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng.,

Vol. 32, pp.1531–1542, 1991.

62

ICTAM04

Figure 1. Natural biological and artiﬁcial engineering systems for which multibody dynamics provides irreplaceable modeling methodologies.

deal with large overall motion. Therefore, it is no surprise that many of the most recent formulations on ﬂexible multibody dynamics and on ﬁnite element methods with large rotations share some common features. In multibody dynamics methods, the body-ﬁxed coordinate frames are generally adopted to position each one of the system components and to allow for the speciﬁcation of the kinematic constraints that represent the restrictions on the relative motion between the bodies. Several formalisms are published suggesting the use of diﬀerent sets of coordinates, such as Cartesian [1], natural [2] and relative coordinates [3]. Depending on the type of applications, each of these types of coordinates has advantages and disadvantages. Due to the ease of the computational implementation, their physical meaning and the widespread knowledge of their features, all the formalisms presented in this work are based on the use of Cartesian coordinates. The methodological structure of the equations of motion of the multibody system obtained allows the incorporation of the equilibrium equations of a large number of disciplines and their solution in a combined form. The description of the structural deformations exhibited by the system components by using linear [5] or non-linear ﬁnite elements [6] in the framework of multibody dynamics is an example of the integration of the equations of equilibrium of diﬀerent specialties. Of particular importance for the applications pursued with the methodologies proposed is the treatment of contact and impact, which is introduced in the multibody systems equations by using either unilateral constraints

Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 63 [7] or a continuous contact force model [8]. i (1) According to this deﬁnition. are of importance [10. qT ]T . (3) with respect to time yields: ¨ Φ (q. q. . are deﬁned through the introduction of kinematic relationships written as [1]: Φ (q. The position and orientation of each body i in the space is described by a position vector ri and a set of rotational coordinates pi . 2. 1 2 nb (2) The dependencies among system coordinates. 11]. which result from the existence of mechanical joints interconnecting several bodies. automotive and railway dynamics are used to demonstrate the developments reviewed here. (3) where t is the time variable. qT . The system kinematic constraints are added to the equations of motion using the Lagrange multipliers technique [1]. Application cases involving the modeling of realistic mechanisms. a multibody system with nb bodies is described by a set of coordinates in the form: q = [qT . The second time-derivative of Eq. . The coupling between the ﬂuid and structural dynamics equations allows for the development of applications. q. biomechanics or robotics and their integration with the multibody equations [9]. t) = 0. t) = 0 ≡ D¨ = γ. ˙ ¨ q (4) where D is the Jacobian matrix of the constraints. q is the acceleration ¨ vector and γ is the vector that depends on the velocities and time. especially for cases with large absolute or relative rotations in the system components. passive safety of road and rail vehicles. which are organized in a vector as [1]: qi = [rT . which is used only for the driving constraints. where the ﬂuid-structure interaction is analyzed. pT ]T . The research carried at IDMEC provides the examples oﬀered in this work. . impact and human locomotion biomechanics. The availability of the state variables in the multibody formulation allows for the use of diﬀerent control paradigms in the framework of vehicle dynamics. . Rigid Multibody Dynamics A multibody system is deﬁned as a collection of rigid and/or ﬂexible bodies constrained by kinematic joints and eventually acted upon by a set of internal and/or external forces. Denoting by λ the .

is outlined in Fig. Solution of the forward dynamic analysis of a multibody system. . The solution procedure starts by the determination of the initial positions and velocities of the system components. represented by Eq. Forward Dynamics The computational strategy used to solve the forward dynamics of the system. are physically related with the reaction forces generated between the bodies interconnected by kinematic joints. are calculated and assembled in the equations of motion. Equation (5) is then solved to ﬁnd the system accelerations. the equations of motion for a mechanical system are written as M DT D 0 q ¨ λ = f γ (5) where M is the global mass matrix. q (6) The usual procedures to handle the integration of sets of diﬀerentialalgebraic equations must still be applied in this case in order to eliminate the constraint drift or to maintain it under control [1. and f is the force vector. at time t. the Jacobian matrices.64 ICTAM04 vector of the unknown Lagrange multipliers. associated with the kinematic constraints. the new positions and velocities for time t + ∆t are calculated by using a variable Figure 2. containing the mass and moments of inertia of all bodies. given by [1] f (c) = −ΦT λ. By integrating the current velocities and the system accelerations. 2]. 2. The Lagrange multipliers. the forces and the right-hand-side of the kinematic acceleration constraint equations vectors. (5). and in the process the Lagrange multipliers. Next. the system inertia. containing all forces and moments applied to the system bodies plus the gyroscopic forces.

The path is deﬁned by a parametric curve g(L). Throughout this work it is demonstrated that all engineering applications foreseen here are implemented. not only its path has to be followed. (5). The kinematic constraint is Φ(pmc. according to spatial characteristics of the curve. z). ri is the vector that deﬁnes the location of the body-ﬁxed coordinate system (ξ. using the moving Frenet frame associated with the track centerline based on the work by Pombo and Ambrosio [12]. variable time-step integration procedure [1. The forward dynamics simulation proceeds until the previously set ﬁnal time is reached. located on a rigid body i. that has to follow the speciﬁed path depicted in Fig. ζ)i .Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 65 order. η. 4]. 2 is used in general purpose multibody dynamics codes. Local frame alignment constraint. Ai is the transformation matrix from the body i ﬁxed coordinates to the global reference frame. such as DAP-3D [1]. When a body travels along a guide. The procedure outlined in Fig. 3. . which is controlled by a global parameter L that represents the length travelled along the curve until the current location of point R. is outlined ´ next. Prescribed Motion Constraint. The objective here is to deﬁne the constraint equations that enforce that a point of a rigid body follows the reference path [12]. y. i (7) where rR = ri +Ai s R represents the coordinates of point R with respect i i to the global coordinate system (x. and s R represents the coordinates of point R with rei x Figure 3. Consider a point R. Application Example of a Roller Coaster.3) = 0 ≡ rR − g(L) = 0. but also its spatial orientation has to be prescribed. either by developing speciﬁc kinematic constraints or by implementing force models in Eq. The formulation adopted to implement these kinematic constraints. 2.

.. (8) ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ T c n · uζ This kinematic constraint ensures that the alignment remains constant throughout the analysis. The transformation matrix from the body i ﬁxed coordinates to the global coordinate system is: Ai = [uξ uη uζ ]i (9) deﬁning the following unit vectors as: u1 = {1 0 0}T . 4.o. represented in Fig.66 ICTAM04 spect to the body-ﬁxed reference frame. corresponding to 3 car bodies. uη . uη .3) = 0 ≡ bT · uξ − b = 0. b)L . uζ )i represent the unit vectors associated with the axis of the body-ﬁxed coordinate system (ξ. ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ T c n Ai u3 which constitutes the second part of the path following constraint. (10) Equation (8) is now rewritten in a more usable form as: ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ T ⎨n Ai u1 ⎬ ⎨a⎬ Φ(lf ac. η. A view of the motion of the roller coaster is displayed in Fig. For notational purposes (·) means that (·) is expressed in body-ﬁxed coordinates. n. 6 wheelsets and 2 connection bars. The roller coaster vehicle consists of a train with three cars that are interconnected by linking bars. The complete vehicle model only has 1 d. ζ)i . uζ )i and the local frame (t. (11) Roller-Coaster Dynamics. The multibody model of the vehicle is assembled using eleven rigid bodies. Let the Frenet frame of the general parametric curve g(L) be deﬁned by the principal unit vectors (t. n. (5). Consider that (uξ . 6 and the details of the analysis are found in reference [13]. which is the longitudinal motion of the cars. The motion of the vehicle is guided by the dynamics described by Eq. 5. The second part of the constraint ensures that the spatial orientation of body i remains unchanged with respect to the moving frame of the reference path represented in Fig. At the initial time of analysis. 3.3) = 0 ≡ bT Ai u1 − b = 0. The path-following constraint is used to enforce the vehicles to follow the rail for the prescribed geometry. u2 = {0 1 0}T . Let the roaller-coaster rail be deﬁned with the spatial geometry described in Fig. the relative orientation between the body vectors (uξ .f. b)L leads to ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ T ⎨n · uξ ⎬ ⎨a⎬ Φ(lf ac. u3 = {0 0 1}T .

the only unknowns are the internal forces. (5) be re-written as M¨ + DT λ = g q (12) . Note that the study of these vehicles only requires the use of the pathfollowing constraint. Therefore. Let the ﬁrst row of Eq. Snap shots of the roller coaster motion as observed from the second car. The contact forces are not explicitly used but they can be calculated from the Lagrange multipliers associated to the path constraint. Multibody model of the roller coaster vehicle. Figure 6. 3 6 10 7 11 x 1 2 4 5 8 9 Figure 5. z View of the roller coaster as used in the simulation. Inverse Dynamics In many applications all external forces are known and the motion of the system is also known.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 67 Figure 4.

. The reaction forces at the joints are given by: g(c) = −DT λ. 8 for the knee joint. that develop for known motions. muscle and anatomical joint reaction forces.e. Application to Biomechanics: Gait Analysis For biomechanical applications in gait a three-dimensional model. 7. joint actuators such as the one represented in Fig. To drive the biomechanical model in the inverse dynamic analysis. The actuators are the kinematic constraints in which the angle between two adjacent segments is a known function of time. The biomechanical model. presented in Fig. i. is used [14]. interconnected by revolute and universal joints. (14) The solution of the equations of motion in inverse dynamics can be used to solve for the internal forces of the human body. It has a kinematic structure made of thirtythree rigid bodies.68 which is q DT λ = g − M¨. These additional equations are added to the system kinematic equation so that the number of . in such a way that sixteen anatomical segments are represented. its kinematic structure and a detail of the ankle joint. are speciﬁed. Joint Moments-of-Force: A Determinate Problem. 16 11 1 3 v20 v20 5 6 31 19 33 12 3 4 4 2 2 32 25 24 v16 v15 23 v16 26 27 6 13 v14 20 v15 v13 22 v17 28 v17 29 v19 9 30 1 7 1 9 14 v12 17 18 v12 v13 21 v18 v21 1 v22 5 7 12 2 10 15 v11 16 v11 v4 5 6 7 8 8 8 10 13 v9 v4 11 14 v10 v5 v5 9 10 4 v3 3 v3 v6 11 v6 12 v8 v7 13 9 14 15 16 v1 1 2 v2 15 Figure 7. ICTAM04 (13) Equation (13) emphasizes that the only unknowns of the system are the Lagrange multipliers.

i = 1. . is totally determined. The optimization problem is stated as: minimize F0 (ui ) ⎧ ⎪ fj (ui ) = 0. j = (nec + 1) . By using optimization techniques to ﬁnd the muscle forces that minimize a prescribed objective function. Joint actuator associated with the knee joint and muscle actuator. ⎨ subject to f (u ) 0. . . . Several cost functions have been proposed for the study of the redundant problem in biomechanics [15]. nsv (15) where ui are the state variables bounded respectively by ulower and uupper . nec . The minimization of the sum of the cube of the muscle stresses [16] is often used in applications involving human . . The inverse dynamics problem.. The solution of the inverse dynamics problem with muscle actuators introduces indeterminacy in the biomechanical system. The minimization of the cost functions simulate the physiological criteria adopted by the central nervous system when deciding which muscles to recruit and what level of activation to obtain the adequate motion. . since it involves more unknowns than equations of motion. . F0 (ui ) is the objective or cost function to minimize and fi (ui ) are constraint equations that restrain the state variables..Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 69 O m1 m1 Im1 = O m2 m2 Im2 = 2 I m3 O m3 m3 Figure 8. a solution for the problem is obtained. representing the net moments-of-force of the muscles that cross those joints. . ntc . as stated here. Equation (13) is solved to obtain the Lagrange multipliers associated with the joint actuators. ⎪ j i ⎩ lower ui ui uupper i j = 1.. Muscle Forces: A Redundant Problem. non-redundant constraint equations becomes equal to the number of coordinates. .

Muscle forces for the hamstrings and triceps surae.70 ICTAM04 Figure 9. Figure 10. Lower extremity muscle apparatus. .

(19) k n rik = ( ik )n n rik i rli l k* l t rik = rik − ( ik i )n r jl j j rij Figure 11. 9. represented in Fig. be deﬁned by points i. with which a thickness e is associated. 3. The position of the point k with respect to point i of the surface is rik = rk − ri rt = rik − rT n n. 11 will impact. is modeled having the muscles with the physiological data described in Yamaguchi [17]. where point k of the body shown in Fig. Contact detection between a ﬁnite element node and a surface. 10. . but not through its ‘back’ surface.39 N/cm locomotion apparatus. To illustrate the type of results obtained for the muscle forces in a case of normal cadence gait of a 50%ile male. the muscle forces for the hamstrings and triceps surae are presented in Fig. given by rn = rT n n. ik ik (17) which is decomposed in a tangential and a normal component. The human muscle strength with a constant value of 31. ik ik (18) The necessary conditions for contact are that node k penetrates the ‘front’ surface of the patch. The state variables associated with muscle actuators represent muscle activations that can only assume values between 0 and 1.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 71 locomotion F0 = nma σ ¯ m=1 Flm Fl˙m m2 F0 3 a m (16) ¯ where nma are the number of muscle actuators and σ is the speciﬁc 2 [17]. Contact and Impact Let a triangular patch. These conditions are written as 0 rT n ik e. The normal to the outside surface of the contact patch is deﬁned as n = rij × rjl . j and l.

72 ICTAM04 The remaining necessary conditions for contact result from the need for the node to be inside of the triangular patch. the normal components of the node k velocity and acceleration. Continuous Contact Force Model An alternative description of contact considers this to be a continuous event where the contact force is a function of the penetration between the surfaces. For ﬂexible bodies let us assume a fully plastic nodal contact. This leads to the continuous force contact model. These three extra conditions are ˜t rij rik T n 0. proposed by Lankarani and Nikravesh [8]. However. the change of sign of the force is in fact the change of sign of the multiplier. depending on the contact force model actually used. a kinematic constraint is imposed.i = Kδ n + Dδ u (23) .. The kinematic constraint implied by Eqs. qk = q k ¨ ¨ (−) − qk ¨ (−)T n n (21) where qk and qk represent the nodal velocity and acceleration imme˙ ¨ diately before impact respectively . with respect to the surface.. Let the contact force between two bodies be written as ˙ fs.e. This contact model is not suitable to be used directly with rigid body contact. Other forms of this contact model can be found in the work by Pfeiﬀer and Glocker [7].e. (21) is removed when the normal reaction force between the node and the surface becomes opposite to the surface normal. i. ˜t rjl rik T n 0 and ˜t rki rik T n 0. n fT fk = −fk n > 0. (20) Equations (19) and (20) are necessary conditions for contact. (−) (22) It should be noted that the contact force is related to the Lagrange multiplier associated by the kinematic constraint deﬁned by Eqs. Unilateral Constraints If contact between a node and a surface is detected. i. The sudden change of the rigid body velocity and acceleration would imply that the velocity and acceleration equations resulting from the kinematic constraints would not be fulﬁlled. are null during contact ˙ qk = q k ˙ (−) (−) − qk ˙ (−)T n n. they may not be suﬃcient to ensure eﬀective contact. (22). Therefore. and brieﬂy described here.

In a general case of a railway vehicle one or two points of each wheel are in contact with the rail. Let the generalized geometry of the rail and wheel be described by generalized surfaces resulting from sweeping the rail proﬁle along the rail Fla (Le ct ct) Tre Tre con Figure 12. The possibility of detecting contact in diﬀerent diametric sections allows predicting derailment and it is. D is a damping coeﬃcient and u is a unit vector normal to the impacting surfaces. The diametric section that contains the wheel ﬂange contact point makes an angle sf Rw with the diametric section that contains the wheel tread contact point. represented in Fig. methodologies that provide accurate models to represent the phenomena are of particular importance.i = Kδ n 1 + ˙ 3 1 − e2 δ u ˙ 4 δ (−) (24) ˙ where δ (−) is the initial contact velocity and e is the restitution coeﬃcient. 12. The stability of the running vehicle depends ultimately on the rail-wheel contact and on the vehicle primary suspension. δ is the pseudo-velocity of penetration. therefore. Using the hysteresis dissipation model and the equivalent stiﬀness. Therefore.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 73 ˙ where δ is the pseudo-penetration. Note that K is a function of the geometry and material properties of the impacting surfaces. Two points of contact in the rail and wheel surfaces: lead contact. . calculated for instance for Hertzian elastic contact [18]. the nonlinear contact force is fs. as shown in Fig. of utmost importance. K is the equivalent stiﬀness. Application to Railway Dynamics – The Wheel-Rail Contact Problem One of the interesting applications of multibody dynamics with contact mechanics is the description of the wheel-rail contact in railway dynamics. 12.

This condition means that nj has null projections over the tangent vectors tu and tw : i i ⎧ ⎨nT tu = 0. j i (25) nj × ni = 0 ⇔ ⎩nT tw = 0. This system of equations provides solutions for the location of the candidates to contact points that have to be sorted out. x Figure 13. 13. The geometric conditions for contact between the convex surfaces are deﬁned by vector products deﬁned between the surfaces. In order to ensure that the search for the contact points is between convex surfaces. Candidates to contact points between two parametric surfaces. This condition is mathematically written as: ⎧ ⎨dT tu = 0. i (26) d × ni = 0 ⇔ ⎩dT tw = 0. the wheel proﬁle is divided in treat and ﬂange proﬁles. The ﬁrst condition is that the surfaces normals ni and nj at the candidates to contact points have to be parallel. The contact between the rail and one of the wheel surfaces is described generically in Fig. . s and t that deﬁne the two surfaces. which represents the distance between the candidates to contact points. has to be parallel to the normal vector ni . i The geometric conditions (25) and (26) provide four nonlinear equations with four unknowns. the four parameters u.74 ICTAM04 centerlines and the wheel proﬁles around the base circle of the wheel. w. j i The second condition is that the vector d. where the mating surfaces are represented as free surfaces.

14. and it is used hereafter [13]. developed in the work by Pombo [13]. The multibody model of the trailer vehicle of the train. Figure 15. dampers and rigid connecting ele- Figure 14. shown in Fig. 15. This assembly of connective elements constitutes the secondary suspension. also achieved by another set of springs. the Polach formulation or the Heuristic nonlinear creep model. sketched in Fig. which is the main one responsible for the passenger’s comfort. the normal force is calculated using Eq. is composed of the car shell suspended by a set of springs. Schematic representation of the ML95 trainset.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 75 The coordinates of the candidates to contact points are determined by solving an optimal problem and the distance between such points is calculated in the process. which is used by the Lisbon subway company (ML) for passengers’ traﬃc. (24) and the tangential forces are evaluated using the Kalker theory. The connections between the bogies chassis and the wheelsets. . The wheel-rail contact model outlined here is used to model the ML95 trainset. It has been found that the Polach formulation provides the best approach for the tangent forces. (27) When contact is detected. The points are in contact if dT nj 0. Secondary suspension model of the ML95 trailer vehicle. dampers and other rigid connecting elements on the bogies.

running in a circular track with a radius of 200 m with velocities of 10 and 20 m/s. derailment does not occur and the analysis proceeds up to end. Lift of the right wheel of the leading wheelset for vehicle forward velocities of 10 and 20 m/s. The primary suspension is the main suspension responsible for the vehicle running stability. 16. ments. ﬂange contact occurs. 18 for a vehicle forward velocity of 10 m/s and .76 Bogie frame Axlebox ICTAM04 Three-dimensional spring-damper elements a) Wheelset b) Figure 16. which makes the Kalker linear theory inappropriate to compute the creep forces. Nevertheless. Therefore only the Heuristic and the Polach creep force models must be considered. Another aspect to note is that ﬂange contact is detected with all creep force models. constitute the primary suspension represented in Fig. 17 shows that contact forces obtained with the Kalker linear theory originate the lift of the outer wheel of the front wheelset at the entrance of the curve. b) Suspension model with springs and dampers. Despite this wheel lift. The simulation results of the vehicle. Primary suspension model of the ML95 trailer bogie: a) Threedimensional spring-damper elements. Figure 17. such results are not realistic since the existence of ﬂange contact involves high creepages. where the centrifugal forces eﬀect is balanced by the track cant. show that the prediction of ﬂange contact is of fundamental importance. Even when running at the speed of 10 m/s. Lateral ﬂange forces develop on the wheels of both wheelsets of the front bogie as presented in Fig. Fig. using the Kalker linear theory.

During curve negotiation.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 77 using the Polach creep force model. using the Polach creep force model. when running at 20 m/s. Flange contact Front wheelset (Ws 4) Flange contact Rear wheelset (Ws 3) Figure 19. This is explained by the fact that. For the velocity of 20 m/s. for the velocity of 10 m/s. For structural crashworthiness it is 25 000 Le ft W s 3 ( P ol ach) 20 000 R ig ht W s 3 ( P olach ) Le ft W s 4 ( P ol ach) La te ra l Flang e F orc e [N ] 15 000 R ig ht W s 4 ( P olach ) 10 000 5 000 0 -5 0 0 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 T im e [s ] Figure 18. Lateral ﬂange forces on the wheels of both wheelsets of the front bogie for a vehicle forward velocity of 10 m/s. Contact conﬁguration during curve negotiation. the vehicle negotiates the curve with a velocity higher than the balanced speed. Flexible Multibody Dynamics with Plastic Hinges Many applications of multibody dynamics require the description of the ﬂexibility of its components. the ﬂange contact occurs on the outer and in the inner wheels of the vehicle. the outer wheel of the leading wheelset and the inner wheel of the rear wheelset have permanent ﬂange contact. 19. 4. only the outer wheels have ﬂange contact. . Referring to Fig.

which makes the procedure adequate for the early phases of vehicle design.07V00. These deformations. Multibody models obtained with this method are relatively simple. load application points. The plastic hinge constitutive equation can be modiﬁed to account for the strain rate sensitivity of some materials. called plastic hinges. The methodology described herein is known in industry as conceptual modeling [20]. The use of multibody dynamics with plastic hinges is an alternative formulation that allows building insightful models for crashworthiness. the individual structural members are overloaded giving rise to plastic deformations in highly localized regions. respectively. Localized deformations on a beam and a plastic hinge. A dynamic correction factor is used to account for the strain rate sensitivity given by [21]. P V Pd /Ps = 1 + 0. presented in Fig.82 . The characteristics of the spring-damper that describes the properties of the plastic hinge are obtained by experimental component testing.78 ICTAM04 often unfeasible to use large nonlinear ﬁnite element models. (28) where Pd and Ps are the dynamic and static forces. as illustrated in Fig. joints or locally weak areas [19]. ﬁnite element nonlinear analysis or simpliﬁed analytical methods. Figure 20. The plastic hinge concept has been developed by using generalized spring elements to represent constitutive characteristics of localized plastic deformation of beams and kinematic joints to control the deformation kinematics [21]. 21. develop at points where maximum bending moments occur. The force or moment . Formulation of Plastic Hinges In many impact situations. 20 for structural bending. and V0 is the relative velocity between the adjacent bodies.

with a 50%tile.05 . The three occupants. to apply due to the plastic hinge is multiplied by the ratio calculated in Eq. integrated in the vehicle are seated.15 . The biomechanical models for the occupants are similar to those described in Fig. is used to demonstrate the plastic hinge approach to complex crash events. and a tire model [16].Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 60 79 0 Moment ( kNm) 15 30 45 Analytical Test 0 . .10 . Two occupants in the front of the vehicle have shoulder and lap Figure 22. 7. (28) before it is used in the force vector of the multibody equations of motion. The model includes all moving components of the vehicle. suspension systems and wheels. shown in Fig. Initial position of the vehicle and occupants for the rollover. Application of the Plastic Hinge Approach to Crashworthiness of Surface Vehicles The multibody of an oﬀ-road vehicle with three occupants.20 . 22.25 Rotation ( Rad ) Figure 21. Plastic hinge bending moment and its constitutive relationship.

The outcome of the experimental test. The results of the simulation are pictured in Fig. View of the experimental test for the truck rollover. occupants.41 m/s until the impact with a waterﬁlled decelerator system occurs. The occupants in the front of the vehicle are held in place by the seat belts. At this point the rear occupant is ejected. 24. Views of the outcome of the rollover simulation of a vehicle with three Figure 24.80 ICTAM04 seat belts while the occupant seated in the back of the vehicle has no seatbelt. The rollover situation for the simulation is such that the initial conditions correspond to experimental conditions where the vehicle moves on a cart with a lateral velocity of 13. Bouncing from the inverted position. is further used to validate the vehicle model [21]. mainly due to the ground – tire contact friction forces. the vehicle impacts the ground with its rollbar cage. The vehicle is then ejected with a roll angle of 23 degrees. Upon continuing its roll motion. the vehicle completes another half turn and impacts the ground with the tires again. Figure 23. An experimental test of the vehicle was carried out at the Transportation Research Center of Ohio [22]. being an overview of the footage obtained shown in Fig. The vehicle ﬁrst impacts the ground with its left tires. The HICs for all occupants largely exceed 1000. 23 by several frames of the animation. The rollover motion of the vehicle proceeds with an increasing angular velocity. while the ejection of the rear occupant is complete. which is rather similar to the outcome of the simulation. . which indicates a very high probability of fatal injuries for the occupants under the conditions simulated.

General motion of a ﬂexible body. Let the ﬁnite element method be used to represent the equations of motion of the ﬂexible body. t ζ t η t b ∆t ζ t ∆ ted updated ation 0 0 ζ t ′ η b t t h ∆ b Figure 25. The local coordinate frame ξηζ attached to the ﬂexible body. 25.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 81 5. . the assembly of all ﬁnite elements used in the discretization of a single ﬂexible body results in its equations of motion written as [6] ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ gr ¨ r sr 0 Mrr Mrf Mrf ⎣Mφr Mφφ Mφf ⎦ ⎣ω ⎦ = ⎣g φ ⎦ − ⎣s φ ⎦ − ⎣0⎦ ˙ Mf r Mf φ Mf f u ¨ gf sf f ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 0 0 0 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦ (29) 0 − ⎣0 0 u 0 0 KL + KN L ⎡ where ¨ and ω are respectively the translational and angular accelerar ˙ tions of the body-ﬁxed reference frame and u denotes the nodal accele¨ rations measured in body ﬁxed coordinates. is used to represent the gross motion of the body and its deformation. Referring to Fig. Flexible Multibody Dynamics with Finite Elements General Equations of Motion of a Single Body Let the principle of the virtual works be used to express the equilibrium of the ﬂexible body in the current conﬁguration t+∆t and let an updated Lagrangean formulation be used to obtain the equations of motion of the ﬂexible body [23].

82 ICTAM04 Linear Deformations of Flexible Bodies In many situations it is enough to consider that the components of the multibody system experience only linear elastic deformations. The methodology is demonstrated through the application to the simulation of the unfolding of a satellite antenna. Furthermore. The reduced equations of motion for a linear ﬂexible body are [5] Mr XT Mf r Mrf X I qr ¨ w ¨ = gr X T gf − sr XT sf − 0 Λw (31) where Λ is a diagonal matrix with the squares of the natural frequencies associated with the modes of vibration selected. the ﬂexible part of the body is described by a sum of selected modes of vibration as (30) u = Xw where the vector w represents the contributions of the vibration modes towards the nodal displacements and X is the modal matrix. Due to the assumption of linear elastic deformations the modal matrix is invariant. Due to the reference conditions. the modes of vibration used here are constrained modes. For a more detailed discussion on the selection of the modes used the interested reader is referred to [5]. assume that the mode superposition technique can be used. the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) antenna that is a part of the European research satellite Figure 26. Then. . The European satellite with the folded and unfolded conﬁgurations of the antenna.

The unfolding processes for rigid and ﬂexible models are shown in Fig. The SAR antenna: a) half unfolded state b) folded antenna. 26. the revolute joint R3 is blocked and the system is moved to the next equilibrium position by a spring-actuator-damped positioned in joint R1 . 27. 28. The central panel is attached to the satellite. the mechanical components take the conﬁguration shown in Fig. The second phase begins with the joint A blocked. next the panels 2 and 3 are swung out to the ﬁnal position by a rotational spring-damped-actuator. while the panel 2 is held down by blocking the joints D and E. would lead to the failure of the unfolding process. deﬁned as body 1. represented in Fig. For the second phase. 26(a). Being a very light and ﬂexible structure.3 Actuator (1) (1) Panel 1 (B1) a) b) c) Figure 27. schematically depicted Fig. model. . c) multibody In the ﬁrst phase of the unfolding antenna. the discrepancies. driven individually by actuators located in joints A and B. Panel 3 (B3) Panel 2 (B2) (B2) 1. After unfolding. The data for this antenna is reported in the work of Anantharamann [24]. 28. In the ﬁrst phase of the unfolding process the panel 3 is rolled out. the rotational springdamped-actuator is applied in the revolute joint R3 . by a rotational spring-damper-actuator in joint A. The model used for one half of the folding antenna. only for its ﬁrst phase. 16 spherical joints and 3 revolute joints. During the transportation the antenna is folded. if not identiﬁed during the design stage. is composed of 12 bodies. The SAR antenna consists in two identical subsystems. around an axis normal to the main body. in order to occupy as little space as possible. which has much higher mass and inertia.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 83 ERS-1. Though not shown here. each with three coupled four-bar links that unfold two panels on each side. the rotational actuator moment responsible for the start of the unfolding is not correctly predicted by the rigid multibody model. The diﬀerent behavior between the rigid and the ﬂexible models is noticeable in Fig. Each unfolding system has two degrees of freedom. The central panel is attached to the main body of the satellite.

¯ AT = [A . S= ˜ x1 + δ 1 ˜ T ˜ . . the equations of motion for a ﬂexible body are given by Eq. . . (32) M∗ is a diagonal mass matrix containing the mass of the n boundary nodes. In Eq. First phase of the unfolding of the SAR antenna (rigid and ﬂexible Nonlinear Deformations in Multibody Systems For ﬂexible multibody systems experiencing nonlinear geometric and material deformations. . by considering a lumped mass formulation for the mass matrix and referring the nodal accelerations to the inertial frame. Instead. A]T .84 ICTAM04 Figure 28. the equations of motion for a single ﬂexible body take the form of [6] ⎡ ¯ ¯ mI + AM∗ AT ⎣ − AM∗ S T ¯ 0 ⎤⎡ ⎤ ¯ −AM∗ S 0 ¨ r T M∗ S ⎦ ⎣ω ⎦ ˙ J +S 0 qf ¨ 0 Mff ⎤ ⎡ ¯ fr + AC δ ˜ = ⎣n − ω J ω − ST C δ − ¯T C θ ⎦ (32) I g f − f − (KL + KN L ) u where the absolute nodal displacements are written as qkf ≡ ¨ ¨ d α ¨ = uk + ¨ k AT 0 ˙ − xk + δ k ˜ I + ¨ r ˙ ω (33) ω ˙ ω ω (xk + δ k ) + 2˜ δ k ˜ ˜ ωθk ˜ ˙ with xk being the position of node k in the reference conﬁguration. (29) is not eﬃcient for computational implementation. xn + δ n ˜ T T . (29). models). However. Eq. due to the time variance of all its coeﬃcients.

. Motion of the vehicle for a 20◦ oblique impact without contact friction and for impact with an oblique surface for a vehicle traveling over a ramp. . Vectors C δ and C θ represent respectively the reaction force and moment of the ﬂexible part of the body over the rigid part. Figure 30.5 Angle 10º friction = 0. represented in Fig. I]T where A is the transformation matrix from the body I ﬁxed to global coordinate coordinates and xk denotes the position of node k. and the notation. Diﬀerent impact scenarios for the sports vehicle. a sports vehicle with a front crash-box is analyzed for various impact scenarios.5 10 cm ramp (a) (d) (e) Figure 29. where the angle of Angle 10º no friction Angle 20º no friction Angle 20º friction = 0. 29. given by C δ = g δ − Fδ − (KL + KN L )δδ δ − (KL + KN L )δθ θ . . For a more detailed description of the formulation. C δ = g θ − Fθ − (KL + KN L )θδ δ − (KL + KN L )θθ θ . As an application example of the nonlinear formulation for ﬂexible multibody systems.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 85 and ¯ = [I . (34) The coupling between the rigid body motion and the system deformations is fully preserved. the interested reader is referred to reference [6].

143–149. Acknowledgements The contents of this work result from a team eﬀort and collaborations with many co-workers among which the contribution by Miguel Silva. anatomical joints. E. Berlin 1994. Journal of Mechanical Design. etc. ´ e References [1] P.1. Prentice-Hall. muscle action. control. The simulations are carried until the vehicle reaches a full stop. muscles. Springer-Verlag.86 ICTAM04 impact and the topology of the road are diﬀerent. . contact. At the simulated impact speed the inﬂuence of the car suspension elements on the deformation mechanism is minimal. Nikravesh and G. Vol. Kinematic and Dynamic Simulation of Mechanical Systems – The Real-Time Challenge. Jo˜ Pombo. Joao Gon¸ ˜ calves. 115. Bayo. [3] P. 1993. data processing. is characterized by a slight rotation of the vehicle during impact. pp. The vehicle motion. The use of multibody formalisms in biomechanics presents a strong increase due to the suitability to model contacts. Garcia de Jalon. The treatment of structural components with large rotations or of rotating bodies with structural deformations ﬁnds in the ﬂexible multibody dynamics eﬃcient methods to deal with the problem. No. However. The need for more robust and eﬃcient numerical methods to handle the speciﬁc forms of the MBS equations and the discontinuities associated to intermittent and ‘fast’ behaviors are still required. New Jersey 1988. [2] J. Jo˜ Abrantes. for the oblique impact scenario presented in Fig.g. Englewood Cliﬀs. This rotation is more visible in the case of frictionless impact. The behavior of a good number of phenomena in diﬀerent problems can be represented by kinematic constraints (e. A continued eﬀort to close the gap between the ﬂexible multibody dynamics and the nonlinear ﬁnite element method is required.. Systematic construction of the equations of motion for multibody systems containing closed kinematic loops.g. 6. diﬀerent disciplines use diﬀerent preferred numerical methods to solve their equilibrium equations which lead to diﬃculties in the co-simulation of diﬀerent systems. impact phenomena. ¸ ˜ ao ao ˜ Augusta Neto and Rog´rio Leal are gratefully acknowledged. guidance) or by contact forces (e. Gim. 29. Manuel Seabra Pereira. Computer-Aided Analysis of Mechanical Systems. Nikravesh. Conclusions The multibody dynamics formalisms provide an extremely eﬃcient framework to incorporate diﬀerent disciplines. general interactions).

2001.237–264. Silva and J. Inverse Optimization: Functional and Physiological Considerations Related to the Force-Sharing Problem. 2004. Dordrecht 1997. E. pp.219– 239. Ambr´sio and J. Møller and E.P Silva [eds.C. pp. Multibody Dynamics with Unilateral Contacts. pp. 25.85–104. Boston 2001. Portugal. Pereira and F.183–202. Multibody System Dynamics. 2000. New York 1996. A multibody methodology for railway dynamics ap´ o plications. Bartlett. Ambr´sio. Lisboa. Leipzig. IDMEC. 2003.163–182.W. Vol.Yamaguchi. NATO ´ ASI Series E. ˇ [9] M.1. Gear. Z. CT-18. 9. Ambr´sio. Nonlinear Dynamics. CA. pp. Aircraft and helicopter crashworthiness: design and simulation.Multibody Dynamics: Bridging for Multidisciplinary Applications 87 [4] C. Instituto Superior T´cnico. . Evaluation of dynamic capabilities of machines and robots. [in:] Proc. 2001. John Wiley and Sons. [5] J. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Valasek. IEEE Transactions on Circuit Theory. Gon¸ ´ o ¸ calves. Vol. [8] H. General spatial curve joint for rail guided vehi´ o cles: kinematics and dynamics. London 1983. Multibody Systems Dynamics. Vol. pp. No. Lankarani and P. pp. N. Pfeiﬀer and C. 2004. pp. Complex ﬂexible multibody systems with applicac ´ o tion to vehicle dynamics. Jones and T. [10] H. J. Nikravesh. Murray. Dynamic Modeling of Musculoskeletal Motion. ´ e [14] M.2. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. Baltzopoulos and R. Butterworths.89–95. [16] M. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Multibody System Dynamics. Gon¸alves and J. [11] H. Shape Sensitivity Analysis of Strongly Coupled FluidStructure Interaction Problems. 3. Germany 1895. 8. [20] C. M. IDMEC. Sika. Vol. Silva and J. Long Beach. V. Kindervater. Numerical solution of diﬀerential-algebraic equations. Simulation of ﬂuid loaded ﬂexible multiple bodies. Pombo and J. Vol.].2000–4823. Nos. [18] H. 13.W. Pombo and J. 6. Vol. Wierzbicki [eds. 1997. 1981. Human Motion Analysis Using Multibody Dynamics ´ o and Optimization Tools. Vol. Lund. Vol. Lisboa. Portugal.4&5. Nonlinear Dynamics. [12] J. 1992. Ambr´sio. [6] J.44–65.S. The static approach to plastic collapse and energy dissipation in some thin-walled steel structures. [15] D. Ambrosio. pp. pp. Technical Report IDMEC/CPM-04/002. 332. [19] N. 2005. Elastic-plastic deformation in multibody dyna´ o mics. Vol. Technical Report IDMEC/CPM-04/001. Instituto Superior T´cnico. Ambr´sio and P.Ambr´sio. 2002.T.]. Kinematic data consistency in the inverse dynamic ´ o analysis of biomechanical systems. Vol. [13] J. Multibody System Dynamics. AIAA Paper No. Glocker.A. 5. 1994. [in:] Crashworthiness Of Transportation Systems: Structural Impact And Occupant Protection. [in:] Structural Crashworthiness.193–207. Continuous contact force models for impact analysis in multibody systems. ´ e [17] G.M. Ambr´sio. Møller. No.525–577.371–407. J. Nikravesh. Hertz Gesammelte Werke . 5. Lund. Multibody Systems Dynamics. [7] F. Tsirakos.

Num.-J. 32. 1983. [23] K.961–986. Int. Test Report. 14.385–400. Anantharaman and M. Large displacement analysis of three-dimensional beam structures.S. and R. Vol. .1531–1542. 16.. Numerical simulation of mechanical systems using methods for diﬀerential-algebraic equations.. pp. Int. 1985. [24] M. Num. J. Chung. Bathe and S. Comp. Meth. Struct. Vol.88 ICTAM04 [21] P.L. pp. Methods in Engng. 1979. Vol. Hiller. Eng. The Transportation Research Center of Ohio. 1991. pp. J. Plastic hinge approach to vehicle simulation using a plastic hinge technique. Benedict. [22] 30 mph Rollover Test of an AM General Model M151-A2 1/4 Ton Jeep.E. Nikravesh. Bolourchi. I. J.

- Dynamics of Mechanical Systemsleandro_soares2000
- Chapter 4Deepankumar Athiyannan
- IR Mobile KinematicsMuthuPabasara
- Adams-Tutorial-2nd-Edition_pt.pdfasdf
- introduction to engineering mechanicsapi-248483124
- FSAE Flex Body Tutorial (MSC ADAMS)smvarunmurthy
- Simulink Gskpnsk
- Multi-Body Dynamics In Full Vehicle HandlingSrushti Deshmukh
- P0664Ramalho12345
- Complete Kinematicsinkheartkat
- AP Physics-B- Midterm Reviewreader27
- IASTED_2007.pdfhamidaffandy
- 2007 Paper JSDD Fred Rauter Et AlErnest Nsabimana
- Rich Text Editor Filewaffengrenadierukrai
- Dynamics of multibody systemsxxzoltanxx
- 0.00 CoverAhmed Nabil
- Non Electrical QuantitiesJames Dorf
- [2000] Haoyong Yu - Omni-directional Mobility Using Active Split Offset CastorsIonelsiAlina Conduraru
- Structural Analysis 1 Jan 2014Prasad C M
- me2203 N.D 2007Venkatesh Rajamani
- FFT Analyzer Bump Test Module Data SheetReginaldo Vieira
- ch62Deva Raj
- Tutorial_4.pdfAnonymous hxyDxxcoJ
- Arihant.kinematics.theoryTarun Gupta
- ME-GATE-2012yadavkp
- Elsitec Catalogo Completochirag_mull06
- Modal anlysis of composite propeller for ship applications.docPavan Kishore
- Physics 101Chapter 02Omar Refaee
- Kinematic Analysis of 5 Dof Lynx Armsathya
- Paper 5 - Peculiarities of ID Fan Vibration Diagnosticsrikibel

- Review Paper On Screw Theory And Its Application In The Field Of Parallel RoboticsInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- tmp7A74.tmpFrontiers
- tmp6AAE.tmpFrontiers
- tmp51FA.tmpFrontiers
- tmp29BF.tmpFrontiers
- UT Dallas Syllabus for taught by Nicholas Gans (nrg092000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- tmp37E4.tmpFrontiers
- tmpE15E.tmpFrontiers
- Inverse Kinematics of Robot Manipulator with 5 Degree of Freedom based on ANFIS toolboxInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- As 2341.3-1993 Methods of Testing Bitumen and Related Roadmaking Products Determination of Kinematic ViscositSAI Global - APAC
- tmp475C.tmpFrontiers
- Slider Crank Mechanism for Four bar linkageInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- tmp362E.tmpFrontiers

- tmpF754.tmpFrontiers
- Global market for nanophotonic devices to grow to $10.9 billion in 2016BCC Research
- To Calibrate Optical Misalignment Measurement & ControlInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- Comparative Study of Seismic Response of Structure with Different Base IsolatorsInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- Experimental and Design analysis of leaf spring using damper of vehicleInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- tmp909F.tmpFrontiers
- Varying angle Diagrid Structural SystemInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- Seismic Analysis of R.C. multistorey Building Frame with BracingsInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- HMHS Anglia Marine Geophysical Survey ReportWessex Archaeology
- A Novel Miniaturized Antenna for WIMAX applicationInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- Design and manufacture of mechanical arm and analysisInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- 53650_1920-1924FRASER: Federal Reserve Archive
- tmp8F6E.tmpFrontiers
- Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Seismic Response of BuildingsInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- 24 X 7 X 365.docNikhil Parekh
- DOING IS BELIEVING.docNikhil Parekh
- tmpBF5F.tmpFrontiers
- DOGGEDLY BLIND.docNikhil Parekh
- A Review on Clutch used in Heavy Duty VehiclesInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- Application of Photogrammetric System for monitoring Civil Engineering StructuresInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- SWEAT BATH.docNikhil Parekh
- NASA Report — Subsidence in California's Central ValleySouthern California Public Radio
- Retrofitting and Rehabilitation of Existing Elevated Water TankInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- tmp45CE.tmpFrontiers
- Mathematical Modeling and Simulation of a Simple Half - Car Vibration ModelInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- tmp5DFC.tmpFrontiers
- PLEASE SAVE THE PLANET.docNikhil Parekh
- Thickness Measurement of Masonry Wall Using Impact Echo TechniqueInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- Earthquake Resistant Design of Low Rise Open Ground Storey Framed Building: A Critical ReviewInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development
- tmpA6FE.tmpFrontiers

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading