Geometrically Exact Flexible Beams
Georges Le Vey
IRCCyNUMR CNRS 6597 and Ecole des Mines de Nantes
4, rue A. Kastler, 44307 NANTES Cedex 1  FRANCE
Email: levey@emn.fr
Abstract—A NewtonEuler formalism is derived for geometri
cally exact Cosserat beam theory in a purely deductive manner,
thanks to an analogy with optimal control theory
1
. The method
relies upon a joint use of Gauss least constraint principle, Appell’s
equations and optimal control theory, that was used in a previous
work for the classical case of discrete NewtonEuler backward
and forward recursions for multibody systems. Motivating ap
plications are hyperedundant manipulators or biomimetic robots
such as eelrobots, undergoing large displacements.
I. INTRODUCTION
The NewtonEuler approach to obtain dynamical equations
for complex mechanical systems has been for a long time
widely used for modelling in multibody systems and robotics
(see [17] and references therein and classical references on
the subject [3], [14], [24]), as an efﬁcient alternative to
Lagrange approach. This approach does not make explicit the
dynamical equations but, instead, relies upon considering the
relative positions, velocities and accelerations of each body
with respect to its neighbours, in a recursive manner, leading to
low complexity algorithms. Two questions are then addressed :
either the joint accelerations are known and one searches
for the corresponding joint torques (backward algorithm, for
control objectives) or the converse (forward algorithm, for
simulation purposes). These two questions are addressed here
in the case of a Cosserat continuous beam theory, on the
illustrative example of a Kirchoff, inextensible model, albeit
not limiting the generality of the method itself. The obtained
results as well as the purely deductive way of getting them
are new, to the best knowledge of the author.
Flexible multibody systems have been the object of exten
sive research, in modelling, identiﬁcation and control, during
the past decades. Thus the renowned efﬁciency of recursive
NewtonEuler algorithms for rigid multibody systems and
robotics manipulators has motivated their extension when
ﬂexibilities should not be neglected ( [4]–[6], [10], [16], [18],
[27]). All these works differ on a number of signiﬁcant points
from the present work : ﬁrst, they deal with manipulators
that are actuated at a ﬁnite number of joints, while taking
into account ﬂexibility of the links. Here, the purpose is
to derive algorithms that compute accelerations or torques
as functions of a continuous space variable, i.e. densities.
One motivation for such developments comes from some
of the targeted applications : hyperredundant manipulators
1
This article is the development of a short preliminary note [22]
and continuous biomimetics robots that can undergo large
displacements, making continuous models attractive when one
wants e.g. to simulate dynamical evolutions in a realistic
fashion. Notice that [23] argued that continuous beam models
are quite adequate to represent a living eel body. As a conse
quence : whereas in most of existing works a small strain and
displacements assumption is made, hence making approximate
ﬁrst order, linear elastic models sufﬁcient, and allowing for
separating rigid body motions from elastic ones, the modelling
approach that is used in the present work is geometrically
exact in the sense of [26] : an important consequence is that
no approximation is made from the very beginning, while
deriving the algorithms. Only the unavoidable time and space
discretizations at the very end of the process lead to approx
imations for numerical integration. Nevertheless, most of the
modelling approaches for very ﬂexible biomimetical robots
generally use multibody models with a certain possibly large
number of rigid links [15]. Thus the use of continuous models
still has to be developed and the results of the present work can
then be seen as a building block towards modelling complex
ﬂexible mechanical systems undergoing large displacements,
in the spirit of NewtonEuler formalism.
On another hand, analogy of recursive NewtonEuler equa
tions for multibody systems with optimal ﬁltering [25] and
discretetime optimal control [13] has been evidenced. This
interesting analogy was not really used as a principle for
deriving equations but simply pointed out while using the trick
of separating linear from nonlinear effects in [13]. A slight
improvement of this approach was given in [21] for the usual
case of NewtonEuler formalism for multibody systems, in
the sense that the NewtonEuler recursions were derived in
a purely deductive way. In the present work, this approach
is extended in order to obtain a NewtonEuler formalism
for continuous beam theory, where recursions are replaced
by ordinary differential equations in the continuous space
variable, as one can expect. It is worth noting that only such
a deductive approach can give a general means for deriving
analogous NewtonEuler equations, that would be otherwise
very hard to exhibit. The concrete motivation for deriving
a formalism in the continuous case comes from the recent
derivation of a continuous 3D computed torque algorithm for
a swimming eelrobot [7], where the analogy with (backward)
NewtonEuler has been pointed out but derivation of a for
ward analogous is far from being evident. The present work
142440259X/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE
4163
Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
October 9  15, 2006, Beijing, China
makes derivation of both continuous algorithms systematic as
was done in the classical case, using Gauss least constraint
principle along the line evidenced by P. Appell [1]. It is worth
mentionning that all the ingredients on which the present work
rely upon have been known for a long time but that their
conjunction leads to derivations from ﬁrst principles that are
new. The presentation is organized as follows : after having
ﬁxed the main notations in section II, section III describes the
geometric model of the beam, together with a velocity and
acceleration analysis. Then, section IV, after having quickly
recalled the essence of Appell’s method for motion equations
derivation, exhibits the acceleration energy (Gibbs function) of
the considered system, leading to a quadratic function of the
acceleration to be minimized. In section V a related optimal
control problem is posed and solved that straightforwardly
leads, in section VI, to the continuous backward and forward
NewtonEuler algorithms. Eventually, some conclusions and
perspectives are drawn.
II. NOTATIONS
In the sequel, dots over some quantity will indicate dif
ferentiation with respect to time t and primes, differentiation
with respect to the space variable X. The beam is supposed
to have its length normed to one so that X ∈ [0, 1]. The
dependence on time and space variables will not, as a rule, be
made explicit in the curse of the paper. For a vector y ∈ R
3
,
ˆ y is the antisymmetric matrix such that ∀z ∈ R
3
, ˆ yz = y ×z
and × is the usual vector product. The identity matrix of R
3
is denoted I
3
; thus some care is in order for not confusing
with the inertia of one section, denoted I.
III. KINEMATICAL MODEL OF A CONTINUOUS COSSERAT
BEAM
The chosen geometry of the three dimensional model for
a geometrically exact continuous Cosserat beam is given for
granted and is recalled here only for the sake of ﬁxing
notations. One can ﬁnd details about its derivation in [7]. The
fundamental idea of the Cosserat theory [11] is to consider
a beam as a set of stacked microsolids, named hereafter
“sections”, labelled by the material abcissa, X, along some
abstract neutral line (the line of centroids). To each section is
rigidly attached an orthonormal frame. In the case of an eel
robot e.g. this line would represent the spine, this being in very
accordance with observations made by biologists on living
eels [23]. Also, it is assumed that there is neither shearing
(Kirchoff beams hypothesis) nor extensibility of the body but
this does not prevent the generality of the method. Every cross
section, labelled X, of the beam has conﬁguration described
by r(X) (i.e. an element of R
3
, see Fig. 1), the position of its
mass center in a reference frame, and R(X), its attitude, under
the appearance of a rotation (i.e. an element of the rotation
group SO(3)) that transforms one section at rest into itself in
the deformed conﬁguration. Thus the conﬁguration space of
the beam is the principal bundle R
3
×SO(3).
The kinematics of the beam is described ﬁrst by a twist
curvature tensor ﬁeld Ω. Actually Ω is the Darboux vector as
X=1
X=0
X
r(X)
R(X)
t (X)
1
Fig. 1. Conﬁguration variables of the beam model
deﬁned in [19], so that the torsion is the material torsion of the
beam and not the geometric torsion of the centroid line. Ω is
deﬁned by : ∂R/∂X = R
= RΩ. One has also the constraint
imposed by the inextensibility assumption : ∂r/∂X = r
= t
1
where (see Fig. 1) t
1
is the unit tangent vector to the neutral
line of the beam, R is the rotation matrix mapping the X
mobile basis before deformation onto that after. Summarizing
these considerations, from now on, a geometric model is in
force :
_
R
= RΩ
r
= t
1
(1)
A velocity and acceleration analysis can then be done in the
usual way. A ﬁrst time differentiation gives the kinematical
model for velocities :
_
ω
=
˙
k +k ×ω
˙ r
= ω ×t
1
(2)
with ω the axial vector corresponding to the matrix ˆ ω =
˙
RR
T
, and k, the axial vector corresponding to the matrix
ˆ
k = RΩR
T
. A second time differentiation gives the kinematic
model for accelerations :
_
˙ ω
=
¨
k +
˙
k ×ω +k × ˙ ω
¨ r
= ˙ ω ×t
1
+ω ×(ω ×t
1
)
(3)
For the ease of subsequent analogy with optimal control, it is
worth rewriting this system in matrix form as :
_
¨ r
˙ ω
_
=
⎛
⎝
0−
ˆ
t
1
− −
0
ˆ
k
⎞
⎠
_
¨ r
˙ ω
_
+
_
0
¨
k
_
+
_
ω ×(ω ×t
1
)
˙
k ×ω
_
(4)
Thus the system of equations for the accelerations is a
variable coefﬁcients, linear inhomogeneous differential one,
with independent variable X, It is imposed by the modelling
hypothesis, i.e. it represents chosen design constraints : such a
choice is up to the designer hence any other geometric model
of a beam would be convenient too.
IV. GAUSS LEAST CONSTRAINT PRINCIPLE AND
GIBBSAPPELL APPROACH TO MOTION EQUATIONS
DERIVATION
The approach (also known as “GibbsAppell”) of P. Ap
pell [1], [2] to deriving motion equations of a mechanical
4164
system is quickly summarized here. It is based on the consid
eration of an “acceleration energy” [12] (or “Gibbs function”)
instead of kinetic energy that is used for deriving Lagrange
equations. Deﬁne S, this acceleration energy of the mechanical
system under consideration, the following way : let γ(P, q)
be the acceleration of particle with mass dm
P
located at P.
Then : S =
_
1
2
γ(P, q)
2
dm
P
where the integral extends
to the whole system, and q is the conﬁguration parameter
(generalized coordinate). Let Q be the vector of applied efforts
and E the analytical expression of the constraint [2] in the
sense of Gauss principle with E = S −Q
T
¨ q. Then P. Appell
has shown that the motion equations take the form :
∂S
∂¨ q
= Q (5)
But, much more important in the present situation, P. Appell
observed that this acceleration energy has tight connections
with Gauss least constraint principle. More precisely, P. Appell
has shown [1] that the motion equations are those obtained
when searching for the minimum of the analytical expression
of the constraint, E, a quadratic function of ¨ q.
For the Cosserat beam model, the generalized coordinates are
r(X), R(X), X ∈ [0, 1] from which the corresponding vector
of accelerations is : (¨ r
T
, ˙ ω
T
)
T
. The acceleration energy of
one section at X is straightforwardly computed, thanks to a
Koenigs theorem for the acceleration energy [2], quite similar
to the wellknown Koenigs theorem for kinetic energies, to
be :
S(X) =
1
2
_
¨ r
T
˙ ω
T
_
_
ρAI
3
0
0 ρI
__
¨ r
˙ ω
_
+
_
0
(ω ×(ρIω))
_
T
_
¨ r
˙ ω
_
(6)
where for ﬁxed X, ρ is the density of the beam, A is the
section area and I its inertia. As for the applied efforts, it
is necessary to consider the nonvanishing work of all active
efforts. External efforts (forces and torques) are summarized in
the vector :
_
f
T
ext
c
T
ext
_
T
. These applied efforts are not detailed
here as it is outside the scope of the present work but gravity
as well as a ﬂuid model for a swimming robot e.g. can be taken
into account. Consider now the torque at X, denoted Γ, and the
corresponding generalized coordinate, denoted k, the curvature
density at X : either
¨
k or Γ can be considered as an unknown
control input, introducing external energy to the system. Thus,
remembering the above deﬁnition of E, the contribution of
k to the constraint is Γ
T
¨
k. Eventually, gathering results, the
expression of the constraint at section X is :
E(X) = S(X) −Γ
T
¨
k (7)
Deﬁne the analytical expression of the constraint on the whole
body as the sum : E
b
=
_
1
0
E(X)dX. Gauss least constraint
principle stipulates that for obtaining motions equations, one
has to search for the minimum of this quadratic form (in ¨ r
and ˙ ω), subject to the “dynamical” (in space) equation (4).
The supplementary fact now is that there remain unknown
variables : either
¨
k or Γ, each playing the role of “control
input“ when the other set is given as data. Each situation
gives rise to the backward or forward NewtonEuler algorithm,
that is obtained in the next section as the solution of an
evolutionary quadratic optimal control problem.
V. A NON HOMOGENEOUS, SINGULAR, VARIABLE
COEFFICIENTS, OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEM
The conclusions of section IV, considering (6)(7) together
with (4), suggest considering the following optimal control
problem
2
. Firstly, let :
J(X, U) =
_
x
f
x
0
(
1
2
X
T
ΣX +b
T
X +c
T
U)dX (8)
be some quadratic “functional” of some given state X and
control U.
Problem
Solve :
min
U
J(X, U) (9)
under the evolutionary constraint:
X
= FX +GU +h (10)
All the quantities either in the functional J or the dynamical
equation are functions of the independent space variable X
thus it is a variable coefﬁcients problem. It is apparent that,
because the control appears linearly in the functional, the
optimization problem to be solved is a singular one [9].
Although it is a rather routine task, detailed derivation will
be given for the ﬁrst order necessary conditions, because of
this singularity and also because of the inhomogeneous part
in the dynamical equations and this not usually exposed in
textbooks, to the author’s knowledge.
It is usual, introducing Lagrange multiplier λ, to deﬁne the
following hamiltonian for such a problem :
H =
1
2
X
T
ΣX +b
T
X +c
T
U +λ
T
(FX +GU +h) (11)
A ﬁrst remark is that H does not depend explicitely on time.
Thus it will remain constant along optimal trajectories. Now,
the ﬁrst order necessary conditions for optimality [9] write :
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎩
X
=
∂H
∂λ
= FX +GU +h
λ
= −
∂H
∂X
T
= −F
T
λ −ΣX −b
0 =
∂H
∂U
T
= c +G
T
λ
(12)
The last condition (
∂H
∂U
= 0) does not give an expression
for the optimal control, making it a singular problem ( [9],
ch. 8). In fact, in the setting of algebraic theory of differ
ential equations, the above ﬁrst order necessary conditions
for optimality constitute a differential system of equations in
(X, λ) that is not formally integrable
3
because of the presence
2
All considerations in this paragraph are at a formal level, with no analytical
considerations, hence no mention is made e.g. of the spaces where the different
objects live
3
This means that the set of equations is unsufﬁcient to determine the
solution through a Taylor power series, as conditions on successive derivatives
are not explicit in the system and can appear after subsequent differentiations
4165
of a zero order equation (the last one). In the language of
DAE [8] (Differential Algebraic Equations), one would say
that the differential system is higher index and more precisely
an index two system. The usual way of dealing with this is
to compute successive derivatives of
∂H
∂U
with respect to the
independent variable, until the control U explicitely appears,
in order that, after substitution, the system will actually be
formally integrable.
Starting thus from : H
u
= G
T
λ+c = 0, a ﬁrst differentiation
gives :
H
u
= G
T
λ +G
T
λ
+c
= G
T
λ −G
T
F
T
λ −G
T
ΣX −G
T
b +c
= (G
T
−G
T
F
T
)λ −G
T
ΣX −G
T
b +c
= G
1
λ −G
2
X +G
3
(13)
with G
1
= G
T
−G
T
F
T
, G
2
= G
T
Σ, G
3
= c
−G
T
b. As U
does not appear in this expression, another differentiation has
to be taken (that is why the system is index two) :
H
u
=G
1
λ +G
1
λ
−G
2
X −G
2
X
+G
3
=(G
1
−G
1
F
T
)λ −(G
1
Σ +G
2
+G
2
F)X
+(G
3
−G
1
b −G
2
h) −G
T
ΣGU = 0
(14)
upon using the state and adjoint equations and collecting
terms. From this, the optimal control writes :
U
∗
= (G
T
ΣG)
−1
(K
1
λ +K
2
X +K
3
) (15)
where the intermediate quantities K
1
, K
2
, K
3
are deﬁned as :
K
1
= G
1
−G
1
F
T
(16)
K
2
=−(G
1
Σ +G
2
+G
2
F)
(17)
K
3
=G
3
−G
1
b −G
2
h (18)
The results so far obtained can be summarized now as :
⎧
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎩
H = α
H
u
= G
T
λ +c = 0
H
u
= G
1
λ −G
2
X +G
3
(19)
This constitutes a system of equations in (X, λ) that deﬁne
the locus of possible singular arcs in the space of (X, λ) and
the so far obtained expression (15) for the optimal control U
∗
is valid on such a singular arc, α being a constant traducing
the fact that H is constant on the optimal trajectories.
Now, one popular method of solution is the sweep method
(see [9]). It is founded on the fact that, as the state and adjoint
equations are linear (and inhomogeneous here), we can seek
λ as an afﬁne function of the state X : λ = SX + κ, where
S and κ have to be determined by some means, in order
that the optimality system can be integrated. More precisely,
adding the preceding zero order equation to the original
system makes it nonformally integrable so that new equations
have to be found that will make the resulting system formally
integrable. It is worth noting that searching an expression for
λ, that is afﬁne in X, simply amounts to ﬁnding an afﬁne
feedback law.
Thus, starting from λ = SX + κ, differentiation and suitable
substitutions lead to :
λ
=S
X +SX
+κ
=S
X +S(FX +GU +h) +κ
=S
X +SFX +SG(G
T
ΣG)
−1
(K
1
λ +K
2
X +K
3
)
+Sh +κ
(20)
Using the adjoint equation (second equation in (12)), this is
equal to : −F
T
λ −ΣX −b. From this it is deduced that :
(S
+SF +F
T
S +SG(G
T
ΣG)
−1
(K
1
S +K
2
) + Σ)X
+(κ
+Sh +F
T
κ +SG(G
T
ΣG)
−1
(K
1
κ +K
3
) +b) = 0
(21)
As this equality must hold for any X (i.e. it must be an
identity), we get the following system of two differential
equations (for S and κ) :
_
S
+SF +F
T
S +SG(G
T
ΣG)
−1
(K
1
S +K
2
) + Σ=0
κ
+Sh +F
T
κ +SG(G
T
ΣG)
−1
(K
1
κ +K
3
) +b=0
(22)
which can be rewritten as :
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎩
S
+SG(G
T
ΣG)
−1
K
1
S +S(F +G(G
T
ΣG)
−1
K
2
)
+F
T
S + Σ = 0
κ
+(F
T
+SG(G
T
ΣG)
−1
K
1
)κ +Sh
+SG(G
T
ΣG)
−1
K
3
+b = 0
(23)
The equation for S is clearly a Riccati equation, as it is
quadratic in S.
In conclusion, to formally solve the optimal control problem
given at the beginning we proceed along the following steps :
1) Given Σ, b, c, F, G, h
2) solve equation (23) for S and κ
3) solve the state equation, i.e. the ﬁrst equation of sys
tem (12) for X while simultaneously computing the
optimal control with equation (15)
The next section makes use of these four steps to derive the
continuous forward algorithm for the considered beam model.
VI. THE NEWTONEULER BACKWARD AND FORWARD
ALGORITHMS
It is an easy task now, by identifying the data in section IV
and those in section V, to write down the backward and
forward algorithms for the continuous NewtonEuler model.
Comparing (9) to (6)(7) and (10) to (4), respectively, and
looking at (12), let :
X =
_
¨ r
˙ ω
_
; λ =
_
n
M
_
; U =
¨
k; F =
_
0−
ˆ
t
1
0
ˆ
k
_
; G =
_
0
I
3
_
;
h =
_
ω ×(ω ×t
1
)
˙
k ×ω
_
; Σ =
_
σ
1
 0
0 σ
2
_
;
b =
_
−f
ext
−c
ext
+ (ω ×(ρIω))
_
; c = −Γ;
σ
1
= ρAI
3
; σ
2
= ρI
(24)
With these deﬁnitions, some expressions are very simple :
deﬁnition of G implies e.g. that (G
T
ΣG)
−1
= σ
−1
2
.
4166
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
S
+S
_
0  0
−σ
2
−1
(
ˆ
t
1
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
t
1
)σ
2
−1
(
ˆ
k
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
k)
_
S +S
_
−σ
1
−1
σ
1
 0
σ
2
−1
σ
1
ˆ
t
1
−σ
2
−1
σ
2
−
ˆ
k
_
+
_
0  0
ˆ
t
1
−
ˆ
k
_
S +
_
σ
1
 0
0 σ
2
_
= 0
κ
+
__
0  0
ˆ
t
1
−
ˆ
k
_
+S
_
0  0
−σ
−1
2
(
ˆ
t
1
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
t
1
)σ
−1
2
(
ˆ
k
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
k)
__
κ
+σ
−1
2
S
_
0
−Γ
+ (c
ext
−ω ×(ρIω))
−
ˆ
t
1
f
ext
+
ˆ
k(c
ext
−ω ×(ρIω))
_
+
_
−f
ext
−c
ext
+ (ω ×(ρIω))
_
= 0
(25)
A. Backward algorithm
In the language of NewtonEuler formalism for multibody
systems, the backward algorithm takes the accelerations as
inputs and aims at giving the necessary torques as outputs.
Firstly, writing down the optimality condition of the hamilto
nian H (11) with respect to the control (third equation of (12))
gives : −Γ + M = 0, as expected, i.e. the adjoint state, a
Lagrange multiplier, gives the necessary efforts. Getting the
searched efforts thus simply amounts to solving the adjoint
equation of the state equation (4), i.e., using the second
equation in (12) :
_
n
M
_
=
_
0 0
−
ˆ
t
1

ˆ
k
__
n
M
_
−
_
ρAI
3
0
0 ρI
__
¨ r
˙ ω
_
−
_
−f
ext
−c
ext
+ (ω ×(ρIω))
_ (26)
One concludes that (26) is the backward algorithm for the
considered continuous beam model. Notice that (26) gives
exactly the continuous computed torque (i.e. backward) al
gorithm as given in [7] when modelling a 3D eelrobot while
taking into account a simple Morison model for the ﬂuid
structure interaction (see [20] for explicit computations). It
was obtained in [7] through the use of the principle of virtual
work. As the backward algorithm is used for control purposes,
¨ r and ˙ ω are given as known control inputs so that, ﬁxing e.g.
n and M at one end allows for integrating (26) for X ∈]0, 1[,
i.e. one computes this way the distributed efforts along the
beam and this, for each time t. As for boundary conditions,
for a beam free at both ends, the wrenches (n, M) have to
vanish there. For a manipulator with ﬁxed basis and one free
end, one would impose a vanishing wrench at this end and
vanishing accelerations at the basis.
B. Forward algorithm
The forward algorithm is known, when dealing with
classical serial multibody systems with usual methods, to
be signiﬁcantly more difﬁcult to obtain than the backward
one and to necessitate one recursion more. In the continuous
case, it would be a really difﬁcult and huge task to obtain an
analogous algorithm when proceeding along the same path.
It is in that respect that the analogy with optimal control
shows real powerfulness, making these derivations systematic
and straightforward, as one can see hereafter. Recall that the
forward algorithm is to compute joint accelerations given
joint torques. In the present continuous case, one will in fact
compute accelerations as functions of the space variable X,
given distributed torques for X ∈]0, 1[. Thus, following the
steps enumerated at the end of section V, this algorithm is
as follows, being understood that it can be included, when
necessary, in a time loop for a dynamical analysis, i.e. each
of the following steps is valid for all t :
1) Given ρ, A(X), I(X), Γ(X) and suitable boundary
conditions (see below)
2) ∀X ∈]0, 1[
2a) Compute Σ, b, F, h
2b) Solve the differential system (25) for S and κ
2c) Solve the state equation (see (4)) for
_
¨ r
˙ ω
_
:
_
¨ r
˙ ω
_
=
_
0−
ˆ
t
1
0
ˆ
k
__
¨ r
˙ ω
_
+
_
0
¨
k
_
+
_
ω ×(ω ×t
1
)
˙
k ×ω
_
(27)
while computing at the same time the accelerations
through (15) as :
σ
1
¨
k=
_
−(
ˆ
t
1
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
t
1
)S
11
+ (
ˆ
k
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
k)S
21
+σ
1
ˆ
t
1
_
¨ r
+
_
−(
ˆ
t
1
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
t
1
)S
12
+ (
ˆ
k
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
k)S
22
−σ
2
I −2σ
2
ˆ
k
_
˙ ω
−(
ˆ
t
1
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
t
1
)κ
1
+ (
ˆ
k
+
ˆ
k
ˆ
k)κ
2
−Γ
+ (c
ext
−ω ×(ρIω))
−
ˆ
t
1
f
ext
+
ˆ
k(c
ext
−ω ×(ρIω)) −σ
2
˙
k ×ω
(28)
where a block decomposition of S is done that ﬁts the
deﬁnition of the state vector X with ¨ r and ˙ ω It is worth
noting that the differential system (in space) made of (27)
and (28) is actually a differential algebraic one, due to the
zeroorder equation for
¨
k. But, due to the explicit expression
for
¨
k, direct substitution of
¨
k into (27) makes it an ordinary
differential system that is integrated without difﬁculty. Then,
the searched after ﬁeld of accelerations are computed thanks
to (28). Suitable boundary conditions are needed for the
algorithm to start. Let us mention some possible choices, as
illustrations : in the case of a free beam or of an eelrobot in a
ﬂuid, both ends are free so that the wrench vanishes at X = 0
and X = 1 :
_
n
M
_
(X=0)
=
_
n
M
_
(X=1)
=
_
0
0
_
(29)
In the case of a hyperredundant manipulator, with a ﬁxed
basis e.g., one will impose that the acceleration at X = 0 and
4167
the wrench at X = 1 vanish :
_
¨ r
˙ ω
_
(X=0)
=
_
0
0
_
;
_
n
M
_
(X=1)
=
_
0
0
_
(30)
but one could have chosen to impose some motion to the
basis either. Such boundary conditions give starting values
for integrating (25), remembering that the adjoint state λ is
an afﬁne function of the state X. Other situations such e.g.
assigning a known motion to one end can model a hyper
redundant manipulator on a mobile platform and are taken
into account by the above considerations exactly the same way,
although in that case nonholonomic constraints on velocities
should be included at an earlier stage, in the derivations of
section III. One sees that a continuous forward algorithm for
the chosen beam model is straightforwardly obtained. A key
issue in the implementation of the algorithm is the solution
of the matrixvector differential system (25) : thanks to the
availability of powerfull tools in Matlablike programming
softwares and standard numerical libraries such as IMSl, such
matrixvector equations are easily implemented and solved,
making the above algorithm attractive.
VII. CONCLUSION
In this work, a NewtonEuler formalism has been exhibited
for a continuous, geometrically exact, Cosserat beam model
thanks to a joint use of optimal control theory, Gauss least
constraint principle and GibbsAppell method for motion
equations derivation. It can be seen as an extension of a
method from the classical discrete case to the continuous case.
The most interesting result is a systematic derivation of the
forward algorithm that would be otherwise very difﬁcult to
obtain. Also, the followed approach gives a unifying perspec
tive of the two algorithms (backward and forward) of the
NewtonEuler formalism. On the concrete side, the previous
derivations can be useful as well when one wants to develop
analogous algorithms for robots that have to be made of a 
possibly large number of rigid links. Possible developments
using this approach could be made for manipulators on mobile
platforms or other mechanical systems that ﬁt into the Newton
Euler formalism, i.e. a great variety of mechanical structures. It
is likely that the framework developped here will facilitate the
derivations of backward and forward NewtonEuler algorithms
in these situations. Being recursive in nature, the method can
easily be implemented as the core of the forward algorithm is
a matrix Riccati equation, for which efﬁcient solvers exist in
standard numerical libraries and software. The achievements
of the present work can be seen as a possible building block
for analysis and control of more complex ﬂexible structures
undergoing large displacements.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Appell. Sur une forme g´ en´ erale des ´ equations de la dynamique.
Comptes rendus de l’acad´ emie des sciences de Paris, t. 129:423–427,
459–460, 1899.
[2] P. Appell. Trait´ e de M´ ecanique Rationnelle. GauthierVillars, 1921.
[3] W. W Armstrong. Recursive solution to the equation of motion of a
nlinks manipulator. In Proc. 5th World congress on theory of machines
and mechanisms, pages 1343–1346, Montr´ eal, 1979.
[4] W.J. Book. Recursive lagrangian dynamics of ﬂexible manipulators
arms. Int. J. Robotics Research, 3:87–101, 1984.
[5] F. Boyer and P. Coiffet. Symbolic modelling of a ﬂexible manipulator
via assembling ot its generalized newtoneuler model. J. Mechanism
and Machine theory, 1995.
[6] F. Boyer and W. Khalil. Recursive inverse and forward dynamics of
ﬂexible manipulators. In Proc. European Control Conf. (ECC’95) Conf.,
Rome, Italy, 1995.
[7] F. Boyer, M. Porez, and W. Khalil. Macrocontinuous computed torque
algorithm for a 3d eellike robot. IEEE Trans. Robotics, 2006. In press.
[8] C. Brenan, S.C. Campbell, and L. Petzold. The numerical solution of
differentialalgebraic equations. NorthHolland, 1989.
[9] A.E. Bryson and Y.C. Ho. Applied optimal control. Hemisphere Pub.
Corp., 1975. Revised printing.
[10] S. Cetinkunt and W.J. Book. Symbolic modelling of ﬂexible manipula
tors. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, pages 2074–
2080, 1987.
[11] E Cosserat and F. Cosserat. Th´ eorie des corps d´ eformables. Hermann,
1909.
[12] A. de St Germain. Sur la fonction S introduite par M. Appell dans les
´ equations de la dynamique. Comptes rendus de l’acad´ emie des sciences
de Paris, t. 130:1174–1177, 1900.
[13] G.M.T. d’Eleuterio and C.J. Damaren. The relationship between recur
sive multibody dynamics and discretetime optimal control. IEEE Trans.
Robotics and Automation, 7(6):743–749, 1991.
[14] R. Featherstone. The calculation of robot dynamics using articulated
body inertias. Int. Jal Robotics Research, 2(1):13–30, 1983.
[15] S. Hirose. Biologically Inspired Robots : Snakelike locomotors and
manipulators. Oxford University Press, 1993. Translated by P. Cave
and C. Goulden.
[16] P.C. Hughes and G.B. Sincarsin. Dynamics of elastic multibody chains.
J. Dyn. Stability Syst., 4:209–226, 1989.
[17] W. Khalil and E. Dombre. Modelling, Identiﬁcation and Control of
Robots. Herm` es, London, 2002.
[18] S.S. Kim and E.J. Haug. Recursive formulation for ﬂexible multibody
dynamics. part 1 : openloop systems. Journal of computer methods in
applied mechanics and engineering, 71:293–314, 1988.
[19] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz. Theory of elasticity. Pergamon Press,
1959.
[20] G. Le Vey. Hyperredundant manipulators, continuous newtoneuler
algorithms and optimal control theory. Technical Report 05/3/AUTO,
IRCCyN/Ecole des Mines de Nantes, 2005.
[21] G. Le Vey. The newtoneuler formalism for general multibody systems
as the solution of an optimal control problem. Technical Report
05/4/AUTO, IRCCyN/Ecole des Mines de Nantes, 2005.
[22] G. Le Vey. Optimal control theory and newtoneuler formalism for
cosserat beam theory. Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences de
Paris, CRM´ ecanique 334:170–175, 2006.
[23] J.H. Long, B. Adcock, and R.G. Root. Force transmission via axial
tendons in undulating ﬁsh : a dynamical analysis. Comparative bio
chemistry and physiology, 133(4):911–929, 2002.
[24] J.Y.S. Luh, M.W. Walker, and R.C.P. Paul. Online computation scheme
for mechanical manipulators. In Proc. 2nd IFAC/IFIP Symp. Information
Control problems in manufacturing technology, pages 165–172, 1979.
[25] G. Rodriguez. Kalman ﬁltering, smoothing and recursive robot arm
forward and inverse dynamics. IEEE Trans. Robotics and Automation,
3(6):624–639, 1987.
[26] J.C. Simo and L. VuQuoc. On the dynamics in space of rods undergoing
large motions  a geometrically exact approach. Computational Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 66:125–161, 1988.
[27] R.P. Singh, J. Van der Voort, and R.J. Likins. Dynamics of ﬂexible
bodies in tree topology. In Proc. AIAA Dyn. Specialist Conf., pages
327–337, Palm Springs, California, 1984.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work, as part of an EelRobot project, was supported by
french Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque (CNRS)
through the ROBEA program (RObotique et Entit´ es Artiﬁ
cielles), and by R´ egion Pays de la Loire, Institut de Recherche
en Communication et Cybern´ etique de Nantes (IRCCyN),
Ecole des Mines de Nantes.
4168
an element of R3 . with independent variable X. an element of the rotation group SO(3)) that transforms one section at rest into itself in the deformed conﬁguration. leading to a quadratic function of the acceleration to be minimized. i. it is worth rewriting this system in matrix form as : ⎞ ⎛ ˆ 0 −t1 ω × (ω × t1 ) 0 r ¨ r ¨ + ¨ + = ⎝− − ⎠ (4) ˙ ω ˙ ω ˙ k k×ω ˆ 0 k Thus the system of equations for the accelerations is a variable coefﬁcients. differentiation with respect to the space variable X. N OTATIONS In the sequel. and k. In the case of an eelrobot e. a geometric model is in force : R = RΩ (1) r = t1 A velocity and acceleration analysis can then be done in the usual way. In section V a related optimal control problem is posed and solved that straightforwardly leads. It is worth mentionning that all the ingredients on which the present work rely upon have been known for a long time but that their conjunction leads to derivations from ﬁrst principles that are new. 1. III. and R(X). named hereafter “sections”. under the appearance of a rotation (i.e. 1) t1 is the unit tangent vector to the neutral line of the beam. II. labelled X. The identity matrix of R3 is denoted I3 . R is the rotation matrix mapping the X mobile basis before deformation onto that after. thus some care is in order for not confusing with the inertia of one section. IV. Conﬁguration variables of the beam model deﬁned in [19]. to the continuous backward and forward NewtonEuler algorithms. Then. its attitude. along some abstract neutral line (the line of centroids).makes derivation of both continuous algorithms systematic as was done in the classical case. in section VI. see Fig. after having quickly recalled the essence of Appell’s method for motion equations derivation. it is assumed that there is neither shearing (Kirchoff beams hypothesis) nor extensibility of the body but this does not prevent the generality of the method. the axial vector corresponding to the matrix ˆ k = RΩRT . G AUSS LEAST CONSTRAINT PRINCIPLE AND G IBBS A PPELL APPROACH TO MOTION EQUATIONS DERIVATION The chosen geometry of the three dimensional model for a geometrically exact continuous Cosserat beam is given for granted and is recalled here only for the sake of ﬁxing notations. from now on. Also. using Gauss least constraint principle along the line evidenced by P. It is imposed by the modelling hypothesis. Summarizing these considerations. The beam is supposed to have its length normed to one so that X ∈ [0. A second time differentiation gives the kinematic model for accelerations : ¨ ˙ ˙ ω = k+k×ω+k×ω ˙ (3) ˙ r = ω × t1 + ω × (ω × t1 ) ¨ For the ease of subsequent analogy with optimal control.e. Appell [1].e. One has also the constraint imposed by the inextensibility assumption : ∂r/∂X = r = t1 where (see Fig. The fundamental idea of the Cosserat theory [11] is to consider a beam as a set of stacked microsolids. some conclusions and perspectives are drawn. For a vector y ∈ R3 . 1]. this line would represent the spine. so that the torsion is the material torsion of the beam and not the geometric torsion of the centroid line. denoted I. The presentation is organized as follows : after having ﬁxed the main notations in section II. The kinematics of the beam is described ﬁrst by a twistcurvature tensor ﬁeld Ω. exhibits the acceleration energy (Gibbs function) of the considered system. Appell [1]. K INEMATICAL MODEL OF A CONTINUOUS C OSSERAT BEAM t (X) 1 R(X) r(X) X=0 X X=1 Fig. linear inhomogeneous differential one. X. [2] to deriving motion equations of a mechanical 4164 . To each section is rigidly attached an orthonormal frame. dots over some quantity will indicate differentiation with respect to time t and primes. Eventually. together with a velocity and acceleration analysis. labelled by the material abcissa. be made explicit in the curse of the paper. of the beam has conﬁguration described by r(X) (i. One can ﬁnd details about its derivation in [7]. Ω is deﬁned by : ∂R/∂X = R = R Ω. this being in very accordance with observations made by biologists on living eels [23]. section IV. The dependence on time and space variables will not. the position of its mass center in a reference frame. Thus the conﬁguration space of the beam is the principal bundle R3 × SO(3). y z = y × z ˆ and × is the usual vector product. 1). it represents chosen design constraints : such a choice is up to the designer hence any other geometric model of a beam would be convenient too. Actually Ω is the Darboux vector as The approach (also known as “GibbsAppell”) of P. Every cross section. as a rule.g. A ﬁrst time differentiation gives the kinematical model for velocities : ˙ ω = k+k×ω (2) r = ω × t1 ˙ with ω the axial vector corresponding to the matrix ω = ˆ ˙ RRT . section III describes the geometric model of the beam. ˆ y is the antisymmetric matrix such that ∀z ∈ R3 .
SINGULAR . Gauss least constraint principle stipulates that for obtaining motions equations. Appell has shown [1] that the motion equations are those obtained when searching for the minimum of the analytical expression of the constraint. introducing external energy to the system. to deﬁne the following hamiltonian for such a problem : 1 T X ΣX + bT X + cT U + λT (F X + GU + h) (11) 2 A ﬁrst remark is that H does not depend explicitely on time. subject to the “dynamical” (in space) equation (4). the generalized coordinates are r(X). to be : S(X) = r ¨ ω ˙ (6) where for ﬁxed X. q) dmP where the integral extends to the whole system. ˙ The supplementary fact now is that there remain unknown ¨ variables : either k or Γ. 4165 . of the spaces where the different objects live 3 This means that the set of equations is unsufﬁcient to determine the solution through a Taylor power series. 1 2 Then : S = 2 γ(P. this acceleration energy of the mechanical system under consideration. The acceleration energy of r ˙ one section at X is straightforwardly computed. introducing Lagrange multiplier λ. More precisely. Eventually. gathering results. each playing the role of “control input“ when the other set is given as data. suggest considering the following optimal control problem2 . Each situation gives rise to the backward or forward NewtonEuler algorithm. quite similar to the wellknown Koenigs theorem for kinetic energies. Consider now the torque at X. as conditions on successive derivatives are not explicit in the system and can appear after subsequent differentiations (7) Deﬁne the analytical expression of the constraint on the whole 1 body as the sum : Eb = 0 E(X)dX. ch. the contribution of ¨ k to the constraint is ΓT k. the expression of the constraint at section X is : E(X) = S(X) − Γ k T¨ that is obtained in the next section as the solution of an evolutionary quadratic optimal control problem. denoted Γ. 1] from which the corresponding vector of accelerations is : (¨T . Thus. the following way : let γ(P. q) be the acceleration of particle with mass dmP located at P . in the setting of algebraic theory of differential equations. Firstly. Problem Solve : min J(X . In fact. 8). making it a singular problem ( [9]. OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEM The conclusions of section IV. the above ﬁrst order necessary conditions for optimality constitute a differential system of equations in (X .system is quickly summarized here. External efforts (forces and torques) are summarized in T T . hence no mention is made e.g. Although it is a rather routine task. the curvature ¨ density at X : either k or Γ can be considered as an unknown control input. because of this singularity and also because of the inhomogeneous part in the dynamical equations and this not usually exposed in textbooks. let : J(X . X ∈ [0. VARIABLE COEFFICIENTS . P. A NON HOMOGENEOUS . ω T )T . These applied efforts are not detailed the vector : fext cT ext here as it is outside the scope of the present work but gravity as well as a ﬂuid model for a swimming robot e. ¨ For the Cosserat beam model. Thus it will remain constant along optimal trajectories. U) = xf x0 1 ( X T ΣX + bT X + cT U)dX 2 (8) be some quadratic “functional” of some given state X and control U. R(X). U) U (9) under the evolutionary constraint: X = F X + GU + h (10) 1 T T r ω ¨ ˙ 2 ρAI3 0 0 ρI r ¨ 0 + ω ˙ (ω × (ρIω)) T All the quantities either in the functional J or the dynamical equation are functions of the independent space variable X thus it is a variable coefﬁcients problem. thanks to a Koenigs theorem for the acceleration energy [2]. Appell has shown that the motion equations take the form : ∂S =Q (5) ∂q ¨ But. to the author’s knowledge. A is the section area and I its inertia. ρ is the density of the beam. detailed derivation will be given for the ﬁrst order necessary conditions. Now. one has to search for the minimum of this quadratic form (in r ¨ and ω). can be taken into account. considering (6)(7) together with (4). E. It is apparent that. and the corresponding generalized coordinate. the optimization problem to be solved is a singular one [9]. denoted k. V. and q is the conﬁguration parameter (generalized coordinate). As for the applied efforts. Appell observed that this acceleration energy has tight connections with Gauss least constraint principle. P. Then P. much more important in the present situation.g. it is necessary to consider the nonvanishing work of all active efforts. λ) that is not formally integrable3 because of the presence 2 All considerations in this paragraph are at a formal level. because the control appears linearly in the functional. a quadratic function of q . with no analytical considerations. It is based on the consideration of an “acceleration energy” [12] (or “Gibbs function”) instead of kinetic energy that is used for deriving Lagrange equations. remembering the above deﬁnition of E. Deﬁne S. the ﬁrst order necessary conditions for optimality [9] write : ⎧ ⎪ X = ∂H = F X + GU + h ⎪ ∂λ ⎨ T (12) λ = − ∂H = −F T λ − ΣX − b ∂X ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ ∂H T T 0 = ∂U = c + G λ H= The last condition ( ∂H = 0) does not give an expression ∂U for the optimal control. Let Q be the vector of applied efforts and E the analytical expression of the constraint [2] in the ¨ sense of Gauss principle with E = S − QT q . It is usual.
some expressions are very simple : −1 deﬁnition of G implies e.g. In conclusion. one popular method of solution is the sweep method (see [9]).Σ = h= . Thus. λ) and the so far obtained expression (15) for the optimal control U ∗ is valid on such a singular arc. differentiation and suitable substitutions lead to : λ =S X + SX + κ =S X + S(F X + GU + h) + κ =S X + SF X + SG(GT ΣG)−1 (K1 λ + K2 X + K3 ) +Sh + κ (20) Using the adjoint equation (second equation in (12)). by identifying the data in section IV and those in section V. respectively. another differentiation has to be taken (that is why the system is index two) : Hu =G1 λ + G1 λ − G2 X − G2 X + G 3 =(G1 − G1 F T )λ − (G1 Σ + G2 + G2 F )X +(G3 − G1 b − G2 h) − GT ΣGU = 0 (14) upon using the state and adjoint equations and collecting terms. as it is quadratic in S. 4166 .e. G. T HE N EWTON E ULER BACKWARD AND FORWARD ALGORITHMS (13) with G1 = G − GT F T . K2 . this is equal to : −F T λ − ΣX − b. a ﬁrst differentiation gives : Hu = = = = G λ + GT λ + c G λ − GT F T λ − GT ΣX − GT b + c (G − GT F T )λ − GT ΣX − GT b + c G1 λ − G2 X + G3 T T T T feedback law. c = −Γ. λ) that deﬁne the locus of possible singular arcs in the space of (X . i. it must be an identity). adding the preceding zero order equation to the original system makes it nonformally integrable so that new equations have to be found that will make the resulting system formally integrable. More precisely. until the control U explicitely appears. The usual way of dealing with this is to compute successive derivatives of ∂H with respect to the ∂U independent variable. As U does not appear in this expression. to formally solve the optimal control problem given at the beginning we proceed along the following steps : 1) Given Σ. we get the following system of two differential equations (for S and κ) : S + SF + F T S + SG(GT ΣG)−1 (K1 S + K2 ) + Σ=0 κ + Sh + F T κ + SG(GT ΣG)−1 (K1 κ + K3 ) + b=0 (22) which can be rewritten as : ⎧ ⎪S +SG(GT ΣG)−1 K1 S + S(F + G(GT ΣG)−1 K2 ) ⎪ ⎨ +F T S + Σ = 0 ⎪ κ +(F T + SG(GT ΣG)−1 K1 )κ + Sh ⎪ ⎩ +SG(GT ΣG)−1 K3 + b = 0 (23) The equation for S is clearly a Riccati equation.e. Now. VI. G = I3 . ω ˙ M 0 k ω × (ω × t1 ) σ1  0 . σ2 = ρI (24) With these deﬁnitions. It is founded on the fact that. simply amounts to ﬁnding an afﬁne It is an easy task now. F = ˆ . b. after substitution. the system will actually be formally integrable. and looking at (12). that is afﬁne in X . as the state and adjoint equations are linear (and inhomogeneous here). −cext + (ω × (ρIω)) σ1 = ρAI3 . we can seek λ as an afﬁne function of the state X : λ = SX + κ. starting from λ = SX + κ. From this it is deduced that : (S + SF + F T S + SG(GT ΣG)−1 (K1 S + K2 ) + Σ)X +(κ + Sh + F T κ + SG(GT ΣG)−1 (K1 κ + K3 ) + b) = 0 (21) As this equality must hold for any X (i. c. α being a constant traducing the fact that H is constant on the optimal trajectories. let : ˆ 0−t1 0 r ¨ n ¨ X = . G2 = GT Σ. in order that. Comparing (9) to (6)(7) and (10) to (4). where S and κ have to be determined by some means. It is worth noting that searching an expression for λ. to write down the backward and forward algorithms for the continuous NewtonEuler model. the ﬁrst equation of system (12) for X while simultaneously computing the optimal control with equation (15) The next section makes use of these four steps to derive the continuous forward algorithm for the considered beam model. From this. the optimal control writes : U ∗ = (GT ΣG)−1 (K1 λ + K2 X + K3 ) K1 = G1 − G1 F T K2 =−(G1 Σ + G2 + G2 F ) K3 =G3 − G1 b − G2 h (15) where the intermediate quantities K1 . K3 are deﬁned as : (16) (17) (18) The results so far obtained can be summarized now as : ⎧ = α ⎪ H ⎨ H = GT λ + c = 0 (19) ⎪ u ⎩ Hu = G1 λ − G2 X + G3 This constitutes a system of equations in (X . In the language of DAE [8] (Differential Algebraic Equations). one would say that the differential system is higher index and more precisely an index two system. that (GT ΣG)−1 = σ2 . Starting thus from : Hu = GT λ + c = 0. h 2) solve equation (23) for S and κ 3) solve the state equation.of a zero order equation (the last one).λ = . in order that the optimality system can be integrated. G3 = c − GT b. F. ˙ 0 σ2 k×ω −fext b= . U = k.
Backward algorithm In the language of NewtonEuler formalism for multibody systems. But. M ) have to noting that the differential system (in space) made of (27) vanish there.g. i. the adjoint state. deﬁnition of the state vector X with r and ω It is worth ¨ ˙ for a beam free at both ends. as be signiﬁcantly more difﬁcult to obtain than the backward illustrations : in the case of a free beam or of an eelrobot in a one and to necessitate one recursion more. Forward algorithm the searched after ﬁeld of accelerations are computed thanks The forward algorithm is known. the backward algorithm takes the accelerations as inputs and aims at giving the necessary torques as outputs. ˆ −(t1 + k t1 )κ1 + (k + k k)κ2 − Γ + (cext − ω × (ρIω)) r and ω are given as known control inputs so that.. differential system that is integrated without difﬁculty. this algorithm is as follows. Notice that (26) gives through (15) as : exactly the continuous computed torque (i. as one can see hereafter. (28) i. the wrenches (n. B. Recall that the In the case of a hyperredundant manipulator. due to the explicit expression vanishing accelerations at the basis. being understood that it can be included. I(X). Firstly. ¨ direct substitution of k into (27) makes it an ordinary ¨ for k. 1[. one will in fact basis e. A(X). when necessary. Getting the searched efforts thus simply amounts to solving the adjoint equation of the state equation (4).1 structure interaction (see [20] for explicit computations).e. Γ(X) and suitable boundary conditions (see below) 2) ∀X ∈]0..g. each of the following steps is valid for all t : 1) Given ρ. one would impose a vanishing wrench at this end and ¨ zeroorder equation for k. for each time t. a Lagrange multiplier. making these derivations systematic M (X=1) 0 M (X=0) and straightforward. It is in that respect that the analogy with optimal control n 0 n = = (29) shows real powerfulness. Suitable boundary conditions are needed for the classical serial multibody systems with usual methods. b. F. to algorithm to start. when dealing with to (28). Thus. following the steps enumerated at the end of section V. one will impose that the acceleration at X = 0 and 4167 . ﬁxing e. As for boundary conditions. backward) algorithm as given in [7] when modelling a 3D eelrobot while ˆˆ ˆ ˆˆ ¨ ˆ ¨ ˆ σ k= −(t1 + k t1 )S11 + (k + k k)S21 + σ1 t1 r taking into account a simple Morison model for the ﬂuid. in a time loop for a dynamical analysis. It ˆˆ ˆ ˆˆ ˆ ˙ ˆ + −(t1 + k t1 )S12 + (k + k k)S22 − σ2 I − 2σ2 k ω was obtained in [7] through the use of the principle of virtual ˆˆ ˆ ˆˆ work. In the continuous ﬂuid. h 2b) Solve the differential system (25) for S and κ r ¨ 2c) Solve the state equation (see (4)) for : ω ˙ r ¨ ω ˙ = ˆ 0−t1 ˆ 0 k 0 ω × (ω × t1 ) r ¨ + ¨ + ˙ ω ˙ k k×ω (27) (26) One concludes that (26) is the backward algorithm for the while computing at the same time the accelerations considered continuous beam model. given distributed torques for X ∈]0. ¨ ˙ ˆ ˙ ˆ −t1 fext + k(cext − ω × (ρIω)) − σ2 k × ω n and M at one end allows for integrating (26) for X ∈]0.e. writing down the optimality condition of the hamiltonian H (11) with respect to the control (third equation of (12)) gives : −Γ + M = 0. i.e. as expected. both ends are free so that the wrench vanishes at X = 0 case. using the second equation in (12) : n M = n ρAI3 0 − M 0 ρI −fext − −cext + (ω × (ρIω)) 0 0 ˆ ˆ −t1 k r ¨ ω ˙ compute accelerations as functions of the space variable X. due to the end. For a manipulator with ﬁxed basis and one free and (28) is actually a differential algebraic one.e. 1[ 2a) Compute Σ. 1[. gives the necessary efforts. As the backward algorithm is used for control purposes. with a ﬁxed forward algorithm is to compute joint accelerations given joint torques. Then. it would be a really difﬁcult and huge task to obtain an and X = 1 : analogous algorithm when proceeding along the same path. one computes this way the distributed efforts along the where a block decomposition of S is done that ﬁts the beam and this. In the present continuous case. i.e. Let us mention some possible choices.⎧ 0  0 0 0 0 −σ1 −1 σ1  σ1  0 ⎪S +S ⎪ S +S ⎪ −1 ˆ −1 ˆt1 )σ2 −1 (k + k k) ˆ ˆˆ ˆ + t1 −k S + 0 σ2 = 0 ˆ ˆ ˆ ⎪ ˆ1 −σ2 −1 σ2 − k −σ2 (t1 + k σ2 σ1 t ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ 0 0 0  0 κ κ + ˆ ˆ +S −1 ˆ −1 ˆ ˆˆ ˆˆ ⎪ t1 −k −σ2 (t1 + k t1 )σ2 (k + k k) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 0 −fext ⎪ +σ −1 S ⎩ =0 + 2 ˆ ˆ −cext + (ω × (ρIω)) −Γ + (cext − ω × (ρIω)) − t1 fext + k(cext − ω × (ρIω)) (25) A.
T. Corp. Conf. Jal Robotics Research. Walker.W. 2005. Simo and L. 2005. [21] G. Symbolic modelling of a ﬂexible manipulator via assembling ot its generalized newtoneuler model. W Armstrong. Hughes and G. In Proc. [7] F. Adcock. Likins.D. Also. Theory of elasticity. London.P. 7(6):743–749. Le Vey. The most interesting result is a systematic derivation of the forward algorithm that would be otherwise very difﬁcult to obtain. (ECC’95) Conf. Porez. [27] R. 1993. The relationship between recursive multibody dynamics and discretetime optimal control. Herm` s. e e Comptes rendus de l’acad´ mie des sciences de Paris. [22] G. 4168 .e. C ONCLUSION In this work. Damaren. Dynamics of elastic multibody chains. 1988. Robotics and Automation. Int. Long.H. The numerical solution of differentialalgebraic equations. Symbolic modelling of ﬂexible manipulators. [13] G. 1991. Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ mie des Sciences de e Paris. Hyperredundant manipulators. Hemisphere Pub. NorthHolland. 1984. a NewtonEuler formalism has been exhibited for a continuous. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. Other situations such e. Recursive formulation for ﬂexible multibody dynamics. Boyer and P. On the dynamics in space of rods undergoing large motions . the followed approach gives a unifying perspective of the two algorithms (backward and forward) of the NewtonEuler formalism. 2002. Int. geometrically exact. pages 2074– 2080. Book. Boyer and W. 1959.number of rigid links. Lifshitz. Identiﬁcation and Control of Robots. e 459–460. Institut de Recherche e en Communication et Cybern´ tique de Nantes (IRCCyN).J. 1995. Such boundary conditions give starting values for integrating (25). The achievements of the present work can be seen as a possible building block for analysis and control of more complex ﬂexible structures undergoing large displacements. J. Dombre. VII. IEEE Trans. e Ecole des Mines de Nantes. for which efﬁcient solvers exist in standard numerical libraries and software. part 1 : openloop systems. pages 327–337. Italy. Le Vey. A key issue in the implementation of the algorithm is the solution of the matrixvector differential system (25) : thanks to the availability of powerfull tools in Matlablike programming softwares and standard numerical libraries such as IMSl. Featherstone. Montr´ al. Robotics and Automation.E. Trait´ de M´ canique Rationnelle. Robotics and Automation. t. Recursive lagrangian dynamics of ﬂexible manipulators arms. Sur une forme g´ n´ rale des equations de la dynamique.a geometrically exact approach. and R.B. such matrixvector equations are easily implemented and solved. S. 130:1174–1177. 1987. Biologically Inspired Robots : Snakelike locomotors and manipulators. Mechanism and Machine theory. It can be seen as an extension of a method from the classical discrete case to the continuous case. Cosserat. making the above algorithm attractive. Th´ orie des corps d´ formables. Robotics. Gauss least constraint principle and GibbsAppell method for motion equations derivation. Brenan. Appell dans les ´ equations de la dynamique. Boyer. The calculation of robot dynamics using articulated body inertias. Khalil. 1989. 3(6):624–639. [11] E Cosserat and F. IRCCyN/Ecole des Mines de Nantes. smoothing and recursive robot arm forward and inverse dynamics.J. 3:87–101.. Cave and C. [9] A. Ho. t. i. and W. 1979. Recursive inverse and forward dynamics of ﬂexible manipulators. Coiffet.C. One sees that a continuous forward algorithm for the chosen beam model is straightforwardly obtained. AIAA Dyn. 1995. 1988. Specialist Conf. 2002. Macrocontinuous computed torque algorithm for a 3d eellike robot. Goulden. Rome. 2nd IFAC/IFIP Symp. IEEE Int. Applied optimal control. remembering that the adjoint state λ is an afﬁne function of the state X . IEEE Trans. Recursive solution to the equation of motion of a nlinks manipulator. d’Eleuterio and C. [17] W. [5] F. Paul. was supported by french Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque (CNRS) through the ROBEA program (RObotique et Entit´ s Artiﬁe cielles). 2(1):13–30. R EFERENCES ´ [1] P.g. IEEE Trans. Being recursive in nature. Possible developments using this approach could be made for manipulators on mobile platforms or other mechanical systems that ﬁt into the NewtonEuler formalism.J. Information Control problems in manufacturing technology. 66:125–161. Cetinkunt and W. Journal of computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering. Sur la fonction S introduite par M. Comparative biochemistry and physiology. 1984. In Proc. de St Germain. 0 M (X=1) = 0 0 (30) but one could have chosen to impose some motion to the basis either. Dynamics of ﬂexible bodies in tree topology.J. [19] L. Khalil. 2006. [25] G.J. In Proc. Technical Report 05/4/AUTO. Kalman ﬁltering. [2] P. Petzold. e [23] J.Y.C. Comptes rendus de l’acad´ mie des sciences e de Paris. Root. On the concrete side. 4:209–226. [26] J.M. In Proc. e [18] S. 2006. Translated by P. Van der Voort. [14] R.C. B. and R. Modelling. Book. Appell. Oxford University Press. It is likely that the framework developped here will facilitate the derivations of backward and forward NewtonEuler algorithms in these situations. as part of an EelRobot project. Stability Syst. [8] C.S. [6] F. 1975. Technical Report 05/3/AUTO. Singh. CRM´ canique 334:170–175. 1983. a great variety of mechanical structures.. e [4] W. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work. J. In Proc.C. and L. Pergamon Press. Sincarsin. Haug. pages 165–172. 1979. The newtoneuler formalism for general multibody systems as the solution of an optimal control problem. 129:423–427. In press. the previous derivations can be useful as well when one wants to develop analogous algorithms for robots that have to be made of a possibly large. Rodriguez. Hirose. Robotics Research. [24] J. 133(4):911–929. Landau and E. and by R´ gion Pays de la Loire.M. VuQuoc.G.P. European Control Conf.C. e e 1909. M. California. 1987. and R. [15] S. Online computation scheme for mechanical manipulators. Luh. pages 1343–1346. M.the wrench at X = 1 vanish : r ¨ ω ˙ (X=0) = 0 n . [16] P. Campbell. Palm Springs. 1921. Hermann. Force transmission via axial tendons in undulating ﬁsh : a dynamical analysis.. J. Cosserat beam model thanks to a joint use of optimal control theory. Le Vey. Kim and E. Dyn. 1899. although in that case nonholonomic constraints on velocities should be included at an earlier stage. Optimal control theory and newtoneuler formalism for cosserat beam theory. IRCCyN/Ecole des Mines de Nantes. [10] S. in the derivations of section III. [20] G. Khalil and E. J. 1989. 71:293–314. Appell. 5th World congress on theory of machines and mechanisms. the method can easily be implemented as the core of the forward algorithm is a matrix Riccati equation. Revised printing. 1900. assigning a known motion to one end can model a hyperredundant manipulator on a mobile platform and are taken into account by the above considerations exactly the same way. [12] A. continuous newtoneuler algorithms and optimal control theory.. e e [3] W. Bryson and Y.S. GauthierVillars.