2009
DOI: 10.1007/s11071-009-9579-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Energy considerations for the stabilization of constrained mechanical systems with velocity projection

Abstract: International audienceThere are many difficulties involved in the numerical integration of index-3 Differential Algebraic Equations (DAEs), mainly related to stability, in the context of mechanical systems. An integrator that exactly enforces the constraint at position level may produce a discrete solution that departs from the velocity and/or acceleration constraint manifolds (invariants). This behavior affects the stability of the numerical scheme, resulting in the use of stabilization techniques based on en… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To verify the feasibility and accuracy of the developed constraint violation suppressing formulation, two benchmark problems are presented in this section, a five-bar pendulum system [4,28,31] and a spatial slider-crank mechanism [3,46,47]. The degrees of freedom are described by means of seven generalized coordinates for each body (three for describing the position of the center of mass and four Euler parameters for describing the attitude), which leads to a singular mass matrix.…”
Section: Numerical Examplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…To verify the feasibility and accuracy of the developed constraint violation suppressing formulation, two benchmark problems are presented in this section, a five-bar pendulum system [4,28,31] and a spatial slider-crank mechanism [3,46,47]. The degrees of freedom are described by means of seven generalized coordinates for each body (three for describing the position of the center of mass and four Euler parameters for describing the attitude), which leads to a singular mass matrix.…”
Section: Numerical Examplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cuadrado et al [29] developed a more efficient implementation of the mass-orthogonal projection which requires only successive forward reductions and back-substitutions, and then Blajer [30] gave a correcting formulation which doesn't need to update the Lagrange multipliers. The energy consideration with velocity projection was studied by Orden et al [31,32], providing an alternative interpretation of its effect on the stability and a practical criterion for the mass-orthogonal projection matrix selection. Blajer [30] also gave a geometrical interpretation to the augmented Lagrangian formulation which is capable of treating systems with changing topologies, redundant constraints, singular positions and some singularity of the mass matrix where the mass-orthogonal projection method can still be applied but the geometric elimination method cannot [20,21,23,24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…An approach proposed by Bauchau [4] deals with high frequencies in the multibody system with a self-stabilization algorithm which enforces the constraints in a multibody system in an index-2 formulation similar to the GGL method [11], but avoiding the introduction of additional Lagrange multipliers. Another approach concerning the stabilization of constrained mechanical systems has been presented by García Orden [10], in which the artificial energy introduced in the system can be controlled from various points of view. The group around Arnold, Cardona and Brüls [2,3] suggests a Lie group time integration of constrained systems and presents a stabilized index-2 formulation in terms of Euler parameters; see e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It represents the extension of the formulations presented in [6,13] to nonholonomic systems and their generalization to more advanced integration schemes. This formulation constitutes a good exponent of what it should be expected from a modern multibody method: it is efficient, accurate, and robust; it exactly satisfies the constraints at position, velocity, and acceleration levels; it has predictable and controllable energy decaying properties [26,24,25]; it can deal with redundant constraints and singular configurations without special considerations [29] and it can handle both holonomic (scleronomic and rheonomic) and nonholonomic constraints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%