Comparison of the Classical Formulation With the Reference Conditions Formulation for Dynamic Flexible Multibody Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
C. B. Drab, J. R. Haslinger

 Math Consult, Altenberger Strasse 69, A-4040 Linz, Austria

R. U. Pfau1

 Math Consult, Altenberger Strasse 69, A-4040 Linz, Austriapfau@mathconsult.co.at

G. Offner

 AVL LIST GmbH, Hans-List-Platz 1, A-8020 Graz, Austria


Corresponding author.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 2(4), 337-343 (Mar 20, 2007) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2756066 History: Received September 29, 2006; Revised March 20, 2007

Within the framework of the “floating frame of reference” formulation for dynamic flexible multibody systems, the separation of local and global motion is important. We compare the new approach with reference conditions as algebraic constraints with the classical one leading to a system of ordinary differential equations. The approach using reference conditions is motivated either from the need of keeping the error introduced when linearizing the elastic forces as small as possible (Buckens frame) or from minimizing the relative kinetic energy contained in the elastic deformations (Tisserand frame). The reference conditions impose algebraic constraints on the body level leading to a differential-algebraic equation (DAE) to be solved. The equivalence and the differences of the two approaches are shown. The index of the DAE system with reference conditions is shown to be either 2 or 1.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic representation of the floating frame of reference approach. ΣI is the inertial coordinate system, and ΣB is the reference coordinate system.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic representation of the multibody model of the four-cylinder diesel engine test example

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Angular velocity in the direction of the main rotation (Ω1) of the crankshaft for the two sets of reference conditions (rc1, rc2), calculated with accuracy 1×10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Difference between the two sets in the angular velocity in the direction of the main rotational (Ω1) of the crankshaft for two accuracies (1×10−3, 1×10−4)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Difference in the angular acceleration of the crankshaft in direction of main rotation for accuracy 1×10−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Difference in the velocity vB,2 of the crankshaft for the accuracies (1×10−3, 1×10−4)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Difference in the rotational velocity ω90150, DOF 4 and 5, for node 90150 of the crankshaft for the accuracy 1×10−4



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In