0
Research Papers

Real-Time Dynamic Simulations of Large Road Vehicles Using Dense, Sparse, and Parallelization Techniques

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrés F. Hidalgo

INSIA,
Technical University of Madrid (UPM),
Campus Sur UPM,
Ctra. Valencia km 7,
Madrid 28031, Spain
e-mail: andres.francisco.hidalgo@upm.es; ahidalgo5@us.es

Javier García de Jalón

ETSII and INSIA,
Technical University of Madrid (UPM),
José Gutiérrez Abascal 2,
Madrid 28006, Spain
e-mail: javier.garciadejalon@upm.es

1Present address: University of Seville, Camino de los Descubrimientos s/n, Seville 41092, Spain.

Manuscript received October 1, 2013; final manuscript received October 9, 2014; published online February 11, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Corina Sandu.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 10(3), 031005 (May 01, 2015) (15 pages) Paper No: CND-13-1236; doi: 10.1115/1.4028794 History: Received October 01, 2013; Revised October 09, 2014; Online February 11, 2015

This article presents three multibody formulations with improved efficiency in order to achieve real-time simulations for the forward dynamic of two real-life road vehicles. The bigger is a semitrailer truck with 40 degrees of freedom (DOF). Two topological and semirecursive formulations are used as well as a global formulation based on the use of Euler parameters and flexible joints. The first semirecursive formulation carries out a double velocity transformation and the integration is done by means of the explicit fourth order Runge–Kutta method. The second semirecursive formulation and the global one use a penalty scheme at position level and orthogonal projections at velocity and acceleration levels. In both cases the integrator was the implicit Hilbert–Huges–Taylor (HHT) method. The double velocity transformation method involves the coordinate partitioning of the constraint Jacobian matrix which leads to the costly solution of a redundant but consistent with the constraints linear system of equations. The choice of a unique set of independent coordinates may not be valid for a complete simulation and additional repartitioning would be required. Based on previous experience and as the examples show in this article, a careful initial choice of the independent coordinates can remain valid for complete simulations involving common maneuvers. This represents a numerical advantage for dense matrix methods and can be further exploited if sparse matrix techniques are employed. This has been the case for both of the vehicles used, reaching real-time simulations even with the semitrailer truck. The implicit semirecursive formulation involves the numerical evaluation of the stiffness and damping matrices, which hamper obtaining real-time simulations. For the semitrailer truck, this computation represents the 76% of the total simulation time. The numerical computation of these matrices is carried out by columns and its algorithm is straightforwardly parallelizable. Using a quad-core processor and with a simple and efficient OpenMP implementation, it has been possible to achieve a speedup of 3.25 reducing the simulation times under the real-time limit. The sparse matrices of Euler parameters formulation show very different sparsity degrees, difference that grows with the size of the multibody model. This poses a challenge to sparse matrix implementations in order to be able to efficiently perform matrix operations without increasing fillings or handling zero entries. This has been successfully accomplished using a new sparse matrix representation. This one is not a feature of general purpose sparse software, requiring at some stages the implementation of our own algorithms. Reductions in time of three orders of magnitude have led to real-time simulations even with the semitrailer truck.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Gear, C. W., 1971, Numerical Initial Value Problems in Ordinary Differential Equations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bauchau, O. A., and Laulusa, A., 2008, “Review of Contemporary Approaches for Constraint Enforcement in Multibody Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 3(1), p. 011005. [CrossRef]
Baumgarte, J., 1972, “Stabilization of Constraints and Integrals of Motion in Dynamical Systems,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 1(1), pp. 1–16. [CrossRef]
Bayo, E., and Ledesma, R., 1996, “Augmented Lagrangian and Mass-Orthogonal Projection Methods for Constrained Multibody Dynamics,” Nonlinear Dyn., 9(1), pp. 113–130. [CrossRef]
Yen, J., Haug, E. J., and Tak, T. O., 1991, “Numerical Methods for Constrained Equations of Motion in Mechanical System Dynamics,” Mech. Struct. Mach., 19(1), pp. 41–76. [CrossRef]
Potra, F. A., and Yen, J.,. 1991, “Implicit Numerical Integration for Euler–Lagrange Equations Via Tangent Space Parametrization,” Mech. Struct. Mach., 19(1), pp. 77–98. [CrossRef]
Haug, E. J., and Yen, J., 1992, “Implicit Numerical Integration of Constrained Equations of Motion via Generalized Coordinate Partitioning,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 114(2), pp. 296–304. [CrossRef]
Kim, S. S., and Vanderploeg, M. J., 1986, “A General and Efficient Method for Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems Using Velocity Transformations,” ASME J. Mech. Transm. Automation Des., 108(2), pp. 176–182. [CrossRef]
Liang, C. G., and Lance, G. M., 1987, “A Differentiable Null Space Method for Constrained Dynamic Analysis,” ASME J. Mech. Transm. Automation Des., 109(3), pp. 405–411. [CrossRef]
Radu, S., and Haug, E. J., 2000, “Globally Independent Coordinates for Real-Time Vehicle Simulation,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(4), pp. 575–582. [CrossRef]
Kurdila, A., Papastavridis, J. G., and Kamat, M. P., 1990, “Role of Maggi's Equations in Computational Methods for Constrained Multibody Systems,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., 13(1), pp. 113–120. [CrossRef]
Laulusa, A., and Bauchau, O. A., 2008, “Review of Classical Approaches for Constraint Enforcement in Multibody Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 3(1), p. 011004. [CrossRef]
Wehage, R. A., and Haug, E. J., 1982, “Generalized Coordinate Partitioning for Dimension Reduction in Analysis of Constrained Dynamic Systems,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 104(1), pp. 247–255. [CrossRef]
Serna, M., Aviles, R., and Garciadejalon, J., 1982, “Dynamic Analysis of Plane Mechanisms With Lower Pairs in Basic Coordinates,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 17(6), pp. 397–403. [CrossRef]
Negrut, D., Serban, R., and Potra, F. A., 1997, “A Topology-Based Approach to Exploiting Sparsity in Multibody Dynamics: Joint Formulation*,” Mech. Struct. Mach., 25(2), pp. 221–241. [CrossRef]
Rodríguez, J. I., Jiménez, J. M., Funes, F. J., and de Jalón, J. G., 2004, “Recursive and Residual Algorithms for the Efficient Numerical Integration of Multi-Body Systems,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 11(4), pp. 295–320. [CrossRef]
García De Jalón, J., Callejo, A., and Hidalgo, A. F., 2012, “Efficient Solution of Maggi's Equations,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 7(2), p. 021003. [CrossRef]
Anderson, E., Bai, Z., Bischof, C., Blackford, S., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Du Croz, J., Greenbaum, A., Hammarling, S., McKenney, A., and Sorensen, D., 1999, LAPACK User's Guide, 3rd ed, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA.
Davis, T. A., and Natarajan, E. P., 2010, “Algorithm 907: KLU, a Direct Sparse Solver for Circuit Simulation Problems,” ACM Trans. Math. Software, 37(3), Article No. 36. [CrossRef]
González, M.,, González, F., Dopico, D., and Luaces, A., 2008, “On the Effect of Linear Algebra Implementations in Real-Time Multibody System Dynamics,” Comput. Mech., 41(4), pp. 607–615. [CrossRef]
Duff, I. S., and Reid, J. K., 1996, “The Design of MA48: A Code for the Direct Solution of Sparse Unsymmetric Linear Systems of Equations,” ACM Trans. Math. Software, 22(2), pp. 187–226. [CrossRef]
Pacejka, H. B., 2006, Tyre And Vehicle Dynamics, Elsevier Science Serials, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Iglberger, K., and Rüde, U., 2009, “Massively Parallel Rigid Body Dynamics Simulations,” Comput. Sci. Res. Dev., 23(3–4), pp. 3–4. [CrossRef]
Iglberger, K., and Rüde, U., 2011, “Large-Scale Rigid Body Simulations,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 25(1), pp. 81–95. [CrossRef]
Tasora, A., Negrut, D., and Anitescu, M., 2008, “Large-Scale Parallel Multi-Body Dynamics With Frictional Contact on the Graphical Processing Unit,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part K, 222(4), pp. 315–326. [CrossRef]
Negrut, D., Tasora, A., Mazhar, H., Heyn, T., and Hahn, P., 2012, “Leveraging Parallel Computing in Multibody Dynamics,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 27(1), pp. 95–117. [CrossRef]
Anderson, K. S., and Duan, S., 2000, “Highly Parallelizable Low-Order Dynamics Simulation Algorithm for Multi-Rigid-Body Systems,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., 23(2), pp. 355–364. [CrossRef]
Kübler, R., and Schiehlen, W., 2000, “Modular Simulation in Multibody System Dynamics,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 4(2–3), pp. 107–127. [CrossRef]
Postiau, T., Sass, L., Fisette, P., and Samin, J. C., 2001, “High-Performance Multibody Models of Road Vehicles: Fully Symbolic Implementation and Parallel Computation,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 35, pp. 57–84.
Arnold, M., Burgermeister, B., Führer, C., Hippmann, G., and Rill, G., 2011, “Numerical Methods in Vehicle System Dynamics: State of the Art and Current Developments,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 49(7), pp. 1159–1207. [CrossRef]
Reinders, J., 2007, IntelThreading Building Blocks: Outfitting C++ for Multi-core Processor Parallelism, O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.
Anderson, K., 1999, “A Hybrid Parallelizable Low-Order Algorithm for Dynamics of Multi-Rigid-Body Systems: Part I, Chain Systems*1,” Math. Comput. Modell., 30(9–10), pp. 193–215. [CrossRef]
González, F., Luaces, A., Lugrís, U., and González, M., 2009, “Non-Intrusive Parallelization of Multibody System Dynamic Simulations,” Comput. Mech., 44(4), pp. 493–504. [CrossRef]
Lee, J. K., Kang, J. S., and Bae, D. S., 2014, “An Efficient Real-Time Vehicle Simulation Method Using a Chassis-Based Kinematic Formulation,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D, 228(3), pp. 272–284. [CrossRef]
Cuadrado, J., Dopico, D., Gonzalez, M., and Naya, M. A., 2004, “A Combined Penalty and Recursive Real-Time Formulation for Multibody Dynamics,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 126(4), pp. 602–608. [CrossRef]
Chapman, B., Jost, G., van der Pas, R., and Kuck, D. J., 2007, Using OpenMP: Portable Shared Memory Parallel Programming, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Dopico, D., Lugris, U., Gonzalez, M., and Cuadrado, J., 2005, “IRK VS Structural Integrators for Real-Time Applications in MBS,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 19(S1), pp. 388–394. [CrossRef]
Hilber, H. M., Hughes, T. J. R., and Taylor, R. L., 1977, “Improved Numerical Dissipation for Time Integration Algorithms in Structural Dynamics,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 5(3), pp. 283–292. [CrossRef]
Cuadrado, J., Cardenal, J., Morer, P., and Bayo, E., 2000, “Intelligent Simulation of Multibody Dynamics: Space-State and Descriptor Methods in Sequential and Parallel Computing Environments,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 4(1), pp. 55–73. [CrossRef]
Nikravesh, P. E., Kwon, O. K., and Wehage, R. A., 1985, “Euler Parameters in Computational Kinematics and Dynamics. Part 2,” ASME J. Mech. Transm. Automation Des., 107(3), pp. 366–369. [CrossRef]
Nikravesh, P. E., Wehage, R. A., and Kwon, O. K., 1985, “Euler Parameters in Computational Kinematics and Dynamics. Part 1,” ASME J. Mech. Transm. Automation Des., 107(3), pp. 358–365. [CrossRef]
Hussein, B. A., and Shabana, A. A., 2011, “Sparse Matrix Implicit Numerical Integration of the Stiff Differential/Algebraic Equations: Implementation,” Nonlinear Dyn., 65(4), pp. 369–382. [CrossRef]
Shabana, A. A., and Hussein, B. A., 2009, “A Two-Loop Sparse Matrix Numerical Integration Procedure for the Solution of Differential/Algebraic Equations: Application to Multibody Systems,” J. Sound Vib., 327(3–5), pp. 557–563. [CrossRef]
Duff, I. S., Erisman, A. M., and Reid, J. K., 1989, Direct Methods for Sparse Matrices, Oxford University, NY.
Gustavson, F., 1978, “Two Fast Algorithms for Sparse Matrices: Multiplication and Permuted Transposition,” ACM Trans. Math. Software, 4(3), pp. 250–269. [CrossRef]
Kim, S.-S., 2002, “A Subsystem Synthesis Method for Efficient Vehicle Multibody Dynamics,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 7(2), pp. 189–207. [CrossRef]
Newmark, N. M., 1959, “A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics,” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 38(3), pp. 67–94.
Davis, T. A., 2006, Direct Methods for Sparse Linear Systems, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

3D view of the single-unit truck model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

3D view of the semitrailer truck model

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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