0
Research Papers

Reduction of Physical and Constraint Degrees-of-Freedom of Redundant Formulated Multibody Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Daniel Stadlmayr

Faculty of Engineering and
Environmental Sciences,
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,
Stelzhamerstrasse 23,
Wels 4600, Austria;
Institute of Mechanics and Mechatronics,
Vienna University of Technology,
Getreidemarkt 9/325,
Wien 1060, Austria
e-mail: daniel.stadlmayr@fh-wels.at

Wolfgang Witteveen

Faculty of Engineering and
Environmental Sciences,
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,
Stelzhamerstrasse 23,
Wels 4600, Austria
e-mail: wolfgang.witteveen@fh-wels.at

Wolfgang Steiner

Faculty of Engineering and
Environmental Sciences,
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,
Stelzhamerstrasse 23,
Wels 4600, Austria;
Institute of Mechanics and Mechatronics,
Vienna University of Technology,
Getreidemarkt 9/325,
Wien 1060, Austria
e-mail: wolfgang.steiner@fh-wels.at

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND NONLINEAR DYNAMICS. Manuscript received March 27, 2015; final manuscript received September 1, 2015; published online October 23, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Sotirios Natsiavas.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 11(3), 031010 (Oct 23, 2015) Paper No: CND-15-1079; doi: 10.1115/1.4031553 History: Received March 27, 2015; Revised September 01, 2015

Commercial multibody system simulation (MBS) tools commonly use a redundant coordinate formulation as part of their modeling strategy. Such multibody systems subject to holonomic constraints result in second-order d-index three differential algebraic equation (DAE) systems. Due to the redundant formulation and a priori estimation of possible flexible body coordinates, the model size increases rapidly with the number of bodies. Typically, a considerable number of constraint equations (and physical degrees-of-freedom (DOF)) are not necessary for the structure's motion but are necessary for its stability like out-of-plane constraints (and DOFs) in case of pure in-plane motion. We suggest a combination of both, physical DOF and constraint DOF reduction, based on proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) using DOF-type sensitive velocity snapshot matrices. After a brief introduction to the redundant multibody system, a modified flat Galerkin projection and its application to index-reduced systems in combination with POD are presented. The POD basis is then used as an identification tool pointing out reducible constraint equations. The methods are applied to one academic and one high-dimensional practical example. Finally, it can be reported that for the numerical examples provided in this work, more than 90% of the physical DOFs and up to 60% of the constraint equations can be omitted. Detailed results of the numerical examples and a critical discussion conclude the paper.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Craig, R. , 1985, “ A Review of Time-Domain and Frequency-Domain Component Mode Synthesis Method,” J. Modal Anal., 2, pp. 59–72.
Craig, R. , 2000, “ Coupling of Substructures for Dynamic Analyses: An Overview,” Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, pp. 1–12.
Besselink, B. , Tabak, U. , Lutowska, A. , van de Wouw, N. , Nijmeijer, H. , Rixen, D. , Hochstenbach, M. , and Schilders, W. , 2013, “ A Comparison of Model Reduction Techniques From Structural Dynamics, Numerical Mathematics and System Control,” J. Sound Vib., 332(19), pp. 4403–4422. [CrossRef]
Lehner, M. , 2007, “ Modellreduktion in elastischen Mehrkoerpersystemen,” Ph.D. thesis, Fakultaet fuer Maschinenbau, Universitaet Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Koutsovasilis, P. , and Beitelschmidt, M. , 2008, “ Comparison of Model Reduction Techniques for Large Mechanical Systems,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 20(2), pp. 111–128. [CrossRef]
Witteveen, W. , 2012, “ On the Modal and Non-Modal Model Reduction of Metallic Structures With Variable Boundary Conditions,” World J. Mech., 2(6), pp. 311–324. [CrossRef]
Pennestri, E. , and Valentini, P. , 2007, “ Coordinate Reduction Strategies in Multibody Dynamics: A Review,” Conference on Multibody System Dynamics, pp. 1–17.
Laulusa, A. , and Bauchau, O. , 2007, “ Review of Classical Approaches for Constraint Enforcement in Multibody Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 3(1), pp. 1–8.
Volkwein, S. , 2008, Model Reduction Using Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (Lecture Notes), University of Constance, Constance, Germany.
Ebert, F. , 2010, “ A Note on POD Model Reduction Methods for DAEs,” Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst., 16(2), pp. 115–131. [CrossRef]
Ersal, T. , Fathy, H. , and Stein, J. , 2009, “ Orienting Body Coordinate Frames Using Karhunen–Loeve Expansion for More Effective Structural Simplification,” Simul. Modell. Pract. Theory, 17(1), pp. 197–210. [CrossRef]
Masoudi, R. , Uchida, T. , and McPhee, J. , 2015, “ Reduction of Multibody Dynamic Models in Automotive Systems Using the Proper Orthogonal Decomposition,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 10(3), p. 031007. [CrossRef]
Chelidze, D. , 2014, “ Identifying Robust Subspaces for Dynamically Consistent Reduced-Order Models,” Nonlinear Dynamics (Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series), Vol. 2, G. Kerschen , ed., Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 123–130.
Stadlmayr, D. , and Witteveen, W. , 2015, “ Model Reduction for Nonlinear Multibody Systems Based on Proper Orthogonal- & Smooth Orthogonal Decomposition,” Nonlinear Dynamics (Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series), Vol. 1, G. Kerschen , ed., Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 449–458.
Heirman, G. , Bruls, O. , Sas, P. , and Desmet, W. , 2008, “ Coordinate Transformation Techniques for Efficient Model Reduction in Flexible Multibody Dynamics,” ISMA 2008—International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, pp. 1–16.
Heirman, G. , Bruls, O. , and Desmet, W. , 2009, “ A System-Level Model Reduction Technique for Efficient Simulation of Flexible Multibody Dynamics,” Multibody Dynamics ECCOMAS Conference, pp. 1–16.
Bruls, O. , Duysinx, P. , and Golinval, J.-C. , 2007, “ The Global Modal Parameterization for Non-Linear Model-Order Reduction in Flexible Multibody Dynamics,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 69(5), pp. 947–977. [CrossRef]
Nachbagauer, K. , Oberpeilsteiner, S. , Sherif, K. , and Steiner, W. , 2014, “ The Use of the Adjoint Method for Solving Typical Optimization Problems in Multibody Dynamics,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 10(6), p. 061011. [CrossRef]
Nikravesh, P. E. , Wehage, R. A. , and Kwon, O. K. , 1985, “ Euler Parameters in Computational Kinematics and Dynamics, Part 1,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 107(3), pp. 358–365.
Shabana, A. A. , 2005, Dynamics of Multibody Systems, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, New York.
Baumgarte, J. , 1972, “ Stabilization of Constraints and Integrals of Motion in Dynamical Systems,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 1(1), pp. 1–16. [CrossRef]
Freund, R. W. , 2003, “ Model Reduction Methods Based on Krylov Subspaces,” Acta Numer., 12, pp. 267–319. [CrossRef]
Moore, B. C. , 1981, “ Principal Component Analysis in Linear Systems: Controllability, Observability, and Model Reduction,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, 26(1), pp. 17–32. [CrossRef]
Chatterjee, A. , 2000, “ An Introduction to the Proper Orthogonal Decomposition,” Curr. Sci., 75, pp. 808–817.
Kerschen, G. , Golinval, J. , Vakakis, A. , and Bergman, L. , 2005, “ The Method of Proper Orthogonal Decomposition for Dynamical Characterization and Order Reduction of Mechanical Systems: An Overview,” Nonlinear Dyn., 41(1), pp. 147–169. [CrossRef]
Kosambi, D. D. , 1943, “ Statistics in Function Space,” J. Indian Math. Soc., 7, pp. 76–78.
Scilab , 2014, “ Scilab—Version 5.5.1 (x64),” http://www.scilab.org
Sherif, K. , Irschik, H. , and Witteveen, W. , 2012, “ Transformation of Arbitrary Elastic Mode Shapes Into Pseudo-Free-Surface and Rigid Body Modes for Multibody Dynamic Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 7(2), p. 021008. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Cart double-pendulum

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Rigid V8 crank-drive

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Cart double-pendulum—combined snapshots

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Cart double-pendulum—DOF-type sensitive snapshots

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Flex pendulum—relative CoM error

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

V8—DOF-type sensitive snapshots

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

V8—relative CoM error of second piston

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