Research Papers

A Fast Algorithm for Contact Dynamics of Multibody Systems Using the Box Friction Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Farnood Gholami

Department of Mechanical Engineering and
Centre for Intelligent Machines,
McGill University,
Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada
e-mail: farnood.gholami@mail.mcgill.ca

Mostafa Nasri

Department of Mechanical Engineering and
Centre for Intelligent Machines,
McGill University,
Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada
e-mail: m.nasri@uwinnipeg.ca

József Kövecses

Department of Mechanical Engineering and
Centre for Intelligent Machines,
McGill University,
Montreal, QC H3A 2K6, Canada
e-mail: jozsef.kovecses@mcgill.ca

Marek Teichmann

CM Labs Simulations, Inc.,
Montreal, QC H3C 1T2, Canada
e-mail: marek@cm-labs.com

1Present address: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E9, Canada.

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND NONLINEAR DYNAMICS. Manuscript received March 17, 2016; final manuscript received July 25, 2016; published online September 16, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Dan Negrut.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 12(1), 011016 (Sep 16, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: CND-16-1142; doi: 10.1115/1.4034396 History: Received March 17, 2016; Revised July 25, 2016

One of the major challenges in dynamics of multibody systems is to handle redundant constraints appropriately. The box friction model is one of the existing approaches to formulate the contact and friction phenomenon as a mixed linear complementarity problem (MLCP). In this setting, the contact redundancy can be handled by relaxing the constraints, but such a technique might suffer from certain drawbacks, specially in the case of large number of redundant constraints. Most of the common pivoting algorithms used to solve the resulting mixed complementarity problem might not converge when the relaxation terms are chosen as small as they should be. To overcome the aforementioned shortcoming, we propose a novel approach which takes advantage of the sparse structure of the formulated MLCP. This novel approach reduces the sensitivity of the solution of the problem to the relaxation terms and decreases the number of required pivots to obtain the solution, leading to shorter computational times. Furthermore, as a result of the proposed approach, much smaller relaxation terms can be used while the solution algorithms converge.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Gilardi, G. , and Sharf, I. , 2002, “ Literature Survey of Contact Dynamics Modelling,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 37(10), pp. 1213–1239. [CrossRef]
Brogliato, B. , Ten Dam, A. , Paoli, L. , Génot, F. , and Abadie, M. , 2002, “ Numerical Simulation of Finite Dimensional Multibody Nonsmooth Mechanical Systems,” App. Mech. Rev., 55(2), pp. 107–150. [CrossRef]
Moreau, J. , 1966, “ Quadratic Programming in Mechanics: Dynamics of One Sided Constraints,” SIAM J. Control, 4(1), pp. 153–158. [CrossRef]
Lötstedt, P. , 1982, “ Mechanical Systems of Rigid Bodies Subject to Unilateral Constraints,” SIAM J. Appl. Math., 42(2), pp. 281–296. [CrossRef]
Anitescu, M. , and Tasora, A. , 2010, “ An Iterative Approach for Cone Complementarity Problems for Nonsmooth Dynamics,” Comput. Optim. Appl., 47(2), pp. 207–235. [CrossRef]
Lötstedt, P. , 1981, “ Coulomb Friction in Two-Dimensional Rigid Body Systems,” J. Appl. Math. Mech., 61(12), pp. 605–615.
Trinkle, J. , Pang, J. , Sudarsky, S. , and Lo, G. , 1997, “ On Dynamic Multi-Rigid-Body Contact Problems With Coulomb Friction,” Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 77(4), pp. 267–279. [CrossRef]
Baraff, D. , 1989, “ Analytical Methods for Dynamic Simulation of Non-Penetrating Rigid Bodies,” Comput. Graphics (SIGGRAPH’89 Proc.), 23(3), pp. 223–232. [CrossRef]
Baraff, D. , 1991, “ Coping With Friction for Non-Penetrating Rigid Body Simulation,” Comput. Graphics (SIGGRAPH’91 Proc.), 25(4), pp. 31–40. [CrossRef]
Baraff, D. , 1993, “ Issues in Computing Contact Forces for Nonpenetrating Rigid Bodies,” Algorithmica, 10, pp. 292–352. [CrossRef]
Anitescu, M. , and Potra, F. , 1997, “ Formulating Dynamic Multi-Rigid-Body Contact Problems With Friction as Solvable Linear Complementarity Problems,” Nonlinear Dyn., 14(3), pp. 231–247. [CrossRef]
Anitescu, M. , Tasora, A. , and Stewart, D. , 1999, “ Time-Stepping for Three-Dimensional Rigid Body Dynamics,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 177(3–4), pp. 183–197. [CrossRef]
Sauer, J. , and Schömer, E. , 1998, “ A Constraint-Based Approach to Rigid Body Dynamics for Virtual Reality Applications,” ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 153–162.
Son, W. , Trinkle, J. , and Amato, N. , 2001, “ Hybrid Dynamic Simulation of Rigid-Body Contact With Coulomb Friction,” IEEE International Conference on Robots and Automation, pp. 1376–1381.
Stewart, D. , 2000, “ Rigid-Body Dynamics With Friction and Impact,” SIAM Rev., 42(1), pp. 3–39. [CrossRef]
Anitescu, M. , and Hart, G. D. , 2004, “ A Fixed-Point Iteration Approach for Multibody Dynamics With Contact and Small Friction,” Math. Program., 101(1), pp. 3–32. [CrossRef]
Stewart, D. , and Trinkle, J. , 1996, “ An Implicit Time-Stepping Scheme for Rigid-Body Dynamics With Inelastic Collisions and Coulomb Friction,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 39(15), pp. 2673–2691. [CrossRef]
Williams, J. , Lu, Y. , and Trinkle, J. C. , 2014, “ Complementarity Based Contact Model for Geometrically Accurate Treatment of Polytopes in Simulation,” ASME Paper No. DETC2014-35231.
Cottle, R. W. , and Dantzig, G. , 1968, “ Complementarity Pivot Theory of Mathematical Programming,” Linear Algebra Appl., 1(1), pp. 103–125. [CrossRef]
Anitescu, M. , and Tasora, A. , 2010, “ An Iterative Approach for Cone Complementarity Problems for Nonsmooth Dynamics,” Comput. Optim. Appl., 47(2), pp. 207–235. [CrossRef]
Jean, M. , 1999, “ The Non-Smooth Contact Dynamics Method,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 177(3–4), pp. 235–257. [CrossRef]
Moreau, J. , and Jean, M. , 1996, “ Numerical Treatment of Contact and Friction: The Contact Dynamics Method,” Third Biennial Joint Conference on Engineering Systems and Analysis, pp. 201–208.
Jourdan, F. , Alart, P. , and Jean, M. , 1998, “ A Gauss–Seidel Like Algorithm to Solve Frictional Contact Problems,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 155(1–2), pp. 31–47. [CrossRef]
Schittkowski, K. , 2006, “ NLPQLP: A Fortran Implementation of Sequential Quadratic Programming Algorithm With Distributed and Non-Monotone Line Search—Users Guide,” Department of Computer Science, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
Lacoursiere, C. , 2006, “ A Regularized Time Stepper for Multibody Systems,” Department of Computing Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden, Report No. UMINF 06.04.
Brogliato, B. , and Goeleven, D. , 2014, “ Singular Mass Matrix and Redundant Constraints in Unilaterally Constrained Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Systems,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 35(1), pp. 39–61. [CrossRef]
Blumentals, A. , Brogliato, B. , and Bertails-Descoubes, F. , 2014, “ The Contact Problem in Lagrangian Systems Subject to Bilateral and Unilateral Constraints, With or Without Sliding Coulomb's Friction: A Tutorial,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 38(1), pp. 43–76.
Higham, N. J. , 2002, Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms, 2nd ed., SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.
Glocker, C. , 2001, Set-Valued Force Laws, Springer, Troy, NY.
Cottle, R. W. , Pang, J.-S. , and Stone, R. E. , 1992, The Linear Complementarity Problem, Academic Press, Boston, MA.
Júdice, J. , and Pires, F. M. , 1994, “ A Block Principal Pivoting Algorithm for Large-Scale Strictly Monotone Linear Complementarity Problems,” Comput. Oper. Res., 21(5), pp. 587–596. [CrossRef]
Murty, K. , 1988, Linear Complementarity, Linear and Nonlinear Programming, Heldermann, Berlin.
Bayo, E. , Jimenez, J. M. , Serna, M. A. , and Bastero, J. M. , 1994, “ Penalty Based Hamiltonian Equations for Dynamic Analysis of Constrained Mechanical Systems,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 29(5), pp. 725–737. [CrossRef]
Blajer, W. , 2002, “ Augmented Lagrangian Formulation: Geometrical Interpretation and Application to Systems With Singularities and Redundancy,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 8(2), pp. 141–159. [CrossRef]
Ruzzeh, B. , and Kövecses, J. , 2011, “ A Penalty Formulation for Dynamics Analysis of Redundant Mechanical Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 6(2), p. 021008. [CrossRef]
Callen, P. , 2014, “ Robotic Transfer and Interfaces for External ISS Payloads,” 3rd Annual ISS Research and Development Conference, Paper No. JSC-CN-31354.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Polyhedral approximation of the friction cone and (b) box approximation of the friction cone where dn is the contact Jacobian of the normal direction, and d1 and d2 are the contact Jacobians of the tangent directions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) A cube moving on the ground and (b) stack of blocks moving on the ground

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) OTCM connected to the SPDM manipulator (courtesy of the Canadian Space Agency) [37] and (b) OTCM—orbit replaceable unit/tool changeout mechanism

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Simulated OTCM and fixture: (a) OTCM, jaws, and fixture and (b) jaws grasping the fixture



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