Based on Lagrangian mechanics, use of velocity constraints as a special set of quasi-velocities helps derive explicit equations of motion. The equations are applicable to holonomic and nonholonomic constrained multibody systems. It is proved that in proposed quasi-spaces, the Lagrange multipliers are eliminated from equations of motion; however, it is possible to compute these multipliers once the equations of motion have been solved. The novelty of this research is employing block matrix inversion to find the analytical relations between the parameters of quasi-velocities and equations of motion. In other words, this research identifies arbitrary submatrices and their effects on equations of motion. Also, the present study aimed to provide appropriate criteria to select arbitrary parameters to avoid singularity, reduce constraints violations, and improve computational efficiency. In order to illustrate the advantage of this approach, the simulation results of a 3-link snake-like robot with nonholonomic constraints and a four-bar mechanism with holonomic constraints are presented. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is demonstrated by comparing the constraints violation at the position and velocity levels, conservation of the total energy, and computational efficiency with those obtained via the traditional methods.
GibbsJW.On the fundamental formulae of dynamics. Am J Math1879;
2: 49–64.
2.
AppellP.Sur les mouvements de roulment; equations du mouvement analougues a celles de lagrange. Comptes Rendus1899;
129: 317–320.
3.
KaneTR.Dynamics of nonholonomic systems. J Appl Mech1961;
28: 574–578.
4.
DeslogeEA.Relationship between Kane’s equations and the Gibbs-Appell equations. J Guid Control Dyn1987;
10: 120–122.
5.
MaggiGA.Principii della teoria matematica del movimento dei corpi: corso di meccanica razionale.
Ulrico Hoepli, 1896.
6.
NeimarkJIFufaevNA.Dynamics of nonholonomic systems, translations of mathematical monographs. vol.
33.
Providence, RI:
American Mathematical Society, 1972.
7.
KurdilaAPapastavridisJGKamatMP.Role of Maggi’s equations in computational methods for constrained multibody systems. J Guid Control Dyn1990;
13: 113–120.
8.
PapastavridisJG.Maggi’s equations of motion and the determination of constraint reactions. J Guid Control Dyn1990;
13: 213–220.
9.
GreenwoodDT.Advanced dynamics.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
10.
LurieAI.Analytical mechanics.
New York:
Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
11.
UdwadiaFEKalabaRE.A new perspective on constrained motion. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A1992;
439: 407–410.
12.
LaulusaABauchauOA.Review of classical approaches for constraint enforcement in multibody systems. J Comput Nonlinear Dyn2008;
3: 011004.
13.
WehageRHaugE.Generalized coordinate partitioning for dimension reduction in analysis of constrained dynamic systems. J Mech Des1982;
104: 247–255.
14.
HaugEJYenJ. Generalized coordinate partitioning methods for numerical integration of differential-algebraic equations of dynamics. In: Real-time integration methods for mechanical system simulation. New York: Springer, 1990, pp. 97–114.
15.
LiangCLanceGM.A differentiable null space method for constrained dynamic analysis. J Mech Transm Autom Des1987;
109: 405–411.
16.
GearCWLeimkuhlerBGuptaGK.Automatic integration of Euler-Lagrange equations with constraints. J Comput Appl Math1985;
12–13: 77–90.
17.
BayoELedesmaR.Augmented Lagrangian and mass-orthogonal projection methods for constrained multibody dynamics. Nonlinear Dyn1996;
9: 113–130.
18.
IwataSOkiTTakamatsuM.Index reduction for differential-algebraic equations with mixed matrices. J ACM2019;
66: 1–34.
19.
BauchauOALaulusaA.Review of contemporary approaches for constraint enforcement in multibody systems. J Comput Nonlin Dyn2008;
3: 011005.
20.
BaumgarteJ.Stabilization of constraints and integrals of motion in dynamical systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng1972;
1: 1–16.
21.
NikraveshPE. Some methods for dynamic analysis of constrained mechanical systems: a survey. In: Computer aided analysis and optimization of mechanical system dynamics. New York: Springer, 1984, pp. 351–368.
22.
FührerCLeimkuhlerBJ.Numerical solution of differential-algebraic equations for constrained mechanical motion. Numer Math1991;
59: 55–69.
23.
KimSVanderploegM.Qr decomposition for state space representation of constrained mechanical dynamic systems. J Mech Transm Autom Des1986;
108: 183–188.
24.
BayoEDe JalonJGSernaMA.A modified Lagrangian formulation for the dynamic analysis of constrained mechanical systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng1988;
71: 183–195.
25.
BlajerW.Elimination of constraint violation and accuracy aspects in numerical simulation of multibody systems. Multibody Syst Dyn2002;
7: 265–284.
26.
BlajerW.Methods for constraint violation suppression in the numerical simulation of constrained multibody systems–a comparative study. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng2011;
200: 1568–1576.
27.
YuQChenIM.A direct violation correction method in numerical simulation of constrained multibody systems. Comput Mech2000;
26: 52–57.
28.
MarquesFSoutoAPFloresP.On the constraints violation in forward dynamics of multibody systems. Multibody Syst Dyn2017;
39: 385–419.
29.
AghiliFPiedbœufJC.Simulation of motion of constrained multibody systems based on projection operator. Multibody Syst Dyn2003;
10: 3–16.
30.
TalaeizadehAForootanMZabihiM, et al.
Comparison of Kane’s and Lagrange’s methods in analysis of constrained dynamical systems. Robotica2020;
38: 2138–2113.
31.
PappalardoCMGuidaD.On the computational methods for solving the differential-algebraic equations of motion of multibody systems. Machines2018;
6: 20.
32.
PappalardoCMGuidaD.A comparative study of the principal methods for the analytical formulation and the numerical solution of the equations of motion of rigid multibody systems. Arch Appl Mech2018;
88: 2153–2177.
33.
MirtaheriSMZohoorH. The explicit gibbs-appell equations of motion for rigid-body constrained mechanical system. In: 2018 6th RSI international conference on robotics and mechatronics (IcRoM), 2018, pp. 304–309. New York: IEEE.
34.
JarzębowskaELewandowskiR.Modeling and control design using the Boltzmann-Hamel equations: a roller-racer example. IFAC Proc Vols2006;
39: 236–241.
35.
JarzebowskaE.Model-based tracking control of nonlinear systems.
Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press; 2012.
36.
ShafeiAMirzaeinejadH.A general formulation for managing trajectory tracking in non-holonomic moving manipulators with rotary-sliding joints. J Intell Robot Syst2020;
99: 729–746.
37.
GinsbergJH.Advanced engineering dynamics.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
38.
FloresPNikraveshPE. Comparison of different methods to control constraints violation in forward multibody dynamics. In: ASME 2013 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, 2013.
39.
BernsteinDS.Matrix mathematics: theory, facts, and formulas.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2009.
40.
García de JalónJCallejoAHidalgoAF.Efficient solution of Maggi’s equations. J Comput Nonlin Dyn2012;
7.
41.
JankowskiKP.Inverse dynamics control in robotics applications.
Bloomington, IN:
Trafford, 2004.
42.
PishkenariHNHeidarzadehS.A novel computer-oriented dynamical approach with efficient formulations for multibody systems including ignorable coordinates. Appl Math Model2018;
62: 461–475.
43.
HornRAJohnsonCR.Matrix analysis.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012.
44.
KrishnamoorthyAMenonD. Matrix inversion using Cholesky decomposition. In: Signal processing: algorithms, architectures, arrangements, and applications (SPA), 2013, pp. 70–72. New York: IEEE.
45.
HaugEJ.Extension of Maggi and Kane equations to holonomic dynamic systems. J Comput Nonlin Dyn2018;
13: 121003.
