Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “multibody”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1990

Recursive dynamics for flexible multibody systems using spatial operators

Due to their structural flexibility, spacecraft and space manipulators are multibody systems with complex dynamics and possess a large number of degrees of freedom. Here the spatial operator algebra methodology is used to develop a new dynamics formulation and spatially recursive algorithms for such flexible multibody systems. A key feature of the formulation is that the operator description of the flexible system dynamics is identical in form to the corresponding operator description of the dynamics of rigid multibody systems. A significant advantage of this unifying approach is that it allows ideas and techniques for rigid multibody systems to be easily applied to flexible multibody systems. The algorithms use standard finite-element and assumed modes models for the individual body deformation. A Newton-Euler Operator Factorization of the mass matrix of the multibody system is first developed. It forms the basis for recursive algorithms such as for the inverse dynamics, the computation of the mass matrix, and the composite body forward dynamics for the system. Subsequently, an alternative Innovations Operator Factorization of the mass matrix, each of whose factors is invertible, is developed. It leads to an operator expression for the inverse of the mass matrix, and forms the basis for the recursive articulated body forward dynamics algorithm for the flexible multibody system. For simplicity, most of the development here focuses on serial chain multibody systems. However, extensions of the algorithms to general topology flexible multibody systems are described. While the computational cost of the algorithms depends on factors such as the topology and the amount of flexibility in the multibody system, in general, it appears that in contrast to the rigid multibody case, the articulated body forward dynamics algorithm is the more efficient algorithm for flexible multibody systems containing even a small number of flexible bodies. The variety of algorithms described here permits a user to choose the algorithm which is optimal for the multibody system at hand. The availability of a number of algorithms is even more important for real-time applications, where implementation on parallel processors or custom computing hardware is often necessary to maximize speed.

Jain, A.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Multibody modeling and verification

A summary of a ten week project on flexible multibody modeling, verification and control is presented. Emphasis was on the need for experimental verification. A literature survey was conducted for gathering information on the existence of experimental work related to flexible multibody systems. The first portion of the assigned task encompassed the modeling aspects of flexible multibodies that can undergo large angular displacements. Research in the area of modeling aspects were also surveyed, with special attention given to the component mode approach. Resulting from this is a research plan on various modeling aspects to be investigated over the next year. The relationship between the large angular displacements, boundary conditions, mode selection, and system modes is of particular interest. The other portion of the assigned task was the generation of a test plan for experimental verification of analytical and/or computer analysis techniques used for flexible multibody systems. Based on current and expected frequency ranges of flexible multibody systems to be used in space applications, an initial test article was selected and designed. A preliminary TREETOPS computer analysis was run to ensure frequency content in the low frequency range, 0.1 to 50 Hz. The initial specifications of experimental measurement and instrumentation components were also generated. Resulting from this effort is the initial multi-phase plan for a Ground Test Facility of Flexible Multibody Systems for Modeling Verification and Control. The plan focusses on the Multibody Modeling and Verification (MMV) Laboratory. General requirements of the Unobtrusive Sensor and Effector (USE) and the Robot Enhancement (RE) laboratories were considered during the laboratory development.

Wiens, Gloria J.↗
NASA NTRS1989

An assessment of multibody simulation tools for articulated spacecraft

A survey of multibody simulation codes was conducted in the spring of 1988, to obtain an assessment of the state of the art in multibody simulation codes from the users of the codes. This survey covers the most often used articulated multibody simulation codes in the spacecraft and robotics community. There was no attempt to perform a complete survey of all available multibody codes in all disciplines. Furthermore, this is not an exhaustive evaluation of even robotics and spacecraft multibody simulation codes, as the survey was designed to capture feedback on issues most important to the users of simulation codes. We must keep in mind that the information received was limited and the technical background of the respondents varied greatly. Therefore, only the most often cited observations from the questionnaire are reported here. In this survey, it was found that no one code had both many users (reports) and no limitations. The first section is a report on multibody code applications. Following applications is a discussion of execution time, which is the most troublesome issue for flexible multibody codes. The representation of component flexible bodies, which affects both simulation setup time as well as execution time, is presented next. Following component data preparation, two sections address the accessibility or usability of a code, evaluated by considering its user interface design and examining the overall simulation integrated environment. A summary of user efforts at code verification is reported, before a tabular summary of the questionnaire responses. Finally, some conclusions are drawn.

Man, Guy K.↗
NASA NTRS1982

Multibody aircraft study, volume 1

The potential benefits of a multibody aircraft when compared to a single body aircraft are presented. The analyses consist principally of a detailed point design analysis of three multibody and one single body aircraft, based on a selected payload of 350,000 kg (771,618 lb), for final aircraft definitions; sensitivity studies to evaluate the effects of variations in payload, wing semispan body locations, and fuel price; recommendations as to the research and technology requirements needed to validate the multibody concept. Two, two body, one, three body, and one single body aircraft were finalized for the selected payload, with DOC being the prime figure of merit. When compared to the single body, the multibody aircraft showed a reduction in DOC by as much as 11.3 percent. Operating weight was reduced up to 14 percent, and fly away cost reductions ranged from 8.6 to 13.4 percent. Weight reduction, hence cost, of the multibody aircraft resulted primarily from the wing bending relief afforded by the bodies being located outboard on the wing.

Moore, J. W.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Multibody aircraft study, volume 2

The potential benefits of a multibody aircraft when compared to a single body aircraft are presented. The analyses consist principally of a detailed point design analysis of three multibody and one single body aircraft, based on a selected payload of 350,000 kg (771,618 lb), for final aircraft definitions; sensitivity studies to evaluate the effects of variations in payload, wing semispan body locations, and fuel price; recommendations as to the research and technology requirements needed to validate the multibody concept. Two, two body, one, three body, and one single body aircraft were finalized for the selected payload, with DOC being the prime figure of merit. When compared to the single body, the multibody aircraft showed a reduction in DOC by as much as 11.3 percent. Operating weight was reduced up to 14 percent, and fly away cost reductions ranged from 8.6 to 13.4 percent. Weight reduction, hence cost, of the multibody aircraft resulted primarily from the wing bending relief afforded by the bodies being located outboard on the wing.

Moore, J. W.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Planform effects on the supersonic aerodynamics of multibody configurations

An experimental and theoretical investigation of the effect of planform on the supersonic aerodynamics of low-fineness-ratio multibody configurations was conducted. Longitudinal and lateral-directional aerodynamic and flow visualization data were obtained on three multibody configurations. The data indicated that planform has a small effect on the zero lift drag of a multibody configuration. The longitudinal data obtained at lifting conditions showed a sensitivity to planform shape. Lateral-directional data obtained for all configurations did not uncover any unusual stability traits for this class of configuration. A comparison study was also made between the planform effects observed on single-body and multibody configurations. Results from this study indicate that the multibody concept appears to offer a mechanism for employing a low-sweep wing with no significant increase in zero-lift drag but still retaining high-performance characteristics at high-lift conditions. Evaluation of the linear-theory prediction methods revealed a general inability of the methods to predict the characteristics of low-fineness-ratio geometries.

Mcmillin, Naomi↗
NASA NTRS2011

Constraint Embedding Technique for Multibody System Dynamics

Multibody dynamics play a critical role in simulation testbeds for space missions. There has been a considerable interest in the development of efficient computational algorithms for solving the dynamics of multibody systems. Mass matrix factorization and inversion techniques and the O(N) class of forward dynamics algorithms developed using a spatial operator algebra stand out as important breakthrough on this front. Techniques such as these provide the efficient algorithms and methods for the application and implementation of such multibody dynamics models. However, these methods are limited only to tree-topology multibody systems. Closed-chain topology systems require different techniques that are not as efficient or as broad as those for tree-topology systems. The closed-chain forward dynamics approach consists of treating the closed-chain topology as a tree-topology system subject to additional closure constraints. The resulting forward dynamics solution consists of: (a) ignoring the closure constraints and using the O(N) algorithm to solve for the free unconstrained accelerations for the system; (b) using the tree-topology solution to compute a correction force to enforce the closure constraints; and (c) correcting the unconstrained accelerations with correction accelerations resulting from the correction forces. This constraint-embedding technique shows how to use direct embedding to eliminate local closure-loops in the system and effectively convert the system back to a tree-topology system. At this point, standard tree-topology techniques can be brought to bear on the problem. The approach uses a spatial operator algebra approach to formulating the equations of motion. The operators are block-partitioned around the local body subgroups to convert them into aggregate bodies. Mass matrix operator factorization and inversion techniques are applied to the reformulated tree-topology system. Thus in essence, the new technique allows conversion of a system with closure-constraints into an equivalent tree-topology system, and thus allows one to take advantage of the host of techniques available to the latter class of systems. This technology is highly suitable for the class of multibody systems where the closure-constraints are local, i.e., where they are confined to small groupings of bodies within the system. Important examples of such local closure-constraints are constraints associated with four-bar linkages, geared motors, differential suspensions, etc. One can eliminate these closure-constraints and convert the system into a tree-topology system by embedding the constraints directly into the system dynamics and effectively replacing the body groupings with virtual aggregate bodies. Once eliminated, one can apply the well-known results and algorithms for tree-topology systems to solve the dynamics of such closed-chain system.

Woo, Simon S.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Multibody Based Digital Astronaut Dynamics Simulation

BACKGROUND: This study provides the Software, Robotics, & Simulation Division at the NASA Johnson Space Center with a verification tool for multibody dynamics simulation requiring human motion. The motivation stems from current studies of several Vibration Isolation & Stabilization(VIS)system designs that attenuate the moments and forces which would be transmitted to a spacecraft during an exercise. A multibody dynamics model for a proposed VIS was available previously[1], therefore modeling of the VIS was not needed for this work. The interest here is in creating the multibody dynamics model of an astronaut in motion which may be utilized independently or while attached to a mechanism. An existing simulation [2] that utilizes OpenSim [3,4] and an in-house multibody dynamics package (MBDyn) [5] is used in order to verify the astronaut model. The main advantage this model will have over the existing simulation is that everything will be processed in one tool. METHODS AND RESULTS: Creating the simulation required; estimation of Body Segment Inertial Parameters (BSIP),a multibody model of the human-VIS system, joint acceleration profiles, and input files for MBDyn, which is used for this analysis. The scaling factors provided by Dumas et al. [6] are utilized in estimating the BSIP. Anthropometric data are used for estimating these parameters, the Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel (ANSUR II) [7] was the source. The astronaut model consists of 15 bodies, 14 joints and 32 degrees of freedom, with the dynamics topology generated using the center of mass locations and anthropometric data. MBDyn has an option for prescribed joint motion (PJM), which requires joint acceleration data as input. The joint angle data is first obtained from a motion capture system and then processed through code that has been created to generate approximate joint acceleration profiles. The topology tree for the astronaut model begins at the right foot up to the pelvis where there is one branch for going down the left leg and another for the torso. The torso branch leads to branches for the arms and a leaf body for the head/neck segment. For attachment to the VIS, the heel of the right foot is connected to the VIS platform through a fixed joint, resembling a foot restraint. The left foot does not attach to the platform in order to prevent a system with a closed loop. Topology and symmetry of the astronaut model were verified through kinematic analysis. Further verification of the forces and moments transmitted to the VIS were verified against the existing simulation. There was a satisfactory level of agreement when testing a simple motion, for example, rocking back and forth. Full exercise motions are to be tested soon. The main outcome has been a novel application of MBDyn for biomechanics modeling that is now available for dynamic simulations involving human motion. The estimation of BSIP was another useful result of this study, requiring only 15 inputs for generating mass properties of a theoretical astronaut model. Expansion on this work is possible by going through an alternative route in obtaining the joint motion data. Instead of high-tech and often expensive motion capture systems, an individual may watch videos with high focus and at a slow motion for each individual segment in order to determine the initial and final time and angle for that specific degree of freedom. Synthetic trajectories may also be created if there is no video reference available.

F N Matari↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multibody for Everybody (M4E): A Symbolic Dynamics Modeling Tool with Applications in Simulation, Control, and Optimization

Developing the analytical model of a multibody system is often the initial step in control and optimization. The analytical model (equations of motion) describes a system’s time evolution under specified forcing conditions. Although developing these equations is easy for simple systems, this process becomes more complex for systems composed of multiple bodies. Deriving equations of motion for complex multibody systems requires specialized expertise in multibody dynamics, is time-consuming, and is susceptible to error. To address this issue, this paper presents an open-source, easy-to-use, systematic framework to derive symbolic equations of motion in both Python and MATLAB using the joint coordinate formulation. This formulation results in a set of ordinary differential equations that use the minimum set of coordinates needed to model a system. The symbolic representation provides better insight into the influence of design parameters on system performance, facilitates sensitivity analysis and parameter studies, and supports direct implementation of control and optimization routines. The tool enables numerical simulation for specified parameter sets, is modular for straightforward integration with other tools and libraries, and allows incorporation of hydrodynamics, mooring, and other external forces. The result is a reproducible, extensible pipeline for modeling, simulation, and design of complex multibody systems. The proposed tool is versatile and can be applied to domains such as robotics, control, and design. In addition, we integrated external libraries that provide capabilities for modeling offshore systems such as underwater robots and marine energy converters.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
NASA NTRS1991

Integrated analysis and design for controlled nonlinear multibody systems

A hybrid approach for integrated analysis and design of nonlinear multibody systems is proposed. Based on the approach, a general-purpose design tool is developed for nonlinear dynamic systems subjected to nonlinear design constraints. For analysis purposes, second-order nonlinear equations of motion of the system are automatically generated using general-purpose multibody formulations. Once the equations are solved, they are written in first-order form to take advantage of the first-order formulations of design sensitivity analysis for dynamic systems. A nonlinear programming technique is then used to optimize the nonlinear systems, such that a nonlinear cost function is minimized and performance constraints are satisfied. The approach proved to be very general and useful for design and analysis of controlled multibody systems. The approach is applied to the design of passive dynamic controllers for slewing control of multibody systems.

Wu, Shih-Chin↗
NASA NTRS1993

Nonrecursive formulations of multibody dynamics and concurrent multiprocessing

Since the late 1980's, research in recursive formulations of multibody dynamics has flourished. Historically, much of this research can be traced to applications of low dimensionality in mechanism and vehicle dynamics. Indeed, there is little doubt that recursive order N methods are the method of choice for this class of systems. This approach has the advantage that a minimal number of coordinates are utilized, parallelism can be induced for certain system topologies, and the method is of order N computational cost for systems of N rigid bodies. Despite the fact that many authors have dismissed redundant coordinate formulations as being of order N(exp 3), and hence less attractive than recursive formulations, we present recent research that demonstrates that at least three distinct classes of redundant, nonrecursive multibody formulations consistently achieve order N computational cost for systems of rigid and/or flexible bodies. These formulations are as follows: (1) the preconditioned range space formulation; (2) penalty methods; and (3) augmented Lagrangian methods for nonlinear multibody dynamics. The first method can be traced to its foundation in equality constrained quadratic optimization, while the last two methods have been studied extensively in the context of coercive variational boundary value problems in computational mechanics. Until recently, however, they have not been investigated in the context of multibody simulation, and present theoretical questions unique to nonlinear dynamics. All of these nonrecursive methods have additional advantages with respect to recursive order N methods: (1) the formalisms retain the highly desirable order N computational cost; (2) the techniques are amenable to concurrent simulation strategies; (3) the approaches do not depend upon system topology to induce concurrency; and (4) the methods can be derived to balance the computational load automatically on concurrent multiprocessors. In addition to the presentation of the fundamental formulations, this paper presents new theoretical results regarding the rate of convergence of order N constraint stabilization schemes associated with the newly introduced class of methods.

Kurdila, Andrew J.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Computational Workbench for Multibody Dynamics

PyCraft is a computer program that provides an interactive, workbenchlike computing environment for developing and testing algorithms for multibody dynamics. Examples of multibody dynamic systems amenable to analysis with the help of PyCraft include land vehicles, spacecraft, robots, and molecular models. PyCraft is based on the Spatial-Operator- Algebra (SOA) formulation for multibody dynamics. The SOA operators enable construction of simple and compact representations of complex multibody dynamical equations. Within the Py-Craft computational workbench, users can, essentially, use the high-level SOA operator notation to represent the variety of dynamical quantities and algorithms and to perform computations interactively. PyCraft provides a Python-language interface to underlying C++ code. Working with SOA concepts, a user can create and manipulate Python-level operator classes in order to implement and evaluate new dynamical quantities and algorithms. During use of PyCraft, virtually all SOA-based algorithms are available for computational experiments.

Edmonds, Karina↗
NASA NTRS2007

Solving Equations of Multibody Dynamics

Darts++ is a computer program for solving the equations of motion of a multibody system or of a multibody model of a dynamic system. It is intended especially for use in dynamical simulations performed in designing and analyzing, and developing software for the control of, complex mechanical systems. Darts++ is based on the Spatial-Operator- Algebra formulation for multibody dynamics. This software reads a description of a multibody system from a model data file, then constructs and implements an efficient algorithm that solves the dynamical equations of the system. The efficiency and, hence, the computational speed is sufficient to make Darts++ suitable for use in realtime closed-loop simulations. Darts++ features an object-oriented software architecture that enables reconfiguration of system topology at run time; in contrast, in related prior software, system topology is fixed during initialization. Darts++ provides an interface to scripting languages, including Tcl and Python, that enable the user to configure and interact with simulation objects at run time.

Jain, Abhinandan↗
NASA NTRS2009

Investigation of Boundary Conditions for Flexible Multibody Spacecraft Dynamics

In support of both the Space Shuttle and International Space Station programs, a set of generic multibody dynamics algorithms integrated within the Trick simulation environment have addressed the variety of on-orbit manipulator simulation requirements for engineering analysis, procedures development and crew familiarization/training at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). Enhancements to these dynamics algorithms are now being driven by a new set of Constellation program requirements for flexible multibody spacecraft simulation. One particular issue that has been discussed within the NASA community is the assumption of cantilever-type flexible body boundary conditions. This assumption has been commonly utilized within manipulator multibody dynamics formulations as it simplifies the computation of relative motion for articulated flexible topologies. Moreover, its use for modeling of space-based manipulators such as the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) and Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) has been extensively validated against flight data. For more general flexible spacecraft applications, however, the assumption of cantilever-type boundary conditions may not be sufficient. This paper describes the boundary condition assumptions that were used in the original formulation, demonstrates that this formulation can be augmented to accommodate systems in which the assumption of cantilever boundary conditions no longer applies, and verifies the approach through comparison with an independent model previously validated against experimental hardware test data from a spacecraft flexible dynamics emulator.

Boundary-value problems↗
NASA NTRS2016

Evolution of Flexible Multibody Dynamics for Simulation Applications Supporting Human Spaceflight

During the course of transition from the Space Shuttle and International Space Station programs to the Orion and Journey to Mars exploration programs, a generic flexible multibody dynamics formulation and associated software implementation has evolved to meet an ever changing set of requirements at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). Challenging problems related to large transitional topologies and robotic free-flyer vehicle capture/ release, contact dynamics, and exploration missions concept evaluation through simulation (e.g., asteroid surface operations) have driven this continued development. Coupled with this need is the requirement to oftentimes support human spaceflight operations in real-time. Moreover, it has been desirable to allow even more rapid prototyping of on-orbit manipulator and spacecraft systems, to support less complex infrastructure software for massively integrated simulations, to yield further computational efficiencies, and to take advantage of recent advances and availability of multi-core computing platforms. Since engineering analysis, procedures development, and crew familiarity/training for human spaceflight is fundamental to JSC's charter, there is also a strong desire to share and reuse models in both the non-realtime and real-time domains, with the goal of retaining as much multibody dynamics fidelity as possible. Three specific enhancements are reviewed here: (1) linked list organization to address large transitional topologies, (2) body level model order reduction, and (3) parallel formulation/implementation. This paper provides a detailed overview of these primary updates to JSC's flexible multibody dynamics algorithms as well as a comparison of numerical results to previous formulations and associated software.

Multibody dynamics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Simultaneous optimal system and controller design for multibody systems with joint friction using direct sensitivities

Abstract Real-world multibody systems are often subject to phenomena like friction, joint clearances, and external events. These phenomena can significantly impact the optimal design of the system and its controller. This work addresses the gradient-based optimization methodology for multibody dynamic systems with joint friction using a direct sensitivity approach. The Brown–McPhee model has been used to characterize the joint friction in the system. This model is suitable for the study due to its accuracy for dynamic simulation and its compatibility with sensitivity analysis. This novel methodology supports codesign of the multibody system and its controller, which is especially relevant for applications like robotics and servo-mechanical systems, where the actuation and design are highly dependent on each other. Numerical results are obtained using a software package written in Julia with state-of-the-art libraries for automatic differentiation and differential equations. Three case studies are provided to demonstrate the attractive properties of simultaneous optimal design and control approach for certain applications.

Verulkar, Adwait↗
NASA NTRS1988

Recursive mass matrix factorization and inversion: An operator approach to open- and closed-chain multibody dynamics

This report advances a linear operator approach for analyzing the dynamics of systems of joint-connected rigid bodies.It is established that the mass matrix M for such a system can be factored as M=(I+H phi L)D(I+H phi L) sup T. This yields an immediate inversion M sup -1=(I-H psi L) sup T D sup -1 (I-H psi L), where H and phi are given by known link geometric parameters, and L, psi and D are obtained recursively by a spatial discrete-step Kalman filter and by the corresponding Riccati equation associated with this filter. The factors (I+H phi L) and (I-H psi L) are lower triangular matrices which are inverses of each other, and D is a diagonal matrix. This factorization and inversion of the mass matrix leads to recursive algortihms for forward dynamics based on spatially recursive filtering and smoothing. The primary motivation for advancing the operator approach is to provide a better means to formulate, analyze and understand spatial recursions in multibody dynamics. This is achieved because the linear operator notation allows manipulation of the equations of motion using a very high-level analytical framework (a spatial operator algebra) that is easy to understand and use. Detailed lower-level recursive algorithms can readily be obtained for inspection from the expressions involving spatial operators. The report consists of two main sections. In Part 1, the problem of serial chain manipulators is analyzed and solved. Extensions to a closed-chain system formed by multiple manipulators moving a common task object are contained in Part 2. To retain ease of exposition in the report, only these two types of multibody systems are considered. However, the same methods can be easily applied to arbitrary multibody systems formed by a collection of joint-connected regid bodies.

Rodriguez, G.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Obstacles to high fidelity multibody dynamics simulation

The authors take a wide ranging look at issues involved in the dynamic modeling of complex, multibodied orbiting space systems. The nature of the multibody problem is reviewed and capabilities and limitations of two major codes (DISCOS, TREETOPS) are assessed. Problem areas that limit accuracy or contribute to uncertainty in the modeling, simulation process are identified. As a specific case, the significance of including, or of not including, second-degree geometric nonlinearity in the elastic displacement field (foreshortening) is evaluated. Conclusions and recommendations are made concerning the direction future development should take to achieve higher-fidelity and more computationally efficient multibody software solutions.

Lips, K. W.↗