The multiple motion regime (free/constrained) dynamics of hybrid parameter multiple body (HPMB) systems is addressed. Impact response has characteristically been analyzed using impulse-momentum techniques. Unfortunately, the classical methods for modeling complex HPMB systems are energy based and have proven ineffectual at modeling impact. The problems are exacerbated by the problematic nature of time varying constraint conditions. This paper outlines the reformulation of a recently developed HPMB system modeling methodology into an impulse-momentum formulation, which systematically handles the constraints and impact. The starting point for this reformulation is a variational calculus based methodology. The variational roots of the methodology allows rigorous equation formulation which includes the complete nonlinear hybrid differential equations and boundary conditions. Because the methodology presented in this paper is formulated in the constraint-free subspace of the configuration space, both holonomic and nonholonomic constraints are automatically satisfied. As a result, the constraint-addition/deletion algorithms are not needed. Generalized forces of constraint can be directly calculated via the methodology, so the condition for switching from one motion regime to another is readily determined. The resulting equations provides a means to determine after impact velocities (and velocity fields for distributed bodies) which provide the after collision initial conditions. Finally the paper demonstrates, via example, how to apply the methodology to contact/impact in robotic manipulators and structural systems.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Topics:
Algorithms, Boundary-value problems, Collisions (Physics), Differential equations, Dynamics (Mechanics), Impact modeling, Impulse (Physics), Manipulators, Modeling, Momentum
1.
Barhorst, A. A., 1991, “On Modeling the Dynamics of Hybrid Parameter Multiple Body Mechanical Systems,” PhD thesis, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.
2.
Barhorst, A. A., and Everett, L. J., 1992a, “A Methodology for Modeling Hybrid Parameter Multiple Body Systems,” Proceedings of the ASME Symposium on Dynamics of Flexible Multibody Systems: Theory and Experiment, Anaheim, CA, pp. 197–205.
3.
Barhorst, A. A., and Everett, L. J., 1992b, “Obtaining the Minimal Set of Hybrid Parameter Differential Equations for Mechanisms,” ASME Design Technical Conferences: Flexible Mechanisms, Dynamics, and Analysis, Phoenix, AZ, pp. 311–316.
4.
Haug, E. J., and Yen, J., 1989, “Implicit Numerical Integration of Constrained Equations of Motion via Generalized Coordinate Partitioning,” Proc. of Advances in Design Automation, Vol. 19–3, ASME, pp. 117–123.
5.
Hu
F. L.
, and
Ulsoy
A. G.
,
1994
, “
Dynamic Modeling of Constrained Flexible Robot Arm for Controller Design
,”
ASME JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL
, Vol.
116
(
1
), pp.
56
–
65
.
6.
Hurmuzlu, Y., 1992, “Outcomes of Constrained Contact in the Locomotion of a Five-Link Biped,” Proceedings of the ASME 15th Annual Energy-Sources Technology Conference & Exhibition, Dynamics and Vibrations Symposium, Houston, TX, pp. 71–79.
7.
Ider
S. K.
, and
Amirouche
F. M. L.
,
1989
, “
On the Constraint Violations in the Dynamic Simulations of Multibody Systems
,”
ASME JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL
, Vol.
111
, pp.
238
–
243
.
8.
Kane, T. R., and Levinson, D. A., 1985, Dynamics Theory and Applications, McGraw-Hill, New York.
9.
Low
K. H.
, and
Vidyasagar
M.
,
1988
, “
A Lagrangian Formulation of the Dynamic Model for Flexible Manipulator Systems
,”
ASME JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL
, Vol.
110
, pp.
175
–
181
.
10.
Meirovitch, L., 1988, “State Equations of Motion for Flexible Bodies in Terms of Quasi-Coordinates,” Proc. IUTAM/IFAC Symposium on Dynamics of Controlled Mechanical Systems, Berlin. Springer-Verlag, pp. 37–48.
11.
Nasser, M. G., 1992, “Numerical Methods for Multibody Elastic Systems and Contact,” PhD thesis, The University of Houston, Houston, TX.
12.
Neimark, J. I., and Fufaev, N. A., 1972, Dynamics of Non-Holonomic Systems, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. Translated from the Russian by J. R. Barbour.
13.
Petzold
L.
,
1982
, “
Differential/Algebraic Equations Are Not Ode’s
,”
SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput.
, Vol.
3
(
3
), pp.
367
–
384
.
14.
Simo, J. C., 1988, “Nonlinear Dynamics of Flexible Structures, a Geometrically Exact Approach,” Proc. of the Workshop on Multibody Simulation, Vol. 1, JPL D-5190, pp. 235–296.
15.
Timoshenko, S. P., and Goodier, J. N., 1970, Theory of Elasticity, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
16.
Wittenberg, J., 1977, Dynamics of Systems of Rigid Bodies, B. G. Teubner.
17.
Wu, S. C., and Haug, E. J., 1986, “A Substructure Technique for Dynamics of Flexible Mechanical Systems with Contact-Impact,” Proc. of Advances in Design Automation, ASME, Vol. 10–2, New York, pp. 389–399.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 1995
 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
You do not currently have access to this content.