2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11071-017-3355-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inertia forces and shape integrals in the floating frame of reference formulation

Abstract: Modeling and analysis of complex dynamical systems can be effectively performed using multibody system (MBS) simulation software. Many modern MBS packages are able to efficiently and reliably handle rigid and flexible bodies, often offering a wide choice of different formulations. Despite many advances in modeling of flexible systems, the most widely used formulation remains the well-established floating frame of reference formulation (FFRF). Although FFRF usually allows inclusion of only small elastic deforma… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
(13 reference statements)
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The additional drawback, beyond the costly and involved derivation, of the conventional continuum-mechanics-based FFRF is the so-called inertia shape integrals arising in the EOMs, which are unhandy volume integrals depending not only on the generalized coordinates but also on the FE shape functions, which make computer implementations of the conventional FFRF laborious, error-prone, and dependent on the algorithmic level of the underlying FE code, where the continuous flexible bodies were discretized. To avoid the evaluation of these integrals, commercial flexible multibody packages like ADAMS (MSC Software Corporation) or RecurDyn (FunctionBay, Inc.) resort to a lumped mass approximation according to [14]; see, for example, [3,10]. In the (approximate) lumped mass approach, each FE nodal DOF q j fe is given a so-called nodal mass 1 m j n obtained by, for example, lumping the consistent FE mass matrix via, for example, row-sum lumping [2].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The additional drawback, beyond the costly and involved derivation, of the conventional continuum-mechanics-based FFRF is the so-called inertia shape integrals arising in the EOMs, which are unhandy volume integrals depending not only on the generalized coordinates but also on the FE shape functions, which make computer implementations of the conventional FFRF laborious, error-prone, and dependent on the algorithmic level of the underlying FE code, where the continuous flexible bodies were discretized. To avoid the evaluation of these integrals, commercial flexible multibody packages like ADAMS (MSC Software Corporation) or RecurDyn (FunctionBay, Inc.) resort to a lumped mass approximation according to [14]; see, for example, [3,10]. In the (approximate) lumped mass approach, each FE nodal DOF q j fe is given a so-called nodal mass 1 m j n obtained by, for example, lumping the consistent FE mass matrix via, for example, row-sum lumping [2].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the (approximate) lumped mass approach, each FE nodal DOF q j fe is given a so-called nodal mass 1 m j n obtained by, for example, lumping the consistent FE mass matrix via, for example, row-sum lumping [2]. In doing so, the kinetic energy T of a flexible body in the system may be approximated by the sum of all N nodal DOF contributions, where each contribution to the total kinetic energy can be computed according to particle dynamics theory as [10,14] T…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The computation of the inertia terms is usually time consuming, and the implementation is laborious. Related formulas involving inertia integrals can be found in [15,19,21]. An alternative approach avoiding the necessity of evaluating integrals has been given in [12], with reference to [18].…”
Section: Co-rotational Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are several ways to model flexible multibody systems [19,24]. Among them the absolute coordinate formulation known as generalized component mode synthesis [16], which is a promising alternative to well-established flexible multibody formalisms, such as the floating frame of reference formulation (FFRF) [15,20,21], since the so-called generalized component modes not only describe rigid body motion, but can also represent the deformation modes in any possible orientation, which preserves a linear relationship between the global displacement field and the DOFs of the considered domain; this yields a constant mass matrix, a constant but co-rotated stiffness matrix with one co-rotational frame for each system body only, a trivial quadratic velocity vector and a simple structure of the governing equations. The mass and stiffness matrix are simply the standard linear FE system matrices pre-and post-multiplied with a constant reduction matrix.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%