Efficient kinematic joint descriptions for flexible multibody systems experiencing linear and non‐linear deformations
Authors: Ambrósio Jorge 
Published: February 2003

Different finite‐element‐based strategies used to represent the components' flexibility in multibody systems lead to various sets of co‐ordinates. For systems in which the bodies only experience small elastic deformations it is common to use mode component synthesis to reduce the number of generalized elastic co‐ordinates and, consequently, the equations of motion are written in terms of modal co‐ordinates. However, when the system components experience non‐linear deformations the use of reduction methods is not possible, in general, and the finite element nodal co‐ordinates are the generalized co‐ordinates used. Furthermore, depending on the type of finite elements used to represent each flexible body, the nodal co‐ordinates may include all node rotations and translations or only some of each. Regardless of the type of generalized co‐ordinates adopted it is required that kinematic joints are defined. The complete set of joints available in a general‐purpose multibody code must include, for each particular type of joint, restrictions involving only rigid bodies, or only flexible bodies, or flexible and rigid bodies. Therefore, the effort put into the development and implementation of any joint is at least three times as much as the initial work done in the implementation of joints with rigid bodies only. The concept of virtual bodies provides a general framework to develop general kinematic joints for flexible multibody systems with minimal effort, regardless of the flexible co‐ordinates used. Initially, only a rigid constraint between the flexible and a massless rigid body is developed. Then, any kinematic joint that involves a flexible body is set with the massless rigid body instead, using the regular joint library of the multibody code. The major drawback is that for each kinematic joint involving a flexible body it is required to use six more co‐ordinates per virtual body and six more kinematic constraints. It is shown in this work that for small elastic deformations, for which the mode component synthesis is applied, the use of sparse matrix solvers can compensate for the computational overhead of involving more co‐ordinates and kinematic constraints in the system, due to the use of virtual bodies. For non‐linear deformations, where the generalized co‐ordinates are the global positions of the finite‐element nodes, the use of the virtual body concept does not require an increase in the number of system co‐ordinates or kinematic constraints. By introducing the rigid joint between the flexible body nodal co‐ordinates and the virtual body, with the use of Lagrange multipliers, and then solving the equations explicitly for these multipliers the resulting equations of motion for the subsystem have the same degrees of freedom as the original flexible body alone. The difference is that degrees of freedom associated to the virtual body are used as co‐ordinates of the subsystem instead of the nodal co‐ordinates of the nodes of the flexible body attached to the virtual body. Copyright ©2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.