Multibody System Dynamics: Roots and Perspectives

Multibody System Dynamics 1: 149–188, 1997.
149
c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Multibody System Dynamics:

Roots and Perspectives
W. SCHIEHLEN
Institute B of Mechanics, University of Stuttgart, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany
(Received: 21 January 1997; accepted in revised form: 15 April 1997)
Abstract. The paper reviews the roots, the state-of-the-art and perspectives of multibody system
dynamics. Some historical remarks show that multibody system dynamics is based on classical
mechanics and its engineering applications ranging from mechanisms, gyroscopes, satellites and
robots to biomechanics. The state-of-the-art in rigid multibody systems is presented with reference to
textbooks and proceedings. Multibody system dynamics is characterized by algorithms or formalisms,
respectively, ready for computer implementation. As a result simulation and animation are most
important. The state-of-the-art in flexible multibody systems is considered in a companion review by
Shabana.
Future research fields in multibody dynamics are identified as standardization of data, coupling
with CAD systems, parameter identification, real-time animation, contact and impact problems,
extension to control and mechatronic systems, optimal system design, strength analysis and interac-
tion with fluids. Further, there is a strong interest on multibody systems in analytical and numerical
mathematics resulting in reduction methods for rigorous treatment of simple models and special inte-
gration codes for ODE and DAE representations supporting the numerical efficiency. New software
engineering tools with modular approaches promise improved efficiency still required for the more
demanding needs in biomechanics, robotics and vehicle dynamics.
Key words: dynamics of rigid bodies, multibody systems, computational methods, data models,
parameter identification, optimal design, strength analysis, DAE integration codes.
1. Historical Remarks
The dynamics of multibody systems is based on classical mechanics. The most

simple element of a multibody system is a free particle which can be treated by
Newton’s equations published in 1686 in his “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica” [111]. The principal element, the rigid body, was introduced in 1775
by Euler in his contribution entitled “Nova methodus motum corporum rigidarum
determinandi” [43]. For the modeling of constraints and joints, Euler already used
the free body principle resulting in reaction forces. The equations obtained are
known in multibody dynamics as Newton–Euler equations.
A system of constrained rigid bodies was considered in 1743 by d’Alembert in
his “Traité de Dynamique” [32] where he distinguished between applied and reac-
tion forces. D’Alembert called the reaction forces “lost forces” having the principle
of virtual work in mind. A mathematical consistent formulation of d’Alembert’s
principle is due to Lagrange [89] combining d’Alembert’s fundamental idea with
150 W. SCHIEHLEN
the principle of virtual work. As a result a minimal set of ordinary differential

equations (ODE) of second order is found.
A systematic analysis of constrained mechanical systems was established in
1788 by Lagrange [89], too. The variational principle applied to the total kinetic
and potential energy of the system considering its kinematical constraints and the
corresponding generalized coordinates result in the Lagrangian equations of the
first and the second kind. Lagrange’s equations of the first kind represent a set of
differential-algebraical equations (DAE) while the second kind leads to a minimal
set of ordinary differential equations (ODE).
An extension of d’Alembert’s principle valid for holonomic systems only was
presented in 1913 by Jourdain [76]. For nonholonomic systems the variations
with respect to the translational and rotational velocities resulting in generalized
velocities are required. Then, a minimal set of ordinary differential equations
(ODE) of first order is obtained. The approach of generalized velocities, identified
as partial velocities, was also introduced by Kane and Levinson [81]. The resulting
Kane’s equations represent a compact description of multibody systems. More
details on the history of classical mechanics including rigid body dynamics can be
found in Päsler [120] and Szabó [181].
The first applications of the dynamics of rigid bodies are related to gyrodynam-
ics, mechanism theory and biomechanics. Euler’s equations for the kinematics and
dynamics of a single gyro date back to 1758. For more than a century, the research
on the solution of Euler’s equations attracted mathematicians and mechanicians.
At the beginning of this century the engineering applications of the single gyro-
scope got more important. Then, gyroscopic systems received also some attention.
Grammel mentioned in 1920 in the first edition of his book “Der Kreisel – Seine
Theorie und seine Anwendungen” [51] a two-gyro system but he did not discuss
its dynamics. Thirty years later in the second edition of the same book a small
section was already devoted to gyroscopic systems. Magnus presented in 1971
in his book “Kreisel” [99] a large section on gyrosystems including a rigorous
stability theory. For example, a cardanic suspended gyro has to be modeled accu-
rately as a three-body system (Figure 1). In 1977 Magnus [100] organized the first
IUTAM Symposium on Dynamics of Multibody Systems with quite a number of
contributions to gyroscopic problems.
Mechanism theory deals also with the motion of constrained mechanical sys-
tems. However, the application of the powerful graphical methods, developed, e.g.,
in 1913 by Wittenbauer [194], was restricted to planar mechanisms. Later in 1955,
matrix methods were introduced by Denavit and Hartenberg [33] for spatial kine-
matics which formed the basis for the dynamical analysis of spatial linkages first
published by Uicker [187].
Early applications of rigid body dynamics are also found in biomechanics. Fis-
cher [44] modeled in 1906 the walking motion of humans by rigid bodies. In the
second half of this century biomechanics was strongly supported by research in
athletic training and sports. For example, Chaffin [27] presented in 1969 a com-
MULTIBODY SYSTEM DYNAMICS: ROOTS AND PERSPECTIVES 151
rotor body
inner body
outer body
foundation
Figure 1. Three-body system.
puterized biomechanical model to study gross body motions. Kane and Scher [80]
investigated in the same year the falling cat phenomena by rigid bodies. Vukobra-
tovic et al. [189] discussed in 1970 the stability of the biped human locomotion,
and Huston and Passerello [69] presented in 1971 a complete human body model.
Classical mechanics, rigid body systems and their applications have been char-
acterized by strong restrictions on the model complexity until the 1960s. The
nonlinearity of large rotations and the highly nonlinear gyroscopic coupling in the
equations of motion together with very inefficient numerical methods for solving
differential equations were insurmountable. However, the requirements for more
complex models of satellites and spacecrafts, and the fast development of more
and more powerful computers led to a new branch of mechanics: multibody system
dynamics. The results of classical mechanics had to be reviewed and extended
as a basis of computer algorithms, the multibody formalisms. One of the first for-
malisms is due to Hooker and Margulies [65] in 1965. This approach was developed
for satellites consisting of an arbitrary number of rigid bodies interconnected by
spherical joints. Another formalism was published in 1967 by Roberson and Wit-
tenburg [140]. In addition to these numerical formalisms, the progress in computer
hardware and software allowed formula manipulation with the result of symboli-
cal equations of motion, too. First contributions in 1977 are due to Levinson [92]
and Schiehlen and Kreuzer [148]. In the 1980s complete software systems for the
modeling, simulation and animation were offered on the market as described by
Schwertassek and Roberson [165]. The state-of-the-art in 1990 was documented by
152 W. SCHIEHLEN
the Multibody System Handbook [152]. Reviews on multibody dynamics includ-

ing modeling analysis methods and applications were presented by Kortüm and
Schiehlen [84] and Huston [71].
The scientific research in multibody system dynamics has been devoted to
improvements in modeling considering nonholonomic constraints, flexibility, fric-
tion, contact, impact, and control. New methods evolved with respect to simulation
by recursive formalisms, to closed kinematical loops, reaction forces and torques,
and to pre- and postprocessing by data models, CAD coupling, signal analysis,
animation and strength evaluation. The state-of-the-art will be discussed in the
following in more details.
2. State-of-the-Art in Rigid Multibody Systems

The modeling of rigid multibody systems will be presented and related to some of
the algorithms widely used today. Then, the textbooks and some of the proceedings
volumes will be reviewed.
2.1. MODELING AND FORMALISMS

The method of multibody systems utilizes a finite set of elements such as rigid
bodies and/or particles, bearings, joints and supports, springs and dampers, active
force and/or position actuators. For the unique mathematical description of these
elements a datamodel has been defined as a standardized basis for all kinds of
computer codes by Otter et al. [118]. First steps with respect to international
standardization have been achieved, Dürr et al. [34].
The following assumptions were agreed upon:
1. A multibody system consists of rigid bodies and ideal joints. A body may
degenerate to a particle or to a body without inertia. The ideal joints include
the rigid joint, the joint with completely given motion (rheonomic constraint)
and the vanishing joint (free motion).
2. The topology of the multibody system is arbitrary. Chains, trees and closed
loops are admitted.
3. Joints and actuators are summarized in open libraries of standard elements.
4. Subsystems may be added to existing components of the multibody system.
A multibody system as defined is characterized on the basis of a datamodel
by the class mbs consisting of an arbitrary number of objects of the classes part
and interact (see Figure 2). The class part describes rigid bodies. Each part is
characterized by at least one body-fixed frame. It may have a mass, a center of
mass and a tensor of inertia summarized in the class body. The class interact
describes the interaction between a frame on part i and a frame on part i ( +
)
1 . The interaction may be realized by a joint, by a force actuator or a sensor
resulting in the classes joint, force or sensor, respectively. Thus, the class interact
is characterized by two types of information: the frames to be connected and the
part reference
frames to be connected frame ( i + 1 )
ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ interact
part reference part i part ( i +1 )

inertial frame
frame i
Figure 2. Multibody system to be represented by the datamodel.
connecting element itself. These classes form the basis of the class mbs representing
the assembled multibody system. The model assembly using the datamodel is then
easily executed. According to the definitions, the datamodel represents holonomic,
rheonomic multibody systems.
The multibody system has to be described mathematically by equations of
motions for the dynamical analysis. The general theory for holonomic and non-
holonomic systems will be presented using a minimal number of generalized coor-
dinates for a unique representation of the motion.
2.1.1. Kinematics of Multibody Systems

According to the free body diagram of a mechanical system at first all constraints
are omitted and a system of p bodies holds 6p degrees of freedom. The position of
the system is given relative to the inertial frame by the 3 1-translation vector
ri = [ri1 ri2 ri3]T ; i = 1(1)p; (1)
of the center of mass Ci and the 3 3-rotation tensor
S i = S i( i ; i ; i ); (2)
written down for each body. The rotation tensor S i depends on three angles i, i,
i and corresponds with the direction cosine matrix relating the inertial frame I
and the body-fixed frame i to each other. The 3p translational coordinates and the
3p rotational coordinates (angles) can be summarized in a 6 p 1-position vector
x = [r11 r12 r13 r21 p p p]
T: (3)
Equations (1) and (2) read now
ri = ri(x); S i = S i(x): (4)
Secondly, the q holonomic, rheonomic constraints are added to the mechanical
system given explicitly or implicitly by
x = x(y; t) or (x; t) = 0; (5)
154 W. SCHIEHLEN
respectively, where the f 1-position vector

y = [y1 y2 y3 yf ]T (6)
is used for summarizing the f generalized coordinates of the system and means
a q 1-vector function. The number of generalized coordinates corresponds to the
=
number of degrees of freedom, f 6p , q , with respect to the system’s position.
Then, translation and rotation of each body follow from (4) and (5) as
ri = ri(y; t); S i = S i(y; t); (7)
and the velocities are found by differentiation with respect to the inertial frame:
vi = r_ i = @@yrTi y_ + @@tri = J Ti(y; t) y_ + v i(y; t); (8)
!i = s_ i = @@ysTi y_ + @@tsi = J Ri (y; t) y_ + ! i(y; t): (9)
The 3 f -Jacobian matrices J Ti and J Ri defined by (8) and (9) characterize

the virtual translational and rotational displacement of the system, respectively.
Later, they are also required for the application of d’Alembert’s principle. The
infinitesimal 3 1-rotation vector si used in (9) follows analytically from the
corresponding infinitesimal skew-symmetrical 3 3-rotation tensor. However, the
matrix J Ri can also be found by a geometrical analysis of the angular velocity
vector ! i with respect to the angles i ; i ; i , see, e.g., [149].
The accelerations are obtained by a second differentiation with respect to the
inertial frame:
ai = J Ti(y; t) y + @@yvTi y_ + @@tvi ; (10)
@!i y_ + @@t!i :
i = J Ri (y; t) y + @ yT (11)
For scleronomic constraints the partial time-derivatives in (8), (9) and (10), (11)
vanish.
Thirdly, the r nonholonomic, rheonomic constraints, e.g., due to rigid wheels,
are introduced explicitly or implicitly by
y_ = y_ (y; z; t) or (y; y_ ; t) = 0; (12)
respectively, with the g 1-velocity vector
z(t) = [z1 z2 z3 : : : zg ]T (13)
summarizing the g generalized velocities of the system. Further, means a r 1-
vector function. The number of generalized velocities characterizes the number of
=
degrees of freedom, g f , r , with respect to the system’s velocity. From (8), (9)
and (12) the translational and rotational velocity of each body follow immediately
as
vi = vi(y; z; t); !i = !i(y; z ; t): (14)
The accelerations are found again by differentiation with respect to inertial
frame:
ai = @@zvTi z_ + @@yvTi y_ + @@tvi = LTi(y; z; t) z_ + v_ i(y; z; t); (15)
@!i @!i @ !i _ i(y; z ; t):

i = @ z T z_ + @ y T y_ + @t = LRi (y ; z ; t) z_ + ! (16)
Here, the 3g -matrices LTi and LRi describe the virtual translational and rotational
velocity of the system needed also for the application of Jourdain’s principle.
Further, it has to be mentioned that the partial time-derivatives vanish in (15) and
(16) for scleronomic systems.
2.1.2. Newton–Euler Equations

For the application of Newton’s and Euler’s equations to multibody systems the
free body diagram has to be used again. Now the rigid bearings and supports
are replaced by adequate constraints forces and torques as discussed later in this
section.
Newton’s and Euler’s equations read for each body in the inertial frame
mi v_ i = f ei + f ri ; i = 1(1)p; (17)
I i !_ i + !e iI i!i = lei + lri ; i = 1(1)p: (18)
The inertia is represented by the mass mi and the 3 3-inertia tensor I i with
respect to the center of mass Ci of each body. The external forces and torques in
(17) and (18) are composed by the 3 1-applied force vector f ei and torque vector lei
due to springs, dampers, actuators, weight, etc., and by the 3 1-constraint force
vector f ri and torque vector lri . All torques are related to the center of mass Ci . The
applied forces and torques, respectively, depend on the motion by appropriate laws
and they may be coupled to the constraint forces and torques in the case of friction.
The constraint forces and torques originate from the reactions in joints, bearings,
supports or wheels. They can be reduced by distribution matrices to the generalized
constraint forces. The number of the generalized constraint forces is equal to the
(+) (+)
total number of constraints q r in the system. Introducing the q r 1-vector
of generalized constraint forces
= [1 2 3 : : : q+r ]T (19)
156 W. SCHIEHLEN
and the 3 (q + r)-distribution matrices

F i = F i(y; z ; t); Li = Li(y; z ; t) (20)
it turns out
f ri = F i ; lri = Li ; i = 1(1)p; (21)
for each body. The constraint forces or the distribution matrices, respectively, are
derived by geometrical analysis or they can be found analytically, see Equations (33)
to (35).
The ideal applied forces and torques depend only on the kinematical variables
of the system, they are independent of the constraint forces. Ideal applied forces
are due to the elements of multibody systems, and further actions on the system,
e.g., gravity. The forces may be characterized by proportional, differential and/or
integral behavior.
The proportional forces are characterized by the system’s position and time
functions
f ei = f ei(x; t): (22)
E.g., conservative spring and weight forces as well as purely time-varying forces
are proportional forces.
The proportional-differential forces depend on the position and the velocity:
f ei = f ei(x; x_ ; t): (23)
A parallel spring-damper configuration is a typical example for this kind of forces.

The proportional-integral forces are a function of the position and integrals of the
position:
f ei = f ei(x; w; t); w_ = w_ (x; w; t); (24)
where the p 1-vector w describes the position integrals. E.g., serial spring-damper
configurations and the eigendynamics of actuators result in proportional-integral
forces. In vehicle systems proportional-integral forces appear, e.g., with modern
engine mounts for simultaneous noise and vibration reduction. The same laws hold
also for ideal applied torques.
In the case of nonideal constraints with sliding friction or contact forces, respec-
tively, the applied forces are coupled with the constraint forces.
The Newton–Euler equations of the complete system are summarized in matrix
notation by the following vectors and matrices. The inertia properties are written
in the 6p 6p-diagonal matrix
= diag fm1E m2E I 1 I pg ;
M (25)

where the 3 3-identity matrix E is used. The 6p 1-force vectors q c , q e , q r
representing the Coriolis forces, the ideal applied forces and the constraint forces,
respectively, are given by the following scheme,
h iT
=
q f T1 f T2 lT1 lTp : (26)

Further, the 6p f -matrix J and 6p g -matrix L as well as the 6p (q + r)-

distribution matrix Q are introduced as global matrices, e.g.,
h iT
J = J TT 1 J TT 2 J TR1 J TRp : (27)
Now, the Newton–Euler equations can be represented in the inertial frame as

follows for holonomic systems
J y + qc(y; y_ ; t) = qe(y; y_ ; t) + Q
M (28)
and for nonholonomic systems

L z_ + qc(y; z ; t) = qe(y; z ; t) + Q ;
M (29)
respectively. If the nonholonomic constraints disappear, e.g. z = y_ , (29) reduces

to (28), showing a close relation between both representations.
2.1.3. Equations of Motion

The Newton–Euler equations are combined algebraical and differential equations
and the question arises if they can be separated for solution into purely algebraical
and differential equations. There is a positive answer given by the dynamical
principles. In a first step, the system’s motion can be found by integration of
the separated differential equations and in a second step the constraint forces
are calculated algebraically. For ideal applied forces both steps can be executed
successively while contact forces require simultaneous execution.
Holonomic systems with proportional or proportional-differential forces result
in ordinary multibody systems. The equations of motion follow from the Newton–
Euler equations, applying d’Alembert’s principle.
The equations of motion of holonomic systems are found according to d’Alem-
T
bert’s principle by premultiplication of (28) with J as
M (y; t) y + k(y; y_ ; t) = q(y; y_ ; t): (30)
Here the number of equations is reduced from 6p to f , the f f -inertia matrix

( )=
M y; t is completely symmetrized, M y; t J T M J > 0, and the constraint
( )
forces and torques are eliminated. The remaining f 1-vector k describes the
generalized Coriolis forces and the f 1-vector q includes the generalized applied
forces. Equation (30) may also be obtained from Lagrange’s equations of the second
158 W. SCHIEHLEN
kind, however, the procedure is computationally less efficient due to additional

differentiations of the kinetic energy required.
Nonholonomic systems with proportional-integral forces produce general multi-
body systems. The equations of motion are obtained from Newton–Euler equa-
tions (29) where the proportional-integral forces (24) and Jourdain’s principle has
to be regarded. However, the equations of motion are not sufficient, they have to
be completed by the explicit nonholonomic constraint equations (12). Thus, the
complete equations read as
M (y; z ; t) z_ + k(y; z; t) = q(y; z ; w; t);
y_ = y_ (y; z ; t); w_ = w_ (y; z ; t): (31)
Now the number of dynamical equations is reduced from 6p to g and the g g -
( )=
symmetric inertia matrix M y ; t LT M L > 0 appears. Further, k and q are
g 1-vectors of generalized Coriolis and applied forces. Equations (31) are also
denoted as Kane’s equations in literature.
In addition to the mechanical representation (31) of a multibody system, there
exists also the possibility to use the more general representation of dynamical
systems in the state space, i.e.,
x_ = f (x; t); (32)
where x means the n 1-state vector composed of generalized coordinates and
velocities, and t the time, respectively.
Equation (30) is also true for unconstraint systems. Then, it yields y = x, and
the global Jacobian matrix J is a quadratic 6p 6p-matrix. Adding the implicit
constraints (5) again, Lagrange’s equations of the first kind are obtained as
M (x) x + k(x; x_ ; t) = q(x; x_ ; t) , Tx ; (33)
where is the q 1-vector of Lagrangian multipliers. By comparison with (28)
it turns out that the Lagrangian multipliers may be interpreted as generalized

constraint forces and the distribution matrix Q can be obtained from the implicit
formulation of the constraints. However, the 6p scalar equations (33) cannot be
+
solved due to the 6p q unknowns in the vectors x, . Therefore, the implicit
constraint equations (5) have to be called again
(x; t) = 0: (34)
+
It remains a set of 6p q differential algebraical equations of index 3. One popular
approach to solve (33), (34) is to reduce the index by two differentiations with
respect to time
" T #" # " #
M x x q,k
x 0 = ,t , _ xx_
: (35)
However, due to the derivative, Equations (35) are numerically unstable, see Sec-
tion 3.9.
Furthermore, Equations (31) can be used for holonomic systems, too. Then, the
f generalized coordinates and the f generalized velocities are independent from
each other resulting often in a strong simplification of the dynamical equations.
Such a separation of kinematics and kinetics has been successfully used by Euler
for his kinematical and dynamical equations of a gyroscope.
Even if the constraint forces were completely omitted by the dynamical prin-
ciples, they are also of engineering interest for the load in joints, bearings and
supports, and they are absolutely necessary for the computation of contact and

friction forces. From the 6p coordinates of the constraint force vector q r there are
( + )
only q r coordinates linear independent according to (21). Therefore, only the
(+ )
q r 1-vector of the generalized constraint forces is needed. The results are
=
given for holonomic systems only, r 0, but they can be transferred to nonholo-
nomic systems without any problem.
According to the d’Alembert’s principle premultiplication of (28) by Q M
T ,1
results immediately in the equations of reaction
N (y; t) + q^(y; y_ ; t) = k^ (y; y_ ; t) (36)
^ are q 1-
where N (y ; t) is the symmetrical q q -reaction matrix and q^ and k
vectors. The equations of reaction (36) are purely algebraical equations as known
from problems in statics.
2.1.4. Formalisms
The equations of motion presented may be automatically generated by formalisms
as described in the Multibody Systems Handbook [152]. There are two different
kinds of formalisms, the numerical and the symbolical ones (Figure 3). The numer-
ical equations of motion have to be generated for each timestep of the integration
code and for each parameter variation. The symbolical equations were generated
only once, they are especially helpful for real time applications and parameter
optimization. Symbolical equations may be obtained by formula manipulators like
MAPLE or with special formalisms, e.g., NEWEUL.
From a numerical point of view recursive algorithms are very efficient for
systems with a large number of joints what means more than 6 to 10 in a serial

topology. The main idea of the recursive procedure is to avoid the inversion of the
inertia matrix M in Equation (30) which is required for numerical integration, see
[153]. More recently, Stelzle et al. [180] made a comparative study of recursive
methods. For flexible multibody systems the recursive approach has proven to be
also very attractive, Amirouche and Xie [5], Ider [73], and Kim and Haug [82].
160 W. SCHIEHLEN
Model description
Data input
Formalism
Model variation
Next time step
Parameter variation
Numerical equations
Simulation
Local output
Global result
Model description
Formalism
Data input
Model variation
Symbolical equations
Parameter variation
Next time step
Simulation
Local output
Global result
Figure 3. Numerical and symbolical formalisms.
2.2. TEXTBOOKS AND PROCEEDINGS

The first international symposium on multibody dynamics was sponsored by the
International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (IUTAM) and organized
1977 by Magnus [100] in Munich, Germany. A NATO Advanced Study Institute
on computer-aided analysis and optimization held 1983 in Iowa City, U.S.A., was
also devoted to multibody dynamics, Haug [59]. At the 8th symposium of the
International Association of Vehicle System Dynamics (IAVSD) in 1985 a general
lecture on multibody systems software was delivered by Kort üm and Schiehlen [84].
A second IUTAM Symposium on Dynamics of Multibody Systems took place 1985
in Udine, Italy, Bianchi and Schiehlen [22]. Dynamical problems of rigid-elastic
systems and structures were considered 1990 at an IUTAM Symposium in Moscow,
U.S.S.R., Banichuk et al. [12]. The first Fields Institute Workshop entitled “The
Falling Cat and Related Problems” was held 1992 in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
representing the interest of applied mathematicians in multibody dynamics, Enos
[41]. Another NATO Advanced Study Institute was held 1993 in Lisbon, Portugal
with special emphasis on computational methods for multibody systems, Pereira
and Ambrosio [122]. Most recently, an IUTAM Symposium on optimization of
multibody systems took place in Stuttgart, Germany, see Bestle and Schiehlen
[21]. It turns out that multibody system dynamics is now a well established and
very lively branch of mechanics.
The first textbook on multibody dynamics was written in 1977 by Wittenburg
[195]. Starting with rigid body kinematics and dynamics, classical problems of
one rigid body are presented as well as general multibody systems. A textbook
published 1986 by Schiehlen [149] presents in unified manner multibody systems,
finite element systems and continuous systems as equivalent models for mechanical
systems. The computer-aided analysis of multibody systems was considered in 1988
in a textbook by Nikravesh [113] for the first time. Roberson and Schwertassek
[141] discuss the origin of multibody systems, they deal with one and several rigid
bodies. Comments on linearized equations and computer simulation techniques are
included. Basic methods of computer aided kinematics and dynamics of mechanical
systems are shown in 1989 by Haug [60] for planar and spatial systems.
In his first textbook from 1989, Shabana [170] deals in particular with flexible
multibody systems. This is a new and promising research area. Huston [70] presents
kinematics, force and inertia concepts, multibody kinetics, numerical methods as
well as flexible multibody systems. Another textbook on flexible multibody systems
is due to Bremer and Pfeiffer [25], a broad variety of engineering examples is found
in that book. Computational methods for multibody dynamics are treated in 1992
by Amirouche [4] with special emphasis on matrix methods. Garcia de Jalón and
Bayo [47] present efficient methods for the kinematic and dynamic simulation of
multibody systems to meet the real time challenge. Shabana’s second book [171]
from 1994 is devoted to computational dynamics of rigid multibody systems. Many
detailed examples show the execution of the computations required. Angeles and
Kecskeméthy [8] summarize the contributions to a postgraduate course offered
1995 at the International Center of Mechanical Sciences in Udine, Italy.
The textbook of Stejskal and Valásek [179] starts from the CAD design of spatial
mechanics, discusses free bodies, describes the constraints by lower and higher
kinematic pairs, it presents the dynamic analysis and reports on computational and
numerical matters.
In addition to the textbooks, the software for multibody systems is compared
and tested by benchmarks in the handbook by Schiehlen [152] and a collection
of codes was published by Kortüm and Sharp [85] in 1993. The benchmarks of
the handbook [152] are a seven-body mechanism and a robot, while in the code
collection [85] a road and rail vehicle are chosen as benchmarks.
162 W. SCHIEHLEN
A A
E B E B
NDF
D C D C
Figure 4. Data exchange (a) bidirectional, (b) via a neutal data format NDF.
3. Perspectives
Multibody system dynamics is applied to a broad variety of engineering problems
from aerospace to civil engineering, from vehicle design to micromechanical analy-
sis, from robotics to biomechanics. The fields of application are steadily increasing,
in particular as multibody dynamics is considered as the basis of mechatronics, e.g.,
controlled mechanical systems. These challenging applications require more fun-
damental research on a number of topics which are presented in the following.
3.1. DATAMODELS FROM CAD

Within the multibody systems community many computer codes have been devel-
oped, however, they differ widely in terms of model description, choice of basic
principles of mechanics and topological structure so that a uniform description
of models does not exist. These distinct differences in the model description pre-
clude the exchange of data between different formalisms. A most desirable data
exchange, however, would permit the alternate use of validated multibody system
models with different simulation systems, independent of the description format
selected, see Thomson et al. [182].
For the transfer of model data, e.g., between several multibody formalisms, one
approach is to exchange the data directly between the formalisms. To exchange the
data between the different formalisms, data interfaces are necessary for adapting the
data representation. For this approach, bidirectional converters are required between
all multibody formalisms within a simulation enviroment, in order to implement the
exchange of models among each other. Each arrow in Figure 4a represents such a
converter. It is evident that the bidirectional approach is a costly solution compared
to the option of introducing a standardized, formalism-independent description
format and providing conversion programs for this format only. In this more general
approach, two data converters are required per formalism for the data exchange,
so that changes with the interface of a formalism only have an effect on these
two converters. The incorporation of additional formalisms into the exchange-
network does not affect the formalisms already included. One essential advantage
of the second approach is that a neutral data format is provided (Figure 4b). The
ÇÇÇÇÇÉÉÉÉÉÉËËËËËËÊÊÊÊÊÊ
Model Model Model Model
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÇÇÇÇÇÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉËËËËËË
ËËËËËËÊÊÊÊÊÊ
description description description description
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ADAMS DADS Formalism 3 Formalism 4
User User
Preprocessor Preprocessor
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÇÇÇÇÇÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉËËËËËË
ËËËËËËÊÊÊÊÊÊ
interface interface
Formalism 3 Formalism 4
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ADAMS DADS
SOLVER SOLVER SOLVER SOLVER
ÇÇÇÇÇÉÉÉÉÉÉËËËËËËÊÊÊÊÊ
Postprocessor Postprocessor Postprocessor Postprocessor
Figure 5. Actual state of multibody system simulations.
responsibility for generating the converters for this description format lies with the
system vendors.
The goal of such a standardization process is the unification and standardization
of the neutral data format, independent of any formalism. Only by means of such
a standardization it will be possible in future to achieve a situation in which a
single, unique model description is sufficient for describing a mechanical system
with precision to make it accessible for analysis using any program package or
formalism. The standardized model description is then used as the basis for the
input.
In a first step the input format required by the relevant formalism is generated
from the standardized model description and evaluated using a preprocessor or
converter. In a subsequent step, the formalism generates the mathematical model
equations.
On considering this process in greater detail for mechanical systems, the follow-
ing comparison can be made between the actual status (Figure 5) and the desired
goal (Figure 6). Until now a special model has to be created for each MBS formalism
such as ADAMS or DADS, see [152]. This is read by the formalism with a special
preprocessor/user interface. It is followed by the simulation and the evaluation of
the results with postprocessors specific to the formalism. After standardization,
there will be one neutral data model in which the mechanical system is stored in
standardized form (Figure 6). The various MBS formalisms can access this model
using their own preprocessors. After simulation, the results are stored again in a
neutral data model from where they can be forwarded for data analysis, animation,
etc., by postprocessors. The definition of a standardized result description may be
postponed in order to concentrate on the standardized input form.
The standardization of the multibody system data requires international coop-
eration within STEP, see Dürr et al. [34]. However, scientific support is necessary,
too, as shown by Daberkow and Schiehlen [31]. In particular, a modular approach
164 W. SCHIEHLEN
Model description
Neutral Data Format
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ËËËËËË
ÊÊÊÊÊ
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
User
ËËËËËË
ÊÊÊÊÊUser Preprocessor Preprocessor
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ËËËËËË
interface
ÊÊÊÊÊ
interface
Formalism 3 Formalism 4
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ËËËËËË
ÊÊÊÊÊ
ADAMS DADS
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ËËËËËË
ÊÊÊÊÊ
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ËËËËËË
ÊÊÊÊÊ
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ËËËËËË
ÊÊÊÊÊ
SOLVER SOLVER SOLVER SOLVER
Standardized result description
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
ËËËËËÊÊÊÊÊ
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
Postprocessor Postprocessor Postprocessor
ÇÇÇÇÇ
ÉÉÉÉÉÉ
Signal Animation Strength Visualisation
analysis analysis
Figure 6. Desired goal for multibody system simulations.
for the modeling and simulation of multibody systems is most important as shown
by Junker [77].
In addition to the standardization of input data, the postprocessing of the sim-
ulation results by animation requires standardization, too. However, this aspect
extends beyond the area of multibody dynamics.
3.2. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

In addition to the equations of motion, for multibody simulations the model data
have not only to be handled, they have to be determined first. For this purpose
parameter identification is an essential part of multibody dynamics.
The equations of motion of mechanical systems undergoing large displace-
ments are highly nonlinear, however they remain linear with respect to the system
parameters. This is of great advantage for the parameter identification.
All constant system parameters like distances, masses, moments of inertia,
spring and damper coefficients and coefficients in nonlinear force laws, or combi-
nations hereof, respectively, may be summarized in a 1-parameter vector p.
Then, the characteristic vectors and matrices of the equations of motion (30) can
be rewritten as
M (y; p; t)y + k(y; y_ ; p; t) = q(y; y_ ; u; p; t) (37)
where

X
M= pj M j (y; t); (38)
j =1

X
k= pj kj (y; y_ ; t); (39)
j =1

X
q= pj qj (y; y_ ; u; t) (40)
j =1
are linear with respect to the elements pj of the 1-parameter vector p, which
=
is composed of k known parameters and u , k unknown parameters to be
identified. Further, the m 1-vector u represents the input variables of the system.
The effort for parameter identification is generally increasing with the number u
of unknown parameters.
Therefore, information on parameters should be obtained first from all sources
available. For example, the mass of a body can often be found simply by weighting
and distances between bearings may be measured directly. The remaining unknown
parameters have to be found experimentally using identification techniques.
From a more general point of view, the mathematical model (37) to (40) of the
system may be reformulated as
R(x; u; p; t)x_ = f (x; p; t); (41)
where x(t) now means the n 1-state vector of the system and u(t) the m 1-
excitation vector. The n n-weighting matrix of state derivatives R as well as the
n 1-vector f on the right hand side are assumed to be linear with respect to the
parameters,

X
R= pj Rj (x; u; t); (42)
j =1

X
f= pj f j (x; u; t): (43)
j =1
In a typical experimental configuration for parameter identification the system
()
is driven by some broadband noise excitation u t , while measurements of the state
()
vector x t are sampled and processed by a digital identification algorithm using the
mathematical model of the system, which consists of a set of ordinary differential
equations. As digital computers are based on algebraic operations only, the main
difficulty of identification of the time-continuous model (41) is the conversion into
an algebraic parameter identification problem.
_( ) ()
If the state derivatives x t are measured as well as the state x t and the
()
excitation u t , the model (41) with the parametrization (42) and (43) results for
= =
every sampled time instant tk k t, k 1; : : : ; N , in n linear, algebraic equations
for the unknown parameters. Then, the unknown parameters may be estimated using
N u =n samples by some identification technique for algebraic models like the
166 W. SCHIEHLEN
least-squares method, Isermann [74]. However, often direct measurements of state

_( )
derivatives x t are not available. Then, numerical techniques like state variable
filtering, Hsia [67], may be used to approximate the derivatives. This approach,
however, shows some disadvantages in case of noise corrupted measurements
especially if higher order derivatives are considered.
An alternative way for conversion of (41) into an algebraic problem is the
( ) ( )
numerical integration of the model based on the sampled values x tk ; u tk ,
=
k 1; : : : ; N . The numerical effort and severe drift problems, however, make this
method less suitable for practical applications.
Another approach is the transformation of the measured signals, for example by
the fast Fourier transform (FFT). Identification methods based on fast Fourier trans-
form (FFT) algorithms are proven to be well suited for linear systems, Nathe [110].
In the case of nonlinear systems, however, this method shows some restrictions.
Thus, frequency domain methods seem to be less valuable for the identification of
nonlinear multibody systems.
Finally, the transformation of the mathematical model into difference form
may be looked as another solution of the problem. For linear multibody systems,
such a method has been treated in detail by Schwarz [160]. Due to the nonlinear
transformation of the model, however, the structure of the system is lost, the
transformed model no longer contains the physical parameters explicitly. As the
method is based on an explicit solution of the model equations, it is restricted to
linear systems and therefore not well suited for the identification of multibody
systems.
Regarding the difficulties mentioned above, covariance methods for identifica-
tion of linear systems and nonlinear time-continuous systems were developed by
Schiehlen and Kallenbach [79, 150]. The methods are based on stationary, ergodic,
() ()
coloured noise excitations u t . For identification, the measured signals u t and
()
x t are processed by a linear, stable filter.
An extension of the covariance analysis to nonlinear functions of applied forces
is due to Krause and Schiehlen [87]. Nonlinear springs with cubic characteristics
and Coulomb’s friction may be identified for consideration in a multibody sys-
tem simulation. Further, the sensitivity of parameter identification with respect to
measurement noise has been investigated by Bestle and Krause [16].
The parameter identification of multibody system models has a high priority due
to the physically motivated discretization approach in multibody system dynamics.
Using the right parameters, multibody system models are accurate and efficient.
Therefore, parameter identification methods have to be adjusted and improved
continuously.
3.3. OPTIMAL DESIGN OF MULTIBODY SYSTEMS

Due to development of faster computing facilities the multibody system approach is
changing from a purely analyzing method to a more synthesizing tool. Optimization
optimization criteria (p)

multimodel performance evaluation
design variables p

p1

1

p1

1
p 1 p 1 1 1

multicriteria optimization method
Figure 7. Multimodel analysis concept.
methods are applied to optimize multibody systems with respect to their dynamic
behavior, Grübel et al. [52], and Bestle [19]. The dynamics of multibody systems
is determined by parameters like the mass and moments of inertia of the material
bodies, geometrical data, stiffness and damping coefficients, or control parameters
of actuators. Each of these parameters may serve as design variable for optimizing
the dynamic behavior.
Applications to technical problems clearly show that often several conflicting
technical specifications and goals have to be taken into account. This situation can
only be treated by definition of several different performance criteria. Due to the
presence of more than one criterium the design problem has to be considered as a
multicriteria optimization problem. The multicriteria optimization approach seems
to offer a promising way to handle the situation of conflicting system specifications
and requirements and to define optimal solutions.
Engineering applications also show that the analysis of different aspects of a
system has to be based on different models. For example, vertical vehicle dynam-
ics can be studied with quarter-car or half-car models whereas studies of lateral
dynamics require “bicycle models” or even spatial models. An optimization con-
cept on the basis of simultaneously investigating several different models with
shared parameters was demonstrated by Bestle and Eberhard [20].
According to Figure 7 the process of performance evaluation, i.e. computing the
h 1-performance vector from a given 1-design parameter vector p, has to
be split up into several submodel analyses. Each submodel is specially designed for
evaluating the performance of the engineering system with respect to a subset of
design goals. For explaining the overall design concept, it may be just considered
as a black-box function between some input parameters pi of the submodel i and
the output criterion values
i i pi . = ( )
168 W. SCHIEHLEN
multimodel performance evaluation
optimization criteria y (p)

design variables p multicriteria optimization method
single objective
objective functions
optimization
optimization
multicriteria
algorithm
strategy
equality equality
scalar
constraints constraints
inequality inequality
constraints constraints
inactive
criteria
nonlinear
programming vector optimization
problem problem
Figure 8. Multicriteria optimization concept.

The input parameter vectors pi of the submodels have to be linked to the global
set of design variables p, e.g., as a nonlinear vector function
p i = p i(p) (44)
to be defined by the designer. Using this relation, the criterion functions i may
also be considered as functions of the global design variables p:
i = i(pi(p)) = i (p): (45)
The total h 1-vector criteria (p) is a union of the subsets of criteria i(p); i =
()
1 1 m:
m
X
(p) = [ 1T ; 2T ; ; mT ]T where n= n i : (46)
i=1
In the problem formulation phase of the design process, the criteria should be
considered to be just an instrument of performance evaluation. It is already part of
the multicriteria optimization concept to classify them as objective functions fj p , ()
equality constraints gj p ( )=
0 or inequality constraints hj p 0 (Figure 8). Some ()
of the performance criteria may even be neglected and considered as inactive in
a first run in order to simplify the design process. Such a classification may be
changed several times within the design process to get a feeling for the engineering
system and the potentials of its optimization. Since several criteria may remain as
objective functions to be minimized, the problem has to be stated as a multicriteria

optimization problem:
opt f (p) P := fp j g(p) = 0; h(p) 0; pl p pug: (47)
p 2P
where
The operator “opt” is used for simultaneous minimization of the individual

()
objective functions fj p . In general, this is not possible due to conflicts arising
from different criteria. The multicriteria optimization approach, however, offers a
concept of defining optimal solutions also in the situation of conflicting objective
functions. Design points pP 2 P are called Edgeworth–Pareto (EP-) optimal, if
() ( ) ( )= ( )
there exists no feasible design point p where fj p fj pP 8j ^ f p 6 f pP ,
Stadler [176]. In general, EP-optimal solutions are not unique and points with
different images are not comparable. The designer has to make, therefore, his final
decision on an acceptable optimal solution out of the set of EP-optimal points.
EP-optimal solutions of the multicriteria optimization problem have to be found
iteratively requiring several performance evaluations. Applied to dynamic system
design, performance evaluation involves a time-consuming numerical integration
of differential equations of motion. Therefore, not all multicriteria optimization
strategies seem to be appropriate for dynamic system design. Strategies which
reduce the vector optimization problem to nonlinear programming problems have
proven to be very efficient. Several such strategies on the basis of the principles of
scalarization, hierarchization or a combination of it have been developed, Bestle
and Eberhard [17]. The resulting nonlinear programming problems can be solved
very efficiently with sequential quadratic programming (SQP) algorithms. The
drawback, however, is the requirement of gradient information to be computed
from the submodels. Taking into consideration the structure given in Figure 8, we
obtain
Xm d i dp i
d
dp
= dpi dp : (48)
i=1
The first term results from (45) provided by the specific submodel. The second
term depends on the relation of the modelspecific parameters to the design vari-
ables, see Equation (44). The major computational effort, however, results from

i
computing the sensitivity information d =dpi for each submodel.
The design concept described above has been implemented in the program
system NEWOPT/AIMS by Bestle and Eberhard [18]. The submodels connect

the input variables pi with the output variables = ( )
i i pi . The designer has
the possibilities to define these relations by any computer program, by analytic
functions or a simulation program based on the multibody system approach.
The most important type of criteria with respect to dynamic system design are
criteria of the integral type for some time interval ti0 < t < ti1 :
170 W. SCHIEHLEN
Zti1
ji = Gij1(ti1; yi1; z i1; p i) + Fji (t; yi ; z i ; z_i ; p i) dt: (49)
ti0
These criteria do not only depend on the system parameters pi , but also on the
state variables y i ; z i describing the dynamic behavior of the submodel i. With the
multibody system approach the state variables y i ; z i are given implicitly by the
differential equations of motion (31) and the initial corresponding conditions
yi0 : i0(ti0 ; yi0 ; p i) = 0; zi0 : _ i0(ti0 ; yi0 ; z i0; p i) = 0: (50)
For each performance evaluation, an initial value problem has to be solved numer-
ically. Simultaneously the performance functions (49) can be computed where the
second term evaluates the dynamic behavior within the time interval considered
and the first term accounts for cases where special values for the final state y i1 ; z i1
or a minimal time ti1 must be achieved. The final time ti1 may be fixed or given
(
implicitly by the final state condition H i1 ti1 ; y i1 ; z i1 ; pi 0. ) =
The gradient for this type of criterion function can be computed most reliable
and efficient using the adjoint variable approach. This approach results in a set
of additional differential equations closely related to the linearized equations of
motion. The finite differences approach which is usually used in a context of com-
plicated relations ( )
i pi has shown to be rather inefficient, inexact and unreliable,
see Bestle [19].
In vehicle dynamics important, but contradicting criteria are riding comfort
and riding safety. In principle, one complex three-dimensional model including all
effects would be sufficient for investigating the problem. However, experience has
shown that three-dimensional models with detailed description of the suspension
systems will require too much computational time for being included into an iter-
ative, interactive design process. Therefore, the models used have to be simplified
to provide just the interesting effects. For example, the spatial vehicle model with
simplified suspension systems in Figure 9 is sufficient to yield information on
comfort while driving over a rough road surface.
For achieving feasible EP-optimal design points a multicriteria optimization
strategy has to be applied. Results for three different strategies will be shown in
the following.
As a first strategy, the weighted objectives method is proposed. All criteria are
considered as objective functions yielding f =
, and only some bounds on the
design variables result in inequality constraints. A second strategy uses weighting
factors chosen differently, i.e. w =[
1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 100; 100; 1; 10 T . Minimizing ]
the utility function
X
10
u(p) = wj fj (p) (51)
j =1
zs
g
b
yy
zz f2
xx a
f1
f4
f3
Figure 9. Spatial vehicle model.
results in optimal criterion values. A third strategy which is closely related to

the kind of engineering thinking is goal programming. The method allows to
predefine goals which should be achieved. This may be combined with the idea
of hierarchization. Here three levels of importance are assigned to the objectives.
E.g., the group of most important objectives consists of criteria 2 and 5, the second
important group of criteria 1, 3, 7 and the least important criteria are 4, 6 and 10.
Criteria 8 and 9 are chosen as constraints. Not all goals need to be defined at the
very beginning of the optimization but can be successively introduced on the basis
of the optimization results for the higher levels of importance.
Application of optimization methods to dynamic system design is somehow lag-
ging behind the theoretical and algorithmic improvements in optimization theory.
This is certainly due to the computational effort and the restriction to the classi-
cal nonlinear programming problem. Recent advances in computer technology in
combination with multicriteria and multimodel optimization ideas seem to open up
new ways for designing dynamic systems. The focus has to change from the solu-
tion of the optimization problem to its flexible and convenient formulation. Then,
the optimal solution is not a single design point any more, but a set of EP-optimal
points from which the designer may chose according to his preferences. All aspects
of system requirements can be taken into account simultaneously. For more details,
see Eberhard [35].
The optimal design of multibody systems may be considered as an efficient tool
for the synthesis of engineering systems. Hansen and Tortorelli [58] used such an
approach for the synthesis of planar mechanisms with up to 6 bodies and 15 design
variables.
172 W. SCHIEHLEN
3.4. DYNAMIC STRENGTH ANALYSIS FOR MULTIBODY SYSTEMS

By definition rigid multibody systems are qualified for the motion analysis but
they do not answer the question on the strength of the bodies subject to dynamic
load. Therefore, the strength analysis requires the concept of flexible multibody
systems which is reviewed in detail by Shabana [172]. Then, the results obtained
in research on strength analysis of material bodies can be applied and combined
with the multibody system approach, see Melzer [102].
A multibody system may consist of p rigid and ne elastic bodies subject to q
holonomic constraints. Then, the system holds
ne
X
f = 6p , q + nqi (52)
i=1
degrees of freedom. The system is uniquely described by 6 p , q generalized
coordinates describing the rigid body motion of all bodies and the sum of the nqi
generalized elastic coordinates describing the elastic deformations of the ne flexible
bodies. The f 1-vector of the generalized coordinates may be now defined as
2 3
y(t)
yq (t) = 64 qi .(t) 75 ; i = 1(1)ne ; (53)
..
()
where the 6p , q 1-vector y t summarizes the rigid motion coordinates and
()
the nqi 1-vectors q i t characterize the elastic coordinates of ne flexible bodies.
Then, following Melzer [101] the equations of motion read in extension of (30) as
M (yq ; t)yq (t) + kc(yq ; y_q ; t) + ki(yq ; y_q ) = q(yq ; y_q ; t); (54)
where the symmetric inertia matrix M , the vector kc of the generalized gyroscopic
and Coriolis force, the vector ki of the internal elastic forces and the vector q of
the generalized applied forces are used. These equations of motion may also be
computed semi-symbolically by finite element preprocessing.
For a pure rigid body system, the vector of the internal elastic forces is complete-
ly vanishing, ki 0, and the well known Equations (30) of an ordinary multibody
system are achieved. In the case of a vanishing rigid body motion, y 0, from
(54) follow the equations of motion well known in structural dynamics
M E q(t) + DE q_ (t) + K E q(t) = f (t); (55)
where the ne nqi 1-vector q summarizes all the elastic coordinates and M E ; D E
and K E are the inertia, damping and stiffness matrix, respectively, of the structural
system.
The displacement field in a flexible body is given by elastic coordinates for
small quantities as
u(c; t) = (c)q(t); (56)
where c is the position vector of a material point in the reference position and (c)
is the space-dependent shape function. The 6 1-strain vector
= [11 22 33 212 223 ]
231 T (57)
is obtained by partial differentiation of the displacement field resulting in
= Lq + L (q)q; (58)
where L and L (q) are matrices depending linearly and quadraticly on the shape
function (c), respectively. Finally, the stress vector
= [11 22 33 12 23 31 ]T (59)
is found by Hooke’s law represented by matrix H for linear elastic, isotropic and
homogeneous material as
= H + n; (60)
where n represents the stress distribution in the reference position of the flexible
body.
( )
As a result from the dynamic analysis, the time histories c; t at each material
point of a flexible body are available. As a consequence, for the strength analysis
the fatigue life prediction is most important. Even if reliable life predictions are
only possible by experiments, the computational life prediction is an emerging tool
in engineering design.
According to Buxbaum [26] the amplitude, the frequency and the sequence of
the loads are most important to the life of a part subject to vibratory fatigue. This
information may be obtained by multibody system simulation.
Life predictions are mainly related to one dimensional loads. Only a few papers
are devoted to more dimensional loads see [53, 64, 144, 184]. Therefore, a restric-
tion to one dimensional loads is reasonable.
In the literature [26, 54], three concepts for the computational life predictions
are found:
1. nominal stress concept,
2. local concept,
3. damage mechanics concept.
The damage mechanics concept is related to the growth of cracks in a part
which is not acceptable in mechanical engineering. The local concept is very
expensive due to an elastic-plastic approach. Therefore, the nominal stress concept
is recommended using the stresses in a part with smooth surface.
The Wöhler-diagram represents the experimental results from fatigue experi-
ments. The nominal stress amplitude is related to the cycle frequency which has
to be found by cycle counting methods like the rainflow counting, see Watson and
Dabell [192]. However, in practice the oscillations of the stresses do not feature
constant amplitude and constant mean. The cumulative damage in fatigue can be
174 W. SCHIEHLEN
estimated using the hypothesis of Palmgren [119] and Miner [103] which have
been modified more recently by Zenner and Liu [197]. A first application of the
dynamic stress analysis was published by Melzer [102] for a rotating beam and a
two-link robot. There is no doubt that much research work is needed in this field
of multibody dynamics.
3.5. CONTACT AND IMPACT PROBLEMS

Rigid and/or flexible bodies moving in space are subject to collisions what mechan-
ically means impact and contact. Therefore, the fundamental laws of the impact
due to Newton and Poisson may be applied in multibody dynamics, too. Contact
problems usually include friction phenomena which may be modeled by Coulom-
b’s law. Then, the reaction forces exercise also an influence on the motion even if
they do not contribute to the virtual work of the system.
Glocker and Pfeiffer [49] discussed the impact problem as unilateral contact
problem using a complementary approach, many details of which are published
in a book by the same authors [126]. In another paper, Glocker and Pfeiffer [50]
considered planar friction, too. In addition to analysis and simulation, Han and
Gilmore [57] added an experimental validation of the multibody impact motion
with friction. Canonical impulse-momentum equations are used by Lankarani and
Nikravesh [90]. Another approach applies finite element modeling of the contact
conditions in multibody system dynamics, Amirouche et al. [6]. The impact analysis
of an impulsive motion in nonholonomic deformable multibody systems is treated
by Shabana and Rismantab-Sany [169]. Various applications are also found in
gears and transmission systems, Pennestri and Freudenstein [121]. It turns out that
a number of results are available for impact problems in multibody dynamics but
more work is needed to understand the micromechanical phenomena influencing
the macromechanical multibody motion with contact.
3.6. INTERACTION WITH FLUIDS

The interaction of fluids with multibody systems has been discussed in satellite
dynamics and vehicle dynamics. Beginning with the space age, Abramson [1]
considered the dynamic behavior of liquids in moving containers. Further, the
stabilization problem of spinning satellites filled with liquid was investigated by
Pfeiffer [124]. More recently, Chen and Pletcher [28] have studied numerically and
experimentally three-dimensional liquid sloshing flows. A finite element solution
for the numerical simulation of rotating flows was presented by Codina and Soto
[29]. The sloshing phenomena actuated by gravity with slow motion of a spacecraft
were modeled by Hung and Pan [68].
The results from satellite dynamics were also applied to road vehicles as shown
by Bauer [14]. The stationary dynamics of an articulated tank vehicle was inves-
tigated by Slibar and Troger [175]. Simulation models for such kind of vehicles
were presented by Schlieschke [155]. The roll motion of articulated vehicles was
studied by Rakheja et al. [132]. The same authors [134] analyzed the steady turning
stability of partially filled tank vehicles with arbitrary tank geometry. Further, in
[135] the cited authors dealt with the dynamic response of articulated tank vehicles
due to liquid load shift. Popov et al. [127, 128] presented the dynamic responses
of tank vehicles with rectangular and cylindrical containers. Simulations on the
basis of discrete models of tank vehicles were persecuted by Rauh and Rill [137].
Field testing and validation of the directional dynamics model of a tank vehicle
were performed by Rakheja et al. [133]. More recently the strongly instationary
phenomena due to breaking of tank vehicles was considered by Ranganathan and
Yang [136].
All the models for sloshing fluids in rigid bodies like satellites and vehicles
are characterized by strong simplifications of the fluid motion. It is expected that
with the growing power of computer hardware and computational fluid dynamics
more realistic models of the sloshing fluid with a free surface may be found.
Multibody system dynamics makes the problem even more complex due to the
highly nonlinear motion of the containers which may be still considered as rigid. A
major field of application will be vehicle engineering and tank trucks in particular.
Another kind of interaction between fluids and multibody systems is found
in aerodynamics which may be used to investigate phenomena of aeroelasticity.
O’Heron et al. [114] presented a detailed study of the aerodynamics of a tilt wing
plane.
3.7. EXTENSION TO CONTROL AND MECHATRONICS

The applied forces and torques acting on multibody systems may be subject to
control. Then, the multibody system is considered as the plant for which a con-
troller has to be designed. This point of view is found in early space application,
e.g., the attitude control of satellites [10, 147]. Today, mechatronics is understood
as an interdisciplinary approach to controlled mechanical systems usally modeled
as multibody systems. In particular robot dynamics and vehicle dynamics are sub-
ject to control, e.g., [130, 167, 177, 190]. A more general view is presented by
Schweitzer and Mansour [161]. Special emphasis is taken to the control of flexible
multibody systems by Pfeiffer and Gebler [125] with respect to robots, while Modi
and Suleman [105] present the application of control to orbiting flexible struc-
tures. Some problems connected with the design of controllers using a multimodel
approach are shown by Haug [62]. It is useful to distinguish between a simple mod-
el for the control design and a complex model for the validation of the control law.
The mechatronic aspects of multibody dynamics were pointed out by Hiller [63]:
modeling, control design and simulation have to be performed simultaneously. It
is expected that mechatronics, multibody dynamics and control engineering will
fertilize each other in the years to come.
176 W. SCHIEHLEN
3.8. NONHOLONOMIC SYSTEMS

Nonholonomic systems are known for a long time in mechanics. Most of the text-
books deal with nonholonomic systems, e.g. Hamel [56]. The classical examples
are the ice-skate and an axle with two rigid wheels subject to lateral friction. There-
fore, nonholonomic systems are of engineering interest in vehicle dynamics and
for mobile robots. More recently, nonholonomic systems attracted mathematicians,
too, looking for analytical solutions in a reduced minimal state space.
Bates and Sniatycki [13] reported on the nonholonomic reduction from a mathe-
matical point of view. Essen [42] discussed nonholonomic dynamics as a geometric
problem. Kalaba and Udwadia [78] found the equations of nonholonomic dynam-
ical systems using Gauss’s principle. Li-Fu Liang [93] considered the dynamics
of nonholonomic systems as a variational problem. Noether’s theorem was cited
in papers by Luo [97] and Hui-dan Yu et al. [196] showing the strong interest
on theoretical approaches. Yao-huang Luo and Yong-da Zhao [98] used Routh’s
equations for nonholonomic systems with variable mass. Mladenova [104] con-
sidered nonholonomic coordinates in rigid body dynamics. Rismantab-Sany and
Shabana [138, 139] dealt with nonholonomic deformable systems and their numeri-
cal solution by differential-algebraical equations. Control aspects of nonholonomic
systems were treated in [154]. A number of control problems including the falling
cat is presented in the proceedings volume edited by Enos [41].
3.9. DAE INTEGRATION CODES

Differential-algebraic equations (DAE) may appear during the modeling process
of a multibody system as shown, e.g., by Equations (33) to (35). In particular, the
implicit formulation of the constraint equation (5) is more convenient for multibody
systems with closed kinematical loops. But actively controlled multibody systems
with mechatronical components may also require a representation by differential-
algebraical equations.
Bae and Haug [11] considered closed-loop multibody systems with a recursive
formalism. A numerical solution of differential-algebraic equations of motion of
deformable mechanical systems with nonholonomic constraints was presented by
Rismantab-Sany and Shabana [139]. Führer and Schwertasek [46] reported on
new developments in the generation and solution of multibody system equations
featuring the DAE approach. Another contribution to the numerical simulation of
mechanical systems using methods for DAEs is due to Anantharaman and Hiller
[7]. The index of differential-algebraic equations of constrained multibody systems
was outlined by Blajer [23].
The problem of the numerical integration of differential-algebraical equations
is the inherent instability due to the index 3 found for mechanical systems. An early
approach to overcome the instability is the Baumgarte stabilization [15]. The idea
behind is an artificial feedback in the constraint equations (5) as follows:

Figure 10. Stabilization and projection approach.
+ 2 _ + 2 = 0; (61)
where ; have to be chosen properly. The Baumgarte stabilization does not

solve the original problem since Equation (61) changes its dynamics. However,
in many practical applications the stabilization approach works well. Fundamental
contributions to the development of methods for the numerical integration of DAEs
are due to Petzold [123], Gear [48] and Ascher and Petzold [9].
The early integration codes for differential-algebraical equations like DASSL
do not consider the special properties of mechanical systems, and they proved
to be very inefficient, see Leister [91]. Then, the mathematicians got interested
in the numerics of DAE closely related to stiff ordinary differential equations
(ODE), Hairer and Wanner [55]. The principal idea was to replace the stabilization
condition (61) by a projection on the manifold of the constraints for each step of
the integration. This means that the dynamics of the mechanical problem remains
unchanged. A visualization of both approaches is presented in Figure 10 designed
by Schirle [156]. Projecting methods have been analyzed and implemented by
Führer [45]. One of the first projecting multistep methods was published by Eich
[39] which proved to be very successfull in multibody dynamics.
An extrapolation integrator for constrained multibody systems was developed
by Lubich [94], the code is called MEXX, see Lubich et al. [95]. On the basis of
Runge–Kutta-methods, Simeon [174] developed the multibody simulation package
178 W. SCHIEHLEN
MBSPACK while von Schwerin and Winckler [166] used multistep methods in the
simulation code MBSSIM.
The application of differential-algebraical equations of mechanical systems in
control engineering is also addressed as control analysis and synthesis of linear
mechanical descriptor systems, see Schüpphaus and Müller [159]. It turned out that
the state space representation of control systems by ordinary differential equations
can be extended to the descriptor systems representing differential-algebraical
equations. A complete theory for linear mechanical systems is today available
from Müller et al. [108]. A survey of differential-algebraical equations in vehicle
system dynamics has been published by Simeon et al. [173]. The available DAE
integration codes have recently been tested and compared by Schirle [156] for vehi-
cle dynamics applications. Considerable progress on the efficiency of DAE codes
could be reported. A modular modeling of the lateral dynamics of an autonomously
controlled vehicle including hydraulic power steering is shown by Rükgauer and
Schiehlen [142]. Modeling and simulation of mechatronic systems is supported by
the program package NEWMOS recently published by Rükgauer [143].
The modeling process for mechatronic systems and mechanical systems with
closed kinematical loops is more efficient on the basis of implicit constraint equa-
tions for coupling components and closing the loop. The great progress achieved
with DAE integration codes offers an opportunity to improve the simulation tools.
More research in multibody dynamics is needed to evaluate joint ODE/DAE sim-
ulation environments.
3.10. REAL-TIME SIMULATION AND ANIMATION

Efficient and fast simulation is always desirable in computational dynamics but it
is really necessary for hardware-in-the-loop and operator-in-the-loop applications.
There are two approaches to achieve real-time simulation: high-speed hardware
and efficient software. Multibody system dynamics is called to contribute to the
efficiency of the software by recursive and/or symbolic formalisms and fast integra-
tion codes. Tsai and Haug [185, 186] considered recursive formalisms, topological
requirements, parallel algorithms and numerical results for real-time multibody
system simulation. Eichberger [40] showed the benefits of parallel multibody sim-
ulation. Schaller et al. [146] presented a parallel extrapolation method for multibody
system simulation. Hardware-in-the loop simulations for vehicle system dynamics
were presented by Schiehlen and Schäfer [151] and Schäfer [145]. Operator-in-
the-loop applications are found in driving simulators as summarized by Haug [61].
The animation of motion is considered as a typical postprocessing procedure
of multibody dynamical simualtions. The principles used are known from com-
puter graphics, e.g. Watt [193]. Another approach is the application of geometric
information from CAD modeling as it was pointed out by Daberkow [30]. As
an example, the animation of a spatial closed-loop torus mechanism is shown in
Figure 11, see also Schirm [157].
Figure 11. Animation of torus motion.
A general problem of real-time simulation is the increasing complexity of

the models under consideration. The efficiency of computer hardware and the
complexity of the models required are growing simultaneously with the result that
the efficiency of the multibody systems methods has to be improved continuously,
too. Further requirements are due to the realism of the graphics used in the display.
3.11. CHALLENGING APPLICATIONS

Multibody system dynamics has a broad variety of applications, some of which
will be mentioned here.
In biomechanics the walking motion is an important topic for some time. A
combination of motion and force control allows walking without impact as Blajer
and Schiehlen [24] have shown. However, the models of the planar motion have
to be extended to spatial motion to include the small rotations with respect to the
vertical axis, too. Another challenging problem is the dynamics of the middle ear
[36, 37]. The mechanism of the middle ear has been considered as an acoustical
problem by Onchi [115] and from a medical point of view, e.g., by Hüttenbrink
[72]. The multibody modeling is related to the parameters to be identified. There,
the laser vibrometry is used to compare measurements and computer simulations
[38, 178]. In addition to the passive dynamics of the middle ear piezoactuators may
be analyzed as well, see, e.g., Kim and Jones [83].
However, there are much more problems in biomechanics which can be modeled
and solved by multibody dynamics. The applications are ranging from vehicle
occupants to sport sciences, see, e.g., Morecki [106] or Nigg and Herzog [112].
180 W. SCHIEHLEN
Multibody dynamics is also a solid basis for nonlinear dynamics. The inher-
ent nonlinearity and the possible small number of degrees of freedom allow the
application of numerical methods of nonlinear dynamics to multibody systems, see
[88, 168, 183]. In particular, impact and friction induced vibrations show chaotic
behavior as reported by Popp and Stelter [129], and Östreich et al. [116]. The noise
generation in railway wheels due to rail-wheel contact forces can be also consid-
ered as a highly nonlinear phenomenon [158]. More recent development include
also the control of chaos, see Ott et al. [117].
The control aspects in multibody dynamics are getting more and more important.
At last three IUTAM symposia were devoted to the control of mechanical systems,
i.e. [12, 161, 188]. The problems of stability, controllability and observability were
considered in detail by Müller [107]. Closely related are descriptor systems which
may be a new way to model mechatronic systems [109]. Using observers descriptor
systems allow a fault diagnosis [66].
Robotics and mechatronics are closely related to each other. The basics, objec-
tives and examples of mechatronics have been shown by Schweitzer [163]. How-
ever, mechatronics may also be used for the design of human oriented machines
as outlined by Schweitzer [164]. The interaction of robotics and society is still a
challenging topic for interdisciplinary research with some relation to multibody
dynamics. Another very successful application with great potential for industry are
magnetic bearings, Schweitzer et al. [162].
Vehicle dynamics is also subject to more control. An excellent example is the
research project “Integration of distributed systems of mechatronics with special
emphasis to real time simulations”. This project was devoted to automated wrecking
of an automobile to show the interdisciplinary integration from multibody dynamics
and control engineering to information processing. A detailed report is due to
Lückel [96]. The fundamentals of vehicle dynamics and control are summarized by
Kortüm and Lugner [86]. Recent applications have been presented at the Advanced
Vehicle Control conference the proceedings of which are published by Wallentowitz
[191]. There is no doubt that vehicle control problems fit perfectly to multibody
system dynamics.
Another area of new and challenging applications of multibody systems is
the structural and occupant crashworthiness. There, the nonlinear structural issues,
vehicle modeling and occupant modeling are combined in a unique manner. Recent
advances in the area are well described by Ambrosio et al. [2, 3], Jager [75] and
Prasad and Chou [131].
4. Conclusions
The state-of-the-art of multibody system dynamics is presented based upon some
historical remarks. The modeling procedure and the simulation tools are reviewed.
The textbooks and conference proceedings are mentioned. The perspectives are
mainly devoted to data models, parameter identification and optimal design. The
topics of real-time animation, contact and impact problems, mechatronics and

control, strength analysis, interaction with fluids, nonholonomic systems and DAE
integration codes are outlined. Challenging applications include biomechanics,
chaos and nonlinearity, robotics and society and vehicle control. An extensive list
of references is presented. As a matter of fact, multibody system dynamics turn out
to be a very lively and promissing research subject.
References
1. Abramson, H.N., ‘The dynamic behaviour of liquids in moving containers’, NASA-SP-106,
Washington, 1966.
2. Ambrosio, J., Pereira, M. and Dias, J., ‘Distributed and discrete nonlinear deformations on
multibody dynamics’, Nonlinear Dynamics 10, 1996, 359–379.
3. Ambrosio, J., Pereira, M. and Silva, F., Crashworthiness of Transportation Systems: Structural
Impact and Occupant Protection, NATO-ASI Series E, Vol. 332, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, 1997.
4. Amirouche, F.M.L., Computational Methods for Multibody Dynamics, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.
5. Amirouche, F.M.L. and Xie, M., ‘Explicit matrix formulation of the dynamical equations for
flexible multibody systems: Recursive approach’, Computers & Structures 46, 1993, 311–321.
6. Amirouche, F.M.L., Xie, M. and Shareef, N.H., ‘FE modeling of contact conditions in multibody
system dynamics’, Nonlinear Dynamics 4, 1993, 83–102.
7. Anantharaman, M. and Hiller, M., ‘Numerical simulation of mechanical systems using methods
for differential-algebraic equations’, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineer-
ing 32, 1991, 1531–1542.
8. Angeles, J. and Kecskeméthy, A., Kinematics and Dynamics of Multibody Systems, CISM
Courses and Lectures, Vol. 360, Springer-Verlag, Wien, 1995.
9. Ascher, U. and Petzold, L., ‘Projected implicit Runge–Kutta methods for differential-algebraic
equations’, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 28, 1991, 1097–1120.
10. Aseltine, J.A. (ed.), Peaceful Uses of Automation in Outer Space, Plenum Press, New York,
1966.
11. Bae, Dae-Sung and Haug, E.J., ‘Recursive formulation for constraint mechanical system dynam-
ics. Part II: Closed loop systems,’ Mechanics of Structures and Machines 15, 1988, 481–506.
12. Banichuk, N.V., Klimov, D.M. and Schiehlen, W. (eds), Dynamical Problems of Rigid-Elastic
Systems and Structures, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
13. Bates, L. and Sniatycki, J., ‘Nonholonomic reduction’, Reports on Mathematical Physics 32,
1993, 99–115.
14. Bauer, H.F., ‘Dynamic behaviour of an elastic separating wall in vehicle containers. Part I’,
International Journal of Vehicle Design 2, 1975, 44–77.
15. Baumgarte, J., ‘Stabilization of constraints and integrals of motion in dynamical systems’,
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1, 1972, 1–16.
16. Bestle, D. and Krause, R., ‘Sensitivity of parameter identification on measurement noise’,
Problems in Engineering and Mechanics 7, 1992, 37–42.
17. Bestle, D. and Eberhard, P., ‘Automated approach for optimizing dynamic systems’, in Compu-
tational Optimal Control, R. Bulirsch and D. Kraft (eds), Birkhäuser, Basel, 1994, 225–235.
18. Bestle, D. and Eberhard, P., NEWOPT/AIMS2.2 – Ein Programmpaket zur Analyse und Opti-
mierung von mechanischen Systemen, User’s Manual, Institute B of Mechanics, Stuttgart, 1994.
19. Bestle, D., Analyse und Optimierung von Mehrkörpersystemen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.
20. Bestle, D. and Eberhard, P., ‘Multicriteria multimodel design optimization’, in IUTAM Sym-
posium on Optimization of Mechanical Systems, D. Bestle and W. Schiehlen (eds), Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996, 33–40.
21. Bestle, D. and Schiehlen, W. (eds), IUTAM Symposium on Optimisation of Mechanical Systems,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996.
182 W. SCHIEHLEN
22. Bianchi, G. and Schiehlen, W. (eds), Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1986.
23. Blajer, W., ‘Index of differential-algebrahic equations governing the dynamics of constrained
mechanical systems’, Applied Mathematical Modelling 16, 1992, 70–77.
24. Blajer, W. and Schiehlen, W., ‘Walking without impacts as a motion/force control problem’,
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control. Trans. ASME 114, 1992, 660–665.
25. Bremer, H. and Pfeiffer, F., Elastische Mehrkörpersysteme, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1992.
26. Buxbaum, O., Betriebsfestigkeit. Sichere und wirtschaftliche Bemessung schwing-
bruchgefährdeter Bauteile, Verlag Stahleisen, Düsseldorf, 1986.
27. Chaffin, D.B., ‘A computerized biomechanical model-development for the use in studying gross
body actions’, Journal of Biomechanics 2, 1969, 429–441.
28. Chen, K.-H. and Pletcher, R.H., ‘Primitive variable, strongly implicit calculation procedure for
viscous flows at all speeds’, AIAA Journal 29, 1993, 1241–1249.
29. Codina, R. and Soto, O., ‘Finite element solution of the Stokes problem with Coriolis force’,
in Computational Fluid Dynamics ’94. Proceedings of the Second European Fluid Dynamics
Conference, S. Wagner, E.H. Hirschel, J. Périaux and R. Piva (eds), Wiley, New York, 1994,
113–120.
30. Daberkow, A., Zur CAD-gestützten Modellierung von Mehrkörpersystemen, Fortschritt-
Berichte, Reihe 20, Nr. 80, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1993.
31. Daberkow, A. and Schiehlen, W., ‘Concept, development and implementation of DAMOS-
C: The object oriented approach to multibody systems’, in Computers in Engineering 1991,
Proceedings ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference, K. Ishii (ed.), ASME,
New York, 1994, 937–951.
32. D’ Alembert, J., Traité de Dynamique, Paris, 1743.
33. Denavit, J. and Hartenberg, R.S., ‘A kinematic motion for lower pair mechanisms based on
matrices’, Journal of Applied Mechanics 22, 1955, 215–221.
34. Dürr, R., Neerpasch, U., Schiehlen, W. and Witte, L., ‘Mechatronik und STEP, Standardisierung
eines neutralen Datenformats in STEP für die Simulation mechatronischer Systeme’, Produkt-
daten Journal 2, 1995, 12–19.
35. Eberhard, P., Zur Mehrkriterienoptimierung von Mehrkörpersystemen, Fortschritt-Berichte,
Reihe 11, Nr. 227, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1996.
36. Eiber, A. and Kauf, A., ‘Berechnete Verschiebungen der Mittelohrknochen unter statischer
Belastung’, HNO 42, 1994, 754–759.
37. Eiber, A., Kauf, A. and Schiehlen, W., ‘Biomechanics of the Middle Ear’, in Proceedings of the
9th World Congress on TMM, A. Rovetta (ed.), Edizioni Unicopli, Milano, 1995, 2415–2419.
38. Eiber, A., Kauf, A., Maassen, M.M., Burkhardt, C., Rodriguez, J. and Zenner,
H.P., ‘Vergleich von Laservibrometriemessungen und Computersimulationen der Geh ör-
knöchelchenbewegungen’, HNO 45, 1997, to appear.
39. Eich, E., Projizierende Mehrschrittverfahren zur numerischen Lösung von Bewegungsgleichun-
gen technischer Systeme mit Zwangsbedingungen und Unstetigkeiten, Fortschritt-Berichte, Rei-
he 18, Nr. 109, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1992.
40. Eichberger, A., ‘Benefits of parallel multibody simulation’, International Journal Methods Eng.
37, 1994, 1557–1572.
41. Enos, M.J. (ed.), Dynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems, American Mathematical Soci-
ety, Providence, 1993.
42. Essen, H., ‘Geometry of nonholonomic dynamics’, Journal of Applied Mechanics 61, 1994,
689–694.
43. Euler, L., ‘Nova methods motum corporum rigidarum determinandi’, Novi Commentarii Acad-
emiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae 20, 1776, 208–238. See also Euler, L., Opera Omnia, Series
II, Vol. 9, 99–125.
44. Fischer, O., Einführung in die Mechanik lebender Mechanismen, Leipzig, 1906.
45. Führer, C., Differential-algebraische Gleichungssysteme in mechanischen Mehrk örper-
systemen, Dissertation, Technische Universität München, München, 1988.
46. Führer, C. and Schwertassek, R., ‘Generation and solution of multibody system equations’,
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 25, 1990, 127–141.
47. Garcia de Jalón, J. and Bayo, E., Kinematic and Dynamic Simulation of Multibody Systems,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
48. Gear, C.W., ‘Differential-algebraic equation index transformations’, SIAM Journal of Scientific
and Statistical Computing 9, 1988, 39–47.
49. Glocker, C. and Pfeiffer, F., ‘Dynamical systems with unilateral contacts’, Nonlinear Dynamics
3, 1992, 245–259.
50. Glocker, C. and Pfeiffer, F., ‘Complementarity problems in multibody systems with planar
friction’, Archive of Applied Mechanics 63, 1993, 452–463.
51. Grammel, R., Der Kreisel – Seine Theorie und seine Anwendungen, First ed., Vieweg, Braun-
schweig, 1920. Second ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1950.
52. Grübel, G., Finsterwalder, R., Gramlich, G., Joos, H.-D. and Lewald, A., ‘ANDECS-A compu-
tation environment for control applications of optimization’, Computational Optimal Control,
R. Bulirsch and D. Kraft (eds), Birkhäuser, Basel, 1994, 237–254.
53. Häfele, P. and Dietmann, H., ‘Weiterentwicklung der Modifizierten Oktaederschubspannnungs-
hypothese (MOSH)’, Konstruktion 46, 1994, 51–58.
54. Haibach, E., Betriebsfestigkeit. Verfahren und Daten zur Bauteilberechnung, VDI-Verlag,
Düsseldorf, 1989.
55. Hairer, E. and Wanner, G., Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II. Stiff and Differential-
Algebraic Problems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
56. Hamel, G., Theoretische Mechanik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1949.
57. Han, I. and Gilmore, B.J., ‘Multi-body impact motion with friction: Analysis, simulation and
experimental validation’, Journal of Mechanical Design 115, 1993, 412–422.
58. Hansen, J.M. and Tortorelli, D.A., ‘An efficient method for synthesis of mechanisms using an
optimization method’, in Optimization of Mechanical System, D. Bestle and W. Schiehlen (eds),
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996, 129–138.
59. Haug, E.J. (ed.), Computer-Aided Analysis and Optimization of Mechnical System Dynamics,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
60. Haug, E.J., Computer-Aided Kinematics and Dynamics of Mechanical Systems, Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, 1989.
61. Haug, E.J., ‘High speed multibody dynamic simulation and its impact on man-machine systems’,
in Advanced Multibody System Dynamics, W. Schiehlen (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, 1993, 1–18.
62. Haug, J., Zur Modellierung aktiv geregelter elastischer Mehrkörpersysteme, Fortschritt-
63. Hiller, M., ‘Modeling and simualtion of complex multibody systems in mechatronic systems’,
Eurotech Direct ’91 – Machine Systems, Proceedings Eur. Eng. Res. and Tech. Transfer
Congress, Birmingham, 1991, 159–163.
64. Hoffmann, M. and Seeger, T., ‘Mehrachsige Kerbbeanspruchung bei proportionaler Belastung’,
Konstruktion 38, 1986, 63–70.
65. Hooker, W.W. and Margulies, G., ‘The dynamical attitude equations for n-body satellite’,
Journal on Astronomical Science 12, 1965, 123–128.
66. Hou, M., Descriptor Systems: Observers and Fault Diagnosis, Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 8,
Nr. 482, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1995.
67. Hsia, T.C., System Identification. Least Squares Methods, Lexingon Books, Lexington, 1977.
68. Hung, R. J. and Pan, H. L., ‘Modelling of sloshing modulated angular momentum fluctuations
actuated by gravity gradient associated with spacecraft slew motion’, Applied Mathematical
Modelling 20, 1996, 399–409.
69. Huston, R.L. and Passerello, C.E., ‘On the dynamics of a human body model’, Journal on
Biomechanics 4, 1971, 369–378.
70. Huston, R.L., Multibody Dynamics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1990.
71. Huston, R.L., ‘Multibody dynamics – modeling and analysis methods’, Applied Mechanics
Review 44, 1991, 109–117 and Applied Mechanics Review 49, 1996, 35–40.
72. Hüttenbrink, K.B., ‘Die funktionelle Bedeutung der Aufhängebänder der Gehör-
knöchelchenkette’, Laryngorhinotologie 68, 1989, 146–151.
184 W. SCHIEHLEN
73. Ider, S.K., ‘FE based recursive formulation for real time dynamic simulation of flexible multi-
body systems’, Computers & Structures 40, 1991, 939–945.
74. Isermann, R., Prozeßidentifikation, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
75. Jager, M. de, ‘Mathematical head-neck models for acceleration impacts’, Ph.D. Thesis, Univer-
sity of Technology, Eindhoven, 1996.
76. Jourdain, P.E.B., ‘Note on an analogue at Gauss’ principle of least constraints’, Quarterly
Journal on Pure Applied Mathematics 40, 1909, 153–197.
77. Junker, F., ‘Modular-hierarchisch strukturierte Modellbildung mechanischer Systeme’, Archive
of Applied Mechanics 65, 1995, 227–245.
78. Kalaba, R.E. and Udwadia, F.E., ‘Equations of motion for nonholonomic, constrained dynamical
systems via Gauss’s principle’, Journal of Applied Mechanics 60, 1993, 662–668.
79. Kallenbach, R., Kovarianzmethoden zur Parameteridentifikation zeitkontinuierlicher Systeme,
Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 11, Nr. 92, VDI-Verlag, D üsseldorf, 1987.
80. Kane, T.R. and Scher, M.P., ‘A dynamical explanation of the falling cat phenomena’, Interna-
tional Journal on Solids Structures 5, 1969, 663–670.
81. Kane, T.R. and Levinson, D.A., Dynamics: Theory and Applications, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1985.
82. Kim, S.-S. and Haug, E.J., ‘Recursive formulation for flexible multibody dynamics. Part II.
Closed loop systems’, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 74, 1989,
251–269.
83. Kim, S.J. and Jones, J.D., ‘Optimal design of piezoactuators for active noise and vibration
control’, AIAA Journal 29, 1991, 2047–2053.
84. Kortüm, W. and Schiehlen, W., ‘General purpose vehicle system dynamics software based on
multibody formalisms’, Vehicle System Dynamics 14, 1985, 229–263.
85. Kortüm, W. and Sharp, R.S., Multibody Computer Codes in Vehicle System Dynamics, Swets
& Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, 1993.
86. Kortüm, W. and Lugner, P., Systemdynamik und Regelung von Fahrzeugen, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1996.
87. Krause, R. and Schiehlen, W., ‘Parametric modeling of nonlinearities by covariance analy-
sis’, in EUROMECH 280, Proceedings International Symposium on Identification of Nonlinear
Mechanical Systems by Dynamic Tests, L. Jezequel and C.-H. Lamarque (eds), Balkema, Rot-
terdam, 1992, 157–158.
88. Kreuzer, E., Numerische Untersuchung nichtlinearer dynamischer Systeme, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1987.
89. Lagrange, J.-L., Mécanique Analytique, L’Académie Royal des Sciences, Paris, 1788.
90. Lankarani, H.M. and Nikravesh, P.E., ‘Canonical impulse-momentum equations for impact
analysis of multibody systems’, Journal of Mechanical Design 114, 1992, 180–186.
91. Leister, G., Beschreibung und Simulation von Mehrkörpersystemen mit geschlossenen kinema-
tischen Schleifen, Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 11, Nr. 167, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1992.
92. Levinson, D.A., ‘Equations of motion for multi-rigid-body systems via symbolic manipulation’,
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 14, 1977, 479–487.
93. Liang, Li-Fu, ‘Variational problem of general displacement in nonholonomic systems’, Acta
Mechanica Solida Sinica 6, 1993, 357–364.
94. Lubich, Ch., ‘Extrapolation integrators for constrained multibody systems’, IMPACT Comp.
Sci. Eng. 3, 1991, 213–234.
95. Lubich, Ch., Nowak, U., Pöhle, U. and Engstler, Ch., MEXX – Numerical Software for the
Integration of Constrained Mechanical Multibody Systems, Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informa-
tionstechnik, Berlin, 1992, Preprint SC 92-12.
96. Lückel, J., Integration verteilter Systeme der Mechatronik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung
des Echtzeitverhaltens, Arbeitsberichte 1993/94 und 1994/95, Unversität Gesamthochschule
Paderborn, Paderborn, 1994 and 1995.
97. Luo, S., ‘Generalized Noether’s theorem of nonholonomic nonpotential system in noninertial
reference frames’, Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 12, 1991, 927–934.
98. Luo, Yao-huang and Zhao, Yong-da, ‘Routh’s equations for general nonholonomic mechanical
systems of variable mass’, Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 14, 1993, 285–298.
99. Magnus, K., Kreisel-Theorie und Anwendungen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.

100. Magnus, K. (ed.), Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1978.
101. Melzer, F., Symbolisch-numerische Modellierung elastischer Mehrkörpersysteme mit Anwen-
dung auf rechnerische Lebensdauervorhersage, Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 20, Nr. 139, VDI-
Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1994.
102. Melzer, F., ‘Symbolic computations in flexible multibody system’, Nonlinear Dynamics 9, 1996,
147–163.
103. Miner, M.A., ‘Cumulative damage in fatigue’, Journal of Applied Mechanics 12, 1945, 159–169.
104. Mladenova, C.D., ‘Kinematics and dynamics of a rigid body in nonholonomic coordinates’,
Systems & Control Letters 22, 1994, 257–265.
105. Modi, V.J. and Suleman, A.C., ‘Approach to dynamics and control of orbiting flexible structures’,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 32, 1991, 1727–1748.
106. Morecki, A., Biomechanics of Engineering. Modelling, Simulation, Control, Springer-Verlag,
Wien, 1987.
107. Müller, P.C., Stabilität und Matrizen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977.
108. Müller, P.C., Rentrop, P., Kortüm, W. and Führer, C., ‘Constrained mechanical systems in
descriptor form: Identification, simulation and control’, Advanced Multibody System Dynamics,
W. Schiehlen (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993, 451–456.
109. Müller, P.C., ‘Descriptor Systems: A New Way to Model Mechatronic Systems’, in Proceedings
3rd European Control Conference, Vol. 3, Part 2, 1995, 2725–2729.
110. Natke, H.G., Einführung in Theorie und Praxis der Zeitreihen- und Modalanalyse, Vieweg,
Braunschweig, 1983.
111. Newton, I., Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Royal Society, London, 1687.
112. Nigg, B.M. and Herzog, W., Biomechanics of the Musculo-Skeletal System, John Wiley & Sons,
Toronto, 1994.
113. Nikravesh, P.E., Computer-Aided Analysis of Mechanical Systems, Prentice-Hall, Engelwood
Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
114. O’Heron, P., Nikravesh, P. and Arabyan, A., ‘A multibody model simulating tilt wing conver-
sion’, Technical Report CAEL-91-5, Computer Aided Engineering Laboratory, University of
Arizona, 1991.
115. Onchi, Y., ‘Mechanism of the middle ear’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33,
1961, 794–805.
116. Östreich, M., Hinrichs, N. and Popp, K., ‘Bifurcation and stability analysis of a non-smooth
friction oscillator’, Archive of Applied Mechanics 66, 1996, 301–314.
117. Ott, E., Grebogi, C. and Yorke, J.A., ‘Controlling chaos’, Physical Review Letters, 1990, 1196–
1199.
118. Otter, M., Hocke, M., Daberkow, A. and Leister,G., ‘An object oriented data model for multibody
systems’, in Advanced Multibody System Dynamics, W. Schiehlen (ed.), Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993, 19–48.
119. Palmgren, A., ‘Die Lebensdauer von Kugellagern’, VDI-Zeitschrift 69, 1924, 339–341.
120. Päsler, M., Prinzipe der Mechanik, De Gruyter, Berlin, 1968.
121. Pennestri, E. and Freudenstein, F., ‘Systematic approach to powerflow and static-force analysis
in epicyclic spur-gear trains’, Journal of Mechanical Design 115, 1993, 639–644.
122. Pereira, M.F.O.S. and Ambrosio, J.A.C. (eds), Computer-Aided Analysis of Rigid and Flexible
Mechanical Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1994.
123. Petzold, L.R., ‘An efficient numerical method for solving stiff and nonstiff systems of ordinary
differential equations’, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 18, 1981, 455–479.
124. Pfeiffer, F., ‘Linearisierte Eigenschwingungen von Treibstoff in beliebigen Behältern’,
Zeitschrift für Flugwissenschaft 16, 1968, 188–194.
125. Pfeiffer, F. and Gebler, B., ‘A multistage-approach to the dynamics and control of elastic robots’,
in 1988 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, IEEE Comput.
Soc. Press, Washington, 1988, 2–8.
126. Pfeiffer, F. and Glocker, C., Multibody Dynamics with Unilateral Contacts, Wiley, New York,
1996.
186 W. SCHIEHLEN
127. Popov, G., Sankar, S., Sankar, T.S. and Vatistas, G.H., ‘Liquid sloshing in rectangular road
containers’, Computers & Fluids 21, 1992, 551–559.
128. Popov, G., Sankar, S., Sankar, T.S. and Vatistas, G.H., ‘Dynamics of liquid sloshing in horizontal
cylindrical road containers’, Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part C 207,
1993, 399–406.
129. Popp, K. and Stelter, P., ‘Stick-slip vibrations and chaos’, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London A336, 1990, 89–105.
130. Popp, K. and Schiehlen, W., Fahrzeugdynamik, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1993.
131. Prasad, P. and Chou, C.C., ‘A review of mathematical occupant simulation models’, in Crash-
worthiness and Occupant Protection in Transportation Systems, ASME AMD Vol. 106/BED
Vol. 13, T. Khalil and A. King (eds), 1989, 36–112.
132. Rakheja, S., Sankar, S. and Ranganathan, R., ‘Roll plane analysis of articulated tank vehicles
during steady turning’, Vehicle System Dynamics 17, 1988, 81–104.
133. Rakheja, S., Ranganathan, R. and Sankar, S., ‘Field testing and validation of directional dynam-
ics model of a tank truck’, International Journal of Vehicle Design 13, 1992, 251–275.
134. Ranganathan, R., Rakheja, S. and Sankar, S., ‘Steady turning stability of partially filled tank
vehicles with arbitrary tank geometry’, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control
111, 1989, 481–489.
135. Ranganathan, R., Rakheja, S. and Sankar, S., ‘Influence of liquid load shift on the dynamic
response of articulated tank vehicles’, Vehicle System Dynamics 19, 1990, 177–200.
136. Ranganathan, R. and Yang, Y.S., ‘Impact of liquid load shift on the braking characteristics of
partially filled tank vehicles’, Vehicle System Dynamics 26, 1996, 223–240.
137. Rauh, J. and Rill, G., Simulation von Tankfahrzeugen, VDI-Berichte 1007, VDI-Verlag,
Düsseldorf, 1992, 681–697.
138. Rismantab-Sany, J. and Shabana, A.A., ‘Impulsive motion of nonholonomic deformable multi-
body systems. Part I, Kinematic and dynamic equations’, Journal of Sound and Vibration 127,
1988, 193–204.
139. Rismantab-Sany, J. and Shabana A.A., ‘Numerical solution of differential-algebraic equations
of motion of deformable mechanical systems with nonholonomic constraints’, Computers &
Structures 33, 1989, 1017–1029.
140. Roberson, R.E. and Wittenburg, J., ‘A dynamical formalism for an arbitrary number of inter-
connected rigid bodies, with reference to the problem of satellite attitude control’, Proceedings
3rd Congr. Int. Fed. Autom. Control, Butterworth, Vol. 1, Book 3, Paper 46 D, London, 1967.
141. Roberson, R.E. and Schwertassek, R., Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1988.
142. Rükgauer, A. and Schiehlen, W., ‘Efficient simulation of the behaviour of articulated vehicles,
in Proceedings AVEC’96, H. Wallentowitz (ed.), Aachen University of Technology, Aachen,
1996, 1057–1069.
143. Rükgauer, A., ‘Modulare Simulation mechatronischer Systeme mit Anwendung in der Fahrzeug-
dynamik’, Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, 1997.
144. Sanetra, C., ‘Untersuchung zum Festigkeitsverhalten bei mehrachsiger Randombeanspruchung
unter Biegung und Torsion’, Dissertation, Technische Hochschule Clausthal, Clausthal, 1991.
145. Schäfer, P., ‘Echtzeitsimulation aktiver Mehrkörpersysteme auf Transputernetzen’, Fortschritt-
146. Schaller, C., Führer, C. and Simeon, B., ‘Simulation of multi-body systems by a parallel
extrapolation method’, Mechanics of Structures and Machines 22, 1994, 473–486.
147. Schiehlen, W., Dynamics of Satellites, Springer-Verlag, Wien, 1970.
148. Schiehlen, W. and Kreuzer, E., ‘Rechnergestützes Aufstellen der Bewegungsgleichungen
gewöhnlicher Mehrkörpersysteme’, Ingenieur-Archiv 46, 1977, 185–194.
149. Schiehlen, W., Technische Dynamik, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1986.
150. Schiehlen, W. and Kallenbach, R.G., ‘Identification of robot system parameters’, in Theory
of Robots. Proceedings IFAC/IFIP/IMACS Symposium, P. Kopacek, I. Troch, and K. Desoyer
(eds), Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1988, 119–124.
151. Schiehlen, W. and Schäfer, P., ‘Modeling of vehicles with controlled components’, in The
Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and on Tracks, Proceedings 11th IAVSD Symposium, R.J.
Anderson (ed.), Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, 1989, 488–501.
152. Schiehlen, W. (ed.), Multibody Systems Handbook, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
153. Schiehlen, W., ‘Computational aspects in multibody system dynamics’, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 90, 1991, 569–582.
154. Schiehlen, W., ‘Dynamics and control of nonholonomic mobile robot systems’, in Preprints
of Symposium on Robot Control 1994, Vol. 1, L. Sciavicco, C. Bonivento and F. Nicolo (eds),
Napoli, 1994, 329–334.
155. Schieschke, R.-G., Konzeption und Realisierung komplexer fahrdynamischer Simulationsmod-
elle am Beispiel eines Sattelzuges mit beweglicher Ladung, Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 12,
156. Schirle, Th., ‘Kopplung von Mehrkörpersystemen über einen nichtminimalen Ansatz’, Studi-
enarbeit STUD-134, Institut B für Mechanik, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, 1996.
157. Schirm, W., Symbolisch-numerische Behandlung von kinematischen Schleifen in
Mehrkörpersystemen, Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 11, Nr. 198, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1993.
158. Schneider, E., Popp, K. and Irretier, H., ‘Noise Generation in Railway Wheels due to Rail-Wheel
Contact Forces’, J. Sound Vibr. 120, 1989, 227–244.
159. Schüpphaus, R. and Müller, P.C., ‘Control analysis and synthesis of linear mechanical descrip-
tor systems’, Advanced Multibody System Dynamics, W. Schiehlen (ed.), Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993, 463–468.
160. Schwarz, R.G., Identifikation mechanischer Mehrkörpersysteme, Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 8,
161. Schweitzer, G. and Mansour, M. (eds), Dynamics of Controlled Mechanical Systems, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
162. Schweitzer, G., Traxler, A. and Bleuler, H., Magnetlager: Grundlagen, Eigenschaften und
Anwendungen berührungsfreier elektromagnetischer Lager, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.
163. Schweitzer, G, ‘Mechatronics – basics, objectives, examples’, Journal of Systems and Control
Engineering 210, Proceedings IMechE, 1996, 1–11.
164. Schweitzer, G., ‘Mechatronics for the design of human oriented machines’, IEEE/ASME Trans.
on Mechatronics 2, 1997, to appear.
165. Schwertassek, R. and Roberson, R.E., ‘A perspective on computer-oriented multibody dynami-
cal formalisms and their implementations’, in Dynamics of Multibody Systems, G. Bianchi and
W. Schiehlen (eds), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986, 263–273.
166. Schwerin, R.v. and Winckler, M., A Guide to the Integrator Library MBSSIM Version 1.00,
Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Wissenschaftliches Rechnen (IWR), Preprint 94–75, Heidelberg,
1994.
167. Segel, L. (ed.), The Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 1996.
168. Seydel, R., From Equilibrium to Chaos, Practical Bifurcation and Stability Analysis, Elsevier,
New York, 1988.
169. Shabana, A.A. and Rismantab-Sany, J., ‘Impulsive motion of nonholonomic deformable multi-
body systems. Part II: Impact analysis’, Journal Sound Vib. 127, 1988, 205–219.
170. Shabana, A.A., Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Wiley, New York, 1989.
171. Shabana, A.A., Computational Dynamics, Wiley, New York, 1994.
172. Shabana, A.A., ‘Flexible Multibody Dynamics: Review of Past and Recent Developments’,
Multibody System Dynamics 1, 1997, this issue.
173. Simeon, B., Führer, C. and Rentrop, P., ‘Differential-algebraic equations in vehicle system
dynamics’, Survey on Math. in Industry 1, 1991, 1–37.
174. Simeon, B., Numerische Integration mechanischer Mehrk örpersysteme: Projizierende Deskrip-
torformen, Algorithmen und Rechenprogramme, Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 20, Nr. 130, VDI-
Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1994.
175. Slibar, A. and Troger, H., ‘Das stationäre Fahrverhalten des Tank-Sattelaufliegers’, in Proceed-
ings IUTAM-Symposium, H.B. Pacejka (ed.), Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, 1976, 152–172.
176. Stadler, W. (ed.), Multicriteria Optimization in Engineering and in the Sciences, Plenum Press,
New York, 1988.
188 W. SCHIEHLEN
177. Stadler, W., Analytical Robotics and Mechatronics, McGraw-Hill, London, 1995.
178. Stasche, N., Foth, H.J. and Hörmann, K., ‘Laser-Doppler-Vibrometrie des Trommelfells’, HNO
41, 1993, 1–6.
179. Stejskal, V. and Valásek, M., Kinematics and Dynamimcs of Machinery, Marcel Dekker, New
York, 1996.
180. Stelzle, W., Kecskeméthy, A. and Hiller, M., ‘A comperative study of recursive methods’,
Archive of Applied Mechanics 66, 1995, 9–19.
181. Szabó, I., Geschichte der mechanischen Prinzipien, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1977.
182. Thomson, B., Neerpasch, U. and Schiehlen, W., DAMOS-C ein neutrales Datenformat zur
standardisierten Anbindung von MKS an Simulationssysteme mit offener Systemarchitektur,
VDI-Berichte 1153, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1994, 183–205.
183. Troger, H. and Steindl, A., Nonlinear Stability and Bifurcation Theory, Springer-Verlag, Wien,
1991.
184. Troost, A., Akin, O. and Klubberg, F., ‘Dauerfestigkeitsverhalten metallischer Werkstoffe
bei zweiachsiger Beanspruchung durch drei phasenverschoben schwingende Lastspannungen’,
Konstruktion 39, 1987, 479–488.
185. Tsai, F.F. and Haug, E.J., ‘Real-time multibody system dynamic simulation. Part I: A parallel
algorithm and numerical results’, Mechanics of Structures and Machines 19, 1991, 99–127.
186. Tsai, F.F. and Haug, E.J., ‘Real-time multibody system dynamic simulation. Part II: A modified
recursive formulation and topological analysis’, Mechanics of Structures and Machines 19,
1991, 129–162.
187. Uicker, J.J. Jr., ‘On the dynamic analysis of spatial linkages using 4 by 4 matrices’, Ph.D.
Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, 1965.
188. Van Campen, D. (ed.), Interaction between Dynamics and Control in Advanced Mechanical
Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997.
189. Vukobratovic, M., Frank, A.A. and Juricic, D., ‘On the stability of biped locomotion’, IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering BME-17, 1970, 25–36.
190. Vukobratović, M. and Stokić, D., Control of Manipulation Robots, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1982.
191. Wallentowitz, H. (ed.), AVEC’96, Proceedings International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle
Control, Aachen University of Technology, Aachen, 1996.
192. Watson, P. and Dabell, B.J., ‘Cycle counting and fatigue damage’, J. Soc. Env. Eng. 9, 1976,
3–8.
193. Watt, A., Fundamentals of Three-Dimensional Computer Graphics, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA, 1989.
194. Wittenbauer, F., Graphische Dynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1923.
195. Wittenburg, J., Dynamics of Systems of Rigid Bodies, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1977.
196. Yu, Hui-dan, Zhang, Jie-fang and Xu, You-shen, ‘Noether’s theory for nonholonomic systems
relative to non-inertial reference frame’, Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 14, 1993, 527–
536.
197. Zenner, H. and Liu, J., ‘Vorschlag zur Verbesserung der Lebensdauerabschätzung nach dem
Nennspannungskonzept’, Konstruktion 44, 1992, 9–17.

Multibody System Dynamics: Roots and Perspectives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multibody System Dynamics: Roots and Perspectives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multibody System Dynamics 1: 149–188, 1997.

Multibody System Dynamics:

(Received: 21 January 1997; accepted in revised form: 15 April 1997)

The dynamics of multibody systems is based on classical mechanics. The most

the principle of virtual work. As a result a minimal set of ordinary differential

Figure 1. Three-body system.

the Multibody System Handbook [152]. Reviews on multibody dynamics includ-

2. State-of-the-Art in Rigid Multibody Systems

2.1. MODELING AND FORMALISMS

part reference part i part ( i +1 )

Figure 2. Multibody system to be represented by the datamodel.

2.1.1. Kinematics of Multibody Systems

respectively, where the f 1-position vector

vi = r_ i = @@yrTi y_ + @@tri = J Ti(y; t) y_ + v i(y; t); (8)

!i = s_ i = @@ysTi y_ + @@tsi = J Ri (y; t) y_ + ! i(y; t): (9)

The 3 f -Jacobian matrices J Ti and J Ri defined by (8) and (9) characterize

ai = J Ti(y; t) y + @@yvTi y_ + @@tvi ; (10)

ai = @@zvTi z_ + @@yvTi y_ + @@tvi = LTi(y; z; t) z_ + v_ i(y; z; t); (15)

@!i @!i @ !i _ i(y; z ; t):

2.1.2. Newton–Euler Equations

I i !_ i + !e iI i!i = lei + lri ; i = 1(1)p: (18)

and the 3 (q + r)-distribution matrices

f ri = F i ; lri = Li ; i = 1(1)p; (21)

f ei = f ei(x; t): (22)

f ei = f ei(x; x_ ; t): (23)

A parallel spring-damper configuration is a typical example for this kind of forces.

f ei = f ei(x; w; t); w_ = w_ (x; w; t); (24)

Now, the Newton–Euler equations can be represented in the inertial frame as

and for nonholonomic systems

respectively. If the nonholonomic constraints disappear, e.g. z = y_ , (29) reduces

2.1.3. Equations of Motion

Here the number of equations is reduced from 6p to f , the f f -inertia matrix

kind, however, the procedure is computationally less efficient due to additional

Figure 3. Numerical and symbolical formalisms.

2.2. TEXTBOOKS AND PROCEEDINGS

3.1. DATAMODELS FROM CAD

Figure 5. Actual state of multibody system simulations.

Standardized result description

Figure 6. Desired goal for multibody system simulations.

3.2. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION

M (y; p; t)y + k(y; y_ ; p; t) = q(y; y_ ; u; p; t) (37)

least-squares method, Isermann [74]. However, often direct measurements of state

3.3. OPTIMAL DESIGN OF MULTIBODY SYSTEMS

optimization criteria (p)

multicriteria optimization method

Figure 7. Multimodel analysis concept.

multimodel performance evaluation

optimization criteria y (p)

Figure 8. Multicriteria optimization concept.

objective functions to be minimized, the problem has to be stated as a multicriteria

The operator “opt” is used for simultaneous minimization of the individual

yi0 : i0(ti0 ; yi0 ; p i) = 0; zi0 : _ i0(ti0 ; yi0 ; z i0; p i) = 0: (50)

Figure 9. Spatial vehicle model.

results in optimal criterion values. A third strategy which is closely related to

3.4. DYNAMIC STRENGTH ANALYSIS FOR MULTIBODY SYSTEMS

3.5. CONTACT AND IMPACT PROBLEMS

3.6. INTERACTION WITH FLUIDS

3.7. EXTENSION TO CONTROL AND MECHATRONICS

3.8. NONHOLONOMIC SYSTEMS

3.9. DAE INTEGRATION CODES

   

  

Figure 10. Stabilization and projection approach.

vi = r_ i = @@yrTi y_ + @@tri = J Ti(y; t) y_ + v i(y; t); (8)

!i = s_ i = @@ysTi y_ + @@tsi = J Ri (y; t) y_ + ! i(y; t): (9)

ai = J Ti(y; t) y + @@yvTi y_ + @@tvi ; (10)

ai = @@zvTi z_ + @@yvTi y_ + @@tvi = LTi(y; z; t) z_ + v_ i(y; z; t); (15)

@!i @!i @ !i _ i(y; z ; t):

f ri = F i ; lri = Li ; i = 1(1)p; (21)

M (y; p; t)y + k(y; y_ ; p; t) = q(y; y_ ; u; p; t) (37)

yi0 : i0(ti0 ; yi0 ; p i) = 0; zi0 : _ i0(ti0 ; yi0 ; z i0; p i) = 0: (50)