analytical formulations in lagrangian dynamics
TRANSCRIPT
1 /
Analytical Formulations in Lagrangian Dynamics: Theoretical Aspects and Applications to Interactions with Virtual and Physical
Environments
József Kövecses
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Centre for Intelligent Machines
McGill University Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2 /
McGill University
• Close to 200 years old• ~25-30,000 students• No. 1 research university in Canada (2006 Research
Infosource, highest proportion of graduate students in Canada
• No. 18 worldwide (2009 Times Higher Education Supplement); No. 20 in Engineering
• No. 1 in Maclean’s magazin rankings (ranking of Canadian universities)
3 /
4 /
Faculty of Engineering
• ~150 faculty members (professors), approximately, within the following academic units
• Departments of – Chemical Engineering– Civil Engineering– Electrical and Computer Engineering – Mechanical Engineering (30 professors) – Mining and Materials Engineering – Architecture– Urban Planning
• Mechanical Engineering – 30 professors (assistant, associate, full) – Support staff (technicians, secretaries, etc.)
5 /
Mechanical Systems• Simple systems can exhibit very complex behaviours
– Impact: different scales in space and time – Friction: different scales in space
• Example: Spinning and Sliding CoinsZ. Farkas, G. Bartels, T. Unger, D.E. Wolf: Frictional Coupling between Sliding and Spinning Motion, Physical Review Letters, 90, 248-302, (2003). T.C. Halsey: Friction in a Spin, Nature, 424, 1005, (2003).
6 /
• Basic concepts in mechanical system dynamics
• Proposed concept: based on principle of relaxation of constraints
• Usual approaches and further possibilities
• Applications – Variable-topology multibody systems: topology transitions– Force feedback devices and interactions with virtual environments– Robotic vehicles for unstructured terrain
Outline
7 /
• Biomechanical systems and humanoid robots• Force feedback devices and interactions with virtual environments
Two Examples
Anybody Technologies
8 /
global representation
Representation of Geometric Vectors
local representation
9 /
• Newton’s law
• Specification: force vs. motion
• Lagrangian approach
Some Basic Relations for Mechanical Systems
10 /
• n coordinates and n velocities
• m constraints (holonomic and/or nonholonomic)
• Dynamics equations (in global frame)
Usual Approaches in Multibody System Dynamics
v
constraint Jacobian
11 /
Possibility 1:
Possibility 2:
Meaning of the Lagrange Multipliers
m
L
gy
xO
12 /
• Augmented set of equations using Lagrange multipliers
• Reduction to a minimum set of coordinates/velocities (n-m independent variables)
Usual Approaches in Multibody System Dynamics
v
13 /
• Mostly developed for ideal bilateral constraints• Problematic situations can arise
– For example: non-ideal realization of constraints – Constrained and admissible dynamics are coupled– Constrained motion dynamics needs to be analyzed first
Usual Approaches
vr
14 /
• Problematic situations can arise – Constrained motion dynamics needs to be analyzed first
Usual Approaches
• bilateral and unilateral constraints • nonideal contacts/constraints • imperfect constraints: e.g. contacts
with finite stiffness• nonideal servo constraints• also impulse/momentum level
description• etc.
15 /
• Full development of the Principle of Relaxation of Constraints
• Moving the force-motion specification to a later phase: two-step process• Interpret distinguished directions/transformations in “space”
Proposed Approach
v
– constraints relaxed --- transformation
– possibility to generalize the idea of the free-body diagram
– mathematical formulation• variational• direct geometric
16 /
• Freeing the system: – body or system: “free-body diagram”– representation of forces (Newtonian) – definition of a specific subspace with
transformation (Lagrangian): the space of constrained motion
Proposed Approach
v“free” body or system
17 /
• Augmented set of equations using Lagrange multipliers
• Extension via relaxation
• Conditions for and – motion or force specification
(bilateral, unilateral, constitutive, etc.)
Extension of Usual Approaches
v
constrained
admissible
18 /
• Reduction to a minimum set of coordinates/velocities (n-m) independent variables)
• Extension (local parameterization)
– Constrained motion dynamics
– Admissible motion dynamics
• Conditions: motion or force specification
Extension of Usual Approaches
v
constrained
admissible
19 /
• Transformations and “Constraints”– Constrained motion (r dimensional subspace) – Admissible motion (n-r dimensional subspace)
space of admissible motion
– Local and global parameterizations of physicalquantities
Possible Unified Description
v
uconstrained
admissible
20 /
• Possibility of redundant constraints/transformation
• Physical coordinates\components: homogeneous in units
• Definition of subspaces– space of constrained motion – given – space of admissible motion – defined by analyst
– non-orthogonal and orthogonal definition
Parameterization and Definition of Subspaces
v
uconstrained
admissible
21 /
• Definition – Non-orthogonal: traditional way
• independent coordinates, Lagrange multipliers, etc.
– Orthogonal definition (mapping is determined)• decoupling – generally requires nonholonomic quasi-velocities
• Parameterization– local– global
– combination of the two – physical components– coupling between subspaces
Subspaces
v
uconstrained
admissible
22 /
• Expressed with geometric vectors
– Calculus of base vectors
• Expressed with variations
– Variations (coordinates, velocities, accelerations)
Physical Principle
v
uconstrained
admissible
23 /
• Balance of geometric vectors
– base vectors – M – mass matrix associated with v
– Expressed in global parameterization, v
– Expressed in local parameterization, u
Fundamental Equations
v
uconstrained
admissible
24 /
• Definition – Non-orthogonal: traditional way
• independent coordinates, Lagrange multipliers, etc.
– Orthogonal definition (mapping is determined)• decoupling – generally requires nonholonomic quasi-velocities
• Parameterization– local– global
– combination of the two – physical components– coupling between subspaces
Subspaces
v
uconstrained
admissible
25 /
• Dynamic equations for constrained motion
• Dynamic equations for admissible motion
Global Parameterization with Orthogonal Definition of Subspaces
v
uconstrained
admissible
– Motion vs. force specification– Transformations can be specified
redundantly – Physically consistent
manipulations/computations– Constrained motion space projector
of physical components - important
26 /
• Transformations
• Orthogonality condition
• Dynamic equations for constrained motion
• Dynamic equations for admissible motion
Local Parameterization with Orthogonal Definition of Subspaces
v
uconstrained
admissible– Motion vs. force specification– Nonideal force terms
27 /
• Variable-topology multibody systems: topology transitions
• Force feedback devices and interactions with virtual environments
• Robotic vehicles for unstructured terrain
Application Examples
28 /
Applications to Multibody Systems with Time-Varying Topology
• Nature of forces developed during topology transitions• Dynamics of contact transitions: impulse-momentum
– unification of concepts: kinematic, kinetic, energetic • Qualitative investigation for impulsive motion
– Performance measures
Dynamics of constrained directions can be decoupled (constrained and admissible subspaces)
Can be done in any set of coordinates (measurability)
29 /
• Decoupling of the kinetic energy
• Analysis of incremental work (energy loss for ideal case: space of constrained motion)
• Generalized definition for energetic coefficient of restitution:
• Original definition given by Stronge:
Application of Global Parameterization with Orthogonal Subspaces
30 /
Applications to Contact Dynamics: Example of the Falling Rod
• Impact dynamics highly depends on the variation of Tc
31 /
Variable Topology Systems: Transitions
Experimental Analysis McGill / UPC
d = 0 m
d = 0.2 m
γ = 90º
γ = 60º
γ = 90º
γ = 60º
32 /
• Energy redistribution – “Rayleigh’s quotient”
• Eigen-value problem
• Constrained motion space projector for physical components
Characterization of Topology Change
33 /
Example: Generalized Particle
Impulsive constraint:
SCM projector for physical components:
α
ρ
34 /
Example: Generalized Particle• Eigenvalue
– Eigenvector
• Eigenvalue– Eigenvector
α
ρ
∗1v
∗2v
35 /
Experimental Setup
• Experimental test-bed based on two 6-DoF dual-pantograph devices (equipped with high resolution force sensors and optical encoders).
• The end-effector of the active device impacts the passive device.
36 /
Dynamics of Heel Strike in Bipedal Locomotion
• Sudden change of topology
• Constraints are added on the leading foot
• The trailing foot also undergoes a transition (must leave the ground)
37 /
• Interaction between sensing/instrumentation and dynamic parameterization
• Dynamics of physical and virtual system assemblies – modelling, simulation, and control
Force Feedback Devices and Virtual Environments
38 /
Maple Environment
Simulation Framework
Modelling the Multibody System
Generating Essential Functions
Translating to S-Functions
Visualization Dynamics Analysis
Integration & Filtering
Matlab Simulink Environment
Via MuT interface•Mass Matrix•Force Vector•Constraints Jacobian•Constraints at Position level •etc.
MuT interface
39 /
40 /
Simulation with no corrections and stabilization
Simulation with two configuration corrections
Simulation with velocity filtering algorithm
Simulation with no corrections and stabilization
Constraint violations at the velocity level
Constraint violations at the configuration level
41 /
Comparison with SimMechanics Model
Simulation with our frameworkSimulation with SimMechanics
Simulation with SimMechanics Simulation with our framework
Trajectory along the Y direction
Trajectory along the X direction
42 /
Simulation modelQuanser 2-DoF Pantograph
F
K D
Emulation of a Bouncing Ball
43 /
44 /
Physical DeviceHuman User Virtual Model
2DoF Pantograph
Controller
Virtual ModelDerivative
X
Fvirtual
TorquesT
X,X,X. .. Human User
45 /
46 /
• Nonholonomic parameterization important
• Operational space: extension of traditional concept
Robotic Vehicles for Unstructured Terrain
Rocky 7 – NASA JPL
47 /
• Modelling and analysis based on the principle of relaxation of constraints
• Opens up new possibilities for describing mechanical systems
• Parameterizations are important – Physical components – Nonholonomic generalized velocities
Kövecses, J, ASME J. Applied Mechanics, Vol. 75, 2008, 061012 and 061013.
Conclusion
48 /
• Ali Azimi• Josep Maria Font Llagunes • Kamran Ghaffari • Farnood Gholami• Bahareh Ghotbi• Martin Hirschkorn • Arash Mohtat• Ali Modarres Najafabadi • Javier Ros• Bilal Ruzzeh• Sara Shayan Amin• Majid Sheikholeslami
Acknowledgement
49 /
• Financial support of sponsors is gratefully acknowledged:
– Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada – Canada Foundation for Innovation – Fonds Québecois de Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies – Canadian Space Agency– Quanser, Inc. – CMLabs Simulations, Inc.
Acknowledgement