See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327834410

Extension of Maggi and Kane Equations to Holonomic Dynamic Systems

Article  in  Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics · September 2018

DOI: 10.1115/1.4041579

CITATIONS READS

3 300

1 author:

Edward Haug

277 PUBLICATIONS   8,772 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computational Methods in Mechanical System Dynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edward Haug on 13 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Extension of Maggi and Kane
Equations to Holonomic
Edward J. Haug
Carver Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Dynamic Systems
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Iowa,
The Maggi and Kane equations of motion are valid for systems with only nonholonomic
Iowa City, IA 52242
constraints, but may fail when applied to systems with holonomic constraints. A tangent
e-mail: echaug@gmail.com
space ordinary differential equation (ODE) extension of the Maggi and Kane formula-
tions that enforces holonomic constraints is presented and shown to be theoretically
sound and computationally effective. Numerical examples are presented that demonstrate
the extended formulation leads to solutions that satisfy position, velocity, and accelera-
tion constraints for holonomic systems to near computer precision.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4041579]

1 Introduction
G. A. Maggi published landmark papers at the end of the 19th
century [1,2] that establish a system of equations of motion for
nonholonomically constrained mechanical systems. His equations
of motion are ordinary differential equations (ODE) that avoid the
need for Lagrange multipliers and the associated differential-
algebraic equations (DAE) of motion [3]. While valid representa-
tions of system dynamics with holonomic and nonholonomic con-
straints, DAE are difficult to solve [4] and lack theoretical
underpinnings that are provided by the theory of ODE [5]. With
the goal of obtaining ODE of dynamics, the Maggi equations
were rediscovered in the 1960s in the setting of nonholonomic
systems [6], for which they were intended, and rediscovered or
reinvented by Kane and applied to both nonholonomic and holo-
nomic systems [7]. Maggi equations, equivalently Kane equations
[8], have been applied to holonomic systems by enforcing con-
straints only at the velocity level [9–12]. This raises both theoreti-
cal and practical issues with the resulting ODE, since
configuration kinematic constraints are not included in the formu-
lation and numerical solution of the equations leads to “drift”
from the holonomic constraints [10,11]; i.e., error that accrues
over time.
The objective of this paper is to extend the domain of validity
of the Maggi and Kane formulations to holonomically constrained
systems. An early attempt to meet this objective [13] presents an
analysis based on the Lagrange multiplier form of the equations of
motion. The assumption is made that nonlinear holonomic con-
straints can be solved analytically for dependent generalized coor-
dinates as functions of independent coordinates, to satisfy the
holonomic constraints. Such analytical solutions, however, are
seldom possible in applications.
For the purposes of this paper, a mechanical system is defined
as a collection of rigid bodies whose position and orientation in an
inertial reference frame are defined by generalized coordinates
q ¼ ½ q1    qn T 2 Rn that must satisfy holonomic constraints
of the form
UðqÞ ¼ ½ U1 ðqÞ    Um ðqÞ T ¼ 0 2 Rm (1)
Time-independent constraints are treated here, but the formulation
is easily extended to time dependent constraints [14]. It is
assumed that the vector function UðqÞ of Eq. (1) has two continu-
ous derivatives with respect to its arguments. With q ¼ qðtÞ,
Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND NONLINEAR DYNAMICS. Manuscript received June 18,
2018; final manuscript received September 16, 2018; published online October 15,
2018. Assoc. Editor: Paramsothy Jayakumar.
differentiating Eq. (1) with respect to time yields velocity and
acceleration constraints
Uq ðqÞq_ ¼ 0 (2)
Uq ðqÞ€ ^_ q_  Uq ðqÞ€
q þ ðUq ðqÞqÞ q þ cðq; qÞ
_ ¼0 (3)
q
where a bold symbol is a vector or matrix, an over dot denotes
derivative with respect to time, an over tilde (hat) identifies a vari-
able that is held constant for the indicated differentiation, and the
multivariable calculus notation Uq ðqÞ  ½@Ui ðqÞ=@qj mn is used.
It is important that the Jacobian matrix Uq ðqÞ of the holonomic
constraints has full row rank for all q. Otherwise, the constraints
are dependent, or at least locally singular, requiring specialized
analysis methods that are beyond the scope of this paper.
Dynamics of the system is governed by d’Alembert’s principle
[3]
dqT ½MðqÞ€
q  QA ðq; q;
_ tÞ  Sðq; qÞ
_ ¼0 (4)
which must hold for all dq that satisfy Uq ðqÞdq ¼ 0, where the
mass matrix MðqÞ is positive definite on the null space of Uq ðqÞ,
QA ðq; q;
_ tÞ is the vector of generalized applied forces, and Sðq; qÞ
_
is a vector of velocity coupling terms, all assumed to be twice
continuously differentiable functions of their arguments. Consist-
ent with d’Alembert’s principle, no constraint reaction forces or
Lagrange multipliers appear in Eq. (4).
An implementation of the Maggi/Kane equations using tangent
space independent generalized coordinates and enforcing holo-
nomic velocity and acceleration constraints is presented in Sec. 2,
using only matrix and multivariable calculus concepts. It is shown
in Sec. 3 that solutions of the resulting ODE need not satisfy Eq.
(1); hence, they may not satisfy all equations of system dynamics.
An extension of the Maggi/Kane approach that satisfies Eqs.
(1)–(3) and yields ODE of system dynamics is presented in Sec. 4.
Technical issues associated with evaluating terms that are shown
to exist in Secs. 2 and 4 and implementing manifold theoretic sol-
utions of the ODE of motion are presented in Secs. 5 and 6. Com-
putational results obtained with the extended formulation are
presented in Sec. 7. Conclusions are presented in Sec. 8.
2 Maggi/Kane Equations That Enforce Only Velocity
and Acceleration Constraints
At initial time t0 , with qðt0 Þ ¼ q0 that satisfies Eq. (1), define
U  UTq ðq0 Þ and V as a solution of Uq ðq0 ÞV ¼ 0 and VT V ¼ I,
using singular value decomposition [15]. Note that VT U ¼ 0 and

Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics DECEMBER 2018, Vol. 13 / 121003-1

C 2018 by ASME
Copyright V
UT V ¼ 0. Since the columns of U and V span Rn , any vector q_ € ¼ Vw_  UBðqÞUq ðqÞVw_  UBðqÞcðq; DðqÞwÞ
q
can be uniquely represented as
¼ DðqÞw_  UBðqÞcðq; DðqÞwÞ (16)
q_ ¼ Vw  Uz (5)
From UðqÞ€ _ ¼ Uq ðqÞðDðqÞw_ UBðqÞcðq; DðqÞwÞÞ
q þ cðq; qÞ
In order that this q_ satisfies Eq. (2), it is required that þcðq; DðqÞwÞ ¼ 0, q€ of Eq. (16) is seen to satisfy Eq. (3), for
_
arbitrary values of w and w.
Uq ðqÞq_ ¼ Uq ðqÞVw  Uq ðqÞUz ¼ 0 (6) Substituting Eq. (16) into Eq. (14) and combining the result
with Eq. (8) yields
At t0 , Uq ðq0 ÞU ¼ UT U is positive definite, since U has full col-
umn rank; hence, UT U is nonsingular. Since Uq ðqÞ is a continu- DT ðqÞMðqÞDðqÞw_ ¼ DT ðqÞMðqÞUBðqÞcðq; DðqÞwÞ
ous function of q, the matrix Uq ðqÞU is nonsingular in a
neighborhood W1 of q0 ; i.e., a nonempty open set, possibly large þDT ðqÞQA ðq;DðqÞw; tÞ þ DT ðqÞSðq; DðqÞwÞ
in extent, that contains q0 . This justifies the definition q_ ¼ DðqÞw (17)

BðqÞ  ðUq ðqÞUÞ1 (7) which is a system of ð2n  mÞ first order ODE in ð2n  mÞ varia-
bles w and q. This is the form of Maggi/Kane equations of motion
where BðqÞ is a continuously differentiable, nonsingular, matrix that appears in the modern literature [9–12]. As noted earlier, the
function of q in W1 . Thus, from Eq. (6), z ¼ BðqÞUq ðqÞVw and mass matrix is positive definite on the null space of the constraint
Eq. (5) reduces to Jacobian, so the matrix DT ðq0 ÞMðq0 ÞDðq0 Þ ¼ VT Mðq0 ÞV is posi-
tive definite. Since DT ðqÞMðqÞDðqÞ is a continuous function of q,
q_ ¼ Vw  UBðqÞUq ðqÞVw ¼ ðI  UBðqÞUq ðqÞÞVw ¼ DðqÞw it is nonsingular in an open set W2 that contains q0 . From Eq. (5),
w ¼ VT q,_ so initial conditions are
(8)
wðt0 Þ ¼ VT qðt
_ 0Þ
where (18)
qðt0 Þ ¼ q0
DðqÞ  ðI  UBðqÞUq ðqÞÞV (9)
The theory of ODE [5] guarantees that the initial-value problem
The product of Eqs. (17) and (18) has a unique solution ðwðtÞ; qðtÞÞ on the
open set W1 \ W2 .
Uq ðqÞDðqÞ ¼ ðUq ðqÞ  Uq ðqÞUBðqÞUq ðqÞÞV
¼ ðUq ðqÞ  Uq ðqÞÞV ¼ 0 (10) 3 The Trouble with Maggi and Kane Equations
Applied to Holonomic Systems
shows that the columns of the matrix function DðqÞ are in the null
space of the constraint Jacobian. Thus, q_ of Eq. (8) satisfies the Even though the Maggi/Kane ODE initial value problem of
constraint velocity equation of Eq. (2), for arbitrary values of w. Eqs. (17) and (18) has a unique solution, it is not necessarily the
The vector w comprises the “kinetic characteristics” in the Maggi solution of the dynamics problem. The theoretical difficulty in
formulation [1,2,6,8] and “generalized speeds” in the Kane formu- applying the Maggi/Kane equations with holonomic constraints is
lation [7]. Further, the columns of DðqÞ are Kane’s “partial veloc- that q and w are not Lagrangian generalized coordinates [3]; i.e.,
ities” [7], which in this formulation provide a differentiable basis they do not identically satisfy all three forms of the equations of
for the null space of the constraint Jacobian. constraint of Eqs. (1)–(3). More specifically, the unique solution
In variational form, Eq. (8) is the virtual displacement relation of Eqs. (17) and (18) need not satisfy Eq. (1).
A more important issue is that in numerical solution of the ini-
dq ¼ DðqÞdw (11) tial value problem of Eqs. (17) and (18), Eq. (1) is satisfied only
Using Eq. (10) to within error tolerances of the numerical integration method.
This is a source of “drift,” i.e., error in satisfying Eq. (1) over
Uq ðqÞdq ¼ Uq ðqÞDðqÞdw ¼ 0 (12) time. Since the equations of motion are valid only on the con-
straint manifold X ¼ fq 2 Rn : UðqÞ ¼ 0g, not in a neighborhood
for arbitrary dw; i.e., dq of Eq. (11) satisfies Eq. (12) for arbitrary of it, numerical integration error corrupts the equations of motion
dw. Substituting dq ¼ DðqÞdw into Eq. (4) yields and leads to an additional source of error that is difficult to quan-
tify. Since the constraint of Eq. (1) is an integral component of
q  DT ðqÞQA ðq; q;
dwT ½DT ðqÞMðqÞ€ _ tÞ  DT ðqÞSðq; qÞ
_ ¼0 system kinematics, the fact that it is not satisfied in numerical
solution of the Maggi/Kane equations is a serious problem. Some
(13)
implementations of the Maggi/Kane equations monitor error in
which holds for all dq such that Uq ðqÞdq ¼ 0, so by Eq. (12), it satisfying Eq. (1), stop the simulation when the error exceeds a
holds for arbitrary dw. Using this fact and Eq. (8) given threshold, modify the approximate solution to satisfy Eq.
(1), and continue the simulation [10,11], which induces further
DT ðqÞMðqÞ€
q  DT ðqÞQA ðq; DðqÞw; tÞ  DT ðqÞSðq; DðqÞwÞ ¼ 0 error in the approximate solution. This deficiency is resolved in
(14) Sec. 4.
A second practical difficulty with the Maggi/Kane equations is
which are Maggi’s equations [6,8]. Since Eq. (14) is comprised of that ad hoc selection of generalized coordinates may not yield dif-
n  m differential equations in 2n þ m variables q and w, there ferentiable vector functions that span the null space of the con-
are an infinity of solutions. To obtain uniquely solvable equations, straint Jacobian, leading to significant error. The derivation of
q€ must be written in terms of w and its derivatives. Differentiating Sec. 2 avoids this problem, but only in the neighborhood W1 . This
equation (5) with respect to time deficiency is resolved in Sec. 6.
€ ¼ Vw_  Uz_
q (15)
For q€ to satisfy Eq. (3), Uq ðqÞ€ q þ cðq; qÞ
_ ¼ Uq ðqÞVw_ 4 The Extension
Uq ðqÞUz_ þ cðq; qÞ
_ ¼ 0. Using Eq. (7), z_ ¼ BðqÞUq ðqÞVw_ To overcome the problems identified is Sec. 3, tangent space
þBðqÞcðq; qÞ.
_ Substituting this and Eq. (8) into Eq. (15) generalized coordinates are defined in the configuration space as

121003-2 / Vol. 13, DECEMBER 2018 Transactions of the ASME

 q ¼ q0 þ Vv  Uu
To satisfy the holonomic constraint of Eq. (1), for a given value of
v, u must satisfy
Uðq0 þ Vv  UuÞ ¼ 0
Using the chain rule of differentiation and Eq. (7),
Uu ðqÞ ¼ Uq ðqÞU ¼ B1 ðqÞ, which is nonsingular in a neigh-
borhood X1 of q0 . Since u ¼ 0 is a solution of Eq. (20) for v ¼ 0,
the implicit function theorem [16] guarantees that there is a
unique continuously differentiable solution of Eq. (20)
u ¼ hðvÞ
in the neighborhood X1 of q0 , i.e., in a neighborhood V1 of v ¼ 0.
Substituting this result into Eq. (19)
qðvÞ ¼ q0 þ Vv  UhðvÞ
The function hðvÞ is defined to satisfy Uðq0 þ Vv  UhðvÞÞ ¼ 0,
for all v in V1 , so the constraint of Eq. (1) is satisfied for all v in V1 .
To see geometrically what Eq. (22) means and why the extent
of the neighborhood V1 is important, the geometry of choosing u
to stay on the constraint manifold is shown in Fig. 1. The vector
q0 þ Vv may be viewed as movement in the tangent plane to the
manifold, which is modified by vector Uu to yield q on the
manifold. Equation (22) consolidates the two vectors into the con-
tinuously differentiable result. It is clear from Fig. 1, however,
that if v is large, the vector Uu that is perpendicular to the plane
tangent to the manifold at q0 may not intersect the manifold and
the parameterization may fail; i.e., generalized coordinates v are
no longer valid. Fortunately, a large condition number [15] of
BðqÞ is an effective warning that such a situation is impending
and is used to stop the simulation, redefine the parameterization,
and continue integration. This process, which introduces no error
in the solution, is outlined in Sec. 6.
Repeating the derivations of Eqs. (8) and (16) of Sec. 2 with
q_ ¼ Vv_  Uu_ and q€ ¼ V€ v  U€ u
_ vÞ
qðv; _ ¼ DðqðvÞÞv_
€ ðv; v;
_ v€Þ ¼ DðqðvÞÞ€
q v  UBðqðvÞÞcðqðvÞ; qðv;
_ vÞÞ_
As in the analysis of Sec. 2, q_ and q
€ of Eqs. (23) and (24) satisfy
Eqs. (2) and (3), for arbitrary values of v 2 V1 ; v;
_ and v€. This and
_ and v€ are
the observation following Eq. (22) show that v; v;
Lagrangian generalized coordinates [3]; i.e., the constraints of
Eqs. (1)–(3) are satisfied for all values of v 2 V1 ; v;
_ and v€. The
value of working with Lagrangian generalized coordinates is that
after ODE in v are obtained and solved, q; q; _ and q€ that are eval-
uated using Eqs. (22)–(24) satisfy the constraints of Eqs. (1)–(3).
With the differential form of Eq. (23), dq ¼ DðqÞdv, and using
Eq. (24), Eq. (4) reduces to
dvT DT ðqÞ½MðqÞDðqÞ€ _  QA ðq; q;
v  MðqÞUBðqÞcðq; qÞ _ tÞ
 Sðq; qÞ
_ ¼0 (25)
Fig. 1 Projection onto constraint manifold
Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics
(19) Since dv is arbitrary
DT ðqÞMðqÞDðqÞ€
v ¼ DT ðqÞðMðqÞUBðqÞcðq; qÞ
_ þ QA ðq; q;
_ tÞ
þ Sðq; qÞÞ
_ (26)
(20) With Eqs. (22) and (23) substituted into this equation, all expres-
_
sions that appear are functions of Lagrangian coordinates v and v.
Equation (26) is thus a second-order ODE of motion in general-
ized coordinate v. With initial conditions derived from Eqs. (19)
and (23), 0 ¼ VT ðq0  q0 Þ ¼ v and VT q_ 0 ¼ v_ 0 ; i.e.,
vðt0 Þ ¼ 0
(27)
(21) _ 0 Þ ¼ VT q_ 0
vðt
and the fact that the coefficient matrix of v€ in Eq. (26) is nonsin-
gular, the initial value problem of Eqs. (26) and (27) has a unique
(22) continuously differentiable solution in the neighborhood V1 of
v ¼ 0 [5].
To show that Eqs. (26) and (27) are valid equations of motion,
note first that their unique solution satisfies Eq. (25) for arbitrary
dv, equivalently Eq. (4) for all dq such that Uq dq ¼ 0. Since the
generalized coordinates q; q; _ and q€ of Eqs. (22)–(24) satisfy the
constraints of Eqs. (1)–(3), for any v 2 V1 ; v;_ and v€, the solution
of Eqs. (26) and (27) defines q; q; _ and q € in Eqs. (22)–(24) that
satisfy all three forms of constraint. Thus, Eqs. (26) and (27) are
valid equations of motion.
The “troubles” with the Maggi/Kane formulation identified in
Sec. 3 have been overcome with this extended formulation. In
order to reliably compute solutions, however, three practical
issues remain to be resolved, as follows:
(1) How is BðqÞ of Eq. (7) evaluated?
(2) How is hðvÞ of Eq. (21) evaluated?
(3) How is the local solution of Eqs. (26) and (27) continued
over time?
5 Evaluation of B(q) and h(v)
(23) At q0 , Bðq0 Þ ¼ ðUq ðq0 ÞUÞ1 ¼ ðUT UÞ1 is numerically eval-
uated. For q 6¼ q0 , BðqÞ must satisfy Eq. (7), written in the form
R ¼ ðUq ðqÞUÞBðq  I ¼ 0. With an approximation Bi of the
(24)
solution from the prior time-step in numerical integration and sup-
pressing the argument q, since it does not change in this process,
i
Newton-Raphson iteration is defined by ðUq UÞDBi ¼ R
i
¼ Uq UB þ I. Since the matrix ðUq UÞ need not be inverted
with great precision for use in the Newton-Raphson process and
Bi  ðUq UÞ1 , DBi ¼ Bi Uq UBi þ Bi and Biþ1 ¼ Bi þ DBi .
This yields the iterative algorithm
Biþ1 ¼ 2Bi  Bi Uq UBi ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; untilkUq UBiþ1  Ik  Btol
(28)
where Btol is a specified error tolerance. This is an efficient com-
putation, requiring only matrix multiplication.
While the function hðvÞ of Eq. (21) cannot be analytically
determined, it can be evaluated as accurately as desired using
Newton–Raphson iteration to solve Eq. (20) for u, with a given v;
i.e., Uu Dui ¼ Uq UDui ¼ BDui ¼ Uðq0 þ Vv  Uui Þ. The
solution is Dui ¼ BUðq0 þ Vv  Uui Þ and uiþ1 ¼ ui þ Dui . This
yields the iterative algorithm
uiþ1 ¼ ui þ BUðq0 þ Vv  Uui Þ;
i ¼ 1; 2; …untilkUðq0 þ Vv  Uuiþ1 Þk  utol (29)
where utol is a specified error tolerance. Since the
Newton–Raphson method does not require an exact Jacobian, the
DECEMBER 2018, Vol. 13 / 121003-3
matrix B is held constant throughout the process. This is an effi-
cient computation, requiring only matrix multiplication.
6 Continuation of Solution
From a theoretical point of view, issue 3 identified in Sec. 4 is
the most challenging. Basic concepts of the theory of differentia-
ble manifolds [17] that bear on continuation of solutions are sum-
marized here. The set of q 2 Rn that satisfy Eq. (1) is the
embedded constraint manifold X ¼ fq 2 Rn : UðqÞ ¼ 0g, shown
schematically in Fig. 2. Generalized coordinates v of Eq. (22)
define a continuously differentiable function q ¼ /0 ðvÞ ¼
q0 þ Vv  UhðvÞ that maps a neighborhood N0 of v0 onto
X0 ¼ /0 ðN0 Þ X. Such a function and neighborhood define a
chart ð/0 ; X0 Þ, analogous to the concept of a planar map of part
of the surface of the earth. Clearly, one planar map cannot cover
the entire earth. Likewise, a single chart that is based on one gen-
eralized coordinate vector q0 can seldom cover the entire mani-
fold; i.e., generalized coordinates v can only be locally defined.
Multiplying Eq. (19) on the left by VT yields the mapping v ¼
T gian generalized coordinates. More importantly, even though
V ðq  q0 Þ from the neighborhood X0 X of q0 2 X to Rnm .
To see that this mapping has a continuous inverse, combine it
with the constraint equation of Eq. (1) to obtain
 T  that the local coordinate manifold concept outlined here will be
V ðq  q0 Þ  v
gðqÞ  ¼0 (30)
UðqÞ
The Jacobian of gðqÞ is
 
VT
gq ðqÞ ¼ (31)
Uq ðqÞ
which is nonsingular at ðq0 ; t0 Þ, and gðq0 Þ ¼ 0. The implicit func-
tion theorem [16] shows that Eq. (30) has a unique continuously
differentiable solution in a neighborhood of q0 2 X0 ; namely,
q ¼ /0 ðvÞ ¼ q0 þ Vv  UhðvÞ. Similarly, Eq. (23) maps v_ into
_ Multiplying Eq. (23) on the left by VT yields the inverse map
q.
VT q_ ¼ VT DðqÞv_ ¼ VT ðI  UBðqÞUq ðqÞÞVv_ ¼ v. _ The same
argument shows that the map of Eq. (24) from v€ to q € has inverse
VT q€ ¼ VT DðqÞ€ v  VT UBðqÞcðq; qÞ _ ¼ v€. Thus, one-to-one
invertible maps exist between q and v, q_ and v,_ and q€ and v€.
If two charts with invertible mappings intersect in X, as shown
in Fig. 2, then there is a differentiable function from one chart to
the other and the charts are called compatible, much as two planar
maps of the surface of the earth that cover the same locale are
compatible. A family of compatible charts whose images cover
the entire manifold is called an atlas. The atlas provides a struc-
ture upon which to characterize trajectories on the constraint
manifold, such as a solution curve for the equations of constrained
dynamics, as shown schematically in Fig. 2. The charts provide
Fig. 2 Continuation of solution trajectory over charts
121003-4 / Vol. 13, DECEMBER 2018
for changes in local coordinates along a trajectory qðvðtÞÞ in X,
including differentiability of coordinates and tangents. The theory
of differentiable manifolds [17] provides a foundation for the
approach that is presented here to formulate ODE of motion, using
more modest results from multivariable calculus.
To resolve the issue of continuing the solution of the initial-
value problem of Eqs. (26) and (27), integration algorithms are
enhanced with criteria such as condition numbers [15] of matrices
BðqÞ and DT ðqÞMðqÞDðqÞ that are monitored to determine when
the local parameterization is approaching a singularity [14]. At
such a time t, with solution ðq; qÞ,
_ Uq ðqÞ, new U and V are calcu-
lated. The integration process is then continued with initial condi-
T
tions v ¼ 0 and v_ ¼ V q. _ With differentiability properties shown
above, the theory of ODE [5] assures existence of solutions on
neighboring charts, enabling continuation of the solution until the
desired final time is reached, or a singularity associated with rank
deficiency of the constraint Jacobian is encountered.
Globally valid Lagrangian generalized coordinates do not exist
in many applications. For example, for a particle on the two-
dimensional unit sphere, there is no globally valid pair of Lagran-
there are three degrees of rotational freedom for a rigid body in
space, there is no globally valid set of three Lagrangian orienta-
tion generalized coordinates [18]. These simple examples suggest
increasingly important in complex applications.
7 Analysis and Computational Experience
The ODE formulation of equations of motion presented in Ref.
[14] for holonomic systems was implemented and published with-
out realizing it was an extension of the Maggi/Kane equations.
Examples presented in Ref. [14] demonstrate that the extension
presented herein reliably forms and solves equations of motion,
satisfying all three forms of kinematic constraint to near computer
precision. Computational experience with the formulation showed
that hundreds of time steps can generally be taken in the same
chart; i.e., without redefining independent generalized coordi-
nates. Analysis of computer time distribution has shown that neg-
ligible CPU time is devoted to changing coordinates in the
continuation process [14]. Without repeating details of calcula-
tions that are presented in Ref. [14], performance of the tangent
space ODE formulation is summarized using examples presented
therein.
7.1 Heavy Symmetric Top, Tip Sliding on x–y Plane. An
interesting spinning top example is to allow the tip to move with-
out friction on the x–y plane, as shown in Fig. 3. With the unit
vector k ¼ ½0 0 1T in the positive z direction, holonomic con-
straints are
" #
kT ðr  AðpÞk0 Þ
UðqÞ ¼ ¼0
1=2ðpT p  1Þ
where generalized coordinates are q ¼ ½ rT pT T , r is the vector
from the origin of the x–y–z inertial frame in Fig. 3 to the centroid
of the Top, p 2 R4 is the vector of Euler parameters, and AðpÞ is
the orientation transformation matrix for the x0  y0  z0 frame
[14]. The top has 7 generalized coordinates and 2 constraints,
hence 5 degrees-of-freedom.
Inertia properties of the top are m ¼ 30 kg, J0 ¼
diagð90; 90; 30Þ kg  m2 relative to the centroidal x0  y0  z0
frame, and g ¼ 9:6 m=s2 in the negative z direction. The initial
configuration is with the top vertically upward; i.e., r0 ¼ ½0; 0; 1T
and p0 ¼ ½1; 0; 0; 0T . The initial angular velocity in the body fixed
reference frame is x00 ¼ ½e; e; omegazT , where x0 and y0 angular
velocities e ¼ 1012 are perturbations from the vertical configura-
tion. Initial generalized coordinate velocities are p_ 0 ¼
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Maximum norms of two body pendulum constraint
error

Tol Pos. Vel. Acc.

e-6 e-10 e-7 e-7

e-9 e-12 e-11 e-9
e-12 e-15 e-14 e-13

the x–y–z global frame by a spherical joint. The mass of each

sphere is m ¼ 75 kg, its inertia matrix is J0 ¼ ð2m=5ÞIkg  m2 , and
g ¼ 9:6 m=s2 in the negative z direction. A unit distance constraint
acts between points P1 on body 1 at k0 1 and P2 on body 2 at k0 2 .
The vector r21 from point P2 to P1 is r21 ¼ r2 þ Aðp2 Þk0 2 þ
Aðp1 Þk0 1 where p1 and p2 are Euler parameters that define orienta-
tion of bodies 1 and 2 [14]. Generalized coordinates are q ¼
½ pT1 pT2 rT2 T 2 R11 and holonomic constraints are
2 3
1=2ðpT1 p1  1Þ
6 7
UðqÞ  6 T 7
4 1=2ðp2 p2  1Þ 5 ¼ 0
Fig. 3 Heavy symmetric top with tip constrained to x–y plane
1=2ðr21T r21  1Þ

Table 1 Maximum norms of top constraint error so the system has 8 degrees-of-freedom. Initial position conditions
are p01 ¼ p02 ¼ ½1; 0; 0; 0T and r02 ¼ ½0; 0; 3T ; i.e., the body z0
Tol Pos. Vel. Acc. axes coincide with the inertial z axis and body two hangs verti-
cally downward. The initial velocity of body two is r_ 2 ¼ 0 and
e-6 e-8 e-6 e-4 initial angular velocities are x0 01 ¼ 0 and x0 02 ¼ ½0; 5; 0T , so
e-9 e-11 e-8 e-7 p_ 0i ¼ 0:5Gðp0i ÞT x0 0i .
e-12 e-14 e-10 e-9 To evaluate constraint error control, the convergence tolerance
Tol ¼ Btol ¼ utol in Eqs. (28) and (29) is varied in simulations
carried out using the Nystrom4 explicit integrator [14], to evaluate
its influence on constraint error. Results presented in Table 2
show that position, velocity, and acceleration constraint errors are
driven toward zero to near computer precision as convergence tol-
erances are tightened. Little increase in compute time is associ-
ated with the tighter tolerances.

8 Conclusions
While the Maggi and Kane equations of motion are valid for
systems with only nonholonomic constraints, they fail to enforce
configuration constraints in holonomic systems. To correct this
deficiency, the tangent space ODE extension that is presented
defines Lagrangian generalized coordinates at the configuration
level and enforces position, velocity, and acceleration constraints.
Numerical examples presented show that the extended formula-
tion satisfies all three forms of constraint to near computer
precision.

Fig. 4 Two body spatial pendulum
0:5Gðp0 ÞT x00 and r_ ¼ 0. Numerical solutions are carried out with
the fourth-order Nystrom4 explicit integrator [14].
To evaluate constraint error control, the convergence tolerance
Tol ¼ Btol ¼ utol in Eqs. (28) and (29) is varied to evaluate its
influence on constraint error. Results presented in Table 1 show
that position, velocity, and acceleration constraint errors are
driven toward zero to near computer precision as convergence tol-
erances are tightened. Little increase in compute time is associ-
ated with the tighter tolerances.
7.2 Two Body Spatial Pendulum. Two spheres of unit radius
are shown in Fig. 4. The origin of body 1 is fixed to the origin of
Acknowledgment
The author acknowledges (1) valuable discussions with Profes-
sor Bahram Ravani of the University of California-Davis that con-
tributed to development of the tangent space ODE algorithm
presented and (2) thoughtful critiques and constructive sugges-
tions by three reviewers that enabled conversion of a rough draft
to a hopefully useful paper.
References
[1] Maggi, G. A., 1896, Principii Della Teoria Matematica Del Movimento Dei
Corpi: Corso de Meccanica Razionale, Ulrico Hoepli, Milano.
[2] Maggi, G. A., 1901, “Di Alcune Nuove Forme Delle Equazioni Della Dinamica
Applicabili ai Sistemi Anolonomi,” Rendiconti Della Regia Academia Dei Lin-
cei, Serie V, Vol. X, pp. 287–291.
[3] Pars, L. A., 1965, A Treatise on Analytical Dynamics, Reprint by Ox Bow Press
(1979), Woodbridge, CT.
[4] Rabier, P. J., and Rheinboldt, W. C., 2002, “Theoretical and Numerical Analy-
sis of Differential-Algebraic Equations,” Handbook of Numerical Analysis,
Vol. 8, P. G. Ciarlet and J. L. Lions, eds., Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, pp. 183–540.

Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics DECEMBER 2018, Vol. 13 / 121003-5

 [5] Teschl, G., 2012, Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems,
American Math Society, Providence, RI.
[6] Neimark, J. I., and Fufaev, N. A., 1972, Dynamics of Nonholonomic Systems,
American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.
[7] Kane, T. R., and Levinson, D. A., 1985, Dynamics: Theory and Applications,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
[8] Borri, M., Bottasso, C., and Mantegazza, P., 1990, “Equivalence of Kane’s and
Maggi’s Equations,” Meccanica, 25(4), pp. 272–274.
[9] Tseng, F.-C., Ma, Z.-D., and Hulbert, G. M., 2003, “Efficient Numerical Solu-
tion of Constrained Multibody Dynamics Systems,” Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Eng., 192(3–4), pp. 439–472.
[10] Bauchau, O. A., and Laulusa, A., 2008, “Review of Contemporary Approaches
for Constraint Enforcement in Multibody Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlin-
ear Dyn., 3(1), p. 011005.
[11] Laulusa, A., and Bauchau, O. A., 2008, “Review of Classical Approaches for
Constraint Enforcement in Multibody Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear
Dyn., 3(1), p. 011004.
121003-6 / Vol. 13, DECEMBER 2018
View publication stats
[12] Garcia de Jalon, J., Callejo, A., and Hidalgo, A. F., 2012, “Efficient
Solution of Maggi’s Equations,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 7(2),
p. 021003.
[13] Papastavridis, J. G., 1990, “The Maggi or Canonical Form of Lagrange’s Equa-
tions of Motion of Holonomic Mechanical Systems,” ASME J. Appl. Mech.,
57(4), pp. 1004–1010.
[14] Haug, E. J., 2016, “An Ordinary Differential Equation Formulation for Multi-
body Dynamics: Holonomic Constraints,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.,
16(2), p. 021007.
[15] Strang, G., 1980, Liner Algebra and Its Applications, 2nd ed., Academic Press,
New York.
[16] Corwin, L. J., and Szczarba, R. H., 1982, Multivariable Calculus, Marcel Dek-
ker, New York.
[17] Arnold, V. I., 1978, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer,
New York.
[18] Stuelpnagel, J., 1964, “On the Parametrization of the Three-Dimensional Rota-
tion Group,” SIAM Rev., 6(4), pp. 422–430.
Transactions of the ASME