Optimization of Flexible Multibody Systems

  • Jorge Ambrósio
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 511)


The design process of road vehicles, very often based on intuition and experience, can be greatly enhanced through the use of generalized optimization techniques. In a first application, the vehicle optimum design is achieved through the use of an algorithm with finite differences sensitivities. The vehicle suspension characteristics are the design variables while constraints on their relative motion and on their limiting values are imposed. The design of a highly flexible satellite antenna, which has to unfold from its lauching configuration into its operational geometry provides the second application of optimal design of flexible mulibody systems presented here. The mechanical properties of the composite materials that make the antenna are the design variables. The optimal design of the space flexible multibody system uses analytical design sensitivities obtained by automatic differentiation. When presenting this application, automatic differentiation tools, for the analytical sensitivities, and finite difference sensitivities are the approaches discussed.


Design Variable Multibody System Lateral Acceleration Automatic Differentiation Road Vehicle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adelman, H.M., and Haftka, R.T. Sensitivity analysis of discrete structural systems. AIAA Journal, 24, 823–832, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrósio, J., and Gonçalves, J. Complex flexible multibody systems with application to vehicle dynamics. Multibody System Dynamics, 6(2), 163–182, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Anantharaman, M., and Hiller, M. Numerical simulation of mechanical systems using methods for differential-algebraic equations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 32, 1531–1542, 1991.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, E., Bai, Z., Bischof, C., Blackford, S., Demmel, J., Dongarra, J., Du Croz, J., Greenbaum, A., Hammarling, S., Mckenney, A., and Sorensen, D. LAPACK Users’ Guide, SIAM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. Besselink, I., and van Asparen, F. Numerical optimization of the linear dynamic behavior of commercial vehicles. Vehicles System Dynamics, 23, 53–70, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bestle, D., and Eberhard, P. Analyzing and optimizing multibody systems. Mech. Struct. Machines, 20, 67–92, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bischof, C., Carle, A., Corliss, G., Griewank, A., and Hovland, P. ADIFOR: Generating derivative codes from Fortran programs. Scientific Programming, 1(1), 11–29, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. Bischof, C., Carle, A., Khademi, P. and Mauer, A., ADIFOR 2.0: automatic differenetiation of Fortran 77 programs, IEEE Computational Science & Engineering, 3(3), 18–32, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bottasso, C.L. Prilutsky, B.I., Croce, A., Imberti, E., and Sartirana, S. A numerical procedure for inferring from experimental data the optimization cost functions using a multibody model of the neuro-musculoskeletal system. Multibody System Dynamics, 17(2), 123–154, 2006.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai, G.-P., and Lim, C.W. Optimal tracking control of a flexible hub-beam system with time de-lay. Multibody System Dynamics, 17(4), 331–350, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dailey, L. Eigenvector derivatives with repeated eigenvalues. AIAA Journal, 27(4), 486–491, 1989.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Dias, J., and Pereira, M. Sensitivity analysis of rigid-flexible multibody systems. Multibody System Dynamics, 1, 303–322, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dias, J. Análise de Sensibilidades e Optimização de Sistemas Mecânicos Rígido-Flexíveis (Sensitivity analysis and Optimization of rigid-flexible mechanical systems), Ph. D. Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico de Lisboa, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. Duran, M.A., and Grossmann, I.E. An outer approximation algorithm for a class of mixed-integer nonlinear programs. Mathematical Programming, 36, 307–339, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Eberhard, P., and Bischof, C. Automatic differentiation of numerical integration algorithms. Mathematics of Computation, 68, 717–731, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Eberhard, P., Dignath, F., and Kübler, L. Parallel evolutionary optimization of multibody systems with application to railway dynamics. Multibody System Dynamics, 9, 143–164, 2003.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fenton, J. Handbook of Vehicle Design Analysis, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. Geoffrion, A.M. Generalized Benders decomposition. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 10(4), 237–260, 1972.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillespie, T.D. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. Gim, G., and Nikravesh, P.E. An analytical model of pneumatic tire for vehicle dynamic simulations. part 1: pure slip. Int. J. of Vehicle Design, 11, 589–618, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. Gim, G., and Nikravesh, P.E. An analytical model of pneumatic tire for vehicle dynamic simulations, part 2: comprehensive slips. Int. J. of Vehicle Design, 12, 19–39, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. Gim, G., and Nikravesh, P.E. An analytical model of pneumatic tire for vehicle dynamic simulations, part 3: validation against experimental data. Int. J. of Vehicle Design, 12, 217–228, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. Gonçalves, J., and Ambrósio, J. Rigid and Flexible Multibody Systems Optimization for Vehicle Dynamics, Technical Report IDMEC/CPM-02/001. IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. Gonçalves, J., and Ambrósio, J. Road vehicle modeling requirements for optimization of ride and handling. Multibody System Dynamics, 13(1), 3–23, 2005.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grandhi, R., Haftka, R., and Watson, L. Design-oriented identification of critical times in transient response. AIAA Journal, 24, 649–656, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greene, W., and Haftka, R. Computational aspects of sensitivity calculations in transient structural analysis. Computers and Structures, 32(2), 433–443, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffin, M. Handbook of human vibration, Academic Press, London, England, 1990Google Scholar
  28. Gupta, O.K., and Ravindran, A. Branch and bound experiments in convex nonlin-ear integer programming. Management Science, 31, 1533–1546, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Haftka, R., and Gürdal, Z. Elements of Structural Optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Haug, E., and Arora, J. Applied Optimal Design. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  31. He, Y., and McPhee, J. Multidisciplinary optimization of multibody systems with application to the design of rail vehicles. Multibody System Dynamics, 14(2), 111–135, 2005.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hsieh, C., and Arora, J. Design sensitivity analysis and optimization of dynamic response. Computer Methods Appl. Mech. Engng, 43, 195–219, 1984.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IMSL Fortran Routines for Mathematical Applications. Visual Numerics Inc., Huston, Texas, 1997.Google Scholar
  34. ISO 2631 Guide for Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole Body Vibration. International Organisation for Standardisation, 1974.Google Scholar
  35. Kim, M., and Choi, D. A new approach to the min-max dynamic response optimization. In: IUTAM-Symposium on Optimization of Mechanical Systems. Bestle, D., and Schiehlen, W. (Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 65–72, 1996.Google Scholar
  36. Leboeuf, F., Bessonnet, G., Seguin, P., and Lacouture, P. Energetic versus sthenic optimality criteria for gymnastic movement synthesis. Multibody System Dynamics, 17(3), 213–236, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGuire, M., and Guenther, D. Longitudinal suspension compliance modeling with ADAMS. In: SAE SP-950 SAE Paper No. 930764. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 53–66, 1993.Google Scholar
  38. Nelson, R. Simplified calculation of eigenvector derivatives. AIAA Journal, 14(9), 1201–1205, 1976.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neto, M.A. Optimization of Flexible Multibody Systems with Composite Materials. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 2006.Google Scholar
  40. Nikravesh, P.E. Computer Aided Analysis of Mechanical Systems.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988.Google Scholar
  41. Nikravesh, P., and Park, J. Effect of steering-housing rubber bushings on the handling response of a vehicle. SAE Journal of Passenger Cars, 106, 76–86, 1998.Google Scholar
  42. Ng, K.-M., A Continuation Approach for Solving Nonlinear Optimization Problems with Discrete Variables. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2002.Google Scholar
  43. Pacejka, H., and Sharp, R. Shear force development by pneumatic tyres in steady state conditions: a review of modelling aspects. Vehicle System Dynamics, 20, 121–176, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Samin, J.C., Brüls, O., Collard, J.F., Sass, L., and Fisette, P. Multiphysics modeling and optimi-zation of mechatronic multibody systems. Multibody Systems Dynamics, 18(3), 345–373, 2007.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sayers, M.W., and Karamihas, S.M. Interpretation of Road Roughness Profile Data. Contract DTFH 61-92-C00143, Report No. FHWARD-96-101. 1996.Google Scholar
  46. Schiehlen, W. Symbolic computations in multibody systems. In: Computer Aided Analysis of Rigid and Flexible Multibody Systems, Pereira, M., and Ambrosio, J. (Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 101–136, 1994.Google Scholar
  47. Shampine, L., and Gordon, M. Computer Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations. Freeman, San Francisco, California, 1975.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. ANSYSVersion 5.2. Swanson Analysis Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, 1995.Google Scholar
  49. Tawarmalani, M., and Sahinidis, N.V. Global optimization of mixed-integer nonlinear programs: A theoretical and computational study. Mathematical Programming, 99(3), 563–591, 2004.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Vanderplaats, G. DOT-Design Optimization Tools, Version 3.0. VMA Engineering, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1992.Google Scholar
  51. Venkataraman, S., and Haftka, R. Structural optimization: what has Moore’s law done for us?. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. Denver, Colorado, 22–25, April, 2002.Google Scholar
  52. Verissimo, P., and Ambrósio, J. Improved bushing models for vehicle dynamics, In: Proceedings of III European Conference on Computational Mechanics: Solids, Structures and Coupled Problems in Engineering (on CD), Mota, C.A., Soares, et al. (Eds.), Lisbon, Portugal, 5–8 June, 1–20, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM, Udine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Ambrósio
    • 1
  1. 1.IDMEC, Instituto superior TécnicoTechnical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations