22,723749 (1986)
SUMMARY
The analysis of low velocity impacts is necessary for designing everything from safe automobiles to safe
shipping casks for nuclear material. Although great strides have been made in reducing the cost of impact
analysis, the cost must be reduced even more before impact analysis becomes a routine design tool. One
approach replaces the mesh outside of the impact zone with a rigid body.
INTRODUCTION
Structural dynamics and the rigid body dynamics of mechanisms are commonly regarded as
two distinct fields both theoretically and in computational practice despite their common
foundation in Newtons second law. The central reason for this perception is that Newtons
second law is rarely used directly in computations. In structural dynamics, it is rewritten as the
weak form of Cauchys first law, which is very convenient to work with in the finite element
method, while Lagranges equation is frequently used in rigid body dynamics because it ensures
that the inertial forces are correctly calculated from the generalized coordinates and their first
and second time derivatives.
One unfortunate consequence in both fields is that ideas developed in one area are often
ignored in the other field. For instance, the contact algorithms developed in structural dynamics
are largely ignored by the rigid body dynamics community.
Another consequence is that many problems of importance are not adequately addressed by
either field because they do not fit neatly into a single category. The ability to simulate the
catastrophic failure of machinery is obviously important for creating safe designs, but conventional
analysis methods are either inaccurate or prohibitively costly for routine design. As a simple
example, consider a low velocity impact where shock waves are not important. Usually, only
the small region of a structure immediately involved with the impact is subject to finite
deformation, and the only function of the remainder of the structure is to carry the momentum
for dissipation by the plastic work. Replacing the mesh outside of the impact region with a rigid
body significantly reduces the cost of the analysis with only a small loss in accuracy.
When hydrodynamics researchers realized years ago that pure Eulerian and Lagrangian codes
could not solve all of their problems, they unified the viewpoints mathematically and produced
codes using both descriptions. Our goals are similar with respect to structural dynamics and
rigid body dynamics.
In this paper, structural dynamics and rigid body dynamics are reviewed and reunited by
deriving the weak form of Lagranges equation with quasicoordinates, and showing that the
classical formulations in the two fields are readily derived from it. Furthermore, a formulation
for efficiently handling problems with aspects of both structural and rigid body dynamics is
presented.
PART I: THEORY
THE WEAK FORM O F LAGRANGES EQUATION
The weak form of Lagranges equation is derived in this section from Cauchys first equation
of motion. A more detailed development is presented in Reference 2. Mathematical rigour is not
enforced; the equations presented here are well known. The standard assumptions about
integrability and continuity are made where necessary without mention. For a more mathematical
development using variational methods, the reader is referred to References 35.
Vectors are in bold type; their components are denoted by subscripts. Individual basis vectors,
however, have subscripts. The summing convention is always used unless otherwise noted, for
example, x = xiei. Matrices are also represented by bold letters. Greek subscripts indicate nodes,
e.g. the mass matrix is M x i p j Secondorder
. tensors, such as the stress tensor, are also in bold type.
A Lagrangian viewpoint is used throughout the remainder of this paper. The material points
are denoted by X, their location in the reference configuration, and their location at time t is x.
All displacements are measured in an inertial reference frame using a fixed orthonormal basis, e.
The governing equation of motion is Cauchys first law of motion.6 Initial displacements and
velocities, consistent with the constraint equations, along with traction boundary conditions
over regions disjoint from the constrained regions are specified:
Tij,j + pofi = Poxi
tijnj= t i on
Xi(X,0) = di(X)
ii(X,0) = V i ( X )
4 i ( x ,0) = 0
where t is the Lagrange stress tensor, f the body force, n the outward normal, t the traction
vector, po the density in the reference configuration, 4i the ith holonomic constraint function,
and rb the boundary surface subject to traction. Note that 4i denotes not only displacement
boundary conditions over a surface, but also the joint constraints at specified points on a body.
The Lagrange stress is used throughout because the equations are somewhat simpler with the
applied forces acting in the global directions, el, and the integrals performed over the reference
configuration. Once the equations are derived, modifying them to incorporate a different set of
conjugate stress and strain tensors is
The application of the classical variational procedures gives the principle of virtual work:
+
poXi 6xi dR
6,
~ i 6 xj i , j dR 
+
where 6x is an arbitrary displacement function chosen so that x 6x satisfies all of the constraints,
the kth applied concentrated force, ,Ii the Lagrange multiplier for (pi, (;) the appropriate
inner prodt.. for each 4 i , and 0, the domain of the reference configuration.
The displacement field is described by a set of generalized coordinates (and fields), q. For the
SIMPLE RIGID BODY ALGORITHM 725
purpose of maintaining a simple notational scheme, the generalized coordinates are treated as
a vector, but q is not in a linear vector space, e.g. rigid body rotations are not vectors:
xi = Xi(X, q ( X , t ) ) (7)
Using the chain rule, the virtual work associated with the inertial forces is written in terms of
the generalized coordinates:
The kinetic energy at a point is defined by equation (9). By performing the appropriate
differentiations, equation (10) is readily proved to be equivalent to equation (8):
where T* is the kinetic energy at point X . Again applying the chain rule, the virtual work
equation is rewritten as the weak form of Lagrange's equation:
The angular velocities about the axes of a body are a particular example of a general class
of velocity measures called quasicoordinates or quasivelocities.l o Most of the methods for
formulating equations in Reference 14 are motivated by the simplicity that results from using
quasicoordinates. One use for quasicoordinates is found in the analysis of shells subject to
large rotations, where angular increments (angular velocities in the limit) are used to update the
generalized rotational coordinates. Lagranges equation, as previously written, is not valid
for quasicoordinates, but it is readily recast into the quasicoordinate form. The modified
form is also known as the BoltzmannHamel equation.
Following Meirovitch, the quasicoordinates are written as linear combinations of the
generalized velocities:
Obviously, d~ is the inverse of the transpose of JI, but both symbols are used for clarity.
Denoting the kinetic energy at a point, written in terms of the quasicoordinates and the
generalized displacements, as T*,the weak form of Lagranges equation is derived by substituting
equations (13) and (14) in equation (11):
where x is the location of X at time t; R the rigid body displacement of the origin of the local
coordinate system; A the rotational transformation from the local to the global coordinate
system; 0 the vector of rigid body rotation measures; U the displacement of point x from its
reference position, X,in the local frame of the body; and z the vector of generalized coordinates
for U: for bricks, it is the usual three nodal displacements; for shells, rotational degreesoffreedom
are also included. Mode shape amplitudes may be used for linearly elastic systems.
A centre of mass coordinate system is not chosen because the location of the centre of mass
changes with the configuration of the body. Constraints are, therefore, necessary to locate the
instantaneous centre of mass.
The rigid body translational and angular velocity components in the local coordinate frame
are chosen as the quasicoordinates, and the displacement field is characterized by its generalized
728 D. J. BENSON AND J. 0. HALLQUISI
ii = ii (trivially)
where V is the translational velocity in the local coordinates of the body, and o the angular
velocity in the local coordinate frame of the body.
In the coordinate frame of the body, the velocity of a material point with respect to ground
is a simple algebraic function:
where xL is the velocity of a point in the local coordinate system of the body, and eijk the
cyclic permutation operator.
To further simplify the formulation, the stress and strain rate are also measured in the local
coordinate system of the body, thereby eliminating the effect of the rigid body rotations on the
stiffness matrix.
where N u and NZij are the shape functions, u the translational displacements, and y the rotational
degreesoffreedom. The precise definitions of the shape functions and nodal degreesoffreedom
depend on the particular element and the kinematic theory.*. For small strain, linear elasticity,
a few carefully chosen mode shapes may adequately describe the displacement field:
where Huicand Gujcare the mode shapes. The trivial displacement field represents a rigid body:
U i ( X )= 0 (26)
All of the above displacement fields use separation of variables, therefore in the subsequent
derivations, the derivatives
a2 uj and __
azuj
azi aZk azi ar
are assumed to be zero. In the sequel, the displacement field is written as equation (27) for
SIMPLE RIGID BODY ALGORITHM 729
generality:
ui= U i ( X ,z ( t ) ) (27)
. au,
u.=i.
I azj J
.. aui ..
lJ.=z.
azj J
For the particular choice of rigid body quasicoordinates made in the previous section,
equation (16) reduces to the following equations:
Both the quasicoordinate and the generalized coordinate form of Lagranges equation give the
same equations of motion for the displacement field because of the particular coordinate choice in
equation (20):
The terms inside the square brackets are quickly recognized as the classical form of the acceleration
vector in a rotating and translating coordinate system,
730 D. J. BENSON AND J. 0. HALLQUIST
Equations (3 1)(35) are the general equations of motion. By introducing the different kinematic
descriptions of the displacement field given by equations (22)(26) into the equations of motion, the
particular equations for geometrically nonlinear, geometrically linear and rigid bodies are
obtained.
For finite strain calculations, the introduction of separate rigid body coordinates is not
necessary unless the magnitude of the rigid body motion is so large in comparison to the
displacements from straining, e.g. space platforms, that the strain calculations are inaccurate.
The classical structural dynamics equations are recovered by simply deleting the rigid body
contributions in equation (35):
When the analyst is interested in only the gross motion of a body, and the magnitude of the
displacement field is small, the rigid body assumption, corresponding to equation (26), is used.
Equation (35) is trivially zero and equation (33) and (34) are simplified:
where M is the mass of the body and J the inertia tensor. Equations (37) and (38) generate a
rigid body finite element with one node and 6 degreesoffreedom.
The rigid body finite element generated by equations (31) and (32) with equations (37) and
(38) is more complex than the ones used in practice.",2 For rigid body analysis, R is more
convenient to work with than V, and a local coordinate system aligned with the principal axes
of the body diagonalizes the inertia tensor. Centre of mass coordinates are used to decouple
the translational and rotational degreesoffreedom:
aaT
=MR, (39)
aT
__ = J i j ~ j
ami
+
JijOj e i j k o j J k n o
n J po fjAjneni,Xm dQ
RV
While equations (31)(35) may appear formidable, they are not difficult to program. Most of
the integrals appear in structural analysis to within a rigid body rotation. The integrals for the
inertial terms are readily evaluated since the integrands are simple polynomials in the
SIMPLE RIGID BODY ALGORITHM 73 1
accelerations, velocities and displacements. Benson implemented the equations, using the modal
representation of equation (25), in the generalpurpose mechanisms program by adding
about 300 FORTRAN statements to the basic rigid body code.
At the initial time, the displacements are assumed to be zero, so that equation (43) can be
(43)
ci+3
= eijk]nopoxjukdfi =0 i = 1,2,3
Equations (45) and (46) are the inner product of the displacement field with the six rigid body
modes:
RL = 6, i = 1,2,3 (47)
Ri+3 = eijkXj i = 1,2,3 (48)
The freefree modes of a body include its six rigid body modes. By invoking the orthogonality
properties of the modes, the proof that equation (49) is always satisfied for any subset of the
freefree modes that does not include a rigid body mode is trivial.
In the literature with which the authors are familiar, there is no discussion on analytically
eliminating the Buckens frame constraints with any other set of modes than the freefree modes.
The generalization to arbitrary mode shapes is simple,2 and we give it here for completeness.
The central idea is, of course, the application of the GramSchmidt orthogonalization
where (., is the material inner product, H the original mode shapes, H the orthogonal
mode shapes and Hi the orthonormal mode shapes.
The kinetic energy functional, equation (53), after applying the Buckens constraints, only
appears to be more complicated than equation (30)because the functional is completely expanded.
In reality, two terms are completely deleted and the last term is simplified:
The angular momenta are also simplified primarily because the inertia tensor is simplified. For
comparison, the fixed frame inertia tensor is also given:
JF =
Lo[
PO
(2,
(Xi
(xl
+ u2)2 + ( x 3 + u3)2
+ U i ) ( X 2+ U2)
+ u1)(x3 + u3)
(xl
(Xi
(x2
+ u1)(x2 + u 2 )
+ U , ) 2+ (X3
+ u2)(x3 + u3)
+ U3)2
where JB is the Buckens inertia tensor and JF is the fixed frame inertia tensor.
IXl
( X ,
+ u1)(x3 + u3)
+ U 2 ) ( X 3+ U 3 )
+ ul)2 f (xZ
(57)
+ u2)2 1 da
Equation ( 3 1) remains unchanged with the Buckens frame, but because ofthe particular simplicity
of equation (54,the term e i j k vjaT/avkis zero in equation (32), the angular momentum equation.
The rigid body translational velocities may be evaluated in the ground coordinate frame since
SIMPLE RIGID BODY ALGORITHM 133
they appear only in the rigid body translational equations.20 Equation ( 3 1) is then replaced by
a simpler equation derived from Lagranges equation with the generalized velocity R:
Note that equation (58) is identical to equation (41) which is for rigid bodies with a centre of
mass coordinate system.
The equations of motion for the modes are almost identical to the general equations of motion
for the displacement field, given by equation (35); the major difference is their lack of the terms
with the rigid body translational velocity, V:
where C R is the reduced damping matrix and KR the reduced stiffness matrix.
SUBSTRUCTURING
The technology of substructuring linearly elastic bodies is highly d e ~ e l o p e d .In
~ this section,
substructuring is extended to include joining rigid bodies or modal representations of linearly
elastic bodies to nonlinear finite element meshes. The motivation for this work is to reduce the
computational cost of low velocity impact calculations. For example, in pipe whip analyses only
a small portion of a body is subjected to finite deformation and the remainder serves only to
store the momentum and elastic strain energy until they are dissipated by plastic work. By
replacing most of the body by a rigid or modal representation, the cost of an analysis is reduced
substantially without significantly affecting its accuracy.
Modal representations of components are usually joined by using component mode synthesis, *
or some variation of it. Static modes are calculated by a condensation procedure with the boundary
degreesoffreedom being retained. The interior of the body is represented by the static modes
and a truncated series of eigenvectors. Note that, by definition, the modes of components and
the assembled body are anything but the freefree modes, and therefore the orthogonalization
procedure of equations (50)(52) is necessary before using the Buckens frame.
The methodology for joining rigid components to elastic components is a trivial application
of component mode synthesis. A rigid component has no straining modes, no stiffness matrix,
and no damping matrix, so that its only effect is to add mass and inertia to the body, and to
constrain the boundary degreesoffreedom of the elastic components to zero where they join the
rigid component.
After assembling the rigid and elastic components, the appropriate equations from the previous
two sections are applied.
Joining the finite element meshes to rigid or modal representations of bodies is not difficult.
The necessary expressions are derived from the finite element model by virtual power arguments:
where V P is the virtual power, F the vector of generalized forces, and T and g represent the
appropriate terms from equation (1 6).
Partition the coordinates into interior mesh variables, Q and q, boundary mesh variables,
QB and qB, and rigidlmodal body variables, QR and qR. The bodies are joined to the finite
element mesh by expressing the boundary variables in terms of the rigidlmodal body variables:
(
V P = F f 6 Q i + Fj+ F i  ::;) SQj= F;SQf + FySQj = 0 (61)
The mass, damping, and stiffness matrices are derived by differentiating the F and FR
appropriately. The general forms are given below based on the function relationships between
the boundary nodes and the rigid bodies defined in equations (62)(65):
. aH..
QB = +mknQ;Q; + HijQj
a4k
For the sake of simplifying the notation, the mass, damping and stiffness matrices are partitioned:
(72)

c!!= cil
1J 1J (73)
The stiffness matrices are
SIMPLE RIGID BODY ALGORITHM 735
Note that although the mass matrix is symmetric, the damping and stiffness matrices are, in
general, not symmetric. The inertial terms coupling the rigid body equations to the finite element
equations are zero if a lumped mass matrix is used, an important consideration for programs
with explicit integration methods. A lumped mass matrix also eliminates many of the asymmetries
in the damping and stiffness matrices. Ratedependent materials can also introduce asymmetries
in the damping and stiffness matrices, and also have the added difficulty that, in practice, their
damping and stiffness are calculated together at the element level, which makes implementing
the above equations more difficult.
Rigid bodies can be implemented in a static analysis code by simply setting
and by keeping only the stiffness contributions. The resulting stiffness matrix is symmetric, as
would be expected. This result is not intuitively obvious from the above equations, but it is
easily derived by using generalized coordinates with virtual work instead of quasivelocities
with virtual power in the derivation of equation (61).
degreesoffreedom, namely the projections of a unit vector along the fibre length onto the three
coordinate axes:
'i(&) =' a ( & , 1 '2)'zi +1 2
> ' 2 ) Tz(E3)a,i (81)
where z ( j ) refers to z on the jth step, M i is the appropriate mass from a lumped mass matrix,
and h") is the integration stepsize.
The stepsize is determined at each timestep from the Courant stability criterion.
2. F and T must be calculated. This issue is especially critical when structures include rigid
bodies contiguous with finite elements.
3. Updating the displacements, velocities and inertia tensor in a manner that does not deform
the rigid body.
A rigid body is defined using a finite element mesh by specifying that all of the elements in
a region are rigid. In many of the equations that follow, summations are performed over all of
the nodes associated with all of the elements in a rigid body, and these special summations are
denoted zf".
The mass and the inertia tensor are readily calculated from equation (91):
where MRRis the rigid body inertia tensor for both rotation and translation, MF the finite
element mass matrix, and Q the rigid body velocity vector. The finite element mass matrix is
partitioned to simplify the notation:
In practice, M F is lumped by a procedure given by Hughesz5 Simple row summing is used for
the solid elements.
The displacements and velocities of the nodal displacements are readily calculated for a rigid
body:
where XCMis the centre of mass displacement, A the transformation from the rotated reference
738 D. J. BENSON AND J. 0. HALLQUIST
configuration to the global coordinate frame, 8 the measure of the rotation of the body, and o
the angular velocity of the body in the global coordinate frame.
At the initial time, A is the identity transformation, and the mass of a rigid body is readily
calculated by substituting equations (92)(98) into equation (91):
RB
M = 1M:ii no sum on i(i = 1 or 2 or 3 ) (99)
@
,
The displacement of the rigid body is measured from its centre of mass to eliminate the coupling
between the translational and rotational momentum equations; its location is not known a priori
and must be calculated from the mesh:
By applying equation (91) again, the inertia tensor is calculated from the mass matrix:
In deriving equation (102), the reference configuration is assumed to be coaligned with the
global reference frame. For arbitrary orientations of the body, the inertia tensor must be
transformed using the standard rules of secondorder tensors:
is the simplicity of the force torque accumulations that makes rigid bodies so computationally
attractive.
Although most rigid body dynamics programs take the total Lagrangian approach, DYNA3D
uses the updated Lagrangian approach for its structural dynamics calculations, therefore the
rigid body equations were implemented in their updated Lagrangian form to be consistent with
the rest of the program.
After calculating the rigid body accelerations from equations (89) and (90), the rigid body
velocities are updated using equation (86). The rigid body translational displacement is updated
using equation (87) and an incremental rotation matrix is calculated using the HughesWinget
algorithm,26 a generalization of the incremental rotations used earlier by Hallquist2' in
NIKE2D:
A,$"+l)ghhoY+1/2)
(106)
A'"' ' ) ( A Q ) iF
jZ 6 i j +(6ik  4ASik) ' ASkj (107)
EXAMPLES
Plate 2. Shear hands are evident o n the plane normal to the ram along the axis of the barstock
Plate 3. Thc devcloprnent o f shear bands is clearly shown in this sequence. In red regions, plastic strain exceeds
75 per cent
SIMPLE RIGID BODY ALGORITHM 743


+
t
.635 cm
I
22.9 cm
I
I
I
I
1
Figure 2. Finite element mesh
744 D. J. BENSON A N D J. 0. HALLQUIST
5 = 2.0 ms w
forged (HERF) in one blow at 1850F. Critical application of this component required that
forging be designed to produce preferential grain flow as represented in Figure 7 and that the
part be fabricated from highpurity, certified 304L stainless steel. The part was originally designed
to be forged from crossrolled plate which met the requirements of grain flow and purity, but
a shortage of certified plate stock developed during production and available, certified 304L,
1 in. diameter barstock was chosen as an alternative starting stock material. This change in
starting stock geometry affected the flow characteristics of the metal during forging and produced
parts that contained shear bands, regions of inhomogeneity within the forging which form at
an interface where the metal is flowing at different strain rates. Generally, flow lines in a part,
746 D. J. BENSON AND J. 0. HALLQUIST
Figure 6. Sidestruck valve body forging: (a) machined part, (b) forged part, (c) initial barstock
SIMPLE RIGID BODY ALGORITHM 747
L I
L I
!
L
Figure 8. Side views of DYNA3D mesh
748 D. J. BENSON AND J. 0. HALLQUIST
curve and follow the contour of the part, but shear bands are features which appear to cut across
the natural flow lines as shown in Plate 1. Microstructure and mechanical properties in shear
band regions can differ greatly from the matrix region of the forging, and for these reasons
forgings which contain shear bands are normally considered defective. Some conditions which
can be responsible for extreme velocity gradients are die geometry, friction or temperature
gradients due to either die chilling or adiabatic heating. Processing variables such as strain rate
and temperature also influence shear band formation. Because shear bands can only be detected
from a destructive evaluation technique, it is more useful to determine a safe regime of forging
conditions which will produce sound forgings. Usually, much trial and error must go into
analysing the forging conditions and process variables to determine this regime.
After shear bands were noted in the sidestruck forgings, an extensive metallurgical evaluation
of several processing parameters were performed to determine their cause and affect on shear
band formation. These evaluations require considerable time, labour, material and destructive
testing. Forgings which were sectioned in quarters, Plate 2, and revealed that shear bands were
more prevalent on one plane. Results of these studies indicated that geometry, billet length and
friction were the dominating factors in producing the shear band features.
We modelled the geometry using two zymmetry planes. Side views of the mesh are shown in
Figure 8. The die and ram are treated as rigid bodies, and the mass density of the ram is set to
give the proper ram mass. The initial ram velocity of 600cm/sec is assigned at the beginning of
the calculation. Results are shown in Plate 3 at selected times and clearly show the formation
of shear bands where plastic strain values greater than 75 per cent are deeply shaded. We found
that the shear band formation is most sensitive to the interface friction between the die and
barstock. The calculational time is roughly 5 hours of CPU on the CRAY 1 computer. Higher ram
velocities would require proportionally less CPU time and conversely for lower ram velocities.
CONCLUSIONS
The equations of motion for finite elements, rigid bodies and modal representations of deformable
bodies were derived from the weak form of Lagranges equation. By deriving the three sets of
equations from a single equation, the common structure of the equations is demonstrated. The
common structure simplifies the implementation of all three representations of a body into a
single program. Specifically, we show how to transform the finite element equations of motion
into the equations for rigid bodies and modal representations, which allows us to expand the
capabilities of a nonlinear structural dynamics program with relatively minor changes to it.
The implementation of rigid bodies in DYNA3D is described in detail. DYNA3D was chosen
for modification because it is frequently used for analysing low velocity impacts, an area where
rigid body dynamics is useful.
Three example applications were presented. Rigid body dynamics significantly reduced the
solution time in all cases with little change in accuracy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Lawrance
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) under Contract No. W7405Eng48.
The authors would like to acknowledge E. C. Flower of LLNL for providing the metallurgical
information described in problem 3, the sidestruck forging, and M. L. Chiesa of Sandia National
Laboratories, Livermore, for providing the penetrator tree impact example. The authors also
thank Nikki Falco for patiently typing this paper.
SIMPLE RIGID BODY ALGORITHM 749
DISCLAIMER
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights, Reference herein to any specific commercial
products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, of favouring by the United States Government or
the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state
or reflect those of the United States Government or the University of California, and shall not be used
for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
REFERENCES
1. W. F. Noh, Numerical methods in hydrodynamical calculations, Rept. UCRL52112, Univ. of California, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (1976).
2. D. J. Benson, The simulation of deformable mechanical systems using vector processors, diss., Univ. of Michigan
(1983).
3. J. T. Oden and J. N. Reddy, Variational Methods in Theoretical Mechanics, 2nd edn, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1983.
4. J. E. Marsden and T. J. R. Hughes, Mathematical Foundations of Elasticity, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, 1983.
5. K. Washizu, Variational Methods in Elasticity and Plasticity, 3rd edn. Pergamon Press, New York, 1982.
6. L. E. Malvern, Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, 1969.
7. K. J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, 1982.
8. 0.C. Zienkiewicz, T h e Finite Element Method, McGrawHill, London, 1979.
9. L. E. Elsgolc, Calculus of Variations, Addison Wesley, New York, 1961.
10. L. Meirovitch, Methods of Analytical Dynamics, McGrawHill, New York, 1970.
11. N. Orlandea, Nodeanalogous sparsityoriented methods for the simulation of mechanical system, diss., The Univ. of
Michigan (1973).
12. P. E. Nikravesh and I. S. Chung, Application of Euler parameters to the dynamic analysis of three dimensional
constrained systems, A S M E J . Mech. Design, 104, 785791 (1982).
13. B. J. de Veubeke, The dynamics of flexible bodies, J . Eng. Sci., 14, 895913 (1976).
14. T. R. Kane and D. A. Levinson, Formulation of equations of motion for complex spacecraft, J . Guid. Conrrol. 3,99
112 (1980).
15. T. R. Hughes and W. K. Liu, Nonlinear finite element analysis of shells: Part I, J . Comp. Melhs. Appl. Mech. Eng., 26,
331362 (1981).
16. M. A. Chace and D. A. Smith, DAMNa digital computer program for the dynamic analysis of generalized
mechanical systems, SAE Paper 710244 (1971).
17. P. N. Sheth, A digital computer based simulation procedure for multiple degree of freedom mechanical systems with
geometrical constrains, diss, Univ. of Wisconsin (1972).
18. J. R. Canavin and P. W. Likins, Floating reference frames for flexible spacecraft, J . Spacecraji, 14, 724732 (1977).
19. F. Buckens, The influence ofelastic components on the attitude stability of a satellite, Proc. Fifth Int. Symp. of Space
Technology and Science, pp. 193203 (1963).
20. T. J. Wielenga, Simplifications in the simulation of mechanisms containing flexible members, diss. Univ. of Michigan
(1984).
21. W. C. Hurty, Dynamic analysis of structural systems using component modes, A.I.A.A. J., 3, 678685 (1965).
22. G. L. Goudreau and J. 0. Hallquist, Recent development in large scale finite element Lagrangian hydrocode
technology, J . Comp. Meths. Appl. Mechs. Eng., 33, 725757 (1982).
23. J. 0. Hallquist, Theoretical manual for DYNA3D, Rept. UCID19401, Univ. of California, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (1982).
24. T. J. R. Hughes and E. Carnoy, Nonlinear finite element shell formulation accounting for large membrane strains, in
Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Plates and Shells, AMDVol. 48, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
pp. 193208 (1981).
25. T. J. R. Hughes, W. K. Liu and I. Levit, Nonlinear dynamics finite element analysis ofshells, in Nonlinear Finifr Elemenr
Analysis in Structural Mechanics: (W. Wunderlich, E. Stein and K. J. Bathe, Eds.), SpringerVerlag, Berlin. 1981,
pp. 151168.
26. T. J. R. Hughes and J. Winget, Finite rotation effects in numerical integration of rate constitutive equations arising in
largedeformation analysis, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 15, 18621867 (1980).
27. J. 0. Hallquist, NIKE2D: an implicit, finitedeformation, finiteelement code for analyzing the static and dynamic
response of twodimensional solids, Rept. UCRL52678, Univ. of California, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (1979).