Graduate Singularity also with Euler-Rodrigues parametrisation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TGVF
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Singularity
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on developing a multibody dynamics software using Lagrangian equations and Euler-Rodrigues parameterization to avoid gimbal lock. The user encounters a singularity issue when the angular position is part of the generalized coordinates, specifically when the quaternion component 'a' equals zero during a π rad rotation. This singularity complicates the calculations needed for the Lagrange equations. A suggestion is made to consult the work of O. Buchan and L. Trained for alternative parameterization methods to address the issue. The user acknowledges the helpful reference and expresses gratitude for the support.
TGVF
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
Hello,
Trying to develop a multibody dynamics software of my own (just to understand the nitty-gritty details of such stuff), I chose the Lagrangian equations approach, with the Euler-Rodrigues parametrisation (quaternion) for 3D rotation as it is supposed to remove the gimbal locking singularity of conventional Euler angles. When angular position is to be part of the generalized coordinates, I take b, c and d and leave a as a dependant variable computed from the normalisation condition: ##a^2= b^2+c^2+d^2 ## . I take the positive value of a, by convention. Sounds good but... The 3x3 transformation from angular velocity vector ## \begin{pmatrix} u \\ v \\ w \end{pmatrix} ## to vector ## \begin{pmatrix} \dot b \\ \dot c \\ \dot d \end{pmatrix} ## is singular for any rotation such that a=0 (determinant is a/8), which a π rd rotation about any axis. This singularity is a potential problem for the calculation of the inverse transform ## \frac {\partial \Omega} {\partial \dot q}## and also ## \frac {\partial^2 \Omega} {\partial \dot q \partial q}## that are necessary for computing the Lagrange equations.
Looks like another sort of gimbal-locking case! Did I miss something :confused: ? Or how to circumvent this problem?
Thanks for any clarification!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Evidently you're normalization introduces singularities in the Euler-Rodriguez paramemterization for rotations greater than##\pi## .I suggest you Google: O. Buchan, L. Trained "The Vectorial Paramemterization of Rotation". Try implementing the scheme found in Appendix A.
 
  • Like
Likes TGVF
Fred Wright said:
Evidently you're normalization introduces singularities in the Euler-Rodriguez paramemterization for rotations greater than##\pi## .I suggest you Google: O. Buchan, L. Trained "The Vectorial Paramemterization of Rotation". Try implementing the scheme found in Appendix A.
Excellent! I should have spotted this reference before posting since I know some other publications of Olivier Bauchau (relevant to non linear elasticity modelling of slender beams).
Thanks a lot for support!
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K