Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Canonical Generalized Inversion Form of Kane’s Equations of Motion for Constrained Mechanical Systems

Written By

Abdulrahman H. Bajodah and Ye-Hwa Chen

Submitted: 03 November 2017 Reviewed: 20 March 2018 Published: 18 July 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.76648

From the Edited Volume

Nonlinear Systems - Modeling, Estimation, and Stability

Edited by Mahmut Reyhanoglu

Chapter metrics overview

1,125 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The canonical generalized inversion dynamical equations of motion for ideally constrained discrete mechanical systems are introduced in the framework of Kane’s method. The canonical equations of motion employ the acceleration form of constraints and the Moore-Penrose generalized inversion-based Greville formula for general solutions of linear systems of algebraic equations. Moreover, the canonical equations of motion are explicit and nonminimal (full order) in the acceleration variables, and their derivation is made without appealing to the principle of virtual work or to Lagrange multipliers. The geometry of constrained motion is revealed by the canonical equations of motion in a clear and intuitive manner by partitioning the canonical accelerations’ column matrix into two portions: a portion that drives the mechanical system to abide by the constraints and a portion that generates the momentum balance dynamics of the mechanical system. Some geometrical perspectives of the canonical equations of motion are illustrated via vectorial geometric visualization, which leads to verifying the Gauss’ principle of least constraints and its Udwadia-Kalaba interpretation.

Keywords

  • canonical equations of motion
  • discrete mechanical systems
  • Kane’s method
  • Gauss’ principle of least constraints
  • cononical generalized speeds
  • Greville formula

1. Introduction

Deriving mathematical models for dynamical systems is in the core of the discipline of analytical dynamics, and it is the step that precedes dynamical system’s analysis, design, and control synthesis. For discrete mechanical systems, i.e., those composed of particles and rigid bodies, the mathematical models are in the forms of differential equations or differential/algebraic equations that are derived by using fundamental laws of motion or energy principles. Because many mechanical systems nowadays are multi-bodied with numerous degrees of freedom and large numbers of holonomic and nonholonomic constraints, simplicity of the derived equations of motion is important for facilitating studying the mechanical system’s characteristics and for extracting useful information out of its mathematical model. Hence, deriving the simplest possible form of the equations of motion that govern the dynamics of the mechanical system is crucial. Moreover, because the mechanical system’s equations of motion are simulated on digital computers, computational efficiency of the derived differential equations of motion when numerically integrated is another factor by which the quality of the mathematical model is judged on.

It has been a general trend for over two centuries to employ d’Alembert’s principle of virtual work [1] to derive equations of motion that involve no constraint forces. The principle was implemented by Lagrange [2] for deriving the first set of such equations, which constituted the first paradigm shift from the Newton-Euler’s approach. The only other alternative to employing d’Alembert’s principle has been to augment the equations with undetermined multipliers, an approach that was initiated by Lagrange himself. Other formulations that followed the trend include the Maggi [3] and Boltzmann-Hamel [4] formulations. A remarkable contribution of the Lagrangian approach to analytical dynamics is utilizing the concept of generalized coordinates instead of the Cartesian coordinate concept. The choice of generalized coordinates greatly affects simplicity of the derived equations of motion.

Another paradigm shift in the subject took place when Gibbs [5] and Appell [6] independently derived their equations of motion. For the first time, formulating the dynamical equations involved neither invoking d’Alembert’s principle nor augmenting undetermined multipliers. Because d’Alembert’s principle was to many analytical dynamics practitioners, “an ill-defined, nebulous, and hence objectionable principle,” [7] the Gibbs-Appell model was widely accepted within the analytical dynamics community. Moreover, the absence of undetermined multipliers from the Gibbs-Appell equations contributed to maintaining simplicity and practicality of the equations for large constrained mechanical systems. Another feature of the Gibbs-Appell approach was initiating the concept of quasi-velocities, which equal in their number to the number of the degrees of freedom of the mechanical system. Similar to the advantage of generalized coordinates, carefully chosen quasi-velocities can lead to dramatic simplifications of the dynamical equations of motion.

One feature that is associated with the Gibbs-Appell’s approach is that it is based on the differential Gaussprinciple of least constraints [8] as was shown by Appell, [9] in contrast to the Lagrange’s approach that is based on the variational Hamilton’s principle of least action [10] as opposed. Another feature is adopting the acceleration form of constraints to model a mechanical system’s constraints. Although easy by itself, employing the acceleration form eased the historical hurdle of modeling nonholonomic constraints that used to obstruct variational-based formulations, and it is a consequence of the differential theme that is based on Gauss’ principle. In particular, the acceleration form bypassed d’Alembert’s principle and the undetermined multiplier augmentation practices that produce false equations of nonholonomically constrained motion, and it unified the treatments of holonomic and nonholonomic constraints.

A key developments in the arena of analytical dynamics is the Kane’s method for modeling constrained discrete mechanical systems [11, 12, 13]. Kane’s method adopts a vector approach that inspired useful geometric features of the derived equations of motion [14]. The generalized active forces and generalized inertia forces are obtained by scalar (dot) multiplications of the active and inertia forces, respectively, with the vector entities partial angular velocities and partial velocities. This process delicately eliminates the contribution of constraint forces without invoking the principle of virtual work. The resulting equations are simple and effective in describing the motion of nonconservative and nonholonomic systems within the same framework, requiring neither energy methods nor Lagrange multipliers.

The standard Kane’s equations of motion for nonholonomic systems are minimal in generalized speeds, i.e., their number is equal to the number of degrees of freedom of the dynamical system, and only the independent portion of generalized speeds and their time derivatives appear in the equations. Nevertheless, information about dependent generalized speeds can be practically important, e.g., for the purpose of obtaining stability information about a dependent dynamics or when it desired to target a dependent dynamics with a control system design by using state space control methodologies.

On the other hand, generalized inversion and the Greville formula for general solutions of linear systems of algebraic equations were introduced to the subject of analytical dynamics by Udwadia and Kalaba [15, 16] as tools for deriving equations of constrained motion for discrete mechanical systems. The success that the formula met in modeling ideally constrained motion is due to its geometrical structure that captures orthogonality of ideal constraint forces on active and inertia forces, which is the essence of the principle of virtual work.

Inspired by the Udwadia-Kalaba equations of motion and the Greville formula, this chapter introduces a new form of Kane’s equations of motion. The introduced equations of motion employ the acceleration form of constraints, and therefore holonomic and nonholonomic constraints are augmented within the momentum balance formulation in a unified manner and irrespective of being linear or nonlinear in generalized coordinates and generalized speeds. The equations of motion are nonminimal, i.e., no reduction of generalized speed’s space dimensionality takes place from the number of generalized coordinates to the number of degrees of freedom. Furthermore, the new equations of motion are explicit, i.e., are separated in the generalized acceleration variables, and only one generalized acceleration variable appears in each equation.

The main feature of the derived equations of motion is the explicit algebraic and geometric partitioning of the generalized acceleration vector at every instant of time into two portions: one portion drives the mechanical system to abide by the constraint dynamics, and the other portion generates the momentum balance of the mechanical system as to follow Newton-Euler’s laws of motion.

Advertisement

2. Kane’s equations of motion for holonomic systems

Consider a set of ν particles and μ rigid bodies that form a holonomic system Sh possessing n degrees of freedom in an inertial reference frame J. Assume that n generalized coordinates q1,,qn are used to describe the configuration of the system. Then a corresponding set of n holonomic generalized speeds uh1,,uhn is used to model the kinematics of the system. The two sets are related by the kinematical differential equations [12, 13]:

q̇=Cqtuh+Dqt,E1

where qRn is a column matrix containing the generalized coordinates; uhRn is a column matrix containing the generalized speeds, q̇=dq/dt, CRn×n, DRn; and C1 exists for all qRn and all tR [12, 13]. Kane’s dynamical equations of motion for Sh are given by [12, 13]

Frquht+Frquhu̇ht=0,r=1,,n,E2

where Fr and Fr are the rth holonomic generalized active force and the rth holonomic generalized inertia force on the system, respectively, and u̇h=duh/dtRn is a column matrix containing the generalized accelerations. Furthermore, the velocities and angular velocities of the particles and bodies comprising a mechanical system are linear in the generalized speeds uhr. Hence, the accelerations, angular accelerations, and consequently the generalized inertia forces are linear in the generalized accelerations u̇hr. Therefore, a column matrix FRn containing Fr,r=1,,n can be written in the following form [17]:

Fquhu̇ht=Qqtu̇hLquht,E3

where the generalized inertia matrix QRn×n is assumed symmetric and positive definite and LRn. Hence, a matrix form of (2) is written as [17]

Qqtu̇h=Lquht+Fquht.E4

Advertisement

3. Kane’s equations of motion for nonholonomic systems

Let us now consider a modification of the kinematics of Sh that is made by imposing the following simple nonholonomic constraints on the generalized speeds [12, 13]:

up+r=s=1pArsqtus+Brqt,r=1,,m,E5

where u1,,un are the generalized speeds of the nonholonomic system S that is resulting from constraining Sh according to (5), m=np, and Ars and Br are scalar functions of the generalized coordinates q1,,qn, and t. The nonholonomic generalized speeds are considered to satisfy the same kinematical relations with generalized coordinates as their holonomic counterparts, i.e.,

q̇=Cqtu+Dqt.E6

The system dynamics of S changes from that given by (2) accordingly. Let the generalized speed column matrix be partitioned as

u=uITuDTT,E7

where uI=u1upT and uD=up+1unT. Kane’s dynamical equations of motion for S are given by [12, 13]

FrquIt+FrquIu̇It=0,r=1,,p,E8

where Fr and Fr are the rth nonholonomic generalized active force and the rth nonholonomic generalized inertia force on S, respectively. The relationships between holonomic generalized active forces on Sh and nonholonomic generalized active forces on S are given by [12, 13]

FrquIt=Frqut+s=1mFp+squtAsr,r=1,,p.E9

In a similar manner, the relationships between holonomic generalized inertia forces on Sh and nonholonomic generalized inertia forces on S are given by [12, 13]

FrquIu̇It=Frquu̇t+s=1mFp+squu̇tAsrqt,r=1,,p.E10

Substituting (9) and (10) in (8) yields the unreduced form of Kane’s equations of motion for S [12, 13, 17]:

Frqut+Frquu̇t+s=1mFp+squt+Fp+s(quu̇t)Asrqt=0,r=1,,p.E11

The simple nonholonomic constraint equations given by (5) can be rewritten in the following matrix representation [17]:

uD=AqtuI+Bqt,E12

where ARm×p and BRm. Furthermore, (12) can be rewritten as [17]

A1qtu=Bqt,E13

where A1Rm×n is given by

A1qt=AqtIm×m.E14

Also, (11) can be rewritten in the matrix form [17]:

A2qtFquu̇t=A2qtFqut,E15

where A2Rp×n is given by

A2qt=Ip×pATqt.E16

Hence, (15) becomes [17]

A2qtQqtu̇=A2qtLqut+A2qtFqut.E17

Notice that (17) is obtained by multiplying both sides of (4) by A2qt. Therefore, the unique holonomic generalized acceleration vector u̇h that solves the fully determined system given by (4) solves the underdetermined system given by (17) also, among an infinite number of generalized acceleration vectors that satisfy (17), each of which preserves a constrained momentum balance dynamics of the mechanical system.

Advertisement

4. Canonical generalized speeds

Choosing the set of generalized speeds is a crucial step in formulating Kane’s dynamical Eqs. (2) and (8) because the extent of how complex these equations appear is affected by this choice. For every choice of nonholonomic generalized speeds u1,,un, we define the canonical set of nonholonomic generalized speeds w1,,wn such that

w=Q1/2qtu,E18

where w is the column matrix containing w1,,wn and Q1/2 is the square root matrix of Q. With this choice of generalized speeds, (13) becomes

A1qtw=Bqt,E19

where A1qt=A1qtQ1/2qt. The time derivative of (18) is

ẇ=Q̇1/2qutu+Q1/2qtu̇E20

where Q̇1/2 is the element-wise time derivative of Q1/2 along the trajectory solutions of the kinematical differential Eqs. (6). Therefore, (17) becomes

A2qtQ1/2qtẇ=A2qtLqut+A2qtFqut+A2qtQ1/2qtQ̇1/2qutuE21

and can be simplified further to the following form:

A2qtẇ=A2qtQ1/2qtFqutLqut+A2qtQ̇1/2qutuE22

where A2qt=A2qtQ1/2qt. We view the nonholonomic mechanical system dynamics as being composed of two parts: a constraint dynamics that is modeled by (19) and a momentum balance dynamics that is modeled by (22). Scaling velocity variables and constraint matrices by square roots of the inertia matrices for the purpose of characterizing constrained motion is implicit in Gauss’ principle of least constraints [8] as will be shown later in this paper. Moreover, deriving explicit equations of motion for constrained mechanical systems by utilizing this type of scaling is first due to Udwadia and Kalaba. [15, 16] The arguments of the functions are omitted in the remaining sections for brevity, unless necessary to clarify concepts.

Advertisement

5. Generalized accelerations from the acceleration form of constraints

Time differentiating the constraint dynamics given by (19) yields [17]

A1ẇ=V1,E23

where V1Rm is given by

V1=ḂqutȦ1qutw,E24

where Ḃ and Ȧ1 are the element-wise time derivatives of B and A1 along the trajectory solutions of the kinematical differential Eqs. (6). The general solution of the above-written acceleration form of constraint equations for ẇ is given by the Greville formula as [18, 19, 20]

ẇ=A1+V1+P1y1,E25

where A1+ is the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse (MPGI) [21, 22] of A1 and

P1=In×nA1+A1E26

is the projection matrix on the nullspace of A1 and y1Rn is an arbitrary vector as for satisfying the acceleration form given by (25) but is yet to be determined to obtain the unique natural generalized acceleration. Because Q1/2 is of full rank, it follows that A1 retains the full row rank of A1 and hence that A1+Rn×m is given by the closed form expression:

A1+=A1TA1A1T1.E27

In (25), the following holds

A1+V1RA1T,P1y1NA1E28

where R and N refer to the range space and the nullspace, respectively. The term A1+V1 in (25) is the minimum norm solution of (23) for ẇ among infinitely many solutions that are parameterized by y1.

Advertisement

6. Generalized accelerations from the momentum balance dynamics

Let V2Rn be given by

V2=Q1/2FL+Q̇1/2u.E29

Then the momentum balance Eq. (22) takes the following compact form:

A2ẇ=A2V2E30

where A2 retains the full row rank of A2 because Q1/2 is of full row rank. Hence, another expression for the general solution of ẇ is obtained by utilizing the Greville formula to solve (30) and is given by

ẇ=A2+A2V2+P2y2E31

where A2+Rn×p is given by the closed form expression:

A2+=A2TA2A2T1E32

and

P2=In×nA2+A2E33

and y2Rn is an arbitrary vector as for satisfying the momentum balance dynamics given by (30), but its unique value that solves for the natural generalized acceleration vector ẇ is yet to be determined, and

A2+A2V2RA2+A2=RA2T,P2y2NA2.E34

The term A2+A2V2 in (31) is the minimum norm solution of (30) for ẇ among infinitely many solutions that are parameterized by y2.

Advertisement

7. Canonical generalized inversion Kane’s equations of motion

Since A1 and A2 are full row rank matrices and their numbers of rows m and p sum up to the full space dimension n and since

A1A2T=A1Q1/2A2Q1/2T=A1Q1/2A2Q1/2T=A1Q1/2Q1/2A2T=A1A2T=A+A=0m×mE35

it follows that the row spaces of A1 and A2 are orthogonal complements, i.e.,

RA1T=RA2T.E36

Nevertheless, since [23]

RA1T=NA1E37

then it follows from (36) that

RA2T=NA1.E38

Since the only part in the expression of ẇ given by (25) that is in NA1 is the second term P1y1, and since the ony part in the equivalent expression of ẇ given by (31) that is in RA2T is the first term A2+A2V2, it follows from (38) that

P1y1=A2+A2V2.E39

Substituting (39) in (25) yields the canonical generalized inversion form of Kane’s equations for nonholonomic systems:

ẇ=A1+V1+A2+A2V2.E40

The same result is obtained by using the fact:

NA2=RA2TE41

which implies by using (36) that

RA1T=NA2E42

Since the only part in the expression of ẇ given by (25) that is in RA1T is the first term A1+V1, and since the only part in the equivalent expression of ẇ given by (31) that is in NA2 is the second term P2y2, it follows from (42) that

P2y2=A1+V1.E43

(Substituting (43) in (31) yields Eq. (40). Eq. (20) can be used to express (40) in terms of the original generalized acceleration vector u̇, resulting in

u̇=Q1/2A1+V1+A2+A2V2Q̇1/2u.E44
Advertisement

8. Geometric interpretation of the canonical generalized inversion form

Adopting the canonical set w1,,wn of generalized speeds in deriving the dynamical equations for a mechanical system reveals the geometry of its constrained motion. Figure 1 depicts a geometrical visualization of the n dimensional Euclidian space at an arbitrary time instant t. The vertical and the horizontal axes resemble the orthogonally complements m dimensional and p dimensional subspaces RA1T and RA2T, respectively.

Figure 1.

Geometric visualization of the constrained generalized acceleration vector ẇ.

In viewing the canonical generalized acceleration ẇ given by (40) as the geometrical vector shown in Figure 1, it is shown to be composed of two components that are orthogonal to each other: The vertical component A1+V1 resides in RA1T, and it enforces the constraint dynamics given by (23), and the horizontal component A2+A2V2 resides in RA2T, and it generates the momentum balance dynamics given by (30).

Moreover, the vertical component of ẇ is the shortest in length “minimum norm” solution among infinitely many solutions of (23) that are parameterized by y1 according to (25). These solutions can also be represented by arbitrary horizontal deviation vectors: Δ2iẇ=A2+A2δiV2RA2T,i=1,2, as

ẇ+Δ2iẇ=A1+V1+A2+A2V2+δiV2E45

and are shown to solve (23) by direct substitution and noticing that A1A1+=Im×m and A1A2+=0m×p. Two of these solutions are plotted (in dotted red) in Figure 1 for arbitrary vectors δ1V2 and δ2V2 in Rn, in addition to the natural generalized acceleration vector ẇ that is obtained by setting δiV2=0n.

Similarly, the horizontal component A2A2+V2 of ẇ is the shortest solution among infinitely many solutions of (30) that are parameterized by y2 according to (31). These solutions can also be represented by arbitrary vertical deviation vectors: Δ1iẇ=A1+δiV1RA1T,i=1,2, as

ẇ+Δ1iẇ=A2+A2V2+A1+V1+δiV1E46

and are shown to solve (30) by direct substitution and noticing that A2A2+=Ip×p and A2A1+=0p×m. Two of these solutions are plotted (in dotted blue) in Figure 1 for arbitrary vectors δ1V1 and δ2V1 in Rm, in addition to the natural generalized acceleration vector ẇ that is obtained by setting δiV1=0m. Notice that the canonical generalized acceleration vector ẇ is the only solution that solves (45, 46) simultaneously and is obtained by setting δiV2=0n and δiV1=0m.

Now consider a general deviation vector Δẇ that is composed of arbitrary vertical and horizontal deviation components from ẇ as shown in Figure 2. The vertical component A1+δV1 abides by (46) but violates (45), and the horizontal component A2+A2δV2 abides by (45) but violates (46). Hence:

Figure 2.

Deviation from the constrained generalized acceleration vector ẇ.

Δẇ=A1+δV1+A2+A2δV2.E47

The deviated canonical generalized acceleration vector ẇ+Δẇ is obtained by summing (40) and (47) as

ẇ+Δẇ=A1+V1+δV1+A2+A2V2+δV2E48

and is shown in Figure 2 in dotted blue. On the other hand, the canonical holonomic generalized acceleration vector in terms of the canonical generalized speeds is obtained from (4) and (20) as

ẇh=V2E49

where wh=Q1/2u and u solves (4). Decomposing the expression of ẇh along RA1 and RA2 yields

ẇh=V2=P1V2+P2V2E50
=In×nA1+A1V2+In×nA2+A2V2E51
=A2+A2V2+A1+A1V2.E52

Let us now specify the deviated generalized acceleration vector ẇ+Δẇ to be ẇh as shown in Figure 3. Equating the two expressions (48) and (52) and solving for δV1 and δV2 yield

Figure 3.

Deviation from the constrained generalized acceleration vector ẇ.

δV1=A1V2V1,E53

and

δV2=0n.E54

Substituting δV1 and δV2 in (47) yields

Δẇ=A1+A1V2V1E55

which corresponds to the vertical solid red vector in Fig. (3). Notice that Δẇ is the shortest among all deviation vectors that end up at ẇh (two of which are shown in dotted red) by deviating from generalized acceleration vectors that abide by the constraint dynamics given by (23) (two of which are shown in dotted green), i.e.,

Δẇ=ẇhẇ=miniΔẇi=miniẇhẇi,i=1,2,E56

where ẇi satisfies

A1ẇi=V1E57

and x denotes the Euclidean norm of x given by x=xTx. Moreover, Δw can be expressed in terms of the original set of generalized speeds as

Δw=Q1/2ΔuE58

where Δu=uhu is the difference between holonomic and nonholonomic generalized speeds. Therefore:

Δẇ=Q1/2Δu̇+Q̇1/2Δu=miniQ1/2Δu̇i+Q̇1/2Δu,i=1,2,E59

where Δu̇i=u̇hu̇i and u̇i satisfies

A1ẇi=A1Q1/2u̇i+Q̇1/2u=V1.E60

Nevertheless, (59) implies that

Q1/2Δu̇=miniQ1/2Δu̇i,i=1,2,.,E61

which in terms of the square Euclidean norm implies that

Q1/2Δu̇2=Δu̇TQ1/2Q1/2Δu̇=miniΔu̇iTQ1/2Q1/2Δu̇iE62
=Δu̇TQΔu̇=miniΔu̇iTQΔu̇i,i=1,2,.E63

Eq. (63) is exactly the statement of Gauss’ principle of least constraints [8]. The present geometric interpretation of Gauss’ principle was first introduced by Udwadia and Kalaba [24].

Advertisement

9. Conclusion

The chapter introduces the canonical generalized inversion dynamical equations of motion for nonholonomic mechanical systems in the framework of Kane’s method. The introduced equations of motion use the Greville formula and utilize its geometric structure to produce a full order set of dynamical equations for the nonholonomic system. Moreover, the acceleration form of constraint equations is adopted in a similar manner as in the classical Gibbs-Appell, Udwadia-Kalaba, and Bajodah-Hodges-Chen formulations.

The philosophy on which the present formulation of the dynamical equations of motion is based views the constrained system dynamics of the mechanical system as being composed of a constraint dynamics and a momentum balance dynamics that is unaltered by augmenting the constraints. Inverting both dynamics by means of two Greville formulae and invoking the geometric relations between the resulting two expressions yield the unique natural canonical generalized acceleration vector.

Because the momentum balance dynamics and the acceleration form of constraint dynamics are linear in generalized accelerations, only linear geometric and algebraic mathematical tools are needed to analyze constrained motion of discrete mechanical systems. Also, the present linear analysis is valid in despite of dependencies among the constraint equations and changes in rank that the constraint matrix A may experience because the matrices A1 and A2 are always of full row ranks and their m and p rows span two orthogonally complement row spaces. Another advantage of maintaining full row ranks of A1 and A2 is that their generalized inverses have explicit and closed form expressions, which alleviate the need for employing numerical methods for computing generalized inverses.

References

  1. 1. d’Alembert J. Traité de Dynamique. Paris; 1743
  2. 2. Lagrange JL. Mechanique Analytique, Mme. Paris: Ve Courcier; 1787
  3. 3. Maggi G. Di alcune nuove forme delle equa- zioni della Dinamica, applicabili ai sistemi anolonomi. Atti Reale Accad Lin Rend Classe Sci Fisiche, Matematiche Naturali. 1901;5(10):287-292
  4. 4. Hamel G. Die LagrangeEulersche gleichungen der mechanik. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik. 1904;50:1-57
  5. 5. Gibbs WJ. On the fundamental formulae of dynamics. American Journal of Mathematics. 1879;2:49-64
  6. 6. Appell PE. Sur une forme générale des équations de la dynamique. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences - Paris. Series I Mathematique. 1899;129
  7. 7. Desloge EA. The Gibbs-Appell equations of motion. American Journal of Physics. 1988;56(9):1-6
  8. 8. Gauss CF. Über ein Neues Allgemeine Grundgesatz der Mechanik. Journal Für Die Reine Und Angewandte Mathematik. 1829;4:232-235
  9. 9. Appell PE. Sur une forme générale des equations de la dynamique et sur le principe de Gauss. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik. 1900;122:205-208
  10. 10. Goldstein H, Poole C, Safco J. Classical Mechanics. 3rd ed. Addison Wesley; 2001
  11. 11. Kane TR, Wang CF. On the derivation of equations of motion. Journal of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics. 1965;13(2):487-492
  12. 12. Kane TR, Levinson DA. Dynamics: Theory and Applications. McGraw-Hill Series in Mechanical Engineering; 1985
  13. 13. Roithmayr CM, Hodges DH. Dynamics: Theory and Application of Kane’s Method. Cambridge University Press; 2016
  14. 14. Lesser M. A geometrical interpretation of Kane’s equations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences. 1992;436:69-87
  15. 15. Udwadia FE, Kalaba RE. Analytical Dynamics: A New Approach. Cambridge University Press; 2007
  16. 16. Udwadia FE, Kalaba RE. A new perspective on constrained motion. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 1992;439(1906):407-410
  17. 17. Bajodah AH, Hodges DH, Chen YH. New form of Kane’s equations of motion for constrained systems. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. 2003;26(1):79-88
  18. 18. Greville TNE. The pseudoinverse of a rectangular or singular matrix and its applications to the solutions of systems of linear equations. SIAM Review. 1959;1(1):38-43
  19. 19. Ben-Israel A, Greville TNE. Generalized Inverses: Theory and Applications, Springer. 2nd ed. 2003
  20. 20. Bajodah AH, Hodges DH, Chen YH. Inverse dynamics of servo-constraints based on the generalized inverse. Nonlinear Dynamics. 2005;39(1–2):179-196
  21. 21. Moore EH. On the reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 1920;26:394-395
  22. 22. Penrose R. A generalized inverse for matrices. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 1955;51:406-413
  23. 23. Bernstein DS. Matrix Mathematics: Theory, Facts, and Formulas. 2nd ed. Princeton University Press; 2009
  24. 24. Udwadia FE, Kalaba RE. The geometry of constrained motion. ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik. 1995;75(8):637-640

Written By

Abdulrahman H. Bajodah and Ye-Hwa Chen

Submitted: 03 November 2017 Reviewed: 20 March 2018 Published: 18 July 2018