Comparison and Evaluation of Different Simulation Environments for Rigid Body Systems
Longxiang Shao, Ulrich Dahmen, Juergen Rossmann
TL;DR
This study systematically benchmarks four rigid-body dynamics environments—Adams, Simscape, OpenModelica, and VEROSIM—against the challenges of closed-loop kinematics, focusing on redundant boundary conditions, constraint-force computation, and static equilibrium. It uses a four-bar linkage and a complex crane model (MCrane) to compare modeling approaches (generalized vs maximal coordinates), solvers (LCP vs QP, PGS), and numerical stability across platforms. The findings highlight that Adams and VEROSIM are more robust to initial-position inaccuracies and offer strong CAD/3D visualization, with VEROSIM providing real-time capabilities at some cost to numerical precision, while OpenModelica struggles with static-equilibrium scenarios and requires manual fixes in some cases. Collectively, the results guide practitioners in selecting a tool that best matches the specific demands of their closed-loop multibody dynamics applications.
Abstract
Rigid body dynamics simulators are important tools for the design, analysis and optimization of mechanical systems in a variety of technical and scientific applications. This study examines four different simulation environments (Adams, Simscape, OpenModelica, and VEROSIM), focusing in particular on the comparison of the modeling methods, the numerical solvers, and the treatment of numerical problems that arise especially in closed-loop kinematics (esp. redundant boundary conditions and static equilibrium problem). A novel and complex crane boom of a real forestry machine serves as a practical benchmark application example. The direct comparison of the different solution approaches in the examined simulation tools supports the user in selecting the most suitable tool for his application.