Multibody Syst Dyn (2009) 22: 181–197

DOI 10.1007/s11044-009-9157-3

On the integration of computer aided design and analysis

using the finite element absolute nodal coordinate
formulation

Graham G. Sanborn · Ahmed A. Shabana

Received: 24 September 2008 / Accepted: 16 April 2009 / Published online: 27 May 2009
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract For almost a decade, the finite element absolute nodal coordinate formulation
(ANCF) has been used for both geometry and finite element representations. Because of the
ANCF isoparametric property in the cases of beams, plates and shells, ANCF finite elements
lend themselves easily to the geometric description of curves and surfaces, as demonstrated
in the literature. The ANCF finite elements, therefore, are ideal for what is called isogeomet-
ric analysis that aims at the integration of computer aided design and analysis (ICADA),
which involves the integration of what is now split into the separate fields of computer aided
design (CAD) and computer aided analysis (CAA). The purpose of this investigation is to
establish the relationship between the B-spline and NURBS, which are widely used in the
geometric modeling, and the ANCF finite elements. It is shown in this study that by using
the ANCF finite elements, one can in a straightforward manner obtain the control point rep-
resentation required for the Bezier, B-spline and NURBS geometry. To this end, a coordinate
transformation is used to write the ANCF gradient vectors in terms of control points. Uni-
fying the CAD and CAA will require the use of such coordinate transformations and their
inverses in order to transform control points to position vector gradients which are required
for the formulation of the element transformations in the case of discontinuities as well as
the formulation of the strain measures and the stress forces based on general continuum
mechanics theory. In particular, fully parameterized ANCF finite elements can be very pow-
erful in describing curve, surface, and volume geometry, and they can be effectively used to
describe discontinuities while maintaining the many ANCF desirable features that include
a constant mass matrix, zero Coriolis and centrifugal forces, no restriction on the amount
of rotation or deformation within the finite element, ability for straightforward implementa-
tion of general constitutive equations, and ability to capture coupled deformation modes that
cannot be captured using existing finite element beam, plate and shell formulations. Because
of the relationship between the ANCF finite elements and the B-splines, the development
of a rational absolute nodal coordinate formulation (RANCF) is currently being explored.
Furthermore, the relationship between the ANCF finite elements and B-splines and NURBS

G.G. Sanborn · A.A. Shabana ()

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 842 West Taylor Street,
Chicago, IL 60607, USA
e-mail: shabana@uic.edu
182 G.G. Sanborn, A.A. Shabana

demonstrates that the use of B-splines and NURBS in the analysis will eventually lead to the
same fundamental issues that have been already researched in the literature on the ANCF
finite elements.

Keywords Computer aided design · Computer aided analysis · B-splines · NURBS ·

Absolute nodal coordinate formulation · Isogeometric analysis

1 Introduction

The integration of the modeling of the geometry with finite element and multibody sys-
tem analyses is becoming necessary in order to obtain efficient and accurate simulations
for complex industrial, technological, biomechanics and biological systems. Currently, the
geometry of a system is described using a computer aided design (CAD) package, while the
computer aided analysis (CAA) is performed using separate finite element and/or multibody
system computer codes. In most cases, with one known exception as explained in this paper,
the method used in the CAD system for the geometry description is significantly different
from the method used to define the finite element displacement fields in the analysis of
computer codes. For example, most CAD systems employ Bezier, B-splines and/or NURBS
curves and surfaces for the geometry description [1–3]. B-splines are piecewise polyno-
mial splines that can be used for modeling the geometry of curves, surfaces, and volumes.
NURBS (Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines) are B-splines that have rational basis functions
allowing for modeling conic shapes exactly. Bezier geometry can be considered as a special
case of B-spline geometry with one continuous polynomial element. A non-rational form of
Bezier methods also exists, allowing for modeling conic shapes exactly as well. The Bezier,
B-spline, and NURBS methods can collectively be called the NURBS family of geometry
representation.
In CAA simulation tools, on the other hand, the displacement field of the finite elements
is often defined using polynomials and a set of nodal coordinates that do not lead to exact
definition of geometry. Existing beam, plate and shell finite elements, for example, employ
infinitesimal or finite rotations as nodal coordinates [4–7], and for this reason these finite
elements cannot be used accurately or efficiently in modeling complex geometry. This in-
consistency between the geometry and analysis descriptions makes it difficult and inefficient
to perform simulations, particularly when the design parameters and the associated geometry
have to be repeatedly changed and updated. For this reason, having one geometric descrip-
tion for both CAD and CAA will greatly help facilitate the integration of computer aided
design and analysis (ICADA). It will allow for far superior description of complex shapes in
computer aided analysis, will lead to consistent description of both geometry and analysis,
and will eliminate the costly and time consuming step of information translation between
the CAD and the CAA tools [8, 9]. One computer code can then be used for both the geom-
etry and the analysis, eliminating the need for having two or three different software: one
for CAD and the others for finite element/multibody CAA.
As previously mentioned, most CAD systems use Bezier representation that employs the
Bernstein polynomials to describe the geometry; and B-splines and NURBS that employ
de Boor polynomials [1–3]. Bezier, B-spline, and NURBS representations employ basis
functions and control points to define the geometry. B-splines and NURBS also utilize a
vector of knots which is used to control the basis functions of the splines. NURBS further
use control point weights, which allow the spline to model conic shapes exactly. In general,
except at the end points of the splines, the control points do not lie on the surface. Efficient
On the integration of computer aided design and analysis 183

manipulation of shapes can be achieved by changing the location and number of the control
points. In the case of Bezier curves, the number of control points is related to the order of
the curve; while in the case of B-splines and NURBS, the number of control points does
not depend on the order of the curve or the surface. This important feature of the B-splines
and NURBS allows for increasing the number of control points while keeping the order
of the functions the same. This is achieved by introducing the concept of the knots which
represent points that do not have to be distinct. Having the flexibility to change the number
of control points while keeping the order unchanged allows for better shape and geometry
manipulations. In fact, automated algorithms exist to increase both the number of control
points or elements and the order of the polynomials used to define Bezier, B-spline, and
NURBS geometry without altering the shapes. For this reason, the use of finite element
formulations that have the powerful geometric features of existing geometric representations
will eventually revolutionize the CAD and CAA industry and will lead to a new generation
of software that will combine both CAD and CAA. In fact, such finite element formulations
do exist and have been in use for almost a decade [12]. An example of these formulations
that can be used in the integration of geometry and finite element and multibody system
analyses is the absolute nodal coordinate formulation (ANCF) [10–12].
While Bezier curves, B-splines and NURBS are a point-based description, ANCF fi-
nite elements are a point/gradient-based description. As shown in this paper, the ANCF
point/gradient description can be converted to a point description in a straightforward man-
ner using a simple coordinate transformation, thereby establishing the relationship between
the ANCF kinematic description and other well-established methods used in CAD systems
for geometry description. Nonetheless, the ANCF point/gradient description is desirable
from the analytic point of view because of its consistency with the motion description used
in the theory of general continuum mechanics. Furthermore, ANCF finite elements include
a powerful class of elements, called fully parameterized elements, that are not only suited
for the description of curves and surfaces, but also for volume descriptions [12]. The fully
parameterized elements can effectively be used to describe discontinuities while maintain-
ing the very desirable ANCF features that include constant mass matrix in two- and three-
dimensional large rotation and large deformation applications, zero Coriolis and centrifugal
forces, the ability to correctly describe an arbitrary rigid body displacement, the ability to
implement general constitutive equations in a straightforward manner, and the ability to cap-
ture coupled deformation modes including Poisson modes for beam, plate and shell struc-
tures. Some of the ANCF plate elements can also be used to define a perfect fit at the element
interfaces, and consequently, can be used effectively to describe the complex geometry of
systems including the interesting examples of the watertight teapot [8] and T-sections. Ad-
ditionally, ANCF finite elements have been researched for more than a decade, and there is
a body of literature that discusses some of the fundamental issues that are expected when a
geometry-based method is used as the analytical tool.
The goal of this paper is to establish a relationship between the ANCF kinematic de-
scription and the geometric description used in the Bezier curves and B-splines. This rela-
tionship is established by demonstrating that a particular Bezier curve and B-spline curve
can both be converted into a single well-known ANCF element. It is shown that the ANCF
cable element, which is a gradient-deficient Euler–Bernoulli beam element, is mathemati-
cally equivalent to a cubic Bezier curve; one can be created from the other through a simple
coordinate transformation. Furthermore, it is shown that a B-spline can be converted into
a series of ANCF cable elements and that such a conversion preserves both the geometry
of the curve as well as the parameterization. Establishing this relationship automatically
defines an ANCF-based approach for the integration of CAD and CAA. ANCF finite ele-
ments have been already used during the past decade to successfully integrate finite element
184 G.G. Sanborn, A.A. Shabana

and multibody system algorithms. These new algorithms have been effectively used in the
analysis of many applications, as documented in the literature. Furthermore, the ANCF finite
elements have been effectively used in the geometry description as demonstrated in the field
of railroad vehicle mechanics [13, 14], where ANCF finite elements are used to define the
track geometry. Railroad industry inputs, such as curvatures, super-elevations, and grades,
are used with the ANCF three-dimensional isoparametric beam elements to develop an ac-
curate description of the track geometry, which is used in the nonlinear dynamic simulation
of railroad vehicle systems.

2 Absolute nodal coordinate formulation (ANCF)

In this section, the ANCF kinematic description is briefly reviewed [15–22]. This descrip-
tion will be used in this paper to establish the relationship between the ANCF, B-splines and
NURBS descriptions. In order to focus on establishing this relationship, the simple, three-
dimensional ANCF cable element [12, 17] will be used. This two-node element has, at each
node, six degrees of freedom that include three position coordinates and three components
of one vector of position vector gradients that remains tangent to the element centerline. The
cable element is an example of what are called ANCF gradient-deficient elements, which are
different from the ANCF fully parameterized elements that have a complete set of gradient
vectors and can be used to describe surfaces and solids [12]. While the simple cable ele-
ment, which represents a three-dimensional curve, is used in this section, the generalization
to surfaces and solids using the more general ANCF fully parameterized finite elements
is straightforward. Nonetheless, all ANCF finite elements must satisfy the following two
main requirements: (1) Absolute position vector gradients are used as nodal coordinates;
and (2) A consistent mass formulation must be used. The latter requirement does not allow
for the use of lumped masses since lumped masses do not lead to exact modeling of the rigid
body dynamics when the ANCF finite elements are used.
In the case of fully parameterized ANCF finite beam, plate or shell elements, the global
position vector r of an arbitrary point can be defined using the element shape functions and
the nodal coordinate vector as follows [12]:

r = S (x, y, z) e (t) (1)

where S is the element shape function matrix expressed in terms of the element coordinates
x, y, and z; e is the vector of nodal coordinates that consists of absolute nodal position
coordinates and position coordinate gradients; and t is time. In the case of the two-node
three-dimensional cable element, the vector of element nodal coordinates can be written as
follows:
 T T T
e = eA eB (2)
where the superscripts A and B refer to the first and second nodes of the element, respec-
tively; and the element nodal coordinate vector at node N is defined as follows:
 N N N T
eN = (rN )T ( ∂r∂x )T ( ∂r∂y )T ( ∂r∂z )T . (3)

Figure 1 shows the graphical representation of the vector of the element nodal coordi-
nates for the fully parameterized three-dimensional ANCF beam element, where rN α =
∂rN /∂α, α = x, y, z. The three-dimensional beam element defined by (1) and (2) has 24 de-
grees of freedom with 12 degrees of freedom per node. Fully parameterized ANCF plate
On the integration of computer aided design and analysis 185

Fig. 1 ANCF three-dimensional

beam element coordinates

and shell elements can be developed based on the description given in (1), as documented
in the literature [12].
In the special case of the ANCF cable element, which is an Euler–Bernoulli beam el-
ement and will be used in this study as an example to establish the relationship between
the ANCF and Bezier, B-spline and NURBS representation, the global position vector r of
an arbitrary point on the finite element centerline can be defined using the element shape
functions and the nodal coordinate vector as follows:

r(x) = S(x)e(t) (4)

where S is the element shape function matrix expressed in terms of the element spatial
coordinate x; e is the vector of nodal coordinates that consist of absolute nodal position
coordinates and position coordinate gradients; and t is time. The element shape function
matrix used in (4) for the three-dimensional cable elements can be written as

S = [ s1 I s2 I s3 I s4 I ] (5)

where I is the identity matrix, and si , i = 1, 2, 3, 4, are appropriate shape functions that can
be introduced using polynomials or other geometric representations [12, 17]. The vector of
the element nodal coordinates can be written as follows:
 T T
e = eA
T
eB (6)

where the superscripts A and B refer to the first and second nodes of the element, respec-
tively; and the element nodal coordinate vector at node N is defined as follows:
 N T
eN = (rN )T ( ∂r∂x )T . (7)

Continuity at the interface between elements can be very important quality in finite el-
ements. The continuity of the strains and the stresses is a function of the continuity of the
displacement fields. Many standard finite elements have only zero-order continuity, which
causes them to have discontinuous strains across element interfaces, which is a poor model
of real strains. The use of the ANCF finite elements ensures the continuity of the displace-
ment gradients at the nodal points, and as a consequence, the strains and stresses are also
continuous. In the case of plate and shell elements, one can also use ANCF finite elements
186 G.G. Sanborn, A.A. Shabana

that ensure the continuity of the strains and stresses at the element interfaces, as discussed in
the literature [19]. Therefore, watertight teapot models and T-section examples discussed in
the literature [8] can be developed using ANCF fully parameterized finite elements. A higher
degree of continuity can also be achieved by using the curvatures as nodal coordinates. As
will be discussed in more detail later, when B-splines or NURBS are used to construct
geometry, there can be a high level of continuity between segments of the geometry.
As mentioned in the Introduction, the ANCF finite elements have unique, desirable fea-
tures that include a constant mass matrix in two- and three-dimensional applications. Having
a constant mass matrix allows for the generalized mass matrix to be reduced to an identity
matrix through an appropriate transformation, and leads the vector of Coriolis and centrifu-
gal forces to be identically zero. Furthermore, fully parameterized ANCF beam, plate and
shell finite elements allow for the straightforward implementation of general constitutive
equations, and allow for capturing the ANCF coupled deformation modes including Pois-
son modes that cannot be captured using existing beam formulations [23].

3 Point representation

As previously mentioned, ANCF finite elements employ gradients of absolute position vec-
tors as nodal coordinates. A gradient vector can always be defined in terms of the position
vectors of two points divided by a scaling length factor. Therefore, the ANCF geometric
description presented in the preceding section in terms of gradient vectors can always be
transformed to an equivalent geometric representation expressed solely in terms of position
vectors of points. These points do not have to lie on the beam space curve or the plate and
shell mid-surface. As the finite element deforms, the location of these points will change
with time. In order to demonstrate this change of coordinates or coordinate transformation,
we consider the simple cable element defined by (4)–(7). The displacement field of this
element can be defined using polynomial representation as [12, 17]
       
r = 1 − 3ξ 2 + 2ξ 3 rA + l ξ − 2ξ 2 + ξ 3 rAx + 3ξ 2 − 2ξ 3 rB + l −ξ 2 + ξ 3 rBx . (8)

In this equation, l is the length of the finite element, and ξ = x/ l. In the case of ANCF
elements, l is often used as the undeformed length of the element. However, this does not
preclude using l as a parameter which can have a different meaning, such as an arc length.
For the cubic representation of (8), one can define four points whose position vectors are
defined by the vectors P0 , P1 , P2 , and P3 . Using these position vectors, the following coor-
dinate transformation can be defined:
⎡ A⎤ ⎡ ⎤
r P0
⎢ rAx ⎥ ⎢ 3l (P1 − P0 ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥. (9)
⎣ rB ⎦ ⎣ P3 ⎦
rBx 3
l
(P3 − P2 )

Substituting the coordinate transformation of (9) into (8), one can show that the displacement
field of the ANCF finite element can be written in terms of the point coordinates instead of
the gradient coordinates as

r = (1 − ξ )3 P0 + 3ξ(1 − ξ )2 P1 + 3ξ 2 (1 − ξ )P2 + ξ 3 P3 . (10)

The two representations given by (8) and (10) are equivalent; and each of them can be used
in the description of the geometry as well as the displacement, including deformations as
On the integration of computer aided design and analysis 187

Fig. 2 Gradient and point

coordinates

well as rigid body displacements. A graphical representation that shows the relationship be-
tween the gradient coordinates and point coordinates is given in Fig. 2. A similar procedure
can be used to introduce point coordinates instead of the gradient coordinates for fully para-
meterized elements that can be used to describe the geometry of surfaces and volumes. As
will be discussed in this paper, if ANCF finite elements are used in the geometry description,
such a change of coordinates is not necessary since the gradients are required in the finite
element analysis and lead to an optimum set of point coordinates.
One important difference between the representations of the curve given in (8) and (10)
is that the one used in (8) utilizes a concept of a reference length whereas the one used
in (10) does not. This is typical of the difference between finite element representations
of geometry and purely geometric representations of geometry such as Bezier or B-spline
curves. The finite element representations require the definition of a reference configuration,
which is used to determine the deformation in any particular configuration. Purely geometric
representations of geometry, such as a Bezier or a B-spline, do not inherently contain a
concept of a reference configuration. They simply represent a particular shape. Therefore,
as can be seen from (9), the conversion between a finite element form and a purely geometric
form of a shape requires the explicit usage in some manner of a reference to a known state
of deformation. This concept of a reference length l is used extensively in this investigation
when converting between the B-spline and ANCF forms of a curve.

4 Bezier curves

As discussed in the literature, there are different methods that can be used to represent
polynomials, including the power basis and Bezier methods [1]. While these two methods
are equivalent, the Bezier method is more suited for shape manipulations and geometric
modeling. In this section, the relationship between Bezier method and the ANCF kinematic
representation is established.
A Bezier curve with m-degree is defined as [1]


m
r(ξ ) = Si,m (ξ )Pi , 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1. (11)
i=0

In this equation, Si,m (x) are called the basis or blending functions, and the coefficients Pi
are called the control points. The basis functions Si,m (x) are the m-degree Bernstein poly-
nomials defined as
m!
Si,m (ξ ) = ξ i (1 − ξ )m−i . (12)
i!(m − i)!
188 G.G. Sanborn, A.A. Shabana

In the case of a cubic curve, in which m = 3, one needs to evaluate S0,3 , S1,3 , S2,3 , and S3,3 .
These four basis functions can be defined using (12) as

S0,3 = (1 − ξ )3 , S1,3 = 3ξ(1 − ξ )2 ,
(13)
S2,3 = 3ξ 2 (1 − ξ ), S3,3 = ξ 3 .

Using these blending cubic functions and (11), one can show that the curve defined using
the Bezier method is

r = (1 − ξ )3 P0 + 3ξ(1 − ξ )2 P1 + 3ξ 2 (1 − ξ )P2 + ξ 3 P3 . (14)

This is the same equation as (10) obtained using the ANCF description and the transforma-
tion from the gradient coordinates to the point coordinates defined by (9). This equivalence
between the ANCF and the Bezier description in the case of cubic functions clearly shows
that there is a relationship between the ANCF gradient coordinates and the control points
used in the Bezier representation. In fact, one can show that the Bernstein polynomials of
(12) have the following property [1]:

∂Si,m
= m(Si−1,m−1 − Si,m−1 ), (15)
∂ξ

with S−1,m−1 = Sm,m−1 = 0. Using this property, one can show that

∂r 
m−1
=m Si,m−1 (Pi+1 − Pi ). (16)
∂ξ i=0

Equation (15) can also be used to define formulas for higher-order derivatives such as the
curvature vector. The relationship between the control points and higher derivatives can
also be easily established. This is an important issue when the continuity of the derivatives
at the nodal points is of concern. The Bernstein polynomials have many other interesting
properties that are used in the formulation of the shape functions of many of the commonly
used finite elements. Some of these properties are:


m
Si,m (ξ ) ≥ 0, Si,m (ξ ) = 1, S0,m (0) = Sm,m (1) = 1. (17)
i=0

Using the properties of the Bernstein polynomials, one can develop efficient algorithms,
such as the de Casteljau’s algorithm, for the construction of Bezier curves, as discussed in
the literature [1].
An alternate form of (10) or (14) is

r = P0 + 3ξ(P1 − P0 ) + 3ξ 2 (P0 − 2P1 + P2 ) + ξ 3 (3P1 − P0 − 3P2 + P3 ). (18)

In this alternate form, the cubic Bezier function is expressed in terms of the power basis
functions, 1, ξ, ξ 2 , and ξ 3 . Note that in the case of Bezier functions, the order of the function
is related to the number of control points. This is not the case when the B-splines are used.
On the integration of computer aided design and analysis 189

5 B-spline representation

The Bezier representation can be considered as special cases of the B-spline representation
which is commonly used in the geometry description. NURBS which are widely used in
the computer aided design (CAD) are rational B-splines, as previously mentioned. In this
section, the geometric description used in the B-splines is briefly discussed. In the case
of B-splines, several polynomial segments can be used allowing for flexibility of shape
and geometry manipulations. In the case of B-spline curves, one defines a knot vector
ξ = [ξ0 ξ1 . . . ξp ]T , where ξi , i = 1, 2, . . . , p, are called the knots; and ξi ≤ ξi+1 . Two knot
vectors are used for surfaces and three for volumes. Nonetheless, the discussion in this in-
vestigation will be restricted to the case of curves. A B-spline curve of degree m (here we
use the terminology used in the spline literature, where the order is equal to the degree plus
one) takes the following form [1]:


n
r(ξ ) = B
Si,m (ξ )Pi , 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1. (19)
i=0

In this equation, Pi , i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n, are the control points, and Si,m

B
is the ith B-spline
basis function of degree m, defined as

1 if ξi ≤ ξ ≤ ξi+1 ,
B
Si,0 (ξ ) = (20)
0 otherwise

and
ξ − ξi B ξi+m+1 − ξ B
B
Si,m (ξ ) = Si,m−1 (ξ ) − S (ξ ). (21)
ξi+m − ξi ξi+m+1 − ξi+1 i+1,m−1
Note that in (19), n is not related to the degree m of the B-spline function, allowing in-
creasing the number of control points, while keeping the order of the function unchanged.
Such a property provides flexibility for geometry manipulation. While the number of control
points is n + 1, the number of knots must be m + n + 2. The half-open interval [ξi , ξi+1 )
is called the knot span, and it can have zero length since the knots are not required to
be distinct [1]. Distinct knot points are called break points, and the knot spans of non-
zero length define the polynomial segments. The B-spline is called uniform if the knots
B B
are equally spaced. Note also that Si,0 (ξ ) is a step function, and for m > 0, Si,m (ξ ) is a
linear combination of two (m − 1) degree basis functions. Furthermore, B-spline basis
functions are non-negative, Si,m

B
(ξ ) ≥ 0, and satisfy the partition of unity property, that is
n
S B
i=0 i,m (ξ ) = 1, ξm−1 ≤ ξ ≤ ξ n+1 . It follows that 0 ≤ Si,m
B
(ξ ) ≤ 1; and since Si,m
B
(ξ ) = 0
for ξ ≤ ξi or ξ ≥ ξi+m , a control point Pi has an influence on the curve only for ξi ≤ ξ ≤ ξi+k .
Figure 3 shows the example of the basis functions used in a cubic B-spline with four control
points and a knot vector ξ = [0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1]T . A more general case is shown in Fig. 4.
One can show that a cubic B-spline curve with four control points and m + 1 repeated
knots at both ends of the knot vector reduces to the Bezier representation, which has been
shown to be equivalent to the ANCF representation. In order to demonstrate this fact, we
assume that m = 3 and n = 3. In this case, the B-spline function of (19) can be written as


3
r(ξ ) = B
Si,3 (ξ )Pi , 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1. (22)
i=0
190 G.G. Sanborn, A.A. Shabana

Fig. 3 Cubic Bezier basis functions

Fig. 4 Cubic B-spline basis functions for knot vector U = {0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5}

On the integration of computer aided design and analysis 191

This equation can also be written as

r(ξ ) = S0,3
B
(ξ )P0 + S1,3
B
(ξ )P1 + S2,3
B
(ξ )P2 + S3,3
B
(ξ )P3 , 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1. (23)

Using (20) and (21), a knot vector of the form ξ = [0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1]T , and the fact that
m = n = 3, one can show that

B
S0,3 (ξ ) = (1 − ξ )3 , B
S1,3 (ξ ) = 3ξ(1 − ξ )2 ,
(24)
B
S2,3 (ξ ) = 3ξ 2 (1 − ξ ), B
S3,3 (ξ ) = ξ 3 .

These are the same as the Bernstein polynomials used in the construction of the Bezier cu-
bic curve. Therefore, (23) and (24) demonstrate the equivalence of this special case of the
cubic B-spline curve with four control points and repeated knots, and the ANCF cable ele-
ment displacement representation. A similar procedure can also be used to demonstrate this
equivalence when higher-order ANCF finite elements that employ, for example, curvatures
as nodal coordinates are used.

6 Arbitrary control points and knots

In this section, a more general relationship between the ANCF cable element and an ar-
bitrary cubic B-spline curve is demonstrated. It is demonstrated that any segment of a cu-
bic B-spline curve can be converted into a single ANCF cable element. An arbitrary cubic
B-spline will be composed of an arbitrary number of continuous segments, each of which
can be converted into one ANCF cable element. The total collection of the ANCF cable
elements, each representing one non-zero knot span in the original B-spline curve, will have
identical shape to the original B-spline. While only the cubic B-spline is being addressed
in this section, similar methods can be used to convert higher-order B-splines that repre-
sent both curves and surfaces into ANCF elements of identical shape. Extrapolating from
the demonstration presented in this section, the methods presented here will show that the
geometry of a single B-spline becomes a collection of ANCF elements and that the shape of
the original geometry will be preserved. As described above, the ANCF requires a reference
length l whereas the B-spline does not. Therefore, a reference length l must be chosen for
every ANCF element before a conversion between the ANCF form and the B-spline form of
a curve can be performed. This choice of the reference length of the ANCF elements does
not in any way affect the shape of the curve.
One of the most important features of the B-spline presented in the previous section is
the flexibility to change the number of control points and the value of the knots, allowing for
great ease in interactive adjustment of the shape. The number of control points is, in general,
greater than the order of the B-spline. It is the knots, however, that control the number of
and continuity between the segments of the B-spline. The number of continuous polynomial
segments in the B-spline is equal to the number of non-zero knot spans between knot number
m and knot number n + 1. For example, Fig. 5 presents an example of a B-spline curve in
two dimensions that has the knot vector U = {0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5} and the
192 G.G. Sanborn, A.A. Shabana

Fig. 5 A cubic B-spline curve using knot vector U = {0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5} ( B-spline curve;
◦ Segment boundaries; • Control Point; Control polygon)

corresponding basis functions shown in Fig. 4. The curve in Fig. 4 has four segments, which
correspond to the knot spans [0, 1), [1, 2), [2, 3), and [3, 5). The segment represented by
each non-zero knot span is itself single, parameterized curve that is continuous within the
span.
In this section, an arbitrary segment of the B-spline is considered. Since the parameter of
any arbitrary non-zero knot span is not restricted to being between 0 and 1, as it is with an
ANCF cable element, the parameter u is used rather than ξ in the B-spline basis functions.
Therefore, an arbitrary segment of the cubic B-spline curve is defined over a non-zero knot
span u ∈ [ui , ui+1 ).
Conversion of a single cubic B-spline curve segment to an ANCF cable element requires
first expanding the basis functions of the equation describing the curve over the non-zero
knot span [ui , ui+1 ). The equation of the curve over this span is

r(u) = Si−3,3
B
(u)Pi−3 + Si−2,3
B
(u)Pi−2 + Si−1,3
B
(u)Pi−1 + Si,3
B
(u)Pi . (25)

B B B B
The basis functions Si−3,3 , Si−2,3 , Si−1,3 , and Si,3 , each of which is continuous on the
interval u ∈ [ui , ui+1 ), are uniquely defined by the subset of the B-spline’s knot vec-
tor Ui = {ui−2 , ui−1 , ui , ui+1 , ui+2 , ui+3 } associated with the knot span [ui , ui+1 ). Using
the recursive definition of the basis functions given in (20) and (21), the basis functions
On the integration of computer aided design and analysis 193

B B B B
Si−3,3 , Si−2,3 , Si−1,3 , and Si,3 can be expanded into the form
⎫
f13 ⎪
⎪
B
Si−3,3 (u) = , ⎪
⎪
h1,−2 h1,−1 h1,0 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
g−2 f 2 f22 g0 ⎪
,⎪
f2 g−1 f1
B
Si−2,3 (u) = + + ⎪
⎪
h1,−2 h1,−1 h1,0 h2,−1 h1,−1 h1,0 h2,−1 h2,0 h1,0 ⎬
(26)
2
g−1 f1 g−1 f2 g0 f3 g02 ⎪
⎪
B
= + + ⎪
⎪
Si−1,3 (u) , ⎪
⎪
h2,−1 h1,−1 h1,0 h2,−1 h2,0 h1,0 h3,0 h2,0 h1,0 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
g03 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
B
Si,3 (u) = , ⎭
h3,0 h2,0 h1,0

where fj = ui+j − u, gj = u − ui+j , and hj,k = ui+j − ui+k . From the above equations, it
B
can be shown that Si−1,3 (ui+1 ) = 0 and Si,3
B
(ui ) = 0 regardless of the values of the knots in
Ui . This implies that r(ui ) is not influenced by Pi and r(ui+1 ) is not influenced by Pi−3 ,
which allows for equations utilizing these curve end-points to be further simplified.
It is also important to note that only 6 knots are required to define the shape functions of
a single span in a cubic B-spline curve. This is in contrast to the generally stated definition in
the literature of the requirement for the number of knots a B-spline must have. For example,
using the definition provided in Sect. 5, a cubic B-spline with four control points requires
eight knots. Evaluation of the basis functions of the first and last non-zero knot spans in an
arbitrary cubic B-spline curve does not require the use of the first and last knot, respectively.
This reveals that the first and last knots of a knot vector as defined in Sect. 5 for an arbitrary
B-spline are never used in the evaluation of the basis functions.
Conversion of the curve represented by r(u) over the interval u ∈ [ui , ui+1 ) to an ANCF
cable element requires finding the coordinates of the ANCF element. The element coordi-
nates are found by directly evaluating the following equations:

−1
⎫
 ⎪
r1 = r(ui ) = B ⎪
⎪
Si+j,3 (ui )Pi+j , ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
j =−3 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
0
⎪
⎪
r2 = r(ui+1 ) = B
Si+j,3 (ui+1 )Pi+j , ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎬
j =−2
  (27)
∂u ∂ξ  1 −1
 B   ⎪
⎪
r1x = r(u),u  = Si+j,3 ,u u=u Pi+j , ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
∂ξ ∂x u=ui l (ui+1 − ui ) j =−3 i ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
  ⎪
⎪
∂u ∂ξ  1 0
  ⎪
⎪
r2x = r(u),u = S B  P , ⎪
⎪
∂ξ ∂x u=ui+1 l(ui+1 − ui ) j =−2 i+j,3 ,u u=ui+1 i+j ⎭

where the relationship between the ANCF element parameter x and its reference length l is
given by x = lξ and the relationship between the B-spline arc parameter u and the ANCF
element shape function parameter ξ is ξ = (u − ui )/(ui+1 − ui ), implying u,ξ = (ui+1 − ui )
and ξ,x = 1/ l.
It is important to note that the continuity of the two adjacent polynomial segments of a
B-spline curve is a function of the multiplicity of the knots at the break point between them
and the locations of the control points. If k is the multiplicity of the knots at a break point,
then the continuous polynomial segments that meet at the break point will have at least
194 G.G. Sanborn, A.A. Shabana

m − k continuous derivatives. For example, at the break point u = 2 in the example shown
in Fig. 5, in which m = 3, the multiplicity of the knots is 2, giving the B-spline m − k = 1
continuous derivative at that break point.
The ANCF finite cable element only guarantees C 1 continuity in the interface between
displacement fields for an arbitrary choice of coordinates. However, if the elements are prop-
erly aligned, C 2 or higher continuity can be achieved. The curve of a cubic B-spline, on the
other hand, can be constructed so that it is guaranteed to have C 2 continuity for arbitrary co-
ordinates. If one converts a B-spline with C 2 continuity to an ANCF form, the ANCF form
will also have C 2 continuity. The ANCF elements will only have this C 2 continuity because
they will be properly aligned. If any of the degrees of freedom are arbitrarily altered, the C 2
continuity will be lost. Then, only C 1 continuity is guaranteed. As a result, if a dynamics
simulation is performed, then elements can move, in which case only C 1 can be preserved
with the methods presented here.
If it is desired to preserve a higher degree of continuity during a simulation, it can be
obtained for cable elements by using two different methods. In the first method, the order
of the functions remains cubic and the number of nodal coordinates is reduced by imposing
linear algebraic equations on the curvature vector. This method will lead to a system of
joined ANCF elements, for which three degrees of freedom are removed for every degree
of continuity desired between two elements. Therefore, if necessary, one can always obtain
the same number of degrees of freedom in an ANCF model composed of multiple elements
as the number of coordinates used in the B-spline representation by introducing a proper
number of linear algebraic equations. In the second method, on the other hand, the continuity
of the curvature can be achieved by using the elements of the curvature vector as nodal
coordinates and increasing the order of the polynomial representation, as demonstrated in
the ANCF finite element literature. This second methods can be shown to be equivalent to a
different B-spline representation.

7 NURBS and rational ANCF

Shapes such as conic sections cannot be exactly described using B-splines. The NURBS,
which are rational B-splines, are widely used in CAD systems because of their ability to
describe complex geometry exactly. The m-degree NURBS curve is defined by [1]
n B
Si,m (u)wi Pi
r(u) = i=0
n B
, a ≤ u ≤ b. (28)
i=0 Si,m (u)wi

B
In this equation, the Pi are the control points, wi are weights, and Si,m (u) are the m-degree
B-spline basis functions previously defined in this paper. The preceding equation can also
be written as

n
r(u) = Ri,m Pi , a ≤ u ≤ b. (29)
i=0

In this equation, Ri,m (u) are the rational basis functions defined as

B
Si,m (u)wi
Ri,m = n B
. (30)
i=0 i,m (u)wi
S
On the integration of computer aided design and analysis 195

For a = 0 and b = 1, one can show that the rational basis functions
 Ri,m are non-negative,
that is Ri,m (u) ≥ 0, satisfying the partition of unity, that is ni=0 Ri,m (u) = 1. The rational
basis functions satisfy many other interesting properties [1].
A procedure similar to the one used in establishing the relationship between the B-spline
and the ANCF finite elements can be used to establish a relationship between the NURBS
and the ANCF finite elements. Because ANCF finite element shape functions can be ex-
tended to use rational functions, the development of a finite element rational absolute nodal
coordinate formulation (RANCF) is feasible since one can always develop the coordinate
transformation between the point coordinates used in the NURBS representation and the
point/gradient coordinates used in the ANCF representation, as discussed in this paper. De-
veloping the RANCF finite elements will define the transformation between the gradient
vectors used in the formulations of the strain measures and the elastic forces, and the control
points used in the NURBS representation. The development of such a transformation will
allow for a successful integration of CAD and CAA systems in a straightforward manner.
Furthermore, the RANCF finite elements, as in the case of the ANCF finite elements, can
model slope discontinuities including T-sections [24]. In the case of slope discontinuities,
a constant element transformation can be developed for fully parameterized elements. This
constant element transformation allows for maintaining all the ANCF desirable features.

8 Summary and conclusions

Most existing finite element formulations are not suited for the geometry description. In
fact, many of these formulations cannot accurately describe large displacements. For exam-
ple, conventional beam, plate and shell elements that employ infinitesimal rotations as nodal
coordinates lead to linearized kinematic equations. On the other hand, large rotation vector
formulations that employ finite rotations as nodal coordinates, define an inconsistent rotation
field. Methods such as Bezier, B-spline and NURBS curves and surfaces used in CAD sys-
tems for the geometry description are point-based methods and do not employ rotations. For
this reason, these methods are superior in shape manipulations. The finite element absolute
nodal coordinate formulation (ANCF), on the other hand, employs points and gradients as
nodal coordinates and does not interpolate finite rotations or use them as nodal coordinates.
The gradient vector representation, as shown in this paper, can be converted to a point rep-
resentation in a straightforward manner by using a simple linear coordinate transformation.
By so doing, the equivalence of the cubic Bezier curves and the ANCF finite cable elements
can be established. The similarity of the ANCF and the B-spline function is also established
in this paper. It is demonstrated that cubic B-spline curves can be converted segment by
segment into ANCF cable elements of identical shape.
ANCF finite elements have many desirable features that include a constant mass matrix
in two- and three-dimensional large rotation and large deformation analysis; zero Coriolis
and centrifugal forces; ability to correctly describe an arbitrary rigid body displacement; no
restriction on the amount of rotation or deformation within the finite element; ability for
straightforward implementation of general constitutive equations in the case of beam, plate
and shell structures; and ability to capture coupled deformation modes including Poisson
modes. Because of these desirable features, the ANCF finite elements can be effectively
used in the integration of computer aided design and analysis (ICADA), which will eventu-
ally combine computer aided design (CAD) packages and computer aided analysis (CAA)
finite element and multibody system packages. As discussed in this paper, the authors will
explore in the future the development of a rational absolute nodal coordinate formulation
196 G.G. Sanborn, A.A. Shabana

(RANCF). Because of the relationship between the ANCF finite elements and B-splines,
the development of RANCF finite element is feasible. Furthermore, fully parameterized
existing ANCF and future RANCF finite element can be very powerful in geometry manip-
ulation because of their ability to describe discontinuities such as T-sections [24]. ANCF
finite elements have been used in the geometry description as documented in the railroad
vehicle literature [13, 14]. Because of the relationship between ANCF finite elements and
B-splines and NURBS, the use of B-splines and NURBS as analytical tool will lead to the
same fundamental issues that have been already researched in the literature on the ANCF
finite elements.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by the US Army Research Office, Research Triangle
Park, NC; and the Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC. This financial support is gratefully
acknowledged.

References

1. Piegl, L., Tiller, W.: The NURBS Book, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1997)
2. Dierckx, P.: Curve and Surface Fitting with Splines. Oxford University Press, London (1993)
3. Farin, G.: Curves and Surfaces for CAGD, A Practical Guide, 5th edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo
(1999)
4. Bathe, K.J.: Finite Element Procedures. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)
5. Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., Plesha, M.E.: Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 3rd edn.
Wiley, New York (1989)
6. Crisfield, M.A.: Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 1: Essentials. Wiley,
New York (1991)
7. Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L.: The Finite Element Method, Vol. 2: Solid Mechanics, 5th edn. Butter-
worth Heinemann, Oxford (2000)
8. Bazilevs, Y., Calo, V.M., Cottrell, J.A., Evans, J., Hughes, T.J.R., Lipton, S., Scott, M.A., Sederberg,
T.W.: Isogeometric analysis: towards unification of computer aided design and finite element analysis.
In: Papadrakakis, M., Topping, B.H.V. (eds.) Trends in Engineering Computational Technology. Saxe-
Coburg Publications, Stirlingshire (2008)
9. Cottrell, J.A., Hughes, T.J.R., Reali, A.: Studies of refinement and continuity in the isogeometric analy-
sis. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 196, 4160–4183 (2007)
10. Shabana, A.A.: An Absolute Nodal Coordinate Formulation for the Large Rotation and Deformation
Analysis of Flexible Bodies. Technical Report #MBS96-1-UIC, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Illinois at Chicago, March 1996
11. Shabana, A.A.: Dynamics of Multibody Systems, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(2005)
12. Shabana, A.A.: Computational Continuum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)
13. Berzeri, M., Sany, J.R., Shabana, A.A.: Curved Track Modeling Using the Absolute Nodal Coordinate
Formulation. Technical Report #MBS00-4-UIC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Illinois at Chicago, Chicago (2000)
14. Shabana, A., Zaazaa, K.E., Sugiyama, H.: Railroad Vehicle Dynamics: A Computational Approach.
Taylor and Francis/CRC, Boca Raton (2008)
15. Dmitrochenko, O.N., Pogorelov, D.Y.: Generalization of plate finite elements for absolute nodal coordi-
nate formulation. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 10(1), 17–43 (2003)
16. Garcia-Vallejo, D., Mayo, J., Escalona, J.L., Dominguez, J.: Efficient evaluation of the elastic forces and
the Jacobian in the absolute nodal coordinate formulation. Nonlinear Dyn. 35(4), 313–329 (2004)
17. Gerstmayr, J., Shabana, A.A.: Analysis of thin beams and cables using the absolute nodal coordinate
formulation. Nonlinear Dyn. 45, 109–130 (2006)
18. Mikkola, A.M., Matikainen, M.K.: Development of elastic forces for the large deformation plate element
based on the absolute nodal coordinate formulation. ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 1(2), 103–108
(2006)
19. Mikkola, A.M., Shabana, A.A.: A non-incremental finite element procedure for the analysis of large
deformation of plates and shells in mechanical system applications. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 9(3), 283–309
(2003)
On the integration of computer aided design and analysis 197

20. Schwab, A.L., Meijaard, J.P.: Comparison of three-dimensional beam elements for dynamic analysis:
finite element method and absolute nodal coordinate formulation. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2005
International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computer and Information in Engineering
Conference (DETC2005-85104), Long Beach, California, September 24–28 (2005)
21. Sopanen, J.T., Mikkola, A.M.: Description of elastic forces in absolute nodal coordinate formulation.
Nonlinear Dyn. 34(1–2), 53–74 (2003)
22. Yoo, W.S., Lee, J.H., Park, S.J., Sohn, J.H., Pogorelov, D., Dimitrochenko, O.: Large deflection analysis
of a thin plate: computer simulation and experiment. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 11(2), 185–208 (2004)
23. Maqueda, L.G., Shabana, A.A.: Poisson modes and general nonlinear constitutive models in the large
displacement analysis of beams. J. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 18(3), 375–396 (2007)
24. Shabana, A.A., Mikkola, A.M.: Use of the finite element absolute nodal coordinate formulation in mod-
eling slope discontinuity. ASME J. Mech. Des. 125(2), 342–350 (2003)