We extend Hamilton–Jacobi theory to Lagrange–Dirac (or implicit Lagrangian) systems, a generalized formulation of Lagrangian mechanics that can incorporate degenerate Lagrangians as well as holonomic and nonholonomic constraints. We refer to the generalized Hamilton–Jacobi equation as the Dirac–Hamilton–Jacobi equation. For non-degenerate Lagrangian systems with nonholonomic constraints, the theory specializes to the recently developed nonholonomic Hamilton–Jacobi theory. We are particularly interested in applications to a certain class of degenerate nonholonomic Lagrangian systems with symmetries, which we refer to as weakly degenerate Chaplygin systems, that arise as simplified models of nonholonomic mechanical systems; these systems are shown to reduce to non-degenerate almost Hamiltonian systems, i.e., generalized Hamiltonian systems defined with non-closed two-forms. Accordingly, the Dirac–Hamilton–Jacobi equation reduces to a variant of the nonholonomic Hamilton–Jacobi equation associated with the reduced system. We illustrate through a few examples how the Dirac–Hamilton–Jacobi equation can be used to exactly integrate the equations of motion.
REFERENCES
1.
P. A. M.
Dirac
, “Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics
,” Can. J. Math.
2
, 129
–148
(1950
).2.
P. A. M.
Dirac
, “Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics
,” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
246
, 326
–332
(1958
).3.
P. A. M.
Dirac
, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics
(Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University
, New York
, 1964
).4.
M.
Henneaux
and C.
Teitelboim
, Quantization of Gauge Systems
(Princeton University Press
, Princeton, NJ
, 1992
).5.
M. J.
Gotay
, J. M.
Nester
, and G.
Hinds
, “Presymplectic manifolds and the Dirac–Bergmann theory of constraints
,” J. Math. Phys.
19
, 2388
–2399
(1978
).6.
M. J.
Gotay
, and J. M.
Nester
, “Presymplectic Hamilton and Lagrange systems, gauge transformations and the Dirac theory of constraints
,” in Group Theoretical Methods in Physics
, edited by W.
Beiglböck
, A.
Böhm
, E.
Takasugi
, M.
Gotay
, and J.
Nester
(Springer
, 1979
), Vol. 94
, pp. 272
–279
.7.
M. J.
Gotay
and J. M.
Nester
, “Presymplectic Lagrangian systems. I: the constraint algorithm and the equivalence theorm
,” Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare, Sect. A
30
, 129
–142
(1979
).8.
M. J.
Gotay
and J. M.
Nester
, “Presymplectic Lagrangian systems. II: the second-order equation problem
,” Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare, Sect. A
32
, 1
–13
(1980
).9.
H. P.
Künzle
, “Degenerate Lagrangean systems
,” Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare, (A)
11
, 393
–414
(1969
).10.
M.
de León
and D.
Martín de Diego
, “A constraint algorithm for singular Lagrangians subjected to nonholonomic constraints
,” J. Math. Phys.
38
, 3055
–3062
(1997
).11.
H.
Yoshimura
and J. E.
Marsden
, “Dirac structures in Lagrangian mechanics Part I: Implicit Lagrangian systems
,” J. Geom. Phys.
57
, 133
–156
(2006
).12.
H.
Yoshimura
and J. E.
Marsden
, “Dirac structures in Lagrangian mechanics Part II: Variational structures
,” J. Geom. Phys.
57
, 209
–250
(2006
).13.
K. D.
Rothe
and F. G.
Scholtz
, “On the Hamilton–Jacobi equation for second-class constrained systems
,” Ann. Phys.
308
, 639
–651
(2003
).14.
J. F.
Cariñena
, X.
Gracia
, G.
Marmo
, E.
Martínez
, M.
Munõz Lecanda
, and N.
Román-Roy
, “Geometric Hamilton–Jacobi theory
,” Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.
3
, 1417
–1458
(2006
).15.
D.
Iglesias-Ponte
, M.
de León
, and D.
Martín de Diego
, “Towards a Hamilton–Jacobi theory for nonholonomic mechanical systems
,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.
41
, 015205
(2008
).16.
R.
Abraham
and J. E.
Marsden
, Foundations of Mechanics
, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley
, 1978
).17.
M.
de León
, J. C.
Marrero
, and D.
Martín de Diego
, “Linear almost Poisson structures and Hamilton–Jacobi equation. Applications to nonholonomic mechanics
,” J. Geom. Mech.
2
, 159
–198
(2010
).18.
T.
Ohsawa
and A. M.
Bloch
, “Nonholonomic Hamilton–Jacobi equation and integrability
,” J. Geom. Mech.
1
, 461
–481
(2009
).19.
J. F.
Cariñena
, X.
Gracia
, G.
Marmo
, E.
Martínez
, M. C.
Munõz Lecanda
, and N.
Román-Roy
, “Geometric Hamilton–Jacobi theory for nonholonomic dynamical systems
,” Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.
7
, 431
–454
(2010
).20.
T.
Ohsawa
, O. E.
Fernandez
, A. M.
Bloch
, and D. V.
Zenkov
, “Nonholonomic Hamilton–Jacobi theory via Chaplygin Hamiltonization
,” J. Geom. Phys.
61
, 1263
–1291
(2011
).21.
This setting usually gives a singular perturbation problem with the small mass being its parameter. For example, for the Lagrangian
$L_{\varepsilon } = \varepsilon {\dot{x}}^{2}/2 - x^{2}/2$
, the Euler–Lagrange equation gives $\varepsilon {\ddot{x}} + x = 0$
; the solution corresponding to the massless Lagrangian L0 deviates significantly from the original solution.22.
N.
Getz
, “Control of balance for a nonlinear nonholonomic non-minimum phase model of a bicycle
,” in Proceedings of the 1994 American Control Conference
(IEEE
, New York
, 1994
), Vol. 1
, pp. 148
–151
.23.
N. H.
Getz
and J. E.
Marsden
, “Control for an autonomous bicycle
,” in Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(IEEE
, New York
, 1995
), Vol. 2
, pp. 1397
–1402
.24.
W. S.
Koon
and J. E.
Marsden
, “The Hamiltonian and Lagrangian approaches to the dynamics of nonholonomic systems
,” Rep. Math. Phys.
40
, 21
–62
(1997
).25.
T.
Courant
, “Dirac manifolds
,” Trans. Am. Math. Soc.
319
, 631
–661
(1990
).26.
M.
Dalsmo
and A. J.
van der Schaft
, “On representations and integrability of mathematical structures in energy-conserving physical systems
,” SIAM J. Control Optim.
37
, 54
–91
(1998
).27.
A. M.
Bloch
and P. E.
Crouch
, “Representations of Dirac structures on vector spaces and nonlinear L-C circuits
,” in Differential Geometry and Control Theory
(American Mathematical Society
, 1997
) pp. 103
–117
.28.
A. J.
van der Schaft
, “Implicit Hamiltonian systems with symmetry
,” Rep. Math. Phys.
41
, 203
–221
(1998
).29.
A. J.
van der Schaft
, “Port-Hamiltonian systems: an introductory survey
,” in Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians
(European Mathematical Society
, Zurich, Switzerland
, 2006
), Vol. 3
, pp. 1339
–1365
.30.
W. M.
Tulczyjew
, “Les sous-variétés lagrangiennes et la dynamique hamiltonienne
,” Acad. Sci., Paris, C. R.
283
, 15
–18
(1976
).31.
W. M.
Tulczyjew
, “Les sous-variétés lagrangiennes et la dynamique lagrangienne
,” C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, C. R.
283
, 675
–678
(1976
).32.
A.
Ibort
, M.
de León
, G.
Marmo
, and D.
Martín de Diego
, “Non-holonomic constrained systems as implicit differential equations
,” Rend. Semin. Mat. Torino
54
, 295
–317
(1996
).33.
K.
Grabowska
and J.
Grabowski
, “Variational calculus with constraints on general algebroids
,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.
41
, 175204
(2008
).34.
E.
Johnson
and T. D.
Murphey
, “Dynamic modeling and motion planning for marionettes: Rigid bodies articulated by massless strings
,” in Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(IEEE
, New York
, 2007
), pp. 330
–335
.35.
T. D.
Murphey
and M.
Egerstedt
, “Choreography for marionettes: Imitation, planning, and control
,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent and Robotic Systems Workshop on Art and Robotics
, San Diego
, 2007
.37.
J.
Koiller
, “Reduction of some classical non-holonomic systems with symmetry
,” Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.
118
, 113
–148
(1992
).38.
J.
Cortés
, Geometric, Control and Numeric Aspects of Nonholonomic Systems
, Lecture Notes in Mathematics
Vol. 1793
(Springer
, 2004
).39.
S.
Hochgerner
and L.
García-Naranjo
, “G-Chaplygin systems with internal symmetries, truncation, and an (almost) symplectic view of Chaplygin's ball
,” J. Geom. Mech.
1
, 35
–53
(2009
).40.
R.
Montgomery
, A Tour of Subriemannian Geometries, Their Geodesics and Applications
(American Mathematical Society
, 2002
).41.
M.
de León
and D.
Martín de Diego
, “On the geometry of non-holonomic Lagrangian systems
,” J. Math. Phys.
37
, 3389
–3414
(1996
).42.
M.
de León
, J. C.
Marrero
, and D.
Martín de Diego
, “Mechanical systems with nonlinear constraints
,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.
36
, 979
–995
(1997
).43.
D. P.
Tsakiris
, “Motion control and planning for nonholonomic kinematic chains
,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Maryland
, College Park, 1995
).44.
P. S.
Krishnaprasad
and D. P.
Tsakiris
, “Oscillations, SE(2)-snakes and motion control: a study of the roller racer
,” Dyn. Syst.
16
, 347
–397
(2001
).45.
46.
We note that, in the original model,(Refs. 43 and 44) only the kinetic energy of the second body is ignored, and its rotational energy is taken into account; one obtains a non-degenerate Lagrangian with such an approximation.
47.
A distribution ΔQ ⊂ TQ is said to be completely nonholonomic (or bracket-generating) if ΔQ along with all of its iterated Lie brackets
$[\Delta _{Q}, \Delta _{Q}], [\Delta _{Q}, [\Delta _{Q}, \Delta _{Q}]], \protect \dots$
spans the tangent bundle TQ. See, e.g., Vershik and Gershkovich (Ref. 66) and Montgomery (Ref. 40).48.
H.
Yoshimura
and J. E.
Marsden
, “Dirac structures and the Legendre transformation for implicit Lagrangian and Hamiltonian systems
,” in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Methods for Nonlinear Control 2006
(2007
), pp. 233
–247
.49.
The (x, y)-dependence is eliminated because we expect that the vector field
$\protect \mathcal {X}$
to be $\protect \mathbb {R}^{2}$
-translational invariant since the system possesses $\protect \mathbb {R}^{2}$
-symmetry.50.
D. M. F.
Chapman
, “Ideal vortex motion in two dimensions: Symmetries and conservation laws
,” J. Math. Phys.
19
, 1988
–1992
(1978
).51.
52.
C. W.
Rowley
and J. E.
Marsden
, “Variational integrators for degenerate Lagrangians, with application to point vortices
,” in Proceedings of the 41st IEEE CDC
, Las Vegas
, 2002
.53.
K. M.
Ehlers
, J.
Koiller
, R.
Montgomery
, and P. M.
Rios
, “Nonholonomic systems via moving frames: Cartan equivalence and Chaplygin Hamiltonization
,” in The Breadth of Symplectic and Poisson Geometry
(Birkhäuser
, 2004
), pp. 75
–120
.54.
Recall that we cannot define a Hamiltonian
$H: T^{*}Q \rightarrow \protect \mathbb {R}$
for the original system because the original Lagrangian $L: TQ \rightarrow \protect \mathbb {R}$
is degenerate.55.
L.
Bates
and J.
Sniatycki
, “Nonholonomic reduction
,” Rep. Math. Phys.
32
, 99
–115
(1993
).56.
F.
Cantrijn
, M.
de León
, J. C.
Marrero
, and D.
Martín de Diego
, “Reduction of constrained systems with symmetries
,” J. Math. Phys.
40
, 795
–820
(1999
).57.
See, e.g., Kobayashi and Nomizu (Ref. 67)[Proposition 1.3 (3) on p. 65].
58.
J. E.
Marsden
and M.
West
, “Discrete mechanics and variational integrators
,” Acta Numerica
■
, 357
–514
(2001
).59.
P. J.
Channell
and C.
Scovel
, “Symplectic integration of Hamiltonian systems
,” Nonlinearity
3
, 231
–259
(1990
).60.
M.
Leok
, and T.
Ohsawa
, “Discrete Dirac structures and implicit discrete Lagrangian and Hamiltonian systems
,” in XVIII International Fall Workshop on Geometry and Physics
, edited by M.
Asorey
, J.
Clemente-Gallardo
, E.
Martinez
, and J. F.
Carinena
(AIP
, 2010
), Vol. 1260
, pp. 91
–102
.61.
M.
Leok
and T.
Ohsawa
, “Variational and geometric structures of discrete Dirac mechanics
,” Found. Computat. Math.
11
, 529
–562
(2011
).62.
H.
Yoshimura
and J. E.
Marsden
, “Dirac cotangent bundle reduction
,” J. Geom. Mech.
1
, 87
–158
(2009
).63.
M.
Jotz
and T. S.
Ratiu
, “Dirac structures, nonholonomic systems and reduction
,” Rep. Math. Phys.
(to appear).64.
F.
Cantrijn
, J. F.
Cariñena
, M.
Crampin
, and L. A.
Ibort
, “Reduction of degenerate Lagrangian systems
,” J. Geom. Phys.
3
, 353
–400
(1986
).65.
H.
Bursztyn
and O.
Radko
, “Gauge equivalence of Dirac structures and symplectic groupoids
,” Ann. Inst. Fourier
53
, 309
–337
(2003
).66.
A. M.
Vershik
and V. Y.
Gershkovich
, “Nonholonomic problems and the theory of distributions
,” Acta Appl. Math.
12
, 181
–209
(1988
).67.
S.
Kobayashi
and K.
Nomizu
, Foundations of Differential Geometry
(Interscience
, New York
, 1963
).© 2012 American Institute of Physics.
2012
American Institute of Physics
You do not currently have access to this content.
