Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
M. R. Flannerya)
School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
I. INTRODUCTION
The action integral,
S
t2
t1
L q,q,t dt,
plays a central role in the dynamics of physical systems described by a Lagrangian L. Hamiltons principle states that
the actual path q(t) of a particle is the path that makes the
action S a minimum. It is well known that Hamiltons principle,
t2
t1
L q,q,t dt0,
Hamiltons principle , 2
k1,2,...,c ,
leads to Lagranges equations of motion whose solution provides the time dependence of the (nc) independent generalized coordinates q j for the unconstrained degrees of freedom.
For problems that require additional calculation of the
forces Q cj of holonomic constraint, Hamiltons principle may
be generalized to yield correct results simply by replacing L
in Eq. 2 by
c
L L q,q,t
k1
k t f k q,t ,
where the k are Lagrange multipliers. Equation 2 is therefore replaced by Hamiltons generalized principle,
t2
t1
L ,
,t dt0,
L
d L
0,
dt j
j
j1,2,...,nc
http://aapt.org/ajp
Lagrange set 6 provide the correct equations of state. Because Eq. 4 is independent of k , the last c equations of
the EulerLagrange set 6 for the k (k1,2...,c) simply
reproduce the equations 3 of holonomic constraint.
A recurring theme1 4 is whether Hamiltons principle 2
may be similarly generalized so as to treat nonholonomic
dynamic constraints,
g k q,q,t 0,
L * L
k1
k t g k q,q,t
tions imposed. On the basis of this multiplier rule, the conjecture, the substitution of Eq. 8 in Eq. 2, was simply
adopted without reservation for the general case 7 and
equations of state were published.13
This conjecture becomes problematic, particularly because
the multiplier rule does not yield the standard equations of
state as obtained from DAlemberts more basic principle for
systems with less general nonholonomic constraints,
n
g kL q,q,t
j1
A k j q,t q j B k q,t 0,
which are now only linear in the velocities q j . Yet, the same
multiplier rule57 works for the holonomic constraints in Eq.
3.
The question of whether the use of Eq. 8 in Eq. 2 is a
viable generalization of Hamiltons principle is of interest
here, because Ref. 1 advocates its use and cites the equations
of state derived from it.3 However, this generalization had
previously been acknowledged4 as being incorrect because it
did not reproduce the correct equations of state for systems
under linear constraints in Eq. 9. Some textbooks8 11 also
have indicated the fallacy of using Eq. 8 in Eq. 2. However, the basic reason for its failure has remained obscure.
2005 American Association of Physics Teachers
265
10
d T
T
Q j q j 0,
dt q j
q j
11
ri
,
q j
12
U
d U
,
dt q j
q j
13
derived from a generalized monogenic the same for all particles potential U(q,q,t) and a nonpotential part Q NP
j
FNP
"
r
/
q
.
DAlemberts
principle
is
then
i
j
i
d L
L
q j 0,
Q NP
j
dt q j
q j
DAlemberts principle ,
14
15
B. Holonomic constraints
When the c-constraint conditions in Eq. 3 are utilized to
reduce the number of generalized coordinates from n to the
minimum number (nc) of actual independent degrees of
freedom, that is, when the constraints are embedded within
the problem at the outset, then all the (nc) q j s in Eq.
14 are independent of each other. Because each displacement can take on any value at each t, the satisfaction of
DAlemberts principle, Eq. 14, demands that each coefficient of q j in Eq. 14 separately vanishes to yield
Lagranges equations,1,8 10,13
d L
L
Q NP
j ,
dt q j
q j
16
fk
q 0,
q j j
17
k1,2,...,c
d L
L
f k q,t
k t
Q NP
j
dt q j
q j
q j
q j t 0.
18
j1,2,...,n .
Nonpotential forces Q NP
are included in Eq. 18. If we
j
denote the mnc independent free coordinates by
q 1 ,q 2 ,...,q m
and
the
c-dependent
ones
by
q m1 ,q m2 ,...,q n , then the previously unassigned c multipliers, k , are now chosen to satisfy the c equations,
L
f k q,t
d L
k t
Q NP
j
dt q j
q j
q j
jm1,m2,...,n .
19
266
d L
L
f k q,t
k t
Q NP
j
dt q j
q j
q j
q j t 0,
20
j1,2,...,m
L
f k q,t
d L
k t
Q NP
j ,
dt q j
q j
q j
j1,2,...,n ,
21
d L
L
Q NP
j 0,
j
dt j
j
j1,2,...,nc
L k f k
d L k f k
Q NP
j ,
dt
j
j
j1,2,...,nc
23
24
the displaced paths must be geometrically possible by satisfying the equations 24 of constraint. As will be shown next,
this condition is violated, in general, by nonholonomic constraints.
C. Nonholonomic constraints
The virtual displacements q j for nonholonomic systems
with c linear constraints,
g kL q,q,t A k j q,t q j B k q,t 0,
25
26
k1,2,...,c
27
L
d L
k q,t A k j q,t Q NP
j ,
dt q j
q j
j1,2,...,n
28
d L k g k
L k g k
Q NP
j 0,
j
dt
j
j
29
j1,2,...,nc ,
d gk
gk
dt q j
q j
30
j1,2,...,n ,
d L
L
gk
k
k
k G k j g k
Q Nj P j 0,
dt j
j
j
j
31
j1,2,...,nc .
L
gk
d L
k
k G k j Q Nj P
dt q j
q j
j
j1,2,...,n ,
32
A k j A ki
Akj Bk
q i
qi
q j
t
q j
0.
33
M. R. Flannery
267
fk
fk
d
f
.
q
dt k q i i t
34
A ki
2 f k
2 f k
Akj
,
q j q j q i q i q j
qi
35
Bk 2 f k
2 f k A ki
,
q i q i t t q i
t
36
for the exactness of Eq. 25. Provided the linear constraints 25 satisfy conditions 35 and 36, an integrated
form f k therefore exists but may be unknown. Such constraints are termed semiholonomic and are denoted by
g sh
k (q,q,t)0. But the conditions 35 and 36 for exactness yield condition Eq. 33, for all q i which satisfy the
constraints. Semiholonomic constraints can therefore be correctly treated by DAlemberts generalized principle, Eq.
29. In addition to exactness, semiholonomic constraints
(G (L)
k j 0) possess a further important property. The equations of constraint appropriate to the displaced paths q q
are
g k q q,q q,t g k q,q,t g k q,q,t .
37
g k
gk
gk
q j t q j t .
q j
q j
38
g k
d gk
q t G k j q j t .
dt q j j
39
g kL
d
A q G kLj q j .
dt k j j
40
41
g (I)
4q 1 3q 22 q 1 2q 1 q 2 q 2 0,
2 q,q
42
now satisfies condition 33 and is therefore in exact semiholonomic form. A known integrating factor k implies a
known integrated holonomic form f k 0, so that the simpler
holonomic result Eq. 23 can be used rather than
DAlemberts generalized principle 29.
The linear constraints 25 which do not satisfy the exactness condition 33 are classified as nonholonomic.
DAlemberts generalized principle 29 is therefore not appropriate for nonholonomic constraints 25, as is also confirmed by the fact that Eq. 32 is not the correct equation
28 of state, because G (L)
k j 0, in general.
DAlemberts basic principle, Eq. 14, is not amenable to
general nonholonomic constraints 7, because there is now
no relation such as Eq. 26 which connects the displacements q j in a linear form. The fact that Eq. 7 is, in general, not a linear function of q j prohibits writing a linear
interrelation between the q j s essential for the application
of DAlemberts principle. General nonholonomic constraints 7 are therefore outside the scope of all principles
based on virtual displacements.
The key conclusions of Secs. II B and II C are the following:
1 DAlemberts basic principle, Eq. 14, is applicable to
holonomic and linear nonholonomic constraints, as is already known.
2 DAlemberts generalized principle, Eq. 22, applies to
holonomic constraints and Eq. 29 applies to semiholonomic systems, because the displaced paths are also geometrically possible paths, an essential criterion for the
validity of the underlying multiplier rule. The solution of
both sets provides the actual path q j (t) and the constraint forces Q cj .
3 The displaced paths q j q j for linear nonholonomic
systems are not geometrically possible and therefore do
not satisfy the multiplier-rule condition.
4 It is important to distinguish restrictions imposed on virtual displacements, such as Eq. 26, from the actual
equations of constraint, such as Eq. 9, which must only
be satisfied within the equations of state that are eventually determined by some variational procedure. The constraint equations g k (q,q,t)0 satisfied by the true dynamical path q(t) do not necessarily imply that the
corresponding equations g k (q q,q q,t)0 are satisfied by the displaced paths.
5 General nonholonomic constraints 7 are completely
outside the scope of even the most fundamental principle
M. R. Flannery
268
t2
t1
44
L
L
q j t
q t .
q j
q j j
45
d L
L
d
q j t ,
p q t
dt j j
dt q j
q j
46
d
p q Q NP
j q j .
dt j j
47
L , ,t L k t f k q,t
d
p Q NP
j j .
dt j j
48
,t)0
are
exact,
thereby
satisfying the condition
k
g (sh)
0
for
geometrically
possible
paths. DAlemberts
k
generalized principle 47 therefore yields the equations of
state
d
dt
L k g (sh)
k
j
Q NP
j ,
L k g (sh)
k
j
j1,2,...,nc
49
L dt
t2
t1
L dt p j q j t 2
1
t2
t1
Q NP
j q j dt,
50
t2
51
L dt0,
t1
t2
t1
L
, ,t dt
t2
t1
L k t f k q,t dt0,
52
S (sh)
t2
t1
t2
t1
L (sh)
, ,t dt
,t dt0.
L k t g (sh)
k q,q
53
269
Fig. 1. An upright coin rolls and spins down an inclined plane of angle .
Directions of space-fixed axes are i , j , and k , as indicated. Coin rolls with
angular velocity
Rot about axis which in turn spins with angular
velocity
S k about fixed axis k . The center of mass has velocity v
R t .
S (sh)
t2
t1
t2
t1
d
k f k dt
f
dt k k
k t f k q,t dt0,
L
54
the holonomic form 52, as expected. The relationship be k , as also shown in Sec.
tween the multipliers is k
II C.
Hamiltons variational principle 51 cannot be generalized to inexact linear or more general nonholonomic constraints, Eq. 9 or 7, by replacing L by L k g k in Eq.
51, as has been suggested.13 The fact that g k 0 for these
cases implies that the varied paths are not geometrically possible. We have shown that generalization of Hamiltons and
DAlemberts principles rests on the multiplier rule which
demands that the varied paths be geometrically possible, a
property reserved only for holonomic and semiholonomic
systems.
55
21 M x 2 12 I S 2 M gx sin x R ,
L (sh) ,
56
for the extended set (x, , ) of free coordinates, we obtain the equations of state, M x M g sin
, I S
R, and
57
which is nonintegrable and quadratic in the generalized velocities. There is no velocity component perpendicular to v
so that a second constraint is
g 2 x ,y x sin y cos 0,
58
270
coin is sought. From Eqs. 57 and 58, the virtual displacements satisfy
x 2 y 2 R 2 2 0,
59
x sin y cos 0.
60
61
x cos y sin R 0,
62
which is now suitable for application of DAlemberts principle. The displaced paths q j q j cause the changes,
g 1 x cos y sin R
x sin y cos ,
63a
63b
271
t2
t1
A2
57
t2
t1
F q,q,t dt
t2
t1
F
d F
0,
dt j
j
j1,2,...,nc
A4
t2
t1
p i q i dt p i q i t 2 0
1
A5
272
t2
A6
2T dt0,
t1
A3
A1
F q,q,t dt,
g k q,q,t 0.
t2
t1
M. R. Flannery
272