The geometric discretisation of the Suslov problem: A case study of consistency for nonholonomic integrators

Luis C. garcía-Naranjo; Fernando Jiménez

doi:10.3934/dcds.2017182

Article Contents

2017, Volume 37, Issue 8: 4249-4275. Doi: 10.3934/dcds.2017182

This issue Previous Article On nonlocal symmetries generated by recursion operators: Second-order evolution equations Next Article Analysis of a Cahn--Hilliard system with non-zero Dirichlet conditions modeling tumor growth with chemotaxis

The geometric discretisation of the Suslov problem: A case study of consistency for nonholonomic integrators

Luis C. garcía-Naranjo^, and
Fernando Jiménez

1.
Departamento de Matemáticas y Mecánica, IIMAS-UNAM, Apdo. Postal: 20-726, Mexico City, 01000, Mexico
2.
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, 200 Univ. Avenue West, N2L 3G1, Waterloo, Canada

^* Corresponding author: Luis C. García-Naranjo
^* Corresponding author: Luis C. García-Naranjo

Received: September 30, 2016

Revised: February 28, 2017

Published: May 2017

LGN was supported by a Newton Advanced Fellowship from the Royal Society, ref: NA140017.

Abstract Full Text(HTML) Figure(4) Related Papers Cited by

Abstract

Geometric integrators for nonholonomic systems were introduced by Cortés and Martínez in [4] by proposing a discrete Lagrange-D'Alembert principle. Their approach is based on the definition of a discrete Lagrangian $L_d$ and a discrete constraint space $D_d$. There is no recipe to construct these objects and the performance of the integrator is sensitive to their choice.

Cortés and Martínez [4] claim that choosing $L_d$ and $D_d$ in a consistent manner with respect to a finite difference map is necessary to guarantee an approximation of the continuous flow within a desired order of accuracy. Although this statement is given without proof, similar versions of it have appeared recently in the literature.

We evaluate the importance of the consistency condition by comparing the performance of two different geometric integrators for the nonholonomic Suslov problem, only one of which corresponds to a consistent choice of $L_d$ and $D_d$. We prove that both integrators produce approximations of the same order, and, moreover, that the non-consistent discretisation outperforms the other in numerical experiments and in terms of energy preservation. Our results indicate that the consistency of a discretisation might not be the most relevant feature to consider in the construction of nonholonomic geometric integrators.

Keywords:

Nonholonomic mechanics,
geometric integration,
discrete mechanics,
Lie groups and Lie algebras,
reduction of mechanical systems with symmetry.

Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 70F25, 37M99; Secondary: 65P10.

Citation:

Full Text(HTML)

Figure 1. The discrete momentum locus $\mathfrak{u}^{(1)}_{\varepsilon}$ defined by $\ell_d^{(1, \varepsilon)}$ and the plane $\mathfrak{d}^*$ immersed in $\mathfrak{so}(3)^*=\mathbb{R}^3$. Although it cannot be appreciated from the figure, the surface is tangent to the plane at the origin

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Figure 2. The discrete momentum locus $\mathfrak{u}^{(\infty)}_{\varepsilon}$ defined by $\ell_d^{(\infty, \varepsilon)}$ and the plane $\mathfrak{d}^*$ immersed in $\mathfrak{so}(3)^*=\mathbb{R}^3$. They intersect along the red curve, which self-intersects at the origin where $\mathfrak{u}^{(\infty)}_{\varepsilon}$ is tangent to $\mathfrak{d}^*$.

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Figure 3. Comparison between the two discretisations for a generic inertia tensor. The graph on the left shows the approximation of $M_1$ and the evolution of the energy $E_c$ (inset). The graph on the right shows the approximation of $M_2$ and the evolution of the signed distance $\rho$ to the constraint subspace $\mathfrak{d}^*$ (inset)

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Figure 4. Comparison between of the two discretisations for a special inertia tensor having $I_{11}=I_{22}$. The graph on the left shows the approximation of $M_1$ and the evolution of the energy $E_c$ (inset). The graph on the right shows the approximation of $M_2$ and the evolution of the signed distance $\rho$ to the constraint subspace $\mathfrak{d}^*$ (inset)

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Related Papers

Cited by

References

[1]	V. I. Arnold, V. V. Kozlov and A. I. Neishtadt, Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics; Dynamical Systems Ⅲ, 3^rd edition, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 3. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-61551-1.
[2]	A. M. Bloch, Nonholonomic Mechanics and Control, 2^nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2015. doi: 10.1007/b97376.
[3]	A. I. Bobenko and Y. B. Suris, Discrete Lagrangian reduction, discrete Euler-Poincaré equations and semidirect products, Lett. Math. Phys., 49 (1999), 79-93. doi: 10.1023/A:1007654605901.
[4]	J. Cortés and S. Martínez, Nonholonomic integrators, Nonlinearity, 14 (2001), 1365-1392. doi: 10.1088/0951-7715/14/5/322.
[5]	Y. N. Fedorov and V. V. Kozlov, Various aspects of n-dimensional rigid body dynamics, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl., 168 (1995), 141-171. doi: 10.1090/trans2/168/06.
[6]	Y. N. Fedorov and D. V. Zenkov, Discrete nonholonomic LL systems on Lie groups, Nonlinearity, 18 (2005), 2211-2241. doi: 10.1088/0951-7715/18/5/017.
[7]	Y. N. Fedorov, A discretization of the nonholonomic Chaplygin sphere problem, SIGMA, 3 (2007), Paper 044, 15pp. doi: 10.3842/SIGMA.2007.044.
[8]	Y. N. Fedorov, A. J. Maciejewski and M. Przybylska, The Poisson equations in the nonholonomic Suslov problem: Integrability, meromorphic and hypergeometric solutions, Nonlinearity, 22 (2009), 2231-2259. doi: 10.1088/0951-7715/22/9/009.
[9]	L. C. García-Naranjo, J. C. Marrero, A. J. Maciejewski and M. Przybylska, The inhomogeneous Suslov problem, Phys. Lett. A, 378 (2014), 2389-2394. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2014.06.026.
[10]	D. Iglesias, J. C. Marrero, D. Martín de Diego and E. Martínez, Discrete nonholonomic Lagrangian systems on Lie groupoids, J. Nonlinear Sci., 18 (2008), 351-397. doi: 10.1007/s00332-007-9012-8.
[11]	A. Iserles, H. Z. Munthe-Kaas, S. P. Norsett and A. Zanna, Lie-group methods, Acta Numerica., 9 (2000), 215-365. doi: 10.1017/S0962492900002154.
[12]	F. Jiménez and J. Scheurle, On the discretization of nonholonomic mechanics in $\mathbb{R}^N$, J. Geom. Mech., 7 (2015), 43-80. doi: 10.3934/jgm.2015.7.43.
[13]	F. Jiménez and J. Scheurle, On the discretization of the Euler-Poincaré-Suslov equations in SO(3), arXiv: 1506.01289. To appear in J. Geom. Mech.
[14]	J. E. Marsden and T. S. Ratiu, Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry. A Basic Exposition of Classical Mechanical Systems, 2^nd edition, Texts in Applied Mathematics, 17. SpringerVerlag, New York, 1999. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-21792-5.
[15]	J. E. Marsden and M. West, Discrete mechanics and variational integrators, Acta Numerica, 10 (2001), 357-514. doi: 10.1017/S096249290100006X.
[16]	R. McLachlan and M. Perlmutter, Integrators for nonholonomic mechanical systems, J. Nonlinear Sci., 16 (2006), 283-328. doi: 10.1007/s00332-005-0698-1.
[17]	J. Moser and A. P. Veselov, Discrete versions of some classical integrable systems and factorization of matrix polynomials, Comm. Math. Phys., 139 (1991), 217-243. doi: 10.1007/BF02352494.
[18]	G. K. Suslov, Theoretical Mechanics, Gostekhizdat, Moscow, 1946 (in Russian).
[19]	A. P. Veselov, Integrable discrete-time systems and difference operators, Funct. Anal. Appl., 22 (1988), 1-13. doi: 10.1007/bf01077598.