The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic

and nonholonomic eld theories

F. Cantrijn, J. Vankerschaver
1
Department of Mathematical Physics and Astronomy, Ghent University,
Krijgslaan 281, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
Abstract
We extend the Skinner-Rusk formalism to eld theories with nonholonomic and
vakonomic constraints. This framework is then used to study the relation between
both types of constraints.
Key words: classical eld theories, constraints, Skinner-Rusk theory
1991 MSC: 70S05, 58A20, 53C05
Dedicated to Willy Sarlet on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday.
1 Introduction
During the last decade, eld theories with nonholonomic constraints have been
studied from dierent points of view (see [3,18,10,11]). At the same time an
extensive study has been made of vakonomic methods in eld theory (see
[8,1,2]). In this paper, we study the relation between both approaches, in
the case where the constraints are ane. Even though ane constraints are
admittedly rather exceptional in classical eld theory, this case is nevertheless
quite interesting, as it allows a thorough comparison between vakonomic and
nonholonomic dynamics. Indeed, in this paper, we will follow the work of
Cortes et al. [5], who used the so-called formulation of Skinner and Rusk to
recast both models in a form which allows comparison more easily.
In [15,16], Skinner and Rusk reformulated the equations of motion of a me-
chanical system as a presymplectic system on TQT

Q. Their idea in studying

this rst-order system was to obtain a common framework for both regular
and singular dynamics. Over the years, the framework of Skinner and Rusk
Email address: Frans.Cantrijn@UGent.be, Joris.Vankerschaver@UGent.be.
1
Research Assistant of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 2
was extended in many directions: for our purposes, the most important con-
tributions are [6,7], where the authors developed a Skinner-Rusk formalism
for classical eld theories.
This formulation will be briey recalled in section 2. In section 3, we will
then show how the vakonomic model can be described in the Skinner-Rusk
framework, and we will do the same thing for the nonholonomic dynamics in
section 4. Finally, in section 5 we propose a simple extension of a procedure
by Cortes et al. [5] to compare both formulations, and we prove that they are
equivalent in the case of integrable constraints.
2 Classical eld theories
2.1 The bundle framework
Classical elds are modeled as sections of a bre bundle : Y X of rank
m, with (n + 1)-dimensional orientable base space X. On X, we consider a
xed volume form . Throughout this paper, we will use a coordinate system
(x

), = 1, . . . , n + 1, on X adapted to , i.e. such that d

n+1
x := dx
1

dx
n+1
. Furthermore, on Y a coordinate system (x

, y
A
), A = 1, . . . , m,
adapted to is used.
Let
_
n+1
2
Y be the bundle of (n+1)-forms on Y satisfying the following prop-
erty:
(
_
n+1
2
Y )
y
if i
v
i
w
= 0 for all v, w (V )
y
.
In coordinates, an element of
_
n+1
2
Y can be represented as = p

A
dy
A

d
n
x

+pd
n+1
x. Hence, on
_
n+1
2
Y , we have a coordinate system (x

, y
A
; p

A
, p).
The bundle
_
n+1
2
Y is of fundamental interest in classical eld theory, because
it can be equipped with a natural multisymplectic form, which is the general-
isation to higher degree of the symplectic form on a cotangent bundle. If we
introduce rst the (n + 1)-form as
()(v
1
, . . . , v
n+1
) = (T(v
1
), . . . , T(v
n+1
)),
where v
1
, . . . , v
n+1
T

(
_
n+1
2
Y ) and where :
_
n+1
2
Y Y is the bundle
projection, then this multisymplectic form is dened by setting := d
(see [4]).
The central stage for Skinner-Rusk theories is the product bundle J
1

_
n+1
2
Y Y . On this bundle, there exists a duality pairing , : J
1

_
n+1
2
Y R, which is reminiscent of the obvious pairing by duality on
TQT

Q, the bundle originally considered by Skinner and Rusk. This pair-

ing is dened as follows: let
y
(
_
n+1
2
Y )
y
and j
1
x
J
1
, such that

1,0
(j
1
x
) = y. Now, consider an (n + 1)-form on Y extending
y
, i.e. such
that (y) =
y
. The pullback (

)(x) is then a form at x of maximal degree,

and hence a multiple a(x) of the volume form: (

)(x) = a(x)
x
. We now
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 3
dene the duality pairing as
_
j
1
x
,
_
:= a(x). (1)
One can easily check that this denition is independent of the extension of .
In coordinates, we have that a(x) = p

A
y
A

+p.
2.2 Ane constraints
Throughout this paper, we consider mainly eld theories with ane con-
straints. These constraints are modeled by considering a distribution D on
Y of corank k. The distribution D is said to be weakly horizontal (see [9,
p. 40]) if D is complementary to a subbundle of the vertical bundle V . Note
that this implies that k m.
A weakly horizontal distribution determines an ane subspace C of J
1
by
setting
C = {j
1
x
J
1
: ImT
x
D
(x)
}.
If the annihilator of D is spanned by the linear independent 1-forms

=
A

A
dy
A
+A

dx

( = 1, . . . , k), weak horizontality implies that the matrix A

A
has maximal rank k. In terms of these coordinate forms for

, C is determined
by the vanishing of the k(n+1) functions

= A

A
y
A

+A

. Conversely, it can
be seen that any ane subbundle C J
1
determines a weakly horizontal
distribution D on Y .
Let us go one step further, and assume moreover that there exists a bration
: Y Q of Y over a new manifold Q, which is bered in turn over X (see
(2)). The constraint distribution D will then be taken to be the horizontal
distribution of a connection on . See the commutative diagram below:
Y

//

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
X
(2)
Consider a system of bundle coordinates (x

, y
a
) on Q, where = 1, . . . , n+1
and a = 1, . . . , m k, and assume as before that there exists bundle coordi-
nates on Y adapted to both and , i.e. coordinates (x

; y
a
, y

), collectively
denoted by (x

, y
A
), such that is locally given by (x

, y
A
) = (x

, y
a
). In
nonholonomic mechanics, a similar setup was studied in [14].
The constraint distribution D will be taken to be the horizontal distribution
of a connection in the bre bundle : Y Q and hence D V = TY .
Since V is a subbundle of V , D is also weakly horizontal and determines a
submanifold C of J
1
as before. Since the coecient matrix A

A
has maximal
rank k, there exists (locally at least) a basis of the annihilator D

spanned by

:= dy

a
dy
a
B

dx

.
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 4
This basis is generally more suited for our purposes.
Remark 1 If the distribution D is integrable, then Y is foliated by integral
submanifolds of D, in which case we say that the linear constraints are holo-
nomic. The theory of holonomic and linear nonholonomic constraints was also
treated in great detail in [10].
3 Skinner-Rusk formulation of vakonomic eld theories
Let : C J
1
be a constraint submanifold of codimension k(n + 1) in J
1
,
locally annihilated by k(n + 1) functionally independent constraint functions

, where = 1, . . . , k and = 1, . . . , n + 1. Further on, C will be induced

by a weakly horizontal distribution as in section 2.2, but for now this is not
required. We assume that (
1,0
)
|C
is a bration, such that it is possible to
choose locally an adapted coordinate system (x

; y
A
; y
a

, y

) on J
1
, and func-
tions

(x

, y
A
, y
a

) such that C is locally determined by the following set of

k(n + 1) equations:
y

(x

, y
A
, y
a

) = 0. (3)
Hence, (x

; y
A
; y
a

) dene coordinates on C. We now redene

as y

(x

, y
A
, y
a

); note that the zero level set of these functions is still C.

3.1 Direct derivation
The vakonomic approach to the constrained problem specied by a Lagrangian
L and a constraint manifold C consists of looking for extremals of the following
augmented Lagrangian: L
vak
= L +

(see [12]), where the functions

are Lagrange multipliers. In other words, we impose the constraints on the

space of sections where the action is dened, rather than on the variations, as
will be the case in nonholonomic eld theory.
Let

L :=

L : C R be the induced Lagrangian on C. By looking for ex-

tremals of the action associated to L
vak
, and rewriting the resulting extremality
conditions in terms of

L, we obtain the following vakonomic eld equations:
d
dx

L
y
a

y
a

_
=

L
y
a

y
a
(4)
together with
d

dx

L
y

and y

. (5)
3.2 Skinner-Rusk formulation
Consider now the Cartesian product bundle
W
0
: W
0
:= C
_
n+1
2
Y Y .
Dene also the projection
0
: W
0
X by putting
0
=
W
0
. The given
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 5
Lagrangian L induces a function H
vak
, called generalized Hamiltonian, on W
0
,
dened as follows:
H
vak
(j
1
x
, ) =
_
j
1
,
_

L(j
1
x
), for all (j
1
x
, ) (W
0
)
y
, (6)
where , is the pairing between J
1
and
_
n+1
2
Y dened in (1), and

L =

L
is again the restriction of L to C. In coordinates, we have H
vak
= p

a
y
a

+p

+
p L(x

, y
A
, y
a

).
The multisymplectic form on
_
n+1
2
Y can be used, together with the gener-
alized Hamiltonian H
vak
, to dene a pre-multisymplectic form
H
vak
on W
0
:

H
vak
= + dH
vak
.
In terms of this form, the Skinner-Rusk eld equations are given by
i
h

H
vak
= n
H
vak
, (7)
where h is the horizontal projector of a connection on
0
(see [6,7]). We will
show that these equations are equivalent to the vakonomic eld equations (4)
and (5). In brief, we will construct a sequence of submanifolds
. . . W
3
W
2
W
1
W
0
= J
1

_
n+1
2
Y .
where W
1
, W
2
and W
3
admit the following interpretation:
(1) W
1
consists of points where a solution h of (7) exists;
(2) W
2
contains the points of W
1
where the image of the solution h is tangent
to W
1
;
(3) W
3
is dened by an additional technical assumption, to be specied later
on.
Under a certain regularity condition, W
1
and W
2
coincide and only the mani-
folds W
0
, W
1
and W
3
come into play. In the general case, one needs to apply
some form of Gotays constraint algorithm to formulate the dynamics on a
nal constraint submanifold W

, but this will not be considered here.

Let us now turn to the construction of W
1
, W
2
, and W
3
. Notice that the eld
equation (7) does not necessarily have a solution on the whole of W
0
. Hence,
we introduce a subset W
1
W
0
, dened as the set of points of W
0
for which
there does exist a horizontal projector of a connection on
0
: C
_
n+1
2
Y X
solving equation (7). If h has the following coordinate expression:
h = dx

_

x

+A
A

y
A
+B

p
+C

A
+D
a

y
a

_
, (8)
for unknown functions A
A

, B

, C

A
, and D
a

, then a brief coordinate calcu-

The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 6
lation shows that W
1
is determined by the following equations:
p

a
= p

y
a

L
y
a

= p

y
a

+
L
y
a

+
L
y

y
a

. (9)
In addition, the connection coecients have to satisfy the following con-
straints:
A

, A
a

= y
a

A
+p

y
A

L
y
A
= 0. (10)
Let us now assume that W
1
is a manifold. This is a very restrictive assumption,
but for the sake of clarity, we adopt it nevertheless. When dealing with real-
world applications, it should be veried by calculations, and it can be expected
that interesting behaviour may occur in the points where W
1
fails to be a
manifold.
Secondly, we dene W
2
as the submanifold of W
1
where the image of the
horizontal projector h solving (7) is tangent to W
1
. This is expressed by the
following equation:
h
_

x

__
p

L
y
a

+p

y
a

_
= 0.
In coordinates, this implies the following for the connection coecients of h:
C

a
D

L
y
a

_
+C

y
a

+p

y
a

_
= 0, (11)
where D

is the operator dened as

D

=

x

+y
a

y
a
+

+D
a

y
a

.
Equation (11) uniquely determines the coecients D
a

if the following matrix

is nonsingular:
C

ab
=

2

L
y
a

y
b

y
a

y
b

.
This we now assume. Hence, W
2
is the whole of W
1
. If C

ab
is singular, addi-
tional steps in the constraint algorithm are necessary. For this procedure,
we refer to [6].
We end this section by giving a meaning to the coordinate p, and, at the same
time, xing the remaining connection coecient B

. This we do by considering
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 7
the submanifold W
3
of W
2
dened as
W
3
:= W
2
{H
vak
(x

, y
A
, y
a

; p

A
) = 0}.
Demanding that a horizontal projector h on W
2
solving (7) is tangent to W
3
leads to the following condition for B

:
B

+C

a
y
a

+C

+D
a

a
+p

) D

(L) = 0
which allows for the determination of B

in terms of the other connection

coecients as well as the momenta p

A
.
Let us now proceed to derive the vakonomic eld equations. On W
3
, the
Skinner-Rusk equation (7) can be locally written as
dy
a
dx

=
H
vak
p

a
and
dp

a
dx

=
H
vak
y
a
,
where H
vak
is dened on W
3
as H
vak
:= p = p

a
y
a

+p

L. By substituting
this expression, we nally obtain the following eld equations:

L
y
a
p

y
a
=
d
dx

L
y
a

y
a

_
as well as
dp

dx

L
y

y
a
and y

(x

, y
A
, y
a

).
If we identify the momenta p

with the Lagrange multipliers

, then these
equations are precisely the vakonomic eld equations (4) and (5).
Note in passing that, if

L is regular, then W
3
is a multisymplectic manifold,
with multisymplectic form
W
3
:= j

3,0

H
vak
, where j
3,0
: W
3
W
0
is the
canonical injection. This can be veried by a routine coordinate calculation.
3.3 Ane constraints
Let D be the horizontal distribution of a connection on as in section 2.2.
Recall that we may assume that the annihilator D

is locally spanned by the

following k forms:

:= dy

a
dy
a
B

dx

.
In case of ane constraints, the coecients D
a

are determined by the follow-

The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 8
ing expression:
D
b

L
y
a

y
b

=

2

L
x

y
a

y
b

L
y
b
y
a

L
y
b
y
a

L
y
a
+B

L
y

+p

_
B

a
x

+y
b

a
y
b
+

a
y

y
a
_
, (12)
where

= B

a
y
a

+B

. The expression between brackets in equation (12) is

closely related to the curvature of D. Indeed, we recall that the curvature R
of D is a section of
_
2
Y TY , locally dened as R = R

ab
dy
a
dy
b

+
R

a
dy
a
dx

, where
R

ab
=
B

a
y
b

B

b
y
a
+B

b
B

a
y

a
B

b
y

a
=
B

a
x

y
a
+B

a
y

a
B

.
Bearing this in mind, one then obtains for the coecients D
a

the following
expression:
D
b

L
y
a

y
b

=

2

L
x

y
a

y
b

L
y
b
y
a

L
y
b
y
a

L
y
a
+B

L
y

+p

(R

ab
y
b

+R

a
).
(13)
These expressions will play an important role in the comparison between vako-
nomic and nonholonomic dynamics below in section 5.
4 Skinner-Rusk formulation of nonholonomic eld theories
A similar, but slightly more involved method can be used to cast the non-
holonomic eld equations into Skinner-Rusk form. We consider a constraint
submanifold C of codimension k(n + 1), determined by similar expressions as
in (3). The nonholonomic eld equations will be recast as a Skinner-Rusk type
system on the bundle
W
0
:

W
0
:= J
1

_
n+1
2
Y Y .
4.1 The nonholonomic eld equations
Let us rst briey recall the nonholonomic eld equations. For a more detailed
treatment, see [3,18].
Assume as before that C is a constraint submanifold of J
1
. In addition, let
F be a bundle of reaction forces. For the sake of deniteness, we asssume that
F is the subbundle of
_
n+1
(T

J
1
) spanned by

= S

(d

), where S

is
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 9
the vertical endomorphism on J
1
(see [13]). In coordinates, we have

y
a

(dy
a
y
a

dx

) d
n
x

. (14)
Other choices F are also possible (see [17]) but will not be considered here.
In the presence of nonholonomic constraints, the eld equations become

_
L
y
a

(j
1
)
_

L
y
a
=

y
a

, (15)
together with the constraint that j
1
C, which serves to determine the un-
known multipliers

. These equations can be cast into the following intrinsic

form:
i
h

L
n
L
I(F) and Imh TC, (16)
where I(F) is the ideal generated by F. The terms on the right-hand side
of (15) and (16) represent the constraint forces that keep the section j
1

constrained to C.
4.2 Skinner-Rusk formulation
Consider rst the bundle of reaction forces F spanned by the (n + 1)-forms

dened in (14). We again denote by I(F) the ideal in

(J
1
) generated
by F and we use the same notation to denote the pullback of this ideal to

W
0
.
In the nonholonomic case, the generalized Hamiltonian is dened as
H
nh
:= pr
1
, pr
2
pr

2
L.
Note that H
nh
involves the values of L on the whole of J
1
and not just on
C as in the vakonomic approach. The pre-multisymplectic form
H
nh
is then
dened as in section 3 by putting
H
nh
:= + dH
nh
.
The nonholonomic eld equations are now
(i
k

H
nh
n
H
nh
)
|C
_
n+1
2
Y
I(F) and (Imk)
|C
_
n+1
2
Y
T(C
_
n+1
2
Y )
(17)
for a horizontal projector k on
0
:=
W
0
; notice the similarity between these
equations and the nonholonomic eld equations (16). A similar computation
as in section 3 shows us that a horizontal projector, with coordinate expression
k = dx

_

x

+A
A

y
A
+B

p
+C

A
+D
A

y
A

_
, (18)
is a solution of the nonholonomic eld equations if and only if
A
A

= y
A

, p

A
=
L
y
A

and C

A
=
L
y
A
+

y
A

, (19)
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 10
where

= y

and the

are a set of Lagrange multipliers, to be deter-

mined by imposing the second part of (17). Let us now dene a submanifold

W
1
of

W
0
, specied by the relations (compare with (9)):
p

A
=
L
y
A

. (20)
Again as with vakonomic dynamics, we dene the submanifold

W
2


W
1
as the set of points where the image of the solution k determined by (19) is
tangent to W
1
. This leads to the following conditions:
C

2
L
x

y
A

y
B

2
L
y
B
y
A

D
B

2
L
y
B

y
A

= 0, (21)
as well as
D

y
A

y
A
D
a

y
a

= 0. (22)
It is easily seen that, in the case of a regular Lagrangian, these conditions do
not restrict the submanifold

W
1
any further, i.e.

W
2
=

W
1
.
Finally, we dene the submanifold

W
3
as (compare with the denition of W
3
in the vakonomic case):

W
3
:=

W
2
{H
nh
(x

, y
A
, y
a

; p

A
) = 0}.
Demanding that a connection k whose image is tangent to

W
2
has an image
tangent to

W
3
imposes an additional condition on the the connection coe-
cient B

:
B

+C

A
y
A

+D
A

_
L
x

+A
A

L
y
A
+D
A

L
y
A

_
= 0.
If we now dene H
nh
along

W
3
as H
nh
:= p = p

A
y
A

L, then the nonholo-

nomic Skinner-Rusk equations (17) become
dy
A
dx

=
H
nh
p

A
and
dp

A
dx

=
H
nh
y
A
+

y
A

,
together with the constraint equations y

(x

, y
A
, y
a

). By using the ex-

pression for H
nh
as well as (20), we nally obtain that the Skinner-Rusk equa-
tions imply the standard nonholonomic eld equations:
d
dx

_
L
y
A

L
y
A
=

y
A

,
together with the constraints.
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 11
4.3 Ane constraints
We now focus on ane constraints, and employ a similar convention for the
bundle D of constraint forms as in the vakonomic case. In this case, the third
equation of (19) splits into two sets of equations,
C

a
=
L
y
a

a
and C

=
L
y

.
One can combine these two expressions to eliminate the Lagrange multipliers.
In the resulting expression, one can then substitute expression (21) to elim-
inate C

A
, and expression (22) to express D

in terms of D
a

. After a long
computation, we nally obtain
D
b

L
y
a

y
b

=

2

L
x

y
a

y
b

L
y
b
y
a

L
y

y
a

L
y
a
+
L
y

_
y
b

a
y
b
+

a
y

+
B

a
x

y
a
_
.
(23)
5 Comparison between both approaches
Denition 2 Let X be a manifold and consider two brations
C
,
D
: C, D
X. Consider a smooth map f : C D and let h be a connection on
C
, and
k a connection on
D
. These connections are then said to be f-related if
Tf h
p
= k
f(p)
Tf for all p C.
Consider now the vakonomic and nonholonomic manifolds W
3
and

W
3
. There
exists an obvious surjective submersion f : W
3


W
3
, given in coordinates by
f(x

, y
A
, y
a

; p

) = (x

, y
A
, y
a

) (see [9,5]). The map f can be given an intrinsic

meaning by using the Legendre transformation.
In order to study the relation between W
3
and

W
3
, and hence the relation
between vakonomic and nonholonomic classical eld theory, we make use of
the following observation of Krupkov a [9] and Cortes et al. [5]: if h and k
were f-related connections, then any integral section of h would project down
(under f) to an integral section of k. The original theorem concerned integral
curves of vector elds, but using denition 2 also covers integral sections of
connections.
Let h be a vakonomic connection (with connection coecients as determined
in section 3) and k be a nonholonomic connection (with coecients as in
section 4). By considering the set of points S
1
of W
3
where h and k are f-
related, we obtain a rst characterization of the equivalence between h and k.
Let us assume that S
1
is not empty, otherwise both connections are entirely
unrelated. A comparison of both sets of connection coecients then shows the
following:
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 12
Proposition 3 S
1
is locally determined by the vanishing of the following set
of functions on W
3
:

a
=
_

L
y

_
(R

ab
y
b

+R

a
).
Proof. The local expression for S
1
follows by considering the following con-
tracted dierence:

a
=

2

L
y
a

y
b

D
b

D
b

_
,
where

D is the set of vakonomic connection coecients (13), and

D is the set
of nonholonomic coecients (23).
The submanifold S
1
can be seen as the rst stage in a certain constraint
algorithm (see [9,5]), the result of which is a nal submanifold S

(which
might be empty) where the vakonomic and nonholonomic dynamics are equiv-
alent. A general discussion of this constraint algorithm would not dier signi-
cantly from the treatment of Krupkova and Cortes et al. and is hence omitted.
We only wish to point out that, if the constraints are holonomic, and hence
R

ab
= R

a
= 0, then S
1
is the whole of W
3
and vakonomic and nonholo-
nomic dynamics are everywhere equivalent, by which it is conrmed that the
vakonomic and nonholonomic description give the same results for holonomic
constraints.
References
[1] E. Bibbona, L. Fatibene, M. Francaviglia, Gauge-natural parameterized
variational problems, vakonomic eld theories and relativistic hydrodynamics
of a charged uid, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 3 (2006) 15731608.
[2] E. Bibbona, L. Fatibene, M. Francaviglia, Chetaev versus vakonomic
prescriptions in constrained eld theories with parametrized variational
calculus, J. Math. Phys. 48 (3) (2007) 032903.
[3] E. Binz, M. de Leon, D. Martn de Diego, D. Socolescu, Nonholonomic
Constraints in Classical Field Theories, Rep. Math. Phys. 49 (2002) 151166.
[4] J. F. Cari nena, M. Crampin, L. A. Ibort, On the multisymplectic formalism for
rst order eld theories, Di. Geom. Appl. 1 (4) (1991) 345374.
[5] J. Cortes, M. de Leon, D. Martn de Diego, S. Martnez, Geometric description
of vakonomic and nonholonomic dynamics. Comparison of solutions, SIAM J.
Control Optim. 41 (5) (2002) 13891412.
[6] M. de Leon, J. C. Marrero, D. Martn de Diego, A new geometric setting for
classical eld theories, in: Classical and Quantum Integrability (Warsaw, 2001),
vol. 59 of Banach Center Publ., Polish Acad. Sci., Warsaw, 2003.
The Skinner-Rusk approach for vakonomic and nonholonomic eld theories 13
[7] A. Echeverra-Enrquez, C. Lopez, J. Marn-Solano, M. C. Mu noz-Lecanda,
N. Roman-Roy, Lagrangian-hamiltonian unied formalism for eld theory, J.
Math. Phys. 45 (1) (2004) 360380.
[8] P. L. Garca, A. Garca, C. Rodrigo, Cartan forms for rst order constrained
variational problems, J. Geom. Phys. 56 (4) (2006) 571610.
[9] O. Krupkova, The Geometry of Ordinary Variational Equations, vol. 1678 of
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 1997.
[10] O. Krupkova, Partial dierential equations with dierential constraints, J. Di.
Eq. 220 (2) (2005) 354395.
[11] O. Krupkova, P. Voln y, Euler-Lagrange and Hamilton equations for
nonholonomic systems in eld theory, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 (40) (2005)
87158745.
[12] J. E. Marsden, S. Pekarsky, S. Shkoller, M. West, Variational methods,
multisymplectic geometry and continuum mechanics, J. Geom. Phys. 38 (3-4)
(2001) 253284.
[13] D. J. Saunders, The Geometry of Jet Bundles, vol. 142 of London Mathematical
Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[14] D. J. Saunders, F. Cantrijn, W. Sarlet, Regularity aspects and Hamiltonisation
of non-holonomic systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32 (39) (1999) 68696890.
[15] R. Skinner, R. Rusk, Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics. I. Formulation on
T

QTQ., J. Math. Phys. 24 (11) (1983) 25892594.

[16] R. Skinner, R. Rusk, Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics. II. Gauge
transformations, J. Math. Phys. 24 (11) (1983) 25952601.
[17] J. Vankerschaver, A class of nonholonomic kinematic constraints in elasticity,
J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 (14) (2007) 38893913.
[18] J. Vankerschaver, F. Cantrijn, M. de Leon, D. Martn de Diego, Geometric
aspects of nonholonomic eld theories, Rep. Math. Phys. 56 (3) (2005) 387
411.