Lagrange's Equations for Complex Bond

Graph Systems
The standard means of imposing causality to extract state equations for bond graph
DEAN KARNOPP models of physical systems can be inconvenient when algebraic loops and derivative
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
causality in combination with nonlinear constraints are present. This paper presents
University of California, an alternative means of writing system differential equations using energy and coenergy
Davis, Calif. state functions and Lagrange's equations. For certain types of systems, particularly
mechanical and electromechanical systems, this indirect means of finding state equa-
tions turns out to be very convenient. In this technique, causality is used in a new way
to establish generalized coordinates and generalized efforts for nonconservative elements.
Finally, it is shown that in some cases in which a Lagrangian can be written by inspec-
tion for a complex mechanism, a detailed bond graph for this component is unnecessary
and yet the equations of the mechanism can be easily coupled to the bond graph equations
for the remainder of the system.

1 introduction energy domains, the distinction between energies and coener-

Lagrange's equations often provide the fastest route to equa-
tions of motion for mechanical systems composed of particles
and rigid bodies constrained by workless constraint elements.
They are also very useful for electromechanical systems since
a proper expression of the stored energy state functions will
guarantee that the equations of motion properly express the
energy transduction process. Since a bond graph model treats
all forms of energetic systems uniformly, it is clear that La-
grange's equations can be used for any system represented by a
bond graph. It is the purpose of this paper to show how to set
up state functions for use in Lagrange's equations using the
mechanics of bond graph causality in a new way. We will be
concerned with setting up Lagrange's equations giving a bond
graph model but one can also do the reverse as indicated in
reference [5].1 The differences between these two techniques
are briefly discussed at the end of the paper.
Most derivations of Lagrange's equations are for exclusively
mechanical systems and are faulty in that the state function
called "kinetic energy" should really be called "kinetic coenergy"
since it is a Legendre transformation of" the energy. For me-
chanical systems, this distinction is of little practical importance,
since the Newtonian mass law is linear and the kinetic energy
and coenergy are numerically equal. The state function used
is simply misnamed. However, when systems involve several
'Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Contributed by the Automatic Control Division for publication in the
JOUBNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript
received at ASME Headquarters, September 26, 1977.
gies is crucial. The distinction has been made between energies
and coenergies in electromechanical systems [1], [2], and is
required for the multiple energy domain systems describable
by the use of bond graphs.
Once the distinction between energies and coenergies is ac-
cepted, it becomes clear that there are in fact a great many
possible sets of Lagrange's equations for a given system de-
pending upon the choice of generalized coordinates. We dis-
cuss here the traditional equations in which positions and ve-
locities are used for mechanical systems. We will use the bond
graph variables displacement, q, and flow, / = q, as generalized
coordinates and generalized velocities. This means that the
generalized coordinates will be positions for mechanical systems,
charges for electrical systems, volumes for hydraulic systems,
magnetic flux for magnetic systems, entropy for thermal systems,
etc. Bond graphs are completely presented in reference [3].
This choice of generalized coordinate corresponds with tra-
dition and seems natural. However, one can use the analogs
of impulse and force variables. In bond graphs this "dual
formulation" would be in terms of momentum, p, and effort,
e = p. For certain mechanical systems, this dual formulation
is not possible, [1], because the constraints may not be ex-
pressible in terms of impulse variables alone. (In bond graph
terms we need displacement modulated transformers so we can't
write state functions in terms of momentum variables alone,
[3].) It is also possible to consider various mixed formulations
in which displacements are used in part of the system and
momenta in other parts. Examples of mixed formulations are
given in Chapter 6 of [1]. The bond graph techniques dis-
cussed below would aid in formulating mixed sets of generalized
coordinates, but here we concentrate on one particular choice

300 / DECEMBER 1977 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright © 1977 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 of generalized coordinate type. pression for the effort as a function of the displacement.
To set up the state functions for use in Lagrange's equations,
we seek a set of displacements, qi, q2, qz, • • •, g», and corre- dV(q)
= e(q). U)
sponding flows qi = fi, q2 = f2, q3 — fa, . . ., qn = /„ which are dq
complete and independent, [1], s 2 - 10. For the holonomic
systems to be discussed here such a set can be found which Similarly, for a cne-port I-element, the derivative of the kinetic
means t h a t every flow in t h e system can be expressed as a func- energy yields the constitutive law:
tion of qi, . . . , q„, qi, . . . , qn, and the <ji, .. ., q„ could be varied
independently without violating any constraints. Techniques dT(y)
involving the application of causal strokes will allow us to choose dp
= f(P)- (2)
t h e proper number of generalized coordinates.
However, if we intend to use displacements as generalized coor-
dinates, we need to invert t h e form of the constitutive law.
II State Functions This is accomplished through the use of the Legendre trans-
True stored energies are always expressed in terms of p formation of T{p) yielding the coenergy T*{f), [1]. The de-
(momentum) or q (displacement) variables, [3]. For traditional rivative of T* yields the constitutive law in inverse form
Lagrange equation formulations we need potential energies,
y(9i; 2»> •••) Qn) an -d kinetic coenergies T*{qh q2, ..., q„, qt, dT*
= PC/). (3)
qi, .. ., ?»). We retain these traditional names although for df
nonmechanical systems they are not always t h e most descrip-
tive of the type of energy involved. Potential energies are Lagrange's equations represent effort balances for the choice
associated with C-elements; kinetic coenergies are associated of displacements as generalized coordinates, so equation (3) is
with /-elements, I-C elements and sometimes with gyrators time-differentiated to yield the constitutive law in the proper
(junction structure elements can have coenergies even though form
they store no energy, [1], pp. 299-300). As a mnemonic de- d_ dT*(f) dp _
vice, we use a star to indicate coenergies as in [1]. eU> »(*)• (4)
dt df dt
T h e state functions needed for traditional Lagrange equa-
tions formulations are given in Table 1. The derivation and Similarly, the stored energy E(qip2) for the /C-field in Table 1
significance of these functions are basically given in [1] and would yield the constitutive laws as follows:
simply generalized through the use of the bond graph symbols
and variables. The state functions for the first three elements dffigi, Pi)
= ei(?i, pi), (5)
are explicitly discussed in [3], so only a cursory discussion need dqi
be given here.
dE(qi, Pi)
Energy and coenergy state functions can be used for con- Mqi, Pt)- (6)
dpi
servative elements in Lagrange's equations because derivatives
of these functions yield expressions representing the constitu- However, to recover efforts as functions of displacements and
tive laws of the elements in proper form. For example, for a flows, one needs to use T*(qi, f2) as given in Table 1. For this
one-port C, the derivative of the potential energy is an ex- coenergy
Table 1 State functions
Element Constitutive Relation State Functions

e = e(q) V(q) =f edq

f = g

Linear e = q/C 7(g) = q*/2C

P
f = f(p) T(p) = / fdp

T*(f) -fr- T(p)

Linear f = pn T(p) = p>/21
T*(f) = If/2

/ i = fi(Pi, q%) E(pi, qi) =

h f% = ?s
vim
e2 = e2{ph q2) f fidpi + e2dq2
T*(fi, ?.) = /iPi ~ E{Vl, qi)

e\ = rf2 #(gi, p%) = / ei<*3i - fidpi,

= 0
oi*a
rfi = e% E{pi, q%) = f fidpi — e%dqit
or = 0
Pi = {rq% + K2) r*(gi, /») = Pih ~ E(qi, p»)
(rqi + isTi) = p2 = (rgi + Ki)ft
K\, K2 arbitrary T*(Ji, a,) = Pi/i - E(.Pi, qi)
constants of
integration = {rq% + Ki)fi

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control DECEMBER 1977 / 301

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ar»(ai, /.) = ~ ei(qi,fi) (7)
3. Apply the required causality to t h e Artificial Source and
extend t h e causality as far as possible into t h e bond graph
dqi
using junction structure elements as in t h e normal causality
dT*(qhf,) assignment procedure, [3].
= pi(gi, A) (8)
dft 4. Return to 2, and continue until all bonds have been
causally oriented.
5. Label t h e flows on the artificial sources qi, qt, >.., qn
d dT*(qh g2)j d and use gi, g2, . . ., qn as generalized coordinates. At'this point
(9) every flow is determined as a function of t h e generalized veloc-
ities gi, g2, . . . , q„ and, for systems containing displacement
Thus we see that this T* will yield effort expressions as modulated transformers, as functions of the generalized coor-
functions of q, ^'variables. A similar coenergy is sometimes useful dinates also. (As we shall see in the examples to follow, certain
when gyrators are present in a system. An example of such a co- choices of sites for the artificial flow sources are particularly
energy for a voice-coil electromechanical transducer is shown natural.)
in [1], p . 299. Table 1 gives two Coenergies which m a y be 6. For the elements listed in Table 1, write the appropriate
used interchangeably. They are based on two formal expres- state functions in terms of gi, .. ., g„ and gi, . . . , g„ by reading
sions for stored energy both of which actually .vanish since a the causal marks.
gyrator is energy conservative b u t stores no energy. For the 7. For elements such as Se-^, R-*- write generalized effort
first listed coenergy we have expressions by reading causal marks and computing the parts
of t h e effort at the ith. artificial source due t o each noncon-
dT*(qi, /,) dE(qh ft)
ei(qi,fi) = rft. (10) servative element. For resistors, the causal marks indicate
dqi dqi how t o express the flow inputs as functions of the generalized
dT*(qi> ft) variables.
=
Pi = rqi + Kh (ID 8. Now apply the operations of Lagrange's equations to
dft
generate equations of motion. This procedure is best illustrated
by means of a series of examples.
d dr*(4i,/i)
= pi = et rqs (12)
dt dft •Y Example Systems
Similar expressions for ei and e2 can be derived using the A A Simple Mechanical System. In Fig. 1, a mechanical sys-
second form for T* listed in Table 1. tem is shown which is easily analyzed by any method. The
bond graph of Fig. 1(6) has had the artificial flow sources added
ill Lagrange's Equations sequentially according to the procedure outlined above. Note
t h a t the bonds from the artificial sources are shown dashed
Given n independent and complete displacement generalized and with the sign half-arrow pointing into the source, (this
coordinates, gi, g2, ., ., g„, for a bond graph system, Lagrange's provides the correct sign for the generalized efforts). This
equations can be written in t h e following form: system has two flow degrees of freedom and the generalized
coordinates can be qi and g 2 a s indicated. The state functions
dL
= Ei, i = 1, 2, (13) are evaluated as follows by observing the causal marks which
dt dqi dqi show how to relate various velocities to gi and g2:
where t h e Lagrangian L(gi, g2, . . . , q„, q\, g2, ., g„, i) is
V(qi, qt,t) = V»feige2+ V> W
L = T*(qu qt, ..., q„, qi, qt, in, t)
- V(qi, qt, ..., qn, t) (14)

and T* and V are t h e sums of all kinetic coenergies and po-

tential energies in t h e system. T h e quantities Ei are generalized
efforts corresponding t o g,- and accounting for effort components
from all elements which cannot be represented b y T* or V
s t a t e functions. These equations are stated without proof since
any bond graph could be interpreted as a mechanical system so
t h a t the standard direct or variational proofs apply. (See [1],
p . 132 for example.) Fig. 1(a) Schematic diagram
T h e main problem is to devise techniques for finding suit-
able generalized coordinates, expressing state functions correctly,
and for extracting generalized efforts. All this can be accom-
plished with the aid of a variation on t h e standard causality .fit
assignment procedure for bond graphs. T h e procedure is as R C R
follows:
1. Apply the required causality a t all effort and flow sources,
and use t h e junction structure elements t o extend causality
as far as possible within the bond graph. If causal conflicts
arise a t this stage, there is a fundamental contradiction within
1* ia i" i"
the bond graph model and it must be reformulated t o remove
t h e contradiction.
2. Choose a one-junction for which the flow is not yet causally
determined or insert a one-junction into any causally undeter- Fig. 1(b) Bond graph with artificial flow sources
mined bond, and attach an Artificial Flow Source to the one-
junction. Fig. 1 Example system

302 / DECEMBER 1977 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 = V2 hiqt2 + V J htqw2 = 1/i fcoi(?s - qiY where N is the effective number of turns, / is the current, and
2 2
X is the flux linkage variable (X = voltage).
+ V J fefe - 313) = VJ M « O ( 0 - gi) Combining equations (21) and (22) we have a variable in-
+ V J AIJ(?I - qzY- (15) ductance relation for t h e magnet.
2
r*(gi, 92, 3i, &,*) = V J mi/a + V J WJ/I4 2 2S
/ = (23)
2 2 Us) HoAN2
= V J mi?i + VJ OT2?2 . (16)
where L is the inductance.
Note t h a t the effects of real flow sources are included in the
computation of state functions. This is illustrated by the role Using the techniques of reference [3], we compute the stored
of 3o(0 in equation (15) for example. Effort sources and re- energy as
sistors enter into the determination of the generalized efforts. X2 2S
The effort on the artificial flow source for gi is determined E(s, X) = Vi (24)
2L(S) HoAN*
partly by the C- and /-elements and by Rt, and Rn. The C-
and /-elements are taken care of by T* and V so we need only The kinetic coenergy in terms of displacement and flow vari-
compute the part of ei due to Re and Ru as follows: ables according to Table 1 is, in this case
Ei = e7 — eg = e4 — eio = ee — en, T*(s, I) = IX - E(S, X) (25)
= boi/e — 6 i i / u = 601/4 — &12/10, 2
MJV
= V J L(S)P = VJ P
= 601 (/• — fi) — &u(/» — fit), 2S

= &oi(*o(0 - gi) - &n(gi - g»). (17) In Fig. 2(c) the basic bond graph is shown with some of the
physical variable symbols from reference [4]. In Fig. 2(d),
This determination of Ei proceeds exactly in the way one uses
the artificial flow sources have been added, and the bonds are
to write state equations for bond graphs which have causality
applied normally, [3], except one must simply neglect effort
components from elements already represented by state func-
tions.
In a similar way, E% is found. AAIL
Refe t-ence Line- 3
Ei = eiB + en = E0(t) + eM = Ea(t) + en,

= E0(f) + W u = E0(t) + bafw,

= E0(t) + ba(J» - /is) = #o(0 + Mil - «»)•

(18)
Substituting equations (15), (16), (17), and (18) into equations
(13) and (14), the equations of motion are

TOig'i + foi(qi — «o(0) = &oi(*o(0 — 3i) — 612(31 — 32), (19)

U(t)
Wkgj + kii(qt — 31) = E„(f) + ba(qi — g2). (20)
Fig. 2(a) Schematic diagram
These two equations m a y be arranged as two second-order
equations with forcing terms on the right-hand side or as four
first-order state equations using 31, /1, g2, / 2 as the state variables.
M. 3.
B Magnetic Suspension Example. An idealized model of the
suspension system of a high speed train is shown schematically /
in Fig. 2(a). This model is taken from reference [4] as is most Fig. 2(b) Development of IC-field
of the notation shown on the figure. For concreteness, an
idealized analytical model of the magnet will be discussed in
which only t h e reluctance of the two air gaps are considered.
By fitting parameters to experimental data, a mors realistic m
model can be made, [4].
I
Using techniques outlined in reference [3], Chapter 9, one
U(i). Y
V s •A
may either consider the flux-magnetomotive force variables or 9
c Tn 6 „ try-tE^
represent the magnet as an electromechanical /C-field as shown
in Fig. 2(6). Here, we outline briefly the computation of t h e
Tf 3 I a
• / K
¥0 4
/C-field state function as presented in Table 1. Fig. 2(c) Bond graph with physical variables and parameters

The constitutive law of the magnet, considering only the

reluctance of the two air gaps is

M = ^<t> (21)

where M is the magnetomotive force, /xo the permittivity of

free space, A the fluxpath area, 8 the air gap and 0 the flux
[3]. The constitutive laws of the electromagnetic gyrator are

NI = M Fig. 2(d) Bond graph with artificial sources

X = N<}> (22) Fig. 2 Magnetic suspension example

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control DECEMBER 1977 / 303

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 referred to by numbers only. Using the causality shown, one
may write state functions and generalized efforts as follows:

1 ft J. 1/ [ti°AN2~\ /a 2

, ., r I*AN* "I 2
A m?22 + Va ?i , (26)
|_ 2(g, - gift)) _
T^i - /""=• force
7 = 0, (27) Fig. 3(a) Schematic diagram
Bi = e» - e^ = U(t) - Rqi, (28)

Et = eio = mg + E.(t) (29)

We are now in a position to write the equations of motion
using Lagrange's equations.
d / noAN* \ HoAN2
?i
dt \ 2{q, - 9,(0) ) * ~ 2(g2 - q,(t))
_ poANtqijqs - qijt))
= 17«) - Rqi, (30)
2fe - <M0)2 \fi \h.
HoAN*qi 2 1 1
= mg + E,{t). (31)
(g» - 91(f))1 Fig. 3(b) Bond graph with artificial flow sources
These equations may be rewritten in physical variables by
substituting I for qi, z for gr2, and ft for q7. The equations corre- Fig. 3 Voice coil example
spond to those given in reference [4].
C Voice Coil Transducer Example. The example system of Pig.
3 is taken from reference [1] Section 6.3 and illustrates the use
of the gyrator entries in Table 1. The bond graph of Fig. 3(6)
has two artificial sources and the causal marks already applied.
The two efforts e6 and e7 must either come from a coenergy
state function or be included in the computation of the gen-
eralized efforts Ei and E2. Here the former approach is illus-
trated. The state functions are
moineni of
= V> i/a 2 + V. m/s2 + T(q7 + K)f, iner-fta, J

= 'A Lqf + V» mtf + T(g» + K)qi (32)

where T is the gyrator transduction constant and the constant
K will disappear upon differentiation. The gyrator coenergy Fig. 4(a) Schematic diagram
corresponds to the final entry in Table 1.
7 = »/» k(qa - z„)2 = V» *(?» - z0)2. (33)
The generalized efforts are
Ei = E,(t) - Rft = E,(t) - Rqr, (34) •X = -r stti B
y = r cose
E2 = - eio = - 6/to = - bqt. (35)
LyJ {.cosO -rsin6i\.dl
Lagrange's equations are
Fig. 4(b) Kinematic relationships
Lq\ + Ren + Tq% = E,(t), (36)
mq\ + bq2 - Tqi + k(qi - x0) = 0, (37)
in which the typical form for gyroscopic coupling in Lagrange's
equations appears.
" stnS
D Example With Displacement Modulated Transformers. In
Fig. 4, a system is shown in which the type of geometric non-
linearity typical for mechanical systems appears. The mass m L

is representable by two /-elements if the inertial coordinates x, I

y are used, but because of the construction of the device, r,
0 coordinates are convenient. The displacement modulated
multiport transformer law relating x, y to r, 6, r, 0 is derived
V r V 1 fcS\ GY-^i\
\yi
in Fig. 4(6) and represented in the bond graph of Fig. 4(c).
(See [3].)
Although the bond graph is quite easily found by using r Fig. 4(c) Bond graph with artificial sources
and 6 as natural variables to describe the geometry and then
translating into the inertial coordinates x, y, the attempt to Fig. 4 Example with displacement modulated transformers

304 / DECEMBER 1977 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 derive state equations using the standard procedure generates
7o*y«tf from
an unpleasant nonlinear algebraic loop. This is because the Hydraulic
motor
state variables for m will be the x and y momenta, and one must
solve for r and 6 in terms of x and y, i.e., the algebraic loop
essentially inverts the matrix appearing in Fig. 4(b). In other
cases, derivative causality can appear in combination with alge-
braic loops which means t h a t while the normal equation writing
techniques for bond graphs m a y still be applied, the operations
can be exceedingly complex.
On t h e other hand, Lagrange's equations using displacements
as generalized coordinates are particularly suitable for such (a) HA,V>
systems. The bond graph of Fig. 4(c) has had artificial sources Fig. 5(a) Sketch of mechanism
attached and the causality applied according to the procedure
of Section I I I . With some experience, it is possible to follow
the causal marks without numbering all the bonds and to use
the physical variable names rather than the bond graph gen- s
eralized variable names. We illustrate this by writing the state f ** T l?r
functions and generalized efforts directly from Fig. 4(c).
$t-~TFH-0-7?1'~r~*m—+-M£O/AW/SM
T* = '/» LqS + V, Jtf + (Tqi + K)q2 + V, mx' + V, my*
= V J Lqi* + V, JB^ + (Tqi + K)k + V, m(r sin 0 s ^" r J> ,
+ Br cos 6y + y 2 m(r cos 8 - Br sin 8)K (38) 5K-; 1 I GY H %3*r
1-T—J^S,
* (i)
V = V> Wi - BY + V* kr(r - r„)». (39) Fig. 5(b) Bond graph with 3-port representation of mechanism

Ei = E(t) - Rqi. (40) Fig. 5 Example with rigid bodies

E% = - bq, = - bd\. (41)

E, = 0. (42)

Ei = 0. (43)
The equations of motion are then
Lqi - T6y = E(t) - Rqi, (44)
J&i + Tqi + kt(6i - 6) = - b0i, (45)
mr'B + ImrrB + kt(8 - 0i) = 0, (46)
mf — mrB2 + k,(r — r 0 ) = 0, (47)
where the derivation can be simplified by recognizing t h a t the
kinetic coenergy terms in equation (38) naay be reduced to
Vs m(r* -f r2$2) by the use of trigonometric identities.
E Example With Rigid Bodies. The algebraic difficulties which
arise even in plane motion of a particle as in the previous ex-
ample are compounded when rigid bodies can move in three
dimensions. Fig. 5 shows a system in which the lower disk
can move in a complicated way. A detailed bond graph can be
made for this system (see reference [3], p. 393 for a similar
example) but when causality is applied in the normal manner,
derivative causality and nonlinear algebraic loops complicate
the writing of the state equations to such a degree t h a t an easier
alternative method is highly desirable.
As was perhaps obvious in the previous example, it may be
possible to write state functions for the mechanical part of a
system without using the bond graph at all. Thus, in Fig. 5(6),
the mechanical part of the system has simply been represented
by the word "Mechanism" and three ports representing inter-
actions associated with the three generalized coordinates, 6, $ ,
and x. The remainder of t h e system, which is hard to show in a
sketch, is readily represented by normal bond graph elements.
In order to write the equations of motion for such a system
it is convenient to write Lagrange's equations for the entire
system. As the bond graph of Fig. 5(6) shows, artificial sources
are readily added as in previous examples and Lagrange's equa-
tions will apply without difficulty. T h e only skill required
beyond t h a t exhibited in previous examples is the ability to
write T* and V for the mechanical system components directly
from the sketch in Fig. 5(a). In this case the results are as
follows:
T* = 'A hfr + »A h(<i> cos 6 - i/02
1
/ih6* + iuh{<l> sin ey
+ V> M {(Ldy + (L • sin <M) 2 ]. (48)
V = mg(- LcoaB), (49)
which takes care of t h e gravity force. The bond graph does aid
in writing the generalized efforts associated with friction at the
6 and § joints. The remainder of the state functions and the
generalized efforts are derived from the bond graph exactly as
in the previous examples. Using equations (48) and (49), the
complex nonlinear equations due to the three-dimensional rigid
body motion are readily found by applying the mechanics of
Lagrange's equations.
V Conclusions and a Word of Caution
Lagrange's equations which were originally derived for me-
chanical systems can be usefully applied t o any system anal-
ogous t o a mechanical system. As demonstrated, bond graphs
provide a convenient way to establish generalized coordinates,
generalized forces and to compute state functions for a wide
variety of physical systems. T h e normal techniques for writing
first-order state equations from bond graphs are occasionally
awkward due to algebraic difficulties and t h e quite different
causalities associated with Lagrange's equations often provide
a more convenient alternative route to system equations. These
equations will be n second-order equations and for some pur-
poses will need to be converted to first-order equations.
There are many possible sets of generalized coordinates, dis-
placements, momenta, and mixtures of displacements and mo-
menta. We have only discussed the traditional displacement
coordinates since they will work for geometrically nonlinear
mechanical systems. The idea of representing the complicated
mechanical parts of a system by means of a sketch and energy
and coenergy expressions and the rest by conventional bond
graph elements as in Fig. 5 is particularly attractive. There is
probably no better way to derive equations of motion for such
a system although one pays for this convenience by t h e lack

Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control DECEMBER 1977 / 305

Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 of expressions for workless constraint forces.
One should be aware, however, that not all conceivable power-
conservative elements have co-energy expressions. If one tries
to generalize the T* expressions for — OY — in Table 1 to a
modulated OY (as would be required for example for a sep-
arately excited d-c motor) one finds that r cannot simply be
considered to be a function of time. One simply has no inte-
grated relation between p\ and q% or between q\ and p2 unless r
is constant. This means that if the gyiators in Fig. 3 or Fig. 4
were not constant, one would need to put the gyrator effort
contributions in the generalized forces rather than to include
them in T*. In fact, the effort contributions of any and all
elements can be put into the generalized efforts, but it is norm-
ally much better to use T* and V expressions when possible.
Finally, it should be pointed out that we have here emphasized
the writing of Lagrange's equations for given bond graphs.
It is also possible to construct bond graphs consistent with a
306 / DECEMBER 1977
Downloaded From: http://dynamicsystems.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
given Lagrangian, [5]. Using such techniques one could create
a bond graph representation for "Mechanism" in Fig. 5. jf
ones only goal is the writing of the equations of motion, there
is no need to do this, however.
References
1 Crandall, S. H., Karnopp, D. C, Kurtz, E. F., Pridmore-
Brown, D. C , Dynamics of Mechanical and Electromechanical
Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
2 White, D. C , and Woodson, H. H., Electromechanical
Energy Conversion, Wiley, New York, 1959.
3 Karnopp, D. C , and Rosenberg, R. C, System Dynamics:
A Unified Approach, Wiley, New York, 1975.
4 Gottzein, E., and Lange, B., "Magnetic Suspension Control
Systems for the MBB High Speed Train," Automatica, Vol 11
1975, pp. 271-284.
5 Brown, F. T., "Lagrangian Bond Graphs," JOURNAL OP
DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL, TRANS
ASME, Series G, Vol. 94, No. 3, Sept. 1972, pp. 213-221.
Transactions of the ASME