Hamiltonian discretization of boundary control systems
Goran Golo ^{a} , Viswanath Talasila ^{a} , Arjan van der Schaft ^{a} , Bernhard Maschke ^{b}
^{a} Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Twente, The Netherlands
^{b} Universit´e Claude Bernard Lyon1, Laboratoire d’Automatique et de G´enie des Proc´ed´es, France
Abstract
A fundamental problem in the simulation and control of complex physical systems containing distributedparameter components
concerns ﬁnitedimensional approximation. Numerical methods for partial diﬀerential equations (PDEs) usually assume the boundary conditions to be given, while more often than not the interaction of the distributedparameter components with the other components takes place precisely via the boundary. On the other hand, ﬁnitedimensional approximation methods for inﬁnitedimensional inputoutput systems (e.g., in semigroup format) are not easily relatable to numerical techniques for solving PDEs, and are mainly conﬁned to linear PDEs. In this paper we take a new view on this problem by proposing a
method for spatial discretization of boundary control systems based on a particular type of mixed ﬁnite elements, resulting in
a ﬁnitedimensional inputoutput system. The approach is based on formulating the distributedparameter component as an
inﬁnitedimensional portHamiltonian system, and exploiting the geometric structure of this representation for the choice of appropriate mixed ﬁnite elements. The spatially discretized system is again a portHamiltonian system, which can be treated as an approximating lumpedparameter physical system of the same type. In the current paper this program is carried out for
the case of an ideal transmission line described by the telegrapher’s equations, and for the twodimensional wave equation.
1
Introduction
In previous work, see e.g. [1–5], it has been shown how portbased network modelling of complex lumped parameter physical systems naturally leads to a gen eralized Hamiltonian formulation of the dynamics. In fact, the Hamiltonian is given by the total energy of the energystoring elements in the system, while the geo metric structure, deﬁning together with the Hamilto nian the dynamics of the system, is given by the power conserving interconnection structure of the system, and is called a Dirac structure. Furthermore, energy dissipating elements may be added by terminating some of the system ports. The resulting class of open dynami cal systems has been called ”portHamiltonian systems” ([1,4]). The identiﬁcation of the Hamiltonian structure of the dynamical model is important for various reasons. From a simulation point of view it yields information about the energy function and other conserved quanti ties in the system, which preferably should be respected in simulation. Furthermore, it is instrumental in ﬁnding the most convenient representation of the equations of
^{} This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. Cor responding author A.J. van der Schaft
Email addresses:
g.golo@math.utwente.nl
(Goran
Golo),
Talasila),
der Schaft), maschke@lagep.cpe.fr (Bernhard Maschke).
a.j.vanderschaft@math.utwente.nl
v.talasila@math.utwente.nl
(Viswanath
(Arjan van
Preprint submitted to Automatica
motion of the system; in the format of purely diﬀerential equations or of mixed sets of diﬀerential and algebraic equations (DAEs), see e.g [5]. From an analysis point of view it allows to use the powerful methods regarding from the theory of Hamiltonian systems. Finally, the Hamiltonian structure may be fruitfully used in the control design, e.g. by the explicit use of the energy function and conserved quantities for the construction of a Lyapunov function (possibly after the connection with another portHamiltonian controller system), or by directly modifying by feedback the interconnection and dissipation structure and shaping the internal energy. We refer to [6,4,7] for various work in this direction. Recently, the framework of portHamiltonian systems has been extended to classes of distributedparameter systems [8–11], such as Maxwell’s equations over a do main with boundary incorporating energy radiation through its boundary, the n−dimensional wave equa tion, compressible ideal ﬂuids, as well as beam models [11]. Hereto a special type of inﬁnitedimensional Dirac structure has been introduced, based on Stokes’ the orem. Physically, this StokesDirac structure captures the basic balance laws of the system, like Faraday’s and Amp`ere’s law or mass balance. The portHamiltonian formulation is a nontrivial extension of the Hamiltonian formulation of partial diﬀerential equations (PDEs) by means of Poisson structures (see e.g. [12]), since in the latter case it is crucially assumed that the boundary
28 October 2004
conditions are such that the energyﬂow through the boundary of the spatial domain is zero. In order to al low a nonzero boundary energyﬂow the use of Dirac structures instead of Poisson structures appears to be indispensable ([9,8]). As a result complex physical systems consisting of components which are either lumpedparameter or distributedparameter systems, and which moreover may belong to diﬀerent physical domains (mechanical, elec
trical, hydraulic,
From a simulation point of view, however, a fundamen tal problem concerns the incorporation of the powerful numerical methods for the solution of PDEs, such as ﬁniteelement and ﬁnitediﬀerence methods, into this framework. Also for control purposes it may be cru cial to approximate either the distributedparameter system with a ﬁnitedimensional system, or the inﬁnite dimensional controller system by a ﬁnitedimensional one. This is not an easy task. One fundamental problem is the fact that numerical solution methods for PDEs usually assume the boundary conditions to be given. On the other hand, more often than not it are precisely the boundary conditions which represent the interaction of the distributedparameter component with the other components of the system. A typical simple example is an electrical circuit containing a transmission line. The transmission line is usually modeled by PDEs (the tele grapher’s equations) with boundary conditions being the values of the voltages and currents at both ends of the cable. Clearly, those voltages and currents cannot be considered to be given, since the transmission line is connected to the other dynamical components of the electrical network. We thus have to approximate the distributedparameter system with a ﬁnitedimensional system, while retaining the power portstructure of the system (like the boundary voltages and currents in the transmission line example). In this paper we show how this can be done for the examples of the transmission line and the twodimensional wave equation. Indeed, we will show how the intrinsic Hamiltonian formula tion suggests ﬁnite element methods which result in ﬁnitedimensional approximations which are again port Hamiltonian systems. In the case of the transmission line the basic observation is that in the geometric Hamil tonian formulation the state space variables are (electric and magnetic) densities, or in geometric language one forms, while the voltages and currents are functions on the spatial domain of the system. Furthermore, in the case of the twodimensional wave equation the state variables are given by oneforms (elastic strains) and twoforms (kinetic momenta). From a geometric point of view it is natural to use diﬀerent ﬁniteelements for the approximation of functions, oneforms and two forms. This point of view was already stressed in the work by Bossavit [13,14] on the use of ﬁnite elements for the computation of solutions of Maxwell’s equations (for given boundary conditions), and was shown to lead to mixed (vector) ﬁnite elements.
),
can be modelled in a uniﬁed way.
2
The further outline of this paper is as follows. The deﬁni tion of portHamiltonian systems is recalled in Section 2. In Section 3, we introduce the spatial discretization pro cedure for the telegrapher’s equations, which preserves the portHamiltonian structure. We show how this im plies that certain physical properties, like the existence of conserved quantities and energy balance, are retained in the ﬁnitedimensional approximation. Furthermore, we discuss the choice of the approximating functions within our discretisation scheme, and its physical interpreta tion. In Section 4 we apply the discretization procedure to the twodimensional boundarycontrolled wave equa tion, written in portHamiltonian form. Finally, in Sec tion 5 some simulation results regarding the discretiza tion of the transmission line are presented, while Section 6 contains the conclusions. Preliminary versions of results in this paper have been reported in [10,15].
1.1
Notation
Although in this paper we consider only the telegra pher’s equations and the twodimensional wave equa tion, the proposed methodology is applicable to the general class of distributedparameter portHamiltonian systems as treated in [8]. In order to stress the generality of our method we throughout employ the diﬀerential geometric framework of diﬀerential forms on the spatial domain Z of the system. In the context of a onedimensional spatial domain this means that we distinguish between functions (also called zeroforms) and oneforms deﬁned on the inter val representing the spatial domain of the transmission line. Basically, functions can be evaluated at any point of the interval, while oneforms can be integrated over every subinterval of the interval. If we consider a spa tial coordinate z for the interval Z, then a function f is simply given by the values f (z) ∈ R for every coordi nate value z in the interval, while a oneform ω is given as g(z)dz for a certain density function g. Physically, in the transmission line example the voltages and cur rents are functions, while the charge and ﬂux densities correspond to oneforms. (Note that it does not make physical sense to talk about the charge at a certain point of the interval; instead one considers the total charge contained in a part of the transmission line.) We denote the set of zeroforms and oneforms on Z by Ω ^{0} (Z), respectively Ω ^{1} (Z). Given a coordinate z for the spatial domain we obtain by spatial diﬀerentiation of a func tion f (z) the oneform ω := ^{d}^{f} (z)dz. In coordinatefree language this is denoted as ω = df , where d is called the exterior derivative, converting functions into oneforms. In the case of a twodimensional spatial domain Z(as in the example of the twodimensional wave equation) we have to distinguish between zeroforms (functions), oneforms and twoforms. Again, functions are objects which can be evaluated at any point in the spatial do main. Furthermore, oneforms are objects which can be
dz
integrated along any linesegment in the spatial domain, while twoforms are objects which can be integrated over any open part of the spatial domain. Physically (see Section 4), in the twodimensional wave equation the elastic strain is a oneform and the kinetic momentum
is a twoform. Furthermore, the velocity is a function and the elastic stress is a oneform. Given coordinates z _{1} , z _{2} for the spatial domain, a function is simply given by the values f (z _{1} , z _{2} ) ∈ R for every point (z _{1} , z _{2} ), while
a oneform is expressed as g _{1} (z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{1} + g _{2} (z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{2} for certain functions g _{1} , g _{2} . Finally, a twoform ω ∈
Ω ^{2} (Z) is given by the inﬁnitesimal area element
k(z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{1} dz _{2} for a certain function k. By spatial diﬀer entiation of a function f (z _{1} , z _{2} ) we obtain the oneform
_{2} (z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{2} , while spatial diﬀerenti
ation of a oneform g _{1} (z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{1} + g _{2} (z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{2} results
in the twoform ( ^{∂}^{g} ^{2} (z _{1} , z _{2} ) − ^{∂}^{g} _{2} (z _{1} , z _{2} ))dz _{1} ∧ dz _{2} .
∂f
∂z
_{1}
(z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{1} +
∂f
∂z
∂z _{1}
1
∂z
In geometric, coordinatefree, language both spatial diﬀerentiation operations are denoted by the exterior derivative d, transforming zeroforms into oneforms,
and oneforms into twoforms. In this geometric setting the main theorem of integral calculus on the interval and Gauss’ theorem on R ^{2} can be generalized to Stokes’ the
orem stating that ^{} dω = ^{}
ω, for any (n − 1)form ω
on a ndimensional manifold Z with (n − 1)dimensional boundary ∂Z.
Furthermore, given a kform ω _{1} and and an form ω _{2} the wedge product ω _{1} ∧ ω _{2} is an (k + )form. For ex ample, dz _{1} ∧ dz _{2} is the twoform commonly denoted as dz _{1} dz _{2} (but note that dz _{2} ∧ dz _{1} = −dz _{1} ∧ dz _{2} ). Finally, we will use the Hodge star operator ∗, con verting any kform ω on a ndimensional spatial do main Z to an (n − k)form ∗ω. The deﬁnition of the Hodge star operator relies on the assumption of a Rie mannian metric on the spatial domain Z; however, in the present paper this Riemannian metric will sim ply be the Euclidean inner product corresponding to
a choice of local coordinates on Z. Thus on the one
dimensional spatial domain Z with spatial coordinate
z we simply have ∗g(z) = g(z)dz, ∗(g(z)dz) = g(z). If Z is twodimensional with coordinates (z _{1} , z _{2} ) then ∗k(z _{1} , z _{2} ) = k(z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{1} ∧ dz _{2} and ∗(k(z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{1} dz _{2} ) =
z _{2} )dz _{2} ) =
k(z _{1} , z _{2} ), while ∗(g _{1} (z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{1} + g _{2} (z _{1} , g _{1} (z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{2} − g _{2} (z _{1} , z _{2} )dz _{1} .
Z ∂Z
2 Dirac structures and portHamiltonian sys tems
The deﬁnition of a portHamiltonian system is based
on grouping the energystoring elements of the system, leading to a Hamiltonian function given by the total stored energy, and formalizing the powerconserving in terconnection between them by the geometric notion of
a Dirac structure (see [1,3,4,16,5,8] for details).
First we recall the deﬁnition of Dirac structures. Let F, E
be real vector spaces whose elements are labeled as f , e, respectively. We call F the space of ﬂows, and E the space
3
of eﬀorts. The product space P := F × E is assumed to be endowed with a scalar pairing ·· : F × E → R, formalizing the notion of power:
Deﬁnition 1 Let F, E be real vector spaces. A map ·· :
P = F × E → R is called a scalar pairing if it is linear in
each argument and it is nondegenerate, that is ef =
0, ∀ e ∈ E ⇒ f = 0 and ef = 0, ∀ f ∈ E ⇒ e = 0.
(In the ﬁnitedimensional case the canonical choice for
E is the dual space of F with scalar pairing deﬁned by
the duality product.)
P = F × E is called a multidimensional (power) port,
and the vector pair p = (f, e) is called the vector of
port variables. On P there exists a bilinear form , :
P × P → R deﬁned as
(f ^{1} , e ^{1} ), (f ^{2} , e ^{2} )
:= e ^{1} f ^{2} + e ^{2} f ^{1}
Deﬁnition 2 A subspace D ⊂ P is a Dirac structure if
D = D ^{⊥} , where ⊥ denotes the orthogonal complement
with respect to the bilinear form , .
Actually this is the deﬁnition of a constant Dirac struc ture on linear spaces as given (in a slightly restricted sense) in [17], see also [18]. The deﬁnition can be ex tended to (nonconstant) Dirac structures on manifolds; see again [17,18], as well as [3]. It immediately follows that ef = 0, ∀(f, e) ∈ D, formalizing that a Dirac structure represents a powerconserving interconnection structure; i.e., the net power in the Dirac structure is zero. The deﬁnition of a portHamiltonian system can now be stated as follows. Consider the energystoring el ements of the system with energyvariables x living in a total state space X . The space of energy rate vari ables will deﬁne the linear space F ^{x} of internal ﬂows f ^{x} . In general, X is a manifold but for the purposes of this paper we assume that X is a linear space (ﬁnite dimensional for a lumpedparameter system and inﬁnite dimensional for a distributedparameter system), imply ing that F ^{x} = X . Furthermore, consider the space F ^{B} of external (or boundary) ﬂows f ^{B} , modeling the inter action of the system with its environment (through the boundary of the system). After having speciﬁed the total space of ﬂows F as the product F ^{x} ×F ^{B} the space E of conjugated eﬀorts is con
structed as follows. Consider a linear space E ^{x} of conju gated internal eﬀort variables e ^{x} , together with a scalar pairing ·· _{x} : F ^{x} ×E ^{x} → R as above. Let E ^{B} be a linear space of boundary eﬀort variables e ^{B} , together with a
scalar pairing ·· _{B}
with ·· _{x} + ·· _{B} the scalar pairing on F × E. Next we consider a Dirac structure D relating the inter nal and boundary ﬂows f ^{x} , f ^{B} and internal and bound ary eﬀorts e ^{x} , e ^{B} , that is D ⊂ F ^{x} × F ^{B} × E ^{x} × E ^{B} . Fur thermore, we consider a Hamiltonian H : X → R rep resenting the total energy stored in the system. Under
: F ^{B} ×E ^{B} → R. Deﬁne E := E ^{x} ×E ^{B} ,
weak smoothness conditions on H
H(x + δx) − H(x) = δ _{x} Hδx _{x} + o(δx),
∀δx
(1)
for a certain conjugated internal eﬀort δ _{x} H ∈ E ^{x} , called the vector of coenergy variables. In the ﬁnite dimensional case δ _{x} H is just the gradient of H (the vector of partial derivatives), while in the inﬁnite dimensional case δ _{x} H will be the variational derivative; see [12] for details. As said before, the internal ﬂows f ^{x} are the ﬂows con nected to the energystoring elements, and thus are set equal to the rate of the energy variables: f ^{x} = x˙ ∈ X , while the internal eﬀorts e ^{x} are set equal to the vector of coenergy variables: e ^{x} = δ _{x} H. Finally, the dynamical system deﬁned by the relations
(x˙(t), f ^{B} (t), δ _{x} H(x(t)), e ^{B} (t)) ∈ D,
t ∈ R,
is called a portHamiltonian system. This deﬁnition of portHamiltonian systems includes in general the occur rence of algebraic constraints, whereas in the absence of algebraic constraints the Dirac structure specializes to a Poisson structure; see e.g. [4,6]. An important class of inﬁnite dimensional port Hamiltonian systems, modelling a large class of bound ary control distributedparameter systems, is deﬁned as follows (see [9,8] for details). Let Z be an n dimensional smooth manifold with (n − 1)dimensional smooth boundary ∂Z. The state space X is deﬁned as
X := Ω ^{n} ^{q} (Z) × Ω ^{n} ^{p} (Z), with n ^{q} + n ^{p} = n + 1. Here
Ω ^{n} ^{•} (Z) stands for the space of exterior n ^{•} forms on Z. An element of the space X is denoted by x = [q, p] ^{T} . The spaces F ^{x} , E ^{x} are deﬁned as F ^{x} := Ω ^{n} ^{q} (Z) × Ω ^{n} ^{p} (Z) and E ^{x} := Ω ^{n}^{−}^{n} ^{q} (Z) × Ω ^{n}^{−}^{n} ^{p} (Z). and the elements
and
e ^{x}
f ^{x} ∈ F ^{x} , e ^{x} ∈ F ^{x} are
[e ^{q} , e ^{p} ] ^{T} . Furthermore, the spaces F ^{B} , E ^{B} are
deﬁned as F ^{B} := Ω ^{n}^{−}^{n} ^{p} (∂Z), E ^{B} := Ω ^{n}^{−}^{n} ^{q} (∂Z) with corresponding boundary ﬂows and eﬀorts denoted by f ^{B} and e ^{B} , respectively. It has been shown in [8] that the following system deﬁnes a portHamiltonian system:
given as f ^{x}
=
[f ^{q} , f ^{p} ] ^{T}
=
^{} f p ^{} _{=} ^{}
f
q
0
−d
(−1) ^{n} ^{p} ^{n} ^{q} d 0
e _{q}
e
^{p}
,
(2a)
(2b)
(2c)
(2d)
Here  _{∂}_{Z} denotes the restriction to the boundary ∂Z. The space of all admissible ﬂows end eﬀorts satisfying (2a), (2b) represents a Dirac structure (called Stokes Dirac structure [8,9]), with respect to the scalar pairing
f ^{B} = e ^{p}  _{∂}_{Z} , f ^{q} =
e ^{B} = −(−1) ^{n} ^{q} e ^{q}  _{∂}_{Z} ,
^{d}^{q}
dt
,
f ^{p} = ^{d}^{p} _{,}
dt
e ^{p} = δ _{p} H.
e ^{q} = δ _{q} H,
Z
e ^{q} ∧ f ^{q} +
Z
e ^{p} ∧ f ^{p} +
∂Z
e ^{B} ∧ f ^{B} .
(3)
4
A large class of boundary control distributedparameter systems are represented by Equations (2): transmis sion line, nD wave equation, uniaxial bar, torsional bar, 1D compressible ﬂuid, Maxwell’s equations, and so on. Furthermore, portHamiltonian systems described by (2) are the basic building blocks for Hamiltonian models of beams, shells, and in general, ﬂexible struc tures. For later use we recall two basic properties of portHamiltonian systems (2) (see [8] for details):
• Energy balance: ^{d}^{H} (t) + ^{}
dt
• Conserved quantities:
^{d}
· dt
If n ^{q} = n then
q =
∂Z
^{}
Z ∂Z
^{d}
· dt
If n ^{p} = n then
p =
^{}
Z ∂Z
· _{d}_{t} dq =
· If n ^{p} < n then
If n ^{q} < n then
^{d}
d
0,
_{d}_{t} dp = 0.
e ^{B} (t) ∧ f ^{B} (t) = 0,
e ^{p} ,
e ^{q} ,
The ﬁrst property expresses a basic property of any portHamiltonian system: the increase in stored energy (Hamiltonian) is equal to the power supplied by the en vironment. The second class of properties is strictly re lated to the deﬁnition of the StokesDirac structure, and expresses the basic conservation laws of the system (like conservation of charge in the example of the transmis sion line; see the next Section).
3 Spatial discretization of the transmission line
The spatial domain on which the variables of the trans mission line are deﬁned is the interval Z = [0, S]. The telegrapher’s equations for the ideal transmission line without energy dissipation are given by the PDEs
∂q
∂t
=
− ^{∂}^{I}
∂z
_{,}
∂φ
∂t
=
− ^{∂}^{V}
∂z
(4)
where q(t, z) denotes the charge density and φ(t, z) is the ﬂux density, and where the current I and voltage V are given by
I(t, z) = ^{φ}^{(}^{t}^{,}^{z}^{)} ,
L(z)
V (t, z) = ^{q}^{(}^{t}^{,}^{z}^{)}
C(z)
(5)
with C(z), L(z) being respectively the distributed capac itance and distributed inductance of the line. Further
more, the boundary ﬂow and eﬀort variables are given by the voltages and currents at both ends of the line:
e ^{B}^{L} (t) = V (t, 0),
f ^{B}^{L} (t) = I(t, 0),
e ^{B}^{R} (t) = V (t, S)
f ^{B}^{R} (t) = I(t, S)
(6)
These PDEs can be immediately seen to be in port Hamiltonian form (2), with n = n ^{p} = n ^{q} = 1, replacing
the letter p by φ:
f ^{q} = −de ^{φ} , f ^{φ} = −de ^{q}
B
f
0
=
e ^{φ}  _{z}_{=}_{0} ,
B
S
f
=
e ^{φ}  _{z}_{=}_{S} ,
e
B
0
= e ^{B} = e ^{q}  _{z}_{=}_{S} ,
e ^{q}  _{z}_{=}_{0} ,
S
(7a)
(7b)
structure of the distributed parameter model is spatially discretized, and secondly the constitutive relations of the energy storage part of the transmission line are ap proximated. In Subsections 3.1, 3.2 these two steps are
applied to a single discretized lump of the transmission
line. Afterwards in Subsection 3.3 we show how to apply the strategy to the transmission line split into multiple parts. Finally, the choice of the approximating functions
in order to preserve additional physical properties of the system is discussed in Subsection 3.4.
H = H ^{q} + H ^{φ} =
Z
∗q(z) 2C(z) ^{q}^{(}^{z}^{)} ^{+}
Z
∗φ(z)
2
L(z)φ(z),
3.1 Spatial discretization of the interconnection struc
ture
(7c) 

(7d) 
Consider a part of the transmission line between two points a and b (0 ≤ a < b ≤ S). The spatial manifold 

_{.} 
(7e) 
corresponding to this part of transmission line is Z _{a}_{b} = 
[a, b]. The voltage at the point a is denoted by e ^{B}
the current at the point is denoted by f
and
B . Similarly, the
a
a
voltage and current at the point b are denoted by e ^{B} and
f
b
B , respectively. The relations between the boundary
, e ^{B} and the eﬀorts e ^{q} , e ^{φ} are by (7b)
b
B
variables f
a
,
e ^{B} , f
a
B
b
b
e ^{B} (t) = e ^{q} (t, a),
a
e ^{B} (t) = e ^{q} (t, b),
b
(8a)
B
f
a
(t) = e ^{φ} (t, a),
B
f
b
(t)
= e ^{φ} (t, b)
(8b)
Our discretization method is based on the following:
Assumption 1 (Approximation of f ^{q} and f ^{φ} ) The inﬁnitesimal charge rate f ^{q} and the inﬁnitesimal ﬂux rate f ^{φ} are approximated on Z _{a}_{b} as
f
^{q}
(t,
z)
=
f _{a}_{b} (t)ω _{a}_{b} (t),
q
q
f
^{φ} (t,
z) = f _{a}_{b} (t)ω _{a}_{b} (t),
φ
φ
where the oneforms ω
q ab ^{,} ^{ω}
_{a}_{b} φ satisfy
(9a)
(9b)
f ^{q} =
^{∗}^{q}^{(}^{z}^{)}
C(z)
∂t
,
,
^{∂}^{q}
f ^{φ} =
^{∂}^{φ}
∂t ^{,}
e ^{q} = δ _{q} H =
e ^{φ} = δ _{φ} H =
^{∗}^{φ}^{(}^{z}^{)}
L(z)
The physical meaning of the variables and parameters are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
The energy balance for the transmission line takes the
e ^{B} = 0, while there exist two
form ^{d}^{H} (t) − f
B
0
e
B
0
B
+ f
S
dt
S
conserved quantities ^{d}^{Q} (t) − f
dt
B
0
B
S
+ f
= 0 and
dΦ
dt
(t) − e
B
0
+ e ^{B} = 0, where Q := ^{} q and Φ := ^{} φ are
S
Z Z
the total charge and the total ﬂux of the transmission line, respectively.
Z
ab
q
ω _{a}_{b} = 1,
ω _{a}_{b} = 1
φ
Z
ab
(10)
Remark 2 Since the inﬁnitesimal charge q belongs to the same space as the ﬂow f ^{q} it will be approximated
q
as q(t, z) = Q _{a}_{b} (t)ω _{a}_{b} (z). Hence by condition (10) Q _{a}_{b} equals the total charge of the considered lump of the trans mission line. Similarly for the total ﬂux.
Remark 1 Note that for a nonquadratic electro magnetic energy H we may still deﬁne the coenergy variables e ^{q} = δ _{q} H and e ^{φ} = δ _{φ} H. In this way we can obtain nonlinear models for the transmission line (which still are in portHamiltonian form); cf. [8].
The spatial discretization procedure as proposed in this section consists of two steps. First, the interconnection
Assumption 2 (Approximation of e ^{q} and e ^{φ} ) The coenergy variables voltage e ^{q} (t, z) and current e ^{φ} (t, z) are approximated as
e ^{q} (t, z) = e _{a} ^{q} (t)ω _{a} (z) + e ^{q} (t)ω
q
b
q
b
(z),
e ^{φ} (t, z) = e
φ
a
(t)ω
φ
a
(z) + e
φ
a
(t)ω
φ
b
(z),
(11a)
(11b)
5
where the zeroforms ω _{a} , ω
q
q
b
ω _{a} (a)
q
= 1,
ω _{a} (b) = 0,
q
ω
, ω
φ
a
, ω
φ
b
∈
q
b
(a) = 0,
ω a φ (a) = 1,
ω
φ
a
(b) = 0,
ω
φ
b
(a) = 0,
Ω ^{0} (Z _{a}_{b} ) satisfy
q
ω
b
(b) = 1,
ω
φ
b
(b) = 1
(12a)
(12b)
Remark 3 Note that the variables e ^{q} (t, z), e ^{φ} (t, z) at the
point a equal e ^{B} (t), f
b
approximated with only one zeroform since otherwise e ^{B}
and e ^{B}
B (t). Hence the eﬀort e ^{q} (t, z) cannot be
B (t), respectively, and at the point
a
a
equal e ^{B} (t), f
b
b
a
b
are dependent. Similarly for e ^{φ} (t, z).
Inserting (9a), (11b) and (9b), (11a) into (7a) gives
f _{a}_{b} (t)ω _{a}_{b} (z) = −e (t)dω (z) − e (t)dω (z)
a
a
b
b
q
q
φ
φ
φ
φ
f _{a}_{b} (t)ω _{a}_{b} (z) = −e ^{q} _{a} (t)dω _{a} (z) − e ^{q} (t)dω (z)
q
b
q
b
φ
φ
(13a)
(13b)
Assumption 3 (Compatibility of forms) 1 ^{o} The oneform ω _{a}_{b} and functions ω , ω
chosen in a such way that for every e
q
φ
a
φ
a
, e
φ
b
should be we can ﬁnd
b
φ
f _{a}_{b} such that (13a) is satisﬁed. 2 ^{o} The oneform ω _{a}_{b} and functions ω _{a} , ω chosen in a such way that for every e _{a} ^{q} , e ^{q} f _{a}_{b} such that (13b) is satisﬁed.
φ
φ
q
q
b
q
should be
_{b} we can ﬁnd
Assumption 3 implies the following relations between the oneforms ω _{a}_{b} chosen in Assumption 1 and the functions
= 0. Then (13a)
is true if and only if dω
grating this over Z _{a}_{b} yields ω (b) − ω
ω
a φ = cω _{a}_{b} , for a constant c. Inte
q
φ
a
, ω
b
chosen in Assumption 2. Take e
q
φ
a
a
φ
a
φ
φ
(a) = c
^{}
ω
q
ab ^{.}
Z
ab
Taking into account the relations (12a), (10), one proves that c = −1. Therefore
dω
φ
a
q
= −ω _{a}_{b} .
(14a)
On the other hand, by choosing e _{a} ^{q} = 0, one proves that
dω
φ
b
=
q
ω _{a}_{b} .
(14b)
Using a similar argument as above, it can be shown that
dω _{a} = −ω _{a}_{b} ,
q
φ
dω
q
b
φ
= ω _{a}_{b}
(14c)
We conclude that as a consequence of Assumption 3 the
functions ω _{a} , ω the oneforms ω
ditional properties of the basis functions and zero forms.
_{a}_{b} . For later use we state some ad
are completely determined by
q
b
, ω
a
q
ab ^{,} ^{ω}
, ω
φ
b
q
φ
φ
Proposition 1 ω _{a} , ω
q
q
b
(i)
ω _{a} (z) + ω
q
q
b
(z) = 1
, ω
φ
a
, ω
φ
b
, ω
q
ab ^{,} ^{ω}
φ
_{a}_{b} satisfy
6
(ii) ω
φ
a
(iii)
^{}
Z ab
(iv )
^{}
Z
ab
^{}
(v)
Z
ab
Proof:
(z) + ω
φ
b
(z) = 1
ω _{a} (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) + ^{} ω (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) = 1
q
q
q
b
q
Z ab
ω
φ
a
(z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) + ^{} ω (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) = 1
b
φ
φ
φ
Z
ab
ω _{a} (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) + ^{} ω (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) = 1
q
q
b
φ
φ
Z
ab
(i)
d(ω _{a} + ω
ω _{a} (0) + ω
q
q
q
b
)
q
b
(14c) ^{0} ^{⇒} ^{ω}
=
(0)
(12a) ^{1}
=
_{a} (z) + ω
q
q
b
(z) =
(ii ) d(ω
φ
a
ω
φ
a
(0)
+ ω
φ
b
)
+ ω
φ
b
(14a),(14b) ^{0} ^{⇒} ^{ω}
=
(0)
(12b) ^{1}
=
φ
a
(z) + ω
φ
b
(z) =
(iii )
(iv )
(v)
^{}
Z
ab
Z
ab
ω _{a} (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) + ^{} ω (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) =
q
q
q
b
q
Z
ab
(ω _{a} (z) + ω
q
q
b
q
(z))ω _{a}_{b} (z) =
(i )
Z
ab
ω
q
ab
= (10) ^{1}
^{}
Z
ab
ω
a φ (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) + ^{} ω (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) =
b
φ
φ
φ
Z
ab
Z
ab
^{}
Z
ab
(ω
φ
a
(z) + ω
φ
b
φ
(z))ω _{a}_{b} (z)
φ
=
(ii )
Z
φ
ab
ω
ω _{a} (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z) + ^{} ω (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z)
q
q
b
Z
ab
φ
ab
(10) ^{1}
=
=
(14a),(14c)
−
^{}
Z ab
d(ω
q
a ^{ω}
φ
a
) = ω _{a} (a)ω
q
φ
a
(a)
− ω _{a} (b)ω
q
φ
a
(b)
= (12) ^{1}
Remark 4 The simplest choice for the functions ω _{a} , ω
ω
tions are linear splines. Indeed, we may take ω _{a} , ω
ab ^{,} ^{ω}
_{b} , ω
ω
forms ω
q
q
q
b ^{,}
_{a}_{b} φ satisfying all the condi
,
to be the linear splines deﬁned by (12), and the one
a
φ
b
, ω
φ
b
and oneforms ω
q
ab ^{,} ^{ω}
φ
q
q
φ
a
_{a}_{b} φ to be the oneforms with corresponding
density function equal to
_{b}_{−}_{a} , and zero outside. From a
diﬀerentialgeometric point of view this corresponds to
the Whitney zeroforms and oneforms, see [13,14].
1
The spatially discretized interconnection structure cor responding to the considered part of the transmission
line is obtained as follows. Inserting (14a), (14b) into
(13a) gives f _{a}_{b} (t)ω _{a}_{b} (z) = e tegrating this over Z _{a}_{b} gives
a
q
q
φ
(t)ω _{a}_{b} (z)−e (t)ω _{a}_{b} (z). In
b
q
φ
q
q
f _{a}_{b} (t) = e
φ
a
(t) − e
φ
b
(t).
(15a)
Similarly using (13b) one proves that
f _{a}_{b} (t) = e ^{q}
φ
_{a} (t) − e ^{q} (t).
b
(15b)
For the sake of clarity, the argument t is omitted in the
rest of this subsection. The relations describing the spa tially discretized interconnection structure of the part of transmission line are thus given by (see Remark 3 and
Equations (8), (15))
e
e
f
^{B}
a
^{B}
b
B
a
B
b
q
ab
φ
ab
f
f
f
=
1
0
0
0
0
1 −1 0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1 −1
0
e
e
e
e
^{q}
a
^{q}
b
φ
a
φ
b
.
(16)
The net power of the considered part of the transmission line is
Z
ab
e ^{q} (z)f ^{q} (z) +
Z
ab
e ^{φ} (z)f ^{φ} (z) − e ^{B} f
a
B
a
+
e ^{B} f
b
B
b
(17)
Inserting (9a), (11) into (17), where the properties (iii), (iv), (v) of Proposition 1 are taken into account, gives
net
P
ab
= [α _{a}_{b} e ^{q} _{a} + (1 − α _{a}_{b} )e ^{q} ]f
b
q
ab ^{+}
[(1 − α _{a}_{b} )e
φ
a
+
α _{a}_{b} e ]f
b
φ
ab ^{−} ^{e} ^{B}
a
φ
B
f
a
+
e ^{B} f
b
B
b
,
(18)
where α _{a}_{b} := ^{}
ω _{a} (z)ω _{a}_{b} (z). The expression (18) is
used for the identiﬁcation of the port variables of the dis cretized interconnection structure. The third term and the fourth term on the right side of (18) imply that the
port variables of the incoming port are (f
the port variables of the outgoing port are (f
ﬁrst term, the power supplied to or taken from the elec trical part of the part of the transmission line, implies that the ﬂow variable of the electric port is f _{a}_{b} and that the eﬀort variable is α _{a}_{b} e ^{q} _{a} + (1 − α _{a}_{b} )e ^{q} . Similarly, the second term implies that the port variables of the mag
e ^{B} ). The
e ^{B} ) and that
q
q
Z ab
B
a
,
a
B
b
q
,
b
b
φ
netic port are (f _{a}_{b} , (1−α _{a}_{b} )e
φ
a φ +α _{a}_{b} e ). Thus by deﬁning
b
e
_{a}_{b} ^{q} := α _{a}_{b} e ^{q}
_{a} + (1 − α _{a}_{b} )e ^{q} ,
b
φ
e _{a}_{b} := (1 − α _{a}_{b} )e
net
the expression for P
ab
becomes
φ
a
+ α _{a}_{b} e
φ
b
(19)
net
P
ab
= e _{a}_{b} f _{a}_{b} = f
ab ^{e} q
q
ab ^{+}^{f}
ab ^{e} ab ^{−}^{e} ^{B} a
a
f
φ
φ
B
B
+e ^{B} f
b
b
,
(20)
where f _{a}_{b} = [f ab ^{,} ^{f} ab ^{,} ^{f}
a
q
φ
B
B
, f
b
] ^{T} , e _{a}_{b} = [e ^{q} ab ^{,} ^{e}
φ
ab ^{,} ^{e} ^{B}
a
,
e ^{B} ] ^{T} .
b
Remark 5 Observe that in contrast to (20) the expres sion (18) does not deﬁne a scalar pairing as in Deﬁnition
1 since P
) does not im
ply that the vector (e ^{q} _{a} , e ^{q} , e
net
ab
= 0 for every (f ab ^{,} ^{f} ab ^{,} ^{f}
a
b
φ
a
, e
φ
b
,
q
φ
B
B
, f
b
e ^{B} , e ^{B} ) is zero.
a
b
7
Elimination of e ^{q} _{a} , e ^{q} , e
b
φ
a
−1
0
0
0
0
−1
0
0
α _{a}_{b}
0
0
−1
α _{b}_{a}
0
0
1
E
ab
e
e
^{q}
ab
φ
ab
^{B}
a
^{B}
e
e
b
φ
b
from (16), (19) gives
, e
0 0 α ba α ab
0
0
0
0
1
0
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.