Abstract
Contact geometry allows us to describe some thermodynamic and dissipative systems. In this paper we introduce a new geometric structure in order to describe timedependent contact systems: cocontact manifolds. Within this setting we develop the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisms, both in the regular and singular cases. In the singular case, we present a constraint algorithm aiming to find a submanifold where solutions exist. As a particular case we study contact systems with holonomic timedependent constraints. Some regular and singular examples are analyzed, along with numerical simulations.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
In the last decades, the interest in the formalism and applications of differential geometric structures to the study of mathematical physics and dynamical systems has risen drastically [1, 3, 29, 39]. The natural geometric framework for autonomous conservative mechanical systems, both Hamiltonian and Lagrangian, is symplectic geometry and the variational approach is based on Hamilton’s variational principle. For nonautonomous systems [11, 21, 24, 38, 43] the same variational principle is valid, but the underlying geometry is cosymplectic geometry [2, 10, 13]. Timedependent systems can also be geometrically formulated as the Reeb dynamics of a contact system. Both symplectic and cosymplectic structures are particular instances of Poisson geometry [22, 39, 50].
Recently, the application of contact geometry to the study of dynamical systems has grown significantly [4, 18, 26]. This is due to the fact that contact geometry is not only a way to geometrically model the timedependency in mechanical systems [23], which can also be done by means of cosymplectic geometry, but it also allows us to describe mechanical systems with certain types of damping, quantum mechanics [14], circuit theory [31], control theory [45] and thermodynamics [5, 48], among many others [41]. In recent papers [7, 8], the authors consider timedependent systems, although a rigorous geometric description of timedependent contact mechanics is in order. These systems include mechanical systems with timedependent external forces and, in particular, controlled systems whose controls can be used to compensate the damping.
Let us recall that the variational approach to contact systems is based on Herglotz’s principle [36] (see for instance [15,16,17]). This variational principle generalizes the Hamilton principle and it is appropriate to deal with actiondependent Lagrangians. From the geometric perspective, it is important to point out that contact structures are not Poisson, but Jacobi. This is due to the fact that the Leibniz rule is not fulfilled [18].
In the present paper, we develop a formalism in order to geometrically describe contact mechanical systems with explicit timedependence. We begin by introducing a new geometric structure: cocontact manifolds. These manifolds extend the notion of both contact and cosymplectic structures. We study the properties of these manifolds, exhibit some examples, prove a Darbouxtype theorem for these structures, and show that cocontact manifolds are Jacobi manifolds. In addition, we introduce the notion of cocontact orthogonal complement of a submanifold and define and characterize the coisotropic and Legendrian submanifolds of a cocontact manifold. This geometric framework is later used to develop both Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of timedependent mechanical systems with dissipation.
The introduction of timedependence makes us consider systems subjected to constraints that can vary with time. Such systems can be described by introducing the constraints in the Lagrangian via Lagrange multipliers. These Lagrangians are obviously singular, since the velocity associated to the Lagrange multipliers do not appear in the expression of the Lagrangian. In order to study such systems, we introduce the notion of precocontact structure as a weakened version of a cocontact structure, and describe a suitable constraint algorithm.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2, we describe the geometrical setting that will be used throughout the paper. We present the notion of cocontact manifold and some examples. In particular, we see that cocontact manifolds are Jacobi manifolds, and thus all the theory about Jacobi structures is applicable to cocontact structures. Section 3 is devoted to develop a Hamiltonian formulation for dissipative timedependent systems, while Sect. 4 dedicated to develop the Lagrangian formulation for cocontact systems and state the associated generalized Herglotz–Euler–Lagrange equations. In Sect. 5 we study the case of mechanical systems described by singular timedependent contact Lagrangians and give a description of the constraint algorithm to obtain the dynamics in both the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations. Section 6 is devoted to analyze the case of damped mechanical systems with holonomic constraints which can depend on time. Finally, in Sect. 7, three examples are presented and worked out: the damped forced harmonic oscillator, a system with timedependent mass subjected to a central force with friction, and the damped pendulum with variable length. We also show and discuss some simulations of these systems.
Throughout the paper all the manifolds and mappings are assumed to be smooth and secondcountable. Sum over crossed repeated indices is understood.
2 Geometrical setting
2.1 Cocontact manifolds
Definition 2.1
Let M be a manifold of dimension \(2n+2\). A cocontact structure on M is a couple \((\tau ,\eta )\) of 1forms on M such that \(\tau \) is closed and such that \(\tau \wedge \eta \wedge (\mathrm {d}\eta )^{\wedge n}\) is a volume form on M. Under these hypotheses, \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) is called a cocontact manifold.
We can see from this definition that every cocontact manifold has two tangent distributions. The first one is generated by \(\ker \tau \), is integrable, and gives a foliation made of contact leaves. The other one is \(\ker \eta \) and it is not integrable. This structure will be very useful when proving the Darboux theorem.
Example 2.2
Let \((P,\eta _0)\) be a contact manifold and consider the product manifold \(M = {\mathbb {R}}\times P\). Denoting by \(\mathrm {d}t\) the pullback to M of the volume form in \({\mathbb {R}}\) and denoting by \(\eta \) the pullback of \(\eta _0\) to M, we have that \((\mathrm {d}t, \eta )\) is a cocontact structure on M.
Example 2.3
Let \((P,\tau ,\mathrm {d}\theta )\) be an exact cosymplectic manifold and consider the product manifold \(M = P\times {\mathbb {R}}\). Denoting by s the coordinate in \({\mathbb {R}}\) we define the 1form \(\eta = \mathrm {d}s  \theta \). Then, \((\tau , \eta )\) is a cocontact structure on \(M = P\times {\mathbb {R}}\).
Example 2.4
(Canonical cocontact manifold) Let Q be an ndimensional smooth manifold with local coordinates \((q^i)\) and its cotangent bundle \(\mathrm {T}^*Q\) with induced natural coordinates \((q^i, p_i)\). Consider the product manifolds \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\) with coordinates \((t, q^i, p_i)\), \(\mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) with coordinates \((q^i, p_i, s)\) and \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) with coordinates \((t, q^i, p_i, s)\) and the canonical projections
Let \(\theta _0\in \Omega ^1(\mathrm {T}^*Q)\) be the canonical 1form of the cotangent bundle, which has local expression \(\theta _0 = p_i\mathrm {d}q^i\). Denoting by \(\theta _2 = \pi _2^*\theta \), we have that \((\mathrm {d}t, \theta _2)\) is a cosymplectic structure in \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\).
On the other hand, denoting by \(\theta _1 = \pi _1^*\theta _0\), we have that \(\eta _1 = \mathrm {d}s  \theta _1\) is a contact form in \(\mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\).
Finally, consider the 1form \(\theta = \rho _1^*\theta _2 = \rho _2^*\theta _1 = \pi ^*\theta _0\in \Omega ^1({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) and let \(\eta = \mathrm {d}s  \theta \). Then, \((\mathrm {d}t, \eta )\) is a cocontact structure in \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\). The local expression of the 1form \(\eta \) is
Proposition 2.5
Let \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) be a cocontact manifold. We have the following isomorphism of vector bundles:
Proof
It is clear that \(\ker \flat = 0\), since M is a cocontact manifold. Hence, it follows that \(\flat \) has to be an isomorphism. \(\square \)
This isomorphism can be extended to an isomorphism of \({\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\)modules:
Proposition 2.6
Given a cocontact manifold \((M,\tau ,\eta )\), there exist two vector fields \(R_t,R_s\in {\mathfrak {X}}(M)\), called Reeb vector fields, satisfying the conditions
\(R_t\) is the time Reeb vector field and \(R_s\) is the contact Reeb vector field.
Taking into account the isomorphism \(\flat \) introduced above, we can give an alternative definition of the Reeb vector fields:
Theorem 2.7
(Darboux theorem for cocontact manifolds) Let \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) be a cocontact manifold. Then, for every point \(p\in M\), there exists a local chart \((U; t, q^i, p_i, s)\) around p such that
These coordinates are called canonical or Darboux coordinates. Moreover, in Darboux coordinates, the Reeb vector fields are
Proof
The idea of the proof is the following: in every cocontact manifold there is a contact foliation made of leaves of the distribution generated by \(\ker \tau \) (which are \((2n+1)\)submanifolds) and, on each of them, the restriction of \(\eta \) is a contact form. Now, we can take local coordinates adapted to the foliation and, on each leaf, use the Darboux theorem for contact manifolds. Hence, we have local coordinates \(({\tilde{t}}, q^i, p_i, s)\) such that \(\eta = \mathrm {d}s  p_i\mathrm {d}q^i\). Finally, we can write \(\tau \) as a combination of all these coordinates, \(\tau = f({\tilde{t}}, q^i, p_i, s)\mathrm {d}{\tilde{t}}\), where f is a nonvanishing function, and then we can redefine the coordinate t. \(\square \)
Remark 2.8
Consider a cocontact manifold \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) such that \(\tau = \mathrm {d}t\). Then, the twoform
is a symplectic form on M. Moreover, the twoform \(\Omega \) is exact, since
2.2 Cocontact manifolds as Jacobi manifolds
It is known that symplectic, cosymplectic and contact manifolds are particular instances of a more general geometric structure: Jacobi manifolds. Then, it is reasonable to think that cocontact manifolds should also be Jacobi manifolds.
2.2.1 Jacobi manifolds
Definition 2.9
A Jacobi manifold is a triple \((M,\Lambda ,E)\), where \(\Lambda \) is a bivector field on M, i.e. a skewsymmetric 2contravariant tensor field, and E is a vector field on M, such that
where \([\cdot ,\cdot ]\) denotes the Schouten–Nijenhuis bracket [44, 47].
Given a Jacobi manifold \((M,\Lambda ,E)\), we can define a bilinear map on the space of smooth functions on M, called the Jacobi bracket, given by
The Jacobi bracket is bilinear, skewsymmetric, satisfies the Jacobi identity and fulfills the weak Leibniz rule
Hence, the set of smooth maps \({\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\) equipped with the Jacobi bracket \(\{\cdot ,\cdot \}\) is a local Lie algebra in the sense of Kirillov.
The converse is also true: given a local Lie algebra structure on \({\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\), one can define a Jacobi structure \((\Lambda ,E)\) on M such that its Jacobi bracket coincides with the bracket of the local Lie algebra bracket [37, 40].
Definition 2.10
Given a Jacobi manifold \((M,\Lambda ,E)\), we can define the morphism of vector bundles
given by \({{\hat{\Lambda }}}(\alpha ) = \Lambda (\alpha ,\cdot )\). This morphism of vector bundles induces a morphism of \({\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\)modules \({{\hat{\Lambda }}}:\Omega ^1(M)\rightarrow {\mathfrak {X}}(M)\).
Given a smooth function \(f\in {\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\), we define the Hamiltonian vector field associated with f as
The characteristic distribution \({\mathcal {C}}\) of \((M,\Lambda ,E)\) is spanned by these vector fields \(X_f\). It is integrable, and it can be defined in terms of the bivector \(\Lambda \) and the vector field E as
In general, the morphism \({{\hat{\Lambda }}}\) is not an isomorphism, as can be seen in the following example.
Example 2.11
(Contact manifolds) Consider a contact manifold \((M,\eta )\). We have the \({\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\)module isomorphism \(\flat :{\mathfrak {X}}(M)\rightarrow \Omega ^1(M)\) given by
and we denote its inverse by \(\sharp = \flat ^{1}\). The Reeb vector field is \(R = \sharp \eta \).
Then we can define a Jacobi structure \((\Lambda ,E)\) on M given by
In this case, the morphism \({{\hat{\Lambda }}}\) is given by
and it is clear that \({{\hat{\Lambda }}}\) is not an isomorphism, since \(\ker {{\hat{\Lambda }}} = \langle \eta \rangle \) and \({{\,\mathrm{Im}\,}}{{\hat{\Lambda }}} = \ker \eta \).
Example 2.12
(Poisson manifolds) A Poisson manifold is a smooth manifold M such that \({\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\) has a Lie bracket satisfying the Leibniz rule
It can be seen that this implies the weak Leibniz rule (1), thus giving a local Lie algebra structure to the set of smooth functions on M. One can prove that the Jacobi bracket of a Jacobi manifold \((M,\Lambda ,E)\) is Poisson if and only if \(E=0\). Taking this into account, a Poisson manifold is a Jacobi manifold with \(E=0\). We can redefine the notion of Poisson manifold as a couple \((M,\Lambda )\), where \(\Lambda \) is a bivector such that \([\Lambda ,\Lambda ] = 0\).
We know that both symplectic and cosymplectic manifolds are Poisson. Hence, they are also Jacobi manifolds with
where \(\omega \) is the 2form of the symplectic or cosymplectic manifold and \(\sharp \) is the inverse of the flat morphism \(\flat \) of the symplectic or cosymplectic manifold.
2.2.2 Jacobi structure of cocontact manifolds
Consider now a cocontact manifold \((M,\tau ,\eta )\). In Darboux coordinates, the flat isomorphism reads
Its inverse is the isomorphism \(\sharp :\Omega ^1(M)\rightarrow {\mathfrak {X}}(M)\), which is given by
We can define a 2contravariant skewsymmetric tensor \(\Lambda \):
which in Darboux coordinates reads
Proposition 2.13
Let \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) be a cocontact manifold. Then, \((\Lambda ,E)\), where \(E = R_s\), is a Jacobi structure on M.
The previous proposition can be proved using Darboux coordinates. Using Darboux coordinates, the Jacobi bracket reads
In particular, one has
2.2.3 Legendrian submanifolds
In the previous section we have seen that every cocontact manifold \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) is a Jacobi manifold taking \(\Lambda (\alpha ,\beta ) = \mathrm {d}\eta (\sharp \alpha ,\sharp \beta )\) and \(E = R_s\). We will study a special kind of submanifolds associated to this structure.
In first place, we find a new expression for the morphism \({{\hat{\Lambda }}}\) which is easier to manipulate. We have
and contracting with the Reeb vector fields \(R_s,R_t\), we get
Now,
and thus
It is clear that \(\tau ,\eta \in \ker {{\hat{\Lambda }}}\). Consider \(\beta \in \ker {{\hat{\Lambda }}}\). Then, \(\sharp \beta = \beta (R_s)R_s + \beta (R_t)R_t\). Using the morphism \(\flat \), we have that
Hence, we have that \(\ker {{\hat{\Lambda }}} = \langle \tau ,\eta \rangle \).
Definition 2.14
Let \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) be a cocontact manifold and consider a submanifold \(N\subset M\). We define the cocontact orthogonal complement of N as
Notice that \(v\in \mathrm {T}_pN^\perp \) if, and only if, there exists \(\alpha \in \mathrm {T}^*_pN\) such that \({{\hat{\Lambda }}}(\alpha ) = v\) and \(\alpha (u) = 0\) for every \(u\in \mathrm {T}_pN\).
Definition 2.15
Let \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) be a cocontact manifold and consider a submanifold \(N\hookrightarrow M\).

(i)
N is said to be coisotropic if \(\mathrm {T}N^\perp \subset \mathrm {T}N\).

(ii)
N is said to be isotropic if \(\mathrm {T}N \subset \mathrm {T}N^\perp \).

(iii)
N is said to be Legendrian if \(\mathrm {T}N = \mathrm {T}N^\perp \).
The following theorem characterizes isotropic and Legendrian submanifolds.
Theorem 2.16
Consider a cocontact manifold \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) with \(\dim M = 2n+2\) and a submanifold \(j:N\hookrightarrow M\). Then,

(i)
N is isotropic if and only if \(j^*\eta = 0\) and \(j^*\tau = 0\).

(ii)
N is Legendrian if and only if \(j^*\eta = 0\), \(j^*\tau = 0\) and \(\dim N = n\).
Proof

(i)
Suppose \(\mathrm {T}N \subset \mathrm {T}N^\perp \). Let \(v\in \mathrm {T}_p N\), then \(v\in \mathrm {T}_pN^\perp \) and hence there exists some \(\alpha \in \mathrm {T}^*_pN\) such that \({{\hat{\Lambda }}}(\alpha ) = v\) and \(\alpha (u) = 0\) for every \(u\in \mathrm {T}_pN\). Then,
$$\begin{aligned} \eta (v) = \eta ({{\hat{\Lambda }}}(\alpha )) = \eta (\sharp \alpha )  \alpha (R_s)R_s  0 = 0\,. \end{aligned}$$Since \(\eta _p(v) = 0\) for every \(p\in N\) and every \(v\in \mathrm {T}_pN\), we have \(j^*\eta = 0\). Analogously, \(j^*\tau = 0\).
Conversely, suppose \(j^*\eta = 0\) and \(j^*\tau = 0\). Let \(v\in \mathrm {T}_pN\). We want to check that \(v\in \mathrm {T}_pN^\perp \). Consider
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha = i_v\mathrm {d}\eta \,. \end{aligned}$$Since \(j^*\eta = 0\), we have \(j^*\mathrm {d}\eta = \mathrm {d}j^*\eta = 0\) and thus \(i_ui_v\mathrm {d}\eta = \alpha (u) = 0\) for every \(u\in \mathrm {T}_pN\). Now, we want to check that
$$\begin{aligned} v = {{\hat{\Lambda }}}(\alpha ) = \sharp \alpha  \alpha (R_s)R_s  \alpha (R_t)R_t = \sharp \alpha \,. \end{aligned}$$Since \(\flat \) is an isomorphism, this is the same as checking that \(\flat (v) = \alpha \), which is obvious taking into account that \(j^*\eta = 0\) and \(j^*\tau = 0\). Finally, we have already proved that \(\alpha (\mathrm {T}_pN) = 0\).

(ii)
Suppose that \(\mathrm {T}N = \mathrm {T}N^\perp \) and let \(k = \dim N\). Thus, at any point \(p\subset N\),
$$\begin{aligned} \dim \mathrm {T}_pN^\circ = 2n+2  \dim \mathrm {T}_pN = 2n+2k\,. \end{aligned}$$Since \(\mathrm {T}N\subset \mathrm {T}N^\perp \), we have that \(\tau _p,\eta _p\in \mathrm {T}_pN^\circ \) and then \(\ker {{\hat{\Lambda }}}_p\subset \mathrm {T}_pN^\circ \). Now, since \(T_pN = T_pN^\perp = {{\hat{\Lambda }}}_p(\mathrm {T}_pN^\circ )\),
$$\begin{aligned} \underbrace{\dim \mathrm {T}_pN^\circ }_{2n+2k} = \underbrace{\dim {{\hat{\Lambda }}}_p(\mathrm {T}_pN^\circ )}_{k} + \underbrace{\dim \ker {{\hat{\Lambda }}}_p}_{2}\,, \end{aligned}$$which implies that \(k = n\). Conversely, we have that \(2n+2n = \dim \mathrm {T}_pN^\perp + 2\) and thus \(\dim \mathrm {T}_pN^\perp = n = \dim \mathrm {T}_pN\). Since \(\mathrm {T}_pN\subset \mathrm {T}_pN^\perp \), it is clear that \(\mathrm {T}_pN = \mathrm {T}_pN^\perp \).
\(\square \)
3 Cocontact Hamiltonian systems
We can use the cocontact geometric framework developed in the previous section to deal with Hamiltonian systems with dissipation and with explicit time dependence.
Definition 3.1
A cocontact Hamiltonian system is a tuple \((M,\tau ,\eta ,H)\) where \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) is a cocontact manifold and \(H\in {\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\) is a Hamiltonian function.
The cocontact Hamilton equations for a curve \(\psi :I\subset {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow M\) are
where \(\psi ':I\subset {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow \mathrm {T}M\) is the canonical lift of the curve \(\psi \) to the tangent bundle \(\mathrm {T}M\).
Let us express these equations using Darboux coordinates (see Theorem 2.7). Consider the curve \(\psi (r)=(f(r),q^i(r),p_i(r),s(r))\). The third equation in (2) imposes that \(f(r)=r\), thus we will denote \(r\equiv t\). The other equations become:
We can give another interpretation of these equations using vector fields.
Definition 3.2
Let \((M,\tau ,\eta ,H)\) be a cocontact Hamiltonian system. The cocontact Hamiltonian equations for a vector field \(X\in {\mathfrak {X}}(M)\) are:
Equations (3) can be rewritten using the isomorphism \(\flat \) as
Therefore, it is clear that the cocontact Hamilton equations (3) have a unique solution. The solution to this equations is called the cocontact Hamiltonian vector field, and will be denoted by \(X_H\). Its local expression is
Remark 3.3
It can be seen that the vector field \(X_H  R_t\) coincides with the one for the associated Jacobi manifold given in the preceding section.
Proposition 3.4
Let X be a vector field in M. Then every integral curve \(\psi :U\subset {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow M\) of X satisfies the cocontact equations (2) if, and only if, X is a solution to (3).
Proof
This is a direct consequence of equations (2) and (3), and the fact that any point of M is in the image of an integral curve of X. \(\square \)
4 Cocontact Lagrangian systems
4.1 Lagrangian phase space and geometric structures
Let Q be a smooth ndimensional manifold. Consider the product manifold \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) endowed with natural coordinates \((t, q^i, v^i, s)\). We have the canonical projections
Notice that \(\tau _2\) and \(\tau _0\) are the projection maps of two vector bundle structures. Usually, we will have in mind the projection \(\tau _0\). In fact, the vector bundle \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\overset{\tau _0}{\longrightarrow }{\mathbb {R}}\times Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) is the pullback of the tangent bundle with respect to the map \({\mathbb {R}}\times Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow Q\).
Our goal is to develop a timedependent contact Lagrangian formalism on the manifold \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\). The usual geometric structures of the tangent bundle can be naturally extended to the cocontact Lagrangian phase space \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\). In particular, the vertical endomorphism of \(\mathrm {T}(\mathrm {T}Q)\) yields a \(\tau _0\)vertical endomorphism \({\mathcal {J}}:\mathrm {T}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\rightarrow \mathrm {T}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\). In the same way, the Liouville vector field on the fibre bundle \(\mathrm {T}Q\) gives a Liouville vector field \(\Delta \in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\). Actually, this Liouville vector field coincides with the Liouville vector field of the vector bundle \(\tau _0\). The local expressions of these objects in Darboux coordinates are
Definition 4.1
Let \(\mathbf{c} :{\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\times Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) be a path, with \(\mathbf{c} = ({\mathbf {c}}_1,{\mathbf {c}}_2,{\mathbf {c}}_3)\). The prolongation of \(\mathbf{c}\) to \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) is the path
where \({\mathbf {c}}_2'\) is the velocity curve of \({\mathbf {c}}_2\). Every path \({ {\tilde{\mathbf{c}}}}\) which is the prolongation of a path \(\mathbf{c} :{\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\times Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) is said to be holonomic. A vector field \(\Gamma \in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q \times {\mathbb {R}})\) is said to satisfy the secondorder condition (for short: it is a sode) when all of its integral curves are holonomic.
This definition can be equivalently expressed in terms of the canonical structures defined above:
Proposition 4.2
A vector field \(\Gamma \in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) is a sode if, and only if, \(\mathcal{J} \circ \Gamma = \Delta \).
In natural coordinates, if \(\mathbf{c}(r)=(t(r), c^i(r), s(r))\), then
The local expression of a sode is
So, in coordinates a sode defines a system of differential equations of the form
4.2 Cocontact Lagrangian systems
Definition 4.3
A Lagrangian function is a function \({\mathcal {L}}:{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\). The Lagrangian energy associated to \({\mathcal {L}}\) is the function \(E_{\mathcal {L}}:= \Delta ({\mathcal {L}}){\mathcal {L}}\in {\mathscr {C}}^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\). The Cartan forms associated to \({\mathcal {L}}\) are defined as
The contact Lagrangian form is
Notice that \(\mathrm {d}\eta _{\mathcal {L}}=\omega _{\mathcal {L}}\). The couple \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},{\mathcal {L}})\) is a cocontact Lagrangian system.
Taking natural coordinates \((t, q^i, v^i, s)\) in \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\), the form \(\eta _{\mathcal {L}}\) is written as
and consequently
Notice that, in general, given a cocontact Lagrangian system \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},{\mathcal {L}})\), the family \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},\tau =\mathrm {d}t,\eta _{\mathcal {L}}, E_{\mathcal {L}})\) is not a cocontact Hamiltonian system because condition \(\tau \wedge \eta \wedge (\mathrm {d}\eta _{\mathcal {L}})^n\ne 0\) is not fulfilled. The Legendre map characterizes which Lagrangian functions will give cocontact Hamiltonian systems.
Definition 4.4
Given a Lagrangian \({\mathcal {L}}:{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\), its Legendre map is the fibre derivative of \({\mathcal {L}}\), considered as a function on the vector bundle \(\tau _0 :{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\times Q \times {\mathbb {R}}\); that is, the map \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}:{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q \times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q \times {\mathbb {R}}\) given by
where \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}(t,\cdot ,s)\) is the usual Legendre map associated to the Lagrangian \({\mathcal {L}}(t,\cdot ,s):\mathrm {T}Q\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) with t and s freezed.
Notice that the Cartan forms can also be defined as
where \(\theta _0\) and \(\omega _0 = \mathrm {d}\theta _0\) are the canonical 1 and 2forms of the cotangent bundle and \(\pi \) is the natural projection \(\pi :{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow \mathrm {T}^*Q\) (see Example 2.4).
Proposition 4.5
For a Lagrangian function \({\mathcal {L}}\) the following conditions are equivalent:

(i)
The Legendre map \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}\) is a local diffeomorphism.

(ii)
The fibre Hessian \({\mathcal {F}}^2{\mathcal {L}}:{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\longrightarrow ({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\otimes ({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) of \({\mathcal {L}}\) is everywhere nondegenerate (the tensor product is of vector bundles over \({\mathbb {R}}\times Q \times {\mathbb {R}}\)).

(iii)
\(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},\mathrm {d}t, \eta _{\mathcal {L}})\) is a cocontact manifold.
The proof of this result can be easily done using natural coordinates, where
and
And the three conditions in the above proposition are equivalent to say that the matrix \(W= (W_{ij})\) is everywhere regular, hence they are equivalent.
Definition 4.6
A Lagrangian function \({\mathcal {L}}\) is said to be regular if the equivalent conditions in Proposition 4.5 hold. Otherwise \({\mathcal {L}}\) is called a singular Lagrangian. In particular, \({\mathcal {L}}\) is said to be hyperregular if \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}\) is a global diffeomorphism.
Remark 4.7
As a result of the preceding definitions and results, every regular cocontact Lagrangian system has associated the cocontact Hamiltonian system \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},\mathrm {d}t, \eta _{\mathcal {L}}, E_{\mathcal {L}})\).
Given a regular cocontact Lagrangian system \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},{\mathcal {L}})\), from Proposition 2.6 we have that the Reeb vector fields \(R_t^{\mathcal {L}},R_s^{\mathcal {L}}\in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) for this system are uniquely determined by the relations
Their local expressions are
where \(W^{ij}\) is the inverse of the Hessian matrix of the Lagrangian \({\mathcal {L}}\), namely \(W^{ij}W_{jk}=\delta ^i_k\).
Notice that if the Lagrangian function \({\mathcal {L}}\) is singular, the Reeb vector fields are not uniquely determined. This will be discussed in Sect. 5.
4.3 The Herglotz–Euler–Lagrange equations
Definition 4.8
Let \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},{\mathcal {L}})\) be a regular contact Lagrangian system.
The Herglotz–Euler–Lagrange equations for a holonomic curve \({{\tilde{\mathbf{c}}}}:I\subset {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) are
where \({{\tilde{\mathbf{c}}}}':I\subset {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow \mathrm {T}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) denotes the canonical lifting of \({{\tilde{\mathbf{c}}}}\) to \(\mathrm {T}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\).
The cocontact Lagrangian equations for a vector field \(X_{\mathcal {L}}\in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) are
The vector field which is the only solution to these equations is called the cocontact Lagrangian vector field.
Notice that a cocontact Lagrangian vector field is a cocontact Hamiltonian vector field for the function \(E_{\mathcal {L}}\) (and the cocontact structure \((\mathrm {d}t,\eta _{\mathcal {L}})\)).
In natural coordinates, for a holonomic curve \({{\tilde{\mathbf{c}}}}(r)=(t(r), q^i(r),\dot{q}^i(r),s(r))\), equations (7) are
Condition (9) implies that \(t(r) = r + k\). This justifies the usual identification \(t = r\). Meanwhile, for a vector field \(X_{\mathcal {L}}= f\dfrac{\partial }{\partial t} + F^i\dfrac{\partial }{\partial q^i} + G^i\dfrac{\partial }{\partial v^i} + g\dfrac{\partial }{\partial s}\), equations (8) read
where we have used the relations
which can be easily proved taking coordinates.
Theorem 4.9
If \({\mathcal {L}}\) is a regular Lagrangian, then \(X_{\mathcal {L}}\) is a sode and equations (12)–(17) become
which, for the integral curves of \(X_{\mathcal {L}}\), are the Herglotz–Euler–Lagrange equations (9), (10) and (11).
This sode \(X_{\mathcal {L}}\equiv \Gamma _{\mathcal {L}}\) is called the Herglotz–Euler–Lagrange vector field associated to the Lagrangian function \({\mathcal {L}}\).
Proof
This results follows from the coordinate expressions. If \({\mathcal {L}}\) is a regular Lagrangian, equations (14) lead to \(F^i=v^i\), which are the sode condition for the vector field \(X_{\mathcal {L}}\). Then, (12) and (15) hold identically, and (13), (16) and (17) give the equations (18), (19) and (20) or, equivalently, for the integral curves of \(X_{\mathcal {L}}\), the Herglotz–Euler–Lagrange equations (9), (10) and (11). \(\square \)
Hence, the local expression of the Herlgotz–Euler–Lagrange vector field is
An integral curve of this vector field satisfies the classical EulerLagrange equations for dissipative systems, as can be easily verified:
Remark 4.10
It is interesting to point out how, in the Lagrangian formalism of dissipative systems, the expression in coordinates (10) of the second Lagrangian equation (7) relates the variation of the “dissipation coordinate” s to the Lagrangian function and, from here, we can identify this coordinate with the Lagrangian action, \( s=\int {\mathcal {L}}\,\mathrm {d}t\).
Remark 4.11
Equations (10) (11) coincide with those derived from the Herglotz variational principle [28, 35, 36].
5 The singular case
If the Hessian of the Lagrangian is not regular (in other words, the Lagrangians is singular), the construction of Sect. 4.2 does not lead to a cocontact structure, as shown in 4.5. In order to describe the dynamics of singular Lagrangians we require some minimal regularity conditions. Inspired by previous works on the singular case for contact systems [19] and cosymplectic systems [13] we will define precocontact structures.
5.1 Precocontact structures
Definition 5.1
Let M be a smooth manifold and consider two oneforms \(\tau ,\eta \in \Omega ^1(M)\). We define the characteristic distribution of \((\tau ,\eta )\) as
If \({\mathcal {C}}\) has constant rank, we say that the couple \((\tau ,\eta )\) is of class \(\mathfrak {cl}(\tau ,\eta ) = \dim M  {{\,\mathrm{rank}\,}}{\mathcal {C}}\).
Definition 5.2
Consider a smooth manifold M. The couple \((\tau ,\eta )\), where \(\tau ,\eta \in \Omega ^1(M)\), is a precocontact structure on M if \(\mathrm {d}\tau = 0\), the characteristic distribution of the couple \((\tau ,\eta )\) has constant rank and \(\mathfrak {cl}(\tau ,\eta ) = 2r+2\ge 2\). The triple \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) will be called a precocontact manifold.
Theorem 5.3
(Darboux theorem) Let \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) be a precocontact manifold with \(\dim M = m\). Then, around every point \(p\in M\), there is a local chart \((U; t, q^i, p_i, s, u^j)\), where \(1\le i \le r\), \(1\le j\le c\), \(2r+2+c=m\), such that
Proof
Since the oneform \(\tau \) is closed, we have that locally \(\tau = \mathrm {d}t\). Moreover, \(\ker \tau \) is an integrable distribution and thus induces a foliation \({\mathcal {F}}\) of M. Consider the leaf \({\mathcal {F}}_0\) corresponding to \(t = t_0\). We want to see that the class of is odd (the definition of class of a oneform can be found in Definition VI.1.1 in [30]). It is clear that, on a point \(p\in {\mathcal {F}}_0\), . Hence,
and since \(\mathfrak {cl}(\tau ,\eta )\ge 2\) is even, we have that is odd. Now, using Theorem VI.4.1 in [30] we obtain the desired result. \(\square \)
Remark 5.4
If \(\mathfrak {cl}(\tau ,\eta )=m\) then m must be even and we recover the cocontact structure introduced in Definition 2.1.
Given a precocontact manifold \((M,\tau ,\eta )\), the morphism \(\flat \) can be defined in the same way as in the regular case:
However, in this case it is not an isomorphism (see Proposition 5.6).
Definition 5.5
A vector field \(R_s\in {\mathfrak {X}}(M)\) is a contact Reeb vector field if
A vector field \(R_t\in {\mathfrak {X}}(M)\) is a time Reeb vector field if
Both kinds of vector fields always exist thanks to the theorem 5.3, and global ones can be constructed using partitions of the unity. Crucially, in the precocontact case the Reeb vector fields are not unique.
Proposition 5.6
Let \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) be a precocontact structure on M. Then
Proof
We will begin by proving that \(\ker \tau \cap \ker \eta \cap \ker \mathrm {d}\eta \supseteq \ker \flat \). Let \(X\in \ker \flat \), then
Let \(R_s,R_t\) be a contact and time Reeb vector fields respectively. Contracting both sides of equation (21) with \(R_s\), we have
On the other hand, contracting with \(R_t\), we obtain
Hence, we also have that \(i(X)\mathrm {d}\eta = 0\) and then \(X\in \ker \tau \cap \ker \eta \cap \ker \mathrm {d}\eta \). The other inclusion is trivial.
Now we will show that \(\ker \flat = ({{\,\mathrm{Im}\,}}\flat )^\circ \). Let \(X\in \ker \flat \). By the first equality, \(i(X)\tau = 0\), \(i(X)\eta = 0\) and \(i(X)\mathrm {d}\eta = 0\). Then, for every vector field Y,
and hence \(\ker \flat \subset ({{\,\mathrm{Im}\,}}\flat )^\circ \). Now, as it is clear that both subspaces of \(\mathrm {T}_p M\) have the same dimension, we have that \(\ker \flat =({{\,\mathrm{Im}\,}}\flat )^\circ \). \(\square \)
Notice that if \(R_1\) and \(R_2\) are two contact (or two time) Reeb vector fields, then, \(R_1R_2\in {\mathcal {C}}\). Conversely, if R is a contact (time) Reeb vector field, then \(R+V\) is a contact (or time) Reeb vector field for any \(V\in {\mathcal {C}}\).
Definition 5.7
A precocontact Hamiltonian system is a family \((M,\tau ,\eta ,H)\) where \((M,\tau ,\eta )\) is a precocontact manifold and \(H\in {\mathscr {C}}^\infty (M)\) is the Hamiltonian function on M.
Definition 5.8
Let \((M,\tau ,\eta ,H)\) be a precocontact Hamiltonian system and \(R_s\) and \(R_t\) two contact and time Reeb vector fields respectively. The precocontact Hamiltonian equation for a vector field X is:
where \(\gamma _H = \mathrm {d}H\left( {\mathscr {L}}_{R_s}H+H\right) \eta +\left( 1{\mathscr {L}}_{R_t}H\right) \tau \).
Equation (22) has two problems in the singular case: \(\gamma _H\) depends (a priori) on the Reeb vector fields we have chosen and there may not exist a solution to the equations. Both problems are solved by applying a suitable constraint algorithm.
5.2 Constraint algorithm
The aim of the constraint algorithm is to find a submanifold \(M_f\subset M\) such that there exists a solution to the equation (22) which is tangent to the submanifold \(M_f\). The algorithm has two steps: the consistency condition, where we look for the submanifold where the equation has solution, and the tangency condition, where we analyse where the solution is tangent to the submanifold. These steps are applied iteratively, but the first step is specially relevant because it will solve the multiplicity of Reeb vector fields.
Consider a \(\gamma _H\) with particular Reeb vector fields \(R_s\) and \(R_t\). \(M_1\) is defined as the subset of the points of M where solutions exist:
Theorem 5.9
Let \({\bar{M}}_1 = \{p\in M\mid ({\mathscr {L}}_Y H)_p = 0\,,\ \forall Y\in {\mathcal {C}}\}\). Then \(M_1 = {\bar{M}}_1\).
Proof
Let \(p\in M_1\). Then \((\gamma _H)_p \in \flat (\mathrm {T}_pM) = (\ker \flat )_p^\circ = {\mathcal {C}}^\circ _p\). For any \(Y\in {\mathcal {C}}\) we have that
because \(i_Y\tau = i_Y\eta = 0\). Hence, \(p\in {\bar{M}}_1\).
Conversely, consider \(p\in {\bar{M}}_1\) and \(Y\in {\mathcal {C}}\). Then, \((i_Y\mathrm {d}H)_p = 0\), which implies \((i_Y\gamma _H)_p = 0\). Thus \((\gamma _H)_p\in ({\mathcal {C}})^\circ _p = \flat (\mathrm {T}_pM)\). Since Y is arbitrary, we have that \(p\in M_1\). \(\square \)
Corollary 5.10
Over \(M_1\), the oneform \(\gamma _H\) does not depend on the choice of the Reeb vector fields.
Proof
Let \(\gamma _H\) as above and \({{\bar{\gamma }}}_H\) for \({\bar{R}}_t,{\bar{R}}_s\). Then, \(\gamma _H  {{\bar{\gamma }}}_H = ({\mathscr {L}}_{({\bar{R}}_t  R_t)}H)\tau + ({\mathscr {L}}_{({\bar{R}}_s  R_s)}H)\eta \). Since \({\bar{R}}_t  R_t, {\bar{R}}_s R_s\in {\mathcal {C}}\), we have that \(\gamma _H = {{\bar{\gamma }}}_H\) on \(M_1\). \(\square \)
Notice that on \(M_1\), the precocontact Hamiltonian equation for the precocontact system \((M,\tau ,\eta ,H)\) does not depend on the choice of the Reeb vector fields \(R_t,R_s\).
In \(M_1\) (which we assume to be a submanifold) there exists a solution \(X_H\) of (22), but it may not be tangent to \(M_1\). Therefore, we define
which we also assume to be a submanifold. Iterating this procedure we can obtain a sequence of constraint submanifolds
If this procedure stabilizes, that is, there exists a natural number \(f\in {\mathbb {N}}\) such that \(M_{f+1}=M_f\), and \(\dim M_f>0\) we say that \(M_f\) is the final constraint submanifold. In \(M_f\) we can find solutions to equations (22) which are tangent to \(M_f\). Notice that, in the Lagrangian case, we need to impose the sode condition.
In general, the Reeb vector fields are not tangent to the submanifolds provided by this constraint algorithm. One can continue the algorithm by demanding the tangency of the Reeb vector fields, as shown in [19]. This is important if we want a Dirac–Jacobi bracket on the resulting constraint submanifold, which requires a Reeb vector field.
5.3 Precocontact Lagrangian systems
Consider a Lagrangian function \({\mathcal {L}}:{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\), and the associated objects \(\eta _{\mathcal {L}}\) and \(E_{\mathcal {L}}\) as defined in Sect. 4.2.
Definition 5.11
A Lagrangian function \({\mathcal {L}}:{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is admissible if the Hessian of \({\mathcal {L}}\) has constant rank and \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},\mathrm {d}t,\eta _{\mathcal {L}})\) is a precocontact manifold.
Remark 5.12
Not every Lagrangian whose Hessian has constant rank leads to a precocontact structure. Consider the manifold \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}{\mathbb {R}}\times {\mathbb {R}}\), with coordinates (t, q, v, s), and the Lagrangian \({\mathcal {L}}=vs\). The Hessian of \({\mathcal {L}}\) has constant rank equal to 0, and the 1forms are \(\tau =\mathrm {d}t\) and \(\eta _{\mathcal {L}}=\mathrm {d}ss\mathrm {d}q\). We have that \(\mathrm {d}\eta _{\mathcal {L}}=\mathrm {d}s\wedge \mathrm {d}q\), thus \(\mathfrak {cl}(\tau ,\eta _{\mathcal {L}}) = 4  1=3\), which is odd (in a set where \(s\ne 0\)) . The main problem of this structure is that there are no Reeb vector fields as defined in 5.5.
Remark 5.13
The condition of being admissible is stronger than the condition proposed in [19], which is just for the Hessian to have constant rank. In light of the previous example, which can also be considered in the precontact setting, we believe it is necessary to require that the Lagrangian is admissible. Nonadmissible Lagrangians will be studied in a future work.
The precocontact Herglotz–Euler–Lagrange equations are defined as in Definition 4.8, but there is no result about the solutions like Theorem 4.9. First of all, since we are dealing with a precocontact system, a constraint algorithm is required in order to find solutions. In particular, on the final constraint submanifold, the Herglotz–Euler–Lagrange equations do not depend on the choice of the Reeb vector fields, as proved in Corollary 5.10. Moreover, the holonomy condition is not always recovered and it has to be imposed, leading to new constraints which have to be considered during the constraint algorithm.
5.4 The canonical Hamiltonian formalism
In the (hyper)regular case, the Legendre transform gives a diffeomorphism between \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}, \mathrm {d}t, \eta _{\mathcal {L}})\) and \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}, \tau = \mathrm {d}t, \eta )\) such that \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}^*\eta = \eta _{\mathcal {L}}\). For the singular case, the Legendre transform can be defined but, in general, \({\mathcal {P}}:= {{\,\mathrm{Im}\,}}({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}})={\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\varsubsetneq {\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\). Some regularity conditions are required to assure that a Hamiltonian precocontact system can be realised on \({\mathcal {P}}\).
Definition 5.14
A singular Lagrangian \({\mathcal {L}}\) is almostregular if

\({\mathcal {L}}\) is admissible,

\({\mathcal {P}}:= {{\,\mathrm{Im}\,}}({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}})={\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) is a closed submanifold of \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\),

the Legendre map \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}\) is a submersion onto its image,

the fibers \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}^{1}({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}(t,v_q,s))\subset {\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) are connected submanifolds for every \((t,v_q,s)\in {\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\).
In the almostregular case we can construct the triple \(({\mathcal {P}}, \tau , \eta _{\mathcal {P}})\), where \(\eta _{\mathcal {P}}= j_{\mathcal {P}}^*{\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}^*\eta \in \Omega ^1({\mathcal {P}})\), \(\tau ={\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}^*\mathrm {d}t\) and \(j_{\mathcal {P}}:{\mathcal {P}}\hookrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) is the natural embedding. Furthermore, the Lagrangian energy \(E_{\mathcal {L}}\) is \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}\)projectable, that is, there is a unique \(H_{\mathcal {P}}\in {\mathscr {C}}^\infty ({\mathcal {P}})\) such that \(E_{\mathcal {L}}= (j_{\mathcal {P}}\circ {\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}})^*H_{\mathcal {P}}\). Then, \(({\mathcal {P}},\tau , \eta _{\mathcal {P}},H_{\mathcal {P}}) \) is a precocontact Hamiltonian system.
The contact Hamiltonian equations for \(X_{\mathcal {P}}\in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathcal {P}})\) are (3) adapted to this situation. As in the Lagrangian formalism, these equations are not necessarily consistent everywhere on \({\mathcal {P}}\) and we must implement a suitable constraint algorithm in order to find a final constraint submanifold \({\mathcal {P}}_f\hookrightarrow {\mathcal {P}}\) (if it exists) where there exist vector fields \(X\in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathcal {P}})\), tangent to \({\mathcal {P}}_f\), which are (not necessarily unique) solutions to (3) on \({\mathcal {P}}_f\).
6 Damped mechanical systems with holonomic constraints
There are two classes of constraints: holonomic, which only depend on the generalized coordinates and time, and nonholonomic, which have a dependence on velocities or momenta. Nonholonomic constraints are more intricate and there are several ways to implement them (see [33] for a general study of these kind of constraints in the symplectic setting).
In a recent article [20] the authors consider contact systems with nonholonomic constraints and show how a contact system can be understood as a symplectic system with nonholonomic constraints. This chapter adds to these results by considering singular Lagrangians and allowing explicit dependence on time of both the Lagrangian and the constraints. On the other hand, we only consider holonomic constraints.
Consider a Lagrangian precocontact system \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},{{\mathcal {L}}'})\), with \(\tau =\mathrm {d}t\). We will denote by \(\eta _{{\mathcal {L}}'}\), \({\mathcal {C}}'\) and \(E_{{\mathcal {L}}'}\) the contact form, characteristic distribution and Lagrangian energy associated to the system \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}},{\mathcal {L}}')\). Now we add a set of independent constraints \(f^\alpha (t,q^i,s)=0\) with \(1\le \alpha \le d\), which define a submanifold \(S\hookrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\). In order to define a suitable constraint submanifold, these constraints functions must verify the condition
Therefore, we can understand these constraints as a constraint in the generalized coordinates \((q^i, s)\) for every value of time t.
In order to find the precocontact Lagrangian vector field for \((S,{\mathcal {L}})\), we add d new configuration variables \(\lambda _\alpha \), thus the enlarged manifold is \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}(Q\times {\mathbb {R}}^d)\times {\mathbb {R}}\), with local variables \((t,q^i,v^i,\lambda _\alpha ,v_\alpha ,s)\). We consider the new Lagrangian:
thus \(\lambda _\alpha \) act as Lagrange multipliers and we consider them dynamical variables.
We have the precocontact Lagrangian system \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}(Q\times {\mathbb {R}}^d)\times {\mathbb {R}},{\mathcal {L}})\). The contact form is the same \(\eta _{\mathcal {L}}=\eta _{{\mathcal {L}}'}\,\), and the characteristic distribution is
And the Lagrangian energy is
The primary constraints are generated by sections of \({\mathcal {C}}\), which we can separate in two classes, those which are sections of \({\mathcal {C}}'\) and \(\dfrac{\partial }{\partial \lambda _\alpha }\) and \(\dfrac{\partial }{\partial v_\alpha }\). The last ones give the constraints:
Thus, we recover the original constraints from the constraint algorithm. If Y is a section of \({\mathcal {C}}'\), then
The primary constraints for the Lagrangian \({\mathcal {L}}'\) (that is, without imposing \(f^\alpha =0\)) are \({\mathscr {L}}_YE_{{\mathcal {L}}'}\). Thus, these constraints become coupled with \(f^\alpha \) and are not conserved in general. From this point the constraints algorithm should continue imposing the tangency condition. The outcome will depend on the particular Lagrangian and constraints.
We will now compute the dynamical equations, which are complementary to the constraint algorithm. Consider a holonomic vector field:
Then the precocontact equations (22) are
7 Examples
In the following examples we consider mechanical systems in Riemannian manifolds described by Lagrangians of the form \(L = K  U\), with K and U the kinetic and potential energy respectively [1]. These Lagrangians are hyperregular. In order to introduce dissipation and external forces, we will add some additional terms to these Lagrangians such as \(\gamma s\) and G(t, q) respectively. We also consider systems subjected to holonomic timedependent constraints \(f^\alpha (t,q)\).
7.1 Damped forced harmonic oscillator
In this example we are going to study a forced harmonic oscillator with damping. We will develop both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms. Consider a harmonic oscillator of mass m with elastic constant k and an external force f(t) depending on time.
7.1.1 Lagrangian formalism
The configuration manifold for this system is \(Q={\mathbb {R}}\) equipped with coordinate q. Consider the phase manifold \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) equipped with coordinates (t, q, v, s) and the Lagrangian function \({\mathcal {L}}:{\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) given by
where f(t) is a timedependent external force. The Lagrangian energy associated to this Lagrangian function is
and its differential is
The Cartan 1form for the Lagrangian \({\mathcal {L}}\) is \( \theta _{\mathcal {L}}= mv\mathrm {d}q\). The contact 1form is \(\eta _{\mathcal {L}}= \mathrm {d}s  mv\mathrm {d}q\), and its differential is \(\mathrm {d}\eta _{\mathcal {L}}= m\mathrm {d}q\wedge \mathrm {d}v\). The Reeb vector fields are:
Consider a vector field \(X\in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) with local expression
The cocontact Lagrangian equations (8) for this vector field yield the conditions
Hence, the vector field X is
Its integral curves (t(r), q(r), v(r), s(r)) satisfy the system of differential equations
In Fig. 1a we see the evolution with respect to time of the position and the velocity of the damped oscillator taking as external force a smooth pulse at \(t = 1\). We can see the damping of the position and the velocity. In Fig. 1b we have represented the phase portrait of the same solution where we can see the initial pulse and how the system decays to the equilibrium point due to the friction.
In Fig. 2 we can see the dissipation of both the Lagrangian energy and the mechanical energy given by
Notice that the Lagrangian energy decays exponentially, while the mechanical energy follows the evolution of the Lagrangian energy but oscillating around it.
7.1.2 Hamiltonian formalism
Consider the Legendre map associated to the Lagrangian function (23):
which is given by
Notice that the Legendre map \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}\) is a global diffeomorphism and hence \({\mathcal {L}}\) is an hyperregular Lagrangian.
Then, \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) is equipped with the cocontact structure \((\mathrm {d}t, \mathrm {d}s  p\mathrm {d}q)\). The Hamiltonian function H such that \({\mathcal {F}}{\mathcal {L}}^*H = E_{\mathcal {L}}\) is
Then, a vector field \(Y\in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) is a solution to Hamilton’s equation (3) if it has local expression
Its integral curves (t(r), q(r), p(r), s(r)) satisfy
Combining the second and the third equations above, we obtain the secondorder differential equation
7.2 A timedependent system with central force and friction
Consider the Kepler problem in the case where the mass of the particle subjected to the central force is a nonvanishing function of time m(t). It is clear that the motion of the particle is on a plane and hence the configuration manifold is \(Q = R^2{\setminus }{0}\) endowed with coordinates \((r,\varphi )\).
The phase bundle \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}}\) with coordinates \((t, r, \varphi , p_r, p_\varphi , s)\) has a natural cocontact structure given by the 1forms \(\tau = \mathrm {d}t\) and \(\eta = \mathrm {d}s  p_r\mathrm {d}r  p_\varphi \mathrm {d}\varphi \). The Reeb vector fields are
Consider the Hamiltonian function \(H\in {\mathscr {C}}^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) given by
The vector field \(X\in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}^*Q\times {\mathbb {R}})\) satisfying equations (3) has local expression
Then, the integral curves \((t, r, \varphi , p_r, p_\varphi , s)\) satisfy
Hence, the integral curves must fulfill the system of secondorder equations
7.3 Damped pendulum with variable length
Consider a damped pendulum of mass m with variable length \(\ell (t)\) [32]. Its position in the plane can be described using polar coordinates \((r,\theta )\). The constraint \(r = \ell (t)\) will be introduced in the Lagrangian function via a Lagrange multiplier. The phase space of this system is the bundle \({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}{\mathbb {R}}^3\times {\mathbb {R}}\), equipped with coordinates \((t, r, \theta , \lambda , v_r, v_\theta , v_\lambda , s)\). The Lagrangian function describing this system is
where \(\lambda \) is the Lagrange multiplier.
The contact 1form is
then
and we have the 1form \(\tau = \mathrm {d}t\). Hence, \(({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}{\mathbb {R}}^3\times {\mathbb {R}}, \tau ,\eta _{\mathcal {L}})\) is a precocontact manifold. We can take as Reeb vector fields \(R_s = \partial /\partial s\), \(R_t = \partial /\partial t\). The characteristic distribution of \((\tau ,\eta _{\mathcal {L}})\) is
The Lagrangian energy associated to \({\mathcal {L}}\) is
and thus
Consider a sode \(X\in {\mathfrak {X}}({\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}{\mathbb {R}}^3\times {\mathbb {R}})\) with local expression
The dynamical equations for the vector field X yield the conditions
and we obtain the constraint function
defining the first constraint submanifold \(M_1\hookrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\times \mathrm {T}{\mathbb {R}}^3\times {\mathbb {R}}\).
Hence, the vector field X has the form
Imposing the tangency of the vector field X to the submanifold \(M_1\), namely the condition \({\mathscr {L}}_X \xi _1 = 0\), we obtain the constraint
defining a new constraint submanifold \(M_2\hookrightarrow M_1\). The tangency condition \({\mathscr {L}}_X \xi _2 = 0\) of the vector field X to the submanifold \(M_2\) yields the new constraint function
defining a new constraint submanifold \(M_3\hookrightarrow M_2\), and we also get \(G_r = \ell ''(t)\). Imposing again the tangency condition we obtain a new constraint function
defining the submanifold \(M_4\hookrightarrow M_3\). Requiring X to be tangent to \(M_4\) we determine the last coefficient \(G_\lambda \), whose expression we will omit, and no new constraints appear. Thus, there is a unique vector field solution to equations (8) and has local expression
The integral curves of this vector field satisfy the following secondorder differential equation
Notice that if we consider a pendulum with fixed length \(\ell (t) = \ell _\circ \), we recover the usual equation for a damped pendulum:
On the other hand, setting \(\gamma =0\) in equation (24), we obtain the equation of the simple pendulum with variable length studied in [32].
In Figs. 3 and 4 we have represented a couple of simulations of a damped pendulum of mass \(m=1\) with variable length considering \(\ell (t) = 1 + 0.1\sin (2\pi t)\), friction coefficients \(\gamma = 0.5\) and \(\gamma = 0.75\) respectively, and initial conditions \(\theta (0) = \pi /4\) and \({{\dot{\theta }}}(0) = 0\). We have plotted the evolution of the radial and angular coordinates and we can see the loss of amplitude, and hence of energy, of the system. Notice that in this example, the energy does not tend to zero, but to a positive constant since the radial coordinates keeps oscillating forever.
8 Conclusions and further research
In this paper we have introduced a geometrical formulation for timedependent contact systems by defining a new geometric structure: cocontact manifolds. This new notion combines the wellknown contact and cosymplectic structures. We have also proved that cocontact manifolds are Jacobi manifolds and defined and characterize the notions of isotropic and Legendrian submanifolds.
This geometrical setting allows us to develop the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisms for timedependent contact systems, generalizing those for contact systems [6, 18, 26] and cosymplectic systems [23]. In addition, we have studied the problem where the system is defined by a singular Lagrangian, thus introducing the notion of precocontact structure. This is useful since many systems are defined by singular Lagrangians. As an application, we have studied the particular case of cocontact systems with timedependent holonomic constraints.
We have worked out two regular examples: the damped forced harmonic oscillator and the Kepler problem with nonconstant mass and friction; and a singular one: a pendulum with variable length and friction. This last example is singular because we have introduced the constraint with a Lagrange multiplier and the constraint algorithm gives back the constraint. Computer simulations of some of these examples have been included.
The structures introduced in this paper could be used to improve our understanding of timedependent dissipative systems. For instance, providing new geometric integrators [7,8,9, 49] from the discretization of the obtained equations, discussing symmetries and their associated dissipated and conserved quantities, and studying reduction procedures such as coisotropic reduction [1, 18] and Marsden–Weinstein reduction [42]. It would be also interesting to state the Hamilton–Jacobi theory for these systems and describe the Skinner–Rusk unified formalism for cocontact systems.
The formulation presented in this work is also a first step towards finding a geometric formalism for nonautonomous dissipative field theories based on the kcontact setting [25, 27, 34] and generalizing the multisymplectic formalism [12, 46]. The kcontact formalism allows to describe autonomous field theories, such as field theories with damping, some equations from circuit theory, such as the socalled telegrapher’s equation, or the Burgers’ equation. Nevertheless, there are many examples of nonautonomous field theories, like Maxwell’s equations with a non constant charge density or general relativity with matter sources that require a formulation for nonautonomous field theories.
References
Abraham, R., Marsden, J.E.: Foundations of Mechanics, volume 364 of AMS Chelsea Publishing, 2nd edn. Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., New York (1978). https://doi.org/10.1090/chel/364
Albert, C.: Le théorème de réduction de Marsden–Weinstein en géométrie cosymplectique et de contact. J. Geom. Phys. 6(4), 627–649 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/03930440(89)900296
Arnold, V.I.: Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, volume 60 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/9781475716931
Bravetti, A.: Contact Hamiltonian dynamics: the concept and its use. Entropy 10(19), 535 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/e19100535
Bravetti, A.: Contact geometry and thermodynamics. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 16(supp01), 1940003 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887819400036
Bravetti, A., Cruz, H., Tapias, D.: Contact Hamiltonian mechanics. Ann. Phys. 376, 17–39 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.11.003
Bravetti, A., Seri, M., Vermeeren, M.: Contact variational integrators. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 52(44), 445206 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/17518121/ab4767
Bravetti, A., Seri, M., Vermeeren, M., Zadra, F.: Numerical integration in celestial mechanics: a case for contact geometry. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 132(1), 7 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1056901999469
Bravetti, A., Seri, M., Zadra, F.: Geometric numerical integration of Liénard systems via a contact Hamiltonian approach. Mathematics 9(16), 1960 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/math9161960
Cantrijn, F., de León, M., Lacomba, E.A.: Gradient vector fields on cosymplectic manifolds. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 25(1), 175–188 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1088/03054470/25/1/022
Cariñena, J., FernándezNúñez, J.: Geometric theory of timedependent singular Lagrangians. Fortschr. Phys. 41(6), 517–552 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.2190410603
Cariñena, J.F., Crampin, M., Ibort, L.A.: On the multisymplectic formalism for first order field theories. Differ. Geom. Appl. 1(4), 345–374 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/09262245(91)90013Y
Chinea, D., de León, M., Marrero, J.C.: The constraint algorithm for timedependent Lagrangians. J. Math. Phys. 35(7), 3410–3447 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.530476
Ciaglia, F.M., Cruz, H., Marmo, G.: Contact manifolds and dissipation, classical and quantum. Ann. Phys. 398, 159–179 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2018.09.012
de León, M., Gaset, J., MuñozLecanda, M.C., RománRoy, N.: Higherorder contact mechanics. Ann. Phys. 425, 168396 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2021.168396
de León, M., Jiménez, V.M., LainzValcázar, M.: Contact Hamiltonian and Lagrangian systems with nonholonomic constraints. J. Geom. Mech. 13(1), 25–53 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3934/jgm.2021001
de León, M., Lainz, M.: A review on contact Hamiltonian and Lagrangian systems. Rev. Acad. Canaria de Ciencias XXXI, 1–46 (2019)
de León, M., LainzValcázar, M.: Contact Hamiltonian systems. J. Math. Phys. 60(10), 102902 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5096475
de León, M., LainzValcázar, M.: Singular Lagrangians and precontact Hamiltonian systems. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 16(10), 1950158 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887819501585
de León, M., LainzValcázar, M., MuñozLecanda, M.C., RománRoy, N.: Constrained Lagrangian dissipative contact dynamics. J. Math. Phys. 62, 122902 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0071236
de León, M., MarínSolano, J., Marrero, J.C., MuñozLecanda, M.C., RománRoy, N.: Singular Lagrangian systems on jet bundles. Fortschritte der Phys. 50(2), 105–169 (2002). 10.1002/15213978(200203)50:2\(<\)105::AIDPROP105\(>\)3.0.CO;2N
de León, M., Rodrigues, P.R.: Methods of Differential Geometry in Analytical Mechanics, volume 158 of Mathematics Studies. NorthHolland, Amsterdam (1989)
de León, M., Sardón, C.: Cosymplectic and contact structures to resolve timedependent and dissipative Hamiltonian systems. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50(25), 255205 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/17518121/aa711d
EcheverríaEnríquez, A., MuñozLecanda, M.C., RománRoy, N.: Geometrical setting of timedependent regular systems. Alternative models. Rev. Math. Phys. 3(3), 301–330 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129055X91000114
Gaset, J., Gràcia, X., MuñozLecanda, M.C., Rivas, X., RománRoy, N.: A contact geometry framework for field theories with dissipation. Ann. Phys. 414, 168092 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2020.168092
Gaset, J., Gràcia, X., MuñozLecanda, M.C., Rivas, X., RománRoy, N.: New contributions to the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian contact formalisms for dissipative mechanical systems and their symmetries. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 17(6), 2050090 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887820500905
Gaset, J., Gràcia, X., MuñozLecanda, M.C., Rivas, X., RománRoy, N.: A \(k\)contact Lagrangian formulation for nonconservative field theories. Rep. Math. Phys. 87(3), 347–368 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/S00344877(21)000410
Georgieva, B., Guenther, R., Bodurov, T.: Generalized variational principle of Herglotz for several independent variables. First Noethertype theorem. J. Math. Phys. 44(9), 3911 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1597419
Giachetta, G., Mangiarotti, L., Sardanashvily, G.A.: New Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Methods in Field Theory. World Scientific, River Edge (1997). https://doi.org/10.1142/2199
Godbillon, C.: Geometrie Differentielle Et Mecanique Analytique (Collection methodes). Hermann, Paris (1969)
Goto, S.: Contact geometric descriptions of vector fields on dually flat spaces and their applications in electric circuit models and nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. J. Math. Phys. 57(10), 102702 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4964751
Gràcia, X., Martín, R.: Geometric aspects of timedependent singular differential equations. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 2(4), 597–618 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887805000697
Gràcia, X., MarínSolano, J., MuñozLecanda, M.C.: Some geometric aspects of variational calculus in constrained systems. Rep. Math. Phys. 51(1), 127–148 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S00344877(03)80006X
Gràcia, X., Rivas, X., RománRoy, N.: Skinner–Rusk formalism for \(k\)contact systems. J. Geom. Phys. 172, 104429 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2021.104429
Guenther, C., Guenther, R.B., Gottsch, J., Schwerdtfeger, H.: The Herglotz Lectures on Contact Transformations and Hamiltonian systems. Lecture notes in nonlinear analysis, vol. 1, 1st edn. Juliusz Center for Nonlinear Studies, Torun (1996)
Herglotz, G.: Berührungstransformationen. Lectures at the University of Göttingen (1930)
Kirillov, A.A.: Local Lie algebras. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 31(4), 57–76 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1070/rm1976v031n04abeh001556
Krupková, O.: The Geometry of Ordinary Variational Equations, volume 1678 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0093438
Libermann, P., Marle, C.M.: Symplectic Geometry and Analytical Mechanics. Springer, Dordretch (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/9789400938076
Lichnerowicz, A.: Les variétés de Jacobi et leurs algebres de Lie associées. J. Math. Pures Appl. 57, 453–488 (1978)
Liu, Q., Torres, P.J., Wang, C.: Contact Hamiltonian dynamics: variational principles, invariants, completeness and periodic behaviour. Ann. Phys. 395, 26–44 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2018.04.035
Marsden, J., Weinstein, A.: Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry. Rep. Math. Phys. 5(1), 121–130 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1016/00344877(74)900214
Massa, E., Pagani, E., Vignolo, S.: Legendre transformation and analytical mechanics: a geometric approach. J. Math. Phys. 44(4), 1709–1722 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1555684
Nijenhuis, A.: Jacobitype identities for bilinear differential concomitants of certain tensor fields. I II. Indag. Math. A 58, 390–403 (1955)
Ramirez, H., Maschke, B., Sbarbaro, D.: Partial stabilization of input–output contact systems on a Legendre submanifold. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 62(3), 1431–1437 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2016.2572403
RománRoy, N.: Multisymplectic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms of classical field theories. Symmetry Integr. Geom. Methods Appl.: SIGMA (2009). https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2009.100
Schouten, J.A.: On the differential operators of first order in tensor calculus. Number ZW 12/53 in Stichting Mathematisch Centrum. Zuivere Wiskunde. Stichting Mathematisch Centrum (1953)
Simoes, A.A., de León, M., LainzValcázar, M., Martín de Diego, D.: Contact geometry for simple thermodynamical systems with friction. Proc. R. Soc. A 476, 20200244 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0244
Simoes, A.A., Martín de Diego, D., Lainz Valcázar, M., de León, M.: On the geometry of discrete contact mechanics. J. Nonlinear Sci. 31(3), 53 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00332021097082
Vaisman, I.: Lectures on the Geometry of Poisson Manifolds, volume 118 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser, Basel (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783034884952
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge fruitful discussions and comments from our colleague Narciso RománRoy. MdL acknowledges the financial support of the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain), under grants PID2019106715GBC2, “Severo Ochoa Programme for Centres of Excellence in R &D” (CEX2019000904S) and EIN2020112107. JG, XG, MCML and XR acknowledge the financial support of the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (Spain), project PGC2018098265BC33.
Funding
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUECSIC agreement with Springer Nature.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Communicated by Adrian Constantin.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
de León, M., Gaset, J., Gràcia, X. et al. Timedependent contact mechanics. Monatsh Math 201, 1149–1183 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00605022017671
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00605022017671
Keywords
 Contact structure
 Timedependent system
 Hamiltonian system
 Dissipation
 Singular Lagrangian
 Holonomic constraints
 Jacobi structure