American Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2013, Vol. 1, No.

7, 318-323
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajme/1/7/33
© Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/ajme-1-7-33

Bond Graphs of the Electrical RLC Circuit

Darina Hroncová*, Alexander Gmiterko

Department of applied mechanics and mechatronics, Technical University of Košice / Faculty of mechanical engineering, Košice,
Slovakia
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Received October 21, 2013; Revised November 01, 2013; Accepted November 22, 2013
Abstract The work shows the use of Bond Graph formalism for modeling dynamic systems. As an example a
electrical model is solved by this approach at the level of its physical behavior. In contrast with the classical method,
where the equations for individual components are created first and then the simulation scheme is derived on their
basis, the described method uses the reverse procedure. In this paper the method of generation of system equations is
discussed. From a bond graph diagram of the system, using a step-by-step procedure, system equations may be
generated. As a starting point a model of a simple electrical RLC circuit consisting of a resistor, an inductor, and a
capacitor is taken. The differential equations describing the dynamics of the system are obtained in terms of the
states of the system.
Keywords: mechatronics, bond graphs, energy modeling, modeling dynamic systems
Cite This Article: Darina Hroncová, and Alexander Gmiterko, “Bond Graphs of the Electrical RLC Circuit.”
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 1, no. 7 (2013): 318-323. doi: 10.12691/ajme-1-7-33.

1. Introduction capacitor. The RLC part of the name is due to those letters
being the usual electrical symbols for resistance,
The concept of bond graphs was originated by Paynter inductance and capacitance respectively [11].
(1961). The idea was further developed by Karnopp and
Rosenberg in their textbooks (1968, 1975, 1983, 1990),
such that it could be used in practice (Thoma, 1975; Van
Dixhoorn, 1982). By means of the formulation by
Breedveld (1984, 1985) of a framework based on
thermodynamics, bond-graph model description evolved
to a systems theory [1-7].
A causal bond graph contains all information to derive
the set of state equations. The procedure to derive these
equations is covered by bond graph software like Enport
(Rosenberg, 1974), MS1 (Lorenz, 1997), CAMP (Granda,
1985), and 20-SIM (Broenink, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999;
Broenink and Kleijn, 1999). Therefore, in practice,
generation of equation need not be done by hand.
However, we discuss the generation of equations to
indicate what exactly has to be done. Figure 1. Electrical system: a) electrical model of RLC system; b)
reference voltage uref with positive direction; c) efforts (voltages) with
unique names u1, u2, u3
2. Bond Graph of the Electrical System
2.2. Bond Graph Construction
The language of bond graphs aspires to express general
class physical systems through power interactions. The We have discussed the basic bond-graph elements and
factors of power i.e., effort and flow, have different the bond, so we can transform a domain-dependent ideal-
interpretations in different physical domains. Yet, power physical model, written in domain-dependent symbols,
can always be used as a generalized coordinate to model into a bond graph. For this transformation, there is a
coupled systems residing in several energy domains. systematic procedure, which is presented here. This
electrical system contains a voltage source effort SE
(SE:uz), a resistor R (R:R1, R:R2), an inductor I (I:L1, I:L2,)
2.1. Description of the Model and a capacitor C (C:1/C).
To demonstrate the bond graph methodology as an Step 1 – Determine which physical domains exist in the
example an electrical model of RLC system is analyzed in system and identify all basic elements like C (capacitor), I
Figure 1 a). An RLC circuit (or LCR circuit) is an (inductor), R (resistor), SE (source of the effort), SF
electrical circuit consisting of a resistor, an inductor, and a (source of the flow), TF (transformer) and GY (gyrator).
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 319

This system contains a electrical domain part with the A junction between two bonds can be left out, if the
inductance L of the inductor (I:L), the resistance R of the bonds have a through power direction (one bond incoming,
resistor (R:R) and a capacity of the capacitor C (C:C). the other outgoing). A bond between two the same
Voltage uz is considered as an effort source (SE: uz). junctions can be left out, and the junctions can join into
Step 2 – Indicate in the ideal-physical model per one junction. Two separately constructed identical effort
domain a reference source – effort voltage uref (reference or flow differences can join into one effort or flow
voltage with positive direction) in Figure 1 b). difference.
The references are indicated in the ideal physical model: Step 9 – Determine the signal direction and causality in
the ideal velocity uref = 0. Figure 4 b). Causality establishes the cause and effect
Step 3 – Identify all other efforts (voltages) and give relationships between the factors of power.
them unique names u1, u2, u3, Figure 1 c).
Step 4 – Draw these efforts (electrical: voltages),
graphically by 0-junctions in Figure 2 a).

Figure 2. Electrical system (a) voltages are shown as 0-junctions (b)

connecting 0-junctions with 1-junctions

Step 5 – Identify all effort differences (electrical:

voltage = effort) needed to connect the ports of all
elements enumerated in step 1 to the junction structure.
When checking all ports of the elements found in step 1
linear voltage differences, u12 and u23 are identified: Figure 4. Simplified Bond graph (a) the 0-junctions with voltages u2 and
u3 (b) causality determination
u1 − u=
2 u12 , u2 − u
=3 u23 . (1)
Step 6 – Construct the voltages differences using a 1-
junction and draw them as such in the graph in Figure 2 b).
SE:u z
uz
i1 1 u2
i1 0 u2
u2 i 2 1 u3
i2 0 u3
u3 i 5
R:R 2

The junction structure is now ready and the elements u 12 i 1 u2 i3 u23 i 2 u3 i4

can be connected.
Step 7 – Connect the port of all elements found at step
R:R 1 I:L 1 I:L 2 C:C
1 with the 1-junction of the corresponding efforts or
efforts differences in Figure 3 a). Figure 5. Final bond graphs with signal direction and causality
Step 8 – Simplify the resulting graph by applying the
simplification rules in Figure 3 b) and in Figure 4 a). In bond graphs, the inputs and the outputs are
characterized by the causal stroke. The causal stroke
indicates the direction in which the effort signal is directed
(by implication, the end of the bond that does not have a
causal stroke is the end towards which the flow signal is
directed).
There are two ways of describing an element's behavior
(e.g. effort in, flow out vs. flow in, effort out) as different
causal forms. Note that the two alternative causal forms
may, in general, require quite different mathematical
operations. The causal form we use, i.e. which variable we
select as input and which we select as output, can make a
lot of difference. For example, the required mathematical
operations may be well defined in one causal form, but not
defined at all in the other.
The causal bond graph of this system can be derived, in
which the inputs and the outputs are characterized by the
causal stroke. This is the starting point, from which we
continue toward the differential equations describing the
dynamics of the system.

2.3. Expansion to Block Diagrams

Figure 3. Electrical system: a) connecting elements R, I, C, SE with 0-
junctions; b) applying the simplification rules The equations are derived in the steps described below.
320 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

e e orientation does change, then a minus sign is added

A f B A f B
representing a negative contribution to the summation. In
e e principle, a complete block diagram is obtained at this
A f B A f B point.
Figure 6. The bond graph example – bilateral signal flows between ports
and definition of the causal stroke

A causal bond graph in Figure 5 b) can be expanded

into a block diagram in three steps.
Step 1 – All node symbols are encircled in Figure 7 a).
Step 2 – All bonds are expanded into bilateral signal
flows according to the assigned causality in Figure 7 b).
Step 3 – All constitutive relations of each node are
written into block diagram form, according to the assigned
causality of each port; one-junction is represented by a
signal-node for the flows and a summation for the efforts
in Figure 8.
All signals entering a summation resulting from a
junction are given a sign corresponding to the half-arrow
direction: if, while traveling from causal input to causal
output, the bond orientation does not change (this does not
exclude an orientation opposite to the signal direction),
then a plus sign is added representing a positive Figure 7. The bond graphs example: a) element layout and b) bond
contribution to the summation; by contrast if the bond graph with bilateral signals flow

i1 i1 i i2 i2 i5 1
- ∑ -2 + ∑ - R2
rozvetvovací uzol i
i1 1
- i2
pre toky
i3
rozvetvovací uzol
pre úsilia + i4 u3
uZ=u1 u2 u2 u2 u2 u3 u3
SE ∑ + ∑ -
u2 + u3
- +u i4
u12 23

R1 L1 L2 C
i1 u2 i2 u3
Figure 8. The block diagram with the line signal direction

i1 i i2 i2 i5 1
- ∑ -2 + ∑ - R2
- i2
i3
rozvetvovací uzol
pre úsilia + i4 u3
uZ=u1 u2 u2 u2 u2 u3 u3
SE ∑ + ∑ -
u2 + u3
- +u i4
u12 23

R1 L1 L2 C
i1 u2 i2 u3
Figure 9. The block diagram and line signal direction with ideal source the effort uZ

The procedure to obtain a signal flow graph is nodes, as signal nodes can be distinguished from signal
completely analogous to the above procedure as all summation points by observing the signal directions
operations represented by blocks, including the signs of (signal node has only one input, summation has only one
the summations, are combined as much as possible and output).
then written next to an edge, while all summations become
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 321

Table 1. Element in block diagram

Bond graph Type of element Element in block diagram Equations

1
u 23
∫
Φ(t) i (=
t) . Φ (t )
u 23 L
u 23
I:L I t
∫ u (τ ) dτ
Φ (t ) =
i
i
i 1
L t0

i
u 12
u 12 i
R:R R R u (t ) = R . i ( t )
i
i u12
i
u 12
u 12 i
R:R R R u (t ) = R . i ( t )
i
i u12

u3
u3 i t
u3 1
C:C C 1
∫ u (t ) = . Q (t ) Q (t ) = ∫ i (τ ) dτ
i C C
i t0
Q(t)

Figure 10. Bond graph expanded to a block diagram: a) with source effort voltage uz and b) with ideal source uz

2.4. Generation of the Equations u2 =

− u12 + u1 , (5)
The state equations derived from a bond graph diagram = u2 + u3 ,
u23 (6)
in Figure 10 a) and in Figure 10 b) are:
i1 =
− i2 − i3 , (7)
d Φ1 ( t )
= u2 , (2)
dt i2 =
− i4 + i5 , (8)

d Φ2 (t ) 1
= u23 , (3) =
i3 . Φ1 ( t ) , (9)
dt L1

d Q (t ) 1
= i4 , (4) =
i2 . Φ2 (t ) , (10)
dt L2

where state variables Φ1(t), Φ2(t) and Q(t) are magnetic u12 = R1 . i1 , (11)
flux and electric charge respectively.
1
Now we rewrite variable parameters from Figure 9 and i5 = . u3 , (12)
Figure 10 to equations: R2
 322 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

u3 =
1
. Q(t ) , (13)
2.5. State Space Equation in Matlab/Simulink
C Solution of the non-homogenous system of differential
After substitution we get: equations of a mechanical system with two degrees of
freedom in Figure 11, is done in Matlab/Simulink using
d Φ1 ( t ) 1 1
= R1 . . Φ1 ( t ) + R1 . . Φ 2 ( t ) + u1 , (14)
State-Space. The most general state-space representation
dt L1 L2 of a linear system with u(t) inputs, y(t) outputs and n state
variables is written in the following form:
d Φ2 (t ) 1 1 1
= R1 . . Φ1 ( t ) + R1 . . Φ 2 ( t ) + . Q ( t ) + u1 , (15) x ( t ) A . x( t ) + B. u( t ) ,
= (25)
dt L1 L2 C
y ( t ) C. x( t ) + D. u( t ) .
= (26)
dQ ( t ) 1 1 1
= . . Q( t ) − . Φ 2 ( t ) , (16)
dt R2 C L2 where A, B, C, D are the respective matrices of the
mechanical system defined as follows:
and in matrix form: We determine the matrix and block diagram in
 1 1  Matlab/Simulink shown in Figure 11:
 R1 . L R1 . 0 
 d Φ1 ( t )   1 L2

 dt   
     Φ1 ( t )  1 
 d Φ2 (t )  1   
R . 1 . Φ 2 ( t ) + 1  . u1 (17)
1
=
  R1 .
 1 L1 C     
 dt  
L2
 Q ( t )   0 
 d Q (t )   
  
 dt  1 1 1
0 − . 
 L2 R2 C  Figure 11. The block diagram in Simulink

By choosing different state variables i electric current

and u3 electric charge, after substitution the state equations 3. Conclusion
are in following form:
Bond graphs represent a convenient tool for physical
d ( L1.i3 ) 1 1
= R1 . . ( L1.i3 ) + R1 . . ( L2 .i2 ) + u1 , (18) system analysis. We presented a method to systematically
dt L1 L2 build a bond graph starting from an ideal physical model.
Causal analysis gives, besides the computational direction
d ( L2 .i2 ) 1 1
. ( L1.i3 ) + R1. . ( L2 .i2 ) +
of the signals at the bonds, also information about the
=R1.
dt L1 L2 correctness of the model. A practical example of an
(19) electrical model is presented as the application of this
1
+ . ( C.u3 ) + u1 , methodology.
C The differential equations describing the dynamics of
d ( C.u3 ) 1 1
the system in terms of the states of the system were
1
= . . ( C.u3 ) − . ( L2 .i2 ) , (20) derived from a bond graph diagram of a simple electrical
dt R2 C L2 system. The results correspond with equations obtained
using traditional method, where the equations for
and finally:
individual components are created first and then the
d i3 1 1 1 simulation scheme is derived on their basis, although the
. = R1. . i3 + R1. . i2 + . u1., (21) described method uses the reverse procedure.
dt L1 L1 L1
However, manual derivation of equations for larger
d i2 1 1 1 1 systems is not all that simple. For instance, in some cases
= . R1. i3 + R1. . i2 + . u3 + . u1 , (22) the derivation may lead to formation of so called algebraic
dt L2 L2 L2 L2
loops. Similarly, complexities and errors of various types,
d u3 1 1 1 like causal loops, power loops and differential causalities
= . . u3 − .i2 , (23) may exist in the model of a system.
d t R2 C C
or in matrix form:
Acknowledgement
 di3   1 1  1 
 dt   R1. R1. 0  L  This work was supported by grant projects VEGA No.
 L1 L1  i   1 
  1/0289/11, VEGA No. 1/1205/12 and grant projects
 di2   1 1 1    1 
3

 dt   R1. R1.  .  i2  +   . u1 , (24) VEGA No. 1/0937/12 and APVV-0091-11.

   L2 L2 L2  L
u3   2 
 du3   1 1 1  0 
 dt   0 − .    References
 C R2 C   
[1] Breedveld, P., C., Rosenberg, R., C., Zhou, T., 1991. Bibliography
The equation can be solved in Matlab/Simulink for of Bond Graph Theory and Application, Journal of the Franklin
example [8-13]. Institute, 328(5/6), p. 1067-1109.
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 323

[2] Breedveld, P., C. Modeling and Simulation of Dynamic Systems [8] Hroncová, D., 2012. Studies of compatible software tools for
Using Bond Graphs, http://eolss.net. abstract and concrete design of mechatronic systems and linking
[3] Broenink, J., F. Introduction to Physical Systems Modelling with them for the purpose of logical and physical modeling,
Bond Graphs, http://www.ce.utwente.nl. Dissertation thesis, Košice, Slovakia.
[4] Virgala, I., Frankovský, P., Kenderová, M.: Friction Effect [9] Karban, P., 2006. Výpočty a simulace v programech Matlab a
Analysis of a DC Motor. In: American Journal of Mechanical Simulink. Computer Press, Brno, Česko.
Engineering. 2013. Vol. 1, no. 1 (2013), p. 1-5 [10] Gmiterko, A., 2004. Mechatronics, Emilenia, Košice, Slovakia.
[5] Karnopp, D., C., Margolis, D., L., Rosenberg, R., C., 2005. [11] Vittek, J., 1997. Matlab pre elektrické pohony, Nakladateľstvo
Modeling and simulation of mechatronic systems. John Willey & Žilinskej univerzity, Žilina, Slovensko, p. 35-36.
Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. [12] Ogatha, K., 1978. System Dynamics. Prentice Hall, Inc.,
[6] Horáček, P., 1999. Systems and models, Nakladatelství ČVUT, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Praha, Česko. [13] Delyová, I., Frankovský, P., Hroncová, D., 2011. Kinematics
[7] Gmiterko, A., Šarga, P., Hroncová, D., 2012. Mechatronika I, analysis of movement of a point of a simple mechanism, In:
Technická univerzita Košice, Košice, Slovakia. Modelling of mechanical and mechatronic systems 2011, The 4th
International conference, TU Košice, Herľany, Slovakia.