I have a Simulink diagram which contains multiple triggered subsystem with different timestamp. In this model I also got a feedback loop inducing an algebraic loop. Therefore the signal must be initialised, in order to do that, I used a Memory block.
The problem is on the feedback loop, the value of the signal seems to be not initialised.
I believe the origin of this problem is that it is indeed initialised by the memory block for the first timestamp, however, the trigger on the next subsystem did not occur. By default, this subsytem puts its out signal value to be 0. The loop is therefore broken there.
Did someone already encounter this situation ? Any Tips ?
Thank you for your time.
You could add initialization blocks for your trigger values? I don't know about what SubSystem0 looks like inside, but its output could use an initialization block as well, this way you guarantee that you have an input to Subsystem
I am running a parameter variation experiment and would like to be able to stop at a variable value instead of at at specified time. In my simulation I have variable that counts whenever an agent passes through my zink. The variable is called Loads. I would like to stop the parameter variation experiment when Loads=16.
I have tried the "additional experiment stop condition", but can't seem to get it right.
https://imgur.com/a/zD2qTfc
You are mixing up 2 things, I think. You want to stop an individual simulation run when something in the model happens. You can easily do that using this code in your actual model (not in the experiment properties):
if (loads==16) getEngine().stop();
What you did was to define when the parameter variation experiment should stop. However, that condition is never satisfied (and it sounds like you don't want that).
For a project I'm trying to select the right output if a parameter of the created agent is true. The agent is created in the main but goes into a different agent for the selection of the output. If I use a select in the main and use the statement for the parameter as condition it works fine. Whenever it enters the agent and I use the same statement it gives an error (Description: product1 cannot be resolved or is not a field. Location: testCase5/Transport/selectOutput - SelectOutput).
I tried using different conditions like main.agent.product1 . Can't seem to solve the issue. I know that it has to do something with declaration probably but I'm clueless at the moment.
//for the condition that works if I put the selectOutput in the main
agent.product1
//for the condition in the agent I tried the same but didn't work. also tried
main.agent.product1 // Gives the same error but for (Description: agentcannot be resolved or is not a field.)
(Main)agent.product1
//And a few more
In AnyLogic each block of a project flow (regardless if from the process modeling library, the pedestrian library or another) has the type of Agent that is flowing through it defined in its properties. You can find this setting as Agent type in the block's properties under Advanced.
If you fail to set this correctly (meaning this setting equals the type of Agents you let flow through it), it will still flow through, BUT: you cannot access the specific properties of the Agent type.
That said, usually you do not even have to think about, because AnyLogic has an automatism there: The first block of your process flow, typically a Source-block or a Enter-block is the only block where you have to make the correct setting, all attached blocks get it then automatically!
However this does not work when:
You have separate flows (eg. you leave one flow through an Exit-block and enter another by an Enter). You'll manually have to put the correct setting also for the first block of the second process flow.
Your process flow is continued inside of another Agent/Custom Block, as in your example. AnyLogic doesnt realize the process flow inside your custom block is logically connected to the outside process flow in main. You have to specifiy manually again the Agent type flowing through in the first block of your process inside your Custom Block.
We are developing an ABM under AnyLogic 7 and are at the point where we want to make multiple simulations from a single experiment. Different parameters are to be set for each simulation run so as to generate results for a small suite of standard scenarios.
We have an experiment that auto-starts without the need to press the "Run". Subsequent pressing of the Run does increment the experiment counter and reruns the model.
What we'd like is a way to have the auto-run, or single press of Run, launch a loop of simulations. Within that loop would be the programmatic adjustment of the variables linked to passed parameters.
EDIT- One wrinkle is that some parameters are strings. The Optimization or Parameter Variation experiments don't lend themselves to enumerating a set of strings to be be used across a set of simulation runs. You can set a string per parameter for all the simulation runs within one experiment.
We've used the help sample for "Running a Model from Outside Without Presentation Window", to add the auto-run capability to the initial experiment setup block of code. A method to wait for Run 0 to complete, then dispatch Run 1, 2, etc, is needed.
Pointers to tutorial models with such features, or to a snip of code for the experiment's java blocks are much appreciated.
maybe I don't understand your need but this certainly sounds like you'd want to use a "Parameter Variation" experiment. You can specify which parameters should be varied in which steps and running the experiment automatically starts as many simulation runs as needed, all without animation.
hope that helps
As you, I was confronted to this problem. My aim was to use parameter variation with a model and variation were on non numeric data, and I knew the number of runs to start.
Then i succeed in this task with the help of Custom Variation.
Firstly I build an experiment typed as 'multiple run', create my GUI (user was able to select the string values used in each run.
Then, I create a new java class which inherit from the previous 'multiple run' experiment,
In this class (called MyMultipleRunClass) was present:
- overload of the getMaximumIterations method from default experiment to provide to default anylogic callback the correct number of iteration, and idnex was also used to retrieve my parameter value from array,
- implementation of the static method start,
public static void start() {
prepareBeforeExperimentStart_xjal( MyMultipleRunClass.class);
MyMultipleRunClass ex = new MyMultipleRunClass();
ex.setCommandLuneArguments_xjal(null);
ex.setup(null);
}
Then the experiment to run is the 'empty' customExperiment, which automatically start the other Multiple run experiment thru the presented subclass.
Maybe it exists shortest path, but from my point of view anylogic is correctly used (no trick with non exposed interface) and it works as expected.
I am currently working on a tool written in M-Script that executes a set of checks on a given simulink model. This tool does not compile/execute the model, I'm using find_system and get_param to retrieve all the information I need in order to run the routines of my tool.
I've reached a point where I need to determine whether a certain block has direct-feedthrough or not. I am not entirely sure how to do this. Two possible solutions come to mind:
A property might store this information and might be accessible via get_param. After investigating this, I could not find any such property.
Some block types have direct-feedthrough (Sum, Logic, ...), some other do not (Unit Delay, Integrator), so I could use the block type to determine whether a block has direct-feedthrough or not. Since I'm not an experienced Simulink modeller, I'm not sure if its possible to tell whether a block has direct-feedthrough by solely looking at its block type. Also, this would require a lookup table including all Simulink block types. An impossible task, since additional block types might get added to Simulink via third party modules.
Any help or pointers to possible solutions are greatly appreciated.
after some further research...
There is an "official solution" by Matlab:
just download the linked m-file
It shows that my idea was not that bad ;)
and for the record, my idea:
I think it's doable quite easily. I cannot present you some code yet, but I'll see what I can do. My idea is the following:
programatically create a new model
Add a Constant source block and a Terminator
add the Block you want to get to know the direct feedthrough ability in the middle
add_lines
run the simulation and log the states, which will give you the xout variable in the workspace.
If there is direct feedthrough the vector is empty, otherwise not.
probably you need to include some try/catch error catching for special cases
This way you can analyse a block for direct feedthrough by just migrating it to another model, without compiling your actual main model. It's not the fastest solution, but I can not imagine that performance matters that much for you.
Here we go, this script works fine for my examples:
function feedthrough = hasfeedthrough( input )
% get block path
blockinfo = find_system('simulink','Name',input);
blockpath = blockinfo{1};
% create new system
new_system('feed');
open_system('feed');
% add test model elements
src = add_block('simulink/Sources/Constant','feed/Constant');
src_ports = get_param(src,'PortHandles');
src_out = src_ports.Outport;
dest = add_block('simulink/Sinks/To Workspace','feed/simout');
dest_ports = get_param(dest,'PortHandles');
dest_in = dest_ports.Inport;
test = add_block(blockpath,'feed/test');
test_ports = get_param(test,'PortHandles');
test_in = test_ports.Inport;
test_out = test_ports.Outport;
add_line('feed',src_out,test_in);
add_line('feed',test_out,dest_in);
% setup simulation
set_param('feed','StopTime','0.1');
set_param('feed','Solver','ode3');
set_param('feed','FixedStep','0.05');
set_param('feed','SaveState','on');
% run simulation and get states
sim('feed');
% if condition for blocks like state space
feedthrough = isempty(xout);
if ~feedthrough
a = simout.data;
if ~any(a == xout);
feedthrough = ~feedthrough;
end
end
delete system
close_system('feed',1)
delete('feed');
end
When enter for example 'Gain' it will return 1, when you enter 'Integrator' it will return 0.
Execution time on my ancient machine is 1.3sec, not that bad.
Things you probably still have to do:
add another parameter, to define whether the block is continuous or discrete time and set the solver accordingly.
test some "extraordinary" blocks, maybe it's not working for everything. Also I haven implemented anything which could deal with logic, but actually the constant is 1 so it should work as well.
Just try out everything, at least it's a good base for you to work on.
A famous exception is the StateSpace Block which can have direct feedthrough AND states. But there are not sooo much standard blocks with this "behaviour". If you also have to deal with third party blocks you could get into some trouble, I have to admit that.
possible solution for the state space: if one compares xout with yout than one can find another indicator for direct feedthrough: if there is, the vectors are not equal. If so, than they are equal. Just an example, but I can imagine that it is possible to find more general ways to test things like that.
besides the added simout block above one needs the condition:
% if condition for blocks like state space
feedthrough = isempty(xout);
if ~feedthrough
a = simout.data;
if ~any(a == xout);
feedthrough = ~feedthrough;
end
end
From the documentation:
Tip
To determine if a block has direct feedthrough:
Double-click the
block. The block parameter dialog box opens.
Click the Help button in
the block parameter dialog box. The block reference page opens.
Scroll
to the Characteristics section of the block reference page, which
lists whether or not that block has direct feedthrough.
I couldn't find a programmatic equivalent though...
Based on a similar approach to the one by #thewaywewalk, you could set up a temporary model that contains an algebraic loop, similar to,
(Note that you would replace the State-Space block with any block that you want to test.)
Then set the diagnostics to error out if there is an algebraic loop,
If an error occurs when the model is compiled
>> modelname([],[],[],'compile');
(and you should check that it is the Algebraic Loop error that has occured), then the block has direct feed though.
If no error occurs then the block does not have direct feed though.
At this point you would need to terminate the model using
>> modelname([],[],[],'term');
If the block has multiple inports or outprts then you'll need to iterate over all combinations of them.