I am looking for a command in Modelica which can select all the components of the same type.
I want to summarize a volume of an extensive pipe system consisting of over a 100 of single dynamic pipes and save it later as a variable.
Currently Modelica does not have that.
However, there's a proposal that would change that https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaSpecification/tree/MCP/0021/RationaleMCP/0021
It has been test-implemented in Dymola, and possibly other tools.
See also the paper:
https://ep.liu.se/ecp/118/026/ecp15118245.pdf
The other alternative would be to replace the Pipe-model with a specialized pipe-model that communicated the total volume using e.g., inner/outer.
Related
i'm using Epsilon Comparison Language for the first time. I am writing a code in order to compare two models, in particular i want to show some information on the default output stream console when the code finds differences between the models. I want to visualize, for example, the name of the involved rule and the differences between the fields under investigation. When the comparison ends without differences i can visualize, for example, all that i need using the matchInfo variable in a "do" block. How can i solve the problem when the code find some differences? Thanks.
ECL does not provide any built-in differencing or difference visualisation capabilities. If you need such capabilities my suggestion would be to consider using EMFCompare.
For example:
in my script I launch a simulation of a model that have, among other things, 10 water volumes and then store all the results in a specified .mat file.
With the final values of certain variables I would like to parametrize the same 10 volumes in another model, all in the same script.
I'm not quite skilled with Modelica languange (yet) but I firmly think that this is possible without the tediousness of doing it by hand.
Thanks.
In:
https://docs.omnetpp.org/tutorials/tictoc/part5/
and
https://doc.omnetpp.org/omnetpp/manual/#sec:simple-modules:declaring-statistics
it's shown how network statistics can be processed after a simulation.
Is it possible to get network parameters dynamically?
TL;DR: Use signals (not statistics) and hook up your own simple module on these signals and compute the required statistics in that module.
You cannot access the value of #statistics in your code, and there is a reason for this as this would be an anti pattern. NED based statistics were introduced as a method to add calculations and measurements to your model without modifying your models behavior and code. This means that statistics are NOT considered part of a model, but rather they are considered as a configuration. Changing a statistics (i.e. deciding that you want to measure something else) should never change the behavior of your model. That's why the actual value of a given statistic is not exposed (easily) to the C++ code. You could dig them out, but it is highly discouraged.
Now, this does not mean that what you want to achieve is not legitimate but the actual statistics gathering must be an integral part of your model. I.e. you should not aim for using built-in statistics, but rather create an explicit statistics gathering submodule that should hook up on the necessary signals (https://doc.omnetpp.org/omnetpp/manual/#sec:simple-modules:subscribing-to-signals) and do the actual statistics computation you need in its C++ code. After that, other modules are free to access this information and make decisions based on that.
In the context of bounded model checking, one describes the system as a State Transition System and the properties that need to be checked.
When one needs to provide multiple system descriptions and properties to the Model Checker Tool, it can become tedious to write the property by hand. In my case, I use some temporal logic.
How does one automate the process of translating/parsing the system description and deriving verifiable properties from it (ideally, a set of Initial states, Transitions, Set of States).
For example, consider the Microwave Example given here Given such a system description, how can I arrive at the specifications in an efficient manner?
There is no such open source tool that I know of, that can do this. Any approaches in terms of ideas, theories are welcome.
You can't automatically derive LTL formulae from automata as you suggest, because automata are more expressive than LTL formulae.
That leaves you with mainly two options: 1. find a verification tool which accepts specifications that are directly expressed as automata (I'm not sure which ones do, but I suspect it is worth checking SPIN and NuSMV for this feature.), or 2. use a meta-specification language that makes the writing of specifications easier; for example, https://www.isp.uni-luebeck.de/salt (doi: 10.1007/11901433_41) or IEE1850/PSL. While PSL is more a language definition for tool-implementors, SALT already offers a web front-end that translates your input straight into LTL.
(By the way, I find your approach methodologically challenging though: you're not supposed to derive formulae from your model, but from your initial system description as it is this very model which you're going to verify. But I am not a 100% sure, if I understood this point in your question correctly.)
I think properties of a system, e.g. Microwave system, come from technical and common sense expectation and requirements, not the model. E.g. microwave is supposed to cook the food. But it is not supposed to cook with door open. Nevertheless a repository of typical LTL pattern can be useful to define properties. It also lists properties along with more familiar regex and automata properties.
If you certain you still want to translate automata to LTL automatically check
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/96963/translate-a-buchi-automaton-to-ltl
Kansas Specification Property Repository
http://patterns.projects.cs.ksu.edu/documentation/patterns.shtml
I have a model in my Modelica and I use Dymola to compile this model. In my model I need the simulation information "Output Interval length". I have searched for it but I could not get the useful information. Is there any other possible way we could access simulation information.
If you are simply trying to get the results reported at specific intervals, you can use a sample operator to achieve that. That would force the solution to be computed at specific times without directly specifying something like the time step.
The important point to understand here is that a model where the behavior of the model depends on the numerical integration is highly suspect and I've never seen a case where the behavior couldn't be described without knowledge of the solution method. Said another way, "mother nature" doesn't know anything about "time steps". :-)
You could use a clocked system with an integrator.
For an Example, see File -->Libraries-->Modelica_Synchronous --> Examples --> Systems --> Controlled_mixing_unit in Dymola
There the period (i.e. in this case the timestep of the explicit Euler method) is a parameter of the periodic clock)
Modelica by design prohibits accessing any numerical solver internals, so you cannot access it. The output interval length also cannot be determined by the model in any reliable way since the solver will take internal steps longer than the output interval and then interpolate values for the result file.
You could create a function that reads the dsin.txt file and extracts that information.