I want in matlab dynamically initialize a variable. I need that because I want the user to define arbitary much constants and a formula that calculates that. Also, I want to have a slider to adjust the constants so they can't be given just in the formula. I have a formula, that is applied on the formula of the user and of the result I have a differential equation which I want to solve. I have a working program but it's very slow.
I tried to give the constants to the function that is put inside the differential equation and that works. However, I guess because evaluation of "eval" is very slow and a function inside a differential equation is called very often, that a lot of time is wasted by redefining the constants
smallest code not working
function test1
eval("x = 0;");
function test2
end
end
I expect that x is dynamically created and useable inside test2.
You can make use of assignin by creating a variable in test2 and assign it to test1 (non-nested function).
Example from Matlab's help:
function m = minRand2(n)
assignfh2(n)
A = fh(n)
m = min(A(:));
end
function assignfh2(n)
rand = 13*ones(n);
fh = #(dim)rand(dim);
assignin('caller','fh',fh)
end
then call
m = minRand2(2)
Example with the naming convention proposed in the question:
test1
function m = test1
test2
disp(name_var_a);
end
function test2
eval(['value_a = "I am a string";']);
assignin('caller','name_var_a', value_a)
end
Calling test1 gives:
I am a string
You can use evalin too.
I'm trying to create a model where one Modelica variable is a triangular wave of another variable. First I tried the floor() function as below:
model test1
final constant Real pi=2*Modelica.Math.asin(1.0);
parameter Real b = 1;
parameter Real a = 1;
Real x,p,u;
equation
if sign(sin(x*pi/b))>=0 then
p=a*(x-b*floor(x/b));
else
p=a*(b-(x-b*floor(x/b)));
end if;
x=time;
u = floor(x/b);
end test1
(x=time; is arbitrary so the model compiles)
but the result is weird, as you can see below
zoom in:
somehow 0.005 seconds before the next step floor function behaves unexpectedly and becomes a linear function ending by the next value.
then I tried the ceil() function. everything seemed right till I realised the same problem happens with ceil() function at other values (e.g. x=13)
I would appreciate if you could:
help me understand why this "glitch" happens and if it is intentional by design or a bug?
how I can fix this?
are there any alternatives to create a triangular wave function?
P.S. I am using this "wave function" to model the interaction between two jagged bodies"
If you are allowed to utilize the Modelica Standard Library, you can build up a parametrized, time-based zigzag signal using the CombiTimeTable block with linear interpolation and periodic extrapolation. For example,
model Test4
parameter Real a=2 "Amplitude";
parameter Real b=3 "Period";
Real y=zigzag.y[1] "Zigzag";
Modelica.Blocks.Sources.CombiTimeTable zigzag(
table=[0,0;b/4,a;b/4,a;b/2,0;b/2,0;3*b/4,-a;3*b/4,-a;b,0],
extrapolation=Modelica.Blocks.Types.Extrapolation.Periodic)
annotation(Placement(transformation(extent={{-80,60},{-60,80}})));
Modelica.Blocks.Sources.Trapezoid trapezoid(
amplitude=2*a,
rising=b/2,
width=0,
falling=b/2,
period=b,
offset=-a)
annotation(Placement(transformation(extent={{-80,25},{-60,45}})));
annotation(uses(Modelica(version="3.2.2")));
end Test4;
I don't have an explanation for the glitches in your simulation.
However, I would take another approach to the sawtooth function: I see it as an integrator integrating +1 and -1 upwards and downwards. The integration time determines the amplitude and period of the sawtooth function.
The pictures below show an implementation using MSL blocks and one using code. The simulation results below are the same for both implementations.
Best regards,
Rene Just Nielsen
Block diagram:
Code:
model test3
parameter Real a=2 "amplitude";
parameter Real b=3 "period";
Real u, y;
initial equation
u = 1;
y = 0;
equation
4*a/b*u = der(y);
when y > a then
u = -1;
elsewhen y < -a then
u = 1;
end when;
end test3;
Simulation result:
The problem I guess is due to floating point representation and events not occurring at exact times.
Consider x-floor(x) and 1-(x-floor(x)) at time=0.99, they are 0.99 and 0.01; at time=1.00 they are 0.0 and 1.0, which causes your problems.
For a=b=1, you can use the following equation for p:
p=min(mod(x,2),2-mod(x,2));. You can even add noEvent to it, and you can consider the signal continuous (but not differentiable).
model test
parameter Real b = 1;
parameter Real a = 3;
Real x, p;
equation
p = 2*a*min(1 / b * mod(x, b ),1 - 1/b * mod(x, b));
x = time;
end test;
My first advise would be to remove the sign-function, since there is no benefit of doing sign(foo)>=0 compared to foo>=0.
Interesting enough that seems to fix the problem in Dymola - and I assume also in OpenModelica:
model test1 "almost original"
final constant Real pi=2*Modelica.Math.asin(1.0);
parameter Real b = 1;
parameter Real a = 1;
Real x,p,u;
equation
if sin(x*pi/b)>=0 then
p=a*(x-b*floor(x/b));
else
p=a*(b-(x-b*floor(x/b)));
end if;
x=time;
u = floor(x/b);
end test1;
Now I only have to explain that - and the reason is that sin(x*pi/b) is slightly out of sync with the floor-function, but if you use sin(x*pi/b)>=0 that is within the root-finding epsilon and nothing strange happen.
When you use sign(sin(x*pi/b))>=0 that is no longer possible, instead of having sin(x*pi/b) an epsilon below zero it is now -1, and instead of epsilon above zero it is 1.
The real solution is thus slightly more complicated:
model test2 "working"
parameter Real b = 1;
parameter Real a = 1;
Real x,p,u;
Real phase=mod(x,b*2);
equation
if phase<b then
p=a/b*phase;
else
p=a-a/b*(phase-b);
end if;
x=time;
u = floor(x/b);
end test2;
which was improved based on a suggested solution:
model test3 "almost working"
parameter Real b = 1;
parameter Real a = 1;
Real x,p,u;
equation
if mod(x,2*b)<b then
p=a/b*mod(x,b);
else
p=a-a/b*mod(x,b);
end if;
x=time;
u = floor(x/b);
end test3;
The key point in this solution, test2, is that there is only one problematic event generating expression mod(x,2*b) - and the < will not get out of sync with this.
In practice test3 will almost certainly also work, but in unlikely cases the event generation might get out of sync between mod(x,2*b) and mod(x,b); with unknown consequences.
Note that all three examples are now modified to generate output that looks similar.
The following three questions are tied together so please forgive the length of the post.
Using Dymola 2016.
Using a replaceable function call within a model provides the opportunity for the user to have the drop down options. Example below:
model Test1
parameter Real x = 1;
Real y;
replaceable function a=b constrainedby d annotation(choicesAllMatching=true);
equation
y = a(x);
end Test1;
Doing the same replaceable function call within a function seems to not permit the same drop down functionality with the the function is called (i.e. right click call function in package browser. I assume this is intentional as a function is typically called within other functions/models. Example below:
function Test2
input Real x;
output Real y;
replaceable function a=b constrainedby d annotation(choicesAllMatching=true);
algorithm
y :=a(x);
end Test2;
Question #1. Is it possible to use a replaceable function call within a function in the same way you do a model? If so, what is the appropriate syntax? Alternative approach?
Alternatively, a different option would be to perform the replaceable function call in the model and then pass the result to another function that then makes the appropriate call. Example shown below:
model Test3mod
parameter Real x = 1;
Real y;
replaceable function a=b constrainedby d annotation(choicesAllMatching=true);
equation
y = Test3func(x,a);
end Test3mod;
Which passes parameter x and function handle a to:
function Test3func
input Real x;
input ???? a;
output Real y;
algorithm
y :=a(x);
end Test3func;
Question #2. Is this allowable in Modelica and if so, how? Alternative approach?
Question #3. Is it possible to define a string and turn that into a the name of a function. Example below:
model Test4
parameter String 'functionname';
parameter Real x = 1;
Real y;
equation
y = functionname(x);
end Test4;
Thank you in advance! I appreciate your feedback as I continue to explore the use of Modelica.
This should work fine:
model Test3mod
parameter Real x = 1;
Real y;
replaceable function a=b constrainedby d annotation(choicesAllMatching=true);
equation
y = Test3Func(x,a);
end blah;
function Test3func
input Real x;
input d f;
output Real y;
algorithm
y := f(x);
end Test3func;
I would like to use a class function/method in my Modelica model as follows:
optimization Moo(objective=-x(finalTime), startTime = 0, finalTime = 12)
parameter Real e = 0.05;
Real x(start=2, fixed=true, min=0, max=100);
input Real v (min=0, max=1);
function omega
input Real t;
output Real y;
algorithm
y := e;
end omega;
equation
der(x) = v*omega(time);
constraint
v<=1;
end Moo;
I would like the variable e in the function omega to be a variable so that I can easily change its value at a later point in time when I am doing a parameter sweep. Unfortunately, the function omega does not seem to know about the variable e and the JModelica compiler returns the error:
Cannot find class or component declaration for e
I would naïvely expect that since omega and e belong to the same class omega would be able to see e.
Is there a way to achieve this?
Member functions are not supported in Modelica, so a function declared inside a model acts like a standalone function without having access to the surrounding model variables.
Member functions are not allowed due to functions need to be pure, i.e. they are not allowed to have any side effect. This is a fundamental assumption in Modelica that makes it possible for a tool to apply symbolic transformation and rearrange calculations.
You can have something like a member function, if you explicitly pass the needed variables as additional input to the function. See this example:
package MemberFunction
model A
Real x=1;
function get_x = MemberFunction.get(u=x);
end A;
function get
input Real u;
output Real y;
algorithm
y := u;
end get;
model Test
A a;
Real x;
equation
x = a.get_x();
end Test;
end MemberFunction;
Assume I have a large connector involving all kinds of base types (Real, Integer, String, Boolean). How can I switch connections based on state events?
I would like to do something like this:
model switch
input ComplicatedConnector icon[2];
output ComplicatedConnector ocon;
input Real x;
equation
if x >= 0 then
connect(ocon, icon[1]);
else
connect(ocon, icon[2]);
end if;
end switch;
This does not work. How can it be properly expressed in Modelica?
Answer based on comment by Adrian Pop.
model switch
input ComplicatedConnector icon[2];
output ComplicatedConnector ocon;
input Real x;
ComplicatedConnector con;
initial equation
con = icon[1];
equation
connect(ocon, con);
when x >= 0 then
con := icon[1];
end when;
when x < 0 then
con := icon[2];
end when;
end switch;
Update: The model above is wrong because ocon outputs the initial value of icon[1] forever if no event occurs which is not what you would expect from a switch. Note that this is not due to a wrong answer but due to my false interpretation of the answer. The following model is based on the answer by Michael Tiller.
model switch
input ComplicatedConnector icon[2];
output ComplicatedConnector ocon;
input Real x;
Integer k;
initial equation
k = 1;
equation
ocon = icon[k];
when x >= 0 then
k := 1;
elsewhen x < 0 then
k := 2;
end when;
end switch;
Is not possible. You can only switch them based on a parameter known at compile time (also known as structural parameter). The condition in the if equation containing connects needs to be a parameter expression.
Note that connect statements are equations. You can expand them out yourself. They exist mainly to avoid "bookkeeping" errors for generating boilerplate equations. So what I suggest you do is simply take your switch model and expand each connect into equations. The it should work.