I am currently working on a storage tank heated with an internal hot water coil.I need to know how does the temperature distribution look like in the tank.
I have tried the steady state model in Matlab, but I Don't find it very precise ( I can only enter thermal conductivities of the product and the tank material + Boundary conditions ) In my opinion, this makes the distribution too generic and not specific to my case. I also tried the transient model and but there are some errors while running the code.
Here's the code I used for the transient model ( I am new to Matlab, so please excuse any code errors)
model = createpde('thermal','transient');
geo = multicylinder([3.4,3.5],7.1)
model.Geometry= geo;
pdegplot(model,'FaceLabels',"on")
generateMesh(model);
pdemesh(model)
thermalProperties(model,"Cell",2,"ThermalConductivity",0.1,"MassDensity",576,"SpecificHeat",0.5)
thermalProperties(model,"Cell",1,"MassDensity",932,"SpecificHeat",2.28,"ThermalConductivity",0.12)
thermalIC(model,0)
tlist=0:.1:5
Thermalresults = solve(model,tlist);
u= Thermalresults.Temperature
pdeplot3D(model,'ColorMapData', u)
Related
Please have a look at my model first:
Plane moving model
It's a simple model describe a plane at [40,20,20] move to [60,40,40].
The meaning of my SD modular is :
“x_fromFunc, y_fromFunc, z_fromFunc”: the exact value of agent position get from "this.getX()" function, the unit is meter;
"vx, vy, vx": the speed along x, y, z axis calculated by the equation "(x_fromFunc-delay(x_fromFunc,dt))/dt", where dt=2;
"x_fromSD, y_fromSD, z_fromSD": the calculated agent position using stocks custom equation "d(x_fromSD)/dt=vx";
"engineTimeStep": equels to "getEngine().getNextStepTime()-time()";
"d_fromFunc": "this.distanceTo(40, 20, 20)";
"v": "this.getSpeed()";
"d_fromSD": "d(d_fromSD)/dt=v".
When I run the model:
before consider engineTimeStep
I read some answers in SOF(Thanks to "Felipe"'s answers) and I know the "x_fromSD, y_fromSD, z_fromSD" update at the dynamic time step "engineTimeStep" which is controlled by the continuous engine. But I don't understand why its value is wrong in this case, especially since the value of "d_fromFunc" is right. So I change the stocks custom equation to "d(x_fromSD)/dt=vx*engineTimeStep". Then the running result turns out to be:
after consider engineTimeStep
"x_fromSD, y_fromSD, z_fromSD" don't have same value as “x_fromFunc, y_fromFunc, z_fromFunc”. Why this phenomenon occurs? How to make different equation like "(x_fromFunc-delay(x_fromFunc,dt))/dt" more precise? Or is there any method to calculate precise "vx, vy, vz" and their integral in Anylogic?
I am having a problem that could be easily solved in a causal environment like Fortran, but has proved difficult in Modelica, considering my limited knowledge
Consider a volume with an inlet and outlet. The inlet mass flow rate is specified, while the outlet mass flow is calculated based on pressure in the volume. When pressure in the volume goes above a set point, the outlet area starts to increase linearly from its initial value to a max value and remains fixed afterwards. In other words:
A = min( const * (t - t*) + A_0, A_max)
if p > p_set
where t* = the time at which pressure in the volume exceeds the set pressure.
The question is: there's a function to capture t* during the simulation? OR how could the model be programmed to do it? I have tried a number of ways, but models are never closed. Thoughts are welcome and appreciated!
Happy holidays/New Year!
Mohammad
You may find the sample and hold example in my book useful. It uses sampling based on time whereas you probably want it based on your pressure value. But the principle is the same. That will allow you to record the time at which your event occurred.
Addressing your specific case, the following (untested) code is probably pretty close to what you want:
...
Modelica.SIunits.Time t_star=-1;
equation
when p >= p_set then
t_star = time;
end when;
A = if t_star<0 then A_max else min(const*(t - t_star) + A_0, A_max);
I want to know if a model can be inversed in modelica. (here inverse means: if in causal statement y= x +a; x and a are input and y is output; but if I want to find 'x' as output and 'y' and 'a' as input, the model is called reversed/inversed model) For example, if I have compressor with input air port and output air port, and port has variables associated with it are pressure(P), temperature(T) and mass flow rate(mdot). I have simple steady state model containing three equations as follow:
OutPort.mdot = InPort.mdot
OutPort.P = rc * InPort.P
OutPort.T = InPort.T * (1 + rc[ (gamma-1)/gamma) - 1][/sup] / eta);
Here, rc, gamma and eta are compression ratio, ratio of specific heat capacitites and efficiency of compressor respectively.
I want to know, if I know values of : gamma, eta, OutPort.mdot, OutPort.P and OutPort.T and InPort.P and InPort.T, can I find the value of rc.
Can I find values of rc and how should be the model of compressor with above equation in Modelica. As far as I know, there are some variables designated as parameters which can not be changed during simulation. How the modelica model should be with above equations
Thanks
Yes, this should not be a problem as long as you make sure that rc is not a parameter, but a normal variable, and you supply the appropriate number of known quantities to achieve a balanced system (roughly, number of unknowns matches number of equations).
E.g. in your case if you know/supply OutPort.P and InPort.P, rc is already determined from eq 2. Then, in the third equation, there are no unknowns left, so either the temperature values are consistent with the equation or you (preferably) leave one temperature value undetermined.
In addition if you only want to compute the parameter rc during steady-state initialization i.e. that nothing changes with time that is also possible:
...
parameter Real rc(fixed=false);
initial equation
Inport.mdot=12; // Or something else indirectly determining rc.
The fixed=false means that rc is indirectly determined from the initialization. However, if the model is not completely stationary it will only find the correct rc during the initialization and then use that afterwards.
first a little background. I'm a psychology student so my background in coding isn't on par with you guys :-)
My problem is as follow and the most important observation is that curve fitting with 2 different programs gives completly different results for my parameters, altough my graphs stay the same. The main program we have used to fit my longitudinal data is kaleidagraph and this should be seen as kinda the 'golden standard', the program I'm trying to modify is matlab.
I was trying to be smart and wrote some code (a lot at least for me) and the goal of that code was the following:
1. Taking an individual longitudinal datafile
2. curve fitting this data on a non-parametric model using lsqcurvefit
3. obtaining figures and the points where f' and f'' are zero
This all worked well (woohoo :-)) but when I started comparing the function parameters both programs generate there is a huge difference. The kaleidagraph program stays close to it's original starting values. Matlab wanders off and sometimes gets larger by a factor 1000. The graphs stay however more or less the same in both situations and both fit the data well. However it would be lovely if I would know how to make the matlab curve fitting more 'conservative' and more located near it's original starting values.
validFitPersons = true(nbValidPersons,1);
for i=1:nbValidPersons
personalData = data{validPersons(i),3};
personalData = personalData(personalData(:,1)>=minAge,:);
% Fit a specific model for all valid persons
try
opts = optimoptions(#lsqcurvefit, 'Algorithm', 'levenberg-marquardt');
[personalParams,personalRes,personalResidual] = lsqcurvefit(heightModel,initialValues,personalData(:,1),personalData(:,2),[],[],opts);
catch
x=1;
end
Above is a the part of the code i've written to fit the datafiles into a specific model.
Below is an example of a non-parametric model i use with its function parameters.
elseif strcmpi(model,'jpa2')
% y = a.*(1-1/(1+(b_1(t+e))^c_1+(b_2(t+e))^c_2+(b_3(t+e))^c_3))
heightModel = #(params,ages) abs(params(1).*(1-1./(1+(params(2).* (ages+params(8) )).^params(5) +(params(3).* (ages+params(8) )).^params(6) +(params(4) .*(ages+params(8) )).^params(7) )));
modelStrings = {'a','b1','b2','b3','c1','c2','c3','e'};
% Define initial values
if strcmpi('male',gender)
initialValues = [176.76 0.339 0.1199 0.0764 0.42287 2.818 18.52 0.4363];
else
initialValues = [161.92 0.4173 0.1354 0.090 0.540 2.87 14.281 0.3701];
end
I've tried to mimick the curve fitting process in kaleidagraph as good as possible. There I've found they use the levenberg-marquardt algorithm which I've selected. However results still vary and I don't have any more clues about how I can change this.
Some extra adjustments:
The idea for this code was the following:
I'm trying to compare different fitting models (they are designed for this purpose). So what I do is I have 5 models with different parameters and different starting values ( the second part of my code) and next I have the general curve fitting file. Since there are different models it would be interesting if I could put restrictions into how far my starting values could wander off.
Anyone any idea how this could be done?
Anybody willing to help a psychology student?
Cheers
This is a common issue when dealing with non-linear models.
If I were, you, I would try to check if you can remove some parameters from the model in order to simplify it.
If you really want to keep your solution not too far from the initial point, you can use upper bounds and lower bounds for each variable:
x = lsqcurvefit(fun,x0,xdata,ydata,lb,ub)
defines a set of lower and upper bounds on the design variables in x so that the solution is always in the range lb ≤ x ≤ ub.
Cheers
You state:
I'm trying to compare different fitting models (they are designed for
this purpose). So what I do is I have 5 models with different
parameters and different starting values ( the second part of my code)
and next I have the general curve fitting file.
You will presumably compare the statistics from fits with different models, to see whether reductions in the fitting error are unlikely to be due to chance. You may want to rely on that comparison to pick the model that not only fits your data suitably but is also simplest (which is often referred to as the principle of parsimony).
The problem is really with the model you have shown resulting in correlated parameters and therefore overfitting, as mentioned by #David. Again, this should be resolved when you compare different models and find that some do just as well (statistically speaking) even though they involve fewer parameters.
edit
To drive the point home regarding the problem with the choice of model, here are (1) results of a trial fit using simulated data (2) the correlation matrix of the parameters in graphical form:
Note that absolute values of the correlation close to 1 indicate strongly correlated parameters, which is highly undesirable. Note also that the trend in the data is practically linear over a long portion of the dataset, which implies that 2 parameters might suffice over that stretch, so using 8 parameters to describe it seems like overkill.
Rheological models are usually build using three (or four) basics elements, which are :
The spring (existing in Modelica.Mechanics.Translational.Components for example). Its equation is f = c * (s_rel - s_rel0);
The damper (dashpot) (also existing in Modelica.Mechanics.Translational.Components). Its equation is f = d * v_rel; for a linear damper, an could be easily modified to model a non-linear damper : f = d * v_rel^(1/n);
The slider, not existing (as far as I know) in this library... It's equation is abs(f)<= flim. Unfortunately, I don't really understand how I could write the corresponding Modelica model...
I think this model should extend Modelica.Mechanics.Translational.Interfaces.PartialCompliant, but the problem is that f (the force measured between flange_b and flange_a) should be modified only when it's greater than flim...
If the slider extends PartialCompliant, it means that it already follows the equations flange_b.f = f; and flange_a.f = -f;
Adding the equation f = if abs(f)>flim then sign(f)*flim else f; gives me an error "An independent subset of the model has imbalanced number of equations and variables", which I couldn't really explain, even if I understand that if abs(f)<=flim, the equation f = f is useless...
Actually, the slider element doesn't generate a new force (just like the spring does, depending on its strain, or just like the damper does, depending on its strain rate). The force is an input for the slider element, which is sometime modified (when this force becomes greater than the limit allowed by the element). That's why I don't really understand if I should define this force as an input or an output....
If you have any suggestion, I would greatly appreciate it ! Thanks
After the first two comments, I decided to add a picture that, I hope, will help you to understand the behaviour I'm trying to model.
On the left, you can see the four elements used to develop rheological models :
a : the spring
b : the linear damper (dashpot)
c : the non-linear damper
d : the slider
On the right, you can see the behaviour I'm trying to reproduce : a and b are two associations with springs and c and d are respectively the expected stress / strain curves. I'm trying to model the same behaviour, except that I'm thinking in terms of force and not stress. As i said in the comment to Marco's answer, the curve a reminds me the behaviour of a diode :
if the force applied to the component is less than the sliding limit, there is no relative displacement between the two flanges
if the force becomes greater than the sliding limit, the force transmitted by the system equals the limit and there is relative displacement between flanges
I can't be sure, but I suspect what you are really trying to model here is Coulomb friction (i.e. a constant force that always opposes the direction of motion). If so, there is already a component in the Modelica Standard Library, called MassWithStopAndFriction, that models that (and several other flavors of friction). The wrinkle is that it is bundled with inertia.
If you don't want the inertia effect it might be possible to set the inertia to zero. I suspect that could cause a singularity. One way you might be able to avoid the singularity is to "evaluate" the parameter (at least that is what it is called in Dymola when you set the Evaluate flat to be true in the command line). No promises whether that will work since it is model and tool dependent whether such a simplification can be properly handled.
If Coulomb friction is what you want and you really don't want inertia and the approach above doesn't work, let me know and I think I can create a simple model that will work (so long as you don't have inertia).
A few considerations:
- The force is not an input and neither an output, but it is just a relation that you add into the component in order to define how the force will be propagated between the two translational flanges of the component. When you deal with acausal connectors I think it is better to think about the degrees of freedom of your component instead of inputs and outputs. In this case you have two connectors and independently at which one of the two frames you will recieve informations about the force, the equation you implement will define how that information will be propagated to the other frame.
- I tested this:
model slider
extends
Modelica.Mechanics.Translational.Interfaces.PartialCompliantWithRelativeStates;
parameter Real flim = 1;
equation
f = if abs(f)>flim then sign(f)*flim else f;
end slider;
on Dymola and it works. It is correct modelica code so it should be work also in OpenModelica, I can't think of a reason why it should be seen as an unbalance mathematical model.
I hope this helps,
Marco