I am studying a Simulink model of a 100 kW grid-connected solar PV array (http://www.mathworks.com/help/physmod/sps/examples/detailed-model-of-a-100-kw-grid-connected-pv-array.html?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com).
I have implemented a voltage sag with a three phase fault between a step-down transformer and the grid. I am now trying to include a STATCOM (http://www.mathworks.com/help/physmod/sps/examples/d-statcom-average-model.html) to alleviate the voltage sag. However, I'm not sure where to place the STATCOM. I've tried it inside the utility, between the utility and the transformer, and between the RL and the transformer.
Any other ideas of where I should place it or what settings I should change inside the STATCOM?
Related
I am having the following errors during the simulation of the model in the picture (the blocks cell, cell1, and cell2 contains the electrochemical model of a battery cell, by the way also trying to change these blocks with the built-in ConstantVoltage I got a similar error):
[1] 12:36:28 Symbolic Error
An independent subset of the model has imbalanced number of equations (180) and variables (177).
variables:
[2] 12:36:37 Translation Error
pre-optimization module clockPartitioning (simulation) failed.
Do you know what is the reason of this error?
It is not possible to connect
ideal sources of potential variables (in this case voltages) in parallel or
ideal sources of flow (could be current sources) in series.
For the circuit in the screenshot, this will result in equation systems cell.V = cell.V1 = cell.V2 with all of the variables known and therefore resulting in an "imbalanced number of equations and variables.
What you need to do is make the sources non-ideal, which usually is closer to reality. For this you can e.g. add a inner resistance in series to all voltage sources. For current/flow sources this could be adding a parallel resistance to the source.
By the way: there is no point in connecting ideal voltage source in parallel, as each of them can supply infinite current without any drop in voltage...
I notice two things:
All voltage sources are short-cirquited which gives contradictory equations (v=V and v=0). The variable names refer to the code of Modelica.Electrical.Analog.Sources.ConstantVoltage
The parallel voltage sources each try to set the voltage across the parallel sources.
I am building model in Dymola. I have defined the mass of this model as a parameter, because it would be transfered into other moduls and called in them. But the mass should be changing during the simulation in different time intervals. For example, during the first 100 seconds the mass should remain 500kg, and during 100 to 200 sec, a passenger is going to get in, so that a new mass should be calculated including the mass of the passenger. But it has been showed, that "The problem is structurally singular", because to the parameter values have been twice assigned. Could someone give some tips to solve this problem? Thanks a lot.
If you define the mass of your component as an input rather than a parameter then you can change it during simulation by assigning e.g. the output from a TimeTable to it. For example
model Component
input Modelica.SIunits.Mass mass "Passenger dependent mass";
equation
...
end Component;
model systemModel
TimeTable timeTable;
Component component(mass=timeTable.y);
OtherComponent otherComponent(mass=component.mass);
equation
...
end systemModel;
Note that the other components using the mass must also have their internal mass 'parameters' defined as input to allow higher variability than parameters.
Best regards
Rene Just Nielsen
Modelica parameters are defined by the fact, that they don't change over time. Therefore you would need to stop the simulation, change the parameter and restart the simulation (see another question). Given you description I would rather not use this possibility, as it seems your variable is designed to change over time.
A better alternative seems to be defining the mass as a variable. If this is done, you can:
Transfer this variable from one model to the others using interfaces. This could be a bit tedious depending on the amount of classes using the variable.
Use inner/outer (basically global variables) is a feasible concept for this use-case. This concept is used in the MultiBody libraries world model.
With both solutions you will have to modify the original mass model, as m would then have to be a variable instead of a mass.
I had as primary objective to make a controller for the transfer function (5.551* s^2), using root locus I made the controller shown below. Analyzing the step response in the Workspace using the step () function I had a satisfactory answer but when I try to transfer this answer to Simulink the response behaves differently, at steady state for example I wish to have the smallest possible error as it was obtained in Workspace but in Simulink there is a big error and for some reason at 8 seconds time (Simulink simulation time) there is a "jump" as shown on the display and when I change the simulation time there is a change in this "jump" too and I do not know why these changes between one environment and another.
Step response in Workspace
Step response in Simulink with 8s of simulation
Step response in Simulink with 12s of simulation
Simulink controller
Simulink transfer function
I expected to make a controller that has an error less than 5% and an overshoot smaller than 25%, so I first made a controller with two integrators to nullify the effects of zeros on the source, after that I added two more integrators on the source to try decrease the error, the zero at -0.652 I used the angular condition for this and the gain of 0.240251 I used the modular condition.
I wasn't expecting the most optimized behavior possible, just that it has minimum conditions that satisfy the imposed conditions, so I didn't worry for example about the four integrators at the source.
I tried use the sisotool() command thinking that I had done something wrong, but the result changed a lot when I was simulating Simulink so I discarded this option and kept the controller I made using root locus.
Your MATLAB code and your Simulink model are not the same, and hence the different results.
MATLAB allows you to define the non-causal plant model P_ball, then form the causal closed loop CL, which can have its step response generated.
Simulink does not allow you to model non-causal blocks (even if the overall model is causal) and hence will not allow you to implement s^2, which I assume is why you have used two differentiation blocks. But a numerical differentiation is not the same as a Laplace s operator.
You would have to make the plant causal by incorporating two poles that are large enough to not adversely effect the overall simulation. So your plant model needs to be something like 5.551*s^2/((s/1000 + 1)(s/1000 + 1)) which can be implemented using a Transfer Function block with a numerator of 5.551*1000*1000*[1 0 0] and a denominator of [1 2*1000 1000*1000].
Alternatively you could just implement PID * P_ball (where you manually do the 2 zero/pole cancellations) which is causal.
I'am trying to speedup my simulink project and want to use the Accelerator-Simulation mode.
The aim of my project is to control a cyclic process and is structured as followes:
matlab-script, where all parameters and a feedforward control with
parameter estimation is implemented. Also it starts simulating the
simulink model for each iteration.
simulink model, where the dynamic system and the feedforward control (basically a lookup-table) together with a feedback control
is implemented. Parameters of all blocks are set by workspace variables/structs generated by the script.
The feedforward control variable is calculated and parameter are estimated from the simulated data after every simulation pass. Then the model is simulated again. The model is not changing during the iterations, but still it is compiling at every cycle. From the first: Is this solution appropriate for using the Accelerator mode?
I tried to follow theses proposed steps to determine, why it is built at every iteration: mathworks
If i run it with the Accelerator-Mode (referring to the documentation of this function, it now compiles for simulation), I still cannot reproduce why it is compiled at every iteration.
csdet1.ContentsChecksum.Value ~= csdet2.ContentsChecksum.Value
is true, but the proposed code does not find any details.
csdet1.InterfaceChecksum.Value ~= csdet2.InterfaceChecksum.Value
is also true, the proposed code outputs that
UserDefinedTypesChecksum
is different. What does that mean and how can I resolve this?
Sidefact: When I run Simulink.BlockDiagram.getChecksum() with the Model opened in Simulink and Normal-Mode chosen, I get this error:
Continuous update specified for this chart chartname This is not
supported for RTW."
But this chart is a Matlab-Function block, not a stateflow chart?!
how to import a bitsream form binary vector from workspace into simulink.Actually I have found that I can use simin block or In block but my binary vector is independant of time. I tried to use Const block and it works but afer that when I wanted to put my output in the Buffer block in simulink, it didn't work because the input is continuous and not discrete. So I am asking if it's a way to add time to my binary uni-dimensional without having any influence on the result?and how can I do it?
Or is there another way to import this date to avoid this problem with Buffer block?
Your screenshot shows your constant block to have a sample time of Inf. As the error message suggest, you need to change that to a discrete sample time. In addition, you should also:
check your model is using a fixed-step solver
check what time step you are using for your chosen fixed-step solver (ideally the same as your constant).
You can have multi-rate models, but you need to manage the rate transitions with Rate Transition blocks. For more details on sample times, see the documentation, in particular how to view sample time information in a Simulink model. You should probably also have a quick look at the Choose a Solver section.