I need to detect whenever there is a change in a RealInput value X. I habe tried to check
if X == pre(X), but only receive an error and a warning that Real cannot be compared for equality. I also thought about using the derivative of X, but there is no explicit expression for this.
Other thoughts of mine have been to try to sample the continuous input into discrete variables that I can compare. Could this work in some way?
Try the change() operator. It is described in $3.7.3.1 of the Modelica Specification. According to the specification, it will be expanded to X<>pre(X), so that might work as well.
The change() operator is only practically useful for non-Real signals. The reason is that <> is not defined for Real types. Instead, you'll need to create a model that checks to see whether the signal deviates from the last recorded value by more than a given "epsilon". I haven't tested it, but the code would look something like this:
model DetectChange
parameter Real eps;
input Real signal;
output Boolean change;
protected
Real last_value;
initial algorithm
last_value = signal;
algorithm
when pre(change) then
last_value := signal;
end when;
change := abs(signal-last_value)>=eps;
end DetectChange;
Again, I haven't tested this. But it gives you some idea.
Related
I have successfully used annotation(derivative) in Modelica functions. Now I have reached a point where I think I need to use zeroDerivative or noDerivative, but from the specification I just do not understand what is the difference, and when to use what.
https://specification.modelica.org/v3.4/Ch12.html#declaring-derivatives-of-functions
It seems zeroDerivative is for time-constant parameters??
Does somebody have a simple example?
Use zeroDerivative to refer to inputs that are non-varying, i.e. parameters or constant values.
Use noDerivative for signals that do not have a derivative value. For example if an input signal comes from an external function.
The important case for noDerivative is when the input is "redundant".
As an example consider the computation of density for some media in MSL:
The density computation is found in Modelica.Media.R134a.R134a_ph.density_ph (note this does not contain any derivative in itself):
algorithm
d := rho_props_ph(
p,
h,
derivsOf_ph(
p,
h,
getPhase_ph(p, h)));
where the top function called is:
function rho_props_ph
"Density as function of pressure and specific enthalpy"
extends Modelica.Icons.Function;
input SI.Pressure p "Pressure";
input SI.SpecificEnthalpy h "Specific enthalpy";
input Common.InverseDerivatives_rhoT derivs
"Record for the calculation of rho_ph_der";
output SI.Density d "Density";
algorithm
d := derivs.rho;
annotation (
derivative(noDerivative=derivs) = rho_ph_der ...);
end rho_props_ph;
So the derivs-argument is sort of redundant and is given by p and h; and we don't need to differentiate it again. If you send in a derivs-argument that isn't given in this way may give unpredictable result, but describing this in detail would be too complicated. (There was some idea of noDerivative=something - but even just specifying it turned out to be too complicated.)
For zeroDerivative the corresponding requirement is that the arguments have zero derivative; that is straightforward to verify and if non-zero we cannot use the specific derivative (it is possible to specify multiple derivatives and use another derivative one for that case).
I am using the FixedRotation component and get a division by zero error. This happens in a translated expression of the form
var = nominator/fixedRotation.R_rel_inv.T[1,3]
because T[1,3] is 0 for the chosen parameters:
n={0,1,0}
angle=180 deg.
It seems that Openmodelica keeps the symbolic variable and tries to be generic but in this case this leads to division by zero because it chooses to put T[1,3] in the denominator.
What are the modifications in order to tell the compiler that the evaluated values T[1,3] for the compilation shall be considered as if the values were hard coded? R_rel is internally in fixedRotation not defined with Evaluate=true...
Should I use custom version of this block? (when I copy paste the source code to a new model and set the parameters R_rel and R_rel_inv to Evalute=true then the simulation works without division by zero)...
BUT is there a modifier to tell from outside that a parameter shall be Evaluate=true without the need to make a new model?
Any other way to prevent division by zero?
Try propagating the parameter at a higher level and setting annotation(Evaluate=true) on this.
For example:
model A
parameter Real a=1;
end A;
model B
parameter Real aPropagated = 2 annotation(Evaluate=true);
A Ainstance(a=aPropagated);
end B;
I don't understand how the Evaluate annotation should help here. The denominator is obviously zero and this is what shall be in fact treated.
To solve division by zero, there are various possibilities (e.g. to set a particular value for that case or to define a small offset to denominator, you can find examples in the Modelica Standard Library). You can also consider the physical meaning of the equation and handle this accordingly.
Since the denominator depends on a parameter, you can also set an assert() to warn the user there is wrong parameter value.
Btw. R_rel_inv is protected and shall, thus, not be used. Use R_rel instead. Also, to deal with rotation matrices, usage of functions from Modelica.Mechanics.MultiBody.Frames is a preferrable way.
And: to use custom version or own implementation depends on your preferences. Custom version is maintained by the comunity, own version is in your hands.
I created an part with the AC library, and when I was trying to simulate the model, there is an error says "Current version of the modelica translator can only handle array of components with fixed size".
Not sure what is the meaning of it, and is there anyone has the same issue like this one?
Thank you
enter image description here
Consider the following simple model:
model M
parameter Integer n(start=3, fixed=false);
initial algorithm
n := n;
end M;
It has a parameter n which can be changed before simulation starts. And array dimensions need to be parameter expressions. So you would think that the following model would be legal:
model M2
Real arr[n] = fill(1, n);
parameter Integer n(start=3, fixed=false);
initial algorithm
n := n;
end M2;
But it isn't since Modelica tools will expand the number of equations and variables to get a fixed number. (According to the language specification, n is a structural parameter; it is not well defined what restrictions these have - most Modelica tools seem to require them to behave like constants which means only fixed=true parameters with a binding equation that depends only on other structural parameters or constants).
Just few questions, i hope someone will find time to answer :).
What if we have COUPLED model example: system of n indepedent variables X and n nonlinear partial differential equations PDEf(X,PDEf(X)) with respect to TIME that depends of X,PDEf(X)(partial differential equation depending of variables X ). Can you give some advice? Here is one example:
Let’s say that c is output, or desired variable. Let’s say that r is independent variable.Partial differential equation looks like:
∂c/∂t=D*1/r+∂c/∂r+2(D* (∂^2 c)/(∂r^2 ))
D=constant
r=0:0.1:Rp- Matlab syntaxis, how to represent same in Modelica (I use integrator,but didn't work)?
Here is a code (does not work):
model PDEtest
/* Boundary conditions
1. delta(c)/delta(r)=0 for r=0
2. delta(c)/delta(r)=-j*d for r=Rp*/
parameter Real Rp=88*1e-3; // length
parameter Real initialConc=1000;
parameter Real Dp=1e-14;
parameter Integer np=10; // num. of points
Real cp[np](start=fill(initialConc,np));
Modelica.Blocks.Continuous.Integrator r(k=1); // independent x1
Real j;
protected
parameter Real dr=Rp/np;
parameter Real ts= 0.01; // for using when loop (sample(0,ts) )
algorithm
j:=sin(time); // this should be indepedent variable like x2
r.u:=dr;
while r.y<=Rp loop
for i in 2:np-1 loop
der(cp[i]):=2*Dp/r.y+(cp[i]-cp[i-1])/dr+2*(Dp*(cp[i+1]-2*cp[i]+cp[i-1])/dr^2);
end for;
if r.y==Rp then
cp[np]:=-j*Dp;
end if;
cp[1]:=if time >=0 then initialConc else initialConc;
end while;
annotation (uses(Modelica(version="3.2")));
end PDEtest;
Here are more questions:
This code don’t work in OpenModelica 1.8.1, also don’t work in Dymola 2013demo. How can we have continuos function of variable c, not array of functions ?
Can we place values of array cp in combiTable? And how?
If instead “algorithm” stay “equation” code can’t be succesfull checked.Why? In OpenModelica, error is :could not flattening model :S.
Is there any simplified way to use a set of equation (PDE’s) that are coupled? I know for PDEs library in Modelica, but I think they are complicated. I want to write a function for solving PDE and call these function in “main model”, so that output of function be continuos function of “c”.I don’t know what for doing with array of functions.
Can you give me advice how to understand Modelica language, if we “speak” like in Matlab? For example: Values of independent variable r,we can specife in Matlab, like r=0:TimeStep:Rp…How to do same in Modelica? And please explain me how section “equation” works, is there similarity with Matlab, and is there necessary sequancial approach?
Cheers :)
It's hard to answer your question, since you assuming that Modelica ~ Matlab, but that's not the case. So I won't comment your code, since it's really wrong. Let me give you an example model to the burger equation. Maybe you could use it as starting point.
model burgereqn
Real u[N+2](start=u0);
parameter Real h = 1/(N+1);
parameter Integer N = 10;
parameter Real v = 234;
parameter Real Pi = 3.14159265358979;
parameter Real u0[N+2]={((sin(2*Pi*x[i]))+0.5*sin(Pi*x[i])) for i in 1:N+2};
parameter Real x[N+2] = { h*i for i in 1:N+2};
equation
der(u[1]) = 0;
for i in 2:N+1 loop
der(u[i]) = - ((u[i+1]^2-u[i-1]^2)/(4*(x[i+1]-x[i-1])))
+ (v/(x[i+1]-x[i-1])^2)*(u[i+1]-2*u[i]+u[i+1]);
end for;
der(u[N+2]) = 0;
end burgereqn;
Your further questions:
cp is an continuous variable and the array is representing
every discretization point.
Why you should want to do that, as far as I understand cp is
your desired solution variable.
You should try to use almost always equation section
algorithm sections are usually used in functions. I'm pretty
sure you can represent your desire behaviour with equations.
I don't know that library, but the hard thing on a pde is the
discretization and the solving it self. You may run into issues
while solving the pde with a modelica tool, since usually
a Modelica tool has no specialized solving algorithm for pdes.
Please consider for that question further references. You could
start with Modelica.org.
model try
Real x(start = 1);
algorithm
when x >= 7 then
reinit(x, 5);
end when;
equation
der(x) = 1 ;
end try;
The when statement should be triggered whenever the guard condition is changed from false to true.
But it is not the case in OpenModelica. The example try in OpenModelica showes that when is triggered only once. I was wondering whether it is the bug of OpenModelica or some misunderstanding from my side.
You are correct. I am pretty sure this would be a bug in OpenModelica. The model works as you would expect in Dymola 2013.
My guess is that it is related to the fact that your when condition involves x and the statements inside end up changing x (the same variable). It may be that it somehow fails to notice the reinit in the monitor function used to determine the point at which the when clause should trigger.