skip to main content
article

Declaration of unknowns in DAE-based hybrid system specification

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 January 2003Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The majority of hybrid languages are based on the assumption that discontinuities in differential variables at discrete events are modeled by explicit mappings. When there are algebraic equations restricting the allowed new values of the differential variables, explicit remapping of differential variables forces the modeler to solve the algebraic equations. To overcome this difficulty, hybrid languages use many different language elements. This article shows that only one language element is needed for this purpose: an unknown declaration, which allows the explicit declaration of a variable as unknown. The syntax and semantics of unknown declarations are discussed. Examples are given, using the Chi language, in which unknown declarations are used for modeling multi-body collision, steady-state initialization, and consistent initialization of higher index systems. It is also illustrated how the declaration of unknowns can help to clarify the structure of the system of equations, and how it can help the modeler detect structurally singular systems of equations.

References

  1. Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Halbwachs, N., Henzinger, T. A., Ho, P. H., Nicollin, X., Olivero, A., Sifakis, J., and Yovine, S. 1995. The algorithmic analysis of hybrid systems. In Theor. Comput. Sci. 138, 3--34.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton, P. I. 1992. The modelling and simulation of combined discrete/continuous processes. PhD thesis, University of London.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, P. I. and Pantelides, C. C. 1994. Modeling of combined discrete/continuous processes. AIChE 40, 6, 966--979.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bos, V. and Kleijn, J. 2000a. Automatic verification of a manufacturing system. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manufact. 17, 3, 185--198.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bos, V. and Kleijn, J. 2002. Formal specification and analysis of industrial systems. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bos, V. and Kleijn, J. J. T. 2000b. Formalisation of a production systems modelling language: The operational semantics of χ core. Funda. Inf. 41, 4, 367--392.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenan, K. E., Campbell, S. L., and Petzold, L. R. 1996. Numerical Solution of Initial-Value Problems in Differential-Algebraic Equations. SIAM's Classics in Applied Math., Siam, Philadelphia.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, P. N., Hindmarsh, A. C., and Petzold, L. R. 1998. Consistent initial condition calculation for differential-algebraic systems. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 19, 5, 1495--1512.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Clabaugh, J. 2001. The ABACUSS II syntax manual. Massachussets Institute of Technology. Available at http://yoric.mit.edu/abacuss2/syntax.html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. David, R. and Alla, H. 2001. On hybrid Petri nets. Discrete Event Dynam. Syst. Theor. Appl. 11, 1--2, 9--40.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Elmqvist, H., Brück, D., and Otter, M. 2000. Dymola---Dynamic Modeling Language---User's Manual, Version 4.0. Dynasim AB, Lund, Sweden.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Fábián, G. 1999. A language and simulator for hybrid systems. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Fábián, G., van Beek, D. A., and Rooda, J. E. 2001. Index reduction and discontinuity handling using substitute equations. Math. Comput. Model. Dynam. Syst. 7, 2, 173--187.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Feehery, W. F. and Barton, P. I. 1996. A differentiation-based approach to dynamic simulation and optimization with high-index differential-algebraic equations. In Proceedigs of the Second International Workshop on Computational Differentiation (Santa Fe, NM), 239--252.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Fey, J. J. H. 2000. Design of a fruit juice blending and packaging plant. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gear, C. W. 1988. Differential-algebraic equation index transformations. SIAM. J. Sci. Stat. Comp. 9, 39--47.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Gueguen, H. and Lefebvre, M. A. 2001. A comparison of mixed specification formalisms. APII JESA J. Europeen des Systemes Automatises 35, 4, 381--394.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoare, C. A. R. 1978. Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21, 8, 666--677.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofkamp, A. T. 2001. Reactive machine control. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. IEEE. 1999. IEEE Standard VHDL Analog and Mixed-Signal Extensions (IEEE Std 1076.1-1999). IEEE, New York.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Mattsson, S. E. and Söderlind, G. 1993. Index reduction in differential-algebraic equations using dummy derivatives. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 14, 3, 677--692.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mattsson, S. E., Elmqvist, H., and Otter, M. 1998. Physical system modeling with Modelica. Contr. Eng. Prac. 6, 501--510.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Moe, H. I. 1995. Dynamic process simulation, studies on modeling and index reduction. PhD thesis, University of Trondheim.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mosterman, P. J. 1999. An overview of hybrid simulation phenomena and their support by simulation packages. In Hybrid Systems: Computational Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1569, Springer, New York, 165--177.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mosterman, P. J. and Biswas, G. 1997. Principles for modeling, verification, and simulation of hybrid dynamic systems. In Hybrid Systems: V. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1567. Springer, New York, 21--27.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Mosterman, P. J. and Biswas, G. 2002. A hybrid modeling and simulation methodology for dynamic physical systems. Simulation 78, 1, 5--17.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Naumoski, G. and Alberts, W. 1998. A discrete-event simulator for systems engineering. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Pantelides, C. C. 1988. The consistent initialization of differential-algebraic systems. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 9, 2, 213--231.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Rulkens, H. J. A., van Campen, E. J. J., van Herk, J., and Rooda, J. E. 1998. Batch size optimization of a furnace and pre-clean area by using dynamic simulations. In Proceedings of the SEMI/IEEE Advances in Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference (Boston), 439--444.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Unger, J., Kröner, A., and Marquardt, W. 1995. Structural analysis of differential-algebraic equation systems---theory and applications. Comput. Chem. Eng. 19, 8, 867--882.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. van Beek, D. A. and Rooda, J. E. 2000. Languages and applications in hybrid modelling and simulation: Positioning of Chi. Contr. Eng. Pract. 8, 1, 81--91.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. van Beek, D. A., van den Ham, A., and Rooda, J. E. 2002. Modelling and control of process industry batch production systems. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth IFAC Triennial World Congress, (Barcelona), CD-ROM.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. van de Mortel-Fronczak, J. M., Rooda, J. E., and van den Nieuwelaar, N. J. M. 1995. Specification of a flexible manufacturing system using concurrent programming. Concur. Eng. Res. Appl. 3, 3, 187--194.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Declaration of unknowns in DAE-based hybrid system specification

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader