Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inconsistencies between engines of Mechanics.MultiBody.Examples.Loops #3132

Closed
christoff-buerger opened this issue Oct 4, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #3133
Closed

Inconsistencies between engines of Mechanics.MultiBody.Examples.Loops #3132

christoff-buerger opened this issue Oct 4, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #3133
Assignees
Labels
example Issue only addresses example(s) L: Mechanics.MultiBody Issue addresses Modelica.Mechanics.MultiBody
Milestone

Comments

@christoff-buerger
Copy link
Member

At the Modelica conference this year I presented a language extension for non-monotonic modeling (cf. Modelica language extensions for practical non-monotonic modelling: on the need for selective model extension). One of its running examples are the Engine1a, Engine1b and Engine1b_analytic models of Mechanics.MultiBody.Examples.Loops I used to demonstrate how easy consistency problems are introduced. The idea of these models is to design a final analytic engine model starting from an idealized model via one considering the gas force in the cylinder. They are inconsistent however, most likely because of historically individual model-changes that have not been properly propagated throughout the whole design scenario.

The objective of this ticket is to fix these inconsistencies by the ordinary means of Modelica 3.4 (i.e., not selective model extension, but simply manual fixing).

@christoff-buerger
Copy link
Member Author

I will provide a consistent modeling from my MSL fork via a pull request.

@christoff-buerger
Copy link
Member Author

christoff-buerger commented Oct 4, 2019

Added respective pull request #3133.

@dietmarw
Copy link
Member

dietmarw commented Oct 4, 2019

Just for the future. It is not necessary to open up an issue in addition of a PR. The PR can be discussed in the PR itself while keeping the number duplicate issue numbers down.

@dietmarw dietmarw added the L: Mechanics.MultiBody Issue addresses Modelica.Mechanics.MultiBody label Oct 4, 2019
@beutlich beutlich added the example Issue only addresses example(s) label Oct 4, 2019
@beutlich beutlich added this to the MSL4.0.0 milestone Oct 4, 2019
christoff-buerger added a commit to christoff-buerger/ModelicaStandardLibrary that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2019
…lings are now diagramatically represented, improved diagram layout, improved documentation, eliminated rotational clock duplicate and use of engine synchronization instead as single source of sampling)."

This reverts commit 9dc348d.

As requested in modelica#3132 by @beutlich.
christoff-buerger added a commit to christoff-buerger/ModelicaStandardLibrary that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2019
…lings are now diagramatically represented, improved diagram layout, improved documentation, eliminated rotational clock duplicate and use of engine synchronization instead as single source of sampling)."

This reverts commit ad35571.

As requested in modelica#3132 by @beutlich.
beutlich pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2019
* #3132: Made engine designs consistent w.r.t. the whole design scenario.

* Redesign object diagram

* Extend from Engine1bBase (for consistency with other Engine1X examples)

* Change order of instances in model code
@tobolar tobolar pinned this issue Mar 15, 2022
@dietmarw dietmarw unpinned this issue Mar 31, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
example Issue only addresses example(s) L: Mechanics.MultiBody Issue addresses Modelica.Mechanics.MultiBody
Projects
None yet
5 participants