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

Setting states - Mcp/0036 #3164

Open
wants to merge 58 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Setting states - Mcp/0036 #3164

wants to merge 58 commits into from

Conversation

HansOlsson
Copy link
Collaborator

The MCP for setting states.
It has been rebased on current master to have a good state for the specification changes.

HansOlsson and others added 27 commits April 22, 2020 12:39
Add discussion about reinit and correct spelling error.
Add new proposal for setting states.
Update with semantics discussion - based on 
#2613 (comment)
Updated with test-case and more complete description.
And minor spelling correction.
Add discussion about reinit and correct spelling error.
Add new proposal for setting states.
Update with semantics discussion - based on 
#2613 (comment)
Updated with test-case and more complete description.
And minor spelling correction.
Updated date etc.
@HansOlsson HansOlsson requested a review from henrikt-ma May 3, 2022 12:34
@HansOlsson HansOlsson added the MCP Generic MCP label (prefer specific MCP label for grouping of issues belonging to the same MCP) label May 3, 2022
HansOlsson and others added 21 commits August 30, 2023 15:06
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Tidefelt <[email protected]>
@HansOlsson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Should also be ready to enter under evaluation.

@HansOlsson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I will try to demonstrate at the next meeting

@HansOlsson HansOlsson added this to the 2024-3 milestone May 15, 2024
@HansOlsson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I have had on my agenda to explain this for some time, and finally realized that instead of providing more information, it may be helpful to provide less (i.e., a condensed explanation).

Back-ground:

The basic idea with feed-forward control is that if we have a desired output ($y_{des}$) and the model can be described as a state-less function $y=g(u)$, the solution is $u=g^{-1}(y_{des})$.

Generalization:

If the model has states (and you can observe them) that simplified view changes to $y=g(u, x)$, and the solution is $u=g^{-1}(y_{des}, x)$ (Or more accurately solve $y_{des}=g(u, x)$ for $u$.)

We assume that $\dot{x}=f(x, u)$ - but we don't use that when finding the control signal.

Thus the desired functionality is to be able to evaluate the (inverted) model as a function given the known values of the states, i.e., basically setting the states for any clock tick where we need to invert the model. There is no need to perform any integration of these state, as we will always have new state-values on the next clock tick. That is exactly the functionality in this MCP.

It can be handled with an FMU, but clearly having everything in Modelica seems better.

(Obviously in practice there's also likely feedback control, observers, limiters for the signals etc.)

@HansOlsson
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I believe the links work now. It seems the conference proceedings were moved for some reason.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
MCP Generic MCP label (prefer specific MCP label for grouping of issues belonging to the same MCP)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants