Advertisement

CAMAS, a Computer Aided Modelling, Analysis and Simulation Environment

  • Jan F. Broenink
  • G. Dick Nijen Twilhaar
Conference paper

Summary

Modelling and simulation of technical systems is rather error-prone. A part of the errors may be due to the fact that the commonly used CSSL’s (Continuous Systems Simulation Languages], have some important deficiencies. They have a good performance in the computational sense but are not designed for structured modelling. Furthermore often not much support for the man-machine dialogue is offered, and the formalism they use for model description is not related to physics. In this contribution a modelling and simulation aid especially designed for structured physics-based model description is discussed. This aid, CAMAS (Computer Aided Modelling, Analysis and Simulation), may be used interactively.

CAMAS accepts the model description language SIDOPS (Structured Inter-disciplinary Description Of Physical Systems) as input. SIDOPS is based on a physical systems theory and defined in such a way that structured description of models is encouraged. A part of CAMAS is a SIDOPS interpreter, which, as an interactive means for model input, can improve the man-machine dialog. On-line checking of the input on syntactic errors and generating proper error messages is one of its features. As SIDOPS is based on a (multi-disciplinar) physical systems theory (bond graphs), with use of a SIDOPS interpreter also semantic errors can be detected.

References

  1. Breedveld, P.C., (1982) Thermodynamic bond graphs and the problem of thermal inertance. J. of the Franklin Inst., 314, 1:15–40CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Breedveld, P.C., (1984) Physical systems theory in terms of bond graps. Ph.D. Thesis, Twente Univ. Of Techn., Enschede, The netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Cellier, F.E., (1983) Simulation software: today and tomorrow. In Mezencev, K., (ed.) Proceedings of IMACS international symposium on simulation in engineering sciences, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. Crosbie, R.E., Cellier, F.E., (1982) Progress in Simulation language standards. Proceedings 10th IMACS congress on systemsGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixhoorn, J.J. van, (1982) Bond Graphs and the Challange of a Unified Modelling Theory of Physical Systems, in “Progress in Modelling and Simulatïon”, F. E. Cellier (ed.), 207–245, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Karnopp, D.C., Rosenberg, R.C.,(1975) Systems Dynamics: A Unified Apprach, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Kawase, T., (1982) Modelling of dynamical systems. J. Japan soc precision engg. 48, 6:102–107Google Scholar
  8. Paynter, H.M., (1961) Analysis and Design of EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  9. Rosenberg, R.C., Karnopp, D.C., (1983) Introduction to PhysicalGoogle Scholar
  10. Strauss, J.C., et al., (1967) The Sci continuous system simulation language. Simulation, 9, 6.Google Scholar
  11. Welleweerd, A, (1985) Definition of the SIDOPS simulation language and realisation of the interpreter. M.Sc. thesisGoogle Scholar
  12. Wirth, N., (1983) Program development by stepwise refinement. Comm. ACM, 26, 1:70–74. Reprint in the 25th anniversary issue of Comm. ACM. The original paper was published in (1967) Comm. ACM 14, 4, 221–227.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan F. Broenink
    • 1
  • G. Dick Nijen Twilhaar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringTwente University of TechnologyEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations