Bond Graphs - Physical Systems Modeling 1: Fundamental Concepts

Control Engineering
Laboratory
BOND GRAPHS -
Physical systems modeling 1:
Fundamental concepts
Peter Breedveld
Cornelis J. Drebbel Institute for Mechatronics
and Control Engineering Laboratory, Electrical Engineering Department
University of Twente, Netherlands
p.c.breedveld@el.utwente.nl
7/11/2003 Summerschool Bertinoro 1

7-11 July 2003
Aim
• System theoretic approach to physical system dynamics
based on
– classification of phenomena in terms of energy
– fundamental principles of thermodynamics
• shown how, as a result:
– variables and relations describing physical systems may be
classified
– models may be organized as (‘port-
(‘port-based approach’)
• multiport elements
• interconnected in an interconnection structure corresponding to a
generalized network
– multiport elements describe basic behaviors with respect to energy
energy
and entropy
• special attention:
– role of analogies
– analogue behavior
Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (2) © Peter Breedveld
1
Introduction
• introduction & some philosophy:

• Why physical systems modeling?
• What is physical systems modeling?
• Context of explanation (focus of engineering
physics) versus justification (focus of math)
• elements and components, theory building
• synthesis between classical approaches
• choice of variables:
– mechanical versus thermodynamic
framework
Three-world meta-model
• Real world (assuming existence of ‘objective’
environment’)
• Conceptual world (in our brain)
• ‘Paper’ world, including electronically stored
data
– Only in/via the paper world:

• Communication
• Support
• Systematization
– exchangeable abstractions/concepts >>>
– importance of symbols & notation (representation)
2
Are physical concepts ‘real’ ?
• For example:
– energy, time, momentum, causality,…
• In a context of justification: NO!

• In a context of discovery/explanation:
YES, but rather ‘really useful’ than
just ‘real’
The useless ‘quest for truth’

• A model is necessarily incomplete:
‘all models are wrong’, but ‘truth’ is not
what counts
• The issue is whether a model is
competent (to solve a problem in a
given problem context in the most
generic sense of the word)
3
What is a model?
Some sort of abstraction (in the ‘paper’
paper’ world) that enables
• insight in the real world counterpart
• communication about the real world counterpart
• observation of the real world counterpart
• troubleshooting of the real world counterpart
• design of new aspects related to the real world counterpart
• modifications of the real world counterpart
• ‘explanation’
explanation’ of functionality of the real world counterpart
• measurement of the real world counterpart
but, most importantly, that is :
• competent to solve a given problem and make decisions
related to the real world
Modeling
• Given a specific problem context, the decision
process to obtain a competent model to solve this
problem
• Approaches between two extremes:
– a priori knowledge
– ‘black box’
box’ (also an axiomatic concept with a priori
assumptions!!!)
• concept ‘input’
input’ implicitly contains model of imposing some
action with negligible back effect (‘(‘high input impedance’
impedance’)
• concept ‘output’
output’ implicitly contains model of measurement
with negligible effect on the system being observed (‘ (‘low
output impedance’
impedance’)
• after a competent input-
input-output relation is found, it is not
open for modifications or physical interpretation
4
Model representation
• model representation:
representation:
– symbols used to represent
• the concepts being used
• (the structure of) their relations (interconnection)
• model manipulation (as opposed to modeling!) :
– transformation to different representations (including
the ‘solution’
solution’) to
• increase insight
• draw conclusions, etc.
Role of representations
x1
a
Sequential: A T
x2
b
A T
x3
c
A T
x4
d
AT
x5
e
AT
t
Simultaneous:
T
Process time
versus A T x
processing time
x1 x2 x3
x5
x4
5
Physical systems modeling
• all concepts used in the model are, or have a direct relation
to, physically relevant concepts (use of a priori knowledge!)
• physical relations are maintained as much as possible
• herein constrained to (for sake of ‘simplicity’
simplicity’):
– deterministic mathematical models of macroscopic systems
that
• obey basic principles of macroscopic physics:
– energy conservation
– positive entropy production
• describe the behavior in time of the common physical properties:
– mechanical (incl. hydraulic and pneumatic)
– electrical
– magnetic
– chemical
– material
time & uncertainty

• time:
– derived measure for ‘regularity’ based on
counting ‘ticks’ of a ‘time-
‘time-base’ based on
repetitive behavior requiring state and change (in
order to be able to count)
– within the smallest unit used: necessarily
uncertainty
• cf. Heisenberg u.r. for displacement (= elastic state,
kinetic state of change) and momentum (= elastic state
of change, kinetic state)
– dialectic concepts!
6
concepts of
‘state’ & ‘change’
• dialectic fundamental concepts
• basis for any dynamic model (more
than time!)
• within a context of discovery a shift to
space-time is understandable and
useful, like the shift from position-
momentum in Hamiltonian mechanics to
position-velocity in Lagrangian
mechanics
Position: a ‘special’ state
Position
• has a dual nature:
– Energy state (related to a
conservation or symmetry principle
like all other states)
– Configuration state
• does not transform like a tensor
end of introduction
7
Contents of the sequel
• Modeling pitfalls
• Port-based modeling
• Basic Concepts (ports, bonds)
• Dynamic conjugation (effort, flow)
• Multidomain modeling and the role of
energy
• (Computational) Causality
Modeling pitfalls
• ‘Every model is wrong’

• Model depends on problem context
• Competent models
• Analogies are not identities
• Avoid implicit assumptions
• Avoid model extrapolation
• Confusion of components with elements
8
Physical components versus
conceptual elements
physical component:
piece of rubber hose
dominant behavior:
•when falling: ideal mass
•when pulling load: ideal spring
•for vibration isolation: ideal resistor
•etc.
Parasitic elements
• Next to dominant behavior:
9
In engineering models:
• Avoid implicit assumptions, e.g. about

– problem context
– reference
– orientation
– coordinates
– metric
– ‘negligible’ phenomena, etc.
• Avoid model extrapolation

– danger of ignoring earlier assumptions
• Focus at competence, not ‘truth’

Port-based modeling
• multidomain approach:
– ‘mechatronics’ (and beyond)
• multiple view approach: other graphical
representations: iconic diagrams, (linear
graphs), block diagrams, bond graphs, etc. and
equations
• domain independent notation using ports:
– bond graphs (& some other benefits…)
• port-based approach:
– underlying structure of 20-
20-sim,
sim, ideal tool for
demonstration
• what are ports and what are bond graphs?
10
Intuitive introduction of the
‘port’ concept
J P
ideal current ideal ideal

source motor inertia potentiometer
ideal
transmission
Dominant behavior
(not necessarily competent in each context)
Simple model
11
Addition of relevant parasitic
behavior
Depending on
problem
context:
Polymorphic
modeling
What are ports?
∆u2 ∆u3
∆T2 ∆T3
∆T1
i i J
∆u1 i i MECH
∆u4 ω ω
ω
P =∆T⋅ω
P =∆u⋅ i electrical ports (power)
(power)
mechanical ports
12
Comparison with familiar
model views
Iconic diagrams
(‘ideal physical models’):
R L
i v R
Usource C F m
Fext
K=1/C
electrical mechanical
Iconic diagram symbols
Port-based, but
Port-based,
domain dependent
13
Iconic diagram symbols
C-type storage
I -type storage
(M)R (dissipation,
irreversible transduction)
Se (effort source)
Sf (flow source)
TF (transformer)
Iconic diagrams
• Icons do not (always) represent

physical structure:
20-sim
icon:
1
i
TF (transformer)
14
Common block diagram
models
R L
i v R
Usource C F m
Fext
K=1/C
Common block diagram

models
Note: not all signals

are physically
meaningful variables
15
Ports in iconic diagrams
R L
i v R
Usource C F m
Fext
K=1/C
Ports in iconic diagrams
R L m
F
i R Fext
Usource C v
K=1/C
16
Ports in block diagrams
Note: each signal is a physically

meaningful variable
Structure as multiport
17
Different forms
Different forms
18
Compact & domain independent
Domain dependent Coil Mass
Source
Source Spring
Capacitor
Resistor Damper
Compact & domain independent
Domain independent I
I
Se 1 C Se 1 C
Structure explicitly R R
represented
as multiport:
JUNCTION!
19
Ports in bond graph view
Se 1 C
Bond graphs
Inventor (MIT, 1959): Prof. Henry M. Paynter (1923-2002)
20
Bonds
Storage of kinetic energy
Storage of elastic energy
Compact notation:
C I
Energy exchange
= power
•Terminology and notation induced by chemical bonds:
Ports and power bonds
• (power) bond connecting two elements

via (power) ports (Harold Wheeler,
1949)
21
Dynamic conjugation
• Between signals of bilateral signal

flow of relation:
– rate of change: ‘flow’
(zero in equilibrium)
• e.g. molar rate during diffusion
– equilibrium determining variable: ‘effort’
• e.g. concentration
Power conjugation
= special case of dynamic conjugation :

– ‘effort’ and ‘flow’ relate to power
– functional relation is commonly a product
– sum in case of scattering variables
dE ∂E dqi ∂E dp j
P= =∑ +∑ = ∑ ei fi + ∑ e j f j
dt i ∂qi dt j ∂p j dt i j
∂E dp j
ei = ej = 'effort'
∂qi dt
dqi ∂E
fi = fj = 'flow'
dt ∂p j
22
Conjugate variables &
corresponding states
mass-spring system
23
Basic dynamic behaviors
& mnemonic codes
• Storage (reversible)
– C, I (q-
(q-type and p- p-type storage)
• Irreversible transformation (‘dissipation’):
– (M)R(S)
• Distribution
– 0-junction, 1-junction
• Supply and demand:
demand:
– (M)Se, (M)
(M)Sf
• Reversible transformation
– (M)TF, (M)GY
• >> 9 basic elements
Orientation conventions
• 1-ports: into most elements (R, C, I), except
sources (Se, Sf)
Sf)
• 2-port transducers: 1 in, 1 out
• junction structure elements: arbitrary
• multiport generalizations: same as simple form
• MOST IMPORTANT: obeying grammar rules
minimizes sign errors!
24
Basic one-port elements
Basic two- and multiport

elements
25
Constitutive relations not
necessarily linear!
e.g. zener diode:
dominant behavior:
irreversible
transduction
(resistor)
with nonlinear
constitutive relation
Other form of non-linearity:

Modulation
e.g. modulation of a transducer: iconic diagram (IPM)
capstan
MR
26
Bilateral signal flow
(computational causality)
2 possibilities:
Notation
Causal stroke:
27
Back to the example
Se 1 C
Back to the example
Se 1 C
20-sim demo
28
Causal port properties
• Fixed causality
• Preferred (integral) causality
Causal constraints
29
Arbitrary causality
Causality assignment
Algorithmic (SCAP):
– 1) fixed causal ports with propagation via
constraints
causal ‘conflict’: ‘ill-
‘ill-posedness’
posedness’
– 2) preferred causal ports with
propagation via constraints
causal ‘conflict’: dependent state(s)
– 3) choice of arbitrary causal port with
propagation via constraints
means existence of algebraic loop(s)
loop(s)
30
Example
u u u
T T
i u i u i J
ω ω
i i
•Important modeling feedback
•Automatic in 20-
20-sim
I I •Visible in bond graph causality
2nd order loop •‘Hidden’ in case of iconic diagrams
Se 1 GY 1
1st order loop
1st order loop
R R
Positive orientation
orientation NOT THE SAME AS direction!
31
Causality does NOT affect orientation!
Mechanical versus
Thermodynamic framework
Mechanics: Thermodynamics:
Two types of storage One type of storage
Oscillatory behavior Only relaxation

(damped): C-
C-I(-
I(-R) behavior: C-
C-R
Split domains (therm
(therm.)
.) and couple by SGY
(mech.):
C-SGY-
SGY-C
32
Symplectic gyrator
• Unit gyrator: C 0 GY 0 C
r=1
• SGY: C 0 SGY 0 C
• Multiport:
C11 C12 0 -1
C12 C22 C 0 SGY +1 0
20-
20-sim demo
Symplectic GYrator
• Mechanical (x,p) ekin =

∂E
ekin = v ∂E
∂p e pot = F e pot =
∂x
C 0 SGY 0 C
dp dp dx
f kin = F =− f pot = v f pot =
dt dt dt
dp
– Only in inertial frames: F = − (Newton's 2nd law)
dt
• Electrical network (q,λ):

∂E ∂E
emag = emag = i eelec = u eelec = ∂q
∂λ
C 0 SGY 0 dq
C
dλ dλ felec = i f elec =
f mag = − =u dt
dt dt
– Only quasi-
quasi-stationary (non-
(non-radiating): dλ emag = i
− =u
dt
33
Unit gyrator (SGY) as ‘dualizer’
Original: Port equivalent: Original: Port equivalent:
0 SGY I 0 C Se SGY 1 Sf 1
1 SGY C 1 I Sf SGY 0 Se 0
1 SGY R 1 R
1 SGY 1 SGY 0 1 0 0
1 SGY TF SGY 0 1 TF 0
SGY
0
1 SGY GY SGY 1 1 GY 1
0
1 SGY TF 1 1 GY 1
1 SGY 0 SGY 0 1 1 0
1 SGY GY 0 1 TF 0
SGY 1
0
1
Mechanical framework of
variables
34
Generalized thermodynamic
framework of variables
f
flow
e
effort ∫
q = f dt
generalized state
electric i u q = ∫ idt
current voltage
charge
magnetic u i λ = ∫ udt
voltage current
magnetic flux linkage
elastic/potential v F x = ∫ vdt
translation velocity force
displacement
kinetic translation F v p = ∫ Fdt
force velocity
momentum
elastic/potential ω T θ = ∫ ωdt
rotation angular torque
velocity angular displacement
kinetic rotation T ω b = ∫ Tdt

torque angular
velocity angular
momentum
elastic hydraulic ϕ p V = ∫ ϕdt
volume flow pressure
volume
kinetic hydraulic p ϕ Γ = ∫ pdt
pressure volume flow
momentum of a flow tube
thermal T fS S = ∫ fS dt
temperature entropy flow
entropy
chemical µ fN N = ∫ fN dt
molar flow
chemical number of moles
potential
Co-Energy & Legendre

Transformations
A function F( x) with x = x1 ,… , x k
is homogeneous of order n if F( α x) = α n F( x)
∂F
Define y i ( x) =
∂x i
∂F( α x) α n ∂F( x) n −1
then y i ( x) or y i ( α x) = = ⋅ =α y i ( x) is homogeneous of order (n-1).
∂αx i α ∂x i
k ∂F 1 k 1
T
For a homogeneous function Euler’s theorem holds: ∑ ∂x ⋅ x i = n⋅ F( x) or F( x) = n ∑ y i ⋅ x i = n ⋅ y ⋅ x
i =1 i i =1
k ∂F k
By definition: dF = ∑ ⋅ dx i = ∑ y i dx i = y T ⋅ dx
∂
i =1 ix i =1
1  1 1
but also: dF = d y T ⋅ x= y T ⋅dx + (dy) T ⋅ x
n  n n
Hence: (dy) T ⋅ x = ( n −1)y T ⋅dx
for n = 1: ( dy) T ⋅ x = 0
1
for n ≠ 1: dF = (dy) T ⋅ x
n -1
35
Homogeneous
Energy Functions
The energy of a system with k state variables q is: E(q ) = E (q1 ,… , q k )
1
If qi is an “extensive” state variable, this means that: E( αq ) = αE(q ) = α E(q )
∂E
Hence E(q) is first order (n = 1) homogeneous, so e i (q ) =
∂q i
is zeroth order (n – 1 = 0) homogeneous, which means that ei(q) is an “intensive” variable, i.e.
e i ( αq ) = α 0 e i ( q ) = e i ( q )
∂e de
This means also that in case n=1 and k=1 e(q) is constant, i.e. = =0
∂q dq
which changes the behavior of this element into that of a source.
in order to enable storage: storage elements = multiports (k>1)
‘1-port storage element’ = n-port storage element with flows of n-1 ports kept zero
corresponding n-1 states constant and not recognized as states.
Such a state is often considered a parameter:
if E(q 1 , q 2 ,..., q n ) dq =0,∀i≠1 = E′(q1 ) then E’(q1) not necessarily first-order homogeneous in q1
i
Homogeneous
Energy Functions
In bond graph form:
For n=1 and k independent extensities:

only k–1 independent intensities
because for n=1 we find Gibbs' fundamental relation: E(q ) = e T ⋅q
by definition: dE = e T ⋅ dq
from the above equations follows the Gibbs-Duhem relation: ( de) T ⋅q = 0
36
Legendre Transformations
Legendre transform of F(x) with respect to xi is by definition: L{F( x)} x = L x = F( x) − y i ⋅ x i
i i
∂F
with y i =
∂x i
k
and the total Legendre transform of F(x) is: L{F( x)} = L = F( x) − ∑ y i x i
Note that for n = 1: L=0 i =1
Now dL x = dF − d ( y i x i ) = dF − y i dx i − x i dy i = ∑ y jdx j − x i dy i
i j≠ i
or L x = L x ( x1 ,… , x i −1, y i , x i +1 ,… , x k )
i i
which means that xi is replaced by yi as independent variable or “coordinate”!

Hence
k
L = L(y); dL =− ∑ x i dy i =−(dy) T ⋅ x
i =1
Co-Energy Functions
The co-energy E ∗q of E(q) with respect to qi is by definition:
i
E∗q =−L q = E∗q ( q1 ,… , q i − 1 , e i , q i +1 ,… , q k )

i i i
∗
Hence E (q ) + E q (… , e i ,… ) = e i ⋅q i
i
The total co-energy E*(e) of E(q) is: E* = -L, hence E(q ) + E∗ (e) = e T ⋅q
∗
For n=1: E (e) = 0
confirming earlier conclusion that there are only k-1 independent ei
1
For n=2: E(q ) = E∗ (e) = e T ⋅q
2
1 2
For n=3: E(q ) = e T ⋅q E ∗ ( e ) = e T ⋅q
3 3
37
Relations for
Co-Energy Functions
dE ∗q = de i ⋅ q i − ∑ e j ⋅ dq j
i j≠1
k
dE∗ = ∑ de i ⋅q i = (de) T ⋅q = ( n −1)e T ⋅dq = ( n −1)dE
i =1
n −1 T  1
E∗ = ( n −1) E = ⋅e ⋅q =1− e T ⋅q
n  n
Legendre transforms in simple

thermodynamics
In thermodynamic systems with
– internal energy U
– entropy S
– temperature T
– volume V
– pressure p
– total mole number N
– total material potential µtot
– mole number per species i Ni
– chemical potential µi: m −1 tot
Free energy F: F = L S = U − TS = − pV + ∑ µ i N i + µ ⋅ N
i =1 F(T, V, N , N ) (= N. f (T, v, c))
m −1
dF = −SdT − pdV + ∑ µ i dN i + µ tot ⋅ dN
i =1
Enthalpy H: H = L V = U − (−pV) = U + pV
H (S, p, N , N ) (= N. h(s, p, c))
m −1
dH = TdS + Vdp + ∑ µ i ⋅ dN i + µ tot ⋅ dN
i =1
38
Legendre transforms in simple
thermodynamics
m −1
Gibbs free enthalpy G: G = LS, V = U − TS − (−pV) = µ tot ⋅ N + ∑ µi N i
i =1
m −1
dG = −SdT + Vdp + ∑ µ i dN i + µ tot ⋅ dN
i =1
G ( T, p, N , N ) (= N. g( T, p , c) )
For m=1: g = µ tot (T, p)
Legendre Transforms and Causality
• If an effort is “forced” on a port of a C element (“derivative causality” or “flow

causality”), this means that the roles of e and q are interchanged in the set of
independent variables, which means that the energy has to be Legendre
transformed.
• This is particularly useful when the effort e is constant (e.g. an electrical
capacitor in an isothermal environment with T=Tconst):
u
q
.
T
S
. s e
: T const
dF = udq − SdT = udq

u
q
. C
dF
P = u⋅q =
dt

with
39
Constitutive Relations
• The function ei(q) is called constitutive relation, also called constitutive

equation, constitutive law, state equation, characteristic equation, etc.
• If ei(q) is linear, i.e. first order homogeneous, then E(q) is second order
homogenous, i.e. E(q) is quadratic. In this case, and only in this case:
E ( αq ) = α 2 E ( q )
1
E ( q ) = e T ⋅q
2
(de) T ⋅q = e T ⋅dq = dE
Maxwell Reciprocity
From the principle of energy conservation (First law) can be derived that:
∂2 E ∂2 E
=
∂q i ∂q j ∂q j∂q i
∂e j ∂e i
=
∂q i ∂q j
i.e. the Jacobian matrix of the constitutive relations is symmetric.
This is called Maxwell reciprocity or Maxwell symmetry.
40
Intrinsic Stability
Intrinsic stability requires that this Jacobian is positive-definite:
 ∂e 
det   > 0
 ∂q 
and that the diagonal elements of the Jacobian are positive:
∂e i
>0 ∀i
∂q i
Legendre Transforms in Mechanics

In mechanical systems with
– kinetic energy T potential energy V
– displacements x momenta p
– velocities v forces F:
• Hamiltonian H: E ( q ) = H ( x , p) = T + V
• Lagrangian L: H∗p =−L p = v T ⋅ p − H = (T + T∗ ) − (T + V) = T∗ − V = L(x, v)
∂H
with v =
∂p
• co-Hamiltonian H
*
: H* = vT ⋅ p + FT ⋅ q − H =
x, p x, p
= (T + T* ) + (V + V* ) − (T + V) = T∗ + V∗ = H∗ (F, v)
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ *
• co-Lagrangian or Hertzian H x : H x = FT ⋅q − H = ( V + V ) − (T + V) = V − T =−L ( F, p)
∂H
with F =
∂x
41
Legendre Transforms in
Electrical Circuits
In electrical circuits with

– capacitor charges q and voltages u
– coil flux linkages Φ and currents i:
E(q , Φ ) = E c ( q ) + E L (Φ )
E∗ ( u , i ) = u T ⋅ q + i T ⋅ Φ − E = E
↑
only in linear case!
Example nonlinear 3-port C

• energy storage in GAS:
– Ideal −R s − s0
 v  cv
pv = RT T ( s, v ) = T0   e cv
 v0 
– Van-der-Waals
−R s − s0
 a
p+ 2  ( v − b ) = RT  v − b  cv
 v  T (v, s) = T0   e cv
 v0 − b 
42
Regular causal form in
thermodynamics:
p = p(v,T ) T
differential
causality!
mechan-
thermal
ical
port C port
p(T,V,N)
S(T,V,N)
-dV = -V µ(T,V,N) -dS = -S
dt dt
material
µ = µ ( p,T ) -dN = -N
port dt
Desired integral causal form:

p = p(v,T ) T
integral causality!
mechan-
thermal
ical
port C port
p(S,V,N)
T(S,V,N)
-dV = -V µ(S,V,N) -dS = -S
dt dt
material
µ = µ ( p,T ) - dN = - N
port dt
43
Compute all conjugate variables:
Differential
v causality
p T
p(v,T)
s(v,T)
- v
µ (p,T) s
∫ d/dt
dV = −V V S dS = S
−
dt ∫ N dt
µ dN = N
dt
Change to integral causality (T(v,s)?):
Integral
v causality
p T
p(v,T)
T(v,s)
- v
µ (p,T) s
∫ ∫
−
dt ∫ N dt
µ dN = N
dt
44
Find S0 from T0 (?):
T0
v ????
p T
p(v,T)
T(v,s) S0
- v
µ (p,T) s
∫ ∫
−
dt ∫ N dt
µ dN = N
dt
Form requires T0, not S0
s−s v   
1 ∂ p
T ( s, v ) = T0 exp  0
− ∫   dv 
 cv cv v  ∂ T dv =0  

 0 
45
T0
v
p T
p(v,T)
T(v,s)
- v
µ (p,T) s
∫ ∫
−
dt ∫ N dt
µ dN = N
dt
Concluding remarks
Port-based modeling:
– no a priori decision about input and output of a
bilateral relation
– two variables of bilateral relation (port):
• dynamically conjugated
• power conjugated in case of energy conservation:
– effort and flow
– behavior with respect to energy is domain
independent (C,I; R; TF,GY; Se,Sf;
Se,Sf; 0,1)
– causality assignment gives feedback on
modeling decisions
46

Bond Graphs - Physical Systems Modeling 1: Fundamental Concepts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bond Graphs - Physical Systems Modeling 1: Fundamental Concepts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Control Engineering

7/11/2003 Summerschool Bertinoro 1

• introduction & some philosophy:

– Only in/via the paper world:

• In a context of justification: NO!

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (5) © Peter Breedveld

The useless ‘quest for truth’

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (6) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (7) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (8) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (9) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (10) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (11) © Peter Breedveld

time & uncertainty

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (12) © Peter Breedveld

Position: a ‘special’ state

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (14) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (15) © Peter Breedveld

• ‘Every model is wrong’

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (16) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (17) © Peter Breedveld

• Next to dominant behavior:

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (18) © Peter Breedveld

• Avoid implicit assumptions, e.g. about

• Avoid model extrapolation

• Focus at competence, not ‘truth’

ideal current ideal ideal

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (21) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (22) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (23) © Peter Breedveld

What are ports?

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (24) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (25) © Peter Breedveld

Iconic diagram symbols

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (26) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (27) © Peter Breedveld

• Icons do not (always) represent

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (28) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (29) © Peter Breedveld

Common block diagram

Note: not all signals

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (30) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (31) © Peter Breedveld

Ports in iconic diagrams

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (32) © Peter Breedveld

Note: each signal is a physically

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (33) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (34) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (35) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (36) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (37) © Peter Breedveld

Compact & domain independent

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (38) © Peter Breedveld

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (39) © Peter Breedveld

Inventor (MIT, 1959): Prof. Henry M. Paynter (1923-2002)

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (40) © Peter Breedveld

•Terminology and notation induced by chemical bonds:

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (41) © Peter Breedveld

Ports and power bonds

• (power) bond connecting two elements

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (42) © Peter Breedveld

• Between signals of bilateral signal

Summerschool Bertinoro, 7-11 July 2003 (43) © Peter Breedveld