You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As @FelixBue's results show, the network simulation results (mostly annual energy, to a lesser degree also heat losses) vary quite alarmingly with the tolerance setting for the solver. I have tested the same for the outlet temperatures in the example IBPSA.Fluid.FixedResistances.Examples.PlugFlowPipe and this also shows differences, as seen below.
This also shows the error is not proportional to the tolerance. I still need to check if the deviations are of the same order as those shown in the DESTEST network.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Possibly these results are caused by not having a lot of states in the model, due to which the integrator can easily satisfy its tolerance criterion even when taking too large steps. This is easy to check by using Euler integration with a fixed small time step. If this produces the expected results, then I would look towards the integrator. What integrator are you currently using?
Using Dassl for now. Indeed, with Euler the results are the same irrespective of tolerance. Will check if Euler can handle the DESTEST network as well ;)
Note that euler does Not even use the tolerance setting, only the fixed time step size. So changing it should indeed not affect results.
Lsodar > CVode > dassl > radau as far as I am concerned:) Although I don't have that much experience with CVode
As @FelixBue's results show, the network simulation results (mostly annual energy, to a lesser degree also heat losses) vary quite alarmingly with the tolerance setting for the solver. I have tested the same for the outlet temperatures in the example
IBPSA.Fluid.FixedResistances.Examples.PlugFlowPipe
and this also shows differences, as seen below.This also shows the error is not proportional to the tolerance. I still need to check if the deviations are of the same order as those shown in the DESTEST network.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: