Energy Conservation and Coupling Error Reduction
in Non-Iterative Co-Simulations
Severin Sadjina, Eilif Pedersen
Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway

arXiv:1606.05168v1 [] 16 Jun 2016

When simulators are energetically coupled in a co-simulation, residual energies alter the total
energy of the full coupled system. This distorts the system dynamics, lowers the quality of the
results, and can lead to instability. By using power bonds to realize simulator coupling, the EnergyConservation-based Co-Simulation method (ECCO) [Sadjina et al. 2016] exploits these concepts
to define non-iterative global error estimation and adaptive step size control relying on coupling
variable data alone. Following similar argumentation, the Nearly Energy Preserving Coupling Element (NEPCE) [Benedikt et al. 2013] uses corrections to the simulator inputs to approximately
ensure energy conservation. Here, we discuss a modification to NEPCE for when direct feed-through
is present in one of the coupled simulators. We further demonstrate how accuracy and efficiency
in non-iterative co-simulations are substantially enhanced when combining NEPCE with ECCO’s
adaptive step size controller. A quarter car model with linear and nonlinear damping characteristics
serves as a co-simulation benchmark, and we observe reductions of the coupling errors of up to 98 %
utilizing the concepts discussed here.
I.

INTRODUCTION

Co-simulation allows for the independent and parallel modeling and simulation of complex systems including multiple physical and engineering domains, the use
of tailored software tools and expert knowledge, the
efficient use of suited solvers, and the protection of
intellectual property within models. All these properties make this kind of simulator coupling an attractive
choice, especially from an industrial perspective. But
the fact that coupled subsystems are solved independently of each other between discrete communication
time points also emphasizes accuracy and stability issues.
The flow and the conservation of energy between
simulators in a co-simulation can be conveniently studied when using power bonds to realize the couplings.
A power bond is a direct energetic bond between subsystems defined by inputs and outputs whose product gives a physical power: force and velocity, electric current and voltage, pressure and flow rate, to
name a few. Because subsystems in a co-simulation
advance in time independently of each other, energy
transactions between them are inherently inaccurate.
Energy residuals emerge as a consequence and directly
affect the total energy of the overall coupled system.
Consequently, system dynamics are distorted and cosimulation accuracy and stability are challenged.
These concepts are exploited in the EnergyConservation-based Co-Simulation method1 (ECCO).
Because energy residuals are a direct expression of coupling errors, they are a versatile tool to assess the quality of co-simulations. Based on such error estimators,
ECCO defines an adaptive control of the co-simulation
step size, and displays significant improvements in the
accuracy and efficiency of non-iterative co-simulations.
Similar arguments are used in the Nearly Energy Preserving Coupling Element 2 (NEPCE) to introduce corrections to the flow of (generalized) power between
simulators in order to minimize coupling errors.
Here, we have a closer look at NEPCE and its
energy-conserving properties. We further propose a
modification to include the presence of direct feed-

through, enhancing its performance. NEPCE’s efficiency is based on the assumption that the coupling
variables are slowly varying functions of time. This assumption is challenged, however, by finding a suitable
choice of the co-simulation (macro) time step. We
demonstrate how this issue is efficiently handled by
ECCO’s energy-conservation-based adaptive step size
control in order to substantially improve accuracy and
efficiency. Because the resulting framework is noniterative, it is computationally inexpensive and well
suited for industrial applications.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section II,
we start with a brief recapitulation of the flow and
conservation of energy in co-simulations using power
bonds. Next, we study NEPCE’s non-iterative corrections to the simulator inputs in Section III and show
how they should be modified in the presence of direct
feed-through. Section IV discusses how these corrections can be combined with ECCO’s adaptive step
size control, and a quarter car model is then used in
Section V to demonstrate the performance of the proposed method and its influence on co-simulation accuracy and efficiency. Finally, we give a conclusion in
Section VI.

II.

ENERGY CONSERVATION IN
CO-SIMULATIONS

Most commonly, co-simulations are realized by letting the simulators advance in time in parallel and
independently of each other, and then synchronizing
coupling data at discrete communication time points.
This weak coupling approach is easily implemented
and relatively efficient on paper: It is universally applicable for industrial applications (which usually prohibit iterative schemes) and the parallelization potential holds the promise of substantial simulation speedups. Its major weaknesses, however, are accuracy and
stability. Input quantities are generally unknown during the time integrations inside the simulators. They
must therefore be approximated, and are often simply
held constant. A sufficiently small macro time step
has to be chosen in order to keep the coupling errors

is the residual power for the power bond k, see Fig. 2
for an illustration. At each macro time step, the residual energy δEk is directly added to the total energy
of the overall coupled system.1 As a consequence, system dynamics are distorted and the quality of the cosimulation reduced. Note that the power transmitted
from S1 to S2 can be obtained from the simulator outputs as

Pk12 (t) = σk12 yk1 (t)yk2 (t) ,
(4)

which result from this scheme contained.
uk 1 (ti )
S1

S2
uk 2 (ti )
(a) Inputs are set at t = ti

where the sign σk12 ≡ (Lk12 − Lk21 )/2 is determined
by the corresponding elements of the connection graph
matrix L.

yk 2 (ti+1 )
S1

S2
yk 1 (ti+1 )

δPk

(b) Outputs are retrieved at t = ti+1

S1

Pk1

Pk 2

S2

Figure 1: Two coupled simulators exchange energy
through a power bond in a co-simulation

A.

Figure 2: Total system dynamics are distorted by a
residual power δPk between two energetically coupled
simulators due to the independent time integrations

Power and Energy Residuals

The use of power bonds from bond graph theory3,4
allows to reframe these issues in terms of energy conservation considerations.1 A power bond k is defined
by a pair of power variables—a flow fk and an effort
ek —whose product Pk = ek fk gives a physical power.
Powers and energies, the universal currencies of physical systems, are directly accessible in co-simulations
when using power bonds. As an example, consider the
flow of energy between two simulators S1 and S2 that
are coupled via a power bond k, see Fig. 1. From the
point of view of S1 , energy is transferred to S2 at a
rate
Pk1 (t) = ũk1 (t)yk1 (t),

Luckily, inaccurate energy transactions provide us
with a versatile error estimator because the corresponding residual energies are a direct expression
of the co-simulation coupling errors and the violation of energy conservation.1 This is exploited by the
ECCO algorithm to define an adaptive macro step size
controller: For input extrapolation of order m, the
residual energy scales quadratic with the step size1 ,
δEk = O(∆tm+2 ). Consequently, the conservation of
energy can be approximately satisfied by controlling
the macro step size, optimizing the quality and efficiency of co-simulations.

(1a)
B.

where yk1 (t) is the output and ũk1 (t) ≈ uk1 (t) is an
approximation of the generally unknown value uk1 (t).
If, instead, we consider the energy transfer from the
other simulator’s perspective, we conclude that
Pk2 (t) = ũk2 (t)yk2 (t).

Considering the time evolution of the internal states
x = {x1 , x2 } of the coupled simulators between the
discrete communication time points ti and ti+1 ,

(5a)
ẋ(t) = f x(t), ũ(t) , t ∈ (ti , ti+1 ],

(1b)

This is problematic because it fundamentally violates
the conservation of energy,
− (Pk1 + Pk2 ) , 0,

simulator coupling can be expressed as

(2)

because, generally, ũk1 (t) , uk1 (t) and ũk2 (t) , uk2 (t).
Hence, a residual energy is incorrectly created due to
the independent time integrations of the simulators
during the macro time step ti → ti+1 = ti + ∆ti ,1
Z

δPk (t) dt,

(3a)

ti

where
δPk ≡ −(Pk1 + Pk2 )


y(ti+1 ) = g x(ti+1 ), ũ(ti+1 ) ,

(5b)

u(ti+1 ) = Ly(ti+1 ),

(5c)

where L is a connection graph matrix that relates outputs y and inputs u at communication time points. In
the non-iterative co-simulation, the inputs are generally unknown and have to be approximated during the
time integrations inside the simulators, ũ(t) ≈ u(t).
Most commonly, they are simply held constant such
that ũ(t) = u(ti ) for t ∈ (ti , ti+1 ].
Let us in the following have a closer look at the local
coupling errors which stem from these approximations
and the independent time integrations in the subsystems between communication time points. For the

ti+1

δEk (ti+1 ) ≡

Local Errors in the Coupling Variables

(3b)
2

coupling variables such that energy transactions between simulators are described more accurately. In
this section, we will explore this concept which is
used by NEPCE2 and generalize it to include the
presence of direct feed-through. In Section IV we
then discuss how the energy-conservation-based corrections studied here can be combined with ECCO’s
non-iterative adaptive step size controller, and Section V demonstrates the substantial improvements in
accuracy and efficiency thus obtained using a quarter
car co-simulation benchmark model.
As can be seen from Eqs. (1) and (3), a residual
energy

case of coupling via power bonds, these errors are conveniently represented as power and energy errors and
directly related to the conservation of energy throughout the entire coupled system. Using energies and
powers as error metrics instead of non-energetic quantities has two major advantages: i.) They offer a more
holistic and intuitive approach by considering the flow
of energy between subsystems directly ii.) They avoid
that some simulator’s contributions to the global error are given too much weight. If, for example, one
simulator outputs a force and another a position, the
numerical values of the force output will typically be
much larger than those of the position output. The
same will then generally be true for the numerical values of the corresponding errors, skewing the actual
simulators’ contributions to the global co-simulation
error. The use of energy and power errors solves this
issue in an elegant fashion.
In the next section, we will discuss how we can minimize local coupling errors. The subsystem states are
inaccessible in a typical co-simulation setting and can
not be directly altered. Instead, corrections to the
inputs can be derived such that the residual energies
between simulators are minimized and energy conservation is approximately satisfied. These corrections
ideally cancel the local errors in the inputs which are
given by
∆u(t) = ũ(t) − u0 (t)
= ũ(t) − Ly0 (t)

Z

+ O(∆t

m+2

Z

ti+1

(α − 1)δEk (ti+1 ) =


ũk (t) + δuk (t) · yk (t) dt

ti

(9)
with the tuning factor α ∈ [0, 1]. Ideally, α = 1 if the
corrections accurately track the errors in the inputs,
δuk (t) = −∆uk (t). While this can not be realized in
general for non-iterative co-simulations, however, corrections should be of the same order as the errors in
the input (6a), δuk = O(∆tm+1 ), to mitigate their
effects. Moreover, a correction to the input will generally elicit a modification of the output δyk , such that
we generally need to consider

(6a)

(6b)
(α − 1)δEk (ti+1 )
Z ti+1


(10)
=
ũk (t) + δuk (t) · yk (t) + δyk (t) dt.

),

where Jg ij (u) = ∂gi / ∂uj is the interface Jacobian
and Jg ij (x) = ∂gi / ∂xj . While the error contributions
from the state vector are
∆x(t) = x(t) − x0 (t) = O(∆tm+2 ),

(8)

is accumulated during the time step ti → ti+1 for a
power bond k connecting the inputs ũk = {ũk1 , ũk2 }
and outputs yk = {yk1 , yk2 }. The concept behind
NEPCE is to find corrections δuk = {δuk1 , δuk2 } to
the inputs at communication time instant t = ti with
the aim of reducing the residual energy by a factor of
(1 − α), such that

where u0 (t) is the exact solution and we used that
u0 (t) = Ly0 (t) for any time t. The errors in the
outputs evaluate to

= Jg (u)∆u(t) + Jg (x)∆x(t)

ũk (t) · yk (t) dt
ti


= ũ(t) − L y(t) − ∆y(t) ,

∆y(t) = y(t) − y0 (t)


= g x(t), ũ(t) − g x0 (t), u0 (t)

ti+1

δEk (ti+1 ) = −

ti

If direct feed-through is present, this modification to
the output is of the same order as the input corrections, δyk = O(∆tm+1 ), and should be included.

(6c)
m+1

the input errors appear to order ∆u = O(∆t
).
Consequently, if one of the simulators Sk has direct feed-through, the output errors are also of order
O(∆tm+1 ) because then Jg kk (u) , 0. Using Eq. (6b)
in Eq. (6a) and rewriting thus gives
−1

∆u(t) = 1 − LJ
ũ(t) − Ly(t)
(7)
+ O(∆tm+2 ),

A.

NEPCE

But first, let us discuss the case where none of the
simulators have direct feed-through. Then, the errors
in the inputs (7) are simply
∆u(t) = ũ(t) − Ly(t) + O(∆tm+2 ),

(11)

where we set J ≡ Jg (u) for brevity.
and Eq. (9) suffices. Choosing
III. NON-ITERATIVE
ENERGY-CONSERVATION-BASED
CORRECTIONS

δu(t) = −∆u(t) ≈ Ly(t) − ũ(t)
would make the residual energy vanish and the coupling quantities exact to order O(∆tm+1 ). As already mentioned, this is not possible for non-iterative
co-simulations because y(t) is unknown a priori for

Let us now take the idea of energy conservation in
co-simulations a step further by directly modifying the
3

t = (ti , ti+1 ]. Instead, we realize the correction in
terms of previous coupling data,2
δu(t) ≈

α
∆ti

Z

more efficient and beneficial the input corrections become.
The Energy-Conservation-based Co-Simulation
method (ECCO) provides a framework that allows
us to adaptively choose a macro step size which
(given some tolerances) approximately ensures energy
conservation in non-iterative co-simulations. This
concept and its performance have recently been
studied1 , and we shall in the following combine it
with the energy-conservation-based input corrections
from the previous section to define a non-iterative
co-simulation framework yielding high accuracy and
efficiency without the use of any simulator-internal
data.
An I-controller is used to determine a new optimal
step size

ti


Ly(τ ) − ũ(τ ) dτ,

(12)

ti−1

for t ∈ (ti , ti+1 ], assuming that the coupling variables
and the errors are slowly varying on the scale of the
time step ∆t.
Note that this is a reasonable assumption in theory: In a co-simulation the macro time step should
be chosen such that the dynamics of the system can
be sufficiently well resolved in time. A violation of
this assumption is equivalent to the macro time step
simply being too large for the problem at hand. In
section IV, we will take a big step towards ensuring
that this crucial assumption holds by combining the
energy-conservation-based input corrections discussed
in the present section with the energy-conservationbased adaptive step size controller ECCO.

B.

∆ti+1 = αs (ti )−kI ∆ti

as a function of an error indicator . Here, kI =
0.3/(m + 2) is the integral gain5 , m is the extrapolation order (m = 0 for constant extrapolation), and
αs ∈ [0.8, 0.9] is a safety factor. The scalar error indicator can be defined as1
v
u
2
N 
u1 X
δEk (t)
t
 ,
(t) ≡
(15)
N
rk E0k + |Ek (t)|
k=1

Corrections with Direct Feed-Through

As discussed previously, corrections to the inputs
cause modifications to the outputs which are of the
same order O(∆tm+1 ) in the presence of direct feedthrough. The errors in the inputs are then given by
Eq. (7), and Eq. (12) should be modified to
−1
α
δu(t) ≈
1−LJ
∆ti

Z

using the residual energies δEk and energies
Ek (ti+1 ) ≈ Pk12 (ti+1 )∆ti transmitted per time step
for all N power bonds. Here, the typical energy scale
E0k and the relative tolerance rk are freely configurable parameters which determine the energy resolution for the power bond k. The I-controller (14)
aims to find and maintain a balance between accuracy and efficiency by choosing a step size for which
 ≈ 1: Efficiency can be improved if  < 1 by increasing the step size, while accuracy needs to be increased
by choosing smaller time steps of  > 1. In order to
avoid rapid oscillations in the step size on one hand,
and inefficiently small step sizes on the other, the step
size itself and its rate of change are restricted by the
parameters ∆tmin and ∆tmax , and Θmin and Θmax , respectively. Table I lists the full configuration used for
the benchmark tests of Section V.

ti


Ly(τ )− ũ(τ ) dτ (13)

ti−1

to include all coupling errors of order O(∆tm+1 ). It
is important to point out that Eq. (13) requires the
knowledge of the generally time-dependent interface
Jacobian Jij = ∂gi / ∂uj . In practical applications, it
will likely not be available and the unmodified NEPCE
form (12) should be chosen. While disregarding the
output error contribution in Eqs. (6), it is still an improvement over the uncorrected co-simulation in the
presence of direct feed-through.
Finally, note that we can safely disregard the case
where both simulators have direct feed-through, because it amounts to an algebraic loop which indicates
that the particular system reticulation is not suitable
for non-iterative co-simulation and ill-chosen.

IV.

(14)

Value Unit
αs
0.8
∆tmin 10
µs
∆tmax 10
ms
Θmin
0.2
Θmax
1.5
E0
750
J

ENERGY-CONSERVING ADAPTIVE
STEP SIZE CONTROL

The previous section discussed NEPCE and how
it should be modified in the presence of direct
feed-through. The approach to energy-conservationbased corrections to the inputs in non-iterative cosimulations relies on the assumption that the coupling
variables are slowly varying functions of time on the
scale of the macro time step. When this assumption
does not hold the corrections become increasingly ineffective and can even lead to instability by exciting
relatively fast dynamics in the subsystems2 . In other
words, the smaller the chosen macro time step the

Table I: Configuration of the adaptive step size
controller for the benchmark model in Sec. V

V.

CO-SIMULATION BENCHMARK TESTS

In order to assess the performance of the methods discussed in sections III and IV, we employ a
4

quarter car model as described in Ref. 6 and split
it into two subsystems connected via a power bond,
see Fig. 3. This model can be considered two coupled
Dahlquist test equations7 and is thus well suited as a
co-simulation benchmark test case.1,6,8–10 We further
study two different reticulations for the co-simulation
and also investigate nonlinear damping characteristics.
The corresponding model and the underlying equations are adapted directly from Ref. 1, the parameters
are summarized in Table II for the linear test case and
in Table III for the nonlinear case.

simulator S2 ,
∆P (ti+1 ) ≡

i
1X
0
|P12 (tj+1 ) − P12
(tj+1 )|∆tj , (16a)
T j=0

0
where P12
(t) is the exact solution and T is the total
(virtual) duration of the simulation run. On the other
hand, the total accumulated residual energy

∆E(ti+1 ) ≡

i
X

δP (tj+1 )∆tj

(16b)

j=0

S1

mc

gives the amount of energy wrongfully added to the
full system during the entire simulation time interval
t ∈ [t0 , ti+1 ] and is thus used as another indicator of
co-simulation accuracy.

zc (t)

kc

dc

mw

A.

zw (t)

S2
kw
1

Let us first use the quarter car model to benchmark
NEPCE’s performance. The tuning factor α is chosen such that the errors are minimized while avoiding
the excitation of fast oscillations and risking instability. The energy errors can be reduced throughout by
49 % to 86 % when using NEPCE compared to the
uncorrected results. The results are summarized in
Tables IV and V, where the tuning factor, the total
number of macro time steps, and the power transmitted over the power bond P12 averaged over the entire simulation duration T are shown. Furthermore,
the error in the power ∆P (T ) and the total accumulated residual energy ∆E(T ) are given according to
Eqs. (16) with respect to the simulation duration T .

z(t)

2

Figure 3: The quarter car benchmark model is split
into the subsystems S1 and S2 for co-simulation using the
two distinct reticulations 1 and 2

Value

Unit

mc
400
kg
mw
40
kg
kc
15 000 N/m
kw 150 000 N/m
dc
1000 Ns/m
nd
0.5

Algorithm
Power
12
type
tuning steps PW
constant
NEPCE

Table II: Parameters for the linear quarter car
benchmark model according to Ref. 6

Value

NEPCE

4000 0.4

Error
∆P
W

∆E
J

1.0 6.3

0.95

4000 0.01 0.14 3.20

NEPCE mod. 0.95

4000 0.01 0.11 3.20

Table IV: Linear quarter car benchmark results for
reticulation 1 with NEPCE and with NEPCE with direct
feed-through modification

Unit

dc 900 N(s/m)1/2
nd
1.5

Algorithm
Power
type
tuning steps 10P212W

Table III: Parameter changes to include nonlinear
damping forces in the benchmark model according to
Ref. 11

constant
NEPCE

We generally carry out the time integrations in the
subsimulators using micro step sizes of ∆tS1 = ∆tS2 =
∆t/256 with the forward Euler method to focus on the
co-simulation coupling errors.12 As mentioned previously, we use energies and powers as error metrics to
assess the quality of the co-simulation results: On one
hand, we consider the average error in the power (4)
transmitted over the power bond from simulator S1 to

Error
∆P
102 W

∆E
102 J

4000 −1.89 0.10 0.22
0.85

4000 −1.88 0.04 0.11

NEPCE mod. 0.85

4000 −1.88 0.03 0.10

Table V: Linear quarter car benchmark results for
reticulation 2 with NEPCE and with NEPCE with direct
feed-through modification

The quarter car benchmark model does exhibit direct feed-through (in simulator S2 for system reticulation 1 and in S1 in system reticulation 2). We
5

thus expect improved performance when including the
modification to NEPCE discussed in Section III B. Indeed, the average error in the power ∆P (T ) is reduced
by about another 17 % to 33 % with the modification.
Fig. 4 exemplifies this enhancement by showing the average error in the transmitted power for system reticulation 2. Note, however, that the direct feed-through
modification to NEPCE does not significantly influence the overall accumulated residual energy ∆E(T ).

type

Algorithm
Power
12
tuning tolerance steps PW

constant
NEPCE

4000

∆E
J

1.0 6.3

0.95 1.6 × 10

3930 −0.05 0.08 0.83

NEPCE mod. 0.95 1.6 × 10

4002 −0.04 0.06 0.81

−6
−6

Table VI: Linear quarter car benchmark results for
reticulation 1 using residual-energy-based adaptive step
size control with NEPCE and with NEPCE with direct
feed-through modification

10
8

type

DP

6

Algorithm
Power
tuning tolerance steps 10P212W

constant
4

NEPCE

4000 −1.89
0.85 1.4 × 10

−6

Error
∆P
102 W

0.10

∆E
102 J

0.22

3921 −1.872 0.003 0.004

NEPCE mod. 0.85 1.4 × 10−6 3958 −1.871 0.002 0.004

2
0
0.0

0.4

Error
∆P
W

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Table VII: Linear quarter car benchmark results for
reticulation 2 using residual-energy-based adaptive step
size control with NEPCE and with NEPCE with direct
feed-through modification

0.5

t

Figure 4: Average error in the power for the linear
quarter car benchmark with reticulation 2 and constant
step size: NEPCE with direct feed-through modification
(solid), NEPCE alone (dashed), and the uncorrected
result (dotted)

10
8

DP

6

B.

4

NEPCE with ECCO

2

Let us now demonstrate how the corrections to the
inputs are made more efficient by combining them
with ECCO’s energy-conservation-based adaptive step
size control, as proposed in Sec. IV. For this purpose, the I controller (14) and the scalar error indicator (15) are configured according to the parameters listed in Table I, and the starting step size is
set to ∆t0 = ∆tmin . The quarter car system is initially excited with an energy of 750 J which thus determines the characteristic energy scale for the system,
E0 = 750 J. The tolerance r is set such that the total
number of macro time steps remains around a constant 4000 steps in order to keep the computational
cost at the same level.
Substantial improvements are observed when using
NEPCE with ECCO’s adaptive step size control: The
energy errors in the benchmarks are reduced by 87 %
to 92 % for system reticulation 1, see Table VI, and by
97 % to 98 % for system reticulation 2, see Table VII.
This considerable enhancement of the quality of the
co-simulation results is also exemplified in Fig. 5.
The situation is further improved by also including the direct feed-through modifications for NEPCE,
as shown in Fig. 6. Then, an additional reduction
of the average error in the power of 26 % to 36 % is
achieved compared to the results without the modification. Again, however, the accumulated residual
energy is almost unaffected.
In
conclusion,
the
non-iterative
energy-

0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

t

Figure 5: Average error in the power for the linear
quarter car benchmark with reticulation 2: ECCO with
NEPCE (solid) against the constant step size results with
NEPCE (dashed) and without any corrections (dotted)

conservation-based co-simulation framework presented here (NEPCE with direct feed-through
modification and ECCO) manages to reduce the
energy errors by between 87 % and 98 % in the
linear quarter car benchmark at no additional
computational cost.

C.

Nonlinear Damping

Finally, let us study the effects of nonlinear damping
as given in Table III. Note that the total simulation
duration is now set to T = 2 s (2000 macro time steps
in total) because the excitations in the system are subdued faster with the more efficient nonlinear damper.
In addition, system reticulation 2 is relatively unstable for nonlinear damping, and the macro step size is
thus restricted to tmax = 2.5 ms for this setup.
6

Algorithm
Power
tuning tolerance steps 10P212W

0.5

type
0.4

constant

DP

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Figure 6: Average error in the power for the linear
quarter car benchmark with reticulation 2: ECCO with
NEPCE with direct feed-through modification (solid),
ECCO with NEPCE alone (dashed), and uncorrected
result with constant step sizes (dotted)

constant

Error
∆P
W

∆E
J

2000

0.6 1.3 4.7

2000

0.1 0.5 2.9

2000

0.1 0.5 2.9

NEPCE

0.6

NEPCE mod.

0.6

NEPCE

0.6

4.7 × 10

NEPCE mod.

0.6

4.6 × 10−6 2010 −0.1 0.2 1.0

−6

1991 −0.1 0.2 1.0

Table VIII: Nonlinear quarter car benchmark results
for reticulation 1

VI.

0.2

0.4

NEPCE

0.4

2000 −3.78 0.14 0.30

NEPCE mod.

0.4

2000 −3.78 0.12 0.30

NEPCE

0.4

2.6 × 10−5 1986 −3.77 0.04 0.04

NEPCE mod.

0.4

2.7 × 10−5 1989 −3.77 0.03 0.04

values alone, and ECCO uses them to propose
an optimal macro time step to minimize energy
errors throughout the co-simulation. The Nearly
Energy Preserving Coupling Element 2 (NEPCE),
on the other hand, corrects for coupling errors in
non-iterative co-simulations directly to make the flow
of (generalized) energy between subsimulators more
accurate.
In the present paper, we combine both methods to
optimize the efficiency and accuracy of non-iterative
co-simulations. NEPCE is based on the assumption
that the coupling variables are slowly varying on the
scale of the macro time step. ECCO, on the other
hand, provides a systematic approach to fulfill this
requirement by adaptively controlling the macro step
size in order to minimize the violation of energy conservation. We also extend NEPCE to the case where direct feed-through is present. Then, the output errors
give contributions to the residual energy which are of
the same order as the ones stemming from the input
errors. Put differently, additional contributions to the
violation of energy conservation should be taken into
account when constructing energy-conserving corrections to the coupling variables. This is, however, only
possible if the interface Jacobian is known.
The performance of the concepts discussed here is
demonstrated by use of a quarter car co-simulation
benchmark model. We study two distinct system
reticulations, as well as the effects of including nonlinear damping characteristics. In these benchmarks,
NEPCE alone generally yields a reduction in the energy errors of 32 % to 86 %, depending on how aggressively it can be used before unwanted oscillations are
induced. The proposed direct feed-through modification to NEPCE reduces the energy errors by another
0 % to 36 %. Also employing ECCO’s adaptive step
size control leads to substantially higher accuracies
in the co-simulation results: Energy errors are then
reduced by up to 98 % when compared to the uncorrected results with constant macro step sizes.

The energy-conservation-based corrections to the
inputs (as expressed by the tuning factor α) have
to be applied less aggressively to avoid rapid oscillations. Yet, using NEPCE alone without modifications yields a reduction in the energy errors of 32 %
to 60 % when compared to the uncorrected results, as
shown in Tables VIII and IX. As was the case for
the linear benchmark, significant improvements are
obtained by combining NEPCE with ECCO: The energy errors are reduced by 79 % to 91 % compared to
uncorrected results obtained with a constant step size.
Also including the direct feed-through modifications
with NEPCE leads to small additional reductions of
0 % to 19 %.
Algorithm
Power
12
tuning tolerance steps PW

∆E
102 J

Table IX: Nonlinear quarter car benchmark results for
reticulation 2

0.5

t

type

2000 −3.8

Error
∆P
102 W

CONCLUSION

The Energy-Conservation-based Co-Simulation
method1 (ECCO) provides a generic framework for
error estimation and adaptive step size control in
non-iterative co-simulations. Using power bonds to
realize the simulator coupling, it directly monitors
power flows between the subsystems and gives the
exact amount of energy wrongfully added to the total
energy of the full coupled system during co-simulation
(macro) time steps. The resulting so-called residual energies are obtain from the coupling variable

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by the Research Council of
Norway (project no. 225322 MAROFF) and the industrial partners in the ViProMa project consortium
(VARD, Rolls-Royce Marine and DNV GL). We are
7

grateful for their financial support. The authors would
further like to thank Stian Skjong for fruitful discussions.
6

BIBLIOGRAPHY
S. Sadjina, L. T. Kyllingstad, E. Pedersen, and
S. Skjong, “Energy conservation and power bonds in
co-simulations: Non-iterative adaptive step size control and error estimation,” CoRR, vol. abs/1602.06434,
2016.
2
M. Benedikt, D. Watzenig, J. Zehetner, and A. Hofer,
“Nepce—a nearly energy preserving coupling element
for weak-coupled problems and co-simulation,” in V International Conference on Computational Methods for
Coupled Problems in Science and Engineering, Coupled
Problems (S. Idelsohn, M. Papadrakakis, and B. Schrefler, eds.), pp. 1021–1032, International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2013.
3
H. M. Paynter, Analysis and Design of Engineering Systems: Class Notes for M.I.T. Course 2.751. Boston:
M.I.T. Press, 1961.
4
P. C. Breedveld, Physical systems theory in terms of
bond graphs. Dissertation, Twente University, 1984.
5
The denominator m + 2 represents the order of the error, here δEk = O(∆tm+2 ). The corrections discussed
in Sec. III have the aim of canceling the energy error
δEk to leading order in ∆t, and thus one should choose
kI = 0.3/(m+3). Here, we decide against this alteration
for two reasons: i.) As mentioned previously, the leading terms in the error can in general not be canceled
1

7

8

9

10

11

12

8

exactly for the non-iterative case, as expressed by the
tuning factor α. The ii.) The actual benchmark results
discussed in Sec. V show little to no dependence on this
chance.
M. Arnold, C. Clauss, and T. Schierz, “Error analysis
and error estimates for co-simulation in fmi for model
exchange and co-simulation v2.0,” Archive of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 75–94, 2013.
G. Dahlquist, “Convergence and stability in the numerical integration of ordinary differential equations,”
MATH SCAND, vol. 4, pp. 33–53, 1956.
C. Clauß, M. Arnold, T. Schierz, and J. Bastian, “Master zur simulatorkopplung via fmi,” in Tagungsband
der ASIM/GI-Fachgruppen STS und GMMS, pp. 57–
70, ARGESIM-Verlag, 2012.
T. Schierz, M. Arnold, and C. Clauß, “Co-simulation
with communication step size control in an fmi compatible master algorithm,” in 9th International Modelica Conference, Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings, pp. 205–214, Linköping University Electronic
Press, 2012.
M. Arnold, S. Hante, and M. A. Köbis, “Error analysis for co-simulation with force-displacement coupling,”
Proceedings in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics,
vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 43–44, 2014.
J. Bußhardt and R. Isermann, “Realization of adaptive
shock absorbers by estimating physical process coefficients of a vehicle suspension system,” in American Control Conference, 1992, pp. 531–535, 1992.
Even smaller micro step sizes affect the benchmark results only marginally.

