TF_WP #3082
TF_WP #3082
Conversation
|
|
@CoronelBuendia I cannot rebase the previous branch in the "correct" way. The easy solution was to create a new branch starting from develop. If it is ok, I will close the other PR (just labelled as "obsolete" for the moment). Sorry for the confusion. |
CoronelBuendia
changed the base branch from
develop
to
feature/new_magnet_module
CoronelBuendia
changed the base branch from
feature/new_magnet_module
to
develop
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #3082 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 74.27% 73.47% -0.80%
===========================================
Files 242 238 -4
Lines 26825 27861 +1036
===========================================
+ Hits 19923 20472 +549
- Misses 6902 7389 +487 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
je-cook
force-pushed
the
develop
branch
5 times, most recently
from
5a50acb to
7574352
Compare
|
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @ivanmaione, sorry I don't have much time at the moment, so this is just an intermediate review... I will try and get back to it soon, but thought I'd get some comments in.
| """Material density [kg/m³]""" | ||
| return 8960 | ||
|
|
||
| def erho(self, T: float, B: float, **kwargs): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I picked this equation to review at random (well, because it looked more complicated). I am not able to retrace its origins entirely. From the reference in the docstring I can find parts of the below from equations 8-1 and 8-7, but there are some discrepancies from what I can tell, or perhaps just some undocumented values that differ from those in the reference (e.g. rho_c in 8-1).
| # superconducting parameters for the calculation of Ic | ||
| c_ = 1.0 | ||
| Ca1 = 50.06 | ||
| Ca2 = 0.00 | ||
| eps_0a = 0.00312 | ||
| eps_m = -0.00059 | ||
| Bc20max = 33.24 | ||
| Tc0max = 16.34 | ||
| p = 0.593 | ||
| q = 2.156 | ||
| C = 83075 * 1e6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a general parameterisation, that does not represent all Nb3Sn strands. We can separate the data from the parameterisation very easily in this case.
| n = 1.7 | ||
| Bc20_T = 15.19 | ||
| Tc0_K = 8.907 | ||
| C0 = 3.00e04 | ||
| C1 = 0.45 | ||
| a1 = 3.2 | ||
| b1 = 2.43 | ||
| C2 = 0.55 | ||
| a2 = 0.65 | ||
| b2 = 2 | ||
| g1 = 1.8 | ||
| g2 = 1.8 |
| T_ = T + T_margin # noqa: N806 | ||
| int_eps = -strain / 100 | ||
| eps_sh = self.Ca2 * self.eps_0a / (np.sqrt(self.Ca1 ** 2 - self.Ca2 ** 2)) | ||
| s_eps = 1 + ( | ||
| self.Ca1 | ||
| * ( | ||
| np.sqrt(eps_sh ** 2 + self.eps_0a ** 2) | ||
| - np.sqrt((int_eps - eps_sh) ** 2 + self.eps_0a ** 2) | ||
| ) | ||
| - self.Ca2 * int_eps | ||
| ) / (1 - self.Ca1 * self.eps_0a) | ||
| Bc0_eps = self.Bc20max * s_eps | ||
| Tc0_eps = self.Tc0max * (s_eps) ** (1 / 3) # noqa: N806 | ||
| t = T_ / Tc0_eps | ||
| BcT_eps = Bc0_eps * (1 - t ** (1.52)) | ||
| b = B / BcT_eps | ||
| hT = (1 - t ** (1.52)) * (1 - t ** 2) # noqa: N806 | ||
| fPb = (b ** self.p) * (1 - b) ** self.q # noqa: N806 | ||
| return self.c_ * (self.C / B) * s_eps * fPb * hT |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From my own implementations of these superconducting parameterisations, it is usually worthwhile to protect against NaNs and infinity. See PROCESS for an example of how to treat this.
| """Electrical Resistivity""" | ||
| return 1e6 | ||
|
|
||
| def cp_v(self, **kwargs): # noqa: ARG002 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential for some confusion here. Is this the volumetric heat capacity or the specific heat capacity? So extensive of intensive? I think in general (and something that I regret a little with the present materials implementation in bluemira) that it would be nice to have full_word_names for these properties, even if sometimes they will look horrid. Saves on potential confusion of this nature. I also find the signature (temperature: float, field: Union[None, float], strain: Union[None, float]) perhaps a little easier to read.
Linked Issues
Closes #138
Description
Interface Changes
Checklist
I confirm that I have completed the following checks:
pytest tests --reactorpre-commit run --from-ref develop --to-ref HEADsphinx-build -W documentation/source documentation/build