search

ukaea / PROCESS

PROCESS is a systems code at UKAEA that calculates in a self-consistent manner the parameters of a fusion power plant with a specified performance, ensuring that its operating limits are not violated, and with the option to optimise to a given function of these parameters.
https://ukaea.github.io/PROCESS/
MIT License
36 stars 11 forks source link

Issue 991 transverse orthotropic stress modelling - [closed] #2141

Closed jonmaddock closed 1 year ago

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 12, 2020, 11:37

Merges issue-991-transverse-orthotropic-stress-modelling -> develop

Any thoughts ?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 13, 2020, 10:41

added 2 commits

Compare with previous version

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 13, 2020, 11:08

added 1 commit

Compare with previous version

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 13, 2020, 11:54

@mkovari

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:26

Commented on documentation/archive/figures/stellarator_coil.fig line 111

Ideally I would prefer using a separate issue and separate merge request for variable name changes.

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:28

Commented on examples/Hybrid_mode/MFILE.DAT line 567

In any case, this line doesn't seem to be formatted correctly.

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:28

Commented on examples/Hybrid_mode/OUT.DAT line 715

or this one.

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:29

Commented on examples/I_mode/MFILE.DAT line 153

or these

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:30

Commented on examples/I_mode/OUT.DAT line 121

or this one

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:31

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 141

Why have these lines been removed?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:32

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2799

Is this documented somewhere?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:34

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2892

Do you mean GPa?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:36

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2904

Do you mean Nibron Special, a type of bronze?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:37

Commented on source/fortran/initial.f90 line 1159

resistive

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:39

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2792

'TF coil' or 'TFC'

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 13, 2020, 15:46

I can't find any new code?!?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 18:56

Commented on documentation/archive/figures/stellarator_coil.fig line 111

I will never do that again ... Promised! But I did allocate a dedicated commit by the way!

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 18:57

Commented on examples/Hybrid_mode/MFILE.DAT line 567

What do you mean exactly ??

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 18:58

Commented on examples/Hybrid_mode/OUT.DAT line 715

I am lost, what is the format issue ?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 18:58

Commented on examples/I_mode/MFILE.DAT line 153

?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 18:59

Commented on examples/I_mode/OUT.DAT line 121

What is the format issue?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 18:59

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 141

These as been simply shifted with the other young modulus values :)

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:10

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2799

The generalized plane stress is documented in the issue but not in the manual.

The CEA tresca is documented in @jmorris-uk paper draft at least.

May be done later

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:10

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2892

Yes, corrected ty

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:14

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2904

I don't know. I should stop reffering to it I guess re-re-naming it eyoung_tf_buck_res or something like that.

Also get to think that the default value should be something less relevant for IP reasons ..

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:16

Commented on source/fortran/initial.f90 line 1159

Corrected Ty!

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:17

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2792

Corrected, ty !

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:25

To which part of the code are you reffering to ?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:44

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2892

changed this line in version 4 of the diff

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:44

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2904

changed this line in version 4 of the diff

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:44

Commented on source/fortran/initial.f90 line 1159

changed this line in version 4 of the diff

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:44

Commented on source/fortran/global_variables.f90 line 2792

changed this line in version 4 of the diff

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 14, 2020, 19:44

added 1 commit

Compare with previous version

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 14:07

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 362

The area of the ground-wall insulation on the lateral sides of the winding pack is

2.0D0 * tinstf * dr_tf_wp

not

2.0D0 * tinstf * dr_tf_wp * turnstf

@skahn @jmorris-uk ?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 14:14

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 353

awpc includes the ground-wall insulation on all 4 sides of the winding pack, so aiwp appears to include the ground wall insulation as well as the inter-turn insulation.
@jmorris-uk

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 14:19

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 372

As before, this implies that aiwp includes the ground-wall insulation.

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 14:21

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 422

Is the ground-wall insulation on all 4 sides included?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 14:37

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 344

This relates to the resistive TF coil. What is the meaning of the term "winding pack" in this context?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 14:48

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 393

I think we should decide on the definition of the term "winding pack". Does it include
(a) the surrounding ground-wall insulation layer, and
(b) the insertion gap filler material?

Whatever it is, it should be stated here and used consistently.

@jmorris-uk

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 14:57

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 907

I do not believe that there will be sliding joints. Even if the coil is not two parts connected by demountable joints I don't believe they will allow sliding during operation.

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 15:09

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 1007

Can you give a reference here @skahn ? I can't find the latest version of these.
Thanks

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 19, 2020, 16:06

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 362

@mkovari I get the feeling that you are looking a the resistive turn area calculation.

awptf is defined as the exact conductor area inside each resistive coils turns for resistive coil ... For some obscure reasons in my mind I removed the turn unsulation thickness to define r_wp_outer and r_wp_inner even this is not entirely consistent.

With these consideration, the following formula is right.

These definitions are highly confusing, and I have to appologie for that, I plan to change them in the near future to be less confusing.

  1. And what about the lateral casing and plasma-side casing?
    -> There is no lateral casing in resistive coils

  2. I am not familiar with coolcp (Coolant fraction of TF centrepost (itart=1) or the whole magnet (itart=0)). Where is this coolant supposed to be located?
    -> The coolant is flowing inside the conductor metal trough several circular pipes

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 19, 2020, 16:12

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 353

There is no ground wall insulation in resisitve coils, nor insertion gap.

Again, although my definitions are very confusing for resititve coils, I checked many times these if calculation are consistent.

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 19, 2020, 16:13

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 372

No ground insulation in resistive coils

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 19, 2020, 16:14

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 393

Could not agree more. I think the WP should include (a) and (b), although this is not the case for now. But I propose to make this change in the next PROCESS update and not this one.

The code is actually ready.

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 19, 2020, 16:16

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 422

Yes

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 19, 2020, 16:19

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 1007

You can find the calculation in the 2019 eurofusion report, and on this document

document.pdf

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 19, 2020, 16:23

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 344

Conductor layer, again I will improve the res coil variable definition in the near future

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on May 19, 2020, 16:26

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 907

MIT claims they can ...
I need indeed to make the distinction between
0 : No demontable joints
1 : Demontable joints
2 : Sliding demontable joints

option 2 is possible if we use a resistive materials in the joints, the issue is more with cryogenics

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 19, 2020, 16:39

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 362

I realized a few minutes later that this code relates to the resistive coil, so I removed questions 2 and 3.

However, I still don’t understand why turnstf appears in a calculation of the cross-section area of the conductor per TF coil. @skahn @jmorris-uk ?

jonmaddock commented 4 years ago

In GitLab by @mkovari on May 20, 2020, 15:02

Commented on source/fortran/sctfcoil.f90 line 1007

@skahn I understand that this code is from a previous issue. Nevertheless could you save the document somewhere we can access it and put a link into the code (or refer to the issue in the code and attach or link the document in the issue)? Thanks.