[WIP] Val 2i - Deuterium retention in neutron-irradiated single-crystal tungsten - #325
[WIP] Val 2i - Deuterium retention in neutron-irradiated single-crystal tungsten#325cticenhour wants to merge 36 commits into
Conversation
4b39d0e to
c937c4f
Compare
135be67 to
4c88923
Compare
simopier
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you @cticenhour! I'm excited for this case to be added!
I left comments and suggestions even though this is still tagged as [WIP] because I was too curious to ignore it. It looks like the main thing missing is the documentation, correct?
| # tmap_flux_for_rmspe = numerical_solution_on_experiment_input(experiment_time, simulation_time_TMAP7, simulation_flux_left_TMAP7/2 + flux_environment) | ||
| # RMSE = np.sqrt(np.mean((tmap_flux_for_rmspe-experiment_flux)**2) ) | ||
| # RMSPE = RMSE*100/np.mean(experiment_flux) | ||
| # ax.text(6000.0,0.85e18, 'RMSPE = %.2f '%RMSPE+'%',fontweight='bold') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this commented out? Maybe it's just because this is still in WIP stage, but calculating the RMSPE between TMAP8's predictions and the experimental data is a good thing to add.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was commented out because it added complexity while I was working through adjusting the rest of the plot. It is planned to be re-added before this is merged.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
RMSPE values (for TMAP4 and TMAP8 simulation results against experimental data.....thought it would be an interesting point of comparison) were added in 8506bf3. Though, there are some quirks that needs to be ironed out. TMAP4 RMSPE looks reasonable, but TMAP8 RMSPE is off the charts (+15000%). Looks like there is an error or the data needs to be "cleaned" - like, we need to compensate for the environment or something. Need to explore further.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like the full data set has quite a bit of noise that was truncated out in the data plot:
Do you have a good way off the top of your head to remove this "environment flux"? I see that an environment flux was calculated and used in the val-2d comparison script, but I am not sure if we can do the same here. Probably need to review the context in the documentation, first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you talking about the values at 10^5? this sounds like basically 0, and it probably corresponds to the minimum detection limit. I don't think it's meaningful in any way. Masa might be able to confirm or deny that.
| [] | ||
|
|
||
| [Postprocessors] | ||
| [flux_surface_left] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Specify units as a comment.
ffd05b1 to
a9d8db5
Compare
64e353e to
71ff949
Compare
|
Rebased on devel to fix conflicts with the current |
Confirmed that temperature and diffusivity profiles over time look reasonable, and there is a reasonably high trapped population, but zero mobile concentration. Convergence fails over only a couple of timesteps.
…timestepper, and lower trap_per_free parameter
…ture ploting script
…concentration, and other parameter adjustments for clarity
…ts with the source publication
…settings in input file, that did not impact results.
Use random sampling to reduce the density of the scatter plot of the experimental data - similar to what Masa's doing in the paper. Cannot tell what approach he is using the reduce the plot density. As of this change, 10% of the data will be sampled and shown on the plot using the random sampler.
Co-authored-by: Pierre-Clement Simon <pierreclement.simon@gmail.com>
…ectly from the simulation. Add temperature function to postprocessor output for use in scripts. Start output of simulation data from timestep 0 to get the full temperature series.
71ff949 to
669ae7d
Compare
- Fix typo in temperature history script. Now always uses gold files from TMAP8 simulation. - Add units comments to postprocessor outputs
|
Job Precheck, step Python: black format on 73ff72b wanted to post the following: Python black formattingYour code requires style changes. A patch was generated and copied here. You can directly apply the patch by running the following at the top level of your repository: Alternatively, you can run the following at the top level of your repository: |
|
Job Build test summary, step Build test summary on b41cfdf wanted to post the following: Test summaryCompared against c837769 in job civet.inl.gov/job/3665797. Added tests
Run time changes
|
|
Job Documentation, step Sync to remote on 8a04362 wanted to post the following: View the site here This comment will be updated on new commits. |
Some of this was needed during debug, but is no longer. This change also makes it easier to turn off Exodus output for testing.
The MUMPS change will hopefully help with robustness in parallel / distributed mesh
simopier
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know you are still working on this, but here is a review with comments for you to consider.
Thank you for adding this case!
The light test currently fails:
DIFF test:val-2i.val-2i_673K_light FAILED (CSVDIFF)
| trapping_site_fraction_1 = 0.002 # (-) | ||
| trapping_rate_prefactor = '${fparse ${diffusivity_coefficient} / ${W_lattice_constant}^2}' # (1/s) | ||
| release_rate_prefactor = '${units 1e13 1/s}' | ||
| trap_per_free_1 = 1e6 # (-) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The trap per free coefficient is not in the equations in the documentation. You should add it and provide its value.
| [] | ||
|
|
||
| [Variables] | ||
| [concentration] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest changing this variable name to mobile since concentration could apply to the trapping too.
| [trapped_1] | ||
| order = FIRST | ||
| family = LAGRANGE | ||
| outputs = none |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not? I suggest you output it.
| outputs = none |
|
@cticenhour, do you need any help with this? |
This is quite close to my current draft PR. If you would like me to help with this, I can after I finish up that work. |
|
I plan on making good progress on this over this week, so I think I'll be good. Thanks! |
Co-authored-by: Pierre-Clement Simon <pierreclement.simon@gmail.com>
…consistently shifted Add a note about why we do this to the comparison script
- Document use of the `trap_per_free` scaling factor in val-2i.md and report its value used in val-2i.i. - Also in val-2i.md, replace TODO citation placeholders with the actual references and consolidate listing in input files section to being paragraph-based. - Simplify variable/parameter naming in val-2i.i since only one trapping site is modeled. That is, drop the "_1" suffixes (trapped_1 -> trapped, trap_per_free_1 -> trap_per_free, trapping_site_fraction_1 -> trapping_site_fraction, etc.). Also, update the matching `cli_args` in the tests file for the renamed trapping_site_fraction parameter. - Make the mobile species variable naming more clear (concentration -> mobile) and enable output of the trapped variable. - Improve comparison_val-2i.py plot readability: outline the TMAP8 and TMAP4 curves with a black stroke path effect, and color-match each RMSPE annotation to its corresponding curve.
Masa's Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379618303880
Closes #393