Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

My current works about plug between MSL and TFS fluid connectors (Issue #125) #128

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hubertblervaque
Copy link

You will find in Interfaces (and also in Undirected.Interfaces) a new package with my current works about the development of plugs between MSL and TFS fluid connectors as mentioned in Issue #125.
For directed flow, I initially try to model these plugs with existing components (subpackage "ByAssembly") then only by a set of equations (subpackage "ByCode"). Basic unit tests are running for both. It must be working for all kind of medium for "ByAssembly" plugs but I have not yet code the case of mixture medium for "ByCode" plugs.
I structure the interfaces of Undirected plug and the unit test I would like to get but no model are still tested. I guess this Undirected flow could be contructed from the two "Directed" plugs.
Feel free to contact me if needed.
Could you please inform when you have a vision of the integration of this task in your planning.

…SL and TFS fluid connectors. Firstly the directed flow connectors and then for undirected flow connectors.
@github-actions github-actions bot added the p::Interfaces Concerns package Interfaces and Undirected.Interfaces label Jun 24, 2023
@nieweber
Copy link
Contributor

nieweber commented Jul 4, 2023

Thank you for your contribution to the MSL-TFS interface. I had a first look on your implementation today. In your TFS->MSL interface you are directly coupling the pressure and mass-flow of both approaches. This is something that should be treated with care to avoid the spread of large non-linear equation systems across components and hence are taking the advantages of our modeling approach. It would probably make sense to have a quick call for better understanding of your general idea and your test cases and how to proceed. Internally we are working on an alternative solution and conducted similar tests.

Also I saw that in your "target test case" you are plugging in a component from the MSL into a closed cycle. It would be preferable to model the whole subsystem in the MSL and plug it to the TFS to keep the benefits of the TFS modeling approach.

@hubertblervaque
Copy link
Author

hubertblervaque commented Jul 4, 2023

Thank you for your message.
It would a pleasure to have a call with you to explain more in detail the general idea and the models integrated in the pull request proposal. I have many availabilities the week from July, 17th to 21th. Feel free to suggest a video meeting at [email protected].
We are fully aware that integrating an MSL component is not ideal in terms of resolution. We consider this plug solution as a temporary alternative for integrating component not yet modeled according to the ThermoFluidStream approach.

@hubertblervaque
Copy link
Author

Hi Niels, did you have time to look further into the development of the plug? Feel free to suggest a video meeting at [email protected].

@nieweber nieweber marked this pull request as draft September 14, 2023 11:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
p::Interfaces Concerns package Interfaces and Undirected.Interfaces
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants