-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 235
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
Reformulate solubility_products constraints #1197
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
23 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
513796e
Modified log_solubility_product function to accomodate the comparison…
517c0a1
Remove comments
6463f3b
run black
bknueven c940637
Update state_difinitions vars lower bouds
99db9c3
Add mutable parameters for reformated solubility_product
2b58efa
Update solubility_product tests
1edee16
Merge branch 'main' into chem_init
andrewlee94 d5b2aa3
test_plate_heat_exchanger.py
d598545
run black
28aed85
Reverse changes for lower bounds in state_definition
6eee6b5
Merge branch 'main' into chem_init
andrewlee94 4cd060d
Add assertion for default s_norm and a_scale checking
d6462cd
Typo corrected
89b6a2f
Add documentation for solubility_product
lxhowl a990507
Update doc string
d42a687
Merge branch 'IDAES:main' into chem_init
lxhowl 5306d36
Equation corrected for sulubility product doc
4ca5c87
Merge branch 'IDAES:main' into chem_init
lxhowl e4a6376
Merge branch 'main' into chem_init
lbianchi-lbl bc88595
Switch to set_value for default s_norm
214f14f
Scaling applied in subsaturated cases (low concentrations) to use def…
7bec453
Run black
14cb740
Merge branch 'main' into chem_init
andrewlee94 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If one or both Q and s need to be zero, could this just bee smooth min(Q, s) == 0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Current expression goes
Q-0.5(Q-s+|Q-s|) == 0
while the smooth min gives0.5(Q+s-|Q-s|)==0
. The complexity remains the same. The current expression keeps Q as a leading term, which might be easy for users to scale the solubility product with other equilibrium reactions.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@eslickj I think this formulation is correct - it is a bit more complicated than just one of Q or s needing to be zero.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@andrewlee94, I'm sure you are probably right. Can someone explain the difference to me? Why is this one preferred? I think both should work, but I may be missing something. To me, the the one in the code currently just seems convoluted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@eslickj I cannot remember the details - I asked Larry Biegler to help with this is and this is the form he suggested.