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

Solid-Liquid Separator Base Model #1283

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Nov 7, 2023
Merged

Conversation

andrewlee94
Copy link
Member

@andrewlee94 andrewlee94 commented Nov 3, 2023

Fixes #1218 amongst other things

Summary/Motivation:

This PR adds a new unit model base class for separating solids and liquids such as filters and thickeners. The unit has two inlets (solid and liquid) and three outlets (solids, retained_liquid (with solids) and recovered liquid).

Docs to come, along with a derived model for thickeners.

Changes proposed in this PR:

Legal Acknowledgement

By contributing to this software project, I agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution:

  1. I agree my contributions are submitted under the license terms described in the LICENSE.txt file at the top level of this directory.
  2. I represent I am authorized to make the contributions and grant the license. If my employer has rights to intellectual property that includes these contributions, I represent that I have received permission to make contributions and grant the required license on behalf of that employer.

@andrewlee94
Copy link
Member Author

@adam-a-a You might want to be aware of this for potential use in WaterTAP.

@andrewlee94 andrewlee94 self-assigned this Nov 3, 2023
@andrewlee94 andrewlee94 added enhancement New feature or request Priority:Normal Normal Priority Issue or PR unit models Issues dealing with the unit model libraries WaterTAP PrOMMiS Issues related to PrOMMiS activities labels Nov 3, 2023
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 3, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (b278031) 77.25% compared to head (6be8f78) 77.27%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1283      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.25%   77.27%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         387      389       +2     
  Lines       63127    63217      +90     
  Branches    11613    11624      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        48768    48850      +82     
- Misses      11837    11844       +7     
- Partials     2522     2523       +1     
Files Coverage Δ
idaes/models/unit_models/flash.py 97.80% <ø> (ø)
idaes/models/unit_models/solid_liquid/__init__.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...es/models/unit_models/solid_liquid/sl_separator.py 98.36% <98.36%> (ø)
idaes/models/unit_models/mscontactor.py 90.81% <82.75%> (-0.40%) ⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@andrewlee94 andrewlee94 marked this pull request as ready for review November 5, 2023 20:20

@pytest.mark.component
def test_structural_issues(self, model):
dt = DiagnosticsToolbox(model)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this going to be standard procedure for tests now? I like it; I'm just asking.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The idea is that we will add this to all the model tests (as well as doing parameter sweeps with numerical checks as part of the compatibility/verification testing too).

Copy link
Contributor

@agarciadiego agarciadiego left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a couple of typos and a question. Otherwise LGTM.

Copy link
Contributor

@MarcusHolly MarcusHolly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Made a few superficial comments, but it LGTM

idaes/models/unit_models/solid_liquid/sl_separator.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
* ``solid_inlet`` representing the solids in the incoming stream,
* ``liquid_inlet`` representing the liquid in the incoming stream,
* ``solid_outlet`` representing the solids in the concentrated stream,
* ``retained_liquid_outlet`` representing the liquid in the concentrated stream, and,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
* ``retained_liquid_outlet`` representing the liquid in the concentrated stream, and,
* ``retained_liquid_outlet`` representing the liquid in the concentrated stream

Don't think the "and" is necessary in this list. People might assume that some text is supposed to follow but is just missing

@andrewlee94
Copy link
Member Author

@MarcusHolly @agarciadiego Would you be able to take a quick look at this again? I added a basic thickener model which derives from the SLSeparator.

@MarcusHolly
Copy link
Contributor

@MarcusHolly @agarciadiego Would you be able to take a quick look at this again? I added a basic thickener model which derives from the SLSeparator.

LGTM

@agarciadiego
Copy link
Contributor

@MarcusHolly @agarciadiego Would you be able to take a quick look at this again? I added a basic thickener model which derives from the SLSeparator.

LGTM

LGTM

@andrewlee94 andrewlee94 enabled auto-merge (squash) November 7, 2023 15:23
@andrewlee94 andrewlee94 merged commit 210db70 into IDAES:main Nov 7, 2023
34 of 35 checks passed
@andrewlee94 andrewlee94 deleted the gl_sep branch November 7, 2023 17:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Priority:Normal Normal Priority Issue or PR PrOMMiS Issues related to PrOMMiS activities unit models Issues dealing with the unit model libraries WaterTAP
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

models.unit_models.MSContactor missing performance results
3 participants