Fixed domain mismatch bug when using lithium plating with SPM #4844
Conversation
DrSOKane
requested review from
kratman,
agriyakhetarpal,
Saransh-cpp,
brosaplanella,
rtimms,
valentinsulzer and
TomTranter
as code owners
…lithium-plating-SPM
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #4844 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 98.70% 98.70%
========================================
Files 304 304
Lines 23452 23456 +4
========================================
+ Hits 23149 23153 +4
Misses 303 303 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| f"{Domain} {phase_name}lithium plating thickness [m]": L_plated_Li, | ||
| f"X-averaged {domain} {phase_name} lithium plating thickness " | ||
| f"X-averaged {domain} {phase_name}lithium plating thickness " |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @DrSOKane looks good! Can you also add the relevant “Volume-averaged…” variables?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would be consistent with the definition of "volume-averaged" in the thermal submodel. However, in the particle submodel, "volume-averaged" is used to denoted the x-average of the r-averaged concentration. What term should be used instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is ok, since plated Lithium is on the surface (i.e. doesn’t depend on r).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, I did that. Now I can start on the variable change for the SEI. That PR is so old I will probably just close it and start a new one.
Description
Do you remember the bug I had when trying to change the fundamental variable for SEI from thickness to concentration? The bug didn't originate there. It originated in the lithium plating model, which I copy-pasted the code from. And I was able to fix it by performing a yz-average over the relevant variable.
I also edited the cycling ageing example to prove the fix works.