3145 sauter geometry without using the sauter plasma current

[chris-ashe]

Description

Moved shaping factor calculation into calculate_current_coefficient_peng()

Namespace changes

Functions

geomty() -> plasma_geometry()
xparam() -> plasma_angles_arcs()
xvol() -> plasma_volume()
xsecta() -> plasma_cross_section()

---

Variables

• iscrp -> i_plasma_wall_gap
• plasma_volume -> vol_plasma
• cvol -> f_vol_plasma
• ishape -> i_plasma_geometry
• qlim -> q95_min
• pperim -> len_plasma_poloidal
• sarea -> a_plasma_surface
• xarea -> a_plasma_poloidal
• sareao -> a_plasma_surface_outboard
• cwrmax -> f_r_conducting_wall
• fcwr -> fr_conducting_wall

---

✨ New additions

• i_plasma_shape: Sets whether to use the Sauter or original PROCESS plasma shape
• plasma_poloidal_perimeter: New function added to calculate the perimeter instead of being loose code

---

🐛 Bugs

• Sauter geometry model was not being called correctly due to capitalisation:

❌

self.Sauter_geometry(   

✅

self.sauter_geometry(   

• The plasma_geometry() function in plasma_geometry was taking in the 95% values for elongation and triangularity and then finding the separatrix values with the 1989 ITER guideline values, even though the selected configuration of i_plasma_geometry may not use it.

Output differences

OUT.DAT

The below is the geometry output for the large tokamak regression test

New:

Old:

plot_proc

Large tokamak regression test

New:

Old:

---

ST regression test

New:

Old:

Checklist

I confirm that I have completed the following checks:

• My changes follow the PROCESS style guide
• I have justified any large differences in the regression tests caused by this pull request in the comments.
• I have added new tests where appropriate for the changes I have made.
• If I have had to change any existing unit or integration tests, I have justified this change in the pull request comments.
• If I have made documentation changes, I have checked they render correctly.
• I have added documentation for my change, if appropriate.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 45.76271% with 96 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 30.59%. Comparing base (39d9db4) to head (dc71429).
⚠️ Report is 530 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
process/geometry/plasma_geometry.py	0.00%	27 Missing ⚠️
process/physics.py	25.00%	27 Missing ⚠️
process/plasma_geometry.py	75.00%	20 Missing ⚠️
process/io/plot_proc.py	0.00%	15 Missing ⚠️
process/divertor.py	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
process/physics_functions.py	77.77%	2 Missing ⚠️
process/caller.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
process/stellarator.py	80.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3490      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   30.60%   30.59%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          80       80              
  Lines       19248    19272      +24     
==========================================
+ Hits         5890     5897       +7     
- Misses      13358    13375      +17     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[j-a-foster]

Besides some minor comments, it all looks good.

[jonmaddock]

This is really well-written and clear, and the new Sauter geometry looks great in plot_proc! A few minor requests/questions only.

[jonmaddock]

Looking good, just the one docstring change please. Also, conflicts need resolving.

[j-a-foster]

Happy for this to be merged.