We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
If you load the C5G7 test reactor and grab an assembly, you get a hilariously large number of pins
>>> r = armi.init(fName="armi/tests/c5g7/c5g7-settings.yaml").r >>> fuelBlock = r.core[0][0] >>> fuelBlock.getNumPins() 528
In that model, there are two clad components per lattice site
armi/armi/tests/c5g7/c5g7-blueprints.yaml
Lines 86 to 114 in c6f46e5
So you double count the sites. There are 17x17 total lattice sites, some of which are empty, so the upper bound on "real" pins is 289
Originally posted by @drewj-tp in #1900 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
A great place for to start would be to write a unit test that can go with the existing C5G7 unit test for this exact thing:
armi/armi/tests/test_lwrInputs.py
Lines 26 to 29 in c6f46e5
I see you use armi.init() in the above example, that is a no-no for unit tests, so I suggest something like this:
armi.init()
def test_numFuelPinsC5G7(self): _o, r = test_reactors.loadTestReactor( os.path.join(TEST_ROOT, "c5g7"), inputFileName=TEST_INPUT_TITLE, ) b = r.core.getFirstBlock(Flags.FUEL) self.assertEqual(b.getNumPins(), 264)
Or something like that.
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
If you load the C5G7 test reactor and grab an assembly, you get a hilariously large number of pins
In that model, there are two clad components per lattice site
armi/armi/tests/c5g7/c5g7-blueprints.yaml
Lines 86 to 114 in c6f46e5
So you double count the sites. There are 17x17 total lattice sites, some of which are empty, so the upper bound on "real" pins is 289
Originally posted by @drewj-tp in #1900 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: