-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
Simplify specification of active material content #41
Comments
@ejfdickinson totally agree with your comment about mass loading. It feels backwards at the moment. I think we should specify the active material volume fraction directly. In your experience, what do you think is actually the most sensible set of parameters to specify from an experimental point of view? The current standard is very much from the model POV and I think it might be more useful to approach it from the other direction. Originally posted by @rtimms in #33 (comment) |
Related discussion from PyBaMM #4265
Originally posted by @dion-w in pybamm-team/PyBaMM#4265
Originally posted by @ejfdickinson in pybamm-team/PyBaMM#4265 |
[...] I think it's an irritation of the present BPX that it's necessary to define the mass loading of active components indirectly, via the specification of a surface area and a particle radius combined with the assumption of spherical particles.
I think it would be more comprehensible to be able (optionally) to introduce some ability to specify e.g. a mass fraction and corresponding specific capacity of each blend component, and make the active volumetric surface area a dependent quantity under the equivalent spherical particle assumption.
Originally posted by @ejfdickinson in #33 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: