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

Passenger Count Mismatch #394 #72

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 22, 2024
Merged

Passenger Count Mismatch #394 #72

merged 9 commits into from
Jan 22, 2024

Conversation

gawrenn
Copy link
Contributor

@gawrenn gawrenn commented Jan 16, 2024

Changed the passenger count for the large single aisle models to 169 from 180. If appears the 180 was inadvertently taken from the passenger mass value. Reinstated the preprocessor.py check for consistency between total passengers and individual passenger class data.

Summary

Summary of PR.

Related Issues

  • Resolves #

Backwards incompatibilities

None

New Dependencies

None

Changed the passenger count for the large single aisle models to 169 from 180.
If appears the 180 was inadvertently taken from the passenger mass value.
Reinstated the preprocessor.py check for consistency between total passengers and individual passenger class data.
@gawrenn
Copy link
Contributor Author

gawrenn commented Jan 16, 2024

This PR addresses issue #394. It appears that in some data files the total passenger count for the large single aisle transport was set at 180 when it should have been 169. This number may have accidentally been taken from the mass per passenger input of 180 lbm.
I reinstated the check for consistency between total passengers and passengers by class. The test had been commented out.
It now checks only if passengers by class and total passengers are both entered.

Copy link
Contributor

@crecine crecine left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For the GASP based large_single_aisle cases, the passenger count should be 180 (the weight per passenger is 200).
For the swap case (GwFm) we can use 169.

@Kenneth-T-Moore
Copy link
Member

Have you run the benchmarks? I expect that some of the values will change because of the change in the number of passengers.

Changed NUM_PASSENGERS to 169 from 180 in one test file to match passenger class entries.
Reinstated the test to check that passenger class data match the total number of passengers when both types are input.
@gawrenn
Copy link
Contributor Author

gawrenn commented Jan 18, 2024

I've now only changed the one data file that had both the passenger class data and the total passenger count present and mismatched. The test for this mismatch is reinstated in preprocessors.py.

@gawrenn gawrenn reopened this Jan 18, 2024
@gawrenn gawrenn requested a review from crecine January 18, 2024 14:37
@gawrenn
Copy link
Contributor Author

gawrenn commented Jan 22, 2024

Benchmark test 'test_bench_GwFm.py ' fails with a mass value mismatch. The new test with 169 passengers instead of 180 passengers yields:
ValueError: actual [51029.61545852], desired [52955.84313972], rel error 0.036374223636145744, tolerance 0.02

I also need one more reviewer.

@crecine
Copy link
Contributor

crecine commented Jan 22, 2024

Benchmark test 'test_bench_GwFm.py ' fails with a mass value mismatch. The new test with 169 passengers instead of 180 passengers yields: ValueError: actual [51029.61545852], desired [52955.84313972], rel error 0.036374223636145744, tolerance 0.02

Since you reduced the passenger count by 11, it makes sense that the weight decreased ~2000 pounds. Update the value in the test with the new one.

@johnjasa johnjasa added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 22, 2024
Merged via the queue into OpenMDAO:main with commit 3718a0c Jan 22, 2024
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants