NRRI Mines by kbrunik · Pull Request #840 · NatLabRockies/H2Integrate

kbrunik · 2026-08-13T13:38:29Z

NRRI Iron Range Mines Models

This is a different iron mine performance model that splits the mining process into separate steps that tracks the material flows and energy/fuel use on a per process step basis.

The cost model is based on SEC reports for iron ore pellets and crude ore extracted.

Section 1: Type of Contribution

Section 2: Draft PR Checklist

Open draft PR
Describe the feature that will be added
Fill out TODO list steps
Describe requested feedback from reviewers on draft PR
Complete Section 8: New Model Checklist (if applicable)

TODO:

Step 1
Step 2

Type of Reviewer Feedback Requested (on Draft PR)

Structural feedback:

Implementation feedback:

Other feedback:

Section 3: General PR Checklist

Section 4: Related Issues

Section 5: Impacted Areas of the Software

Section 5.1: New Files

iron/nrri_ore/perf_coeffs.csv: has the mass flow per process, energy and fuel consumption per process for each mine.
iron/nrri_ore/cost_coeffs.csv: has the SEC costs for each mine per LT.
iron/nrri_iron_mine.py
- NRRIIronMinePerformanceComponent: This is a flexible dispatched iron mine. It calculates the energy and fuel consumption on a per process basis. The system can only be curtailed but does not take a iron_ore_command_value as an input.
- NRRIIronMineCostComponent: This uses the cost_coeffs.csv to pull in the SEC costs per LT for each mine. It only outputs OpEx since it assumes CapEx is annualized into the operational costs.

Section 5.2: Modified Files

docs: Updated the iron_mine.md to include new models. @jmartin4u maybe you can update this based on conversations with NRRI? @kbrunik updated with sources from Kim's doc
supported_models.py
Renamed original ore model files to remove "Martin" designation and replace with "Simple"
- converters/iron/martin_ore/: Renamed to `converters/iron/simple_ore/
- converters/iron/martin_transport/: Renamed to `converters/iron/simple_transport/
- converters/iron/test/test_martin_mine.py: Renamed to converters/iron/test/test_simple_mine.py
- converters/iron/martin_mine_cost_model.py: Renamed to converters/iron/simple_mine_cost_model.py
- converters/iron/martin_mine_perf_model.py: Renamed to converters/iron/simple_mine_perf_model.py

Section 6: Additional Supporting Information

Section 7: Test Results, if applicable

Section 8 (Optional): New Model Checklist

review-notebook-app · 2026-08-13T13:38:36Z

Check out this pull request on

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

Powered by ReviewNB

elenya-grant

Pretty high-level review and mostly small stuff! I think this looks good! Suggestions were mainly for clarity and perhaps some simplicity - nothing crazy though! Will review again if you want!

elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T15:54:08Z

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+units,process,Tilden,Hibbing,United,Minorca,Northshore
+WLT/Yr,ROM Ore,60360000,60466666.67,38012500,16566666.67,28960000
+WLT/Yr,Crushed Ore,20500000,28083000,14920000,8460000,16860000


would it make sense to have these units expressed in OpenMDAO units? Or to have another units column that has the openmdao units? (long ton = 2240 lbs, just a note)

elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T15:55:08Z

should this go in a doc page?

elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T17:27:30Z

+    prob.set_val("comp.electricity_in", [annual_electricity] * 8760, units="kW")
+    prob.set_val("comp.fuel_in", [annual_fuel] * 8760, units="MMBtu/h")


should these be divided by 8760? Like [annual_fuel/8760]*8760

I changed the name, it was just a holdover from the other iron test

elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T17:27:42Z

+    int(plant_config["plant"]["plant_life"])
+    int(plant_config["plant"]["simulation"]["n_timesteps"])


elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T17:29:38Z

+    # check pellet production
+    with subtests.test("iron_ore_out"):
+        iron_ore_out = prob.get_val("comp.iron_ore_out", units=commodity_rate_units)
+        assert np.sum(iron_ore_out) == pytest.approx(7457805 * 0.98 * 1.016, rel=1e-3)


could ya comment somewhere what 0.98 and 1.016 are?

elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T18:13:08Z

+    """
+
+    max_ore_production_rate_tonnes_per_hr: float = field()
+    mine: str = field(validator=contains(["Hibbing", "Northshore", "United", "Minorca", "Tilden"]))


would it be easier to do lower-case and then have a converter converter=(str.lower, str.strip)

mine: str = field(converter=(str.lower, str.strip), validator=contains(["hibbing", "northshore", "united", "minorca", "tilden"]))

If you'd prefer it that way or have a justification for why this is better, I could change it? I don't really have strong feelings on the matter, it's just how it was done in the other mine model

elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T18:16:12Z

+        if system_capacity * 8760 > ref_pellets:
+            msg = (
+                f"System capacity of {system_capacity} t/h exceeds the reference pellet"
+                f" production of {ref_pellets} t/h."
+                f" This may lead to unrealistic results."
+            )
+            warnings.warn(msg, UserWarning)


would it not make sense to just scale the consumptions based on the ratio of system capacity and ref_pellets? Like scale_fac = (system_capacity/(8760)) / ref_pellets)

It does scale based on the system capacity, this is just a user warning if someone's trying to exceed the mines capacity for some reason, since I was assuming that wouldn't really be possible

elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T18:18:13Z

+        processed_ore_production = np.minimum.reduce(
+            [
+                processed_ore_from_fuel,
+                processed_ore_from_electricity,
+            ]
+        )


this kind of logic normally exists within technologies with a control classifier of dispatchable - but I think that it makes sense here even though this is a flexible tech. Just noting.

elenya-grant · 2026-08-13T18:19:18Z

+        )
+
+        # mass flow through mining process
+        outputs["raw_ore"] = processed_ore_production * ref_raw_ore / ref_pellets


is raw ore consumed?

Yes, raw ore, crushed ore, and concentrated ore are consumed within the model, that's why they follow a different convention instead of {commodity}_out. The tailings are available hence following convention

…ines

jmartin4u

Approved, assuming nothing is amiss after the push I just made. All I did was make a new example to ensure that the new mine model is running and fitting into the overall plant structure fairly seamlessly, and it is! Costs are not changing significantly between the old 21_iron_example/iron_dri and new 21_iron_examples/iron_dri_nrri examples. If you want to avoid "example bloat" feel free to get rid of whichever one you choose - the main thing I wanted to see was that overall levelized cost of iron ore/iron/steel was still getting calculated correctly, and that there was nothing else across H2I that needed to change to make it fit in. The ONE change that still needed to be made was to the pipe model - it needed to have diesel added as a transportable commodity, in units of galUS

dakotaramos and others added 4 commits August 6, 2026 13:19

draft of Tilden NRRI Mining and Processing excel to python, as .ipynb

84f66d2

nrri iron performance model

a1e710f

test fix

bfb9604

cost model

ab537df

kbrunik requested a review from elenya-grant August 13, 2026 13:38

kbrunik added the in progress label Aug 13, 2026

kbrunik added 4 commits August 13, 2026 10:59

remove jupyter

1e86f17

docs

ab62c36

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into mines

aade194

changelog

a4d5954

kbrunik marked this pull request as ready for review August 13, 2026 16:54

kbrunik requested a review from jmartin4u August 13, 2026 16:54

elenya-grant reviewed Aug 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

pr feedback

5d074a7

kbrunik added ready for review This PR is ready for input from folks and removed in progress labels Aug 13, 2026

kbrunik and others added 4 commits August 13, 2026 14:54

small integration fixes

0f58ac2

Renaming martin mine/transport to simple, adding NRRI mine sources

abc1f2a

Merge branch 'develop' into pr/kbrunik/840

1f2c392

Creating cost model with feedstocks extracted from opex

6e85c6a

kbrunik added in progress and removed ready for review This PR is ready for input from folks labels Aug 19, 2026

johnjasa and others added 4 commits August 19, 2026 13:12

Removed older validators handling

329264b

Minor fixes for units

c5e5d71

minor cleanup

4f1e13f

Merge branch 'develop' into mines

d12b5cb

kbrunik requested review from jmartin4u and removed request for jmartin4u August 24, 2026 20:06

test fix

34c9bb2

Merge branch 'mines' of https://github.com/kbrunik/H2Integrate into m…

2100943

…ines

kbrunik requested review from jmartin4u and removed request for jmartin4u August 24, 2026 20:16

add CPI and fix docs

621ad4a

kbrunik requested review from jmartin4u and removed request for jmartin4u August 24, 2026 22:04

kbrunik added ready for review This PR is ready for input from folks and removed in progress labels Aug 24, 2026

Adding a working example with NRRI mine model

d455497

jmartin4u approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

		prob.set_val("comp.electricity_in", [annual_electricity] * 8760, units="kW")
		prob.set_val("comp.fuel_in", [annual_fuel] * 8760, units="MMBtu/h")

		int(plant_config["plant"]["plant_life"])
		int(plant_config["plant"]["simulation"]["n_timesteps"])

Uh oh!

Conversation

kbrunik commented Aug 13, 2026 • edited by jmartin4u Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

NRRI Iron Range Mines Models

Section 1: Type of Contribution

Section 2: Draft PR Checklist

TODO:

Type of Reviewer Feedback Requested (on Draft PR)

Section 3: General PR Checklist

Section 4: Related Issues

Section 5: Impacted Areas of the Software

Section 5.1: New Files

Section 5.2: Modified Files

Section 6: Additional Supporting Information

Section 7: Test Results, if applicable

Section 8 (Optional): New Model Checklist

Uh oh!

review-notebook-app Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

elenya-grant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jmartin4u left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

kbrunik commented Aug 13, 2026 •

edited by jmartin4u

Loading