Table A5.

The ESE parameter set with the Hybrid2 parameterization of $h(t)$ and the Exponential parameterization of $b_{\text{c}2}(\epsilon )$ data corrected for magnetic self field. A comparison with table A3, shows that the Hybrid1 and Hybrid2 parameterizations of ESE have nearly the same parameter values ($\text{Δ}<\sim 1\text{\%}$).

			Core scaling parameters
Nb3Sn Conductor	$C$ (AT)	${B_{\text{c}2}}^{\ast }(0,0)$ (T)	$T_{\text{c}}^{\ast }(0)$ (K)	$\eta$	$s$	${\epsilon }_{l0}$a (%)	$C_1$ b	$\mathit{p}$ c	$\mathit{q}$ c	RMSFDd (%)	RMSEd (%)
OST-RRP®	59,700	29.72	16.93	2.26	1.01	−0.351a	0.77	0.5	2.27 e	9.2	0.095
OST-RRP®	53,950	28.20	16.95	2.27	1.07	−0.355a	0.75	0.5	2.00	12.9	0.114
WST-ITER	20,710	32.09	16.72	1.96	1.29	−0.302	0.84	0.5	1.93 e	4.8	0.143
WST-ITER	21,080	32.76	16.69	1.95	1.28	−0.302	0.85	0.5	2.00	5.0	0.143
$\sim \text{Δ}$ from $p$, $q$	±2–6%	±2–4%	±0.2%	±0.5%	±2%	±0.5%	±1.5%	OST-RRP® and WST-ITER
LUVATA	14,920	30.84	16.27	1.89	1.4	–0.322	0.67	0.5	1.81 f	2.2	0.140
LUVATA	15,590	32.74	16.14	1.85	1.4	–0.327	0.61	0.5	2.00	3.1	0.156

Notes:

^aThe compressive prestrain values ${\epsilon }_{l0}(=-{\epsilon }_m)$ are dependent on the strain introduced by the sample holder on cooldown, and therefore are not strictly part of the core parameter set. The samples were soldered with Pb-Sn solder to Cu-Be sample holders for these measurements.

^bThe $C_1$ values for the Exponential $b_{\text{c}2}(\epsilon )$ model in the last core-parameter column of tables A3 and A5 give a strain sensitivity index, because $C_1$ is not interdependent on other strain parameters. Due to the very low value of ${\epsilon }_{0,\text{irr}}$ for the OST- RRP^® (Cheggour et al 2010), there were not enough data on the tensile side of the strain peak to determine the value of ${\epsilon }_{l0}(=-{\epsilon }_m)$ independently of $C_1$ in this particular case. This results in a difference between the ${\epsilon }_{l0}$ and $-{\epsilon }_{\text{m}}$ values between table A3 and tables A4 or A5 for this conductor, whereas the correspondence was close for all other conductors.

^cThe pinning-force shape parameter $p$ was fixed to a constant value (p = 0.4 or 0.5) because the magnetic self-field correction shifted all the data to higher fields, which resulted in insufficient low-magnetic field data to determine $p$. The high-field shape parameter $q$ was kept as a fitting parameter for the first case for each wire and fixed at the default value $q=2$ for the second case.

^dThe RMSFD and RMS $F_{\text{P}}$ errors in the last two columns are defined by equations (3a) and (3b) in the text. Errors are expressed as percentages to facilitate comparisons between conductors. The percentage RMSE $F_{\text{P}}$ errors in these tables correspond to effective RMS $I_{\text{c}}$ errors of 1 A to 5 A at 12 T, depending on the $J_{\text{c}}$ of the conductor (section 3).

^eFixed from a fit to the master scaling curve.

^fFitted simultaneously with the other parameters.