Table A3.

The ESE parameter set with the Hybrid1 parameterization of $h(t)$ and the Exponential parameterization of $b_{\text{c}2}(\epsilon )$ for data corrected for magnetic self field. The data show minimal variation of the core parameter values with changes in $p$ and $q$ (bold type).

			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	RMSFDf (%)	RMSEf (%)
OST-RRP®	51 640	29.31	16.93	2.24	1.02	−0.352	0.77	0.4	2.12 d	9.6	0.114
OST-RRP®	59 990	29.73	16.92	2.23	1.01	−0.351	0.77	0.5	2.27 d	9.2	0.094
OST-RRP®	54 230	28.21	16.94	2.24	1.07	−0.355	0.75	0.5	2.00	12.9	0.113
WST-ITER	16 480	30.17	16.76	1.98	1.31	−0.302	0.83	0.4	1.58 d	6.0	0.166
WST-ITER	20 700	32.08	16.73	1.97	1.29	−0.302	0.84	0.5	1.93 d	4.8	0.144
WST-ITER	21 080	32.75	16.70	1.96	1.29	−0.302	0.85	0.5	2.00	5.0	0.144
$\sim \text{Δ}$ from $p$, $q$	±7–11%	±2–4%	±0.2%	±0.5%	±2%	±0.5%	±1.5%		OST-RRP® and WST-ITER
LUVATA	12 310	28.76	16.40	1.94	1.4	–0.321	0.65	0.426 e	1.48 e	3.3	0.146
LUVATA	14 880	30.77	16.31	1.91	1.4	–0.322	0.64	0.5	1.80 e	2.1	0.143
LUVATA	15 570	32.71	16.18	1.88	1.4	–0.327	0.61	0.5	2.00	3.2	0.160

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 table A3 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 C₁. This results in a difference between the ${\epsilon }_{l0}$ and $-{\epsilon }_{\text{m}}$ values between tables A3 and A4 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 two cases for each wire and fixed at the default value $q=2$ for the third case.

^dFixed from a fit to the master scaling curve.

^eFitted simultaneously with the other parameters.

^fThe 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).