Update Corning 3603 with empirical cLLD height_volume_data#948
Merged
BioCam merged 4 commits intoPyLabRobot:mainfrom Mar 20, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Migrate
Cor_96_wellplate_360ul_Fb(Corning 3603) from the old geometry-basedcompute_volume_from_height/compute_height_from_volumeclosure functions to a first-classheight_volume_datadict (introduced in #938), populated with empirical cLLD measurements taken on a Hamilton STAR.The Problem
The previous model used
calculate_liquid_volume_container_1segment_round_fbottom— a pure cylinder approximation with constant diameterd=6.86 mm. According to the Corning tech drawing (DWG00121 Rev D), the well actually tapers from ⌀6.35 mm (bottom) to ⌀6.86 mm (top) over a 10.67 mm depth — a frustum, not a cylinder.Even the geometrically correct frustum model overestimates volume by +2 to +16 µL across the working range compared to empirical measurements. This is expected: injection-molded polystyrene wells don't follow perfect mathematical geometry — wall draft angles, fillet radii at the bottom-wall junction, and material shrinkage all contribute to deviations that no closed-form model can capture.
The Corning 3603 is actually a good case study because the well geometry is theoretically perfectly understood (frustum of a cone with known top/bottom diameters), yet still shows systematic deviation from the physical reality. The cylinder model (old) overestimates by +12 to +45 µL (+12–25%), while the frustum cross-reference overestimates by +2 to +16 µL (+4–8%). Only empirical calibration data can close this gap.
There may be small measurement errors in the empirical data (cLLD detection edge, meniscus effects at low volumes), but piecewise-linear interpolation over 9 calibration points at pipettable volumes provides far better accuracy than any geometric model.
PR Content/Solution
_compute_*_Cor_96_wellplate_360ul_Fbclosure functions and unusedcalculate_liquid_*_1segment_round_fbottomimports._cor_96_wellplate_360ul_Fb_height_volume_datadict with 10 empirical calibration points (height mm → volume µL) measured via cLLD on a Hamilton STAR:height_volume_data=to theWellconstructor, leveraging the auto-generation from Addheight_volume_dataattribute toContainerwith piecewise-linear interpolation #938.Cylinder vs Frustum vs Empirical comparison
🤖 Generated with Claude Code