Discrepancies in onshore/monopile tower definition and input files about iea-15-240-rwt HOT 4 OPEN

@jennirinker - This is an awesome display of Github communication prowess! Yes, of course it is okay to open a PR to restore the files to their current design intent. I am certainly guilty of some hubris here in that 2021 change you mentioned went forward because WISDEM continued to interpret the tower the same way with the revised yaml, but none of the other codes did. Thank you for both documenting the issue and offering to correct my errors.

Most of our CI checks ensure that things run, and a couple of them check that OF and HAWC2 are equivalent. We may want to think about a new test for the tower, or maybe a regression test in some way.

from iea-15-240-rwt.

Some more documentation.

Here is a comparison of the current yaml file with what was in the original report:

From this, it looks like the yaml points were calculated by linearly interpolating the existing discrete points.

Here is a comparison of the HAWC2/ElastoDyn models with the yaml. HAWC2 matches the yaml, ElastoDyn does not. Neither of them match the original design.

from iea-15-240-rwt.

@gbarter I would like to start a PR that:

• changes the tower definition in the yaml back to the definition in the original report
• updates the HAWC2/OpenFAST models to match this definition
• Adds a new test -- exact nature TBD
• [optional] updates the Excel documentation to match this interpretation
• [optional] adds some documentation explaining how the tower is interpreted/defined from the yaml

(Note that I would probably not be the person updating the OpenFAST model and the Excel file, as I think these are done via WISDEM tools.)

Would that be okay with you? Anything you would prefer instead?

from iea-15-240-rwt.

@gbarter Thank you for the compliment! I'm trying to be exemplary for this repo to save you from answering the same question a thousand times haha.

I love the idea of the new test -- I updated the list above to include it. In the PR we'll have to align on exactly what we want that test to look like. I have a few ideas, but some might be more troublesome than others.

I'll go ahead and start the PR over the course of the week, but it will be a WIP because I'll have to rebase off the 1.15 release before we can merge it.

from iea-15-240-rwt.