Giter Club home page Giter Club logo

Comments (4)

gbarter avatar gbarter commented on July 18, 2024

Great catch. Definitely a bug in the interface joint label.

The reason for the joints very close to one another is to achieve a piecewise-constant thickness distribution, instead of linearly varying thickness, as it better captures monopile manufacturing realities from rolling steel plates.
https://github.com/IEAWindTask37/IEA-15-240-RWT/blob/master/OpenFAST/IEA-15-240-RWT-Monopile/IEA-15-240-RWT-Monopile_SubDyn.dat#L79-L91

from iea-15-240-rwt.

Ran-Tu avatar Ran-Tu commented on July 18, 2024

Hi @gbarter

In the monopile subdyn file, the joints very close to one another adopted the same cross-section property. For example, both joint1 and joint2 of member1 adopted PropSet1. And both joint2 and joint3 of member2 adopted PropSet1. In my understanding, that is equivalent to a member staring from joint1 and ending at joint3 which adopts a constat PropSet1. Therefore, joint2 is not necessary.

Similarly, member 3 and member4 have the same cross-section property PropSet2, meaning joint4, which is in between member 3 and member4, is unnecessary.

I am confused why those joints, e.g. joint2, joint4, joint6 are remained. They will lead to members with a short length of 0.001m. I think it may do harm to the convergency performance. However, if removing those unnecessary joints, e.g. joint2, joint4, joint6 and so on, the monopile is still distributed as a piecewise-constant thickness. But we can avoid short-length members.

The reason for the joints very close to one another is to achieve a piecewise-constant thickness distribution, instead of linearly varying thickness, as it better captures monopile manufacturing realities from rolling steel plates.

Kind regards,
Ran

from iea-15-240-rwt.

gbarter avatar gbarter commented on July 18, 2024

Yup, I should have been more thorough in my review. You are correct that the current element-property assignment did not achieve the desired distribution. This has now been fixed. I also caught that the transition piece point mass needed to be moved to the correct node as well. See #185

from iea-15-240-rwt.

Ran-Tu avatar Ran-Tu commented on July 18, 2024

Thanks for the fix.

from iea-15-240-rwt.

Related Issues (20)

Recommend Projects

  • React photo React

    A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.

  • Vue.js photo Vue.js

    🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.

  • Typescript photo Typescript

    TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.

  • TensorFlow photo TensorFlow

    An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone

  • Django photo Django

    The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

  • D3 photo D3

    Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉

Recommend Topics

  • javascript

    JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.

  • web

    Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.

  • server

    A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.

  • Machine learning

    Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.

  • Game

    Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.

Recommend Org

  • Facebook photo Facebook

    We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.

  • Microsoft photo Microsoft

    Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.

  • Google photo Google

    Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.

  • D3 photo D3

    Data-Driven Documents codes.