Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Web regions in blade parametrization #27

Open
mrosemeier opened this issue Apr 17, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

Web regions in blade parametrization #27

mrosemeier opened this issue Apr 17, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@mrosemeier
Copy link
Collaborator

I propose to integrate the definition of web regions into the FUSED-Wind parametrization. The parameters would serve as input for a cross section structure 2D mesher (not for shellexpander, but any other mesher) as well as for a 3D mesher.

Considering the input data files we would add the web DPs to the *.dp3d file extending it by relative positions between the two web's DPs (i.e.: 0.0 0.25 0.75 1.0). Between two webXXDPXX's we would have a webXXregionXX:

# version 2
# bond00 bond01 bond02
#0 1 -2 -1
#4 5 -6 -5
# -6 -5 4 5
# web00  web01  web02  web03
# -1 0
#2 -3
#4 -5
#5 -6
# region00 region01 ... web00region00 web00region01 web01region00 web01region01 etc.

Further, additional *_webXXregionXX.st3d files are required to set the material and the thicknesses at the positions along span. The existing *_webXX.st3d files would be optional in case the webXXregionXX strings in the *.dp3d file are not present.

Any other suggestions?
Should this extension still go into version 2?

@fzahle
Copy link
Member

fzahle commented Apr 18, 2016

Is this meant to address topologies where the webs are not at the edges of the caps or what is the use of it? simply adding a narrow pair of regions and attaching the webs to these would make this topology, so I guess your suggested change addresses another use?

@mrosemeier
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think you mean a kind of web 'foot', but I would like to address a web changing its topology over its height.

@fzahle
Copy link
Member

fzahle commented Apr 18, 2016

that makes sense. if we can add it to the current format and compatibility with version 2, that would of course be preferable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants