Alternative representation of a cross section: CrossSectionAreasVT #78
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- re-naming suggestions - added VTs required to generate areaVTs - added VTs required to generate meshVTs
objects or as the object's name
added add_kps method to Area vartree added add methods to CrossSectionAreasVT added methods to KeyPoint3D reduced methods of CrossSectionAreasVT3D uncommented CrossSectionMeshVT3D since not needed
|
Hi Malo. This looks great. We will take a look at it as soon as possible. -Frederik |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I am proposing a "layer" between the current CrossSectionStructureVT (which is in its actual implementation more a CrossSectionLayupVT) and CrossSectionMeshVT: The CrossSectionAreasVT, which holds an internal representation of shellexpander such as the cross section discretization by Areas. These Areas contain KeyPoints, materials, fiber plane and fiber direction angles.
A possible workflow to create a 2D cross sectional BECAS mesh would then look like this:
The CrossSectionAreasVT gives us the freedom to define geometries and more detailed layups of blade sub-components such as trailing edges or web connections as alternative to CrossSectionStructureVT. If this step is integrated into the workflow described above, I think airfoil2becas and shellexpander would need to be split into sub-modules.