Closed jennirinker closed 2 years ago
Does this replace the HAWC2 flexible tower file for the torsionally rigid one? I wouldn't remove that file just because OpenFAST currently has this limitation... @jennirinker, do you disagree?
@ptrbortolotti That's a very good point.
I think it's important that the version on master has HAWC2 and OpenFAST matching as close as possible. What I can do is have three tower models -- (1) totally flexible, (2) torsionally rigid, and (3) totally rigid -- but for now have the default be option 2. Then, when OF has torsional towers, we can change the default.
What do you think?
EDIT: Another concern is that without the tower being torsionally stiff, 3P is bang-on the BW flap mode at rated. This is probably minor, aeroelastically speaking, since the aeroelastic damping is high, but it's worth taking into consideration.
I support having the three datasets. Frankly I'd default to option 1 (who else will compare OpenFAST and HAWCStab2 if not us? And I'd like to move on at this point...), but I'm ok with 2) as well
@ptrbortolotti Okay, just to be sure: default is fully flexibile (option 1), but we use option 2 in the paper. And hopefully no aeroelastic issues pop up.
Increasing the shear modulus by several orders of magnitude. Reduces OF-H2 discrepancies on the flapwise turbine modes.