PGL issueshttps://gitlab.windenergy.dtu.dk/frza/PGL/-/issues2020-08-21T08:02:34Zhttps://gitlab.windenergy.dtu.dk/frza/PGL/-/issues/4Make a blademesher example based on "user_surface"2020-08-21T08:02:34ZsghoMake a blademesher example based on "user_surface"It could be nice to have a blademesher example where the surface is introduced as sections through the 'user_surface' option, instead of basing the generation on airfoil families. This could be also an opportunity to create an academic geometry (e.g. flat plate), directly parametrized through python.It could be nice to have a blademesher example where the surface is introduced as sections through the 'user_surface' option, instead of basing the generation on airfoil families. This could be also an opportunity to create an academic geometry (e.g. flat plate), directly parametrized through python.sghosghohttps://gitlab.windenergy.dtu.dk/frza/PGL/-/issues/2AirfoilShape.s_to_01 gives negative values due to rounding error2018-02-09T15:51:15ZMalo RosemeierAirfoilShape.s_to_01 gives negative values due to rounding errorIn the upcoming `FEPROCWrapper` I have used the function `AirfoilShape.s_to_01` https://gitlab.windenergy.dtu.dk/frza/PGL/blob/master/PGL/components/airfoil.py#L195 in a similar manner as used in `BECASWrapper.cs2dtobecas`. After s_to_01 conversion it can happen that negative values are assigned to s[0], i.e. -0.1E-16. This can be due to a rounding error in the computation in sLE? However, it might be useful to include a safety clause like:
```
if s >= 0.0:
return s*(1.0-self.sLE) + self.sLE
elif s == -1.0:
return round(abs((1.0+s)*self.sLE))
else:
return (1.0+s)*self.sLE
```In the upcoming `FEPROCWrapper` I have used the function `AirfoilShape.s_to_01` https://gitlab.windenergy.dtu.dk/frza/PGL/blob/master/PGL/components/airfoil.py#L195 in a similar manner as used in `BECASWrapper.cs2dtobecas`. After s_to_01 conversion it can happen that negative values are assigned to s[0], i.e. -0.1E-16. This can be due to a rounding error in the computation in sLE? However, it might be useful to include a safety clause like:
```
if s >= 0.0:
return s*(1.0-self.sLE) + self.sLE
elif s == -1.0:
return round(abs((1.0+s)*self.sLE))
else:
return (1.0+s)*self.sLE
```https://gitlab.windenergy.dtu.dk/frza/PGL/-/issues/1using AirfoilShape's curvature based LE cell size is not robust2018-02-09T15:51:15ZFrederik Zahlefrza@dtu.dkusing AirfoilShape's curvature based LE cell size is not robustfind a better and more robust way to calculate an appropriate LE cell size on blades, since the current method is too sensitive to spikes in the curvature.find a better and more robust way to calculate an appropriate LE cell size on blades, since the current method is too sensitive to spikes in the curvature.