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

Add example testing TI in emg #841

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

paulf81
Copy link
Collaborator

@paulf81 paulf81 commented Mar 13, 2024

Add ti-mixing to EMG

(Redoing PR #838 rather than a complicated merge)

This may not be an actual pull request, but may be convenient if it yields some changes. The purpose of this is to look at making a version of EMG with atmospheric_ti_gain re-enabled. To this end I started with a small pseudo-example that compares the power output of columns of a wind farm from the current default EMG to one which uses atmospheric_ti_gain.

I had in mind a step by step criteria, ideally:

  • The row averaged power ratios will be similar when 6% TI is used
  • The row averaged power ratios will also be similar when IEC-reference TI per wind speed (provided using the Iref function in WindRose), or not, this might need something thinking
  • The wakes will be deeper when TI < 6%
  • The wakes will be shallower when TI > 6%

Note this is just a start but thought it a convenient way to collaborate. Note also this is very messy until the namespace changes go into v4. The only file worth checking is: examples/xx_add_ti_to_emg.py

Tagging: @misi9170 @jfrederik-nrel

@paulf81 paulf81 requested a review from misi9170 March 13, 2024 15:33
@paulf81 paulf81 mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2024
4 tasks
@rafmudaf rafmudaf deleted the branch NREL:develop April 12, 2024 15:26
@rafmudaf rafmudaf closed this Apr 12, 2024
@paulf81
Copy link
Collaborator Author

paulf81 commented Apr 12, 2024

hi @rafmudaf, this one is sort of scratch for this line of work, is there a way to re-open this unattached to the v4 release?

@rafmudaf
Copy link
Collaborator

Ah, I deleted the v4 branch since that has been merged now, and I didn't realize there were still pull requests going to it.

@rafmudaf rafmudaf reopened this Apr 12, 2024
@paulf81
Copy link
Collaborator Author

paulf81 commented Apr 12, 2024

We should re-target these to develop then right?

@misi9170 misi9170 changed the base branch from v4 to develop April 12, 2024 20:30
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants