Implemented the aerostructural optimization with DAFoam and TACS #79
Conversation
* Added the mphys iterface for fsi. * Removed a deprecated option in DAFoam. * Fixed the naming issue. * Updated the warper to actually deform the mesh in the C++ layer. * Added the mphys iterface for fsi. * Removed a deprecated option in DAFoam. * Fixed the naming issue. * Updated the warper to actually deform the mesh in the C++ layer. * Fixed a bug for DAFoamForce.
… into dafoam_aero_struct
| self.connect("mesh_struct.x_struct0", "geometry.x_struct_in") | ||
|
|
||
| def configure(self): | ||
| super().configure() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kejacobson This is the call I was referring to. On lines 207 and 208 we can define the rtol and atol values, but they do not actually take affect without calling super().configure() in the configure step. I just want to double check this is the expected behavior for an aerostructural case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. Yes, the multipoint configure method is where the solvers are set into the coupling groups. This has to be done in configure because the order of setup steps from the model's top level to the bottom is such that a default solver defined in aerostructural coupling group's setup would override the user's choice. My personal preference is that in the driver script not implement the configure method because it's a more advanced concept for OM users to understand what goes into setup vs configure. But I see why that's tricky with the need for the surface mesh connectivity from the aero solver to the geometry.
No description provided.