Torque 2010 Presentation Modelling Issues With Wind Turbine Wake and Atmospheric Turbulence

Modelling Issues with Wind Turbines Wake in
Atmospheric Turbulence
Pierre-Elouan Réthoré Niels N. Sørensen Andreas Bechmann

pire@risoe.dtu.dk nsqr@risoe.dtu.dk andh@risoe.dtu.dk
Wind Energy Division · Risø DTU
The Science of Making Torque from the Wind

Forth · Heraklion · Crete · 29/6/10
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modelling Issues
3 Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
k-ϵ
4 k-ϵ Modifications
El Kasmi-Masson
Realizability
Wind Turbine Canopy
5 Beyond the Eddy-viscosity
Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

1 of 26 Risø DTU Wind Turbine Wake in Atmospheric Turbulence · 29/6/10
Introduction
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modelling Issues
Eddy-viscosity
k-ϵ
El Kasmi-Masson
Realizability
Wind Turbine Canopy

Introduction
Background
The goal is a steady-state model of wind

farm wake in atmospheric turbulence

Fast enough for systematic analysis


Introduction
Background

farm wake in atmospheric turbulence


The design choices are:

EllipSys (Elliptic CFD)

Actuator disc model

Force distribution scaled with local
squared velocities (including wake
rotation and shear effect)
Mesh discretization: 10 cells / diameter

Steady-state simulation
k-ϵ turbulence model
Neutral boundary layer
Assumed negligible: Coriolis effects,
boundary layer height and temperature
effects

Introduction
Background
Conway’s Actuator Disc
1
Axial velocity U/ U∞ [-]


0.9
Conway
farm wake in atmospheric turbulence 0.8 EllipSys

0.7 x = −0.5D
x = 0.0D
The design choices are: 0.6
x = 0.5D
EllipSys (Elliptic CFD) 0.5

x = 2.5D
Actuator disc model 0.4
Force distribution scaled with local

squared velocities (including wake Full Rotor Computation
1
rotation and shear effect)

Mesh discretization: 10 cells / diameter 0.9

Steady-state simulation 0.8
k-ϵ turbulence model 0.7

Neutral boundary layer Full Rotor
0.6
Assumed negligible: Coriolis effects, AcDisc 10 c/ D
boundary layer height and temperature 0.5 AcDisc 20 c/ D
x = 3.0D
effects 0.4
1
0 0.5
Laminar cases fully validated (Fig)

y-direction y/ D [-]

Modelling Issues
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modelling Issues
Eddy-viscosity
k-ϵ
El Kasmi-Masson
Realizability
Wind Turbine Canopy

Modelling Issues
Comparison with Measurements
Nibe B Turbine
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 k-ϵ 2.5D

Data 2.5D
0.6 k-ϵ 4D
Data 4D
0.5 k-ϵ 7.5D
Data 7.5D
0.4
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30
Relative wind direction [o ]
The standard k-ϵ model performs
Sexbierum badly in comparison with
1.1
1.0 measurementsa b c .
0.9 a El Kasmi & Masson, Wind Energy 2008

0.8 b Cabezon et al. EWEC 2009
c Rados et al. EWEC 2009
0.7 k-ϵ 2.5D
Data 2.5D
0.6 k-ϵ 5.5D
Data 5.5D
0.5 k-ϵ 8D
Data 8D
0.4
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30
Relative wind direction [o ]

Modelling Issues
Comparison with LES

Modelling Issues
Comparison with LES
LES, Variable forces: U−velocity U/UH,∞ [−]
y−direction y/D [−]

2 1
0.8
0
0.6
−2 0.4
−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x−direction x/D [−]
LES, Constant forces: U−velocity U/UH,∞ [−]
2 1
0.8
0
0.6
−2 0.4
−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x−direction x/D [−]
k−ε: U−velocity U/UH,∞ [−]
2 1
0.8
0
0.6
−2 0.4
−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x−direction x/D [−] pire@risoe.dtu.dk
Réthoré et al.
Invalid Assumptions
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modelling Issues
Eddy-viscosity
k-ϵ
El Kasmi-Masson
Realizability
Wind Turbine Canopy

Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
Eddy-viscosity: Original Idea
Turbulent momentum transport with 3 assumptions

A1 Velocity conservation during time τ:
U(xp ) = U(x)
xp1
A2 Particles mix during time τ:
xp2
u′ (xp )u′ (x) = 0
x
A3 Mean velocity field is linear over
xp3
turbulent length-scale L:
∂U
U(xp ) − U(x) = Lj ∂x xp4
j

Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
Turbulent momentum transport with 3 assumptions

A1 Velocity conservation during time τ:
U(xp ) = U(x)
xp1
A2 Particles mix during time τ:
xp2
u′ (xp )u′ (x) = 0
x
A3 Mean velocity field is linear over
xp3
turbulent length-scale L:
∂U
U(xp ) − U(x) = Lj ∂x xp4
j
Derivation of the Reynolds-stresses with the 3 assumptions

∂Uj
Eddy-viscosity concept: ui′ uj′ = 23 kδij − νt ∂U
∂x
i
+ ∂x
?
j i

Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
Velocity Conservation (A1)
The velocity is not conserved in the region of adverse pressure

gradient surrounding the wind turbine
x
p x
U( x p)
Error
U( x )
xp x x-direction x/ D [-]

Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
Velocity Conservation (A1)
LES shows that the eddy-viscosity concept generates a too high

Normal Reynolds-stress R11 in the area surrounding the turbine
LES: R11
60
LES: u′ u′
50
k-ϵ: R11
R11 / u∗2 [-]
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10
x-direction x/ D [-]
2
2
where R11 = 3k − 2Cμ kϵ ∂U
∂x
Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
Velocity Linearity (A3)
A3 velocity linearity over the turbulent length-scale:

U(yp ) − U(y) = L ∂U
∂y
The assumption (A3) is only valid when the velocity changes occur
over a larger distance than the turbulent length-scale L
L
L ∂U
∂y U(yp ) − U(y)
yp y y-direction y/ D [-]

Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
Velocity Linearity (A3)
However, in the wake boundary region, the velocity is highly

non-linear over the turbulent length-scale.
Axial velocity U/ U∞ [-] L
Error
L ∂U
∂y
U(yp ) − U(y)
yp y y-direction y/ D [-]

Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
LES Eddy-viscosity Factor Cμ
The eddy-viscosity factor illustrates where the eddy-viscosity

concept is invalid.
LES Eddy-viscosity factor Cμ [-]

3 0.1
2 0.08
1
0.06
0
0.04
−1
−2 0.02
−3 0
−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
?
Invalid Assumptions
Eddy-viscosity
LES Eddy-viscosity Factor Cμ
The eddy-viscosity factor illustrates where the eddy-viscosity

concept is invalid.

3 0.1
2 0.08
1
0.06
0
0.04
−1
−2 0.02
−3 0
−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Even if k and ϵ were correct, the Eddy-viscosity concept would still

give the wrong Reynolds-stresses!
?
Invalid Assumptions
k-ϵ
Wind Turbines Extract Large-scale TKE
The forces on the blades can adapt to large-scale velocity

fluctuations.
TKE Comparison of 2 LES with unsteady and steady forces

LES - Unsteady Forces

LES - Steady Forces
30
k-ϵ - Steady Forces
TKE k/ u∗2 [-]
20
10
0
0 4 8 12
There is a small but visible decrease of TKE at the turbine with the
unsteady forces
k-ϵ Modifications
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modelling Issues
Eddy-viscosity
k-ϵ
El Kasmi-Masson
Realizability
Wind Turbine Canopy

k-ϵ Modifications
El Kasmi-Masson
Compared to LES
Added term in ϵ-equation: Sϵ = Cϵ4 P2t / ρk

EKM can have the same velocity deficit as LES, but not the
same recovery rate.
The TKE has a different trend compared with LES.

The dissipation ϵ is in clear contrast with LES.

EKM: Cϵ4 = 0.001
1
EKM: Cϵ4 = 0.005
U/ U∞,H [-]
0.8 EKM: Cϵ4 = 0.01

Std k-ϵ
0.6
LES
0.4
40
k/ u∗2 [-]
30
20
10
0
50
ϵ/ ϵ ∞,H [-]
40
30
20
10
0
2
22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
13 of 26
Réthoré et al. x-direction x/ D [-] pire@risoe.dtu.dk
Risø DTU Wind Turbine Wake in Atmospheric Turbulence · 29/6/10
k-ϵ Modifications
El Kasmi-Masson
Compared to Sexbierum Measurements
Not enough turbulence

Cannot satisfy all the met.masts measurements

[−]
x=2.5D x=5.5D x=8D

H,∞
Normalized axial velocity U/U
1 C =0.005
ε4
C =0.01
ε4
0.8
C =0.03
ε4
0.6 C =0.37
ε4
0.4 Std−k−ε
−20 0 20 −20 0 20 −20 0 20 data
o
Relative wind direction [ ]
x=2.5D x=5.5D x=8D

Turbulence Intensity k/U [−]
2
0.1
0.05
0
−20 0 20 −20 0 20 −20 0 20
o
k-ϵ Modifications
Realizability
Compared to LES
2
Realizability criteria (hacked): ui′ uj′ ≤ CSwz ui′ ui′ · uj′ uj′

Only physical for CSwz = 1.0.

It can have the same velocity deficit as LES, and the same
recovery rate.
Similar TKE and dissipation trends.

RM: CSwz = 1.0

1
RM: CSwz = 0.5
U/ U∞,H [-]
0.8 RM: CSwz = 0.4

Std k-ϵ
0.6
LES
0.4
40
k/ u∗2 [-]
30
20
10
0
30
ϵ/ ϵ ∞,H [-]
20
10
0
Réthoré et al. 2
22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 pire@risoe.dtu.dk
15 of 26 Risø DTU x-direction x/ DTurbine
Wind [-] Wake in Atmospheric Turbulence · 29/6/10
k-ϵ Modifications
Realizability
Compared to Sexbierum Measurements
Not enough wake spreading on the side

Too much turbulence in the far wake region

Cannot satisfy all the met.masts measurements
[−]
x=2.5D x=5.5D x=8D

H,∞
Normalized axial velocity U/U
1 C =1.0
Swz
CSwz=0.5
0.8
CSwz=0.3
0.6 CSwz=0.2
0.4 Std−k−ε
−20 0 20 −20 0 20 −20 0 20 data
o
x=2.5D x=5.5D x=8D

Turbulence Intensity k/U [−]
2
0.1
0.05
0
−20 0 20 −20 0 20 −20 0 20
Réthoré et al. o
Relative wind direction [ ] pire@risoe.dtu.dk
k-ϵ Modifications
Wind Turbine Canopy
Compared to LES
Added terms in k and ϵ-equation: Sk = −CF βd Uk and

Sϵ = −CF Cϵd βd Uϵ
It is not enough to correct the k-ϵ model

WTCM: βd = 1, Cϵd = 1
1
WTCM: βd = 1, Cϵd = 0
U/ U∞,H [-]
0.8 WTCM: βd = 2, Cϵd = 0

Std k-ϵ
0.6
LES
0.4
40
k/ u∗2 [-]
30
20
10
0
50
ϵ/ ϵ ∞,H [-]
40
30
20
10
0
2
22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Beyond the Eddy-viscosity
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modelling Issues
Eddy-viscosity
k-ϵ
El Kasmi-Masson
Realizability
Wind Turbine Canopy

How to model turbulence, then?
Design constraints
The Reynolds-stresses should be transported.

The pressure gradient has to be taken into account.

How to model turbulence, then?
Design constraints
The Reynolds-stresses should be transported.

The pressure gradient has to be taken into account.
Reynolds-stresses Transport Model (RSM)?

Are the pressure gradient and body forces accounted for?

How are modelled the transport of higher order terms? Do they

rely on the linearity over length scale assumption?

Summary and future work
None of the k-ϵ wake models studied are physical: they need to

be recalibrated in every types of inflow conditions, wind farm

spacing etc..
It is not possible to fix the invalid assumptions of the

eddy-viscosity concept by only acting on k and/or ϵ.

The extraction of large-scale turbulence or “turbulent cascade

short-circuit” concept is not enough to explain the errors of the

standard k-ϵ.
We need another way to model the Reynolds-stresses for the

wind turbine wake in atmospheric turbulence.

Future studies:

Reynolds-stresses transport models

Non local turbulence closure models (e.g. Stull’s TTT)

Thank you for your attention!

Based on turbulent momentum transport with 3 assumptions:

A1 Velocity conservation during time τ: xp1

U(xp ) = U(x)
xp2
A2 Particles mix during time τ: x
u′ (xp )u′ (x) = 0
xp3
A3 Mean velocity field is linear over turbulent
∂U
length-scale L: U(xp ) − U(x) = Lj ∂x xp4
j
Derivation of the Reynolds-stresses based on the 3 assumptions

A1
:
A1 u′ (x) = u′ (xp ) + U(xp ) − U(x) + U(x) − U(xp )
: A2
A2 u′ (x)v′ (x) = v′ (x)u′ (xp ) + v′ (x) U(xp ) − U(x)
∂U
A3 u′ (x)v′ (x) = v′ (x)Lj ∂x
j

∂Uj
Eddy-viscosity concept: ui′ uj′ = 23 kδij − νt ∂Ui
+

∂xj ∂xi
Back

Conway’s exact actuator disc model
Conway (1998) has derived an analytical solution for an axis

symmetric non-uniform and heavily loaded actuator disc,

including the slipstream contraction.
The vorticity in the slipstream of a turbine is equivalent of a

volume distribution of ring vortices

The flow induced by a ring vortex or radius r ′ and strength Γ

can be derived Ras:

Γrr ′ ∞ ′
Ψ(r, z) = J (sr ′ )J1 (sr)e−s|z−z | ds

2 0 1
−Γsign(z−z ′ )r ′ R ∞ ′
Vr (r, z) = sJ1 (sr ′ )J1 (sr)e−s|z−z | ds

2 0
′ ∞ ′
Vz (r, z) = Γr2 0 sJ0 (sr ′ )J1 (sr)e−s|z−z | ds
R

By superposition, the flow fields induced by the vorticity

distribution ω ϕ (r, z) can be derived

r ∞ R(z) ∞ ′
R R R
Ψ(r, z) = ω ϕ (r ′ , z ′ )r ′ J1 (sr ′ )J1 (sr)e−s|z−z | ds dr ′ dz ′

2 0 0 0
∞ R(z) ∞ ′
Vr (r, z) = 12 0 0
R R R
±ω ϕ (r ′ , z ′ )r ′ sJ1 (sr ′ )J1 (sr)e−s|z−z | ds dr ′ dz ′

0
∞ R(z) ∞ ′
Vz (r, z) = 12 0 0
R R R
ω ϕ (r ′ , z ′ )r ′ sJ0 (sr ′ )J1 (sr)e−s|z−z | ds dr ′ dz ′


Conway’s exact actuator disc model for heavily
loaded turbines
Simplest expression for the vorticity: ω ϕ (r, z) = ar. This

corresponds to a parabolic wake profile: Vz (r, ∞) = 2a R2w − r 2 .

After integration with respect to z’ and including the additional

stream function due to the free stream U∞

U∞ r 2
R∞
Ψ(r, z) = + ar R2 (z ′ )I(−1,2,1) (R(z ′ ), r, z − z ′ ) dz ′

2R 2 0
a ∞
Vr (r, z) = 2 0 ±R2 (z ′ )I(0,2,1) (R(z ′ ), r, z − z ′ ) dz ′

R∞
Vz (r, z) = U∞ + ar R2 (z ′ )I(0,2,0) (R(z ′ ), r, z − z ′ ) dz ′

2 0
The wake width R(z) can be determined recursively by noticing

that the stream function is constant on the slipstream boundary

Ψ(RT , 0) = Ψ(R(z), z)

The Bessel-Laplace integrals

R∞
I(λ,μ,ν)(R, r, z) = 0 sλ Jμ (sR)Jν (sr)e−s|z| ds are related to one
another using recursive rules, and can be evaluated in terms of
complete elliptic integrals.
The load distribution is directly related to the stream function:

L(r) = aρ (Ψ(RT , 0) − Ψ(r, 0))

Solving Bessel-Laplace integrals
It is possible to derive recursive relations between

Bessel-Laplace integrals:
I(λ,μ,ν)(R, r, |z|) = I(λ,ν,μ)(r, R, |z|)

4(ν−1)ω
I(0,ν,ν) = I
2ν−1 (0,ν−1,ν−1)
− 2ν−3 I
2ν−1 (0,ν−2,ν−2)
,
(2ν−1)|z|k 4
I(1,ν,ν) = 8Rr(1−k 2) I(0,ν−1,ν−1) − ωI(0,ν,ν) ,

I(0,ν+1,ν) = Rr I(0,ν,ν−1) + 2ν
r

I(1,ν+1,ν+1) − I(1,ν−1,ν−1) for ν 6= 0,

2(ν+1)|z| 2(ν+1)R (ν+1+μ)

I(0,μ,ν) = r(ν+1−μ) I(0,μ,ν+1) − r(ν+1−μ) I(0,μ−1,ν+1) + (ν+1−μ) I(0,μ,ν+2),

R

I(λ,μ,ν) = 2μ I(λ+1,μ+1,ν) − I(λ+1,μ−1,ν) for λ < 0,

It is possible to express some basic Bessel-Laplace integrals in

terms of complete elliptic functions:

kK(k)
I(0,0,0)(R, r, |z|) = p .

π hrR i
1 |z|kK(k) Λ (|β|,k)
I(0,1,0)(R, r, |z|) = R 1 − p − 0 2 (r < R)

h 2π irR
|z|kK(k) Λ (|β|,k)
= R1 − p + 0 2 (r > R)
2π rR
[(2−k 2 )K(k)−2E(k)]
I(0,1,1)(R, r, |z|) = p

πk rR

Comparison between Conway’s and EllipSys’
actuator disc models
The load distribution L(r) found with Conway’s model for a factor
a = − UR∞2 is used as an input in the actuator disc model of EllipSys.
T
Axial velocity at various axial coordinate z (CT=−0.4484) Radial velocity at various axial coordinate z (CT=−0.4484)
1.1 0.16
Conway: z=−0.5D
Normalized axial velocity V /U [−]
1 0.14 EllipSys: z=−0.5D
Normalized axial radial V /U [−]

∞
Conway: z=0D
∞
0.12
z
0.9 EllipSys: z=0D
r
0.1 Conway: z=0.5D
0.8 EllipSys: z=0.5D
0.08 Conway: z=2.5D
0.7 EllipSys: z=2.5D
0.06
0.6
0.04
0.5 0.02
0.4 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalized distance from center [−] Normalized distance from center [−]
Back

LES Eddy-viscosity factor Cμ
3 0.1
2 0.08
1
0.06
0
0.04
−1
−2 0.02
−3 0
−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
||R||
where Cμ = ||S|| kϵ2 is here defined as the ratio between:
Reynolds-stress tensor norm

q
2 ′ ′ 2 ′ ′
||R|| = 3 kδ ij − u u
i j 3 kδ ij − u u
i j
Ç
∂Ui ∂Uj ∂Ui ∂Uj
Strain-rate tensor norm ||S|| = ∂x + ∂x ∂x + ∂x

j i j i
back


Torque 2010 Presentation Modelling Issues With Wind Turbine Wake and Atmospheric Turbulence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torque 2010 Presentation Modelling Issues With Wind Turbine Wake and Atmospheric Turbulence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelling Issues with Wind Turbines Wake in

Pierre-Elouan Réthoré Niels N. Sørensen Andreas Bechmann

Wind Energy Division · Risø DTU

The Science of Making Torque from the Wind

5 Beyond the Eddy-viscosity

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

5 Beyond the Eddy-viscosity

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

The goal is a steady-state model of wind

farm wake in atmospheric turbulence

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

The goal is a steady-state model of wind

farm wake in atmospheric turbulence

The design choices are:

Actuator disc model

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

Axial velocity U/ U∞ [-]

Fast enough for systematic analysis

Force distribution scaled with local

Axial velocity U/ U∞ [-]

Steady-state simulation 0.8

k-ϵ turbulence model 0.7

Laminar cases fully validated (Fig)

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

5 Beyond the Eddy-viscosity

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

0.7 k-ϵ 2.5D

0.9 a El Kasmi & Masson, Wind Energy 2008

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

LES, Variable forces: U−velocity U/UH,∞ [−]

y−direction y/D [−]

5 Beyond the Eddy-viscosity

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

Turbulent momentum transport with 3 assumptions

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

Turbulent momentum transport with 3 assumptions

Derivation of the Reynolds-stresses with the 3 assumptions

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

The velocity is not conserved in the region of adverse pressure

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

LES shows that the eddy-viscosity concept generates a too high

A3 velocity linearity over the turbulent length-scale:

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

However, in the wake boundary region, the velocity is highly

Axial velocity U/ U∞ [-] L

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

The eddy-viscosity factor illustrates where the eddy-viscosity

LES Eddy-viscosity factor Cμ [-]

The eddy-viscosity factor illustrates where the eddy-viscosity

LES Eddy-viscosity factor Cμ [-]

Even if k and ϵ were correct, the Eddy-viscosity concept would still

The forces on the blades can adapt to large-scale velocity

LES - Unsteady Forces

5 Beyond the Eddy-viscosity

Réthoré et al. pire@risoe.dtu.dk

The dissipation ϵ is in clear contrast with LES.

0.8 EKM: Cϵ4 = 0.01

Cannot satisfy all the met.masts measurements

x=2.5D x=5.5D x=8D

x=2.5D x=5.5D x=8D

Only physical for CSwz = 1.0.

RM: CSwz = 1.0