Simulation of transient gusts on the NREL 5&thinsp;MW wind turbine using the URANS solver THETA

Länger-Möller, Annika

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-461-2018

Articles | Volume 3, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-461-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Wind Energy Science Conference 2017

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-461-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 3, issue 2

Research article

|

06 Jul 2018

Research article |

| 06 Jul 2018

Simulation of transient gusts on the NREL 5 MW wind turbine using the URANS solver THETA

Annika Länger-Möller

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Jul 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 25 Oct 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review comments for "Simulation of transient gusts on the NREL5 MW wind turbine using CFD" by Annika Langer-Moller in Wind Energy Science, 2017.', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Nov 2017
- AC1: 'Response to comments of referee #1', Annika Länger-Möller, 04 Jan 2018
RC2: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Dec 2017
- AC2: 'Response to Comment of Referee #2', Annika Länger-Möller, 12 Jan 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Annika Länger-Möller on behalf of the Authors (15 Jan 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Feb 2018) by Jens Nørkær Sørensen

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (20 Feb 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper has been improved since the original review, there are though a few points I would suggest to address before the final acceptance.

Page 4, line ~20: ‘low dissipation’ is mentioned twice.

Grid resolution: The comment for the coarse grid still stands, the NREL Phase-VI investigation do not feature any grid dependency study. The fact that the results agree well with measured value do not guarantee grid independence. Additionally, the differencing scheme test in the referred paper is done at high AOA where cancelling errors might obscure the question. Comparing directly the Cp distributions, there are clear visual differences.

Is the reference used for FAST correct, I would imagine that an older one exists?

Page 6: I do not think that a standard engineering viscous wall resolved condition will allow you to model atmospheric rough wall flow with roughness length 0.1 m and larger. Here typically Monin-Obukhov theory must be used.

Page 8, line ~12: ‘ t the computational time’. I would suggest to say : ‘ t is the physical time simulated’

Page 12: There are basically no description on the turbine setup in the FAST model, is this based on the reference manual including airfoil data and more of Jonkman. Is the model including a Dynamic Inflow model, dynamic stall model ….. So even though we see good comparisons, we do not know what we are comparing against.

Why are there no thrust force shown for the FAST simulations in Figure 5?

Page 14: Is seems that the skin-friction (Cf) shown is basically the absolute value of the skin friction. I would suggest showing the Cf with a sign, easily indicating where separation is present. Additionally, the scaling of both the Cp and Cf are not optimal for visual inspection.

Page 18: Line ~25: I would suggest removing the word ‘perfect’ and ‘exactly’

Page 18: It would maybe also be appropriate to discuss whether the gain in details over the engineering modelling is worth the additional computational effort.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (07 Mar 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Mar 2018) by Jens Nørkær Sørensen

AR by Annika Länger-Möller on behalf of the Authors (14 Apr 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (07 May 2018) by Jens Nørkær Sørensen

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 May 2018) by Jens Nørkær Sørensen

AR by Annika Länger-Möller on behalf of the Authors (19 May 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (11 Jun 2018) by Jens Nørkær Sørensen

ED: Publish as is (17 Jun 2018) by Gerard J.W. van Bussel (Chief editor)

AR by Annika Länger-Möller on behalf of the Authors (21 Jun 2018)

Short summary

The capability of the DLR flow solver to simulate a wind turbine operating in an extreme gust event is presented by propagating the extreme gust through the flow field. The behaviour of the aerodynamic rotor loading and flow characteristics on the rotor blades were evaluated. The long-term perspective is to improve the understanding of the effects of instationary aerodynamics on the wind turbine. This will help to improve wind turbine design methods.