the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A large-eddy simulation analysis of collective wind-farm axial-induction control in the presence of blockage
Abstract. Over the past few years, numerous studies have shown the detrimental impact of flow blockage on wind-farm power production. In the present work, we investigate the benefits of a simple collective axial-induction control strategy on power maximization and load reduction in the presence of blockage. To this end, we perform a series of large-eddy simulations (LES) over a wind-farm consisting of 100 IEA 15MW turbines, and build the wind-farm power and thrust coefficient curves for three different conventionally neutral boundary layer profiles. We show that the wind-farm power and thrust coefficient curves are much flatter than those of an isolated turbine. As a result, the wind-farm thrust coefficient becomes significantly more sensitive to the selected operating point than the power coefficient. Consequently, we find that the optimal wind-farm operating point considerably differs from the Betz limit in practice, particularly under high-blockage conditions. At the optimal point, the results reveal a minor power increase, accompanied by a load reduction of about 5 %, simultaneously. More interestingly, we show that in some cases the loads can be reduced by up to 19 %, at the expense of a power decrease of only 1 %.
- Preprint
(1168 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Oct 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-110', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Oct 2024
reply
This paper is of sure interest for the field of wind energy and very well written. The results appear robust and original. However, I have a few concerns that should be addressed by the authors:
-p.5: Numerical set-up: Please define the set of equations used in your LES (I guess NS equations with Coriolis and temperature stratification effect with Boussinesq approximation for the potential temperature as in Allaerts & Meyers 2015?). Also some of the used techniques (i.e., the fringe region, the tilting technique, etc) should be discussed in more detail for making the paper more self-contained.- p5: the Smagorinsky coefficient is rather high for wind turbine simulations. Please justify the choice of this value with respect to the literature.
-p5: concerning the grid, in the spanwise direction there is one grid point every 22 meters, while much finer cells are used for the vertical direction. The fact that cells are so elongated in the spanwise direction might constitute a numerical issue. Please validate and/or justify with respect to previous works.
- p.5: "the authors consider a wind farm about 4km longer.... we use the same main domain length". If in Lanzilao & Meyers (2024) the domain was 4km longer, how can you use the same domain length? Please explain.
-p.5 "we artificially extend the height of the precursor field by imposing the geostrophic flow field from 3km to 25 km..." This technique is questionable, since turbulent fluctuations are interrupted abruptly and may induce non physical effects. In fact, the flow field will be subject to abrupt changes, which can affect the results. The authors should clearly show and discuss what happens in the region where this strong discontinuity is imposed, by plotting rms quantities or Reynolds stresses. If a strong discontinuity on these quantities is indeed present, they should consider performing a computation adding a smoothing of the turbulent fluctuations instead of a discontinuity and show that this has virtually no effect on the results.-Figure 2: is the vertical axis indeed in [km]? It is weird to see that the capping inversion is so low while the the domain extends 25 km in the vertical direction. Moreover, please confirm that the laminar geostrophic flow field is added starting from 3km for all the three cases independently of the location of the capping inversion.
- Figure 2 c: in the region where the flow angle becomes constant, there are oscillations of the flow angle. Please justify its origin and its effect on the flow.
- p.6: please discuss the choice of the C_T values, are those typical for a 15MW IEA wind turbine in which operating conditions?
-p7: "the wind-direction controller designed by Allaerts and Meyers (2015) is employed during the precursor phase" Is the controller active only during the precursor simulation or also in the rotor simulations?-p16: "clearly amplified for inflows with a low capping inversion" Please discuss, with reference to the literature, the behaviour in the absence of a capping inversion.
- p17: "axial-induction control approaches". Choosing arbitrarily three different possible operating points and comparing the overall performances cannot be considered really a "control". I suggest modifying this part of the discussion, as well as the title of the paper and the abstract/conclusion, referring rather to an "operational strategy" (or similar) instead of a control.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-110-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
130 | 19 | 34 | 183 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 130
- PDF: 19
- XML: 34
- Total: 183
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1