the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Investigating the Relationship between Simulation Parameters and Flow Variables in Simulating Atmospheric Gravity Waves for Wind Energy Applications
Abstract. Wind farms, particularly offshore clusters, are becoming larger than ever before. Besides influencing the surface wind flow and the inflow for downstream wind farms, large wind farms can trigger atmospheric gravity waves in the inversion layer and the free atmosphere aloft. Wind farm-induced gravity waves can cause adverse pressure gradients upstream of the wind farm, that contribute to the global blockage effect, and can induce favorable pressure gradients above and downstream of the wind farm that enhance wake recovery. Numerical modeling is a powerful means of studying these wind farm-induced atmospheric gravity waves, but it comes with the challenge of handling spurious reflections of these waves from domain boundaries. Typically, approaches which employ radiation boundary conditions and forcing zones are used to avoid these reflections. However, the simulation setup of these approaches heavily relies on ad-hoc processes. For instance, the widely used Rayleigh damping method requires ad-hoc tuning to produce a setup which may be only produce satisfactory results for a particular case. To provide more systematic guidance on setting up realistic simulations of atmospheric gravity waves, we conduct an LES study of flow over a 2D hill and through a wind farm canopy that explores the optimum domain size and damping layer setup depending on the fundamental parameters which determine the flow characteristics.
In this work, we only consider linearly stratified conditions (i.e., no inversion layer), thereby focusing on internal gravity waves in the free atmosphere and their reflections from the domain boundaries. This type of flow is governed by a single Froude number, which dictates most of the internal wave properties, such as wavelength, amplitude, and direction. This in turn will dictate the optimum domain size and Rayleigh damping layer setup. We find the effective horizontal and vertical wavelengths, (the representative wavelengths of the entire wave spectrum), to be the appropriate length scales to size the domain and damping layer thickness, and the optimal Rayleigh damping coefficient scales with the Brunt–Väisälä frequency.
Considering Froude numbers seen in wind farm applications, we propose recommendations to limit the reflections to less than 10 % of the total upwards propagating wave energy. Typically, damping is done at the top boundary, but given the non-periodic lateral boundary conditions of practical wind farm simulation domains, we find that damping the inflow-outflow boundaries is of equal importance to the top boundary. The Brunt–Väisälä frequency-normalized damping coefficient should be between 1 and 10. The damping layer thickness should be at least one effective vertical wavelength; damping layers exceeding 1.5 times the vertical wavelength are found to be unnecessary. The domain length and height should accommodate at least one effective horizontal and vertical wavelength, respectively. Moreover, Rayleigh damping does not damp the waves completely, and the non-damped energy might accumulate over the simulation time.
- Preprint
(2281 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-138', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Dec 2024
Great study! I only have few minor comments for the authors.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mehtab Ahmed Khan, 18 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-138', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jan 2025
General Comments
In the manuscript, the authors conduct a careful and systematic study of the influence of boundary damping on gravity waves in the perturbed atmosphere. The emphasis is on the strength of the damping, the thickness of the damping layer, and the domain size and the influence of these quantities on the reflection of gravity waves. Two configurations are considered: a simple hill, where the gravity waves can be computed a priori from an analytical solution, and a wind farm canopy. The former seems to give a more conservative constraint on the parameters, which is promising. Overall, the work shows that domain sizes must be larger than the dominant wavelengths of the gravity waves, likewise for the thickness of the damping layers, and the damping coefficient, normalized with the BV frequency, should be order unity to order ten.
The work is worthy of publication for providing clear guidelines of avoiding spurious gravity wave reflection, and the authors are encouraged to consider the following detailed comments in revising the work.
Specific Comments
1. What is role of grid resolution in the conclusions? Certainly, the domain size conclusions will be unchanged, but is the damping strength dependent on grid resolution?
2. Why are the simulations three-dimensional? There are only five grid points in the third dimension without any inherent three-dimensionality in the geometry or inflow, so the flow is almost certainly two-dimensional.
3. In various places in the manuscript, the authors mix discussion of dimensional terms and non-dimensional terms. Everything seems to be able to be expressed in non-dimensional terms, and I encourage the authors to rewrite the commentary and replot the figures as such where possible. Doing so could also reduce the total number of figures and lines on figures needed. (The need to demonstrate dynamic similarity also seems unnecessary.)
4. A key conclusion of the manuscript is the need to scale the domain size and damping layer dimensions by the wavelengths. However, the actual discussion of the wavelengths from the semi-analytical solution for the hill is somewhat limited. The vertical wavelengths are not actually quantified or plotted, in fact. To make the manuscript more useful, the authors should include expressions for the (non-dimensionalized) wavelengths or similar plots as a function of the relevant non-dimensional parameters. That will allow other researchers to consult this work in order to scale their geometries.
5. While the authors allude to other effects of interest (turbulence, ABL, etc.), for future work, this leaves the reader wondering how relevant this work really is. For example, no wind farm is strictly in the free atmosphere, and this seems to be intended application of the authors. How then would the ABL influence the conclusions of this manuscript? While the authors may not have the quantitative answer yet, some scaling argument to demonstrate that the present results would, for example, be a conservative constraint on more complex flow situations would be beneficial.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-138-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mehtab Ahmed Khan, 18 Feb 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-138', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Dec 2024
Great study! I only have few minor comments for the authors.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mehtab Ahmed Khan, 18 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-138', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jan 2025
General Comments
In the manuscript, the authors conduct a careful and systematic study of the influence of boundary damping on gravity waves in the perturbed atmosphere. The emphasis is on the strength of the damping, the thickness of the damping layer, and the domain size and the influence of these quantities on the reflection of gravity waves. Two configurations are considered: a simple hill, where the gravity waves can be computed a priori from an analytical solution, and a wind farm canopy. The former seems to give a more conservative constraint on the parameters, which is promising. Overall, the work shows that domain sizes must be larger than the dominant wavelengths of the gravity waves, likewise for the thickness of the damping layers, and the damping coefficient, normalized with the BV frequency, should be order unity to order ten.
The work is worthy of publication for providing clear guidelines of avoiding spurious gravity wave reflection, and the authors are encouraged to consider the following detailed comments in revising the work.
Specific Comments
1. What is role of grid resolution in the conclusions? Certainly, the domain size conclusions will be unchanged, but is the damping strength dependent on grid resolution?
2. Why are the simulations three-dimensional? There are only five grid points in the third dimension without any inherent three-dimensionality in the geometry or inflow, so the flow is almost certainly two-dimensional.
3. In various places in the manuscript, the authors mix discussion of dimensional terms and non-dimensional terms. Everything seems to be able to be expressed in non-dimensional terms, and I encourage the authors to rewrite the commentary and replot the figures as such where possible. Doing so could also reduce the total number of figures and lines on figures needed. (The need to demonstrate dynamic similarity also seems unnecessary.)
4. A key conclusion of the manuscript is the need to scale the domain size and damping layer dimensions by the wavelengths. However, the actual discussion of the wavelengths from the semi-analytical solution for the hill is somewhat limited. The vertical wavelengths are not actually quantified or plotted, in fact. To make the manuscript more useful, the authors should include expressions for the (non-dimensionalized) wavelengths or similar plots as a function of the relevant non-dimensional parameters. That will allow other researchers to consult this work in order to scale their geometries.
5. While the authors allude to other effects of interest (turbulence, ABL, etc.), for future work, this leaves the reader wondering how relevant this work really is. For example, no wind farm is strictly in the free atmosphere, and this seems to be intended application of the authors. How then would the ABL influence the conclusions of this manuscript? While the authors may not have the quantitative answer yet, some scaling argument to demonstrate that the present results would, for example, be a conservative constraint on more complex flow situations would be beneficial.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-138-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mehtab Ahmed Khan, 18 Feb 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
194 | 55 | 9 | 258 | 11 | 12 |
- HTML: 194
- PDF: 55
- XML: 9
- Total: 258
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1