the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Improved coupling between an atmospheric LES and an aeroelastic code for the simulation of wind turbines under heterogeneous inflow
Abstract. Wind energy simulations face a central challenge of coupling length scales, ranging from wind fields spanning hundreds of kilometers to the centimeter-scale relevant for turbine dynamics. To address this challenge, simulations employ fundamentally different tools. For instance, a large-eddy simulation tool simulates the large scales, while an aeroelastic code captures wind-turbine interaction at smaller scales. This study aims to examine a model framework developed to investigate wind turbine behavior in heterogeneous wind fields, such as those found in wind farms. The framework combines FAST and PALM, simulating realistic atmospheric wind conditions while providing high-quality turbine information. Computational efficiency is ensured through the use of a decoupled time step, resulting in an Actuator Sector Model within PALM and a blade-element momentum approach in FAST. Additionally, a wind speed correction is implemented to reduce errors that are caused by the necessary smearing of forces on the numerical grid of the atmospheric simulation when using actuator models to account for wind turbine effects. Results are evaluated through comparisons of different model setups and turbine measurements, including an assessment of a wake situation involving two turbines. Special attention is given to the number of blade elements in the turbine setup. The proposed model framework demonstrates good agreement with measurement data and performs well in the wake situation, used as representative of a highly heterogeneous wind field. It is applicable for studying turbine loads and power output in wake situations and other atmospheric wind fields.
- Preprint
(4717 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 12 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-146', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jan 2025
reply
This manuscript presents a comparison of simulation results using the ALM/ASM in PALM with and without the smearing correction and BEM from FAST. The manuscript reads more like a technical report than a scientific paper. The authors do a good job of identifying some of the common issues with over-prediction of ALM forces along the blade and use the correction from Meyer Forsting to improve their results.
The work is focused on an improved methodology to use PALM + ALM, but does not really present any new insights in the techniques used such as LES, ALM, ASM, BEM, etc. There is another publication (Kruger 2022) focused on introducing the framework. This work would be a good technical report, but it is not suitable for publication in WES in its current form.
Specific comments:
Line 74: “In Mohammadi et al. (2024) an empirical approach is presented.”
Comment: It is not clear what approach was presented in that work. Please clarify this in the context of the discussion.
The implementation of the ALM and ASM is not clear in the manuscript. The original formulation of the ALM suggests sampling velocities at the actuator points. But the authors mention in Fig 1 that they use BEM in the ALM/ASM. The ALM should only use blade element theory and use the velocity sampled in the LES to compute the forces. The momentum part of the BEM theory is not used in the ALM.
The authors ran many cases but some of the cases produced unexpected results. There is no explanation of why these unexpected results occurred and the work seems incomplete.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-146-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-146', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Feb 2025
reply
General comments:
The authors have presented the coupling of an actuator sector model in PALM with the FAST aeroelastic framework. Specifically, two main ASM implementations are considered with differences in velocity sampling method and smearing correction. The results are provided and compared with each other in uniform, turbulent, and waked inflow. In addition, a comparison with measurement data is provided. The authors have concluded that the proposed ASM-SL method produces satisfactory results when combined with a vortex-based smearing correction.
Despite this, the work lacks novelty, is largely based on a single previous work, and does not consider the other contributions in the field properly. Although a rather significant milestone in model development for the authors, various parts of the content are already addressed and discussed in the literature. Therefore, I do not find the manuscript to be suitable for journal publication in its current form. It is not clear what the research questions are and what gaps the paper is trying to fill. Not knowing this, it is even harder to assess whether they have been answered. Apart from this, there are serious issues regarding the applied methodology that require to be addressed to improve the scientific quality of the paper. I have mentioned them in the “specific comments”. In addition, the work would be considerably improved by including the relevant works in the field and explaining the setup and simulations more thoroughly instead of mainly citing previous work.
As ASM is not widely compared to measurements, I suggest that the authors consider this aspect as the core part of their study while relying on the current literature for the model development (or shortening those parts). It would be of significance and interest to readers to see how a properly set up ASM would compare to measurements in different operational conditions such as various stratifications and yaw misalignment for instance.
Specific comments:
1- I suggest changing the term “heterogenous” in the title to something else, for instance, turbulent inflow. Also, the same applies to anywhere in the manuscript that you have used this term. The reason is that it is uncommon and difficult to understand for a reader what you mean by this. Similarly, instead of using “free inflow”, a uniform inflow is the common term.
2- It is mentioned that a blade element momentum approach is used in FAST in relation to the cases that utilize an actuator model. Although this is the case for standalone FAST cases, it is not true for those cases that use an actuator model and are coupled to PALM. The momentum part is replaced by using an LES solver. Therefore, it is appropriate to use a blade element approach. Please correct this in various parts of the manuscript.
3- In lines 74-75: “In Mohammadi et al. (2024) an empirical approach is presented. Similar to Kruger et al. (2022), an LES code is coupled with an ASM. However, the universal application of the presented framework has not yet been tested.”
Firstly, I would suggest changing the term “universal application” to something like “generalization” as the former is perhaps a far-fetched claim for most things. Secondly, it is necessary to explain what this empirical approach is. Also, I wonder if you have read the prior publication to Mohammadi et al. (2024) which in fact has tested the suggested implementation in a variety of wind speeds, grid resolutions, and tip speed ratios and has attempted to show that the suggested method is generalizable. It also includes the method you have considered in your study. Therefore, as a different conclusion is drawn in that study regarding the velocity sampling method, it would be interesting and perhaps essential to consider the method explained there as one of your cases or at least discuss and argue why you believe your approach is more or equally sound. In addition, if the generalization of the results is of concern, the velocity sampling method suggested in your study is not tested for various inflow velocities, grid resolutions, and turbine models (TSR values). The mentioned publication is as follows. Although the ASM in this study is not aeroelastic, the issue of the velocity sampling method persists even in stiff simulation.
M. Mohammadi, H. Olivares-Espinosa, G. P. Navarro Diaz, and S. Ivanell, “An actuator sector model for wind power applications: a parametric study,” Wind Energy Science, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1305–1321, Jun. 2024. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1305-2024
4- Line 78-81: “An alternative approach, with the potential for universal application in addressing inaccuracies in blade velocities due to force projection, is described in Dag (2017) and followed up in Meyer Forsting et al. (2019). These authors identified the root cause of the problem. The ALM representation developed by (Sørensen and Shen, 2002) of a turbine is intended as a lifting line method.”
As this paragraph immediately follows after talking about the velocity sampling issue, I suspect that the authors are mixing up the issue of the velocity sampling method and velocity correction method, widely called a tip or smearing correction. Again, in the publication mentioned above this issue is discussed and the results depict a rather different story. In this work, the smearing correction that you have used in your studies is already implemented and the results highlight how the topics of smearing correction and velocity sampling method are different from each other. Apart from this, the vortex-based smearing correction of Forsting et al. (2019) is intended for a stiff turbine. Therefore, it does not consider the deflections. I wonder again if the authors are familiar with the follow-up work of Hodgson et al. (2022) in which the deflections are taken into consideration. If yes, it is still appropriate to mention the work even if you do not wish to implement it. In this case, you should argue why and state the implications it may have on your results. On the other hand, if you have considered the deflections in the correction, please state this explicitly and still cite the following work as it is the first work implementing the method.
Hodgson E L, Grinderslev C, Meyer Forsting A R, Troldborg N, Sørensen N N, Sørensen J N and Andersen S J 2022 Frontiers in Energy Research 10 864645, ‘’Validation of Aeroelastic Actuator Line for Wind Turbine Modelling in Complex Flows’’, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.864645
5- line 95: “ensuring applicability to a variety of wind conditions”
Please explain how you have reached this objective. The applicability of the smearing correction in a variety of operational conditions does not guarantee that your velocity sampling method is also applicable to a variety of wind conditions and grid resolutions. You could however argue that perhaps other grid resolutions are not of interest to you. In this case, please state your motivation.
6- In the methodology section, please add a part that explains the implementation and details of ALM and ASM briefly. For instance, how the size of the sector, the number of lines, etc. are determined. In addition, state how the velocity sampling is done in ALM as there are various ways in the literature that this can be done. Also, add what the value of epsilon or the smearing kernel size is.
7- In the methodology section, provide an explanation of the structural solver used in FAST. In addition, please state the time step sizes for both PALM and FAST and how they are selected. It is not enough to only cite a previous work. This applies to the other parts of the manuscript as well where using only a citation does not mean that necessary information can be left out.
8- line 174: “The ASM-CL (NWC) simulations were terminated early due to unpromising results, specifically a significant overestimation of power output, even with the NWC applied”.
Why do you think this happens? Could it be perhaps an indication that the velocity sampling method should be treated independently of the smearing correction?
9- Looking at Figure 2, I have a hard time understanding how to interpret the explanations. Please explain clearly in the text how the velocity sampling is done. Also, add the rotation direction to the figure. However, based on my understanding, you sample the velocities for the current time step at the current location of the blade (after the blades are rotated from the previous time step). However, if you would compare this with how the velocities should be sampled in ALM which is at the center of bound vorticity, you can see that this would be problematic. This is, however, a common mistake in the literature so you may find other works that have done this arguing that this leads to convergence (whatever that means for LES! and varying epsilon values). Again, this is explained for instance in the following:
Martínez-Tossas, L. A., Churchfield, M. J., and Meneveau, C.: Optimal smoothing length scale for actuator line models of wind turbine blades based on Gaussian body force distribution, Wind Energy, 20, 1083–1096, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2081, 2017.
M. Mohammadi, H. Olivares-Espinosa, G. P. Navarro Diaz, and S. Ivanell, “An actuator sector model for wind power applications: a parametric study,” Wind Energy Science, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1305–1321, Jun. 2024. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1305-2024
10- Please explain in methodology whether you have used a tip correction for the standalone FAST case. If yes, explain which one.
11- Line 209: Do you mean ASM-SL NWC?
12- section 3.2: why do you use ASM-SWIRL as a reference for ASM-SL-NWC? Do they have the same correction or does ASM-SWIRL use any correction? You argued earlier that ASM-SWIRL is not suitable for complex inflows. Even for ASM-SWIRL and ASM-SL-NWC, there are significant differences around 450-550 seconds of the simulation as can be seen in Figure 6. How do you explain these differences? In general, I suggest improving the reasoning for why you select various cases as a “reference” throughout the paper as it changes from section to section. A reference would be preferably for instance a model that is well-established and tested thoroughly which I would not consider this to be the case for some of the verification reference cases you have selected.
13- section 3.3: please explain how you shift the time series from ASM-SWIRL in turbulent sheared inflow.
14- The discussion of the results is also limited to the comparison with the work of Kruger et al. Therefore, I would recommend again discussing the obtained results on how they relate to other works in the field.
Technical comments:
- As there are many run cases, it would be helpful to create a table of all simulations with their details in the appendix.
- Proofreading would increase the readability of the paper, especially in terms of the scientific jargon that is commonly used in the field.
- Please consider inserting the figures as close as possible to where they are referred to in the text. Sometimes it was hard to find the figures readily.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-146-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
149 | 33 | 6 | 188 | 5 | 8 |
- HTML: 149
- PDF: 33
- XML: 6
- Total: 188
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1