the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Jul 2025
JHTDB-wind: a web-accessible large-eddy simulation database of a wind farm with virtual sensor querying
Abstract. This manuscript introduces JHTDB-wind (https://turbulence.idies.jhu.edu/datasets/windfarms), a publicly accessible database containing large-eddy simulation (LES) data from wind farms. Building on the framework of the Johns Hopkins Turbulence Database (JHTDB), which hosts direct numerical and some large-eddy simulation datasets of canonical turbulent flows, JHTDB-wind stores the full space-time (4D) history of the flow and provides users the ability to access and query the data via a web-based virtual sensor interface. The initial dataset comprises LES results from a large wind farm with 6 × 10 turbines, modeled using a filtered actuator line method, under conventionally neutral atmospheric conditions. This data comprises one hour of flow field data (velocity, pressure, potential temperature, and others, approximately 15 TB) and wind turbine data—including both turbine-level operational quantities and blade-level aerodynamic quantities (approximately 1.3 TB)—stored in Zarr and Parquet formats, respectively. Data retrieval is facilitated by the Giverny Python package, allowing remote users to query the database in Python or Matlab (C and Fortran support are available for flow field data). This paper details the simulation setup and demonstrates data access through examples that analyze wind farm flow structures and turbine performance. The framework is extensible to future datasets, including the JHTDB-wind diurnal cycle simulation analyzed in Xiao et al. (2025).
- Preprint
(4330 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-124', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Aug 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Charles Meneveau, 08 Sep 2025
We are grateful to the reviewer for the positive appraisal of the paper, recommending publication with minor revisions and the useful comments. Regarding the associated jupyter notebook, we are sorry it did not work for the referee. We have not been able to replicate the problem on Sciserver, and know for a fact that many users are already using and downloading data successfully using getData (on Sciserver but also using the Local notebook version than allow users to run the notebook on their own computer without needing an account on Sciserver). We are confident the system is working and is allowing users access to the data.
In the revision, we will address the minor comments as follows:* We agree with this comment and will add, in line 39-40, the clarifier "To date, the JHTDB fundamental turbulence datasets have ..." - this should clarify that we are not referring to the wind energy dataset. Also, we can see that the additional naming "JHTDB-DNS" on line 58 caused confusion since even the existing database (without wind) included 2 LES datasets. We believe changing this instance to simply JHTDB as intended will help clarify the distinction.
* Agreed. We will change the nomenclature and now call the boundary layer height z_i instead of h_ABL everywhere. The domain height is 2z_i and the sponge region is 0.5z_i deep. For the purposes of the present dataset, we have checked that the effects of further increases of domain and sponge-layer height are negligible. For studies of larger-scale effects near the top of the boundary layer, e.g. creation and propagation of gravity waves generated by wind farms, indeed recent work has shown that domain heights as high as 10z_i and higher would be required, while others have used domain heights 1.5z_i and lower, etc. Our choice is a practical compromise considering data storage needs and costs.
* Indeed, we missed defining what is theta-prime in the text (it is the deviation from the reference temperature theta_0), and explaining that it is the variable stored in the database. This will be corrected in the revised version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-124-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Charles Meneveau, 08 Sep 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-124', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2025
This paper documents what should be a very valuable resource for the wind energy research community in understanding in detail the flow field in time around a representative wind farm in a CNBL. The details of the turbine forces at blade level are especially valuable. I have no major comments. Just a couple of small points:
1) Why was the reference temperature of 263.5K used rather than say the often used value of 273K?
2) Typos: Line 200 - delete the 'a' after '0.5 km', line 289 - insert 'for' after '0.025 s'
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-124-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Charles Meneveau, 23 Sep 2025
We thank the referee #2 for the positive reception of the work and for the two useful questions. They are addressed as follows:
(1) In the revised version, we will include a justification for the reference temperature and include something along the lines of: ``We adopt 263.5 K as the reference potential temperature, consistent with the value chosen in studies by Gadde & Stevens (2021) and our prior simulations of SBL and CNBL flows reported in Narasimhan et al. (2024). This reference temperature was inspired by observations from the Beaufort Sea Arctic Stratus Experiment (BASE) and simulations by Kosović & Curry (2000). While the value of $\theta_0$ is relatively low, it serves primarily as a relative additive reference that does not significantly affect the simulated flow dynamics or the physical interpretation of the results. For example, if we used 273K, it would change the implied thermal expansion coefficient in our Boussinesq approximation only by about 3\%.''''
(2) We have corrected the typos.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-124-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Charles Meneveau, 23 Sep 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-124', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Aug 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Charles Meneveau, 08 Sep 2025
We are grateful to the reviewer for the positive appraisal of the paper, recommending publication with minor revisions and the useful comments. Regarding the associated jupyter notebook, we are sorry it did not work for the referee. We have not been able to replicate the problem on Sciserver, and know for a fact that many users are already using and downloading data successfully using getData (on Sciserver but also using the Local notebook version than allow users to run the notebook on their own computer without needing an account on Sciserver). We are confident the system is working and is allowing users access to the data.
In the revision, we will address the minor comments as follows:* We agree with this comment and will add, in line 39-40, the clarifier "To date, the JHTDB fundamental turbulence datasets have ..." - this should clarify that we are not referring to the wind energy dataset. Also, we can see that the additional naming "JHTDB-DNS" on line 58 caused confusion since even the existing database (without wind) included 2 LES datasets. We believe changing this instance to simply JHTDB as intended will help clarify the distinction.
* Agreed. We will change the nomenclature and now call the boundary layer height z_i instead of h_ABL everywhere. The domain height is 2z_i and the sponge region is 0.5z_i deep. For the purposes of the present dataset, we have checked that the effects of further increases of domain and sponge-layer height are negligible. For studies of larger-scale effects near the top of the boundary layer, e.g. creation and propagation of gravity waves generated by wind farms, indeed recent work has shown that domain heights as high as 10z_i and higher would be required, while others have used domain heights 1.5z_i and lower, etc. Our choice is a practical compromise considering data storage needs and costs.
* Indeed, we missed defining what is theta-prime in the text (it is the deviation from the reference temperature theta_0), and explaining that it is the variable stored in the database. This will be corrected in the revised version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-124-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Charles Meneveau, 08 Sep 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-124', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2025
This paper documents what should be a very valuable resource for the wind energy research community in understanding in detail the flow field in time around a representative wind farm in a CNBL. The details of the turbine forces at blade level are especially valuable. I have no major comments. Just a couple of small points:
1) Why was the reference temperature of 263.5K used rather than say the often used value of 273K?
2) Typos: Line 200 - delete the 'a' after '0.5 km', line 289 - insert 'for' after '0.025 s'
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-124-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Charles Meneveau, 23 Sep 2025
We thank the referee #2 for the positive reception of the work and for the two useful questions. They are addressed as follows:
(1) In the revised version, we will include a justification for the reference temperature and include something along the lines of: ``We adopt 263.5 K as the reference potential temperature, consistent with the value chosen in studies by Gadde & Stevens (2021) and our prior simulations of SBL and CNBL flows reported in Narasimhan et al. (2024). This reference temperature was inspired by observations from the Beaufort Sea Arctic Stratus Experiment (BASE) and simulations by Kosović & Curry (2000). While the value of $\theta_0$ is relatively low, it serves primarily as a relative additive reference that does not significantly affect the simulated flow dynamics or the physical interpretation of the results. For example, if we used 273K, it would change the implied thermal expansion coefficient in our Boussinesq approximation only by about 3\%.''''
(2) We have corrected the typos.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-124-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Charles Meneveau, 23 Sep 2025
Data sets
JHTDB-wind Xiaowei Zhu, Shuolin Xiao, Ghanesh Narasimhan, Luis A. Martinez-Tossas, Michael Schnaubelt, Gerard Lemson, Hanxun Yao, Alexander S. Szalay, Dennice Gayme, and Charles Meneveau https://doi.org/10.26144/D8ES-FC15
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 662 | 110 | 38 | 810 | 35 | 39 |
- HTML: 662
- PDF: 110
- XML: 38
- Total: 810
- BibTeX: 35
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See attached.