the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Combining wake steering and active wake mixing on a large-scale wind farm
Abstract. Wind farm flow control mitigates wake effects within a wind farm by adjusting the turbine settings to improve the overall farm performance rather the output of each turbine. Wake steering is an established approach while active wake mixing has recently emerged as a promising solution. This study quantifies the value of a combined strategy, in which each turbine can apply wake steering or the helix. The analysis is performed considering different degrees of uncertainty in wind direction using engineering wake models which enable the simulation of these techniques on large-scale wind farms. A novel optimization algorithm, called Multi-strategy Serial-Refine (MSR), is developed in this study, extending the state-of-the-art method for yaw optimization to multiple control strategies and a generalized objective. A scaled version of an offshore wind farm in the Netherlands is selected as the case study, consisting of 69 IEA 22 MW turbines. The proposed combined strategy yields a 1.98 % increase in annual energy production compared to the baseline scenario, in contrast to the 1.68 % and 1.15 % gains obtained by applying only wake steering or the helix, respectively. This trend persists under wind direction uncertainty. Given the pronounced sensitivity of wake steering to such uncertainty, the combined strategy takes advantage of the superior robustness of the helix under these circumstances.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Wind Energy Science.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(4883 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-265', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2026
reply
This study uses an engineering wake model tuned from large eddy simulations (LES) to assess the benefit of using both wake steering and helix control on a turbine-by-turbine basis, allowing a turbine to actuate one of the methods at any given time. An optimization algorithm was developed to determine the optimal strategy and its parameters, and this was used to make predictions for a turbine pair and a real-world wind farm layout. Results show that a combined optimization strategy is worth pursuing because the benefits outweigh either strategy on their own.## Comments1. Why is wake steering considered quasi-static? Don't yaw misalignments need to be dynamic as wind conditions change?2. It could be argued that wake steering is still not very mature, as it is rarely applied on real world wind farms.3. Perhaps the title would benefit from noting that the helix method was used, not the more general active wake mixing concept, which would include the pulse method. "Combining wake steering and helix wake mixing on a large-scale wind farm". The title could also benefit from clarification that this is a modeling study using an engineering wake model, not LES or an experimental study.4. It would be helpful to clarify exactly which version of PyWake was used to perform the calculations.5. Can this model account for nonuniformity in wind speed and direction across the farm on the quasi-steady (~10 minute) timescale?6. Please comment on the generality of the results taken at a constant 4% turbulence intensity. How realistic is this? If the gains are nonlinear with respect to TI, perhaps simulating more of the actual distribution is necessary.7. Please comment on how the wind direction uncertainty used for simulation models either natural variability on timescales shorter than the control system reaction time or sensor error. Does it model either source of uncertainty? If so, why are they equivalent? For example, sensor bias may be much more detrimental than noise or other random error. Can or should deficiencies be separated out by category? What is a typical value for a real-world wind farm?8. Tuning of the engineering wake model may be worth including as a major section in the paper rather than an appendix. Perhaps include some information regarding the uncertainties of the values derived from the calibration process as well. LES and OpenFAST are not observations of the absolute truth of course. How might these uncertainties propagate through to the final AEP gain calculations?9. Sharing code and data is much appreciated. Please include in the README the steps that must be taken with the repository to compute the EWM calibration values, compute the AEP at all the discretized points, compute the integrated AEP, and generate the figures and numerical results. The data should be stored in an open format like CSV, HDF5, or Parquet, as Python Pickle files can represent security risks. Lastly, before publication please deposit the compendium in a long term archival service like Figshare or Zenodo and provide the digital object identifier (DOI) in the paper references.## Minor comments1. Line 29: "the pulse.": Is this a typo? Should it read "the pulse technique" or "the pulse method"?2. Line 87: "the helix": Similarly, should this read "the helix method" or "helix mixing"?3. Line 34: "static" should be "quasi-static"?4. Line 376: "as a results": Should be "as a result".5. Line 384: "performing the helix": Should be "operating in helix actuation mode" or similar.6. Section 2.5 could be named "Cases studied".7. Why are the COT values doubly negative in figure 9?8. Line 453: "The helix" used again with no additional nouns like "method" or "approach". "Helix control" could also be used in lieu of "the helix".ReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/wes-2025-265-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 390 | 223 | 22 | 635 | 31 | 26 |
- HTML: 390
- PDF: 223
- XML: 22
- Total: 635
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1