the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 04 Jun 2025
An inter-comparison study on the impact of atmospheric boundary layer height on gigawatt-scale wind plant performance
Abstract. The height of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) exerts a significant influence on flow behavior within wind farms and directly impacts their performance. This study investigates how variations in ABL height and capping inversion layer thickness affect the efficiency and power output of a gigawatt-scale wind farm. Five advanced numerical approaches, ranging from high-fidelity large-eddy simulations (LES) to Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS), are used to model farm-scale flow dynamics under shallow (∼ 150 m) and deep (∼ 500 m) ABL conditions. The results consistently show that shallow ABLs increase flow blockage and turbine wake interactions, leading to reduced power production. In contrast, deeper ABLs promote enhanced wake recovery and increased overall energy yield. These trends were observed across all solvers, demonstrating the robustness of the findings. Notably, while some quantitative differences emerged depending on modeling fidelity and computational domain size, the overarching trends remained consistent among the participating research institutions and industry partners. The study concludes that the sensitivity to model type is limited and that ABL height and stability are critical parameters to consider in wind energy siting and turbine layout design to optimize performance across varying atmospheric conditions.
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 preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(16058 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Jul 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-88', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jun 2025
reply
Review of "An inter-comparison study on the impact of atmospheric boundary layer height on gigawatt-scale wind plant performance" by S. Ivanell et al.
This is a timely and ambitious paper that addresses the impact of atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) height and inversion thickness on the performance of large wind farms. The inter-comparison of five numerical solvers, spanning both LES and RANS approaches, is a valuable contribution to the field. The paper is well-structured, and the methodology is described in sufficient detail to allow reproduction. The authors are commended for their transparency in discussing model differences and limitations.The paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to our understanding of ABL effects on wind farm performance. However, the authors should take care to distinguish between physical insight and model sensitivity, and to communicate the implications of their findings more clearly. With a major revision, the paper could be a valuable reference for both researchers and practitioners in wind energy.
The paper raises several concerns that should be addressed before publication. Most notably, the reported wind farm efficiencies (~60%) are significantly lower than typical assumptions (~85%) for similar conditions. While this may reflect a real and underappreciated physical effect, the lack of standardized inflow conditions and observational validation makes it difficult to separate physical insight from model artifacts. There is a risk that these results, if not carefully contextualized, could undermine confidence in high-fidelity modeling for wind resource assessment (WRA). Please include a discussion comparing your efficiency results with typical values used in WRA (e.g., 80–85%), and clarify whether the discrepancy is due to ABL effects or modeling setup. Consider adding a paragraph in the Discussion section explicitly addressing how these results should be interpreted by practitioners — i.e., not as a failure of LES/RANS, but as a call for better standardization and validation. Also, could this explain part of the overprediction bias in wind farm production? Similarly, the effect of blockage expressed as non-local efficiency appears to be much larger than even the most pessimistic estimates from the operational wind farm performance calculations.
The absence of observational validation is a limitation. Even a qualitative comparison with met mast or LiDAR data would strengthen the conclusions. If such data are unavailable, please state this explicitly and suggest how future work could address this gap.
Several figures are placed far from their textual references, which makes the paper harder to follow. Consider reordering or duplicating key figures closer to where they are discussed.
The inflow profiles differ substantially between solvers, especially in the H150 case. While the authors acknowledge this, the implications for the efficiency metrics (η_w, η_nl, η_f) are not fully explored. Since these metrics assume identical inflow, the comparison across solvers is questionable. Could you quantify how much of the efficiency variation is attributable to inflow differences?
Another source of differences between the solvers seem to be how the wind turbines are represented. In Star-CCM+ for example, the forces are derived from the power and Ct curves, while they are calculated more explicitly in the EllipSys3D setup. Please comment. In addition, it would be important to know how the flow structure in terms of wind shear and wind veer may affect the power calculation in different solvers. For example, given a power curve, the wind turbine power is then usually calculated only using the hub-height wind speed, while the real power conversion also depends on the level of turbulence, wind profile, wind veer.
Specific Comments
L22 Stull 88 would be a better reference for the definition of a capping inversion.
L38 The GW discussion could profit from a calculation of the Froude number or an equivalent measure to determine the criticality of the flow over the WF. It would be for example interesting to see what happens in case when the inflow velocity is changed so that the flow at the WF is exactly critical.
L42 "adverse pressure gradient" needs some explanation
L64 It would be easier for the reader if this information was provided after Table 2.
L66 Please explain how the staggering was chosen. Is it to achieve minimal wake loss for the 270 degree wind?
L73, Figure 1. If possible, please simulate the 315 degree flow (or rotate the WF by 45 degrees) and analyze how that affects the non-local efficiency (blockage).
L195 "horizontal driving pressure gradient" is a sensitive subject in context of atmospheric CFD modelling attempts (in parallel with the Coriolis force), and requires more explanation in the paper. Has the flow achieved geostrophic balance during the precursor simulations (in all of the solvers) and the pressure gradient is then manipulated/adjusted during the production run to keep the winds aligned? Including a diagram of the model setup including the imposed pressure gradient would be best.
L232, Figure 2. The U and V velocity components look OK and indicate westerly wind (from 270 degrees) at the hub height, and the wind above the BL has a negative V component and is from WNW, which is correct (on the N hemisphere). But the wind direction plot, (d), shows 0 at hub height and negative direction change above the BL which would mean WSW. Please resolve this inconsistency and/or correct the plot accordingly.
Figure 8. The horizontal wind velocity for the H500 case differs prominently from the H150 case (Figure 7). Most notably, the horizontal flow divergence is much stronger, and wavefronts are visible, indicating that the flow is supercritical. Please calculate or estimate the flow regime.
Figure 13. Claiming that the non-local (blockage) effects account for more than 20% power loss already in the first row of turbines, even in the more optimistic H500 case, is bold and significantly deviates from traditional assumptions, and will raise eyebrows. In the worse case this may lead to loss of confidence in the concerned modelling approach. Please see the general comment as well, and it would be recommended to present this aspect of the paper carefully.
L298 The transparency is appreciated, i.e. the purpose of the study may be to only illustrate the impact of the BL height, but the numeric results open important questions and call for revision of the traditional wind farm performance evaluations, and it may be questioned if just being open about the partial intent is sufficient for qualifying this paper for publication.
L309 Are we sure that the waves in Figure 18 are non-physical? Internal GW may propagate in a stratified fluid like this.
L319 Conclusions do not mention the huge contributions of internal and blockage effects to wind farm efficiency, which deserve some discussion.
Appendix A. U_d and gamma are not introduced. Please introduce them.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-88-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 133 | 28 | 5 | 166 | 8 | 8 |
- HTML: 133
- PDF: 28
- XML: 5
- Total: 166
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1