Difference in load predictions obtained with effective turbulence vs. a dynamic wake meandering modeling approach

IF 3.6 Q3 GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Wind Energy Science Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.5194/wes-8-1475-2023
Paula Doubrawa, Kelsey Shaler, Jason Jonkman
{"title":"Difference in load predictions obtained with effective turbulence vs. a dynamic wake meandering modeling approach","authors":"Paula Doubrawa, Kelsey Shaler, Jason Jonkman","doi":"10.5194/wes-8-1475-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. According to the international standard for wind turbine design, the effects of wind turbine wakes on structural loads can be considered in two ways: (1) by augmenting the ambient turbulence levels with the effective turbulence model (EFF) and then calculating the resulting loads and (2) by performing dynamic wake meandering (DWM) simulations, which compute wake effects and loads for all turbines on a farm at once. There is no definitive answer in scientific literature as to the consequences of choosing one model over the other, but the two approaches are unarguably very different. The work presented here expounds on these differences and investigates to what extent they affect the simulated structural loads. We consider an idealized 4×4 rectangular array of National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5 MW wind turbines with a spacing of 5 by 8 rotor diameters and three wind speed scenarios at high ambient turbulence. Load simulations are performed in OpenFAST with EFF and in FAST.Farm with the DWM implementation. We compare ambient turbulence, wind farm turbulence, and loads between both approaches. When omnidirectional results are compared, EFF wind farm turbulence intensity is consistently higher by 0.2 % (above-rated wind speed) to 2.7 % (below-rated wind speed). However, for certain wind directions, the EFF turbulence can be lower than FAST.Farm by almost 9 %. Wind speeds within the farm were found to differ by up to 3 m s−1 due to the lack of wake deficits in the EFF approach, leading to longer tails toward low values in the FAST.Farm mean load distributions. Consistent with the turbulence results, the median EFF load standard deviations are also consistently higher, by a maximum of 20 % and 17 % for blade-root out-of-plane and tower-base fore-aft moments, respectively.","PeriodicalId":46540,"journal":{"name":"Wind Energy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wind Energy Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1475-2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. According to the international standard for wind turbine design, the effects of wind turbine wakes on structural loads can be considered in two ways: (1) by augmenting the ambient turbulence levels with the effective turbulence model (EFF) and then calculating the resulting loads and (2) by performing dynamic wake meandering (DWM) simulations, which compute wake effects and loads for all turbines on a farm at once. There is no definitive answer in scientific literature as to the consequences of choosing one model over the other, but the two approaches are unarguably very different. The work presented here expounds on these differences and investigates to what extent they affect the simulated structural loads. We consider an idealized 4×4 rectangular array of National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5 MW wind turbines with a spacing of 5 by 8 rotor diameters and three wind speed scenarios at high ambient turbulence. Load simulations are performed in OpenFAST with EFF and in FAST.Farm with the DWM implementation. We compare ambient turbulence, wind farm turbulence, and loads between both approaches. When omnidirectional results are compared, EFF wind farm turbulence intensity is consistently higher by 0.2 % (above-rated wind speed) to 2.7 % (below-rated wind speed). However, for certain wind directions, the EFF turbulence can be lower than FAST.Farm by almost 9 %. Wind speeds within the farm were found to differ by up to 3 m s−1 due to the lack of wake deficits in the EFF approach, leading to longer tails toward low values in the FAST.Farm mean load distributions. Consistent with the turbulence results, the median EFF load standard deviations are also consistently higher, by a maximum of 20 % and 17 % for blade-root out-of-plane and tower-base fore-aft moments, respectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有效湍流与动态尾流建模方法在负荷预测方面的差异
摘要根据风力机设计的国际标准,风力机尾迹对结构载荷的影响可以通过两种方式考虑:(1)通过有效湍流模型(EFF)增加环境湍流水平,然后计算产生的载荷;(2)通过动态尾迹弯曲(DWM)模拟,同时计算风力机所有涡轮机的尾迹效应和载荷。在科学文献中,对于选择一种模型而不是另一种模型的后果,没有明确的答案,但这两种方法无疑是非常不同的。本文阐述了这些差异,并研究了它们对模拟结构荷载的影响程度。我们考虑了一个理想的4×4国家可再生能源实验室5mw风力涡轮机矩形阵列,其转子直径间距为5 × 8,在高环境湍流中有三种风速情景。负载仿真分别在OpenFAST和FAST中进行。使用DWM实现进行Farm。我们比较了两种方法之间的环境湍流、风电场湍流和负载。当全向结果进行比较时,EFF风电场湍流强度始终高于0.2%(高于额定风速)至2.7%(低于额定风速)。然而,对于某些风向,EFF湍流可以低于FAST。农场增长了近9%。由于EFF方法缺乏尾流缺陷,发现电场内的风速相差高达3 m s - 1,导致FAST中较低值的尾翼较长。农场平均负荷分布。与湍流结果一致,中位EFF载荷标准偏差也始终较高,叶根面外力矩和塔基前后力矩分别最高为20%和17%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Wind Energy Science
Wind Energy Science GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
27.50%
发文量
115
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Swinging motion of a kite with suspended control unit flying turning manoeuvres A sensitivity-based estimation method for investigating control co-design relevance An actuator sector model for wind power applications: a parametric study Experimental validation of a short-term damping estimation method for wind turbines in nonstationary operating conditions Quantifying the impact of modeling fidelity on different substructure concepts – Part 2: Code-to-code comparison in realistic environmental conditions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1