You are on page 1of 52

Wind Resource Assessment in Complex

Terrain Using CFD

Thesis Submitted for the degree of


M.Sc in Wind Energy
By

Naeem Memon
Venkata Ratnam Kondreddi

Department of Mechanical Engineering


Technical University of Denmark
Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 5
1.1 ASKERVEIN HILL: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................ 6
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM................................................................. 7
1.3 INLET PROFILE ......................................................................................... 7
1.4 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 8
1.4.1 Rough Wall Boundary ......................................................................... 9
1.4.2 Logarithmic Law of Wall..................................................................... 9
2. TURBULENCE MODELS..........................................................................10
2.1 K-EPSILON MODEL .......................................................................................10
2.1.2 Constants for K-epsilon Model..............................................................11
2.2 K-OMEGA TURBULENCE MODEL ....................................................................12
2.3 .SHEAR STRESS TRANSPORT MODEL ( SST ) ...............................................13
3. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS ...............................................................14
3.1. GRID TESTING ........................................................................................14
3.1.1: First node height..................................................................................15
3.1.2 Expansion factor ...................................................................................19
3.2. TURBULENCE MODELS .................................................................................22
4. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................31
5. MODEL SETUP ..........................................................................................32
5.1 ANSYS DESIGN MODELER .......................................................................32
5.2 ANSYS CFX MESH ..................................................................................33
5.3 CFX PRE-PROCESSOR .............................................................................34
5.4 CFX SOLVER ..........................................................................................36
5.5 CFX POST ..............................................................................................37
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................38
APPENDIX..........................................................................................................40

1
List of Figures

FIGURE 1: PROFILE OF ASKERVEIN HILL ALONG LINE A. ........................................... 6


FIGURE 2: CONTOUR MAP SHOWING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ASKERVEIN HILL.............. 7
FIGURE 3: THEORETICAL VELOCITY PROFILE AT INLET. ............................................ 8
FIGURE 4: Y PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.0049M. ......16
FIGURE 5: Y PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049M. ....16
FIGURE 6: Y PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.0003M. ......17
FIGURE 7: SPEED-UP ALONG LINE A WITH VARYING FIRST PRISM LAYER HEIGHT......17
FIGURE 8: SPEED UP ALONG THE VERTICAL LINE FROM HT. .....................................18
FIGURE 10: YPLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049 WITH
EXPANSION FACTOR 1.2...................................................................................19
FIGURE 11: Y PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049 WITH
EXPANSION FACTOR 1.3...................................................................................20
FIGURE 12: YPLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049 WITH
EXPANSION FACTOR 1.4...................................................................................20
FIGURE 13: YPLUS VALUE AT SURFACE HAVING FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049 WITH
EXPANSION FACTOR 1.5...................................................................................21
FIGURE 14: SPEED-UP ALONG LINE A WITH DIFFERENT EXPANSION FACTORS HAVING
FIRST PRISM LAYER AT 0.00049M HEIGHT. .......................................................21
FIGURE 15: SPEED UP ALONG THE VERTICAL LINE FROM HT. ...................................22
FIGURE 16: COMPARISON OF SPEED-UP VALUES ALONG LINE A AT 10M. ..................23
FIGURE 17: COMPARISON OF SPEED-UP VALUES ALONG LINE AA AT 10M. ..............24
FIGURE 18: SPEED-UP VALUES ALONG THE VERTICAL LINE AT HT FOR DIFFERENT
TURBULENCE MODELS COMPARED WITH COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
VALUES. .........................................................................................................25
FIGURE 19: VELOCITY VECTORS FOR FLOW OVER LINE A FOR K-EPSILON TURBULENCE
MODEL WITHOUT HAVING RE-CIRCULATION. ...................................................25
FIGURE 20: Y-PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE USING K-EPSILON MODEL. ..........................26
FIGURE 21:Y-PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE USING K-OMEGA MODEL.............................26
FIGURE 22: VELOCITY VECTORS FOR FLOW OVER LINE A FOR K-OMEGA TURBULENCE
MODEL...........................................................................................................27
FIGURE 23: Y-PLUS VALUE AT SURFACE USING SST MODEL. ....................................27
FIGURE 24: VELOCITY VECTORS FOR FLOW OVER LINE A FOR SHEAR STRESS
TURBULENCE MODEL, RE-CIRCULATION ZONE IS VISIBLE IN DOWNSTREAM. .....28
FIGURE 25 : STREAM LINES PLOT SHOWING THE RECIRCULATION ZONE AT THE LEA
SIDE OF THE HILL. ...........................................................................................29
FIGURE 26: COMPARING RESULTS WITH THE COMPUTATIONS BY KARL J. EIDSVIK
ALONG LINE A AT 10M. ...................................................................................29
FIGURE 27: COMPARISON OF SPEEDUP VALUES ALONG AA AT 10M WITH KARL
RESULTS .........................................................................................................30
FIGURE 28: COMPARISON OF SPEEDUP VALUES FROM THE CFD SIMULATIONS WITH
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ................................................................................30
FIGURE 30: ANSYS WORKBENCH OVERVIEW ...........................................................32
FIGURE 33: CFX - SOLVER OVERVIEW ....................................................................36
FIGURE 35: ASKERVEIN HILL WITH XYZ COORDINATES ..........................................40

2
FIGURE 36 : THE SURFACE OF ASKERVEIN...............................................................41
FIGURE 37: DOMAIN OF ASKERVEIN WITH HEIGHT OF 1KM .....................................41
FIGURE 39 : DOMAIN AFTER VOLUME MESH ...........................................................44
FIGURE 40: DOMAIN OF ASKERVEIN SHOWING VARIABLES AND COEFFICIENTS OF
TURBULENCE MODEL ......................................................................................45
FIGURE 42: INLET VELOCITY VECOTRS IN X(VSX) AND Y(VSY) DIRECTIONS OF THE
DOMAIN ..........................................................................................................46
FIGURE 45: SOLVER MANAGER ...............................................................................48
FIGURE 46: PLANES A AND AA ALONG THE ASKERVEIN HILL ..................................49
FIGURE 47: VELOCITY VECTORS ALONG THE PLANES A AND AA.............................50
FIGURE 48: POLY-LINES ALONG THE LINE A AT 10M AND ALONG THE GROUND OF
ASKERVEIN HILL ............................................................................................50
FIGURE 49: LINE AT HT DRAWN FROM HT TO DOMAIN HEIGHT ...............................51

List of Tables

TABLE 1: STANDARD AND MODIFIED VALUES OF CONSTANTS FOR K-EPSILON MODEL.


......................................................................................................................12
TABLE 2: DIFFERENT TEST GRIDS VARYING IN Y. ...................................................15
TABLE 3: DIFFERENT TEST GRIDS VARYING WITH EXPANSION FACTORS....................19
TABLE 4: CHANGE IN EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CONSTANT INFLATION LAYER ..........43
TABLE 5: CHANGE IN FIRST PRISM HEIGHT FOR CONSTANT EXPANSION FACTOR ......43

3
Abstract

The modelling of Wind resource over a complex terrain is examined using


computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) model. The Askervein hill, which has complex
topology and some experimental data of wind measurements, is used to validate a
flow solver to model this kind of flow. The report consists of two parts, the first part
explains the estimation and discussion of results for flow over complex terrain using
two-equation turbulence models and the second part of report describes the CFD
package. The results obtained from the CFD simulations are then compared with the
experimental data obtained from the studies of Taylor and Teunissen[3] in 1983 and
CFD simulations from Niels N.Srensen[1] and Karl J.Eidsvik[18] for better
understanding of results for the flow in the complex terrain. Our results show that
refinement of the grid is having greater influence on the results and the flow is well
predicted even for the coarser grid. In the context our findings we suggest that the
Shear Stress Turbulence (SST) model can produce better results than other
turbulence models.

4
1. Introduction
Increasing interest in wind power far from flat coastal areas makes it
necessary to develop tools that are able to accurately simulate the wind over
complex terrain. The standard approaches for the estimation of wind power
potential have focused either on numerical calculations using specified physics or
in-situ measurements. Both methods fail when the terrain becomes complex.
Already in a gently mountainous area simplified physics are no longer valid. The
simple numerical algorithms for instance linearized equations, rudimentary or no
turbulence models create additional physical effects that are not seen in reality.
Even the measurements close to the turbine do not guarantee success either.
Typically these measurements are performed at lower height than the hub height of
turbine. Furthermore the final location of the wind turbine often changes. After a
year of measurements the estimated wind power obtained at the height of
anemometer has to be extrapolated up to the actual hub height. The errors incurred
during this extrapolation are difficult to estimate.

Linearized models are good enough in predicting the flow both at upwind and at the
summit of isolated hills of moderate slope (e.g., Mason and king [10], 1985).
However isolated hills are rarely found in nature and the poor prediction at the lee
side may affect the simulation at the second hill or set of hills located further
downstream. The main limitation is the lack of ability to compute separation caused
by using the linearized equations and the restriction to gentle terrain.
As a result we made our focus on a non-linear model CFX, a computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) model, to estimate the wind resource over a complex terrain.

The main drawback in the computer simulations of atmospheric flows over complex
topography is the unavailability of experimental data but this is not same in the case
of Askervein as this hill has been extensively measured in-situ in 1983 (Taylor and
Teunissen[3], 1983, 1985), providing the ideal frame work for the validation of
computational models.

Askervein hill has been studied both by full-scale measurements, see Taylor and
Teunissen[3] (1983-4); by wind tunnel measurements, see Teunissen and Shork[14]
(1985), and Bowen and Teunissen[12] (1986); by linear models, see Walmsley and
Salmon[16] (1984), Beljaars et al[11] (1987), Troen and Petersen[15] (1989), Zeman
and Jensen[17] (1987) and for non-linear models, see Raithby et al[13] (1987), Niels.
N.Srensen[1] (1995), F.A.Castro et al[4] (2003), Karl.J.Eidsvik[18] (2004), Kim &
Patel[6] (2000).

Flow separation at the lee side of the hill is still an unresolved issue where the field
measurements show a rapid decrease in speed-up ratio. Different thoughts are
available regarding the issue; for instance Kim and Patel[6] (2000) conjectured that
this three dimensional flow separation at the lee slope is due to the blockage effect
of neighbouring hills but according to F.A. Castro[4] (2003) presence of the nearby
topography does not affect the flow neither at the top nor at the downstream of the
Hill. F.A.Castro[4] (2003) and Niels. N.Srensen[1] (1995), both at windward slope
and lee side of the hill, find a substantial agreement between the Experimental
results and the computational results.

5
Niels.N.Srensen[1] (1995) has developed 2D and 3D finite volume code in general
curvilinear coordinates to compare 2D and 3D computations over different objects
with measurements. He has also tested Askervein Hill as test case and his findings
are used in this study as a reference.

The objective of this study is to simulate the flow over the complex terrain by using
different turbulence models, all the above studies are conceded only on k- model,
which made it interesting for us to observe the results at turbulence models other
than k- and suggest a best suited model for flow over complex terrains.

1.1 Askervein Hill: background information

Experiments were conducted in 1982 and 1983 on Askervein, a 126-meter [2]


high hill (Figure 1) on the west coast of the island of South Uist in the Outer
Hebrides of Scotland. The selection of the site was done considering many goals
such as simple topography, good wind conditions, easy access etc.

The hill is nearly ellipsoidal (Figure 2) in the contour plan[2] having minor and
major axis of 1000 and 2000 meters respectively. Askervein is the most complete
field experiment site to date; with 50 towers deployed, out of 50 towers 27 were
equipped with three component turbulence sensors.

Askervein is a smooth hill with an interesting topography: the hill has a quite simple
geometrical shape and resembles an ellipsoid. The results have been used in much
verification and testing of different models, both numerical and experimental (wind
tunnel experiments), therefore this case is particularly well documented. This made
the Askervein hill case most suitable reference to test numerical results versus full-
scale experimental data.

C ros s -S ec tional vie w of A s k lervein H ill at Line A


140
HT

120

100
Height [m])

80

60

40

20

0
-1500 -10 00 -500 0 500 10 00 150 0
D is t anc e along line A [m ]

Figure 1: Profile of Askervein Hill along line A.

6
1.2 Description of the problem

We have received the topographical data of the Askervein from Niels.N.


Srensen of Ris (National Laboratory of Denmark), this data is originally extracted
from full-scale field experiment (P.A Taylor & H.W. Teunissen[3] 1983). The
contour lines (Figure 2) of the hill were generated from the map of (P.A Taylor &
H.W. Teunissen[3] 1983) and the lines A & AA were taken out.

20

20
40
1000 20

500 20 20

40
20
40
20
60

80
40
0
40

60
60
12
10 0

20
0

20
10
20

80

1
-500

80
80
40
10 0

40
-1000 60

60
40 80
20

40

-1500
60 60

-2000 20 40 60 60 80
-1000 -500 0 500 1000

Figure 2: Contour map showing the topography of Askervein Hill.

This simulation will be compared with the field experimental results and also with
the results from Niels.N. Sorensens[1] (June 1995) and Karl J.Eidsvik[18]
simulations. Three turbulence models are selected for this purpose: K-epsilon
model, K-omega model and Shear Stress Turbulence (SST) model.

1.3 Inlet profile

With reference to the numerical calculations of Niels.N.Srensen[1] 1995, Karl


J.Eidsvik[18] , TU03B and MF-03d cases from the field experiments P.A Taylor &
H.W. Teunissen[3] 1983 are chosen for the comparison of the results. Mf-03d case
will be compared with Karl J.Eidsvik[18] and our computational results, as this case
is not shown in Niels.Srensen[1] 1995. The two runs are cases with the wind
direction equal to 210, approximately along the line A. Wind speed at the reference
site was 8.9 m/sec at 10m height from ground whereas the roughness length (z0) was
0.03m for the entire terrain.
The theoretical velocity profile is shown in Figure 3.

7
V elocity profile
100

90

80

70

60
Z [m]

50

40

30

20

10

0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
velocity [m/sec]

Figure 3: Theoretical Velocity Profile at inlet.

U* z
U (z) = ln( ). (1)
z0

Where
U * = Frictional velocity=0.61
= Von Karman coefficient =0.40
z = Height above ground.

1.4 Boundary conditions

The inlet was specified according to the profile discussed above, the outlet was
considered fully developed and the Terrain of the site was modelled according to the
rough wall version of logarithmic law of wall; symmetry condition was applied for
the top boundary of the domain.
The computations for all the three models were performed on High-resolution
scheme.

8
1.4.1 Rough Wall Boundary

Local Reynolds number and the strong gradient of variables near the wall region
requires more attention, it could not be solved by simply following the standard
procedure as the Reynolds number is changing and becomes low when the flow
reaches the near wall region (Niels.N. Srensen[1] 1995).
Fine grids are required near the wall region in order to calculate the flow precisely,
which takes a lot more time and memory space for simulations. To solve this issue
low Reynolds number version of k-epsilon model has been used with fine mesh near
the wall. This approach has shown to work for the industrial flows only with the
smooth walls; it seems impossible for this approach to predict the atmospheric flow
over rough walls. The reason for this is flow over the hill region will have a domain
of large size where as the size of the roughness elements is very small which in turn
exceeds the number of cells for the computation domain and the memory will go
beyond the capacity of modern computers (Niels.N. Srensen[1] 1995).
Log- Wall-law is a technique where the calculation of flow near the wall is
abandoned, which circumvent the problem of low Reynolds numbers and
requirement of fine mesh to resolve the strong gradients. In log-wall-method the
steep gradient near the wall region is excluded from the calculation and the near
wall flow is modelled by the one-dimensional couette flow assuming zero pressure
gradient, Which, however, is not true for flow over a hill. By modelling the near
wall flow, the fine mesh needed here can be avoided, which in turn cut down the
execution time and the same time avoiding low Reynolds number region allowing
the use of standard K-epsilon model.

1.4.2 Logarithmic Law of Wall

Assuming that the velocity profile reasonably approximates the velocity distribution
near the wall, it provides the mean to numerically compute the fluid shear stress as a
function of velocity at a given distance from the wall. This is known as the Wall
function and the logarithmic nature gives it to a well known Log Law of The Wall.

U 1 y
= log e + C (2)
uT z0
where

uT = (3)

z 0 uT
C= (4)

y uT
y+ = (5)

The part of the layer over which the law is valid is usually called the Inner layer or
Wall Layer and the rest is called as the Outer Layer . The outer limit of the validity

9
is at a distance equal to approximately 20% of layer thickness and becomes
smaller to the regions where the flow having strong pressure gradients, especially
those approaching separation. Close to the surface ( y+<3 ) Reynolds shear stress is
y
negligible and the viscous stresses affect the velocity at this region, U = , so

[7],
the law is always true there(Bradshaw & Huang 1995).
C is related to the increase in U across viscous wall region, y+<30-50. By
experiments eq. (2) is valid with = 0.41 and C5.0, for y+>30 but y/ <0.1-0.2.
It should be noted that the validity of outer limit must depend on the outer length
scale rather than the viscous length scale / uT , because the viscous effects are
negligible in the log law region.

2. Turbulence Models
The Reynolds equations conservation of mean mass and momentum are given as:
U i
=0 (6)
x i
U i U j
Uj
U i
x j
=
1 P
+

x i x j



x
+
x i
(
uiu j ) (7)
j

Where the term ui u j is designed as the Reynolds stresses, from Boussinesq


assumption:

U i U j 2
ui u j = t + + ij k (8)
x xi 3
j

Where k is the turbulent kinetic energy and t is turbulent viscosity.

2.1 K-epsilon Model

K-epsilon is a commonly used two-equation model. The first low Reynolds


number k-epsilon model was developed by Jones and launder[20] in 1973, several
investigators have subsequently modified the work.

k2
t = c (9)

Partial differential equations for kinetic energy of turbulence ( k ), and the


dissipation of turbulence ( ) are not derived here and will not be given in detail
and neither the closed approximations used will be discussed in detail here.

10
t k
xi
(u j k )=
x j

x
+ pk (10)
k j



(u j )= t + c 1 pk c 2
2
(11)
x j x j x j k k

Where p k is the production of the turbulence defined as:

u i U i U j
pk = t + . (12)
x j x xi
j

It is seen from the equations (eq.10 - 11) of turbulent kinetic energy and the
dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy the effect of coriolis is vanished, which is
present in the normal Reynolds stress equations (Niels.N.Srensen[1]1995). The
explanation of this is coriolis force does not change the energy of the normal
stresses but distributes the energy among the three components.
Due to the above-mentioned reason K-epsilon model is unable to predict the
flow over such region where the redistribution of coriolis takes place. In such
scenarios K-epsilon model must be abandoned, and another model that ensures
all the effects along with the coriolis should be used, the recommended choice is
Reynolds stress model.

2.1.2 Constants for K-epsilon Model

Quite a much work has been done in past for determining the K-epsilon model
constants in-order to test them on variety of flows for their precision of
predicting relatively close results to the experimental ones. These constants are
determined from the experimental data, considering basic universal flows, and
afterwards these findings are improved by computational optimizations.
The standard values are tuned to fit some basic flow problems like shear layer in
local equilibrium, decaying grid turbulence and boundary layer where
logarithmic velocity profile prevails. The model constants can be adjusted
according to the nature of the flow.
The standard K-epsilon model is unable to predict the right level of turbulence
in the weak shear layer away from the ground. In this region the turbulent
viscosity is over predicted, (Detering and Etling[9], 1985). The standard model
constants have been modified in attempt to improve the situation.
By considering the turbulence near the wall region phenomenon, K-epsilon
model constants can be obtained by the following equations:

2
U 2T (13)
C =
k
2
C 1 = C 2 1
, (14)
C 2

11
UT (U*) is the frictional velocity at the wall.
k is the Turbulent kinetic energy.
is the von Karman constant equals to 0.40.

The values of C 2 and , determined from experiments with decaying grid


turbulence, remain unchanged. The diffusion constant k (Turbulent prandtl
number) also remains constant, as in some extents the ratio of turbulent
diffusivity of momentum and turbulent kinetic energy is equal.
C 2 1.92
1.30
k = 1. 0
The modified values of C and C 1 are as under :

C =0.11; where as U*= 0.61 and k =1.14.

2
C 1 = C 2 1
= 1.54.
C 2

Under is the list of constants both for industrial and atmospheric flows of K-
epsilon model.

Constants C C 1 C 2 k

Standard 0.09 1.42 1.92 1.00 1.30


Values

Modified 0.11 1.54 1.92 1.00 1.30


Values
Table 1: Standard and modified values of constants for K-Epsilon model.

2.2 K-Omega Turbulence model

This two-equation model includes one equation of turbulent kinetic energy k,


and a second equation for the specific turbulent dissipation rate (or turbulent
frequency) . There are several versions of k-omega model. The Wilcox model
is as under:
The turbulent kinetic energy equation is given by
k

dk
=
dt x j
(
+ t
*

x j
)
+ Pk k
*

(15)

and the specific dissipation rate equation is

12
d
= ( + t ) + Pk
2

dt x j x j k (16)

The eddy viscosity is determined from the following expression


k
t = (17)

and the auxiliary relations are
= * k. (18)
The constants used in this model are
5 3 9 1 1
= = * = = * =
9 40 100 2 2

2.3 .Shear Stress Transport Model ( SST )

The k-omega turbulence model performs well and, in fact is superior to the k-
epsilon model in the laminar sub layer and the logarithmic region of the boundary
layer. However, the k-omega model has been shown influenced strongly by the
specification of freestream value of outside the boundary layer. Therefore the K-
omega model does not predict well in the wake region of boundary layer. On the
other hand, the K-epsilon model behaves superior to that of K-omega model in the
outer portion and wake regions of the boundary layer, but inferior in the inner
region of boundary layer.
To include the best features of each model, Menter [17-11, Hoffmann & Chiang[8]]
has combined different elements of K-epsilon and K-omega models to form a new
two-equation turbulence model. This model incorporates the K-omega model for the
inner region and switches to k-epsilon for the outer and wake regions of the
boundary layer. Menter introduced two versions of this model referred as the
baseline (BSL) model and, a modified version of BSL, the Shear-Stress Transport
(SST) model.
The combined k / k two equation model is given by:
k

dk
=
dt x j
(
+ t
*
) + Pk k
x j
*

(19)

and
d 1 k
= ( + t ) + 2 (1 F 1) 2 + Pk 2
dt x j x j x j x j t
u i (20)
Pk = ij
x j
and (21)
u u j 2 u 2
ij = t i + ij k k ij
x x i 3 x k 3
(22)

13
The constants appearing in the in equations are expressed in a general compact form
as
= F1 1 + (1 F1 ) 2 ; See (Hoffmann and Chiang[8] 1998)

Where 1 represents the constants associated with the k and 2 represents the
constants associated with k model.
The difference between baseline model and shear stress transport model is in the
definition of turbulent viscosity and the specification of constants.
The turbulent viscosity is defined as:
a1 k
t =
max(a1 , F2 ) (23)

where a1=0.31, is the absolute value of vorticity and F2=Tanh(arg22) with


k 500v
arg 2 = 2 , 2
. (24)
0.09 y y
The constants for 1 and 2 are identical for the baseline model, except k1 .

The values of the constants for set 1(k-omega model) are specified according to
k1 = 0.85, w1 = 0.5, 1 = 0.075
= 0.09 = 0.41

And the constants for 2 are


k 2 = 1.0, w2 = 0.856, 2 = 0.0828
= 0.09 = 0.41

3. Simulations and Results


This section concerns the simulated results for different grids and turbulence
models. Aim of investigating different grids in section 3.1.1 is to select a suitable
mesh that could produce good results. In the next section (3.1.2), selected mesh
would be tested further on changing the inflation layers and final mesh would be
selected from this section, which will be used later in section 3.2 for investigating
the flow at different turbulence models.
Simulated results would be compared with the field measurements TU-03b and
MF-03d from P.A. Taylor & H.W Teunissen[3] (1983) and with the numerical
results of Niels.N.Srensem[1] (1995).

3.1. Grid Testing

Grid testing is one of the important aspects of this subject; a good mesh is the prime
object of finding. Here is a need to find a mesh, which can properly simulate the
flow over the hill with required results in minimum possible time by keeping the
less memory space in machine. Coarsest grid will be selected from this section to

14
perform the final computations at different turbulence models, as finer meshes
require more space and time to produce results.
Note that all the tests have been done with the K-Epsilon model and equilibrium
condition, with analytical profile at inlet.

3.1.1: First node height

Table below shows different test cases.

Grid y Exp. Factor


(m) (Inflated layers)
A 0.0049 1.2
B 0.00049 1.2
C 0.0003 1.2
Table 2: Different test grids varying in y.

Expansion factor of all grids was kept same with varying height of first prism layer.
Computational results for the Y+ for all grids dont have much difference in value.
Figure 4-6 are showing the Y+ value at surface with different first prism height
values.
The best choice for the first prism layer is the value equal to the roughness of the
surface / terrain so the simulations were not taken beyond the roughness value of
terrain as it would result in the generation of thin prism layers which are not reliable
enough to predict the appropriate values and it may also result in the failure of
volume mesh/ simulations.
The speed-up values for line A are plotted in Figure 7. Upstream speed-up values
are 11% under predicted at hilltop. Each grid is producing almost same result on the
Up-stream side of hill but on the lee side it varies and grid A is found to be in better
agreement with the experimental values.
In principle grids B and C should produce better results than A grid as these grids
are finer and having more elements than grid A but as observed in (Figure 7)
above two grids are not in better agreement with experimental results and are 20%
too short than experimental results at 400m at lee side, where as A is 10% too short
from experimental results at the same position. The reason comes to us for this
behavior of grids could be the thin nature of prisms in the laminar region/ near
surface.
(Figure 8) is showing the speed up values along the vertical line at HT(highest point
at line A) for the three grids, values for all grids are almost the same, these results
are favoring grid A for the next grid testing.
In Figure 8, Simulated results are compared with the computational results of Niels
(Niels.N.Srensen[1] 1995), the two results are having absolute agreement, showing
similar trend and are forwarding in same passion towards the altitude.
Figure 4-6 are representing the Y plus values at the surface for three test grids, these
figures are having three lines common namely, yellow, red and black. These lines
are the representatives of Vertical line at Ht, line A along HT and line AA along CP
respectively. Y plus values for A are quite big ranging from 158 to 233, this ensure
that the first node of the grid is not in the buffer zone/ log law region (Figure 9) but
in the fully turbulent region. Y plus results does not favor 0049 grid to be selected

15
for the next testing. Therefore grid B, second coarse grid after A is selected for next
session.
Mesh B is a coarse grid and is producing results well in agreement with
experimental ones except the lee side at 400m.Next this grid will be tested by
changing the expansion factor which in turn make the grid coarser.

Figure 4: Y plus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.0049m.

Figure 5: Y plus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049m.

16
Figure 6: Y plus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.0003m.

1
0049
0.8 00049
0003
0.6 E XP
Niels
0.4

0.2
SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Dist along line A (m)

Figure 7: Speed-Up along Line A with varying first prism layer height.

17
Speed-Up along Vertical line at HT.

1200
Height [m] 1000 Grid A
800
Grid B
600
400 Grid C
200 Niels
0
0 0.5 1
Speed-Up

Figure 8: Speed Up along the vertical line from HT.

Figure 9: A typical non-dimensional velocity profile to a turbulent flow over a


flat plate. (source: Hoffmann & Chiang[8] 1998)

18
3.1.2 Expansion factor

This section is dealing with the grid having first prism at 0.00049m from the
surface. It is tested at the following expansion factors.

Grids First Prism Height (m) Expansion Factor


A 0.00049 1.2
B 0.00049 1.3
C 0.00049 1.4
D 0.00049 1.5
Table 3: Different Test grids varying with expansion factors.

Figure 10-13 are showing the Y plus values for the test grids at different expansion
factors. All the results are below 30 which are quite satisfied and as expected these
are varying the results by changing their expansion factors (making grids coarser).

Figure 10: Yplus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049 with expansion factor 1.2.

19
Figure 11: Y plus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049 with expansion factor 1.3.

Figure 12: Yplus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049 with expansion factor 1.4.

20
Figure 13: Yplus value at surface having first prism layer at 0.00049 with expansion factor 1.5.

1
1.2
0.8 1.3
1.4
0.6 1.5
EXP
0.4 Niels

0.2
SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Dist along line A (m)

Figure 14: Speed-Up along Line A with different expansion factors having first prism layer at
0.00049m height.

21
Speed-Up along The vertical line at
HT.

1500
Height [m]

1000 1.2
1.3
500
1.4
0 1.5
0 0.5 1 NIELS
Speed-Up

Figure 15: Speed Up along the vertical line from HT.

Once again all the simulated results are in good agreement with experimental
results. Results are not varying much at the upstream side of the hill but they vary at
the lee side of the hill at 400m down to the lee side (Figure 14). Grid D having
expansion factor 0f 1.5 is producing close results to the experimental data and Niels
computations (Niels.N.Srensen[1] 1995). Again the coarsest grid among all tested
grids is producing good results. Current testing is giving support to the thought that
thin prism layers near surface are not effective enough to predict at required
precision level.
Speed-up results along the vertical line at Ht (Figure 15) are same for all the test
grids and are well in agreement with Niels computational results. Niels
computations are read digitally by using Golden software Didger2 from his work
(Niels.N. Srensen[1]1995).
After observing all the grids it has become obvious to select Grid D, having first
prism layer at 0.00049m with expansion factor of 1.5, for testing the flow over
Askervein at different turbulence models.
Here it should be noted that this expansion factor is only for the inflation layers.

3.2. Turbulence Models

This section discusses and compares results for flow over Askervein Hill at different
Turbulence models with field data and numerical computations by Niels.
N.Srensen and Karl J.Eidsvik. Looking at the speed-up along line A at 10m above
the terrain (Figure 16) it is said that the result at the hill summit is under predicted,

22
the simulated result is 12% too low to the experimental and 6% too low to Niels.
N.Srensen[1] computations.

1
ke
0.8 kw
SST
0.6 Niels
EXP
0.4

0.2
SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Dist along line A (m)

Figure 16: Comparison of Speed-Up values along line A at 10m.

Here the k-epsilon model is in good agreement with experimental results


both on upwind and downwind of the hill. K-Omega model is predicting bad results
at the lee side, which proves the theory that specification of omega value outside the
boundary layer, would result in the poor estimation therefore it is not ideal for
predicting in the wake regions of boundary layer. SST model is predicting
reasonable results both upwind and lee side. The agreement is well until 300m down
the hill then a sudden jump in results appear due to the re-circulation of flow at
300m (Figure 24), which made changes in to stresses and that in turn changed the
resultant stress. This flow divergence could be a cause of the above-mentioned
reason.
According to F.A Castro[4](2003) there is a shallow re-circulating zone downstream
of ht, which makes the flow grid more sensitive. It is observed that with the
decrease in first node position there is an increase in the minimum value of speed-
up down the hill and the grid refinement in horizontal tends to do opposite.
According to the study by Taylor (1977) for two-dimensional topography the
formation of re-circulation region is possible when h0/Lh (height/ width) ratio is
higher than 0.52. In the present case, the topography is nearly two-dimensional with
h0/Lh0.50 along line A, and the flow is on the verge of forming a re-circulation
zone, see (Figure 24) to observe the re-circulation zone.
For the line AA (Figure 17) results (K-epsilon and SST) are in good agreement with
field measurements on up-stream side of the hill. Larger differences between the
numerical and the experimental speed-up occurred downstream of the hill at a
distance of 400m, where the simulations are showing big scatter from experimental
results. This could be a cause of the finer grid in horizontal direction as it is

23
observed refinement in horizontal directions tends to decrease the speed-up values
downstream of the hill and this is observed in Figure 17.The grid used for
simulation was quite fine in nature having 213693 nodes and 523950 elements.

1
ke
0.8 kw
SST
0.6 EXP

0.4

0.2
SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Dist along line AA (m)

Figure 17: Comparison of Speed-Up values along line AA at 10m.

The fractional speed-up values along the vertical line at HT (Figure 18) are in good
agreement with the computational results by Niels.N.Srensen[1] (1995).
Figure 19-24 are showing the vector plot along line A and Y- plus values at the
surface of the terrain.

24
1200

1000

800
K-Epsilon
Height [m]

K-Omega
600 SST
Niels
EXP.
400

200

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Speed-UP

Figure 18: Speed-up values along the vertical line at HT for different turbulence models
compared with computational and experimental values.

Figure 19: Velocity vectors for flow over line A for K-epsilon Turbulence Model without
having re-circulation.

25
Figure 20: Y-plus value at surface using K-epsilon model.

Figure 21:Y-plus value at surface using K-Omega model.

26
Figure 22: Velocity vectors for flow over line A for K-Omega Turbulence Model.

Figure 23: Y-plus value at surface using SST model.

27
Figure 24: Velocity vectors for flow over line A for Shear Stress Turbulence Model, re-
circulation zone is visible in downstream.

Figures 25 -28 are the comparison of the simulated results with Karl J. Eidsviks[18]
computations. These results are obtained from the research article, by Karl J.
Eidsvik in 2004, using golden software digger2.
Speed-up values along line-A (Figure 26) are in good agreement with karls
findings except HT. The simulated results of all our turbulence models are
predicting 10% low speed-up value than karls computation at HT.

Figure 25 shows stream lines along the Askervein at a height of 10m from the
terrain. At the lee side of the hill we can see the recirculation region at a distance
between 200m to 800m.

28
Figure 25 : Stream lines plot showing the recirculation zone at the lee side of the hill.

1
K-E
0.8 K-W
SST
0.6 Karl
EXP
0.4

0.2
SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Dist along line A (m)

Figure 26: Comparing results with the computations by Karl J. Eidsvik along line A at 10m.

Where as along line AA at 10m (Figure 27)the speed-up at Cp is 6 % too low than
Karls computational value at CP. Karl J. Eidsvik[18] is computing values which are
very close to the experimental results even in the lee side of the hill. Our turbulence

29
models are under predicting the speed up values at the lee side especially at 400m;
this may be a reason of having finer grid in horizontal direction. Except this point
the simulated results are lying under the uncertainty of 6% (max. at CP) to
computational results by Karl J. Eidsvik and the Experimental results.

In (Figure 28) simulated results are compared with Experimental findings [3] and
computations by Niels. N.Srensen[1] and Karl J.Eidsvik[18] along line A at a height
of 10 m from surface.

1
ke
0.8 kw
SST
0.6 Karl
EXP
0.4

0.2
SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Dist along line AA (m)

Figure 27: Comparison of speedup values along AA at 10m with Karl results

1
K-E
0.8 SST
Niels
0.6 Karl
EXP
0.4

0.2
SpeedUp

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Dist along line A (m)

Figure 28: Comparison of Speedup values from the CFD simulations with Experimental results

30
4. Conclusion
The results are generated from the CFX 5.7.1 code by using three different two-
equation turbulence models. Following conclusions are made in the light of above
findings.

We have observed that the refinement of the grid is having a great influence over
the production of results; the refinement in the horizontal plane would lead to the
inaccuracy of the results at the lee side of the hill, which is observed in the case of
line AA. It is still a point of discussion in this study that what mesh would predict
accurate results; we are unable to predict a mesh that may compute accurate results
for both the lines A and AA.

Position of the first node/ prism layer has a great importance in computing the
nature of the flow. Too high refinement in the z-direction would cause the
generation of thin long prism layers, which requires a better convergence than other
elements of same mesh.

The mean flow upstream of the Askervein was well predicted even on the coarser
grid. The main deficiency is found in predictions of the flow in the lee side of the
hill and over point ht, for instance the value of the speed-up at the hill top at 10m
from the ground was observed 12% too low of the experimental values and 20%
high value of the speed-up recorded at the point 400m in the lee-side of the hill.

Speed-up values are found in good agreement with the Niels[1] simulations along the
vertical line at HT. The field measured speed-up values increased at short distance
from HT where as the simulated results produce almost constant values for this
distance, which is lower than experimental findings.

In general it is said that the simulated results are in good agreement with the
experimental findings and the uncertainty of this level can be accepted. We on the
behalf of our findings feel both k-epsilon and SST model suitable for computing
flow over complex terrains. SST model has ability to predict the re-circulation
phenomenon in the lee side of the hill, which may contribute to get the closer results
with experimental ones. In Figure 17 SST is predicting absolutely accurate value at
600m down the hill where as K-epsilon is quite away to the experimental value and
over predicting the speed up at this point. In the context of results and above
discussion we come to conclusion that both K- and SST models are predicting
good results and are suitable of predicting wind potential in any complex terrain.
K- model is lacking in prediction of good results in the terrain where hills are
having steep slopes (h0/L > 0.5) but SST model is coming with better results in such
cases for instance in Figure 17 at 600m SST is very close to the experimental result
where as K- was quite far from the experimental result so on behalf of above
findings we conclude that SST model is predicting better results than K- in the
complex terrains where is a doubt of having re-circulation zone.

31
Part-2
Working with CFX

5. Model Setup
CFX is superior CFD technology and is a part of ANSYS Inc, which is
integrated into the ANSYS workbench engineering simulation environment. We
have used this to study the wind flow over the Askervein hill. This part explains
how this technology can be used to study the effect of wind flow over complex
terrain like Askervein. Figure 29 explains the work flow in CFX from Design to
post processor.

Ansys CFX Workbench


Geometry Meshing
Ansys Design Ansys CFX Pre- Post-
Modeler Mesh Processor Solver Processor

CAD from Meshes from


other Sources other Sources

Figure 29: Work Flow In Ansys CFX Workbench

5.1 Ansys Design Modeler

Mesh Control
Geometry Parameters
Ansys Workbench
(*.wbdb file)

DesignModeller
(*.agdb file)
CFX-Mesh
(*.cmdb
file)

(*.gtm file)

Figure 30: Ansys Workbench Overview

32
DesignModeler is specifically designed for the creation and modification of
analysis geometry. Using an advanced system of interfaces, it can be used as a
direct link to geometry models created in a variety of existing CAD packages.
The Askervein hill is designed from the surface data obtained from Risoe[1],
the data obtained from Risoe is used to convert into XYZ coordinate file by using
Matlab[23] programming. As it is time consuming to create a surfaces from the
clouds of points what we got from xyz file in Ansys Designmodeler. We have gone
through some of the CAD packages and decided to use the third party CAD package
called Rhinoceros[24]. Where we have used the XYZ coordinates points to create a
surface. This is then exported as IGES file with file type as Pro Engineer Surface.
As Designmodeler can import IGES file. This IGES file is then imported to
Ansys Designmodeler to create geometry of Askervein hill. This surface is then
converted into solid body, which is then exported to CFX-mesh.

5.2 Ansys CFX Mesh

Steps to create mesh

Import Define Define mesh


Geometry Regions attributes

Creating Creating
volume mesh surface mesh

Figure 31: Steps to create Mesh in CFX

CFX meshing technology is coupled closely to the geometry representation


and can create quality meshes on complex geometries quickly. This technology has
been integrated into the ANSYS Workbench platform as a module. The Advancing
Front with Inflation produces meshes that accurately capture important boundary
layer details.

The Askervein solid geometry created in the Designmodeler is then used to


create the CFX-mesh by the steps in Figure 31. To set up CFD simulation for the
model the first step is to define the boundary conditions on the geometry, where we
have defined the regions with the flow as inlet and outlet. Although it is possible to
select the faces (regions) with corresponding boundary condition in CFX-Pre, it will
be much better to select the location of the boundaries before the mesh for accurate
CFD solutions.

33
To ensure that the chosen length scales have desired effects, surface mesh is
created before the volume meshing to check and view the meshing. Delaunay
surface meshing is used to create surface mesh due to its ability to mesh the closed
faces. Advancing front volume mesh is used to create volume mesh, as it can
generate mesh consisting of tetrahedral, prisms and pyramids with low memory
usage. The volume mesh will generate a *.gtm file (CFX-Pre mesh file) which is
ready for import into CFX-Pre.

5.3 CFX Pre-Processor

*.gtm file Problem type Solution


control

Case file (*.cfx)


CFX-Pre
Boundary
Session file (*.ses) holds Conditions
record of commands entered
during session

Fluid
Definition Properties
file (*.def)

Figure 32: CFX-Pre Overview

CFX-Pre is used to define the physics of the model by importing the meshes
produced in mesh generation softwares like CFX-Mesh. The mesh (*.gtm file)
produced in CFX-mesh is imported to general mode of the CFX-Pre, as general
mode in CFX-Pre can be used for all the cases. Out of the different physical models
available in CFX-Pre, we used turbulence and near-wall modelling as it can be used
to predict the effects of turbulence in fluid flow on the complex terrain of Askervein
hill. Turbulence consists of small eddies which are continuously forming and
dissipating, and in which the Reynolds stresses are assumed to be proportional to
mean velocity gradients.

Two Equation Turbulence Models


Two-equation turbulence models are widely used eddy viscosity models for
calculating eddy viscosity, as they can compromise between numerical effort and
computational accuracy. Both the velocity and length scale are solved using
separate transport equations.

34
A number of models have been developed in CFX[25] that can be used to
approximate turbulence based on the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
equations. The following three turbulence models based on the RANS equations
which are available in CFX-5 are used for the flow over Askervein hill and are
described on the following pages

The k- model

The k- model is the most general purpose CFD codes and is considered the
industry standard model. Where, k is the turbulence kinetic energy and is defined as
the variance of the fluctuations in velocity. is the turbulence eddy dissipation (the
rate at which the velocity fluctuations dissipate). In CFX-5, the k- turbulence
model uses the scalable wall-function approach to improve accuracy when the near-
wall mesh is very fine. The scalable wall function allows results to be very fine near
wall grids, which is a significant improvement over standard wall functions.

The k- Model

The standard two-equation turbulence models often fail to predict the


amount of flow separation under adverse pressure gradient conditions. This is an
important phenomenon in many technical applications, turbulence models based on
the -equation predict the onset of separation too late and under-predict the amount
of separation later on. Separation prediction is important in complex terrains like
Askervein hill. The most prominent two-equation models in this area are the k-
based models of Menter[21].

The advantage of the k- model is the near wall treatment. The model does
not involve the complex non-linear damping functions required for the k- model
and is therefore more accurate. Near wall treatment was developed for the k-
models which allows smooth shift from a low-Reynolds number form to a wall
function formulation. The k- models assumes that the turbulence viscosity is
linked to the turbulence kinetic energy and turbulent frequency via the relation


t = (25)

Where, t is turbulent viscosity. k and are turbulence kinetic energy and


frequency.
CFX-5 uses the k- model developed by Wilcox[26]. It solves two transport
equations, one for the turbulent kinetic energy, k, and one for the turbulent
frequency, .

The k- based Shear-Stress-Transport (SST) model was designed to give


highly accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of flow separation under
adverse pressure gradients by the inclusion of transport effects into the formulation
of the eddy-viscosity. This results in a major improvement in terms of flow
separation predictions. The SST model can be used for high accuracy boundary
layer simulations. To benefit from this model, a resolution of the boundary layer of
more than 10 points is required.

35
5.4 CFX Solver

CFX solver is the CFD solver, it achieves fast convergence by solving the
equations well. The solver is fully scalable by achieving linear increase in CPU time
with problem size, it is easy to set up this CFD solver in both serial and parallel run-
modes. The Solver Manager provides feedback on convergence progress and when
necessary, parameters can be adjusted without stopping the solver so convergence
can be accelerated.

Definition
File (*.def)

Solver

Results Output
file (*.res) file (*.out)
(numerical data
in text file)

Figure 33: CFX - Solver Overview

The well-established models available in CFX such as k- and SST models


include the scalable wall function model to ensure solution accuracy is improved
with mesh refinement. The *.def file which is generated in the CFX-Pre is used by
the solver to estimate the flow predictions. The solver loads the *.def file from
CFX-Pre and runs to achecive the convergence by solveing the equations and
generates two output files, result file(*.res) and numerical data text file(*.out).

36
5.5 CFX Post

CFX-Post is one of the most powerful CFD post-processors available. CFX-


Post uses a user interface to represent both graphical and quantitative results. The
flow visualization capabilities can quickly provide flow field behavior on the
complex terrain of Askervein with features such as surfaces, slices, vectors, surface
plots and streamlines. This capability allows to easily extract important results that
can be used to increase performance and obtain a better understanding of the flow
on the terrain.

Results
file (*.res)

CFX-Post

Velocities

Pressures
Streamlines Turbulence

Figure 34: CFX-Post Overview

The data generated by the result file (*.res) from the solver can be clearly
presented here to analyze the results obtained from the solver file.

37
References
[1] Niels.N. Srensen (1995) General purpose Flow solver Applied to Flow
Over Hills. Ris National Lab, Roskilde, Denmark. Ris-R-827(EN), pp
112-128.

[2] P.A. Taylor and H.W. Teunissen. ASKERVEIN 82: Report on the
September/ October 1982 Experiments to Study Boundary Layer Flow over
Askervein, South Uist. Technical report MSRB-83-8, Atmos. Environ.
Service, Downsview, Ontario, 1983.

[3] P.A. Taylor and H.W. Teunissen. The Askervein Hill project: Report on
the Sep./ Oct. 1983, Main Field Experiment. Technical Report MSRB-84-6,
Atmos. Environ. Service, Downsview, Ontario, 1984.

[4] F.A. Castro et al (2003) Simulation Of the Askervein Flow. Part 1:


Reynolds Averaged Navier-Strokes Equation (k- Turbulence Model).
Boundary Layer Meteorology 107: 510-530, 2003.

[5] Jerome Leroy et al (1999). Wind Field Simulation at Askervein Hill.


Technical Report. pp 6-11.

[6] H.G. Kim and V.C. Patel (2000). Test of Turbulence Models for Wind Flow
over Terrain with separation and Re-circulation. Boundary- Layer
Meteorology. 94, 5-21.

[7] Peter Bradshaw and George P. Huang . The Law of The wall in Turbulent
Flow. Mathematical and Physical sciences, Vol.451, No.1941,Osborne
Reynolds Centenary volume (Oct. 9,1995),165-188.

[8] Klaus A. Hoffmann and Steve T. Chiang (1998). Computational Fluid


Dynamics. Engineering education SystemTM , Wichita, Kansaa,67208-
1078,USA,Volume II, Third Edition, 17.

[9] H.W. Detering and D. Etling (1985). Application of E-epsillon Model to the
Atmospheric Boundary Layer. Institute fr Meterologie and Kilmatalogie,
Universitt Hannover, Germany.

[10] P.J.Mason and J.C.King. 1985, Measurements and predictions of flow and
Turbulence over isolated hill of moderate slope,
J.Roy.Quart.Meterol.soc.111,617-640.

[11] A.C.M. Beljaars, J.L. walmsley, and P.A.Taylor. A Mixed Spectral Finite
Diffrence Model for Neutrally Stratified Boundary-Layer Flow over
roughness Changes and Topography. Boundary-layer Meteorol.,38.273-303,
1987.

[12] A.J. Bowen and H.W. Teunissen. Wind-Tunnel Simulation at Length Scale
1:2500 part 1: Test at the Atmosperic Environment Service Volume I+II.

38
Research Report 86-7, Atmos. Environ.Service, Downsview, Ontario, 1986.

[13] G.D. Raithby, G.D.Stubley, and P.A.Taylor. The Askervein Hill Project: A
Finite Control Volume Prediction of Three-Dimensional Flows Over the
Hill.Boundary-layer Meteorol.,39:247-267,1987.

[14] H.W. Teunissen and M.E.Shokr. The Askervein Hill Project: Wind-Tunnel
Simulation (Smooth Model) at Length Scale 1:1200 Volume I+ II. Research
Report MSRB-85-1, Atmos.Environ.Service, Downsview, Ontario, 1985.

[15] I.Troen and E.L.Petersen. European Wind Atlas. Ris National


Lab.,Roskilde,Denmark,1989.

[16] J.L.Walmsley and J.R.Salmon. A Boundary-Layer Model for wind Flow


over Hills: Comparison of Model Results with Askervein 1983 Data. In
Europen wind Energy conference, Hamburg, Germany,1984.

[17] O.Zeman and N.O.Jensen. Modification of Turbulence Characteristics in


Flow over Hills. Quart.J.R.Met.Soc.,113:55-80,1987.

[18] Karl.J.Eidsvik. A System for Wind Power Estimation in Mountainous


Terrain. Prediction of Askervein Hill Data. Wind Energy 2005;8:237-249.

[19] CFX-5.7.1 Online Documentation.


http://www-waterloo.ansys.com/cfxcommunity/CFX-5/technotes/default.asp

[20] W.P.Jones and B.E.launder. The calculation of low Reynolds-number


Phenomena with the Two-Equation Model of Turbulence. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol 16, 1973, pp1119-1130.

[21] Menter, F.R..Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for


engineering applications.AIAA-Journal., 32(8), 1994.

[22] http://www-waterloo.ansys.com/cfxcommunity/CFX-
5/techtips/Creating_Surface_from_Points_and_Curves.htm

[23] http://www.mathworks.com/

[24] http://download.mcneel.com/rhino/3.0/eval/

[25] http://www-waterloo.ansys.com/cfxcommunity/default.asp
On line Help CFX-5 Solver Modeling Turbulence and Near Wall
Modeling

[26] Wilcox, D.C


Multiscale model for turbulent flows.
In AIAA 24th Aerospace Sciences Meeting. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1986.

39
Appendix
Creating Geometry:
DesignModeler and Rhinoceros are two types of softwares used to create
the geometry of the Askervein hill from the data obtained from Niels[1]. The data
files consists of the terrain height in Z-coordinates, These Z coordinates are then
used to obtain the XY coordinates by using Matlab program. These XYZ
coordinates are then used to create the terrain surface of the Askervein.
At the first attempt we created the *.dxf file from the xyz coordinates in Matlab and
tried to import into DesignModeler which has the option to import *.dxf files
created in other CAD softwares. We couldnt succeed, as the Ansys Workbench
software we are using dont have the license for importing *.dxf files. We then tried
in creating other files like *.sat, which can be imported in DesignModeler to create
the terrain of Askervein and couldnt succeed. Finally we came across the
Rhinoceros software which has the ability to create surface from the cloud of
points[22].

Creating Geometry in Rhinoceros:

The *.txt file which consists of the xyz coordinates of the Askervein hill are
imported in Rhinoceros as shown in Figure 35.

Figure 35: Askervein Hill with XYZ Coordinates

After these points are imported into Rhino, we have selected all the points of
xyz in the window panel and created the surface by using the patch option which is
available in Rhino. The final surface of Askervein as shown in Figure 36 is then
exported as *.IGES file which can be readable in DesignModeler.

40
Figure 36 : The Surface of Askervein

Importing Geometry to DesignModeler:


The geometry created in Rhino is imported to DesignModeler and extruded
to create a solid body (CFX mesh cant generate mesh from surface bodies) of
Askervein hill. To study the flow pattern of the wind along the terrain of Askervein,
Domain covering the entire terrain with a height of 1km from the plane of the
surface is drawn as shown in Figure 37.

Figure 37: Domain of Askervein with Height of 1Km

41
Generating Mesh in CFX-mesh:
The geometry created in DesignModeler is then opened in Ansys
CFX-Mesh to generate the mesh file. To set up CFD simulation for the model the
first step is to define the boundary conditions on the geometry, where we have
defined the regions with the flow as inlet and outlet. Although it is possible to select
the faces (regions) with corresponding boundary condition in CFX-Pre, it will be
much better to select the location of the boundaries before the mesh for accurate
CFD solutions.

To capture the flow effects near the wall boundary of the terrain,
computationally efficient meshes are required in these areas with high aspect ratio.
Inflation is used near the wall by creating mesh with prisms. The inflated boundary
on the terrain is determined with prism height, expansion factor and with inflated
layers. Figure 38 shows the inflated region from the terrain.

Figure 38: Inflated region of the Mesh

42
To accurately predict the flow over the complex terrain, a great deal will
depend on the proper meshing. By keeping in mind the memory and time, we have
gone through different grid testing by changing the expansion factor for constant
inflation layers for different first prism height.

S.No Inflation Layer Expansion Factor Total No of Elements


1 35 1.2 716744
2 35 1.3 649744
3 35 1.4 566227
4 35 1.5 523950
Table 4: change in Expansion Factor for Constant Inflation Layer

S.No Expansion Factor First Prism Height[m] Total No of Elements

1 1.5 0.0002 724412


2 1.5 0.0003 721357
3 1.5 0.00049 716744
4 1.5 0.0049 601123
Table 5: change in First Prism Height for Constant Expansion Factor

The results obtained from the combination of different grid are compared and the
one with expansion factor of 1.5, first prism height at 0.00049 is chosen by
considering the time and accuracy of the grid. The volume mesh of the grid No-3
from Table 5 is shown in Figure 39, with the first prism height at 0.00049 for
inflation layers of 35 and expansion factor of 1.5. The volume mesh produced in
CFX-Mesh is saved as *.gtm file.

43
Figure 39 : Domain after Volume Mesh

Ansys CFX-Pre:
The CFX-Pre mesh file (*.gtm) which was created in the CFX-Mesh is
imported to CFX-Pre and the domain for the Askervein is defined in the physics
selector, where it is used to define the physics for the simulation of the model. CFX
uses the domain concept to define the type, properties and region of fluid, its the
region where we used the fluid flow equations. For the Askervein the domain type
as shown in Figure 40 is the fluid with fluid as Air, the type of turbulence model
and the properties associated with the turbulence model are introduced here in the
fluid model.

44
Figure 40: Domain of Askervein showing Variables and coefficients of Turbulence model

After domain is created, boundary conditions are created for Askervein to fully
define the flow on the surface of the complex terrain of Askervein. As the reference
velocity is at an angel of 2100 with respect to of the Askervein, The velocity vectors
in X and Y directions with respect to the reference velocity are resolved using the
equations below

North
Y
Line A
A
=11.30 Us
X 2100 X -Vsy
A
South

Y
Vsx
Figure 41: Diagram Representing Velocity vectors

V SX = U S * cos ( ) (26)

V SY = U S * sin ( ) (27)

45
.

Figure 42: Inlet velocity vecotrs in X(VSX) and Y(VSY) directions of the domain

CFX-Pre uses expressions workspace where we can generate and edit


expressions like velocity vectors as in Equation-26 using the CFX Expression
Language (CEL), the equations that are required for the simulation are generated in
the CEL with help of built in variables and constants that are available in CEL. The
expressions which are created in CEL are then used to specify the boundary
conditions of the Askervein hill. The model of the Askervein is show in Figure 43
after defining the boundary conditions.

46
Figure 43: Model of Askervein with velocity vectors

Boundary conditions are applied to all the regions at the outer extremities of
domain to define the values for inlet, outlet, wall and symmetry planes. Finally the
initial values for the boundary conditions are defined in the global initialization of
the domain. The CFX file is then saved as *.cfx file, which is ready to run
simulation in CFX Solver. Before running the simulation in CFX solver, the solver
control parameters like time scale control and maximum number of iterations with
required convergence criteria are defined in the solver control of CFX-Pre. The
CFX file will be now ready to write as solver file (*.def), which is called as
definition file.

Figure 44: Figure showing the Model in CFX-Pre

47
CFX-SOLVER
CFX solver is the CFD solver with graphical user interface for CFD
calculations, the *.def file which is created in the CFX-Pre contains the complete
specification of the simulation, including the mesh is passed to solver manager and
run is performed. The Figure 45 shows the solver manager which provides feedback
on convergence progress through run definition and control. The main area of the
graphics window shows the value of each plotted variable i.e. the RMS residual at
each time step and the text window displays the simulation information and how the
solution is proceeding.

Figure 45: Solver Manager

We used serial run mode for running the simulation. The Solver Manager
can also be used for dynamic display and also when necessary, parameters can be
adjusted without stopping the solver there by accelerating the convergence. The
CFX-Solver generates two files, results file (*.res) and output file (*.out) for CFD
calculations.

48
CFX-POST

Post-processing is a key step in the CFD analysis process. CFX-Post


is a graphical and quantitative post-processing tool that allows us to quickly extract
useful information from ANSYS CFX. The data generated by the result file (*.res)
from the solver is clearly presented here to analyze the results obtained from the
solver. The flow visualization of Askervein hill from the result file (*.res) is
examined in the post processor.

To analyze and compare the results from different turbulence models along
the lines A and AA, the result file (*.res) from the solver is loaded into Pre-
processor. Planes are drawn along the lines A and AA to study the flow effects for
different turbulence models. As shown in Figure 47 the velocity of the wind along
the Lines A and AA can be seen by using the vector plots with respect to the planes
drawn earlier.

A Plane

AA Plane

Figure 46: Planes A and AA along the Askervein Hill

49
A Plane
AA Plane

Figure 47: Velocity Vectors along the Planes A and AA

In order to capture the velocity and to study the speed-up along the profile A
at a distance 10m above the terrain, first a polyline(green) is drawn at the
intersection of the terrain and the plane drawn earlier, we then exported the
coordinates of this polyline to a file and then added 10m to the Z-coordinates of the
polyline. The new file with increase in Z-coordinates is then used in CFX-Post to
drawn a polyline(red) at a distance above 10m from the terrain of the hill as shown
in Figure 48. By using this polyline at 10m the velocity along the line A is drawn by
using the chart option, the values of the velocity which are obtained along the line
are then exported to text file for further analyses.

Figure 48: Poly-lines along the Line A at 10m and along the ground of Askervein Hill

50
To study the velocity profile at the HT of the Askervein hill, a straight line
from the HT to the domain height is drawn as shown in Figure 49, this line is then
used to get the velocitys along the line. The values obtained from this line are
exported for further analysis to drawn the velocity profile from the HT to the
domain height.

Figure 49: Line at HT drawn from HT to Domain Height

51