This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# i

WIND FARM WAKE PREDICTION USING CFD by PETER R. WOLTON B.S., University of Arizona, 1994 M.S., University of Colorado at Boulder, 2008

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science Department of Mechanical Engineering 2008

1456694

2008

1456694

ii

This thesis entitled: Wind Farm Wake Prediction using CFD Written by Peter R. Wolton Has been approved for the Department of Mechanical Engineering

____________________________ Professor Gary Pawlas

____________________________ Dr. Patrick Moriarty

____________________________ Professor Jean Hertzberg

____________________________ Professor Kamran Mohseni Date_______________

The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline.

to develop a method to predict wind turbine wakes that is more accurate than using RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes). The domain size and mesh density were evaluated through verification studies. Although there have been many previous attempts at predicting the propagation of a wind turbine wake through a wind turbine farm. Department of Mechanical Engineering) Wind Farm Wake Prediction using CFD Thesis directed by Instructor & Director.iii Wolton. Gary Pawlas The intent of this experiment was to develop standards for using the LES (Large Eddy Simulation) turbulence scheme in CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) for the wind farm application. Turbine spacings of 7. Of the few that are pure CFD. . Industrial/University Cooperative Project Center. and 11 diameters (D) were evaluated. (MS. and to make comparisons to RANS results. This is primarily due to the larger computational resources required for LES calculations. all known use the RANS turbulence closure model. most use a mixture of empirical models and CFD. The wind farm geometry was simplified to two turbines in a row aligned with the wind direction. This was necessary to have a computational domain of a size that matched the time frame and computational resources available for this effort. 9. Peter R.

Horizontal velocity profiles downstream of the 2nd turbine are also presented. Validation was done through comparing the predicted downstream turbine power deficit results to the measurements of the Horns Rev wind farm documented through the ENDOW and UPWIND projects. While the LES results are not fully independent of the mesh density or domain size. numerical “wind” was created a priori. Stable boundary layer conditions are left to future efforts. Numerical wind was created for both thermally neutral and unstable atmospheric boundary layer conditions. and then used as the inlet boundary condition. however no measurements are available to compare with. . but at present it is considered novel for use in turbine wake prediction. This effort produced results that are comparable to experimental results and showed clear areas to improve computational issues. The results achieved using LES are the best possible for a desk top computer in the allotted time frame. they do represent a significant improvement over the results achieve using the RANS turbulence closure technique. LES is currently commonly used for large scale atmospheric studies.iv In order to better approximate the true nature of an atmospheric boundary layer.

Ned Patton of NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research). Boulder. Colorado. . We greatly appreciate his input and suggestions.v Acknowledgements We wish to thank Pat Moriarty at the NWTC (National Wind Technology Center) division of NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) for his enthusiasm and expertise in kicking off this project and providing strategic advice for keeping the effort moving forward. was instrumental in getting the LES effort up and running.

...v Table of Contents……………………….104 7 References………………………………………………………......….……ii Abstract…………………………….....…ix Nomenclature……………..……………….1 2 Literature Review………………………....…98 6 Future Efforts/Recommendations………………..………………….………………………….....…………………………. ………………………………………………….….…………………………..….…...85 5 Conclusions…………………………………………….....…...........……..….….………….…………......……….2 Literature Review Part 2: LES..…48 3.….…………………………..3 Boundary Conditions & Wind Turbine Modeling…………….….…39 3......……..….21 The LES model Application of LES CFD Technique to Wind Farm Flows 2...53 3.…...106 8 Appendices: Appendix A: CFD Files names reference Appendix B: Description of meshes as created in Gambit Appendix C: Fluent settings .……..….41 Developing the Geometry in Solid Works Meshing the Geometry in Gambit 3..vi Table of Contents Title Page……………………………...…………………………..………...….5 LES CFD Technique……… ……………………………….iii Acknowledgements…………………….…………………………...3 Verification and Validation in CFD………………………….viii List of Figures……………………………..1 Computational Domain Set Up……………………………….....…………………………..…….…..…….……vi List of Tables…………………….….….………..4 RANS CFD Technique……………………….………………………….…….2 Creating the Computational Domain…………………..………………………….....…..1 Literature Review Part 1: RANS ….……........6 The k-ε model Wake Prediction Models Application of k-ε CFD technique to Wind Farm Flows 2.... xii 1 Introduction ……………….……… ……….…………………………....……56 Developing Numerical “Wind” Verification of Neutral Boundary Layer created with LES LES Run Parameters What did NOT Work Mesh Density and Size verification LES Filtering lengths Recording of Velocity Profiles Domain Top Boundary Condition Verification Power Deficit Calculation 4 Results……….……………..33 3 CFD Technique…………………………………………………….5 2.....….i Signature Page………………………... x Acronyms……...37 3...………………………….

vii C1: RANS neutral settings C2: RANS – differences for unstable (including thermal effects) C3: LES neutral settings C4: LES – differences for un-stable settings Appendix D: How to use Batch mode in Fluent Appendix E: How to do runs on NREL’s super01 Appendix F: Code for recording and reading profile files every time step Appendix G: Details of other UDFs Appendix H: Details of how to create periodic boundary conditions Appendix I: Solid Works and Gambit software details Appendix J: Format for point profiles to be read into Fluent .

….…...……...…….5.viii List of Tables page Table 2..1..1.…19 Table 2..27 Table 3..1: k-ε model constants…………………………………….5.…..88 .3: The wind class definitions……………………………………….18 Table 2.4: Crasto’s RANS Domain Geometry and Mesh Size…………….1.1..1....….……….16 Table 2.…76 Table 3.6: Crasto’s RANS Friction Velocities…………………………….………..2.1: Crasto’s Wall Shear Stress and Friction Velocities…….……17 Table 2..…..15 Table 2.….2: Top BC Predicted Power Deficit Comparison……………….…19 Table 2.1: Mesh study Element Counts……………………………………...80 Table 4.1: LES and RANS Predicted Power Deficits…………………………..2: Surface Roughness Lengths and Heights………………………….1.5: Crasto’s RANS Domain Fluent Boundary Conditions………….………...

..5.2.......85 Figure 4.....8: TOP view of x-dir Velocity Contours.5......5.......75 Figure 3...........................................…....…42 Figure 3... UN-Stable Conditions...1: Turbine Wake Diagram………………………………………………......5...........3: Temperature Contours in an Empty Box “Wind” Generation……...............68 Figure 3........2: Turbulence Intensity Contours in an Empty Box “Wind” Generation.................15: Power Deficit Calculation Contour Plot.......72 Figure 3.8: Mesh Density Verification.5................4: RANS Velocity & TKE Profile Predictions………………………….......10: Domain Width Verification..... Vertical Position .5.....95 Figure 4..........87 Figure 4...2: RANS Solution Residuals vs.1: Plot of Turbine Disk Pressure Drop………………………………........2 RANS Predicted Power Deficit Results..6: RANS TKE Profile Predictions ....3.......13: Recording Velocity Profiles Geometry..14: Averaged Velocity Profiles for Varying Boundary Conditions……..........….......69 Figure 3..60 Figure 3.......5.......5...................……40 Figure 3..73 Figure 3.....51 Figure 3..2: Solid Model of the Computational Domain – Cut Away View……….........................Zoomed…………………….....…………………………...1: Down Stream Turbine Power vs...7: Side view of x-dir Velocity Contours......2.........55 Figure 3...............3: Turbine Mid & Hub Mesh Faces……………………………….........94 Figure 4......77 Figure 3......90 Figure 4......9: Side view of x-dir Velocity Contours.... Neutral Conditions..47 Figure 3.....5...........….84 Figure 4.2......4: Averaged Velocity Profiles and the Power Law Profile.ix List of Figures page Figure 1......…47 Figure 3.4: Solid Model of the Computational Domain– Cross Sectional View..66 Figure 3......................2...5: RANS Velocity Profile Predictions ..............43 Figure 3..1: Velocity Contours in an Empty Box “Wind” Generation…………….................91 Figure 4....................5..5..............6: An isometric view of the domain in Gambit………………………....2.........................55 Figure 3.......12: Filter Length Contour Plot...1: Geometry of the Computational Domain………………………...3: LES Averaged Velocity & σ Profile Predictions.....….....1: Solid Model of the Computational Domain……………………….........................81 Figure 3..............79 Figure 3.......3.......16: Power Deficit Calculation Instantaneous Power Plot………………............................1: LES Predicted Power Deficit Results.62 Figure 3.61 Figure 3..….42 Figure 3.….6: Cross Flow Velocity vs...........83 Figure 3..... ..............5: A front view of the domain in Gambit…………………….........5................... Iterations…………………………….............11: Side view of Temperature Contours..5...............4.........95 Figure 4... UN-Stable Conditions..52 Figure 3......5..........1.....5: Averaged Velocity Profiles and the Log-Law.74 Figure 3..2.........3.................4.............3: Solid Model of the Computational Domain– Cut Away View……….11: Domain Height Verification..... UN-Stable Conditions.92 Figure 4.................….96 ..................5..........…52 Figure 3....2: Turbine Outer& Inner Mesh Faces.........…………46 Figure 3........7: Side cross sectional view as taken from the center line plane…….............5.......2 Figure 3.........89 Figure 4...…44 Figure 3..7: Top View of a Velocity Contour Plot.. Neutral Conditions.... RANS Iterations…………………............10: TOP view of x-dir Velocity Contours.....Zoomed......................94 Figure 4....2.....64 Figure 3...9: Down Stream of Turbine 2 Domain Length Verification.........

x Nomenclature a A α C C1ε. C2ε Cμ Cs Cp d D δ Δt Δx Δy Δz G Gb Gk ε or TDR f h k or TKE К Ks L μ Ω νT P PT2/PT1 PT1 PT2 p Π Φ Φ ρ [m2 s-3] [rad s-1] [m] [m2 s-2] [m] [kgm-1s-1] [rad s-1] [m2 s-1] [MW] [MW] [MW] [Pa] [m] [m] [s] [m] [m] [m] [m2] axial induction factor (Actuator Disk Theory) turbine disk area ABL power law equation exponent boundary layer depth equation constant constants in the equation for ε (used in k-ε RANS model) turbulent-viscosity constant (used in k-ε RANS model) surface roughness constant as used in Fluent (ALSO used as the Smagorinsky constant) power coefficient (of a wind turbine) distance to the closest boundary fluid domain boundary layer thickness CFD time step primary flow direction mesh spacing cross flow direction mesh spacing vertical mesh spacing LES filter function the generation of k due to buoyancy (used in k-ε RANS model) the generation of k due to the mean velocity gradients (used in k-ε RANS model) Turbulent Dissipation Rate coriolis parameter mesh 1st vertical element height from wall Turbulent Kinetic Energy von Karmen constant roughness height as used in Fluent integral length scale viscosity earth’s rotational speed turbulent viscosity (used in k-ε RANS model) turbine power ratio of time integrated downstream turbine energy to Upstream turbine energy power produced by the upstream turbine power produced by the down stream turbine air pressure wake strength parameter generic symbol used in equations that can apply to multiple flow parameters local earth’s latitude density [rad] [kg m-3] .

w UD U <U> v’ V x.xi S Sk and Sε σ σk σε σij TIT1 TIT2 τw τij u’ u+ uτ or u* ur ui or uj u. y. z velocity at the turbine disk upstream velocity average flow velocity y direction fluctuating component of the velocity field local mesh element volume Cartesian coordinates position vector in index notation z direction fluctuating component of the velocity field non-dimensional height the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate (used in k-ε RANS model) boundary layer depth aerodynamic roughness length reference height [Pa] [m s-1] [m s-1] [m s-1] [m s-1] [m s-1] [m s-1] [m s-1 ] [m s-1] [m s-1] [m3] [m] [m] [m s-1] [m] [m] [m] .y.z xi or xj w’ y+ YM zh z0 zr mean strain rate tensor (used in k-ε RANS model) user defined source terms (used in k-ε RANS model) standard deviation k-ε RANS model constant: TKE Prandtl number k-ε RANS model constant: TDR Prandtl number stress tensor Turbulence Intensity at the upstream turbine Turbulence Intensity at the down stream turbine wall shear stress sub-grid-scale (SGS) x direction fluctuating component of the velocity field non-dimensional velocity friction velocity reference velocity velocity vector in index notation velocities along the Cartesian axes x.v.

xii Acronyms ABL ADT AIAA BC BEM CFD ENDOW k-ε k-ω LES MW NREL RANS SGS TI UDF Atmospheric boundary layer Actuator Disk Theory American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Boundary Condition Blade Element Momentum Theory Computational Fluid Dynamics Efficient Development of Offshore Windfarms “k-epsilon” turbulence closure technique (RANS) “k-omega” turbulence closure technique (RANS) Large Eddy Simulation Megawatt National Renewable Energy Lab Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (turbulence closure scheme) Sub-Grid Scale model (used with LES) Turbulence Intensity User Defined Function (C++ code used in conjunction with Fluent) .

In order to demonstrate this concept.1. The reason for this is thought to be “shadowing” or wakes from upstream turbines decreasing the wind energy passing through down stream turbines. . This set up is shown in figure 1.1 1. The green arrows indicate the local vertical velocity profile. a wind farm is simplified to two turbines in a row aligned with the wind direction. Earlier wind farm designs were typically a single line of turbines arranged normal to the predominant wind direction. Introduction As offshore wind power expands. The grid wind farms in operation today are not producing the quantity of energy that was predicted in the design phase. there has grown a need to build wind farms in 2D grid arrays in order to minimize cabling costs and optimize the use of shallow waters close to areas of high electrical load.

from a wake effect standpoint it would be optimal to have the turbines spread a large distance apart.1: Turbine Wake Diagram Green Arrows: Local Wind Velocity Profiles PT1: Relative power produced by the upstream turbine PT2: Relative power produced by the down stream turbine TIT1: Relative Turbulence Intensity at the upstream turbine TIT2: Relative Turbulence Intensity at the down stream turbine Behind each turbine a wake forms. the velocity deficit. decreases.2 Upstream Wind Profile PT1 = 1 Down stream Wind Profile PT2 < 1 TIT1 = 1 TIT2 > 1 Figure 1. there is not only a loss of power to the down stream turbine (PT1 > PT2). but also an increased level of turbulence intensity (TIT1 < TIT2). The increased turbulence causes more rapid wear of the moving parts. With increasing spacing of the turbines. or wake effect on the down stream turbine. Due to the mixing effect of the wind passing through the first turbine. This deficit from the free stream velocity propagates down stream where it encounters the next turbine. primarily gear . Thus. however increased turbine spacing is limited by land and cabling costs.

There is currently a host of people and organizations tackling the issue of wind turbine wake prediction. LES takes on the order of days to weeks to run. Of the models that use CFD alone. LES is thought to be considerably superior to RANS in terms of accuracy when it comes to flows where the vortical structures of interest are in the energy containing range. Using the combined empirical model and RANS CFD allows the code to run significantly faster (minutes as opposed to hours. especially offshore. all use either the k-ε or k-ω (RANS) turbulence closure technique. There is thus a strong financial incentive to optimize the spacing of turbines in a 2D grid array wind farm. 2] project and its successor UPWIND [3]. All known models chronicled use either a combination of empirical models and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Experimentally moving turbines and measuring the effects is financially prohibitive. and thus increases operation and maintenance costs. Thus all optimization efforts have been confined to numerical models. Many of these efforts are detailed by the ENDOW (Efficient Development of Offshore Wind Farms) [1. CFD alone refers to a fully elliptic 3-D Navier-Stokes CFD model.3 boxes. or CFD alone. The concept behind using such a computationally expensive technique is to develop standards for using LES for the .) in comparison to CFD alone. This effort uses the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) technique to model wake interaction with CFD.

and to make comparisons to RANS results. to develop a method to predict wind turbine wakes that is more accurate than using RANS. The ultimate goal would be to model an entire wind farm and directly compute the power deficits from the CFD data. .4 wind farm application. 9. The commercially available CFD code Fluent is used for all fluid computations. and 11 diameters (D) spacing. The difficulty with a commercially licensed code is the restriction of the number of nodes the code can be run on. Currently computational resources are not available for such an endeavor. A plot of turbine power deficit versus turbine spacing has been created for 7. This allows for direct reproduction of the results in future efforts. In order to have a computational domain that is of a functional size in conjunction with the LES technique. the 2D grid wind farm geometry has been simplified to two turbines in a row aligned with the wind direction.

.) is another well known closure method. With the strong inertial effects. the LES model details and history are presented. In Part 2 of the literature review.5 2. LES (Large Eddy Simulation. some type of turbulence approximation is necessary. Literature Review Air flowing around utility scale wind turbines is largely dominated by inertial effects. and thus examples are taken from atmospheric studies. turbulence is considered standard. At this time. and how it has been used in previous efforts. It requires much greater computational resources. RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes) is very commonly used and is currently the industry standard for turbulence closure. and thus when applying CFD. the Reynolds number typically 107 at a minimum when using the rotor diameter as the length scale. there are no known published studies of the application of LES to wind farm wake propagation. its pros and cons. and thus it not common in the wind industry at this point. Part 1 of this literature review presents the details of the RANS model.

1.1.ε model is represented in the transport equations it uses for k and ε: ⎡⎛ μ ∂ (ρk ) + ∂ (ρku i ) = ∂ ⎢⎜ μ + t ⎜ ∂x j ⎢⎝ ∂xi ∂t σk ⎣ ⎞ ∂k ⎤ ⎟ ⎟ ∂x ⎥ + G k + Gb − ρε − YM + S k ⎠ j⎥ ⎦ Eqn: 2. one of the five in the model.1.1. and thus has found wide spread use in engineering applications. [4] The k and ε and their approximated mutual relationship through turbulent viscosity (νT) are defined by equation 2. “ε” is the turbulent dissipation rate. or the rate at which kinetic energy is dissipated to heat through the action of viscosity. Literature Review PART 1: RANS The k-ε Model “k” is turbulent kinetic energy.2 Where Cμ is the turbulent-viscosity constant. The subscripts on the u’s are index notation for vectors.6 2.1 νT = ε Eqn: 2.1. or kinetic energy per unit mass of the flow.1 [5]. Fluent’s [6] interpretation of the standard k. k≡ 1 ui ui 2 Cμ k 2 Eqn: 2. The k-ε model has a low computational cost (runs quickly) in comparison to many other closure methods.3 μ ⎞ ∂ε ⎤ ∂ ⎡⎛ ∂ ∂ ε ε2 ⎜μ + t ⎟ (ρε ) + (ρεui ) = + Sε ⎢ ⎥ + C1ε (Gk + C3ε Gb ) − C 2ε ρ ∂x j ⎢⎜ ∂xi ∂t σ ε ⎟ ∂x j ⎥ k k ⎠ ⎣⎝ ⎦ .

4 Gk is the generation of k due to the mean velocity gradients.7 Eqn: 2. [6] C3ε is a further model constant that is typically set to 1.3. . Cμ=0. or approximates.92.09. compressibility is not considered in this experiment. In setting up the k-ε turbulence closure model it is necessary to define the five constants as well as specify initial values for k and ε. and is approximated in Fluent as: Gk = μ t S 2 Where S is the mean strain rate tensor: S ≡ 2S i j S i j Eqn: 2. and σε=1.1. σk=1.1.0.0.1. Sk and Sε are user defined source terms. C2ε=1. The constant σk is called the turbulent kinetic energy Prandtl number.5 Eqn: 2.44. The reason it is so computationally inexpensive is that it models. For simplification. The default values for the model constants as set in Fluent are: C1ε=1. and σε the turbulent dissipation rate Prandtl number. The k-ε model runs very quickly and so is widely used for engineering purposes. YM is the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate.6 Gb is the generation of k due to buoyancy.

. the kinematic viscosity. and flows with strong rotation. The second significant k-ε model simplification that can cause difficulties is if the strain rate tensor is zero. a few of which are touched on here. This then predicts that the square of the flow fluctuations in the three directions are equal. This simplification can cause inaccurate calculations when the turbulence is not isotropic. There is a large volume of literature that criticizes the use of the k-ε model. First the shear is related to the strain rate tensor by a scalar. found to be the case. and thus its accuracy is always suspect. and that there is no correlation to the history of stain rates. The CFD practitioner must have a good understanding of the nature of the flow a priori in order to correctly specify the model constants. instead of a tensor as is provided by the Navier-Stokes equations. In the book “Turbulence. and stores no strain energy. which as Davison states “is not. LES directly computes the larger scales of motion. this assumption will generate difficulties in flows with very fast straining. An introduction for Scientists and Engineers”[7] Davidson points out that the k-ε model (as do all eddy viscosity models) has three significant weaknesses. in general. In comparison.” A third aspect of the k-ε model that can create unreasonable results is the assumption that the shear is entirely dictated by the local rates of strain. and models the smaller scales. Examples of this situation that are relevant to the current study are buoyancy forces in a stratified flow. Since the definition of a fluid is that it continuously deforms under a given shear stress.8 the entire flow.

These results are fairly typical. Moreover the discrepancies between the actual and predicted values of kS/ε and G/ε are more or less acceptable for engineering purposes. however most commercial CFD packages require custom modification in order to achieve this goal. In general the k-e model performs well in simple shear flows (the various coefficients having been chosen to encourage this). which turns out to be a matter of some delicacy. The principle method of evaluation presented here is the propagation of the k profile through an empty domain. but can go badly wrong in more complex configurations such as: stagnation-point flows.”[7] Wilcox describes the k-ε closure in similar disregard to Davidson. where we have to match the k and ε equations to the viscous sublayer. boundary layers with a strong adverse pressure gradient or large curvature. he concludes his section on the model with: “the relation between the modeled equation for ε and the exact equation is so tenuous as to not need serious consideration.” Some CFD practitioners have fully recognized the weaknesses of the k-ε model. flows with a rapid mean rate of strain. and highly anisotropic turbulence (flows with buoyancy or strong swirl. Problems also arise very close to boundaries. but at least it admits a self-similar solution of the form: G/ε = constant. Davidson goes on to summarize the model very succinctly: “…the k-e model somewhat overestimates the ratio of production to dissipation. Theoretically it should not be disturbed. kS/ε = constant. In his book “Turbulence Modeling for CFD”[8]. this is not entirely satisfactory. .9 In writing of the turbulent kinetic energy. Hargreaves[9] demonstrates accurate use of k-ε turbulence closure with respect to the ground boundary layer profile.) While there are various ways of patching up the standard model on a case by case basis. and have taken steps to make it accurate in a wider arena of flow regimes.

10 Hargreaves uses a UDF (User Defined Function) in Fluent to manually override the k.0 for σk.44 for Cε1. This in turn keeps the “u” and “du/dz” flow profiles nearly constant (as they theoretically should be. however there is no known information that depicts how this translates to a domain that includes several wind turbines. and viscosity profiles though the length of the domain. In summary.92 for Cε2.) through the entire domain. the accuracy of the results is suspect.11 for σε. 1. . 1. no results were achieved with this method that resemble Hargreaves work. however in this effort. Hargreaves mentions that similar results can be achieved by adjusting the surface roughness values where εR=20z0 (the roughness constant is 20 times the roughness height). while the k-ε closure method will provide results quickly. Hargreaves indicates that typical model constant values are 0. The σε value is the only one to vary from Fluent’s suggestions.09 for Cμ. and 1. Furthermore there is no way to verify the model since it is necessary to tune the model to the nature of the flow under consideration. Specifying the k via Hargreaves method appears to work well for the empty domain that he demonstrates with. 1. ε.

• MIUU (Uppsala Univ. . Using empirical velocity models. The ENDOW (Efficient Development of Offshore Wind Farms) program has contributed a great deal to the prediction of turbine wakes with in a wind farm. [1] • ECN (Energy Centre Netherlands: Wakefarm) Close to the rotor. these techniques are not directly applicable to the current effort. however their results are impressive. CFD is used with k-ε turbulence closure.. 11]. best results are achieved at higher levels of ambient turbulence(over 8%). and so deserve mention.[2] Accurate for a range of cases. Developmental details are given in [10]. These efforts are summarized by [2] and [1].11 Wake Prediction Models This is a chronicle of previous efforts of the use of CFD and empirical models for wind turbine wake prediction. 1) Mixed Empirical and CFD techniques. The EU funded successor to ENDOW is UPWIND [3]. Details of the validation of this model with sodar data are provided in [11]. Meteorological Institute: MIUU transport time model) This is a mesoscale model using three dimensional higher order closure methodology. the wake is modeled by use of an empirical fit based on momentum theory[10. Further down stream.

WAsP) Results for this model are well documented in [2]. CFD model.[10] Similar to the ECN model.[10] . • Risoe: (Risoe National Laboratory: Engineering model. The rotor is modeled as a semi-permeable disk inducing a pressure drop. CFD with eddy viscosity closure is used. The main draw back with such an approach is that because an empirical fit is used to model the flow field behind the turbines. Mixed empirical and CFD techniques are popular due to their extremely rapid computational speed. however further down stream. close to the rotor the wake is modeled through an empirical fit.[10] Relatively accurate results are documented in [1]. 2) CFD Alone: • RGU (Robert Gordon University: 3D-NS) RGU utilizes a fully elliptic 3-D Navier-Stokes CFD solver using k-ε turbulence closure. • GH(Garrad Hassan: Windfarmer (eddy viscosity model)) This model is very similar to the UO model. only flows for which empirical models exist can be considered.12 • UO (Oldenburg University: FLaP) This is a two dimensional axis symmetric model.

which maintains the compatibility of the velocity and pressure field corrections.Flow direction: D/10 grid length at the turbine locations.[12] . and rotor area. .13 This model appears to over predict the wake wind speed deficit [1]. . The k-ε model is used for turbulence closure. however only single line plots are available for comparison.” Turbulence closure is accomplished with the k-ω model adjusted for atmospheric flows.Vertical direction: Approximately D/50 minimum close to the ground/ sea and D/10 at the rotor tip Note: The orthogonal grid is dense close to the turbines and the ground/ sea plane” • CENER This model utilizes Fluent. Improved results are demonstrated in [2]. “Output is generated in a non-uniform orthogonal grid: .[12] • CRES “The governing equations are numerically integrated by means of an implicit pressure correction scheme. A matrix-free algorithm for pressure updating is introduced. no 3-D data has been published. The turbine is modeled as a disk with volume via built in functions allowing for the input of the thrust coefficient. where wind turbines are modeled as momentum absorbers by means of their thrust coefficient.Lateral direction: Approximately D/10 at the rotor tip (minimum). wind speed. allowing for practical unlimited large time steps within the time integration process.

and used LES to model wind over flat terrain. The constants and supporting equations used in his atmospheric models are detailed here for possible application to wind farm flow. LES is documented in subsequent sections. steps up the level of robustness of the model from those that contain empirical plug-ins. The boundary layer depth is approximated through the relation: . Wind turbines are modeled as momentum sinks and the force on the rotor disk is evaluated according to the local thrust coefficient. [12] CFD alone. The k-ε model is used for turbulence closure. This allows for a wide variety of flows to be studied. Of particular help is that Crasto used Fluent for most of his CFD work. Application of k-ε CFD technique to Wind Farm Flows The Crasto [13] dissertation on ABL modeling presents a highly detailed account of the application of both the k-ε model and the LES turbulence scheme.14 • NTUA This is a CFD model utilizing the 3D incompressible NS equations. however the limitation still exists that the RANS flow parameters must be tuned to the specific flow under consideration. Crasto modeled air flow over an isolated hill using RANS. and is executed with 2nd order spatial accuracy. utilizing RANS.

The “Default” values are those adopted by Fluent.15 ⎛u zh = C ⎜ τ ⎜ f ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ [13] ⎟ ⎠ Eqn: 2.1.8 τw is the wall shear. the “Modified” values are based upon efforts by Crasto to produce the proper level of turbulence intensity close to the ground/sea.1. f. is found from: f = 2πΩ sin (φ ) Where Ω is the earth’s rotational speed and Φ is the local latitude. Table 2.9 As shown in Table 2. The Coriolis parameter.7 Crasto suggests C = 0.) is calculated through: uτ = u * = τw ρ Eqn: 2.1: k-ε model constants [13] Surface roughness parameters are also discussed in detail by Crasto. These parameters are critical to the proper development of the atmospheric boundary layer .1. Eqn: 2. and ρ is the fluid density.25 creates a boundary layer close to what had been observed.1.1.1. The friction velocity (also know as u*. Crasto suggests the following k-ε model constants for a large atmospheric domain.

16 in the numerical model.2 provides a list of roughness lengths and heights for a range of wind classes: Table 2. This in turn defines the vertical velocity gradient of the boundary layer.1. Cs is roughness constant as used in Fluent. Table 2.2: Surface Roughness Lengths and Heights [13] Ks is the roughness HEIGHT as used in Fluent. . and z0 is the aerodynamic roughness LENGTH. In RANS the surface roughness and roughness constant define the magnitude of the momentum transfer at the wall/fluid interface. the wall shear is used similarly. h is the vertical height of the first mesh element from the wall boundary condition. In LES models.1.

The inlet mean velocity.10 2 k (z ) = uτ ⎡ ⎛ z ⎢1 − ⎜ Cμ ⎢ ⎜ zh ⎣ ⎝ 3 ⎞⎤ ⎟⎥ ⎟ ⎠⎥ ⎦ Eqn: 2.1. turbulent kinetic energy.3: The wind class definitions [13] Note that “Class II” with a z0 of 0.12 . Crasto uses the log law wind profile as well as profiles of k and ε to define the inlet flow conditions.1.0005m corresponds to the roughness of “Blown Sea” as given in Table 2.17 Table 2.1.2 of Manwell [14].11 1 uτ ε (z ) = Κ z Eqn: 2. and turbulent dissipation rate are defined by: U (z ) = uτ ⎛ z ⎞ ln⎜ ⎟ Κ ⎜ z0 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 2 Eqn: 2.1.

which is standard for atmospheric studies.1. Note that the maximum aspect ratio of the cells is quite high. and К is the von Karmen constant. the wind farm domain height will be a maximum of approximately 500m in order to keep the run time with in levels that are appropriate to the scope of the project.1. it is necessary for the mesh to be more refined (a maximum Δx and Δy size of 15m.4. With this mesh refinement.4: Crasto’s RANS Domain Geometry and Mesh Size [13] The 3D RANS domain boundary conditions as used in Fluent 6. and assuming similar computational capabilities.5. Table 2. This assumption is good for most atmospheric boundary layers where the velocity profile is asymptoting to the free stream velocity .6:30.2 by Crasto are shown in table 2. the symmetry boundary condition works well. For wind farm studies. The height of Crasto’s domain is 1000m. For a computation of wind flow over a hill.1. or 1:50. This condition assumes that there is no vertical velocity gradient near the boundary. the domain geometry used by Crasto is detailed in Table 2.18 Where uτ is the friction velocity. 0. With the 1000m meter domain height.) so as to correctly capture the wind turbine’s effect on the flow.

Table 2.6 for approximate free stream speeds of 10ms-1 and 15ms-1.6: Crasto’s RANS Friction Velocities [13] Summary of the applicability of k-ε Turbulence Closure to Wind Farm CFD: The k-ε model’s rapid computational rate is highly attractive for engineering purposes.1. This discrepancy is the main reason for the use of the LES model for further numerical experimentation.1. With it’s simplifications.5: Crasto’s RANS Domain Fluent Boundary Conditions [13] The friction velocities suggested by Crasto are presented in table 2.19 above approximately 700m. the model requires input of five model constants [6] in order to specify the nature of the flow under consideration. Table 2. This technique of using simplifications and then tuning the model to the flow at hand is in discrepancy with the scientific technique of model verification. This height is of course dependant on the roughness of the terrain leading up to the measurement position. .1.

This is of course only possible if there are experimental values to validate with. This “Guessing” process for RANS is necessary due to the large simplifications RANS makes in averaging all the flow parameters. as well as the crude approximations used for the turbulent viscosity.20 While it is possible to achieve similar results to LES using RANS. an ad hoc process of iteratively varying the model constants and re-running the simulation is required. .

In this experiment the large scales of motion are the predominant influence on the turbine power generation.21 2. as opposed to the averaged single time step approach used in RANS. The filtering scale methodology used by Fluent [6] is done by either wave number space or physical space in conjunction with the local flow length scale. Furthermore LES alone does not fair well when boundaries play an important role in the calculation. the computational expense is significant. If the large scales of motion are the important ones for obtaining accurate results. however. and the eddies below the specified filter size are parameterized using a sub-grid model which accounts for the kinetic energy moving down in spatial magnitude toward viscosity. The LES model is also UNSTEADY. Literature Review PART 2: LES The LES model LES (Large Eddy Simulation) is a turbulence modeling technique where the eddy sizes are filtered. physical filtering was used with respect to the mesh element size. In this experiment. Davidson[7] points out that while LES has the significant advantage of not requiring the ad hoc modeling needed for RANS. .2. it produces considerably more accurate results when set up correctly. which means that it computes the solution over a range of time steps. then LES works very well. and thus LES is well suited. [7] LES is extremely computationally expensive in comparison to the k-ε model. the energy containing (large) scale turbulent structures are directly computed.

G. x') = ⎨V ⎬ ⎪0.5 ∂t ∂x j ∂x j ⎜ ∂x j ⎟ ∂xi ∂x j ⎝ ⎠ The stress tensor.2. the filtered Navier-Stokes equations reduce to: ∂ρ ∂ (ρui ) = 0 + ∂t ∂xi Eqn: 2. x'∈ V VV Eqn: 2.2. is defined by: ⎧1 ⎫ ⎪ . x' otherwise⎪ ⎩ ⎭ Eqn: 2. σij. Fluent uses “finite-volume discretization” itself to implicitly provide the filtering operation: φ (x ) = 1 ∫ φ (x')dx'.3 Simplifying to incompressible flow only.2 V is the cell volume under consideration. D is the fluid domain. The filter function.2. and the over-bar represents a filtered value.22 The general filtering equation used by Fluent is: φ ( x ) = ∫ φ ( x')G (x.2. attributable to molecular (NOT turbulent) viscosity is: . and G is the filter function.4 ⎛ ∂σ ⎞ ∂τ ∂ (ρui ) + ∂ (ρuiu j ) = ∂ ⎜ μ ij ⎟ − ∂p − ij [6] Eqn: 2.1 Where Φ is generic for the parameter under consideration. x')dx' [6] D Eqn: 2. x' ∈ V ⎪ G ( x.2.

Fluent’s Dynamic Kinetic Energy SGS was used to develop the numerical wind.) the small scale motion.2.2. a SGS (sub-grid-scale) model is necessary to model (approximate. It was necessary to use the Kinetic Energy model for the wind generation so as to be able to monitor the development of the turbulence intensity.7 For the scales of motion smaller than the filtering scale. This parameter is not available when using Fluent’s Kinetic Energy SGS model.2. and Kinetic-Energy Transport. A parameter commonly used to judge the nature of the turbulence is the Turbulence Intensity.[6] In this experiment. . WALE(Wall-Adapting Local Eddy-viscosity). Fluent’s definition of turbulent intensity is: TI ≡ u' U Eqn: 2.6 τ ij ≡ ρui u j − ρui u j Eqn: 2. and the Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly model was used for the runs containing turbines.23 σ ij ≡ ⎢ μ ⎜ i + j ⎟⎥ − μ i δ i j ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠⎥ 3 ∂xi ⎣ ⎦ The sub-grid-scale (SGS) stress is defined as: ⎡ ⎛ ∂u ∂u ⎞⎤ 2 ∂u Eqn: 2.8 Where u’ is the fluctuating component and <U> is the average component of the velocity field. Fluent provides three choices for SGS models: Smagorinsky-Lilly.

2.13 j ⎠ ⎝ k The constant.2.11 The SGS stress equation can now be written entirely in terms of the SGS components: τ ij − 1 2 k sgsδ ij = −2Ck k sgs 2 ΔfS ij [6] 3 Eqn: 2.2. σk is set to 1.2. .2. Δf is the filter size computed from the cube root of the cell volume: Δf ≡ V 1 3 Eqn: 2.24 1) Kinetic-Energy Transport SGS Model: The SGS kinetic energy was obtained by contracting the SGS stress equation: k sgs ≡ 1 2 2 uk − uk [6] 2 ( ) Eqn: 2.12 Finally the SGS kinetic energy (kSGS) in found by solving the transport equation written around it: ∂k sgs ∂t + ∂u j k sgs ∂x j k sgs 2 ∂u ∂ = −τ ij i − Cε + ∂x j Δf ∂x j 3 ⎛ μ t ∂k sgs ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ σ ∂x ⎟ [6] Eqn: 2.9 The SGS turbulent viscosity is computed using the SGS kinetic energy: μ t = Ck k sgs 2 Δf 1 Eqn: 2.10 Here Ck and Cε are determined dynamically.0.

d is the distance to the closest boundary. As in the previous model.2. Thus Cs is dependant on the local mesh size since this is the primary factor in calculation of the local filtering characteristics. V is the local cell volume.2. CsV 3 ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎠ ⎝ Eqn: 2. and the averaged mean strain rate tensor is found from: S ≡ 2Si j Si j Eqn: 2.16 Here К is the von Karmen constant. and Cs is the Smagorinsky constant.14 Where ρ is the air density.25 2) Dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly SGS Model: This model computes the eddy viscosity through the estimation: μt = ρLs 2 S Eqn: 2. Fluent clips Cs at zero and 0. The Smagorinsky constant Cs is computed dynamically based upon the resolved scales of motion.23 in order to maintain numerical stability in the iteration process. .2.15 The mixing length Ls is the minimum of two possible products: 1 ⎞ ⎛ Ls = min⎜ κd .

• Upper boundary condition: symmetric • Stream-wise boundary condition: periodic • Span-wise boundary condition: periodic • Pressure discretization: PRESTO! • Use a “Kick” to initialize turbulence • Fluent: with LES there is no option to specify the wall roughness. thus atmospheric modeling examples will be used to gain an insight into execution LES turbulence closure. • Wall Modeled LES (WMLES) is used such that flows with Re up to 109 can be analyzed with out large wall effect errors.1 from there. therefore use DES. Some key points taken from Crasto’s paper on setting up the LES computation: • Initialize the computational domain from a converged RANS solution. • The vertical grid spacing was done with first cell height at just over twice the Roughness Height (z0 is explained in the Fluent manual [6]) .26 Application of LES CFD technique to Wind Farm Flows There are no known examples of application of LES to wind turbine wake prediction. and then growing the cells vertically at a rate of 1. and thus there are many useful tips that can be gleaned from his paper. . Crasto[13] presents an excellent example of application of LES technique in atmospheric modeling. Crasto used Fluent for much of his numerical experimentation.

Firstly there is a wide variety of boundary condition options that produce similar but different results. doing multiple LES runs with different conditions) is prohibitive as a standard method.2. For this reason. The wall shear for use in a wind farm scale LES model is one of those cases where there is little historical documentation. and thus must be reserved for those cases where there is little historical support.1: Crasto’s Wall Shear Stress and Friction Velocities [13] Another important source of LES technique was Ned Patton of NCAR. Patton uses the LES closure model in numerical experiments of the atmosphere moving over forested terrain [15]. With the energy loss associated with . but after becoming more familiar with the subject matter gains complexity for two reasons.27 • Crasto wrote a UDF to specify wall roughness and filter scale. the significant time and effort required to verify that the boundary condition is functioning as desired (i. a table of wall shear stress and friction velocities is presented by Crasto: Table 2.e. Setting up the domain boundary conditions is something which at first glance may seem simple. Boulder Colorado. Secondly.

o Use heat flux at ground to help destabilize (240Wm-² is very large value.28 the wind to forest interaction." Discussion with Ned Patton proved highly useful. there are intrinsic LES techniques outlined below which provide a methodology for implementing the LES even with relatively limited computational resources: (Italic text details Patton suggestions) • LES is poor for stable conditions. filtered Navier-Stokes equations under the Boussinesq approximation.) Convection of warm air up from the ocean helps to generate large scales of motion. with additional terms to represent form and viscous drag of canopy elements. some relevant CFD modeling parallels can be drawn to the momentum loss associated with wind turbines. Although the numerical experiments done by Patton are carried out on a cluster of 2000 nodes. "The numerical method is based on the scheme of Moeng (1984) and Moeng and Wyngaard (1988) and integrates a set of three-dimensional. . thus run unstable conditions. Since the LES technique directly computes the larger scales of motion and approximates the smaller scales. there is a tendency for LES to produce more accurate results when the length scales dominating the flow are on the higher end of the inertial range and in the energy containing range.

through numerical trials with wind farm flow it was found that the molecular viscosity played an important role in the development and maintenance of the boundary layer. This is accurate for atmospheric scale flows.: u. or varying values can be applied with the use of User Defined Functions (UDFs).e. • Time step: Each time step should converge in approximately 5 iterations. In Fluent either a constant value can be applied to an entire surface.e. reduce the size of the time step as necessary to achieve this.: w. Larger wall shear values generate velocity boundary layers with greater vertical gradient.v. and thus should not be neglected. • Note that it is often helpful to start out a run with a very small time step so as to avoid divergence due to initial guesses for flow parameters. • Wall boundary condition at sea/ground: In the Fluent LES runs. This is NOT possible in Fluent. the Werner Wengle [6] wall function was used. The wall shear value has a large influence on the rate of viscous losses to the flow in the near wall region. In this experiment the time step size is locked by the time step that the numerical “wind” was recorded at. • Calculate the symmetric parameters at cell centers i. • Calculate the non-symmetric parameters at cell faces i.p. • The molecular viscosity should be set to zero. thus variation of the step is not possible. subgrid energy.1 seconds. however. This provides a linear velocity profile .29 • Specify the wall shear at the ground/ocean. This is NOT possible in Fluent. A typical time step is 0. turbulent viscosity is much more important.

With worst case horizontal spacing of 15m. this creates an aspect ration of 1:5.7m to the first node point.30 approximation of the boundary layer close to the wall. 1:2.5 is better o The 1st vertical node point at approx 8m ( if Δx = 20m) (typical spacing for LES atmospheric BL: 1st Δz=20m for Δx=Δy=50m) • Inlet flow: Details of the development of numerical “Wind” are given in the section so titled.56. o Specify with a UDF each iteration: Neutral BL: u and v using log law from ½ 1st grid point to ground Unstable: Use Bousinger-Dyer or Gryning[16] wind profile to specify the flow. . An empty box longer than the domain of interest became important so as to have a numerical “Wind” data set that fills the entire domain which contains the turbines. A domain size and mesh density study is detailed in section 3: “CFD Technique” o Develop numerical approximation of isotropic turbulence for inlet flow using an empty domain: o Empty box length: 4-5 lengths of largest eddy structure. which in turn makes the computational domain significantly faster to run. o Aspect ratio between vertical and horizontal cell sizes: 1:5 is max.) vertical mesh spacing at the wall. • Computational Grid: The final vertical spacing used was 2. This also allows for a more coarse (by up to 2 orders of magnitude.

) Here u* is the friction velocity. This large size is not possible with the current computation resources. recoding of the flow began. Calculate this quantity at the exit plane. o Advantages: do not need long upstream distance. Although TKE/u*2 and TI are not directly related (TKE or k is one of the primary parameters of the k-ε model. Since in Fluent TKE values are not available when using LES. Technical details of this process in Fluent are in the appendix. and the desired TI value was reached. Fluctuate flow field (add a u` and v` to u and v ) (write UDF) Apply this in lowest 4-8 grid point (where turbulence starts) Make sure to conserve mass o The flow is developed when TKE/u*² no longer fluctuates. o Box height: twice the ABL height. This large size is not possible with the current computation resources. use this as periodic input to domain with turbine. realistic flow. Once the TI peak had passed. the average turbulence intensity (TI) was recorded as it passed through the rear face of the domain. o Take time slice of flow.) TI also provides a good characterization of the level of energy in the flow. o Generate the boundary layer profile from looping the flow through empty box domain to generate fully developed isotropic turbulent profile. o Use a “Little kick” to start turbulence: Fluent technique described in Numerical “wind” section.31 o Box width: minimum 1000m. • To verify flow properties: .

o Plot vertical profile of mean Reynolds Stress(1 and 2 order moments) st nd 32 (u’w’) Should be straight line (constant). o If planetary Coriolis effect is used: plot u’v’ too Leave off at first. Add in once have set up complete: Will induce flow turning. The details of this technique are documented in the section: “LES CFD Technique”. With the background taken from Crasto and Patton’s work. a method for running LES with previously created numerical “Wind” was developed. but will probable increase toward center of domain. and thus will need to change side BC to periodic. .

The AIAA document very clearly defines verification: "Verification is the process of determining if a computational simulation accurately represents the conceptual model. verification and validation (V&V) take on especially important roles due to the complexity of the process and the number of steps required to arrive at an estimation. it was decided to use LES.33 2. With this understanding. now only flow assumptions of a much smaller order would be necessary. and thus the fundamental nature of verification had been violated." [17] This definition played a key role in the development of the project. "Validation is the process of determining if a computational simulation represents the real world. but no claim is made of the relationship of the simulation to the real world. Initially attempts were made to develop a realistic model of an atmospheric boundary layer using k-ε turbulence closure. Taking on the burden of the much increased computational cost.3. It was necessary to tune the five constants of the k-ε model to the specific flow at hand." The aspects of the model that are primary to check: "most important activity in verification testing is systematically refining the grid size and time step. Standards for verification and validation in CFD are succinctly presented by the AIAA [17] and further in depth information is documented by Sandia National Lab [18]. In contrast to verification. Verification and Validation in CFD For CFD." To add further clarity to the .

34 distinguishing characteristics between verification and validation: "Verification determines whether the problem has been solved correctly. In this experiment. whereas validation determines whether the correct problem has been solved." Note that this definition is much broader than the usual error definition which dictates levels of accuracy and precision. the boundary layer created by the CFD code will be compared to theoretical standards (the Log-Law. The Horns Rev wind farm off the west coast of Denmark is currently the only large 2D grid style offshore wind farm to have extensive wake recordings performed. The AIAA then defines uncertainty to be deficiencies “due to lack of knowledge." [17] "The fundamental strategy of validation is the identification and quantification of error and uncertainty in the conceptual and computational models. The AIAA document took considerable time to define the nature of error in CFD as opposed to other fields of study: "Error: A recognizable deficiency in any phase or activity of modeling and simulation that is not due to lack of knowledge. benchmark cases." ." [17] The reason the computational domains are modeled after the Horns Rev wind farm is such that recordings from the farm [3] can be used to validate the computations. This approach divides the complex engineering system of interest into three progressively simpler phases: subsystem cases. The recommended validation method is to employ a building block approach. and unit problems.) and then the final results of predicted turbine power deficit versus turbine spacing will be compared to wind farm measurements.

35 In terms of the over all CFD code, error is not easily quantified: "All encompassing

proofs of correctness, such as those developed in mathematical analysis, do not exist in complex modeling and simulation. Indeed, nontrivial computer codes cannot be proven to be without error—much less models of physics." [17]

"Examples of acknowledged errors include round-off error in a digital computer, physical approximations made to simplify the modeling of a physical process..." [17]

"four predominant sources of error in CFD simulations: insufficient spatial discretization convergence, insufficient temporal discretization convergence, lack of iterative convergence, and computer programming." [17]

"Unacknowledged errors include blunders and mistakes, commonly caused by people." [17]

The accumulation of error in CFD is well summarized by Pope [5]. He postulates that the total discrepancy between measured and calculated flow properties is the sum of (i) model, (ii) numerical, (iii) flow measurement, and (iv) boundary condition discrepancies. Furthermore, “The important conclusion is that a

comparison between measured and calculated flow properties determines the accuracy of the model only if the errors arising from (ii) – (iv) are relatively small.”

Using Fluent, the assumption has been made that the numerical errors are very small in comparison to measurements and boundary condition effects. The flow

36 measurements as reported by Hansen [3] come with an error estimation which is approximately one third of that estimated for the computed results. The boundary conditions have been verified through comparative studies as detailed in section 3.

Given the computational resources and time constraints of this project, verification will be limited to comparing the boundary generated in LES to the Log-Law and standardized curve fits for atmospheric boundary layers. Validation will be of the form of comparing the final down stream turbine power deficit values to data measured at the Horns Rev wind farm.

37

3. CFD Technique

Modeling the entire Horns Rev wind farm of 80 turbines in an 8x10 array spaced 7D apart was not possible at the time for application of the high computational cost turbulence scheme of Large Eddy Simulation (LES). The computational resources that were available, namely a modern desk top computer and a cluster of 4 nodes, would have required months for each run. Thus simplifications were made to the model of the wind farm in order to produce results.

All CFD computations were done using Fluent 6.3 [6].

The desktop computer was a HP xw4400, running Windows XP service pack 2. The system had Dual Intel® Core™2 Duo processor E6420 2.13 GHz 4 MB L2 cache, with a 1066 MHz front side bus. A total of 2 GB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM was in place. The details of the cluster are not public, thus it can be summed up by noting that it was Unix based and ran approximately 20% faster than the desktop. Important to note is that Fluent was licensed to run on only one of the processors on the desktop. Although the 2nd processor was not used by Fluent, its presence appeared to keep Windows running stably.

Reducing the farm to two turbines in a row aligned with the wind direction was a drastic reduction in the magnitude and complication of the farm geometry that still incorporated the basic effect that is in need of study. Namely, with varying turbine spacing, what is the power deficit at the down stream turbine? This geometry

. These conditions are generally divided in three main classifications: Unstable. and thus no gravitational potential exists to move the air vertically. and Stable. A slightly more complicated case would be to have a triangular layout of three turbines. it was also examined as to how the power deficit values vary with different atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) conditions. Here the thermal effects serve to reinforce the current stratification. but was a first step in developing methodology to use LES on large scale wind farm geometry. In this study. Stable ABL conditions exist when there is a cool sea below a warm body of air. Unstable ABL conditions exist when there is a warm sea below a cool body of air. Neutral. Thermally unstable and neutral ABL conditions were modeled. the wake of the upstream turbine partially affecting both down stream turbines. Time constraints did not allow exploration of this geometry. Neutral ABL conditions indicate that there is not a sufficient vertical thermal gradient to cause air movement either up or down. In this case a gravitational potential exists since the warming air near the sea is becoming lighter than the cool air above it.38 obviously did not take into account the wake interaction effects that develop as the wind passes over many rows of turbines. thermally stable ABL conditions are left to future efforts.

1.” Details of the computational mesh are provided in the following section 3. The wind turbine towers and nacelles were not modeled in order to keep the mesh as simple as possible. .2. The turbines were modeled after the Horns Rev Wind Farm Vestas V90. and 5. the domain contained two turbine disks illustrated by red circles. Verification of the domain size is provided in section 3. Modeling different domains for varying tidal heights and ocean surface conditions was beyond the scope of the project. The large green arrow illustrates that the wind direction is parallel with the line of turbines. The overall length of the domain was determined by the spacing between the turbines. however for all three test cases there was a 3D (240m) spacing between both the upstream turbine and the inlet face. and what is reasonable in terms of run time. As shown in figure 3.5D or 440m tall. The hub height was approximated as a constant of 70m.1. the main difference being the spacing of the turbines.1. 2MW machines with turbine rotors 80m in diameter. as well as between the down stream turbine and the outlet face. The domain size was a trade off between what was necessary to create good results. The domain was 7 turbine diameters (D) or 560m wide.5. Computational Domain Set Up Each of the three domains used to compute power deficits had the same overall geometry. The “empty” domain used to create wind is further detailed in the section “Creating Numerical Wind.39 3.

40 The three turbine spacing cases: • Domain B24 has 7D (Diameters) (560m) turbine spacing • Domain B25 has 9D turbine spacing • Domain B8 has 11D turbine spacing Top Inlet Side Figure 3.1: Geometry of the Computational Domain .1.

The computational domain is divided up into many individual solids as shown in figure 3.1. All solids must be extruded in the same direction in order to maintain mesh face connection when imported into the Fluent pre-processor.1. . This allows an intermediated size “Mid” box (figure 3.41 3. This allowed the creation of a computational domain that matches the computational resources available for the project. Creating the Computational Domain The wind farm was been simplified to two turbines aligned with the wind direction.2. Details of the SolidWorks software use are in Appendix I.2. Developing the Geometry in SolidWorks The SolidWorks solid modeling package was used to model the simplified wind farm geometry. It was found that it was necessary to model at 1/10th scale in order for SolidWorks to be able to handle the magnitude of the domain dimensions. The model was created as a single part file. Gambit.2) to be created around the turbine disk which facilitates the meshing of the domain. with many individual solid entities.

thus when creating a 2nd object inside a 1st. Structured outer blocks have been removed to reveal “Mid” boxes which house the actuator disks. Figure 3.1: Solid Model of the Computational Domain.2. The rest of the domain was structured hexagonal elements.2.2: Solid Model of the Computational Domain – Cut Away View. Again. the front face of the . Figure 3. No two solids should occupy the same space.3 shows the turbine cylinder that exists inside of the “Mid” box. This mesh generation technique involved creating an intermediate size box around the fan volume which is filled with tetrahedral elements.2. The entire domain must be solid modeled. the overlapping volume of the 1st should be removed.42 Figure 3.

43 turbine cylinder was used to geometrically locate the wind turbine boundary condition.2.3.4) was created by cutting the model with the center line plane. and the brown boxes as well as the turbine cylinders with structured hexagonal elements. The upstream mid box has been removed to reveal the upstream actuator disk cylinder. .2. The cross sectional view (figure 3. Demonstrated here is the non-overlapping construction technique. The blue and green boxes were intended to be meshed with unstructured tetrahedral elements.3: Solid Model of the Computational Domain– Cut Away View. Figure 3. This is discussed in detail in section 3.

4: Solid Model of the Computational Domain– Cross Sectional View Once the geometry was completed in SolidWorks.44 Figure 3. .2. the data was exported to the IGES file format such that it can be imported by the Fluent pre-processor: Gambit.

Thus with the finer mesh near the turbines. the mesh characteristic element length was used directly as the filter size. smaller flow length scales .5. The reason for creating the intermediate boxes around the turbine cylinders was to simplify the meshing process. As would be expected. the mesh node spacing was finer in both the vertical and cross flow direction upon intersection with the Mid box.2. as can be seen in figure 3.2.5. Thus intermediate “Mid” boxes of unstructured tetrahedral mesh create a geometry buffer that makes the mesh transition between the cylinder and the boxes simpler.5 to 3. or pressure drop boundary condition. With implicit filtering of the fluid flow length scales in Fluent’s LES method.45 Meshing the Geometry in Gambit The mesh details seen in figures 3. It was not always possible to create a linked structured mesh directly between the cylinder and the surrounding volumes. the typical characteristic cell length was finer with in the Mid box. Details and general procedure for the operation of Gambit are located in Appendix I. As is visible in the solid model. These studies are detailed in section 3. The flow around the individual turbines and between the two turbines was an area of detailed interest. For this reason. it was necessary to create a solid cylinder.7 are for the final domain size and mesh density as were determined from the mesh verification studies.2. The pressure drop is proportional to the incoming normal flow velocity. on which the front face would be specified Fluent’s “Fan” [6].

2.5: A front view of the domain in Gambit.2.2. The sea boundary layer can be seen at the bottom of the figure 3. Figure 3.6. and thus more accurate results should be generated in this area.46 are being directly resolved than in the areas away from the turbine.5. The cross-sectional view plane is taken at the turbine face. . Note that the vertical spacing of the mesh boundary layer is identical over the entire bottom surface. as well as in figure 3. Here only the Turbine meshes and the boundary layer surfaces meshes are shown for clarity.

. and the Turbine cylinders are meshed. Mesh numerical details are provided in Appendix B.2. Again in 3.7: Side cross sectional view as taken from the center line plane.47 Figure 3. Figure 3.6: An isometric view of the domain in Gambit. This is a side view and thus the primary flow direction in the domain is left to right. Note the structured mesh with in the turbine cylinders and the fine unstructured mesh in the Mid boxes.2.2. No other mesh is displayed. The Boundary layer is specified.7 the more refined mesh intersecting the Mid boxes is visible.

1Pa was used to encourage the flow in the primary flow direction. .3.” nature of the zero velocity requirement at the wall.48 3. are defined as periodic. as opposed to the air to solid “Sticky” interaction of a wall BC. which was not the case for a symmetric BC. Details are provided in section 3. This implies that the two side faces are treated as one face by the code.5. There was a zero pressure gradient specification for the side faces. The periodic BC allows the side faces to be closer to the geometry of interest than would be allowed with other conditions such as a wall condition. The top face was modeled as a wall BC. A temperature specification was also included at the sea for the thermally unstable ABL cases. or lateral faces. The sides.) In order to offset the “Sticky. it enters the other. such that if a parcel air exits one side. For symmetric BC the velocity gradient tends to zero near the wall (in the direction normal to the wall. The sea BC was also a wall. This technique has not been observed in the literature. thus increasing the size of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). Boundary Conditions & Wind Turbine Modeling The six outside faces of the computational domain have continuous boundary conditions (BC) applied over each. This allows for a thermal specification. a wall shear of -0. Here there was a wall shear specification that inhibits the flow. This is due to the air to air interaction. and thus a verification of this condition was done.

Solving detailed turbine blade geometry would be extremely computationally expensive due to the mesh refinement and complication subsequently required. This BC is applicable when there are only small amounts of local reversed flow.3. The inlet condition was of course the recorded numerical “Wind” as detailed in the so named section. U is the upstream velocity at the .2 U D = (1 − a )U “a” is the axial induction factor. at the disk. For actuator disk theory. The wind turbines are modeled as a pressure drop boundary condition across a round disk representing the plane of the turbine. The first method utilized to model the wind turbine rotors was Actuator Disk Theory. There was no pressure drop through an outflow BC.49 The rear/exit/outlet BC was what Fluent [6] calls “Outflow”.3.1 Eqn: 3. thus no large scale reversals. which is the theoretical maximum. [14] The pressure drop was a function of incoming normal wind speed and radius form the center of the disk. its value is taken to be 1/3. UD is the velocity component in the primary flow direction (normal to the disk) (x-direction in all cases). the pressure drop is: 2a 2 UD 1− a Δp = ρ Eqn: 3.

Blade-element momentum theory determines the thrust and drag force components at discrete elements along the length of a turbine blade.1.50 height (z-direction in all cases) under consideration. the disk was divided into three sections in the radial direction. In the model. The pressure drops vary with the square of the wind speed at the disk. Further development of the turbine boundary condition led to additional methodology: Blade Element Momentum (BEM) Theory. The free code. The density used was for room temperature air at sea level. Since turbine blades have complex geometries and aerodynamic properties that vary along the length of the blade. WT_PERF[19] from the National Wind Technology Center uses BEM to predict blade performance.3. actuator disk theory was combined with blade-element theory to create a simplified pressure drop approximation as a function radius from the axis of rotation. The weighted average of the three sections was scaled to the total pressure drop as documented by UPWIND measurements of the Horns Rev Wind Farm[3]. . Pressure drop variations with wind velocity for the three radial sections are shown in figure 3.

In Fluent the boundary is broken apart into individual mesh faces.1: Plot of Turbine Disk Pressure Drop Note that the disk velocity is less than the upstream velocity.51 Turbine Disk Pressure Drop vs. would be referred to as the blade root + inner blade.) as the wind speeds in this experiment are not planned to be in excess of 12ms-1. then merged into the three regions shown. The disk is modeled as one boundary in Gambit.E. There was also a singular mesh face at the center reserved to represent the hub. The inner section contains what. mid and outer sections.M Δp Mid [Pa] B. .3. A continuously rising pressure drop function was used (no rated power cut out.M Δp Inner [Pa] B.E. in wind turbine lingo. The disk was divided into three sections in the radial direction.E. the inner. Velocity at Disk 100 90 80 Pressure Drop [Pa] 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Disk Velocity [ms-1] B.M Δp Outer [Pa] Figure 3.

See Appendix C for setting details. The singular element in the center is used to model the turbine hub. .2: Turbine Outer& Inner Mesh Faces (Mid section hidden for clarity) Figure 3.3.52 The “Fan” boundary condition was used in Fluent [6] to model the pressure drops. Figure 3.3.3: Turbine Mid & Hub Mesh Faces.

ε. Thus emphasis was shifted in the early phases of the project to obtaining more precise results through LES. only the standard k-ε model was used for RANS. The combination of having to tune the model to the type of flow. RANS CFD Technique RANS was currently the wind industry standard. Hargreaves was kind enough to provide the UDFs he used for this process. diffusivity. From here on. A detailed account of the RANS (k-ε) Fluent settings are in Appendix C. Thus having RANS results to compare to current models was of value. . and not being able to properly reproduce an ABL. and x-dir momentum.53 3. turning OFF the turbulence model in Fluent. as well as being the core of most wind farm numerical experiments to date. it was not possible to reproduce Hargreaves results. The first RANS attempts were done in a manner to reproduce the work by Hargreaves[9]. After a number of trials. viscosity. and then comparing to standard RANS results. Hargreaves attempted to correct the inherent issues with the k-ε closure model (as detailed in the literature review. forced the focus of the project to move to using LES.4. and then using User Defined Functions (UDFs) to control the vertical (z-direction) profiles of k. Initial phases of this project focused on trying to achieve realistic results with the RANS model.) by first.

• Viscosity and density are set to nominal constant values of 1. • An inlet power law temperature profile is specified varying from 322K at the sea to 298K at the top boundary. o The summation of the perturbations is zero.1 the power from the downstream turbine is plotted versus iterations.4.789e-5kgm-1s-1 respectively.54 Neutral Boundary Layer RANS (No Energy Equation): • An inlet velocity profile modeled after a neutral ABL was used. and no further iteration was required. o The intensity of the perturbations and number of vortices can be specified. Un-Stable Boundary Layer RANS (Including temperature effects) • The ocean/ground temperature is set to 322K. . • The inlet values for the y(cross flow) and z(vertical) velocity components was zero. From this curve it is evident that the code had converged to the solution. When is the RANS run done? In figure 3. • The “vortex method”[6] was used to approximate turbulence.225kgm-3 and 1. o This technique adds random vortices to the inlet flow. • The density remains a constant.

in the range of 400 to 700 iterations were used. .001 for the Continuity equation) of residuals that Fluent had been set to.55 Figure 3. RANS Iterations Figure 3.1: Down Stream Turbine Power vs.4.2: RANS Solution Residuals vs. thus it was not necessary to solve to the fine level (0. taking approximately 40 minutes to complete. Iterations It was found that the power curve often leveled off significantly before the solution residuals. For the RANS runs.4.

and then use it several times over. Time allowed only neutral and unstable ABL wind to be created in this effort. This “wind” was then recorded. however. The flow was recycled outlet to inlet again and again until a fully developed turbulent boundary layer had evolved. it was more efficient to create the “wind” only once.5. Developing Numerical “Wind” Numerical “Wind. record it. The cases that do have turbines are run with LES until the only fluctuations seen in the power generated at the turbines coincide with the period of the numerical wind recordings. Each case will produce distinct velocity. and temperature profiles. time step by time step. kinetic energy. This wind creation process must be done separately for Neutral. These recordings are used as the inlet boundary condition for computational domains that do contain turbines. Detailed numerical values are provided in the appendices.” was created in an “empty” (no turbines) domain. .56 3. since it was planned to use the same “wind” data for several sets of turbine spacings. and Unstable ABL conditions. This result was also possible in a single domain by extending the upstream distance before the 1st turbine. Stable. LES CFD Technique This section details all settings and methodologies used to develop the LES runs of two turbines in a single domain. The domains used to create “wind” have the same boundary conditions and mesh density as is used in the domains containing turbines.

thus effectively creating a slip condition. An alternate is to use a wall BC (and so be able to specify a temperature (298K.57 • CFD set up to create “Wind” o Domain: The domain should be of the same width or wider as the domain with turbines. o Initialize domain with a ABL velocity and temperature profile using a UDF o Use the same velocity and temperature profile at the inlet . For the thermally unstable case. a temperature (322K) is also specified. Outlet boundary condition is “Outflow”.)) and then add a shear value that encourages the flow in the primary flow direction. An alternate method is to define side BC as symmetric. o Apply ground/ocean surface as a wall boundary condition with a no slip condition. and vertical velocity gradient goes to zero near the boundary). Inlet boundary condition is “Velocity Inlet”. Side BCs are periodic (defined as being the same surface). Top BC is symmetric (no flow through the boundary. no net mass flux specification. and make the domain approximately 1D wider. This alleviates the possibility of developing a cross wind.

75m length scale. and 12% turbulence intensity was used in Fluent. o Run the domain until the turbulence intensity stabilizes. it may no longer have the level of turbulence required.58 o Add to the inlet profile random fluctuations (these must all add up to zero in order to preserve mass) The “Vortex method” with 190 vortices. See the Appendix H for details. This is possible with periodic side boundaries even with the BC set to have zero net mass flux. set the net mass flux across the surfaces to what is was before the condition was changed to periodic. o Set inlet and outlet to periodic. o Every time step record: (code details are in Appendix F) x-velocity y-velocity z-velocity temperature SGS-kinetic-energy (not available with the Smagorinsky model) • Cautions: o Make sure no cross wind has developed. o Run the empty domain until the turbulent flow from the inlet has filled the domain. o Check to see that the “wind” has the appropriately wide range of length scales so as to mimic physical moving air. This can be done initially through . as if the flow is allowed to subside too much. Some judgment is necessary here.

o Make sure an appropriate boundary layer exits.5. Time did not allow for such an analysis in this effort. There should be no vertical velocity gradient in the homogeneous region. In each of the three figures the flow is moving from left to right. a numerical analysis of the length scales can be done by recording velocity data at one (or several. and thus there is a potential for the lighter warm air to move upwards. It can be seen that there is both a boundary layer and the existence . The following (figures 3.3) are side view contour plots of the center line plane of the empty box used to create thermally un-stable ABL “Wind. in unstable conditions.5.” Creating a probability density function of the magnitude of the recorded velocities then provides insight as to the length scale distribution. there is a warm sea under a cool body of air. o Observe to verify that the flow above the viscous sub-layer is as close to homogenous as possible.) contour plot is show in figure 3. For a more accurate inspection.1 to 3. These are instantaneous snap shots taken during the time profiles were being recorded for use in the domains containing wind turbines.1. Modify surface roughness in order to trip a larger boundary layer.” Again.) points in the domain over the full set of time steps recorded to make the “Wind. The “x” velocity component (primary flow direction. Averaged vertical velocity profiles can be computed for this inspection.5. Once again this can be verified with comparison of averaged vertical velocity profiles to turbulent standards.59 a graphical inspection of velocity contour plots.

1: Velocity Contours in an Empty Box “Wind” Generation Turbulence intensity (TI) contours are show in figure 3. on the upper edge of the boundary layer. turbine power curve. utility scale. the maximum flow speed is 9 to10ms-1. and thus it is not necessary to model the constant power section of the variable speed. Note that the values are predominant around the design range of 14 to 17%.2.5.60 of fairly homogeneous flow away from the ground.5. A wide variety of length scales are also visible. . This is indicated by the high TI levels.[3] [m s-1] Figure 3. Also important is the depiction of momentum transport interaction between the boundary layer and the main flow. Note that. as mentioned in the section on wind turbine modeling. approximately 18%.

as demonstrated by the flow near 300K rising away from the sea on the right side of the plot. Note that this is of course for the thermally un-stable atmospheric condition. There was a relatively large boundary layer ejection forming. Recall that the flow was being recycled from outlet to inlet and thus the tip of the boundary layer ejection which is disappearing on the right side. The units are Kelvin.5. The “cold” thermal specification at the top face drew the heat energy from the warm sea upwards through the domain.2: Turbulence Intensity Contours in an Empty Box “Wind” Generation Temperature contours are show in figure 3. . with the warmer temperatures closer to the sea/bottom.5.61 [TI%] Figure 3. is starting to enter the domain on the left side.3.

62

[K]

Figure 3.5.3: Temperature Contours in an Empty Box “Wind” Generation

63

**Verification of Neutral Boundary Layer created with LES
**

In order to verify that the LES code was producing “wind” that has good resemblance to physical wind, thus to verify the LES code, the shape of the averaged velocity boundary layer was compared to the log-law for turbulent flows. The wall shear was found by fitting a power law to the averaged velocity data.

⎡z⎤ u = ur ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ zr ⎦

α

Eqn: 3.5.1

Where ur is the reference velocity which was fit to the data, and zr is the reference height, also fit to the data. The exponent, α, was calculated from a curve fit provided in Manwell [14]:

α = 0.096 * log10 ( z0 ) + 0.016[log10 ( z0 )]2 + 0.24

Eqn: 3.5.2

This data fit is for calculating the boundary layer shape based upon the surface roughness z0. The “blown sea” value of 0.5mm was used from the Manwell Table 2.2 [14].

The average velocity profiles for neutral atmospheric conditions are shown in figure 3.5.4. Vertical profiles were recorded at both the start of the domain (0m) and near the end (900m). These two locations are along the center line of the computational domain in the primary flow direction. The two profiles are similar due to the recycling of the flow from outlet to inlet. Also plotted is the power law profile, a curve fit to the boundary layer. It can be seen that the averaged profiles do follow the trend of the power law, which indicates that the momentum transfer between the

64 wall and fluid was occurring in the correct manner. The “Wobbling” of the averaged data is thought to be representative of a limited data set, as opposed to a true average which stems from a data set of infinite proportion.

[m s-1]

Figure 3.5.4: Averaged Velocity Profiles and the Power Law Profile The wall shear was calculated using:

τw = μ

du Δu ≈μ dz Δz

Eqn: 3.5.3

Δz was taken to be from the ground to the thickness of the viscous sub-layer (y+ < 5

to 12). The wall shear was found to be 0.34Pa. The friction velocity, u*, was calculated from the wall shear and fluid density:

u* =

τw ρ

Eqn: 3.5.4

For comparison to the averaged data. C is a constant. In subsequent wind generation efforts.45.1.5.5. many thousands of time steps were averaged.5.5.. at the time of the development of this neutral wind.7 The last term is the wake (pressure) correction where: ⎛ πy ⎞ ⎛ y⎞ w⎜ ⎟ = 2 sin 2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 2δ ⎠ ⎝δ ⎠ Eqn: 3. that was not possible.6 U is a time averaged velocity. the averaged non-dimensional velocity profiles at x= 0m (inlet) and x = 900m (near the exit) are plotted on semi-log scale in comparison to the standard solution for turbulent boundary layers.8 In equation 3. however. “Does the experimental data . in this case using a total of 57 time steps.5. we use the log-law as documented by Pope [5]: u = + ln y + ( ) + C + Π w⎛ y ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ κ κ ⎝δ ⎠ Eqn: 3.5 ν U u* u+ = Eqn: 3.7. The important aspect for verification of the data is the shape of the curves. the log-law.65 The non-dimensional height and velocity were found from: y+ = u* y Eqn: 3. Π is the wake strength parameter which for turbulent flow over a flat plate is typically taken to be 0.5.5. К is the von Karmen constant which is typically 0. In figure 3. and δ is the boundary layer thickness. It was found that a value of 1. and is taken to be 5.41.0 for Π created an excellent data fit.

5: Averaged Velocity Profiles and the Log-Law It was found that the vertical offset of the averaged velocity profiles is extremely sensitive to the wall shear. Figure 3.32Pa was a good data fit.66 collapse onto the sloped line of the log-law?” The plot does indeed indicate that the general trend of the experimental data is linear. and has a similar slope to the loglaw.5.34Pa. A wall shear value of 0. and it is with in 6% of the calculated value of 0. .

Neutral Boundary Layer in LES (No Energy Equation) • An inlet velocity profile was specified as per the recorded neutral ABL “wind”. Δx is the characteristic local mesh element size.1s in coordination with the time step used in the empty domain to create the wind.789e-5kgm-1s-1 respectively.225kgm-3 and 1. and u is the local flow speed. • The inlet temperature was per as specified by the recorded unstable ABL “wind. Detailed Fluent settings are in Appendix C.” • The density remained set to the nominal constant value.0. the CFL number was also acceptable. This means that the CFL number was not always optimal at the start of the runs. • Viscosity and density are set to nominal constant values of 1. The CFL number is defined by: CFL = Δt u Δx Eqn: 3. This significantly reduces the required LES run time. A good rule of thumb is for the CFL to be less than 5. • The time step was locked to 0.5. Un-Stable Boundary Layer LES (Including Thermal Effects) • The sea temperature was set to 322K.67 LES Run Parameters Each LES run was started from a converged RANS run. It was found that when the iterations per time step reduced to five or less. . the top BC set to 298K.9 Where Δt is the time step.

Vertical Position The cross wind. a cross wind was unwittingly created.5.6: Cross Flow Velocity vs. [m s-1] Figure 3. or a crosswind. The cross wind component of the roll was acting at the height of the turbines and thus created the miraculous greater power at the 2nd turbine.68 LES.) occurred despite a zero net mass flux specification on the side periodic boundary conditions.6. This can be seen in figure 3. a vertical velocity profile plot of the cross wind (ydirection) velocity component versus height (z-direction). Examining the profiles. This . it can be seen that the overall flow direction was to the left of the figure. What did NOT Work 1) Cross Wind (Roll) In initial attempts to create numerical wind. which was actually a roll (a vortex whose axis is in the flow direction. This is plotted for four locations along the domain center line in the primary flow direction. with a small flow near the top of the domain moving to the right. Thus there was a net flow to the left.5.

The primary flow direction was left to right. It is left to future efforts to recreate the neutral ABL wind with out this defect. . which is a TOP view contour plot of an instantaneous snap shot of the x direction flow component.5.5.7: Top View of a Velocity Contour Plot From comparison of the power deficit predictions. Turbine 1 Turbine 2 [m s-1] Figure 3. Due to the crosswind. it is evident that there remained a remnant of crosswind in the final version of the neutral ABL numerical wind. the wake from the upstream turbine was barely contacting the downstream turbine. moving in the vertical direction in the figure.7.69 effect can be seen in figure 3. and thus the power deficit will be significantly lower than for wind that is truly aligned with the two turbines.

70 2) Large ground/sea Heat Flux setting Specifying a large heat flux at the ground was found to create very unstable iteration in Fluent. and a few iterations later. Heat fluxes up to 240Wm-² were evaluated. The general effect seen in applying this boundary condition is that the CFD code transfers thermal energy to momentum. there are velocities two orders of magnitude larger in the domain. however specifications as small as 7Wm-² were still found to cause difficulties. .

This is in part because it was simpler to compare the singular numerical values of the power deficit.3% before any difference could be noted in a velocity profile. only a small fraction of the necessary flow time had been computed.8 are the results of a mesh density study. the only changes are in the refinement of the mesh. but was deemed out of the range of the computational resources at hand when it was noted that after 30 hours of running. The geometry of each of the three domains is identical.773 elements was attempted.71 Mesh Density and Size Verification The downstream predicted turbine power deficit evaluation as described in the section named “Power Deficit Calculation” was used as the primary tool for evaluation of mesh density and domain size. . than to try and eyeball the relative shapes of the velocity profiles or their variances. A fourth reference point at 532. This study was done using the neutral ABL numerical wind.5. It was found that the power deficit value was significantly more sensitive to mesh density and domain size changes than the profiles. Comparisons were also made of the velocity profiles behind the first and second turbines. Shown in figure 3. The power deficit at the 2nd and only turbine down stream of the 1st turbine was used as the evaluation criteria. The predicted power deficit could vary up to 0.

At the next step.) Thus. out of the time constraints of the project it was necessary to choose a mesh density that approached. A cubic curve fit to the data shows that for the domain size used in the study. density independence was being approached.000 100. approximately 200k elements would be necessary for mesh density independence.5.5. Although once again grid independence was not reached.7%.9.4%.000 200.5.72 Mesh Density Verification 80% 78% 76% 74% B15a LES Neutral B15b LES Neutral B15d LES Neutral PT2/PT1 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% 0 50. As the number of elements increased from 96k to 153k. However. the run time to complete 300s of flow time for B15d was 44 hours (34 and 23 hours for B15d and B15a respectively.000 Mesh Total Elements Figure 3.000 150. the power deficit was reduced by 3. but did not fully reach.8: Mesh Density Verification The mesh density plot (figure 3. and the deficit changed by the smaller amount of 0.000 250. The domain size comparison of distance to the outlet wall from the second turbine is shown in figure 3. shows that with the B15b mesh.8). The B15d mesh density was utilized for all domains used to create final results. a grid independent solution. the . even for this reduced domain geometry size. the elements jumped from 153k to 223k.

7% as the domain width was increased from 5D to 10D. and a 7D wide computational domain was chosen. 0. The predicted power deficit decreased by 2.5.5D wide (164k mesh cells) evaluation case required 50 hours of run time. Once again computational resources define the decision.5. The 7. and thus 3D down stream was chosen in order to keep the domain size as small as possible.10. Down Stream of Turbine 2 Domain Length Verification 80% 78% 76% 74% PT2/PT1 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B15d LES Neutral 3D-DS B16 LES Neutral 5D-DS B17 LES Neutral 7D-DS Down Stream Distance [D] Figure 3. are significantly smaller than the effects due to changes in the other dimensions and mesh density.2%. Here a cubic curve fit estimates 12D wide would produce grid independence. .73 differences in the power deficit values.9: Down Stream of Turbine 2 Domain Length Verification The domain width study is presented in figure 3.

evaluating the domain height.6%.5D Wide B23a LES Neutral 7.74 Domain Width Verification 80% 78% 76% 74% PT2/PT1 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B22 LES Neutral 5. With a rotor diameter of 80m as per the Horns Rev wind farm. 15D tall wass estimated by a cubic curve fit as necessary for mesh independence.5D Wide B21 LES Neutral 10.5. .10: Domain Width Verification The final domain size study.3.0D Wide 9 10 11 Domain Width [D] Fig: 6.5. is presented in figure 3.13 Figure 3. 15D translates to 1200m.0D Wide B15d LES Neutral 6.5D to 7.11. This plot most distinctly shows that although the power deficit changes between the domains of different heights are small.5. grid independence was not fully achieved.5D the predicated power deficit decreased 1. In varying the domain height form 4.

5 4 4.5D High B19 LES Neutral 7. This domain size and mesh density study aptly demonstrates the severe computational requirements of LES.5 7 7.5 5 5. 5.5D High B18 LES Neutral 5. Thus for the realities of wrapping this project up with in one academic year. and thus why LES was not commonly used in the wind farm analysis industry at the time of the study. as well as maintaining software and hardware capabilities that are readily reproduced in industry as per the NREL funding requirements.5.11: Domain Height Verification The B18 test case required 74 hours of run time.5D was chosen as the domain height. .5 6 6. With full knowledge that the results are NOT independent of the domain geometry and quantity of mesh elements. the project moves forward with the caveat of. “The best a PC can do in a reasonable time frame for industry”.5D High Domain Height [D] Figure 3.75 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% 3.5 8 Domain Height Verification PT2/PT1 B15d LES Neutral 4.

76 In summary, table 3.5.1 presents the total mesh element count for the domains used in size and density verification as well as the turbine power deficit calculations: Table 3.5.1: Mesh study Element Counts

Mesh name B15a (Verification only) B15b (Verification only) B15c (Verification only) B15d (Verification only) B18 (Verification only) B19 (Verification only) B21 (Verification only) B22 (Verification only) B23 (Verification only) B24: 7D turbine spacing B25: 9D turbine spacing B26: 11D turbine spacing Total Element Count 96,391 223,587 532,773 153,107 170,707 209,427 203,795 130,579 164,371 177,219 198,581 214,284

77

**LES Filtering Lengths
**

The LES turbulence closure method directly computed the larger scales of motion, and models the smaller scales. In Fluent’s [6] implicit filtering scheme, the filter size for what was directly computed was based upon the local characteristic element length. A contour plot of the side view of the center line plane of the filter length is shown in figure 3.5.12. The filter length ranged from approximately 2.5m near the turbines to 13m in the upper portions of the domain. The jumps in element size at the boundaries of the boxes around the turbines may have dissipated the wake considerably, and thus affect the resulting power deficit prediction. An evaluation of this effect was not possible in the allotted time frame.

[m]

Figure 3.5.12: Filter Length Contour Plot In order to verify that the filtering size is of the correct scale, the LES filtering lengths were compared to the integral length scale (L). The turbulent kinetic energy

78 (k) and turbulent dissipation rate (ε) are found from the converged RANS run that was done to initialize the LES run. Using the approximation for the integral length scale in homogeneous flow:

3 2

L=

k

Eqn: 3.5.10

ε

The integral length scale was calculated to be 93m near the turbines. As per Fluent’s suggestion, this length should be divided by 40 to 50 elements. Dividing by 40 cells so as to keep the mesh as coarse as possible, a suggested characteristic cell length of 2.3m was obtained. This demonstrates that close to the turbines the cells are near the size that should produce accurate results. There are however, many sources of error in this calculation: The homogeneous assumption, the k and ε values come from a RANS calculation, as well as the cells near the turbine are tetrahedral which means that the cell characteristic length is an average of a range of lengths. Thus this comparison of filter size to integral length scale was crude, but does provide some indication as to the correct order of magnitude of the element spacing.

The line was located at the vertical position of the hub height. the towers and nacelles were not modeled. the green arrow shows that the wind was aligned with the line of the turbines.5. The line extends from one side face of the domain to the other. Top Inlet Side Figure 3. Again.13.79 Recording of Velocity Profiles Velocity data was recorded along the span of points indicated by the red line behind the down stream turbine in Figure 3. The velocity components along the line were recorded at each time step such that averaged velocity profiles could be calculated.13: Recording Velocity Profiles Geometry . and was two turbine diameters down stream of the 2nd turbine. the red circles represent the rotor disks of the turbines.5. For mesh simplicity.

Thermally Neutral.7% 66. shear = -. shear = -. show that this variation in boundary conditions is not significant in comparison to factors such as mesh density or domain height. visually . Thermally Neutral. Table 3.2). Thermally UN-Stable.80 Domain Top Boundary Condition Verification A wall boundary condition was used on the top face such that a thermal specification could be added.8% 56. Wall BC.2: Top BC Predicted Power Deficit Comparison Test Case: 7D.5. the dark blue diamonds indicating the symmetric BC is so close to the light blue diamonds indicating the shear BC that they are difficult to separate visually.6% The average velocity profiles for this study are show in figure 3. Again. These profiles where obtained as detailed in the previous section.14.1Pa.1Pa. In order to verify that the wall boundary condition did not have adverse effects on the results.5. Symmetric BC . For the neutral conditions. The predicted power deficit results (table 3. B24-h PT2/PT1 66.5. B24-g 7D. Examination of the figure shows that the differences between the symmetric BC and wall BC are relatively small in comparison to the differences between the neutral and unstable atmospheric conditions. Symmetric BC. Thermally UN-Stable. B24-e 7D. The method for calculating the power deficits is detailed in the following section. B24-d 7D. The lines near the bottom of the plot are the σ.3% 56. Evaluation of the data was in the form of comparing the predicted power deficits and averaged velocity profiles for the different BC. Wall BC. a verification study was performed. The “U” shaped lines at the top of the plot are the velocity profiles (<U>).

-. Averaged Velocity Profiles for varying Boundary Conditions 8 7 6 7D. Symm. UN-stable.1Pa. <U> 7D. which is why the power deficit values are presented above. -. Symm. <U> 7D. Symm. Neutral. UN-stable. <U> <U> [ms-1] 5 7D.5. T_UN-Stable.1Pa. σ 2 3 4 1 0 -275 -225 -175 -125 -75 -25 25 75 125 175 225 275 Y posn [m] Figure 3. Neutral. Neutral. -. σ 7D.1Pa.14: Averaged Velocity Profiles for Varying Boundary Conditions . σ 7D. T_UN-Stable. σ 7D. Neutral.1Pa.81 evaluating velocity profiles is not a robust evaluation technique. -. Symm. <U> 7D.

From this velocity contour plot. the green arrow indicates the primary flow direction in this velocity contour plot. and thus the computed values could also be compared to previous studies and measurements. mesh densities. For this reason. This is a side view of the domain center line plane. the interaction of the wake from the upstream turbine with the down stream turbine was apparent. . and there was no appreciable cross wind. this was 70 seconds for the thermally neutral ABL wind and 290 seconds for the unstable ABL wind.82 Power Deficit Calculation The instantaneous power of each turbine was integrated over one or more complete cycles of the recorded numerical wind.) power deficit at the down stream turbine was a very sensitive measurement of the computational set up. For the wind samples created.15.5. Power deficit was commonly used in wind farm wake studies. The turbines were spaced 9 diameters (D) apart. it was used as the primary tool for evaluation and verification of different boundary conditions. It was found that the integrated (over the rotor disk area and over time. In figure 3. and domain sizes.

5. or iterations with RANS). Figure 3.5. Repetition of the numerical wind period (290seconds. this data was numerically integrated over time to calculate the energy values. The power coefficient (Cp) was included through the use of the axial induction factor theoretical maximum value of 1/3.16 is a plot of the instantaneous power integrated over the entire turbine rotor area for both the upstream and down stream turbines as per equation 3. Density (ρ) was considered to be constant.11 U is the velocity component normal to the disk.83 Turbine 1 Turbine 2 9D Figure 3.) is quite evident in both recordings.5. The flow time period used for both integrations was the first complete period demonstrated by the down stream turbine.5. The two integrated energy values are then compared to compute the power deficit for the down stream turbine. . For both the upstream and downstream turbines.11. the power at the actuator disks was recorded using the following formula: Paero = ρ ∫ U 3 dA Disk Eqn: 3.15: Power Deficit Calculation Contour Plot Every time step (when running LES.

6E+06 1.8E+06 1.5.16: Power Deficit Calculation Instantaneous Power Plot . 2.2E+06 T1 power T2 power 1.0E+06 290s 1.0E+05 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 Flow Time [s] Figure 3.0E+05 4.0E+06 8.4E+06 Power [W] 1. then taking the standard deviation of the deficit values over the wind period under consideration.0E+05 290s 6.84 Error estimation was accomplished by calculating the power deficit at each individual time step.

Turbine Spacing 100% 90% LES Neutral LES Unstable Hansen data UN-STABLE 6m/s Hansen data STABLE 6m/s Hansen data Very Un-STABLE 6m/s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P T2 /P T1 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Turbine Spacing [Diameters] Figure 4. LES Power Deficit vs. This is demonstrated in the data by smaller power deficits at larger turbine spacings. the cross flow direction averaged wind speed approaching the .1.85 4. The data for the plot is given in Table 4. An important physical phenomenon that the results correctly portray is the decrease of the upstream turbine wake velocity deficit from the free stream velocity with increasing down stream distance. In the numerical models.1: LES Predicted Power Deficits SOLUTION REMAINS GRID DEPENDAN The Hansen data was recorded at an average free stream wind speed of 6ms-1. and 11D are presented here. Results The predicted values from the LES and RANS CFD computations at turbine spacings of 7D. Figure 4.1 shows the LES downstream turbine power deficit results in comparison to recording at the Horns-Rev wind farm as reported by Hansen [3]. 9D. Results are shown for both thermally neutral and un-stable atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) conditions.

2ms-1. This error estimate is relatively large due to the significant fluctuations in the numerical wind (see Figure 3.4 to 8ms .4D spacing data becomes available when the incoming wind direction was not aligned with the rows or columns of the farm. As detailed in the section “LES.” cross winds reduce the time averaged power deficit by temporarily .) in comparison to all other fluctuations seen in the data. A standard deviation of these values then provides some insight as to the variation of the power deficit with flow time. there is still significant inaccuracy in this result. the median being -1 7.10. In order to create an error estimate for the numerical model power deficits. The error bars in figure 4. The approximately 15% difference between the LES neutral and unstable results can be partly explained by a small cross wind that formed in the development of the thermally neutral ABL numerical wind. Thus while the 7D unstable ABL wind LES result comes close to being with in 1σ of the Hansen data. The 9. The Horns Rev wind farm at which the Hansen data was measured has both a row and column turbine to turbine spacing of 7D. the downstream turbine power deficit was calculated at each time step over one or more numerical wind recording periods.4D and 10.86 upstream turbine ranged in the vertical direction from 6. What did Not Work.1 represent a single standard deviation of the instantaneous power deficits.

.2: RANS Predicted Power Deficits As with the LES results.87 moving the wake of the upstream turbine laterally such that is does not fully contact the downstream turbine.2 are the results obtained through the use of RANS. 4. The RANS (Reynolds AVERAGED Navier Stokes) results for thermally stable and neutral conditions are so close as to be considered identical given an error approximation by comparison to the Hansen data. and thus it can be clearly seen that in this numerical simulation LES produced results significantly closer to the measurements. the RANS results also show the important decrease in power deficit with increasing turbine spacing. RANS Power Deficit vs. Turbine Spacing 100% 90% RANS Neutral RANS Unstable Hansen data UN-STABLE 6m/s Hansen data STABLE 6m/s Hansen data Very Un-STABLE 6m/s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PT2 /PT1 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Turbine Spacing [Diameters] Figure 4. The RANS results are approximately 20% different from the Hansen data. Shown in Fig.

thus there may well be wake drag effects in play that are not taken into account in the calculations. Results: Velocity Profiles The LES average horizontal x-direction (primary flow direction. It can be seen that for both the thermally neutral and un-stable cases. • The Horns Rev wind farm measurements reported are for the 1st two turbines in a row of up to 13 turbines. there is a reduction in the velocity deficit with . The “U” shaped curves near the top of the plot are the averaged velocity profiles.) velocity profiles 2D down stream of the 2nd turbine are show in Figure 4. and the curves near the bottom of the plot are the standard deviations (σ). This implies that a single value is being used to model the wind speed at the turbine over the entire actuator disk area. • The Hansen values are taken from the reported singular velocity values at each turbine. several important factors must be considered.88 Table 4.3.1: LES and RANS Predicted Power Deficits Hansen Measurements Error Estimation: In reviewing the data reported by Hansen [3]. • The reported error estimation of 4% to 5% comes from a single standard deviation of the recorded data.

<U> 9D. Neutral. σ 9D. figure 4. σ 11D. <U> 11D. Neutral. σ 7D. UN-stable. UN-stable. .1. UN-stable. <U> 7D. as is depicted by equation 2. <U> 7D. UN-stable. UN-stable. <U> 11D. σ <U> [ms -1] 9D. <U> 9D.4. Neutral. UN-stable.3: LES Averaged Velocity & σ Profile Predictions SOLUTION REMAINS GRID DEPENDANT Note the double peaks of the LES standard deviation. The TKE is representative of the normal stress in the fluid. This result is also seen in the TKE plots created with RANS. σ 11D. The offset from center of the neutral profiles was due to the small crosswind that remained in the recorded wind data set. Neutral. Neutral. σ 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 -275 -225 -175 -125 -75 -25 25 75 125 175 225 275 Y posn [m] Figure 4. Neutral.1. LES Average Velocity Contours for Varying Turinbe Spacing 8 7 7D.89 increased turbine spacing. This “M” shape is considered key to successful wake modeling.

as prepared for the LES calculations.90 RANS Velocity Contours for Varying Turinbe Spacing 8 7 7D. TKE 11D. The numerical wind. <U> 9D. Thus the inlet BC to all six domains was the same vertical velocity profile with random perturbations. Neutral. <U> 7D. UN-stable. TKE 3 4 5 6 11D. Neutral. . TKE <U> [ms -1] 9D. TKE 7D. UN-stable. Neutral.4: RANS Velocity & TKE Profile Predictions Both the velocity and TKE contours as predicted by RANS were very similar for all six cases. UN-stable. <U> 11D. UN-stable. as these results are for a single time step RANS as opposed to multi time step RANS or URANS. <U> 11D. Neutral. Neutral. TKE 1 2 0 -275 -225 -175 -125 -75 -25 25 75 125 175 225 275 Y posn [m] Figure 4. was not used for the RANS predictions. UN-stable. Neutral. <U> 9D. UN-stable. <U> 7D. TKE 9D. the unstable cases also having thermal profiles.

Neutral. however.8 7D.5: RANS Velocity Profile Predictions – Zoomed The TKE contours shown in figure 4. Since the RANS results for neutral and unstable ABL conditions were virtually identical. Neutral.4 4.2. it was not deemed necessary to have zoomed plots of both.4 -75 -25 25 75 3. the magnitude of the results are distant from the Horns Rev measurements.2 <U> [ms -1] 4 3. as shown in figure 4. TDR. . and strain rate.91 Zoomed views of the RANS predictions for neutral ABL conditions are presented in figures 4. <U> 3. Neutral. RANS Velocity Contours for Varying Turinbe Spacing 4. The RANS velocity profiles do predict the important decrease in velocity deficit with increased turbine spacing. of the contours for Turbulence Intensity.5 and 4.6 Y posn [m] Figure 4.6.6 also very closely portray the shape. <U> 9D. <U> 11D. but not magnitude.

Neutral.Zoomed Since it is not currently efficient to embed movies in the document. a number of instantaneous snap shots have been added in order to present the nature of the flow as calculated with the mesh at hand and Fluent’s LES code. Neutral. The interaction of the sea boundary layer with the turbine wakes is also evident. These plots demonstrate the interaction of the fluctuating upstream wind with the wake effects of the two turbines. TKE 11D. TKE 9D. TKE 0. and the increased velocity deficit down stream of the 2nd turbine. .2 0. Neutral.4 TKE [m 2s-2] 7D.1 0 -275 -225 -175 -125 -75 -25 25 75 125 175 225 275 Y posn [m] Figure 4.3 0.6: RANS TKE Profile Predictions . Note the interaction of the wake from the upstream turbine with the down stream turbine.92 RANS TKE Contours for Varying Turinbe Spacing 0.

the contour plots are cross sectional through the vertical or horizontal planes at the turbine hubs.93 In figures 4. .11. the 2nd a top view of the hub center plane.7 to 4. The first plot on each page is a side view of the domain center line plane.

Neutral ABL Conditions .94 Turbine 1 Turbine 2 [m s-1] Figure 4. Neutral ABL Conditions Turbine 1 Turbine 2 [m s-1] Figure 4.8: TOP view of x-direction velocity [m s-1] (Instantaneous Contours) LES study B24g. 7D Spacing.7: Side view of x-direction velocity [m s-1] (Instantaneous Contours) LES study B24g. 7D Spacing.

UN-Stable ABL Conditions .9: Side view of x-direction velocity [m s-1] (Instantaneous Contours) LES study B24h.95 Turbine 1 Turbine 2 Figure 4. 7D Spacing.10: TOP view of x-direction velocity [m s-1] (Instantaneous Contours) LES study B24h. 7D Spacing. UN-Stable ABL Conditions [m s-1] Turbine 1 Turbine 2 [m s-1] Figure 4.

The side view velocity contour plots demonstrate greatly increased interaction between the sea boundary layer and the turbine wakes in the thermally unstable ABL conditions (warm sea.) The center line SIDE view thermal contour plot seen in figure 4. several important results become evident.) This may be correlated to the higher TI. and larger lateral and vertical fluctuation of the turbine wakes in the unstable conditions. This increased fluctuation of the wakes can also be observed in comparing the neutral and unstable hub center TOP views (figures 4.8 and 4. UN-Stable ABL Conditions .96 Comparing the Neutral and Unstable velocity profiles. 7D Spacing.10.11: Side view of Temperature [K] (Instantaneous Contours) LES study B24h. Turbine 1 Turbine 2 [K] Figure 4.11 clearly shows how the air in contact with the sea warmed and then rose upward through the domain.

.97 The existence of the warm air mass in the center of the domain is due to the creation of unstable numerical wind a priori. and thus demonstrates what would other wise only be achieved with a computational domain including an extremely long distance upstream of the 1st turbine.

Conclusions With the advent of ever increasing offshore wind power. the domain height 5. The resulting domain width was 7D.75D. This was necessary to have a computational domain of a size that matched the time frame and computational resources available for this effort. 9. Upstream of the first turbine and down stream of the 2nd turbine there was 3D distance to the domain boundaries. and to make comparisons to RANS results. The challenge that lies ahead is to develop methodology to optimize the wind turbine spacing. Interpolation of the data from the mesh studies shows that modifying the domain to 12D wide. and with a mesh 31% more dense would be required to achieve grid independence. wind farms in 2D grid arrays are growing more typical. and 11 diameters (D) were evaluated. The computational resources . to develop a method to predict wind turbine wakes that is more accurate than using RANS. 15D tall. The intent of this experiment was to develop standards for using LES for the wind farm application. This farm geometry minimizes cabling costs and optimizes the use of shallow waters close to areas of high electrical load. Turbine spacings of 7. The domain size and mesh density were evaluated through verification studies. The wind farm geometry was simplified to two turbines in a row aligned with the wind direction.98 5. The verification study showed that a more refined mesh and a larger computational domain are necessary in order to achieve results that are completely grid independent.

Numerical wind was created for both thermally neutral and unstable ABL conditions.99 required for a computational domain of this magnitude were not available for this project. numerical “wind” was created a priori. and thus there is a tendency for the lighter air near the sea surface to move upwards. Creating the wind separately has several advantages. each wind recording could be used three times. This allowed for the relatively short (3D) domain length upstream of the first turbine. This does not create an accurate simulation of physical wind. Stable ABL wind is left to future efforts. All CFD computations were performed with Fluent version 6. and then used as the inlet boundary condition. This was possible in the empty domain since it did not have the complicating geometry of the turbines. Most studies to date use only a thermally neutral ABL.3. and subsequently reduced run times due to the smaller size of the computational domain. Since there were three different turbine spacings to be evaluated in this effort. In unstable conditions. there exists a warm sea below a cool body of air. while having the same mesh density as that used for the domains containing turbines. In creating the wind separately. there was the added advantage of using a domain that had a completely structured mesh. In order to better approximate the true nature of an ABL. In neutral conditions there is no thermal driving force to move the air vertically. The completely structured mesh domain had a higher computational .

The computer had 2 Intel Corel 2 cores. the vertical offset of the numerical wind profile is with in 6% of the log law estimation. The results achieved using LES are the best possible for a desk top computer in the allotted time frame. With the wind created in a separate domain. it was possible to ensure that the numerical flow created did bear a good resemblance to physical wind before applying it to the domain containing turbines. 2GB of RAM was available.5. It was found that the wall shear value has a strong influence on the vertical offset of the numerical wind velocity profile in a semi-log plot. they do represent a significant improvement over the results achieve using the RANS turbulence closure technique. each running at 1.100 rate than the domains with turbines that contained both structured and unstructured mesh. Verification of the numerical wind was done through comparing the averaged vertical velocity profiles to the turbulent standard for boundary layers. For an assumed mutual linear slope. While the LES results are not fully independent of the mesh density or domain size.87GHz.5 shows the details of this comparison. Validation was done through comparing the predicted downstream turbine power deficit results to the measurements documented by Hansen [3] of the Horns Rev . the log law. Figure 3. Fluent was only licensed to run on one core at a time.

Fluent does none the less take in account buoyancy effects. As seen in table 4. These are an indication that the model was . The “Incompressible ideal gas” option in Fluent was evaluated. but not subsequently used due to degradation in numerical stability. however it is believed that the magnitude of these effects may not be correctly represented. This gap between LES predictions obtained with neutral and unstable ABL conditions can be partially explained by a small cross wind that remained in the neutral recorded wind data. This small velocity component that existed in the cross flow direction caused the wake from the upstream turbine to only partially contact the downstream turbine for small intervals of time.1. Unfortunately no measurements were found to compare the computed velocity profiles with. this produced a smaller power deficit than would exist if the turbines were truly aligned with the wind direction as intended. a constant value was used for the density. and 18% at 11D between neutral and unstable ABL conditions. Double peaks were found in the standard deviations of the LES horizontal velocity profiles for unstable ABL conditions. Future efforts in developing numerical wind will include a numerical length scale verification to ensure a good characterization of physical wind.101 wind farm. LES shows an approximately 10% difference in predicted power deficit values at 7D. When the data was integrated over time. For the unstable ABL wind generation and subsequent runs.

up to 75% of the averaged value. Each LES run was initialized with a converged RANS run. This may be correlated to the higher turbulence intensity and greater velocity fluctuations seen in the turbine wakes.102 approaching an accurate prediction of the wake interaction with the surrounding flow. side view velocity contour plots (figures 4. the fluctuation of the recorded instantaneous turbine power with time is significant. The large deviation of the RANS results from the Hansen measurements seen in figure 4. The RANS runs took less that one hour.1 shows that with the standard set of five k-ε model constants. The RANS (Reynolds AVERAGED Navier Stokes) results for thermally unstable and neutral conditions are so close (<1%) as to be considered identical given an . and thus could be used as a “back of the envelope” technique. As might be expected. where as the LES runs took up to 75 hours. the k-ε model performs particularly poorly for wake prediction. and thus it did help to reduce the computational expense of the LES technique. The existence of this shape in the results is discussed in the ENDOW [2] papers as correctly capturing near wake phenomenon. the center line. and thus does not capture the transient effects. A positive aspect to the RANS efforts was that the run time was a fraction of that for LES.9) demonstrate greatly increased interaction between the sea boundary layer and the turbine wakes in the thermally unstable atmospheric conditions as compared to the stable conditions. RANS is a singular time step. averaged technique. Using LES.7 & 4.

larger resources are not presently available. Again. For this reason it may yet be several years before LES becomes more common in the wind farm analyst tool set. This effort produced results that are comparable to experimental results and showed clear areas to improve computational issues.103 error approximation through comparison to the Hansen data. For this project. the effect of the RANS technique of averaging the flow parameters appears to have negated the transitory nature of the unstable ABL condition. The LES technique requires relatively large computational resources. . Using a constant value for air density may have also played a role in this result. and for most in the industrial setting.

Future Efforts/Recommendations As with most projects.104 6. Refine the ground/sea boundary layer until a satisfactory wall shear is obtained. • Add a tangential velocity component to the Turbine boundary condition. here is a list of changes/additions that would be made: • Use a open source CFD code such as Open Foam o This would allow for the use of as many computational nodes as were available. o Perform a length scale analysis on the numerical “wind” samples. . Refine the mesh at the turbine rotor disk such that on the order of 15 radial sections could have individual pressure drop settings. results were limited by time constraints and resources. This way it would not be necessary to use a wall function which poorly approximates the near wall flow. • Record more numerical “wind” samples. With greater computing resources: The mesh density and domain size could be improved and thus free the results of their effect. This could most easily be accomplished by using the “swirl” function in the Fluent Fan setting. o Compare the empty box numerical “wind” generation to the results obtained by Moeng and Sullivan [20]. and compare this to wind data. If further time was available. o Generate “wind” for thermally stable atmospheric conditions.

.105 • Compare LES results to multiple time step RANS (URANS). and include the kω (better for wall boundary conditions.) closure technique as well as the k-ε.

fluentusers. Univ. 6. of Nottingham. 5. Schepers. Cabezon. p. Wilcox...C.106 7. G... R. 298. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. B. Pryor. CFD Modeling of Wind Flow Over Terrain. Hegberg. References 1. 1993: DCW Industries. 8. M.E. W. K.. Mogensen. Politis (2008) UPWIND: Wake measurements used in the model evaluation. Turbulence. Jørgensen. 2004: Oxford University Press. 2004.com/fluent6326/doc/ori/index. [cited. K. 7. S. Barthelmie. 2004. Rados. Hargreaves. W. Fluent. Hansen. Fluent Users Guide.. Magnusson. P.. 36 4. 21.. 7(3): p. S. H. 2000: Cambridge University Press. Available from: http://www.. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. On the use of the k–e model in commercial CFD software to model the neutral atmospheric boundary layer. ENDOW (Efficient Development of Offshore Wind Farms): Modeling wake and boundary layer interactions. Lange. UPWIND Volume. T. Davidson.. R. 9. Folkerts.. Fluent Tutorials (online help). Vølund. Wind Energy.htm. 95(95): p. Schlez. Barthelmie. 2.. L. Turbulent Flows. Stangroom.L. Pope.. Efficient development of offshore windfarms (ENDOW): Final report to the European Commission. An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Fluent UDF Manual]. Bergström. S. 3. 2006. 460. Neckelmann. 657. et al. .. 2003: p. 30. 1st ed.. H. Barthelmie.. in Mechanical Engineering... Fluent Tutorial. 15. 1 ed. G.J.

2007. Larsen. 2001.. 113. Patton. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 75: The Technical University of Denmark.N. ENDOW: Validation and improvement of ECN’s wake model. Schepers. Frandsen. Crasto. S. Schepers. 9. 577.. 115(5-17): p. Guide for the Verification and Validation of CFD Simulations. 25(5): p.107 10. 2007. p. Mcgowan. Numerical Simulations of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer. Ltd. Gryning. 9. Barthelmie. R. J. 2002. p. Editor. 122. K. J. Wind Energy Explained. Barthelmie. Manwell.. 16. 2005: John Wiley & Sons...and subgrid-scale energy within a large-eddy simulation. p. 1998. 13. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. in Science of Making Torque from Wind. The wind profile up to 300 meters over flat terrain. 18.G. Schlez. Canopy element influences on resolved. B. Rados.L. 195. Laboratories. 12. 2002. Batchvarova. Hansen. Wind Engineering. 11. Modeling and measurements of wakes in large wind farms.. 15. Università degli Studi di Cagliari. . Oberkampf. 17. in Science of Making Torque from Wind. p. in AIAA. 2003: p. 29. 9. and Rogers. 2007. p. T... 14. W. 13. Large off-shore windfarms: linking wake models with atmospheric boundary layer models. Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics. . S.

19.

108 Buhl, M. NWTC Design Codes/ WT_Perf. Last modified 15-November2006 [cited; WT_Perf uses blade-element momentum theory to predict the performance of wind turbines. It is a descendent of the PROP code originally developed by Oregon State University. Over the intervening years, many people from many organizations put their marks on the code. More recently, the staff at the NWTC rewrote the program, modernized it, and added new functionality and algorithms.]. Available from: http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/simulators/wtperf/.

20.

**Moeng and Sullivan, A comparison of Shear and Buoyancy Driven
**

Planetary BL Flows. American Meteorological Society, 1994: p. 24.

109

**8. Appendices Appendix A: CFD Files names reference
**

A9: empty domain used for generating NEUTRAL numerical “wind” A9b: empty domain used for generating NEUTRAL numerical “wind”(data not used) A10: domain used for generating UNSTABLE numerical “wind” Bob: Coarse mesh used for development of UDF and “execute command” tools B4: single turbine domain, used for technique development B6: 2 turbine domain, 9D spacing, neutral atmospheric conditions B6u: 2 turbine domain, 9D spacing, unstable atmospheric conditions B7: 2 turbine domain, 11D spacing, neutral atmospheric conditions B7u: 2 turbine domain, 11D spacing, unstable atmospheric conditions B8: 2 turbine domain, 13D spacing, neutral atmospheric conditions B8u: 2 turbine domain, 13D spacing, unstable atmospheric conditions B11: three turbine domain, initial runs only B15 a,b,c,d: 2 turbine domain used for mesh refinement B16 and B17: used in comparison to B15 for downstream of 2nd turbine domain length verification B18 B19 B20: used in comparison with B15 for domain height verification B21 B22 B23: used in comparison with B15 for domain width verification B24 a,b,c,d,e,f: used to compare boundary conditions and LES models B24 g: 2 turbine domain, 7D spacing, neutral atmospheric conditions B24 h: 2 turbine domain, 7D spacing, unstable atmospheric conditions B25a: 2 turbine domain, 9D spacing, neutral atmospheric conditions B25b: 2 turbine domain, 9D spacing, unstable atmospheric conditions B26a: 2 turbine domain, 11D spacing, neutral atmospheric conditions B26b: 2 turbine domain, 11D spacing, unstable atmospheric conditions

110

Appendix B:

Details of the meshes used in this experiment: The B24 mesh has 7D turbine spacing. The only difference with B25 and B26 is their 9D and 11D turbine spacing, respectively. The spacing of course effects the total element count.

DESCRIPTION rotor diameter: [m] hub height: [m] domain width [D] domain height [D] turbine spacing [D] domain length down stream of T2 [D] domain length UP stream of T1 [D] GENERAL cell spacing: [m] Vertical cell spacing in TOP layer [m] 1st vertical cell height [m] ASPECT ratio: BL growth rate BL # of cells BL top cell size[m] Turbine hemisphere interval count Mid box Y-dir spacing Mid box Z-dir spacing Mid box X-dir spacing turbine cylinder thickness [m] turbine cylinder x dir count TOTAL elements Turbine Δp outer coef. to U2 Turbine Δp mid coef. to U2 Turbine Δp inner coef. to U2 Turbine Δp hub coef. to U2 Top BC Ground/Sea BC side BC B24 80 70 7 (560m) 5.5 (440m) 7 3 3 15 15 2.7 3.7 1.2 5 6.72 17 10 10 6 16 3 153,107 -0.419 -0.634 -0.463 -1.0 wall, τ = -.1 Pa, T=298K wall, τ = 0.005 Pa, T=322K Periodic, 0Pa press gradient

C1: RANS neutral settings .111 Appendix C: Fluent Settings C1: RANS neutral settings C2: RANS – differences for unstable (including temperature effects) settings C3: LES neutral settings C4: LES – differences for unstable App.

The extension is changed to “. • The data was laid out in excel. • See Appendix J for format details. then copied to a text file. that then will populate the drop down boxes in the boundary condition assignments.112 • The inlet velocity profile was created from the power law profile. • Use Define/Profile to read in the values.prof” so as to be recognized by Fluent. .

113 .

114 Fan BC settings for all runs: RANS & LES Inner (radius) Turbine setting Mid (radius) Turbine setting Outer (radius) Turbine setting Turbine Hub setting .

C2: RANS – differences for unstable (including temperature effects) settings .115 App.

116 .

117 .

118 App. C3: LES neutral settings Turbine settings are the same as those for RANS .

119 .

120 .

121 .

C4: LES – differences for unstable .122 App.

123 .

124 .

125 .

10 /solve/dual-time-iterate 9000 20 /wc B4-finish66 /wd B4-finish66 /exit NOTE: For running on multiple nodes: The UDFs MUST be compiled and loaded on all the nodes. saving the results.jou” • Must be no spaces at end of line (these are interpreted as “enter”) • Journal files can also be used as “macros” as they can also record keystrokes and mouse clicks Example file for compiling a UDF. . . and then running in batch mode. On super01.c .e.cas and B4. /define/user-defined/compiled-functions/load libudf_ccc /rc B4 /rd B4 /solve/set/time-step 0. the commands must be in the journal files.10 is the size of the time step • 9000 is the number of times steps to be run • 20 is the maximum number of iterations per time step before moving on to the next time step • “wc” means write case file • “wd” means write data file /define/user-defined/compiled-functions/compile libudf_ccc yes B4-ccc. loading it. • Journal files have the extension “. and exiting: In this example: • B4-ccc. i.dat are the names of the Fluent files • “rc” means read case file • “rd” means read data file • 0. and files can be corrupted. should be compiled each run. then doing an unsteady (LES) run. Can not run the graphical version(on only one node) compile there.126 Appendix D: How to use Batch mode in Fluent Fluent uses journal files that are accessed through the File/read menu in the GUI.c is the name of the UDF • The library created here is libudf_ccc • The 1st line compiles the UDF. the 2nd loads it • A comma means “accept default input” • B4.

3. • NOTE: if the files are created on a windows machine.B26-b.127 Appendix E: How to do runs on NREL’s super01 • Create a journal file as detailed in Appendix D • Log onto lester • Log onto super01: “ssh –Y super01” the “-Y” means graphical mode.edu #PBS -m abe #PBS -o pbs.out #PBS -e pbs. it is necessary to use the command “dos2unix _____” to convert the file to unix format.fluentpar=3 #specify the number of nodes to use(this is max at present) #PBS -l walltime=48:00:00 #specify time until job is killed (48hrs is max) #your contact info #PBS -M peter.wolton@colorado.3. • • To launch Fluent in graphical mode: o Have Exceed 3D running on PC o Log onto super01 o “module load fluent/6.pbs file: o No spaces at ends of line ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` #!/bin/bash --login #PBS -N fluent-B26-b #PBS -q Fluent #PBS -l ncpus=6. o “module load intel” This load the C compiler to fun the UDF’s o “fluent 3d” After a few seconds the unix version of the Fluent GUI will pop up • To launch Fluent in BATCH mode: o A “. graphical operations can be performed. or the UDF will not function.26” it is important to specify the same version of Fluent as is being used on the local PC. and thus once Exceed 3D is running on the local PC.26 cd $PBS_O_WORKDIR .err #specify the name of the file you want written if there is an error module load intel module load fluent/6.pbs” file must be created that is submitted in the job que using “qsub xxx.pbs” o “qstat” lists the jobs that are currently running • Example of a .B26-b.

edu/itcsdocs/r1159/ o o o o o o o o o Zip and unzip works on super01 with files created in windows dir OR ls to list files in directory rm yyy. any subdirectories. BATCHING: qstat to see list of jobs (and their numbers) qdel 222222 to remove job from list (22222 is the number seen when qstat command is used) /usr/local/bin/lmstat what licenses are checked out and available o To Copy files from lester to super01 and vise versa: “scp B4---* lester:” where “*” means any possible value “scp B4---* super01:” MUST have the colon . directories.jou -psgimpi >& B26-b-out.txt is the file where all the information that is usually written to the GUI is recorded.txt `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` o B26-b.umich.xxx to delete a file rm zin-* removes all files starting with zinrm -r names Remove files. and recursively. • UNIX commands: o This web site has a great list of unix commands: http://www.jou is the journal file that will be called o B26-b-out.itd. rmdir directory Remove directory (directory must be empty).128 fluent 3d -g -t$FLUENT_CPUS -i B26-b.

h" int minFiles = 1000.udfccc)..prof • READ profiles into new domain: o Create a UDF that counts the time steps This must be written in C# and saved as a “.pro-5650.129 Appendix F: Details of code for recording and reading profile files every time step in Fluent.} else {udfccc=udfccc + 1. if (udfccc > maxFiles) {udfccc = minFiles. /* starting number of Profile files*/ int maxFiles = 3900. • Fluent calls a set up where information is passed back and forth between UDF’s and the fluent software “scheming” • WRITE profiles: o Once appropriate “wind” conditions have been created.c” file Microsoft Visual Studio was used for this project I used “ccc” as my counter variable `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` /******************************************************************* UDF for advancing "ccc" each time step *******************************************************************/ #include "udf.prof …….: pro-1000.prof (front) x-velocity yvelocity z-velocity temperature sgs-kinetic-energy” o Rename files to something easy to work with i.e.} RP_Set_Integer("ccc". } `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` o Compile and load the UDF (called it “libudf_ccc”) o Create the variable ccc in the GUI: “(if (not (rp-var-object 'ccc))(rp-vardefine 'ccc 1001 'integer #f))” . /* ending number minus 1 of Profile files*/ DEFINE_ON_DEMAND(ts_counter) /*must use underscore and not dash in name*/ { int udfccc=RP_Get_Integer("ccc"). and a time step has been chosed for both the file to be recorded and the file that will read the profiles: o In the Solve/Execute commands box: o Enable 1 command o Set to every 1 time step o Enter command: “file/write-profile 33Profile-%t.

use right click – p. make sure that the GUI output indicated that it was able to read the file o NOTE: profile files must be in same directory as case and data files using the above commands . other wise a space is added before the command that must be manually removed o Set the value of ccc in the GUI: “(rpsetvar 'ccc 1002)” o Retrieve the value of ccc in the GUI: “(rpgetvar 'ccc)” o Enter commands read the profile files in Solve/Execute commands(every 1 time step) Note that in this case my files were named zin-1000.prof etc: (define ttt "/file/read-profile/") (define tm "zin-") (set! tm (string-append tm (number->string (rpgetvar'ccc)))) (define bbb "") (set! bbb (string-append ttt tm)) (ti-menu-load-string bbb) (models-changed) define/user-defined/execute-on-demand "ts_counter::libudf_ccc" (%rpgetvar 'ccc) o Run Fluent.prof……zin2200.130 o NOTE: when pasting into the GUI.

t) { C_CENTROID(x.t).d) { /* loop over all cells */ begin_c_loop_all(c. /* define y_velocity */ } end_c_loop_all(c. /* Get the domain using Fluent utility */ /* loop over all cell threads in the domain thread_loop_c(t. v = C_V(c. real v.h" /*MUST have variable defns OUTSIDE function called by Fluent */ real xx.t) } } .0. xx = x[0].t) = -v/scale. real xbound = 350. /*bound for modification*/ DEFINE_ON_DEMAND(V_reverse) { Domain *d. Thread *t.131 Appendix G: Details of other UDF’s /******************************************************************* UDF for x < xbound reverse Uy and divide by scale(minimize Uy) *******************************************************************/ #include "udf. d = Get_Domain(1). real scale = 2. /* declare domain pointer since it is not passed as an argument to the DEFINE macro */ cell_t c. real x[ND_ND]. */ /* record y_velocity*/ if (xx < xbound) C_V(c.c.t).

z = x[2].t)= Tg-b*a. Thread *t.h" /*MUST have variable defns OUTSIDE function called by real a. /* T profile depends of real Tg = 272. real x[ND_ND]. C_T(k.400.0.alpha). /* declare domain pointer since it is not passed as an argument to the DEFINE macro */ cell_t k.k. d = Get_Domain(1). /* Get the domain using Fluent utility */ /* loop over all cell threads in the domain thread_loop_c(t. Fluent */ these inputs*/ inputs*/ inputs*/ DEFINE_ON_DEMAND(T_stable_Domn) { Domain *d. /* T profile depends of these real z.t) { C_CENTROID(x.d) { /* loop over all cells */ begin_c_loop_all(k.132 /****************************************************************** UDF for applying STABLE temp profile to entire domain ******************************************************************/ #include "udf.t) } } . real alpha = 0.362. /* T profile depends of these real b = -2. a = pow(z. */ /*set temperature*/ } end_c_loop_all(k.t).

alpha).0..t) { C_CENTROID(x. /* Get the domain using Fluent utility */ /* loop over all cell threads in the domain thread_loop_c(t. z = x[2]. if (z <= zFree) C_U(c.09745. real b. real z. Thread *t. /* no "double" needed C_V(c.c.t). real x[ND_ND].0. C_W(c. d = Get_Domain(1). */ */ */ /* define y_vel profile v=0 /* define z_vel profile w=0 /* u power law profile */ } end_c_loop_all(c.t)=0. real ufree = 8. b = pow(a. a = z / zr. real u_r=7.75. else C_U(c.h" /*MUST have variable defns OUTSIDE function called by Fluent */ real a.t)=0.133 /****************************************************************** UDF for initializing flow field velocity *******************************************************************/ #include "udf.d) { */ /* loop over all cells */ begin_c_loop_all(c. real alpha = 0. /* declare domain pointer since it is not passed as an argument to the DEFINE macro */ cell_t c. real zr = 75. real zFree = 755.t) } } .t) = ufree.0..t)= u_r*b. DEFINE_ON_DEMAND(Dom_Wind_profile) { Domain *d.

if (udfccc > maxFiles) {udfccc = minFiles.134 /**************************************************************** UDF for advancing "ccc" each time step ******************************************************************/ #include "udf. int maxFiles = 3900. } .} RP_Set_Integer("ccc".h" int minFiles = 1000.udfccc).} else {udfccc=udfccc + 1. /* starting number of Profile files*/ /* ending number minus 1 of Profile files*/ DEFINE_ON_DEMAND(ts_counter) /*must use underscore and not dash in name*/ { int udfccc=RP_Get_Integer("ccc").

b = 6.UNSTABLE *****************************************************************/ #include "udf.0.t.i) { real x[ND_ND]. /* variable declarations */ face_t f.t) { F_CENTROID(x. alpha = 0. a = pow(z. temperature if use face macro */ /*F_T(f.alpha).t).i) = Tg-b*a.f. z = x[2].t) } end_f_loop(f. begin_f_loop(f.211.h" /*MUST have variable defns OUTSIDE function called by Fluent */ real real real real real a. /* T profile depends on these values*/ /* T profile depends on these values */ /* T profile depends on these values */ DEFINE_PROFILE(T_UNS_prof. F_PROFILE(f. z.t) } .t.135 /***************************************************************** UDF for INLET flow field TEMPERATURE . Tg = 322.9.

translational) [yes] n o Create periodic zones? [yes] yes `````````````````````````````````````` Appendix H: How to institute the periodic boundary conditions in Fluent . `````````````````````````````````````` • GUI: /grid/modify-zones> mp o Periodic zone [()] 1 o Shadow zone [()] 4 o Rotational periodic? (if no.8.4 has more details • Use GUI: grid/info/zones in order to correlate the zones with the boundaries • In the example below the inlet and outlet were zones number 1 and 4 respectively.136 • Fluent Users Guide Section 6.

rename IGES file to short name. export sketch entities. 186. scale as necessary.doesn't work(Fluent creates more volumes) . set to spatial. and the mesh generation in Gamibt: Solid Works: • Due to size of domain. parametric splines (112). check all clean up boxes • • Before beginning mesh modeling: o connect all verticies o connect all edges o connect all faces o connect all edges o name all faces to be used as boundary conditions o SAVE o EXIT o COPY FILE o Assign all boundary conditions and volume conditions o Create the ground/ocean boundary layer o Mesh the turbines Use Edge meshes & Face meshes. ANSYS Gambit: • Import: . modeling was done at 1/10th scale • Extrude all entities in the same direction • Split circular entities at 45º and at vertical • Export to Gambit: IGES. then volume meshes o Mesh the intermediate boxes o Mesh the structured domain from the ground up o Meshing: when have 1 face connecting to many faces .137 Appendix I: Using Gambit Here are some notes that should be helpful in smoothing the transition from Solid Works to Gambit.

295.0000 599.3990 598.3235238 297. . 2. in this case z. If two dimensions were required.8018 1.0250476 ) Note that it is only necessary to define the coordinates that the parameter is varying with.3279048 .9660476 295.600601 0 ) (T-uns 297.3263333 297.325 297.0052381 296. .9855714 296. . .7990 .2012 0. then the code would be “((T-UNS-prof mesh 2 1000)” and the list of x or y coordinate would precede the z coordinates. “1000” in this case refers to the number of data points.138 Appendix J: Point profile format for Fluent ((T-UNS-prof mesh 1 1000) (z 600.4024 1. .