| one publication added to basket [361387] | Comparison of large eddy simulations against measurements from the Lillgrund offshore wind farm
Sood, I.; Simon, E.; Vitsas, A.; Blockmans, B.; Larsen, G.C.; Meyers, J. (2022). Comparison of large eddy simulations against measurements from the Lillgrund offshore wind farm. Wind Energy Science 7(6): 2469-2489. https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2469-2022 In: Wind Energy Science. Copernicus Publications: Germany. ISSN 2366-7443; e-ISSN 2366-7451, more |   |
| Authors | | Top | | - Blockmans, B., more
- Larsen, G.C.
- Meyers, J., more
| |
| Abstract | Numerical simulation tools such as large eddy simulations (LESs) have been extensively used in recent years to simulate and analyze turbine–wake interactions within large wind farms. However, to ensure the reliability of the performance and accuracy of such numerical solvers, validation against field measurements is essential. To this end, a measurement campaign is carried out at the Lillgrund offshore wind farm to gather data for the validation of an in-house LES solver. Flow field data are collected from the farm using three long-range WindScanners, along with turbine performance and load measurements from individual turbines. Turbulent inflow conditions are reconstructed from an existing precursor database using a scaling-and-shifting approach in an optimization framework, proposed so that the generated inflow statistics match the measurements. Thus, five different simulation cases are setup, corresponding to five different inflow conditions at the Lillgrund wind farm. Operation of the 48 Siemens 2.3 MW turbines from the Lillgrund wind farm is parameterized in the flow domain using an aeroelastic actuator sector model (AASM). Time-series turbine performance metrics from the simulated cases are compared against field measurements to evaluate the accuracy of the optimization framework, turbine model, and flow solver. In general, results from the numerical solver exhibited a good comparison in terms of the trends in power production, turbine loading, and wake recovery. For four out of the five simulated cases, the total wind farm power error was found to be below 5 %. However, when comparing individual turbine power production, statistical significant errors were observed for 16 % to 84 % of the turbines across the simulated cases, with larger errors being associated with wind directions resulting in configurations with aligned turbines. While the compared flapwise loads in general show a reasonable agreement, errors greater than 100 % were also present in some cases. Larger errors in the wake recovery in the far wake region behind the lidar installed turbines were also observed. An analysis of the observed errors reveals the need for an improved controller implementation, improvement in representing meso-scale effects, and possibly a finer simulation grid for capturing the smaller scales of wake turbulence. |
|
