Simulating the Bolund hill flow by CFD approaches

S. Sanquer, C. Bezault, T. Clarenc and J.C. Houbart

www.meteodyn.com
NZWEA 2010 PALMERSTON NORTH
Context and purposes of the Bolund Round robin test
Technical background
Round robin test results
Further works
Purposes of blind comparison (From Ris DTU)
Make the Bolund data visible
Evaluate flow modelling accuracy
1st European Wind Energy Technology Platform.
Challenge : uncertainty less than 3% on wind speed
Method and budget : Computation or experiment
Complexity of terrains : Linear and non-linear resolution
Model : One-equation, two equations, LES
How to choose the good approach devoted to the wind
energy assessment with our own users criteria ?
Model : One-equation, two equations, LES
Results expected : Speed-up or turbulence fitting
Computing time and/or precision (Academic or industrial using)
Interest of the Bolund Round Robin Test
Sharp terrain
Representative topography
Transition of roughness
Roughness well defined
10 masts and two axis
Boundary conditions well defined
Lots of results
Lots of attendees
49 with 49 results sets !
Blind test for competitors
Improvements for everyone
RANS equations (Reynolds Average Navier Stokes)
Stationary and incompressible flow
Mass conservation
Solving the fluid dynamics in meteodyn WT and UrbaWind
0 =

i
i
x
u
Momentum conservation
Reynolds stress tensor evaluated from a one-equation closure scheme.
i
( )
0 ' ' = +
(
(

|
|

\
|

i j i
i
j
j
i
j i j
i j
F u u
x
u
x
u
x x
P
x
u u

|
|

\
|

=
i
j
j
i
t j i
x
u
x
u
u u ' ' T T
L k
2 / 1
=
where

|
|

\
|

=
=
(
(

|
|

\
|

+ =

T T
j
j
i
j
j
i
T k
T
T
j k
T
j
k
j
j
L k
x
U
x
U
x
U
P
k
L
C
with
x
k
x
P
x
k
U
2 / 1
2
,

Turbulence modelling in meteodyn WT and UrbaWind

d L
T
* 5478 . 0 * 41 . 0 =
Where d is the distance to the nearest wall

<


=
=
|
|

\
|
+ =
=
16 , 0 , 085 , 0
16 , 0 ,
) 2231 , 0 )( 1 (
) 2341 , 0 )( 1912 , 0 (
96 , 1
,
1 1 1
2
0
2 3
if
if
if if
if if
m
m T
R si
R si
R R
R R
S
heigth z where
z l l
l S L

meteodyn WT
UrbaWind
meteodyn WT
Mesh : Cartesian structured
horizontale resolution : 3 m
verticale resolution : 0.5 m
Mesh points :1.5 M
Mesh generation duration : 15 minutes
Simulation duration : 24 minutes with1 CPU by direction Simulation duration : 24 minutes with1 CPU by direction
UrbaWind
Mesh : Cartesian unstructured
horizontale resolution around result points : 0.5 m
verticale resolution around result points : 0.1 m
Mesh points :2.2 M
Mesh generation duration : 18 minutes
Simulation duration : 90 minutes with1 CPU by direction Simulation duration : 90 minutes with1 CPU by direction
meteodyn WT and UrbaWind : Speed up factor at h=2 and 5 m (270)
Speeding up and slowing down are stronger for UW than for WT.
Grids close to the ground are differents
meteodyn WT : Speed up factor (239)
The speed-up profil at the mast n1 is well predicted
The speed-up profil at the mast n2 is over predicted f or h<2 m
meteodyn WT : Turbulence (239)
RANS models have some difficulties to well predict the turbulence
peak at the mast 2
Correct at the three others locations
UrbaWind : Speed up factor (239)
The speed-up profil at the masts n1 and n2 are well predicted
UrbaWind : Turbulence (239)
UW predicts better the turbulence peak at the mast 2
UrbaWind : Error at h=5 m => 7% best of the one equation model
Meteodyn WT : Error at h=5 m => 11 % Not so bad for a structured mesh
Few % between the best k- and the best 1 equation model
Lack of comparison on turbulence energy errors
From Ris DTU
Further comparisons :
How long to carry out the computations
How to make the perfect mesh according the convergence and the
accuracy?
Meshing and computing time (order of magnitude)
Further works :
Explanation of the gap between meteodyn WT and UrbaWind
Mesh type grid points Meshing time
Computing time
per direction
Error on speed-up
k-l (WT) Structured 1.5 M 15 min 24 min 11%
k-l (UW) Unstructured 2.2 M 18 min 90 min 7%
k- Unstructured up to 10 M fews hours 5 h 5-10%
LES Unstructured 1 M fews hours 24 h Unknown
The first point of the grid closest to the
ground
=0.5 m, =0.2 m, and =0.1 m
Modification of the wind shear (mast 2)
meteodyn WT and UrbaWind give
roughly the same velocity profiles
15
20
25
30
Z

(
m
)
DZ= 0.5 m
DZ=0.2 m
DZ=0.1 m
Riso
roughly the same velocity profiles
Discrepancies with RANS should be more a question of grid than a
question of models when speed-up is evaluated according the
European plate form challenge
V/Vref (5m) V/Vref (2m) (I-Iref)/Vref (2m)
Riso 1.25 0.92 0.16
WT - =0.5 m 1.15 1.10 0.10
WT - =0.2 m 1.18 1.05 0.13
WT - =0.1 m 1.20 1.06 0.13
0
5
10
0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30
V/Vref
Riso
MERCI BEAUCOUP