results of the integration of atmospheric stability in wind power assessment through cfd modeling
DESCRIPTION
Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling. Speaker: Olivier TEXIER (Maia Eolis) Co-authors: Céline BEZAULT, Jean-Claude Houbart (Meteodyn) Nicolas GIRARD, Stéphanie PHAM (Maia Eolis). With the support of the ADEME, - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling
Speaker: Olivier TEXIER (Maia Eolis)
Co-authors:
Céline BEZAULT, Jean-Claude Houbart (Meteodyn)
Nicolas GIRARD, Stéphanie PHAM (Maia Eolis)
With the support of the ADEME, French Environment and Energy Management Agency
![Page 2: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Starting Point
The main factors impacting wind flows are:the orography, the roughness and the thermal structure of the atmosphere.
Since wind statistics are based over years, the latter is generally considered as neutral.
Limitations of this Hypothesis:
• On sites with low average wind speed
• On offshore sites
• For short periods
1
![Page 3: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Contents
1. Description of the ProjectObjectivesSummary of the site and instrumentation
2. MethodologyDefinitionCharacterization and classes
3. Results and comparisonStability evaluation methodsProduction
4. Conclusion
2
![Page 4: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1. Description of the project - Objectives
Project carried out by Maia Eolis and Meteodyn with the support of the ADEME (French Environment and Energy Management Agency) from June 2009 to June 2011.
3
Objectives:1. Enhancing the consideration of the atmospheric stability by facilitating its use in wind power
assessment ->presented in this session
2. Developing new MCP method taking into account the atmospheric stability -> under development
3. Enhancing the supervision of the wind farms production -> application of objective 1
4. Developing the Wind power production prediction by including atmospheric stability in CFD modeling -> integrated in Meteodyn Forecast, not presented here
Two sites with two operating wind-farms in the east of France were selected: Vaudeville-le-Haut and Bovée-sur-Barboure.
Only one site was kept for the methodology due to high difficulties for the roughness calibration (see EWEC 2010, session advanced ressource modelling, Integration of atmospheric stability in wind power assessment through CFD modeling, O.Texier, Maia Eolis)
![Page 5: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1. Description of the project - InstrumentationSite description: Bovée-sur-Barboure
4
![Page 6: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
5
1. Description of the project - InstrumentationMast set
![Page 7: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2. MethodologyDefinition of the atmospheric stability
Potential Temperature (θ): The potential temperature of a parcel of fluid at Pressure P is the temperature that the parcel would acquire adiabatically brought to a standard reference pressure P0, usually 1000 millibars
If dθ/dz >0 : vertical moves , structure stable
If dθ/dz =0 : structure neutral
If dθ/dz < 0 : vertical moves , structure unstable.
6
![Page 8: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
2. MethodologyCharacterization of the atmospheric stability
Collection of data and characterization of atmospheric stability:
7
Richardson number Monin-Obukhov length
• Use of the mean gradients (temperature, wind)• Use of the measured vertical turbulent fluxes
Evaluation of typical numbers :
Classification of data in different stability classes : Pasquill, Turner classes
Examination of fluctuations : Garatt, Mahrt relations
Garatt: Fluctuation of the vertical component of the wind speed using the standard deviation Marhrt: Fluctuation of the horizontal component of the wind speed using the standard deviation
![Page 9: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
2. MethodologyStability classes (1/2)
Class Stratification characterization Richardson number(Ri)A Very unstable <=-10B Unstable -10<Ri<=-2.5C Slightly unstable -2.5<Ri<=-0.6D Neutral -0.06<Ri<=0.2E Slightly stable 0.2<=Ri<=1F Stable 1<Ri<=3G Very stable Ri>3
Wind speed(10m)
DAYDirect Solar Radiation W/m2 NIGHT
m/sRS≥ 600 (High Radiation)
300<RS<600 (Moderated Radiation)
RS≤300(Low Radiation)
Cloudy / Very cloudy sky(cov.>4/8)
Clear / partly cloudy sky (cov.≤4/8)
<2 A A-B B F F2-3 A-B B C E F3-5 B B-C C D E5-6 C C-D D D D>6 C D D D D
Class Stratification characterization
A Very unstable
B Unstable
C Slightly unstable
D Neutral
E Stable
F Very stable
Pasquill classification: 6 stability classes from unstable to stable (A to F) . Use the radiation and cloud cover on a meteorological station completed by the wind speed measurement
• Richardson number
8
![Page 10: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Wind-speed
Net Radiation Index
DAY Night
m/s 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -20-0.7 A A B C D F G
0.8-1.8 A B B C D F G1.9-2.8 A B C D D E F2.9-3.3 B B C D D E F3.4-3.8 B B C D D D E3.9-4.8 B C C D D D E4.9-5.4 C C D D D D E5.5-5.9 C C D D D D D
>=6 C D D D D D D
2. MethodologyStability classes (2/2)
Sun Postion(°) Insolation Value of te radiation
Index « IN »
60<Θ Forte 4
35< Θ ≤ 60 Moyenne 3
15 < Θ ≤35 Légère 2
Θ ≤15 Faible 1
Class Stratification characterization
A Very unstableB UnstableC Slightly unstableD NeutralE Slightly stableF StableG Very stable
Turner classification: 7 stability classes from stable to unstable (1 to 7). Use of the wind speed and radiation index (cloud cover, sun position).
9 Fluctuation: Vertical speed fluctuation was examined but did not lead to efficient and consistent results
![Page 11: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Wind-speed
Temp. Cloud cover
Solar Radiation
Sun position
Richardson Number
Pasquill classes
Turner classes
Vertical speed fluctuations
3. ResultsSummary
Data collected on site and weather station
Stability is evaluated with several methods.
Data is sorted according to evaluated stability conditions.
10
Method
Variable
Name Methods
M1 Richardson number (10-80m)
M2 Richardson number (10-40m)
M3 Pasquill classes with « Saint Dizier » weather station
M4Pasquill classes with « Nancy Ochey » weather station
M5 Turner classes with « Saint Dizier » weather station
M6 Turner classes with « Nancy Ochey » weather station
![Page 12: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
3. ResultsComparison of the methods
11
Percentage of coherence between M1 and others methods
A + B C D E F+G0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Stability classes distribution according to the method used
Stability classes
%
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
M1 92.21% 82.08% 84.39% 77.79% 78.68%
Name Methods
M1 Richardson number (10-80m)
M2 Richardson number (10-40m)
M3 Pasquill classes with « Saint Dizier » weather station
M4Pasquill classes with « Nancy Ochey » weather station
M5 Turner classes with « Saint Dizier » weather station
M6 Turner classes with « Nancy Ochey » weather station
![Page 13: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
3. ResultsComparison with production
12
Flow computations with Meteodyn WT :
• Software dedicated to the wind resource assessment
• Adaptation of the stability classes of Meteodyn WT, 0 to 9, with the Pasquill, Turner and Richardson classes
![Page 14: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
3. ResultsComparison with production
BoutonnierReal
ProductionPasquil Turner Richardson
100%
Neutral
Production (kWh) 2 500 075 2 492 685 2 500 082 2 499 473 2 788 893
Difference % of real production 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% -11.6%
Bias % installed capacity 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% -2.2%
NMAE en %
of installed capacity6.6% 6.5% 6.6% 8.5%
NRMSE %
of the installed capacity11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 13.9%
Use of data where: All the turbines are operating All the data are available at the met mast, All the data are available at the weather stations
13
![Page 15: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
3. ResultsComparison with production
BoutonnierReal
ProductionPasquil Turner Richardson
100%
Neutral
Production (kWh) 2 500 075 2 492 685 2 500 082 2 499 473 2 788 893
Difference % of real production 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% -11.6%
Bias % installed capacity 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% -2.2%
NMAE en %
of installed capacity6.6% 6.5% 6.6% 8.5%
NRMSE %
of the installed capacity11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 13.9%
14
Use of data where: All the turbines are operating All the data are available at the met mast, All the data are available at the weather stations
![Page 16: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
4. Conclusion, validation, limitation
Conclusions:
Limitation – Future validations:
• Only one site was available for the validation. It will extend with number of users
• Need of precise temperature sensors for Richardson’s method (0.1°C)
• Other points of uncertainty and way of improvement :
• roughness calibration,
• power conversion with shear and turbulence-> can be now integrated with WT
• …
1. Good consistency of the stability assessment methods and stability distribution
2. High improvement of the wind power production assessment, 2% of the NMAE on BO
3. Soon Integrated in Meteodyn WT
15
![Page 17: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
References
[1] Turner, Journal of Applied Meteorology 1992, Vol 31, p83-91,
[2] Businger et al., 1971, flux profile relationships in the atmospheric boundary layer, J.Atmos.Sci 28 , 181 - 189
[3] H. Madsen. A Protocol for Standardizing the Performance Evaluation of Short-Term Wind Power Prediction Models. Technical University of Danemark, ANEMOS project, 2004
[4] Meteodyn WT technical documentation
16
![Page 18: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Thank you for your attention!
Contacts:
17
![Page 19: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![Page 20: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
MethodologyFlow calculations – CFD tool
meteodyn WT - CFD software dedicated to wind resource assessment
• Complete resolution of the 3D RANS equationsThis CFD model solves the steady isotherm incompressible Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations.
• Advanced modeling of the forest canopySink terms in the momentum conservation equations forthe cells lying inside the forested volumes.
• Takes into account the atmospheric stabilityThe non-linear Reynolds stress tensor is modeled by a one-equation closure scheme : k-L model, developed by Yamada and Arritt, dedicated to atmospheric boundary layer, including several thermal stability conditions.
18
![Page 21: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Integration of stability effect in CFD Meteodyn WT
19
i
j
j
itji x
u
x
uuu ''
TT Lk 2/1
lSL mT232 zll /1/1/1 0
Function of Richardson Number
![Page 22: Results of the Integration of Atmospheric Stability in Wind Power Assessment through CFD Modeling](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56814799550346895db4cd3f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
HV Réelle S1 S2 S4 S7
Production
(kWh) 2 570 478 2 882 588 2 887 843 2 886 239 3 005 441
ecart en % de prod
réelle -11.1% -11.3% -11.3% -16.9%
Biais en % de capacité
installé -2.5% -2.5% -2.5% -3.4%
NMAE en % de
capacité installée 8.0% 7.9% 7.9% 9.9%
NRMSEen % de
capacité installé 12.7% 12.6% 12.6% 15.4%