Stereoscopic particle image velocimetry measurements have been executed in a low speed wind tunnel in spanwise planes in the flow past a row of vortex generators, mounted on a bump in a fashion producing counter-rotating vortices. The measurement technique is a powerful tool which provides all three velocity components in the entire measurement plane. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of vortex generators in a turbulent, separating, low Reynolds number (Re = 20 000) boundary layer over a geometry which is generating an adverse pressure gradient similar to the flow past a wind turbine blade. The low Reynolds number is chosen on the basis that this is a fundamental investigation of the structures of the flow induced by vortex generators and the fact that one obtains a thicker boundary layer and larger structures evoked by the actuating devices, which are easier to measure and resolve. The flow behaves as expected, in the sense that the vortices transport high momentum fluid into the boundary layer, making it thinner and more resistant to the adverse pressure gradient with respect to separation. The amount of reversed flow is significantly reduced when vortex generators are applied. The idea behind the experiments is that the results will be offered for validation of modeling of the effect of vortex generators using various numerical codes. Initial large eddy simulation (LES) computations have been performed that show the same qualitative behaviour as in the experiments.

This article describes a study in which modellers were challenged to compute the wind field at a forested site with moderately complex topography. The task was to model the wind field in stationary conditions with neutral stratification by using the wind velocity measured at 100 m at a metmast as the only reference. Detailed maps of terrain elevation and forest densities were provided as the only inputs, derived from airborne laser scans (ALSs) with a resolution of 10 m × 10 m covering an area of 50 km × 50 km, that closely match the actual forest and elevation of the site. The participants were free to apply their best practices for the simulation to decide the size of the domain, the value of the geostrophic wind, and every other modelling parameter. The comparison of the results with the measurements is shown for the vertical profiles of wind speed, shear, wind direction, and turbulent kinetic energy. The ALS-based data resulted in reasonable agreement of the wind profile and turbulence magnitude. The best performance was found to be that of large-eddy simulations using a very large domain. For the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes type of models, the constants in the turbulence closure were shown to have a great influence on the yielded turbulence level, but were of much less importance for the wind speed profile. Of the variety of closure constants used by the participating modellers, the closure constants from Sogachev and Panferov (2006) proved to agree best with the measurements. Particularly the use of C µ ≈ 0.03 in the k-ε model obtained better agreement with turbulence level measurements. All except two participating models used the full detailed ground and forest information to model the forest, which is considered significant progress compared to previous conventional approaches. Overall, the article gives an overview of how well different types of models are able to capture the flow physics at a moderately complex forested site.Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Academy of Wind Energy e.V.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. The flow solvers OpenFOAM and EllipSys3D are compared in the case of neutral atmospheric flow over terrain using the test cases of Askervein and Bolund hills. Both solvers are run using the steady-state Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes k-turbulence model.One of the main modeling differences between the two solvers is the wall-function approach. The Open-FOAM v.1.7.1 uses a Nikuradse's sand roughness model, while EllipSys3D uses a model based on the atmospheric roughness length. It is found that Nikuradse's model introduces an error dependent on the near-wall cell height. To mitigate this error the near-wall cells should be at least 10 times larger than the surface roughness. It is nonetheless possible to obtain very similar results between EllipSys3D and OpenFOAM v.1.7.1. The more recent OpenFOAM v.2.2.1, which includes the atmospheric roughness length wall-function approach, has also been tested and compared to the results of OpenFOAM v.1.7.1 and EllipSys3D.The numerical results obtained using the same wall-modeling approach in both EllipSys3D and Open-FOAM v.2.1.1 proved to be almost identical.Two meshing strategies are investigated using HypGrid and SnappyHexMesh. The performance of Open-FOAM on SnappyHexMesh-based low-aspect-ratio unstructured meshes is found to be almost an order of magnitude faster than on HypGrid-based structured and high-aspect-ratio meshes. However, proper control of boundary layer resolution is found to be very difficult when the SnappyHexMesh tool is utilized for grid generation purposes.The OpenFOAM is generally found to be 2-6 times slower than EllipSys3D in achieving numerical results of the same order of accuracy on similar or identical computational meshes, when utilization of EllipSys3D default grid sequencing procedures is included.