Analysis of maps of wind resources generated by different numerical tools for a complex terrain
Keywords:Wind energy, Wind flow models, Micro and mesoscale models
The objective of the present work is to compare the characterization of the local scale winds through different techniques of numerical modeling of the atmosphere. We compared four numerical methods to simulate the flow over a complex terrain, namely: CFD RANS with k-ε and k-ω (WindSim), simple mass conserving (WindMap), and refined mesoscale (SiteWind). The mentioned tools are very frequently utilized in the wind industry, and for this reason they have been selected. In this terrain, we had data availability from five meteorological masts during measurement periods that comprised 1.5 to 2 years. To ensure a free tendency analysis, equivalent settings have been used in the microscale models, with steady state, incompressible flow and neutrally stratified atmosphere conditions. Non-negligible differences are found on the spatial distribution of the winds simulated by the different models. Qualitatively, this disagreement hampers the decision-making. The five meteorological masts inside the area are important for adjusting and for checking the model, but they are not enough to categorically claim the superiority of accuracy of one model over the others. Nonetheless, these measurements provide us an indicative that the refined mesoscale model was able to better represent the wind acceleration in the studied region.
ALBANI, A.; IBRAHIM, M. Z. An assessment of wind energy potential for selected sites in Malaysia using feed-in Tariff Criteria. Wind Engineering, v. 38, n. 3, p. 249–259, 2014.
AWS TRUEPOWER. Description of the MesoMap System. Albany, 2012. 4 p. Disponível em: https://www.awstruepower.com/assets/Description-of-the-MesoMap-System1.pdf. Acesso em: 8 out. 2019.
AYOTTE, K. W. Computational modelling for wind energy assessment. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, v. 96, n. 10-11, p. 1571–1590, 2008.
BECHMANN, A.; SØRENSEN, N.N.; BERG, J.; MANN, J.; RÉTHORÉ, P.-E. The Bolund Experiment, part II: blind comparison of microscale flow models. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, v. 141, n. 2, p. 245-271, 2011.
BENGTSSON, J. Turbulence wind flow modeling in complex terrain. 2015. 27 f. Tese (Doutorado em Mecânica Aplicada) - Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.
BITSUAMLAK, G. T.; STATHOPOULOS, T.; ASCE, F.; BÉDARD, C. Numerical evaluation of wind flow over complex terrain: review. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, v. 17, n. 4, p. 135–145, 2004.
BLOCKEN, B.; HOUT, A.; DEKKER, J.; WEILER, O. CFD simulation of wind flow over natural complex terrain: case study with validation by field measurements for Ria de Ferrol, Galicia, Spain. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, v. 147, p. 43–57, 2015.
BROWER, M. C. Validation of the WindMap Program and Development of MesoMap. In: AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION WINDPOWER CONFERENCE, 1999, Washington, DC. Proceedings… [S.l.:s.n], 1999.
CASTELLANI, F.; ASTOLFI, D.; BURLANDO, M.; TERZI, L. Numerical modelling for wind farm operational assessment in complex terrain. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, v. 147, p. 320–329, 2015.
DHUNNY, A. Z.; LOLLCHUND, M. R.; RUGHOOPUTH, S. D. D. V. Wind energy evaluation for a highly complex terrain using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Renewable Energy, v. 101, p. 1-9, 2017.
GASSET, N.; LANDRY, M.; GAGNON, Y. A Comparison of wind flow models for wind resource assessment in wind energy applications. Energies, v. 5, n. 12, p. 4288–4322, 2012.
KUMAR, Y.; RINGENBERG, J.; DEPURU, S. S.; DEVABHAKTUNI, V. K.; LEE, J. W.; NIKOLAIDIS, E.; BRETT, A.; AFJEH, A. Wind energy: trends and enabling technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v. 53, p. 209-224, 2016.
MURTHY, K. S. R.; RAHI, O. P. A comprehensive review of wind resource assessment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v. 72, p. 1320-1342, 2017.
PETERSEN, E. L.; MORTENSEN, N. G.; LANDBERG, L.; HÙJSTRUP, J.; FRANK, H. P. Wind power meteorology. Part I: climate and turbulence. Wind Energy, v. 1, n. 1, p. 2-22, 1998.
RASOULI, A.; HANGAN, H. Microscale computational fluid dynamics simulation for wind mapping over complex topographic terrains. ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, v. 135, n. 4, p. 1-18, 2013.
SHERMAN, C. A. A mass-consistent model for wind fields over complex terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology, v. 17, p. 312-319, 1978.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.