Aeroelastic model validation with 8 MW field measurements: Influence of constrained turbulence with focus on power performance

Aeroelastic model simulations are essential for the design of wind turbines. Validation of these models is important to have confidence in the results of the models. It is a challenge to ensure that the input for the simulations, that is the wind field, corresponds as closely as possible to the real...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of physics. Conference series 2022-05, Vol.2265 (3), p.32058
Main Authors: Huhn, Matthias L., Gómez-Mejía, Andrés F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aerodynamics
Aeroelasticity
Physics
Rotor speed
Simulation
Systematic errors
Turbulence models
Wind turbines
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aeroelastic model simulations are essential for the design of wind turbines. Validation of these models is important to have confidence in the results of the models. It is a challenge to ensure that the input for the simulations, that is the wind field, corresponds as closely as possible to the real conditions during the measurement. We present the latest results of a validation campaign at an 8 MW wind turbine. We investigate the appropriateness of TurbSim’s constrained turbulence model TIMESR for model validation and compare the validation results with the Kaimal turbulence model with a focus on power performance. TIMESR wind resulted in a slightly lower power performance in the part-load region than Kaimal wind. In contrast, the rotor speed showed a good agreement with measurements both using TIMESR wind as well as using Kaimal wind. Additionally, the linear regression result implies that the constrained turbulence wind field enables the model to reproduce a specific 10 min measurement. However, up to know the simulations show a consistently lower power in the part load region, which might result from a systematic error in the validation chain.
ISSN:1742-6588
1742-6596
DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/2265/3/032058