Evaluating the accuracy of RANS wind flow modeling and its impact on capacity factor for moderately complex forested terrain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The growth of onshore wind energy into the second largest renewable energy source has depended on overcoming many technological challenges. One of the main research priorities has been minimizing the uncertainty associated with wind energy yield calculations. The success of these calculations strongly depends on accurate wind resource assessment mainly done with wind speed measurements. Notwithstanding, a lack of measurement data justifies the use of computational modeling with promising results. But significant modeling challenges remain when analyzing turbulence over forested complex sites. These challenges are considered in this work with the main objective of evaluating the uncertainty in the wind flow predictions over moderately complex forested terrain and its impact on capacity factor, using the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations coupled with a modified k-ε turbulence closure in the open-source software OpenFOAM v.2.4.0. \n \nWith the effects of complex topography implicitly captured in the RANS equations, the effects of the forest are explicitly calculated with two models: a displacement height model, and a canopy model that estimates the pressure loss due to the forest through analogy with porous media. To properly simulate the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL), the specific boundary conditions that rely on the law of the wall are implemented based on the recommendations of Richards and Hoxey, and Hargreaves and Wright. To validate the canopy model, the case of a fully-developed wind flow within and above a horizontally homogeneous black spruce forest is reproduced. Furthermore, two practical limitations are considered: 1) the physical foliage parameters may not be accessible for all type of forests; therefore, a generic leaf area density (α) distribution that is in agreement with the published results is tested; and 2) the published case limits its use to cyclic boundary conditions which are not practical for real site cases. Therefore, for cases without cyclic boundary conditions, two sensitivity analyses on the friction velocity u∗ and roughness length at the inlet z0inlet are tested. Different values of either of them give no significant difference in the vicinity of the forest, but they do at higher altitudes approaching the top boundary. This highlights the importance of imposing a proper fully-developed flow at the inlet condition. \n \nFour model cases are calculated for a site located in Quebec, Canada: A) terrain only, B) displacement height, C) canopy model with a uniform forest, and D) canopy model with the real forest distribution. The results are compared in terms of speed-up factors S (normalized velocities) with two years of measurement data from EDF-EN. Overall, the canopy model provides a better agreement with the mean statistical results than the other models. And where the terrain is densely forested, the assumption of a constant forest height delivers promising results. Finally, it is shown that the uncertainty in the energy calculation in terms of capacity factor CF is a non-linear function of the uncertainty in S. In this case, the 2.76% uncertainty in speed-up factor associated with the real forest distribution model leads to an uncertainty in the energy calculation of just 5.76%.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».