Analysis and Modifications of Turbulence Models for Wind Turbine Wake Simulations in Atmospheric Boundary Layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations of wind turbine wakes are strongly influenced by the choice of the turbulence model used to close the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations. A wrong choice can lead to incorrect predictions of the velocity field characterizing the wind turbine wake, and consequently to an incorrect power estimation for wind turbines operating downstream. This study aims to investigate the influence of different turbulence models on the results of CFD wind turbine simulations. In particular, the k–ε, k–ω, SSTk–ω, and Reynolds stress models are used to close the RANS equations and their influence on the CFD simulations is evaluated from the flow field generated downstream a stand-alone wind turbine. The assessment of the turbulence models was conducted by comparing the CFD results with publicly available experimental measurements of the flow field from the Sexbierum wind farm. Consistent turbulence model constants were proposed for atmospheric boundary layer and wake flows according to previous literature and appropriate experimental observations. Modifications of the derived turbulence model constants were also investigated in order to improve agreement with experimental data. The results showed that the simulations using the k–ε and k–ω turbulence models consistently overestimated the velocity in the wind turbine wakes. On the other hand, the simulations using the SSTk–ω and Reynolds stress models could accurately capture the velocity in the wake of the wind turbine. Results also showed that the predictions from the k–ε and k–ω turbulence models could be improved by using the modified set of turbulence coefficients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".