Analysis and Modifications of Turbulence Models for Wind Turbine Wake Simulations in Atmospheric Boundary Layers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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, namely the k–ε, k–ω, SSTk–ω, and Reynolds stress models (RSM), on the results of CFD wind turbine simulations. Their influence was evaluated by comparing the CFD results with the publicly available experimental measurements of the velocity field and turbulence quantities from the Sexbierum and Nibe wind farms. Consistent turbulence model constants were proposed for atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) and wake flows according to previous literature and appropriate experimental observations, and 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 and turbulence quantities in the wind turbine wakes, whereas the simulations using the shear-stress transport (SST) k–ω and RSMs could accurately match the experimental data. 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it