Modelling Issues with Wind Turbine Wake and
Atmospheric Turbulence
P.-E. Réthoré N. N. Sørensen
pire@risoe.dtu.dk nsqr@risoe.dtu.dk andh@risoe.dtu.dk
Wind Energy Division · Risø DTU · Denmark
Abstract
The steady-state CFD turbulence models avail-
able to simulate the atmospheric boundary
layer and wind turbine wake are not perform-
ing satisfyingly compared with measurements.
This paper demonstrates that, in those specific
cases, they operate outside the scope of their
constitutive assumptions. Several correction-
models proposed in the literature are analyzed
and compared with Large Eddy Simulation.
None of them are found to restore the physics
of the problem.
Keywords: Actuator Disc, LES, k -ε, ABL,
Wind Turbine Wake.
1 Introduction
Predicting accurately the flow conditions of a
wind turbine wake opens the possibility to esti-
mate the power performance and fatigue loads
of individual turbines in wind farms. Wind farm
wake modelling has been a prolific area of re-
search for the past four decades [5, 15, 20].
During this time, the size and number of wind
turbines clustered together have kept increas-
ing. This has also yielded an equivalent in-
crease in the financial risks associated to the
wake models uncertainties. As a consequence
there have also been an increase in the re-
search efforts to design more physical wind
farm wake models to address those uncertain-
ties issues.
Fortunately, the computational capacities
have also increased during this time, and it
is now numerically feasible to carry out full
wind farm wake simulations using the cheapest
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) turbu-
lence models (e.g. steady state two-equations
k -* turbulence models such as k -ε [9] and k -
ω [21] using actuator discs (AD)). We stress
here “numerically” as the models proposed in
A. Bechmann
the literature [3, 6, 11, 14] have shown to con-
sistently underestimate the wake deficit down-
stream of single wind turbines in comparison
with measurements. Several modifications to
the turbulence models have been presented to
palliate this problem.
It seems, however, that very few articles
have been focussing on the reason why there
is a problem. El Kasmi and Masson [6] sug-
gested that the dissipation equation could be
unphysical in the region of the wind turbine and
proposed to locally increase the dissipation to
account for “the energy transfer from large-
scale turbulence to small-scale turbulence”.
Similarly, Rados et al. [11] also argued that the
poor results of the original turbulence models
can be justified by “the presence of higher tur-
bulence dissipation rate caused by the W/T tur-
bine and/or the atmospheric stability”. Never-
theless, we show in Section 4.1 that the dis-
sipation rate is not affected in the region sur-
rounding the wind turbine in Large Eddy Simu-
lation (LES).
Réthoré et al. [14] proposed a parallel be-
tween the forest canopy and the wind turbine
wake modelling issues. The wind turbines, in
the same way as trees, would be acting as a
short-circuit of the turbulence cascade by ex-
tracting some of the large-scale fluctuations
and producing small-scale fluctuations. In or-
der to account for this phenomenon they pro-
posed to add two terms in both the k - and ε-
equations. We show in Section 4.1, with the
LES study, that there is indeed a visible re-
duction of the large-scale fluctuations at the
disc region that could justify the use of the sink
term in the k -equation. However, the amplitude
of this phenomenon is not enough to explain
the results obtained by the standard k -ε or k -ω
models.
In order to better understand this problem,
we present in Section 4.2 an analysis of the dif-
ferent constitutive assumptions used to derive
the k -* turbulence models. The study shows
that there is a fundamental issue with the eddy-
viscosity concept (i.e. Boussinesq’s approxi-
mation). Two main assumptions are made: the
velocity conservation and the linearity of the
mean velocity field over the turbulent length-
scale. The first one is shown to be invalid in
the presence of the adverse pressure gradient
induced by the actuator disc, while the second
one is found to be invalid in the whole wake re-
gion up to 7 rotor diameters downstream of the
wind turbine. Both of these assumptions have
the net effect to overestimate the Reynolds-
stresses and are expected to account for a
large part of the problem.
In the light of these findings, we analyze in
Section 4 different turbulence model modifica-
tions introduced in the literature. The results
show that none of the model modifications
considered succeed in restoring the physics
lost through the unrealistic assumptions of the
eddy-viscosity concept.
2 Method
This section introduces the different technical
elements that are needed to obtain the results
presented in Section 3.
2.1 Flow Solver
The flow solver is the multiblock multigrid finite-
volume CFD code EllipSys [10, 18]. The pres-
sure correction method is based on a modified
Rhie-Chow algorithm in order to deal with the
discrete body forces [13].
2.2 Wind Turbine
The wind turbine is modelled as a disc of body
forces (i.e. Actuator Disc). It represents in this
study a “small” rotor diameter (D ≈ 40 m). The
forces are estimated using the local velocities
at the disc using a drag force model:
1
F = − ρACD (U · n)2 , (1)
2
where n is the normal vector to the disc, A
is the cell area, ρ is the density, U is the lo-
cal velocity vector and CD is a vectorial force
coefficient that is function of the position rela-
tive to the center of the disc. The drag force
coefficient is obtained by smearing the blades
forces of a wind turbine (Nortank 500kW) full
rotor CFD over one rotation [22].
The advantage of using this method is that
the force distribution along the disc are rel-
atively physical. There is a reduction of the
forces at the blade roots and tips, and there are
tangential forces that model the wake rotation.
Two types of force loading are considered in
relation with the LES turbulence model. One
where the forces are based on the local disc
velocities, and are changing at every time step
(i.e. unsteady forces), and one where the
forces are constant during the whole simulation
time (i.e. steady forces). The time averaged
forces are intentionally equal in both cases.
2.3 Turbulence
The turbulence models used are the stan-
dard k -ε [9] and an hybrid RANS-LES method
with the inflow turbulence generated through a
cyclic precursor box [1].
The non-standard modifications of k -ε used
are the El Kasmi-Masson model [6], the Wind
Turbine Canopy model [14] and an eddy-
viscosity limiter model, the Realizability model,
that we introduce later in this section.
El Kasmi-Masson model
El Kasmi and Masson [6] proposed an ex-
tended k -ε model based on the same idea of
Chen and Kim [4]. The idea is to add a term
in the turbulence kinetic energy dissipation ε-
equation to enhance the creation of dissipation
proportionally to the production of turbulence
Pτ ,
Pτ2
Sε = Cε4 . (2)
ρk
where Cε4 is a model parameter and k is the
turbulent kinetic energy (TKE).
Wind Turbine Canopy model
Réthoré et al. [14] proposed to use a forest
canopy model similar to Sanz [16]. We extend
here the model to account for the smoothing
feature of the wind turbine induced pressure
gradient (see also [12]).
A sink and a source term are added both in
the k - and ε-equation. They account respec-
tively for the extraction of the large-scale tur-
bulence by the wind turbine (i.e. through the
rapid adaptation of the blade forces to the in-
coming wind fluctuations), and for the produc-
tion of small-scale turbulence induced by the
blade geometry (e.g. blade root and tip trailed
vortices).

Sk =CD βp U 3
 
x − xD
− CD βd U k G (3)
D
and
ε
Sε =CD Cεp βp U 3 Figure 1: Actuator disc & mesh (1 out of 3 cells).
k  
x − xD
− CD Cεd βd U ε G , (4)
D 2.4 Mesh and Boundary conditions
where p indicates a parameter that accounts
The domain is a rectangular cuboid (1200 m
for the production of small-scale turbulence, d
× 600 m × 200 m ). The mesh is horizontally
for the dissipation of large-scale turbulence, x
stretched in order to obtain a regular square
is the vector of the considered position, xD
meshing in a region surrounding the wind tur-
is the vector position of the rotor, and G is a
bine and its wake in order to have 10 cells
smoothing function that accounts for the action
per rotor diameter (∆xi < D/10). In the out-
of the pressure gradient distribution.
flow region, the mesh is stretched out in or-
der to numerically reduce the gradients and en-
Realizability model hance the convergence (Fig.1). It is vertically
stretched in order to obtain a first cell equiva-
We define the Realizability model as follow.
lent to the surface roughness length z0 at the
The concept of realizability of a Reynolds-
wall boundary condition (BC). The mesh is de-
averaged turbulence model is directly de-
composed in blocks of 643 cells. The whole
rived from the relation between the cross-
domain has the dimension of 7 × 5 × 2 blocks
correlations and auto-correlation of the velocity
(448 × 320 × 128 > 18.35M cells).
fluctuations [17]. The realizability of a flow can
The inflow BC are defined as neutrally strat-
be checked using two relations. The Schwartz
ified (i.e. following the log-law). The side BC
inequality imposes a positive normal stress (5)
are set to enforce symmetry. The LES top BC
and the inequality relationship between the off-
is also symmetric, while the k -ε top BC is set
diagonal terms and the diagonal terms (6):
as inlet. The two simulation have therefore not
Rij > 0, when i = j, (5) exactly the same inflow condition. In particu-
lar, the turbulence kinetic energy level at hub
|Rαβ |2 ≤ Rαα Rββ . (6) height is lower in the LES compared to the k -
ε computation. It would, of course, have been
The eddy-viscosity limiter νt,Swz we propose
more appropriate to have exactly the same in-
here is calculated by finding the maximum
flow condition in both cases, this was unfortu-
value that matches the Schwartz inequalities
nately not possible during the time-frame of the
based on the eddy-viscosity expression of the
project. While it is difficult to compare directly
Reynolds-stresses (6). This inequality has two
the turbulence values together, we nonethe-
solutions, where the maximum value is taken,
less believe that we can draw some conclu-
νt,Swz = max(νt,Swz1 , νt,Swz2 ). (7) sions based on the difference in the trends ob-
served in the Results Section.
In the case where both solutions are nega-
The time step is set to ∆t = 0.025 s. The
tive, there are no solution and the normal defi-
solving time of the LES for 9000 iterations (i.e.
nition for the eddy-viscosity is used.
225 s) is about 4 days on 70 CPUs. The
To extend this method, a factor on the
steady-state k -ε simulation takes only a cou-
Schwartz eddy-viscosity can be applied:
  ple of hours to converge to acceptable residu-
k2 als (< 10−6 ).
νet = min Cµ , CSwz νt,Swz , (8)
ε
which gives more control over the region where
2.5 LES Turbulence Scalars
the flow is considered unrealizable. Note that
the model only has a physical basis for the con- In order to compare the steady-state k -ε with
stant CSwz = 1.0. the unsteady LES in term of turbulence, we in-
troduce here different methods to estimate the
Resolved LES eddy-viscosity and Resolved
Reynolds-stresses.
Resolved LES eddy-viscosities
Two definitions are used to estimate the re-
solved LES eddy-viscosity. The first one,
νtLES1 , is based on the k -ε definition,
k2
νtLES1 = CµLES . (9)
ε normalized by the inflow velocity at hub height
where CµLES = 0.03 is the eddy-viscosity con-
stant used for the LES, k is the resolved LES
TKE and ε is the resolved LES dissipation (k
and ε are both found by time series averaging).
The second one, νtLES2 , is based on
the eddy-viscosity concept, using the time-
averaged resolved Reynolds-stresses tensor
u′i u′j directly estimated from the computation
and the mean strain rate tensor S ij .
1 ||R||
νtLES2 = , (10)
2 ||S||
where ||R|| and ||S|| are defined as:
s 2
2 60
||R|| = kδij − u′i u′j , (11)
3
q k-ε: R11
3 Results
3.1 Model Comparison
Fig.2 presents a centerline extraction passing
through the rotor at hub height and at the ra-
dial position y = −0.25D. Three different mod-
els are presented, the El Kasmi-Masson Model
(a), the Realizability Model (b) and the Wind
Turbine Canopy Model (c). For each models
three different graphs present the axial velocity
U /U ∞,H , the TKE normalized by the friction
velocity squared k/u∗2 and the dissipation nor-
malized by the inflow dissipation at hub height
ε/ε∞,H . In each graphs, different parameters
of the models are compared with the standard
k -ε and the unsteady force LES results.
3.2 Normal Reynolds-stress
Fig.3 compares the normal axial Reynolds-
stress of k -ε and LES, which are estimated us-
ing two different methods (14) and (15). The
extraction line passes through hub height (y =
−0.25D).
LES: R11
LES: u′ u′
50
R11 /u∗2 [-]

40
||S|| = S ij S ij . (12)
30
Based on these two definitions, we define
the eddy-viscosity factor Cµ∗ , 20

10
||R|| ε
Cµ∗ = . (13) 0
2||S|| k 2 0 5 10
x-direction x/D [-]
According to the eddy-viscosity concept and
the k -ε assumptions, this factor should be con-
stant. This new definition is therefore used in Figure 3: Normal axial Reynolds-stress compari-
the Discussion Section to assess the regions son.
where the eddy-viscosity assumptions are not
applicable.
3.3 Turbulence Kinetic Energy
Resolved LES Reynolds-stresses
Fig.4 compares the TKE from k -ε with the Re-
We define the Reynolds-stresses either esti- solved TKE of the two LES, with steady and
mated directly by time-averaging of the square unsteady forces. The extraction line passes
of the velocity fluctuations, through hub height (y = −0.25D).

u′i u′j = Ui Uj − U i U j , (14)

3.4 LES Eddy-viscosity Factor
or through the eddy-viscosity concept, using
νtLES1 , Fig.5 shows the contour distribution of the LES
eddy-viscosity factor (13). The horizontal ex-
LES 2 k2 traction plane passes through hub height. The
Rij = kδij − 2CµLES Sij . (15)
3 ε AD position is shown in white.
 LES - Unsteady Forces wind turbine. In the case of the two LES, these
LES - Steady Forces
TKE k/u∗2 [-] 30 structures are not modelled, and it could there-
k-ε - Steady Forces
fore be argued that they should anyway be in-
20 cluded both in the k -ε and the LES.
What is clear, however, from the comparison
10
of the k -ε with the two LES (Fig.4) is that the
0
turbulence short-circuit effect induced by the
0 4 8 12
x-direction x/D [-] wind turbine is only a small fraction of the k -ε
problem. Something else causes k and ε to in-
Figure 4: Turbulence Kinetic Energy k normalized
crease nonphysically even before the flow hits
with the friction velocity.
the wind turbine.

LES Eddy-viscosity factor Cµ [-]

4.2 Eddy-viscosity Concept
y -direction y/D [-]

3 0.1
2 0.08
1
0.06 Most of the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
0
−1
0.04 (RANS) turbulence models rely on the eddy-
−2 0.02
viscosity concept, also known as Boussinesq’s
−3 0
−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
x-direction x/D [-]
10 12 14 approximation. The idea is based on the turbu-
lent transport hypothesis (Fig.6).

Figure 5: Eddy-viscosity factor Cµ∗ (LES).

xp1

xp2
x
4 Discussion
xp3
4.1 Increased dissipation
xp4
Some wake measurement campaigns [7, 19]
have observed that in the close wake region, Figure 6: Turbulence transport hypothesis.
the large-scales of the TKE are reduced com-
pared to the inflow conditions. Following these
Bernard and Wallace [2] identified three
observations, some papers [6, 11] have postu-
major assumptions necessary to obtain the
lated that the dissipation ε-equation is unphys-
Reynolds-stresses of the eddy-viscosity con-
ical in the region surrounding the wind turbine.
cept.
They assumed therefore that the wind turbine
somehow causes an imbalance in the produc- 1. For each flow resolution, the particle at the
tion/dissipation ratio that should be accounted position x, time t is assumed to conserve
for in the dissipation equation by increasing the its velocity during a time τ (i.e. the turbu-
dissipation locally proportionally to the produc- lent time-scale). So that
tion of turbulence.
The LES results presented in Fig.4 show Ui (xp , t − τ ) = Ui (x, t), (16)
that, in agreement with the measurement ob-
servations, the TKE is reduced in the close where xp is the position of the particle at
wake region when the forces are correlated the time t − τ .
with the local velocity (i.e. in the case of the
2. This time τ is large enough so that the
Unsteady Forces LES). However, Fig.2 shows
fluctuation components at the time t − τ
that the dissipation is decreased instead of be-
are uncorrelated with the other fluctuation
ing increased as it was assumed in [6, 11]. The
components at the time t.
dissipation in the El Kasmi-Masson model in-
creases sharply upstream of the wind turbine u′i (xp , t − τ )u′j (x, t) = 0 (17)
in disagreement with the LES results.
According to the wind turbine canopy model,
3. The mean velocity between x and xp can
there should be both a source term and a sink
be assumed to be linear.
term in k - and ε-equation. The source term
would account for the production of small-scale ∂Ui
vortex structure caused by the geometry of the Ui (xp ) = Ui (x) − Lp,j (x), (18)
∂xj
 where Lp,j is the distance that the particle
went through during the time τ (i.e. the
turbulent length-scale).
In order to define the eddy-viscosity concept,
the expression of the fluctuation component is
first expressed as
u′i (x, t) = Ui (x, t) − Ui (x). (19)
Then the expression of the original position
of the particle is added,
 
u′i (x, t) =u′i (xp , t − τ ) + Ui (xp ) − Ui (x)
+ [Ui (x, t) − Ui (xp , t − τ )] . (20)
The first assumption (16) cancels the last
right hand side (RHS) term and the third as-
sumption (18) rewrite the second RHS term
as a velocity gradient term. (20) can then be
rewritten as,
∂Ui
u′i (x, t) = u′i (xp , t − τ ) − Lp,k (x). (21)
∂xk
The Reynolds-stresses (22) are then found
by multiplication of (21) with another local fluc-
tuation component and a time averaging
u′i (x, t)u′j (x, t) = u′j (x, t)u′i (xp , t − τ )
∂Ui
−u′j (x, t)Lp,k ∂x (x).(22)
k
From (22), the second assumption (17) can-
cels the first term of the RHS. The local fluc-
tuation component are assumed to be mainly
correlated with the distance corresponding to
their respective direction (u′j (t)Lp,k 6= 0 only if
j = k ),
∂Ui
u′i u′j = −νt,ij , (23)
∂xj
νt,ij = u′j (x, t)Lp,j . (24)
We find that the first and the third assump-
tions are largely contributing to overestimating
the Reynolds-stresses in the wind turbine re-
gion and its wake region using the k -ε model.
Fig.7 illustrates the error done in the first
eddy-viscosity concept assumption in the wind
turbine adverse pressure gradient field. The
gray isobars surrounding the wind turbine illus-
trate the pressure distribution. The blue line
illustrates the axial velocity along the center-
line passing through the wind turbine at hub
height. It is assumed that there are no pres-
sure forces acting on the flow and that the par-
ticle conserves its velocity between xp and x
(∆U = 0).
x x
p
U(x )
U
p
U(x)
Figure 7: Error in the velocity conservation assump-
tion.
The consequence of this error is visible in
Fig.3. The LES normal axial Reynold-stress
estimated directly by averaging, u′ u′ , shows
that there are very little changes that occurs in
the vicinity of the wind turbine. However, when
estimated using the eddy-viscosity concept,
LES is showing a local increase similar in
the R11
trend to the one observed in k -ε . The action
of the adverse pressure gradient induced by
the wind turbine is neglected in the turbulence
momentum budget. This corresponds to the
third RHS term in (20), which should coun-
terbalance the second RHS and reduce the
amplitude of the axial normal Reynolds-stress.
The error done through the mean velocity lin-
earity assumption (i.e. the third assumption) is
illustrated in Fig.8 at two positions downstream
of the wind turbine. The shear Reynolds-
stress u′ v ′ is related with the difference be-
tween the local velocity U (x) and the velocity
at a distance L. The eddy-viscosity concept
assumes the local mean velocity linearity over
the length-scale, so that U (x + L) − U (x) =
L∂U/∂x. Note that, for the sake of the illustra-
tion, the length L is smaller that the turbulence
length-scale found in the computation. From
this illustration it is clear that when the mean
velocity changes over a distance shorter than
the turbulence length-scale, there is an error
made in the third assumption, which overesti-
mates the Reynolds-stresses. Therefore, even
if the TKE, the dissipation and subsequently
the eddy-viscosity are correctly estimated, the
eddy-viscosity concept still fails to estimate
correctly the Reynolds-stresses in those re-
gions.
This error is visible in Fig.5. If we assume
that LES is producing the correct k and ε and
 20 We would like to stress, however, that the
18 model in this form is not physical anymore.
There is therefore little chances that the
Axial velocity [m/s]
16

14
L∂U/∂x
parameter found by calibrating at a given wind
12
xp condition, or even wind turbine size, would
10 be applicable in another setup. Moreover, the
U(xp)−U(x)
x region of operation of the model extends far
8

6 downstream the wind turbine (>7D), which

L
4
−100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100
makes it impracticable for wind farm computa-
y−direction [m] tion.
(a) Linearity assumption at x = 1D
The limits of the eddy-viscosity concept is a
13 problem that can be found in many different
12
topics of fluid mechanics. Many corrections
xp have been proposed to address this problem
Axial velocity [m/s]

11
L∂U/∂x with more or less success. For airfoil compu-
U(xp)−U(x)
10 x tation, [8] suggests to express the turbulent ki-
9
netic energy production in terms of the vorticity
instead of the strain-rate,
8 L

7
Pk = 2νt Rij Rij , (25)
−100 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100
y−direction [m]

(b) Linearity assumption at x = 7D

where
 
1 ∂Ui ∂Uj
Rij = − . (26)
Figure 8: Error in the linearity assumption. 2 ∂xj ∂xi

This approach is intended to reduce the pro-

duction of turbulence upstream of the airfoil.
if we believe in the eddy-viscosity concept, The idea is that the flow is curl-free in this
then the eddy-viscosity factor as defined in (13) region and should have a very low level of
should be constant. What we see, however, voricity. Similarly, the flow upstream the ac-
is that the Cµ∗ is getting very small in the re- tuator disc is also curl-free. This method
gions of high shear, such as at the wake in- could,therefore, have a positive impact by re-
terface. Consequently, in these regions, the ducing the build-up of turbulent kinetic energy
eddy-viscosity needs to be reduced indepen- upstream the disc (i.e. as seen in Fig.4).
dently from the k and ε in order to obtain the However, it would not address the problem of
correct Reynolds-stress. Reducing the eddy- the Reynolds-stresses definition illustrated in
viscosity by acting on k or ε, as it is done in Fig.3. As Reynolds-stresses are still based on
the El Kasmi-Masson model and the Wind Tur- the eddy-viscosity concept, they would still be
bine Canopy model, might counterbalance lo- too high in comparison with LES.
cally the error made in the eddy-viscosity con- Nonetheless, this study shows that a formu-
cept. This is done, however, at the expense of lation of the Reynolds-stresses based on the
the turbulent scalars. The nonphysical values voricity, instead of the strain-rate, could be a di-
of k and ε are then propagated downstream, rection of future research to overcome the lim-
and can affect the mean velocity recovery com- itation of the eddy-viscosity concept.
pared with LES. This unfortunate effect is ob-
served in the El Kasmi-Masson model (Fig.2a).
The Realizability model satisfies this criteria, 5 Conclusion
as it only acts on the eddy-viscosity. Fig.2b
shows that the model in its physical form (with The main assumptions of the eddy-viscosity
CSwz = 1) does give a relatively better agree- concept, which is the basis of most RANS tur-
ment with LES than the standard k -ε . The bulence models, are found to be invalid in the
results are however far from being satisfying. specific cases of wind turbine wake in atmo-
When using a smaller CSwz parameter, the spheric turbulence. Different corrections that
model seems to give a closer agreement to the aims at improving the k -ε model for these
LES results. cases have been studied.
 The El Kasmi-Masson model and the Wind [11] K. G. Rados, J. M. Prospathopoulos, N. C. Ste-
Turbine Canopy model are found to be acting, fanatos, E. S. Politis, P. K. Chaviaropoulos, and
A. Zervos. CFD modeling issues of wind turbine
in theory, on a small part of the k -ε problem, wakes under stable atmospheric conditions. EWEC
the turbulence short-circuiting phenomenon. Marseille, 2009.
While the Realizability model is found to per-
[12] P.-E. Réthoré. Wind Turbine Wake in Atmospheric
form better, it is not a physical model, and is
Turbulence. PhD thesis, Aalborg University - Risø
inappropriate for wind farm computation. DTU, October 2009. [PDF].
In order to model correctly the atmospheric
[13] P.-E. Réthoré and N. N. Sørensen. Actuator disc
turbulence together with the wind turbine wake,
model using a modified Rhie-Chow/SIMPLE pressure
a more sophisticated turbulence model is correction algorithm. EWEC Brussels, 2008. [PDF].
needed. While a Reynolds-stresses trans-
[14] P.-E. Réthoré, N. N. Sørensen, A. Bechmann, and
port model can seem to be appropriate at the
F. Zahle. Study of the atmospheric wake turbulence of
momentum level, it also relies on the eddy- a CFD actuator disc model. EWEC Marseille, 2009.
viscosity concept at higher order, which could [PDF].
potentially lead to similar shortcomings as the
[15] B. Sanderse. Aerodynamics of wind turbine wakes
one experienced with k -ε . - literature review. Technical Report ECN-E–09-016,
Another direction to look at could be towards ECN, Netherlands, 2009.
vorticity based eddy-viscosity concept.
[16] C. Sanz. A note on k -ε modelling of vegetation
canopy air-flows. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 108:
191–197, 2003.
Acknowledgement
[17] U. Schumann. Realizability of Reynolds-stress tur-
bulence models. The Physics of Fluids, 20(5), May
This work has been funded by the Danish 1977.
P.S.O. Research Project "Bottlenecks".
[18] N. N. Sørensen. General Purpose Flow Solver Ap-
plied to Flow over Hills. PhD thesis, Technical Univer-
References sity of Denmark, 1994.

[19] G. J. Taylor. Wake measurements on the Nibe wind

[1] A. Bechmann and N. N. Sørensen. Hybrid
turbines in Denmark. Technical Report ETSU WN
RANS/LES method for wind flow over complex ter-
5020, National Power, 1990.
rain. Wind Energy, 2009.
[20] L. J. Vermeer, J. N. Sørensen, and A. Crespo. Wind
[2] P. S. Bernard and M. Wallace. Turbulent Flow. Wiley,
turbine wake aerodynamics. Progress in Aerospace
2002.
Sciences, 39:467–510, 2003.
[3] D. Cabezon, J. Sanz, I. Marti, and A. Crespo.
CFD modeling of the interaction between the surface [21] D. C. Wilcox. Turbulence modeling in CFD. DCW,
boundary layer and rotor wake. comparison of results 2006.
obtained with different turbulence models and mesh
[22] F. Zahle and N. N. Sørensen. Characterisation of the
strategies. EWEC Marseille, 2009.
unsteady flow in the nacelle region of a modern wind
[4] Y. S. Chen and S. W. Kim. Computation of turbu- turbine. EWEC Marseille, 2009.
lent flow using an extended turbulence closure model.
Technical Report NASA CR-179204, NASA Contrac-
tor Report, 1987.

[5] A. Crespo, J. Hernandez, and S. T. Frandsen. Sur-

vey of modelling methods for wind turbine wakes and
wind farms. Wind Energy, (2):1–24, 1999.

[6] A. El Kasmi and C. Masson. An extended k -ε model

for turbulent flow through horizontal-axis wind tur-
bines. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 96:103–122, 2008.

[7] J. Højstrup and M. S. Courtney. Turbulence in wind

farms. EWEC Travemunde, pages 383–386, 1993.

[8] G. Jin and M. Braza. Two-equation turbulence model

for unsteady separated flows around airfoils. AIAA J.,
32(11), November 1994.

[9] B. E. Launder and D. B. Spalding. Mathematical mod-

els of turbulence. Academic Press, London, 1972.

[10] J. A. Michelsen. Basis3D - a platform for development

of multiblock PDE solvers. Technical report AFM 92-
05, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 1992.
 Cε4 = 0.001
1

U/U ∞,H [-]

Cε4 = 0.005
0.8 Cε4 = 0.01
Std k -ε
0.6
LES
0.4
40

k/u∗2 [-]
30

20

10

0
50
ε/ε∞,H [-]

40
30
20
10
0
2
22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x-direction x/D [-]
(a) El Kasmi-Masson Model

CSwz = 1.0
1
U/U ∞,H [-]

CSwz = 0.5
0.8 CSwz = 0.4
Std k -ε
0.6
LES
0.4
40
k/u∗2 [-]

30

20

10

0
30
ε/ε∞,H [-]

20

10

0
2
22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x-direction x/D [-]
(b) Realizability Model

βd = 1, Cεd = 1
1
U/U ∞,H [-]

βd = 1, Cεd = 0
0.8 βd = 2, Cεd = 0
Std k -ε
0.6
LES
0.4
40
k/u∗2 [-]

30

20

10

0
50
ε/ε∞,H [-]

40
30
20
10
0
2
22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x-direction x/D [-]
(c) Wind Turbine Canopy Model

Figure 2: Comparison of the different modification models with the standard k-ε and the LES.