Comparison of OpenFOAM and EllipSys3D for neutral atmospheric flow over complex terrain

Abstract. The flow solvers OpenFOAM and EllipSys3D are compared in the case of neutral atmospheric flow over terrain using the test cases of Askervein and Bolund hills. Both solvers are run using the steady-state Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes k–ϵ turbulence model. One of the main modeling differences between the two solvers is the wall-function approach. The OpenFOAM v.1.7.1 uses a Nikuradse's sand roughness model, while EllipSys3D uses a model based on the atmospheric roughness length. It is found that Nikuradse's model introduces an error dependent on the near-wall cell height. To mitigate this error the near-wall cells should be at least 10 times larger than the surface roughness. It is nonetheless possible to obtain very similar results between EllipSys3D and OpenFOAM v.1.7.1. The more recent OpenFOAM v.2.2.1, which includes the atmospheric roughness length wall-function approach, has also been tested and compared to the results of OpenFOAM v.1.7.1 and EllipSys3D. The numerical results obtained using the same wall-modeling approach in both EllipSys3D and OpenFOAM v.2.1.1 proved to be almost identical. Two meshing strategies are investigated using HypGrid and SnappyHexMesh. The performance of OpenFOAM on SnappyHexMesh-based low-aspect-ratio unstructured meshes is found to be almost an order of magnitude faster than on HypGrid-based structured and high-aspect-ratio meshes. However, proper control of boundary layer resolution is found to be very difficult when the SnappyHexMesh tool is utilized for grid generation purposes. The OpenFOAM is generally found to be 2–6 times slower than EllipSys3D in achieving numerical results of the same order of accuracy on similar or identical computational meshes, when utilization of EllipSys3D default grid sequencing procedures is included.

[1]  Antonio Vigueras-Rodríguez,et al.  Modelling of power fluctuations from large offshore wind farms , 2008 .

[2]  Niels N. Sørensen,et al.  HypGrid2D a 2-D mesh generator , 1998 .

[3]  B. P. Leonard,et al.  A stable and accurate convective modelling procedure based on quadratic upstream interpolation , 1990 .

[4]  Andreas Bechmann,et al.  Hybrid RANS/LES method for wind flow over complex terrain , 2010 .

[5]  A. Bechmann,et al.  Hybrid RANS/LES applied to complex terrain , 2011 .

[6]  A. Bechmann,et al.  Identification of severe wind conditions using a Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes solver , 2007 .

[7]  P. Taylor,et al.  The Askervein Hill project: Overview and background data , 1987 .

[8]  H. I. Andersson,et al.  Non-Linear, Microscale Modelling of the Flow Over Askervein Hill , 2006 .

[9]  Karl J. Eidsvik,et al.  A system for wind power estimation in mountainous terrain. Prediction of Askervein hill data , 2005 .

[10]  N. N. Sørensen,et al.  The Bolund Experiment, Part II: Blind Comparison of Microscale Flow Models , 2011 .

[11]  D. Spalding,et al.  A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows , 1972 .

[12]  F. Chow,et al.  Evaluation of Turbulence Closure Models for Large-Eddy Simulation over Complex Terrain: Flow over Askervein Hill , 2009 .

[13]  H. Jørgensen,et al.  The Bolund Experiment, Part I: Flow Over a Steep, Three-Dimensional Hill , 2011 .

[14]  J. Palma,et al.  Simulation of the Askervein Flow. Part 1: Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations (k∈ Turbulence Model) , 2003 .

[15]  P. Richards,et al.  Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k-ε turbulence model , 1993 .

[16]  B. Launder,et al.  The numerical computation of turbulent flows , 1990 .

[17]  V. C. Patel,et al.  Test Of Turbulence Models For Wind Flow Over Terrain With Separation And Recirculation , 2000 .

[18]  T. Stathopoulos,et al.  CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: wall function problems , 2007 .