Ocean Dynamics

, Volume 66, Issue 12, pp 1543–1557 | Cite as

Kármán vortex and turbulent wake generation by wind park piles

Article

Abstract

Observational evidence of turbulent wakes behind wind parks’ piles motivated a series of numerical experiments, aiming to identify the dynamic regimes associated with wakes’ generation in tidal basins. We demonstrate that the obstacles such as piles of wind parks give rise to vortices similar to the known Kármán vortices which affect substantially the turbulent kinetic energy. The latter can be considered as the agent enhancing sediment remobilization from the ocean bottom, thus making wakes well visible in satellite data. The temporal and spatial variability of studied processes is analyzed under stationary and nonstationary conditions. The dependence of a vortex generation and evolution upon the environmental conditions is also studied, which demonstrates a large variety of appearances of turbulent wakes. The comparison between simulations using a suspended sediment model and satellite images demonstrated that the model is capable to realistically simulate sediment wakes observed in remote sensing data.

Keywords

Kármán vortex street Turbulent wake generation Wind park Numerical modeling 

References

  1. Backhaus, J. O. (1980) Simulation von Bewegungsvorgängen in der Deutschen Bucht. Dt Hydrogr Z (B) 15Google Scholar
  2. Baeye M, Fettweis M (2015) In situ observations of suspended particulate matter plumes at an offshore wind farm, southern North Sea. Geo-Mar Lett 35:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breuer M (2000) A challenging test case for large eddy simulation: high Reynolds number circular cylinder flow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 21:648–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carbajal N, Pohlmann T (2004) Comparison between measured and calculated tidal ellipses in the German Bight. Ocean Dyn 54(5):520–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dai K, Bergot A, Liang C, Xiang W-N, Huang Z (2015) Environmental issues associated with wind energy—a review. Renew Energ 75:911–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dick S, Kleine E, Müller-Navarra SH, Klein H, Komo H (2001) The Operational Circulation Model of BSH (BSHcmod)- model de- scription and validation. Technical Report 29, BSHGoogle Scholar
  7. Dietrich DE, Bowman MJ, Lin CA, Mestas-Nunez A (1996) Numerical studies of small island wakes in the ocean. Geophys Astrophys Fluid Dyn 83:195–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dong C, McWilliams JC (2007) A numerical study of island wakes in the southern California Bight. Cont Shelf Res 27:1233–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong C, McWilliams JC, Shchepetkin AF (2007) Island wakes in deep water. J Phys Oceanogr 37:962–981. doi:10.1175/JPO3047.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) (2014) The European offshore wind industry-key trends and statistics 2013, 22 pp. (http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/European_offshore_statistics_2013.pdf)
  11. Flórez-Orrego D, Arias-Ramirez W, López D, Velasquez HI (2012) Experimental and CFD study of a single phase cone-shaped helical coiled heat exchanger: an empirical correlation. In: Proceedings of ECOS 2012-The 25th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems. p 375--394.Google Scholar
  12. Lass HU, Mohrholz V, Knoll M, Prandke H (2008) Enhanced mixing downstream of a pile in an estuarine flow. J Mar Syst 74:505–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li XM, Chi L, Chen X, Ren YZ, Lehner S (2014) SAR observation and numerical modeling of tidal current wakes at the East China Sea offshore wind farm. J Geophys Res Oceans 119:4958–4971. doi:10.1002/2014JC009822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd PM, Stansby PK (1997a) Shallow-water flow around model conical islands of small side slope. I: Surface Piercing. J Hydraul Eng 123:1057–1067Google Scholar
  15. Lloyd PM, Stansby PK (1997b) Shallow-water flow around model conical islands of small side slope. II: Submerged. J Hydraul Eng 123:1068–1077Google Scholar
  16. Ludewig E. (2015) On the effect of offshore wind farms on the atmosphere and ocean dynamics. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, Volume 31, Springer Verlag, ISBN: 978–3–319-08640-8 (Print), 978–3–319-08641-5 (Online)Google Scholar
  17. Olivari, D. (2002) Von Kármán Vortex Shedding. Article in: Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, Supplement III, ed. by M. Hazewinkel. (2002): 427–430.Google Scholar
  18. Paskyabi MB, Fer I, Jenkins AD (2012) Surface gravity wave effects on the upper ocean boundary layer: modification of a one-dimensional vertical mixing model. Cont Shelf Res 38:63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pein J-U, Stanev EV, Zhang YJ (2014) The tidal asymmetries and residual flows in Ems Estuary. Ocean Dyn 64(12):1719–1741Google Scholar
  20. Pinto L, Fortunato AB, Zhang Y, Oliveira A, Sancho FEP (2012) Development and validation of a three-dimensional morphodynamic modelling system for non-cohesive sediments. Ocean Model 57-58:1–14Google Scholar
  21. Porté-Agel F, Lu H, Wu Y-T (2014) Interaction between large wind farms and the atmospheric boundary layer. Procedia IUTAM 10:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rajani BN, Kandasamy A, Majumdar S (2009) Numerical simulation of laminar flow past a circular cylinder. Appl Math Model 33:1228–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stanev EV, Ziemer F, Schulz-Stellenfleth J, Seemann J, Staneva J, Gurgel K-W (2015) Blending surface currents from HF radar observations and numerical modelling: tidal hindcasts and forecasts. J Atmos Ocean Technol 32:256–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sumner D (2010) Two circular cylinders in cross-flow: a review. J Fluids Struct 26:849–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sumner D, Price SJ, Païdoussis MP (2000) Flow-pattern identification for two staggered circular cylinders in cross-flow. J Fluid Mech 411:263–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tillessen T (2010) High demand for wind farm installation vessels. Hansa International Maritime Journal 147(8):170–171Google Scholar
  27. Umlauf L, Burchard H (2003) A generic length-scale equation for geophysical turbulence models. J Mar Res 6:235–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Rijn LC (2007) Unified view of sediment transport by currents and waves. I: initiation of motion, bed roughness, and bed-load transport. J Hydraul Eng 133(6):649–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vanhellemont Q, Ruddick K (2014a) Turbid wakes associated with offshore wind turbines observed with Landsat 8. Remote Sens Environ 145:105–115Google Scholar
  30. Vanhellemont Q, Ruddick K (2014b) Landsat-8 as a Precursor to Sentinel-2: Observations of Human Impacts in Coastal Waters. In: ESA Special Publication SP-726. Presented at the 2014 European Space Agency Sentinel-2 for Science Workshop, FrascatiGoogle Scholar
  31. Warner JC, Sherwood CR, Signell RP, Harris CK, Arango HG (2008) Development of a three-dimensional, regional, coupled wave, current, and sediment-transport model. Comput Geosci 34(10):1284–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zdravkovich MM (1977) REVIEW-review of flow interference between two circular cylinders in various arrangements. J Fluids Eng 99:618–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang Y, Baptista AM (2008) SELFE: A semi-implicit Eulerian-Lagrangian finite-element model for cross-scale ocean circulation. Ocean Model 21(3–4):71–96Google Scholar
  34. Zhang YJ, Ateljevich E, Yu H-C, Wu CH, Yu JCS (2015) A new vertical coordinate system for a 3D unstructured-grid model. Ocean Model 85:16–31Google Scholar
  35. Zhang YJ, Stanev EV, Grashorn S (2016a) Unstructured-grid model for the North Sea and Baltic Sea: validation against observations. Ocean Model 97:91--108Google Scholar
  36. Zhang YJ, Ye F, Stanev EV, Grashorn S (2016b) Seamless cross-scale modelling with SCHISM. Ocean Model 102:64-81Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum GeesthachtGeesthachtGermany

Personalised recommendations