Allow TI to impact turbine power production

[paulf81]

Allow TI to impact turbine power production

In V4, TI can be set per time step in TimeSeries or wd/ws bin in WindRose. It would be useful to reflect TI impact on power production of a turbine, separate of wake model impacts. Talking this over with @ejsimley we think we have a way forward with 90% of the details in mind. Here is the proposed solution to implement:

• As with tilt, assume a given power curve is defined at a certain reference turbulence intensity. The power curves included with FLORIS are rather sharp and I believe our 0% TI, but it is on common to have a power curve defined for a certain TI. So, include into turbine yaml the ref_ti value
• Therefore the amount to correct a given power should be:
  • 0 if TI <= ref_ti
  • delta_ti = ti - ref_ti if ti > ref_ti
• Correct the power curve (and ct) using a version of the method previously implemented in v2:

  # define wind speed, ti, and power curve components
  ws = np.array(self.power_thrust_table["wind_speed"])
  cp = np.array(self.power_thrust_table["power"])
  ws = ws[np.where(cp != 0)]
  ciws = ws[0]  # cut in wind speed
  cows = ws[len(ws) - 1]  # cut out wind speed
  speed = self.average_velocity
  ti = self.current_turbulence_intensity

  if ciws >= speed or cows <= speed or ti == 0.0 or math.isnan(speed):
      return 1.0
  else:
      # define mean and standard deviation to create normalized pdf with sum = 1
      mu = speed
      sigma = ti * mu
      if mu + sigma >= cows:
          xp = np.linspace((mu - sigma), cows, 100)
      else:
          xp = np.linspace((mu - sigma), (mu + sigma), 100)
      pdf = norm.pdf(xp, mu, sigma)
      npdf = np.array(pdf) * (1 / np.sum(pdf))

      # calculate turbulence parameter (ratio of corrected power to original power)
      return np.sum([npdf[k] * self.powInterp(xp[k]) for k in range(100)]) / (
          self.powInterp(mu)
      )

• Note in essence the code returns a gaussian blur of points on the power (or thrust) curve. I think in v4 we should implement the logic of this, but find a way to precompute this effect
• Then just need to route this logic around
• Finally, in v2 there was a boolean value whether the user wanted this turbulence correction applied (default to False) do we want the same?

@ejsimley @misi9170 @rafmudaf : Thought I'd start with this issue before starting the pull request so we have a place to iron out the intention before starting. I will link this issue to the card in the project board.

[Bartdoekemeijer]

Hi @paulf81. Nice idea! This approach makes sense if you only have the aeroelastic curves defined for one turbulence intensity. What if we have multiple aeroelastic performance curves for a range of turbulence intensities? This is not uncommon. I would love a solution where we can use this information directly in FLORIS when we have it.

[paulf81]

Thank you for pointing this out! @misi9170 maybe you and I can discuss some more about this. The proposal I had based on the v2 code is using a blurring effect, but if we have pre-defined curves for different turbulence intensities these should route through the multi-dim code right?

[misi9170]

Thank you for pointing this out! @misi9170 maybe you and I can discuss some more about this. The proposal I had based on the v2 code is using a blurring effect, but if we have pre-defined curves for different turbulence intensities these should route through the multi-dim code right?

Yes, that sounds like a good use case for multidim, and should be straightforward to implement that way. If we are going to do it that way, we should probably avoid supporting TI variations in a new (TI-specific) operation model. I think we could still go a little further to align the multidim model with the operation model paradigm.

[paulf81]

Thank you for pointing this out! @misi9170 maybe you and I can discuss some more about this. The proposal I had based on the v2 code is using a blurring effect, but if we have pre-defined curves for different turbulence intensities these should route through the multi-dim code right?

Yes, that sounds like a good use case for multidim, and should be straightforward to implement that way. If we are going to do it that way, we should probably avoid supporting TI variations in a new (TI-specific) operation model. I think we could still go a little further to align the multidim model with the operation model paradigm.

I agree, this should be across operation models, but we can support handling TI impact on power/thrust 2 ways:

1. Via gaussian blending based on ws_std
2. Via multi-dim

And both of these could apply in all operation models

[paulf81]

Just adding some references on standard approaches for later:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Axel-Albers/publication/279586111_Turbulence_and_shear_normalisation_of_wind_turbine_power_curve/links/5a26cb6c0f7e9b71dd0c7dee/Turbulence-and-shear-normalisation-of-wind-turbine-power-curve.pdf

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-540-33866-6_28.pdf

https://hal.science/hal-03646791/document

https://pcwg.org/consensus/Consensus%20Analysis%20Turbulence%20Renormalisation%20Documentation.pdf