A Simple Model for Wake-Induced Aerodynamic Interaction of Wind Turbines
and Ali Khanjari 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This topic has been studied extensively by many scholars. What is the scientific innovation of this paper? In the opinion of the reviewers, the work done is relatively simple.
The reference discussion in the introduction section is insufficient and needs to be expanded, and there is a large literature of relevant studies in extreme typhoon wave environments. Suggested citation:
Typhoon loss assessment in rural housing in Ningbo based on township-level resolution [J]. Applied Sciences, 2022, 12(7), 3463.
In the conclusion section, please elaborate the specific conclusions drawn in this paper in separate articles. In the reviewer's opinion, the work done in this paper is relatively simple, therefore, please properly elaborate the shortcomings and future research outlook of this paper.
Author Response
Dear Editor:
We noted that reviewer 1 is for another paper since it is about the typhoon. We addressed comments from reviewers 2 and 3.
Bests
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is entitled: “A Simple Model for Wake-Induced Aerodynamic Interaction of Wind Turbines”. From the title, I was interested to see the ‘simple’ method as most of the models claim to be simple and easy to use. The topic is extremely interesting and a hot discussion in the community.
The abstract reflects the paper’s contents. The introduction is not well started. It started the storyline in the three first lines and while not elaborated on it yet, suddenly the recent paper of Howland is mentioned. I feel a missing important part here, i.e. the physics-based models.
My suggestion is to extend the three first lines, better discuss the importance of the topic. Then, in a separate paragraph discuss the physics-based models, from the Jenson model and older Gaussian ones (Bastankhah 2014) to the newer ones which also consider yaw (Bastankhah et al 2022 and Mohammadi et al 2022). You can also mention the Super Gaussian model and the Abkar et al. model.
Bastankhah, M., & Porté-Agel, F. (2014). A new analytical model for wind-turbine wakes. Renewable energy, 70, 116-123.
Abkar, M., Sørensen, J. N., & Porté-Agel, F. (2018). An analytical model for the effect of vertical wind veer on wind turbine wakes. Energies, 11(7), 1838.
Bastankhah, M., Shapiro, C. R., Shamsoddin, S., Gayme, D. F., & Meneveau, C. (2022). A vortex sheet based analytical model of the curled wake behind yawed wind turbines. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 933, A2.
Mohammadi, M., Bastankhah, M., Fleming, P., Churchfield, M., Bossanyi, E., Landberg, L., & Ruisi, R. (2022). Curled-Skewed Wakes behind Yawed Wind Turbines Subject to Veered Inflow. Energies, 15(23), 9135.
Blondel, F., & Cathelain, M. (2020). An alternative form of the super-Gaussian wind turbine wake model. Wind Energy Science, 5(3), 1225-1236.
I understand you mainly have used older models, but at the very least discussing the recent models shows the authors are aware of them. It will help you discuss better at the end of the paper. Nevertheless, when it comes to lidar-related works, you have covered the literature very well.
The last paragraph of the introduction is a brilliant chance to show the significance of your work. However, I do not get a sense of novelty and significance. Please elaborate on the advantage of your work, and the novelty of your aim and objectives.
Material and method section you have mentioned
“This study discusses a simple method for predicting longitudinal wind speeds in the interaction zone between wake and induction. We combine a 2D Jensen wake model with 95 Gaussian-shape distribution velocity deficit [25] and a cylindrical vortex induction zone 96 model [26,27]. While the Gaussian Jensen wake model does not consider momentum balance, it provides a good prediction of longitudinal bulk wind speed in the wake based on the conservation of mass [28,29]. In addition, the cylindrical vortex induction zone model 99 used in this study can estimate wind speed in non-yaw actuator disc simulations with 100 relatively low errors [30].”
This section does not make sense to me. Why did you use the Jenson model? You have mentioned the problem in the model, so why did you still use it? Bastankhah et al (2014) showed the Gaussian profile is more accurate, so why you still used Jenson? Reference 25, is not an appropriate reference, the relevant reference is
Bastankhah, M.; Porté-Agel, F. A new analytical model for wind-turbine wakes. Renewable Energy 2014, 70, 116-123, 378 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.002.
What do you mean by ‘bulk wind speed”? Reading section 2.2 in the first lines, you have mentioned important points that can be used in your justification, I suggest moving them to your methodology, and don’t leave the reader in a grey area until they see this part.
I can see you not only discussed validating the model but also mentioned the limitations and requirements for further research. I think some of the limitations of your work are due to what models you chose, if you discuss the models first, then you will have a chance to mention this at the very end.
The assumptions you made, the models used, and even the operational conditions are simplistic. I strongly recommend the author continue their work with some follow-up outputs. However, I think it is useful to have this research in the track record and from a publication point of view, it is publishable with some corrections.
minor proofreading might be required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your comments. Attached please find our responses. I hope you are satisfied with our answers.
Bests
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, a model is used to evaluate the interaction of a turbine's wake on the aerodynamic performance of another turbine. This is an interesting and well-structured paper. Here is a further elaboration of my views.
1.Abstract: It is necessary to further elaborate the improvement or supplement of the current research to the previous research, and further emphasize the significance and application scenarios of the current research.
2.The top view of its blades during movement may have multiple shapes. What is the basis for selecting the 2D model of wind turbines?
3.The details of the computing domain and boundary conditions need to be introduced. In addition, uniform wind or turbulent incoming flow has a great impact on the evaluation of the simulation. These parameters need to be described.
4.Section 2.1: The author carried out a very thorough experiment, but whether these experimental data are used for subsequent verification, it seems that there is no reasonable application in the manuscript.
The English language of the manuscript is good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your comments. Attached please find our responses. I hope you are satisfied with our answers.
Bests
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
