- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Energy

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Modeling Offshore Wind Farm Performance in Coastal Low-Level Jets Using Coupled Mesoscale-Microscale Large Eddy Simulations

Tanmoy Chatterjee* and Balaji Jayaraman†

Shashank Yellapantula

Eliot Quon

  • *Contact author: tanmoy.chatterjee@ge.com
  • †Contact author: balaji.jayaraman@ge.com
PDF

PRX Energy 4, 033018 – Published 17 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/vj2s-gflw

Abstract

Accurately predicting wind farm reliability under complex offshore atmospheric conditions remains a key challenge, particularly during noncanonical meteorological events such as coastal low-level jets (LLJs). LLJs, characterized by strong nonmonotonic vertical shear and directional veer, depart significantly from the simplified inflow assumptions embedded in conventional design standards, low-fidelity engineering models, and microscale large eddy simulations of the atmospheric boundary layer. In this work, we use the virtual wind farm framework—an exascale, graphics processing unit–accelerated large eddy simulation platform coupled with high-fidelity aeroservoelastic turbine models and advanced mesoscale-microscale coupling via the ExaWind software stack—to investigate turbine responses under realistic LLJ forcing. Simulations are performed over the U.S. North Atlantic offshore domain with the use of meteorological inputs from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority buoy data, focusing on a representative LLJ case impacting the International Energy Agency 15 MW reference turbine. Our results show that LLJs can cause up to 50% power deficits in downstream turbine rows and significantly amplify low-speed shaft and tower loads through nonlinear coupling between complex inflow characteristics and turbine structural dynamics. Two primary mechanisms drive these load amplifications: (1) unique LLJ inflow features—including veer and vertical/lateral shear—and (2) the downstream evolution of the flow under stable thermal stratification, which suppresses turbulence mixing and alters wake recovery. These mechanisms produce streamwise variations in turbine loading not captured by standard hub height–based metrics or existing design load case (DLC) definitions. This study highlights the critical role of rotor-scale flow gradients in driving fatigue and system-level aeroelastic responses, challenging current DLC and control strategies. We advocate the integration of full-flow field, environment-aware wind inputs into load modeling and control algorithms. By leveraging exascale computing to resolve mesoscale-microscale coupling, this work lays the groundwork for next-generation offshore wind turbine design and operation in meteorologically complex marine environments.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Offshore wind farms face challenges from complex atmospheric conditions, particularly during coastal low-level jet (LLJ) events. These jets create unconventional wind profiles with sharp vertical shear and directional veer that differ substantially from the simplified wind inputs assumed in standard turbine design practices. Using an exascale simulation framework that couples high-resolution atmospheric models with detailed turbine dynamics, this study examines how LLJs affect wind farm performance and structural loads. The results show that LLJs can cause major reductions in downstream turbine power output – up to 50% – and amplify stresses on turbine shafts and towers due to nonlinear interactions between the inflow and turbine response. These findings underscore the limitations of conventional hub-height and nominal shear assumptions in current design standards, and they point to the need for incorporating full rotor-scale flow fields and environment-aware control strategies to ensure reliable and efficient offshore wind energy production.

Article Text

References (75)

  1. B. Jayaraman and J. G. Brasseur, Transition in atmospheric boundary layer turbulence structure from neutral to convective, and large-scale rolls, J. Fluid Mech. 913, A42 (2021).
  2. B. Jayaraman, E. Quon, J. Li, and T. Chatterjee, Structure of offshore low-level jet turbulence and implications to mesoscale-to-microscale coupling, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2265, 022064 (2022).
  3. A. Peña, B. Kosović, and J. D. Mirocha, Evaluation of idealized large-eddy simulations performed with the Weather Research and Forecasting model using turbulence measurements from a 250 m meteorological mast, Wind Energy Sci. 6, 645 (2021).
  4. A. S. Wise, J. M. T. Neher, R. S. Arthur, J. D. Mirocha, J. K. Lundquist, and F. K. Chow, Meso- to microscale modeling of atmospheric stability effects on wind turbine wake behavior in complex terrain, Wind Energy Sci. 7, 367 (2022).
  5. G. Vijayakumar, J. Brasseur, A. W. Lavely, B. Jayaraman, and B. Craven, in 34th Wind Energy Symposium (2016), p. 0521.
  6. A. W. Lavely, G. Vijayakumar, B. Craven, B. Jayaraman, E. G. Paterson, T. N. Nandi, and J. Brasseur, in 32nd ASME Wind Energy Symposium (2014), p. 0869.
  7. A. Sharma, M. J. Brazell, G. Vijayakumar, S. Ananthan, L. Cheung, N. deVelder, M. T. Henry de Frahan, N. Matula, P. Mullowney, J. Rood, P. Sakievich, A. Almgren, P. S. Crozier, and M. Sprague, ExaWind: Open-source CFD for hybrid-RANS/LES geometry-resolved wind turbine simulations in atmospheric flows, Wind Energy 27, 225 (2024).
  8. E. Simley, D. Millstein, S. Jeong, and P. Fleming, The value of wake steering wind farm flow control in US energy markets, Wind Energy Sci. 9, 219 (2024).
  9. D. S. Zalkind, G. K. Ananda, M. Chetan, D. P. Martin, C. J. Bay, K. E. Johnson, E. Loth, D. T. Griffith, M. S. Selig, and L. Y. Pao, System-level design studies for large rotors, Wind Energy Sci. 4, 595 (2019).
  10. J. Katz and I. Chernyakhovskiy, Variable Renewable Energy Grid Integration Studies: A Guidebook for Practitioners (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 2020), Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-72143.
  11. S. Hong, J. McMorland, H. Zhang, M. Collu, and K. H. Halse, Floating offshore wind farm installation, challenges and opportunities: A comprehensive survey, Ocean Eng. 304, 117793 (2024).
  12. L. Hartman, Wind Turbines: The Bigger, the Better, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Wind Energy Technologies Office (2024), originally published August 2021; updated August 2023 and 2024.
  13. R. Fuchs, G. R. Zuckerman, P. Duffy, M. Shields, W. Musial, P. Beiter, A. Cooperman, and S. Bredenkamp, The Cost of Offshore Wind Energy in the United States from 2025 to 2050 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2024), Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-88988.
  14. U.S. Department of Energy, How Wind Energy Became Integral to the Modern Grid, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2023).
  15. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Wind Power Reliability Research, NREL, U.S. Department of Energy (2025).
  16. J. Jonkman, in 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Grapevine (Dallas/ Ft. Worth Region), Texas, 2013), https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2013-202.
  17. S. Rose, P. Jaramillo, M. J. Small, I. Grossmann, and J. Apt, Quantifying the hurricane risk to offshore wind turbines, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 3247 (2012).
  18. M. Debnath, P. Doubrawa, M. Optis, P. Hawbecker, and N. Bodini, Extreme wind shear events in US offshore wind energy areas and the role of induced stratification, Wind Energy Sci. 6, 1043 (2021).
  19. M. Calaf, C. Meneveau, and J. Meyers, Large eddy simulation study of fully developed wind-turbine array boundary layers, Phys. Fluids 22, 015110 (2010).
  20. R. J. A. M. Stevens, D. F. Gayme, and C. Meneveau, Large eddy simulation studies of the effects of alignment and wind farm length, J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 6, 023105 (2014).
  21. M. Bastankhah and F. Porté-Agel, A new analytical model for wind-turbine wakes, Renewable Energy 70, 116 (2014), special issue on aerodynamics of offshore wind energy systems and wakes.
  22. A. Niayifar and F. Porté-Agel, A new analytical model for wind farm power prediction, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 625, 012039 (2015), Proceedings of the 7th Science of Making Torque from Wind (TORQUE 2015).
  23. J. Mann, The spatial structure of neutral atmospheric surface-layer turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 273, 141 (1994).
  24. J. Jonkman, P. Doubrawa, N. Hamilton, J. Annoni, and P. Fleming, Validation of FAST.Farm against large-eddy simulations, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1037, 062005 (2018), presented at TORQUE 2018, Milan, Italy. NREL/JA-5000-71376.
  25. AMR-Wind, 2018, https://github.com/Exawind/amr-wind.
  26. N. J. Abbas, D. S. Zalkind, L. Pao, and A. Wright, A reference open-source controller for fixed and floating offshore wind turbines, Wind Energ. Sci. 7, 53 (2022).
  27. R. Dong, H. Leng, J. Zhao, J. Song, and S. Liang, A framework for four-dimensional variational data assimilation based on machine learning, Entropy 24, 264 (2022).
  28. W. C. Skamarock, J. B. Klemp, A. Gassmann, A fully compressible nonhydrostatic deep-atmosphere equations solver for MPAS, Mon. Weather Rev. 149, 1747 (2021).
  29. D. C. A. Lima, P. M. M. Soares, A. Semedo, and R. M. Cardoso, A global view of coastal low-level wind jets using an ensemble of reanalyses, J. Clim. 31, 1525 (2018).
  30. D. Quint, J. K. Lundquist, and D. Rosencrans, Simulations suggest offshore wind farms modify low-level jets, Wind Energy Sci. 10, 117 (2025).
  31. D. J. Stensrud, Importance of low-level jets to climate: A review, J. Clim. 9, 1698 (1996).
  32. J. A. Aird, R. J. Barthelmie, T. J. Shepherd, and S. C. Pryor, Occurrence of low-level jets over the eastern U.S. coastal zone at heights relevant to wind energy, Energies 15, 445 (2022).
  33. K. Tay, T. Koh, and M. Skote, Characterizing mesoscale variability in low-level jet simulations for CBLAST-LOW 2001 campaign, Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 133, 163 (2021).
  34. L. M. Sheridan, R. Krishnamurthy, W. I. Gustafson Jr., Y. Liu, B. J. Gaudet, N. Bodini, R. K. Newsom, and M. Pekour, Offshore low-level jet observations and model representation using lidar buoy data off the California coast, Wind Energy Sci. 9, 741 (2024).
  35. M. Optis, N. Bodini, M. Debnath, and P. Doubrawa, New methods to improve the vertical extrapolation of near-surface offshore wind speeds, Wind Energy Sci. 6, 935 (2021).
  36. https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/tap-technical-assessment-program/672aa.pdf (2019), IEC 61400-3 Table 1 design load cases (DLCs).
  37. S. N. Gadde and R. J. A. M. Stevens, Effect of low-level jet height on wind farm performance, J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 13, 013305 (2021).
  38. S. N. Gadde and R. J. A. M. Stevens, Interaction between low-level jets and wind farms in a stable atmospheric boundary layer, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 014603 (2021).
  39. A. Stieren, J. H. Kasper, S. N. Gadde, and R. J. Stevens, Impact of negative geostrophic wind shear on wind farm performance, PRX Energy 1, 023007 (2022).
  40. D. Siguenza-Alvarado, A. Doosttalab, S. Cheng, H. Bocanegra Evans, R. B. Cal, L. P. Chamorro, and L. Castillo, Exploring the effects of low-level-jets on the energy entrainment of vertical-axis wind turbines, J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 13, 033310 (2021).
  41. J. D. Mirocha, M. J. Churchfield, D. Muñoz Esparza, R. K. Rai, Y. Feng, B. Kosović, S. E. Haupt, B. Brown, B. L. Ennis, C. Draxl, J. Sanz Rodrigo, W. J. Shaw, L. K. Berg, P. J. Moriarty, R. R. Linn, V. R. Kotamarthi, R. Balakrishnan, J. W. Cline, M. C. Robinson, and S. Ananthan, Large-eddy simulation sensitivities to variations of configuration and forcing parameters in canonical boundary-layer flows for wind energy applications, Wind Energy Sci. 3, 589 (2018).
  42. T. Chatterjee and Y. T. Peet, Contribution of large scale coherence to wind turbine power: A large eddy simulation study in periodic wind farms, Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 034601 (2018).
  43. U.S. Department of Energy, The American WAKE experimeNt (AWAKEN): Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Wind Energy Technologies Office (2022), dOE/GO-102021-5672.
  44. M. Debnath, A. K. Scholbrock, D. Zalkind, P. Moriarty, E. Simley, N. Hamilton, C. Ivanov, R. S. Arthur, R. Barthelmie, N. Bodini et al., Design of the American Wake Experiment (AWAKEN) field campaign, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2265, 022058 (2022).
  45. N. Troldborg, Actuator Line Modeling of Wind Turbine Wakes, Ph.D. thesis, Denmark Technical University, 2009.
  46. M. A. Sprague, S. Ananthan, G. Vijayakumar, and M. Robinson, ExaWind: A multifidelity modeling and simulation environment for wind energy, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1452, 012071 (2020).
  47. WRF version 4.6.0, 2024, https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF.
  48. T. Chatterjee, J. Li, S. Yellapantula, B. Jayaraman, and E. Quon, Wind farm response to mesoscale-driven coastal low level jets: A multiscale large eddy simulation study, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2265, 022004 (2022).
  49. R. J. Beare and M. K. Macvean, Resolution sensitivity and scaling of large-eddy simulations of the stable boundary layer, Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 112, 257 (2004).
  50. M. Momen, Baroclinicity in stable atmospheric boundary layers: Characterizing turbulence structures and collapsing wind profiles via reduced models and large-eddy simulations, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 148, 76 (2022).
  51. R. Beare and M. Macvean, Resolution sensitivity and scaling of large-eddy simulations of the stable boundary layer, Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 112, 257 (2004).
  52. H. Wurps, G. Steinfeld, and S. Heinz, Grid-resolution requirements for large-eddy simulations of the atmospheric boundary layer, Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 175, 179 (2020).
  53. J. C. McWilliams, C. Meneveau, E. G. Patton, and P. P. Sullivan, Stable boundary layers and subfilter-scale motions, Atmosphere 14, 1107 (2023).
  54. The Renewables Consulting Group LLC, Analysis of turbine layouts and spacing between wind farms for potential New York State offshore wind development (National Offshore Wind Research and Development Consortium, Albany, NY, 2018), Tech. Rep. 111248, https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Project/Nyserda/Files/Programs/Offshore-Wind/Analysis-Potential-Turbine-Layouts-Spacing-Between-Wind-Farms.pdf?sc_lang=en&hash=4893D0B5C0EA31D62B40058474077A93.
  55. P. Fleming, J. King, C. J. Bay, E. Simley, R. Mudafort, N. Hamilton, A. Farrell, and L. Martinez-Tossas, Overview of FLORIS updates, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1618, 022028 (2020).
  56. L. A. Martínez-Tossas, J. King, E. Quon, C. J. Bay, R. Mudafort, N. Hamilton, M. F. Howland, and P. A. Fleming, The curled wake model: A three-dimensional and extremely fast steady-state wake solver for wind plant flows, Wind Energy Sci. 6, 555 (2021).
  57. U. Högström, D. Asimakopoulos, H. Kambezidis, C. Helmis, and A. Smedman, A field study of the wake behind a 2 MW wind turbine, Atmos. Environ. 22, 803 (1988).
  58. M. Abkar and F. Porté-Agel, Influence of atmospheric stability on wind-turbine wakes: A large-eddy simulation study, Phys. Fluids 27, 035104 (2015).
  59. G. Schepers, P. van Dorp, R. Verzijlbergh, P. Baas, and H. Jonker, Aeroelastic loads on a 10 MW turbine exposed to extreme events selected from a year-long large-eddy simulation over the North Sea, Wind Energy Sci. 6, 983 (2021).
  60. F. Porté-Agel, M. Bastankhah, and S. Shamsoddin, Wind-turbine and wind-farm flows: A review, Bound.-Layer Meterol. 174, 1 (2019).
  61. E. Gaertner, L. Sethuraman, B. Anderson, G. Barter, N. Abbas, P. Bortolotti, G. Scott, R. Feil, M. Shields, J. Rinker, F. Zahle, F. Meng, W. Skrzypinski, H. Bredmose, K. Dykes, C. Allen, and A. Viselli, Definition of the IEA 15-megawatt offshore reference wind turbine (2020), online, https://research-hub.nrel.gov/en/publications/iea-wind-tcp-task-37-definition-of-the-iea-15-megawatt-offshore-r.
  62. N. J. Tarp-Johansen, Examples of fatigue lifetime and reliability evaluation of larger wind turbine components, Forskningscenter Risoe, Denmark (2003).
  63. B. Jayaraman, T. Chatterjee, and S. Yellapantula, Impact of Low-Level Jets on Atlantic Coast Offshore Wind Farm Performance (National Offshore Wind Research and Development Consortium, Albany, NY, 2023), Technical Report 147504, https://nationaloffshorewind.org/wp-content/uploads/147504_Final_Project_Report_final.pdf.
  64. T. Chatterjee, B. Jayaraman, and S. Yellapantula, Exploring derating strategies for wind turbine system load mitigation in coastal-low level jets (2023), https://www.colorado.edu/conference/naweawindtech2023/program.
  65. A. S. Almgren, J. B. Bell, P. Colella, L. H. Howell, and M. L. Welcome, A conservative adaptive projection method for the variable density incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 142, 1 (1998).
  66. C.-H. Moeng, A large-eddy-simulation model for the study of planetary boundary-layer turbulence, J. Atmos. Sci. 41, 2052 (1984).
  67. G. Deskos, J. C. Y. Lee, C. Draxl, and M. A. Sprague, Review of wind–wave coupling models for large-eddy simulation of the marine atmospheric boundary layer, J. Atmos. Sci. 78, 3025 (2021).
  68. A. Rybchuk, T. W. Juliano, J. K. Lundquist, D. Rosencrans, N. Bodini, and M. Optis, The sensitivity of the Fitch wind farm parameterization to a three-dimensional planetary boundary layer scheme, Wind Energy Sci. 7, 2085 (2022).
  69. D. Allaerts, E. Quon, C. Draxl, and M. Churchfield, Development of a time–height profile assimilation technique for large-eddy simulation, Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 176, 329 (2020).
  70. E. de Jong, E. Quon, and S. Yellapantula, Mechanisms of low-level jet formation in the U.S. mid-Atlantic offshore, J. Atmos. Sci. 81, 31 (2024).
  71. T. Chatterjee and Y. T. Peet, Streamwise inhomogeneity of spectra and vertical coherence of turbulent motions in a finite-size wind farm, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 114601 (2021).
  72. J. H. Petersen, H. A. Madsen, A. Björk, P. Enevoldsen, S. Oye, H. Ganander, and D. Winkelaar, Prediction of Dynamic Loads and Induced Vibraions in Stall (Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, 1988), Technical Report Riso-R-1045 (EN).
  73. P. J. Moriarty and A. C. Hansen, AeroDyn Theory Manual (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA, 2005), Technical Report NREL/TP-500-36681.
  74. M. Hansen, M. Gaunaa, and H. Aagaard Madsen, A Beddoes-Leishman Type Dynamic Stall Model in State-Space and Indicial Formulations (Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, 2004), Risoe-R No. 1354(EN).
  75. N. J. Abbas, A. Wright, and L. Pao, An update to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory baseline wind turbine controller, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1452, 012002 (2020).

Outline

Information

PRX Energy 4, 033018– Published 17 September, 2025
  • Received 24 March 2024
  • Revised 15 July 2025
  • Accepted 28 July 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation