POWER PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION IN COMPLEX TERRAIN

N. Stefanatos F. Kokkalidis S. Tentzerakis E. Binopoulos

Centre for Renewable Energy Sources (CRES), Department of Wind Energy

Laboratory for Wind Turbine Testing
19th Km Marathonos Av., 190 09, Pikermi, Greece
Tel. +302106603300, Fax: +302106603301, e-mail: infowind@cres.gr

Keywords: power performance, complex terrain, stall-regulated

ABSTRACT

Power performance verification is a very important element in the implementation of wind energy power stations.
Not only it is indispensable as the main proof of the quality of the wind farm delivered, but is also very important as a
tool for long term monitoring of the operation of a wind farm, providing information both for preventive maintenance
and improvements in the wind farm.

This paper is an overview of the experience of CRES in power performance verification measurements in complex
terrain. In all cases examined, the procedures specified by the IEC61400-12 standard and the MEASNET network
recommendations for power performance measurements were applied. Site calibration has also been applied, either
using MEASNET recommended procedure or alternative methods. The differences observed between the power
performance characteristics measured in flat and complex terrain are in all cases comparable to the evaluated error of
measurements.

An attempt has been made to address these deviations and investigate the contribution of parameters that may affect
such measurements. These include atmospheric conditions, site calibration characteristics and the relative position of
the reference and wind turbine masts during the power performance tests.

1. INTRODUCTION

During the first years of the wind power expansion in Europe, the easily accessible flat terrain sites with good wind
potential were the first to be developed in the wind pioneering countries such as Denmark, Holland, and Northern
states of Germany. However, the need to further increase the penetration of wind energy to the electricity networks
soon made the exploitation of sites in complex terrain areas also necessary. Since the power performance verification
is considered a vital tool in the development of an efficient wind farm, an intense discussion is under way,
considering how reliable power performance verification measurements in complex terrain sites are. Spatial
variations in wind speed (terrain induced distortion in the flow field, wind shear), flow inclination relative to the wind
turbine rotor, and large differences in air density are some of the parameters that are pointed out as having an effect
on the power performance of a wind turbine operating in complex terrain sites.

Considerable efforts by both the scientific community and the industry have been made to assess the above issues, but
the actual physical problem is not yet addressed in full. Furthermore the urgent need to have workable tools to make
power performance verification in complex terrain sites, have led standardization organizations and expertise
networks (namely IEA, IEC and MEASNET) to include in their recommendations special guidelines aiming at
reducing uncertainties associated to complex terrain sites.

Today, considerable experience is gathered from power performance verification measurements in complex terrain
using standardized procedures. The assessment of this experience may provide useful information about the
effectiveness of these procedures.

2. ANALYSIS

2.1 Outline of the current study

CRES is active in the power performance monitoring of wind turbines since 1992. A large number of wind turbines
have been measured in the framework of research and demonstration projects or commercial contracts. Since 1997
CRES has established the Laboratory for Wind Turbine Testing, which is accredited according to ISO 17025 as a
testing laboratory. The scope of accreditation includes power performance measurements, loads measurements,
power quality measurements and noise measurements of wind turbines.
This paper gives an overview of some of the experience of the Laboratory for Wind Turbine Testing of CRES in
power performance verification measurements in complex terrain using the standardized procedures recommended by
IEC [1] and MEASNET [2]. It deals with the results obtained from power curve verification measurements on five
commercially available stall-regulated wind turbines (WTs) in the range of 0.4 to 1.0 MW located in complex
terrain sites in the Mediterranean area. These campaigns were performed in the context of demonstration projects
and commercial contracts. The measurement campaigns have been conducted during normal operation of the WTs,
without any alterations to the original manufacturer’s settings. Terrain requirements as per Annex A of IEC 61400-12
were not met for any of the cases, thus site calibration campaigns were carried out. The MEASNET recommendations
for site calibration were followed in all cases except for Case 4 were an alternative site calibration method was used.
This technique uses a mobile meteorological mast placed on the WT nacelle while the machine is at stand still. The
validity of this method for small to medium nacelle dimensions has been demonstrated by other research studies
[3][4].

An attempt is made in the present paper to examine whether parameters like flow inclination, distance of reference
mast, flow distortion due to terrain features or differences in air density, have any effect on power performance
verification, after the recommended procedures for dealing with the above issues are applied. This is made by
investigating possible correlations between the deviations in the Annual Energy Production (AEP), as calculated from
the measured power performance in complex terrain and the “Guaranteed power curve”.

The power curve of a WT determines its energy production. This alone can justify the importance of an accurate
estimation of the power performance of a WT. Variations of the power curve, caused by a number of reasons, can
lead to noticeable or even substantial difference to the real energy production. In this context, differences in the long-
term (annual) production can be used as a criterion for the quantification of the effect that various parameters may
have on the performance of a wind turbine. The relative difference between the AEP derived using the measured and
that using the “Guaranteed power curve”, i.e. the difference in AEP or ∆AEP, is chosen as the quantity that should
represent any potential effect of the various parameters to the power performance evaluation method.

2.2 Power curve comparison

In Figure 2 to Figure 5, the measured power curves 1.2

WT 1

corresponding to each of the five WTs, and the

associated error (95% typical error, coverage factor 1.0

k=2) of the measurement at different wind speeds, is

presented. The produced power and the wind speed are 0.8

divided by the rated power and the rated speed of each

WT respectively. The error is associated with the 0.6
P/Prated

uncertainty of the measurement that has been

evaluated according to IEC recommendations. In all 0.4
Guaranteed
graphs the respective “Guaranteed power curve” is Measured
0.2
also plotted. The term “Guaranteed” refers to the
power curve included in the contractual documents of 0.0
the wind farm under consideration either directly
measured or calculated from measurements in flat -0.2

terrain. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

V/Vrated
Figure 2. Power curve for case 1
WT 2 WT 3
1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
P/Prated

P/Prated

0.4 0.4
Guaranteed Guaranteed
Measured Measured
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
V/Vrated V/Vrated
Figure 1. Power curve for case 2 Figure 3. Power curve for case 3
 WT 4 WT 5
1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
P/Prated

P/Prated
0.4 0.4
Guaranteed Guaranteed
Measured Measured
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
V/Vrated V/Vrated

Figure 4. Power curve for case 4 Figure 5. Power curve for case 5

The power curves measured on WT2 and WT3 are complete according to IEC 61400-12 par. 4.6 for annual mean
wind speed up to 6 m/s, but “incomplete” according to MEASNET procedure [2] requirements, regarding the
completion of all bins up to 1.5 times the velocity at which the wind turbine generator produces 85% of the nominal
power. In both cases bins corresponding to 3 m/sec from the upper end of the ‘Wind Turbine Operating Wind Speed
Range” were not completed.

In all cases there is a good match between the measured and guaranteed power curves and the differences are
smaller than the error of measurement.

3. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

In Table 1 the various parameters under research are defined.

Table 1. Definitions
Parameter Definition
Mast distance Horizontal distance between the WT and the reference mast used for the
power curve measurement campaign
Altitude difference Difference in altitude between the base of the WT and that of the
reference mast
Sector width Width of the sector from which data have been used for the evaluation of
the power curve
Terrain inclination Mean terrain slope in the main wind direction sector for distance up to
4D from the WT
Turbulence intensity Turbulence intensity in the main wind direction sector at wind speed
equal to 12 m/s
Air density difference Difference between the standard air density at sea level and the mean air
density at the site during the measurement campaign
Average velocity ratio Average wind speed correction factor derived from the mean values of
the accepted direction sectors during the site calibration campaign
Maximum velocity ratio difference Difference between the maximum and minimum average wind speed
correction factors obtained from the accepted direction sectors
Maximum velocity ratio difference Difference between the maximum and minimum average wind speed
for the 30o core main direction sector correction factors obtained from a 30o wide part of the accepted direction
sectors

In the following Table 2, the parameters and AEP data from each of the five power curve measurements are
presented. Most of the parameters presented in Table 2 are dimensionless. This was made in order to allow the direct
comparison of the results between different wind turbine types and different measurement layouts, and additionally to
conceal commercially confidential information regarding the specific wind turbine types used.
The Difference in the Annual Energy Output calculated from the measured power curve compared to the AEP
calculated from the “Guaranteed Power Curve” (∆AEP) is given for each case in Table 2. The AEP calculations were
made according to the recommendations of IEC 61400-12 [1], for Rayleigh distribution with annual mean value
Uref=8 m/s, and constant extrapolation of power from the last bin of power curve. In order to have comparable results,
only velocity bins up to the value where data were available in both the measured and the “Guaranteed power curve”
were used. In this way the extrapolation of the power curve for the AEP calculation started with comparable figures
for both the measured and the guaranteed power curve. Differences in AEP are in the range of 1 to 5%, for all
cases as shown in Table 2. Such differences are smaller than the estimated typical error of measurement, and
comparable to deviations measured in power performance verification studies in flat terrain [5].

Table 2. Power performance measurement campaign parameters

Combined
uncertainty
Air
Mast Altitude Sector of
Terrain density V/Vref, ∆(V/Vref), V/Vref ∆AEP,extrap.
WT distance difference width TI measurement
inclination difference mean max (30o) error (% guar.extr.)
/Diameter /Diameter (deg) in AEP
(%)
estimation
(%)
1 2.10 -0.12 50 0.40 0.08 12.16 0.994 0.009 0.028 -1.10 4.2
2 2.71 0.73 120 0.12 0.12 11.67 1.082 0.019 0.030 -4.54 5.8
3 2.76 0.40 30 0.16 0.11 6.78 1.042 0.014 0.030 -3.88 6.8
4 3.26 0.26 60 0.12 0.10 0.41 1.019 0.004 0.028 1.95 5.9
5 3.69 0.08 120 0.17 0.08 4.49 0.987 0.016 0.018 1.17 4.5

3.1 Effect of altitude difference and site calibration correction factors

The effect of the reference mast and WT altitude difference in the site calibration correction factors is shown in
Figure 6, where a clear trend giving velocity ratios directly proportional to the altitude difference is observed.
The dependence of the correction factor to the mast and WT altitude difference is evident and expected. In all cases
studied, the wind farms were deployed along the top of ridges more or less perpendicular to the main wind direction
sector. In such a layout, when the reference mast is placed in a location lower than the WT mast, then the velocity at
the WT mast is greater than in the reference mast (velocity ratio greater than unity) and vice versa. In Case 1, where
the reference mast is located in a position higher than the WT, a site calibration factor lower than unity is seen, which
is fully consistent with the general trend.

In Figure 7, ∆ΑEP is plotted versus the Site Calibration Correction Factors (average value within the accepted
sector). Differences in AEP are smaller than the typical error of measurement (note that the “∆ΑEP=0” axis crosses
the uncertainty interval for all cases). However, a trend is seen giving a slight increase in the difference with
increasing velocity correction factors. Site calibration correction factors significantly different than unity, may be
considered as indexes showing a more profound difference in the flow field between the WT and the reference mast
position, increasing the uncertainty in the representation of the real wind speed by the reference mast wind speed. It
must be noted however that the ∆ΑΕP is, in all cases, smaller than the estimated typical error of measurement.

1.15 25
R-squared = 0.9175 R-squared = 0.9308
20
1.1
ABS(∆AEP),extrap. [% guar.]

15
2
1.05 3
10
V/Vref , mean

3 2
1 4 5
1 5 4
5 1

0
0.95

-5

0.9
-10

0.85 -15
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.1
Altitude difference/Diameter V/Vref, mean
Figure 6. Effect of altitude difference on site Figure 7. Effect of site calibration factors on ∆AEP
calibration correction factors
3.2 Effect of site calibration correction factors variation in the accepted sector.

In Figure 8 the ∆AEP is plotted as a function of the difference in the site calibration correction factors (mean values
per direction bin) within the “main part of the accepted direction sector”. In order to have comparable results, for
each case, the differences in a 30o direction sector were most of the data were found are calculated. This difference
could be considered as a measure of the directional sensitivity of the flow field. A week trend giving higher
differences with increasing site calibration correction factor variation is seen. Again this trend is reasonable and
expected.

25 25

R-squared = 0.2831 R-squared = 0.3076

20 20
ABS(∆AEP),extrap. [% guar.]

ABS(∆AEP),extrap. [% guar.]
15 15

10 10

3 2
5 4 5 2 3
1 5
4 5 1
0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
∆(V/Vref), max Terrain inclination
Figure 8. Effect of site calibration factors variation in Figure 9. Effect of terrain inclination on ∆AEP
the accepted direction sector on ∆AEP

3.3 Terrain inclination

In Figure 9 ∆AEP is plotted as a function of the terrain inclination (mean value in the main direction sector for
distance up to 4D). In all cases terrain inclination is well above the flat terrain characterization limits set by IEC
61400-12. Although values up to 0.4 (40%) are seen, no correlation is seen between terrain inclination and
∆ΑΕP. Note that in Case 1, where the maximum terrain inclination is observed, the reference mast was placed to the
side (not upwind) of the WT relative the main direction sector.

Terrain inclination is expected to have an impact on the operation of a wind turbine, by causing the wind speed vector
approaching the WT rotor to deviate from the horizontal. Wind turbines are considered to be sensitive to the
horizontal velocity component (ignoring the small tilt angle). In four of the five cases anemometers with close to
cosine response (Vector A100K) were used [6]. In this manner, the reference anemometer showed similar sensitivity
to the inclined flow as the wind turbine rotor.

3.4 Distance between reference mast and the wind turbine

25
In Figure 10 ∆AEP is plotted as a function of the
R-squared = 0.0338
distance between reference mast and WT. No effect 20
on the ∆ΑΕP is seen. In all cases the restrictions
ABS(∆AEP),extrap. [% guar.]

imposed by the IEC 61400-12 standard 15

(2D<distance<4.0D) were met. Larger distance

between the reference and the WT mast could be 10

related to greater time shift between the two positions, 5

23
which could have adverse effect in the correlation of 1
4 5
the wind speeds in the two masts. Given the above, the 0

limits imposed by IEC61400-12 should be considered

as reasonable. -5

-10

-15
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Mast distance/Diameter
Figure 10. Effect of distance between reference mast
and WT on ∆AEP
3.5 Width of the accepted direction sector

In Figure 11 ∆AEP is plotted as a function of the width of the accepted direction sector. No effect on ∆ΑΕP is
seen.
25 25

R-squared = 0.0024 R-squared = 0.9277

20 20
ABS(∆AEP),extrap. [% guar.]

ABS(∆AEP),extrap. [% guar.]
15 15

10 10

5 2 5 3
3 2
5
5
1
4 5
1 1 4
0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15
0 40 80 120 160 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150
Width of acceptable direction sector [deg] Turbulence intensity

Figure 11. Effect of the width of the accepted Figure 12. Effect of turbulence intensity on ∆AEP
direction sector on ∆AEP

3.6 Turbulence intensity

In Figure 12 the difference in AEP is plotted as a function of the turbulence intensity (mean value in the main
direction sector for wind speed equal to 12 m/s). An increase of the ∆ΑΕP proportional to the increase in turbulence
is observed. The turbulence intensity is known to have some effect in the power performance of wind turbines [3],
hence it should be expected that increased turbulence levels would result in relatively increased deviations in ∆AEP.

3.7 Air density difference

25
In Figure 13 the difference in AEP is plotted as a
R-squared = 0.0808
function of the air density difference. It should be 20
noted that corrections to standard air density according
ABS(∆AEP),extrap. [% guar.]

to IEC61400-12 were applied in all cases. Although 15

the measured average site densities varied

considerably (up to 0.15 kgr/m3), no effect of air 10

density difference in ∆AEP is found. Again it can be 5 3 2

concluded that the corrections proposed by the 4 5 1
IEC61400-12 standard successfully offset the effect of 0

air density difference in ΑΕP.

-5

-10

-15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
∆ρ [%]

Figure 13. Effect of air density difference on ∆AEP

4. DISCUSSION

A series of power curve verification measurements performed in complex terrain, following the recommendations of
MEASNET and IEC were examined. In general the deviations from the guaranteed power curve were within the
measurement error margin. Possible correlations between parameters characterizing the flow field in complex terrain
sites and the deviations from the manufacturer were subsequently investigated.

The effect of the terrain on the evolution of the wind flow around the wind turbines was evident in all cases, as
quantified by the impact of altitude difference between the mast and WT on the site calibration correction factors, by
the increased turbulence intensity levels experienced in some of the sites, as well as the differences in the site mean
air density.

When using the Annual Energy Production as a measure of the overall efficiency of the wind turbine, then differences
between the AEP measured in complex terrain sites compared to the guaranteed AEP are smaller than the estimated
measurement uncertainty, and comparable to overall statistical scatter seen in the AEP of wind turbines operating in
flat terrain [5]. This first approach highlights the fact that, by application of the current recommended procedures [1]
[2] the power performance of WTs in complex terrain can be successfully evaluated and produce coherent and
accurate results.

A sensitivity analysis, using the ∆AEP as an index, showed some increase in ∆AEP with increasing site calibration
correction factors, as also increasing directional sensitivity of the site calibration factors and turbulence levels. No
effect was observed for other parameters such as terrain inclination, distance of reference mast from the WT, air
density difference, sector width etc. Considering this, the differences in ∆ΑΕP are smaller than the estimated
measurement error, hence it can be concluded that the application of the current procedures successfully reduced the
influence of complex terrain parameters on the results.

Due to the influence of a large number of parameters and the complexity of their interaction, more information is
required in order to reach further conclusions. In an attempt to address this need, CRES is now using more advanced
measurement systems for the power performance verification campaigns. These systems comprise anemometers at a
number of different heights on the reference mast for the purpose of wind shear and turbulence intensity evaluation.
In future studies these parameters will also be addressed.

REFERENCES

1. IEC 61400-12 [1998], “ WTGS, Part 12 Power performance measurements techniques”

2. MEASNET Procedure “Power performance measurement”, Ver. 3, 2000
3. Morfiadakis E., Glinou G., Stefanatos N. “Power performance evaluation of a WT operating in a complex terrain
wind farm” , Proc. of EWEC 1994, Thessaloniki, pp 906-9103.
4. Mouzakis F., Stefanatos N., Glinou G. “Assessment of site calibration techniques for complex terrain” Proc. of
EWEC 1997, Dublin
5. T. F. Pedersen (Riso), S. Gjerding (Tripod), P. Ingham (Intercom), P. Enevoldsen (Bonus), J. K. Hansen (NEG-
Micon), H. K. Jorgensen (Vestas) “Wind turbine power performance verification in complex terrain and wind
farms”, report made for the program UVE funded by the Danish Energy Agency, April 2002, Riso-R1330(EN)
6. Papadopoulos K., Stefanatos N., Paulsen U.S., Morfiadakis E., “Effect of turbulence and flow inclination on the
performance of cup anemometers in the field”, Boundary Layer Meteorology, 101 (1), p. 77-107, October 2001.