This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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: firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
4 Guaranteed Measured 0. distance of reference mast.75 1.8 P/Prated 0. The relative difference between the AEP derived using the measured and that using the “Guaranteed power curve”. The MEASNET recommendations for site calibration were followed in all cases except for Case 4 were an alternative site calibration method was used. after the recommended procedures for dealing with the above issues are applied. is presented. The error is associated with the uncertainty of the measurement that has been evaluated according to IEC recommendations. i. It deals with the results obtained from power curve verification measurements on five commercially available stall-regulated wind turbines (WTs) in the range of 0.25 1.50 V/Vrated 0. is chosen as the quantity that should represent any potential effect of the various parameters to the power performance evaluation method.25 1.50 Figure 3. differences in the longterm (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. can lead to noticeable or even substantial difference to the real energy production. The produced power and the wind speed are divided by the rated power and the rated speed of each WT respectively. WT 1 1.50 0. coverage factor k=2) of the measurement at different wind speeds.0 0.e.0 1.50 V/Vrated 0.00 1. and the associated error (95% typical error.4 Guaranteed Measured 0. These campaigns were performed in the context of demonstration projects and commercial contracts. have any effect on power performance verification. In this context.4 Guaranteed Measured 0.50 Figure 1.75 1. Power curve for case 1 WT 2 1. The power curve of a WT determines its energy production.25 0. without any alterations to the original manufacturer’s settings.25 0. An attempt is made in the present paper to examine whether parameters like flow inclination. thus site calibration campaigns were carried out. 2. In all graphs the respective “Guaranteed power curve” is also plotted.0 -0. caused by a number of reasons.2 -0.25 0.2 0.00 0.25 1. The validity of this method for small to medium nacelle dimensions has been demonstrated by other research studies .8 P/Prated 0.50 Figure 2. Variations of the power curve.8 0.2 1.00 1.2 0.6 0.75 1. as calculated from the measured power performance in complex terrain and the “Guaranteed power curve”.6 0.2 0.2 1. This technique uses a mobile meteorological mast placed on the WT nacelle while the machine is at stand still.00 1.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  and MEASNET . Power curve for case 2 V/Vrated 0.4 to 1.0 MW located in complex terrain sites in the Mediterranean area.0 0. Terrain requirements as per Annex A of IEC 61400-12 were not met for any of the cases. the measured power curves corresponding to each of the five WTs.2 WT 3 1.2 0.2 P/Prated 0. This is made by investigating possible correlations between the deviations in the Annual Energy Production (AEP).2 Power curve comparison In Figure 2 to Figure 5. The measurement campaigns have been conducted during normal operation of the WTs.00 0.0 0. the difference in AEP or ∆AEP.0 -0. Power curve for case 3 . This alone can justify the importance of an accurate estimation of the power performance of a WT. flow distortion due to terrain features or differences in air density.6 0.00 0. The term “Guaranteed” refers to the power curve included in the contractual documents of the wind farm under consideration either directly measured or calculated from measurements in flat terrain.
and additionally to conceal commercially confidential information regarding the specific wind turbine types used. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS In Table 1 the various parameters under research are defined. but “incomplete” according to MEASNET procedure  requirements.2 1.2 -0.00 1.6 for annual mean wind speed up to 6 m/s.00 0.6 0.2 P/Prated 0. regarding the completion of all bins up to 1.25 1.WT 4 1.6 0.8 P/Prated 0.50 V/Vrated 0.0 0.75 1.25 1.0 -0. Power curve for case 5 The power curves measured on WT2 and WT3 are complete according to IEC 61400-12 par.8 0.0 0.50 0. In both cases bins corresponding to 3 m/sec from the upper end of the ‘Wind Turbine Operating Wind Speed Range” were not completed.4 Guaranteed Measured 0.0 1.00 0.50 V/Vrated 0. 4.50 Figure 4.25 0.4 Guaranteed Measured 0.2 0. the parameters and AEP data from each of the five power curve measurements are presented. 3. Most of the parameters presented in Table 2 are dimensionless.25 0. Table 1.2 0. Power curve for case 4 Figure 5. This was made in order to allow the direct comparison of the results between different wind turbine types and different measurement layouts.00 1.75 1. Definitions Parameter Mast distance Altitude difference Sector width Terrain inclination Turbulence intensity Air density difference Average velocity ratio Maximum velocity ratio difference Maximum velocity ratio difference for the 30o core main direction sector Definition Horizontal distance between the WT and the reference mast used for the power curve measurement campaign Difference in altitude between the base of the WT and that of the reference mast Width of the sector from which data have been used for the evaluation of the power curve Mean terrain slope in the main wind direction sector for distance up to 4D from the WT Turbulence intensity in the main wind direction sector at wind speed equal to 12 m/s Difference between the standard air density at sea level and the mean air density at the site during the measurement campaign Average wind speed correction factor derived from the mean values of the accepted direction sectors during the site calibration campaign Difference between the maximum and minimum average wind speed correction factors obtained from the accepted direction sectors Difference between the maximum and minimum average wind speed correction factors obtained from a 30o wide part of the accepted direction sectors In the following Table 2.2 WT 5 1. .5 times the velocity at which the wind turbine generator produces 85% of the nominal power. 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.
extrap.028 1. In Figure 7. WT distance difference width TI measurement difference mean max (30o) error (% guar.12 0.73 120 0.12 0. The dependence of the correction factor to the mast and WT altitude difference is evident and expected. mean Figure 7.8 4 3.2 2 2.85 0.030 -3.05 3 2 15 V/Vref .11 6.009 0.08 120 0.12 11.016 0.2 0 0. Table 2. and constant extrapolation of power from the last bin of power curve.67 1.9 -10 -15 -0.17 4. increasing the uncertainty in the representation of the real wind speed by the reference mast wind speed.987 0. for Rayleigh distribution with annual mean value Uref=8 m/s.8 0. Such differences are smaller than the estimated typical error of measurement.41 1.16 0.994 0.40 30 0. Site calibration correction factors significantly different than unity.95 -5 0. when the reference mast is placed in a location lower than the WT mast.15 25 R-squared = 0. The AEP calculations were made according to the recommendations of IEC 61400-12 .8 3 2.78 1.9 5 3. smaller than the estimated typical error of measurement. which is fully consistent with the general trend.96 0.4 0.95 5. Differences in AEP are smaller than the typical error of measurement (note that the “∆ΑEP=0” axis crosses the uncertainty interval for all cases).9175 R-squared = 0. the wind farms were deployed along the top of ridges more or less perpendicular to the main wind direction sector. where a clear trend giving velocity ratios directly proportional to the altitude difference is observed.extr. in all cases.00 1.018 1. 1.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. 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. Power performance measurement campaign parameters Combined uncertainty Air Mast Altitude Sector of Terrain density V/Vref.26 0. In such a layout.17 0.6 0.69 0.] 1.1 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 6.042 0.extrap.08 4. Effect of site calibration factors on ∆AEP . only velocity bins up to the value where data were available in both the measured and the “Guaranteed power curve” were used.71 0.9308 20 1.014 0.16 0.08 12.1 ABS(∆AEP). ∆(V/Vref).004 0. a site calibration factor lower than unity is seen.) inclination /Diameter /Diameter (deg) in AEP (%) estimation (%) 1 2.10 0. for all cases as shown in Table 2.030 -4.08 1.028 -1.26 60 0.02 1. V/Vref ∆AEP.10 -0. then the velocity at the WT mast is greater than in the reference mast (velocity ratio greater than unity) and vice versa. mean 10 5 1 1 5 4 3 5 1 4 2 0 0.04 1.98 1.49 0.88 6.1 Altitude difference/Diameter Figure 6. In Case 1.10 4.76 0. [% guar. may be considered as indexes showing a more profound difference in the flow field between the WT and the reference mast position. However.54 5.06 1.5 3. a trend is seen giving a slight increase in the difference with increasing velocity correction factors.019 0. Differences in AEP are in the range of 1 to 5%.40 0. It must be noted however that the ∆ΑΕP is. In order to have comparable results. ∆ΑEP is plotted versus the Site Calibration Correction Factors (average value within the accepted sector).082 0.019 0. In all cases studied. and comparable to deviations measured in power performance verification studies in flat terrain . Effect of altitude difference on site calibration correction factors V/Vref.2 0. where the reference mast is located in a position higher than the WT.12 50 0.
0D) were met. Effect of site calibration factors variation in the accepted direction sector on ∆AEP Figure 9. the reference mast was placed to the side (not upwind) of the WT relative the main direction sector.2 Effect of site calibration correction factors variation in the accepted sector. Effect of terrain inclination on ∆AEP 3.005 -15 ∆(V/Vref).020 0 0.015 0. the limits imposed by IEC61400-12 should be considered as reasonable. the reference anemometer showed similar sensitivity to the inclined flow as the wind turbine rotor. for each case. Wind turbines are considered to be sensitive to the horizontal velocity component (ignoring the small tilt angle). [% guar.3. which could have adverse effect in the correlation of the wind speeds in the two masts. Note that in Case 1. max 0.] 15 ABS(∆AEP). 3.3076 20 ABS(∆AEP).0 2. [% guar. Given the above. where the maximum terrain inclination is observed. In all cases the restrictions imposed by the IEC 61400-12 standard (2D<distance<4.2 0. In order to have comparable results.1 0. no correlation is seen between terrain inclination and ∆ΑΕP. Again this trend is reasonable and expected.extrap.5 Terrain inclination Figure 8.0 Mast distance/Diameter Figure 10.000 0. the differences in a 30o direction sector were most of the data were found are calculated. Terrain inclination is expected to have an impact on the operation of a wind turbine. [% guar.extrap.5 3.3 0. No effect on the ∆ΑΕP is seen.0338 20 ABS(∆AEP). This difference could be considered as a measure of the directional sensitivity of the flow field. In this manner. 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 four of the five cases anemometers with close to cosine response (Vector A100K) were used .2831 20 25 R-squared = 0.] 15 10 10 3 5 2 5 4 1 5 2 4 3 5 1 0 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 -15 0.] 15 10 5 23 1 4 5 0 -5 -10 -15 1. In all cases terrain inclination is well above the flat terrain characterization limits set by IEC 61400-12.extrap.0 3. by causing the wind speed vector approaching the WT rotor to deviate from the horizontal. Effect of distance between reference mast and WT on ∆AEP .5 4. Although values up to 0.4 (40%) are seen. 25 R-squared = 0.4 Distance between reference mast and the wind turbine In Figure 10 ∆AEP is plotted as a function of the distance between reference mast and WT.5 2. Larger distance between the reference and the WT mast could be related to greater time shift between the two positions.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).010 0. 25 R-squared = 0. A week trend giving higher differences with increasing site calibration correction factor variation is seen.4 0.
] ABS(∆AEP).extrap.] 15 10 5 3 4 5 2 1 0 -5 -10 -15 0 2 4 6 ∆ρ [%] 8 10 12 14 Figure 13. 25 R-squared = 0.125 0.075 0.9277 15 10 ABS(∆AEP). no effect of air density difference in ∆AEP is found.5 Width of the accepted direction sector In Figure 11 ∆AEP is plotted as a function of the width of the accepted direction sector.15 kgr/m3).extrap.3. [% guar.150 Width of acceptable direction sector [deg] Turbulence intensity Figure 11.100 0. Again it can be concluded that the corrections proposed by the IEC61400-12 standard successfully offset the effect of air density difference in ΑΕP.] 15 10 5 3 1 4 2 5 5 3 5 5 1 1 4 2 0 0 -5 -10 -5 -10 -15 0 40 80 120 160 -15 0. Effect of turbulence intensity on ∆AEP 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). Effect of air density difference on ∆AEP . hence it should be expected that increased turbulence levels would result in relatively increased deviations in ∆AEP. No effect on ∆ΑΕP is seen. Effect of the width of the accepted direction sector on ∆AEP 3. 25 R-squared = 0.050 0.0808 20 ABS(∆AEP). It should be noted that corrections to standard air density according to IEC61400-12 were applied in all cases.6 Turbulence intensity Figure 12.7 Air density difference In Figure 13 the difference in AEP is plotted as a function of the air density difference.extrap. 3. [% guar. The turbulence intensity is known to have some effect in the power performance of wind turbines . Although the measured average site densities varied considerably (up to 0.0024 20 20 25 R-squared = 0. An increase of the ∆ΑΕP proportional to the increase in turbulence is observed. [% guar.
report made for the program UVE funded by the Danish Energy Agency. as well as the differences in the site mean air density. IEC 61400-12 . and comparable to overall statistical scatter seen in the AEP of wind turbines operating in flat terrain . Dublin T. Morfiadakis E. 6. Gjerding (Tripod). S. distance of reference mast from the WT. April 2002. of EWEC 1994.. No effect was observed for other parameters such as terrain inclination. This first approach highlights the fact that. Stefanatos N. Mouzakis F. 5. . CRES is now using more advanced measurement systems for the power performance verification campaigns. of EWEC 1997. In an attempt to address this need. Thessaloniki. Possible correlations between parameters characterizing the flow field in complex terrain sites and the deviations from the manufacturer were subsequently investigated. Due to the influence of a large number of parameters and the complexity of their interaction. A sensitivity analysis. using the ∆AEP as an index.. DISCUSSION A series of power curve verification measurements performed in complex terrain. In general the deviations from the guaranteed power curve were within the measurement error margin. as also increasing directional sensitivity of the site calibration factors and turbulence levels. pp 906-9103. REFERENCES 1. Hansen (NEGMicon). October 2001. Glinou G. 101 (1).. “Assessment of site calibration techniques for complex terrain” Proc. Paulsen U. In future studies these parameters will also be addressed.S. showed some increase in ∆AEP with increasing site calibration correction factors.. K. Enevoldsen (Bonus). Ver. as quantified by the impact of altitude difference between the mast and WT on the site calibration correction factors. K. by application of the current recommended procedures   the power performance of WTs in complex terrain can be successfully evaluated and produce coherent and accurate results. Considering this. Stefanatos N. P. then differences between the AEP measured in complex terrain sites compared to the guaranteed AEP are smaller than the estimated measurement uncertainty. hence it can be concluded that the application of the current procedures successfully reduced the influence of complex terrain parameters on the results. 3. H. J.4. Ingham (Intercom). following the recommendations of MEASNET and IEC were examined. These systems comprise anemometers at a number of different heights on the reference mast for the purpose of wind shear and turbulence intensity evaluation. by the increased turbulence intensity levels experienced in some of the sites. Glinou G. 2000 Morfiadakis E. Stefanatos N. When using the Annual Energy Production as a measure of the overall efficiency of the wind turbine. Pedersen (Riso). more information is required in order to reach further conclusions. F. “ WTGS.. Jorgensen (Vestas) “Wind turbine power performance verification in complex terrain and wind farms”. “Power performance evaluation of a WT operating in a complex terrain wind farm” . p.. The effect of the terrain on the evolution of the wind flow around the wind turbines was evident in all cases.. 3. sector width etc. 2. Proc. Part 12 Power performance measurements techniques” MEASNET Procedure “Power performance measurement”.. 77-107. Boundary Layer Meteorology. air density difference. Riso-R1330(EN) Papadopoulos K. “Effect of turbulence and flow inclination on the performance of cup anemometers in the field”. the differences in ∆ΑΕP are smaller than the estimated measurement error. 4. P.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?