DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN

)
Long-term Corrections for Wind
Resource Assessment
Alfonso P´erez-And´ ujar
Supervised by:
Alfredo Pe˜ na and Andrea N. Hahmann
DTU Wind Energy, Risø Campus,
Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde, Denmark
December 2013
Author: Alfonso P´erez-And´ ujar
Supervised by:
Alfredo Pe˜ na and Andrea N. Hahmann
Title: Long-term Corrections for Wind
Resource Assessment
Department: DTU Wind Energy
Abstract (max. 2000 char)
This document is a MSc thesis developed for DTU Wind
Energy at Risø Campus. It is mainly a study of different
long-term correction methodologies, which estimate what the
observed wind climate might look like, had measurements started
long before. Long-term corrections are commonly assumed to
represent the future long-term wind climatology, so this assump-
tion was also investigated.
Long-term corrections are derived from the relationship
between the reference and the observed wind speed time series,
in the time window where both are concurrent. The time window
or “concurrent subset” can be made to change in length and
position along the total concurrent set, especially if observations
are long, as in this thesis. Thus, for different concurrent subset
lengths and positions, long-term corrected Weibull parameters
ˆ
A and
ˆ
k, as well as the long-term corrected power density
ˆ
¯
P,
were compared to those which had been actually observed at
the site. This was done by means of bias ratios of long-term
corrected to observed parameters. For each subset length, the
mean and standard deviation of each bias ratio was calculated,
over all possible positions of that subset within the total
concurrent set; it was seen that 12 months is a long-enough
duration of the concurrent period in order to observe a gen-
eral stabilisation of the three bias ratios. Furthermore, the
Weibull method was the absolute best of all non-regression
methods at yielding bias ratios closest to 1, while regarding
the regression methods, the Variance Ratio method is the winner.
The past’s representativeness of the future long-term wind
climatology was explored as well: how representative the concur-
rent subset is of the full concurrent set clearly determined how
well the LTC (derived from the concurrent subset) represents
the future. Also, there is only a subtle difference between the
case where the past is just long-term reference wind speed, and
the case where it is long-term corrected wind speed.
DTU Wind
Energy-Master-
Series-00XX(EN)
December 9, 2013
ISSN:
ISBN:
XXX
Contract no:
XXX
Project no:
XX
Sponsorship:
XX
Cover:
Pages: 100
Tables: 6
Figures: 79
References: 0
Technical University
of Denmark
Frederiksborgvej 399
4000 Roskilde
Denmark
Tel. +4546775024
bcar@dtu.dk
www.vindenergi.dk
Contents
1 Introduction 7
2 Wind Power Meteorology 11
3 Theory: long-term correction methods 16
3.1 Regression methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Non-regression methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Site description 21
5 WRF 23
6 General pre-processing and data treatment 26
6.1 General pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2 Data treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3 The effect of fixing invalid data on the correlation . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7 Sensitivity analysis on the correlation 32
7.1 Sensitivity to time-shifting the concurrent time series . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.2 Sensitivity to rotating the reference wind direction . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.3 Sensitivity to widening the averaging time-range around minute 00 in
the observed 10-min average dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8 The wind climate at Høvsøre 35
8.1 The local wind speed and direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.2 The effect of averaging on the WRF-observations correlation . . . . . . 37
8.3 A description of each observed year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.4 Similarity of concurrent WRF-derived and observed parameters . . . . 44
9 Results I - Which is the best LTC method? 48
9.1 How many months are enough to long-term correct? . . . . . . . . . . 49
9.2 The 12-month concurrent subset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
9.3 Optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
9.4 u and v: an alternative approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
10 Results II - Can LTCs estimate the future? 68
10.1 Description of scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.2 Choice of concurrent year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10.3 LTCs representing the future for different methods . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
11 Discussion 77
12 Conclusions 82
13 References 84
A Appendix 86
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 5
I would like to thank my supervisors Alfredo and Andrea for the time spent together
during the development of this thesis and especially for their help during the final cor-
rections. Thanks also to Sonia Lil´eo, Knut Harstveit and Rickard Klinkert from Kjeller
Vindteknikk for their kind emails and constant help; Anthony Rogers for his advice;
Alan Mortimer for his time and help by phone; Colin Ritter for his help and suggestions;
Niels G. Mortensen for the papers he printed for me; and finally to Wolfgang Schlez
and the guys from Garrad Hassan for the access they gave us to WindFarmer.
Thanks to my friends Matteo and Philippe, to this beautiful country where I met
the one and only Magic Mike; to Sandra and, of course, to my family, who are always
a refuge.
6 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
1 Introduction
Projected wind farms are getting increasingly larger with time in terms of turbine size
and investment. A wind farm developer needs to minimise the financial risk by calcu-
lating the best possible estimate of what the future long-term wind climatology at the
site of interest will be like, i.e. estimating the future power production. This, however,
can only be done using measurements from the past and implies assuming that this is
a reasonable approach for predicting the future climatology. Moreover, there may not
be more than a year of wind speed and direction observations at the target site, and to
obtain a trustworthy all-time average that accounts for the local interannual variations,
around 8–10 years are needed. Such long observations are of course very hard to find
at target sites because on-site measuring campaigns generally last not much longer
than a year.
To circumvent the shortcoming of having only short-term on-site observations, method-
ologies known as long-term corrections (LTCs) are commonly used in wind resource
assessment to give an estimation of the long-term past wind climatology that could
have been measured at a target site. LTC methods work by exploring relationships
between the short-term observations at the site and the short-term slice of a longer
“reference” time series which is concurrent to it. The long-term “reference” time series
can be a long-term observation from a nearby site, a dataset from analysis or reanal-
ysis data or results from numerical weather prediction models. From the concurrent
short-term observed and reference datasets, some correction factors are established, by
means of which the long-term time series can be transferred onto the target site.
Figure 1: LTC general scheme for two imaginary concurrent time series.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 7
Figure 1 shows imaginary long-term reference and short-term on-site observed time
series. The longest possible concurrent period, marked in green, therefore comprises
the total observed set, but comprises, on the other hand, just a slice of the long-
term dataset. The resulting LTC could go, in this case, as far back as year −10 and
thus constitute the wind climatology that could have been measured at the target
site, had measurements started earlier. This is why LTCs are not in essence, as of-
ten termed, predictions of the future wind climatology, but rather could-have-been
hypotheses regarding an already past time. The energy yield of a long-term corrected
(LTC) climatology is often assumed to give a trustworthy idea of the future energy
yield. This is the same as assuming that the LTC climatology is representative of the
future, which is a reasonable assumption only if the climatology of the area is known
to vary mildly with time.
Two main questions thus arise. First of all, how accurately do the long-term ref-
erence data describe the long-term wind climatology at the site? Of course,
since the whole purpose of using long-term reference data is precisely to account for the
lack of long-term observations at the site, it may seem preposterous to try to compare
long-term reference data with what is actually being looked for. However, if there are
long-term data at both the reference and the target sites for the same period (as in
this thesis), it is interesting to see how similar reference long-term data are to actual
long-term site observations. This consideration has yet nothing to do with LTCs as
such, but of course, if the reference wind climatology is not in the least representative
of the sites’s actual wind climatology, probably most LTC methods will give biased
results, since long-term reference data are the key ingredient of a LTC.
Regarding the issue of similarity between reference data and observations, Lil´eo et
al. (2013) conducted an investigation on what they termed the representativeness of
the reference wind speed, i.e. how well the reference wind speed represents the con-
current site wind speed. They investigated how well reference wind speeds represent
observed wind speeds, for 8 different reanalysis models and 42 measurement sites in
terrain with low complexity. They obtained the best results for those reanalysis refer-
ence data coming from the Weather Reanalysis Forecast (WRF) model. In this respect,
several different methods (introduced in section 3) will be used in order to generate
LTCs which can be later compared to actual concurrent observations. These results will
also be compared to those obtained by Lil´eo et al. (2013) and Rogers et al. (2005). In
Lil´eo et al. (2013), the Knut & Harstveit (KH) method shows the best agreement with
observations in terms of mean wind speed and Weibull parameters A and k. Rogers et
al. (2005) shows, on the other hand, that the Variance Ratio (VAR) and the Mortimer
(MOR) methods are the closest. Note that in Lil´eo et al. (2013), long-term reference
wind speeds and directions come from reanalysis, whereas Rogers et al. (2005) used
long-term observations from a secondary mast. Moreover, the methods investigated in
one paper are not investigated in the other.
8 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
This takes us to the main motivation of this thesis, which is to find out which LTC
methods give the best results. Indeed, even though LTC methods are a common step
in a prediction process of the future wind speed (as well as a relatively simple tool in
terms of implementation, at least when compared to flow and wake modelling), they
account for an average 2.5% of the total variability of the entire predictive process.
This is more than the flow and wake variation put together, as seen in figure 2 of a
study carried out in 2011.
Figure 2: Coefficient of variation [%] added by each of the common steps in a prediction process of
the future wind speed. Taken with permission of Niels G. Mortensen, Comparison of Resource and
Energy Yield Assessment Procedures, 2011.
Therefore, a consensus should be reached as to which LTC method to use in a wind
resource assessment, and why.
Secondly, also an important motivation for doing this thesis: can LTCs predict the
future wind climatology? If so, it may seem reasonable to hypothesise that the more
data gathered from the past, the more accurate the description of the future will be.
However, does this hypothesis still hold reasonable, the longer the future period to be
estimated? The assumption of the past being representative of the future has been
the object of study in recent years. Lil´eo et al. (2013) investigated, for an already past
period of reanalysis data, how well different “past” windows (i.e. prior to some date in-
side the chosen period) of wind speed represent a fixed “future” window of subsequent
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 9
years. They did this for each grid point over a certain focus region, using wind speeds
obtained from the Twentieth Century Global Reanalysis Version II (20CRv2). In order
to get an idea of the past’s representativeness of the future, they defined an error by
taking the percentage difference in mean wind speed of the “past” and the “future”
periods. They concluded that the mean wind speed of the near past is not necessarily
the best predictor of the future mean wind speed, as well as that each grid point has
an optimum length of “past” window, i.e. the number of “past” years needed to get
the best prediction (i.e. the minimum percentage error) is specific to each grid point.
In this thesis, a similar investigation is conducted. However, LTCs from the “past”
are compared to “future” observations. Of course, if the past’s representativeness of
the future is to be studied, it would always be safer to use past years of observations
to compare them to future observations, rather than use past years of LTCs to com-
pare to future observations. However, as mentioned earlier, there are usually no more
than 12 months of observations at a target site, so comparing past LTCs to future
observations can solve the problem of lack of long-term observations, and tell us which
method yields the best result.
The LTC methods used are explained in section 3. They are classified as regression and
non-regression methods and easily found in the literature (Riedel et al. (2001), Nielsen
et al. (2001), Woods and Watson (1997), Mortimer (1994), and also summarised in
Lil´eo et al. (2013) and Rogers et al. (2005)).
Section 4 describes the site of interest, the area of Høvsøre, which is located in Western
Denmark; since WRF-derived wind speeds are used as long-term references, the basic
principle underlying the model is explained in section 5. The filtering process applied to
invalid values of wind speed and direction found in the observed dataset is explained in
section 6. Section 7 is a short investigation on how the correlation for the concurrent
wind speed components varies under certain changing conditions. The climate at the
site is described in section 8. Section 9 explores the ability of the different LTC meth-
ods to long-term correct different parameters describing the wind climatology. Finally,
section 10 tries to answer the question of whether we can predict the future using
information from the past, at least for the specific case of Høvsøre and the choice of
inputs for this work.
10 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
2 Wind Power Meteorology
It is common practice to describe the frequency of 10-min, 30-min, or 1-hr average
wind speeds U at some site, over a long-enough period (e.g. 1 year), by means of the
Weibull probability density function (p.d.f.),
f(U) = k
U
k−1
A
k
exp
_

_
U
A
_
k
_
, (1)
where A and k are the Weibull parameters. Equation 1 shows that the frequency of
occurrence of the wind, f(U), is driven just by A and k. This section is a brief de-
scription of the different methods in which these two parameters can be calculated
from a wind speed time series. Using A and k, together with wind direction, is enough
information to characterise the site, at least for a study of this kind.
Before investigating different methods of calculating A and k, it is worth looking at
certain definitions, like for example the mean wind speed µ, which is a particular case
of the non-central moment when n = 1, and can be defined as
µ
n
=
_

0
U
n
f(U)dU. (2)
The variance σ
2
of the mean wind speed is another particular case of the central
moment, when n=2,
σ
n
=
_

0
(U −µ
1
)
n
f(U)dU. (3)
A very useful relationship for this study shall also be considered, involving non-central
moments:
µ
n
= A
n
Γ
_
1 +
n
k
_
, (4)
where the gamma function is defined as:
Γ(t) =
_

0
e
−x
x
t−1
dx, (5)
and where t is a constant such that t 1.
Square of the mean wind speed
Dividing the square of the first non-central moment (the square of the mean) by the
second non-central moment (the mean of the square) gives an equation which is a
function only of k. This can then be solved iteratively, since it is a quotient of known
values,
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 11
µ
2
1
µ
2
=
Γ
2
_
1 +
1
k
_
Γ
_
1 +
2
k
_ . (6)
This method will be referred to as 2NCM.
Cube of the mean wind speed
Dividing the cube of the first non-central moment (the cube of the mean) by the third
non-central moment (the mean of the cube) gives a result which is also just a function
of k,
µ
3
1
µ
3
=
Γ
3
_
1 +
1
k
_
Γ
_
1 +
3
k
_ . (7)
This method will be referred to as 3NCM.
Maximum Likelihood Estimator
This method was developed by Harter and Moore (1965). Let U
1
, U
2
, ..., U
N
be a
sample of N random and independently distributed wind speeds drawn from a p.d.f.
that depends only on the wind speed U and on the parameter to be estimated, θ. The
likelihood function of the random sample U
i
, i = 1, ..., N, is denoted L and is the joint
density of all U
i
from the drawn sample,
L =
N

i=1
f(U
i
, θ). (8)
The expression for L, when the p.d.f. is the Weibull probability density function, is:
L(U, A, k) =
N

i=1
k
U
k−1
A
k
exp
_

_
U
A
__
. (9)
The two equations above are enough to solve iteratively A and k,
∂ ln L
∂A
= 0 (10)
∂ ln L
∂k
= 0, (11)
and thus calculate which value of θ(A, k) maximises the likelihood function. This
method will be referred to as MLE.
Least Square Method
The Weibull cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.), F(U), is obtained by integrating
its p.d.f.,
12 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
F(U) =
_
U
−∞
f(U

)dU

= 1 −exp
_

_
U
A
_
k
_
. (12)
Taking natural logarithms and rearranging equation 12 leads to
ln(−ln(1 −F(U))) = −k ln c + ln U, (13)
which can be minimised e.g. via least squares. This method will be referred to as LSM.
The different Weibull parameters obtained from these four techniques were applied
to a wind speed time series in order to obtain four different distributions. These were
plotted alongside the histogram of the dataset, in order to see the differences between
them. Figure 3 shows the entire wind speed distribution, whereas figure 4 shows an
amplificaton for better visualisation, since the f(U) curves from the different methods
are closely packed together. The p.d.f representing the LSM method (blue curve) gives
noticeably higher frequencies of occurrence for the speed range 5–12 m/s.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Wind speed [m/s]
p
.
d
.
f
.
Data histogram
2NCM
3NCM
MLE
LSM
Figure 3: Histogram of the wind speed (bars), and Weibull distribution p.d.f.s based on different
methods: 2NCM (“square of the mean wind speed”), 3NCM (“cube of the mean wind speed”), MLE
(“maximum likelihood estimator”) and LSM (“least square method”).
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 13
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Wind speed [m/s]
p
.
d
.
f
.
Data histogram
2NCM
3NCM
MLE
LSM
Figure 4: Amplification of the histogram of wind speed (bars), and Weibull distribution p.d.f.s based
on different methods: 2NCM (“square of the mean wind speed”), 3NCM (“cube of the mean wind
speed”), MLE (“maximum likelihood estimator”) and LSM (“least square method”).
For a wind farm investor, besides A and k it is also very important to estimate the
future wind power density at the site of interest,
¯
P. This third parameter is directly
derived from A and k,
¯
P
A,k
=
1
2
ρA
3
Γ
_
1 +
3
k
_
. (14)
However, the wind speed power density can also be calculated directly from the time
series speed values, by averaging over the cubed values of the time series,
¯
P
U
3
=
1
2
ρU
3
. (15)
Having two approaches is advantageous because it allows for a direct comparison
between the single-valued
¯
P
U
3
(which is fixed for any given time series), and
¯
P
A,k
coming from each of the four methods explained above. This comparison is shown in
table 1 by means of

P
=
¯
P
U
3

¯
P
A,k
¯
P
U
3
. (16)
14 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
Methods
Parameters 2NCM 3NCM MLE LSM
A [m/s] 10.47 10.47 10.46 10.36
k 2.19 2.17 2.18 2.26

P
[%] 0.67 0.00 0.41 6.02
Table 1: Percentage error between the power density calculated as a function of the average cube
wind speed and the power density calculated as a function of A and k obtained through different
methods. The expression used is
P
= (
¯
P
U
3

¯
P
A,k
)/
¯
P
U
3
.
The p.d.f. curves derived from the four different methods (figure 3 or 4) do not give
information on which of the four gives the best description of the wind power density.
However, table 1 does show how a small increase in terms of the k parameter (from
2.17 in 3NCM to 2.19 in 2NCM, i.e. 0.9%), keeping A constant, means a difference
of 0.7% in power density (from 847 W/m
2
to 853 W/m
2
). Furthermore, the LSM
method is by far the worst in terms of
P
, with just a −1.1% difference in A with
respect to the three other methods. It can be concluded that, while 2NCM, 3NCM and
MLE yield very similar Weibull parameters,
¯
P
A,k
is so sensitive that only the 3NCM
method is the best approach to estimating an accurate value of the power density.
Using the Weibull parameters is useful in that it describes the local wind climatol-
ogy through just two parameters. For example, whenever sector-wise observed wind
speeds are generalised, it is a much better choice, in terms of computational cost, to
handle just two parameters per sector instead of generalising value after speed value.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 15
3 Theory: long-term correction methods
Long-term correction methodologies need a short-term wind speed or direction ob-
served dataset at the site of interest, and a long-term reference time series. It is
moreover necessary for both time series to be concurrent during a certain period of
time. A wind farm developer would usually use the entire short-term time series and
slice the corresponding piece of the reference long-term time series which is concurrent
in time with it. These two concurrent time series of equal length can then be used
to calculate the LTC factors, which, applied to the entire reference long-term dataset,
give the long-term correction and thus an estimation of the site’s long-term climatology.
Expressions such as “reference concurrent” and “short-term reference” datasets are
equivalent and will refer to the part of the long-term reference time series that is
concurrent to the short-term site-observed dataset, which will in turn be denoted
“short-term site”, “site concurrent” or simply “short-term observed” time series.
3.1 Regression methods
A plot of the concurrent site dataset vs. the concurrent reference dataset is needed,
from which to obtain a best fit that will most accurately describe the relationship be-
tween both datasets. This can be done in an all-sector fashion, but it is recommended
to correct sector-wise and ultimately recombine the sector-wise corrections into an
all-sector LTC. When sectorising both concurrent short-term datasets, it is customary
to use the direction of the short-term reference, i.e. to do as if the short-term site’s
direction were the same as the concurrent reference one. This is done for practical
reasons, since for most methods, direction is not long-term corrected and thus the only
available long-term direction is the reference one.
• Ordinary Least Square Method (OLS)
It assumes that there is a linear relationship between both concurrent time series.
The aim is to calculate the intercept and slope coefficients that will minimise the
sum of the squared residuals,
n

i=1

2
i
, in the y−axis direction, where
i
= ˆ y
i
− y
i
,
i.e. the predicted reference value minus the measured value. The regression line
can be forced to go through the origin.
• Total Least Square Method (TLS)
This is equivalent to the previous method, but the residuals are calculated as the
difference between the reference predicted and the measured values in the perpen-
dicular direction with respect to the regression line, instead of in the vertical one.
The equations were taken from the commercial software package WindFarmer
R
’s
16 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
manual, for its “PCA Method” (WindPRO 2.6 Manual, 2008). Again the intercept
can be forced to be zero.
• −nth degree Polynomial Regression Method (PRn)
In practice, an -nth degree polynomial can be chosen to fit a data cloud. For a
scatter plot with a non-linear shape, it might be a reasonable approach to fit a
higher degree polynomial and try to cover the data cloud more accurately. In this
work, the PRn method was applied throughout by means of a third-order polyno-
mial, henceforth referred to as PR3.
Better results could be expected from this methodology, but, as pointed out by
Rebbeck (1996), none of the non-linear models investigated by him (higher or-
der polynomials, cubic splines and complex surface fitting) performed much better
than a linear regression.
• Variance Ratio Method (VAR)
This method was proposed by Rogers et al. (2005) as a way to force the overall
variance of the LTC time series to be equal to the overall variance of the observed
time series, i.e. σ(ˆ y) = σ(y). This is done by forcing the slope parameter to be
σ(y)/σ(x); also, it avoids the problem of “the variance of the predicted wind speed
about the mean being smaller than the variance of the observed wind speeds by a
factor equal to the correlation coefficient from the regression fit” (Rogers et al.,
2005).
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 17
0 10 20 30 40
0
10
20
30
40
Reference wind speed [m/s]
S
i
t
e
w
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
[
m
/
s
]
w.s.
OLS
OLS f.t.o
TLS
PR3
VAR
Figure 5: Different regression trend lines for concurrent short-term site and short-term reference wind
speeds. Each trend line corresponds to a different fitting method.
3.2 Non-regression methods
These methods firstly sectorise both the concurrent short-term site and short-term
reference time series. Parameters such as A, k and wind power density
¯
P are then
calculated for each sector, so that the correction factors can be applied sector-wise to
these parameters. The resulting LTC is therefore not a time series, but a collection of
sector-wise LTC parameters, from here on denoted
ˆ
A,
ˆ
k and
ˆ
¯
P.
• Mortimer Method (MOR)
This method was created by Alan A. Mortimer, see Mortimer (1994). Both the
concurrent site and the reference time series are firstly binned with respect to the
reference speed and direction: ±1 m/s and ±15

, for example. Secondly, a matrix
r
ij
is created, where each element ij contains the mean of the quotient of con-
current site and reference wind speeds, i.e. the mean of vector
¯ v
sst
¯ v
rlt
. An analogous
matrix s
ij
must also be built, to contain the standard deviation of vector
¯ v
sst
¯ v
rlt
.
(The subscripts stand for, respectively: site long-term (slt), site short-term (sst),
reference short-term (rst) and reference long-term (rlt)).
s
ij
is used to create a triangularly-distributed pseudorandom number e
ij
at each
speed/direction bin ij, so that the final governing equation can be applied:
ˆ y
ij
= (r
ij
+ e
ij
)x
ij
, (17)
18 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
where y and x are the binned long-term corrected wind speed and the binned
long-term reference input, respectively.
• Knut & Harstveit Method (KH)
The KH method was developed by Knut Harstveit and is used in the Norwegian
wind assessment company Kjeller Vindteknikk, see Klinkert (2012). A matrix of
short-term site observed wind speeds is constructed, O
ij
, where i and j are direc-
tion sectors in the concurrent reference and site datasets, respectively. The element
ij of the matrix contains all short-term wind speed values at the site that fall into
the bin ij, i.e. those wind speeds that belong to direction bin j but occur when
the concurrent short-term reference data value belongs to direction bin i. From
this matrix, a population matrix N
ij
is derived; each element is simply the number
of wind speeds found in each ij in O
ij
.
A third matrix is also derived from O
ij
, containing the mean of the observed
short-term site wind speeds contained at each ij. This matrix is expressed as
¯
O
ij
.
A fourth matrix is computed as a probability matrix P
ij
derived from N
ij
. P
ij
is obtained simply by dividing each value ij by the sum of all the column j, i.e. it
is the probability of directions observed at the site occurring at the same time as
reference directions. Finally, a vector Q
i
is calculated, with as many elements as
direction bins have been chosen. Each element contains the quotient of long-term
reference and short-term (concurrent) reference wind speeds, each sectorised with
its own direction. The equation governing is expressed as
ˆ
¯ v
j
slt
=
12

i=1
¯
O
ij
· P
ij
· Q
i
, (18)
where
ˆ
¯ v
j
slt
is the LTC average wind speed calculated for bin j.
• Tallhaug and Nygaard Method (TN)
This method is explained in Tallgaud and Nygaard (1993). It follows the relation
¯ v
i
slt
= ¯ v
i
sst
+ R
i
σ
i
slt
σ
i
slt
(¯ v
i
rlt
− ¯ v
i
rst
), which gives the site long-term mean wind speed,
sectorised with respect to the reference wind direction. For each sector, the Pearson
coefficient R must be calculated, as well as the standard deviation of both concur-
rent, sector-wise datasets. Finally, this predicted long-term mean wind speed must
be translated to the site wind direction by means of:
ˆ
¯ v
j
slt
=
n

i=1
¯ v
i
slt
p
ji
p
i
p
j
, (19)
where p
ji
is a matrix containing the probability of site sector j occuring at the
same time as reference sector i, while p
j
and p
i
are the individual probabilities of
sectors i or j occurring at the site and reference, respectively.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 19
• Woods & Watson (WW)
This method is explained in Woods and Watson (1997). Two matrices W
ij
and
Z
ij
are created. The first one contains the conditional probability of wind blowing
in a certain reference sector i, and in sector j of the site. The second matrix
represents the inverse case. Both are built such that
n

j=1
W
ij
= 1 and
n

i=1
Z
ij
= 1.
To calculate the long-term corrected wind speed at the site, the authors proposed
two options. In this thesis only the second option is implemented, since, according
to the authors, it is the choice which yields the best results when the correlation
between the concurrent data sets is poor (and as will be seen, concurrency is
moderate for the site):
ˆ
¯ v
j
slt
= m
j
_
n

i=1
Z
ij
¯ v
i
rlt
_
+ c
j
(20)
• Weibull Method (WBL)
A very simple method found, among others, in the WindPro
R
commercial software
package (WindPRO 2.6 Manual 2008). It needs both concurrent short-term site
and short-term reference time series to be sectorised with respect to their own
direction values. The LTC site wind speed is defined as λ
j
slt
=
λ
i
sst
λ
j
rst
λ
j
rlt
. The su-
perscript j in λ
j
slt
indicates that it is already sectorised for the site direction j. λ
represents any parameter calculated for a specific bin, including frequency. This is
the only method to yield a LTC frequency
ˆ
f, as implemented in this work.
Method Regression Non-regression Corrects direction Developer
OLS Yes if applied to u and v GL-GH, WindFarmer
TLS Yes if applied to u and v GL-GH, WindFarmer
PR3 Yes if applied to u and v
VAR Yes if applied to u and v Rogers, Rogers & Manwell
MOR No Alan Mortimer
KH No Knut Hartsveit
TN No Tallhaug & Nygaard
WW No Woods & Watson
WBL Yes EMD, Windpro
Table 2: Summary of the different LTC methods used in this work.
20 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
4 Site description
The measuring station is located at DTU Wind Energy’s test center for large wind
turbines at Høvsøre, in Western Denmark.
Figure 6: Bing Maps
R
image of Høvsøre test facility and its surroundings.
Figure 6 shows the Høvsøre site, marked in red. It is delimited to the South by a U-
shaped road and to the North by a creek. It is a very flat area made of farmlands and
grasslands, and there are two significant bodies of water: the North Sea to the West
and the Bøvling Fjord to the South. The farmland is cut mainly by the limiting roads
around. Along the coastline to the West and protecting the 181-Road from the sea
winds, there is a 5-m-high embankment.
Figure 7 shows a closer view of Høvsøre. The wind turbines lie in a North-South array,
each with its corresponding measuring mast lying roughly 250 m to the West. The
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 21
meteorological mast (the station) is roughly 200 m South of the southernmost turbine,
from which Høvsøre’s observations are recorded.
Figure 7: Bing Maps
R
image of Høvsøre test facility and its surroundings.
The mast’s data feed can be followed in real time at DTU Wind Energy’s website.
These measurements are mainly wind speed and direction at different heights, but also
temperatures and atmospheric pressure. In this thesis, however, only wind speed and
direction measured by the meteorological mast (marked in blue in figure 7) were used.
The exact coordinates of the station are 56

26’26”–8

9’3”, and measurements were
recorded by a Risø P2546a cup anemometer and vane placed 100 m above ground, for
the period 01–01–2005 to 31–12–2012. Both devices have a measuring frequency of
10 Hz, but the data used in this thesis are 10-min average wind speed and direction.
The choice of 100 m height is suitable for large wind turbines.
22 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
5 WRF
The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model is a numerical weather prediction
(NWP) model widely used in research and industry and that counts with up to 6000
users (Skamarock et al (2008)). It is a code-based tool, and it is accommodated in
the so-called WRF Software Framework (WSF), which holds the different modules
that feed into the calculations. Thus, modules such as Physics Package and WRF-
Chem serve as input to the Dynamic Solvers (Advanced Research WRF or ARW and
Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model or NMM) while performing the calculations.
Figure 8: WRF software infrastructure, Skamarock et al (2008).
WRF is highly user-configurable. As an example, it can be set to use simplified physics
equations when calculating microphysics, or be set to make use of its full capability
(sophisticated mixed-phase physics). It can either treat atmospheric radiation as a mix
of long and short waves or as a simple shortwave system. Surface physics can be ac-
counted for via a simple thermal model or via a more complete model comprising all
possibilities (vegetation, moisture, snow, ice, etc.). However it is this wide range of
possibilities what causes WRF’s output to be highly dependent on the user’s choices
and model tuning (Hahmann et al., 2013).
WRF output simulations were used in this work as reference data. The simulations
were run at DTU Wind Energy Risø Campus by nesting the model in a global atmo-
spheric reanalysis, i.e. the initialisation of WRF’s mesoscale simulations, as well as the
area’s boundary conditions, were taken from a global atmospheric reanalysis. For this
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 23
work, version 3.2.1 of WRF was configured to use the ARW solver on an outer domain
grid of size 15 km × 15 km and on a nested domain grid of size 5 km × 5 km.
Figure 9 shows the real boundaries of a part of northwestern Jutland (including Høvsøvre),
overlapped by WRF’s nested grid land mask. This is the configuration used in order to
obtain the simulated wind speed and direction, which were used as reference data in
the thesis.
Figure 9: Representation of the land mass and the ocean as seen by WRF’s nested grid. The pink “x”
marks the location of the meteorological mast. The two red dots located East and West of the mast
mark the two closest v-component grid output points. The green points North and South mark the
u-component grid output points (it is a staggered grid).
The four points (represented as red, green and white dots in figure 9) belong to the
a horizontal slice of the 3D grid, thus representing only the pressure level roughly
equivalent to 100 m in height. The values of the zonal and the meridional wind speed
24 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
at the four dots were then horizontally interpolated so as to obtain a single value of
WRF-derived horizontal wind speeds at the middle point (white dot in the figure). This
final output point is, as mentioned, at a height of roughly 100 m.
As for the 5 km × 5 km horizontal grid resolution, figure 9 shows that this causes
a large difference between the modeled and the real horizontal boundaries. Indeed,
WRF’s land mask mismatch implies that winds modeled as northeasterly winds at
Høvsøre blow over water when reaching the mast, when in reality, northeasterly winds
blow over land. This change in roughness length between the real (observed) and the
modelled, WRF-derived winds is one of the reasons behind deviations between between
both at coastal sites such as Høvsøre.
On the other hand, the coarseness of WRF’s grid does not present a problem at
Høvsøre in terms of unseen obstacles, since, as seen in the previous section, the site
is mainly flat terrain. Also, no new significant buildings were erected that could have
not been included in WRF’s topography input. All this makes Høvsøre a unique site in
terms of observations and reference data.
Choosing the reference time series to be WRF-derived should be validated by repeat-
ing the experiment with wind speeds derived from another NWP model, or even from
long-term observations from a nearby mast (e.g. from the two neighbouring wind farms
seen in figure 6).
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 25
6 General pre-processing and data treat-
ment
The time series coming from Høvsøre’s meteorological station comprises 10-min aver-
age wind speed and direction observations at 100 m. As mentioned in section 4, the
period used in this thesis goes from 01–01–2005 to 31–12–2012.
The reference time series used comes from the WRF mesoscale model (section 5),
which outputs instantaneous hourly values of the horizontal wind velocity components
u and v. These were transformed to speed and direction for the period 01–01–1999 to
31–12–2012.
The maximum possible concurrent period for both observations and reanalysis is there-
fore 01–01–2005 to 31–12–2012 (the duration of the observations).
6.1 General pre-processing
Both original or “raw” observed speed and direction time series had to be pre-processed
before they could be put to use. This was done in 5 steps, of which only the last applies
to the WRF dataset:
1. Remove extra time stamps.
In the observed time series, extra values were found sometimes in between two
output time stamps, e.g. an extra output value at 05 between 00 and 10 min.
Therefore, in this case, if valid values of wind speed were found at both 00 and
10 time stamps for that hour, the value at 05 was removed. Otherwise, the extra
time stamp was shifted in place of the missing one (see next point).
2. Shift time stamps.
Values corresponding to time stamps which were not 00, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 min
were shifted, if needed. As an example, a value at minute 09 was shifted to minute
10 if the wind speed value at minute 10 was missing, or time stamp 04 was shifted
to 00 if 00 did not previously exist (in both cases, the time series would show
values only at 00 and 10).
3. Reduce the length of the observed time series
Since the WRF time series comprises instantaneous, hourly wind speed and di-
rection values, the observed time series contains 6 times more values for any
concurrent period. However, in order to see how they correlate to each other,
both time series must have the same number of data points. This means that the
6 observed speed and direction values in each hour must be substituted by just one.
26 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
This only value was chosen as the 10-min average value corresponding to the
time frame 0–10 min. Indeed, averaging over the 6 values in each hour, in order
to obtain a single value per hour, would have meant a greater loss of information.
4. Choose a fixing scheme to treat invalid data.
Invalid recordings were not seen to come necessarily in pairs, since flagged time
stamps were found that either (i) contained a flawed record only of speed (ii)
contained a flawed record only of direction, or (iii) contained flawed speed and
direction. Two different paths can be taken when any of the two previous cases is
encountered:
(a) Time stamps containing invalid data are removed.
(b) Time stamps containing invalid data are filled with some estimated value.
These two possibilities are investigated in subsection 6.2 below.
Note: as well as non numeric wind speed and direction outputs, invalid wind speeds
are also (i) super high readings (usually taken as wind speeds above three times
the overall standard deviation), and (ii) time windows with a constant wind speed
or direction. However, none of these two cases were seen to occur in the observed
time series.
5. As for the WRF dataset, the only pre-processing it required was the interpolation
calculated at a height of 100 m from the three different isobaric surface levels
at which the model outputs its computations: roughly 14, 70 and 125 m. This
interpolation was carried out at each time stamp (at each hour) in order to obtain
hourly u and v simulated velocity components at 100 m.
6.2 Data treatment
After shifting and reducing the observed time series, all remaining invalid data had to
be treated. In the case of Høvsøre’s hourly observed time series, invalid data account
for a 2% of all the values. As mentioned in point 4. above, two paths were followed
when a flagged wind speed or direction value was encountered: the time stamp itself
was either removed or filled with some numeric data:
1. Time stamps containing invalid data are removed.
Time stamps containing either an invalid speed or direction value were removed.
The resulting wind speed time series will hereafter be denoted “chopped time se-
ries”.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 27
2. Time stamps containing invalid data are filled with some estimated value.
2.1. Months were treated separately when following this scheme, as in Salmon
and Taylor (2013), i.e. missing wind speeds were substituted by the monthly aver-
age. However, since missing wind speeds at Høvsøre are usually grouped in chunks
of 100 or more consecutive invalid values, the resulting time series, after such
substitution, showed unphysical behaviour. This could be seen in a simple WRF-
derived vs. observed wind speed scatter plot as odd horizontal alignments of points.
The resulting wind speed time series will hereafter be denoted “monthly-average
time series”.
2.2. A Matlab
R
function named inpaint nans.m was chosen instead. This func-
tion interpolates between the values at the beginning and the end of a missing
chunk of data in any time series. It also takes into account the general pattern
before and after the missing values, in order to best simulate the pattern of the
generated data.
In the case of Høvsøre’s hourly observed dataset, this function was applied component-
wise, i.e. separately to the u and v datasets. The reason for doing so is that the
function did not work well when interpolating direction values (especially around
0

), so it was chosen to convert speed and direction into components before using
the function. This conversion into components, however, requires both speed and
direction values to be valid. Therefore, it was enough that a time stamp contained
either invalid speed or invalid direction, to mark it as flagged. The flagged time
stamp was then filled by applying the inpaint nans.m function to the u and v
datasets. The fixed time series were ultimately combined back into speed and di-
rection.
The resulting wind speed time series will hereafter be denoted “painted time series”.
6.3 The effect of fixing invalid data on the correlation
This subsection investigates the effect that fixing invalid data in Høvsøre’s observed
dataset has on how it correlates to the concurrent reanalysis dataset. In order to do so,
the observed time series was subjected to an increasing number of artificially injected
invalid data. Since Høvsøre’s hourly observed time series already contained invalid data,
the starting dataset, which had to be free of invalid data, was in reality the “painted”
time series. This dataset was then iteratively corrupted.
At each iteration, each of the fixing schemes described above was applied to the
28 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
corrupted dataset, after which both the fixed and the concurrent reference dataset
were correlated, and the correlation coefficient r
2
calculated.
In the case where invalid data were substituted by either a monthly average or an
interpolation, the reference dataset remained untouched and both kept as many data
points. On the other hand, in the case of time stamp removal, the infected dataset and
the reference dataset lost the same (concurrent) values in order to make correlation
possible.
The artificial injection of invalid data into Høvsøre’s hourly observed time series was
done in two ways:
1. Invalid values (100 individual, randomly scattered) were added to the time series
at each iteration. See figure 10.
2. Invalid chunks (each comprising 100 consecutive values) were randomly added to
the time series at each iteration. See figure 11.
As mentioned, for both cases, after injecting invalid data at each iteration, the different
fixing schemes were applied.
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Invalid data (x100 individual values)
r
2


Chopped time series
Painted time series
Monthly average time series
Figure 10: Correlation coefficient of Høvsøre’s observed time series after fixing its invalid wind speed
values, and the concurrent reference time series, as a function of the number of invalid data values.
The invalid values were randomly injected, 100 values each time.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 29
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Invalid data (packs of 100 consecutive values)
r
2


Chopped time series
Painted time series
Monthly average time series
Figure 11: Correlation coefficient of Høvsøre’s observed time series after fixing its invalid wind speed
values, and the concurrent reference time series, as a function of the number of invalid data values.
The invalid values were randomly injected, blocks of 100 consecutive values each time.
Note that the “chopped” time series loses, at each iteration, as many data points as
invalid values were added (and at the same exact positions). Thus, the fact that this
is at the same time the least representative dataset of Høvsøre and the most stable
in terms of correlation, as seen from figures 10 and 11, means that r
2
is not a reliable
parameter for quantifying the amount of information lost to invalid values. Other ap-
proaches such as comparing parameters (A, k and
¯
P) calculated from the corrupted
(and subsequently fixed) observed dataset and parameters from the reference dataset
may be more accurate.
Another distinctive feature of figures 10 and 11 is the huge difference for the “painted”
time series between the case where 100 individual invalid values are randomly added at
each time (figure 10), compared to when randomly-scattered packs of 100 consecutive
invalid values are added (figure 11). The former case allows the interpolating function
to keep both time series similar, whereas in the latter case, the wider gaps make it
more difficult for the fixing scheme to be successful. This is backed up by taking a
look at figure 11: from value 520 onwards (along the x-axis), there is no more space
to assign whole packs of 100 invalid values, and so these are, for increasing number
of invalid data, injected individually (as in figure 10): indeed, from this point on, the
decay of r
2
is much less acute.
The correlation coefficient r
2
is therefore seen to be ineffective at determining how
much representativeness has been lost to invalid data. In the case where the number of
data points decreases in the two concurrent time series (red curve, figures 10 and 11),
both time series are still actually representative of each other, so r
2
does not decrease.
It also does not decrease when invalid data are replaced by similar (interpolated) data,
30 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
as seen from the blue curve in figure 10. r
2
decreases however considerably when the
gaps or “holes” are replaced by surrogate data which is very different from the local
pattern around the gap (blue curve, figures 10 and 11).
For remaining calculations in this thesis, the observed time series used will be the one
resulting from fixing Høvsøre’s real invalid data with the Matlab
R
function; this scheme
keeps the right number of datapoints and does not show the unphysical patterns seen
in the monthly-average time series.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 31
7 Sensitivity analysis on the correlation
It is interesting to investigate the correlation between reference and observations, as a
function of three different situations: (i) time-shifting the two concurrent time series,
(ii) rotating the reference wind direction and (iii) widening the averaging time-range
around minute 00 in the observed 10-min average dataset. For this section, the corre-
lation coefficient r
2
was calculated separately for u
ref
and u
obs
(in blue in the figures
below), and separately for v
ref
and v
obs
(in red). This was done for the period 01–01–
2005 to 31–12–2012 using WRF simulations as reference data.
7.1 Sensitivity to time-shifting the concurrent time series
The maximum correlation is obtained at a −1 hour shift between WRF and measure-
ments, as seen in figure 12. This was expected, since the reference data time stamps
were not initially time-shifted (to account for the 1-hour difference between reference
and observations time-zones).
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
r
2
Time shift [hours]
u-component
v-component
Figure 12: Effect of time a time shift between concurrent the observed and the reference wind speed
time series on the correlation between them.
7.2 Sensitivity to rotating the reference wind direction
A rotation of the reference wind direction was carried out, in order to detect any possible
misalignment between reference and observed wind speed. The procedure was to add
or subtract some degrees to the reference direction time series, and then calculate new
32 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
misaligned u

ref
and v

ref
velocity components with which to correlate to u
obs
and v
obs
,
which stayed the same. The result is shown in figure 13.
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
Angle rotation of reference direction [

]
r
2
u-component
v-component
Figure 13: Effect of rotating the reference wind direction on the correlation between the observed and
the reference wind speeds.
There is an offset in direction, but this shows only in the correlation coefficient between
the varying u

wrf
and the fixed u
obs
. Indeed, while the correlation is symmetric for the
v and has a maximum value at 0

, the u component’s maximum is displaced −5

.
It was assumed that the wind vane was correctly calibrated throughout the measuring
period, so the offset can be associated exclusively to a systematic error in WRF.
7.3 Sensitivity to widening the averaging time-range around
minute 00 in the observed 10-min average dataset
It was explained in section 6 that the number of time stamps in Høvsøre’s measured
time series had to be reduced from 6 per hour to 1 per hour, in order to correlate it to
the concurrent reference dataset. As seen, the procedure consisted of picking out only
the 10-min average value corresponding to the 00 min time stamp. It is interesting,
however, to see what happens if a broader range (always around 00 min) is used to
average and obtain a single hourly value of wind speed, i.e. ± 10, ± 20, ± 30 min,
and so on, instead of just the raw value at 00 min. The results of such procedure are
shown in figure 14.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 33
00 min +/−10 min +/−20 min +/−30 min +/−40 min +/−50 min
0.76
0.77
0.78
0.79
0.8
0.81
0.82
Averaging range around minute 00
r
2
u-component
v-component
Figure 14: Effect on the correlation of a changing breadth of the averaging range around 00 m in the
observed time series.
As seen in figure 14, the correlation increases (although very slightly) with increasing
width of the averaging range. Indeed, it is easier for two concurrent averages (over
certain time window) to correlate well than for just a single point from u
obs
or v
obs
(i.e. at 00 minutes) to correlate well to the concurrent hourly u
wrf
or v
wrf
. Averag-
ing smooths both WRF and observed time series, as will be seen in the next section,
causing the correlation coefficient to increase. In this case, the difference is so small
because the difference in width of the averaging range is very small as well.
After these sensitivity analyses, the behaviour of the correlation with respect to a
time shift, a rotation and an averaging is known. The version of the WRF-derived wind
speed that is used henceforth is the one to which a 1-hr time shift has been applied,
to which no rotation has been applied, and to which no extra averaging is applied (i.e.
the instantaneous value of the 10-min average wind speed directly outputted by the
model at minute 00).
34 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
8 The wind climate at Høvsøre
From on-site hourly observations spanning the period 2005–2012, there is a clear pat-
tern at Høvsøre: the wind comes mainly from the North Sea as a northwesterly wind,
with a mean speed of 9.3 m/s at a height of 100 m. Figure 15 shows the wind speed
distribution for observations and the concurrent WRF output at Høvsøre for the 8-year
period.
In this section, similarities between observed and WRF time series will be investigated,
for different averaging periods.
8.1 The local wind speed and direction
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Wind speed [m/s]
p
.
d
.
f
A = 10. 5 m/s
k = 2. 2
A = 10. 47 m/s
k = 2. 17
WRF
Observations
Figure 15: All-sector histogram and Weibull distribution function at Høvsøre, 2005–2012. Observations
in blue and WRF-derived wind speeds in red.
Figure 15 shows that the observed and WRF-derived all-sector wind speed distributions
are in good agreement. Both p.d.f. curves overlap for all wind speeds. For sector-wise
and yearly representations, see figures 53 and 54 in Appendix A, which also show accor-
dance between WRF-derived and observed wind speed distributions (except for sector
1 in figure 53, which shows the wake effect of the test center facility).
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 35
Figure 16 shows the observed and WRF-derived wind rose for the entire period 2005–
2012, again for the hourly time series. There is also a good agreement for site and WRF
directions, with three exceptions. Firstly, northerly winds are smaller in magnitude in
the observed wind rose than in the reference wind rose, most probably due to the wake
of the wind turbines North of the mast (WRF does not take the effect of the turbine
test center into account).
Secondly, there is a slight mismatch in the northerwesterly winds, probably due to
the fact that Høvsøre is a coastal site and, as mentioned in section 5, small direction
misalignments between WRF and the observations (in direction sectors with a sea-land
boundary) may cause large and abrupt changes in the roughness which is fed to the
model, thus affecting the modelled wind speed.
Lastly, observations have slightly higher maxima in wind speed values than those pre-
dicted by the model (this is also shown in figure 15 but it is not as clear). This is due
to the fact that the horizontal resolution in the mesoscale model is not small enough
to correctly predict extreme events, e.g. storms, which contribute to these wind speed
maxima.
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
100 m REF 2005–2012
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(a)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
100 m OBS 2005–2012
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(b)
Figure 16: All-year (2005–2012) reference and observed wind rose at Høvsøre site.
36 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
8.2 The effect of averaging on the WRF-observations correla-
tion
For an overall impression of the observed wind speed it is also interesting to take a look
at the time series itself for the entire period 2005–2012, as expressed through different
averaging periods, i.e. hourly, daily, monthly and yearly average wind speed. (Note that
the hourly average version of the observed time series comes from merely picking the
00 values; the reference dataset already comes, on the other hand, as hourly values,
as explained in section 6).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x 10
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time [s]
W
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
[
m
/
s
]
Hourly Daily Monthly Yearly
Mean
Figure 17: Observed wind speed at Høvsøre, 2005–2012, as expressed by different averaging periods.
As seen from figure 17, a time series is “smoothed down” to different levels by succes-
sively averaging over longer periods of time; added to this, the longer the averaging
period, the fewer the values comprising the time series.
More importantly, averaging both the observed and reference time series (as in figure
17) has a direct impact on the mutual correlation. Indeed, hourly-averaged WRF and
observations (figure 18) correlate poorly in comparison to yearly-averaged versions of
the same time series (figure 21).
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 37
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time [hours]
W
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
[
m
/
s
]
WRF
Observations
Figure 18: Hourly-averaged observed and WRF-derived wind speeds at Høvsøre (first 120 hours of
January 2005 depicted).
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
10
15
20
25
Time [days]
W
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
[
m
/
s
]
WRF
Observations
Figure 19: Daily-averaged observed and WRF-derived wind speeds at Høvsøre (first 15 days of January
2005 depicted).
Figures 18 and 19 show the same time window in hours and in days, respectively. The
observed 40 m/s wind speed storm spike occurring at hour 192 or day 8 (January 2005)
stands out in both plots and the effect of averaging is most noticeable in figure 19.
38 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
Figure 20 below shows the same spike for month 1 (at the very left of the x-axis) and
it does barely reach 15 m/s.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
6
8
10
12
14
Time [months]
W
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
[
m
/
s
]
WRF Observations
Figure 20: Monthly-averaged observed and WRF-derived wind speeds at Høvsøre, 2005–2012.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
8.6
8.8
9
9.2
9.4
9.6
9.8
Time [years]
W
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
[
m
/
s
]
WRF
Observations
Figure 21: Yearly-averaged observed and WRF-derived wind speeds at Høvsøre, 2005–2012.
Table 3 summarises the effect that averaging the two time series has on the number
of data points. The table also quantifies how well observed wind speeds are matched
by WRF simulations, by calculating the mean of the absolute value of the percentage
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 39
difference between all observed and simulated values (in a yearly, monthly, daily and
hourly basis). This mean percentage difference or relative error between reference and
observations is highest on an hourly basis (see figure 18), whereas yearly averaging,
on the other hand (figure 21), shows an apparent biggest similarity between both time
series.
Averaging
period
Mean absolute percentage difference
Observations↔WRF [%]
Correlation coefficient r
2
Observations↔WRF
Number of points
in both time series
Yearly 1.07 0.93 8
Monthly 4.47 0.92 96
Daily 18.18 0.78 2922
Hourly 35.17 0.64 70128
Table 3: Absolute value mean percentage difference calculated as the mean of
100| ((U
obs
/U
ref
) −1) |. r
2
coefficients between reference and observed time series and num-
ber of data points are also displayed, as a function of different averaging periods. Data taken from
datasets spanning 2005–2012.
This is however misleading, since it is really the yearly-averaged values of WRF that
are closest to the yearly-averaged values of observations: it is therefore important to
explicitly state which averaging period is being used in an investigation of this kind,
moreover when dealing with correlation coefficients between observations and WRF
simulations.
Moreover, to describe a long-term wind climatology through its wind speed distri-
bution, it it is not necessary to capture an hour-to-hour wind speed behaviour. Of
course anyone would want the reference time series to be identical to the observed one
for the concurrent period, which would imply r
2
=1, but a reference time series with a
lower correlation need not necessarily be worse at estimating average parameters such
as A, k or
¯
P. As seen in table 3, if the concurrent WRF time series is yearly-averaged,
the correlation is high, but the LTC time series comprises just 8 points and thus suffers
from the biggest loss of information. This was seen already in section 6.
8.3 A description of each observed year
In section 9, where LTC methods will finally be applied, it will be important to know
how similar single years of observations are to the entire observed period at Høvsøre.
A simple investigation on similarity of years is conducted in this section, and this
is important because a bad LTC whose correction factors were calculated from some
year in particular could be attributed to that observed year’s dissimilarity to the entire
period 2005–2012. Therefore, single estimators were firstly calculated for each year of
40 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
the hourly observed time series: A, k and wind power density
¯
P, as seen in figure 22.
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
10
10.5
11
A
[
m
/
s
]
WRF OBS
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
k
[

]
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
700
800
900
1000
¯
P
[
W
/
m
2
]
Year
Figure 22: All-sector yearly reference (WRF-derived) and observed A, k and
¯
P parameters, 2005–2012.
Figure 22 depicts the three all-sector observed parameters. The variability around the
mean is shown in table 4, and it was calculated as the relative error of the all-year
(2005–2012) parameter with respect to the mean value of the parameter each year,
e.g. for year i, the error in the A parameter is ∆A
i
= 100
_
A
i
A
tot
−1
_
.
Percentage difference [%]
Year ∆A ∆k ∆
¯
P
2005 1.02 −0.73 2.68
2006 −5.31 −1.38 −16.55
2007 5.09 −5.40 17.72
2008 1.46 −5.12 7.67
2009 −4.43 2.44 −17.44
2010 −7.09 4.80 −29.19
2011 4.72 −0.29 12.86
2012 2.99 4.61 4.12
Table 4: All-sector percentage difference of yearly observed parameters with respect to the all-year
(2005–2012) parameters.
Year 2010 is clearly the “outlier” in the case of the three estimators. ∆
¯
P shows the
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 41
biggest difference because it was calculated as in equation 14, i.e. A is cubed.
Years 2006, 2007 and 2009 also present large deviations in mean power density. Note
that although 2006 and 2007’s respective errors in A are roughly equal in magnitude
but opposite in sign, the fact that they are consecutive creates a steep 2-year change
in
¯
P. This can also be seen, even more acutely, in the case of years 2009 and 2010.
The number of yearly counts above certain wind speeds helps to explain the differ-
ence in year-to-year
¯
P. It can be seen, for example, why year 2010 has such a low
¯
P.
See table 5.
Observed counts above wind speed:
Year 10 m/s 15 m/s 20 m/s 25 m/s 30 m/s
2005 3528 991 170 24 5
2006 3118 765 110 6 0
2007 3792 1285 273 41 3
2008 3537 1156 234 18 0
2009 3197 677 80 5 2
2010 2978 595 65 0 0
2011 3678 1157 248 32 4
2012 3825 985 146 11 1
Table 5: All-sector observed wind speed counts above certain values for each year.
As for wind direction, one way to see which of the observed years is anomalous is by
visual inspection of Høvsøre’s yearly observed wind roses. From figures 23 and 24 it is
clear that, regarding direction, year 2010 is also anomalous: its wind speed does not
come mainly from the North-West, but is evenly distributed between North-West and
North-East directions. Høvsøre’s 8-year observed wind rose is shown in figure 16.
42 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2005
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(a)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2006
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(b)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2007
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(c)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2008
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(d)
Figure 23: Yearly observed wind roses at Høvsøre, for height 100 m, and hourly direction time series.
Years 2005–2008 displayed.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 43
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2009
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(a)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2010
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(b)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2011
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(c)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2012
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(d)
Figure 24: Yearly observed wind roses at Høvsøre, for height 100 m, and hourly direction time series.
Years 2009–2012 displayed.
8.4 Similarity of concurrent WRF-derived and observed param-
eters
Regarding the LTCs that will be calculated in section 9, it is also important to deter-
mine how similar reference and observational estimators are, on a yearly basis. This
subsection is therefore a check of WRF’s ability to describe the observed wind climate
on a year-to-year basis. This is important because, if a LTC is biased, it might happen
that the concurrent period its correction factors arose from shows a low similarity be-
tween the observed and reference datasets.
Firstly from a correlation point of view, figures 25 and 26 show the value-to-value
relationship of reference and observed speed and direction, separately for each year.
0 10 20 30
0
10
20
30
2005
r
2
=0.66
U
o
b
s
[
m
/
s
]
0 10 20 30
0
10
20
30
2006
r
2
=0.6
0 10 20 30
0
10
20
30
2007
r
2
=0.66
0 10 20 30
0
10
20
30
2008
r
2
=0.7
0 10 20 30
0
10
20
30
2009
r
2
=0.57
U
o
b
s
[
m
/
s
]
U
ref
[m/s]
0 10 20 30
0
10
20
30
2010
r
2
=0.54
U
ref
[m/s]
0 10 20 30
0
10
20
30
2011
r
2
=0.69
U
ref
[m/s]
0 10 20 30
0
10
20
30
2012
r
2
=0.62
U
ref
[m/s]
Figure 25: All-sector hourly observed vs. reference wind speed, on a yearly basis.
0 200
0
100
200
300
r
2
=0.84
2005
d
o
b
s
[

]
0 200
0
100
200
300
r
2
=0.81
2006
0 200
0
100
200
300
r
2
=0.87
2007
0 200
0
100
200
300
r
2
=0.85
2008
0 200
0
100
200
300
r
2
=0.85
2009
d
o
b
s
[

]
d
ref
[

]
0 200
0
100
200
300
r
2
=0.85
2010
d
ref
[

]
0 200
0
100
200
300
r
2
=0.82
2011
d
ref
[

]
0 200
0
100
200
300
r
2
=0.82
2012
d
ref
[

]
Figure 26: All-sector hourly observed vs. reference wind direction, on a yearly basis.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 45
Note that r
2
, in the case of direction (figure 26), has been calculated taking only the
blue values into account, which are those which represent a difference d
obs
− d
ref

200

. This filters out, on average, 4% of all values each year, and has been applied in
order to avoid the two corner clouds, which would otherwise unfairly bias the correla-
tion. As seen in both figures, the yearly direction correlation is, when calculated this
way, higher than that of the wind speed (shown in figure 25).
As for wind speed, it is easy to visually verify from figure 25 that WRF-derived wind
speeds matches observations with moderate-high success on a year-to-year basis. Does
this mean, however, that the reference data are representative of the observed data?
Table 6 below shows each year’s hourly r
2
(between WRF simulations and observed
wind speeds), but also the percentage difference between yearly WRF and observed
parameters (∆A, ∆k and ∆
¯
P). Numerically, the biggest difference between values of
r
2
occurs between years 2008 and 2010, with a difference of 20%. At first glance this
could explain 2008’s ∆
¯
P, which is double that of 2010. However, two other years which
have equal r
2
, such as 2005 and 2007, have the second biggest percentage difference
between years, namely 570%, showing that r
2
’s effect on yearly parameter similarity is
not so clear. Furthermore, the year with the largest correlation coefficient (2008 with
r
2
= 0.70) has at the same time the second largest difference between yearly simulated
and observed power density: ∆
¯
P = 2.54%.
The hourly correlation between observed and reference time series is therefore seen
to have no connection to the yearly differences between the two datasets’ parameters.
However, this does not mean that the difference between yearly WRF and observed
parameters should be trusted over r
2
, in terms of representativeness.
All in all, when analysing LTCs in sections 9 and 10, a certain year’s odd result will be
attributed to either:
1. That year’s large yearly difference in observed
¯
P, with respect to the average
observed
¯
P in 2005–2012
2. That year’s big difference between WRF and observations.
3. That year’s low r
2
.
Points 2. and 3. both measure WRF’s ability to match observations but are, as seen,
unrelated. Which one of the two has a more determinant effect on the LTCs will be
seen in sections 9 and 10. As seen at the beginning of this section and in section 6, r
2
may be more a measure of the mutual synchronisation between two concurrent time
series than a measure of representativeness (Lil´eo et al. (2013)).
46 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
Percentage difference [%]
Year ∆A ∆k ∆
¯
P
Hourly correlation coefficient r
2
Observations↔WRF [%]
2005 0.48 2.67 0.82 0.66
2006 0.11 0.31 0.62 0.60
2007 1.45 1.34 5.49 0.66
2008 0.48 1.09 2.54 0.70
2009 2.36 7.53 1.48 0.57
2010 1.26 3.05 1.30 0.54
2011 1.23 2.32 1.71 0.69
2012 0.97 1.43 1.81 0.62
Table 6: All-sector percentage difference of yearly observed parameters with respect to yearly WRF-
derived parameters.
The relative difference between yearly observed and reference parameters was also rep-
resented graphically in figure 22, and for further detail, it is worthwhile looking at its
sector-wise version in Appendix A (figures 55 through 57).
As for the yearly difference between WRF and observed wind directions, a visual in-
spection is carried out in Appendix A (figures 58 and 59), where the wind roses of
both are displayed for each year. Such a study is most important when wind direction
is long-term corrected, and this is done in subsection 9.4.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 47
9 Results I - Which is the best LTC method?
There is a wide variety of empirical methods with which to estimate the past long-term
wind climatology of a target site. As already mentioned, LTCs describe the climatology
that could have been recorded at the target site, had a mast started recording at the
site much earlier.
The connection between the long-term reference time series and the short-term obser-
vations at the site is the time period where both datasets are concurrent. The concur-
rent period is therefore as long as the shortest of both time series, i.e. the observations.
The concurrent period used to calculate the correction factors, however, can be cho-
sen in such a way that it comprises the entire observed time series, or just a subset of it.
Part of the uniqueness of Høvsøre’s data resides in the fact that the measured set
spans a long time: 2005–2012. Therefore, in this case, the short-term site observations
are in reality a long-term set (8 years), which allows for the creation of a wide variety
of subsets of different lengths and positions within the total 2005–2012 set.
Thus, following the approach explained in Rogers et al. (2005), different subset lengths
were defined, starting from just 3 up to 27 months, in steps of 3 months, i.e. 9 dif-
ferent subset lengths. For each subset length, the subset was placed in successive
non-overlapping positions along the whole period 2005–2012; for each position, cor-
rection factors were computed, with which to calculate a LTC spanning the period
2005–2012. Finally, each LTC was validated against what had been actually observed
at Høvsøre for 2005–2012. The optimum position for each subset length was also de-
termined in subsection 9.3, i.e. the position which yielded the LTC closest to actual
observations.
To better explain the above scheme, it is helpful to take as an example the concurrent
subset of length 6 months: in this case, as depicted in figure 27, there are 16 different
possible positions in the period 2005–2012 (16 possible 6-month-long non-overlapping
subsets); for each of these positions, each LTC method was applied sector-wise; from
each LTC obtained for each subset position, sector-wise and ultimately all-sector pa-
rameters
ˆ
A,
ˆ
k and
ˆ
¯
P were calculated.
48 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
Figure 27: Possible positions of the concurrent reference and observed subsets, for the case of 6-
month-long non-overlapping subsets, within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
A set of bias ratios was defined, as in Rogers et al. (2005):
b
A
=
ˆ
A
A
, (21)
b
k
=
ˆ
k
k
, (22)
and
b ¯
P
=
ˆ
¯
P
¯
P
, (23)
which express the quotient of LTC vs. observed parameters A, k and
¯
P for the period
2005–2012. The next step was to calculate a mean value and a standard deviation for
each subset length (over all positions), i.e.
¯
b
A
and σ(b
A
) in the case of the A parameter.
The mean and the standard deviation simplified the presentation of the data and proved
enough to determine how many months of concurrent time are enough for each LTC
method to produce a successful LTC at Høvsøre and for the period of observations.
9.1 How many months are enough to long-term correct?
In this work in particular, the available observations span the period 2005–2012, thus
providing, along with the reference data, 8 years to choose the concurrent time from.
Real life projects, on the other hand, usually have no more than a couple of years of
observations; therefore, unless the the observations at hand are long (3 years or more),
chopping them into subsets and evaluating the effect of changing the subset position
on the LTC may be an overkill. However, when observations are long as in Høvsøre, this
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 49
methodology does reveal how different LTC methods work under different conditions.
The scheme explained in the introduction to this section was carried out sector-wise,
the sector distribution chosen to have 12 sectors, 30

each, with sector 1 facing North.
This configuration is a common choice in wind power meteorology.
Figure 28: Sector distribution chosen for sector-wise calculations.
For each subset length and position, each observed subset was sectorised with respect
to its concurrent WRF subset; sector-wise correction factors were thus obtained, which
were applied to each corresponding sector of the entire 2005–2012 reference wind speed
(long-term reference data had been previously sectorised with respect to the reference
direction). To convert sector-wise values of
ˆ
A,
ˆ
k and
ˆ
¯
P to single all-sector values,
the procedure explained in Troen and Petersen (1989) was followed. This “all-sector
procedure” is as follows:
1. Each sector’s mean wind speed is calculated, and multiplied by its sector frequency
(i.e. the number of data points). This is repeated for all sectors and the result is
added. The result is divided by the total frequency (the sum of all sector-wise
frequencies) in order to find the all-sector mean wind speed µ. (This is a weighted
average).
2. The sector-wise quadratic mean wind speed, u
2
= A
2
Γ
_
1 +
2
k
_
, is calculated, and
weighted over all sectors, as was done with the mean wind speed.
3. The all-sector parameter µ
2
/u
2
is calculated, with which to solve the equation
µ
2
/u
2
= Γ
2
(1 + 1/k) /Γ(1 + 2/k) and obtain the value of the all-sector k pa-
rameter.
50 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
4. The all-sector A parameter is computed as A = µ/Γ
_
1 +
1
k
_
.
5. The all-sector mean wind power density
ˆ
¯
P is calculated with equation 14.
Note: the frequency mentioned in points 1. and 2. refers to the LTC frequency. The
only LTC method (as implemented in this thesis) which yields a LTC frequency is the
WBL method. No other non-regression method in this work yields such a result, but
a specific procedure will be explained in subsection 9.4 by which to use regression
methods to obtain a LTC direction
ˆ
d. Until then, however,
ˆ
f is assumed to be equal
to the long-term reference frequency.
Figures 29 through 31 show all-sector mean bias ratios
¯
b
A
,
¯
b
k
and
¯
b ¯
P
for both re-
gression (solid lines) and non-regression methods (dashed lines).
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.98
0.99
1
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
Subset length [months]
¯b
A
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 29: Mean bias ratio
¯
b
A
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios found at all possible
non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
Figure 29 shows all
¯
b
A
curves within just ±1% of the exact match with observations
from 9 months subset length onwards. Only the non-regression methods MOR and WW
show a larger difference of average +3% and −3%, respectively, for all subset lengths.
Significant initial drops and jumps are seen for three of the four regression methods
(TLS, PR3 and VAR), as well as for the non-regression KH method. This suggests
that LTCs coming from non-regression methods (except MOR and WW) may depict
concurrent observations of A more accurately than regression methods for short-length
subsets (3–6 months). Moreover, two methods clearly stand out from among the rest:
OLS and WBL. These are the simplest linear and the simplest sector-wise transforma-
tion, respectively, yet show the best corrections of the A parameter.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 51
It is worthwhile looking at figures 60 through 65 in Appendix A, which are a sector-
wise representation of
¯
b
A
(for regression and non-regression methods, respectively).
Sector 2 in figure 60 shows the only anomalous value of
¯
b
A
for the regression methods,
specifically for PR3 at subset length 6 months. The remaining regression methods do
not show this behaviour for the same concurrent subset length, so the cause for this
spike is most probably the inability of the cubic polynomial to correctly describe the
relationship between WRF and observed wind speeds. The cubic fit was seen to have
either explosive or curly shapes for high wind speeds, but these odd fits are less fre-
quent as the subset length grows, and indeed no anomalous spike can be seen for the
PR3 method (for none of the three bias ratios) for subsets longer than 6 months.
In their study regarding the length of reference period to be taken, Lil´eo et al. (2013)
obtained a very similar shape for their curve of “mean absolute prediction error” of the
mean wind speed, even though they took the reference period in years.
Regarding the correction of the k parameter, figure 30 also depicts all the methods’
behaviour as a function of concurrent subset length.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
Subset length [months]
¯b
k
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 30: Mean bias ratio
¯
b
k
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios found at all possible
non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
The mean bias ratio
¯
b
k
has on the other hand a wider spread, its value being con-
strained roughly as |b
k
| < 7% for subset lengths larger than 9 months, for all methods
except MOR, OLS and PR3. Note that for this thesis, when applying the non-regression
methods KH, TN and WW, sector-wise
ˆ
k was assumed to be equal to the concurrent
52 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
observed subset’s k. One would therefore expect to see the red, green and pink dashed
curves in figure 30 overlapping each other; this however happens only in the sector-wise
depiction of the bias ratios, and figure 30 shows all-sector values.
While in Rogers et al. (2005), the VAR method showed that |b
k
| < 5% from 6 months
subset length onwards, figure 30 shows a smaller difference of roughly −1% from 12
months onwards. Figure 30 also shows a perfect match of WBL’s the VAR’s
¯
b
k
, and
a steady bias of roughly +1% for the KH method, from 12 months on. Rogers et al.
(2005) also showed very unbiased results for
¯
b
k
for the MOR method, which contrasts
with the constant
¯
b
k
= 0.8 seen in the figure. However, the results depicted here for
the regression TLS method are better than those seen in Rogers et al. (2005) for their
linear regression method (which showed a difference of around constant +40%).
As for the OLS and TN methods, which worked very well in the correction of A, they
present on the other hand large deviations for the k parameter. PR3, which worked
well for A (in the all-sector case) yields, together with OLS, the worst result with
around +20% bias for all subset lengths. It also shows the same bias when represented
sector-wise in figure 61.
What matters, however, from a power production point of view, is how well
¯
P is
corrected. This is indeed the crucial parameter in wind farm assessment. As seen from
looking globally at all three figures 29, 30 and 31, and as could be suspected from
equation 14, for a good correction of
¯
P, good corrections of both A and k are needed.
Indeed, all ratios which are biased in the estimation of either A or k are also biased in
¯
P; but only those which show small bias ratios in both A and k are truly unbiased in
the correction of
¯
P. i.e. the TN, VAR, KH and WBL methods.
All in all, looking at the all-sector figures above, it can be seen that b
A
and b ¯
P
sta-
bilise to a constant value for all sectors after 9–12 months. The initial jumps or drops
can be associated to small subset lengths. However, after this all methods look quite
insensitive to increasing length of the concurrent subset, since the three bias ratios do
not vary wildly along the way up to the maximum length of 27 months (neither in
sector-wise nor in all-sector representations).
Also, certain sectors seem to have systematically worse results, as seen in figures 60
through 65; in sectors 1 and 2, the WW method yields especially biased results for
b
A
and b
k
, while PR3 fails for b
P
and b
k
. Both these sectors happen to comprise the
fewest number of data points for each subset length: figure 32 shows the sector-wise
frequency of occurrence, plotted as the mean frequency of each subset length, over all
the possible positions. Sectors 1 and 2 have the smallest values of mean frequency
¯
f
for all subset lengths. Moreover, this may explain the low sector-wise mean correlation
coefficient
¯
r
2
for these two sectors, depicted in figure 33. In the case of sector 1, there
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 53
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Subset length [months]
¯b
P
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 31: Mean bias ratio
¯
b ¯
P
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios found at all possible
non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
is also a wake disrupting the observations, which could in turn explain the inverted
pattern of
¯
r
2
.
3 6 9 121518212427
200
400
600
Sector 1
¯
f
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
200
400
600
Sector 2
3 6 9 121518212427
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Sector 3
3 6 9 121518212427
500
1000
1500
Sector 4
3 6 9 121518212427
500
1000
1500
Sector 5
¯
f
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Sector 6
3 6 9 121518212427
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Sector 7
3 6 9 121518212427
500
1000
1500
2000
Sector 8
3 6 9 121518212427
500
1000
1500
2000
Sector 9
Subset l ength [ months]
¯
f
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
Figure 32: Mean correlation coefficient
¯
f [-] as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
For each subset length, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the f found at all possible
non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
54 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
3 6 9 121518212427
0.21
0.22
0.23
Sector 1
¯
r
2
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.26
0.28
0.3
0.32
0.34
Sector 2
3 6 9 121518212427
0.46
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
Sector 3
3 6 9 121518212427
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.5
Sector 4
3 6 9 121518212427
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.54
Sector 5
¯
r
2
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.46
0.48
0.5
Sector 6
3 6 9 121518212427
0.58
0.6
0.62
0.64
Sector 7
3 6 9 121518212427
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.68
Sector 8
3 6 9 121518212427
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.7
Sector 9
Subset l ength [ months]
¯
r
2
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.7
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.65
0.66
0.67
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.6
0.62
0.64
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
Figure 33: Mean correlation coefficient
¯
r
2
[-] as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
For each subset length, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the r
2
found at all possible
non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
On its own, the mean bias ratios
¯
b
A
,
¯
b
k
and
¯
b ¯
P
seen in figures 29 through 31 are
not enough information to establish a sufficiently long subset length, in terms of a
successful LTC. Indeed, figures 29 through 31 show fairly constant mean bias values
from 3 up to 27 months of subset length. Therefore, how to say how many months are
enough to obtain an accurate LTC?
Figures 66, 67 and 34 (the first two in Appendix A) show the standard deviation
of each subset length, taking all the possible positions into account, respectively for
b
A
, b
k
and b ¯
P
. From these figures it is now possible to determine the subset length,
over which the standard deviation of the bias ratios does not decrease considerably.
The variability in b ¯
P
is ten times bigger than that of b
A
and b
k
, meaning that mean
power density fluctuates less than A and k over the different subset lengths. More
importantly, after 12 months the standard deviation does generally not decay consid-
erably. This, together with the fact that 12 months of concurrent length is enough for
the selected LTC methods to generally produce good corrections of A, k and
¯
P makes
this subset length good enough in terms of LTCs. This is the same result as the one
obtained by Rogers et al. (2005) and Salmon and Wansley (1999).
As mentioned earlier, it makes sense to conduct an investigation of this kind in a real
wind assessment study only if the concurrent subset used can fit into the total concur-
rent period a reasonable amount of times. As an example, it would not be reasonable
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 55
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Subset length [months]
s
t
d
(
b
P
)
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 34: Standard deviation σ
2
(b ¯
P
) as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the standard deviation was obtained by taking into account the bias ratios found at all
possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent
set.
to calculate the standard deviation of the bias ratios of a 12-month concurrent subset
within a 24-month total concurrent time period, since there would only be two possible
positions.
It is clear from from figures 29 through 31, as well as from the figures in the fol-
lowing section, that the MOR method was probably wrongly implemented. Indeed,
the large offset and the unchanging pattern shown across subset lengths is undeniably
poorer than results from other studies.
9.2 The 12-month concurrent subset
Figures 35 through 37 show the single-valued bias ratios obtained at each position of
the 12-month subset (for the sector-wise representation, see figures 68 through 73 in
Appendix A). There are 8 different possible positions for a 12-month-long subset, since
there are 8 full years in the period 2005–2012.
From the figures it is clear that the MOR method is insensitive to the choice of con-
current year for the three bias ratios. In general, large peaks or troughs seem to depend
more on the bias ratio being calculated than on the concurrent year. However, year
2010 yields especially biased results for the three bias ratios. Large deviations from
1 are especially visible in the case of the TLS and VAR in b
A
, but neither in b
k
nor
56 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
Position of 12-month subset [year]
b
A
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 35: Bias ratio b
A
as a function of the position of the 12-month-long concurrent subset within
the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Position of 12-month subset [year]
b
k
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 36: Bias ratio b
k
as a function of the position of the 12-month-long concurrent subset within
the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
in b
P
; similarly, OLS and PR3 are especially weak only in b
k
; the KH method is also
especially biased at 2010 (and 2006), but only in b
A
and b
P
, not in b
k
. Indeed, 6 out
of 8 methods (all except MOR and TN) suffer in 2010, either in
¯
b
A
,
¯
b
k
or
¯
b ¯
P
.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 57
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Position of 12-month subset [year]
b
P
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 37: Bias ratio b ¯
P
as a function of the position of the 12-month-long concurrent subset within
the total (2005–2012) concurrent set.
Indeed, year 2010 is:
1. The year with largest fluctuations in yearly A with respect to the entire observed
period (table 4): ∆A = −7.1%. Similarly, the difference in power density is also
the largest: ∆
¯
P = −29.2%.
2. A normal year in terms of WRF matching observations, since the difference between
both are only (table 6): ∆A = 1.3%, ∆k = 3.1% and ∆
¯
P = 1.3%.
3. The year with the lowest r
2
between hourly WRF and observations.
4. A very anomalous year in terms of direction, as seen from figure 24(b).
This leaves either point 1., 3. or 4. as the reason behind the anomaly found at 2010.
The best way to clarify this is by alternatively looking at year 2008: it has a rela-
tively low difference between its yearly observed parameters and Høvsøre’s full-period
mean observed parameters (table 4); its direction pattern is normal with respect to the
average observed 2005–2012 pattern (see figure 23(d)); on the other hand, it has the
second largest difference between yearly WRF-derived and observed parameters (table
6) but it has the highest r
2
; when looking at figure 37, however, 2008 behaves as a
normal year.
Therefore, calculating LTC correction factors from a concurrent subset which is not
similar to the entire set of observations seems to affect the LTC the most. On the other
hand, the similarity of a year’s observations with WRF simulations, as represented by
58 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
the difference between yearly WRF-simulated and observed parameters, appears to be
less determinant (see 2008’s example), and in any case seemingly unrelated to r
2
.
9.3 Optimisation
An optimisation process can be carried out by selecting only the best position of each
subset within the entire 8-year period, instead of producing a mean value from all
the possible positions. The “best” subset position is clearly the one at which the bias
ratio is closest to 1. For example, figures 35 and 36 show very good results for the
correction of b
A
and b
k
at year 2008 for most of the methods, but not for all of them,
which is the reason why an optimisation was carried out independently for each method.
A generalised optimisation (for the 9 subset lengths) is thus presented in figures 38
through 40 (for the sector-wise representation, see figures 68 through 73 in Appendix
A).
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.98
0.99
1
1.01
1.02
1.03
Subset length [months]
b
A
,
o
p
t
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 38: Optimum bias ratio b
A
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). The
optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus obtained
at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set.
These results are as expected much better than the mean biases seen in figures 29
through 31. Unlike in this investigation, where long-term site observations (2005–
2012) at the target site are at hand, in wind assessment projects these usually are not
available. Indeed, the lack of long-term observations is the reason to use LTC methods
in the first place. Therefore, the results above merely show the best possible perfor-
mance of each of the selected methods.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 59
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Subset length [months]
b
k
,
o
p
t
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 39: Optimum bias ratio b
k
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). The
optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus obtained
at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Subset length [months]
b
P
,
o
p
t
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 40: Optimum bias ratio b ¯
P
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). The
optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus obtained
at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set.
60 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
In order to further investigate the effect of r
2
, figures 41 and 42 show, for each subset
length, the correlation value (between each WRF and observed subset) for the opti-
mum subset position, i.e. r
2
corresponding to the position at which the bias ratio is
closest to 1. This is done separately for each parameter, thus depicting r
2
at b
A,opt
,
b
k,opt
and b
P,opt
as a function of subset length. The figures also show, in black, the
maximum r
2
found among all possible subset positions.
Indeed, high correlations between WRF and observed subsets do not mean a good LTC,
and this is true for all subset lengths. For each subset length, the optimum correlation
coefficient is always much lower than the maximum one. Moreover, optimum correlation
coefficients are different for each bias ratio. These are very similar results to those found
for the remaining methods.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
r
2
[

]
Subset length [months]
r
2
max
r
2
opt,bA
r
2
opt,bk
r
2
opt,bP
Figure 41: Maximum and optimum correlation coefficient between concurrent reference and observed
subset, as a function of the concurrent subset length (months), for the TLS method. The coloured
curves show, for each concurrent subset length, the r
2
obtained at the positions within the total
(2005–2012) set where each bias ratio is closest to 1. The black curve shows the biggest value of r
2
obtained for each subset length.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 61
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
r
2
[

]
Subset length [months]
r
2
max
r
2
opt,bA
r
2
opt,bk
r
2
opt,bP
Figure 42: Maximum and optimum correlation coefficient between concurrent reference and observed
subset, as a function of the concurrent subset length (months), for the WBL method. The coloured
curves show, for each concurrent subset length, the r
2
obtained at the positions within the total
(2005–2012) set where each bias ratio is closest to 1. The black curve shows the biggest value of r
2
obtained for each subset length.
9.4 u and v: an alternative approach
To this moment, different regression and non-regression LTC methods have been tested
in terms of their ability to calculate
ˆ
A,
ˆ
k and
ˆ
¯
P. These LTC parameters have been
calculated from the LTC wind speed
ˆ
U, so a long-term correction of direction has been
completely disregarded until now (when necessary,
ˆ
d was assumed to be equal to the
direction of the long-term reference data set).
Several LTC methods offer the possibility of correcting direction (usually non-regression
methods like the WBL and U&N methods, see Lil´eo et al. (2013)). However, for this
subsection, only regression methods were used to investigate an approach for calculat-
ing
ˆ
d, which consisted in:
• Applying a regression method to the concurrent observed and reference wind com-
ponents, i.e. separately calculate the linear relationship between u
obs
and u
ref
, and
between v
obs
and v
ref
.
• Applying the obtained correction factors to the long-term (2005–2012) u and v
time series.
• Combining the obtained long-term corrected ˆ u and ˆ v time series into LTC wind
speed
ˆ
U and, more importantly, LTC direction
ˆ
d.
62 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
As was done before, both LTC
ˆ
U and
ˆ
d were calculated for the period 2005–2012 and
were compared to the observed U and d of the same period. Note that in this case, the
LTC could not be applied sector-wise, since it was directly applied to the u and v time
series. Once
ˆ
U was derived, however, it could be sectorised according to
ˆ
d (figures 29
through 31 show all-sector bias ratios nonetheless).
LTC speed
Firstly, it is interesting to compare the LTC wind speed
ˆ
U obtained when calculated
in two very different ways (see figures 43 through 45):
1. When the regression methods were directly applied to wind speed in order to
obtain
ˆ
U with no regard to long-term correcting direction (already seen in figures
29 through 31).
2. When
ˆ
U was the result of recombining ˆ u and ˆ v, which were themselves the result
of applying the same regression methods separately to u and v.
For the four regression methods, these two approaches are plotted alongside in figures
43 through 45. They show the mean bias ratios for each subset length.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
Subset length [months]
¯b
A
[

]
OLS
OLS
u,v
T LS
T LS
u,v
P R3
P R3
u,v
V AR
V AR
u,v
Figure 43: Mean bias ratio
¯
b
A
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios found at all possible
non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set. Solid
curves depict
¯
b
A
obtained when applying regression methods to the wind speed. Dashed curves depict
¯
b
A
obtained when applying regression methods separately to u and v.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 63
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
Subset length [months]
¯b
k
[

]
OLS
OLS
u,v
T LS
T LS
u,v
P R3
P R3
u,v
V AR
V AR
u,v
Figure 44: Mean bias ratio
¯
b
k
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios found at all possible
non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set. Solid
curves depict
¯
b
k
obtained when applying regression methods to the wind speed. Dashed curves depict
¯
b
k
obtained when applying regression methods separately to u and v.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
Subset length [months]
¯b
¯
P
[

]
OLS
OLS
u,v
T LS
T LS
u,v
P R3
P R3
u,v
V AR
V AR
u,v
Figure 45: Mean bias ratio
¯
b ¯
P
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios found at all possible
non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent set. Solid
curves depict
¯
b ¯
P
obtained when applying regression methods to the wind speed. Dashed curves depict
¯
b ¯
P
obtained when applying regression methods separately to u and v.
64 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
The TLS and VAR methods show a substantial improvement in the correction of k and
¯
P, while A is almost the same for both approaches. The OLS and PR3 methods, on the
other hand, appear to be paired, and while their u and v versions yield a much better
result for k, A and
¯
P are noticeably underestimated. A major highlight is the smaller
variability of the bias ratios shown for the u and v approach, for the four methods.
LTC direction
The possibility of long-term correcting wind direction using regression methods and the
u and v approach makes these methods attractive, since calculations are simple. For
this exercise, only 12-month-long subsets were used. The long-term reference period
was again 2005–2012, so there were 8 possible slots for non-overlapping concurrent
subsets to fit into.
The goal was to plot the 2005–2012 wind direction observed at Høvsøre, d
obs
, vs.
ˆ
d. Figure 46 depicts this, only for the TLS method, and shows that all subset positions
yield virtually the same
ˆ
d time series.
Figure 46: Observed wind direction d
obs
vs. LTC wind direction
ˆ
d, TLS method for the full period
2005–2012. The length of the concurrent reference and observed subsets was fixed to 12 months, so
each subfigure corresponds to each year or position where the subset could be placed.
Figure 46 shows a bigger spread between d
obs
and
ˆ
d than the one found between d
obs
and d
ref
(see figure 26, which shows d
obs
vs. d
ref
). For this reason, the correlation co-
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 65
efficient was in this case calculated by filtering out those values with |d
obs

ˆ
d| < 275

(as opposed to the maximum spread of 100

used in figure 26). The unused values
in this case account for an average 2.6% of all values in each year. Note the small
change in the correlation across years. The same small variation was seen for the other
regression methods.
However, so as not to base judgement only on visual inspection of scatter plots, figure
47 shows a slice of the time series
ˆ
d obtained for each subset position, for all methods.
Again each year represents a subset position, and the observed direction d
obs
is also
shown in black. Visual inspection of the time series itself also shows that
ˆ
d is very
insensitive to the subset position and the method used, and is also very similar to the
observed direction. Note that there is some difference between the observed and the
reference direction (the latter being smoother), and that the LTC direction
ˆ
d matches
the reference direction more than it matches the observed direction. Since this happens
for all methods, it can be concluded that
ˆ
d is affected more by the shape of d
ref
than
by d
obs
.
100 200 300 400 500
100
200
300
[

]
Time [hours]
OLS
[

]
OLS
[

]
OLS
[

]
OLS
[

]
OLS
[

]
OLS
[

]
OLS
[

]
OLS
100 200 300 400 500
100
200
300
[

]
Time [hours]
TLS
[

]
TLS
[

]
TLS
[

]
TLS
[

]
TLS
[

]
TLS
[

]
TLS
[

]
TLS
100 200 300 400 500
100
200
300
[

]
Time [hours]
PR3
[

]
PR3
[

]
PR3
[

]
PR3
[

]
PR3
[

]
PR3
[

]
PR3
[

]
PR3
100 200 300 400 500
100
200
300
[

]
Time [hours]
VAR
[

]
VAR
[

]
VAR
[

]
VAR
[

]
VAR
[

]
VAR
[

]
VAR
[

]
VAR
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Observed Reference
Figure 47: Time slice (00:25:00–00:33:00 of 01–01–2005) of
ˆ
d, calculated by different regression
methods (OLS, TLS, PR3 and VAR). The legend shows the different concurrent years chosen as
positions for the 12-month subset. Also depicted for the same time frame are the observed wind
speed d
obs
(black triangle) and the un-corrected reference WRF-derived wind direction d
ref
.
66 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
Another way to check
ˆ
d vs. d
obs
are the wind roses. Figure 48 shows this for the subset
position 1 (i.e. the concurrent year 2005 was used to obtain the correction factors), for
the long-term correction period 2005–2012. The observed direction for the same period
was shown in figure 16 in section 8. The similarity in magnitude and in sector-wise
distribution between
ˆ
d and d
obs
is also big when both are analysed via wind roses.
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
2005–2012
ˆ
d, OLS
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(a)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
2005–2012
ˆ
d, TLS
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(b)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
2005–2012
ˆ
d, PR3
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(c)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
2005–2012
ˆ
d, VAR
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(d)
Figure 48: Wind rose of long-term corrected wind direction
ˆ
d, for the period 2005–2012. Year 2005
was used as concurrent subset to obtain the correction factors, via applying four different regression
methods to the u and v time series.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 67
10 Results II - Can LTCs estimate the fu-
ture?
10.1 Description of scheme
Do “past” LTC climatologies calculated at Høvsøre represent its “future” climatology?
In other words, can LTCs predict the wind power? The assumption that the past is
representative of the future has been object of study in recent years. Lil´eo et al. (2013)
investigated, for a given past period of reanalysis data, how well different previous
or “past” windows of wind speed represented a fixed “future” window of subsequent
years. They did this for each grid point over a certain focus region, using wind speeds
obtained from the Twentieth Century Global Reanalysis Version II (20CRv2). In order
to get an idea of the past’s representativeness of the future, the authors defined an
error by taking the percentage difference in mean wind speed of the “past” and the
“future” periods. They concluded that the mean wind speed of the near past is not
necessarily the best predictor of the future mean wind speed, as well as that each grid
point has an optimum length of “past” window, i.e. the number of “past” years needed
to get the best prediction is specific to each grid point.
A similar approach is followed in this thesis (and note that the LTCs come form the
special choice that reference data is specifically WRF-derived for this thesis):
• The total past period spans 1999–2012.
• Analogously to the investigations conducted in previous sections, the (rather long)
short-term observations used in this section span 2005–2012.
• Within the entire 8-year observed set, a concurrent 12-month long subset is chosen,
e.g. year 2005. (The choice for 1-year long subsets was justified in subsection 9.1).
Correction factors can then be calculated from this year, via each LTC method.
• Left and right of the concurrent year are “past” and “future” windows, respec-
tively. Taking again the example of concurrent year 2005, all its possible “past”
windows would lie within the time period 1999–2005, whereas all its possible “fu-
ture” windows would lie within the period 2006–2012.
• All “past” windows would contain LTCs generated from the long-term reference
dataset. For each “past” window, LTC parameters are calculated:
ˆ
A,
ˆ
k and
ˆ
¯
P.
• An extra “past” window is calculated, which comprises short-term observations. It
is made to coincide always with the concurrent year, i.e. the full year 2005 in this
example. For this single “past” window, observed parameters are also calculated:
A
past,obs
, k
past,obs
and
¯
P
past,obs
).
68 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
• All “future” windows contain observations. For each “future” window, parameters
are calculated too: A
fut,obs
, k
fut,obs
and
¯
P
fut,obs
).
Thus, unlike in Lil´eo et al. (2013), where pure reanalysis data from “past” and “fu-
ture” windows are compared, in this case “past” windows containing either LTCs or
short-term observations are compared with “future” windows containing hourly-average
10-min observed wind speeds.
Up to this section, LTCs have been tested in terms of how similar they are to past
concurrent observations, i.e. to what was actually observed. This time, however, the
aim is to study how well LTCs can describe future observations. Moreover, in order to
have the widest vision possible, both “past” and “future” windows are made to vary
in length.
The way to compare “past” LTC windows (i) with “future” observed windows (j)
is through a set of bias ratios representing “past” over “future” parameters. These
bias ratios are listed below and are represented by coloured curves in subsequent fig-
ures.
b
ˆ
A
ij
=
ˆ
A
i
A
fut,obs
j
, (24)
b
ˆ
k
ij
=
ˆ
k
i
k
fut,obs
j
, (25)
b
ˆ
¯
P
ij
=
ˆ
¯
P
i
¯
P
fut,obs
j
. (26)
Also, in order to compare the single “past” window containing short-term observations
to each “future” window containing observations, another set of bias ratios is calculated
for the same “future” windows. In this case, the single year of short-term observations
is used as “past” window, instead of LTCs. These biases are represented by black circles
in subsequent figures.
b
A
j
=
A
past,obs
A
fut,obs
j
, (27)
b
k
j
=
k
past,obs
k
fut,obs
j
, (28)
b ¯
P
j
=
¯
P
past,obs
¯
P
fut,obs
j
. (29)
As mentioned, the year of observations that these biases are calculated from coincides
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 69
always with the concurrent year, and is thus immediately adjacent to the first year of
“future” observations. The reason for calculating this second set of biases is to see if
LTCs generated via the various methods are better than near pure short-term obser-
vations, in terms of predicting future A, k and
¯
P.
To better understand the prediction scheme explained above, some numbers may be
helpful. Let once again 2005 be the concurrent year, i.e. the “axis year” between “past”
and “future” windows. In this case, “past” long-term reference windows could be cho-
sen to be e.g. 1999–2005, 2000–2005, 2001–2005 all the way up to year 2005 on its
own. These windows would then be transformed into LTCs via the correction factors
obtained from the concurrent year (2005). To the right side of the concurrent year,
the “future” windows containing observations could be 2006, 2006–2007, 2006–2008
all the way up to 2006–2012. In addition to this is the aforementioned year of pure
observations, which in this case corresponds to the year 2005. Figure 49 represents this
example graphically:
Figure 49: Representation of the scheme involving “past” and “future” windows, for the case where
the concurrent year used is 2005.
10.2 Choice of concurrent year
Before applying the prediction scheme, a concurrent year had to be chosen. In order
to do so, and for the sake of simplicity, only the WBL method was used, since it was
70 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
so successful at estimating concurrent
¯
P, A and k parameters (see section 9). The
concurrent year was chosen from among 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Later years
were discarded in order to have at least 4 years into the “future” for all cases.
Figure 50 depicts only
¯
P bias ratios. All the plots in the figure are the result of
applying the scheme explained in the previous subsection, only this time, for different
concurrent years (note that the choice of concurrent year determines the maximum al-
lowed length of “past” period, as well as the available “future” period). The coloured
curves indicate the different “past” windows; the black circles denote b ¯
P
j
and thus
come from a single “past” window containing just observations from the concurrent
year. Therefore, looking for example at the first plot (concurrent year 2005), each black
circle represents the ratio of the
¯
P observed in year 2005 and the
¯
P belonging to some
“future” window (any point along the x-axis).
More specifically, in figure 50:
• The right column shows those plots which result from applying the LTC scheme as
explained above, so the different long-term “past” windows contain LTCs. There-
fore, coloured curves represent b
ˆ
¯
P
ij
(as explained in subsection 10.1). The LTC
method was applied to each of the 12 sectors separately before the all-sector re-
combination.
• The column to the left, on the other hand, shows the case where the long-term
“past” windows contain non-corrected long-term reference data: these “past”
WRF-based wind speeds were left in their raw form and are thus not LTCs. In
this case, therefore, the coloured curves represent
¯
P
past,ref
j
/
¯
P
fut,obs
j
. This scheme
was applied with no regard to direction, since it did not involve LTCs.
• Having the result of these two schemes plotted together as in figure 50 allows
for a direct comparison between the predictive power of “past” LTC parameters
(right column), and the predictive power of “past” raw reference parameters (left
column).
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
Pfut
(a) Reference data.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
(b) Concurrent period: 2005. LTCs.
07 07−08 07−09 07−10 07−11 07−12
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
Pfut
(c) Reference data.
07 07−08 07−09 07−10 07−11 07−12
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
99-06 00-06 01-06 02-06 03-06 04-06 05-06 06 06 Obs.
(d) Concurrent period: 2006. LTCs.
08 08−09 08−10 08−11 08−12
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
Pfut
(e) Reference data.
08 08−09 08−10 08−11 08−12
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
99-07 00-07 01-07 02-07 03-07 04-07 05-07 06-07 07 07 Obs.
(f) Concurrent period: 2007. LTCs.
09 09−10 09−11 09−12
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
Pfut
(g) Reference data.
09 09−10 09−11 09−12
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
99-08 00-08 01-08 02-08 03-08 04-08 05-08 06-08 07-08 08 08 Obs.
(h) Concurrent period: 2008. LTCs.
Figure 50: All-sector estimation of the future observed
¯
P
fut,obs
. The left column shows the ratio of
“past” reference (WRF-simulated)
¯
P
past,ref
and “future” observed
¯
P
fut
. The right column shows the
ratio of “past” LTC (calculated via the WBL method with changing concurrent year)
ˆ
¯
P and “future”
observed
¯
P
fut,obs
.
72 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
An interesting highlight is that, for each figure separately, the distance between the
coloured curves in each figure is constant for all futures. The same applies for A and
k.
Most importantly, the difference between left and right columns is negligible for con-
current years 2005 and 2006; concurrent year 2007 shows a slight down-translation of
all curves in the case of the LTCs (left figure), which causes a better prediction of the
“future” period 2008–2010 but otherwise makes no appreciable difference; finally, con-
current year 2008 shows a down-translation of all curves for the case of the LTCs, thus
considerably improving the prediction of all “past” windows. This is most noticeable
in the case of “past” windows 2007–2008 and 2008 (lila and pink curves) which, when
comprising pure reference data, give the worst results, but when turned into LTCs,
drop below the black circles and substantially improve their predictions.
Only for concurrent years 2005 and 2006, the window containing WRF-derived wind
speeds and the window containing LTCs coming from the same year as the concurrent
year (i.e. 2005 and 2006, respectively) give a prediction which is virtually equal to the
one coming from the short-term observations of that same year. In short, for these
figures, the pink curve almost overlaps the black circles, for all futures.
On the other hand, this does not happen for concurrent years 2007 and 2008, a fact
which can be explained by looking at table 6; indeed, a 5.5% and 2.5% difference in
yearly
¯
P between WRF and observations should explain the inability of these years’
reference data (and thus LTCs) to follow the observations of the following year.
Only in the case of concurrent year 2005, the short-term observations (black circles)
are generally good at predicting all futures. Indeed, as seen from table 4, it is the year
with the lowest percentage difference between its yearly observed
¯
P and the 8-year
observed
¯
P. The difference between WRF and observed
¯
P, for that year, is also the
second lowest (only behind 2006), as seen from table 6.
Concurrent year 2006’s short-term observations (black circles) give a −30% under-
prediction of the following year’s
¯
P. Table 6 shows that this year has the smallest
percentage difference between observed and reference
¯
P, but from table 4 it can be
seen that 2006’s difference between the yearly observed
¯
P and the 8-year mean ob-
served
¯
P is −16.6% and that 2007’s is 17.7%. Therefore, even if reference is highly
representative of observations, large differences from one year to the next, which cause
observations to be bad predictors, can drag LTCs into being bad predictors as well.
Therefore, an appropriate choice of concurrent year appears to be of paramount im-
portance.
The concurrent year to be used in the next section is 2005, since its short-term obser-
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 73
vation (black circles) and its LTCs are the best of all four concurrent years at predicting
the future.
10.3 LTCs representing the future for different methods
The predictive scheme is extended to all methods and the concurrent year is fixed to
2005. Therefore, the possible “future” windows go as 2006, 2006–2007, 2006–2008
and all the way up to 2006–2012 (see x-axes).
Regression methods
For these methods, the LTC wind speed was obtained by applying the regression algo-
rithms to each value of the long-term reference wind speed, sector-wise (according to
the reference direction). The resulting 12 values of sector-wise LTC parameters
ˆ
¯
P,
ˆ
A
and
ˆ
k (these last two in Appendix A, figures 75 and 76) were ultimately combined into
all-sector parameters via the procedure explained in section 9. This time, however, the
LTC direction
ˆ
d was not assumed to be equal to d
ref
, but was instead calculated as
explained in subsection 9.4.
First, there is a very good prediction given by the short-term observation “past” win-
dow (black circles in figure 51). As seen in the figure, this prediction is difficult to
beat, and indeed it is only improved by methods TLS and VAR (plots ?? and 51(b)) in
the case of the “past” window 2004–2005 (light blue curve) and 1999–2005 (red curve).
These are thus the only “past” windows that improve predictions which stem from
short-term “past” observations, even though this is so only for the “future” windows
2006–2009, 2006–2010, 2006–2011 and 2006–2012. The close “future” is still best
predicted by the short-term observations (black circles) for all regression methods,
whereas in the case of the TLS and VAR methods, the further-away “future” is bet-
ter handled by LTCs given by 2004–2005 (light blue curve) and 1999–2005 (red curve).
Also, it is only for the TLS and VAR methods that the LTC from the “past” win-
dow 2005 actually matches the short-term observations. Thus, OLS and PR3 (figure
74 in Appendix A) appears as non-efficient transformations of the reference data into
LTCs, causing all the predictions to systematically be worse than the short-term “past”
observations, no matter the “past” LTC window length. OLS and PR3 are virtually
identical, and their best predictions come from the adjacent “past” (2005), followed
by the second most immediate “past” (2004–2005).
It was already seen in plots 50(a) and 50(b), which used 2005 as concurrent year,
that there is the same large difference between the prediction of just 2006 and the
prediction of longer “future” windows. This large difference appears again in figure 51,
74 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
(a) TLS method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
(b) VAR method.
Figure 51: All-sector estimation of future observed
¯
P
fut,obs
with different regression methods. The
figure shows the ratio of “past” LTC
ˆ
¯
P and “future” observed
¯
P
fut,obs
. Concurrent year 2005 chosen
for the calculations of the correction factors. Regression methods TLS and VAR.
since year 2005 is used as concurrent year in this case also. Note that also the shape is
the same, highlighting the bigger impact of the choice of concurrent year choice, over
the method used.
This large deviation happens for the immediate “future” window (2006), and is com-
mon to all methods. This happens both for the LTC “past” windows and the short-term
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 75
“past” observations. (As explained before, by taking a look at table 4 it is clear that the
immediate “future” year 2006 is an “outlier” in terms of
¯
P with a −16.6% percentage
error with respect to the 8-year mean
¯
P).
Non-regression methods
Except for the WBL method, the non-regression methods were implemented in such
a way that they did not generate a sector-wise long-term corrected direction;
ˆ
d was
thus assumed to be equal to the reference direction d
ref
for all “past” windows. The
results corresponding to the sector-wise LTC parameter
ˆ
¯
P are shown below in figure
52 (only the WBL method. The results for the remaining non-regression methods are
in figure 77 in Appendix A). As for the sector-wise LTC parameters
ˆ
A and
ˆ
k, these
can be found for all non-regression methods in Appendix A in figures 78 and 79.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
Figure 52: All-sector estimation of future observed
¯
P
fut,obs
with different regression methods. The
figure shows the ratio of “past” LTC
ˆ
¯
P and “future” observed
¯
P
fut,obs
. Concurrent year 2005 chosen
for the calculations of the correction factors. Non-regression method WBL.
Only the WBL and the KH methods generate LTCs with predictions that match well
those coming from short-term “past” observations. For the TN, MOR and WW meth-
ods, all “past” windows generate LTCs which clearly overpredict the mean power
density for all “future” windows.
76 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
11 Discussion
In section 6 it was already shown that the correlation coefficient is not the best pa-
rameter to assess how well a reference time series represents the concurrent observed
time series. Invalid data were successively injected into the observed dataset, and the
corrupt dataset was then fixed in three different ways: (i) by substituting the invalid
value in the flagged time stamp by the monthly mean wind speed (as done in Salmon
and Taylor (2013)), (ii) by substituting the invalid value by an interpolated value, and
(iii) by removing the time stamp. Each of these three new “versions” of the concurrent
dataset was then correlated to the concurrent reference dataset. For an increasing num-
ber of invalid data, the correlation (with the reference dataset) of the second and third
versions of the observed time series remained constant until intrusive data accounted
for 86% of the observed dataset’s values. On the other hand, when both datasets lost
whole packs or chunks of time stamps, the correlation coefficient increased. This result
extends the analyisis of Lil´eo et al. (2013), where it was suggested that concurrency is
not a measure of mutual representativeness between concurrent time series, but merely
of simultaneity between wind speeds measured at a distance from each other. They
suggested that the correlation coefficient calculated based on monthly averages of the
measured and the reference wind speeds may be a more appropriate measure of the
reference data’s representativeness.
To investigate this statement, a sensitivity analysis carried out in section 7 showed
that the correlation of the observed and the reference wind speeds increases slightly
when averaging over windows of increasing width around minute 00 of the observed
time series. This was done instead of simply picking the 00 min value from the 10-min
average observed time series. Indeed, applying averaging procedures to only 1 value
in each hour, in only one of the two concurrent time series, is enough to increase the
correlation between both. Since the observed values at minute 00 were being succes-
sively changed, the increase in correlation in this case was not due to an increase in
the datasets’ mutual representativeness, but to the statistical effect of averaging. This
effect was also studied in section 8, but this time, both observed and reference time
series were averaged from their original hourly representations to smoothed-out daily,
monthly and yearly representations. Correlating each representation of the concurrent
datasets showed that the correlation coefficient is very dependent on the averaging
period. As an example, Høvsøre’s all-sector r
2
, for the entire period 2005–2012 was
0.64 for the hourly representation of both datasets, but went up to 0.93 for the yearly
representation. This increase was the result of the increasing loss of information, since
the wider the averaging period, the fewer the data points in both sets. Since wider
averaging periods imply a greater loss of information, and the correlation was found
to increase with the averaging period, a high correlation of two concurrent datasets
should not always be taken as an indicator of high mutual representativeness.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 77
How the concurrency between the observed and reference datasets affects the correc-
tion factors arising from their relationship was also explored in subsection 9.3. Indeed,
the success of LTCs to match actual observations did not seem to depend on how
well the concurrent subsets correlated, since the correlation coefficient of a concurrent
subset was always much smaller at the optimum position (the position yielding the
LTC more closely matching actual observations) than at the position of the subset,
within the total concurrent subset, where the correlation was the highest. These results
could perhaps be expected of non-regression methods, but indeed both the regression
and the non-regression methods showed this.
For this reason, a year-to-year study of the A, k and
¯
P parameters was carried out
in section 8, in order to find a more effective way, other than the correlation, of de-
termining how representative the reference dataset is of the observed one. Year 2010
was found to be an “outlier” with respect to the all-year (2005–2012) parameters.
Furthermore, the relative proportions of yearly A, k and
¯
P between a year’s observed
and reference datasets appeared to be unrelated to the correlation between them. Ta-
ble 6 shows that year 2010, for example, has a low correlation and yet its relative
difference between observed and reference power densities ∆
¯
P is low (1.3%). On the
contrary, the year with the highest correlation is 2008 and it has the second largest ∆
¯
P.
The difference between yearly observed A, k and
¯
P and the overall (2005–2012) ob-
served mean parameters were found to be even more determinant in the end result of
a LTC than the relative proportions of yearly A, k and
¯
P between that year’s observed
and simulated datasets. This was verified in section 9, where figures 35 through 37
show that using year 2006 or 2010 as concurrent period gave noticeable biases in the
three LTC parameters
ˆ
A,
ˆ
k and
ˆ
¯
P. Note that while these years have a low relative error
between yearly
¯
P
ref
and
¯
P
obs
(see table 6), 2006 has a −16.6% difference in observed
¯
P with respect to the all-year observed
¯
P, and 2010 a −29.2% difference (table 4).
Subsection 9.2 shows the LTCs arising from the 12-month concurrent subsets, and
there is a clearly anomalous year: 2010. As mentioned above, this year has the largest
difference between yearly and all-year observed power density. It is true that it is also
the year with the lowest correlation, but since high correlations do not necessarily mean
a high similarity between reference and observed yearly parameters (table 6), this fact
is considered of lesser importance. Thus, the relationship between the yearly parame-
ters of an observed dataset and the all-year parameters (i.e. the degree of peculiarity
of each observed year) appears to be the most determinant factor regarding LTCs,
which means that the choice of concurrent year is probably the most important step
of a long-term correction. Further studies on other means of characterising the mutual
representativeness of concurrent datasets are therefore advised.
Regarding the choice of concurrent length, section 9 showed that 12 months is the
subset length above which there was no noticeable improvement in the long-term cor-
78 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
rection of A, k and
¯
P. This result is in accordance with Rogers et al. (2005) and Salmon
and Wansley (1999). In this thesis it was found that over 12 months, bias ratios of
LTC vs. actual observations behaved as: |b
A
| < 1% for all methods except MOR; |b
k
|
< 5% for all methods except OLS, PR3 and MOR; |b
P
| < 15% for all methods except
MOR. Results for the MOR method are much worse than those obtained by Rogers et
al. (2005), but results from VAR are in good agreement; also, the KH, TN, WBL, OLS
and TLS methods agree with the results shown in Lil´eo et al. (2013). Furthermore, like
in Romo et al. (2011) and Montavon (1998), in this thesis the long-term A parame-
ter is well predicted by the OLS method, but unlike in Romo et al. (2011), the VAR
method also gives a good prediction of k and
¯
P. All in all, the absolute best LTC meth-
ods were found to be the regression VAR method and the non-regression WBL method.
The regression methods were applied component-wise in section 9. Thus, instead of
calculating the correlation between concurrent time series of U
ref
and U
obs
, the cor-
rection factors were calculated separately for u and v so that LTC time series ˆ u and
ˆ v could be ultimately obtained. The advantage of having long-term corrected wind
components is that it is then possible to calculate a LTC wind speed
ˆ
U along with
a LTC direction
ˆ
d. Interestingly enough, it was found that the LTC wind speed
ˆ
U
u,v
obtained component-wise gives different results than the
ˆ
U obtained by applying the
same regression methods directly to U. More specifically, b
A
u,v
was deviated more from
1, compared to b
A
, for the OLS and PR3 methods only; b
k
u,v
was on the other hand
closer than b
k
to 1 for all methods; and b ¯
P
u,v
showed much better results than b ¯
P
, but
only for the TLS and VAR methods (as mentioned, only those methods which gave
good LTC results in both A and k gave good results in
¯
P). The choice of method,
therefore, should determine whether it is worth applying the LTC methodology sepa-
rately to u and v. Nonetheless, it was seen that whatever the deviation from 1 of the
bias ratios calculated component-wise, their variability was very small as a function of
concurrent subset length (and always smaller than the variability of the same bias ratios
obtained by applying the regression methods directly to the wind speed U). Finally,
ˆ
d
u,v
was plotted against d
obs
, and it was found that its spread was larger that that seen
when analysing d
ref
against d
obs
, but its correlation still moderate-high (see figures 46
through 48). Moreover, direction seems highly insensitive to the choice of concurrent
year and, more importantly, to the regression method. Figure 47 shows the difference
between the observed and the reference direction (the latter being smoother), but also
that the LTC direction
ˆ
d matches the reference direction more than it matches the
observed direction. Since this happens for all methods, it can also be concluded that
ˆ
d is affected more by the shape of d
ref
than by d
obs
.
Broader research regarding the calculation of
ˆ
d is suggested, since, even though some
LTC methods already calculate the long-term frequency
ˆ
f, the u and v approach gives
a direction time series, which is undoubtedly a more useful result.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 79
Finally, section 10 showed that, regarding the past’s ability to represent the future,
there is not a substantial difference between the case where “past” windows con-
tain WRF-derived wind speeds, and the case where they contain LTCs. Therefore,
transforming the content of “past” windows from WRF-simulated reference to LTCs
appeared not to change significantly the predictive abilities of the “past”. This result
was obtained using only the WBL method, for four different concurrent years, and it
was only for concurrent year 2008, that a noticeable difference was seen: all “past” win-
dows were shifted downward, especially the near “past” windows 2008 and 2008–2009,
which considerably improved their prediction of all “future” windows. It is therefore
advisable to keep investigating the effect that long-term correcting a reference dataset
has on its ability to predict the future wind climate, when the reference data were
originally either simulations or observations.
Year 2005 was then fixed as concurrent year, due to the very good predictive abili-
ties, for all futures, of its short-term observations (i.e. those spanning 2005, and again
note that a year’s difference between the observed yearly
¯
P and the all-year parameter
appears to be important, since 2005 has the lowest, as seen in table 6). In fact, this
prediction is difficult to improve and indeed it was only improved by the TLS and VAR
methods (plots 76(b) and 76(d)) but for just two “past” windows: the shortest (2004–
2005) and the longest (1999–2005). As for the non-regression methods, only the WBL
and the KH methods showed good results; for the TN, MOR and WW methods, all
“past” windows generated LTCs which clearly overpredicted the power density for all
“future” windows.
Further work is needed involving:
• Different choices of reference time series (simulations from different NWP models,
for example, or even observations from another mast).
• Longer time series of observations and reference, since it would then be possible
to push “past” windows deeper into the past and so have longer “future” periods.
Also, it is necessary that different researchers test the same methods under different
conditions (e.g. complex terrain), so as to facilitate comparisons between studies.
• Research on the direct effect of missing data on LTCs (not only on the correlation)
would also be interesting.
It appears that just as the choice of concurrent year determines the LTC’s success at
matching concurrent observations (section 9), this choice also determines the LTCs’
(and the observations’) ability to predict the future. Indeed, the right column in figure
50 shows very different shapes in the prediction curves, when the only variation be-
tween plots is the concurrent year. Most importantly, this change in shape occurs for
both “past” windows of short-term observations and “past” windows of LTCs. Since
the shape of the prediction curve coming from “past” short-term observations (black
80 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
circles) is fully determined by the relative proportions of the different parameters rep-
resenting the “past” and the “future” windows, and this shape is exactly the same as
that of the coloured curves, then the choice of concurrent year and the relationship of
its parameters with the “future” parameters (A, k and
¯
P) is of utmost importance.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 81
12 Conclusions
• An observed wind speed time series was subjected to an increasing number of
“holes”, as its values were successively replaced by invalid data. These “holes”
were replaced by monthly means or by interpolations in order to correlate with
a concurrent reference time series. In a third situation, they were simply left un-
touched, but then the concurrent reference dataset was also “punctured” at the
same positions. In the first and third situations, even though the disfigured observed
dataset was seriously biased and thus highly non-representative of the original, the
correlation between both concurrent datasets proved to keep constant until the
level of intrusive data was very high.
• 12 months was established as the duration of a concurrent subset, above which the
resulting mean LTC bias ratios (
¯
b
A
,
¯
b
k
and
¯
b
P
) did not to fluctuate appreciably.
• The correlation was seen to play a minor role in determining whether a certain
position of the concurrent subset is optimal, i.e. the position where, for a given
subset length, a bias ratio has a value as close as possible to 1. Each bias ratio was
found to have a particular optimum position, and the correlation (of the reference
and observed subsets) at this position was always lower than the maximum cor-
relation possible for that particular subset length (i.e. some other position always
had the highest correlation).
• An approach to long-term correcting wind direction via regression methods was
explored, with good results. Long-term corrected direction
ˆ
d was highly insensitive
to the method used and the position of the concurrent subset. It was noted that
ˆ
d matches the reference direction more than it matches the observed direction.
Since this happens for all regression methods, it can be concluded that
ˆ
d is affected
more by the shape of d
ref
than by d
obs
.
• Applying a regression LTC method directly to the values of wind speed gave dif-
ferent results of LTC
ˆ
A and
ˆ
k, as compared to the case where the same methods
were applied separately to u and v.
• There is only a subtle difference between the case where the past comprises simply
long-term reference (WRF-simulated) wind speeds, and the case where the past
comprises LTC wind speeds, meaning that the effect of LTC methodologies on
reference data, at least in terms of the data’s subsequent ability to predict the
future, is small.
• The dominant factor on a LTC (on the shape of its curves) is the choice of con-
current year, i.e. the interannual difference in yearly parameters such as
¯
P. Less
dominant than these two factors are large differences between WRF-derived and
observed wind speeds (for the concurrent year), and the hourly correlation.
82 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
• Fixing 2005 as concurrent year reveals that its short-term observations (spanning
2005) predict all futures better than long-term LTCs, except for the “future”
windows 2004–2005 and 1999–2005, but only for the regression methods TLS and
VAR.
• Also regarding future prediction, from the non-regression methods only the WBL
and the KH methods show good results; for TN, MOR and WW, all “past” windows
generate LTCs which clearly overpredict the mean power density for all “future”
windows. The MOR method, however, was probably wrongly implemented.
• This study should be repeated with a different choice of reference data, e.g. a
dataset coming from a different NWP model, or long-term observations from a
nearby mast.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 83
13 References
Riedel V., Strack M., Robust approximation of functional relationships between me-
teorological data: Alternative measure-correlate-predict algorithms, Proc. EWEA, 2001.
Nielsen M., Landberg L., Mortensen N. G., Barthelmie, R. J., Joensen A., Application
of measure-correlate-predict approach for wind resource measurement, Proc. EWEA,
2001.
Woods J. C. and Watson S. J., A new matrix method of predicting long-term wind
roses with MCP, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol 66, n.
2, Feb 1997, pp 85–94.
Mortimer A. A., A new correlation/prediction method for potential wind farm sites,
Mortimer, Proc. BWEA, 1994.
Lil´eo S., Berge E., Undheim O., Klinkert R., Bredesen R. E., Long-term correction of
wind measurements, state-of-the-art, guidelines and future work, Elforsk report 13:18,
Jan. 2013.
Rogers, A.L., Rogers, J.W. and Manwell, J.F., Comparison of the performance of
four measure-correlate-predict algorithms., J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, 93, 243–264,
2005.
Skamarock, W. C., J. B. Klemp, J. Dudhia, D. O. Gill, D. M. Barker, M. G. Duda, X.-Y.
Huang, W. Wang, et al., 2008: A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version
3. Tech. Rep. NCAR/TN–475+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Hahmann, A. N., Vincent C. L., Pena, A., Lange J. and Hasager C. B., Wind climate
estimation using WRF model output: Method and model sensitivities, 2013, Wind En-
erg., Tech. Rep. Wind Energy Department, Technical University of Denmark.
Rogers, A. L., J. W. Rogers, and J. F. Manwell. 2005a. Comparison of the perfor-
mance of four measure-correlate-predict algorithms. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 93:243–264.
Rogers, A. L., J. W. Rogers, and J. F. Manwell. 2005b. Uncertainties in results of
measure-correlate-predict analyses. Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, American-
Wind Energy Association, Denver, CO.
Sheppard, C., 2009, Analysis of a MCP methodology for wind resource assessment,
84 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
MSc. Thesis, Student Union, Humboldt State University.
Anderson M., Bass J., 2005, MCP Errors, Engineering and Technical division of Re-
newable Energy Systems Ltd.
Anderson M., Bass J., 2004, A Review of MCP Techniques, Engineering and Tech-
nical division of Renewable Energy Systems Ltd.
Klinkert, R., 2012, Uncertainty Analysis of Long Term Correction Methods for An-
nual Average Winds, MSc. Thesis, Kjeller Vindteknikk.
Tallhang, L. and Nygaard, T.A.: The potential of wind energy in Sø r-Trø ndelag,
Norway. European Community Wind Energy Conference, p. 87–90, 1993
Perea A. R., Amezcua J., Probst O., 2011, Validation of three new measure-correlate-
predict models for the long-term prospection of the wind resource, Journal of Renewable
and Sustainable Energy 3.
Montavon, C., Simulation of Atmospheric Flows over Complex Terrain for Wind Power
Potential Assessment, MSc. Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.
Salmon J., Taylor P., 2013, Errors and uncertainties associated with missing wind
data and short records, Wind Energ.
Troen, I., Petersen E.L., 1989, European Wind Atlas. ISBN 87–550–1482–8, Risø Na-
tional Laboratory, Roskilde.
Mortensen N. G., 2012, Risø-I-3272 (ed.2) (EN), Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde.
Salahaddin, A. A., Comparative study of four methods for estimating Weibull pa-
rameters for Halabja, Iraq, International Journal of Physical Sciences Vol. 8(5), pp.
186–192, 9 February, 2013
WindFarmer 5.2 Theory Manual, 2013, Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde.
WindPRO 2.6 Manual, 2008, EMD International A/S.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 85
A Appendix
A.1 Section 8
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 7.63 m/s
k = 1.96
A = 5.38 m/s
k = 1.62
Sector 1
p
.
d
.
f
.
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 7.99 m/s
k = 2.13
A = 7.53 m/s
k = 2.12
Sector 2
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 9.21 m/s
k = 2.31
A = 8.65 m/s
k = 2.56
Sector 3
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 9.61 m/s
k = 2.45
A = 8.88 m/s
k = 2.84
Sector 4
p
.
d
.
f
.
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 10.04 m/s
k = 2.41
A = 9.06 m/s
k = 2.75
Sector 5
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 9.2 m/s
k = 2.43
A = 8.88 m/s
k = 2.78
Sector 6
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 10.39 m/s
k = 2.26
A = 10.7 m/s
k = 2.29
Sector 7
p
.
d
.
f
.
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 11.45 m/s
k = 2.45
A = 11.51 m/s
k = 2.44
Sector 8
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 11.77 m/s
k = 2.27
A = 11.74 m/s
k = 2.28
Sector 9
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 11.17 m/s
k = 2.18
A = 11.47 m/s
k = 2.24
Sector 10
Wind speed [m/s]
p
.
d
.
f
.
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 11.36 m/s
k = 2.32
A = 11.98 m/s
k = 2.37
Sector 11
Wind speed [m/s]
0 20 40
0
0.1
0.2
A = 10.48 m/s
k = 2.09
A = 11.52 m/s
k = 2.18
Sector 12
Wind speed [m/s]
Figure 53: Sectorised histogram and Weibull distribution function at Høvsøre, 2005–2012. Observa-
tions in blue and WRF-derived wind speeds in red.
86 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.05
0.1
A= 10. 62 m/s
k = 2. 24
A= 10. 57 m/s
k = 2. 18
2005
p
.
d
.
f
.
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.05
0.1
A= 9. 92 m/s
k = 2. 17
A= 9. 94 m/s
k = 2. 17
2006
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.05
0.1
A= 10. 86 m/s
k = 2. 11
A= 11. 02 m/s
k = 2. 08
2007
p
.
d
.
f
.
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.05
0.1
A= 10. 67 m/s
k = 2. 07
A= 10. 62 m/s
k = 2. 09
2008
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.05
0.1
A= 10. 26 m/s
k = 2. 42
A= 10. 02 m/s
k = 2. 25
2009
p
.
d
.
f
.
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.05
0.1
A= 9. 65 m/s
k = 2. 24
A= 9. 77 m/s
k = 2. 31
2010
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.05
0.1
A= 11. 12 m/s
k = 2. 24
A= 10. 98 m/s
k = 2. 19
2011
Wind speed [m/s]
p
.
d
.
f
.
0 10 20 30 40
0
0.05
0.1
A= 10. 89 m/s
k = 2. 33
A= 10. 79 m/s
k = 2. 3
2012
Wind speed [m/s]
Figure 54: Yearly all-sector histogram and Weibull distribution function at Høvsøre, 2005–2012. Ob-
servations in blue and WRF-derived wind speeds in red.
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
7
8
Sector 1
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
7
8
Sector 2
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
8
9
10
Sector 3
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
8
9
10
Sector 4
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
8
10
Sector 5
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
8
9
10
Sector 6
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
Sector 7
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
10
11
12
Sector 8
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
Sector 9
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
10
11
12
Sector 10
Year
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
10
11
12
Sector 11
Year
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
10
12
14
Sector 12
Year
Awr f
Aob s
Figure 55: Sector-wise yearly reference (WRF-derived) and observed A [m/s], 2005–2012.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 87
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Sector 1
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2
2.5
Sector 2
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2
2.5
3
Sector 3
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2.5
3
Sector 4
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
Sector 5
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2
2.5
3
Sector 6
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2.2
2.4
2.6
Sector 7
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2.4
2.6
Sector 8
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2.2
2.4
2.6
Sector 9
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2.2
2.4
2.6
Sector 10
Year
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
Sector 11
Year
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Sector 12
Year
kwr f
kob s
Figure 56: Sector-wise yearly reference (WRF-derived) and observed k, 2005–2012.
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
300
400
500
Sector 1
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
300
400
500
Sector 2
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
400
600
800
Sector 3
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
400
600
Sector 4
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
400
600
800
Sector 5
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
400
600
Sector 6
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
600
800
1000
1200
Sector 7
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
800
1000
1200
Sector 8
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
1000
1500
Sector 9
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
800
1000
1200
Sector 10
Year
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
800
1000
1200
1400
Sector 11
Year
’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12
1000
1500
2000
Sector 12
Year
P WDwr f
P WDob s
Figure 57: Sector-wise yearly reference (WRF-derived) and observed wind power density, [W/m
2
],
2005–2012
88 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
REF 2005
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(a)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2005
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(b)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
REF 2006
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(c)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2006
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(d)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
REF 2007
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(e)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2007
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(f)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
REF 2008
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(g)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2008
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(h)
Figure 58: Yearly reference (left column) and yearly observed (right column) wind roses at Høvsøre,
for height 100 m, and hourly direction time series. Years 2005–2008 displayed.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 89
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
REF 2009
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(a)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2009
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(b)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
REF 2010
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(c)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2010
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(d)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
REF 2011
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(e)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2011
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(f)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
REF 2012
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(g)
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
W E
S
N
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 30
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
OBS 2012
Wind speed [m s
−1
]
(h)
Figure 59: Yearly reference (left column) and yearly observed (right column) wind roses at Høvsøre,
for height 100 m, and hourly direction time series. Years 2008–2012 displayed.
A.2 Section 9
A.2.1 Regression methods
3 6 9 121518212427
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 1
¯b
A
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
20
40
60
Sector 2
3 6 9 121518212427
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 3
3 6 9 121518212427
0.98
0.99
1
1.01
Sector 4
3 6 9 121518212427
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
Sector 5
¯b
A
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.99
1
1.01
1.02
Sector 6
3 6 9 121518212427
0.98
1
1.02
Sector 7
3 6 9 121518212427
0.99
1
1.01
Sector 8
3 6 9 121518212427
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
Sector 9
Subset l ength [ months]
¯b
A
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.99
1
1.01
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.99
0.995
1
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
Figure 60: Sector-wise mean bias ratio b
A
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
For each subset length and sector, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios
found at all possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012)
concurrent set.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 91
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sector 1
¯b
k
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Sector 2
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Sector 3
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 4
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 5
¯b
k
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 6
3 6 9 121518212427
2
4
6
Sector 7
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 8
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 9
Subset l ength [ months]
¯b
k
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
Figure 61: Sector-wise mean bias ratio b
k
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
For each subset length and sector, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios
found at all possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012)
concurrent set.
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.5
2
Sector 1
¯b
P
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
50
100
150
200
250
Sector 2
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 3
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 4
3 6 9 121518212427
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 5
¯b
P
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 6
3 6 9 121518212427
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 7
3 6 9 121518212427
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 8
3 6 9 121518212427
0.8
1
1.2
Sector 9
Subset l ength [ months]
¯b
P
[

]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 121518212427
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
Figure 62: Sector-wise mean bias ratio
¯
b ¯
P
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
For each subset length and sector, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios
found at all possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012)
concurrent set.
92 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
A.2.2 Non-regression methods
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 1
¯
b
A
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Sector 5
¯
b
A
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.05
1.1
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 9
Subset l ength [ months]
¯
b
A
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.6
0.8
1
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 63: Sector-wise mean bias ratio b
A
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
For each subset length and sector, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios
found at all possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012)
concurrent set.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 93
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 1
¯
b
k
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 5
¯
b
k
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 9
Subset l ength [ months]
¯
b
k
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.6
0.8
1
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 64: Sector-wise mean bias ratio b
k
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
For each subset length and sector, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios
found at all possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012)
concurrent set.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
2
4
6
Sector 1
¯
b
P
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
2
3
4
5
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
2
3
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
2
3
4
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
2
3
Sector 5
¯
b
P
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.5
2
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.5
2
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.5
2
Sector 9
Subset l ength [ months]
¯
b
P
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.5
2
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.5
1
1.5
2
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.5
1
1.5
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 65: Sector-wise mean bias ratio
¯
b ¯
P
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
For each subset length and sector, the mean value was obtained by averaging over the bias ratios
found at all possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012)
concurrent set.
94 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Subset length [months]
s
t
d
(
b
A
)
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 66: Standard deviation σ
2
(b
A
) as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the standard deviation was obtained by taking into account the bias ratios found at all
possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent
set.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Subset length [months]
s
t
d
(
b
k
)
[

]
OLS
TLS
PR3
VAR
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 67: Standard deviation σ
2
(b
k
) as a function of the concurrent subset length (months). For each
subset length, the standard deviation was obtained by taking into account the bias ratios found at all
possible non-overlapping positions of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) concurrent
set.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 95
A.2.3 Optimum biases
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 1
¯
b
A
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Sector 5
¯
b
A
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.05
1.1
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Sector 9
¯
b
A
[−]
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.6
0.8
1
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 68: Sector-wise optimum bias ratio b
A
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
The optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus obtained
at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set. Non-regression
methods.
96 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 1
¯
b
k
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 5
¯
b
k
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 9
¯
b
k
[−]
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 69: Sector-wise optimum bias ratio b
k
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
The optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus obtained
at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set. Non-regression
methods.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
2
4
6
Sector 1
¯
b
P
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
2
3
4
5
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
2
3
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
2
3
4
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
2
3
Sector 5
¯
b
P
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.5
2
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.5
2
Sector 9
¯
b
P
[−]
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.5
1
1.5
2
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.5
1
1.5
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
MOR
KH
TN
WW
WBL
Figure 70: Sector-wise optimum bias ratio b ¯
P
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
The optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus obtained
at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set. Non-regression
methods.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 97
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.98
1
1.02
Sector 1
¯
b
A
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.99
1
1.01
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.985
0.99
0.995
1
1.005
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.995
1
1.005
1.01
Sector 5
¯
b
A
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.99
1
1.01
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.995
1
1.005
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.005
1.01
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.99
0.995
1
1.005
Sector 9
¯
b
A
[−]
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.99
1
1.01
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.995
1
1.005
1.01
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.98
0.99
1
1.01
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
OLS
TLS
POL3
VAR
Figure 71: Sector-wise optimum bias ratio b
A
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
The optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus ob-
tained at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set. Regression
methods.
98 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Sector 1
¯
b
k
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 5
¯
b
k
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Sector 9
¯
b
k
[−]
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
OLS
TLS
POL3
VAR
Figure 72: Sector-wise optimum bias ratio b
k
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
The optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus ob-
tained at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set. Regression
methods.
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Sector 1
¯
b
P
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.8
0.9
1
Sector 2
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 3
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 4
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 5
¯
b
P
[−]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
Sector 6
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
Sector 7
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
Sector 8
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
Sector 9
¯
b
P
[−]
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
Sector 10
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
0.95
1
Sector 11
Subset l ength [ months]
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Sector 12
Subset l ength [ months]
OLS
TLS
POL3
VAR
Figure 73: Sector-wise optimum bias ratio b ¯
P
as a function of the concurrent subset length (months).
The optimum bias ratio is the value closest to 1 for each concurrent subset length, and is thus ob-
tained at the optimum position of the concurrent subset within the total (2005–2012) set. Regression
methods.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 99
A.3 Section 10
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
(a) OLS method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Future Period [years]
¯
P
¯
P
fut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
(b) PR3 method.
Figure 74: All-sector estimation of future observed
¯
P
fut,obs
with regression methods OLS and PR3.
The figure shows the ratio of “past” LTC
ˆ
¯
P and “future” observed
¯
P
fut,obs
. Concurrent year 2005
chosen for the calculations of the correction factors.
100 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
(a) OLS method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
(b) TLS method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
(c) PR3 method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
(d) VAR method.
Figure 75: All-sector estimation of future A
fut,obs
with different regression methods. The figure
shows the ratio of “past” LTC
ˆ
A and “future” observed A
fut,obs
. Concurrent year 2005 chosen for
the calculations of the correction factors.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 101
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
(a) OLS method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
(b) TLS method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
(c) PR3 method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
(d) VAR method.
Figure 76: All-sector estimation of future k
fut,obs
with different regression methods. The figure shows
the ratio of “past” LTC
ˆ
k and “future” observed k
fut,obs
. Concurrent year 2005 chosen for the
calculations of the correction factors.
102 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
Future Period [years]
P
Pfut
(a) TN method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
Future Period [years]
P
Pfut
(b) KH method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
P
Pfut
(c) MOR method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Future Period [years]
P
Pfut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
(d) WW method.
Figure 77: All-sector estimation of future observed
¯
P
fut,obs
with non-regression methods TN, KH,
MOR and WW. The figure shows the ratio of “past” LTC
ˆ
¯
P and “future” observed
¯
P
fut,obs
. Con-
current year 2005 chosen for the calculations of the correction factors.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 103
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
(a) WBL method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
(b) KH method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
(c) TN method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
(d) MOR method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
Future Period [years]
A/A
f ut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
(e) WW method.
Figure 78: All-sector estimation of future A
fut,obs
with different non-regression methods. The figure
shows the ratio of “past” LTC
ˆ
A and “future” observed A
fut,obs
. Concurrent year 2005 chosen for
the calculations of the correction factors.
104 DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN)
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
(a) WBL method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
(b) KH method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
(c) TN method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
(d) MOR method.
06 06−07 06−08 06−09 06−10 06−11 06−12
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
Future Period [years]
k/k
f ut
99-05 00-05 01-05 02-05 03-05 04-05 05 05 Obs.
(e) WW method.
Figure 79: All-sector estimation of future k
fut,obs
with different non-regression methods. The figure
shows the ratio of “past” LTC
ˆ
k and “future” observed k
fut,obs
. Concurrent year 2005 chosen for the
calculations of the correction factors.
DTU Wind Energy-Master-Series-M-0047(EN) 105