You are on page 1of 20

Comparing Pulse Doppler LIDAR with

SODAR and Direct Measurements for
Wind Assessment
Neil D. Kelley
Bonnie J. Jonkman
George N. Scott
National Wind Technology Center
Yelena L. Pichugina
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences/NOAA
University of Colorado at Boulder

Windpower 2007 – Los Angeles

Background

The 2001-2003 Lamar Low-Level Jet Project
provided an opportunity to simultaneously compare
the wind fields measured remotely by pulsed LIDAR
and SODAR and directly by tower-mounted sonic
anemometers

These measurements were taken by NREL/NWTC
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) during the first two weeks of
September 2003 south of Lamar, Colorado which is
now the site of the 166 MW Colorado Green Wind
Plant

Windpower
2007 – Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

2

Sandberg  Janet L.Los 3 . W.Acknowledgements We acknowledge the support of this study by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) and  Dr. Robert M. Banta  Dr. Machol in particular without whose professional and scientific dedication the results being presented today would not have been possible. Alan Brewer  Scott P. Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .

Presentation Objectives  Present the results of a simultaneous intercomparison of wind fields measured by two remote sensing technologies and direct tower-based measurements  Present the results of a longer term intercomparison of simultaneous measurements taken with a SODAR and in-situ instruments 4 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .Los .

BASIC ATTRIBUTES OF EYESAFE DOPPLER WINDFINDING LIDARS Continuous Wave (CW)  Continuous emissions of infrared energy  Nominal 200 m range  Line-of-sight radial wind speeds made within a single focused region along the beam  Multiple heights measured by varying position of focal point and/or elevation angle  Very narrow beam diameter  Useful for highly detailed measurements of a limited spatial area Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower . highly collimated beam whose diameter slowly increases with increasing range  Can perform a wide range of scanning operations for 3D spatial measurements 5 .Los Pulsed  Very short pulses of intense infrared energy  Up to 9 km range  Line-of-sight radial wind speeds made simultaneously at up to 300 positions (range gates) along the beam  A narrow.

The Comparison and Inter-Comparison of Wind Fields Measured by Three Techniques  In-situ measurements using sonic anemometry at heights of 54. 67. 85.Los . & 116 m  Scintec MFAS MediumRange SODAR (50-500 m)  NOAA High-Resolution Doppler LIDAR (HRDL) 120-m tower & four levels of sonic anemometry Scintec MFAS SODAR NOAA HRDL LIDAR 6 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .

120-m Tower & Sonic Anemometry  ATI SAT/3K 3-axis sonic anemometers (7 Hz bandwidth. triangular tower  Arms orientated towards 300 degrees w. 0.t. true north 7 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .r.Los .05 sec time resolution)  Mounted on support arms specifically engineered to damp out vibrations below 10 Hz  Mounted 5 m from edge of 1m wide. torsionally-stiff.

Los .Scintec MFAS Phased Array SODAR  Observed winds between 50 and 500 m    20-min averaging period    30-70 m pulse lengths 10-m vertical resolution Horizontal winds from 8 tilted beams and 10 frequencies over range of 1816-2742 Hz Automatic gain control Very quiet site 8 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .

YAG laser Wavelength 2.25 s Minimum range 0.1 m/s Time resolution 0.NOAA High Resolution Doppler LIDAR (as configured for Lamar experiment)            Research instrument Solid State Tm:Lu.2 km Maximum range 3 km Beam width range 6 to 28 cm stare mode vertical scan mode conical scan mode θ φ 9 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .5 mJ Pulse rate 200/s Range resolution 30 m Velocity resolution ~ 0.Los .02 µm Pulse energy 1.

Los SODAR 10 .Inter-comparison of Measured Wind Fields Sonics LIDAR Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .

6 cm main vertical legs  0.Sources of Flow Distortion Around Triangular Lattice Tower  Instrument mounting arm assemblies  Aircraft warning beacons  Tower composed of circular structural elements:  1.Los .6 cm cross members  “Star” mount guy wire connections provide torsional stiffness  RESULT: Flow distortion characteristics vary with height and wind approach angle 11 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .

109.Los .825W 120-m tower Note: SODAR and Tower Coordinates were measured on June 25.879W Fenced Area Fenced Area (Tower and Shed) (data building) . 102° 39.05m 210o 109.Tower – SODAR Positions guy wires Guy Wires North North instrument arms orientation Tower Coordinates: 37° 40. 102° 39.099N.059N. 2002 using a Brunton Multinavigator MNS GPS Receiver using Datum WGS84.1 m LIDAR AR (including e panels and c enclosure) SODAR Coordinates: 37° 40.Guy Wire Anchor Points (x6) SODAR 12 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .

Estimate of Local Flow Distortion at 116-m Sonic Anemometer Using High Reliability SODAR Data As Reference Wind Direction Horizontal Wind Speed 22 22 20 20 116m -2 -3 -4 -4 -2 -2 -4 18 18 -2 -4 (deg) -4 14 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 12 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 -4 -2 10 -4 0 8 -2 0 6 -2 -4 4 2 4 6 8 -1 16 Sodar UH (m/s) Sodar UH (m/s) 16 -1 -1 -1 14 12 10 0 0 0 8 2 6 6 1 1 4 2 160 2 0 8 200 240 280 2 2 320 360 40 400 80 440 160 3 200 240 280 320 360 40 400 80 440 Sodar WD (deg) Sodar WD (deg) instrument arms azimuth location Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .Los 1 2 3 1 2 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 (m/s) 13 .

2002 using a Brunton Multinavigator MNS GPS Receiver using Datum WGS84.099N.879W Chosen for minimal flow distortion at the sonic anemometers . 102° 39.Los .Stationary Stare Mode Geometry for Optimal LIDAR-Sonic Inter-comparison North 30-m range gates 6&7 Guy Wires North Wind Flow UH Tower Coordinates: 37° 40.Guy Wire Anchor Points (x6) 31o LIDAR plan view elevation view 14 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower . 102° 39.059N.05m LIDAR (167 m) AR (including e panels and c enclosure) 210o SODAR Coordinates: 37° 40.825W Uradial Note: SODAR and Tower Coordinates were measured on June 25. Fenced Area (Tower and Shed) 109.

et al.27 0. 15 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .” Applied Optics. 23.3 m/s Mean Bias Ulidar – Usonic Std Dev RMS (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) 0.5% over the observed velocity range of 1. 15.1 ± 0.3 m/s or ± 2.Results of Stationary Stare Inter-Comparisons Under Optimal Observing Conditions    Sonic full vector velocity is projected on to the LIDAR radial velocity for direct comparison over nominal periods of 10 minutes The two compare nominally within 0.0 to 11.31 0. No.34# Compares favorably with similar measurements by Hall. 1984.14 0. et al# using a much earlier CO2 laser version of the HRDL at height of 300 m and an observed velocity range of 1 to 22 m/s #Hall. “Wind measurement accuracy of the NOAA pulse infrared Doppler LIDAR.Los .

Los .Obtaining Streamwise LIDAR Wind Profiles Using Vertical Scan Mode Data  By design the majority of available data was collected in this mode  Not optimal for obtaining horizontal wind speeds due to  a potential lack of horizontal homogeneity at low angles  sparse spatial sampling at high angles 16 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .

0.11 m/s • Large bias.Los 17 .89 m/s • 1σ variation.011 • 1σ variation. 1.16 m/s • Large bias.023 ± 0.921 ± 0. 0. 0.010 • Small slope error.Tower. -1. 0.984 ± 0.956 • R2 = 0. +0.12 m/s • Tower higher at higher speeds • LIDAR lower at all wind speeds • LIDAR lower at all wind speeds • Large slope error.35 ± 0. -1.918 • R2 = 0. 0.67 m/s • R2 = 0. LIDAR Vertical-Scan Mode Inter-Comparison Results SODAR UH Referenced To All Tower Sonics UH 20 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 18 Lidar vertical scan UH (m/s) Lidar vertical scan UH (m/s) 20 18 Sodar UH (m/s) LIDAR Vertical-Scan UH Referenced To SODAR UH LIDAR Vertical-Scan UH Referenced To All Tower Sonics UH 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Tower sonics UH (m/s) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 4 6 Tower sonics UH (m/s) 8 10 12 14 16 18 Sodar UH (m/s) • Small bias. SODAR.12 ± 0.02 ± 0.955 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .65 m/s • 1σ variation.010 • Small slope error.

LIDAR Vertical Wind Profiles Derived Using Conical Scanning Mode (1 minute record)  More optimal technique. but only short records (~1 min) available  15 deg elevation angle provides 8 m vertical resolution  Used by CW LIDAR profilers but only at 5 heights θ φ Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .Los 18 .

5 m/s consistent with estimated local flow distortion magnitudes # signal-to-noise ratio 19 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .Long-Term High SNR# SODAR and Tower Sonics UH Inter-Comparison  All sonic heights included  Wind directions of 120 ± 20o excluded  14649 records (585 hours)  Mean bias of -0.845  1σ variation of 1.5 m/s  Slope error of 1.Los .035 (sonics read higher than SODAR)  R2 = 0.

can provide very detailed vertical wind profiles 20 Windpower 2007 – Los2007 Angeles Windpower .Los . when used in the conical scanning mode.Conclusions  The achievable RMS accuracy of the pulsed LIDAR under optimal sampling conditions appears to be in the vicinity of 0.7 m/s or 5 to 6% under high SNR conditions and is limited by the local flow distortion at the sonic anemometers  The pulsed LIDAR.5%  Tower-induced flow distortion in the vicinity of the sonic anemometers has limited the precision of the inter-comparisons with the remote sensing instruments  The SODAR provided an RMS uncertainty in the range of 0.3 m/s or 2.6 to 0.