ERAD 2008 - THE FIFTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON RADAR IN METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
Weather Radar and Wind Turbines - Theoretical
and Numerical Analysis of the Shadowing Effects
and Mitigation Concepts
Gerhard Greving 1, Martin Malkomes 2
(1) NAVCOM Consult, Ziegelstr. 43, D-71672 Marbach/Germany
(2) Gamic GmbH, Roermonderstr. 151, D-52072 Aachen/Germany
Abstract - Wind turbines (WT) may have effects on the
raw data of a weather radar (WR) data due to its scattering
properties, i.e. the amplitude and the phase or Doppler
frequency measurements. The safeguarding distances are
determined to reduce the distortions to acceptable limits.
The applicability of the mono-static radar cross section
(RCS) for the weather radar (WR) and the wind turbines
(WT) is evaluated by theoretical and numerical results. It is
concluded that the RCS scheme is not applicable for objects
on the ground and is not a useful parameter for the
definition of safeguarding distances of WT to the WR. The
blocking effect of WT are analyzed by theoretical and
numerical results. Proposals for a deterministic case by case
numerical treatment are made. Some system aspects of WT
are discussed with regard to the modern signal processing of
WR and WT-effects.
Key terms - weather radar, RCS, blocking, safeguarding
distances, wind-turbines, numerical analysis, signal
processing
1. Introduction
Planned wind turbines or wind parks (Fig. 1) have to be
approved by building authorities (Fig. 2) on the base of
statements of system providers which may run systems of
public interest in some distance to the wind turbines. These
may be (Fig. 4)
• Air traffic control radar (ATC; primary and secondary)
• Air defense radar (AD)
• Weather radar (WR)
• Navigation and communication systems
It is natural and has to be expected that the system providers
try to safeguard their systems to the extent possible in the
interest balancing process.
The “weather radar” WR is a special type of “primary
radar” intended to measure atmospheric volumetric targets.
The intended targets of the WR differ fundamentally from
the conventional primary radar targets in ATC (Air Traffic
Control) or military AD (Air Defense) applications. The
targets of WR are typically large volumes of clouds and rain
(or ice and snow) while the targets of a “normal primary
radar” are quasi-point-objects as seen from the radar.
Objects in the radiation field of the WR can distort the
results of the WR measurement. Actually distorting objects
are wind turbines WT which are installed in an increasing
number in some distance to the WR. Safeguarding zones
are intended to be defined on the basis of the predicted
distortions. Often these safeguarding distances are defined
on unrealistic unjustified worst-worst-case assumptions as
will be shown.
The discussed distorting effects on the measured raw data
are
1. Reflections back to the WR from the static parts as
part of the static clutter. This effect is often
evaluated on the base of the RCS-scheme. The RCS
[1],[2],[3] is only shortly discussed in this paper. It is
referenced to other papers of the authors [5]-[10]
2. Reflections back to the WR from the rotating parts
as part of the dynamic clutter, i.e. phase or Doppler
shifted return signals ([6],[9],[10]). The Doppler
shifted return signal may affect the wind speed
measurement. This effect is often evaluated as well
on the base of the RCS-scheme.
3. Shadowing or blocking which may result in rain rate
errors (precipitation errors) in the back of the WT.
This effect is mainly discussed in this paper on the
raw data basis.
The measured raw data are processed subsequently.
2. Relevant Weather Radar Specifics
The modern weather radar is a 3D pulse Doppler radar
(C- or S-band) and is mechanically rotating in azimuth and
controlled in elevation in a sequential 3D scanning pattern.
The antenna pattern is a symmetric pencil beam of about
1° half-power beam width. The antenna pattern has a high
side lobe suppression. The lowest beam is usually around
+0.5° and 0.7° elevation. By that the ground is illuminated
significantly in the lowest beam position.
The mechanical rotation can be assumed to vary much
faster than the weather phenomena vary. Hence the update
rate is typically much faster than the change of the weather
data to be measured. The reflected amplitude and the
phase are measured to be the integral over the total
voluminous range cell/bin. The phase/Doppler analysis is
performed today by FFT-/DFT-algorithms. The number of
FFT-spectral “channels” determine the wind speed
resolution.
The smallest resolution cells (bins) are determined by
the antenna pattern and the pulse pattern. It is remarkable
that the bin-width is in the order of the horizontal size of
the blades for practical distances in question, i.e. around
90m for a distance of 5km and 180m for 10km. In the
context of this paper it means that usually only a small
part of the wind parks is illuminated instantaneously (Fig.
 ERAD 2008 - THE FIFTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON RADAR IN METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
1). Also that implies that the wind turbine cannot be
generally illuminated uniformly.
The measured raw data are processed today by
sophisticated algorithms ([8],[10]) to cope the natural and
man-made distortions in order to improve the quality of the
products of the weather radar. Typical distortions are static
ground clutter by buildings etc. and moving clutter such as
aircraft, helicopters. It can be or should be assumed that
modern and state of the art signal processing is integrated
today in weather radar which is to be considered in the
context of wind turbines.
3. Weather Radar Target Specifics and Wind Turbines
Weather phenomena to be measured, such as rain, snow,
hail, wind speed and in case turbulences are typically much
larger than the resolution cell of the weather radar. This
means that the weather data can be assumed constant within
the resolution cell and also slowly varying from cell to cell
between neighboring cells in space. This fact does have big
impacts on the evaluation of the distortions by wind turbines
and also on the possibilities of mitigation measures by the
modern software algorithms (e.g. [8],[11]): e.g. statistical
data evaluation principles, filtering, smoothing and
interpolation techniques in the space and time domains as
well as advanced adapted clutter maps and other signal
processing features.
Locally confined weather phenomena such as “micro
bursts” are treated as a local special measurement task, e.g.
around airports, and not relevant for the general weather
radar application due to the low reflectivity and the
associated very short range of detectability compared to the
normal range and the national coverage of a weather radar
network.
The reflectivity of the volumetric targets are measured in
the unit of dBZ [4] which is an absolute figure of the
reflectivity of the volumetric target whereas the RCS (1) is a
normalized relative quantity measured in dBsm (=dBm2)
[1]-[3]. Voluminous weather targets are in fact
approximately constant in the range cell/bin. These targets
are relatively slowly moving in average and usually do not
change in speed vector and amplitude of the reflectivity very
much from range bin to range bin of the radar. These
conditions and others can be used for data correction and
improvement and also for the mitigation of effects of wind
turbines. If meteorological organizations do not use these
capabilities they are first not achieving the best possible
quality of the weather products and second penalize the
wind turbines unjustified by increasing unreasonably the
safeguarding distances. By that it may be understandable
that identical scenarios do not pose a problem in some
countries at all, while in others the building application is
rejected unjustified.
4. Weather Radar and the RCS of WT
The Radar Cross Section of the WT is sometimes
requested from applicants of wind farms by the building
approval authorities (Fig. 2) for the check of the
compatibility with the radar and for the definition of
safeguarding distances.
It is known and a well established fact [1]-[3] that the
Radar Cross Section RCS (1) is defined for plane wave
excitation only. The limit condition RÆ∞ (1) implies that
explicitly.
2
s
Ep
σpq = lim 4 πR
2
i 2 (1)
R oo
Eq
The plane wave excitation may be approximated by the
“far-field distance”. However as can easily be calculated
the mutual far-field distances between the weather radar
and the wind turbines are very large (Table 1). As a
consequence near-field effects affect drastically the
effective back scattering by reducing the maxima.
However, in the lowest beam position (1°x1°; 0.5°-0.7°
typically) of the WR the ground is illuminated
significantly and an interference pattern is generated at the
position of the wind turbine und in turn also for the
reflected wave (Fig. 4).
Wind turbine para- Far-field distance
meters D=2d2/λ [km]
L S C X
nacelle height 100m 66 200 333 666
Max height 190m 237 720 1198 2398
Blade diameter 80m 43 128 213 427
Table 1: Far-field distances of typical modern wind turbines
and parts of it for typical radar frequencies
The RCS (1) is a normalized scattering parameter of the
object itself. By that, all facts and details which affect the
scattering properties of the object have to be taken into
account. Some features of the RCS of wind turbines are
summarized just for discussion purposes
1. The RCS varies by more than 60dB in space and time
(Fig. 5; [5]-[10]). By that a single RCS figure as
sometimes requested is technically unreasonable and
impossible to define by simulations or
measurements. By an arbitrary worst case definition
the virtual threat by the WT can be exaggerated fully
unjustified.
2. In case of turning blades the RCS is a symmetric
continuous Doppler spectrum around a static spectral
component ([6],[9],[10]) from the mast and differs
uniquely from the moving weather target signatures.
By that the WT can be safely identified on top of the
known position of the WT. The amplitudes of the
Doppler shifted spectrum are reduced significantly
by the Doppler spread. It is in particular not justified
to use the static RCS for the Doppler-problem
The RCS(-function) of WT exists under the defined
constraints, but does not have any real technical
significance for the practical weather radar cases and,
hence, for the building application as well.
5. The Shadowing or Blocking by a WT for the WR
The WT are in the very most cases by its large vertical
structure much higher than the WR. It is often assumed
that the WT would block or shadow the radiation of the
 ERAD 2008 - THE FIFTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON RADAR IN METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
WR and, by that, would induce a significant amplitude
error, i.e. precipitation error, in the back of the WT. As said
before, the WT is a scattering object and does not create
significant losses by absorption. Real losses are negligible.
The scattering process constitutes a redistribution of the
scattered energy from the WR which gives rise to
interference patterns between the direct and scattered radar
signals depending on the RF-phase between the direct and
the scattered signal. The superposed field is smaller than the
direct field where the scattered component is in anti-phase
to the direct field (Fig. 7), but the superposed field can also
be larger in the case of co-phase between the two
components (Fig. 7). The first “anti-phase”- condition
produces the small total field directly in the back of the WT.
The latter can be called a “focusing” effect inherent in the
interference process.
A further source of scattering and interference is the ground
depending on the elevation angle of the lowest beam and of
the ground parameters. Fig. 5 shows an example of field
calculations in back of a WT (distance of WT to radar 5km
(Fig. 1); distance of vertical 2D-plane to WR 55km). The
free space antenna pattern, the effects of the ground and the
superposed effects of the WT can be seen.
Fig. 7 shows some horizontal azimuth cuts of S-band radar
in free space in the back of a WT. It can be seen that
depending on the elevation angle the field exactly in the
back of the WT can be larger as the undistorted case.
Fig. 8 shows the field-strength performance on a radial path
through the solely simulated conical metallic mast of a WT.
The distance to the radar varies between 3km and 15km.
The “plane wave case” is included as well. It can be seen
that on this linear one-dimensional radial in the symmetry
plane, the reduction of the field-strength in the distance of
35km to the radar is between 0.3dB (asymptotic plane
wave) and about 1.8dB (3km) compared to the undistorted
case. This means that the field recovers in the back of the
WT the better, the larger the distance between the radar and
the WT. However, the WR receives the reflected signal
from a voluminous target and by that the linear
interpretation of Fig. 8 is not the complete physical
mechanism of the WR.
Fig. 9 shows an improved 2D-analysis for the power relative
to the undistorted case (0dB) in a vertical elevation plane
containing the full 3dB circle of the WR for 3 distances of
the observation to the WT (1km, 10km, 50km). One can see
the interference effects in both dimensions relative to the
undistorted case. The power integration within the 3dB-
circle yields “averaged reductions of less than 0.5dB. A 3D-
analysis within the range cell/bin (e.g. 125m) will reduce
this figure furthermore. More results will be shown on the
conference itself. It should be pointed out that these figures
are raw data results and may be improved by the signal
processing algorithms.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
It has been shown that the RCS is not applicable at all for
the safeguarding analysis of the WT for the WR. The
safeguarding distances on the base of the RCS tend to be
exaggerated. It has been shown also that the effective
blocking of a wind turbine for the wind turbine can be
determined realistically by appropriate numerical
modeling and analysis and by the power integration. The
effective operational reduction is much lower than the
optical treatment and cannot be determined by a one-
dimensional analysis as well. It has been shown that the
blocking for a WT in a distance of 5km is effectively less
than 0.5dB.
A state-of-the-art analysis of the real physical effects of
the WT and wide application of modern signal processing
are recommended. Each WR should have today the
adequate technology (hardware, software and signal
processing) to achieve the best possible compatibility with
the WT in order to meet the officially intended
development of the renewable wind energy.
Acknowledgment
The numerical simulations in this paper have been
carried out by Mr. Biermann and Mr. Mundt of NAVCOM
Consult.
References
[1] IEEE STD 211-1997, Definition of terms
[2] SKOLNIK Radar Handbook, McGraw Hill, Boston 1990
[3] LO Antenna Handbook I, Chapman&Hall, NewYork 1993
[4] SAUVAGEOT Radar Meteorology, Artech, Boston 1992
[5] GREVING G. Numerical Analysis of the effects by scat-
tering from objects on ATC-radar and various methods for its
reduction - Theory, results; IRS 2006, Krakow/Poland
[6] GREVING G. Numerical Simulations of Environmental
Distortions by Scattering of Objects for the Radar - SSR and
flat roofs, RCS and wind turbines, EURAD 2006,
Manchester/UK
[7] MALKOMES et al The primary ATC weather radar
channel - ENIGMAIII weather extractor ff, ERAD 2006,
Barcelona/Spain
[8] GREVING G. MALKOMES M On the Concept of the
Radar Cross Section RCS of Distorting Objects like Wind
Turbines for the Weather Radar; ERAD 2006, Barcelona/Spain
[9] GREVING G, BIERMANN W-D., MUNDT R. Wind
Turbines and Radar - The Radar Cross Section RCS a Useful
Figure for Safeguarding?; IRS 2007 Cologne/Germany
[10] GREVING G., BIERMANN W-D. Application of the
Radar Cross Section RCS for Objects on the Ground - Example
of Wind Turbines, IRS 2008 Wroclav/Poland
[11] MALKOMES et al. Primary ATC – Radar weather
extractor – weather signal processor GWSP An alternative to
weather radar?, ERAD 2008 Helsinki
wind_pischels_rad_wea2.dsf 05/08
Windparks close to ATC-Radar and Weather Radar
5330000 ATC-Radar
Airport
GKN
. 9km
ca. 15km
Weather Radar
Dmin=ca
ca. 10km
Dmin=ca. 5km
5325000
Windpark 3dB angles
5320000 21 WEA V90 (2.3° MSSR, 1° weather)
10000
15°
15000
25°
20000 25000 VIE_WEApisch2 30000
GKE
Fig. 1: Actual siting example of a large wind-park close to a
WR (ca. 5km) and to an ATC radar (ca. 9km)
 ERAD 2008 - THE FIFTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON RADAR IN METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

Wind turbines and WR-Radar-systems - Wind turbines in the radiation

Building application, approval process wea_rad_install2.dsf 05/08 field of systems
EU Radar-, Navigation-, Landing-
Government systems, Communications
Energy Policy
Building Authorities
Approval ASR/PSR SSR/MSSR
application
IFF PAR
ADR HADR DME
RAT-31S TACAN
Wind-Turbines
Farmer (renewable energy) System GPS
VOR/DVOR
ILS MLS
"Investor" provider ADS-B
weather radar S/C NDB
VHF/UHF com
WAM
radio relay
ADF/UDF
Expert(ise) Court
(independant?!) effects / distortions / conditions ? windturb3.dsf 03/07

Fig. 2: Chart of the approval process Fig. 3: WT in the radiation field of radar, navigation and
communication systems

windturbine in the
blades exciting radar field Hmax >> H
radground3.dsf 03/08

D >> H, Hmax
nacelle RCS ?
mutual farfield ?
rescattered field
of the windturbine
direct
shaft
Hmax

radar
direct
HN

ground reflected

H
ground reflected

ground
not scaled
D

Fig. 4: Radar and wind turbines in some distance above ground;

visualization of the direct and ground reflected components Fig. 6: 2D-visualization of the normalized field-strength of
the pencil beam of a weather radar (1°x1°; 0.5° elevation; -
3dB at ground) and the effects of the ground and in the back
of one wind turbine (Enercon E70; 5km distance to radar);

RCS Frequency Distribution of a Wind Turbine "Enercon E70"

horizontal plane, elevation max
25
90 RCS of a Wind Turbine (E70)
45
40 120 60
frequency: 3GHz (S-band)
35 Plane Wave:
2 30 polarization: horizontal (φ)
RCS [dBsm]

100m 25
20 30
40

30
RCS: co-polar
Calculation Method: IPO

15 20
maximum of elevation

10 Enercon E70
nacelle height: 65m

20 5
0
φ blade diameter: 70m
blade pitch: 0°
tower diam. b/t: 6.1m/2m
-5 blade rotation: 0° ("A")
yaw angle: 0°
180
-10 0

210 330
frequency [%]

15 240 300
270 Sband_E70_RCSco

90 RCS of a Wind Turbine (E70)

80 Elevation (±5deg)
75
70 120 60 frequency: 3GHz (S-band)
65 Plane Wave:
60 polarization: horizontal (φ)
55
RCS [dBsm]

50 RCS: co-polar
70
10 45
40
35
30 50
60
30
Calculation Method: IPO

25 40
20 30 Enercon E70
15 nacelle height: 65m
10 20 blade diameter: 70m
5
0 θ blade pitch: 0°
-5 tower diam. b/t: 6.1m/2m
-10 blade rotation: 0° ("A")
-15 yaw angle: 0°
180
-20 0

5 210 330

240 300
270 Sband_E70_RCScoel

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
RCS [dBsm] Sband_E70_RCS_phdb180_histo1

Fig. 5: Statistics of the RCS (Enercon E70); inserts: RCS pattern in the azimuth plane (top) and the elevation plane
 ERAD 2008 - THE FIFTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON RADAR IN METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

Electric Field Distortions Caused by a Wind Turbine Scattering Shadowing of a Conical Wind Turbine Mast
wea_posopt2.dsf 06/08
azimuthal pattern, varabel elevation, field behind the WT WTE70_blocking1.dsf 05/08 source: pencil beam (1.1deg/1.1deg), height 20m, el. 0deg; frequency 3GHz
environment: RADAR wind turbine: ENERCON E70 shadowing at source height; free space without ground
without WT, el 0.17deg
free space distance: 0km distance from RADAR: 12.5km 65

wi
with WT, el 0.17deg
nacelle height: 98m Cyl Distance

th
without WT, el 0.22deg phase center height: 12m FREE SPACE
-2

ou
with WT, el 0.22deg frequency: 2.9GHz blade diameter: 71m 3000m

t
blades:

W
source: ASR-Pattern 5000m

T
3dB-width (AZ): 1.55deg "A-Position", (0deg)
pitch: 90deg (perpendicular) 7500m
electric fieldstrength [dBV/m]

-3 elevation: cosec

electric fieldstrength [dBV/m]

polarization: vertical yaw: 0deg (perpendicular) 60 10000m
height offset z: 12m 15000m
-4 without WT
AS R plane wave
RA
DA -S -ban 55 15000m pl wave
-5 R el 0.22°
d
-6 PLANE WAVE
∆ = 0.30dB
excitation
50
-7
∆ = 0.64dB
-8 so
he urce
45 igh
t
el 0.17°

-9 ∆ = 1.8dB
.6
distance from RADAR: 30km nacelle height 98m
blade diam. 71m
-10 40
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
azimuth angle [deg] GHz2.9_WTE70_n98d12.5_azvar1D_ASR
distance [km] from source w tE 7 0 _ s h d w _ p b e a m _ fs 1

Fig. 7: Electrical fieldstrength in the back of S-band radar. Fig. 8: Electrical fieldstrength on radials symmetrically through a
Azimuthal pattern for various elevation angles and different conical metallic mast of a wind turbine; variable distances of the
conditions (free space, with scattering WT; 2 elevation angles) mast to the radar from 3km to 15km

Fig. 9: 2D-visualization of the blocking effects for the power of a large WT in 3 distances in the back of the wind turbine (1km, 10km,
50km) on a WR (1.1°x1.1°; radar in a close distance of 5km to the WT; 30m above ground); relative power integration within the 3dB
circle; “0dB” is the undistorted field in the back of the WT.