Theoretical and Applied Climatology (2022) 148:1085–1110

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-022-03990-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution

with various numerical estimation methods: a case study in Mersing
and Port Dickson, Malaysia
Muhammad Aslam Mohd Safari1 · Nurulkamal Masseran2 · Muhammad Hilmi Abdul Majid2

Received: 11 October 2021 / Accepted: 18 February 2022 / Published online: 28 February 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
In this study, the Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation methods is utilized for the assessment of wind energy
potential in Mersing and Port Dickson, Malaysia, by considering different monsoon seasons, i.e., northeast and southwest
monsoons. This assessment is conducted based on hourly wind speed data obtained from the Malaysian Meteorological
Department and the Department of Environment, Malaysia. A total of 28 numerical estimation methods are presented,
and their performances are first investigated through a Monte Carlo simulation. The results of the Monte Carlo simulation
indicate that no particular method outperforms all other methods. In different settings, i.e., different sample sizes and shape
parameters, certain methods are more efficient than others in estimating the Weibull parameters. Based on the simulation
results, 24 out of 28 numerical estimation methods are utilized for wind energy potential assessment in Mersing and Port
Dickson. The performance efficiency of all the considered methods is evaluated using an integrated approach comprising four
goodness of fit criteria, the modified Kolmogorov − Smirnov, modified Anderson − Darling, modified Cramér–von Mises,
and power density error. Using this integrated approach allow us to obtain a single-value goodness of fit measure known as
the global score to determine the best method. Based on the best fitted Weibull model, the wind characteristics in both sites
are investigated. The wind characteristics during northeast monsoon is found to be favorable for wind energy generation in
Mersing with the northeast (0 − 40°) as the prominent wind direction. However, small-scale wind energy is the best option
for wind energy development in Mersing. On the other hand, the Port Dickson site demonstrates poor wind characteristics,
indicating that this area is not favorable for wind energy development.

Keywords  Weibull distribution · Numerical estimation methods · Wind characteristic · Wind energy · Comparative
analysis · Monsoon season

1 Introduction energy is being rapidly and extensively harnessed through-

The utilization of renewable energy (RE) sources is a sus-
tainable development initiative that aims to reduce depend-
ency on fossil fuel, address the crisis of energy shortages,
and mitigate the effects of climate change (Panwar et al.
2011). As one of the most well-known RE sources, wind
* Muhammad Aslam Mohd Safari
aslam.safari@upm.edu.my
1
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty
of Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang,
Selangor, Malaysia
2 many advantages, including reduce operational cost (cost
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science
and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
out the world (Global Wind Energy Council 2020; Interna-
tional Energy Agency 2020). Wind energy (or wind power)
is the process of using wind turbines to convert wind into
a useful form of energy, such as electricity (Panwar et al.
2011). As a major RE resource, wind energy has the poten-
tial to supply more than 40 times the annual global consump-
tion of electricity (Lu et al. 2009; Jung and Schindler 2017).
Globally, in 2019, about 60.4 GW of wind energy capacity
was installed, and the total global capacity for wind energy is
currently greater than 651 GW, an increase of 10% from that
of 2018 (Global Wind Energy Council 2020). The utiliza-
tion and development of wind energy as an RE source offers
effectiveness), facile transportation, mitigate environmen-
tal pollution, and creating opportunities for employment,

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1086
economic activity, and research agenda (Masseran 2015a;
Abbasi and Abbasi 2016; Masseran and Razali 2016).
To produce wind energy efficiently and economically,
two crucial factors must be considered, the first being the
location of the site of the wind system installation and the
second identifying the wind speed characteristics at the
site based on their statistical distributions (Akgül et al.
2016). The model used for the wind speed data must be
appropriate, adequate, and accurate, as this model is used
to describe the variation and uncertainty of the wind speed
data for evaluating the available wind energy potential
(Wais 2017a; Masseran 2018). Even a small error in mod-
eling the wind speed data will generate a large error in the
assessment of the potential energy output (Ucar and Balo
2009; Jung et al. 2018). In the modeling of wind speed
data, a parametric distribution is often applied. To inves-
tigate the wind energy potential, researchers have used
various single parametric distributions to represent wind
regimes, including the Weibull, gamma, lognormal, Gum-
bel, inverse Weibull, inverse Gaussian, generalized Lindley,
etc. (Masseran 2015b; Akgül et al. 2016; Deep et al. 2020;
Şahin and Türkeş 2020). Apart from the single parametric
distribution, many authors have also used the mixture distri-
bution (Hu et al. 2016; Shin et al. 2016; Mazzeo et al. 2018)
and the non-parametric approach (Xu et al. 2015; Han et al.
2019) to estimate and evaluate the potential wind power in a
particular region. Comprehensive reviews of assessments of
wind speed distribution can be found in (Wang et al. 2016;
Jung and Schindler 2017, 2019).
In the wind energy sector, the Weibull distribution is an
often used single parametric distribution (Wais 2017a, b).
For instance, the Weibull model has been utilized for esti-
mating the wind power corresponding to the wind turbine
capacity factor (Chang and Tu 2007; Shu et al. 2015; Arslan
et al. 2020), assessing the performance of wind energy sys-
tems (Celik 2003, 2006), and mapping of wind resources and
properties (Faghani et al. 2018; Jung and Schindler 2018; Li
et al. 2018; Schallenberg-Rodríguez and Montesdeoca 2018;
Silva et al. 2021). Some of the advantages that have made the
Weibull distribution popular in the wind industry include its
flexibility, the fact that it has only two parameters, the ease
with which its parameters are estimated, and its closed form
expression (Carta et al. 2009). As the wind power output is
calculated based on the estimated model parameters, another
important step in investigating wind energy potential when
using a parametric model such as the Weibull distribution is
the selection of an efficient method for estimating its param-
eters. If the estimated Weibull parameters are biased, this
can cause an inaccurate estimate of the wind power output.
The numerical estimation method (NEM) is the most
commonly used method for estimating Weibull param-
eters in wind energy potential assessment. Some examples
of the NEMs are maximum likelihood method, modified
13
M. A. M. Safari et al.
maximum likelihood method, method of moments,
graphical method, L-moment method, empirical method
of Lysen, empirical method of Justus, energy pattern fac-
tor method, and equivalent energy method (Allouhi et al.
2017; Guarienti et al. 2020; Shaban et al. 2020). In the
previous research works, comparative study of several
NEMs for wind energy assessment is conducted in many
countries such as Turkey (Akdağ and Güler 2015; Usta
et al. 2018), Brazil (Rocha et al. 2012), Spain (Akdağ
and Güler 2018), India (Chaurasiya et al. 2018; Rahman
and Chattopadhyay 2020), Pakistan (Shoaib et al. 2019;
Sumair et  al. 2020), Egypt (Saleh et  al. 2012), Korea
(Kang et  al. 2018), and Cameroon (Signe et  al. 2019;
Djiela et al. 2020; Kapen et al. 2020). For determining
the best NEM, several goodness of fit criteria are used
such as root mean square error (RMSE), coefficient of
determination (R 2 ), Anderson–Darling statistic (AD),
Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic (KS), and chi-square sta-
tistic (χ 2). The purpose of the comparative study is to
determine the most efficient and suitable NEM in estimat-
ing Weibull parameters for the assessment of wind energy
potential. Although many NEMs have been applied for
determining Weibull parameters in the assessment of
wind energy potential, many other methods are available
and can be considered for the same purpose. As such, the
comparative study of NEMs remains open to exploration,
investigation, and further discussion. In addition, we note
that the application of different GoF measures results in
different NEMs being identified as best for estimating
Weibull parameters.
In this study, we conduct wind energy potential assess-
ment in Mersing and Port Dickson, Malaysia using Weibull
distribution by considering different monsoon seasons. In
addition, we also present and consider of a total of 28 NEMs,
many of which have been applied in assessments of wind
energy potential and then carry out a comparative study of
their performances. The contributions of this work are as
follows:
1. We analyze the wind speed data for wind energy assess-
ment in Mersing and Port Dickson, Malaysia, based on
different monsoon seasons.
2. We conduct comprehensive comparative study of vari-
ous NEMs for estimating Weibull parameters via Monte
Carlo simulation.
3. We carry out comprehensive comparative study of vari-
ous NEMs based on wind speed data in Mersing and
Port Dickson and propose an integrated approach known
as global score to determine the most efficient NEM.
Based on the results of this work, the overview on which
monsoon seasons that contributes to the optimal wind power
output in the area of Mersing and Port Dickson, Malaysia, is
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation…
acquired. Also, the findings from this study provide insight
and guidelines for practitioners and other researchers regard-
ing the use of NEMs for estimating Weibull parameters in
assessments of wind energy potential.
2 Site description, data, and monsoon
season in Malaysia
Generally, Malaysia as a whole experiences wet and
humid weather conditions, with average daily tempera-
ture is between 21 and 35 °C, and its annual rainfall is
80% a year which ranging from 2000 to 2500 mm. The
daily wind speed in Malaysia is higher during the day, i.e.,
from sunrise to sunset, than that periods before sunrise
and after sunset. Coastal areas, especially in east Penin-
sular Malaysia, is considered as windiest area and could
benefit from wind energy. In this study, Mersing and Port
Dickson are chosen as a case study area due to its poten-
tial and strategic location for wind energy generation in
Peninsular Malaysia. In addition, in particular to Mers-
ing, it is reported that the rural residents are generally
Fig. 1  Map of Peninsular
Malaysia where the red dots
denote the location of wind
measurement site at Mersing
and Port Dickson. Source:
Google (2021)
1087
support renewable energy technologies such as wind
energy (Safari et al. 2020). The geographical coordinates
of Mersing site are 2° 27′ north and 103° 50′ east, while
for Port Dickson site, the geographical coordinates are 2°
26′ north and 101° 51′ east. Figure 1 shows the location
of wind measurement site at Mersing and Port Dickson.
In this study, the data set used consists of hourly wind
speed and wind direction data obtained from the Malay-
sian Meteorological Department (Mersing site) and the
Department of Environment Malaysia (Port Dickson site)
which measured at 10 m height. The data of Mersing is
available from January 1, 2010, to July 18, 2013, and for
Port Dickson, the data is available from January 1, 2010,
to December 31, 2013.
The commercial wind turbine usually has different
hub heights which are ranging from 25 to 160 m. Since
the observed wind speed data was measured at 10  m
height, it is crucial to make adjustment to the data so
that the assessment of wind energy potential is carried
out at appropriate hub height of wind turbine. In the lit-
erature, the wind profile power law is often used to make
adjustment on the observed wind speed data at different
13
1088 M. A. M. Safari et al.

heights (Zhou et al. 2020). The wind profile power law is There are two monsoon seasons in Malaysia, i.e., the
expressed as follows: northeast monsoon and the southwest monsoon. The
( )𝛼 northeast monsoon season usually occurs in November
l and ends in March. During this period, the northern hemi-
v2 = v1 2 (1)
l1 sphere experiences winter where the temperature value
is low creating high air pressure zones. This causes air
Here, v1 is the measured wind speed data at height l1,
movement towards the Asian continent. At the same time,
v2 denotes the adjusted wind speed data at height l2, and α
the southern hemisphere experiences summer and its tem-
is the power law exponent. For neutral stability conditions,
perature values sometimes exceed 30° C. High temperature
value of α is assumed approximately 0.143 or 1/7 and most
conditions will create the low air pressure zones around
of previous studies apply this value for extrapolating the
the Australian continent and the surrounding oceans. As
wind speed data to a certain adequate height. Note how-
a result, there will be air movements from the Asian con-
ever that the value of α varies according to the atmosphere
tinent to the Australian continent. When this group of air
stability and geographic features (Crippa et al. 2021; Jung
moves out from the Asian continent, it will be refracted
and Schindler 2021). In fact, α is influenced by several
southeast by the Coriolis force and in turn produce the
parameters such as elevation, time of day, nature of terrain,
northeast monsoon wind system (Ku Kassim et al. 2007).
season, wind speed, temperature, and various thermal and
During this monsoon season, Malaysia experiences a wet
mechanical mixing parameters (Manwell et al. 2010). Thus,
season, and the wind speed ranges from 10 to 30 knots.
assuming a value of 0.143 may lead to less accurate wind
The southwest monsoon winds blow when the northern
extrapolation since using this value ignores both the tem-
hemisphere experiences summer from May to September.
poral and spatial variability of power law exponent. In this
During this season, the low air pressure zones are formed
study, the wind profile power law is utilized to extrapolate
in the northern hemisphere due to the high temperature
the measured wind speeds to adequate height at 80 m. To
conditions. At the same time, there will be high air pres-
reduce the error while extrapolating the wind speed, spa-
sure zones in the Australian continent and the surrounding
tially explicit but temporally constant mean value of α is
oceans as a result of its low temperature conditions. The
used. Jung and Schindler (2021) suggested the suitable value
air pressure differences between these two regions will
of α for Malaysia is about 0.211.
result in the formation of a pressure slope between them.
The wind speed and wind direction in Malaysia are
The cold air clusters from the Australian continent and
highly influenced by the occurrence of monsoon seasons.
surrounding oceans will move towards areas with low air

Fig. 2  The formation of a the northeast monsoon and b the southwest monsoon winds in Malaysia

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1089

pressure on the Asian continent. Once the wind crosses 1 ∑ 3 1 3

n

the equator, this wind group will be deflected northeast P= 𝜌 v = 𝜌v , (4)

2n i=1 i 2
by the Coriolis force resulting in the southwest monsoon
wind system (Ku Kassim et al. 2007). The formation of where vi is the observed wind speed (m/s), n is the sam-
both northeast and southwest monsoons is demonstrated ple size of the wind speed data, and ρ denotes the air
in Fig. 2. density (kg/m 3). The standard air density is taken to be
ρ = 1.225 kg/m3 (Arslan et al. 2014). Based on the Weibull
distribution, the wind power density, most probable wind
3 Weibull distribution function and wind speed, and maximum wind energy carrying by the wind
power density speed, denoted by P w (W/m 2 ), V mp (m/s), V me (m/s),
respectively, can be computed as follows (Islam et  al.
Assume that a random wind speed variable V follows a 2011):
Weibull distribution. The respective probability den-
∞
sity function (PDF) and cumulative distribution func- ( )
2 ∫
1 1 3
tion (CDF) of its Weibull distribution are given by the Pw = 𝜌 v3 f (v;k, c)dv = 𝜌c3 Γ 1 + , (5)
2 k
following: 0

( ) [ ( )]
k v k−1 v k ( )
f (v;k, c) = exp − , v > 0, k > 0, c > 0 (2) 1 1∕k
c c c Vmp = c 1 − , (6)
k
and
( )
[ ( )] 2 1∕k
v k Vme = c 1 + , (7)
F(v;k, c) = 1 − exp − , v > 0, k > 0, c > 0, (3) k
c
where Γ(•) represents a gamma function, which can be
where v is the observed wind speed data (m/s), k denotes the expressed by:
shape parameter, and c represents the scale parameter (m/s). ∞
The dimensionless parameter k characterizes the shape of the
∫ (8)
wind speed distribution, whereby a high k value indicates a Γ(x) = tx−1 exp(−t)dt.
narrow distribution with winds concentrated around a cer- 0

tain value, and a low k value indicates a widely dispersed

wind distribution. This parameter value is high when there
is low variation in wind speed in a particular location. Note 4 Available numerical estimation methods
that when k = 2, the distribution is known as a Rayleigh dis- for estimating Weibull parameters
tribution. In most applications of the Weibull distribution
for modeling wind speed data, the k value is typically ranges In this section, we present a total of 28 NEMs that are used
from 1 to 3, i.e., k ∈ (1, 3] (Akdağ and Güler 2018). The for estimating the parameters of a Weibull distribution.
parameter c determines the quality of the wind, with a high
value for windy sites and a low value for sites with little 4.1 Graphical method (GM)
wind. Parameter c also depends on the average wind speed,
such that when the average wind speed is high, the value of By taking twice the logarithm of the Weibull CDF in Eq. (3),
c is also high. the equation for the GM can be expressed as the linear equa-
The wind power density is an important indicator of the tion as follows (Chang 2011):
potential of wind resources and for describing the amount
of wind energy at various wind speed values at a particu- 1n[−1n[1 − F(v)]] = k1n(v) − k1n(c). (9)
lar site or location (Mohammadi et al. 2016). Wind power
In this linear equation, k is the slope and –k ln(c) is the
density is also used to evaluate the performance of wind tur-
y-intercept of the line. Here, the values of F(v) are esti-
bines and to recommend the optimum type of wind turbine
mated using an empirical CDF and the parameter estimates
at a particular site (Chaurasiya et al. 2018). Based on the
obtained using the GM, ̂ kGM and ̂ cGM , can be determined via
observed wind speed data, the wind power density denoted
least squares regression.
by P (W/m2) can be determined using the following equation
(Pishgar-Komleh et al. 2015):

13
1090 M. A. M. Safari et al.

4.2 Method of moments (MoM) speed data, respectively, which can be computed as

follows:
The parameter estimates of the MoM are obtained by
1∑ ( )
n
equating the mean and standard deviation of the wind vl = 1n vi , (17)
speed data with the mean and standard deviation of the n i=1
Weibull distribution, which can be written as follows
(Zhang et al. 2020):
1 ∑[ ( ) ]2
n

( ) 𝜎l2 = 1n vi − vl (18)
1 n − 1 i=1
v = cΓ 1 + , (10)
k

[ ( ) ( )] 4.4 Method of multi‑objective moments (MUOM)

2 1 1∕2
𝜎 =c Γ 1+ − Γ2 1 + , (11)
k k
The MUOM is developed as a minimization of a multi-
where objective function based on the first three moments, which
correspond to the mean, variance, and skewness. It is defined
1∑
n
using the weighted sum method (scalarization) in the follow-
v= v, (12)
n i=1 i ing equation (Usta et al. 2018):
[ ( ) ]2 [ ( ) ]2 [ ( ) ]2
(19)
1 2 3
[ ]1∕2 𝜆1 cΓ 1 + − v + 𝜆2 c 2 Γ 1 + − v2 + 𝜆3 c3 Γ 1 + − v3
1 ∑(
k k k
n
)2
𝜎= vi − v (13)
n − 1 1=i where vr is r-th sample moment, which is given as follows:

1∑ r
n
Here, v denotes the mean wind speed and σ is the vr = v. (20)
standard deviation of the wind speed. Dividing the n i=1 i
square of Eq. (10) by the square of Eq. (11), we have
In addition, λ 1 , λ 2 , and λ 3 are weights in which
the following:
λ 1  + λ 2  + λ 3  = 1. Usta et  al. (2018) suggested that the
( )
value of each weight be 1/3, so each objective function
2 Γ2 1 + 1k
v
= ( ) ( ) has equal importance within the estimation procedure. In
(14)
𝜎2 Γ 1 + 2k − Γ2 1 + 1k this method, we use an optimization method to obtain the
parameter estimates ̂ kMUOM and ̂ cMUOM by minimizing the
Using Eq. (14), the parameter estimate ̂kMoM is deter- multi-objective function given in Eq. (19). In this study,
mined using a numerical method; in this study, we apply we applied this method using the nlminb function available
the bisection method. The parameter estimate ̂
cMoM is then in R software.
obtained using Eq. (10).
4.5 L‑moment method (LMM)
4.3 Method of logarithmic moment (MoLM)
The LMM estimates are determined by equating the
The log-moment estimates of the shape and scale param- L-moment of a sample to its population counterpart. The
eters of a Weibull distribution are given by the following first and second L-moments of the Weibull distribution are
(Teimouri et al. 2013): as follows:
√ ( )
1
𝜋2 𝜇1l = cΓ 1 + , (21)
̂
kMoLM = , (15) k
6𝜎 2l
( )( )
1 1
( ) 𝜇2l = cΓ 1 + 1 − 1∕k . (22)
k 2
vl − Ψ(1)
̂
cMoLM = exp , (16) The first two sample L-moments are as follows:
̂
kMoLM
1∑
n
where Ψ(1) = –0.5772156 and vl and 𝜎l2 are the sam- ml1 + = v = v, (23)
ple variance and the mean of the log-transformed wind n i=1 (i)

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1091

2 ∑ n
4.7 Empirical method of Justus (EMJ)
ml2 = (i = 1)v(i) − v, (24)
n(n − 1) i=1
In the empirical method proposed by Justus et al. (1978),
where v (i) is the ordered sample of the wind speed, parameters k and c are estimated using the following
v(1) ≤ v(2) ≤ ⋯ ≤ v(n) , and v denotes the mean wind speed. equations:
By equating 𝜇1l and 𝜇2l with ml1 and ml2 , respectively, and ( )−1.086
𝜎
performing some mathematical manipulation, an L-moments ̂
kEMJ = , (29)
estimator is obtained as follows: v

̂ 1n(2) v
kLMM = − ( ), cEMJ = (
̂ ),
ml (25) (30)
1n 1 − m2l Γ 1 + ̂1
1 kEMJ

where v and σ denote the mean and standard deviation of the

ml1 wind speed, respectively.
cLMM = − (
̂ ) (26)
1
1+ ̂
kLMM
4.8 Empirical method of Lysen (EML)
4.6 Alternative moment method (AMM)
In the empirical method introduced by Lysen (1983), the
parameter estimate ̂
kEML is computed using the same for-
The AMM introduced by Akdağ and Güler (2018) has wide-
mula used by the EMJ, Eq. (29). Parameter c is estimated
ranging parameter estimation capability. In this method, the
as follows:
parameter k is estimated as follows:
( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( ) ( )−1∕̂kEML
a4 𝜎
+ a3 𝜎
+ a2 𝜎
+ a1 𝜎
+ a0 0.433 (31)
v v v v ̂
cEML = v 0.568 + ,
̂
kAMM ≈ (27) ̂
kEML
( )4 ( )3 ( )2 ( )
𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎
b4 + b3 + b2 + b1 + b0
v v v v where v is the mean wind speed.
where v denotes the mean wind speed, σ is the standard
deviation of the wind speed, and ai and bi for i = 0, 1, 2, 3,
4 are coefficients, the values of which are given in Table 1.
4.9 Maximum likelihood method (MLM)
The parameter c can then be determined explicitly using the
The MLM is well known to be an efficient method par-
following equation:
ticularly for a large sample size, in which parameters k
v and c are estimated using the following equations:
cAMM = (
̂ ),
Γ 1+ ̂1 (28)
kAMM ⎡∑ n
k
� � ⎤
⎢ vi 1n vi �n
� �⎥
1
=⎢ 1n vi ⎥
i=1
̂
kMLM − (32)
⎢ ∑ n n ⎥
⎢ vki i=1
⎥
⎣ i=1 ⎦

( )1∕̂kMLM
1 ∑ ̂kMLM
n
Table 1  Values of ai and bi coefficients when using AMM
̂
cMLM = v . (33)
a0 2.94843 b0 3.20694 × ­10−7 n i=1 i

a1 1.50722 b1 2.29887 Note that Eq. (32) must be solved numerically to obtain

a2 2.56734 b2 2.48525
kMLM . In this study, we applied the bisection method to
̂
a3 0.903164 b3 2.35103
solve Eq. (33).
a4 0.208995 b4 1

Source: Akdağ and Güler (2018)

13
1092 M. A. M. Safari et al.

4.10 Modified maximum likelihood method 4.12 Rank correlation method (RCM)

(MMLM)
Given the iterative characteristics of MLM, Teimouri and
The MMLM can be applied to estimate Weibull param- Nadarajah (2012) developed a simple estimator of the shape
eters when wind speed data are available in a frequency parameter of the Weibull distribution, which they called the
distribution format. In the MMLM, parameters k and c RCM. In the RCM, parameter k is estimated as follows:
are determined using the following respective equations
−1n(2)
(Seguro and Lambert 2000): ̂
kRCM = � � ��� �� ,
𝜎 n+1 (38)
1n 1 − 𝛾 √
⎡∑ k � � � � ∑
nb n nb � � � � ⎤−1 n−1
v 3
⎢ vi
1n vi g vi 1n vi g vi ⎥

≥
̂
kMMLM = ⎢ i=1
−
i=1 ⎥ , (34) where v denotes the mean wind speed, σ is the standard devi-
⎢ ∑ nb � � P(v 0) ⎥
⎢ vki g vi ⎥ ation of the wind speed, and γ is the correlation between the
⎣ i=1 ⎦ wind speed data vi and their ranks ri. The parameter estimate
cRCM is determined explicitly using the same formula as that
̂
( )1∕̂kMMLM used in the MLM, Eq. (33), which can be given as follow:
∑ ̂k
nb
( )
P(v ≥ 0) i=1 i
1 (35)
̂
cMMLM = v MMLM g vi , ( )1∕̂kRCM
1 ∑ ̂kRCM
n
̂
cRCM = v (39)
n i=1 i
where vi is the wind speed central value in bin i, nb is the
number of bins, g(vi) denotes the frequency in the wind
speed variation within bin i, and P(v ≥ 0) is the probability 4.13 Maximum product of spacings method (MPSM)
that the wind speed equals or exceeds zero. Equation (34)
is solved numerically using the bisection method to obtain The MPSM requires maximizing the geometric mean of the
kMMLM , after which Eq. (35) is solved explicitly. In this
̂
spacings in the data, which are the differences between the
study, we applied the Freedman–Diaconis rule to compute values of the CDF at neighboring data points (Cheng and
the width of the bins (Freedman and Diaconis 1981). The Amin 1983). Let v(i) be an ordered sample of wind speed data,
optimal number of bins was then determined based on the v(1) ≤ v(2) ≤ ⋯ ≤ v(n) . The uniform spacing of a random sam-
computed width. ple from the Weibull distribution is defined as follows:
( ) ( )
4.11 Alternative maximum likelihood method Di = F v(i) ;k, c − F v(i−1) ;k, c , (40)
(AMLM) ∑
where F(x(0); k, c) = 0, F(x(n + 1); k, c) = 1, and ni=1 Di = 1 .
The simple calculation procedure known as AMLM was devel- In the MPSM, parameter estimates ̂ kMPSM and ̂cMPSM are
oped based on the iterative characteristics of MLM. In the obtained by maximizing the geometric mean of the spacings
AMLM, parameter k of the Weibull distribution is computed with respect to k and c:
as follows (Akdağ and Güler 2015): [ n+1 ]1∕(n+1)
∏
⎡ ⎤
1∕2 G= Di , (41)
⎢ n(n − 1) ⎥ i=1
̂ 𝜋 ⎢ ⎥
kAMLM =√ �n � �n �2 ⎥ . (36)
⎢
6⎢ ∑ � � ∑ � � or, equivalently, by maximizing the following function:
n 1n2 vi − 1n vi ⎥
⎣ i=1 ⎦
1 ∑ ( )
i=1 n+1
H= 1n Di . (42)
Then, the parameter estimate ̂cAMLM is obtained explicitly n + 1 i+1
using the same formula as that used in MLM, Eq. (33), which
can be expressed as: In this study, we applied the nlminb function available in
R software to solve Eq. (42). Note that the MPSM is sensi-
( )1∕̂kAMLM tive to closely spaced observations, and particularly to ties
1 ∑ ̂kAMLM
n
̂
cAMLM = v . (37) (Cheng and Stephens 1989). When the ties are due to multi-
n i=1 i ple observations, repeated spacings are replaced by the cor-
responding likelihood.

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1093

4.14 Percentile method (PM) Table 2  Values of ei and fi coefficients when using the NEPFM
e0  − 0.220374 f0  − 1.27285
The quantile function of a Weibull distribution can be writ-
ten as follows: e1 3.27527 f1 3.69115
e2  − 5.78961 f2  − 2.60973
[ ]1∕k
vp = c −1n(1 − p) , 0 < p < 1. (43) e3 2.15143 f3  − 0.800468
e4 0.590396 f4 0.992007
By setting p = 1 − exp(− 1) ≅ 0.6321, we obtain the
Source: Akdağ and Güler (2015)
parameter estimate ̂
cPM as follows:

̂
cPM = v0.6321 , (44)
Table 3  Values of ci and di c0 0.225761 d0  − 0.35144
where v0.6321 is the 63.21th percentile of the wind speed data. coefficients when using the
NEPFM c1 0.134704 d1 0.711818
Then, by substituting ̂ cPM into Eq. (43), the percentile-based
estimator for k can be expressed as: Source: Akdağ and Güler
[ ] (2015)
1n −1n(1 − p)
�
kPM = ( ) ( ) , 0 < vp < v0.6321 (45)
1n vp − 1n v0.6321
̂ 3.69
kEFFM = 1 + 2 , (49)
As suggested by Hassanein (1971) and Seki and Yokoy- Epf
ama (1996), the optimum value of p is 0.31.

v
cEPFM = (
̂ )
4.15 Median and quartiles method (MQM) 1 (50)
Γ 1+ ̂
kEPFM
If the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile are v0.25 ,
The PDM is a variant of the EPFM, where the PDM
vm , and v0.75 , respectively, then parameter estimate ̂ kMQM is
estimate of parameter k is obtained using the following
determined as follows (Aukitino et al. 2017):
equation:
[ ]
1n 1n(0.25)∕1n(0.75) 1.572534 ( )
̂
kMQM = ( ) = ( ) (46) Γ 1 + 3
1n v0.75 ∕v0.25 1n v0.75 ∕v0.25 v3 k
Epf = ( )3 = ( ). (51)
v Γ3 1 + 1k
The parameter c can then be computed using the follow-
ing equation:
kPDM , Eq. (51) must be
To obtain the parameter estimate ̂
̂
cMQM =
vm solved numerically, and here we apply the bisection method
̂ (47) to do so. The PDM estimate ̂ cPDM of parameter c is then
1n(2)1∕kMQM
determined using Eq. (50).

4.16 Energy pattern factor and power density
methods (EPFM and PDM)
The EPFM proposed by Akdağ and Dinler (2009) has a
simple formula and is easy to compute. The energy pattern
factor Epf is defined as follows:
v3
Epf = ( )3 ,
v ing equations:
4.17 Novel energy pattern factor method (NEPFM)
The basic concept of the NEPFM introduced by Akdağ and
Güler (2015) is to first match the first and third moments
of the dataset to the first and third moments of the distri-
bution. This method is based on considering the varia-
tion in the shape parameter between 1 and 15. Using this
method, parameters k and c are estimated using the follow-
(48)

where v is the mean wind speed and v3 is the sample mean ̂

k e4 E4 +e3 E3 +e2 E2 +e1 Epf +e0 ,
pf pf pf (52)
of the cubic wind speed, which can be calculated using NEPFM≈
f4 E4 +f3 E3 +f2 E2 +f1 Epf +f0
pf pf pf

Eq. (20). Parameters k and c can then be determined using

the following expressions:

13
1094 M. A. M. Safari et al.

( )
PWMBPM estimate for parameter c can then be obtained
v ̂2
kNEPFM + d 1̂
kEFFM + d0
̂
cNEPFM ≈ (53) as follows:
̂2
kNEPFM + c1̂
kEFFM + c0
⎛ ⎞
⎜ v3 ⎟
where Epf is an energy pattern factor that is calculated using ̂
cPWMBPM =⎜ � � ⎟, (58)
Eq. (48). The values of coefficients ei and fi for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ⎜Γ 1 + ̂ 3
⎟
4 are given in Table 2, and those of coefficients ci and di for ⎝ kPWMBPM ⎠

i = 0, 1 are presented in Table 3. where v3 is the sample mean of the cubic wind speed.

4.18 Equivalent energy method (EEM)

4.20 Wind atlas analysis and application program
In the EEM, Weibull parameters k and c are obtained from the method (WAsPM)
equivalence of the energy densities obtained by the theoretical
curve and the observations (Rocha et al. 2012). In this method, The WAsPM is developed based on the following require-
the parameter estimate ̂kEEM is obtained by minimizing the ments (Aukitino et al. 2017):
following function:

⎡ ⎡ ⎛ ⎞
k
⎤ ⎡ ⎛� � ⎞
k
⎤⎤
2 1. Equal mean power densities based on the fitted Weibull
�
model and observed distribution.
nb
⎢ � �
1∕3
⎢ ⎜ vi − 1(Γ(1 + 3∕k))1∕3 ⎟ ⎥ ⎢ ⎜ vi (Γ(1 + 3∕k)) ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢P vi − exp⎢−⎜ � �1∕3 ⎟ ⎥ + exp⎢−⎜ � �1∕3 ⎟ ⎥⎥
i=1 ⎢
⎣
⎢ ⎜
⎣ ⎝ v3 ⎟
⎠
⎥
⎦
⎢ ⎜
⎣ ⎝ v3 ⎟
⎠
⎥⎥
⎦⎦ (54) 2. The proportion of values above the mean observed wind
�
nb
� �2 speed for the fitted Weibull model must be the same to
= 𝜀i ,
i=1 those observed distribution.
where vi is the highest wind speed in bin i, nb is the number
Based on the first requirement above, the following solu-
of bins, P(vi) denotes the probability of the wind speed in the
tion for parameter c is obtained:
ith bin, and v3 is the sample mean of the cubic wind speed.
Note that to solve Eq. (54), we applied the nlminb function ⎛ ⎞
1∕3

available in R software. The parameter estimate ̂ cEEM is then ⎜ v3 ⎟

determined explicitly using the following expression: c=⎜ � �⎟ (59)
⎜Γ 1 + 3
⎟
1∕3 ⎝ k ⎠
⎛ ⎞
⎜ v3 ⎟ The empirical CDF, F(v), gives the proportion of values
̂
cEEM =⎜ � �⎟ , (55)
⎜Γ 1 + ̂ 3
⎟ that are less than v, thus 1–F(v) is the proportion of values
⎝ kEEM ⎠
that exceed v. Given the second requirement above, suppose
that X denotes the proportion of observed wind speeds that
exceed the mean observed wind speed, as follows:
4.19 Probability weighted moments based
on power density method (PWMBPM) 1 − F(v) = X. (60)

The PWMBPM is an innovative method for estimating the By equating X with the complementary
( ) CDF of the
parameters of a Weibull distribution with simple formulation Weibull distribution at v , 1 − F v;k, c  , and by applying
and less computation. The PWMBPM estimate for parame- some algebraic manipulations, the following equation is
ter k is obtained using the following expression (Usta 2016): obtained:
( )k
1n(2) v
̂
kPWMBPM = ( ) . = −1n(X). (61)
(56) c
1n C
By substituting Eq. (59) into Eq. (61), the WAsPM esti-
Here, C is directly determined by: mate ̂kWAsPM for parameter k is defined as the solution to the
v following equation:
C= ,
∑
n
(57) k
2
v(i) (n − i) ⎛ ⎞
n(n−1)
i=1 ⎜ v ⎟
⎜� � ��1∕3 ⎟ = −1n(X). (62)
where v is the mean wind speed and v(i) is the ordered ⎜ v3 ∕Γ 1 + 3 ⎟
sample of the wind speed data, v(1) ≤ v(2) ≤ ⋯ ≤ v(n) . The
⎝ k ⎠

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1095

n [
To obtain the parameter estimate ̂
kWAsPM , X is first calcu- 1 ∑ ( ) 2i − 1 ]2
C(k, c) = + F v(i) ;k, c − (68)
lated using Eq. (60). Then, Eq. (62) is solved numerically 12n i=1 2n
using the bisection method. Having obtained the parameter
estimate ̂
kWAsPM , the WAsPM estimate ̂cWAsPM for parameter and
c can be determined using Eq. (59). ∑ 2i − 1 [ [ ( )] [ ( )]]
n
A(k, c) = −n − 1n F v(i) ;k, c + 1n 1 − F v(i) ;k, c .
i=1
n
(69)
4.21 Ordinary least squares and weighted least
squares methods (OLSM and WLSM) To solve Eqs. (67), (68), and (69), we applied the nlminb
function available in R software.
Suppose that v(1) ≤ v(2) ≤ ⋯ ≤ v(n) is the ordered sample of
wind speed from the Weibull distribution. It is known that: 4.23 Method of Mabchour (MoMab)
[ ( )]
E F v(i) =
i
(63) The MoMab was proposed by Mabchour (1999) for assess-
n+1 ing the wind energy potential in Morocco. The MoMab esti-
and mate for parameters k and c are obtained using the following
expressions:
[ ( )] i(n − i + 1)
Var F v(i) = . (64) [ ( )]0.51
(n + 1)2 (n + 2)
̂
kMoMab = 1 + 0.483 v − 2 , (70)

The OLS estimates ̂ kOLSM and ̂

cOLSM for parameters k and
v
c, respectively, are obtained by minimizing the following cMoMab = (
̂ ),
1 (71)
function: Γ 1+ ̂
kMoMab
n [ ]2
∑ ( ) i
L(k, c) = F v(i) ;k, c − (65)
i=1
n+1 4.24 Energy variance method (EVM)
Based on the results obtained by Eqs. (63) and (64), the The EVM considers the kinetic energy of wind, which is pro-
WLS estimates ̂ kWLSM and ̂cWLSM are determined by mini- portional to the square of the wind speed (Rahman and Chat-
mizing the following function: topadhyay 2020). In this simple method, parameters k and c
are estimated by the following equations:
∑ (n + 1)2 (n + 2) [ ( ) ]2
n
i
W(k, c) = F v(i) ;k, c − . (66)
i(n − i + 1) n+1 ⎛∑
1∕2
2⎞
n
i=1
⎜ vi ⎟
To solve the expressions in Eqs. (65) and (66), we applied ̂
kEVM =⎜ 2 ⎟
i=1
(72)
the nlminb function available in R software. ⎜ n𝜎 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
4.22 Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Cramér‑von Mises,
and Anderson–Darling methods (KSM, CVMM, v
and ADM) cEVM = (
̂ ),
Γ 1+ ̂1 (73)
kEVM
The KSM, CVMM, and ADM are the class of the maximum
goodness of fit (MGF) estimation method. In general, the class where v and σ are the mean and standard deviation of the
of MGF methods estimates Weibull parameters by numeri- wind speed, respectively.
cally minimizing any of the empirical distribution function
statistics. Let v(i) be the ordered sample of wind speed data,
v(1) ≤ v(2) ≤ ⋯ ≤ v(n) . In the KSM, CVMM, and ADM, the
parameter estimates ̂ kKSM , ̂
kCVMM , ̂ kADM , ̂
cKSM , ̂
cCVMM , and 5 Integrated goodness of fit (GoF) measure
cADM are determined by minimizing, with respect to k and c,
̂
the respective functions D(k, c), C(k, c), and A(k, c), as follows: To examine the efficiency and accuracy of the NEMs, three
different GoF measures are considered—the modified KS
max ( ( ) i−1 i ( ))
1≤i≤n
D(k, c) = F v(i) ;k, c − , F v(i) ;k, c , (MKS), modified AD (MAD), and modified Cramér–von
n n Mises (MCVM) statistics proposed by Zhang (2002), which
(67)

13
1096 M. A. M. Safari et al.

are reported to be more powerful than the traditional GoF � � Zij

2𝜋 ∫
1 −t2

statistics. The MKS, MAD, and MCVM can be computed Φ Zij = √ e 2 dt. (79)
−∞
as follows:
( Step 4: Compute the GS by calculating the average score
i − 1∕2
1≤i≤n
max 1
MKS = (i − )log[ ] of the GoF statistics in step 3.
2 nF(v(i) ;k, c)
) (74) Φ(Zi1 )+Φ(Zi2 )+Φ(Zi3 )+Φ(Zi4 )
1 n − i + 1∕2 GS =  , (80).
+ (n − i + )log[ ] , 4
2 n(1 − F(v(i) ;k, c)) The NEM that produces the smallest GS is considered to
be the best method for estimating the Weibull parameters.
[ ( ) ( ( )) ]
∑
n
logF v(i) ;k, c 1 − F v(i) ;k, c
MAD = − + log ,
i=1
n − i + 1∕2 i − 1∕2 6 Simulation study
(75)
A Monte Carlo simulation is conducted to investigate the
and
performances of the 28 NEMs in estimating the shape and
[ ( ( )−1 )]2 scale parameters of a Weibull distribution. The R statisti-
∑
n
F v(i) ;k, c −1
MCVM = log . (76) cal software version 4.1.1 is used to perform this simula-
i=1
(n − 1∕2)∕(i − 3∕4) − 1 tion study. The details of the simulation design and results
are given in Supplementary Material. Overall, based on the
The power density error (PDE) is also utilized to evaluate simulation results, we can conclude no particular method
the performance of each NEM in estimating the wind power clearly outperforms the other methods in estimating Weibull
density. The PDE is obtained by parameters. For every particular case, i.e., for a certain
| P − Pw | sample size and certain shape parameter, different methods
PDE = || | × 100.
| (77) demonstrate the best performance. Without considering the
| P |
worst methods (WAsPM, MQM, PM and MoLM), all the
The global score (GS) based on the MKS, MAD, MCVM, methods perform somewhat similarly, with only a slight dif-
and PDE is then calculated to determine the best NEM. The ference in terms of Def. In fact, the difference in terms of
GS is computed as follows: Def between the ­1st and ­10th ranked methods is less than
0.75% for n = 300, less than 0.35% for n = 500, and less than
Step 1: Calculate the MKS, MAD, MCVM, and PDE val- 0.25% for n = 1000. Regarding the application of real wind
ues for each method. speed data, the methods that provide the best performance
Step 2: Standardize each of the GoF statistics by trans- will likely differ from those that obtained the best simulation
forming them into standard normal random variables. results, because the true values of the Weibull parameters are
unknown and the GoF measure must be applied to determine
kij − kj the best methods for estimating the Weibull parameters. We
Zij = , (78)
Sj advise the use of several GoF criteria to obtain a conclusive
result.
where zij is the standardized score, kij is the ith value of the This simulation study also obtained different results in
j GoF statistics, and kj and sj denote the mean and standard terms of PDE . We found that the best (or worst) methods
deviation of the j GoF statistics, respectively. for estimating Weibull parameters are not necessarily the
best (or worst) methods for estimating the wind power den-
Step 3: Transform the standardize score using the stand- sity. For instance, the WAsPM obtained the worst estima-
ard normal CDF to obtain a criteria value between 0 and tions of the Weibull parameters but demonstrated excellent
1.

Table 4  Descriptive statistics Data Sample size, n Min Max Mean Standard Skewness Kurtosis
of wind speed data for Mersing deviation
station
Overall 30,787 0.47 16.75 4.24 2.06 0.10 4.12
Northeast monsoon 12,937 0.47 16.75 4.96 2.28 0.58 3.16
Southwest monsoon 12,796 0.47 13.65 3.76 1.76 1.39 5.96

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1097

Fig. 3  Monthly mean wind

speed of Mersing site

Table 5  Descriptive statistics Data Sample size, n Min Max Mean Standard Skewness Kurtosis
of wind speed data for Port deviation
Dickson station
Overall 32,457 0.30 10.47 2.56 1.35 0.83 3.92
Northeast monsoon 12,986 0.30 8.63 2.63 1.37 0.77 3.21
Southwest monsoon 14,435 0.30 9.91 2.47 1.32 0.88 4.66

performance in estimating wind power density. The simula- 7.1 Descriptive statistics

tion results for PDE further support the claim that differ-
ent GoF measures can lead to different recommendations
for estimation methods. For the PDE, the best method is
determined by that which minimizes the relative error of
the empirical and theoretical power densities. We found the
EEM, WAsPM, and PWMBPM to provide high precision in
estimating wind power density, with relatively small respec-
tive PDE values close to zero. In this study, in order to obtain
a conclusive result, an integrated approach which consists
of four GoF criteria is proposed and adopted for determin-
ing the best NEM in modeling the wind speed data using
Weibull model (see Section 5).
7 Results and discussion
As of the first step, we transform the wind speed data meas-
ured at 10 m height to wind speed data with 80 m height
using Eq. (1). Then, the transformed wind speed data are
used throughout the analysis.
Table 4 provides descriptive statistics of the wind speed
data for Mersing station. From Table 4, the minimum and
maximum wind speed are 0.47 m/s and 16.75 m/s, respec-
tively. Thus, the range of wind speed data is 16.28 m/s. The
mean wind speed for overall data is found to be 4.24 m/s,
and it can be observed that the mean wind speed during
northeast monsoon, i.e., 4.96 m/s is higher than mean wind
speed during southwest monsoon, i.e., 3.76 m/s. In fact,
the monthly mean wind speed values in northeast monsoon
(except November) are mostly higher than the monthly wind
speed in southwest monsoon as shown in Fig. 3. In addition,
the wind speed standard deviation values are low, indicat-
ing that the data are close to the mean. Since the values of
skewness are positive and the kurtosis are greater than 3, it
is ascertained that the empirical wind speed distributions
are skewed to the right and its tails are heavier than normal
distribution.
The descriptive statistics for Port Dickson wind speed
data is presented in Table 5. It can be seen that the respective

13
1098 M. A. M. Safari et al.

Fig. 4  Monthly mean wind

speed of Port Dickson site

Table 6  Parameter estimates and GoF measures of Weibull distribution for overall wind speed data of Mersing
Method ̂
k ̂
c MKS MAD MCVM PDE (%) MKS(0,1) MAD(0,1) MCVM(0,1) PDE(0,1) GS Rank

GM 2.4171 4.8597 3.3588 411.8956 5043.3849 12.2531 0.5841 0.7010 0.9733 0.9092 0.7919 21
MoM 2.1751 4.8978 3.3477 259.2886 1910.0196 2.3391 0.3446 0.2705 0.2459 0.3262 0.2968 7
MUOM 2.0507 4.8461 3.3727 470.0247 2363.2394 0.0004 0.8363 0.8317 0.3788 0.1917 0.5596 17
LMM 2.2404 4.8972 3.3436 254.4569 2151.7267 4.8211 0.2656 0.2587 0.3137 0.4987 0.3342 11
AMM 2.1750 4.8978 3.3477 259.3189 1909.9863 2.3381 0.3446 0.2705 0.2459 0.3262 0.2968 8
EMJ 2.1954 4.8977 3.3459 240.5099 1951.3611 3.1375 0.3088 0.2262 0.2569 0.3796 0.2929 6
EML 2.1954 4.8997 3.3458 242.9138 1943.2623 3.0174 0.3068 0.2316 0.2547 0.3714 0.2911 5
MLM 2.1857 4.9077 3.3461 249.2746 1892.2438 2.1660 0.3127 0.2463 0.2412 0.3151 0.2788 4
MMLM 2.1920 4.9154 3.3451 260.7678 1879.0510 1.9516 0.2934 0.2741 0.2378 0.3015 0.2767 2
AMLM 2.4349 5.0240 3.3493 543.6817 3784.1345 3.5445 0.3776 0.9346 0.8104 0.4078 0.6326 19
RCM 2.2394 4.9329 3.3415 299.9456 1986.6606 2.6925 0.2290 0.3790 0.2665 0.3495 0.3060 10
MPSM 2.1848 4.9078 3.3461 249.1649 1890.2844 2.1247 0.3127 0.2461 0.2407 0.3124 0.2780 3
EPFM 2.1303 4.8977 3.3533 315.8846 1920.7414 0.4923 0.4637 0.4250 0.2487 0.2168 0.3386 12
PDM 2.1189 4.8975 3.3551 331.4242 1945.0298 6.98e − 05 0.5033 0.4709 0.2552 0.1916 0.3552 13
NEPFM 2.1189 4.8975 3.3552 331.4794 1945.1854 0.0019 0.5055 0.4710 0.2552 0.1917 0.3559 14
EEM 2.1683 4.9320 3.3466 272.8856 1810.8401 3.15e − 14 0.3225 0.3050 0.2205 0.1916 0.2599 1
PWMBPM 2.2404 4.9786 3.3398 363.8853 1869.2220 3.15e − 14 0.2016 0.5671 0.2353 0.1916 0.2989 9
WAsPM 1.9196 4.7329 3.4285 828.1834 3935.5363 3.15e − 14 1.0000 0.9999 0.8428 0.1916 0.7586 20
OLSM 2.3087 4.7484 3.3647 374.2366 4520.5609 15.3104 0.7047 0.5973 0.9326 0.9704 0.8012 22
WLSM 2.3008 4.8077 3.3542 286.3681 3538.7377 11.8658 0.4835 0.3411 0.7499 0.8973 0.6180 18
KSM 2.3445 4.7261 3.3725 474.1926 5675.1926 17.4780 0.8336 0.8394 0.9931 0.9886 0.9137 24
CVMM 2.3089 4.7484 3.3647 374.5148 4523.5342 15.3162 0.7047 0.5981 0.9329 0.9705 0.8015 23
ADM 2.2379 4.8293 3.3502 224.6542 2603.7415 8.6409 0.3966 0.1922 0.4572 0.7534 0.4498 16
EVM 2.2924 4.8963 3.3437 270.4319 2582.5189 6.6345 0.2674 0.2987 0.4502 0.6269 0.4108 15

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1099

Table 7  Parameter estimates and GoF measures of Weibull distribution for northeast monsoon wind speed data of Mersing
Method ̂
k ̂
c MKS MAD MCVM PDE MKS(0,1) MAD(0,1) MCVM(0,1) PDE(0,1) GS Rank

GM 2.4417 5.5760 3.3127 80.9920 564.9170 5.9355 0.4991 0.5367 0.9677 0.9932 0.7492 22
MoM 2.3136 5.6021 3.3105 66.6938 324.1458 0.7691 0.3506 0.3220 0.2919 0.3741 0.3347 7
MUOM 2.2641 5.5845 3.3146 89.5041 367.2204 8.77E − 05 0.6283 0.6635 0.4525 0.2308 0.4938 16
LMM 2.3266 5.6017 3.3100 61.9719 324.6109 1.2198 0.3191 0.2595 0.2935 0.4690 0.3352 9
AMM 2.3136 5.6021 3.3105 66.6833 324.1422 0.7700 0.3506 0.3219 0.2919 0.3743 0.3347 8
EMJ 2.3314 5.6015 3.3098 60.2699 325.8693 1.3850 0.3068 0.2385 0.2978 0.5046 0.3369 10
EML 2.3314 5.6033 3.3097 60.0417 324.6593 1.2945 0.3007 0.2358 0.2936 0.4851 0.3288 6
MLM 2.3206 5.6090 3.3100 63.1411 319.7299 0.6362 0.3191 0.2743 0.2770 0.3472 0.3044 5
MMLM 2.3233 5.6104 3.3099 62.0017 319.0190 0.6496 0.3129 0.2598 0.2746 0.3499 0.2993 3
AMLM 2.4520 5.6685 3.3100 120.9607 470.8121 1.4578 0.3191 0.9496 0.8190 0.5202 0.6520 21
RCM 2.3259 5.6114 3.3098 60.9270 318.6460 0.6817 0.3068 0.2465 0.2734 0.3564 0.2958 2
MPSM 2.3188 5.6093 3.3101 63.7673 319.6672 0.5613 0.3253 0.2825 0.2768 0.3324 0.3042 4
EPFM 2.2961 5.6026 3.3116 73.3289 330.0905 0.1531 0.4235 0.4188 0.3125 0.2567 0.3529 11
PDM 2.2919 5.6027 3.3119 75.0023 332.6617 0.0006 0.4440 0.4443 0.3216 0.2309 0.3602 12
NEPFM 2.2917 5.6027 3.3119 75.0705 332.7810 0.0033 0.4440 0.4454 0.3221 0.2313 0.3607 13
EEM 2.2515 5.5760 3.3162 96.6066 388.4722 2.25E − 14 0.7273 0.7572 0.5368 0.2308 0.5630 18
PWMBPM 2.3266 5.6247 3.3095 60.9154 312.9860 5.62E − 14 0.2888 0.2464 0.2550 0.2308 0.2552 1
WAsPM 2.1389 5.4937 3.3377 177.7472 733.1203 4.50E − 14 1.0000 0.9999 0.9998 0.2308 0.8076 24
OLSM 2.2660 5.5644 3.3151 92.0041 378.6222 1.1457 0.6606 0.6981 0.4977 0.4531 0.5774 19
WLSM 2.3225 5.5813 3.3108 66.2960 340.5845 2.1597 0.3701 0.3165 0.3504 0.6663 0.4258 14
KSM 2.3408 5.4903 3.3164 72.8100 520.4761 7.4283 0.7387 0.4110 0.9201 0.9995 0.7673 23
CVMM 2.2662 5.5643 3.3151 91.9072 378.4377 1.1591 0.6606 0.6968 0.4970 0.4560 0.5776 20
ADM 2.3056 5.5786 3.3117 73.1456 342.7056 1.7519 0.4303 0.4161 0.3582 0.5830 0.4469 15
EVM 2.3987 5.5990 3.3096 74.9688 406.4503 3.5688 0.2947 0.4438 0.6069 0.8830 0.5571 17

minimum and maximum wind speed are 0.30  m/s and
10.47 m/s for Port Dickson site. The mean for overall wind
speed in Port Dickson is lower than Mersing site which is
2.56 m/s. In addition, as demonstrated in Fig. 4, there is not
much different in terms monthly mean wind speed in both
monsoon seasons in Port Dickson. Similar to Mersing site,
the wind speed standard deviation values of Port Dickson
site are low, and the wind speed distribution is skewed to
the right and has heavier right tail as compared to normal
distribution. Based these characteristics of wind speed data
of both sites, the Weibull distribution is considered as a suit-
able parametric model for describing the wind speed data.
7.2 Assessment of wind energy potential using
Weibull distribution
The simulation results presented in Section 6 are used as a
guideline for the selection of appropriate NEMs for estimat-
ing the Weibull parameters. For the analysis of wind speed
data, we considered only 24 NEMs, and excluded the four
worst-performing NEMs, i.e., the PM, MQM, MoMab, and
MoLM. Tables 6–8 show the estimated Weibull parameters
and the GoF results for the overall wind speed data, north-
east monsoon wind speed data, and southwest monsoon
wind speed data of Mersing site, respectively. For different
NEMs, we can see in Table 6 that the estimated parameter ̂ k
values range from 1.9196 to 2.4349 and those of estimated
parameter ̂ c range from 4.7261 to 5.0240 m/s for overall
wind speed data. If we compare the estimated Weibull
parameters between northeast monsoon and southwest mon-
soon as shown in Tables 7 and 8, the values of estimated
parameter ̂ k range from 2.1389 to 2.4520 and from 1.7325
to 2.8776 for northeast monsoon and southwest monsoon,
respectively. Apart from that the values of estimated param-
c range from 5.4937 to 5.6685 m/s for northeast mon-
eter ̂
soon and from 3.9224 to 4.4503 m/s for southwest monsoon.
Given the high value of estimated parameter ̂ c for northeast
monsoon as compared to southwest monsoon, thus, we know
that the Mersing area is windier during northeast monsoon
than during southwest monsoon.
The estimated Weibull parameters and GoF results for
the overall wind speed data, northeast monsoon wind speed
data, and southwest monsoon wind speed data of Port Dick-
son site are shown in Tables 9, 10, 11, respectively. The
respective range of estimated shape parameter ̂ k for the
overall, northeast monsoon and southwest monsoon are
1.8175 − 2.1423, 1.7314 − 2.1914, and 1.9240 − 2.2147.
Meanwhile, the estimated parameter ̂ c values are less than

13
1100 M. A. M. Safari et al.

Table 8  Parameter estimates and GoF measures of Weibull distribution for southwest monsoon wind speed data of Mersing
Method ̂
k ̂
c MKS MAD MCVM PDE MKS(0,1) MAD(0,1) MCVM(0,1) PDE(0,1) GS Rank

GM 2.6748 4.2000 3.4783 747.2987 12,968.0190 18.0395 0.5113 0.6305 0.6271 0.7829 0.6380 20
MoM 2.2620 4.2438 3.4229 292.4632 3439.5897 5.2329 0.2674 0.2291 0.2983 0.3563 0.2878 9
MUOM 1.9806 4.1443 3.5010 597.5213 3346.6119 0.0016 0.6157 0.4917 0.2954 0.2009 0.4009 16
LMM 2.4698 4.2379 3.4294 419.8127 6171.2281 11.5809 0.2931 0.3297 0.3880 0.5800 0.3977 15
AMM 2.2619 4.2438 3.4229 292.4651 3439.3771 5.2319 0.2674 0.2292 0.2983 0.3562 0.2878 8
EMJ 2.2808 4.2435 3.4218 291.2236 3581.6739 5.8857 0.2632 0.2283 0.3027 0.3783 0.2931 11
EML 2.2808 4.2449 3.4216 292.8383 3572.4225 5.7882 0.2625 0.2294 0.3025 0.3750 0.2923 10
MLM 2.2413 4.2494 3.4240 300.0497 3276.1236 4.1343 0.2717 0.2346 0.2933 0.3202 0.2799 5
MMLM 2.2445 4.2514 3.4235 301.8527 3284.6234 4.1133 0.2698 0.2359 0.2935 0.3195 0.2797 4
AMLM 2.7173 4.4503 3.4701 581.8759 9168.5233 3.3373 0.4730 0.4770 0.4936 0.2950 0.4346 17
RCM 2.4679 4.3442 3.4201 410.4687 5001.8209 4.7088 0.2568 0.3217 0.3485 0.3389 0.3165 13
MPSM 2.2397 4.2497 3.4241 300.5598 3265.0980 4.0566 0.2721 0.2350 0.2929 0.3177 0.2794 3
EPFM 2.1389 4.2445 3.4396 364.8096 2922.7945 0.4810 0.3354 0.2841 0.2825 0.2132 0.2788 2
PDM 2.1276 4.2444 3.4420 375.2561 2907.9219 8.02e − 05 0.3457 0.2925 0.2820 0.2008 0.2803 6
NEPFM 2.1276 4.2444 3.4420 375.3032 2908.0136 0.0015 0.3457 0.2926 0.2820 0.2009 0.2803 7
EEM 2.3641 4.3702 3.4129 444.9100 3610.3017 1.21e − 14 0.2303 0.3514 0.3036 0.2008 0.2716 1
PWMBPM 2.4698 4.4154 3.4199 511.9531 4544.8255 3.64e − 14 0.2560 0.4118 0.3335 0.2008 0.3005 12
WAsPM 1.7325 3.9224 3.7051 1164.2156 5557.1466 1.21e − 14 0.9964 0.9063 0.3671 0.2008 0.6177 19
OLSM 2.8772 3.9812 3.6458 1601.7482 39,105.3054 32.7591 0.9767 0.9907 0.9962 0.9823 0.9865 23
WLSM 2.8257 4.0205 3.5983 1379.8849 30,869.6969 30.1434 0.9242 0.9662 0.9731 0.9692 0.9582 22
KSM 2.6621 4.0305 3.5283 1005.5267 18,576.9284 27.3751 0.7304 0.8272 0.7958 0.9475 0.8252 21
CVMM 2.8776 3.9811 3.6460 1602.8515 39,148.8904 32.7664 0.9769 0.9907 0.9962 0.9824 0.9865 24
ADM 2.5063 4.1127 3.4605 604.0720 9301.5053 19.9660 0.4285 0.4979 0.4983 0.8302 0.5637 18
EVM 2.3590 4.2416 3.4209 293.0666 4380.7232 8.4232 0.2598 0.2296 0.3282 0.4674 0.3212 14

3.0300 m/s for overall, northeast monsoon and southwest
monsoon wind speed data. In fact, the values of estimated
parameter ̂ c for southwest monsoon are less than values of
c for northeast monsoon, suggesting that the Port Dickson
̂ • For overall wind speed data, PWMBPM ≥ EEM ≥ AML
is slightly windier during northeast monsoon than during
southwest monsoon. Although the location of Port Dickson
is on the west coast of Malaysia (in Fig. 2), this area does not
experience high magnitude of wind speed during southwest
monsoon because the wind speed is blocked by the Island
of Sumatra, Indonesia (Masseran and Razali 2016). Apart
from that, the southwest monsoon is characterized with low
precipitation, less cloud, high outgoing long-wave radiation
and often featured by dry epochs (Chenoli et al. 2018).
On the basis of the GS values, which were computed from
the MKS, MAD, MCVM, and PDE, we can conclude that
the five best methods to estimate Weibull parameters for
Mersing and Port Dickson sites are as follows (rank from
the best):
Mersing:
• For overall wind speed data, EEM ≥ MMLM ≥ MPSM ≥  or EEM. Moreover, as can be observed in Tables 6–11, the
MLM ≥ EML.
• For northeast monsoon wind speed data, PWMBPM ≥ R
CM ≥ MLMM ≥ MPSM ≥ MLM.
• For sout hwest monsoon wind speed dat a,
EEM ≥ EPFM ≥ MPSM ≥ MMLM ≥ MLM.
  Port Dickson:
M ≥ RCM ≥ EML.
• For northeast monsoon wind speed data, PWMBPM ≥ M
MLM ≥ MPSM ≥ MLM ≥ RCM.
• For southwest monsoon wind speed data, PWMBPM ≥ 
AMLM ≥ AMM ≥ MoM ≥ EML.
As shown in Tables 6–11, there are only slight difference
in the GS values of the top five methods for both sites. The
graphical representations based on PDF and CDF plots of
the Weibull distribution by the top five NEMs for the overall,
northeast monsoon, and southwest monsoon wind speed data
of Mersing and Port Dickson are displayed in Figs. 5, 6, 7,
8, 9 and 10. From these figures, it is clear that the Weibull
distribution can adequately describe the wind speed data at
both sites. The results show that the most efficient methods
for estimating the Weibull parameters are either PWMBPM
EEM and PWMBPM, obtain very small PDE values close to
zero, which means that its estimated wind power density by
the Weibull distribution is almost identical to that calculated

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1101

Table 9  Parameter estimates and GoF measures of Weibull distribution for overall wind speed data of Port Dickson
Method ̂
k ̂
c MKS MAD MCVM PDE (%) MKS(0,1) MAD(0,1) MCVM(0,1) PDE(0,1) GS Rank

GM 2.0539 2.8842 3.3691 360.4586 2084.6059 5.4839 0.2656 0.2454 0.5028 0.6848 0.4246 13
MoM 1.9785 2.8875 3.3779 429.3162 1709.7095 1.4023 0.5032 0.6170 0.2465 0.2961 0.4157 11
MUOM 1.9196 2.8688 3.3927 499.1952 1816.3927 0.0016 0.8588 0.9031 0.3126 0.1882 0.5657 19
LMM 2.0151 2.8885 3.3723 393.7501 1811.9682 3.1944 0.3462 0.4161 0.3097 0.4644 0.3841 6
AMM 1.9785 2.8875 3.3779 429.3328 1709.6898 1.4015 0.5032 0.6171 0.2465 0.2960 0.4157 12
EMJ 2.0016 2.8882 3.3742 406.5512 1760.4455 2.5452 0.3980 0.4886 0.2770 0.4009 0.3911 7
EML 2.0016 2.8898 3.3740 406.0385 1754.5681 2.3782 0.3924 0.4857 0.2734 0.3849 0.3841 5
MLM 1.9884 2.8905 3.3760 418.5392 1717.6257 1.6240 0.4487 0.5570 0.2512 0.3154 0.3931 8
MMLM 1.9832 2.8881 3.3770 424.4236 1714.7825 1.5869 0.4774 0.5900 0.2495 0.3121 0.4073 10
AMLM 2.0792 2.9194 3.3646 330.0281 2135.6668 3.1558 0.1709 0.1303 0.5403 0.4606 0.3255 3
RCM 2.0149 2.8989 3.3715 390.7865 1773.8353 2.1311 0.3252 0.3996 0.2853 0.3616 0.3429 4
MPSM 1.9878 2.8906 3.3761 419.1320 1716.1312 1.5829 0.4516 0.5603 0.2503 0.3118 0.3935 9
EPFM 1.9623 2.8870 3.3810 446.0761 1701.4064 0.5696 0.5916 0.7047 0.2417 0.2287 0.4417 14
PDM 1.9515 2.8866 3.3833 457.6198 1708.1938 1.60e − 05 0.6544 0.7591 0.2456 0.1880 0.4618 15
NEPFM 1.9516 2.8866 3.3833 457.4807 1708.1165 0.0112 0.6544 0.7585 0.2456 0.1888 0.4618 16
EEM 1.9938 2.9091 3.3737 407.4746 1690.7068 1.21e − 14 0.3841 0.4939 0.2356 0.1880 0.3254 2
PWMBPM 2.0151 2.9199 3.3701 384.3511 1735.9153 1.21e − 14 0.2897 0.3644 0.2620 0.1880 0.2761 1
WAsPM 1.8175 2.8062 3.4369 658.5640 2721.9763 1.77e − 14 1.0000 0.9998 0.8818 0.1880 0.7674 24
OLSM 2.0985 2.8395 3.3747 336.3806 3088.3641 11.6763 0.4119 0.1505 0.9686 0.9785 0.6274 21
WLSM 2.0748 2.8648 3.3706 348.4828 2450.1565 8.2959 0.3022 0.1947 0.7524 0.8813 0.5327 18
KSM 2.1020 2.8380 3.3750 333.9794 3167.5687 11.9552 0.4204 0.1426 0.9776 0.9818 0.6306 23
CVMM 2.0986 2.8395 3.3747 336.3059 3090.2986 11.6825 0.4119 0.1503 0.9689 0.9786 0.6274 22
ADM 2.0309 2.8687 3.3729 385.2286 2014.4709 5.9366 0.3623 0.3691 0.4512 0.7237 0.4766 17
EVM 2.1423 2.8901 3.3674 345.5157 3157.7575 8.6518 0.2270 0.1832 0.9766 0.8980 0.5712 20

using measured data. This result is consistent with the simu-
lation results, in which these two NEMs efficiently estimated
the wind power density.
Based on the best fitted Weibull model, the wind charac-
teristics of both sites are studied. Tables 12 and 13 present
the wind characteristics of Mersing and Port Dickson sites,
respectively, involving the wind power density (Pw), most
probable wind speed (Vmp), and maximum wind energy car-
rying by the wind speed (Vme). It can be seen from Table 12
that the wind power density, most probable wind speed,
and maximum wind energy carrying by the wind speed at
Mersing were highest during northeast monsoon with their
respective values 126.37 W/m 2, 4.42 m/s, and 7.34 m/s.
On the other hand, the Mersing clearly shows poor wind
characteristics during southwest monsoon. Nevertheless,
with the wind characteristics presented in Table 12, the
Mersing area may not be suitable for large-scale electric-
ity generation even during northeast monsoon. Small-scale
wind turbines are probably the best option for wind energy
development in Mersing area. Based on Table 13, it can be
observed that the Port Dickson site has low values of wind
power density, most probable wind speed, and maximum
wind energy carrying by the wind speed suggesting that
this site has poor wind characteristics. Thus, it is clear
that the Port Dickson area is not suitable for wind energy
development.
7.3 Wind direction analysis
In wind energy potential assessment for a particular area,
wind direction data also plays an important role. Knowing
the dominant directions of the wind enables the wind tur-
bine to be positioned in such a way so that the total amount
of captured energy can be maximized, and the performance
of wind turbine can be optimized. Figures 11, 12, and 13
shows the wind rose diagram and wind direction density
of Mersing site for overall data, northeast monsoon data
and southwest data, respectively. Based on Fig. 11, it can
be seen that the Mersing wind regime has two dominant
wind direction, i.e., northeast (0 − 40°) and southwest
(230 − 270°). During northeast monsoon (Fig. 12), the wind
direction is mostly between 0 − 50° and 250 − 360° with
wind speed more than 4.5 m/s is observed. While during
southwest monsoon season (Fig. 13), the direction of wind
is dominantly between 100 and 260° with large proportion
of wind speed less than 4.5 m/s. Therefore, the prominent
wind direction of Mersing is northeast (0 − 40°) with pref-
erable wind speed for wind energy development. The wind

13
1102 M. A. M. Safari et al.

Table 10  Parameter estimates and GoF measures of Weibull distribution for northeast monsoon wind speed data of Port Dickson
Method ̂
k ̂
c MKS MAD MCVM PDE MKS(0,1) MAD(0,1) MCVM(0,1) PDE(0,1) GS Rank

GM 2.1717 2.9473 3.3503 116.3508 939.2568 10.3215 0.3200 0.2294 0.7250 0.9871 0.5654 20
MoM 2.0011 2.9666 3.3593 143.6553 642.5272 1.0061 0.4399 0.4731 0.3617 0.2796 0.3886 9
MUOM 1.9572 2.9529 3.3702 161.9512 737.8647 0.0011 0.5918 0.6494 0.4808 0.1874 0.4774 17
LMM 2.0229 2.9671 3.3555 135.9536 619.5166 2.0617 0.3879 0.3984 0.3344 0.3954 0.3790 8
AMM 2.0011 2.9666 3.3593 143.6615 642.5509 1.0053 0.4399 0.4731 0.3617 0.2795 0.3886 10
EMJ 2.0239 2.9671 3.3553 135.5953 618.7584 2.1112 0.3852 0.3950 0.3336 0.4011 0.3787 7
EML 2.0239 2.9688 3.3552 135.4177 616.9532 1.9487 0.3838 0.3933 0.3315 0.3823 0.3727 6
MLM 2.0262 2.9746 3.3544 134.0207 609.7400 1.4826 0.3731 0.3801 0.3231 0.3299 0.3516 4
MMLM 2.0282 2.9757 3.3540 133.2060 607.3802 1.4758 0.3678 0.3725 0.3204 0.3292 0.3475 2
AMLM 2.1914 3.0272 3.3433 133.9958 800.7390 3.5990 0.2376 0.3799 0.5610 0.5788 0.4393 14
RCM 2.0226 2.9735 3.3550 135.3454 613.3999 1.4183 0.3811 0.3926 0.3273 0.3229 0.3560 5
MPSM 2.0251 2.9748 3.3545 134.3662 610.4010 1.4156 0.3745 0.3834 0.3239 0.3226 0.3511 3
EPFM 1.9925 2.9663 3.3610 146.8204 655.3868 0.5764 0.4636 0.5042 0.3773 0.2377 0.3957 11
PDM 1.9811 2.9660 3.3635 151.0919 675.5291 2.62e − 05 0.4986 0.5461 0.4021 0.1873 0.4085 12
NEPFM 1.9812 2.9660 3.3635 151.0541 675.3405 0.0093 0.4986 0.5457 0.4018 0.1881 0.4086 13
EEM 1.9461 2.9467 3.3737 167.2479 772.3835 1.66e − 14 0.6388 0.6965 0.5250 0.1873 0.5119 19
PWMBPM 2.0229 2.9878 3.3542 133.7335 605.0511 1.54e − 14 0.3705 0.3774 0.3177 0.1873 0.3132 1
WAsPM 1.7314 2.8060 3.4933 325.3261 2158.2095 3.31e − 14 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.1873 0.7968 24
OLSM 2.0231 2.9057 3.3633 142.7670 770.5798 8.0307 0.4958 0.4643 0.5227 0.9378 0.6052 22
WLSM 2.0437 2.9398 3.3554 131.8771 665.5501 5.7314 0.3865 0.3602 0.3897 0.8002 0.4842 18
KSM 2.0394 2.9034 3.3617 137.3492 788.0128 8.9912 0.4734 0.4117 0.5449 0.9661 0.5990 21
CVMM 2.0233 2.9056 3.3633 142.6900 770.8673 8.0475 0.4958 0.4636 0.5230 0.9384 0.6052 23
ADM 2.0059 2.9444 3.3604 144.4641 667.2005 3.4467 0.4552 0.4810 0.3918 0.5607 0.4722 16
EVM 2.1595 2.9686 3.3468 95.5515 805.2196 7.8979 0.2773 0.1049 0.5667 0.9327 0.4704 15

rose diagram and wind direction density of Port Dickson
site for overall data, northeast monsoon data and southwest
data are respectively shown in Figs. 14–16. As shown in
Figs. 14, 15 and 16, the Port Dickson wind regime only
has one dominant wind direction even at different monsoon
seasons which is centered around east (50–120°). However,
we can see that large proportion of wind speed at this site
are less than 4.5 m/s.
8 Conclusion
In the assessment of wind energy potential using a Weibull
distribution, NEMs are often used to estimate its param-
eters. The use of an efficient NEM for estimating the Weibull
parameters is essential to ensure accurate estimation of
the wind power output. In this study, the Weibull model
was utilized for the assessment of wind energy potential
in Mersing and Port Dickson, Malaysia. We presented a
total of 28 NEMs in this paper, including the GM, MoM,
MoLM, MUOM, LMM, AMM, EMJ, EML, MLM, MMLM,
AMLM, RCM, MPSM, PM, MQM, EPFM, PDM, NEPFM,
EEM, PWMBPM, WAsPM, OLSM, WLSM, KSM, CVMM,
ADM, MoMab, and EVM and then their performances in
estimating Weibull parameters were assessed via a Monte
Carlo simulation. The simulation results revealed that no
particular method clearly outperforms the others in estimat-
ing Weibull parameters. For different cases, i.e., with dif-
ferent sample sizes and different shape parameter values,
different methods provide the best performance. In addi-
tion, when the sample size is large, there is not much differ-
ence in terms of the Def criteria of the top 10 NEMs, which
suggests that their performances are very similar. We also
found that the best method for estimating Weibull param-
eters is not necessarily the best for estimating wind power
density and vice versa. For example, the WAsPM performed
worst in estimating Weibull parameters but demonstrated
excellent performance in estimating wind power density. In
terms of power density estimation, the EEM, WAsPM, and
PWMBPM were highly accurate in estimating wind power
density, with their respective PDE values so small as to be
close to zero.
The assessment of wind energy potential in Mersing and
Port Dickson was conducted by considering two monsoon
seasons, i.e., northeast monsoon and southwest monsoon.
We considered 24 out of the 28 NEMs and the remaining
four worst-performing NEMs, i.e., the PM, MQM, MoMab,
and MoLM were excluded this assessments. In order to

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1103

Table 11  Parameter estimates and GoF measures of Weibull distribution for southwest monsoon wind speed data of Port Dickson
Method ̂
k ̂
c MKS MAD MCVM PDE MKS(0,1) MAD(0,1) MCVM(0,1) PDE(0,1) GS Rank

GM 2.0150 2.8538 1347.1617 251.0635 3.3962 1.2989 0.2657 0.2077 0.7106 0.3036 0.3719 14
MoM 2.0121 2.8384 1423.6989 269.0265 3.3933 1.6663 0.3022 0.2765 0.5205 0.3337 0.3582 4
MUOM 1.9240 2.8119 1331.7202 256.1946 3.4081 0.0021 0.2586 0.2263 0.9956 0.2084 0.4222 18
LMM 2.0700 2.8395 1651.7120 320.5609 3.3878 4.2460 0.4222 0.5165 0.1830 0.5648 0.4216 17
AMM 2.0121 2.8384 1423.6494 269.0113 3.3933 1.6654 0.3022 0.2765 0.5205 0.3337 0.3582 3
EMJ 2.0348 2.8389 1508.7931 291.5245 3.3904 2.8389 0.3454 0.3760 0.3255 0.4364 0.3708 13
EML 2.0348 2.8404 1505.4790 292.0955 3.3902 2.6683 0.3436 0.3786 0.3131 0.4210 0.3641 5
MLM 2.0093 2.8376 1409.6887 263.0472 3.3943 1.5685 0.2954 0.2524 0.5890 0.3256 0.3656 9
MMLM 1.9977 2.8308 1379.3735 252.7747 3.3960 0.9265 0.2808 0.2138 0.6986 0.2744 0.3669 10
AMLM 2.0458 2.8488 1473.4461 286.4233 3.3908 2.0441 0.3272 0.3524 0.3509 0.3659 0.3491 2
RCM 2.0697 2.8561 1616.7265 325.5057 3.3867 2.7276 0.4030 0.5408 0.1368 0.4263 0.3767 15
MPSM 2.0078 2.8378 1405.6126 261.8911 3.3945 1.4783 0.2934 0.2479 0.6025 0.3182 0.3655 8
EPFM 1.9824 2.8376 1367.6279 249.1042 3.3966 0.5589 0.2752 0.2009 0.7339 0.2469 0.3642 6
PDM 1.9711 2.8373 1347.2835 239.5118 3.3985 1.04E − 05 0.2657 0.1694 0.8301 0.2082 0.3684 11
NEPFM 1.9713 2.8372 1347.6065 239.6498 3.3985 0.0127 0.2659 0.1698 0.8301 0.2091 0.3687 12
EEM 2.0905 2.8948 1855.9906 394.9666 3.3830 1.33E − 14 0.5367 0.8309 0.0411 0.2082 0.4042 16
PWMBPM 2.0700 2.8855 1587.8264 335.4615 3.3855 1.33E − 14 0.3873 0.5890 0.0962 0.2082 0.3202 1
WAsPM 1.9549 2.8287 1350.3641 242.2465 3.3980 1.93E − 14 0.2672 0.1780 0.8072 0.2082 0.3652 7
OLSM 2.2144 2.8031 3748.2474 499.1684 3.3989 14.0053 0.9971 0.9875 0.8471 0.9919 0.9559 23
WLSM 2.1530 2.8158 2707.9441 433.7021 3.3898 10.4688 0.9022 0.9243 0.2889 0.9444 0.7650 22
KSM 2.1909 2.8044 1861.5424 345.8078 3.3872 6.4510 0.5398 0.6377 0.1567 0.7485 0.5207 19
CVMM 2.2147 2.8030 3752.9541 499.4309 3.3990 14.0179 0.9972 0.9876 0.8512 0.9920 0.9570 24
ADM 2.1118 2.8199 1920.1480 351.1876 3.3874 7.0188 0.5724 0.6622 0.1652 0.7882 0.5470 20
EVM 2.1679 2.8401 2654.2479 443.3375 3.3881 9.1986 0.8884 0.9398 0.1971 0.9034 0.7322 21

Fig. 5  Graphical representations
of fitted Weibull model based
on the top five NEMs for overall
wind speed data of Mersing site

evaluate the performance efficiency of all the considered
NEMs, we used an integrated approach comprising four
GoF criteria, the MKS, MAD, MCVM, and PDE. Using
this integrated approach, we obtained a single-value GoF
measure known as the GS to determine the best method.
It is found that the overall best NEM for both sites and for
different monsoon seasons were determined to be either
the EEM or PWMBPM. The PDF and CDF plots showed
that the Weibull model realizes excellent fitting to the wind
speed data of Mersing and Port Dickson sites, which means

13
1104 M. A. M. Safari et al.

Fig. 6  Graphical representations
of fitted Weibull model based
on the top five NEMs for wind
speed data of Mersing site dur-
ing northeast monsoon

Fig. 7  Graphical representations
of fitted Weibull model based
on the top five NEMs for wind
speed data of Mersing site dur-
ing southwest monsoon

Fig. 8  Graphical representa-
tions of fitted Weibull model
based on the top five NEMs for
overall wind speed data of Port
Dickson site

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1105

Fig. 9  Graphical representations
of fitted Weibull model based
on the top five NEMs for wind
speed data of Port Dickson site
during northeast monsoon

Fig. 10  Graphical representa-
tions of fitted Weibull model
based on the top five NEMs for
wind speed data of Port Dickson
site during southwest monsoon

Table 12  Wind characteristics Data NEM ̂ ̂

c Pw (W/m2) Vmp (m/s) Vme (m/s)
at Mersing based on Weibull k
model
Overall EEM 2.1683 4.9320 90.30 3.71 6.67
Northeast monsoon PWMBPM 2.3266 5.6247 126.37 4.42 7.34
Southwest monsoon EEM 2.3641 4.3702 58.56 3.46 5.66

Table 13  Wind characteristics Data NEM ̂ ̂

c Pw (W/m2) Vmp (m/s) Vme (m/s)
at Port Dickson based on k
Weibull model
Overall PWMBPM 2.0151 2.9199 20.11 2.08 4.11
Northeast monsoon PWMBPM 2.0229 2.9878 21.46 2.13 4.20
Southwest monsoon PWMBPM 2.0700 2.8855 18.89 2.10 4.00

that the Weibull distribution is adequate for modeling and
describing the wind speed data.
Based on the best fitted Weibull model, the wind
characteristics at both sites were studied. The results
indicated that during northeast monsoon, Mersing area
is windier than during southwest monsoon with their
respective wind power density, most probable wind
speed, and maximum wind energy carrying by the wind
speed were 126.37  W/m 2, 4.42  m/s, and 7.34  m/s. By
considering the wind characteristics of Mersing wind

13
1106 M. A. M. Safari et al.

Fig. 11  a Wind rose diagram and b wind direction density for overall data of Mersing site

Fig. 12  a Wind rose diagram and b wind direction density for northeast monsoon data of Mersing site

regime, small-scale wind turbines are the best option for Mersing for optimizing the performance of wind turbine
wind energy development in this area. Besides, northeast and for maximizing the total amount of captured energy.
(0 − 40°) was found to be the prominent wind direction in Meanwhile, the Port Dickson wind regime shows poor

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation… 1107

Fig. 13  a Wind rose diagram and b wind direction density for southwest monsoon data of Mersing site

Fig. 14  a Wind rose diagram and b wind direction density for overall data of Port Dickson site

13
1108 M. A. M. Safari et al.

Fig. 15  a Wind rose diagram and b wind direction density for northeast monsoon data of Port Dickson site

Fig. 16  a Wind rose diagram and b wind direction density for southwest monsoon data of Port Dickson site

wind characteristics in terms of wind power density, most Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplemen-
probable wind speed, and maximum wind energy carrying tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 00704-0​ 22-0​ 3990-0.
by the wind speed. Therefore, this area is not suitable for
wind energy development.

13
Wind energy potential assessment using Weibull distribution with various numerical estimation…
Acknowledgements  The authors are indebted to the Malaysian Mete-
orology Department for providing the hourly mean wind speed and
wind direction data. Additionally, the authors would like to thank the
editor and anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments, which
helped us to improve the manuscript.
Author Contribution  Muhammad Aslam Mohd Safari: conceptualiza-
tion, methodology, software, formal analysis, writing—original draft,
project administration. Nurulkamal Masseran: supervision, writing—
review and editing, validation, funding acquisition. Muhammad Hilmi
Abdul Majid: writing—review and editing, formal analysis, software,
validation.
Funding  This work was supported by the Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia [grant number DIP-2018–038].
Data Availability  The wind speed and win direction data can be
requested from the Malaysian Meteorological Department and the
Department of Environment, Malaysia.
Code Availability  The R codes for all methods are available upon
request.
Declarations  energy potential for coastal locations in India using the Weibull
Conflict of Interests  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Abbasi SA, Abbasi T (2016) Impact of wind-energy generation on cli-
mate: a rising spectre. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 59:1591–1598
Akdağ SA, Dinler A (2009) A new method to estimate Weibull
parameters for wind energy applications. Energy Convers Manag
50:1761–1766
Akdağ SA, Güler Ö (2015) A novel energy pattern factor method for
wind speed distribution parameter estimation. Energy Convers
Manag 106:1124–1133
Akdağ SA, Güler Ö (2018) Alternative moment method for wind
energy potential and turbine energy output estimation. Renew
Energy 120:69–77
Akgül FG, Şenoğlu B, Arslan T (2016) An alternative distribution
to Weibull for modeling the wind speed data: Inverse Weibull
distribution. Energy Convers Manag 114:234–240
Allouhi A, Zamzoum O, Islam MR et al (2017) Evaluation of wind
energy potential in Morocco’s coastal regions. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 72:311–324
Arslan H, Baltaci H, Akkoyunlu BO et al (2020) Wind speed variability
and wind power potential over Turkey: case studies for Çanakkale
and İstanbul. Renew Energy 145:1020–1032
Arslan T, Bulut YM, Yavuz AA (2014) Comparative study of
numerical methods for determining Weibull parameters for
wind energy potential. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 40:820–825
Aukitino T, Khan MGM, Ahmed MR (2017) Wind energy resource
assessment for Kiribati with a comparison of different meth-
ods of determining Weibull parameters. Energy Convers Manag
151:641–660
Carta JA, Ramirez P, Velazquez S (2009) A review of wind speed
probability distributions used in wind energy analysis: case
studies in the Canary Islands. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
13:933–955
Celik AN (2006) A simplified model for estimating yearly wind frac-
tion in hybrid-wind energy systems. Renew Energy 31:105–118
1109
Celik AN (2003) A simplified model for estimating the monthly perfor-
mance of autonomous wind energy systems with battery storage.
Renew Energy 28:561–572
Chang T-J, Tu Y-L (2007) Evaluation of monthly capacity factor of
WECS using chronological and probabilistic wind speed data: a
case study of Taiwan. Renew Energy 32:1999–2010
Chang TP (2011) Performance comparison of six numerical methods
in estimating Weibull parameters for wind energy application.
Appl Energy 88:272–282
Chaurasiya PK, Ahmed S, Warudkar V (2018) Study of different
parameters estimation methods of Weibull distribution to deter-
mine wind power density using ground based Doppler SODAR
instrument. Alexandria Eng J 57:2299–2311
Cheng RCH, Amin NAK (1983) Estimating parameters in continu-
ous univariate distributions with a shifted origin. J R Stat Soc
Ser B 45:394–403
Cheng RCH, Stephens MA (1989) A goodness-of-fit test using Moran’s
statistic with estimated parameters. Biometrika 76:385–392
Chenoli SN, Jayakrishnan PR, Samah AA et al (2018) Southwest
monsoon onset dates over Malaysia and associated climatological
characteristics. J Atmos Solar-Terrestrial Phys 179:81–93
Crippa P, Alifa M, Bolster D et al (2021) A temporal model for vertical
extrapolation of wind speed and wind energy assessment. Appl
Energy 301:117378
Deep S, Sarkar A, Ghawat M, Rajak MK (2020) Estimation of the wind
model. Renew Energy 161:319–339
Djiela RHT, Kapen PT, Tchuen G (2020) Wind energy of Cameroon by
determining Weibull parameters: potential of a environmentally
friendly energy. Int J Environ Sci Technol 1–20
Faghani GHR, Ashrafi ZN, Sedaghat A (2018) Extrapolating wind data
at high altitudes with high precision methods for accurate evalu-
ation of wind power density, case study: Center of Iran. Energy
Convers Manag 157:317–338
Freedman D, Diaconis P (1981) On the histogram as a density estima-
tor: L 2 theory. Zeitschrift Für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie Und
Verwandte Gebiete 57:453–476
Global Wind Energy Council (2020) Global Wind Report 2019. Brus-
sels, Belgium
Google (2021) No Title. https://​maps.​googl​eapis.​com/​maps/​api/​geoco​
de/​json?​addre​ss=​Mersi​ng,+​Johor​&​key=​xxx
Guarienti JA, Almeida AK, Neto AM et al (2020) Performance analy-
sis of numerical methods for determining Weibull distribution
parameters applied to wind speed in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.
Sustain Energy Technol Assess 42:100854
Han Q, Ma S, Wang T, Chu F (2019) Kernel density estimation model
for wind speed probability distribution with applicability to
wind energy assessment in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
115:109387
Hassanein KM (1971) Percentile estimators for the parameters of the
Weibull distribution. Biometrika 58:673–676
Hu Q, Wang Y, Xie Z et al (2016) On estimating uncertainty of wind
energy with mixture of distributions. Energy 112:935–962
International Energy Agency (2020) Renewables 2020. Paris, France
Islam MR, Saidur R, Rahim NA (2011) Assessment of wind energy
potentiality at Kudat and Labuan, Malaysia using Weibull distri-
bution function. Energy 36:985–992
Jung C, Schindler D (2017) Global comparison of the goodness-of-fit
of wind speed distributions. Energy Convers Manag 133:216–234
Jung C, Schindler D (2019) Wind speed distribution selection–A
review of recent development and progress. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 114:109290
Jung C, Schindler D (2018) 3D statistical mapping of Germany’s wind
resource using WSWS. Energy Convers Manag 159:96–108
Jung C, Schindler D (2021) The role of the power law exponent in wind
energy assessment: a global analysis. Int J Energy Res 45:8484–8496
13
1110
Jung C, Schindler D, Laible J (2018) National and global wind resource
assessment under six wind turbine installation scenarios. Energy
Convers Manag 156:403–415
Justus CG, Hargraves WR, Mikhail A, Graber D (1978) Methods for
estimating wind speed frequency distributions. J Appl Meteorol
17:350–353
Kang D, Ko K, Huh J (2018) Comparative study of different methods
for estimating weibull parameters: A case study on Jeju Island.
South Korea Energies 11:356
Kapen PT, Marinette JG, David Y (2020) Analysis and efficient
comparison of ten numerical methods in estimating Weibull
parameters for wind energy potential: application to the city of
Bafoussam, Cameroon. Renew Energy
Ku Kassim KY, Ahmad A, Mahyam MI (2007) Keadaan laut perairan
Semenanjung Malaysia untuk panduan nelayan. DPPSPM/DOF
Li J, Wang X, Yu XB (2018) Use of spatio-temporal calibrated wind
shear model to improve accuracy of wind resource assessment.
Appl Energy 213:469–485
Lu X, McElroy MB, Kiviluoma J (2009) Global potential for wind-
generated electricity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:10933 LP – 10938.
Lysen EH (1983) Introduction to Wind Energy. SWD Publication
SWD 82–1, The Netherlands
Mabchour H (1999) Etude modélisation et expérimentation des com-
posants d’un système hybride couplant les énergies solaire et
éolienne: Performances et méthodologie de dimensionnement
Manwell JF, McGowan JG, Rogers AL (2010) Wind energy
explained: theory, design and application. John Wiley & Sons
Masseran N (2015a) Markov chain model for the stochastic behav-
iors of wind-direction data. Energy Convers Manag 92:266–274
Masseran N (2018) Integrated approach for the determination of an
accurate wind-speed distribution model. Energy Convers Manag
173:56–64
Masseran N (2015b) Evaluating wind power density models and their
statistical properties. Energy 84:533–541
Masseran N, Razali AM (2016) Modeling the wind direction behav-
iors during the monsoon seasons in Peninsular Malaysia. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 56:1419–1430
Mazzeo D, Oliveti G, Labonia E (2018) Estimation of wind speed
probability density function using a mixture of two truncated
normal distributions. Renew Energy 115:1260–1280
Mohammadi K, Alavi O, Mostafaeipour A et al (2016) Assessing
different parameters estimation methods of Weibull distribu-
tion to compute wind power density. Energy Convers Manag
108:322–335
Panwar NL, Kaushik SC, Kothari S (2011) Role of renewable energy
sources in environmental protection: A review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 15:1513–1524
Pishgar-Komleh SH, Keyhani A, Sefeedpari P (2015) Wind speed
and power density analysis based on Weibull and Rayleigh dis-
tributions (a case study: Firouzkooh county of Iran). Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 42:313–322
Rahman SM, Chattopadhyay H (2020) A new approach to estimate
the Weibull parameters for wind energy assessment: Case stud-
ies with four cities from the Northeast and East India. Int Trans
Electr Energy Syst 30:e12574
Rocha PAC, de Sousa RC, de Andrade CF, da Silva MEV (2012)
Comparison of seven numerical methods for determining
Weibull parameters for wind energy generation in the northeast
region of Brazil. Appl Energy 89:395–400
Safari MAM, Masseran N, Jedi A et al (2020) Rural public accept-
ance of wind and solar energy: a case study from Mersing,
Malaysia. Energies 13:3855
Şahin S, Türkeş M (2020) Assessing wind energy potential of Turkey
via vectoral map of prevailing wind and mean wind of Turkey.
Theor Appl Climatol 141:1351–1366
13
M. A. M. Safari et al.
Saleh H, Aly AAE-A, Abdel-Hady S (2012) Assessment of different
methods used to estimate Weibull distribution parameters for wind
speed in Zafarana wind farm, Suez Gulf, Egypt. Energy 44:710–719
Schallenberg-Rodríguez J, Montesdeoca NG (2018) Spatial planning to
estimate the offshore wind energy potential in coastal regions and
islands. Practical Case: the Canary Islands. Energy 143:91–103
Seguro JV, Lambert TW (2000) Modern estimation of the parameters
of the Weibull wind speed distribution for wind energy analysis.
J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 85:75–84
Seki T, Yokoyama S (1996) Robust parameter-estimation using the
bootstrap method for the 2-parameter Weibull distribution. IEEE
Trans Reliab 45:34–41
Shaban AH, Resen AK, Bassil N (2020) Weibull parameters evaluation
by different methods for windmills farms. Energy Rep 6:188–199
Shin J-Y, Ouarda TBMJ, Lee T (2016) Heterogeneous mixture distribu-
tions for modeling wind speed, application to the UAE. Renew
Energy 91:40–52
Shoaib M, Siddiqui I, Rehman S et al (2019) Assessment of wind
energy potential using wind energy conversion system. J Clean
Prod 216:346–360
Shu ZR, Li QS, Chan PW (2015) Statistical analysis of wind character-
istics and wind energy potential in Hong Kong. Energy Convers
Manag 101:644–657
Signe EBK, Kanmogne A, Emmanuel GD, Meva’a L (2019) Comparison of
seven numerical methods for determining Weibull parameters of wind
for sustainable energy in Douala, Cameroon. Int J Energy Sect Manag
Silva AR, Stosic T, Stosic B (2021) Wind speed persistence at the
Fernando de Noronha archipelago, Brazil. Theor Appl Climatol
144:723–730
Sumair M, Aized T, Gardezi SAR et al (2020) A novel method devel-
oped to estimate Weibull parameters. Energy Rep 6:1715–1733
Teimouri M, Hoseini SM, Nadarajah S (2013) Comparison of esti-
mation methods for the Weibull distribution. Statistics (ber)
47:93–109
Teimouri M, Nadarajah S (2012) A simple estimator for the Weibull
shape parameter. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 12:395–402
Ucar A, Balo F (2009) Evaluation of wind energy potential and electricity
generation at six locations in Turkey. Appl Energy 86:1864–1872
Usta I (2016) An innovative estimation method regarding Weibull
parameters for wind energy applications. Energy 106:301–314
Usta I, Arik I, Yenilmez I, Kantar YM (2018) A new estimation
approach based on moments for estimating Weibull parameters
in wind power applications. Energy Convers Manag 164:570–578
Wais P (2017a) A review of Weibull functions in wind sector. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 70:1099–1107
Wais P (2017b) Two and three-parameter Weibull distribution in avail-
able wind power analysis. Renew Energy 103:15–29
Wang J, Hu J, Ma K (2016) Wind speed probability distribution esti-
mation and wind energy assessment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
60:881–899
Xu X, Yan Z, Xu S (2015) Estimating wind speed probability distribu-
tion by diffusion-based kernel density method. Electr Power Syst
Res 121:28–37
Zhang J (2002) Powerful goodness-of-fit tests based on the likelihood
ratio. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Statistical Methodol) 64:281–294
Zhang J, Zhang M, Li Y, et al (2020) Analysis of wind characteris-
tics and wind energy potential in complex mountainous region in
southwest China. J Clean Prod 274:123036
Zhou X, Qin J, Li HD et al (2020) A statistical method to construct
wind speed at turbine height for study of wind power in China.
Theor Appl Climatol 141:419–432
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.