Alexandria Engineering Journal (2018) 57, 2299–2311

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Study of different parameters estimation methods of

Weibull distribution to determine wind power
density using ground based Doppler SODAR
instrument
Prem Kumar Chaurasiya *, Siraj Ahmed, Vilas Warudkar

Mechanical Engineering Department, MANIT, Bhopal, MP, India

Received 11 January 2017; revised 15 June 2017; accepted 16 August 2017

Available online 13 September 2017

KEYWORDS
Weibull parameters;
Wind frequency distribution;
Wind speed;
Probability distribution
function;
Statistical analysis
Abstract The effectiveness of nine different numerical methods is examined for calculating the
parameters of Weibull distribution at three different heights 80 m, 100 m and 120 m to estimate
wind power density. The measurement campaign was conducted at Kayathar, Tamil Nadu, India.
The time series wind data were recorded using SecondWind Triton SODAR (Sound Detection and
Ranging) instrument. Firstly, the fidelity assessment of SODAR measurement was examined. The
aim of this study is to identify the more accurate method for computing wind power density of a
selected region. The performance of the selected methods is judged based on goodness of fit test
i.e. Root Mean Square Error Test (RMSE), Coefficient of Determination (R2), Mean Absolute Per-
centage Error (MAPE), and Chi-square Test (X2). Wind power densities are estimated with the help
of estimated parameter values. This study proposes an approach to utilize SODAR and also aims to
examine the accuracy of SODAR measurement by comparing the results with cup anemometer, in
an attempt to establish adequate criteria for an effective utilization of SODAR for wind resource
assessment. The results suggest that SODAR may be used as an alternative to meteorological mast.
Ó 2017 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction alternative source of energy against conventional source of

energy in the future and can contribute to a huge percentage
Over the past few years wind energy is gaining a huge attention of shares in the energy mix for fulfilling worldwide energy
as a cost efficient and broadly accessible renewable source of demands [1]. The wind industry has attained a significant pro-
energy globally. Wind energy can be used successfully as an gress in terms of an installed capacity and has reached approx-
imately to 432.9 GW by the end of 2015 [2]. The accurate
* Corresponding author. estimation of wind power depend significantly on the distribu-
E-mail addresses: 143116007_prem@manit.ac.in, prem.chaurasiyaa@ tion of wind speed, small errors in modeling the wind speed
gmail.com (P.K. Chaurasiya). data may mislead the calculation of energy outcome [3]. The
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria effective wind energy harnessing and assessment of wind
University. resource in terms of computing wind characteristics is of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.08.008
1110-0168 Ó 2017 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2300
Nomenclature
SODAR sound detection and ranging
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
R2 Coefficient of Determination
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error
RPE relative percentage error
k shape parameter of Weibull distribution
c scale parameter of Weibull distribution (m/s)
GM graphical method
MOM method of moment
PDM power density method
EML empirical method of Lysen
EMJ empirical method of Justus
LSM least square method
MLM maximum likelihood method
MMLM modified maximum likelihood method
particular significance. However, the frequency distribution of
wind speed may show dissimilar wind power densities for the
same wind speed. The probability distribution function of
wind speed defines the wind power density of a particular loca-
tion in terms of W/m2 [4].
Weibull distribution function is well known and commonly
used frequency distribution in wind energy related investiga-
tions [5,8–10]. Moreover, as per IEC 61400–12 the Weibull dis-
tribution has been considered highly suitable for wind speed
data [6]. The Weibull distribution is a two parameter function
known as shape (k) and scale (c) parameters. In literature there
are various methods available to compute the parameters of
Weibull distribution [7–20].
Akdag and Dinler [5] compared an energy pattern factor
method with graphical method and maximum likelihood method
and found that energy pattern factor method is more appropriate
in terms of comparing wind power and wind speed. Jowder et al.
[7] found empirical method more efficient than graphical method
to compute the Weibull parameter for determining wind speed
and wind power in Bahrain. Similarly Mohammadi et al. [8] iden-
tified the power density method as more suitable method for ana-
lyzing wind power in Zarrineh, Iran. Kasra Mohammadi et al. [9]
studied the effectiveness of six different methods to determine the
Weibull parameters for calculating wind power density and their
result suggested that graphical method is least effective among
empirical method of Lysen, empirical method of Justus, energy
pattern factor method, maximum likelihood method and modi-
fied maximum likelihood method. George [10] examined the per-
formance of five methods to estimate the shape and scale
parameters of Weibull function. The results showed that maxi-
mum likelihood method is more appropriate methods to repre-
sent the distribution of wind speed. Ahmed [11] identified
empirical method as a more accurate method, outperforms the
other methods in terms of expressing wind speed distribution.
Talha Arslan et al. [12] proposed and compared the L-moment
method with moment method and maximum likelihood method
and found maximum likelihood method more accurate to calcu-
late Weibull parameters. More related studies can be found in lit-
eratures which have been performed to evaluate wind potential
of different regions [13–20].
P.K. Chaurasiya et al.
AMLM alternative maximum likelihood method
WPD wind power density
V wind speed (m/s)
n number of observations
vi wind speed measured at the interval i
f(vi) frequency for wind speed ranging within bin i
F(v) cumulative distribution function
f(v) Weibull, probability density function


v mean wind speed (m/s)
Greek letters
q density of surrounding air (kg/m3)
C gamma function
r standard deviation
It is important to assess the more efficient and appropriate
numerical methods for calculation of Weibull parameters in
wind energy sector. However, the literature shows the lack of
study on determining the more accurate method therefore
much attention is required to evaluate the more appropriate
Weibull parameters estimation methods to determine wind
power density. In this study the effectiveness of nine parame-
ters estimation methods is evaluated to determine the k and
c parameters of Weibull distribution function for calculating
wind power density based on various statistical analysis. This
study mainly focuses on identifying the more appropriate
method among nine well known methods namely moment of
method (MOM), power density method (PDM), graphical
method (GM), empirical method of Lysen (EML), empirical
method of Justus (EMJ), least square method (LSM), maxi-
mum likelihood method (MLM), modified maximum likeli-
hood method (MMLM) and alternative maximum likelihood
method (AMLM) for computing the wind power density in
one of the wind farm located at southern part of India, Tamil
Nadu. Furthermore, this paper also shows the fidelity assess-
ment of SODAR instrument. To achieve this, a measurement
campaign was conducted at three different heights using a
remote sensing instrument named SecondWind TRITON
SODAR and the result were compared with cup anemometer
installed on nearby 120 m meteorological mast. The rest of this
paper is structured as follows: site location and case study is
shown in Section 2, fidelity assessment of SODAR instrument
is illustrated in Section 3, wind power density is presented in
Section 4. Different methods adopted for calculating Weibull
parameter are introduced in Section 5. In Section 6, statistical
analyses are illustrated. In Section 7, results and discussion are
shown. Lastly conclusion is drawn in Section 8.
2. Site location and wind speed data
India is among the top leading countries that have successfully
considered the wind power development. India has established
itself as the 5th leading wind market in the world with a total
installed capacity of around 27,151 MW [21]. This measure-
ment campaign was carried at Southern part of India at Kay-
Weibull distribution to determine wind power density using ground based Doppler SODAR 2301

athar, District -Toothukudi, Tamil Nadu state. The site is geo- compute the wind power density. In first approach the wind
graphically located at 08°570 44.2700 N is latitude and power density is calculated based on measured wind speed
77°430 10.8000 E longitude and the site features are gently sloping data and in second approach it is computed using Weibull
towards the western direction. The roughness length of the site two parameters method.
is 0.03 m (open farm land, few trees and buildings) [22] and the Wind power is dependent upon the cubic of wind speed.
yearly average temperature and relative humidity of the site is Thus, the power density for actual time series wind speed data
42 °C and 72% respectively. The descriptive wind statistics for a site can be computed using the following equation [13]:
including maximum, mean, median for selected stations is
P ¼ 0:5  qV3avg ðW=m2 Þ ð1Þ
shown in Table 1. Figs. 1 and 2 present the probability and
cumulative probability densities for selected stations, respec- where, q is density of surrounding air (kg/m3), V is wind speed
tively. The statistics presented in Table 1 as well as the proba- (m/s).
bility and cumulative probability distribution of the wind Based on Weibull probability density function wind power
speed shown in Figs. 1 and 2 give a very good insight on the density is estimated using the following equation [13]:
description of wind speed in the selected stations.

P 1 3 3
¼ qc C 1 þ ðW=m2 Þ ð2Þ
A 2 k
3. Fidelity assessment of SODAR measurement

The reliability of SODAR measurement is examined by com- 5. Different numerical methods for estimating Weibull
paring with the cup anemometers which are mounted on mete- parameters
orological mast nearby at 120 m respectively. Fig. 3 shows the
correlation of the wind direction measurements from the Weibull distribution is a significant tool to estimate wind
SODAR instruments and wind vanes installed on the mast at energy potential and to express the wind speed frequency dis-
80 m height and the linear regression slope was found to be tribution of a particular location as suggested in literature
1.0215 with correlation coefficient above 0.99, which shows a [10,12,14,15,18,22]. The Weibull is a two parameter distribu-
good agreement. tion function and is represented by a dimensionless shape
Table 1 below shows the comparison of mean wind speed, parameter k and scale parameter c in units of wind speed
median, maximum wind speed and minimum wind speed at (m/s) and it can be described by its probability density function
different height by cup anemometer and SecondWind Triton f (v) and cumulative distribution function F (v) as given below
SODAR. [10,12,15]
Fig. 4 shows the comparison of time series wind profile    
k vk1 v k
measured by meteorological mast and SODAR system at fðvÞ ¼  exp  ð3Þ
80 m. The comparison of daily mean wind speed profile is c c c
shown in Fig. 5 below.    
v k
It is observed from Fig. 5 that SODAR measurement fol- FðvÞ ¼ 1  exp  ð4Þ
lows the same trend as of mast measurement, all the points c
seems to coincide commendably and regression slope varies where v is the wind speed. The distribution is termed as Ray-
from 0.92 to 0.96 and correlation coefficient are around 0.94 leigh distribution when its shape parameter k is 2. For calculat-
at three measured heights. ing the parameters of the Weibull distribution nine different
numerical methods are used in this study which is discussed
4. Estimation of wind power density below.

The available wind strength at a particular site is given by wind
power density. The wind power density (WPD) is an important
parameter to determine the wind potential and to show the
amount of wind energy at various wind speed in a particular
site. The wind power density is also used to assess the perfor-
mance of wind turbines and to recommend the optimum wind
turbine at a particular location. There are two approaches to
5.1. Graphical method
The Graphical method is expressed by a logarithmic function
of a cumulative distribution function F (v). In this method
the cumulative distribution function is transformed to a linear
function by taking double logarithm of Eq. (4) as following
relation: [18]

Table 1 Comparison of wind speed.

Height Assessment Data recovery Mean wind Median Maximum wind Minimum wind
technique rate (%) speed (m/s) (m/s) speed (m/s) speed (m/s)
60 m MAST 99.95 7.748 8.531 17.296 0.3170
SODAR 99.23 7.608 8.451 16.330 0.140
80 m MAST 99.91 8.330 9.258 18.412 0.904
SODAR 99.93 7.989 8.970 16.180 0.600
120 m MAST 99.93 8.706 9.812 18.453 0.425
SODAR 99.83 8.361 9.170 23.443 0.100
2302 P.K. Chaurasiya et al.

Fig. 1 Probability and cumulative density distribution at 80 m.

Fig. 2 Probability and cumulative density distribution at 120 m.

   
v k
1  FðvÞ ¼ exp  ð5Þ
c

lnf ln½1  FðvÞg ¼ k ln v  k ln c ð6Þ

The graphical representation of ln {ln [1F (v)]} versus ln
v demonstrate a straight line with a slope of k and an intersec-
tion with the x-axis of (k ln c), shape parameter is obtained
by the slope of straight line fitted best to data pairs and the
intercept with y-ordinate gives scale parameters [10,11].

5.2. Moment method

Justus and Mikhail in 1977 suggested this method [1]. This

method uses the mean ð
vÞ and standard deviation ðrÞ of wind
speeds to determine the Weibull parameter k and c based on
the numerical iterative solution of following equations:
[10,12,14,23].


v ¼ cCð1 þ 1=kÞ ð7Þ
Fig. 3 Comparison of wind direction measurement between
r ¼ c½Cð1 þ 2=kÞ  C2ð1 þ 1=kÞ0:5 ð8Þ
SODAR and wind vanes.
Weibull distribution to determine wind power density using ground based Doppler SODAR 2303

Fig. 4 Comparative time series wind profile at 80 m height.

Fig. 5 Comparison of daily mean wind speed profile.

where C (x) is gamma function and is defined as: implementation and formulation. The primary step in this
Z / method is to compute energy pattern factor Epf, Energy pat-
CðxÞ ¼ expðtÞtx1 dt ð9Þ tern factor is a ratio of mean of cubic wind speed to cube of
0
mean wind speed [10,15,23].
and mean wind speed ð
vÞ and standard deviation (r) is
expressed as: v3 Cð1 þ 3=kÞ
Epf ¼ ¼ ð12Þ
1X
3
n ð

vÞ Cð1 þ 1=kÞ3


v¼ vi ð10Þ
n i¼1
where v3 is mean of cube of wind speed and ð
vÞ3 is cube of
" #0:5 mean speed. After solving Eq. (10) the Weibull shape parame-
1 X n
r¼ ðvi 

vÞ2 ð11Þ ter k and scale parameter can be calculated using this formula:
n  1 1¼1
3:69
k¼1þ ð13Þ
5.3. Power density method E2pf

v
This is a new and easier method for calculating shape factor c¼ ð14Þ
and scale factor, this method involve less computation, easier Cð1 þ 1=kÞ
2304 P.K. Chaurasiya et al.

5.4. Empirical method of Justus application of high rated numerical iteration similar to maxi-
mum likelihood method. Two Weibull parameters are com-
Justus [1] introduced the empirical method in 1977, based on puted as follows [12,23]:
this method the Weibull k and c parameter are calculated using Pn k Pn 1
Eqs. (15) and (16) respectively [1]. i¼1 vi lnðvi Þfðvi Þ lnðvi Þfðvi Þ
k¼ Pn k  i¼1 ð24Þ
i¼1 vi fðvi Þ fðv P 0Þ
k ¼ ð
v=rÞ1:086 ð15Þ
" #k1
c ¼
v=Cð1 þ 1=kÞ ð16Þ 1 X n
c¼ ðvi Þk fðvi Þ ð25Þ
fðv P 0Þ i¼1
5.5. Empirical method of Lysen
where vi is the wind speed central to time interval i, n the num-
ber of bins, f(vi) the frequency for wind speed ranging within
Based on the empirical method introduced by Lysen the k is
bin i, and f(v  0) is the probability for wind speed equal to
calculated by Eq. (13) similar to Justus method, but the c is
or exceeding zero.
computed as [1]:
c ¼
vð0:568 þ 0:433=kÞ1=k ð17Þ 5.8. Least square method

In engineering and mathematical problems this method is

5.6. Maximum likelihood method
generally useful, a linear correlation between two variables is
assumed in this method and after some elite calculation for
This method requires extensive numerical iteration to compute minimizing relationship, the expression to calculate Weibull
k and c parameter of Weibull function. This method uses a parameters can be written as Eqs. (26) and (27) [10,11].
likelihood function of the wind speed data in time series format
[15,23]. P P P
n ni¼1 lnvxln ½lnf1  FðvÞg ni¼1 lnvx ni¼1 ln½ln f1  FðvÞg
Suppose (v1, v2, v3,. . ...vn) is a random wind speed samples k¼ Pn Pn 2
n i¼1 lnv2  i¼1 lnv
with a probability density function same as Eq. (4). The likeli-
ð26Þ
hood function of this sample is L (k, c, v1, v2, v3,. . ...vn) can be
written as:  Pn P 
k i¼1 ln v  ni¼1 ln½lnf1  FðvÞg
Y
n c ¼ exp ð27Þ
nk
Lðk; c;v1 ; v2 ; v3 ; . . . . . . vn Þ ¼ fðk; c;vi Þ ð18Þ
i¼1

Then 5.9. Alternative maximum likelihood method

X
n
ln L ¼ ln½fðvi Þ ð19Þ Simple calculation procedure has been developed due to
i¼1 iterative characteristics of maximum likelihood method
for n independent samples, the maximum of the likelihood called alternative maximum likelihood method. The Weibull
function is obtained by solving the system of equation: scale (k) and shape parameter (c) is computed by Eq. (28)
[11,12]
@ ln L " #12
¼0 ð20Þ
@k p nðn  1Þ
k ¼ pffiffiffi P Pn 2
ð28Þ
@ ln L 6 n ni¼1 ln v2  i¼1 ln v
¼0 ð21Þ
@c
and c shape factor is calculated by same as Eq. (23).
The solution of above set of Eqs. (20) and (21) gives the for-
mula to calculate k and c which is illustrated below [12,18,23]

Pn k Pn 1 6. Statistical analysis
i¼1 vi ln vi ln vi
k¼ Pn k  i¼1 ð22Þ
i¼1 vi n To evaluate the efficacy of the nine methods following statisti-
cal analysis are carried out: Root Mean Square Error test
" #k1
1X n (RMSE), Chi-Square test (X2) and Coefficient of Determina-
c¼ ðvi Þk ð23Þ tion (R2) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error test (MAPE).
n i¼1
This test can be summarized as
where n is the number of observations and vi is the wind speed
measured at the interval i. 6.1. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)

5.7. Modified maximum likelihood method
When the wind speed data are available in the form of fre-
quency distribution than this method can be applied to obtain
Weibull parameter k and c. This method also involves an
The RMSE test reports the model’s precision by comparing
the discrepancies between the measured value and those of
Weibull function and hence small value shows greater confi-
dence in the evaluated results of methods. The RMSE has
always a non negative value
Weibull distribution to determine wind power density using ground based Doppler SODAR 2305

Table 2 Computed Weibull parameters at three different heights.

Methods 80 m 100 m 120 m
Shape Scale factor Shape Scale factor Shape factor Scale factor
factor (k) (c) (m/s) factor (k) (c) (m/s) (k) (c) (m/s)
Measured data 2.070 8.9740 2.151 9.3862 1.974 9.1893
Graphical method 1.876 8.5420 1.994 8.3142 1.905 8.2113
Method of moment 2.123 9.0312 2.189 9.4299 2.059 9.2578
Emperical method of Justus 2.134 9.0205 2.200 9.4299 2.071 9.2578
Emperical method of Lysen 2.134 9.0245 2.200 9.4334 2.071 10.4568
Power density method 2.268 9.0185 2.329 9.4246 2.195 9.2599
Maximum likelihood method 2.065 8.9668 2.144 9.3810 1.972 9.1857
Modified maximum likelihood method 2.070 8.9759 2.145 9.3875 1.980 9.1598
Least square method 1.703 8.1668 1.654 8.9615 1.782 8.651
Alternative maximum likelihood method 2.683 8.9668 1.791 9.3810 1.905 8.2113

0.12 Measured Data

Graphical Method
Probablity Density Function f(v)

Moment Method
Maximum Likelihood Method
0.1
Modified Maximum Likelihood method
Power Density Method
Empirical Method of Lysen
0.08 Empirical Method of Justus
Least Square Method
Alternative Maximum Likelihood Method
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

Fig. 6 Weibull distributions at 80 m.

Measured Data
0.12
Method of Moment
Graphical Method
Power Density Method
Probablity Density Function f(v)

0.1 Maximum Likelihood Method

Modified Maximum Likelihood Method
Empirical Method of Lysen
Empirical Method of Justus
0.08 Least Square Method
Alternative Maximum Likelihood Method

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

Fig. 7 Weibull distributions at 100 m.

2306 P.K. Chaurasiya et al.

0.12
Measure data
Graphical Method

Pronanlity density function f(v)

Method of Moment
0.1
Empirical method of Justus
Empirical method of Lysen
Power Density method
0.08
Maximum likelihood method
Modified maximum likelihood method
Alternative maximum likelihood method
0.06
Least Square Method

0.04

0.02

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

Fig. 8 Weibull distributions at 120 m.

Table 3 Performance evaluation of the 9 selected method at 80 m using different statistical indicator.
Methods Weibull parameter Statistical analysis
Shape Scale R2 Ranking RMSE Ranking X2 Ranking MAPE Ranking Overall
factor factor (%) ranking
(k) (c) (m/s)
Modified maximum 2.0705 8.9759 0.99998 1 0.058731 7 0.0002318 1 0.664 1 1
Likelihood method
Maximum likelihood 2.0657 8.9668 0.99996 2 0.058895 8 0.0002546 2 0.763 2 2
method
Moment method 2.1233 9.0312 0.99823 3 0.058206 5 0.0018971 3 1.081 3 3
Empirical method 2.1346 9.0205 0.99767 4 0.058055 3 0.0025447 4 2.430 6 4
of Justus
Empirical method 2.1346 9.0245 0.99763 5 0.058063 4 0.0025623 5 1.740 5 5
of Lysen
Power density method 2.2682 9.0185 0.98288 6 0.056679 2 0.0216368 6 8.457 7 6
Graphical method 1.8763 8.542 0.96067 7 0.058305 6 0.0412960 7 1.210 4 7
Least square method 1.7034 8.1668 0.94601 8 0.068409 9 0.1781728 8 12.224 8 9
Alternative maximum 2.683 8.9668 0.84802 9 0.054238 1 0.2013716 9 21.758 9 8
likelihood method

6.2. Chi-square test (X2) 6.4. Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)

It is a commonly used statistical tool to compare differences The MAPE indicates the mean absolute percentage difference
between the observed data results with expected data results between the observed wind speed frequencies and those
and also provide goodness of fit between observed and attained by frequency distribution calculated with Weibull
expected results. The chi-square test is always testing the state distribution.
where there is no momentous difference between the expected
and observed result. 7. Results and discussion

6.3. Coefficient of determination (R2) In this study, the Weibull parameters for the selected region
were computed using ten minute average wind speed data
It is a measure of the ability of the method to accurately esti- recorded using SODAR to evaluate the performance of the
mate the variables. It is required to check the variance of nine numerical methods. This study also comprises of the esti-
experimentally measured data under different conditions and mation of wind power density by all nine methods. The esti-
also required to analyze the difference between the mean of mated wind power density was compared with those
the coefficients. computed using measured data, as a most accurate method.
Weibull distribution to determine wind power density using ground based Doppler SODAR 2307

Table 4 Performance evaluation of the 9 selected method at 100 m using different statistical indicator.
Methods Weibull parameter Statistical analysis
Shape Scale R2 Ranking RMSE Ranking X2 Ranking MAPE Ranking Overall
factor factor (%) ranking
(k) (c) (m/s)
Modified maximum 2.1451 9.3875 0.99998 1 0.058250 6 0.0000219 1 0.238 1 1
Likelihood method
Maximum 2.1445 9.3810 0.99997 2 0.058245 5 0.0000260 2 0.299 2 2
likelihood method
Moment method 2.1894 9.4299 0.99910 3 0.057809 4 0.0009001 3 1.150 3 3
Empirical method 2.2004 9.4299 0.99863 4 0.057681 2 0.0014093 4 1.643 5 4
of Justus
Empirical method 2.2004 9.4334 0.99860 5 0.057692 3 0.0014259 5 1.590 4 5
of Lysen
Power density 2.3293 9.4246 0.98656 6 0.056359 1 0.0162178 6 7.130 7 6
method
Graphical method 1.9942 8.3142 0.91069 7 0.117451 9 0.1135097 9 3.864 6 7
Alternative 1.7910 9.3810 0.89091 8 0.063567 7 0.1019784 7 19.480 8 8
maximum
likelihood method
Least square 1.6543 8.9615 0.75300 9 0.065929 8 0.0941905 8 25.330 9 9
method

Table 5 Performance evaluation of the 9 selected method at 120 m using different statistical indicator.
Methods Weibull parameter Statistical analysis
Shape Scale R2 Ranking RMSE Ranking X2 Ranking MAPE Ranking Overall
factor factor (c) (%) ranking
(k) (m/s)
Maximum 1.972 9.1857 0.99990 1 0.058442 2 0.0000761 1 0.076 2 1
likelihood method
Modified maximum 1.980 9.1598 0.99986 2 0.059100 4 0.0000772 2 0.607 1 2
likelihood method
Moment method 2.059 9.2578 0.99550 3 0.061714 5 0.0023841 3 3.332 3 3
Empirical method 2.071 9.2578 0.99442 4 0.062091 6 0.0030611 4 3.838 4 4
of Justus
Least square 1.782 8.6511 0.99391 5 0.058495 3 0.0034804 5 4.171 5 5
method
Empirical method 2.071 10.4561 0.97805 6 0.052331 1 0.0130524 8 7.425 7 6
of Lysen
Graphical method 1.905 8.2113 0.97693 7 0.067685 8 0.0117083 6 7.224 6 7
Alternative 1.905 8.2113 0.97693 8 0.123291 9 0.0117083 7 7.596 8 8
maximum
likelihood method
Power density 2.195 9.2599 0.96139 9 0.066619 7 0.0191781 9 9.143 9 9
method

The suitability of the methods was assessed by several statisti-
cal analyses (RMSE, Chi-Square, R2 and MAPE). The results
attained in this study are presented in the following
subsections
7.1. Weibull parameter distribution and estimation
Table 2 shows the calculated shape (k) and scale (c) parameters
at three different heights 80 m, 100 m and 120 m respectively.
The Weibull distribution is shown in Figs. 6–8, described by
its probability density function versus wind speed for the data
based on the parameter calculated by nine numerical methods.
Moreover, from Figs. 6–8 it is easy to identify which method
yields best fit to the measured data of wind velocity. Next
Tables 3–5 show the results of statistical analysis. From
Table 2, regarding parameter k it is observed that at 80 m its
values range from1.703 to 2.683, similarly at 100 m, k ranges
from 1.654 to 2.329 and at 120 m its values range from 1.905
to 2.195. Overall, at all three heights k ranges from 1.6 to
2.7, showing a less constancy of wind for a particular location
2308 P.K. Chaurasiya et al.

Fig. 9 Variation of average wind speed with respect to height.

Fig. 10 Variation of maximum wind speed with respect to height.

and overall value of c (m/s) ranges from 8.166 m/s to 10.456 m/
s respectively.
It is noticed from Table 2 that at 80 m and 100 m the Wei-
bull parameter calculated by modified maximum likelihood
method and maximum likelihood method are much closer to
the parameter computed by measured method. While at
120 m maximum likelihood method shows the much closer
value to the measured value.
It is identified from Tables 3–5 that each statistical indica-
tor offers different values to evaluate the methods. Therefore
the overall ranking is computed to evaluate the best method
on the basis of performance in all four statistical indicators.
From Tables 3–5 it was identified that the value computed
from modified maximum likelihood method and maximum
likelihood method shows lesser difference from measured value
while alternative maximum likelihood method shows higher
difference.
Figs. 9and 10 show the comparison of average wind speed
and maximum wind speed derived from all nine methods for
the whole measurement period.
7.2. Wind power density estimation
This section shows the wind power values calculated by nine
methods of Weibull distribution and those obtained using
measured wind speed data. The descriptive statistics of mea-
sured wind power density derived from wind speed is shown
in Table 6.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the comparison of average wind
power density and maximum wind power density derived from
Weibull distribution to determine wind power density using ground based Doppler SODAR 2309

Table 6 Descriptive statistics of measured wind power density (W/m2).

Measured method SODAR
80 m 100 m 120 m
Wind power density (W/m2) Wind power density (W/m2) Wind power density (W/m2)
Mean wind power density (W/m2) 512 587 593
Maximum wind power density (W/m2) 2292 3073 3463
Minimum wind power density (W/m2) 1.032 2.229 0.046

different models. The wind power density has been evaluated
using Weibull parameter (Eq. (2)) for all the models. The
graphical method, least square method and alternative maxi-
mum likelihood method shows a higher deviation, this is due
to higher discrepancy in shape and scale factor.
Table 7 above shows statistical comparison results of the
distribution of the wind power density computed by nine
methods and those computed by measured wind speed data.
It is identified from statistical analysis that the computed wind
power density by maximum likelihood method of Weibull dis-
tribution is closer to the measured wind power data. One more
important aspects identified from Table 7 is that the slight dif-
ference in scale factor (c) values highly influences the magni-
tude of wind power density, that is the reason why power

Fig. 11 Variation of average wind power density with respect to height.

Fig. 12 Variation of maximum wind power density with respect to height.

2310 P.K. Chaurasiya et al.

Table 7 Statistical Analysis of wind power density (W/m2) calculated by nine selected methods.
Methods 80 m 100 m 120 m
RPE (%) X2 RPE (%) X2 RPE (%) X2
Maximum likelihood method 1.963 3.1536 6.947 2.8329 4.034 2.8275
Modified maximum likelihood method 2.037 3.7472 7.124 2.9795 5.658 2.6289
Moment method 7.016 4.6157 8.631 2.5814 5.749 3.9603
Empirical method of Justus 9.477 5.5987 8.171 2.2356 5.844 3.5695
Least square method 5.797 4.7209 27.360 43.9436 9.957 4.2273
Empirical method of Lysen 9.623 4.7412 8.411 3.8109 5.916 4.3822
Graphical method 6.514 5.1730 20.061 23.6234 19.766 23.1704
Alternative maximum likelihood method 8.937 4.0901 30.453 54.4392 19.766 23.1704
Power density method 3.823 3.7786 7.189 3.0830 5.291 3.0050

density method appeared much closer to the measured wind
power density as compared to other method except maximum
likelihood and modified maximum likelihood method. There-
fore, better distribution fitting is expected to obtain when the
MLM, MMLM and PDM are utilized to calculate the Weibull
parameters. Moreover by using AMLM and GM highest dis-
tributional difference are obtained among the wind power den-
sity calculated by measured data and Weibull function. The
computation of the performance of different parameter estima-
tion method was not possible without statistical indicator.
Therefore, the combination of two statistical indicators pro-
vides an option to compare the calculated wind power by mea-
sured data and those of Weibull distribution function. The
statistical indicators introduced in Table 7 offer a meaningful
statistical insight regarding the distribution of wind power den-
sity. The relative percentage error (RPE) and Chi-Square (X2)
indicators are used to compare the measured wind power and
those obtained by Weibull function. It is clear that, best accu-
racy is obtained when MLM and MMLM are used to compute
the Weibull parameters and lowest agreements are obtained
when the GP and AMLM methods are applied for k and c
parameters calculations at all three heights. The results
obtained from RPE analysis can be considered as further jus-
tification to reveal the most appropriate method to compute
wind power density among the selected nine methods in the
selected site and at three different heights. It is significant to
note that, with a slight difference in scale factor higher accu-
racy is achieved by PDM. It is important to indicate that every
region has specific characteristics of wind power, the obtained
result can be applicable to the regions with similar wind distri-
bution. Thus, the attained results can only be extended to the
regions with similar wind power characteristics. Moreover,
based on statistical analysis it is observed that, the lowest
agreements are achieved when the EMJ, AMLM and GM
methods are used to compute k and c parameters at 80 m,
100 m, and 120 m respectively. At each height in Table 7, the
more appropriate method is highlighted in bold.
and it was observed that SODAR measurement provides a
good agreement with the meteorological mast measurement
(can be seen in Section 3) at all heights and may be used as an
alternative to meteorological mast measurement at higher
height.
The properties like simplicity, adaptability and precision
has encouraged the utilization of two parameter Weibull distri-
bution function in various wind energy studies. In this paper,
the performance of nine numerical methods including GM,
MOM, EMJ, EML, LSM, MLM, MMLM, PDM and AMLM
was assessed to estimate shape (k) and scale factor (c) of Wei-
bull distribution function for computing wind power density at
all three heights in the southern part of India. To attain this
objective, the wind power density calculated from Weibull
function was compared with wind power density derived using
measured data. The analysis shows that the values of k and c
effects the wind power density value, slight variation in k and c
values has greater effects in wind power density values. There-
fore accurate method is derived for estimating the k and c
parameters for calculating wind power density and to
efficiently utilize the wind resource of a location. Thus, the
statistical analysis shows that MLM and MMLM show a
desirable performance while GM and AMLM show a weak
performance. Another finding revealed that the scale factor
(c) is highly sensitive, therefore PDM emerged as third efficient
method in computing wind power density, whereas it was seen
as the least efficient method in estimating Weibull parameters.
It was also seen that the least appropriate parameters estima-
tion method was not the same among all heights.
The MLM was determined as a more efficient Weibull
parameter assessment method for calculating the wind power
density. The recommended parameters estimation method
can be used with high efficient performance to determine dif-
ferent statistical parameter of power density and to represent
wind power density. Nevertheless, it should be noted that
SODAR measurement can be beneficial for wind resource
assessment at different location with similar wind energy
statistics.

8. Conclusions
References
The wind power density plays a significant role in assessing the [1] C.G. Justus, W.R. Hargraves, A. Mikhail, D. Graber, Methods
wind energy potential and also provides better insight in deter- for estimating wind speed frequency distributions, J. Appl.
mining the appropriateness of the location for the development Meteorol. (1977) 350–353.
of wind power. [2] Global wind energy council reports, 2015, http://www.gwec.
The ground based remote sensing technique using Doppler net/global-figures/wind-energy-global-status/ (Accessed on 03-
principle i.e. SODAR was employed to record the wind data 12-2016).
Weibull distribution to determine wind power density using ground based Doppler SODAR
[3] F.G. Akgul, B. Senoglu, T. Arslan, An alternative distribution
to Weibull for modeling the wind speed data: Inverse Weibull
distribution, Energy Convers. Manage. 234–40 (2016).
[4] N. Masseran, Evaluating wind power density models and their
statistical properties, Energy (2015) 533–541.
[5] S.A. Akdag, A. Dinler, A new method to estimate Weibull
parameters for wind energy applications, Energy Convers.
Manage. (2009) 1761–1766.
[6] S.A. Akdag, H.S. Bagiorgas, G. Mihalakakou, Use of two-
component Weibull mixtures in the analysis of wind speed in the
Eastern Mediterranean, Appl. Energy (2010) 2566–2573.
[7] F.A. Jowder, Wind power analysis and site matching of wind
turbine generators in Kingdom of Bahrain, Appl. Energy (2009)
538–545.
[8] K. Mohammadi, A. Mostafaeipour, Using different methods for
comprehensive study of wind turbine utilization in Zarrineh,
Iran, Energy Conversion and Management (2013) 463–470.
[9] K. Mohammadi, O. Alavi, A. Mostafaeipour, N. Goudarzi, M.
Jalilvand, Assessing different parameters estimation methods of
Weibull distribution to compute wind power density, Energy
Conversion and Management (2016) 322–335.
[10] F. George, A comparison of shape and scale estimators of the
two-parameter Weibull distribution, J. Modern Appl. Statistical
Methods (2014) 23–35.
[11] S.A. Ahmed, Comparative study of four methods for estimating
Weibull parameters for Halabja, Iraq, Int. J. Phys. Sci. (2013)
186–192.
[12] T. Arslan, Y.M. Bulut, A.A. Yavuz, Comparative study of
numerical methods for determining Weibull parameters for wind
energy potential, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. (2014) 820–825.
[13] S.H. Pishgar-Komleh, A. Keyhani, P. Sefeedpari, Wind speed
and power density analysis based on Weibull and Rayleigh
distributions (a case study: Firouzkooh county of Iran), Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. (2015) 313–322.
[14] P.A.C. Rocha, R.C. Sousa, C.F. Andrade, M.E.V. Silva,
Comparison of seven numerical methods for determining
2311
Weibull parameters for wind energy generation in the
northeast region of Brazil, Appl. Energy (2012) 395–400.
[15] H. Saleh, A. Abou El-Azm Aly, S. Abdel-Hady, Assessment of
different methods used to estimate Weibull distribution
parameters for wind speed in Zafarana wind farm, Suez Gulf,
Egypt, Energy (2012) 710–719.
[16] Khahro Farhan Khahro, K. Tabbassum, A.M. Soomro, L.
Dong, X. Liao, Evaluation of wind power production
prospective and Weibull parameter estimation methods for
Babaurband, Sindh Pakistan, Energy Convers. Manage. (2014)
956–967.
[17] Jianzhou Wang, Hu Jianming, Kailiang Ma, Wind speed
probability distribution estimation and wind energy
assessment, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. (2016) 881–899.
[18] Chang Tian Pau, Performance comparison of six numerical
methods in estimating Weibull parameters for wind energy
application, Appl. Energy (2011) 272–282.
[19] S Bagiorgas Haralambos, Mihalakakou Giouli, Shafiqur
Rehman, Luai M. Al-Hadhrami, Weibull parameters
estimation using four different methods and most energy
carrying wind speed analysis, Int. J. Green Energy (2011) 529–
554.
[20] C.F. Andrade, H.F.M. Neto, P.A.C. Rocha, M.E.V. Silva, An
efficiency comparison ofnumerical methods for determining
Weibull parameters for wind energyapplications: a new
approach applied to the northeast region of Brazil, Energy
Convers. Manage. (2014) 801–808.
[21] Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturing Association, http://www.
indianwindpower.com (Accessed 25.11.2016).
[22] Ahmed Siraj, Wind Energy: Theory and Practice Third Edition
PHI Eastern Economy Edition New Delhi, 2015, ISBN: 978-81-
203-5163-9.
[23] Vilas Warudkar, Siraj Ahmed Prem Kumar Chaurasiya,
Application of remote sensing in wind resource assessment: a
comparative analysis, World Wind Energy Conference, Tokyo,
2016.