DNV RP 0661

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
DNV-RP-0661 Edition September 2023
Lidar measured turbulence intensity for

wind turbines
The PDF electronic version of this document available at the DNV website dnv.com is the official version. If there
are any inconsistencies between the PDF version and any other available version, the PDF version shall prevail.
DNV AS
FOREWORD
DNV recommended practices contain sound engineering practice and guidance.
© DNV AS September 2023
Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com
This service document has been prepared based on available knowledge, technology and/or information at the time of issuance of this
document. The use of this document by other parties than DNV is at the user's sole risk. DNV does not accept any liability or responsibility
for loss or damages resulting from any use of this document.
CHANGES – CURRENT
Changes - current
This is a new document.
Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 3

Lidar measured turbulence intensity for wind turbines
DNV AS
Acknowledgements
Changes - current
This recommended practice has been developed based on the results of a joint industry project (JIP). The
following companies, listed in alphabetical order, are acknowledged for their contributions to the JIP:
— EDF
— EnBW
— Equinor
— Goldwind
— IFPEN
— RWE
— Shell
— Southern
— Company
— Vaisala
— Vattenfall
— ZX Lidars

DNV AS
CONTENTS
Contents
Changes – current.................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements................................................................................. 4
Section 1 General.................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Introduction......................................................................................7
1.2 Objective...........................................................................................7
1.3 Scope................................................................................................ 7
1.4 Application........................................................................................ 7
1.5 References........................................................................................ 8
1.6 Definitions and abbreviations........................................................... 8
Section 2 Measurement of turbulence intensity using a lidar................................10

2.1 General........................................................................................... 10
Section 3 Use cases.............................................................................................. 11

3.1 General........................................................................................... 11
3.2 Loads.............................................................................................. 11
3.3 Energy assessment......................................................................... 11
Section 4 Error metrics......................................................................................... 12

4.1 General........................................................................................... 12
Section 5 Acceptance criteria................................................................................ 13

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................... 13
5.2 Use cases 'site suitability' and 'load validation type testing'........... 13
5.3 Use case 'energy assessment modelling'........................................ 15
Section 6 Turbulence intensity adjustment methods............................................ 18

6.1 General........................................................................................... 18
6.2 Recommendations for the training and tuning of turbulence
intensity adjustment methods.............................................................. 19
6.3 Recommendations for performance improvements......................... 20
6.4 Examples of TI AM..........................................................................20
Section 7 Approval of GBL turbulence intensity measurements............................ 23

7.1 Introduction.................................................................................... 23
7.2 Turbulence intensity approval by comparison to co-located cup
measurements...................................................................................... 23
7.3 Relocation of lidar.......................................................................... 24

DNV AS
Contents
Section 8 Bibliography.......................................................................................... 25
8.1 Bibliography.................................................................................... 25
Changes – historic................................................................................................ 26

DNV AS
SECTION 1 GENERAL
1.1 Introduction
Measurements using remote sensing devices have become increasingly important for the wind industry.
Lidars (light detection and ranging) are now commonly used in many wind energy applications as
they provide a cost-efficient way of measuring horizontal wind speeds and directions in comparison to
conventional anemometers and wind vanes on met masts. The first order quantities (wind speed and wind
direction) from lidars correlate very well with met mast data and are already being deployed for turbine
testing, site assessment, and energy assessment modelling, etc. The second order quantity turbulence
intensity (TI) from lidars is not yet widely accepted, even when a met mast is available for verification.
This recommended practice (RP) provides recommendations for the use of TI measured by ground-based
vertical profiling lidars (GBL) in wind energy applications. The RP’s main purpose to define acceptance
criteria (AC) that provide clear limits when GBL TI is used as an alternative to a co-located cup or sonic
anemometer TI. The AC employ error metrics to represent the deviation between lidar and met mast (cup or
sonic anemometry) TI in a meaningful way.
Applicable standards are currently based on the use of TI measurements from cup or sonic anemometry. This
impedes the application of lidar measured TI. This RP provides a method for accepting TI measurements from
GBL when validated against a co-located met mast.
This recommended practice supplements DNV-ST-0437.
1.2 Objective
The objectives of this RP are to:
— provide a method for using GBL TI measurements in combination with co-located met mast data
— serve as a supporting document when considering the use of GBL TI measurements for the application
of wind resource and wind turbine (WT) certification in combination with other applicable standards,
recommended practices, and guidelines.
1.3 Scope
This RP provides recommended acceptance criteria (AC) for GBL TI measurements for:
— loads - site suitability and load validation type testing
— energy assessment modelling.
The scope is limited to measurement data from:
— onshore sites with a 'flat' terrain as defined by IEC 61400-1 or IEC 61400-12-1 as it applies to the use
case
— offshore sites as defined by IEC 61400-3-1 or DNV-ST-0437.
This RP does not address the use of other kinds of lidars, such as floating, nacelle-mounted, or scanning
lidars.
1.4 Application
The RP is applicable for the use of GBL TI in:
— determining the site suitability and validating loads for type testing the WT design and certifyingf WTs
— preconstruction energy assessment wind farm modelling and reporting.
The methods proposed are technology agnostic and intended to be applicable for all GBL models and types.

DNV AS
1.5 References
Table 1-1 lists DNV references used in this document.
Table 1-1 DNV references
Document code Title
DNV-ST-0437 Loads and site conditions for wind turbines
Table 1-2 lists other references used in this document.
Table 1-2 Other references
Document code Title
IEC 61400-1 Wind energy generation systems - Part 1: Design Requirements
IEC 61400-3-1 Wind energy generation systems - Part 3-1: Design requirements for fixed offshore wind
turbines
IEC 61400-12-1 Wind energy generation systems - Part 12-1: Power performance measurements of electricity
producing wind turbines
IEC 61400-13 Wind turbines - Part 13: Measurement of mechanical loads
1.6 Definitions and abbreviations
1.6.1 Definition of verbal forms

The verbal forms defined in Table 1-3 are used in this document.
Table 1-3 Definition of verbal forms
Term Definition
shall verbal form used to indicate requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to the
document
should verbal form used to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended as
particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding others
may verbal form used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of the document
1.6.2 Definition of terms

The terms defined in Table 1-4 are used in this document.
Table 1-4 Definition of terms
Term Definition
acceptance criteria acceptable range of GBL TI measurement error, as defined by key performance indicators
(KPI), for a chosen use case

DNV AS
Term Definition
error metrics KPIs that are an expression of the error between the underlying GBL and cup anemometer TI
measurements
ground based light vertically facing lidar system that probes the lower boundary layer to measure wind speed
detection and ranging and direction
GBLs used in the wind industry commonly employ the Doppler principle to measure the
change in frequency between light emission and backscatter from aerosols at select heights
above ground. These changes in frequency are then used to derive wind speed statistics.
turbulence intensity software that modifies the GBL TI measurements to resemble cup TI measurements
adjustment method
1.6.3 Symbols
n = index for measurement point in wind bin
N = total number of measurement points in wind bin
i = index for wind bin.
1.6.4 Abbreviations
The abbreviations described in Table 1-5 are used in this document.
Table 1-5 Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
AC acceptance criteria
DEL damage equivalent fatigue loads
GBL ground-based vertical profiling lidar
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
KPI key performance indicators
LIDAR light detection and ranging
LOS line-of-sight
ML machine learning
MRBE mean relative bias error
RP recommended practice
RRMSE relative root mean square error
TI turbulence intensity
TI AM turbulence intensity adjustment method
WT wind turbines

DNV AS
SECTION 2 MEASUREMENT OF TURBULENCE INTENSITY USING A
LIDAR
2.1 General
This section provides background information on the measurement of TI using a lidar.
TI data measured by lidars cannot directly replace TI measurements obtained by using cup or sonic
anemometers (hereafter referred to as 'cup'), as their characteristics are fundamentally different. Methods
for wake and turbine load modelling found in current standards, e.g. IEC 61400-1, have been developed from
cup TI data and therefore it is implicitly given that lidar data cannot be used directly.
Lidars and cup anemometers measure TI fundamentally differently for a number of reasons. A cup
anemometer wind speed is a scalar point measurement, and it can be generally expected that the
average wind flow across the cups will be somewhat less variable than the volume of air measured by a
lidar /1/, /2/, /3/, /4/.
Furthermore, TI differences between point (cup anemometer) and volume (lidar) TI measurements are
dependent on atmospheric stability /3/, /4/, /5/. This is generally because under stable conditions turbulent
length scales are small and under unstable conditions the turbulent length scales are larger thus resulting in
lidars generally measuring lower TI in stable conditions and higher TI in unstable conditions relative to a cup
anemometer.
All lidars are susceptible to instrument noise. For some lidars this can lead to the variance being
overestimated by the lidar in unstable conditions (larger scale turbulence) /2/, /3/. This is inherent in all lidar
data, and filtering techniques to remove data spikes from the spectral data are included in many complex
correction methods /1/, /2/, /3/, /9/.
The probe volume or radial beam area may also be ineffectual in capturing small turbulent motion in the
atmosphere. This is because the turbulent structure is too small to be captured across the probe length and
as a result the turbulence intensity measurement is impacted by a low pass filter effect /1/, /2/, /3/, /4/.
In summary, GBL TI is typically significantly different from cup anemometer TI due to volume averaging and
the response to atmospheric stability. To date, there is no industry-wide consensus on how to incorporate
GBL TI in current models or how to adjust the lidar measurement to a cup equivalent TI. This is partly due
to the fact that each lidar model and type observe turbulence differently and therefore a universal correction
method for lidars is not possible.
In addition to the aforementioned factors driving differences between lidar and cup anemometer TI (i.e.
volume, noise, and stability), there is a further unique difference to be considered.
Line-of-sight (LOS) lidar technology is impacted by variance or cross contamination /1/, /2/, /3/, /4/, /6/. As
the LOS measurement assumes a homogenous flow across the circumference of the beam, TI measurement
errors arise when this is not true.

DNV AS
SECTION 3 USE CASES
3.1 General
Lidars are applied in a wide range of wind-energy applications. This RP focuses on the measurement of TI by
GBL to be applied in the use cases described in [3.2] and [3.3].
3.2 Loads
The umbrella term 'loads' covers the following two use cases that are applicable to this RP:
— site suitability: the calculation of site-specific loads using an aero-elastic code and site-specific wind
conditions, showing that site specific loads are within the design loads
— load validation: as part of type the testing for type certification, load measurements are carried out
according to IEC 61400-13. The load measurements are compared with aero-elastic loads in order to
validate the software, model, and method assumptions.
3.3 Energy assessment

This use case covers the assessment of the energy produced by wind farm projects based on measurements
recorded before the construction of the wind farm. In the preconstruction energy production assessment
phase. TI is primarily used in WT wake modelling and to describe the project site conditions.
In contrast to the other use cases, there is not yet a definitive international standard for a preconstruction
energy production assessment. Therefore, this RP shall support a pragmatic judgement for preconstruction
energy production assessment.
Given that energy assessments are typically used as part of the project's financing process, what is
considered ‘acceptable’ may be project-specific, as different parties will have distinct approaches to the
consideration of energy production risks and varying levels of risk tolerance.

DNV AS
SECTION 4 ERROR METRICS
4.1 General
As the basis for all analysis of TI determined by lidars in comparison to TI determined by cup anemometers,
the definition of appropriate error metrics is required.
In the following, the terms 'error' and 'error metrics' are applied because they are customary in this context.
They are used with the intention to describe the deviation between a lidar and a cup anemometer measured
quantity. Both lidars and cup anemometers deliver correct data according to their physical measurement
principles.
For the use cases analysed in this document, the TI error metrics determined as appropriate are the 'mean
relative bias error' (MRBE) and 'relative root mean square error' (RRMSE). The MRBE defines the relative
error or TI bias between the lidar and cup TI while RRMSE compares the scatter of the two quantities. The
error metrics are described further by Equation (4.1) and Equation (4.2), where the wind bin is denoted by ‘i’
and ‘n’ refers to each point within that bin.
(4.1)
(4.2)

DNV AS
SECTION 5 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
5.1 Introduction
As described in Sec.2, physical measurements by a lidar are substantially different to those by a
cup anemometer. Thus, it is to be expected that differences in wind statistics between lidar and cup
measurements will exist. This is especially the case for second order quantities like TI. As industry models
and assumptions include TI from cup anemometers, the accepted tolerance of TI measurement deviations
between the lidar measured TI and the cup measured TI needs to be understood.
The error metrics defined in Sec.4 shall be applied to determine this TI error. The error metrics are used
as key performance indicators (KPI). The smaller the (absolute) value of the KPI, the more alike the
measurement result of a lidar and a cup anemometer is assumed to be. This section defines the AC for which
GBL TI measurements can be used, whether they be direct or adjusted.
According to Sec.3, this RP provides AC for a limited scope of use cases:
— loads
— site suitability
— load validation
— energy assessment modelling.
The TI AC for GBLs will be different for these three use cases as each application has a different sensitivity to
TI. Consequently, the AC for each use case are defined independently.
The AC consist of thresholds for one or more error metrics addressing, for example, the accuracy or precision
of the respective TI measurement.
5.2 Use cases 'site suitability' and 'load validation type testing'
5.2.1 General
Due to the similarities in the approaches to analysing WT loads for site suitability and load validation type
testing, this section covers both of these use cases.
5.2.2 Impact of turbulence intensity on turbine loads

TI mainly affects the fatigue loads of a WT. The observed effect is close to linear, meaning a 10% increase
in the TI would lead to an approximate 10% increase in the fatigue loads. This is observed for structures
with both low and high Wőhler coefficients. This is true if the controller is linear in the operating range,
which is the case for traditional controllers. More and more intelligent controller algorithms are being
introduced to WTs. These controller features may respond to different levels of TI or proxies of TI, which
would disqualify the linear relationship between TI and damage equivalent fatigue loads (DEL). However,
since these algorithms would dampen the effect of TI on loads, the use of the assumption that DELs are
linear to TI is conservative in the work to establish AC for TI error.
TI also affects extreme loads, such as minimum and maximum loads during operation. This is not an issue
for site suitability, where the extreme loads are driven by extreme events rather than normal turbulence.
For load validation, it will affect the comparison of minimum, maximum, and standard statistics. However,
if IEC61400-13 is applied, there is not as great a focus on the extreme loads-related statistics during type
testing and the acceptance level is more generous than for fatigue. Hence, it is sufficient in the present
context to look at the effect of TI on fatigue loads.

DNV AS
5.2.3 Analysis
The definition of the acceptance criteria in this section is based on an analysis which was performed to
determine the relationship between the error metrics and wind turbine fatigue loads. A load data base was
established consisting of a large number of load simulations. A 10 MW wind turbine model was used for the
simulations, applying a range of wind speeds and TIs as input parameters. DELs were processed for selected
Wöhler slopes and load sensors from the blade root, machinery, and tower. The loads were put into the data
base where they could be accessed for chosen input parameters for wind speed and TI. Based on relevant
standards and certification experience, acceptable margins for certified loads were formulated.
In a further step, measurement data sets consisting of GBL TI and co-located cup data were analysed. TI
error metrics were calculated for each valid 10 min time series of the data set. Linking the simulated load
data base with the measurement data base via wind speed and TI, conclusions regarding acceptable margins
on the error metrics were defined. Based on these results, the AC for GBL TI error were defined and are
provided in [5.2.4].
5.2.4 Definition of acceptance criteria

The acceptable TI metrics errors for the use cases 'site suitability' and 'load validation' are defined as follows:
— Site suitability:
— -3% ≤ TI MRBE ≤ 10% (for wind speeds above 7 m/s)
— -6% ≤ TI MRBE ≤ 10% (for wind speeds below 7 m/s)
— TI RRMSE ≤ 15% (for wind speeds above 7 m/s)
— TI RRMSE ≤ 30% (for wind speeds below 7 m/s).
— Load validation:
— TI MRBE ≤ ±5%
— TI RRMSE ≤ 15%.
For the approval of lidar TI data, all the acceptance criteria for the use case under consideration shall be
complied with. For the approval of GBL TI measurements, further requirements are given in Sec.7.
The AC for the MRBE and RRMSE for low wind speeds are defined in an asymmetric manner for the use case
'site suitability'. Due to the fact that loads are lower and the contributions to lifetime fatigue are low at low
wind speeds, the AC were relaxed below 7 m/s. The asymmetry in the lower and upper limits of MRBE is
caused by the fact that, for MRBE lower than zero, the loads calculated from lidar measurements would be
underpredicted compared with those calculated from cup measurements. Consequently, the absolute values
set for the lower limit were chosen to be smaller than for the upper limit.
Figure 5-1 shows the AC bands for TI MRBE and TI RRMSE for both 'site suitability' and 'load validation type
testing' use cases as a function of wind speed.

DNV AS
Figure 5-1 AC for 'site suitability' and 'load validation type testing' use cases (left: turbulence
intensity MRBE and right: turbulence intensity RRMSE)
5.3 Use case 'energy assessment modelling'
5.3.1 Impact of turbulence intensity on energy assessment modelling

There are two typical ways in which TI impacts energy production assessment model results. The first,
ambient TI, is an input into wake models. For example, the Eddy Viscosity model is widely used in the
industry and is a linearized Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) model [8]. In this model, the recovery
of the wake is influenced by the ambient turbulence as this affects the momentum transfer from the free flow
into the wake.
The second way TI impacts modelled energy production is in the consideration of performance losses due
to the wind characteristics at a wind farm site. Energy production assessments are based on power curves
which are applicable for certain environmental conditions. At any given site, there will be times when the
site's environmental conditions are not within the operating envelope of the turbine model, causing the
observed turbine performance to deviate from the claimed performance. Approaches such as a power
deviation matrix /8/ aim to estimate the resulting impact on energy production by comparing site conditions
to the operating envelope of the turbine model. TI is often used as a proxy for environmental conditions
when following this approach. The impact of TI on this aspect of energy assessments is significantly smaller
than the influence due to changes in the wake modelling, and therefore only the impact on wake modelling
has been considered.
5.3.2 Analysis
The definition of the acceptance criteria in this section is based on an analysis which was performed to
discover the sensitivity of energy assessment modelling to TI. The focus was on the impact of TI on wake

DNV AS
modelling. The intention of this analysis was to determine the influence of a potential TI error on energy
assessment modelling due to the use of a GBL instead of a cup anemometer as sensor a type.
The analysis included datasets from 34 projects in 19 countries, onshore and offshore, featuring wind farm
sizes from four (4) to 426 turbines and ambient TI at 15 m/s ranging from 4.9% to 15.9%. The energy
production was modelled using the project’s wind speed binned TI and then, for each wind speed bin, the TI
was adjusted by ±2%, ±5% and ±10%. A distribution of the change in energy production from the five TI
scenarios and 34 projects was assembled. The distribution of error was then grouped and the change in the
energy production was evaluated.
The results regarding the error metric TI MRBE were as follows:
— for a TI MRBE of ±2%, the modelled energy production changed by less than ±0.10% for approximately
95% of projects
95% of projects
95% of projects.
Based on the results of this analysis, the AC for GBL TI error were defined and are provided in [5.3.3].
There are no standards that establish GBL TI error thresholds for energy assessment reports. The decision
on what is acceptable in terms of energy production risks and varying levels of risk tolerance is left to the
judgement of the expert performing the energy assessment. Therefore these results provide guidance
regarding an acceptable TI difference between a cup and GBL in an energy assessment.
5.3.3 Definition of acceptance criteria

Considering the results of the sensitivity analysis in [5.3.2], the acceptable TI metrics error for the use case
'energy assessment modelling' is defined as follows:
— Energy assessment modelling:
— TI MRBE ≤ ±10%.
It is suggested that a TI MRBE ≤ ±10% is still at a level where the impact on modelled energy production is
reasonable compared to other typical uncertainties in energy production assessments. These AC have been
chosen with the view of mitigating the risk of large changes to energy production assessment predictions,
whilst balancing the need for sound AC with a reasonably attainable target for energy production assessment
uncertainties for GBL.
It is noted that a greater GBL TI error may be acceptable to certain stakeholders, and others may require
more stringent criteria.
Figure 5-2 displays the AC bands for TI MRBE for the use case 'energy assessment' as a function of wind
speed.

DNV AS
Figure 5-2 AC for the 'energy assessment modelling' use case

DNV AS
SECTION 6 TURBULENCE INTENSITY ADJUSTMENT METHODS
6.1 General
6.1.1 Introduction
A comparison of the TI measured by lidar and by a met mast (cup or sonic) shows a difference. This
difference is mostly driven by the higher variability in the volume of air measured by the lidar, atmospheric
stability, instrument noise, and low pass filter effects.
If the difference is small and the error metrics determined for a GBL TI dataset prove to be smaller than the
AC for the specific use case according to Sec.5, the lidar data may replace the met mast data. If any of the
AC are exceeded, direct application is not possible.
The goal of a TI adjustment method is to reduce the error and scatter between GBL and cup TIs
measurements and obtain GBL TIs that resemble cup TI to the best possible extent. If the resulting adjusted
TI meets the respective use case AC defined in Sec.5, then the adjusted lidar measured TI data may be used
for the respective use case.
The adjustment algorithm will be referred to as the TI adjustment method (TI AM) in this section and Sec.7.
6.1.2 Specifications
There are numerous kinds of TI AMs. Some are purely analytical approaches that process the lidar output
data according to experience derived from field tests or empiric studies. Others apply advanced filtering
methods, adjust the wind field reconstruction thereby improving the temporal coherence between the lidar
beams, or use machine learning techniques. A combination of these methods may also be employed. Figure
6-1 is a flowchart example of how GBL TI data can be adjusted using machine learning (ML) techniques. In
the training phase, lidar and met mast data are read from a data base and used to set up the ML model.
In the application phase, the model processes lidar data from a specific site and provides adjusted data as
output.
Figure 6-1 Example flowchart for the training and application of an ML model
In many cases, the TI AMs are tailored to a specific lidar model and type. Suppliers of TI AMs mainly include
lidar OEMs and independent companies and consultants. These GBL TI AMs require statistical 10 min lidar
data and/or 1Hz lidar data that may include spectral raw data.
Usually, a strong relationship exists between a lidar type and the TI AM.

DNV AS
It shall be taken into consideration that the lidar data are sensitive to data length, variance, randomness,
etc. Additionally,
data synchronization and cardinal point alignment (wind vane vs. GBL) are also of importance. These aspects
shall be throughly considered in the context of the performance expected for the TI adjustment of a dataset.
6.1.3 Note on atmospheric stability

Ideally the atmospheric stability will be described by physical expressions like the Monin-Obukhov length or
Richardson Number. These are often used in academic models; however, the inputs required are often not
measured in commercial projects and stability surrogates such as wind shear exponents have been employed
with limited success.
The success of the TI AM will depend on defining the atmospheric stability well. It is recommended that,
where possible, the TI AM (even a simple linear TI AM) is investigated using various stability factors available
(TI, shear, temperature gradient, etc.) to compare how these metrics impact the overall success of the TI AM.
It is noted that ways to measure atmospheric stability are outside the scope of this RP.
6.2 Recommendations for the training and tuning of turbulence

intensity adjustment methods
When a TI AM is applied, the model (physical or data driven) is trained and tuned using available data sets.
The quality of the results provided by the TI AM fundamentally depends on the quality of the data used for
training and tuning. The result can only be meaningful if these data are representative of the character of the
TI AM's target sites.
There are a number of conditions that shall be considered when choosing the training dataset. Some of the
key conditions include:
— location of the site (onshore, offshore)
— site complexity
— environmental conditions (shear, veer, temperature gradient, etc.)
— hub height.
When training and tuning a TI AM, the strategy according to Figure 6-2 is recommended.
Measured test data from GBL and a co-located met mast can be used to understand the accuracy and to
improve the results of the TI AM as follows:
1) The test data is also used as a training dataset. The result of the adjustment should lead to error metrics
close to zero. This is the simplest of tests to make sure the TI AM is performing as intended.
2) The test data at the same location, but from a different time period, are used to analyse the sensitivity
to different environmental conditions.
3) The test data are from a different site with similar environmental conditions.
The process is terminated when the performance of the AM is deemed sufficient based on the compliance of
the error metrics with the AC.

DNV AS
Figure 6-2 Strategy for training and tuning a TI AM
6.3 Recommendations for performance improvements

To improve the performance of a TI AM, the following approaches may be adopted:
— The TI AM may be tailored to a specific wind speed range.
— Several TI AM may be applied to a dataset. These can be based on environmental parameters such as
shear, temperature gradient, or wind veer. Parameters defining the atmospheric stability of the site can
also be used to define TI AMs /2/, /4/, /5/. For this method, the TI measurement data are binned into the
environmental or stability conditions and the respective TI AMs are applied.
— Unadjusted or raw GBL TI data may, under certain environmental conditions or locations, provide
better results than adjusted GBL TI data. This should be investigated before using the adjusted GBL TI
dataset(s).
6.4 Examples of TI AM
This subsection provides examples of GBL TI measurements from different sites. Error metrics have been
calculated for the lidar data before and after an exemplary TI AM was applied. Figure 6-3 shows the results
of a TI MRBE between a lidar and reference cup anemometer both with and without a TI AM. The AC band
for the use case 'site suitability' is marked in red. Before the TI adjustment, the TI MRBE data exceed the
AC for wind speed bins below 8 m/s and at 24 m/s. After the TI adjustment, the error metrics are within the

DNV AS
AC band. For TI RRMSE in Figure 6-4, the exceedance appears even for medium wind speeds below 12 m/s.
After the adjustment, compliance with the AC is observed.
Figure 6-3 Turbulence intensity MRBE AC band for the use case 'site suitability', lidar data site A
before and after adjustment
There may be cases for one or more wind speed bins if the error between the adjusted GBL TI and cup TI is
larger than the error between the non-adjusted GBL TI and cup TI. Therefore, the TI AM does not necessarily
always improve the agreement between the two measurement techniques, especially in cases where the
error between the non-adjusted GBL TI and cup TI is comparatively low. As a consequence, TI AMs should
not be applied in these cases.

DNV AS
Figure 6-4 Turbulence intensity RRMSE AC band for the use case 'site suitability', lidar data site A
before and after adjustment

DNV AS
SECTION 7 APPROVAL OF GBL TURBULENCE INTENSITY
MEASUREMENTS
7.1 Introduction
Industry accepted wind energy standards usually require TI measurement data from cup or sonic
anemometers. Alternatively, if another wind speed sensing technique like a GBL is used, the TI shall have
equivalent characteristics to those measured by a cup anemometer, see IEC 61400-13, clause 7.2.1.
The method described in this RP provides a tool to assess if a lidar type is able to measure TI sufficiently
similar to a cup anemometer to meet defined acceptance criteria and give some guidance on how TI AMs can
be applied so that the TI measurements are similar to those from a cup anemometer.
A procedure is required by which GBL TI measurements can formally be approved as providing TI
measurement data to comply with applicable standards.
[7.2] presents the approach that shall be followed when comparing GBL TI measurements against concurrent
co-located met mast measurements. [7.3] outlines further requirements for using GBL TI after a relocation of
the lidar in the vicinity of the initial site.
7.2 Turbulence intensity approval by comparison to co-located cup

measurements
If a co-located met mast is available during the entire measurement period, the GBL TI data can be utilized if
the following procedure is respected:
1) The measurement adhere to the following requirements:
— Cup and lidar measurements shall be conducted at the same height. The approval height shall be the
intended height above ground level used to characterize the TI. Ideally, the TI or adjusted TI will be
at the height required for 'loads' or 'energy assessment' use cases, such as the hub height.
— The approved GBL TI measurements and project GBL TI measurements shall be at the same height
above ground or, if the TI measurements are at different heights above ground, the approved GBL
TI measured range and project GBL TI measured range shall be the same. In the latter case, the
additional uncertainty shall be taken into consideration.
— 10-minute wind speed bins TI statistics shall be recorded with a bin width of no greater than 2 m/s.
The wind speed range should be at least from 4 m/s to 20 m/s. However, for the use case, energy
assessment modelling' this could be limited to the range of wind speeds that are relevant to the site.
— Use case 'loads' according to [3.1] only: the 10-minute TI statistics can also be binned to investigate
trends. From the full GBL TI dataset, the lowest quarter of TI values in each wind speed bin may be
discarded when obtaining KPIs for comparison with the AC. The number of data points for each wind
speed bin in the comparison with the AC shall fulfil the requirements below.
— A minimum of 400 data points per wind speed bin shall be recorded, or a bootstrapping method (or
similar) shall be completed to show that the database yields stable TI error metrics.
2) The GBL TI measurement dataset fulfils the TI AC (error metrics) according to [5.2] or [5.3]. This may
or may not include the application of a TI AM to pre-process the lidar data.
3) As a minimum, the following documentation shall be submitted:
— Measurement report.
— General description of the technology and methods used.
— Where a TI AM is applied to pre-process the lidar data, documentation shall be provided that includes
the methods applied, variables used, and software tool settings. Data quality controls including
filtering, calibrations, and data corrections for all variables shall be provided.
— Documentation regarding the training and testing of the TI AM shall be provided and include the
intended utilization and expected envelope of environmental parameters in which the TI AM shall be
used.

DNV AS
4) A third party has confirmed that the GBL TI meets the use case AC following the present procedure.
7.3 Relocation of lidar

If the GBL TI measurements meet the requirements set forth in [7.2], the use of these measurements is
permitted at another location on the following conditions:
— The lidar shall be relocated in the vicinity of the verification site. In this context, vicinity means that the
measurement campaign location shall have the same type or characteristic upwind terrain and vegetation
and the same range of turbulence intensity and wind speed as the verification site.
— The terrain and flow complexity shall be simple as defined by IEC 61400-1 or IEC 61400-12-1 as it applies
to the use case.
— The envelope of environmental parameters remains identical to that of the initial approval location.
— A third party confirms that these relocation conditions are met.

DNV AS
SECTION 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
8.1 Bibliography
Table 8-1 Bibliography
Dimitrov N, Borraccino A, Peña A, Natarajan A, Mann J. Wind turbine load validation using lidar-based wind
/1/
retrievals. Wind Energy. 2019;22(11):1512-1533.
Newman J F , Clifton A, Churchfield M J , Klein P. Improving lidar turbulence estimates for wind energy. Journal
/2/
of Physics: Conference Series. 2016;753(7): 072010.
Sathe A, Banta R, Pauscher L, Vogstad K, Schlipf D, Wylie S. Estimating turbulence statistics and parameters
/3/
from ground- and nacelle-based lidar measurements, IEA Wind Expert Report. Roskilde: DTU, 2015.
Sathe A, Mann J. A review of turbulence measurements using ground-based wind lidars, Atmospheric
/4/
Measurement Techniques. 2013;6(11):3147-3167.
St Martin CM, Lundquist JK, Clifton A, Poulos GS, Schreck SJ. Wind turbine power production and annual energy
/5/
production depend on atmospheric stability and turbulence. Wind Energy Science. 2016;1(2):221-236.
Kelberlau F, Mann J. Cross-contamination effect on turbulence spectra from Doppler beam swinging wind lidar.
/6/
Wind Energy Science. 2020;5(2):519-541.
DNV GL. WindFarmer: White Paper [Internet]. Høvik: DNV GL; 2016. [cited 24-03-2023].
/7/
Available from: WindFarmer white paper, April 2016 DNV.
Lee JCY, Stuart P, Clifton A, Fields MJ, Perr-Sauer J, Williams L, et al. The Power Curve Working Group's
/8/
assessment of wind turbine power performance prediction methods. Wind Energy Science. 2020;5(1):199-223.
Sathe A, Mann J, Gottschall J, Courtney MS. Can wind lidars measure turbulence? Journal of Atmospheric and
/9/
Oceanic Technology. 2011;28(7):853-868.

DNV AS
CHANGES – HISTORIC
Changes – historic
There are currently no historical changes for this document.

DNV AS
About DNV
DNV is the independent expert in risk management and assurance, operating in more than 100
countries. Through its broad experience and deep expertise DNV advances safety and sustainable
performance, sets industry benchmarks, and inspires and invents solutions.
Whether assessing a new ship design, optimizing the performance of a wind farm, analyzing sensor
data from a gas pipeline or certifying a food company’s supply chain, DNV enables its customers and
their stakeholders to make critical decisions with confidence.
Driven by its purpose, to safeguard life, property, and the environment, DNV helps tackle the
challenges and global transformations facing its customers and the world today and is a trusted
voice for many of the world’s most successful and forward-thinking companies.
WHEN TRUST MATTERS

DNV RP 0661

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DNV RP 0661

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

DNV-RP-0661 Edition September 2023

Lidar measured turbulence intensity for

DNV recommended practices contain sound engineering practice and guidance.

© DNV AS September 2023

Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnv.com

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 3

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 4

Section 2 Measurement of turbulence intensity using a lidar................................10

Section 3 Use cases.............................................................................................. 11

Section 4 Error metrics......................................................................................... 12

Section 5 Acceptance criteria................................................................................ 13

Section 6 Turbulence intensity adjustment methods............................................ 18

Section 7 Approval of GBL turbulence intensity measurements............................ 23

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 5

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 6

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 7

Table 1-1 DNV references

Document code Title

DNV-ST-0437 Loads and site conditions for wind turbines

Table 1-2 lists other references used in this document.

Table 1-2 Other references

Document code Title

IEC 61400-1 Wind energy generation systems - Part 1: Design Requirements

IEC 61400-13 Wind turbines - Part 13: Measurement of mechanical loads

1.6 Definitions and abbreviations

1.6.1 Definition of verbal forms

Table 1-3 Definition of verbal forms

1.6.2 Definition of terms

Table 1-4 Definition of terms

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 8

Table 1-5 Abbreviations

DEL damage equivalent fatigue loads

GBL ground-based vertical profiling lidar

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

KPI key performance indicators

LIDAR light detection and ranging

MRBE mean relative bias error

RRMSE relative root mean square error

TI AM turbulence intensity adjustment method

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 9

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 10

3.3 Energy assessment

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 11

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 12

5.2.2 Impact of turbulence intensity on turbine loads

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 13

5.2.4 Definition of acceptance criteria

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 14

5.3 Use case 'energy assessment modelling'

5.3.1 Impact of turbulence intensity on energy assessment modelling

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 15

5.3.3 Definition of acceptance criteria

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 16

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 17

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 18

6.1.3 Note on atmospheric stability

6.2 Recommendations for the training and tuning of turbulence

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 19

6.3 Recommendations for performance improvements

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 20

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 21

Recommended practice — DNV-RP-0661. Edition September 2023 Page 22