MIDAS: A Benchmarking Multi-Criteria Method for the Identification of Defective Anemometers in Wind Farms

A novel multi-criteria methodology for the identification of defective anemometers is shown in this paper with a benchmarking approach: it is called MIDAS: multi-technique identification of defective anemometers. The identification of wrong wind data as provided by malfunctioning devices is very important, because the actual power curve of a wind turbine is conditioned by the quality of its anemometer measurements. Here, we present a novel method applied for the first time to anemometers’ data based on the kernel probability density function and the recent reanalysis ERA5. This estimation improves classical unidimensional methods such as the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and the use of the global ERA5’s wind data as the first benchmarking reference establishes a general method that can be used anywhere. Therefore, adopting ERA5 as the reference, this method is applied bi-dimensionally for the zonal and meridional components of wind, thus checking both components at the same time. This technique allows the identification of defective anemometers, as well as clear identification of the group of anemometers that works properly. After that, other verification techniques were used versus the faultless anemometers (Taylor diagrams, running correlation and R M S E , and principal component analysis), and coherent results were obtained for all statistical techniques with respect to the multidimensional method. The developed methodology combines the use of this set of techniques and was able to identify the defective anemometers in a wind farm with 10 anemometers located in Northern Europe in a terrain with forests and woodlands. Nevertheless, this methodology is general-purpose and not site-dependent, and in the future, its performance will be studied in other types of terrain and wind farms.

[1]  Santiago Pindado,et al.  Cup Anemometers’ Loss of Performance Due to Ageing Processes, and Its Effect on Annual Energy Production (AEP) Estimates , 2012 .

[2]  M. X. Song,et al.  Wind resource assessment on complex terrain based on observations of a single anemometer , 2014 .

[3]  J. Dai,et al.  Effect investigation of yaw on wind turbine performance based on SCADA data , 2018 .

[4]  Fausto Pedro García Márquez,et al.  A New Fault Location Approach for Acoustic Emission Techniques in Wind Turbines , 2016 .

[5]  Jimy Dudhia,et al.  Mesoscale modeling of offshore wind turbine wakes at the wind farm resolving scale: a composite‐based analysis with the Weather Research and Forecasting model over Horns Rev , 2015 .

[6]  W. T. Pennell,et al.  Meteorological aspects of siting large wind turbines , 1981 .

[7]  John Dalsgaard Sørensen,et al.  Methods for Risk-Based Planning of O&M of Wind Turbines , 2014 .

[8]  Gabriel Ibarra-Berastegi,et al.  Historical Evolution of the Wave Resource and Energy Production off the Chilean Coast over the 20th Century , 2018, Energies.

[9]  Jon Olauson ERA5: The new champion of wind power modelling? , 2018, Renewable Energy.

[10]  Peter R Hobson,et al.  Computationally efficient algorithms for the two-dimensional Kolmogorov–Smirnov test , 2008 .

[11]  A. Pitman,et al.  Evaluation of the AR4 Climate Models’ Simulated Daily Maximum Temperature, Minimum Temperature, and Precipitation over Australia Using Probability Density Functions , 2007 .

[12]  Fausto Pedro García Márquez,et al.  Machine Learning for Wind Turbine Blades Maintenance Management , 2017 .

[13]  G. Fasano,et al.  A multidimensional version of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test , 1987 .

[14]  Baseer,et al.  Performance evaluation of cup-anemometers and wind speed characteristics analysis , 2016 .

[15]  Santiago Pindado,et al.  Analysis of calibration results from cup and propeller anemometers. Influence on wind turbine Annual Energy Production (AEP) calculations , 2011 .

[16]  Andrew J. Pitman,et al.  Ranking the AR4 climate models over the Murray‐Darling Basin using simulated maximum temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation , 2008 .

[17]  Gabriel Ibarra-Berastegi,et al.  Multi-objective environmental model evaluation by means of multidimensional kernel density estimators: Efficient and multi-core implementations , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[18]  J. Ringwood,et al.  Wave energy trends over the Bay of Biscay and the consequences for wave energy converters , 2017 .

[19]  Gabriel Ibarra-Berastegi,et al.  Pitch Angle Misalignment Correction Based on Benchmarking and Laser Scanner Measurement in Wind Farms , 2018, Energies.

[20]  E. W. Golding,et al.  The generation of electricity by wind power , 1976 .

[21]  J. Thepaut,et al.  The ERA‐Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system , 2011 .

[22]  Alain Ulazia,et al.  Novel on-field method for pitch error correction in wind turbines , 2017 .

[23]  S.S. Venkata,et al.  Wind energy explained: Theory, Design, and application [Book Review] , 2003, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine.

[24]  Peter Dalgaard,et al.  R Development Core Team (2010): R: A language and environment for statistical computing , 2010 .

[25]  Anthony Cook,et al.  Weather Analysis , 2017, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[26]  H. Hersbach,et al.  The ERA5 Atmospheric Reanalysis. , 2016 .

[27]  R. N. Clark Generation of Electricity from Wind Power , 1948, Nature.

[28]  Chang Xu,et al.  Atmospheric stability and topography effects on wind turbine performance and wake properties in complex terrain , 2018, Renewable Energy.

[29]  Javier Cubas,et al.  Studies on Cup Anemometer Performances Carried out at IDR/UPM Institute. Past and Present Research , 2017 .

[30]  J. Ringwood,et al.  Wave energy resource variation off the west coast of Ireland and its impact on realistic wave energy converters’ power absorption , 2018, Applied Energy.

[31]  F. Gonzalez-Longatt,et al.  Wind-resource atlas of Venezuela based on on-site anemometry observation , 2014 .

[32]  S. Rehman,et al.  Wind speed and power characteristics using LiDAR anemometer based measurements , 2018, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments.

[33]  Leif Kristensen,et al.  The perennial cup anemometer , 1999 .

[34]  Fouad Slaoui-Hasnaoui,et al.  Wind Turbine Condition Monitoring: State-of-the-Art Review, New Trends, and Future Challenges , 2014 .

[35]  K. S. Khan,et al.  Wind resource assessment using SODAR and meteorological mast – A case study of Pakistan , 2018 .

[36]  Joshua Cassity,et al.  Applying Weibull Distribution and Discriminant Function Techniques to Predict Damaged Cup Anemometers in the 2011 PHM Competition , 2012 .

[37]  S. Larsen,et al.  On the extension of the wind profile over homogeneous terrain beyond the surface boundary layer , 2007 .

[38]  Davide Astolfi,et al.  Numerical and Experimental Methods for Wake Flow Analysis in Complex Terrain , 2015 .

[39]  N. Mortensen,et al.  Exploring the limits of WAsP the wind atlas analysis and application program , 1996 .

[40]  William David Lubitz,et al.  Experimental and theoretical investigation of tower shadow impacts on anemometer measurements , 2018 .

[41]  K. Taylor Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram , 2001 .