the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Influences of lidar scanning parameters on wind turbine wake retrievals in complex terrain
Abstract. Scanning lidars enable the collection of spatially resolved measurements of turbine wakes and the estimation of wake properties such as magnitude, extent, and trajectory. Lidar-based characterizations, however, may be subject to distortions due to the observational system. Distortions can arise from the resolution of the measurement points across the wake, the projection of the winds onto the beam, averaging along the beam probe volume, and intervening evolution of the flow over the scan duration. Using a large-eddy simulation and simulated measurements with a virtual lidar model, we assess how scanning lidar systems may influence the properties of the retrieved wake using a case study from the Perdigão campaign. We consider three lidars performing range-height indicator sweeps in complex terrain, based on the deployments of lidars from the Danish Technical University (DTU) and German Aerospace Center (DLR) at the Perdigão site. The unwaked flow, measured by the DTU lidar, is well-captured by the lidar, even without combining data into a multi-lidar retrieval. The two DLR lidars measure a waked transect from different downwind vantage points. In the region of the wake, the observation system interacts with the smaller spatial and temporal variations of the winds, allowing more significant observation distortions to arise. While the measurements largely capture the wake structure and trajectory over its 4–5 D extent, limited spatial resolution of measurement points and volume averaging lead to a quicker loss of the two-lobes in the near wake, smearing of the vertical bounds of the wake (<30 m), wake center displacements up to 10 m, and dampening of the maximum velocity deficit by up to a third. The virtual lidar tool, coupled with simulations, provides a means for assessing measurements capabilities in advance of measurement campaigns.
- Preprint
(3305 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-18', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Mar 2024
General comments
The manuscript WES-2024-18 investigates the impact of the operating configuration and of the technical specifications of a scanning wind lidar on the measurement of complex wind flow. The focus is on quantifying biases in wind speed observations attributed to the speed and geometry of the scanning pattern used, as well as to the probe length and the spatial resolution of a wind lidar. The investigation takes place using wind lidar observations, acquired in the context of the Perdigão experiment, which are coupled with a WRF-LES simulation. The article is well structured and written, has a good introduction of previous related studies and presents in a thorough way the analysis and the results of the study. I would like to congratulate the authors for that. However, it is difficult to identify what is the novelty of the study.
Please find below my specific comments and suggestions for minor corrections that intent to clarify the work presented in this manuscript. You will notice that most of my comments are minor. However, as I already mentioned the authors should emphasize on the new findings that this study presents. Furthermore, I have two minor comments that concern the whole manuscript. The authors use the terms “spatially resolved measurements” and the verb “interacts” (e.g. “the observation system interacts with the smaller spatial…”) in a way that can be confusing according to my opinion. I can understand the term “spatially distributed measurements”, but there is nothing resolved in the lidar measurements. The measurements provide spatially distributed observations of the radial speeds. Furthermore, there is no “interaction” between a wind lidar and the atmospheric wind since the wind characteristics are not distorted due to the operation of the wind lidar. I think that these two points should be clarified throughout the manuscript.
Specific comments
Pg.5 Line 81. What does it mean that in the archive the DLR lidars changed number and why is it relevant for the study.
Pg.8 Lines 132 - 134. Have the authors tried also other types of interpolations? And how sensitive are the conclusions of the study about the contribution to the error in the simulated lidar measurements due to the interpolation method used?
Pg.13 Line 288-289. What is the interpolated 2D wind field compared with? How are the “distortions” calculated?
Pg. 15 Figure 6. What does the solid black line represent?
Pg. 16 Lines 323 – 324. Can the authors explain a bit more why they expect to see an elongation of the wake due to the probe volume? Isn’t this dependent on the magnitude of the wind sped gradient within the probe volume?
Minor corrections
Pg.2 Line 33. I suggest replacing “…to ensure robust returns,…” with “to ensure adequate backscattering signals…” or something similar.
Pg.2 Line 43. I suggest replacing “and virtual instrument…” with “and a virtual lidar…”
Pg.2 Figure 1. Is it possible to add the location of the tower tw13, since observations from that tower are presented in Fig. 2.
Pg.4 Line 70. Add the units of the gravitational acceleration.
Pg.4 Line 77. It is written: “the positions and scan configurations of the three Danish …” but as far as I understand only one wind lidar belongs to DTU. Can you please clarify this part.
Pg.5 Line 85. The word “cuts” could be replaced by the word “planes”.
Pg. 7 Line 122. Replace “off of” with “by”
Pg. 8 Line 145. Add “the” before “WindCube”
Pg. 10 Line 217. The symbol “w” in Eq. 9 is also used to denote the vertical component of the wind vector. I suggest replacing it with something else to avoid confusion.
Pg. 12 Line 231. Delete one “the” from “… in terms of the the …”
Pg. 13 Line 282. Is the probe length equal to 40 m or 44 m (as reported in Table 3)?
Pg. 16 Line 321. Is the (Fig. 7,4) correct?
Pg. 19 Line 365. Delete one “with” from “align with with”
References: Please check the information of the references is complete. Also, the Menke et al 2019b is reported twice.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-18-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-18', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Apr 2024
-
AC1: 'Responses to reviewer comments', Rachel Robey, 01 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2024-18/wes-2024-18-AC1-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-18', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Mar 2024
General comments
The manuscript WES-2024-18 investigates the impact of the operating configuration and of the technical specifications of a scanning wind lidar on the measurement of complex wind flow. The focus is on quantifying biases in wind speed observations attributed to the speed and geometry of the scanning pattern used, as well as to the probe length and the spatial resolution of a wind lidar. The investigation takes place using wind lidar observations, acquired in the context of the Perdigão experiment, which are coupled with a WRF-LES simulation. The article is well structured and written, has a good introduction of previous related studies and presents in a thorough way the analysis and the results of the study. I would like to congratulate the authors for that. However, it is difficult to identify what is the novelty of the study.
Please find below my specific comments and suggestions for minor corrections that intent to clarify the work presented in this manuscript. You will notice that most of my comments are minor. However, as I already mentioned the authors should emphasize on the new findings that this study presents. Furthermore, I have two minor comments that concern the whole manuscript. The authors use the terms “spatially resolved measurements” and the verb “interacts” (e.g. “the observation system interacts with the smaller spatial…”) in a way that can be confusing according to my opinion. I can understand the term “spatially distributed measurements”, but there is nothing resolved in the lidar measurements. The measurements provide spatially distributed observations of the radial speeds. Furthermore, there is no “interaction” between a wind lidar and the atmospheric wind since the wind characteristics are not distorted due to the operation of the wind lidar. I think that these two points should be clarified throughout the manuscript.
Specific comments
Pg.5 Line 81. What does it mean that in the archive the DLR lidars changed number and why is it relevant for the study.
Pg.8 Lines 132 - 134. Have the authors tried also other types of interpolations? And how sensitive are the conclusions of the study about the contribution to the error in the simulated lidar measurements due to the interpolation method used?
Pg.13 Line 288-289. What is the interpolated 2D wind field compared with? How are the “distortions” calculated?
Pg. 15 Figure 6. What does the solid black line represent?
Pg. 16 Lines 323 – 324. Can the authors explain a bit more why they expect to see an elongation of the wake due to the probe volume? Isn’t this dependent on the magnitude of the wind sped gradient within the probe volume?
Minor corrections
Pg.2 Line 33. I suggest replacing “…to ensure robust returns,…” with “to ensure adequate backscattering signals…” or something similar.
Pg.2 Line 43. I suggest replacing “and virtual instrument…” with “and a virtual lidar…”
Pg.2 Figure 1. Is it possible to add the location of the tower tw13, since observations from that tower are presented in Fig. 2.
Pg.4 Line 70. Add the units of the gravitational acceleration.
Pg.4 Line 77. It is written: “the positions and scan configurations of the three Danish …” but as far as I understand only one wind lidar belongs to DTU. Can you please clarify this part.
Pg.5 Line 85. The word “cuts” could be replaced by the word “planes”.
Pg. 7 Line 122. Replace “off of” with “by”
Pg. 8 Line 145. Add “the” before “WindCube”
Pg. 10 Line 217. The symbol “w” in Eq. 9 is also used to denote the vertical component of the wind vector. I suggest replacing it with something else to avoid confusion.
Pg. 12 Line 231. Delete one “the” from “… in terms of the the …”
Pg. 13 Line 282. Is the probe length equal to 40 m or 44 m (as reported in Table 3)?
Pg. 16 Line 321. Is the (Fig. 7,4) correct?
Pg. 19 Line 365. Delete one “with” from “align with with”
References: Please check the information of the references is complete. Also, the Menke et al 2019b is reported twice.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-18-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-18', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Apr 2024
-
AC1: 'Responses to reviewer comments', Rachel Robey, 01 Jun 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2024-18/wes-2024-18-AC1-supplement.pdf
Data sets
Supporting simulation and observation files for "Influences of lidar scanning parameters on wind turbine wake retrievals in complex terrain" R. Robey and J. K. Lundquist https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10652098
Model code and software
Virtual Lidar Python R. Robey https://gitlab.com/raro0632/virtual-lidar
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
417 | 89 | 22 | 528 | 22 | 21 |
- HTML: 417
- PDF: 89
- XML: 22
- Total: 528
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1