the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reconstruction and Evaluation of a Single-scanning LiDAR-based wind Field Measurements using LES
Abstract. Doppler LiDARs are considered as promising alternative to meteorological masts for wind resource assessments for wind energy application. The current study models a single scanning LiDAR-based wind field measurements in the LES and quantify the effect of scan parameters, i.e, measurement range, azimuth and elevation angles and wind direction on the accuracy of two-parameter velocity volume processing (VVP) method for computing velocity vectors from radial wind speeds. The mean wind speeds computed from LiDAR measurements show good agreement with the original LES data. The error increases with the measurement range, but it decreases with azimuth range, with θrange = 60° giving the most accurate mean wind speeds among the three azimuth range considered in this study. The wind direction did not particularly effect the accuracy of the mean wind speed estimation, though larger difference between wind direction and scan direction results in increased variation in the VVP fitting. The effect of elevation angle is investigated with lower elevation angle scan of 3.4°. Although stronger shear near the ground led to larger difference between the LiDAR and LES data, for higher points the effect of vertical shear on mean wind speeds is not significant. In terms of turbulence intensities, the two-parameter VVP significantly underestimates their values for all the case considered in this study. This is because a significant fraction of the fluctuating components is filtered out while fitting the data over the scan arc. The study therefore, proposes an improvement to the conventional VVP method, based on the Reynolds decomposition of wind speed components. Turbulence intensities estimated using this method show higher degree of variation, though the accuracy improved with increasing azimuth range.
- Preprint
(1808 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-8', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2024
Thank you for your submission. This study has assessed the accuracy of a 2D flow reconstruction technique for lidar, for a variety of PPI scan configurations. Measurement errors have been quantified for a neutral ABL flow modeled with LES. I should preface this review by saying that I am an LES modeler and a frequent user of processed lidar data. However, I am not an expert in the operation of lidar systems. I believe the evaluation of the accuracy and shortcomings of remote sensing technology, especially in a coastal environment with a land–sea transition, is a relevant and interesting topic for wind energy research. However, I have a number of issues/concerns with this paper in its current form:
- The introduction needs to be cleaned up. As written, it is disorganized and there is a lot of seemingly irrelevant information, e.g., comparing and contrasting profiling vs scanning lidars, offshore floating systems vs onshore, and discussion of single vs multi- lidar systems. What would have been more useful is a discussion of velocity retrieval strategies and known limitations, to motivate the present study into VVP.
- Literature review appears incomplete. For example, Letizia et al, AMT, 2021 (I am not a co-author) develop a framework for optimizing scan parameters and also characterize errors in mean velocity and TI using LES data. This appears highly relevant to the present work but has not been referenced.
- More detail is needed in the methodology section, as well as discussion of the LES dataset. Also, does it make sense in the case with the land–sea transition, to neglect temperature in your model?
- Many figures do not present data in the most meaningful way — the chosen axes limits make it difficult to compare quantities of interest.
- Section 4 is potentially interesting and deserves much more attention. More work is needed to convince the reader that the approach is valid and can provide an improved TI estimate over two-parameter VVP.
Please see the attached annotated PDF for more specific comments.
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-8', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2024-8/wes-2024-8-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2024-8', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Apr 2024
The article entitled: Reconstruction and Evaluations of a Single-scannign LiDAR-based wind Field Measurements using LES, presents a simulation study of Doppler lidar measurements. The study focuses on the quantification of the errors related to the measurement of the wind speed conditions using one scanning wind lidar. Even though the manuscript has in general a good structure and it is well written and it unfortunately does not present something new according to my opinion.
In specific, the results regarding the impact i. of the azimuth angle range and ii. of the elevation angle on the accuracy of the plan position indicator method have been already presented and discussed in the two following articles that are not referenced in the manuscript:
- Wang, H., R. J. Barthelmie, A. Clifton, and S. C. Pryor, 2015: Wind Measurements from Arc Scans with Doppler Wind Lidar. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 32, 2024–2040.
- Wang, H., Barthelmie, R. J., Pryor, S. C., & Brown, G. (2016). Lidar arc scan uncertainty reduction through scanning geometry optimization.Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9(4), 1653-1669.
Hear I would like to note that I am neither the main author nor one of the co-authors of the two aforementioned publications.
Furhermore, the submitted manuscript presents results regarding the measurement of turbulence using a single scanning Dopler lidar. The results are compared to a reference based on a large eddy simulation. However:
- The impact of the probe volume of the Doppler lidar is neglected from the article.
- When measuring with one scanning Doppler lidar with a low elevation angle then the most efficient way to measure the standard deviation of wind is by using the line-of-sight measurements that are aligned to the mean wind direction. This is relevant when the mean wind direction is within the azimuth angle range. Otherwise, either the application of a fit would result in a decreased estimation of the standard deviation (as shown in Fig. 12) or in the cases where the mean wind direction is outside the range of the azimuth angle then the variations of the transverse component of the wind vector will introduce a bias in the estimated variance of the wind (as shown in Fig. 9).
- Lastly, the authors present the results of a modified VPP method that could be used to estimate the standard deviation of the wind speed. The results presented in Fig. 14 show that this method results in higher values in comparison to the LES, which means that the method is not accurate. The authors argue that the accuracy is improving with the increase of the azimuth angle range, but this is necessary true in the results that present (e.g Fig.14(a) for ranges above 2000 m) and they do not provide a a discussion on why this is happening.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-8-RC3
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-8', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2024
Thank you for your submission. This study has assessed the accuracy of a 2D flow reconstruction technique for lidar, for a variety of PPI scan configurations. Measurement errors have been quantified for a neutral ABL flow modeled with LES. I should preface this review by saying that I am an LES modeler and a frequent user of processed lidar data. However, I am not an expert in the operation of lidar systems. I believe the evaluation of the accuracy and shortcomings of remote sensing technology, especially in a coastal environment with a land–sea transition, is a relevant and interesting topic for wind energy research. However, I have a number of issues/concerns with this paper in its current form:
- The introduction needs to be cleaned up. As written, it is disorganized and there is a lot of seemingly irrelevant information, e.g., comparing and contrasting profiling vs scanning lidars, offshore floating systems vs onshore, and discussion of single vs multi- lidar systems. What would have been more useful is a discussion of velocity retrieval strategies and known limitations, to motivate the present study into VVP.
- Literature review appears incomplete. For example, Letizia et al, AMT, 2021 (I am not a co-author) develop a framework for optimizing scan parameters and also characterize errors in mean velocity and TI using LES data. This appears highly relevant to the present work but has not been referenced.
- More detail is needed in the methodology section, as well as discussion of the LES dataset. Also, does it make sense in the case with the land–sea transition, to neglect temperature in your model?
- Many figures do not present data in the most meaningful way — the chosen axes limits make it difficult to compare quantities of interest.
- Section 4 is potentially interesting and deserves much more attention. More work is needed to convince the reader that the approach is valid and can provide an improved TI estimate over two-parameter VVP.
Please see the attached annotated PDF for more specific comments.
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-8', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2024-8/wes-2024-8-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2024-8', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Apr 2024
The article entitled: Reconstruction and Evaluations of a Single-scannign LiDAR-based wind Field Measurements using LES, presents a simulation study of Doppler lidar measurements. The study focuses on the quantification of the errors related to the measurement of the wind speed conditions using one scanning wind lidar. Even though the manuscript has in general a good structure and it is well written and it unfortunately does not present something new according to my opinion.
In specific, the results regarding the impact i. of the azimuth angle range and ii. of the elevation angle on the accuracy of the plan position indicator method have been already presented and discussed in the two following articles that are not referenced in the manuscript:
- Wang, H., R. J. Barthelmie, A. Clifton, and S. C. Pryor, 2015: Wind Measurements from Arc Scans with Doppler Wind Lidar. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 32, 2024–2040.
- Wang, H., Barthelmie, R. J., Pryor, S. C., & Brown, G. (2016). Lidar arc scan uncertainty reduction through scanning geometry optimization.Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9(4), 1653-1669.
Hear I would like to note that I am neither the main author nor one of the co-authors of the two aforementioned publications.
Furhermore, the submitted manuscript presents results regarding the measurement of turbulence using a single scanning Dopler lidar. The results are compared to a reference based on a large eddy simulation. However:
- The impact of the probe volume of the Doppler lidar is neglected from the article.
- When measuring with one scanning Doppler lidar with a low elevation angle then the most efficient way to measure the standard deviation of wind is by using the line-of-sight measurements that are aligned to the mean wind direction. This is relevant when the mean wind direction is within the azimuth angle range. Otherwise, either the application of a fit would result in a decreased estimation of the standard deviation (as shown in Fig. 12) or in the cases where the mean wind direction is outside the range of the azimuth angle then the variations of the transverse component of the wind vector will introduce a bias in the estimated variance of the wind (as shown in Fig. 9).
- Lastly, the authors present the results of a modified VPP method that could be used to estimate the standard deviation of the wind speed. The results presented in Fig. 14 show that this method results in higher values in comparison to the LES, which means that the method is not accurate. The authors argue that the accuracy is improving with the increase of the azimuth angle range, but this is necessary true in the results that present (e.g Fig.14(a) for ranges above 2000 m) and they do not provide a a discussion on why this is happening.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-8-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
416 | 99 | 17 | 532 | 17 | 17 |
- HTML: 416
- PDF: 99
- XML: 17
- Total: 532
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1