the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The IEA Wind Task 57 inflow reconstruction benchmark for a single turbine in simple terrain: real-world and synthetic case studies
Abstract. In experiments to validate wind turbine design codes, the full inflow field moving into the rotor is never measured. Instead, it is reconstructed from spatially limited measurements by using an atmospheric model. As such, the inflow represents a source of uncertainty when validating turbine models. Here, we characterize the behavior and accuracy of modern inflow reconstruction techniques. We compare eight inflow models for nine ~10 minute reference inflows, three from a real-world experiment with a 2.8 MW turbine and six from a synthetic field campaign. We document the models' differences in time series behavior and statistical characteristics like mean profiles, turbulence intensity, and power spectra. Across all case studies, the Superstatistical Mann model had the smallest root mean square error (average of 0.93 m s-1), and TurbSim had the largest (average of 1.19 m s-1). PyConTurb performed similarly to the inflows based on the Mann model. Notably, error time series showed synchronized spikes across models, often corresponding to physically coherent features that were not observed in the hub-height measurements. This study points toward areas for future inflow reconstruction model development, and it provides the foundation for future work that will examine turbine load validation errors in conjunction with inflow errors.
Competing interests: The lead author (Alex Rybchuk) both organized the benchmark and submitted two models (TurbSim and LER) to the benchmark, which has the potential for conflict of interest.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(29673 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(22116 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 Jun 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-77', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 May 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 99 | 20 | 5 | 124 | 5 | 7 | 5 |
- HTML: 99
- PDF: 20
- XML: 5
- Total: 124
- Supplement: 5
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The motivation of the paper is three folded it is stated in the beginning of the paper, but there is no clear answer in the conclusion part of the paper. It would be an improvement if the main objective was clearer and not divided into three parts. The paper gives a very detailed list and figures of the differences, but brings in so many details that it is hard to follow. An overview in the conclusion part pinpointing the “common strength and weaknesses” stated in line 531 would be helpful so that it is clear what is found in the study. Here it is also stated that “context on how large inflow errors can be …” I don’t think that there is inflow errors? Is this in the simulations or in the measurement or is it the differences? I think that there should put in a bit more work on the conclusion to show that the objective (or motivation) is responded to in a clear manner.
I find the paper to be very interesting, and think it would be of broad international interest, and the simulations and comparisons are of good quality. However, I am missing information on who are the participants? Is there a reason why the institutes are not mentioned? There are also a lot of times where “we” are used, and for clarity of the paper, the usage of “we” should maybe be omitted. An example is in line 161 “… participants reconstructed inflows …” and then in the next sentence “ .. we compared to data …” To the reader it seems like all the authors compared the data, and the participants are not a part of this group? For clarity try to keep “we” out of the Methods section.
In many sections is referred to Supplementary Material. Where is this found? I also see that there is a to appendices, is it necessary with both Supplementary Material and appendices?
I also miss an illustration or information about at which height is the met mast measuring, what is the participants given as information (constraint information?), and exactly what measurements are the “ground truth”. Consider making some of the information tabular so it is easier to find.
In line 324 and onward the model ensembles and how often they fall within the ground truth is discussed, but there is no mentioning that the number of ensembles are different. Is this taken into account when discussing the results anywhere? In Figure 7 the black line is referred to as Spinner, should this have been ground truth?
In line 454, failure modes are mentioned. Is this the correct use of words? Are the models failing, or are they missing some features that exists in real life? Is it possible for these models to generate the coherent gust or the veer, would it really help to run more ensembles?
Minor corrections:
Define Davenport coherence parameters in line 153 and the parameters in line 155
Line 177, Fig 1 does not contain a gap
Line 275, give a clear definition of the 2-dimensional wind angle
Line 292 Based on previous
It would be helpful with grid lines in figure 14