Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-77
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-77
06 May 2026
 | 06 May 2026
Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal WES.

The IEA Wind Task 57 inflow reconstruction benchmark for a single turbine in simple terrain: real-world and synthetic case studies

Alex Rybchuk, Henrik Asmuth, Armin Haghshenas, Ásta Hannesdóttir, Jan Friedrich, Jaime Liew, Jennifer M. Rinker, Daniel R. Houck, Regis Thedin, and Patrick Moriarty

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.
Share
Alex Rybchuk, Henrik Asmuth, Armin Haghshenas, Ásta Hannesdóttir, Jan Friedrich, Jaime Liew, Jennifer M. Rinker, Daniel R. Houck, Regis Thedin, and Patrick Moriarty

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Alex Rybchuk, Henrik Asmuth, Armin Haghshenas, Ásta Hannesdóttir, Jan Friedrich, Jaime Liew, Jennifer M. Rinker, Daniel R. Houck, Regis Thedin, and Patrick Moriarty
Alex Rybchuk, Henrik Asmuth, Armin Haghshenas, Ásta Hannesdóttir, Jan Friedrich, Jaime Liew, Jennifer M. Rinker, Daniel R. Houck, Regis Thedin, and Patrick Moriarty
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 06 May 2026
Download
Short summary
Wind turbine engineers use wind simulation tools as part of the design process. We conducted a benchmark study for these tools. We collected detailed wind data from two sets of environments (a field campaign and a research-grade simulation). We gave benchmark participants limited information about this data, and they used their wind simulation tools of choice to reconstruct the winds. We compared the output of the different simulation codes, identifying strengths and shortcomings.
Share
Altmetrics