the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Validating wind farm parameterizations with offshore SCADA data
Abstract. A large-scale validation compared wind farm parameterizations (WFPs) of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to multi-year SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) data from six offshore wind farms. Although initially seven WFPs were considered, after preliminary assessment only three distinct ones were retained: the original Fitch (Fitch-O), a physics-derived axial induction modification of Fitch (Fitch-pAIM), and the Explicit Wake Parameterization (EWP). The study, conducted at 2 km and 0.67 km resolutions, revealed total energy yield differences of ±5 % compared to SCADA data, with finer resolutions having a lower yield due to enhanced internal wake effects. The remainder focused on addressing the main sources of uncertainty affecting the total energy yield. The modeled mean wind speed was likely too low, leading to an energy yield underestimation. Only Fitch-pAIM accurately modeled the power curve and therefore the gross yield, while Fitch-O and EWP underestimated power by neglecting local induction effects. Internal wake magnitudes were well captured by Fitch-O and Fitch-pAIM at fine resolution, while EWP consistently produced too shallow wakes. All WFPs showed signatures of global blockage and a dependency of wake losses on the vertical structure of the boundary layer. Lastly, external wakes were well captured by all parameterizations.
The results demonstrate that Fitch-pAIM outperforms other WFPs at resolutions smaller than the turbine spacing. Despite the limitations in accurately reproducing wake features in narrow wind direction sectors, WPFs accurately capture the total wake loss making their use suitable for AEP calculations.
- Preprint
(17798 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-80', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Jun 2026
-
CC1: 'Comment on SCADA gap-filling produre of wes-2026-80', Paul van der Laan, 27 Jul 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2026-80/wes-2026-80-CC1-supplement.pdfDisclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2026-80', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jul 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2026-80/wes-2026-80-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Authors response on wes-2026-80', Balthazar Sengers, 02 Sep 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2026-80/wes-2026-80-AC1-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-80', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Jun 2026
-
CC1: 'Comment on SCADA gap-filling produre of wes-2026-80', Paul van der Laan, 27 Jul 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2026-80/wes-2026-80-CC1-supplement.pdfDisclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2026-80', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Jul 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2026-80/wes-2026-80-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Authors response on wes-2026-80', Balthazar Sengers, 02 Sep 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2026-80/wes-2026-80-AC1-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 528 | 278 | 133 | 939 | 146 | 123 |
- HTML: 528
- PDF: 278
- XML: 133
- Total: 939
- BibTeX: 146
- EndNote: 123
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
You can find my feedback in the attached pdf.