May 2002 NREL/CP-500-32494

Applicability of Nacelle
Anemometer Measurements for
Use in Turbine Power
Performance Tests
Preprint

B. Smith and H. Link

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

G. Randall and T. McCoy

Global Energy Concepts, LLC

To be presented at the American Wind Energy

Association (AWEA) WINDPOWER 2002 Conference

Portland, Oregon

June 2-5, 2002

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory
Operated by Midwest Research Institute Battelle Bechtel
Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
 NOTICE
The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a
contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US
Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published
form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial
product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
 APPLICABILITY OF NACELLE ANEMOMETER

MEASUREMENTS FOR USE IN TURBINE POWER

PERFORMANCE TESTS

Gordon Randall and Tim McCoy

Brian Smith and Hal Link

Global Energy Concepts, LLC

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

5729 Lakeview Dr. NE, Suite 100

1617 Cole Boulevard

Kirkland, WA 98033
Golden, CO 80401

USA
USA

ABSTRACT

Collection of accurate wind speed data is one of the more problematic elements in conducting
wind turbine power performance tests. IEC 61400-12 specifies meteorological tower placement
between two and four rotor diameters upwind of the test turbine. However, use of an upwind
meteorological tower can be difficult at some sites. In some cases, complex terrain near the
turbine may make placement of an upwind tower impossible. In addition, purchase and erection
of a meteorological tower can be expensive, particularly as the hub height of large turbines
increases.

Because of these concerns, wind farm owners and turbine manufacturers have expressed interest
in the use of turbine nacelle-mounted anemometers for collection of wind speed data. The most
significant problem with this practice is that wind flow is disturbed by the rotor and nacelle, so
wind speed measurements collected by an anemometer mounted at the back of the nacelle do not
accurately represent free-stream wind speeds experienced by the rotor. This problem can be
addressed if the measurements can be adjusted; however, in order to perform such an adjustment,
data must be collected to describe the relationship between the free-stream wind speeds at the
rotor and nacelle anemometer. Such data collection would typically involve erecting an upwind
meteorological tower, which is the specific activity that nacelle anemometer wind speed
measurements intend to avoid.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Wind Turbine
Verification Program (TVP) has performed data collection and power performance tests at a
number of wind energy facilities located in the United States. These activities include long-term
measurements of hub-height wind speed from upwind meteorological towers and from nacelle
anemometers. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the data gathered from the Big Spring,
Texas; Algona, Iowa; and Springview, Nebraska, facilities to determine whether a meaningful
relationship can be derived between meteorological-tower and nacelle-anemometer wind speed
measurements for Vestas V47 and V66 turbines (Big Spring) and Enron Z-50 turbines (Algona
and Springview).

INTRODUCTION
As part of the U.S. Department of Energy/Electric Power Research Institute (DOE-EPRI) Wind
Turbine Verification Program (TVP), Global Energy Concepts (GEC) and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have been engaged in planning and conducting third-
party power performance tests at most of the TVP project sites in accordance with the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 61400-12 [1]. Results of these tests
have been reported at the last two WindPower conferences. [2] [3] The TVP is a joint effort
between DOE, EPRI, host utilities, and developers to evaluate early production models of
advanced wind turbines and to verify the performance, reliability, maintainability, and cost of
new wind turbine designs and system components in a commercial environment.

An objective of the TVP power performance testing was to exercise the IEC standard and gain
experience with the specified methodology and procedures. One of the more problematic
elements of the testing is the ability to meet the requirements for meteorological (MET) tower
placement in complex terrain in order to obtain accurate representation of the wind resource
experienced by the test turbine rotor. For several of the TVP tests, the sites did not meet the
topographic requirements specified in the IEC standard. In such cases, the standard requires a
site calibration, which involves the installation of a second hub-height MET tower at the turbine
site before the turbine is installed. For many wind projects, the time and cost of conducting a site
calibration is not practical. In addition, it may not be possible to place a MET tower at the IEC-
specified upwind distance of two to four rotor diameters from the test turbine at some sites
because of terrain limitations. The most recent addition to the TVP, the Buffalo Mountain wind
project owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), provides a good example of these
issues. The three Vestas V47 turbines in the Buffalo Mountain project are located in a rugged
mountainous area and the terrain drops off severely in all directions, prohibiting the placement of
a MET tower in the vicinity of the turbines.

To address these issues, a number of wind industry members have promoted the use of data from
nacelle-mounted anemometers to generate wind speed measurements for power performance
testing. Assuming an accurate methodology can be established, there are several advantages to
this concept. Wind turbines are already equipped with nacelle anemometers and additional
equipment purchases may be limited, thus reducing the overall cost of testing. In addition, the
approach offers an option for evaluating turbine performance in complex terrain where MET
tower placement may be difficult.

However, there are also significant drawbacks to the use of nacelle anemometers for power
performance testing. Nacelle anemometers do not accurately represent the free-stream wind
speeds experienced by the rotor due to their mounting location (behind the rotor on upwind wind
turbines) and the impact of the nacelle structure and blades on the wind flow. Figure 1 shows
examples of anemometers on a MET tower and on a wind turbine nacelle. In order to account for
these impacts, wind data from the nacelle anemometers must be adjusted to represent the free-
stream wind flow seen by the rotor. Another disadvantage is that nacelle anemometers are
typically not calibrated, introducing additional uncertainty into the testing process.

Because detailed data is available from each of the TVP projects (including nacelle anemometer
readings) and because power performance tests have already been conducted at these sites, the
TVP is in a unique position to evaluate the use of nacelle anemometers for power performance
tests. In addition, the TVP is interested in such methods as a potential performance evaluation
tool for the TVA Buffalo Mountain project where testing in accordance with the IEC standard is
not possible.

2
 FIGURE 1: MET TOWER AND TURBINE NACELLE ANEMOMETERS

In this paper, data from three TVP wind projectsBig Spring, Texas, Algona, Iowa, and
Springview, Nebraskawere evaluated to establish relationships between free-stream wind
speeds measured by upwind MET towers and wind speeds measured by nacelle anemometers.
Relationships determined for individual turbines were then applied to other turbines of the same
type to determine whether the results were replicable.

The location of these projects is shown in Figure 2 [4]. Three wind turbine models were included
in this analysis: Vestas V47 and V66 turbines in Texas and Enron Wind Z-50 turbines in Iowa
and Nebraska. Power performance tests in accordance with the IEC standard have been
performed on all but one of the turbines selected for evaluation in this analysis [2] [3]; the
remaining turbine did not undergo a formal power performance test but has an upwind MET
tower suitable for performance of such a test.

Springview, NE Algona, IA
2 x Zond Z-50 3 x Zond Z-50

Big Spring Texas

42 x Vestas V47-660 and
4 x Vestas V66-1.65

FIGURE 2: TVP PROJECT LOCATIONS

METHODOLOGY
A consistent procedure was used to evaluate the MET tower and nacelle anemometer data
examined in this paper. The methodology is outlined below:
1. For each turbine model, a primary turbine was selected for analysis. For each primary
turbine, a successful power performance test had previously been conducted using an
upwind MET tower in accordance with the IEC standard. These baseline turbines
included V47 Turbine 26 and V66 Turbine B at the Big Spring project, and Z-50 Turbine
3 at the Iowa project.
2. For two turbine models, a second turbine was selected to evaluate the accuracy of
relationships developed at the primary turbine. Nebraskas Z-50 Turbine 1 was selected
as a second turbine because a power performance test had also previously been
conducted on that turbine. Big Springs V47 Turbine 40 was selected as a second
turbine because an upwind MET tower was currently in place. An appropriate second
V66 turbine was not identified.
3. For each of the primary turbines, a period of data was selected where both valid MET
tower wind speed and nacelle anemometer wind speed measurements were available. If
possible, these data were selected from a time period immediately preceding or following
the power performance test. The objective was to verify whether relationships observed
for these turbines were consistent over time, given the same measurement equipment. In
some cases, the data analysis period overlapped with the power performance test period
due to insufficient readily available data from other times.
4. The selected MET tower and nacelle anemometer wind speed data were processed using
methods consistent with the IEC Standard to the extent possible. For example, invalid
direction sectors were established consistent with the Standards guidelines and only data
from unobstructed direction sectors were used. Data were also excluded for periods of
icing and when the turbine was offline. One deviation from the standard was that data
from below cut-in wind speeds were excluded from evaluation in this analysis in order to
minimize errors from use of offline data. Finally, wind speed data were normalized to a
sea-level air density of 1.225 kg/m3 using equation 5 from the Standard.
5. Remaining MET tower and nacelle anemometer wind speed data were plotted against
each other and a linear trendline describing the relationship between the measurements
was determined. Other methods of describing the relationship, such as binned ratios and a
third-order regression, were also examined.
6. The relationships were then applied to nacelle anemometer measurements for each
turbine to generate nacelle anemometer-based power curves. Results from the nacelle
anemometer-based tests were directly compared with the previously conducted power
performance tests, when possible.
7. Power curves from the MET tower and nacelle anemometer were compared in two
manners. First, the two curves were plotted atop each other to determine if the power
curve based on the nacelle anemometer fell within the uncertainty estimates of the MET
tower curve (as determined during the earlier power performance test) throughout most or
all of the curve. Second, the annual energy production (AEP) for the turbine was
calculated using each power curve for an assumed annual average wind speed of 8 m/s
and a Rayleigh distribution.

Wherever possible, the analyses were performed in accordance with the IEC Standard. Calibrated
MET tower anemometers were available for all tests, but the nacelle anemometers were not
calibrated; this is a deviation from the Standard. In addition, the locations of the V47 and V66
turbines at the Big Spring project and the Z-50 turbine at the Nebraska did not meet the

4
topographic requirements specified in the Standard and no site calibration was practical.
However, evaluation performed as part of the power performance tests at the Big Spring turbines
indicated that the topographic variations did not appear to have a significant effect on the power
curves. Other minor deviations from the Standard included a lack of hub height temperature and
pressure sensors; hub-height temperature and pressure were estimated from lower-level
measurements.

TEST RESULTS
The results of the analyses, including power curve and AEP comparisons, are presented in this
section for five cases. Additional observations and conclusions are discussed following the
results.

Case 1: Big Spring V47 Turbine 26

Wind speed data generated from V47 Turbine 26 during a time period immediately preceding the
turbines power performance test were used to generate the relationship between the MET tower
and nacelle anemometer measurements for the V47. Figure 3 illustrates the observed relationship.
Only limited scatter is apparent, and a linear relationship is seen from wind speeds at cut-in up to
approximately 15 m/s. Above 15 m/s, the relationship appears to vary from linear.
20

18

16
Nacelle Anemometer Wind Speed (m/s)

14

12
y = 0.9179x + 0.3494
2
R = 0.9861
10

2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Met Tower Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 3: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MET TOWER AND NACELLE ANEMOMETER WIND

SPEEDS, BIG SPRING VESTAS V47 TURBINE 26

This relationship was applied to nacelle anemometer wind speed measurements from the period
of the power performance test. Figure 4 presents scatter plots of power vs. wind speed
measurements for this turbine based on the MET tower and nacelle anemometer measurements.
Throughout the body of the curve, there is much less scatter in the power measurements using the
nacelle anemometer to generate wind speeds than using the MET tower data. This is also
reflected in the standard deviations of the points in each wind speed bin. Up to approximately 11
m/s, the standard deviations in the bins using the nacelle anemometer results are about 40% lower

5
than using the MET tower results. This indicates that the nacelle anemometer may provide much
more precise estimates of free-stream wind speeds at the rotor, although these estimates may be
less accurate.

700

600

500

400
Power (kW)

300

200
Based on Met Tower
Based on Nacelle Anemometer
100

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 4: SCATTER PLOT OF POWER VS. WIND SPEED, BIG SPRING VESTAS V47
TURBINE 26

The calculated power curves for Big Spring V47 Turbine 26 are presented in Figure 5. As shown,
the power curve based on the nacelle anemometer falls within the uncertainty estimates of the
curve based on the MET tower (shown as error bars off the measurement points). The power
curve based on the nacelle anemometer appears to overestimate power by several percent
between approximately 8 m/s and 12 m/s and underestimates power slightly below 6 m/s. The
AEP was calculated for each curve using an average annual wind speed of 8 m/s, with results of
approximately 2.22 GWh/year for the power curve based on the MET tower and 2.25 GWh/year
for the power curve based on the nacelle anemometer. These results differ by approximately
1.4%.

6
 700

600

500

400
Power (kW)

300

200
Based on Met Tower

Based on Nacelle Anemometer

100

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 5: COMPARISON OF POWER CURVES, BIG SPRING VESTAS V47 TURBINE 26

Case 2: Big Spring V47 Turbine 40

The relationship between MET tower and nacelle anemometer wind speeds determined for Big
Spring V47 Turbine 26 in Case 1 was applied to Turbine 40, located approximately four miles to
the east in similar terrain, and power curves were generated for this turbine. Because no complete
power performance test has been conducted on Turbine 40 and because the measurement
equipment available for this turbine does not meet the requirements of the Standard, uncertainty
estimates for the power curve were not available. Deviations from the IEC standard include the
lack of temperature or pressure data at the MET tower (sensors from other towers were used as
surrogates), a calibrated power transducer was not installed at the turbine, and topographic
assessments were not conducted. Nonetheless, there are no apparent indications that the
uncertainties associated with the data from this turbine are significantly greater than those shown
for Turbine 26.

The two power curves are shown in Figure 6. The power curve based on the nacelle anemometer
is significantly lower than the curve based on the MET tower between about 10 m/s and 14 m/s,
with a maximum difference of 30 kW (about 5%) around 12 m/s. The results are higher than the
curve based on the MET tower between approximately 6 m/s and 9 m/s. The AEP was calculated
for each curve using an average annual wind speed of 8 m/s, with results of approximately 2.24
GWh/year for the power curve based on the MET tower and 2.23 GWh/year for the power curve
based on the nacelle anemometer. These results differ by approximately 0.3%. In this case,
although there may be errors of several percent in varying directions for each wind speed bin,
these errors essentially cancel each other out when calculating the AEP.

 700

600

500

400
Power (kW)

300

Based on Met Tower

200

Based on Nacelle Anemometer

100

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 6: COMPARISON OF POWER CURVES, BIG SPRING VESTAS V47 TURBINE 40

Case 3: Big Spring V66 Turbine B

Wind speed data generated from V66 Turbine B during a time period immediately preceding the
turbines power performance test were used to generate the relationship between the MET tower
and nacelle anemometer measurements for the V66. This relationship was applied to nacelle
anemometer wind speed measurements from the period of the power performance test. The
calculated power curves for this turbine are presented in Figure 7. As shown, the curves are
reasonably close, with the curve based on the nacelle anemometer falling within uncertainty
estimates on the curve based on the MET tower. However, the curve based on the nacelle
anemometer is somewhat lower between wind speeds of about 8 m/s to 12 m/s. The AEP was
calculated for each curve using an average annual wind speed of 8 m/s, with results of
approximately 4.51 GWh/year for the power curve based on the MET tower and 4.40 GWh/year
for the power curve based on the nacelle anemometer. These results differ by approximately
2.5%.

 1800

1600

1400

1200
Power (kW)

1000

800

600
Based on Met Tower
400
Based on Nacelle Anemometer
200

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 7: COMPARISON OF POWER CURVES, BIG SPRING VESTAS V66 TURBINE B

Case 4: Iowa Z-50 Turbine 3

Wind speed data generated from Iowa Z-50 Turbine 3 during a time period around and during the
turbines power performance test were used to generate the relationship between the MET tower
and nacelle anemometer measurements for the Z-50. Figure 8 illustrates the observed
relationship. Some scatter is apparent at low wind speeds, but the relationship appears generally
linear across the range of measurements.

Unlike the results for the V47 shown in Figure 3, the slope of this relationship exceeds 1,
indicating that the nacelle anemometer wind speed measurements are reported as being higher
than at the upwind MET tower. There are several possible reasons for this. It is possible that
winds are affected by the nacelle of the Z-50 in a manner that produces increased wind speeds at
the anemometer. It is also possible that a scaling factor may be applied to the measurements
through turbine programming for control purposes. The specific reason this may occur is not
crucial to understand, as long as the reason is the same across turbines (i.e., if a scaling factor is
being applied through the turbine controller, it is important that the same scaling factor be applied
in all turbine controllers for which the observed relationship may be applied).

 20
y = 1.0912x - 0.4512
2
Nacelle Anemometer Wind Speed (m/s) 18 R = 0.9547

16

14

12

10

2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Met Tower Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 8: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MET TOWER AND NACELLE ANEMOMETER WIND

SPEEDS, IOWA Z-50 TURBINE 3

The calculated power curves for Iowa Z-50 Turbine 3 are presented in Figure 9. The modified
nacelle anemometer power curve is within the uncertainty bounds of the MET tower curve
(shown as error bars on the curve) over all wind speeds. The AEP was calculated for each curve
using an average annual wind speed of 8 m/s, with results of approximately 2.51 GWh/year for
the power curve based on the MET tower and 2.49 GWh/year for the power curve based on the
nacelle anemometer. These results differ by approximately 1.1%.

10
 800

700

600

500
Power (kW)

400

300

200 Based on Met Tower

Based on Nacelle Anemometer

100

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 9: COMPARISON OF POWER CURVES, IOWA Z-50 TURBINE 3

The scatter in the power curve was also evaluated. As with the V47 results shown in Figure 4,
there is much less scatter in the power measurements based on nacelle anemometer than using the
measurements based on the MET tower, with the exception of some points off the curve at low
wind speeds. The standard deviations in each wind speed bin are about 30% to 40% lower
throughout the body of the curve using the nacelle anemometer.

Case 5: Nebraska Z-50 Turbine 1

The relationship between MET tower and nacelle anemometer wind speeds determined for Iowa
Z-50 Turbine 3 in Case 4 was applied to Nebraska Z-50 Turbine 1. The resulting power curves
for this turbine are presented in Figure 10. The curve based on the nacelle anemometer power
curve is slightly lower than the MET tower curve from approximately 6 m/s to 12 m/s, and it also
exhibits a slight dip above rated wind speed at which a few erroneous high nacelle anemometer
wind speed measurements are influencing the bin averages. However, the body of the curve is
within the uncertainty on the curve based on the MET tower. The AEP was calculated for each
curve using an average annual wind speed of 8 m/s, with results of approximately 2.45 GWh/year
for the power curve based on the MET tower and 2.39 GWh/year for the power curve based on
the nacelle anemometer. These results differ by approximately 2.6%.

11

 800

700

600

500
Power (kW)

400

300

Based on Met Tower

200

Based on Nacelle Anemometer

100

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 10: COMPARISON OF POWER CURVES, NEBRASKA Z-50 TURBINE 1

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
In addition to the results above, supplementary investigations were conducted as part of this work
to better understand the analyses and the technical implications of the results. Specific data sets
available at some sites provided an opportunity to further examine some interesting technical
considerations. These observations and indicative analyses are discussed below.

Use of off-line data for determining relationships

As previously noted, only online turbine data from periods when energy was generated were used
to determine the relationships between MET tower and nacelle anemometer wind speeds.
Additional analyses were conducted to determine the impact of using data from when the turbines
were not running.

Figure 11 presents the difference in observable relationships between when V66 Turbine B was
online and operating versus when the turbine was not running (i.e., faulted, paused, or in
maintenance mode). As shown, there is a significant difference in these relationships, with a slope
varying by more then 0.13 between the two cases. One explanation for these results is that wind
flow behind the rotor will be much different when the turbine is not operational; however, there
may be additional contributing effects. For example, the turbine may not be yawed into the wind
if faulted, and it may therefore expose the nacelle anemometer to the wind from a different
direction.

It should be noted that while these results support the use of only online data when determining
relationships between MET tower and nacelle anemometer wind speeds, this practice may
increase uncertainties in cases in which offline data are to be used in power performance tests,

12
such as if the turbine goes offline for normal turbine control reasons. Such occurrences are likely
to be rare, so the increase in uncertainties should be negligible for most turbines.
20

18
y = 1.0863x + 0.1785
R2 = 0.9765
V66 Nacelle Anemometer Wind Speed (m/s)

16

14
y = 0.9529x + 0.1788
R2 = 0.9753
12

10

6
Turbine Not Running
4 Turbine Running

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Met Tower Wind Speed (m/s)
FIGURE 11: COMPARISON OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MET TOWER AND NACELLE
ANEMOMETER WHEN V66 IS RUNNING AND NOT RUNNING

Anemometer Calibration Issues

As noted earlier, none of the nacelle anemometers used in this evaluation were calibrated. To
investigate the uncertainties associated with the use of uncalibrated anemometers, the relationship
between the nacelle anemometers of three adjacent turbines, V66 Turbines A, B, and C at Big
Spring, to the nearby MET tower were examined. All three turbines are similarly exposed to
prevailing winds and similar relationships were expected.

Figure 12 shows the relationship for each turbine, with the intercepts for each trendline set to zero
to help illustrate the differences between the lines. The relationship between the MET tower and
nacelle anemometers on Turbines A and C is close, while the relationship between the MET
tower and nacelle anemometer on Turbine B is significantly different (with a slope varying by
about 0.07). Assuming that the winds experienced by each turbine are similar, the resulting
difference is most likely due to the inherent variation in the nacelle anemometers. The use of
calibrated sensors would reduce the potential for this type of variation.

13
 22
y = 1.0468x y = 1.1146x y = 1.0478x
2
R2 = 0.9522 R2 = 0.9834 R = 0.9718
20

18
Nacelle Anemometer Wind Speed (m/s)

16

14

12

10

Turbine A
8
Turbine B
6
Turbine C
4

2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Met Tower Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 12: COMPARISON OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MET TOWER AND NACELLE

ANEMOMETER WIND SPEEDS, BIG SPRING VESTAS V66 TURBINES A, B, AND C

To further evaluate the effects of uncalibrated anemometers, an additional analysis was

performed with Big Spring V66 Turbine B. Shortly after completion of power performance
testing of this turbine, the primary upwind MET tower anemometer failed and was replaced with
an uncalibrated anemometer. Figure 13 illustrates the relationships between the MET tower wind
speed measurements and nacelle anemometer wind speed measurements before and after the
upwind anemometer was changed. As shown, the slope of the regression changed significantly
more than 0.05 between the two time periods.

A power curve and AEP calculation was generated for V66 Turbine B based on the two
relationships shown in Figure 13. The power curves are shown in Figure 14. The power curve
based on the uncalibrated adjustment falls outside the uncertainty bounds of the results based on
the MET tower throughout the body of the curve. Furthermore, the AEP using the uncalibrated
measurements of 4.13 GWh/year is about 8.4% lower than the AEP based on the MET tower
(estimated at 4.51 GWh/year). These results indicate the importance of using calibrated
anemometers for power performance testing.

14
 22

20
y = 1.1015x + 0.0337
V66 Nacelle Anemometer Wind Speed (m/s)

R2 = 0.984
18

16
y = 1.0473x + 0.164
R2 = 0.9613
14

12

10

8
Before Anemometer Change (Calibrated)
6
After Anemometer Change (Uncalibrated)
4

2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Met Tower Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 13: COMPARISON OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MET TOWER AND NACELLE

ANEMOMETER WIND SPEEDS, BIG SPRING VESTAS V66 TURBINE B, BEFORE AND
AFTER CHANGE TO MET TOWER ANEMOMETER

1800

1600

1400

1200
Power (kW)

1000

800

600
Based on Met Tower
400
Based on Nacelle Anemometer with
'Calibrated' Adjustment
200 Based on Nacelle Anemometer with
'Uncalibrated' Adjustment
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 14: COMPARISON OF POWER CURVES, BIG SPRING VESTAS V66 TURBINE B

15
Turbine Control Issues
At the Nebraska TVP project, the turbines were repitched and the control software was adjusted
to help improve turbine performance after the completion of the initial IEC power performance
measurements. As a result, test data is available from the turbine for the periods before and after
these adjustments were made. Figure 15 shows the relationship between the nacelle anemometer
and the MET tower before and after the adjustments. Although the regressions are similar, the
variation indicates that changes in turbine configuration can result in inaccurate measurements of
free-stream wind speed and reduce the accuracy of the power curve estimates.
22
y = 1.2196x - 1.5981 y = 1.1227x - 0.6143
2 2
20
R = 0.9798 R = 0.9823
Nacelle Anemometer Wind Speed (m/s)

18

16

14

12
Before Repitching
10 After Repitching

2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Met Tower Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 15: COMPARISON OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MET TOWER AND NACELLE

ANEMOMETER WIND SPEEDS, NEBRASKA Z-50 TURBINE 1, BEFORE AND AFTER
REPITCHING OF TURBINE

Non-Linear Relationships
In some cases, a linear regression may not appear to adequately describe the relationship between
the sensors. For example, in Case 1, the relationship for the V47 varies from linear at high wind
speeds. To determine if methods other than linear regression would more adequately describe the
relationship between the anemometers, other approaches were investigated. Figure 16 illustrates
the impact of grouping data for the V47 into 0.5 m/s bins. In this example, the ratio of nacelle
anemometer to MET tower wind speed measurements was calculated for each bin. Power curves
using the bin ratios to adjust nacelle anemometer measurements are shown for the V47 in Figure
17. As seen in this figure, no significant improvement in results is observed using the binned
ratios.

16
 20

18
Nacelle Anemometer Wind Speed (m/s)

16

14

12
y = 0.9179x + 0.3494
2
R = 0.9861
10

6
Raw Data
Averages in 0.5 m/s bins
4

2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Met Tower Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 16: REGRESSION AND BINNED RATIOS OF MET TOWER AND NACELLE
ANEMOMETER WIND SPEEDS, BIG SPRING VESTAS V47 TURBINE 26

700

600

500

400
Power (kW)

300

Based on Met Tower

200

Based on Nacelle Anemometer

(Adjusted by Regression)
100
Based on Nacelle Anemometer
(Adjusted by Binned Ratios)
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Wind Speed (m/s)

FIGURE 17: COMPARISON OF POWER CURVES, BIG SPRING VESTAS V47 TURBINE 26

17
The results using binned ratios applied to V47 Turbine 40 also showed no observable
improvement in results. Use of a third-order regression was also evaluated, and results were
similar. Consequently, we concluded that the linear regression was adequate for description of the
ratio between nacelle anemometer and MET tower wind speeds for the turbine types investigated
in this paper.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Initial results using both the V47 and Z-50 wind turbines indicate that nacelle anemometers can
provide reasonably accurate approximations of turbine power curves measured using upwind
MET towers. Specific observations and conclusions include the following:
The relationship observed between wind speeds measured at an upwind MET tower and a
nacelle anemometer can be used to generate power curves for a test turbine with fairly
low error in AEP estimates.
Relationships observed for individual test turbines appear representative of other turbines
of the same type, although uncertainties of approximately 3% in AEP estimates appear
likely due to variations in these relationships. The method using nacelle anemometers
appears to be sufficiently accurate for broad monitoring of turbines across a wind farm to
verify that individual turbines are performing per specifications and to document that
turbine performance remains constant over time.
The most significant source of variation in these relationships is likely to be caused by
the use of uncalibrated nacelle anemometers, although other sources of uncertainty may
include differences in turbine controls, topographic variations near the turbines that could
produce different wind flow around the nacelles, minor differences in anemometer
mounting, and others.
The relationships between wind speeds at the upwind MET tower and at the nacelle
anemometers appear close to linear over most wind speeds, with the most variation at low
(i.e., below cut-in) and high wind speeds. For the purposes of power performance testing,
errors at high and low wind speeds are unlikely to have significant effects because at
these speeds the turbines are either not online or are maintaining rated power.
Much less scatter was observed in the power curves generated from the nacelle
anemometers than from the power curves generated by the upwind MET towers. This
increased precision in results suggests that if the relationships between the free-stream
and nacelle wind speeds can be reliably determined, then the nacelle anemometers may
produce more accurate power curves than using MET towers in complex terrain, where
the upwind measurements may not be representative of free-stream winds at the turbine
rotors.
Maintaining a constant test turbine configuration is crucial for accurate power curve
results using nacelle anemometers. Changes in controls, pitch settings, nacelle
anemometer mounting, and blade condition could all significantly affect power curve
estimates.

Based on these initial results, the use of nacelle anemometers for power performance testing
appears promising and future research into these methods is warranted to better define procedures
and understand potential drawbacks. Recommendations to further develop and improve the
methodology include the following:
Perform additional tests using calibrated anemometers on both the nacelles and MET
towers to determine the impact of using calibrated sensors and identify if additional
sources of uncertainty (such as topographic effects or variations in turbine configuration)
can be isolated. The TVP is investigating if calibrated sensors can be installed on the test
turbines evaluated in this analysis.

18
 Continue evaluation of additional turbine types and configurations to determine whether
results are similar for different machines. Evaluation of fixed-pitch, stall-regulated
turbines that do not maintain a constant regulated power may show that the methodology
is inadequate for accurate determination of high wind speeds.
Perform tests on turbines at a location where installation of an upwind MET tower is not
practical to determine if the relationships established at other locations appear to apply.
The TVP is planning to conduct such testing on the three V47 turbines at the TVA
Buffalo Mountain wind project in Tennessee. The results of this testing will help indicate
whether the relationships apply across sites and whether steep upwind terrain
significantly affects wind flow around the nacelle anemometers.
Encourage the IEC to complete development of a standard addressing use of nacelle
anemometers to verify turbine power performance. This standard would formalize a
methodology applicable across all wind energy facilities, including stand-alone turbines
and wind farms, and provide guidance for power performance testing at sites in complex
terrain.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this paper wish to acknowledge the management at NREL and U.S. Department of
Energy for encouragement and approval of the time necessary to perform the analysis, paper
preparation, and attendance at AWEAs WindPower 2002 conference. GECs work was
performed in support of the Wind Turbine Verification Program through DOE contract number
YCX-1-31222-01. We would also like to acknowledge the project operators from which data
utilized in this paper was obtained. TVP project operators include York Research Corporation
(Big Spring, TX), Nebraska Public Power District (Springview, NE), and Algona Municipal
Utilities (Algona, IA).

REFERENCES
1. Wind Turbine Generator Systems, Part 12: Wind Turbine Power Performance Testing, IEC
88/85/FDIS, Project 88/61400-12, International Electrotechnical Commission, Netherlands,
1998.
2. VandenBosche, J., McCoy, T., Rhoads, H., McNiff, B., Smith, B. Power Performance
Testing Activities in the DOE-EPRI Turbine Verification Program. WindPower 2000
Proceedings, AWEA, Palm Springs, CA, May 2000.
3. Smith, B., Randall. G., VandenBosche, J., McCoy, T. Power Performance Testing Progress
in the DOE-EPRI Turbine Verification Program. WindPower 2001 Proceedings, AWEA,
Washington, DC, June 2001.
4. McGowin, C., Hall, T., Smith, B. DOE-EPRI Turbine Verification Program (TVP).
WindPower 1998 Proceedings, AWEA, Bakersfield, CA, May 1998.

19

 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB NO. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
May 2002 Conference Paper

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Applicability of Nacelle Anemometer Measurements for Use in Turbine Power
Performance Tests: Preprint
WER2.4710
6. AUTHOR(S)
B. Smith, Hal Link, G. Randall, and T. McCoy

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

National Renewable Energy Laboratory AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393 NREL/CP-500-32494

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
Collection of accurate wind speed data is one of the more problematic elements in conducting wind turbine power performance
tests. IEC 61400-12 specifies meteorological tower placement between two and four rotor diameters upwind of the test turbine.
However, use of an upwind meteorological tower can be difficult at some sites. In some cases, complex terrain near the
turbine may make placement of an upwind tower impossible. In addition, purchase and erection of a meteorological tower can
be expensive, particularly as the hub height of large turbines increases.

Because of these concerns, wind farm owners and turbine manufacturers have expressed interest in the use of turbine nacelle-
mounted anemometers for collection of wind speed data. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) Wind Turbine Verification Program (TVP) has performed data collection and power performance tests at wind
energy facilities located in the United States. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the data gathered from the Big Spring,
Texas; Algona, Iowa; and Springview, Nebraska, facilities to determine whether a meaningful relationship can be derived
between meteorological-tower and nacelle-anemometer wind speed measurements for Vestas V47 and V66 turbines (Big
Spring) and Enron Z-50 turbines (Algona and Springview).

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. SUBJECT TERMS
wind energy; wind turbines; wind turbine performance testing; nacelle; anemometer
16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102