A. C.

Hansen
Visiting Associate Professor,
Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering,
University of Utah,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

T. E. Hausfeld
Staff Engineer,
Wind Energy Research Center,
Solar Energy Research Institute,
Golden, CO 80401

Frequency-Response Matching to
Optimize Wind-Turbine Test Data
Correlation
Pre-averaging is often applied to wind turbine test data to improve correlation between wind speed and power output data. In the past, trial and error or intuition
have been used in the selection of pre-averaging time and researchers and institutions have differed widely in their pre-averaging practice. In this paper a standardized method is proposed for selection of the optimum pre-averaging time. The method
selects an averaging time such that the test data are low-pass-filtered at the same frequency as the response frequency of the test wind turbine/anemometer system. A
theoretial method is provided for estimation of the wind system transfer function as
a function of the anemometer location, rotor moment of inertia, the stiffness of the
connection between the rotor and the electrical grid, hub height, rotor speed and
wind speed. The method is based in proven theory, repeatable, easy to use and applicable to a wide range of wind turbines and test conditions.
Results of the transfer function predictions are compared with the measured
response of two wind systems. Agreement between the predicted and measured
response is completely adequate for the purposes of the method. Example results of
calculated averaging times are presented for several wind turbines. In addition, a
case study is used to demonstrate the dramatic effects of test design and data
analysis methods on the results of a power coefficient measurement.

Introduction
Test data obtained from wind turbines in the natural wind
environment are essential to the understanding and improvement of wind energy systems. Most often, tests are intended to
correlate some aspect of turbine response (power output,
structural loads, yaw behavior, etc.) with the wind input to the
system. This is complicated by the fundamental difficulty that
it is impossible to directly measure the instantaneous ambient
wind that is experienced by an operating wind turbine rotor.
Such a measurement is impossible because induced velocity effects make it necessary to measure winds at some distance
from the rotor (typically 2-3 rotor diameters) and turbulence
in the planetary boundary layer will cause significant changes
in instantaneous wind speeds over those distances. The poor
correlation between winds that can be measured and actual
winds at the rotor results in an inevitable loss of correlation
between wind data and turbine response (and the appearance
of scatter in the data). For most system parameters there will
be a further loss of correlation resulting from the inertial lag
of the system in response to a change in the wind input. Thus
there are two basic mechanisms by which the wind measured
during a test will be imperfectly correlated with the system
response: 1) poor correlation between the measured wind and
the actual wind experienced by the entire rotor, and 2) poor
correlation due to inertial lag of the system responding to
changes in the ambient wind speed.
Contributed by the Solar Energy Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF
SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING. Manuscript received by the Solar Energy Division,
November, 1985.

246/Vol. 108, AUGUST 1986

The Method-of-Bins is the generally accepted technique for

analysis and summary of test data [1, 2]. Correlation is improved by time-averaging of the data prior to entry into the
Method-of-Bins. Time-averaging mitigates the effects of both
poor point-to-point wind correlation and inertial lag. The
wind correlation is improved by averaging out high frequency
fluctuations in wind speed and the inertial lag is masked if preaveraging times exceed the system response time constant.
Thus it has become standard practice in the wind energy industry to use pre-averaging of the raw data before applying
the Method-of-Bins. To date, however, the selection of a preaveraging time has been arbitrary and there are major differences in the averaging times used or advocated by various
organizations. For instance, the International Energy Agency
proposed test guidelines [3] call for use of a ten minute preaveraging time for all wind turbines. The American Wind
Energy Association proposed Performance Test Standard [4]
recommends use of pre-averaging times ranging from a few
seconds to one minute, the selection being at the discretion of
the user.
There are costs associated with selection of a pre-averaging
time that is either too short or too long. If the time is too short
then scatter in the test data may result in misinterpretation or
loss of important information in the ' 'noise.'' If the averaging
time is too long then important information may be averaged
out and test durations (and hence costs) will be unnecessarily
long. One example of information lost as a result of averaging
is the following: If a ten minute pre-average is used while

Copyright 1986 by ASME

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/22/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

I
testing a small turbine, complete start-up and shut-down sequences could occur during the collection of one data point.
The wind speed and power output data point so obtained
would obviously have no value and important information
about the control behavior would be lost.
It is clear that a method for selection of pre-averaging times
must be developed to permit the maximum amount of useful
information to be gleaned from test data. The method must be
repeatable, applicable to a wide variety of wind turbines and
test conditions, based in proven theory, and easy to use. Such
a method is proposed in this paper.
The purpose of the method is to allow selection of a preaveraging time that will maximize the amount of information
that can be derived from raw test data. This is different from
minimizing the "scatter" in the data. If minimum scatter is
the only objective of a data analysis technique then lengthening the pre-averaging time will achieve the objective. The obvious (and absurd) ultimate result of long pre-averaging would
be reduction of an entire test record to one data point. There
would be no scatter but the data would be virtually worthless
for engineering evaluation of the wind turbine.
Fig. 1

Three Wind Turbine Response Functions

The wind turbine acts as a low-pass filter to wind speed fluctuations that are measured at some distance from the turbine
rotor. The test system (wind turbine, test anemometry and intervening atmospheric turbulence) has a response function
which, in the frequency domain, is commonly called the filter
shape function or transfer function. Pre-averaging is also a
means of low-pass filtering. The proposed method of averaging time selection is based upon the premise that the transfer
function of the pre-averaging filter should closely match that
of the test system. If pre-averaging filters more severely than
the test system then useful information will be lost. If preaveraging allows higher frequency fluctuations to pass than
the test system then meaningless and confusing scatter will be
present in the test data. To select the optimum pre-averaging
time, then, one must first determine the transfer function of
the test system and then choose the pre-averaging time with a
similar transfer function shape and identical cut-off frequency. A means for estimating the test system transfer function
will be presented in the following paragraphs.
For purposes of analysis the test system can be considered
the composite of three subsystems. The first two subsystems
are concerned only with the wind. The first relates the wind at
the point of measurement to the wind at the location of the
rotor hub (in the absence of induced effects). The second
relates the instantaneous wind at the rotor hub to the spatial
average of the wind over the rotor disc. The third subsystem
relates the wind experienced by the rotor disc to the output of
the turbine system. The particular case that will be analyzed
here is the electrical power output of the wind system as a
function of the scalar wind speed. Other parameters could be
analyzed in a similar fashion.
Figure 1 shows a schematic of a test configuration. We will
denote the frequency domain transfer function from the wind
at the point of measurement to the wind at the hub as Hx. This
will be called the anemometer displacement transfer function.
The transfer function between the wind at the hub and the instantaneous wind averaged across the rotor will be called the
disc averaging transfer function, denoted by H2. Finally the
transfer function between the disc-averaged wind speed and
the power output of the wind system will be the inertial
response function, denoted by H3. The response function of
the complete system is the product of the response functions
of the various subsystems (for linear systems). That is,
\H(f)\2=\H1(f)\2x\H2(f)\2x\H3(f)\2.
(1)
The transfer function relating the wind at one point to the
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

Sketch of the turbine test geometry

wind at a different point is presented by Panofsky and Dutton

[5].
\HX {/) 12 = Coh(/) = exp ( - 6f(Lx + 2L,)/V]
(2)
In this equation, Kis the ambient wind speed, Lx and Ly are
the longitudinal and lateral distances between two points at
the same elevation as shown in Fig. 1, and / i s the frequency
(Hz) of the wind fluctuation. Equation (2) is valid for strong,
neutrally stable winds in regions where the long-term-average
winds are uniform. For short vertical separations this equation
can be used with acceptable accuracy. (In such a case Ly is the
cross wind distance between the two points.) Note that the
decay of coherence or correlation is twice as fast for lateral
separation of the points as for longitudinal separation. Thus it
is important to keep the measurement anemometry upwind of
the turbine and at hub height as much as possible.
The transfer function between the disc average wind speed
and the hub wind speed (H2) can be found using the same exponential coherence relationship used in deriving equation (2).
An approximation to the disc average can be made by using
four points spaced 90 deg apart around a circle with a radius
75 percent of the rotor radius (the 0.75 R location is often considered representative of the entire blade in rotary-wing
analyses). Details of the calculation are presented in Appendix
A. The result is,
\H2(f)\2 = l/3{exp[-(12+16.5R/H)(0.75Rf/V)] +
2 e\p[-(l2+U.67R/H)(0.53Rf/V)]}
(3)
In this equation R is the rotor radius and if is the hub height.
This result is similar to that of Madsen and Frandsen [6] and
Frandsen [7] but the present result is derived for a circular
rather than a rectangular area and includes the influence of
tower height. Note from equation (3) the best correlation is
obtained for small rotor radii, large hub heights, and/or high
wind speeds.
The response of a wind turbine system to changes in the disc
wind speed is obviously complex and can involve dozens of
variables. For the present purposes however it is important to
keep the analysis straightforward and at a level of sophistication comparable to that of the turbulence coherence in the
previous paragraphs. The most important features of a turbine, for present purposes, are: 1) Is the turbine of (virtually)
constant or variable speed? and 2) What is the rotating inertia
of the system? The "stiffness" of the power train (or the
change in rotor speed required per unit change in power output) and the inertia of the rotor system are the dominant
variables influencing the time constant of the system. All other
AUGUST 1986, Vol. 108/247

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/22/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 1 Characteristics and test conditions of the University

of Massachusetts wind furnace and the modified Northwind
HRl
Characteristic
Wind Speed
Rotor Speed
Rotor Diameter
Moment of Inertia
Hub Height
Generator Stiffness
Anemometer Lx
Anemometer Lv

UMass Wind
Furnace
14.2 mph
79.3 rpm
32.5 ft
255. lb-ft-s2
60 ft
0.21 kW/rpm
60 ft
Oft

Northwind HRl
15 mph
150 rpm
16.0 ft
11.6 lb-ft-s2
50 ft
0.007 kW/rpm
50 ft
10 ft

0 '

p = IQ(doi/dt)+kw.

\
.001

l i / 3 ( / ) l 2 = l / [ l + (27rr/)2]

(7)

where the time constant, T, is

T=IQ/k.

(8)

Of course, the critical parameter in defining the transfer function is the time constant which depends upon the power train
stiffness and the rotating mass moment of inertia. Constant
speed systems will be very stiff and have a short time constant.
Small, lightweight systems will have a low moment of inertia
and a correspondingly fast response time.
Predicted System Response Functions and Comparison
With Test Results
System response functions have been measured for two
wind systems. Manwell and Kirchhoff measured the response
of the University of Massachusetts Wind Furnace [8] and the
transfer function of a slightly modified Northwind HRl was
measured at the SERI Wind Energy Research Center. These
data make it possible to partially test the validity of the predictions of the previous section. Table 1 lists key characteristics
of the Wind Furnace and HRl.
Figure 2 shows predicted response functions for the UMass
Wind Furnace. Each of the subsystem transfer functions is
248 / Vol. 108, AUGUST 1986

.01

0.1

\
1.0

Frequency-Hz
Predicted transfer functions of the Wind Furnace wind turbine

CD
"O
i

a>
3

co

.001

.01

0.1

1.0

Frequency-Hz
Fig. 3

Predicted and measured transfer functions of the Wind Furnace

CD

Disc
Average

Displacement

rococo
-30

Inertia

System Response

.001

.01

0.1

1.0

Frequency-Hz

(6)

In this equation o> is the small change in rotational speed and Q

is the average speed. This equation represents a linear, firstorder system with a transfer function given by [10].

\ ^

D)-20.
CO

variables, such as blade and tower structural stiffness, details

of the generator construction, masses of individual subsystems, etc., will be of secondary importance when attempting to estimate the response time of the entire system.
Therefore, in this analysis the simplest approach will be taken.
For more detailed analyses of turbine system dynamics the
reader is referred to [8] and [9].
Consider a power train/rotor system with polar moment of
inertia /. The generator can be approximated as a linear
system where power output changes are proportional to rotational speed changes, with a proportionality constant of k.
That is,
(5)
where P is the electrical power output and fl is the rotor speed.
For small changes in speed, the "stiffness" k can be considered constant. Conventional induction generators have a
stiffness of the order of (rated power)/(3 percent-5 percent of
rated speed). Variable speed generators have much lower stiffness. If the generator is a synchronous alternator the electrical
connection will be extremely stiff and then the elastic stiffness
of the power train shafts, dampers and gearboxes must be considered as an important part of the overall rotor-to-grid
stiffness.
If the available rotor power changes by an amount p,
changes in the rotor speed and the power output will result.
That is,

uispiauemer

Disc
>
^
System
\ \ v \ - Inertia
Response
\
)

CO

Fig. 2

k = dP/dU

"--55VN

Fig. 4

Predicted transfer functions of the modified Northwind HR2

shown together with the composite function. Note the

displacement and disc average filtering are of comparable
magnitudes and considerably more important than the inertia
filter. This is somewhat surprising for a variable speed system
such as the Wind Furnace. Figure 3 compares the predicted
system transfer function with the measured response. The
solid line is the predicted results and the circles are measured
data points. The agreement is quite good, both qualitatively
and quantitatively. The rate of roll-off of the test data is
greater than that of the predicted curve, but the cut-off frequency and overall trends are predicted with acceptable accuracy. (Recall that current debate over the correct preaveraging time spans two orders of magnitude. The present
results can narrow the debate significantly.)
Figure 4 shows predicted response functions for the HRl.
For this small, variable speed system the inertia filter slightly
dominates the wind filters. Larger or constant speed systems
(that is, most systems on the market today) will show response
dominated by the displacement and disc average filters. Figure
5 shows a comparison of predicted and test results. Again, the
agreement is qualitatively and quantitatively acceptable.
These comparisons indicate the proposed method of predicting system response is adequate to the task at hand. Of
course, the predictions could be improved by including more

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/22/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

" Table 2 Calculated pre-averaging times for selected wind turbines and test conditions
CONDITIONS
CONDITIONS
MACHINE
FAVORABLE
UNFAVORABLE
277s
157s
Northwind HR2
43.
14.
UMass Wind Furnace
40.
12.
jay Carter 25
65.
33.
ESI 80
414.
129.
Mod-2

o \

^Predicted

CD
o

o \

-10-

Measured

~i

--

c
o>
m
2

\
\
o\

-20

\ o

-30.001

\
r
"

detail and modeling more features of the turbulent boundary

layer and the wind turbine system. But the most essential
features are included in the present model while keeping the
computing and data input requirements to a minimum.

0.1

.01

Frequency-Hz
Fig. 5
HR2

Predicted and measured transfer functions of the Northwind

T~ Selection of Pre-Averaging Time

After the transfer function of the wind turbine and
anemometry system is estimated, the next step is selection of
the pre-averaging time that will apply essentially the same
response function to the test data. Recall that the optimum information transfer will occur when the data analyzed has the
same bandwidth as the wind turbine test system. Preaveraging for time T is a form of low-pass filtering with a
transfer function computed in Appendix B:
\H(f) I2 = 0.5[l-cos(27r/r)]/(7r/T) 2 .

(9)

This filter has a cut-off frequency (response down 3 dB) of

/cul=0.443/r.

Tip Speed Ratio

(10)

Once the turbine transfer function is known, its cut-off frequency can be determined. The pre-averaging time T is then
selected such that the turbine and pre-averaging cut-off frequencies are the same.
Table 2 shows the preaveraging times estimated for a variety
of wind turbines. In all of these examples it was assumed the
test anemometer was three rotor diameters from the hub.
"Favorable conditions" assume the anemometer is directly
upwind of the hub and the wind speed is 11.2 m/s (25 mph).
"Unfavorable conditions" assume the anemometer is 60 deg
off the wind turbine axis and the wind speed is 6.7 m/s (15
mph).
These averaging times are, as expected, longer for the larger
wind turbines. They are also quite similar to averaging times
that have actually been used for these machines. Such times
have traditionally been selected by trial and error during the
data analysis process. Notice they are all significantly less than
the ten minute pre-averaging recommended by the IEA.

Fig. 6

Measured performance of the modified Northwind HR2

0.7

c
o
if=
<i>

o
O

CD
O

0.6

Raw Data
-* Pre-averaged
- Boom anemom.

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.1-0.0

10 11 12

Tip Speed Ratio

Fig. 7 Measured performance of the Northwind HR2 after preaveraging

A Case Study
Performance data were collected on the modified Northwind HR2 at the SERI Wind Energy Research Center. The
data were digitized and reduced into a rotor power coefficient
versus tip speed ratio format. Shaft torque and angular velocity were measured to provide rotor power values. An
anemometer located 50 ft. upwind of the rotor measured wind
speed used to calculate the power available in the wind. This
power available was corrected to measured barometric
pressure and ambient temperature. All data channels were
digitized at a rate of 20 Hz. The Method-of-Bins was used to
provide rotor power coefficient values for integer tip speed
ratio bins. Figure 6 shows the results of the analysis when no
pre-averaging is used. Note the power coefficients exceed the
Betz limit over a wide range of tip speed ratios. (The curve
shows power coefficients up to 0.8. Values up to 4.8 were
measured but not plotted in the interest of detail in the region
of greatest interest.) Though the instruments reported accurately, the data anlaysis gave totally misleading results. Of
course, it is the lack of correlation between instantaneously

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

sampled wind speed and power output values that so greatly

distorts the results.
A correction was applied to the data to compensate for the
power absorbed by an increase in rotor speed or the power
released by a decrease in rotor speed. This inertia correction
was applied to each consecutive 20 Hz data sample. The second curve in Fig. 6 shows the slight influence of this correction. Clearly an inertia correction alone cannot yield meaningful results.
Pre-averaging the data for times calculated using the
method proposed in this paper significantly altered the CpTSR curve as shown in the curve labeled "preaveraged" in
Fig. 7. The curve now presents more plausible results and
much less scatter in the results as well. The raw data curve of
Fig. 6 is reproduced here as well as well for comparison. But
pre-averaging is not a solution for a test which was not designed as well as possible. The wind speed data measured 50 ft.
from the turbine rotor and used in the previous figures were
AUGUST 1986, Vol. 108/249

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/22/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

quencies to remove uncorrelated wind direction fluctuations

but retain rapid yaw events; and the strain gage channels could
be filtered at relatively high frequencies (say, for example,
twice the highest natural frequency of interest). Such a method
of data pre-processing has been employed by the authors in
data analysis at the SERI Wind Energy Research Center.
However, a detailed discussion of this technique is beyond the
scope of this paper.

Conclusions

Fig.8 Photograph of the HR2 test machine (showing the anemometer

boom)

accompanied by wind measurements at either end of a

horizontal boom attached to the machine. This boom, shown
in Fig. 8, allowed wind speed to be measured nearly in the
rotor plane, one radius outboard of the blade tip. The two
wind measurements were averaged to provide a better estimate
of the wind at the rotor disc. The data were corrected for inertia effects and pre-averaged in accordance with the method
outlined above. The result is presented in the "Boom
Anemom." curve of Fig. 7. Better positioning of anemometry
allows shorter pre-averaging times, and higher frequency
measurement. Remember that Fig. 7 uses data from the same
test as Fig. 6. The positive, in fact essential, effects of good
anemometer placement and pre-averaging are evident.
(This example shows the sensitivity of a power coefficient
measurement to the method of data analysis. Because of this
particular sensitivity to wind speed, it is recommended that Cp
measurements be made indirectly rather than directly as
above. First a power curve should be measured as a function
of wind speed. Then the Cp should be calculated from the
final power curve. The Cp was calculated for each data point
in the above case study only to demonstrate the effects of test
design.)

Alternatives to Pre-Averaging
Pre-averaging is a form of low-pass filtering. It offers the
great advantage of simple and intuitive application. But it also
has some disadvantages. The filter shape of a pre-averaging
filter is different from that of the typical wind turbine. This
means that the filters can only be matched at one point (the
- 3 dB point is used in this work). A mismatch of filter shapes
will result in less than optimal transfer of correlated data. The
first author has investigated use of a non-recursive digital low
pass filter with an exponential roll-off quite similar to that of
the wind turbine system. Such a filter is more time consuming
and difficult to apply. At present it is not clear that the
benefits of a better filter match justify the cost. This matter is
under continuing investigation.
Perhaps more important, pre-averaging as it is used today,
applies the same averaging time to all channels of data. This is
a major disadvantage when analyzing load response data. (It is
not a problem if wind speed and power output data are the only channels under investigation.) If a test is designed to investigate structural loads, i.e., blade root bending or shaft
torque, the application of pre-averaging to all channels of data
will destroy much cyclic load information of value. The solution is to apply different low-pass filters to each channel of
data. For instance, the wind speed might be pre-averaged to
match the system power response; the wind direction and
machine yaw channels could be filtered at intermediate fre250 I Vol. 108, AUGUST 1986

A method has been presented for determination of the appropriate pre-averaging to be used in processing wind turbine
test data. The averaging time is selected to give the time-series
data the same bandwidth as the wind turbine test system. It
has been shown that the loss of correlation between measured
wind speed and power output is a result of three effects: 1) the
measured wind at a point is not perfectly correlated with the
wind that would be observed at the hub location (in the
absence of the rotor induced velocities), 2) the wind at the hub
location is not perfectly correlated with the instantaneous
wind averaged over the rotor disc area, and 3) inertial lag of
the mechanical/electrical system results in loss of response to
rapid wind speed fluctuations. Essential features of these
phenomena can be characterized by the wind speed, the lateral
and longitudinal distance to the test anemometer, the hub
height above ground, the rotor and power train moment of inertia and speed, and the stiffness of the electromechanical link
between the wind turbine rotor and the electrical grid.
Equations are presented for estimation of the transfer function of each of these phenomena. The resulting system
transfer functions, though calculated using highly simplified
theories, compare well with measured transfer functions from
two full-scale wind turbines. It is shown that the major cause
of poor correlation is the (necessary) anemometer distance
from the rotor and the resulting inability to measure the wind
speed that is experienced by the rotor. Though the inertial lag
has often been cited as the cause of poor correlation, in fact it
is the dominant cause only for small, variable speed turbines.
The reader is cautioned that the method assumes
equivalence of vertical and lateral displacements in the estimation of the wind transfer functions. Such an assumption may
not be valid for very large wind turbines or during periods of
atmospheric thermal stability or instability. In such a situation
the wind turbulence correlations must be represented in a
more detailed manner.
Appropriate averaging times are calculated for several wind
systems. Pre-averaging times between fifteen seconds and six
minutes are predicted for the full range of systems (from a 5 m
rotor up to the Mod 2). In no case was a time of ten minutes,
as recommended by some proposed test practices, appropriate. Use of excessive averaging will cause excessive test
durations and loss of meaningful correlated data as well.
When designing wind turbine tests it is important to
minimize the crosswind distance to the anemometer because
crosswind distance is twice as detrimental to the correlation as
longitudinal distance. In addition, use of small, constant
speed turbines is recommended for research testing in the atmosphere. The wind speed measurements for small turbines
will have the best possible correlation with the turbine
response, making it possible to derive the most detailed information from the tests.

References
1 Akins, R. E., "Performance Evaluation of Wind Energy Conversion
Systems Using the Method of Bins - Current Status," Sandia Laboratories
Report SAND77-1375, 1977.
2 Hansen, A. C., "Effects of Turbulence on Wind Turbine Performance,"
Transportation Engineering Journal of ASCE, Vol. 106, No. TE 6, 1980.
3 Frandsen, S., Trenka, A. R., and Pedersen, B. M., "Recommended Prac-

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/22/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

tices for Wind Turbine Testing (Power Performance Testing)," International

Energy Agency.
4 "Performance Rating Document," Draft consensus standard prepared by
the American Wind Energy Association, Alexandria, VA.
5 Panofsky, H. A., and Dutton, J. A., Atmospheric Turbulence, Models
and Methods for Engineering Applications, Wiley-Interscience, New York,
1984.
6 Madsen, P. H., and Frandsen, S., "Pitch Angle Control for Power
Limitation," Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 1984.
7 Frandsen, S., and Christensen, C. J., "On Wind Turbine Power
Measurements," Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Wind
Energy Systems, Technical University of Denmark, Aug. 1980.
8 Manwell, J. F., and Kirchhoff, R. H., "Wind Energy from Turbulence:
Constant Tip-Speed-Ratio Operation," University of Massachusetts report,
1984.
9 Hinrichsen, E. N., and Nolan, P. J., "Dynamics of Single- and MultipleUnit Wind Energy Conversion Plants Supplying Electric Utility Systems,"
Power Technologies, Inc., report R45/81. U.S. Department of Energy Report
DOE/ET/20466-78-I, 1981.
10 Bendat, J. S., and Piersol, A. G., Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1971.

such that Sdisc = 1/4{S1+2CI2

This result expresses the PSD of the disc-averaged wind speed

in terms of the spectra and cospectra at and between points on
the disc. Note that if the wind is perfectly correlated over the
entire disc, (i.e., St = C12 = C13) then the disc PSD is simply
the point PSD.
Panofsky and Dutton [5] give the cospectra in terms of the
coherence function:
C12 = V t C o h ^ S ^ ) x cos012
= V(Coh 12 )S! x cos012

Derivation of the Disc Average Transfer Function

Nomenclature
Coh = Coherence function
dy = distance between points /' and j
f = frequency (Hz)
H = hub height
R = Rotor radius
Sj = Power spectral density of u, = \X,\2
S/j = Cross spectral density of ,- and Uj =
Uj(t) = longitudinal wind speed at point i
V = average wind speed at hub height
-^7 (/) = Fourier transform of ,X* = Complex conjugate of Xt
Overbar denotes time average

noting that

SIJ=Xi*Xj=

Coh 13 = exp( - (12 +

6l2 =

X*Xj

l6.5R/H)(OJ5Rf/V)]

n.67R/H)(0.53Rf/V)])

A P P E N D I X

U(t) = l/T\'

+X4)

C(,= (S + V ) / 2
Assume the statistics are identical at all four points, i.e.,
>->i = S2 = S 3 = 5 4
and the points 1 and 2 are separated by the same distance as
points 1 and 41. Then, if one assumes sufficiently small separation distances such that lateral and vertical correlations are
identical,

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

Considerable simplification can be achieved to speed calculation of the transfer function with negligible error by approximating the above expressions as

Consider a time series u(t). It has an associated time series

of time averaged values U(t), where, for averaging time T,

(5, 4 + 5 14 *) + (S2i + S2i *) + (S 24 + S24 *) + (S34 + S34 ))

C13 = C24

0n=20 1 2

The Response Function of a Pre-Averaging Filter

The Cospectrum can be expressed as

and

16.5(R/H))(1.5R//V)),

9.19/R2/(VH),

+ 2exp[-(12+

(Xj*Xi)* = SJi*

Q4 - C 2 3 = C34

-06\Rf/V)),

This is equation (3) that is used to approximate the disc

average wind speed transfer function.

Sdisc = 1/16 (5, + S2 + S 3 + 5 4 + (S12 + 5 12 ) + (S13 + Sa *) +

Q2=

S, = 5 2 .

Coh12 = exp( - (12 +11.67 (R/H))(\

S disc /S, = \H2(f) I2 = l / 3 ( e x p [ - ( 1 2 +

The Disc Average Wind Speed Power Spectral Density. The PSD of the average wind speed can be approximated
as the average of the PSD's at four points on the disc. We
select four points at a radius equal to 0.75 R, equally spaced
around the disc. The PSD is then
Sdisc = ' ( * ! +X2 +X3 +X,)* ( * , +X2 +X3

when

and the coherence is given as

and
A P P E N D I X

+ Cii]

u{Z)dH
Jt-T

The Fourier Transform of the time-averaged signal is

F{f) = l/T\"
J -00

u(^)d^xp(-i2irft)dt
Jt-T

Using elementary properties of Fourier Transforms, this can

be expressed in terms of the Fourier Transform (F) of the raw
signal u(t) as follows:
F(f) =F(f) [ l/(i2irfT)(l -exp(ilirfT))
The transfer function associated with time averaging is then
I H(f) 12 = l/(/27r/7) 2 (1 - exp( - HirfT))2
= 0.5[1 - cos(2;r/T)]/(7r/r) 2
This is the result used in equation (9). The transfer function
represents a low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency ( - 3 dB)
found by solving for the frequency (/) for which
ITY(/)I2=0.50

The solution, found by iteration, is

/=0.443/r
This is the result used for matching the turbine response and
pre-averaging transfer functions.

AUGUST 1986, Vol. 108/251

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/22/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use