This article was downloaded by: [Zeeshan Ali]

On: 12 April 2013, At: 12:25

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,

Utilization, and Environmental Effects
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

A Comparison of Wind Turbine Power

Curve Models
a a
S. A. Akdağ & Ö. Güler
a
Istanbul Technical University, Energy Institute, Ayazaga Campus,
Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
Version of record first published: 31 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: S. A. Akdağ & Ö. Güler (2011): A Comparison of Wind Turbine Power Curve
Models, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 33:24, 2257-2263

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2011.594861

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Energy Sources, Part A, 33:2257–2263, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online
DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2011.594861

A Comparison of Wind Turbine Power

Curve Models

S. A. AKDAĞ1 and Ö. GÜLER1

1
Istanbul Technical University, Energy Institute, Ayazaga Campus, Maslak,
Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract A wind turbine power curve can be modeled with different models. In
this study, the Weibull distribution model was used to determine energy output of
six commercial wind turbines ranging from 335 to 1,000 kW. Wind turbine power
Downloaded by [Zeeshan Ali] at 12:25 12 April 2013

curves were modeled with seven power curve models, and energy output results were
compared with Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program (WAsP) results. To
compare these models, the hourly average wind data measured at 50 m height in
Turkey was used. Three models estimated energy output to be dramatically smaller
for all cases and one model estimated energy output to be higher for all cases. In
some cases, error of energy output estimation can reach to 80%.

Keywords capacity factor, Turkey, Weibull distribution, wind energy, wind turbine
power curve model

1. Introduction
Energy derived from wind has played a vital role in the history of mankind and is again
receiving considerable attention because of its free and non-polluting character. With the
development of wind energy technologies and the decrease of wind power production
cost, wind power has rapidly developed around the world in recent years. By the end of
2009, global-installed wind power capacity reached up to 159,213 MW, and an annual
output of approximately 340 TWh. During the last decade, the average growth rate of
the installed wind power has been approximately 28% (EWEA, 2009). At present, wind
generated electricity contributes over 2% to global electricity consumption (WWEA,
2009). It has become the fastest growing energy source.
Wind power capacity in Turkey has grown substantially in recent years. From 2005
through 2010, roughly 1,000 MW of new capacity has been added and now represents
more than 2% of the total installed power capacity. Moreover, energy investors applied
to the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA) with 751 wind projects to obtain
78,180.2 MW of wind power plant licenses in 2007 (Akdağ and Güler, 2010).
One of the studies to be carried out for installing wind turbines in a region is the
wind power potential assessment. It is pivotal to determine wind turbines’ energy output.
Energy output estimation for wind turbines of different power ranges has been the subject
of a number of articles. Energy output of wind turbines can be determined by different
ways, but it is necessary to model the wind turbine power curve. A literature survey

Address correspondence to Seyit Ahmet Akdağ, Istanbul Technical University, Energy

Institute, Ayazaga Campus, Maslak, Istanbul 34469, Turkey. E-mail: akdagse@itu.edu.tr

2257
 2258 S. A. Akdağ and Ö. Güler

(Albadi and El-Saadany, 2010; Hu and Cheng, 2007; Pallabazzer, 2003; Celik, 2007;
Gökçek et al., 2007; Alnaser and El-Karaghouli, 2000; Li and Chen, 2009; Balouktsis
et al., 2002; Jangamshetti and Rau, 1999; Akdağ and Güler, 2009b) for this study showed
that a wind turbine power curve can be modeled with different models. In this study, the
Weibull distribution model was used to determine energy output of six commercial wind
turbines ranging from 335 to 1,000 kW. Wind turbine power curves were modeled with
seven different power curve models and energy output results were compared with WAsP
results. To compare these models, hourly average wind data measured at 50 m height in
Turkey was used.

2. Weibull Distribution
Wind speed is the most important parameter to be considered in the design and operation
of wind turbines since its probability density distribution greatly affects the performance
of wind turbines. Therefore, a large number of articles have been published on modeling
wind speed probability distributions with probability density functions. The Weibull
Downloaded by [Zeeshan Ali] at 12:25 12 April 2013

distribution model was the most commonly used probability distribution model for wind
energy potential assessment (Akdağ and Güler, 2009a). Probability density function of
the Weibull distribution can be expressed as follows:

k  v k 1 k
e .c/ ;
v
f .v/ D (1)
c c

where f .v/ is the probability of observing wind speed, k is the undimensioned shape,
and c is the scale parameter with the same unit of wind speed.
In recent years, several methods for estimating the unknown parameters of the
Weibull distribution have been outlined. Akdağ and Dinler (2009) compared some of
these methods and developed a new method. This new method was called the power
density (PD) method. Results of their study indicate that the PD method is an adequate
method to estimate Weibull parameters and it might have better suitability than other
methods. For this reason, the PD method was used to identify Weibull parameters of
the region. Determined wind parameters of the region are given in Table 1. Figure 1
presents wind speed frequency histograms from observed data together with the Weibull
distribution.
The goodness-of-fit of a statistical model describes how well it fits a set of observa-
tions. Measures of goodness-of-fit typically summarize the discrepancy between observed
values and the values expected under the model in question. In the present article, the
suitability of the distributions is judged from the coefficient of determination (R2 ) and it
is equal to 0.988.

Table 1
Calculated wind parameters

Power density,
k c, m/s Vm , m/s W/m2

1.97 7.52 6.67 354

 A Comparison of Wind Turbine Power Curve Models 2259
Downloaded by [Zeeshan Ali] at 12:25 12 April 2013

Figure 1. Observed and Weibull frequencies. (color figure available online)

3. Power Curve Models

In this section of the study, wind turbine power curves are modeled with the widely
used seven power curve models. Figure 2 shows a typical wind turbine power curve,
and it is separated into four regions. The turbine starts to produce energy in the second
region and this curve part is modeled in this study. In the third region, the turbine works
its rated power for all models, so energy output is similar for all models. In the fourth
region, wind turbines stop to prevent damages because of high wind speeds. Selected
wind turbines’ second part power curve models are given in the following equations:
 
v v1
M1 D PR  ; v1  vR ; (2)
vR v1

M2 D PR  .c1 v 2 C c2 v C c3 /; v1  vR ; (3)

v2 v12
 
M3 D PR  ; v1  vR ; (4)
vR2 v12

v3
 
M4 D PR  ; v1  vR ; (5)
vR3
 3
v v1
M5 D PR  ; v1  vR ; (6)
vR v1

M6 D PR  .a1 v 3 C a2 v 2 C a3 v C a4 /; v1  vR ; (7)

M7 D PR  .b1 v 4 C b2 v 3 C b3 v 2 C b4 v C b5 /; v1  vR ; (8)
 2260 S. A. Akdağ and Ö. Güler
Downloaded by [Zeeshan Ali] at 12:25 12 April 2013

Figure 2. Typical wind turbine power curve. (color figure available online)

where ai , bi , and ci are regression constants, PR is wind turbine rated power, and v1 ,
vR are cut-in and rated wind speeds, respectively.
The capacity factor is defined as the ratio of the average power output to the rated
output power of the wind turbine. Capacity factors for the wind turbine power curve
model can be obtained as follows:
Z vR Z vo
1
Cf M i D  Mi  f .v/dv C f .v/dv: (9)
PR v1 vR

Selected wind turbine parameters and estimated and WAsP program capacity factors
are given in Table 2. These wind turbines are commercially available and their hub heights
are 50 m according to their catalogs. Figure 3 shows the estimated capacity factor errors
of the models. It can be easily seen that model M6 gives the smallest mean error. Error

Table 2
Turbine parameters and capacity factors

v1 , vR , v0 , Power, CFWasP , CFM1 , CFM2 , CFM3 , CFM4 , CFM5 , CFM6 , CFM7 ,

Turbines m/s m/s m/s kW % % % % % % % %

WT1 3 13 25 335 32.55 37.20 33.00 28.46 22.92 17.12 32.32 32.45
WT2 2 14 25 810 30.02 38.78 30.82 26.62 19.24 15.60 29.74 29.26
WT3 4 17 25 850 29.11 23.18 30.37 15.62 11.35 6.48 29.18 28.89
WT4 3 16 25 850 34.05 29.26 35.84 19.40 13.54 9.24 34.05 33.71
WT5 2 14 25 910 23.99 38.78 25.85 18.48 19.24 15.60 23.73 23.85
WT6 4 18 25 1,000 27.25 21.56 28.32 13.90 9.64 5.29 27.27 26.89
 A Comparison of Wind Turbine Power Curve Models 2261
Downloaded by [Zeeshan Ali] at 12:25 12 April 2013

Figure 3. Error analysis. (color figure available online)

and mean error analysis was carried out using the following equations:

CF wasp CF Mi
Error .%/ D 100  ; (10)
CFwasp

i D6 ˇ
100 X ˇˇ CF wasp CF Mi ˇˇ
ˇ
Mean Error .%/ D  ˇ: (11)
6 i D1
ˇ CF wasp

The highest error was obtained for the M5 model of WT3 with 80.57%. The smallest
error occurred for the M6 model of WT4 with 0.02%. Mean error for M1 , M2 , M3 , M4 ,
M5 , M6 , and M7 are 26.7, 4.2, 30.9, 45.2, 60.3, 0.5, and 1.1%, respectively.
It can be seen from Figure 3 that there are vital estimated power output differences
in some cases. Models M6 and M7 fit very well. Model M3 is widely used to determine
optimum wind turbine parameters (Albadi and El-Saadany, 2010; Hu and Cheng, 2007;
Pallabazzer, 2003). However, as can be seen from the figures, it is not suitable to model
wind turbine power curves.
Figure 4 shows the modeled power curves and explains the differences of capacity
factors.

4. Conclusion
In this study, measured wind data at 50 m in Turkey are used to compare different wind
turbine power curve models. Weibull distribution and the WAsP program were used to
determine the turbines’ energy outputs. Six wind turbine power curves were modeled with
seven power curve models and estimated energy outputs were compared with the WAsP
result. Results of the study are vital for feasibility analysis of the wind farms because
estimated energy output is the crucial factor of cost analyses. M3 , M4 , and M5 models
 2262 S. A. Akdağ and Ö. Güler
Downloaded by [Zeeshan Ali] at 12:25 12 April 2013

Figure 4. Model and real power curves. (color figure available online)

estimate energy output smaller for all cases and their error may up to 80%. In some cases
M1 models error can reach up to 60%. The M6 model gives the minimum mean error for
four cases. In two cases, the M7 model gives the minimum error but when the models
degree gets higher it is difficult to solve the integral equation. Model M2 estimates more
energy output for all turbines. The reason for the small error of the models M2 , M6 ,
and M7 can be explained with their multipoint curve approach. However, in models M1 ,
M3 , M4 , and M5 , power curve models use only cut in and cut out wind speeds; so,
according to these models, if wind turbines cut in and cut out speeds are the same, their
capacity factor is equal. However, efficiency and the power curve of turbines changes
from manufacturer to manufacturer. Also, it is important to note that this analysis was
carried out for one region. Estimated energy output error of these models can be changed
from region to region and turbine to turbine, but it can be easily seen from power curve
figures that multipoint curve approach models errors are acceptable.
 A Comparison of Wind Turbine Power Curve Models 2263

References
Akdağ, S. A., and Dinler, A. 2009. A new method to estimate Weibull parameters for wind energy
applications. Energy Convers. Manage. 50:1761–1766.
Akdağ, S. A., and Güler, Ö. 2009a. Calculation of wind energy potential and economic analysis
by using Weibull distribution a case study from Turkey. Part 1: Determination of Weibull
parameters. Energy Sources, Part B: Econ. Plann. Polic. 4:1–8.
Akdağ, S. A., and Güler, Ö. 2009b. Calculation of wind energy potential and economic analysis
by using Weibull distribution a case study from Turkey. Part 2: Economic analysis. Energy
Sources, Part B: Econ. Plann. Policy. 4:9–16.
Akdağ, S. A., and Güler, Ö. 2010. Evaluation of wind energy investment interest and electricity
generation cost analysis for Turkey. Appl. Energy 87:2574–2580.
Albadi, M. H., and El-Saadany, E. F. 2010. Optimum turbine-site matching. Energy 35:3593–3602.
Alnaser, W. E., and El-Karaghouli, A. 2000. Wind availability and its power utility for electricity
production in Bahrein. Renew. Energy 21:247–254.
Balouktsis, A., Chassapis, D., and Karapantsios, T. D. 2002. A nomogram method for estimating
the energy produced by wind turbine generators. Solar Energy 72:251–259.
Celik, A. N. 2007. A techno-economic analysis of wind energy in southern Turkey. Intl. J. Green
Downloaded by [Zeeshan Ali] at 12:25 12 April 2013

Energy 4:233–247.
EWEA. 2009. European Wind Energy Association Wind Energy statistics. Available from http://
www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/factsheets/EWEAFS_
Statistics_FINAL_lr.pdf
Gökçek, M., Erdem, H. H., and Bayülken, A. 2007. A techno-economical evaluation for installation
of suitable wind energy plants in Western Marmara, Turkey. Energy Explor. & Exploit. 25:407–
427.
Hu, S., and Cheng, J. 2007. Performance evaluation of pairing between sites and wind turbines.
Renew. Energy 32:1934–1947.
Jangamshetti, S. H., and Rau, V. G. 1999. Site matching of wind turbine generators: A case study.
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 14:1537–1543.
Li, H., and Chen, Z. 2009. Design optimization and site matching of direct-drive permanent magnet
wind power generator systems. Renew. Energy 34:1175–1184.
Pallabazzer, R. 2003. Parametric analysis of wind siting efficiency. J. Wind Engineer. & Indus.
Aerodyn. 91:1329–1352.
WWEA. 2009. World Wind Energy Association World Wind Energy Report 2008. Available from
http://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2008_s.pdf