Comparison of Weibull parameter estimation methods using LiDAR and mast wind data in an Indian offshore site: The Gulf of Khambhat. (15th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gautam, Atul; Warudkar, Vilas; Bhagoria, J.L.
• Is Part Of: Ocean engineering. Volume 266(2022)Part 5
• Publication Date: 2022-12-15
• Subjects: Weibull distribution -- Wind energy -- Wind speed distribution -- WAsP -- LiDAR -- Offshore wind resource assessment; Ocean engineering -- Periodicals; Ocean engineering; Periodicals; 620.4162
• DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112927
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0029-8018

Abstract

Abstract: This paper gives a proper study of 11 types of Weibull parameters estimation methods and their performance comparison for wind potential assessment on India's first offshore project in the Gulf of Khambhat, Gujarat. The Lidar (up to 200 m) and met mast (up to 100 m) are deployed to record wind data from Nov-2017 to Dec-2019 by the National Institute of Wind Energy (NIWE), Government of India. The estimation methods such as, modified maximum likelihood method (MMLM), maximum likelihood method (MLM), empirical method of Justus (EMJ), empirical method of Lysen (EML), graphical method (GM), first method of moment (MOM-1), second method of moment (MOM-2), third method of moment (MOM-3), alternative maximum likelihood method (AMLM), WAsP or equivalent energy method (EEM), energy pattern factor method (EPFM), found in literature survey are compared to evaluate the performance using statistical methods in the offshore region of India. The mathematical expressions of methods have been coded and implemented by MATLAB software through a proper data analysis. There is a need to explore more appropriate probabilistic distribution than Weibull distribution. The MMLM, MLM, and MOM versions perform nicely, followed by the empirical method of Justus and Lysen. The GM method underperformed and that needs modification. Highlights: The MMLM and MLM outperformed among all methods, followed by MOM, EMJ, and EML. The WPD estimated by GM and AMLM gives misprediction over observed WPD, as compared to other methods. The GM is one of the traditional methods, that underperformed among all methods followed by AMLM, and WAsP. The WAsP method is only useful at high wind speed, while the lower windy region may give a significant error.