Comparing Pulse Doppler LIDAR with

SODAR and Direct Measurements for

Wind Assessment
Neil D. Kelley
Bonnie J. Jonkman
George N. Scott
National Wind Technology Center
Yelena L. Pichugina
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences/NOAA
University of Colorado at Boulder

Windpower 2007 Los Angeles

Background

The 2001-2003 Lamar Low-Level Jet Project

provided an opportunity to simultaneously compare
the wind fields measured remotely by pulsed LIDAR
and SODAR and directly by tower-mounted sonic
anemometers

These measurements were taken by NREL/NWTC

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) during the first two weeks of
September 2003 south of Lamar, Colorado which is
now the site of the 166 MW Colorado Green Wind
Plant

Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support of this study by
the NOAA Earth System Research
Laboratory (ESRL) and
Dr. Robert M. Banta
Dr. W. Alan Brewer
Scott P. Sandberg
Janet L. Machol

in particular without whose professional and

scientific dedication the results being
presented today would not have been
possible.
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Presentation Objectives

Present the results of a simultaneous intercomparison of wind fields measured by two

remote sensing technologies and direct
tower-based measurements

Present the results of a longer term intercomparison of simultaneous measurements

taken with a SODAR and in-situ instruments

4
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

BASIC ATTRIBUTES OF EYESAFE

DOPPLER WINDFINDING LIDARS
Continuous Wave (CW)
Continuous emissions of
infrared energy

Nominal 200 m range

Line-of-sight radial wind
speeds made within a single
focused region along the
beam

Multiple heights measured

by varying position of focal
point and/or elevation angle

Very narrow beam diameter

Useful for highly detailed
measurements of a limited
spatial area
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Pulsed
Very short pulses of intense
infrared energy

Up to 9 km range
Line-of-sight radial wind
speeds made simultaneously
at up to 300 positions (range
gates) along the beam

A narrow, highly collimated

beam whose diameter slowly
increases with increasing
range

Can perform a wide range of

scanning operations for 3D
spatial measurements
5

The Comparison and Inter-Comparison of

Wind Fields Measured by Three Techniques

In-situ measurements
using sonic anemometry
at heights of 54, 67, 85,
& 116 m

Scintec MFAS MediumRange SODAR (50-500

m)

NOAA High-Resolution
Doppler LIDAR (HRDL)

120-m tower & four

levels of sonic
anemometry
Scintec
MFAS
SODAR

NOAA
HRDL
LIDAR

6
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

120-m Tower & Sonic Anemometry

ATI SAT/3K 3-axis sonic
anemometers (7 Hz
bandwidth, 0.05 sec time
resolution)

Mounted on support arms

specifically engineered to
damp out vibrations below
10 Hz

Mounted 5 m from edge of 1m wide, torsionally-stiff,

triangular tower

Arms orientated towards

300 degrees w.r.t. true north
7
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Scintec MFAS Phased Array SODAR

Observed winds between

50 and 500 m

20-min averaging period

30-70 m pulse lengths

10-m vertical resolution

Horizontal winds from 8
tilted beams and 10
frequencies over range
of 1816-2742 Hz
Automatic gain control
Very quiet site
8

Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

NOAA High Resolution Doppler LIDAR

(as configured for Lamar experiment)

Research instrument
Solid State Tm:Lu,YAG laser
Wavelength

2.02 m

Pulse energy

1.5 mJ

Pulse rate

200/s

Range resolution

30 m

Velocity resolution

~ 0.1 m/s

Time resolution

0.25 s

Minimum range

0.2 km

Maximum range

3 km

Beam width range

6 to 28 cm

stare
mode
vertical
scan
mode

conical
scan
mode

Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Inter-comparison of Measured Wind Fields

Sonics

LIDAR
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

SODAR

10

Sources of Flow Distortion Around

Triangular Lattice Tower
Instrument mounting arm
assemblies

Aircraft warning beacons

Tower composed of circular
structural elements:

1.6 cm main vertical legs

0.6 cm cross members

Star mount guy wire

connections provide torsional
stiffness

RESULT: Flow distortion

characteristics vary with height
and wind approach angle
11
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Tower SODAR Positions

guy wires

Guy Wires

North
North

instrument
arms
orientation

Tower Coordinates:
37 40.099N,
102 39.825W

120-m tower

Note: SODAR and Tower Coordinates

were measured on June 25, 2002 using
a Brunton Multinavigator MNS GPS
Receiver using Datum WGS84.

109.05m

210o

109.1 m

LIDAR
AR (including
e panels and
c enclosure)

SODAR Coordinates:
37 40.059N,
102 39.879W

Fenced Area

Fenced
Area
(Tower and
Shed)
(data building)

- Guy Wire Anchor Points (x6)

SODAR

12
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Estimate of Local Flow Distortion

at 116-m Sonic Anemometer Using High Reliability
SODAR Data As Reference
Wind Direction

Horizontal Wind Speed

22

22

20

20

116m

-2

-3

-4

-4

-2

-2

-4
18

18

-2

-4

(deg)

-4

14 -8 -6

-4

-2
0

12

-8
-6
-4
-2

-4 -2

10

-4

8
-2
0

-2

-4

2
4
6
8

-1

16

Sodar UH (m/s)

Sodar UH (m/s)

16

-1

-1
-1

14
12
10

160

8
200

240

280

320

360

40
400

80
440

160

3
200

240

280

320

360

40
400

80
440

Sodar WD (deg)

Sodar WD (deg)

instrument arms
azimuth location
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

1
2
3

2
4

-3
-2
-1

0
1

(m/s)

13

Stationary Stare Mode Geometry for

Optimal LIDAR-Sonic Inter-comparison

North

30-m
range
gates
6&7

Guy Wires

North

Wind
Flow

UH

Tower Coordinates:
37 40.099N,
102 39.825W

Uradial

Note: SODAR and Tower Coordinates

were measured on June 25, 2002 using
a Brunton Multinavigator MNS GPS
Receiver using Datum WGS84.

Fenced Area
(Tower and Shed)

109.05m

LIDAR
(167 m)
AR (including
e panels and
c enclosure)

210o

SODAR Coordinates:
37 40.059N,
102 39.879W

Chosen for minimal

flow distortion at the
sonic
anemometers
- Guy
Wire Anchor Points
(x6)

31o
LIDAR

plan view

elevation view
14

Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Results of Stationary Stare Inter-Comparisons

Under Optimal Observing Conditions

Sonic full vector velocity is projected

on to the LIDAR radial velocity for
direct comparison over nominal
periods of 10 minutes
The two compare nominally within
0.1 0.3 m/s or 2.5% over the
observed velocity range of 1.0 to
11.3 m/s

Mean
Bias
Ulidar
Usonic

Std
Dev

RMS

(m/s)

(m/s)

(m/s)

0.14

0.27

0.31
0.34#

Compares favorably with similar

measurements by Hall, et al# using
a much earlier CO2 laser version of
the HRDL at height of 300 m and an
observed velocity range of 1 to 22
m/s

#Hall, et al, 1984, Wind measurement

accuracy of the NOAA pulse infrared
Doppler LIDAR. Applied Optics, 23, No.
15.
15

Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Obtaining Streamwise LIDAR Wind

Profiles Using Vertical Scan Mode Data
By design the majority of
available data was collected
in this mode

Not optimal for obtaining

horizontal wind speeds due
to

a potential lack of horizontal

homogeneity at low angles

sparse spatial sampling at

high angles

16
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Tower, SODAR, LIDAR Vertical-Scan

Mode Inter-Comparison Results
SODAR UH
Referenced
To All Tower Sonics UH
20

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

18

Lidar vertical scan UH (m/s)

Lidar vertical scan UH (m/s)

20

18

Sodar UH (m/s)

LIDAR Vertical-Scan UH
Referenced
To SODAR UH

LIDAR Vertical-Scan UH
Referenced
To All Tower Sonics UH
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Tower sonics UH (m/s)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Tower sonics UH (m/s)

10 12 14 16 18

Sodar UH (m/s)

Small bias, +0.12 0.11 m/s

Large bias, -1.02 0.16 m/s

Large bias, -1.35 0.12 m/s

Tower higher at higher speeds

LIDAR lower at all wind speeds

LIDAR lower at all wind speeds

Large slope error, 0.921 0.010

Small slope error, 1.023 0.010

Small slope error, 0.984 0.011

1 variation, 0.65 m/s

1 variation, 0.89 m/s

1 variation, 0.67 m/s

R2 = 0.956

R2 = 0.918

R2 = 0.955

Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

17

LIDAR Vertical Wind Profiles Derived

Using Conical Scanning Mode

(1 minute record)

More optimal
technique, but
only short
records (~1
min) available

15 deg
elevation angle
provides 8 m
vertical
resolution

Used by CW
LIDAR profilers
but only at 5
heights

Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

18

Long-Term High SNR# SODAR and Tower

Sonics UH Inter-Comparison
All sonic heights included
Wind directions of 120 20o
excluded

14649 records (585 hours)

Mean bias of -0.5 m/s
Slope error of 1.035 (sonics
read higher than SODAR)

R2 = 0.845
1 variation of 1.5 m/s
consistent with estimated local
flow distortion magnitudes
# signal-to-noise ratio

19
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los

Conclusions
The achievable RMS accuracy of the pulsed LIDAR under
optimal sampling conditions appears to be in the vicinity of 0.3
m/s or 2.5%

Tower-induced flow distortion in the vicinity of the sonic

anemometers has limited the precision of the inter-comparisons
with the remote sensing instruments

The SODAR provided an RMS uncertainty in the range of 0.6 to

0.7 m/s or 5 to 6% under high SNR conditions and is limited by
the local flow distortion at the sonic anemometers

The pulsed LIDAR, when used in the conical scanning mode,

can provide very detailed vertical wind profiles
20
Windpower
2007 Los2007
Angeles
Windpower
- Los