processes

Article
Assessment of Wind Energy Resources in Jordan Using
Different Optimization Techniques
Bashar Al-Mhairat and Ayman Al-Quraan *

Electrical Power Engineering Department, Hijjawi Faculty for Engineering Technology, Yarmouk University,
Irbid 21163, Jordan; 2018979003@ses.yu.edu.jo
* Correspondence: aymanqran@yu.edu.jo or aymanqran@yahoo.com

Abstract: Wind energy has become one of the world’s most renewable energy sources in recent
years. It is regarded as a clean energy source because it produces no greenhouse gas emissions.
The assessment of wind energy resources is an important step in the development of any wind
energy conversion system (WECS). As a result, this article examines the wind energy potential of
nine Jordanian wind locations: Queen Alia Airport, Civil Amman Airport, King Hussein Airport,
Irbid, Mafraq, Ma’an, Ghor Al Safi, Safawi, and Irwaished. The available wind speed data were
implemented using three statistical distribution models, Weibull, Rayleigh, and Gamma distributions,
and one traditional estimation method, the Maximum Likelihood Method (MLM). Three optimization
techniques were used to assign parameters to each distribution model: Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO), Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), and Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA). To determine the
optimal distribution model, the performance of these distribution models was tested. According to
the findings, King Hussein Airport features the highest wind power density, followed by Queen Alia
Airport, while Irbid features the lowest, followed by Ghor Al Safi.



Keywords: wind energy; wind turbine; power density; power–speed curve; probability distribution


function; Weibull approach; Rayleigh approach; Gamma approach
Citation: Al-Mhairat, B.; Al-Quraan,
A. Assessment of Wind Energy
Resources in Jordan Using Different
Optimization Techniques. Processes
2022, 10, 105. https://doi.org/ 1. Introduction
10.3390/pr10010105 Throughout history, humanity has attempted to utilize and harness natural resources
Academic Editors: Qinmin Yang and
and use them in the best way. Renewable energy resources are a good example of how this
Ashvinkumar Chaudhari
might be done. To address the risks of using fossil fuels, renewable energy is currently an
urgent and vital need. In 2019, the global renewable energy capacity was 2588 GW, and
Received: 24 November 2021 renewable energy accounted for around 27.3% of total power generation, compared to
Accepted: 31 December 2021 72.7% for non-renewable resources [1]. As a result, governments all over the world must
Published: 5 January 2022
take all the necessary steps to make policies in this sector more accessible.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral In the sphere of renewable energy, wind power is one of the most developed fields.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in In 2019, 60 GW of wind power capacity was added to electric networks around the world,
published maps and institutional affil- making 2019 the second-largest annual growth year in wind power generation capacity,
iations. behind 2015, which produced the highest capacity of around 64 GW. As a result, in the
same year, the percentage of wind power-sharing in electricity generation was 5.9%, with a
total capacity of 651 GW [1].
Jordan features a climate that encourages the exploitation of renewable energy re-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
sources. It features several sites that are attractive for investment in the wind energy sector.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
In fact, Jordan still depends on traditional energy sources to generate its electric energy
This article is an open access article
(85.1%). In 2019, renewable energy contributed about 14.9% of the energy mix, with wind
distributed under the terms and
energy sharing accounting for 4.4% of the energy produced overall [2].
conditions of the Creative Commons
The direction and speed of wind cannot be predicted exactly due to its unpredictable
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
nature. Wind characteristics should be determined by observing and evaluating the natural
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Processes 2022, 10, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10010105 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2022, 10, 105 2 of 24

behavior of wind at the prospective site. The components of the Wind Energy Conver-
sion System (WECS) can be efficiently designed once the wind characteristics have been
identified. As a result, a wind energy assessment process can be accomplished [3].
In general, there are four steps in the evaluation of wind resources. The first step
involves gathering wind data, which is measured and gathered by meteorological stations
or airports. Wind data are usually measured over ten minutes at a height of 10 m, which
is considered the standard height. The second stage entails analyzing the acquired data
using statistical distribution models to determine the frequency distribution of average
wind velocity for the candidate site over a certain time period. Each distribution model
features a number of parameters that must be assigned using several estimating methods
divided into two main groups: numerical methods and optimization algorithms. The
optimal distribution function must be chosen by comparing the available distribution
models. This is accomplished through the use of several goodness-of-fit indicators, such
as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Coefficient of Determination (R2 ), and others. A
Probability Distribution Function (PDF) can be used to depict the distribution model. The
extracted wind energy from a given wind turbine installed in a prospective wind site is
evaluated using the distribution function and the power curve (P-V characteristic) model
of the selected wind turbine. Upon completion of this stage, a judgment can be made as to
whether a wind turbine can be installed/or not in a certain wind site.
To evaluate wind energy resources, many parametric distribution models are used [4–26].
Weibull [4–6,9–15], Rayleigh [8,18–21], Gamma [21,26], Lognormal [24,26], Log–logistic [13],
and others are among these models. The Weibull distribution is the model that most
researchers utilize. In [7], Bilir et al. used Weibull distribution as an assessment tool to
evaluate the power density based on wind data collected over a year, from a measuring
station situated on the Atlm University campus area in Ankara, Turkey. The Weibull
model, which was examined using the Root Mean Square (RMS) error, was found to be
the most acceptable distribution among the five chosen distribution models by Wang
et al. [11]. In [14], Li, et al. conducted a comparative assessment of onshore and offshore
wind characteristics, as well as their wind energy potential, in two locations along China’s
southeast coast. The authors confirmed the accuracy of using the Weibull distribution for
both onshore and offshore wind energy, and the findings demonstrated that offshore wind
energy is more available than onshore wind energy for a given region. In [18], Jiang et al.
compared the Weibull distribution to the Rayleigh, Gamma, and Lognormal distributions
to determine the energy potential of low wind speeds in China.
Weibull was the best choice, especially when optimization algorithms were used to
determine its parameters. A comprehensive assessment of 46 papers between 2010 and
2018 was published in [27]. The Weibull distribution was shown to be the most commonly
used in this study (44 out of 46 studies used Weibull distribution). On the other hand, the
Weibull distribution is not always considered the best option [22,24]. The Weibull, Logistic,
and Lognormal distributions were used by Wu et al. in [24] to measure wind energy at
typical sites in Inner Mongolia, China. The performances of the Logistic and Lognormal
were better than the Weibull, which was the worst. According to [28], numerous variants
of mixture distributions surpass the traditional Weibull distribution, including the bimodal
Weibull function (WW), the truncated Normal–Weibull function (NW), the Gamma–Weibull
function (GW), and the mixed truncated normal function (NN).
Parametric distribution models might use a single parameter, two parameters, three
parameters, or more. These parameters should be properly valued by several types of
estimation method, such as the Maximum Likelihood Method (MLM) [4,7], the Moment
Method (MM) [10,12–15], Least Square Estimation (LSE) [18,19], the Empirical Method
(EM) [10–12,15], the Power Density Method (PDM) [14,26], and Energy Pattern Factor
(EPF) [9,15]. Some modified methods are also utilized, such as Modified Maximum Likeli-
hood (MMLM) [25], and the Modified Energy Pattern Method (MEPM) [12].
In recent years, metaheuristic optimization methods have been employed to estimate
the parameters of various distribution models. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [23,24],
Processes 2022, 10, 105 3 of 24

Cuckoo Search optimization (CS) [18,19], Genetic Algorithm (GA) [19,23], Differential
Evolution Algorithm (DEA) [23,24], and Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [11,15] are some
examples of these methods.
Three optimization algorithms, PSO, CS, and GWO, were compared against four
numerical approaches in [11]. In general, the performance of the presented algorithms was
optimal, with the GWO being the most accurate technique. For estimating wind potential
at a site near Pakistan’s coastline region, Saeed et al. [15] suggested Artificial Intelligent (AI)
optimization algorithms based on the Chebyshev measure. The results demonstrated that
AI optimization outperforms numerical approaches by a factor of ten. For wind potential
assessment at seven locations in Saudi Arabia, a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm
method dubbed Social Spider Optimization (SSO) was recommended in [19]. According to
the results, the proposed technique outperformed the other heuristic methods. However,
several drawbacks limit the use of the parametric distribution models. One is the need for
using estimating methods to determine the values of the parameters accurately. Therefore,
some academics suggested non-parametric distribution models. The best-known and
frequently employed method is the kernel density method [16,17,29,30]. In recent years,
interest has developed in urban wind energy, which represents an extraordinary jump in
wind energy systems. Generally, energy exploitation in this type of system is performed by
assembling small-scale wind turbines on different rooftop locations [31–33].
In Jordan, interest in wind energy began in 1979 through the Royal Scientific Society
(RSS) [34]. Since then, several studies have been conducted to evaluate wind energy
resources [35–52]. Generally, the observed in these studies is that they are limited to the
use of Weibull or Rayleigh distribution models.
In this study, several wind sites in Jordan were selected as research objects to compare
different types of distribution models for the purpose of wind energy assessment. The main
objectives of this research study compared to other studies in the same area of research can
be summarized as follows:
1. Deriving the mathematical representation of the wind assessment based on Gamma
distribution, which is not frequently used in other studies.
2. Utilizing the optimization techniques to estimate the parameters values of the used
distribution models.
3. Estimating the wind energy in the candidate wind sites using the Weibull, Rayleigh,
and Gamma models.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the measured wind data.
The mathematical model including the wind energy estimation based on the wind power
density concept is developed in Section 3. The results are discussed in Section 4, prior to
the conclusion in Section 5.

2. Measured Wind Data

For proper wind resource assessment, wind data must be collected from the closest
meteorological stations to the candidate wind site. These data are usually gathered at a
height of 10m and can be extrapolated to a higher elevation (usually the hub height of the
wind turbine). For large-scale wind projects, this provides an accurate evaluation of the
wind. Wind speed and direction are important data that can be categorized on a 10 min,
hourly, daily, monthly, and yearly basis. The most frequent is a 10 min basis, which can
provide a precise resolution for estimating wind potential [3].
For this study, wind data were collected for one year to represent the variations in the
wind profile. Despite the increase in wind speed in the last ten years due to rising global
temperatures, the wind speed for one year, which is the time interval used in our case,
is considered a representative sample to represent the general distribution of winds in a
particular region for longer periods. Because the external shape of the general distribution
of the wind is not affected by the increase or decrease in the wind speed, but rather it is
shifted to the right or left.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 4 of 24

This study involves nine sites in Jordan: Queen Alia Airport, Civil Amman Airport,
King Hussein Airport, Irbid, Mafraq, Ma’an, Irwaished, Safawi, and Ghor Al Safi. Table 1
illustrates the geographical locations and elevations of the meteorological stations at these
sites. Moreover, the time periods of the wind data for each wind site are included in Table 1.

Table 1. Distribution of wind sites in Jordan.

Coordination
Site Elevation Period
Latitude Longitude
Queen ◦ 35.59◦ E
Processes 2022,Alia
10, xAirport
FOR PEER REVIEW31.43 N 722 m January 2019 to December 2019 5 of 25
Civil Amman Airport 31.59◦ N 35.59◦ E 767 m September 2018 to August 2019
King Hussein Airport 29.33◦ N 35.00◦ E 51 m January 2018 to December 2018
Irbid ◦
32.33 N 35.51◦ E 618 m Mar 2018 to February 2019
Mafraq 32.22 ◦N ◦E
36.155.5053 686 m 2.7075 September 2018 to August 3.4869
2019
Irwaished 1.6378
Ma’an 30.10 ◦N ◦E
35.474.5337 1069 m2.7195 Mar 2018 to February 2019
Ghor Al Safi 12.6675 261.3626
Safawi 32.09◦ N 37.12◦ E 647 m January 2018 to December 2018
Irwaished ◦
32.30 N 38.12◦ E 686 m September 2017 to August 2018
◦N 35.28◦ of
E the wind−data
Ghor Al Safi The
31.02 skewness value 350 min all the sites was 2018
January positive, with a 2018
to December maximum
value around 12.7 in Ghor El Safi. This value indicates an obvious asymmetry in its distri-
bution curve, with a long thin tail to the right, as shown in Figure 1. Both Irbid and Safawi
In order to organize the wind speed data, it was divided into several classes. Each
recorded the lowest values of kurtosis, around 0.4033 and 0.8556, respectively.
class features an interval of 1 m/s. Figure 1 shows the measured wind speed distribution
Interestingly, the maximum kurtosis value was recorded in Ghor El Safi. This makes
for all the wind sites. The wind speed data are analyzed using statistical tools to determine
the distribution
the mean value, the curve for thisdeviation,
standard site muchandsteeper than the normal
the distribution distribution
pattern (see Table(see
2). ItFigure
can
1).
be noted from this Table that the mean wind speed in this wind is around 5 m/s. A closer
In general,
inspection of this the results
Table showspresented
that the in Tables
mean 1 and
wind 2 and
speed for Figure 1 present
all the sites clear
varies differ-
between
2.49 m/s and 6.15 m/s. The lowest standard deviation for the wind speed data in all theto
ences between the properties and specifications of the candidate wind sites. This is due
the was
sites diversity in the
in Irbid, topography
with of these
a value around regions.
1 m/s, while the greatest was in Ghor Al Safi, with
a value around 2.7 m/s.

45
Queen Alia Airport
40 Amman Civil Airport
King Hussein Airport
35 Irbid
Mafraq
Maan
30
Safawi
Probability (%)

Irwaished
25
Ghor Al Safi

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Wind Speed Class (m/s)

Figure1.1.Probability
Figure Probabilityofofwind
windspeed
speeddistribution
distributionfor
forallallsites.
sites.

The wind directions were determined based on the available wind data. The wind
rose was drawn for each site, as shown in Figure 2. A closer inspection of this figure shows
that the most prevailing direction was north–west, with an occurrence rate of 26.29% at
Processes 2022, 10, 105 5 of 24

The skewness value of the wind data in all the sites was positive, with a maximum
value around 12.7 in Ghor El Safi. This value indicates an obvious asymmetry in its
distribution curve, with a long thin tail to the right, as shown in Figure 1. Both Irbid and
Safawi recorded the lowest values of kurtosis, around 0.4033 and 0.8556, respectively.
Interestingly, the maximum kurtosis value was recorded in Ghor El Safi. This makes
the distribution curve for this site much steeper than the normal distribution (see Figure 1).
In general, the results presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1 present clear differences
between the properties and specifications of the candidate wind sites. This is due to the
diversity in the topography of these regions.
The wind directions were determined based on the available wind data. The wind
rose was drawn for each site, as shown in Figure 2. A closer inspection of this figure shows
that the most prevailing direction was north–west, with an occurrence rate of 26.29% at
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 25
all sites. Wind blowing from the east featured the lowest occurrence rate among all the
directions, with only 3.87%. The occurrence rate of the wind blowing from the north at
King Hussein Airport was the highest, with a percentage value of 68.55%. In general,
knowing the prevailing wind direction in a specific wind site offers an indication as to the
correct direction of the installed wind turbine, which should be ranged from northwest to
southwest in most sites.

Figure 2. Wind rose of the selected wind sites.

Figure 2. Wind rose of the selected wind sites.

Processes 2022, 10, 105 6 of 24

Table 2. Mean wind speed, standard deviation, and distribution pattern of selected wind sites.

Mean Value Standard

Site Skewness Kurtosis
(m/s) Deviation (m/s)
Queen Alia Airport 5.8162 2.6629 1.2046 1.9258
Civil Amman Airport 5.0921 2.4621 1.2341 1.9504
King Hussein Airport 5.7137 2.0677 0.4670 0.4033
Irbid 2.4912 0.9650 1.5839 5.1378
Mafraq 4.7725 2.1551 2.0246 11.5537
Ma’an 5.4774 2.5552 1.7068 3.4912
Safawi 6.1416 2.5715 1.0783 0.8556
Irwaished 5.5053 2.7075 1.6378 3.4869
Ghor Al Safi 4.5337 2.7195 12.6675 261.3626

3. Mathematical Model
In this section, the mathematical model is formulated, including the wind distribution
models and the estimation methods that were utilized to assign the models’ parameters.
Three performance indicators are used to determine the optimal distribution model. Fur-
thermore, wind energy calculations are evaluated based on the distribution models.

3.1. Wind Distribution Models

In this study, three different distribution models are used to represent the wind
behavior of the selected locations. Weibull and Rayleigh are well known and commonly
used by many wind researchers. The third function used in this study is the Gamma
function, which is rarely used in the field of wind.

3.1.1. Weibull Distribution

The probability distribution function (PDF) of the Weibull model is expressed as
follows [7,53]:
k  v k−1 −( v )k
f W (v) = e c (1)
c c
where k and c are Weibull shape and scale factors, respectively.

3.1.2. Rayleigh Distribution

The Rayleigh distribution is a simplified case of Weibull distribution by substituting
k = 2 into (1). Therefore, the probability distribution function is expressed as follows [13]:

v −( v22 )
f R (v) = e 2c (2)
c2

3.1.3. Gamma Distribution

Gamma distribution can be applied for wind energy assessment. The probability
distribution function of Gamma is expressed as follows [11]:
 v k e−( vc )
f G (v) = (3)
c Γ(k) v

where Г Gamma is the gamma function.

3.2. Estimation Method

Each distribution model includes shape and scale parameters that should be estimated
correctly by two main methods: numerical estimation methods and optimization algorithm
methods. Each is discussed individually below.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 7 of 24

3.2.1. Numerical Estimation Method

MLM is represented as the most common traditional method that is utilized to estimate
the parameters of the selected distribution models. The mathematical formulas of the
parameters for these distribution models based on MLM are illustrated in the following:

Weibull’s Parameters Based on MLM

The shape and scale factors for the Weibull model are expressed as follows [54].
! −1
∑in=1 vik ln(vi ) ∑in=1 ln(vi )
k= − (4)
∑in=1 vik n

!1
n k
1
c=
n ∑ vik (5)
i =1

Rayleigh’s Scale Parameter Based on MLM

The scale factors for the Rayleigh model are expressed as follows [54]
s
n
1
c=
2n ∑ vi 2 (6)
i =1

Gamma’s Parameters Based on MLM

The shape and scale factors for the Gamma model are expressed as follows [54]:
!
1 n 1 n
Ψ0 (k) = ∑ ln vi − ln
nk i∑
vi (7)
n i =1 =1

n
1
c=
nk ∑ vi (8)
i =1

where Ψ0 is the Digamma function.

3.2.2. Optimization Algorithms Methods

Metaheuristic algorithms can be applied as estimation techniques. Three algorithms
are used to estimate the parameters: Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Grey Wolf
Optimizer (GWO), and Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) [55–57]. The objective
function used in this study is based on minimizing the error between the measured wind
speed and the estimated values using these optimization algorithms as follows [20]:

1 n
2 i∑
Error (vi ) = [ f m (vi ) − f c (vi , ∅i )]2 (9)
=1

where fm (vi ) represents the measured frequency distribution of ith wind data, fc (vi , ϕi ) is
the estimated values obtained by the distribution functions, which include the parameters
ϕi , and n is the number of wind speed data. As mentioned, the main goal is to minimize
the objective function value, Error (vi ), by using the aforementioned algorithms. Each
algorithm is discussed individually in the following subsections.

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

Eberhart and Kennedy proposed a stochastic algorithm inspired by the social behavior
of bird swarms [55]. In a searching space with N-dimension, a set of particles merge to find
the optimal solution. Each particle is identified by a position vector Xi = (xi1 , xi2 , xi3 , . . .
. . . , xiN ) and velocity vector Vi = (vi1 , vi2 , vi3 , . . . . . . , viN ). In each iteration, each particle
features a local best position, defined as Pi = (pi1 , pi2 , pi3 , . . . . . . , piN ). The best particle
Processes 2022, 10, 105 8 of 24

among the swarm possesses the best global position, which is defined as Pgi = (pgi1 , pgi2 , pgi3 ,
. . . . . . , pgiN ). Each particle updates its position and velocity iteratively by the following
equations [11]:
h  i h  i
( k +1) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
Vi = ωVi + c1 r1 Pi − Xi + c2 r2 Pg i − Xi (10)

( k +1) (k) ( k +1)

Xi = Xi + Vi (11)
where ω is the inertia weight factor, c1 and c2 are the acceleration coefficients that set to
2. The values r1 and r2 are both random numbers defined as r1 and r2 ∈ [0, 1]. The inertia
weight value is updated at each iteration as follows:

k
ω = ωmax − (ωmax − ωmin ) × (12)
itermax

where ω max and ω min are the maximum and minimum value of the inertia weight that set
to 0.9 and 0.4, respectively. The value k is the current iteration and itermax is the maximum
number of iterations. The PSO is summarized in the following steps [11]:
Step One. Define the following parameters (N, Population size, itermax , c1 , c2 , ω max , ω min ),
then initialize the position of all particles Xi = (xi1 , xi2 , xi3 , . . . . . . , xiN ).
Step Two. Calculate the fitness value for each particle and record the local and global best
solutions.
Step Three. Update the velocity Vi and position Xi of the ith particle by using Equations
(10) and (11).
Step Four. Calculate the fitness value for the new position Xi .
Step Five. Check if the new position is better than the obtained best local solution. If yes,
set the new Xi to be Pi ; otherwise, keep the current Pi unchanged.
Step Six. Repeat Step Five to check for the global best solution.
Step Seven. Check whether all the particles are considered. If not, go to the next particle;
otherwise, save the best global position.
Step Eight. Check whether the limitation conditions are satisfied. If not, go to Step Three;
otherwise, output the global best solution Pg and associated fitness value.
The flow chart in Figure 3 summarizes the process of the PSO.

Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO)

Mirjilalili et al. proposed an algorithm inspired by the social behavior of gray wolves
during hunting [56]. Gray wolves mostly live in flocks, with 5 to 12 wolves per flock. Like
any wild herd, they live in a hierarchal stratification system. Accordingly, wolf flocks are
divided into four classes: Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omega.
The GWO algorithm can be represented in the following stages [11,56]:
Step One. Social strategy
The mathematical model of GWO considers (α) as the optimal solution, followed by
(β) and (δ) as a second and third solutions, respectively. The value (ω) is assumed to be an
alternative solution. In this algorithm, α, β, and δ mainly guide the process and ω (wolves)
obeys them.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 9 of 24
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 25

Define the following parameters Initialize the position of all particles

(𝑁, 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒, 𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑐1 , 𝑐2 , 𝜔𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) 𝑋𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖1 , 𝑥𝑖2 , … … … , 𝑥𝑖𝑁

Calculate the fitness values and set the values of local and global best solutions

k = k+1

For first particle

No Yes

k < kmax
Next particle

Update the velocity 𝑉𝑖 and position 𝑋𝑖 of 𝑖 𝑡ℎ particle

Best global by equations (10) and (11)
position

Yes No
Calculate the fitness value for new position 𝑋𝑖

Are all
particles
included ?
No Yes
Is new position better
than best 𝑃𝑖 ?

Keep the current best 𝑃𝑖 unchanged Set the new 𝑋𝑖 to be 𝑃𝑖

No Yes
Is new position better
than best 𝑃𝑔 ?
𝑖

Keep the current best 𝑃𝑔 unchanged Set the new 𝑋𝑖 to be 𝑃𝑔

𝑖 𝑖

Output the global best solution and associated fitness value

Figure 3. The flowchart of the PSO algorithm.

Figure 3. The flowchart of the PSO algorithm.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 10 of 24

Step Two. Encircling the prey

Encircling behavior can be represented as follows:

→ →
 
→ → 
D =  C · X p (t) − X (t) (13)

→ → → →
X ( t + 1) = X p ( t ) − A · D (14)
→ →
where t indicates the current iteration, and Xp and X represent the position vectors of the
→ →
prey and grey wolf, respectively. A and C are coefficient vectors, expressed as follows:
→ → → →
A = 2 a ·r1 − a (15)
→ →
C = 2r 2 (16)
→
where a is a component that decreases linearly from 2 to 0 throughout the iterations, and
→ →
r1 and r2 are both random vectors defined as r1 and r2 ∈ [0, 1]. Equations (13) and (14)
indicate that the grey wolf can update its position randomly around the prey.
Step Three. Hunting
Hunting behavior can be simulated by assuming that α, β, and δ wolves identify the
prey’s location perfectly. Therefore, the first three optimal solutions are saved while the
rest of the search agents are compelled to update their positions accordingly. The following
equations describe the hunting behavior mathematically.

 → → →
 
→
Dα = C1 · Xα − X 
 (17)

 → → →
 
→
Dβ = C2 · X β − X  (18)

 → → →
 
→
Dδ = C3 · Xδ − X  (19)

→ → → →
X1 = X α − A 1 · D α (20)
→ → → →
X2 = Xβ − A2 · D β (21)
→ → → →
X3 = X δ − A 3 · D δ (22)
→ → →
→ X1 + X2 + X3
X ( t + 1) = (23)
3
→ →
where X represents the best position obtained so far and X (t + 1) refers to the mean of the
first three best solutions in the next iteration.
Step Four. Attacking the prey
The attacking course starts when the prey stops moving. This can be mathematically
→ →
modeled by decreasing a component from 2 to 0. Consequently, the range of A is also
→ →
decreases by a . In other words, the value of A ranges in interval of [− a, a] when a
decreasing iteratively. The attack occurs when A ∈ [−1, 1] to force the wolves to attack the
prey.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 11 of 24

Step Five. Searching for prey

In this stage, wolves separate to search for better prey and gather when attacking
the prey. This can be modeled by making the A value greater than 1 or less than −1 i.e.,
| A| > 1. This helps to push the search agents to seek better prey.
The GWO is summarized in the following steps:
1. Define the following parameters (N, Population size, itermax ), then initialize the coeffi-
cients a, A, and C.
2. Evaluate the fitness for each search agent and set α, β, and δ to be the first, second,
and third best search agent.
3. Update the position of the current search agent by Equations (17)–(23).
4. Check whether all wolves (search agents) are considered. If not, go to the next search
agent; otherwise, update the coefficients a, A, and C by Equations (15) and (16).
5. Evaluate the fitness for all the search agents.
6. Save the first, second, and third best solutions (Xα , Xβ , and Xδ ).
7. Check whether the limitation conditions are satisfied. If not, go to step three. Other-
wise, output the best solution Xα and associated fitness value.
8. The flow chart in Figure 4 summarizes the process of the GWO.

Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA)

The Whale Optimization Algorithm was proposed by Mirjilalili et al. in 2016 [57]. This
algorithm was inspired by a distinctive social behavior of the humpback whale during
foraging, named the bubble-net feeding method. This method is based on generating dis-
tinctive bubbles along a circular or 9 shaped path. The foraging behavior of the humpback
whale can be mathematically represented in the following stages [57].
Step One. Encircling the prey
The humpback whale has the ability to locate and encircle prey properly. It is assumed
that the prey’s position is the optimal solution. Accordingly, the other whales (search agents)
must update their positions according to the optimal whale’s position. The encircling
behavior can be expressed as follows:
 →
→ ∗

→ → 
D =  C · X (t) − X (t)
 (24)

→ → → →
X ( t + 1) = X ∗ ( t ) − A · D (25)
→
where t refers to the current iteration, X∗ is the best position vector of the optimal solution,
→ → →
and X is the position vector of a search agent. A and C are both coefficient vectors that can
be given by the following equations:
→ → → →
A = 2a·r − a (26)
→ →
C = 2r (27)
→ →
where a is a component that decreases linearly from 2 to 0 throughout the iterations and r
is a random vector, defined as r ∈ [0, 1].
Processes 2022, 10, 105 12 of 24
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

Initialize the population 𝑋𝑖 (𝑖 = 1,2, … … , 𝑁) Define the following parameters

Initialize the coefficient 𝑎, 𝐴, and 𝐶 (Dimension, Population size, Itermax)

Evaluate the fitness for each search agent

st nd rd
Set 𝑋𝛼 , 𝑋𝛽 and 𝑋𝛿 to be 1 , 2 and 3 best search agent

t=t+1

For first wolf

Next wolf

Update the position of the current search agent by

equations (17) – (23)

No Are all
wolves
included ?

Yes

Update the coefficient 𝑎, 𝐴, and 𝐶

Evaluate the fitness for all search agents

st nd rd
Update the 1 , 2 and 3 best solutions 𝑋𝛼 , 𝑋𝛽 and 𝑋𝛿

Yes
t < tmax

No

Output the best solution 𝑋𝛼 and associated fitness value

Figure 4. The flow chart of the GWO algorithm.

Figure 4. The flow chart of the GWO algorithm.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 13 of 24

Step Two. Bubble-net attacking method

The bubble-net behavior can be divided into two approaches as follows:
A. Shrinking encircling mechanism
→
This mechanism is based on decreasing the value of a . Hence, the fluctuation range
→ → → →
of A coefficient is also decreased by a , i.e., A ∈ [− a, a]. Setting the range of A = [−1, 1]
or | A| < 1 leads to locating the new position of a search agent anywhere in between the
original position and the optimal current position.
B. Spiral updating position
In this approach, the whale attacks the prey in a helix-shaped path. This can be
expressed as follows:
→
→ 
→
0
 ∗ 
D =  X (t) − X (t)
 (28)

→ → →
X (t + 1) = D 0 ·ebl · cos(2πl ) + X ∗ (t) (29)
→
where D 0 represents the distance of the ith whale to prey (optimal solution obtained), and l
is a random number defined as l ∈ [−1, 1], b is constant value related to the shape of the
logarithmic spiral.
Notably, the humpback whale uses the two approaches at the same time when at-
tacking and encircling its prey. Therefore, the algorithm assumes an equal probability of
choosing between the two mechanisms. Consequently, the updated position of the whales
can be modeled as follows.
→

Eq.(25), p < 0.5
X ( t + 1) = (30)
Eq.(29), p ≥ 0.5

where p represents the probability and is a random number defined as p ∈ [0, 1].
Step Three. Searching for prey
Humpback whales search for prey at random, depending on each other’s positions.
→
A coefficient can used to impel the whales (search agents) to separate in order to seek
better prey. This can be modeled by making the A value greater than 1 or less than −1, i.e.,
| A| > 1. In this stage, the updated position is achieved by choosing a random search agent
instead of the optimal agent obtained. This can be expressed as follows:

→ →
 
→ → 
D =  C · Xrand (t) − X (t)
 (31)

→ → → →
X (t + 1) = Xrand (t) − A · D (32)
→
where Xrand is the random position vector.
The WOA is summarized in the following steps:
1. Define the following parameters ( N, Populationsize, itermax ), then initialize the pop-
ulation Xi (i = 1, 2, . . . . . . , N ) and the coefficients a, A, C, l, and p.
2. Evaluate the fitness for each search agent and set X ∗ to be the best search agent.
3. Update the following coefficients: a, A, C, l, and p.
4. Check the p value. (I) If p < 0.5, then check the | A| value. (i) If | A| < 1, update the
position by (25). (ii) Otherwise, if | A| ≥ 1, select a random search agent Xrand , then
update the position by (32). (II) Otherwise, if p ≥ 0.5, then update the position by (29).
5. Check whether all the whales (search agents) are considered. If not, go to the next
search agent; otherwise, check whether any search agent exceeds the search space and
adjust it.
6. Evaluate the fitness for all the search agents.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 14 of 24

7. Save the best solution X ∗ .

8. Check whether the limitation conditions are satisfied. If not, go to the step three;
otherwise, output the best solution X ∗ and associated fitness value.
Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 25
The flow chart in Figure 5 summarizes the process of the WOA.

Initialize the population 𝑋𝑖 (𝑖 = 1,2, … … , 𝑁) Define the following parameters

Initialize the coefficient 𝑎, 𝐴, 𝐶, 𝑙 and 𝑝 (Dimension, Population size, itermax)

Evaluate the fitness of each search agent

Set 𝑋 ∗ to be the best search agent

t = t +1

For first whale

Next whale

Update the following 𝑎, 𝐴, 𝐶, 𝑙 and 𝑝

No Yes
p<1

No Yes
Select a random agent |A|<1

Update the position by equation (29) Update the position by equation (32) Update the position by equation (25)

No Are all
whales
included ?

Yes

Check if any search agent exceeds the search space and adjust it

Evaluate the fitness for all search agents

Yes

t < tmax Update the best solution 𝑋 ∗

No Output the best solution 𝑋 ∗ and associated fitness value

Figure 5. The flow chart of the WOA algorithm.

Figure 5. The flow chart of the WOA algorithm.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 15 of 24

3.3. Performance Indicators

Three statistical performance tests are utilized to determine the optimal distribution
model. These tests are: Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Coefficient of Determination (R2 ),
and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Each is discussed in the following subsections.

3.3.1. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)

The Root Mean Square Error calculates the difference between the predicted values of
the distribution model and the observed values. The RMSE is defined as follows [7]:
s
1 n
n i∑
RMSE = ( y i − x i )2 (33)
=1

where yi and xi are the ith observed and calculated values, respectively, and n is the total
number of observations. The lowest RMSE value means that the used estimation method
achieves the best result.

3.3.2. Coefficient of Determination (R2 )

This test measures the consistency degree between the observations and the theoretical
values by the distribution models. The R2 is expressed as follows [11]:
2
∑in=1 (yi − xi )
R2 = 1 − 2
(34)
∑in=1 (yi − y)

where y represents the average value of the observations. The larger the R2 , the better the
accuracy of estimation that is obtained.

3.3.3. Mean Absolute Error (MAE)

This test calculates the absolute error between the observed and predicted values.
Like RMSE, the lower the MAE value, the better the results obtained. MAE is expressed as
follows [19]:
1 n
MAE = ∑ |yi − xi | (35)
n i =1

3.4. Wind Energy Estimation

In this subsection, the assessment of the energy potential of wind regimes is evaluated
using three distribution models: Weibull, Rayleigh, and Gamma. This assessment is based
on evaluating the two main parameters of any wind regime: the wind power density (ED )
and the total wind energy (ET ) over one year:
Z ∞
ED = Pv f (v) dv (36)
0

where f (v) is the distribution function and Pv represents the available wind power per unit
area of the wind regime in W/m2 . It can be expressed as follows [58,59]:

Pv = 0.5ρ a v3 (37)

where the ρ a is the air density in kg/m3 . The total energy can be calculated of a specific
wind regime over a certain period (T) in kWh/m2 as follows:

ET = TED (38)

The wind power densities of the Weibull and Rayleigh functions, (EDW ) and (EDR ) are
given by (39) and (40), respectively [20,60]:
Processes 2022, 10, 105 16 of 24

ρ a c3
 
3
EDW = Γ 1+ (39)
2 k
3
r
3 × ρa c π
EDR = (40)
2 2
The wind power density of the gamma function (EDG ) is derived by substituting (3)
and (37) in (36): Z ∞  k
ρa v v
EDG = v2 e−( c ) dv (41)
2 Γ(k) 0 c
let = v/c; therefore, dv = c dx. Substituting into (41), yields:
Z ∞
ρ a c3
EDG = x k+2 e− x dx (42)
2 Γ(k) 0

Knowing that the standard Gamma integral is expressed as follows:

Z ∞
Γ(n) = x n−1 e− x dx (43)
0

Comparing (42) with (43), the wind power density using the Gamma distribution
function can be expressed as follows:

ρ a c3 Γ ( k + 3)
EDG = (44)
2 Γ(k)

4. Results and Discussion

In this study, the parameter values for all the proposed models Weibull, Rayleigh,
and Gamma, were estimated for the selected wind sites using one numerical estimation
method (MLM) and three optimization algorithms (PSO, GWO, and WOA). As previously
mentioned, three different performance indicators were used to test the accuracy of the
estimated parameters. Table 3 summarizes the results related to the MLM estimation
method. Through a close assessment of these results, it can be observed that the Gamma
model based on the Maximum Likelihood Method (G-MLM) achieved the best results
using all the indicator tests for all the candidate wind sites, except for King Hussein Airport.
Based on the RMSE results, G-MLM recorded the lowest values among the other models.
The lowest RMSE value was recorded by Amman Civil Airport, with a value of 0.01082.
The MAE test values support the results of the RMSE, which confirmed the superiority of
G-MLM over the other models. A closer inspection of the accuracy analysis results shows
that the results obtained using the R2 test indicate a high degree of consistency between the
observations and the predicated PDFs, with a value of 0.9 for all the wind sites.
The results associated with King Hussein Airport are different from the other wind
sites, in which the accuracy of the Weibull model based on the Maximum Likelihood
Method (W-MLM) was the best model and the indicator values from the RMSE, R2 , and
MAE tests were 0.0176, 0.934, and 0.0093, respectively.
Table 4 provides the results of all the scenarios associated with the optimization
methods. Through a close look at these results, it can be observed that the Gamma model
achieved the best results using all the indicator tests for all the selected wind sites, except
for King Hussein Airport. Based on the RMSE, the PSO method recorded the lowest values
among the other methods in all the sites. The lowest RMSE value was recorded by Ghor
Al Safi, with a value of 0.00788. The R2 test values support the results of the RMSE, which
confirmed the superiority of the PSO method over the other methods. A closer inspection
of the R2 results shows a high degree of consistency between the observations and the
predicted PDFs, with values greater than 0.9 for most sites. Contrary to the RMSE and R2
results, the MAE results show that the GWO method achieved the best results in five sites,
Processes 2022, 10, 105 17 of 24

Queen Alia Airport, King Hussein Airport, Mafraq, Safawi, and Irwaished (see Table 4).
The probability distribution function (PDF) and the observation histograms are presented
for all the sites based on the optimization methods (see Figure 6). It can be observed from
this figure that Gamma model (lines shaded in red color) achieved the best fit in most sites.

Table 3. Distribution model parameters and performance indicator results based on numerical
estimation method (MLM).

Parameter and Numerical Method (MLM)

Site
Indicator W-MLM R-MLM G-MLM
k 2.075 2.000 4.172
c 5.272 3.697 1.114
Queen Alia
RMSE 0.02846 0.02904 0.02488
Airport
R2 0.83287 0.82599 0.87232
MAE 0.01502 0.01546 0.01417
k 4.277 2.000 2.191
c 4.492 3.201 1.098
Amman Civil
RMSE 0.01848 0.01809 0.01082
Airport
R2 0.93727 0.93985 0.97849
MAE 0.00900 0.00944 0.00725
k 2.806 2.000 6.339
c 5.640 3.800 0.791
King Hussein
RMSE 0.01760 0.03012 0.02257
Airport
R2 0.93402 0.80674 0.89149
MAE 0.00993 0.01663 0.01201
k 2.462 2.000 6.588
c 2.379 1.618 0.320
Irbid RMSE 0.04226 0.07409 0.02086
R2 0.93653 0.80491 0.98453
MAE 0.02789 0.04231 0.01490
k 2.090 2.000 4.757
c 4.269 2.987 0.792
Mafraq RMSE 0.03073 0.03214 0.02310
R2 0.83973 0.82462 0.90938
MAE 0.01169 0.01246 0.01062
k 2.033 2.000 4.592
c 4.868 3.428 0.934
Ma’an RMSE 0.04812 0.04869 0.03512
R2 0.71168 0.70478 0.84639
MAE 0.02848 0.02873 0.01889
k 2.312 2.000 5.276
c 5.783 3.974 0.967
Safawi RMSE 0.03341 0.03832 0.02301
R2 0.80052 0.73750 0.90537
MAE 0.02152 0.02536 0.01515
k 1.908 2.000 3.797
c 4.764 3.412 1.107
Irwaished RMSE 0.03268 0.03135 0.02286
R2 0.82588 0.83977 0.91482
MAE 0.01941 0.01859 0.01388
k 1.676 2.000 4.757
c 2.683 2.065 0.503
Ghor Al-Safi RMSE 0.04152 0.03221 0.01457
R2 0.76558 0.85895 0.97114
MAE 0.01203 0.01091 0.00481
Processes 2022, 10, 105 18 of 24

Table 4. Distribution model parameters and performance indicator results based on optimization
algorithms.

Parameter Optimization Method

Site and Indicator W-PSO W-GWO W-WOA R-PSO R-GWO R-WOA G-PSO G-GWO G-WOA
k 2.220 2.221 2.220 2.000 2.000 2.000 4.036 4.034 4.024
Queen c 5.114 5.134 5.115 3.657 3.657 3.657 1.166 1.174 1.170
Alia RMSE 0.02783 0.02783 0.02783 0.02902 0.02902 0.02902 0.02481 0.02483 0.02481
Airport R2 0.84020 0.84016 0.84020 0.82627 0.82627 0.82627 0.87296 0.87285 0.87296
MAE 0.01536 0.01527 0.01535 0.01554 0.01554 0.01554 0.01382 0.01368 0.01381
k 2.079 2.097 2.079 2.000 2.000 2.000 3.477 3.511 3.368
Amman c 4.307 4.311 4.308 3.062 3.061 3.062 1.149 1.141 1.194
Civil RMSE 0.01695 0.01697 0.01695 0.01732 0.01732 0.01732 0.01065 0.01067 0.01077
Airport R2 0.94722 0.94710 0.94722 0.94488 0.94488 0.94488 0.97917 0.97909 0.97869
MAE 0.01068 0.01085 0.01067 0.00974 0.00974 0.00974 0.00704 0.00713 0.00690
k 2.779 2.780 2.779 2.000 2.000 2.000 5.689 5.718 5.881
King c 5.933 5.886 5.932 4.217 4.217 4.217 0.971 0.968 0.938
Hussein RMSE 0.01572 0.01577 0.01572 0.02751 0.02751 0.02751 0.01734 0.01734 0.01739
Airport R2 0.94736 0.94706 0.94736 0.83882 0.83882 0.83882 0.93597 0.93595 0.93559
MAE 0.00997 0.00985 0.00997 0.01863 0.01863 0.01863 0.01122 0.01126 0.01119
k 2.970 2.993 2.970 2.000 2.000 2.000 7.323 7.457 7.869
c 2.309 2.307 2.309 1.720 1.720 1.720 0.301 0.296 0.280
Irbid RMSE 0.02641 0.02644 0.02641 0.07216 0.07216 0.07216 0.00793 0.00802 0.00923
R2 0.97522 0.97516 0.97522 0.81498 0.81498 0.81498 0.99777 0.99772 0.99698
MAE 0.01888 0.01916 0.01887 0.04563 0.04563 0.04563 0.00592 0.00621 0.00714
k 2.440 2.434 2.445 2.000 2.000 2.000 5.331 5.296 5.690
c 4.132 4.128 4.122 3.027 3.026 3.027 0.709 0.715 0.656
Mafraq RMSE 0.02830 0.02830 0.02830 0.03211 0.03211 0.03211 0.02251 0.02251 0.02267
R2 0.86403 0.86402 0.86405 0.82496 0.82496 0.82496 0.91401 0.91399 0.91272
MAE 0.01344 0.01345 0.01354 0.01225 0.01225 0.01225 0.01085 0.01078 0.01137
k 3.293 3.302 3.289 2.000 2.000 2.000 8.572 8.621 8.785
c 4.093 4.084 4.094 3.222 3.222 3.222 0.458 0.456 0.446
Ma’an RMSE 0.02955 0.02955 0.02955 0.04800 0.04800 0.04800 0.02230 0.02230 0.02233
R2 0.89126 0.89123 0.89126 0.71306 0.71306 0.71306 0.93807 0.93804 0.93791
MAE 0.01998 0.01991 0.01999 0.02722 0.02722 0.02722 0.01577 0.01573 0.01547
k 2.787 2.790 2.787 2.000 2.000 2.000 6.556 6.500 6.794
c 5.223 5.229 5.228 3.994 3.993 3.994 0.751 0.759 0.721
Safawi RMSE 0.02910 0.02910 0.02910 0.03832 0.03832 0.03832 0.02091 0.02092 0.02097
R2 0.84863 0.84863 0.84863 0.73757 0.73757 0.73757 0.92185 0.92182 0.92140
MAE 0.02252 0.02253 0.02252 0.02531 0.02531 0.02531 0.01638 0.01633 0.01658
k 2.303 2.317 2.301 2.000 2.000 2.000 4.515 4.466 4.409
c 4.419 4.416 4.422 3.202 3.201 3.202 0.905 0.921 0.931
Irwaished RMSE 0.02746 0.02747 0.02746 0.03033 0.03033 0.03033 0.02126 0.02128 0.02129
R2 0.87706 0.87700 0.87705 0.84996 0.84996 0.84996 0.92630 0.92618 0.92607
MAE 0.01779 0.01794 0.01776 0.01864 0.01864 0.01864 0.01456 0.01439 0.01443
k 2.911 2.901 2.910 2.000 2.000 2.000 6.865 6.736 6.434
c 2.510 2.511 2.510 1.879 1.879 1.879 0.349 0.355 0.375
Ghor Al
RMSE 0.01311 0.01312 0.01311 0.03032 0.03032 0.03032 0.00788 0.00793 0.00815
Safi
R2 0.97662 0.97661 0.97662 0.87495 0.87495 0.87495 0.99155 0.99144 0.99097
MAE 0.00468 0.00467 0.00469 0.00926 0.00926 0.00926 0.00287 0.00304 0.00313
Processes 2022,
Processes 2022, 10,
10, 105
x FOR PEER REVIEW 21
19of 25
of 24

Figure 6. Probability distribution function for the selected sites.

Table 5 presents a comparison between the best optimization method (PSO) and the
numerical method (MLM). It is clear that PSO showed a clear superiority over the MLM
in estimating parameters in all wind sites. The highest R2 value recorded by the Gamma
model based on G-PSO was 0.99777, while the highest value recorded by the G-MLM
did not exceed 0.98500 (see Irbid wind site in Table 5). According to the RMSE and R2
results, the PSO method achieved the best performance in all the sites. However, the results
differed remarkably according to MAE indicator: MLM was the most accurate method in
five sites, while PSO was the best in the remaining sites. In addition, Table 5 provides the
wind power density and total available energy of the wind regimes for all the sites. The
results according to the PSO method correspond to those provided by the MLM, but with
noticeable changes in power density values. The highest value of wind power density was
achieved by the King Hussein Airport, Queen Alia Airport and Safawi sites. On the other
hand, Irbid achieved the lowest value of wind power density, followed by Ghor Al Safi.
Figure 7 represents the PDF curves based on PSO and MLM, in addition to observation
histograms. It can be observed that PSO achieved the best fit with the observed values,
Processes 2022, 10, 105 20 of 24

Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 25

which is the red line. This confirms that PSO was the optimal estimation method for all the
sites.

Figure
Figure 7.
7. The
The PDF
PDF representation
representation based
based on
on PSO
PSO and
and MLM
MLM estimation
estimation methods
methods for
for all
all sites.
sites.

5. Conclusions
This paper presented a new assessment process of wind energy resources for nine
wind sites in Jordan: Queen Alia Airport, Civil Amman Airport, King Hussein Airport,
Irbid, Mafraq, Ma’an, Ghor El Safi, Safawi, and Irwaished. The wind energy assessment
was performed using Weibull, Rayleigh, and Gamma distribution functions. This assess-
ment was based on the estimation of two vital parameters of the wind regime: wind power
density and total wind energy. This assessment can be applied in any wind site in the
world, so a decision can be made whether a wind farm can be established in a specific
wind site. Three statistical distribution models were utilized to implement the available
wind speed data: Weibull, Rayleigh, and Gamma distribution functions. The Maximum
Likelihood Method, Particle Swarm Optimization, Grey Wolf Optimizer, and Whale Op-
timization Algorithm were used to estimate the parameters associated with each distribu-
Processes 2022, 10, 105 21 of 24

Table 5. Comparison between the best optimization method (PSO) and numerical method (MLM)
according to parameters, indicators, power density and total available energy.

Best ED ET
Site k c RMSE R2 MAE
Method (W/m2 ) (kWh/m2 )
Queen Alia G-PSO 4.036 1.166 0.02481 0.87296 0.01382 118.98 1042.28
Airport G-MLM 4.172 1.114 0.02488 0.87232 0.01417 112.81 988.21
Amman Civil G-PSO 3.477 1.149 0.01065 0.97917 0.00704 79.26 694.28
Airport G-MLM 2.191 1.098 0.01082 0.97849 0.00725 75.64 662.62
King Hussein W-PSO 2.779 5.933 0.01572 0.94736 0.00997 132.53 1161.01
Airport W-MLM 2.806 5.640 0.01760 0.93402 0.00993 113.30 992.54
G-PSO 7.323 0.301 0.00793 0.99777 0.00592 9.53 83.48
Irbid
G-MLM 6.588 0.320 0.02086 0.98453 0.01490 8.64 75.70
G-PSO 5.331 0.709 0.02251 0.91401 0.01085 54.04 473.39
Mafraq
G-MLM 4.757 0.792 0.02310 0.90938 0.01062 56.38 493.92
G-PSO 8.572 0.458 0.02230 0.93807 0.01577 51.17 448.28
Ma’an
G-MLM 4.592 0.934 0.03512 0.84639 0.01388 84.47 739.93
G-PSO 6.556 0.751 0.02091 0.92185 0.01638 110.04 963.93
Safawi
G-MLM 5.276 0.967 0.02301 0.90537 0.01515 133.60 1170.33
G-PSO 4.515 0.905 0.02126 0.92630 0.01456 73.75 646.06
Irwaished
G-MLM 3.797 1.107 0.02286 0.91482 0.01388 87.66 767.87
G-PSO 6.865 0.349 0.00788 0.99155 0.00287 12.49 109.44
Ghor Al-Safi
G-MLM 4.757 0.503 0.01457 0.97114 0.00481 14.43 126.36

5. Conclusions
This paper presented a new assessment process of wind energy resources for nine
wind sites in Jordan: Queen Alia Airport, Civil Amman Airport, King Hussein Airport,
Irbid, Mafraq, Ma’an, Ghor El Safi, Safawi, and Irwaished. The wind energy assessment was
performed using Weibull, Rayleigh, and Gamma distribution functions. This assessment
was based on the estimation of two vital parameters of the wind regime: wind power
density and total wind energy. This assessment can be applied in any wind site in the world,
so a decision can be made whether a wind farm can be established in a specific wind site.
Three statistical distribution models were utilized to implement the available wind speed
data: Weibull, Rayleigh, and Gamma distribution functions. The Maximum Likelihood
Method, Particle Swarm Optimization, Grey Wolf Optimizer, and Whale Optimization
Algorithm were used to estimate the parameters associated with each distribution model.
Three performance indicators were investigated to choose the optimal distribution model:
Root Mean Square Error, Coefficient of Determination, and Mean Absolute Error. The
highest wind power density was achieved by the King Hussein Airport wind site followed
by Queen Alia Airport, while Irbid achieved the lowest values of wind power density,
followed by Ghor El Safi.

Author Contributions: A.A.-Q. suggested the paper idea, wrote several sections of the paper and
reviewed and edited the paper before the final submission. B.A.-M. wrote a major part of the paper
and derived the mathematical model described in the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data were provided by Taqs Alarab Company and National Electric
Power Company (NEPC).
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge Yarmouk University for its support in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Processes 2022, 10, 105 22 of 24

Nomenclature

v Wind speed in m/s

ρa Air density in kg/m3
T Time period in hours
ED Wind power density in W/m2
ET Total available energy in kWh/m2
fw (v) Probability distribution function of Weibull model
fR (v) Probability distribution function of Rayleigh model
fG (v) Probability distribution function of Gamma model
K Shape factor
c Scale factor in m/s
EDW Wind power density based on Weibull model in W/m2
EDR Wind power density based on Rayleigh model in W/m2
EDG Wind power density based on Gamma model in W/m2
WECS Wind energy conversion system
RMSE Root mean square error
R2 Coefficient of determination

References
1. REN21. Renewables 2020 Global Status Report; REN21 Secretariat: Paris, France, 2020; ISBN 978-3-948393-00-7. Available online:
https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2020/ (accessed on 4 July 2020).
2. National Electric Power Company. Annual Report. 2019. Available online: https://www.nepco.com.jo/store/DOCS/web/2019
_en.pdf. (accessed on 9 March 2021).
3. Sathyajith, M. Wind Energy: Fundamentals, Resource Analysis and Economics; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2006.
4. Boudia, S.M.; Benmansour, A.; Tabet Hellal, M.A. Wind resource assessment in Algeria. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 22, 171–183.
[CrossRef]
5. Bidaoui, H.; El Abbassi, I.; El Bouardi, A.; Darcherif, A. Wind Speed Data Analysis Using Weibull and Rayleigh Distribution
Functions, Case Study: Five Cities Northern Morocco. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 32, 786–793. [CrossRef]
6. Salvação, N.; Soares, C.G. Wind resource assessment offshore the Atlantic Iberian coast with the WRF model. Energy 2018, 145,
276–287. [CrossRef]
7. Bilir, L.; Imir, M.; Devrim, Y.; Albostan, A. Seasonal and yearly wind speed distribution and wind power density analysis based
on Weibull distribution function. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 15301–15310. [CrossRef]
8. Paraschiv, L.-S.; Paraschiv, S.; Ion, I.V. Investigation of wind power density distribution using Rayleigh probability density
function. Energy Procedia 2019, 157, 1546–1552. [CrossRef]
9. Shoaib, M.; Siddiqui, I.; Rehman, S.; Khan, S.; Alhems, L.M. Assessment of wind energy potential using wind energy conversion
system. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 216, 346–360. [CrossRef]
10. Azad, K.; Rasul, M.; Halder, P.; Sutariya, J. Assessment of Wind Energy Prospect by Weibull Distribution for Prospective Wind
Sites in Australia. Energy Procedia 2019, 160, 348–355. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, J.; Huang, X.; Li, Q.; Ma, X. Comparison of seven methods for determining the optimal statistical distribution parameters:
A case study of wind energy assessment in the large-scale wind farms of China. Energy 2018, 164, 432–448. [CrossRef]
12. Gugliani, G.; Sarkar, A.; Ley, C.; Mandal, S. New methods to assess wind resources in terms of wind speed, load, power and
direction. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 168–182. [CrossRef]
13. Wang, J.; Hu, J.; Ma, K. Wind speed probability distribution estimation and wind energy assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 60, 881–899. [CrossRef]
14. Li, Y.; Huang, X.; Tee, K.F.; Li, Q.; Wu, X.-P. Comparative study of onshore and offshore wind characteristics and wind energy
potentials: A case study for southeast coastal region of China. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 39, 100711. [CrossRef]
15. Saeed, M.A.; Ahmed, Z.; Yang, J.; Zhang, W. An optimal approach of wind power assessment using Chebyshev metric for
determining the Weibull distribution parameters. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 37, 100612. [CrossRef]
16. Wahbah, M.; Feng, S.F.; El-Fouly, T.H.; Zahawi, B. Wind speed probability density estimation using root-transformed local linear
regression. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 199, 111889. [CrossRef]
17. Han, Q.; Ma, S.; Wang, T.; Chu, F. Kernel density estimation model for wind speed probability distribution with applicability to
wind energy assessment in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 115, 109387. [CrossRef]
18. Jiang, H.; Wang, J.; Wu, J.; Geng, W. Comparison of numerical methods and metaheuristic optimization algorithms for estimating
parameters for wind energy potential assessment in low wind regions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 1199–1217. [CrossRef]
19. Alrashidi, M.; Rahman, S.; Pipattanasomporn, M. Metaheuristic optimization algorithms to estimate statistical distribution
parameters for characterizing wind speeds. Renew. Energy 2020, 149, 664–681. [CrossRef]
20. Komleh, S.H.P.; Keyhani, A.; Sefeedpari, P. Wind speed and power density analysis based on Weibull and Rayleigh distributions
(a case study: Firouzkooh county of Iran). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 313–322. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 105 23 of 24

21. Brano, V.L.; Orioli, A.; Ciulla, G.; Culotta, S. Quality of wind speed fitting distributions for the urban area of Palermo, Italy. Renew.
Energy 2011, 36, 1026–1039. [CrossRef]
22. Hu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Xie, Z.; Zhu, P.; Yu, D. On estimating uncertainty of wind energy with mixture of distributions. Energy 2016,
112, 935–962. [CrossRef]
23. Dong, Y.; Wang, J.; Jiang, H.; Shi, X. Intelligent optimized wind resource assessment and wind turbines selection in Huitengxile of
Inner Mongolia, China. Appl. Energy 2013, 109, 239–253. [CrossRef]
24. Wu, J.; Wang, J.; Chi, D. Wind energy potential assessment for the site of Inner Mongolia in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2013, 21, 215–228. [CrossRef]
25. Akgül, F.G.; Şenoğlu, B.; Arslan, T. An alternative distribution to Weibull for modeling the wind speed data: Inverse Weibull
distribution. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 114, 234–240. [CrossRef]
26. Aries, N.; Boudia, S.M.; Ounis, H. Deep assessment of wind speed distribution models: A case study of four sites in Algeria.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 155, 78–90. [CrossRef]
27. Jung, C.; Schindler, D. Wind speed distribution selection–A review of recent development and progress. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2019, 114, 109290. [CrossRef]
28. Chang, T.P. Estimation of wind energy potential using different probability density functions. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 1848–1856.
[CrossRef]
29. Qin, Z.; Li, W.; Xiong, X. Estimating wind speed probability distribution using kernel density method. Electr. Power Syst. Res.
2011, 81, 2139–2146. [CrossRef]
30. Bracco, S.; Delfino, F.; Rossi, M.; Robba, M.; Pagnini, L. Optimal planning of the energy production mix in smart districts including
renewable and cogeneration power plants. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Trento,
Italy, 12–15 September 2016; pp. 1–7.
31. Bracco, S.; Delfino, F.; Rossi, M.; Robba, M.; Pagnini, L. Decentralized generation in urban districts: Optimal planning considering
uncertainties. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2017
IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe), Milan, Italy, 6–9 June 2017; pp. 1–6.
32. Al-Quraan, A.; Stathopoulos, T.; Pillay, P. Estimation of Urban Wind Energy- Equiterre Building Case in Montreal. In Proceedings
of the International Civil Engineering for Sustainability and Resilience Conference (CESARE’14), Irbid, Jordan, 24–27 April 2014.
33. Xu, X.; Yan, Z.; Xu, S. Estimating wind speed probability distribution by diffusion-based kernel density method. Electr. Power
Syst. Res. 2015, 121, 28–37. [CrossRef]
34. Ammari, H.D.; Al-Rwashdeh, S.S.; Al-Najideen, M.I. Evaluation of wind energy potential and electricity generation at five
locations in Jordan. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 15, 135–143. [CrossRef]
35. Bataineh, K.M.; Dalalah, D. Assessment of wind energy potential for selected areas in Jordan. Renew. Energy 2013, 59, 75–81.
[CrossRef]
36. Dalabeeh, A.S.K. Techno-economic analysis of wind power generation for selected locations in Jordan. Renew. Energy 2017, 101,
1369–1378. [CrossRef]
37. Anani, A.; Zuamot, S.; Abu-Allan, F.; Jibril, Z. Evaluation of wind energy as a power generation source in a selected site in Jordan.
Sol. Wind. Technol. 1988, 5, 67–74. [CrossRef]
38. Habali, S.; Hamdan, M.; Jubran, B.; Zaid, A.I. Wind speed and wind energy potential of Jordan. Sol. Energy 1987, 38, 59–70.
[CrossRef]
39. Alghoul, M.A.; Sulaiman, M.Y.; Azmi, B.Z.; Wahab, M.A. Wind energy potential of Jordan. Int. Energy Journal. 2007, 8, 71–78.
40. Alsaad, M. Wind energy potential in selected areas in Jordan. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 65, 704–708. [CrossRef]
41. Al-Quraan, A.; Stathopoulos, T.; Pillay, P. Comparison of wind tunnel and on site measurements for urban wind energy estimation
of potential yield. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2016, 158, 1–10. [CrossRef]
42. Stathopoulos, T.; Alrawashdeh, H.; Al-Quraan, A.; Blocken, B.; Dilimulati, A.; Paraschivoiu, M.; Pilay, P. Urban wind energy:
Some views on potential and challenges. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018, 179, 146–157. [CrossRef]
43. Al-Quraan, A.; Pillay, P.; Stathopoulos, T. Use of a Wind Tunnel for Urban Wind Power Estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Washington, WA, USA, 27–31 July 2014.
44. Amr, M.; Petersen, H.; Habali, S. Assessment of windfarm economics in relation to site wind resources applied to sites in Jordan.
Sol. Energy 1990, 45, 167–175. [CrossRef]
45. Habali, S.; Amr, M.; Saleh, I.; Ta’Ani, R. Wind as an alternative source of energy in Jordan. Energy Convers. Manag. 2001, 42,
339–357. [CrossRef]
46. Abderrazzaq, M. Energy production assessment of small wind farms. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 2261–2272. [CrossRef]
47. Al-Quraan, A.; Alrawashdeh, H. Correlated Capacity Factor Strategy for Yield Maximization of Wind Turbine Energy. In
Proceedings of the IEEE 5th International Conference on Renewable Energy Generation and Applications(ICREGA), Al Ain,
United Arab, 26–28 February 2018.
48. Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Masri, H.; Radaideh, A. New Method for Assessing the Energy Potential of Wind Sites–A Case Study in Jordan.
Univers. J. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2020, 7, 209–218. [CrossRef]
49. Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Mahmodi, M.; Radaideh, A.; Al-Masri, H.M.K. Comparative study between measured and estimated wind
energy yield. Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2020, 28, 2926–2939. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 105 24 of 24

50. Al-Masri, H.M.K.; Al-Quraan, A.; Abuelrub, A.; Ehsani, M. Optimal Coordination of Wind Power and Pumped Hydro Energy
Storage. Energies 2019, 12, 4387. [CrossRef]
51. Radaideh, A.; Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Masri, H.; Albataineh, Z. Rolling horizon control architecture for distributed agents of ther-
mostatically controlled loads enabling long-term grid-level ancillary services. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 127, 106630.
[CrossRef]
52. Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Qaisi, M. Modelling, Design and Control of a Standalone Hybrid PV-Wind Micro-Grid System. Energies 2021,
14, 4849. [CrossRef]
53. Bracco, S.; Delfino, F.; Ferro, G.; Pagnini, L.; Robba, M.; Rossi, M. Energy planning of sustainable districts: Towards the exploitation
of small size intermittent renewables in urban areas. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 2288–2297. [CrossRef]
54. Forbes, C.; Evans, M.; Hastings, N.; Peacock, B. Statistical Distributions, 4th ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
55. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle Swarm Optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95—International Conference on Neural
Networks, Perth, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948. [CrossRef]
56. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
57. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The Whale Optimization Algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
58. Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Masri, H.; Al-Mahmodi, M.; Radaideh, A. Power curve modelling of wind turbines- A comparison study. IET
Renew. Power Gener. 2021, 1–14. [CrossRef]
59. Radaideh, A.; Bodoor, M.; Al-Quraan, A. Active and Reactive Power Control for Wind Turbines Based DFIG Using LQR Controller
with Optimal Gain-Scheduling. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1–19. [CrossRef]
60. Murthy, K.S.R.; Rahi, O.P. Wind Power Density Estimation Using Rayleigh Probability Distribution Function. In Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing; Shakhovska, N., Ed.; Springer: Singapore; Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 265–275. [CrossRef]