Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
On Wind Directions Estimated by Nacelle Lidar Under Different Reconstruction Methods
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
On Wind Directions Estimated by Nacelle Lidar Under Different Reconstruction Methods
Do you wish to request the book?
On Wind Directions Estimated by Nacelle Lidar Under Different Reconstruction Methods
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
On Wind Directions Estimated by Nacelle Lidar Under Different Reconstruction Methods
2026
Overview
The wind direction is closely linked to the power performance and structural loads of wind turbines. Conventional nacelle‐mounted vanes or sonic anemometers face errors associated with airflow distortions caused by turbine blades. Nacelle‐mounted lidar systems offer line‐of‐sight speed measurements from multiple positions ahead of the rotor and rely on wind field reconstruction methods to predict the wind direction. This work considers three methods: the matrix inverse, the velocity azimuth display, and the physics‐informed neural network (PINN)–based methods. The first two are industrialized techniques that assume homogeneous flow. For flat terrain and offshore sites, the inhomogeneity of the mean flow is influenced by time‐averaging windows and turbine wakes. To illustrate the limitations and potential bias of wind direction estimates with homogeneous flow assumptions, we first present the bias using site measurement data. We then formulate a theoretical bias for a typical two‐beam lidar system. Next, we use openly available large eddy simulation data to evaluate the minute‐averaged wind direction estimates produced by the three methods. The first two methods are found to be unreliable, with maximum errors reaching close to 25° in the unwaked scenario and exceeding 30° in the waked case. As for the PINN‐based method, the errors remain within 10° across unwaked, waked, nonyawed, and yawed scenarios, even when only a 2D nonlinear convection equation is used as the physical constraint.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,Wiley
Subject
