PCWG-Share-01 Initial Results PCWG Meeting Kings Langley 9 th December 2015 Peter Stuart (RES), Lee Cameron (RES), Alex Clerc (RES) & Andy Clifton (NREL),

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Running a model's adjoint to obtain derivatives, while more efficient and accurate than other methods, such as the finite difference method, is a computationally.
Advertisements

PCWG 9 th Meeting: 12 December Glasgow Introduction, Agenda and Review of Actions.
Unit 4: Linear Relations Minds On 1.Determine which variable is dependent and which is independent. 2.Graph the data. 3.Label and title the graph. 4.Is.
Today’s class Romberg integration Gauss quadrature Numerical Methods
ES 240: Scientific and Engineering Computation. InterpolationPolynomial  Definition –a function f(x) that can be written as a finite series of power functions.
11 ACS Public Use Microdata Samples of 2005 and 2006 – How to Use the Replicate Weights B. Dale Garrett and Michael Starsinic U.S. Census Bureau AAPOR.
Experimental Uncertainties: A Practical Guide What you should already know well What you need to know, and use, in this lab More details available in handout.
Regression and Correlation
Parameterised turbine performance Power Curve Working Group – Glasgow, 16 December 2014 Stuart Baylis, Matthew Colls, Przemek Marek, Alex Head.
Power Curve Working Group Overview
1 PCWG Peter Stuart 02 September Agenda (1) 2 Morning Session: 10am-1pm – “Welcome” Peter Stuart (RES) – “Review of Actions.
PCWG 9 th Meeting December Glasgow PCWG 2015 Roadmap: Detailed Survey Results.
PCWG 9 th Meeting: 12 December Glasgow Proposed PCWG Data Sharing Initiative.
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0803r1 July 2014 Wookbong Lee, LG ElectronicsSlide 1 Packet Length for Box 0 Calibration Date: Authors:
LiDAR analysis at a site with simple terrain Alex Clerc, Lee Cameron Tuesday 2 nd September
1 Seventh Lecture Error Analysis Instrumentation and Product Testing.
Christopher Dougherty EC220 - Introduction to econometrics (chapter 4) Slideshow: nonlinear regression Original citation: Dougherty, C. (2012) EC220 -
Descriptive Statistics for Spatial Distributions Chapter 3 of the textbook Pages
Graph-based consensus clustering for class discovery from gene expression data Zhiwen Yum, Hau-San Wong and Hongqiang Wang Bioinformatics, 2007.
Wind Power Analysis Using Non-Standard Statistical Models
Boyce/DiPrima 9th ed, Ch 8.4: Multistep Methods Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems, 9th edition, by William E. Boyce and Richard.
Handling Data and Figures of Merit Data comes in different formats time Histograms Lists But…. Can contain the same information about quality What is meant.
UNCERTAINTY The Classical Approach ALAN DERRICK SENIOR TECHNICAL MANAGER September
Health and Disease in Populations 2001 Sources of variation (2) Jane Hutton (Paul Burton)
Power Curve Working Group Update New Orleans 15 th September 2015.
PARAMETRIC STATISTICAL INFERENCE
Testing of two variants of the harmonic inversion method on the territory of the eastern part of Slovakia.
University of Ottawa - Bio 4118 – Applied Biostatistics © Antoine Morin and Scott Findlay 08/10/ :23 PM 1 Some basic statistical concepts, statistics.
Practical Statistical Analysis Objectives: Conceptually understand the following for both linear and nonlinear models: 1.Best fit to model parameters 2.Experimental.
Methodology for producing the revised back series of population estimates for Julie Jefferies Population and Demography Division Office for.
Whiteboardmaths.com © 2008 All rights reserved
Curve-Fitting Regression
Power Curve Working Group Update Roskilde 26 th June 2015.
Stat 112: Notes 2 Today’s class: Section 3.3. –Full description of simple linear regression model. –Checking the assumptions of the simple linear regression.
Benchmarking ontology-based annotation tools for the Semantic Web Diana Maynard University of Sheffield, UK.
A New Theoretical Basis for Describing Low Turbulence Wind Turbine Performance Peter Stuart PCWG Meeting – 26 June 2015.
Supported by the Hungarian Research Found (OTKA T049013) Consistency controlled future generating models Mapping Time and Space for checking environmental.
June 30, 2008Stat Lecture 16 - Regression1 Inference for relationships between variables Statistics Lecture 16.
PCWG 15 th Meeting December 2015 – Kings Langley PCWG 2016 Roadmap: Detailed Survey Results.
Copyright © 2006 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 4-1 Basic Mathematical tools Today, we will review some basic mathematical tools. Then we.
PRR 568 – Day 17 to Day 10 Analysis Implementation Recommendation TAC December 2005.
8th October Aarhus PCWG-Share-01 Introduction.
1 © A. Kwasinski, 2016 Power vs. energy delivery profile technologies Ragone chart: More information and charts can be found in Holm et. al., “A Comparison.
Regional Policy Guidance on monitoring TÓTH Gábor DG EMPL – Impact Assessment, Evaluation Unit ESF Evaluation Partnership meeting, Rome, 26 November 2014.
Understanding the Power Curve Interpolation Issue Power Curve Working Group, , Hamburg Axel Albers.
Multi-Interval Real-Time Market (MIRTM) Updates SAWG Sean Chang Market Analysis February 22, 2016 ERCOT Public Version
PCWG-Share-01 Current Status PCWG Meeting Hamburg 10 th March 2016 Peter Stuart (RES) and Andy Clifton (NREL), on behalf of the Power Curve Working Group.
Remember the equation of a line: Basic Linear Regression As scientists, we find it an irresistible temptation to put a straight line though something that.
23 Jan 2012 Background shape estimates using sidebands Paul Dauncey G. Davies, D. Futyan, J. Hays, M. Jarvis, M. Kenzie, C. Seez, J. Virdee, N. Wardle.
PCWG Intelligence Sharing Initiative 10 August 2016 NREL, Colorado, US.
IEC Ed 2 Collaboration IEA Task 32 Round Robin & PCWG Worked Examples NREL, Colorado, US 10 th August 2016 IEC Task 32: Luke J Simmons (DNV GL)
PCWG 2016 Update 20th May 2016 Peter Stuart.
IEC FDIS 2016 Worked Example Industrial Project
IEC FDIS 2016 Consensus Analysis Project
PCWG 2016 Update Wednesday, 13 December 2016 Glasgow, Scotland
IEC FDIS 2016 Worked Examples Ellie Weyer, AWS True Power
PCWG Intelligence Sharing Initiative Update
PCWG Intelligence Sharing Initiative Update 13 December 2016
IEA Task 32 Power Performance Uncertainty Round Robin
Contents Cumulating of uncertainties across site calibration and power curve test Cumulating of uncertainties across wind speed bins Order of uncertainty.
Alternative Turbulence Correction Methods
PCWG 2016 Roadmap & Meeting Overview
Results from the Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) Power Curve Validation using LiDAR Project Lee Cameron, Alex Clerc, Peter Stuart, Simon Feeney, Ian Couchman.
PCWG Intelligence Sharing Initiative
Chapter 7 Process Control.
Power curve loss adjustments at AWS Truepower: a 2016 update
Evaluation of the Cuban Wind Atlas
Power Curve Interpolation, What We’ve Learnt?
TI measurement techniques for pulsed Lidars – the Current Status
Presentation transcript:

PCWG-Share-01 Initial Results PCWG Meeting Kings Langley 9 th December 2015 Peter Stuart (RES), Lee Cameron (RES), Alex Clerc (RES) & Andy Clifton (NREL), on behalf of the Power Curve Working Group

Download PCWG 2015 ‘A3’ Roadmap from

PCWG-Share-01: PCWG Analysis Tool Excel Benchmark and PCWG Analysis Tool Comparison PCWG-Share-01: Enabled by PCWG Analysis Tool. Consistent data analysis and anonymous report generation. ‘Just do it’ PCWG-Share-01 button (minimise set-up time)

PCWG-Share-01 Definition Document Download PCWG-Share-01 Definition Doc from

Inner Range Power Curves Extracted from the Dataset Itself: the data analysis process has been designed such that the warranted power curve is never considered. Instead a power curve is extracted from a subset of the data (Inner-Range) which is then used to model the power output in the outer-range. Intelligence Sharing, not Data Sharing: the data analysis process has been designed such that the datasets do not need to be shared outside of the participant organisations. Instead of sharing the actual data, participants will share performance metrics which describe the accuracy of the trial methodologies. PCWG-Share-01: Neutralising Commercial Sensitivities

Proprietary Dataset D Analysis Definition Y Organization D Proprietary Dataset A Organization A Proprietary Dataset B Organization B Proprietary Dataset C Organization C Aggregator (Academic Institution ) Combination Analysis Aggregated Hypothesis Performance Metrics Hypothesis Performance Metrics Analysis Definition Y Hypothesis/Trial Methodology How well did the trial method perform? PCWG-Share-01: Data Flow

PCWG-Share-01: Error Metric Definitions See PCWG-Share-01 Definition Document for Further Details

Time June Finalise Definition Doc Finalise Analysis Tool July PCWG Participants work to set up their proprietary datasets Aug Roskilde PCWG Meeting Sep US PCWG Meeting Aggregate Initial results + Present Oct Aarhus PCWG Meeting Nov EWEA Paris Dec London PCWG Meeting AWEA New Orleans PCWG Participants perform further analysis Aggregate final results + Present Agree Conclusions PCWG-Share-01: Timeline Deadline for final results submission was 23 rd November Results were be combined by Data Aggregator (NREL) for presentation at the December 2015 PCWG meeting.

PCWG-Share-01: PCWG Analysis Tool VersionCommentSubmissions (Beta 2) Pre-release version used in a few of the RES submissions (identical to 0.5.8) Version used in original round of submissions Changes to interpolation method (more later). No contribution to errors from unpopulated bins. 47 (resubmissions) Slightly relaxed submission criteria (fewer populated bins required).

PCWG-Share-01: Submission Map

PCWG-Share-01: Submissions by Country

PCWG-Share-01: Submissions by Participant Type

PCWG-Share-01: Turbine Size vs Measurement Year

Still unexpectedly large errors for baseline inner range (further investigation required) PCWG-Share-01: Baseline Error, Inner vs Outer Range ‘Uncertainty’ associated with ‘Outer Range’ effects. Std Dev ≈ 2% Smaller inner baseline errors still warrant further investigation Version 0.5.9/10

POWER CURVE INTERPOLATION ISSUE

What is inner range baseline error? The Inner Range power curve is derived from the Inner Range data Each Inner Range data point is compared to the Inner Range power curve. The error for each data point is calculated. The error is summarised as NME (Normalised Mean Error). This is expected to be 0 for the inner range! HOWEVER The inner range baseline error may not be 0 depending on interpolation of the power curve! Inner Range Baseline Error Error for each point is the difference from the interpolated power curve

Zero-Order interpolation: easy to get 0 NME (just use the bin average power) but large errors for individual data points.

Linear Interpolation: v0.5.8 and earlier, improvement for individual data points but noticeable over prediction at low wind speed

Cubic interpolation: introduced in v0.5.9 for PCWG-Share-01. Noticeably reduces error at low wind speed compared to linear.

Normalised Mean Error (NME) by wind speed: Cubic interpolation has similar but smaller errors than linear. Zero-order has 0 error by definition Cubic and linear interpolators over estimate data at the ankle Cubic and linear interpolators under estimate data at the knee

Residual Error Main reason for residual error: Bin averages are used as interpolation points. Unfortunately the bin averages do not lie exactly on the curve when the underlying function is non-linear. Cubic (Convex) Clipped (Concave) Linear The bin average, (avg(x), avg(y)), is above the curve The bin average, (avg(x), avg(y)), is on the curve The bin average, (avg(x), avg(y)), is below the curve

Possible solutions The problem is that bin average power does not well represent bin centre power The bin averaging process is very similar to the effect of turbulence. An iterative correction method similar to the Albers method could be applied to find the true bin centres. In the rising part of the curve, evaluate bin average Cp, consider this to be bin centre Cp, and convert to bin centre power. Cp data is a bit less non-linear than power.

PCWG-Share-01 RESULTS

PCWG-Share-01: Baseline Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.8) Large errors above rated for certain datasets.

PCWG-Share-01: Baseline Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: PDM Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: Baseline Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: PDM Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: Baseline Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: Inner Baseline Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: Outer Baseline Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: Outer PDM Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: Outer Turbulence Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: REWS Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: REWS + Turb Errors by Wind Speed (0.5.9/10)

PCWG-Share-01: Errors by Method (‘Four Cell Matrix’)

PCWG-Share-01: Improvements by Method (‘Four Cell Matrix’)

Many thanks to all PCWG-Share-01 Participants and special thanks to Andy Clifton of NREL Join the Power Curve Working Group at: