Evaluation of WRF-Predicted Near-Hub-Height Winds and Ramp Events over a Pacific Northwest Site with Complex Terrain
Qing Yang, Larry K. Berg, Mikhail Pekour, Jerome D. Fast, Rob Newsom, Mark T. Stoelinga, Catherine A. Finley
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
内容与影响
One challenge with wind-power forecasts is the accurate prediction of rapid changes in wind speed (ramps). To evaluate the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model's ability to predict such events, model simulations, conducted over an area of complex terrain in May 2011, are used. The sensitivity of the model's performance to the choice among three planetary boundary layer (PBL) schemes [Mellor–Yamada–Janjić (MYJ), University of Washington (UW), and Yonsei University (YSU)] is investigated. The simulated near-hub-height winds (62 m), vertical wind speed profiles, and ramps are evaluated against measurements obtained from tower-mounted anemometers, a Doppler sodar, and a radar wind profiler deployed during the Columbia Basin Wind Energy Study (CBWES). The predicted winds at near–hub height have nonnegligible biases in monthly mean under stable conditions. Under stable conditions, the simulation with the UW scheme better predicts upward ramps and the MYJ scheme is the most successful in simulating downward ramps. Under unstable conditions, simulations using the YSU and UW schemes show good performance in predicting upward ramps and downward ramps, with the YSU scheme being slightly better at predicting ramps with durations longer than 1 h. The largest differences in mean wind speed profiles among simulations using the three PBL schemes occur during upward ramps under stable conditions, which were frequently associated with low-level jets. The UW scheme has the best overall performance in ramp prediction over the CBWES site when evaluated using prediction accuracy and capture-rate statistics, but no single PBL parameterization is clearly superior to the others when all atmospheric conditions are considered.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
回答优先基于摘要、文献信息与可获取全文;依据不足时会明确说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
物理Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Climate variability and models · Wind and Air Flow Studies
参考文献 24
此处列出前 3 条
施引文献 64
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条