METEOROLOGICAL APPLICATIONS

Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

Published online 5 August 2014 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/met.1472

Review
Current issues in wind energy meteorology
Stefan Emeis*
Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany

ABSTRACT: This review discusses some of the current issues in wind energy meteorology from the viewpoint of a
meteorologist. The focus is on four major subjects: (1) the wind potential, (2) the influence of major terrain inhomogeneities
on this wind potential, (3) diurnal wind variations and (4) the impact of wind turbines and wind parks on the flow. The wind
potential is addressed by describing vertical profiles of wind and turbulence, trying to give profile laws that are valid throughout
the major part of the atmospheric boundary layer and specifying specific offshore turbulence conditions. Flow over forests and
gently sloping hills are presented as two examples for the very broad spectrum of possible terrain inhomogeneities. Diurnal
variations of wind speed turn out to be height dependent. A major diurnal variation, the formation of low-level jets, is discussed
in detail. Finally, wakes of single turbines and of entire wind parks are addressed and an analytical model for park efficiency
and wake is presented. This review gives only a short overview on the spectrum of issues in wind energy meteorology. A few
analytical approaches are presented to explain first-order effects. Detailed investigations of wind and turbulence conditions
usually require the use of non-linear high-resolution flow models.

KEY WORDS wind energy; vertical wind profiles; complex terrain; low-level jets; wind park efficiency; wind park wakes
Received 19 November 2013; Revised 6 June 2014; Accepted 18 June 2014

1. Introduction distribution of the 10 min averaged wind speeds at hub height

Energy meteorology has recently become a new branch in
applied meteorology after the significant development and
deployment of wind turbines started about 20 years ago.
Mankind’s need for energy will persist or even increase for
the foreseeable future. A sustainable supply will only be possi-
ble from renewable energies in the long run (Breton and Moe,
2009). Renewable energies comprise water power, wave and
tidal energy, geothermal energy, biomass, solar energy and,
last but not least, wind energy. Wind energy could potentially
contribute a larger share in future energy supply. Presently,
the global primary energy demand is in the order of 20 TW
(EIA, 2013). According to recent calculations, wind energy
could supply a few tens of TW (Adams and Keith, 2013). The
availability of wind energy and some other renewable energies
depend heavily on the weather. Therefore, this review focuses on
some features in atmospheric conditions which permit or limit
the generation of electricity from wind energy by wind turbines.
It is presented from the viewpoint of a meteorologist.
Systematic electricity generation from the wind has been per-
formed for more than 20 years now. In the early years, onshore
wind turbines were small with rotor diameters being much
smaller than the vertical extent of the atmospheric surface layer
which is roughly 80–100 m deep. Onshore surface layer winds
are relatively easy to assess, because in situ measurements from
masts can be made with reasonable effort in order to calculate
turbine loads and energy yields. The knowledge of the frequency
* Correspondence: S. Emeis, Institute of Meteorology and Climate
Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Kreuzeckbahnstr. 19,
82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. E-mail: stefan.emeis@kit.edu
and the overall turbulence intensity was sufficient to supply
the necessary background information for the siting of single
turbines and small onshore wind parks. Logarithmic and power
laws that describe the vertical wind profiles in the surface layer
allowed for reliable vertical interpolations and extrapolations
in flat and homogeneous terrain. Two developments have now
changed this situation.
On the one hand, the focus for wind park installation has moved
from land to marine sites. Offshore wind parks will deliver a
larger part of the wind energy in the future, because of the large
available space and the usually higher wind speeds compared
to onshore sites. Therefore, marine boundary-layer meteorology
has become important in energy meteorology as well. Until a
few years ago, experimental data for the marine atmospheric
boundary-layer were available, if any, for only a shallow layer
explored from buoys, ships and oil riggs. A few masts, such as the
three German 100 m high Forschungsplattformen In Nord- und
Ostsee (FINO) masts, have just been erected in the last 10 years
(Beeken and Neumann, 2008). They are presently delivering
long-term information on a deeper layer of the marine boundary
for the first time.
On the other hand, the size of turbines has increased in the last
15 years. The hub height of multi-megawatt (MW) turbines is
often above the atmospheric surface layer and rotor diameters of
>100 m are frequent now. Offshore turbines with diameters of
>160 m and a power of 7 MW have already been designed and
will be deployed in the near future. This leads to much more
complicated interactions between the turbines and the lower
atmosphere. Meteorological features that had been considered as
irrelevant for a long time are now becoming decisive for planning
and running single, large turbines and increasingly larger wind
parks. In particular, vertical gradients in mean wind speed and

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society

804
wind direction as well as in turbulence intensity above the surface
layer have to be known.
Both developments moreover mean that the relevant wind
parameters can no longer be fully obtained by masts. New mea-
surement techniques are required to collect the necessary wind
information. This has led to a boom in surface-based remote
sensing techniques (see Emeis, 2010a) such as wind lidars. These
lidars provide continuous information on vertical wind and tur-
bulence profiles with high vertical resolution. Additionally,
modelling techniques have become more important. They help
to assess, for example, spatially inhomogeneous wind fields in
complex terrain or wakes behinds turbines and entire wind parks.
This review tries to summarize some important aspects on
atmospheric boundary layers (ABLs), onshore and offshore, with
respect to wind power generation. The article will focus on
the vertical profiles of wind and turbulence, surface inhomo-
geneities, diurnal wind variations, park efficiency and wakes.
The review will address features such as vertical profile laws
and turbulence intensity over homogeneous terrain (onshore and
offshore) in Section 2, modifications to wind and turbulence pro-
files over inhomogeneous terrain (Section 3), instationary phe-
nomena such as nocturnal low-level jets (LLJs) (Section 4) and
the complex wind–wakes interactions in and behind larger wind
parks (Section 5). A more detailed description of meteorologi-
cal aspects relevant for wind energy generation can be found in
Emeis (2012). Measurement techniques are described in detail
in Emeis (2010a, 2011). A full review of modelling issues espe-
cially for wind energy does not exist. The available models
range from simple analytical models (Emeis, 2010b) via vari-
ous mesoscale models (Fitch et al., 2012) to highly resolving
large-eddy simulations (LES) (Steinfeld et al., 2010; Witha et al.,
2012).
2. Wind and turbulence profiles over homogeneous terrain
Wind speed information is the most important input for any
wind energy assessment. Mean wind speed distributions and
turbulence as a function of height have to be known in order to
predict potential yields from wind turbines and to estimate the
loads on these turbines. Wind speed profile laws for the horizon-
tally homogeneous ABL form the basis for vertical interpolation
and/or extrapolation of wind speed data from measurements
or model layer heights to hub height or other heights within
the rotor plane of a wind turbine. Profile laws also indicate the
vertical wind shear that has to be expected across the rotor plane.
The growing hub heights of modern wind turbines require a
careful investigation of the vertical structure of the boundary
layer in order to describe the wind profiles correctly. Over land,
hub heights of 80 m and more are usually above the surface layer
(or Prandtl layer) which forms about one tenth of the depth of the
total boundary layer. Over the sea, the surface layer height can
be even lower. Driving pressure gradient forces and retarding
frictional forces are usually balanced in the surface layer. Simple
power law or logarithmic profiles (the first is empirical, the latter
is based on the balance of pressure gradient and frictional forces)
are strictly valid in the surface layer only. The remaining 90% of
the ABL is called the Ekman layer where the Coriolis force due
to the Earth’s rotation adds to the balance of pressure gradient
and frictional forces. The Coriolis force induces a turning of the
wind direction with height in the Ekman layer while the vertical
wind shear is much reduced in this layer. Details of the Prandtl
layer and Ekman layer wind profiles are available in classic
textbooks such as Stull (1988).
© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society
S. Emeis
2.1. Unified vertical wind profile law
Modern large wind turbines nearly always reach into the lower
Ekman layer. Therefore, a unified description of the wind profile
for the entire lower part of the ABL up to several hundreds of
metres above ground, i.e. the surface layer and the lower Ekman
layer, is desirable for the planning and operation of modern
large wind turbines. Conflicting assumptions usually made for
the description of wind profiles in the surface and the Ekman
layer are a handicap that prevent easy vertical extrapolation
from one layer into the other. As a consequence of a vertically
constant exchange co-efficient, K M , in the Ekman layer which
is necessary for the derivation of an analytical profile law for
this layer, wind profiles cannot be extended into the surface
layer. On the other hand, the classic logarithmic wind profile
cannot be extended from the surface layer into the Ekman
layer, due to the underlying assumption of a linearly growing
exchange co-efficient K M = u* l with a constant friction velocity,
u* , a height-dependent mixing length, l = 𝜅z, and von Kármán’s
constant, 𝜅. Therefore, two approaches were tested recently to
overcome this problem. The first idea is to fit the Prandtl and
Ekman profiles together in such a way that there is a smooth
transition in terms of wind speed and wind shear between both
regimes (Etling, 2002; Emeis et al., 2007). The second idea is
to modify the Prandtl layer mixing length formulation in order
to extrapolate the Prandtl layer wind profile into higher layers
(Gryning et al., 2007; Peña et al., 2010a, 2010b).
2.1.1. Fitting Prandtl and Ekman layer profiles
Etling (2002) had proposed the first idea by presenting a
wind profile description with a linearly increasing exchange
co-efficient K M below the Prandtl layer height, zp and a constant
K M above this height. Introducing the correction function for
non-neutral stratification, Ψm (z/L* ) (see, e.g. Stull, 1988, for
details) leads to:
⎧
⎪ ( ( ) ( ))
⎪ u∗ ∕𝜅 ln z∕z0 − Ψm z∕L∗ for z < zp
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( )
u (z) = ⎨ ug − sin 𝛼0 + cos 𝛼0 for z = zp
⎪
⎪ √
⎪ ug [1 − 2 2e−𝛾 (z−zp )
⎪ ( ( ) )
⎪ sin 𝛼0 cos 𝛾 z − zp + 𝜋∕4 − 𝛼0 for z > zp
⎪ +2e −2𝛾 ( z−z p ) sin 𝛼0 ]
2 1∕2
⎩
(1)
where u is the mean wind speed, z0 is the roughness length, L* is
the Monin–Obukhov length, ug is the geostrophic wind speed, 𝛼 0
is the angle between the surface wind and the geostrophic wind
and √
f
𝛾= (2)
2𝜅u∗ z
is an inverse length scale for the Ekman layer depending on the
Coriolis parameter f which is only latitude dependent.
The vertical wind profile given by Equation (1) depends on
six parameters: the surface roughness, z0 , the geostrophic wind
speed, ug , the height of the Prandtl layer, zp , the friction velocity,
u* , the Obukhov length, L* and the angle between the surface
wind and the geostrophic wind 𝛼 0 . The three variables z0 , L*
and ug are external parameters imposed by outer conditions, the
other three are internal parameters of the boundary layer. If a
Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)
 Current issues in wind energy meteorology 805

fixed value is chosen for zp then two further equations are needed Turbulence in the ABL is either generated by shear or by thermal
to determine u* and 𝛼 0 . Extending the idea of Etling (2002), a instability. While for lower wind speeds thermal production of
unified vertical wind profile should be generated from the more turbulence is dominant, it becomes nearly negligible for high
realistic physical requirement such that both the wind speed as wind speeds when compared to shear production. The shear
well as the wind shear are continuous at the height z = zp (Emeis production is proportional to the surface roughness.
et al., 2007). This can be achieved by the system of equations Turbulence intensity is defined as the ratio of the standard devi-
given in the Appendix. ation of the wind speed, 𝜎 u over the mean wind speed, u(z). Of
note is that 𝜎 u increases with the length of the averaging interval
2.1.2. Modifying mixing length description (see Appendix A in Emeis, 2012). For a change in the averaging
interval from 10 to 30 min the increase is negligible a few metres
The second idea is to modify the dependence of the mixing length
above ground, because the turbulence length scale is small close
on height and has been proposed by Gryning et al. (2007). They
to the ground and enough turbulence elements are already con-
reformulated the height-dependent mixing length, l (which is
tained in a 10 min interval. The increase becomes larger further
denoted as kz = LL in the Prandtl layer in the following equations,
away from the surface where the turbulence length scale is larger
where k = 0.4 is the von Kármán constant) in order to limit
and less turbulence elements pass the measurement instrument
its growth with height and thus to extend the validity of the
in a given time period. In Appendix A of Emeis (2012), a sample
logarithmic law to heights above the surface layer. The following
from the FINO1 data 80 m above the sea surface showed that 𝜎 u
has been chosen:
nearly doubled when the averaging period was prolonged from
1 1 1 1 10 to 30 min. Using the logarithmic wind profile law, yields the
= + + (3)
l LL LM LU below equation for the turbulence intensity (Wieringa, 1973):
A modified mixing length is formed in Equation (3) by intro- 𝜎u 𝜎 ( ( ))−1 ( ( ))−1
ducing two additional length scales, one for the middle part of Iu (z) = = u 𝜅 ln z∕z0 = A ln z∕z0 (9)
u (z) u∗
the boundary layer, LM = u* /f (−2 ln(u* /(fz0 )) + 55)−1 and one
for the upper part of the boundary layer, LU = (zi – z). Here, zi is Wieringa (1973) set A = 1 based on the assumption that the
the depth of the entire boundary layer. ratio of the standard deviation of the wind speed over the friction
Peña et al. (2010a) suggest a similar approach for the mixing velocity, u* , is 1/𝜅 = 2.5 (Stull, 1988; Arya, 1995). Principally,
length starting from Blackadar’s (1962) principal approach for A should vary with the length of the averaging interval, and
the mixing length, l: the FINO1 data showed values for the ratio 𝜎 u /u* which were
close to 2.5 for wind speeds above 7 m s−1 (Türk, 2008) using an
1 1 (𝜅z)d−1 averaging interval of 10 min. Thus, A is close to unity in this data
= + (4)
l 𝜅z 𝜂d set as well.
where 𝜂 is a limiting value for the mixing length in the upper part Equation (9) means that turbulence intensity in the neutrally
of the boundary layer in the order of 40 m and d is an empirical stratified surface layer is a function of surface roughness only.
factor close to or slightly above unity (Peña et al., 2010a). The Increasing roughness lengths will lead to higher turbulence
alternative approaches by Gryning et al. (2007) and Peña et al. intensities. For a given roughness length, turbulence intensity
(2010a, 2010b) yield the following unified vertical wind profiles: decreases with height in the surface layer. Because it is assumed
( ( ) ) that the standard deviation, 𝜎 u is vertically constant in the surface
u∗ z z z z z layer also for stable stratification (Arya, 1995), the turbulence
u (z) = ln + T + − (5)
𝜅 z0 L∗ LM zi 2LM intensity for stable stratification is given by:
( ( ) ( ))−1
( ( ) ( )d Iu (z) = ln z∕z0 − Ψm z∕L∗ (10)
u z z 1 𝜅z
u (z) = ∗ ln +T +
𝜅 z0 L∗ d 𝜂 The situation is more complicated for unstable stratification.
( )d ) Here 𝜎 u varies with boundary layer height, zi (Panofsky et al.,
1 z 𝜅z z 1977; Arya, 1995) and the turbulence intensity reads:
− − (6)
1 + d zi 𝜂 zi ( )
z 1∕3 ( ( ) ( ))−1
Iu (z) = 15.625 − 0.5 i 𝜅 ln z∕z0 − Ψm z∕L∗
where zi is the boundary layer height and T(z/L* ) is a stability L∗
correction function that is different for unstable and stable strat- (11)
ifications. In unstable situations it reads (Peña et al., 2010b): As turbulence is mainly shear-induced, there is an interesting
( ) ( ) similarity between the vertical profiles of turbulence intensity
T z∕L∗ = −Ψm z∕L∗ (7) and the exponent of the power law for the vertical wind profile.
Equating the slopes of the logarithmic wind profile and that of
and in stable situations (Peña et al., 2010b):
( ) the power law at a given height, z, delivers a relation between
( ) ( ) z the power law exponent, a, and the surface roughness length
T z∕L∗ = −Ψm z∕L∗ 1− (8)
2zi (Sedefian, 1980; Emeis, 2012):
The work on such unified profiles is ongoing; see, for example, ( ( ))−1
a = a (z) = ln z∕z0 (12)
Sathe et al. (2011).
Comparison with the definition of the turbulence intensity
2.2. Turbulence intensity and power law profiles (Equation (9)) reveals that the vertical profile for the exponent
a is equal to the profile of the turbulence intensity for neutral
Turbulence influences the yields from wind turbines as well as stratification. This means that a logarithmic wind profile and a
the loads on wind turbines. Increasing turbulence leads to higher power law profile have the same slope at a given height if the
yields and to higher loads, where the latter is more important. power law exponent equals the turbulence intensity at this height.

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

806 S. Emeis

Figure 1. Vertical profiles of turbulence intensity, Iu (z) from Equations (9) to (11) (thick lines) and of the power law exponent, a, from Equations (12)
to (14) (thin lines). Full line: neutral stratification, dashed lines: stable stratification, dash-dotted lines: unstable stratification. (a) Onshore conditions
(z0 = 0.1 m), (b) offshore conditions (z0 = 0.0001 m), (c) offshore conditions (z0 = 0.0001 m), but Iu profiles only compared to FINO1 data from
October 2004 to January 2005 (lines with markers). (Please see note on limited validity with height in the text).

Therefore, the curves for neutral conditions from Equations (9) while the power law exponent drastically increases with height
and (12) are indistinguishable in Figures 1(a) and (b). for stable stratification in a layer within which the Obukhov
For non-neutrally stratified flow, turbulence intensity does similarity theory is valid (Figure 1). This property makes it
not depend only on shear, so the same equality as between difficult to use the power law with a single value for the exponent
Equations (9) and (12) for neutral flow cannot be expected. The for vertical extrapolation over larger height distances.
exponent a is now given by (Sedefian, 1980; Emeis, 2012): It should be noted that although all curves have been plotted up
( ( ) ( ))−1 to 250 m above ground in Figure 1 these curves are strictly valid
z z 1 z only up to those heights where the Obukhov similarity theory
a = a (z) = ln −Ψ for < 0 (13)
z0 L∗ x L∗ is applicable. This height of applicability can easily be 250 m
( ( ) ( ))−1 ( ) in strongly unstable convective boundary layers while it can be
a = a(z) = ln
z
+ 4.7
z
1 + 4.7
z
for
z
>0 much <100 m in stable situations.
z0 L∗ L∗ L∗
(14) 2.3. Turbulence intensity as function of wind speed
where x = (1 − bz/L* )1/4 and b = 16. Equations (13) and (14) show
that the exponent a is smaller with unstable stratification than According to Equations (9)–(11) turbulence intensity does not
with neutral, but is larger with stable stratification, because x depend directly on wind speed. Onshore, this is not true for
and the expression within the brackets containing z/L* are both all wind speeds. Turbulence intensities increase with decreas-
larger than unity. The change in turbulence intensity is opposite ing wind speeds as can be seen from Figure 2(a). In Equations
with larger turbulence intensity in unstable regimes and smaller (9)–(11) it is assumed that the standard deviation of the wind
turbulence intensity in stable regimes (Figure 1). speed, 𝜎 u is directly proportional to the wind speed, u. This is
The second important message from Equations (9)–(14) is true for fully developed mechanically induced turbulence, but
that turbulence intensity and power law exponent decrease with when approaching zero wind speed, the regime of fully devel-
height in the surface layer with neutral and unstable stratification oped turbulence ceases and 𝜎 u decreases more slowly than the

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

 Current issues in wind energy meteorology 807

Figure 2. Turbulence intensity as function of wind speed. (a) Onshore. Functional relationship for Class B turbulence intensity as given in IEC
61400-3. (b) Offshore. Evaluation of data at 90 m height at the FINO1 mast in the German Bight from September 2003 until August 2007 using
1 m s−1 bins. Please note the different scaling of the y-axis in both plots. The right-hand y-axis in plot (b) refers to the thin curve with the crosses
which indicates how many values are in each 1 m s−1 bin.

wind speed, leading to higher turbulence intensities. Figure 2(a)
shows the assumptions for turbulence intensity made for onshore
conditions in the standard IEC 61400-3 (2005).
Offshore this is not true either. On the one hand, the same
asymptotic behaviour for low wind speeds is found as over land,
leading to higher turbulence intensities (Figure 2(b)). But on
the other hand there is a second influence which is not present
onshore: the ocean roughness length increases with increasing
wind speed due to the formation of waves (Foreman and Emeis,
2010, 2012; Türk and Emeis, 2010). The dependence of median,
arithmetic mean, minimum, maximum, the 10th , 25th , 75th and
90th percentiles of turbulence intensity on wind speed, 10 min
means for the measuring period from September 2003 to August
2007 and a measuring height of 90 m at the offshore mast
FINO1, are shown in Figure 2(b). For low wind speeds, the
mean of turbulence intensity rapidly decreases with increasing
wind speed to a minimum value of about 4.5% at 12 m s−1
wind speed. Above this minimum, turbulence intensity increases
nearly linearly with increasing wind speed. The high turbulence
intensity values at wind speeds below about 12 m s−1 originated
from the dominance of thermal induced turbulence at low
wind speeds during unstable atmospheric conditions with water
surface temperatures significantly above the air temperature.
When the wind speed (and so the roughness length) increases
further, the mechanical part of the turbulence intensity begins
to dominate over the thermal effects and turbulence intensity
increases again (Barthelmie, 1999).
The absolute minimum of turbulence intensity for each 1 m s−1
wind speed bin in Figure 2(b) is <1% for wind speeds of up to
20 m s−1 . Inspection of the synoptic conditions suggests that
under very stable atmospheric conditions, situations with very
low turbulence intensity can occur offshore even at relatively
high wind speeds. The influence of the increasingly rough sur-
face for wind speeds above 20 m s−1 can break the stable layering
and so the absolute minimum of turbulence intensity begins to
increase. At higher wind speeds, the spread of turbulence inten-
sity values within one wind speed class continuously becomes
smaller (Large and Pond, 1981).
For the calculation of loads on wind turbines the 90th percentile
of the turbulence intensity for a given wind speed bin is impor-
tant. The international standard IEC 61400-3 (2005) suggests the
following dependence on wind speed:
u ( )
𝜎u90 = ( h ) + 1.28 1.44 m s−1 I15 (15)
ln zh ∕z0

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

808
Figure 3. 90th percentile of turbulence intensity as function of wind speed. (a) Data at two heights (30 and 90 m) at FINO1 compared to the functional
dependence given in the IEC 61400-3 (2005). (b) Data at 90 m at FINO1 compared to the modified relation given in Equation (15).
where uh is the wind speed at hub height of the wind turbines, zh is
the height of the hub above sea level and I 15 is the average turbu-
lence intensity at hub height at 15 m s−1 wind speed. Figure 3(a)
shows the 90th percentiles of measured offshore turbulence inten-
sity at the FINO1 mast at different heights from 10 min means for
the period September 2003–August 2007 (solid lines) compared
to the offshore turbulence intensity given by IEC 61400-3 (2005,
dashed lines). Similar to the turbulence intensity (Figure 2(b)) the
values of the 90th percentiles of turbulence intensity also decrease
with increasing wind speed until a minimum of ∼7–8.5% at
10–12 m s−1 wind speed and then increase again with further-
more increasing wind speed; 90th percentiles of turbulence inten-
sity also decrease with height (Figure 3(a)). Compared to tur-
bulence intensities given by the IEC standard, three sectors are
detected. Below wind speeds of 8–10 m s−1 , at wind speeds that
are not really load-relevant for wind turbines, measured 90th
percentiles of the turbulence intensities are not well covered
by the IEC-curves. At wind speeds between 10 and 22 m s−1
the 90th percentiles of measured turbulence intensities lie below
the values given by the IEC standard except for two values at
30 m height. In this sector, the slopes of the curves of measured
turbulence intensity are steeper than the slopes of the curves
© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society
S. Emeis
calculated according to IEC 61400-3 (2005). Above wind speeds
of about 22 m s−1 , the slopes of measured and calculated curves
of the 90th percentile of the turbulence intensity become nearly
identical.
At 70 and 90 m of the FINO1 mast, the values according to the
IEC standard (2005) lie permanently above the measured values,
while at the heights of 50 and 30 m, the measured values lie above
the IEC-values for some wind speed bins. The data presented
here suggest a modification of the relation (15) given in the IEC
standard. A better fit is possible from:
uh 2uIu,min ( )
𝜎u90 = a ( )+ 1.44 m s−1 I15 + buh (16)
ln zh ∕z0 uh
where a and b are two tunable factors and uIu, min is the wind
speed at which the minimum turbulence intensity occurs. The
first term on the right-hand side of Equation (15) and apart
from the factor a also in Equation (16) gives the mean standard
deviation of the wind speed for thermally neutral stratification,
assuming a logarithmic vertical wind profile (see Equation (9)).
For the second term it is assumed in Equation (15) that the values
for the standard deviation of the wind speed follow a Gaussian
Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)
 Current issues in wind energy meteorology
distribution around its mean, so that the 90th percentile of the
wind speed, 𝜎 u90 is 1.28 times the standard deviation of the
standard deviation of the wind speed, the latter represented by
1.44 m s−1 times I 15 . In Equation (16) the constant factor 1.28 has
been replaced by twice the ratio between the wind speed where
minimum turbulence intensity occurs and the hub height by the
wind speed. In Figure 3(b) this better fit (Equation (16)) is shown
where a = 0.63 and b = 0.0012 have been used. The variability of
the two empirical factors a and b for different offshore sites has
not been investigated yet.
3. Wind and turbulence profiles over inhomogeneous
terrain
The features described in the previous Section are found when
the atmospheric flow is in equilibrium with a horizontally homo-
geneous surface. This is an idealized description, because usually
land surfaces are not horizontally homogeneous and increasingly
more onshore wind turbines are erected in complex terrains. Two
major inhomogeneities are different land use characteristics and
orography, which usually occur together. Here, flow over forests
in flat terrain and simple orographic features with a homogeneous
surface are addressed as two simple examples.
3.1. Wind and turbulence profiles over forests
In recent years, the deployment of wind turbines in forests
has become an interesting option as these sites are usually
away from larger settlements and are no longer visible for those
inhabitants who may be disturbed by their presence. In terms
of boundary-layer meteorology, forest-covered surfaces are a
special form of vegetated surfaces. A distinction must be made
between equilibrium flow features over larger forest canopies
away from their edges and special flow features at the edges itself.
Figure 4. Schematic of flow over a forest with edge effects. Long curves with arrows symbolize streamlines; small curved arrows indicate additional
turbulence. The large black arrow indicates sweeps and ejections between the canopy layer and the forest sublayer in the near-equilibrium flow over
larger forests. H is average tree height.
© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society
809
3.1.1. Near-equilibrium flow over large forests
Flow equilibrium is usually expected to be found 20–30 tree
heights away from the edges of a large forest (Träumner et al.,
2012). Wind and turbulence profiles in such an equilibrium for-
est boundary layer decisively depend on the spacing of the trees.
If trees grow very close together, the flow is displaced vertically
above the forest. The crowns of the forest trees form a new rough
surface which has much in common with an impervious rough
grass land (Raupach, 1979). The vertical displacement, d of the
flow is considered by a large displacement height on the order
of two thirds of the canopy height. This height substitutes the
Earth’s real surface in all profile laws for flows over forests, i.e.
z is to be replaced by z–d in the Equations (1), (5) and (6). If the
trees grow sparser, the displacement height is lower and the rough
surface has to be considered as pervious. Therefore, the main
difference between a densely vegetated forest and a sparsely veg-
etated forest is that in a sparsely vegetated forest larger air parcels
can enter (these movements are sometimes called sweeps) and
leave (also called ejections) the forest canopy sublayer. This per-
meability of the rough surface of the forest canopy sublayer leads
to anomalously higher turbulence intensities in the lower part of
the forest sublayer than expected from the mean vertical wind
gradient in this layer (see Högström et al., 1989 for details). This
anomalous enhanced turbulence may extend to about three tree
heights (see big arrow in the central part of Figure 4).
Therefore, wind turbines at forest sites should have hub heights
of more than three times the tree height in order to avoid unneces-
sary fatigue due to enhanced turbulence. Together with the above
mentioned large displacement height on the order of two thirds
of the tree height, this usually means wind turbine hub heights
above the mean tree height of considerably >100 m, i.e. total
hub heights of ∼130–150 m above ground. This means addi-
tional constructive efforts to build these turbines. On the other
hand, mean wind speeds are typically higher at greater heights
Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)
810 S. Emeis

above ground so that such turbines can still be economically
meaningful.
3.1.2. Flow features and forest edges
Turbines close to forest edges are subject to special flow features
that must be expected at these sites (Figure 4). At the upwind
edge, the vertical displacement of the flow leads to the formation
of a jet-like feature and additional small-scale turbulence above
the crowns of the trees at three to five tree heights. In a data set
from wind lidar measurements this jet phenomenon disappears
when the flow is in a new equilibrium after about 30 tree
heights behind the forest edge (Shannak et al., 2011; Träumner
et al., 2012). At the lee edge, the flow starts to deviate about
20 tree heights before the forest edge (Träumner et al., 2012).
Once again, increased wind speeds and additional small-scale
turbulence is observed up to about 15 tree heights downwind
of the rear forest edge (Träumner et al., 2012). A comparison
between the mentioned results from wind lidar measurements,
wind tunnel data and the output from a high-resolution numerical
model study with a large-eddy simulation (LES) is given in
Kanani et al. (2014).
3.2. Wind and turbulence over orography
The influence of mountains on the flow is usually much more
important than spatial changes in surface properties. Principally,
mountains influence the upcoming wind for turbines in two dif-
ferent ways. There is a dynamic influence on flows crossing
mountains (Figure 5(a)) and there is a thermal influence produc-
ing secondary flow features (Figure 5(b)). The thermally induced
flows can be very regular, especially with fine weather and clear

Figure 5. (a) Schematic of wind profile distortion in a flow over a hill crest (full line) compared to the shape of a wind profile over flat terrain (dashed
line). The dotted line following the hill contour indicates the depth of the inner layer. The maximum wind speed-up occurs at the top of this inner
layer. (b) Thermally induced secondary flows in mountainous terrain. Thin arrows: slope winds and vertical winds over crests, full arrows: valley
and mountain winds, open arrows: regional winds towards and away from the mountains.

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

 Current issues in wind energy meteorology 811

skies, but wind speeds are rarely so high that they can be used for
wind energy generation. Therefore, only the dynamic influence
is addressed in this review. The mountain-induced flow features
can be very complex and non-linear. Non-linearity such as flow
separation cannot adequately be described with analytical mod-
els but must be addressed with non-linear numerical flow models;
see, for example, Zeman and Jensen (1987).
The most prominent feature of flow over hills and mountains
is the speed-up over the crest (Figure 5(a)). This (fractional)
speed-up, Δs is defined as the ratio of the wind speed at a
given height over a crest, u, to the wind speed at the same
height above ground over level terrain, u∞ minus unity. For
attached flow over gentle slopes (H/L > 0.2, where H is the height
and L is the half-width of the hill) with no flow separation, a
simple analytical analysis is sufficient. Some of the analytical
approaches are quite old and date back to work of, for example,
Jackson and Hunt (1975). These analytical approaches have
always been accompanied by numerical efforts; see, for example,
the work of Taylor (1977). Also, the well-known Wind Atlas
Analysis and Application Program (WAsP) model is based on
such simplifying analytical approaches (Troen and Petersen,
1989). For such flow over gentle hills Hoff (1987) found for
neutral thermal stratification:
u (L) H ( x z )
Figure 6. Stability dependence of the fractional speed-up over a gentle
u (x, z)
Δs (x, z) = −1= ∞ 𝜎 , (17) hill from Equation (18) with L = 1000 m, l = 16.44 m and z0 = 0.2 m.
u∞ (z) u∞ (l) L L L Dashed: unstable stratification (L* = −500 m), full: neutral stratification,
short-dashed: stable stratification (L* = 500 m).
where x is the horizontal co-ordinate (origin at the hill top), z
is the vertical co-ordinate above ground, l is the depth of the should be made with considerably reduced power law exponents
so-called inner layer over the hill (usually a few percent of L, compared to level terrain, and (2) shear-produced turbulence
see Figure 5(a)) and 𝜎 describes the shape of a cross-section may be lower. This means that above the height l the vertical
through the hill. At the hill top 𝜎 has the value of unity and increase in wind speed is lower than that in the same height above
approaches zero far away from the hill. Near the hill foot this flat terrain. Therefore, over hill tops, less additional energy is
function is slightly negative. The absolute value of 𝜎 decreases harvested when turbine hub heights are increased. But loads on
with height, above the hill surface. Usually, with a few exceptions the turbines could be lower due to the reduced shear turbulence.
(see, e.g. Emeis, 2012), 𝜎 cannot be given analytically. Also Δs These changes in the vertical wind profiles over the hill have
increases with increasing steepness, H/L of the hill and increases consequences for the vertical profiles of the two parameters of
with height in the inner layer and reaches its maximum value at the Weibull distribution over the hills. The vertical profile of the
the height l over the hill top. Simultaneously, height l denotes the scale parameter of the Weibull distribution more or less follows
depth of this inner layer. the changes in the mean wind speed profile described above.
Bradley (1983) extended this relation for non-neutral stratifi- The change in the vertical profile of the shape parameter, k, is
cation: ( ) more drastic (Figure 7). The frequently observed maximum of
ln zL − Ψ LL ( ) the shape parameter at the top of the surface layer which is typical
H x z
( ) 𝜎 ,
0 ∗
Δs (x, z) = (18)
ln zl − Ψ Ll L L L
0 ∗

where z0 is the surface roughness length and L* is the

Monin–Obukhov length. The stability correction function
(Ψm (z/L* )) is the same as in Equation (1). Δs increases with
increasing stability and is reduced with unstable flow (Figure 6),
because increasing stability opposes the vertical displacement of
the streamlines over the hill. Thus, the streamlines are squeezed
together and the speed-up is increased.
The most important consequence of the speed-up described in
Equations (17) and (18) is that the vertical wind shear is increased
below the height l and that this shear is decreased above height
l. The height of the inner layer (see Figure 5(a)), l, is usually
1–5% of the horizontal scale, L, of the hill. For typical hills
or similar orographic features with a horizontal scale of a few
kilometres this means that the maximum of the speed-up appears
at heights of several tens of metres above the hill top. The rotor
area of modern large wind turbines will be usually above this Figure 7. Sample vertical profiles of the shape parameter, k(z) over flat
height l. Therefore, reduced vertical shear in the rotor area is to terrain (diamonds) and over a hill top (squares) from Equation (19) with
be taken into account. This has two consequences: (1) vertical zm = 75 m and c2 = 0.06 for flat terrain and zm = 50 m and c2 = 0.01 for
extrapolation of wind speeds to greater heights in this layer the hill top.

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

812
for flat homogeneous terrain disappears nearly completely. The
shape parameter over the hill tops tends to be more or less
constant with height. The reasons for this are on the one hand
the reduced shear in wind speed above the top of the inner layer
and on the other hand the fact that hill tops are often above the
nocturnal stable surface layer. This leads to the fact that over the
hills in all heights a diurnal variation of wind speed is found
which is very similar to the diurnal variation above the surface
layer over flat terrain, i.e. higher wind speeds at night time than at
daytime (Emeis, 2001). The profiles in Figure 7 have been plotted
using a formula suggested by Wieringa (1989):
( )
( ) z − zA
k (z) − kA = c2 z − zA exp − (19)
zm − zA
where kA is the measured shape parameter at a height zA , zm
is the height of the maximum of the k(z)-profile and c2 is a
tunable constant. Figure 7 has been plotted with zm = 75 m and
c2 = 0.06 for flat terrain and zm = 50 m and c2 = 0.01 for the hill
top. Together with zA = 30 m and kA = 2.0 the curves in Figure 7
are close to values observed in Emeis (2001). A slightly modified
version of Equation (19) has very recently been proposed by
Gryning et al. (2014) who added a further term that allows k to
approach a given value of kt ≈ 2 in the upper part of the boundary
layer.
The example presented here is valid for gentle hills with homo-
geneous land use only. Steeper hills and mountains lead to
non-linear features such as flow separation, channelling in val-
leys or flows horizontally around orographic features. Non-linear
flow features can no longer be derived from simple analytical
relations but require the operation of full Reynolds-averaged
numerical simulation models (RANS models). Therefore, wind
assessment in rougher terrain where linearity is no longer assured
has to be done by site-specific numerical model simulations.
4. Diurnal wind variations and low level jets (LLJs)
4.1. Daily cycles of mean wind speed in the surface layer and
above
Generation of energy from the wind is subject to changing wind
speeds. Wind speeds change due to the synoptic weather con-
ditions and, in addition, they usually exhibit diurnal variations.
These diurnal variations can be important because they may
lead to a mismatch between electric energy generation from the
wind (which may peak at night time) and the common electricity
demand (which peaks at daytime). The usual diurnal variations
in the thermal stratification of the ABL over land modify the ver-
tical wind profiles given by stationary wind laws (1), (5) or (6).
Non-stationarity, especially over land in the transition hours at
dusk and dawn, provokes additional wind features that are not
covered by these stationary wind laws. The most prominent non
stationary feature in the wind field over land is the change in wind
speed at dusk. In daytime, when radiative heating of the surface
destabilizes the thermal stratification of the ABL, additional tur-
bulence is produced. This enhanced vertical exchange leads to
increasing wind speed in the surface layer and decreasing wind
speed in the Ekman layer. After sunset, radiative cooling of the
surface stabilizes the thermal stratification of the ABL and drasti-
cally reduces turbulence and vertical momentum exchange. This
leads to low wind speeds close to the ground in the shallow stable
nocturnal surface layer and to higher wind speed in the Ekman
layer above (LLJs, see next subsection). The result is that in the
surface layer the wind speed maximum usually appears during
© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society
S. Emeis
daytime while it appears frequently at night time in the Ekman
layer. This has already been observed by Hellmann (1915) and
Peppler (1921) and has been shown from numerical studies by
Krishna (1968).
In the marine ABL (MABL) the time scales of non-stationarity
are different from those over land. Over oceans the diurnal
cycle is practically absent due to the high heat capacity of the
water. Instead, an annual cycle is found. Here, instationarity
and LLJs appear when the flow transits from warmer land to
cooler sea or passes over water bodies with considerably different
temperature.
4.2. Low-level jets
When the near-surface cooling after sunset occurs rather fast
(i.e. more than about 0.5∘ h−1 which leads to inversion strengths
of >1 K per 100 m (Kottmeier et al., 1983)) the Ekman layer
winds can overshoot to super-geostrophic wind speeds. This
phenomenon is called the nocturnal LLJ. Nocturnal LLJs usually
form at the top of the nocturnal boundary layer (Lettau, 1954;
Blackadar, 1957). First climatologies of this phenomenon were
given by Wippermann (1973) and Kottmeier et al. (1983). The
climatology given by Bonner (1968) deals with a different type
of LLJ over the Great Plains east of the Rocky Mountain chain
in the USA. There, due to orographic forcing by the Rockies
and synoptic conditions which lead to strong pressure gradients
across the Great Plains, mountainous LLJs develop much more
frequently (63% of all nights) than the simple nocturnal LLJ
(see Song et al. (2005) for further details.) Here, the purely
stability related nocturnal LLJ first described by Lettau (1954)
and Blackadar (1957) is considered.
An LLJ can also form when the flow transits from a warm
land surface to a cooler water surface. During this transit, the
lower part of the flow stabilizes quite fast and the wind above this
stable layer overshoots as well (Högström and Smedman, 1984;
Smedman et al., 1993). This coastal phenomenon is especially
pronounced when the water is cooler than the air (Garratt and
Ryan, 1989). Marine LLJs only disappear gradually when the
newly formed internal boundary layer over the sea surface finally
fills the full depth of the marine boundary layer. Above the LLJ
the wind speed decreases again to the geostrophic level in both
cases.
Typical heights of LLJ cores are often between 150 and 500 m
above ground. Therefore, they have the ability to influence
the energy yield of modern wind turbines with hub heights of
>100 m. Recent case studies based on surface-based remote sens-
ing data can be found, for example, in Banta et al. (2002, 2004,
2006) or in Reitebuch et al. (2000). Figure 8 shows six subse-
quent half-hourly mean profiles from SODAR measurements as
an example. Here, the jet core is at 300–350 m above ground.
The following statements on typical properties of LLJs are
from 2 years of acoustic remote sensing with a SODAR (sound
detection and ranging) in Northern Germany during the years
2001–2003 and serve here as an example. The frequency of
occurrence is linked to the appearance of certain weather or
circulation types, because the development of a nocturnal LLJ
requires clear skies and a non-vanishing large-scale horizontal
pressure gradient. For Central Europe, the ‘Grosswetterlagen’
(large-scale weather types) have proven to give a good clas-
sification of the weather situation (Gerstengarbe et al., 1999).
Figure 9 shows the frequency of occurrence of LLJs over North-
ern Germany as a function of these 29 large-scale weather types.
The three-most relevant types during the 2 years of observations
(the three left-most columns in Figure 9) were a high-pressure
Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)
 Current issues in wind energy meteorology
Figure 8. Nocturnal low-level jets from SODAR measurements at
Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris in June 2005. Each profile shows
half-hourly mean data. Grey curves below 200 m give logarithmic wind
profiles for neutral and stable conditions which fit the measured wind
speed at 50 m height.
bridge over Central Europe (type ‘BM’), a high-pressure system
over Central Europe (type ‘HM’) and a high-pressure area over
the British Isles (type ‘HB’). Overall, a LLJ appeared in about
21.3% of all nights. Nearly the same frequency (roughly 20%)
has been found for the Cabauw tower in the Netherlands (Baas
et al., 2009). Assuming a typical duration of about 6 h for a noc-
turnal LLJ means that a LLJ occurs in about 5% of all hours of a
year (i.e. in about 440 h of the 8760 h of a year).
The specific features of a single LLJ event vary quite consid-
erably. Figure 10 shows a few more results from the 2 years of
SODAR measurements in Hannover. The maximum wind speed
varies between 7 and 23 m s−1 in the LLJ cases observed dur-
ing this period (Figure 10(a)). The height of the jet core can be
between 130 and 600 m, the latter being the height up to which
the SODAR data are usually available. There is a visible correla-
tion between the core wind speed and the core height (R2 is 0.31
in this data set). The core height increases from about 200 m for
the lowest LLJ core wind speeds to 400–600 m for the highest
Figure 9. Frequency of occurrence of nocturnal low-level jets (in percent) for all nights of a year from SODAR measurements at Hannover in Northern
Germany as a function of large-scale weather types (Grosswetterlagen).
© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society
813
core wind speeds. This means that the mean wind shear under-
neath the jet core varies mainly between 0.04 and 0.08 s−1 .
Typical hub heights of modern onshore wind turbines will be
well above 100 m and upper rotor blade tips will reach heights
in the order of 200 m. Therefore, Figure 10(b) shows the vari-
ation of the wind speed at 160 m above ground as a function
of the 850 hPa wind speed at midnight for nights with LLJs.
The latter is used as an approximation to the geostrophic wind
speed and has been taken from radiosonde data at Bergen, Ger-
many (WMO number 10238, data have been obtained from
the internet from the pages of the University of Wyoming
at http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html). The wind
speed at 160 m during LLJ events varies between ∼5 and 13 m s−1
without showing a strong correlation with the 850 hPa wind
speed. This indicates that the 160 m wind speed is limited by
some additional factor. This factor could be the maximum shear
which can prevail underneath the LLJ core without producing too
much shear-induced turbulence which eventually would lead to a
breakdown of the LLJ. Wind speeds of about 18 m s−1 seem to be
an upper limit for the formation of LLJs. It turns out that there is
a most favourable 850 hPa wind speed range for LLJ formation
at 9–13 m s−1 . More details can be found in Emeis (2014).
5. Wakes
5.1. Single wakes
Wind parks need special treatment, because the flow conditions
approaching most of the turbines in the park interior are no
longer undisturbed. Wakes produced by upwind turbines can
significantly influence downwind turbines. This means reduced
wind speeds and enhanced levels of turbulence which will lead
to reduced yields and enhanced loads. For a given land or sea
area, it is desirable to optimize the number of wind turbines in
order to maximize energy production. If wind turbines are too
closely spaced, wake interference effects could result in a con-
siderable reduction in the efficiency of the wind park’s energy
production up to some tens of percent. Some wind parks with
tightly spaced turbines have produced substantially less energy
than expected based on wind resource assessments. In some
Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)
814 S. Emeis

Figure 10. (a) Low-level jet (LLJ) core height in m versus maximum jet wind speed in m s−1 from SODAR measurements at Hannover in northern
Germany. Lines indicate constant mean wind shear underneath the jet core of 0.02, 0.05 and 0.1 s−1 (from left to right). (b) Maximum 160 m wind
speed in m s−1 during a LLJ event versus 850 hPa wind speed in m s−1 from SODAR measurements at Hannover and the Bergen radiosonde in
Northern Germany. A wind speed of 4 m s−1 at 160 m height corresponds to a mean shear underneath this height of 0.025 s−1 ; a wind speed of
16 m s−1 corresponds to a mean shear of 0.1 s−1 .

densely packed parks where turbines have failed prematurely, B varies between 1 and 3 while n takes values between 0.75 and
it has been suspected that these failures might have been 1.25 and principally depends on the ambient turbulence intensity
caused by excessive turbulence associated with wake effects (Vermeer et al., 2003). The WAsP model (Troen and Petersen,
(Elliot, 1991). 1989) uses a similar approach (Barthelmie and Jensen, 2010):
Distinction has to be made between near wakes and far wakes ( )( )2
when considering turbine wakes. The near wake is taken as the uh √ D
= 1 − 1 − Ct (22)
area just behind the rotor, where the special properties of the uh0 D + ks
rotor itself can still be distinguished, approximately up to a few
rotor diameters downstream. Features such as 3D vortices and with the wake decay co-efficient k where k = 0.04 is typical for
tip vortices from single blades in the near wake are found. The offshore conditions (Barthelmie and Jensen, 2010) while 0.075
far wake is the region beyond the near wake, where modelling is the default (onshore) value in WAsP (Barthelmie et al., 2004).
the actual rotor is less important. The distance-dependent relative The added turbulence intensity in the wake, ΔI, decreases more
velocity deficit, Δu, in the far wake reads according to Vermeer slowly than the velocity deficit. Vermeer et al. (2003) give three
et al. (2003): empirical formulae from three different sources which describe
u − uh ( )n the measured data quite well. According to Quarton (1989), the
Δu D
= h0 =B (20) added turbulence intensity decreases as:
uh uh s
where uh0 is the undisturbed wind speed upwind of the turbine, √ ( s )0.57
2 = 4.8C 0.7 I 0.68 N
uh is the wind speed at hub height, D is the rotor diameter, s is the ΔI = I 2 − I∞ T ∞ (23)
s
distance from the turbine and B and n are constants. B depends
on the turbine thrust co-efficient, Ct , and increases with it. The where I ∞ is the undisturbed turbulence intensity and sN is the
thrust co-efficient has a constant value of about 0.85 for lower length of the near wake which is between one and three rotor
wind speeds around the cut-in wind speed and decreases around diameters. The width of the wake, DW , is proportional to the
and above the rated wind speed of the turbines with increasing one third power of the distance from the turbine, s (see Frandsen
wind speed (Jimenez et al., 2007). The exact value depends on et al., 2006 for more details):
the construction of the turbine and its operation. The following
empirical relation for the thrust co-efficient is taken from Figure DW (s) ∝ s1∕3 (24)
9 in Magnusson (1999) and additionally the maximal value at
This spreading of the wake with distance downstream of the
Betz’s limit is considered (see Emeis, 2012 for details):
( ( ( )) ) turbine leads unavoidably to complex wake–wake interactions
CT = min max 0.25; 0.5 + 0.05 14 − uh ; 0.89 (21) in larger wind parks.

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

 Current issues in wind energy meteorology 815

Figure 11. Normalized wind speed reduction (a) and wind power reduction (b) at hub height, h within large wind parks from Equation (28) as function
atmospheric stability (h/L* = −1: unstable, = 0: neutral, = +1: stable) and surface roughness (z0 = 0.0001 m: smooth sea surface, z0 = 1.0: very rough
land surface).

5.2. Wind park models flow above the wind park:

In principle, two different approaches for modelling the effects 𝜏 u − uh

= Km 0 (26)
of large wind parks are possible: a bottom-up approach and a 𝜌 Δz
top-down approach. The bottom-up approach is based on a super- The turbulent exchange co-efficient K m describes the ability
position of the different wakes of the turbines in a wind park. It of the atmosphere to transfer momentum vertically by turbu-
requires a good representation of each single wake (see Section lent motion. Following Frandsen (2007), the wind park drag
5.1) in a 3D flow model (Lissaman, 1979; Jensen, 1983) and a co-efficient ct is defined as a function of the park area A, the rotor
wake combination model. Reviews are available in Crespo et al. area 0.25𝜋D2 , the number of turbines N and the turbine thrust
(1999) and Vermeer et al. (2003). Numerically, this approach is co-efficient CT :
supported by LES (Jimenez et al., 2007; Wussow et al., 2007; 1 N𝜋D2
Steinfeld et al., 2010; Troldborg et al., 2010). The top-down ct = CT (27)
8 A
approach considers the wind park as a whole as an additional
surface roughness, as an additional momentum sink or as a grav- Finally, the ratio Rt between the wind speed at hub height inside
ity wave generator in association with a temperature inversion the wind park to the undisturbed wind speed upstream reads as
aloft at the top of the boundary layer (for the latter idea see below (the entire derivation is documented in Emeis, 2012):
Smith, 2010), which modifies the mean flow above it (New- ( )
𝜙
man, 1977; Bossanyi et al., 1980; Frandsen, 1992). An analyt- fh,Δz Iu + 𝜅m2 cs,h
ical model which follows the top-down approach and which is Rt = ( ) (28)
𝜙
described in detail in Emeis (2012) is shortly introduced. fh,Δz Iu + 𝜅m2 cteff
The starting point for the analytical wind park model is the
overall mass-specific momentum consumption m of the turbines Relation (28) permits easily to add the turbulence intensity pro-
which is proportional to the drag of the turbines, ct and the wind duced by the turbines during operation to the upstream turbulence
2
speed, uh at hub height h: intensity (Iu,eff = Iu2 + Iu,t
2 ). Following Barthelmie et al. (2003),
0
the additional turbulence I u,t can be parameterized as a function
m = ct u2h (25) of the thrust co-efficient (Equation (21)) and a mean turbine dis-
tance 𝛿: √
In an indefinitely large wind park, this momentum loss can only 1.2CT
be accomplished by a turbulent momentum flux 𝜏 from above. Iu,t = (29)
𝛿 2∕D2
Here, u0 is the undisturbed wind speed above the wind park,
K m is the momentum exchange co-efficient and Δz is the height Figure 11(a), in displaying Rt from Equation (28), shows how
difference between hub height of the turbines and the undisturbed much the wind speed at hub height will be reduced as a function

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

816 S. Emeis
of the atmospheric instability and the surface roughness. The
presented results have been found for turbines with a hub height
of 92 m, a rotor diameter of 90 m and a mean distance between
two turbines of 10 rotor diameters. The figure demonstrates that
the reduction is smallest (a few percent) for unstable thermal
stratification of the ABL and high surface roughness. That is,
the reduction is smallest over a rough land surface with trees
and other obstacles for cold air flowing over a warm surface
(usually during daytime with strong solar insolation). The largest
reduction (up to 45%) occurs for very smooth sea surfaces
when warm air flows over cold waters. This may happen most
commonly in springtime. Figure 11(b) translates this wind speed
reduction into a reduction of the available wind power by plotting
the third power of Rt from Equation (28). The strong stability
dependence of the reduction of the available power can be
confirmed from measurements taken at the Nysted wind park in
Denmark (Barthelmie et al., 2007).
The dependence of wind and available power reduction as
a function of surface roughness has consequences for offshore
wind parks which are likely to become the major facilities for
wind power generation in the near future (Breton and Moe,
2009). The lower turbulence production due to the relative
smoothness of the sea surface compared to land surfaces ham-
pers the momentum re-supply from the undisturbed flow above.
In order to limit the wind speed reduction at hub height in the
interior of the wind park to values known from onshore parks,
the turbines within an offshore wind park must have a larger
spacing than within an onshore park. The above presented analyt-
ical equation (Equation (28)) shows that, roughly speaking, the
number of turbines per unit area in an offshore park with rough-
ness z0 = 0.001 m must be approximately 40% lower than in an
onshore park with z0 = 0.1 m in order to have the same power
yield for a given hub height wind speed and atmospheric stabil-
ity. For a given geostrophic wind speed aloft, the lower efficiency
of offshore parks is overcompensated by the higher hub height
wind speed under offshore conditions. Inversely, Equation (28)
may be used to determine the optimal areal density of turbines in
a large wind park for given surface roughness and atmospheric
stability conditions.
5.3. Wind park wakes
The estimation of the length of the wakes of large wind parks
is essential for the planning of the necessary distance between
adjacent wind parks. This estimation can be made using the
same principal idea as in the previous subsection: the missing
momentum in the wake of an indefinitely broad wind park can
only be replenished from above. To move with an air parcel,
the acceleration of the speed of this parcel uhn from uhn0 at
the rear end of the park to the original undisturbed value, uh0 ,
which had prevailed upstream of the park (neglecting the Coriolis
force) is found. This leads to a differential equation (for details
of the derivation see Emeis, 2012) which can be solved by an
exponential approach giving the ratio Rn between the wind speed
at hub height in the wake and the undisturbed wind speed at the
same height uh0 :
( )
u (t) uhn0
Rn = hn =1+ − 1 exp (−𝛼t) (30)
uh0 uh0
The factor 𝛼 is given by 𝜅u* z/Δz2 (where Δz is the height dif-
ference between the hub height and the height of the undisturbed
wind above) and depends on the surface roughness and the ther-
mal stratification of the boundary layer. This solution is in the
© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society
time domain. It can be converted into the space domain by assum-
ing an average wind speed over the wake.
Figure 12(a) shows wake lengths as a function of surface
roughness for neutral stability (h/L* = 0) by plotting the third
power of Rn from Equation (28). If the distance necessary for
a recovery of the available power to 95% of its undisturbed value
upstream of the park is defined as wake length, then a wake
length of 4 km for rough land surfaces and a wake length of
about 18 km for smooth sea surfaces are found. Figures 12(a)
and (b) have been produced for the same park parameters as
Figures 11(a) and (b). Actually, the results from Figure 11
serve as left boundary conditions for Figure 12. Figure 12(b)
demonstrates the strong influence of atmospheric stability on
the wake length for an offshore wind park over a smooth sea
surface (z0 = 0.0001 m). Taking once again the 95% criterion,
the wake length for very unstable atmospheric conditions is
about 10 km. For very stable conditions, the wake length is
>30 km. Such long wakes have been confirmed, for example,
from satellite observations (Christiansen and Hasager, 2005) and
from numerical simulations (Fitch et al., 2012).
6. Conclusions
This review has shown several relevant meteorological features
which must be considered when planning and building wind
turbines and farms. The most important are:
1. For hub heights above ∼80 m pure logarithmic or power
law wind speed profiles, valid for the surface layer, are not
sufficient to assess the true wind conditions. Suggestions for
unified wind profile laws which are simultaneously valid in
the surface layer and in the Ekman layer are presented in
Section 2.1.
2. Turbulence intensity and the power law exponent are
closely related to each other and both of them are height
dependent. Therefore, vertical wind speed extrapolations
over larger vertical ranges (>10–20 m) using the power law
should be made only with the height-dependent exponents
given in Section 2.2.
3. Turbulence intensity at a given height is wind speed
dependent. Onshore, turbulence intensity decreases and
approaches asymptotically a constant value with increas-
ing wind speed. Offshore, turbulence intensity decreases
towards a minimum (around 10 m s−1 wind speed at
FINO1) and then increases again with increasing wind
speeds (see Section 2.3).
4. Flow over forests show distinct features. Especially, turbu-
lence intensity is modified compared to flat terrain (Section
3.1).
5. Vertical wind profiles and thus also the vertical profiles
of the parameters of the Weibull distribution over com-
plex terrain are different from those over flat terrain (see
Section 3.2). Wind assessment in real complex terrain
requires the application of non-linear numerical flow mod-
els (Reynolds-averaged numerical simulation (RANS) or
large-eddy simulations (LES) models, also called CFD
models).
6. The daily wind speed maximum above the surface layer is
usually during night time whilst the surface layer maximum
is during daytime (Section 4.1).
7. Nocturnal low-level jets (LLJs) are a frequent phenomenon
and appear in about 21% of all nights over the lowlands
of Central Europe. During these events typical vertical
Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)
 Current issues in wind energy meteorology 817

Figure 12. Normalized reduction of available wind power at hub height, h behind an indefinitely large wind park as a function of the distance from
the rear edge of the park in km from Equation (30). (a) As function of surface roughness (z0 = 0.0001 m: very smooth sea surface, 0.001 m: rough
sea surface, 0.1 m: smooth land surface, 1.0 m: rough land surface) with neutral stability. (b) As function of atmospheric instability (h/L* = 1: strong
instability, 0: neutral stability, +1: stable stratification) for a smooth sea surface. Note the different scales of the y-axis.

wind shear across the rotor plane of large wind turbines
is between 3 and 10 m s−1 per 100 m height interval (see
Section 4.2).
8. LLJs in the marine boundary layer frequently appear when
the flow transits from a warmer land surface over a cooler
water surface (Section 4.2).
9. Flow in wind parks is characterized by wake–wake interac-
tion. Different approaches have been designed to describe
this interaction. The top-down approach presented here
leads to an analytical park model. The efficiency of a
wind park increase with increasing surface roughness and
decreasing atmospheric stability (Section 5.2).
10. The basic message from the analytical wind park model
is that the generation of energy from the wind over larger
areas is limited by the re-supply of momentum from above.
This re-supply purely depends on the turbulent state of the
atmosphere. Thus, atmospheric physics limits the amount of
energy which can be extracted from the wind. It is exactly
this limitation which has been neglected in earlier assess-
ment of the global potential for wind energy (e.g. Grubb and
Meyer, 1993; Archer and Jacobson, 2005; Lu et al., 2009).
The study by Adams and Keith (2013) mentioned in the
introduction is one of the first which takes this limit into
account.
11. The wakes of entire wind parks can be modelled in an
extension of the wake–wake formulation. The length of
park wakes increases with increasing atmospheric stability
and decreasing surface roughness (Section 5.3).
7. Outlook
Growing turbine sizes and the erection of turbines and entire
wind parks offshore and in complex terrain have changed the
importance of meteorological influences on turbine siting and
wind resource assessment in recent years. In order to cope
with this increasing complexity in future, remote sensing tech-
niques (such as wind lidars) and non-linear high-resolution
numerical models (CFD models) must become the standard
tools in assessing wind resources. Meteorological expertise,
which partly is already available, has to be revisited and eval-
uated for this purpose. This expertise is definitely needed for
the operation of these complex observation and modelling
tools.
As a consequence, a new field within the discipline of mete-
orology has formed in recent years: energy meteorology. This
sub-discipline of meteorology deals with all meteorological
aspects relevant to generation of renewable energies and the
operation of electrical grids. It is expected that energy meteo-
rology will become more visible in the near future. Wind energy
meteorology as reviewed in this paper is only part of this new
sub-discipline.

© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)

818 S. Emeis
Appendix
Equating the first two equations of the wind profile equation
(Equation (1)) for z = zp gives the first equation for the friction
velocity:
( )
𝜅ug − sin 𝛼0 + cos 𝛼0
u∗ = ( ) ( ) (A.1)
ln zp ∕z0 − Ψm zp ∕L∗
Equating the respective equations for the vertical wind shear at
the same height z = zp leads to a second equation for u* :
| |
2 |ug | 𝛾𝜅zp sin 𝛼0
u∗ = | |( ) (A.2)
𝜑 zp ∕L∗
where 𝜑m (z/L* ) is the vertical derivative of Ψm (z/L* ). For unsta-
ble situations, the differential form 𝜑 of the correction function
Ψm for unstable thermal stratification reads:
( ) ( )−1∕4
𝜑 z∕L∗ = 1 + b z∕L∗ (A.3)
In stable situations, the differential form 𝜑 of the correction
function Ψm for stable stratification reads:
( )
𝜑 z∕L∗ = 1 + a z∕L∗ (A.4)
where b is chosen between 15 and 16 and a is chosen to be about
4.7–5.
The Equations (A.1) and (A.2) must be valid simultaneously.
Equating the right hand sides of these two equations yields the
desired relation for the turning angle, 𝛼 0 :
1 wind farms identified from satellite SAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 98:
𝛼0 = arctg 2𝛾zp ( ( ) ( )) (A.5)
1+ 𝜑(zp ∕L∗ )
ln zp ∕z0 − Ψm zp ∕L∗
Unfortunately, Equation (A.5) still depends on the friction
velocity u* via the definition of 𝛾 in Equation (2). Thus, the fric-
tion velocity u* has to be determined iteratively starting with
a first guess for u* in Equation (A.1), subsequently comput-
ing 𝛼 0 from Equation (A.5), and then re-computing u* from
Equation (A.1) or (A.2).
Inversely the system of Equations (A.1), (A.2) and (A.5) can be
used to determine the height of the Prandtl layer, zp if the friction
velocity, u* is known from other sources.
References
Adams AS, Keith DW. 2013. Are global wind power resource estimates
overstated? Environ. Res. Lett. 8: 015021.
Archer CL, Jacobson MZ. 2005. Evaluation of global wind power. J.
Geophys. Res. 110: D12110.
Arya SP. 1995. Atmospheric boundary layer and its parameterization. In
Wind Climate in Cities, Cermak JE, Davenport AG, Plate EJ, Viegas
DX (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 41–66.
Baas P, Bosveld FC, Klein Baltink H. 2009. A climatology of nocturnal
low-level jets at Cabauw. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 48: 1627–1642.
Banta RM, Darby LS, Fast JD, Pinto JO, Whiteman CD, Shaw WJ, et al.
2004. Nocturnal low-level jet in a mountain basin complex. Part I:
Evolution and implications to other flow features. J. Appl. Meteorol.
43: 1348–1365.
Banta RM, Newsom RK, Lundquist JK, Pichugina YL, Coulter RL,
Mahrt L. 2002. Nocturnal low-level jet characteristics over Kansas
during CASES-99. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 105: 221–252.
Banta RM, Pichugina YL, Brewer WA. 2006. Turbulent
velocity-variance profiles in the stable boundary layer generated
by a nocturnal low-level jet. J. Atmos. Sci. 63: 2700–2719.
Barthelmie RJ. 1999. Monitoring offshore wind and turbulence charac-
teristics in Denmark. Proceedings of the BWEA Wind Energy Confer-
ence, Cambridge.
Barthelmie RJ, Folkerts L, Ormel FT, Sanderhoff P, Eecen PJ, Stobbe O,
et al. 2003. Offshore wind turbine wakes measured by sodar. J. Atmos.
Oceanic Technol. 20: 466–477.
© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society
Barthelmie R, Frandsen ST, Rethore PE, Jensen L. 2007. Analysis of
atmospheric impacts on the development of wind turbine wakes at
the Nysted wind farm. Proceedings of the European Offshore Wind
Conference, 4–6 December 2007, Berlin.
Barthelmie RJ, Jensen LE. 2010. Evaluation of wind farm efficiency and
wind turbine wakes at the Nysted offshore wind farm. Wind Energy
13: 573–586.
Barthelmie RJ, Pryor S, Frandsen S, Larsen S. 2004. Analytical
modelling of large wind farm clusters. Poster session presented at
Proceedings of the EAWE Conference 2004, Delft. http://www.
risoe.dk/vea/storpark/Papers%20and%20posters/delft_013.pdf
(accessed 7 July 2014).
Beeken A, Neumann T. 2008. Five years of offshore measurements at
the Fino1 platform in the German Bight. DEWI Mag. 33: 6–11 http://
www.dewi.de/dewi/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Magazin_33/02.pdf
(accessed 7 July 2014).
Blackadar A. 1957. Boundary layer wind maxima and their significance
for the growth of nocturnal inversions. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 38:
283–290.
Blackadar A. 1962. The vertical distribution of wind and turbulent
exchange in a neutral atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 67: 3095–3102.
Bonner WD. 1968. Climatology of the low level Jet. Mon. Weather Rev.
96: 833–850.
Bossanyi EA, Maclean C, Whittle GE, Dunn PD, Lipman NH, Musgrove
PJ. 1980. The efficiency of wind turbine clusters. Proceedings of
the Third International Symposium on Wind Energy Systems, 26–29
August 1980, Lyngby; 401–416.
Bradley EF. 1983. The influence of thermal stability and angle of
incidence on the acceleration of wind up a slope. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 15: 231–242.
Breton S-P, Moe G. 2009. Status, plans and technologies for offshore
wind turbines in Europe and North America. Renew. Energy 34:
646–654.
Christiansen MB, Hasager CB. 2005. Wake effects of large offshore
251–268.
Crespo A, Hernandez J, Frandsen S. 1999. Survey of modelling methods
for wind turbine wakes and wind farms. Wind Energy 2: 1–24.
EIA. 2013. International Energy Outlook 2013. U.S. Energy Informa-
tion Administration. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/?src=home-b2
(accessed 18 March 2014).
Elliot DL. 1991. Status of wake and array loss research. Report
PNL-SA--19978, Pacific Northwest Laboratory: Richland, WA,
September 1991; 17. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/6211
976 (accessed 7 July 2014).
Emeis S. 2001. Vertical variation of frequency distributions of wind
speed in and above the surface layer observed by sodar. Meteorol. Z.
10: 141–149.
Emeis S. 2010a. Measurement Methods in Atmospheric Sciences. In
Situ and Remote, Quantifying the Environment, Vol. 1. Borntraeger:
Stuttgart; 257.
Emeis S. 2010b. A simple analytical wind park model considering
atmospheric stability. Wind Energy 13: 459–469.
Emeis S. 2011. Surface-Based Remote Sensing of the Atmospheric
Boundary Layer, Atmospheric and Oceanographic Sciences Library,
Vol. 40. Springer: Heidelberg; 174.
Emeis S. 2012. Wind Energy Meteorology – Atmospheric Physics for
Wind Power Generation, Green Energy and Technology. Springer:
Heidelberg; 196.
Emeis S. 2014. Wind speed and shear associated with low-level jets
over Northern Germany. Meteorol. Z. 23, pre-published online,
DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2014/0551.
Emeis S, Baumann-Stanzer K, Piringer M, Kallistratova M, Kouznetsov
R, Yushkov V. 2007. Wind and turbulence in the urban boundary
layer – analysis from acoustic remote sensing data and fit to analytical
relations. Meteorol. Z. 16: 393–406.
Etling D. 2002. Theoretische Meteorologie. Eine Einführung. Springer:
Heidelberg; 354.
Fitch AC, Olson JB, Lundquist JK, Dudhia J, Gupta AK, Michalakes J,
et al. 2012. Local and mesoscale impacts of wind farms as parameter-
ized in a mesoscale NWP model. Mon. Weather Rev. 140: 3017–3038.
Foreman R, Emeis S. 2010. Revisiting the definition of the drag coef-
ficient in the marine atmospheric boundary layer. J. Phys. Oceanogr.
40: 2325–2332.
Foreman R, Emeis S. 2012. Correlation equation for the marine drag
coefficient and wave steepness. Ocean Dyn. 62: 1323–1333.
Frandsen S. 1992. On the wind speed reduction in the center of large
cluster of wind turbines. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 39: 251–265.
Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)
 Current issues in wind energy meteorology
Frandsen S. 2007. Turbulence and turbulence generated structural load-
ing in wind turbine clusters. Risø-R-1188(EN), Risø National Labo-
ratory: Roskilde; 130.
Frandsen ST, Barthelmie RJ, Pryor SC, Rathmann O, Larsen S, Højstrup
J, et al. 2006. Analytical modelling of wind speed deficit in large
offshore wind farms. Wind Energy 9: 39–53.
Garratt JR, Ryan BF. 1989. The structure of stably stratified internal
boundary layer in offshore flow over the sea. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol.
47: 17–40.
Gerstengarbe F-W, Werner PC, Rüge U (eds). 1999 http://www.
deutscher-wetterdienst.de/lexikon/download.php?file=Gross
wetterlage.pdf or http://www.pik-potsdam.de/∼uwerner/gwl/gwl.pdf.
Katalog der Großwetterlagen Europas (1881 - 1998). Nach Paul Hess
und Helmuth Brezowsky, 5th edn. German Meteorological Service:
Potsdam/Offenbach a. M (accessed 7 July 2014).
Grubb MJ, Meyer NI. 1993. Wind Energy: Resources, Systems, and
Regional Strategies. In Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and
Electricity, Johansson TB, Burnham L (eds). Island: Washington, DC;
157–212.
Gryning S-E, Batchvarova E, Brümmer B, Jørgensen H, Larsen S. 2007.
On the extension of the wind profile over homogeneous terrain beyond
the surface layer. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 124: 251–268.
Gryning S-E, Batchvarova E, Floors R, Peña A, Brümmer B, Hahmann
AN, et al. 2014. Long-term profiles of wind and Weibull distribution
parameters up to 600 m in a rural coastal and an inland suburban area.
Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 150: 167–184.
Hellmann G. 1915. Über die Bewegung der Luft in den untersten
Schichten der Atmosphäre. Meteorol. Z. 32: 1–16.
Hoff AM. 1987. Ein analytisches Verfahren zur Bestimmung der mit-
tleren horizontalen Windgeschwindigkeiten über zweidimensionalen
Hügeln, Vol. 28. Ber. Inst. Meteorol. Klimatol. Univ. Hannover: Han-
nover; 68.
Högström U, Bergström H, Smedman A-S, Halldin S, Lindroth A.
1989. Turbulent exchange above a pine forest, I: Fluxes and gradients.
Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 49: 197–217.
Högström U, Smedman A. 1984. The wind regime in coastal areas with
special reference to results obtained from the Swedish Wind Energy
Program. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 33: 351–373.
International Electrotechnical Commission. 2005. IEC 61400-3, Ed. 1
(Draft): Wind Turbines – Part 3: Design Requirements for Offshore
Wind Turbines. International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva.
Jackson PS, Hunt JCR. 1975. Turbulent wind flow over a low hill. Q. J.
R. Meteorol. Soc. 101: 929–955.
Jensen NO. 1983. A note on wind generator interaction. Risø-M-2411,
Risø National Laboratory: Roskilde; 16. http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/
VEA/veapdf/ris-m-2411.pdf (accessed 7 July 2014).
Jimenez A, Crespo A, Migoya E, Garcia J. 2007. Advances in large-eddy
simulation of a wind turbine wake. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 75: 012041,
DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/75/1/012041.
Kanani F, Träumner K, Ruck B, Raasch S. 2014. What determines the
differences found in forest edge flow between physical models and
atmospheric measurements? An LES study. Meteorol. Z. 23: 33–49.
DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2014/0542.
Kottmeier C, Lege D, Roth R. 1983. Ein Beitrag zur Klimatologie
und Synoptik der Grenzschicht-Strahlströme über der norddeutschen
Tiefebene. Ann. Meteorol. N.F. 20: 18–19.
Krishna K. 1968. A numerical study of the diurnal variation of meteoro-
logical parameters in the planetary boundary layer. I. Diurnal variation
of winds. Mon. Weather Rev. 96: 269–276.
Large WG, Pond S. 1981. Open ocean momentum flux measurements in
moderate to strong winds. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 11: 324–336.
Lettau H. 1954. Graphs and illustrations of diverse atmospheric states
and processes observed during the seventh test period of the great
plains turbulence field program. Occasional Report 1, Atmospheric
Analysis Laboratory, Air Force Cambridge Research Center: Bedford,
MA.
Lissaman PBS. 1979. Energy effectiveness of arbitrary arrays of wind
turbines. AIAA Paper 79-0114.
Lu X, McElroy MB, Kiviluoma J. 2009. Global potential for
wind-generated electricity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106:
10933–10938.
Magnusson M. 1999. Near-wake behaviour of wind turbines. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 80: 147–167.
Newman BG. 1977. The spacing of wind turbines in large arrays. J.
Energy Convers. 16: 169–171.
Panofsky HA, Tennekes H, Lenschow DH, Wyngaard JC. 1977. The
characteristics of turbulent velocity components in the surface layer
under convective conditions. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 11: 355–361.
© 2014 Royal Meteorological Society
819
Peña A, Gryning S-E, Hasager C. 2010a. Comparing mixing-length
models of the diabatic wind profile over homogeneous terrain. Theor.
Appl. Climatol. 100: 325–335.
Peña A, Gryning S-E, Mann J, Hasager CB. 2010b. Length scales of
the neutral wind profile over homogeneous terrain. J. Appl. Meteorol.
Climatol. 49: 792–806.
Peppler A. 1921. Windmessungen auf dem Eilveser Funkenturm. Beitr.
Phys. Atmos. 9: 114–129.
Quarton DC. 1989. Characterization of wind turbine wake turbulence
and its implications on wind farm spacing. Final Report ETSU WN
5096, Department of Energy of the UK, Garrad-Hassan Contract.
Raupach MR. 1979. Anomalies in flux-gradient relationships over forest.
Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 16: 467–486.
Reitebuch O, Straßburger A, Emeis S, Kuttler W. 2000. Noctur-
nal secondary ozone concentration maxima analysed by SODAR
observations and surface measurements. Atmos. Environ. 34:
4315–4329.
Sathe A, Gryning S-E, Peña A. 2011. Comparison of the atmospheric
stability and wind profiles at two wind farm sites over a long marine
fetch in the North Sea. Wind Energy 14: 767–780.
Sedefian L. 1980. On the vertical extrapolation of mean wind power
density. J. Appl. Meteorol. 19: 488–493.
Shannak B, Träumner K, Wieser A, Corsmeier U, Kottmeier C. 2011.
Flow characteristics above a forest using light detection and rang-
ing measurement data. J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 226: 921–939, DOI:
10.1177/0954406211417944.
Smedman A, Tjernström M, Högström U. 1993. Analysis of the tur-
bulent structure of a marine low-level jet. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 66:
105–126.
Smith RB. 2010. Gravity wave effects on wind farm efficiency. Wind
Energy, 13, 449–458.
Smith SD. 1980. Wind stress and heat flux over the ocean in gale force
winds. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 10: 709–726.
Song J, Liao K, Coulter RL, Lesht BM. 2005. Climatology of the
low-level jet at the southern great plains atmospheric boundary layer
experiments site. J. Appl. Meteorol. 44: 1593–1606.
Steinfeld G, Tambke J, Peinke J, Heinemann D. 2010. Application of
a large-eddy simulation model to the analysis of flow conditions in
offshore wind farms. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 12: EGU2010-8320 http://
meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-8320.pdf
(accessed 7 July 2014).
Stull R. 1988. An Introduction to Boundary-Layer Meteorology. Kluwer
Academic Publishers: Dordrecht; 666.
Taylor PA. 1977. Numerical studies of neutrally stratified planetary
boundary layer flows over gentle topography. I: Two-dimensional
cases. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 12: 37–60.
Träumner K, Wieser A, Ruck B, Frank C, Röhner L, Kottmeier C. 2012.
The suitability of Doppler lidar for characterizing the wind field above
forest edges. Forestry 85: 399–412, DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cps038.
Troen I, Petersen EL. 1989. European Wind Atlas. Risø National Labo-
ratory: Roskilde; 656.
Troldborg N, Sørensen JN, Mikkelsen R. 2010. Numerical simulations of
wake characteristics of a wind turbine in uniform inflow. Wind Energy
13: 86–99.
Türk M. 2008. Ermittlung designrelevanter Belastungsparameter für
Offshore-Windkraftanlagen. PhD thesis, University of Cologne; 124.
http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/2799/ (accessed 7 July 2014).
Türk M, Emeis S. 2010. The dependence of offshore turbulence intensity
on wind speed. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98: 466–471.
Vermeer LJ, Sørensen JN, Crespo A. 2003. Wind turbine wake aerody-
namics. Prog. Aerospace Sci. 39: 467–510.
Wieringa J. 1973. Gust factors over open water and built-up country.
Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 3: 424–441.
Wieringa J. 1989. Shapes of annual frequency distributions of wind speed
observed on high meteorological masts. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 47:
85–110.
Wippermann F. 1973. Numerical study on the effects controlling the
low-level Jet. Beitr. Phys. Atmos. 46: 137–154.
Witha B, Steinfeld G, Heinemann D, Stütz E. 2012. High-resolution
offshore wake simulations with the LES model PALM. Geophys.
Res. Abstr. 14: EGU2012-10387 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.
org/EGU2012/EGU2012-10387.pdf (accessed 7 July 2014).
Wussow S, Sitzki L, Hahm T. 2007. 3D-simulations of the turbulent
wake behind a wind turbine. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 75: 012033, DOI:
10.1088/1742-6596/75/1/012033.
Zeman O, Jensen NO. 1987. Modification of turbulence characteristics
in flow over hills. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 113: 55–80.
Meteorol. Appl. 21: 803–819 (2014)