Evaluation of the variability of wind speed

at different heights and its impact on

the receiver efficiency of central receiver
systems
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 1734, 030011 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4949063
Published Online: 31 May 2016

A. Delgado, C. Gertig, E. Blesa, A. Loza, C. Hidalgo, and R. Ron

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Reduction of convective losses in solar cavity receivers

AIP Conference Proceedings 1734, 030023 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4949075

Thermal resistance model for CSP central receivers

AIP Conference Proceedings 1734, 030010 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4949062

Reducing the convective losses of cavity receivers

AIP Conference Proceedings 1734, 030014 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4949066

AIP Conference Proceedings 1734, 030011 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4949063 1734, 030011

© 2016 Author(s).
 Evaluation of the Variability of Wind Speed at Different
Heights and its Impact on the Receiver Efficiency of Central
Receiver Systems
A. Delgado1, a), C. Gertig2, b), E. Blesa1, A. Loza1, C. Hidalgo1, R. Ron1
1
DNV GL, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes 8 – 10, 4º 2ª, 08902 L´Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
2
Sustainable Solar Services, 2/43 Banksia Grove, Tullamarine, VIC 3043, Australia
a)
alvaro.delgado@dnvgl.com
b)
chris.gertig@solarsponsoring.com.au

Abstract. Typical plant configurations for Central Receiver Systems (CRS) are comprised of a large field of heliostats
which concentrate solar irradiation onto the receiver, which is elevated hundreds of meters above the ground. Wind
speed changes with altitude above ground, impacting on the receiver thermal efficiency due to variations of the
convective heat losses. In addition, the physical properties of air vary at high altitudes to a significant degree, which
should be considered in the thermal losses calculation. DNV GL has long-reaching experience in wind energy assessment
with reliable methodologies to reduce the uncertainty of the determination of the wind regime. As a part of this study,
DNV GL estimates the wind speed at high altitude for different sites using two methods, a detailed estimation applying
the best practices used in the wind energy sector based on measurements from various wind sensors and a simplified
estimation applying the power law (1, 2) using only one wind measurement and a representative value for the surface
roughness. As a result of the study, a comparison of the wind speed estimation considering both methods is presented and
the impact on the receiver performance for the evaluated case is estimated.

INTRODUCTION TO WIND SPEED ESTIMATION AT RECEIVER HEIGHT

The wind resource has to be considered in the CRS plant design process and for energy estimation purposes. To
evaluate the thermal losses of the solar receiver and potential losses of operation hours in cases where the wind
speed exceeds the heliostat design values, the quantification of the wind regime on site may reveal performance
impacting issues. In the present study, DNV GL analyzes the impact of wind speed on the thermal efficiency of solar
receivers in CRS plants.

Two different approaches to estimate the wind speed at high altitudes (receiver height) are considered in the
study: A simplified methodology and the state-of-the-art of wind measurements in the wind industry.

Simplified Methodology
This methodology estimates the wind speed at receiver height using only one sensor and extrapolating it to the
chosen receiver height through a specific wind shear model as shown in Figure 1.

SolarPACES 2015
AIP Conf. Proc. 1734, 030011-1–030011-9; doi: 10.1063/1.4949063
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1386-3/$30.00

030011-1
 FIGURE 1. Wind speed determination using only one sensor

The measured variation in wind speed with height at each site is defined using the power law shear exponent and
is used to predict the wind resource. The power law wind shear exponent is defined by:

α
U ( z1 )  z1 
  (1)
U ( z 2 )  z 2 

Where, α is power law wind shear exponent, U is the mean wind speed, and z is the height above ground level.

The determination of the wind shear exponent depends on the complexity and roughness of the terrain, the nature
of the wind and the wind resource availability for the specific site. However, a set of predefined values can be
obtained from public bibliography (3, 4). Table 1 shows an example of the wind shear exponent for different terrains
from public bibliography (not used by DNV GL) to provide a simple look at the variability of the wind shear
coefficient. These values do not take into account the local variability of ambient conditions, but represent average
values that only depend on the terrain type. z0 is the equivalent roughness length.
TABLE 1. Wind shear parameters
Terrain α, Wind Shear Z0 (m), Winter / Summer
Description Exponent (3) (3)
Open Water 0.10 0.001 / 0.001
Pasture/Hay 0.19 0.01 / 0.15
Deciduous Forest 0.43 0.5 / 1.3
Mixed Forest 0.43 0.9 / 1.3
Evergreen Forest 0.43 1.3 / 1.3

State-of-the-Art of Wind Measurements in the Wind Industry

In contrast to the estimation of wind speed using a predefined wind shear coefficient, the best practice used in the
wind energy sector involves using various measurements of wind speed at different heights and deriving the wind
shear coefficient for a certain height interval from the power law as can be seen below:

lnv2   lnv1 
 (2)
ln z 2   ln z1 

v1 represents the wind speed at reference position z1 and v2 represents the wind speed at the elevated position z2.

030011-2
 FIGURE 2. Wind speed determination using more than one sensor

Therefore, wind speed can be calculated using equation 1 by using a more precise value of the wind shear
coefficient. However, when significant variation in the wind speed profile between day and night periods is
observed, this result in distortions in the frequency distribution at receiver height compared to that at measurement
height. In order to mitigate this effect, the time series shear method is employed. The boundary-layer power law
shear exponent is derived from two measurement heights for each ten-minute, or hourly, time step. A time series of
wind speed at the target receiver height is calculated by extrapolating the upper measurement height using the
instantaneous boundary-layer power law shear exponent. These exponents are then used to extrapolate the measured
data recorded in the main sensors to the chosen receiver height.

The most common method of determining the wind resource is the use of accurate cup style anemometers at
different altitudes. Other methods employ equipment like SODAR or LIDAR covering a wide range of altitudes up
to around 200 meters with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Verification of this remote sensing equipment against
direct measurements provides confidence that the equipment is operating correctly during the measurement period.

Even when considering the spatial variability of the wind shear coefficient within zones of similar vegetation and
calculating it based on the average wind speed at different altitudes, the use of an annual average of the wind shear
coefficient can introduce significant uncertainty, especially for short time intervals (hourly or ten-minute time steps).
Figure 3 shows an example of the variability of α for a site over 24 hours. Note that also negative values can be
present, especially at higher altitudes where local meteorological phenomena can reduce wind speed significantly.

FIGURE 3. Temporal variation of α

030011-3
 In addition to the spatial and temporal variability, the wind shear coefficient also depends on the wind direction
and the height above ground. At higher altitudes, wind speed may decrease compared to altitudes only several dozen
meters lower, as studied in previous works (5, 6). This study lays emphasis on the prediction of wind speed at
receiver altitudes based on DNV GL’s experience in wind energy and applied to CRS plants. It shall be determined
based on the estimation of the wind shear coefficient by using state-of-the-art methodology applied for heights
around 100 meters, the best way of estimating the wind shear profile with very low uncertainty for receiver altitudes.
Once the wind shear is studied and characterized, it is then extrapolated to 250 meters approx., to altitudes where
solar receivers are typically located in CRS plants. Two approaches of estimating the wind speed at high altitudes
are then compared with the reference wind speed (extrapolated to 250 meters), in order to see which delivers better
estimates. One of them considers a constant wind shear coefficient to extrapolate the wind speed measured at 10
meters to higher altitudes, and the other one considers no wind speed variation at 10 meters (α = 0).

IMPACT OF WIND SPEED IN CENTRAL RECEIVER PLANTS

The thermal losses of the solar receiver are caused to a high degree by the thermal convection between the
ambient air and the absorber tubes. Due to the high levels of solar flux, the outer receiver surface can reach
temperatures beyond 600ºC in common CRS plants, resulting in a significant temperature difference between the
cold air and the external film of the absorber tubes. Fig. 4 shows a sensitivity analysis of the impact of wind speed
on the thermal efficiency of an external molten salt receiver at different ambient temperature levels according to the
receiver design specified in Table 2. The natural convection losses with no wind speed represent approximately 1%
of the total losses of the receiver system at nominal power and the overall convection loss is approximately 1.5%
considering a wind speed of 8 m/s.

FIGURE 4. Sensitivity analysis of the receiver performance reduction due to wind speed

ESTIMATION OF THE RECEIVER EFFICIENCY

Since the desert of Atacama in Chile is one of the most promising locations for new CSP developments and it
also hosts various wind energy projects, DNV GL has selected this region for this study. In that sense, DNV GL has
developed a plant configuration specifically designed for the purpose of this study and in line with the ambient
conditions of this region, favorable for larger plants compared with other suitable sites worldwide.

Three sites located in the Atacama region were selected with no high buildings, large roads, trees or vegetation in
the vicinity, except for mining industry. The sites are representative for a desert type location. For comparability
purposes a location in eastern Spain has been selected. Then the impact of wind speed on the receiver efficiency by

030011-4
using the above methodologies has been analyzed for each site to determine whether significant differences in the
annual thermal loss estimation of a CRS plant occur.

Receiver Performance Modeling

The thermal receiver model used to perform this study has been developed internally by DNV GL (7), enabling
the calculation of the thermal losses accounting for external convective (natural and forced), reflection, radiative,
conduction and internal convection (fluid) losses by using of the following equation:

q fluid = qincident  q reflection  q radiative  q external ,convective  q conduction  qint ernal ,convective  (3)

Due to the large geometry of the external cylinder, natural convection from the receiver surface can be modeled
using a vertical flat-plate correlation. The relationship of the Nusselt Number is based on Siebers and Kraabel
correlations (8) and the forced convection correlation is based on a set of correlations in function of the relationship
between the absorber tube external diameter and the receiver total diameter and the Reynolds number (8). Wind
direction has been neglected in this study and the solar flux distribution at the receiver has been calculated at
nominal conditions and then scaled with the irradiance levels in order to reduce the distortion of results because of
variations in the receiver efficiency resulting from different heliostat field designs and efficiencies, aiming
strategies, forced defocusing due to overload or flux peak limitations. A brief summary of the most important design
parameters of the receiver is shown in Table 2, representing a state-of-the art design for large-scale CRS plants with
a cylindrical receiver heated externally by a surrounding heliostat field.
TABLE 2. Receiver Design Parameters
Receiver Configuration Value Units
Aperture Height 20 m
Aperture Diameter 20 m
Receiver Type Cylindrical -
Area ~1,250 m2
Aiming Point Reference (Centre) 250 m
Number of Panels 16 Elements
Nominal Incident Power ~800 MWt

As commented above, a variable wind shear coefficient was compared to simulations where α was held constant

RESULTS
The receiver efficiency was calculated on an hourly basis for one year accounting for part loads, where the
receiver system is operating between 10% and 100% of the nominal power and different ambient conditions based
on the meteorological data of the sites under evaluation. The annual simulations were run with three different wind
shear coefficients, α calculated differently for every hour, using a constant α and α=0. The results of the simulations
using constant α and α=0 were then compared to the simulation using a variable α as shown in the following
equations:
rec
 var    0
rec
dev 0  100 (4)
rec
0

 rec   rec
dev const    var rec  const 100 (5)
 const

Then, two cases have been contrasted against the approach of using a variable α, a constant wind shear profile with
α = constant as an empirical value as for example derived from Table 1 (open water, smooth mud flats, hard ground)

030011-5
and α = 0, which represents the application of the same wind speed as measured at 10-meter height for the altitude of
250 meters.
Fig. 5 shows the average (arithmetic mean) of the deviations for each month for all sites for the 100-meter height
and 250-meter height simulations considering a constant wind shear coefficient for the estimation of wind speed at
receiver altitude or a wind shear coefficient of zero. The impact of the variability of α is estimated to a range of 3%
approx. (ranging from -2% to +1%) of the receiver efficiency considering all sites except for site 3, where higher
deviations were found when using a constant value of α. Overall, assuming a wind speed at higher altitudes, around
100 meters, similar to the wind speed at a10-meter altitude (α = 0) delivers less deviation than assuming a constant
empirical α.

a) b)
FIGURE 5. Monthly averages of the deviations when using constant and variable wind shear coefficients against the simulations
using α = variable for all sites, a) Results for the 100-meter height simulation, b) Results for the 250-meter height simulation

In the case of a receiver height of 250 meters, the impact of the variability of α is estimated to amount ±2%
approx. of the receiver efficiency. Again, assuming that the wind speed at higher altitudes, over 200 meters, is
similar to the wind speed at a 10 meter altitude (α = 0) delivers less deviation than assuming a constant empirical
alpha. The high variability of results shows the problems involved in generalizing about the impact of the wind
profile on the receiver performance for different sites. Figure 6 shows the hourly profile of the deviations using α as
constant and using α equal to zero against DNV GL extrapolation. All three sites share the same behavior during
sunrise and sunset hours, where the difference is considerably higher than during the other hours of the day. This
variation results from the higher relative impact forced convection has on the receiver efficiency when the receiver
is operating at low part loads. This effect also has been found in the simulations performed for the 100 meters
scenario.

a) b)

030011-6
 c) d)

e) f)
FIGURE 6. a), c), e) Show the percentage of deviation of the receiver efficiency using the current common practice in the CSP
industry of employing a constant wind shear coefficient for Site 1, Site 2, Site 3 respectively. b), d), f) Show the percentage of
deviation of the receiver efficiency using the wind speed at 10 m (α = 0) against DNV GL extrapolation for Site 1, Site 2, Site 3
respectively

As can be seen, the difference between the efficiency obtained using wind speed at 10 meters (α = 0) and wind
speed at 240 meters is reduced nearly to zero in the central hours of the day for all sites, whereas the use of a
constant α shows higher deviations. It shows that due to the likely existence of a particularly local phenomenon
decreasing the wind shear coefficient at higher altitudes as commonly observed in deserts (5, 6), employing the same
wind speed at such altitudes as measured at a 10-meter height (α = 0) may be more representative than extrapolating
the wind shear profile purely based on a constant wind shear coefficient. This evidences the potential uncertainty of
the wind shear characterization using averaged empirical coefficients only and its dependence on the site local
variability.

Regarding Site 4, with a terrain mainly composed by forest and shrubs, the deviation is appreciable in all of the
daylight hours, and more clearly differentiated between months. Figure 7 shows the hourly profile of the deviations
using α as constant and using α equal to zero against DNV GL extrapolation.

a) b)
FIGURE 7. Analysis for a location in Spain, a) Shows the percentage of deviation of the receiver efficiency considering a
constant wind shear coefficient, b) Shows the percentage of deviation of the receiver efficiency using the wind speed at 10 m (α =
0) against DNV GL best practice

030011-7
 Table 3 and Table 4 show a summary of the annual deviation between the different scenarios (deviations when
using a constant or zero wind shear coefficients against the simulation using a variable wind shear for all sites) based
on hourly simulations for the 250-meter height wind speed estimation and considering a typical percentage of
operating hours at nominal conditions of 15%, and simulations using a strong oversizing of the solar field, achieving
30% of nominal operating hours

Again the influence of the higher impact of convective losses on the receiver efficiency at part loads leads to
higher deviations in the cases of less nominal operating hours.

TABLE 3. Considering 15% of the hours at nominal conditions

Thermal energy absorbed by the HTF Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Unit
α = 0 vs α = const. -1,22 -1,20 -1,19 -1,02 %
α = 0 vs α = measured 0,30 0,23 0,22 0,49 %
α = const. vs α = measured -0,92 -0,97 -0,96 -0,52 %
Receiver efficiency Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Unit
α = 0 vs α = const. -1,69 -1,61 -1,62 -1,26 %
α = 0 vs α = measured 0,44 0,37 0,19 0,69 %
α = const. vs α = measured -1,22 -1,23 -1,43 -0,56 %

TABLE 4. Considering 30% of the hours at nominal conditions

Thermal energy absorbed by the HTF Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Unit
α = 0 vs α = const. -0,54 -0,53 -0,52 -0,89 %
α = 0 vs α = measured 0,26 0,20 0,20 0,43 %
α = const. vs α = measured -0,28 -0,32 -0,32 -0,45 %
Receiver efficiency Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Unit
α = 0 vs α = const. -0,73 -0,68 -0,71 -1,12 %
α = 0 vs α = measured 0,37 0,32 0,17 0,61 %
α = const. vs α = measured -0,54 -0,36 -0,54 -0,51 %

CONCLUSIONS
As demonstrated in this study, the variability of the wind shear coefficient α can bring deviations in the receiver
efficiency and in the total energy transferred to the HTF for large scale CRS plants. The use of annual average
empirical values can introduce significant uncertainty as compared to the hourly calculation of the coefficient. The
introduced error has been estimated to amount up to 3% approx. of the calculated receiver annual efficiency among
the chosen sites and altitudes.

It has been further shown that due to the existence of local variations at higher altitudes, the direct application of
the wind speed values measured at 10-meter height brings less deviation than extrapolating the wind speed with a
constant average empirical value of the wind shear coefficient applied to the power law for the chosen terrain in the
considered sites. Due to the low costing of LIDAR and SODAR stations, the inclusion of this equipment in the
measurement stations could be considered to reduce uncertainties for energy estimates in the CSP industry.

The employment of hourly values of the wind shear coefficient to estimate thermal receiver losses is
recommended to reduce uncertainty. However, further investigation into other sites of different characteristics is
recommended. Wind direction measurements and different flux distributions together with the use of CFD
simulations can help to increase the level of detail of results in the future.

030011-8
 REFERENCES
1. R. Istchenko, B. Turner, Extrapolation of Wind Profiles using Indirect Measures of Stability, 2008.
2. M. L. Kubik, P. J. Coker, C. Hunt, Using meteorological wind data to estimate turbine generation output, a
sensitivity analysis, 2011.
3. Daniel C. Bratton, Carole A. Womeldorf, WEAV Laboratory Ohio, The wind shear exponent: comparing
measured against simulated values and analyzing the phenomena that affect the wind shear, 2011.
4. Frank V, Hansen, Army Research Laboratory, 1993.
5. J. L. Maza, Katabatic Winds in Northern Chile, ENEL Green Power, EWEA, 2013.
6. A. J.Kettle, Unexpected vertical wind speed profiles in the boundary layer over the southern North Sea, 2014.
7. C. Gertig, A. Delgado, Rubén Ron et al, SoFiA – A novel simulation tool for Central Receiver Systems,
presented at Solarpaces conference, Las Vegas, US, Sep 2013
8. D.L. Siebers, J.S. Kraabel, Estimating convective energy losses from solar central receivers, SANDIA, 1984.

030011-9