780391

research-article2018
WIE0010.1177/0309524X18780391Wind EngineeringTizgui et al.

Research Article

Wind Engineering

Wind speed distribution modeling 1­–11

© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
for wind power estimation: Case sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0309524X18780391
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309524X18780391

of Agadir in Morocco journals.sagepub.com/home/wie

Ijjou Tizgui1, Fatima El Guezar2, Hassane Bouzahir1

and Brahim Benaid1

Abstract
To estimate a wind turbine output, optimize its dimensioning, and predict the economic profitability and risks of a wind energy
project, wind speed distribution modeling is crucial. Many researchers use directly Weibull distribution basing on a priori acceptance.
However, Weibull does not fit some wind speed regimes. The goal of this work is to model the wind speed distribution at Agadir. For
that, we compare the accuracy of four distributions (Weibull, Rayleigh, Gamma, and lognormal) which have given good results in this
yield. The goodness-of-fit tests are applied to select the effective distribution. The obtained results explain that Weibull distribution
is fitting the histogram of observations better than the other distributions. The analysis deals with comparing the error in estimating
the annual wind power density using the examined distributions. It was found that Weibull distribution presents minimum error.
Thus, wind energy assessors in Agadir can use directly Weibull distribution basing on a scientific decision made via statistical tests.
Moreover, assessors worldwide can use the followed methodology to model their wind speed measurements.

Keywords
Wind speed modeling, probability distribution function, Weibull distribution, Rayleigh distribution, Gamma distribution, lognormal
distribution, wind power density, goodness-of-fit tests

Introduction
Morocco is the only country in North Africa which has no reserves in fossil fuel. The demographic and economic growth
of the kingdom will increase the energy demand up to 70% till 2025. Therefore, Morocco imports 97% of its energy needs.
That makes this developing country sensitive to fluctuations of energy prices in global market. Since 2008, the govern-
ment has planned a new strategy for development and investment in renewable energy projects. Its aim is to increase the
share of renewable energy to 42% by 2020, where 14% is wind energy (Ettaik, 2016). For that reason, an accurate wind
power assessment is extremely necessary.
Jourdier (2015) has stated that in recent years, industrialists in North America have observed an under-production
(approximately 10%) of existing wind farms and that a negative bias in estimating the expected wind energy on more
than 100 wind farms is noted in the United States and Canada. For Morocco, there are no official statistics. In fact, if the
installed wind turbines produce less than expected, the profitability of the wind power project is in risk, especially if these
differences continue during the project lifetime (20 years in general). In addition, the overestimating of potential increases
the loan interest. Indeed, to assess the economic profitability for a wind energy farm, all economic indicators (net present
value, payback period, income, annual saving, etc.) are based on the estimated cost of energy (COE), which is defined
as the average cost per kWh of the produced wind electricity. It is obtained by dividing the annualized cost (AC) by the
annual electricity generation ET (in kWh/year). It is given by

1LISTI, ENSA, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco

2LISTI, FS, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco

Corresponding author:
Hassane Bouzahir, LISTI, ENSA, Ibn Zohr University, PO Box 1136, 80000 Agadir, Morocco.
Email: hbouzahir@yahoo.fr
2 Wind Engineering 00(0)

AC
COE = (1)
ET

The previous equation shows that COE depends strongly on the annual electricity generation. Therefore, ET should be
estimated with maximum precision in order to reduce the uncertainty on the economic profitability (investigation on AC
impact is the subject of a separate work). In general, ET is estimated using the statistical technique. For a wind turbine
and a specific site, the average wind turbine energy output ET is given by

ET = T ∫ f ( v ) ⋅ P ( v ) d ( v ) (2)
0

where T is the time in hours of a full year, f(v) is the wind probability density function (PDF), P(v) is the machine power
curve, and v is the wind speed (m/s).
As one can see in equation above, to avoid the overestimating of potential, it is crucial to choose the PDF that models
the wind speed distribution accurately. Moreover, that helps to analyze and interpret the wind speed variation, manage the
wind farms, and optimize its dimensioning. The power curve has also impact on the accuracy of wind power assessment.
But, its uncertainty is less than estimation of the PDF (Morgan et al., 2011) (investigation on impact of modeling the
power curve will be the subject of a future study).
To model the wind speed, many researchers have used directly the Weibull distribution. However, they are based
on a priori acceptance, because it does not always display some wind speed characteristics well, and it may not fit all
wind speed regimes encountered in nature. For that, several distributions (such as Weibull, lognormal, Rayleigh, Inverse
Gaussian, Gamma, generalized Normal, etc.) are examined by many researches.
In this wise, the goal of this study is to model the wind speed at Agadir in Morocco in order to reduce the financial risk
in investing in a wind energy project and give investors the confidence in its economic feasibility. For that, after presenting
a literature overview of many studies in wind speed modeling, we compare four distributions (Weibull, Rayleigh, Gamma,
and lognormal distributions) which are commonly used by researches (Alavi et al., 2016; Aries et al., 2018; Sohoni et al.,
2016; Wang et al., 2016) and which have shown good results in fitting the unimodal wind speed distribution according to
the literature. To carry out those distribution performances regarding the modelization of wind speed regime at Agadir,
we conduct a statistical study using four tests of goodness of fit, namely, the coefficient of determination, the root mean
square error (RMSE), the Chi-square test, and the mean bias absolute error (MBAE). For more accuracy in modeling the
wind speed at Agadir, we deal with calculating the error between the estimated wind power density via the studied theo-
retical distributions and the calculated wind power density using measurements.

Literature review
Many researches compared several PDFs in order to select the most efficient in fitting their measurement. Morgan et al.
(2011) have compared the non-parametric kernel density distribution with six parametric distributions (Weibull, Rayleigh,
lognormal, Gamma, Normal, and loglogistic) in four sites in China. The achieved results show that the non-parametric
estimation outperforms the parametric models. Pobočíková et al. (2017) have evaluated the suitability of four analytical
distributions (two-parameter Weibull; three-parameter Weibull, Gamma, and lognormal) in fitting the wind speed distribu-
tion in Slovakia. It was found that the three-parameter Weibull performs as the best distribution. Yilmaz and Heçeli (2008)
have compared 10 PDFs, namely, Erlang, Beta, exponential, loglogistic, lognormal, Gamma, Pearson V, Pearson VI,
Weibull, and Uniform. Weibull was found to be the best one to fit the wind speed distribution at Aegean region in Turkey.
Morgan et al. (2011) have modeled the wind speed at 178 stations in United States. They have concluded that the bimodal
Weibull gives the best results. For higher wind speeds, authors have found that the Wakeby and Kappa distributions are
the most suited, those distributions estimate the average wind turbine power output very with more accuracy. For extreme
wind speeds, the two-parameter lognormal distribution performs better. Sohoni et al. (2016) have compared Gamma,
Weibull, Rayleigh, lognormal, Inverse Gaussian PDFs in India; they have found that Weibull distribution is efficient in
fitting the wind speed data with less skewness, and Gamma distribution fitted better to wind speed data which presented
highly skewed histograms. Ben Amar and Elamouri (2011) have developed a new model using maximum entropy. They
have compared this model with Weibull distribution. As a result, the proposed model adjusts better the measured data.
To reduce the uncertainty in wind potential evaluation in four sites in Algeria, Aries et al. (2018) have assessed the
wind speed distribution models. They have compared eight distributions, namely, Weibull, Gamma, Inverse Gaussian,
Tizgui et al. 3

Figure 1.  Monthly averages of wind speed at height of 10 m.

lognormal, Gumbel, Generalized Extreme Value, Nakagami, and Generalized Logistic. As a result, the Generalized
Extreme Value and Gamma are the most suited. Furthermore, authors deal with comparing power density error. Gamma,
Inverse Gaussian, and lognormal were found to be the most appropriate. Parajuli (2016) has fitted the measured data using
Weibull and Rayleigh PDFs; the author has concluded that Weibull is accurate in estimation of wind power at Jumla in
Nepal. Akgül et al. (2016) have used the Inverse Weibull distribution to model the wind speed variation at two sites in
Turkey. This PDF has been compared with Weibull distribution and it was concluded that Inverse Weibull performances
better than Weibull. In order to estimate the wind speed distribution at five stations in Iran, Alavi et al. (2016) have evalu-
ated a various PDFs using the actual and the truncated data. They have compared the performance of four typically used
distribution functions (Weibull, Gamma, Rayleigh, and lognormal functions). Results indicate that for actual wind speed
data, the effective PDF is lognormal while Weibull PDF performs better for the truncated data. Ouarda et al. (2015) have
analyzed the wind speed distribution at nine stations in United Arab Emirates. The authors have carried out the perfor-
mance of non-parametric models, parametric models, and mixture models. Results show that Generalized Gamma and
Kappa distributions give the best fit to the observations. The two-parameter Weibull shows also a good fit comparing with
Generalized Extreme Value and three-parameter lognormal. For bimodal regimes, the mixture distributions provide a very
good result than non-parametric distribution

Methodology
Case study and wind speed data
The wind speed data in hourly time series format were recorded at a height of 10 m at the International Airport of Agadir
Al Massira over the year 2016 (geographical coordinates: 30.33N, 9.40O). Figure 1 represents the monthly averages of
the wind speed. The maximum monthly average is 3.71 m/s, while the minimum is 3.05 m/s. The wind speed at Agadir
appeared to be uniform during the year. The annual standard deviation was found to be equal to 1.91. It is weak enough,
which means that observations revolve around the average value. The monthly mean wind speed and the annual standard
deviation are calculated using the following equations, respectively

N
1
v=
N ∑ v (3)
i =1
i

1
 1 N
2 2
σ =
 N − 1
∑ ( v v ) 
i =1
i− (4)

where N is the number of measurement.

The available data are summarized in Table 1. For each wind speed class with an equal width of 1 m/s, the number
of occurrences is presented (second column), the measured wind speed frequency fi , and its cumulative probability are
calculated and given in the third and fourth column, respectively.
4 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Table 1.  Wind speed number of occurrences, its frequency, and its cumulative probability.

Wind speed, v i Number of occurrences Measured frequency, f i Cumulative probability

0 74 0.0087 0.0087
1 1052 0.1243 0.1330
2 2390 0.2823 0.4154
3 1730 0.2044 0.6197
4 1065 0.1258 0.7455
5 953 0.1126 0.8581
6 642 0.0758 0.9340
7 289 0.0341 0.9681
8 147 0.0174 0.9855
9 67 0.0079 0.9934
10 33 0.0039 0.9973
11 14 0.0017 0.9989
12 8 0.0009 0.9999
13 1 0.0001 1.0000

Wind speed distribution modeling

In order to choose the PDF that fits better the wind speed at Agadir region, we compare in this study four distributions
namely, Weibull, Rayleigh, Gamma, and lognormal. Those distributions were selected because they have been used com-
monly by researches and they have shown good performances regarding the unimodal wind speed distribution modeling.
Those distributions definitions including their PDF and cumulative distribution function (CDF) are described below. Their
other statistical properties are reported in Table 2, in which Γ is the Gamma function. It is expressed as

∫
Γ ( x ) = exp ( −t ) t x −1dt (5)
0

Weibull distribution function.  The Weibull distribution is a two-parameter function, namely, scale parameter c (m/s) and
shape parameter k (dimensionless). It is the most used distribution in wind energy field, because it presents the majority
of wind distribution in worldwide. Furthermore, it is flexible and simple to use (Tizgui et al., 2016). The Weibull PDF (f)
and CDF (F) are given by equations (6) and (7), respectively

 k  v 
k −1
  v k 
f (v) =     exp  −    (6)
 c  c   c 
 

  v k 
F ( v ) = 1 − exp  −    (7)
 c 
 

Rayleigh distribution function.  The Rayleigh PDF has just one parameter that makes it the simplest distribution and the most
used by researchers to model the wind speed. It is a particular case of Weibull PDF in which the shape parameter k = 2. The
Rayleigh PDF and CDF are expressed mathematically as

2v   v 2 
f (v) = exp  −    (8)
c2  c 
 

  v 2 
F ( v ) = 1 − exp  −    (9)
 c 
 

where c is the scale parameter.

Tizgui et al. 5

Table 2.  Statistical properties of the studied distributions.

Distribution Statistical properties Expression

Weibull Mean
 1
v = c Γ 1 + 
 k
Variance
  2  1 
σ 2 = c 2 Γ 1 +  − Γ2 1 +  
  K   K 
Third moment
 3
v 3 = c 3 Γ 1 + 
 K
Rayleigh Mean
π
v =c
2
Variance
4 −π 2
σ2 = c
2
Third moment
v 3  3.76 c 3
Gamma Mean
v = kθ
Variance
σ 2 = θ 2 k ( k + 1)
Third moment
v 3 = θ 3k ( k + 2 ) ( k + 1)
Lognormal Mean σ2
µ+
v =e 2

Variance
σ 2 = ( eσ −1) e 2 µ +σ
2 2

Third moment 9σ 2
3µ +
v3 = e 2

Gamma distribution function.  The gamma distribution is also applied to wind speed by many researches. It indicates the
sum of the exponentially distributed random variables. The expression of the gamma distribution PDF and CDF are pre-
sented by the following equations, respectively (Pobočíková et al., 2017)

v k −1  v
f (v) = exp  −  (10)
Γ ( k )θ k  θ

 v
γ  k, 
θ
F (v) =  (11)
Γ (k )

where k is the shape parameter, θ is the scale parameter, and γ is the incomplete Gamma function, and it is given by

∫
γ ( p, x ) = e−t t p −1dt (12)
0

Lognormal distribution function.  The lognormal distribution is one of the versatile distributions. Since it provides a good
result regarding the wind speed distributions modeling, it has been used by many researches. If the logarithm of the wind
speed is distributed in a normal manner, the wind speed can be modeled by lognormal PDF. The formula of the lognormal
distribution is (Aries et al., 2018)
6 Wind Engineering 00(0)

1  ( ln v − µ )2 
f (v) = exp  −  (13)
σ 2π  2σ 2 
 

 ln v − µ 
F (v) = ∅  
 σ  (14)

where µ is the location parameter, σ is the scale parameter, and ∅ is the CDF of the standard normal distribution.

Estimation the distributions parameters

Many methods can be used to estimate the studied distributions parameters (Tizgui et al., 2017). In this study, the maxi-
mum likelihood method (MLM) is applied. This method gives the values of the parameters which maximize the prob-
ability of obtaining the measured data. For each parameter α , MLM consists in estimating its value which maximizes the
likelihood function (L) by solving the following equation

d log L
= 0 (15)
dα

The likelihood function (L) for a random sample v1 , v2 , …, vn and theoretical PDF (f) is represented by equation

L= ∏ f (v ,α ) (16) i
i

Table 3 lists the equations to estimate the parameters of the used PDFs using the MLM.

Goodness-of-fit tests.  In order to determinate the distribution that fit better the wind speed, we conduct a statistical study,
which is based on calculating the differences between the predicted values from the models and the experimental values.
The used statistical tests are given below.
For all equations (17)–(20), n is the number of bins, yi = fi is the value of frequency observations at time stage i,
xi = f (vi ) the calculated value from the theoretical PDF for the same stage, and y is the mean of yi .

The coefficient of determination.  The coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) evaluates the linear correlation between the pre-
dicted values from the theoretical distribution and reel observations. It ranges from 0 to 1. A greater value of R 2 means a
good fit of the considered PDF to the measured data. It is expressed as (Akgül et al., 2016)

∑( y − x )
2
i i
i =1
R2 = 1 − n
(17)
∑( y − y )
2
i
i =1

RMSE.  RMSE calculates the residuals of frequency of examined PDF and the measured data (Pobočíková et al., 2017).
A model trend to be precise, if the RMSE is close to zero. The RMSE formula is given by

0,5
1 n
2
RMSE = 
 n
∑ ( y − x ) 
i =1
i i (18)

Chi-square test.  Chi-square test ( χ ) is commonly used to examine the performance of the considered PDFs for modeling
2

the wind speed distribution. The authors have stated that χ is recommended to analyze only big samples (more than 20
2
Tizgui et al. 7

Table 3.  Parameters estimation using MLM.

Distribution Estimator MLM

−1
Weibull 
∑ 
N 1
v ik ln v i N
1 N
k

∑ 
1
k= i =1
− ln v i  and c = 
∑ k
v 
∑
N i
v ik N  N 
 i =1  i =1
 i =1 
Rayleigh
n

∑v
1
c= i
2

2n i =1

Gamma n
∂3 ( p )
∑v
v 1
θ= ϕ ( k ) = ln ( k ) − ln ( v ) + i
ϕ ( p) =
k and n i =1
with ∂p is

the digamma function

Lognormal 2
n n
 n

∑ ∑
1 1
∑
1
µ= vi σ = 2
 ln v i − ln v i 
n n  n 
i =1 and i =1  i =1 
MLM: maximum likelihood method

individuals). This statistic criterion is independent of the population variance and mean. The examined PDF models the
data distribution if χ is close to zero. It is determined by
2

( yi − xi )
n 2
2
χ = ∑
i =1
yi
(19)

MBAE.  MBAE can be also used to assess the quality of each used distributions. It measures the average of total abso-
lute bias errors between the theoretical PDF and the frequency obtained by actual observations. MBAE is defined by Jung
and Schindler (2017) as

n
1
MBAE =
n ∑ y −x
i =1
i i
(20)

Available wind power evaluation.  One distribution may be better in fitting the histogram of observations but not on estimat-
ing the power density. For example, Weibull and Rayleigh models were compared by Ahmed and Mahammed (2012); they
found that for the whole year, Weibull distribution fit the measured data better than the Rayleigh, but the Rayleigh distribu-
tion provides more accuracy in estimating the power density in 9 months. For that, we deal with comparing the estimated
wind power using the four distributions and observed data. For a wind device located perpendicular to the direction of the
wind speed, the average of available wind power density is

1 3 (21)
P= ρv
2

ρ is the air density in kg/m3. It can be calculated using the following relationship

ρ = ρ0 − 1.194 × 10−4 × H m (22)

where H m is the site elevation (m) and ρ0 is the air density at sea level, ρ0 = 1.225 kg / m . In this study, the site eleva-
3

3
tion is 74 m, so ρ = 1.216 kg / m . For the observed data, the measured wind power density ( PM ) can be written as follows
8 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Figure 2.  Data distribution fitted by the four theoretical PDFs.

N
1 1
PM = ρ
2 N ∑v
i =1
3
i (23)

For a theoretical distribution, the wind power density estimated using the theoretical PDF ( PTh ) can be expressed as

i=n

PTh =
1
2
ρ ∑ f ( v ) v (24)
i
3
i
i =1

f ( vi ) is the theoretical PDF value at stage i, n is number of bins, and N is the number of hours.

Absolute error in estimating the wind power density.  In order to select the PDF that estimates the wind power density with
more accuracy, we calculate the absolute error (AE) between the wind power density estimated using the measured data
and that obtained using the four theoretical distributions. This error can be expressed as (Ben Amar and Elamouri, 2011)

PTh − PM
AE = 100* (25)
PM

Results and discussion

Measured data adjustment
As we mentioned, in this study, we highlight the effectiveness of four distributions which are widely applied to fit wind
speed, namely, Weibull, Rayleigh, Gamma, and lognormal. Figures 2 and 3 depict the histogram of the wind speed data
adjusted by the four PDFs and its CDFs, respectively. Graphically, it can be noticed that Weibull, Rayleigh, and Gamma
PDFs may be acceptable, but lognormal PDF is poor in fitting the data distribution and its cumulative function. Table 4
presents the parameters of the considered PDFs obtained using the MLM under MATLAB software.

Goodness of fits
To address the sensibility of the studied PDFs in term of fitting with more accuracy the wind speed distribution at Agadir
region, we applied the most used statistical indicators, namely R 2 , RMSE, χ and MBAE. Table 5 presents the statistical
2

indicator values and rank obtained for the studied distributions. Those indicators are presented graphically in Figure 4.
The values of R 2 are 0.9260, 0.9047, and 0.9197 for the Weibull, Rayleigh, and Gamma distributions, respectively.
Lognormal presents the lowest value in term of R 2 . That indicates that Weibull distributions fit data set very well fol-
lowed by Gamma distribution. Regarding the RMSE test, the Weibull PDF shows again a good performance followed
Tizgui et al. 9

Figure 3.  Data cumulative frequency and the four theoretical cumulative functions.

Table 4.  Estimated parameters for the studied distributions.

Distribution Parameters values

Weibull c = 3.72 and k = 1.73
Rayleigh c = 2.72
Gamma k = 2.24 and θ = 1.49
Lognormal µ = 0.97 and σ = 1.12

Table 5.  Comparison of Weibull, Rayleigh, Gamma, and lognormal PDFs.

Criterion Weibull Rank Rayleigh Rank Gamma Rank Lognormal Rank

2
R 0.9260 1 0.9047 3 0.9197 2 0.6159 4
RMSE 0.0481 1 0.0633 2 0.0936 3 1.5185 4
χ2 0.0235 1 0.0263 3 0.0244 2 0.0537 4
MBAE 0.0124 1 0.0134 2 0.0153 3 0.0372 4

PDF: probability density function; RMSE: root mean square error; MBAE: mean bias absolute error.

by Rayleigh PDF with values of 0.0481 and 0.0633, respectively. The Gamma PDF is ranked third with an RMSE value
equal to 0.0936. While lognormal presents the lowest value in term of RMSE too. In term of χ test, Weibull and Gamma
2

distributions perform better than others with values of 0.0235 and 0.0244, respectively. Rayleigh distribution is ranked
third. Lognormal present always the poorest fitting. For the MBAE, Weibull shows the minimum value followed Rayleigh
then Gamma. Lognormal is ranked fourth.
In general, it can be seen that the Weibull PDF gives the maximum value of coefficient of determination, minimum
values of RMSE, Chi-square, and MBAE, followed by Rayleigh and Gamma distributions. While the lognormal PDF is
the worst distribution in modeling the measurements, it is ranked fourth for all indicators.

Error in estimating the power density

In addition to goodness-of-fit indicators ( R 2 , RMSE, χ , and MBAE), the reliability of each model is assessed in terms
2

of estimating wind power density using the AE between the measured wind power density and that expected from the
tested models.
Table 6 presents the annual wind power density calculated using measured data and the annual wind power density
estimated via the four studied distributions. The error on estimating the power density using the considered PDFs is also
given in the table. The average error was found to be 0.88% for Weibull PDF, 6.12%, 18.49%, and 83.14% for Rayleigh,
Gamma, and lognormal, respectively. We concluded that Weibull PDF presents a minimum error in estimating the annual
wind power density. So, it is the effective and most accurate distribution to model the wind speed at Agadir.
10 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Figure 4.  Goodness-of-fit tests: (a) R 2 , (b) RMSE, (c) χ , and (d) MBAE.
2

Table 6.  Errors in estimating wind power density using the four studied distributions.

Measured Weibull Rayleigh Gamma Lognormal

Available wind power 49.07 49.51 46.07 58.15 89.88
density (W/m2)
AE (%) – 0.88 6.12 18.49 83.14

AE: absolute error.

Conclusion
The overestimating of potential influences negatively the profitability of a wind energy project. It may be caused by the
uncertainty in wind speed distribution modeling. In fact, it is common to fit the wind speed distribution by Weibull PDF.
However, Weibull PDF may not always model the wind speed. Therefore, in this study, the wind speed data in hourly
time series format over the year 2016 at Agadir are statistically analyzed and fitted by four candidate PDFs (Weibull,
Rayleigh, Gamma, and lognormal) were fitted to a wind speed sample at Agadir. Their parameters were estimated using
MLM. Graphically, the PDFs and cumulative functions curves indicate that the lognormal gives the worst adjustment to
the measurements and the other PDFs are acceptable. In order to make a scientific decision, four tests of goodness of fit
(coefficient of determination, RMSE, Chi-square test, and MBAE) are used to select the effective distribution that fit bet-
ter the histogram of observations. As a result, lognormal is ranked fourth for all statistical indicators. The Weibull PDF
was found to be the best one. It is ranked first and fits well to wind speed data with maximum value of coefficient of
determination and minimum values of RMSE, Chi-square, and MBAE. Gamma distribution is ranked second according
to R 2 and χ tests and third using RMSE and MBAE. Rayleigh distribution is ranked second for RMSE and MBAE. It
2

is ranked third for R 2 and χ tests.

2
Tizgui et al. 11

Furthermore, we deal with calculating the error between the annual estimated wind power density via the studied
theoretical distributions and the calculated wind power density using measurements. The error was found to be 0.88%,
6.12%, 18.49% and 83.14% for Weibull, Rayleigh, Gamma, and lognormal, respectively. We note that Weibull PDF pre-
sents minimum error in estimating the annual wind power density. Therefore, we concluded that Weibull PDF is the most
suitable distribution that models wind speed at Agadir. Thus, wind energy assessors in the studied region can use directly
Weibull distribution basing on a scientific decision made via statistical tests. Moreover, assessors worldwide can use the
followed methodology to model their wind speed measurements with more accuracy.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
This study was supported by the Moroccan National Center for Scientific and Technical Research (CNRST).

ORCID iD
Hassane Bouzahir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1254-967X

References
Ahmed SA and Mahammed HO (2012) A statistical analysis of wind power density based on the Weibull and Rayleigh models of
Penjwen Region, Sulaimani/ Iraq. Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 6(2): 135–140.
Akgül FG, Senoglu B and Arslan T (2016) An alternative distribution to Weibull for modeling the wind speed data: Inverse Weibull
distribution. Energy Conversion and Management 114: 234–240.
Alavi O, Sedaghat A and Mostafaeipour A (2016) Sensitivity analysis of different wind speed distribution models with actual and trun-
cated wind data: A case study for Kerman, Iran. Energy Conversion and Management 120: 51–61.
Aries N, Boudia SM and Ounis H (2018) Deep assessment of wind speed distribution models: A case study of four sites in Algeria.
Energy Conversion and Management 155: 78–90.
Ben Amar F and Elamouri M (2011) A new theoretical model for modeling the wind speed frequency distribution. International
Journal of Renewable Energy Research 1(4): 306–313.
Ettaik Z (2016) Les énergies renouvelables au Maroc : Bilan et perspectives. Report, Moroccan Ministry of Energy, Mines, Water and
Environment.
Jourdier B (2015) Ressource éolienne en France métropolitaine : méthodes d’évaluation du potentiel, variabilité et tendances. PhD
Thesis, Polytechnic Doctoral School.
Jung C and Schindler D (2017) Global comparison of the goodness-of-fit of wind speed distributions. Energy Conversion and
Management 133: 216–234.
Morgan EC, Lackner M, Vogel RM, et al. (2011) Probability distributions for offshore wind speeds. Energy Conversion and Management
52(1): 15–26.
Ouarda TBMJ, Charron C, Shin JY, et al. (2015) Probability distributions of wind speed in the UAE. Energy Conversion and
Management 93: 414–434.
Parajuli A (2016) A statistical analysis of wind speed and power density based on Weibull and Rayleigh models of Jumla, Nepal.
Energy and Power Engineering 8: 271–282.
Pobočíková I, Sedliačková Z and Michalková M (2017) Application of four probability distributions for wind speed modeling. Procedia
Engineering 192: 713–718.
Sohoni V, Gupta S and Nema R (2016) A comparative analysis of wind speed probability distributions for wind power assessment of
four sites. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 24: 4724–4735.
Tizgui I, Bouzahir H, El Guezar F, et al. (2016) Estimation of electricity production for a Moroccan wind farm. In: Proceedings of
the 5th international conference on electronic devices, systems and applications, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates, 6–8
December. New York: IEEE.
Tizgui I, El Guezar F, Bouzahir H, et al. (2017) Comparison of methods in estimating Weibull parameters for wind energy applications.
International Journal of Energy Sector Management 11(4): 650–663.
Wang J, Hu J and Ma K (2016) Wind speed probability distribution estimation and wind energy assessment. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 60: 881–899.
Yilmaz V and Heçeli K (2008) A statistical approach to estimate the wind speed distribution : The case of Gelibolu region. Doğuş
Üniversitesi Dergisi 9(1): 122–132.