4.6 Review

Wind speed model based on kernel density estimation and its application in reliability assessment of generating systems

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGEROPEN
DOI: 10.1007/s40565-015-0172-5

Keywords

Wind speed model; Kernel density estimation; Reliability evaluation; Wind power

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51307185]
  2. Natural Science Foundation Project of CQ CSTC [cstc2012jjA90004]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [CDJPY12150002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An accurate probability distribution model of wind speed is critical to the assessment of reliability contribution of wind energy to power systems. Most of current models are built using the parametric density estimation (PDE) methods, which usually assume that the wind speed are subordinate to a certain known distribution (e.g. Wei-bull distribution and Normal distribution) and estimate the parameters of models with the historical data. This paper presents a kernel density estimation (KDE) method which is a nonparametric way to estimate the probability density function (PDF) of wind speed. The method is a kind of data-driven approach without making any assumption on the form of the underlying wind speed distribution, and capable of uncovering the statistical information hidden in the historical data. The proposed method is compared with three parametric models using wind data from six sites. The results indicate that the KDE outperforms the PDE in terms of accuracy and flexibility in describing the long-term wind speed distributions for all sites. A sensitivity analysis with respect to kernel functions is presented and Gauss kernel function is proved to be the best one. Case studies on a standard IEEE reliability test system (IEEE-RTS) have verified the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed model in evaluating the reliability performance of wind farms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available