Appendix A - Wind Study

ERS
HRGUD
12-MONTHS WIND STUDY, AEP ESTIMATE, AND SITE CONDITIONS REPORT
ADDRESS
COWI A/S
Parallelvej 2
2800 Kongens Lyngby
Denmark
TEL
+45 56 40 00 00
FAX
+45 56 40 99 99
WWW
ERS
HRGUD
12-MONTHS WIND STUDY, AEP ESTIMATE, AND SITE CONDITIONS REPORT
PROJECT NO.
A019184
DOCUMENT NO.
019184-2-2
VERSION
1.0
DATE OF ISSUE
11 November 2013
PREPARED
BEBI/CELH
CHECKED
JABC/FLLS
APPROVED
SGJE
cowi.com
HRGUD - 12-MONTHS WIND STUDY, AEP ESTIMATE, AND SITE CONDITIONS REPORT
CONTENTS
1
Introduction
2
2.1
Executive Summary
Production Estimate
12
12
3
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
17
17
17
18
19
19
20
21
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
Wind Study
Wind Monitoring
Meteorological Masts
Measuring Periods
Wind Analysis
Basic Measuring Periods
Data check
Basic Wind Distribution
Monthly Mean Wind Speeds (Seasonal
variations)
Daily Variations
Wind Shear
Long-term Variation
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
Site Conditions
Wind Distribution
Extreme Wind
Turbulence Intensity
Wind Shear
Inflow Angles
Temperature and Air Density
IEC 61400-1 (Edition 3) Wind Class
Earthquake
Lightning
Salinity
31
33
33
34
35
35
35
36
37
38
38
25
26
27
30
O:\A015000\A019184\Project - Bosnien, Fea Studies\50 Wind Study\02 Hrgud\Reports\12-months WS\Hrgud - 12-Months Wind Study and Site Conditions Report.docx
5
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
Production Estimate
Basic Information
Power Curve
Site Description
Digitized Maps
Computer Programs
Results
Site Potential
Layout and Micro-siting
Estimated Annual Energy Production
39
39
39
40
42
42
43
43
43
45
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Layout and Energy Production
48
Appendix B
Estimated Uncertainty on the calculated

AEP
51
Appendix C
Extreme Winds Analysis
55
DISCLAIMER
Acceptance of this document by the client is on the basis that COWI A/S or any
person acting on behalf of COWI A/S is not in any way to be liable for any damage,
including any loss of profit, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential
damage arising out of the use or inability to use the findings, recommendations and
conclusions presented in this report, even if COWI A/S has been advised of the
possibility of such damage, or for any claim by any other party.
Introduction
This report, which is prepared for ERS, Bosnia and Herzegovina, presents a 12Months Wind Study, AEP Estimate, and Site Conditions Report for the wind power
project Hrgud. The Hrgud project is located at the top of the Hrgud plateau which
stretches from northwest to southeast and the ridges at the plateau have different
orientations, relatively to the main wind directions (northeast and south-southeast).
The wind turbines are sited taking into account the optimum orientation of the
rigdes relative to the main wind directions. The site is located 5-6 km east-northeast from the town of Stolac, 10-11 km west from the town of Berkovii, 50 km
east from the Adriatic sea coast, 50 km north of Trebinje, and about 30 km south of
Mostar, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1: Location of the Hrgud project in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The yellow and red pushpins represent the met masts Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2, respectively. Source: Google Maps
Figure 2: Close-up on the site location. The yellow and red push-pins represent the met masts
Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2, respectively. Source: Google Maps
The objective of this report is to provide ERS with the best annual energy
production (AEP) estimate based on available wind data measured at the Hrgud
site area.
COWI A/S has used the Siemens SWT-3.0-101, the Vestas V90-3.0 and the
Enercon E-82-3.0 wind turbine generators (WTG) for the 12-months study, all
three from leading manufacturer. All WTGs are 3.0 MW, which is the typical size
of land based turbines today have been assessed to be suitable for the site and are
commercially available. Please note that these WTGs used for the AEP calculations
do not constitute a preference for these particular WTGs.
The preliminary site boundaries used in the preliminary study have, in agreement
with ERS, been modified in order to optimize the layout, thus the energy
production. The suggested extension towards north-west as presented as
"Extension" in the preliminary wind study has been approved by ERS. Hence, the
new micro-siting is based on these updated site boundaries. Also it has been agreed
to do the optimization without taking into account distances to few nearby houses.
Within the new boundaries, it has been assessed that approximately 16 WTGs can
be placed, based on WTG size and the wind resource, corresponding to an installed
capacity of 48 MW. The WTGs have been positioned with a minimum distance of
three rotor diameters perpendicular to the main wind direction and five rotor
diameters in the main wind direction. This has been used, as it is the standard in the
industry in order to minimize wake loss, wake induced turbulence, and fatigue
loads. Please note that the wind turbines manufacturers need to give a final
approval of the micro-siting before fixing the layout.
10
The Hrgud site area is determined and modified together with ERS based on the
outcomes of the preliminary wind study and recommendations made by COWI
A/S. The area can be categorized as complex, with altitudes varying between 960
to 1110m ASL (Above Sea Level) and is approximately 5 km2. A southeast
northwest fault delimiting the plateau is characterised with a very steep slope,
which have a significant influence at the wind flow at the site. The terrain is
characterized by karsts with small meadows, bushes and low forest vegetation. The
area is mainly used for non-industrial grazing (see Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Figure 3: Vegetation at the site and its surroundings, watching towards east. Source: COWI A/S
Figure 4: Vegetation at the site, watching towards west. Source: COWI A/S
The layout is presented in the coordinate system BiH GK-MGI - Zone 6.

Calculations are based on 12 months of wind data measured at the 2 onsite met
masts Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2.
11
30 years of data from the Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and
Applications (MERRA) have been used to analyse the long-term wind climate at
the site. See section 0 for details.
The site has been visited and inspected by Sren Gjerding and Jasmin Bejdic,
COWI A/S, on May 22-23 2012. Jasmin Bejdic was furthermore present during the
installation of the met masts in July 2012.
The wake losses resulting from potential neighbouring wind farms have not been
taken into consideration in the calculated AEP estimate.
The power and thrust curve for the Siemens SWT-3.0-101, Vestas V90-3.0 and
Enercon E-82-3.0 have been provided by Siemens, Vestas and Enercon
respectively, to EMD international (WindPRO).
12
Executive Summary
This section presents the executive summary for the production of the following
wind turbines (Table 1).
WTG
Class
Hub Height [m] AGL
Siemens SWT-3.0-101
IA
79.5
Vestas V90-3.0
IA
80.0
Enercon E-82-3.0
IA
84.6
Wind Turbine Type
No.
Installed Capacity
[MW]
16
48
Table 1: Turbine type and installed capacity
Based on the site conditions analysis, see Table 19, it is found that a class IB wind
turbine is suitable for the site. In general, an increased AEP of the magnitude of 5
per cent can be expected with class IB wind turbines when compared to class IA
machines. However, due to limited number of IB land based WTGs on the market
the AEP is calculated with IA WTGs. It shall also be mentioned that site specific
approval of WTGs is possible and shall be required from the manufacturers,
ultimately resulting in optimum WTG type and higher AEP.
2.1
Production Estimate
The Weibull distribution and annual mean wind speeds, based on the available
onsite wind data, at the chosen hub heights 79.5, 80.0, 84.6 m AGL (Above
Ground Level) for the 2 met masts are shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.
13
Weibull parameters for the 2 onsite met masts at 79.5 m hub height
Mast name
Hrgud 1
Hrgud 2
Weibull A-parameter [m/s]

Weibull k-parameter
7.97
1.635
7.33
1.631
Weibull Mean Wind Speed [m/s]
7.13
6.56
Table 2: Weibull parameters for the 2 onsite met masts at 79.5 m hub height
Mast name
Hrgud 1
Hrgud 2
7.97
7.34
Weibull k-parameter
1.639
1.631
7.13
6.57
Mast name
Hrgud 1
Hrgud 2
8.02
7.40
Weibull k-parameter
1.639
1.635
7.18
6.62
Based on the available wind data, the power curve and the general information of
the terrain and the site boundaries, an estimate of the expected AEP is made in
WAsP for the potential wind farm at the Hrgud site. The AEP has also been
calculated in Windsim, which gave similar results.
In order to estimate the energy production delivered to the grid, some losses must
be calculated:
Wake loss [%]
: 4.21 / 3.22 / 2.93
High wind hysteresis [%]
: 0.41 / 0.42 / 0.53
The Following corrections have been included in the calculations:
16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 (79.5 m hub height)
16 Vestas V90-3.0 (80.0 m hub height)
16 Enercon E-82-3.0 (84.6 m hub height)
14
WAsP correction [%]
: 0.0
Long term correction [%]
: +1.0
Combined corrections [%]
: +1.0
A detailed description of these corrections is presented in section 3.2.

At this stage of project preparation, the specific losses are based on the preliminary
assessments and estimations based on COWI A/S experience. Thus, the following
losses have been included in the calculations:
Wind turbine availability loss [%]
: 3.0
Collection & substation availability loss [%]
: 1.0
Utility grid availability loss [%]
: 1.0
Transformer and line loss [%]
: 2.0
Power curve, blade contamination loss [%]
: 2.0
Combined estimated corrections and losses* [%]
: 8.11 / 8.22 / 8.23
*Includes all corrections and losses except wake loss
Please note that some losses will be updated if the findings from the grid study and
conceptual design differ significantly. The above mentioned losses depend on the
actual grid conditions, the design, the contracts (Supply and O&M) and the
expected reliability of the wind turbine.
Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 present the resulting Net AEP after applying the
combined loss and combined corrections for the Hrgud wind farm, for the layout of
16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101, 16 Vestas V90-3.0 and 16 Enercon E-82-3.0,
respectively.
Furthermore, the tables present the number of full load hours, the net capacity
factor, the estimated uncertainty of the calculated AEP and the net energy
production at exceedance levels P50, P70 and P90. The exceedance levels
represent the probability of an AEP above 50%, 70% and 90% respectively.
15
AEP estimate for the 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 (79.5 m hub height)

Annual Gross Energy Production for the 16 WTGs
Wake Loss
143.1 GWh/y
4.2%
Annual Park Production for the 16 WTGs

Combined Corrections and Losses
-6.0 GWh/y
137.0 GWh/y
8.1%
-11.1 GWh/y
Net Annual Production for the 16 WTGs (P50)
125.9 GWh/y
Full load hours
2623 h/y
Capacity Factor
29.9 %
Estimated uncertainty (standard deviation)
10.4 %
13.1 GWh/y
70% probability for an average annual net production of at least (P70)
119.1 GWh/y
109.1 GWh/y
Table 5: Long-term net AEP estimate and other key figures for the 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101
AEP estimate for the 16 Vestas V90-3.0 (80.0 m hub height)

Wake Loss
121.2 GWh/y
3.2%

Combined Corrections and Losses
-3.9 GWh/y
117.3 GWh/y
8.2 %
-9.6 GWh/y
107.7 GWh/y
Full load hours
2244 h/y
Capacity Factor
25.6 %
11.5 %
12.4 GWh/y
101.2 GWh/y
91.8 GWh/y
Table 6: Long-term net AEP estimate and other key figures for the 16 Vestas V90-3.0
16
AEP estimate for the 16 Enercon E-82-3.0 (84.6 m hub height)

Annual Gross Production for the 16 WTGs
Wake Loss
113.4 GWh/y
2.9%

Combined Corrections
-3.3 GWh/y
110.2 GWh/y
8.2 %
-9.0 GWh/y
101.1 GWh/y
Full load hours
2106 h/y
Capacity Factor
24.0 %
11.5 %
11.6 GWh/y
95.0 GWh/y
86.2 GWh/y
Table 7: Long-term net AEP estimate and other key figures for the 16 Enercon E-82-3.0
Wind Study
3.1
Wind Monitoring
17
3.1.1 Meteorological Masts

Data from 2 onsite measuring masts (locations shown in Table 8 and Figure 5)
have been available for the analysis.
BiH GK-MGI - Zone 6
X (East) [m]
Y (North) [m]
Z [m] ASL
Hrgud 1
6 502 942
4 772 695
1101
Hrgud 2
6 504 811
4 772 764
1036
Table 8: Onsite met masts coordinates
18
Figure 5: Locations of the 2 onsite met masts. The yellow and red push-pins represent the met
masts Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2, respectively Source: Google Maps
The distance between Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2 is approximately 2 km.

Table 9 describes the measuring levels on the onsite met masts as well as the type
of measurement performed at each level.
Wind Speed measurement
heights [m] AGL
Wind Direction measurement

heights [m] AGL
Hrgud 1
77.5, 75.0, 55.0, 55.0 and 30.0
75.0 and 53.0
Hrgud 2
77.5, 75.0, 55.0, 55.0 and 30.0
75.0 and 53.0
Table 9: Measurement heights on the onsite met masts
3.1.2 Measuring Periods

The measuring periods of the onsite met masts are shown in Table 10.
Mast
Start
End
Length
30 July 2012
15 August 2013
12.5 months
Hrgud 1
Hrgud 2
Table 10: Measuring periods
3.2
19
Wind Analysis
3.2.1 Basic Measuring Periods

This wind study is based on 12 months of onsite measurements.
The following period has been selected for the further calculations.
Mast
Hrgud 1
Level [m]
AGL
77.5
Start
End
Length
01 August 2012
31 July 2013
12 months
Table 11: Basic measurement periods
Mast Hrgud 2 will not be taken into consideration for the AEP calculations as there
are no WTGs in its proximity. COWI strongly recommends moving the met mast
from its current position to another position on the north-western part of the site
(see Table 12 and Figure 6).
BiH GK-MGI - Zone 6
Hrgud 2 (new position)
X (East) [m]
Y (North) [m]
Z [m] ASL
6500782
4774039
1055
Table 12: Potential new position for the met mast Hrgud 2
Figure 6: Potential new position of the met mast Hrgud 2
20
3.2.2 Data check

The wind data from the onsite met masts have been filtered to remove any invalid
values due to faulty equipment and, or weather conditions such as icing and
lightning.
The measured wind speeds have been checked on each onsite mast by comparing
the measured wind speeds at the different levels form the same met mast, and by
comparing the cross-predicted wind speeds between the 2 onsite met masts.
The measured wind directions have likewise been checked for each met mast and
by cross-predictions.
Met mast Hrgud 1
The wind speed measured at 77.5m and the wind direction measured at 75.0m have
low availability due to some incidents resulting from lightning strike. Therefore, a
correlation analyses between the data measured at 77.5m and the ones measured at
55.0m (Channel 3) has been carried out and a very good correlation coefficient (R2
= 0.99) based on 10-minutes values has been found. Hence, the data have been
substituted, using the regression method in order to obtain higher data availability
at 77.5m.
Moreover, since the availability was still not satisfactory, a correlation analysis has
been performed with the correlated and substituted data from the met mast Hrgud 2
at 77.5m. Again, a very good correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.86) based on 10minutes values has been found. Hence, the data have been substituted, using the
regression method in order to obtain higher data availability at 77.5m.
Met mast Hrgud 2
Like for Hrgud 1, the wind speed measured at 77.5m and the wind direction
measured at 75.0m have low availability due to some incidents resulting from
lightning strike. Therefore, a correlation analyses between the data measured at
77.5m and the ones measured at 55.0m (Channel 3) has been carried out and a very
good correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.99) based on 10-minutes values has been
found. Hence, the data have been substituted, using the regression method in order
to obtain higher measurement availability at 77.5m.
The availability of the enabled data from the primary anemometer at 77.5 m and
wind vane at 75.0 for the two onsite met masts, before and after the substitutions
are shown in Table 13 and Table 14, respectively.
Before substitution
Mast
21
After substitution
Availability
[%]
Period
Availability
[%]
Period
Hrgud 1
74.4
12 months
99.4
12 months
Hrgud 2
61.3
12 months
95.2
12 months
Table 13: Wind speed availability overview for the two onsite met masts
Before substitution
Mast
After substitution
Availability
[%]
Period
Availability
[%]
Period
Hrgud 1
48.2
12 months
95.4
12 months
Hrgud 2
95.2
12 months
95.2
12 months
Table 14: Wind direction availability overview for the two onsite met masts
3.2.3 Basic Wind Distribution

The measured wind data covering the basic measuring period is transformed into
the Weibull distributions. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the Weibull distributions at
77.5 m for the met masts Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2, respectively. The red curve
represents the measured distribution and the green curve, the all sector Weibull fit.
Figure 7: Measured wind distribution (red) and Weibull fit (green) for all sectors at 77.5 m
AGL for the 12 months of wind data at the met mast Hrgud 1
22
It can be seen that the measured wind distribution does not fit exactly with the all
sector Weibull fit. This method can lead to errors in the calculations because WAsP
10.2/WindPRO 2.9 uses a sector-wise Weibull fits to calculate the energy
production. To estimate how this deviation between the Weibull fit and the
measured wind distribution affects the AEP estimate, a comparison of the AEP for
one WTG at the met mast position based on the WAsP 10.2/WindPRO 2.9
calculation and based directly on the measured data and power curve, has been
made. This comparison shows that no correction shall be applied to the AEP.
Figure 8: Measured wind distribution (red) and Weibull fit (green) for all sectors at 77.5 m
AGL for the 12 months of wind data at the met mast Hrgud 2
Like for the met mast Hrgud 1, it can be seen that the measured wind distribution
does not fit exactly with the all sector Weibull fit. However the comparison shows
that no correction shall be applied to the AEP.
Table 15 presents the Weibull distribution for all sectors for the met mast Hrgud 1
at 77.5 m AGL. The arithmetic mean wind speed for the 12 months of onsite
measurements at the met mast Hrgud 1 at 77.5 m AGL is 7.03 m/s.
Sector
23
A-Parameter [m/s] k-parameter Frequency [%] Mean wind speed [m/s]
Mean
7.94
1.624
100
7.11
0-N
8.41
1.994
6.1
7.46
1-NNE
10.57
2.283
20.4
9.36
2-ENE
7.22
1.951
6.6
6.40
3-E
6.19
1.826
4.5
5.50
4-ESE
7.80
1.795
9.2
6.93
5-SSE
10.29
1.913
16.3
9.13
6-S
8.88
1.628
10.3
7.95
7-SSW
5.46
1.309
8.1
5.04
8-WSW
5.05
3.074
8.6
4.52
9-W
3.83
2.055
3.7
3.39
10-WNW
3.78
1.700
3.2
3.37
11-NNW
3.77
1.453
3.1
3.42
Table 15: Measured wind distribution for 12 months of filtered measurements at 77.5 m AGL at
the onsite met mast Hrgud 1
Table 16 presents the Weibull distribution for all sectors for the met mast Hrgud 2
at 77.5 m AGL. The arithmetic mean wind speed for the 12 months of onsite
measurements at the met mast Hrgud 2 at 77.5 m AGL is 6.58 m/s.
Sector
A-Parameter [m/s] k-parameter Frequency [%] Mean wind speed [m/s]
Mean
7.32
1.630
100
6.55
0-N
6.55
1.523
4.3
5.90
1-NNE
9.77
2.014
25.5
8.65
2-ENE
5.86
1.902
6.4
5.20
3-E
6.57
2.256
5.7
5.82
4-ESE
7.05
1.921
9.1
6.26
5-SSE
8.20
1.642
13.0
7.34
6-S
8.24
1.739
11.0
7.34
7-SSW
5.87
1.454
7.9
5.32
8-WSW
5.26
3.094
7.9
4.71
9-W
4.10
2.205
3.5
3.64
10-WNW
3.76
1.812
3.2
3.34
11-NNW
3.45
1.863
2.6
3.06
Table 16: Measured wind distribution for 12 months of filtered measurements at 77.5 m AGL at
the onsite met mast Hrgud 2
24
Figure 9 shows the wind (frequency) and energy roses for the 12 months of filtered
data at 77.5 m AGL for the onsite met mast Hrgud 1. It can be seen that the
prevailing wind directions are NNE and SSE. The highest wind and consequently
the most of the wind energy come from NNE and SSE.
Figure 9: Frequency and energy roses at 77.5 m AGL for the 12 months of wind data at the met
mast Hrgud 1
Figure 10 shows the wind (frequency) and energy roses for the 12 months of
filtered data at 77.5 m AGL for the onsite met mast Hrgud 2. It can be seen that the
prevailing wind direction is north-north-east. The highest wind and consequently
the most of the wind energy come from north-north-east.
Figure 10: Frequency and energy roses at 77.5 m AGL for the 12 months of wind data at the
met mast Hrgud 2
25
3.2.4 Monthly Mean Wind Speeds (Seasonal variations)

The monthly mean wind speeds measured at 77.5 m at the onsite met masts Hrgud
1 and Hrgud 2 for the 12 months of basic measuring period are presented in Figure
11 and Figure 12.
m/s
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
2012
2013
8.35
7.63
8.85
7.18
6.43
5.33
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mean
5.97
6.24
5.68
7.03
8.94
6.77
6.98
7.25
Mean monthly wind speeds [m/s]
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
2012
2013
2
1
Figure 11: Monthly mean wind speeds for the met mast Hrgud 1
Figure 11 represents the seasonal variations of the wind speed at the met mast
Hrgud 1 location. It can be seen that the highest wind speeds occur from December
to March.
m/s
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
2012
2013
7.36
7.01
8.13
6.59
6.11
5.19
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mean
5.87
5.71
5.34
6.24
8.51
6.33
6.69
6.73
Mean monthly wind speeds [m/s]
9
8
7
6
5
2012
2013
2
1
Figure 12: Monthly mean wind speeds for the met mast Hrgud 2
26
Figure 12 represents the seasonal variations at the met mast Hrgud 2 location. Like
at the met mast Hrgud 1 location, it can be seen that the highest wind speeds occur
from December to March.
3.2.5 Daily Variations

Figure 13 represents the daily variations of the wind speed at the met mast Hrgud 1
location. It can be seen that the highest wind speeds are recorded during night time.
Figure 13: Daily variations of the mean wind speed at the met mast Hrgud 1
Figure 14 represents the daily variations at the met mast Hrgud 2 location. The
wind speed is more stable than for the met mast Hrgud 1. The highest wind speeds
are though still recorded during night time, but wind speeds of the same magnitude
are also recorded in the beginning of the afternoon.
27
Figure 14: Daily variations of the mean wind speed at the met mast Hrgud 2
3.2.6 Wind Shear

The wind shear expresses the ratio between the wind speeds at different heights
and is part of the site characteristics related to the wind turbine specifications. The
wind shear analysis is also a part of the data check. The wind shear is an important
parameter in the choice of the optimal hub height.
The wind shear depends on the topography of the site and will typically not be
identical for all directions, especially for hilly and, or forested sites.
To determine an overall measure of the shear, it has been decided to calculate the
wind shear based on all data from the 2 onsite met masts.
The wind speed at the onsite met masts Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2 is measured at 77.5
m, 75.0 m, 55.0 m, 55.0 m and 30.0 m AGL.
A comparison study has been conducted between the measured wind shear
exponents and the predicted wind shear exponents by WAsP flow model assuming
the power law wind shear model. The power law wind shear exponent is defined
by:
V2 = V1 (H2 / H1) , where
the shear exponent, , is calculated between the respective heights H1 and H2 and
their corresponding wind speed V1 and V2. Table 17 presents the shear exponents
between the measuring heights for the 2 met masts.
28
Heights
, measured
, WAsP
Hrgud 1
30.0 to 55.0
30.0 to 77.5
55.0 to 77.5
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.09
Hrgud 2
30.0 to 55.0
30.0 to 77.5
55.0 to 77.5
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.12
Met Mast
Table 17: Wind shear exponent comparison for the onsite met masts
The measured and WAsP predicted wind shear profiles match very well for both
met masts, which indicates that WAsP is preforming good at the positions of the
two met masts and that the topography is well modelled. Based on these findings
and the overall assessment of the terrain at the site, WAsP is expected to perform
well through the whole site, when extrapolating from measuring height to hub
height.
The measured and WAsP predicted wind profiles for the met mast Hrgud 1 and
Hrgud 2 are shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively.
Figure 15: Wind profile comparison for the met mast Hrgud 1 showing the measured values
(yellow dots) and their corresponding power law profile (grey) and WAsP profile
(red)
29
Figure 16: Wind profile comparison for the met mast Hrgud 2 showing the measured values
(yellow dots) and their corresponding power law profile (grey) and WAsP profile
(red)
30
3.2.7 Long-term Variation

It is a well-known fact that the annual mean wind speed at any given site varies
over the years. It is therefore important to assess whether the period used for this
study is above or below long-term average. A variation of the annual mean wind
speed of 5-8 % is not unusual, which corresponds to a standard uncertainty of the
energy production estimate of about 10-20 %.
Therefore, in order to assess the long-term wind climate further, MERRA4 data
(N43.0 E18.0) covering a period of 30 years (01-07-1983 30-06-2013) has been
analysed. Good correlation coefficients, (RHrgud 12 = 0.89) and (RHrgud 22 = 0.83),
have been found between the Hrgud 1, Hrgud 2 and the MERRA data set,
respectively.
Figure 17 shows that the MERRA data have no significant trend through the
selected period. Consequently, the data are suitable to be used as reference for the
long-term correction of the onsite time series.
Long-term Data Variability Check

Wind Speed (Means of Months)
[m/s]
y = -0.0055x + 16.163
R = 0.0769
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Years
Figure 17: Long-term variation of the MERRA data
The onsite data have been long-term corrected by using the Wind Index method
from the WindPRO 2.9 MCP module.
Applying the MERRA data, as long-term reference, results in a long-term
correction on the AEP for the wind farm of +1.0 %.
Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications
31
Site Conditions
The determination of the site condition parameters for each WTG position are
based on measurements from the Hrgud 1 met mast. It is assessed that the wind
data, obtained from the mast is representative for the site area. However it is
strongly recommended to install another met mast as indicated in section 3.2.1.
A summary of the climatic site conditions based on the measured onsite wind data
from both met masts and other information for the site is listed below (Table 18).
The numbers in the first column refer to the sub-clauses following the table.
32
Value
No
Parameter
Hrgud 1 at
77.5 m AGL
Hrgud 2 at
77.5 m AGL
Measured twelve-months Mean Wind Speed [m/s]
7.03
6.58
Weibull Scale, A [m/s]
7.94
7.32
Weibull Shape, k
1.624
1.630
Max 10-min. measured Wind Speed [m/s]
31.4
31.7
Max 3-sec. measured Wind Speed [m/s]
38.7
38.2
Turbulence Intensity, Iref 5 at 55.0 m [%]
14.1
15.1
Mean Turbulence Intensity (WS > 4 m/s) at 55.0 m [%]
12.6
13.2
Measured Wind Shear Exponent (All sectors)
0.07
0.09
Annual Mean Temperature [C]
10.2
(at 1174 m
ASL)
10.2
(at 1109 m
ASL)
Annual Max. Temperature [C]
29.2
(at 1174 m
ASL)
32.3
(at 1109 m
ASL)
Annual Min. Temperature [C]
-10.0
(at 1174 m
ASL)
-9.6
(at 1109 m
ASL)
Annual Mean Air Density [kg/m2]
1.083
(at 1174 m
ASL)
1.092
(at 1109 m
ASL)
Earthquake, Peak Ground Acceleration* [m/s2]
3.0
Lightning* [Flashes/year/km2]
17.1
10
Salinity*
Continental climate
Table 18: Site conditions parameters for the onsite met masts Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2.
*Representative for the entire site
Expected turbulence intensity at 15 m/s according to the IEC 61400-1 Edition 3 (Mean + 1.28 x Std. dev.)
33
WTG No.
Vmean, 79.5m
[m/s]
Vref
[m/s]
Ve,50
[m/s]
Iref
[-]
Shear,
[-]
Inflow
angle6 []
IEC Class
8.09
44.9
62.4
0.13
0.04
7.8
IB
7.92
43.9
61.1
0.13
0.05
7.4
IB
7.98
44.3
61.5
0.12
0.05
3.5
IB
7.71
42.8
59.4
0.12
0.07
1.4
IB
7.77
43.1
59.9
0.12
0.05
3.1
IB
7.83
43.4
60.4
0.12
0.05
2.0
IB
7.54
41.8
58.1
0.12
0.07
2.7
II B
7.26
40.3
56.0
0.12
0.07
1.3
II B
6.76
37.5
52.1
0.12
0.09
2.7
III B
10
6.43
35.7
49.6
0.11
0.11
1.7
III C
11
6.09
33.8
47.0
0.13
0.12
2.6
III B
12
6.73
37.3
51.9
0.13
0.13
6.5
III B
13
7.80
43.3
60.1
0.11
0.04
10.7
IC
14
7.79
43.2
60.1
0.11
0.05
6.4
IC
15
7.54
41.8
58.1
0.12
0.04
3.6
II B
16
6.86
38.1
52.9
0.13
0.07
-2.2
II B
Table 19: Site condition parameters for all WTG positions, based on the met mast Hrgud 1
Please note that all parameters in Table 19 have been calculated with WindSim.
4.1
Wind Distribution
Based on the 12 months of onsite wind data measured at 77.5 m AGL at the met
masts Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2, the 12 months mean wind speeds (arithmetic) and
Weibull distributions have been determined and presented in section 3.2.3.
4.2
Extreme Wind
The Extreme 50-years 10-min. wind speeds (Vref) have been estimated using the
Peak-over-Threshold (POT) method to extract the independent storm events. The
extracted independent storm events are plotted using the classical Gumbel plotting
positions and a least-square (LSQ) fit to these positions. An extrapolation using the
obtained LSQ parameters has been carried out for all WTG positions and the
results can be seen in Table 19. This method is widely used in the industry.
COWI A/S has received 6.6 years (01/01-2007 to 01/07-2013) of long-term
reference data from the nearby met mast Poljice, which is located about 30 km
north from the site. A good correlation based on the daily average (R2 = 0.9)
between the mast Poljice and the mast Hrgud 1 has been found, but the extreme
Inflow angle at 79.5 m. Worst case for all directions.
34
wind regime at the two sites are different. The prevailing wind direction for the
highest winds recorded at the met mast Poljice is eastern, whereas the prevailing
wind direction for the highest winds recorded at the met mast Hrgud 1 is from
southern. Consequently, the background for the correlation of the high wind events
is not robust enough to be transferred from the met mast Poljice to the onsite wind
turbines.
Therefore, the Vref, WTG No. for each wind turbine position has been calculated on the
basis of the speed-up factors between the 12 months of measurements at the met
mast Hrgud 1 and each wind turbines location (calculated in Windsim) and the Vref,
Hrgud-1 calculated with the POT method described above.
Vref, Hrgud-1 [m/s]
: 39.0
Twelve months of data have been used to calculate the Vref for each WTG position.
Compared to the preliminary wind study the 50-year extreme is lower, but in order
to further decrease the uncertainty, several additional years of measurements
should be included. See Appendix C for details.
4.3
Turbulence Intensity
The ambient turbulence has been measured at the 2 onsite met masts, during a 12
months period at the met masts Hrgud 1and Hrgud 2. Due to the lower availability
of turbulence data at top levels, the measurements from 55.0 m AGL have been
used to calculate the turbulence.
The mean ambient turbulence intensity for all sectors, for wind speeds above 4 m/s
is given by:
IHrgud 1 [%]
: 12.6
IHrgud 2 [%]
: 13.2
The measured mean turbulence + 1.28 x Std.dev of the turbulence within the
interval 14.5 m/s to 15.5 m/s is:
I15, Hrgud 1, [%]
: 15.8
I15, Hrgud 2, [%]
: 17.0
35
This corresponds to expected turbulence intensity at 15 m/s, corresponding to the

IEC-1 edition 3 (Mean + 1.28 x Std. dev.) 7, Iref :
Iref, Hrgud 1 [%]
: 14.1
Iref, Hrgud 2 [%]
: 15.1
The Iref for all WTG positions is presented in Table 19.
4.4
Wind Shear
A detailed study of the wind shear for the onsite met masts, which are used for the
AEP calculations can be found in section 3.2.6.
The wind shear for each WTG position has been estimated using WindSim and the
results are presented in Table 19. All WTGs are within the IEC 61400-1 standard
design wind shear of 0.2.
4.5
Inflow Angles
The inflow angles for each WTG positions at hub height have been estimated with
WindSim. The worst inflow angles for all directions and for each WTG are
presented in Table 19. All calculated inflow angles for each WTG (except WTG
13) position are within 8, which is the numerical maximum value recommended
by the IEC 61400-1. The excess of the recommended value at WTG 13 is not
considered problematic since it results from the wind coming from WNW, which is
a sector with very low wind frequency and energy.
4.6
Temperature and Air Density
The temperature has been measured at the met mast Hrgud 1 at 1174 m ASL and
based on the 12 months basic period, the following temperatures at 1174 m ASL
are estimated at:
Twelve-month mean Temperature 1174 m ASL : 10.2 C
Maximum Temperature 1174 m ASL
: 29.2 C
Minimum Temperature 1174 m ASL
: -10.0 C
The temperature has been measured at the met mast Hrgud 2 at 1109 m ASL and
based on the 12 months basic period, the following temperatures at 1109 m ASL
are estimated at:
= TImeasured Vhub = Iref (0.75Vhub + b) ; b = 5.6 m/s
36
Twelve-month mean Temperature 1109 m ASL : 10.2 C

Maximum Temperature 1109 m ASL
: 32.3 C
Minimum Temperature 1109 m ASL
: -9.6 C
Based on the mean temperature recorded at the met masts Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2
and the site elevation, the 12 months mean air densities at 1174 m and 1109 m
ASL, respectively, are given by:
Twelve-month mean air density (Hrgud 1)
: 1.083 kg/m3
Twelve-month mean air density (Hrgud 2)
: 1.092 kg/m3
It is assessed that the onsite temperature based on the 12 months of measurements

and the calculated air density is representative for a long-term average.
4.7
IEC 61400-1 (Edition 3) Wind Class
Based on the estimated extreme wind speeds and the Iref, each WTG position has
been classified according to the IEC 61400-1 (Edition 3) wind turbine classes, see
Table 20, and the result can be seen in Table 19.
I
II
III
Reference Wind Speed (Vref) [m/s]
50
42.5
37.5
Annual Average Wind Speed (Vave)

[m/s]
10
8.5
7.5
50-year Return Gust (1.4 Vref) [m/s]
70
59.5
52.5
Wind Turbines Classes (wind)
Wind Turbines Classes (TI)

A (Iref)
0.16
B (Iref)
0.14
C (Iref)
0.12
Values
specified
by the
designer
Table 20: IEC wind turbine classes according to the IEC 61400-1(Edition 3)
4.8
37
Earthquake
According to GSHAP8 the Hrgud site is located in the earthquake zone

corresponding to peak ground acceleration of a magnitude of 3.0 m/s2 with 10 %
probability of exceedance in 50 years (see Figure 18).
Figure 18: Peak Ground Acceleration [m/s2] with 10 % Probability of exceedance in 50 Years.
Source: http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/static/GSHAP/
Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP)
38
4.9
Lightning
According to NASA GHCC9 the average lightning rate for the Hrgud site is 17.1
flashes /year/km2 (see Figure 19).
Figure 19: Lightning rate [flashes/year/km2] at Hrgud site. Source:

http://thunder.nsstc.nasa.gov/data/index.html
4.10 Salinity
The wind farm site is located inland and is subject to continental climate; therefore
no salinity occurrence is expected.
NASA Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC)
Production Estimate
5.1
Basic Information
39
In order to estimate the annual energy production, the information described in the
following sections is required along with the wind distribution previously
described.
5.1.1 Power Curve

COWI A/S has used the Siemens SWT-3.0-101, the Vestas V90-3.0 and the
Enercon E-82-3.0 wind turbines for the 12-months study, all three from leading
manufactures. All WTGs are 3.0 MW, which is the typical size of land based
turbines today, and have been assessed to be suitable for the site and are
commercially available. Please note that these WTGs used for the AEP calculation
do not constitute a preference for these particular WTGs.
The power curves, used in the project, are from the EMD/WindPRO database, and
the site specific power curves have been re-calculated by interpolation between
these provided power curves to be in accordance with the met mast Hrgud 1
calculated air density of 1.083 kg/m3 (see section 4.6) and the specific WTG
positions. The CT curves are from the same database.
Table 21 shows the power curves for the selected wind turbines for the standard air
density of 1.225 kg/m3.
40
Wind
Speed
[m/s]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Power [kW]
SWT-3.0-101 V90-3.0
0
0
48
128
263
469
757
1138
1620
2189
2697
2933
2991
2999
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0
0
0
77
190
353
581
886
1273
1710
2145
2544
2837
2965
2995
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
E-82-3.0
0
3
25
82
174
321
532
815
1180
1580
1900
2200
2480
2700
2850
2950
3020
3020
3020
3020
3020
3020
3020
3020
3020
Table 21: Power curves for the Siemens SWT-3.0-101, the Vestas V90-3.0 and the Enercon E82-3.0 turbines according to the standard air density
5.1.2 Site Description

Figure 20 and Figure 21 describe the terrain at the site and its surroundings.
There are limitations to the flow modelling in WAsP, due to the fact that it is a
linear model. This means that if the terrain inclination angles exceed 20-22
degrees, it might not model the flow correctly, resulting in a possible wrong
estimation of the AEP. As it can be seen on the slope maps in Figure 20, there are
areas of the site, which are outside the WAsP envelope. However, based on delta
RIX evaluation it is not necessary to correct the calculated AEP in order overcome
the complexity of site. Furthermore the AEP results obtained from WAsP have
been compared to Windsim AEP, resulting in similar estimates.
41
Figure 20: Slope map for the site and its surroundings. The blue dots represent the 16 WTGs
layout and the black triangles the met masts
Figure 21: 3D surface map of the site and its surroundings. The black dots represent the 16
WTGs layout
42
5.1.3 Digitized Maps

COWI A/S has purchased a digitized height contour map with 5-10 m contour lines
covering an area of approximately 40 x 40 km.
The digital roughness description is based on pictures taking during the site visit
and information from Google Earth. According to this information, the roughness
length has been estimated throughout the site.
5.1.4 Computer Programs

The AEP results obtained through this study have been generated by the WAsP
10.2/WindPRO 2.9 software models, which is based on the Wind Atlas method that
is the most commonly used model today. The software package includes a module
for wake loss calculation as well. The AEP results obtained from WAsP have been
compared to Windsim AEP, resulting in similar estimates.
For the site conditions calculations the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model
WindSim has been used.
5.2
43
Results
5.2.1 Site Potential

The gross AEP potential (MWh/year) throughout the site is calculated (no losses or
corrections are included) by WAsP 10.2 for the Siemens SWT-3.0-101 wind
turbine with a hub height at 79.5 m AGL, based on the 12 months (Hrgud 1) of
onsite data. Please note that this WTG is used for site comparison only and does
not constitute a preference for this particular WTG. The site potential as well as the
site boundaries is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22: Gross AEP site potential in MWh/year (no losses or corrections are included) based
on the non-corrected onsite data, for the Siemens SWT-3.0-101 with a hub height at
79.5 m AGL
5.2.2 Layout and Micro-siting

The layout has been developed by COWI A/S. Table 22 presents the wind turbines
taken into account in this study, as well as their corresponding installed capacity.
Wind Turbine Type
WTG Class Hub Height [m] AGL
Siemens SWT-3.0-101
IA
79.5
Vestas V90-3.0
IA
80.0
Enercon E-82-3.0
IA
84.6
No.
Installed Capacity
[MW]
16
48
Table 22: Turbine type and installed capacity
The minimum distances of the equivalent of 3 rotor diameters between the wind
turbines perpendicular to the main wind direction and 5 rotor diameters parallel to
the main wind direction have been maintained.
44
Figure 23 presents the layout for the 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 for the Hrgud wind
farm. The black grid in Figure 23 represents the 1 km squares in BiH GK-MGI Zone 6.
Figure 23: Layout for the 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 for the project Hrgud wind farm
Please find the details of the layout in Appendix A.
45
5.2.3 Estimated Annual Energy Production

The expected level of annual gross production (AEPGross) and annual net production
(AEPNet), including wake loss, is calculated using WAsP 10.2/WindPRO 2.9, based
on the 12 months (Hrgud 1) onsite data, the layout, the power curves, the CT
curves, digitized height contour map and roughness description.
In order to estimate the energy production delivered to the grid, some losses must
be calculated:
Wake loss [%]
: 4.210 / 3.211 / 2.912
High wind hysteresis loss [%]
: 0.410 / 0.411 / 0.512
The Following corrections have been included in the calculations:
WAsP correction [%]
: 0.0
Long term correction [%]
: +1.0
Combined corrections [%]
: +1.0
At this stage of project preparation the project specific losses are based on
preliminary assessments and estimations based on COWI A/S experience. Thus,
the following losses have been included in the calculations:
Wind turbine availability loss [%]
: 3.0
Collection & substation availability loss [%]
: 1.0
Utility grid availability loss [%]
: 1.0
Transformer and line loss [%]
: 2.0
Power curve, blade contamination loss [%]
: 2.0
Combined estimated corrections and losses* [%]
: 8.110 / 8.211 / 8.212
* Includes all corrections and losses except wake loss
Please note that some losses will be updated if the findings from the grid study and
conceptual design differ significantly. The above mentioned losses depend on the
actual grid conditions, the design, the contracts (Supply and O&M) and the
expected reliability of the wind turbine.
10
16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 (79.5 m hub height)
11
16 Vestas V90-3.0 (80.0 m hub height)
12
16 Enercon E-82-3.0 (84.6 m hub height)
46
Applying these combined estimated losses, results in the estimated average Net
AEP (P50) presented in:
Table 23: Siemens SWT-3.0-101
Table 24: Vestas V90-3.0
Table 25: Enercon E-82-3.0.
Furthermore, the tables present the number of full load hours, the net capacity
factor, the estimated uncertainty of the calculated AEP and the net energy
production at exceedance levels, P50, P70 and P90. The exceedance levels
represent the probability of an AEP above 50%, 70% and 90 %, respectively.
AEP estimate for the 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 (79.5 m hub height)

Wake Loss
143.1 GWh/y
4.2 %

Combined Correction on AEP
-6.0 GWh/y
137.0 GWh/y
8.1 %
-11.1 GWh/y
125.9 GWh/y
Full load hours
2623 h/y
Capacity Factor
29.9 %
10.4 %
13.1 GWh/y
119.1 GWh/y
109.1 GWh/y
Table 23: AEP results for 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 (79.5 m hub height)
47
AEP estimate for the 16 Vestas V90-3.0 (80.0 m hub height)

Wake Loss
121.2 GWh/y
3.2 %

-3.9 GWh/y
117.3 GWh/y
8.2 %
-9.6 GWh/y
107.7 GWh/y
Full load hours
2244 h/y
Capacity Factor
25.6 %
11.5 %
12.4 GWh/y
101.2 GWh/y
91.8 GWh/y
Table 24: AEP results for 16 Vestas V90-3.0 (80.0 m hub height)
AEP estimate for the 16 Enercon E-82-3.0 (84.6 m hub height)

Wake Loss
113.4 GWh/y
2.9 %

-3.3 GWh/y
110.2 GWh/y
8.2 %
-9.0 GWh/y
101.1 GWh/y
Full load hours
2106 h/y
Capacity Factor
24.0 %
11.5 %
11.6 GWh/y
95.0 GWh/y
86.2 GWh/y
Table 25: AEP results for 16 Enercon E-82-3.0 (84.6 m hub height)
48
Appendix A Layout and Energy Production

Table 26, Table 27 and Table 28 presents the results of the calculations of the
energy production for the individual wind turbines. The coordinates (X, Y) are in
BiH GK-MGI - Zone 6.
AEP Estimate for 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 at 79.5 m hub height
WTG
No.
X
[m]
Y
[m]
AEPGross
[MWh]
Wake
loss [%]
Corrections
and Losses
[%]
AEPNet
[MWh]
6,499,110
4,774,846
10027.1
4.2
8.1
8830.2
6,499,413
4,774,695
9710.1
4.3
8.1
8536.8
6,499,723
4,774,555
9944.4
4.2
8.1
8756.5
6,500,040
4,774,425
9520.4
3.9
8.1
8409.4
6,500,343
4,774,281
9511.0
3.9
8.1
8399.3
6,500,659
4,774,137
9651.1
4.3
8.1
8483.1
6,500,953
4,773,982
9220.6
4.6
8.1
8079.4
6,501,256
4,773,825
8538.0
4.7
8.1
7474.9
6,501,577
4,773,803
7994.5
6.0
8.1
6905.0
10
6,501,904
4,773,738
7389.3
6.2
8.1
6370.8
11
6,502,248
4,773,727
6804.6
4.8
8.1
5954.9
12
6,501,662
4,772,846
8513.3
6.3
8.1
7330.5
13
6,501,999
4,772,770
9299.8
4.0
8.1
8200.0
14
6,502,359
4,772,761
9323.6
3.1
8.1
8302.4
15
6,502,686
4,772,747
9165.4
2.9
8.1
8177.5
16
6,503,026
4,772,687
8441.8
0.8
8.1
7696.4
Table 26: AEP Estimate for the 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 at 79.5 m hub height
49
AEP Estimate for 16 Vestas V90-3.0 at 80.0 m hub height

WTG
No.
X
[m]
Y
[m]
AEPGross
[MWh]
Wake loss
[%]
Corrections
and Losses
[%]
AEPNet
[MWh]
6,499,110
4,774,846
8625.9
3.3
8.2
7662.2
6,499,413
4,774,695
8318.8
3.4
8.2
7379.5
6,499,723
4,774,555
8540.9
3.3
8.2
7585.2
6,500,040
4,774,425
8143.8
3.0
8.2
7252.7
6,500,343
4,774,281
8127.4
3.0
8.2
7239.6
6,500,659
4,774,137
8249.9
3.3
8.2
7323.7
6,500,953
4,773,982
7835.2
3.5
8.2
6944.0
6,501,256
4,773,825
7190.3
3.5
8.2
6373.8
6,501,577
4,773,803
6675.6
4.4
8.2
5858.7
10
6,501,904
4,773,738
6100.7
4.5
8.2
5349.7
11
6,502,248
4,773,727
5551.7
3.5
8.2
4918.7
12
6,501,662
4,772,846
7163.6
4.7
8.2
6266.6
13
6,501,999
4,772,770
7899.7
3.0
8.2
7037.5
14
6,502,359
4,772,761
7922.3
2.2
8.2
7112.1
15
6,502,686
4,772,747
7760.8
2.2
8.2
6972.8
16
6,503,026
4,772,687
7065.8
0.6
8.2
6450.3
Table 27: AEP Estimate for the 16 Vestas V90-3.0 at 80.0 m hub height
50
AEP Estimate for 16 Enercon E-82-3.0 at 84.6 m hub height

WTG
No.
X
[m]
Y
[m]
AEPGross
[MWh]
Wake loss
[%]
Corrections
and Losses
[%]
AEPNet
[MWh]
6,499,110
4,774,846
8072.0
2.9
8.2
7195.5
6,499,413
4,774,695
7794.5
3.0
8.2
6938.1
6,499,723
4,774,555
7996.6
2.9
8.2
7125.3
6,500,040
4,774,425
7633.7
2.7
8.2
6818.1
6,500,343
4,774,281
7612.0
2.7
8.2
6799.4
6,500,659
4,774,137
7717.7
3.0
8.2
6870.4
6,500,953
4,773,982
7332.3
3.2
8.2
6514.6
6,501,256
4,773,825
6730.1
3.1
8.2
5986.9
6,501,577
4,773,803
6254.6
4.0
8.2
5510.0
10
6,501,904
4,773,738
5732.0
4.1
8.2
5046.4
11
6,502,248
4,773,727
5230.7
3.2
8.2
4648.8
12
6,501,662
4,772,846
6733.1
4.4
8.2
5910.5
13
6,501,999
4,772,770
7376.1
2.7
8.2
6587.3
14
6,502,359
4,772,761
7395.2
2.0
8.2
6652.5
15
6,502,686
4,772,747
7232.8
2.0
8.2
6506.5
16
6,503,026
4,772,687
6603.0
0.5
8.2
6030.2
Table 28: AEP Estimate for the 16 Enercon E-82-3.0 at 84.6 m hub height
51
Appendix B Estimated Uncertainty on the

calculated AEP
The uncertainty on the calculated AEP estimate is determined as a joint
uncertainty. The individual contributions are considered uncorrelated and are
expressed as standard deviations or as Gaussian distributed maximum limits.
The combined uncertainty of the basic wind distribution is determined, and
combined with the uncertainty of, the power curve, the losses, the WAsP model
and the wake calculation. The resulting uncertainty is given as the standard
uncertainty corresponding to a confidence level of 68 per cent. The calculation is
shown overleaf.
The major contributions to the joint uncertainty of the AEP estimate are the wind
measurement / wind data, year-to-year variability and the power curve.
Table 29, Table 30 and Table 31 show the estimated uncertainty of the calculated
AEP for the Siemens SWT-3.0-101, the Vestas V90-3.0 and the Enercon E-82-3.0
wind turbines respectively.
52
Table 29: Joint uncertainty calculation for the 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 at 79.5 m hub height
53
Table 30: Joint uncertainty calculation for the 16 Vestas V90-3.0 at 80.0 m hub height
54
Table 31: Joint uncertainty calculation for the 16 Enercon E-82-3.0 at 84.6 m hub height
55
Appendix C Extreme Winds Analysis

Table 32 presents a comparison between the twenty highest wind speed events
measured at the met masts Hrgud 1 and Poljice for 11 months of concurrent period.
These events have been extracted with independence criteria of 4 days. It can be
observed that the extreme wind regimes at the two masts are different; the highest
winds at Hrgud 1 are from the SSE and at Poljice from NNE. Therefore, the data
from the met mast Poljice is not representative for the extreme wind assessment at
Hrgud 1.
Hrgud 1 (11 months @ 77.5m)
Time Stamp
Poljice (11 months @ 50m)
Wind Sp.
Wind Dir.
[m/s]
[]
Time Stamp
Wind Sp.
Wind Dir.
[m/s]
[]
31-03-2013 05:00
19.7
180
21-03-2013 18:00
23.1
41
14-09-2012 12:50
19.8
117
21-01-2013 03:50
23.7
148
19-12-2012 08:00
19.9
33
16-10-2012 04:00
23.9
156
25-03-2013 13:30
20.6
120
27-08-2012 09:20
24.3
45
05-11-2012 11:40
21.7
177
12-02-2013 05:00
24.3
135
01-11-2012 02:00
22.5
121
02-02-2013 23:30
25
162
04-12-2012 23:10
23.4
162
13-06-2013 07:40
25.4
41
27-10-2012 03:20
24.2
159
12-01-2013 01:20
25.5
40
06-01-2013 10:20
24.6
19
19-12-2012 11:30
25.6
45
12-02-2013 08:50
25.1
146
20-09-2012 19:20
26.3
41
24-01-2013 11:30
25.4
124
26-01-2013 05:50
26.5
75
14-01-2013 14:20
25.6
162
06-01-2013 11:00
26.6
15
05-04-2013 08:30
25.7
161
07-04-2013 21:00
27
34
11-12-2012 10:30
26
29
03-12-2012 11:50
28.4
43
16-10-2012 06:20
26.7
160
15-03-2013 20:00
28.7
41
18-03-2013 18:40
27.4
161
28-11-2012 16:10
29
129
28-11-2012 22:40
28.1
185
23-02-2013 23:30
29.6
150
29-12-2012 00:10
28.4
27
01-11-2012 02:10
30
125
02-02-2013 22:10
28.5
161
11-12-2012 09:10
30.5
42
24-02-2013 00:00
31.4
162
29-12-2012 02:30
32.5
37
Table 32: High wind speed events comparison for 11 months of concurrent period
Figure 24 presents the Gumbel fit of the extracted extreme events from the time
series measured at the met mast Hrgud 1 as well as the values of the returning
periods.
56
Figure 24: Gumbel fit of the extracted events (Hrgud 1)

Appendix A - Wind Study

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Appendix A - Wind Study

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ERS

Layout and Energy Production

Estimated Uncertainty on the calculated

Extreme Winds Analysis

The layout is presented in the coordinate system BiH GK-MGI - Zone 6.

Hub Height [m] AGL

Wind Turbine Type

Table 1: Turbine type and installed capacity

Weibull A-parameter [m/s]

Weibull Mean Wind Speed [m/s]

Weibull A-parameter [m/s]

Weibull Mean Wind Speed [m/s]

Weibull A-parameter [m/s]

Weibull Mean Wind Speed [m/s]

Wake loss [%]

: 4.21 / 3.22 / 2.93

High wind hysteresis [%]

: 0.41 / 0.42 / 0.53

The Following corrections have been included in the calculations:

16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 (79.5 m hub height)

16 Vestas V90-3.0 (80.0 m hub height)

16 Enercon E-82-3.0 (84.6 m hub height)

WAsP correction [%]

Long term correction [%]

Combined corrections [%]

A detailed description of these corrections is presented in section 3.2.

Wind turbine availability loss [%]

Collection & substation availability loss [%]

Utility grid availability loss [%]

Transformer and line loss [%]

Power curve, blade contamination loss [%]

Combined estimated corrections and losses* [%]

: 8.11 / 8.22 / 8.23

*Includes all corrections and losses except wake loss

AEP estimate for the 16 Siemens SWT-3.0-101 (79.5 m hub height)

Annual Park Production for the 16 WTGs

Net Annual Production for the 16 WTGs (P50)

Full load hours

Estimated uncertainty (standard deviation)

70% probability for an average annual net production of at least (P70)

90% probability for an average annual net production of at least (P90)

AEP estimate for the 16 Vestas V90-3.0 (80.0 m hub height)

Annual Park Production for the 16 WTGs

Net Annual Production for the 16 WTGs (P50)

Full load hours

Estimated uncertainty (standard deviation)

70% probability for an average annual net production of at least (P70)

90% probability for an average annual net production of at least (P90)

AEP estimate for the 16 Enercon E-82-3.0 (84.6 m hub height)

Annual Park Production for the 16 WTGs

Net Annual Production for the 16 WTGs (P50)

Full load hours

Estimated uncertainty (standard deviation)

70% probability for an average annual net production of at least (P70)

90% probability for an average annual net production of at least (P90)

3.1.1 Meteorological Masts

Table 8: Onsite met masts coordinates

The distance between Hrgud 1 and Hrgud 2 is approximately 2 km.

Wind Direction measurement

77.5, 75.0, 55.0, 55.0 and 30.0

75.0 and 53.0

77.5, 75.0, 55.0, 55.0 and 30.0

75.0 and 53.0