• 资源研究方法 •

海面动力学粗糙度参数化方案对近海风资源评估结果的影响

1. 中国气象局公共气象服务中心, 北京100081
• 收稿日期:2014-05-08 修回日期:2014-09-24 发布日期:2015-03-23
• 作者简介:周荣卫(1979-),男,江苏东台人,高级工程师,博士,主要从事风能资源数值模拟评估和预报.E-mail:zhourw@cma.gov.cn
• 基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目(41305008, 91215302, 51278366).

Influence of Different Sea Surface Dynamical Roughness Parameterization Method on Wind Energy Resource Assessment in Offshore Area

ZHOU Rong-wei, HE Xiao-feng

1. CMA Public Meteorological Service Center, Beijing 100081, China
• Received:2014-05-08 Revised:2014-09-24 Published:2015-03-23

Abstract: Regional distribution of wind energy resource at useful height was achieved by numerical simulation method. The results of wind speed simulation were influenced by dynamical characteristics of sea surface. WRF model was used to simulate in different sea surface dynamical roughness parameterization schemes to disclose the influence of different scheme on wind energy resource assessment in offshore and coastal area and evaluate the applicability of each scheme. Three schemes were used to simulate the wind field with WRF model in Hangzhou Bay: constant value of 0.0001 (P_0), scheme of WRF model with constant coefficient in parameterization formula (P_WRF), and scheme of Yelland and Taylor using different coefficients for different wind speeds (P_YT). The following conclusions were drawn by comparison between the simulation results and the observation data: 1) the simulation results of P_WRF and P_YT schemes were better than that of scheme P_0, and the result of P_YT scheme was more in agreement with the observation data than that of P_WRF scheme. 2) During the sea wind, the improvement was more obvious in P_YT scheme. 3) When the observational wind speed was less than 8 m/s, the relative errors of simulated wind speed in three schemes all decreased with the increase of wind speed, and the result of P_YT scheme was the best, and that of P_0 scheme was the worst. While the relative errors of all three schemes increased with the increase of wind speed when the wind speed was greater than 8 m/s, and the relative error of P_YT scheme was the greatest, while that of constant value was the least. 4) The difference between three schemes was obvious in coastal and offshore area, while in the area where was far from the coastline, the difference was less. In coastal and offshore area, the average wind speed was overestimated with about 0.5 m/s by P_WRF scheme than by P_YT scheme, while the average wind power density was overestimated with about 50 W/m2.

• P425