Thank you for your disponibility.

But after checking everything about the shapefile I came to the conclusion that it had to do with the type of the fields that had the values.

Best wishes

Madalena Ferreira

Thanks for the prompt response, I was checking the help section and apparently there is a way to convert polygons to line, to get both roughnesses, the polygons option only has the internal roughness of each polygon, and as you mentioned is stored in a separate DBF file.

We are evaluating another option, we have a matrix with, X and Y coordinates and its respective roughness, we have a code in Matlab to create a .map file that writes the coordinates of a squared polygon for each roughness value in the matrix and as we know the roughness and location of each matrix element we can write as well the left side roughness, it is valid this approach (using a roughness polygon per element in the matrix)?

Thanks.

Best regards

Pedro]]>

If you have a GWC, then you can use your WAsP cross-prediction script, irrespectively if the GWC stems from measurement or mesoscale simulations. The hard part is to generate the GWC from mesoscale simulations. Generalisation depends not only on your mesoscale map but also on your mesoscale simulation parameters. When making a wind atlas from mesoscale-simulations, we generally try many different setups of the mesoscale model and validate each against measurements before we decide on which configuration we will use for production runs. Therefore, it is not trivial to generate the GWC files, but once produced it is trivial to apply them in WAsP

Kind regards,

Andreas

About this question can you give us some update? I mean it will be very useful to count with a AEP by month and in a hourly basis

Thanks in advance

]]>Thanks for your kind answer. I will think a little more about it. Thanks also for the later reference, which I had not seen. I have just downloaded it and will read it with interest.

Cheers, Paul.

]]>I have not heard of any references to this. I use the Map Editor myself on a regular basis and have not experienced any conflicts so far. If we hear of such conflicts we will of course try to solve them, but it is hard to guarantee that there could not (ever) be any conflicts. - Our general recommendation with WAsP software is to use the latest published version on our web site, unless you want to replicate an old project exactly.

Hope this helps,

Niels

From version 12.3, WAsP will calculate a wake-reduced mean wind speed for every turbine site. I have not used this feature myself yet, but you might find it useful for your project when evaluating the influence of the turbines on the mast.

The wake losses from different turbines, with different power/thrust curves and different hub heights (HH) can be modeled in WAsP.

Hope this helps,

Niels

Please have a look in the WAsP Map Editor's help file regarding "Digital Map Databases" and "Database-Map-Importer".

Best regards,

Brian

]]>

Some manufactures supply sets of power- and thrust-coefficient curves for different conditions, and then you type both curves into the WAsP turbine editor. However, I have also noticed manufactures who supply the same thrust-coefficient curve for different power curves. I think the argument is that the power curve is the most important one, as it influences the AEP more directly. The usually wake loss is only 5-10%, so a modified thrust-coefficient curve will not have as significant an effect on the AEP as a modified power curve.

Cheers,

Morten