SUSTAINABLE WIND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT USING ADAPTIVE WEIBULL ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES IN DATA-SCARCE REGIMES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59277/RRST-EE.2026.2.9Keywords:
Wind resource exploitation, Missing wind speed data, Wind speed modeling, Performance analysisAbstract
Accurate wind data is important for clean energy planning. However, many weather datasets have missing values due to sensor issues. This study explores how missing data affects Weibull parameter estimation and compares four methods: the empirical method of Justus (EMJ), maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), moment method (MM), and least squares method (LSM). Five years of data (2020–2024) from 14 stations in Southern Thailand were used. Wind speeds ranged from 0.35 to 2.18 m/s, with a peak of 32.98 m/s. Data completeness varied from 27.61% to 84.14%. Model accuracy was tested using MAPE, RMSE, Chi-square, and R². EMJ and MM gave strong results with complete data. MLE worked best with 50–80% completeness. LSM showed high R² but overfitted with missing data. MM was the most reliable overall. These findings support better wind modeling in areas with limited data, helping clean energy development in Southern Thailand.
References
(1) D. Kang, K. Ko, J. Huh, Comparative study of different methods for estimating Weibull parameters: a case study on Jeju Island, South Korea, Energies, 11, 2, pp. 356–356 (2018).
(2) N. Aras, U. Erisoglu, H.D. Yıldızay, Optimum method for determining Weibull distribution parameters used in wind energy estimation, Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operations Research, 16, 4, pp. 635–648 (2020).
(3) S. Ali, S.-M. Lee, C.-M. Jang, Statistical analysis of wind characteristics using Weibull and Rayleigh distributions in Deokjeok-do Island – Incheon, South Korea, Renewable Energy, 123, pp. 652–663 (2018).
(4) T.P. Chang, Performance comparison of six numerical methods in estimating Weibull parameters for wind energy application, Applied Energy, 88, 1, pp. 272–282 (2011).
(5) F. Aristone et al., Evaluation of Weibull parameters by different methods for farms, Acta Scientiarum - Technology, 46, 1, pp. 1–10 (2024).
(6) M.F. Zambak, C.I. Cahyadi, J. Helmi, T.M. Sofie, Suwarno, Evaluation and analysis of wind speed with the Weibull and Rayleigh distribution models for energy potential using three models, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13, 2, pp. 427–432 (2023).
(7) A. Aziz, D. Tsuanyo, J. Nsouandele, I. Mamate, R. Mouangue, P. Elé Abiama, Influence of Weibull parameters on the estimation of wind energy potential, Sustainable Energy Research, 10, 1, pp. 1–18 (2023).
(8) B.A. Çakmakçı, E. Hüner, Evaluation of wind energy potential: a case study, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 44, 1, pp. 834–852 (2020).
(9) A. Chumapan, P. Neranon, J. Taweekun, Statistical analysis of wind resource assessment for different locations in South-Western Thailand, Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, 118, 2, pp. 87–100 (2024).
(10) Y.K. Chu, J.C. Ke, Computation approaches for parameter estimation of Weibull distribution, Mathematical and Computational Applications, 17, 1, pp. 39–47 (2012).
(11) S. Kang, A. Khanjari, S. You, J.H. Lee, Comparison of different statistical methods used to estimate Weibull parameters for wind speed contribution in a nearby offshore site, Republic of Korea, Energy Reports, 7, pp. 7358–7373 (2021).
(12) A. Amin, M. Mourshed, Weather and climate data for energy applications, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 192, pp. 1–10 (2024).
(13) H. Erol, A. Arslan, Wind turbine pitch angle control with artificial neural networks, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn. – Électrotechn. et Énerg., 70, 2, pp. 235–240 (2025).
(14) C. Popa, N.-S. Popa, F. Deliu, O. Cristea, I. Ciocioi, M.-O. Popescu, Analysis of wind turbine power output via modeling, simulation, and validation, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn. – Électrotechn. et Énerg., 70, 2, pp. 175–180 (2025).
(15) S. Bellarbi, A. Boufertella, Maximum power wind extraction with feedback linearization control approach, Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn. – Électrotechn. et Énerg., 67, 3, pp. 237–240 (2022).
(16) ***Thai Meteorological Department, Automatic weather system (AWS), Thai Meteorological Department, pp. 1–10 (2025).
(17) A.S.D. Rey, I.C. Gil-García, M.S. García-Cascales, Á. Molina-García, Online wind-atlas databases and GIS tool integration for wind resource assessment: a Spanish case study, Energies, 15, 3, pp. 852–852 (2022).
(18) ***DTU-Wind-Energy, Global wind atlas, pp. 1–10 (2025).
(19) I. Kamdar, S. Ali, J. Taweekun, H.M. Ali, Wind farm site selection using WAsP tool for application in the tropical region, Sustainability, 13, 24, pp. 13718–13718 (2021).
(20) C. Chaihong, J. Taweekun, Techno-economic assessment of wind energy in urban environments: a case study in Pattaya, Thailand, Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, 104, 1, pp. 169–184 (2023).
(21) L. Wang, X. Zhang, A novel method for studying the wind speed probability distribution and estimating the average wind energy density, Engineering Research Express, 6, 2, pp. 1–10 (2024).
(22) G.K. Gugliani, C. Ley, N. Nakhaei Rad, A. Bekker, Comparison of probability distributions used for harnessing the wind energy potential: a case study from India, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 38, 6, pp. 2213–2230 (2024).
(23) E.Y. Kombe, J. Muguthu, Wind energy potential assessment of Great Cumbrae Island using Weibull distribution function, Original Research Article Kombe and Muguthu, 2, 2, pp. 1–8 (2019).
(24) T. Iida, Identifying causes of errors between two wave-related data using performance metrics, Applied Ocean Research, 148, pp. 1–10 (2024).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 REVUE ROUMAINE DES SCIENCES TECHNIQUES — SÉRIE ÉLECTROTECHNIQUE ET ÉNERGÉTIQUE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
