This evaluation demonstrates the accuracy of ERA5 wind data in offshore wind engineering, indicating its strengths and weaknesses for typhoon assessments.
This study evaluates the applicability of ERA5 wind speed (WS) and wind direction (WD) in the East China Sea, using high-resolution vertical wind profiles measured by a floating LiDAR at the Shanghai Nanhui Offshore Wind Farm from 15 January 2022 to 15 January 2023. Key findings are as follows: (1) Strong positive correlations exist between LiDAR-measured and ERA5 WS across all evaluated heights, with correlation coefficients of 0.76 (ground level), 0.86 (50 m), 0.88 (100 m), and 0.90 (200 m), respectively, and corresponding root mean square errors (RMSEs) of 2.33 m/s, 1.78 m/s, 1.73 m/s, and 1.77 m/s. This systematic improvement in correlation and modest reduction in RMSE with increasing height indicate that ERA5 captures vertical wind structure with progressively higher fidelity above the surface layer. (2) Both the ERA5 dataset and LiDAR measurements consistently show dominant wind frequencies in the NNE and SSE directions, with peaks at approximately 1000 occurrences. The minimal differences in the two datasets demonstrate the ERA5’s robust representation of near-surface offshore WD climatology. (3) The ERA5 reanalysis data of typhoon Muifa can better illustrate the increase in the initial WS and its subsequent decreases. However, the peak WS lags behind measurements by 2 h, and the extreme WS is significantly lower than that measured. Evaluations of the multi-year return period WS demonstrate an underestimation of extreme WS by 16.06–16.51% for the ERA5 data. Regarding the WD, the measured direction is clockwise, while that of the ERA5 is counterclockwise, revealing a fundamental deficiency in its representation of mesoscale cyclonic wind structure. Therefore, ERA5 reanalysis data provides reliable characterization of typical offshore WS and WD within the operational wind turbine hub-height range (100–200 m). For typhoon-related wind engineering assessments, the applicability of ERA5 data necessitates caution and potentially bias correction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: