The Annals of Applied Statistics

Covariate matching methods for testing and quantifying wind turbine upgrades

Yei Eun Shin, Yu Ding, and Jianhua Z. Huang

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text


In the wind industry, engineers perform retrofitting upgrades on in-service wind turbines for the purpose of improving power production capabilities. Considering how costly an upgrade can be, people often wonder about the upgrade effect: whether it indeed improves turbine performances, and if so, how much. One cannot simply compare power outputs for the purpose of assessing a turbine’s improvement, as wind power generation is affected by an array of environmental covariates, including wind speed, wind direction, temperature, pressure as well as other atmosphere dynamics. For a fair comparison to discern the upgrade effect, it is critical to have these environmental effects controlled for while comparing power output differences. Most existing approaches rely on establishing a power curve model and let the model account for the environmental effects. In this paper, we propose a different approach, which is to devise a covariate matching method to ensure the environmental covariates to have comparable distribution profiles before and after an action of upgrade. Once the covariates are matched, paired $t$-tests can be applied to the power outputs for testing the significance of the upgrade effect. The relative increase in power production can also be quantified. The proposed approach is simple to use and relies on fewer assumptions than the power curve modeling approach.

Article information

Ann. Appl. Stat., Volume 12, Number 2 (2018), 1271-1292.

Received: January 2016
Revised: September 2017
First available in Project Euclid: 28 July 2018

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Zentralblatt MATH identifier

Causal inference Mahalanobis distance matching methods nearest neighbor matching observational study wind power curve


Shin, Yei Eun; Ding, Yu; Huang, Jianhua Z. Covariate matching methods for testing and quantifying wind turbine upgrades. Ann. Appl. Stat. 12 (2018), no. 2, 1271--1292. doi:10.1214/17-AOAS1109.

Export citation


  • Ackermann, T. and Söder, L. (2005). Wind power in power systems: An introduction. In Wind Power in Power Systems 25–51.
  • Albers, A. (2012). Relative and integral wind turbine power performance evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2012 European Wind Energy Conference & Exhibition 22–25.
  • Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45 5–32.
  • Byon, E., Ntaimo, L., Singh, C. and Ding, Y. (2013). Wind energy facility reliability and maintenance. In Handbook of Wind Power Systems: Optimization, Modeling, Simulation and Economic Aspects (P. M. Pardalos, S. Rebennack, M. V. F. Pereira, N. A. Iliadis and V. Pappu, eds.) 639–672. Springer, Berlin.
  • Delle Monache, L., Eckel, F. A., Rife, D. L., Nagarajan, B. and Searight, K. (2013). Probabilistic weather prediction with an analog ensemble. Mon. Weather Rev. 141 3498–3516.
  • DOE (2015). Windexchange: US installed wind capacity 2015. Technical report, U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Website. Available at
  • Iacus, S. M., King, G. and Porro, G. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Polit. Anal. 20 1–24.
  • IEC (2005). Wind turbines—part 12-1: Power performance measurements of electricity producing wind turbines; iec tc/sc 88. Technical Report 61400-12-1:2005, International Electrotechnical Commission.
  • Jammalamadaka, S. R. and Sengupta, A. (2001). Topics in Circular Statistics 5. World Scientific, Singapore.
  • Jeon, J. and Taylor, J. W. (2012). Using conditional kernel density estimation for wind power density forecasting. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 107 66–79.
  • Khalfallah, M. G. and Koliub, A. M. (2007). Suggestions for improving wind turbines power curves. Desalination 209 221–229.
  • Kusiak, A., Zheng, H. and Song, Z. (2009). Wind farm power prediction: A data-mining approach. Wind Energy 12 275–293.
  • Lee, G., Ding, Y., Genton, M. G. and Xie, L. (2015a). Power curve estimation with multivariate environmental factors for inland and offshore wind farms. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 110 56–67.
  • Lee, G., Ding, Y., Xie, L. and Genton, M. G. (2015b). A kernel plus method for quantifying wind turbine performance upgrades. Wind Energy 18 1207–1219.
  • Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. (Calcutta) 2 49–55.
  • Osadciw, L. A., Yan, Y., Ye, X., Benson, G. and White, E. (2010). Wind turbine diagnostics based on power curve using particle swarm optimization. In Wind Power Systems (Green Energy and Technology) (L. Wang, C. Singh and A. Kusiak, eds.) 151–165. Springer, Berlin.
  • Øye, S. (1995). The effect of vortex generators on the performance of the ELKRAFT 1000 kW turbine. In Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines: 9th IEA Symposium 9–14, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Pinson, P., Nielsen, H. A., Madsen, H. and Nielsen, T. S. (2008). Local linear regression with adaptive orthogonal fitting for the wind power application. Stat. Comput. 18 59–71.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 41–55.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Amer. Statist. 39 33–38.
  • Rubin, D. B. (1973). Matching to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics 29 159–183.
  • Rubin, D. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 2 169–188.
  • Sanchez, I. (2006). Short-term prediction of wind energy production. Int. J. Forecast. 22 43–56.
  • Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statist. Sci. 25 1–21.
  • Torben, Nielsen, S., Nielsen, H. A. and Madsen, H. (2002). Prediction of wind power using time-varying coefficient functions. In Proceedings of the XV IFAC World Congress on Automatic Control, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Uluyol, O., Parthasarathy, G., Foslien, W. and Kim, K. (2011). Power curve analytic for wind turbine performance monitoring and prognostics. In Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society 2. Publication Control Number 049, Montreal, Canada.
  • Wan, Y.-H., Ela, E. and Orwig, K. (2010). Development of an equivalent wind plant power curve. Technical Report NREL/CP-550-48146, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at
  • Wang, L., Tang, X. and Liu, X. (2012). Blade design optimisation for fixed-pitch fixed-speed wind turbines. ISRN Renew. Energy 2012 Article ID 682859.
  • Yan, Y., Osadciw, L. A., Benson, G. and White, E. (2009). Inverse data transformation for change detection in wind turbine diagnostics. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering 944–949. St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
  • Zhao, Z. (2004). Using matching to estimate treatment effects: Data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence. Rev. Econ. Stat. 86 91–107.