Articles | Volume 8, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-865-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-865-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
01 Jun 2023
Research article |
| 01 Jun 2023
| 01 Jun 2023
A comparison of eight optimization methods applied to a wind farm layout optimization problem
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Nicholas F. Baker
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
Paul Malisani
Applied Mathematics Department, IFP Energies nouvelles, 1 et 4 avenue de Bois-Préau, 92852 Rueil-Malmaison, France
Erik Quaeghebeur
Uncertainty in AI Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Sebastian Sanchez Perez-Moreno
RWE Renewables GmbH, 20354 Hamburg, Germany
John Jasa
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Christopher Bay
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Federico Tilli
TU Delft, 2628 CD Delft, Netherlands
David Bieniek
RWE Renewables GmbH, 20354 Hamburg, Germany
Nick Robinson
UL Renewables, British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada
Andrew P. J. Stanley
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Wesley Holt
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
Andrew Ning
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Related authors
Cory Frontin, Jeff Allen, Christopher J. Bay, Jared Thomas, Ethan Young, and Pietro Bortolotti
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-103, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-103, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Wind farms produce energy and to do so have to occupy a non-trivial amount of space. Understanding how much energy a proposed wind farm will make (and at what cost) is technically challenging, especially when turbines are packed closely together. Plus, there's a key tradeoff in how much space a farm occupies and how cheap the energy it can produce might be: less space means more costly energy. This work shows an novel way to run computational simulations efficiently to understand that tradeoff.
Jared J. Thomas, Christopher J. Bay, Andrew P. J. Stanley, and Andrew Ning
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-4, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-4, 2022
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
We wanted to determine if and how optimization algorithms may be exploiting inaccuracies in the simple models used for wind farm layout optimization. Comparing optimization results from a simple model to large-eddy simulations showed that even a simple model provides enough information for optimizers to find good layouts. However, varying the number of wind directions in the optimization showed that the wind resource discretization can negatively impact the optimization results.
Paul Malisani, Tristan Bartement, and Pauline Bozonnet
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1611–1623, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1611-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1611-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Maritime authorities often impose turbine alignment constraints on developers to secure the navigation of boats within the wind farm, potentially creating substantial wake losses. The proposed contribution is a new wind farm layout optimization (WFLO) algorithm that considers these constraints. The proposed method optimizes the grid-alignment parameters and the turbines' location on this grid. We illustrate the algorithm's performances on a challenging example.
Cory Frontin, Jeff Allen, Christopher J. Bay, Jared Thomas, Ethan Young, and Pietro Bortolotti
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-103, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-103, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Wind farms produce energy and to do so have to occupy a non-trivial amount of space. Understanding how much energy a proposed wind farm will make (and at what cost) is technically challenging, especially when turbines are packed closely together. Plus, there's a key tradeoff in how much space a farm occupies and how cheap the energy it can produce might be: less space means more costly energy. This work shows an novel way to run computational simulations efficiently to understand that tradeoff.
Regis Thedin, Garrett Barter, Jason Jonkman, Rafael Mudafort, Christopher J. Bay, Kelsey Shaler, and Jasper Kreeft
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1033–1053, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1033-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1033-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate asymmetries in terms of power performance and fatigue loading on a five-turbine wind farm subject to wake steering strategies. Both the yaw misalignment angle and the wind direction were varied from negative to positive. We highlight conditions in which fatigue loading is lower while still maintaining good power gains and show that a partial wake is the source of the asymmetries observed. We provide recommendations in terms of yaw misalignment angles for a given wind direction.
James Cutler, Christopher Bay, and Andrew Ning
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-172, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-172, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares two methods for modeling wakes from tilted wind turbines. An optimized analytical model improves accuracy but is limited by assumptions about wake shape. In contrast, a deep learning approach captures complex wake patterns without these constraints, matching high-fidelity simulations with minimal computational effort. The comparison highlights the potential of deep learning to transform wake modeling, offering greater accuracy and efficiency for wind energy optimization.
Andrew P. J. Stanley, Christopher J. Bay, and Paul Fleming
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1341–1350, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1341-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1341-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Better wind farms can be built by simultaneously optimizing turbine locations and control, which is currently impossible or extremely challenging because of the size of the problem. The authors present a method to determine optimal wind farm control as a function of the turbine locations, which enables turbine layout and control to be optimized together by drastically reducing the size of the problem. In an example, a wind farm's performance improves by 0.8 % when optimized with the new method.
Christopher J. Bay, Paul Fleming, Bart Doekemeijer, Jennifer King, Matt Churchfield, and Rafael Mudafort
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 401–419, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-401-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-401-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper introduces the cumulative-curl wake model that allows for the fast and accurate prediction of wind farm energy production wake interactions. The cumulative-curl model expands several existing wake models to make the simulation of farms more accurate and is implemented in a computationally efficient manner such that it can be used for wind farm layout design and controller development. The model is validated against high-fidelity simulations and data from physical wind farms.
Marco Mangano, Sicheng He, Yingqian Liao, Denis-Gabriel Caprace, Andrew Ning, and Joaquim R. R. A. Martins
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-10, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-10, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
High-fidelity MDO enables more effective system design than conventional approaches. MDO can shorten the wind turbine design cycle and reduce the cost of energy. We present a first-of-its-kind high-fidelity aerostructural optimization study of a turbine rotor using a coupled CFD-CSM solver. We simultaneously improve the rotor aerodynamic efficiency and reduce the mass of a rotor of a 10 MW wind turbine using 100+ design variables. We discuss the results with unprecedented detail.
Michael J. LoCascio, Christopher J. Bay, Majid Bastankhah, Garrett E. Barter, Paul A. Fleming, and Luis A. Martínez-Tossas
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1137–1151, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1137-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1137-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work introduces the FLOW Estimation and Rose Superposition (FLOWERS) wind turbine wake model. This model analytically integrates the wake over wind directions to provide a time-averaged flow field. This new formulation is used to perform layout optimization. The FLOWERS model provides a smooth flow field over an entire wind plant at fraction of the computational cost of the standard numerical integration approach.
Andrew P. J. Stanley, Christopher Bay, Rafael Mudafort, and Paul Fleming
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 741–757, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-741-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-741-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In wind plants, turbines can be yawed to steer their wakes away from downstream turbines and achieve an increase in plant power. The yaw angles become expensive to solve for in large farms. This paper presents a new method to solve for the optimal turbine yaw angles in a wind plant. The yaw angles are defined as Boolean variables – each turbine is either yawed or nonyawed. With this formulation, most of the gains from wake steering can be reached with a large reduction in computational expense.
Jared J. Thomas, Christopher J. Bay, Andrew P. J. Stanley, and Andrew Ning
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-4, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-4, 2022
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
We wanted to determine if and how optimization algorithms may be exploiting inaccuracies in the simple models used for wind farm layout optimization. Comparing optimization results from a simple model to large-eddy simulations showed that even a simple model provides enough information for optimizers to find good layouts. However, varying the number of wind directions in the optimization showed that the wind resource discretization can negatively impact the optimization results.
Andrew P. J. Stanley, Jennifer King, Christopher Bay, and Andrew Ning
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 433–454, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-433-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-433-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we present a computationally inexpensive model to calculate wind turbine blade fatigue caused by waking and partial waking. The model accounts for steady state on the blade, as well as wind turbulence. The model is fast enough to be used in wind farm layout optimization, which has not been possible with more expensive fatigue models in the past. The methods introduced in this paper will allow for farms with increased energy production that maintain turbine structural reliability.
Andrew P. J. Stanley, Owen Roberts, Jennifer King, and Christopher J. Bay
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 1143–1167, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1143-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1143-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Wind farm layout optimization is an essential part of wind farm design. In this paper, we present different methods to determine the number of turbines in a wind farm, as well as their placement. Also in this paper we explore the effect that the objective function has on the wind farm design and found that wind farm layout is highly sensitive to the objective. The optimal number of turbines can vary greatly, from 15 to 54 for the cases in this paper, depending on the metric that is optimized.
Erik Quaeghebeur, René Bos, and Michiel B. Zaaijer
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 815–839, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-815-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-815-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present a technique to support the optimal layout (placement) of wind turbines in a wind farm. It efficiently determines good directions and distances for moving turbines. An improved layout reduces production losses and so makes the farm project economically more attractive. Compared to most existing techniques, our approach requires less time. This allows wind farm designers to explore more alternatives and provides the flexibility to adapt the layout to site-specific requirements.
Alayna Farrell, Jennifer King, Caroline Draxl, Rafael Mudafort, Nicholas Hamilton, Christopher J. Bay, Paul Fleming, and Eric Simley
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 737–758, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-737-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-737-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Most current wind turbine wake models struggle to accurately simulate spatially variant wind conditions at a low computational cost. In this paper, we present an adaptation of NREL's FLOw Redirection and Induction in Steady State (FLORIS) wake model, which calculates wake losses in a heterogeneous flow field using local weather measurement inputs. Two validation studies are presented where the adapted model consistently outperforms previous versions of FLORIS that simulated uniform flow only.
Jennifer King, Paul Fleming, Ryan King, Luis A. Martínez-Tossas, Christopher J. Bay, Rafael Mudafort, and Eric Simley
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 701–714, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-701-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-701-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper highlights the secondary effects of wake steering, including yaw-added wake recovery and secondary steering. These effects enhance the value of wake steering especially when applied to a large wind farm. This paper models these secondary effects using an analytical model proposed in the paper. The results of this model are compared with large-eddy simulations for several cases including 2-turbine, 3-turbine, 5-turbine, and 38-turbine cases.
Luis A. Martínez-Tossas, Jennifer King, Eliot Quon, Christopher J. Bay, Rafael Mudafort, Nicholas Hamilton, Michael F. Howland, and Paul A. Fleming
Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 555–570, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-555-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-555-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper a three-dimensional steady-state solver for flow through a wind farm is developed and validated. The computational cost of the solver is on the order of seconds for large wind farms. The model is validated using high-fidelity simulations and SCADA.
Cited articles
Arnoud, A., Guvenen, F., and Kleineberg, T.: Benchmarking Global Optimizers,
Working Paper 26340, National Bureau of Economic Research,
https://doi.org/10.3386/w26340, 2019. a
Baker, N. F., Thomas, J. J., Stanley, A. P. J., and Ning, A.: IEA Task 37
Wind Farm Layout Optimization Case Studies, Zenodo [code and data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5809681, 2021. a, b, c, d
Bastankhah, M. and Porté-Agel, F.: Experimental and theoretical study of wind
turbine wakes in yawed conditions, J. Fluid Mech., 806,
506–541, https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2016.595, 2016. a
Belegundu, A. D. and Chandrupatla, T. R.: Optimization Concepts and
Applications in Engineering, 2nd Edn., Cambridge University Press, ISBN 13:978-0521878463, 2011. a
Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., and Shah, V. B.: Julia: A fresh
approach to numerical computing, SIAM Rev., 59, 65–98,
https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671, 2017. a
Bortolotti, P., Dykes, K., Merz, K., Sethuraman, L., and Zahle, F.: IEA Wind
Task 37 on System Engineering in Wind Energy, WP2 – Reference Wind Turbines,
Tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/1529216, 2018. a
Dykes, K. L., Zahle, F., Merz, K., McWilliam, M., and Bortolotti, P.: IEA Wind Task 37: Systems Modeling Framework and Ontology for Wind Turbines and
Plants, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1375625 (last access: 29 May 2023), 2017. a
Eurostat: Electricity prices by type of user, Eurostat [data set],
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00117/default/table?lang=en
(last access: 29 May 2023), 2021. a
Feng, J. and Shen, W. Z.: Solving the wind farm layout optimization problem
using random search algorithm, Renew. Energ., 78, 182–192,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.005, 2015. a, b, c
Fleming, P., Ning, A., Gebraad, P., and Dykes, K.: Wind Plant System
Engineering through Optimization of Layout and Yaw Control, Wind Energy, 19, 329–344, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1836, 2015. a
Gebraad, P., Thomas, J. J., Ning, A., Fleming, P., and Dykes, K.: Maximization
of the Annual Energy Production of Wind Power Plants by Optimization of
Layout and Yaw-Based Wake Control, Wind Energy, 20, 97–107,
https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1993, 2017. a
Gill, P., Murray, W., and Saudners, M.: SNOPT: an SQP algorithm for
large-scale constrained optimization, SIAM Rev., 47, 99–131, 2005. a
Gill, P. E., Murray, W., and Saunders, M. A.: SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for
large-scale constrained optimization, SIAM Journal of Optimization, 12,
979–1006, https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623499350013, 2002. a
Grady, S., Hussaini, M., and Abdullah, M.: Placement of wind turbines using
genetic algorithms, Renew. Energ, 30, 259–270,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.05.007, 2005. a, b
Gray, J. S., Hearn, T. A., Moore, K. T., Hwang, J., Martins, J., and Ning, A.: Automatic Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Derivatives Using a Graph-Based Problem Formulation in OpenMDAO, in: 15th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 16–20 June 2014, Atlanta, GA,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-2042, 2014. a
Gray, J. S., Hwang, J. T., Martins, J. R. R. A., Moore, K. T., and Naylor,
B. A.: OpenMDAO: An Open-Source Framework for Multidisciplinary Design,
Analysis, and Optimization, Struct. Multidiscip. O.,
59, 1075–1104, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02211-z, 2019. a
Griewank, A. and Walther, A.: Evaluating Derivatives: Principles and Techniques of Algorithmic Differentiation, Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics, 2nd Edn., ISBN 978-0-89871-659-7, eISBN 978-0-89871-776-1, https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898717761, 2008. a
Ha, D.: A Visual Guide to Evolution Strategies, blog.otoro.net,
https://blog.otoro.net/2017/10/29/visual-evolution-strategies/ (last access: 29 May 2023), 2017. a
Hansen, N., Akimoto, Y., and Baudis, P.: CMA-ES/pycma on Github, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2559634, 2019. a
Herbert-Acero, J., Probst, O., Rethore, P., Larsen, G., and Castillo-Villar,
K.: A Review of Methodological Approaches for the Design and Optimization of
Wind Farms, Energies, 7, 6930–7016, https://doi.org/10.3390/en7116930, 2014. a, b, c, d
IEA: IEA Wind Task 37, https://iea-wind.org/task37/ (last access: 29 May 2023), 2021. a
Katic, I., Højstrup, J., and Jensen, N.: A Simple Model for Cluster
Efficiency, in: European Wind Energy Association Conference and Exhibition,
European Wind Energy Association, Rome–Italy, 1986. a
Koziel, S. and Yang, X.-S. (Eds.): Computational Optimization, Methods and
Algorithms, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, ISBN 978-3-642-20858-4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20859-1, 2011. a
Kunakote, T., Sabangban, N., Kumar, S., Tejani, G. G., Panagant, N., Pholdee,
N., Bureerat, S., and Yildiz, A. R.: Comparative Performance of Twelve
Metaheuristics for Wind Farm Layout Optimisation, Arch. Comput. Meth. E., 29, 717–730, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-021-09586-7, 2022. a, b, c
Lambe, A. B. and Martins, J. R. R. A.: Extensions to the Design Structure
Matrix for the Description of Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis, and
Optimization Processes, Struct. Multid. O., 46,
273–284, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-012-0763-y, 2012. a
Martins, J. R. R. A. and Hwang, J. T.: Review and Unification of Methods for
Computing Derivatives of Multidisciplinary Computational Models, AIAA
J., 51, 2582–2599, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J052184, 2013. a
Martins, J. R. R. A. and Ning, A.: Engineering Design Optimization, Cambridge
University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108980647, 2021. a
MathWorks: MATLAB Direct search function,
https://de.mathworks.com/help/gads/patternsearch.html (last access:
3 July 2020), 2020. a
Mobahi, H. and Fisher III, J.: A Theoretical Analysis of Optimization by
Gaussian Continuation, in: Vol. 29, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9356, 2015. a, b
Mosetti, G., Poloni, C., and Diviacco, B.: Optimization of wind turbine
positioning in large windfarms by means of a genetic algorithm, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 51, 105–116,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(94)90080-9, 1994. a
Niayifar, A. and Porté-Agel, F.: Analytical Modeling of Wind Farms: A New
Approach for Power Prediction, Energies, 9, 741, https://doi.org/10.3390/en9090741,
2016. a
Ning, A.: Sparse Nonlinear Optimization Wrapper (SNOW), GitHub [code], https://github.com/byuflowlab/SNOW.jl (last access: 29 May 2023), 2021. a
Quaeghebeur, E.: equaeghe/wflopg: Initial release, Zenodo [code],
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4072253, 2020. a
Quaeghebeur, E., Bos, R., and Zaaijer, M. B.: Wind farm layout optimization using pseudo-gradients, Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 815–839, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-815-2021, 2021. a, b, c
Réthoré, P.-E., Fuglsang, P., Larsen, G. C., Buhl, T., Larsen, T. J.,
and Aagaard Madsen, H.: TOPFARM: Multi-fidelity optimization of wind farms,
Wind Energy, 17, 1797–1816, 2014. a
Revels, J., Lubin, M., and Papamarkou, T.: Forward-Mode Automatic
Differentiation in Julia, arXiv [preprint],
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.07892, 2016. a
Rios, L. M. and Sahinidis, N. V.: Derivative-free optimization: a review of
algorithms and comparison of software implementations, J. Global
Optim., 56, 1247–1293, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-012-9951-y, 2013. a
Serrano González, J., Trigo García, Á. L., Burgos Payán,
M., Riquelme Santos, J., and González Rodríguez, Á. G.:
Optimal wind-turbine micro-siting of offshore wind farms: A grid-like layout
approach, Appl. Energ., 200, 28–38,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.071, 2017. a
Stanley, A. P. J. and Ning, A.: Massive simplification of the wind farm layout optimization problem, Wind Energ. Sci., 4, 663–676, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-4-663-2019, 2019. a, b, c, d
Thomas, J.: jaredthomas68/thomas2022-8-opt-algs-wflop: Initial release (submission), Zenodo [code and data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7125349, 2022a. a
Thomas, J., Gebraad, P., and Ning, A.: Improving the FLORIS Wind Plant Model for Compatibility with Gradient-Based Optimization, Wind Engineering41, 313–329, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309524X17722000, 2017. a
Thomas, J. J. and Ning, A.: A Method for Reducing Multi-Modality in the Wind
Farm Layout Optimization Problem, J. Phys.-Conf. Ser., 1037, 042012,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1037/4/042012, 2018. a
Thomas, J. J., Annoni, J., Fleming, P., and Ning, A.: Comparison of Wind Farm
Layout Optimization Results Using a Simple Wake Model and Gradient-Based
Optimization to Large-Eddy Simulations, in: AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum,
7–11 January 2019, San Diego, California, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-0538, 2019. a
Thomas, J., Stanley, P. J., Lee, E., Holt, W., Baker, N. F., and Ning, A.: jaredthomas68/FLOWFarm.jl: For 8 algorithms WFLOP paper (thomas2022-8-algs-wflop), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7125827, 2022b.
a
Tilli, F.: Greedy wind farm layout optimization using pre-averaged losses,
Master's thesis, Delft University of Technology,
http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:4b118ae1-536d-4e0b-a30b-d88ba818c918 (last access: 11 May 2023), 2019. a
Turner, S., Romero, D., Zhang, P., Amon, C., and Chan, T.: A new mathematical
programming approach to optimize wind farm layouts, Renew. Energ., 63,
674–680, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.023, 2014. a, b
Wasan, M. T.: Stochastic Approximation, in: Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Series Number 58, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 13:9780521073684,
ISBN 10:0521073685, 1969. a
Wolpert, D. and Macready, W.: No free lunch theorems for optimization, IEEE
T. Evolut. Comput., 1, 67–82,
https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.585893, 1997. a
Wu, N., Kenway, G., Mader, C. A., Jasa, J., and Martins, J. R.: pyOptSparse: A Python framework for large-scale constrained nonlinear optimization of sparse systems, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2564, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02564, 2020. a
Yang, Q., Li, H., Li, T., and Zhou, X.: Wind farm layout optimization for
levelized cost of energy minimization with combined analytical wake model and
hybrid optimization strategy, Energ. Convers. Manageme., 248,
114778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114778, 2021. a
Zergane, S., Smaili, A., and Masson, C.: Optimization of wind turbine placement
in a wind farm using a new pseudo-random number generation method, Renew.
Energ, 125, 166–171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.082,
2018. a
Short summary
This work compares eight optimization algorithms (including gradient-based, gradient-free, and hybrid) on a wind farm optimization problem with 4 discrete regions, concave boundaries, and 81 wind turbines. Algorithms were each run by researchers experienced with that algorithm. Optimized layouts were unique but with similar annual energy production. Common characteristics included tightly-spaced turbines on the outer perimeter and turbines loosely spaced and roughly on a grid in the interior.
This work compares eight optimization algorithms (including gradient-based, gradient-free, and...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint