Offshore Wind Farm Layout Optimization Using
Adapted Genetic Algorithm: A different perspective
Feng Liu, Zhifang Wang

arXiv:1403.7178v1 [cs.NE] 27 Mar 2014

Electrical and Computer Engineering
Virginia Commonwealth University,Richmond,VA 23220
Email: liuf2@vcu.edu, zfwang@vcu.edu

Abstract—test In this paper we study the problem of optimal
layout of an offshore wind farm to minimize the wake effect
impacts. Considering the specific requirements of concerned
offshore wind farm, we propose an adaptive genetic algorithm
(AGA) which introduces location swaps to replace random
crossovers in conventional GAs. That way the total number of
turbines in the resulting layout will be effectively kept to the initially specified value. We experiment the proposed AGA method
on three cases with free wind speed of 12 m/s, 20 m/s, and a
typical offshore wind distribution setting respectively. Numerical
results verify the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm which
achieves a much faster convergence compared to conventional
GA algorithms.
Index Terms—wind farm layout optimization problem
(WFLOP), offshore wind farm, wake effect, genetic algorithm

I. I NTRODUCTION
As the costing of wind generation declines, combined with
the uncertainties of fossil fuel price and the incentives by the
governmental efforts to reduce the greenhouse effects and to
address other environmental concerns, more and more wind
farms all over the world are being constructed or to be granted
by their respective governments. Wind energy is an established
source of renewable energy and can complement fossil fuel
derived energy in some way, especially in this era when
manufacture technologies make wind turbines function more
reliably and endurably.
Important data showcase that the installed wind energy
capacity reached 196,630 MW on worldwide while claiming
an increase of 37,642MW in the single year of 2010 [1]. Of all
the interesting topics regarding the wind energy investments
like increasing reliability and efficiency of wind turbines, optimizing the maintenance, assembly and installation of offshore
and onshore turbines and their substructures, and improving
the design and layout of wind farms, the wind farm layout
design is one of the most important because the most profitable
design has to be found out in order to gain optimal output
of the wind farm given certain amount of investment. An
unsophisticated design will decrease the wind power capture
and increase the maintenance cost. Because of the presence
of the wake effect, the total output of the wind farm is not
just a simple summation of each wind turbine’s rated power.
In fact,it is often less than the sum of each wind turbine.
As a result, wind farm layout design could be defined as a
Wind Farm Layout Optimization Problem (WFLOP) which

aims at achieving higher aggregate efficiency of converting
wind energy to electricity.
According to Claus Madsen from ABB company, “80% of
the population (in United states) live along the shore line,
80% of the energy from unshore wind is in the middle of
the country, get the energy from the middle of the country
to the shore lines is a big challenge very expensive. That’s
why offshore wind located near the shore line is the right
technology. This fact is also true for China, who became
number one in total installed capacity and accounts for more
than 50 % of the world market for new wind turbines in 2010,
and the rest of the world. By 2010, 80 per cent of people will
live within 60 miles of the coast [2]. Further more, offshore
wind conditions are favorable compared to wind farms on land,
with stronger and steadier wind speeds. All the aforementioned
facts spur the research as well of the development of offshore
wind farms. In this paper, we will not consider the electrical
cable layout, the installation and maintenance of the offshore
wind farm, the optimal layout of the wind turbines is the main
focus of this paper.
As early as 1994, Mosetti et al first presented the wind farm
layout optimization problem using genetic algorithm [3]. Later
Grady et al studied the same problem with more individuals
in a generation and evolve more 3000 generations to get the
optimal result [4]. In recent years, Eroglu and Seckiner discussed about the WFLOP using the particle filtering approach
[5], in which three different cases are optimized using the
particle filtering approach, and the result can compete with ant
colony and evolutionary strategy algorithms. Emani and Pirooz
studied the same problem using genetic algorithms [6], and
some improvement is achieved by taking into consideration of
comparative weights of the cost of the whole wind farm each
year and the yearly energy output. Bilbao and Elba [7] used the
simulating annealing method to achieve the maximum of the
wind farm output. Perez et al use mathematical programming
techniques to study the offshore wind farm layout problem
[8], and test their proposed procedure using German offshore
wind farm Alpha Ventus.
However, most, if not all, of the genetic algorithms in
the references use crossover operation, which is a way to
heuristically search the optimal solution, rather than trying to
make the the individual’s fitness value increase on purpose.
What’s more the crossover operation doesn’t have a physical
meaning behind it in our wind farm optimization problem.

What’s more, the traditional evolution algorithm usually converges to a local optimum. Although the inclusion of chaos
in the genetic algorithm cannot fully solve the problem, it
can improve the computation efficiency and avoid the local
minimum by introducing more randomness in the algorithm
[9]. By extracting energy from the wind, a turbine creates a
cone (wake) of slower and more turbulent air behind it. The
wake model has been studied by several authors in the fluidaerodynamic field. In this paper, we use Jensen wake model
to compute the wind speed reduction in the far wake case. In
this paper, we propose a new method called Adaptive Genetric
Algorithm (AGA) to solve the concerend offshore WFLOP
which has special requirements of total rated output power.
Three cases are experimented to demonstrate the performance
of our algorithm.
II. P ROBLEM

FORMULATION

In this section, we first present the wake model, then give
the detailed implementation of the proposed adaptive genetic
algorithm for WFLOP. When the wind direction is changed
θ degree from the reference direction clockwise, the cartesian
axis should also rotate θ degree and the new coordinates can
be calculated using

 

x(θ)
cos θ − sin θ
L(θ) =
=
L(0)
(1)
y(θ)
sin θ cos θ
where L(0) is the original coordinates of the a wind turbine.
For notation simplicity, we use [x, y] to represent [x(θ), y(θ)]
when no confusion occurs.

where CT j is the thrust coefficient of the turbine j, Ai is the
rotor area of the turbine i, Aij is the intersection area between
the wake of turbine j and Ai , k is the decay factor that can
be calculated using k = 0.5/ ln(h/z0 ). Here, h is the turbine
height, z0 is the surface roughness coefficient.
In order to calculate the intersection area Aij , we define rj
as the radius of the wake incurred by turbine j just before
the turbine i, Ri is the rotor radius of turbine i and xij as
the horizontal distance between turbine i and j, which is
the projection of the distance of i and j on a line that is
perpendicular to the wind direction. The intersection area Aij
is calculated by the following formula,

0,
xij > rj + Ri



πRi2 , xij < rj − Ri
Aij =
(5)
As ,
rj < xij < rj + Ri



Ab ,
rj − Ri < xij < rj
When xij satisfies rj < xij < rj + Ri , it means the
center of the rotor circle is outside of the wake of turbine j
with a wake radius to be rj . The intersection area As can be
calculated using the following formula. For notation simplicity,
2
2
−b2
,
denote a = rj , b = Ri , c = xij Let α = arccos a +c
2ac
β
c2 +b2 −a2
α
2
2
,
A
=
πa
,
β
=
arccos
πb
,
A1 = 180
2
0
2bc
1800
A3 = ac sin α. Then As = A1 + A2 − A3 . Similarly, when
rj − Ri < xij < rj is satisfied, the intersection area Ab
2
2
−b2
can be calculated similarly. Let α = arccos a +c
, and
2ac
2
2
2
β
c +b −a
α
2
o
2
,
A
=
A1 = 180
2
0 πa , β = 180 − arccos
0
2bc
180 πb ,
2
A3 = ac sin α, Ab = πc − (A1 − A2 − A3 )

A. Wake model
As a wind turbine acts to withdraw momentum from the
wind, it captures part of the kinetic energy in the wind stream
and leaves behind it a wake with the wind speed reduced.
The electric energy output of another turbine operating inside
this wake will therefore be affected. The assumption of wake
model in this paper is the same with Mosetti et al [3]. Here, a
simplified wake decay model developed by N. O. Jensen [10]
is employed, as it offers a best balance between positive and
negative prediction errors.
For a turbine i, the wind speed before turbine i can be
calculated by
ui = v(1 − Dvi ),
(2)
where v is the free wind speed and Dvi the velocity deficiency
of the turbine i.
sX
(3)
Dvij 2 ,
Dvi =
j∈Ωi

where Dvij is the velocity deficiency of the turbine i incurred
by the wake of the turbine j. Ωi is the set that contains all the
turbines which have wake impact on the turbine i and can be
defined as Ωi = {j|dij = yj − yi > 0 and Aij > 0}. Dvij is
defined by
p
1+ 1 − CT j Aij
Dvij =
(4)
2 · A ,
i
(1 + kdij/Ri )

B. Optimization of the wind farm layout
This section discusses how to determine the total number
of wind turbines in a wind farm given specific condtions
as follow. The concerned layout problem of wind turbines
in the offshore wind farm is based on the settings of the
recent project in Virginia Beach granted to Dominion Virginia
Power in October 2013. With a nameplate capacity of 2,000
megawatts (MW), it will be the world’s largest offshore wind
farm. All the wind turbines will be erected on nearly 113,00
acre offshore area, which is about a 20km by 20 km square.
As can be seen from statistics [11], there exists a trend to favor
high-power wind turbines in large offshore wind farms, as is
illustrated in Fig.1 given by NREL.
In this paper, we assume that only one type of wind turbines
will be be erected over the wind farm. When more than
one types of turbines are adopted with different hub heights,
rotor diameters, and rated power etc, the construction and
maintenance costs could be highly increased. Because the
workers and operators have to be trained elaborately in order
to construct and operate each specific type of wind turbines
at different designated locations correctly. What’s more, the
maintenance will be more expensive due to the higher cost
of repair and replacement of variety parts and components.
Therefore we assume that the same type of wind turbines with
the rated power of pmax = 5MW will be employed.

70

60

total cost

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

10

20

30

40
50
60
number of turbines

70

80

90

100

Fig. 2. cost function vs y=2/3N
Fig. 1. Evolution of commercial wind technology (NREL)

1) fixed or flexible number of wind turbines: Since
Mosetti’s paper [3] presents the popular aggregate cost func2
tion of Ctot (N ) = N (2/3 + 1/3e−0.00174N ), most related
literatures set the total number of the wind turbines, N ,
as one of the optimization variables, with the optimization
objective function of max Ptotal (N )/Ctot (N ) where Ptotal
is the aggregate turnbine output power as defined in eq.(6).
However, when it comes to the planning problem of a large
wind farm with the targeted N greater than 50, the total cost
will approximate a linear function , i.e. Ctot (N ) = 2/3N .
And the corresponding objective function now changes to
max Ptotal (N )/N , that is, equivalent to maximize the average
unit output power, which in fact prefers smaller N due to the
fact that the larger N the more wake effect impact and the
smaller average unit tubine’s output power. Considering the
rated total output power constraints of the wind farm which
requires that N ≥ N0 (with N0 > 50), the optimization setting
will drive the best setting of turnbine number to be N = N0 .
Hence the original optimization can be formulated with a fixed
number of turbines and its optimizaiton function now turns
into simply maximize the total output power max Ptotal (N0 ).
However, according to the authors’ best knowledge, the assumption of maximum of 1/3 reduction of unit cost presented
by Mosetti is not validated by real world data or experiment
results.
Even if it holds true, it is not useful for a large wind
farm because the large offshore wind farm are comprised of
hundreds of the wind turbines. As can be seen from Fig.2,
the cost function curve approaches the linearly increasing cost
function of 2/3N when N > 50. That means the inclusion of
the cost in the objective function will not affect so much the
final optimal solution when N > 50 compared to when N is
chosen from rather small numbers (< 20).
Therefore in this paper we assume that the total number
of wind turbines N should be a fixed value rather than a
variable to be optimized. The number N can be calculated
using the nameplate output of the farm divided by rated power
of each wind turbine. As in the example in Virginia Beach,
the number of the wind turbines should be 2000/5 = 400.
For the convenience of demonstration, we shrink the problem

of placement of 400 turbines over a 20km by 20km area to
a smaller size site with the corresponding number of wind
turbines. Here, we choose to place 16 turbines on a 4km by
4km wind farm which has the same average density of wind
turbines with the original problem.
2) reduction of solution space using the fixed number of
turbines: With the fixed number of turbines to be optimized
over an area, we find the computation complexity will be
greatly reduced. Divide the 4km by 4km area into 20 by
20 cells, with each cell width to be 200m. Like Ref.[12],
all the intersection points are the possible locations. There
are 441 possible locations. Unlike Ref.[12], our wind farm
size is assumed based on the practical derivation. However,
in Ref.[12], the results show that about 15 to 20 turbines are
placed in an area of 500m by 500m, which is a different case
in offshore wind farm. The diameter of offshore wind turbines
are usually larger than 100m, making the optimized area too
crowded taking into consideration of the intensive turbulence
impact on the wind turbines. If the number of wind turbine
is unset, the solution space will be 2441 possible solutions,
which is approximately 5.68 × 10132. However, if the N is set
to be 16, which is an n choose k problem, the solution space
is 3.49 × 1028 . The solution space is greatly reduced.
3) optimization objective function:: The optimization goal
function is to maximize the total power output of the wind
farm, and can be described by
XX
Ptotal =
fw (θ, v)PG|θ,v ,
(6)
v

θ

where fw (θ, v) is the two dimensional possibility distribution
function of wind over wind speed v and wind direction θ.
In this paper, we divide 360o into 12 sections, with each
representing 30o . PG|θ,v is the total power generated under
the condition of wind speed to be v and direction to be θ,
PG|θ,v =

N
X

PGi|θ,v ,

(7)

i=1

where N is the number of turbines. For notation simplicity,
we will use PG instead of PG|θ,v when no confusion occurs.
The power generated by turbine i is PGi = pg (ui ), ui is the

6000

5000

power output in KW

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

−1000

0

2

4

6
8
wind speed m/s

10

12

14

Fig. 3. Wind turbine output power pg (v) with pmax = 5MW

wind speed before turbine i after taking into account the wake
effect impacts. pg (·) is the power output which is given by
the wind turbine manufacture. Here we use the power curve
given by [13]. When the wind speed is larger than 14m/s
and smaller than the cut out speed, the power output remains
constant as 5MW. A polynomial approximation of p(v) =
−0.9114v 4 + 21.6654v 3 − 113.1189v 2 + 201.1211v − 55.0267
is used to fit the discrete data provided by the manufacture
when the wind speed is smaller than the cut-off speed 14m/s.
Hence the power curve can be described by the following
function and Fig.3 shows a typical output power curve.

v<3
 0,
p(v), 3 ≤ v < 14 .
pg (v) =
(8)
 max
p
, v ≥ 14

Therefore the efficiency of the wind farm layout can then be
derived as follows:
Ptotal
.
(9)
η = PP
fw (θ, v)pg (v)
N
v

θ

relocation of the least efficient turbine. The detailed AGA can
be describe by the following procedure:
Step 1: Initialization. Using the chaotic map xn+1 =
4xn (1−xn ) to generate values between zero and one. Multiply
xn+1 by N and round it to the nearest integer, the integer is the
location of the first turbine. Continue the procedure until all
N turbines are generated randomly. Generate PN individuals.
Step 2: Evaluation and reordering: Evaluate the fitness value
of each individual and order the individuals according to their
fitness value in descending order.
Step 3: Elites selection: The first PI individuals are the elite
ones, and are copied to the next generation directly.
Step 4: Relocation of the worst turbine: Use the first PI
individuals to generate PD descendants by relocating the least
efficient wind turbines randomly using chaotic map.
Step 5: Inclusion of aliens: Include the PA aliens as the
descendants by generating randomly using chaotic map like
the initialization step.
Step 6: Mutation: randomly choose 1 bit out of M bits
from the best individual and toggle it, do it twice for each
descendant. Generate PN − PI − PD − PA such descendants.
Step 7: Stop judgment: go to step 2 unless the stop criteria
is met.
Remark:
1) Reflection of crossover in our problem. Crossover is
not used in our GA procedure for three reasons: (1)
inability to remain the number of 1s unchanged in each
individual. (2) not able to take the real connotation
of our problem, it means nothing to crossover two
individuals, especially compared to Step 4. (3) it may
incur a scenario that two turbines are too close to each
other.
2) The inclusion of aliens in Step 5 is to avoid the local
optimal.
3) Mutation in Step 6 usually means relocate one of the 16
turbines to other possible position.

III. A DAPTIVE G ENETIC A LGORITHM
Conventional genetic algorithms can’t be adopted directly
because its initialization, crossover and mutation procedures
cannot guaranttee the desired total number of turbines. In our
problem, each individual contains 441 bits with 0 representing
no turbine at the location and 1 means there is a wind turbine at
that point. Note that only 16 bits whose value are 1s are spread
out in the 441 bits, making the initialization different from
the general randomly initialize the individual. Also, crossover
is not validated because its result may lead to the change of
number of turbines in each individual. For example, cross over
P1 [1010010101] and P2 [1111010000] from the 6th bit results
in [1010010000] and [1111010101]. The former one has 3
turbines over the ten possible points, while the latter has 7
turbines, which is conflict with our fixed number of turbines.
The mutation procedure is also adaptive to make the 1s in each
individual unchanged, it is done by mutate twice by replacing 1
into 0 or vice versa. Last but not least, we incorporate another
operation that can boost the heuristic searching procedure: the

IV. N UMERICAL

RESULTS

In this section, we experiment the proposed AGA method
for an optimal layout of 16 turbines over 441 possible positions, as discussed in Section II-B2. We investigate 3 cases:
case 1 with a fixed free wind speed of 12 m/s at a single
direction; case 2 with a fixed free wind speed of 20 m/s from
a single direction; while case 3 deals with variant wind speed
with multiple wind directions taken from a typical offshore
wind distribution model [14].
A. case 1:
The reason why we choose the wind speed of 12 m/s is
because it is located in the uprising area of power curve. It has
more sensitivity of the wake impact influenced output power.
The optimal layout is shown in Fig.4. However, if Step 4 is
replace with the operation of generating individuals randomly,
the converge speed will be much lower and it can almost
run forever to get an optimal result as good as with Step 4.
Although it is apparent that some turbines are in the same

20

20
18

18

16
16
14
14

12

12

10
8

10

6
8
4
6
4

2
0

5

10

15

0

20

Fig. 4. Optimal wind farm layout of case 1 with v = 12m/s (100% efficiency
achived)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fig. 6. Optimal wind farm layout of case 2 with v = 20 m/s

20

101
18

with step 4
without step 4

100.5

16

100
14

efficiency in percent

99.5
99

12

98.5

10

98

8

97.5

6

97

4

96.5

2

96
0

95.5

0

50

100
iteration

150

0

5

10

15

20

200

Fig. 5. Comparison of onvergence performance: adaptive GA vs. conventional
GA

column, it is not easy for the general GA to move the one
under wake effect out of it. As is illustrated in Fig.5, our
proposed GA algorithm will converge to its 100% efficiency
with only less than 15 steps; while the conventional GA
(without Step 4) takes about 60 steps to reach 97.5% then
becomes stuck in a local optimal.
B. case 2:

Fig. 7. Optimal wind farm layout of case 3 with v = 12 m/s and from
multiple direction: Efficiency is 97.24%

the wind speed distribution fit well to a Weibull distribution
where the shape factor is 2.1-2.2 [14].We use 2.1 to generate
the distribution of the wind speed and direction Fig.8. The
optimal layout in case of multiple wind speed and direction
is given in Fig.9. The achieved efficiency is 97.67%. The
decrease in achieved efficiency comes from the multiple wind
direction and resultng wake effect impact cannot be fully
avoided completely.

When the wind speed is 20 m/s, the optimal solution space
is larger than that of v = 12m/s. For example, the AGA
algorithm locates an optimal layout as illustrated in Fig.6. It
is obvious that some turbines are in the wake of others, but
the speed of the turbines in the wake is still larger than 14m/s,
thus an easily 100% efficiency can still be achieved even with
exisitng wakes.

When the wind speed is 12 m/s and the wind direction is
uniformly distributed from [0o − 360o]. For example, the AGA
algorithm locates an optimal layout as illustrated in Fig.7. The
efficiency is 97.24%.

probability

C. case 3:

0.02
0.015
0.01
20

0.005
0
12

15
10

10
8
6

5

4
2
theta/30 degree

0

0

speed m/s

D. case 4:
Variant wind speed and wind direction. According to the
real data from Horns Rev and Nysted offshore wind farm,

Fig. 8. Offshore wind speed and direction distribution function fw (θ, v)

4

2.9

18

2.8

16

2.7

14

2.6
power output in KW

20

12
10
8

2.5
2.4
2.3

6

2.2

4

2.1

2
0

x 10

2
0

5

10

15

1.9
200

20

Fig. 9. Optimal wind farm layout of case 4 with offshore wind distribution

180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

60

Fig. 11. 3-order polynomial fit with the output power

4

2.9

x 10

100
power decrease
area decrease

2.8
80

2.6

decrease in percentage

averaged power output in KW

2.7

2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1

60

40

20

0

2
180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

Fig. 10. averaged power output with different edge size

V. L OOKING

FOR

T HE MOST

−20
200

60

EFFICIENT AREA : A

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

In this section, we are trying to find an effective way to
characterize the most economic area for the wind farm. As you
can see that Case 1 and case 2 can achieve 100% efficiency, so
a natural question will be proposed: if the efficiency is 100%,
why not shrink the size of the wind farm and see whether the
efficiency is still 100%, then we will seek how the efficiency
drops in the process of shrinking the wind farm. This question
is based on a totally different perspective from all the previous
research on the optimal layout problem of the wind farm. It
is in the hope of giving some insights on how much wind
farm areas should be allocated for a given amount of power
to be generated. In the next Fig.10, you can see the decrease
of overall power accords with the reduction of the edge size
of each cell in the wind farm. The settings of the Fig.10 is
multiple direction and multiple wind speed, as the same as the
case 4.
Next we use a three order polynomial to fit the output power
curve, as is shown by Fig.11
Then we study the decrease of both power and area in
percentage. As is illustrated by Fig.12. As we can see, when
x = 145m, the total farm area will drop 47.44% and the
power output power will drop only 0.325%, which is basically
unchanged. If we set the allowed power drop to 5%, the small-

180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

60

Fig. 12. Decrease of area vs decrease of power output in percentage

est possible area can be decreased to 64% decrease, which
means that we may sacrifice 5% of power drop compared to
the original overall power output in replace of a saving of 64%
of the total area.
The single wind direction and the single wind speed at speed
5m/s is considered. The shrinking of edge also have an impact
on the output power as is in Fig.13 In this Fig.13, when the
edge length is 160m, the output power remained the same. It
means that a reduction of 36% of possible area will not bring
about any loss of the total power.

power output with different size when wind speed is 5m/s
4200
4000
3800
power output in KW

1.9
200

3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
60

80

100

120
140
edge size in meter

160

180

200

Fig. 13. averaged power output with different edge size

4

7.5

x 10

4

power output with different size when wind speed is 12m/s
3

x 10

Uniform layout
Optimizal layout by AGA

2.8
7

2.6

power output in KW

power output in KW

2.4
6.5

6

2.2
2
1.8
1.6

5.5

1.4
1.2

5
60

80

100

120
140
edge size in meter

160

180

1
200

200

Fig. 14. power output with different size when wind speed is 12m/s

20

180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

60

Fig. 16. averaged power output with different edge size

research will give some insight on the area determination of
a wind farm.

18
16

R EFERENCES

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

0

5

10

15

20

Fig. 15. uniform layout

The single wind direction and the single wind speed at
speed 12m/s is considered. The shrinking of edge also have
an impact on the output power as is in Fig.14
VI. T HE COMPARISON

OF THE LAYOUT BY
UNIFORM LAYOUT

AGA TO

THE

In this paper, we compare the AGA performance with the
uniform layout in a wind farm. The uniform layout is given
in Fig.15. All the wind turbines are lined up in a straight line.
However, the averaged power output in the uniform layout is
much lower than those optimized with our proposed AGA. As
see in Fig.16, our proposed method exceeds in the performance
compared to the uniform layout.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we talked in details some considerations
when planning the layout of an offshore wind farm, like the
fixed number or flexible number of turbines as the optimal
parameter, the usefulness of crossover in GA. A new approach
is proposed and it is shown to speed up the convergence
rate in three different cases. In our novel algorithm, we find
the turbine with the worst performance and relocate it, thus
guarantee the performance is getting better, at least not getting
worse, in each iteration. Next, we studied the impact of wind
farm area on the output of the total electricity power. Out

[1]
[2]
[3] G. Mosetti, C. Poloni, and B. Diviacco, “Optimization of wind turbine
positioning in large windfarms by means of a genetic algorithm,” Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 51, no. 1,
pp. 105–116, 1994.
[4] S. Grady, M. Hussaini, and M. M. Abdullah, “Placement of wind
turbines using genetic algorithms,” Renewable Energy, vol. 30, no. 2,
pp. 259–270, 2005.
[5] Y. Erolu and S. U. Sekiner, “Design of wind farm layout using ant
colony algorithm,” Renewable Energy, vol. 44, pp. 53–62, 8 2012.
[6] A. Emami and P. Noghreh, “New approach on optimization in placement
of wind turbines within wind farm by genetic algorithms,” Renewable
Energy, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1559–1564, 2010.
[7] M. Bilbao and E. Alba, “Simulated annealing for optimization of wind
farm annual profit,” in Logistics and Industrial Informatics, 2009. LINDI
2009. 2nd International, pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2009.
[8] B. Prez, R. Mnguez, and R. Guanche, “Offshore wind farm layout
optimization using mathematical programming techniques,” Renewable
Energy, vol. 53, no. 0, pp. 389 – 399, 2013.
[9]
[10] I. Katic, J.Hojstrup, and N. Jensen, “A simple model for cluster
efficiency,” 1986.
[11]
[12] Y. Chen, H. Li, K. Jin, and Q. Song, “Wind farm layout optimization
using genetic algorithm with different hub height wind turbines,” Energy
Conversion and Management, vol. 70, pp. 56–65, 2013.
[13]
[14]

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

0

5

10

15

20

4

2.8

x 10

16 turbines layout with variance of farm area mean 17 runs

output power in KW

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6
200

180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

60

3.4

4 turbines layout optimization with variance of farm area−18 mean
20
x 10

3.2

output power in KW

3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
200

180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

60

4

2.2

x 10

12 turbines layout optimization with variance of farm area

2.1

output power in KW

2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
200

180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

60

4

3

the output power under uniform layout

x 10

decrease in percentage

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8
200

180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

60

4

3

the output power under uniform layout

x 10

decrease in percentage

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8
200

180

160

140
120
edge size in meter

100

80

60

