arXiv:1410.0547v2 [cs.NE] 15 Jan 2015

Design Mining Interacting Wind Turbines
Richard J. Preen
richard2.preen@uwe.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science and Creative Technologies,
University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY,
United Kingdom
Larry Bull

larry.bull@uwe.ac.uk

Department of Computer Science and Creative Technologies,
University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY,
United Kingdom

Abstract
An initial study of surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithms used to design verticalaxis wind turbines wherein candidate prototypes are evaluated under fan generated
wind conditions after being physically instantiated by a 3D printer has recently been
presented. Unlike other approaches, such as computational fluid dynamics simulations, no mathematical formulations were used and no model assumptions were made.
This paper extends that work by exploring alternative surrogate modelling and evolutionary techniques. The accuracy of various modelling algorithms used to estimate the
fitness of evaluated individuals from the initial experiments is compared. The effect
of temporally windowing surrogate model training samples is explored. A surrogateassisted approach based on an enhanced local search is introduced; and alternative
coevolution collaboration schemes are examined.
Keywords
3D printing, Coevolution, Fitness approximation, Neural network, Partnering.

1

Introduction

Renewable energy contributed over half of total net additions to global electric generating capacity from all sources in 2012, with wind power accounting for around 39% of
the renewable power added (REN21, 2013, p. 13). Currently, arrays of horizontal-axis
wind turbines (HAWTs) are the most commonly used form of wind farm employed to
extract large amounts of wind energy. However, as the turbines extract the energy from
the wind, the energy content decreases and the amount of turbulence increases downstream from each. For example, see Hasager et al. (2013) for photographs and explanation of the well-known wake effect at the Horns Rev offshore wind farm in the North
Sea. Due to this, HAWTs must be spaced 3–5 turbine diameters apart in the cross-wind
direction and 6–10 diameters apart in the downwind direction in order to maintain 90%
of the performance of isolated HAWTs (Dabiri, 2011). The study of these wake effects
is therefore a very complex and important area of research (Barthelmie et al., 2006), as
is turbine placement (Mosetti et al., 1994). Thus, “modern wind farms comprised of
HAWTs require significant land resources to separate each wind turbine from the adjacent turbine wakes. This aerodynamic constraint limits the amount of power that can
be extracted from a given wind farm footprint. The resulting inefficiency of HAWT
farms is currently compensated by using taller wind turbines to access greater wind

resources at high altitudes, but this solution comes at the expense of higher engineering costs and greater visual, acoustic, radar and environmental impact” (Dabiri, 2011,
p. 1). This has forced wind energy systems away from high energy demand population
centres and toward remote locations with higher distribution costs.
In contrast, vertical-axis wind turbines (VAWTs) do not need to be oriented to wind
direction and the spacing constraints of HAWTs often do not apply. VAWT performance can even be increased by the exploitation of inter-turbine flow effects (Charwat,
1978). In addition, VAWTs can also be easier to manufacture, may scale more easily,
are typically inherently light-weight with little or no noise pollution, and are more able
to tolerate extreme weather conditions (Eriksson et al., 2008). This has resulted in a
recent expansion of their use in urban environments (Toja-Silva et al., 2013). However,
their design space is complex and relatively unexplored. Generally, two classes of design are currently under investigation and exploitation: Savonius (1930), which has
blades attached directly upon the central axis structure; and Darrieus (1931), where the
blades—either straight or curved—are positioned predominantly away from the central structure. Hybrids also exist. The small body of previous work considering VAWT
farms/arrays has used turbines originally intended to operate alone. Our work is the
only known work to consider designing VAWT in arrays of interacting turbines.
We have recently presented an initial study (Preen and Bull, 2014a) of surrogateassisted genetic algorithms (SGAs; Dunham et al., 1963) used to design VAWTs wherein
candidate prototypes are evaluated under fan generated wind conditions after being
physically instantiated by a 3D printer. That is, unlike other approaches, no mathematical formulations are used and no model assumptions are made. Initially, artificial evolution was used to explore the design space of a single isolated VAWT and subsequently
a cooperative coevolutionary genetic algorithm (CGA; Husbands and Mill, 1991) was
applied to explore the design space of an array of 2 closely positioned VAWTs. Both
conventional CGA and surrogate-assisted (SCGA) versions were examined, finding increased aerodynamic performance (rotational speed) in fewer fabrications with surrogate assistance. For single turbine comparison, the fittest evolved designs were found
to be aerodynamically more efficient than several common human designs under the
experimental conditions. In this paper, we extend that work by exploring alternative
surrogate modelling and evolutionary techniques. First, the accuracy of various modelling techniques used to estimate the fitness of the individuals from the initial experiments is compared. Subsequently, we compare surrogate model performance with
different training samples. An alternative surrogate approach based on an enhanced
local search is introduced. Finally, alternative coevolution collaboration schemes are
examined, including one that considers the potential for symmetry within the task.

2
2.1

Background
Interacting Vertical-Axis Wind Turbines

Arrays of closely spaced VAWTs have long been considered for use as wind power stations. For example, Charwat (1978) observed an improvement in the performance of
a pair of closely spaced ‘S’ shaped VAWT (S-rotors), whether counter or co-rotating,
compared with that of a single turbine. Figure 1 illustrates the possible rotation configurations of a pair of VAWT. Despite this, VAWTs have been restricted to niche applications since a single HAWT provides a much higher efficiency compared with a
single VAWT. However, recently Kinzel et al. (2012) performed an experimental field
study of an array of 9 pairs of full-scale counter-rotating VAWTs. They found that the
wind velocity behind a turbine pair recovers to 95% of the wind velocity upwind after
2

(a) Clockwise co-rotation.

(b) Counter-clockwise co-rotation.

(c) Counter-rotation; with a northerly wind,
the upwind blades are in the middle region.

(d) Counter-rotation; with a northerly wind,
the driving blades are in the middle region.

Figure 1: Possible VAWT pair rotation configurations.

approximately 6 turbine diameters, compared with 4 diameters for the wake behind a
single VAWT and 14 diameters for HAWTs. Thus, closely spaced VAWTs can result in
an overall reduction in the average inter-turbine spacing as well as increasing individual performance, leading to a much greater power density. Indeed, it has recently been
shown (Dabiri, 2011) that power densities an order of magnitude greater can be potentially achieved by arranging VAWTs in layouts utilising counter-rotation that enable
them to extract energy from adjacent wakes and from above the wind farm.
A growing body of work has been exploring techniques to optimise a given wind
farm layout—termed micro-siting. Algorithms used include, genetic algorithms (GAs;
Mosetti et al., 1994), evolution strategies (ESs; Kusiak and Song, 2010), particle swarm
optimisation (Aristidis et al., 2010), ant colony optimisation (Eroğlu and Seçkiner,
2012), Monte Carlo simulation (Marmidis et al., 2008), and principles from fish schooling (Whittlesey et al., 2010). See Salcedo-Sanz et al. (2011) for a recent review of evolutionary computation-based techniques for micro-siting. Importantly, all of this work
has been based on wake models of varying degrees of fidelity.
To date, heterogeneity in wind farms has been almost completely unexplored.
Chamorro et al. (2014) recently investigated a variable size HAWT array composed of
3 × 8 model wind turbines where large and small turbines were alternately positioned.
They found that size heterogeneity has positive effects on turbulent loading as a result
of the larger turbines facing a more uniform turbulence distribution and the smaller
turbines operating under lower turbulence levels. The interactions show the possibility that heterogeneity within wind farms has the potential to improve the overall ability
to harvest energy. Our initial study (Preen and Bull, 2014a) observed that VAWT array
asymmetry can be more efficient than similar symmetrical designs; for example, the
individuals from the fittest SCGA array pairing after 160 fabrications were duplicated
to form homogeneous arrays and the maximum combined rotational speed was found
3

to be lower than the heterogeneous array.
2.2

Evolutionary Design

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have long been used to design 3D physical objects. Notably, Hornby et al. (2011) evolved and manufactured an X-band satellite antenna for
NASA’s ST5 spacecraft, representing the world’s first artificially evolved hardware in
space. Significantly, the evolved antennas outperformed a design hand-produced by
the antenna contractor for the mission. Most approaches, however, have used simulations to provide the fitness scores of the evolved designs before final fabrication.
The majority of blade design optimisation is performed through the use of CFD
simulations, typically described with 3D Navier-Stokes equations (Anderson, 1995).
However, 3D CFD simulations are computationally expensive, with a single calculation taking hours on a high-performance computer, making their use with an iterative
search approach difficult. Moreover, assumptions need to be made, e.g., regarding turbulence or pressure distributions, which can significantly affect accuracy when modelling interacting wind turbines. Previous evolutionary studies have been undertaken
with types of CFD to optimise the blade profile for both HAWT (Hampsey, 2002) and
VAWT (Carrigan et al., 2012) to varying degrees of success/realism.
The evaluation of physical artifacts directly for fitness determination can be traced
back to the origins of evolutionary computation (Dunham et al., 1963). For example,
the first ESs were used to design jet nozzles with a string of section diameters, which
were then machined and tested for fitness (Rechenberg, 1971). Other well-known examples include robot controller design (Nolfi, 1992), electronic circuit design using programmable hardware (Thompson, 1998), product design via human provided fitness
values (Herdy, 1996), chemical systems (Theis et al., 2006), and unconventional computers (Harding and Miller, 2004). More recently, Boria et al. (2009) used an EA to
evolve a morphing wing structure where physical designs were morphed using a set
of actuators and evaluated in a closed-loop wind tunnel.
Evolution in hardware has the potential to benefit from access to a richer environment where it can exploit subtle interactions that can be utilised in unexpected
ways. For example, the EA used by Thompson (1998) to work with field-programmable
gate array circuits used some subtle physical properties of the system to solve problems where the properties used are still not understood. Humans can be prevented
from designing systems that exploit these subtle and complex physical characteristics
through their lack of knowledge, however this does not prevent exploitation through
artificial evolution. There is thus a real possibility that evolution in hardware may
allow the discovery of new physical effects, which can be harnessed for computation/optimisation (Miller and Downing, 2002).
Moreover, the advent of high quality, low-cost, additive rapid fabrication
technology—known as 3D printing—means it is now possible to fabricate a wide range
of prototype designs quickly and cheaply. 3D printers are now capable of printing an
ever growing array of different materials, including food, e.g., chocolate (Hao et al.,
2009) and meat (Lipton et al., 2010) for culinary design; sugar, e.g., to help create
synthetic livers (Miller et al., 2012); chemicals, e.g., for custom drug design (Symes
et al., 2012); cells, e.g., for functional blood vessels (Jakab et al., 2008) and artificial
cartilage (Xu et al., 2013); plastic, e.g., Southampton University laser sintered aircraft;
thermoplastic, e.g., for electronic sensors (Leigh et al., 2012); titanium, e.g., for prosthetics such as the synthetic mandible developed by the University of Hasselt and
transplanted into an 83-year old woman; and liquid metal, e.g., for stretchable electron4

ics (Ladd et al., 2013). One potential benefit of the technology is the ability to perform
fabrication directly in the target environment; for example, Cohen et al. (2010) recently
used a 3D printer to perform a minimally invasive repair of the cartilage and bone of
a calf femur in situ. Lipson and Pollack (2000) were the first to exploit the emerging
technology in conjunction with an EA using a simulation of the mechanics and control,
ultimately printing mobile robots with embodied neural network controllers.
2.3

Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms

Whilst the speed and cost of rapid-prototyping continues to improve, fabricating an
evolved design before fitness can be assigned remains an expensive task when potentially thousands of evaluations are required; e.g., 10 minutes print time for each very
simple individual in the work of Rieffel and Sayles (2010). However, given a sample
D of evaluated individuals N , a surrogate model (also known as a meta-model or response surface model) y = f (~x) can be constructed, where ~x is the genotype and y
fitness, in order to compute the fitness of an unseen data point ~x ∈
/ D. The use of surrogate models has been shown to reduce the convergence time in evolutionary computation and multiobjective optimisation; see Jin (2011); Viana et al. (2014) for recent
general reviews and Forrester and Keane (2009) for aerospace design optimisation.
Typically, a set of evaluated genotypes and their real fitness scores are used to
perform the supervised training of a multi-layer perceptron (MLP; Rosenblatt, 1962)
based artificial neural network (e.g., Eberhart, 1992). However, other approaches are
widely used, for example, kriging (e.g., Ratle, 2001), clustering (e.g., Kim and Cho,
2001), support vector regression (e.g., Yun et al., 2009), radial-basis functions (e.g., Ong
et al., 2006), and sequential parameter optimisation (e.g., Bartz-Beielstein, 2006). The
surrogate model is subsequently used to compute estimated fitness values for the EA
to utilise. The model must be periodically retrained with new individuals under a controlled evolutionary approach (also known as model management) to prevent convergence on local optima. Retraining can be performed by taking either an individual or
generational approach. In the individual approach, n number of individuals in the population, P , are chosen and evaluated with the real fitness function each generation, and
in the generational approach the entirety of P is evaluated on the real fitness function
each n-th generation. Typically the members with the highest approximated fitness
are chosen to be evaluated with the real fitness function in the individual approach,
although alternative schemes have been suggested; Bull (1999) found that evaluating
both the best and random individuals suggested by a neural network surrogate model
resulted in a significant improvement over exclusively evaluating either the best or random individuals. Both global modelling and local modelling using trust regions (e.g.,
samples within a certain Euclidean distance) are popular approaches (Le et al., 2013).
Resampling methods and surrogate model validation remain an important and ongoing area of research, enabling the comparison and optimisation of models (Bischl et al.,
2012).
The use of approximations in a coevolutionary context has previously been shown
capable of solving computationally expensive optimisation problems with varying degrees of epistasis more efficiently than conventional CGAs through the use of radial
basis functions (Ong et al., 2002) and memetic algorithms (Goh et al., 2011).
2.4

Coevolution

Since the early work in evolving both competitive (Axelrod, 1987) and cooperative (Husbands and Mill, 1991) multi-agent systems, the problem of how to pick evalu5

ation partners has been noted. Many strategies have been presented, which vary from
the extreme case of each individual in one population using all others in all other populations (e.g., Koza, 1991), to each individual using a subset of the others (e.g., Hillis,
1991), to the more computationally preferable use of one individual from each population (e.g., Bull and Fogarty, 1993). The use of the current best individuals from the
other species populations was examined by Potter and De Jong (1994). In their work,
all populations also received a shared fitness measure. Using a generational CGA they
reported that the strategy performed well. They also suggested that for higher crossspecies epistasis an additional randomly selected individual should be used as a partner and the highest obtained fitness from the two pairings assigned to the evaluating
genome. Bull (1997a) examined various strategies for choosing evaluation partners
from coevolving populations and also found improved performance on problems with
significant cross-species epistasis when using multi-partner strategies. No significant
difference was observed whether the second collaborator was chosen randomly or fitness proportionately after Paredis (1994). These early results suggested that the collaboration method depends entirely upon the amount of epistatic interaction between
different species, however the issue is more complex; for example, Wiegand et al. (2001)
found that simply using the fittest individual as the collaborating partner worked best
on a non-linearly separable quadratic problem with cross-species epistasis. In addition,
they found that when using multiple collaborative function evaluations, assigning the
fitness score from the best collaboration is significantly better than using either the
worst or average of the scores.

3

Methodology

Here, we investigate the use of SCGAs to design small wind farms, utilising the aggregated rotational speed of the array as fitness. Each VAWT is treated separately by
evolution and approximation techniques, i.e., heterogeneous designs could emerge.
A vector of 10 integers is used as a simple and compact encoding of the x-y-axis
of a prototype VAWT. Each allele thus controls 1/10th of a single z-layer. A workspace
(maximum object size) of 30 × 30 × 30 mm is used so that the instantiated prototype
is small enough for timely production (∼ 30 minutes) and with low material cost, yet
large enough to be sufficient for fitness evaluation. The workspace has a resolution
of 100 × 100 × 100 voxels. A central platform is constructed for each individual to
enable the object to be placed on to the evaluation equipment. The platform consists
of a square torus, 1 voxel in width and with a centre of 14 × 14 empty voxels that are
duplicated for each z layer, thus creating a hollow tube that is 3 mm in diameter.
To translate the genome for a single z layer, an equilateral cross is constructed using the 10 aforementioned genes, with 4 blades bent at right angles and an allele range
[1,42]. For north-east and south-west quadrants the baseline is a horizontal line at yaxis=50, and for north-west and south-east quadrants the baseline is a vertical line at
x-axis=50. Starting from the central platform and translating each gene successively,
the one-tenth of voxels controlled by that gene are then drawn from the allele+baseline
toward the baseline; see Figure 2(a). If the current allele+baseline is greater than or
the same as the previous allele+baseline, the voxels are enabled from the current allele+baseline to the previous allele+baseline and extended a further 2 voxels toward
the baseline for structural support; see Figure 2(b). If the current allele+baseline is less
than or the same as the previous lower ending position, causing a gap, the voxels are
enabled from the current allele+baseline upwards to the previous lower position and
extended a further 2 voxels; see Figure 2(c). In all other cases, 2 voxels are enabled from
6

10
9
8
gene value

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1

2 3 4
gene no.

(a)

1

2 3 4
gene no.
(b)

1

2 3 4
gene no.
(c)

1

2 3 4
gene no.
(d)

Figure 2: Translation of x-y-axis genome [5,8,2,4]. In (a) the voxels are enabled from the
first allele (5) to the baseline (bottom). Subsequently in (b) the voxels are enabled from
the second allele (8) to the previous allele (5) and extended 2 voxels. In (c) the third
allele (2) is less than the previous lower position (3), causing a gap, and is thus drawn
from the allele (2) to the previous lower position and extended 2 voxels to provide
structural support. In (d) the allele (4) is less than the previous upper position (5) and
2 voxels are enabled from the allele toward the baseline.
the current allele+baseline position toward the baseline; see Figure 2(d).
An example phenotype without z-axis variation is shown in Figure 3. When production is desired, the 3D binary voxel array is converted to stereolithography (STL)
format. Once encoded in STL, it then undergoes post-processing with the application
of 50 Laplacian smoothing steps using MeshLab1 ; see smoothed example phenotype in
Figure 4. Finally the object is converted to printer-readable G-code and is subsequently
fabricated on a BFB 3000 printer (0.25 mm resolution) using a polylactic acid (PLA)
bioplastic. Figure 5 shows the smoothed object after fabrication.
To enable prototypes with z-axis variability, the genome also includes 5 additional
integers in the range [-42,42], each controlling 1/6th of the z-axis. After drawing the initial z-layer as previously described, each z gene transforms the x-y genome for the next
successive z-layer by uniformly adding the allele value, after which it is then drawn as
described above. For example, with an x-y-axis genome of [2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 20, 34, 40]
and z-axis genome of [2, -5, 10, 3, -2], the next z-layer is translated using the x-y-axis
genome of [4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 22, 36, 42] and the following z-layer is translated with [1,
1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 10, 17, 31, 37], etc.
Since the interaction effects of rotor direction in the context of differing turbine
morphology, relative phase angle, separation distance, positional layout, wind velocity, etc. are not well understood, a Boolean gene is added to designate the rotation
direction of a VAWT. Thus, a total of 16 genes define an individual. In a previous CGA
experiment (Preen and Bull, 2014a) with 2 Savonius turbines positioned 0.1 diameters
1 MeshLab is an open source, portable, and extensible system for the processing and editing of unstructured 3D triangular meshes. http://meshlab.sourceforge.net

7

Figure 3: Example phenotype; genome = [2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 20, 34, 40].

Figure 4: Example with 50 Laplacian smoothing steps applied.

Figure 5: Example smoothed and printed by a 3D printer; 30 × 30 × 30 mm; 27 minutes
printing time.

adjacently and in perpendicular position to the air flow, the average combined rotational speed of the final 20 counter-rotating pairs (M = 1760, SD = 206, N = 20) was
significantly less than the average combined rotational speed of the final 20 co-rotating
pairs (M = 2048, SD = 95, N = 20) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test (U = 17,
p ≤ 7.39 × 10−7 ), showing that co-rotation was found to result in faster combined rotational speed. It can be noted that this result is similar to Sun et al. (2012) where 2
counter-rotating S-rotors performed worse than co-rotating versions when placed at
small separation distances.
The CGA used herein proceeds with 2 species populations, a maximum mutation step size of ±10, a per allele mutation rate of 25%, and a crossover rate of 0%. A
tournament size of 3 takes place for both selection and replacement. To help increase
performance and save fabrication time, each species population initially consists of the
first 10 (>0 rpm) individuals from a single VAWT (z-varying) experiment in (Preen
and Bull, 2014a), both normally rotated and counter-rotated. These individuals still
8

Algorithm 1: Coevolutionary genetic algorithm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Generate and fabricate individuals for all species;
for each species population do
Select random representative from each species;
for each individual in population do
Evaluate;
end
end
while fabrication budget not exhausted do
for each species population do
Create an offspring using evolutionary operators;
Select representatives for each species;
Fabricate and evaluate the offspring;
Add offspring to species population;
end
end

retain a good degree of randomness while possessing some useful aerodynamic properties. Each species thus maintains P = 20 individuals. The individuals in each species
population are initially evaluated in collaboration with a single randomly selected individual from the other species population. Thereafter, the CGA proceeds by alternating
between species after each offspring is formed and evaluated with the elite member
from the other species; see algorithm outline in Algorithm 1.
For the surrogate-assisted architecture used in this paper, the basic CGA remains
unchanged except that fitness evaluations are obtained from a forward pass of the
genome through a neural network when the real fitness value is unknown. Initially
the entire population is fabricated and evaluated on the real fitness function and added
to an evaluated set. The model is trained using backpropagation for 1000 epochs; where
an epoch consists of randomly selecting, without replacement, an individual from the
evaluated set and updating the model weights. Each generation thereafter, the individual with the highest approximated fitness as suggested by the model and a randomly
chosen unevaluated individual are fabricated and evaluated on the real fitness function
and added to the evaluated set. The model weights must be reinitialised each time before training due to the temporal nature of pairing with the elite member. The genetic
algorithm runs for one generation (using the model approximated fitnesses where real
fitness is unknown) before the individual with the highest approximated fitness and a
randomly selected unevaluated individual are evaluated with the elite member from
the other species; see outline in Algorithm 2. The model parameters, β = 0.3, θ = 0,
elasticity = 1, calming rate = 1, momentum = 0, elasticity rate = 0.
The fitness of each individual is the maximum combined array rotational speed
achieved over the period of 1 minute during the application of constant wind generated
by a propeller fan after fabrication by a 3D printer. The rotational speed is the significant measure of aerodynamic efficiency since the design space is constrained (including
rotor radius and turbine height). However, in future work, the power generated will
be preferred, which will take into account any slight weight variations that may affect performance. The rotational speed is here measured in number of revolutions per
minute (rpm) using a digital photo laser tachometer (PCE-DT62; PCE Instruments UK
9

Algorithm 2: Surrogate-assisted coevolutionary algorithm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27

Generate and fabricate individuals for all species;
for each species population do
Select random representative from each species;
for each individual in population do
Evaluate;
Add individual to species evaluated list;
end
end
while fabrication budget not exhausted do
for each species population do
Initialise model weights;
Train model on species evaluated list;
for each individual in population do
if individual unevaluated then
Set approximated fitness;
end
end
for population size number of times do
Create offspring using evolutionary operators;
Set offspring approximated fitness;
Add offspring to species population;
end
Select representatives for each species;
Fabricate, evaluate, and add to species evaluated list, the individual
with the highest approximated fitness in species;
Fabricate, evaluate, and add to species evaluated list, a random
unevaluated individual in species;
end
end

Ltd) by placing a 10 × 2 mm strip of reflecting tape on the outer tip of one of the individual’s blades. The experimental setup can be seen in Figure 6, which shows the 30 W,
3500 rpm, 304.8 mm propeller fan, which generates 4.4 m/s wind speed, and 2 turbines
mounted on rigid metal pins 1 mm in diameter and positioned 33 mm adjacently and
30 mm from the propeller fan. That is, there is a 3 mm spacing between the blades at
their closest point.

4

Experiments

4.1

Modelling Techniques

To explore whether there is any significant advantage in replacing the neural network
used previously as the surrogate model, several algorithms using the Weka 3.6.10 machine learning collection2 were run over the data generated from (Preen and Bull,
2014a). It is important to note that a surrogate model with a larger fitness prediction
error may be more accurate in predicting the rank order of individuals than a model
2 Weka

is an open source data mining algorithm collection. http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/

10

Figure 6: VAWT array experimental setup.

with lower error. Since the rank order is the guiding influence on the evolutionary
process, alternative quality measures for approximate models have therefore been suggested. However, Bischl et al. (2012) found no difference between using the root mean
squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), or Spearman’s rho, which measures
the correlation between the actual and predicted ranking. Furthermore, in practice, optimisation based on the fitness accuracy has often been found to perform the best (e.g.,
Hüsken et al., 2005). Thus, the MAEs of the fitness predictions are here used as the
performance metric.
Table 1 shows the average MAEs for various algorithms predicting the fitness of
evolved individuals. Each number represents the average MAE over 100 runs using
10-fold cross-validation (CV). The result is marked in bold font where it is statistically
different from the standard MLP at the 95% confidence level using a two-sample t-test
assuming unequal variances. GA is the z-axis varying GA-only single VAWT experiment (N = 100); SGA is the surrogate-assisted GA z-axis varying VAWT experiment
(N = 100); CGA-1 is the first species from the CGA experiment (N = 80); CGA-2 is the
second species from the CGA experiment (N = 80); SCGA-1 is the first species from the
surrogate-assisted CGA experiment (N = 80); and SCGA-2 is the second species from
the surrogate-assisted CGA experiment (N = 80). Default Weka parameters were used
unless otherwise specified.
The results show that there is little statistical difference between the algorithms in
predicting the fitness of the evolved individuals. This is perhaps due to the very small
and noisy training samples available for this task. In the rest of this paper we therefore continue with neural network surrogate models, which are well suited to problems with a high-dimensional input space (design space) and limited number of samples (Jin, 2005). In addition, neural network modelling frequently outperforms more
complex approaches such as coevolutionary active learning (Ly and Lipson, 2014).
11

Table 1: Average MAEs (100 runs using 10-fold CV) for various algorithms predicting
the fitness of evolved individuals from the experiments in (Preen and Bull, 2014a). The
result is marked in bold font where it is statistically different from the standard MLP at
the 95% confidence level using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances.
Algorithm
GA
SGA CGA-1 CGA-2 SCGA-1 SCGA-2
Standard MLP
197.89 237.86
430.30
432.64
462.57
394.04
Linear Regression
158.91 170.78
275.13
390.79
361.97
379.08
Isotonic Regression
135.57 145.97
327.22
462.68
367.10
523.73
Pace Regression
160.75 172.57
257.57
397.99
380.85
384.50
Least Med Squares
208.80 237.78
306.71
432.26
334.00
447.14
SMO Regression
152.70 191.33
280.94
370.18
334.65
356.75
MLP N = 1000 H = 10
207.21 241.89
451.91
427.81
503.93
418.42
MLP N = 1000 H = 100 265.10 202.33
385.61
414.38
416.14
408.88
MLP N = 10000 H = 10 256.52 305.41
562.50
481.27
654.00
487.14
MLP N = 500 H = 10
191.63 216.88
397.40
401.16
405.01
401.27
MLP N = 500 H = 1
142.13 174.45
384.69
338.37
410.49
333.47
MLP N = 1000 H = 1
142.32 177.98
395.50
340.86
418.94
343.24
MLP N = 10000 H = 1
159.20 193.07
429.34
364.05
446.37
366.36
MLP N = 500 H = 2
154.28 181.66
392.26
389.26
390.21
337.27
MLP N = 1000 H = 2
156.30 181.51
408.23
407.67
408.15
358.50
Gaussian Processes
168.00 193.03
281.32
369.74
323.65
361.45
RBF B = 2
172.28 180.44
432.09
533.81
482.91
596.46
RBF B = 10
213.94 158.23 1253.08
512.91
404.72
3981.20
REP Tree
196.11 164.33
346.77
343.68
394.93
377.64
Decision Stump
169.99 193.78
325.33
488.70
390.42
519.27
M5P
165.70 168.34
311.37
337.33
355.37
350.04

4.2

Windowing

In interactive evolutionary computation, a user’s evaluation is relative within each generation and therefore fitness values from generations long past may be different to recent generations even if the evaluated candidate is identical. Consequently, Wang and
Takagi (2005) found that a neural network surrogate model using only recent training
data was more effective than using all past data. In addition, many other surrogateassisted approaches have used fixed length training sets (e.g., Bull, 1997b), although
did so to save computational time rather than intentionally aid convergence. Due to
the temporal nature of partnering with the elite species members it may be advantageous to exclude older training samples for SCGAs. To explore whether there is any
benefit from using different windowing approaches to training the surrogate model, 13
different models from Weka were run across the 4 datasets consisting of the 80 evaluated individuals in each species from the coevolution experiments; 2 species for CGA
and 2 for SCGA. The final 2 individuals from each set were used for testing and were
excluded from any training.
The models used are as follows and Weka default parameters were used unless
otherwise stated: (1) Gaussian Processes (Support Vector, RBF Kernel); (2) Isotonic Regression; (3) Linear Regression (M5 attribute selection); (4) Multilayer Perceptron; (5)
SMOreg (RBF Kernel, RegSMO Improved); (6) RBF Network (B = 2); (7) RBF Network
(B = 100); (8) Multilayer Perceptron (N = 1000, H = 10, M = 0); (9) Multilayer Percep12

Combined Rotational Speed (RPM)

2500
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800

CGA
SCGA
SCGA-20T

1700
1600
1500
40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Fabrications

Figure 7: Array rotational speed-based evolution. Fittest array pairs. CGA (circle),
SCGA (square), and SCGA-20T (triangle). The SCGAs are used for comparison only
after 120 evaluations (i.e., 3 generations) of the CGA since sufficient training data is
required for the surrogate models.

tron (N = 500, H = 1); (10) Multilayer Perceptron (N = 1000, H = 1); (11) Multilayer
Perceptron (N = 500, H = 5); (12) Multilayer Perceptron (N = 1000, H = 5); (13)
Multilayer Perceptron (N = 1000, H = 100).
One set of experiments used the full 78 training samples for each dataset (T = 78);
one set used the most recent 40 training samples (T = 40); one set used the most recent
20 training samples (T = 20); and one set used the most recent 10 training samples
(T = 10). The average of the 13 algorithm’s MAEs over the 4 datasets with T = 20
(M = 197.11, SD = 30.54, N = 13) is significantly less than T = 78 (M = 336.39,
SD = 18.34, N = 13) using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, t(14) =
4.76, p = .0003. In addition, the average MAE of T = 20 is also significantly less than
T = 40 (M = 269.94, SD = 16.43, N = 13), t(16) = 3.31, p = .0045. However, the
average MAE of T = 10 (M = 190.14, SD = 15.03, N = 13) was not significantly less
than T = 20, t(17) = 0.74, p = .47.
These results suggest that using the most recent 20 training samples (i.e., P ) produces a more accurate model than using the full evaluation set. The SCGA was therefore rerun, as before however using only the most recent 20 evaluated individuals for
training (SCGA-20T), and the results are shown in Figure 7. The average rotational
speed of the original SCGA (M = 2112, SD = 307, N = 40) was significantly greater
than CGA (M = 1905, SD = 223, N = 40) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test,
U = 331, p ≤ 6.4 × 10−6 . Furthermore, the fittest array combination designed by SCGA
(2429 rpm) was greater than CGA (2209 rpm) after 160 fabrications. However, the average rotational speed of SCGA-20T (M = 1971, SD = 386, N = 40) is not significantly
different to SCGA (M = 2112, SD = 307, N = 40) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney
test, U = 629, p ≤ .1, and the fittest array combination was nearly identical after 160
fabrications; SCGA-20T 2444 rpm vs. SCGA 2429 rpm. The fittest CGA, SCGA and
SCGA-20T evolved arrays after 160 fabrications can be seen in Figure 8.
13

(a) CGA; 2209 rpm.

(b) SCGA; 2429 rpm.

(c) SCGA-20T; 2444 rpm.

Figure 8: Fittest evolved interacting VAWTs after 160 fabrications.

4.3

Model Enhanced Local Search

Typically n individuals are evaluated with the real fitness function each generation,
where n < P . This results in a population consisting of a mix of individuals evaluated
with the real fitness function and those whose fitnesses are approximated. However,
Ulmer et al. (2004) introduced a pre-selection approach to the surrogate assistance of
ESs. The approach consists of creating λP re offspring, where λP re > λ, and evaluating each with the surrogate model; whereupon the λ individuals with the highest
approximated fitness are then selected to form the offspring population and are evaluated with the real fitness function. The main difference is that with pre-selection all
offspring are generated from parent individuals evaluated directly with the real fitness
function. This enables an enhanced local search through the evaluation of a large number of offspring while preventing the evolutionary search from drifting too far from
the evaluated design space, which can occur when repeatedly creating offspring from
approximated individuals. They found that the bigger λP re is, the better the algorithm
performed. Here we explore the use of a SCGA with an enhanced local search, SCGAELS. The CGA runs as normal except that each time a parent is chosen, m number of
offspring are created and evaluated with the surrogate model, and the single offspring
with the highest approximated fitness is then fabricated and evaluated with the real
fitness function before being added to the population. See outline in Algorithm 3. Here
m = 1000. The results are shown in Figure 9.
The average rotational speed of SCGA-ELS (M = 2264, SD = 322, N = 40) is
significantly greater than SCGA (M = 2112, SD = 307, N = 40) using a two-tailed
Mann-Whitney test, U = 469, p ≤ .0015. Furthermore, the fittest SCGA-ELS array pair14

Algorithm 3: SCGA with enhanced local search
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Generate and fabricate individuals for all species;
for each species population do
Select random representative from each species;
for each individual in population do
Evaluate;
Add individual to species evaluated list;
end
end
while fabrication budget not exhausted do
for each species population do
Initialise model weights;
Train model on species evaluated list;
Select a parent using tournament selection;
for m number of times do
Create an offspring using evolutionary operators;
Set offspring approximated fitness;
end
Select the single offspring with the highest approximated fitness;
Select representatives for each species;
Fabricate and evaluate the selected offspring;
Add the selected offspring to the species population;
Add the selected offspring to the species evaluated list;
end
end

ing (2692 rpm; see Figure 10) was greater than SCGA (2429 rpm) after 160 fabrications.
However, this comparison may not be fair to the original SCGA, which fabricates a
randomly selected individual as well as the best each epoch, whereas SCGA-ELS only
fabricates the best. Therefore, a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test was performed for the
rotational speed of SCGA-ELS over the first 20 model suggested offspring (M = 2303,
SD = 134, N = 20) with only the suggested best offspring from SCGA (M = 2087,
SD = 386, N = 20) and the result was found to be statistically significant, U = 114,
p ≤ .02. The same comparison was made for SCGA-ELS over the first 20 model suggested offspring with only the suggested best offspring from SCGA-20T (M = 1907,
SD = 443, N = 20) and the result was also statistically significant, U = 73.5, p ≤ .00063.
SCGA-ELS therefore seems to offer a clear benefit in these experiments.
4.4

Collaboration Strategies

Whilst it is relatively costly to fabricate a new VAWT prototype (∼ 30 minutes), the rotational speed measurement with the laser tachometer is relatively cheap (≤ 1 minute).
Therefore, while it may not be the case for more elaborate wind tunnel testing conditions, here reevaluating some fabricated individuals with other partners may provide
a relatively cheap way to increase performance. To see whether a two-partner strategy
can increase the performance in designing two interacting VAWT, the CGA was rerun
with the same initial population as before, however collaboration was performed with
an individual that was fitness proportionately selected (i.e., roulette wheel) in addition
15

Combined Rotational Speed (RPM)

2700
2600
2500
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
40

CGA
SCGA
SCGA-ELS
60

80

100

120

140

160

Fabrications

Figure 9: Array rotational speed-based evolution. Fittest array pairs. CGA (circle),
SCGA (square), and SCGA-ELS (triangle). The SCGAs are used for comparison only
after 120 evaluations (i.e., 3 generations) of the CGA since sufficient training data is
required for the surrogate models.

Figure 10:
2692 rpm.

SCGA-ELS fittest evolved interacting VAWTs after 160 fabrications;

to the usual elite member from the other species population, and the larger of the two
fitness scores assigned to the individual being evaluated (CGA-2). Since initially no
fitness scores are known, each individual in the first generation of a species population was evaluated in conjunction with a single randomly selected individual from the
other population (that is, as before) and also with a second randomly selected individual, uniquely chosen for each evaluation, and the larger of the two shared fitness scores
assigned.
So far, the CGA has assumed that there is a significant degree of asymmetry within
the array solution and hence no cross-species gene sharing has been permitted. However, it is possible that there may be sufficient symmetry that can be exploited to increase performance. Therefore, the CGA was also rerun with the same initial population as before, however an offspring is also evaluated in the alternate physical position
and in collaboration with the elite member from its own species population (CGACROSS). If the fitness is greater than the population best fitness, it is also added to that
species population, replacing the worst individual.
Figure 11 shows the rotational speed of the fittest array pairings evolved by the
original CGA, CGA-2, and CGA-CROSS over 120 fabrications. As can be seen, the
fittest CGA-2 array pairing after 120 fabrications (2343 rpm) is greater than CGA
16

Combined Rotational Speed (RPM)

2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
CGA
CGA-2
CGA-CROSS

1700
1600
1500
40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Fabrications

Figure 11: Array rotational speed-based evolution. Fittest array pairs. CGA (circle),
CGA-2 (square), CGA-CROSS (triangle).

(2158 rpm). Furthermore, the average combined rotational speed of the final 40 offspring formed by CGA-2 (M = 2053, SD = 295, N = 40) is significantly greater than
the original CGA (M = 1882, SD = 316, N = 40) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney
test, U = 481, p ≤ .0022. The extra evaluation during initialisation was used 38 out of 40
times, which provided an initial performance boost. However, during steady state evolution the extra evaluation was only used 4 out of 80 times. That is, the roulette wheel
selected partner resulted in a combined rotational speed greater than when paired with
the best individual only 5% of the time. Moreover, the average difference of those fitness scores was only 12 rpm, which probably would have made little difference to
the GA. Whilst not used for fitness determination during the experiment, a randomly
selected partner was also evaluated with each offspring and found to have a near identical effect to the roulette wheel collaborator, being greater than the best partner 4 out
of 80 times with an average difference of 46 rpm. Thus it appears that performing extra
evaluations during initialisation provides a significant boost to performance over only
partnering with a single random collaborator, but thereafter there is little performance
benefit from performing extra evaluations.
The fittest CGA-CROSS array pairing after 120 fabrications (2373 rpm) is similar to
CGA-2 (2343 rpm). In 7 out of the 80 extra evaluations performed in the CGA-CROSS
experiment, evaluating the offspring in the alternate position resulted in a faster combined rotational speed than the fittest individual in that species. Furthermore, both
individuals in the fittest array pairing were offspring produced in the alternate species,
showing that there is a high degree of symmetry in the task. However, despite the extra evaluations having resulted in a VAWT pair with a higher rotational speed than
the fittest pair from the original CGA (2158 rpm), the average combined rotational
speed of the final 40 CGA-CROSS offspring evaluated in the original species position
(M = 1988, SD = 261, N = 40) is not statistically different to CGA using a two-tailed
Mann-Whitney test, U = 655, p ≤ .163. The fittest CGA-2 and CGA-CROSS interacting
VAWTs after 120 fabrications are shown in Figure 12.
17

(a) CGA-2; 2343 rpm.

(b) CGA-CROSS; 2373 rpm.

Figure 12: Fittest evolved interacting VAWTs after 120 fabrications.

5

Conclusions

This paper has explored a range of surrogate modelling and evolutionary techniques
used to design interacting VAWTs wherein candidate prototypes are fabricated by a
3D printer and evaluated under fan generated wind conditions. The experiments here
have shown that it is possible to use SCGAs to iteratively increase the performance of
closely positioned Savonius turbines, exploiting the inter-turbine flow effects, which
is extremely difficult to achieve under simulation. The SCGA represents a scalable approach to the design of wind turbine arrays since the number of inputs to the surrogatemodels remains constant regardless of the number of turbines undergoing evolution.
The accuracy of various modelling algorithms used to estimate the fitness of evaluated individuals from the initial experiments was compared, finding that there is little difference between the algorithms for the current task. The effect of temporally
windowing the surrogate model training samples was shown to be a promising approach, however resulted in no performance benefit in practice. Subsequently, a SCGA
based on an enhanced local search was introduced and found to produce more efficient designs within the same number of fabrications when compared with the original
SCGA approaches. Finally, alternative coevolution collaboration schemes were examined, finding an initial performance increase resulting from more accurate fitness assignments but with no significant improvement thereafter. This highlights that while
much can be learnt by developing optimisation algorithms using simulated problems
and mining data, significant differences in performance are often found when applying
the results to the real application. Thus, whilst general learning algorithms provide a
starting point for exploration, there is no escape from further development directly in
the problem application.
The use of 3D printing to physically instantiate candidate designs completely
avoids the use of 3D computer simulations, with their associated processing costs and
modelling assumptions. In this case, 3D CFD analysis was avoided, but the approach
is equally applicable to other real-world optimisation problems, for example, those requiring computational structural dynamics or computational electromagnetics simulations. We anticipate that in the future such ‘design mining’ approaches will yield un18

usual yet highly efficient designs that exploit characteristics of the environment and/or
materials that are difficult to capture formally or in simulation. This has the potential
to place knowledge discovery at the core of engineering design, particularly within an
iterative framework such as in agile approaches.
Although the print resolution used here to build the prototypes was set at the
printer default, the resolution can be adjusted to provide coarser designs at a faster
rate for preliminary studies (e.g., for early evolutionary candidates), or slower higher
resolution prints for more subtle optimisation. Further, only PLA plastic was used
here to fabricate designs, but other materials such as flexible rubbers or multi-material
designs can be constructed and explored by an EA. Thus 3D printing offers a range
of ways to customise the evolutionary instantiation to the design task. Multiple 3D
printers can also easily be used to perform parallel fabrication to speed up the process.
Future work will include the use of the power generated as the fitness computation under various wind tunnel conditions; the coevolution of larger arrays, including
the turbine positioning; the exploration of more advanced assisted learning systems to
reduce the number of fabrications required; examination of the effect of seeding the
population with a given design; investigation of alternative representations that provide more flexible designs including variable number of blades, for example, supershapes (Preen and Bull, 2014b); and the production of 1:1 scale designs.
The issue of scalability remains an important future area of research. When increasing the scale of designs it is widely known that the changes in dimensionality will
greatly affect performance, however it remains to be seen how performance will change
in the presence of other significant factors such as turbine wake interactions in the case
of arrays. One potential solution is to simply use larger 3D printing and wind-tunnel
capabilities whereby larger designs could be produced by the same method. On the opposite end of the spectrum, micro-wind turbines that are 2 mm in diameter or smaller
can be used to generate power, such as for wireless sensors (Howey et al., 2011), and
in this case more precise 3D printers would be required. Moreover, wind turbines can
find useful applications on any scale, e.g., a recent feasibility study (Park et al., 2012)
for powering wireless sensors on cable-stayed bridges examined turbines with a rotor diameter of 138 mm in wind conditions with an average of 4.4 m/s (similar to the
artificial wind conditions used in this paper).
If the recent speed and material advances in rapid-prototyping continues, along
with the current advancement of evolutionary design, it will soon be feasible to perform
a wide-array of automated complex engineering optimisation in situ, whether on the
micro-scale (e.g., drug design), or the macro-scale (e.g., wind turbine design). That
is, instead of using mass manufactured designs, EAs will be used to identify bespoke
solutions that are manufactured to compensate and exploit the specific characteristics
of the environment in which they are deployed, e.g., local wind conditions, nearby
obstacles, and local acoustic and visual requirements for wind turbines.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the UK Leverhulme Trust under Grant RPG-2013-344.

References
Anderson, J. D. (1995). Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Aristidis, V., Maria, P., and Christos, L. (2010). Particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm for

19

wind farm optimal design. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 5(1):53–58.
Axelrod, R. (1987). The evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. In Davis, L.,
editor, Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing, pages 32–42. London, UK: Pitman.
Barthelmie, R. J., Larsen, G. C., Frandsen, S. T., Folkerts, L., Rados, K., Pryor, S. C., Lange, B., and
Schepers, G. (2006). Comparison of wake model simulations with offshore wind turbine wake
profiles measured by sodar. Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 23:888–901.
Bartz-Beielstein, T. (2006). Experimental research in evolutionary computation; the new experimentalism. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Bischl, B., Mersmann, O., Trautmann, H., and Weihs, C. (2012). Resampling methods for metamodel validation with recommendations for evolutionary computation. Evolutionary Computation, 20(2):249–275.
Boria, F., Stanford, B., Bowman, S., and Ifju, P. (2009). Evolutionary optimization of a morphing
wing with wind-tunnel hardware in the loop. AIAA Journal, 47(2):399–409.
Bull, L. (1997a). Evolutionary computing in multi-agent environments: Partners. In Proceedings
of the Seventh International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 370–377.
Bull, L. (1997b). Model-based evolutionary computing: a neural network and genetic algorithm
architecture. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation,
pages 611–616.
Bull, L. (1999). On model-based evolutionary computation. Soft Computing, 3(2):76–82.
Bull, L. and Fogarty, T. (1993). Coevolving communicating classifier systems for tracking. In
Albrecht, R. F., Reeves, C. R., and Steele, N. C., editors, Artificial Neural Nets and Genetic Algorithms, pages 522–527. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Carrigan, T. J., Dennis, B. H., Han, Z. X., and Wang, B. P. (2012). Aerodynamic shape optimization of a vertical-axis wind turbine using differential evolution. ISRN Renewable Energy, 2012.
Article ID: 528418.
Chamorro, L. P., Tobin, N., Arndt, R. E. A., and Sotiropoulos, F. (2014). Variable-sized wind
turbines are a possibility for wind farm optimization. Wind Energy, 17(10):1483–1494.
Charwat, A. F. (1978). Performance of counter- and corotating arrays of savonius turbines. Journal
of Energy, 2:61–63.
Cohen, D. L., Lipton, J. I., Bonassar, L. J., and Lipson, H. (2010). Additive manufacturing for in
situ repair of osteochondral defects. Biofabrication, 2(3):035004.
Dabiri, J. O. (2011). Potential order-of-magnitude enhancement of wind farm power density via
counter-rotating vertical-axis wind turbine arrays. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy,
3(4):043104.
Darrieus, G. J. M. (1931). Turbine having its rotating shaft transverse to the flow of the current.
US Patent 1 835 018, December 8.
Dunham, B., Fridshal, R., and North, J. H. (1963). Design by natural selection. Synthese, 15(2):254–
259.
Eberhart, R. C. (1992). The role of genetic algorithms in neural network query-based learning
and explanation facilities. In Whitley, L. D. and Schaffer, J. D., editors, International Workshop
on Combinations of Genetic Algorithms and Neural Networks, COGANN ’92, pages 169–183. IEEE.
Eriksson, S., Bernhoff, H., and Leijon, M. (2008). Evaluation of different turbine concepts for
wind power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(5):1419–1434.

20

Eroğlu, Y. and Seçkiner, S. U. (2012). Design of wind farm layout using ant colony algorithm.
Renewable Energy, 44:53–62.
Forrester, A. I. and Keane, A. J. (2009). Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Progress
in Aerospace Sciences, 45(1–3):50–79.
Goh, C. K., Lim, D., Ma, L., Ong, Y. S., and Dutta, P. S. (2011). A surrogate-assisted memetic
co-evolutionary algorithm for expensive constrained optimization problems. In Proceedings of
the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2011, pages 744–749.
Hampsey, M. (2002). Multiobjective Evolutionary Optimisation of Small Wind Turbine Blades. PhD
thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW,
Australia.
Hao, L., Seaman, O., Mellor, S., Henderson, J., Sewell, N., and Sloan, M. (2009). Extrusion behavior of chocolate for additive layer manufacturing. In da Silva Bartolo, P. J., Jorge, M. A.,
da Conceicao Batista, F., Almeida, H. A., Matias, J. M., Vasco, J. C., Gaspar, J. B., Correia, M. A.,
Andre, N. C., Alves, N. F., Novo, P. P., Martinho, P. G., and Carvalho, R. A., editors, Innovative
Developments in Design and Manufacturing – Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping,
pages 245–250. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Harding, S. L. and Miller, J. F. (2004). Evolution in materio: Initial experiments with liquid crystal.
In Proceedings of the NASA/DoD Workshop on Evolvable Hardware, pages 289–299.
Hasager, C. B., Rasmussen, L., Peña, A., Jensen, L. E., and Réthoré, P.-E. (2013). Wind farm wake:
the Horns Rev photo case. Energies, 6:696–716.
Herdy, M. (1996). Evolution strategies with subjective selection. In Ebeling, W., Rechenberg, I.,
Schwefel, H.-P., and Voigt, H.-M., editors, Parallel problem solving from nature: PPSN IV, volume
1141 of Lecture notes in computer science, pages 22–26. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hillis, W. D. (1991). Co-evolving parasites improves simulated optimisation as an optimisation
procedure. In Langton, C. G., Taylor, C., Farmer, J. D., and Rasmussen, S., editors, Artificial Life
II, pages 313–324. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hornby, G. S., Lohn, J. D., and Linden, D. S. (2011). Computer-automated evolution of an X-band
antenna for NASA’s space technology 5 mission. Evolutionary Computation, 19(1):1–23.
Howey, D. A., Bansal, A., and Holmes, A. S. (2011). Design and performance of a centimetre-scale
shrouded wind turbine for energy harvesting. Smart Materials and Structures, 20(8):085021.
Husbands, P. and Mill, F. (1991). Simulated coevolution as the mechanism for emergent planning
and scheduling. In Belew, R. K. and Booker, L. B., editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 264–270. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Hüsken, M., Jin, Y., and Sendhoff, B. (2005). Structure optimization of neural networks for evolutionary design optimization. Soft Computing, 9(1):21–28.
Jakab, K., Norotte, C., Damon, B., Marga, F., Neagu, A., Besch-Williford, C. L., Kachurin, A.,
Church, K. H., Park, H., Mironov, V., Markwald, R., Vunjak-Novakovic, G., and Forgacs, G.
(2008). Tissue engineering by self-assembly of cells printed into topologically defined structures. Tissue Engineering Part A, 14(3):413–421.
Jin, Y. (2005). A comprehensive survey of fitness approximation in evolutionary computation.
Soft Computing, 9(1):3–12.
Jin, Y. (2011). Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: recent advances and future challenges. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 1:61–70.
Kim, H. S. and Cho, S. B. (2001). An efficient genetic algorithm with less fitness evaluation by
clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2001, volume 2,
pages 887–894.

21

Kinzel, M., Mulligan, Q., and Dabiri, J. O. (2012). Energy exchange in an array of vertical-axis
wind turbines. Journal of Turbulence, 13(38):1–13.
Koza, J. (1991). Genetic evolution and coevolution of computer programs. In Langton, C. G.,
Taylor, C., Farmer, J. D., and Rasmussen, S., editors, Artificial Life II, pages 603–630. Boston,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kusiak, A. and Song, Z. (2010). Design of wind farm layout for maximum wind energy capture.
Renewable Energy, 35:685–694.
Ladd, C., So, J.-H., Muth, J., and Dickey, M. D. (2013). 3D printing of free standing liquid metal
microstructures. Advanced Materials, 25(36):5081–5085.
Le, M. N., Ong, Y. S., Menzel, S., Jin, Y., and Sendhoff, B. (2013). Evolution by adapting surrogates.
Evolutionary Computation, 21(2):313–340.
Leigh, S. J., Bradley, R. J., Purssell, C. P., Billson, D. R., and Hutchins, D. A. (2012). A simple, low-cost conductive composite material for 3D printing of electronic sensors. PLoS ONE,
7(11):e49365.
Lipson, H. and Pollack, J. (2000). Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature,
406(6799):974–978.
Lipton, J. I., Arnold, D., Nigl, F., Lopez, N., Cohen, D. L., Noren, N., and Lipson, H. (2010).
Multi-material food printing with complex internal structure suitable for conventional postprocessing. In 21st Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, SFF ’10, pages 809–815, The University
of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA.
Ly, D. L. and Lipson, H. (2014). Optimal experiment design for coevolutionary active learning.
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 18(3):394–404.
Marmidis, G., Lazarou, S., and Pyrgioti, E. (2008). Optimal placement of wind turbines in a wind
park using monte carlo simulation. Renewable Energy, 33:1455–1460.
Miller, J. F. and Downing, K. (2002). Evolution in materio: Looking beyond the silicon box. In
Proceedings of the NASA/DoD Workshop on Evolvable Hardware, pages 167–176.
Miller, J. S., Stevens, K. R., Yang, M. T., Baker, B. M., Nguyen, D.-H. T., Cohen, D. M., Toro, E.,
Chen, A. A., Galie, P. A., Yu, X., Chaturvedi, R., Bhatia, S. N., and Chen, C. S. (2012). Rapid
casting of patterned vascular networks for perfusable engineered three-dimensional tissues.
Nature Materials, 11:768–774.
Mosetti, G., Poloni, C., and Diviacco, B. (1994). Optimization of wind turbine positioning in
large wind farms by means of a genetic algorithm. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 51(1):105–116.
Nolfi, S. (1992). Evolving non-trivial behaviours on real-robots: a garbage collecting robot.
Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 22:187–198.
Ong, Y. S., Keane, A. J., and Nair, P. B. (2002). Surrogate-assisted coevolutionary search. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing, ICONIP ’02, volume 3, pages 1140–1145.
Ong, Y. S., Nair, P. B., and Lum, K. Y. (2006). Max-min surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithm
for robust design. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 10(4):392–404.
Paredis, J. (1994). Steps towards coevolutionary classification neural networks. In Brooks, R. A.
and Maes, P., editors, Artificial Life IV, pages 102–108. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Park, J.-W., Jung, H.-J., Jo, H., and Spencer Jr., B. F. (2012). Feasibility study of micro-wind
turbines for powering wireless sensors on a cable-stayed bridge. Energies, 5:3450–3464.

22

Potter, M. A. and De Jong, K. A. (1994). A cooperative coevolutionary approach to function
optimization. In Davidor, Y., Schwefel, H.-P., and Männer, R., editors, Parallel problem solving
from nature: PPSN III, volume 866 of Lecture notes in computer science, pages 249–257. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Preen, R. J. and Bull, L. (2014a). Towards the coevolution of novel vertical-axis wind turbines.
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2014.2316199.
Preen, R. J. and Bull, L. (2014b). Towards the evolution of vertical-axis wind turbines using
supershapes. Evolutionary Intelligence, 7(3):155–187.
Ratle, A. (2001). Kriging as a surrogate fitness landscape in evolutionary optimization. Artificial
Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 15(1):37–49.
Rechenberg, I. (1971). Evolutionsstrategie – optimierung technischer systeme nach prinzipien der biologischen evolution. PhD thesis, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
REN21 (2013). Renewables 2013 Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the
21st Century.
Rieffel, J. and Sayles, D. (2010). EvoFAB: A fully embodied evolutionary fabricator. In Tempesti,
G., Tyrrell, A. M., and Miller, J. F., editors, Evolvable Systems: From Biology to Hardware – 9th
International Conference, pages 372–380. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Rosenblatt, F. (1962). Principles of Neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the Theory of Brain Mechanisms.
Washington DC: Spartan Books.
Salcedo-Sanz, S., Saavedra-Moreno, B., Paniagua-Tineo, A., and Portilla-Figueras, A. (2011). A
review of recent evolutionary computation-based techniques in wind turbines layout optimization problems. Central European Journal of Computer Science, 1(1):101–107.
Savonius, S. J. (1930). Wind rotor. US Patent 1 766 765, June 24.
Sun, X., Luo, D., and Wu, G. (2012). Numerical study on coupling effects among multiple savonius turbines. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 4:053107.
Symes, M. D., Kitson, P. J., Yan, J., Richmond, C. J., Cooper, G. J. T., Bowman, R. W., Vilbrandt, T.,
and Cronin, L. (2012). Integrated 3D-printed reactionware for chemical synthesis and analysis.
Nature Chemistry, 4:349–354.
Theis, M., Gazzola, G., Forlin, M., Poli, I., Hanczyc, M., and Bedau, M. (2006). Optimal formulation of complex chemical systems with a genetic algorithm. In Jost, J., Reed-Tsochas, F.,
and Schuster, P., editors, Proceedings of the European Conference on Complex Systems, ECCS ’06,
page 50, Saı̈d Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Thompson, A. (1998). Hardware Evolution: Automatic design of electronic circuits in reconfigurable
hardware by artificial evolution. Distinguished Dissertations. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Toja-Silva, F., Colmenar-Santos, A., and Castro-Gil, M. (2013). Urban wind energy exploitation
systems: Behaviour under multidirectional flow conditions—opportunities and challenges.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24:364–378.
Ulmer, H., Streichert, F., and Zell, A. (2004). Evolution strategies with controlled model assistance. In Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2004, volume 2,
pages 1569–1576.
Viana, F. A. C., Simpson, T. W., Balabanov, V., and Toropov, V. (2014). Metamodelling in multidisciplinary design optimization: How far have we really come? AIAA Journal, 52(4):670–690.
Wang, S. and Takagi, H. (2005). Improving the performance of predicting users’ subjective evaluation characteristics to reduce their fatigue in IEC. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and
Applied Human Science, 24:81–85.

23

Whittlesey, R. W., Liska, S., and Dabiri, J. O. (2010). Fish schooling as a basis for vertical axis
wind turbine farm design. Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, 5(3):035005.
Wiegand, R. P., Liles, W. C., and De Jong, K. A. (2001). An empirical analysis of collaboration
methods in cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO ’01, pages 1235–1242.
Xu, T., Binder, K. W., Albanna, M. Z., Dice, D., Zhoa, W., Yoo, J. J., and Atala, A. (2013). Hybrid
printing of mechanically and biologically improved constructs for cartilage tissue engineering
applications. Biofabrication, 5(1):015001.
Yun, Y., Yoon, M., and Nakayama, H. (2009). Multi-objective optimization based on metamodeling by using support vector regression. Optimization and Engineering, 10(2):167–181.

24

