Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Comparative analysis and improvement of grid-based wind farm layout T

optimization
Giovanni Gualtieri
National Research Council, Institute of Bioecomony (CNR-IBE), Via Caproni 8, 50145 Firenze, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Among the main grid-based wind farm layout optimization studies addressed in the literature, 14 layouts have
Wind farm layout optimization been recomputed by selecting the levelized cost of energy as a primary objective function. Relying on 120 wind
Gridded layout turbine combinations, a previously developed optimization method targeting best turbine selection has then
Literature case study been applied. All literature layouts were optimized, as capacity factors were (slightly) increased (78.89–80.90 to
Wind turbine database
83.02–83.07%), while levelized costs of energy were (significantly) reduced (130.37–370.42 to 54.01–142.64
Levelized cost of energy
Self-organizing map
$/MWh). This study concluded that neither the discrete nor the continuous optimization model can be re-
commended in all scenarios. In general, a capacity factor increase does not necessarily imply a decrease in
levelized cost of energy. The latter may be minimized by decreasing the overall wind farm capacity, the number
of turbines, or selecting turbines with lower rotor diameters or rated powers. By contrast, capacity factor may be
maximized by installing turbines with higher hub heights or lower rated speeds. Contradicting various findings,
using turbines with different rotor diameters, rated powers or hub heights is not recommended to minimize the
levelized cost of energy. Although addressed within several optimization studies, maximization of energy pro-
duction is a misleading target, as involving the highest costs of energy.

1. Introduction
Wind farm layout optimization (WFLO) is commonly intended as
optimal positioning of wind turbines (WTs) in a wind farm (WF)
through minimization of power losses due to wake interferences be-
tween the WTs to maximize the annual energy yield (AEY) [1]. In
reality, this is a limiting definition, as AEY is not the only factor to take
into account [2]. Since WF planning is an economic project, AEY
maximization should be combined with the minimization of the cost of
energy [3].
1.1. Addressing wind farm layout optimization
When addressing the WFLO problem, two WF layout models are
generally applied [4]: (i) the continuous model, allowing WTs to be
positioned anywhere in the WF, subject to constraints; (ii) the discrete
model, only allowing WTs to be positioned at a finite number of loca-
tions. When applying the continuous model (i), WTs may either be ir-
regularly placed (e.g. [5]), or positioned according to aligned (e.g. [6])
or staggered (e.g. [7]) arrays. In the discrete approach (ii), the domain
is divided into a discrete grid with WTs positioned in the centre of
specific cells (e.g. [8]). Depending on the layout scheme, the best WTs
positioning is pursued by seeking, respectively: (i) optimal downwind
and crosswind spacing between the WTs; (ii) most suitable grid cells to
place the WTs. According to various Authors (e.g. [4]), since enabling
to continuously vary the WTs placement, the continuous space search is
more capable of achieving global optimal solutions. Conversely, unless
when dealing with particularly dense grids (e.g. [9]), searching in a
discrete space generally leads to a significant WFLO computational
simplification [10]. An improved approach has been addressed by
various Authors (e.g. [11]) by combining both discrete and continuous
models into a single framework in an attempt to incorporate the ad-
vantages offered by each model: less model-solving complexity the
former, and more flexible WT positioning the latter. To this aim, Long
et al. [12] performed a thorough comparison of the advantages and
drawbacks in planning WF layout deriving from applying the discrete
vs. the continuous model.
The WFLO problem is non-convex (involving many optimal solu-
tions) and cannot be solved using traditional optimization methods, but
requires heuristic optimization techniques, which were implemented by
most Authors [2]. Heuristic techniques include, e.g., Genetic Algo-
rithms (GA) [13], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [3], Evolutive
Algorithm (EA) [14], Viral System Algorithm (VSA) [8], or Extended
Pattern Search (EPS) [15]. GAs are used in more than 75% of WFLO
studies [4]. All these algorithms are strongly affected by the size of the
solution space. For example, if considering a gridded layout divided

E-mail address: giovanni.gualtieri@ibe.cnr.it.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112593
Received 11 November 2019; Received in revised form 7 February 2020; Accepted 8 February 2020
0196-8904/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Gualtieri Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593

Nomenclature LCoE levelized cost of energy [$/MWh], Eq. (25)

Lh, Lv horizontal and vertical WF full sizes [m]
Abbreviations NLAY overall number of generated WF layouts [–]
NLIT number of literature WF layouts [–]
AGL above ground level NP, ND, NH number of combinations in the WF with WTs having
AGL above ground level different Pr, D or Hhub [–]
AGL above ground level NT, NTH number of WTs, and number of WT combinations [–]
PL power law NWF number of WF layouts for each literature case study [–]
SOM self-organizing map P total wind power installed in the WF [kW]
WF wind farm Pe electric power output from a WT [kW], Eqs. (8), (13)
WFLO wind farm layout optimization Pr WT rated power [kW]
WT wind turbine r0 wake radius downstream a WT [m], Eq. (1)
rw radius of wake expansion caused by an upstream WT [m],
Variables Eq. (3)
v(z) wind speed at generic height z AGL [m/s], Eq. (20)
a WT axial induction factor [–], Eq. (2) v, vm wind speed, and mean wind speed [m/s]
A WT swept area [m2] v0 free stream wind speed [m/s]
AEY annual energy yield [MWh/y], Eq. (9) vact actual wind speed approaching the WT [m/s], Eq. (7)
CF capacity factor [%], Eq. (10) vhub actual wind speed approaching the WT at Hhub [m/s]
Ci annual cost at year i [$/kW/y] vi, vr, vo WT cut-in, rated and cut-off wind speeds [m/s]
Cini initial capital cost [$] z, z1, z2 height AGL, and height at z1 and z2 AGL [m]
CT WT thrust coefficient [–] z0 site’s aerodynamic surface roughness length [m]
D WT rotor diameter [m] zref wind reference height AGL [m]
Fsite power losses of a single WT depending on the site type zsite site elevation ASL [m]
[%], Eq. (17) α wake expansion coefficient of upstream WT [–], Eq. (4)
Ftot total power losses of a single WT experienced in the WF wind shear coefficient [–]
[%], Eq. (18) δ wind speed deficit [–], Eqs. (5), (6)
Fwake power losses of a single WT due to all wake interactions in Δh, Δv horizontal and vertical WF grid cell sizes [m]
the WF [%], Eqs. (11), (14) η WF efficiency [%], Eqs. (12), (15)
FWT power losses of a single WT depending on the WT system Φ WT design ratio [–], Eq. (21)
[%], Eq. (16) Ω mean-to-rated wind speed [%], Eq. (22)
Hhub WT hub height [m]

into Ncell cells where NWT WTs are to be installed, the number of pos-
sible solutions is: Ncell!/[NWT!(Ncell–NWT)!] [2].
The WFLO problem is also complicated by the turbulence loads
experienced by the WTs due to their mutual wake interactions in the
farm. These increase the fatigue degradation of WTs, thus shortening
their expected lifetime and consequently increasing the overall project’s
cost. Therefore, a proper balance between the maximization of energy
production and the minimization of structural loads should be targeted
[16]. On the other hand, both the positive and negative environmental
impacts involved by the installation of a grid-connected WF should not
be ignored. For example, Tao et al. [17] demonstrated that, since in-
tegration of the WF into the electrical network reduces air pollutant
emissions thus saving remarkable expenditures on pollutant penalty
costs, neglecting these costs undervalues the profit deriving from the
WF connection to the grid. By contrast, a relatively small amount of
economic benefit should be sacrificed for reducing the noise dis-
turbance of the WF to neighbouring residents and animals.
1.2. Literature survey
Mosetti et al. [18] first addressed the optimal positioning of WTs in
a WF, applying a GA algorithm and Jensen’s wake model [19]. They
dealt with: (i) a flat onshore site; (ii) three ideal wind conditions; (iii)
the same (theoretical) WT model installed over the whole WF; (iv) a
square (2 km × 2 km) gridded layout with 200-m square cells [18].
WFLO was pursued by maximizing AEY and minimizing the installation
costs of WTs [2]. Following and in the framework of this seminal work,
several grid-based WFLO studies were addressed, either using the same
assumptions as in [18] (e.g. [20]), or slightly different ones that in-
volved a denser grid up to 20 × 20 [1] or even 50 × 50 [9] cells. All of
these studies attempted to address a recognized drawback of the
approach in [18], i.e. the limited number of installed WTs, and thus the
waste of land resource [4]. These studies targeted the same goals of
Mosetti et al. [18], i.e. maximization of AEY [21] (also via maximiza-
tion of WF array efficiency [22]), and/or minimization of a fitness
value, given by the ratio of WF costs to AEY [23]. Regardless, the fol-
lowing deficiencies should be pinpointed in all such studies due to the
use of: (i) the same WT model; (ii) a theoretical WT power curve; (iii) a
constant value for WT thrust coefficient (CT); (iv) a simplified objective
function (the fitness value), also relying upon (v) an overly-simplistic
cost model.
Actually, as Chowdhury et al. [3] pointed out, the WFLO problem
should address two synergistic issues: (i) optimal WT allocation, and (ii)
optimal WT selection. While several literature studies exist on heuristic
algorithms, merely representing best WTs allocators (e.g. [24]), a
minority of works focused on seeking the best-suited characteristics of
commercial WTs [3], as in most cases only one single model was used,
either when adopting the discrete [25] or the continuous [26] WFLO
model, or a combination of both [11]. In other words, rather than a
further WFLO assumption, WT characteristics should be treated as an
array of variables to be carefully analysed for detecting the unique
combination required to solve the WFLO problem. To this aim, for ex-
ample, Hayat et al. [27] analysed the advantage of alternating 2- and 3-
blade WTs in a WF, while the benefits of vertically-staggered WFs were
explored placing small WTs between large WTs by Chatterjee and Peet
[28], as well as using different hub heights by Stanley et al. [29] or Wu
et al. [30]. A 3-variable analysis was addressed, e.g., by Mirghaed and
Roshandel [31], who targeted the minimization of WF costs through
variation of WT hub height, rotor diameter and rated power, while
parameters at WF-level such as the number of WTs and total installed
power were also taken into account by Pookpunt and Ongsakul [32].
Following this survey, it is clear that all key factors – both at WT-

2
G. Gualtieri Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593

and WF-level – should be concurrently analysed to actually perform a
WFLO comprehensive study.
1.3. Goals and contributions of the paper
The goals of the present study are the following:
studies and implemented in several WFLO software, including WAsP
[37] and WindPro [38].
According to Jensen’s model, the wake expands linearly behind a
WT and a constant wind speed deficit in the radial direction x occurs
[39]. If considering an upstream WTi having a rotor radius Ri, the radius
of the wake spreading downstream WTi is [14]:

1 ai
(i) to comparatively analyse main grid-based WFLO studies addressed r0, i = Ri
in the literature after their recomputation using more real-world 1 2ai (1)
settings; where ai is WTi axial induction factor [39]:
(ii) to optimize them by applying a previously developed method [33]
which targets an optimal selection of commercial-scale WTs; ai = 0.5(1 1 CT , i ) (2)
(iii) to provide insights into optimization functions and parameters that
mostly influence WFLO. with CT,i the WTi thrust coefficient.
At radial distance xij of a downstream WTj, the radius of wake ex-
Literature studies where an optimal 10 × 10 (2 km × 2 km) grid- pansion due to WTi is [39]:
based layout was achieved against wind scenario ‘c’ defined in [18] rw, ij = r0, i + i x ij (3)
have been recomputed. According to goal (i), the first contribution of
the present paper is to overcome deficiencies (detailed in section 1.2) where αi is WTi-induced wake expansion coefficient [14]:
affecting such studies, for which the following were never applied: (i) 0.5
120 combinations of commercial WTs rather than using a single WT i =
ln(Hhub, i z 0 ) (4)
model; (ii) experimental (instead of theoretical) power curves for each
WT; (iii) a continuous function of wind speed rather than a constant with Hhub,i the hub height of WTi and z0 site’s roughness length.
value for CT; (iv) the levelized cost of energy (LCoE) as an objective A single wake between two WTs causes a velocity deficit given by
function instead of the simple fitness value; (v) the thorough NREL cost [39]:
model rather than the simplified cost model proposed in [18]. 2
Performing optimization of such studies by applying the method r0, i Aoverlap, ij
ij = 2ai
developed in [33] (goal ‘ii’) enables to deliver the paper's second con- rw, ij Aj (5)
tribution: since the WTs best selection rather than the WTs best posi-
tioning is pursued, layout optimization – contrary to those studies – has where Aj is WTj swept area, and Aoverlap,ij the overlapping area between
been performed by varying the type of WTs while retaining the number Aj and WTi-induced wake area at xij. Aoverlap,ij can be calculated by
of WTs and their placement as assumed. Since the WFLO method pre- applying the method described in [39].
sented in [33] was previously applied to the continuous WF layout Summarizing, for a WTj subject to multiple wakes induced by Ni
model, a paper's further contribution is not only to test its applicability upstream WTi, the total velocity deficit can be calculated by summing
to the discrete model, but also to make a straight comparison – since up the Ni contributions provided by Eq. (5) [39]:
application conditions are similar – between the discrete and the con- 2 2
Ni Ni
tinuous WFLO model: this offers the opportunity to possibly determine 2 r0, i Aoverlap, ij
j = ij = 2ai
whether one approach is superior to the other. i=1 i=1
rw, ij Aj
(6)
An additional contribution while targeting goal (iii), is a multi-
purpose and a multi-variable analysis of grid-based WFLO studies that Ultimately, actual wind speed approaching the downstream WTj is
have never been addressed before: to concurrently consider all possible given by:
optimization functions (power production, WF efficiency, capacity
vact , j = v0 (1 j) (7)
factor or cost of energy) and parameters that mostly influence WFLO –
both at WT- and WF-level – allows to genuinely achieve a compre-
hensive WFLO study.
2.2. Wind power output and wind farm efficiency
2. Methods
The electric power Pe(v) generated by a real WT is defined as [40]:
Wake losses between the WTs were calculated by using Jensen’s 1 1
Pe (v ) = m e Pm (v ) = m e Cp P ( v ) = Cp A v3 = A v3
model, while all other losses were assessed through an analytic method. 2 m e
2 T

A previously-developed curve as a function of wind speed was used for (8)

CT, while the NREL model was applied for WF cost analysis. SOMs were
where Pm(v) is the mechanical power extractable from wind power P(v)
used to provide insights into WF layout optimization functions and
available for a WT with swept area A affected by a wind speed v [41], ρ
parameters that influence WFLO the most.
is site’s air density, Cp is the WT power coefficient, ηm and ηe are me-
chanical transmission and electric conversion efficiencies of the WT,
2.1. Wake losses: Jensen’s model
andηT = Cpηmηe is total power efficiency [42].
Annual energy yield (AEY) of a WT over a 1-year period (t =8760 h)
When a uniform free wind speed v0 hits a WT, a cone of slower and
is [43]:
more turbulent air develops behind the WT, causing the so-called ‘wake
effect’ [26]. Wake interactions between WTs are accounted for by the 1
AEY = t Pe (v ) f (v ) dv = t m e Pm (v ) f (v ) dv = t A v 3f (v ) dv
wake models. Jensen's analytical wake model, although one of the 2 T
0 0 0
oldest, is still very effective in WFLO because of its simplicity [4].
(9)
Evidence that Jensen's model outperformed other wake models has
been provided at both onshore (e.g. [34]) and offshore (e.g. [35]) lo- Capacity factor CF is the ratio of AEY to the energy (Er) that the WT
cations. Originally proposed by Jensen [19] and later developed by could have produced if operated at its rated power over the same period
Katic et al. [36] for studying WFLO, the model is applied within most [44]:

3
G. Gualtieri Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593

CF =
AEY attempted to deal with this issue, proposing a CT continuous curve as a
Er (10) function of Cp following a best-fit procedure. Very few WFLO studies
considered CT as a value varying with wind speed [2], as for example
Overall power losses a generic WTj undergoes in the WF caused by
the study performed by Ali et al. [45].
all wake interactions are:
Based on CT experimental curves provided by manufacturers for 50
Pact , j onshore commercial WTs [46], a further improvement has been pro-
Fwake, j = 1
P0 (11) posed in [33] by applying a best-fit procedure, which returned the
following CT(v) curve:
where Pact,j and P0 represent the power productions corresponding to
vact,j and v0 in Eq. (7). CT = (5.47581845 10 6v 5.00641402 + 1.132584887) 1
(19)
WF efficiency, returning the amount of energy extracted from total
Eq. (19) has been compared against the CT values averaged from the
available energy, is the ratio of total actual power output to total ideal
considered 50 WTs, eventually returning the scores summarized in
power output. For a WF including N WTs, it yields [44]:
Table S1 of the Supplementary material. Eq. (19) is particularly accu-
N
rate when the WTs operate above their rated speed. Across the full wind
Pact , j
Pact j=1
speed range (3–25 m/s), a mean bias of 0.007 m/s, root mean square
= = error of 0.027 m/s, and R2 of 0.993 are achieved.
Pideal N P0 (12)
Mosetti et al. [18] introduced a WT theoretical model whose power 2.5. Wind speed vertical profile
output as a function of wind speed resulted from applying the laws of
Betz and the momentum in the airflow passing through the WT swept The PL is the wind speed vertical extrapolation model most widely
area [2]. Assuming ηT = 40%, ρ = 1.225 kg/m3, and D = 40 m, Eq. (8) used in wind energy applications (73.5%) because of its simplicity and
can thus be expressed through the following theoretical equation [14]: greatest accuracy [47]. Based on the PL, a known wind speed value at
Pe (v ) = 0.3 v 3 (13) height z1 is extrapolated to height z2 (i.e., WT hub height) by [47]:

with Pe(v) in kW. Eq. (13) was used in all grid-based WFLO literature z2
v (z2 ) = v (z1)
studies analysed. z1 (20)
In the special case of the WT theoretical model, a modified ex-
where v(z1) and v(z2) are wind speeds at heights z1 and z2, respectively,
pression for Eq. (11) can be derived by using Eq. (13):
and is the wind shear coefficient. Although is a function of various
Pact , j 3
vact ,j
parameters (e.g., atmospheric stability, terrain roughness, height range)
Fwake, j = 1 = 1 and experiences significant inter-daily and inter-annual variations [48],
P0 v03 (14)
when the site’s estimates are not available a rough value as a sole
Accordingly, combining Eq. (13) into Eq. (12) yields [14]: function of the landscape can be used (e.g. [49]).
N N
3
Pact , j 0.3 vact ,j 2.6. Specific wind turbine parameters
P j=1 j =1
= act = =
Pideal N P0 N (0.3 v03 ) (15) Specific WT parameters, derived from basic parameters, may be
calculated to better analyse WT characteristics, and thus assess how
2.3. Turbine-related, site-related and total losses their particular regulation may influence WT performances.
For example, the WT design ratio [42]:
For any WT, power losses other than wake losses can be quantified = vr vi (21)
by applying the method reported in [41]. Losses linked to gearbox,
quantifies the range of the region a WT operates between its vi and vr
generator, converter, and unavailability & repair are calculated as de-
values.
pending on the WT system; losses due to electric grid connection, icing/
A further WT parameter is the ratio of the site’s mean wind speed to
soiling, and other generic factors are calculated as a function of the type
the WT rated wind speed [33]:
of site.
WT-related losses FWT are calculated as: = vm vr (22)
FWT = 1 [(1 fgearbox ) (1 fgenerator ) (1 fconverter ) (1 funav )] This mean-to-rated wind speed Ω quantifies the percentage of the
(16) site’s wind speed the WT exploits on average when operating at rated
conditions.
while site-related losses Fsite are calculated as:
Fsite = 1 [(1 fgrid ) (1 fice ) (1 fother )] (17) 2.7. Wind farm cost estimation

Summarizing, total losses Ftot affecting any WT in the farm are given An optimization function (the fitness value) was introduced to ad-
by: dress the WFLO problem [50]:
Ftot = 1 [(1 Fwake) (1 FWT ) (1 Fsite )] (18) Objective = Cost Pe (23)
where Pe is the total yearly power output extracted from the WF and
2.4. Turbine thrust coefficient Cost is the overall yearly cost of the WF, defined as [18]:
2 1 0.00174 N2
One of the major WT operational parameters, thrust coefficient CT is Cost = N + e
3 3 (24)
also crucial for achieving an accurate wake analysis [7]. In the large
majority of WFLO studies (e.g. [32]), a constant value of 0.88 is as- with N the number of WTs installed in the WF.
sumed for CT. However, as remarked by Serrano et al. [2], a CT fixed As noted in section 1.2, both a rough objective function (Eq. 23) and
value may lead to significant errors in evaluating the wake effect. Re- a simplified cost model (Eq. (24)) were used within most grid-based
lying on CT curves from 13 commercial WTs, Abdulrahman et al. [7] WFLO studies (e.g. [23]). A more economically accurate approach was

4
G. Gualtieri
proposed, e.g., by Castro et al. [13], who suggested considering the
project’s net present value (NPV) as an optimization function since
taking into consideration crucial parameters such as the initial capital
cost, its discount rate and the WF full lifetime. In addition to NPV,
Shamshirband et al. [51] proposed that the project’s interest rate of
return (IRR) should also be considered. According to this perspective,
LCoE is probably the most reliable metric to be used for assessing the
economic performances of a WF project [3]. The LCoE is the ratio be-
tween lifetime costs and lifetime electricity production, both discounted
back to a common year through a discount rate reflecting the average
capital cost [52]. For a WF project, LCoE may be calculated as [41]:
n learning rate and the neighbourhood radius, both decreasing mono-
Cini + i=1
Ci (1 + d )i
LCoE = n
i=1
AEY (1 + d )i (25)
with Cini the initial capital cost, Ci the annual cost at year i from in-
stallation, d [%] the investment’s interest rate, and n the operational
lifetime [years]. More accurate analytical models than Eq. (24) since
also taking Pr into account were proposed (e.g. [53]). The most reliable
cost model is likely the one developed at NREL by Fingersh et al. [54],
where the cost for each single WT component and subsystem are cal-
culated. This model is fully detailed in Table 5 of [32], where: (i) Cini is
expressed as a function of R, Pr and Hhub by means of 23 equations; (ii)
Ci is expressed as a function of Pr and AEY based on 3 equations.
2.8. Self-organizing map
The SOM is an unsupervised learning artificial neural network
model that operates a nonlinear projection from a large data space to a
small grid of neurons [55]. The original data space (input layer) is
projected to a grid of neurons (output layer) while maintaining the
topological and metric relationships in the original data. The SOM can
recognize groups of similar input variables so that neurons having
Fig. 1. Analysed literature gridded layouts (Δh = Δv = 200 m; Lh = Lv = 2 km): (a) Mosetti et al. [18]; (b) Grady et al. [50]; (c) Emami & Noghreh [56]; (d) Turner
et al. [57]; (e) Patel et al. [25]; (f) Parada et al. [1]; (g) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26]; (h) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26]; (i) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26]; (j)
Abdelsalam & El-Shorbagy [20]; (k) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu, ‘a’ [10]; (l) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu, ‘b’ [10]; (m) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu, ‘c’ [10]; (n) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu, ‘d’ [10].
Hhub is 60 m for all layouts except 78 m (h) and 50 & 78 m (i). Wind conditions as in Fig. S1 apply for all layouts.
5
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593
similar feature values are arranged close to each other on the map,
while dissimilar data result in neurons allocated on different map edges.
Therefore, the grid of neurons allows to easily detect the relationships
between the variables and, possibly, the cluster structure in the original
data [55].
The SOM algorithm performs an iterative training process where
any input neuron is connected to all output neurons. Once the single
winner neuron is identified, neurons are connected to adjacent neurons
by a neighbourhood function. Gaussian, Cut Gaussian, bubble, and
Mexican hat are the most commonly used neighbourhood functions.
Another two parameters that control this learning procedure are the
tonically with the training steps [55].
3. Layouts from literature studies
A total of 14 grid-based layouts developed in the literature have
been comparatively analysed (Fig. 1). Their characteristics and scores
are summarized in Table 1. All layouts have been built-up based on
Mosetti et al. [18], who proposed a square gridded domain divided into
10x10 possible WT locations. Assuming the installation of a theoretical
WT with D = 40 m, Hhub = 60 m, yielding a power output as in Eq.
(13), they assumed square grid cells with a size of 5D = 200 m, with an
overall layout extent therefore equal to 50D × 50D (2 km × 2 km).
Only layouts based on wind scenario ‘c’ defined in [18] have been
considered herein.
Mosetti et al. [18] achieved an optimal layout comprising 15 WTs
(Fig. 1a). Only Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], proposing a layout with WTs
positioned along the first and last rows (Fig. 1k), used the same number
of WTs, while all studies following [18] largely increased this number.
All Authors employed WTs with the same Hhub value (60 m), except
MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], who also used WTs with Hhub = 78 m
(Fig. 1h), and a combination of 8 WTs with Hhub = 50 and 17 WTs with
G. Gualtieri Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593

Table 1
WFLO literature studies analysed and compared.a,b,c,d
Layout Study Ref. Design Hhub (m) No WTs η (%) Pe (kW/y) Fitness (×10−4)

Mosetti et al. [18] Fig. 1a 60 15 84 3,695 36.1

(b) Grady et al. [50] Fig. 1b 60 39 86.62 32,038 8.031
(c) Emami & Noghreh [56] Fig. 1c 60 28 91 32,262
(d) Turner et al. [57] Fig. 1d 60 39 32,453
(e) Patel et al. [25] Fig. 1e 60 39 91.40 33,810 7.96
(f) Parada et al. [1] Fig. 1f 60 40 93.62 34,173 7.875
(g) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26] Fig. 1g 60 39 50,639
(h) MirHassani &Yarahmadi [26] Fig. 1h 78 25 36,832
(i) MirHassani &Yarahmadi [26] Fig. 1i 50 & 78 25 34,132
(j) Abdelsalam & El-Shorbagy [20] Fig. 1j 60 41 34,461 8.155
(k) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu, ‘a’ [10] Fig. 1k 60 15 12,103 10.5
(l) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu, ,’b’ [10] Fig. 1l 60 28 20,776 9.5
(m) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu, ‘c’ [10] Fig. 1m 60 39 26,932 10.0
(n) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu, ‘d’ [10] Fig. 1n 60 46 30,424 10.4

a
For each layout, original characteristics and scores are reported.
b
Values are missing where not reported in the works.
c
Eq. (15) used to calculate η.
d
Wind conditions as in Fig. S1 apply for all layouts; for normalization purposes, they also apply for layouts (g), (h) and (i), although in the original work
zref = 78 m was set [26].

Hhub = 78 m (Fig. 1i) being the only case with multiple Hhub values. As
a result of the optimization algorithms that aimed at maximizing the Table 2
downwind distance between the WTs, in layouts (e) and particularly (j) Assumptions and constraints for WF layouts.
the majority of WTs are positioned towards the outer boundaries of the Section Description Parameter Value(s)
WF [25]. In layout (d) WTs are positioned according to a quite regularly
staggered design very similar to that of an array layout. Conversely, Site
Location onshore
layout (f) is scattered and irregular, with WTs mostly located in the
Topography flat
outermost zone of the WF, particularly on the prevailing wind direc- Elevation zsite 0 m ASL
tions (270–350°) [1]. The optimized layouts proposed by Ulku & Roughness length z0 0.30 m
Alabas-Uslu [10], particularly (m) and (n), are structured in arrays with Wind shear coefficient 0.15
WTs aligned along the grid columns. Apart from layout (a), the fitness Air density ρ 1.225 kg/m3
value – where available – exhibits a narrow range (7.875–10.5x10-4), Wind conditions
with layout (f) returning the lowest value. Wind case study multi-directional wind with
variable wind speed
(vm = 14 m/s, Fig. S1)
4. Assumptions and constraints Reference height zref 60 m AGL
Vertical profile v(z) varying based on PL (Eq. (20))
Assumptions and constraints, derived from the literature, apply for
Wind turbines
both (i) recomputation and (ii) optimization of WFLO literature layouts No. models NT
(Table 2). (i) layouts 1
recomputation
(ii) layouts 39
4.1. Site characteristics and wind conditions
optimization
No. combinations NTH
Site characteristics and wind conditions are basically the same as (i) layouts 1 (2)a
those assumed in [33]. Following [49], =0.15 was considered herein. recomputation
Wind scenario ‘c’ defined in [18] – plotted in Fig. S1 of the supple- (ii) layouts 120
optimization
mentary material – has been assumed, which refers to a height (zref) of Thrust coefficient CT varying with wind speed (Eq.
60 m AGL. To normalize all compared studies, zref = 60 m was also (19))
assumed for layouts (g), (h) and (i), although in the original work Power curve experimental
zref = 78 m was set [26]. Wind values at zref are adjusted to the proper WF layout
Hhub of any WT by applying the PL (Eq. (20)) with = 0.15. Although a Design gridded (row/column)
theoretical one, this wind scenario is an accepted reference for most Size (Fig. 1)
horizontal full size Lh 2000 m
grid-based WFLO studies (e.g. [58]). It was assumed herein to nor-
vertical full size Lv 2000 m
malize comparison among all literature studies and to retain the scores horizontal grid cell size Δh 200 m
originally achieved therein. In any case, this wind scenario is the most vertical grid cell size Δv 200 m
realistic among the three defined in [18]. On the other hand, refined WT placement study-dependent (Fig. 1)
wind condition settings such as the one proposed by Haces-Fernandez WT minimum spacing 4 rotor diameters
WT selection criteria
et al. [59], where wind speed and direction were segmented into bins to
(i) layouts recomputation
create a 2-D matrix with all possible combinations, were not considered Manufacturer and the WT as in Table 4 (case ‘a’)
since they are beyond the scope of this work. model
(ii) layouts optimization
Manufacturer(s) the same for the whole WF
4.2. Wind turbines
Model(s) the same WT along the row,
and varied along the column
The WT database developed in the computation tool detailed in [60]
was used. This database has since been upgraded to include over 350 a
Values in brackets refer to layout (i) in Table 1.

6
G. Gualtieri
onshore commercial models. WT characteristics were retrieved from
manufacturers’ websites as well as from online WT databases such as
Wind turbines models [46] and WindPower [61].
It is accepted (e.g. [32]) that minimum crosswind and particularly
downwind WT spacing should be observed in order to mitigate wake
interactions between WTs in the WF. This constraint should also be
considered for any wake model’s application. For example, Jeon et al.
[34] demonstrated that the errors in predicting velocity deficit by
Jensen’s wake model can be accepted for a downstream WT spacing
above 3.75D. Therefore, consistently with Pookpunt and Ongsakul
[32], a minimum downwind distance of 4D was assumed between ad-
jacent cells in the gridded layout: since Δh = Δv = 200 m, this con-
straint yielded a maximum D = 50 m (Table 2). Furthermore, a
minimum Pr = 200 kW was set for withdrawing the very small WT
models. Eventually, a total of NT = 39 WTs have been used, extracted
from the WT database after setting D ≤ 50 m and Pr ≥ 200 kW. Their
characteristics are reported in Table 3. Notably, for any WT, experi-
mental power curves have been used rather than approximated (e.g.
[32]), best-fitted (e.g. [3]), or theoretically-constructed (e.g. [18] and
all following grid-based WFLO studies) power curves. Since WTs with
multiple hub heights were handled as distinct WTs, the overall number
of WT combinations was actually NTH = 120.
4.3. Wind farm layouts
WF layouts are presented in Fig. 1. When literature studies are re-
computed, a single WT model is used. When layouts are optimized, the
same WT selection criterion proposed in [33] is followed, which is
detailed in the following. Once each WT is retrieved from the database,
all possible WT combinations obtained by varying model, D and Hhub
are implemented. For any layout instance, a common manufacturer is
chosen for all WTs to be installed in the farm. WTs are the same for each
row, while they are varied from one row to the other. The particular
case where a unique WT model is installed throughout the farm is
considered, too.
5. Wind farm layout optimization procedure
The applied WFLO procedure (Fig. S2) consists of two stepwise
Fortran modules: a layout generator, and a layout analyser. The same
procedure is used to perform both layout recomputation and optimi-
zation. This procedure is a variation of the one developed in [33].
In the most general case (i.e., the optimization approach), based on
the WT selection criteria, the layout generator ingests from the database
all WTs with D ≤ 50 m and Pr ≥ 200 kW. Each layout in Fig. 1 is then
loaded to enable allocation of each WT accordingly. After processing all
available WT combinations, the module generates NWF layouts, each
including sequential code, database identifier and coordinates of all
allocated WTs. During the second stage, all previously generated lay-
outs are ingested by the layout analyser, with characteristics of any WT
retrieved from the database. The layout analyser performs the compu-
tation of CT(v), vertical extrapolation of wind speed, Jensen’s model
and corresponding losses/efficiency, losses linked to the site and WT,
energy output scores, and cost model. The NREL cost model [54] was
used to calculate LCoE after setting [$] as the currency and the average
Table 3
Summary of characteristics of all processed onshore WTs.a
Score Rated power Rotor diameter Hub height
Pr (kW) D (m) Hhub (m)
Median value 600 43 50
Range 220–900 26–50 30–78
a
Total WT models: NT = 39. Total WT combinations (sorted by Hhub): NTH = 120.
7
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593
2002–2020 inflation rate. For WT-related losses, the fx percentages
depending on WT system, derived from [41] and given in Table S2,
were used in Eq. (16); for site-specific losses, fgrid = 2%, fice = 2% and
fother = 0% were set in Eq. (17). To calculate LCoE, d = 5% and
n = 20 years were set in Eq. (25). This procedure generates two out-
puts: (i) a summary spreadsheet (with NWF records), listing character-
istics and scores of all generated layouts; (ii) NWF spreadsheets, one for
each layout, reporting characteristics and scores of each WT in the
farm. Summarizing, NWF = 1,758 layouts are generated and analysed
by the WFLO procedure for each of NLIT literature layouts. Since
NLIT = 14, the overall number of layouts is:
NLAY = NWF*NLIT = 1,758*14 = 24,612.
A far more simplified WFLO procedure is activated when re-
computing the original literature studies as, for each case, only one
single WT (at most with two Hhub values) is imported from the WT
database, and only one layout (NWF = 1) is generated and then ana-
lysed: in this case, the number of processed layouts (NLAY = NWF*NLIT)
is 14.
6. Results and discussion
The considered literature layouts have been recomputed and then
optimized. In doing so, real WT models (exhibiting experimental power
curves supplied by manufacturers) have been considered instead of the
theoretical WT model (featuring the theoretical power curve defined in
Eq. (13)) originally used in each of those studies. For the same reason,
the more general Eq. (12) rather than Eq. (15) was used to calculate WF
efficiency. Key factors that influence layout optimization the most have
also been investigated.
6.1. Recomputation of literature layouts
The optimal layouts achieved in the original studies (Table 1) have
been recomputed by considering the same application conditions
(Table 2). In doing so, the Nordex N43-600 wt has been selected,
proving to be the model within the WT database that best-fits the
characteristics of the theoretical WT defined in [18]. WT characteristics
are detailed as (a) in Table 4, while the WT power curve is shown in Fig.
S3a. Although not the same model as in [18], this WT offers the ad-
vantage of having two Hhub values in addition to 60 m (i.e. 50 and 78 m)
which enable to also run the layouts (h) and (i) proposed in [26].
Table 5 summarizes the scores achieved after recomputing all lit-
erature layouts by employing the Nordex N43-600 wt It is apparent
that, irrespective of the number of installed WTs, the overall WF ca-
pacity and corresponding energy production, all layouts return very
similar scores of η and CF, as shown by their very narrow ranges:
98.81–99.61% (η), and 78.89–80.90% (CF). By contrast, a very wide
range is returned for Pe (7,101–21,773 kW/y) and LCoE
(130.37–370.42 $/MWh). Overall, it should be noted that – except for
layout (a) – significantly higher power output was achieved in layouts
optimized in the original studies (Table 1). These findings support the
hypothesis that the heuristic algorithms implemented within each study
likely optimized all such layouts while targeting both Pe and CF max-
imization rather than LCoE minimization.
Layout (a) returns the lowest LCoE (130.37 $/MWh), while layout
Wind speeds Design ratio
Cut-in Rated Cut-off
vi (m/s) vr (m/s) vo (m/s) Φ
3.5 14.0 25.0 4.3
2.5–5.0 11.0–18.0 20.0–28.0 3.1–5.3
G. Gualtieri Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593

Table 4
Characteristics of WTs used or achieved while running all WFLO literature layouts.a
Approach Application condition Model Layout(s) Pr (kW) D (m) Hhub (m) vi (m/s) vr (m/s) vo (m/s) Systemb
(case)

(i) layouts recomputation

(a) Recomputing Nordex All 600 43 50 3 13.5 25 A
N43-600 60
78

(ii) layouts optimization

(b) Minimizing LCoE Vergnet (a) 220 26 60 3.5 17 20 A
GEV 26/220
(c) Maximizing CF Windtec 650 (a) 600 50 71.5 3.5 11 20 C

a
Power curves for each WT are plotted in Fig. S3.
b
Coding for WT systems is reported in Table S2 [41].

(h) the highest CF (80.90%). The number of installed WTs significantly
affects the results, as shown by the near matching scores from 28- wt
layouts (c) and (l), as well as those from 39- wt layouts (b), (d), (e), (g)
and (m). Scores from 15- wt layout (k) are very similar to those from
15- wt layout (a), too, particularly as minimum Pe and LCoE are basi-
cally the same, and values of all other indicators are only slightly worse.
Pe scores are also a strict function of the number of installed WTs.
Contrary to suggestions by MirHassani and Yarahmadi [26] that using
WTs with different Hhub leads to an increase in the power output, with
Pe = 11,962 kW/y layout (i) does not improve performances of the
layout (h), which has the same design but WTs with identical Hhub.
From the scores in Table 5, it is apparent that LCoE is a much more
straightforward economic indicator than the fitness value, because not
only does it exhibit a wider variation range than the latter (Table 1), but
it also completely reverses the ranking of (a) from the worst (Table 1) to
the best (Table 5) layout.
Significantly improved η values are achieved with respect to the
original applications (Table 1, where reported), where, however, Jen-
sen’s wake model was applied using CT = 0.88. To assess the differ-
ences against the present study where the CT(v) approach is im-
plemented, the CT = 0.88 option has been also analysed herein (see
Table S3). It is apparent that η values are lower (overall ranging
94.69–98.18%), thus indicating that using CT = 0.88 is more con-
servative than using CT(v). The impacts are however quite marginal on
Pe (7,025–21,512 kW/y), CF (77.94–80.50%), and LCoE
(130.50–371.29 $/MWh).
6.2. Optimization of literature layouts
For each literature layout, a total of NWF = 1758 layout instances
have been generated, ultimately allowing the detection of only one
solution that satisfies the selected optimization function. Table 6 shows
the comparative results of layouts that minimize LCoE, while Table 7
shows those of layouts that maximize CF.
All recomputed literature layouts (Table 5) have been optimized by
the present optimization method, as both LCoE values have been re-
duced and CF values increased. While LCoE reduction is substantial
(130.37–370.42 to 54.01–142.64 $/MWh, Table 6), CF increase is
marginal (78.89–80.90 to 83.02–83.07%, Table 7). It is worth noting
that for all literature case studies and both optimization conditions, all
optimal layouts have been achieved by using identical WTs over the
whole WF: this means that a unique combination for Pr, D and Hhub
(NP = ND = NH = 1) applies. Furthermore, for all case studies, the
same WT model proved to minimize LCoE, and the same WT model to
maximize CF. As shown in Table 4, LCoE minimization is accomplished
by using the Vergnet GEV 26/220 wt (whose power curve is plotted in
Fig. S3b), while CF maximization is achieved by using the Windtec
650 wt (power curve in Fig. S3c). With respect to layouts recomputa-
tion, LCoE minimization is accomplished by reducing Pr and D, and
concurrently increasing vr in the selected WT (Table 4), while CF
maximization is accomplished – for the same Pr – by increasing D and
decreasing vr . These outcomes agree with suggestions, e.g., by Abdul-
rahman and Wood [7], that small-medium sized WTs with low hub
height should be installed to minimize LCoE.

Table 5
Comparative results of WF literature layouts recomputed using a single WT model.a,b,c,d
Layout Ref., and Hhub Cumulated Mean Cumulated Mean Cumulated

No WTs P (MW) η (%) Pe (kW/y) AEY (MWh/y) CF (%) LCoE $/MWh)

(a) Mosetti et al. [18], 60 m 15 9 99.61 7116 62,335 79.06 130.37

(b) Grady et al. [50], 60 m 39 23.4 99.21 18,480 161,884 78.97 316.16
(c) Emami & Noghreh [56], 60 m 28 16.8 99.35 13,273 116,271 79.01 231.00
(d) Turner et al. [57], 60 m 39 23.4 99.23 18,481 161,897 78.98 316.16
(e) Patel et al. [25], 60 m 39 23.4 99.08 18,473 161,826 78.95 316.18
(f) Parada et al. [1], 60 m 40 24 99.13 18,950 165,998 78.96 323.92
(g) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 60 m 39 23.4 99.04 18,471 161,806 78.94 316.19
(h) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 78 m 25 15 99.41 12,135 106,301 80.90 207.38
(i) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 50 & 78 m 25 15 99.53 11,962 104,784 79.74 207.70
(j) Abdelsalam & El-Shorbagy [20], 60 m 41 24.6 99.05 19,419 170,112 78.94 331.67
(k) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘a’, 60 m 15 9 98.90 7,101 62,209 78.91 130.43
(l) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘b’, 60 m 28 16.8 98.81 13,253 116,094 78.89 231.08
(m) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘c’, 60 m 39 23.4 98.95 18,466 161,766 78.92 316.21
(n) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘d’, 60 m 46 27.6 98.82 21,773 190,732 78.89 370.42

a
Characteristics of each WF layout are depicted in Fig. 1.
b
Eq. (12) used to calculate η.
c
Wind conditions as in Fig. S1 apply for all layouts; for normalization purposes, they also apply for layouts (g), (h) and (i), although in the original work
zref = 78 m was set [26].
d
The same WT (Table 4, case ‘a’) is used for all WFLO studies.

8
G. Gualtieri Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593

Table 6
Comparative results of WF literature layouts optimized by LCoE minimization.a,b,c,d
Layout Ref., and Hhub Cumulated Mean Cumul. Mean Cumul.

No WTs P (MW) η (%) AEY (MWh/y) CF (%) LCoE ($/MWh)

(a) Mosetti et al. [18], 60 m 15 3.30 99.63 21,928 75.86 54.01

(b) Grady et al. [50], 60 m 39 8.58 99.22 56,945 75.76 122.61
(c) Emami & Noghreh [56], 60 m 28 6.16 99.37 40,902 75.80 91.17
(d) Turner et al. [57], 60 m 39 8.58 99.25 56,950 75.77 122.60
(e) Patel et al. [25], 60 m 39 8.58 99.10 56,924 75.74 122.62
(f) Parada et al. [1], 60 m 40 8.80 99.14 58,392 75.75 125.47
(g) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 60 m 39 8.58 99.05 56,917 75.73 122.62
(h) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 78 m 25 5.50 99.36 36,519 75.80 82.59
(i) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 50 & 78 m 25 5.50 99.39 36,522 75.80 82.59
(j) Abdelsalam & El-Shorbagy [20], 60 m 41 9.02 99.07 59,839 75.73 128.33
(k) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘a’, 60 m 15 3.30 98.90 21,882 75.69 54.05
(l) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘b’, 60 m 28 6.16 98.82 40,835 75.67 91.20
(m) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘c’, 60 m 39 8.58 98.96 56,902 75.71 122.63
(n) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘d’, 60 m 46 10.12 98.83 67,090 75.68 142.64

a
Characteristics of each WF layout are depicted in Fig. 1.
b
Eq. (12) used to calculate η.
c
Wind conditions as in Fig. S1 apply for all layouts.
d
The same WT (Table 4, case ‘b’), installed over the whole WF, achieved to optimize all layouts.

Table 7
Comparative results of WF literature layouts optimized by CF maximization.a,b,c,d
Layout Ref., and Hhub Cumulated Mean Cumul. Mean Cumul.

No WTs P (MW) η (%) AEY (MWh/y) CF (%) LCoE ($/MWh)

(a) Mosetti et al. [18], 60 m 15 9.00 99.63 65,494 83.07 125.03

(b) Grady et al. [50], 60 m 39 23.40 99.25 170,232 83.05 309.33
(c) Emami & Noghreh [56], 60 m 28 16.80 99.38 122,231 83.06 224.86
(d) Turner et al. [57], 60 m 39 23.40 99.28 170,236 83.05 309.33
(e) Patel et al. [25], 60 m 39 23.40 99.14 170,216 83.04 309.33
(f) Parada et al. [1], 60 m 40 24.00 99.18 174,587 83.04 317.01
(g) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 60 m 39 23.40 99.10 170,211 83.04 309.34
(h) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 78 m 25 15.00 99.38 109,134 83.06 201.82
(i) MirHassani & Yarahmadi [26], 50 & 78 m 25 15.00 99.41 109,137 83.06 201.82
(j) Abdelsalam & El-Shorbagy [20], 60 m 41 24.60 99.11 178,941 83.04 324.69
(k) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘a’, 60 m 15 9.00 98.98 65,459 83.03 125.04
(l) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘b’, 60 m 28 16.80 98.90 122,182 83.02 224.87
(m) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘c’, 60 m 39 23.40 99.02 170,200 83.03 309.34
(n) Ulku & Alabas-Uslu [10], ‘d’, 60 m 46 27.60 98.90 200,729 83.02 363.10

a
Characteristics of each WF layout are depicted in Fig. 1.
b
Eq. (12) used to calculate η.
c
Wind conditions as in Fig. S1 apply for all layouts.
d
The same WT (Table 4, case ‘c’), installed over the whole WF, achieved to optimize all layouts.

Table 6 shows that layout (a) (termed “L1”) returns the lowest LCoE
value (54.01 $/MWh), yet only slightly lower than layout (k) which
achieves a score very close to this. This value is consistent with the
global average LCoE value (60 $/MWh) reported for 2017-updated
onshore wind projects by IRENA [52]. Using observed wind data and
applying the NREL cost model, at the real site of Khaf in Iran (40-m
vm = 10.5 m/s) Mirghaed and Roshandel [31] designed a square
(1.73 km × 1.73 km) layout with crosswind/downwind WT distances
of 3D × 6D: notably, they obtained an LCoE value of 55 $/MWh very
close to the minimum values (54.01–54.05 $/MWh) obtained in the
current study (40-m vm = 13.2 m/s). Conversely, current LCoE minima
are larger than those (21–31 $/MWh) calculated by Rahbari et al. [5] at
a real site in Teheran based on observed wind data (10-m vm = 6.38 m/
s), where they designed four different rectangular layouts (sized
1.5 km × 2.5 km) with WTs irregularly allocated. Current LCoE scores
are either lower or higher than minimum LCoE value (103.46 $/MWh)
achieved in the previous WFLO study, based on the continuous model
and run under quite similar application conditions (i.e. same site fea-
tures, layout shape and size, and wind conditions) [33]. This indicates
that the discrete model can perform either better or worse than the
continuous model and that, consistent with reviews, e.g., by Serrano
et al. [2] or Shakoor et al. [4], a superior model cannot be clearly as-
certained.
The CF values maximized in Table 7 match among all the considered
studies (83.02–83.07%), thus reinforcing the hypothesis raised in sec-
tion 6.1 that optimization of such literature layouts tends to a common
value, corresponding to maximum CF. Regardless, layout (a) (termed
“L2”) also proves to be the best solution for maximizing CF. Comparing
Tables 6 and 7, it is apparent that the LCoE minimization target com-
bines with satisfactory scores of CF (75.67–75.86%, Table 6), while this
is not the case for CF maximization, which overall is not associated to
particularly profitable scores of LCoE (125.03–363.10 $/MWh,
Table 7). Current CF values are lower than the maximum CF value
(92.17%) achieved in the previous WFLO study based on the continuous
model [33]: although indirectly, this outcome is consistent with find-
ings by Long et al. [12] that the continuous model is better than the
discrete model when maximizing the power output is set as WFLO
target.
Characteristics and performances of WTs installed in layouts opti-
mized by LCoE minimization and CF maximization are detailed,

9
G. Gualtieri
respectively, in Table S4 (L1) and Table S5 (L2), while their placement
within the WFs is depicted in Fig. S5. It is apparent that L1 and L2
correspond to the same layout (a), except that they employ two dif-
ferent WT models. As reported in Table 4, such WT models belong to
systems A and C as defined in Table S2, i.e. those accounting for the
lowest overall WT-specific losses. If considering characteristics of all
available WTs (Table 3), LCoE minimization (Table S4) is achieved
using a WT exhibiting the lowest Pr and D, and almost maximum vr.
These outcomes agree with suggestions by Chen et al. [40] that higher
vr values are required by sites with higher vm and result in lower WT-
related LCoE, and that larger WTs do not necessarily reduce LCoE. The
values of Ω (84.29–84.47%) indicate that on average the WT operates
below its rated speed. By contrast, CF maximization (Table S5) is
achieved through a WT of medium Pr, with minimum vr and Φ, and Hhub
close to the maximum (Table 3). Corresponding Ω values
(130.73–131.00%) indicate that to a remarkable extent (over 30%) the
WT operates above its rated speed, thus largely exceeding the threshold
over which the WF overall cost increase is adequately compensated for
by the revenues deriving from energy production.
6.3. Insights into wind farm layout optimization key factors
Optimization functions and key factors that mostly affect WFLO
have been investigated after applying kernel density plots, correlation
analysis and self-organizing maps to main WFLO parameters.
6.3.1. Kernel density and correlation analysis
All layout instances generated per literature study have been ana-
lysed in terms of the distribution of main WFLO parameters. The result
of this analysis is summarized through the kernel density plots shown in
Fig. S4, drawn by using the “sm.density.compare” tool [62] im-
plemented in the “sm” R package [63]. For all literature layouts, quite
similar distributions may be observed for Pr (Fig. S4e), D (Fig. S4f), Hhub
(Fig. S4g), vr (Fig. S4h), Φ (Fig. S4i), Ω (Fig. S4j), Fsite & FWT (Fig. S4l),
Fig. 2. SOM component planes obtained while optimizing literature layouts for the following parameters: No. WTs, NP, ND, NH, P, Pr, D, Hhub, vr, Φ, Ω, η, Fsite & FWT,
Ftot, Cini/Pr, AEY, CF, and LCoE. Cumulated values are plotted for No. WTs, P and LCoE, while WF-averaged values for all other parameters. A total of 1,758 layouts by
14 literature case studies (NLAY = NWF*NLIT = 24,612) were processed.
10
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593
Cini/Pr (Fig. S4n), and CF (Fig. S4p), meaning that – for any WT com-
bination in the WF – all these parameters are insensitive to the selected
layout design. This outcome is particularly meaningful for CF, as it
confirms that whatever the chosen literature layout, this score does not
appreciably change. Conversely, patterns are layout-dependent for P
(Fig. S4d), total losses (Fig. S4m), AEY (Fig. S4o), and LCoE (Fig. S4q),
meaning that choosing a specific layout dramatically affects WF power
production and particularly the project’s economic viability. 15- wt
layouts (a) and (k) exhibit a similar pattern for P, AEY, and LCoE, with
main discrepancies apparent in η. For layouts (k) and (l) there is a re-
levant frequency of layout instances built-up with a twofold combina-
tion of Pr (Fig. S4a) and D (Fig. S4b), while for layout (k) this also
involves Hhub values (Fig. S4c). Layout (a) proves to be the best solution
overall for maximizing η, minimizing total losses, and – most im-
portantly – minimizing LCoE. By contrast, layout (a) returns the lowest
overall AEY values. It is worth noting that the plots of AEY and LCoE
can almost perfectly be overlapped. In terms of total power losses (Fig.
S4m), wake losses are almost negligible (Fig. S4k), particularly if
compared to losses linked to the site and WT (Fig. S4l). Furthermore, in
the majority of layout instances, WTs operate in wind regimes below
their rated speed (Fig. S4j).
After lumping all literature layout instances together, a correlation
analysis between all parameters has been performed (Table S6). Since
no correlation exists between CF and LCoE (r = −0.03), increasing CF
can either reduce or increase LCoE. As shown by Figs. S2o and S2q, AEY
and LCoE are strongly correlated (r = 0.99): therefore, for a high wind
potential site, WFLO is surprisingly achieved by reducing the total en-
ergy production. LCoE is also strongly correlated to P (r = 1.00), thus
indicating that the overall installed power rather than the mere number
of WTs (r = 0.84) should be reduced for reducing LCoE. Pr affects LCoE
more than vr (r of 0.51 vs. –0.02), which contrasts with suggestions by
Chen et al. [40] that vr is more influential on LCoE than Pr. Distributions
of Ci and AEY are strongly correlated as well (r = 1.00), meaning that
annual expenditures increase with WF energy production. Total losses
G. Gualtieri
are strongly correlated to site- and WT-related losses (r = 0.96), and
poorly correlated to η, and thus to array losses (r = 0.33): since site-
specific losses do not change, WT-related losses are the component that
primarily affects total losses, meaning that the system the selected WT
belongs to (see Table S2) is pivotal in affecting WF overall losses. On the
other hand, a significant correlation (r = 0.86) was ascertained be-
tween Ω and CF, yet it was not as strong (e.g., r > 0.95) as to imply
that Ω gives the same level of information as CF.
6.3.2. The self-organizing maps
To more thoroughly investigate WFLO key factors, an advanced
analysis than both kernel density and correlation analysis (Section
6.3.1) was accomplished through the use of SOMs. A dataset including
NWF = 1758 layout instances multiplied by NLIT = 14 case studies, for a
total of NLAY = NWF*NLIT = 24,612 layouts, was used. The following 18
variables were selected as component planes of the SOMs: No. WTs, NP,
ND, NH, P, Pr, D, Hhub, vr, Φ, Ω, η, Fsite & FWT, Ftot, Cini/Pr, AEY, CF, and
LCoE. Ci was not considered since its distribution is the same as AEY
(r = 1.00, Table S6). The following final SOM structure was achieved
for the above 18 variables: (i) an input layer, including 24,612 neurons
corresponding to all layout instances; (ii) an output layer, including 100
neurons, represented through 10x10 gridded hexagons. Before SOM
training, all variables’ values were normalized such that their mean was
0 and their variance was 1 [64]. The SOMs were trained following the
requirements of the Kohonen’s algorithm [55]: thus, 60,000 iterations
(over 500 times the number of gridded neurons) were used, along with
initial values of 0.9 (close to 1) for learning rate and 7 units (higher
than grid’s radius) for neighbourhood radius. The Mexican hat was
selected as neighbourhood function since it results in a larger variables’
variation range than the most widely used Gaussian function, while the
goodness of SOM was assessed using the Kaski and Lagus error metrics
[65], that combine quantization and topographic errors. The graphical
output of SOM application, performed by using the Living For SOM tool
(http://livingforsom.com), is shown in Fig. 2.
In SOM topology of LCoE, lower-to-higher neurons are arranged
bottom to top, with minimum and maximum values located centrally. A
similar topology is exhibited by SOMs of P and AEY, and – to a lesser
extent – Pr, D, and No. WTs: this means that LCoE may be minimized by
decreasing the overall WF installed capacity, the energy production,
rated powers, rotor diameters or the number of WTs. These scores
confirm findings achieved in section 6.2 that lie behind the optimiza-
tion of layout L1 (Table S4). The association of LCoE with NP, ND and NH
is weaker, as shown by their different SOM topologies: LCoE minima are
associated to lower but not minimum values of NP, ND and NH, which
are located in the centre of their respective maps. In any case, this
means that LCoE could be reduced by avoiding to install WTs with
multiple Pr, D or Hhub (as accomplished for layout L1). This finding
seems to contradict those from various Authors, suggesting that it is
more profitable to suitably combine different WTs rather than installing
identical WTs, particularly having different D [66] or different Hhub
[58]. Since the WT combinations in the farm reduce to just one for each
WT per manufacturer, WT selection criteria set in section 4.3 are dra-
matically simplified.
Notably, CF neurons do not arrange in a mirrored fashion with re-
spect to LCoE neurons, suggesting that maximizing CF does not imply
minimizing LCoE: confirming the null correlation between CF and LCoE
(section 6.3.1), a CF increase may either result in an LCoE increase or
decrease. Rather, SOM clustering of CF shows a neurons arrangement
quite similar to the ones of Hhub, Φ, Ω, and (mirrored) vr, suggesting that
an increase (decrease for vr) in such variables leads to an increase in CF.
These results were anticipated in section 6.2 when analysing the
characteristics of optimal layout L2 (Table S5). As for the SOM of Ω, it is
confirmed that values close to 100% do increase CF, but also involve an
overall energy waste, since resulting in an energy over-production (see
AEY) not adequately compensated by a corresponding revenue (see
LCoE). Consistent with findings from the correlation analysis (section
11
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593
6.3.1), the SOMs of Ftot basically match with those of Fsite & FWT. Since
the SOMs of η confirm that wake losses are almost negligible, it is also
confirmed that WF total losses are mainly driven by losses depending on
WT characteristics: therefore, the selection of WTs returning the lowest
losses (see Table S2) should be prioritised. In any case, reducing total
losses positively affects CF but not LCoE, as CF increases do not ne-
cessarily result in LCoE decreases.
The highest energy production may be obtained by the most ex-
pensive layouts, i.e. those that maximize the overall WF installed ca-
pacity and employ WTs with the highest values of Pr, D and Hhub.
However, AEY maximization is economically disadvantageous as they
correspond to the highest values of LCoE. This means that maximizing
the overall WF power output, as pursued within several studies (e.g.
[57]), is a misleading WFLO goal.
Summarizing, the SOMs proved useful in improving the multi-
variable investigations addressed in the past literature either dealing
with WFLO (e.g. [31]), or WT optimal site matching (e.g. [40]). They
are also particularly helpful when WFLO problems involving multiple
objective functions (as performed, e.g., by Abdulrahman and Wood [7])
are addressed. Since they are capable of representing the relationships
among main WF layout parameters through a single, compact plot, the
SOMs allow to achieve a straightforward WFLO pattern, thus efficiently
coping with the non-convex, highly complex, multi-purpose and multi-
variable nature of the WFLO problem.
7. Conclusions
A total of 14 grid-based layouts addressed in the literature and run
based on wind scenario ‘c’ defined in Mosetti et al. [18] have been
recomputed. Several application improvements have been performed to
the original settings, including the use of: (i) commercial-scale WTs
instead of a theoretical WT; (ii) experimental instead of theoretical WT
power curves; (iii) CT varying with wind speed rather than the 0.88
constant value; (iv) LCoE as an objective function rather than the simple
fitness value; (v) the detailed NREL cost model in place of the overly-
simplistic cost model defined in [18]. All layouts returned very similar
scores of farm efficiency (98.81–99.61%) and CF (78.89–80.90%), but
widely varying scores of LCoE (130.37–370.42 $/MWh): this indicates
that CF maximization rather than LCoE minimization was the actual
target pursued by the heuristic algorithms implemented within each
WFLO study. Results indicated the 15- wt layout by Mosetti et al. [18]
as the optimal in minimizing LCoE (130.37 $/MWh), and the 25- wt
layout by MirHassani and Yarahmadi [26] as the optimal in maximizing
CF (80.90%). As such, results achieved from this layout recomputation
proved to be a novelty in themselves, as they were quite different from
those returned from the original studies, which adopted energy yield
maximization and/or fitness value minimization as an objective func-
tion.
In the present study, relying on 39 commercial WTs, a previously
developed optimization method [33] was applied which targets optimal
WT selection while retaining the original number of WTs and their
placement as an assumption. Previously applied to the continuous WF
layout model, the method has also been successfully applied to the
discrete layout model. For each literature case study, a total of 1,758
layout instances were generated, overall resulting in 24,612 layouts.
Method’s application proved to optimize all literature layouts, as CF
values were (slightly) increased (78.89–80.90 to 83.02–83.07%), while
LCoE values were (significantly) reduced (130.37–370.42 to
54.01–142.64 $/MWh). It is worth noting that the layout by Mosetti
et al. [18] proved to be the best both in minimizing LCoE (54.01
$/MWh) and in maximizing CF (83.07%). Furthermore, for all litera-
ture case studies and both optimization conditions, all optimal layouts
were achieved by using identical WTs: this means that only one com-
bination of rotor diameter, rated power and hub height applies over the
whole WF. For all case studies, the same WT model (Vergnet GEV 26/
220) minimized LCoE, and the same WT model (Windtec 650)
G. Gualtieri
maximized CF. LCoE scores were either better or worse than those
achieved in the previous WFLO study, implementing the continuous
model and run under similar application conditions [33]: therefore, a
model – be it discrete or continuous –cannot be recommended since
neither clearly outperforms the other.
A thorough analysis has been performed to investigate optimization
functions and the parameters that mostly influence WFLO. Although
specifically applying to high wind potential sites where mid-sized WTs
are supposed to be installed, various conclusions can be made:
• the two optimization conditions are not associated, as a CF increase
does not necessarily imply an LCoE decrease;
• LCoE can be minimized by decreasing farm overall capacity or the
number of WTs, as well as selecting WTs with lower rotor diameters
or rated powers;
•
conversely, CF maximization can be achieved by installing WTs with
higher hub heights or lower rated speeds;
• LCoE can be minimized even using WTs operating on average
(slightly) below their rated speed; by contrast, matching or ex-
ceeding their rated speed increases CF, but also results in overall
energy waste, since it leads to an over-production of energy that is
not adequately compensated by the corresponding revenue;
• contradicting various findings, using WTs with different rotor dia-
meters, rated powers or hub heights is not the best approach for
minimizing LCoE: this dramatically impacts on WT selection criteria,
as only one WT combination per manufacturer (i.e. the same model)
is suggested as being installed in the farm instead of other possible
combinations;
• WF total losses are mainly driven by losses depending on WT
characteristics, while wake losses are almost negligible: however,
reducing total losses results in CF increases, but not necessarily in
LCoE decreases;
• maximization of WF power generation is a misleading WFLO target,
as it is achieved at the expense of a dramatic LCoE increase: there-
fore, when AEY maximization and LCoE minimization became two
competing (and conflicting) goals, the latter should be prioritised.
The following limitations affect the study, based on considering: (i)
an ideal onshore flat and sea-level site; (ii) a theoretical wind scenario;
(iii) grid-based layouts with fixed (square) shape, grid density (10x10),
and overall size (2 km × 2 km); (iv) the simplified Jensen’s wake
model; (v) a set of mid-sized WTs (D = 26–50 m and
Pr = 220–900 kW). Also, wake-induced fatigue degradation of WTs,
and thus more complex cost functions (as addressed, e.g., by Réthoré
et al. [16]), have been disregarded since they are beyond the scope of
this work. In the future, this method could be applied to onshore sites
with complex topography or offshore sites, hopefully being real and not
ideal sites. Furthermore, to generalize the results achieved thus far, it
could be helpful to deal with more real-world wind scenarios (e.g.
[59]), representative of a wider range of locations or, following DuPont
et al. [15], to analyse the effects resulting from considering different
atmospheric stability conditions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Giovanni Gualtieri: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
12
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593
Acknowledgments
No funds were received to support the research conducted in this
paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112593.
References
[1] Parada L, Herrera C, Flores P, Parada V. Wind farm layout optimization using a
Gaussian-based wake model. Renew Energy 2017;107:531–41.
[2] Serrano González J, Burgos Payán M, Riquelme Santos JM, González-Longatt F. A
review and recent developments in the optimal wind-turbine micro-siting problem.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:133–44.
[3] Chowdhury S, Zhang J, Messac A, Castillo L. Optimizing the arrangement and the
selection of turbines for wind farms subject to varying wind conditions. Renew
Energy 2013;52:273–82.
[4] Shakoor R, Hassan MY, Raheem A, Wu YK. Wake effect modeling: a review of wind
farm layout optimization using Jensen’s model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;58:1048–59.
[5] Rahbari O, Vafaeipour M, Fazelpour F, Feidt M, Rosen MA. Towards realistic de-
signs of wind farm layouts: application of a novel placement selector approach.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;81:242–54.
[6] Mustakerov I, Borissova D. Wind turbines type and number choice using combi-
natorial optimization. Renew Energy 2010;35(9):1887–94.
[7] Abdulrahman M, Wood D. Investigating the power-COE trade-off for wind farm
layout optimization considering commercial turbine selection and hub height var-
iation. Renew Energy 2017;102:267–78.
[8] Ituarte-Villarreal CM, Espiritu JF. Optimization of wind turbine placement using a
viral based optimization algorithm. Procedia Comput Sci 2011;6:469–74.
[9] Yang Q, Hu J, Law SS. Optimization of wind farm layout with modified genetic
algorithm based on boolean code. Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2018;181:61–8.
[10] Ulku I, Alabas-Uslu C. A new mathematical programming approach to wind farm
layout problem under multiple wake effects. Renew Energy 2019;136:1190–201.
[11] Long H, Zhang Z. A two-echelon wind farm layout planning model. IEEE Trans
Sustainable Energy 2015;6(3):863–71.
[12] Long H, Zhang Z, Song Z, Kusiak A. Formulation and analysis of grid and coordinate
models for planning wind farm layouts. IEEE Access 2017;5:1810–9.
[13] Castro Mora J, Calero Barón JM, Riquelme Santos JM, Burgos Payán M. An evo-
lutive algorithm for wind farm optimal design. Neurocomputing
2007;70(16–18):2651–8.
[14] Rajper S, Amin IJ. Optimization of wind turbine micrositing: a comparative study.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(8):5485–92.
[15] DuPont B, Cagan J, Moriarty P. An advanced modeling system for optimization of
wind farm layout and wind turbine sizing using a multi-level extended pattern
search algorithm. Energy 2016;106:802–14.
[16] Réthoré PE, Fuglsang P, Larsen GC, Buhl T, Larsen TJ, Madsen HA. TOPFARM:
Multi-fidelity optimization of wind farms. Wind Energy 2014;17(12):1797–816.
[17] Tao S, Xu Q, Feijoo A, Hou P, Zheng G. Bi-hierarchy optimization of a wind farm
considering environmental impact. IEEE Trans Sustainable Energy 2020. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2020.2964793.
[18] Mosetti G, Poloni C, Diviacco B. Optimization of wind turbine positioning in large
wind farms by means of a genetic algorithm. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn
1994;51:105–16.
[19] Jensen NO. A note on wind generator interaction. Risø-M-2411, Risø National
Laboratory, 1983.
[20] Abdelsalam AM, El-Shorbagy MA. Optimization of wind turbines siting in a wind
farm using genetic algorithm based local search. Renew Energy 2018;123:748–55.
[21] Zergane S, Smaili A, Masson C. Optimization of wind turbine placement in a wind
farm using a new pseudo-random number generation method. Renew Energy
2018;125:166–71.
[22] De-Prada-Gil M, Alías CG, Gomis-Bellmunt O, Sumper A. Maximum wind power
plant generation by reducing the wake effect. Energy Convers Manage
2015;101:73–84.
[23] Marmidis G, Lazarou S, Pyrgioti E. Optimal placement of wind turbines in a wind
park using Monte Carlo simulation. Renew Energy 2008;33(7):1455–60.
[24] Wu Y, Zhang S, Wang R, Wang Y, Feng X. A design methodology for wind farm
layout considering cable routing and economic benefit based on genetic algorithm
and GeoSteiner. Renew Energy 2020;146:687–98.
[25] Patel J, Savsani V, Patel V, Patel R. Layout optimization of a wind farm to maximize
the power output using enhanced teaching learning based optimization technique. J
Cleaner Prod 2017;158:81–94.
[26] MirHassani SA, Yarahmadi A. Wind farm layout optimization under uncertainty.
Renew Energy 2017;107:288–97.
[27] Hayat I, Chatterjee T, Liu H, Peet YT, Chamorro LP. Exploring wind farms with
alternating two-and three-bladed wind turbines. Renew Energy 2019;138:764–74.
[28] Chatterjee T, Peet Y. Exploring the benefits of vertically staggered wind farms:
Understanding the power generation mechanisms of turbines operating at different
scales. Wind Energy 2019;22(2):283–301.
G. Gualtieri
[29] Stanley AP, Ning A, Dykes K. Optimization of turbine design in wind farms with
multiple hub heights, using exact analytic gradients and structural constraints.
Wind Energy 2019;22(5):605–19.
[30] Wu YT, Liao TL, Chen CK, Lin CY, Chen PW. Power output efficiency in large wind
farms with different hub heights and configurations. Renew Energy
2019;132:941–9.
[31] Mirghaed MR, Roshandel R. Site specific optimization of wind turbines energy cost:
iterative approach. Energy Convers Manage 2013;73:167–75.
[32] Pookpunt S, Ongsakul W. Design of optimal wind farm configuration using a binary
particle swarm optimization at Huasai district, Southern Thailand. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;108:160–80.
[33] Gualtieri G. A novel method for wind farm layout optimization based on wind
turbine selection. Energy Convers Manage 2019;193:106–23.
[34] Jeon S, Kim B, Huh J. Comparison and verification of wake models in an onshore
wind farm considering single wake condition of the 2 MW wind turbine. Energy
2015;93:1769–77.
[35] VanLuvanee DR. Investigation of observed and modelled wake effects at Horns Rev
using WindPRO. Technical University of Denmark, Department of Mechanical
Engineering; 2006.
[36] Katic I, Hojstrup J, Jensen NO. A simple model for cluster efficiency. In:
Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Association Conference and Exhibition,
1986, 407–10.
[37] Mortensen NG, Heathfield DN, Myllerup L, Landberg L, Rathman O. Wind atlas
analysis and application program: WAsP 8 help facility. Roskilde, Denmark: Risø
National Laboratory; 2005.
[38] Nielsen P. The WindPRO Manual Edition 2.5. EMD International A/S, 2006.
[39] Wang L, Tan AC, Cholette M, Gu Y. Comparison of the effectiveness of analytical
wake models for wind farm with constant and variable hub heights. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;124:189–202.
[40] Chen J, Wang F, Stelson KA. A mathematical approach to minimizing the cost of
energy for large utility wind turbines. Appl Energy 2018;228:1413–22.
[41] Gualtieri G. Improving investigation of wind turbine optimal site matching through
the self-organizing maps. Energy Convers Manage 2017;143:295–311.
[42] Pallabazzer R. Parametric analysis of wind siting efficiency. J Wind Eng Ind
Aerodyn 2003;91(11):1329–52.
[43] Chang TJ, Wu YT, Hsu HY, Chu CR, Liao CM. Assessment of wind characteristics
and wind turbine characteristics in Taiwan. Renew Energy 2003;28:851–71.
[44] Manwell JF, McGowan JG, Rogers AL. Wind energy explained: theory, design and
application. 2nd ed. Chippenham, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
[45] Ali M, Matevosyan J, Milanović JV. Probabilistic assessment of wind farm annual
energy production. Electr Power Syst Res 2012;89:70–9.
[46] Wind turbines models. https://en.wind-turbine-models.com; 2019 [accessed 03/
11/19].
[47] Gualtieri G. A comprehensive review on wind resource extrapolation models ap-
plied in wind energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;102:215–33.
13
Energy Conversion and Management 208 (2020) 112593
[48] Gualtieri G. Atmospheric stability varying wind shear coefficients to improve wind
resource extrapolation: a temporal analysis. Renew Energy 2016;87:376–90.
[49] Sun H, Yang H, Gao X. Investigation into spacing restriction and layout optimiza-
tion of wind farm with multiple types of wind turbines. Energy 2019;168:637–50.
[50] Grady SA, Hussaini MY, Abdullah MM. Placement of wind turbines using genetic
algorithms. Renew Energy 2005;30:259–70.
[51] Shamshirband S, Petković D, Ćojbašić Ž, Nikolić V, Anuar NB, Shuib NLM, et al.
Adaptive neuro-fuzzy optimization of wind farm project net profit. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;80:229–37.
[52] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable Power Generation
Costs in 2017. IRENA, ISBN 978-92-9260-040-2. Abu Dhabi, Jan. 2018. Available
at: https://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Jan/Renewable-power-generation-
costs-in-2017 [accessed 03/11/19].
[53] Zhang J, Chowdhury S, Messac A, Castillo L. A response surface-based cost model
for wind farm design. Energy Policy 2012;42:538–50.
[54] Fingersh LJ, Hand MM, Laxson AS. Wind turbine design cost and scaling model.
Golden, CO: NREL Report No. TP-500-40566, Dec. 2006.
[55] Kohonen T. Self-organizing maps. 2nd ed. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2001.
[56] Emami A, Noghreh P. New approach on optimization in placement of wind turbines
within wind farm by genetic algorithms. Renew Energy 2010;35(7):1559–64.
[57] Turner SDO, Romero DA, Zhang PY, Amon CH, Chan TCY. A new mathematical
programming approach to optimize wind farm layouts. Renew Energy
2014;63:674–80.
[58] Chen Y, Li H, Jin K, Song Q. Wind farm layout optimization using genetic algorithm
with different hub height wind turbines. Energy Convers Manage 2013;70:56–65.
[59] Haces-Fernandez F, Li H, Ramirez D. Improving wind farm power output through
deactivating selected wind turbines. Energy Convers Manage 2019;187:407–22.
[60] Gualtieri G. Development and application of an integrated wind resource assess-
ment tool for wind farm planning. Int J Renew Energy Res 2012;2(4):674–85.
[61] WindPower. The wind turbines and wind farms database, http://www.thewind-
power.net; 2019 [accessed 03/11/19].
[62] Bowman AW, Azzalini A. Applied smoothing techniques for data analysis: the
kernel approach with S-plus illustrations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
[63] Bowman AW. ‘sm’ package: Smoothing Methods for Nonparametric Regression and
Density Estimation. Version 2.2-5.6, 2018/09/27. Available at: https://cran.r-pro-
ject.org/web/packages/sm/index.html [accessed 03/11/19].
[64] Luyssaert S, Janssens IA, Sulkava M, Papale D, Dolman AJ, Reichstein M, et al.
Photosynthesis drives anomalies in net carbon-exchange of pine forests at different
latitudes. Glob Change Biol 2007;13:2110–27.
[65] Kaski S, Lagus K. Comparing self-organizing maps. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks (ICANN '96), Springer,
Berlin, Germany, 1996:809–14.
[66] Chowdhury S, Zhang J, Messac A, Castillo L. Unrestricted wind farm layout opti-
mization (UWFLO): Investigating key factors influencing the maximum power
generation. Renew Energy 2012;38(1):16–30.