energies
Article
Wind Farm Layout Optimization Using a Metamodel and
EA/PSO Algorithm in Korea Offshore
Joongjin Shin 1 , Seokheum Baek 2 and Youngwoo Rhee 1, *






Citation: Shin, J.; Baek, S.; Rhee, Y.
Wind Farm Layout Optimization
Using a Metamodel and EA/PSO
Algorithm in Korea Offshore. Energies
2021, 14, 146. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14010146
Received: 27 October 2020
Accepted: 22 December 2020
Published: 29 December 2020
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai-
ms in published maps and institutio-
nal affiliations.
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2021, 14, 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14010146
1 School of Energy Science and Technology, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34028, Korea;
jj8bit@gmail.com
2 CAE Team, DNDE Inc., Busan 48059, Korea; shbaek@dnde.co.kr
* Correspondence: ywrhee@cnu.ac.kr
Abstract: This paper examines the solution to the problem of turbine arrangement in offshore
wind farms. The two main objectives of offshore wind farm planning are to minimize wake loss
and maximize annual energy production (AEP). There is more wind with less turbulence offshore
compared with an onshore case, which drives the development of the offshore wind farm worldwide.
South Korea’s offshore wind farms, which are deep in water and cannot be installed far off the
coast, are affected by land complex terrain. Thus, domestic offshore wind farms should consider the
separation distance from the coastline as a major variable depending on the topography and marine
environmental characteristics. As a case study, a 60 MW offshore wind farm was optimized for the
coast of the Busan Metropolitan City. For the analysis of wind conditions in the candidate site, wind
conditions data from the meteorological tower and Ganjeolgot AWS at Gori offshore were used from
2001 to 2018. The optimization procedure is performed by evolutionary algorithm (EA) and particle
swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm with the purpose of maximizing the AEP while minimizing
the total wake loss. The optimization procedure can be applied to the optimized placement of WTs
within a wind farm and can be extended for a variety of wind conditions and wind farm capacity.
The results of the optimization were predicted to be 172,437 MWh/year under the Gori offshore wind
potential, turbine layout optimization, and an annual utilization rate of 26.5%. This could convert
4.6% of electricity consumption in the Busan Metropolitan City region in 2019 in offshore wind farms.
Keywords: offshore wind farm layout optimization; park wake model; metamodel; evolutionary
algorithm; particle swarm optimization; Korea offshore
1. Introduction
Diversifying energy sources and securing energy supplies are key energy strategy
targets for many countries [1]. Due to climate change, wind energy has become more
and more important for power generation without carbon dioxide emissions [1]. Offshore
wind power is a good opportunity for South Korea, providing opportunities to accelerate
power generation without the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power generation [2]. In order
to achieve the “renewable energy 3020” goal of 20% renewable energy in the power mix
by 2030, South Korea has aimed to build 12 GW of new offshore wind power generation
capacity by the end of the decade [2].
The world’s first offshore wind farm was built in 1991 in Vindeby, southeast of
Denmark. After 25 years of operation, the concept of offshore wind power has been
proven to be effective. Korea began commercial operations of offshore wind farms on
Jeju Island when the first generation of offshore wind farms disappeared. Difficulties still
exist related to marine meteorological and geographical characteristics (e.g., around Jeju
Island and the sudden change of water depth in the East Sea coast), acceptance by local
residents, investment costs related to specific military regulations, and long-term economic
assessments. In order to overcome these difficulties and secure their economic viability,
it is imperative to optimize the layout of offshore wind farms.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2021, 14, 146 2 of 15

Approaches to the optimal placement of early wind turbines often did not reflect prac-
tical conditions in the calculation of optimal placement, such as simple assumptions about
wind scenarios and regular grid-based arrangements. In a notable study, Martina Fischetti
et al. [3] proposed a combination of mathematical optimization and machine learning to
estimate the value of the optimized solution. A machine trained with many optimized
solutions will investigate whether it can accurately estimate the value of the optimized
solution for the new instance. In order to solve the problem of optimizing the layout of an
offshore wind farm, which is a specific application, a Mixed Integer Programming model
and other cutting-edge optimization techniques are proposed. It can take too much time
if you have to evaluate many sites. It was proposed to use machine learning to quickly
estimate the potential of the new site. Jagdish Chand Bansal et al. [4] proposed a solution
to the wind farm layout optimization problem (WFLOP) using BBO (Biogeography Based
Optimization), a new optimization algorithm. This paper recommends the maximum
number of turbines as well as ensuring the optimum position of the wind turbines for
a given wind farm. In experiments on wind farms of various sizes, BBO has demonstrated
superior performance to previous WFLOP solution methodologies. Jonas Schmidt et al. [5]
presented results for nine slope-based layout optimization runs of a wind farm with 25 tur-
bines on a flat terrain using three basic wake models and three different inflow scenarios.
In all cases, the AEP is maximized, and the constraints are purely geometric. Single flow
vectors, uniform wind increases, and realistic synthetic wind increases were studied, and
the final layout was compared with a Jensen, Ainslie, and CFD-based numerical wake
model. From this, an estimate of the average variation in the turbine position due to
different wake models was obtained. Mosetti et al. [6] optimized the placement of turbines
to minimize wake losses and maximize energy production by using genetic algorithms
(GAs) to simplify square grid-based turbine deployment problems. Yang et al. [7] defined
index numbers for each grid and proposed an automatic placement algorithm for turbines
using a genetic algorithm such that turbines could be optimally placed in irregular-type
wind farms. Elkinton et al. [8,9] established an offshore wind farm layout optimization
(OWFLO) framework which minimizes the cost of energy (COE) of wind farms using
Park’s wake model and an evolutionary algorithm. The OWFLO framework focuses on the
development of a wake model, the selection of an appropriate purpose function, and the
use of various optimization strategies. The TOPFARM project [10–12] in Denmark included
various wake models and operating and maintenance costs to replace CFD interpreta-
tion. A multi-fidelity approach was proposed to reduce the design requirements and
calculation time, performing optimization by combining sequential linear programming
(SLP) and a GA. This paper proposes the development of turbine layout scenarios and
a meta-model-based optimization strategy for offshore wind farm layout optimization.
This paper proposes the development of turbine layout scenarios and a metamodel-
based optimization strategy for offshore wind farm layout optimization. An EA and PSO
algorithm is utilized to solve the optimal wind farm layout problem. The Gori offshore
wind farm located in South Korea at the East Sea is selected as the case study to the
proposed strategy.

2. Wind Farm Layout Optimization Framework

2.1. Wake Modeling
Wind power efficiency is a function of many variables, such as atmospheric condi-
tions, terrain, wind power turbine design, turbine intervals, and electricity transmission.
The wind power turbines used and the wake motion produced by wind power wake
dynamics have an immense influence on the productivity and arrangement of wind farm
installments. Evaluation of the wake effect of a wind turbine can be divided into numerical
and analytic models. The former include the Ainslie (Eddy Viscosity), Reynolds averaged
Navier–Stokes (RANS), and farm flow (ECN) models, while the latter include the Jensen,
Larsen, and Frandsen Models [13–15]. The wake model employed in this paper is the
Jensen (RIS∅/EMD)/Park2 Model for wind farms, in order to calculate wind speed and
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Energies 2021, 14, 146 3 of 15

The wind power turbines used and the wake motion produced by wind power w
namics have an immense influence on the productivity and arrangement of wi
installments. Evaluation of the wake effect of a wind turbine can be divided into
power generation losses due to the wake effect of wind turbines. Calculation of the wake
cal and
effects analytic
in wind models.
farms Theperiod
over a long former of include the Ainslieby
time is implemented (Eddy Viscosity),
the Jensen Model- Reyno
agedPark
based Navier–Stokes
Model (Park1) (RANS),
of WAsP (Windand Atlas
farmAnalysis
flow (ECN) models,Program),
and Application while the latter inc
using
the secondary overlay method and combining several wakes using
Jensen, Larsen, and Frandsen Models [13–15]. The wake model employed in thisa single wake model.
The Park2 Model, proposed by Rathmann, retains a simple representation of the wake,
the Jensen (RIS∅/EMD)/Park2 Model for wind farms, in order to calculate wind sp
compared to the Park1 Model, but it uses different formulas for the wake reduction by
power and
distance generation losses due to the wake effect of wind turbines. Calculation of t
the wake interaction.
effects in wind farms
The Park1 Model, which over a long period
can normally of time
be obtained as theis implemented
wake loss rate with by the Jensen
respect
based
to Parkseparation
the turbine Model (Park1)
distance, ofisWAsP (Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Progr
as follows:
ing the secondary overlay method and combining several wakes using a sing
∆umn um Dm 2
q
model. The = (1 − Model,
Park2 1− CT (Um ))[ by Rathmann,
proposed ] ,xmnretains
= xn + dx − xm , representatio
a simple (1)
u0,m u0,m Dm + 2kxmn
wake, compared to the Park1 Model, but it uses different formulas for the wake r
where x is the downstream
by distance and the wake distance, D is the rotor diameter, CT is the thrust coefficient
interaction.
associated with the incoming wind velocity u, xmn is the downwind horizontal distance be-
The Park1 Model, which can normally be obtained p as the wake loss rate with
tween the wind turbines, k is the wake decay constant, and 1 − CT (Um ) is the normalized
to the turbine separation distance, is as follows:
rate of inflow of wind turbine m and n, which is modified by the wind speed [15,16].
The calculation of the∆ wake impact area is determined by calculating the cross-area of
the wake area caused by the preceding 1 − Cand(Uthe ))[
= (1 − wind turbine ] of, the rear
area of the rotor
, ,
wind turbine. The calculated wake impact area is applied to the wake model in proportion
x = (2)
to the total area of the rotor, as shown in Equation x (and
+ dxillustrated
− x , in Figure 1) in order
to calculate the wind speed reduction due to the wake.
where x is the downstream distance, D is the rotor diameter, CT is the thrust co
associated
∆umn with the incoming wind
q
Dm velocity
2 A u, xmn is the downwind horizontal
overlap,mn
= ( 1 − 1 − CT (Um ) )[ ] , ,xmn = xn + dx − xm (2)
between
u0,m the wind turbines, kDis m the
+ wake
2kxmn Arotor,n constant, and 1 − C (U ) is
decay
malized rate of inflow of wind turbine m and n, which is modified by the win
where U0,m is the inflow wind speed from turbine m and Aoverlap,mn is the wake area of
[15,16].
wind turbine m overlapping with the rotor of wind turbine n. When estimating the com-
bined effect of overlappingofwakes,
The calculation Park2 uses
the wake classical
impact areaperturbation
is determinedtheory,by
thus assuming the cr
calculating
that, at some point, the speed-deficit effects from the individual turbines are sufficiently
of the wake area caused by the preceding wind turbine and the area of the rot
small that they may be simply added. In other words, we apply a linear wake superposi-
rearPark2
tion. windModels
turbine.
haveThe
beencalculated
adapted andwake impact
validated area
for use is applied
in several coast to
andthe wake mode
offshore
portion
wind toThe
farms. thetypical
total area
wakeof the rotor,
reduction as shown
coefficient in Equation
for offshore (2) (and
wind farms illustrated
(obtained by in F
in order toranges
verification) calculate the wind
from 0.045 speed
to 0.075 reduction due to the wake.
[15,16].

Figure
Figure 1. 1. Illustration
Illustration of theof the overlapping
overlapping area usedarea
in theused
Park2inmodel.
the Park2 model.
2.2. Optimization Framework
∆u mn m D
The wind farm layout optimization
= (1 − in this
1− CT (focuses
paper Um ))[ on determining]2 ,the position
of N wind turbines when the u0,m
objective function of wind farm Dmperformance
+ 2kxmn is optimally
approached. The two main traditional strategies of the turbine array method are to divide
Aoverlap,mn
the wind farm into a discrete grid in order to explore the optimum grid positions of the
,
Arotor,n
turbines or to define the turbine position coordinates as continuous variables, such that all

xmn = xn + dx − xm
Energies 2021, 14, 146 4 of 15

possible positions within the wind farm can be trialed. Commercial wind farms generally
include a large number of turbines (50 and above). If array layouts or grid-based patterns
are not assumed for N turbines, the optimization problems can become difficult, involving
2N design variables. In this paper, the turbine arrangement method is composed of the
following two scenarios:
(1) Scenario 1: An approach using just patterns in the arrangement of rows and columns
of turbines.
(2) Scenario 2: A method of converting a wind farm domain (x, y) into a single parameter
or an approach that directly uses the orthogonal coordinates (x, y) of turbines as
design variables. In this case, the grid is mapped within the domain and placed by
the index number.
The design framework was formalized to model the relationship between the geometry
and turbine layout and the energy output in the wind farm. This framework consists of the
following main steps:
(STEP 1) Design of experiment (DOE) for turbine layout under scenarios 1 and 2.
The DOE data interface process for the two scenarios is as follows.
(STEP 2) Calculation of performance data of wind farm using windPRO for scenarios
1 and 2.
(STEP 3) Store performance data in an ASCII or Excel file (.csv) and convert data
into a Binary file to associate with the optiSLang metamodel of optimal prognosis (MOP)
function and analyze design sensitivity [17].
(STEP 4) Generate and verify the polynomial and extrapolation-based metamodel.
(STEP 5) Apply evolutionary algorithm (EA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) to
obtain the optimal solution of a multi-objective function using the verified metamodel [18–20].
As the metamodels approximate the computationally intensive functions using simple
analytical models (a form of the cheap-to-compute model), it is efficient and simple to
perform EA and PSO while reliability is achieved by the metamodels. Figure 2 represents
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
the optimization framework and details the stages of optimizing the placement of wind
farms in the case of the Gori offshore area.

Figure 2. Framework
Figure for wind
2. Framework farmfarm
for wind layout optimization.
layout optimization.

3. Offshore Wind Farm Case Study Results

A feasibility study and efficient design methodology for the offshore wind farm de-
velopment project on the southeastern coast of Busan were carried out. The Gori sites are
located at Easting 526,200 and Northing 3,906,000 (Figure 3). Centralized power supplies
of nuclear power and thermal power plants are installed in the vicinity of this area. As
such, the use of idle substation equipment and power transmission facilities from the per-
manently stopped power plants serve to decrease the installation costs of offshore wind
Energies 2021, 14, 146 5 of 15

Figure 2. Framework for wind farm layout optimization.

3. Offshore Wind Farm Case Study Results
3. Offshore Wind Farm Case Study Results
A feasibility study and efficient design methodology for the offshore wind farm
A feasibility study and efficient design methodology for the offshore wind farm de-
development project on the southeastern coast of Busan were carried out. The Gori sites
velopment project on the southeastern coast of Busan were carried out. The Gori sites are
are located at Easting 526,200 and Northing 3,906,000 (Figure 3). Centralized power
located at Easting 526,200 and Northing 3,906,000 (Figure 3). Centralized power supplies
supplies of nuclear power and thermal power plants are installed in the vicinity of this
of nuclear power and thermal power plants are installed in the vicinity of this area. As
area. As such, the use of idle substation equipment and power transmission facilities from
such, the use of idle substation equipment and power transmission facilities from the per-
themanently
permanently stopped
stopped power power plants
plants serve toserve to decrease
decrease the installation
the installation costs of
costs of offshore offshore
wind
wind power
power production
production and
and to to increase
increase their business
their business potential.potential.

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

Figure Figure
3. The 3. Theoffshore
Gori Gori offshore
windwind
farmfarm location
location at East
at East SeaSeaofofSouth
SouthKorea.
Korea.

Figure44shows
Figure showsthethedensity
densityofofwind
windenergy
energyininthe
thearea
areaof
ofthe
theintended
intendedsite
siteofof the
the
offshore wind
offshore wind farm using long-term wind speed correction (Measure–Correlative–Predict,
using long-term wind speed correction (Measure–Correlative–Pre-
dict, MCP)
MCP) based on the
based long-term
on the Gori
long-term met
Gori metmast wind
mast winddata.
data.For
For aa hub height
height of
of 110
110m, m,
the Weibull parameters (A, K) and the frequency and average wind speed for each
the Weibull parameters (A, K) and the frequency and average wind speed for each direc- direc-
tionare
tion aresummarized,
summarized,where
wherethe
themain
mainwind
winddirection
directionisisNNE.
NNE.The
TheWeibull
Weibull distribution
distribution
parametersare
parameters areAA==7.14,
7.14,KK==1.838,
1.838,and
andVV(mean)
(mean)==6.3
6.3m/s.
m/s.

Figure 4. Wind rose diagram at Gori.

Figure 4. Wind rose diagram at Gori.

3.1. Defining the Design Variable and Objective Function

The purpose of the wind farm layout optimization problem considered in this paper
 is to maximize the annual energy production (AEP) considering the size and number of
turbines at the pre-defined Gori offshore wind farm and to minimize the wake loss. The
optimization problem for the layout of the wind farms, considering the design variables
Energies 2021, 14, 146 6 of 15
xi and according to the two scenarios, was formulated as follows:
Find WTG1, WTG2, WTG3,⋯, WTG12
3.1. Defining the Design Variable and Objective Function
Maximize AEP(xi) or AEP(WTGj)
The purpose of the wind farm layout optimization problem considered in this paper
Minimize Wake Loss(xi) or is toWake
maximizeLoss(WTGj)
the annual energy production (AEP) considering the size and number
Subject to of turbines at the pre-defined Gori offshore wind farm and to minimize the wake loss.
The optimization problem for the layout of the wind farms, considering the design variables
xi and according to the two scenarios, was formulated as follows:
xLower ≤ xi ≤Maximize
FindUpper
x WTG1, WTG2, WTG3,· · · , WTG12
i=1,2,⋯, 9. j=1,2,⋯,12.
AEP(xi ) or AEP(WTGj)
(3)
Minimize Wake Loss(xi ) or Wake Loss(WTGj)
Subject to
For scenario 1, Figure 5 represents the nine design variables (x1–x9) used for optimiz-
ing the wind farm layout. The coastline xLower separation
≤ xi ≤ xUpper distance,
i = 1, 2, · · · ,rotation
9. j = 1, 2, angle
· · · , 12. in the direction
(3)

of the main wind direction,Forlateral

scenario 1,angle, and separation
Figure 5 represents the nine designdistance of9 ) the
variables (x1 –x front
used for and rear
optimizing
columns of the turbine were selected. Table 1 presents the design variables and ofthe re-
the wind farm layout. The coastline separation distance, rotation angle in the direction
the main wind direction, lateral angle, and separation distance of the front and rear columns
spective levels. Table 2 shows the were
of the turbine experimental
selected. Table 1arrangement
presents the design and itsand
variables interpretation results
the respective levels.
using the Taguchi mixedTable 2 shows the experimental
orthogonal array with arrangement
respect andtoits interpretation
the nine design results using the Taguchi [21].
variables
mixed orthogonal array with respect to the nine design variables [21].

VIEW 7 of 15

(a)

(b)
Figure 5. Design variables for offshore wind farm layout based on regular pattern (scenario 1). (a) Farm pattern, (b) Wind
s for offshore wind farm layout based on regular pattern (scenario 1). (a) Farm pattern, (b) Wind
turbine generator column distance.
n distance.

For scenario 2, Figure 6 defines 24 coordinates of each turbine x and y as design var
iables for the 12 turbines. In the case of scenario 2, the distance between the accumulated
turbines was used as a variable. The turbine batch DOE sampling implementation pro
gram was configured using Visual Studio 2013 C# on Windows 10.
 Energies 2021, 14, 146 7 of 15

Table 1. The nine design variables and their levels.

Design Variable Description Unit Initial Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

x1 Coastline Distance m 1000 1000 1250 1500
FOR PEER REVIEW x2 Farm Base Angle Degree 0 −10 0 10
7 of 15
x3 Farm Side Angle Degree 90 70 90 110
x4 1 × 1 Row Distance m 1000 556 778 1000
x5 1 × 2 Row Distance m 1000 556 778 1000
x6 1 × 3 Row Distance m 1000 556 778 1000
x7 1 × 4 Row Distance m 1000 556 778 1000
x8 1 × 5 Row Distance m 1000 556 778 1000
x9 1 × 6 Row Distance m 1000 556 778 1000

Table 2. Taguchi orthogonal array L54 matrix and results with respect to the nine design variables.

AEP Wake Loss CF

No x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9
(b) (MWh/y) (%) (%)
1 1000 −10 70 556 556 556 556 556 556 167,518.2 9.3 25.8
esign variables
2 for
1000offshore
−10 wind
70 farm556
layout
556based
556on regular
778 pattern
778 (scenario
778 1). (a)
168,502.4 Farm pattern,
8.8 (b)25.9
Wind
.
nerator column
.. .
distance.
.. ..
.
54 1500 0 70 778 1000 556 1000 778 556 169,410.6 8.5 26.1
For scenario 2, Figure 6 defines 24 coordinates of each turbine x and y as design var-
For scenario
iables for the 12 turbines. 2, Figure
In the case6ofdefines 24 coordinates
scenario of each turbine
2, the distance x and
between they as design
accumulated
variables for the 12 turbines. In the case of scenario 2, the distance between the accumulated
turbines was used as a variable. The turbine batch DOE sampling implementation pro-
turbines was used as a variable. The turbine batch DOE sampling implementation program
gram was configured usingusing
was configured Visual Studio
Visual Studio 2013
2013 C#C#onon Windows
Windows 10. 10.

Figure
gure 6. Design variables for offshore 6. Design
wind farmvariables
layoutfor offshore
based on wind farm layoutcoordinates
unrestricted based on unrestricted
(scenariocoordinates
2). (sce-
nario 2).

The program The wasprogram

run bywas entering the turbine
run by entering interval,
the turbine interval,site size,number
site size, number of turbines,
of turbines,
output
output file name, andfilesampling
name, andmethod
sampling in
method in the command
the command window.
window. Theresults
The results of
ofthe
the pro-
program execution were checked in the .csv file, as displayed in Excel.
gram execution were The checked
intervals forinthe
the .csv
x and file, as displayed
y coordinates in Excel. turbines were set to
of the two accumulated
The intervals for4Dthe
at least x and
of the y coordinates
turbine of theusing
diameter and defined two the
accumulated turbines
following expression were set to
[12,22,23]:
at least 4D of the turbine diameterN −and defined using the following expression [12,22,23]:
1 N q
∑ ∑

2
2
xi − x j + yi − y j ≤ 4D. (4)
∑ ∑
i =1 j = i +1
( − ) +( − ) ≤4 . (4)
where xij and yij are the arrays storing the wind turbine row and column numbers for
the wind turbine x and y coordinates for the unrestricted coordinate method. The sum of
where xij and ythe
ij are the arrays
distances storing
of all pairs i & j isthe windconstraint
a design turbinetorow and the
minimize column
the numbers
total distance of thefor
accumulated 12 turbine positions.
wind turbine x and y coordinates for the unrestricted coordinate method. The sum of the
distances of all pairs i & j is a design constraint to minimize the total distance of the accu-
mulated 12 turbine positions.
 AEP Wake Loss CF
No x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9
(MWh/y) (%) (%)
1 1000 –10 70 556 556 556 556 556 556 167,518.2 9.3 25.8
2 1000 –10 70 556 556 556 778 778 778 168,502.4 8.8 25.9
Energies 2021, 14, 146 8 of 15
⋮ ⋮ ⋮
54 1500 0 70 778 1000 556 1000 778 556 169,410.6 8.5 26.1

3.2. Optimal
3.2. Optimal Turbine
TurbineLayout
LayoutResults
Results
Optimization of
Optimization of turbine
turbine deployment
deployment was was obtained
obtained using
using total
total AEP
AEPandandtotal
totalwake
wake
lossmetamodels,
loss metamodels,as aswell
wellas asEA
EAandand PSO.
PSO. EAEA and
and PSO,
PSO, being
being aa stochastic
stochastic search
search algorithm,
algorithm,
dealswith
deals withmultiobjective
multiobjectiveproblems
problemssignificantly
significantlybetter
betterthan
thandodo gradient
gradient based
based algorithms.
algorithms.
ItItisisbetter
betterexploration
explorationabilities,
abilities,diminished
diminishedsusceptibility
susceptibilitytotobeing
beingtrapped
trappedininlocal
localminima,
minima,
andbecause
and becauseititdoes
doesnotnotsuffer
sufferfrom
frompremature
prematureconvergence.
convergence.PSO PSOisisananalgorithm
algorithmbuilt
builton
on
the basis of swarm intelligence to solve optimization problems, e.g., search
the basis of swarm intelligence to solve optimization problems, e.g., search spaces [24], spaces [24], and
itand
hasitbeen successfully
has been successfullyapplied in many
applied areasareas
in many where optimization
where problems
optimization problemsneedneed
to beto
resolved
be resolved [25].[25].
Figure
Figure 77shows
showsthe theconvergent
convergentprocess
processof ofPareto
Paretooptimization
optimizationby bythe
theinteraction
interactionof of
turbine
turbine layout variables with
layout design variables withEA EAandandPSO,
PSO,two
twoobjective
objective functions
functions AEPs,
AEPs, andand
the
the posterior
posterior loss.loss.
EA EAandandPSOPSOwere were implemented
implemented using
using the commercial
the commercial optimal
optimal design
design soft-
software optiSLang. EA and PSO sorted the dominance among
ware optiSLang. EA and PSO sorted the dominance among objects based on non-control- objects based on non-
controlling alignment-based
ling alignment-based geneticgenetic algorithms,
algorithms, which
which have beenhave been used
widely widely used in multi-
in multi-objective
objective optimalfields,
optimal design designandfields, and explore
explore them by them by emphasizing
emphasizing the best
the best solution
solution direction.
direction. EA
EA
andand PSOPSO populations
populations werewere
bothboth set1000
set to to 1000
andand optimal
optimal solutions
solutions werewere obtained
obtained afterafter
9884
9884 and 16,051
and 16,051 repetitions,
repetitions, respectively.
respectively.

(a)

Figure 7. Cont.
Energies 2021, 14, 146 9 of 15
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

(b)

(a) evolutionary algorithm (EA) and (b) particle swarm optimization (PSO)
Figure 7. Optimal solutions achieved through (a)
algorithm.

This plot
This plot shows
showsallallparameter
parameter(design
(designvariable,
variable,AEP, wake
AEP, lossloss
wake for objectives, and con-
for objectives, and
straints) for all
constraints) fordesigns. The failed
all designs. designs
The failed are colored
designs pink, the
are colored deactivated
pink, are colored
the deactivated aregray,
col-
incomplete designs are colored violet, and the selected designs are colored red.
ored gray, incomplete designs are colored violet, and the selected designs are colored red.The optimal
solution
The of EA
optimal and PSO
solution shows
of EA and similar patterns,
PSO shows butpatterns,
similar EA is better forismaximum
but EA better for AEP.
maximum
AEP. The optimization problem is summarized in Equation (3) and solved using the EA
and PSO algorithm. EA
The optimization and PSO
problem is was set to start
summarized in with a population
Equation size of using
(3) and solved 1000 with an
the EA
alternative value of 10. The user defined constants involved in EA and PSO
and PSO algorithm. EA and PSO was set to start with a population size of 1000 with an are summarized
in Table 3. value of 10. The user defined constants involved in EA and PSO are summa-
alternative
rized in Table 3.
Table 3. User-defined constants in EA and PSO.

Table 3. User-defined constants

EA in EA and PSO. PSO
Population
EA size: 1000 Population
PSOsize: 1000
Population
Archive size: 1000
size: 20 Population
Archive size: 1000
size: 20
Archive
Crossover size: 20 50%
probability: Stop Archive size: 20 < 10%
criteria: Diversity
Crossover
Mutation rate: 20%50%
probability: Stop criteria: Diversity
- < 10%
Mutation rate: 20% -
Figures 8 and 9 show the results of the optimum turbine arrangement at the Gori
Figures 8 and 9 show the results of the optimum turbine arrangement at the Gori
offshore wind farm. The wind farm was oriented more in the main wind direction (NNE),
offshore wind farm. The wind farm was oriented more in the main wind direction (NNE),
compared to the initial turbine arrangement. The spacing between the front and back
compared to the initial turbine arrangement. The spacing between the front and back rows
rows of the turbine was about 7D (Turbine diameter 140 m). Tables 4 and 5 summarize the
of the turbine was about 7D (Turbine diameter 140 m). Tables 4 and 5 summarize the
optimal layout of the wind farm and the optimal locations of each of the 12 turbines, re-
optimal layout
spectively. of the wind
The optimal farmofand
solution EA the
andoptimal locations
PSO shows ofpatterns,
similar each of the
but 12
EAturbines, re-
is better for
spectively. The optimal solution of EA and PSO shows similar patterns, but EA
maximum AEP. With this layout pattern, the annual energy production is 172,437 MWh/y is better
for
andmaximum AEP.
the capacity With
factor this layout pattern, the annual energy production is 172,437
is 26.5%.
MWh/y and the capacity factor is 26.5%.
 Energies 2021, 14, 146 10 of 15
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 8. Optimal turbine layout for 12 WTGs (Wind Turbine Generators): (a) initial, (b) design of experiment (DOE) best
solution (c) optimal solution.
 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Energiesturbine
gure 8. Optimal 2021, 14,layout
146 for 12 WTGs (Wind Turbine Generators): (a) initial, (b) design of experiment (DOE) best 11 of 15

olution (c) optimal solution.

The wind farmThe layoutwindresults

farmobtained usingobtained
layout results the proposedusingoptimization
the proposedframework
optimization framework
are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8a shows a designed wind
are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8a shows a designed wind farm that is assumed to have
farm that a
is assumed to have a
rectangular shape. Figure 8b shows the turbine arrangement with the maximum
rectangular shape. Figure 8b shows the turbine arrangement with the maximum AEP at AEP at
the DOE sample thepoints. The optimum
DOE sample points. wind farm layout
The optimum wind is shown in Figure
farm layout 8c, and
is shown the
in Figure 8c, and the
power generated by each
power turbine
generated by (of this
each wind(of
turbine farm)
this is shown
wind farm) inisFigure
shown9.inFor a given
Figure 9. For a given wind
wind increase (Figure
increase3), the dominant
(Figure wind direction
3), the dominant allows allows
wind direction for greater distances
for greater be- between the
distances
tween the turbines and the staggered layout pattern in general minimizes the wake
turbines and the staggered layout pattern in general minimizes the wake losses, thereby losses,
thereby increasing the AEP.
increasing the AEP.
The optimal wind Thefarm waswind
optimal oriented
farmmore
was in the main
oriented morewind direction
in the main wind(NNE) com- (NNE) com-
direction
pared to the initial
paredturbine
to thearrangement.
initial turbineThe spacing between
arrangement. the frontbetween
The spacing and back rows
the frontofand back rows
the turbine wasof about 7D (Turbine
the turbine diameter
was about 7D140 m). Table
(Turbine 5 summarize
diameter 140 m).the optimal
Table layout the optimal
5 summarize
of the wind farm and of
layout thethe
optimal
wind farmlocations of each
and the of the
optimal 12 turbines,
locations respectively.
of each With respectively.
of the 12 turbines,
this optimal layout pattern, the annual energy production is 172,437 MWh/y
With this optimal layout pattern, the annual energy production is 172,437 and the ca- MWh/y and
pacity factor is the
26.5%. Then, the potential offshore wind power can be estimated as
capacity factor is 26.5%. Then, the potential offshore wind power can be estimated as con-
verting 4.6% ofconverting
electricity consumption
4.6% of electricityin the Busan Metropolitan
consumption in the BusanCityMetropolitan
region in 2019 in region in 2019
City
offshore wind farms
in offshore wind farms.

15,000 18

Initial AEP, Front WT

14,800 16
Initial AEP, Rear WT
14,600 Initial Wake Loss, Front WT
Initial Wake Loss, Rear WT 14

14,400
12

Wake Loss (%)

AEP (MWh/y)

14,200
10
14,000
8
13,800

6
13,600

13,400 4

13,200 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Turbine Number
(a)

Figure 9. Cont.
 Energies 2021, 14, 146 12 of 15
2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

15,000 18

DOE Best AEP, Front WT

16
14,800 DOE Best AEP, Rear WT
DOE Best Wake Loss, Front WT
DOE Best Wake Loss, Rear WT 14
14,600

12

Wake Loss (%)

AEP (MWh/y)

14,400
10
14,200
8

14,000
6

13,800 4

13,600 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Turbine Number
(b)
15,000 18

Optimal AEP, Front WT

16
14,800 Optimal AEP, Rear WT
Optimal Wake Loss, Front WT
Optimal Wake Loss, Rear WT 14

14,600
12

Wake Loss (%)

AEP (MWh/y)

14,400 10

8
14,200

14,000
4

13,800 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Turbine Number
(c)

gure 9. Optimal turbine

Figure layout for
9. Optimal 12 WTGs
turbine at the
layout for Gori windatfarm.
12 WTGs (a) initial,
the Gori (b) DOE
wind farm. best solution
(a) initial, (b) DOE(c) optimal
best solution (c) optimal solution.
lution.

4. Key results
Tablesummarized
Table 4. Key results summarized
from from the
the optimization optimization framework.
framework.

AEP AEPLoss
Wake Wake
CF Loss CF
ution Solution
x1 x2 x1 x3 x2 x4 x3 x5 x4 x6 x5 x7 x6 x8 x7 x9 x8 x9
(MWh/y) (%) (%)
(MWh/y) (%) (%)
itial Initial 0
1000 10000 01000 0 1000 10001000100010001000 10001000 1000
1000 168,000
1000 168,000
9.1 25.89.1 25.8
DOE Best 1250 −10 90 778 1000 1000 778 778 1000 170,874 7.5 26.3
E Best 1250
PSO
–10 90
1216.1
778
−9.2 1000
86.5 1000
1000988.1
7781000
778 1000 170,874
997.9 999.1 997.5
7.5
171,762
26.3
7.069 26.5
SO 1216.1
EA −9.2 86.5
1453.9 1000
−10 70988.1969.5
1000999.9997.9
852.1999.1
1000 997.5
1000 171,762
1000 7.069
172,662 26.5
7.397 26.5
EA 1453.9 –10
Reanalysis 70
1453.9 −969.5
10 70999.9969.5
852.1999.91000852.11000
1000 1000
1000 172,662
1000 7.397
172,437 26.57.4 26.5
nalysis 1453.9 –10 70 969.5 999.9 852.1 1000 1000 1000 172,437 7.4 26.5
Energies 2021, 14, 146 13 of 15

Table 5. Results of calculated annual energy for each of 12 WTGs.

Results WTG1 WTG2 WTG3 WTG4 WTG5 WTG6 WTG7 WTG8 WTG9 WTG10 WTG11 WTG12
Easting (m) 526,339 526,397 526,999 526,997 527,599 527,597 528,199 528,197 528,799 528,797 529,399 529,397
Northing (m) 3,906,422 3,907,200 3,906,422 3,907,200 3,906,422 3,907,200 3,906,422 3,907,200 3,906,422 3,907,200 3,906,422 3,907,200
Initial
AEP (MWh/y) 13,867.6 14,296.0 13,458.7 13,927.9 13,512.1 13,969.2 13,657.1 14,072.1 13,842.1 14,220.8 14,279.3 14,430.3
Wake Loss (%) 7.3 2.6 11.0 6.3 11.6 7.4 11.6 7.8 11.2 7.9 9.1 7.4
Easting (m) 526,438 526,571 526,991 527,162 527,582 527,753 528,211 528,344 528,802 528,935 529,354 529,526
DOE Northing (m) 3,906,169 3,906,935 3,905,846 3,906,831 3,905,742 3,906,727 3,905,856 3,906,623 3,905,752 3,906,518 3,905,429 3,906,414
Best AEP (MWh/y) 14,125.5 14,442 14,012.9 14,239.2 13,855.6 14,288.8 13,787.1 14,297.9 14,039.3 14,432.2 14,639.2 14,713.8
Wake Loss (%) 6 2.7 8.2 5.4 10.3 6.3 11.4 7.2 10.6 7.4 7.6 6.5
Easting (m) 526,400 526,899 526,991 527,490 527,582 528,081 528,173 528,671 528,764 529,262 529,354 529,853
Northing (m) 3,905,700 3,906,567 3,905,596 3,906,462 3,905,492 3,906,358 3,905,387 3,906,254 3,905,283 3,906,150 3,905,179 3,906,046
Optimal
AEP (MWh/y) 14,586.6 14,510.9 14,093.0 14,301.6 13,997.1 14,352.6 14,074.0 14,410.6 14,219.8 14,566.1 14,460.3 14,864.6
Wake Loss (%) 3.7 3.7 8.0 6.2 9.7 7.0 10.1 7.4 9.9 7.4 9.0 6.2
Energies 2021, 14, 146 14 of 15

4. Conclusions
This paper has presented a framework to obtain text data by configuring the DOE for
optimal turbine placement in the Gori offshore wind farm or to exchange the data needed
for optimal design through a low-level programming language. This framework contains
a more detailed approach to estimating the AEP of offshore wind farm than existing tools
and can be applied to future offshore wind farm development.
(1) For the optimal turbine arrangement at the Gori offshore wind farm, the design
variables that most affected the AEP and wake losses were dominant in the x2 complex
rotation angle.
(2) In terms of the effect of shoreline clearance, the AEP increased as the shoreline
clearance increased, but the wake loss did not linearly reduce as the shoreline clearance
increased becoming minimal at 1250 m.
(3) The optimal solution for turbine arrangement was obtained using the AEP, the wake loss
metamodel, EA, and PSO and was found to be xi = [1453.9, −10, 70, 969.5, 999.9, 852.1, 1000, 1000].

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.S.; data curation, S.B.; formal analysis, J.S.; methodology,
J.S. and S.B.; software, S.B.; supervision, Y.R.; validation, Y.R.; writing—original draft, J.S. and S.B.;
writing—review & editing, J.S., S.B. and Y.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Al-Addous, M.; Jaradat, M.; Albatayneh, A.; Wellmann, J.; Al Hmidan, S. The Significance of Wind Turbines Layout Optimization
on the Predicted Farm Energy Yield. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 117. [CrossRef]
2. GWEC. Global Offshore Wind Report 2020; GWEC: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Volume 19, pp. 63–66.
3. Fischetti, M.; Fraccaro, M. Machine learning meets mathematical optimization to predict the optimal production of offshore wind
parks. Comput. Oper. Res. 2019, 106, 289–297. [CrossRef]
4. Bansal, J.C.; Farswan, P. Wind farm layout using biogeography based optimization. Renew. Energy 2017, 107, 386–402. [CrossRef]
5. Schmidt, J.; Stoevesandt, B. The impact of wake models on wind farm layout optimization. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2015, 625, 012040.
[CrossRef]
6. Mosetti, G.; Poloni, C.; Diviacco, B. Optimization of wind turbine positioning in large windfarms by means of a genetic algorithm.
J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 1994, 51, 105–116. [CrossRef]
7. Yang, K.; Kwak, G.; Cho, K.; Huh, J. Wind farm layout optimization for wake effect uniformity. Energy 2019, 183, 983–995. [CrossRef]
8. Elkinton, C.N. Offshore Wind Farm Layout Optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA,
USA, 2007.
9. Elkinton, C.N.; Manwell, J.F.; McGowan, J.G. Offshore Wind Farm Layout Optimization (OWFLO) Project: Preliminary Results.
In Proceedings of the 44th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reno, NV, USA, 9–12 January 2006.
10. Réthoré, P.; Fuglsang, P.; Larsen, G.C.; Buhl, T.; Larsen, T.J.; Madsen, H.A. TOPFARM: Multi-fidelity optimization of wind farms.
Wind Energy 2013, 17, 1797–1816. [CrossRef]
11. Gao, X.; Yang, H.; Lin, L.; Koo, P. Wind turbine layout optimization using multi-population genetic algorithm and a case study in
Hong Kong offshore. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2015, 139, 89–99. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, L.; Tan, A.C.; Gu, Y. Comparative study on optimizing the wind farm layout using different design methods and cost
models. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2015, 146, 1–10. [CrossRef]
13. Douwe, J.R. Validation of Wind Turbine Wake Models. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2007.
14. Gu, B.; Yongqian, L.; Jie, Y.; Li, L.; Shun, K. A Wind Farm Optimal Control Algorithm Based on Wake Fast-Calculation Model.
J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2016, 138, 024501.
15. EMD International A/S. Introduction to Wind Turbine Wake Modeling and Wake Generated Turbulence; windPRO/PARK; EMD Inter-
national A/S: Aalborg, Denmark, 2019.
16. Sanderse, B. Aerodynamics of Wind Turbine Wakes: Literature Review; ECN-e-09-016; Energy Research Center of Netherland (ECN):
Petten, The Netherland, 2009.
17. Dynardo GmbH. optiSLang; Version 7.5.1; Documentation: Weimar, Germany, 2019.
18. Bäck, T. Evolution strategies: An alternative evolutionary algorithm. Comput. Vis. 1996, 1063, 1–20.
19. Riedel, J.; Blum, S.; Puisa, R.; Wintermantel, M. Adaptive mutation strategies for evolutionary algorithms: A comparative
benchmark study. In Proceedings of the Weimarer Optimierungs-und Stochastiktage 2.0, Weimar, Germany, 1–2 December 2005.
20. Poli, R.; Kennedy, J.; Blackwell, T. Particle swarm optimization. Swarm Intell. 2007, 1, 33–57. [CrossRef]
21. Phadke, M. Quality Engineering Using Robust Design; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1989.
Energies 2021, 14, 146 15 of 15

22. Hou, P.; Hu, W.; Soltani, M.; Chen, Z. Optimized Placement of Wind Turbines in Large-Scale Offshore Wind Farm Using Particle
Swarm Optimization Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 1272–1282. [CrossRef]
23. Florian, A. An efficient sampling scheme: Updated Latin Hypercube Sampling. Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 1992, 7, 123–130. [CrossRef]
24. Yang, K. Determining an Appropriate Parameter of Analytical Wake Models for Energy Capture and Layout Optimization on
Wind Farms. Energies 2020, 13, 739. [CrossRef]
25. Archer, C.L.; Vasel-Be-Hagh, A.; Yan, C.; Wu, S.; Pan, Y.; Brodie, J.F.; Maguire, A.E. Review and evaluation of wake loss models
for wind energy applications. Appl. Energy 2018, 226, 1187–1207. [CrossRef]