See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301742065

Optimization of wind turbine layout position in a wind farm using a newly-

developed two-dimensional wake model

Article  in  Applied Energy · July 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.098

CITATIONS READS

27 1,021

3 authors, including:

Xiaoxia Gao Hongxing Yang

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
9 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS    194 PUBLICATIONS   7,911 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiaoxia Gao on 29 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Optimization of wind turbine layout position in a wind farm using

a newly-developed two-dimensional wake model
Gao Xiaoxia ⇑, Yang Hongxing, Lu Lin
Renewable Energy Research Group (RERG), Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

h i g h l i g h t s

A 2D analytical wind turbine wake model named Jensen–Gaussian wake model is proposed.

The velocity deficit predicted by Jensen–Gaussian model is validated with literature.

The Jensen–Gaussian model is improved by a proposed turbulence model.

The Jensen–Gaussian wake model is applied for the turbine layout optimization.

The performance of Jensen–Gaussian model on turbine layout optimization is validated.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The development and validation of a 2D analytical wind turbine wake model based on Jensen’s wake
Received 26 February 2016 model using Gaussian function is presented in this paper. The velocity deficit predicted by the newly-
Received in revised form 15 April 2016 developed Jensen–Gaussian wake model is compared with wind tunnel experimental measured data in
Accepted 24 April 2016
literatures and results show that, the velocity deficit predicted by the model fits well with the measured
Available online 28 April 2016
data at different downwind distances of X = 2.5D, X = 5D, X = 7.5D and X = 10D. Considering the turbu-
lence inside the turbine wake, a new turbulence model is developed and based on this, the Jensen–
Keywords:
Gaussian wake model was improved and validated. The 2D Jensen–Gaussian wake model is then applied
Wind turbine layout optimization
2D wake model
in the wind turbine layout optimizing process within a wind farm based on the multiple populations
Wake characteristics genetic algorithm (MPGA). The performance of this newly 2D model in the optimization process is vali-
Validation dated and compared with the results presented in some typical studies on the turbine layout optimiza-
Turbulence model tion. The comparison is performed for ‘constant wind speed of 12 m/s with variable wind directions’.
Multiple populations genetic algorithm Using the 2D Jensen–Gaussian wake model instead of Jensen’s wake model in the MPGA turbine layout
optimization program, both the total power generation and wind farm efficiency decreased. The wind
farm efficiency drop to 77.83%, 78.47% and 81.84% from 96.83%, 96.34% and 96.23% for 38, 39 and 40 wind
turbines, respectively which is in accordance with the literatures on the power losses caused by wake
effect in large wind farm. The development and application of the 2D Jensen–Gaussian wake model
means more theory significance and practical values in wind energy utilization.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Wind is one of the most profitable renewable energy sources
with a large installation capacity all over the world and, over the
past decades, the characteristics and properties of the wakes cre-
ated downwind of turbines have thus become an important topic.
The groupings of turbines in wind farms results in disturbed flows
behind rotors, characterized by reduced wind speeds (velocity def-
icit) and increased turbulence. Although the velocity deficit in a
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: okspringgao@gmail.com (X. Gao).
wake region diminishes with distance, as the faster-moving air just
outside of the wake is gradually entrained, the turbines downwind
produce less power and suffer increased fatigue loads if they are
wake affected. It is reported that power losses due to wind turbine
wakes are of the order of 10–20% of the total power output of large
wind farms [1,2]. Thus, how to arrange the wind turbines in a wind
farm is important for wind farm power generation increasing
which is a popular topic for many scholars [3–5]. And detailed
knowledge of the flows and turbulence structures within wakes
is necessary for correctly modelling both power production and
turbine loading for wind farm turbine layout optimization and
overall power generation assessment [5–8].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.098
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Gao et al. / Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200
Simple analytical models are widely used due to their simplicity
and low computational running costs [9]. Various analytical inves-
tigations have been conducted on wind turbine wakes [10–12]. Of
these, Jensen’s wake model [11] is considered the pioneering
model which is widely used in the wind turbine layout optimiza-
tion within a wind farm. This model states that the velocity deficit
can be expressed as:
2
u ¼ u0 ½1  2a=ð1 þ kx=r 1 Þ  ð1Þ
where u⁄ is the wake velocity at a downwind distance x, and u0 is
the undisturbed incoming wind velocity. k is the rate of the wake
expansion, with a value of 0.1 in Jensen’s wake model. However,
the suggested values of k in the literature are 0.075 for onshore tur-
bines and 0.04 or 0.05 for the offshore [13–16]. r1 is the immedi-
ately downstream rotor radius of the turbine, which can be
defined as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r 1 ¼ r d ð1  aÞ=ð1  2aÞ ð2Þ
where rd is the rotor radius of wind turbine and a is the axial induc-
tion factor.
C T ¼ 4að1  aÞ ð3Þ
a ¼ 0:5= lnðz=z0 Þ ð4Þ
Despite its simplicity, it was shown that Jensen’s wake model
can provide an acceptable representation of the wake profile
[9,17] and has been applied widely especially for the wind turbine
layout optimization [18]. Some typical work for wind turbine lay-
out optimization using Jensen’s wake model is conducted by Grady
et al. [19], Emami and Noghreh [20], Mittal [21], as well as Rajper
and Amin [22]. Using the same wake effect model, cost model,
coarse grid strategy, the authors have used different algorithms
to improve the results in Mosetti et al.’s study which was the sem-
inal research in the use of evolutionary computation techniques for
wind turbines layout optimization in the year 1993 [23]. In the
wake model, the velocity inside the wake is considered constant
across the wake plume at any particular downwind distance. This
is not realistic, as the distribution of velocity across the section is
more accurately represented by a Gaussian distribution with the
appropriate parameters. A more accurate wake model is benefit
for the turbine layout optimization in conducting a comprehensive
and reliable turbine layout pattern.
Some typical studies on turbine layout optimization are con-
ducted in a hypothetical 2 km  2 km wind farm based on three
cases, i.e. case (a): constant wind speed of 12 m/s with fixed wind
direction, case (b): constant wind speed of 12 m/s with variable
wind directions and case (c): variable wind speeds of 8 m/s,
12 m/s 17 m/s, respectively [19–34]. A non-dimensional cost of
energy (COE) in one year was proposed as the objective function
which aimed to produce the highest amount of energy at the min-
imum cost. Grady et al. [19], Emami and Noghreh [20], Mittal [21],
and Rajper and Amin [22] improved the optimization results of the
three cases using the same wake model (Jensen’s wake model) and
objective function using different optimization algorithms (Genetic
Algorithm, Monte Carlo’s simulation method, evolutive algorithms,
etc.). Moreover, with the same wake model and objective func-
tions, Gao et al. [35] improved the optimization results using a
multiple populations genetic algorithm (MPGA) compared with
previous studies. However, still the linear Jensen’s wake model is
used which would thus, make the results little inaccurate. Consid-
ering most research on the wind turbine layout optimization using
Jensen’s wake model, the application of a more accurate 2D wake
model is a research gap which deserved to be studied and
investigated.
193
In this paper, a new two-dimensional (2D) analytical wake
model based on Jensen’s wake model using Gaussian function is
developed with some assumptions. Comparisons with wind tunnel
experiments in previous studies is conducted for the validation of
this newly-developed wake model. Instead of the famous Jensen’s
wake model, the newly-developed 2D wake model, is then, used
for the wind turbine layout optimization combined with the MPGA
optimization method developed in our previous study [35]. The
performance of the newly-developed 2D wake model in the tur-
bine layout optimization is validated and compared with that in
some typical previous studies.
2. Development of the 2D wake model
2.1. Jensen–Gaussian wake model development
The newly proposed wake model is called the Jensen–Gaussian
wake model as it is based on Jensen’s calculation method. Jensen’s
wake model is one-dimensional, which regards the velocity as lin-
early varying with distance downwind. However, research into the
classical theories of shear flows in the wake of bluff bodies [36], as
well as wind tunnel investigations of the wake downwind of a tur-
bine [37], indicates that the velocity profile across the turbine
wake flow ‘tube’ section has an approximately Gaussian axisym-
metric shape [38]. But wake characteristics change with distance
downwind, such as velocity deficit and wake width, have not been
quantified. Such wake flow quantification is essential if an opti-
mum turbine layout is to be determined for a particular wind farm.
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of Jensen’s wake model (Fig. 1a) and
the newly-proposed Jensen–Gaussian wake model (Fig. 1b). The
green line represents the velocity profile in the wake at a down-
wind distance x. The equation of the new model consists of:
 
1 r2
u¼A pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  e2r2 þB ð5Þ
r 2p
where A, B and r are the three parameters to be estimated. The
three following assumptions are proposed as follows:
Assumption 1. According to the standard deviation and tolerance
intervals, about 68% of values drawn from a normal distribution
are within one standard deviation r away from the mean. About
95% of the values lie within two standard deviations ±2r and about
99.7% are within three standard deviations ±3r. This fact is known
as the 68–95–99.7 (empirical) rule, or the 3-sigma rule [39]. It is
shown in Fig. 2.
Using ±2.58r to obtain an accurate 99.00% value of the Gaussian
distribution, the Jensen–Gaussian wake model has the same wake
radius as Jensen’s wake model, which means:
2:58r ¼ r x ð6Þ
Assumption 2. With the two models having the same wake
radius, this means that immediately outside the outer boundary of
the wake region rx, the wind velocity of the Jensen–Gaussian model
is equal to the free-stream wind speed:
 
1 ðrx Þ2
A pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  e 2r2 þ B ¼ u0 ð7Þ
r 2p
Assumption 3. Across the wake tube of radius rx, the new model is
considered to have the same mass flow flux as Jensen’s wake
model:
Z ! !
rx
1 ðyÞ2
A pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  e þ B dx ¼ u  2r x ð8Þ
r x r 2p 2r 2
194 X. Gao et al. / Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200

Fig. 1. Schematic of wake models: (a) Jensen’s wake model and (b) newly-proposed Jensen–Gaussian wake model.

measured data was obtained from the Garrad Hassan wind tunnel
study on wind turbine wakes [41]. In that study, a 1/160 scale wind
turbine model corresponded to a full scale turbine with rotor diam-
eter 43.2 m and hub height of 50 m. The incoming wind speed was
5.3 m/s with a roughness length of 0.075 m. The operating condi-
tions of CT = 0.62 [38] were selected. The velocity deficits at certain
downwind distances as predicted by the Jensen–Gaussian wake
model were compared with those from Jensen’s wake model, the
Cosine shape wake model as well as the wind tunnel measurement
data. The results are shown in Fig. 3.
It can be seen from Fig. 3, that the Jensen–Gaussian wake model
has a better prediction performance concerning the velocity deficit
than Jensen’s wake model, but the performance is not better than
Fig. 2. Tolerance interval of Gaussian distribution [40]. the Cosine wake model when CT = 0.62. In the near wake, when
X = 2.5D, the model underestimates the velocity deficit, however,
when X = 5D, X = 7.5D and X = 10D, the prediction values of the
By solving the system of Eqs. (6)–(8), the values of the three param- proposed model fit well with the wind tunnel measured data. It
eter A, B and r are obtained: can be seen that no obvious improvement on the velocity deficit
8 prediction can be detected. Therefore, the turbulence intensity
>
> r ¼ 2:58
rx
inside the wake was considered to improve the performance of
>
> !
< 
2:582 r 2
x the Jensen–Gaussian wake model.
2:58
p ffiffiffiffi
A r 2p  e 2r2
x þ B ¼ u0 ð9Þ
>
> x
>
>
: 2.3. Development of the improved Jensen–Gaussian wake model
A þ 2r x  B ¼ 2r x  u
The coefficient of A is defined as: 2.3.1. Wake turbulence model
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2:582 r2 It can be observed from Eq. (12) that, in the wake model expres-
2:58 2p  2r2 x 0:23189 0:23189 sion, the wake decay constant k is an important parameter in
CA ¼ e x ¼ ¼ ð10Þ
rx rx kx þ r 1 determining the wake profile and is influenced by a number of fac-
tors. In most previous models, such as Jensen’s wake model, only
The coefficient of A can be ignored because it is small in value,
the ambient turbulence level was considered [42,43]. However,
and thus, the values of the three parameters A, B and r are:
8 in addition to the ambient turbulence level, turbine-induced tur-
< r ¼ 2:58
rx
> bulence can also affect the decay constant as demonstrated in
B ¼ u0 ð11Þ the studies of Politis et al. study [42] and Ishihara et al. [44]. They
>
: conducted numerical tests and found that the wake recovery was
A ¼ ðu  u0 Þ  2r x
overestimated if no consideration is taken of turbulence level in
So the newly proposed Jensen–Gaussian wake model describes the wake. This can explain the underestimation of velocity deficit
the wake at a specific downwind distance x by the formulae: calculated by the proposed Jensen–Gaussian wake model.
( 2 Based on the above analysis, the first step in determining the
u ¼ u0 ½1  2a=ð1 þ kx=r 1 Þ  wake decay constant is to calculate the turbulence levels both
ð12Þ
ffiffiffiffi  e
2
r2 =2ðr
u ¼ u0  ðu0  u Þ p
5:16
2p
x =2:58Þ
within and outside the wake boundary. Several models have
already been proposed to estimate the added intensity of the
turbine-induced turbulence.
2.2. Jensen–Gaussian wake model validation Crespo and Hernandez [45] suggested the following empirical
expression in 1996 based on both experimental and numerical
In order to verify the performance of the Jensen–Gaussian wake approaches.
model, a series of comparisons was made between the new model
and the previous models and also with wind tunnel measurement Iþ ¼ 0:73a0:8325 I0:0325
0 ðx=DÞ0:32 ð13Þ
data. In this paper, the most popular and classic Jensen’s wake qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
model [11] and the Cosine shape wake model proposed by Tian Iwake ¼ I20 þ I2þ ð14Þ
et al. in 2014 [38] which is also a 2D model were selected. The
 X. Gao et al. / Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200 195

CT = 0.62, X = 2.5D where I0 is the ambient wind turbulence intensity and a is an axial
1.10
1.05
induction factor specific to the turbine. x is the downwind distance
1.00 and D is the turbine diameter.
0.95 Frandsen et al. [46] suggested another model, in 1996, for the
0.90
0.85
turbulence intensity in the wake and gave the following function:
0.80 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
CT
u/u0

0.75
0.70 Iwake ¼ Kn þ I20 ð15Þ
0.65
ðx=DÞ2
0.60
0.55 Similar to the study of Frandsen et al., Tian et al. [38] proposed
0.50 the new model
0.45 Wind tunnel measured data
Jensen's model
0.40 CT
0.35
Cosine model Iwake ¼ K n þ I0 ð16Þ
0.30
Jensen-Gaussian model x=D
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
r/D
In Frandsen and Tian’s models, the constant Kn is assumed to be
0.4 for a large wind farm. It can be observed from the three Iwake
CT = 0.62, X = 5D models that, the value of Iwake is determined by three parameters,
1.10
the ambient turbulence intensity I0, the thrust coefficient of tur-
1.05
bine CT and the dimensionless distance x/D. Although in Eqs. (13)
1.00
and (14), a appears instead of CT. They are nevertheless correlated
0.95  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
one with the other through the function a ¼ 1  1  C T =2. I0
0.90 CT
represents the effect of ambient turbulence and x=D
, the effect of
0.85
u/u0

the added turbulence in the wake. The model of Tian et al enhances

0.80
the effect of the thrust force compared with Frandsen’s model [38].
0.75
To balance the effects of ambient turbulence and turbulence in
0.70
the wake, a new and empirical engineering model for wake turbu-
Wind tunnel measured data
0.65 lence prediction was proposed in this thesis and shown as follows:
Jensen model
0.60 Cosine model !2
Jensen-Gaussian model
0.55 CT
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Iwake ¼ Kn þ I0:5
0 ð17Þ
r/D
ðx=DÞ0:5
CT = 0.62, X = 7.5D Note that Eq. (17) is only an empirical engineering model.
1.10

1.05 2.3.2. Improved Jensen–Gaussian wake model development

1.00 Using the proposed wake turbulence intensity estimated above,
0.95 the wake decay constant can be calculated using Eq. (18).
0.90 Iwake
kwake ¼ k ð18Þ
u/u0

0.85 I0
0.80 When considering wake turbulence, the Jensen–Gaussian wake
0.75 model can be improved as Eq. (19):
0.70 Wind tunnel measured data 8
Jensen's model < u ¼ u0 ½1  2a=ð1 þ kwake x=r1 Þ2 
0.65 Cosine model
r 2 ð19Þ
Jensen-Gaussian model : u ¼ u  ðu  u Þ p ffiffiffiffi  e2ðrx =2:58Þ2
5:16
0.60 0 0 2p
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
r/D The new wake decay constant kwake is used instead of k. So the
calculation for velocity deficit is divided into the following steps:
CT = 0.62, X = 10D
1.10

Estimate Iwake at a specific downwind distance according to Eq.
1.05
(17).
1.00
Calculated the improved wake decay constant kwake based on
0.95
Eq. (18).

Replace k with kwake in Eq. (12) and calculate u⁄ at downwind
u/u0

0.90 distance x using the Jensen wake model and then determine
0.85
the velocity profile u in the radial direction.

0.80
Wind tunnel measured data 2.3.3. Improved Jensen–Gaussian wake model validation
0.75
Jensen' model To validated the improved Jensen–Gaussian added turbulence
Cosine model
Jensen-Gaussian model wake model, field measurement data was obtained from Taylor’s
0.70 1990 study [47] of the Nibe site. Two turbines featured a 45 m
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
r/D hub height and a 40 m diameter rotor are installed in this site. Four
meteorological masts were placed at four specific downwind dis-
Fig. 3. Results comparisons between the measured and model predicted velocity tances to measure turbine wake profiles. The free wind velocity
deficit at some specific downwind distance when CT = 0.62.
196 X. Gao et al. / Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200

CT = 0.82, X = 4D
1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8
u/u0

0.7

0.6

0.5
Field measured data
0.4 Improved Cosine model
Improved Jensen-Gaussion model (Proposed TI model)
0.3 Improved Jensen-Gaussion model (Crespo's TI model)
Unimproved Jensen-Gaussion model
0.2
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fig. 5. Turbine wake characteristic parameters.
r/D

CT = 0.82, X = 7.5D
1.1
when expressing turbine wake profile characteristics. The wake
characteristic parameters are related to the wake model function
1.0
and are shown in Fig. 5. To describe the turbine wake profile, three
important parameters are needed, i.e. velocity deficit, which repre-
0.9 sents the dissipation speed and wake width, indicating the wake
expansion rate and wake dimensions at distances downwind. The
0.8 centerline axis of the wake gives wake location.
u/u0

From the sub-function of Eqs. (12) and (19), it can be seen, that
0.7 after the linear velocity u⁄ at downwind distance x been deter-
mined by Jensen’s wake model, the velocity profile in the radial
0.6 direction is calculated:
Field measured data
Improved Cosine model r 2
5:16
0.5 Improved Jensen-Gaussion model (Proposed TI model) u ¼ u0  ðu0  u Þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  e2ðrx =2:58Þ2 ð20Þ
Improved Jensen-Gaussion model (Crespo's TI model) 2p
unimproved Jensen-Gaussion model
0.4 In this equation, u0 is the incoming wind velocity. ðu0  u Þ p ffiffiffiffi
5:16
2p
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 represents the velocity deficit at the centerline of the wake and
r/D ffiffiffiffi increases the velocity deficit at the centerline over
5:16
the value p 2p

Fig. 4. Results comparisons between the measured and model predicted velocity
deficits at some specific downwind distance when CT = 0.82.
at hub height was 8.55 m/s and the turbulence intensity I0 = 10%
when the coefficient CT = 0.82.
For a comprehensive comparison, the improved Cosine wake
model, the improved Jensen–Gaussian model using Crespo’s turbu-
lence model in Eqs. (13) and (14), the improved Jensen–Gaussian
model using the new proposed turbulence model shown in Eq.
(17) as well as the unimproved Jensen–Gaussian wake model are
included. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the improved Jensen–Gaus-
sian model incorporating the proposed turbulence intensity model,
colored in red, fits well with the measured field data. This model
gives a ‘qualified’ good performance in predicting the velocity deficit
at the wake centerline axis. Compared with the other wake models,
the superiority of the improved Jensen–Gaussian wake model used
with the proposed turbulence intensity model is significant.
Moreover, compared with the Cosine wake model, the proposed
Jensen–Gaussian wake model can better express the wake profile
characteristics, i.e. the velocity deficit, the wake width as well as
the wake centerline which is explained in the following part.
3. Physical meanings of the proposed analytical Jensen–
Gaussian wake model
Compared with previous wake models, the proposed analytical
Jensen–Gaussian wake model has significant physical meanings
Jensen’s wake model which is in accordance with the measured
data. The wake diameter is related to the denominator of the index
of the exponent. From the above analysis, the wake diameter is 2rx.
The centerline of the wake can be expressed using the polynomial
of (r  rc)2. rc is equal to zero which means that the wake center-
line is at the location r = 0.
4. The application of Jensen–Gaussian wake model in wind
turbine layout optimization program
4.1. Description of the MPGA optimization program
The multiple population genetic algorithm (MPGA) has been
recognized as more effective algorithm both in speed and quality
of solution than the single-population Genetic Algorithm (GA).
Multi-population searches compare the ‘elite’ individuals in each
population. With the help of immigrant individuals, and making
use of coevolution in multiple populations, the optimal multi-
population solution can be found. The turbine layout optimization
program based on the MPGA are designed in Fig. 6.
The initial wind farm conditions and wind turbine characteris-
tics are the same as those used in previous studies. The
2 km  2 km wind farm is divided into a 10  10 grid, with a cell
size of 200 m  200 m [19,32,48]. The turbine can only be installed
in the center of the cell. This siting constraint is convenient for the
use of the optimizing methods adopted, but with some loss of pre-
cision in achieving the best possible wind farm performance at this
 X. Gao et al. / Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200 197

START

Initialize wind data, wind farm boundary, number of wind turbines N(first guess), wind turbine characters
and the newly-developed Jensen-Gaussian wake model

Set number of solutions in one solution set (population size=20), and optimization criteria( best value of objective
function keeping for 500 genration ), objective function(minimum COE) and so on

Random given the X and Y coordinates of N wind turbines, sortrows the Y coordinates, check wake
effect of every wind turbines and calculate local velocity of every wind turbine

Calculate the power genration of wind farm and the objective function
valus(COE) of each solution(individual) and keep it in MPGA

Yes Optimization cirteria(best value of

objective function keeping
for 500 generation)
achieved?
Display results for best solution from the final solution set, output
the value of COE, power generation and optimal coordinata of
wind turbine, output the fitness curve during the optimization
process and the wind turbine layout No

STOP Readjust the solutions

Fig. 6. Process of the MPGA optimization program using the newly-developed wake model.

site [49]. Wan et al. [50] proposed an algorithm allowing turbines
to be installed freely in the wind farm without taking into account
a necessary minimum distance between them. In order to ensure
the necessary distance between each turbine, therefore, on finding
a distance between turbines of less five times the turbine rotor
diameters, the program alters the turbine’s location.
The outputs of the optimization program are the locations, in
X- and Y-coordinates of N wind turbines when the objective func-
tion approaches the minimum value. The minimum objective
function solution is the best choice of wind turbine layout pat-
terns. MATLAB was used for the MPGA program writing. If the
wind farm involves N wind turbines, as the width of the farm is
2000 m, the number of variables is 2N (X, Y) and the range of each
variable is [0, 2000]. Each variable in the optimization is repre-
sented by a 20-bit binary string. The procedure outputs are the
n variables representing the X and Y position coordinates of the
N wind turbines (n = N  2). The lower and upper values of the
variables depend on the boundaries of the wind farm. The opti-
mization process stops if the best solution fitness remains the
same for 500 generations.
Detailed information about the MPGA optimization program
can referred to the author’s previous study titled with ‘Wind tur-
bine layout optimization using multi-population genetic algorithm
and a case study in Hong Kong offshore’ published on Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.
4.2. Performance of the Jensen–Gaussian wake model on turbine
layout optimization
In order to test the performance of the newly-developed Jen-
sen–Gaussian wake model in the wind turbine layout optimization
program of MPGA, the Jensen–Gaussian wake model is used in the
MPGA program to replace the Jensen wake model. Case (b) of ‘con-
stant wind speed of 12 m/s with variable wind direction’ is selected
to conduct the optimization process. All the input parameters are
kept the same with that in the author’s previous study [35] except
for the wake model. Different numbers of wind turbines (N = 38,
N = 39 and N = 40) were studied and the results were compared
both with the results from previous studies and the optimization
results revealed by the Jensen’s wake model. The optimal layout
patterns of different turbine numbers (N = 38, N = 39 and N = 40)
obtained by MPGA program with Jensen and Jensen–Gaussian
wake models are shown in Fig. 7.
It can be seen from Fig. 7 that, with the newly-developed Jen-
sen–Gaussian wake model, the turbine layout patterns tend to be
more uniform especially in satiations when 38 and 40 turbines
have been installed. The wind farm site areas are fully utilized with
little excess space.
The turbine layout patterns, the total power generation, fitness
value, and wind farm efficiency of each configurations are shown
in Table 1 below.
198 X. Gao et al. / Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200

Fig. 7. Optimization results comparison of the MPGA program under Jensen’s wake model and newly-developed Jensen–Gaussian wake model in Case (b): (a), 38 turbines
under Jensen’s wake model; (b), 39 turbines under Jensen’s wake model; (c), 40 turbines under Jensen’s wake model; (d), 38 turbines under Jensen–Gaussian wake model; (e),
39 turbines under Jensen–Gaussian wake model; (f), 40 turbines under Jensen–Gaussian wake model.

Table 1
Results comparison of case (b) with Jensen and Jensen–Gaussian wake models.

Studies Turbines numbers Total power (kW) Improvement by Fitness value (103) Efficiency (%)
present study (%)
Grady’s [19] 39 17,220 13.11 1.567 85.17
Gonzalez’s [27] 39 18,065 7.82 1.490 89.35
Mittal’s [43] 38 17,259 10.52 1.527 87.61
Pookpunt’s [32] 40 18,632 7.15 1.476 89.81
Gao’s previous study with Jensen wake model [35] 38 19,075 – 1.382 96.83
39 19,478 – 1.382 96.34
40 19,964 – 1.377 96.23
Present study with Jensen–Gaussian wake model 38 15,333 – 1.756 77.83
39 15,866 – 1.661 78.47
40 16,979 – 1.619 81.84

Compared with the optimal power generation obtained by the
MPGA program using Jensen’s wake model, using Jensen–Gaussian
wake model, a decreased in power generation is revealed. The
amounts decreases from 19,075 kW to 15,333 kW for 38 turbines,
from 19,478 kW to 15,866 kW for 39 turbines and from 19,964 kW
to 16,979 kW for 40 turbines. The wind farm efficiency drops to
77.83%, 78.47% and 81.84% from 96.83%, 96.34% and 96.23% for
38, 39 and 40 wind turbines, respectively. It make sense because
Jensen’s wake model underestimates the velocity deficit at a speci-
fic downwind distance, which has been reported in the section of
‘Jensen–Gaussian Wake Model Validation’. For the Jensen–Gaus-
sian wake model, the velocity deficit change with the radial direc-
tion of the turbine, which increased the running time for the MPGA
to find the optimal layout configurations.
The wind farm efficiency obtained by the MPGA program using
Jensen–Gaussian wake model is in accordance with the it was
reported that the power losses caused by wind turbine wakes are
of the order of 10–20% of the total power output of large wind
farms [1,2]. Applying the newly-developed Jensen–Gaussian wake
model in the wind turbine layout optimization process can report
more accurate and realistic results on the power generation of the
wind farm. An accurate prediction without over-estimated on
power generation and COE is significant for wind farm assessment
and developed.
5. Summary
In this paper, a 2D wake model is proposed and then, used in the
wind turbine layout optimization within a wind farm. Detailed
conclusions can be summarized as follows:
(1) Based on three assumptions, the 2D analytical model is pro-
posed based on Jensen’s wake model coupled with Gaussian
equations which is named Jensen–Gaussian wake model. To
 X. Gao et al. / Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200
calculate the velocity deficit using this model, the first step
is to calculate the average wake velocity at the specific
downwind distance x and then, the velocity distribution in
the radial direction perpendicular to the direction of flow.
(2) The Jensen–Gaussian wake model was validated using a ser-
ies of measured data from Garrad Hassan wind tunnel. The
operating conditions of CT = 0.62 were selected and the data
measured at downwind distances of X = 2.5D, X = 5D,
X = 7.5D and X = 10D were used for comparison. Results
show that the velocity deficit predicted by the Jensen–Gaus-
sian wake model fits well with the measured data.
(3) A new wake turbulence model was proposed which balances
the effects of both the ambient turbulence intensity and that
in the wake itself and based on this, the initially proposed
Jensen–Gaussian wake model was improved using the pro-
posed turbulence model. The improved Jensen–Gaussian
wake model was validated using the field measured data
and was shown to fit well. The velocity deficit profile can
be predicted more accurately than is the case with previous
models.
(4) Compared with previous models, for this newly-developed
2D analytical wake model, there is a significant physical
meaning for each parameter in the formula. The wake model
includes parameters representing the wake velocity deficit,
the wake width and the location of the centerline axis of
the wake.
(5) The newly-developed Jensen–Gaussian wake model is
applied in the turbine layout optimization within a wind
farm. Similar with that in some typical previous studies on
the turbine layout optimization, Case (b) of ‘constant wind
speed of 12 m/s with variable wind directions’ was selected
to conduct the optimization process using the newly-
developed wake model. For the Jensen–Gaussian wake
model applying in the MPGA program, both the total power
generation and wind farm efficiency decreased. It is reported
that compared with the Jensen’s wake model used in the
MPGA program, the wind farm efficiency drop to 77.83%,
78.47% and 81.84% from 96.83%, 96.34% and 96.23% for 38,
39 and 40 wind turbines, respectively.
(6) Applying the newly-developed Jensen–Gaussian wake
model in the wind turbine layout optimization process is
more realistic which is in accordance with the literatures
about the power losses caused by wake effect in large wind
farm.
References
[1] Barthelmie RJ et al. Modelling and measuring flow and wind turbine wakes in
large wind farms offshore. Wind Energy 2009;12(5):431–44.
[2] Sanderse B. Aerodynamics of wind turbine wakes. Energy Research Center of
the Netherlands (ECN), ECN-E-09-016, Petten, The Netherlands, Tech. Rep;
2009.
[3] Park J, Law KH. Layout optimization for maximizing wind farm power
production using sequential convex programming. Appl Energy
2015;151:320–34.
[4] Castellani F et al. How wind turbines alignment to wind direction affects
efficiency? A case study through SCADA data mining. Energy Proc
2015;75:697–703.
[5] Grassi S, Junghans S, Raubal M. Assessment of the wake effect on the energy
production of onshore wind farms using GIS. Appl Energy 2014;136:827–37.
[6] Vermeer LJ, Sørensen JN, Crespo A. Wind turbine wake aerodynamics. Prog
Aerosp Sci 2003;39(6–7):467–510.
[7] Barthelmie RJ, Pryor SC. An overview of data for wake model evaluation in the
virtual wakes laboratory. Appl Energy 2013;104:834–44.
[8] Xydis G, Koroneos C, Loizidou M. Exergy analysis in a wind speed prognostic
model as a wind farm sitting selection tool: a case study in Southern Greece.
Appl Energy 2009;86(11):2411–20.
[9] Crespo A, Hernandez J, Frandsen S. Survey of modelling methods for wind
turbine wakes and wind farms. Wind Energy 1999;2(1):1–24.
199
[10] Katic I, Højstrup J, Jensen N. A simple model for cluster efficiency. In: European
wind energy association conference and exhibition; 1986.
[11] Jensen NO. A note on wind generator interaction. Roskilde, Denmark: Risø
National Laboratory; 1983.
[12] Frandsen S. On the wind speed reduction in the center of large clusters of wind
turbines. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1992;39(1–3):251–65.
[13] Barthelmie RJ et al. Comparison of wake model simulations with offshore wind
turbine wake profiles measured by Sodar. J Atmos Ocean Technol 2006;23
(7):888–901.
[14] Barthelmie RJ, Jensen L. Evaluation of wind farm efficiency and wind turbine
wakes at the Nysted offshore wind farm. Wind Energy 2010;13(6):573–86.
[15] Cleve J et al. Model-based analysis of wake-flow data in the Nysted offshore
wind farm. Wind Energy 2009;12(2):125–35.
[16] Barthelmie RJ et al. Modelling and measurements of power losses and
turbulence intensity in wind turbine wakes at Middelgrunden offshore wind
farm. Wind Energy 2007;10(6):517–28.
[17] Porté-Agel F, Wu Y-T, Chen C-H. A numerical study of the effects of wind
direction on turbine wakes and power losses in a large wind farm. Energies
2013;6(10):5297–313.
[18] Shakoor R et al. Wake effect modeling: a review of wind farm layout
optimization using Jensen’s model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;58:1048–59.
[19] Grady SA, Hussaini MY, Abdullah MM. Placement of wind turbines using
genetic algorithms. Renew Energy 2005;30(2):259–70.
[20] 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.
[21] Mittal A. Optimization of the layout of large wind farms using a genetic
algorithm. Cleveland: Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Case Western Reserve University; 2010.
[22] Rajper S, Amin IJ. Optimization of wind turbine micrositing: a comparative
study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(8):5485–92.
[23] 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
1993(51).
[24] Lackner Matthew A, Elkinton CN. An analytical framework for offshore wind
farm layout optimization. Wind Eng 2007;31.
[25] 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.
[26] Kusiak A, Zhe S. Design of wind farm layout for maximum wind energy
capture. Renew Energy 2010;35(3):685–94.
[27] González JS et al. Optimization of wind farm turbines layout using an evolutive
algorithm. Renew Energy 2010;35(8):1671–81.
[28] Ituarte-Villarreal CM, Espiritu JF. Optimization of wind turbine placement
using a viral based optimization algorithm. Proc Comput Sci 2011;6:469–74.
[29] Saavedra-Moreno B et al. Seeding evolutionary algorithms with heuristics for
optimal wind turbines positioning in wind farms. Renew Energy 2011;36
(11):2838–44.
[30] Eroğlu Y, Seçkiner SU. Design of wind farm layout using ant colony algorithm.
Renew Energy 2012;44:53–62.
[31] Padmanabhan KK, Saravanan R. Wind park layout design optimization using
GA. Int J Eng Res Technol 2012;5.
[32] Pookpunt S, Ongsakul W. Optimal placement of wind turbines within wind
farm using binary particle swarm optimization with time-varying acceleration
coefficients. Renew Energy 2013;55:266–76.
[33] Benatiallah LK, Dakyo B. Modeling and optimization of wind energy systems.
Jordan J Mech Ind Eng 2010;4(1):143–50.
[34] Kusiak A, Verma A, Wei X. Wind turbine frontier from SCADA. Wind Syst Mag
2012;3(9):36–9.
[35] Gao X et al. 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.
[36] Dufresne NP, Wosnik M. Velocity deficit and swirl in the turbulent wake of a
wind turbine. Mar Technol Soc J 2013;47(4):193–205.
[37] Chamorro LP, Porté-Agel F. A wind-tunnel investigation of wind-turbine
wakes: boundary-layer turbulence effects. Bound-Layer Meteorol 2009;132
(1):129–49.
[38] Tian L et al. Development and validation of a new two-dimensional wake
model for wind turbine wakes. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2015;137:90–9.
[39] Wikipedia. Normal distribution; 2015; Available from: <http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Normal_distribution>.
[40] WIKIPEDIA. Offshore wind power; 2015 [cited 2015].
[41] Schlez W, Tindal A, Quarton D. GH wind farmer validation
report. Bristol: Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd.; 2003.
[42] Politis E et al. Modeling wake effects in large wind farms in complex terrain:
the problem, the methods and the issues. Wind Energy 2012;15(1):161–82.
[43] Mittal A et al. Investigation of two analytical wake models using data from
wind farms. In: ASME 2011 international mechanical engineering congress
and exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2011.
[44] Ishihara T, Yamaguchi A, Fujino Y. Development of a new wake model based on
a wind tunnel experiment. Global wind power; 2004.
[45] Crespo A, Hernández J. Turbulence characteristics in wind-turbine wakes. J
Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1996;61(1):71–85.
[46] Frandsen ST et al. Measurements on and modelling of offshore wind farms;
1996.
200 X. Gao et al. / Applied Energy 174 (2016) 192–200

[47] Taylor G. Wake measurements on the Nibe wind turbines in Denmark. Atomic
Energy Research Establishment, Energy Technology Support Unit; 1990.
[48] Zhang C, Hou G, Wang J. A fast algorithm based on the submodular property
for optimization of wind turbine positioning. Renew Energy 2011;36
(11):2951–8.
[49] Wan C et al. Optimal micro-siting of wind farms by particle swarm
optimization. In: Advances in swarm intelligence. Springer; 2010. p. 198–205.
[50] Wan C et al. Optimal siting of wind turbines using real-coded genetic
algorithms. In: Proceedings of European wind energy association conference
and exhibition; 2009.

View publication stats