Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Technical note
Placement of wind turbines using
genetic algorithms
S.A. Grady a,
, M.Y. Hussaini a, M.M. Abdullah b
a
School for Computational Science and Information Technology, The Florida State University,
400 Dirac Science Library, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4120, USA
b
Department of Civil Engineering, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Florida A&M University,
2525 Pottsdammer Street, Tallahassee, FL 32310, USA
Received 8 February 2004; accepted 6 May 2004

Abstract

A genetic algorithm approach is employed to obtain optimal placement of wind turbines

for maximum production capacity while limiting the number of turbines installed and the
acreage of land occupied by each wind farm. Specifically, three cases are considered—(a)
unidirectional uniform wind, (b) uniform wind with variable direction, and (c) non-uniform
wind with variable direction. In Case (a), 600 individuals are initially distributed over
20 subpopulations and evolve over 3000 generations. Case (b) has 600 individuals spread
over 20 subpopulations initially and evolves for 3000 generations. Case (c) starts with 600
individuals spread over 20 subpopulations and evolves for 2500 generations. In addition to
optimal configurations, results include fitness, total power output, efficiency of power output
and number of turbines for each configuration. Disagreement with the results of an earlier
study is observed and a possible explanation is provided.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wind turbines; Siting; Optimization; Genetic algorithm

1. Introduction

Two main reasons for interest in wind as an energy source are diminishing fossil
fuel resources and the effect use of fossil fuel sources has on the environment.
Wind energy, a widely available derivative of solar energy that has been captured

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-850-644-4911; fax: +1-850-644-0098.
E-mail address: grady@csit.fsu.edu (S.A. Grady).

0960-1481/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.05.007
260 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270

by the earth’s atmosphere, is receiving considerable attention as an emission-free,

low cost alternative to traditional energy sources. Considerable development has
taken place in the design of wind energy conversion systems. Modern wind tur-
bines are highly sophisticated machines built on the aerodynamic principles
developed in the aerospace industry. Advanced materials and electronics have been
incorporated into wind turbines designed to deliver energy across a wide range of
wind speeds.
As rule of thumb, 10 ha/MW can be taken as the land requirement of wind
farms, including infrastructure [1]. The spacing of a cluster of machines in a wind
farm depends on the terrain, the wind direction and speed, and the turbine size.
According to Patel, the optimal spacing is found in rows 8–12 rotor diameters
apart in the windward direction, and 1.5–3 rotor diameters apart in the crosswind
direction [2]. Ammara et al. [3] contended that this intuitive spacing scheme resul-
ted in sparse wind farms that were inefficiently using the wind energy potential of
the site. A dense, staggered siting scheme was proposed that would yield pro-
duction similar to the sparse scheme, but would use less land. While this approach
successfully reduced the land mass required for a given amount of wind turbines,
the method of placement was still intuitive.
Mosetti et al. proposed a position optimization scheme based on genetic algo-
rithms [4]. In this research, algorithms were developed for wind farm performance
evaluation and optimization. The investment cost and the total power extracted
were the variables optimized. The wind and cost models chosen were incomplex for
the purposes of demonstrating the effectiveness of the optimization algorithm.
While the power and efficiency calculations of the optimally placed wind turbines
compare favorably with a greater number of randomly placed turbines, the optimal
configurations presented do not yield even the simplest empirical placement
schemes. This study seeks to determine the effectiveness of the genetic algorithm
optimization procedure in identifying optimum configurations.

2. Wake and cost modeling

As in the Mosetti study, a wake model similar to the Jensen analysis is used for
simplification of the wind field calculations [4–7]. This wake analysis is based on
the assumption that momentum is conserved inside the wake. In the analysis of a
single wake, the near field behind the wind turbine is neglected making it possible
to model the resulting wake as a turbulent wake or a negative jet. At the turbine,
the wake has a radius equal to the turbine radius, rr. As the wake propagates
downstream, the radius of the wake, r1, increases linearly, proportional to the
downstream distance, x, as shown in Fig. 1.
After performing a momentum balance and using Betz theory to determine the
wind speed immediately behind the rotor, the following expression is derived to
 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270 261

Fig. 1. Schematic of wake model.

describe the wind speed downstream of the turbine:


2a
u ¼ u0 1  ; ð1Þ
1 þ aðx=r1 Þ

where u0 is the mean wind speed, a is the axial induction factor, x is the distance
downstream of the turbine, r1 is the downstream rotor radius, and a is the entrain-
ment constant. The downstream radius, r1, is related to the rotor radius, rr, by the
following expression:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1a
r1 ¼ rr : ð2Þ
1  2a
The turbine thrust coefficient, CT, is related to the axial induction factor in the
following relation:

CT ¼ 4að1  aÞ: ð3Þ

The entrainment constant, a, is empirically given as:

0:5
a¼ ; ð4Þ
lnðz=z0 Þ

where z is the hub height of the wind turbine, and z0 is the surface roughness.
In the instance of a wind turbine encountering multiple wakes, the kinetic energy
of the mixed wake can be assumed to be equal to the sum of the kinetic energy def-
icits. This results in the following expression for the velocity downstream of N tur-
262 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270

bines:
2 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi3
u N  
uX u 25
4
ui ¼ u0 1  t 1 : ð5Þ
i¼1
u0

The power extracted from the wind by a wind turbine is a function of local wind
speed. Direction, intensity, and probability of occurrence are characteristics defining
the local wind field. Particular aspects of the wind turbine affecting the power
extracted are hub height, rotor diameter, and thrust coefficient.
The investment cost of the wind turbines is modeled in such a manner that only
the number of turbines need be considered in calculating the total cost. Mosetti
et al. assumed that the non-dimensionalized cost/year of a single turbine is one
with a maximum reduction in cost of 1/3 for each additional turbine, provided a
large number of them are installed. Consequently, it can be assumed that the total
cost/year for the entire wind park can be expressed as follows [4]:
 
2 1 0:00174N 2
cost ¼ N þ e : ð6Þ
3 3
The optimization will proceed based on the following objective function:
cost
Objective ¼ ; ð7Þ
Ptot

where cost is described above, and Ptot is the total power extracted by all of the N
turbines in the wind farm. This objective function will minimize the cost per unit
energy produced.

3. Optimization

Genetic algorithms are probabilistic search algorithms combining the mechanics

of natural selection and survival of the fittest. These algorithms are capable of
efficiently finding an optimal solution for complex problems without necessitating
reformulation for the evaluation of individual solution candidates. Unlike calculus-
based methods, genetic algorithms are robust, global, and do not require the
existence of derivatives for search. Enumerative schemes are lacking in robustness
due to inefficiency in the search of each point in the solution space. Random sear-
ches, in the long run, do not perform any better than enumerative methods and are
likewise inefficient.
Genetic algorithms operate on a coding of the parameter set rather than the
parameters themselves. The locus of search is over a population rather than a sin-
gle point. The genetic algorithm only requires information from the objective func-
tion, not derivatives of the objective or other collateral information. Transition
rules in genetic algorithms are probabilistic, not deterministic [8].
The coding, breeding, and selection of the parameters in the search space deter-
mine the evolution of the solution in genetic algorithms. In a binary coded genetic
 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270 263

Fig. 2. Genetic algorithm breeding schemes.

algorithm, individuals are strings comprised of ones and zeros. Several individuals
make up a population, and within this population, parent individuals are repro-
duced. The fittest individuals will be selected, and parent pairs will be reproduced
by crossover. In a uniform crossover operation, any point in the string has poten-
tial to become a crossover point. Crossover points are chosen randomly, with each
parent having equal probability of contributing variables to the offspring [9].
Mutation is the random switching of a bit in the individual string to the opposite
value and ensures that the genetic algorithm does not locate a false minimum as
the solution. The illustration in Fig. 2 shows examples of the breeding process in
genetic algorithms.
In the implementation of the genetic algorithm for optimization, the population
size, the number of subpopulations, and the maximum number of generations for
evolution must be chose. All of these quantities are determined based on the num-
ber of independent variables, n, in the system to be optimized. The population
must contain enough individuals to adequately span the computational space. The
pffiffiffi
population size should contain a minimum of n individuals, spread over sub-
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
populations numbering 2 n. The minimum number of generations is 200 n [9].

Fig. 3. Case (a): uniform wind speed.

264 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270

Table 1
Wind turbine properties
Hub height (z) 60 m
Rotor radius (rr) 40 m
Thrust coefficient (CT) 0.88

4. Numerical procedure

A square grid divided into 100 possible turbine locations was used as the compu-
tational domain. The width of each cell, in the center of which a turbine would be
placed, is equal to five rotor diameters, 5D, or 200 m, giving the domain dimen-
sions of 50D  50D. Based on the dimensions of the computational domain, the
maximum radius of the wake from a single turbine placed in the position ðx; yÞ ¼
ð100 m; 100 mÞ (see Fig. 3 as a reference) is 189.9 m. The width of each cell, in
the center of which a turbine would be placed, is equal to five rotor diameters, or
200 m. Therefore, the wake of a column of turbines would not affect turbines in an
adjacent column. In addition, the 5D square grid size already satisfies the rule of
thumb spacing requirements in the vertical and horizontal directions.
The turbine considered for this study has properties as given in Table 1. The
thrust coefficient can be considered constant for the velocities considered. The
ground roughness of the site is z0 ¼ 0:3 m. The power curve presented in Mosetti
for the turbine under consideration yields the following expression for power:
X
N
P¼ 0:3u3i : ð8Þ
i

Three cases will be investigated. The first case, (a), is the case of uniform wind
direction with a wind speed of 12 m/s, as shown in Fig. 3. The only change in
wind speed for this case would occur in the wake of the wind turbines. The second
case, (b), is the case of multi-directional wind with a mean wind speed of 12 m/s.
Each of the 36 angles under consideration represent 10 degree increments from 0 to
360 degrees each of which has an equal fraction of occurrence. The third case, (c), is
that of wind having multiple directions and variable speeds of 8, 12, and 17 m/s.
The fraction of occurrence for each angle at each wind speed is shown in Fig. 4,
where the sum of occurrences is unity.

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Case (a)

The optimal solution for Case (a) can be derived heuristically. The domain
under consideration for this study uses a wake model that increases in diameter
only as a function of downstream distance. A simple optimization of one 10-cell
column in the computational domain can therefore be projected across the entire
S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270 265

Fig. 4. Case (c): variable direction, variable wind speed.

Fig. 5. Single 10-cell column from computational domain.

266 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270

Fig. 6. Case (a): optimal configurations— (i) Mosetti et al.’s study, and (ii) present study.

domain in order to find the optimal solution for this simple wind scenario. This
optimization produced an optimal configuration of three turbines in positions 1, 6
and 10 as shown in Fig. 5. This configuration will produce 1431 kW year of power
with a fitness value of 0.0020927. By placing the middle turbine at position 5 rather
than position 6, the power produced is reduced to 1430 kW year with a fitness
value of 0.0020943. The difference is subtle, but when this column is projected
across the computational domain, the difference becomes significant.
Optimal solutions for case 1 are presented in Fig. 6. The Mossetti et al. solution
for is shown in Fig. 6(i). The heuristic solution and the solution obtained by this
present work were identical and are presented in Fig. 6(ii). Table 2 is a compari-
son of the fitness, total power output, efficiency of power output and number of
turbines for each configuration. While the efficiency of power produced in the pre-
vious Mosetti et al. study and the current study are comparable, the total power
out produced is greater for this study. Differences in coding notwithstanding, it is
possible that the work done by Mosetti et al. did not run enough individuals for
sufficient generations. In that study, a population of 200 individuals was allowed to
evolve over 400 generations, upon which time it was determined to have reached
convergence. In the present study, 600 individuals distributed among 20 sub-
populations were allowed to evolve over 3000 generations. While the number of
generations was high, the solution was reached after 1203 generations and

Table 2
Comparison of solution characteristics—Case (a)
i ii
Fitness value 0.0016197 0.0015436
Total power (kW year) 12 352 14 310
Efficiency (%) 91.645 92.015
Number of turbines 26 30
 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270 267

Fig. 7. Fitness curve for population size of 600 for Case (a).

remained constant for the remainder of the run. Fig. 7 shows the fitness evolution
over this period.
5.2. Case (b)

For the more complicated case of multi-directional wind, the optimal solution is
not empirical. However, it is assumed that a similarly ordered solution is obtain-
able for this case. With each angle receiving equal probability of occurring, it can
be presumed that no direction will be preferred in the solution. In the example of
Mosetti et al., this translated into a solution that had turbines scattered around the
outer perimeter of the domain, with few in the center. Fig. 8(i) shows the optimized
configuration obtained by Mosetti et al., and Fig. 8(ii) shows the optimized con-
figuration obtained in this study. Table 3 is a comparison of the fitness, total
power output, efficiency of power output and number of turbines for each con-

Fig. 8. Case (b): optimal configurations—(i) Mosetti et al.’s study, and (ii) present study.
268 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270

Table 3
Comparison of solution characteristics—Case (b)
i ii
Fitness value 0.0017371 0.0015666
Total power (kW year) 9244.7 17 220
Efficiency (%) 93.859 85.174
Number of turbines 19 39

Fig. 9. Fitness curve for population size of 600 for Case (b).

figuration. The increased number of turbines included in the optimal configuration

obtained for this study increases the total power for the wind farm. This number of
turbines and level of power output are optimized for cost per unit of power pro-
duced, yielding a fitness value lower than the Mosetti et al. configuration, which
included 20 fewer turbines than the current study. The drawback of this increased
number of turbines is that the efficiency of the power produced by the wind farm
as a whole is decreased from ~93% to ~85%. While it would be desirable to have a
more efficient system of turbines, the efficiency of power produced was not a para-
meter included in the objective function for optimization of this problem. This
could be a constraint added to the problem for future research. Case (b) was run
with 600 individuals distributed over 20 subpopulations and allowed of evolve for
3000 generations. Fig. 9 shows the fitness evolution over this period.
5.3. Case (c)

From Fig. 4, it is obvious that the higher wind speeds prevail, and particularly
v v
between the angles from 270 to 350 . This being considered, the order in the sol-
ution will most likely lie along those directions. Mosetti et al. predicted an opti-
mum number of turbines between 15 and 18 for this case. Fig. 10(a) shows the
 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270 269

Fig. 10. Case (c): optimal configurations—(i) Mosetti et al.’s study, and (ii) present study.

Table 4
Comparison of solution characteristics—Case (c)
i ii
Fitness value 0.00099405 0.00080314
Total power (kW year) 13 460 32 038
Efficiency (%) 94.62 86.619
Number of turbines 15 39

optimized configuration obtained by Mosetti et al., and Fig. 10(b) shows the opti-
mized configuration obtained in this study. Table 4 is a comparison of the fitness,
total power output, efficiency of power output and number of turbines for each
configuration. The fitness for the current study is much lower than that of the

Fig. 11. Fitness curve for population size of 600 for Case (c).
270 S.A. Grady et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 259–270

Mosetti et al. configuration. As observed in Case (b), the total power output is
more than double, as is the number of turbines. Again, the increase in the number
of turbines, as in Case (b), effects a reduction in the efficiency of power produced in
the system. The huge discrepancy in the amount of power produced, however, in
addition to the reduction in cost per unit of power produced, justifies the sacrifice
of efficiency. Case (c) was run with 600 individuals distributed over 20 subpopula-
tions and allowed of evolve for 1000 generations. Fig. 11 shows the fitness evol-
ution over this period.

6. Conclusions

The results of the present study demonstrate that genetic algorithms could accu-
rately predict optimal wind farm configurations. In the simple case of uniform uni-
directional wind, heuristic arguments verify the optimal configuration of the
present study, which is at odds with that of Mosetti et al. It is possible that their
work did not run enough individuals for sufficient number of generations to
achieve convergence. Although the genetic algorithm is an effective global search
method, it can be computationally expensive for problems with a large number of
independent variables. A problem formulation compliant with a real-coded genetic
algorithm could reduce the number of variables. Current computing resources
allow the extension of the present study to include more realistic wind and wake
models and many more individuals within the population, which will be the subject
of future study.

References
[1] Bansal RC, Shatti TS, Kothari DP. On some of the design aspects of wind energy conversion sys-
tems. Energy Convers Manag 2002;43(16):2175–87.
[2] Patel MR. Wind and Power Solar Systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999.
[3] Ammara I, Leclerc C, Masson C. A viscous three-dimensional differential/actuator-disk method for
the aerodynamic analysis of wind farms. J Sol Energy Eng 2002;124(4):345–56.
[4] 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(1):105–16.
[5] Jensen NO. A note of wind generator interaction. Roskilde, Denmark: Risø National Laboratory;
1993.
[6] Katic I, Hojstrup J, Jensen NO. A simple model for cluster efficiency. Proceedings of the European
Wind Energy Association Conference and Exhibition. 1986, p. 407–10.
[7] Frandsen S. On the wind speed reduction in the center of large clusters of wind turbines. Proceedings
of the European Wind Energy Conference. 1991, p. 375–80.
[8] Goldberg DE. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Reading (MA):
Addison-Wesley; 1989.
[9] Pohlheim H. GEATbx: Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithm Toolbox for use with MATLAB, 1999.