A comparison of eight optimization methods applied to a wind farm layout optimization problem

IF 3.6 Q3 GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Wind Energy Science Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.5194/wes-8-865-2023
Jared J. Thomas, Nicholas F. Baker, P. Malisani, Erik Quaeghebeur, Sebastian Sanchez Perez-Moreno, John P. Jasa, C. Bay, F. Tilli, David Bieniek, N. Robinson, A. Stanley, Wesley Holt, A. Ning
{"title":"A comparison of eight optimization methods applied to a wind farm layout optimization problem","authors":"Jared J. Thomas, Nicholas F. Baker, P. Malisani, Erik Quaeghebeur, Sebastian Sanchez Perez-Moreno, John P. Jasa, C. Bay, F. Tilli, David Bieniek, N. Robinson, A. Stanley, Wesley Holt, A. Ning","doi":"10.5194/wes-8-865-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Selecting a wind farm layout optimization method is difficult. Comparisons between optimization methods in different papers can be uncertain due to the difficulty of exactly reproducing the objective function. Comparisons by just a few authors in one paper can be uncertain if the authors do not have experience using each algorithm. In this work we provide an algorithm comparison for a wind farm layout optimization case study between eight optimization methods applied, or directed, by researchers who developed those algorithms or who had other experience using them. We provided the objective function to each researcher to avoid ambiguity about relative performance due to a difference in objective function. While these comparisons are not perfect, we try to treat each algorithm more fairly by having researchers with experience using each algorithm apply each algorithm and by having a common objective function provided for analysis. The case study is from the International Energy Association (IEA) Wind Task 37, based on the Borssele III and IV wind farms with 81 turbines. Of particular interest in this case study is the presence of disconnected boundary regions and concave boundary features. The optimization methods studied represent a wide range of approaches, including gradient-free, gradient-based, and hybrid methods; discrete and continuous problem formulations; single-run and multi-start approaches; and mathematical and heuristic algorithms. We provide descriptions and references (where applicable) for each optimization method, as well as lists of pros and cons, to help readers determine an appropriate method for their use case. All the optimization methods perform similarly, with optimized wake loss values between 15.48 % and 15.70 % as compared to 17.28 % for the unoptimized provided layout. Each of the layouts found were different, but all layouts exhibited similar characteristics. Strong similarities across all the layouts include tightly packing wind turbines along the outer borders, loosely spacing turbines in the internal regions, and allocating similar numbers of turbines to each discrete boundary region. The best layout by annual energy production (AEP) was found using a new sequential allocation method, discrete exploration-based optimization (DEBO). Based on the results in this study, it appears that using an optimization algorithm can significantly improve wind farm performance, but there are many optimization methods that can perform well on the wind farm layout optimization problem, given that they are applied correctly.\n","PeriodicalId":46540,"journal":{"name":"Wind Energy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wind Energy Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-865-2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract. Selecting a wind farm layout optimization method is difficult. Comparisons between optimization methods in different papers can be uncertain due to the difficulty of exactly reproducing the objective function. Comparisons by just a few authors in one paper can be uncertain if the authors do not have experience using each algorithm. In this work we provide an algorithm comparison for a wind farm layout optimization case study between eight optimization methods applied, or directed, by researchers who developed those algorithms or who had other experience using them. We provided the objective function to each researcher to avoid ambiguity about relative performance due to a difference in objective function. While these comparisons are not perfect, we try to treat each algorithm more fairly by having researchers with experience using each algorithm apply each algorithm and by having a common objective function provided for analysis. The case study is from the International Energy Association (IEA) Wind Task 37, based on the Borssele III and IV wind farms with 81 turbines. Of particular interest in this case study is the presence of disconnected boundary regions and concave boundary features. The optimization methods studied represent a wide range of approaches, including gradient-free, gradient-based, and hybrid methods; discrete and continuous problem formulations; single-run and multi-start approaches; and mathematical and heuristic algorithms. We provide descriptions and references (where applicable) for each optimization method, as well as lists of pros and cons, to help readers determine an appropriate method for their use case. All the optimization methods perform similarly, with optimized wake loss values between 15.48 % and 15.70 % as compared to 17.28 % for the unoptimized provided layout. Each of the layouts found were different, but all layouts exhibited similar characteristics. Strong similarities across all the layouts include tightly packing wind turbines along the outer borders, loosely spacing turbines in the internal regions, and allocating similar numbers of turbines to each discrete boundary region. The best layout by annual energy production (AEP) was found using a new sequential allocation method, discrete exploration-based optimization (DEBO). Based on the results in this study, it appears that using an optimization algorithm can significantly improve wind farm performance, but there are many optimization methods that can perform well on the wind farm layout optimization problem, given that they are applied correctly.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
八种优化方法在某风电场布局优化问题中的应用比较
摘要风电场布局优化方法的选择是一个难点。由于难以精确地再现目标函数,不同论文中优化方法之间的比较可能不确定。如果作者没有使用每种算法的经验,那么一篇论文中只有几个作者的比较可能是不确定的。在这项工作中,我们为风电场布局优化案例研究提供了八种优化方法的算法比较,这些优化方法由开发这些算法的研究人员或有其他使用这些算法的经验的研究人员应用或指导。我们为每个研究人员提供了目标函数,以避免由于目标函数的差异而导致相对性能的歧义。虽然这些比较并不完美,但我们试图通过让具有使用每种算法经验的研究人员应用每种算法以及提供用于分析的共同目标函数来更公平地对待每种算法。案例研究来自国际能源协会(IEA)的第37项风能任务,基于拥有81台涡轮机的Borssele III和IV风力发电场。在这个案例研究中,特别感兴趣的是不连通边界区域和凹边界特征的存在。所研究的优化方法包括无梯度、基于梯度和混合方法;离散和连续问题的表述;单次运行和多次启动方式;以及数学和启发式算法。我们为每种优化方法提供了描述和参考(在适用的情况下),以及优缺点列表,以帮助读者确定适合其用例的方法。所有优化方法的性能都相似,优化后的尾迹损失值在15.48%到15.70%之间,而未优化的尾迹损失值为17.28%。每一种布局都是不同的,但所有的布局都表现出相似的特征。所有布局的相似性包括沿外部边界紧密排列风力涡轮机,在内部区域松散间隔涡轮机,以及在每个离散边界区域分配相似数量的涡轮机。采用一种新的顺序分配方法——基于离散勘探的优化方法(DEBO),找到了以年发电量(AEP)为目标的最佳布局。从本研究的结果来看,使用优化算法可以显著提高风电场的性能,但有许多优化方法只要应用得当,就可以很好地解决风电场布局优化问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Wind Energy Science
Wind Energy Science GREEN & SUSTAINABLE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
27.50%
发文量
115
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Swinging motion of a kite with suspended control unit flying turning manoeuvres A sensitivity-based estimation method for investigating control co-design relevance An actuator sector model for wind power applications: a parametric study Experimental validation of a short-term damping estimation method for wind turbines in nonstationary operating conditions Quantifying the impact of modeling fidelity on different substructure concepts – Part 2: Code-to-code comparison in realistic environmental conditions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1