Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Optimisation of hydrokinetic turbine array layouts via surrogate

modelling

lez-Gorben
~ a*, Raad Y. Qassim, Paulo C.C. Rosman
Eduardo Gonza
Centro de Tecnologia, Cidade Universitaria, Ilha do Fundao, Bloco C, sala 203, CEP 21945-970, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 20 March 2015
Received in revised form
5 November 2015
Accepted 15 February 2016
Available online 27 February 2016

A procedure for the optimisation of hydrokinetic turbine array layout through surrogate modelling is
introduced. The method comprises design of experiments, computational uid dynamics simulations,
surrogate model construction, and constrained optimisation. Design of experiments are used to build
polynomial and Radial Basis Function surrogates as functions of two design parameters: inter-turbine
longitudinal and lateral spacing, with a view to approximating the capacity factor of turbine arrays
with inline and staggered layouts, each of which having a xed number of turbines. For this purpose, two
scenarios have been used as case studies, considering uniform and non-uniform free-stream ows. The
major advantage of this method in comparison to those reported in the literature is its capability to
analyse different design parameter combinations that satisfy optimality criteria in reasonable computational time, while taking into account complex oweturbine interactions and different turbine types.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Hydrokinetic energy
Turbine array layout
Surrogate based optimisation

1. Introduction
In recent years, in-stream hydrokinetic energy has drawn the
attention of investors around the world. The large amounts of energy found in river ows, tidal channels and ocean currents has
served as a strong motivation for research in optimising hydrokinetic turbine arrays with a view to making their commercial
exploration viable. There are several issues concerning the design
of turbine array layout, such as array size, complex oweturbine
interactions, different turbine types, and environmental impacts,
which are necessary to be taken into account, in order to employ
suitable optimisation methods. Vennell et al. [1] distinguish between two scales of array optimisation: macro and micro array
design scales, where macro-design relates to the total number of
turbines in a farm, the number in each row and the number of rows
in the array. On the other hand, micro design is concerned with the
individual positions of the turbines within the array. This paper
focuses on the aspect of micro design of turbines array
optimisation.
In almost all reported research work on the turbine array layout
optimisation problem, two approaches have been employed. In the

* Corresponding author.

lez-Gorben
~ a), qassim@
E-mail addresses: eduardogg@oceanica.ufrj.br (E. Gonza
peno.coppe.ufrj.br (R.Y. Qassim), pccrosman@ufrj.br (P.C.C. Rosman).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.045
0960-1481/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

rst type of approach, highly simplied one dimensional tidal ow

models are employed [2e6]. In the second type of approach, more
complex multidimensional tidal ow models are adopted [7e9].
The simplied model approach possesses the appeal of simplicity;
however, this approach cannot capture the complex nonlinear uid
ow interactions between turbines. In the second approach, more
realistic models are employed; however, they are so computationally demanding that the whole design parameter space cannot
be explored, and as a consequence, only a limited number of
manually selected turbine array congurations are studied in the
search for an optimal solution. Recently, a third approach has been
proposed [10], whereby a gradientebased optimisation method is
developed to solve the turbine array layout optimisation problem
for a given initial turbine array conguration. In the approach
presented by Funke et al. [10], a function (of the solution of the
shallow water uid ow partial differential equations and of the
design parameters, which comprise the location of turbines) is
optimised subject to constraints, which include the shallow water
uid ow partial differential equations. The approach of [10] possesses several strong points: it combines macro and micro
arrangement optimisation, sound mathematical basis, relatively
fast computation times even for large turbine arrays, and simultaneous determination of the uid velocity eld and the location of
turbines. However, it is much more complex to implement, demands high computer storage capacity, it may encounter difculties in obtaining a global optimum solution, and the parameter

46

lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

set to be optimised must be continuous. This last one may represent

a serious weakness as it does not allow for the choice of different
turbine types at different locations as part of the output. The degree
of freedom in allowing for different turbine type choice, is crucial
for the assessment of the economic viability of sites with non
uniform depth. In such cases, the design parameter space includes
discrete variables depicting turbine size of different turbine types.
This feature is typical of the classical equipment selection problem
in operations research [11,12].
~a
This paper is a continuation of the work presented by Gorben
et al. [13], where a different approach of optimisation is introduced.
In Ref. [13], the well established method known as Surrogate-Based
Optimisation (SBO) of computer experiments is applied to the
optimisation of uniform turbine array layouts under steady state
uniform ows. Where uniform array layouts are dened by two
spacing parameters: longitudinal spacing and lateral spacing. This
method provides a less expensive surrogate model of a more
complex model facilitating the exploration of the entire design
space. An additional advantage of this method is that it enables the
optimisation of continuous and discrete design parameters simultaneously. As the number of design parameters increases, the
necessary number of computer experiments grows, resulting in the
main drawback of the SBO method. In the literature, there are a
number of papers where surrogates have been used to solve
different variants of the wind farm layout optimization problem.
Rodrigues et al. [55] used surrogates of wind roses to optimise the
layout of offshore wind farms. Zhang et al. [56] implemented a
response surface-based cost model for wind farm design. In
Ref. [57] wind power assessment is approximated through surrogates, using wind parameters as design variables, to evaluate the
maximum wind farm capacity factor for a specied farm size and
installed capacity. Recently, Mehmani et al. [58] presented an
application of the surrogate-based particle swarm optimisation for
large-scale wind farms.
Except for the work of Funke et al. [10], most of the studies
related to hydrokinetic turbine array optimisation consider uniform
layouts positioned in uniform channels with at bed bottoms and
with uniform free-stream ows [6,8,13,14]. In the present work, the
capabilities of different surrogates are analysed to optimise uniform turbine array layouts positioned in regular and irregular
channels to generate different ow conditions.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, the SBO approach
is presented and discussed. In Section 3, the problem formulation is
presented, and this is followed in Section 4 by the design of computer experiments. In Section 5 computer simulation results are
presented. In Section 6, surrogate model construction is carried out,
which is then assessed and validated in Section 7. In Section 8, the
surrogate optimisation model is presented. Finally, conclusions and
suggestions for future work are presented in Section 9.
2. Surrogate based optimisation
Surrogate models are inexpensive approximations of more
complex computational models allowing fast exploration of the
design space, therefore reducing the overall design process duration and cost. Also known as response surfaces, metamodels, or
emulators, surrogate models are used for several tasks like: optimisation, sensitivity analysis, design-space exploration and parametric studies amongst others. There is a wide variety of
metamodels available in the literature, each of which possessing
advantages and limitations. Popular methods for creating surrogate
models include polynomial functions [15], Radial Basis Functions
(RBF) [16] and kriging [17]; for a review of metamodel techniques
see Refs. [18e20]. Selecting the proper metamodel to be used depends on the nature of the engineering problem under

consideration, as well as on the available data. For this reason,

conducting a comparison analysis of the surrogate models that are
built with different methods is of great importance. Trying out all of
them is beyond the scope of this work, and instead two specic
methods are employed and compared. The difculty of surrogate
modelling consists in the construction of a reliable emulator using
the least possible number of samples. A typical ow diagram
summarising the Surrogate-Based Optimisation (SBO) procedure is
shown in Fig. 1.
In the present paper, SBO procedure is applied to the optimisation of turbine array layout, with two design parameters as independent variables: longitudinal and lateral spacing, with a view
to approximating the capacity factor, CF, of turbine arrays with
inline and staggered congurations, each of which is studied under
uniform and non-uniform ows. A second purpose is to analyse the
adequacy of polynomial and RBF modelling methods for their
application to the turbine array layout problem.
3. Problem formulation
In order to solve an optimisation problem, it rst needs to be
formulated in such a manner that the objective function, design
parameters and constraints are dened. This is a crucial step, which
needs special attention. The consideration of optimising uniform
array layouts may be reduced to a two-dimensional horizontal
optimisation problem. Therefore, the optimisation problem can be
formulated as a function of two design parameters: longitudinal
and lateral distance between rows (x1 DX) and columns (x2 DY)
of turbines, respectively. This consideration implies that all turbines within the array are positioned at the same depth.
It is important to notice that even though, in this particular case,
we focus in the optimisation of uniform array layouts, this method
is applicable for more sophisticated problems. The problem may be
sophisticated by adding new design parameters, for example, but
not only, the inclusion of the vertical dimension (x3 DZ), different
turbine rotor diameters (x5 D1; x6 D2; x7 D3), setting a range
for the number of turbines to be installed, etc.
Once the design parameters are dened, it is necessary to
specify which is the dependant variable. In this work, the turbine
array layout has been optimised to maximise prot from electric
energy production. Energy production of the array may be quantied through the Capacity Factor, CF, ratio, see Eq. (4), that is the
power produced over a period of time divided by the rated power of
the turbines. In this way, considering the simulations are time in^ (x), will represent the instandependent, the surrogate model, y
taneous Capacity Factor of the array as a function of longitudinal
and lateral spacing between turbines.
4. Design of computer experiments
The design of computer experiments consists in statistical
methods to establish combinational relationships of input variables
involved in the optimisation problem. The objective of a design plan
consists in minimising the error between the surrogate and computer models using the smallest possible number of simulations.
Therefore, the main challenge resides in an adequate description of
the design space.
In the literature, there exists extensive work on this subject:
introducing, analysing, and comparing different methods, c.f.,
[18,21e23]. Among the established methods of design of experiments, the Latin Hypercube Design [24] is one of the most widely
used sampling methods. Latin Hypercube Designs (LHD) may
follow strategies for improving its performance over the design
space. Some of these strategies consist in adopting some optimality
criteria; a review of several of these methods may be found in


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

47

Fig. 1. Simulated Based Optimisation ow chart.

Refs. [18,25]. For the purpose of this paper, a maximin distance

criterion is adopted to dene one set of experimental data, as it
provides better designs to estimate regression parameters [59].
This criterion maximise the minimum Euclidean (or [ 2-norm)
distance between sample points [26].
As dened in Section 3, the design variables are two: longitudinal (x1 DX) and lateral (x2 DY) distance between rows and
columns of turbines, respectively. Now, the number of computer
experiments, n, to train the surrogate needs to be specied. As an
empirical rule, the number of data collection points in a sampling
plan should be around ten times the number of design variables, s;
c.f., [27]. Other authors [28] state that the number of sample points
must be at least equal to or greater than the number of model
parameters to be estimated. Following the above recommendation,
in this work a sample plan of n 20 has been selected. Considering
physical and operational restrictions, the limits of each variable are
set to:

10D  x1  30D and 2D  x2  4D:

Where D is the turbine rotor diameter.
Fig. 2 shows the design of experiments used in this work. The
selected sample plan design includes two sets of experimental data.
The rst data set consists of an approximate maximin LHD (n, s),
with n 11 and s 2 (blue points) (in web version), which are
obtained using the built-in function lhsdesign available in Matlab
[60]. The second data set consists of 9 experimental points (red

points), which intend to obtain information of the variables space

end and middle values and help improve the surrogate tness, as
noted by Ref. [13]. The sample values (u 1, 2, , n) for each input
variable (i 1, 2, , s) are normalised on the interval [1, 1].
5. Computer simulation
Computer simulation runs have been carried out using the
student version of the CFD software ANSYS 15.0 FLUENT [29] to
solve three-dimensional ows. Turbines are modelled as actuator
disks, assuming a horizontal axis turbine type, this being one of the
simplest representations of a rotor, which provides reliable results
with affordable computational expense [30e32]. In FLUENT, this is
achieved using a porous-jump boundary condition [29].
In order to study the capabilities of the proposed surrogate
models, two channel geometries, both with the same length (xaxis), are studied for inline and staggered turbines array layouts. A
at bottom channel with constant width (y-axis) along its length,
illustrated in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, has been used to optimise layouts
with steady state free stream uniform ow conditions. To avoid the
effect of lateral boundaries on turbine performance, for each of the
simulations on the at bottom channel, the distance between the
turbines located at the sides of the array and these boundaries is
xed in 6D. On the other hand, an irregular channel, presented in
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, has been used for the same purpose but this time,
under steady state free stream non-uniform ow. The irregular
channel has a variable width along its length but its geometry is

48

lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

The number of turbines (Nt) are given and xed. For the inline
and staggered arrays 6 and 8 devices are considered, respectively.
Its vertical position (z-axis) is also xed, as well as the position of
the centreline of the turbines. The arrangement of the inline array
consists of two rows with three turbines each. In the case of the
staggered array, there are three rows, with two turbines in the
second row, and three turbines in each of the rst and third rows.
Turbines (T1, T2, , TNt) are numbered from top to bottom and from
left to right, starting at the top left turbine. For an illustration of the
turbine arrangement in each case, see Figs. 3e6.
A constant ow velocity of 2.5 m s1 is prescribed at the inlet for
the regular channel. In the case of the irregular channel, a sinusoidal ow velocity in [ms1] is given as an input signal at the inlet
boundary, see Fig. 7.
The outputs of the computer simulation are averaged surface
integrals of velocity magnitudes for each porous disk; i.e.,

Z
Ud dAT Ud AT

 
ud;i aT;i 

(1)

i1

Fig. 2. Sampling plan using LHD maximin criterion for n 11 and s 2 (blue points)
and 9 extra points (red points). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

n
X

where, AT is the cross section area of the turbine rotor, Ud represents

the averaged ow velocity at the rotor, and ud,i is the ow velocity at
i-th surface facet, with area aT,i, that forms the disk surface. By
knowing AT, Ud is obtained for each disk. Then, the instantaneous
Capacity Factor, CF, of the j-th array layout is calculated using Eqs.
(3) and (4), and ow velocities at each turbine rotor are obtained
from the CFD simulations; i.e.,

Fig. 3. Top view of the regular channel geometry used for uniform ow CFD simulations. In the gure, the turbine congurations are shown: a) inline layout (top) and b) staggered
layout (bottom) with x1 20D and x2 2D.

maintained constant for all simulations. The geometries of the

channels are kept as simple as possible to guarantee that the
number of elements does not exceed the limits by the ANSYS
FLUENT student version.

Pi

1
rC A U 3
2 PL T d;i

(2)

Fig. 4. Front view of the regular channel geometry used for uniform ow CFD simulations. In the gure, the turbine congurations are shown for: a) inline layout (top) and b)
staggered layout (bottom) with x1 20D and x2 2D.


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

49

Fig. 5. Top view of the irregular channel geometry used for non-uniform ow CFD simulations. In the gure, the turbine congurations are shown for a) inline layout (top) and b)
staggered layout (bottom) with x1 20D and x2 2D.

Fig. 6. Front view of the irregular channel geometry used for non-uniform ow CFD simulations. In the gure, the turbine congurations are shown for: a) inline layout (top) and b)
staggered layout (bottom) with x1 20D and x2 2D.

Nt
P

CFj

i
Nt
P

condition method may be obtained in Ref. [36].

Pi
(3)

Pr;i

where, Pi and Pr,i represent the power output and rated power of
the i-th turbine of a set of Nt turbines, respectively; r depicts water
density, taken to be 998.2 kg m3; nally, CPL depict the power
coefcient expressed in terms of the local velocity Ud. Through the
1-dimensional linear momentum actuator disc theory in an innite
medium an upper bound for the theoretical maximum power
extractable, the known Betz's limit [33], is obtained, with CP 16/
27 (CPL 2). However, it is worth noting that for a turbine in open
channel ows [34], the Betz upper bound may well be exceeded
due to constrained ow conditions, but a series of requirements
have to be achieved [35]. In this study, horizontal axis turbine types
with 20 m rotor diameters are considered to have a rated power of
2.58 MW at a ow velocity of 3 m s1. Detailed information about
the CFD simulations and validation of the porous-jump boundary

6. Surrogate construction
After the sampling plans have been computationally implemented, the next step involves selecting an approximating func^i (x), to use as a surrogate of complex computer
tional form, y
simulations, yi (x), in this case representing the CFj of each turbine
array layout. The majority of metamodels can be dened with a
linear combination of a set of basis functions {B1 (x), B2 (x), , Bn
(x)}. Thus, the general form of a metamodel can be expressed as:

b
y i x b1 B1 x b2 B2 x bl Bl x

(4)

where b fb1 ; b2 ; ; bn g are coefcients that need to be

estimated.
Therefore each computer experiment is approximated by a sum
of basis functions plus an error, ,

yi x b
y i x i

(5)

As mentioned before, there are multiple candidates, each with

its advantages and limitations. In order to choose the right surrogate method, Santos [37] describes a series of criteria based on the
essence of the problem. In this work, we focus on two specic
methods: polynomials and RBF, which are discussed below.
6.1. Polynomial functions

Fig. 7. Flow velocity prole at inlet of the irregular channel.

Polynomial functions are the most popular type of metamodels.

They have been widely used in engineering problems because they
are relatively easy to construct [38]. The main disadvantage of low
order polynomial models is the inadequacy to represent highly
non-linear responses, while high order polynomials are more susceptible to be unstable [19]. As the number of basis functions


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

50

increases with the number of input variables, s, and the degree of

polynomial, low order polynomial models are preferable to represent linear or slightly non-linear responses because they can provide accurate predictions from small data sets.
In this work, the polynomials used are second order, as in Eq. (7),
and third order, as in Eq. (8)

b
y x b
b0

s
X

b
b i xi

i1

s
X

b
b ii x2i

s1 X
s
X

i1

b
b ij xi xj ;

b
y i wT f

i 1; 2;

s
X

b
b i xi

i1

s
X

s
X

b
b ii x2i

s1 X
s
X

i1

b
b 2ij x2i xj

ji1

b
b ij xi xj

i1 ji1

s1
X

s
X

s1
X

b
b 2ji xi x2j

i1 ji1

wi fkx  xi k

n
X



wi f xj  xi  ;

i; j 1; 2; ; n

b
b 3ii x3i ;

And this leads to the expression

i1

y wT F
(7)

Polynomial parameters, b
b i , are calculated through the least
squares procedure [15], which minimises the sum of the square
errors,

8
92
=
n <
L
X
X
T
T
LS y  Bb y  Bb
Bj xbj
yi 
:
;

(8)

j0

where B is a L  n matrix containing the set of L basis functions Bj

(x) for each of the n experiments dened.
For a minimum, the least squares estimators must satisfy

(13)

The values of the weights, like the coefcients of the polynomials, may be estimated using the least squares estimator presented in Eq. (10). For that purpose, we have

1

b FT F
FT y
w

(14)

The RBF method has become very popular in several different

types of applications, due to its ability to express highly non-linear
responses and the possibility to handle several space dimensions.
On the other hand, it is necessary to pay special attention to the
interpolation of RBF at boundaries [41].
7. Surrogate assessment and validation

vLS
2y  BbT B 0T
vb

(9)

which leads to the least squares estimator,

1

b
BT y
b BT B

(10)

6.2. Radial basis functions

Once the surrogate is tted, it is necessary to assess and validate

it. The assessment and validation of the surrogate consist in verifying its capacity to predict responses with data points not
considered during the regression. For this purpose, various error
measures and regression parameters can be examined [42e44]. In
this study, a set of testing points with size np 5, illustrated in
Fig. 8, have been selected arbitrarily to carry out a leave-one-out
cross validation error,

cv

A Radial Basis Function (RBF) is a real valued function whose

data points, x, are affected on their distance, r, from another data
point, xi, named a centre. The distance between the two points is
represented by a norm, usually the Euclidian norm, r jjx e xijj. In
this manner, a data point in a data set will affect to a greater extent
the nearer points than the faraway points, in such a way that f
(x,xi) f (r) f (jjx e xijj). Thus, the manner in which the distance
affects the data points depends on the basis function selected.
There are several popular basis functions which include:
Linear: f (r) r,
Cubic: f (r) r3,
Thin plate splines: f (r) r2 ln r.
There are also parametric basis functions, which require a more
complex parameter estimation process [39], such as.
Gaussian: fr er =2s
Multiquadric: fr r 2 s2 1=2 ,
Inverse multiquadric: fr r 2 s2 1=2 ,
2

(12)

i1

1; 2;

i1

(11)

where w is a vector containing the weights, wi, for the linear

combination of basis vectors contained in the vector f; i.e.,

b
yj

i1
s
X

n
X
i1

i1 ji1

(6)
b
y x b
b0

where the variance s2 denes the shape of the basis function.

For the purpose of this study, linear and thin plate splines basis
functions are compared. A detailed information on the above basis
functions may be found in Refs. [16,40].
^i may be conTherefore, an approximation response function, y
structed with the form:

n
1X
2
y  b
yi
n i1 i

n2N

(15)

To compute the leave-one-out cross validation error, the set of

data points N n np, is divided in q N subsets of n 20 sample
points. For each subset, the testing points not considered in the
regression are predicted with the surrogate built with the
remaining sample points. This method enables us to construct the
surrogate model employing the optimal subset of points that
minimise the overall error of the model.
Then, the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) and the Maximum
Absolute Error (MAX), which are dened by evaluate the prediction
capabilities of the tted model. Forrester [45] suggests that values
of a normalised RMSE < 0.1 and RMSE < 0.02 implies surrogates
with reasonably and excellent predictive capabilities, respectively.

"

p
1X
2
RMSE
y  b
yi
np i1 i

#1=2
(16)

MAX maxjyi  b
yij

(17)


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

51

current turbine farm, where each of them are extensively

discussed.
The following prot optimisation model constitutes an example
for both, inline and staggered, array layouts. The model seeks to
maximise annual prot. Constraints take into account the price of
electricity, operational and maintenance costs (O&M), an annual
rental fee for submerged land occupied by the project, turbine
clearance regions and maximum area occupied by the turbine farm.
Considering as a reference data from different countries around the
world, a xed price of electricity is set at 0.25$/kWh [47]. On the
other hand, O&M costs are proportional to the sum of the line
lengths (L) joining all turbines in the array. This procedure assumes
O&M cost is proportional to the maintenance vessel travel distance;
i.e. the larger the farm is, the higher the O&M cost is. A value of
0.025$/kWh is dened as a lower bound for O&M costs. This value
is approximated, and it is based on typical O&M costs for offshore
wind energy farms in Europe [48]. It is assumed that an annual
rental fee of $0.025 per square metre of submerged land occupied
by the project, AF [49], is incurred. A detailed nancial example
comprising CAPital EXpenditure (CAPEX), OPerational EXpenditure
(OPEX) and Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) costs for a test stage of a
1 MW tidal turbine is available in Ref. [50]. Other economical
studies involving marine renewable energies are available in
Refs. [51e53]. The resulting optimisation model is mathematically
formulated as follows:
Fig. 8. Sampling plan points (blue) and testing points (red). (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article).

MAX

Price of electricity  O&M costs 

Nt
X

Pi $t

 cost of leasing
For each of the simulations scenarios and layouts, results for
metamodel tting are summarised in Fig. 9. Note that values of
RMSE are normalised by the range of observed data [ymin, ymax] and
the values of MAX represent units of Capacity Factor.
Results for each scenario and surrogate are represented graphically (see Figs. 10e17) as contour plots to help visualize the shape
of the response surfaces.

Subject to

Nt
X

Nt
P

Pi $t

i
Nt
P

Pi
$

f0 x
gi x  gi ; i 1; ; m
hj x  ji ; j 1; ; k

where the vector x {x1, ,xs} is the set of design variables of the
problem, the function f0: Rn / R is the objective function, the
functions gi and hi: Rn / R, i 1, ,m and j 1, ,k are the
inequality and equality constraint functions, and the constants b1,
,bm and d1, ,dk are the bounds and values of the constraints. In
surrogate optimisation, the objective function is given by the vali^ (x).
dated metamodel, i.e., f0 y
In the turbine array layout optimisation problem for a commercial scale project, a series of constraints types arise (e.g.: economic, environmental, zoning, structural loads, etc.) that need to be
satised. As these constraint types depend on the specic nature of
each project, it is not the objective of this work to present a unique
optimisation problem, but to formulate and include a series of
constraints to serve as a prototype for more complex optimisation
problems. In Li et al. [46], an integrated model for estimating energy cost is presented, which considers many aspects of a tidal

Pr;i $t CFx1 ; x2 $

Nt
X

Pr;i $t

i
Nt
X

Pr;i $t

(19)

8. Surrogate optimisation

Maximise
Subject to :

Nt
X

Pr;i

b
y x$

Once the surrogate is built and validated, it can be used to obtain

an optimal solution subject to a series of constraints. A general form
to express a constrained maximisation optimisation problem is

(18)

t 8760h

(20)

Price of electricity 0:25$=kWh

(21)

O&M cost$=kWh 0:025=560Lm 0:0089

(22)

h i


Cost of leasing $=year 0:025$= m2 $year $AF m2

(23)

Di 20m

(24)

ci 1; ; NT

T1 200; y x2 ; T2 200; 200; T3 200; y  x2 2i 1; ; NT

(25)
10D  x1  15D

(26)

20D  x1  30D

(27)

Inline array:

Nt 6

(28)


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

52

Fig. 9. Normalised root mean square error (top) and absolute maximum error (bottom) obtained with the surrogates for each array layout out and scenario.

Lm x1 4x2

(29)
2

AF 2$5D x1 $2$4D 4x2  0:256km

(30)

T4 200 x1 ; y x2 ; T5 200 x1 ; 200; T4 200 x1 ; y  x2 2i

1; ; NT
(31)
Staggered array:

Nt 8

(32)

0:5

5x2
Lm 2 x21 x22

(33)

AF 2$5D 2x1 $2$4D 5x2  0:448km2

(34)

Eq. (18) denes the objective function to be maximised, which

represents the annual revenue. Eq. (19) expresses how the annual
^
energy output is calculated by combining the desired surrogate y

Fig. 10. Quadratic polynomial capacity factor surfaces responses for arrays in Channel-1, inline (left) and staggered (right) layouts.


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

53

Fig. 11. Cubic polynomial capacity factor surfaces responses for arrays in Channel-1, inline (left) and staggered (right) layouts.

Fig. 12. Linear RBF capacity factor surfaces responses for arrays in Channel-1, inline (left) and staggered (right) layouts.

(x) with Eq. (3). Constraints (20e27) are common for both types of
array layouts, while constraints (28e31) are specic for the inline
array and constraints (32e37) are particular for the staggered
layout. Constraint (20) denes the time in hours for which the
prot is calculated. Constraints (21e23) set the price of electricity,
O&M costs and project area leasing, respectively. Constraint (24)
species the rotor diameter, D, of the i-th turbine in metres [m].

establish the number of turbines for each array type. Constraints

(29) and (33) express the sum of the line lengths (L) joining all
turbines in the array. Finally, constraints (30) and (34) represent the
maximum area AF that an array may have.
The optimisation model is solved through the enumeration
method [54]. This method consists in evaluating all possible combinations of the design parameters space, then the solution that

T4 200 x1 ; 200 0:5x2 ; T5 200 x1 ; 200  0:5x2 ;

T6 200 2x1 ; 200 x2 ; T7 200 2x1 ; 200; T8 200 2x1 ; 200  x2 2i 1; ; NT

Local coordinates (x, y) dene turbine position, (Ti (x, y) ci 1, ,

NT). Constraint (25) denes the position of the rst row of turbines
(T1, T2 and T3), while constraints (31) and (35) denes the position
for the rest turbines in each array. Constraints (26) and (27) dene
established regions of turbine clearance; for example, these regions
may be associated with waterways. Constraints (28) and (32)

(35)

satises all conditions is selected. For this purpose, the design parameters are discretised in increments of 0.25D for x1 and of 0.025D
for x2. The results obtained for the above optimisation model for
each modelling scenario and surrogate are summarised in Table 1.
In general, the results of x1 and x2 obtained for each of the
surrogates implemented in common scenarios are very similar. As

54

lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

Fig. 13. Thin Plate Spline RBF capacity factor surfaces responses for arrays in Channel-1, inline (left) and staggered (right) layouts.

expected, for the uniform ow scenario, optimum conguration for

inline array layouts demand larger longitudinal distances between
rows, while for staggered arrays this distance is shorter. Differences
in longitudinal distance between inline and staggered arrays are of
the order of 20D, while differences of lateral distance between both
congurations are up to 0.6D, this being shorter for the inline layouts when compared with the staggered congurations. On the
other hand, arrays under non-uniform ows present the same
pattern for longitudinal distance with respect to the previously
mentioned ow condition but with orders of magnitude lower
(~10D). Lateral distance between arrays under non-uniform ow
are practically the same with values of 4D.
Regarding efciency, staggered arrays have a higher power
density than inline arrays when they are under uniform ows, as
the former produce more power in smaller regions than the latter.
The main reason for this is that downstream turbines benet from
the stream accelerated through the gaps between upstream
turbines.
While the results obtained for arrays under uniform ow can be
generalized for at channels non-constrained by side walls, the

optimum array congurations obtained for the channel under nonuniform ow are specic for this particular case.
9. Discussion and recommendations
Through this paper, we have presented a different approach for
the turbine array layout optimisation problem. Two variations of
Polynomial and RBF surrogate methods are employed to t an
objective function dependent on two variables: longitudinal and
lateral spacing. The methodology is applied to two different scenarios, considering uniform and non-uniform ow, with the
objective to assess the capacities of each surrogate.
As a consequence of having a greater number of turbine rows,
results from the surrogate tting validation evidence a greater
sensitivity of the response results for staggered layouts than for
inline ones. Similar pattern occurs with the cases with non-uniform
ow, as the irregular channel scenario increases non-linearity in
the objective function response.
For both ow conditions and layouts, Radial Basis Functions
denote an overall better performance than polynomial models in

Fig. 14. Quadratic polynomial capacity factor surfaces responses for arrays in Channel-2, inline (left) and staggered (right) layouts.


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

55

Fig. 15. Cubic polynomial capacity factor surfaces responses for arrays in Channel-2, inline (left) and staggered (right) layouts.

terms of NRMSE. In the regular channel case scenario, the quadratic

polynomial provides better tting and stability than the cubic
polynomial. When nonlinearities increase, RBF achieve superior
results of NRMSE, even though MAX error are high, as for the
scenario of staggered layout in an irregular channel. In order to
minimise MAX error results, adaptive sampling designs are
methods to consider. In conclusion, if the problem to be modelled is
highly nonlinear and involves an important number of variables,
the use of RBF is preferable due to their exibility despite being
more computationally demanding. On the other hand, polynomial
models may be a choice for problems with fewer variables and
smoother behaviour.
Through optimisation application, an example of how to explore
the surrogate taking into account a series of constraints considering
geometric and costs limitations has been shown. Results for the
various surrogates present a good agreement among them.
Therefore, small differences in CF can lead to signicant prot
variations at the end of a year.
Advanced computational modelling techniques of hydrokinetic

energy turbines array may be adopted to increase the approximation with real conditions. The geometry and rotation of the turbines
under unsteady open channel ow conditions can be modelled. As
the complexity of computational modelling increases, simulations
become more time demanding. It is for these cases that the
methodology presented in this paper becomes even more
appealing, as it provides a surrogate of the underlying model,
which is easier to work with for design space exploration and
sensitivity analysis. The main difculties of the method are to
formulate the problem in terms of a few number of design variables
and to obtain a reliable surrogate using as less as possible computer
simulations.
Future research is directed to implement the SBO approach for
the hydrokinetic array layout problem considering continuous and
discrete design parameters, like space coordinates for turbine
positioning and rotor turbine diameter size, as well as to develop a
more sophisticated optimisation model, including the threedimensional free positioning of turbines and considering environmental constraints as the inuences in sediment dynamics.

Fig. 16. Linear RBF capacity factor surfaces responses for arrays in Channel-2, inline (left) and staggered (right) layouts.


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza

56

Fig. 17. Thin Plate Spline RBF capacity factor surfaces responses for arrays in Channel-2, inline (left) and staggered (right) layouts.

Table 1
Results from the optimisation model.
Flow scenario

Array layout

Surrogate

x1 [D]

x2 [D]

CF [%]

Prot [M$/year]

Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Non-uniform
Non-uniform
Non-uniform
Non-uniform
Non-uniform
Non-uniform
Non-uniform
Non-uniform

Inline
Inline
Inline
Inline
Staggered
Staggered
Staggered
Staggered
Inline
Inline
Inline
Inline
Staggered
Staggered
Staggered
Staggered

Quadratic poly.
Cubic poly.
RBF-Linear
RBF-TPS
Quadratic poly.
Cubic poly.
RBF-Linear
RBF-TPS
Quadratic poly.
Cubic poly.
RBF-Linear
RBF-TPS
Quadratic poly.
Cubic poly.
RBF-Linear
RBF-TPS

30.00
30.00
30.00
29.25
10.00
10.00
10.00
11.25
21.50
22.75
21.75
22.50
10.00
10.00
12.50
11.00

2.000
2.275
2.075
2.125
2.500
2.500
2.600
2.225
3.600
4.000
3.725
3.950
4.000
4.000
3.925
3.800

46.50
47.38
46.98
47.82
56.22
56.41
56.51
58.57
64.52
69.83
69.83
71.15
59.88
62.49
61.75
62.51

13,043
13,225
13,161
13,425
21,466
21,538
21,527
22,276
18,258
19,521
19,700
19,930
22,052
23,011
22,311
22,944

Acknowledgements
The corresponding author wishes to acknowledge the postdoctoral fellowship provided by the following funding agency from
Brazil: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientco e Tec
gico (CNPq) (Grant number: 500177/2014-7).
nolo
References
[1] R. Vennell, S.W. Funke, S. Draper, C. Stevens, T. Divett, Designing large arrays
of tidal turbines: a synthesis and review, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 41 (2015)
454e472, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.022.
[2] I.G. Bryden, S.J. Couch, How much energy can be extracted from moving water
with a free surface: a question of importance in the eld of tidal current
energy? Renew. Energy 32 (2007) 1961e1966, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2006.11.006.
[3] C. Garrett, P. Cummins, Limits to tidal current power, Renew. Energy 33
(2008) 2485e2490, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.02.009.
[4] R. Vennell, Tuning turbines in a tidal channel, J. Fluid Mech. 663 (2010)
253e67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022112010003502.
[5] R. Vennell, Tuning tidal turbines in-concert to maximise farm efciency,
J.
Fluid
Mech.
671
(2011)
587e604,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0022112010006191.
[6] R. Vennell, Realizing the potential of tidal currents and the efciency of turbine farms in a channel, Renew. Energy 47 (2012) 95e102, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2012.03.036.
[7] S.H. Lee, S.H. Lee, K. Jang, J. Lee, N. Hur, A numerical study for the optimal
arrangement of ocean current turbine generators in the ocean current power

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]

[16]
[17]

parks, Curr. Appl. Phys. 10 (2010) S137eS141, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.cap.2009.11.018.
T.A. Divett, Optimising Design of Large Tidal Energy Arrays in Channels:
Layout and Turbine Tuning for Maximum Power Capture Using Large Eddy
Simulations with Adaptive Mesh, PhD Thesis, University of Otago, 2014.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/4995.
R. Malki, I. Masters, A.J. Williams, T.N. Croft, Planning tidal stream turbine
array layouts using a coupled blade element ecomputational uid dynamics
model, Renew. Energy 63 (2014) 46e54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2013.08.039.
S.W. Funke, P.E. Farrell, M.D. Piggott, Tidal turbine array optimisation using
the adjoint approach, Renew. Energy 63 (2014) 658e673, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2013.09.031.
E. Topal, S. Ramazan, A new MIP model for mine equipment scheduling by
minimizing maintenance cost, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207 (2010) 1065e1071, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.05.037.
derviren, A combined approach for equipment selection: FB. Yilmaz, M. Dag
PROMETHEE method and zero-one goal programming, Expert Syst. Appl. 38
(2011) 11641e11650, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.043.
~ a, R.Y. Qassim, P.C.C. Rosman, A metamodel simulation based
E.G. Gorben
optimisation approach for the tidal turbine location problem, Aquat. Sci. Tech.
3 (1) (2015) 33e58, http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ast.v3i1.6544.
R. Vennell, The energetics of large tidal turbine arrays, Renew. Energy 48
(2012) 210e219, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.04.018.
R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology: Process and
Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1995.
M.D. Buhmann, Radial Basis Functions: Theory and Implementations, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
N. Cresssie, Spatial prediction and ordinary kriging, Math. Geol. 20 (4) (1988)
405e421, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00892986.


lez-Gorben
~ a et al. / Renewable Energy 93 (2016) 45e57
E. Gonza
[18] K.T. Fang, R. Li, Sudjianto, A Design and Modelling for Computer Experiments,
Chapman and Hall CRC Press, 2005.
[19] R.R. Barton, Metamodels for simulation input-output relations, Proc. 24th
Winter Simul. Conf. (1992) 289e299. Article number: DEP LW1174.
[20] G.G. Wang, S. Shan, Review of metamodelling techniques in support of engineering design optimization, J. Mech. Des. 129 (4) (2006) 370e380, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2429697.
[21] J. Sacks, W.J. Welch, T.J. Mitchell, H.P. Wynn, Design and analysis of computer
experiments, Stat. Sci. 4 (1989) 409e435.
[22] T.J. Santner, B.J. Williams, W.I. Notz, The Design and Analysis of Computer
Experiments, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.
[23] D. Bursztyn, D.M. Steinberg, Comparison of designs for computer experiments, J. Stat. Plan. Inference 136 (2006) 1103e1119, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jspi.2004.08.007.
[24] M.D. McKay, R.J. Beckman, W.J. Conover, A comparison of three methods for
selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer
code, Technometrics 21 (1979) 239e245, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1268522.
[25] F.A.C. Viana, G. Venter, V. Balabanov, An algorithm for fast generation of
optimal Latin hypercube designs, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 82 (2010) 135e156.
[26] M. Johnson, L. Moore, D. Ylvisaker, Minimax and maximin distance design,
J. Stat. Plan. Inference 26 (1990) 131e148, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/03783758(90)90122-B.
[27] J.L. Loeppky, J. Sacks, W.J. Welch, Choosing the sample size of a computer
experiment: a practical guide, Technometrics 51 (4) (2009) 366e376, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1198/TECH.2009.08040.
[28] K. Palmer, M. Realff, Metamodelling approach to optimization of steady-state
owsheet simulations: model generation, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 80 (7) (2002)
760e772, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/10.1205/026387602320776830.
[29] ANSYS Inc, ANSYS FLUENT User's Guide. Release 14.5, USA, 2012.
[30] X. Sun, Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Tidal Current Energy
Extraction, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK, 2008, http://hdl.handle.
net/1842/2756.
[31] L. Bai, R.G. Spencer, G. Dudziak, Investigation of the inuence of array
arrangement and pacing on tidal energy converter (tec) performance using a
3-dimensional cfd model, Proc. 8th Eur. Wave Tidal Energy Conf. Upps. Swed.
(2009) 654e660.
[32] S.R. Turnock, A.B. Phillips, J. Banks, R. Nicholls-Lee, Modelling tidal current
turbine wakes using a coupled RANS-BEMT approach as a tool for analysing
power capture of arrays of turbines, Ocean Eng. 38 (2011) 1300e1307, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.05.018.
[33] A. Betz, Das maximum der theoretisch moglichen Ausnutzung des Windes
durch Windmotoren, Z. fr Das. gesamte Turbinenwes. 26 (1920) 307e309.
[34] G.T. Houlsby, S. Draper, M. Oldeld, Application of Linear Momentum Actuator
Disc Theory to Open Channel Flow, Tech rep no 2296-08, University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK, 2008.
[35] R. Vennell, Exceeding the Betz limit with tidal turbines, Renew. Energy 55
(2013) 277e285, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.016.
~ a, Um modelo de otimiza~

tico para a geraa
~o de
[36] E.G. Gorben
ao matema

trica a partir de correntes hidrodina
^micas, PhD Thesis, COPPE/UFRJ,
energia ele
2013 (In Portuguese), http://www.oceanica.ufrj.br/intranet/teses/2013_
Doutorando_Eduardo_Gonzalez_Gorbena_Eisenmann.pdf.
~ o na
~o linear para simu[37] M.I. Santos, Constru~
ao de metamodelos de regressa

cnica de Lisla~
ao de acontecimentos discretos, PhD Thesis, Universidade Te
boa, 2002 (In-portugues).
[38] E.P. Box, N.R. Draper, Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces, Wiley,
NewYork, 1987.
[39] A.I.J. Forrester, A.J. Keane, Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization,
Prog.
Aerosp.
Sci.
45
(2009)
50e79,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.paerosci.2008.11.001.
[40] B.J.C. Baxter, The Interpolation Theory of Radial Basis Functions, PhD Thesis,
Trinity College Cambridge University, 1992.

57

[41] G.B. Wright, The Interpolation Theory of Radial Basis Functions, PhD Thesis,
University of Colorado, 2003.
[42] N.V. Queipo, R.T. Haftka, W. Shyy, T. Goel, R. Vaidyanathan, P. Kevin Tucker,
Surrogate-based analysis and optimization, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 41 (1) (2005)
1e28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2005.02.001.
[43] T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning,
second ed., Springer, New York, 2009.
[44] R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, C.M. Anderson-Cook, Response Surface Methodology Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, third
ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2009.
[45] A. Forrester, A. Sobester, A. Keane, Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: a Practical Guide, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[46] Y. Li, B.J. Lence, S.M. Calisal, An integrated model for estimating energy cost of
a tidal current turbine farm, Energy Convers. Manag. 52 (2011) 1677e1687,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.10.031.
[47] IEA, Energy prices and taxes: quarterly statistic, Int. Energy Agency 4 (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/16096835.
[48] IRENA, Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series, Int. Renew. Energy Agency (2012) 1.
[49] Maine DEP, Information sheet: regulation of tidal and wave energy projects,
Dep. Environ. Prot. (2010). DEP LW1174. Available online in: http://www.
maine.gov/dep/water/dams-hydro/is_tidal_wave_reg.html.
[50] S. MacDougall, Financial evaluation and cost of energy, in: S. MacDougall,
J. Colton (Eds.), Community and Business Toolkit for Tidal Energy Development, Acadia Tidal Energy Institute, 2012, pp. 131e145. Available online in:
http://tidalenergy.acadiau.ca/tl_les/sites/tidalenergy/resources/Documents/
Toolkit/Module_7Sweb.pdf.
[51] G. Allan, M. Gilmartin, P. McGregor, K. Swales, Levelised costs of wave and
tidal energy in the UK: cost competitiveness and the importance of banded
renewables obligation certicates, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 23e39, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.029.
[52] C.M. Johnstone, D. Pratt, J.A. Clarke, A.D. Grant, A techno-economic analysis of
tidal energy technology, Renew. Energy 49 (2013) 101e106, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.054.
[53] Y. Li, L. Willman, Feasibility analysis of offshore renewables penetrating local
energy systems in remote oceanic areas e a case study of emissions from an
electricity system with tidal power in Southern Alaska, Appl. Energy 117
(2014) 42e53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.032.
[54] P. Venkataraman, Applied Optimization with Matlab Programming, John
Wiley & Sons, 2001.
[55] S.M.F. Rodrigues, P. Bauer, J. Pierik, Modular approach for the optimal wind
turbine micro siting problem through CMA-ES algorithm, in: Proceedings of
the 15th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary
computation, ACM, 2013, pp. 1561e1568.
[56] J. Zhang, S. Chowdhury, A. Messac, L. Castillo, A response surface-based cost
model for wind farm design, Energy Policy 42 (2012) 538e550, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.021.
[57] J. Zhang, S. Chowdhury, A. Messac, Uncertainty quantication in surrogate
models based on pattern classication of cross-validation errors, in: Proceedings of the 14th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization
Conference, Indianapolis, USA, 2012.
[58] A. Mehmani, W. Tong, S. Chowdhury, A. Messac, Surrogate-based particle
swarm optimization for large-scale wind farm layout Design, in: Proceedings
of the 11th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
Sydney, Australia, 2015.
[59] A. Dean, M. Morris, J. Stufken, D. Bingham, Handbook of Design and Analysis
of Experiments, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2015.
[60] B.G. Husslage, G. Rennen, E.R. van Dam, D. den Hertog, Space-lling Latin
hypercube designs for computer experiments, Optim. Eng. 12 (4) (2011)
611e630, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11081-010-9129-8.