Multi-Objective Wind Farm Layout Optimization Considering Energy Generation and Noise Propagation With NSGA-II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the environmental impact of wind farms has been receiving increasing attention. As land is more extensively exploited for onshore wind farms, they are more likely to be in proximity with human dwellings, increasing the likelihood of a negative health impact. Noise generation and propagation remain an important concern for wind farm's stakeholders, as compliance with mandatory noise limits is an integral part of the permitting process. In contrast to previous work that included noise only as a design constraint, this work presents continuous-location models for layout optimization that take noise and energy as objective functions, in order to fully characterize the design and performance spaces of the wind farm layout optimization (WFLOP) problem. Based on Jensen's wake model and ISO-9613-2 noise calculations, single- and multi-objective genetic algorithms (GAs) are used to solve the optimization problem. Results from this bi-objective optimization model illustrate the trade-off between energy generation and noise production by identifying several key parts of Pareto frontiers. In particular, it was observed that different regions of a Pareto front correspond to markedly different turbine layouts. The implications of noise regulation policy—in terms of the actual noise limit—on the design of wind farms are discussed, particularly in relation to the entire spectrum of design options.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".