Tesis - Juan Carlos Moreno

INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL
CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN COMPUTACIÓN
Laboratorio de Sistemas Inteligentes para la Automatización
Multi-objective optimization of a vertical axis wind turbine

rotor for self-supply applying metaheuristics
TESIS
QUE PARA OBTENER EL GRADO DE:
MAESTRÍA EN CIENCIAS EN INGENIERÍA DE

CÓMPUTO
P R E S E N T A:
Juan Carlos Moreno Torres
Directores de tesis:
Dr. Marco Antonio Moreno Armedáriz
Dr. Carlos Alberto Cruz Villar
México, CDMX Febrero 2019

Abstract
In this thesis a modeling methodology based on machine learning is presented for interpolating the Cut-in speed
and Tip Speed Ratio of a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Savonius rotor based on its design parameters. The proposed
models are incorporated within a multi-objective optimization process to obtain a non-dominated rotor with a
18.28% improvement in Cut-in Speed and a 2.96% less than the rotor with the highest Tip Speed Ratio in the dataset.
This methodology avoids 300000 functions evaluations, that otherwise would have to be physically performed due
to the non-existing analytical or numerical models to describe Cut-in speed in terms of design parameters. The use
of Cut-in speed as a metric of performance in an optimization problem for VAWT rotors is introduced for the first
time, as well as its interaction with the Tip Speed Ratio.
ii
Contents
Abstract i
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1 Main objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.2 Particular objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Theoretical Framework 9
2.1 Wind Turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 Savonius Profile Rotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Design of experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.1 Central Composite Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 Machine learning algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1 Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1.1 Calinski-Harabaz Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1.2 Agglomerative clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.2 Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.2.1 Regression Support Vector Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.2.2 Random Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.2.3 Bayesian Ridge Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
iii
2.5 Multi-objective optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.1 Generalized Differential Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 Literature review 23
3.1 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2 Physical tests in controlled environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Surrogated models based on machine learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 Methodology 27
4.1 Test bench - A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2 Selection of Savonius profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Parameter definition - B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4 Design of experiments - C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.5 Phenomenological modeling - D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.6 Multi-objective optimization - E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5 Conclusions 49
5.1 Recommendations for future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Bibliography 49
6 Appendix 57
6.1 Contraction section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
iv
List of Tables
2.1 Overview of the main DOE for physical evaluations [1]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1 Rotation speed measurement comparison between Hall-effect sensor and artificial vision. . . . . . . . 32
4.2 Capacity to self start rotation by 2 and 3 bladed, elliptical and three point profile rotors. . . . . . . 34
4.3 Performance metrics T SR and cut-in speed for 2 and 3 bladed, elliptical and three point profile rotors. 34
4.4 Proposed upper and lower limits for the design parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.5 CCDI results for the feasible design space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.6 Performance of every rotor manufactured in accordance with the CCDI methodology. . . . . . . . . . 40
4.7 Validation set randomly selected, including performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.8 Performance of the phenomenological models for the validation set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.9 Performance of the phenomenological models for the full set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.10 Performance of the 3D rotors designed from the Pareto front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
v
vi
List of Figures
1.1 Flow chart of the general procedure proposed for the optimization of VAWT rotors for TSR and
cut-in speed based on design parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (left) Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (right) [2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Lift and Drag forces in a aerofoil profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Different Savonius rotor configurations [2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Different Darrieus rotor configurations [2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Example of a hybrid rotor configuration [2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Design parameters of a Savonius rotor [3]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Sectional cut of an ellipse (left) Elliptical blade profile Savonius (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.8 Graphical representation for the three CCD configurations on a 3-factor unrestricted design space. . 16
4.1 Flow chart of the methodology applied to improve a VAWT rotor performance applying machine
learning models and multi-objective optimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Test bench for 3D printed Savonius rotors, left view (left) front view (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3 TunnelSim - Open Return open software application window example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4 Instrumented mounting pole, a rotor to the right with magnets attached. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.5 Assembly of attachable Neodymium magnets to a rotor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.6 Two and three bladed, elliptical and three point profile rotors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.7 Rotor in a 0◦ position (right), rotor in a 90◦ position (left). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.8 Parameters definition for the proposed elliptical Savonius VAWT rotor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.9 CAD example of a VAWT Savonius rotor with the design restrictions and features proposed. . . . . 37
4.10 Manufactured rotors for the application of the CCDI methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
vii
4.11 Pareto front of the RSVM model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.12 Pareto front of the BRR model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.13 Pareto front of the RFR model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.14 Pareto front comparison for RSVM and BRR models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.15 Calinski Harabasz score for WAC of the RSVM Pareto front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.16 PCA of the proposed clusters and their most representative elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.17 Comparison between the medoids predicted and measured performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.18 Medoid rotors selected from the Pareto front. From left to right are Purple, Red, Light Green (Color
scheme from figure 4.17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1 Contraction section specification measures (in millimeters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
viii
LIST OF FIGURES 1
2 LIST OF FIGURES
Nomenclature
ω Angular Velocity
ρ Air Density
A Area of a Rotor
BRR Bayesian Ridge Regression
CP Power Coefficient
CT Torque Coefficient
CCD Central Composite Design
CCDI Central Composite Design Inscribed
CF D Computational Fluid Dynamics
DOE Design of Experiment
F Mechanical Load
GDE Generalized Differential Evolution
HAW T Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine
M OO Multi-Objective Optimization
M SE Mean Squared Error
N SGA − II Non-Dominated Sorted Genetic Algorithm-II
P Power
P CA Principal Component Analysis
3
4 LIST OF FIGURES
R Radius of the Rotor
R2 Coefficient of Determination
rp Radius of the Rotor Shaft
RF R Random Forest Regression
RSV M Regression Support Vector Machine
T Torque
T SR Tip Speed Ratio
V Wind Speed
V AW T Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
W AC Ward Agglomerative Clustering

Chapter 1
Introduction
Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (abbreviated as VAWT) under particular circumstances present advantages over their
horizontal counterpart (referred to as HAWT), being suitable for environments with constant changes in wind
direction, and in conditions with a limited space for installation. Due to their orientation, they also offer benefits
for being quieter, requiring less preventive maintenance and allowing easy manipulation on electronic and electric
components of the device, which are always kept at ground level. Its main disadvantage lies in the escalation of
systems to achieve the same efficiency as a horizontal wind generator. For the last century significant improvements
have been achieved in the performance of HAWTs by the implementation of aerodynamic blade profiles. Thanks to
these enhancements HAWTs have dominated the market and have become the trademark of industrial wind energy.
In this way the application niche of the VAWT has been defined within the self-supply in cities for distributed energy
generation, an energy source for zones with difficult access to the electric grid, and turbulent wind areas [4][5][6].
Current methodologies applied to improve VAWTs performance fail short in representing certain behaviours of the
device aerodynamics, such as the wind speed at which the turbine starts rotation (named cut-in speed), and its
main interaction with the rest of the performance metrics, such as the ratio of rotation of a rotor in relation with
the wind speed (know as Tip Speed Ratio or TSR). The methodology proposed in this work take on this challenges
presenting an model for Cut-in speed and generating and improved VAWT rotor that considers both of the before
mentioned metrics while requiring a reduced dataset.
1.1 Problem statement
New techniques for accurately assessing the different performance metrics of VAWTs, and ultimately optimizing
the devices, are required in order to progress their development and implementation in real-world applications. The
proposed methodologies must be effective, cost efficient and reliable.
An specific unattended segment lies in the evaluation of cut-in speed for a set of design parameters and its relation
with other performance metrics.
5
6 Chapter 1. Introduction
1.2 Proposed solution
This work proposes a methodology to model and optimize a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Rotor cut-in speed and
TSR, based in machine learning techniques, that represent the interaction of a wind with a rotor transitioning
from rest to movement, so far not described by any analytical representation, while focusing in the minimization of
physical tests to generate a valid dataset for the task.
The methodology will offer a multi-objective approach and would include a final design that improves the perfor-
mance of the original proposed rotors. Figure 1.1 exemplifies the procedure.
1.2.1 Main objective
Design and validate a rotor for a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine. The device will be optimized to maximize Tip Speed
Ratio and minimize Cut-in Speed.
1.2.2 Particular objectives
• Design and implement a test environment for Vertical Axis Wind Turbine rotors manufactured to scale.
• Development of a data-driven model to describe the Tip Speed Ratio and cut-in speed of a Vertical Axis Wind
Turbine rotor based on its design parameters.
• Perform an optimization process and evaluation of performance of the proposed rotor.
• Carry out the validation of the optimization procedure, comparing the proposed rotor performance with the
initial designs.
1.2. Proposed solution 7
Figure 1.1: Flow chart of the general procedure proposed for the optimization of VAWT rotors for TSR and cut-in
speed based on design parameters.
8 Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2
Theoretical Framework
2.1 Wind Turbine
A Wind Turbine is an energy converting device that transforms the kinetic energy of wind into electricity; its minimal
configuration integrates a rotor composed by a set of blades, a shaft or framework, and an electric generator. Early
in the 20th century this devices were implemented as energy sources in large farms and rural communities thanks
to the development of industrial generators that allowed the dissemination of this technology, having one of the
earliest records in 1888 from the Brush wind turbine in Ohio, USA [7].
The axis direction of a rotor in relation to the ground defines two different types of devices. Horizontal Axis
Wind Turbines (HAWT) place the rotor’s axis parallel to the ground, while Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWT)
maintain a perpendicular position. Figure 2.1 shows a graphical representation of the two types of wind turbines.
Figure 2.1: Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (left) Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (right) [2].
Energy transference occurs in a wind turbine from the forces generated by the interaction between wind and a rotor,
divided into the drag and lift forces. Drag forces are defined as forces parallel to airflow’s direction, while lift forces
9
10 Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework
correspond to perpendicular forces in relation to airflow [3] [8]. The magnitude of interaction from each force in a
rotor defines the performance of a turbine. Figure 2.2 presents a graphical description of the forces.
Figure 2.2: Lift and Drag forces in a aerofoil profile.
Three main performance metrics are applied to compare the performance of a wind turbine, one for the entirety
of the system known as the power coefficient, and two to asses only the performance of a rotor, named torque
coefficient and tip-speed ratio. Power coefficient (CP ) is the ratio between the power output of the generator in
a wind turbine and the wind’s theoretical available power. This metric associates the entire performance of the
device with an specific wind velocity [9].
Pturbine T · ωs
CP = = (2.1)
Pavailable 0.5 · ρ · A · V 3
Where:
T = Torque of the rotor

ωs = Angular velocity of the rotor
ρ = Air density
A = Area of the rotor
V = Wind speed
It has been analytically proven that the maximum CP for any wind turbine can not exceed 0.592, this restriction
is known has the Lanchester-Betz limit [10].
The torque coefficient (CT ) expresses the ratio for the torque generated by a rotor in regard to the theoretical
available torque in the wind.
Tturbine F · rp
CT = = (2.2)
Tavailable 0.5 · ρ · A · V 2 · R
Where:
2.2. Vertical Axis Wind Turbine 11
F = Mechanical load applied to the rotor shaft

rp = Radius of the rotor shaft
ρ = Air density
A = Area of the rotor
V = Wind speed
R = Radius of the rotor
Likewise, the tip-speed ratio (T SR) represents the relationship between the angular velocity of a rotor and the free
stream speed of the wind.
R · ωs
T SR = (2.3)
V
Where:
R = Radius of the rotor

ωs = Angular velocity of the rotor
V = Wind speed
In order to increase the CP of a wind turbine a compromise must be achieved between the ratios T SR and CT to
reach the optimum performance [3].
In addition to traditional performance metrics applied to evaluate a rotor, there is are another key factor in
describing the behaviour of a wind turbine in conditions of low-speed wind flows, know as cut-in speed, defined as
the wind speed at which a rotor starts rotation by it own [11]. Due to the complexity of modeling cut-in speed, no
analytic model has been proposed to describe such behaviour.
By comparison, drag-based wind turbines present lower CP than lift-based devices for laminar wind, however are
advantageous for their low cut-in speed and robust response in turbulent environments [9].
HAWT lift-based devices are predominant in industry, specially applied for wind farms on open fields or off-shore,
mounted on poles ranging from 100 to 160 meters. Due to their orientation parallel to the ground these devices
require additional components in order to position its blades to face wind and to protect them from extreme
conditions; such mechanisms include yaw and pitch gearboxes and motors, a clutch and a set of brakes. The
increment in complexity comes with both higher performance as well as fault reports, consisting mainly in tooth
damage from planetary gears and bearings wear [12].
2.2 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
A wind turbine with its rotor axis perpendicular to the ground is known as a VAWT. These devices always face wind,
eliminating the necessity for orienting mechanisms thus reducing complexity, present higher mechanical resistance
to extreme environments while distributing its weight only to the framework instead to a gearbox in opposition to a
HAWT device, and require less installation space than a horizontal wind turbine. Despite this advantages a VAWT
device usually performs with a lower CP for the same wind speed than its horizontal counterpart, this due to the
advances in the aerodynamic profiles performed for the HAWT [4]. Recent interest has been raised in the last two
decades for distributed networks in cities and self-supply energy converters, turning back the attention to VAWT
devices where their advantages can be exploited [4] [5].
Among VAWT rotors, drag and lift based devices present different behaviours and thus are focused to separated
applications.
Drag based devices perform due to viscous friction between wind and a rotor, are characterized by a maximum
angular speed equivalent to the velocity of free streaming wind, thus presenting a T SR under one, low cut-in speeds,
robust performance in turbulent environments and a low CP . These devices are known as Savonius rotors, consisting
in half-bucket shaped blades, in figure 2.3 a typical representation of this rotor profile is shown. Savonius rotors
are applied in cases with low speed wind flow, and turbulent environments, such as light poles, low buildings and
off-shore low structures such as oil platforms and ferris [2] [3].
Figure 2.3: Different Savonius rotor configurations [2].
Lift based rotors perform thanks to a wind velocity difference between the upper and lower sides of a blade with
aerodynamic shape, leading to a angular speed higher than the velocity of free streaming wind, resulting in a T SR
bigger than one, are designed to perform only on high speeds due to their high cut-in speed. Lift rotors are better
known as Darrieus, figure 2.4 shows different typical rotor profiles. Darrieus devices are applied in off-shore wind
farms and tall buildings without wind blockage where laminar flow is accessible [2].
2.2. Vertical Axis Wind Turbine 13
Figure 2.4: Different Darrieus rotor configurations [2].
A third classification can be identified as a hybrid, consisting a combination of both Savonius and Darrieus rotor
profiles in one device, integrating the benefits of each rotor by coupling them on different stages of rotation to the
shaft. Figure 2.5 shows different configuration of these devices.
Figure 2.5: Example of a hybrid rotor configuration [2].

2.2.1 Savonius Profile Rotor
The main design elements of a Savonius rotor are shown in figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6: Design parameters of a Savonius rotor [3].
Multiple profiles for Savonius blades have been proposed to improve performance; in [3] a compilation of fifteen
profiles are presented, each with different CP characteristics. From this compilation the elliptical profile outperforms
the rest of the proposed designs with a maximum CP = 0.33.
An elliptical blade profile is constituted by a sectional cut of an ellipse as shown in figure 2.7.
2.3. Design of experiment 15
Figure 2.7: Sectional cut of an ellipse (left) Elliptical blade profile Savonius (right).
2.3 Design of experiment
A design of experiment (DOE) is a procedure to select a set of samples in a design space, with the main of objective
to maximize the amount of information extracted from a series of tests (also called evaluations) while minimizing
the required number of samples, reducing time, cost and labor. In order to define the required number of samples
to perform, any design of experiment requires a set of design variables and a response [13].
A variable in DOE (also called factor) is a parameter or quantity to be changed on each evaluation or set of
evaluations in order to assess its influence on the response of the test. The lower and upper bound that corresponds
to each variable, as well as the restrictions that may arise from their interactions define the design space. The
number of levels in a factor is the amount of unique scalars evaluated in each variable.
A sample is defined as an specific instance of a vector X that represents all the variables in an experiment that
remains within the bounds of the design space. X is a tuple of size n, where n is the number of variables for the
experiment.
A response is a dependent quantity associated to a sample Xi , obtained by a test or evaluation. Any function that
describes the trend of a response over a design space is known as a response surface Y (X). The response Y (Xi )
can either be a scalar or a vector, representing a set of responses from different tests.
There are two main classes of DOE, for physical experiments and for computational experiments, the principal
difference based on the consideration of a random error for the physical evaluations.
Exists a variety of DOE for physical evaluations, each with a different number of proposed samples, as well as the
capacity to represent different levels on each factor in the surface response. In DOE methodologies a larger number
of samples in general means more information, so a compromise must be achieved between number of samples
and information acquired. The main methodologies are full factorial, fractional-factorial, Plackett-Burman, Box-
Behnken and central composite design [1] [13]. Table 2.3 shows a comparison of the different methods, where k is
the number of variables in the experiment, and L the number of levels.
Method No. of evaluations Suitability

Full factorial Lk Estimating interactions, response surfaces
Fractional factorial Lk−1 Estimating interaction effects
k
Central Composite Design 2 +2∗k+1 Building response surfaces
Box-Behnken From tables Building quadratic response surfaces
Plackett-Burman k + 4 − mod k4 Estimating main effects
Table 2.1: Overview of the main DOE for physical evaluations [1].
2.3.1 Central Composite Design
One of the main methodologies applied in DOE for generating response surfaces is Central Composite Design (CCD).
It consists in the exploration of the design space in each vertex of a hypervolume, in the center of each face, and in
the center of the geometry. Three different combinations of CCD configurations can be performed depending on the
placement of the samples within the design space, called Central Composite Design Circumscribed (CCDC), Central
Composite Design Inscribed (CCDI) and Central Composite Design Faced (CCDF) [13]. A graphical representation
of a 3-factor CCD is shown in figure 2.8 for its three variants.
Figure 2.8: Graphical representation for the three CCD configurations on a 3-factor unrestricted design space.
The entire set or subsets of a CCD can be implemented in order to sample a design space in either a restricted or
unrestricted region; for a unrestricted space the number of levels on each factor is fixed to 5 for CCDC and CCDI,
while for CCDF are 3 levels. In the case of a restricted spaces, the number of levels is only fixed for a subset of
factors, for the remaining variables the number of levels will vary.
2.4. Machine learning algorithms 17
2.4 Machine learning algorithms
Machine learning algorithms are divided according to the task they perform and how they approach to a solution.
In order to perform their objective require a set of input variables, and depending on their task, may or may not
need of a prior knowledge of the desired response. There are two main branches of these algorithms, supervised
and unsupervised learning.
In supervised learning the tasks consist in classification, regression and ranking, where a set of independent and
dependent variables are known. In this class of algorithms the main objective is to obtain a function that generalizes
knowledge from such information, allowing a comparison of the performance of the model. On the other hand,
unsupervised learning requires only a set of inputs, without a knowledge of the desired result, being its task to
structure data, exploiting relationships within the information. The most significant applications of such algorithms
is clustering, feature extraction and dimensionality reduction.
2.4.1 Clustering
The clustering task consists in the automatic segmentation of a set of input variables into smaller subsets based
on their characteristics, so that similar elements are assigned to the same class; the main motivation behind this
procedure is to perform data analysis, pattern recognition and storage and retrieval.
There are two types of clustering approaches, partitioning and hierarchical methods. The former consists of seg-
menting the original set into a selected number of groups defined by the user, generating boundaries between each
cluster, some examples of such algorithms are k-means, k-medoids and CLARANS [14]. While the latter requires no
supposition on the proposed number of clusters that could arise from the set of inputs, merging from the button-up
or splitting from the top-down until a single cluster is formed or each element belong to its own cluster, depending
on the approach being agglomerative or divisive. AGNES, DIANA and BIRCH are some examples of hierarchical
algorithms [14].
A clustering task is considered to be successful if the distance of all the elements within a cluster is minimal, and
the distance between clusters is maximized; distance being in this contexts the inverse of similarity. Several metrics
of performance for clustering have been developed for cases where the ground truth of the clusters are unknown,
being the most popular, Silhouette score and Calinski-Harabaz Index [15].
2.4.1.1 Calinski-Harabaz Index
The Calinski-Harabaz index (also known as Variance Ratio Criterion) is a performance metric used to describe the
ratio of dispersion of between-clusters and within-cluster; a better defined set of clusters are usually followed by a
higher score.
For a k number of clusters the metric is described as follows.
T race(Bk ) N − k
CH(k) = · (2.4)
T race(Wk ) k − 1
Where:
Pk P T
Wk = q−1 x∈Cq (x − cq ) (x − cq ) → Within-cluster dispersion matrix.
P T
Bk = q nq (cq − c) (cq − c) → Between-cluster dispersion matrix.
N → Number of elements in the data
Cq → Set of points in cluster q
cq → Center of cluster q
c → Center of all clusters
nq → Number of elements in the cluster q
2.4.1.2 Agglomerative clustering
Agglomerative clustering is a type of hierarchical clustering which starts by assigning to each element in the input
data its own cluster, then on each iteration a pair of clusters are merged together, until all elements belong to a
single cluster. Although the operations to join two clusters is irreversible, a tree graph representing the operation
is generated, called a dendrogram, where a longer branch symbolizes a higher distance between clusters.
A wide range of agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithms have been proposed, and can be conveniently
separated into two groups. The first group is based solely on dendograms, such as the case of the single, complete,
weighted, and unweighted average linkage methods. The second group allows the cluster centers to be specified
(as an average or a weighted average of the member vectors of the cluster). These methods include the centroid,
median, and minimum variance methods [14].
2.4.2 Regression
The regression task consists in generating a function that describes the trend Y of a set of input data X, therefore
obtaining a continuous description f (X) = Y for the discrete trend presented by the input. The principal applica-
tions for a regression are the formulations of models to perform prediction, interpolation and component analysis
[16].
Two main branches of regression are identified, parametric and non-parametric. The parametric regression is an
analytic description of physical or abstract interactions that represent the relationship of the independent and
dependent variables, this methodology offers a clear interpretation of the influence of each parameter over a certain
response, therefore offering the capacity of prediction and hypothesis tests. The main deficiency of these models
are the increasing complexity for mathematical description as the number of independent variables increases. Non-
parametric regression relies on data for describing the relationship between dependent and independent variables;
is influenced by the field of pattern recognition, therefore applying most of its techniques. Despite representing a
black box for the interactions and only having a mathematical support to perform interpolation, non-parametric
regression offers the capacity to represent complex interactions in situations where a parametric method is not, such
is the case of fluid mechanics [17].
2.4.2.1 Regression Support Vector Machine
In [18] a non-parametric regression methodology was introduced in which the goal is to find a function f (X) that
has at most ε deviation from the original target Y = [y1 · · · yi ], while at the same time is as flat as possible for
2.4. Machine learning algorithms 19
a given X = [x1 · · · xi ]. Based on the original classification algorithm Support Vector Machine (SVM) [19], in
which a convex optimization is performed in order to obtain the optimum decision boundary of a given non-linear
separable set. The implementation of kernel transformations to higher dimensions in order to generate a separable
set, therefore simplifying the task, is a key element in SVM. A similar approach is followed in the regression version,
by mapping the original input into a linear representation in higher dimensions, to afterwards return the function
into its original form. The formal statement of the problem is shown in equation 2.5.
Pi=1
minimize1 2
2 w + C l (ξi + ξi∗ )

yi − hw, xi i − b ≤ ε + ξi

(2.5)
subject to hw, xi i + b − yi ≤ ε + ξi∗

ξi , ξi∗ ≥0

where:
w → Weight of the linear function f (x) = hw, xi + b.

C → Trade-off flatness and deviation larger that ε.
ξ → Slack variable for the lower bound
ξ ∗ → Slack variable for the upper bound
ε → Deviation from the linear function and the expected response of the regressor i
xi → Input element i
yi → Expected response for the element i
The inclusion of the deviation and slack variables are a main factor to include into the regression, that otherwise
would not converge due to the complexity of certain functions that can not be fully converted into a lineal repre-
sentation by generic kernels. The most popular kernels for Regression Support Vector Machine are the polynomial,
radial basis function and sigmoid [20].
2.4.2.2 Random Forest
A random forest is a regression technique that combines the performance of multiple decision trees to perform its
task; the average of the result of each tree is combined to generate its output f (x), as shown in 2.6.
A decision tree can be defined as a undirected graph which partitions the input data in a greedy manner bases on
the probability of occurrence of its attributes in order to identify rules and generate classes.
K
1 X
f (x) = T (x) (2.6)
K
k=1
where:
K → Number of decision trees.

T (x) → Evaluation of a decision tree in x.
In order to reduce correlation of the multiple decision trees generated, random forest increases diversity by sub-
sampling the original input set, therefore creating each tree under a different set of samples. By increasing the
number of decision trees to generate, the error converges, eliminating the possibility of overfitting [21].
2.4.2.3 Bayesian Ridge Regression
Bayesian Ridge Regression is a regression methodology based in the appliance of a normal distribution characterized
by the mean and variance calculated from the ridge regression coefficients.
The ridge regression is a linear regressor with a penalty on the size of the weight coefficients, producing a more
robust response to collinearity. The regression is stated as shown in equation 2.7
2 2
minimize kXW − yk + α kwk (2.7)
where:
α → Penalty coefficient
W → Weight matrix.
X → Input matrix.
y → Known value y(x).
The resultant W from the ridge regression is then applied to generate a normal distribution where:
f (y | X, W, α) = N (XW, α)
This relationship can be described as the Bayesian theorem:
p(y | W )p(W )
p(W | y) =
p(y)
Where p(W ) represents the prior knowledge on W, and p(w | y) the uncertainty in w after the observation of y [22].
2.5 Multi-objective optimization
A multi-objective optimization is a procedure applied when two or more functions that are in conflict with each
other are desired to be improved. In this context two functions are considered in conflict if the improvement of one
means the detriment of the other [23].
There are two approaches to perform when dealing with a multi-objective optimization, the naive and the Pareto
front. In the case of the naive approach a single objective function is formulated from the weighted sum of all
the original functions that constitute the problem, thus reducing the problem into a mono-objective optimization.
Although convenient for its simplicity, this approach requires the user to generate a hierarchy for each objective,
2.5. Multi-objective optimization 21
therefore inducing a biased interpretation of the solution in cases where no preference between objectives is identified.
The second approach consists on the introduction of a Pareto front into the optimization process in order to generate
a set of solutions where the ”best” trade-off between objectives are included. The concept of ”best” for a solution in
a Pareto front is considered when given two solution, A and B, one is at least as good as the other in all objectives
and superior in at least one. If A performs just as good as B in all objectives and excels in at least one, it can be
considered that the solution A is better than B, to this relationship it is said that A dominates B. The Pareto front
resultant from a multi-objective optimization delivers a set of non-dominated elements that represent the maximum
possible trade-off for a given set of objectives [23].
Each multi-objective optimization process must consist of two or more objective functions, a set of equality and
inequality restrictions, and a set of bounds for the design space to explore. The formal definition of a multi-objective
optimization is stated as follows.
 
x1
maximizes/minimizes f1 (X)
x2 
 
..
To find: X =  .  which
 
.
..
maximizes/minimizes fj (X)
xi
Subject to the constrains:
gh (X) ≥ 0 h = 1, · · · , H
kp (X) = 0 p = 1, · · · , P
Several approaches in multi-objective optimization have been developed, among which the most popular are Non-
dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) [24], Generalized Differential Evolution (GDE) [25] and Multi-
objective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO) [26].
2.5.1 Generalized Differential Evolution
The multi-objective generalized differential evolution (GDE) is a type of Evolutionary Algorithm that offers the
capacity to deal with multiple objectives and constrains, while offering a set of distributed responses over the Pareto
front. Evolutionary algorithms have the capacity to perform optimization in complex mathematical situations, such
as in discontinuous, non-convex, multi-modal and non-differentiable functions. GDE inherits this capabilities while
offering computational efficiency, in comparison with NSGA-II [25]. The pseudo-code shown in algorithm 2.5.1
describes the procedure.
Algorithm 1 Generalized Differential Evolution

Initialization Create a population with N P elements of dimension D within the bounds B and restrictions G
of the problem.
while Maximum number of generations has not been reached do
for i = 1 to N P do
Select three elements r1 , r2 , r3 different from i
Perform mutation as proposed by a DE/rand/l/bin algorithm
Perform recombination as proposed by a DE/rand/l/bin algorithm
Save for each element the proposed ui vector
if ui complies with the restriction set by B and G then
Keep ui
else
Discard ui
Repeat Selection, mutation and recombination until a valid vector is generated
Assess fitness of ui
if ui dominates xi then
xi = ui
else
xi = xi
Generate a Pareto Front only with the non-dominated elements, discard the rest
End of the procedure
Chapter 3
Literature review
The design of rotors for wind turbines through evolutionary algorithms has several references within the Horizontal
Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT), highlighting the first approach in the subject by Selig and Coverstone-Carroll in 1996
[27], and the work of Benini and Toffolo in 2002 [28] , which stands out for the comparisons of its proposals with
commercial models exemplifying the improvements obtained. A variety of different optics have been developed since
then, for example extending design constraints, increasing the complexity of wind models, making the inclusion of
multi-objective optimization and switching to more sophisticated methods of performance evaluation. Jureczko,
Pawlak and Meżyk in 2005 [29] applied finite element analysis to define the performance of the population to be
evaluated in the genetic algorithm, while Wang, Wang and Luo in 2011 [30] applied the multi-objective NSGA-II
algorithm in search to maximize the power coefficient and reduce the mass of the rotor. Since then optimization
through metaheuristics has become a reference methodology for the design of horizontal axis rotors, extending even
in current works such as Keviani and Nejat in 2017 [31] to improve the aerodynamics and acoustics of a HAWT
rotor applying multi-objective particle swarm optimization.
The review of recent literature aimed at optimizing the energy efficiency of VAWT rotors, although limited, allows
us to identify 3 main methods used for the task:
• Use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques
• Physical tests in controlled environments (wind tunnels)
• Application of surrogate models based on machine learning
Each method has advantages and limitations in the search for the improvement of performance for VAWT, due
to which, finding publications that apply more than one of these techniques is common in scientific literature. In
the next paragraphs, the characteristics of each research method is analyzed, and recent works that address these
peculiarities are mentioned.
23
24 Chapter 3. Literature review
3.1 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
The simulation of the wind interaction with a VAWT rotor represents the most accessible method of analysis from
the economic point of view; it allows analyzing the behavior of any wind turbine configuration in real scale, under
different fluid conditions, without the need of having any physical environment or device outside the one where
the simulation is carried out. There is a wide variety of numerical methods applied to analyze the aerodynamic
performance of VAWT rotors. One of the most widely used is the Blade Element Momentum Theory applied in
article by Bedon, et al. [32] in 2013, Bianchini, et al. [33] in 2015, Tahani, et al. [34] in 2016 and Nguyen, et al.
[35] in 2017, which in combination with genetic optimizers allows to obtain NACA profiles (Name acquired by the
profiles with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics coding) for Darrieus rotors with improvements in
annual power generated or in the tangential force coefficient. This method has been used as the main performance
evaluator for VAWT thanks to its ability to simulate full sized devices in a relatively low computational cost and
reliability; However, in order to perform the calculation, it is necessary to assume a constant laminar flow, as well
as independence between each element of the rotor blades, situations that if not meet, affect the final estimate of
the simulation [36]. These conditions are typical in offshore applications (offshore wind farms) and in high altitude
areas, but are unlikely in other environments [9].
The method applied by high precision simulators is based on the numerical solution of the Navier-Stokes equa-
tions, called Reynolds-average Navier-Strokes (RANS), which allows the visualization of the fluid boundary layers
interacting with the rotor, as well as determine the aerodynamic factors of the rotor’s blades. These benefits are
exchanged for a higher cost of computational resources, and the limitation of not being able to predict the energy
transference when the device stars rotation; In spite of this, allow a greater understanding of the relationship main-
tained by the fluid with the whole model, which even enables its analysis in 3D, as opposed to most of the CFD
methods [36]. Simulators such as ANSYS and FLUENT use this technique. Several articles within the state of the
art apply RANS simulations, being the most recent cases those carried out by Carrigan, et al. [37] in 2012, Zamani,
et al. [38] in 2013, Milas, et al. [39] in 2015 and Bedon, et al. [40] in 2016. In all cases genetic optimizers were
used on the NACA profile parameters, seeking improvements in the annual power generated, the average torque,
and even, allows the deformation analysis of blades.
3.2 Physical tests in controlled environments
Due to the high costs associated with the use of full-scale test environments, the application of reduction factors is
the norm in the performance studies of rotors. In its majority this technique does not involve an optimization of the
characteristics of a rotor; instead it focuses on the comparison of functionality of each configuration, since it allows
extracting information from the actual interaction between the device’s blades with the factors that may affect
its performance that are usually omitted in the computational analysis (friction due to textures in the material,
fluctuation in wind speed, the effect of turbulent or transitional fluids, etc.). An example of this type of studies is
found in the work of W.C. Hsieh, et al., In 2012 [41], which considers a family of NACA profiles for Darrieus rotors,
which are subjected to different wind speeds for extracting tip speed ratios and power coefficients, at the same time
as hypotheses on the reasons for which the different performances are obtained. The wind tunnel tests are also
used for validation of numerical analysis, such as the case of Joseph Saverin et al., In 2017 [42], which applies data
from the installation of two real sized rotors to validate the simulation of wake effects at low characteristic speeds.
3.3. Surrogated models based on machine learning 25
The evaluation in simulation environments will validate and expand the conditions under which CFDs can predict
rotor behavior and reduce the need to apply physical evaluation techniques, however so far not all interactions can
be transitioned to digital simulations. One of the methods recently explored in the optimization of VAWT rotors is
the use of physical tests as a source of information to generate surrogated models. These methods will be discussed
in the next section, however they represent a point of intersection between these two research methods.
3.3 Surrogated models based on machine learning
Surrogated models allowed to significantly reduce the impact on computational resources to obtain estimates of
the performance of certain configuration of rotors. The methods for generating these models are mainly separated
into those based on data obtained from computational simulations and those based on real physical data. The first
indications of use for VAWT rotors are recorded in 2009 with the work of J. Sargolzaei, et al. [43], in which a radial-
based neural network is applied to generate a model of the power and torque coefficients from 6 Savonius rotors
of real size with different configurations of length and overlap of the leaves. Subsequently, the use of simulators
to generate surrogated models was identified in 2012 [44] and 2015 [45] in the articles by Mortazavi, et al., And
Chen, et al., respectively. In these publications, data extracted from CFDs for NACA profiles were used to train
neural networks, in order to estimate the rotors excergy and the tangential force coefficient, in the same order. The
main difference with [43] is the appliance of genetic optimizers on the surrogated models, resulting in a rotors with
better performance, without the need to use fluid simulators as performance evaluators. The use of CFD to generate
surrogated models implies a low monetary cost and allows to reduce the computational load to perform optimization
by heuristic methods; however, it implies inheriting the limitations that computational fluid simulations have. The
physical interactions that are not considered when generating the data are transmitted to the surrogated model,
directly affecting the optimization result.
The research presented by Chong, et al. [46], and Biswas, et al. [47], in 2015, expand the work done in [43]; Data
obtained from wind tunnels on scaled VAWT rotors is applied to train multi-layer neural networks (ANFIS and
Perceptron, respectively) that estimate the performance of a generator based on its design characteristics. The
models were subsequently used successfully to perform interpolation, thus estimating the performance of rotors
outside the training set.
Surrogated models based on physical data maintain attention due to the possibility of including all physical inter-
actions that the controlled environment allows. The workflow can be extended to perform optimization with these
model; the process is to conduct performance tests of a set of VAWT rotors inside a wind tunnel (real size or scale),
usually recording power coefficients, speed of rotation or average power generated, to later train a model based
on said data that can be submitted to an optimizer, in order to improve the design features of the rotors without
requiring more physical evidence until the result of the optimization has been obtained, reducing the economic and
time expenses. An example of the performance improvement of a VAWT rotor by applying a surrogated model
trained with real physical data corresponds to the work of Preen et al. in 2015 [48]. The publication describes the
construction of miniature 3D printed VAWT Savonious rotors, the training of a multilayer Perceptron network as a
surrogate model, and the use of an evolutionary algorithm to explore the model in search for the configuration with
the highest rotation speed. In the reported results an improvement in the performance is achieved, nevertheless
due to the design space proposed by the author, the profiles of the final rotors differ to a great extent with those
obtained in other publications.
26 Chapter 3. Literature review
Chapter 4
Methodology
This work describes the multi-objective optimization of machine learning surrogated models that represent Tip
Speed Ratio and Cut-in speed in VAWT Savonious rotors, while seeking to minimize the number of physical tests
performed; figure 4.1 details the methodology applied to achieve such objective.
The methodology here proposed intersects in procedure with two main contributions reported in [48] and [49], to
which the principal differences with this work will be explained.
In [48] miniature 3D printed VAWT Savonious rotors are manufactured to evaluate their angular velocity, while a
neural network is trained to perform as a surrogated model, defining the input as a pixel-based representation of
the design parameters; this work explores upon the combination of physical tests and machine learning to perform
optimization on a VAWT performance. In relation to this paper several additions and modifications were included,
starting by the definition of the design parameters, this work deals with the reduction of candidate designs to proven
configurations from previous works, mostly the one described in [49], therefore allowing fewer iterations to obtain
an improvement. Also the inclusion of multi-objective optimization is included, considering that the development of
VAWT devices with CFD usually considers more than one objective. Lastly the introduction of the cut-in speed as
a performance metric is included in the optimization for the first time, taking advantage of the unique information
provided by physical tests.
27
28 Chapter 4. Methodology
A)
B)
C)
D) E)
Figure 4.1: Flow chart of the methodology applied to improve a VAWT rotor performance applying machine learning
models and multi-objective optimization.
4.1. Test bench - A) 29
4.1 Test bench - A)
An automatic test bench was developed to assess the performance of T SR and cut-in speed of 3D printed Savonius
rotors. The environment covers wind speeds from 0 to 6.9 m/s with an average resolution of 0.2 m/s, a test area of
900 cm2 , and includes an instrumented mounting pole for the rotors positioning; figure 4.2 shows the test bench.
The system can be describe as four main elements:
• Axial Fan
• Contraction section
• Test section
• Control and recording system
Figure 4.2: Test bench for 3D printed Savonius rotors, left view (left) front view (right).
The axial fan is a 20 inches, 3-blade, 190 Watts induction mono-phase AC motor, with 5586 CFM air flow mounted
inside of the contraction section. The contraction section consist of a 3 mm plywood structure of 64x64 cm for
in-take and 30x30 cm for out-take. This section was designed in concordance with the guidelines from the NASA
Glenn Research Center open software TunnelSim - Open Return [50], for construction of wind tunnels. The proposed
dimensions avoid wind compression or boundary layer separation in the test section. A image of the application
window is shown in figure 4.3. In appendix A the full specification of the contraction section is shown.
Figure 4.3: TunnelSim - Open Return open software application window example.
The test section is integrated by an anemometer, a mounting pole instrumented to measure the angular speed a
rotor, and a 3 mm plywood framework. The anemometer is a commercial digital hand-held device, with a range
from 0 to 30 m/s, resolution of 0.01 m/s and a sampling rate of 1 Hz. The mounting pole consists of a 3D
printed structure, a high precision steel-ball bearing ABEC 9, Hall sensor to register the changes in polarity of two
Neodymium magnets attached to the rotor to be evaluated, and a microprocessor to digitally record the results
of the experiment. Figure 4.4 shows the instrumented pole, while figure 4.5 shows the attachable magnets for the
registration of angular velocity.
4.1. Test bench - A) 31
Figure 4.4: Instrumented mounting pole, a rotor to the right with magnets attached.
Figure 4.5: Assembly of attachable Neodymium magnets to a rotor.
The magnets shown in figure 4.5 are faced in opposite directions to allow the registration of a complete turn by
the Hall-effect sensor. The device offers a sampling rate of 1 MHz covering rotor speeds from 1.6x10−9 RPM up to
6 million RPM. This instrument was validated by comparing the measurements obtained by the Hall-effect sensor
with an artificial vision algorithm that identified a marked section on one of the magnets for the same rotation
speed from a DC motor. Three different speeds were measured, table 4.1 shows the results.
Revolutions per minute: 5 Volts motor speed

Mean Standard deviation Variance
Camera 36.73 0.86 0.73
Hall Sensor 36.45 0.30 0.09
Camera 42.86 0.81 0.65
Hall Sensor 44.71 0.42 0.18
Camera 72 1.67 2.79
Hall Sensor 70.56 1.94 3.78
Table 4.1: Rotation speed measurement comparison between Hall-effect sensor and artificial vision.
The highest mean error corresponded to 1.85 RPM, which difference was considered admissible to perform the
experiment’s measurements.
Lastly, the control and recording system consists of an open-loop speed control for the AC fan motor, and a PC to
run the acquisition software. The test bench can be programmed to perform under scheduled wind speeds within
an average 0.2 m/s error. Two experiment protocols were implemented to asses the T SR and cut-in speed in the
test bench. The evaluation of the T SR is performed by an exposition to a constant speed of 6.5 ± 0.2 m/s for
200 seconds. On the other hand, cut-in speed is evaluated by a gradual increment of wind speed, with advances of
1 ± 0.2 m/s in intervals of 90 seconds until reaching the maximum speed available for the device.
4.2 Selection of Savonius profiles
Since a wide variety of Savonius rotors can be identified in literature, for both shape and number of blades, a
selection of desired characteristics was previously performed in order to reduce the search space for these two
characteristics.
As described in [2] the optimal number of blades for Savonius rotors is identified between two and three, while the
highest reported CP corresponds to the elliptical profile according to [3]. To select the appropriate combination of
these parameters, four rotors were designed and 3D printed for physical evaluation. Two rotors were designed with
an elliptical profile, each with two and three blades respectively; while a second set of rotors was designed with a
three point blade profile, typical of the commercial devices currently available for purchase. In figure 4.6 the 3D
printed rotors are shown.
4.2. Selection of Savonius profiles 33
Figure 4.6: Two and three bladed, elliptical and three point profile rotors.
Each rotor was tested four times per experiment protocol, under different initial rotor angles, corresponding to
0◦ , 45◦ , 90◦ and 135◦ respectively. Figure 4.7 shows an example of the different angle positions applied for the
experiments. The capacity to self-start rotation is reported in table 4.2, as for the performance metrics for each
rotor are shown in table 4.3.
Figure 4.7: Rotor in a 0◦ position (right), rotor in a 90◦ position (left).

2 Blades
Three point blade 0◦ No rotation
Three point blade 90◦ Rotation
Elliptical blade 0◦ No rotation
Elliptical blade 90◦ Rotation
3 Blades
Table 4.2: Capacity to self start rotation by 2 and 3 bladed, elliptical and three point profile rotors.
Blade profile Cut-in speed Tip Speed Ratio

2 blades
Three point blade 5.75 0.5133
Elliptical blade 5.60 0.5244
3 blades
Three point blade 6.65 0.4041
Elliptical blade 6.47 0.5584
Table 4.3: Performance metrics T SR and cut-in speed for 2 and 3 bladed, elliptical and three point profile rotors.
Self-start rotation is essential in a self-supply VAWT, therefore the 3-blade elliptical rotor is selected for its ability
to allow rotation from any initial position and for presenting the highest T SR in the set.
4.3 Parameter definition - B)
For this work five aerodynamic design parameters that directly affect the performance of a rotor are selected for
study. The parameters are described as follows:
A Inferior radius of the elliptical profile

B Cut angle of the elliptical profile
C Separation radius among blades
D Inclination angle among blades
E Torsion of the blades
4.3. Parameter definition - B) 35
Figure 4.8 shows a graphical representation of the parameters described above.
Figure 4.8: Parameters definition for the proposed elliptical Savonius VAWT rotor.
The upper and lower limits for each parameter is shown in table 4.4.
Design parameter Lower limit Upper limit Units

Inferior radius of the elliptical profile 5 25 Millimeters
Cut angle of the elliptical profile 20 75 Degrees
Separation radius among blades 1 15 Millimeters
Inclination angle among blades 43 148 Degrees
Torsion of the blades 0 60 Degrees
Table 4.4: Proposed upper and lower limits for the design parameters.
Based in these five variables a parametric function was developed to describe the feasible design space for the limits
proposed, in order to guarantee that a rotor under a certain set of parameters is physically possible and can be
manufactured.
[BladeLength, RadiusBlade] = f easible(Inf R, CutA, IncA, SeparR)

SupR = 25
x0 = 0.57 ∗ SupR
m0 = tan(CutA)
2
b0 = −m0 x0
Inf R
x2 m20 + 2
+ 2xm0 b0 + b20 − Inf R2 = 0
SupR
qy1,2 = m0 x1,2 + b0
2 2
dist1,2 = (SupR − x1,2 ) + (0 − y1,2 )
q
2 2
dist3 = (x1 − x2 ) + (y1 − y2 )
if dist1 ≥ dist2 then BladeLength = dist1
if dist2 > dist1 then BladeLength = dist2
if dist3 > BladeLength then BladeLength = dist3
θ1,2,3 = {90, 210, 330}
X11,2,3 = (SeparR) (cos(θ1,2,3 ))
Y 11,2,3 = (SeparR) (sin(θ1,2,3 ))
X21,2,3 = X11,2,3 + (BladeLength ∗ cos(θ1,2,3 + IncA))
Y 21,2,3 = Y 11,2,3 + (BladeLength ∗ sin(θ1,2,3 + IncA))
m1,2,3 = (Y 21,2,3 − Y 11,2,3 ) / (X21,2,3 − X11,2,3 )
b1,2,3 = Y 11,2,3 − (m1,2,3 X11,2,3 )
Xi1 = (b1 − b2 )/(m2 − m1 )
Xi2 = (b2 − b3 )/(m3 − m2 )
Xi3 = (b1 − b3 )/(m3 − m1 )
Y i1,2,3 = (m
1,2,3 Xi1,2,3 ) + b1,2,3
p
RadiusBlade = avg (X21,2,3 )2 + (Y 21,2,3 )2
Fulfilling the constrains:
M axRadius = 33
RadiusBlade ≤ M axRadius
25 ≤ BladeLength
Where:
BladeLength → Blade’s length

RadiusBlade → Radius generated by the blade including the inclination angles among blades and the separa-
tion radius among blades
InfR → Inferior radius of the elliptical profile
CutA → Cut angle of the elliptical profile
IncA → Inclination angle among blades
SeparR → Separation radius among blades
Aside from these restrains, every rotor has a 70 mm height and includes a 70 mm coupling base for the assembly of
4.4. Design of experiments - C) 37
Neodymium magnets for angular velocity measurements. Figure 4.9 shows an example of a CAD rotor that fulfills
the design restrictions and incorporates the features mentioned.
Figure 4.9: CAD example of a VAWT Savonius rotor with the design restrictions and features proposed.
4.4 Design of experiments - C)
Once with a feasible design space, a design of experiments methodology can be applied to sample the hypervolume
with a minimal amount of physical tests, in order to identify the influence of each design parameter in a rotor
performance.
The Central Composite Design Inscribed (CCDI) methodology [13] is applied to sample the hypervolume. Since
the feasible design space involves constrains, the number of levels per factor characteristic of CCDI can no be meet,
therefore a set of driver and driven parameters will be defined. A driver parameter will make reference to a factor
that meets the number of levels stated by CCDI, while a driven parameter has more levels per factor than it would
in an unconstrained problem.
For this case of study, the inferior radius of the elliptical profile and torsion of the blades are defined as driver
parameters, being the first selected for having the lesser impact on generating unfeasible rotors, while the latter
is an independent variable for the feasible design space; the rest are considered driven parameters. For a 5 factor
CCDI 27 samples must be performed in order to explore the totality of the hypervolume.
The result of the CCDI sampling is shown in 4.5, while figure 4.10 displays a picture all 27 rotors manufactured.
Inferior radius Cut angle Separation radius Inclination angle Torsion

10 25 4 106 45
10 25 4 134 15
10 24 11 114 15
10 24 11 136 45
10 34 4 69 15
10 34 4 121 45
10 34 11 89 45
10 34 11 128 15
20 62 4 136 15
20 62 4 144 45
20 47 11 135 45
20 47 11 143 15
20 70 4 120 45
20 70 4 138 15
20 65 11 119 15
20 65 11 138 45
6 21 8 98 30
25 68 13 146 30
15 28 8 147 30
15 75 8 95 30
15 57 2 95 30
15 47 15 122 30
15 51 8 74 30
15 51 8 148 30
15 51 8 111 0
15 51 8 111 60
15 51 8 111 30
Table 4.5: CCDI results for the feasible design space.

4.5. Phenomenological modeling - D) 39
Figure 4.10: Manufactured rotors for the application of the CCDI methodology.
4.5 Phenomenological modeling - D)
Every rotor proposed by the CCDI methodology was evaluated under the test bench for both performance metrics
experiments described in Section 4.1 test bench. The performance of each rotor is shown in table 4.6.
Inferior Cut Separation Inclination

Torsion TSR Cut-in speed
radius angle radius angle
10 25 4 106 45 0.8992857 3.96
10 25 4 134 15 0.93263034 5.17
10 24 11 114 15 0.91726018 2.77
10 24 11 136 45 0.79710299 3.13
10 34 4 69 15 0.90379691 4.13
10 34 4 121 45 0.76616715 4.67
10 34 11 89 45 0.67522385 3.27
10 34 11 128 15 0.53506322 4.13
20 62 4 136 15 1.01585167 3.03
20 62 4 144 45 1.03513654 3.23
20 47 11 135 45 0.98378784 2.43
20 47 11 143 15 1.07679812 2.57
20 70 4 120 45 1.07907341 2.7
20 70 4 138 15 0.98536555 2.87
20 65 11 119 15 0.98280827 2.43
20 65 11 138 45 0.95816591 2.87
6 21 8 98 30 0.69417447 4.9
25 68 13 146 30 0.86422378 2.67
15 28 8 147 30 1.03518402 2.87
15 75 8 95 30 0.74829166 3.53
15 57 2 95 30 1.01797204 4.17
15 47 15 122 30 0.66294004 4.07
15 51 8 74 30 0.88140438 3.07
15 51 8 148 30 0.85782144 3.57
15 51 8 111 0 0.88614593 2.77
15 51 8 111 60 0.86249879 2.7
15 51 8 111 30 0.91935554 2.8
Table 4.6: Performance of every rotor manufactured in accordance with the CCDI methodology.
Once the performance metrics of each rotor are known, three phenomenological models based on machine learning
were generated. The selected algorithms for the task were required to perform under a low number of training
elements and represent non-linear behaviours; for these reasons Regression Support Vector Machine (RSVM) [18],
Random Forest Regression (RFR) [21] and Bayesian Ridge Regression (BRR) [22] were applied. The open-source
sklearn library [51] for Python was used for the implementation of the models.
To assess the precision of each model, a validation set was randomly selected within the feasible design space,
consisting of 6 elements (20% of the size of the training set). Table 4.7 shows the proposed validation elements, as
well as their performance.
4.6. Multi-objective optimization - E) 41
Inferior Cut Separation Inclination

Torsion TSR Cut-in speed
radius angle radius angle
10 24 11 136 0 0.9035966 3.07
13 52 4 73 60 0.84839206 3.97
17 34 13 147 19 0.92375044 2.63
13 48 2 70 6 0.99633789 4.63
8 30 7 52 41 0.5574837 4.9
Table 4.7: Validation set randomly selected, including performance.
The performance of each machine learning model is shown in table 4.8. For assessing the fit of the regression task,
the coefficient of determination (R2 ) and Mean Squared Error (MSE) are reported for the validation set. A search
grid was performed to identify the best meta-parameters of each algorithm.
TSR Cut-in speed

2 2
R MSE R MSE
RSVM 0.480933323 0.023296585 0.715799702 0.978112304
RFR 0.736771703 0.016922615 0.816491999 0.367791306
BRR 0.675746431 0.012891807 0.353912373 0.56427083
Table 4.8: Performance of the phenomenological models for the validation set.
It can be observed from table 4.8 that RFR outperformed the rest of the models for both metrics; despite this
results no decision on which model to apply was yet performed due to the high MSE values.
4.6 Multi-objective optimization - E)
For this case of study the multi-objective optimization problem is stated as follows:
 
Inf R
 CutA 
 
  maximizes TSR(X)
To find: X = 
 IncA  which minimizes cut-in speed(X)

 SeparR 
 
T orsion
Subject to the constrains:
5 ≤ Inf R ≤ 25
20 ≤ CutA ≤ 75
1 ≤ IncA ≤ 15
43 ≤ SeparR ≤ 148
0 ≤ T orsion ≤ 60
RadiusBlade − 33 ≤ 0
25 − BladeLength ≤ 0
Where:
TSR(X) → Phenomenological model based on machine learning selected for TSR

cut-in speed(X) → Phenomenological model based on machine learning selected for cut-in speed
InfR → Inferior radius of the elliptical profile
CutA → Cut angle of the elliptical profile
IncA → Inclination angle among blades
SeparR → Separation radius among blades
[BladeLength, RadiusBlade] = f easible(Inf R, CutA, IncA, SeparR) described in Section 4.3 Parameter def-
inition
M axRadius = 33
BladeLength → Blade’s length
RadiusBlade → Radius generated by the blade including the inclination angles among blades and the separa-
tion radius among blades
The algorithm Generalized Differential Evolution (GDE) is selected for performing the optimization task. This
algorithm was selected for the benefits of requiring fewer function evaluations and presenting higher diversity
metrics, in comparison with NSGA-II according to [25]. The open-source optimization library Platypus [52] for
Python was used for the implementation of the algorithm.
To analyze the models, the resultant Pareto front from each machine learning regression model was computed in
order to select the one that better represented the behaviours of the rotors. All models were retrained with a merge
between the validation and training set to enhance performance, the resultant performance of the models for the
full set are shown in table 4.9.
TSR Cut-in speed

R2 MSE R2 MSE
RSVM 0.7756709 0.00419799 0.98683835 0.00859967
RFR 0.90377166 0.00180077 0.92463613 0.04924189
BRR 0.7009402 0.00559647 0.59153445 0.26688674
Table 4.9: Performance of the phenomenological models for the full set.
The optimization process was performed for 30000 generations with a population of 100 individuals, with parameters
CR = 0.2 and F = 0.2 for the three models. In case that a trial vector resulted as an unfeasible solution a new set
of parent vectors are selected until an acceptable vector is generated. The Pareto fronts for each model are shown
from figure 4.11 to figure 4.13.
0.5
Pareto Front
0.6 Measured
Model
0.7
0.8
-TSR
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Cut-in Speed [m/s]
Figure 4.11: Pareto front of the RSVM model.
Pareto Front
Measured
0.6 Model
0.7
0.8
-TSR
0.9
1.0
1.1
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Cut-in Speed [m/s]
Figure 4.12: Pareto front of the BRR model.

Figure 4.13: Pareto front of the RFR model.
The Pareto fronts of RSVM and BRR represent non-dominated elements, while RFR model fails to identify the
behaviour of the best elements in the data set, therefore dominated elements are generated from the optimization.
A comparison of RSVM and BRR optimization results is shown in figure 4.14.
Figure 4.14: Pareto front comparison for RSVM and BRR models.
From figure 4.14 it can be seen that the entirety of the BRR Pareto front is dominated by the RSVM. By comple-
menting this information with the fact that in table 4.9 RSVM holds the lowest average MSE, the RSVM is selected
for further analysis as the main model of TSR and Cut-in speed.
In order to maintain the rotor’s manufacture to a minimum, a methodology to sample representative elements from
the Pareto front is implemented. In [53] a set of clusters are defined such that the Pareto front is fully partitioned,
each group consisting of solutions with similar properties, and therefore reducing the solutions to investigate to the
most representative element of each cluster. A similar approach is followed, constructing a set of clusters defined by
similar design parameters proposed in the optimization process, in order to select the most representative elements
for fabrication and evaluation.
The ward agglomerative clustering (WAC) [54] algorithm was selected for the grouping task with Euclidean dis-
tance metric [55], while the appropriate number of clusters was defined by the Calinski Harabasz score [56]. This
methodology was selected due to the fact that WAC makes no assumptions on the number of observations per
cluster, nor their variance, such as the case of K-means [57]. Figure 4.15 shows the result for different number of
clusters for the proposed methodology.
350
325
300
Calinski Harabasz score
275
250
225
200
175
150
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Number of clusters
Figure 4.15: Calinski Harabasz score for WAC of the RSVM Pareto front.
As suggested in [56] the recommended number of clusters is selected from the element that disturbs the monotonic
increase of the Calinski Harabasz score; under such recommendations, three is the appropriate number of clusters
for this problem.
Afterwards, the centroids and medoids of each cluster are computed in order to obtain the most representative
elements of each set of similar designs associated to the Pareto front. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is
performed in order to visualize the result, figure 4.16 displays the most representative elements inside the generated
clusters.
Element
4 Centroid
Medoid
3
2
f2(x) Y axis
2 1 0 1 2 3 4
f1(x) X axis
Figure 4.16: PCA of the proposed clusters and their most representative elements.
Once medoids are defined, the design parameters that correspond to those points are extracted to 3D model,
manufacture, and evaluate the rotors. The resultant parameters as well as their measured performance from the
test bench are reported in table 4.10.
Inferior Cut Separation Inclination Cut-in

Torsion TSR
radius angle radius angle speed
18.43 36.66 10.65 137.94 0 1.04729237 2.1
16.13 47.42 2.59 88.75 0 1.06661072 2.9
21.53 50.59 8.99 148 60 0.95886371 2.4
Table 4.10: Performance of the 3D rotors designed from the Pareto front.
Figure 4.17 shows the measured performance of the proposed rotors from the Pareto front in relationship with their
predicted behaviour. It can be seen from the graph that one out of three elements generated a non-dominated
response. Figure 4.18 shows a picture of the manufactured rotors.
0.5
Pareto Front
0.6 Medoid
Measured Medoid
Measured Element
0.7 Measured Non-dominated
0.8
-TSR
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Cut-in Speed [m/s]
Figure 4.17: Comparison between the medoids predicted and measured performance.
Figure 4.18: Medoid rotors selected from the Pareto front. From left to right are Purple, Red, Light Green (Color
scheme from figure 4.17)
The non-dominated rotor is capable to start rotation at 2.1 m/s, and reach a TSR of 1.047, this behavior is 18.28%
less in cut-in speed than the best rotor on the initial dataset, and 2.96% far from the highest TSR in the initially
sampled rotors. This methodology required 300000 functions evaluations from the machine learning model to
perform the optimization, that otherwise, would have been needed to be physically produced or explored by other
means.
Chapter 5
Conclusions
The conclusions of this work are presented as follows:
• An automatic test bench for 3D printed VAWT rotors capable of covering from 0 to 6.9 m/s with an average
resolution of 0.2 m/s with a test area of 900 cm2 was developed, documented and delivered as a product of
this work.
• A modeling technique based on machine learning relating a set of design parameters of a VAWT rotor, with
the Cut-in speed and TSR was introduced. The model shows to have generalized the main interactions
between the fluid and the rotor while it transitions from rest to movement, with a MSE error of 0.00859967
and 0.00419799, for Cut-in speed and TSR respectably, enough to offer an improved set of design parameters,
all with a minimal number of 33 samples.
• A multi-objective optimization process was performed to generate a non-dominated configuration with an

improvement of 18.28% in Cut-in speed and 2.96% off from the highest TSR in the data set. This methodology
eliminated the requirement of 300000 physical implementations of rotors, thanks to the surrogation of the
function evaluation to the RSVM, significantly reducing the cost and time implications of the results.
• The proposed rotor outperforms in therms of Pareto optimality the initial set, validating the modeling and
optimization procedure; proving the capacity of a machine learning model to represent the relationships that
nether analytical or numerical procedures have been capable to replicate while requiring a viable number of
samples.
5.1 Recommendations for future Work

• Eliminate the Torsion design parameter to improve performance in evaluating TSR and Cut-in speed.
• Generate a second generation of rotors to improve accuracy near the Pareto front.
• Improve the test protocols to acquire a the dynamical behaviour of rotors.
• Explore the impact of deep learning in the accuracy of the models.
• Instrument the test environment to register CP .
49
Bibliography
[1] M. Cavazzuti, “Design of experiments,” in Optimization Methods, pp. 13–42, Springer, 2013.
[2] D. MacPhee and A. Beyene, “Recent advances in rotor design of vertical axis wind turbines,” Wind Engineering,
vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 647–665, 2012.
[3] N. Alom and U. K. Saha, “Four decades of research into the augmentation techniques of savonius wind turbine
rotor,” Journal of Energy Resources Technology, vol. 140, no. 5, p. 050801, 2018.
[4] H. Riegler, “Hawt versus vawt: Small vawts find a clear niche,” Refocus, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 44–46, 2003.
[5] E. Dayan, “Wind energy in buildings: Power generation from wind in the urban environment-where it is needed
most,” Refocus, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 33–38, 2006.
[6] S. Eriksson, H. Bernhoff, and M. Leijon, “Evaluation of different turbine concepts for wind power,” renewable
and sustainable energy reviews, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1419–1434, 2008.
[7] P. W. Carlin, A. S. Laxson, and E. Muljadi, “The history and state of the art of variable-speed wind turbine
technology,” Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion
Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 129–159, 2003.
[8] Y. A. Çengel, J. M. Cimbala, V. C. Olguı́n, and S. F. Skarina, Mecánica de fluidos: fundamentos y aplicaciones,
vol. 1. McGraw-Hill São Paulo, 2006.
[9] M. V. López, Ingenierı́a de la energı́a eólica, vol. 5. Marcombo, 2012.
[10] K. Bergey, “The lanchester-betz limit (energy conversion efficiency factor for windmills),” Journal of Energy,
vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 382–384, 1979.
[11] C. Eisenhut, F. Krug, C. Schram, and B. Klockl, “Wind-turbine model for system simulations near cut-in wind
speed,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 414–420, 2007.
[12] B. Lu, Y. Li, X. Wu, and Z. Yang, “A review of recent advances in wind turbine condition monitoring and fault
diagnosis,” in Power Electronics and Machines in Wind Applications, 2009. PEMWA 2009. IEEE, pp. 1–7,
IEEE, 2009.
51
[13] A. Giunta, S. Wojtkiewicz, and M. Eldred, “Overview of modern design of experiments methods for computa-
tional simulations,” in 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, p. 649, 2003.
[14] F. Murtagh and P. Contreras, “Algorithms for hierarchical clustering: an overview,” Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 86–97, 2012.
[15] J.-C. Lamirel, N. Dugué, and P. Cuxac, “New efficient clustering quality indexes,” in Neural Networks (IJCNN),
2016 International Joint Conference on, pp. 3649–3657, IEEE, 2016.
[16] F. E. Harrell, “Ordinal logistic regression,” in Regression modeling strategies, pp. 311–325, Springer, 2015.
[17] D. Wang and W. H. Liao, “Magnetorheological fluid dampers: a review of parametric modelling,” Smart
materials and structures, vol. 20, no. 2, p. 023001, 2011.
[18] H. Drucker, C. J. Burges, L. Kaufman, A. J. Smola, and V. Vapnik, “Support vector regression machines,” in
Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 155–161, 1997.
[19] C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, “Support-vector networks,” Machine learning, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 273–297, 1995.
[20] A. J. Smola and B. Schölkopf, “A tutorial on support vector regression,” Statistics and computing, vol. 14,
no. 3, pp. 199–222, 2004.
[21] V. Rodriguez-Galiano, M. Sanchez-Castillo, M. Chica-Olmo, and M. Chica-Rivas, “Machine learning predictive

models for mineral prospectivity: An evaluation of neural networks, random forest, regression trees and support
vector machines,” Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 71, pp. 804–818, 2015.
[22] N. M. Nasrabadi, “Pattern recognition and machine learning,” Journal of electronic imaging, vol. 16, no. 4,
p. 049901, 2007.
[23] S. Luke, Essentials of metaheuristics, vol. 113. Lulu Raleigh, 2009.
[24] K. Deb, S. Agrawal, A. Pratap, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for
multi-objective optimization: Nsga-ii,” in International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving From Nature,
pp. 849–858, Springer, 2000.
[25] S. Kukkonen and J. Lampinen, “Gde3: The third evolution step of generalized differential evolution,” in
Evolutionary Computation, 2005. The 2005 IEEE Congress on, vol. 1, pp. 443–450, IEEE, 2005.
[26] M. Reyes-Sierra, C. C. Coello, et al., “Multi-objective particle swarm optimizers: A survey of the state-of-the-
art,” International journal of computational intelligence research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 287–308, 2006.
[27] M. S. Selig and V. L. Coverstone-Carroll, “Application of a genetic algorithm to wind turbine design,” Journal
of Energy Resources Technology, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 22–28, 1996.
[28] E. Benini and A. Toffolo, “Optimal design of horizontal-axis wind turbines using blade-element theory and
evolutionary computation,” Journal of solar energy engineering, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 357–363, 2002.
[29] M. Jureczko, M. Pawlak, and A. Meżyk, “Optimisation of wind turbine blades,” Journal of materials processing
technology, vol. 167, no. 2-3, pp. 463–471, 2005.
[30] L. Wang, T.-g. Wang, and Y. Luo, “Improved non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (nsga)-ii in multi-
objective optimization studies of wind turbine blades,” Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, vol. 32, no. 6,
pp. 739–748, 2011.
[31] H. Kaviani and A. Nejat, “Aeroacoustic and aerodynamic optimization of a mw class hawt using mopso
algorithm,” Energy, vol. 140, pp. 1198–1215, 2017.
[32] G. Bedon, M. R. Castelli, and E. Benini, “Optimization of a darrieus vertical-axis wind turbine using blade
element–momentum theory and evolutionary algorithm,” Renewable energy, vol. 59, pp. 184–192, 2013.
[33] A. Bianchini, G. Ferrara, and L. Ferrari, “Design guidelines for h-darrieus wind turbines: Optimization of the
annual energy yield,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 89, pp. 690–707, 2015.
[34] M. Tahani, N. Babayan, S. Mehrnia, and M. Shadmehri, “A novel heuristic method for optimization of straight
blade vertical axis wind turbine,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 127, pp. 461–476, 2016.
[35] L. Nguyen and M. Metzger, “Optimization of a vertical axis wind turbine for application in an urban/suburban
area,” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 043302, 2017.
[36] M. M. A. Bhutta, N. Hayat, A. U. Farooq, Z. Ali, S. R. Jamil, and Z. Hussain, “Vertical axis wind turbine–a
review of various configurations and design techniques,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 16,
no. 4, pp. 1926–1939, 2012.
[37] T. J. Carrigan, B. H. Dennis, Z. X. Han, and B. P. Wang, “Aerodynamic shape optimization of a vertical-axis
wind turbine using differential evolution,” ISRN Renewable Energy, vol. 2012, 2012.
[38] M. Zamani, M. J. Maghrebi, and S. R. Varedi, “Starting torque improvement using j-shaped straight-bladed
darrieus vertical axis wind turbine by means of numerical simulation,” Renewable Energy, vol. 95, pp. 109–126,
2016.
[39] I. Marinić-Kragić, D. Vučina, and Z. Milas, “Numerical workflow for 3d shape optimization and synthesis of
vertical-axis wind turbines for specified operating regimes,” Renewable Energy, vol. 115, pp. 113–127, 2018.
[40] G. Bedon, S. De Betta, and E. Benini, “Performance-optimized airfoil for darrieus wind turbines,” Renewable
Energy, vol. 94, pp. 328–340, 2016.
[41] W. Hsieh, J. Miao, C. Lai, and C. Tai, “Experimental study on performance of vertical axis wind turbine with
naca 4-digital series of blades,” in Advanced Materials Research, vol. 488, pp. 1055–1061, Trans Tech Publ,
2012.
[42] J. Saverin, D. Marten, G. Pechlivanoglou, C. O. Paschereit, G. Persico, and V. Dossena, “Advanced medium-
order modelling for the prediction of the three-dimensional wake shed by a vertical axis wind turbine,” in ASME
Turbo Expo 2018: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition, pp. V009T48A012–V009T48A012,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018.
[43] J. Sargolzaei and A. Kianifar, “Modeling and simulation of wind turbine savonius rotors using artificial neural
networks for estimation of the power ratio and torque,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 17,
no. 7, pp. 1290–1298, 2009.
[44] S. M. Mortazavi, M. R. Soltani, and H. Motieyan, “A pareto optimal multi-objective optimization for a
horizontal axis wind turbine blade airfoil sections utilizing exergy analysis and neural networks,” Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 136, pp. 62–72, 2015.
[45] Y. Chen, K. Hord, R. Prater, Y. Lian, and L. Bai, “Design optimization of a vertical axis wind turbine using
a genetic algorithm and surrogate models,” in 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations
(ATIO) Conference and 14th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, p. 5434,
2012.
[46] W. Chong, M. Gwani, S. Shamshirband, W. Muzammil, C. Tan, A. Fazlizan, S. Poh, D. Petković, and K. Wong,
“Application of adaptive neuro-fuzzy methodology for performance investigation of a power-augmented vertical
axis wind turbine,” Energy, vol. 102, pp. 630–636, 2016.
[47] A. Biswas, S. Sarkar, and R. Gupta, “Application of artificial neural network for performance evaluation of
vertical axis wind turbine rotor,” International Journal of Ambient Energy, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 209–218, 2016.
[48] R. J. Preen and L. Bull, “Toward the coevolution of novel vertical-axis wind turbines,” IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 284–294, 2015.
[49] N. Alom, S. C. Kolaparthi, S. C. Gadde, and U. K. Saha, “Aerodynamic design optimization of elliptical-
bladed savonius-style wind turbine by numerical simulations,” in ASME 2016 35th International Conference
on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, pp. V006T09A009–V006T09A009, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2016.
[50] N. Aeronautics and S. Administration, “Wind tunnel downloads,” 2014.
[51] O. Source, “Scikit-learn: machine learning in python,” 2007.
[52] D. Hadka, “Platypus,” 2018.
[53] M. Cheikh, B. Jarboui, T. Loukil, and P. Siarry, “A method for selecting pareto optimal solutions in multiob-
jective optimization,” Journal of Informatics and Mathematical Sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 51–62, 2010.
[54] J. H. Ward Jr, “Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function,” Journal of the American statistical
association, vol. 58, no. 301, pp. 236–244, 1963.
[55] F. Murtagh and P. Legendre, “Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms imple-
ment ward’s criterion?,” Journal of classification, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 274–295, 2014.
[56] T. Caliński and J. Harabasz, “A dendrite method for cluster analysis,” Communications in Statistics-theory
and Methods, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 1974.
[57] A. K. Jain, M. N. Murty, and P. J. Flynn, “Data clustering: a review,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR),
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 264–323, 1999.
Chapter 6
Appendix
57
6.1 Contraction section
4 3 2 1
F F
646.00
306.00
E E
3.17 500.00
D D
C C
B B
SI NO SE INDICA LO CONTRARIO: ACABADO: REBARBAR Y
NO CAMBIE LA ESCALA REVISIÓN
LAS COTAS SE EXPRESAN EN MM ROMPER ARISTAS
ACABADO SUPERFICIAL: VIVAS
TOLERANCIAS:
LINEAL:
ANGULAR:
NOMBRE FIRMA FECHA TÍTULO:
DIBUJ.
VERIF.
APROB.
A FABR. A
CALID. MATERIAL: N.º DE DIBUJO
Tobera A4
PESO: ESCALA:1:10 HOJA 1 DE 1
4 3 2 1
Figure 6.1: Contraction section specification measures (in millimeters)

Tesis - Juan Carlos Moreno

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Tesis - Juan Carlos Moreno

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL

CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN COMPUTACIÓN

Laboratorio de Sistemas Inteligentes para la Automatización

Multi-objective optimization of a vertical axis wind turbine

QUE PARA OBTENER EL GRADO DE:

MAESTRÍA EN CIENCIAS EN INGENIERÍA DE

Juan Carlos Moreno Torres

México, CDMX Febrero 2019

1.1 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2 Proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.2.1 Main objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.2.2 Particular objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.1 Wind Turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2.1 Savonius Profile Rotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3 Design of experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.3.1 Central Composite Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.4 Machine learning algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.4.1.1 Calinski-Harabaz Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.4.1.2 Agglomerative clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4.2.1 Regression Support Vector Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4.2.2 Random Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.4.2.3 Bayesian Ridge Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.5.1 Generalized Differential Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.1 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2 Physical tests in controlled environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.3 Surrogated models based on machine learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1 Test bench - A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 Selection of Savonius profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.3 Parameter definition - B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.4 Design of experiments - C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.5 Phenomenological modeling - D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.6 Multi-objective optimization - E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.1 Recommendations for future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.1 Contraction section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

2.1 Overview of the main DOE for physical evaluations [1]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.5 CCDI results for the feasible design space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.7 Validation set randomly selected, including performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.8 Performance of the phenomenological models for the validation set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.9 Performance of the phenomenological models for the full set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.10 Performance of the 3D rotors designed from the Pareto front. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.2 Lift and Drag forces in a aerofoil profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3 Different Savonius rotor configurations [2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4 Different Darrieus rotor configurations [2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.5 Example of a hybrid rotor configuration [2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.6 Design parameters of a Savonius rotor [3]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.3 TunnelSim - Open Return open software application window example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.5 Assembly of attachable Neodymium magnets to a rotor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.7 Rotor in a 0◦ position (right), rotor in a 90◦ position (left). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.10 Manufactured rotors for the application of the CCDI methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.12 Pareto front of the BRR model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.13 Pareto front of the RFR model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.14 Pareto front comparison for RSVM and BRR models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.17 Comparison between the medoids predicted and measured performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.1 Contraction section specification measures (in millimeters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

BRR Bayesian Ridge Regression

CCD Central Composite Design

CCDI Central Composite Design Inscribed

CF D Computational Fluid Dynamics

DOE Design of Experiment

GDE Generalized Differential Evolution

HAW T Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine

M SE Mean Squared Error

N SGA − II Non-Dominated Sorted Genetic Algorithm-II