Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In this research, a new adaptive control strategy is formulated for the pitch control of wind turbine that
Received 17 June 2016 may suffer from reduced life owing to extreme loads and fatigue when operated under high wind speed
Received in revised form and internal structural uncertainties. Specically, we aim at making a tradeoff between the maximum
14 November 2016
energy captured and the load induced. The adaptive controller is designed to both regulate generator
Accepted 26 December 2016
speed and mitigate component loads under turbulent wind eld when blade stiffness uncertainties exist.
Available online 27 December 2016
The proposed algorithm is tested on the NREL offshore 5MW benchmark wind turbine. The control
performance is compared with those of the gain scheduled proportional integral (GSPI) control and the
Keywords:
Wind turbine
disturbance accommodating control (DAC) that are used as baselines. The results show that with the
Pitch control proposed adaptive control the blade root apwise load can be reduced at a slight expense of optimal
Load mitigation power output. Moreover, the blade load mitigation performance under uncertain blade stiffness
Adaptive control reduction is improved over the baseline controllers. The control approach developed in this research is
Turbulent wind eld general, and can be extended to mitigating loads on other components.
Uncertainties 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction changes, icing, assemblage error of the turbine, and rotor asym
metries caused by damaged in blades, etc. Intuitively, the longterm
Wind energy is commonly recognized as a major environmen productivity of a wind turbine may be higher if it is operated
tally friendly energy source that is renewable. Modern wind tur somewhat conservatively at the presence of these uncertainties.
bines are large, exible structures operating in highly turbulent and Blade pitch control adjusts the aerodynamic angle of attack.
sometimes unpredictable wind eld [1]. There are three regions in Currently, collective pitch angle control is widely utilized to adjust
wind turbine operation (Fig. 1). In Region 1 where wind speed is the generator speed in Region 3 (above ratedspeed). Typically,
very low, the brake is equipped to stop the wind turbine operation, linear system control methods can be adopted when accurate
yielding no power generation. In Region 2, from the cutin wind model can be acquired. Jonkman et al. developed the PID approach
speed to the cutout speed, the objective is to achieve the to regulate the generator speed, and a gain scheduling part was
maximum power output, i.e., to maximize the aerodynamic power added to deal with the aerodynamic sensitivity of the Cp curve to
coefcient Cp . The generator torque control is utilized to track the blade pitch angle, which yields a gain scheduled proportional in
optimal tip speed ratio in specic Cp curve which is usually ob tegral (GSPI) control [2]. Wright investigated the statespace
tained from benchmark test data. In Region 3 where wind speed is feedback control after linearizing the nonlinear model under
high, the objective is to track the rated generator speed. There selected operating points. As the model depends on the operating
generally exists a tradeoff between tracking the generator speed point selection and wind disturbance may not be directly
(i.e., power output) and maintaining the mechanical loads to tur measured, a Disturbance Accommodating Control (DAC) was
bine components (e.g., blades), due to the signicant uncertainties developed to achieve disturbance rejection and to attenuate loads
in operating conditions and system properties. Such external and by accounting for wind disturbances with additional state estima
internal uncertainties include varying wind speeds, weather tors [3]. Nevertheless, the actual performance may still be affected
by the wind estimator accuracy, and the wind speed disturbances
cannot be precisely cancelled out in highorder controllers [4]. Also
the wind disturbance gain should be redened to track the set
* Corresponding author.
point. Frost et al. employed an adaptive control for speed
Email address: jtang@engr.uconn.edu (J. Tang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.12.068
09601481/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
484 Y. Yuan, J. Tang / Renewable Energy 105 (2017) 483e494
led test data. Here elastic equation of motion can be expressed as [29],
ur R Mq; u; tq fq; q;
_ u; ud ; t 0 (8)
l (2)
v
where M is the mass matrix, f is the nonlinear forcing function
where v is the wind speed and ur is the rotor speed. From Eqs. (1) vector that includes the stiffness and damping effects, q is the
and (2) we can see that the aerodynamic coefcient depends on response vector, u is the vector of control inputs, ud is the vector of
wind speed, rotor speed and blade pitch angle. Pitch angle control wind disturbance, and t is time. In our analysis, f is calculated by
can be used to limit the aerodynamic power captured by the rotor using AeroDyn through the Blade Element Momentum (BEM)
to realize load mitigation. The aerodynamic torque applied to the Theory [28]. In this approach, aerodynamic forces and moments are
rotor can be expressed as calculated in each segment of the blade, and the distributed forces
are obtained by integration from blade root to tip. FAST then
1 pCp l; brR2 v3 numerically linearizes Eq. (8) by perturbing each variable about
Ta (3)
2 ur their respective operating points. After the Taylor series expansion,
we obtain
When we assume that the low speed shaft is rigid, we have the
equations of motion for the rotor and the generator as, respectively, Mq Cq_ Kq Fu Fd ud (9)
Jr u_ r Ta Cr ur Tls ; (4a)
where M, C, and K are, respectively, the linearized mass, damping,
and stiffness matrices, F is the control input vector and Fd is the
Jg u_ g Ths Cg ug Tem (4b) wind disturbance vector.
Here we employ the linearized model that is simplied from the
where Jr and Jg are the moment of inertia of the rotor and that of the nonlinear model of the actual wind turbine, which is obtained
generator, ug is the generator speed, Tls and Ths are the low speed when the rst apwise blade mode DOF (degreeoffreedom), the
shaft torque and high speed shaft torque, Cr and Cg are the external generator DOF, and the drivetrain torsional exibility DOF are
damping coefcient of the rotor and that of the generator, and Tem switched on. One can cast the linearized equation into the state
is the generator electromagnetic torque. space representation,
We assume an ideal gearbox (i.e., 100% efciency) with the
transmission ratio ng given as x_ Ax Bu Bd ud (10a)
Tls ug y Cx Du Dd ud
ng (5) (10b)
Ths ur
T
Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (4) yields a simplied relation where x qT ; q_ T is the state vector. The rst ve state variables
are, respectively, the generator deection, the drivetrain torsional
Jt u_ r Ta Kt ur Tg (6) deection perturbation, and the ap displacement perturbations of
three blades. The remaining ve state variables are the corre
where sponding velocities. A, B, C, and D are the state matrix, the control
input matrix, the output matrix, and the control input transmission
Jt Jr n2g Jg ; (7a) matrix. Bd and Dd are the wind disturbance input matrix and the
wind disturbance input matrix. u is the control input (i.e., per
turbed blade collective pitch angle), ud is the disturbance input (i.e.,
Kt Kr n2g Kg ; (7b) perturbed wind speed), and y is the output. The design point for
linearization is chosen to be in Region 3. An operating point with
Tg ng Tem (7c) wind speed v 15 m=s, pitch angle q 10:45 deg, and rotor speed
ur 12:1 rpm is used in the subsequent control investigations.
The governing equation (i.e., Eq. (6)) can represent dynamics in
all operating regions. It indicates that the generator speed can be
regulated by the aerodynamic torque Ta and the electromagnetic 3. Control syntheses
torque Tem . Hence, two separate SISO control loops, i.e., torque
controller and blade pitch controller, can be used. Usually in Region In this section we rst outline a GSPI controller that is one of the
2, torque controller is utilized to regulate the generator speed while baselines to illustrate the mathematical background and also the
the blade pitch angle is held constant to maintain the maximum challenge, and then present the formulation of the proposed model
aerodynamic coefcient. In aboverated region (i.e., Region 3), reference adaptive control with disturbance accommodation. For
however, pitch controller is often implemented to limit the aero these controllers, we assume the ltered generator speed mea
dynamic torque Ta to avoid extreme loads. Here we adopt the tor surement is the only input and the controllers provide the collec
que controller suggested by Jonkman et al. [2] that was designed for tive pitch command.
the same NREL 5MW benchmark wind turbine, and focus on the
blade pitch control. 3.1. Baseline gain scheduled proportional integral control and
Observing Eq. (3), one can see that there exists complex generator torque control
nonlinear relation between the pitch angle b and the aerodynamic
torque Ta . In addition, the apwise vibration of a blade caused by One baseline controller used for comparison in this research is
aerodynamic load needs to be suppressed to avoid damage. the gain scheduled proportional integral control (GSPI) originally
Therefore a more accurate dynamic model including the ap mode developed by Jonkman et al. [2]. The conventional approach to
is needed. In this research we employ the FAST code developed by controlling power output involves two independent control loops,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [29] to establish the i.e., the generator torque control and the fullspan rotor collective
mathematical model of the wind turbine. The nonlinear aero blade pitch control. The purpose of blade pitch control is to regulate
486 Y. Yuan, J. Tang / Renewable Energy 105 (2017) 483e494
the generator speed to avoid excessive structural loads at above systems. In wind turbines, nevertheless, the system parameters are
rated wind speed. The generator torque control aims at achieving usually not completely known, due to, for example, the inherent
the maximum power capture in various regions. nonlinearities of the model, unmodeled modes, manufacturing and
The form of GSPI can be written as assemblage tolerances, and external operating uncertainties. One
0 1 potential solution is to use an adaptive control approach which can
Zt deal with various uncertainties by online updating parameters to
Dq GSq@KP Du KI DuA (11) force the error between reference and plant output to approach
0 zero. Here in this research we adopt the direct model reference
adaptive control approach with a disturbance accommodation
where Dq is the small perturbation of blade pitch angle around the controller (DAC) (Fig. 2) [33]. There are two parts in this augmented
operating point, and Du is the error between measured generator controller. One is the reference model which is chosen as the DAC
speed and the rated set point value. KP and KI are rst calculated scheme. The other is the adaptive part, where the algorithms can
under the initial operating point. The gain correction factor GSq is adapt itself to the internal and external uncertainties. These two
a function of the blade pitch angle to regulate the gains under parts will be discussed as follows.
different operating conditions [2],
1
GSq (12)
1 q=qk
3.2.1. Reference model formulation with disturbance
where q is the blade pitch angle, and qk is the blade pitch angle at
accommodation
which the pitch sensitivity value is doubled from its value at the
The concept of Disturbance Accommodating Control (DAC) was
rated operating point. The pitch sensitivity refers to the sensitivity
originally proposed by Johnson [31], and Balas et al. [32] further
of aerodynamic power to the rotor collective blade pitch angle.
extended the DAC concept to largescale horizontal axis wind tur
As mentioned, another component of wind turbine control is
bines. In the adaptive control to be developed in this research, we
the generator torque control. In Region 2, the control objective is to
employ the DAC strategy to formulate the reference model. As the
reach the maximum power by tracking the optimum tip speed ratio
error between the reference and plant output approaches zero, the
(TSR) whereas the pitch angle is kept constant zero. Region 2 12 is a
wind disturbance effect is reduced and the component loads are
linear transition to capture the maximum power when the gener
mitigated. Furthermore, an optimal control inner loop is embedded
ator speed approaches the ratedspeed. According to [2], the
in the reference model in order to realize the tradeoff between the
baseline torque control can be formulated as
load mitigation and generator speed tracking.
8 Recall the linearized statespace equation of the system, Eq. (10).
> 0 Region 1
>
> In DAC, we assume that wind disturbance is the variance from the
>
>
>
< ku2 Region 2 wind speed at the operating point and has a known waveform but
t trated t1 (13) unknown amplitude. Specically, we can model it as step distur
>
> t1 u u1 Region 2 1
>
> urated u1 bance [3,4,7,8], where the amplitude of wind speed changes from
>
> 2
: trated one to another within a relatively short sampling interval. The wind
Region 3
disturbance is denoted as ud , and is characterized by the following
where u is the generator speed, k is an optimal constant, i.e., disturbance wave generator,
0:0255764 Nm=rpm2 for this benchmark wind turbine. The tran
sitional generator speed u1 is 1161.963 rpm (i.e., 99% of the rated
speed), the generator ratedspeed urated is 1173.7 rpm, the rated Wind Reference Model
generator torque trated is 43,093.55 Nm, and t1 is 43,092.38 Nm to
yield the generatorslip percentage constant of 10%.
Linearized Model
It is worth noting that GSPI is designed for generator speed
tracking in the aboverated region, which may indeed cause large
uctuation in component loads. In addition, the proportional and
integral gains are tuned without considering the possible un +
certainties in the plant. Consequently, it may not work well when LQR Plant Es mator
inherent and external uncertainties exist. +
Disturabnce Disturbance
3.2. Model reference adaptive control with disturbance Cancella on Es mator
accommodation

The life span of wind turbines is expected to be 20 years or Nonlinear Wind +
longer. In reality, wind turbines are often subjected to harsh envi Pitch Actuator
Turbine
ronment with highly turbulent wind eld. There is a large uctu
ation in aerodynamic forces and moments to the blade. Such
situation, if not handled properly, may lead to unexpected failure of
turbine components. In high wind speeds, we also want to regulate Adap ve Upda ng
the generator speed at the rated value and reduce the oscillation.
Thus an intelligent control system is desired to ensure both the
nearterm performance (constant speed) and longterm reliability
(less failure). Fig. 2. Direct model reference adaptive control approach with a disturbance accom
The model delity of the plant is essential for all control modation controller (DAC).
Y. Yuan, J. Tang / Renewable Energy 105 (2017) 483e494 487
Table 1
ey y ym (24) Wind le parameters.
G_ x Kx ey x
b Tm (26b)
G_ z Kz ey b
T
zd (26d) The design of closedloop DAC is important, because it will be
used as the reference model in the proposed adaptive control, and
where Ky , Kx , Ku , Kz can be arbitrary, positivedenite matrices. In DAC will also be used for performance comparison. As indicated in
order to guarantee the stability, we must have the following con Section 3.2, we should carefully choose the weighting matrices Q
ditions satised [5,26,34]: and R in Eq. (19) to facilitate an optimal tradeoff between speed
regulation and apwise displacement response. We may choose
1) All inputs to the reference model are bounded. In this research, different Q and R combinations and examine the closedloop poles.
the pitch angle input bound is guaranteed by the pitch angle Here the openloop poles are 1:901013:892i, 2:46423:9884i,
limits (0e90 ). The disturbance bound is also guaranteed since and 0:4524. The rst pair of poles corresponds to the drivetrain
the wind turbine is stopped to avoid excessive loads when the torsional mode, the second pair corresponds to the symmetric
wind speed exceeds the cutout value (25 m/s). rst apwise blade mode, and the last pole corresponds to the
2) The reference model (closedloop DAC) described by Eq. (18) is generator mode. When we select, for example,
stable. In this research, all the eigenvalues of closedloop system 2 3
are placed in the lefthalf splane. 105 0 0 0 0
3) The system described by Eq. (23) is Almost Strict Positive Real 6 0 0:1 0 0 0 7
6 7
(ASPR). This is satised when the transfer function R 1; Q 6
6 0 0 0:06 0 0 7 7
Cp sI Ap 1 Bp is Strictly Positive Real [5]. The linearized model 4 0 0 0 100 0 5
has been examined at different operating points to validate this 0 0 0 0 103
condition.
we can obtain the closedloop poles as2:557813:6131i,
The selection of parameters in Eqs. (25) and (26) is based on the 13:55633:1939i, 0:4180. The damping in the ap mode (i.e.,
control objective which is to regulate the generator speed accord the second pair) is increased as the corresponding poles are moved
ing to the closedloop DAC output and achieve simultaneously load from 2:46423:9884i to 13:55633:1939i. However, at the
mitigation. Since we have considered the disturbance rejection in same time, the damping in the generator mode is reduced as the
reference model by DAC approach, the gain Gz in Eq. (25) is chosen corresponding pole is moved from 0:4524 to 0:4180. Clearly, a
to be 0. Our main task is to track the generator speed and we do not tradeoff exists between the apwise mode and generator mode.
need to track the control input. Thus we can also set Gu to be 0. Alternatively, we may select
Similarly, all the elements in matrix Gx are chosen to be 0 except the 2 3
one that corresponds to the generator speed state. Therefore, in Eq. 106 0 0 0 0
6 0 102 0 0 0 7
(26), the adaptive gains Ku and Kz are 0. We can adjust Ky and Kx to 6 7
achieve the desired generator speed regulation and load mitigation R 1; Q 6
6 0 0 0:8 0 0 7 7
4 0 0 0 0:01 0 5
effect.
0 0 0 0 104
4. Results and discussions The closed loop poles now become 14:062620:3352i,
6:07252:2044i, and 2:2319, indicating both the apwise mode
In this section, case analysis results based on the GSPI, DAC, and and generator mode can be enhanced after careful selection of Q
the proposed adaptive control algorithm are compared. The simu and R. The corresponding gain matrix G is
lations on the NREL offshore 5MW benchmark wind turbine are 802:7443; 0:4439; 21:7998; 19:0430; 0:0735. This result is
carried out by connecting FAST with the respective controllers in adopted in the reference model for the following three case studies.
Y. Yuan, J. Tang / Renewable Energy 105 (2017) 483e494 489
Table 2 shown in Fig. 4(c). It is observed that the GSPI yields higher ap
Parameters of controllers. wise root moment from 360 s to 480 s, compared with DAC and
GSq Gain correction factor 1 adaptive control, as shown in Fig. 4(d). The overall performances
1q=6:302336
KP Proportional gain 0.01,882,681 are compared in Fig. 5, where all performance indices are
KI Integral gain 0.008,068,634 normalized with respect to those obtained based on GSPI. It can be
R Weighting matrix 1 seen that the adaptive controller reduces the apwise moment DEL
Q Weighting matrix diag106 ; 102 ; 0:8; 0:01; 104 by 9% which is similar to DAC controller. The normalized generator
G State gain 802:7443; 0:4439; 21:7998; 19:0430; 0:0735
speed errors of GSPI, DAC and adaptive control are 0.1693, 0.2960,
Gd Disturbance state gain 0.0264
Ky Adaptive gain 107
and 0.1727, respectively. The DAC controller exhibits a much larger
Kx Adaptive gain 1010 error than the adaptive controller. The average power output of the
adaptive controller is slightly less than those of GSPI and DAC. The
extreme apwise moment is decreased about 11% in DAC and
4.2. Results of GSPI, DAC and adaptive control under different adaptive control. Therefore, at operating point, the apwise fatigue
turbulent wind elds can be reduced by adaptive controller, although the generator
speed regulation is not as good as GSPI since GSPI is only designed
The DAC and the adaptive controller are simulated in all three for speed regulation without consideration of load mitigation.
abovementioned (belowrated, rated, aboverated) wind elds, and
compared to the baseline GSPI controller. The parameters of the
controllers involved in the case studies are summarized in Table 2.
In order to compare these three different controllers, four perfor 4.2.2. Case 2 results, under turbulent 12 m/s wind led
mance indices are analyzed: Root Mean Square (RMS) error of For the situation where the wind speed is below the operating
generator speed, mean power average, blade root apwise moment point, the turbulent wind eld with mean wind speed 12 m/s is
DEL, and maximum apwise moment. Here DEL refers to the fa chosen as Case 2. This wind le covers the switch region between
tigue damage equivalent load (DEL), which serves as an important Region 2 and Region 3 (since the rated wind speed is 11.4 m/s for
metric for comparing fatigue loads across the entire spectrum of this 5MW turbine). The parameters of DAC controller and adaptive
turbulent wind les. The equivalent fatigue damage is represented controller are kept the same as those used in Case 1. The wind le,
by a constant load and calculated by MLife [36]. MLife is a post generator speed, pitch angle and blade root apwise moment are
processing code developed by NREL to assess fatigue according to shown in Fig. 6(a)e6(d), respectively. GSPI yields the highest ac
rainow counting algorithm [37]. In highcycle fatigue situations, tivity of the pitch actuator, as shown in Fig. 6(c). The overall value of
materials performance is usually characterized by an SN curve (i.e., apwise root moment is higher under GSPI than those under DAC
Wo hler curve). Here the SN slope of 10 is used which is typical for and adaptive controller, as shown in Fig. 6(d). Therefore, when
composite materials (blade). pitch angle is adjusted rapidly to maintain constant generator
speed, it will cause large oscillation in blade apwise deection.
The normalized performances are compared in Fig. 7. Similar to
4.2.1. Case 1 results, under turbulent 15 m/s wind eld DAC, the adaptive controller reduces the apwise moment DEL by
Case 1 concerns the results under turbulent 15 m/s wind eld. 38% as compared to the baseline GSPI. However, as a tradeoff, the
15 m/s is the mean speed of wind distribution from 0 to 600 s. The power output exhibits a decrease of 36% (under DAC) and 25%
wind le, generator speed, pitch angle and blade root apwise (under adaptive control), respectively, as compared to that of GSPI.
moment are shown in Fig. 4(a)e4(d), respectively. From Fig. 4(b) we The normalized generator speed errors of three controllers are
can see that there is less uctuation of generator speed under 0.1822, 0.5740, and 0.3316, respectively. The maximum apwise
adaptive control than that under DAC. The pitch angle change rate moments are also reduced by 10% under DAC and 9% under adap
is smaller under adaptive control than that under DAC or GSPI, as tive control.
490 Y. Yuan, J. Tang / Renewable Energy 105 (2017) 483e494
Fig. 4. Timedomain performance comparison of GSPI, DAC, and adaptive control under 15 m/s turbulent eld. (a) Wind speed; (b) Generator speed; (c) Pitch angle; and (d)
Flapwise root moment.
values of three controllers are nearly the same while the extreme
moment is decreased by 5% under DAC and adaptive control. This
can be ascribed to the fact that the mean wind speed in Case 3 is far
away from the operating point. GSPI still shows better ability to
regulate the generator speed, and the RMS errors are 0.1964,
0.6513, and 0.3217, respectively. Because of the larger wind speed,
the average power output increases by 15% (under DAC) and 6%
(under adaptive), respectively, compared to that of GSPI. Therefore,
in the aboverated region, the load mitigation performance of both
DAC and adaptive control is still effective, and the adaptive control
leads to better speed regulation than DAC as well as increased
average power than both GSPI and DAC.
Fig. 6. Timedomain performance comparison of GSPI, DAC, and adaptive control under 12 m/s turbulent eld. (a) Wind speed; (b) Generator speed; (c) Pitch angle; and (d)
Flapwise root moment.
Fig. 8. Timedomain performance comparison of GSPI, DAC, and adaptive control under 17 m/s turbulent eld. (a) Wind speed; (b) Generator speed; (c) Pitch angle; and (d)
Flapwise root moment.
5. Concluding remarks
Fig. 10. A summary of the apwise moment DEL and generator speed RMS error for 20 blade stiffness reduction sets under 12 m/s, 15 m/s and 17 m/s turbulent elds.
Acknowledgment References
This research is supported by National Science Foundation un [1] L.Y. Pao, K.E. Johnson, A tutorial on the dynamics and control of wind turbines
and wind farms, in: American Control Conference, St. Louis, MO, June 1012,
der grant CMMI e 1300236. 2009, pp. 2076e2089.
[2] J.M. Jonkman, S. Buttereld, W. Musial, G. Scott, Denition of a 5MW
Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development, Technical Report
No. NREL/TP500e38060, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO,
Appendix 2009.
[3] A.D. Wright, Modern Control Design for Flexible Wind Turbines, Technical
Report No. NREL/TP500e35816, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
K refers to the nominal stiffness matrix in the reducedorder Golden, CO, 2004.
model without uncertainty. K~ refers to the stiffness matrix under [4] A.D. Wright, M.J. Balas, Design of statespacebased control algorithms for
uncertainty. In this research we let the mean stiffness change wind turbine speed regulation, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 125 (4) (2003) 386e395.
be 0.05 and the variance be 105 . K and an example of K ~ are [5] S.A. Frost, M.J. Balas, A.D. Wright, Direct adaptive control of a utilityscale
wind turbine for speed regulation, Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 19 (1)
shown below for comparison, i.e., (2009) 59e71.
[6] B. Connor, S.N. Iyer, W.E. Leithead, Control of a horizontal axis wind turbine
2 3 using H innity control, Control Applications, in: First IEEE Conference on,
334:77 343:22 932:55 932:81 932:73 Dayton, OH, September 13e16, 1992, pp. 117e122.
6 334:77 8:68 108 932:55 932:81 932:77 7
6 7 [7] K.A. Stol, M.J. Balas, Periodic disturbance accommodating control for blade
K6
6 27:06 27:12 1:93 104
0:01 0:0363 7
7 load mitigation in wind turbines, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 125 (4) (2003) 379e385.
4 26:89 26:75 0:0511 1:93 104 0:02 5 [8] M.M. Hand, M.J. Balas, Blade load mitigation control design for a wind turbine
4 operating in the path of vortices, Wind Energy 10 (4) (2007) 339e355.
27:22 27:03 0:0202 0:05 1:93 10 [9] M. Soliman, O.P. Malik, D.T. Westwick, Multiple model MIMO predictive
control for variable speed variable pitch wind turbines, in: American Control
Conference, Baltimore, MD, June 30 July 02, 2010, pp. 2778e2784.
and [10] S. Bououden, M. Chadli, S. Filali, A. El Hajjaji, Fuzzy model based multivariable
predictive control of a variable speed wind turbine: LMI approach, Renew.
2 3 Energy 37 (1) (2012) 434e439.
302:87 17:72 1:20 103 1:20 103 1:20 103
6 302:87 8:68 108 1:20 103 1:20 103 37
1:20 10 7
[11] H. Sanchez, T. Escobet, V. Puig, P.F. Odgaard, Healthaware model predictive
6 control of wind turbines using fatigue prognosis, IFAC PapersOnLine 48 (21)
~ 6 28:20
K 28:48 1:85 104 2:40 103 0:05 7
6 7 (2015) 1363e1368.
4 28:40 28:69 0:0267 1:85 104 1:8 103 5 [12] P.F. Odgaard, L.F. Larsen, R. Wisniewski, T.G. Hovgaard, On using Pareto
optimality to tune a linear model predictive controller for wind turbines,
28:50 28:66 0:0202 0:03 1:85 104 Renew. Energy 87 (2016) 884e891.
[13] P.F. Odgaard, On usage of pareto curves to select wind turbine controller
tunings to the wind turbulence level, in: European Control Conference, Linz,
494 Y. Yuan, J. Tang / Renewable Energy 105 (2017) 483e494
Austria, July 1517 July, 2015, pp. 1534e1539. operation, in: 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New
[14] P.F. Odgaaard, T. Knudsen, A. Overgaard, H. Steffensen, M. Jrgensen, Impor Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, January 4e7, 2011.
tance of dynamic inow in model predictive control of wind turbines, IFAC [26] K.T. Magar, M.J. Balas, S.A. Frost, Direct adaptive torque control for maximizing
PapersOnLine 48 (30) (2015) 90e95. the power captured by wind turbine in partial loading condition, Wind Energy
[15] E. Bossanyi, Individual blade pitch control for load reduction, Wind Energy 6 19 (5) (2016) 911e922.
(2) (2003) 119e128. [28] P.J. Moriarty, A.C. Hansen, AeroDyn Theory Manual, Technical Report No.
[16] E. Bossanyi, Further load reductions with individual pitch control, Wind En NREL/TP500e36881, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO,
ergy 8 (4) (2005) 481e485. 2005.
[17] K.A. Stol, W. Zhao, A.D. Wright, Individual blade pitch control for the controls [29] J.M. Jonkman, M.L. Buhl Jr., FAST Users Guide, Technical Report No. NREL/EL
advanced research turbine (CART), J. Sol. Energy Eng. 128 (4) (2006) 498e505. 50038230, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2005.
[18] H.M. Hassan, A.L. ElShafei, W.A. Farag, M.S. Saad, A robust LMIbased pitch [31] C. Johnson, Theory of disturbanceaccommodating controllers, Control Dyn.
controller for large wind turbines, Renew. Energy 44 (2012) 63e71. Syst. 12 (1976) 387e489.
[19] C.L. Bottasso, P. Pizzinelli, C.E.D. Riboldi, L. Tasca, LiDARenabled model pre [32] M.J. Balas, Y.J. Lee, L. Kendall, Disturbance tracking control theory with
dictive control of wind turbines with realtime capabilities, Renew. Energy 71 application to horizontal axis wind turbines, in: Proceedings of 1998 ASME
(2014) 442e452. Wind Energy Symposium, Reno, NV, January 1215, 1998, pp. 95e99.
[20] F. Dunne, L.Y. Pao, A.D. Wright, B. Jonkman, N. Kelley, Adding feedforward [33] J.T.Y. Wen, M.J. Balas, Robust adaptive control in Hilbert space, J. Math. Anal.
blade pitch control to standard feedback controllers for load mitigation in Appl. 143 (1) (1989) 1e26.
wind turbines, Mechatronics 21 (4) (2011) 682e690. [34] Y. Lee, M.J. Balas, Adaptive control of persistent disturbance based on direct
[21] N. Wang, K.E. Johnson, A.D. Wright, FXRLSbased feedforward control for model reference adaptive control, in: 36th Structures, Structural Dynamics
LIDARenabled wind turbine load mitigation, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Tech and Materials Conference, New Orleans, LA, April 1013, 1995, pp.
nol. 20 (5) (2012) 1212e1222. 3466e3473.
[22] V. Petrovic, M. Jelavi
c, M. Baoti
c, Advanced control algorithms for reduction of [35] J.M. Jonkman, TurbSim Users Guide: Version 1.50, Technical Report No. NREL/
wind turbine structural loads, Renew. Energy 76 (2015) 418e431. TP50046198, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2009.
[23] A.D. Wright, L.J. Fingersh, Advanced Control Design for Wind Turbines. Part I: [36] G.J. Hayman, M. Buhl Jr., Mlife Users Guide for Version 1.00, Technical Report,
Control Design, Implementation, and Initial Tests, Technical Report No. NREL/ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2012.
TP500e42437, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2008. [37] G. Hayman, MLife Theory Manual Version 1.00, Technical Report, National
[24] K.E. Johnson, L.J. Fingersh, Adaptive pitch control of variablespeed wind Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2012.
turbines, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 130 (3) (2008) 031012. [38] H. Kwakernaak, R. Sivan, Linear Optimal Control Systems, WileyInterscience,
[25] M. Balas, K.T. Magar, Q. Li, Adaptive disturbance tracking control for large New York, NY, 1972.
horizontal axis wind turbines with disturbance estimator in region ii
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.