2015 American Control Conference
Palmer House Hilton
July 1-3, 2015. Chicago, IL, USA
Advanced Control of Wind Turbines: Brief Survey, Categorization, and
Challenges
Vahid Rezaei?
Abstract— To pave the way for higher penetration of wind
turbines in the power grid, it is necessary to improve efficiency
of wind energy conversion systems in terms of production rate
maximization and operational cost minimization. In turn, with
available technologies, this calls for advanced control strategies
in wind industry. In this article, some basic concepts related to
the control of wind turbines are introduced, a control-theoretic
categorization is proposed, the literature of wind turbine control
is briefly surveyed, and some challenges in the control of wind
turbines are determined from the literature at the end.
A BBREVIATIONS
CM: Condition monitoring
DAC: Disturbance accommodating control
DTC: Disturbance tracking control
IPC: Individual pitch control
LIDAR: Light detection and ranging
MMC: Multiple-model control
MPC: Model predictive control
PC: Predictive controller
PID: Proportional-integral-derivative
QFT: Quantitative feedback theory
SMC: Sliding mode control
WECS: Wind energy conversion system
WT: Wind turbine
I. I NTRODUCTION
As a clean alternative to fossil fuels, renewable energy
has attracted considerable interest among the policymakers
and power grid operators within the past decade, to the
extent that the installed capacity of the renewable power
(including hydropower) reached 1560 GW by the end of
2013 [1]. Among the renewable energy resources, wind
energy continues to contribute to the power grid around the
world, with a total capacity of 336327 MW by the end of
June 2014, i.e. amounting to 4% of the global electricity
demand [2]. Consequently, to respond to larger demands,
the size of wind turbines (WTs) is increased. For example,
a typical 5 MW turbine has a tower of approximately 114
m high and a rotor of 124 m diameter 1[3]. This can
be further assisted by increasing improvements in manu-
facturing turbine components and incorporating advanced
technologies (e.g., see [4]). However, these would result
in increased manufacturing, installation, and maintenance
costs. Advanced controllers, as hidden technologies, can also
contribute to harvesting as much wind energy as possible
and converting it to electricity while keeping maintenance
costs low (e.g., see [5]). To this end, many researchers
? Vahid Rezaei is with the department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering at the University of Denver, Denver, CO 80210, USA
(vrezaei(at)du.edu and a.v.rezaei(at)gmail.com).
978-1-4799-8684-2/$31.00 ©2015 AACC 3044
have developed advanced control strategies where some of
the controllers are examined through field testing and many
others need to be verified before transferring to the wind
industry (see [6] and [7], Ch. 2, to find the practical controller
design procedure). To facilitate research in control of wind
energy conversion systems (WECSs), several survey and
tutorial papers have been proposed. Reference [8] explained
different control issues in WTs, some control algorithms, and
possible ideas for future work; [9] provided an overview on
modeling and control of WTs; [3] updated the literature with
some technical information related to WTs and their control-
loops; and [10] used a research WT to discuss some basic
concepts and future trends in control of WTs.
Unlike the aforementioned papers, this article proposes
a control-theoretic survey of references that (a) consider
aerodynamics as well as mechanical and electrical dynamics
of WTs, and (b) use methods that are conceptually close
to the classic, modern, and post-modern theories for the
control of WTs (e.g., see pictorial description in [11], page
2). Reference [12] used a similar categorization with some
general comments on robustness with respect to uncertainties
in WTs, but with fewer references related to WTs. Addition-
ally, although some references may exist here, [13] surveyed
the literature of wind turbine control with a significant focus
on control of electrical generators and soft-control ideas.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:
Section II provides a short overview of WTs for control
engineers, Section III categorizes and surveys the literature
of WT control based on their control theories, Section
IV explains some challenges in control of WTs that are
determined by the literature, and Section V gives a summary.
II. C ONTROL -O RIENTED OVERVIEW OF W IND T URBINES
Modeling and control of WTs are difficult tasks and need
good understanding of turbine’s dynamics and environment’s
conditions (see [14]-[15]). In particular, WT is a complex
structure that includes different subsystems (see Fig. 1) with
nonlinear and time-varying behavior (see Fig. 2) that should
operate in a wide range of mean wind speed operating-points
(see Fig. 3) under different turbulent conditions (see Fig. 4)
using a limited set of sensors and actuators in a closed-loop
configuration. This system absorbs wind power according to
(1) (see [18], Ch. 3):
Pr (λ , θ ) = 0.5ρπR2 v3CP (λ , θ ), (1)
Rωr
λ= ,
v
where Pr denotes rotor power, λ indicates tip-speed-ratio,
θ represents blade pitch angle, ρ implies air density, R
denotes blade length, v represents mean wind speed, ωr
shows rotational speed of rotor, and CP stands for power
coefficient that depends on λ and θ (see Fig. 2).
Depending on the objectives, control algorithm needs to
monitor and modify behavior of system’s dynamics (see
control systems’ inputs and outputs in Fig.1). Some typical
measured variables are wind speed; rotor speed (and azimuth
position), blade pitch angle, and blade root bending-moment;
electrical generator speed and power; and tower top accel-
eration. Typical actuation signals are blade pitch angles and
generator torque. This list can be completed with some other
variables (e.g., for yaw or generator control); however, they
have been rarely used in the references of Section III. (See
[18], Ch. 8, and [21].)
With simple words, control objectives have focused on
power production (i.e., partial- or full-power production) and
system performance (e.g., reference tracking error minimiza-
tion and mechanical stress reduction). The second is briefly
addressed in Section III in a control-theoretic view point.
Regarding the first case, as is shown in Fig. 3, WT’s wide
Control systems
Rotor Drive-train
Wind Aerodynamics dynamics dynamics
Nacelle dynamics
Tower dynamics
Effect of Loads on
Environment WT Foundation dynamics
Fig. 1. Typical interconnection of subsystems in an on-shore WT and the
effect of environment. Sensors and actuators connect the control systems
block to others (blue). Reproduced from [16], with permission.
Fig. 2. Power coefficient surface (CP ) versus pitch angle (θ ) and tip-speed-
ratio (λ ) for a typical WT. Data is generated by WT-PERF code [17] and
negative values are projected to zero.
operating-region is usually divided into different smaller
regions that are defined as follows (see [10]):
Region 1: In this region, wind speed is below the cut-in value
and wind power is not enough to turn the rotor disk.
Region 2: By an increase in wind speed (wind power), WT
starts to absorb wind power. Usually, blade pitch angle is
kept constant at its optimum value and generator torque
input is used to maximize the captured energy (track the
maximum power point of CP function). The typical feedback
measurement is turbine’s rotor speed, generator speed, or
electrical power (e.g., see [7]). In some particular techniques,
it is possible to minimize some specific loads by torque con-
trol command while maximizing the power production (e.g.,
by using notch filters to modify the parametric weighting
functions in [22] and designing a torque controller).
Region 2.5: This is a fictitious part of region 2, close to
the rated wind speed, where the generator torque command
is modified to have generator’s rated power at rated wind
speed (see [7] and [8]). In WTs with multi-loop blade pitch
and generator torque controls, this modification is necessary
in order to provide a smooth transition between pitch and
torque control-loops. A safe switching mechanism between
pitch and torque control-loops may prevent instability issues,
for example due to the pitch actuator saturation (see [12],
Power
generation
dynamics
WT
Fig. 3. Regions of operation in a WT. Wind power is proportional to the
cube of wind speed (black). Theoretically, according to Betz limit ([18], Sec.
3.2), a WT can absorb up to only 59% of wind power (blue). Practically,
absorbed wind power by a WT is less than the Betz limit (red), e.g., because
of having limited number of blades (see [19]).
Fig. 4. A sample wind speed profile that may hit blades (blue) and its
moving-averaged profile (red) where the length of moving-average window
can be different for each WT. While mean wind speed is required to generate
power according to (1), the turbulent part (i.e., the difference of blue and
red signals) may result in undesirable loads on WTs (e.g., stochastic loads).
This wind speed profile is generated using Turbsim code [20].
3045
Ch.7), and reduce the stress on turbine’s components.
Region 3: Here, wind speed is above its rated value, torque
input is usually kept constant, and pitch command input is
used for the control of rotor power in (1). Power regulation,
load reduction, and safe operation are main objectives in this
region. Typically, measurements are similar to region 2.
Region 4: In this region, wind speed exceeds cut-out value
and the turbine falls into its shutdown process. Stress on
WT’s components and safety concerns during shutdown
process are some challenges in this region.
III. A DVANCED C ONTROL OF W IND T URBINES
A proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller is easy
to tune and provides robustness with respect to the constant
disturbance. Hence, it has been widely used for control
of WTs (e.g., see [7] and [23]). Despite PID’s acceptable
performance in the control of WTs; looking at increased
manufacturing, installation, and maintenance costs (see Sec-
tion I) of WTs’ complex structures and the effect of en-
vironment (see Section II), the research trend is to use
advanced controllers in order to guarantee high-performance,
low-cost, and safe electrical energy production by WTs.
This section proposes a control-theoretic categorization and
briefly surveys the literature depending on the theories that
have been used for control of WTs. As is briefly discussed in
this section, these advanced control methods can effectively
address the challenges related to WT systems. It should be
noted that some references can be listed in different groups
(e.g., robust controllers are optimal); however, for brevity,
they are organized in the following manner.
A. Nonlinear Control
WT’s captured power nonlinearly depends on wind speed,
rotor speed, and blade pitch angle (see (1) and Fig. 2). As
a result, WT’s aerodynamic torques and bending-moments
are nonlinear functions of wind speed, rotor speed, and
pitch angle [10]. Therefore, (1) naturally suggests nonlinear
techniques as high-performance and reliable ideas for control
of WECSs.
Although turbine manufacturers provide the “power
curves” for some sample WTs, actual power curves can
be sensitive to wind site characteristics (see [24]) and may
change during the time (see [25]). Thus, [24] discussed
general modeling methods to approximate turbine’s power
curve and [26] used different power curve modeling methods
for commercial variable-speed WTs. These techniques can be
used to model the CP for WTs. For example, references [27]
and [28] used two generic CP functions in their design and
simulation steps. Also, assuming unknown CP , [25] proposed
an online approximation of fractional-average-power with
similar behavior to CP , [29]-[30] proposed observer-based
schemes for online estimation of the CP , and [31] adaptively
estimated the CP using a Lyapunov-based strategy.
Regarding the control strategies, sliding mode control
(SMC) ideas have been widely used for control of WTs. This
is mainly because SMCs are inherently robust with respect
to system’s nonlinear behavior, unmodeled dynamics, and
3046
effects of disturbances. For example, [27] briefly described
SMC for both constant and variable speed WT models.
Reference [32] proposed a simple SMC strategy for torque
control of WTs. However, using a first order SMC, the tra-
jectory is sensitive to any perturbations, and chattering may
impose questions in feasibility of this technique for control of
WTs. Thus, high-order SMCs have been used to reduce the
chattering phenomenon and to have better convergence rate.
For example, [33] developed a second-order sliding mode
controller combined with a sliding mode observer in order
to solve the chattering problem. Also, [34] briefly introduced
and simulated four different high-order SMC ideas for con-
trol of WTs (with prescribed law-of-variation, suboptimal,
twisting, and super-twisting algorithms). Additionally, [35]
proposed a quasi-continuous SMC technique to maximize
energy production and reduce mechanical stress. Reference
[36] investigated first- and second-order quasi-continuous
SMC ideas while using wind speed estimation and maximum
power point tracking algorithm for control of WTs. Also,
with a robust observer, [37] used SMC theory for sensor
fault tolerant control of WTs.
Feedback linearization is another popular nonlinear control
strategy that has been used for control of wind turbines. In an
inner-loop, using an appropriate transformation, a feedback
control signal is calculated to map the nonlinear system to
a fully or partially linear system such that, in an outer-
loop, a linear control strategy can be applied. For example,
[38] proposed a feedback linearization controller to deal
with nonlinearity in WTs. Here, assuming exact knowledge
about CP and dynamics of the turbine, wind disturbance
state was augmented to system states to achieve a better
closed-loop performance. Later, [39] approximated the CP
by a polynomial and used a high-order nonlinear model of
the turbine to check the feasibility of feedback linearization
technique with unmodeled dynamics in simulation. The
result was analyzed comparing with [27]. Also, [40] used
the feedback linearization theory in a switching scheme to
control the turbine in both regions 2 and 3.
Additionally, some novel nonlinear control methods have
been proposed for control of wind turbines while consid-
ering nonlinearity in WT’s model. For example, nonlinear
observer-based controllers are popular methods to compen-
sate for effects of mismatches due to nonlinearities in WT
model. Reference [41] estimated the nonlinearity and de-
signed a controller in order to operate at the maximum power
coefficient point. Reference [42] proposed an observer-based
backstepping control in order to maximize the captured
power by WT. Also, [43] designed a backstepping controller
to track the reference rotor speed. Here, the best guess
was used instead of turbine’s unknown parameters and a
compensator was designed to reduce modeling mismatches.
Reference [44] proposed an adaptive mechanism to estimate
unknown parameters of the WT model in the backstepping
configuration of [43]. Reference [45] augmented its non-
linear observer-based scheme to a H∞ controller, although
the H∞ solution was obtained using WT’s linear model.
Reference [46] proposed an observer-based scheme for its
wind-dependent linear model and named it nonlinear con-
troller. Moreover, [31] proposed a Lyapunov-based strategy
to adaptively estimate CP and generate the desired reference
rotor speed. Here, reference tracking was achieved using a
PI controller in the loop. Also, [47] used dynamics of the
turbine to find a novel nonlinear controller in a cascade
configuration with unacceptable rotor over-speed. Reference
[48] used a simple Kalman filter in combination with a
nonlinear torque controller. Furthermore, [49] compared its
nonlinear strategies to a linear-quadratic-Gaussian controller.
Finally, [50] discussed observer-based output- and state-
feedback nonlinear techniques for WTs.
Although nonlinear controllers have improved perfor-
mance of WECSs, linear controllers have received more
attention in literature because of their simplicity, existence
of well-established control theories, and availability of nu-
merical design tools (compared to the nonlinear strategies).
B. Multivariable and Optimal Control
Typical interconnection of dynamics in an on-shore WT
is shown in Fig.1 as a system of subsystems. This rep-
resentation suggests multivariable and optimal (or multi-
objective) ideas for control of WTs. In general, two dif-
ferent multivariable control schemes have been used in the
literature: (a) decentralized, and (b) centralized controls. In
the first case, basically, each decentralized subcontroller has
its own sensors and actuators, and parameters of each loop
can be tuned without knowledge about variables in other
loops. In the second case, a centralized controller receives
all sensor measurements and, theoretically, any adjustments
show corresponding effects on all control commands.
Regarding the decentralized control, [7] introduced a
multi-loop strategy for torque and pitch control of WTs in
regions 2 and 3 having a “lookup table”-based torque control-
loop. For the same turbine, [51] proposed a different multi-
loop control scheme using a novel nonlinear torque controller
with high fluctuations in the regulated speed compared to
the [7]. Moreover, [52] separated high-frequency and low-
frequency components of wind speed and proposed a multi-
loop configuration for torque control of WTs. Reference
[53] introduced a multi-loop individual pitch control (IPC)
system. Here, different azimuth-dependent sinusoidal terms
were added to the collective pitch command to have a dif-
ferent control command for each blade. Also, [54] proposed
a multi-loop IPC idea to mitigate higher-harmonic nP loads
except multiples of 3P (P represents per revolution). Here,
an additional loop was required for each new harmonic.
Regarding the centralized control, [55] used Coleman
transformation, also known as direct-quadrature (d-q) [56]
or multi-blade coordinate (MBC) [57], and introduced an
IPC strategy to reduce tilt and yaw moments of the rotor
using blades’ flapwise root bending-moment measurements.
Reference [58] designed and compared performance of cen-
tralized and decentralized IPC systems for WTs in multi-
layer configurations. There are many references related to the
IPC for WT application (e.g., [59]), but they can be viewed
similarly in the sense of multivariable control systems. In
3047
general, IPC schemes are suitable for reduction of the de-
terministic position-dependent loads that may appear due to
the interaction of rotor disk and nonuniform wind field (e.g.,
wind shear), gravity, and tower shadow. Also, IPCs may use
the azimuth-position of the blades in MBC transformation
and switch between fix and rotating coordinates to mitigate
the stochastic loads on WTs.
State-space multivariable optimal strategies are other cen-
tralized controllers that have been used for control of WTs.
For example, [60] proposed a linear-quadratic-regulator IPC
framework for a 2-bladed WT. References [61] and [62]
designed linear-quadratic controllers with integral actions.
Also, [56] used a linear-quadratic-Gaussian IPC scheme.
References [63]-[69] used the disturbance accommodating
control (DAC), disturbance tracking control (DTC), and
disturbance utilization contrl for WTs. Due to their per-
sistent disturbance generation model, these methods were
efficient in reducing effects of wind disturbance (e.g., [70]-
[71] reported field-test results using DTC and DAC strate-
gies). Also, [72]-[73] modified LQR and DTC to address
the periodic behavior of WT’s dynamics. References [74]-
[75] proposed stochastic DAC using the Kalman filtering
technique. Additionally, [76]-[78] designed H∞ -optimal con-
trollers for WTs. These techniques could reduce effects of
wind disturbance by an appropriate selection of a disturbance
shaping filter and performance weighting functions. Also,
[79] augmented a H∞ feedforward controller to DAC in
order to compensate effects of the wind disturbance on blade
loads. Reference [80] proposed a mixed H2 /H∞ controller in
order to reduce drive-train and tower loads while producing
maximum energy. Reference [81] used the l1 -optimal control
theory and investigated its effectiveness in energy production
and load reduction for WTs. Additionally, [82] implemented
a multivariable H∞ -optimal controller and compared to a
multi-loop strategy for the purpose of load reduction.
C. Robust Control
Similar to other applications, it is very common to design
a controller for a reduced-order model of the turbine (i.e.,
with a set of few dynamics in Fig. 1). Selection of the
dynamics depends on control objectives; however, unmod-
eled dynamics may lead to performance degradation and
instability issues in closed-loop WECSs (see [83], Ch. 5)).
In order to fix this issue, [84] proposed a H∞ -robust con-
troller using MBC transformation. In particular, “µ-analysis”
confirmed its robustness with respect to the uncertainties
in power coefficient parameters. Reference [85] introduced
the wind speed as an uncertain parameter and proposed
the LMI-based robust control idea. References [86]-[87]
investigated effectiveness of “µ-synthesis” strategy in closed-
loop WECSs under some parametric uncertainties in WT’s
model. References [12], [22], and [88] used µ-synthesis
and provided robustness in stability and performance of the
closed-loop system with respect to the mixed parametric and
dynamic uncertainties in WTs. For example, [88] achieved
active robustness with respect to the parametric uncertainty
due to the faults in pitch actuator dynamics and passive
robustness against unmodeled dynamics while guaranteeing a
minimum level of wind speed disturbance rejection in closed-
loop pitch control of WTs. Here, exact knowledge of fault
parameter was assumed to be provided by a well-designed
condition monitoring system (CM). Reference [89] used the
quantitative feedback theory (QFT) for control of WTs to
reduce effects of modeling mismatches and meet desired
performance requirements in closed-loop WECSs.
It should be noted that the selection of weighting functions
plays an important role in robust control systems and needs
an understanding of system’s dynamics, control objectives,
and robust control theory, and some trials-and-errors and fine
tuning for each new application. Reference [22] summarized
this procedure and proposed a set of parametric weighting
functions for robust control of WTs.
D. Adaptive Control
As another difficulty in linear control of the WT, param-
eters of turbine’s linear model are subjected to uncertainties
due to (a) lack of exact knowledge about parameters, or
abnormalities and faults in turbine’s components (see [88]
and [90]), and (b) changes in mean wind speed operating-
point (see [22]). Therefore, it is desired for the controller to
automatically adjust itself and compensate for these model-
ing mismatches.
Traditional adaptive control strategies have been used to
partially deal with this challenge, assuming unknown con-
stant or very slow-varying parameters. Reference [91] pro-
posed a RST self-tuning regulator based on sensitivity func-
tion analysis and [92] used a minimum variance control idea
(potentially, this method could consider stochastic properties
of the wind disturbance model). Moreover, [93]-[94] devel-
oped adaptive extremum-seeking control for WT application.
Reference [95] proposed a direct adaptive control scheme to
regulate the generator speed at its rated value while using
an adaptive persistent wind speed disturbance generation to
reduce the negative effect of wind speed disturbance. Also,
[96]-[97] designed adaptive output- and state-feedback DTCs
for WTs. Using the name of command generator tracker,
[98] (see Sec. 9.7.2) discussed the assumptions to apply this
direct adaptive control theory. In particular, although this was
solvable for single-input single-output model of the turbine,
assuming a strictly positive real model of the turbine could be
restrictive for WT application. Therefore, [99] proposed an
improved direct adaptive controller for WTs while separating
non-strictly positive modes from others using residual mode
filtering. However, these direct adaptive methods could be
sensitive to the unmodeled dynamics and faults. Thus, [100]
developed a robust adaptive pitch controller to address un-
modeled dynamics uncertainty, faults in pitch actuator, and
unknown parameters of WT model. Also, it guaranteed zero
generator speed regulation error in the steady-state condition
assuming a step-like wind speed disturbance model.
Multiple-model control (MMC) is another adaptive control
scheme (see [101]) that has been used for control of WTs.
Compared to traditional approaches, this modern adaptive
strategy can deal with a wider range of parametric uncertain-
3048
ties in the turbine model. For example, [102]-[103] proposed
predictive MMC strategies and [104] developed a switching
QFT for control of WTs. Reference [87] designed a set of µ-
robust controllers at different mean wind speed linearization
points; however, none of the local controllers was robust with
respect to changes in mean wind speed parameter (i.e., in
mean wind speeds between two adjacent local controllers).
Hence, [22] proposed a LIDAR-based (light detection and
ranging) µ-robust MMC idea for a wind-dependent model
of the turbine and guaranteed robustness of the closed-
loop system, both stability and performance, with respect
to the unmodeled dynamics uncertainty and inaccuracy in
LIDAR’s mean wind speed operating-point measurement (in
other words, uncertainty in measured scheduling parameter).
Also, having a parametric formulation for faults in pitch
actuator dynamics at a specific mean wind speed linearizion
point, [88] proposed a systematic procedure to determine the
number of required local models in multiple-model µ-robust
control of WTs. The proposed procedure was based on the
definition of wind speed disturbance rejection performance
in the closed-loop WECSs. Finally, [12] introduced a 2-
dimensional µ-robust MMC for linear models of the turbine
at different nominal values of fault and mean wind speed
parameters (see Ch. 6). Although it reported improvements
in generator speed regulation, the high number of required
local controllers was its disadvantage.
Also, [25] used a simple model and designed an adaptive
hill-climbing strategy for torque control of WTs. Finally,
some other references used relationships between different
variables in a WT and proposed lookup table-based control
ideas (e.g., [105]). These types of lookup table-based ideas
in WECSs can be named open-loop adaptive controllers (see
[106], Sec. 1.3.1).
E. Predictive Control
Predictive controllers (PCs) provide strong optimization
formulation to systematically consider physical and safety
constraints (e.g., WT load, actuator usage, and rotor over
speed) while maximizing the captured energy. These con-
trollers can be used in multi-input multi-output configura-
tions and their nonlinear extensions can deal with nonlinear-
ity in WTs. Also, after receiving new information (e.g., about
the wind speed disturbance), these controllers can adaptively
update the control signal to meet desired objectives. Addi-
tionally, PCs can be used in MMC structure. Thus, optimal,
multivariable, nonlinear, and adaptive behavior of PCs, as
well as availability of the powerful optimization software,
have made predictive strategies popular in the literature of
WT control.
For example, [105] added a generalized predictive op-
timizer to its baseline lookup table-based pitch controller
and tried to minimize the power regulation error with an
acceptable control effort, [107] augmented a MPC optimizer
to its state-feedback controller and investigated its effects
on blade load reduction and rotor over-speed protection,
and [108] proposed a MPC formulation under constraint
on rotor speed state in region 3. Also, [109] designed a
nonlinear MPC technique for both partial- and full-load
operating-regions of WTs, and [110] investigated a LIDAR-
based nonlinear MPC idea to reduce tower load without
significant degradation in the quality of captured power while
actuators limits were met. Additionally, [102]-[103] used
MPC in MMC framework. Finally, [111] compared linear
and nonlinear MPC ideas for WT application.
F. Gain-Scheduling and Parameter-Dependent Control
The model of a WT shows time-varying behavior that,
fortunately, can be characterized by a set of bounded vary-
ing parameters. Thus, some references have designed gain-
scheduling and parameter-dependent controllers to deal with
this behavior of the turbine. In general, proposed techniques
in the literature have some advantages of multivariable,
optimal, robust, and adaptive strategies for control of WTs.
In particular, using (1), it is clear that parameters of the
ideal linearized model must depend on v, θ , and ωr values
at each operating-point. In ideal case, θ is the actual control
signal and ωr is the controlled variable. Thus, as the best
candidate, independent variable v (mean wind speed) has
been commonly used as scheduling-parameter in the control
of WTs. For example, [22] showed wind-dependent behavior
of the turbine’s linear model for a research WT and devel-
oped a robust wind-scheduled pitch controller through the
mixing of local controllers. Moreover, [112]-[114] proposed
linear parameter varying controllers to consider WT’s wind-
dependent dynamics while meeting the control objectives.
Other than mean wind speed, reference [7] used blade pitch
angle as scheduling parameter in its PI controller and [115]
proposed a LPV controller for a pitch angle-dependent model
of the turbine. Also, [116] used the output power of the
turbine to develop a gain-scheduled H∞ -controller for WTs.
References [114] and [117] utilized the pitch actuator fault
parameter in their LPV controllers, and [88] used the pitch
actuator fault parameter to mix its locally robust controllers.
IV. C HALLENGES IN C ONTROL OF W IND T URBINES
In general, based on the brief survey in Section III, the
high-order time-varying nonlinear dynamics or uncertain
linear models of WTs, and multi-objective stability and
performance criteria in closed-loop WECSs are some main
sources of challenges in the control of WTs.
In particular, captured power by WTs nonlinearly depends
on mean wind speed, rotor speed, and blade pitch angle. The
control system should maximize the captured wind energy
that depends on mean wind speed while minimizing negative
effects of wind disturbances on the turbine (e.g., loads on
WT components by turbulent wind speed or wind shear).
This system should operate in a wide range of mean wind
speed operating-points with a limited number of sensors and
actuators. The approximated power curve that is provided by
the turbine manufacturer is not reliable for modeling and con-
trol of WTs and result in parametric modeling uncertainties.
Also, WTs are flexible structures with many subsystems that
may necessitate multi-objective criteria for closed-loop con-
trol of WTs. Although a reduced-order model with a set of
3049
few dynamics can provide a good approximation of the high-
order WT system in the desired frequency range (usually,
low frequencies), unmodeled dynamics may result in poor
performance or instability of the WECSs. Also, abnormalities
and faults are inevitable in components of WTs. Thus,
advanced technologies such as fault detection and isolation,
LIDAR, and CM systems may help to apply advanced control
strategies to compensate for these malfunctions in WTs while
operating safely in all operating-regions. Then, independent
of the selected control theory, reduction of the WECS’s
sensitivity to inaccuracies in these advanced technologies is
another challenging task (e.g., using definitions of direct and
indirect LIDAR-based strategies in [22], reference [118] used
optimal filtering in a direct LIDAR-based configuration and
reduced LIDAR measurement error, and [22] proposed an
indirect LIDAR-based controller and guaranteed a minimum
level of robustness with respect to the errors in LIDAR
measurement without any limitations in the source of error).
V. S UMMARY
This paper deals with a special class of the literature
focusing on classic, modern, and post-modern control of
WT models that include aerodynamics, and mechanical and
electrical generator dynamics. First, it proposes a short
overview of WTs for control engineers. Next, instead of
an exhaustive survey of the literature with comments on
the advantages and disadvantages of each research work,
this paper introduces a control-theoretic categorization and
provides a brief discussion for each category or, in other
words, each group of control theories that have been used
for control of WTs. Also, this paper uses its literature survey
and determines some challenges in the control of WTs. It
should be noted that the distribution of references in different
categories reflects the author’s viewpoint and, due to the
existence of overlaps between control theories, cannot be
unique (e.g. nonlinear, robust, and adaptive control theories
have an intersection).
R EFERENCES
[1] REN21’s Renewables 2014-global status report.
[2] 2014 Half-year Report, The World Wind Energy Association.
[3] Pao L., Johnson K., “A Tutorial on the Dynamics and Control of Wind
Turbines and Wind Farms,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2009.
[4] Tavner P., “Wind Power as a Clean-Energy Contributor,” Energy
Policy, 36:4397-4400, 2008.
[5] Fagiano L., Milanese M., Control for Wind Power in The Impact of
Control Technology, IEEE CSS, 2011.
[6] Holley W., “Wind Turbine Dynamics and Control - Issues and Chal-
lenges,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2003.
[7] Wright A., Fingersh L., Advanced Control Design for Wind Turbines;
Part I: Control Design, Implementation, and Initial Tests, National
Renewable Energy Lab., USA, 2008.
[8] Bossanyi E., “The Design of Closed Loop Controllers for Wind
Turbines,” Wind Energy, 3:149-163, 2000.
[9] Balas M., Wright A., Hand M., Stol K., ”Dynamics and Control of
Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2003.
[10] Laks J., Pao L., Wright A., “Control of Wind Turbines: Past, Present,
and Future,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2009.
[11] Zhou K., Doyle J., Glover K., Robust and Optimal Control, Prentice
Hall, 1996.
[12] Rezaei V., Active Robust Control of Wind Turbines, Master’s Thesis,
Colorado School of Mines, USA, 2014.
[13] Nguyen H., Naidu D., “Advanced Control Strategies for Wind Energy
Systems: An Overview,” IEEE PES Power Sys. Conf. and Exposition,
USA, 2011.
[14] Moriarty P., Butterfield S., “Wind Turbine Modeling Overview for
Control Engineers,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2009.
[15] Jonkman J., Buhl M., FAST user’s guide, National Renewable Energy
Lab., USA, 2005.
[16] Jonkman J., Dynamics Modeling and Loads Analysis of an Offshore
Floating Wind Turbine, National Renewable Energy Lab., USA, 2007.
[17] Buhl M., WT-Perf User’s Guide, Ver. 3.1, National Renewable Energy
Lab., USA, 2004.
[18] Manwell J., McGowan J., Rogers A., Wind Energy Explained: Theory,
Design and Application, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[19] Matthew M. Duquette M., Visser K., “Numerical Implications of
Solidity and Blade Number on Rotor Performance of Horizontal-Axis
Wind Turbines,” J. of Solar Energy Engineering, 125:425-432, 2003.
[20] Jonkman B., Buhl M., TurbSim User’s Guide, National Renewable
Energy Lab., USA, 2006.
[21] Odgaard P., Stoustrup J., Kinnaert M., “Fault Tolerant Control of
Wind Turbines: A Benchmark Model,” IFAC Symp. on Fault Detection,
Supervision, and Safety of Technical Processes, Spain, 2009.
[22] Rezaei V., “LIDAR-Based Robust Wind-Scheduled Control of Wind
Turbines,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2014.
[23] Hand M., Variable-Speed Wind Turbine Controller Systematic Design
Methodology: a Comparison of Nonlinear and Linear Model-Based
Designs, National Renewable Energy Lab., USA, 1999.
[24] Lydia M., Sureshkumar S., Selvakumar A., Kumar G., “A Compre-
hensive Review on Wind Turbine Power Curve Modeling Techniques,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30:452-460, 2014.
[25] Johnson K., Pao L., Balas M., Fingersh L., “Control of Variable Speed
Wind Turbines: Standard and Adaptive Techniques for Maximizing
Energy Capture,” IEEE Ctrl Sys. Magazine, 26(3):70-81, 2006.
[26] Carrillo C., Montano A., Cidras J., Diaz-Dorado E., “Review of Power
Curve Modeling for Wind Turbines,” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 21:572-581, 2013.
[27] Thomsen S., Nonlinear Control of a Wind Turbine, Master’s Thesis,
Technical University of Denmark, 2006.
[28] Aho J., Pao L., Hauser J., “Optimal Trajectory Tracking Control for
Wind Turbines During Operating Region Transitions,” American Ctrl
Conf., USA, 2013.
[29] Busawon K., Dodson L., Jovanovic M., “Estimation of the Power
Coefficient in a Wind Conversion System,” IEEE Conf. on Decision
and Ctrl and European Ctrl Conf., Spain, 2005.
[30] Odgaard P., Damgaard C., Nielsen R., “On-Line Estimation of Wind
Turbine Power Coefficients Using Unknown Input Observers,” IFAC
World Congress, Korea, 2008.
[31] Fateh F., White W., Gruenbacher D., “A Nonlinear Control Scheme
for Extremum Power Seeking in Wind Turbine Energy Conversion
Systems,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2014.
[32] Beltran B., Ahmed-Ali T., Benbouzid M., “Sliding Mode Power
Control of Variable Speed Wind Energy Conversion Systems,” IEEE
Trans. on Energy Conversion, 23(2):943-948, 2008.
[33] Beltran B., Ahmed-Ali T., Benbouzid M., “High-Order Sliding-Mode
Control of Variable-Speed Wind Turbines,” IEEE Trans. on Industrial
Electronics, 56(9):3314-3321, 2009.
[34] Evangelista C., Puleston P., Valenciaga F., “Wind Turbine Efficiency
Optimization. Comparative Study of Controllers Based on Second
Order Sliding Modes,” Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, 35(11):5934-5939,
2010.
[35] Merida J., Davila J., Aguilar L., “Robust Quasi-Continuous Sliding-
Mode Control of a Variable-Speed Wind Turbine,” Int. Conf. on Elec-
trical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Ctrl, Mexico,
2012.
[36] Merida J., Aguilar L. T., Davila J., “Analysis and Synthesis of Sliding
Mode Control for Large Scale Variable Speed Wind Turbine for Power
Optimization,” Renewable Energy, 71:715-728, 2014.
[37] Sami M., Patton R., “Wind Turbine Power Maximisation Based On
Adaptive Sensor Fault Tolerant Sliding Mode Control,” Med. Conf. on
Ctrl & Automation, Spain, 2012.
[38] Thomsen S., Poulsen N., “A Disturbance Decoupling Nonlinear Con-
trol Law for Variable Speed Wind Turbines,” Med. Conf. on Ctrl and
Automation, Greece, 2007.
[39] Kumar A., Stol K., “Simulating Feedback Linearization Control of
Wind Turbines using High-order Models,” Wind Energy, 13(5):419-
432, 2010.
3050
[40] Burkart R., Margellos K., Lygeros J., “Nonlinear Control of Wind Tur-
bines: An Approach Based on Switched Linear Systems and Feedback
Linearization,” IEEE Conf. on Decision and Ctrl and European Ctrl
Conf., USA, 2011.
[41] Iyasere E., Salah M., Dawson D., Wagner J., “Nonlinear Robust
Control to Maximize Energy Capture in a Variable Speed Wind
Turbine,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2008.
[42] Galeazzi R., Gryning M., Blanke M., “Observer Backstepping Control
for Variable Speed Wind Turbine,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2013.
[43] Sivrioglu S., Ozbay U., Zergeroglu E., “Variable Speed Control
of Wind Turbines: A Robust Backstepping Approach,” IFAC World
Congress, Korea, 2008.
[44] Ozbay U., Zergeroglu E., Sivrioglu S., “Adaptive Backstepping Con-
trol of Variable Speed Wind Turbines,” Int. J. of Ctrl, 81(6):910-919,
2008.
[45] Rubio J., Aguilar L., “Maximizing the Performance of Variable Speed
Wind Turbine with Nonlinear Output Feedback Control,” Procedia
Engineering, 35:31-40, 2012.
[46] Dolan B., Aschemann H., “Nonlinear Control for Load Reduction on a
Variable Speed Pitch Regulated Wind Turbine,” Int. Conf. on Methods
and Models in Automation and Robotics, Poland, 2013.
[47] Boukhezzar B., Siguerdidjane H., “Nonlinear Control of Variable
Speed Wind Turbines for Power Regulation,” IEEE Conf. on Ctrl App.,
Canada, 2005.
[48] Boukhezzar B., Siguerdidjane H., “Nonlinear Control of Variable
Speed Wind Turbines without Wind Speed Measurement,” IEEE Conf.
on Decision and Ctrl and European Ctrl Conf., Spain, 2005.
[49] Boukhezzar B., Siguerdidjane H., “Comparison Between Linear and
Nonlinear Control Strategies for Variable Speed Wind Turbines,” Ctrl
Engineering Practice, 18:1357-1368, 2010.
[50] Lu Z., Lin W., “Asymptotic Tracking Control of Variable-Speed Wind
Turbines,” IFAC World Congress, Italy, 2011.
[51] Boukhezzar B., Lupu L., Siguerdidjane H., Hand M., “Multivariable
Control Strategy for Variable Speed, Variable Pitch Wind Turbines,”
Renewable Energy, 32:1273-1287, 2007.
[52] Munteanu I., Cutululis N., Bratcu A., Ceanga E., “Optimization of
Variable Speed Wind Power Systems Based on a LQG Approach,”
Ctrl Engineering Practice, 13:903-912, 2005.
[53] Trudnowski D., LeMieux D., “Independent Pitch Control using Rotor
Position Feedback for Wind-Shear and Gravity Fatigue Reduction in
a Wind Turbine,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2002.
[54] Petrovic V., Campagnolo F., “Experimental Validation of Wind Turbine
Higher Harmonic Control using Shaft Loads Measurements,” Euro-
pean Ctrl Conf., Switzerland, 2013.
[55] Selvam K., Kanev S., van Wingerden J., van Engelen T., Verhaegen
M., “Feedback-Feedforward Individual Pitch Control for Wind Turbine
Load Reduction,” Int. J. of Robust and Nonlinear Ctrl, 19:72-91, 2009.
[56] Bossanyi E., “Individual Blade Pitch Control for Load Reduction,”
Wind Energy, 6:119-128, 2003.
[57] Bir G., User’s Guide to MBC3: Multi-Blade Coordinate Transforma-
tion Code for 3-Bladed Wind Turbines, National Renewable Energy
Lab., USA, 2010.
[58] Bottasso C., Croce A., Riboldi C., Nam Y., “Multi-Layer Control
Architecture for the Reduction of Deterministic and Non-Deterministic
Loads on Wind Turbines,” Renewable Energy, 51:159-169, 2013.
[59] Park S., “A Novel Individual Pitch Control Algorithm Based on -
Synthesis for Wind Turbines,” J. of Mechanical Science and Technol-
ogy, 28(4):1509-1517, 2014.
[60] Stol K., Zhao W., Wright A., “Individual Blade Pitch Control for
the Controls Advanced Research Turbine (CART),” ASME J. of Solar
Energy Engineering, 128:498-505, 2006.
[61] Hammerum K., A Fatigue Approach to Wind Turbine Control, Master’s
Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, 2006.
[62] Park S., Nam Y., “Two LQRI based Blade Pitch Controls for Wind
Turbines,” Energies, 5:1998-2016, 2012.
[63] Wright A., Balas M., “Design of State-Space-Based Control Algo-
rithms for Wind Turbine Speed Regulation,” ASME J. of Solar Energy
Engineering, 125:386-395, 2003.
[64] Stol K., Disturbance Tracking and Blade Load Control of Wind
Turbines in Variable Speed Operation, National Renewable Energy
Lab., USA, 2003.
[65] Parker G., Johnson C., “Improved Speed Regulation and Mitigation
of Drive-Train Torsion Fatigue in Flexible Wind Turbines, Using
Disturbance Utilization Control: Part One,” Southeastern Symp. on
Sys. Theory, USA, 2009.
[66] Parker G., Johnson C., “Improved Speed Regulation and Mitigation
of Drive-Train Torsion Fatigue in Flexible Wind Turbines, Using
Disturbance Utilization Control: Part Two,” Southeastern Symp. on
Sys. Theory, USA, 2009.
[67] Parker G., Johnson C., “Improved Drive-Train and Blade Fatigue
Mitigation in Flexible Wind Turbines Using Disturbance Utilization
Control” Med. Conf. on Ctrl and Automation, Greece, 2009.
[68] Parker G., Johnson C., “Use of Reduced-Order Observers for Feedback
Control in Large Wind Turbines May Reduce Fatigue Damage from
Excitement of Flexible Modes,” Southeastern Symp. on Sys. Theory,
USA, 2010.
[69] Namik H., Stol K., “Performance Analysis of Individual Blade Pitch
Control of Offshore Wind Turbines on Two Floating Platforms,”
Mechatronics, 21:691-703, 2011.
[70] Wright A., Fingersh L., Balas M., “Testing State-Space Controls for
the Controls Advanced Research Turbine,” ASME J. of Solar Energy
Engineering, 128(4):506-515, 2006.
[71] Wright A., Fingersh L., Stol K., “Testing Controls to Mitigate Fatigue
Loads in the Controls Advanced Research Turbine,” Med. Conf. on
Ctrl and Automation, Greece, 2009.
[72] Stol K., Balas M., “Full-State Feedback Control of a Variable-Speed
Wind Turbine: A Comparison of Periodic and Constant Gains,” ASME
J. of Solar Energy Engineering, 123:319-326, 2001.
[73] Stol K., Balas M., “Periodic Disturbance Accommodating Control
for Blade Load Mitigation in Wind Turbines,” J. of Solar Energy
Engineering, 125:379-385, 2003.
[74] Girsang I.P., Dhupia J.S., “Collective Pitch Control of Wind Turbines
using Stochastic Disturbance Accommodating Control,” Wind Engi-
neering, 37(5):517-534, 2013.
[75] Cheon J., Kwon S., Choi Y., “Design of a Pitch Controller using Dis-
turbance Accommodating Control for Wind Turbines under Stochastic
Environments,” IEEE Int. Symp. on Ind. Electronics, Turkey, 2014.
[76] Rocha R., Siqueira L., Filho M., “A Multivariable H∞ Control for
Wind Energy Conversion System,” IEEE Conf. on Ctrl App., Turkey,
2003.
[77] Bianchi F., Mantz R., Christiansen C., “Power Regulation in Pitch-
Controlled Variable-Speed WECS Above Rated Wind Speed,” Renew-
able Energy, 29:1911-1922, 2004.
[78] Ozdemir A., Seiler P., Balas G., “Performance of Disturbance Aug-
mented Control Design in Turbulent Wind Conditions,” Mechatronics,
21:634-644, 2011.
[79] Laks J, Pao L, Wright A. “Combined Feed-Forward/Feedback Control
of Wind Turbines to Reduce Blade Flap Bending Moments,” AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, USA, 2009.
[80] Bakka T., Karimi H., Multi-Objective Control Design with Pole
Placement Constraints for Wind Turbine System, InTech, 2012.
[81] Schuler S., Schlipf D., Cheng P., Allgower F., “l1 -Optimal Control
of Large Wind Turbines,” IEEE Transaction on Ctrl Sys. Technology,
21(4):1079-1089, 2013.
[82] Fleming P., Wingerden J., Wright A., “Comparing State-Space Mul-
tivariable Controls to Multi-SISO Controls for Load Reduction of
Drivetrain-Coupled Modes on Wind Turbines through Field-Testing,”
AlAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, USA, 2012.
[83] Wright A., Modern Control Design for Flexible Wind Turbines,
National Renewable Energy Lab., USA, 2004.
[84] Geyler M., Caselitz P., “Robust Multivariable Pitch Control Design for
Load Reduction on Large Wind Turbines,” ASME J. of Solar Energy
Engineering, 130(3):12, 2008.
[85] Sloth C., Esbensen T., Niss M., Stoustrup J., Odgaard P., “Robust
LMI-Based Control of Wind T urbines with Parametric Uncertainties,”
IEEE Int. Conf. on Ctrl App., Russia, 2009.
[86] Mirzaei M., Niemann H., Poulsen N, “DK-Iteration Robust Control
Design of a Wind Turbine,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Ctrl App., USA, 2011.
[87] Mirzaei M., Niemann H., Poulsen N., “A µ-Synthesis Approach to
Robust Control of a Wind Turbine,” IEEE Conf. on Decision and Ctrl
and European Ctrl Conf., USA, 2011.
[88] Rezaei V., Johnson K., “Robust Fault Tolerant Pitch Control of Wind
Turbines,” IEEE Conf. on Decision and Ctrl, Italy, 2013.
[89] Garcia-Sanz M., “Quantitative Robust Control Engineering: Theory
and Experimental Results on Wind Turbines,” 2nd Int. Conf. on
Renewable Energy and Power Quality, Spain, 2004.
[90] Frost S. A., Goebel K., Obrecht L., “Integrating Structural Health
Management with Contingency Control for Wind Turbines,” Int. J.
of Prognostics and Health Management, Vol. 4 (Special Issue Wind
Turbine PHM), 2013.
3051
[91] Camblong H., “Digital Robust Control of a Variable Speed Pitch Reg-
ulated Wind Turbine for Above Rated Wind Speeds,” Ctrl Engineering
Practice, 16:946-958, 2008.
[92] Senjyu T., Sakamoto R., Urasaki N., Higa H., Uezato K., Funabashi
T., “Output Power Control of Wind Turbine Generator by Pitch Angle
Control Using Minimum Variance Control,” Electrical Engineering in
Japan, 154(2):10-18, 2006.
[93] Ma X., Adaptive Extremum Control and Wind Turbine Control, PhD
Dissertation, Technical University of Denmark, 1997.
[94] Komatsu M., Miyamoto H., Ohmori H., Sano A., “Output Maximiza-
tion Control of Wind Turbine Based on Extremum Control Strategy,”
American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2001.
[95] Frost S., Balas M., Wright A., “Direct Adaptive Control of a Utility-
Scale Wind Turbine for Speed Regulation,” Int. J. of Robust and
Nonlinear Ctrl, 19(1):59-71, 2009.
[96] Balas M., Li Q., Peterman R., “Adaptive Disturbance Tracking Control
for Large Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines in Variable Speed Region
II Operation, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, USA, 2010.
[97] Balas M., Magar K., Frost S. A., “Adaptive Disturbance Tracking
Theory with State Estimation and State Feedback for Region II control
of Large Wind Turbines,” American control Conf., USA, 2013.
[98] Ioannou P., Sun J., Robust Adaptive Control, Prentice Hall, 1996.
[99] Frost S., Balas M., Wright A., “Generator Speed Regulation in
the Presence of Structural Modes through Adaptive Control Using
Residual Mode Filters,” Mechatronics, 21(4):660-667, 2011.
[100] Rezaei V., Salmasi F., “Robust Adaptive Fault Tolerant Pitch Control
of Wind Turbines,” Wind Engineering, 38(6):601-612, 2014.
[101] Fekri S., Athans M., Pascoal A, “Issues, Progress and New Results
in Robust Adaptive Control,” Int. J. of Adaptive Ctrl and Signal
Processing, 20(10):519-579, 2006.
[102] Kumar A., Stol K., “Scheduled Model Predictive Control of a Wind
Turbine,” AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symp., USA, 2009.
[103] Soliman M., Malik O., Wetswick D., “Multiple Model MIMO
Predictive Control for Variable Speed Pitch Wind Turbines,” American
Ctrl Conf., USA, 2010.
[104] Garcia-Sanz M., Elso J., “Beyond the Linear Limitations by Combin-
ing Switching and QFT: Application to Wind Turbines Pitch Control
Systems,” Int. J. of Robust and Nonlinear Ctrl, (19):40-58, 2008.
[105] Senjyu T., Sakamoto R., Urasaki N., Funabashi T., Fujita H., Sekine
H., “Output Power Leveling of Wind Turbine Generator for All
Operating Regions by Pitch Angle Control,” IEEE Trans. on Energy
Conversion, 21(2):467-475, 2006.
[106] Landau I., Lozano R., M’Saad M., Karimi A., Adaptive Control:
Algorithms, Analysis and Applications, Springer, 2011.
[107] Laks J., Pao L., Simley E., Wright A., Kelley N., “Model Predictive
Control Using Preview Measurements from LIDAR,” AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, USA, 2011.
[108] Koerber A., King R., “Combined FeedbackFeedforward Control of
Wind Turbines Using State-Constrained ModelPredictive Control,”
IEEE Transaction on Ctrl Sys. Technology, 21(4)1117-1128, 2013.
[109] Henriksen L., Poulsen N., Hansen M., “Nonlinear Model Predictive
Control of a Simplified Wind Turbine,” IFAC World Congress, Italy,
2011.
[110] Schlipf D., Schlipf D., Khn M., “Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
of Wind Turbines Using LIDAR,” Wind Energy, 16(7):1107-1129,
2012.
[111] Schlipf D., Grau P., Raach S., Duraiski R., Trierweiler J., Cheng P.,
“Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of
Wind Turbines Using LIDAR,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2014.
[112] Bianchi F., Mantz R., Christiansen C., “Control of Variable-Speed
Wind Turbines by LPV Gain Scheduling,” Wind Energy, 7:1-8, 2004.
[113] Bianchi F., Battista H., Mantz R., Wind Turbine Control Systems:
Principles, Modeling and Gain-Scheduling Design, Springer, 2007.
[114] Adegas F., Sloth C., Stoustrup J., Structured Linear Parameter
Varying Control of Wind Turbines, Springer, 2012.
[115] Lescher F., Zhao J., Martinez A., “Multi-Objective H2 /H∞ Control
of a Pitch Regulated Wind Turbine for Mechanical Load Reduction,”
European Wind Energy Conf., Greece, 2006.
[116] Wang S., Seiler P., “Gain Scheduled Active Power Control for Wind
Turbines,” AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conf., USA, 2014.
[117] Sloth C., Esbensen T., Stoustrup J.,“Robust and Fault Tolerant
Linear Parameter-Varying Control of Wind Turbines,” Mechatronics,
21(4):645-659, 2011.
[118] Simley E., Pao L., “Reducing LIDAR Wind Speed Measurement
Error with Optimal Filtering,” American Ctrl Conf., USA, 2013.