See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/370068344

Wind turbines dynamics loads alleviation: Overview of the active controls and
the corresponding strategies

Article · January 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114070

CITATIONS

5 authors, including:

ALI EL YAAKOUBI
Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
22 PUBLICATIONS   310 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nanowires solar cell View project

Wind Energy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by ALI EL YAAKOUBI on 17 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Wind turbines dynamics loads alleviation: Overview of the active controls

and the corresponding strategies
Ali El Yaakoubi a, *, Aicha Bouzem b, Rachid El Alami a, Noreddine Chaibi a, Othmane Bendaou b
a
LISAC, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El Mahraz, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, B.P. 1796, Atlas-Fez, Morocco
b
Equipe Optique, Matériaux et Systèmes, FS, Abdelmalek Essaadi University, B.P.2121, M’Hannech II, 93030, Tétouan, Morocco

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. A.I. Incecik Structural loads vibration is a critical problem in WTs (wind turbines) due to many reasons such as the
complicated dynamics, structural coupling and diversity of the driving sources such as gravitational, inertial,
Keywords: aerodynamic and operational loads. These loads cause pressures forces along the span of the blade and alternate
Dynamics loads bending moments of the chord-wise and flap-wise axes per revolution, thus leading to fatigue loads in WT
Loads vibration
components. The accumulation of these loads over time cause degradation and lifespan reduction of the overall
Fatigue loads
system. Monitoring, analysis of the dynamics loads and mitigation of their impact are a straightforwardly
Vibration control
challenge in modern WTs. In this regard, this article explores a deep research on dynamics loads mitigation for
WTs applications. In the first time, baseline control of WTs, based on electromagnetic torque and collective pitch
angle control (CPC), is presented. Thereafter, the paper presents the vibration control methods including passive,
active and semi-active controls. The control based on the active method is economic, reliable and the generated
forces are based on the control algorithms. This control includes drive-train damper, tower damper and indi­
vidual pitch angle control (IPC). Subsequently, the various techniques and control strategies to implement these
vibration control methods are given out and discussed in detail under various operating conditions such as wind
speed fluctuation, high non-linearity, un-modeled dynamics, perturbations, disturbances … etc. These methods
cover Disturbance accommodation control (DAC), Model Predictive Control (MPC), combined feed-forward and
feedback control, robust and multi-variable control, and adaptive control. It can be stated that DAC allows to
improve loads rejection under spatial varying wind, while that MPC allows to optimize a cost function containing
a set of WTs objectives. Combined feed-forward and feedback control allows to actuate the WT in anticipation of
the incoming disturbances. Multivariable and robust controls allow to accomplish WTs objectives under dis­
turbances and uncertainties. Adaptive control allows to adjust its parameters to the WTs operating conditions
under un-modeled dynamics and uncertainties. The paper finishes by conclusions and perspectives.

future objectives, Moroccan state aims to achieve 52% of its energy

1. Introduction
Recently, the world wind energy market has known a rapid growth
due to its completeness, technologies development and the new
renewable energy agreements. Fig. 1 illustrates the cumulative invest­
ment in the world wind energy from 2010 to 2020. As illustrated, the
wind energy generation in 2010 was 196.9 GW and reached 650.8 GW in
2020 by an average cumulative capacity rate of 14.27%. The installed
capacity in 2020 is only 25 MW, while the expected amount is around
77 GW. This capacity showed a holistic decrease of 99.99% due to the
unexpected effects of the Corona virus crisis. This crisis will surely
impact the overall objectives highlighted in this regard. In terms of
needs from renewable energy sources in 2030. It aims to install annually
around 4.56 GW in 2030, which accounting 20% of total installed ca­
pacity. This will allow to avoid annually around 20.29 Mega million tons
of CO2 emission in 2030. These highlighted objectives are justified by
many reasons such as freeness and infinite availability of energy re­
sources, government initiatives to fight against climate change, as well
as depletion of fossil fuels resources and their harmful environmental
effects. Therefore, renewable energy sources, especially wind energy,
would become a valuable energy source.
WTs have attracted a considerable attention and enjoyed a great
interest as one of the most promising and developing renewable energy
sources until present due to the development of WTs industry, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ali.elyaakoubi@gmail.com, ali.elyaakoubi@usmba.ac.ma (A. El Yaakoubi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114070
Received 14 December 2022; Received in revised form 12 February 2023; Accepted 25 February 2023
Available online 8 April 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. El Yaakoubi et al. Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070

Nomenclature Δβ1,2,3 Perturbed pitch angles of the three blades

β1,2,3 Pitch angles of the three blades
ACO Ant Colony Optimization LPV Linear Parameter-Varying
BPF Band Bass Filter LQG Linear Quadratic Gaussian
CART Compact and Robust Medium Wind Turbine LQR Linear Quadratic regulator
CPC Collective pitch control MIMO Multiple-Input Multiple-Output
DAC Disturbance accommodation control MMPC Multiple Model Predictive Control
DOB Disturbance Observer MPC Model predictive control
DOBC Accommodated Observer based control NLMPC Non-linear model predictive control
DOF Degree of freedom NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
FIR Finite Impulse Response PD Proportional Derivative
GSPI Gain Scheduling Proportional Integral Control PI Proportional Integral
IMC Internal Model Control PID Proportional Integral Derivative
IPC Individual Pitch Control RBFNN Radial Basis Function Neural Network
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging SISO Single-Input Single-Output
LMI Linear Matrix Inequalities TMD Tuned Mass Damper
LMPC Linear model predictive control ωg Generator speed
Tg Electromagnetic torque

simple its structure, cheap building and easy electrical connection

compared to the offshore based configuration.
The diversity and the turbulence nature of the wind cause significant
fluctuations loads on WTs components, especially in the high speeds
values. In fact, wind speed changes result to unbalanced aerodynamics
loads in the rotor area. These loads are also caused by vertical wind
shear and tower shadow effects. Wind shear represents wind changes in
speed and direction, while the tower shadow effect is the reduction of
wind speed as it approaches the tower. Under these effects, each blade
experiences different aerodynamic forces at every cycle when the rotor
blades are 120◦ out of phase with each other. Gyroscopic effect in its rule
is another source of induced structural loads. It is resulted from the
combined action of rotating components such as rotor, blades and na­
celle. This effect results in rotating forces and thus to braking the com­
ponents (Njiri and Söffker, 2016). WTs loads results to WTs vibrations
modes. Indeed, any load changes can excite lightly damped modes and
result in oscillations. If such vibrations are left unaddressed, the WTs
components will be subjected to higher extreme and fatigue loads, and
ultimately to damage. Coupling modes are another source of vibrations.
WT components are strongly coupled. For instance, the blade flap-wise
mode has a strong coupling effect with tower the fore-aft mode, while
the blade edge-wise and tower side-side modes are strongly coupled
Fig. 1. Accumulated world wind energy between 2010 and 2020.
with the drive train torsion mode. If such mode is excited, it will lead to
the excitation of the other modes and thus to load vibrations. Fake
evolution of semiconductor technologies, and the development of new
turbulence resulted from wind misalignment is another source of fatigue
methods of WTs control (El Yaakoubi et al., 2019; Mérida et al., 2014).
loads. A study (Simley et al., 2021) presented results from a
Traditional WTs are small, vertical axis and fixed speed operation; while
wake-steering experiment at a commercial wind plant to redirect wake
the development of technologies makes them large, horizontal axis and
effects away from downstream turbines in wind farms. Wake steering
variable speed operation. Horizontal axis variable speed WT is the most
improves wake losses reduction. In another study, a data-driven control
dominant in the current markets due to its benefits compared to the
method based on machine learning algorithms is proposed to detect and
fixed speed such as increased energy capture, operation at maximum
correct static and dynamic yaw errors (Gao and Hong, 2021).
power point over a wide range of operation, high quality of the produced
The combination of these loads may induce a large number of load
power, and minimized mechanical stresses on the turbine components.
cycle with a large range of magnitude and number of occurrences.
WTs technologies can be implemented in wind farms, either in offshore
Therefore, the WT designer should study and verify the various loads to
or onshore applications. The offshore application can be installed in
which the turbine structures may be exposed, especially those specified
more than 30 km from the coast and less than 30 m in deep. It has the
in the WT design requirements (“TC88-MT, I. E. C. Iec 61400-3: Wind
advantage of increased wind speed compared to those installed on land.
turbines–part 1: Design requirements,” 2005). Loads on components can
However, it suffers from some technical difficulties through additional
directly be associated with increasing the cost of maintenance and repair
of such materials for platform construction and utility grid connection
activities, and accordingly reducing of the operational lifetime of a WT.
that result in an increase of the operational and maintenance costs. On
In this regard, each turbine component must be designed and analyzed
the other hand, onshore WTs have some impact on the environment
in terms of the exposed loads by employing sophisticated and strongly
chiefly in the form of noise pollution, visual pollution, harm to birds and
flexible simulators such as openFAST (Fatigue, Aerodynamic Structural
human hearing issues (Dean, 2008; Oerlemans et al., 2007). However,
and Structural). OpenFAST has the ability to get a realistic WT model
there are many benefits associated with this configuration such as
that comes with control objectives by simply switching a specific DOF

2
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
and by accounting various operating conditions in both onshore and
offshore WTs applications (“OpenFAST Documentation (Release v3.2.0),
” 2022). Drive train, tower and blades are among the main components
subjected to critical fatigue loads. Therefore, damping of the vibrations
resulted from the various driving loads, by employing appropriate vi­
bration control methods, is an alternative solution for structural loads
reduction. A control strategy to maximize loads capacity of WTs under
various wind conditions has been presented in (Song et al., 2022). The
performance of the method has been discussed under various adverse
effects, and it is proved to be effective in reducing the power steep drop
in wind farms. The loads vibration control can be classified into three
control categories active, passive and semi-active control (Xie and Aly,
2020; Zuo et al., 2020). Passive control is based on installing new de­
vices and/or adding new materials (Liu et al., 2016). It requires an
external energy source to derive the control forces. Active control in­
cludes in its structure sensors, control algorithms and actuators (Xie and
Aly, 2020). This control is economic, reliable and the generated forces
are based on the control algorithms. Semi-active control system is based
on the combination of passive and active controls. The active control
will be deeply discussed in this study, due to its adaptability and ability
to account for vibration loads in WTs. The active controls of the WTs
include CPC, IPC, drive-train damper, tower damper. It can be stated
that the drive train damper control is effective for drive train loads
reduction, while the CPC is adequate for symmetrical loads reduction
experienced on the rotor. IPC has been proven to be effective at atten­
uating the harmful turbine structural loads that arise from spatially
uneven and temporarily unsteady oncoming wind. This control can be
used also to actively control the motions of the blades and tower loads
predominantly exist at the harmonics of the blade rotational frequency
(Barlas and van Kuik, 2010). Active control based on MIMO (multi­
ple-input multiple-output) systems is another alternative approach for
structural attenuation in WTs. It allows to fulfill multi-control objectives
simultaneously such as speed and power rating limitation, components
loads minimization. The active vibration control strategies cover, but
are not exhaustive, DAC, MPC, combined feed-forward and feedback,
robust and multi-variable methods, and adaptive controls. In this pur­
pose, this study reviews and discusses the vibration control methods and
the corresponding control strategies to minimize the WT dynamics loads
impacts. These methods will be outlined under various modeling prob­
lems such as non-linear dynamics, un-modeled dynamics, disturbances
and uncertainties … etc.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents WT
baseline control. Section 3 discusses the vibration control methods to
mitigate loads on the drive train, Tower and blades components. Section
4 presents and reviews in detail the various control strategies found in
literature to implement the vibration control methods. Section 5 analysis
and prospects for the corresponding control strategies are given out. The
paper finishes by conclusions and perspectives.
2. Wind turbines (WTs) baseline control
WTs baseline control includes principally two independent controls:
electromagnetic torque (Tg ) and collective pitch angle (β) control. In the
partial loads operating region, the pitch angle is often kept fixed at its
optimal value while the electromagnetic torque is adjusted dynamically
to its optimal value for maximum power capture (El Yaakoubi et al.,
2019). In the full loads operating region, the pitch angle is controlled to
regulate the rotor speed and effectively to alleviate the structural loads
while the generator torque is controlled to deviate slightly from its rated
value to maintain the generator speed at its optimal value. WT control
applies rotor speed as a feedback signal to actuate the electromagnetic
torque and the blade pitch to their desired values, in order to achieve
WTs control objectives in terms of power optimization and speed/power
regulation. Baseline WT control includes also a yaw control approach for
power optimization in the partial loads operating region (Meng et al.,
2023). Generally, in this region the WT is aligned with the wind
3
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
direction and the generator torque is the only employed control system.
2.1. Electromagnetic torque
The torque control is based on the optimal torque law in order to
derive the optimum electromagnetic torque based on the turbine char­
acteristic and weather conditions. In the stationary regime, by neglect­
ing the mechanical and electrical losses and by assuming that the turbine
operates at its optimum aerodynamic, the optimum generator torque
(Tg,opt ) is expressed as Tg,opt = kopt ω2g . Where kopt is the controller con­
stant and ωg is the generator speed. As shown in Fig. 2, this method
yields an optimal electromagnetic torque without returning to the wind
speed measurement. It allows the rotor speed to follow its optimum
value, whatever the wind speed increases or decreases in order to
operate the WT around the optimum aerodynamic power coefficient
(Bossanyi, 2003b; Laks et al., 2011; Yaakoubi et al., 2019). However,
this method induces mechanical stresses on the drive train component
due to torque fluctuations.
2.2. Collective pitch control (CPC)
CPC control allows increasing the pitch angle of the blades in order to
reduce the aerodynamic loading, and thus to maintain the rotor speed at
its rated value. Baseline CPC is the Gain Scheduling Proportional Inte­
gral (GSPI) control as illustrated in Fig. 2. It allows to maintain the rotor
speed constant at its rated value based on the error speed between the
feedback generator speed (ωg ) and the rated generator speed (ωg,ref ).
This technique is proposed as an alternative to the PI controller in order
to tackle the high nonlinearities of the WTs (yaakoubi et al., 2018). It
allows updating the controller gains when the operating point shifts
from the optimal value, to guarantee consistent optimal performance
over the PI controller. The control law (C(β)) is the product of a
scheduled gain and the PI controller law (Ren et al., 2016):
( )
ki
C(β) = K(β) kp + (1)
s
The controller gains (kp , ki ) are determined based on the linear model
of the plant around the optimal operating point. The scheduled gain
(K(β)) is proposed to tackle the high aerodynamic sensitivity, and thus to
update the controller gains according to the wind speed changes. The
scheduling gain is defined as:
1
K(β) = (2)
1 + β/
βk
βk is the pitch angle value where the aerodynamic versus pitch angle
is doubled from the value corresponding to the optimal operating point.
This control has been deeply validated by the onshore 5 MW WT based
on the openFAST model at NREL (Jonkman et al., 2009). In another
study, a teaching-learning based optimization algorithm has been
employed to update the PI parameters under wind speed changes, and
the controller obtained is validated by experimental results from a small
scale WT (Chavero-Navarrete et al., 2019). Ant colony optimization
(ACO), particle swarm optimization (PSO) and classical ziegler-Nichols
(Z-N) algorithms have been employed for tuning the PID controller pa­
rameters (Sarkar et al., 2020). Simulation results indicate that the ACO
algorithm out performs well under fast wind speed variations.
Various CPC methods have been discussed over the previous decades
in order to tackle the high-nonlinearity of the aerodynamic torque and to
account for the symmetrical structural loads. These methods cover state
feedback methods, PI-based methods, LQR, LQG, Fuzzy logic, sliding
mode, ….(Boukhezzar et al., 2007; Darrow et al., 2011; Ge et al., 2019;
Han and Liu, 2014; Hwas and Katebi, 2012; Iqbal et al., 2020; Nam et al.,
2013; Pintea et al., 2011; Pustina et al., 2023; Ren et al., 2016; Yaakoubi
and Amhaimar, 2022). An optimal control method combining yaw offset
and CPC is designed for an offshore wind farm (Zhao et al., 2022). The
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
Fig. 2. Baseline WT control.
control is investigated on three turbines based offshore wind farm, and
its performance is found to be important in the partial loads region in
terms of increased power and reduced fatigue loads.
Even though these control methods allow to maintain generator
speed around its nominal value and to handle symmetrical loads under
variable aerodynamic conditions, they cannot tackle asymmetrical
structural loads on turbine components. On the other hand, the CPC
control is Single-Input Single-Output (SISO) system because it provides a
collective pitch angle based on the measurement of the generator speed.
The usage of the collective pitch angle based on the SISO system sacri­
fices WT performance, especially in loads mitigation. An alternative
solution is to employ vibration controls based on MIMO systems. These
methods allow to fulfill the WT control objectives such as speed regu­
lation and structural loads reduction. This is attractive since the WT
maintenance cost can be lowered and the operational lifetime can be
extended.
3. Loads vibration control
As mentioned above, WTs are exposed to many adverse issues like
wind fluctuations, high stresses, vibrations, torsion, …,etc. An important
key point is loads identification for vibration control purposes. Modal
characteristics and in-field measurement the most commonly used ap­
proaches to determine modal parameters of WTs (Hansen et al., 2006;
Ozbek and Rixen, 2013). The frequencies and damping ratios of a WT
in-field measurement method can be obtained from optical measure­
ments and records of traditional strain gauge. It is indicated that strong
low frequency is usually a critical vibration mode during the lifetime of a
built WT, while strong high frequency causes disturbing sounds and
noise issue (Weidong Xin et al., 2011). Blade load and fatigue damage
for loads monitoring consisting of physics models coupled with the
Kalman filter is presented in (Namura et al., 2021). Fatigue estimation
based on time-consuming Monte Carlo simulations for various wind
conditions, followed by cycle-counting procedures and the application
of engineering damage model, is presented in (Mylonas et al., 2021). A
machine learning-based prediction method is proposed to estimate the
fatigue loads and power of WTs by taking the full range of inflow and
yaw conditions, is presented in (He et al., 2022). The proposed predic­
tion method can return high regression coefficients, providing good
performance in terms of accuracy and robustness.
Many control approaches have been presented in literature to
effectively damp the WTs loads. These approaches are mostly classified
into three categories passive, active and semi-active vibration methods.
Passive control is the classical method of controlling WTs. It is imple­
mented by installing soft support devices for the generator and drive
train, mounting damper at the top of the tower, using new materials in
the blades and so on (Liu et al., 2016). The control forces are generally
4
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
based on the structural motions. Various passive energy dissipation
(PED) devices were installed in WTs structures in order to improve their
dynamics behaviors. Some of these devices are metallic yield dampers,
friction dampers, viscoelastic dampers, viscous fluid dampers, Tuned
Mass Damper (TMD), tuned liquid dampers (TLDs), tuned liquid column
dampers (TLCDs), Single or multiple TLCDs, …, etc. (Martín-Alcántara
et al., 2023; Weidong Xin et al., 2011; Zuo et al., 2020). A passive TMD is
installed at the nacelle by considering blade/tower interaction is pre­
sented in (Murtagh et al., 2008). Two passive control devices have been
installed on the platform of a floating WT, with different positions and
orientations (Galán-Lavado and Santos, 2021). Passive control of WTs is
extensively discussed in (Xie and Aly, 2020) and it is stated that it is
simple, economical and does not require any external energy source.
However, its structure remains uncontrollable and has limited control
effects. Moreover, Passive dampers introduce additional weights on the
top of tower that leads currently to vibrations. Active vibration control
has been widely adopted in this regard over the passive controls due to
many functionalities such as deployment costs, robustness and
controllability feature. It adopts in its structure sensors, control and
actuators (Yao et al., 2023; Zuo et al., 2020). The sensors monitor the
external excitations and the structural responses. The control feeds the
actuator based on the information provided from the sensors and the
control system, while the actuator provides the control forces to mitigate
the structural loads effects based on the control forces. Nonetheless, the
performance of the active control depends strongly on the control al­
gorithms. Semi-active control system combines the benefits of both
passive and active controls (Ahmad et al., 2023; Nazokkar and Dez­
vareh, 2022; Xie and Aly, 2020; Zuo et al., 2020). As a result, this
structure allows for greater flexibility in vibration control objectives
while requiring less external energy. The mostly used semi-active
damper is the active TMD (ATMD) (Mitra et al., 2022). Its structure
combines the passive TMD and the active control actuator. In this
configuration, the control forces obtained from the active control are
used to improve the effectiveness of the TMD in order to increase its
robustness in terms of structural loads rejection. Even though the active
and semi-active vibration controls need an external energy source
compared to the passive control, their structures allow for more
robustness in controlling the structural loads and thus to fulfill multiple
control objectives simultaneously for WTs. In addition, active control is
economic, reliable and adaptable for any kind of systems. Therefore, this
control is considered for active vibration control of structural loads in
the drive train, tower and blades.
The active vibration controls of a WT include CPC, IPC, drive-train
damper, and tower damper. It has been reported in the literature that
the drive train damper control is effective for drive train loads reduction
(Licari, 2013). The drive train damper can also be employed for tower
side-side bending alleviation (Fleming et al., 2012). IPC has been proven
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
to be effective at attenuating the harmful turbine structural loads that
arise from spatially uneven and temporarily unsteady oncoming wind
(Bossanyi, 2003a, 2003b). It has been indicated also that IPC controls
actively the motions of the blades and tower loads predominantly exist
at the harmonics of the blade rotational frequency (Barlas and van Kuik,
2010). Active control of the floating offshore in the high wind speed
region under harsh wind flows and incidents waves has been reviewed in
(Truong et al., 2022). The drive train damper is combined with the speed
control loop, while the IPC is designed separately from the CPC in order
to avoid cross-excitation as indicated by Fig. 3.
3.1. Active drive train damper
Drive train damper allows to provide a torque component that op­
poses to the rotor speed changes responsible for oscillations in the shaft.
In fact, when there is a positive peak on the speed oscillations due to the
drive train dynamics, the damper demands more torque from the
generator. Whereas, when there is a negative peak the damper demands
less torque (Yaakoubi et al., 2017). The damper allows thus to reduce the
oscillations at the drive train by providing a torque component based on
the measured generator speed. This control scheme is combined with the
main speed/torque control loop for being injected to the WT through the
rotor side converter. Conventional drive train damper based on band
bass filters (BPF) approach is originally adopted as an effective way to
damp torsional vibrations in the drive train (Bossanyi, 2003b). It is
stated in (Licari et al., 2013), that the stability and performance of the
BPF based damper can be promised when the WT is subjected to model
uncertainties. As an alternative solution to improve the performance of
the damper, the study introduced a damper-based model by using pole
placement method. The effectiveness of the damper is validated by
simulation and experiment, and showed superior performance over the
BPF based damper. Active dampers using the concept of virtual inertia
are proposed in (Girsang et al., 2013; Mandic et al., 2012). The control
device has BPF properties in order to avoid interference with the main
control loop (Mandic et al., 2012). The performance of these dampers
has been investigated under various aerodynamic conditions, and has
indicated less torsional vibrations. To improve damping of the
drive-train, a damper based on the integration of an virtual inertia is
Fig. 3. Generalized WT control with loads vibration control.
5
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
presented (Girsang et al., 2013). The eigen-frequency of the system can
be displaced only when the drive-train passes through its inherent
resonance. The simulation results proved better performance of the in­
ertial control under range of tested wind speeds and frequency excita­
tions. Drive train fatigue loads caused by the inertial control system are
also studied in (Y. Wang et al., 2022b). A small signal model is estab­
lished by accounting for inertial control on the shaft torque and tower
bending moment, and a PI based mitigation control strategy for the fa­
tigue load mitigation is designed. The performance of the method has
been investigated by simulations in both frequency and time domain
analysis. A damping control strategy based on two-channel schemes is
proposed in (Li et al., 2019). The first channel is PID term that deals with
torsional vibration caused by the frequency difference between fan and
shafting. The other channel adopts the torsional vibration angle as a
feedback signal, and an additional damping term is formed by BPF and
trap BPF. The performance of the control strategy has been investigated
to be effective in suppressing torsional vibrations. The damper based on
BPF approach is ineffective in dynamics loads suppression, especially
those resulted from wind guest and voltage sage. Furthermore, the PBF
based approach may introduce delay into the system because filtered
signals have always a time delay compared to real signals. In a followed
study, small perturbed generator torque on the nominal value in the
high wind speed has been discussed in (Wright and Fingersh, 2008). In
another, active drivetrain/tower dampers were designed to damp two
resonant modes through a disturbance in the drivetrain torque based on
two control algorithms (Fleming et al., 2013). The performance of the
control methods is investigated based on the CART model at NREL. The
results proved that both control methods can reduce the damage
equivalent loads on the drivetrain. Even though these damping methods
allow to reduce drive train torsional vibrations, their effectiveness still
limited as they are focused only to torsional vibrations caused by wind
speeds. Moreover, these methods are not effective when model un­
certainties persist and don’t account for perturbations and un-modeled
effects.
Influences of the generator on the gears and bearings of a WT is
investigated based on coupled aero-elastic-servo control numerical
models and high fidelity generators (Zhou and Lee, 2021). The dynamic
load excitation and the resulting internal load effects of the drive train
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
are analyzed. In this regard, a mechanical-electrical modeling is estab­
lished in (Chen et al., 2022), which includes a translational–torsional
dynamic model of a drive train, a finite element model of the generator,
and voltage vector control. The model takes into account nonlinear
factors such as the time-varying meshing stiffness of the gear system and
the magnetic characteristics of the generator. The undesirable charac­
teristics are identified, and the dynamic characteristics of the system are
investigated under various excitations. Many studies discussed the
torsional vibrations caused by grid voltage sage at the point of coming
coupling. Flexible ac transmission system (FACTS)-devices are widely
adopted to mitigate power fluctuations in the power grid that result in
gearbox torsional vibrations (Livermore et al., 2014; Rajiv K. et al.,
2008; Xie et al., 2014). In Ref. (L L. Liu et al., 2017), a damper method
based on small signal analysis targeted at the suppression of torsional
vibrations caused by small electrical disturbances of the grid is intro­
duced. The effectiveness of the damper is established by simulation and
theoretical analysis. A robust multi-variable strategy based on mode
decomposition approach for active damping of the drive-train mode is
proposed in (Poureh and Nobakhti, 2020). By using this approach and by
proper approximation of each closed-loop transfer function, design ob­
jectives are transformed into simple inequalities on weighting functions.
Frequency and time-series responses demonstrate the capability of the
proposed approach to damp the drive train torsional mode, compared to
the baseline designs. Although these studies account for torsional vi­
brations caused by voltage sage, their structures don’t account for
torsional resulted from wind excitations. An active damper based on the
sliding mode theory is proposed to reduce torsional vibrations caused by
wind guest and grid disturbances simultaneously (Fateh et al., 2017).
The performance of the damper has been verified to be superior in
presence of electrical and aerodynamic disturbances. Although, the ef­
fect of the generator actuator on the drive train may need to be included.
Other alternative methods can be employed to mitigate drive train
oscillations. In (Licari, 2013; Wright and Fingersh, 2008) blade pitching
is used to improve the generator torque damping. However, this system
reduces the extracted energy output as the turbine is no longer operates
at its optimum pitch angle. In fact, when the control acts on the control
input to react to the rotor speed changes, the pitch angle is no longer at
its optimal value. Moreover, the pitch angle doesn’t react rapidly to the
rapid excitations due to the high pitch actuator inertia, especially, for
large systems. An active control based on movable mass blocks with
different masses is proposed in (Zhang et al., 2021) to reduce unsteady
loads on the shaft. The radial load of the shaft and the shaft deformation
can be reduced until 97.1% and 99% for a mass block of 0.075 kg,
without affecting the power output. A control procedure based on wind
power load frequency participation by considering tower bending
moment and low speed shaft fatigues, is introduced in (Wang et al.,
2020). Adaptive PID controller is designed for the control system, where
its parameters are optimized by the differential evolution algorithm. The
effectiveness of the control procedure is verified. A control optimization
method of the drive train damping control, by considering the coupling
effects of the WT control parameters, is proposed (Liu et al., 2022). The
control method is based on identification, optimization and coordina­
tion. The optimization of the control parameters and damming gains is
conducted by the Hierarchic Genetic Algorithm, while the coordination
of the control objectives is performed by the fitting Pareto method. An
optimal ancillary control by considering the dynamics of the tower and
the main shaft is proposed in (Y. Wang et al., 2022a). The control design
is based on the formulation and optimization of a problem of the fluc­
tuation of main shaft torque and tower fore-aft bending, and constraints
of power reference. The performance of the method is demonstrated by
analyzing the damage equivalent load, rain-flow cycles and frequency
response.
3.2. Active tower damper
Tower damper is employed to alleviate excessive tower loads caused
6
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
by unsteady aerodynamic loads. It aims to generate a pitch angle that is
combined with the pitch command from the CPC and IPC. Generally,
Tower damper controllers are designed separately from the CPC and the
IPC in order to avoid such interference (Lio et al., 2015; Lio, 2018a; Lu
et al., 2015). It provides further adjustment to the blade pitch angle in
order to add damping to the tower motion mode and reduce excessive
tower vibrations in response to the tower fore-aft velocity measurements
of the tower top (Bossanyi, 2003b; Evans et al., 2015; Lara et al., 2023;
Larsen and Hanson, 2007; Leithead et al., 2004; Spruce and Turner,
2013; Tang et al., 2021b). The tower motion is assumed to be measur­
able, typically from a nacelle-mounted accelerometer (Leithead et al.,
2009a). Since the turbine blades and tower are dynamically coupled, the
tower motion may be estimated based on the blade load measurements
that are already available to the IPC or blade load sensors. In fact, the
tower is strongly coupled to blades dynamics even if the blades loads
occurred in the rotating frame and those of the tower arise with respect
to the stationary frame (Bossanyi, 2003a).
The mitigation of tower vibration in both side-to-side and fore-aft
directions has been discussed in many studies. The classical tower
damper can be implemented as a pure integral or a PI controller (Körber,
2014). A CPC based on a PID controller is proposed in (Rahman et al.,
2019), whose its parameters are optimized by ant colony optimization
(ACO). The performance of the control has been compared with the PID
controller based on traditional tuning methods, and it is found to be
effective in minimizing tower loads. Pitch control for fore-aft vibrations
reduction, where the tower acceleration signal is used as a feedback
signal, has been discussed in (Leithead and Dominguez, 2005; Wright
and Fingersh, 2008). Although these methods allow mitigation of tower
loads, their performance is still valid for local models. In this regard,
non-linear pitch control-based LIDAR preview wind measurement is
presented in (Xiao et al., 2014). The proposed control strategy consists of
a rotor speed regulator, a tower oscillation damper and a lead
compensator. The rotor speed regulator and tower oscillation damper
are designed separately based on the inverse system method, while the
lead compensator is employed to compensate for the phase lag of the
pitch angle caused by the pitch actuator. Simulation results demon­
strated the effectiveness of the proposed configuration over the baseline
GSPI control. A linear interpolated feedback control based on the LQR
approach is proposed in (Nam et al., 2013). The control is designed for
multiple operating points covering the whole operating region, where
the control law is based on the interpolation of the different linear
controls using the scheduling wind speed estimation. It stated that the
proposed control performed well in energy capture and loads reduction
as compared to the conventional PI control. However, due to the rapid
switching of the scheduling parameter, the control performs incorrectly.
A feedforward control based on continuous-time H2 preview control is
presented in (Kristalny et al., 2013), in order to damp fore-aft tower
oscillations. A control system considering tower lateral oscillations and
power fluctuations is presented in (Golnary and Tse, 2022). A control
configuration including a closed loop control, an in-house designed
Positive Position Feedback (PPF) controller and a control signal applied
to the piezoelectric transducers working as actuators is presented in
(López-Romero and Santos Peñas, 2023). Results demonstrated that
significant tower vibrations can be lowered when applying a set of
piezoelectric transducers located along the turbine tower. An intelligent
fuzzy torque control is designed for tower oscillations based on the
lateral displacements of the tower, and three-pitch control strategies to
reduce output power fluctuations. A Feed-forward control based on
plant inversion at a set of key frequencies, by employing the measured
free wind ahead of the rotor from LIDAR, is presented (Miquelez-Ma­
dariaga et al., 2022). The control procedure is based on optimizing the
control objectives. Performance of the control has been investigated in
terms of tower fatigues alleviation.
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
3.3. Individual pitch control (IPC)
IPC aims to actively pitching each blade along its longitudinal axis to
counteract the cyclic aerodynamic loading that arise form a number of
sources such as wind-shear, tower shadow, yaw misalignment and tur­
bulence within the atmospheric boundary layer (Dunne et al., 2011b; J.
Laks et al., 2011a; Sarkar et al., 2021; Schlipf et al., 2010; Tang et al.,
2021a; Wang et al., 2012, 2021). It has been reported in literature that
IPC is capable of reducing blade loads by 30% under normal operating
conditions on both rotating and non-rotating components. It stated in
(Santoni et al., 2023), that the IPC controller could reduce the damage
equivalent loads of WTs at partial and full loads region by about 3% and
40%, respectively compared to the CPC. The IPC concept is derived from
the helicopter industry (Lovera et al., 2006) and has been successfully
implemented to WTs (Bossanyi, 2005, 2003a). Generally, it is designed
separately from the CPC system, whose the role of the CPC is to regulate
the rotor speed in above-rated wind conditions by collectively adjusting
the pitch angle of each blade and the IPC provides an additional blade
pitch demand to the CPC in response to measured or estimated loads
(Bossanyi, 2003a; Evans et al., 2015; Leithead et al., 2009a; Leithead
and Dominguez, 2005; Selvam et al., 2009, 2009, 2009). This means that
the CPC regulates the rotor speed at frequencies below the rotational
frequency of the rotor, whilst the IPC attenuates blade loads at the
harmonics of the blade rotational frequencies. The performance of the
IPC has been extensively validated by various applications:
hardware-in-the-loop, CART implementation, wind tunnel testing and
aero-elastic simulations.
The IPC is divided into three types single blade control, Clarke
transformations-based control and Coleman transform-based control.
The Coleman transformation method control targets load reductions on
the non-rotating turbine components, while the others target loads on
the rotating components. A comparison of the three architectures has
been conducted in (Wai Hou Lio et al., 2017), and revealed that the three
configuration are equivalent and lead to the same performance under
some circumstances. In the single-blade control, each blade is equipped
with its own controller to provide the pitch angle for each blade in
response to its blade loads measurements (Han and Leithead, 2014;
Leithead et al., 2009a, 2009b). This control does not employ any coor­
dinate transformations, and has a decoupled structure consisting of
three SISO controllers. The Clarke transform-based control is based on
αβγ transformations (Zhang et al., 2013). The blade moment measure­
ments are mapped into a set of orthogonal axes that are stationary to the
rotating blades, based on the Clarke transform. The obtained nodding
and yawing moments are mapped via the Clark controller to derive the
nodding and yawing pitch angles. The actual pitch angles are then ob­
tained by projecting the fixed frame pitch angles on the rotating coor­
dinate frame. It is stated that this method employs only two identical
SISO controllers pre and post-compensated, and it yields good
blade-loads reductions as compared to the single-blade based control
(Lio, 2018b; Zhang et al., 2013). On the other hand, the Clark
transformation-based control does not require rotor azimuth angle
measurement as compared to Coleman transformation-based control.
The Coleman transform based control allows projecting the flap-wise
root bending moment of the three blades into tilt and yaw flap-wise
blade root bending moments. It thus produces tilt and yaw referred
pitch demand signals which are projected back to the rotating frame
reference via the inverse Coleman Transform, in order to attenuate the
respective tilt and yaw referred loads. The motivation behind using this
transformation is that it allows obtaining a time-invariant system by
projecting the system inputs and outputs in the rotating reference frame
onto stationary tilt and yaw axes. Subsequently, conventional and linear
time invariant control design tools can be adopted to design controllers
to attenuate the unsteady loads upon the non-rotating components
(Bossanyi, 2005, 2003b; Bossanyi and Wright, 2009; Geyler and Case­
litz, 2008; Lackner and van Kui, 2010; Lu et al., 2015; Plumley et al.,
2014; Selvam et al., 2009; van Engelen, 2006; van Engelen and van der
7
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
Hooft, 2005). The classical IPC design is based on PI and fuzzy logic
controllers to derive tilt and yaw pitch signals, but the performance is
found to be poor for loads reduction (Civelek et al., 2017; Han et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2013). The alternative solution to improve the
dedicated performance is to employ multi-objectives control strategies.
4. Control strategies
Generally, the classical control designs consist of integrating several
separated SISO control loops into the main control loops. In fact, the
SISO control loops for each load to be mitigated are designed indepen­
dently and subsequently integrated into the main control loops. The
resultant controller consists of several SISO control loops. Therefore,
careful tuning must be paid to the designed load control loops in order to
avoid any coupling with the respective main control loops. Control loops
for vibration controls are, otherwise, MIMO systems. This approach is
motivated by the fact that the WTs dynamics are strongly coupled
especially the tower, blades and drive train. For example, the speed
control loop is coupled with the tower control loop. This means that
regulating the generator speed impacts the fore-aft and side-side tower
modes (Yuan and Tang, 2017a). MIMO systems based on
multi-objectives requirements are a suitable approach for achieving load
mitigation and basic control objectives by avoiding the coupling prob­
lem (EL YAAKOUBI, 2018; Lio, 2018b). Moreover, the
multi-objectives-based approach has the ability to account for other
constraints such as actuator limitations and coupling modes in WTs. A
comparison of the vibration control based SISO and MIMO approaches
has been deeply conducted in (Fleming et al., 2012) based on field
testing, and by accounting drive train torsion and tower side-side
bending coupling. The study revealed that a MIMO based approach is
promised, even if the approach is based only on two control objectives.
Thereafter, the most employed multi-objectives control algorithms in
WTs application are reviewed and discussed in detail.
4.1. Disturbance accommodation control (DAC)
In addition to wind turbulence, the WT is subjected to spatially
varying wind speeds that might lead to degradation of performance.
DAC control is dedicated to achieving speed regulation, blades loads
alleviation, as well wind disturbances compensation (Wright and Fin­
gersh, 2008). The fixed gain DAC control law is a superposition of the
plant full-state feedback law and a disturbance feedback law as illus­
trated by Fig. 4.
Where Gx and Gd are the control gains corresponding to system and
wind disturbance states. β is the pitch angle obtained around the optimal
operating point. The full state feedback law is employed to improve
system states response with respect to the given inputs. Since the system
states and wind disturbances are difficult to measure in practice, they
are often estimated based on the augmented WT model with disturbance
model (yaakoubi et al., 2018). The employed wind disturbance model
depends on the pitch angle control employed (Yuan and Tang, 2017a).
This is due to the fact that the CPC system adjusts symmetric loads, while
the IPC adjusts the asymmetrical loads. In fact, a uniform step model is
dedicated for the CPC, while a periodic sinusoidal model is suitable for
Fig. 4. DAC control structure.
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
the IPC design purposes. The control gain (Gx ) allows to improve the
transient response of the states. The disturbance control gain (Gd ) is used
to accommodate the effect of the persistent disturbance. It is determined
by solving the following equation:
Bn Gd + Bdn Θ = 0 (3)
Since it is impossible to cancel effectively the disturbances effects
unless they integrate the turbine by the same channel as the control
inputs, they can only be minimized by determining an appropriate gain
(Gd ) in such a way the norm ‖Bn Gd +Bdn Θ‖ is minimized (Raja, 2016),
The gain that minimizes the norm is approximated by (Raja, 2016;
Yuan and Tang, 2017b):
( )
Gd = − BTn B−n 1 BTn Bdn Θ (4)
In addition to its design being always based on a trade-off between
the control objectives, the performance of this control is still limited due
to many problems such as unknown disturbances, un-modeled dy­
namics, plant non-linearity, …,etc. For this purpose, various explora­
tions are conducted in the literature to improve its performance. In
(Wright and Balas, 2004), CPC and IPC- based DAC for tower and blades
loads alleviation are investigated. The study introduced also a control
scheme to damp inner drive train oscillations. The control schemes have
been implemented on the two bladed CART-WT model, and their per­
formance has been proven to be effective in minimizing loads on WT
components. An active load control based on CPC is proposed to alle­
viate tower loads (Novaes Menezes et al., 2018). The control is based on
state space control to take WT dynamics coupling, and the DAC to cancel
the wind disturbances effects.
Periodic DAC has been introduced in (Stol and Balas, 2003) to
improve the structural loads mitigation in WTs. The IPC periodic gain
control, widely termed as variable gain control, has better performance
in terms of blades loads reduction (Stol and Balas, 2003; Wang et al.,
2016b, 2016a), while the CPC periodic DAC has better speed tracking
(Stol and Balas, 2002); as compared to the fixed gain DAC. It has been
stated that IPC based variable gain DAC offers a good trade-off between
speed regulation and structural loads reduction as compared to the CPC
based on fixed and variable gain DAC. In order to obtain zero steady
state error and to cancel effectively the wind disturbance effects, solv­
ability conditions of DAC are taken (Wang et al., 2017). Two methods
were employed in this regard, the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse and the
Kronecker product. For the sake of reducing the computational burden
in the Kronecker product, a new solvability condition is proposed.
Simulation results allow to verify the solvability conditions of DAC, and
improve the WT performance in terms of tower loads reduction and
rotor speed regulation. A design procedure to optimize the observer and
controller parameters of DAC control simultaneously is presented in (Do
and Söffker, 2022). The control design included partial integral action to
minimize rotor speed error. The controller outperforms good compared
to Kronecker product method based DAC in terms of structural loads
reduction and rotor speed tracking in the presence of model un­
certainties. DAC based stochastic is another approach to account for
un-modeled dynamics and unknown disturbances (George et al., 2009,
2008; Girsang and Dhupia, 2013; Jongmin Cheon et al., 2014). The
controller is designed to improve the states transient response and to
compensate the disturbances effects, where a Kalman filter is used to
estimate the system states and the unknown disturbances (George et al.,
2009, 2008; Girsang and Dhupia, 2013). The major motivation of the
control presented in (George et al., 2008) is that its structure considers
the external disturbance as a superposition of the waveform and sto­
chastic components, in contrast to the classical DAC where the distur­
bances were considered as a waveform with unknown magnitude. In
(Jongmin Cheon et al., 2014), the WT is subjected to wave, stochastic
disturbances and measurement noise.
Non-linear and multivariable are other approaches to implementing
DAC. A disturbance observer based control is proposed in (He and Ge,
8
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
2015), to mitigate the disturbances at the tower top. The performance
has been proved to be good in terms of damping of the tower top
deflection as compared to the proportional derivative (PD). Multivari­
able disturbance accommodated observer based control (DOBC) is
implemented for IPC in order to mitigate flickers caused by wind shear
and tower shadow (Imran et al., 2016). The control is tuned using
optimal control, and it offers better improvements in terms of drive-train
and tower loads as compared to PI and DAC based CPC controls. A
similar study has been interested into designing a parametrized DOBC
with IPC based on Linear parameter-Varying (LPV) method to provide
smooth transition between two DOBC (Imran et al., 2018). Performance
of the control is guaranteed over the fixed gain DOBC and the parame­
trized DOBC-based CPC control. A disturbance observer is presented in
(Jokar et al., 2023) to estimate boundary disturbances and subsequently
combined with a new boundary control law for alleviating the blade
vibration in the presence of unknown but bounded distributed distur­
bances. The open-loop and closed-loop responses of the blade under
wind shear inflow and a predefined boundary disturbance are compared
to demonstrate the performance of the control system. In another study,
a computationally inexpensive robust adaptive control with memory
based compensation for the IPC is proposed to deal with external dis­
turbances and uncertain system parameters of an offshore WT on bar­
rage floating platform (Zuo et al., 2013). The performance of the control
is proven to be better than that of GSPI and IPC based DAC in terms of
power limitation, fatigue loads reduction and platform vibrations. On
the other hand, fuzzy logic and sliding mode approaches outperform
DAC performance effectively. An IPC based on DAC, MPC and fuzzy
logic approaches are presented in (Yang et al., 2014). The DAC is
employed to compensate for the wind disturbances effects, while the
MPC is dedicated to mitigate the effects of the wave on the structure.
Fuzzy logic is used to coordinate the two algorithms. It is stated that the
sliding mode approach provides satisfactory performance under un­
certainties (Faskhodi and Fakharian, 2018).
The DAC approach can be employed also in extreme loads events
(Pace et al., 2015). LIDAR-based control is designed to prevent emer­
gency shutdown caused by rotor over-speed. The control scheme con­
sists of a DAC-based baseline control and a DAC based on a linearized
model, around a reduced generator speed, in extreme events. Switching
between the controllers was performed using linear interpolation based
on wind extreme detection and large output estimation error. The
switching controller resulted in lower over-speed as compared to the
gain scheduling DAC control.
4.2. Model predictive control (MPC)
MPC is a powerful tool for managing complex and MIMO systems, by
taking various control requirements and a set of constraints in its
formulation. The MPC process is based upon three steps: prediction,
online optimization and feedback correction. The MPC algorithm starts
its process by constructing predictions over a finite horizon based on the
mathematical model of the plant, past measurements of the input and
outputs and, if available, future information as illustrated by Fig. 5.
Indeed, at each sampling time the feedback updates the prediction
model to make it more accurate. Subsequently, the algorithm computes
the future control input sequence by minimizing a desired cost function
with constraints requirement, where only the first control input of the
sequence is applied to the plant (J. Laks et al., 2011b). At the next
sampling time, the process of the method is repeated recursively and
creating a receding horizon scheme.
The cost function employed in MPC formulation is determined by a
quadratic function that penalizes the deviation of the control input and
the error between the real and the desired output (Lio, 2018b; Vali et al.,
2022). The minimization of this function allows to derive the control
law, which is the principle of the unconstrained MPC (Grüne, 2012;
Kouvaritakis et al., 2004). However, when the minimization takes into
account constraints on the input, state and output, i.e.:
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
Fig. 5. MPC structure.
Δumin ≤ Δui|k ≤ Δumax , i = 1, ..., n
xmin ≤ xi|k ≤ xmax , i = 1, ..., n ,
ymin ≤ yi|k ≤ ymax , i = 1, ..., n
the process leads the constrained MPC. Where Δumin , xmin and ymin are
the minimum values of the input rate, state and output. Δumax , xmax and
ymax are the maximum values of the input rate, state and output. n is the
prediction horizon. Generally, this process is dedicated to optimize a
cost function containing a set of objectives. The multi-objectives cost
function is based on weighted sum method to aggregate the individual
cost functions into one cost function (Mirzaei et al., 2013a; Schlipf et al.,
2013; Soliman et al., 2010). This tuning strategy aims to achieve a
trade-off between weights in the cost function in order to optimize the
performance of the WT (Jain et al., 2015). Although, Pareto curves
approach is the optimally tuned multi-objective strategy in order to
balance the conflicting control objectives (Odgaard et al., 2016).
The constrained MPC can be classified into linear and non-linear
systems. These structures differ from the plant model and the optimi­
zation algorithm employed. A comparison of linear and non-linear MPC
has been conducted in (Schlipf et al., 2014), and it was explored that
Nonlinear MPC (NLPC) offers better performance compared to the
Linear (LMPC). However, both the control systems may have significant
performance if their design adopted a preview wind speed information.
LMPC is based on the linear model of the WT, while NLMPC is based on
non-linear models. In (Henriksen, 2011), LMPC is implemented by
including tower and drive train DOFs. The controller performs well for
drive train and tower loads reduction and rotor speed regulation. A
radial basis function neural network (RBFNN) prediction model with
LMPC and by taking three DOF control multivariate to solve the opti­
mization problems is proposed in (Han et al., 2017). Results confirmed
that the introduced approach allows to improve dynamic performance in
terms of tower fatigue loads. In another study, an MPC with simple
linear internal model-based generator torque is introduced in the full
load operation region for drive train torsion mitigation, where the
aerodynamic torque is considered as external disturbance managed by
an external baseline loop (Barcena et al., 2020a). Two versions of con­
trol have been discussed according to the way of treating external
disturbance. To improve torsional loads reduction, the introduced con­
trol loop included preview wind information-based on LIDAR devices
(Barcena et al., 2020b). The performance is validated by simulation and
practical implementation, and is compared with the performance of the
baseline control and the linear single without disturbance previewing. It
is found that the performance of the LMPC remains limited to the
dedicated operating point because the control design doesn’t account for
WT non-linearity. In order to handle this problem and to account for
continuous variations of the operating point, NLMPC is widely adopted
in literature. A NLMPC is proposed in (Minchala et al., 2018) for power
maximization and mechanical loads alleviation, where the predictive
model is based on the combination of the BEM and TWB theories. It is
9
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
mentioned that the control method guarantees effectively the control
objectives. A NLMPC-based IPC is developed to regulate rotor speed and
mitigate asymmetrical loads across the rotor for an offshore floating WT
(Raach et al., 2014). The control allows to reduce significantly structural
loads while maintaining the advantages of the MPC-based CPC. Eco­
nomic NLMPC is another approach to achieve WTs control re­
quirements. It exhibits higher performance because it integrates in its
process performance index without weight tuning, as compared to the
classical NLMPC. The performance of the approach has been deeply
investigated in (Gros and Schild, 2017), and the results outlined best
performance and less computational effort of the economic MPC over
the classical NLMPC. The performance has been investigated upon
LIDAR wind preview accuracy and in presence of modeling error in the
fore-aft frequency. An extended study presented an economic MPC for
an integrated WT and fly wheel energy storage (Shaltout et al., 2020).
The control approach has been investigated and proved to be effective in
achieving output power smoothing and tower fatigue loads mitigation
without impacting the energy capture, as compared to the baseline
control. An IPC control for side-side tower damping under a convex
economic model predictive control framework is presented in (Pamo­
sosuryo et al., 2022), in which the economic performance of the WT is
maximized globally in a receding horizon manner. The effectiveness of
the proposed approach has been tested under both steady and turbulent
wind cases. Low damage fatigue on the side to side tower bending
moment is obtained with acceptable pitch use and negligible impact on
the blade loads.
Multi-model based MPC (MMPC) is another approach for MPC
application in WTs. It allows to handle the non-linearity and to simplify
the optimization problem of the NLMPC. It aims to sub-devise the dy­
namics of the whole operating region to various sub-regions with local
dynamics, and designing subsequently the LMPC control corresponding
to each sub-region. The switching from sub-region to another is per­
formed via a specialized mechanism. In Refs.(Soliman et al., 2011,
2010), MMPC is proposed to provide a desired trade-off between energy
capture and drive train loads reduction in the whole operating regime of
the WT. To compensate for the model mismatch caused by the lineari­
zation process, a prediction model bank with scheduling mechanism was
designed. A scheduled MMPC based on multiple linear models deter­
mined at different operating points is presented in (Kumar and Stol,
2009). The controller exhibits higher performance under operating
points changes and being able to control the non-linear systems. A
MMPC based on linearized models around various operating points and
by considering the wind model uncertainties is introduced in (Mirzaei
et al., 2013b), where the measurable wind ahead of the turbine using
LIDAR is employed as a scheduling parameter. It is stated that the pre­
sented control offers significant improvements of performance, while
the wind error compensation leads to some deterioration. A
continuous-time MMPC using Laguerre functions and by considering
various operating conditions is proposed in (Mahmoud and Oyedeji,
2018) where Bayesian probability was used as a mechanism switching.
Results confirm that the proposed control performs well the control
requirements for the whole operating regions.
MPC can be implemented and combined with different approaches in
order to improve the dedicated performance. A supervisory control
method based on MPC is introduced in (Spudić et al., 2015). It is indi­
cated that the control strategy maintained the required mean power,
while reduced fatigue loads by deviation of the power references. A
followed study presented a predictive ramping control strategy for loads
reduction using the electromagnetic torque and pitch angle (Liu et al.,
2017). In this context, two strategies are employed to balance the
ramping rate, power generation, mechanical loads, as well as to reduce
the computational complexity. Results demonstrated the effectiveness of
the method for loads mitigation during ramping and the risk of ramping
events. To avoid periodic side-side excitation resulting from the rotor
speed operation at the side-side tower natural frequency, a combination
of the quasi-LPV and MPC is performed in (Mulders et al., 2020). Rotor
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
speed operation around the tower side-side natural frequency has been
prevented in the whole operating region. In (Petrović et al., 2021), a
MPC by accounting for actuator constraints is designed. The WT con­
straints are transformed into the d-q reference frame that ensures con­
vexity of the constraints. The pitch actuator constraints are analyzed and
tested under turbulent and extreme wind conditions, and the simulation
results confirmed satisfactory performance of constraints handling in
terms of pitch angles and pitch rates. IPC based on model predictive
control using azimuthal angle characteristics is presented in (Sudharsan
et al., 2022). The control outperforms in terms of root bending moment
and blade torsional stress. This control is based on LIDAR measurement.
In addition to its various functionalities such as accounting for control
input constraints and applying a multi-objectives function with different
performance indices even if they are conflicting, MPC can imply in its
control design multiple approaches and concepts (Odgaaard et al., 2015;
Santos, 2007). On the other hand, the integration of fatigue damage of
the materials in the optimization problem allows to improve the lifespan
without sacrificing of performance (Santos, 2007), whereas the inclu­
sion of wind speed dynamic inflow in the MPC design offers good loads
reduction and rating limitation (Odgaaard et al., 2015). An integrated of
the fatigue-based health management module with MPC is introduced in
(Sanchez et al., 2018), in order to provide a safe operation of the WT and
to optimize the trade-off between components lifetime and energy
capture. The control framework has been implemented and its perfor­
mance has been tested. Two-degree-of-freedom active power control
based on the small signal method by considering fatigue loads calcula­
tion (Yao et al., 2020). MPC approach is employed for multi-objective
optimization, where adaptive weight selection is discussed and
implemented.
Although the MPC approach accounts for non-linearity and includes
a set of constraints, its design doesn’t consider many WT issues such as
un-modeled effects, perturbations and others. The incorporation of wind
preview measurement in the optimization problem allows compensating
the upcoming disturbances over the classical MPC. MPC based feed-
forward preview wind speed has been investigated to be effective in
improving the performance for both LMPC and NLMP systems (Bottasso
et al., 2007; J. Laks et al., 2011b; Mirzaei et al., 2013a; Schlipf et al.,
2013; Simley et al., 2011).
4.3. Feed-forward/feedback controls
Generally, feedback-based control methods reacted to wind distur­
bances after they impacted the WTs. To handle this delay, it is important
to incorporate the incoming wind information in the control system to
actuate the WT in anticipation of the incoming wind disturbances before
they affect the turbine (Harris et al., 2006). This is the principle of the
combined feed-forward based control, as illustrated by Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Feed-forward control structure.
10
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
This control configuration allows achieving best performance in
terms of loads rejection and response tracking for WTs. However, the
performance is strongly linked to the accuracy of the available wind
information. Various devices can be employed in this regard to obtain
the wind speed measurements such as anemometer and LIDAR systems.
The performance of the anemometer is limited, as the measured wind is
delayed and based only on a single point. LIDAR provides with accuracy
the incoming wind speed before it reaches the turbine and over a spatial
distribution around the rotor area. Pitch control based on combination
of the feed-forward and feedback controls have been proven to be
effective in achieving control requirements in terms of rotor speed
regulation and fatigue loads reduction (Bossanyi et al., 2012; Dunne
et al., 2011a; Harris et al., 2005). A combined control based on
pseudo-LIDAR measurement of the preview wind information is pro­
posed in (Bao et al., 2018).The added feed-forward control allows to
improve rotor and tower loads reduction with less pitch rate activity and
without power quality sacrificing. A combined control of the nacelle
acceleration feedback control with feed-forward control is presented in
(Yamaguchi et al., 2020). The control configuration allows to reduce
tower first-mode response and rotor speed fluctuations. A control based
on two feed-forward design is introduced in (Dunne et al., 2011b, 2010).
The design in (Dunne et al., 2010) is based on Gain scheduling design
model inverse and Gain scheduling shaped compensator, while that in
(Dunne et al., 2011b) is based on gain scheduled compensator and
model inverse using a non-causal series expansion. It is concluded that
the control results in higher fatigue loads reduction without reducing
power production, as compared to the standard feedback control. A
feed-forward design based on three methods: non causal series expan­
sion, optimized FIR filter and preview control is proposed in (Dunne
et al., 2011a). The optimized FIR filter maintains the overall WT per­
formance even in presence of imperfect wind measurement, while the
other techniques provide better blades loads reduction with much in­
crease in tower loads. Exact output regulation based on LIDAR mea­
surements is introduced in order to reject the disturbances effects and
maintain the desired reference tracking (Mahdizadeh et al., 2021). The
control method is based on a combination of a state feedback control and
a feed-forward gain based on a low-order wind exosystem. The perfor­
mance of the control has been compared to the baseline and DAC for
being significant in fatigue loads reduction and output power smooth­
ing. The implementation of the feed-forward control has been performed
on the realistic CART three bladed WT (Dunne et al., 2010), and the
obtained results prove the effectiveness of the control in fatigue loads
reduction and disturbances compensation (Scholbrock et al., 2013). The
combined feed-forward with feedback control allows to anticipate to the
incoming wind disturbances, otherwise, its design doesn’t account for
perturbations and un-modeled dynamics.
As mentioned above, MPC based-feedback controls have been proved
to be effective in achieving WT objectives by taking a set of constraints.
The performance of the MPC with feed-forward methods has been
validated on an experimental WT in wind tunnel, and proved to be
effective (Verwaal et al., 2015). A combined feed-forward and feedback
using MPC is proposed in (Koerber and King, 2013). The MPC is able to
achieve effective control requirements under various operating condi­
tions even if no preview wind information is available. A preview
modular MPC layer on top of an output feedback pitch control is pro­
posed in order to quantify its gained benefits gained over the feedback
control (W. H. Lio et al., 2017). It is stated that the preview control
achieved 43% and 30% in rotor speed and in flap-wise blade moment
standard deviations, as compared to the underlying feedback control. In
another study, a MPC based on LIDAR measurements combined with the
basic scheduling PI controller was introduced in (Mirzaei and Hansen,
2016). The proposed control presents higher performance over the
scheduling PI and the state feedback with feed-forward. This is due to
the ability of the proposed controller to predict and compensate future
disturbances. A comparison of the combined feed-forward, based on
LIDAR preview measurement with the state feedback control and the
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
NLMPC, is conducted in (Schlipf et al., 2012). It is found that controllers
have similar performance in terms of tower and blade loads reduction
with less pitch activity. However, the feed-forward has less computa­
tional effort, while the NLMPC is appropriate for designing a control law
based on optimizing a cost function of control objectives with a set of
constraints. NLMPC based on preview wind measurement presents
higher performance (Bottasso et al., 2007; Schlipf et al., 2013). The
NLMPC design in (Bottasso et al., 2007) is based on estimation of tower
states and wind disturbances, whereas the design in (Schlipf et al., 2013)
is based on LIDAR measurement. The NLMPC based on LIDAR mea­
surements, in front of WTs, is compared with the baseline controller
(Schlipf et al., 2013). The NLMPC provided up to 50% for extreme guests
and 30% for fatigue reduction, without impacting energy capture.
Intelligent methods-based feedback control is another alternative solu­
tion for feed-forward/feedback implementation. A RBFNN feed-forward
control, based on LIDAR measurements, to train weights online in a
neural network, is proposed in (Han et al., 2018). The control is designed
for the CPC and the electromagnetic torque, and the results showed
improvements in energy efficiency and fatigue loads alleviation. A
feed-forward/feedback control based on the combination of an Iterative
Learning Control (ILC) and MPC is introduced, where fuzzy logic is
utilized to design the feedback-assisted ILC (Liu and Xi, 2014). The
control configuration achieved the control objectives in terms of rotor
speed regulation and both repetitive and non-repetitive disturbances
rejection.
Wind measurements based on LIDAR installation in different posi­
tions of the WT have been discussed to find the adequate wind speed
measurement position. A combined feed–forward/feedback control,
implemented for two feedback controls, is proposed for blades loads,
based on blade tips and blade tip average wind speed measurements, is
presented in (Laks et al., 2009). The control based on blade tip average
wind speed measurement provides improvements only under uniform
wind speed, while the control based on individual measurement of the
wind at each blade tip guarantees performance under both uniform and
non-uniform wind speed profiles. In (J. Laks et al., 2011a), preview
based on rotating and stationary wind speed measurement is designed
and implemented for a disturbance feed-forward control. The control
provides good performance in LIDAR stationary measurement with
acceptable pitch rates, while errors in determining the shear local to
each blade limits the performance. A time-varying MPC is developed
using the undistorted measurements at the blade rotation positions and
the measurements obtained at the same positions included distortion
characteristic of LIDAR (Jason Laks et al., 2011). The results showed
significant improvement even in presence of measurements error, as
compared to the classical MPC.
Since LIDAR is expensive and not economical for individual WTs,
control-based on wind speed prediction and estimation have gained
great interest. MPC using short term wind speed prediction has been
discussed in (Liu et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2013). The predictions in
(Liu et al., 2018) are based on past measurements using Gaussian Pro­
cess model, and the results obtained are found to be limited in loads
mitigation. The performance of the control in Ref.(Spencer et al., 2013).
has been investigated under various wind conditions with different
available future wind information, and proved to be significant for fa­
tigue loads reduction as compared to the control based on the current
wind profile in the above rated wind speed. However, in the below rated
value, the performance of the wind predictions remains limited. A
disturbance observer (DOB) combined with feedback control-based on
PID is developed in (Yuan et al., 2017). The DOB aims to conduct
internal-based observation and disturbance compensation in the low
frequency region, while the feedback control is designed to provide
stability and capability of suppressing disturbances effects. The perfor­
mance has been enhanced in power and speed regulations for both linear
and non-linear WTs. In order to deal with the linearization process, a
compensator is developed to improve the robustness of the augmented
controller.
11
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
4.4. Multivariable/robust control
Multi-variable control based on H2 and H∞ approaches have been
reported in literature to be effective in improving WT robustness under
wind speed changes. H2 is dedicated when disturbance rejection and
noise disturbance suppression are required, while H∞ when un­
certainties persisted (Rocha et al., 2010). These control approaches
involve finding a control law K for a generalized system G(s) using an
optimization problem of the respective norms, as illustrated by Fig. 7.
The generalized system model includes the plant, disturbance model and
the interconnection with the controller. x is the state vector, u is the
control signal, w is the exogenous input, z is the control objective output
and y is the measured output. The optimal feedback controller is derived
by optimizing the control norms corresponding to the control objectives
(minimizing the tracking error, minimizing the structural loads,..,etc.),
based on the sensitivity function optimization problem (Yuan and Tang,
2017a).
A H2 controller based on a multi-blade coordinate transformation of
the nominal WT model is introduced in (Thomsen et al., 2010). The
model was extended with a stochastic model to design an observer based
IPC, in order to estimate and compensate for wind speed effects. The
capability of the H2 control to minimize yaw and tilt moment has been
investigated, as compared to the baseline CPC. A multi-variable
decoupled control design procedure for collective and cyclic pitch
methods, based on the H∞ minimization problem, has been discussed in
(Geyler and Caselitz, 2008). The performance of the control method has
been verified to be effective in reducing 1p fluctuations in blade root
bending moments, while increasing damping of the tower bending
mode. The performance of the control based on H∞ approach has been
evaluated by a basin experiment using a floating offshore WT (Hara
et al., 2017). In another study, a control strategy based on H∞ controller
is designed for speed regulation and loads reduction for the tower and
drive train (De Corcuera et al., 2012). Two MISO (multiple-input
single-output) control loops have been designed, by solving a H∞ mixed
sensitivity problem, to generate the collective pitch and the electro­
magnetic torque. The proposed control has been analyzed and validated
in GH bladed software, and the simulation results are compared with the
classical control methods. An optimal multivariable-based IPC is
designed in (Vali et al., 2016), by taking the existing coupling between
the tilt and yaw modes of the fixed frame and the dependency of the
blades flexible modes to the rotational frequency. The derived MIMO
based-frequency domain is employed to formulate a mixed sensitivity
H∞ optimization problem in order to minimize the input-output sensi­
tivities. Significant periodic loads reduction in terms of flap-wise root
bending moments is outlined, as compared to the conventional IPC
Fig. 7. Generalized system.
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
control. The H∞ approach has been investigated also by accounting for
structural parameters and system faults (Bakka et al., 2014; Shirazi
et al., 2012). In (Shirazi et al., 2012), a design procedure based on the
integration of the structural parameters design is exposed. The design
procedure is formulated as an iterative sequential/structure redesign
based on linear matrix inequalities technique (LMI), to obtain the
structural parameters and controller matrices. The controller is sched­
uled in real-time based on the minimization of H∞ performance criteria.
Simulation studies for two selected designs with the smallest values of
the performance index revealed improved performance in terms of
minimization of power output oscillations and reduction of structural
loads. In (Bakka et al., 2014), a LPV modeling and output feedback H∞
control by considering feedback loop faults for an offshore WT are
conducted. The control law is based on parameter-depend Lyapunov
functions and is formulated in terms of LMI. As compared with the
baseline controller, the proposed controller ensures good performance
in terms of closed loop response and structural loads reduction. In (Tang
et al., 2021a), the aerodynamics imbalanced loads resulting from the
assumption of symmetrical blades are considered by the uncertainty
modeling method in the design of a robust IPC. The control design is
based on product perturbation model, where the D-K iterative algorithm
is used to solve the H∞ optimization problem. The effectiveness of the
presented approach has been investigated in terms of asymmetrical
loads mitigation.
Even though H∞ methodology results in more conservative control
law and greater robustness when compared to H2, it leads to very slow
dynamics response (Rocha et al., 2010). H2 methodology is very fast and
thus it is suitable for variable tracking problems. Combining the two
control methodologies is an effective way to guarantee optimal objec­
tives for the WTs, under diverse adverse effects. This approach is per­
formed by minimizing the mixed norm H2/ H∞ based on the LMI
formulation. In literature, a control based on LMI formulation is pro­
posed in (Lescher et al., 2006) to optimize LPV controller by minimi­
zation of the H2/ H∞ norm. The controller showed improved
performance in terms of speed regulation and loads reduction on tower,
shaft and blades as compared to the LQG and GSPI controls. In another
study (Sloth et al., 2009), a robust MLI-based control to minimize fatigue
loads and actuator usage in presence of parametric uncertainties, is
discussed. The design procedure is based on two methods: full state in­
formation and output feedback. Consistent performance is guaranteed
by the robust controller as compared to control based on the classical
methods. Another control strategy employing LMI procedure for
designing a robust CPC is introduced in (Hassan et al., 2012). The pro­
cedure control design includes various constraints in order to ensure
perfect control requirement in terms of speed regulation, disturbance
rejection and actuator constraints handling. The control is combined
with the IPC to reduce 1p frequency of blades fatigue loads, and its
performance has been investigated by simulation studies. A multivari­
able robust IPC framework control by accounting for inter-blade
coupling is presented in (Yuan et al., 2020). To deal with periodic
loads, a structured singular values (μ)-synthesis strategy is employed
where weighting functions are tailored to suppress oscillations at peri­
odic frequencies. Significant performance has been guaranteed in terms
of loads mitigation, under various operating conditions. Two degrees of
freedom IPC based on reference model method is proposed to reduce
asymmetric loads in the above rated wind region (Tang et al., 2022).
After getting the state space model, the controller is derived by solving
the μ-synthesis problem by the D-K iterative algorithm. The performance
of the control is verified by simulation on GH bladed, and it is found to
be robust in suppression loads on the rotor and tower.
4.5. Adaptive control
Adaptive controls have been adopted recently in WTs control and
proved to be effective under a wide range of circumstances. An extended
direct model reference accommodating controller is presented in (Frost
12
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
et al., 2009). The controller has been verified to be effective to reject
step disturbances and to limit rotor speed. An augmented controller with
a residual mode filter is proposed in (Frost et al., 2010). The controller
aimed to accommodate modes that might cause difficulty in the system.
Good performance is established by the developed controller as
compared to the classical CPC based on PI control. An adaptive
self-tuning regulator-based CPC is proposed to account for unknown
parameter uncertainties (Hatami and Moetakef-Imani, 2016). The
regulator structure consists of a recursive least square estimator and a
PID controller with adjustable gains. A comparison with GSPI control
showed significant performance in terms of less fluctuations of rotor
speed and power, as well as minor fatigue loads on the blades and main
shaft. An internal model control (IMC) method with an adaptive algo­
rithm is presented in (Mohammadi et al., 2018) to identify the vibration
frequency of the tower and subsequently to cancel its effect. Since the
IMC control accounts only for the tower vibration in both fore-aft and
side-to-side directions, the control system includes the IPC to improve
loads reduction on the other components. A model free adaptive control
for CPC by considering the differential of the tracking error in the cost
function is proposed in (Li et al., 2020) to compensate for potential effect
of the system dynamic characteristics under random disturbances. The
control method is capable of handling the time-delay and large inertia of
the CPC, as compared to the baseline PI control. In (yaakoubi et al.,
2018; Ying et al., 2021; Yuan and Tang, 2017b), adaptive controls based
on state feedback and the DAC theory are presented for structural loads
mitigation under turbulent wind conditions. The control structure in
(yaakoubi et al., 2018) includes an integral action to improve rotor
speed regulation and blades loads reduction without any trade-off, while
the control method in (Yuan and Tang, 2017b) considers blade stiffness
uncertainties. The performance of the controls has been validated by
simulation results on NREL’s 5 MW WT. In another study, an adaptive
control framework based on the combination of an economic MPC and a
real-time adaptive approach is presented in (Shaltout et al., 2017). The
economic MPC is assisted with LIDAR devices in order to improve loads
alleviation and energy capture, while the adaptive approach is
employed to improve the model-plant mismatches rejection. Results
confirmed that the introduced framework guarantees tower load
reduction with minimal impacts on energy capture and optimal oper­
ating conditions of the WTs. An adaptive method of optimizing control
parameters under different turbulence intensity is proposed in (Dong
et al., 2021). The optimization method is based on a linear
aero-servo-elastic model and damage prediction method. The control
optimization problem is established using a quadratic cost function, to
achieve the optimal trade-off between the rotor speed variation and the
damage of the turbine component, and the feasibility of the proposed
method is outlined by a design case. A multivariable model-free adap­
tive control with differential characteristics is adopted for the IPC in
order to cope with the WT adverse effects such WT dynamic coupling,
the nonlinearity of the pitch system and the un-modeled dynamics (Li
et al., 2022). Optimal control results and robustness are achieved. A
data-driven control for a floating WT by accounting for platform mo­
tions coupling and blades loads is presented in (Qi et al., 2022). The
control system is designed by introducing a model free adaptive control
based on deformable trailing edge flap and a feedback compensation in
the blade pitch control loop. Performance has been ensured in terms
fatigue loads reduction on blades, tower, drive train and floating plat­
forms. A multivariable model-free adaptive control strategy with dif­
ferential characteristic is adopted for the IPC in order to tackle for the
classical IPC challenges (Li et al., 2022). Performance and robustness is
guaranteed over the PI and other existing model-free adaptive control
strategies.
Adaptive controls based on non-linear and intelligent approaches
allow to successfully improve the WTs performance. An adaptive
fractional-order non-singular fast terminal sliding mode controller is
designed for the IPC under uncertainties and external disturbances
(Aghaeinezhad et al., 2021). High performance has been guaranteed in
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
presence of parametric uncertainties and under different wind condi­
tions. In (Jafarnejadsani et al., 2013), an adaptive control algorithm
using a radial function neural network is proposed for a WT operating
under various operating regions, where the non-linear dynamics was
approximated by an adaptive neural network based on input/output
measurements. The control algorithm includes torque control at low
wind speeds, pitch control at high wind speeds, and a transition mech­
anism between the two regions. The performance of the control algo­
rithm has been validated using simulation studies. An IPC based on
neural network, which relies on control requirements separation, is
proposed in (Coquelet et al., 2022). This neural network is trained with a
reinforced machine learning, and it allows learning how to reduce fa­
tigue loads and to exploit that knowledge to complex turbulent flows for
the proposed approach. A non-linear pitch control system considering
parameter uncertainties and unknown disturbances is developed for
large floating WT (L. Wang et al., 2022). The neural network accom­
modates the external disturbance and system uncertainties, while a rate
function with adjustable parameters is employed to improve the accu­
rate fast tracking of the desired pitch angle. In (Lakshmi and Srinivas,
2014), a fuzzy adaptive PID control for pitch system with disturbances
and uncertainties is presented, where the PID parameters were
auto-tuned using a fuzzy controller. The pitch control takes into account
the pitch actuator dynamics and the drive train dynamics. Simulation
proves that the fuzzy adaptive PD outperforms the classical and fuzzy
PID controllers in terms of precision, rapidity and stability. An active
power control strategy of wind farms based on particle swarm optimi­
zation, by accounting for fatigue loads, is proposed in (Zhao et al.,
2021). The capacity of the method has been discussed in terms of
maximizing wind energy capture and maintaining the fatigue load in­
tensity of each wind turbine within a certain allowable range.
5. Analysis and discussions
As mentioned above, reduction of the structural loads is becoming an
important objective challenge in modern WT, especially for large-scale
wind farms, due to the ever-increasing specifications/demands on WT
rated power and related growth of turbine dimensions. The commonly
employed control strategies are outlined in this study.
The DAC allows accommodating unknown disturbances under
spatial and time varying wind, by using the combination of disturbance
observers and disturbance rejection controllers. The disturbance rejec­
tion gain is often designed and tuned separately for individual appli­
cations. The control is a model based system that estimates the loads in
wind turbine components based on the current operating conditions and
generates control signal to mitigate the effects of these loads. It can
actively manage fatigues and extreme loads caused by external loads
under various constraints in wind turbines such as unknown distur­
bances, model and parameters uncertainties, un-modeled dynamics,
unknown disturbances, flickers caused by wind shear and tower shadow,
wind guest and emergency shutdown. The DAC can improve the reli­
ability of the WT and thus increase its availability and reduce the
associated maintenance cost. It can be implemented in various config­
urations depending on the dynamics required and the control objectives
such as fixed gain, variable gain, periodic, stochastic, non-linear and
multi-variables approaches. However, the DAC adds complexity and
charges to the system, while its structure requires sensors for wind
measurement and loads estimation. Moreover, its performance is limited
due to the reduced order model used for control design as well as to
neglected dynamics and the trade-off between control objectives.
The MPC is a model-based control that optimizes the performance of
the WT in real-time, by applying a multi-objectives function with
different performance indices even if the corresponding control objec­
tives are conflicting, and by taking a set of constraints in its formulation.
It predicts the future behavior and determines the optimal control law
that minimizes the structural loads. The MPC is complex and adds cost to
the system. Its structure requires sensors for wind and loads estimations
13
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
and its design does not consider many WT issues. This makes a challenge
issue in real-time implementation. The MPC approach can divided be
into three configurations: Linear, non-linear and multi-model MPC.
Linear MPC is based on a linearized model around an operating point,
linear predictions and linear optimization algorithm. It has less
computational time, simple structure and simple control design. This
scheme is robust to modeling errors, measurement noise, uncertainties
and modeled dynamics. The performance of this configuration is
established locally around a defined operating point, which means that
the control performs wrong under wind speed changes. Non-linear MPC
is based on the non-linear model of the WT, non-linear predictions, and
non-linear optimization problem. This control captures more dynamics,
provides good estimations, and it can guarantee good performance for
the whole operating region. However, this control presents more
computational efforts due to the non-linear model and complex control
design, which make it more difficult for real-time implementation. A
trade-off between control performance and computational time is
required. Economic is an alternative approach to resolve this problem, it
exhibits higher performance, less computational time as it integrates in
its process performance index without index weight tuning. Multi-model
MPC is based on multiple linearized models around different operating
points, where a switching mechanism is employed to combine the
different models and thus to cover the whole operating region. This
method combines thus the advantages of the linear and non-linear
models in terms of less computational time, simple optimization prob­
lems and control design. This allows to guarantee consistent perfor­
mance and robustness in rejecting loads for WTs, while the performance
is still limited under the rapid changes of the wind speed due to the
switching mechanism. In order to avoid uncertainties and improve the
performance of the switching mechanism, it is important to employ
LIDAR as an alternative solution for wind measurement.
Feedback/feed-forward allows to combine the performance of the
feedback control, to continuously track the rotor speed and output
power to their nominal values, while the feed-forward allows to antic­
ipate the WT to the incoming wind disturbances. This can counteract in
advance to loads before they impact the turbine. This approach is
practical for complicated operating conditions such as high turbulence
and gusts. This configuration needs measurement devices to get accu­
rately in real time the wind speed. LIDAR can be employed in this regard
due to its capacity to provide with high accuracy the incoming wind
speed over a spatial distribution around the rotor area before it reaches
the turbine. LIDAR can also be employed to measure the turbulence
intensity to help preventing the turbine from excessive loads and thus
from damage. The integration of LIDAR adds expenses, especially for
individual WTs. Although, the wind estimators avoid using LIDAR de­
vices and thus avoiding further charges on the system, while the esti­
mated wind is delayed and the performance of the designed control is
limited. The integration of MPC is an alternative solution to improve the
performance of the feedback/feed-forward control, under various
operating conditions and in presence of un-modeled dynamics and
measurement errors, by optimizing a cost function of the control ob­
jectives and by considering a set of constraints.
Multivariable controls allow to optimize a problem of systems with
multiple inputs and outputs, by considering noise disturbance suppres­
sion and system uncertainties. This involves funding an optimal control
law by optimizing control norms corresponding to the control objec­
tives. The problem optimization is based on the mathematical H2/ H∞
norms. H2 is very fast and thus it very suitable for variable tracking
problems, and it takes in its design disturbances rejection and noise
suppression. While this norm derives less conservative control law and
has less robustness. H∞ results to more stability and robustness to con­
straints and disturbances, while its design leads to slow dynamic re­
sponses and errors mismatch. Combining the two approaches is an
alternative solution to improve the performance of the multi-variable
control. It guarantees robust and more conservative control law and
very fast tracking problems; while taking parameters uncertainties,
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
disturbances and noise rejection, constraints handling. This will allows
optimizing the overall performance of the WT under a variety of oper­
ating conditions for a wide range adverse effects. Nonetheless, this
structure may imply high computational effort and the control design
doesn’t account for all the WTs issues.
Adaptive control allows optimizing the performance and ensuring a
safe operation of the WT by adjusting its parameters in real-time in
response to the operating conditions based on the estimated information
from the WT. The control adapts its structure/parameters to the WT
operating conditions and to the related drawbacks in order to improve
the control objectives. Generally, this control requires sensors for wind
measurement and loads estimation for implementation purpose Adap­
tive control based on other approaches such as intelligent methods and
machine learning algorithms can be more suitable to guarantee the
overall operating wind turbines under the most adverse effects exposed
to WT such as parameters uncertainties, disturbances, un-modeled dy­
namics, non-linearity.etc. The intelligent methods allows to approxi­
mate the nonlinear dynamics based on input/output measurements,
while the machine learning algorithms allow the system to learn how to
react robustly under the dedicated adverse effects for the whole oper­
ating conditions.
The WT is exposed also to many problems like strong nonlinearity
and high uncertainties, time varying nonstationary wind, electromag­
netic torque model errors and un-modeled dynamics, gravitational, gy­
roscopic, coupling loads crack, erosion and other environmental issues.
The subsequent problems have somehow limited the application of the
strategies and do not ensure a reliable operation of the overall WT.
Moreover, obtaining parameters and loads information from WTs is
another straightforwardly in WT applications due time varying nonsta­
tionary wind loads, and the load information is unknown or difficult to
collect. Adding devices often is not profitable, especially for individual
WT, while estimations do not predict this information with enough
precision and add delay to the system. Identifying the system dynamics
by accounting the various characteristics is particularly important for
optimizing the design and thus control alleviation to the desired overall
performance by considering all of the mentioned issues is straightfor­
wardly challenge in modern WTs.
6. Conclusions and perspectives
WT reliability becomes a main objective in modern WTs technolo­
gies. It aims to extend the lifespan of WTs and thus to increase the
operational lifetime and reduce the associated maintenance cost. This is
achieved by minimizing the loads exposed to the WTs components. In
this regard; this paper presented a state of art of the various vibration
controls and the corresponding control strategies for loads alleviation in
WTs. WT driving loads include aerodynamics, gravitational and inertial
loads. The aerodynamics loads cover wind shear, tower shadow, yaw
misalignment, turbulence, ….,etc. Gravitational loads are as a conse­
quence of components mass, while the inertial loads is resulted from
combined action of rotor rotation, blade pitching and nacelle yawing.
The driving loads cause extreme and fatigue loads on WTs components.
The extreme loads are the extremely high magnitude loads and acci­
dental loads that can break down a component. These loads can be
avoided simply by controlling WT to shut-down by using a specialized
controller. Fatigue loads are the low magnitude repeatedly loads that
accumulate over time and threaten to damage the turbine components
after several time of operation. Various control methods have been
presented and discussed to mitigate these effects of these loads on the
most loads-exposed turbine components such as drive train, tower and
blades. These control methods include collective pitch angle to mitigate
the rotor symmetrical loads, the drive train damper to mitigate torsional
loads on the drive train component, the tower damper and the individual
pitch angle control to mitigate asymmetrical loads on tower and blades
components. Various control strategies have been deeply analyzed and
discussed to implement these control methods such as Disturbance
14
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
accommodation control, Model Predictive control, combined feedback
and feed-forward control, robust and multi-variable control and adap­
tive control. These algorithms have been discussed under various
modeling problems such as non-linear dynamics, un-modeled dynamics,
disturbances and uncertainties, time varying nonstationary wind, model
errors and un-modeled dynamics, …etc. Disturbance control control
allows to improve loads rejection under spatial varying wind by incor­
porating a state feedback law in superposition with a disturbance
feedback law. Model predictive control allows optimizing a cost function
containing a set of WTs objectives by including a set of constraints in its
formulation. Combined feed-forward and feedback control incorporate
in its structure the wind speed information based on LIDAR wind mea­
surements, in order to actuate the WT in anticipation of the incoming
disturbances before they impact the turbine. Multivariable and robust
controls are based on optimizing norms corresponding to the control
objectives under disturbances and uncertainties. Adaptive control al­
lows to adjust its parameters to the WTs operating conditions under un-
modeled dynamics and uncertainties.
Integration of machine learning algorithms with intelligent control is
an alternative solution to learn the system how to react to the operating
conditions and thus to be more robust for WTs. These algorithms will
allow multiple tasks for wind turbines such loads prediction and moni­
toring, adaptive control and damage detection and prognosis. On the
other hand, faults and failure become a hindrance for the control
operation. The WT is exposed to many faults systems, especially for
large-scale wind farms. Ensuring an accurate and efficient fault detec­
tion and diagnosis are crucial in this regard, for a safe and reliable
operation. Moreover, designing and implementing the various control
strategies is an important task to compare their performance based on
concrete criteria and index. In this regard, it will be important to employ
either high fidelity simulators or real testing in order to reveal the
associated benefits associated for wind turbines
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Aghaeinezhad, S.M., Taghizadeh, M., Mazare, M., Kazemi, M.G., 2021. Individual pitch
angle control of a variable speed wind turbine using adaptive fractional order non-
singular fast terminal sliding mode control. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 22, 511–522.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-020-00439-0.
Ahmad, I., M’zoughi, F., Aboutalebi, P., Garrido, I., Garrido, A.J., 2023. Fuzzy logic
control of an artificial neural network-based floating offshore wind turbine model
integrated with four oscillating water columns. Ocean Eng. 269 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.113578.
Bakka, T., Karimi, H., Christiansen, S., 2014. Linear parameter-varying modelling and
control of an offshore wind turbine with constrained information. IET Control
Theory & Appl. 8, 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-cta.2013.0480.
Bao, J., Yue, H., Leithead, W.E., Wang, J.-Q., 2018. Feedforward control for wind turbine
load reduction with pseudo-LIDAR measurement. Int. J. Autom. Comput. 15,
142–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-017-1103-x.
Barcena, R., Acosta, T., Etxebarria, A., Kortabarria, I., 2020a. Wind turbine structural
load reduction by linear single model predictive control. IEEE Access 8,
98395–98409. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2996381.
Barcena, R., Acosta, T., Etxebarria, A., Kortabarria, I., 2020b. LIDAR-assisted wind
turbine structural load reduction by linear single model predictive control. IEEE
Access 8, 146548–146559. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014832.
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
Barlas, T., van Kuik, G., 2010. Review of state of the art in smart rotor control research
for wind turbines. Prog. Aero. Sci. 46, 1–27.
Bossanyi, E.A., 2003a. Individual blade pitch control for load reduction. Wind Energy 6,
119–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.76.
Bossanyi, E.A., 2003b. Individual blade pitch control for load reduction. Wind Energy 6,
481–485.
Bossanyi, E.A., 2003b. Wind turbine control for load reduction. Wind Energy 6, 229–244.
https://doi.org/10.1002/we.95.
Bossanyi, E.A., 2005. Further load reductions with individual pitch control. Wind Energy
8, 481–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.166.
Bossanyi, E.A., Wright, A., 2009. Field testing of individual pitch control on the NREL
CART-2 wind turbine. Eur. Wind Energy Conf.
Bossanyi, E., Savini, B., Iribas, M., Hau, M., Fischer, B., Schlipf, D., Carcangiu, C.E., 2012.
Advanced controller research for multi-MW wind turbines in the UPWIND project.
Wind Energy 15, 119–145.
Bottasso, C.L., Croce, A., Savini, B., 2007. Performance comparison of control schemes
for variable-speed wind turbines. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 75 (9pp), 012079.
Boukhezzar, B., Lupu, L., Siguerdidjane, H., Hand, M., 2007. Multivariable control
strategy for variable speed, variable pitch wind turbines. Renew. Energy 32,
1273–1287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.06.010.
Chavero-Navarrete, E., Trejo-Perea, M., Jáuregui-Correa, J.-C., Carrillo-Serrano, R.-V.,
Rios-Moreno, J.-G., 2019. Pitch angle optimization by intelligent adjusting the gains
of a PI controller for small wind turbines in areas with drastic wind speed changes.
Sustainability 11, 6670. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236670.
Chen, R., Qin, D., Yi, Y., Liu, C., Shi, J., 2022. Dynamic characteristics of
electromechanical coupling of wind turbine drive system under multi-source
excitation. Wind Energy 25, 391–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2678.
Cheon, Jongmin, Kwon, Soonman, Choi, Youngkiu, 2014. Design of a pitch controller
using disturbance accommodating control for wind turbines under stochastic
environments. In: 2014 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Industrial Electronics
(ISIE). Presented at the 2014 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Industrial
Electronics (ISIE), pp. 2572–2577. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIE.2014.6865025.
Civelek, Z., Lüy, M., Çam, E., Mamur, H., 2017. A new fuzzy logic proportional controller
approach applied to individual pitch angle for wind turbine load mitigation. Renew.
Energy 111, 708–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.04.064.
Coquelet, M., Bricteux, L., Moens, M., Chatelain, P., 2022. A reinforcement-learning
approach for individual pitch control. Wind Energy 25, 1343–1362. https://doi.org/
10.1002/we.2734.
Darrow, J., Johnson, K., Wright, A., 2011. Design of a tower and drive train damping
controller for the three-bladed controls advanced research turbine operating in
design-driving load cases. Wind Energy 14, 571–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/
we.443.
De Corcuera, A.D., Pujana-Arrese, A., Ezquerra, J.M., Segurola, E., Landaluze, J., 2012.
H∞ based control for load mitigation in wind turbines. Energies 5, 938–967. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en5040938.
Dean, W.D., 2008. Wind turbine mechanical vibrations: potential environmental threat.
Energy Environ. 19, 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1260/095830508783900771.
Do, M.H., Söffker, D., 2022. Wind turbine robust disturbance accommodating control
using non-smooth H∞ optimization. Wind Energy 25, 107–124. https://doi.org/
10.1002/we.2663.
Dong, L., Lio, W.H., Pirrung, G.R., 2021. Analysis and design of an adaptive turbulence-
based controller for wind turbines. Renew. Energy 178, 730–744. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2021.06.080.
Dunne, F., Pao, L., Wright, A., Jonkman, B., Kelley, N., 2010. Combining standard
feedback controllers with feedforward blade pitch control for load mitigation in
wind turbines. In: 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New
Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Aerospace Sciences Meetings. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-250.
Dunne, F., Pao, L., Wright, A., Jonkman, B., Kelley, N., Simley, E., 2011a. Adding
feedforward blade pitch control for load mitigation in wind turbines: non-causal
series expansion, preview control, and optimized FIR filter methods. 49th AIAA
Aerosp. Sci. Meet. New Horiz. Forum Aerosp. Expo. Inst. Aeronaut. Astronaut. Rest.
VA 1–17.
Dunne, F., Pao, L.Y., Wright, A.D., Jonkman, B., Kelley, N., 2011b. Adding feedforward
blade pitch control to standard feedback controllers for load mitigation in wind
turbines. Mechatronics 12, 682–690.
El Yaakoubi, A., 2018. Wind Energy Conversion Systems Control for Maximum Power
Capture and Excessive Loads Alleviation. Phd Thesis Abdelmalek Essaadi Univ.
El Yaakoubi, A., Attari, K., Asselman, A., Djebli, A., 2019. Novel power capture
optimization based sensorless maximum power point tracking strategy and internal
model controller for wind turbines systems driven SCIG. Front. Energy 13, 742–756.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-017-0462-x.
Evans, M.A., Cannon, M., Kouvaritakis, B., 2015. Robust MPC tower damping for
variable speed wind turbines. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 23, 290–296.
Faskhodi, A.S., Fakharian, A., 2018. Disturbance accommodation control of wind
turbines based on sliding mode approach. In: Mediterranean Conference on Power
Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Energy Conversion (MEDPOWER 2018).
Presented at the Mediterranean Conference on Power Generation, Transmission,
Distribution and Energy Conversion, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1049/
cp.2018.1900. MEDPOWER 2018).
Fateh, F., White, W.N., Gruenbacher, D., 2017. Torsional vibrations mitigation in the
drivetrain of DFIG-based grid-connected wind turbine. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 53,
5760–5767. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2017.2730159.
Fleming, P., Wingerden, J.-W., Wright, A., 2012. Comparing state-space multivariable
controls to multi-SISO controls for load reduction of drivetrain-coupled modes on
wind turbines through field-testing. In: 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
15
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Presented at the 50th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nashville,
Tennessee. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-1152.
Fleming, P.A., van Wingerden, J.-W., Scholbrock, A.K., van der Veen, G., Wright, A.D.,
2013. Field testing a wind turbine drivetrain/tower damper using advanced design
and validation techniques. In: 2013 American Control Conference. Presented at the
2013 American Control Conference, pp. 2227–2234. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACC.2013.6580166.
Frost, S.A., Balas, M.J., Wright, A.D., 2009. Direct adaptive control of a utility-scale wind
turbine for speed regulation. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 19, 59–71. https://doi.
org/10.1002/rnc.1329.
Frost, S.A., Balas, M.J., Wright, A.D., 2010. Augmented adaptive control of a wind
turbine in the presence of structural modes. In: Proceedings of the 2010 American
Control Conference. Presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 American Control
Conference, pp. 2760–2765. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2010.5531381.
Galán-Lavado, A., Santos, M., 2021. Analysis of the effects of the location of passive
control devices on the platform of a floating wind turbine. Energies 14, 2850.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102850.
Gao, L., Hong, J., 2021. Data-driven yaw misalignment correction for utility-scale wind
turbines. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 13, 063302. https://doi.org/10.1063/
5.0056671.
Ge, M., Ke, W., Chen, H., 2019. Pitch control strategy before the rated power for variable
speed wind turbines at high altitudes. J. Hydrodyn. 31, 379–388. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s42241-018-0172-9.
George, J., Singla, P., Crassidis, J., 2008. Stochastic disturbance accommodating control
using a kalman estimator. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference
and Exhibit, Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Co-located Conferences.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2008-6478.
George, J., Singla, P., Crassidis, J.L., 2009. Adaptive disturbance accommodating
controller for uncertain stochastic systems. In: 2009 American Control Conference.
Presented at the 2009 American Control Conference, pp. 2599–2605. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ACC.2009.5160399.
Geyler, M., Caselitz, P., 2008. Robust multivariable pitch control design for load
reduction on large wind turbines. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 130, 031014 https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.2931510.
Girsang, I.P., Dhupia, J.S., 2013. Collective pitch control of wind turbines using
stochastic disturbance accommodating control. Wind Eng. 37, 517–533. https://doi.
org/10.1260/0309-524X.37.5.517.
Girsang, I.P., Dhupia, J.S., Muljadi, E., Singh, M., Jonkman, J., 2013. Modeling and
control to mitigate resonant load in variable-speed wind turbine drivetrain. IEEE J.
Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 1, 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1109/
JESTPE.2013.2284096.
Golnary, F., Tse, K.T., 2022. Simultaneous active control of tower lateral vibration and
power control of wind turbine: a novel multivariable approach. Energy Rep. 8,
4233–4251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.083.
Gros, S., Schild, A., 2017. Real-time economic nonlinear model predictive control for
wind turbine control. Int. J. Control 90, 2799–2812. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207179.2016.1266514.
Grüne, L., 2012. NMPC without terminal constraints. IFAC Proc 4. https://doi.org/
10.3182/20120823-5-NL-3013.00030. IFAC-Pap.
Han, Y., Leithead, W.E., 2014. Combined wind turbine fatigue and ultimate load
reduction by individual blade control. Comb. Wind Turbine Fatigue Ultim. Load
Reduct. Individ. Bl. Contro 524, 012062.
Han, Y., Liu, X., 2014. Collective pitch sliding mode control for large scale wind turbines
considering load reduction. In: 2014 International Conference on Mechatronics and
Control (ICMC). Presented at the 2014 International Conference on Mechatronics
and Control (ICMC). IEEE, Jinzhou, China, pp. 652–656. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICMC.2014.7231635.
Han, B., Zhou, L., Yang, F., Xiang, Z., 2016. Individual pitch controller based on fuzzy
logic control for wind turbine load mitigation. IET Renew. Power Gener. 10,
687–693. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2015.0320.
Han, B., Kong, X., Zhang, Z., Zhou, L., 2017. Neural network model predictive control
optimisation for large wind turbines. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 11, 3491–3498.
https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2016.1989.
Han, B., Zhou, L., Zhang, Z., 2018. LIDAR-assisted radial basis function neural network
optimization for wind turbines. IEEJ Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 13, 195–200.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tee.22514.
Hansen, M.H., Thomsen, K., Fuglsang, P., Knudsen, T., 2006. Two methods for estimating
aeroelastic damping of operational wind turbine modes from experiments. Wind
Energy 9, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.187.
Hara, N., Tsujimoto, S., Nihei, Y., Iijima, K., Konishi, K., 2017. Experimental validation of
model-based blade pitch controller design for floating wind turbines: system
identification approach. Wind Energy 20, 1187–1206. https://doi.org/10.1002/
we.2089.
Harris, M., Hand, M., Wright, A., 2005. LIDAR for Turbine Control (Tech. Rep.).
Harris, M., Hand, M., Wright, A., 2006. Lidar for Turbine Control: March 1, 2005 -
November 30, 2005. https://doi.org/10.2172/881478. No. NREL/TP-500-39154,
881478).
Hassan, H.M., ElShafei, A.L., Farag, W.A., Saad, M.S., 2012. A robust LMI-based pitch
controller for large wind turbines. Renew. Energy 44, 63–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2011.12.016.
Hatami, A., Moetakef-Imani, B., 2016. Innovative adaptive pitch control for small wind
turbine fatigue load reduction. Mechatronics 40, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.mechatronics.2016.10.006.
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
He, W., Ge, S., 2015. Vibration control of a nonuniform wind turbine tower via
disturbance observer. IEEE ASME Trans. Mechatron. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TMECH.2014.2313876.
He, R., Yang, H., Sun, S., Lu, L., Sun, H., Gao, X., 2022. A machine learning-based fatigue
loads and power prediction method for wind turbines under yaw control. Appl.
Energy 326, 120013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120013.
Henriksen, L.C., 2011. Model Predictive Control of Wind Turbines. Univ. Den, Tech.
Hwas, A., Katebi, R., 2012. Wind turbine control using PI pitch angle controller. IFAC
Proc. Vol., 2nd IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control 45, 241–246. https://
doi.org/10.3182/20120328-3-IT-3014.00041.
Imran, R.M., Hussain, D.M.A., Soltani, M., Rafaq, R.M., 2016. Optimal tuning of
multivariable disturbance-observer-based control for flicker mitigation using
individual pitch control of wind turbine. IET Renew. Power Gener.
Imran, R.M., Hussain, D.M.A., Chowdhry, B.S., 2018. Parameterized disturbance
observer based controller to reduce cyclic loads of wind turbine. Energies 11, 1296.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051296.
Iqbal, A., Ying, D., Saleem, A., Hayat, M.A., Mehmood, K., 2020. Efficacious pitch angle
control of variable-speed wind turbine using fuzzy based predictive controller. In:
Energy Rep., The 6th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems
Engineering, 6, pp. 423–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.11.097.
Jafarnejadsani, H., Pieper, J., Ehlers, J., 2013. Adaptive control of a variable-speed
variable-pitch wind turbine using radial-basis function neural network. IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technol. 21, 2264–2272. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TCST.2012.2237518.
Jain, A., Schildbach, G., Fagiano, L., Morari, M., 2015. On the design and tuning of linear
model predictive control for wind turbines. Renew. Energy 80, 664–673. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.02.057.
Jokar, H., Vatankhah, R., Mahzoon, M., 2023. Active vibration control of horizontal-axis
wind turbine blades using disturbance observer-based boundary control approach.
Eng. Struct. 275 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115323.
Jonkman, J., Butterfield, S., Musial, W., Scott, G., 2009. Definition of a 5-MW Reference
Wind Turbine for Offshore System Development. https://doi.org/10.2172/947422.
No. NREL/TP-500-38060, 947422.
Koerber, A., King, R., 2013. Combined feedback–feedforward control of wind turbines
using state-constrained model predictive control. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
21, 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2013.2260749.
Körber, A., 2014. Extreme and Fatigue Load Reducing Control for Wind Turbines.
https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-4133.
Kouvaritakis, B., Cannon, M., Tsachouridis, V., 2004. Recent developments in stochastic
MPC and sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Control 28, 23–35. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.arcontrol.2004.01.003.
Kristalny, M., Madjidian, D., Knudsen, T., 2013. On using wind speed preview to reduce
wind turbine tower oscillations. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 21, 1191–1198.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2013.2261070.
Kumar, A.A., Stol, K.A., 2009. Scheduled model predictive control of a wind turbine.
47th AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. New Horiz. Forum Aerosp. Expo. Number AIAA-2009-
0480.
Lackner, M.A., van Kui, G., 2010. A comparison of smart rotor control approaches using
trailing edge aps and individual pitch control. Wind Energy 12, 117–134.
Laks, J.H., Pao, L.Y., Wright, A., 2009. Combined feed-forward/feedback control of wind
turbines to reduce blade flap bending moments. Proc AIAAASME Wind Energy
Symp.
Laks, Jason, Pao, L., Simley, E., Wright, A., Kelley, N., Jonkman, B., 2011. Model
predictive control using preview measurements from LIDAR. In: 49th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, Aerospace Sciences Meetings. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-813.
Laks, J., Pao, L., Wright, A., Kelley, N., Jonkman, B., 2011a. The use of preview wind
measurements for blade pitch control. Mechatronics 21, 668–681.
Laks, J., Pao, L.Y., Simley, E., Wright, A., Kelley, N., Jonkman, B., 2011b. Model
predictive control using preview measurements from LIDAR. In: Proc 49th AIAA
Aerosp. Sci. Meet (Orlando FL).
Lakshmi, K.V., Srinivas, P., 2014. Fuzzy adaptive PID control of pitch system in variable
speed wind turbines. In: 2014 International Conference on Issues and Challenges in
Intelligent Computing Techniques (ICICT). Presented at the 2014 International
Conference on Issues and Challenges in Intelligent Computing Techniques (ICICT),
pp. 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICICT.2014.6781252.
Lara, M., Garrido, J., Ruz, M.L., Vázquez, F., 2023. Multi-objective optimization for
simultaneously designing active control of tower vibrations and power control in
wind turbines. Energy Rep. 9, 1637–1650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2022.12.141.
Larsen, T.J., Hanson, T.D., 2007. A method to avoid negative damped low frequent tower
vibrations for a oating, pitch controlled wind turbine. Proc. Sci. Mak. Torque Wind.
Leithead, W.E., Dominguez, S., 2005. Controller design for the cancellation of the tower
fore-aft mode in a wind turbine. In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control. Presented at the Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, pp. 1276–1281. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2005.1582334.
Leithead, W., Dominguez, S., Spruce, C., 2004. Analysis of Tower/Blade Interaction in
the Cancellation of the Tower Fore-Aft Mode via Control. EWEC.
Leithead, W., Neilson, V., Dominguez, S., 2009a. Alleviation of unbalanced rotor loads by
single blade controllers. Eur. Wind Energy Conf.
Leithead, W., Neilson, V., Dominguez, S., Dutka, A., 2009b. A novel approach to
structural load control using intelligent actuators. 2009 17th Mediterr. Conf. Control
Autom. IEEE 1257–1262.
16
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
Lescher, F., Zhao, J.Y., Martinez, A., 2006. Multiobjetive H2/H control of a pitch
regulated wind turbine for mechanical load reduction. Renew. Energy Power Qual. J.
1, 100–105. https://doi.org/10.24084/repqj04.248.
Li, Z., Tian, S., Zhang, Y., Li, H., Lu, M., 2019. Active control of drive chain torsional
vibration for DFIG-based wind turbine. Energies 12, 1744. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en12091744.
Li, J., Wang, S., Li, Y., 2020. A model-free adaptive controller with tracking error
differential for collective pitching of wind turbines. Renew. Energy 161, 435–447.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.06.140.
Li, J., Wang, S., Hou, Z., Zhao, J., 2022. Multivariable model-free adaptive controller
design with differential characteristic for load reduction of wind turbines. IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers. 37, 1106–1114. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TEC.2021.3125112.
Licari, J., 2013. Control of a Variable Speed Wind Turbine (Phd). Cardiff University.
Licari, J., Ugalde-Loo, C.E., Ekanayake, J.B., Jenkins, N., 2013. Damping of torsional
vibrations in a variable-speed wind turbine. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 28,
172–180. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEC.2012.2224868.
Lio, W.H., Alan, 2018a. Background of wind turbine blade-pitch load reduction control.
In: Lio, W.H., Alan (Eds.), Blade-Pitch Control for Wind Turbine Load Reductions,
Springer Theses. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 11–49. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-75532-8_2.
Lio, W.H., Alan, 2018b. Performance similarities between individual pitch control
strategies. In: Lio, W.H., Alan (Eds.), Blade-Pitch Control for Wind Turbine Load
Reductions, Springer Theses. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 77–99.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75532-8_4.
Lio, W.H., Jones, B.L., Lu, Q., Rossiter, J.A., 2015. IPCs and tower damping controllers
are designed separately from the CPC, and carefully in order to avoid cross
excitation. Int. J. Control 1–16.
Lio, W.H., Jones, B.L., Rossiter, J.A., 2017. Preview predictive control layer design based
upon known wind turbine blade-pitch controllers. Wind Energy 20, 1207–1226.
https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2090.
Lio, Wai Hou, Jones, B.Ll., Lu, Q., Rossiter, J.A., 2017. Fundamental performance
similarities between individual pitch control strategies for wind turbines. Int. J.
Control 90, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207179.2015.1078912.
Liu, X., Xi, K., 2014. Feedback-assisted iterative learning model predictive control with
nonlinear fuzzy model. Math. Probl Eng. 2014, e874705 https://doi.org/10.1155/
2014/874705.
Liu, H., Tang, Q., Chi, Y., Zhang, Z., Yuan, X., 2016. Vibration reduction strategy for
wind turbine based on individual pitch control and torque damping control:
vibration Reduction Control Strategy for Wind Turbine. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy
Syst. 26, 2230–2243.
Liu, L., Xie, D., Chu, H., Gu, C., 2017. A damping method for torsional vibrations in a
DFIG wind turbine system based on small-signal analysis. Elec. Power Compon. Syst.
45, 560–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2016.1274344.
Liu, W., Li, C., Liu, Y., Wu, Q., 2017. Predictive control of wind turbine for load reduction
during ramping events. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 93, 135–145. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2017.05.025.
Liu, Y., Patton, R.J., Shi, S., 2018. Wind turbine load mitigation using MPC with Gaussian
wind speed prediction. In: 2018 UKACC 12th International Conference on Control
(CONTROL). Presented at the 2018 UKACC 12th International Conference on
Control (CONTROL), pp. 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/CONTROL.2018.8516882.
Liu, Y., Zhang, S., Wang, X., Gao, X., Cao, T., 2022. Optimization of torque control
parameters for wind turbine based on drive chain active damping control. IEEE
Access 10, 106482–106494. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3212155.
Livermore, L., Ugalde-Loo, C.E., Mu, Q., Liang, J., Ekanayake, J.B., Jenkins, N., 2014.
Damping of subsynchronous resonance using a voltage source converter-based high-
voltage direct-current link in a series-compensated Great Britain transmission
network. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 8, 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
gtd.2013.0095.
López-Romero, M.Á., Santos Peñas, M., 2023. A Positive Position Feedback controller for
vibration control of wind turbines. Energy Rep. 9, 1342–1353. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egyr.2022.12.047.
Lovera, M., Colaneri, P., Malpica, C., Celi, R., 2006. Closed-loop aeromechanical stability
of hingeless rotor helicopters with higher harmonic control. J. Guid. Control Dynam.
29, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.7949.
Lu, Q., Bowyer, R., Jones, B., 2015. Analysis and design of Coleman transformbased
individual pitch controllers for wind-turbine load reduction. Wind Energy 18,
1451–1468.
Mahdizadeh, A., Schmid, R., Oetomo, D., 2021. LIDAR-assisted exact output regulation
for load mitigation in wind turbines. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 29,
1102–1116.
Mahmoud, M.S., Oyedeji, M.O., 2018. Continuous-time multi-model predictive control of
variable-speed variable-pitch wind turbines. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 49, 2442–2453. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2018.1505001.
Mandic, G., Nasiri, A., Muljadi, E., Oyague, F., 2012. Active torque control for gearbox
load reduction in a variable-speed wind turbine. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 48,
2424–2432. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2012.2227131.
Martín-Alcántara, A., Motta, V., Tarantino, A., De Giorgi, M.G., 2023. Design of a passive
flow control solution for the mitigation of vortex induced vibrations on wind
turbines blade sections as a response to extreme weather events. Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assessments 56, 103053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103053.
Meng, H., Yu, X., Chang, S., 2023. Study on equivalent fatigue damage of two in-a-line
wind turbines under yaw-based optimum control. Int. J. Green Energy 20, 181–191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2021.2023887.
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
Mérida, J., Aguilar, L.T., Dávila, J., 2014. Analysis and synthesis of sliding mode control
for large scale variable speed wind turbine for power optimization. Renew. Energy
71, 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.06.030.
Minchala, L.I., Probst, O., Cardenas-Fuentes, D., 2018. Wind turbine predictive control
focused on the alleviation of mechanical stress over the blades. IFAC-Pap., 2nd IFAC
Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control of Nonlinear Systems MICNON
51, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.07.270, 2018.
Miquelez-Madariaga, I., Lizarraga-Zubeldia, I., Diaz de Corcuera, A., Elso, J., 2022.
Lidar-based feedforward control design methodology for tower load alleviation in
wind turbines. Wind Energy 25, 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2724.
Mirzaei, M., Hansen, M.H., 2016. A LIDAR-assisted model predictive controller added on
a traditional wind turbine controller. In: 2016 American Control Conference (ACC).
Presented at the 2016 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 1381–1386. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2016.7525110.
Mirzaei, M., Soltani, M., Poulsen, N.K., Niemann, H.H., 2013a. Model predictive control
of wind turbines using uncertain LIDAR measurements. In: 2013 American Control
Conference. Presented at the 2013 American Control Conference, pp. 2235–2240.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2013.6580167.
Mirzaei, M., Soltani, M., Poulsen, N.K., Niemann, H.H., 2013b. An MPC approach to
individual pitch control of wind turbines using uncertain LIDAR measurements. In:
2013 European Control Conference (ECC). Presented at the 2013 European Control
Conference (ECC), pp. 490–495. https://doi.org/10.23919/ECC.2013.6669729.
Mitra, A., Giridharan, Y., Chakraborty, A., 2022. Wavelet linear quadratic regulator-
based gain scheduling for optimal fore-aft vibration control of horizontal axis wind
turbine tower using active tuned mass damper. Struct. Control Health Monit. 29,
e3055 https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.3055.
Mohammadi, E., Fadaeinedjad, R., Moschopoulos, G., 2018. Implementation of internal
model based control and individual pitch control to reduce fatigue loads and tower
vibrations in wind turbines. J. Sound Vib. 421, 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsv.2018.02.004.
Mulders, S.P., Hovgaard, T.G., Grunnet, J.D., Wingerden, J.-W. van, 2020. Preventing
wind turbine tower natural frequency excitation with a quasi-LPV model predictive
control scheme. Wind Energy 23, 627–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2447.
Murtagh, P.J., Ghosh, A., Basu, B., Broderick, B.M., 2008. Passive control of wind turbine
vibrations including blade/tower interaction and rotationally sampled turbulence.
Wind Energy 11, 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.249.
Mylonas, C., Abdallah, I., Chatzi, E., 2021. Conditional variational autoencoders for
probabilistic wind turbine blade fatigue estimation using Supervisory, Control, and
Data Acquisition data. Wind Energy 24, 1122–1139. https://doi.org/10.1002/
we.2621.
Nam, Y., Kien, P.T., La, Y.-H., 2013. Alleviating the tower mechanical load of multi-MW
wind turbines with LQR control. J. Power Electron. 13, 1024–1031.
Namura, N., Muto, K., Ueki, Y., Ueta, R., Takeda, N., 2021. Fatigue damage monitoring of
wind turbine blades by using the kalman filter. AIAA J. 59, 5130–5140. https://doi.
org/10.2514/1.J060254.
Nazokkar, A., Dezvareh, R., 2022. Vibration control of floating offshore wind turbine
using semi-active liquid column gas damper. Ocean Eng. 265, 112574 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112574.
Njiri, J.G., Söffker, D., 2016. State-of-the-art in wind turbine control: trends and
challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60, 377–393.
Novaes Menezes, E.J., Araújo, A.M., Rohatgi, J.S., González del Foyo, P.M., 2018. Active
load control of large wind turbines using state-space methods and disturbance
accommodating control. Energy 150, 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.02.143.
Odgaaard, P.F., Knudsen, T., Overgaard, A., Steffensen, H., Jørgensen, M., 2015.
Importance of dynamic inflow in model predictive control of wind turbines. IFAC-
pap. In: 9th IFAC Symposium on Control of Power and Energy Systems CPES, 48,
pp. 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.12.359, 2015.
Odgaard, P.F., Larsen, L.F.S., Wisniewski, R., Hovgaard, T.G., 2016. On using Pareto
optimality to tune a linear model predictive controller for wind turbines. In: Renew.
Energy, Optimization Methods in Renewable Energy Systems Design, 87,
pp. 884–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.09.067.
Oerlemans, S., Sijtsma, P., Méndez López, B., 2007. Location and quantification of noise
sources on a wind turbine. J. Sound Vib. 299, 869–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsv.2006.07.032.
OpenFAST Documentation (Release v3.2.0), 2022. Natl. Renew. Energy Lab. Tech.
Repport.
Ozbek, M., Rixen, D.J., 2013. Operational modal analysis of a 2.5 MW wind turbine using
optical measurement techniques and strain gauges. Wind Energy 16, 367–381.
https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1493.
Pace, A., Johnson, K., Wright, A., 2015. Preventing wind turbine overspeed in highly
turbulent wind events using disturbance accommodating control and light detection
and ranging. Wind Energy 18, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1705.
Pamososuryo, A., Liu, Y., Hovgaard, T., Ferrari, R., van Wingerden, J., 2022. Individual
pitch control by convex economic model predictive control for wind turbine side-
side tower load alleviation. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2265, 032071 https://doi.org/
10.1088/1742-6596/2265/3/032071.
Petrović, V., Jelavić, M., Baotić, M., 2021. MPC framework for constrained wind turbine
individual pitch control. Wind Energy 24, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2558.
Pintea, A., Christov, N., Popescu, D., Borne, P., 2011. LQG control of horizontal wind
turbines for blades and tower loads alleviation. IFAC Proc 44, 1721–1726. https://
doi.org/10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.01231.
Plumley, C., Leithead, W., Jamieson, P., Bossanyi, E., Graham, M., 2014. Comparison of
individual pitch and smart rotor control strategies for load reduction. Proc. Sci. Mak.
Torque Wind 524, 012054.
17
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
Poureh, A., Nobakhti, A., 2020. Mode decomposition approach in robust control design
for horizontal axis wind turbines. Wind Energy 23, 312–326. https://doi.org/
10.1002/we.2431.
Pustina, L., Serafini, J., Pasquali, C., Solero, L., Lidozzi, A., Gennaretti, M., 2023. A novel
resonant controller for sea-induced rotor blade vibratory loads reduction on floating
offshore wind turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 173 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2022.113073.
Qi, L., Cao, H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Shi, K., Xu, J., 2022. Data-driven control of the
coupled loads for floating wind turbine systems based on deformable trailing edge
flaps. Ocean Eng. 250, 111083 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111083.
Raach, S., Schlipf, D., Sandner, F., Matha, D., Cheng, P.W., 2014. Nonlinear model
predictive control of floating wind turbines with individual pitch control. In: 2014
American Control Conference. Presented at the 2014 American Control Conference,
pp. 4434–4439. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2014.6858718.
Rahman, M., Ong, Z.C., Chong, W.T., Julai, S., Ng, X.W., 2019. Wind turbine tower
modeling and vibration control under different types of loads using ant colony
optimized PID controller. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 44, 707–720. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13369-018-3190-6.
Raja, M.I., 2016. Multivariable control for load mitigation of wind turbine. IET Renew.
Power Gener.
Rajiv, K.V., Soubhik, A., Ysni, S., 2008. Mitigation of subsynchronous resonance in a
series-compensated wind farm using FACTS controllers. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 23,
1645–1654.
Ren, Y., Li, L., Brindley, J., Jiang, L., 2016. Nonlinear PI control for variable pitch wind
turbine. Control Eng. Pract. 50, 84–94.
Rocha, R., Coutinho, G., Ferreira, A., Torga, F., 2010. Multivariable H-2 and H-infinity
control for a wind energy conversion system - a comparison. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci.
Eng. 32, 510–518.
Sanchez, H.E., Escobet, T., Puig, V., Odgaard, P.F., 2018. Health-aware model predictive
control of wind turbines using fatigue prognosis. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal
Process. 32, 614–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/acs.2784.
Santoni, C., Khosronejad, A., Seiler, P., Sotiropoulos, F., 2023. Toward control co-design
of utility-scale wind turbines: collective vs. individual blade pitch control. Energy
Rep. 9, 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.12.041.
Santos, R.A., 2007. DAMAGE MITIGATING CONTROL FOR WIND TURBINES. Univ.
Colo. Phd Thesis.
Sarkar, M.R., Julai, S., Tong, C.W., Uddin, M., Romlie, M.F., Shafiullah, G., 2020. Hybrid
pitch angle controller approaches for stable wind turbine power under variable wind
speed. Energies 13, 3622. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143622.
Sarkar, S., Fitzgerald, B., Basu, B., 2021. Individual blade pitch control of floating
offshore wind turbines for load mitigation and power regulation. IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol. 29, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2020.2975148.
Schlipf, D., Schuler, S., Grau, P., Martin, K., 2010. Look-ahead cyclic pitch control using
LIDAR. Sci. Mak. Torque Wind.
Schlipf, D., Pao, L.Y., Cheng, P.W., 2012. Comparison of feedforward and model
predictive control of wind turbines using LIDAR. In: 2012 IEEE 51st IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control (CDC). Presented at the 2012 IEEE 51st IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 3050–3055. https://doi.org/10.1109/
CDC.2012.6426063.
Schlipf, D., Schlipf, D.J., Kühn, M., 2013. Nonlinear model predictive control of wind
turbines using LIDAR. Wind Energy 16, 1107–1129. https://doi.org/10.1002/
we.1533.
Schlipf, D., Grau, P., Raach, S., Duraiski, R., Trierweiler, J., Cheng, P.W., 2014.
Comparison of linear and nonlinear model predictive control of wind turbines using
LIDAR. 2014 Am. Control Conf. 3742–3747. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACC.2014.6859205.
Scholbrock, A., Fleming, P., Fingersh, L., Wright, A., Schlipf, D., Haizmann, F., Belen, F.,
2013. Field testing LIDAR-based feed-forward controls on the NREL controls
advanced research turbine. In: 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the
New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Presented at the 51st AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Texas. https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2013-818. Grapevine (Dallas/Ft. Worth Region).
Selvam, K., Kanev, S., van Wingerden, J.W., Verhaegen, M., 2009. Feedback feedforward
individual pitch control for wind turbine load reduction. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear
Control 19, 72–91.
Shaltout, M.L., Ma, Z., Chen, D., 2017. An adaptive economic model predictive control
approach for wind turbines. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 140. https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.4038490.
Shaltout, M.L., Alhneaish, M.M., Metwalli, S.M., 2020. An economic model predictive
control approach for wind power smoothing and tower load mitigation. J. Dyn. Syst.
Meas. Control 142. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4046278.
Shirazi, F.A., Grigoriadis, K.M., Viassolo, D., 2012. Wind turbine integrated structural
and LPV control design for improved closed-loop performance. Int. J. Control 85,
1178–1196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207179.2012.679973.
Simley, E., Pao, L., Frehlich, R., Jonkman, B., Kelley, N., 2011. Analysis of wind speed
measurements using continuous wave LIDAR for wind turbine control. In: 49th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, Aerospace Sciences Meetings. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-263.
Simley, E., Fleming, P., Girard, N., Alloin, L., Godefroy, E., Duc, T., 2021. Results from a
wake-steering experiment at a commercial wind plant: investigating the wind speed
dependence of wake-steering performance. Wind Energy Sci 6, 1427–1453. https://
doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1427-2021.
Sloth, C., Esbensen, T., Niss, M.O.K., Stoustrup, J., Odgaard, P.F., 2009. Robust LMI-
based control of wind turbines with parametric uncertainties. In: 2009 IEEE Control
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
Applications, (CCA) Intelligent Control, (ISIC). Presented at the 2009 IEEE Control
Applications. (CCA) Intelligent Control, (ISIC), pp. 776–781. https://doi.org/
10.1109/CCA.2009.5281171.
Soliman, M., Malik, O.P., Westwick, D.T., 2010. Multiple model MIMO predictive control
for variable speed variable pitch wind turbines. In: Proceedings of the 2010
American Control Conference. Presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 American
Control Conference, pp. 2778–2784. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2010.5531355.
Soliman, M., Malik, O.P., Westwick, D.T., 2011. Multiple model predictive control for
wind turbines with doubly fed induction generators. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2,
215–225. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2011.2153217.
Song, W., Liu, Y., Wang, Z., Ding, S., Lin, X., Feng, Z., Li, Z., 2022. A novel wind turbine
control strategy to maximize load capacity in severe wind conditions. Energy Rep. 8,
7773–7779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.06.005.
Spencer, M.D., Stol, K.A., Unsworth, C.P., Cater, J.E., Norris, S.E., 2013. Model predictive
control of a wind turbine using short-term wind field predictions. Wind Energy 16,
417–434.
Spruce, C.J., Turner, J.K., 2013. Tower vibration control of active stall wind turbines.
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 21, 1049–1066.
Spudić, V., Jelavić, M., Baotić, M., 2015. Supervisory controller for reduction of wind
turbine loads in curtailed operation. Control Eng. Pract. 36, 72–86. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conengprac.2014.11.005.
Stol, K., Balas, M., 2002. Periodic disturbance accommodating control for speed
regulation of wind turbines. In: 2002 ASME Wind Energy Symposium, Aerospace
Sciences Meetings. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2002-53.
Stol, K.A., Balas, M.J., 2003. Periodic disturbance accommodating control for blade load
mitigation in wind turbines. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 125, 379–385. https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.1621672.
Sudharsan, G.S., Venkatasubramanian, R., Hemalatha, N., Deshmukh, R.G., Alanazi, M.,
Almadhor, A., Lokesh, S., N, K., Sudhakar, M., 2022. Power yield improvement of
wind turbine and fatigue load mitigation using predictive-based Active flow
controller. Energy Rep., The 2022 International Conference on Energy Storage
Technology and Power Systems 8, 989–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2022.10.285.
Tang, S., Tian, D., Fang, J., Liu, F., Zhou, C., 2021a. Individual pitch controller
characteristics analysis and optimization under aerodynamic imbalanced loads of
wind turbines. Energy Rep. 7, 6489–6500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2021.09.114.
Tang, S., Tian, D., Huang, M., Li, B., Tao, L., 2021b. Load control optimization method
for offshore wind turbine based on LTR. Energy Rep. 7, 4288–4297. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.009.
Tang, S., Tian, D., Wu, X., Huang, M., Deng, Y., 2022. Wind turbine load reduction based
on 2DoF robust individual pitch control. Renew. Energy 183, 28–40. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.086.
Tc88-MT, I.E.C., 2005. Iec 61400-3: Wind Turbines–Part 1: Design Requirements, 64. Int
Electrotech Comm, Genova, Genova.
Thomsen, S.C., Niemann, H., Poulsen, N.K., 2010. Stochastic wind turbine control in
multiblade coordinates. In: Proceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference.
Presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference,
pp. 2772–2777. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2010.5531547.
Truong, H.V.A., Dang, T.D., Vo, C.P., Ahn, K.K., 2022. Active control strategies for
system enhancement and load mitigation of floating offshore wind turbines: a
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 170, 112958 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2022.112958.
Vali, M., van Wingerden, J.-W., Kühn, M., 2016. Optimal multivariable individual pitch
control for load reduction of large wind turbines. In: 2016 American Control
Conference (ACC). Presented at the 2016 American Control Conference (ACC),
pp. 3163–3169. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2016.7525404.
Vali, M., Petrović, V., Pao, L.Y., Kühn, M., 2022. Model predictive active power control
for optimal structural load equalization in waked wind farms. IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol. 30, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2021.3053776.
van Engelen, T.G., 2006. Design model and load reduction assessment for multirotational
mode individual pitch control (higher harmonics control). Proc. Eur. Wind Energy
Conf.
van Engelen, T.G., van der Hooft, E.L., 2005. Individual Pitch Control Inventory
(Technical Report). ECN.
Wang, N., Johnson, K.E., Wright, A.D., 2012. FX-RLS-Based feedforward control for
LIDAR-enabled wind turbine load mitigation. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 20,
1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2011.2163515.
Wang, N., Wright, A.D., Balas, M.J., 2016a. Disturbance-Accommodating Control-Based
Individual Blade Pitch Control Design for Two-Bladed Turbines (No. NREL/CP-5000-
65324). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), Reston, VA.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-1736.
Wang, N., Wright, A.D., Johnson, K.E., 2016b. Independent blade pitch controller design
for a three-bladed turbine using disturbance accommodating control. In: 2016
American Control Conference (ACC). Presented at the 2016 American Control
Conference (ACC). IEEE, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 2301–2306. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACC.2016.7525261.
Wang, N., Wright, A.D., Balas, M.J., 2017. Disturbance accommodating control design
for wind turbines using solvability conditions. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control Trans.
ASME 139.
Wang, X., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., 2020. Dynamic load frequency control for high-penetration
wind power considering wind turbine fatigue load. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
117, 105696 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.105696.
18
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
Wang, X., Zhou, J., Qin, B., Luo, Y., Hu, C., Pang, J., 2021. Individual pitch control of
wind turbines based on SVM load estimation and LIDAR measurement. IEEE Access
9, 143913–143921. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3120543.
Wang, L., Jin, F., Chen, J., Gao, Y., Du, X., Zhang, Z., Xu, Z., Yang, J., 2022. Performance
improvement for large floating wind turbine by using a non-linear pitch system
based on neuro-adaptive fault-tolerant control. IET Renew. Power Gener. 16,
1636–1648. https://doi.org/10.1049/rpg2.12469.
Verwaal, N.W., Van Der Veen, Van Wingerden, J.W., 2015. Predictive control of an
experimental wind turbine using preview wind speed measurements. Wind Energy
18, 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1702.
Wang, Y., Guo, Y., Zhang, D., 2022a. Optimal ancillary control for frequency regulation
of wind turbine generator based on improved fatigue load sensitivity. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 137, 107751 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107751.
Wang, Y., Guo, Y., Zhang, D., Liu, H., Song, R., 2022b. Analysis and mitigation of the
drive train fatigue load for wind turbine with inertial control. Int. J. Electr. Power
Energy Syst. 136, 107698 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107698.
Wright, A.D., Balas, M.J., 2004. Design of controls to attenuate loads in the controls
advanced research turbine. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 126, 1083–1091. https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.1792654.
Wright, A.D., Fingersh, L.J., 2008. Advanced Control Design for Wind Turbines.
Xiao, S., Geng, H., Yang, G., 2014. Non-linear pitch control of wind turbines for tower
load reduction. IET Renew. Power Gener. 8, 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
rpg.2013.0297.
Xie, F., Aly, A.-M., 2020. Structural control and vibration issues in wind turbines: a
review. Eng. Struct. 210, 110087 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110087.
Xie, H., Li, B., Heyman, C., Oliveira, M.M. de, Monge, M., 2014. Subsynchronous
resonance characteristics in presence of doubly-fed induction generator and series
compensation and mitigation of subsynchronous resonance by proper control of
series capacitor. IET Renew. Power Gener. 8, 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
rpg.2013.0215.
Xin, Weidong, Liu, Yibing, Wang, Zhanqi, He, Ying, 2011. Analysis of lower frequent
vibration of large wind turbine tower. In: 2011 Second International Conference on
Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering. Presented at the 2011 Second
International Conference on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering,
pp. 3860–3863. https://doi.org/10.1109/MACE.2011.5987842.
Yaakoubi, A.E., Amhaimar, L., 2022. Optimal control of the blade pitch angle to limit the
produced power and reduce the mechanical loads of wind turbines. UPB Sci. Bull.
Ser. Mech. Eng. 84, 235–250.
Yaakoubi, A.E., Attari, K., Asselman, A., Djebli, A., 2017. Simulation and investigation of
the behavior of a large-scale direct driven wind turbine connected to the grid. UPB
Sci. Bull. Ser. C Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 79, 241–252.
yaakoubi, A.E., Asselman, A., Attari, K., 2018. Adaptive state feedback pitch angle
control of wind turbines for speed regulation and blades loadings alleviation. Int.
Rev. Autom. Control IREACO 11, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.15866/ireaco.
v11i4.14503.
Yaakoubi, A.E., Amhaimar, L., Attari, K., Harrak, M.H., Halaoui, M.E., Asselman, A.,
2019. Non-linear and intelligent maximum power point tracking strategies for small
size wind turbines: performance analysis and comparison. Energy Rep. 5, 545–554.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.03.001.
Yamaguchi, A., Yousefi, I., Ishihara, T., 2020. Reduction in the fluctuating load on wind
turbines by using a combined nacelle acceleration feedback and lidar-based
feedforward control. Energies 13, 4558. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13174558.
Yang, F., Song, Q., Wang, L., Zuo, S., Li, S., 2014. Wind and wave disturbances
compensation to floating offshore wind turbine using improved individual pitch
control based on fuzzy control strategy. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014, e968384 https://
doi.org/10.1155/2014/968384.
Yao, Q., Hu, Y., Deng, H., Luo, Z., Liu, J., 2020. Two-degree-of-freedom active power
control of megawatt wind turbine considering fatigue load optimization. Renew.
Energy 162, 2096–2112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.137.
Yao, Q., Ma, B., Zhao, T., Hu, Y., Fang, F., 2023. Optimized active power dispatching of
wind farms considering data-driven fatigue load suppression. IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Energy 14, 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2022.3213992.
Ying, D., Rashid, A., Sheng, L.H., De, T., Shize, T., Iqbal, A., 2021. Research on power
increase adaptive control strategy based on 5 MW wind turbine. Energy Rep., ICPE
2020-The International Conference on Power Engineering 7, 50–57. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egyr.2021.02.024.
Yuan, Y., Tang, J., 2017a. On advanced control methods toward power capture and load
mitigation. Wind Turbines. Engineering 3, 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENG.2017.04.023.
Yuan, Y., Tang, J., 2017b. Adaptive pitch control of wind turbine for load mitigation
under structural uncertainties. Renew. Energy 105, 483–494.
Yuan, Y., Chen, X., Tang, J., 2017. Disturbance observer-based pitch control of wind
turbines for enhanced speed regulation. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 139. https://doi.
org/10.1115/1.4035741.
Yuan, Y., Chen, X., Tang, J., 2020. Multivariable robust blade pitch control design to
reject periodic loads on wind turbines. Renew. Energy 146, 329–341. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.136.
Zhang, Y., Cheng, M., Chen, Z., 2013. Proportional resonant individual pitch control for
mitigation of wind turbines loads. IET Renew. Power Gener. 7, 191–200.
Zhang, L., Miao, J., Gu, J., Li, X., Hu, K., Zhu, H., Sun, X., Liu, J., Liu, Y., Wang, Z., 2021.
A method of reducing the radial load of the shaft of a vertical axis wind turbine
based on movable mass blocks. Renew. Energy 175, 952–964. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.012.
Zhao, J., Fang, Y., He, Y., Fang, J., Wen, L., Liang, Y., Xiao, S., 2021. Active power
control strategy of wind farm considering fatigue load of wind turbines. In: Energy
A. El Yaakoubi et al.
Rep., 2021 International Conference on Energy Engineering and Power Systems, 7,
pp. 1466–1476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.09.096.
Zhao, L., Gong, F., Chen, S., Wang, J., Xue, L., Xue, Y., 2022. Optimization study of
control strategy for combined multi-wind turbines energy production and loads
during wake effects. In: Energy Rep., 2022 The 4th International Conference on
Clean Energy and Electrical Systems, 8, pp. 1098–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2022.05.146.
19
View publication stats
Ocean Engineering 278 (2023) 114070
Zhou, Y., Lee, C., 2021. Evaluating the influence of a high-fidelity generator model on the
gearbox dynamic responses of wind turbines. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 35, 5273–5285.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-021-0501-8.
Zuo, S., Song, Y.D., Wang, L., Song, Q., 2013. Computationally inexpensive approach for
pitch control of offshore wind turbine on barge floating platform. Sci. World J. 2013,
e357849 https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/357849.
Zuo, H., Bi, K., Hao, H., 2020. A state-of-the-art review on the vibration mitigation of
wind turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 121, 109710 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.109710.