ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

Research Article

Adaptive robust control of a class of non-afne variable-speed

variable-pitch wind turbines with unmodeled dynamics
Pedram Bagheri n, Qiao Sun
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, Canada, T2N 1N4

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a novel synthesis of Nussbaum-type functions, and an adaptive radial-basis function neural
Received 11 January 2016 network is proposed to design controllers for variable-speed, variable-pitch wind turbines. Dynamic
Received in revised form equations of the wind turbine are highly nonlinear, uncertain, and affected by unknown disturbance
20 March 2016
sources. Furthermore, the dynamic equations are non-afne with respect to the pitch angle, which is a
Accepted 8 April 2016
Available online 2 May 2016
control input. To address these problems, a Nussbaum-type function, along with a dynamic control law
This paper was recommended for publica- are adopted to resolve the non-afne nature of the equations. Moreover, an adaptive radial-basis function
tion by Dr. Jeff Pieper. neural network is designed to approximate non-parametric uncertainties. Further, the closed-loop sys-
tem is made robust to unknown disturbance sources, where no prior knowledge of disturbance bound is
Keywords: assumed in advance. Finally, the Lyapunov stability analysis is conducted to show the stability of the
Wind turbines
entire closed-loop system. In order to verify analytical results, a simulation is presented and the results
Adaptive control
are compared to both a PI and an existing adaptive controllers.
Robust control
Adaptive neural network & 2016 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Nussbaum-type functions

1. Introduction control perspective, xed speed, variable-speed, and variable-

Due to limitations and pollution concerns of fossil fuels, the
search for alternative ways of energy production has attracted
much attention recently. Among a few available alternatives, the
wind energy is known to be virtually one of the most tantalizing
energy resources. Wind turbines are mechanical machines,
exploited to capture the kinetic energy of the wind. The captured
energy can be later converted to useful electrical or mechanical
energy. Regarding the advantages of the wind energy, cleanness
and global accessibility are the most prominent features. However,
variations in wind intensity, cause wind turbines to function with
low efciency for a long time-span throughout the year. To over-
come this challenge, well-designed control systems with a cap-
ability of adjusting and controlling wind turbines components can
be successfully utilized. Such controllers can increase the power
capture, as well as the turbine efciency. Alongside an increase in
the energy capture, such controllers are employed to reduce loads
on the turbine structure as well. Consequently, higher-
performance wind turbines with longer longevity are achieved [1].
The objective of the control design for wind turbines is to
optimize the captured wind energy. For this purpose, several
designs for wind turbines have been introduced, where each one
of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. From the
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pbagheri@ucalgary.ca (P. Bagheri).
pitch turbines are of the most importance. Variable-speed wind
turbines offer many benets as opposed to xed-speed ones. It has
been shown that their annual energy production can reach up to
10% above that of xed-speed wind turbines [2]. It has also been
recognized that controllers in such turbines play the important
role of the attenuation of the unfavorable effects of loads on the
turbine structure [3,4]. However, owing to the simplicity of
schemes, the majority of wind turbine control systems have been
designed based on linear models [5,6]. Considering the nonlinear
and uncertain nature of the wind turbine dynamics, designing
nonlinear controllers, developed to accommodate the complexity
of the turbine dynamics can improve efciency dramatically.
The presence of control systems enables wind turbines to
function in a wide range of wind speeds, which eventuates in
higher power capture. The control operating region in wind tur-
bines can be divided into two main parts, which are: 1. Region
with wind speeds below the rated speed; the control objective in
this region is to enable the turbine to reach desired rotor speeds,
resulting in the maximization of the power capture. 2. Region with
wind speeds above the rated speed; the control goal in this region
is to decrease electrical power and structural loads on different
parts of the turbine. It is worth noting that the turbine does not
operate at the highest efciency in the second region [7]. To
achieve these control objectives, there are two control inputs
available: generator torque and blades pitch angle. One way to
manipulate these inputs is to employ the generator torque as the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.04.008
0019-0578/& 2016 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
234 P. Bagheri, Q. Sun / ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241
input for low wind speeds (i.e., the rst region). In this case, the
pitch angle is maintained at a constant value. On the other hand,
for high wind speeds, in the second region, the pitch angle is
adopted as the control input, while the generator torque is kept
constant as it reaches the vicinity of its rated value [8,9].
Various linear control methods have been developed to address
the aforementioned control objectives in the literature. Examples
of such methods are, LQ and LGQ controllers [10,11], PI and PID
controllers [12], and liner robust methods [13]. Although linear
controllers have been widely utilized for wind turbines, highly
nonlinear nature of wind turbines compromises the performance
of such controllers [14].
As mentioned earlier, the existence of highly nonlinear terms,
uncertainties, and unknown disturbance sources in the dynamic
equations of wind turbines affect the performance of linear con-
trollers adversely. Hence, nonlinear approaches suit the nonlinear
dynamics of wind turbines, which contribute to better perfor-
mance. Several research works have been conducted in attempts
to design nonlinear controllers for wind turbines. A combination
of a sliding mode control and a PI controller is adopted in [15].
Authors in [15] propose a sliding mode design for the torque
control, and a PI controller for the pitch angle. The proposed
controller accommodates nonlinearities in the torque control
phase. However, in order to avoid the complexity of the non-afne
nature of the pitch angle, a PI control is designed for the pitch
angle. A nonlinear model predictive controller is designed in [16].
It is assumed that the pitch angle is xed, hence, the controller is
applied to the torque control phase. In addition, uncertainties and
disturbance sources are not considered in the design. Neural net-
works are proven to be effective ways of coping with non-
linearities and uncertainties [17]. One of the benets of using
neural networks is their adaptation capabilities. Consequently,
they can approximate parametric and non-parametric uncertain-
ties real-time, without any previous knowledge of those uncer-
tainties [18]. An example of such nonlinearities in the dynamics of
the turbine is corresponding to the pitch angle, which is also a
control input. The dynamic equations is non-afne with respect to
the pitch angle, which creates an uncertain non-afne system. To
cope with this challenge, there exist a few studies that suggest the
use of neural network-based approximators. Authors in [19]
developed adaptive controllers for variable-speed variable-pitch
wind turbines, where neural networks are used to approximate
uncertainties and disturbance. Nevertheless, the asymptotic sta-
bility of the closed-loop system is not achieved, and restrictive
assumptions are made to tackle the non-afne pitch angle. A
control scheme to design RBF-PID controllers for wind turbines is
proposed in [20]. However, the method does not guarantee the
asymptotic stability in the torque control phase, which adversely
affects the power capture efciency. The existing nonlinear and
neural network-based methods in the literature on addressing
both non-afness and uncertainties of the turbine equations,
introduce two major problems: 1. Such methods can merely
establish stability in the sense of Lyapunov, as opposed to the
asymptotic stability. It means that the turbine does not operate at
desired speeds, required to achieve the maximum power capture
efciency. 2. In order to establish stability, these methods require
prior knowledge of the directions of the non-afne input and its
derivatives. Given the complex nature of the turbine equations,
such information is not available in practical applications. Thus,
the objective of this study is to propose a method to eliminate
such restrictive assumptions, with the goal of the achievement of
the maximum efciency.
In this paper, nonlinear control of variable-speed variable-pitch
wind turbines is considered. The contribution of the paper is to
develop a novel synthesis of Nussbaum-type functions and adap-
tive radial-basis function neural networks to maximize the power
capture. As previous works in the literature suggest, there exits an
optimal rotor speed in the torque control phase, which results in
the maximum power extraction [7]. The optimal rotor speed is
time-varying and proportional to the wind speed. Thus, the
achievement of the asymptotic stability in the torque control
phase is of prime importance. However, the establishment of such
stability for the nonlinear dynamics of wind turbines in the pre-
sence of uncertainties and disturbance sources is not achieved in
existing methods. Contrary to existing methods in the literature
[19], the proposed scheme can guarantee the asymptotic stability
of the closed-loop system in the torque control phase. It is worth
mentioning that such stability is obtained in the presence of
parametric and non-parametric uncertainties, and unknown dis-
turbance sources. In addition, in contrast to the existing methods,
the direction of the non-afne input (i.e., pitch angle), and the sign
of its derivatives are assumed to be unknown. Thus, no prior
knowledge of the non-afne function is presumed in the extrac-
tion of control laws for the non-afne input. Consequently, the
proposed controller enables the turbine to reach desired rotor
speeds, which leads to the maximum power capture. On the
contrary, the existing nonlinear methods are incapable of estab-
lishing the asymptotic stability in the presence of unknown dis-
turbance and uncertainties, which compromises power capture
efciency. In the proposed scheme, a Nussbaum-type function is
utilized to address the non-afne nature of the dynamic equations.
Moreover, an adaptive neural network is designed to approximate
uncertain and unmodeled dynamics. Furthermore, the entire
closed-loop system is made robust to unknown disturbance
sources, without any knowledge of disturbance bound. At the end,
the stability of the closed-loop system is demonstrated by the use
of the Lyapunov stability analysis.
2. Problem statement
The objective of this paper is to develop a nonlinear controller
for variable-speed, variable-pitch wind turbines in the presence of
unknown disturbance sources and uncertainties. The proposed
controller accounts for turbines non-afne and uncertain
dynamics, in order to maximize the power capture.
The wind turbine, considered in this study has two manipu-
lated inputs: 1. Generator torque. 2. Pitch angle. To exploit these
control inputs, the following two-phase control strategy is
adopted:
1. Torque Control: For wind speeds below the rated speed, the
generator torque is used as the manipulated input. The goal in
this phase is to achieve desired rotor speeds. Depending on the
wind speed, there exists an optimal rotor speed, which leads to
the maximum power capture. Therefore, the control objective is
to produce the right amount of torque, such that the rotor
rotates at the optimal velocity. Moreover, in the torque control
phase, the pitch angle is maintained at a constant value. The
optimal rotor velocity can be calculated as follows [7]:
opt v
_ d 1
Rb
where _ d is the desired rotor speed; v is the wind speed; opt is
the optimal tip-speed relation which depends on the blade
design and aerodynamics; Rb stands for the blades length.
2. Pitch Control: As the wind speed approaches its rated value, the
generator torque and rotor speed reach their rated values as
well. Thus, the generator torque can be no longer used as a
manipulated input. Hence, the strategy in this phase is to keep
the generator torque at its rated value, and employ the pitch
 P. Bagheri, Q. Sun / ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241
angle as a manipulated input. Thus, the pitch angle is used to
hold the rotor speed at its rated value.
3. Wind turbine modeling
In this section, the nonlinear equations governing the dynamics
of the rotor of a variable-speed, variable-pitch wind turbine are
presented. For control purposes, the rotor is the main dynamical
component, whose dynamics is written as follows:
J r J g C s _ f ; _ ; v T g  T a dt 2 is obtained as follows:
where J r and J g are the equivalent moments of inertia of the rotor
and generator, respectively. A denotes the angular displace-
ment of the rotor, and _ A is the rotor speed. T g stands for the
torque, produced by the generator;T a represents the aerodynamic
torque imposed on the blades. C s is the damping coefcient of the
shaft, which is not available. f ; _ ; v is an unknown continuous
nonlinear function which accounts for the unmodeled dynamics,
affecting the rotor. d(t) represents an unknown bounded dis-
turbance source. That is, dtr where is not available, and
3 denotes the Euclidean norm of a vector.
The aerodynamic torque, acting on the blades can be calculated
as follows [14]:
1
Ta Rb 3 C q ; v2
2
where C q is the torque coefcient. is the air density; is the
blades pitch angle, Rb stands for the blades length, and denotes
the tip-speed ratio, calculated by
_ Rb
v
The captured power is also achieved from
1
P a Rb 2 C p ; v3
2 4.1. Torque control
where Cp is the power coefcient, dened as
C p ;
C q ;
The power coefcient depends on both the tip-speed ratio and
pitch angle, described by the following equation [21]:


c2  c5
C p c1   c3  c4 e  c6 7 design, the following variables are dened.
where
1 1 0:035
 8
 0:08 3 1
and c1 0:5176; c2 116; c3 0:4; c4 c5 5; c6 0:0068: As
seen from eqs. (7) and (8), the function containing the pitch angle,
; is non-afne. Therefore, an appropriate strategy yet to be
adopted, in order to utilize the pitch angle as a manipulated input.
3.1. Neural network design
As stated earlier, nonlinear function f in eq. (2) represents
unmodeled dynamics. Hence, a radial-basis function neural net-
work is designed to approximate f. Based on the universal
approximation theorem, continuous functions on a compact sub-
set DC can be approximated by a nite number of neurons [22].
That is, for a function f x A L2 DC ; an approximator of the form
f^ RT xQ can approximate f with a bounded approximation

R The proposed control laws are expressed as follows:
error. Moreover, Q arg min Dc f x  f^ x : Q dx : Given the
explanation above, the structure of the proposed neural network is
235
established as follows:
f ; _ ; v RT ; _ ; vQ h 9
where R; _ ; v is the vector containing radial-basis functions of
x  cij
the form r ij x e ij , and x; _ ; v ; cij is the center of the

receptive eld; ij is the width of the basis functions; h is the
approximation error, where hr , and is assumed to be
unknown. Q is also the optimal weight parameters vector, which
minimizes :
Substituting eqs. (9) into (2), the dynamic equation of the rotor
J r J g C s _ RT Q h T a T g dt 10
eq. (10) is used in the next section for control design. Note that
Cs, Q, h, and d(t) are unknown.
4. Control design
In this section, a two-phase control strategy is adopted to
design a controller for a variable-speed, variable-pitch wind tur-
bine, in the presence of disturbance and uncertainties. A combi-
nation of an adaptive neural network, adaptive controller, and
Nussbaum-type function is proposed to develop a controller for
3 the considered wind turbine. The adaptive neural network and
adaptive controller address unmodeled dynamics, and parametric
uncertainties, respectively. In addition, a Nussbaum-type function
is employed to cope with the non-afne nature of the pitch angle.
For this purpose, the proposed control scheme is divided into two
phases, which are: 1. Torque control. 2. Pitch control. The gen-
4 erator torque and pitch angle are exploited as the inputs in the
rst and second phases of control, respectively. The proposed
control scheme is explained in detail in the subsequent sections.
5
In this control phase, the generator torque is adopted as an
6 input to the system. Simultaneously, the pitch angle is kept at a
constant value. It is worth noting that, in this phase, wind and
rotor speeds are below their rated values. The control objective is
to achieve the desired rotor speed which leads to the achievement
of the maximum power capture. In order to proceed with control
Tracking error is dened as e _  _ d , and _ d represents the
desired rotor speed given by eq. (1). C~ is the estimation error of the
damping coefcient, dened as C~ C^  C s :; Q~ stands for the esti-
mation error of the neural network weight parameters, expressed
as Q~ Q^  Q ; ~ ^  represents the estimation error of the
disturbance bound, ~ ^  exhibits the estimation error of
which is the error, stemming from the neural network approx-
imation. p1; p2 and p3 are positive constants; a J r J g ; which is a
measure of the moments of inertia, and its estimation error is
dened as a~ a^  a: Moreover ^: stands for the estimation of a
parameter.
Theorem 1. For a system whose dynamics is governed by eq. (10),
the following control and adaptive laws can establish the asymptotic
stability, and eliminate the tracking error asymptotically (i.e.,
eA L2 \ L1 ). Furthermore, such stability is achieved in the presence of
uncertainties and unknown disturbance sources. In addition, all
closed-loop signals remain uniformly bounded.
u1  1 e a^ d RT Q^ C^ _ T a 11
236 P. Bagheri, Q. Sun / ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241

^ 2 e Using the adaptive laws given by eqs. (16)(18), (21) becomes

u2  12
^ e 1 t V_ r  e2 eu2 eu3 e^ e^ 23
2 Since the control law was split into three parts, the second and
^ e
u3  13 third parts of the control law, dened in eqs. (12) and (13) are
^e t
2 introduced into eq. (23) as follows:
where T g u1 u2 u3 ; i i 1; 2 is an arbitrary function which 2
belongs to L1, and 1 is a positive constant. The proposed adaptive ^ 2 e ^ e
V_ r  e2  e e^  e e^
laws are dened as follows: ^ e 1 t ^e t
2
2
_
C~  e_
^ 2 e2 ^ e2
14 r  e2  e^  e^
^ e 1 t ^ e 2 t
_
Q^ R; _ ; ve
2 2
15 ^ 2 e2 e2 ^ 2 1 te^ ^ e2 e2 ^ 2 te^
r  e2  
^ e 1 t ^ e 2 t
_^ p2 e 16
1 te^ 2 te^
_ r  e2 24
^ p1 e 17 ^ e 1 t ^ e 2 t
i t is arbitrary, thus, it can be chosen to take on merely non-
a_^ p3 e d 18 negative values. Note that for b d Z 0; bbd r b; Therefore
d
where eqs. (14) and (15) update the estimations of the parametric V_ r  e2 1 t 2 t 25
uncertainties and neural network weight parameters, respectively.
Eqs. (16) and (17) estimate the bounds of the neural network error Note that eqs. (16) and (17) imply that non-negative initial
and disturbance, respectively, and eq. (18) estimates the moments conditions for ^ and ^ always lead to nonnegative values for ^ and
of inertia. ^ . Nevertheless, ~ ; ~ and a~ are the arguments of the Lyapunov
function. Therefore, the stability results achieved from the Lya-
Proof. The following Lyapunov function is proposed to conduct punov analysis guarantee their boundedness.
the stability analysis Taking integral from both side of eq. (25) leads to
1 1 2 1 T 1 ~2 1 1 Z 1 Z 1 Z 1
V ae2 C~ Q~ Q~ ~ 2 a~ 2 19 V1  V0 r  e2 dt 1 tdt 2 tdt 26
2 2 2 2p1 2p2 2p3
0 0 0
Taking time derivative of eq. (19), and using eq. (10) lead to eq. (26) can be written as follows:
  Z Z 1 Z
V_ e  C s _ T g  T a  RT Q  h dt  a d 1 1
e2 dt r V0  V1 1 tdt 2 tdt 27
_ T _ 1 1 _ 1 0 0 0
C~ C~ Q~ Q~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ a~ a~_
p2 p1 p3 i t is arbitrary and can be chosen to be non-negative
R1
at all
 
_ ^ d times. Further, the fact that i t A L1 implies that 0 i tdt o 1.
e  C^  C~ T g  T a R Q^  Q~  h dt a~  a
T
Moreover, by denition, V(0) R 1is positive, and the denition of the
_ _ T _ 1 _ 1 1
C~ C~ K~ K~ Q~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ a~ a~_ 20 vector norm implies that 0 e2 dt is non-negative. Therefore, it is
p1 p2 p3 concluded that V0  V1 is positive (i.e., V 1 r V0 ). Hence,
since V(0) is bounded, it is learnt that V1 is bounded as well.
In order to achieve the control objectives, the controller is
Consequently, all the termsR1 on the right side of eq. (27) are
required to fulll tracking and robustness purposes. In addition,
bounded. As a result, 0 e2 dt is also bounded (i.e., e A L2 ). Fur-
the controller needs to account for the error of the neural network
thermore, it is straightforward to check that e_ A L1 . Thus, it is
approximation as well. Hence, the control input is divided into
concluded from Barbalats lemma that lim et 0; which implies
three parts as T g u1 u2 u3 : Substituent for T g leads to t-1
  the asymptotic stability of the closed-loop system. Therefore, it
_ T _
V_ e  C^ _ u1 u2 u3  RT Q^  T a  a~ C~ C~ Q~ Q~
d was demonstrated that the use of the control laws given by eqs.
1 1 _ 1 (11)(13), and adaptive laws in eqs. (14)(18) eventuates in the
~ ~_ ~ ~ a~ a~_ eC~ _ Q~ Re
T
p2 p1 p3 asymptotic stability of the closed-loop system. Consequently, the
turbine can operate precisely at the desired rotor speed, max-
 eh edt ea~ d 21 imizing the power capture. As noted earlier, it is shown that there
where, as dened earlier, T g u1 u2 u3 . Using the control law exist rotor speeds proportional to the wind speeds, which even-
^ Q^ given by eqs.
for u1 dened in eq. (11) and adaptive laws for C; tuate in the maximum power extraction [7]. The relationship
(14) and (15), (21) becomes between the optimal rotor speed and wind speed is given by eq.
(1). The achievement of the asymptotic stability leads to the
1 1 _ 1 maintaining of the optimal rotor speed, which results in the
V_  e2 eu2 eu3  eh ~ ~_ ~ ~ edt ea~ d a~ a~_
p2 p1 p3 maximum efciency. It is worth noting that despite unknown
1 1 _ disturbance, parametric and non-parametric uncertainties, the
r  e2 eu2 eu3 eh ~ ~_ edt ~ ~ ea~ d
p2 p1 proposed controller can establish robustness and the asymptotic
1 1   stability of the closed-loop system.
a~ a~_ r  e2 eu2 eu3 e^  ~ ~ ~_ e ^  ~
p3 p2
1 ~ ~_ 1 _ 4.2. Pitch control

ea~ d a~ a~ r  e eu2 eu3  e~  e~ e^
2
p1 p3
In the second phase of the control strategy, the pitch angle is
1 _ 1 ~ ~_ 1
e^ ~ ~ ea~ d a~ a~_ 22 employed as an input. In addition, in this phase, the generator
p2 p1 p3 torque is maintained at its rated value. As it follows from eqs.
 P. Bagheri, Q. Sun / ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241 237

(6) to (8), the dynamic equation is non-afne with respect to the Rk

can be established to show lim inf 1k 0 Ns wds  1: Thus,
k-1
pitch angle. To address the non-afne nature of the pitch angle,
N(s) w is a Nussbaum-type function as well.
utilizing the mean value theorem [23], the following can be
written: Lemma. [25] For a smooth function s(t) on interval [0, t], and a
smooth Nussbaum-type function N(s), if a positive denite function V
T a 
T a T a  28 (t) on the same interval satises the following inequality:
 Z t Z t
Vt r c0 e  c1 t GxNss_ ec1 d e  c1 t s_ ec1 d 32
0 0
where the mean value theorem is adopted to expand function T a
with respect to the pitch angle. Note that although eq. (28) where G(x) is a non-zero time-varying function, then V(t), S(t) and
Rt
0 Gx Nssd remain bounded on the same interval.
resembles the linearized presentation of a function, it is indeed an _
exact presentation of T a . The difference between the linearization
of T a at ; and the use of the mean value theorem is that the Theorem 2. Given an uncertain system subjected to unknown dis-
  turbance and unknown control direction, whose dynamics is repre-
point is not available. In addition, has a time-varying nature
sented by eq. (29), there exist adaptive Nussbaum function-based
as well, which adds to the complexity of the problem. The time-
 control and estimation laws, which establish the stability of the
varying nature of stems h fromithe fact that for each value of ;
 closed-loop system. Furthermore, the proposed control and estima-
the length of interval changes. Therefore, point tion laws guarantee that all signals remain UUB.

depends on at any time,  which makes time-varying, and
a
The proposed adaptive control and estimations laws are as
unavailable. As a result, T
d  
becomes an unknown nonlinear
follows
function. As seen from eq. (28), using the mean value theorem, the  
non-afne nature of the pitch angle is resolved.  1 Ns  C^ _ 2 e T g  T a 0  RT Q^  u1 u2 33
 However, the
a
existence of the unknown nonlinear function T d  
makes the

input direction unknown, which is yet to be addressed. Note that s_  eC^ _ 2 e2 eT g  eT a 0  eRT Q^ eu1  eu2 34
T a 
d  
being zero implies that the pitch angle cannot be used as
where eq. (33) denotes the dynamic control law for the pitch
an input, thus, it is assumed that T
d
a
is non-zero. angle; N(s) is a Nussbaum-type function; s is the argument of the
Using eqs. (28) in (10), the dynamic equation of the rotor is Nussbaum-type function, whose dynamics is given by eq. (34). 1
obtained as follows: and 2 are two positive constants. As seen from eqs. (33) and (34),
the use of Nussbaum-type functions in the control law introduces
a C s _ RT Q h T a T g  G dt

29 a new state into the equationsi:e:; s: Therefore, the designer
needs to choose appropriate dynamics for the new state, in order
where a J r J g ; T a denotes the aerodynamic torque at ; and to establish the stability of the closed-loop system. The choice of

a
 suitable dynamics for the new state depends on the structure of
G T
d  
is an unknown nonlinear function. It is worth
the system, and presence of other phenomena such as uncer-
noting that can be chosen based on the initial condition of the tainties and disturbance. Thus, it varies from system to system.
pitch angle, used in the torque control phase. As mentioned earlier, Moreover, u1 and u2 are two introduced control variables, pro-

G creates a control problem with an unknown input direction. posed to account for uncertainties and unknown disturbance,
The problem of unknown input direction can be addressed which are dened as
with the use of the properties of Nussbaum-type functions. A
function N(s) is Nussbaum-type if it satises the following condi- ^ 2 e
u1  35
tions [24]:
^ e 1 t

Z 2
1 k ^ e
lim sup Nsds 1 30 u2  36
k-1 k 0
^e t
2

Z The proposed adaptive laws are also presented as follows:

k
1
lim inf Nsds  1 31  
_
k-1 k 0 C^ p6  e_  C^ 37
2  2 
An example of such functions is es cos s ;which is also  
_
used in this paper. Q^ p7  eR  Q^ 38

Property. If N(s) is a Nussbaum-type function, N(s) w is also a  

Nussbaum-type function, where w A  ; and is a positive _^ p8 e  ^ 39

constant.
_  
 R  ^ p9 e  ^ 40
Rk 1 k
Rk
Proof. lim sup1k 0 Ns wds lim sup k 0
Nsds 1k 0 wds :
k-1 k-1
where pi i 6; :::9 are positive constants. Eqs. (37) and (38)
Since N(s) is a Nussbaum-type function and w is bounded, it fol-
 R Rk  estimate the damping coefcient and neural network weight
k
lows directly that lim sup 1k 0 Nsds 1k 0 wds 1: The same parameters, respectively. Eqs. (39) and (40) update the estimations
k-1
of the bounds of the neural network error and disturbance,
respectively.
238 P. Bagheri, Q. Sun / ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241

2
Proof. To analyze the stability of the closed-loop system using the ^ 2 e ^ e
aforementioned adaptive and control laws, the following Lyapu- e e^  e e^
^ e 1 t ^ e t
2
nov function is proposed
r  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^  ~ ^  ~ ^
 T
1 1 ~2 1 ~T ~ 1 ~2 1
V ae2 C Q Q ~ 2 41
 ^ e2 e2 ^ e
2 2
2 2p6 2p7 2p8 2p9 ^ 1 t

Taking time derivative of eq. (41) gives ^ e 1 t
  2 2
 ^ e2 e2 ^ 2 te^
V e  C s _ T g  T a 0  G a  RT Q  h  a d dt
_ n

^ e 2 t
1 _ 1 T 1 1 _
C~ C~ Q~ Q~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ r  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^  ~ ^  ~ ^ 1 t 2 t
 T
p6 p7 p8 p9
 
46
e C^  C~ _ T g  RT Q^  Q~  h  a d  T a 0  G a
n

The completion of square suggests that for two real numbers m

1 ~ ~_ 1 ~ T ~ 1 1 _
C C Q Q ~ ~_ edt ~ ~ and n, m  n2 m2 n2  2mn: Exploiting this relation between
p6 p7 p8 p9
 
 the estimate of Cs and its estimation error, C~ ; leads to
1 ~_
e C^_ T g  RT Q^  d  T a 0  G C~ C e_
n
2 1 1 2 1 2
C~  C^ 2 C~ C^  2C~ C^  C~ C^ C~  C^ 2  C~  C^
2
p6

 2 2 2
~ T 1 ~_ 1 _ 1 ~ ~_
Q Q eR ~ ~ edt  eh 42 1 1 2 1 2
p7 p8 p9 C s 2  C~  C^ 47
2 2 2
Introducing eqs. (33) and (34) into eq. (42) and considering that The same equation can be extracted for ; Q and as follows:
d 0 in the pitch control phase, eq. (42) is expressed as  ~ ^ 12  12~  12^ ;  Q~ Q^ 12Q T Q  12Q~ Q~  12Q^ Q^ , and  ~ ^
2 2 T T T
 
V_ e  C^_ T g  RT Q^ T a 0 2  2  2 : Introducing these equations into eq. (46) gives
1 2 1~2 1^2

V_ r  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_ 1 t 2 t

1 G Nss_ eC^ _  2 e2  eT g eT a 0 eRT Q^ s_
n


 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 T 1 T 1 T 1 1 2 1 2
1 ~_ 1 ~_ 1 1 _  ~  ^ Q Q  Q~ Q~  Q^ Q^ C s 2  C~  C^
eu1 eu2 C~ C e_ Q~ Q eR ~ ~_ ~ ~
T
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
p6 p7 p8 p9

 1 2 1 2 1 2
edt  eh  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_ C~
n 1 ~_
C e_  ~  ^ 48
p6 2 2 2


1 _ 1 1 _ Considering the structure of the Lyapunov function given by
Q~ Q~ eR eu1 eu2 ~ ~_  eh edt ~ ~
T
43 eqs. (33), (48) can be rewritten as follows:
p7 p8 p9
V_ r  c1 V 1 G Ns 1s_ 1 t 2 t

To reach the desired form of V, _ the proposed adaptive laws
1 1 1 1 2 1 T 1 2 1 2 1 2
given by eqs. (37) and (38) are injected into eq. (43) as follows: 2 Q T Q C s 2  Q^ Q^  C^  ^  ^
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 
V_  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^ eu1 eu2 ~ ~_ r  c1 V 1 G Ns 1s_ 1 t 2 t
 T
p8
1 T 1 2 1 2 1 2
1 _  Q^ Q^  C^  ^  ^ 49
 eh edt ~ ~ r  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^
 T
2 2 2 2
p9
where c1 is a positive constant; 12 2 12Q T Q 12C s 2 12 is
2
1 1 _
eu1 eu2 eh ed ~ ~_ ~ ~ r  2 e2 bounded. The boundedness of stems from the fact that it merely
p8 p9
contains

the actual parameters
 of the system. Note that
1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^ eu1 eu2 e e
 T
2
1^
T
1^ ^ 1~2
 Q Q C  
2
1^2
2 2 is always non-positive. Therefore, eq.
2
1 1 _
~ ~_ ~ ~ r  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^ eu1
 T
p8 p9 (49) can be rewritten as follows:
V_ r  c1 V 1 G Ns 1s_ 1 t 2 t

  1 50
~ ~ e ^  ~ ~ ~_ r  2 e2
1 _
eu2 e^  ~
p8 p9 Solution to eq. (50) can be written as follows:
Z t
1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^ eu1 eu2  e~  e~
 T

e  c1 t  1 G Ns 1s_ d

Vt r e  c1 t V 0
1 1 _
e^ e^ ~ ~_ ~ ~ 44 0
Z t
p8 p9
e  c1 t  1 2 d 51
0
Substituting eqs. (39) and (40), which were dened to estimate
the bounds of the neural network error and disturbance source, It is concluded from the discussed property of Nussbaum-type
into eq. (44) leads to functions that if N(s) is a Nussbaum-type function, N(s) 1 is a
Nussbaum-type function as well. Using this property, eq. (51) is
V_ r  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^ eu1 eu2
 T
rewritten as
 e~  e~ e^ e^  ~ ^  ~ ^ 45 Z t

Vt r e  c1 t V0 e  c1 t ec1 1 G N 1 ss_ d
As noticed, the control law has been divided into three parts. 0
Z t
The rst part, introduced in eqs. (35) and (36) is chiey respon-
e  c1 t ec1 1 2 d
sible for tracking purposes. In addition, the remaining parts of the 0
control law, given by eqs. (35) and (36) are responsible for Z t Z t
ec1 1 G N 1 ss_ d e  c1 t ec1 d

unknown bounds of the neural network error and disturbance r e  c1 t V 0 e  c1 t
0 0
source, respectively. Adopting eqs. (35) and (36), (45) becomes Z t

r e  c1 t V 0 e  c1 t ec1 1 G N 1 ss_ d 52
V_ r  2 e2 1 G Ns 1s_  C~ C^  Q~ Q^  ~ ^  ~ ^
 T
0 c1
 P. Bagheri, Q. Sun / ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241 239

where Z max f 1 t 2 t g . Thus, employing the Lemma,
given by eq. (32), implies that the closed-loop system is UUB, and all
the control signals remain bounded. As a result, the proposed
controller is able to adopt the pitch angle as a control input, despite
its non-afne nature. Furthermore, the designed controller also
accounts for both parametric and non-parametric uncertainties,
along with unknown disturbance sources. It is worth noting that no
prior knowledge of the direction of the non-afne input (i.e., pitch
angle) was used in the derivation of the proposed method. Hence,
given the restrictive assumptions imposed on the non-afne por-
tion of the dynamics and its derivatives in the literature [19], the
proposed method is at advantage in practical applications.
Remark 1. As mentioned earlier, there exist methods in the lit-
erature, which can address the non-afne nature of the pitch
angle, along with uncertainties [19]. However, such methods
require to impose restrictive assumptions on the non-afne
function and its derivatives. However, the fulllment of such
assumptions for systems subjected to uncertainties cannot be
guaranteed. Be that as it may, no such restrictive assumptions are
made in the proposed method.
Remark 2. In the second control phase (i.e., pitch control), the
control objective is not the achievement of the maximum power
capture efciency. It is because in the pitch control phase, the rotor
should not exceed its rated value. In addition, the rotor speed rated
value is different from the desired speed for the maximum power
capture efcacy, given by eq. (1). Thus, the establishment of the
asymptotic stability is not of prime control importance during
this phase.
are compared. The considered wind turbine is an NREL-offshore-
baseline 5 MW wind turbine. In order to make the dynamics
uncertain, _ was added to the equation as an unknown non-
2
linear function. In addition, unknown disturbance was added to
the wind prole, which can be seen in Fig. 1. The characteristics of
the considered wind turbine can be found in Table 1.
The control strategy is to, rst, increase the rotor speed up to
the cut-in speed. Then, proportional to wind speeds, the desired
rotor speed, given by eq. (1), is achieved so that the turbine
operates at the maximum efciency. It is worth noting that the
generator torque is utilized as the input in this phase. However, as
the rotor speed increases and approaches its rated value, the
generator torque reaches its rated value as well. Thus, it can be no
longer employed as an input. Hence, the pitch angle is adopted as
an input to keep the rotor speed at its rated value. The selected
control gain for the torque control phase is 1 5; and for the
pitch control phase are 1 1 and 2 5: The wind speed prole,
used for this case study can be seen in Fig. 1. As seen from Fig. 1,
the considered wind prole has both increasing and uctuating
behavior, which makes it a suitable case to investigate the
adaptability of the proposed controller. Fig. 2 exhibits the perfor-
mance of the proposed controller, compared to those of the PI

5. Simulation results

In this section, the simulation results of the proposed con-

troller, alongside a PI controller and the controller designed in [19]

Fig. 2. Rotor speed versus desired rotor speed.

Fig. 1. Wind prole.

Table 1
NREL-offshore-baseline 5 MW wind turbine.

Hub height 90 m Rotor mass 110,000 kg

Rotor, hub diameter 126 m, 3 m Optimal tip-speed- 7.55
ratio
Cut-in, rated rotor 6.9 rpm, Rated generator 43,100 N m
speed 12.1 rpm torque
Fig. 3. Zoomed-in version of the rotor speed.
240 P. Bagheri, Q. Sun / ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241
Fig. 4. Generator torque required by the proposed controller versus PI controller.
Fig. 5. Pitch angle activities of the proposed controller versus PI controller.
Fig. 6. Estimation of the damping coefcient.
controller and the one designed in [19]. As it follows from Fig. 2,
and its zoomed-in version Fig. 3, all the three controllers function
successfully to enable the rotor to reach the cut-in speed.
Fig. 7. Estimation of neural network parameters.
However, the PI controller and the one in [19] fail to follow the
desired rotor speeds in the second region. Nevertheless, the per-
formance of the controller proposed in [19] is superior to that of
the PI controller. However, the controller in [19] is not able to
establish the asymptotic stability, which eventuates in lower
power capture efciency. On the contrary, the proposed controller
can precisely track the desired rotor speed, which guarantees the
maximum power capture. Fig. 4 displays the required generator
torque for each controller. As seen from the gure, the PI controller
and the one in [19] demand a larger amount of torque, in contrast
to the proposed method. The main reason for this is due to the fact
that the tracking error of the proposed controller is smaller, which
results in lower generator torque. Since the tracking error of the PI
controller is larger than the one in [19], the required generator
torque of the one in [19] is less than the PI controller. It is worth
mentioning that the method proposed in [19] does not account for
the error caused by unknown disturbance source. Hence, it
experiences larger tracking error, which leads to greater deman-
ded torque. There also exits a larger amount of overshooting in the
beginning of the simulation in case of the PI controller, which
leads to higher generator torque. The pitch angle behavior can be
observed in Fig. 5. As it can be noticed, the proposed controller
results in smoother behavior, contrary to that of the PI controller.
The pitch action of the method presented in [19] becomes steady
at a higher degree, compared to the proposed method. It is
 P. Bagheri, Q. Sun / ISA Transactions 63 (2016) 233241
because the control law for the pitch angle in [19] is not directly a
function of the tracking error. Therefore, it does not vanish as the
tracking error becomes small. Moreover, pitch angle activities of
the PI controller are relatively more intense, particularly at the
time when the pitch angle is engaged as the input (around Second
310). As it follows from Fig. 5, the proposed controller exhibits
smoother and atter behavior, compared to the PI controller.
However, as Fig. 5 suggests, the required pitch angle to maintain
the rotor at its rated speed is less for the PI controller. Finally,
Figs. 6 and 7 display the estimations of the damping coefcient
and neural network parameters, respectively. As Fig. 7 suggests,
three basis functions of the type given in eq. (9) are used to model
non-parametric uncertainties; Q1, Q2 and Q3 are the coefcients of
these basis functions, which are updated using adaptive laws eqs.
(15) and (38) in the torque and pitch control phases, respectively.
It is worth noting that the reason these estimations converge to
zero after the pitch angle is used as the input, stems from the fact
that their adaptive laws change from eqs. (14) and (15) to (37) and
(38), which dictate converging exponential behavior.
6. Conclusion
Due to the existence of uncertainties and unknown disturbance
sources, the design of controllers to increase power capture ef-
ciency in wind turbines is a challenging problem. The objective of
this paper was to develop a novel controller for variable-speed,
variable-pitch wind turbines. In addition, the controller was
required to achieve the maximum power capture, in the presence
of unknown disturbance and uncertainties. Alongside unknown
disturbance and uncertainties, the non-afne nature of the pitch
angle (i.e., a control input) was among the main complications of
the control design. To address these problems, a Nussbaum-type
function was employed in the control law, and a neural network
was designed to account for unmodeled dynamics. Further, a
multi-part control law was proposed to guarantee the stability of
the entire closed-loop system, in the presence of unknown dis-
turbance and neural network approximation error. It was
demonstrated that the proposed controller is able to achieve the
asymptotic stability in the torque control phase, in which the
turbine is required to operate at the maximum efciency. More-
over, it was proven that the proposed controller is able to provide
arbitrary small convergence error in the pitch control phase. At the
end, the performance of the proposed controller was compared to
those of a PI controller, and a recent adaptive method via simu-
lations. The simulation results conrmed the analytical results
regarding the stability of the closed-loop system. Further, the
proposed controller exhibited a more successful performance in
comparison to the PI Controller and the existing adaptive method.
241
References
[1] Camblong H, Nourdine S, Vechiu I, Tapia G. Control of wind turbines for fatigue
loads reduction and contribution to the grid primary frequency regulation.
Energy 2012;48:28491.
[2] Vihril H. Control of variable speed wind turbines; 2002.
[3] Burton T, Sharpe D, Jenkins N, Bossanyi E. Wind energy handbook. John Wiley
& Sons; 2001.
[4] Munteanu I, Bratcu AI, Cutululis N-A, Ceanga E. Optimal control of wind
energy systems: towards a global approach. Springer Science & Business
Media; 2008.
[5] Bianchi F, Mantz R, Christiansen C. Gain scheduling control of variable-speed
wind energy conversion systems using quasi-LPV models. Control Eng Pract
2005;13:24755.
[6] Munteanu I, Cutululis NA, Bratcu AI, Ceang E. Optimization of variable speed
wind power systems based on a LQG approach. Control Eng Pract
2005;13:90312.
[7] Boukhezzar B, Siguerdidjane H. Comparison between linear and nonlinear
control strategies for variable speed wind turbines. Control Eng Pract
2010;18:135768.
[8] Van der Hooft E, Van Engelen T. Feed forward control of estimated wind
speed. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands ECN; 2004.
[9] Van der Hooft E, Van Engelen T. Estimated wind speed feed forward control for
wind turbine operation optimisation. In: Proceedings of European wind
energy conference in London, UK; 2004.
[10] Novak P, Ekelund T, Jovik I, Schmidtbauer B. Modeling and control of variable-
speed wind-turbine drive-system dynamics. Control Syst IEEE 1995;15:2838.
[11] Stol K, Fingersh L. Wind turbine eld testing of state-space control designs.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-35061, Golden, Co.;
2004.
[12] Hand MM. Variable-speed wind turbine controller systematic design metho-
dology: a comparison of non-linear and linear model-based designs. Golden,
CO (US): National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 1999.
[13] Bongers PMM. Modeling and identication of exible wind turbines and a
factorizational approach to robust control design. TU Delft, Delft University of
Technology; 1994.
[14] Boukhezzar B, Lupu L, Siguerdidjane H, Hand M. Multivariable control strategy
for variable speed, variable pitch wind turbines. Renew Energy 2007;32:
127387.
[15] Saravanakumar R, Jena D. Validation of an integral sliding mode control for
optimal control of a three blade variable speed variable pitch wind turbine. Int
J Electr Power Energy Syst 2015;69:4219.
[16] Dang D, Wang Y, Cai W. Nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) of xed
pitch variable speed wind turbine. In: 2008 ICSET 2008 IEEE international
conference on sustainable energy technologies, IEEE; 2008. p. 2933.
[17] Bagheri P, Shahrokhi M. Neural network-based synchronization of uncertain
chaotic systems with unknown states. Neural Comput Appl 2015:18.
[18] Sharma N, Gregory CM, Johnson M, Dixon WE. Closed-loop neural network-
based NMES control for human limb tracking. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol
2012;20:71225.
[19] Jafarnejadsani H, Pieper J, Ehlers J. Adaptive control of a variable-speed vari-
able-pitch wind turbine using radial-basis function neural network. IEEE Trans
Control Syst Technol 2013;21:226472.
[20] Wang Z, Shen Z, Cai C, Jia K. Adaptive control of wind turbine generator sys-
tem based on RBF-PID neural network. In: Proceedings of the 2014 interna-
tional joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), IEEE; 2014. p. 53843.
[21] Hui J, Bakhshai A. A new adaptive control algorithm for maximum power point
tracking for wind energy conversion systems. In: Proceedings of the power
electronics specialists conference, 2008 PESC 2008, IEEE; 2008. p. 40037.
[22] Farrell JA, Polycarpou MM. Adaptive approximation based control: unifying
neural, fuzzy and traditional adaptive approximation approaches. John Wiley
& Sons; 2006.
[23] Matkowski J. A mean-value theorem and its applications. J Math Anal Appl
2011;373:22734.
[24] Ryan E. A universal adaptive stabilizer for a class of nonlinear systems. Syst
Control Lett 1991;16:20918.
[25] Zhang T, Wen H, Zhu Q. Adaptive control of time delay nonlinear systems with
unknown control direction.In: Proceedings of the 2010 Chinese control and
decision conference (CCDC), IEEE; 2010. p. 205762.