the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
LIDAR-assisted nonlinear output regulation of wind turbines for fatigue load reduction
Abstract. Optimizing wind turbine performance involves maximizing or regulating power generation while minimizing fatigue load on the tower structure, blades, and rotor. In this article, we explore the application of a novel turbine control methodology known as nonlinear output regulation (NOR) for improving turbine control performance. NOR uses a multiple-input-multiple-output design approach to regulate rotor speed and power generation with the generator torque and blade pitch angles, in a unified manner across partial and full load operation. Regulation is achieved using an estimate of rotor-effective wind speed. We consider estimation based on the turbine's SCADA, in particular the Immersion & Invariance (I&I) estimator, as well as LIDAR. We propose to average these two signals to obtain a low-variation real-time estimate of current wind speed.
The performance of the NOR controller is compared against a state-of-the-art baseline reference controller, known as ROSCO. Extensive simulations of the NOR and ROSCO controllers using openFAST on an IEA 15-MW reference turbine, across a broad range of wind speeds in both partial load and full load operating regions are conducted. Results show that NOR with the combination of I&I and LIDAR improves on all considered performance metrics. Lifetime damage-equivalent loads are reduced on the tower by 2.6 % fore-aft and 11.6 % side-to-side, on the blades by 4.7 % flapwise and on the main shaft by 15.2 %. Furthermore, pitch rate is reduced by 22.6 %. The reductions are achieved without sacrificing power generation or tracking performance.
- Preprint
(4180 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-184', Feng Guo, 29 Jan 2025
Dear authors,
I found this work interesting and scientifically important.Â
I have some suggestions on the Line 411 Lidar simulation. The authors mentioned that the toolbox for simulating lidar measurement is obtained from the work "A Tutorial on Lidar-Assisted Control for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (10.23919/ACC55779.2023.10156419), and we appreciate that this work is cited.Â
However, the work above is an extension of other works, and it is not the origin where these tools are published. In the work mentioned above, there are several tools associated with previous publications that made the lidar-assisted control simulation possible:
1. Guo, Feng, David Schlipf, and Po Wen Cheng. "Evaluation of lidar-assisted wind turbine control under various turbulence characteristics." Wind Energy Science 8.2 (2023): 149-171. This is the first work that publishes the open-source DLL chain that uses simulated line-of-sight wind speeds by lidar to rotor-effective wind speed for feedforward control.
2. Guo, Feng, et al. "Updates on the OpenFAST LIDAR simulator."Â Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Vol. 2265. No. 4. IOP Publishing, 2022. This is the first publication that implements the lidar simulator in OpenFAST 3.0 that provides line-of-sight wind speed simulations.The two works above have not been mentioned in the manuscript. If you have used the two tools above in your research, please cite them as well. Thanks!
BR
Feng Guo
Postdoc
Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityDisclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-184-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Robert Schmid, 13 Feb 2025
Thank you for the comment, we did use the simulation toolbox for the Molas NL400 LIDAR system, using the DLL files obtained from the github source mentioned in the tutorial paper by Schlipf et al. (2023). We note that these files were first introduced in Reference 1 mentioned in the comment above, and agree that in general, it is preferable to cite the most original source. Hence we shall include a citation for Reference 1 in our next revision of the paper.
Regarding Reference 2, according to our understanding, the LIDAR enhancement options introduced were (i) wind evolution (ii) blade blockages and (iii) measurement availability, however we did not utilise any of these options in our simulations. The Lidar file we use in our simulations is located in the LAC github repository under LidarAssistedControl/Release/IEA15MW_04/MolasNL400_1G_LidarFile.dat, where EvolutionFlag, AvailabilityFlag and BladeBlockageFlag are all set to False. Hence we consider that reference 2 is not so relevant to our study. If other aspects of Reference 2 contributed to the DLL files we have used, then please let us know and we will cite reference 2 also.
Robert Moldenhauer and Robert Schmid,
University of Melbourne
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-184-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Robert Schmid, 13 Feb 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-184', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Feb 2025
- Major comments
- Overall, the authors provide a good review of turbine control and an interesting concept that uses a combination of a wind speed estimate (WSE) and a lidar measurement to inversely solve for the ideal blade pitch and generator torque controls of the wind turbine.
- Many components of the controller (and the ROSCO baseline) are described in great detail but are not novel contributions in this article. Could those sections be streamlined for this audience?
- The controller relies heavily on the Cp surface. It's an interesting result that using the same Cp surface in the wind speed estimator can relieve biases in the Cp surface. Are there constraints (smoothness, monotonicity) that are required to get a unique pitch and torque at each time step?
- It is interesting that the authors don't use any time delay or buffering in their lidar measurements. This can be a source of difficulty when using lidar measurements. I'm guessing that the controller performance then changes with wind speed because the lead time of the lidar changes, while the lag time of the WSE should be relatively constant.
- I wonder if you are reporting better performance at high wind speeds because the lead time of the lidar is lower and similar to the lag of the WSE.
- The reporting of results in timeseries form could be improved. Right now, the reader must scroll between figures and pages to evaluate long timeseries with subtle differences. Is there a short, illustrative section of time that demonstrates the difference between your NOR controller and ROSCO. One that shows the impact of lidar measurements? Another way to demonstrate differences is by binning the results in time and plotting against wind speed.Â
- How exactly are you limiting the maximum thrust and fatigue loads to the levels in Section 2.5? What part of the controller (Algorithm 1) contributes to fatigue load reduction? The reduced variation in generator torque?
- A control engineer in practice will want to adapt these loads, and see the downstream effect on power. Are you able to do this with your control scheme? This would be an interesting result of the control concept.
- Minor comments
- Line 175: there is, in most cases, a power sacrifice near rated power when using peak shaving control.
- Section 2.5: I don't understand your units on the fatigue loads. Are these DELs? They should have the same units as the load, N-m. What are the nominal loads of the baseline control? How do these compare?
- Results: it may make more sense to only compare RMS rotor speed error above rated wind speeds
- L498: Should \hat{M}_a have \hat{v}_x in it?
- Editorial comments
- openFAST should be OpenFAST
- Figs 4 and 5 could be combined; they look very similar to the ones in the ROSCO paper.
- The capitalization and font size in figures should match the text. Also there are labels like "windspeed" that should be "Wind speed (m/s)," for example. Fig 5 has a legend with a variable, and it's not defined in the caption.
- When substituting equations, it could help the reader to add a few descriptive words referencing the equations from earlier.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-184-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-184', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Mar 2025
The paper presents a wind turbine control design using the nonlinear output regulation (NOR) method to reduce fatigue loads. The topic is interesting and relevant, but the motivation could be more clearly articulated. Given that the authors have published similar work in 2021, it would be helpful to clarify the specific motivation for employing the NOR method in this study.
The proposed controller maximises power output by tracking the rotor speed set-point, which is computed based on a static Cp surface and the optimal tip-speed ratio. This approach closely resembles the traditional K-Omega squared law. However, unlike the K-Omega squared method, the proposed approach relies on estimated wind speed, introducing additional sources of uncertainty. From an industrial perspective, this could be a potential drawback compared to the traditional method.
Additionally, the title suggests that the paper focuses on reducing fatigue loads, yet Algorithm 1 does not explicitly account for fatigue mitigation. Is this achieved through peak shaving or another mechanism? Providing further details on this aspect would strengthen the paper’s contribution.
The paper also states that averaging the estimated wind speed with LiDAR measurements improves the estimation of low-variation real-time wind speed. It would be helpful to elaborate on why simple averaging was chosen over a weighted sum. What was the motivation behind this decision?
Finally, while the results show that the proposed method outperforms ROSCO, this is perhaps expected given that it incorporates a DAC approach and LiDAR. A more informative comparison might be against other LiDAR-assisted control methods to better assess the advantages of the proposed approach.
Given these points, I believe the paper would benefit from further clarification and refinement. I encourage the authors to address these concerns, as doing so would strengthen the manuscript significantly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-184-RC2
Data sets
Dataset and code for 'LIDAR-assisted nonlinear output regulation of wind turbines for fatigue load reduction' Robert Moldenhauer http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14523056
Model code and software
Dataset and code for 'LIDAR-assisted nonlinear output regulation of wind turbines for fatigue load reduction' Robert Moldenhauer http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14523056
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
137 | 25 | 7 | 169 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 137
- PDF: 25
- XML: 7
- Total: 169
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1