Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 58

Workshop on Sustainable Control of Offshore Wind Turbines, University of Hull

Current perspectives on wind turbine control


Ervin Bossanyi, 19th September 2012
Overview
What is a wind turbine controller?
Power production control: objectives
The operating curve
Closed loop control and design methods
Examples
Sensors, actuators and reliability
Future perspective
What is a wind turbine controller?
Sensors Actuators Algorithms
Flexible
blades
Flexible
shafts
Pitch
actuators
Flexible
tower
Flexible
mountings
Power and
speed
transducers
Control
algorithms
Sensors:
Power
Rotational speed
Loads
Accelerations
Wind speed
Yaw error
Actuators:
Pitch demands
Torque demand
Yaw demand
Brake on/off
Contactor on/off
Wind
Waves
What is a wind turbine controller?
Supervisory control
Sequence control, stops/starts, etc.
Alarms, fault handling
Yaw control
External communications (operator interfaces, SCADA)
Power production control
Main topic of talk
Adjusting generator torque, blade pitch
Overlaps with supervisory control: yaw / set-point adjustments / fault tolerance
Safety system
NOT part of controller, but closely related
Takes over if the controller isnt coping
Dumb failsafe hardware trips & relays
Main turbine control types
Fixed speed
stall regulated
Variable speed
pitch regulated
Variable speed
stall regulated
Variable slip
Fixed pitch
Active pitch control:
Full-span
Partial-span
Distributed control?
Fixed speed
pitch regulated
Passive generator
torque variation
Active control of
generator torque
This talk (and most
utility-scale turbines)
Nothing to
control
Overview
What is a wind turbine controller?
Power production control: objectives
The operating curve
Closed loop control and design methods
Examples
Sensors, actuators and reliability
Future perspective
5
Power production control
Controller objectives
Maximise energy production
Applies mainly below rated wind speed
Minimise (or manage) the loads
Keep fatigue loads down
Avoid excessive actuator duty
Avoid trips and unnecessary shutdowns (especially using the safety system)
Avoid loading peaks where necessary
Deal with extreme load scenarios
These objectives conflict: need to understand the trade-offs, but
Sacrificing energy is very expensive even 0.1% loss of annual production would
need very good justification!
Optimising the trade-off is not really possible depends on detailed component
cost models, energy prices, site conditions, discount rates
Overview
What is a wind turbine controller?
Power production control: objectives
The operating curve
Closed loop control and design methods
Examples
Sensors, actuators and reliability
Future perspective
6
The operating curve
Constant power line
Steady state controller - Optimal Mode Gain

e
G
R
TipSpeed
U
g
= =
3 3
3 5 3
2 2 G
C R AC U
P
g p p

e t
= =
2
3 3
5
2
g
p
g
d
G
C R
P
Q e

t
e
= =
Optimum Cp below rated: quadratic torque-speed curve
U = Wind speed
= Tip speed ratio
e
g
= Generator speed
R = Rotor radius
G = Gearbox ratio
P = Power
C
p
= Power coefficient
= Air density
A = Area
Q
d
= Demanded gen. torque
Steady power curve
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Wind speed [m/s]
Elect rical power [MW]
Pit ch angle [deg]
Rotor speed [ rpm]
Thrust force [ 10^5N]
The wind turbine power curve
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40
Wind speed (m/s)
P
o
w
e
r

(
M
W
)
Turbulent (Class 1C)
Minimum RPM
Maximum Cp
Maximum RPM
Above rated
Storm control
Improved peak
C
p
tracking?
Speed exclusion
zone?
Fine pitch schedule
(Thrust clipping?)
Fine pitch
schedule
}
Yaw tracking?
Cyclic pitch?
Dynamic fine pitch
Transient overpower?
}
Cut-in/cut-out hysteresis
Set-point reduction?
Set-point reduction?
Asymmetrical rate limits?
Network constraints, e.g. power reserve margin?
Cut-in/cut-out
hysteresis
Overview
What is a wind turbine controller?
Power production control: objectives
The operating curve
Closed loop control and design methods
Examples
Sensors, actuators and reliability
Future perspective
12
Closed loop control SISO or MIMO?
Generator speed Generator torque Speed
regulation: PI+
Generator speed,
SS acceleration
Generator torque Vibration
damping
Generator speed
Collective pitch Speed
regulation: PI+
Fore-aft
acceleration
Collective pitch Tower vibration
damping
Wind vane Yaw rate Yaw control
Coupling!
Transitions
MIMO?
Loads e.g. blade
Individual pitch
Load reduction:
PI+ (d-q,1P,2P)
Generator speed Generator torque C
P
tracking
Transitions
Measurement Actuation demand
Generator speed Generator torque Speed
regulation: PI+
Generator speed Generator torque C
P
tracking
Control design methods
Classical: SISO (but can be extended to deal with couplings)
Extended PI(D)
Other filters
Model-based: naturally handles MIMO cases. Many flavours, e.g.
LQG
H

DAC
MPC
Other: Fuzzy logic, neural network
May be useful for complex systems with unknown dynamics
Classical control examples
Drive train damping
Speed regulation torque & pitch*
Tower damping*
IPC*
LiDAR
Collective pitch
IPC
C
P
tracking
Yaw control
*Including field test results
Controller tuning
Use a linearised model of the turbine
Understand wind turbine dynamics and possible resonances
Measures of performance: open and closed loop responses
Damping of resonances
Apply gain schedule for different operating points
Test using detailed simulation model
Field evaluation is important
Campbell diagram
Linear model measures of performance
Stability margins:
how far are we from the point where the system becomes unstable?
Step responses:
e.g. how pitch angle and tower motion respond to a step change in wind speed?
Frequency responses:
how much of the wind variation is being controlled away?
how much the pitch responds at the blade passing frequency, or the drive train
frequency?
how much the tower will be excited by the wind?
Overview
What is a wind turbine controller?
Power production control: objectives
The operating curve
Closed loop control and design methods
Examples
Sensors, actuators and reliability
Future perspective
20
Drive train damper
Drive train damper: Bode plots
Frequency (rad/sec)
P
h
a
s
e

(
d
e
g
)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
d
B
)
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
From: Generator torque demand
T
o
:

G
e
a
r
b
o
x

t
o
r
q
u
e
Undamped
Damped
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-360
-270
-180
-90
0
T
o
:

G
e
a
r
b
o
x

t
o
r
q
u
e
Generator speed Generator torque Bandpass filter
Drive train damping
No damping
G
e
a
r
b
o
x

t
o
r
q
u
e

[
k
N
m
]








E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l

p
o
w
e
r

[
k
W
]
Time [s]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
With damping
G
e
a
r
b
o
x

t
o
r
q
u
e

[
k
N
m
]








E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l

p
o
w
e
r

[
k
W
]
Time [s]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed regulation
Generator speed
Generator torque Speed
regulation: PI+
Generator speed Collective pitch Speed
regulation: PI+
Below rated (pitch = fine pitch):
Above rated (torque = rated torque):
Both loops attempt to regulate to the same set-point, so they will interfere
with each other.
Can decouple the loops e.g. by manipulating set-points for each loop:
Above rated: depress torque loop set-point to force torque demand
to upper limit (rated torque)
Below rated: increase pitch loop set-point to force pitch demand to
lower limit (fine pitch)
Gain scheduling
d (Torque) / d (pitch angle)
[
k
N
m
/
r
a
d
]
Pitch angle [deg]
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
-7000
-8000
0
1000
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Generator speed
Collective pitch Speed
regulation: PI+
Speed regulation bells & whistles
Gain scheduling as above
Notch filters to avoid responding to structural resonances and nP forcing
Loop-shaping filters to achieve desired stability margins
Low-pass filters to reduce sensitivity to measurement noise
Variable position limits
Vary torque upper limit to maintain constant power
Vary fine pitch for power optimisation or thrust clipping
Dynamic fine pitch to prevent rapid thrust changes and reduce tower vibration
De-rating in high winds
Care with integrator desaturation actually very straightforward
Variable or asymmetrical rate limits
E.g. for dynamic de-rating in high turbulence
Non-linear bolt-on terms
Additional pitch action triggered by large speed excursions or accelerations
Speed regulation
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time [s]
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time [s]
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time [s]
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Wind speed, m/s
Rotor speed, rpm
Power, kW
Pitch, deg
NREL CART2, 4th February 2010
Speed regulation by torque low
Speed regulation by torque - high
Speed regulation by pitch
Otherwise: variable speed operation
(C
Pmax
tracking)
Tower damping
MISO : Interacts with speed regulation
Only strongly at the tower frequency
Iterative design of the coupled SISO
loops
Fore-aft
acceleration
Collective pitch Tower vibration
damping
F F Kx x D x M o + = + +
& & &
x
/ F
D
x D
F
F
p
p
&
&
| c c

= o|
= o|
| c
c
= o
02050340 OFF
12.42m/s 21.55%TI
02020007 ON
12.09m/s 20.70%TI
Frequency [Hz]
9.0e+11
1.0e+08
1.0e+09
1.0e+10
1.0e+11
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Tower base bending moment spectra
measured on NREL CART2:
25
Individual pitch control
Loads e.g. blade Individual pitch
Load reduction:
PI+ (d-q,1P,2P)
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
(
(
(

t +
t +
t +
t +
=
(

3
2
1
q
d
L
L
L
3 / 4 # sin
3 / 4 # cos
3 / 2 # sin
3 / 2 # cos
# sin
# cos
3
2
L
L
Parks transformation (3-phase electrical) = Coleman transformation (helicopters)
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
(

u
u
(
(
(

t +
t +

t +
t +

=
(
(
(

u
u
u
q
d
3
2
1
3 / 4 sin
3 / 2 sin
sin
3 / 4 cos
3 / 2 cos
cos
[ ]
(

=
(

u
u
q
d
q
d
L
L
C
Reverse transformation
Controller (in non-rotating frame)
[C] could be diagonal with C
11
= C
22
= PI controller (+ notch filters etc.)
Individual pitch control
Straightforward generalisation to any number of blades (including 2)
Works in non-rotating frame where wind gradients are slowly-varying
Simple and robust control loop design
Compensates for mean linear horizontal and vertical wind gradients across the rotor:
Removes 1P peak in (rotating) blade out of plane loads
Removes 1P peak in (rotating) shaft bending loads
Removes 0P (mean) tilt and yaw moments (non-rotating)
Blade 1 Blade 2 Blade 3 Collective
pitch controller
P
i
t
c
h

a
n
g
l
e

[
d
e
g
]
Time [s]
-2
-4
-6
-8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
180 190 200 210 220 230 240
Removes 2P tilt and yaw moments (non-
rotating) on 2-bladed turbines
Increased pitch actuator duty & pitch
bearing travel
Not detrimental to power production
Individual pitch control higher harmonics
Removes 2P peak in (rotating) blade out of plane loads
Removes 2P peak in (rotating) shaft bending loads
Removes 3P tilt and yaw moments (non-rotating)
Load Pitch
Rotational
transformation
(2P)
Rotational
transformation
(2P)
D-axis control
Q-axis control
measurements
(3 blades)
demands
(3 blades)
Rotational
transformation
(1P)
Rotational
transformation
(1P)
D-axis control
Q-axis control
Rotational transformations easily generalised to multiples of rotor azimuth
E.g. 2P-IPC: transformations using double the angles
Individual pitch control example
1P & 2P IPC measured on NREL CART3:
OFF'cart3 2011 05-10
02-42-36'
ON'cart3 2011 05-10
02-57-36'
B
l
a
d
e

r
o
o
t

M
y
s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

[
(
N
m
)

s
]
Frequency [Hz]
1.0e+07
1.0e+10
1.0e+08
1.0e+09
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
OFF'cart3 2011 05-10
02-42-36'
ON'cart3 2011 05-10
02-57-36'
S
h
a
f
t

M
y

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
[
(
N
m
)

s
]
Frequency [Hz]
1.0e+07
7.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+09
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
OFF'cart3 2011 05-10
02-42-36'
ON'cart3 2011 05-10
02-57-36'
H
u
b

y
a
w

M
z

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
[
(
N
m
)

s
]
Frequency [Hz]
1.0e+07
5.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+09
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
OFF'cart3 2011 05-10
02-42-36'
ON'cart3 2011 05-10
02-57-36'
P
i
t
c
h

r
a
t
e

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
[
r
a
d

s
]
Frequency [Hz]
0.1
40000
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Blade root out of plane moment Shaft bending moment
Yaw moment at hub
Pitch rate
Individual pitch control example
Hub My, SN4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mean wind speed [m/s]
k
N
m
OFF
ON
Hub fixed Mz, SN4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mean wind speed [m/s]
k
N
m
OFF
ON
1P & 2P IPC measured on NREL CART3:
Significant reduction in damage equivalent fatigue loads
With attention to detail, extreme loads can be unaffected (need to consider shut-down
with blades at different angles)
LiDAR-assisted control
Laser-Doppler anemometer: Laser beam projected forward from turbine provides
advance information about the approaching wind field
0
50
100
150
-100
-50
0
50
100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
0
50
100
150
-100
-50
0
50
100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Many configurations
Scanning or multiple
fixed beams
Single or multiple
distances
Can also be blade-
mounted
33
LiDAR-assisted control
Improved energy capture due to better yaw tracking?
Probably not much but very useful for wind vane calibration!
Yaw control has to be slow (yaw motor duty, gyroscopic loads, etc.)
Pay attention to convention yaw tracking strategies first
Improved energy capture due to better Cp tracking?
Tiny improvement, outweighed by large power & torque variations
Reduced extreme loads due to anticipation of extreme gusts?
Promising but difficult to assess
Reduced fatigue loads due to anticipation of approaching wind field?
Improved collective pitch control yields easy benefits
More marginal for individual pitch control
Reduced loads implies a potential for re-optimisation of turbine design
Improved cost-effectiveness for future designs
Improved yaw tracking with LiDAR?
Probably not much but could be a very useful commissioning tool for wind vane
calibration!
Yaw control has to be slow (yaw motor duty, gyroscopic loads, etc.)
Pay more attention to convention yaw tracking strategies first
15s
30s
45s
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Mean absolute yaw rate [deg/s]
R
M
S

y
a
w

m
i
s
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

[
d
e
g
]
No Lidar
Lidar
Mixed
10-minute simulation
(but really depends
on low-frequency
variations which are
site-dependent)
Improved yaw tracking how much potential is there?
A well-designed conventional yaw strategy may only lose 0.5% - 1%
energy compared to perfect yaw control
Comparison of different yawing strategies
16, 300s
16, 150s
8, 300s
Ideal Yaw
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
98.5% 99.0% 99.5% 100.0%
Annual energy production (%)
M
e
a
n

t
i
m
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

y
a
w

m
a
n
o
e
u
v
r
e
s

(
h
o
u
r
s
)
(Simulation based on 6 years 10-minute average data with turbulence superimposed)
Improved C
P
-tracking with LiDAR?
Rotor speed tracks wind speed better
Needs huge power/torque swings to accelerate/decelerate rotor
Tiny fraction of % increase in power production not worth it!
RPM(No Lidar) RPM(Lidar) Rotor average wind
speed, m/s
m
/
s



o
r




R
P
M













Time [s]
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
No Lidar Lidar
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l

p
o
w
e
r


[
M
W
]
Time [s]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Improved collective pitch control with LiDAR?
Immediate improvement in speed regulation
Prefer to take the benefit by reducing control gains
L Calmer pitch action
L Lower loads (especially tower bending moments)
Base PI Base PI +Lidar Reopt +Lidar Reopt, no Lidar
R
o
t
o
r

s
p
e
e
d


[
r
p
m
]
Time [s]
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Improved collective pitch control with LiDAR?
Blade root load reduction
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Mx My Mz Fx Fy Fz
%
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
SN 4 (Steel)
SN 10 (GRP)
Shaft load reduction (SN 4)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mx My Mz Fx Fy Fz
%
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Yaw bearing load reduction (SN 4)
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mx My Mz Fx Fy Fz
%
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Tower base load reduction (SN 4)
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mx My Mz Fx Fy Fz
%
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Even very simple methods achieve significant reduction in lifetime fatigue loads
Improved collective pitch control with LiDAR?
Extreme load reduction is much harder to assess:
Extreme gusts not realistic and how do they convect
and evolve?
LiDAR must be working at moment of extreme load
Affected by meteorological conditions? (Fog, precipitation,
lack of aerosols)
Extreme gusts may not be design drivers
Now more emphasis on extreme turbulence:
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
5000 7000 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000
Tower base My (kNm)
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
Base case
LIDAR (typical range)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
35000 55000 75000 95000 115000
Tower base My (kNm)
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
Base case
LIDAR (typical range)
Improved IPC with LiDAR?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Blade root My moment (steel)
Blade root My moment (GRP)
Shaft My moment (steel)
Shaft Mz moment (steel)
Tower top nod moment (steel)
Tower top yaw moment (steel)
Increase in pitch travel
Decrease in loads or increase in pitch travel (%)
Conventional IPC
LIDAR IPC
Both together
LiDAR estimates the vertical & horizontal shear
Very simple strategy some reduction of asymmetrical loads (without
needing load sensors)
Not as effective than using load sensors, but more sophisticated strategies
would be possible.
Model-based control
Combinations of observers/estimators (for system states and/or disturbances) with
optimal control action (i.e. to minimise some cost function)
Model of plant and/or disturbance dynamics gives a forward prediction of measured
signals, Starting from the current estimated state and the control actions just
implemented
When those measurements become available, the prediction errors are used to
correct the latest estimate of the state
Cost function is a weighted sum of deviations of important variables from their ideal
values (expectations; maybe integrated over a finite future time horizon in the case of
MPC). Variables may include states, outputs, loads, control actions, etc., maybe
frequency-weighted
Control actions are calculated so that the cost function (J) is minimised
Find u
i
such that for all i 0 u / J
i
= c c
40
Model-based control: LQG
Kalman filter (state estimator)
Turbine
dynamics
x(k -1)
u(k -1)
Correction
x'(k)
x(k)
u(k)
y(k-1)
Optimal
state
feedback
y'(k-1)
Cost function
J = x
T
.P.x + u
T
.Q.u
x = predicted states x = state estimates
u = control signals y = predicted
measurements
y = measured signals
Kalman filter also includes a model of stochastic disturbances:
Sensor noise
Wind; e.g. integrated filtered white noise modulated by blade passing, etc.
LQG examples: 1P-IPC
[ ]
(

=
(

u
u
q
d
q
d
L
L
C
[C] is a 2-input, 2-output matrix
Still decoupled from collective
pitch
Cost function includes integrated
L
d
& L
q
as well as frequency-
weighted d- & q-axis pitch rates
Tricky to implement variable limits
and schedules (useful to prevent
unnecessary IPC in low winds,
and to mitigate possible problems
with extreme loads)
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
i
t
c
h
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
i
n
g
b
l
a
d
e
l
o
a
d
s
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
i
n
g
s
h
a
f
t
l
o
a
d
s
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
i
n
g
y
a
w
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
l
o
a
d
s
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
L
Q
G
B
la
d
e
r
o
o
t
O
/
P
S
h
a
f
t
M
y
Y
a
w
b
e
a
r
in
g
M
y
Y
a
w
b
e
a
r
in
g
M
z
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400 kNm
LQG: Torque & pitch control
Speed regulation + tower damping using torque & pitch
Generator speed Generator torque
LQG
Fore-aft
acceleration
Collective pitch
Cost function includes:
Collective pitch angle demand
Torque demand
Nacelle fore-aft displacement
Integrated generator speed
Frequency-weighted pitch rate
Practical complications:
Implementation of torque pitch and pitch
rate limits
Non-linearity: fuzzy transitions between
controllers designed for different operating
points
Always two controllers running in parallel
Interpolation using wind speed proxy (filtered
pitch angle or generator torque)
LQG: Torque & pitch control
SISO LQG
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

p
i
t
c
h
a
n
g
l
e


[
d
e
g
]
Time [s]
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
SISO LQG
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
t
o
r
q
u
e


[
M
N
m
]
Time [s]
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
SISO LQG
R
o
t
o
r

s
p
e
e
d

[
r
p
m
]
Time [s]
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
12.6
12.8
13.0
SISO LQG
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
e
-
a
f
t

[
c
m
]
Time [s]
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Behaviour very similar to well-tuned SISO controller
Some reduction of tower loading (5% 8% reduction above rated wind speed)
Model-based control
Difficult to tweak: adding filters, mode
transitions, phasing features in and out,
interaction with supervisory control,
Any change requires complete re-design.
Non-linearities can be troublesome:
LPV models / extended Kalman filters etc.
Piecewise linear with fuzzy transitions
Dealing with limits / constraints
Hard to design in practice! Cost function
design and optimisation is not so intuitive.
Quadratic cost function not always correct:
Fatigue is non-linear
Speed only needs to keep below trip value
Numerically complex; difficult to implement
Cons
Handles MIMO very naturally
may become more important on large
flexible turbines with strong couplings
can make use of any available sensors
Intuitive cost function
Mathematical rigour
Pros
Overview
What is a wind turbine controller?
Power production control: objectives
The operating curve
Closed loop control and design methods
Examples
Sensors, actuators and reliability
Future perspective
45
Sensors, actuators and reliability
SENSORS
Generator speed
Accelerations
Loads
Deflections?
Wind speed: anemometer (nacelle/hub) / along blade / Lidar
Yaw misalignment: wind vane (nacelle/hub) or Lidar
ACTUATORS
Pitch actuators
Generator / power converter
Yaw motors
Failures may result in power reduction, down-time, increased O&M cost
Consequences of actuator failure
Pitch actuator failure:
Pitch feathering is vital for safety.
Pitch runaway often drives extreme loads but is it realistic? Actual cause
of failure is unspecified - really requires a proper FMEA.
Torque actuator failure:
Loss of load: no worse than grid dropout. Turbine shuts down using pitch.
Short circuit Qlarge transient gearbox loading
Yaw actuator failure:
Turbine shuts down not urgent, could even wait until yaw misalignment is
excessive.
Consequences of sensor failure
Sensor redundancy:
Wind speed: often 2 anemometers (and wind vanes); but turbine rotor is a large
anemometer!
Generator / rotor speed, accelerations: redundancy is not difficult to achieve.
Sensors for load reduction (e.g. blade strains, LiDAR): not essential for continued
operation, but may need to reduce power set-point so as not compromise fatigue life
until repair can be effected.
Important: assumes failure is detectable. An undetected failure could cause damaging
control action. Failure detection:
Sensor has its own sensor healthy signal
Controller may contain special algorithms to detect specific failures or general
abnormal operation
Sensor failure example: IPC
Uses blade root load sensors
Even if sensor failure is not notified to controller, relatively simple algorithms
comparing signals from the three blades can rapidly identify the fault
Consequences of realistic sensor failures are not serious: IPC load reduction
becomes less effective, but loads unlikely to become worse than with collective pitch
control
Turbine can continue to operate in collective pitch control mode. If repair is not
imminent (e.g. failure on remote offshore turbine in winter) then switch to reduced
power set-point to prevent excessive fatigue load accumulation. Suitable settings
should be pre-defined to minimise energy loss while remaining within design load
envelope.
Sensor failure example: IPC
Controller can detect a failure, e.g. Dr = maximum normalised absolute difference of
peak-to-peak load between the three blades:
Sensor failure example: LiDAR
LiDAR health signal should flag equipment failure or signal degradation due to
environmental conditions.
Controller should maintain independent sanity check on Lidar signal.
Operation can continue, switching to conventional controller designed without LiDAR
input. If repair is not imminent (e.g. failure on remote offshore turbine in winter) then
switch to reduced power set-point to prevent excessive fatigue load accumulation.
Suitable settings should be pre-defined to minimise energy loss while remaining
within design load envelope.
Overview
What is a wind turbine controller?
Power production control: objectives
The operating curve
Closed loop control and design methods
Examples
Sensors, actuators and reliability
Future perspective
50
What next?
LiDAR control is in its infancy much further development is possible
With LiDAR, MPC comes into its own (optimise performance over a prediction
window; forward predictions informed not only by known plant dynamics but also wind
input preview information from LiDAR)
Distributed blade control: probably retaining full-span pitch control as at present (also
important for safety) but supplement it with local control along blade
Sensors? Strain measurements & accelerometers along blade, Pitot tubes, Lidar, pressure
taps in blade surface
Actuators? Flaps, microtabs, deformable trailing edges, air-jets driven by piezo-
electrics, SMAs, fluid pressure, etc
Mustnt sacrifice reliability & maintainability!
Sensor/actuator failure: switch to conventional control (reduced set-point)
Repairing sensors and actuators out along the blade is difficult.
What next?
Rotor condition monitoring
Detection of imbalances, changing natural frequencies, etc
Get more use out of any extra sensors
State estimation (Kalman filter)
Wind farm control
One power station, not a collection of autonomous turbines
Turbines interact through their wakes
Optimise energy capture & fatigue loading across wind farm
Respond to external demands from network
Thank you for your attention
ervin.bossanyi@gl-garradhassan.com