GH BLADEDS LINEAR MODELS BASED H-INFINITY

CONTROL FOR OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE

Asier Daz de Corcuera * Aron Pujana-Arrese
IKERLAN-IK4
IKERLAN-IK4
ADiazCorcuera
APujana
@ikerlan.es
@ikerlan.es

Said Nourdine
ESTIA
S.Nourdine
@estia.fr

Haritza Camblong
ESTIA
H.Camblong
@estia.fr

Joseba Landaluze
IKERLAN-IK4
JLandaluze
@ikerlan.es

Abstract This paper shows a strategy to design a multivariable and multi-objective controller
based on the H norm reduction applied to a non-linear wind turbine. The wind turbine model
has been developed in GH Bladed and it is based on a 5 MW wind turbine defined in the
Upwind European project. The designed controller works in the above rated power production
zone and carries out generator speed control and load reduction on the drive train and tower. In
order to do this, two robust H MISO (Multivariable Input Simple Output) controllers have been
developed. These controllers generate pitch and torque set-point values to achieve the imposed
control objectives. The linear models obtained in GH Bladed and the correctly defined weight
functions are used to make the controller synthesis, where some notch filters are included in the
controller dynamics. The obtained controllers are validated in GH Bladed and an exhaustive
analysis is done to calculate the load reduction rate in wind turbine components.
Keywords Wind turbine, robust control, H, multi-objective, multivariable, load reduction.

1. INTRODUCTION
Last years, the incessant increase of wind
turbines size, inherent to the electric power
production capacity, involves new challenges
in the control systems. These control systems
have to be more complex taking into account
many specifications in the design. In this way,
the number of control objectives is higher and,
due to coupling of variables and components
of wind turbines, the actual tendency of the
control strategy design is trying to be multiobjective and multivariable. With this resizing
of wind turbines, the load reduction analysis in
the structural components is more important
and the aerodynamic non-linear constitution of
the wind turbines demands a robust behavior
in the closed loop system. Over the last years,
modern techniques used to replace the
classical PI controllers (see chapter 3) are
numerous. These techniques are Fuzzy
controllers [1], adaptive control strategies [2],
linear quadratic controllers [3] like the
Disturbance Accommodating Control (DAC)
[4] developed by NREL and tested in the
CART real wind turbine [5], QFT controllers
[6], Linear Parameter Varying (LPV)
controllers [7] and controllers based on the H

norm reduction. The H controllers have the

ability to be robust, multivariable and multiobjective, so their application in the wind
turbines presents a lot of advantages and
interesting results. One important article in
this topic [8] presents the synthesis of two H
controllers applied in a wind turbine simple
analytical model. The first of them reduces the
loads on the tower with the tower fore-aft
acceleration displacement measurement and
controls the generator speed reference with a
pitch collective control in Above Rated zone.
The second controller reduces the loads on
the blades with a cyclic pitch controller based
on H norm.
This paper presents the design of two H
controllers in Above Rated zone. These
controllers not only control the generator
speed and reduce the fore-aft displacement
on the tower with a collective pitch controller
in Above Rated zone, but they also reduce the
side-to-side acceleration on the tower and the
torsional momentum in the drive train with a
generator torque H controller. Furthermore,
for the controllers design, instead of using a
simple analytical model of a wind turbine,
complex linearized plants extracted from GH

* Corresponding author. Address: IKERLAN-IK4, Arizmendiarrieta, 2, E-20500 Arrasate-Mondragon, The

Basque Country (Spain). Tel.: +34 943712400

Bladed are used. Regarding to the H

controller synthesis, some notch filters are
included in the controller dynamics by means
of the correct definition of the weight functions
in the augmented plant of the mixed sensitivity
problem. In these H controllers design
strategy, two software packages are used: GH
Bladed and Matlab. GH Bladed is software
commercialized by Garrad Hassan Company
for modeling and simulating of wind turbines.
The controller synthesis and discretization is
carried out in Matlab and, finally, some
simulations of the closed loop system have
been done using GH Bladed with different
perturbed production winds. Results using H
controllers are compared to the baseline
controller results, based on classical control
strategies, making a load equivalent analysis
to analyze the load mitigation capacity of the
designed controllers.

2. WIND TURBINE MODEL

The Upwind wind turbine defined in the
Upwind European project was model in GH
Bladed and it is the non-linear model used in
this research project. The Upwind model
consists of a 5 MW offshore wind turbine [9]
with a monopile structure in the foundation. It
has three blades and each blade has an
individual pitch actuator. The rotor diameter is
126 m, the hub height is 90 m, gear box ratio
of 97, the rated wind speed 11.3 m/s, the cutout wind speed 25 m/s and the rated
rotational speed 12.1 rpm. The wind turbine
linear models are obtained in different
operational points and, after carrying out a
Campbell diagram, the modes in the nominal
operational point (wind of 11 m/s) are showed
in Table I.
3. BASELINE CLASSICAL CONTROLLER
The wind turbine control strategy is defined by
the curve which relates the generator torque
and the generator speed. Three control zones
are differentiated in this curve: Below Rated
zone, Transition zone and Above Rated zone.
In Below Rated zone the control objective is
maintaining the power coefficient (Cp) in the
optimum value and it is called Maximum
Power Point Tracking (MMPT). In the Upwind
baseline controller it is done with a generator
torque control open loop (1).

Table I: Modal Analysis of Upwind model

Elem.

Mode

Freq
(Hz)

Abrev

Rotor

In plane 1
st
In plane 1 FW
st
In plane 1 BW
st
In plane 2
nd
In plane 2 FW
nd
In plane 2 BW
st
Out of Plane 1 FW
st
Out of Plane 1
st
Out of Plane 1 BW
nd
Out of Plane 2 FW
nd
Out of Plane 2
st
Out of Plane 2 BW

3.68
1.31
0.89
7.85
4.30
3.88
0.93
0.73
0.52
2.20
2.00
1.80

MR1ip
MR1ipfw
MR1ipbw
MR2ip
MR2ipfw
MR2ipbw
MR1opfw
MR1op
MR1opbw
MR2opfw
MR2op
MR2opbw

Drive
Train
Tower

Drive Train

1.66

MDT

1 tower side-to-side
st
1 tower fore-aft
nd
2 tower side-to-side
nd
2 tower fore-aft

0.28
0.28
2.85
3.05

MT1ss
MT1fa
MT2ss
MT2fa

1P
3P

0.2
0.6

1P
3P

st

st

Nonstr.

BW : Backward whirl
FW: Forward whirl

Tbr K opt wg

Nm
K opt 2.14
2
(rad / s)

(1)

The generator torque Tbr depends on the

generator speed square and a constant
variable Kopt. Nowadays, new optimization
methods to solve this control scenario are
been researching.
The aim in the Transition zone is the
generator speed control varying the generator
torque. In the Upwind model, it can be done
with a torque PI (proportional-integral) (2)
controller [10] or with an open loop torque
control which makes a ramp to relate the
generator torque and the generator speed.
The PI values in the Transition zone (wind
speed of 11 m/s) used in Upwind baseline
controller are Kpt and Kit (2).
u( s )

K pt s K it

K pt 4200

e( s)

(2)

K it 2100

In the Above Rated zone, the goal is the

generator speed control varying the pitch

angle in the blades to maintain the electric

power at the nominal value. To do this, a gainscheduled PI controller [11] is used. The
linear plants used to tune the gain-scheduled
PI controller are the plants which relate pitch
angle and generator speed. These plants
have different gains, so the gain-scheduling is
used to guarantee the stability of the closed
loop system in spite of the gain differences.
To develop the gain-scheduling, there are
tuned two PI controllers in two operational
points, 13 m/s and 21 m/s (3):
K pt _ 13 0.009; K it _ 13 0.003
K pt _ 21 0.0039; K it _ 21 0.0013

(3)

In the other operational points, the PI

parameters are extrapolated by a first order
approximation. Finally, some series notch
filters are recommended to improve the PI
controller response [12]. Some design
criterions are established to tune these
controllers in these points:
i) Output sensitivity peak: 6 dB approximately.
ii) Open loop phase margin between 30 and
60 degrees.
iii) Open loop gain margin between 6 and 12
dB.
iv) Maintain constant the PI zero frequency.
The aim of the drive train filter (DTD) is
reducing the wind effect on the drive train
mode [11,13]. The DTD for the Upwind model
(4) consists of one gain, with one
differentiator, one real zero and a pair of
complex poles.

2
1 1 ( 2 T 1 s / wT 1 ) ( s 2 / wT 1 )
B fa ( s ) K TD
aTfa ( s )
s 1 ( 2 T 2 s / wT 2 ) ( s 2 / wT 2 2 )

K TD 0.035
wT 1 1.25rad / s

(5)

T 1 0.69
wT 2 3.14rad / s
T2 1

The input of the filter is the fore-aft

acceleration measurement in the tower top
fore-aft aTfa and the output is a contribution fa
to the collective pitch angle.
Other strategies to reduce the loads on the
wind turbine can be developed, but they are
not included in the considered baseline
controller.
4. OBJETIVES FOR NEW CONTROLLER
The control objectives for the developed wind
turbine control strategy working in the Above
Rated power production zone are:
i) Generator speed control (increase the
output sensitivity bandwidth).
ii) Mitigate the load on the drive train reducing
the wind effect on the drive train mode.
iii) Mitigate the load on the tower reducing the
wind effect on the tower first modes (side-toside and fore-aft).
iv) Improve the load mitigation comparing to a
baseline controller based on the classical
baseline control strategy.

s1 s

w1

TDTD(s) K1
wg (s)
2
2
1
1
s 22 s
w2 w2

K1 641.45Nms / rad

tower first fore-aft mode in the Above Rated

power production zone [11,13]. For the
Upwind baseline controller, the filter (5)
consists of a gain with one integrator, a pair of
complex poles and a pair of complex zeros.

(4)

w1 193rad / s

To achieve these control objectives, a

generator speed sensor and an accelerometer
in the tower top are used.

w2 10.4rad / s
2 0.984

5. H CONTROLLER DESIGN
The input of the filter is the generator speed
wg and the output is an oscillating contribution
TDTD to the generator torque set-point signal.
Finally, tower fore-aft damping filter (TD) is
designed to reduce the wind effect on the

5.1 H Controller Strategy Design

This strategy consists of two robust,
multivariable and multi-objective controllers
based on the H norm reduction (see Fig. 1).

5.2 Torque H MISO Controller

The generator torque controller (MISO Torque
H Controller) solves two of the control
objectives proposed in section 4: to reduce
the wind effect on the drive train mode and to
reduce the wind effect on the tower side-toside mode. To design the controller, a mixed
sensitivity problem (6) will be solved.

Figure 1: H control structure

The torque controller and the pitch controller

are designed separately. The torque controller
has two inputs (generator speed wg and tower
top side-to-side acceleration aTss) and one
output (generator torque control signal TH).
On the other hand, the pitch controller has two
inputs (generator speed wg and tower top
fore-aft acceleration aTfa) and one output
(collective pith control signal H). The
collective pitch angle set-point value is the
pitch control signal. However, the generator
torque set-point value is the addition of the
generator torque control signal and the
generator torque nominal value in Above
Rated.
The control design method can be divided into
these steps: 1) To extract the wind turbine
linear models from GH Bladed non-linear
model. The wind turbine used for this design
is the 5 MW Upwind model. 2) To analyze the
linear models in Simulink extracting the
Campbell Diagram. 3) To design the torque
H controller in Matlab. 4) To design the pitch
H controller in Matlab taking into account the
previous H torque controller. 5) To analyze
the controller robustness in Matlab. 6) To test
the controllers in Simulink. 7) To include the
controllers in the GH Bladed External
Controller. 8) To simulate the GH Bladed nonlinear model using the designed two MISO H
controllers. 9) To compare the time domain
and frequency domain results to the baseline
classical controller. 10) To analyze the load
reduction of the control strategy.

Dr1
W11

De1

0
Zp11

Zp12
0
Zp
2
0
Zp31

0
Zp32
y1

Dr
y 1
2
De1

Dr2
W12
De2
0
0
0
0
Dr
2
De2

Du

G11 ( s ) W11
De1

Du

G12 ( s) W12
De 2

W2

Du
r1
G11 ( s ) W31
r
De2
2

Du
G12 ( s) W32 u

De1

Du
G11 ( s)
De1

Du
G12 ( s)
De 2

(6)

The nominal plant is selected for the

operational point of 19 m/s wind speed and
has one input T (generator torque), two
outputs wg and aTss and 55 states. The
augmented plant of this mixed sensitivity
problem is scaled with the constants Du, De1,
De2, Dr1 and Dur2 (7).
Du 90
De1 0.1; De2 1
Dr1 0.1; Dr2 1

(7)

Dd1 0; Dd 2 0

In equation (6) G11(s) is the plant with an input

of generator torque and an output of the
generator speed. In the other side, G12(s) is
the plant with an input of generator torque and
an output of tower top side-to-side
acceleration. r1, r2 are the reference inputs to
the controllers, u is the generated control
signal, y1, y2 are the controller inputs and Zp11,
Zp12, Zp2, Zp31, Zp32 are the performance
outputs.
The uncertainties of the family of plants are
not considered in this mixed sensitivity
problem due to the drive train and tower
modes frequencies do not considerably vary
in the above rated zone. The weight functions
W32, W32 are not used, so their values are one
not to consider them in the Matlab Robust
Toolbox. W11 is an inverted notch filter
centered on the MDT frequency and W12 is
another inverted notch filter centered on the

Table II: Frequencies of notch filters in pitch

H controller
1P
0.20 Hz
3P
0.60 Hz
MT2ss 2.86 Hz
MR1ip 3.69 Hz
MR2ip 7.36 Hz

Bode Diagram
From: Generator Speed

From: Tow er Side-to-Side Accel

90

80

70

To: Torque(dB)
Magnitude

60

50

40

30

frequencies in the controller dynamics to

mitigate other excited frequencies (see Table
II).

HINF MISO Torque cont

20

HINF MISO Torque r ed

HINF MISO Torque disc
10
10

-2

10

2
10 Frequency (Hz)

-2

10

10

10

Figure 2: Generator torque H controller

MT1ss frequency. W2 is an inverted low-pass
filter to reduce the controller activity in high
frequencies.

W11 ( s )

( s 2 6.435s 104.9)
( s 2 0.1416s 104.9)

W12 ( s )

( s 2 9.984 s 3.117)
( s 2 0.04437 s 3.117)

W2 ( s)

30000(s 5.027)
( s 6.283e5)

(8)

After making the controller synthesis, the

obtained controller has to be re-scaled to
adapt the inputs and the outputs to the real
non-scaled plant. The obtained controller
order is 39 but, finally, the controller order is
reduced to 25 and discretized using a sample
time of 0.01s. The discretized controller is
represented by the state space matrices ATD,
BTD, CTD and DTD (9).
e (k )

X TD ( k 1) ATD X TD ( k ) B TD wg
a Tss ( k )
e (k )

T H (k ) C TD X TD ( k ) DTD wg
a Tss ( k )

(9)

Fig. 2 shows the controller bode diagram.

5.3 Collective Pitch H MISO Controller

The collective pitch H MISO controller solves
the other control objectives: generator speed
control increasing the closed loop disturbance
attenuation bandwidth; reduction of the wind
effect on the tower fore-aft mode; and the
inclusion of notch filters in particular

Another mixed sensitivity problem is proposed

to develop this controller. In this case, the
nominal plant is selected for the operational
point of 19 m/s wind speed and has one input
(collective pitch angle) and two outputs wg
and aTfa and considers the coupling caused by
the inclusion of the H MISO torque controller
designed in the previous section. G11(s) is the
plant with an input of the collective pitch and
an output of the generator speed and G12(s) is
the plant with a collective pitch input and the
tower top fore-aft acceleration output. This
control scenario has new scaled constants
(10) and the family of plants are considered
as an additive uncertainly model due to the
variations of the linear plants according to the
operational point in above rated zone.
Du 1
De1 10; De 2 0.1
Dr1 10; Dr2 0.1

(10)

Dd 1 0; Dd 2 0

About the weight functions (11), in this mixed

sensitivity problem, the W11 is an inverted
high-pass filter which determines the desired
profile of the output sensitivity function. W12 is
an inverted notch filter centered on the MT1fa
and W2 is an inverted low-pass filter, to reduce
the controller activity in high frequencies, with
some inverted notch filters centered on
excited frequencies (see Table II) to include
notch filters in the pitch controller dynamics.

W11 (s )

( s 125 .7 )
( s 6.283e 5)

W12 ( s )

(5s 4 5.733s 3 31.58s 2 18s 49.28)

( s 0.3117s 3 6.288s 2 0.9786s 9.856)

W2 (s)

200000(s 628.3)(s 2 0.1005s 1.579)(s2 0.3016s 14.21)

(s 6.283e5)(s 2 0.02011s 1.579)(s2 0.06032s 14.21)

(s2 1.438s 322.9)(s2 1.855s 537.5)(s2 3.7s 2139)

2
( s 0.2875s 322.9)(s 2 0.371s 537.5)(s2 0.7399s 2139)

(11)

Bode Diagram

Weight Functios for Pitch Controller Synthesis

From: Generator Speed

From: Tow er Fore-Aft Accel

150

-20

100
-40

-60
To: Pitch

Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

50

-80

Notch
filters

-100

W11

-50

-100
-2
10

W12
W2
inv(Su)
IncUpp

-120
HINF MISO Pitch cont
HINF MISO Pitch red
HINF MISO Pitch disc
-140

-1

10

10

10

10

Notch
filters

10

10

-2

10

10

-2

10

10

10

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3: Weight functions, control sensitivity

and uncertainties for pitch H controller

Figure 4: Pitch H controller

The gains of the upper uncertainly model

IncUpp are bounded by W 2 weight functions
(see Fig. 3) to guarantee the controller robust
design. After re-scaling the obtained
controller, whose order is 45, it is reduced to
order of 24 and discretized using a sample
time of 0.01s. The discretized controller is
represented by the state space matrices ABD,
BBD, CBD and DBD (12).

With the CS4 control strategy, the disturbance

attenuation bandwidth DABW is higher than
with the baseline control strategy (see Table
III) and the disturbance attenuation peak DAP
is smaller near the designed wind speed
nominal operational point of 19 m/s.

ewg ( k )

X BD ( k 1) ABD X BD ( k ) BBD

aTfa ( k )
ewg ( k )

H ( k ) C BD X BD ( k ) DBD

aTfa ( k )

(12)

The controller bode diagram is represented in

Fig. 4.

5.4 H Controller Analysis

The gain variations in the generator speed
control only are considered in the controller
robust analysis due to the fact that the tower
and drive train modes have constant
frequencies in the Above Rated zone for the
Upwind model. The controller robustness is
guaranteed because the gains of the upper
uncertainly model IncUpp are bounded by the
inverse of the control sensitivity function Su
(see Fig. 3). To compare the response of the
designed controllers to the baseline controller,
there are supposed four control strategies:
CS1: Baseline controller without DTD and TD.
CS2: Baseline controller with DTD.
CS3: Baseline controller with DTD and TD.
CS4: Designed strategy with two H MISO
controllers.

To analyze the reduction of the fore-aft and

side-to-side tower accelerations due to the
mitigation of the wind effect on the these
modes, the closed loop system response due
to a wind speed step input is compared using
the four control strategies. Analyzing the
controllers in Matlab, the reduction of the
tower fore-aft acceleration (see Fig. 5) with
CS4 is similar to the obtained with CS3
because the tower fore-aft mode reduction
strategy is included in the two strategies.
However, the reduction of the tower side-toside acceleration (see Fig. 6) with CS4 is very
important because this is a new objective in
the H control strategy design.

Table III: Comparison of disturbance

attenuation
OP
CS3
CS4
(m/s) DABW DAP DABW
DAP
(Hz)
(dB)
(Hz)
(dB)
13
0.037
6.06
0.035
3.35
15
0.045
6.06
0.044
3.59
17
0.052
6.09
0.057
4.31
19
0.058
6.31
0.070
5.29
21
0.061
6.00
0.078
5.78
23
0.065
6.05
0.089
6.70
25
0.069
6.04
0.10
7.84

Tow erA celSide- to-Side : Wind Step Response

Tow erAcelFor e-A ft : Wind Step Response

Fr om: Vw ind To: [+WTSyS(9)]

From: V w ind To: [+WTSyS(6)]

0.2

0.02
CS1

CS1

CS2
CS3

0.15

CS4

0.01

TowerAcelSide-to-Side (m/s 2)

TowerAcelFore-Aft (m/s 2)

0.1

0.05

-0.05

0.005

-0.005

-0.1

- 0.01

-0.15

-0.015

-0.2

CS2
CS3

0.015

CS4

10

12

14

16

18

- 0.02

20

10

20

30

40

Time (s) (sec)

Figure 5: Step response of tower fore-aft

acceleration

The two H MISO controllers are included in

the External Controller in GH Bladed and
time domain simulations are done with the
Upwind wind turbine model. The input of one
of these simulations is a turbulent production
wind near to 19 m/s. In Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 are
compared the control signals in time domain
simulation and the power spectral density
(PSD) of the loads on the tower for this wind.
In Fig 8 is showed the reduction of the wind
effect on the tower fore-aft mode in the tower
base momentum My and the reduction of the
wind effect on the tower side-to-side mode
and drive train mode in tower base
momentum Mx. Finally, the fatigue damage
analysis of the components of the wind
turbine is done thanks to the rain flow
counting algorithm. The aim of this algorithm
is processing of the time domain simulations
data to subsequently, make an equivalent
load analysis to show clearly if a controller
4

90

100

PSD: Tower Base Mx

350
CS1
CS2
CS3
CS4

4.4
4.2

T1ss

300

CS1
CS2
CS3
CS4

DT

250

200

10

15

20

25
Time (s)

30

35

40

45

150

50

0.5

1.5

Pitch Angle

2.5
Freq (Hz)

3.5

4.5

PSD: Tower Base My

350
CS1
CS2
CS3
CS4

16
14
12

Amplitude (dB)

18

Pitch (deg)

80

Comparing the control strategy CS4 to the

other strategies, the load reduction on the
Tower Base Mx, Tower Base My and
Stacionay Hub Mx momentums can be
enhanced. Percentages less than 1% should
not be considered due to mathematical
algorithm calculation errors.

Generator Torque

4.6

3.8

70

increments or reduces the load on the

different components of wind turbines. The
load equivalent analysis needs twelve time
domain simulation of 600 s in GH Bladed
using the same controller (one simulation for
each wind from odd winds from 3 m/s to 25
m/s). Table IV shows the load reduction
percentage of the four control strategies for
the different components of the Upwind
model. CS1 is the reference strategy to
compare the load reduction achieved with
other control strategies. The different
materials are defined in this table by m value.
For the glass fiber m value is 10, for the cast
modular iron m=7 and for welded steel m=3.

Amplitude (dB)

Generator Torque (Nm)

x 10

60

Figure 6: Step response of tower side-to-side

acceleration

6. RESULTS IN GH BLADED

4.8

50
Time (s) (sec)

CS1
CS2
CS3
CS4

T1fa

300

250

10
8

10

15

20

25
Time (s)

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 7: Generator torque and pitch signals

200

0.5

1.5

2.5
Freq (Hz)

3.5

4.5

Figure 8: PSD of tower base momentums

TABLE IV: Load reduction comparison

m CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4
Stacionary 3 100 -26.8 -25.7 -26.1
Hub Mx
9 100 -9.1 -8.1 -11.2
12 100 -8.1 -7.1
-10
Stacionary 3 100 0.1
0.1
-0.1
Hub My
9 100 0.1
0.5
-0.5
12 100 0.1
0.7
-0.8
Tower
3 100 -4.9 -8.4 -21.8
Base Mx
9 100 -3.8 -8.9 -28.5
12 100 -4.2 -9.8
-29
Tower
3 100 -4.1 -9.1 -13.8
Base My
9 100 -9.1 -21.1 -29.9
12 100 -9.6 -23.3 -33.9
Blade1
3 100 0.2
0.5
0.3
MFlap
9 100 0.6
0.6
0.5
12 100 0.5
0.5
0.3
Blade1
3 100 -0.1 -0.1
0
MEdge
9 100 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1
12 100 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1

7. CONCLUSIONS
Some conclusions are extracted for the work
carried out and presented in this paper:
i) H controller design strategy is defined and
a new H controller designed.
ii) The attenuation disturbance peak is smaller
than the obtained with the classical control
strategy. Also, the bandwidth is higher with
the H control strategy.
iii) Some notch filters, normally used in
classical controllers, can be included in the
controller dynamics to reduce modes excited
on non-desired frequencies.
iv) The controller is validated in GH Bladed for
production winds in Above Rated.
v) Results obtained with H controllers are
compared to a baseline classical controller.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The work described in this paper has been
supported in part by the Basque Country
Government (Spain) and the Regional Council
of Aquitaine (France), in the frame of
Cooperation Commons Funds EuskadiAquitaine (Project Bladed).

REFERENCES
[1] Caselitz, P., Geyler, M., Giebhardt, J. &
Panahandeh, B., 2006. Hardware-in-the-Loop
Development and Testing of New Pitch
Control Algorithms. EWEC 2006.
[2] Johnson, K.E., Pao, L.Y., Balas, M.J., Kulkarni,
V. & Fingersh L.J., 2004. Stability Analysis of
an Adaptive Torque Controller for Variable
Speed Wind Turbines. IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control.
[3] Nourdine, S., Daz de Corcuera A., Camblong
H., Landaluze J., Vechiu I. & Tapia G., 2011.
Control of wind turbines for frequency
regulation and fatigue loads reduction. 6th
Dubrovnik
Conference
on Sustainable
Development
of
Energy, Water
and
Environment Systems
[4] Wright, A.D., 2004. Modern Control Design for
Flexible Wind Turbines. NREL.
[5] Wright, A.D., Fingersh, L.J. & Balas, M.J., 2006.
Testing State-Space Controls for the Controls
Advanced Research Turbine. 44th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.
[6] Sanz, M.G. & Torres, M., 2004. Aerogenerador
sncrono multipolar de velocidad variable y
1.5M W de potencia: TWT1500. Revista
Iberoamericana de Autom. e Informtica, 1.
[7] Bianchi, F.D., Battista, H.D. & Mantz, R.J.,
2006. Wind Turbine Control Systems.
[8] Geyler, M. & Caselitz, P., 2008. Robust
Multivariable Pitch Control Design for Load
Reduction on Large Wind Turbines. Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering, 130.
[9] Jonkman, J., Butterfield, S., Musial, W. &
G.Scott, 2009. Definition of a 5 MW Reference
Wind
Turbine
for
Offshore
System
Development. NREL.
[10] Bossanyi, E.A., 2009. Controller for 5MW
reference turbine. Garrad Hassan and
Partners Limited.
[11] Bossanyi, E.A., 2003. Wind Turbine Control for
Load Reduction. Wind Energy, 6, pp.229-44.
[12] Hooft, E.L.v.d., Schaak, P. & Engelen, T.G.v.,
2003. Wind Turbine Control Algorithms
DOWEC-F1W1-EH-03094/0.Energy Research
Center of the Netherlands (ECN).
[13] Wright, A.D. & Balas, M.J., 2003. Design of
Controls to attenuate loads in the controls
advanced research turbine.