[american institute of aeronautics and astronautics 48th aiaa aerospace sciences meeting including...
TRANSCRIPT
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1
A Study of Dynamic Coupling and Composite Load Control for
Wind Turbines
Jeffrey K. Lazaro, Maria J. Chakiath*, and Karl A. Stol
†, Hazim Namik
‡
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Wind turbine components are sized according to their expected fatigue loads and any
reduction in these would decrease costs and prolong working life. Wind turbine control is a
multivariable problem with large interaction across multiple control channels (inputs to
objectives). This article studies coupling and investigates a composite load controller for a
wind turbine, consisting of a linear quadratic regulator for the loads and a baseline power
controller for speed and torque regulation. The load objectives were to reduce tower fore-
aft, low speed shaft (LSS) tilt, and LSS yaw bending fatigue. Simulations in above rated
wind conditions evaluated the composite design against the baseline controller alone, as well
as a classical architecture with multiple single-input single-output (MSISO) loops. In this
way, it is important to compare to a control design that is not aware of any coupling. Results
showed significant mitigation of damage equivalent loads in the tower fore-aft, and LSS tilt
and yaw directions across both designs when compared to baseline. The composite controller
achieves better load reduction without the need for filtering out the effects of other channels,
as would be required in the MSISO design.
Nomenclature
A,B,C,D = linear state-space model matrices
J = linear quadratic regulation quadratic cost function
Ms,tilt = shaft bending moment in the tilt direction
Ms,yaw = shaft bending moment in the yaw direction
Q ,R = linear quadratic regulation state and input weighting matrix
Q’ = linear quadratic regulation output weighting matrix
Tg = generator torque command
u = input vector
x = state vector
y = output vector
θ = collective blade pitch angle
θc = cosine-cyclic pitch
θs = sine-cyclic pitch
τ = displacement in the tower top fore-aft direction
ψ = rotor azimuth angle
* Undergraduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Private Bag 92019
† Senior Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Private Bag 92019, AIAA Senior Member
‡ PhD Candidate, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Private Bag 92019, AIAA Member
48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition4 - 7 January 2010, Orlando, Florida
AIAA 2010-1600
Copyright © 2010 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2
I. Introduction
Wind turbines are growing larger and active control to reduce structural fatigue is an important field because
costs can be reduced and working life prolonged. A typical controller for a large wind turbine aims to maximise
power capture and decrease structural loads by actuating generator torque (Tg) and blade pitch (θ)1. There are
various control designs that can be used to meet these objectives and both single-input single-output (SISO) and
multi-input multi-output (MIMO) control has been used2-5
. Through the use of individual pitch control (IPC),
asymmetric loads such as tilt and yaw moments on various turbine components can be reduced. However, using
linear control design techniques with IPC gives rise to non-rotating inputs which are considered as separate
actuators, making the problem multivariable. With multiple objectives, the input-to-output channels are heavily
coupled and can have significant interactions.
A. MIMO Control
To avoid multiple control loops (and hence the possibility of conflicting control efforts), modern design methods
can be used to synthesise MIMO controllers, which aim to address several objectives simultaneously.
Using state feedback, an optimal controller finds a solution to a performance cost function for the competing
goals of state and input regulation, while guaranteeing stability. Researchers have tested state-space optimal
controllers and results indicate that it may exhibit improved performance over a classical SISO controller in terms of
dynamic load reduction and speed regulation2-4
. A disadvantage with MIMO control is that transition between below
and above rated wind can cause problems as it has difficulty with integral wind-up. A SISO proportional integral
(PI) pitch controller includes an integral reset to account for this, but in MIMO state-space designs this is not
straight-forward especially when state estimation is involved.
B. Individual Pitch Control
The possibility of individual blade pitching allows greater potential fatigue reduction for asymmetric loads.
Linear turbine models obtained for controller design are periodic with rotor azimuth angle. Commonly, averaging
the model to produce a linear time-invariant (LTI) system is sufficient for controller design as there is only weak
periodicity. However with rotating states, inputs, or outputs (e.g. when IPC is used) the linear system is highly
periodic and directly averaging gives reduced controller performance6. This is circumvented by using the multi-
blade coordinate transformation (MBC, also known as the Coleman or d-q axes transformation), which convert any
dynamics in a rotating frame into a non-rotating one7. Using IPC in a multi-variable controller, Bossanyi‟s
8 work
demonstrates a significant reduction in asymmetric loading, including fatigue on the individual blades. However,
this technique relies on the availability of sensors that can measure the asymmetric loads in either the rotating or
non-rotating part of the turbine. Moreover, Bossanyi describes techniques to incorporate IPC with classical PI
control.
C. Coupling
Coupling can be broadly defined as the interaction across multiple control input to output channels, whether
positive or negative. This interaction can be identified by Bode magnitude plots9. For SISO controllers, suitable
filters can be designed so that the control actions do not excite structural resonances or conflict with other paths.
Consideration must be made as to whether the coupling is helping or hindering load reduction. In this paper, these
assumptions are tested in simulation on a linear model.
D. Objective and Scope of Study
The goal of this study is to investigate coupling in a wind turbine load control scenario and to test the
performance of a composite controller against a traditional control architecture consisting of multiple SISO loops.
The composite controller comprises of a MIMO linear quadratic regulator (LQR) to reduce fatigue loads and a
baseline power controller for speed and torque management. The desired fatigue vibrations for attenuation are
bending moments in the tower fore-aft, low speed shaft (LSS) tilt, and LSS yaw directions and IPC is used to
address the afore-mentioned asymmetric loads. Because the composite model has a separate baseline controller for
power regulation, region transition is handled and the design can focus on load attenuation. Moreover, the MIMO
load control part of the composite design addresses interactive coupling in its internal design.
The particular turbine model considered in this project is the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
5MW three-bladed horizontal axis baseline model and its properties are displayed in Table 1.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
3
Table 1. Properties of the NREL Baseline Wind Turbine1
Rated Power 5 MW
Rotor Orientation, Configuration Upwind, 3 Blades
Control Variable Speed, Variable Pitch
Gear Ratio 97:1
Rotor Diameter 126 m
Hub Height 90 m
Cut-In, Rated, Cut-Out Wind Speed 3 m/s, 11.4 m/s, 25 m/s
Cut-In, Rated Rotor Speed 6.9 rpm, 12.1 rpm
Rated Tip Speed 80 m/s
Rotor, Nacelle, Tower Mass 110,000, 240,000, 347,460 kg
II. Linear Turbine Model
The linear state-space model of the wind turbine used in this study has six degrees of freedom (tower fore-aft
motion, generator angle, LSS torsion, and three blade flap-wise motions) and is obtained numerically using FAST,
an aero-elastic simulation code for wind turbines10
. The operating conditions are rated generator torque and rotor
speed, a wind speed of 18 m/s, and a blade pitch angle of 14.9 degrees. The dynamic wind turbine plant in Eq. 1 can
be described by linear state space equations in terms of perturbations (∆) of the states (x), inputs (u) and outputs (y):
Δ𝒙 = 𝐴(ψ)Δ𝒙 + 𝐵(ψ)Δ𝒖 (1-1)
Δ𝒚 = 𝐶(ψ)Δ𝒙 + 𝐷(ψ)Δ𝒖 (1-2)
The model is highly periodic with rotor azimuth angle (ψ) and thus multi-blade coordinate transformation
(MBC) is used to transform any dynamics in the rotating frame to a fixed coordinate system7. The resulting system
is now weakly period and the state matrices are averaged without loss of information6, giving rise to the linear time
invariant (LTI) system in Eq. 2 with subscript „NR‟ referring to the non-rotating frame:
Δ𝒙 NR = 𝐴𝑁𝑅Δ𝒙NR + 𝐵𝑁𝑅Δ𝒖NR (2-1)
Δ𝒚NR = 𝐶𝑁𝑅Δ𝒙NR + 𝐷𝑁𝑅Δ𝒖NR (2-2)
The rotating inputs now become new coordinates in the non-rotating frame (transformed about ψ) that are called
collective (θ), cosine-cyclic (θ𝑐 ), and sine-cyclic (θ𝑠) components, as in Eq. 3:
θ1
θ2
θ3
=
1 cos(ψ) sin(ψ)1 cos(ψ + 2π/3) sin(ψ + 2π/3)
1 cos(ψ + 4π/3) sin(ψ + 4π/3)
θθ𝑐
θ𝑠
(3)
III. Controller Designs
The first design in Fig. 1a consists of multiple SISO (MSISO) controllers for fatigue load reduction and the
baseline controller for power regulation. The control loops are designed independently without knowledge of each
other and hence coupling between objectives is not considered. The controller that designs for coupling at a greater
level is the composite model (Fig. 1b). Here, the load objective dynamics are known by the controller. Addressing
coupling in the design of a controller can be advantageous in ensuring the objectives and subsequent corrective
actions do not conflict with each other. However the trade-off comes with increased complexity.
x
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
4
A. Baseline Power Controller
The baseline power controller aims to keep rotor speed and power at the rated conditions. It consists of a SISO
PI algorithm that generates pitch commands from the input generator speed, and a torque command generated
independently which is inversely proportional to the generator speed1. This can be seen in Fig. 1. Note that the
baseline model is used to normalise results in testing.
B. Multiple SISO Loop Controller
The MSISO controller consists of three SISO loops (Fig. 1a) for the loads and the regular baseline controller for
power regulation. It is the model that considers the coupling between objectives the least as the control paths are
synthesised without knowledge of each other. The main advantage of SISO architectures is that classical design
techniques can be used which are well known and less complex than state-space methods. IPC is used so that the
three control paths take care of fatigue loads in the tower fore-aft, shaft tilt, and shaft yaw direction. Note that the
methods to design the load controller are those described by Bossanyi5,8,11
.
A simple proportional controller acting on the tower top fore-aft velocity (𝜏 ) and actuating collective blade pitch
has been demonstrated to sufficiently provide damping to the tower fore-aft structural mode5. Taking the tower
bending moment in the fore-aft direction as the controlled signal can be problematic because it is not desirable to
influence mean tower loading (dictated by the mean wind speed). Instead, acting on the velocity signal is
advantageous because it allows influence over the cyclic loading and does not overly conflict with speed regulation.
An accelerometer on the tower provides an acceleration measurement which is integrated to obtain the fore-aft
velocity. The reference for this is zero hence the error (e) can be considered to be equal to the velocity measurement
inverted which is shown in the block diagram in Figure 2.
PI PITCH CONTROL
TORQUE CONTROL
FORE-AFT P
CONTROL
WIND TURBINE
BASELINE POWER CONTROLLER
+
SHAFT TILT PI CONTROL
SHAFT YAW PI CONTROL
PI PITCH CONTROL
TORQUE CONTROL
WIND TURBINE
BASELINE POWER CONTROLLER
+
MIMO LOAD
CONTROLLER
Tg
θ
Output measurements
θ
Tg
System states
Figure 1. Multiple SISO controllers (a) and composite load control (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Block diagram of fore-aft SISO loop
WIND TURBINE K
- + e(t) 𝜏
𝜏 1
𝑠
𝜏 𝑅𝑒𝑓 = 0
∆θ
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
5
Two separate SISO loops using PI control are required for shaft tilt and shaft yaw moments (Figure 3). Since
stationary load measurements for both of these are available in simulation and are already in a fixed coordinate
system, the forward MBC transformation is not necessary. Instead, a control action may be directly performed on
the measurements in the fixed frame before being transformed to the rotating one to produce individual pitch
commands as per Eq. 4. Note that the collective coordinate (θ) is not considered (this is already used for the tower
fore-aft loop) and so only cosine-cyclic (θ𝑐 ), and sine-cyclic (θ𝑠) are used:
θ1
θ2
θ3
=
cos(ψ) sin(ψ)cos(ψ + 2π/3) sin(ψ + 2π/3)
cos(ψ + 4π/3) sin(ψ + 4π/3)
θ𝑐
θ𝑠 (4)
The filtering element in Figure 3 can compose of a notch filter to remove blade passing frequency components
(three times the rotor revolution for a three-bladed turbine, called 3P loads) to avoid adversely affecting asymmetric
loads on the nacelle and tower, which are dominated by a peak at this point11
. Additional filters to avoid other
structural resonances may be added here as well.
C. Composite Controller
The composite architecture consists of a MIMO LQR controller for the fatigue loads and a baseline controller for
power regulation (Fig. 1b). This design has two advantages. Firstly, the load reduction objectives can be emphasised
in design and the controller incorporates any coupling present. This is desirable so that the control actions do not
overly conflict with each other. Secondly, transition between below and above rated wind conditions can be better
handled by the power controller as it deals with integral wind-up. This occurs when the integral term of the PI pitch
controller grows larger and larger in below rated conditions (as the rotor speed will never reach rated) so once it
becomes active in above rated conditions, the control action is incorrect. The PI pitch controller includes an integral
reset to account for this, but in MIMO state-space designs this is not as straight-forward especially when state
estimation is involved. In this study region transition is not considered so this advantage of the composite design is
not fully realised.
The LTI system is used to design an optimal full-state feedback (FSFB) controller using linear quadratic
regulation. A characteristic cost function describes the balance between the conflicting objectives of state regulation
and actuator usage and the solution that satisfies the FSFB control law is an LQR controller. Because two of the load
measurements are not states (LSS yaw and tilt) these must be regulated using output weightings. Tower fore-aft
velocity (𝜏 ) is the only state that we desire to explicitly regulate hence the output vector is:
𝒚 =
MS,tilt
MS,yaw
𝜏
For an optimal LQR design with the focus on output regulation, the characteristic quadratic cost function in
terms of non-rotating variables changes to Eq. 5:
𝐽 = 𝑦𝑁𝑅𝑇 𝑄′𝑁𝑅 𝑦𝑁𝑅 + 𝑢𝑁𝑅
𝑇𝑅𝑁𝑅 𝑢𝑁𝑅 𝑑𝑡
∞
0
(5-1)
PI CONTROLLER
PI CONTROLLER
MS,yaw
MS,tilt
θ𝑐
INVERSE
MBC θ𝑠
∆θ1 , ∆θ2 , ∆θ3
FILTERING
Figure 3. PI controllers acting on yaw and tilt moments
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
6
𝑄𝑁𝑅 = 𝐶𝑁𝑅𝑇𝑄′𝑁𝑅 𝐶𝑁𝑅 (5-2)
In this way, the outputs can be regulated and the relationship between the familiar state weighting matrix Q and
the augmented Q’ that gives weightings to the outputs is shown in Eq. (5-2). This shows the relationship between the
states and the output signals through the C matrix and the outputs are being regulated through this mechanism. LQR
tools in MATLAB are used to calculate the final gain matrix and this is made periodic by inverse MBC
transformation to generate individual pitch commands. As a final note, gains for the generator angle and speed are
set to zero so as not to conflict with speed regulation in the baseline controller.
IV. Dynamic Coupling in the Closed Loop
To discuss the coupling present in the scenario we consider, it is first useful to examine the Bode magnitude
plots shown in Figure 4. The inputs are the pitch commands in the non-rotating frame (considered as three separate
actuators for the following discussion) while the outputs are the bending moments we are aiming to regulate.
Figure 4. Bode magnitude plots of the non-rotating inputs to the load outputs
It is evident from Figure 4 that collective pitch action has a large affect on the asymmetric shaft moments at low
frequencies and there is a large interaction between the asymmetric loads. Additionally, the cosine and sine cyclic
pitch signals to the asymmetric shaft load channels show a drop-off in magnitude after 0.6 Hz (blade passing
frequency), implying that these inputs are not as effective at high frequencies.
There are other methods to measure coupling and select input and output pairings such as the concept of the
relative gain array (RGA) and singular value decomposition (SVD)12
. RGA involves calculating the ratio of open
loop and closed loop gains with other loops closed at steady-state. Using the linear model this analysis can be
performed however it only shows that the multi-variable scenario is complex and there are many interactions. In
other words, there is no actuator which can fully affect a measured output without interactions from the other
actuators, which is what we initially expect. In addition, these methods are only useful at steady-state, do not
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
7
incorporate dynamic effects, and are only valid for the particular linear model. For a realistic wind condition it is
necessary to look at the entire frequency response as in the Bode diagram.
A. Testing of Coupling
SISO load controllers such as in the design presented earlier essentially ignore the coupling in the other channels
(6 of the 9 diagrams in Figure 4). It is assumed that the interactions are not significant or if they are, they will be
constructive i.e. reduce other loads inadvertently, or require custom filter designs. To test this assumption, the three
SISO load controllers are tested separately with other loops inactive and no additional filtering. They are tuned to
achieve as much load reduction as possible while matching speed and power tracking of the baseline controller
tested alone. The performance metric for structural fatigue is damage equivalent loads (DEL) and this is calculated
by the rain-flow counting method13
. Note that the test conditions are covered in more detail in Section VI and the
DEL results are presented in Table 2, normalised to the baseline power controller alone.
Table 2. Results for coupling tests
As expected, the DEL is reduced for the particular load objective that the controller is aiming for. Collective
action also reduces the asymmetric shaft loads slightly due to constructive interaction. The Bode magnitude plot
shows collective actuation clearly gives the most powerful actuation for these loads at steady state (i.e. static loads)
however because of the turbulent wind profiles used for testing, the DEL reductions are only modest.
On the other hand, sine-cyclic and cosine-cyclic signals tend to interact negatively with the tower fore-aft. It is
recommended that these controller loops include an additional filter to avoid exciting the structure at the first tower
fore-aft resonant peak (0.33 Hz, shown in Figure 4). Moreover, the cosine and sine cyclic loops affect the
asymmetric load that they are not designed to regulate. These interactions are positive and the channels show similar
frequency responses with no large peaks so structural resonances are not seen. In fact, it is possible to swap the
inputs (i.e. yaw to cosine and tilt to sine), account for any phase shift, and still reduce the desired load.
V. Results for Composite Controller
The designed controllers are tested using FAST to simulate the non-linear wind turbine with the same six
degrees of freedom as in the linear model. A fully flexible turbine was not chosen because the goal of this study is to
isolate the coupling present and not propose a controller for immediate testing. The wind files are created using
TurbSim, a stochastic, full field, turbulent-wind simulator14
.
Five percent turbulent wind profiles including wind shear are used over a 100 second test period and analysis
begins at 20 seconds to ignore start-up transients. For fair testing, the controller gains are tuned to achieve the same
power and speed tracking as baseline at the operating point chosen. RMS pitch rate is a useful quantity to show that
the controllers have similar actuation activity and RMS power error is from the rated 5 megawatts. Note that the
results have been normalised to baseline and these are shown in Table 3.
Fore-aft - Collective Alone
Shaft Yaw – Sine Cyclic Alone
Shaft Tilt – Cosine Cyclic Alone
Tower Fore-Aft DEL 0.54 1.02 1.03 Shaft Yaw DEL 0.95 0.73 0.96 Shaft Tilt DEL 0.95 0.95 0.76
Table 3. Results for composite and multiple SISO loop controller
MSISO Composite
RMS Power Error 1.05 1.00 RMS Speed Error 1.04 1.04 RMS Pitch Rate 5.87 5.23 Tower FA DEL 0.62 0.54 Shaft Yaw DEL 0.71 0.39 Shaft Tilt DEL 0.68 0.45
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
8
The RMS power and speed error are both close to baseline (near a value of 1.0) indicating fair testing.
Additionally, RMS pitch rates for both controllers are similar. Tower fore-aft sees a large reduction in DEL of 38%
and 46% for the MSISO and composite designs respectively. While the MSISO controller reduces yaw and tilt by
30%, the composite controller clearly shows superior results here.
In order for the MSISO design to match the composite one, it is necessary to further tune the gains with all three
loops active. In this case, each loop was tuned separately then combined with no further refinement and it is shown
that the tower fore-aft DEL is worst than for a single fore-aft to collective loop (see Table 2). As mentioned
previously, additional filtering for the cosine and sine cyclic loops would be necessary to decouple the channels.
On the other hand, multivariable design can reduce the loads without the need for filtering since the coupling is
taken care of in its internal design. It must be kept in mind that it uses FSFB to regulate the outputs and this is reliant
on an accurate, flexible LTI model (i.e. with many degrees of freedom and thus many states). Fatigue is mainly
caused by cyclic loading and because the controller is acting on state velocities as well as displacements, the
superior DEL reductions are not surprising. In essence, the composite controller is adding more damping to the
states. For a more robust design and under greater turbulence when the operating condition is far away from the
linearisation point, drifting of the control outputs would be problematic. This is beyond the scope of this project but
in order to avoid this, it is suggested that either the integral of the outputs be added as regulation objectives or that
gains on state displacements are set to zero.
The power spectral density plots below in Figure 5 show the magnitude of the loads at various frequencies for
each controller and for baseline control alone. The tower fore-aft loads are unaffected at low frequencies but the
resonant peak at 0.33 Hz is attenuated by both load controller designs, as are frequency components around 1 Hz.
Looking at the shaft yaw and tilt moments, the MSISO and composite designs are both effective at mitigating
these loads at low frequencies around the once-per-revolution loads (1P), but only the composite model reduces
higher frequency components as well (also shown in the greater DEL reduction in Table 3).
Figure 5. Power spectral density plots for the loads
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
9
VI. Conclusions
The composite and multiple single-input single-output loop (MSISO) controllers showed attenuations of 46
and 38 percent respectively for the tower fore-aft damage equivalent loads (DEL) and up to 60 and 30
percent for the asymmetric shaft loads. In order for the MSISO controller to match the multi-variable
approach, suitable filtering and more rigorous tuning would be necessary.
There is a lot of coupling interaction in wind turbine control scenarios and before any design is undertaken,
these must be analysed to justify either a SISO or multi-variable control solution.
The main advantage of the MSISO controller is that it is easy to understand and utilises well known
classical design techniques. The disadvantage of this design is that creating multiple control loops can
create unnecessary conflicts with the competing regulation objectives and thus filtering is necessary to
decouple the channels.
Tuning each SISO loop separately and then combining may not give optimal results and additional
refinement is needed with all loops active. This may be problematic and it is another drawback of MSISO
designs.
The main advantage of the composite design is that it incorporates coupling between the load objectives. It
can achieve higher load reductions than MSISO architectures without any additional filtering. The
drawback is that it relies on a flexible model and for full-state feedback, multiple sensors and/or state
estimation would be needed for practical implementation.
VII. Future Work
To fully investigate the performance of a composite controller it is recommended that future work investigate
operation over a wider wind range, especially in below rated conditions and in region transition. During region
transition, the composite load control design is likely to be superior to a single MIMO controller. In addition, more
load objectives could be added to fully take advantage of multi-variable designs.
References 1Jonkman, J., " Dynamics Modeling and Loads Analysis of an Offshore Floating Wind Turbine," PhD Thesis, University of
Colorado. 2Boukhezzar, B., Lupu, L., Siguerdidjane, H, and Hand, M. " Multivariable control strategy for variable speed, variable pitch
wind turbines," Renewable Energy, Vol 32, 2007, pp 1273-1287. 3Lescher, F, Zhao, J.Y, Martinez, A, “LQG Multiple Model Control of a Variable Speed Pitch Regulated Wind Turbine” 17th
IMACS World Congress, Paris, France, 2005 4Wright, A.D and Fingersh, L.J, "Testing State-Space Controls for the Controls Advanced Research Turbine," 44th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Reno, Nevada, 2006. 5Bossanyi, E and Hassan, G., "The Design of Closed Loop Controllers for Wind Turbines," Wind Energy, Vol. 3, 2000, pp.
149-163 6Stol, K.A, Mol, H., Bir, G. and Namik, H. "A Comparison of Multi-Blade Coordinate Transformation and Direct Periodic
Techniques for Wind Turbine Control Design." 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and
Aerospace Exhibition, Orlando, Florida, 2009. 7Bir, G., "Multi-Blade Coordinate Transformation and Its Application to Wind Turbine Analysis." 27th American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Wind Energy Symposium, Reno, Nevada, 2008. 8Bossanyi, E and Hassan, G., "Individual pitch control for load reduction," Wind Energy, Vol. 6, 2003, pp. 119-128. 9Selvam, K, Kanev, S., van Wingerden, J.W, van Engelen, T, and Verhaegen, M, "Feedback-feedforward individual pitch
control for wind turbine load reduction," International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, Vol. 19, 2009, pp. 72-91. 10Jonkman, J. and Buhl Jr, M. "FAST User's Guide," NREL NREL/EL-500-38230, 2005. 11Bossanyi, E and Hassan, G., "Further Load Reductions with Individual Pitch Control," Wind Energy, Vol. 8, 2005, pp. 481-
485. 12van de Wal, M. and de Jager, B "A review of methods for input/output selection" Automatica, Vol. 37, 2001, pp. 487-510. 13Downing, S.D. and Socie, D.F, "Simple Rainflow Counting Algorithms," International Journal of Fatigue, Vol. 4, 1982,
pp. 31-40. 14Jonkman, B.J. and Buhl Jr, M.L. "TurbSim User's Guide," Version, Vol. 1, pp. 500-41136.