Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology,

an International Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jestch

Full Length Article

Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller

in wind turbines by genetic algorithm
Zafer Civelek
Faculty of Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Çankırı Karatekin University, Çankırı, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Wind turbines have become popular with the recent interest in renewable energy sources. At wind
Received 29 December 2018 speeds above nominal wind speeds, the blade pitch angle is controlled to ensure that the wind turbines
Revised 8 April 2019 operate safely and the output power is stable. Since the wind turbines are nonlinear systems, the blade
Accepted 23 April 2019
pitch angle controller must also be suitable for such cases. In this respect, the fuzzy controller can accom-
Available online xxxx
modate such nonlinearities, making it a suitable candidate for wind turbine blade controls. In this study, a
fuzzy controller designed to control the wind turbine blades is optimized with a genetic algorithm that is
Keywords:
improved. New features are added to improve Advanced Intelligent Genetic Algorithm’s (AIGA’s) perfor-
Wind turbine
Pitch control
mance. One of these is the addition of acceptable error concept (AEC). The conversion from binary to dec-
Fuzzy Takagi-Sugeno imal and from decimal to binary are performed based on the amount of this acceptable error. Although an
Genetic algorithm approximate value can be obtained, conversion from decimal to binary may not be accurately performed
especially for the digits following the decimal. These inaccuracies may lead to small errors especially,
during back conversion from binary back into decimal in IGA. This is removed by AEC implemented in
AIGA. Furthermore, maximum number of crossover points in AIGA is determined as a function of the
length of chromosome. This implementation improved algorithm. Simulation results show that optimiza-
tion makes the output power even better.
Ó 2019 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
With the increase in environmental safety concerns, interest to
renewable energy has been rising. This rise gave popularity to wind
turbines (WT), a type of renewable energy. WTs convert wind
energy to mechanical and then to electric energy. The power pro-
duced in WTs is directly proportional to cube of wind speed(WS)
[1]. However as wind speed changes continuously, WTs cannot
produce ceaseless constant power. Nominal WS (NWS) is the
required wind speed for WTs to produce the expected power.
Below NWSs WTs produce power less than the nominal power
(NP). WSs higher than NWSs lead production above the capacity
of WTs which damages WTs. Thus some control mechanisms are
needed to reduce the produced power to NP ranges. One of the
mechanisms is changing the pitch angles of blades [2]. WTs having
this capability are known as variable pitch angle WTs. In these
WTs, either output power or rotor speeds are measured and pitch
angles are changed for values above nominal. Controllers are
needed for changing pitch angles [3,4]. Controllers compare either
desired output power or rotor speeds with current values. Based on
E-mail addresses: zafercivelek@karatekin.edu.tr, zcivelek@gmail.com
the comparison the pitch angles are adjusted. Modern control
approaches enabled design of many controllers for this purpose.
Van et al. used fuzzy controllers to stabilize to output power of
WT [5]. Lasheen and Elshafei proposed fuzzy predictive algorithm
for pitch angle control (PAC) where they reduced the size of rule
base by utilizing gap-metric criteria [6]. By using type 2 fuzzy
instead of proportional-integral-derivative (PID) as controller,
Bahraminejad and Iranpour got better results in PAC [7]. Whereas
Chen at. all. employed online training recurrent neural network
(RNN) instead of proportional-integral (PI) and obtained better
performance [8]. Poultangari et. all. adjusted coefficient of PI con-
troller using radial basis function (RBF) neural network (NN) that is
optimized by particle swarm optimization [9]. Gao et. all. calcu-
lated PI and PID controller coefficients considering the delays in
pitch control mechanisms [10]. Ren et. all. designed a nonlinear
pitch controller that compensates unexpected random noises
[11]. Saravanakumar et al. manipulated output power of WTs, aim-
ing maximum power point tracking (MPPT) by using integral slid-
ing mode control (ISMC) and aiming limited output power by PI
control approach for wind speeds below and above nominal values
respectively [12]. Some studies use ANN based pitch control for
MPPT in WTs where permanent magnet synchronous generator
(PMSG) are implemented [13,14]. For MPPT, Lin and Hong

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
2215-0986/Ó 2019 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
2 Z. Civelek / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

employed online trained improved Elman NN (IENN) in PAC [15]. Implementation of TS fuzzy logic for a system with two inputs
In some studies, coefficients of PI, PD and PID controllers imple- (x1, x2) shown in Fig. 1 leads two results (y1, y2) and one crisp
mented in pitch controls have been adjusted by fuzzy [16–20]. result (y). In Fig. 1 c10, c11, c12, c20, c21, c22 and w1, w2 denotes
Moreover linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) [21], adaptive fuzzy coefficients and weights respectively. Based on the system require-
sliding mode control (AFSMC) [22], a new self-tuning PID algo- ments and fuzzy logic clusters number of if-then rules can be
rithms [23] are some of the approaches exploited in WT pitch increased. The crisp result (y) is calculated by the weighted aver-
controls. ages of results (y1, y2) as presented in (4).
One of the main topics in control design is the suitability of the w1 y1 þ w2 y2
controller to the system that it will be implemented. The pitch y¼ ð4Þ
w1 þ w2
angle control system of wind turbines is nonlinear. PID control
method, convenient for linear systems, cannot satisfy the require- Fuzzy logic controller controlling the output power of wind tur-
ments in nonlinear pitch angle control. Thus, fuzzy controller bine have two inputs and one output. Inputs are error, being the
which fits better to nonlinear systems is preferred in this study. difference between expected and existing rotor speeds, and deriva-
Sudden unexpected changes in wind speed, necessitate quick tive of it, where these are presented in Eqs. (5) and (6). Output is
compatible responses from the controller. This is the main reason the value of blade pitch angle.
for using Sugeno-Takagi instead of Mamdani. As results are calcu- error ¼ wr expected  wr existing ð5Þ
lated using mathematics, Sugeno-Takagi works faster than Mam-
dani. This is another reason for selection of Sugeno-Takagi. deriv ativ e of error ¼ error n  errorn1 ð6Þ
The coefficients of Sugeno-Takagi controller can be improved
using ANFIS when corresponding outputs of inputs are known. where n in Eq. (6) indicates iteration number.
However, for cases where outputs are not known beforehand as Input fuzzy clusters are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Some fuzzy rules
in wind turbine pitvh angle control, an optimization schema is using Figs. 2 and 3 are represented in Table 1. The TS fuzzy con-
needed. Using GA in optimization is the capability of GA searching troller is composed of five rules.
wide solution space with numerous parameters at the same time. In (7), the fuzzy rules in Table 1 and their coefficients were
Above mentioned papers obtained from literature proposed rewritten for TS.
controllers for PA. However, published literature about the opti- y1 ¼ c10 þ c11 x1 þ c12 x2
mization of the controllers based on the system requirements,
y2 ¼ c20 þ c21 x1 þ c22 x2
being the second important item following the controller design,
is limited. Within this limited literature, Taher et al. optimized lin- y3 ¼ c30 þ c31 x1 þ c32 x2 ð7Þ
ear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) controller using differential evolu- y4 ¼ c40 þ c41 x1 þ c42 x2
tion (DE) algorithm [24]. On the other hand, Civelek et al. y5 ¼ c50 þ c51 x1 þ c52 x2
optimized coefficient of PID controller by genetic algorithms [25].
c10 ¼ 1, c11 ¼ 1, c12 ¼ 1, c20 ¼ 0:5, c21 ¼ 0, c22 ¼ 0:5,
Lastly, Belghazi and Cherkaoui used genetic algorithms for PI con-
c30 ¼ 0, c31 ¼ 0, c32 ¼ 0,
troller coefficients [26].
c40 ¼ 0:5, c41 ¼ 0, c42 ¼ 0:5, c50 ¼ 1, c51 ¼ 1,c52 ¼ 1
In this study, implementation of fuzzy (Takagi-Sugeno) con-
Accordingly, the crisp output of the controller is written in (8).
troller optimized by genetic algorithms for WT pitch angle control
is presented. y1 w1 þ y2 w2 þ y3 w3 þ y4 w4 þ y5 w5
y¼ ð8Þ
w1 þ w2 þ w3 þ w4 þ w5
2. Methodology These coefficients are w1 ¼ 1; w2 ¼ 1; w3 ¼ 1; w4 ¼ 1; w5 ¼ 1.

2.1. Fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) controller

In this study, Takagi-Sugeno type fuzzy controller was used. In

Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy controller (TSFC), the results of ‘‘if-then” rules
can be expressed as linear equations.
A typical rule expression is presented in (1).

Rule ðiÞ : if x1 is Ai1 ;    ; xn is Ain then yi ¼ ci0 þ ci1 xi þ    þ cin xn

ð1Þ

Pl Pl
wi yi i¼1 wi ðci0 þ c i1 xi þ . . . þ c in xn Þ
y ¼ Pi¼1
l
¼ Pl
i¼1 wi i¼1 wi

Xn X
l X
l
¼ð wi cik xk Þ= wi ð2Þ
k¼0 i¼1 i¼1

where, i ¼ 1; 2;    l. l is number of ‘‘if-then” rules. cik

(k ¼ 0; 1; 2;    ; n), is coefficients of result of ‘‘if-then” rules. yi is
result of i’th ” if-then” rules. Aik is fuzzy cluster. Where x0 ¼ 1, wi
is the weight of the ith ‘‘if-then” rule and calculated by (3).

Y
n
wi ¼ Aik ðxk Þ ð3Þ
k¼1

where Aik ðxk Þ, indicates membership degree of xk in Aik [27]. Fig. 1. Takagi-Sugeno inference system.

Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
 Z. Civelek / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Fig. 2. Error fuzzy clusters.

Fig. 4. Advanced Intelligent Genetic Algorithm flow chart.

the relative value of the target function. The higher the fitness
value of person, the greater the likelihood of being a next-
generation parent. The appropriate individuals within the created
population are selected by various methods sucah as; roulette
wheel, tournament and ranking. In AIGA, roulette wheel selection
is preferred.

2.2.2. Crossover
The crossover is the heart of the genetic algorithm. It enables
the production of new individuals from two individuals with high
fitness values. The selected crossover method affects the time that
GA reaches the goal. A good crossover allows GA to reach the goal
in a short time. In the crossover process, there is a concept called
crossover ratio. The crossover rate determines the amount of indi-
viduals to be crossed. Altough value of this ratio depends on the
Fig. 3. Derivative of error fuzzy clusters.
person designing GA, it is generally kept between 70 and 90% for
GA and set as 90% for AIGA. In addition, the number of points used
Table 1 in the crossover is variable. AIGA starts from the single point of
Fuzzy Rules. crossover. Another algorithm within AIGA follows the best individ-
Fuzzy Rules
uals of the population. If a certain number of these individuals are
repeated the same, the algorithm increases the number of cross-
1. If error p and derivative of error p then output nb
over. This adds diversity to the crossover process. The upper limit
2. If error p and derivative of error n then output ns
3. If error z and derivative of error z then output z of the crossover point is determined as a function of the chromo-
4. If error n and derivative of error p then output ps some length.
5. If error n and derivative of error n then output pb

2.2.3. Fitness function

2.2. Genetic algorithm structure and advanced Intelligent genetic
algorithm (AIGA)
Although, some genetic algorithms use the decimal system
mostly binary coding is implemented in GA. In this study, although
the decimal numbers are used in the control system to be opti-
mized, binary system numbers are utilizied in the genetic algo-
rithm coding. The AIGA flow chart is shown in Fig. 4. A follow-up
and control algorithm is embedded in AIGA. This algorithm follows
the best individuals in the population. It calculates the recurrence
numbers of the best individuals and checks whether AIGA has
entered any local minima or maxima. If the algorithm decides that
AIGA has entered a local minima or maxima, it changes the cross-
over and mutation rates. So it tries to save AIGA from falling in a
local minima or maxima.
In the genetic algorithm, a fitness function is used to indicate
the proximity of each individual within the population to the solu-
tion. The fitness function is set as in (9).
F ðt Þ ¼ c1 :F 1 ðt Þ þ c2 :F 2 ðtÞ ð9Þ
where FðtÞ, the fitness function sum and c1 and c2 are constant coef-
ficients. The fitness function FðtÞ is consisting of two parts. First part
is F1 ðtÞ, measures the stability and smoothness of the output power
and the second part, F2 ðtÞ, protects the output power from impulse
changes. Calculation of F1 ðtÞ and F2 ðtÞ are given in (10) and (11).
F 1 ðt Þ ¼ 105ðem spÞ=sp ð10Þ
where em is the mean of error rate, and sp is the setpoint or desired
value.

F 2 ðt Þ ¼ 105ðemax omax Þ=omax ð11Þ

2.2.1. Selection
Genetic algorithm has a population-based algorithm structure. Here, omax is the acceptable overshoot value. emax is the highest
Each person in the population has a fitness value that indicates overshoot value in the running system.

Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
4 Z. Civelek / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

2.2.4. Performance analysis of AIGA
For performance analysis of AIGA, Benchmark functions, fre-
quently used in IGA’s performance analysis in the literature are uti-
lized. The graphs of these Benchmark functions are presented in
Fig. 5 and their formulas are provided in Table 2.
In this study, controller was optimized by genetic algorithm.
This requires the conversion of decimals (information coming from
controller) to binary (required for optimization by genetic). During
the test runs, it is realized that the values of the numbers may
change arising from conversion from decimal to binary and vice
versa. It is further seen that this value change degrades the perfor-
mance of the GA. To overcome this error, in this study, number of
significant digits after the decimal point is asked from user and
binary encoding is based on this number. Furthermore, the maxi-
mum number of crossover points that was fixed in IGA [25] is set
as variable depending on the number of genes in the chromosome
in AIGA in here. Moreover, mutation rate and number of crossover
points are determined as a function of the repeated best individual
In the tests performed, for all three algorithms, population
number and the crossover rate were set as 15 and 90% respectively.
The standard GA’s mutation rate was 8% and the crossover method
was single point crossover. Mutation rates of IGA and AIGA are set
between 8%  200% and 8%  500% by the code implemented in the
study. The maximal variable multi-point crossover number in IGA,
was constant (n) however in the code implemented it is deter-
mined as a function of chromosome length in AIGA. The results
of Benchmark functions for all the three algorithms are summa-
rized in table 3.
The expected results column of Table 3 shows the functions’
minimum values. The standard GA and IGA columns show close-
ness to the expected result at the end of 1000 iterations. Since
the encoding of the algorithms was done in Matlab / Script envi-

Fig. 5. Graphs of some Benchmark functions used in IGA’s performance analysis in the literature.

Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
 Z. Civelek / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Table 2
Equations of some Benchmark functions used in IGA’s performance analysis in the literature.

Function name Function Limits

P
Sphere function f ðxÞ ¼ ni¼1 x2i f ðx1 ;    ; xn Þ ¼ f ð0;    ; 0Þ ¼ 0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ackley’s function f ðx; yÞ ¼ 20e0;2  e0;5ðcos ð2pxÞþcos ð2pyÞÞ þ e þ 20
0;5ðx þy Þ
2 2 f ð1; 1Þ ¼ 0
 
Lévi function f ðx; yÞ ¼ sin2 ð3pxÞ þ ðx  1Þ2 1 þ sin2 ð3pyÞ þ ðy  1Þ2 ð1 þ sin2 ð2pyÞÞ f ð1; 1Þ ¼ 0

Beale’s function 2 2 2
f ðx; yÞ ¼ ð1; 5  x þ xyÞ þ ð2; 25  x þ xy Þ þ ð2; 625  x þ xy Þ 3 2 f ð3; 0; 5Þ ¼ 0
Goldstein–Price function f ðx; yÞ ¼ ð1 þ ðx þ y þ 1Þ2 ð19  14x þ 3x2  14y þ 6xy þ 3y2 ÞÞð30 þ ð2x  3yÞ2 f ð0; 1Þ ¼ 3
ð18  32x þ 12x2 þ 48y  36xy þ 27y2 ÞÞ
Booth’s function f ðx; yÞ ¼ ðx þ 2y  7Þ2 þ ð2x þ y  5Þ2 f ð1; 3Þ ¼ 0

Table 3
Benchmark function results of Standart GA, IGA and AIGA.

Standard GA IGA AIGA

Function name expected results results Iteration number results Iteration number results Iteration number
Sphere function 0 4.6087e-06 1000 6.0725e-10 1000 1.0026e-15 75
Ackley’s function 0 0.1086 1000 1.1990e-04 1000 0.0000 192
Lévi function 0 0.0687 1000 4.7990e-06 1000 1.0000e-15 107
Beale’s function 0 0.3602 1000 0.0502 1000 0.9978e-15 331
Goldstein–Price function 3 1.0902e + 07 1000 3.0000 1000 3.0000 104
Booth’s function 0 0.7363 1000 0.0145 1000 1.0000e-15 290

Table 4
Some test functions.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Function 1 sin 6 x2 þy2 x; y 2 ½1; 1
f 1 : maxf ðx; yÞ ¼ 1 þ x: sin ð4pxÞ  y: sin ð4py þ pÞ þ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
x þy2 þ1015
6 2

x 
Function 2  10:  x3  y5 :eð x Þ  1 :e½ðxþ1Þ2 y2  x; y 2 ½3; 3
2 ½x2 ðyþ1Þ2  2 y2
f 2 ¼ maxf ðx; yÞ ¼ 3:ð1  xÞ :e
4:lg2ðx0;0667Þ2  5 3
4:lg2ðx0;0667 
Function 3 Þ2 x; y 2 ½0; 1
f 3 ¼ maxf ðx; yÞ ¼ sinð5; 1:p:xÞ30 :e 0;64 :sinð5; 1:p:yÞ30 :e 0;64

Function 4 f 4 ¼ maxf ðx; yÞ ¼ ½20 þ x2  10: cos ð2pxÞ þ y2  10: cos ð2pyÞ x; y 2 ½5; 5

Table 5
Algorithm implementation results of test functions.

NFO: Number of finding the optimum

SGA BSGA DMGA AGA SOGA IGA AIGA

f1 53 1000 997 1000 1000 1000 1000

f2 38 1000 969 998 998 1000 1000
f3 0 998 861 905 997 1000 1000
f4 0 11 150 10 1000 996 1000
Mean 22,75 752,25 744,25 728,25 998,75 999 1000

ronment, 1:1015 was used instead of absolute zero. Thus the mentioned in [Zhang et al 2009] and the Intelligent GA [25]. It is
value,1:1015 allowed by Matlab, was used as the desired sensitiv- seen in Table 5 that, AIGA achieved 1000 optimum results for all
ity. In Table 3, the iteration number column indicates the number of the four functions presented in Table 4.
of iterations performed for each algorithm to reach the desired
results. For example, while Standard GA in the Sphere function
3. Implementation
reaches 4; 6:106 , IGA reaches 6; 76:1010 at the end of 1000 itera-
15
tions. Since, AIGA reached 1; 00:10 at the 75th iteration, superi- 3.1. Wind turbine
ority of AIGA to both Standard GA and IGA in terms of the number
of iterations and the obtained result can easily be seen. This, better Combining fuzzy controllers with modern optimization tech-
performance of IAGA, can also be seen in table 3 for other Bench- niques enabled better and faster control systems. Thus, in this
mark functions. study, AIGA is implemented in adjusting the coefficients of normal-
In addition to the performance analysis of the benchmark func- ization, denormalization and fuzzy controller.
tions, IAGA was subjected to the test functions given in [28] and Wind power (P); is proportional to the cube of the wind velocity
shown in table 4. The results of IAGA from this study and of IGA and is given in (12).
from [25] are summarized in Table 5. Moreover Table 5 shows
P ¼ 0:5qAv 3
the number of optimum solutions obtained at the end of 1000 iter-
ð12Þ
ations obtained by test functions given in Table 4.
Table 5 shows that, AIGA has the advantages of the Standard Here; q = air density (kg/m ), A = area swept by the blades (m2 ),
3

GA, the Adaptive GA, the Abbreviated BSGA, the Adaptive Mutation v = wind speed (m/s). Fig. 6 shows the change in wind power with
Rate GA(the Abbreviated DMGA), the Self Organizing GA (SOGA) respect to wind speed for an uncontrolled system.

Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
6 Z. Civelek / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 6. Wind speed-output power curve without control.
Fig. 7. Power factor ({p )-TSR (k) curve.
The wind turbine can’t transfer all of the wind power into
energy. This rate, which is limited by the Betz limit, can not exceed
59%. The amount of power that can be derived from the wind tur-
bine is determined by the power coefficient ({p ) of the wind tur-
bine, which is a function of the blade pitch angle (b) and the
blade tip speed ratio (k). Fig. 7 shows the variation of the power
coefficient (Cp) according to the blade tip speed ratio.
The mechanical power that the wind turbine can obtain from
the wind is given in (13) and (14).
Pxt ¼ P{p ðb; kÞ
Pxt ¼ 0:5qAv 3 {p ðb; kÞ
Here; {p ðb; kÞ is the power coefficient of the turbine, b is the
wing pitch angle, k is the blade tip speed ratio (TSR).
The power coefficient, {_p, which is nonlinear in high order and
varies with the speed of the wind, is given in (15).
The mechanical output power of a variable-speed wind turbine
116 21
{p ¼ 0:5176  0:4b  5 e ki þ 0:0068k
ki
The value of ki in (16) is substituted in (15) and the value of {p is
calculated. ki is an intermediate variable used to facilitate
calculations.
1 1 0:035
¼ 
ki k þ 0:08b 3b þ 1
Blade tip speed ratio-TSR is blade angular velocity and wind
velocity ratio and is given in (17).
Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
Fig. 8. The {p -TSR curve for different b-angle values.
Fig. 9. Wind Turbine operation regions.
xxt R
k¼ ð17Þ
v
Here; xxt is the turbine rotor’s angular velocity (rad/s). R is the
wind turbine’s blade radius (m). Fig. 8 shows the relationship
ð13Þ between the blade tip speed ratio and the power coefficient, with
the blade angle.
ð14Þ Any change in the wind turbine, rotor speed, or wind speed
changes the blade tip speed ratio which eventually changes the
power coefficient. Thus, the power coefficient will change the
amount of power obtained from the wind. According to (9) and
(10), by changing b angle, {p , the power coefficient is changed.
Wind turbine power control is based on this principle.
ð15Þ is also variable. As can be seen in Fig. 9, there are four working
zones in the wind speed - output power curve of variable speed,
variable pitch angle wind turbines. Region I, is where the wind
speed is less than the cut-in value, where the output power is zero.
At this region, turbine does not work. Region II, is the area between
the cut-in and the nominal speed. Region III, is the zone between
ð16Þ nominal speed and cut-out. Region IV, on the other hand, is the
wind speeds above the cut-out value at where, the wind turbine
is stopped due to safety reasons. Getting the maximum power is
especially important for Region II. At the start of Region III, the tur-
 Z. Civelek / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

bine will reach the nominal gust at nominal wind speed. However,
as the wind speed increases, the output power will also increase.
Thus, a control system is needed to keep the output power con-
stant within the design limits. This is achieved by changing blade
angle which eventually changes the power coefficient and conse-
quently modifies the output power. By increasing the blade pitch
angle b, the output force P is tried to be kept constant.
Sugeno Control block as well as the 15 coefficients shown in (7).
Thus, the genetic algorithm optimizes 15 + 3 = 18 variables. To
implement genetic algorithm in the fitness functions, error values
are needed. These error values are transferred to Matlab / Work-
space using the Simulink/error block.
The wind speed used in simulation is shown in Fig. 11. The wind
system parameters are summarized in Table 6.

4. Simulation

The simulation was performed in Matlab / Simulink environ-

ment. The Simulink / Wind System Turbine + Generator block
shown in Fig. 10 is designed using (12)-(17) of the wind energy
system shown in Section 3.1. This block accepts wind speed and
pitch angle values as inputs and outputs the output power gener-
ated. The Takagi-Sugeno type fuzzy controller described in Sec-
tion 2.1 is used to control the output power. The controller
shown in Fig. 10 accepts the derivation of the error and error
shown in Figs. 2 and 3 as an inputs. For this reason, the required
power level (set point) and output power for the Simulink / Fuzzy
Sugeno Control block are given as inputs. The values obtained from
these entries are used to calculate the error and error derivative
within the block. The Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy controller takes the
coefficients shown in (7) from the genetic algorithm. To achieve
this, the coefficient entries from Matlab / Workspace are applied
to the Simulink / Fuzzy Sugeno Control block. The genetic algo-
rithm optimizes the normalization and denormalization coeffi-
cients of the inputs and outputs used in the Simulink / Fuzzy Fig. 11. Wind Speed fed to the system.

Fig. 10. Simulink / Wind System Turbine + Generator block implemented in the study.

Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
8 Z. Civelek / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 6
Wind system parameters.

Simulated System Parameters

Nominal output power 500 kw
Working mode Network connection
Cut in wind speed 3 m/s
Nominal wind speed 12 m/s
Cut out wind speed 25 m/s
Rotor diameter 48 m
Sweep area 1810 m2
Blade number 3
Nominal rotor speed 30 rpm
Rotor speed range 10–30 rpm
Gear box rate 01:50
Generator number 1
Generator type PMSG
Generator nominal output 500 kw
Generator nominal cycle 1500 rpm
Generator voltage 690 v
Fig. 13. Variation of Pitch angles.

5. Simulation results

Simulated wind energy system was run for 300 s. The genetic
algorithm was run on 200 iterations. The population of the genetic
algorithm was chosen as 15. So for each iteration model was run 15
times. Fig. 12 shows the outputs of optimized and nonoptimized
systems. As can be seen clearly in Fig. 12, the genetic algorithm
has successfully optimized the coefficients and the 18 variables.
The optimized system output is quite good and smooth compared
to the nonoptimized system.
The fuzzy controller produces pitch angle value according to the
wind data applied to the input of the wind turbine. The pitch angle
values produced are shown in Fig. 13. With these pitch angle val-
ues, the output power is kept stable.
The fitness function graph showing that the genetic algorithm
finds appropriate values is shown in Fig. 14. AIGA changed the
mutation rate as shown in Fig. 15 when it decided that the system
Fig. 14. Variation of fitness values.
trapped into a local minima or maxima. Thus, localities can easily

Fig. 15. Mutation rates.

be escaped. The multi-point crossover graph, adding richness to

the generated population, is shown in Fig. 16. The y-axis in Fig. 16
shows the number of crossing points applied at each iteration.

6. Conclusion

AIGA has been developed by making improvements on the pre-

Fig. 12. Outputs of optimized and nonoptimized systems. viously designed IGA. The superiority of AIGA has been proven by

Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
 Z. Civelek / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 16. Crossover point changes.
its test functions. The AIGA was then used to optimize a fuzzy con-
troller designed to control the blade angle of wind turbines. The
coefficients of the Takagi-Sugeno type fuzzy controller and the nor-
malization and denormalization values were successfully opti-
mized with a total of 18 variable AIGAs.
Better wind turbine pitch angle control achieved by Sugeno-
Takagi controller optimized by AIGA will improve the stability of
wind turbine’s output power, providing a much more stabilized
power supply to the energy network.
With better control of the pitch angle, the wind turbine will be
protected from damaging wind speeds in a faster and a better man-
ner. This will eventually increase the life time of wind turbine and
reduce the energy production costs.
References
[1] T. Senjyu, R. Sakamoto, N. Urasaki, H. Higa, K. Uezato, T. Funabashi, Output
power control of wind turbine generator by pitch angle control using
minimum variance control, Electr. Eng. Jpn. 154 (2) (2006) 10–18.
[2] T. Burton, N. Jenkins, D. Sharpe, E. Bossanyi, Wind energy handbook, John
Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[3] M. Jelavić, V. Petrović, N. Perić, Estimation based individual pitch control of
wind turbine, Automatika 51 (2) (2010) 181–192.
[4] J. Qi, Liu Y. In, PID control in adjustable-pitch wind turbine system based on
fuzzy control, in: Industrial Mechatronics and Automation (ICIMA), 2010 2nd
International Conference on, IEEE, 2010, pp. 341–344.
[5] T.L. Van, T.H. Nguyen, D.-C. Lee, Advanced pitch angle control based on fuzzy
logic for variable-speed wind turbine systems, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 30
(2) (2015) 578–587.
[6] A. Lasheen, A.L. Elshafei, Wind-turbine collective-pitch control via a fuzzy
predictive algorithm, Renew. Energy 87 (2016) 298–306.
[7] B. Bahraminejad, M.R. Iranpour, Comparison of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic
Controller with PI Controller in Pitch Control of Wind Turbines, Int. J. Renew.
Energy Res. (IJRER) 5 (3) (2015) 836–846.
Please cite this article as: Z. Civelek, Optimization of fuzzy logic (Takagi-Sugeno) blade pitch angle controller in wind turbines by genetic algorithm, Engi-
neering Science and Technology, an International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.04.010
9
[8] C.H. Chen, C.-M. Hong, T.-C. Ou, Hybrid fuzzy control of wind turbine generator
by pitch control using RNN, Int. J. Ambient Energy 33 (2) (2012) 56–64.
[9] I. Poultangari, R. Shahnazi, M. Sheikhan, RBF neural network based PI pitch
controller for a class of 5-MW wind turbines using particle swarm
optimization algorithm, ISA Trans. 51 (5) (2012) 641–648.
[10] R. Gao, Z. Gao, Pitch control for wind turbine systems using optimization,
estimation and compensation, Renew. Energy 91 (2016) 501–515.
[11] Y. Ren, L. Li, J. Brindley, L. Jiang, Nonlinear PI control for variable pitch wind
turbine, Control Eng. Pract. 50 (2016) 84–94.
[12] R. Saravanakumar, D. Jena, 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. 69 (2015) 421–429.
[13] A. Dahbi, N. Nait-Said, M.-S. Nait-Said, A novel combined MPPT-pitch angle
control for wide range variable speed wind turbine based on neural network,
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (22) (2016) 9427–9442.
[14] B. Jiao, L. Wang, RBF neural network sliding mode control for variable-speed
adjustable-pitch system of wind turbine, in: Electrical and Control Engineering
(ICECE), 2010 International Conference on, IEEE, 2010, pp. 3998–4002.
[15] W.-M. Lin, C.-M. Hong, A new Elman neural network-based control algorithm
for adjustable-pitch variable-speed wind-energy conversion systems, IEEE
Trans. Power Electron. 26 (2) (2011) 473–481.
[16] I. Isaac, D. Cabrera, H. Pizarra, D. Giraldo, J. Gonzalez, H. Biechl, in: Fuzzy logic
based parameter estimator for variable speed wind generators PI pitch control,
ANDESCON, 2010 IEEE, IEEE: 2010; pp. 1-6.
[17] L. Zhang, H. Li, E. Chunliang, J. Li, H. Xu, In Pitch control of large scale wind
turbine based on fuzzy-PD method, Electric Utility Deregulation and
Restructuring and Power Technologies DRPT 2008, Third International
Conference on, IEEE 2008 (2008) 2447–2452.
[18] F. Gao, D. Xu, Y. Lv, in: Pitch-control for large-scale wind turbines based on
feed forward fuzzy-PI, Intelligent Control and Automation, 2008. WCICA 2008.
7th World Congress on, IEEE: 2008; pp. 2277-2282.
[19] Z. Dou, M. Cheng, Z. Ling, X. Cai, In An adjustable pitch control system in a large
wind turbine based on a fuzzy-PID controller, Power Electronics Electrical
Drives Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM) International Symposium on, IEEE
2010 (2010) 391–395.
[20] Z. Civelek, M. Lüy, E. Çam, N. Barısßçı, Control of pitch angle of wind turbine by
fuzzy PID controller, Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 22 (3) (2016) 463–471.
[21] E. Muhando, T. Senjyu, A. Yona, H. Kinjo, T. Funabashi, Disturbance rejection by
dual pitch control and self-tuning regulator for wind turbine generator
parametric uncertainty compensation, IET Control Theory Appl. 1 (5) (2007)
1431–1440.
[22] X. Yao, Y. Liu, C. Guo, in: Adaptive fuzzy sliding-mode control in variable speed
adjustable pitch wind turbine, Automation and Logistics, 2007 IEEE
International Conference on, IEEE: 2007; pp. 313-318.
[23] J.-S. Kim, J. Jeon, H. Heo, in: Design of adaptive PID for pitch control of large
wind turbine generator, Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), 2011
10th International Conference on, IEEE: 2011; pp. 1-4.
[24] S.A. Taher, M. Farshadnia, M.R. Mozdianfard, Optimal gain scheduling
controller design of a pitch-controlled VS-WECS using DE optimization
algorithm, Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (5) (2013) 2215–2223.
[25] Z. Civelek, E. Çam, M. Lüy, H. Mamur, Proportional–integral–derivative
parameter optimisation of blade pitch controller in wind turbines by a new
intelligent genetic algorithm, IET Renew. Power Gener. 10 (8) (2016) 1220–
1228.
[26] O. Belghazi, M. Cherkaoui, Pitch angle control for variable speed wind turbines
using genetic algorithm controller, J. Theor. Appl. Information Technol. 39 (1)
(2012) 6–10.
[27] T. Tagaki, M. Sugeno, Fuzzy identification of systems and its application to
modelling and control, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernetics 15 (1) (1985) 116–
132.
[28] J. Zhang, J. Zhuang, H. Du, Self-organizing genetic algorithm based tuning of
PID controllers, Inf. Sci. 179 (7) (2009) 1007–1018.