Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and

Environmental Effects

ISSN: 1556-7036 (Print) 1556-7230 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Design of a nonlinear multi-input–multi-output

sliding mode pitch angle and plunge controller for
a 5MW wind turbine blade tip

Ranjeet Agarwala, Robert A. Chin & Praveen Malali

To cite this article: Ranjeet Agarwala, Robert A. Chin & Praveen Malali (2019): Design of a
nonlinear multi-input–multi-output sliding mode pitch angle and plunge controller for a 5MW wind
turbine blade tip, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, DOI:
10.1080/15567036.2019.1582735

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1582735

Published online: 26 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso20
ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1582735

Design of a nonlinear multi-input–multi-output sliding mode pitch

angle and plunge controller for a 5MW wind turbine blade tip
Ranjeet Agarwalaa, Robert A. China, and Praveen Malalib
a
Department of Technology Systems, College of Engineering and Technology, East Carolina University, Greenville,
North Carolina, USA; bCenter for Sustainability, College of Engineering and Technology, East Carolina University,
Greenville, North Carolina, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Traditionally, wind turbine blades are primarily controlled by varying the pitch Received 11 October 2018
angle of the full blade. The primary motivation of this article is to develop Revised 6 January 2019
a design of a nonlinear multi-input–multi-output sliding mode controller for Accepted 19 January 2019
tracking the pitch angle and the plunge of the wind turbine blade tip instead KEYWORDS
of controlling the entire blade. The hypothesis is that controlling the pitch and Renewable technology; wind
plunge for a portion of blade tip length can be an alternate control strategy. energy; wind turbine; wind
A method was adopted wherein a separated pitch angle control at the tip turbine control; MIMO
(SePCaT) was modeled and tested in a digital environment and controller controllers; sliding mode
response was realized by modeling desired pitch angle and plunge trajectories control
to abate power generated by the wind turbine to rated power at high wind
speeds. From the comparative results with the desired trajectory, it was observed
that the sliding mode controller exhibited excellent trajectory tracking for con-
trolling the blade pitch angle and plunge. It can be concluded that controlling
blade plunge is essential to maintaining desired blade pitch angle trajectories.
This technology offers significant improvement over other technologies as
desired pitch and plunge control is achieved over a shorter blade length.

Introduction
The remarkable growth in the wind energy sector poses challenges on many fronts as the rotor sizes
and tower heights continue to grow to accommodate larger land-based and offshore wind turbine
capacities. One of the challenges is controlling large wind turbine rotors at high wind speeds. In large
wind turbines and at high wind speeds, rated power output is maintained by controlling the blades
pitch angle at the root of the blade. Actuations of pitch angle due to wind variations can lead to
significant fluctuations in wind turbine blade loads affecting rated turbine power output, stability,
and turbine life. This is particularly pronounced in region 3 of the wind turbine operation where the
pitch angle is varied to abate power so that the wind turbine is not subject to high aerodynamic and
operation stresses. Region 3 is commonly referred to an area of the wind power–wind velocity curve
where high wind speeds produce more than the rated power for a specific wind turbine. The blades
are generally pitched to feather (pitch angle is reduced) to shed the excessive power by feathering the
blades (reducing the angle of attack) individually or collectively. Feathering blades at high speeds are
inhibited by high blade inertia leading to slower control response time at high or fluctuating speeds.
Power required for full length pitching for large blades are high thereby undermining power
generation. Mechanisms for full-length pitching are large, complex, and expensive requiring higher
manufacturing and maintenance costs. This problem is further compounded by the randomness and
uncertainties at high wind speeds and at higher heights (Mohandes et al. 2016) which introduces

CONTACT Ranjeet Agarwala agarwalar@ecu.edu East Carolina University, 209 Science and Technology Building,
Greenville, NC 27858, USA
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueso.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

nonlinearities in blade aerodynamics and causes complexities in controlling large wind turbine
blades. Therefore, as wind turbines continue to grow to around 20 MW (Steel 2015) in capacity, full-
length pitch control become increasingly large and complex (McKenna et al., 2016).
Agarwala and Ro (2015, 2013) focused on the design, evaluation, and analysis of innovative rotor
blades for large wind turbines through the formulation of a Separated Pitch Control Strategy at Blade
Tip (SePCaT) for a large MW wind turbine. The redesigned blade is aerodynamically more effective
compared to the traditional blade. Deployment of SePCaT facilitated new innovative design whereby
a larger portion of the blade was aerodynamically available while maintaining structural effective-
ness. The redesigned and improved bladed is more effective when compared to traditional design
and maximizes power extraction.
A wind turbine system is highly nonlinear due to model dynamic coupling and input variations.
Randomness and uncertainties in wind speed introduce nonlinearities in blade aerodynamics which
introduces complexities. Due to these non-linearities, siding model controllers (SMC) are becoming
more prevalent compared to the traditional controller such as proportional, integral, and derivative
(PID) Controllers.
Many researchers have implemented novel pitch control systems. Yin, Lin, and Li (2017)
proposed a pitch control system for wind turbines by adopting a practical loading compensation
approach that is robust and accurate and smoothens generator power. In the proposed system,
a hydraulic motor is used to pitch the turbine blade and augments the accuracy of the system and
improves the torque/weight ratio. The pitch control system does not make use of additional sensors
making the system cost effective and less complex. Yin, Lin, and Li (2016) proposed an innovative
electro-hydraulic digital servo system (EDSS) digitally enabled predictive pitch control system. The
system regulated the pitch angle accurately with fast response time. The power to mass ratio of the
system was low due to the deployment of hydraulic axial piston motor. The system used an Extreme
Learning Machine (ELM) based on online training that approximated the wind turbine character-
istics that were nonlinear offering high effectiveness, fast learning capabilities, and abatement of
output power and drive-train torque fluctuation. Yin et al. (2015b) focused on the design of a pitch
angle control system wherein a hydraulic motor was used to enhance the power/mass ratio of
a traditionally used electromechanical pitch system. They reported that the accuracy of the control
was improved by replacing the slider-crank mechanism with a rotary hydraulic servo. The pitch
angle control system exhibited high power/mass ratio and precision. The pitch control system was
appropriate for industrial and field use as it offered superior performance improvements with
regards to trajectory tracking. Deployment of this pitch control system enabled abatement of output
power and drive torque fluctuations with high reliability.
Many researchers have shown that SMC controllers (Jing et al., 2017) exhibit high robustness in
controlling wind turbine systems. Yin and his (2015a) colleagues proposed pitch control system
controlled by a variable-displacement pump and enabled by an adaptive sliding mode back-stepping
control algorithm. The components included a variable-displacement hydraulic pump, a fixed-
displacement hydraulic motor, and a gear set. The system was designed to follow the pitch angle
trajectory under the presence of external disturbances and uncertainties, and the accuracy and stability
are guaranteed by a Lyapunov algorithm. The pitch angle control mechanism has significant advantages
such as high operating efficiency, high energy-savings capability, high torque to weight ratio, and
compactness. This makes the system suitable for field deployment when compared to a valve-
controlled pitch system enabling reduction of generator power fluctuations and reduction of flap-wise
load. Yin et al. (2014) proposed a pitch control system for a wind turbine wherein the system is actuated
by a servo-valve controlled hydraulic motor and the control algorithm is enabled by an adaptive
nonlinear sliding mode to deal with system uncertainties and external disturbances. The pitch control
system was accurate and efficient and performed reliably and demonstrated superior performance
capabilities with regards to reduction improvements in external load and tower top vibrations when
compared to collective pitch control. Yin et al. (2015c) designed an electro-hydraulic pitch system
suitable for mid- to large wind turbines that is enabled and actuated by a servo-valve hydraulic motor
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3

and is modeled in state space representation incorporating parametric uncertainties and non-linearities.
The system had improved performance due to low friction realized by low sped hydraulic motor and
a simple gearset design. Desired pitch trajectory tracking along with output power and drive-train torque
fluctuation abatement is achieved in the presence of model uncertainties and external disturbances by
adopting an adaptive back-stepping control algorithm. The pitch control system exhibited superior
performance when compared to traditional controllers and offered greater accuracy, affordability, and
energy efficacy thus enabling high power density when compared to exclusively electrically actuated
pitch system. Hu, Chen, and Li (2017) have shown that SMC improves the performance of the wind
turbine system under system uncertainties and external disturbances. SMC exhibits high robustness in
tracking desired trajectories in non-linear systems. Tahir et al. (2018) have shown that SMC controllers
are equipped to handle nonlinearities and randomness in the wind energy conversion systems in the
presence of model uncertainties. Evangelista et al. (2017) studied an SMC for a wind turbine to optimize
energy production and found the controller effective in the presence of “model uncertainties and fast
disturbances due to gusty wind effects”. Yang et al. (2018) and his colleagues implemented robust sliding-
mode control of wind energy conversion systems for optimal power extraction via nonlinear perturba-
tion observers. Lan, Patton, and Zhu (2018) used adaptive SMC to control blade pitch angle and depicted
that their control strategy was fault tolerant. Guenoune et al. (2017) studied the modeling and control of
a novel Twin Wind Turbine (TWT). They implemented SMC to track maximum power. Their
comparisons show that SMC exhibited low pitch angle errors, reduced oscillations, reduced fatigue on
wind structure, and produced maximum energy.
Previous studies either focused on Single-Input-Single-Output (SISO) blade controller models or on
full-length blade pitch angle control. Previous research also did not consider the effect of the blade plunge
during pitching blades at various desired pitch angle trajectories. Therefore, controlling blade plunge is
essential to maintaining desired blade pitch angle trajectories to maintain rated wind turbine power.
The primary contribution and novelty of this research as compared to previous studies is the
design and implementation of a pitch angle control strategy at the outer section of the blade via
a separated pitch control at blade tip (SePCaT). A Multi-Input-Multi-Output (MIMO) Sliding Mode
Controller (SMC) is implemented on SePCaT to control the pitch and the plunge of the blade tip.
Maintaining the desired blade plunge leads to effective blade pitch angle control which in turn leads
to better management of rated wind turbine power. Use of multi-input–multi-output sliding mode
controller results in excellent system response and thus it is shown that the control strategy can be
effective and robust for wind turbine power abatement at high wind speeds. SePCaT is the pitch
control of a shorter blade length at the tip, and the pitch controller offers a significant advantage
over traditional full-length control.
This article is organized as follows: Section 2 covers wind turbine model and theory followed by
a wind turbine blade redesign and improvement in Section 3. SePCaT multi-input multi-output model
is covered in Section 4. Pitch angle Trajectory design is covered in Section 5 followed by results and
comparative analysis in Section 6. Conclusions are covered in Section 7 followed by references.

Wind turbine model and theory

The 3D turbine blade was first designed and constructed in a CAD 3D Modelling tool as according
to the specifications of the NREL 5MW Wind Turbine (Jonkman et al. 2009) see Figure 1.
Airfoils at each section were scaled and rotated by their chord lengths and values of angular
twists. Various cross-sections were lofted and connected using inbuilt CAD modeling interpolation
routines. Complete details of the airfoil, the associated data, and 3D modeling details were docu-
mented by Agarwala and Ro (2013). For a small section of the blade, the lift force and moment
(Fung 2002; Hoogedoorn, Jacobs, and Beyene 2010; Singh and Yim 2003) are given in Equations (1)
and (2). Because of geometric differences, the lift force at the aerodynamic center of any blade
section results from a pressure difference between the upper and lower surface of the airfoil when the
air flows across that airfoil section. The camber of the airfoil produces varying velocities at the top
4 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Figure 1. Representative 5MW wind turbine blade.

and bottom surface of the airfoil. The pressure difference when multiplied by the area of a section of
the blade of length produces the lift force of dL. The lift coefficient is a nondimensional term that
captures the geometry of the airfoil impacted by lift forces. Similarly, the aero-dynamic moment is
computed by multiplying the vertical forces with the chord length. The moment coefficient is
a nondimensional term that captures the geometry of the airfoil impacted by aero-dynamic moment.
1
dL ¼ ρU 2 dCLA dl (1)
2
1
dM ¼ ρU 2 d2 CMA dl (2)
2
U is wind velocity in m/s, d is the airfoil chord length for the main blade in m, dl is the
incremental length of the blade in m, ρ is the density of air in kg/m3, CMA is the moment
coefficient per angle of attack, CLA is the lift coefficient per angle of attack. The total lift and
moment for the main blade are obtained by integrating the lift and moment values for the entire
blade length exposed to wind.

Wind turbine blade redesign and improvement

The goal of the redesigned blade was to make a larger portion of the blade available for
aerodynamic effectiveness. Agarwala and Ro (2015, 2013) focused on a simple separated pitch
control strategy at blade the tip (SePCaT) for a large MW wind turbine. The root of the
traditional blade is much thicker to withstand high stresses arising from blade loads. These
stresses are more pronounced during high speeds when the entire blade is actively pitched to
limit power so that they operate within the safe material stress limits of the wind turbine blade.
With current wind turbine blade designs, part of the blade’s mid-span and the tip contribute to
a majority of the aerodynamic effectiveness needed by the rotor for power extraction. Figure 2
depicts the allocated regions of blade aerodynamic (AR) and structural regions (ST) for the
traditional blade with SePCaT. BS refers to the main blade and S to SePCaT.
Traditional blades combined with SePCaT have its limitations due to large blade weight and
a larger portion of the blade that is less aerodynamically effective. The redesigned blade (see Figure
3) is comprised of two inner blades (B1, B2). B1 and B2 use a thinner airfoil configuration near the
root and maintain their blade stiffness by means of a combination of two parallel stiffness elements
to withstand higher stresses. As a result, the entire blade along with the root is aerodynamically more
effective when compared the traditional design. As a result, more power can be extracted.
The blades (B1 and B2) were optimized for their respective pitch angle settings (Agarwala 2014).
The pitch angle of 24 degrees for the upper blade and 25 degrees for the lower blade produced the
maximum lift forces. Lateral sizes of the inner blades B1 and B2 at 50% of blade BS; and lengths of
B1 and B2 at 80% of BS have similar aerodynamic effectiveness when compared to BS. It was also
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5

Figure 2. Regions of aerodynamic (AR) and structural regions (ST)-original blade.

Figure 3. Regions of aerodynamic (AR) and structural regions (ST)-redesigned blade.

observed that 1.5 m gap between B1 and B2; B1 at an angle of 24 degrees; B2 at an angle of 25
degrees; and S at an angle of 25 degrees has the optimum aerodynamic effect. However, the analysis
was not conducted to prove that the aerodynamically effective blade was structurally compliant. CFD
analysis and results of the redesigned blade was reported in Agarwala and Ro (2015)

SePCaT multi-input multi-output (MIMO) model

The SePCaT is represented by the right-hand coordinate system as depicted in Figure 4. The
plunging (flap-wise) and pitching (twisting) motions are represented by h and θ.
Here y is the total vertical displacement comprising flap-wise displacement and pitching as
depicted in Equation (3). Here xg is the distance from the elastic axis to the center of gravity. The
relationship between plunging (bending) and pitching (torsional) motions are represented by h and
θ. Readers are encouraged to refer to work by Singh & Yim 200, Froyd and Dahlhaug (2011), Fung
(2002), Griffin (2004), Hansen (2017), and Hoogedoorn, Jacobs, and Beyene (2010) to understand
the detailed derivation depicted in equations below.

y ¼ h þ xg θ (3)

The kinetic energy (T) and the potential energy (U) of the cross-section are given as:
6 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Figure 4. Blade axis in relation to the blade pitch axis. The blade is represented in the right-handed coordinate system.

h i
T ¼ 12 ò ρðxÞ_y2 dx þ ch h_ þ cθ θ_
2 2

  (4)
U ¼ 12 kh h2 þ kθ θ2
The density of the blade material is denoted by ρ. Here ch and cθ are the damping coefficients for
pitching and plunging while the kh and kθ are plunges and pitch stiffness coefficients. Applying
Lagrange’s equations of motion where qi are the generalized coordinate systems and Qi are the
generalized forces, given by:
 
d @ðT  UÞ @ðT  UÞ
 ¼ Qi (5)
dt @ q_ i @qi
The equations of motion for the entire blade take the following matrix form:
 

m mxg €
h ch 0 h_ kh 0 h L
mxg Is €θ þ 0 cθ θ_
þ
0 kθ θ
¼
M
(6)
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |ffl{zffl} |fflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflffl} |ffl{zffl} |fflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflffl} |ffl{zffl} |fflfflffl{zfflfflffl}
½M_  €
X ½C_  X_ ½K  X ½F 

The mass of the blade material is denoted by m. Here Is is the moment of Inertia of SePCAT. L is the
lift and M is the Aero-dynamic Moment.
Equation (5) can be arranged as shown below:

mh € þ mxg €θ þ ch h_ þ kh h ¼ L
(7)
Is €θ þ mxg h
€ þ cθ θ_ þ kθ θ ¼ M

Equation (6) can be further modified as:

h i
€ ¼ 1 ch h_  kh h  1 uh  xg €θ
h
m
1 h i 1 m €
(8)
€θ ¼ cθ θ_  kθ θ þ uθ  xg h
Is Is Is
Sliding mode control is based on the control philosophy that a system is converged (made to reach)
to a desired trajectory or the sliding manifold and controlled to stay on the sliding surface. Separated
pitch control at the tip was modeled and a multi-input–multi-output sliding mode controller was
incorporated to control pitch angle and plunge of a wind turbine blade tip. The controllers digitally
modeled and deployed in MATLAB, and the controller results were compared to the desired
trajectory Desired SePCaT pitch angle signals are selected for pitch angle trajectory tracking for
power abatement. The desired plunge is zero. Initially, all the controllers were tested for a step input
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 7

to ascertain the response characteristics. The values of the SMC constants ε_1,ε_2, c_1, and c_2 are
changed and iterated until satisfactory pitch and plunge trajectory following is obtained.
To design the SMC controllers, two sliding surfaces are selected as:

sθ ¼ e_ θ þ c1 eθ ; c1 > 0
(9)
sh ¼ e_ h þ c2 eh ; c2 > 0
Let the sliding surfaces be selected such that sθ represents the pitch and sh represents the plunge.
Here e_ θ and e_ h are the derivatives of the pitch and plunge errors and c1 and c2 are constants.
Then, the error dynamics for both pitch and plunge given as Equation (10). Here θd and θ are
desired and actual pitch angles while hd and h are desired and actual plunges:

eθ ¼ θ d  θ
(10)
eh ¼ hd  h
Selecting Lyapunov functions defined as per Equation (11) such that Vθ represents pitch and Vh
represents plunge:

Vθ ¼ 12 sθ 2 > 0
(11)
Vh ¼ 12 sh 2 > 0
For stability, the Lyapunov function must be positive definite and its derivative must be negative-
definite as depicted in Equation (12):

V_ θ ¼ sθ s_ θ < 0
(12)
V_ h ¼ sh s_ h < 0
The derivative of sθ and sh is given as:
   
s_ θ ¼ €θd  €θ þ c1 θ_ d  θ_
    (13)
s_ h ¼ h€d  h€ þ c2 h_ d  h_

The reaching laws are selected to satisfy Equations (11) and (12) and are chosen as depicted in
Equation (14).

s_ θ ¼ ε1 sgnðsθ Þ; ε1 > 0

(14)
s_ h ¼ ε2 sgnðsh Þ; ε2 > 0
Here ε1 and ε2 are constants. Substituting the values of double derivatives of pitch and plunge in
Equations (14), the equations take the form as:
 
1h i 1 m €  
s_ θ ¼ θd  cθ θ  kθ θ  uθ þ xg h þ c1 θ_ d  θ_
€ _
Is Is Is
 h i    (15)
€ 1 _ 1 € _ _
s_ h ¼ hd  ch h  kh h þ uh þ xg θ þ c2 hd  h
m m
Rearranging the terms results in
 

1h i m  
uθ ¼ Is €θd  cθ θ_  kθ θ þ xg h € þ c1 θ_ d  θ_  s_ θ
Is Is
 h i   
(16)
€ 1 _ € _ _
uh ¼ m hd  ch h  kh h þ xg θ þ c2 hd  h  s_ h
m
Finally, the control law for both pitch and plunge is given as:
8 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

1 1 m €
uθ ¼ Is €θd þ cθ θ_ þ kθ θ þ xg h þ c1 θ_ d  θ_ þ ε1 sgnðsθ Þ
Is Is Is
 
(17)
uh ¼ m h €d þ 1 ch h_ þ 1 kh h þ xg €θ þ c2 h_ d  h_ þ ε2 sgnðsh Þ
m m

Pitch angle trajectory design

The desired trajectory for SePCaT pitch angle in response to power abatement (shed excessive
power to maintain 5MW) in region 3 has been addressed by Agarwala (2014). SePCaT
configurations, which varied from 5% to 30% of the blade length in 5% increments
(SePCaT5, SePCaT10, SePCaT15, SePCaT20, SePCaT25, and SePCaT30), were evaluated by
comparing them to aerodynamic responses of the traditional blade. As the wind speed
increased by a factor of 1.1U (10%), the rotor power increased to around 6.75 MW warrant-
ing a reduction to a factor of approximately .74. This was achieved by feathering SePCaT30
by 14, SePCaT25 by 16, SePCaT20 by 26, and SePCaT15 by 30 degrees, respectively. If wind
speed increased by a factor of 1.2U (20%), the rotor power increased to around 8.33 MW
warranting a reduction to a factor of approximately .6. This was achieved by feathering
SePCaT30 by 18, SePCaT25 by 26 and SePCaT20 by 30 degrees, respectively. As the wind
speed increased by a factor of 1.3U (30%), the rotor power increased to around 11.75 MW
warranting a reduction to a factor of approximately .43. This was achieved by feathering
SePCaT30 by 26 degrees. If wind speed increased by a factor of 1.4U (40%), the rotor power
increased to around 14.30 MW warranting a reduction to a factor of .35 approximately. This
was achieved by feathering SePCaT30 by 32 degrees. The settings in Table 1 were used to
build the desired SePCaT pitch angle trajectory for power shedding as depicted in Figure 5.

Results and comparative analysis

Three signals were built to reflect various operating modes-see Table 1. These signals were selected for
pitch angle trajectory tracking. The desired plunge is zero. Initially, all the controllers were tested for
a step input to ascertain the response characteristics. The values of the SMC constants ε_1, ε_2, c_1, and
c_2 were changed and iterated until satisfactory pitch and plunge trajectory following was obtained. It
was observed that satisfactory tracking is obtained for ε_1 = 9, ε_2 = 1, c_1 = 12, and c_2 = 2, -see Figure 6
through 13.
Figures 6 and 7 depict the response of the SMC MIMO controller for tracking a unit step
pitch angle trajectory and simultaneously controlling zero plunge depth trajectory. The value
of ε_1, ε_2, c_1, and c_2 are iterated from ε_1 = 1, ε_2 = 1, c_1 = 1, and c_2 = 1 to ε_1 = 9,
ε_2 = 1, c_1 = 12, and c_2 = 2 c2 ¼ 2 until a trajectory settling time of less than 0.5 s is
observed. It was also observed that the plunge settles to 2 × 10−8 m in less than 0.5 s.
Therefore, the test signals depict satisfactory pitch and plunge trajectory tracking. The pitch
angle and plunge deflection errors are negligible as observed in Figure 7.
Figures 8 and 9 depicts the response of the SMC MIMO controller for tracking step pitch angle
for signal 1 trajectory and simultaneously controlling zero plunge depth trajectory. The comparative

Table 1. SePCaT pitch angle trajectory setup values for desired pitch signals.
Wind speed Power Rated SePCaT30 SePCaT25 SePCaT20 SePCaT15
factor produced power angle (°) angle (°) angle (°) angle (°)
1.1 6.75 MW 5MW 14 16 26 30
1.2 8.33 MW 5MW 18 26 30 -
1.3 11.75 MW 5MW 26 - - -
1.4 14.30 MW 5MW 32 - - -
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 9

turbineSM/Signal Builder : Group 1

34
32 Signal 1
30
28
26
24

30 Signal 2

20

34
32 Signal 3
30
28
26
24
1
Signal 4
0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (sec)

Figure 5. Desired trajectory for SePCaT pitch angle in response to power abatement.

SePCaT Response (Pitch): SMC controlled response

1.5
SePCaT Angle [degrees ]

0.5
SePCaT Angle Actual
SePCaT Angle desired
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time [s]
-8
x 10 SePCaT Response (Plunge): SMC controlled response
3

2
Plunge [m]

0 Plunge Actual
Plunge desired
-1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time [s]

Figure 6. SePCaT response when MIMO SMC is deployed. This response is for the test signal.

response with the desired trajectory indicates satisfactory tracking. The plunge follows a satisfactory
trajectory tracking around 0 m as observed by plunge errors of less than 0.5x10−5 m in Figure 9.
10 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

SePCaT Response: SMC controlled response

1

Pitc h error-degrees
0.5

-0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time
-8
x 10 SePCaT Response: SMC controlled response
1
plunge error-m

-1

-2

-3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time

Figure 7. SePCaT pitch and plunge error. This response is for the test signal.

SePCaT Response (Pitch): SMC controlled response

40
SePCaT Angle [degrees ]

30

20

10 SePCaT Angle Actual

SePCaT Angle desired
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time [s]
-5
x 10 SePCaT Response (Plunge): SMC controlled response
1

0.5
Plunge [m]

-0.5 Plunge Actual

Plunge desired
-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time [s]

Figure 8. SePCaT response for MIMO SMC. This response is for signal 1.

Figures 10 and 11 depict the response of the SMC MIMO controller for tracking step pitch angle
for signal 2 trajectory and simultaneously controlling zero plunge depth trajectory. The response
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 11

SePCaT Response: SMC controlled response

30

Pitc h error-degrees
20

10

-10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
time
-5
x 10 SePCaT Response: SMC controlled response
1
plunge error-m

0.5

-0.5

-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
time

Figure 9. SePCaT pitch and plunge error. This response is for signal 1.

SePCaT Response (Pitch): SMC controlled response

40
SePCaT Angle [degrees ]

30

20

10 SePCaT Angle Actual

SePCaT Angle desired
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time [s]
-5
x 10 SePCaT Response (Plunge): SMC controlled response
1

0.5
Plunge [m]

-0.5 Plunge Actual

Plunge desired
-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time [s]

Figure 10. SePCaT response for MIMO SMC. This response is for signal 2.

indicates satisfactory tracking. The plunge follows a satisfactory trajectory tracking around 0 m as
observed by plunge errors of less than 0.5 × 10−5 m in Figure 11.
12 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

SePCaT Response: SMC controlled response

20

Pitc h error-degrees
10

-10

-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
time
-5
x 10 SePCaT Response: SMC controlled response
1
plunge error-m

0.5

-0.5

-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
time

Figure 11. SePCaT pitch and plunge error. This response is for signal 2.

SePCaT Response (Pitch): SMC controlled response

40
SePCaT Angle [degrees ]

30

20

10 SePCaT Angle Actual

SePCaT Angle desired
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time [s]
-5
x 10 SePCaT Response (Plunge): SMC controlled response
1

0.5
Plunge [m]

-0.5 Plunge Actual

Plunge desired
-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time [s]

Figure 12. SePCaT response for MIMO SMC. This response is for signal 3.

Figures 12 and 13 depict the response of the MIMO SMC controller for tracking step pitch angle
for signal 3 trajectory and simultaneously controlling zero plunge depth trajectory. The response
indicates satisfactory tracking. The plunge follows a satisfactory trajectory tracking around 0 m as
observed by plunge errors of less than 0.5 × 10−5 m in Figure 13.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 13

SePCaT Response: SMC controlled response

40

Pitc h error-degrees
20

-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
time
-5
x 10 SePCaT Response: SMC controlled response
1
plunge error-m

0.5

-0.5

-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
time

Figure 13. SePCaT pitch and plunge error when MIMO SMC is deployed. This response is for signal 3.

Conclusions
Separated pitch control at the tip was modeled and a multi-input-multi-output sliding mode controller was
incorporated to control pitch angle and plunge of a wind turbine blade tip. Three desired pitch angle
trajectories were generated, and controllers were digitally modeled and deployed, and the controller results
were compared to the desired trajectory. (1) Three signals are built to reflect various operating modes-see.
These signals are selected for pitch angle trajectory tracking. The desired plunge is zero. Initially, all the
controllers were tested for a step input to ascertain the response characteristics. The values of the SMC
constants ε_1, ε_2, c_1, and c_2 are changed and iterated until satisfactory pitch and plunge trajectory
following is obtained. (2) Initially, a test signal was deployed and the response of the controllers to test signal
was observed. The test signal tracked a unit step pitch angle trajectory and zero plunge trajectory. The value
of sliding mode controller constants was iterated from ε_1 = 1, ε_2 = 1, c_1 = 1, and c_2 = 1 to ε_1 = 9, ε_2 =
1, c_1 = 12, and c_2 = 2 until a trajectory settling time of less than 0.5 s was observed for the test signal. It was
also observed that the plunge settled to 2 × 10–8 m in less than 0.5 s. (3) Once the controller was optimized,
they were deployed to comparatively track desired and varying pitch angle and plunge trajectories.
Comparisons of the Pitch and plunge trajectories indicated that the control errors were satisfactory and
plunge errors ranged from 2 × 10–8 m to 0.5 × 10–5 m. Maintaining desired blade plunge leads to effective
blade pitch angle control which in turn leads to better management of rated wind turbine power. Use of
multi-input-multi-output sliding mode controller resulted in excellent system response and thus it is shown
that the control strategy can be effective and robust for wind turbine power abatement at high wind speeds.
SePCaT is the pitch control of a shorter blade length at the tip, and the pitch controller offers a significant
advantage over traditional full-length control.
More studies are anticipated in the future. These studies were carried out in a digital
environment and hence the authors plan to conduct experimental validation of the work in
the futures. In the future, other novel pitch and plunge control strategies inspired by research
by Yang et al. (2018) and control techniques such as adaptive sliding mode back-stepping pitch
angle control proposed by Yin, Lin, and Li (2016, 2015b, 2014) can be implemented on
SePCaT.
14 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Nomenclature
ρ Density of air (kg/m3)
U Wind velocity (m/s)
d Airfoil chord length for the main blade (m)
CLA Non-dimensional lift coefficient per angle of attack
dl Incremental length of the blade (m)
xg Distance from the elastic axis to the center of gravity (m)
Is Moment of inertia of SePCaT (kg.m2)
CMA Nondimensional moment coefficient per angle of attack
h Plunging motion (m)
θ Pitching motion (m)
€θ Angular acceleration (deg/s2)
θ_ Angular velocity (deg/s)
T Kinetic energy of the cross-section (J)
U Potential energy of the cross-section (J)
ρ Density of the blade material (kg/m3)
ch Damping coefficient for pitch
cθ Dampening coefficient for plunging
kh Plunge stiffness coefficient
kθ Pitch stiffness coefficient
qi Generalized coordinate systems
Qi Generalized forces (N)
m Mass of the blade material (kg)
M Aerodynamic moment (Nm)
sθ Sliding surface pitch
Is Moment of inertia of SePCaT (kg.m2)
sh Sliding surface plunge
s_ θ Derivative of sliding surface pitch
s_ h Derivative of sliding surface plunge
eθ Pitch error
eh Plunge error
c1 & c2 Sliding mode controller constants
θd Desired pitch angle (deg)
θ Actual pitch angle (deg)
hd Desired plunge
h Actual plunge
Vθ Lyapunov function pitch
Vh Lyapunov function plunge
ε1 & ε 2 Sliding Mode Controller constants
dl Incremental length of the blade (m)
u Controller input

References
Agarwala, R. 2014. Separated pitch control at tip (SePCaT): a novel blade design and associated control strategies for
large MW wind turbines. PhD diss., North Carolina State University.
Agarwala, R., and P. I. Ro. 2013. 3D analysis of lift and moment adaptation via control surface deployments on a 5
MW wind turbine blade. Wind Engineering 37 (5):447–67. doi:10.1260/0309-524X.37.5.447.
Agarwala, R., and P. I. Ro. 2015. Separated pitch control at tip: innovative blade design explorations for large MW
wind turbine blades. Journal of Wind Energy 2015. Hindawi. doi:10.1155/2015/895974.
Evangelista, C. A., A. Pisano, P. Puleston, and E. Usai. 2017. Receding horizon adaptive second-order sliding mode
control for doubly-fed induction generator-based wind turbine. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology
25 (1):73–84. doi:10.1109/TCST.2016.2540539.
Froyd, L., and O. G. Dahlhaug. 2011. Rotor design for a 10 MW offshore wind turbine. Paper Presented in the Twenty-
First International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers, 19-24 June, Maui, Hawaii, USA.
Fung, Y. C. 2002. An introduction to the theory of aeroelasticity. New York: Dover.
Griffin, D. A. 2004. Blade system design studies volume II: preliminary blade designs and recommended test matrix.
Albuquerque, NM: United States Department of Energy.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 15

Guenoune, I., F. Plestan, A. Chermitti, and C. Evangelista. 2017. Modelling and robust control of a twin wind turbines
structure. Control Engineering Practice 69:23–35. doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2017.08.009.
Hansen, M. L. 2017. Aerodynamics and design of horizontal-axis wind turbines. Wind energy engineering: a handbook
for onshore and offshore wind turbines. 161. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Inc.
Hoogedoorn, E., G. B. Jacobs, and A. Beyene. 2010. Aero-elastic behavior of a flexible blade for wind turbine
application: A 2D computational study. Energy 35 (2):778–85. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.08.030.
Hu, Y., M. Z. Chen, and C. Li. 2017. Active structural control for load mitigation of wind turbines via adaptive
sliding-mode approach. Journal of the Franklin Institute 354 (11):4311–30. doi:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2017.04.002.
Jing, Y., H. Sun, L. Zhang, and T. Zhang. 2017. Variable speed control of wind turbines based on the quasi-continuous
high-order sliding mode method. Energies 10(10):1626. doi:10.3390/en10101626.
Jonkman, J., S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott. 2009. Definition of a 5MW reference wind turbine for offshore system
development. No. NREL/TP-500-38060 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, Colorado. 1–75
Lan, J., R. J. Patton, and X. Zhu. 2018. Fault-tolerant wind turbine pitch control using adaptive sliding mode
estimation. Renewable Energy 116:219–31. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.12.005.
McKenna, R. P., V. L. Ostman, and W. Fichtner. 2016. Key challenges and prospects for large wind turbines.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53:1212–21. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.080.
Mohandes, M., S. Rehman, M. Abido, and S. Badran. 2016. Convertible wind energy based on predicted wind speed at
hub-height. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 38 (1):140–48. doi:10.1080/
15567036.2012.758677.
Singh, S. N., and W. Yim. 2003. State feedback control of an aeroelastic system with structural nonlinearity. Aerospace
Science and Technology 7 (1):23–31. doi:10.1016/S1270-9638(02)00004-4.
Steel, W. 2015. Siemens looks toward next-generation 10–20 MW wind turbines. Accessed March 15, 2018. http://
cleantechnica.com/2015/09/15/siemens-looks-toward-next-generation-10-20-mw-wind-turbines.
Tahir, K., C. Belfedal, T. Allaoui, M. Denaï, and M. H. Doumi. 2018. A new sliding mode control strategy for variable speed
wind turbine power maximization. International Transactions on Electrical Energy System e2513. doi:10.1002/etep.2513.
Yang, B., T. Yu, H. Shu, Y. Zhang, J. Chen, Y. Sang, and L. Jiang. 2018. Passivity-based sliding-mode control design for
optimal power extraction of a PMSG based variable speed wind turbine. Renewable Energy 119:577–89. doi:10.1016/
j.renene.2017.12.047.
Yin, X. X., Y. G. Lin, and W. Li. 2016. Predictive pitch control of an electro-hydraulic digital pitch system for wind
turbines based on the extreme learning machine. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 38
(11):1392–400. doi:10.1177/0142331215589610.
Yin, X. X., Y. G. Lin, and W. Li. 2017. Modeling and loading compensation of a rotary valve-controlled pitch system
for wind turbines. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A 18 (9):718–27. doi:10.1631/jzus.A1500072.
Yin, X. X., Y. G. Lin, W. Li, H. W. Liu, and Y. J. Gu. 2015c. Adaptive sliding mode back-stepping pitch angle control of
a variable-displacement pump-controlled pitch system for wind turbines. ISA transactions 58:629–34. doi:10.1016/j.
isatra.2015.07.006.
Yin, X. X., Y. G. Lin, W. Li, and Y. J. Gu. 2014. Integrated pitch control for wind turbine based on a novel pitch
control system. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 6 (4):043106. doi:10.1063/1.4890566.
Yin, X. X., Y. G. Lin, W. Li, Y. J. Gu, P. F. Lei, and H. W. Liu. 2015a. Adaptive back-stepping pitch angle control for
wind turbine based on a new electro-hydraulic pitch system. International Journal of Control 88 (11):2316–26.
doi:10.1080/00207179.2015.1041554.
Yin, X. X., Y. G. Lin, W. Li, Y. J. Gu, X. J. Wang, and P. F. Lei. 2015b. Design, modeling and implementation of a novel
pitch angle control system for wind turbine. Renewable Energy 81:599–608. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.03.042.