2012 American Control Conference
Fairmont Queen Elizabeth, Montréal, Canada
June 27-June 29, 2012
Airborne Wind Energy: an overview
L. Fagiano and M. Milanese
Abstract— In the last decade, several research groups and
companies around the world have been developing a new class
of wind generators, aimed at harnessing the energy of winds
blowing at high elevation above the ground. This kind of tech-
nology is usually referred to as Airborne Wind Energy (AWE)
or High-Altitude Wind Energy. All of the proposed solutions
exploit the high-speed flight of tethered wings, or aircrafts, and
their operation heavily relies on automatic control. This paper
provides a tutorial on the fundamental concepts of AWE and
on the different technologies that are being investigated, with
particular emphasis on control-related aspects, highlighting the
accomplished results and the issues that still need to be solved.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the actual and projected global energy sit-
uations represent one of the most serious problems on a
global scale. Fossil sources supply at present about 80%
of the total primary energy demand (TPED) [1],[2], but
they are produced by a restricted number of countries. At
the same time, non-OECD (Organization for the Economic
Co-operation and Development) countries like China and
India are quickly increasing their demand and production of
primary energy, so that, in a “standard” scenario, the TPED
is projected to increase by 50% in the next 20 years. In the
face of such uneven distribution of energy sources, on the one
hand, and of such a huge projected increase of global energy
demand in the next years, on the other hand, governments
in both OECD and non-OECD countries have adopted plans
and regulations that aim to reach “energy security” (i.e. the
reliable availability of energy sources at low cost), to improve
the sustainability of energy sources, and to limit emissions
of greenhouse gases. The main directions followed to reach
these goals are basically two: to increase the efciency in
energy use, and to shift the mix of energy sources towards
higher shares of renewables, like hydropower, solar, and wind
energy. Among all renewable sources, hydro is the most
convenient one and it actually accounts for 2% of TPED and
about 16% of the global electricity production [1]. However,
hydropower has little potentials to grow further, as most sites
are already being exploited. On the contrary, wind power is
actually among the world’s fastest growing renewable energy
L. Fagiano is with Dip. di Automatica e Informatica, Politecnico di
Torino, Italy, and with the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University
of California at Santa Barbara, USA. E-mail: lorenzo.fagiano@polito.it,
lorenzo.fagiano@engineering.ucsb.edu.
M. Milanese is with Kitenergy S.r.l., Torino, Italy. E-mail:
mario.milanese@kitenergy.net.
This research has received funding from the European Union Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n. PIOF-
GA-2009-252284 - Marie Curie project ICIEMSET - Innovative Control,
Identication and Estimation Methodologies for Sustainable Energy Tech-
nologies.
978-1-4577-1096-4/12/$26.00 ©2012 AACC 3132
technologies, with an average yearly growth of almost 30%
of the installed capacity in the last few years [3] and a global
investment for new installations of more than $45 billion in
2008, corresponding to more than 50% of the 2008 global
investment in renewables [1]. Wind is expected to provide
a key contribution to reach the ambitious objectives that
most major countries have adopted, like EU 20/20/20 [4],
that aims at supplying 20% of the total European primary
energy consumption with renewable energies by the year
2020, or California’s 33% renewables by 2020. As a matter
of fact, recent studies based on experimental data showed
that wind power alone would be sufcient to supply the
whole TPED, by exploiting only 20% of the world land
sites that are protable for the actual wind technology, based
on wind turbines [5]. Yet, the current wind technology has
limitations in terms of energy production costs, which are
still higher w.r.t. fossil sources, and in terms of required land
occupation. These issues are still preventing wind from being
a competitive alternative to fossil sources, without the use of
political incentives like feed-in tariffs and green certicates,
and the share of global electricity generated from wind power
is actually only about 1% worldwide and about 2% in OECD
countries.
Together with programs that are aimed to spread the use
of the actual renewables and to improve their competi-
tiveness against fossil fuels, many countries are investing
resources in the research and development of radically new
concepts of renewable energies. Examples of such efforts
are the US Dept. of Energy’s ARPA-E agency [6], or the
EU Future Emerging Technologies for Energy program [7].
These new concepts are meant to be “high-risk/high-impact”
technologies and to represent, upon successful development,
a breakthrough in how renewable energies are exploited,
by providing sustainable, clean energy at low price and in
large quantities. Among the different concepts that are being
investigated, the idea of harnessing wind energy at high
altitude over the ground (up to about 1000-1500 meters)
has received an ever-increasing attention in the last decade.
Wind speed generally increases with the elevation above the
ground: at the height of 500-1000 meters, the mean wind
power density is about 4 times the one at 50-150 meters, and
at 10,000 meters it is 40 times higher, [8]. This fact suggests
that a breakthrough in wind energy generation can be realized
by capturing wind power at altitudes over the ground, that
can not be reached by wind turbines. Several technologies,
aimed at converting high-altitude wind into electricity, are
actually being investigated by companies, research centers
and universities worldwide, and the community of people
working in this eld has coined the term airborne wind
energy (AWE) as a common umbrella for these concepts. (a)
The recent activity of the AWE community culminated with
a series of international conferences in the years 2007-
2011, and with the foundation of the Airborne Wind Energy
Consortium [9]. It is not surprising that most, if not all, fun-
damental ideas that are now being developed in the context
of AWE were already present in patents and publications
in the ’70s (see e.g. [10], [11], [12]), when the world was
facing an energy crisis. Then, these ideas remained somehow
silent, until more recent years, when several research groups
and companies started to carry out theoretical, numerical and
experimental analyses (see e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],
[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]), also thanks
to advances in diverse elds like materials, aerodynamics,
sensors, computation and control.
In this tutorial paper, we present the basic concepts of
AWE and of the main related technologies that are being
developed, and we give an overview of the results that have (b)
been accomplished through the above-mentioned research
and development efforts, with a focus on a particular class
of AWE generators, namely with exible wings and ground-
level generators, and emphasis on optimization and control
aspects. Finally, we delineate what challenges are still to be
faced, in order to fully demonstrate the viability of airborne
wind energy.
II. A IRBORNE W IND E NERGY GENERATORS
A. Lift type, wing structure and generator position
Most AWE technologies aim to extract energy from wind
blowing in the boundary layer, typically up to a maximum
elevation of about 1000-1500 meters above the ground. In
order to reach these heights, the use of a rigid structure, Fig. 1. (a) Sketch of a AWE system with onboard generators. (b) Sketch
like the tower in a wind turbine, is not technically and of a AWE system with ground-level generators.
economically viable. Rather, AWE concepts employ different
possible kinds of ying structures, linked to the ground by
one or more lines. The structure is either equipped with by using wind turbines, and it is transferred to the ground via
wings, like a glider [19], [23], or it is actually a wing, an electric cable. Clearly, the wings in OBGs are rigid, since
in the case of power kites like those used for surng or they have to sustain the rotors and the connected electric
sailing [15], [18], [20], [25]. By continuously ying along generators, and the ying structure is quite similar to a glider
controlled paths, the wings produce the aerodynamic lift or small airplane (see e.g. [23]). By moving fast in crosswind
force that sustains the structure and the tether. The concepts direction (see Section II-C for more details), the onboard
based on aerodynamic lift are the most common and the most turbines operate with high effective wind speed, thus their
promising, thus only these technologies will be considered size can be much smaller than that of conventional ground-
here, and they will be referred to as AWE technologies. Other based wind turbines. The line that links the aircraft to the
existing approaches include rotorcraft-type lift [24], [26], like ground has the double function of supporting the traction
that realized by helicopters or autogyros, and aerostatic lift forces generated during the ight, and of transmitting the
[22], like the one realized by lighter-than-air aircrafts. produced electricity to the ground, where it is stored and
AWE technologies can be further classied on the basis then fed into the grid. In OBGs, the line length is always kept
of the type of the employed wing or aircraft, which can constant, and the aircraft is controlled to y along circular
be rigid, like a glider, or exible, in the case of power paths.
kites, and of the generator’s position. The latter aspect is In GLGs (see Fig. 1(b)), the ying structure is much lighter
important in that it inuences not only the design of the than OBGs, since the electric generators are kept on the
whole system, but also its operating cycle, i.e. how wind ground, and it can be either rigid [19] or exible [15],
energy is converted into electricity. Two different solutions [20], [18], [27]. Solutions with one [19], [18], two [15],
are currently being developed: onboard generators (OBGs) [28], [20] or three [27] lines exist. These lines are not
and ground-level generators (GLGs). In OBGs (see Fig. required to also transfer electricity, in contrast to OBGs.
1(a)), electricity is generated onboard of the ying structure, On the ground, the lines are wound around one or more

3133
winches, linked to electric generators. The system composed
by the electric generators and the winches is denoted as
ground station (GS) (see Fig. 2, where a picture of the
prototype realized at Politecnico di Torino is shown). Energy
is obtained by continuously performing a two-phase cycle

Fig. 3. Sketch of the operating cycle of a AWE system with ground-level

generators: traction (solid) and passive (dashed) phases.

the ground station, while reeling in the line.

The low lift maneuver has the advantage of occupying
less aerial space than the low power maneuver, however it
requires additional actuators on the wing. For the whole cycle

Fig. 2. Ground station of a small-scale GLG prototype operating near

Torino, Italy.

(depicted in Fig. 3): in the traction phase, the lines are

unrolled under high traction forces, maximizing the power
generated by the electric generators that are driven by the
rotation of the winches. The wing is controlled to follow
gure-eight paths during the traction phase. Figure-eights
patterns are slightly less efcient than loops (see [29]), but
they prevent line twisting. When a desired maximum line
length is reached, the passive phase begins, and the electric
generators act as motors, spending a minimum amount of
the previously generated energy, to recover the wing and to
drive it in a position which is suitable to start another traction
Fig. 4. Passive phase in AWE ground-level generators: “low power” (gray)
phase. The passive phase can be carried out in two different and “low lift” (black) maneuvers.
ways (see [28], [30] for details):
a) “low power maneuver”: the wing is driven to the to be generative, the total amount of energy produced in the
borders of the “power zone” (see Fig. 4), where traction phase has to be greater than the energy spent in the
the effective wind speed (and, consequently, the passive one. Therefore, the control system employed in the
aerodynamic lift force) drops to low values thus traction phase must maximize the produced energy, while in
allowing to recover the lines with low energy the passive phase the objective is to minimize the consumed
expense; energy while reeling in the lines (see e.g. [28] for details).
b) “low lift maneuver”: by using additional actuators Table I resumes the features, in terms of generator position,
onboard of the wing, the angle of attack is modied type of wing and number of lines, of some AWE concepts
in order to make the wing lose its aerodynamic lift currently under development. Other types of AWE systems
and to allow a fast winding back of the lines with have been also proposed and investigated, like the so-called
low energy losses. Alternatively, if a rigid wing is carousel conguration (see [14], [30]), that exploit the mo-
used, the aircraft is controlled so to dive towards tion of the ground station to generate energy. These concepts

3134
are omitted in this tutorial, since they appear to be less generated power increases with the square of aerodynamic
promising for full scale development and industrialization efciency [12], [30], wings with high aspect ratios (i.e.
[30]. high wingspan) should be employed. The maneuverability
of the wing, in terms of minimal turning radius RF during
TABLE I
the ight, also depends on its wingspan, according to the
F EATURES OF SOME AWE TECHNOLOGIES
approximate relationship:
Reference Gen. pos. Wing n. of lines
T.U. Delft [17],[18] GLG Flexible 1 RF ≃ 2.5 ws . (1)
Politecnico
di Torino [13],[15] GLG Flexible 2 Since the optimal ight trajectory is a loop or a gure-
K.U. Leuven [16] GLG Rigid 1 eight in the air (see Section II-C), its wingspan should be
Ampyx Power [19] GLG Rigid 1
Joby Energy [21] OBG Rigid 1
contained in order to obtain trajectories that are as strict as
Kitenergy [20] GLG Flexible 2 possible, thus allowing to make more wings operate close
Makani Power [23] OBG Rigid 1 one to the other in a relatively small area. Thus, efciency
Skysails power [25] GLG Flexible 1 and maneuverability lead to opposite requirements on the
Windlift [27] OBG Flexible 3
wing geometry. As regards resistance and lightness, such
characteristics depend mainly on the employed material and
B. Wings, lines, sensors and actuators partly on the wing design. Either air-inated structures [15],
[18], [20], [28], [27] or foils [25] have been employed so far
The wings and the lines are key components in any in AWE technologies with exible wings, while carbon-ber
AWE generator, as well as onboard sensors, providing the has been used for rigid wings, with either onboard [23] or
measurements for feedback control, and actuators, either ground-level [19] generators.
onboard or on the ground. We describe here the main features The lines. The wing lift force exerts a high traction on the
of these parts. lines. Thus, the latter have to be strong enough to support
The wing. High efciency, maneuverability, resistance to high loads. At the same time, the lines have to be light
strain and lightness are the main characteristics that a wing and their diameter should be kept as small as possible, to
should have to be employed for AWE generation. Aero- limit their weight and aerodynamic drag. In order to extract
dynamic efciency is dened as the ratio between the lift energy from wind ows between 200-1000 m of elevation,
and drag coefcients of the wing, denoted as CL and CD 500-1500-m-long lines are needed. The prototype built at
respectively. Such coefcients are functions of the angle of Politecnico di Torino [15] is equipped with two 1000-m lines,
attack α, i.e. the angle between the wing’s longitudinal axis and has already operated at the target height of 800 m above
and the effective wind speed vector (see Fig. 5). Assuming an the ground. The most common material employed for the
lines is a composite nylon or polyethylene ber, which is
Flight direction
Airfoil
lighter than water and has a traction resistance 8-10 times
longitudinal axis higher than that of steel lines of the same weight. An example
of the guaranteed minimal breaking load of a line, as a
α function of its diameter, is reported in Fig. 7. Since this
Effective wind speed
direction 200

Fig. 5. Wing during ight and angle of attack α.

Minimum breaking load (t)

150
innite wingspan, functions CL (α) and CD (α) depends on
the wing prole only. If a nite wingspan is considered, the
effect of turbulence at the lateral edges of the wing reduces 100
its aerodynamic efciency. Such efciency loss is higher with
a lower aspect ratio, i.e. the ratio between the wing wingspan
ws and its chord c (Fig. 6). Since at rst approximation the 50

0
c 0 10 20 30 40 50
Cable diameter (mm)

Fig. 7. Minimum breaking load of a line as a function of its diameter.

ws
material is subject to creep (i.e. it slowly elongates under
loads below the yield strength), quite high safety factors have
Fig. 6. wing top view: wingspan ws and chord c. to be considered in the dimensioning of the lines.

3135
The sensors. The ight of the wing is tracked by using an
onboard inertial measurement unit (IMU), which typically
include a GPS, three accelerometers, three gyroscopes, and
a magnetometer. The collected measurements are employed
to estimate the aircraft’s position, speed and attitude. These
data are sent to the ground station via a radio channel, and/or
they are used by a control system placed onboard. Additional
sensors on the ground are used to measure the load on the
line, ground wind speed and direction, line length and speed.
It has to be noted that, to the best of our knowledge, all of
the control algorithms developed so far assume that at least a
“nominal” (i.e. without turbulence) wind speed and direction
at the altitude where the aircraft is ying is measured. This
can be done either with wind prolers, based on light (lidars)
or sound waves (sodars), or by using aerostatic balloons,
providing the measure of wind speed and direction at some
given elevation values, and then applying some interpolation
technique to estimate the wind speed at the desired elevation.
The actuators. The different types of AWE generator de-
scribed in Section II-A obviously have different kind of
actuators and corresponding control inputs. In AWE systems
with onboard generators, actuators include moving surfaces
on the rigid wing (aileron, elevator, and a rudder), and the
onboard turbines, which can be used also as propellers (see
[23]). All these systems are used together to control the
ight of the aircraft, stabilizing the desired circular paths
and performing the take-off and landing maneuvers in an
hoovering mode. GLGs with rigid wings enjoy a similar con-
trol authority, since aps and other onboard moving surfaces
can be employed; moreover, all GLGs have, as additional
actuators, the ground winches and generators/motors, which
are used to control the line speed and length during the
operating cycle and to carry out take-off and landing. Finally,
GLGs with exible wings, or kites, may have onboard and/or
ground actuators. Onboard actuators are used in single-line
technologies [17], [18], [25] and they are packed in a control
unit hung below the exible wing. (see Fig. 8) The actuators
Kite
Control unit
GS
Fig. 8. Sketch of a AWE system with ground-level generators, a single
line and hung control unit.
in the hung control unit are able to modify the length of the
kite steering lines and of the power line, thus inuencing the
wing direction and its angle of attack, respectively. In other
3136
GLG solutions [15], [20], [27], the presence of two or even
three lines allow the use of ground actuators only, able to pull
the lines differentially in order to modify the wing direction
and angle of attack. Both solutions have advantages and
drawbacks, since the use of a single line and a hung control
unit allows a simpler design of the ground station and a
more immediate control action, while the use of two or more
lines and ground-level actuators yields a better aerodynamic
efciency, lower aircraft weight and higher safety in case of
line failure.
C. Crosswind kite power
The AWE technologies described so far feature a quite
wide range of technical solutions, yet they all share the
same approach to how the aircraft has to move in the air
while energy is produced, i.e. with a prevalent crosswind
component. The rst paper that analyzed, from a theoretical
point of view, the viability of producing energy with an
aircraft or kite, ying in crosswind conditions, dates back
to 1980, and it is entitled “crosswind kite power” [12]. This
concept may not be intuitive especially for GLGs, since at
rst one may think that the same amount of power can
be obtained by simply letting the wing oat in downwind
direction, and exploiting the generated drag force. This “drag
mode” is somehow used by some oating concepts for
airborne wind energy generation [22]. We show here, through
a simple example, that crosswind motion provides, given the
same characteristics of the wing and the same wind speed, a
potential power that is about 50 times greater than “drag”
motion. Therefore, crosswind motion is indeed crucial in
AWE, hence the need to follow circular or gure-eight paths
that are roughly perpendicular to the wind stream.
We consider a at wing, with planform area A, moving in
a 2-dimensional steady wind ow of given wind speed W 0
(Fig. 9(a)). In particular, we decompose the speed of the
(a) (b) (c)
α
u u
We
FL
W0 v
W0 - v FW
FD
Fig. 9. Simple scheme of an airfoil. (a) Downwind and crosswind speed
components, v and  u, respectively; (b) angle of attack α and effective wind
 e ; (c) lift and drag forces, F
speed vector, W L and F D , and total downwind
W .
force F
wing in a component parallel to the incoming wind, v , and
in a crosswind component, u, and we assume that vector u
is parallel to the longitudinal body axis of the wing. In a
2-dimensional cartesian coordinate system, whose axes are
parallel to v and u, respectively, the wind speed relative to
the wing (effective wind speed) is given by (Fig. 9(b)):
 0 − v
( )
 W
We = . (2)
−u
In these particular settings, the angle of attack α is measured hence, using (4),
between the crosswind speed component u and the effective
 e . We assume that a usable amount P of power cos (α) |FL | CL (α)
wind speed, W = = = E(α). (9)
can be generated by exploiting the motion of the wing in the sin (α) |FD | CD (α)
same direction as the wind: In (9), E(α) is the aerodynamic efciency of the airfoil. By
P = |FW | |v |, (3) considering the curves CL (α), CD (α) of a specic airfoil
(see e.g. the report [31]), the value of α that satises (9) can
where FW is the component, along the direction of v , of the be computed numerically. Assuming that such a value of α
total force acting on the wing. We consider for simplicity has been derived, we denote the corresponding values of lift
only the aerodynamic lift and drag forces, indicated by FL coefcient and aerodynamic with CL and E (by dropping
and FD , respectively, whose magnitudes are computed as: the dependence on α), respectively. By using these values
2 2
1 and by considering that cos (α) + sin (α) = 1, we have:
|FL | = ρCL (α)A|W e |2 √
2 (4) 1
1 sin (α) =
|FD | = ρCD (α)A|W  e |2 . 1 + E2
2 √
E2
In (4), ρ is the air density, and CL (α), CD (α) are the lift cos (α) = ,
1 + E2
and drag coefcients of the wing, which mainly depend
on the airfoil design and geometry. The lift force FL is moreover (see Fig. 9(b)),
perpendicular to the effective wind speed vector W  e , while cos (α) 
|u| = (|W0 | − |v |) = E(|W  0 | − |v |)
the drag force is parallel to it. Thus, the magnitude of the sin (α)
total force acting along the direction of v can be computed |W  0 | − |v |)2 = (1 + E 2 )(|W
 e |2 = |u|2 + (|W  0 | − |v |)2 .
as (see Fig. 9(c)):
Therefore, (5) can be re-written as:
|FW | = |FL | cos (α) + |FD | sin (α). (5) (
sin (α)
)
 
|FW,crsw | = |FL | cos (α) + =
Consider now the value of P obtained with two different E
( ) 32 (10)
types of motion of the wing. In the rst type, named “drag 1  0 − v |)2 E 2 1 + 1
mode”, the speed component u = 0, i.e. the wing movement = ρCL A(|W ,
2 E2
is parallel to the incoming wind. In this case, from (2) we
and the generated power, for a given downwind speed |v |,
have
 0 − v can be computed as:
( )
 W
|We | = ,
0 1
( )3
1 2 
Pcrsw = ρACL E 2 1 + 2 (|W0 − v |)2 |v |. (11)
α = 90◦ , CL (α) ≃ 0, CD (α) ≃ 2 (see e.g. [31]), and the 2 E
force FW in (3) amounts to: By maximizing (11) with respect to v , the optimal speed v =
1 0
|FW,drag | = ρCD (α)A|W e |2 = 1 ρ2A(|W
 0 − v |)2 , (6)
W
is obtained again, and the consequent optimal power:
2 2 3
hence the generated power is: 1
( )3
1 2 4  3
2
Pcrsw = ρACL E 1 + 2
∗
| W0 | . (12)
 0 − v |)2 |v |.
Pdrag = ρA(|W (7) 2 E 27

The only free variable in (10) is the downwind speed compo- By computing the ratio between Pcrsw∗
(12) and Pdrag
∗
(8), the
nent v . A simple search for the maximum of Pdrag (v ), |v | ∈ following equation is nally obtained:
 )3
 0 |], yields the optimal speed v = W0 and the conse-
(
[0, |W Pcrsw
∗
1 2 1 2
3 = C L E 1 + . (13)
quent optimal power: Pdrag
∗ 2 E2
4  3 Equation (13) gives the ratio between the maximal power
∗
Pdrag = ρA |W0 | . (8) generated in crosswind mode, and the maximal power
27
The well-known cubic relationship between generated power achieved in drag mode, given the same wing area and
and wind speed is evident in (10). wind speed. By considering the reasonable values CL =
Let us now consider the second type of motion, i.e. with a 1.05, E = 8, which are achievable by exible wings,
prevalent crosswind component u. In this case, for a high- it can be noted that the power obtained by operating in
efciency airfoil prole, the angle of attack α is quite low, as crosswind mode is about 35 times higher than that produced
depicted in Fig. 9(b). In order to consider a steady motion, in drag mode. Rigid or semi-rigid wings can easily reach
we require that the components of the lift and drag forces in an efciency of 10, leading to a ratio of 50 between the
crosswind direction are balanced: two power generation modes. More in general, the power
generated in crosswind mode grows with the square of the
|FL | sin (α) = |FD | cos (α), aerodynamic efciency. However, this phenomenon is limited

3137
by the higher strains that the structure and the lines have to
support, due to the increased lift forces, with consequent
increases of the weight of the aircraft and of the weight and
drag of the lines. The dependence of the generated power
on the efciency and other design parameters, by taking into
account the presence of the lines and the increase of wind
speed with the elevation over the ground, has been analyzed
via theoretical equations as well as numerical simulations
[15], [30]. We briey recall the related results in the next
Section.
III. O PTIMIZATION AND C ONTROL OF AWE
GENERATORS
A. System optimization
The design and operation of the AWE generators described
so far involve the choice of several parameters, like the wing
shape and size, the lines’ length and diameter, the operational
altitude, etc.. A series of studies has been conducted in the
last years, regarding the optimization of one or more of these
aspects. Several works in the literature are concerned with the
analysis and design of optimized exible or semi-rigid wings
for GLGs [32], [18], [33], also using innovative materials
and structures [34]. Another aspect that has been investigated
is the maximal power achievable by a AWE generator, for
given wind speed and wing characteristics. This topic has
been studied either by using a simplied dynamical model of
the system in order to derive, numerically, optimal operating
trajectories [29], [16], [17], [35], or by considering simplied
equations, following the same approach used in [12] and
adding more elements, like the variation of wind speed with
the elevation from the ground and the lines’ drag [36], [15],
[30]. The computation of optimal ying paths has the advan-
tage of providing both an estimate of the generated power,
and an operating trajectory that can be used for feedback
control (see Section III-B), while simplied power equations
have the advantage of being easy to use and to explicitly give
the dependance of important quantities, like power and line
forces, on the design parameters. Simplied power equations
have been used to optimize the operation of AWE generators
in [30], [28], to analyze the optimal design of AWE farms
[15] and to estimate the forces involved in offshore AWE
generators [37]. It is worth recalling here the main results
obtained by using such simplied equations, in terms of
dependence of the optimal generated power on the wing
area, aerodynamic efciency, line length and wind speed,
for the case of a xed ground unit. Extensions to the case
of moving GU have been done to analyze other generator’s
congurations, like the carousel [30], and the application
of AWE to naval transportation [38]. The generated power
as a function of the wing area is showed in Fig. 10(a): a
linear dependence can be observed, as expected from the
aerodynamic laws. Fig. 10(b) shows the generated power as a
function of the wing aerodynamic efciency, by considering
a line diameter dimensioned to resist to the traction forces.
The curve is approximately quadratic for a quite large range
of low and medium efciency values of interest. The line
length (Fig. 10(c)) can positively inuence the generated
3138
power if the wind speed increases with the elevation with
respect to the ground, depending on the rate of such increase.
As an example, Fig. 10(c) shows the dependence of the net
power on the line length, for the winter and summer months
at De Bilt site, in the Netherlands, whose wind characteristics
are good for wind energy production. It can be observed
that in both cases there is an optimal value (corresponding
to about 1200 m and 1300 m for winter and summer wind,
respectively), when the positive effect of higher wind speed
values, obtained with longer lines, is counter-balanced by the
negative effect of higher line weight and drag force. Beyond
this point, an increase of line length leads to lower generated
power. Finally, the dependance of the generated power on
wind speed is shown in Figure 10(d). It can be noted that,
as expected, a cubic relationship exists between these two
variables. All these results, except for Fig. 10(a), are related
to an AWE generator with a large, 500-m2 -area wing, whose
power curve (i.e. the dependence of the generated power on
wind speed) is comparable to that of a 2-MW wind turbine.
These results are useful to optimize the design and operation
parameters of the generator, and they are related to GLGs.
The details on the underlying equations can be found in [30],
[28], where a numerical optimization procedure exploiting
the simplied equations has been also used. To the best of
our knowledge, there are no similar studies for the case of
OBGs: this extension could be carried out, provided that a
reasonable approximation is considered for the relationship
between the power generated by the onboard turbines and
the consequent induced drag.
B. Control of AWE generators
Automatic control is a key aspect of any AWE generator.
These systems are supposed to be able to produce energy for
a large volume of hours yearly (see the aspects related to the
Capacity Factor (CF) of AWE generators in Section IV-C),
adapting to the wind conditions and rejecting unpredictable
disturbances like wind turbulence and wind gusts. The dy-
namics of tethered wings are nonlinear and typically unstable
in open-loop, especially with relatively high aerodynamic
efciency, thus the controller has to stabilize the system and,
at the same time, maximize the generated power, while keep-
ing a high safety level, by maintaining a minimal distance
from the ground. In concepts with more than one line, the
control system must also avoid line wrapping. Even though
experimental tests, carried out with small-scale prototypes
(see e.g. [39], [40]), have shown that the control capabilities
are not reduced when the lines are wrapped, the associated
friction may cause excessive wear.
As far as GLGs are concerned, there are several studies
in the literature, concerned with the design of a control
algorithm able to satisfy the above-mentioned requirements.
Almost all such algorithms are model-based, i.e. they rely on
the knowledge of a model of the wing dynamics, and they
exploit the measurements described in Section II-B: wing
position, speed and orientation, a nominal wind speed at
the wing’s altitude, and the forces acting on the lines. The
control inputs include the difference of length of the steering
 (a) (b)
3000 10000

2500
Generated power (kW)
8000

Generated power (kW)

2000
6000
1500
4000
1000

500 2000

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2
Kite area (m ) Kite aerodynamic efficiency

(c) (d)
4
x 10
5000 4

4500 3.5

Generated Power (kW)

Generated power (kW)

3
4000
2.5
3500
2
3000
1.5
2500
1
2000 0.5
1500 0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0 5 10 15 20 25
Cable length (m) Wind speed (m/s)

Fig. 10. Generated power as a function of (a) kite area, (b) aerodynamic efciency, (c) line length for winter (solid) and summer (dashed) periods at The
Bilt, in the Netherlands, and (d) wind speed. Solid line: simplied equations. Circles: numerical simulation results.

lines and, when available, the angle of attack via a third
control line. The proposed approaches include Nonlinear
Model Predictive Control (NMPC) [13], [16], [14], adaptive
control [41], evolutionary robotics techniques [42]. Indeed,
a pre-requisite to the use of these model based approaches
is the availability of a sufciently accurate - but simple -
dynamical model of the wing, which is still an open issue.
The point-mass model originally introduced in [43], and then
employed in [16], [14], [28] with continuous renements, is
quite reasonable as far as the wing is ying fast in crosswind
conditions, so that there is limited slip; however, when the
wing is at the borders of the power zone (see Fig. 4) and/or
the effective wind speed is low, slip dynamics may become
predominant and the model fails to capture them, due to its
simplied structure. Nevertheless, this model proved to be
consistent with experimental data, at least for what concerns
line forces, wing speed and generated energy [15], [44]. The
model is omitted here for the sake of brevity; the interested
reader is referred to [15], [28] and the references therein for
details. Another employed type control-oriented models is
based on “turning angle” concepts, see e.g. [41], [45]. Such
models proved to be quite accurate in crosswind conditions
[41], [45] and have the advantage of being single-input,
single-output. Non model-based approaches have been also
recently proposed, based on the concept of direct-inverse
control [46], in which the control law is identied directly
from a set of data, collected by using a preliminary con-
troller (or human operator). The presence of input and state
constraints and nonlinear dynamics make NMPC (see e.g.
[47], [48]) an attractive approach to tackle the AWE control
problem. In NMPC, the control input at each sampling time
is computed by solving a nite horizon optimal control
problem (FHOCP), where the measured system state is used
as initial condition and a sequence of future control input is
optimized, according to a suitably chosen cost function. The
corresponding predicted behavior of the system is computed
by using the available nonlinear model. Then, the rst control
move of the computed optimal sequence, corresponding to
the current sampling interval, is applied to the system, and
the procedure is repeated according to a receding horizon
strategy. NMPC has been used with two different philoso-
phies in the existing studies on AWE control, i.e. either
with a tracking [16] or with an economic (see e.g. [28])
formulation. In tracking NMPC, an optimal ying path is pre-

3139
computed off-line, maximizing the generated energy among
all periodic trajectories, and the cost function of the FHOCP
is chosen in order to track such an optimal trajectory. Even if
the optimal ying orbit is computed by taking into account
the system’s operational constraints, the latter must still be
included in the tracking problem, in order to cope with
the presence of uncertainty and disturbances. In economic
NMPC, no pre-computed orbit is used, but the FHOCP is
designed so to directly maximize the predicted generated
energy, subject to the operational constraints. In principle,
the system’s trajectories resulting from an economic NMPC
approach might yield better performance with respect to a
tracking NMPC approach, since they are not constrained
to be periodic, however with economic NMPC there is
generally no a-priori guarantee of even nominal stability. As
a matter of fact, both approaches proved to be effective with
the above-mentioned simplied model. The use of economic
NMPC also poses interesting theoretical questions, regarding
the (sub)optimality of the obtained solutions. These questions
have been answered, for this specic application and the con-
sidered point-mass model, in [30], where it has been shown
that the performance of the economic NMPC approach are
very close to the optimal performance computed with the
simplied power equations mentioned in Section III-A (see
also Fig. 10, where the results of numerical simulations
with an economic NMPC scheme are compared with the
results obtained with the simplied equations). Finally, an
interesting study on the computation of open-loop stable
paths appeared in [35]. These paths are suboptimal from the
point of view of generated power, but have the advantage
of being stable, with a certain degree of robustness, with no
feedback control.
While the literature concerned with control design for GLGs
is relatively rich, there are no similar studies for OBGs,
even though automatic control algorithms for this class of
AWE generators are known to be working for small-scale
prototypes, see [23]. Thanks to the use of rigid wings with
moving control surfaces and to the possibility to convert the
onboard turbines to propellers, the control problem for OBGs
appears to be simpler than GLGs. Control-oriented models
for OBGs are also easier to derive, since a lot of knowledge
from ight mechanics and rigid wing aerodynamics can be
exploited. Automatic take-off and transitions between the
taking-off phase and the power-generation phase have been
also tested [23].
IV. E CONOMICAL ANALYSIS AND OFFSHORE
APPLICATION OF AWE
A. Capacity factor
AWE generators can operate at high altitudes above the
ground, where stronger and more constant winds can be
found practically everywhere. This basically translates in
much higher amounts of yearly generated energy, with re-
spect to conventional wind turbines. In fact, due to wind
intermittency, the average power produced by a wind gener-
ator over the year is only a fraction, indicated as Capacity
Factor (CF), of the rated power. For a given wind generator
3140
on a specic site, the CF can be evaluated by knowing the
generator power curve and the probability density distribu-
tion function of wind speed. In Figure 11 the power curve of
2000
Output power (kW)
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Wind speed (m/s)
Fig. 11. Power curves of a typical wind tower (dashed) and of an AWE
generator, both with the same rated power of 2 MW.
a commercial 2-MW wind turbine [49] is reported, together
with the estimated power curve of an AWE generator of the
same rated power (achievable with A = 500 m2 and E = 8,
see [15]). Table II shows the corresponding CFs, estimated
at some sites around the world. The probability density
distribution function of wind speed at 50-150 meters above
the grounds (reached by 2-MW wind turbines) and at 200-
800 m above the ground (reachable by AWE generators) has
been evaluated from the measurements of sounding stations,
available from the NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde Database, [50].
Interesting economical considerations can be drawn from the
results of Table II. Note that the present wind technology
is economically convenient for sites with CF greater than
0.3, according to the level of the incentives for green energy
generation. In such good sites, AWE technology achieves
CF values about two times greater than the present wind
technology, thus more than doubling the economic return
even assuming the same cost/MW. Indeed, for the structural
reasons previously discussed, it is expected that the cost/MW
of rated power of a AWE generator may be lower than that
of a wind tower. In addition, bad sites for the present wind
technology can be still economically convenient with AWE
technology: this is made extremely evident from the data of
Linate (Italy), where a negligible CF value could be obtained
with a wind tower, while an AWE generator could give a CF
similar to that of a wind tower in the good site of De Bilt,
in the Netherlands.
B. AWE farms
Another interesting aspect of AWE technology is related to
the territory occupation of wind farms. Indeed, in the present
wind farms, in order to limit the aerodynamic interferences
between wind towers of a given blade diameter D, a distance
of 7D in the prevalent wind direction and of 4D in the
orthogonal one are typically used. This rule, considering
wind turbines with 2-MW rated power and 90-m blade
 TABLE II
AVERAGE WIND SPEED , IN THE RANGES 50-150 M AND 200-800 M ABOVE THE GROUND , AND ESTIMATED C APACITY FACTORS OF A 2-MW, 90- M
DIAMETER WIND TURBINE AND OF A 2-MW, 500- M 2 AWE GENERATOR , FOR SOME SITES AROUND THE WORLD . DATA COLLECTED DAILY FORM
JANUARY 1 ST , 1996 TO D ECEMBER 31 ST , 2006.

Average wind speed Estimated CF

Site 50–150 m 200–800 m Wind tower AWE - GLG
Buenos Aires (Argentina) 5.7 m/s 9.1 m/s 0.18 0.63
Melbourne (Australia) 5.2 m/s 8.7 m/s 0.15 0.56
Porto Alegre (Brazil) 4.9 m/s 7.5 m/s 0.13 0.52
Nenjiang (China) 2.7 m/s 5.2 m/s 0.04 0.30
Taipei (China–Taiwan) 1.5 m/s 5.6 m/s 0.02 0.32
St. Cristobal (Ecuador) 6.0 m/s 6.5 m/s 0.15 0.44
Nice (France) 4.5 m/s 5.8 m/s 0.09 0.33
Calcutta (India) 2.8 m/s 5.6 m/s 0.02 0.31
Brindisi (Italy) 7.2 m/s 8.5 m/s 0.31 0.60
Linate (Italy) 0.7 m/s 5.9 m/s 0.006 0.33
Bandar Abbas (Iran) 1.5 m/s 5.6 m/s 0.02 0.32
Misawa (Japan) 4.4 m/s 7.8 m/s 0.11 0.50
Casablanca (Morocco) 2.4 m/s 7.0 m/s 0.03 0.45
De Bilt (The Netherlands) 8.0 m/s 10.7 m/s 0.36 0.71
Bodø (Norway) 6.9 m/s 8.7 m/s 0.28 0.56
Leba (Poland) 8.1 m/s 10.1 m/s 0.38 0.71
St. Petersburg (Russian Federation) 4.1 m/s 8.5 m/s 0.1 0.59
Port Elizabeth (South Africa) 7.5 m/s 8.9 m/s 0.20 0.58
Murcia (Spain) 2.6 m/s 5.9 m/s 0.03 0.35
Nottingham (United Kingdom) 1.3 m/s 5.3 m/s 0.01 0.31
Point Barrow (Alaska, U.S.) 6.6 m/s 8.8 m/s 0.25 0.59

diameter, leads to rated power density of about 9 MW/km2
and average power density, in a good site like De Bilt in the
Netherlands, of about 3.2 MW/km2 . In AWE wind farms, the
aerodynamic interferences between the wings pertaining to
different generators can be limited, by operating at different
ying altitudes. Then, the AWE generators in the farm can
be arranged at the minimum distance required to avoid wing
and lines collision, see Figure 12. According to [15], by
1000
Wind speed
800
600
Z (m)
produced with this technology, and to make a comparison
with the costs of the other technologies. The production
costs for AWE and wind tower technologies are essentially
related to the amortization of the costs of the structures,
the foundations, the electrical equipment to connect to the
power grid, authorizations, site use, etc., while the main-
tenance costs are certainly marginal for both technologies,
though possibly higher for AWE generators. Thus, the main
differences between the two technologies are related to their
structures, foundations, and required land, whose costs are
signicantly lower for AWE generators. In fact, especially in
GLGs with exible wings, the heavy tower and the rotor of a
wind turbine are replaced by light, composite ber lines and
aircrafts. Moreover, given the same rated power, the costs

of the foundations of a AWE generator will be signicantly

400 lower, thanks to the lower involved strains. A conservative
Ground
Unit estimate can be obtained, by assuming that the cost of a AWE
Wing flying zone
200
generator with 2-MW rated power is not greater than that
of an actual wind tower of the same rated power. Estimates
0
obtained on this basis are reported in Table III and compared
0 500
X (m)
1000 1500 with the projected cost in 2030 (levelized in 2003 U.S.
dollars per MWh) of energy from coal, gas, nuclear, wind and
solar sources, taken from [51] where, for each technology,
Fig. 12. Scheme of four subsequent AWE generators in a wind farm, and
of the related ying zones. the projections have been computed using data related to
power plants installed in more than 10 different countries.
optimizing these operating conditions, wind farms composed
by 2-MW AWE generators may have a rated power density D. Offshore AWE plants
of about 32 MW/km2 , and an average power density, in a Offshore wind plants have the potential to become major
site like De Bilt, of about 23 MW/km2 . contributors to the supply of electric energy, for many
reasons: the wind blows faster and more uniformly on
C. Energy cost estimates the sea than on land; excellent wind sites exist within
At the present state of AWE technology, it is only possible reasonable distances from major urban centers, reducing
to have preliminary estimates of the costs of the electricity the concern about long distance inland power transmission;

3141
 TABLE III
P ROJECTED COST IN 2030 ( LEVELISED IN 2003 U.S. DOLLARS PER
MW H ) OF ENERGY FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES , COMPARED WITH THE
ESTIMATED ENERGY COST OF AWE.
Source Minimal Maximal Average
estimated estimated estimated
($/MWh) ($/MWh) ($/MWh)
Coal 25 50 34
Gas 37 60 47
Nuclear 21 31 29
Wind 35 95 57
Solar 180 500 325
AWE - GLG 10 48 20
nally environmental concerns about visual and acoustic
impact are lower than for inland wind. However, the energy
production costs of present offshore wind plants are 2-3
times higher with respect to inland plants. This is due to the
fact that the economics of offshore turbines depend more on
infrastructure costs (foundations, operation & maintenance,
decommissioning, etc.) than on turbine costs. Indeed, in the
present offshore plants, which operate in shallow waters (5-
30 m of depth), the cost of turbines impacts only for 1/3
of total costs, in contrast with the 2/3 of inland plants.
As a matter of fact, in order to take full advantage of the
offshore potentials, it is necessary to shift the technology
towards support structures able to work on deeper waters
(>50-100 m), like oating platforms. However, the relevance
of infrastructure costs for towers in deep waters will be
even higher than in shallow waters. AWE technology may
represent a solution for deep offshore wind plants. In fact,
in offshore turbines the most critical load to be accounted
for, in the design of the foundation used in shallow waters,
is the sway force exerted by the wind generator. In [37]
it has been evaluated that the maximal sway force exerted
on the foundation by an AWE generator is lower than the
one exerted by a turbine with the same rated power. Taking
into account the fact that, with respect to a wind turbine, an
AWE generator has a CF more than double, and about half
the cost per MW of rated power, it follows that the AWE
technology may reduce by a factor of 5-6 the costs of the
present offshore energy in shallow waters. This difference
will be even greater in the case of oating platforms in deep
waters. In this case, wind turbines have to be designed to
face the dynamic loads induced not only by the wind and the
blade rotation, but also by the waves. More rigid towers are
required, with the rst natural frequency higher than 0.4 Hz
(corresponding to the wave spectrum in open sea), in contrast
with the 0.25 Hz of inland wind towers. This requirement
leads to bulkier towers, whose weight is twice the one of
inland wind turbines. On the contrary, AWE generators are
not signicantly affected by waves, within a large range of
sea depth, due to the favorable load conguration on the
supporting structure. While the study [37] was carried out by
researchers at Politecnico di Torino, the concept of offshore
AWE has recently attracted the attention also of industry, like
the Hamburg-based company Skysails [25] with its SkySails
3142
Power system.
V. C ONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In the last ve years, signicant developments in AWE
technologies have been achieved. Theoretical and numerical
studies concerned with many important aspects, particularly
aerodynamics and control, have been carried out, moreover
small-scale prototypes have been increasingly realized and
tested in several projects carried out by small companies, uni-
versities and research centers. The state-of-the-art of AWE,
resulting from these recent activities, has been summarized
in this paper. Together with such a steady and quite fast
technical progress, there has been also a growing interest
from investors and public bodies worldwide. The ongoing
development activities are increasingly proving the viability
of the concept, yet several technical issues remain and
need to be addressed, in order to denitely show that this
technology can be scaled up to an industrial size (i.e. with
single AWE generators of about 2-MW rated power), meet
the requirements of a commercial wind power generator, and
provide the expected performance in terms of quantity and
cost of the generated energy. Aspects like grid connection,
line wear, and maintenance have not been addressed so far,
especially for large scale generators, in which the expected
forces on the lines are of the order of many tons. Automatic
control systems have been tested for a limited amount of
time, still not sufcient to demonstrate a satisfactorily high
level of reliability. Particularly for GLGs, there is a lack
of modeling studies and model validation with experimental
data. The operation and control of AWE farms will pose
additional technical problems, related to the coordination
of the different generators. On the other hand, AWE tech-
nologies are just at the dawn of their development, and
there is a signicant uncovered potential for the use of
innovative solutions in multiple elds like materials, power
electronics and aerodynamics, to tackle the above-mentioned
problems. Ad-hoc designed wings and lines might be used
to improve the system performance, reduce the required
maintenance and augment the control capabilities. Energy
storage systems like super capacitors or ywheels could be
coupled with AWE generators to cope with the issue of grid
connection. Advanced unmanned aerial vehicle technologies,
sensors, and tracking systems could be applied to enhance the
automatic control of AWE generators and reach the required
reliability. All these aspects represent important challenges,
but also a wealth of opportunities for future, multidisciplinary
research and development activities.
R EFERENCES
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2009.
Paris, France: IEA PUBLICATIONS, 2009.
[2] U. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “International
Energy Outlook 2009,” May 2009, available online:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html.
[3] Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), Global Wind Energy Outlook
2008, 2008, available on-line: http://www.gwec.net.
[4] “An energy policy for europe,” 2007, communication from the Com-
mission to the European Council and the European Parliament of 10
January 2007 (COM(2007) 1).
 [5] C. L. Archer and M. Z. Jacobson, “Evaluation of global wind power,” [37] L. Fagiano, M. Milanese, V. Razza, and I. Gerlero, “Offshore high-
J. Geophys. Res., vol. 110, D12110, 2005. altitude wind energy using controlled airfoils,” in European Wind
[6] Http://arpa-e.energy.gov/. Energy Conference (EWEC) 2010, Warsaw, PL, 2010.
[7] Http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm. [38] L. Fagiano, M. Milanese, V. Razza, and M. Bonansone, “High-
[8] C. L. Archer and K. Caldeira, “Global assessment of high-altitude altitude wind energy for sustainable marine transportation,” Intelligent
wind power,” Energies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 307–319, 2009. Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. in press, available
[9] Http://www.aweconsortium.org/. online. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2011.2180715, 2012.
[10] M. S. Manalis, “Airborne windmills and communication aerostats,” [39] Kitenergy project, experimental test movie
Journal of Aircraft, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 543–544, 1976. (2008, Jan.), [Online]. Available on–line:
http://lorenzofagiano.altervista.org/movies/Casale_test.wmv.
[11] C. A. J. Fletcher and B. W. Roberts, “Electricity generation from jet-
[40] Kitenergy project, experimental test
streams winds,” Journal of Energy, vol. 3, pp. 241–249, 1979.
movie (2006, Aug.), [Online]. Available:
[12] M. L. Loyd, “Crosswind kite power,” Journal of Energy, vol. 4, no. 3, http://lorenzofagiano.altervista.org/movies/Sardinia_test.wmv.
pp. 106–111, 1980. [41] J. Baayen and W. Ockels, “Tracking control with adaption of kites,”
[13] M. Canale, L. Fagiano, and M. Milanese, “Power kites for wind energy Control Theory Applications, IET, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182 –191, 19
generation,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 25– 2012.
38, December 2007. [42] A. Furey and I. Harvey, “Evolution of neural networks for active
[14] ——, “High altitude wind energy generation using controlled power control of tethered airfoils,” in Advances in Artificial Life, ser. Lecture
kites,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 18, Notes in Computer Science, F. Almeida e Costa, L. Rocha, E. Costa,
no. 2, pp. 279–293, 2010, doi: 10.1109/TCST.2009.2017933. I. Harvey, and A. Coutinho, Eds. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2007,
[15] L. Fagiano, M. Milanese, and D. Piga, “High-altitude wind power vol. 4648, pp. 746–755.
generation,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 25, no. 1, [43] M. Diehl, “Real-time optimization for large scale nonlinear processes,”
pp. 168–180, 2010, doi: 10.1109/TEC.2009.2032582. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Heidelberg, Germany, 2001.
[16] A. Ilzhöfer, B. Houska, and M. Diehl, “Nonlinear MPC of kites under [44] L. Fagiano, M. Milanese, V. Razza, and I. Gerlero, “Control of power
varying wind conditions for a new class of large-scale wind power kites for naval propulsion,” in American Control Conference (ACC),
generators,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, Baltimore, MD, June 2010, pp. 4325 – 4330.
vol. 17, pp. 1590–1599, 2007. [45] M. Erhard and H. Strauch, “Control of towing kites for seagoing ves-
[17] P. Williams, B. Lansdorp, and W. Ockels, “Optimal crosswind towing sels,” CoRR, vol. abs/1202.3641, 2012, http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3641.
and power generation with tethered kites,” Journal of guidance, [46] C. Novara, L. Fagiano, and M. Milanese, “Direct data-driven inverse
control, and dynamics, vol. 31, pp. 81–93, 2008. control of a power kite for high altitude wind energy conversion,” in
[18] E. Terink, J. Breukels, R. Schmehl, and W. Ockels, “Flight dynamics 2011 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA),
and stability of a tethered inatable kiteplane,” AIAA Journal of Denver, CO, September 2011.
Aircraft, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 503–513, 2011. [47] D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, and P. Scokaert, “Con-
[19] Ampyx power website, http://www.ampyxpower.com/. strained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Automat-
[20] Kitenergy website, http://www.kitenergy.net/. ica, vol. 36, pp. 789–814, 2000.
[21] Joby Energy Inc., http://www.jobyenergy.com. [48] G. C. Goodwin, M. Seron, and J. D. Dona, Constrained Control and
Estimation: An Optimisation Approach. Springer, 2005.
[22] Magenn Power Inc., http://www.magenn.com.
[49] Vestas Wind Systems A/S, “Vestas v90 brochure,” available online:
[23] Makani Power Inc., http://www.makanipower.com.
http://www.vestas.com.
[24] SkyMill Energy Inc., http://www.skymillenergy.com. [50] National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration – Earth System
[25] SkySails GmbH & Co., http://www.skysails.info. Research Laboratory, NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde Database Access:
[26] Sky Wind Power Corporation, http://www.skywindpower.com. http://raob.fsl.noaa.gov/.
[27] Windlift website, http://www.windlift.com/. [51] International Energy Agency (IEA), Projected Cost of Generating
[28] L. Fagiano, “Control of tethered airfoils for high–altitude wind energy Energy – 2005 update. Paris, France: IEA PUBLICATIONS, 2008,
generation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, Italy, February available on–line: http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/
2009, available on–line: free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1472.
http://lorenzofagiano.altervista.org/docs/PhD_thesis_Fagiano_Final.pdf.
[29] B. Houska and M. Diehl, “Optimal control of towing kites,” in 45th
IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego, CA, 2006, pp.
2693–2697.
[30] L. Fagiano, M. Milanese, and D. Piga, “Optimization of airborne wind
energy generators,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear
Controll, 2011, available online. doi: 10.1002/rnc.1808.
[31] R. Sheldahl and P. Klimas, “Aerodynamic characteristics of seven sym-
metrical airfoil sections through 180-degree angle of attack for use in
aerodynamic analysis of vertical axis wind turbines,” Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185, Tech. Rep. SAND80-2114,
1981, available on-line: http://windpower.sandia.gov/topical.htm.
[32] J. Breukels and W. Ockels, “A multi-body system approach to the
simulation of exible membrane airfoils,” Aerotecnica Missili &
Spazio, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 119–134, 2010.
[33] J. Breukels, “An engineering methodology for kite design,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2011, avail-
able: http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:cdece38a-1f13-47cc-b277-
ed64fdda7cdf/Thesis_jeroen_breukels.pdf.
[34] R. Luchsinger and J. Breuer, “Inatable kites using the concept of
tensairity,” Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 557–
563, 2010.
[35] B. Houska and M. Diehl, “Robustness and stability optimization
of power generating kite systems in a periodic pumping mode,” in
2010 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA),
Yokohama, Japan, September 2010, pp. 2172–2177.
[36] I. Argatov, P. Rautakorpi, and R. Silvennoinen, “Estimation of the
mechanical energy output of the kite wind generator,” Wind Energy,
vol. 34, pp. 1525–1532, 2009.

3143