See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283989773

FaultTolerant Control of an Offshore Wind

Farm via Fuzzy Modelling and Identification

ARTICLE DECEMBER 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.09.712

READS

3 AUTHORS:

Silvio Simani Saverio Farsoni

University of Ferrara University of Ferrara
144 PUBLICATIONS 713 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paolo Castaldi
University of Bologna
79 PUBLICATIONS 327 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Silvio Simani
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 02 February 2016
9th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and
9th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and
Safety
9th
9th of Symposium
IFAC
IFAC Technical Processes
on
on Fault
Fault Detection,
Detection, Supervision
Supervision and
Safety of Symposium
Technical Processes and
September
Safety
Safety of 2-4, 2015.
of Technical
Technical Processes
Processes
Available online
Arts et Mtiers ParisTech, at www.sciencedirect.com
Paris, France
September 2-4, 2015. Arts et Mtiers ParisTech, Paris, France
September
September 2-4,
2-4, 2015.
2015. Arts
Arts et
et Mtiers
Mtiers ParisTech,
ParisTech, Paris,
Paris, France
France
ScienceDirect
IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-21 (2015) 13451350
FaultTolerant
FaultTolerant Control of an Offshore
FaultTolerant Control
Control of
of an
an Offshore
Offshore
Wind
Wind Farm via Fuzzy Modelling and
Wind Farm via Fuzzy Modelling and
Farm via Fuzzy Modelling and
Identification
Identification
Identification
S.
S. Simani
,1
Simani ,1 S.
S. Farsoni
Farsoni P.

P. Castaldi
Castaldi

S. Simani
S. Simani ,1 S. Farsoni
,1
P. Castaldi
S. Farsoni P. Castaldi

Department of Engineering (EnDiF), University of Ferrara. Via

Department of Engineering (EnDiF), University of Ferrara. Via
Department

of
of Engineering
Saragat 1E, (EnDiF), University of
of Ferrara.
Ferrara. Via
Department
Saragat 1E, 44122
44122 Ferrara
Engineering (FE),
(EnDiF),
Ferrara Italy,
Italy, (email:
University
(FE), (email: Via
Saragat
Saragat 1E,
1E, 44122
44122 Ferrara
Ferrara (FE),
(FE), Italy,
Italy,
{silvio.simani,saverio.farsoni}@unife.it)(email:
(email:
{silvio.simani,saverio.farsoni}@unife.it)
Department{silvio.simani,saverio.farsoni}@unife.it)
of
of Electrical,
Electrical, Electronic
Electronic and
and Information
Information Engineering

Department{silvio.simani,saverio.farsoni}@unife.it) Engineering
Department of Electrical, Electronic and
and Information Engineering

(DEI),
(DEI), University
Department
University of
of Bologna.
of Electrical,
Bologna. Via Zamboni
Electronic
Via Zamboni 33, 40126
Information
33, 40126 Bologna (BO)
Engineering
Bologna (BO)
(DEI), University
(DEI), University of
Italy,
of Bologna.
(email:
Bologna. Via Zamboni 33, 40126
paolo.castaldi@unibo.it)
Via Zamboni 33, 40126 Bologna
Bologna (BO)
(BO)
Italy, (email: paolo.castaldi@unibo.it)
Italy, (email: paolo.castaldi@unibo.it)
Italy, (email: paolo.castaldi@unibo.it)
Abstract: In
Abstract: In order
order toto improve
improve the the safety,
safety, the
the reliability,
reliability, and and thethe efficiency
efficiency of of offshore
offshore wind
wind parkpark
Abstract:
installations, In order
thus to improve
avoiding the
expensive safety, the
unplanned reliability, and
maintenance, the efficiency
the of
accommodation offshore wind
of faultspark
in
installations, thus avoiding expensive unplanned maintenance, the accommodation ofwind
Abstract: In order to improve the safety, the reliability, and the efficiency of offshore faultspark
in
installations,
their earlier
installations, thus avoiding
occurrence
thus avoiding is expensive
fundamental. unplanned
Therefore,
expensive unplanned maintenance,
the main the
contributionaccommodation
of this paper of faults
faults in
consists of
their earlier occurrence is fundamental. Therefore, maintenance,
the main contributionthe accommodation
of this paperofconsists in
of
their
the earlier
development
theirdevelopment occurrence
of
earlier occurrence a is
fault fundamental.
tolerant
is fundamental. Therefore,
control scheme
Therefore, the
by
the main
means contribution
of a
main contribution viable of this
approach. paper
of this paperIn consists
consists of
particular, of
the of a fault tolerant control scheme by means of a viable approach. In particular,
aathe
the development
data-driven
development
data-driven
of
of a
strategy
strategya fault
based
fault
based
tolerant
on
on fuzzy
tolerant control
logic
control
fuzzy
scheme
is
logicscheme
by
by means
is exploited
exploited for of
of aa viable
for deriving
means derivingviablethe approach.
model
model of
theapproach.
In particular,
ofInthe
the required
particular,
required
aa data-driven
controller. Fuzzystrategy
theory based
is on
on fuzzy logic is exploited for deriving
deriving the model of
of the required
data-driven
controller. Fuzzystrategy
theorybasedis exploited
exploited here
fuzzy since
sinceisit
herelogic is
is able
able to
itexploited approximate
to for
approximate easily
the
easily unknown
model
unknown thenonlinear
required
nonlinear
controller.
models
controller.and Fuzzy
managetheorynoisyis exploited here
measurements. since it is
Moreover, able to
the approximate
controller easily
fuzzy unknown
prototype nonlinear
is directly
models andFuzzy
managetheorynoisyis exploited here since
measurements. it is ablethe
Moreover, to approximate
controller fuzzy easily unknownisnonlinear
prototype directly
models
identified
models and
andfrommanage
the
manage noisy
wind
noisy farmmeasurements.
measurements,
measurements. Moreover,
and
Moreover, it the
provides
the controller
the
controller fuzzy
straightforward
fuzzy prototype is
achievement
prototype is directly
directlyof
identified
identified from
from the
the wind
wind farm
farm measurements,
measurements, and
and it
it provides
provides the
the straightforward
straightforward achievement
achievement of
of
the fault
identified tolerant
from the control
wind scheme.
farm In general,
measurements, anandanalytic
it approach,
provides the
the fault tolerant control scheme. In general, an analytic approach, where the system nonlinearity where the
straightforward system nonlinearity
achievement of
isthe
the fault
explicitly
fault tolerant
taken
tolerant control
into
control scheme.
account,
scheme. In
could
In general,
require
general, an
an analytic
more
analytic approach,
complex
approach,design where the system
methodologies.
where the system nonlinearity
This aspect
nonlinearity
is explicitly taken into account, could require more complex design methodologies. This aspect
ofis
is explicitly
the taken into account, could require
require more complex design methodologies. This aspect
of the work,
explicitly followed
work,taken intoby
followed by the
the simpler
account, could solution
simpler solution relying
more
relying on
on fuzzy
complex fuzzy rules,
design
rules, represents
represents the
methodologies. key
theThis point
keyaspect
point
of
when
of the
the work,
on-line
work, followed
followed by
implementations
by the
the simpler
are
simpler solution
considered
solution relying
of the
relying on
proposed
on fuzzy
fuzzy rules,
control
rules, represents
scheme.
represents To the key
highlight
the key point
the
point
when on-line implementations are considered of the proposed control scheme. To highlight the
when
potential
when on-line
of
on-line implementations
the proposed
implementations fault are
are considered
tolerant control
considered of
of the proposed
algorithm
the proposed in control
real scheme.
applications,
control scheme. To
a
To highlight
hardwarein
highlight the
the
potential of the proposed fault tolerant control algorithm in real applications, a hardwarein
potential
theloop of the proposed fault tolerant control algorithm in real applications, a hardwarein
theloop test facility representing a realistic offshore wind farm installation is considered to
potential test
of facility
the proposedrepresenting
fault a
tolerant realistic
control offshore
algorithm wind in farm
real installation
applications, is
a considered
hardwarein to
theloop
analyse
theloopthe test facility
digital representing
representing a
implementation aof realistic
the offshore wind
wind farm installation is considered to
analyse test
the facility
digital implementation the designed
of realistic offshore
designed controller.
controller. The
farm results
results have
The installation haveisshown that
that the
considered
shown to
the
analyse
developed
analyse the
the digital
scheme
digital implementation
maintains
implementation desired of
of the
the designed
performances,
designed controller.
thus validating
controller. The
The results
its have
reliability
results have shown
also
shown in that the
real-time
that the
developed scheme maintains desired performances, thus validating its reliability also in real-time
developed
developed scheme
implementations. scheme maintains
maintains desired
desired performances,
performances, thus thus validating
validating its its reliability
reliability also
also inin real-time
real-time
implementations.
implementations.
implementations.
2015, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Keywords: Passive Passive fault
fault tolerant
tolerant control
control system;
system; fuzzy
fuzzy modelling
modelling and and identification;
identification;
Keywords:
datadriven
Keywords: Passive
scheme;
Passive fault
fault
fault tolerant control
estimation;
tolerant control system;
offshore
system; fuzzy
wind
fuzzy modelling
farm.
modelling and
and identification;
identification;
datadriven scheme; fault estimation; offshore wind farm.
datadriven
datadriven scheme;
scheme; fault
fault estimation;
estimation; offshore
offshore wind
wind farm.
farm.
1.
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION true
true status
status of of the
the system.
system. Over Over the the last
last three
three decades,
decades,
1.
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION true
the
true status
growing
status of the
demand
of the system.
for
system. Over
safety,
Over the last
reliability,
the last three
three decades,
maintainability,
decades,
the growing demand for safety, reliability, maintainability,
The unscheduled maintenance of offshore wind parks is the
and
the growing
growing demand
survivability
demand in for
power
for safety,
safety, reliability,
processes has
reliability, maintainability,
drawn significant
maintainability,
and survivability
The unscheduled maintenance of offshore wind parks is and survivability in power processes has drawn significant in power processes has drawn significant
The
The unscheduled
expensive, and
and hence
unscheduled
expensive,
maintenance
their
maintenance
hence
of
of offshore
their reliabilityoffshore
reliability must
must
wind
windbe parks
high
high to
be parks is research
is
to
in
and survivability
research in FTC
FTC designs
in power(Mahmoud
designs processes has
(Mahmoud et
et al. (2003);
drawn
al. Noura
significant
(2003); Noura
expensive,
generate as
expensive,as andandmuch hence
energy their
as reliability
possible. must
Offshore be
wind high to
parks research
et al.
research in
(2009)).
in FTC
FTC designs
With
designs (Mahmoud
reference
(Mahmoud to et
wind
et al.
al. (2003);
parks,
(2003); Noura
they are
Noura
generate muchhenceenergy their reliability
as possible. must be
Offshore wind high to et al. (2009)). With reference to wind parks, they
parks et al. (2009)). With reference to wind parks, they
are
are
generate
are also
generate as
planned
as much
much energy
to work
energy as
as possible.
with very
possible. Offshore
short wind
downtime.
Offshore wind parks
This
parks complex
et al. nonlinear
(2009)). Withdynamic systems,
reference to whose
wind aerodynamics
parks, they are
are also planned to work with very short downtime. This complex complex
nonlinear dynamic systems, whose aerodynamics
nonlinear dynamic systems, whose aerodynamics
are
key
are also
also planned
feature can
planned beto
to work
achieved
work with
by
with very
designing
very short
short downtime.
control
downtime. This
solutions
This are
complex
are nonlinear and
nonlinear
nonlinear and unsteady,
dynamic
unsteady, whilst
systems,
whilst their
whose
their rotors are subject
aerodynamics
rotors are subject
key feature can be achieved by designing control solutions are nonlinear and unsteady, whilst their rotors are subject
key
key feature
that are can be achieved by
by designing control solutions to
arecomplicated turbulent wind inflow fields driving fatigue
that are able
feature can to
able be manage
to achieved possible
manage designing
possible fault situations
faultcontrol
situations and
solutions
and to to
nonlinear and
complicated
complicated
unsteady,
turbulent
turbulent wind
wind
whilst
inflow
inflow
their rotors
fields
fields
are subject
driving
driving fatigue
fatigue
that are
malfunctions. able
that are ableThese to
These manage
types
to manage possible
of control fault
systems situations
are known and
as loading.
to Therefore,
complicated the
turbulent control
wind of the
inflow wind
fields farm represents
driving fatigue
malfunctions. types ofpossible fault situations
control systems are knownand as loading.
loading.
Therefore, the control of the wind farm represents
Therefore, the control of the wind farm represents
malfunctions.
fault tolerant
malfunctions. These
control
These types
(FTC)
types of
of control
systems,
control systems
as
systemsthey are known
possess
are known as
the
as aloading.
complex and
Therefore, challenging
the task
control of (Odgaard
the wind and
farm Stoustrup
represents
fault tolerant control (FTC) systems, as they possess the aa complex and challenging task (Odgaard and Stoustrup
fault
fault tolerant
ability
ability to control
control (FTC)
to accommodate
tolerant
accommodate (FTC) systems,
component
systems,faults
component
as
as they
faults
possess
possess the
automatically.
they
automatically. a complex
the (2013)). complex
(2013)).
and
and challenging
Todays
Todays wind
wind turbines
challenging task
task (Odgaard
turbines in
in aa wind
(Odgaard and
windandpark
park
Stoustrup
employ
Stoustrup
employ
ability
In to
general,
ability accommodate
FTC
to accommodate methods component
are
component faults
classified automatically.
into
faultsinto two types,
automatically. (2013)).
different Todays
control
(2013)). Todays wind
actuation turbines
wind turbines and in a
strategies wind to
in a windtopark park employ
achieve the
employ
In general, FTC methods are classified two types, different different control
control actuation
actuation and
and strategies
strategies to achieve
achieve the
the
In
i.e. general,
Passive
In general, FTC
Fault
FTC methods
Tolerant
methods are
Controlclassified
are classified(PFTCS) into two
and
into and types,
Active
two Active required
different goals
control and performances.
actuation and
types, required goals and performances. An important control An
strategies important
to control
achieve the
i.e.
i.e. Passive
Passive Fault
Fault Tolerant
Tolerant Control
Control (PFTCS)
(PFTCS) and Active required goals and performances. An important control
Fault
i.e. Tolerant
Passive Control
Fault Tolerantschemes
Control (AFTCS).
(PFTCS) PFTCS
and needs
Active objective,
required which
which motivates the current study, consists of its
goals motivates
and the
performances. current An study, consists
important of
control
Fault Tolerant Control schemes (AFTCS). PFTCS needs objective, objective, which motivates the
its
Fault
neither
Fault Tolerant
Fault
Tolerant Control
Detection
Control schemes
and (AFTCS).
Diagnosis
schemes (AFTCS). (FDD) PFTCS
schemes
PFTCS
neither Fault Detection and Diagnosis (FDD) schemes nor fault tolerance
needs
nor
needs fault tolerance
objective,
fault whichproperties.
tolerance motivates The
properties. the current
The fault
current study,
study, consists
fault tolerance
tolerance consists of
of its
capabilities
its
capabilities
neither
neither Fault
controller Detection
Detection and
reconfiguration, butDiagnosis
it (FDD) schemes
schemes nor nor of the controller properties.
must Themonitoring
include fault tolerance
tolerance
for capabilities
faults. As an
controllerFault
reconfiguration, andbut it has
has limited
Diagnosis (FDD)faulttolerant
limited faulttolerant fault
of
of the
the
tolerance
controller
controller
properties.
must
must
The
include
include
fault
monitoring
monitoring for
for
capabilities
faults.
faults. As
As an
an
controller
capabilities. reconfiguration,
In contrast
controller reconfiguration, tobut it
PFTCS,
but has limited
AFTCS
it has AFTCS faulttolerant
reacts
limited faulttolerantto the example,
of the the
controller FTC problem
must includewas recently
monitoring
example, the FTC problem was recently analysed but with analysed
for but
faults. Aswith
an
capabilities.
capabilities. In
In contrast
contrast to
to PFTCS,
PFTCS, AFTCS reacts
reacts to
to the
the example, the FTC problem was recently analysed but with
system component
capabilities. In faults
contrast actively
to PFTCS, by reconfiguring
AFTCS reacts control
to the reference
example, to
the anFTCoffshore
problem wind turbine
was benchmark
recently analysed (Odgaard
but with
system component faults actively by reconfiguring control reference to an offshore wind turbine benchmark (Odgaard
system
system component
actions
actions so
so that
that the
component faults actively
stability
thefaults and
actively
stability and by
by reconfiguring
acceptable control reference
control
performance
reconfiguring
acceptable performance
et al.
reference
et
to
to an
al. (2013)).
(2013)). an offshore
offshore windwind turbine
turbine benchmark
benchmark (Odgaard
(Odgaard
actions
of the
actions so that
entire the
system
so thatsystem stability
can
the stability beand acceptable
maintained. Aperformance
successful et
et al.
al. (2013)).
(2013)).
of the entire can beand acceptable A
maintained. performance
successful In In more detail, this paper addresses the development of
more detail, this paper addresses the development of aa
of
of the
AFTCSthe entire
design
entire system
relies
system can
can be
heavily beon maintained.
realtime
maintained. A
A successful
FDD schemes
successful In more detail, this paper addresses the development of a
AFTCS
AFTCS design
design relies
relies heavily
heavily on
on realtime FDD schemes FTC,
In more
FTC, which
detail,
which integrates
this paper
integrates a fault estimation
addresses
a fault scheme
the development
estimation with
scheme with of the
thea
to
AFTCS
to provide
provide the
design most
the relies uptodate
most heavily
uptodate on realtime
information
realtime
information
FDD
FDD schemes
about
schemes
about the
the FTC, design
FTC, which
of
which a integrates
controller
integrates aa fault estimation
accommodation
fault estimation scheme
system.
scheme In with the
particu-
with the
to
to provide
provide thethe most most uptodate
uptodate information
information about about the the designdesign
lar,
of a controller accommodation system. In particu-
of aa controller accommodation system.
system. In particu-
1 Corresponding author.
1 Corresponding author. lar, the
designtheofmethodology
controller for
methodology online
online fault
accommodation
for fault estimation
estimation In relies on
particu-
relies on
1
1 Corresponding author. lar,
lar, the
the methodology
methodology for
for online
online fault
fault estimation
estimation relies
relies on
on
Corresponding author.
Copyright
2405-8963 2015,
2015 IFAC 1345Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
Copyright 2015 IFAC 1345
Peer review
Copyright
Copyright under
2015 responsibility
2015 IFAC
IFAC of International Federation of Automatic
1345Control.
1345
10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.09.712
SAFEPROCESS 2015
1346
September 2-4, 2015. Paris, France S. Simani et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-21 (2015) 13451350
fuzzy models estimated via the data acquired from the
process under diagnosis. The controller accommodation
exploiting further control loops depends on the online
estimate of the fault signals themselves. The suggested
nonlinear fault estimation procedure resembles the ap-
proach described in (Simani and Castaldi (2014)), even
if in this paper the nonlinear filters are described as fuzzy
prototypes and identified directly from the wind farm data.
Both the adaptive filters and the FTC strategy are anal-
ysed with respect to the wind park simulator described in
(Odgaard and Stoustrup (2013)), in the presence of faults,
disturbances, measurement noise, and modelling errors.
The design of the overall FTC for the wind park simulator
and based on fuzzy FDD modules represents the novel
contribution of this paper. The proposed solution will
be also compared with respect to two different strategies
presented in (Simani and Castaldi (2012); Simani et al.
(2014)).
2. OFFSHORE WIND PARK SIMULATOR
In this benchmark model a simple wind farm with 9 wind
turbines is considered, arranged in a square grid layout
(Odgaard and Stoustrup (2013)). The distance between
the wind turbines in both directions are 7 times the rotor
diameter, L. Two measuring masts are located in front
of the wind turbines, one in each of the wind directions
considered in this benchmark model, e.g. 0o and 45o . The
wind speed is measured by these measuring masts and
they are located in a distance of 10 times L in front of
the wind farm. The wind turbines of the farm are defined
by their row and column indices in the coordinate system
illustrated in (Odgaard and Stoustrup (2013)). The farm
uses generic 4.8MW wind turbines, which are threebladed
horizontal axis, pitch controlled variable speed wind tur-
bine. Each of the wind turbines are described by simplified
models including control logics, variable parameters and 3
states. The ith wind turbine model generates the electri-
cal power, Pi g (t), the collective pitch angle, i (t), and the
generator speed, i g (t). Note that only one measured pitch
angle is provided since it is assumed that the wind turbine
controller regulates the pitch angles in the same way. The
two scenarios with different wind directions but driven
both by the same wind speed sequence vw (t) (possibly with
a time shift) are considered. The wind sequence contains
a wind mean speed increasing from 5 m/s. to 15 m/s, and
with a peak value of about 23 m/s. In this benchmark
model a very simple wind farm controller is used, which
provides the wind turbine controllers with a power refer-
ence Pi ref (t). If the wind farm is requested to generate
a power lower than the available one, the references are
evenly distributed among the wind turbine controllers.
More details on wind farm model considered in this paper
can be found in (Odgaard and Stoustrup (2013)). It is
worth noting that the wind farm considered here could
be seen as simplistic model. However, the work (Odgaard
and Stoustrup (2013)) describes how the simulator can fit
actual wind farm.
With these assumptions, the complete continuoustime
description of the wind farm under diagnosis has the
following form:
1346
xc (t) = fc (xc (t), u(t))
(1)
y(t) = xc (t)
T
where u(t) = [vw (t), i (t)] and y(t) = xc (t) =
T
[i g (t), Pi g (t)] are the input and the monitored output
measurements, respectively. The subscript i indicates the
measurement from the ith wind turbine of the wind
farm (i = 1, . . . , 9). fc () represents the continuoustime
nonlinear function that will be approximated with the
discretetime fuzzy prototype from N sampled data of u(t)
and y(t), and using the procedure presented in Section 3.
2.1 Simulated Fault Conditions
In this benchmark three faults are considered that in-
fluence the measured variables from the wind turbine,
i.e. i (t), i g (t), and Pi g (t). It is also assumed that the
considered faults can be detected at a wind farm level by
comparing the performance from other wind turbines in
the wind farm, but they are difficult to detect at a wind
turbine level. Moreover, these three faults affect different
wind turbines at different times, as described in more
detail in (Odgaard and Stoustrup (2013)).
The remainder of this section describes the relations
among the fault cases considered above, and the monitored
measurements acquired from the wind park benchmark,
in the presence of uncertainty and measurement errors. In
this way, it will be shown that the fault isolation task can
be easily solved by using the fuzzy scheme proposed in this
work, thus representing one of the main motivations of the
suggested approach. In particular, Table 1 shows the fault
effect distribution in the case of single fault occurrence,
with respect to the acquired inputs and outputs of the
wind park simulator.
Table 1. The FMEA results for the wind park
benchmark.
Fault affecting Selected measurements Fault
wind turbine nr. after FMEA case
i = 2, i = 7 {vw (t), 9 (t), P4 g } Fault 1
i = 1, i = 5 {vw (t), 2 (t), P6 g } Fault 2
i = 6, i = 8 {vw (t), 3 (t), P7 g } Fault 3
Table 1 was obtained by performing the socalled fault
sensitivity analysis, i.e. the Failure Mode & Effect Analysis
(FMEA). In practice, Table 1 is thus built by selecting
the most sensitive measurement (ui or yj ) with respect to
the simulated fault conditions. Obviously, when different
fault conditions have been considered with respect to the
scenario of this work, different measurements will probably
be taken into account.
3. FUZZY MODELLING AND IDENTIFICATION
FOR PASSIVE FTC DESIGN
The proposed FTC method consists of two phases. The
first stage requires the identification of the nonlinear
dynamic filters, which are required for fault estimation.
From this FDD module, the fault reconstruction is thus
exploited by the control scheme for compensating the
alterations of both the measured and control signals.
 SAFEPROCESS 2015
September 2-4, 2015. Paris, France S. Simani et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-21 (2015) 13451350 1347
The nonlinear identification approach suggested in this
work employs fuzzy clustering techniques to partition the
available data into subsets characterised by linear be-
haviours. Relationships between clusters and linear regres-
sion are exploited, thus allowing for the combination of
fuzzy logic techniques with system identification tools. In
addition, an implementation in the Matlab r Toolbox of
the Fuzzy Modelling and IDentification (FMID) technique
recalled in the following is available (Babuska (1998)). In
this study, TS fuzzy models are exploited as they are able
to provide the nonlinear function between measurements
and faults. The switching and the scheduling between the
submodels is achieved through a smooth function of the
system state, the behaviour of which is defined using fuzzy
set theory.
3.1 Fuzzy Modelling and Identification
In more detail, the fuzzy modelling and identification al-
gorithm is based on a twostep procedure, in which at
first, the operating regions are determined using the data
clustering technique, and in particular, the Gustafson
Kessel (GK) fuzzy clustering, since already available in
(Babuska (1998)). Then, in the second stage, the estima-
tion of the controller parameters is achieved using the
identification algorithm already proposed by one of the
same authors in (Simani et al. (1999)), which can be seen
as a generalisation of classical leastsquares. The TS fuzzy
models have the form of:
M denoted by the superscript (m).
i=1 i (x(k)) yi
y(k + 1) =  M
(2)
i=1 i (x(k))
where yi = ai x + bi , with ai the parameter vector
(regressand), and bi is the scalar offset. M is the number
of clusters. x = x(k) represents the regressor vector,
which can contain delayed samples of u(k) and y(k).
The antecedent fuzzy sets i are extracted from the
fuzzy partition matrix (Babuska (1998)). The consequent
parameters ai and bi are estimated from the data using
the procedure presented in (Simani et al. (1999)).
This section represents the main contributions of the work
and addresses the identification of the fault estimator
structure. Once a reasonably accurate fuzzy description of
the considered benchmark has been available, it is used to
directly estimate the nonlinear behaviour between mea-
surements and fault signals. In particular for this study,
the proposed residual generator design methodology relies
on the unknown input reconstruction principle, solved
within the fuzzy identification framework. It is wellknown
that for stable fuzzy systems, whose inverted dynamics
are stable, a nonlinear estimator for the unknown input
can be simply designed by inverting the fuzzy model.
Moreover, in the ideal situation of no modelling errors and
disturbances, this estimator provides perfect reconstruc-
tion of the unknown input signal with zero steadystate
errors. However, in practice, one has to deal with both
modelling errors and disturbances, which can be tackled
with an arbitrary degree of accuracy by exploiting the
fuzzy modelling approach.
It is worth noting that fuzzy identification can been
used to accurately approximate any nonlinear function.
In the same way, this section tries to explain how the
1347
residual generator function for fault estimation can be
directly identified again by exploiting a fuzzy identification
scheme, inspired by the unknown input reconstruction.
The nonlinear estimator based on a fuzzy inverse model
takes into account the process nonlinearities, including the
inherent saturation (level) constraints of the control inputs
and other process variables, and is capable of controlling
a nonlinear system in the entire operating range.
First, it is assumed that the rulebased model (2) has been
identified for describing the continuoustime behaviour of
the complete wind park system in the discretetime form
(3):
y(k + 1) = F (x(k), f (k)) (3)
where x(k) represents the generic system state and f (k)
the (unknown) fault signal. Its TS prototype has the form
(4):
M (m)  (m)   (m) (m) (m)

x (k) a x (k) + b
y(k + 1) =
i=1 i i i
(4)
M (m)  (m) 
x (k)
i=1 i
The input of the model is the current state x(m) (k) that
collects the lagged inputs u(k) and outputs y(k), as well
as the unknown input f (k). The output is a prediction of
the systems output at the next sample y(k + 1). In (4)
(m)
the estimated membership functions i , the state x(m) ,
(m) (m)
and the parameters ai , bi of the monitored system are
3.2 Fault Estimation for FTC Design
The objective of the estimator is to compute the unknown
input f(k), such that the system output at the next
sampling instant is equal to the desired output y(k + 1).
In principle, this can be achieved by inverting the model
of the process. Given the generic current state x(k) and
the output y(k), the unknown input f(k) is given by:
f(k + 1) = F 1 (x(k), y(k)) (5)
Generally, it is difficult to find the analytical inverse func-
tion F 1 . Therefore, the method exploited here uses the
identified fuzzy TS models of the process under investiga-
tion (4) for providing the particular state x(m) (k) at each
time step k. From this mapping, the inverse mapping f(k+
1) = F 1 (x(k), y(k)) is easily identified as a prototype in
the form (2), if the whole system is stable, and in particular
in the form (6):
M (r)  (r)   (r) (r) (r)

x (k) a x (k) + b
i=1 i i i
f(k + 1) = M (r)  (r)  (6)
x (k)
i=1 i
where the inputs of the identified controller model are
the state x(r) (k) and the current output y(k). In (6) the
(r)
estimated membership functions i and the parameters
(r) (r)
ai , bi of the identified controller model are denoted now
by the superscript (r). Therefore, the series connection of
the fault estimator and the identified inverse model, should
yield to an identity mapping,
  when f (k) exists such that
y(k + 1) = F x(m) (k), f(k) . However, due to modelling
SAFEPROCESS 2015
1348
September 2-4, 2015. Paris, France S. Simani et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-21 (2015) 13451350
errors, noise, and disturbance, by means of the fuzzy iden-
tification procedure
 described
 in Section 3, the difference
|y(k + 1) F x(k), f (k) | is made arbitrarily small by an
appropriate choice of the parameters of the fuzzy residual
(r)
generator, i.e. the fuzzy membership functions i , the
(r) (r)
number of clusters M , and the regressand ai , bi . The
process fuzzy model is used for the recursive prediction
of the state vector x(m) (k). Therefore, the state of the
fuzzy fault estimator x(r) (k) is updated using the process
model state x(m) (k) and the output y(k). Apart from the
(r)
computation of the membership degrees i , both the pro-
cess model and the controller are estimated using standard
matrix operations and linear interpolations, which makes
the algorithm suitable for realtime implementation.
Note that the nonlinear filter estimation and the fault
reconstruction are performed online, thus providing non-
linear adaptive filters. The fault estimations are therefore
exploited for the compensation of both the actuated and
measured signals used by the wind park controller. In
particular, in order to compute the simulation results
described in Section 4, the FTC scheme has been com-
pleted by means of the wind park controller described
in (Odgaard and Stoustrup (2013)). In this way, the sig-
nals from the wind farm controller are compensated by
the FDD module providing the fa control additive fault
signals. On the other hand, also the measured outputs
are compensated via the fy sensor additive fault signals
reconstructed by the FDD module. After these corrections,
the wind park controller provides the nominal tracking of
the reference signals. Note that these identified nonlinear
filters, organised into a bank structure, are also able to per-
form the fault isolation task, as described e.g. in (Simani
(2013)). The overall FTC strategy based on the fuzzy FDD
module is depicted in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Diagram of the integrated FTC strategy.
Fig. 1 describes the structure of the FTC system where
u is the controller output, y and Ref are the measured
and the reference outputs, respectively. The signal f is the
generic estimated fault, i.e. the fa or fy additive signals.
Therefore, Fig. 1 shows that the FTC system is obtained
by integrating the fuzzy FDD module with the baseline
control system. The FDD module, consisting of a bank
of fuzzy estimators, provides the correct estimates of the
fault signals. Each fuzzy estimator of the bank provides
the correct detection (isolation) and the estimation of the
corresponding faults. These estimated signals are injected
into the control loop in order to compensate the effect of
the faults. Thanks to this fault estimation feedback, the
1348
controller can be easily designed considering the faultfree
plant.
Finally, regarding the stability analysis of the overall FTC
system, the simulation results shown in Section 4 highlight
that the model variables remain bounded in a set, which
assures control performance, even in the presence of faults.
Moreover, the assumed fault conditions do not modify the
system structure, thus guaranteeing the global stability.
However, a few more issues can be considered here. It
should be clear that in steadystate conditions, when the
fault effect is completely eliminated, the performances of
the FTC method are the same of the faultfree situation.
Therefore, the performances of the complete system are
the same of the faultfree nominal controller. The stability
properties of the FTC scheme should be considered only in
transient conditions, when the fault is not compensated.
However, it is possible to show that the fault estimation
error is limited and convergent to zero, thus the stability
of the complete system is maintained.
4. SIMULATED RESULTS
In order to show the capabilities of the proposed FTC
strategy, the system has been simulated as described in
(Odgaard and Stoustrup (2013)). Extended simulations
have been also performed by the authors according to a
more realistic testrig developed in (Odgaard and Johnson
(2013)). The designed nonlinear filters provide the esti-
mate of the magnitude of the different faults acting on the
the wind park model, as shown in Section 2.
4.1 PFTCS Performances
As an example, the identified nonlinear fuzzy filter pro-
vides the reconstruction fa for the fault case 1 of Table 1,
which is decoupled from the effect of both the wind speed
v(t) and the Cp map uncertainty. In order to compute the
simulation results described below, the FTC scheme has
been completed by means of the standard wind park con-
troller implemented in (Odgaard and Stoustrup (2013)).
The following results refer to the simulation of the accom-
modated controller with fault case 1 of Table 1. Hence,
after the proper identification of the fuzzy residual genera-
tor parameters, the nonlinear fuzzy estimator provides the
reconstruction of the fault mode, with minimal detection
delay. The tests refer to the simulation of the actuator
fault modelled as a sequence of rectangular pulses with
variable amplitude and length. Fig. 2 shows the estimate
of the intermittent actuator fault fa (dotted grey line),
compared with the actual fault (dashed black line). It is
shown that the fault estimation module provides a quite
accurate reconstruction of the fault signal.
Under this condition, Fig. 3 shows the power reference
signal (continuous black line) compared with its desired
value (grey dotted line), with fault accommodation.
In particular, Fig. 3 depicts the power reference to the
wind farm, Pref , which is constant and equal to 43.6MW
until t = 2000 s., when it changes to about 30 MW. It
is worth observing that the suggested fuzzy estimators
provide not only the fault detection, but also the fault
estimate. Moreover, a fault modelled as a sequence of
 SAFEPROCESS 2015
September 2-4, 2015. Paris, France S. Simani et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-21 (2015) 13451350 1349
Fig. 2. Realtime estimate fa of the intermittent fault case
1.
Fig. 3. Reference signal for the fault 1 with FTC.
pulses with variable amplitude and length has been consid-
ered, since it represents realistic fault conditions. However,
the fault estimation module can be easily generalised to
estimate, for example, polynomial functions of time, or
generic signals belonging to a given class of faults, if the
filters contain the internal model of the fault itself. The
generalisation to more general fault functions is beyond the
scope of this paper, but it will be investigated in further
papers.
As second example, the simulation of the sensor fault case
2 of Table 1 is reported. Also in this situation, after a
proper choice of the fuzzy residual generator parameters,
an accurate estimate of the fault signal fy is provided.
The results refer to the simulation of a fault consisting
of a rectangular pulse with fixed amplitude and length.
Also this simulation example shows the efficacy of the
presented integrated FDD and FTC strategy, which is able
to maintain the reference tracking. In order to summarise
the advantages of the proposed strategy, the performance
of the FTC scheme applied to the wind park simulator with
and without the fault accommodation scheme has been
evaluated in terms of percent Normalised Sum of Squared
tracking Error (N SSE). In this case, the reference signal
r(k) corresponds to the power reference to the wind farm.
Moreover, the simulation of different wind data sequences
has been performed by exploiting the wind park simu-
lator, followed by a Matlab r MonteCarlo analysis. In
particular, the nonlinear wind park benchmark originally
developed in the Simulink r environment (Odgaard and
Stoustrup (2013)) was modified by the authors in order to
vary the statistical properties of the signals used for mod-
1349
elling process parameter uncertainty, and measurement
errors. Under this assumption, Table 2 reports the nominal
values of the considered wind park model parameters of
the wind farm with respect to their simulated uncertainty.
The MonteCarlo analysis has been performed by mod-
elling these variables as Gaussian stochastic processes,
with zeromean and standard deviations corresponding to
realistic minimal and maximal error values of Table 2.
Table 2. Realistic wind park uncertainty.
Variable Nominal Value Min. Error Max. Error
1.225 kg/m3 0.1% 20%
J 7.794 106 kg/m2 0.1% 30%
Cp Cp 0 0.1% 50%
u u0 0.1% 20%
y y0 0.1% 20%
It is assumed that the inputoutput signals u and y
and the power coefficient map Cp entries were affected
by errors, expressed as percent standard deviations of
the corresponding nominal values u0 , y0 , and Cp 0 also
reported in Table 2. Therefore, for performance evaluation
of the control schemes, the best, average, and worst values
of the N SSE% index were computed, and experimen-
tally evaluated with 100 MonteCarlo runs. The value of
N SSE% is computed for several possible combinations of
the parameter values reported in Table 2. It is worth noting
that Table 2 describes the uncertain parameters that have
been simulated in order to analyse the robustness of the
proposed scheme with respect to parameter variations. In
fact, the approach was proposed here also for removing
the effect of the uncertain wind term v(t), and not for
handling the parameter variations summarised in Table 2.
Table 3 summarises the results obtained by considering the
proposed FTC scheme integrating the original wind park
controller for the different fault cases.
Table 3. MonteCarlo analysis for the pro-
posed FTC: N SSE% values with different
fault cases.
Fault case/Test case Best case Average case Worst case
Fault case 1 11.14% 12.63% 14.05%
Fault case 2 12.31% 13.63% 15.74%
Fault case 3 10.46% 11.55% 12.73%
In particular, Table 3 summarises the values of the consid-
ered performance index according to the best, worst and
average cases, with reference to the possible combinations
of the parameters described in Table 2. Thus, Table 3
shows that the proposed FTC system allows to maintain
good control performances even in the presence of faults,
errors, and uncertainty effects. The results demonstrate
also that MonteCarlo simulation is an effective tool for
experimentally testing the design robustness of the pro-
posed methods with respect to modelling uncertainty.
4.2 HIL Experiments
Finally, in order to evaluate the potential of utilising
the proposed control algorithms also in more realistic
conditions and investigate their capability to onboard
implementation, the remainder of this section presents
the results of the socalled HardwareIntheLoop (HIL)
tests. These experimental results serve to validate the
SAFEPROCESS 2015
1350
September 2-4, 2015. Paris, France S. Simani et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-21 (2015) 13451350
designed control algorithms considering more realistic con-
ditions that the wind park may experiment with during
its working situations. Therefore, for this purpose, a HIL
testbed was exploited in this paper and applied to the
wind park, in order to analyse the capabilities of the
developed FTC approach also in realtime conditions. The
results achieved for a single test are summarised in Table
4 for the proposed FTC system. Moreover, the approach
described in this study has been compared with respect
to the PFTCS developed in (Simani et al. (2014)) and the
adaptive FTC system in (Simani and Castaldi (2012)). On
the other hand, the FTC strategy relying on the analytic
disturbance decoupling approach addressed in (Simani and
Castaldi (2014)) is also considered.
Table 4. HIL results with the considered FTC
solutions: N SSE% values.
FTC Scheme Fault 1 Fault 2 Fault 3
N SSE%
Fuzzy identified FDD
module + FTC 13.74% 14.37% 15.01%
Analytic
disturbance 14.07% 15.06% 15.34%
decoupled FTC
(Simani and Castaldi (2014))
PFTCS 32.64% 33.53% 34.98%
(Simani et al. (2014))
Adaptive FTC 31.53% 31.94% 32.07%
(Simani and Castaldi (2012))
Regarding the FTC system proposed in this study, Table
4 illustrates that there are some deviations between the
achieved results, but consistent with the ones from the
MonteCarlo analysis. Although there are some deviations
between the simulation and the experimental results, these
deviations are not critical. Moreover, the results obtained
here seem reliable enough for future wind farm real ap-
plications. Moreover, the comparison of Table 4 highlights
that this FTC scheme can achieve better performances in
terms of tracking error.
5. CONCLUSION
The paper addressed the development of a passive fault
tolerant control scheme applied to an offshore wind farm
simulator. In particular, a datadriven approach relying on
fuzzy model identification was exploited to build the fault
accommodation solution. This simple approach relying on
fuzzy rules can represent an alternative to possible more
complex design solutions that would have been inevitably
derived from purely nonlinear modelbased methods. This
point can represent also a very important aspect when on
line implementations are required for a viable application
of the proposed strategy. A highfidelity offshore wind
farm simulator realised via the hardwarein-the-loop tool
was finally exploited to validate the achieved performances
of the suggested scheme.
REFERENCES
Babuska, R. (1998). Fuzzy Modeling for Control. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, USA.
1350
Mahmoud, M., Jiang, J., and Zhang, Y. (2003). Active
Fault Tolerant Control Systems: Stochastic Analysis and
Synthesis. Lecture Notes in Control and Information
Sciences. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany. ISBN:
3540003185.
Noura, H., Theilliol, D., Ponsart, J.C., and Chamseddine,
A. (2009). Faulttolerant Control Systems: Design and
Practical Applications. Advances in Industrial Control.
Springer, London, 1 edition.
Odgaard, P.F., Stoustrup, J., and Kinnaert, M. (2013).
FaultTolerant Control of Wind Turbines: A Bench-
mark Model. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, 21(4), 11681182. ISSN: 10636536. DOI:
10.1109/TCST.2013.2259235.
Odgaard, P.F. and Johnson, K. (2013). Wind Turbine
Fault Diagnosis and Fault Tolerant Control an En-
hanced Benchmark Challenge. In Proc. of the 2013
American Control Conference ACC, 44474452. IEEE
Control Systems Society & American Automatic Con-
trol Council, Washington DC, USA. ISSN: 07431619.
ISBN: 9781479901777.
Odgaard, P.F. and Stoustrup, J. (2013). Fault Tolerant
Wind Farm Control a Benchmark Model. In Pro-
ceedings of the IEEE Multiconference on Systems and
Control MSC2013, 16. Hyderabad, India.
Simani, S. (2013). Residual Generator Fuzzy Identification
for Automotive Diesel Engine Fault Diagnosis. Interna-
tional Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer
Science AMCS, 23(2), 419438. Invited Contribution
to the AMCS Quarterly. Organisers: Koscielny, M. J.
and Syfert, M. ISSN: 1641876X. DOI: 10.2478/amcs
20130032.
Simani, S. and Castaldi, P. (2012). Adaptive faulttolerant
control design approach for a wind turbine bench-
mark. In C.M. Astorga-Zaragoza and A. Molina (eds.),
8th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision
and Safety of Technical Processes SAFEPROCESS
2012, volume 8, 319324. Instituto de Ingeniera, Cir-
cuito escolar, Ciudad Universitaria, CP 04510, Mexico
D.F., IFAC, Mexico City, Mexico. Invited session pa-
per. ISBN: 9783902823090. ISSN: 14746670. DOI:
10.3182/20120829-3-MX-2028.00066.
Simani, S., Fantuzzi, C., Rovatti, R., and Beghelli, S.
(1999). Parameter identification for piecewise linear
fuzzy models in noisy environment. International Jour-
nal of Approximate Reasoning, 1(22), 149167. Pub-
lisher: Elsevier.
Simani, S., Farsoni, S., and Castaldi, P. (2014). Fault
tolerant control of an offshore wind turbine model via
identified fuzzy prototypes. In J.F. Whidborne (ed.),
Proceedings of the 2014 UKACC International Con-
ference on Control (CONTROL), 494499. UKACC
(United Kingdom Automatic Control Council), IEEE,
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. ISBN:
9781467306874. Special session invited paper. DOI:
10.1109/CONTROL.2014.6915188.
Simani, S. and Castaldi, P. (2014). Active Actuator Fault
Tolerant Control of a Wind Turbine Benchmark Model.
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control,
24(8), 12831303. John Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/rnc.2993.