Dear Dr.Jonkman
No, I didn’t know that such removal must be done. However, removing that state was a breakthrough . Thanks for your kind advice!
These are the new results:
In comparison with earlier plots, they seem reasonable, don’t they? But I wonder why the effect of generator torque is so negligible?
Another question: As my control inputs are only commulative blade pitch and generator torque, do I till need to apply mbcInverse transform to the model?
Sincerely Yours,
Hooman Asgari
Dear Hooman,
Yes, your results now look more reasonable. Could the small magnitude of the generator torque step response be related to the units?
I’m not sure I understand your last question, but the MBC transformation only needs to be applied to inputs, outputs, and states in the rotating frame i.e. for those inputs, outputs, and states that are set uniquely for each blade. The MBC transformation should not effect collective blade-pitch or generator torque.
Best regards,
Dear Dr.Jonkman,
Using Simulink, I applied a 300 N.m step input to the model (i.e 300*u(t-15)), and got the below results:
Looks unusual, doesn’t? Furthermore, as was shown my previous post, a step change in the commulative blade pitch results in the 80 rpm decreasement of rotor speed, while the rated rotro speed is only 20 rpm!!!
Sincerely Yours,
Hooman Asgari
Dear Hooman,
I’m having a hard time understanding enough about what you are doing to comment. Please explain what you are doing and clarify your question if you want me to answer.
Best regards,
