2016 UKACC 11th International Conference on Control (CONTROL)

Belfast, UK, 31st August - 2nd September, 2016

Optimal controller design and constraints

analysis of a sea wave energy converter
Siyuan Zhan∗ , Henri Huijberts∗ , Jing Na† , Guang Li∗
∗ School
of Engineering and Material Science
Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom
† Department of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering

Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650093, China

s.zhan@qmul.ac.uk, h.j.c.huijberts@qmul.ac.uk, najing25@163.com, g.li@qmul.ac.uk

Abstract—This paper studies the optimal control of
a sea wave energy converter (WEC). A linear optimal
controller is designed for the WEC to maximise the energy
output. Rather than regulating states and control inputs
as a conventional optimal controller normally does, the
proposed optimal controller aims to maximise the energy
output. The maximum output admissible set method is
employed to estimate the feasibility of the proposed linear
optimal controller when the input and state constraints
need to be considered for safe operation of the WEC.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Oceans contain abundant wave energy. The subject of
harnessing wave energy has been extensively studied in
recent decades, especially after the 1973 oil embargo
[1]. Although many types of sea wave energy converters
(WECs) have been invented [2], wave energy is still
not able to challenge the predominant positions of other
more mature renewable energies, such as wind energy
and solar energy, due to its high unit cost [3].
To reduce the unit cost of wave energy, increasing
attention has been focused on how to extract most
energy from sea waves while reducing the risk of device
damage. Based on the principle that energy output can
be maximised when the resonance frequency of a WEC
matches the dominant frequency of the incoming waves,
many conventional WEC control strategies have been
developed, including latching control [4], [5], phase con-
trol [6], impedance matching control [7] and declutching
control [8].
Conventional research on WEC control mainly fo-
cused on the efficiency improvement of the WEC con-
troller, while the operating safety of the WEC cannot
be effectively handled by the WEC controllers [9]. To
guarantee the safe operation of the WECs, state and input
constraints have to be incorporated into the WEC control
problem. Recent works show that the WEC control can
be formulated as a constrained optimal control problem,
and model predictive control (MPC) can potentially
be employed to resolve this problem by repetitively
resolving a constrained optimization problem online at
each sampling instant, e.g. [10], [11]. Especially when
future wave profile information is available, the MPC
strategy can further improve the energy conversion rate
significantly, [11], [12]. However, the MPC based WEC
control has the following drawbacks which restrict its
applicability:
1) the wave prediction device requirement can in-
crease the installation cost, since wave prediction
technique has not been developed into a very
mature stage;
2) the online optimisation of MPC controller may
impose a heavy computational burden and thus
increases the computational hardware cost [12];
3) the stability and feasibility problems of MPC for
WECs have not been fully investigated to prevent
the potential damage of the WECs if the stability
and feasibility of the WEC MPC controller are not
guaranteed.
To meet the demand of low cost but safe and efficient
controllers, This paper present a linear optimal controller
that is specifically tailored for the WEC control problem,
i.e. wave energy output maximisation. The main feature
of this WEC linear optimal control (WECLOC) is that
it aims to optimise the energy output together with
other penalty terms. This is essentially different from
the conventional linear optimal controllers for regulation
and reference tracking problems, e.g. linear quadratic
regulator (LQR). To employ the conventional optimal
control strategy, desired reference trajectories for the
state and input of the WEC need to be calculated
in advance, which is normally not convenient since
its accuracy highly depends on the efficiency of the
wave prediction algorithm. The WECLOC can directly
maximise energy output which avoids calculating the
optimal reference and the use of wave profile prediction
algorithm. Moreover, different from MPC which needs
online optimisation and wave prediction, WECLOC is an
efficient linear invariant controller which can be calculat-
ed offline and implemented efficiently and economically
online.
To enhance the applicability of the WECLOC, we

978-1-4673-9891-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

employ the Maximum Output Admissible Set (MOAS) the cross sectional area of the float. The radiation force
theory to analyse the feasibility problem for the proposed is
WECLOC [13]. This analysis method provides a tool fr = m∞ z̈v + D(żv − żw )
to estimate the maximum feasible set for the WEC
where m∞ is the added mass and D is the damping ratio.
controlled by the WECLOC under a given sea condition
Note that the damping ratio D is a frequency-dependent
represented by the maximum heave magnitude of wave
term, which can be represented by a convolution term
profiles. Thus this method helps to answer the critical
[14]. Here we assume D as a constant term resulting
question: under what sea conditions is it safe to operate
in a second order system for demonstration purpose; the
the WEC controlled by the WECLOC? The proposed
proposed methods can be applied to higher order WEC
analysis method can also be implemented efficiently off-
model with D as a frequency-dependent term without
line to check the satisfaction of the constraints. The
loss of generality.
combined use of the proposed analysis method and the
By defining state variable x := [fs , żv ] , external
WECLOC can significantly reduce the computational
disturbance w := żw , control input u = fu , the state
burden required by the WEC MPC controller and provide
space model becomes
a very economic and reliable way of controlling the
WEC. ẋ = Ac x + Buc u + Bwc w
The paper is organised as follows. In Section II, the
where
dynamic model of a single WEC device together with      
its model are briefly presented. In Section III, the WE- 0 −ks ks 0
Ac = 1 D Bwc = D Buc = 1 (2)
CLOC will be developed. In Section IV, the constraints m −m m m
satisfaction is analysed by MOAS. We demonstrate our By discretising the system with sampling time Ts =
simulation result in Section V. Finally, the paper is 0.02s, we have the discrete time model
concluded in Section VI.
x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu u(k) + Bw w(k) (3)
II. M ODEL S ETUP III. WEC OPTIMAL CONTROL FORMULATION
The model we are using is the same as the model in The optimal control for a WEC subject to constraints
[12], so we briefly present it here for completeness. The can be represented as
force analysis diagram of the point absorber is shown in
N −1
Figure 1. zw and zv are the water level and the heave of 1 X
the mid-point of the float respectively. The power output min lim Lk , (4)
N →∞ N
of the WEC is expressed as P = −fu żv where fu is k=0

a force provided by actuator and is used as the control s. t. |u(k)| ≤ umax (5)
input. |fs | ≤ ks Φmax (6)
Here Lk is stage cost; (5) is the input constraint and
umax is the maximum force can be provided by the
actuator. (6) is the state constraint and Φmax is the limit
for the heave displacement difference between the buoy
and the water level. Since a linear optimal controller can
not handle constraints directly, we penalise state x and
the control input u in cost function. Consider the linear
WEC model (3) with stage cost
 
1 T q1 0 T 1
Lk = xk x + tCxk uk + ru2k (7)
Fig. 1. Force diagram of the point absorber 2 0 q2 k 2
 
Comparing to the model in [12], we neglect the where C = 1 0 , q1 ≥ 0, q2 ≥ 0, t ≥ 0 and r > 0
friction force without loss of generality. The dynamic are the tuning weights. Cxk uk represents the generated
model of a single WEC can be described as power at instant k.
The WECLOC for the cost function (4) with dynamics
ms z̈v = −fs − fr + fu (1) (3) is proposed as follows.
Proposition 1. The optimal controller with stage cost
Here ms is the float mass. The buoyancy force is fs :=
(7) can be calculated by
ks (zw − zv ) where the hydrostatic stiffness ks = ρgs,
with ρ as water density, g as standard gravity, and s as uk = Kx,k xk + Kw,k wk + Kv,k vk+1 (8)
where Proof. The equation (12) can be represented as follows

Kx,k = − (r + BuT Sk+1 Bu )−1 (tC + BuT Sk+1 A) (9) Sk = (A + Bu Kx,k )T Sk+1 (A + Bu Kx,k )
 T   
Kw,k = − (r + BuT Sk+1 Bu )−1 BuT Sk+1 Bw (10) +
Kx,k rI tI Kx,k
+ q1 CzT Cz
C tI q2 I C
Kv,k = (r + BuT Sk+1 Bu )−1 BuT (11)
First we observe that
and N
X −1
(xTk+1 Sk+1 xk+1 − xTk Sk xk ) = xTN SN xN − xTi Si xi
Sk = AT Sk+1 A + Q + (tC T + AT Sk+1 Bu )Kx,k k=i
(19)
(12)
Note that the cost to go (from i) is
vk = AT vk+1 N −1  T 
Q T T xk
 
−(tC T + AT Sk+1 Bu )(Kw,k wk + Kv,k vk+1 )
X 1 xk
Ji = + xTN SN xN (20)
(13) 2 uk T R uk
k=i
 
where Q = q1 C T C + q2 CzT Cz , Cz = 0 1 . where T = tC and R = r. By adding the left of (19)
and subtracting the right of (19) to (20), we have
Proof. The Hamiltonian is 1
Ji = xTi Si xi
Hk = Lk + λTk+1 (Axk + Bu uk + Bw wk ) (14) 2
 T   
N −1 x M M12,k M13,k xk
X 1  k   11,k T
where λk+1 is the Lagrange multiplier. + uk M12,k M22,k M23,k   uk 
The necessary condition of the optimal control is 2 T T
k=i wk M13,k M23,k M33,k wk
∂Hk where
λk = = Qxk + tC T uk + AT λk+1 (15)
∂xk M11,k = AT Sk+1 A + Q − Sk
∂Hk
0= = tCxk + ruk + BuT λk+1 (16) M12,k = AT Sk+1 Bu + T T
∂uk
M13,k = AT Sk+1 Bw
Assume
M22,k = BuT Sk+1 Bu
λk = Sk xk − vk , with k < N (17) M23,k = BuT Sk+1 Bw
T
and vN = 0. M33,k = Bw Sk+1 Bw
By substituting (17) to (16), we obtain (8)-(11). Then Note that
we substitute (8) and (17) to (15) to obtain ∂ 2 Ji
= BuT Sk+1 Bu + R
∂u2k
Sk xk − vk = (Q + AT Sk+1 A)xk + (tC T
From the Ricatti equation [15], we find that for a positive
+AT Sk+1 Bu )(Kx,k xk + Kw,k wk + Kv,k vk+1 )
semi-definite terminal cost matrix SN2, all of the Si
−AT vk+1
(18) are also positive semi-definite, thus ∂∂uJ2i ≥ 0, which
k
Since (18) is satisfied for every xk , (18) is satisfied if proves that the controller calculated in Proposition 1 is
and only if (12) and (13) hold, which completes our sufficient.
proof. We can see that
N −1
1 T X
Remark 2. The calculation of the optimal controller Ji = xi Si xi + (UkT M22,k Uk
2
(8) can be decoupled into a nominal term (12) plus the k=i
disturbance induced term (13). + xTk M1,k xk + xTk M2,k wk + wkT M2,k
T
xk + wkT M3,k wk )
Remark 3. The constraints (5) and (6) are not explicitly where Uk = uk − Kx,k x − Kw,k w; Kx,k and Kw,k are
included in the optimisation, so that an analytical solu- defined in (9) and (10); M1,k , M2,k , M3,k are coefficients
tion can be derived. As a compromise, the penalty terms M1,k = AT Sk+1 A + Q − Sk −
can be used to penalise fs and u in the cost function.
(BuT Sk+1 A + T )T (R + BuT Sk+1 Bu )−1 (BuT Sk+1 A + T )
This necessitates a reliable feasibility analysis method to
guarantee the safe use of this WECLOC at the presence M2,k = AT Sk+1 Bw −
of constraints. (BuT Sk+1 A + T )T (R + BuT Sk+1 Bu )−1 (BuT Sk+1 Bw )
T
Lemma 4 (Convergence). The solution of the Ricatti M3,k = Bw Sk+1 Bw −
equation (12) will converge, i.e. SN → S∞ for N → ∞. (BuT Sk+1 Bw )T (R + BuT Sk+1 Bu )−1 (BuT Sk+1 Bw )
and from (12), we found that TABLE I
T HE PARAMETERS USED FOR THE WEC MODEL
M1,k = 0
Stiffness ks = 6.39 × 105 N/m
1 T ms = 1 × 104 kg
We also find that if we define Vi = 2 xi Si xi
, Vi is the Mass of the float
Frequency independent added ma = 7 × 104 kg
optimal value of Ji when it is in normal case wk = 0 mass
(wk = 0 → vk = 0). Damping coefficient D = 2 × 104 Ns/m
Then by applying the Theorem 2.4-1 described in [16], Input magnitude constraint umax = 3 × 105 N
it is established (12) will converge when k → ∞. The heave motion limit of the Φmax = 1.2m
buoy
Lemma 5 (Uniqueness  and stability).
 If the stage cost
q2 t
function (7) satisfies ≥ 0, then A + BKx,∞
t r Definition 8 (Maximal Output Admissible Set [13]).
is guaranteed to be stable and the solution of discrete
Consider the linear time-invariant discrete time system
algebraic Ricatti equation
(25) with output
S = AT SA + Q
y(k) = CK x(k) + DK w(k)
−(AT SBu + T T )(R + BuT SBu )−1 (BuT SA + T )
(21) with disturbance w ∈ W and output limitation y ∈ Y.
is unique. Here W and Y are the sets of admissible disturbance
and output.
 
q2 t
Proof. A simple proof can be started with ≥ 0.
t r W = {w ∈ R, −wmax ≤ w ≤ wmax }
We have     
 T  2 −umax umax
Y= y∈R , ≤y≤
 
Kx rI tI Kx −ks Φmax ks Φmax
+ q1 CzT Cz ≥ 0
C tI q2 I C
The maximal output admissible set O∞ contains all
From Theorem 2.4-2 described in [16], the solution is the initial conditions x(0) such that for all w(k) ∈ W :
unique and the system is guaranteed to be stable, which ∀k ∈ Z + the output will always satisfy y(k) ∈ Y : ∀k ∈
completes the proof. Z+
Remark 6 (Time-invariant suboptimal controller). Al- O∞ (AK , BK , CK , DK , W, Y) =
though the plant model and and the optimal control
x(0) ∈ Rn : y(k) ∈ Y, ∀k ∈ Z + and ∀w ∈ W

weights (Q, R, T ) are time invariant, the optimal con-
troller (8) is still time-variant because Sk is not constant. Lemma 9. If the initial state x(0) ∈
In practical controller design, we may use the time- O∞ (AK , BK , CK , DK , W, Y), the input and output
invariant suboptimal controller by replacing all the Sk constraints will always be satisfied
  for the closed

by S∞ . Kx Kw
loop system (25), where CK = , DK = ,
D1 0
Remark 7. As N → ∞, (12) becomes the algebraic  
D1 = 1 0 .
Ricatti equation (21). Since vN = 0, then with N → ∞,
v∞ = 0. The controller can be calculated from Proof. This can be easily proved by u(k) = Kx x(k) +
Kw w(k). By using Definition 8, the proof is completed.
u = Kx x + Kw w (22)
where V. N UMERICAL E XAMPLES
Kx = − (r + BuT SBu )−1 (tC + BuT SA) (23) In this section, we demonstrate the efficacy of the
Kw = − (r + BuT SBu )−1 BuT SBw (24) proposed methods using a numerical example. The pa-
rameters for the WEC model are summarised in Table
IV. C ONSTRAINTS SATISFACTION ANALYSIS V
In this section, we analyse the safety of the system with the sampling time Ts = 0.02s, the discrete model
by using MOAS theorem. The closed-loop system with is
linear time-invariant feedback controller defined in (22) −1.274 × 104
 
0.9984
is A= −7
2.492 × 10 4  0.9934
x(k + 1) = AK x(k) + BK w(k) (25)
 
1.274 × 10 0.001595
B= Bw =
where AK = A + BKx and BK = Bw + BKw The 0.006579 −2.492 × 10−7
constraints to be considered are (i) input constraints The weights of stage cost we used in (7) are q1 = 0,
|u| ≤ umax (ii) buoy motion limits |fs | ≤ ks Φmax . q2 = 2.8571 × 105 , t = 1, r = 3.5 × 10−6 . From Lemma
5, we can see the closed loop system is guaranteed to
be stable.
 Then from (23) and (24), we calculate that
Kx = 0 −2.8571 × 105 and Kw = 0. The closed-
loop system is
−1.229 × 104
 
0.9984
AK = −7
2.492 × 104  0.9222
1.274 × 10
BK =
 0.006579
0 2.857 × 105
  
0
CK = DK =
1 0 0

Fig. 3. The heave velocity of wave

Fig. 2. Maximal output admissible set for different disturbances

Then we implement Algorithm 4.1 of [13]. Figure 2

shows the maximal output admissible set for wmax =
0 m/s, 0.5 m/s, 0.8 m/s, 0.94 m/s. As the disturbance is
increasing, the admissible sets get smaller. The maximal
disturbance for which the system will have an admissible
set is wmax = 0.94 m/s. If the wmax ≤ 0.94 m/s, for
states start inside the admissible set from Lemma 9 the
input and state constraints will always be satisfied.
We next consider the time simulation for the WE-
CLOC case. The real-time wave heave velocity for a
period of 50s used in simulations are shown in [11].
Figure 3 shows the heave velocity of sea waves, i.e. the
disturbance.
Figure 4 shows control input and buoy position re-
sponse under the disturbance shown in Figure 3. Figure
5 shows the corresponding power and energy output.
By comparing the buoy heave position shape and the
shape of heave velocity waves we can see the resonance
frequency of the WEC nearly matches the dominant
frequency of the incoming waves. The buoy position
and control input constraints are both strictly satisfied.
We also find the energy flow reversal is avoided, which
can reduce the hardware cost. The energy output is
5.1012 × 107 J.
Fig. 4. The control input and buoy position
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
We have developed a linear optimal controller for a
wave energy converter and proposed to use maximum
output admissible set algorithm to calculate the feasible
optimal set to guarantee safe use of the proposed control
strategy at the presence of input and state constraints.
This linear WEC optimal controller can directly max-
imise the energy output with a sufficiently low compu-
tational load compared to MPC strategies. It is also easy
to tune and find the trade-off between the energy output,
control input and the constrained state. The application
of the maximal output admissible set algorithm to calcu-
late the feasible set for estimating the possible constraint
violation under certain sea conditions helps to promote
the employment of the linear optimal control method,
and it also provides a tool for the feasibility analysis of
the WEC control strategies based on MPC.
 [13] I. Kolmanovsky and E. G. Gilbert, “Maximal output admissible
sets for discrete-time systems with disturbance inputs,” in Ameri-
can Control Conference, Proceedings of the 1995, vol. 3. IEEE,
1995.
[14] J. Falnes, Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems. Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
[15] K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle, K. Glover et al., Robust and optimal
control. Prentice hall New Jersey, 1996, vol. 40.
[16] F. L. Lewis and V. L. Syrmos, Optimal control. John Wiley &
Sons, 1995.

Fig. 5. The power and energy output

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by Newton Mobility Grant
jointly funded by the Royal Society, U.K. and the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No
IE150833/ 6151101245).
R EFERENCES
[1] S. H. Salter, “Wave power,” Nature, vol. 249, no. 5459, pp. 720–
724, 1974.
[2] F. d. O. Antonio, “Wave energy utilization: A review of the tech-
nologies,” Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, vol. 14,
no. 3, pp. 899–918, 2010.
[3] J. Ringwood, G. Bacelli, and F. Fusco, “Energy-maximizing
control of wave-energy converters: The development of control
system technology to optimize their operation,” Control Systems,
IEEE, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 30–55, 2014.
[4] A. Babarit and A. Clément, “Optimal latching control of a wave
energy device in regular and irregular waves,” Applied Ocean
Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 77–91, 2006.
[5] U. A. Korde, “Latching control of deep water wave energy
devices using an active reference,” Ocean engineering, vol. 29,
no. 11, pp. 1343–1355, 2002.
[6] K. Budal, J. Falnes, T. Hals, L. Iversen, and T. Onshus, “Model
experiment with a phase controlled point absorber,” in Proceed-
ings of Second International Symposium on Wave and Tidal
Energy, 1981, pp. 191–206.
[7] D. B. Stewart and J. S. Gerber, “Active impedance matching
systems and methods for wave energy converter,” Dec. 11 2007,
uS Patent 7,305,823.
[8] A. Babarit, M. Guglielmi, and A. H. Clément, “Declutching
control of a wave energy converter,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 36,
no. 12, pp. 1015–1024, 2009.
[9] B. Drew, A. Plummer, and M. N. Sahinkaya, “A review of wave
energy converter technology,” Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy,
vol. 223, no. 8, pp. 887–902, 2009.
[10] J. Hals, J. Falnes, and T. Moan, “Constrained optimal control of
a heaving buoy wave-energy converter,” J. of Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, vol. 133, no. 1, p. 011401, 2011.
[11] G. Li, G. Weiss, M. Mueller, S. Townley, and M. R. Belmont,
“Wave energy converter control by wave prediction and dynamic
programming,” Renewable Energy, vol. 48, pp. 392–403, 2012.
[12] G. Li and M. R. Belmont, “Model predictive control of sea wave
energy converters–part i: A convex approach for the case of a
single device,” Renewable Energy, vol. 69, pp. 453–463, 2014.