Fundamental performance similarities between individual pitch control strategies for wind turbines.

The use of blade individual pitch control (IPC) offers a means of reducing the harmful turbine structural loads that arise from the uneven and unsteady forcing from the oncoming wind. In recent years two different and competing IPC techniques have emerged that are characterised by the specific loads that they are primarily designed to attenuate. In the first instance, methodologies such as single-blade control and Clarke Transform-based control have been developed to reduce the unsteady loads on the rotating blades, whilst tilt-yaw control and its many variants instead target load reductions in the non rotating turbine structures, such as the tower and main bearing. Given the seeming disparities between these controllers, the aim of this paper is to show the fundamental performance similarities that exist between them and hence unify research in this area. Specifically, we show that single-blade controllers are equivalent to a particular class of tilt-yaw controller, which itself is equivalent to Clarke~Transform-based control. This means that three architecturally dissimilar IPC controllers exist that yield exactly the same performance in terms of load reductions on fixed and rotating turbine structures. We further demonstrate this outcome by presenting results obtained from high-fidelity closed-loop turbine simulations

Functional performance 2-9 years after ACL reconstruction: cross-sectional comparison between athletes with bone-patellar tendon-bone, semitendinosus/gracilis and healthy controls.

Contains fulltext : 173977.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)PURPOSE: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to provide descriptive data on functional performance in men and women with ACLR, to compare bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) with semitendinosus/gracilis (STG) within the same sex and to compare the ACLR subjects with healthy controls. METHODS: Eligible participants comprised 100 men (43 % BPTB) and 84 women (41 % BPTB) after ACLR, of whom 30 men (STG n = 19; BPTB n = 11) and 18 women (STG n = 12; BPTB n = 6) were untraceable/not willing and 15 men (STG n = 9; BPTB n = 6) and 18 women (STG n = 12; BPTB n = 3) were not able to take part in the measurements because of injury. Besides men BPTB (n = 24), men STG (n = 27), women BPTB (n = 23) and women STG (n = 23), healthy men (n = 22) and women (n = 22) participated. Measurements consisted of questionnaires, isokinetic peak torque and endurance tests, a hop test battery and drop jump including video analysis. RESULTS: Only the occurrence of dynamic knee valgus differed between ACLR and healthy subjects. CONCLUSION: Two to nine years after ACLR, 16 % of athletes could not participate because of a lower extremity injury. In the remaining group, this study showed similar results for males and females with BPTB compared with STG. Also, similar results are found for quantity of movement comparing operated and healthy subjects. For quality of movement, only the occurrence of dynamic knee valgus in landing from a jump is higher in operated subjects compared with healthy controls. This supports the relevance of a focus on quality of movement as part of ACLR rehabilitation programmes and return to sports criteria. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.01 mei 201