An experimental study demonstrates adaptive robotic force control in scaled floating wind turbine testing, indicating enhanced hydrodynamic hybrid simulation fidelity.
Real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) - a cyber-physical testing approach - promises to enhance the simulation fidelity of the model-scale experiments used to prototype floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs). In hydrodynamic RTHS (hydro-RTHS), actuators emulate aerodynamic forces on model-scale FOWT specimens subjected to physical waves in a hydrodynamic laboratory. Robotic arms are promising candidates for actuation in hydro-RTHS due to their compact multi-degree-of-freedom (DOF) capabilities. Unlike classical RTHS for seismic applications, which typically relies on displacement control, hydro-RTHS requires 6-DOF force control on newly designed floating prototypes in a model-scale setting, which presents significant challenges, including modeling uncertainties, directional asymmetry, configuration drift, bandwidth limitations, and time-varying delays. To mitigate these constraints without extensive pre-test calibration, this study proposes an adaptive model-free robotic force control strategy that combines task-space explicit force control with a secondary joint-space pose-keeping task. The Adaptive Feedforward Compensator (AFC) is integrated into the force control loop to compensate for time-varying delay. Experimental testing was conducted using a Franka Emika Panda robotic arm with a 1:50 scale FOWT specimen under operational wind and wave conditions. Results demonstrate stable and consistent 6-DOF force tracking. Effective delay compensation was observed, with low-frequency delay reductions ranging from 71.4% to 91.8% and improvements in low-frequency surge force tracking of 25.0% to 52.1%. This study enhances robotic actuation performance in hydro-RTHS and introduces a force control strategy that supports reliable robotic operation in uncertain floating environments. Future work will explore disturbance-observer mechanisms to further enhance wave rejection capabilities under extreme wind and wave conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ni et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: