This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
In recent years, offshore wind energy systems (OWES) have risen to prominence as a compelling avenue for capitalizing on the unfailing and consistent wind resources of the open sea, chiefly to supply electricity to coastal regions. Even so, wind intermittency complicates OWES control, reducing energy extraction when generator control proves ineffective. Meanwhile, with decarbonization gathering pace, limited communication resources impose additional design constraints on offshore wind turbines. In response to these multifaced challenges, this paper proposes a supervisory event-triggered adaptive super-twisting control (ET-ASTC) for permanent magnet synchronous generator (PMSG)-based OWES. The proposed controller is conceived to regulate generator speed to the optimal value, thereby continuously keeping the system within its high-efficiency operating envelope and enhancing transient performance. At the heart of this capability resides adaptive gains, which enable the controller to effectively cope with time-varying disturbances and unmodeled dynamics. Furthermore, the ET mechanism minimizes unnecessary bandwidth use by updating the control signal only when the predefined threshold is exceeded. System stability is verified using Lyapunov theory, and Zeno behavior is proven to be precluded. The proposed control strategy is validated through a set of simulation tests, and its performance is compared against those of two baselines: proportional–integral (PI) and integral backstepping control (IBC). The results highlight the superior tracking accuracy of the proposed controller, achieving a maximum speed error of only 0.0024 rad/s, compared with 0.02 rad/s and 1.5 rad/s for the IBC and PI regulator, respectively. Of equal significance, the proposed strategy incurs less than 1 % of the communication cost associated with periodic transmission at a sampling period of 4 𝜇 𝑠 .
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Makhad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: