764 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 2, NO.

4, DECEMBER 2014

Direct Power Control of DFIG Wind Systems

Based on Nonlinear Modeling and Analysis
Michael K. Bourdoulis, Student Member, IEEE, and Antonio T. Alexandridis, Member, IEEE

Abstract— A complete new modeling approach for doubly fed

induction generator (DFIG) wind energy systems is provided in
this paper. The model incorporates all the system component
dynamics, i.e., the ones of the induction generator and the
ac/dc/ac frequency converter, and is developed on state space
with the state vector including directly as states the stator-
circuit and grid-side converter active and reactive powers. This
innovation, combined with a voltage-oriented model deployment,
permits the design and application of simple feedback PI direct
power controls (DPCs). Hence, the proposed design approach
becomes independent from the flux measurement or estimation
under the cost of requiring a rigorous stability analysis, caused
by the fact of not using field-oriented vector control techniques.
Using recent advanced nonlinear methods, this analysis is com- Fig. 1. Simplified representation of the DFIG wind system.
pletely performed on the entire closed-loop nonlinear system to
conclude input-to-state stability and convergence to the desired
equilibrium. Thus, a fully analyzed design approach for DPC is In the DFIG scheme, the basic power device that can
provided with guaranteed stability, further evaluated through implement advanced control tasks is the ac/dc/ac frequency
extensive simulation results on a commercial 2-MW DFIG wind converter [4]–[6], which is used to connect the rotor-side
system. electric circuit with the grid through a dc link. Particu-
Index Terms— Direct power control (DPC), doubly fed larly, the rotor-side electric circuit consists of a rotor-side
induction generator (DFIG), modeling, nonlinear control design, converter (RSC) linked via a dc capacitor to a grid-side
stability. converter (GSC) and an R–L filter [6], as shown in Fig. 1.
Both ac/dc converters are Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
I. I NTRODUCTION (IGBT) controlled power devices used as fully controlled
voltage source converters [5]. However, if DFIG is seen as a

W IND turbine generator systems operating at variable

speed mode have been extensively used in modern
power grids as the most basic renewable energy source [1].
Among these applications, the scheme of wind systems with
doubly fed induction generators (DFIG) still represents the
most widely used scheme [1], although recently some other
generator types have been commercially exploited [2], [3].
As DFIG is the dominant wind turbine solution, a lot of
research interest has been focused on the analysis, modeling,
and control design of such a system with basic aim the
improvement of performance, efficiency, and reliability. In this
frame, the control design has a key role since its impact on
the system response, performance, and stability is crucial.
Advancements in this direction are continuously proposed
and are expected to be adopted by the industry under the
constraint that they provide new solutions in a simple and
reliable manner.
Manuscript received January 29, 2014; revised May 23, 2014 and
July 17, 2014; accepted July 28, 2014. Date of publication July 31, 2014;
date of current version October 29, 2014. Recommended for publication by
Associate Editor Q.-C. Zhong.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Patras, Patras 26500, Greece (e-mail:
bourdoulis@ece.upatras.gr; a.t.alexandridis@ece.upatras.gr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JESTPE.2014.2345092
2168-6777 © 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
nonlinear electromechanical system, the analysis and moreover
an advanced controller design for both the RSC and the GSC
are not an easy task.
The conventional design of DFIG control systems involves
cascaded control loops with different time constants, based on
the time-scale separation assumption [1], [6]. Park’s transfor-
mation is used for the system voltages, currents, and fluxes
because the system variables in the dq synchronously rotating
frame are dc quantities. For the fast inner control loops, which
are actually current loops, exact cancelation terms are used
to decouple the RSC and GSC dq current components and
to cancel both nonlinear and constant terms [5], [6], while
usually simple PI controllers are used for the regulation of
each current [1], [4]–[6]. The control scheme is developed
on a field-oriented (vector control) basis while it is finally
implemented on the standard pulse width modulation tech-
nique. The rotor current controllers should be carefully tuned
to ensure closed-loop system stability and adequate transient
response within the whole operational range [7]. A main
drawback of this design is that both the cancelation terms and
the controller gain tuning require the accurate knowledge of
system parameters, such as machine and grid filter resistances
and inductances, which will result in degraded performance
when the actual parameters differ from the values used in the
control system [7]. In addition, field-oriented control requires
BOURDOULIS AND ALEXANDRIDIS: DPC OF DFIG WIND SYSTEMS
flux measurement or estimation [4]–[6]. On the other hand, the
slow outer-loop controllers provide the current references for
the fast inner-loop controllers of both the RSC and the GSC
devices. At the RSC control, the two controlled inputs often
use either the rotor angular speed for maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) operation or the active power generation and
the stator reactive power generation [4]–[6], [8], respectively.
At the GSC, the other two controlled inputs are used to keep
the dc-link voltage constant and to auxiliary support either the
total reactive power generation of the DFIG or a local ac grid
voltage [4]–[6], [8].
Direct power control (DPC) of DFIGs has been intro-
duced as an alternative to the conventional vector control [4].
The main advantage of DPC is the avoidance of the cascaded
controller structure, since the inner current control loops are
not required, while only single active and reactive power loops
are used. As a result, only measurements of the appropriate
active and reactive power components are required. Other
advantages of DPC over vector control are referred to fast
dynamic response, robustness to parameter variation, and grid
disturbances [9].
Especially, DPC of simple GSCs was introduced in [10]
and hysteresis control was used. The virtual-flux concept
was utilized in [11] with hysteresis controllers and in [12]
with proportional (P) controllers and decoupling terms that
require the knowledge of system parameters, while in both
cases the grid filter resistances were neglected; in this case,
the virtual-flux magnitude had to be estimated for reference
frame orientation. None of the above methods provided a
stability analysis of the system studied. In [13], a model-
based DPC for GSCs was introduced that uses P controllers
but neglects the grid-filter resistance and requires grid-filter
reactance estimation through an adaptive law to prove stability
of the closed-loop system. In addition, in [14], P controllers
with an appropriate extra term were introduced and stability
was proven for the GSC closed-loop system, while stability
was not proven when PI controllers were introduced to achieve
zero steady-state error.
DPC of DFIGs was introduced in [7] and hysteresis con-
trollers were used, while stator-flux estimation was used and
the knowledge of the stator resistance was required. In [15],
P controllers with decoupling terms were used that again
require the knowledge of system parameters, while stator flux
estimation and orientation were required. In both [16] and [17],
the RSC is considered and although the system is of fifth order,
only the two power components were used in the analysis.
Many DPC methods neglect the small stator resistance while
the stator flux is considered constant [18], to avoid variations
in the stator flux and coupling between the stator power
components. Only when the stator resistance is omitted, the
resistive voltage drop on the stator windings has no effect
on the stator flux magnitude; however, this holds true for
almost constant active power and small variations of the stator
reactive power [18]. A sliding-mode control method applied
only on the RSC was presented in [19]; this paper includes a
stability analysis with only the two stator power components
considered and the stator flux required to be estimated. In
[20] and [21], only the RSC control was considered and an
765
accurate average modeling approach was presented, while a
stability analysis was provided for the fifth-order model of the
wound rotor induction generator (WRIG) that unfortunately is
valid for a constant input vector limited by unknown bounds.
Finally, in [16], [22], and [23], the control of both the RSC
and the GSC is considered but either no stability analysis is
provided [16] or linearization techniques are used [22], [23]
with complicated controllers based on pole placement that
requires the knowledge of almost all the system parameters.
In this paper, a new model-based direct power PI controller
design is developed and analyzed for DFIG wind power
systems. A suitable complete eighth-order nonlinear model
of the DFIG is extracted based on the conventional current-
flux model of the WRIG and the current model of the GSC.
This model is developed on the synchronously rotating dq
reference frame using a common voltage-oriented control
(VOC) alignment for both the rotor and grid sides. Active
and reactive powers of both the induction generator stator and
the GSC output connected to the grid are directly appeared
in the proposed model state vector. These innovations make
possible the individual control of each power state (active and
reactive powers on stator or grid sides) to be implemented
by simple PI output feedback controllers. The proposed DPC
schemes are independent from the system parameters, while
their application does not require the introduction of decou-
pling networks, cancelation of nonlinear terms and the mea-
surement or estimation of any extra states—such as fluxes—
or noncontrolled variables. Furthermore, the introduced PI
controllers allow for a rigorous nonlinear stability analysis of
the entire 12th-order closed-loop system, based on advanced
Lyapunov methods recently developed in [24] and [25]. Unlike
the authors’ published work for the RSC DPC [20], [21] and
the GSC DPC [14], in this paper, the complete DFIG system
is studied and, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the
first time that input-to-state stability (ISS) and in consequence
convergence to the equilibrium is concluded. Moreover, extra
PI controllers are introduced and analyzed for MPPT operation
and dc-link voltage regulation. Finally, simulations are carried
out to verify the effectiveness of the overall modeling and
controller design in the face of reactive power reference signal
or wind speed variations.
II. S YSTEM M ODELING
A. Wind Turbine Modeling
At the wind turbine mechanical rotating part of the system,
the mechanical power captured from the wind by the turbine
is given by [26]
1
Pm = ρπ RT2 C p (λ, β) v3wind (1)
2
where ρ is the air density, RT is the radius of the turbine
blades, vwind is the wind speed, and C p (λ, β) is the power
coefficient of the wind turbine given by
 
116 − 12.5
C p (λ, β) = 0.22 − 0.4β − 5 e λi
λi
1 1 0.035
= − 3 (2)
λi λ + 0.08β β +1
766 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2014

with β being the blade pitch angle and λ the tip-speed ratio rotor resistances, and L s and L r are the stator and rotor induc-
defined as tances while L m represents the mutual inductance. Parameter
ωrot RT ωs is the grid angular frequency, while p is the number of
λ= . (3) pole pairs. In addition, Udgrid and Uqgrid represent the stator
vwind
voltage components, which in this paper coincide with the
Due to the existence of a gearbox with gear ratio n g , the
grid voltage components, while Vdr and Vqr indicate the rotor
rotational speed of the wind turbine ωrot is related to the rotor
voltage components. Moreover, J represents the total inertia
speed ωr as
at the rotor of the WRIG and b is the friction factor, while
ωr = n g ωrot (4) Te represents the electromagnetic torque at the machine rotor.
Due to the adopted motor sign convention in the DFIG
while the torque at the generator’s rotor is given by
modeling, the mechanical torque is fed with a negative sign
Pm in the rotor dynamics equation for operation as generator.
Tm = . (5)
ωr The dot over a symbol stands for the time derivative of the
The power coefficient expression (2) has been shown to have corresponding variable.
a unique maximum, C p , for λopt ∼
opt In addition, the dynamic model of the GSC with states and
= 6.325 and βopt = 0 [26].
For the optimal tip-speed ratio λopt , (3) and (4) provide the inputs in the dq synchronously rotating frame is written as [6]
optimal rotational speed of the generator as L f I˙d f = −R f Id f + ωs L f Iq f − Vd f + Udgrid
opt λopt n g L f I˙q f = −ωs L f Id f − R f Iq f − Vq f + Uqgrid (11)
ωr = vwind (6)
RT
where Id f and Iq f are the GSC current d- and q-axis compo-
which corresponds to the maximum wind power extrac- nents, R f and L f are the grid filter resistance and inductance,
tion Pmmax . Then, the optimum torque at the generator’s rotor while Vd f and Vq f are the voltage components at the ac output
can be determined as of the GSC.
opt
opt 1 ρπ RT5 C p opt The dynamic model of the dc link with states and inputs in
Tm = ωr . (7) the dq synchronously rotating frame is written as [23]
2 λ3opt
3 
From (6) and (7), it is evident that forcing the wind turbine C Vdc V̇dc = Vd f Id f + Vq f Iq f −Vdc Idc,RSC
2
system to rotate with the optimal rotational speed, the optimum 3  3 
torque at the generator’s rotor acts as the external input of ≡ Vd f Id f +Vq f Iq f − Vdr Idr +Vqr Iqr (12)
2 2
the mechanical part of the system. This is accomplished by
where Vdc represents the dc-link voltage, C is the dc-link
applying MPPT control techniques on the power electronic
capacitance, and Idc,RSC the RSC dc current.
devices, i.e., by determining in a suitable speed controller
opt Thus, the complete system dynamic model is given by
the rotor speed reference ωrref to be equal to ωr as given
(8)–(12) as an eighth-order system with variables the stator
by (6).
and rotor currents and fluxes, the GSC currents, and the
dc-link voltage.
B. DFIG System Modeling in the dq Reference Frame To proceed with the analysis and the proposed DPC design,
At the electromechanical generator system, the dynamic the initial model (8)–(12) is transformed into a state-space
grid grid
model of WRIG with states and inputs in the dq synchronously form with x = [Vdc Ps PGSC Q s Q GSC ωr λds λqs ]T state
rotating frame can be written (using motor sign convention) vector, where Ps and Q s represent the stator active and reactive
as [27] grid grid
power components, while PGSC and Q GSC represent the active
Udgrid = λ̇ds − ωs λqs + Rs Ids and reactive powers exchanged between the GSC and the grid,
grid grid
respectively. In this way, as Ps , Q s , PGSC , and Q GSC are
Uqgrid = λ̇qs + ωs λds + Rs Iqs
system states, then it becomes evident that a DPC scheme
Vdr = λ̇dr − (ωs − pωr )λqr + Rr Idr could be easily implemented by simple output feedback
Vqr = λ̇qr + (ωs − pωr )λdr + Rr Iqr PI controllers, as it is explained in the following section.
J ω̇r + bωr = Te − Tm (8) Hence, to proceed with the model transformation, we recall
grid grid
the well-known expressions for Ps , Q s and PGSC , Q GSC as
with
given by
3 Lm
Te = p (λqs Idr − λds Iqr ) (9) 3
2 Ls Ps = (Udgrid Ids + Uqgrid Iqs )
2
and 3
Q s = (Uqgrid Ids − Udgrid Iqs ) (13)
λds = L s Ids + L m Idr λdr = L r Idr + L m Ids 2
and
λqs = L s Iqs + L m Iqr λqr = L r Iqr + L m Iqs (10)
grid 3
where Ids , Iqs and λds , λqs are the stator current and flux PGSC = (Udgrid Id f + Uqgrid Iq f )
2
d- and q-axis components, Idr , Iqr and λdr , λqr are the rotor grid 3
Q GSC = (Uqgrid Id f − Udgrid Iq f ). (14)
current and flux components, Rs and Rr are the stator and 2
BOURDOULIS AND ALEXANDRIDIS: DPC OF DFIG WIND SYSTEMS 767

The signs used in (13) and (14) indicate power flow toward Hence, by regulating individually the stator and GSC power
the machine and toward the GSC device. Also note that components, the total active and reactive powers generated by
in (13) and (14), Udgrid and Uqgrid are constant in the dq the DFIG are regulated since it is
synchronously rotating frame. grid
Then, the resulting system takes the form of an open-loop
tot
PDFIG = Ps + PGSC
grid
nonlinear system as follows: Q tot
DFIG = Q s + Q GSC . (19)
   
ẋ f 1 (x 1 , x 2 , m(u))
ẋ = 1 = (15)
ẋ 2 f 2 (x 2 , u, d) B. Closed-Loop System
Controllers (17) and (18) are developed on a common
where vector [x 1 x 2 ]T results from the separation of vector x
grid grid grid VOC alignment in accordance with Assumption 3.1.
into x 1 = Vdc and x 2 = [Ps PGSC Q s Q GSC ωr λds λqs ]T ,
Incorporating these controllers into the open-loop system, the
while f1 (·) and f 2 (·) are given in Appendix A. It is noted that
whole model is described in VOC alignment instead of the
u stands for the controlled input, i.e., u = [Vdr Vqr Vd f Vq f ]T ,
standard used field orientation. This constitutes a significant
and d stands for the uncontrolled open-loop inputs
innovation since no need for flux measurement or estimation is
 2
T required. However, in this case, stability has to be analytically
3 U grid 1
d = α1 L r Ugrid2
Tm . (16) proven since the well-known advantage of the field-oriented
2 Lf J technique on proving stability is omitted. To this end, we
It is significant to observe that (15) appears to have a proceed with the entire system and controller closed-loop
cascaded form since the dc-link dynamics x 1 depend from the representation in the following form that permits a rigorous
rest system states but none of the last seven states x 2 of (15) stability analysis in voltage orientation:
depend on the dc-link voltage. V̇dc = α̃m
T
m (Vdc , u)
 
2
III. C ONTROLLER D ESIGN AND C LOSED -L OOP Ṗs = − α1 (Rs L r + Rr L s )+α1 L m Ugrid k P Pr Ps
3
S YSTEM A NALYSIS
− ωslip Q s − pα1 L r Ugrid λds ωr + α1 Rr Ugrid λqs
A. Direct Active and Reactive Power Controllers’ Design
In our study, the VOC alignment is adopted for both the − α1 αqr z qr
 
RSC and the GSC; therefore, without loss of generality, grid Rf 3 Ugrid grid grid
alignment on Uqgrid [21] is considered. ṖGSC = − + k P P f PGSC − ωs Q GSC − αq f z q f
Lf 2 Lf
Assumption 3.1: VOC alignment conditions:  
Udgrid = 0 and Uqgrid = Ugrid = constant. 2
Q̇ s = ωslip Ps − α1 (Rs L r + Rr L s )+α1 L m Ugrid k P Qr Q s
As can be seen from the open-loop model equations, 3
through this voltage orientation, each of the controlled inputs, + pα1 L r Ugrid λqs ωr + α1 Rr Ugrid λds − α1 αdr z dr
grid
i.e., Vqr , Vq f , Vdr , and Vd f corresponds to Ps , PGSC , Q s , and  
grid grid grid Rf 3 Ugrid grid
Q GSC , respectively. As a result, a simple output feedback PI Q̇ GSC = ωs PGSC − + k P Q f Q GSC − αd f z d f
controller can be used in each controlled input to separately Lf 2 Lf
regulate each power state at the desired reference. Therefore, b 1
the following output feedback PI controllers are proposed for ω̇r = pα2 L r Ugrid λds Ps − pα2 L r Ugrid λqs Q s − ωr − Tm
J J
the RSC:

t λ̇ds = −α3 Rr Ugrid Q s + ωs λqs

Vdr = k P Qr Q s + k I Qr Q s − Q ref
s dτ λ̇qs = −α3 Rr Ugrid Ps − ωs λds

0t   
 Lr ż dr = αdr Q s − Q ref
s
Vqr = k P Pr Ps + k I Pr Ps − Psref dτ + Ugrid (17)  
0 L m ż qr = αqr Ps − Psref
while for the GSC, the proposed output feedback PI controllers  
grid grid,ref
are ż d f = αd f Q GSC − Q GSC

t   
grid grid,ref
grid
Vd f = k P Q f Q GSC + k I Q f
grid grid,ref
Q GSC − Q GSC dτ ż q f = αq f PGSC − PGSC (20)
0

t 
grid grid grid,ref with z = [z dr z qr z d f z q f ]T representing the controllers’
Vq f = k P P f PGSC + k I P f PGSC − PGSC dτ + Ugrid
0 state vector while, instead of (17) and (18), the controllers’
(18) descriptions are equivalently given in state space as follows:
αdr
where the gains k P Qr , k I Qr , k P Pr , k I Pr and k P Q f , k I Q f , Vdr = k P Qr Q s + z dr
k P P f , k I P f are positive scalars. The last terms on the right- L m Ugrid
hand part of Vqr and Vq f are added for stability reasons with αqr Lr
Vqr = k P Pr Ps + z qr + Ugrid
the value of Ugrid constant and known. L m Ugrid Lm
768 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2014

and with y = [−αdr z dr − αqr z qr − αd f z d f − αq f z q f

grid 2 Lf − L m Ugrid
2 ω ]T .
r
Vd f = k P Q f Q GSC + αd f zd f The first five quadratic terms of the time derivative of
3 Ugrid
2 Lf the storage function in (24) are nonpositive since all the
grid
Vq f = k P P f PGSC + αq f z q f + Ugrid generator parameters, the magnitude of the grid voltage and
3 Ugrid
the controller gains is positive. As a result, (24) establishes
the following proposition.
where Proposition 3.1: Closed-loop system (21b) and (21c) is
passive with input u cl and output y [28].
αdr = L m Ugrid k I Qr , αqr = L m Ugrid k I Pr
  To proceed with the stability analysis, we start by proving
3 Ugrid 3 Ugrid that the 11th-order system is ISS. To this end, first, we consider
αd f = kI Q f , αq f = kI P f
2 Lf 2 Lf the 11th-order unforced closed-loop system, by setting u cl =
05×1 . Our goal is to prove that this system has a globally
and α̃m stands for αm of Appendix A after VOC alignment
exponentially stable (GES) equilibrium point at the origin,
(Assumption 3.1).
which in turn can ensure ISS of the 11th-order system driven
It should be noted that (20) still appears to have a cascaded
by some bounded external input u cl .
form similar to that of the open-loop one, i.e., the dc-link
Proving GES at the origin for the unforced system is a
dynamics depend from the rest system states but none of the
hard task since it is very difficult to determine the suitable
last 11 states of the closed-loop system (20) depend on the
Lyapunov function. Hence, we start using as storage function
dc-link voltage. Hence, the complete system (20) can be
the previously determined H.
written in the following general form:
It is evident from (24) that for the unforced system, the
ẋ 1 = f˜1 (x 1 , x 2 , m (x 1 , x 2 , z)) (21a) time derivative of the storage function is negative semidefinite,
ẋ 2 = f˜2 (x 2 , z, u cl ) (21b) i.e., Ḣ ≤ 0. This definitely proves Lyapunov stability and the
following proposition holds true.
ż = f˜3 (x 2 , u cl ) (21c) Proposition 3.2: States x 2 and z of the unforced system
with f˜1 (·) and f˜2 (·) resulting from f 1 (·) and f 2 (·) by con- (21b) and (21c) are bounded.
sidering Assumption 3.1 with VOC alignment and controller Note that the 11th-order unforced closed-loop system with
substitution, where the new uncontrolled input vector is state vector [x 2 z]T is autonomous [28] and can be written in
 T the form
u cl = Q ref
s Ps
ref grid,ref grid,ref
Q GSC PGSC Tm . (22)    
ẋ x
M 2 = (J (x 2 ) − R) 2 (25)
The cascaded form of (21) permits us to handle the system ż z
of x 2 –z equations separately from the x 1 equation. This is
which can be equivalently written as
further explained in the stability analysis that follows.      
M11 05×6 ẋ d Jd (x du ) − Rd D xd
= (26)
C. Stability Analysis of the Closed-Loop System 06×5 M22 ẋ u −D T Ju xu
Starting from the 11th-order closed-loop system of (21b) grid grid
with x d = [Ps PGSC Q s Q GSC ωr ]T being the r = 5
and (21c) and considering the following Lyapunov function damped states and x u = [λds λqs z dr z qr z d f z q f ]T being
candidate H : the n − r = 6 undamped states of the n = 11th-order state
1  2  1
grid 2
 1  grid 2 vector x du = [x 2 z]T = [x d x u ]T , while the expressions of all
H = Ps + Q 2s + PGSC + Q GSC
2α1 2 2 matrices involved in (25) and (26) are provided in Appendix B.
1 2 1  2  Remark 3.1: Note that matrices M11 > 0, M22 > 0,
+ ωr + λds + λ2qs
2α2 2α3 Rd > 0, D, and Ju are constant, while the Jd (x du ) skew-
1 2  symmetric matrix is at most linearly dependent from some of
+ z dr + z qr
2
+ z d2 f + z q2 f (23) the elements of x du . Therefore, as one can see from (26), only
2
the time derivative of H is calculated through the use of (20) linear or bilinear terms with respect to the system states appear
to be in the right-hand side of (26).
  Remark 3.2: For the 11th-order unforced system, the time
2
Ḣ = − (Rs L r + Rr L s ) + L m Ugrid k P Pr Ps2 derivative of H , given by (23), is Ḣ = −x dT Rd x d ≤ 0.
3
  Form (26) represents a type of system already discussed
2 by Androulidakis and Alexandridis [24], with the main result
− (Rs L r + Rr L s ) + L m Ugrid k P Qr Q 2s
3 given there by Proposition 1 (Appendix C). However, in the
  
Rf 3 Ugrid grid 2 present case of the system under consideration, there exist
− + kPPf PGSC some additional features that can be suitably exploited in the
L 2 Lf
 f   guidelines of the proof of Proposition 1 to reach GES [instead
Rf 3 Ugrid grid 2
− + kPQf Q GSC of simple asymptotic stability (AS)]. Thanks to the reviewer
Lf 2 Lf
2
who encouraged us to follow the next steps to upgrade the
− bL r Ugrid ωr2 + y T u cl (24) proof in this direction.
BOURDOULIS AND ALEXANDRIDIS: DPC OF DFIG WIND SYSTEMS 769

Using storage function H for the 11th-order unforced sys- Now, coming back to the forced original 11th-order closed-
tem and making use of Remark 3.2 and [28, Th. 8.4], one can loop system (21b) and (21c), it is noted that this is globally
easily conclude that states x d → 0. Lipschitz in u cl , since it is linearly dependent on the external
Considering Proposition 3.2 and Remark 3.1, this implies input vector, and therefore satisfies the following inequality:
   
that also the continuously differentiable right-hand side of  f˜2 (x 2 , z, u cl1 ) f˜2 (x 2 , z, u cl2 ) 
  ≤ L u cl1 − u cl2 
(26) is bounded and as a result ẋ du = [ẋ d ẋ u ]T is bounded.  f˜3 (x 2 , u cl1 ) − f˜3 (x 2 , u cl2 ) 
Moreover, ẍ du is bounded since through (26) it can be easily
(28)
shown that it is equal to a sum of terms that contain either
linearly the bounded derivatives ẋ du or their products with for some Lipschitz positive constant L. Moreover, the deriv-
their bounded states x du . As a result, it is proven that ẋ du is ative of H̃ with respect to the last 11 equations of (20) or
uniformly continuous1 [29, pp. 125–126]. equivalently (21) is calculated as
Uniform continuity of ẋ d clearly ensures that x d = 0 also  
∂ H̃ f˜2 (x 2 , z, 0)
implies that ẋ d = 0. Under these conditions, AS to the origin H̃˙ =
for the 11th-order unforced closed-loop system is concluded ∂x f˜3 (x 2 , 0)
   
since the required rank condition for uniform observability, as ∂ H̃ f˜2 (x 2 , z, u cl ) f˜2 (x 2 , z, 0)
+ −
established in [24], holds true ∂x f˜3 (x 2 , u cl ) f˜3 (x 2 , 0)
 −1 
D − M12 M22 Ju and using (27) and (28), the following inequality holds:
rank −1 −1 −1
Ju − DM22
H̃˙ ≤ −c3 x du 2 + c4 x du  L u cl  .
M12 M22 Ju M22 Ju
  (29)
D
= rank −1 =6 = n−r
−DM22 Ju To use the first term on the right-hand side of inequality (29)
to dominate the second term for large x du , inequality (29)
with M12 = 05×6 in the case studied. can be rewritten as
Furthermore, in the sense of the proof of [24, Proposition 1],
the latter rank condition permits us to apply [28, Th. 8.5], H̃˙ ≤ −c (1 − θ) x 2 − c θ x 2 + c L x  u 
3 du 3 du 4 du cl
with storage function V (t, x) = H that additionally satisfies where 0 < θ < 1. Then
W1 (x du ) ≤ H ≤ W2 (x du ) where the radially unbounded c4 L u cl 
functions W1 and W2 are given by W1 (x du ) = k1 x du 2 and H̃˙ ≤ −c3 (1 − θ ) x du 2 , ∀ x du  ≥
c3 θ
W2 (x du ) = k2 x du 2 , with
  for all (x du , u cl ). Hence, the conditions of [28, Th. 4.19] that
1 1 1 1
k1 = min , , , proves ISS are satisfied, with the functions determined there
2 2α1 2α2 2α3  given as α1 (r ) = c1r 2 , α2 (r ) = c2r 2 , and ρ(r ) = cc43 Lθ r .
1 1 1 1
k2 = max , , , Therefore, the following proposition is established.
2 2α1 2α2 2α3 Proposition 3.3: The 11th-order closed-loop system (21b)
and x du 2 = x du
T x . These additional conditions guarantee and (21c) is ISS with input gain
du

that the origin of the 11th-order unforced closed-loop system −1 c2 c4 L
is not only an AS but also a GES equilibrium point. γ (r ) = α1 ◦ α2 ◦ ρ = r.
c1 c3 θ
Nevertheless, as GES for the 11th-order unforced closed-
loop system has been established, using (converse Lyapunov Finally, let us now assume the unique equilibrium
theorems) [28, Th. 4.14], a suitable Lyapunov function H̃ ∗
x du
exists for the same system that satisfies the following three  T
grid,ref grid,ref ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
inequalities: = Psref PGSC Q refs Q GSC ω λ λ z z z z
r ds qs dr qr d f q f

c1 x du 2 ≤ H̃ (x du ) ≤ c2 x du 2 (27a) (30)
 
∂ H̃ f˜2 (x 2 , z, 0) which can be obtained under the assumption that all the ele-
≤ −c3 x du 2 (27b)
∂x f˜3 (x 2 , 0) 11×1 ments of the closed-loop input vector u cl are constant, with the
  power references known and the mechanical torque unknown.
 ∂ H̃ 
  Considering Propositions 3.1 and 3.3, which prove passivity
  ≤ c4 x du  (27c)
 ∂x  and state boundedness of (21b) and (21c), [25, Lemma 3]
and [25, Th. 4] are satisfied, resulting in convergence to the
for some positive constants c1 , c2 , c3 , and c4 .
unique equilibrium.
Note that H̃ always exists although it is not known how
For this equilibrium, it should be now proven that also the
to construct it, with main characteristic the “fully damped”
12th state x 1 = Vdc converges to its equilibrium. To this end,
derivative as shown by (27b) instead of the well-known
considering the cascaded form of (21), the following dynamic
initially used H with the “partially damped” derivative, as
expression is acquired for Vdc state:
Remark 3.2 describes.
1 grid,ref 1 grid,ref
1 In a similar way, the boundedness of states x
du and the form of (26), as C V̇dc = P mq f + Q m d f − Idc,RSC
pointed out in Remark 3.1, establishes the globally Lipschitz property in xdu , Ugrid GSC Ugrid GSC
uniformly in t, of (21b) and (21c). (31)
770 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2014

Fig. 2. Overall control block diagram and the DFIG wind system.

with the RSC dc current shown in Fig. 2. where ωn2 = k I dc m ∗q f /Ugrid and 2ζ ωn = k Pdc m ∗q f /Ugrid .
Since all states of x du are bounded and limiters are incor- Applying the 2% criterion [31], the desired
 settling time Ts is
porated for all duty ratios to keep their values bounded by linked with ζ and ωn through Ts = 4 (ζ ωn ), leading to the
absolute one for linear modulation [30], it is concluded that following gain expressions:
the dc-link voltage dynamics are bounded. Then, the Vdc state
8CUgrid 16CUgrid
can also converge to its desired value under the independent k Pdc = and k Pdc = ∗ 2 2 .
stable action of a slower outer voltage controller. The analysis m ∗q f Ts m q f ζ TS
of such a controller is given in the next section.
To avoid the gain dependence on m ∗q f , which may vary in
a wide operation range of the DFIG, the division of the above
D. DC-Link Voltage Controller acquired gain expressions is used
The following voltage controller is introduced: k Pdc ζ 2 Ts

t = . (35)
grid,ref  ref  k I dc 2
PGSC = −k Pdc Vdc + k I dc Vdc − Vdc dτ . (32)
0 Expression (33) can be rewritten using (35) as
Recalling (31) that describes the dc-voltage dynamics and 1
using (32), we note that it is common practice in the analysis Vdc CUgrid
= . (36)
of the GSC to consider the dc current on the opposite side as a ref 1 ζ 2 Ts
Vdc γ s2 + CUgrid 2 s + 1
CUgrid
disturbance input [6]. The reactive power output, as appeared
in the second term of (31), is usually controlled to take small It is clear from (36) that the
 closed-loop
 performance may
values, to minimize the rating of the GSC, or even becomes vary with parameter γ = 1/ k I dc m ∗q f , which means that this
zero when reactive neutral operation is desired (when power controller design should be accompanied by a generalized root
factor equals to one). As a result, the last two bounded terms locus of the closed-loop system with varying parameter γ ,
of (31) can be considered as disturbances and the following so that stable performance is accomplished for the whole
closed-loop transfer function is derived: expected operation range of the DFIG system, as further
m ∗q f clarified in the example of Fig. 4. As m ∗q f is expected to remain
Vdc CUgrid k I dc in a predetermined range of values, the root locus analysis
ref
= m ∗q f m ∗q f
(33)
Vdc provides an accepted value range for the dominant pole of (36),
s2 + CUgrid k Pdc s + CUgrid k I dc which should be associated with the desired settling time Ts .
where Assumption 3.1 and the following standard Then, through the expression of parameter γ, an appropriate
assumption [6] have been adopted. value for the integral gain k I dc can be selected, while the value
Assumption 3.2: Duty ratio m q f is considered to be constant of k Pdc is determined from (35) for the desired settling time
and equal to its steady-state value m ∗q f . and damping factor.
Transfer function (33) allows the controller designer to
reach a desired closed-loop transfer function with ζ damping
E. MPPT Operation Controller
factor, ωn natural frequency and unity static gain as follows:
Although Psref can be arbitrarily determined, in values less
Vdc ωn2 grid,ref
than Pmmax − PGSC , an outer speed controller can be used to
= (34)
ref
Vdc s 2 + 2ζ ωn s + ωn2 achieve MPPT operation. Such a solution can be implemented
BOURDOULIS AND ALEXANDRIDIS: DPC OF DFIG WIND SYSTEMS 771

TABLE I
2-MW DFIG W IND S YSTEM PARAMETERS

Fig. 3. Simplified block diagram of the rotor dynamics and the proposed
MPPT controller.

by the following PI controller:

t 
Psref = −k Pω ωr + k I ω ωrref − ωr dτ (37)
0
opt
where ωrref = ωr according to (6) for MPPT operation.
To analyze its performance, the first two differential
equations of (8) are considered at steady state under VOC
alignment, to reach
λ∗qs = Rs ∗
ωs Ids
∗
Ugrid −Rs Iqs (38)
λ∗ds = ωs .
For induction generators of MW ratings, the stator resistance
is valued at the range of milliohms [4], while for 50-Hz utility
grids ωs = 100π rad/s. As a result, the q-axis stator flux
component has a very small and negligible value at steady
state, while the d-axis stator flux component assumes a fairly
constant value λ̄ds given as
In practice, the term b/J in the proportional gain assumes
∼ Ugrid very small values, for the case of large wind systems, and can
λ∗ds = λ̄ds = . (39)
ωs be neglected in the gain selection process. In addition, J is a
This means that near stator-flux oriented control is expected well-known system parameter.
for the RSC. Closing this section, it is noted that indeed a new design
As a result, through the use of (9), (10), (13), and (39), approach for DPC has been established, which guarantees
the following expression for the electromagnetic torque can stability while introduces significant simplifications on both
be obtained: the controller structure and the overall nonlinear implementa-
tion. As indicated by the analysis, only voltage orientation
p
Te = Ps (40) is required on both the GSC and RSC, a fact that further
ωs simplifies the controller design. The complete system and
which is directly dependent on the stator active power. Tuning controller structure are shown in Fig. 2.
the stator power controllers (17) to be faster enough than the
MPPT controller, one can consider Ps = Psref using the time- IV. S YSTEM P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION —R ESULTS
scale separation assumption. The proposed system analysis and controller performance is
Considering only the slow dynamics of ωr from
extensively evaluated in this section and the results presented
(8) and (40), the simplified block diagram of Fig. 3 is valid.
are obtained using real-time data. The parameters of the 2-MW
Considering the mechanical torque Tm as a disturbance, DFIG system are provided in Table I. The DPC gains are given
the following transfer function is acquired for the close-loop
in Table II. In addition, Table II contains the MPPT operation
system:
PI controller gains, which were calculated for Ts = 20 s and
ωr
p
J ωs k I ω
ζ = 0.707, and the dc-link voltage PI controller gains, which
=   (41) were calculated for Ts = 10 s and ζ = 0.707. Finally, the
ωrref s 2 + bJ + p
k s + p
J ωs Pω J ωs k I ω MPPT ωrref is taken from (6) for a wind speed profile, as
shown in Fig. 5, while the dc-link voltage reference Vdc ref has
which can be written in the form of (34) with ωn2 = been set constant to 1200 V.
k I ω p/(J ωs ) and 2ζ ωn = [b/J + k Pω p/(J ωs )]. Due to the selected settling time for the dc-link voltage
Applying again the 2% criterion, the MPPT controller gains dynamics, a time constant of 2.5 s is required and equivalently
are calculated as a dominant pole at −0.4 Hz. From the selected dc-link voltage
 
8 b J ωs 16 J ωs reference, the system parameters and the expected operation
k Pω = − and k I ω = 2 2 . (42)
Ts J p Ts ζ p range of the DFIG, the q-axis GSC duty ratio is expected to
772 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2014
TABLE II
C ONTROLLER G AINS
Fig. 4. Root locus for the assessment of the dc-link control loop.
Fig. 5. (a) Wind speed profile. (b) Rotor speed response with its reference.
assume steady-state values in the range 0.8 ≤ m ∗q f ≤ 0.9,
which will be verified through the simulation results. This
allows for a root-locus analysis of (36) with γ considered
to be a varying parameter. The generalized root locus of
the closed-loop system (36) with varying parameter γ is
provided in Fig. 4, where for γ = 0, one pole assumes
a very large negative value and the dominant pole is located
at −0.4 Hz. The arrows in Fig. 4 show how the poles move
as the parameter γ increases. The gain selection k I dc =
4000 accompanied by the expected range of m ∗q f leads to
2.7̄ ∗ 10−4 ≤ γ ≤ 3.125 ∗ 10−4 and, through the generalized
root locus, −0.4002 Hz ≤ dominant pole ≤ −0.40017 Hz,
Fig. 6. Stator flux component responses.
which means that the settling time is practically equal to
10 s. As a result, for the selected dc-link voltage controller
gain values a stable performance is expected for the complete
operation range of the DFIG.
The closed-loop system response is simulated for the wind
speed profile of Fig. 5(a), as taken from real-world manufac-
turer data. Step changes in the stator and GSC reactive power
references are considered. In particular, initially both reactive
power references are set to zero. At time instant 30 s, the stator
reactive power reference Q ref
s becomes 0.1 MVar and at time
instant 70 s, it assumes the value −0.3 MVar. On the other
hand, the reference of the reactive power exchanged between
grid,ref
the GSC and the grid Q GSC becomes 0.1 MVar at time
instant 40 s and −0.1 MVar at time instant 80 s.
In Fig. 5(b), the rotor reference optimal speed as extracted
from (6) among with the angular speed response is provided.
A smooth transient response that matches the rotor speed
controller design and tuning requirements is observed.
In addition, the response of the stator flux components is
shown in Fig. 6. Clearly, the assumptions about the stator flux
components that were adopted in Section III-E for the rotor
speed controller are valid for the application studied, while a
near stator-flux orientation is shown to be achieved.
As can be easily seen from (38) and the stator power
expression (13) under the proposed VOC, λds is directly linked
with Ps and λqs is directly linked with Q s , a fact that can also
be verified by visual inspection of Figs. 6–8.
In Fig. 7, the responses of the stator, GSC, and total DFIG
active power are presented. A smooth response with small
overshoots seems to be achieved, while the negative value
indicates injection to the grid.
Fig. 8 provides the stator, GSC, and total DFIG reactive
power responses. A very fast transient is observed without
overshoots or oscillations. Although no decoupling terms are
present in none of the controllers, the reactive power changes
affect negligibly the active power dynamics. The stator as well
as the GSC reactive power rapidly tracks its reference within
less than 1 s of the reference change, while the active power
changes negligibly disturb the reactive power dynamics.
In Fig. 9(a), it is shown that the dc-link voltage remains
always very close to its reference despite the abrupt active
BOURDOULIS AND ALEXANDRIDIS: DPC OF DFIG WIND SYSTEMS 773

Finally, Fig. 9(b) provides the responses of all the duty

ratios, which are bounded and assume values that correspond
to linear operation of both converters.
In all cases, the system response seems to converge to the
equilibrium after a short transient, thus verifying completely
the stability analysis.

V. C ONCLUSION
A novel nonlinear model of the DFIG, suitable for DPC
was extracted and, based on its form, suitable simple and
parameter-free PI power controllers were proposed. A common
grid-VOC alignment method was used for both the converters,
a fact that simplifies the real-time implementation of the
proposed control scheme, while it was shown that a near stator-
flux oriented operation was achieved for the induction genera-
Fig. 7. Stator, GSC, and total DFIG active power responses. tor. A rigorous nonlinear stability analysis based on advanced
Lyapunov methods was conducted and suitable MPPT and
dc-link voltage controllers were designed. The proposed
system modeling, controller design, and analysis were
successfully evaluated through simulation results under hard
conditions, i.e., wind speed and reactive power reference rapid
changes.

A PPENDIX
A. Open-Loop Nonlinear Model of the DFIG
The duty ratios at the RSC and the GSC can be defined as
Vqr Vd f Vq f
m dr = Vdr
Vdc , m qr = Vdc , md f = Vdc , mq f = Vdc
.
Using (10), (12)–(14), and the above duty-ratio expres-
sions, the following expression is acquired for the dc-link
dynamics:
Fig. 8. Stator, GSC, and total DFIG reactive power responses. f 1 (x 1 , x 2 , m(u)) = amT (x 2 ) m (x 1 , u)
with the fourth-order vector am (x 2 )
⎡  ⎤
U U
− 2L3m λds + LLms Udgrid Ps + Uqgrid Qs
⎢
2 2
⎢  grid grid ⎥
⎥
L s Uqgrid Udgrid
⎢ −
1 ⎢ 2L m
3
λ + P − Q ⎥
qs Lm U 2 s U 2 s
⎥
am (x 2 ) = ⎢ grid grid
⎥
C⎢ U dgrid grid U
PGSC + U 2 Q GSC
qgrid grid ⎥
⎢ 2
Ugrid ⎥
⎣ Uqgrid grid
grid
Udgrid grid
⎦
U 2 PGSC − U 2 Q GSC
grid grid

and
⎡ ⎤
m dr
⎢ m qr ⎥ 1
m (x 1 , u) = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ m d f ⎦ = Vdc u
mq f
 T
where u = Vdr Vqr Vd f Vq f .
Also, using (8)–(11) and (13)–(14) then expression
Fig. 9. (a) DC-link voltage. (b) RSC and GSC duty-ratio responses. f 2 (·) is a seventh-order column vector with row elements
f 2i (i = 1, 2, . . . , 7) provided
 at the top of the next page,
where σ = (L r L s − L 2m ) (L r L s ) is the leakage factor, ωslip =
power changes, while due to the absence of decoupling terms ωs − pωr is the slip angular frequency, α1 = 3/(2σ L r L s ),
in the power controllers insignificant disturbances are present α2 = 1/(J L r Ugrid 2 ), α = 2R /(3R U 2 ), and U 2
3 s r grid grid =
when reactive power changes occur. Clearly the analysis in Udgrid + Uqgrid , with Ugrid being equal to the grid peak phase
2 2

Section III-D is fully validated. voltage.

774 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2014

2  
f21 = − α1 (Rs L r + Rr L s ) Ps − ωslip Q s + α1 Rr Udgrid λds + α1 Rr Uqgrid λqs − pα1 L r Uqgrid λds − Udgrid λqs ωr
3
2
−α1 L m Udgrid Vdr − α1 L m Uqgrid Vqr + α1 L r Ugrid
2
R f grid grid 3 Udgrid 3 Uqgrid 3 Ugrid
f 22 = − PGSC − ωs Q GSC − Vd f − Vq f +
Lf 2 Lf 2 Lf 2 Lf
2  
f23 = ωslip Ps − α1 (Rs L r + Rr L s ) Q s + α1 Rr Uqgrid λds − α1 Rr Udgrid λqs + pα1 L r Udgrid λds + Uqgrid λqs ωr
3
−α1 L m Uqgrid Vdr + α1 L m Udgrid Vqr
grid R f grid 3 Uqgrid 3 Udgrid
f 24 = ωs PGSC − Q GSC − Vd f + Vq f
Lf 2 Lf 2 Lf
    b 1
f25 = pα2 L r Uqgrid λds − Udgrid λqs Ps − pα2 L r Udgrid λds + Uqgrid λqs Q s − ωr − Tm
J J
f26 = α3 Rr Udgrid Ps − α3 Rr Uqgrid Q s + ωs λqs
f27 = −α3 Rr Uqgrid Ps + α3 Rr Udgrid Q s − ωs λds

B. Matrix Expressions for the Closed-Loop System Analysis under the assumptions
 that Ju is uniformly
 bounded for all
Jd (x du ) − Rd D
The 11th-order closed-loop system matrices are t ≥ 0 and matrix is locally Lipschitz in
provided here −D T Ju
    the sense that provides a Lipschitz constant.
M11 05×6 1 1 1
M = , M11 = diag , 1, , 1,
06×5 M22 α1 α α2
  1  R EFERENCES
1 1 Jd (x du ) D
M22 = diag , , 1, 1, 1, 1 , J (x du ) =
α3 α3 −D T Ju
⎡ ω ⎤ [1] R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre, and P. Rodriguez, Grid Converters for
  0 α3s Photovoltaic and Wind Power Systems. West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley,
Rd 05×6 0
R= , Ju = − ωα3s 0 2×4 ⎦,
⎣ 2011.
06×5 06×6 [2] F. Blaabjerg and K. Ma, “Future on power electronics for wind turbine
04×2 04×4 systems,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 1, no. 3,
Jd (x du ) pp. 139–152, Sep. 2013.
⎡ ω ⎤ [3] H. Polinder, J. A. Ferreira, B. B. Jensen, A. B. Abrahamsen, K. Atallah,
0 0 − αslip1
0 − pL r Ugrid λds and R. A. McMahon, “Trends in wind turbine generator systems,” IEEE
⎢ 0 0 0 −ωs 0 ⎥ J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 174–185,
⎢ ωslip ⎥
=⎢ ⎢ pL r Ugrid λqs ⎥
Sep. 2013.
α1 0 0 0 ⎥, [4] G. Abad, G. Iwanski, J. López, L. Marroyo, and M. Rodríguez, Doubly
⎣ 0 ωs 0 0 0 ⎦ Fed Induction Machine: Modeling and Control for Wind Energy Gener-
pL r Ugrid λds 0 − pL r Ugrid λqs 0 0 ation Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2011.
 [5] A. Yazdani and R. Iravani, Voltage-Sourced Converters in Power Sys-
2 Rf tems: Modeling, Control, and Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley,
Rd = diag (Rs L r + Rr L s ) + L m Ugrid k P Pr , 2010.
3 Lf
[6] R. Pena, J. C. Clare, and G. M. Asher, “Doubly fed induction generator
3 Ugrid 2 using back-to-back PWM converters and its application to variable speed
+ k P P f , (Rs L r + Rr L s ) wind-energy generation,” IEE Proc.-Elect. Power Appl., vol. 143, no. 3,
2 Lf 3
 pp. 231–241, May 1996.
Rf 3 Ugrid 2 [7] L. Xu and P. Cartwright, “Direct active and reactive power control
+ L m Ugrid k P Qr , + k P Q f , bL r Ugrid of DFIG for wind energy generation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
Lf 2 Lf
⎡ ⎤ vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 750–758, Sep. 2006.
0 Rr Ugrid 0 −αqr 0 0 [8] W. Qiao, W. Zhou, J. M. Aller, and R. G. Harley, “Wind speed estimation
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 −αq f ⎥ based sensorless output maximization control for a wind turbine driving
⎢ ⎥
⎢
D = ⎢ Rr Ugrid −αdr 0 0 ⎥
a DFIG,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1156–1169,
0 0 ⎥. May 2008.
⎣ 0 0 0 0 −αd f 0 ⎦ [9] H. Nian, Y. Song, P. Zhou, and Y. He, “Improved direct power control
0 0 0 0 0 0 of a wind turbine driven doubly fed induction generator during transient
grid voltage unbalance,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 26, no. 3,
pp. 976–986, Sep. 2011.
C. Some Nonlinear Stability Prerequisites [10] T. Noguchi, H. Tomiki, S. Kondo, and I. Takahashi, “Direct power
control of PWM converter without power-source voltage sensors,” IEEE
For the reader convenience, [24, Proposition 1] is provided Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 473–479, May/Jun. 1998.
here. [11] M. Malinowski, M. P. Kazmierkowski, S. Hansen, F. Blaabjerg, and
Proposition 1 [24]: Hamiltonian system (26) is uniformly G. D. Marques, “Virtual-flux-based direct power control of three-phase
PWM rectifiers,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1019–1027,
asymptotically stable if Jul./Aug. 2001.
 −1 
D − M12 M22 Ju [12] D. Zhi, L. Xu, and B. W. Williams, “Improved direct power control
rank −1 −1 −1 ≥ n −r of grid-connected DC/AC converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
M12 M22 Ju M22 Ju − DM22 Ju vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1280–1292, May 2009.
BOURDOULIS AND ALEXANDRIDIS: DPC OF DFIG WIND SYSTEMS
[13] S. Vazquez, J. A. Sanchez, J. M. Carrasco, J. I. Leon, and E. Gal-
van, “A model-based direct power control for three-phase power con-
verters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1647–1657,
Apr. 2008.
[14] M. K. Bourdoulis and A. T. Alexandridis, “Direct power flow modeling
and simple controller design for ac/dc voltage-source converters,” in
Proc. 39th Annu. Conf. IEEE IECON, Nov. 2013, pp. 637–642.
[15] D. Zhi and L. Xu, “Direct power control of DFIG with constant
switching frequency and improved transient performance,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 110–118, Mar. 2007.
[16] P. Zhou, Y. He, and D. Sun, “Improved direct power control of a DFIG-
based wind turbine during network unbalance,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2465–2474, Nov. 2009.
[17] D. Zhi, L. Xu, and B. W. Williams, “Model-based predictive direct
power control of doubly fed induction generators,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 341–351, Feb. 2010.
[18] N. Amiri, S. M. Madani, T. A. Lipo, and H. A. Zarchi, “An improved
direct decoupled power control of doubly fed induction machine without
rotor position sensor and with robustness to parameter variation,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 873–884, Dec. 2012.
[19] J. Hu, H. Nian, B. Hu, Y. He, and Z. Q. Zhu, “Direct active and reactive
power regulation of DFIG using sliding-mode control approach,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1028–1039, Dec. 2010.
[20] M. K. Bourdoulis and A. T. Alexandridis, “Rotor-side PI controller
design of DFIG wind turbines based on direct power flow modeling,”
in Proc. 2nd ICRERA, Oct. 2013, pp. 155–160.
[21] M. K. Bourdoulis and A. T. Alexandridis, “An alternative modeling and
controller design guaranteeing power stability for DFIG wind systems,”
in Proc. 52nd IEEE CDC, Dec. 2013, pp. 7461–7466.
[22] E. Rezaei, A. Tabesh, and M. Ebrahimi, “Dynamic model and control
of DFIG wind energy systems based on power transfer matrix,” IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1485–1493, Jul. 2012.
[23] A. Balogun, O. Ojo, and F. Okafor, “Decoupled direct control of natural
and power variables of doubly fed induction generator for extended wind
speed range using feedback linearization,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics
Power Electron., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 226–237, Dec. 2013.
[24] E. A. Androulidakis and A. T. Alexandridis, “On the stability of unforced
nonautonomous underdamped dissipative Hamiltonian systems,” in Proc.
18th Int. Conf. MMAR, Aug. 2013, pp. 11–15.
[25] G. C. Konstantopoulos and A. T. Alexandridis, “Stability and conver-
gence analysis for a class of nonlinear passive systems,” in Proc. 50th
IEEE CDC-ECC, Dec. 2011, pp. 1753–1758.
[26] L. Yang, Z. Xu, J. Ostergaard, Z. Y. Dong, and K. P. Wong, “Advanced
control strategy of DFIG wind turbines for power system fault ride
through,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 713–722,
May 2012.
[27] P. C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk, and S. D. Sudhoff, Analysis of Electric
Machinery and Drive Systems, 2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Wiley,
2002.
[28] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA:
Prentice-Hall, 2002.
775
[29] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1991.
[30] B. K. Bose, Modern Power Electronics and AC Drives.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2002.
[31] J. J. D’Azzo and C. H. Houpis, Linear Control System Analysis and
Design: Conventional and Modern, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill, 1981.
Michael K. Bourdoulis (S’07) was born in Patras,
Greece, in 1986. He received the Diploma degree
in electrical and computer engineering and the B.A.
degree in economics from the University of Patras,
Patras, in 2008 and 2014, respectively, where he
is currently working towards the completion of the
Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering
at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering.
His current research interests include nonlinear
modeling, control, and stability analysis of power
converter, and electric machine systems with an emphasis on renewable energy
systems.
Mr. Bourdoulis is a Member of the National Technical Chamber of Greece.
Antonio T. Alexandridis (M’88) received the
Diploma degree in electrical engineering from the
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Patras, Patras, Greece, in 1981, and the Ph.D. degree
from the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown,
WV, USA, in 1987.
He joined the Department of Electrical and Com-
puter Engineering at the University of Patras in 1988,
where he is currently a Professor and the Head of the
Power Systems Division. During 1998, he joined the
Control Engineering Research Centre at the City University London, London,
UK, as a Visiting Researcher. He has authored more than 130 international
journal and conference papers. His research interests include control theory,
nonlinear dynamics, optimal control, eigenstructure assignment, passivity,
and advanced control applications on power systems and drive systems. His
current interests include renewable power generation control and stability
(wind generators, PV systems, and microgrids).
Prof. Alexandridis is a Member of the National Technical Chamber of
Greece.