This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Maximum Power Point Tracking Strategy for
Large-Scale Wind Generation Systems
Considering Wind Turbine Dynamics
Can Huang, Student Member, IEEE, Fangxing Li, Senior Member, IEEE,
Zhiqiang Jin, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Under the global trend of renewable energy
development, various advanced techniques such as forecasting
algorithm, intelligent computation, and optimal control are
expected to make the complex and uncertain renewable energy
system stable and profitable in the near future. This paper
presents a new control strategy for large-scale wind energy
conversion systems (WECSs) to achieve a balance between power
output maximization and operating cost minimization. First, an
intelligent maximum power point tracking (IMPPT) algorithm is
proposed such that short-term wind speed prediction, wind
turbine dynamics, and MPPT are collectively considered to
improve system efficiency. Second, in view of a spatial and
temporal distribution of wind speed disturbances, a box uncertain
set is embedded in the forecasted wind speed, which is likely more
realistic for practicing engineers. Then, the IMPPT and box
uncertainties are applied to the WECS control strategy, which is
formulated as a min-max optimization problem and efficiently
solved with semi-definite programming (SDP). Finally, a
comparison with the conventional MPPT control method
demonstrates that the proposed approach can obtain a higher
efficiency, which validates this research work.
Index Terms—Wind energy conversion system (WECS),
maximum power point tracking (MPPT), wind speed forecast,
wind turbine inertia, semi-definite programming (SDP).
I. INTRODUCTION
R ECENTLY, there has been a growing interest in
generating electricity from renewable energy sources.
Among all renewable sources, wind power has the largest
market share and is expected to maintain rapid growth in the
coming years. By the end of 2013, the global wind power
capacity has increased to 318 GW from 283 GW in 2012 [1].
Reliable and effective utilization of wind power becomes
critical for making these installations economic and profitable.
Profit maximization and cost minimization is an essential
aspect of economic analysis. In the wind power industry,
Manuscript received March 7, 2014; revised June 16, 2014 and September
30, 2014; accepted November 16, 2014.
Copyright © 2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However,
permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from
the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This work was supported in part by the US NSF/DOE Engineering Research
Center (ERC) Program under NSF Award Number EEC-1041877 for CURENT
as well as China NSF project 51428701.
C. Huang and F. Li are with the Department of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, the University of Tennessee (UT), Knoxville, TN 37996,
USA.
Z. Jin is with the Western Digital, Irvine, CA 92612, USA.
Contact: F. Li, 1-865-974-8401 (Phone) or fli6@utk.edu (Email).
0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
1
WECSs are expected to maximize the electric power generated
from the wind and minimize the overall operational cost. For
this reason an increasing number of wind farms are equipped
with variable-speed variable-pitch WECSs, where the turbine’s
rotor speed and blade pitch angle can be flexibly controlled.
Comparing WECSs with other configurations show that the
variable-speed variable-pitch WECS provides higher power
output and lower mechanical stress, improve power quality, and
increases the system efficiency [2], [3]. Regardless, there are
numerous challenges for wind power utilization, especially
with the trend of developing large-scale wind turbines and
installing wind farms in low wind speed areas.
One challenge is the optimization of MPPT strategies in
WECSs. The performance of MPPT plays a decisive role in
WECS efficiency since more than 50% of the annual energy
capacity for a typical turbine comes from the partial load region
(wind speed below the rated speed) [4]. Unfortunately, it has
been shown that a 5% error is common in conventional MPPT
control strategies leading to a 1%–3% energy loss, which is
considered significant in the wind energy industry [4], [5]. A
great deal of research effort in academia and industry has been
devoted to advanced MPPT strategies and the proposed
approaches and experiments are primarily based on small to
medium scale (1–100 kW) wind turbines [6]-[9]. As turbines
increase in size and capacity, the efficiency and quality
constraints of WECSs become more difficult to attain.
Optimization of MPPT strategies for multi-MW wind power
generation systems is worthy of further study.
Other challenges primarily stem from the stochastic nature of
wind power. First, variable wind speed is difficult to measure
efficiently. Since the randomness of the wind speed is subject
to a spatial and temporal distribution as illustrated in Fig. 1, the
measured wind speed at a particular location will not be the
same as the actual wind speed at different points over the area
swept by the blades. This wind speed error may lead to a series
of problems in wind power control [10]. Second, gusty and
intermittent wind power gives rise to the issue of drive train
torque fluctuation [9]-[11], which is highly analogous to the
cost of wind turbine operation and maintenance. This becomes
increasingly important with the ongoing trend of installing
large-scale wind turbines with more expensive and complex
components. For these reasons there is a serious interest within
the research and industrial communities to employ advanced
MPPT strategies with sophisticated wind speed modeling, such
that various factors like economic merit of power harvesting
and technical merit of alleviating mechanical damage will be
considered collectively.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 2

Blades Wind speed at different points Wind

AC/DC DC/AC

Wind turbine Wind Turbine PMSG Grid

Fig. 1. Spatial and temporal distributions of wind speed. Fig. 2. A typical PMSG based wind energy conversion system.

To tackle the aforementioned challenges, an optimal MPPT A. Wind Speed

control strategy of WECSs is proposed in this paper, which The actual wind speed model is complex and affected by a
aims to achieve a tradeoff between maximizing power output number of factors such as geographic location, climate
and minimizing mechanical damage. Specifically, three characteristic, height above ground, and surface topography.
improvements are attempted for wind speed modeling, MPPT According to the Van der Hoven spectrum, the wind speed can
optimization, and WECS control. They are elaborated upon as be modeled as two components as follows
follows:
1) For modeling wind speed error, the empirical design, e.g., =v vm + vd (1)
Gaussian noise, is replaced by a more realistic model called
where 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚 is the mean wind speed representing the long-term,
Norm-Bounded uncertainty. No assumption is needed for the
slow variable component and 𝑣𝑣𝑑𝑑 is a disturbance describing the
distribution of the wind speed error. Instead, a bound on the
rapid variable component.
amplitude of the disturbance is assumed and a box uncertain set
is used to represent sensor faults or estimator errors. This is Commonly, 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚 is assumed to be the measured or estimated
arguably more realistic in practice. value at a given site and over a certain time period, and 𝑣𝑣𝑑𝑑 is
2) Considering large wind turbines’ dynamic performances, designed as a Gaussian distribution, e.g., d~ (μ, Σ) [11], [12].
an intelligent MPPT (IMPPT) algorithm is proposed to increase In this paper, the empirical design is replaced by a model called
the system efficiency. Inspiration for this algorithm comes from Norm-Bounded uncertainty. No assumption is made to the
the law of object acceleration V=V0+at. Different from distribution of disturbances and instead a bound on the
previous methods in the literature which simply increase the
acceleration a, IMPPT regulates the initial speed V0 in an amplitude of the disturbances is assumed, e.g., = γ {d | d 2 ≤ γ } .
intelligent way such that the tracking process of the object is This is arguably more realistic at high altitude and in the short
shortened and the system’s overall efficiency is improved. term.
3) For WECS control, maximizing wind power capture,
mitigating drive train torque fluctuation, and reducing control B. Aerodynamic System
actuator activities are collectively considered and the problem In the aerodynamic system, the mechanical power extracted
becomes an optimal control problem with multiple objectives. from the wind turbine is described by
In particular, the control problem is converted to semi-definite
ρπ R 2
programming (SDP) optimization problem, which is first Pt = C p ( λ , β ) v3 (2)
employed for MPPT control. 2
C=p (λ, β ) 0.5176 (116 / λi − 0.4 β − 5 ) e −21/ λi + 0.0068λ
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II (3)
introduces the mathematical model of WECSs. Section III
proposes the IMPPT algorithm. Section IV formulates the 1 1 0.035
= − 3 (4)
WECS control problem in a general setting for the SDP λi λ + 0.08β β + 1
approach. Section V presents the optimal control strategy with
Norm-Bounded disturbances. Section VI discusses simulation where ρ is the air density, R is the turbine radius, Cp is the power
results. Finally, Section VII presents conclusions and future coefficient, λ = ω R / ν is the tip speed ratio (TSR), ω is the
work. turbine angular speed, and β is the pitch angle.
Then, the turbine torque is expressed as
II. MODELING WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM
ρπ R 5
Double fed induction generators (DFIG) and permanent = t /ω
Tt P= Cp (λ, β )ω 2 (5)
magnet synchronous generators (PMSG) are the two most 2λ 3
common applications of variable-speed variable-pitch WECSs. In addition, a wind turbine can produce its maximum power
This paper focuses on the later with respect to the dynamic when it operates at the maximum power coefficient point
characteristics of multi-pole low-speed PMSGs [10]. A typical
PMSG based WECS, shown in Fig. 2, consists of aerodynamic, C p max (λopt , β opt ) , where λopt = ωopt R / ν . The maximum power
mechanical, and electrical parts. Their mathematical models are output from the wind turbine is given by
presented in this section, respectively.

0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 3

ρπ R 5C p max 3 measurement of the wind speed and thus becomes expensive

=Pt max = ωopt kopt ωopt
3
(6) and difficult to implement in practice [10].
2λopt
3

Mechanical power (p.u.)

11 m/s
C. Blade Pitch System
0.8
The blade pitch system, the physical limits on the operating
0.6 10 m/s
ranges of the pitch angle, and the pitch angle rate can be
respectively written as 0.4 9 m/s
8 m/s
β ( β * − β ) / τ β
= (7) 0.2 7 m/s
6 m/s
4 m/s5 m/s
β min ≤ β ≤ β max (8) 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

β ≤ β ≤ β
Rotor speed (p.u.)
min max (9)
Fig. 3. Wind turbine power & rotor speed characteristic curves at various wind
where τ β is the time constant of the blade pitch system, 𝛽𝛽∗ is speeds and the optimal power curve.

the desired pitch angle, and •max (•min) are the constraints of •.
D. Turbine Mechanical System
Since the rotors of the wind turbine and the generator are
connected directly, a one-mass model is selected to represent
the drive train dynamics as follows [6]-[9]
ω = (Tt − Tg − F ω ) / J (10)
0 v < vci
 intelligence algorithms [15]-[16] or data forecasting techniques
=Tg kopt ω 2 vci ≤ v ≤ vrat (11)

Trat vrat < v < vct
where Tg is the generator torque, J is the turbine’s moment of
inertia, F is the viscous friction coefficient, and vci, vrat, and vct
are the cut-in, rated and cut-out speed, respectively, which
divide the system into three operating regions.
If the friction torque is ignored, (10) can be rewritten as
ω
 (Tt − Tg ) / J
= (12)
E. Electrical System
Since the electrical dynamics of the generator are faster than
the mechanical dynamics of the turbine, (13) uses a first-order
model to represent the electrical dynamics [11].
 (T * − T ) τ
=
T g g g g (13)
where τ g is the time constant of the electrical system.
III. AN INTELLIGENT MPPT ALGORITHM
MPPT is one of the most effective approaches for improving
WECS efficiency. Previous research works primarily focus on
three conventional MPPT algorithms, namely, TSR control,
hill-climb search (HCS) control, and power signal feedback
(PSF) control [3], [10]. This paper studies the WECS with
anemometers in which TSR control is widely employed [3].
MPPT is essentially a tracking problem and its success
largely depends on a reasonable selection of references. In TSR
control, as shown in Fig. 3, the maximum wind points under
various wind speeds are achieved by tracking the optimal rotor
speed in (14). The TSR control method requires real-time
λopt
ωref = ν (14)
R
To solve this problem, the wind speed estimation (WSE)
based MPPT control is proposed in [10], [13]-[16], where the
wind speed is estimated from the relationship between system
parameters and is then used to calculate the reference value in
(14). The WSE based MPPT control method utilizes artificial
[13]-[14] and can estimate or predict the wind speed with
acceptable accuracy and computational cost. In recent years, the
prediction accuracy of advanced forecasting techniques has
reached 97% in a few-minutes to 20-minutes ahead. The
prediction error is even smaller with the prediction horizon
decreasing and/or the historical data’s effectiveness increasing
[17]-[19]. Thus, an IMPPT algorithm is proposed in this work
to take advantage of the increasing prediction accuracy in the
short term.
A schematic diagram of the IMPPT algorithm is shown in
Fig. 4, where the turbine characteristic curve is represented as a
nonlinear function of wind speed v, turbine angular speed ω,
and blade pitch angle β, and the look-ahead time duration is
assumed to be two time periods.
At each time period a wind speed and two predicted wind
speeds are viewed as the input signal and the optimal control
command is computed from the IMPPT algorithm. Here, each
time period should be on the scale of tens of seconds to a few
minutes and the predicted wind speed will be continuously
updated through historical data.
Executed decision
Not-executed decision

0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 4

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of intelligent MPPT algorithm.
Different from TSR control and WSE control, which simply
calculate the tracking reference in (14), the proposed IMPPT
algorithm considers the short-term wind speed prediction,
maximum wind power capture, and wind turbines’ dynamic
response collectively, and executes the optimal reference
command in an intelligent way. Then, IMPPT becomes an
optimization problem as follows
becomes the same as 𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟1 when the wind speed is higher.
Thus, the acceleration distance at the higher wind speed is
shortened and the corresponding system efficiency is improved.
In other words, even though the IMPPT efficiency is reduced
during low wind speed period, the WECS harvests much more
energy when the wind speed is high. This is because the
produced wind power is cubic to wind speed. Since there are
more wind energy to harvest at high wind speeds, the proposed
IMPPT tends to obtain more energy overall.

ρπ R 2
C p ( λ , β ) v 3 dt
t2 t2
max ∫ Pt dt = max ∫

Wind speed (m/s)

ωref , T t0 ωref , T t0 2 8 v2
(15)
ρπ R 2 6
f ( v, ω , β ) v 3 dt
t2
= max ∫ v1
ωref , T t0 2 4

subject to 2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)
1 ρπ R  Cp (λ, β ) v Cp (λ, β ) v 
2 3 3

Rotor speed (rad/s)

t2 2
ω (t ) = ω0 + ⋅  ∫ ω
−
ωref
 dt (16)
J 2  
t0
1.5 ωref2
ω
 ref 1 , t ≤ t < T 1 ω2
ωref (t ) = 
0
(17) ω1
ω
 ref 2 , T ≤ t < t2 0.5
ωref1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 ≤ ω ( t ) ≤ ωmax , t0 ≤ t ≤ t2 (18) Time (s)
0.6
Note that v1 and v2 are the predicted wind speeds at t1 and t2
0.4
and the pitch angle β is controlled to be zero in the partial load
Cp

Cp2
region [3]. Thus, (15)-(18) can be rewritten as 0.2
Cp1
 t1 ρπ R 2 v13 t2 ρπ R v
2 3

C p ( λ , β ) dt + ∫ C p ( λ , β ) dt 
0
max  ∫ 2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
ωref , T
 2 2  (19)
t0 t1
Time (s)
 t1 ρπ R 2 v13 t2 ρπ R v
2 3

f (ω ) dt + ∫
ωref , T ∫0
max  2
f (ω ) dt  Fig. 5. Simulation of intelligent maximum power point tracking.
 2 2 
t1

subject to (17), (18), and 0.5

Fractional average power η

TSR control η over v2

IMPPT control
1 ρπ R 2
t2  f (ω ) v 3
f (ω ) v 3
 0.48
ω (t ) = ω0 +
J
⋅
2 ∫ t0

 ω
−
ωref
 dt

(20)
0.46
η over v1 and v2

Additionally, the performance of MPPT in this paper is 0.44

evaluated with the characteristic of fractional average power η
0.42 η over v1
[4], [5]. It is defined as the ratio of the mean captured power to
the mean wind power and is expressed as 0.4
1 1.2 1.4 1.6
N N N
1 1
=
N
∑ η
Pt (i )
N
=i 1 =i 1 =i 1
∑ Pwind (i) ∑ C p (i) (21) Rotor speed referrence (rad/s)

Fig. 6. MPPT efficiency with different rotor speed commands.

To further explain the proposed method, a simple simulation
of the TSR control and proposed IMPPT control for a 1.5 MW
turbine is shown in Figs. 5 and 6. When the wind speed
constantly varies between 4 m/s and 7 m/s, the rotor speed 𝜔𝜔1
in TSR control tracks the reference 𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟1 to capture the
maximum wind power for each wind speed. Due to the inertia
effect on wind turbines’ dynamic performances, there is a
decrease in coefficient 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝 and corresponding power losses in
the tacking process.
In contrast, the rotor speed 𝜔𝜔2 in the proposed IMPPT
control tracks a different reference 𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟2 computed from (17)-
(20). 𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟2 is greater than 𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟1 at low wind speeds and
The simulation results in Fig. 6 clearly shows that the
optimization of the reference 𝜔𝜔𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 can achieve a higher overall
energy output. The fractional average power in IMPPT
increases by 2.29% in one perdition horizon, which is a
significant improvement in the wind power industry.
IV. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The previous sections discussed the WECS model and the
IMPPT algorithm, respectively. In this section, the WECS
control problem is studied systematically and multiple issues,
such as wind speed uncertainty and wind turbines’ mechanical
damage, are considered. Then, an optimal WECS control

0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 5

problem is formulated in a generic setting such that the SDP y ( k ) = Cd x ( k ) (29)

approach can be applied.
where Ad = e A and [ Bu , Bd ] =  ∫ e A dt   B u , B v  .
T T T

A. Simplified WECS Model  0 

The WECS model described in Section II can be linearized To simplify the notation, we set
around the operating point (OP) with the following expressions
[11], [20]-[25] x := [ x(1)T ,...,x(N)T ]T
dTt = d f (ω , v, β ) u := [u (0)T , ... ,u (N - 1)T ]T
df df df
= |op d ω + |op dν + |op d β (22) y := [ y (0)T , ... , y (N - 1)T ]T
dω dν dβ
= Lω d ω + Lν dν + Lβ d β d := [d (0)T , ... ,d (N - 1)T ]T

df ρπ R 2ν 2  ν dC p ( λ , β ) 
Lω =|op =  −C p ( λ , β ) + R  (23) B. Objective Function
dω 2ω  ω dλ  Since this paper focuses on the WECS operating in the partial
df ρπ R 2ν  ν dC p ( λ , β )  load region, the main control objective is to capture the
=
Lν = |op  3C p ( λ , β ) − R  (24) maximum power available from the wind. The turbine’s rotor
dν 2  ω dλ  speed 𝜔𝜔 and pitch angle 𝛽𝛽 are expected to be controlled in a
df ρπ R 2ν 3 dC p ( λ , β ) way such that the power coefficient 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝 (𝜆𝜆, 𝛽𝛽) is maximized.
=
Lβ = |op (25)
dβ 2ω dβ These objectives can be achieved by manipulating the desired
pitch angle 𝛽𝛽 ∗ and generator torque set point 𝑇𝑇𝑔𝑔∗ . Moreover,
where d corresponds to the deviation of a variable from the OP. mitigating drive train transient loads and reducing control
Define the state vector, the control input, and the measure actuator activities should also be considered. This will help to
T T extend the life time of the system’s mechanical components.
output as x =  d ω dTt dTg d β  , u =  dTg* d β *  and
Thus, the cost function can be written as follows
T
y =  d ω dPg  , respectively. Then, the state space model of the
min f N ( x , y , u, d ) = min ∑  q1 ( d ω * − d ω ) + q2 ( dPg* − dPg ) 
N 2 2
linearized WECS can be written as [11], [24]  k k
k =1

x ( t ) = Ax
 ( t ) + B u ( t ) + B dν ( t ) N −1
(26) + ∑  r1 ( dTg* ) + r2 ( d β * ) + r3 ( ∆Tg* ) + r4 ( ∆β * ) 
2 2 2 2
u v
k =0 
k k k k
y ( t ) = C x ( t ) (27)
(30)
with subject to
 1 1  + 1) Ad x ( k ) + Bu u ( k ) + Bd d ( k )
x ( k=
0 − 0  (31)
J J
  y ( k ) = Cd x ( k ) (32)
 Lω 0 0 Lβ 
A = 1 
, ωmin ≤ ω ( k ) ≤ ωmax (33)
0 0 − 0 
 τg  Pg ,min ≤ Pg ( k ) ≤ Pg ,max (34)
 1  0 ≤ T (k ) ≤ Tg ,max
*
(35)
0 0 0 − 
g

 τ β min ≤ β ( k ) ≤ β max
*
(36)
 0 0   
0 1 Tg 
T
∆β min ≤ ∆β d ( k ) ≤ ∆β max (37)
 0 
0 ,   
L , and  
B u = 
0 0 .
Bv =  v  C =  where N is the control horizon, ∆ means the change of control
1 τ g 0  0 0 ωg 
      vector as ∆u(k + 1)= u(k + 1) − u(k ) , and 𝑞𝑞1 , 𝑞𝑞2 , 𝑟𝑟1 , 𝑟𝑟2 , 𝑟𝑟3 and
 0 1τ 0 0 0 
𝑟𝑟4 are weighting coefficients.
Thus, the discrete version of the linearized WECS can be
written as follows After some mathematical manipulation, equation (30) can
x ( k=
+ 1) Ad x ( k ) + Bu u ( k ) + Bd d ( k ) (28) be rewritten as follows

N N −1
( x0 , u, d )
VN= ∑ x (k )
Q x (k ) + ∑ ( u(k ) − u(k − 1) ) R1 ( u(k ) − u(k − 1) ) + u(k )T R2 u(k ) 
T T

=k 1= k 0
 
N N −1
(38)
= ∑ x (k ) Q x (k ) + ∑ ( u(k ) − u(k − 1) ) u(k )T  R ( u(k ) − u(k − 1) ) u(k ) 
T T T

= k 1= k 0
 

0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 6

with, V. PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY

In this section, the employed control strategy for solving the
0 0 0 0 0 control problem formulated in the previous paragraphs will be
 
0 (q1 + q2 )Tg*2 q2ω *Tg* discussed. Unlike model predictive control (MPC) methods,
0 0
 ωB2 ωBTg ,B  which are quadratic programing problems, the WECS control
  problem will be converted to a SDP problem.
Q = 0 0 0 0 0 ,
  A. Brief Introduction of SDP
 q2ω T*
g
*
q2ω *2 
0 0 0 Semi-definite programming has the following form [26]:
ωBTg ,B Tg2,B
  min cT x (45)
0 0 0 0 0 
r T 2 0   r3 Tg2, B 0   R1 0  subject to F i ( x=
) x1 F1i + ... + xn Fni + G i ≤ 0, =
i 1,..., K
R1 =  1 g , B 2
, R =  2
and R =  . Gx ≤ g , Ax =
b
r2 β B  r4 β B 
2
 0  0  0 R2 
where G i , F1i , ... , Fni ∈  n× n , x ∈  n , G and A are matrices,
where x0 is the initial condition at each time step, •B is the base
and g and b are vectors with appropriate dimensions.
value of •, Q  0 (i.e., semi-definite positive matrix), and
R1 , R2  0 (i.e., positive definite matrix). Normally, SDP is subject to constraints such as linear matrix
inequalities (LMI), linear inequalities, and linear equalities.
Then, with the consideration of the wind speed error d as a SDP optimization problems are convex optimization problems
box uncertain set, (39) can be written as a min-max problem to that can be solved efficiently.
compute the optimal control that minimizes the largest cost in
the disturbance space. B. SDP Approach for WECS control
Problem: u( x0 ) := arg min u max d ∈γ VN (39) Proposition 1: The cost function (38) can be written in the
following form:
subject to (31), (32), (36), (37) and
J ( x0 , u , d ) = x0T Ax0 + 2bT u + uT Bu + 2cT d
(46)
 (ωmin ≤ ω ( k ) ≤ ωmax ) ≥ α1 (40) + d T Cd + 2uT Dd
 (Pg ,min ≤ Pg ( k ) ≤ Pg ,max ) ≥ α 2 (41) ( N ⋅ nx )×1 ( N ⋅ nu )×1 ( N ⋅ nd )×1
for vectors a ∈  , b∈ , c∈ and
 (0 ≤ T (k ) ≤ Tg ,max ) ≥ α 3
*
(42) ( N ⋅ nd )× ( N ⋅ nd )
g
matrices A ∈  ( N ⋅ nx ) × ( N ⋅ nx )
, B∈ , C ∈
( N ⋅ nu )× ( N ⋅ nu )
,
Note that the non-convex chance constraints (40)–(42) are D∈ ( N ⋅ nu )× ( N ⋅ nd )
, where B  0 and C  0 .
the probabilistic forms of constraints in (33)–(35), respectively.
Constraints (40)-(42) can be represented in the form of Proof: The original state can be written at any instant k as:
inequalities [23], [24] as
xk = A k −1 x0 + B k −1u + C k −1d (47)
 (Gi x > gi ) < 1 − α i i=1, 2,3 (43)
where
=
where G1 = [0 1]Cd and g1 ωg ,max − ωg * when using (33) as
A k −1 = Adk
an example.
B k −1 = [( Adk −1 )T Bu ,  , Bu , 04×2( N − k ) ]
Applying the theorem in [23], the chance constraints in (40)-
(42) can be reduced to linear inequalities p u ≤ q .
T C k −1 = [( Adk −1 )T Bd ,  , Bd , 04×2( N − k ) ]
Furthermore, G1 x > g1 with (43) is equivalent to If we substitute (47) into (46), the state term becomes:
G1 Ad x0 + G1 Bu u + Gi Bd d > g1 , which is further implied by
= xkT Q xk x0T A Tk −1Q k A k −1 x0 + 2 x0T A Tk −1Q k B Tk −1u + C k −1d ( )
G1 Bu u > g1 − G1 Ad x0 + C G1 γ T
(44) + uT B T Q B x + d T C T Q C d
d 2 k −1 k k −1 0 k −1 k k −1 (48)

as d ≤γ . + 2u B kT−1Q k C k −1d
T

2
Thus, after some manipulation, the cost function (38) can be
Thus, Problem (39) becomes a convex optimization problem
clearly written in the form stated in (46) with
and can be solved by SDP, which is discussed in the next
section. N
A=∑A
T Q A
k −1

k −1
k =1

0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 7

N on the bound of the disturbance (i.e., wind speeds or wind speed

=B LT diag ( R, , R ) L + ∑ B kT−1 Q B k −1
k =1
variations usually go inbounded). This paper considers the
N
unknown wind speed error as Norm-Bounded and employs the
C = ∑ C kT-1 Q C k -1 SDP method to search for an optimal solution. It can be viewed
k=1 as finding the optimal control that minimizes the worst cost
N within the disturbance bound. Thus, the advantage of the
D = ∑ B kT-1 Q C k -1 proposed method is that it is not necessary to know the statistics
k=1
of the disturbance distribution which is used to compute the
1 0 −1 0 expected cost in the MPC based method [11]. Further, through
0 1 0 − 1= 0  U [0, ... ,0, u(−1)T ]T IMPPT and SDP it can be guaranteed that the overall cost will
L=  
0  −1 be limited to an appropriate range.
 
0 0 0 1
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 N 
b =  ∑ B kT-1 Q A k -1  x0 - RT U The performance of the proposed MPPT control strategy is
 k=1  demonstrated in this section. The controller is tested on the
WECS model described in Section II with the control strategy
 N 
c =  ∑ C kT-1 Q A k -1  x0 found in Section III and Section V. In addition, the simulation
 k=1  will be performed in two steps with different objectives.
A. Brief simulation description
where L comes from the difference of control inputs in the cost
The motivation of this paper is to explore an efficient
function (38).
method for wind power utilization which is implemented in two
Next, to simplify the notation of (46), control variables are aspects: maximizing the efficiency of MPPT and minimizing
transformed with u = B -1/ 2 y − B -1b and the cost function (46) is the operation and maintenance cost of WECSs.
further rewritten as: To simplify the problem formulation we first copulate the
optimal references from the IMPPT algorithm and then solve
J ( x0 , y , d ) = yT y + 2hT d + 2yT Fd + d T Cd (49) the min-max problem though SDP. Also, parameters used in the
simulation are listed in Table I [22], [27]-[31]. The weights are
with h = c − DT B -1b and F = B -1/ 2 D . set to q1=1, q2=0, r1=0.15, r2=0, r3=1, and r4=0 [11].
Then, the objective functional in (39) is equivalent to: TABLE I.

J ( x0 , y , d )
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
min y∈ N ⋅nu max d ∈γ (50)
Rated Power [MW] 0.75 1.5 2 3 5
Proposition 2: Problem in (39) can be solved by the Rotor radius [m] 25 35 40 45 58
Rated rotor speed [rpm] 28.6 20 18 16 14.8
following SDP Rated wind speed [m/s] 11 11 12 12 12
min z Cut-in wind speed [m/s] 4.5 4 4 4 3
Cut-out wind speed [m/s] 25 25 25 25 25
subject to (31), (32), (36), (37), (38) and (45). Moment of inertia [106 kg·m2] 0.13 1.86 5.67 12.6 12.9
Optimum tip speed ratio 8.1
 IN y F  Maximum power coefficient 0.48
 yT z −γ λ 2
−h T  0 Air density [kg/m3] 1.225
 
 F T −h λ I − C + F T F  B. Step 1: IMPPT Algorithm
in decision variables y, z, and λ . With the application of state-of-the-art technologies to wind
speed forecasting, the wind speed is assumed to be predicted
Proof: The proof is given in theorem 3 of [23]. every minute and the prediction error is ignored in the short-
term [13]. As the first step to test the proposed control strategy,
Thus, the proposed WECS control problem can be solved by
the predicted wind speed is chosen in the midrange of the partial
SDP approaches and the optimal control input can be obtained
load region (6.5 m/s and 8 m/s). The disturbance is set with the
with the transformation u = B -1/ 2 y − B -1b after solving the
bounds of +1 m/s and -1 m/s, which is considered to be the
above problem. maximum variance in the model of wind speed errors.
In many previously used WECS controls, the wind speed In Fig. 7, the performances of the TSR control and the
disturbance is commonly assumed to be Gaussian [11], [12]. proposed IMPPT control are compared. Under Norm-Bounded
This assumption may not hold in many cases and in the real disturbances, the optimal references derived from conventional
world the disturbance does not always follow a regular MPPT and IMPPT are very close at most operating points, but
probability distribution. when a gusty wind speed or a gradient wind occurs, IMPPT
However, it is not difficult to make a reasonable assumption control can capture more wind power than TSR control.

0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 8

In addition, different wind speed variation ranges on a 1.5

MW wind turbine are studied and the corresponding 𝜂𝜂2 / 𝜂𝜂1 10 vm

Wind speed (m/s)

v
values are calculated. We also fix the tracking bandwidth of 8
MPPT [8] and implement similar simulations on different wind B C D
turbines with the parameters in Table I. The results are listed in 6
A
Table II and Table III, respectively. 4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
TABLE II. Time (s)
IMPPT EFFICIENCY UNDER DIFFERENT WIND SPEED VARIATIONS
0.46
0.475
η 2 η1 4 m/s 5 m/s 6 m/s 7 m/s 8 m/s 9 m/s 10 m/s 11 m/s

Fractio nal ave rage power

0.44 0.47

4 m/s 1.0 1.00.3 1.010 1.023 1.043 1.070 1.011 1.156 0.465
0.42
5m/s 1.001 1.0 1.001 1.004 1.010 1.018 1.029 1.044 Period A 0.46 Period B
6m/s 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 1.002 1.004 1.008 1.013 0.4
0.455
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
7m/s 1.001 1.001 1.000 0 1.000 1.0051 1.002 1.004
8m/s 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.0001 1.001 0.4 7
0.478
9m/s 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 0 1.000 1.001 0.4 6
10m/s 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 1.000 0.476
0.4 5
11m/s 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0 Period C Period D
0.4 4 0.474
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 1.65 1.7 1.75
TABLE III.
IMPPT EFFICIENCY IN DIFFERENT WIND TURBINES Rotor spee d r efe rence (rad/s) TSR IMPPT

2.5

Rotor spee d (rad/s)

Wind turbine [MW] 0.75 1.5 2 3 5 TSR control
Rate η 2 η1 1.021 1.023 1.019 1.023 1.020 2 IMPPT control

1.5
It is clearly shown that the IMPPT algorithm can be applied
in wind turbines of different scale and the efficiency of IMPPT 1
increases with the strength of gusty wind. In several cases the 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)
efficiency of IMPPT compared with the conventional MPPT 0.5
increases by 3%. The proposed IMPPT algorithm is worth
being applied in practice.
Cp

0.4
TSR control
IMPPT control
0.3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Fig. 7. Results of maximum wind power capture using MPPT and IMPPT.

Also, it should be noted that several efficient techniques are

proposed in recent literature to improve the efficiency of MPPT
during the dynamic process, e.g., a digital control to optimize
the MPPT tracking bandwidth is proposed in [8], a PI controller
to reduce the moment of inertia is implemented in [22], and a
MPC-based MPPT is applied to mitigating drive train transient
loads in [11]. Compared with these prior methods, IMPPT
presents three advantages: first, the tracking distance is
shortened and the control system’s dynamic characteristic is
improved; second, the acceleration time of mechanical
components is reduced and the corresponding mechanical
damage is alleviated; finally, no extra power electronic device
is required, and system complexity and operation cost is only
slightly increased.
Moreover, as opposed to the approaches to reduce the effect
of inertia in [8], [11], [22], the proposed IMPPT algorithm
optimizes the rotor reference and shortens the tracking path to
improve MPPT efficiency. This means that all the proposed
techniques in [8], [11], [22] can be combined with the IMMPT
algorithm since they solve the same problem in different angles.
Thus, IMPPT is promising in practice.

0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
C. Step 2: Optimal control of WECSs
After the calculation of optimal references, WECS control
can be implemented in (30)-(38). An actual hourly wind speed
measured at a 70 meter tower is selected as the mean wind speed
for simulation. Then, a perturbation is added to the mean wind
speed to mimic the randomness within the norm bound.
vm
v is proposed to increase the system efficiency. As opposed to
ωref ω Future works may include the application of proposed
Fig. 8. Results of WECS control in the partial load region.
From the simulation result in Fig. 8, the real-time wind
speed fluctuates around the mean wind speed with a bound of 1
m/s. It is observed that the WECS operates within the physical
constraints of the control variables, e.g., limits on the rotor
speed 𝜔𝜔. Moreover, two observations can be obtained with a
comparison of the reference rotor speed and the actual rotor
speed. First, when the wind speed is high, the wind turbine
closely tracks the reference value and captures the high wind
power output efficiently. Second, when the wind speed falls
into a low range, MPPT efficiency is reduced to mitigate the
drive train torsional torque fluctuation. Since the mechanical
fatigue of the wind turbine is difficult to quantify and compare
with the energy produced, tuning of the weighting coefficients
may be based on the wind power operators’ experience and
perspective.
VII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The contribution of this paper is summarized below:
• In this paper, a novel MPPT strategy is proposed for the
variable-speed variable-pitch WECS operating in the partial
load region. The control strategy aims to achieve a balance
between power output maximization and operating costs
minimization. It can improve the efficiency of MPPT and
increase the life time of mechanical components.
0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.
9
• In the proposed approach, the wind speed error is modeled
as Norm-Bounded without a known distribution. This likely
represents a more realistic model in practice and avoids the
assumption of the noise distribution. Moreover, the problem
is formulated into a SDP model which has not been
previously implemented in MPPT control.
• Furthermore, dynamic performances of large-scale wind
generation systems are considered and an IMPPT algorithm
simply reducing the effect of inertia, the rotor speed
reference is regulated in an intelligent way such that the
movement of the rotor during the dynamic tracking process
is shortened and the mechanical fatigue is reduced. Also, the
system’s overall efficiency can be improved, especially
when the wind speed experiences a drastic change.
methods in real WECSs and experiments on large-scale wind
turbines.
REFERENCES
[1] The Global Wind Energy Council: Global Wind Statistics 2013. (Online
at http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GWEC-PRstats-
2013_EN.pdf)
[2] J. M. Carrasco, L. G. Franquelo, J. T. Bialasiewicz, E. Galvan, R. C. P.
Guisado, M. A. M. Prats, J. I. Leon, and N. Moreno-Alfonso, “Power-
electronic systems for the grid integration of renewable energy sources:
A survey,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 4, pp.1002–1016, Aug.
2006.
[3] Z. Chen, J. M. Guerrero, and F. Blaabjerg, “A review of the state of the
art of power electronics for wind turbines,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 24, no. 8, pp.1859–1875, Aug. 2009.
[4] K. E. Johnson, “Adaptive torque control of variable speed wind turbines,”
Natl. Renew. Energy Lab., Golden, CO, NREL/TP-500-36265, Aug.
2004.
[5] K. E. Johnson, L. Y. Pao, M. Balas, and L. Fingersh, “Control of variable
speed wind turbines: standard and adaptive techniques for maximizing
energy capture,” IEEE Control Syst., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 70–81, Jun. 2006.
[6] Y. Xia, K. Ahmed, and B. W. Williams, “Wind turbine power coefficient
analysis of a new maximum power point tracking technique,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1122–1132, Mar. 2013.
[7] J. Chen, J. Chen, and C. Gong, “New overall power control strategy for
variable-speed fixed-pitch wind turbines within the whole wind velocity
range,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no.7, pp. 2652–2660, Jul.
2013.
[8] J. Chen, J. Chen, and C. Gong, “Constant-bandwidth maximum power
point tracking strategy for variable-speed wind turbines and its design
details,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no.11, pp. 5050–5058, Nov.
2013.
[9] J. Chen, J. Chen, and C. Gong, “On optimizing the transient load of
variable-speed wind energy conversion system during the MPP tracking
process,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 4698–4706, Sep.
2014.
[10] Y. Zhao, C. Wei, Z. Zhang, and W. Qiao, “A review on position/speed
sensorless control for permanent-magnet synchronous machine-based
wind energy conversion systems,” IEEE J. Emerging Sel. Topics Power
Electron., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 203–216, Dec. 2013.
[11] M. Soliman, O. P. Malik, and D. T. Westwick, “Multiple model predictive
control for wind turbines with doubly fed induction generators,” IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 215–225, Jul. 2011.
[12] I. Peñarrocha, D. Dolz, N. Aparicio, and R. Sanchis, “Synthesis of
nonlinear controller for wind turbines stability when providing grid
support,” Int. J. Robust. Nonlinear Control, ISSN 1099–1239, May 2013.
[13] K. Tan and S. Island, “Optimum control strategies in energy conversion
of PMSG wind turbine system without mechanical sensors,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 392-399. Jun. 2004.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIE.2015.2395384, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 10

[14] M. Narayana, G. Putrus, M. Jovanovic, and P. S. Leung, “Predictive Can Huang (S’13) received the B.S.E.E degree from
control of wind turbines by considering wind speed forecasting Hohai University, Nanjing, China, in 2008, and the
techniques,” in Proceeding of 44th International Universities Power M.S.E.E. degree from Southeast University, Nanjing,
China, in 2011. He was with the State Grid Electric
Engineering (UPEC), Glasgow, pp. 1–4, Sept. 2009.
Power Research Institute (NARI Group Corporation),
[15] A. G. Abo-Khalil and D.-C. Lee, “MPPT control of wind generation Nanjing, China, from 2011 to 2012. Currently, he is a
systems based on estimated wind speed using SVR,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Ph.D. candidate in electrical engineering at the
Electron., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1489–1490, Mar. 2008. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.
[16] W. Qiao, X. Yang, and X. Gong, “Wind speed and rotor position His current research interests include renewable
sensorless control for direct-drive PMG wind turbines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. energy integration, power system planning and
Appl., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 3–11, Jan./Feb. 2012. operation, and IT applications in power system measuring, protection and
communications.
[17] C. W. Potter, and M. Negnevitsky, “Very short-term wind forecasting for
Tasmanian power generation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 21, no. 2,
pp. 965–972, May 2006.
[18] J. Zeng and W Qiao, “Short-term wind power prediction using a wavelet Fangxing Li (M’01–SM’05) is also known as Fran Li,
support vector machine,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. who received the B.S.E.E. and M.S.E.E. degrees from
255–264, Apr. 2012. Southeast University, Nanjing, China, in 1994 and
[19] G. Zhang, H. Li, and M. Gan, “Design a wind speed prediction model 1997, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, in 2001. He was with
using probabilistic fuzzy system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. ABB Electric Systems Consulting (ESC), Raleigh, NC,
819–827, Nov. 2012. USA, from 2001 to 2005. Currently, he is an Associate
[20] Y. Mishra, S. Mishra, F. Li, Z. Y. Dong, and R. C. Bansal, “Small-signal Professor in electrical engineering and the Campus
stability analysis of a DFIG-based wind power system under different Director of CURENT at the University of Tennessee,
modes of operation,” IEEE Trans. on Energy Convers., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. Knoxville, TN, USA.
972–982, Dec. 2009. His current research interests include renewable energy integration, demand
response, power markets, distributed energy resources, and smart grid.
[21] Z. Miao and L. Fan, “Modeling and small signal analysis of a PMSG -
Prof. Li is a registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina, an Editor of
based wind generator with sensorless maximum power extraction,” in IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, and a Fellow of IET.
IEEE PES General Meeting, San Diego, CA, pp. 1–8, Jul. 2012.
[22] K. H. Kim, T. L. Van, D. C. Lee, S. H. Song, and E. H. Kim, “Maximum
output power tracking control in variable-speed wind turbine systems
considering rotor inertial power,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. Zhiqiang Jin received the B.S. degree from Tianjin
8, pp. 3207–3217, Aug. 2013. University, Tianjin, China, in 2005, the M.S. degree
[23] D. Bertsimas and D. Brown, “Constrained Stochastic LQC: A Tractable from University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, in
Approach,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 1826– 2008, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of
1841, OCT. 2007. Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, in 2013. He is
[24] Z. Jin, F. Li, X. Ma, and S. M. Djouadi, “Semi-definite programming for currently working as a Staff Engineer at Western
power output control in wind energy conversion system,” IEEE Digital.
Transactions on Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 466–475, Apr. 2014.
[25] C. Huang, F. Li, T. Ding, Z. Jin, and X. Ma, “Second-order cone
programming-based optimal control strategy for wind energy conversion
systems over complete operating regions,” IEEE Transactions on Sustain.
Energy, vol. 6, no.1, pp. 263-271, Jan. 2015.
[26] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization, Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
[27] H. Li, Z. Chen, and H. Polinder, “Optimization of multibrid permanent-
magnet wind generator systems,” IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 24, no.
1, pp. 82–92, Mar. 2009.
[28] M. Mansour, M. N. Mansouri, and M. F.Mmimouni, “Study and control
of a variable-speed wind-energy system connected to the grid,”
International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.
96–104. 2011.
[29] C. Tang, M. Pathmanathan, W. L. Soong, and N. Ertugrul, “Effects of
inertia on dynamic performance of wind turbines,” in Aus. Univ. Power
Engineering Conference (AUPEC), Sydney, NSW, pp. 1–6, Dec. 2008.
[30] J. Park, J. Lee, K. Oh, J. Lee, and B. Kim, “Design of simulator for 3MW
wind turbine and its condition monitoring system,” in International Multi-
Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (IMECS), Hong Kong,
Mar. 2010.
[31] Theme X Workshop: Exemplar Wind Turbines [Online]. Available:
http://www.supergen-wind.org.uk/Phase1/docs/presentations/2007-07-
02_8_Supergen_Bill.pdf

0278-0046 (c) 2015 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.