See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254017744

Rotor current fuzzy control of a DFIG with an

Indirect Matrix Converter

ARTICLE · NOVEMBER 2011

DOI: 10.1109/IECON.2011.6120014

CITATIONS READS

5 7

7 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Fernando Martell Manuel Macias

Tecnológico de Monterrey Tecnológico de Monterrey
8 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marco Rivera Jaime Rodriguez

Universidad de Talca University of A Coruña
120 PUBLICATIONS 1,023 CITATIONS 132 PUBLICATIONS 2,806 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Marco Rivera
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 03 February 2016
 Rotor Current Fuzzy Control of a DFIG with an
Indirect Matrix Converter
C. F. Calvillo1, F. Martell1, J. L. Elizondo1, A. Ávila1, M. E. Macías1, M. Rivera2, J. Rodriguez2
1
Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México
2
Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile
c.f.calvillo@ieee.org, fmartell@ingmt.com, jl.elizondo.carrales@itesm.mx,
aavila@itesm.mx, mmacias@itesm.mx, marco.rivera@usm.cl, jrp@usm.cl
Abstract—This paper presents a soft-computing technique to
control the rotor current of a Doubly Fed Induction Generator
(DFIG) using an Indirect Matrix Converter (IMC). The tech-
nique developed uses fuzzy logic to successfully control the
rotor current, even with abnormal grid conditions, by govern-
ing the IMC rectifier and inverter sides. Although this control
problem has been already analyzed and solved with conven-
tional vector control and with Finite States Model Based Pre-
dictive Control (FS-MBPC), the fuzzy logic based controllers
have a very acceptable response. The advantages of the devel-
oped technique are simpler code without the need of a specific
mathematical model and robustness under grid abnormalities.
These benefits decrease system costs, increase overall reliability
and allow the control scheme to be implemented easily and
entirely in FPGAs instead of DSPs-FPGA control systems.
Index Terms—Doubly Fed Induction Generator (DFIG), Indi-
rect Matrix Converter (IMC), Fuzzy Control
NOMENCLATURE
λs, λr Stator and rotor linkage flux.
Rs, Rr Stator and rotor resistance.
Ls, Lr Stator and rotor self-inductance.
Lm Mutual inductance.
D Euler derivative operand.
p Generator poles number.
J, F Generator inertia and friction.
Srx, Siy Rectifier and inverter switch state.
vin, iin IMC input voltage and current.
vdc, idc IMC DC-Link voltage and current.
Superscripts
* Reference value.
Subscripts
s, r, m, f Stator, rotor, mechanical, filter.
d, q dq reference frame axis.
e, T Electrical, wind turbine.
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, wind power generation has experienced
significant growth worldwide. The market value of wind
power can benefit from an increasing demand for electricity
and from rising fuel and CO2 prices [1]. Due to the econom-
ic impact of wind power, efficient control techniques are
becoming a focus of the world’s renewable energy challeng-
es, making it a promising field of study. With better control-
lers and the constant development of new technologies,
wind power will maintain its rapidly growing market ratio
[2].
The Doubly Fed Induction Generator (DFIG) is a feasible
option for application in Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(WECS). DFIGs offer a flexible range of operation speed
and control. The power converter is rated at only 1/3 of the
generator capacity and the DFIG can deliver up to 1.3 times
the nominal power [3]. Moreover, while an AC-AC convert-
er feeds the rotor circuit and the stator is directly connected
to the grid, a DFIG allows supersynchronous and subsyn-
chronous shaft speeds [3], [4].
Conventionally the power converter is designed consider-
ing a Back-to-Back Voltage Source Converter (BBVSC)
configuration, controlled with Space Vector Modulation
(SVM), which has an intermediate DC-Link [5]. The indi-
rect matrix converter (IMC) consists of a two-stage convert-
er that directly connects the power supply to the load with-
out a DC-Link or large energy storage elements, making it
an alternative to traditional back-to-back converters [6]. It
also offers a major advantage when size is a crucial issue.
Years of continuous research have been dedicated to the
development of new IMC topologies (Sparse, Very Sparse,
Ultra Sparse) for specific applications, new semiconductors,
and different modulation and control strategies for direct
matrix converters (DMC) and IMCs, as reported in [7]-[10].
The IMC’s absence of passive components makes it a relia-
ble smaller ―pure-silicon‖ converter. Additionally, matrix
converters allow bidirectional power flow from and to the
rotor, which is needed for subsynchronous and supersyn-
chronous operation speeds [10]. Fig. 1 shows the conven-
tional configuration of the IMC to be addressed.
The rotor current control in DFIG-based WECS applica-
tions is relevant because its magnitude, frequency, sequence
and phase directly control the active and reactive powers
delivered to or absorbed from the grid through the stator.
The rotor current must be controlled in real time for chang-
ing wind or grid conditions.
Nowadays, model predictive control has been successful-
ly applied in power converter control as an alternative to
conventional SVM and its associated vector control tech-
niques, which require the selection of a set of space vectors
to trigger the power electronics devices in a proper sequence
[11]. Therefore, a Finite States Model Based Predictive
Control (FS-MBPC) has been introduced for the current
control and instantaneous reactive power minimization in an
IMC [12]. In particular, the rotor current control of a DFIG,
with a BBVSC and an IMC, can be achieved very precisely
through FS-MBPC as reported in [9], [13], respectively.
 Wind
Turbine

DFIG
As vs
ωT Grid
is
ωm As
br ar Bs
Cs
Bs Cs
cr
Gearbox cr br ar
Inverter DC-Link Rectifier
+P
Sr5 Sr3 Sr1
vr Si5 Si3 Si1 vin vf
vdc

ir Si2 Si6 Si4 iin if

Sr2 Sr6 Sr4 Cf Rf Lf
−N
Filter
IMC

Fig. 1. Wind energy conversion system with DFIG technology controlled by an IMC on the rotor side [9].

An alternative to conventional controllers or MBPC in- Rs (Ls−Lm) (Lr−Lm) Rr

cludes the intelligent control techniques that can be imple-
mented to control the power generation in WECS. One + isdq irdq +
drawback of FS-MBPC is that the control efficiency is di- vsdq vrdq
rectly related to the prediction model accuracy. The fuzzy Lm
controller does not require a detailed mathematical model of − −
− + + −
the system and its operation is governed by a set of rules,
jωλsdq j(ω−ωr)λrdq
resulting in a simple, effective and easy to implement
alternative for both linear and non-linear systems [14]. Ad- Fig. 2. DFIG model.
ditionally, fuzzy control requires a smaller quantity of input
data compared to other techniques like predictive control or An ideal voltage supply, balanced windings, and a unity
SVM [9], [11], [13]. This characteristic reduces the amount transformation ratio between stator and rotor are assumed.
of components, resulting in both cost/complexity reduction Hence, the zero component of the complete dq0 transfor-
and higher reliability. mation is indeed zero.
Soft-computing controllers have been proposed in many
diverse applications during the last decades. In the area of vsd   Rs  Ls D  ωLs Lm D  ωLm  isd 
power electronics though, they have not been widely accept- v    i 
 sq    ωLs Rs  Ls D ωLm Lm D    sq 
ed because of very high precision requirements when trig-
vrd   Lm D  (ω  ω r ) Lm Rr  Lr D  (ω  ω r ) Lr  ird 
gering power electronics devices like IGBTs or SCRs. There      
have already been fuzzy control implementations for power vrq  (ω  ω r ) Lm Lm D (ω  ω r ) Lr Rr  Lr D  irq 
converters (for example in [15] and [16]). In this particular (1)
application there are at least a couple of reports of fuzzy
controllers being used for DFIG-based WECS [17], (most of The electromagnetic torque equation, which couples the
them working jointly with SVM [18], [19]), as well as for DFIG electrical and mechanical parts, is used to complete
controlling a matrix converter [20], [21]. Other relevant
the dynamic model.
intelligent control approaches are neuro-fuzzy [22], iterative
learning or repetitive control [23].
pLm iqsidr  idsiqr  
This paper deals with the fuzzy control of a DFIG rotor 3 2 J dωr
Te   Fωm  TT (2)
current using an IMC. 4 p dt

II. DFIG AND IMC MODELING

B. IMC Description
A. DFIG Description
Briefly complied below are the main equations concern-
The electrical dynamics can be modeled with the equiva- ing the IMC model.
lent circuit shown in Fig. 2. DC-Link voltage in function of the rectifier switches and
In dq axis transformation, rotating at an arbitrary angular the input voltages:
velocity ω, the electrical dynamic model is represented by
(1) [9].
  vinA  A. Rectifier-Side Fuzzy Control
vdc  Sr1  Sr4 Sr3  Sr6 Sr5  Sr2   vinB  (5) The three-phase voltage source (filter output) works as an
input for the rectifier controller. The previous switching
vinC  state is also considered to avoid unnecessary or inconvenient
output changes. The controller does the fuzzification, rule
The input currents in function of the rectifier switches and inferring, and the defuzzification, selecting one of the nine
the DC-Link current: possible states for the rectifier. A balanced 110 Vrms at 60
Hz is first considered; nevertheless, the RFC is designed to
be able to control the DC output even with abnormal grid
iinA  Sr1  Sr4  conditions.
i   S  S   i (6)
 inB   r3 r6  dc The membership functions (MF) for the RFC are shown
in Fig. 4. First, the terms used for each voltage phase are
iinC  Sr5  Sr2  specified: vinA, vinB, vinC are BN (big negative), SN (small
negative), SP (small positive) and BP (big positive); the
DC-Link current in function of the inverter switches and ranges for these MFs were defined by the crossing of zero
the output currents: and the crossing between phases of a balanced three-phase
ira  127 Vrms voltage source, as in Fig. 4a. Second, the previous
idc  Si1 Si3 Si5   irb  (7) state input is divided into nine symmetrical fuzzy sets (P1 -
P9), each one of them representing a valid state for the recti-
irc  fier-side in the IMC, as shown in Fig. 4b. Last, the MFs for
the output (S1 - S9) are similar to what was described be-
The output voltages in function of the inverter switches fore, as they represent the same possible rectifier switching
and the DC-Link voltage: states, as in Fig. 4c.

vra  Si1  Si4 

v   S  S   vdc (8) DFIG Grid
 rb   i3 i6 
2 IMC
3

vrc  Si5  Si2  +

Inverter Fictitious Rectifier Filter
DC-Link
These equations correspond to the nine and eight valid 3
-
3

switching states for the rectifier and the inverter parts of a ir*
Si Sr
conventional IMC, respectively, as reported in [9].
ir ErrA, B, C
Inverter-side
Delay
Rectifier-side
vinA, vinB, vinC
+
- Fuzzy Fuzzy
III. PROPOSED FUZZY CONTROL 3 3
Controller Sr ’ Controller
3

The final goal for a control methodology in a DFIG-based

WECS is the control of the bidirectional power flow, which Fig. 3. Block diagram for the proposed control system.
can be achieved by controlling the rotor current with an BN SN SP BP
1
electronic converter. The IMC was selected for this task and
Membership
Degree of

it works as the control system actuator.

As the IMC can be considered a finite state machine, the
control algorithm can be simplified to apply the best next
-90 -70 -30 0 30 70 90 V
possible state to follow a given current reference. In addi- Input Voltage
tion, being a two-stage converter, the IMC provides the a)
opportunity to develop two independent controllers: one for 1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
Membership

the rectifier and one for the inverter. This characteristic

Degree of

reduces the complexity of the control system by designing

two simpler controllers instead of a single more complex
and computationally demanding one. Fig. 3 shows the pro- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Rectifier’s Previous State
posed control scheme block diagram. b)
For this approach, the fuzzy control consists of two con- S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
1
trollers. The Rectifier-side Fuzzy Control (RFC) considers
Membership
Degree of

the condition of the grid and the preceding switching state of

the rectifier-side in the IMC to decide the best next state to
be applied. The Inverter-side Fuzzy Control (IFC) only
requires the error in the rotor currents of the DFIG to decide 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rectifier’s Next State
7 8 9

the next switching state for the inverter. None of these con- c)
trollers need any extra modulation steps. Fig.4. Membership functions for the inputs (a), (b) and the output (c) of the
rectifier-side fuzzy controller.
 TABLE I
BN MN SN Z SP MP BP
RULE BASE OF THE RECTIFIER-SIDE FUZZY CONTROL 1

Membership
Degree of
PrevState = P1

vinC = BN vinC = SN vinA P2

vinC = SP vinC = BP BN SN SP BP … -6 -2 -0.5 0 0.5

Rotor Current Error
2 6 V

S7 S5 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 P9 a)
BN S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
1
S5 S5 S5 S5 S1 S5 S1 S1

Membership
Degree of
S4 S6 S2 S8 S2 S1 S2 S1
SN
S6 S6 S5 S5 S1 S5 S1 S1
vinB 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
S4 S3 S4 S3 S2 S2 S2 S2 Inverter’s Next State
SP b)
S6 S6 S6 S6 S9 S5 S1 S1
Fig. 5. Membership functions for the inputs (a) and the output (b) of the
S3 S3 S4 S3 S4 S4 S2 S2 inverter-side fuzzy controller IFC.
BP
S3 S3 S3 S3 S4 S6 S2 S7
TABLE II
RULE BASE OF THE INVERTER-SIDE FUZZY CONTROL
ErrC
BN MN
Each switching state (S1-S9) delivers a two voltage dif- SN Z SP ErrA
ference from the three phases. Therefore, the fuzzy ―If- MP BP BN MN SN Z SP MP BP
Then‖ rules are designed in accordance with the premise of BN S6 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S1
always having the maximum positive voltage in the ficti- S4 S6 S4 S5 S4 S5 S4 S5 S4 S1
tious DC-Link of the IMC while avoiding excessive switch- MN S6 S6 S5 S5 S5 S1 S1
ing. The inference method used is Mamdani’s ―Max-Min‖ S6 S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S1 S3
approach and, due to the discrete nature of the output, the S4 S6 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S1
Mean of Maximum (MoM) method is used for defuzzifica- SN S6 S6 S6 S5 S1 S1 S1
S6 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S1 S3
tion. The controller implies 245 rules (Table I), delivering a
S4 S6 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S1
robust control for the converter rectifier-side.
ErrB Z S6 S6 S6 S4 S7 S3 S1 S1 S1
B. Inverter-Side Fuzzy Control S6 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S1 S3
S4 S6 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S1
The IFC complements the control system, which uses the
SP S6 S6 S6 S2 S1 S1 S1
three current errors as inputs: ErrA, ErrB and ErrC. These
S6 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S1 S3
errors are calculated by the three-phase current reference S4 S6 S4 S2 S4 S2 S4 S2 S4 S1
minus the actual rotor current, as in Fig. 3. The IFC takes MP S6 S6 S2 S2 S2 S1 S1
these inputs and delivers one of the valid switching states to S6 S3 S2 S3 S2 S3 S2 S3 S1 S3
the IMC inverter side. BP S6 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S1
Because the error of the rotor current can be of any
magnitude, the universe of discourse for the membership
functions goes from ± ∞, but the MFs are more precise proposed controller in order to validate its performance. The
nearing the zero, as apparent in Fig. 5a. For each input, simulations were developed in MATLAB/Simulink with the
seven MFs were defined with the following terms: BN, MN following scenarios: constant shaft speed, constant shaft
(medium negative), SN, Z (zero), SP, MP (medium positive) speed with abnormal grid conditions and finally, constant
and BP. In the outputs case, there are 8 valid states for the torque with variable speed. All the simulation variants con-
inverter: six ―active‖ and two ―zero‖ states. The two ―zero‖ sidered zero initial conditions.
switching states are considered as one state, leaving the It is important to note that these simulations were carried
output defined in seven MFs (S1 - S7) as can be seen in Fig. out to fully test the proposed control scheme, involving
5b. Each switching state, when applied, reduces the positive arbitrary rotor current references, nominal and extreme shaft
or negative error of the rotor current in one phase. velocities and torques, unbalanced and phase shifted input
Based on the knowledge of the system, 139 control rules voltage, ideal reactive elements and parameters as in [9].
were defined (Table II) in order to first reduce the greatest A. Step references at constant speed
current error of the three inputs. When two or three of the
Constant supersynchronous and subsynchronous speeds
errors have the same magnitude, the controller gives priority
were first considered for testing. To start, a reference of 1/9
to one of the phases, minimizing extra stress delivery to any
particular IGBT. Similar to the RFC, the Mamdani’s ―Max- of the nominal stator current at 18 Hz from t = 0 s to t = 0.25
Min‖ inference machine and the defuzzification method s was tested, and after that moment a step was imposed,
MoM is used in the IFC. changing the reference to 1/3 of the nominal value.
The transient response at the beginning of the simulations
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS derives from the initial zero conditions. Fig. 6a shows the
behavior of the system with supersynchronous shaft speed
The scope of this research work is the simulation of the
 Fig. 6. Rotor current fuzzy control with constant speed = 2340 rpm.

Fig. 8. Rotor current fuzzy control with constant speed = 2340 rpm and
unbalanced grid conditions.

Fig. 7. Rotor current fuzzy control with constant speed = 1260 rpm.

and the smoothness and rapidity of the control response is

better appreciated in Fig. 6b close-up. The subsynchronous
speed case is shown in Fig. 7. The mean errors of the rotor
currents for both tests are slightly below 4%.
B. Step references at constant speed and unbalanced volt-
age input Fig. 9. Rotor current fuzzy control with constant speed = 1260 rpm and
Constant susbsynchronous and supersynchronous speeds unbalanced grid conditions.
as well as a similar rotor current reference waveform were
also considered at this simulation stage. Fig. 8a shows the
anomaly from the grid introduced at time t = 0.1667 s: the
input vfB suffers a phase shift of −30° and the amplitude of
vfC drops 30%. Figs. 8, 9 show that the proposed fuzzy con-
troller performed adequately. The control scheme responded
in a short time and maintained the mean error below 3.5%.
C. Step references with ramped speed and constant torque
Fig. 10 and 11 show the rotor current control for a con-
stant ramp shaft speed and for constant torque and dynami-
cally developed shaft speed. In these tests, zero initial condi-
tions, balanced voltage input and the same current step ref-
erences described in previous simulations were applied. For
the test in Fig. 10, a ramp shaft velocity that switched from
0 to 3500 rpm was imposed, resulting in an operational
range of delimited velocities between 719 and 2763 rpm.
Fig. 10. Rotor current fuzzy control with imposed speed ramp.

Fig. 11. Rotor current fuzzy control with dynamically developing speed
and constant torque.
The second test was carried out with a constant torque of
−80 Nm, leaving the shaft speed to dynamically develop.
The test in Fig. 11 slightly decreased the operational range
(714 to 2729 rpm).
As the DFIG limitations require it to operate at velocities
ranging around ±30% of its nominal speed, the results of
these tests were satisfactory, delivering a controllable range
of −60% to 51% of the nominal speed.
The fuzzy controller was capable of controlling the rotor
current for either a ramping reference or a step reference
change. As we can see in the results presented, there are no
problems with the stability of the system for a certain range
of subsynchronous and supersynchronous speeds and for
balanced and unbalanced grid conditions.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The simulation results were acceptable for a wide range
of operational speeds for balanced and unbalanced grid
conditions. The number of rules required was increased to
make the system more robust and to make it capable of
responding to abnormal grid conditions and to reduce the
stress delivered to the IGBTs. The performance of the pro-
posed fuzzy rotor current control is similar to that of more
complex controllers but with the advantage of having fewer
computational requirements so it can be fully and easily
implemented in FPGAs instead of DSPs. Future work will
consider the implementation of this proposed fuzzy control
scheme and test it with a DFIG-based WECS application.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the financial support from the
Mexican Science and Technology National Council
(CONACYT) and Ingeniería Mecatrónica S.A. of C.V.
through project 140616.
REFERENCES
[1] C. Obersteiner and M. Saguan, ―On the market value of wind power,‖
in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on the European Energy Market. EEM’09, May
27–29, 2009, pp. 1–6.
[2] L. Wang, J. Wei, X. Wang, and X. Zhang, ―The development and
prospect of offshore wind power technology in the world,‖ in Proc.
World Non-Grid-Connected Wind Power and Energy Conf.
WNWEC’09, Sep. 24–26, 2009, pp. 1–4.
[3] S. Muller, M. Deicke, and R.W. De Doncker, ―Doubly fed induction
generator systems for wind turbines,‖ IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine, vol. 8, pp. 26–33, May–June 2002.
[4] B. Rabelo and W. Hofman, ―Control of an optimized power flow in
wind power plants with doubly-fed induction generators,‖ in Proc.
2003 IEEE Power Electron. Specialist Conf. PESC’03, vol. 4, Jun.
15–19, 2003, pp.1563–1568.
[5] R. Peña, J. Clare, and G. Asher, ―Doubly-fed Induction Generators
Using Back-to-Back PWM Converters and its Applications to Varia-
ble-Speed Wind-Energy Generation,‖ IEEE Proceedings Part B, vol.
153, pp.231–241, May 1996.
[6] T. Friedli and J.W. Kolar, ―Comprehensive Comparison of Three-
Phase AC-AC Matrix Converter and Voltage DC-Link Back-to-Back
Converter Systems,‖ in Proc. 2010 Int. Power Electron. Conf.
IPEC’10, Jun. 21–24, 2010, p. 2789.
[7] P. Wheeler, J. Rodriguez, J. Clare, L. Empringham, and A. Weinstein,
―Matrix converters: a technology review,‖ IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 276–288, Apr. 2002.
[8] J.W. Kolar, T. Friedli, F. Krismer, and S.D. Round, ―The Essence of
Three-Phase AC/AC Converter Systems,‖ in Proc. 13th Power Elec-
tron. and Motion Control Conf. 2008, EPE - PEMC’08, Sep. 1–3,
2008, p. 27.
[9] M. Rivera, J.L. Elizondo, M.E. Macías, O.M. Probst, O.M. Miche-
loud, J. Rodriguez, C. Rojas, and A. Wilson, ―Model Predictive Con-
trol of a Doubly Fed Induction Generator with an Indirect Matrix
Converter,‖ in Proc. 36th Annual Conf. on IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc.
IECON’10, Nov. 7–10, 2010, pp. 2959–2965.
[10] J.L. Elizondo, M.E. Macías, and O.M. Micheloud, ―Matrix Converters
Applied to Wind Energy Conversion Systems, Technologies and In-
vestigation Trends,‖ in Proc. 6th IEEE Electron., Robotics and Auto-
motive Mechanics Conf. CERMA’09, Sep. 22–25, 2009, pp. 435–439.
[11] S. Kouro, P. Cortés, R. Vargas, U. Ammann, and J. Rodríguez,
―Model Predictive Control—A Simple and Powerful Method to Con-
trol Power Converters,‖ IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp.
1826–1838, Jun. 2009.
[12] P. Correa, J. Rodriguez, M. Rivera, J.R. Espinoza, and J.W. Kolar,
―Predictive Control of an Indirect Matrix Converter,‖ IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1847–1853, Jun. 2009.
[13] L. Xu, D. Zhi, and B.W. Williams, ―Predictive Current Control of
Doubly Fed Induction Generators,‖ IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol.
56, no. 10, pp. 4143–4153, Oct. 2009.
[14] J.X. Xu, C.C. Hang, and C. Liu, ―Parallel structure and tuning of a
fuzzy PID controller,‖ Automatica, vol.36, no.5, pp. 673–684, May
2010.
[15] K. Tomsovic and M.Y. Chow (editors), ―Tutorial on Fuzzy Logic
Applications in Power Systems‖, IEEE PES Winter 2000 Meeting,
Singapore, Jan. 2000.
[16] Y.H. Song and A.T. Johns, ―Applications of Fuzzy Logic in Power
Systems: Part 1. General Introduction to Fuzzy Logic,‖ IEEE Power
Eng. Journal, vol. 11, no.5, pp. 219–222, Oct. 1997.
[17] S. Mishra, Y. Mishra, F. Li, and Z.Y. Dong, ―TS-fuzzy controlled
DFIG based Wind Energy Conversion Systems‖, in Proc. Power &
Energy Soc. General Meeting. PES-GM’09, Jul. 26–30, 2009, p. 1.
[18] Y. Ren, H. Li, J. Zhou, Z. An, J. Liu, H. Hu, and H. Liu, ―Dynamic
performance analysis of grid-connected DFIG based on fuzzy logic
control‖, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Mechatronics & Autom. 2009,
ICMA’09, Aug. 9–12, 2009, p. 729.
[19] R. Arulmozhiyal and K. Baskaran, ―Space Vector Pulse Width
Modulation Based Speed Control of Induction Motor using Fuzzy PI
Controller‖, Int. Journal of Comp. and Electrical Eng., vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 98–103, Apr. 2009.
[20] S. Jia and K.J. Tseng, ―A Rule-Based Control Strategy for Matrix
Converters‖, in Proc. Applied Power Electron. Conf. and Expo. 2006.
APEC’06, Mar. 19–23, 2006, p. 6.
[21] V. Kumar, R.R. Joshi, and R.C. Bansal, ―Optimal Control of Matrix-
Converter-Based WECS for Performance Enhancement and
Efficiency Optimization‖, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 24, no. 1,
p. 264, Mar. 2009.
[22] H.M. Jabr, L. Dongyun, and N.C. Kar, ―Experimental verification of
neuro-fuzzy vector control for wind driven DFIG,‖ in Proc. 36th An-
nual Conf. on IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc. IECON’10, Nov. 7–10, 2010,
p. 3073.
[23] W. Wei, S.K. Panda, and J.X. Xu, ―Control of High Performance DC-
AC Inverters Using Frequency Domain Based Repetitive Control‖ in
Proc. Int. Conf. on Power Electron. & Drives Systems, PEDS’05,
Nov. 28–Dec. 01, 2005, p. 442.