See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261124567

Comparison of Model Based Predictive Control

and Fuzzy Logic Control of a DFIG with an
Indirect Matrix Converter

CONFERENCE PAPER · OCTOBER 2012

DOI: 10.1109/IECON.2012.6389090

CITATIONS READS

3 9

8 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 Jose Rodriguez

Universidad de Talca Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María
120 PUBLICATIONS 1,023 CITATIONS 257 PUBLICATIONS 7,805 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
 Comparison of Model Based Predictive Control
and Fuzzy Logic Control of a DFIG with an
Indirect Matrix Converter
C. F. Calvillo', A. Olloqui', F. Martell', J. L. Elizondo', A. Avila', M. E. Macias', M. Rivera2, J. Rodriguez2
ITecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
2Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Marfa, Valparaiso, Chile
c.f.calvillo@ieee.org, alex.olloqui@ieee.org, fmartell@ingmt.com, jl.elizondo.carrales@ieee.org,
aavila@itesm.mx, mmacias@itesm.mx, marco.rivera@usm.c1, jrp@usm.c1

Abstract- In this paper two control techniques: Finite States - range of variable speed operation, and reduced converter cost.
Model Based Predictive Control (FS - MBPC) and Fuzzy Logic A bidirectional power converter between the grid and the rotor
Control (FLC) are developed to obtain arbitrary output currents, sides allows sub and supersynchronous operation for only a
needed in a variable speed Wind Energy Conversion System fraction of the machine full rated power [1].
(WECS). In this study, the simulation performance between FS­
Power can be drawn from or absorbed by the rotor through
MBPC and FLC of the rotor current in a Doubly Fed Induction
the converter depending on operating speed. When in super­
Generator (DFIG) with an Indirect Matrix Converter is evaluat­
synchronous operation, the DFIG can supply power from the
ed. The simulations were carried out with constant shaft speed,
rotor and stator, delivering up to l.3 times the rated power [2].
and constant ramp speed with arbitrary rotor current references.
In recent years direct AC-AC power converters have been
Both FS-MBPC and FLC showed very high performance, follow­
ing smoothly and rapidly the current reference with a very low
used in variable speed generation systems. Matrix Converters
error. The FS-MBPC dynamic response is slightly better than of (MC), Indirect Matrix Converters, Multilevel Matrix Convert­
the FLC. However, fewer mathematical calculations, and less ers and more recently Sparse Matrix Converters topologies
measured data, and fewer computational requirements suggest (Sparse, Very Sparse, and Ultra Sparse) have shown ad­
that FLC can be easier to implement in FPGAs instead of compo­ vantages for high frequency applications [3]-[7].
site microprocessor-based control platforms. The Indirect Matrix Converter (lMC) as the other topolo­
gies named before, are "pure silicon converters" with low
Index Terms-Doubly Fed Induction Generator (DFIG), Indirect
distortion on input currents, bidirectional power flow capabil­
Matrix Converter (IMC), Fuzzy Logic Control, Model Based
ity and major advantage when size is a crucial issue and ad­
Predictive Control.
verse atmospheric conditions are present [7]-[9]. The IMC
NOMENCLATURE consists of a two-stage converter that directly connects the
A" Ar Stator and rotor linkage flux. power supply to the load without bulky capacitors or inductors
R" Rr Stator and rotor resistance. between stages, making it an alternative to traditional Back-to­
L" Lr Stator and rotor self-inductance. Back Voltage Source Converter (BBVSC) [10]. It uses a sim­
Lm Mutual inductance. pler commutation scheme (zero DC-link current commutation
:l) Euler derivative operand. [11]) and does not need additional overvoltage protection as
p Generator poles nwnber. the conventional MC. Fig. 1 shows the conventional configu­
J, F Generator inertia and friction. ration of the IMC to be addressed.
Srx. Siy Rectifier and inverter switch state. The rotor current control in DFIG-based Wind Energy Con­
Vim iin IMC input voltage and current. version Systems (WECS) applications is relevant because a
Vde, ide IMC DC-Link voltage and current. Grid
Superscripts
*
Reference value.
Subscripts
s, r, m, j Stator, rotor, mechanical, filter.
d. q dq reference frame axis.
e, T Electrical, wind turbine.

I. INTRODUCTION

In wind power generation, Doubly Fed Induction Genera­

tors (DFIGs) are widely used due to their power control capa­
bility (up to l.3 times of full rated generator power), wide

978-1-4673-2421-2/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE 6063

unique rotor current for every grid condition and shaft velocity
must be supplied by the IMC in order to induce the correct
voltage magnitude, frequency, sequence and phase in the sta­
tor of the DFIG, and subsequently control its power flow. The
rotor current must be controlled in real time for continuously
changing wind or grid conditions. The input currents in function of the rectifier switches and
Conventionally, Vector Control (VC) is used to control the the DC-Link current:
rotor current in DFIGs, which has to be carefully tuned to
maintain system stability and adequate dynamics over the
whole operational range, which could reduce robustness dur­ (2)
ing abrupt changes in operational conditions [12].
A simpler and more intuitive method has been successfully
applied in power converters. Model Predictive Control (MPC)
is now an alternative to conventional Space Vector Modula­ DC-Link current in function of the inverter switches and the
tion (SVM) and its associated Vector Control techniques to output currents:
obtain sinusoidal output currents or follow an arbitrary current
reference waveform [13]. As the IMC has a finite set of valid (3)
switching states, the predictive control algorithm is simplified
and introduced as Finite States Model Based Predictive Con­
trol (FS-MBPC) to achieve positive DC-Link voltage, load
current control and instantaneous reactive power minimization The output voltages in function of the inverter switches and
in an IMC [11]. In particular, the rotor current control of a the DC-Link voltage:
DFIG, with an IMC and a BBVSC, can be achieved very pre­
cisely through FS-MBPC as reported in [14] and in [14], re­
spectively. (4)
One drawback of FS-MBPC is that the control efficiency is
directly related to the prediction model accuracy. Although a
fuzzy controller does not require a detailed mathematical
These equations correspond to the nine and eight valid
model of the system, its operation is governed by a set of rules
switching states for the rectifier and the inverter parts of a
developed from previous expert knowledge of the system
conventional IMC, respectively, as reported in [14].
behavior [16]. Additionally, fuzzy control requires a smaller
quantity of input data compared to other techniques like B. DFfG Description
MBPC or SVM, as in [6], [15], and [17]. This characteristic The electrical dynamics can be modeled with the equivalent
reduces the amount of components, resulting in both
circuit shown in Fig. 2.
cost/complexity reduction and higher reliability. With less
In d,q axis transformation, rotating at an arbitrary angular
variables being calculated and measured, the computing time
velocity (0, the electrical dynamic model is represented by (5)
can be reduced and the unwanted delay is minimized [2].
[14].
The main objective of this paper is to compare the simula­
tion performance between the rotor current Model Based Pre­ Rs
dictive Control and Fuzzy Logic Control of a DFIG with an
IMe. Both control schemes were previously developed and
reported, the MBPC in [6], and the FLC in [2]. The accuracy
and dynamic response of each method following an arbitrary
current reference will be critical to develop a grid synchroni­ +

zation scheme and power flow control in the future. The j(w-Wr)'):'rdq
Methods' performance will be measured using rise time for
Fig. 2. DFIG model.
the dynamic response; also the average current error, the RMS
error and Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) will be taken into
An ideal voltage supply, balanced windings, and a unity
account to describe the main criteria for the evaluation.
transformation ratio between stator and rotor are assumed.
Hence, the zero component of the complete dqO transfor­
II. DFIG AND IMC MODELING
mation is null.
A. Vsd isd
fMC Description Rs +Ls!lJ -wLs Lm!lJ -wLm
Briefly complied below are the main equations concerning Vsq w Ls R s +Ls !lJ wLm Lm !lJ isq
the IMC model. V rd Lm!lJ -(w-w,.)Lm R,. +L,.!lJ -(w-w,.)L,. ird
DC-Link voltage in function of the rectifier switches and the
v,.q (w-wr)Lm Lm!lJ (w-w,.)Lr R,. +L,.!lJ i,.q
input voltages: (5)

6064
 The electromagnetic torque equation, which couples the
DFIG electrical and mechanical parts, is used to complete the
dynamic model. ( ' '�XC
--
'�
) =2J doo,.-+ 1'OOm+ 1T
-- ---- ----

3 PL . .
T =--
( . .
m lsird-1sd1rq --
17 T (6) I
I
+ I
22 p dt
e
I
Fictitious
'---
_
+--;1 -1 Inverter
DC·Link

III. MBPC & FLC UNDER COMPARISON

A. Model Based Predictive Control
if
MBPC is a simple and effective control algorithm that uses
a model of the system to be controlled. It determines an opti­
mal switching state for the electronic converter, to achieve the Fig. 4. Block diagram for the FLC control system [2].
best response relative to a control variable reference.
supersynchronous shaft speeds, and variable shaft speed with a
Departing from the model of the proposed scheme and its
constant speed ramp.
current state, the algorithm predicts the behavior of the system
To fully test the performance of the controllers and to be
for each valid switching state in the IMC. Then, a cost func­
able to make an adequate comparison between them; simula­
tion is evaluated with the calculated predictions; the switching
tion tests included ideal reactive elements, machine rating and
state which delivers the smallest error is applied. This control
parameters as described in [6]. Also, arbitrary rotor current
procedure is repeated every sample period. The MBPC
references, nominal and extreme shaft velocities, zero initial
scheme is illustrated in the block diagram of Fig. 3, and a
conditions, and a sample time of IOf,.ls were considered.
comprehensive description can be found in [6].
A. Step references at constant speeds
B. Fuzzy Logic Control
The first developed test considered a constant subsynchro-
The presented fuzzy logic controller is formed by two inde­
pendent controllers: one for the rectifier and one for the in­ a) Rolor Currents MBPC
20
verter in the IMe. The Rectifier-side Fuzzy Control (RFC)
considers the condition of the grid and the preceding switching 10
state of the rectifier-side in the IMC to decide the best next if
,�
state to be applied for the objective of always having the �
-=
maximum positive voltage in the fictitious DC-Link of the ·10

IMC while avoiding excessive switching. The Inverter-side

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Fuzzy Control (lFC) only requires the error in the rotor
currents of the DFIG to decide the next switching state for the b) Rotor Currents FLC

inverter, always trying to reduce the greatest current error. The

block diagram of the FLC scheme is presented in Fig. 4. This
control technique is described with more detail in [2]. � 0
None of these controllers need any extra modulation steps.
� �""''-''4�'''''!II'-''''''�
'V'II
-10

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

The objective of this research work is the direct dynamical c) Rotor Currents(detail) MBPC
response and performance comparison of the proposed con­
trollers. This is accomplished by simulation results. The simu­
lations were developed in MATLAB/Sirnulink with the fol­
lowing scenarios: constant subsynchronous, synchronous,
-10
Wind
-20 '----::-:'-c::-:-:'----:--"--:,.---::--:'-:-:-----::-L::---::-:'=-:c-::-:':c:--:
-::-:'-: :--:'=_____:_'
Turbine 0.24 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.248 0.25 0.252 0.254 0.256 0.258 0.26
Model
d) Rotor Currents(detail) FLC
TMC

i/
k
J<J if
10
.1:s
k+! ,�

S ·k+2 � �-
DFTG ",2 if Filter
-=
. k+2 k+ -10
Predictive ir .!!j Predictive
function
Model Model -20 '------'---"--'
evaluation 0.24 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.248 0.25 0.252 0.254 0.256 0.258 0.26
Time(S)
. '
ir
Fig. 5. Rotor current control comparison with constant speed =

Fig. 3. Block diagram for the MBPC control system. 1260 rpm.

6065
nous speed of 1260 rpm. This imposed shaft speed is 70% of Fig. 7 presents the performance of both control schemes. In
the synchronous speed. The rotor current reference used in the this case the MBPC performs better than the FLC.
three constant speed tests, started at 119 of the nominal stator
B. Constant references with ramped speed
current with a frequency of 18 Hz. Then, at time t 0.25 s, a =

step was imposed, changing the reference to 113 of the nomi­
nal value.
Fig. 5 presents the subsynchronous speed case. The transient
response at the beginning of the simulations derives from the
initial zero conditions. Both controllers, MBPC and FLC, have
a very precise and fast response; nevertheless, MBPC has
better dynamic response under a step change of the reference.
This is better illustrated with the detail in Fig. 5c and Fig. 5d.
The second test was executed with the synchronous speed of
the DFIG (1800 rpm). Fig. 6a shows the detail of the produced
rotor currents by the MBPC, and Fig. 6b presents the corre­
sponding results in FLC. Even though a very high perfor­
mance is delivered by both schemes, the FLC seems to follow
more accurately the current references.
The supersynchronous speed test was performed at 2340
rpm. This corresponds to a 130% of the synchronous speed.
a) Rotor Currents(detail) MBPC
20
,-�--�--�--��--.
10
·10
·20 ';-;-�;;:;-;�-;-;:=:-:::-=---=--=---:--C=--:-:':,-,---::-::':c---'---
-----.l
0.24 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.248 0.25 0.252 0.254 0.256 0.258
b) Rotor Currents(detail) FLC
20 ,--.--�--��---r--.
Besides the previous experiments, a fourth test was carried
out with an imposed speed ramp from 0 to 3600 rpm, with a
slope of 7200 rpm/so In this test, zero initial conditions and
balanced voltage input were applied; nevertheless the current
references changed to a constant three-phase signal at 18 Hz
and amplitude of 113 of the stator rated current.
Fig. 8 illustrates the behavior of the systems for both control
techniques. With very low or very high speeds, the control
algorithms are unable to follow properly the current refer­
ences. Thus, a speed range was selected for the comparison of
the control schemes: ±50% of the synchronous speed, which is
from 900 rpm to 2700 rpm. In the defined range, MBPC sug­
gest a better performance than FLC, especially in high speeds.
It is important to remark that despite the DFIG limitations
that obligates it to operate at velocities ranging around ±30%
of its nominal speed, the results of these tests were satisfacto­
ry, delivering a wider low distortion operational range.
v.
RESULTS COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
The simulation results for both MBPC and FLC showed a
remarkable performance. In Fig. 5 to Fig. 8, it can be seen
how the rotor currents follow smoothly and rapidly the current
reference with a very low error. For easier comparison be­
0.26
tween the controllers, an average of the rotor current error
could be calculated with an arithmetic mean of the absolute
value of this error, as in (7).

aJ Rotor Speed
4000

3000
-20 ':;-;-�;;:;-;�-;-;:=:-:::-=----=--=---:--C=--:-:':-----'---
- -'--- -----.l 2700 rpm
0.24 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.248 0.25 0.252 0.254 0.256 0.258 0.26 '[
-=- 2000
Time(S) �
3
900 rpm-->
Fig. 6. Rotor current control comparison with constant speed =
1000

1800 rpm. 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
a) Rotor Currents(detail) MBPC
20
,-�---r--�--����---r--. b) Rotor Currents MBPC
40
10
� 20
'- �
00 '- 0
-'= 00
-10 -'=
·20
-20 '::-:-�:=-:::-!-:-,---:--C-:-:----=-
=---'--------'------"-
-----'---
- -'--------.l
0.24 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.248 0.25 0.252 0.254 0.256 0.258 0.26 ·40
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
b) Rotor Currents(detailJ FLC
20 -.--�--�--�--�--��--�--�--. c) Rotor Currents FLC
,-
40
10

-10

.20 ';-;-�;;:;-;�-;-;:=:-:::-=---=--=---:--C=--:-:':,-,---::-:::-
:':c -'-
- -- -----.l
0.24 0.242 0.244 0.246 0.248 0.25 0.252 0.254 0.256 0.258 0.26 .40 :-::-=-__
';-�:;:----;::';-----:;;-';;:----:::';:----=--=-----=-,::----:---'- - - -'-------.lIJ
Time(S) o 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time(S)
Fig. 7. Rotor current control comparison with constant speed =
Fig. 8. Rotor current control comparison with ramped speed.
2340 rpm.

6066
 (7) 14%

12%

10%
Additionally, the percentage of the Root Mean Square error
is preferred as a perfonnance metric as the found error follows 8%

a quasi-sinusoidal waveform. The RMS value of the current 6%

error samples is calculated with (8). 4%
,-----------------
= 1* ( 2 2 2 2%
XI +XI +",+Xn )
XRMS -
(8)
n 0%
1260 rpm 1800 rpm 2340 rpm
The Total Harmonic Distortion measures the accuracy of the
waveform in comparison with its reference, by measuring the ....... MBPC Mean Error ....... FLC Mean Error

hannonic contents of the signal. The percentage of THD is ...... MBPC RMS Error "",,*,,"FLC RMS Error
found with (9), where In is the RMS current of nth harmonic
and n=l is the fundamental frequency. _FLCTHD

THD=n +]� + ... +]� *100=nO{a'-]� *100 (9) Fig. 9. Summary of results for Ir* = 1/9 Is.
2 2
]I ]I The comparison of the control techniques with the reference
of 119 of the rated stator current at 18 Hz is illustrated in Fig.
A detailed summary of the simulation results achieved can 9. At synchronous speed, the FLC method had better perfor­
be seen in Table II. This table includes the corresponding mance than the MEPe. For the super and subsynchronous
percentages of the mean and RMS errors for the three-phase cases, the mean and RMS errors is similar for both schemes;
rotor current. The percentages of THD are also presented. nevertheless, MEPC has smaller THD.
Table I presents the rise time values for both control tech- For the reference of 113 Is, the behavior of the system in sub­
niques. synchronous and synchronous speeds is superior for the FLC,
TABLE I as can be seen in Fig. 10. In the case of supersynchronous and
DYNAMIC RESPONSE COMPARISON ramped speeds, the mean error is equivalent for both control­
Shaft speed MBPC FLC lers; nonetheless, the MBPC presents smaller percentage of
1260 rpm 230l1s 470l1s
THD and RMS error.
1800 rpm 160/.ls 220/.ls
Additionally to the performance comparison; it is important
2340 rpm 140l1s 250l1s
to remark the differences that will imply the implementation
TABLE II
ROTOR CURRENT ERRORS AND TOTAL HARMONIC DlSTORTlON FOR A REFERENCE OF 1/3 OF THE RATED STATOR CURRENT

Current 1260 rpm 1800 rpm 2340 rpm Speed ramp

Percentages
Reference
MBPC FLC MBPC FLC MBPC FLC MBPC FLC
Mean Error IrA 9.54% 9.36% 11.87% 8.45% 10.08% 9.50% - -

Mean Error Ir B 10.33% 10.60% 12.28% 8.69% 9.80% 10.49% - -

Mean Error IrC 9.38% 9.68% 11.20% 7.79% 9.41% 9.91% - -

RMS Error IrA 10.77% 10.24% 13.21% 9.15% 11.37% 10.43% - -
Ir* = 1/9 Is RMS Error Ir B 11.70% 12.02% 13.80% 9.47% 10.96% 11.81% - -

RMS Error IrC 10.85% 11.29% 12.95% 8.75% 10.83% 11.28% - -

THDIfA 0.12% 3.29% 0.61% 0.25% 0.00% 2.98% - -
THD IrB 0.46% 4.10% 1.48% 0.03% 0.41% 1.54% - -
THDIrC 0.81% 5.62% 1.11% 0.01% 3.04% 6.03% - -

Mean Error IrA 6.50% 3.17% 3.99% 2.61% 3.96% 3.65% 3.55% 3.12%
Mean Error Ir B 6.60% 3.21% 3.92% 2.63% 3.16% 3.62% 3.58% 3.60%
Mean Error IrC 5.92% 3.18% 3.57% 2.46% 3.43% 3.51% 3.56% 3.75%
RMS Error IrA 7.90% 3.52% 4.49% 2.83% 4.44% 4.43% 4.04% 3.55%
Ir* = 1/3 Is RMS Error Ir B 7.95% 3.59% 4.41% 2.94% 3.55% 5.10% 4.04% 4.85%
RMS Error IrC 7.36% 3.55% 4.10% 2.80% 3.95% 4.28% 4.02% 5.30%
THDIrA 2.44% 1.59% 0.61% 0.22% 0.78% 2.01% 0.23% 0.63%
THDIrB 3.05% 1.64% 1.00% 0.26% 0.42% 0.62% 0.22% 1.09%
THDIrC 2.55% 1.97% 0.65% 0.26% 1.22% 1.81% 0.40% 0.64%

6067
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
8.00%
The authors wish to thank the financial support from the
Mexican Science and Technology National Council
6.00%
(CONACYT) and Ingenieria Mecatr6nica S.A. of C.V.
through project 154952, and Basal Project FB0821.
4.00%

REFERENCES
2.00%
[I] E. Reyes, R. Pena, et al. "Control of a doubly-fed induction generator
via a Direct Two-stage Power Converter", 4thiET Conference on Power
Electronics, Machines and Drives, 2008. PEMD 2008.
0.00%
[2] C. F. Calvillo, F. Martell, J. L. Elizondo, A. Avila, M. E. Macias, M.
1260 rpm 1800 rpm 2340 rpm Ram p Rivera, and J. Rodriguez, "Rotor Current Fuzzy Control of a DFIG with
an Indirect Matrix Converter," in Proc. 37th Annual Corif. on IEEE Ind.
....... MBPC Mean Error_FLC Mean Error Electron. Soc.iECON'Il, Nov. 7-10,2011, pp. 4296 - 4301.
[3] Xu Lie, Y. Li, K. Wang, J. C. Clare, and P. w. Wheeler, "Research on
-'-MBPC RMS Error """*,F
,," LC RMS Error the Amplitude Coefficient for Multilevel Matrix Converter Space Vector
Modulation." iEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 27, no. 8,
...... MBPCTHD _FLCTHD pp. 3544 - 3556,2012.
[4] P. Wheeler, J. Rodriguez, J. Clare, L. Empringham, and A. Weinstein,
Fig. 10. Summary of results for Ir* = 1/3 Is. "Matrix converters: a technology review," iEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 49,no. 2, pp. 276-288,Apr. 2002.
TABLE III [5] J. W. Kolar, T. Friedli, F. Krismer, and S. D. Round, 'The Essence of
INPUT DATA COMPARISON Three-Phase AC/AC Converter Systems," in Proc. J31h Power Electron.
MBPC FLC and Motion Control Con! 2008, EPE - PEMC'08, Sep. 1-3,2008, p. 27.
[6] M. Rivera, J. L. Elizondo, M. E. Macias, O. M. Probst, O. M. Miche­
em em
loud, J. Rodriguez, C. Rojas, and A. Wilson, "Model Predictive Control
v;., ir ir of a Doubly Fed Induction Generator with an Indirect Matrix Convert­
vs, is -
er," in Proc. 36th Annual Corif. on iEEE ind. Electron. Soc.iECON'JO,
vin, iin vin Nov. 7-10,2010, pp. 2959-2965.
calculated vanable, not measured. [7] J. L. Elizondo, M. E. Macias, and O. M. Micheloud, "Matrix Converters
Applied to Wind Energy Conversion Systems, Technologies and Inves­
of each controller. Table III presents the input variables re­ tigation Trends," in Proc. 61h iEEE Electron., Robotics and Automotive
Mechanics Con! CERMA '09, Sep. 22-25,2009, pp. 435-439.
quired for each control algorithm. The MBPC requires a large
[8] R. Pena, R. Cardenas, E. Reyes, J. Clare, and P. Wheeler, "Control of a
amount of input data for the prediction of the system behavior Doubly Fed Induction Generator via an Indirect Matrix Converter With
based in the mathematical model. On the contrary, FLC does Changing DC Voltage." iEEE Transactions on industrial Electronics.
not need to evaluate a model; thus the amount of input data is vol. 58,no. 10, pp. 4664-4674,Oct. 2011.
[9] R. Cardenas, C. Juri, R. Pena, J. Clare, and P. Wheeler, "Analysis and
greatly reduced to almost a half. This reduction of variables Experimental Validation of Control Systems for Four-Leg Matrix Con­
could be translated into lower cost, higher reliability and easi­ verter Applications." IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol.
er implementation in both hardware and software. 59,no. I,pp. 141-153. Jan 2012
[10] T. Friedli and J.W. Kolar, "Comprehensive Comparison of Three-Phase
AC-AC Matrix Converter and Voltage DC-Link Back-to-Back
VI. CONCLUSIONS Converter Systems," in Proc. 2010 into Power Electron. Con! IPEC'10,
Jun. 21-24,2010, p. 2789.
The simulation results of both control schemes were satis­ [II] P. Correa, J. Rodriguez, M. Rivera, J. R. Espinoza, and J. W. Kolar,
factory for a wide range of operational speeds, and they might "Predictive Control of an Indirect Matrix Converter," IEEE Trans. Ind.
be successfully implemented in WECS. The fuzzy logic con­ Electron., vol. 56,no. 6, pp. 1847-1853,Jun. 2009.

troller presented a smaller mean and RMS error than the mod­
el based predictive controller. In counterpart, MBPC has a
faster dynamic response and the THD presents a smaller per­
centage. Nevertheless, the difference of performance between
them is not considerable.
Taking into consideration the characteristics of the applica­
tion and economical cost, any of the two control schemes
could be selected, tailored, and successfully implemented in
any MC-based wind energy conversion system. However, the
control quality of FLC is comparable to that of more complex
controllers, but with the advantage of a simpler algorithm, less
input data and thus, fewer computational requirements. The
FLC can be easier to implement in FPGAs instead of semi­
custom processor-based control platform. Ongoing work ad­
dresses the experimental validation of the herein compared
control schemes in a DFIG-based WECS driven by an IMC.
[12] Zhi Dawei, Xu Lie, and B. W. Williams, "Model-Based Predictive
Direct Power Control of Doubly Fed Induction Generators." iEEE
Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 25,no. 2, pp. 341-351,Feb. 2010.
[13] M. Rivera, P. Correa, J. Rodriguez, I. Lizama, and J. Espinoza,
"Predictive control of the Indirect Matrix Converter with active
damping", IEEE 6th International Power Electronics and Motion Control
Conference, 2009. IPEMC '09, pp. 1738 - 1744,17-20 May, 2009.
[14] M. Rivera, J. Rodriguez, J. Espinoza, and H. Abu-Rub, "Instantaneous
Reactive Power Minimization and Current Control for an Indirect Matrix
Converter under a Distorted AC-Supply". iEEE Transactions on Indus­
trialinformatics, Vol. 8,no. 3, pp. 482 - 490 ,2012.
[IS] Xu Lie, Zhi Dawei, 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.
[16] J. Espinosa, J. Vandewalle, and V. Wertz, "Fuzzy logic, identification,
and predictive control". London; New York, Springer (2004): Chapter
8,pp. 148-149.
[17] S. Kouro, P. Cortes, R. Vargas, U. Ammann, and J. Rodriguez, "Model
Predictive Control-A Simple and Powerful Method to Control Power
Converters," iEEE Trans.ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1826-1838,
Jun. 2009.

6068