Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

A Low Voltage Ride Through Strategy of DFIG based on Explicit Model T

Predictive Control
⁎ ⁎
Jia Luo , Haoran Zhao , Shuning Gao, Mingzhe Han
School of Electrical Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan 250061, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords:
Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIG)
Demagnetization control
Explicit Model Predictive Control (E-MPC)
Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT)
In this paper, an improved demagnetization control, based on Explicit Model Predictive Control (E-MPC) is
proposed to improve Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) capability of Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIGs).
By injecting an additional rotor current component, the demagnetization control can efficiently eliminate the
free and negative flux to avoid saturation of the rotor converter. The conventional demagnetization control is
based on fixed scaling factors, whose control performance can’t be guaranteed for different fault conditions. The
proposed E-MPC approach can fully explore the potential of rotor side converter. Besides, the control parameters
of E-MPC are derived offline and very efficient for online control. In addition, the proposed E-MPC structure is
simple and easy to be implemented. The mechanism of proposed E-MPC is presented in detail and verified in
Matlab/Simulink. The results show that the proposed control scheme has a good performance and can improve
the LVRT capability of DFIGs under various fault conditions, especially unbalanced faults.

1. Introduction
WITH the increasing penetration of wind power, the integration of
wind farms to the grid and their dynamic behavior under grid faults
have become an important issue in recent years [1,2]. According to the
grid codes, to keep the system stability, the wind turbine should always
be connected to the grid during and after faults, especially Low Voltage
Ride Through (LVRT).
The Doubly Fed Induction Generator (DFIG) is widely used in wind
power generation systems due to its high reliability and low cost [3,4].
However, it is excessive sensitivity to grid disturbances since the stator
is directly connected to the grid. The sudden voltage fault may cause
problems of DFIG such as rotor side over-current and over-voltage at DC
bus [5]. The situation gets even worse for the unbalanced cases, due to
the rotor voltage induced by free and negative sequence flux, which will
cause activation of protection devices and even disconnection of DFIG
from the grid [6]. It is of highly importance to study the improvement
of LVRT capability of DFIG [7].
To protect the DFIG against voltage dips, the primary solution is
using hardware protection devices, such as crowbar and chopper [8].
However, during the activation of crowbar, the DFIG absorbs a large
amount of reactive power from the power grid, which can’t help and
even deteriorate the voltage recovery [9]. Crowbar should be timely
removed to support reactive power to the grid [10]. Dynamic voltage
restorer is installed between the stator and the grid to compensate the
drop in the grid voltage by providing reactive power during the fault
[11,12]. However, the application of hardware in these methods in-
creases the system cost and control complexity [13].
Many studies have focused on the improvement of converter control
methods to reduce the usage or shorten the activation time of hardware
protection devices. Part of the methods improve the dynamic perfor-
mance of DFIG by changing the control parameters. Obviously, the
rational design of the control parameters is crucial for the control of the
DFIG [14]. Appropriate tuning the proportional integral (PI) controllers
is also shown to affect the DFIG LVRT [15].
In addition, it is also a mainstream LVRT solution to change the
control structure of the rotor side controller. Ref. [16] proposed the
demagnetization control to eliminate the induced voltage by injecting a
rotor current opposite to the free and negative flux. In [17], the mea-
surement of negative sequence and free component flux was improved
to avoid the delay caused by low pass filter. Ref. [18] proposed a scaled
current tracking control for rotor-side converter to enhance its LVRT
capacity without flux observation. In [19], virtual resistance is in-
troduced to enlarge the control range, but still can’t adjust the de-
magnetizing current flexibly. An improved demagnetization control,
immune to system parameter variation, is proposed to shorten the

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFB0904004).
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jialuo@mail.sdu.edu.cn (J. Luo), hzhao@sdu.edu.cn (H. Zhao), gaosn@mail.sdu.edu.cn (S. Gao), 201714153@mail.sdu.edu.cn (M. Han).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.105783
Received 16 September 2019; Received in revised form 10 December 2019; Accepted 12 December 2019
0142-0615/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Luo, et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783

dynamic process [20], but only applied to balanced faults. In [21], the ωs ψsq ωr ψrq
isd Rs − + Lls Llr + − Rr ird
rotor flux linkage is controlled to track a reduced fraction of the
changing stator flux linkage. However, the reactive power required by + + + +
grid code is not involved. The cooperation of the crowbar and the de- usd dψsd
dt
Lm dψrd
dt
urd
magnetization are studied in the article [22]. However, the control − − − −
parameters of the aforementioned control strategies are fixed, which
can’t be adjusted flexibly for different grid conditions. Thus, their
control performance can’t be guaranteed. ωs ψsd ωr ψrd
isq Rs + − Lls Llr − + Rr irq
To overcome this problem, a demagnetization control based on
Explicit Model Predictive Control (E-MPC) is proposed. Model + + + +
Predictive Control (MPC) can predict future output over a specific usq dψsq
Lm dψrq urq
dt dt
prediction horizon based on the system model [23,24]. The main ad-
− − − −
vantage of using MPC is computing the optimal control action while
considering system constraints [25]. However, during LVRT, the fault
Fig. 2. Model of DFIG in dq frame.
time is very short and MPC is difficult to handle the fast online calcu-
lation [26]. In this study, E-MPC is applied to calculate the optimization
problem offline and suitable for online calculation [27]. where usd , usq , i sd , i sq , ψsd , ψsq are stator voltage, current and flux
The main contributions of this paper are twofold. Firstly, the de- linkage vector in dq reference frame, respectively.
magnetizing current can be optimally derived for various fault condi- urd , urq , i rd , i rq , ψrd , ψrq represent rotor voltage, current and flux linkage
tions to fully explore the capacity of the rotor side converter. Secondly, vector in dq reference frame, respectively. Rs and Ls are stator re-
a simple E-MPC control structure without additional measurement re- sistance and self inductance. Rr and Lr are rotor resistance and self
quirements is designed and described in detail. inductance, respectively. L m indicates the mutual inductance, ωs and ωr
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the dynamic are grid synchronous angular frequency and the electrical angular fre-
model of DFIG. Section 3 analyzes the dynamical performance of DFIG quency of rotor respectively.
under unbalanced conditions. In Section 4, the working principle of By substituting (2) into (1), the rotor voltages urd and urq can be
conventional demagnetization control is elaborated. The proposed de- calculated by,
magnetization control based on E-MPC is designed and presented in dird Lm dψ L
urd = Rr i rd − ωr σLr i rq + σLr + sd
− ωr Lm ψsq
detail in Section 5. To verify the proposed strategy, the simulation are dt Ls dt
  s
erd
carried out in Section 6. The conclusion is drawn in Section 7. dirq dψsq ,
L L
urq = Rr i rq + ωr σLr i rd + σLr dt
+ ωr Lm ψsd + Lm dt
 s  s 
erq (3)
2. Dynamical model of DFIG
L2
Lr − m
Ls
The basic structure of DFIG with crowbar and chopper is shown in where σ ≜ Lr
is the leakage inductance coefficient. The induced
Fig. 1. rotor voltage caused by the stator flux linkage in dq reference frame are
The mathematical modelling of DFIG under synchronous rotating denoted by erd and erq , respectively.
reference frame (dq) can be expressed as follows. The equivalent cir-
cuits are shown in Fig. 2. 3. Dynamical performance of DFIG under unbalanced conditions

dψsd
usd = Rs i sd + dt
− ωs ψsq Due to the direct connection to the grid, it can be considered that
→s
dψsq the stator voltage V s is determined by the grid [28]. By ignoring the
usq = Rs i sq + dt
+ ωs ψsd →s
, stator resistance Rs , V s can be written as the sum of the positive se-
dψrd
urd = Rr i rd + dt
− ωr ψrq quence and the negative sequence in stator reference frame without
dψrq considering the zero sequence component,
urq = Rr i rq + dt
+ ωr ψrd (1)
→s
V s = V1 e jωs t + V2 e−jωs t , (4)
where the flux linkages for stator and rotor are derived by,
where V1 and V2 denote the amplitudes of the positive and negative
ψsd = Ls i sd + L m i rd sequence of the stator voltage. To be noticed, the superscript “s” in
ψsq = Ls i sq + L m i rq variables represents the stator reference frame.
, ⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s
ψrd = L m i sd + Lr i rd The corresponding generated flux linkages ψ s1 and ψ s2 can be
ψrq = L m i sq + Lr i rq (2) written as,
⎯→
⎯ s V ⎯→
⎯ s V2 −jωs t
ψ s1 = 1 e jωs t , ψ s2 = e .
jωs −jωs (5)

Since the flux linkage should be continuous, the induced free

⎯→
⎯
component of stator flux linkage after fault ψsf t = 0+ can be derived by,
⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s
ψf = ψ s1 − ψ s1 − ψ s2 .
t=0 +
t=0 − +
t=0 t = 0+ (6)
⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s
Fig. 3 illustrates the relation between ψ s1, ψ s2 , ψ sf under un-
balanced fault condition (single phase voltage drop).
⎯→
⎯ s
According to (5) and (6), ψ s during the fault can be expressed by,
⎯→
⎯ s V e jωs t V e−jωs t ⎯→
⎯ s
ψs = 1 + 2 + ψf t = 0+ e
−t / τ ,
Fig. 1. The structure of DFIG. jωs −jωs (7)

2
J. Luo, et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783

R s + Rr σLr irrf
+
s1
| s1 | | s2 | + errf r
vrf
−
s

s s2 −
sf
axis

Fig. 5. Rotor equivalent circuit of free component.

| s1 | | s2 |
very large, which result in the over-current on the rotor side and over-
voltage on the DC bus.

4. Conventional demagnetization control

To counteract the induced voltage → v r2 and →

r r
v rf , the demagnetization
control which injecting a rotor current opposite to the free and negative
axis flux is employed. This method avoids rotor converter saturation and
Fig. 3. The flux linkage when the single phase voltage drops to 0.2 p.u. reduces DC bus over-voltage and rotor over-current.
⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s →
Since → v r2 and →
r r
v rf are caused by ψ s2 and ψ sf , the current i rde op-
Ls ⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s
where τ = is time constant.
Rs
posite to ψ s2 and ψ sf can be used as the injected demagnetizing cur-
⎯→
⎯ s ⎯→
⎯ s rent,
To study the effect on the rotor side, ψ s2 and ψ sf are transformed to
⎯→
⎯ r ⎯→
⎯ r →r ⎯→
⎯ r ⎯→
⎯ r
ψ s2 and ψ sf in the rotor reference frame, i rde = −k ψ sf − k ψ s2. (12)
⎯→
⎯ r V e−jωs t V e−j (ωs + ωr ) t → ⎯→
⎯
ψ s2 = 2 e−jωr t = 2 , The demagnetizing current i rde produces a magnetic flux ψdef to
−jωs −jωs (8) ⎯→
⎯
opposite the free flux linkage and a magnetic flux ψde2 to opposite the
⎯→
⎯
⎯→
⎯ r ⎯→ ⎯ s negative flux linkage. These effects on ψs are shown in Fig. 6.
ψ sf = ψ sf e−jωr t , (9) ⎯→
⎯ →r
The rotor flux ψr with i rde can be derived by,
where the superscript “r” in variables represents the rotor reference
⎯→
⎯ r ⎯→
⎯ r ⎯→
⎯ r L ⎯→ ⎯ r ⎯→
⎯ r ⎯→
⎯ r →r
frame. According to the superposition principle, ψ s2 and ψ sf are ana- ψ r = m ⎜⎛ ψ s − kσLr ψ sf − kσLr ψ s2⎟⎞ + σLr i r .
lyzed separately. Ls ⎝ ⎠ (13)
⎯→
⎯ r
According to (3), the rotor voltage →
r
v r2 induced by ψ s2 is The control diagram of conventional demagnetization control is
shown in Fig. 7.
→ r
v r2 =
Lm ⎡ ⎛
+ ωs⎟⎞ V2 e−j (ωr + ωs) t ⎤
⎜ωr
Ls ⎢ ⎥
⎣⎝
  ⎠  ⎦→ 5. Demagnetization control based on E-MPC
er2 .
→r →r
Lm 2
+ ⎡Rr +
⎢
⎣
( )Ls
Rs ⎛⎜ωr
⎝
+ ωs⎞⎟ ⎤ i r2 + σLr dtr2
⎠⎦
⎥
di

(10)
The control structure of proposed E-MPC based demagnetization
control is shown in the Fig. 8. To be noticed, the following variables are
Considering that (ωr + ωs) is approximately equal to 2, the all in the rotor reference frame. Therefore the superscript “r” is ignored
equivalent circuit of negative sequence can be obtained and shown in
Fig. 4.
⎯→
⎯ r
According to (3), the rotor voltage →
r
v induced by ψ is rf sf
s1
⎡ 2 ⎤ →r →r
→ r L ⎯→
⎯ s L d i rf
v rf = − m jωr ψ f e−jωr t + ⎢Rr + ⎛ m ⎞ Rs ωr ⎥ i rf + σLr
⎜ ⎟

Ls →
 ⎢ ⎝ Ls ⎠ ⎥ dt
erf ⎣ ⎦ (11) s

s s2
Considering that ωr is approximately equal to 1, the equivalent
circuit of free component can be obtained and shown in Fig. 5. sf
axis

→r →r def
According to (10) and (11), the induced voltage v r2 and v rf can be

Rr + 2Rs σLr irr2 de2

+

+ err2 r
vr2
−
−

axis

Fig. 4. Rotor equivalent circuit of negative sequence. Fig. 6. Flux linkage with demagnetizing current.

3
J. Luo, et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783

filter. Since ψsf is DC amount, there is no error in the phase.

Accordingly, ψs2 can be obtained by subtracting ψsf which has no error
in the phase. In such way, the effect of demagnetization control can be
improved.

5.2. Predictive model

By substituting (2) into (1), the state space model can be derived as,
dψsd Rs Lm Rs
⎧ dt
= usd − ψ
Ls sd
+ Ls rd
i + ωs ψsq
.
⎨ dψsq = usq −
Rs
ψ +
Lm Rs
i − ωs ψsd
⎩ dt Ls sq Ls rq (16)
∗ ∗
Fig. 7. Control diagram of conventional demagnetization control. The control input references i rd and i rq are composed by,
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
⎧i rd = i r1d + i r2d + i rfd
∗ .
⎨ i∗ = ∗
i r1q + ∗
i r2q + i rfq (17)
⎩ rq
where are used to suppress free flux component and
∗
i rfd ∗
, i rfq are ∗
i r2d ∗
, i r2q
used to suppress negative flux component.
According to the symmetrical component method, the negative and
free components of (16) can be expressed separately,
dψs2d Rs Lm Rs
⎧ dt
= us2d− ψ
Ls s2d
+ i
Ls r2d
+ ωs ψs2q
,
⎨ dψs2q = us2q−
Rs
ψ +
Lm Rs
i − ωs ψs2d
⎩ dt Ls s2q Ls r2q (18)

dψsfd Rs Lm Rs
⎧ dt
=− ψ
Ls sfd
+ i
Ls rfd
+ ωs ψsfq
.
⎨ dψsfq = − Rs
ψ +
Lm Rs
i − ωs ψsfd
⎩ dt Ls sfq Ls rfq (19)

It should be noted that the stator voltage usd , usq does not contain a free
component.
Fig. 8. Control diagram of E-MPC based demagnetization control.
By introducing incremental variables (labelled by Δ ), (18) and (19)
can be transformed into,
for simplicity.
dΔψs2d R Lm Rs
⎧ dt
= − L s Δψs2d + Ls
Δi r2d + ωs Δψs2q
s
5.1. Free and negative flux measurement ,
⎨ dΔψs2q =
R
− L s Δψs2q +
Lm Rs
Δi r2q − ωs Δψs2d
⎩ dt s Ls (20)
It is key to accurately measure free flux (ψsfd , ψsfq ) and negative flux
dΔψsfd R Lm Rs
(ψs2d , ψs2q ) in proposed method. The low pass filter can cause amplitude ⎧ dt
= − L s Δψsfd + Ls
Δi rfd + ωs Δψsfq
s
and phase errors during LVRT. In this study, the low pass filter is only dΔψsfq
.
⎨ R
= − L s Δψsfq +
Lm Rs
Δi rfq − ωs Δψsfd
used for ψsf . ⎩ dt s Ls (21)
The measurement method adopted in this paper is shown in Fig. 9.
The total stator flux is obtained by The state space form of the Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) system can
be finally written as,
ψs = ∫ ⎛vs − Rs is⎞ dt.
⎜ ⎟ x ̇ = Ax + Bu
⎝ ⎠ (14) y = I4 × 4 x
The ψsf can be extracted through the low-pass filter. A linear combi- x ≜ [Δψs2d , Δψs2q , Δψsfd , Δψsfq]T
nation of these two quantities ψsf + 2ψs2 can be directly estimated by u ≜ [Δi r2d , Δi r2q , Δi rfd , Δi rfq]T . (22)
stator current i s and stator voltage vs .
By applying the sampling time Ts , according to the discretization
1 dψs 1 d ⎛ ⎞ method described in [29]. The LTI system (22) can be transformed into
ψs − = ψs1 + ψs2 + ψsf − ⎜ψs1 + ψs2 + ψsf ⎟
jωs dt jωs dt a discrete-time form,
⎝ ⎠
.
= ψs1 + ψs2 + ψsf −
1 ⎛
⎜jψs1 − jψs2⎞⎟ ⎧ x (k + 1) = Ad x (k ) + Bd u (k ) ,
jωs ⎨ y (k ) = Cd x (k )
⎝ ⎠ ⎩ (23)
= 2ψs2 + ψsf (15) where Ad , Bd , Cd are the discrete forms of A, B, I4 × 4 in (22), respec-
In order to get their respective values, ψsf is measured by a low pass tively.

5.3. Constraints of E-MPC

∗ ∗
The rotor current references i rd and i rq are limited by the capacity of
the rotor side converter,
∗2 ∗2
Fig. 9. Measurement structure of flux. i rd + i rq ⩽ ilim , (24)

4
J. Luo, et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783

Δψs2d (k ) = S1 y (k ), S1 = [1, 0, 0, 0]
Δψs2q (k ) = S2 y (k ), S2 = [0, 1, 0, 0]
,
Δψsfd (k ) = S3 y (k ), S3 = [0, 0, 1, 0]
Δψsfq (k ) = S4 y (k ), S4 = [0, 0, 0, 1] (30)

the MPC problem at time t can be formulated as follows,

np
⎛ 2 2
min ∑ ⎜ ‖ψs2d (k ) + S1 y (k )‖Q T + ‖ψs2q (k ) + S2 y (k )‖Q T
u
k=0 ⎝ ,
+ ‖ψsfd (k ) + S3 y (k )‖Q2 F + ‖ψsfq (k ) + S4 y (k )‖Q2 F ) (31)

subject to (23) and (26), k ∈ [0, …, n p].

5.5. Implementation of E-MPC

In this part, the control rule of E-MPC is derived. The partitions that
Fig. 10. Constraints of rotor current references. are calculated offline are highly correlated with the prediction horizon
n p and sampling time Ts . Too many partitions will increase the time for
∗ ∗ online search and slow down the calculation. Under the premise of
⎧i rd = i r1d + i r2d + i rfd + Δi r2d + Δi rfd . guaranteeing the effect, n p is chosen as 3 and Ts is set to 0.0005 s. The
∗ ∗
⎨ i = i r1q + i r2q + i rfq + Δi r2q + Δi rfq (25)
⎩ rq state partition map and the corresponding optimal control algorithm
The nonlinear constraint (24) can be considered as a circle with i rd are obtained by offline calculation. In this paper, 29 regions are di-
and i rq as the horizontal and vertical axis. The radius of the circle is ilim . vided. The partition map of E-MPC is shown in Fig. 11. Each different
In order to be implemented in E-MPC, Eq. (24) can be approximately color region represents an optimized control algorithm. In online cal-
represented by a series of linear constraints. In this study, 8 linear culation, the corresponding optimal control algorithm can be found by
constraints surrounding the circle is used, as shown in Fig. 10. finding the partition in which the current state variable of the system is
located. Thereby E-MPC greatly reduce the solution time and meet the
∗ ∗
⎧ − 2 ilim ⩽ i rd + i rq ⩽ 2 ilim calculation requirements of the transient period.
⎪
⎪ − ∗ ∗
2 ilim ⩽ i rd − i rq ⩽ 2 ilim
. 6. Cases study
⎨ ∗
− ilim ⩽ i rd ⩽ ilim
⎪ ∗
⎪ − ilim ⩽ i rq ⩽ ilim (26)
⎩ A 1.5-MW DFIG-based system is built in MATLAB/ Simulink to
verify the proposed control strategy. The DFIG parameters are shown in
5.4. Design of cost function Table 1. To show the control performance, simulation is carried out
under both balanced and unbalanced faults with three controllers:
The goal of E-MPC is to minimize ψs2d , ψs2q , ψsfd and ψsfq . The ob- without demagnetization (labelled by “Control 1”), conventional de-
jective function can be written as follows, magnetization control (labelled by “Control 2”) and E-MPC.

‖ψs2d + Δψs2d ‖Q2 T + ‖ψs2q + Δψs2q ‖Q2 T 6.1. Balanced faults

,
+ ‖ψsfd + Δψsfd ‖Q2 F + ‖ψsfq + Δψsfq ‖Q2 F (27)
In this part, a balanced voltage drop at the grid side is set to 0.5 p.u.
where Q T and QF are the weighting factors. at t = 1 s , and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 12. From the
Ideally, the free flux component (ψsfd , ψsfq ) and negative flux com- results, it can be seen that the proposed control method reduces the
ponent (ψs2d , ψs2q ) are expected to be all minimized. However, there
→ →
exist control input constraints (26). The induced voltages er2 and erf by
negative and free flux components are different. According to (10), (11)
→ →
the ratio of er2 and erf is,

Lm ⎡ ⎛
→ Ls ⎢
⎜ωr + ωs⎟⎞ V2 e−j (ωr + ωs) t ⎤
er2 ⎥
= ⎣⎝ ⎠ ⎦,
→
e rf Lm ⎛ ⎯→
⎯ s −jωr t ⎞
⎜ − jωr ψ f e ⎟
Ls
⎝ ⎠ (28)
where ωr = 1 − s, ωs = 1, and s ∈ [−0.3, 0.3]. Accordingly, Eq. (28) can
be approximated as,
→ ⎯→
⎯ ⎯→
⎯
er2 (ωr + ωs) ψs2 2 ψs2
→ ≈ ⎯→
⎯ ≈ ⎯ .
⎯→
esr ωr ψsf ψsf (29)
According to (29), it is obvious that the induced voltage caused by
⎯→
⎯ ⎯→
⎯
ψs2 is twice than that caused by ψsf . For the perspective of the induced
voltage minimization, the optimal weighting factor ratio of Q T and QF
can be set as 4:1.
Fig. 11. Reduced partition for E-MPC for ψs2d and ψs2q (other variables are set to
The prediction horizon is n p and k indicates the prediction index. By
defining, 0).

5
J. Luo, et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783

Table 1
Parameters of 1.5-MW DFIG.
Rated power 1.5 MW
Stator voltage 575 V
Mutual inductance 2.9 p.u.
Stator leakage inductance 0.18 p.u.
Rotor leakage inductance 0.16 p.u.
Stator resistance 0.023 p.u.
Rotor resistance 0.016 p.u.

Fig. 13. Single phase fault to 0.8 p.u. (a) Stator active power. (b) Stator reactive
power. (c) Electromagnetic torque. (d) Amplitude of rotor current. (e) DC bus
voltage.

the conventional vector control, the ripple of electromagnetic torque

exceeds 1 p.u. during the entire failure. When a balanced fault occurs,
only the free component flux is induced. Among these controllers, since
there is no demagnetization control in Controller 1, the damping speed
of the free component ψsf is quite slow. Comparably, the damping
speed of ψsf based on E-MPC is the fastest, as shown in Fig. 12(d). The
similar phenomenon can also be observed in Fig. 12(e) and (f). E-MPC
shows the best performance. The oscillations of rotor current Ir and DC
bus voltage VDC are damped rapidly and significantly. The range of VDC
can be limited within 1130 V to 1160 V after t = 1.1 s . During the faults,
the energy flowing into the DC link can be reduced effectively with E-
MPC, and the DC chopper and crowbar has to be activated for only a
short period.

6.2. Single phase faults

Fig. 12. Balanced fault to 0.5 p.u. (a) Stator active power. (b) Stator reactive
power. (c) Electromagnetic torque. (d) Amplitude of ψsf . (e) Amplitude of rotor
currnet. (f) DC bus voltage.
output of stator active power and increases the output of stator reactive
power. Therefore, it can support the recovery of the terminal voltage
after the fault occurs 0.05s. The electromagnetic torque is smooth under
the proposed control strategy as shown in Fig. 12(c). In contrast, with
The most common fault in the power grid is single phase fault.
Negative sequence components and free components will generate si-
multaneously in the stator flux linkage.
A single phase voltage drop at the grid side is set to 0.8 p.u. at
t = 1 s , and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 13. It can also be
seen that the stator active and reactive power output will oscillate
smaller during the fault with the E-MPC. Different from the symmetric
fault, because the negative sequence component always exists, it must

6
J. Luo, et al. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783

Fig. 14. Single phase fault to 0.6 p.u.. (a) Amplitude of rotor current. (b) DC Fig. 15. Single phase fault to 0.4 p.u. (a) Amplitude of rotor current. (b) DC bus
bus voltage. voltage.

always be offset by the demagnetizing current, and it can not send more
reactive power during the fault. The oscillation of the electromagnetic
torque under the proposed control method is much smaller as shown in
Fig. 13(c). The magnitude of the oscillation is reduced by about 40
percent. Among all these controllers, the damping speed of the rotor
current Ir is the fastest as shown in Fig. 13(d). In comparison, it has
better demagnetization effect than Control 2. Similarly, E-MPC can best
suppress the oscillation of DC bus voltage compared with Control 1 and
Control 2 in Fig. 13(e). The Ir can always be limited within 1 p.u. while
VDC does not exceed 1170 V. In the following, due to space limitations,
only the rotor current and DC bus voltage values will be displayed
under different fault levels.
A single phase voltage drop at the grid side is set to 0.6 p.u. at
t = 1 s , and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 14. The Ir of
Control 1 oscillates at 1.5 p.u.. Control 2 has a little demagnetization
effect, but still can not meet the current value requirements. Compared
with the other two controls, the oscillations of rotor current Ir based on
E-MPC is damped rapidly and significantly. After t = 1.1 s, Ir can be
limited within 1 p.u.. The proposed control can reduce the time of ac-
tivation of the crowbar, thereby providing reactive power and sup-
porting grid voltage recovery. As shown in Fig. 14(b), the same phe-
nomenon which E-MPC has the best control effect can also be observed. Fig. 16. Phase to phase fault to 0.8 p.u.. (a) Amplitude of rotor current. (b) DC
Among three controllers, the oscillation amplitude of VDC using E-MPC bus voltage.
is the minimum.
A single phase voltage drop at the grid side is set to 0.4 p.u. at shown in Fig. 16(b). E-MPC enables the DFIG to have better dynamics
t = 1 s , and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 15. Ir of Control 1 behaviours during unbalanced faults.
is the largest, and Ir of E-MPC is slightly lower than Control 2 as shown A phase to phase voltage drop at the grid side is set to 0.6 p.u. at
in Fig. 15(a). Compared with other controllers, E-MPC can better sup- t = 1 s , and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 17. Compared with
press VDC oscillation as shown in Fig. 15(b). In addition to the moment Control 1 and Control 2, E-MPC has the best effect which can limit Ir to
the fault begins, VDC can be limited within 1200 V. However, the less than 1 p.u. after t = 1.1 s as shown in Fig. 17(a). Capability of the
magnitude of the current of all controllers have exceeded the limit of rotor-side converter can be fully explored to achieve LVRT. And the
the rotor side converter. It is indicated that the limit of the capacity of oscillation of VDC can be significantly suppressed as shown in Fig. 17(b).
the rotor side converter has been reached at this time, and crowbar Under this circumstance, crowbar will not be activated so that the rotor
need be put into use to achieve LVRT. side converter will not lose control and the DFIG is able to provide
reactive power during the fault.
A phase to phase voltage drop at the grid side is set to 0.4 p.u. at
6.3. Phase to phase faults
t = 1 s , and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 18. E-MPC can
better suppress Ir compared to Control 1 and Control 2 as shown in
A phase to phase voltage drop at the grid side is set to 0.8 p.u. at
Fig.18(a). However, Ir of the three controllers all exceed the limit
t = 1 s , and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 16. Comparably, the
value, which means that at such a fault depth, it is not possible to rely
damping speed of Ir based on E-MPC is the fastest, as shown in
solely on the rotor converter to complete the LVRT. Hardware
Fig. 16(a). The oscillation of VDC can be significantly suppressed as

7
J. Luo, et al.
Fig. 17. Phase to phase fault to 0.6 p.u.. (a) Amplitude of rotor current. (b) DC
bus voltage.
Fig. 18. Phase to phase fault to 0.4 p.u.. (a) Amplitude of rotor current. (b) DC
bus voltage.
protection such as crowbar must be activated. The similar phenomenon
can also be observed in Fig. 18(b). E-MPC shows the best performance.
The oscillation of VDC is damped rapidly.
6.4. Discussion
As shown above, under symmetrical faults, the proposed control
scheme can significantly suppress the oscillation of the electromagnetic
torque DC bus voltage and suppress the amplitude of the rotor current.
Under asymmetrical faults, simulation experiments were performed to
verify the reliability of E-MPC at different depths. Obviously, under the
three fault depths, the E-MPC can effectively reduce the amplitude of
the rotor current and suppress the oscillation of the DC bus voltage.
However, when the fault level reaches 0.4, although the E-MPC can
play a demagnetizing effect, the rotor current and DC bus voltage still
exceed 1p.u. and 1200 V. Therefore, the proposed E-MPC can improve
the demagnetization effect within the limit of the converter capacity
8
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783
and reduce the activation time of the crowbar and the chopper.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, the demagnetization control based on E-MPC is pro-
posed to enhance the LVRT capability of DFIGs. The proposed E-MPC
can flexibly adjust the demagnetizing current under different fault
conditions and fully explore the capability of rotor side converter.
Based on the offline derived calculation parameters, the designed E-
MPC can speed up solving the optimization problem significantly,
which is very suitable for online control application. The control
structure of proposed E-MPC is simple and easy to be implemented. The
simulation results show that the proposed E-MPC can significantly re-
duce the free and negative sequence flux. Accordingly, rotor over-cur-
rent and DC bus over-voltage can be effectively suppressed. With the
proposed E-MPC, the usage of the hardware protection such as crowbar
can be largely reduced. So that the rotor converter will not lose control
during the fault period, and the DFIG will output reactive power to
support grid voltage recovery.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
References
[1] Degeilh Y, Singh C. A quantitative approach to wind farm diversification and re-
liability. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2011;33(2):303–14.
[2] Dash P, Patnaik R, Mishra S. Adaptive fractional integral terminal sliding mode
power control of UPFC in DFIG wind farm penetrated multimachine power system.
Prot Control Mod Power Syst 2018;3(1).
[3] Tohidi S, Behnam MI. A comprehensive review of low voltage ride through of
doubly fed induction wind generators. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:412–9.
[4] Kenan M, Arsoy A. Transient modeling and analysis of a DFIG based wind farm with
supercapacitor energy storage. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2016;78:414–21.
[5] Noureldeen O, Hamdan I. A novel controllable crowbar based on fault type pro-
tection technique for DFIG wind energy conversion system using adaptive neuro-
fuzzy inference system. Prot Control Mod Power Syst 2018;3(1).
[6] Amer Saeed M, Mehroz Khan H, Ashraf A, Aftab Qureshi S. Analyzing effectiveness
of LVRT techniques for DFIG wind turbine system and implementation of hybrid
combination with control schemes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;81(7):2487–501.
[7] Shahbabaei K, Radmehr M, Firouzi M. LVRT capability enhancement of DFIG-based
wind farms by using capacitive DC reactor-type fault current limiter. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2018;102(3):287–95.
[8] Vidal J, Abad G, Arza J, Aurtenechea S. Single-phase DC crowbar topologies for low
voltage ride through fulfillment of high-power doubly fed induction generator-
based wind turbines. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2013;28(3):768–81.
[9] Lu H, Yuan Z, Wei L, Kerkman RJ, Lukaszewski RA, Ahmed AS. LVRT performance
limit of DFIG with traditional AC crowbar and DC-link brake approach. In: IEEE Int
Symp Ind Electron; 2012. p. 692–9.
[10] Yang S, Zhou T, Sun D, Xie Z, Zhang X. A SCR crowbar commutated with power
converter for DFIG-based wind turbines. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2016;81:87–103.
[11] Wang Y, Wu Q, Gong W, Gryning MPS. Robust current control for DFIG-based wind
turbine subject to grid voltage distortions. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy
2017;8(2):816–25.
[12] Hosani K, Nguyen T, Sayari N. An improved control strategy of 3P4W DVR systems
under unbalanced and distorted voltage conditions. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2018;98(12):233–42.
[13] Ayyarao T. Modified vector controlled DFIG wind energy system based on barrier
function adaptive sliding mode control. Prot Control Mod Power Syst 2019;4(1).
[14] Vieira J, Nunes M, Bezerra U, Do Nascimento A. Designing optimal controllers for
doubly fed induction generators using a genetic algorithm. IET Gener Transm
Distrib 2009;3(5):472–84.
[15] Justo J, Mwasilu F, Jung J. Enhanced crowbarless FRT strategy for DFIG based wind
turbines under three-phase voltage dip. Electr Power Syst Res 2017;142:215–26.
[16] Xiang D, Ran L, Tavner PJ, Yang S. Control of a doubly fed induction generator in a
wind turbine during grid fault ride-through. IEEE Trans Energy Convers
2006;21(3):652–62.
[17] Lopez J, Gubia E, Olea E, Ruiz J, Marroyo L. Ride through of wind turbines with
doubly fed induction generator under symmetrical voltage dips. IEEE Trans Ind
Electron 2009;56(10):4246–54.
[18] Huang Q, Zou X, Zhu D, Kang Y. Scaled current tracking control for doubly fed
induction generator to ride-through serious grid faults. IEEE Trans Power Electron
2016;31(3):2150–65.
[19] Hu S, Lin X, Kang Y, Zou X. An improved low-voltage ride-through control strategy
of doubly fed induction generator during grid faults. IEEE Trans Power Electron
J. Luo, et al.
2011;26(12):3653–65.
[20] Zhou L, Liu J, Zhou S. Improved demagnetization control of a doubly-fed induction
generator under balanced grid fault. IEEE Trans Power Electron
2015;30(12):6695–705.
[21] Xiao S, Yang G, Zhou H, Geng H. An LVRT control strategy based on flux linkage
tracking for DFIG-based WECS. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2013;60(7):2820–32.
[22] Kenan Döşogˇlu M. A new approach for low voltage ride through capability in DFIG
based wind farm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2016;83:251–8.
[23] Zhao H, Wu Q, Guo Q, Sun H, Xue Y. Optimal active power control of a wind farm
equipped with energy storage system based on distributed model predictive control.
IET Gener, Transmiss Distrib 2015;10(3):669–77.
[24] Wang D, Glavic M, Wehenkel L. Comparison of centralized, distributed and hier-
archical model predictive control schemes for electromechanical oscillations
damping in large-scale power systems. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2014;58:32–41.
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 119 (2020) 105783
[25] Guo Y, Gao H, Wu Q, Østergaard J, Yu D, Shahidehpour M. Distributed coordinated
active and reactive power control of wind farms based on model predictive control.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2019;104(2018):78–88.
[26] Zhao H, Wu Q, Guo Q, Sun H, Xue Y. Distributed model predictive control of a wind
farm for optimal active power controlpart I: clustering-based wind turbine model
linearization. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2015;6(3):831–9.
[27] Lasheen A, Saad S, Emara M, Elshafei Latif. Continuous-time tube-based explicit
model predictive control for collective pitching of wind turbines. Energy
2017;118:1222–33.
[28] Chang Y, Hu J, Yuan X. Mechanism analysis of DFIG-based wind turbine’s fault
current during LVRT with equivalent inductances. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Power
Electron 2019:1. PP(c).
[29] Gabano J, Poinot T, Kanoun H. Identification of a thermal system using continuous
linear parameter-varying fractional modelling. IET Control Theory Appl
2011;5(7):889–99.