IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 25, NO.
2, FEBRUARY 2010
Model-Based Predictive Direct Power Control of
Doubly Fed Induction Generators
Dawei Zhi, Student Member, IEEE, Lie Xu, Senior Member, IEEE, and Barry W. Williams
Abstract—This paper presents a predictive direct power control
strategy for doubly fed induction generators (DFIGs). The method
predicts the DFIG’s stator active and reactive power variations
within a fixed sampling period, which is used to directly calculate
the required rotor voltage to eliminate the power errors at the end
of the following sampling period. Space vector modulation is then
used to generate the required switching pulses within the fixed
sampling period that results in a constant switching frequency.
The impact of sampling delay on the accuracy of the sampled ac-
tive and reactive powers is analyzed, and detailed compensation
methods are proposed to improve the power control accuracy and
system stability. Experimental results for a 1.5-kW DFIG system
demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed con-
trol strategy during power steps, and variations of rotating speed
and machine parameters. System performance for tracking vary-
ing stator power references further illustrates the dynamic perfor-
mance of the proposed method.
Index Terms—Doubly fed induction generator (DFIG), direct
power control (DPC), predictive, pulsewidth-modulated (PWM)
converter, wind energy.
I s, I r
Lm , Rm
Lσ s , Lσ r
Ls , Lr
Ps , Qs
R s , Rr
V s, V r
ψs , ψr
ω1 , ωr , ωs
θ s , θr
θ Angle between the rotor and stator flux
Superscripts
s, r
∗ Reference value.
Subscripts
d, q
s, r
Manuscript received February 19, 2009; revised June 11, 2009. Current
version published February 12, 2010. Recommended for publication by
Associate Editor J. M. Guerrero.
D. Zhi and B. W. Williams are with the Department of Electronic and Elec-
trical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XW, U.K. (e-mail:
dawei.zhi@eee.strath.ac.uk; barry.williams@eee.strath.ac.uk).
L. Xu is with the School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Com-
puter Science, Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast BT9 5AH, U.K. (e-mail:
l.xu@ee.qub.ac.uk).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPEL.2009.2028139
Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
341
I. INTRODUCTION
OUBLY fed induction generator (DFIG) based wind tur-
D bines currently dominate the wind energy market due to
their four-quadrant active/reactive power control, variable speed
operation, low converter cost, and reduced power loss compared
to other solutions such as fixed-speed induction generators or
fully rated converter systems. A schematic diagram of a DFIG-
based wind energy generation system is shown in Fig. 1.
Traditionally, DFIG control is achieved by vector control
(VC) [1]–[5], which decouples the rotor currents into active
power (or torque) and reactive power (or flux) components, and
adjusts them separately in a reference frame fixed to either the
stator flux [1]–[3] or voltage [4], [5]. Current controllers are
then utilized to regulate the rotor currents. The main drawback
for VC is its linear nature that does not consider the discrete
operation of voltage source converters (VSCs). Thus, in order
to maintain system stability over the whole operation range,
and adequate dynamic response under both normal and abnor-
NOMENCLATURE mal conditions, the current controller and its control parameters
Stator, rotor current vectors. must be carefully tuned [3]. This could reduce the robustness
Magnetizing inductance, resistance. of the VC algorithm during erroneous parameters and changing
Stator, rotor leakage inductance. operation conditions.
Stator, rotor self-inductance. Direct torque control (DTC) [6] and direct power control
Stator active and reactive power. (DPC) [7], [8] that originated from DTC for induction ma-
Stator, rotor resistance. chines [9], [10] have been proposed for the DFIG. Such strate-
Stator, rotor voltage vectors. gies provide direct control of the machine’s torque or power,
Stator, rotor flux vectors. and reduce the complexity of the VC algorithm. Such DTC
Synchronous, rotor, slip angular frequency. and DPC methods involve torque/power hysteresis control, and
Stator flux, rotor angles in the stationary converter outputs are selected through a predetermined lookup
frame. table (LUT). However, the converter switching frequency varies
with operating conditions such as rotor speed and system output
vectors power, which complicates the design of the power circuit ac har-
monics filters as they have to be designed to absorb broadband
Synchronous, rotor reference frames. harmonics. In addition, a high sampling frequency is used for
DTC/DPC to guarantee acceptable steady-state and dynamic
performances [6]–[8]. Several modified DTC/DPC strategies,
Synchronous d–q axes. incorporating space vector modulation (SVM), have been pro-
Stator, rotor. posed to achieve a constant switching frequency for induction
machine drives [11]–[14] and grid-connected VSC [15]–[17].
However, additional drawbacks are introduced by such control,
e.g., complicated online calculation [11], [15], [16], additional
PI controller parameters [12], [13], [17], and weak robustness to
machine parameter variations [11]–[14]. Several DPC strategies
with constant switching frequency have also been proposed for
the DFIG [18]–[21]. The switching states were initially selected
based on conventional LUT in [18] and [19], whereas their dura-
tions were calculated based on the objectives of reduced torque
and flux oscillation. However, it required complicated online
0885-8993/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
342 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 25, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2010

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a DFIG-based wind energy generation system.

Fig. 2. Equivalent circuit of a DFIG in the synchronous d–q reference frame.

calculations and has oscillation problems when the DFIG is op-

erated around its synchronous speed. Zhi et al. [20], Zhi and
Xu [21] and Zhi et al. [22] proposed simple constant switching
frequency DPC strategies for VSC and DFIG. However, only
preliminary simulation studies were carried out in [21] and [22],
and no detailed effect of various voltage vectors on power vari-
ation or the impact of practical aspects such as sampling delay,
etc., on system performance was considered.
Similar to DTC and DPC methods, predictive current control
(PCC) incorporating SVM techniques has been proposed for Fig. 3. Spatial relationship of stator flux, rotor flux, and rotor voltage.
VSC [23]–[26] and ac machine drives [27]–[29]. The perfor-
mance of the current controller for a three-phase grid-connected
VSC in distributed generation systems [23] was improved by
considering the control delay due to sampling and computation. From Fig. 2, the DFIG’s stator and rotor flux vectors can be
A unified approach of the PCC method for a VSC is proposed expressed as
in [24] that uses a predictive current observer with an adaptive
internal model to compensate the control delay, and improve ψ ss = Ls I ss + Lm I sr (3a)
control bandwidth and stability. The performance of the PCC
method for an active power filter was improved in [25] by com- ψ sr = Lr I sr + Lm I ss . (3b)
pensating the phase error of the harmonic components caused by Combining (3a) and (3b) yields
discrete sampling and finite nonnegligible execution time delay.
However, a simple linear approximation of the current error was
ψ ss Lm ψ sr
used in [23]–[25] that can cause system instability due to the I ss =
− (4)
nonlinear nature of SVM operation. The least square method of σLs σLs Lr
where σ = (Ls Lr − L2m ) Ls Lr is the leakage factor.


an online parameter calculation was used in [26] to estimate the
load resistance and inductance in a phase-controlled rectifier in The amplitude of the stator flux can also be calculated as
order to guarantee zero steady-state error under PCC. 

 
 


This paper proposes a predictive DPC (PDPC) strategy for |ψs | =  (V s − Rs I s ) dt ≈  V s dt . (5)
DFIG-based wind energy generation systems, with a fixed
switching frequency, and improved transient and steady-state Assuming the network voltage is constant and neglecting the
performances. In Section II, the basic principles of PDPC are stator copper loss, the stator flux amplitude shown in (5) can
outlined. The issues related to PDPC in practical systems and be regarded as constant. Thus, combining (1) and (4), the stator
various compensation methods are proposed in Section III, active and reactive power inputs from the network are given
based on the detailed analysis of active and reactive power as [8]
variations within each pulsewidth-modulated (PWM) period.
Ps = −kσ ω1 |ψs | |ψr | sin θ
Verifying experimental results for a 1.5-kW DFIG system are  
presented in Section IV. Lr
Qs = kσ ω1 |ψs | |ψr | cos θ − |ψs | (6)
Lm
II. MODEL-BASED PDPC FOR DFIG where kσ = 1.5Lm /(σLs Lr ), and θ is the angle between the
A. DFIG’s Active and Reactive Power Flow rotor and stator flux vectors shown in Fig. 3.
As shown in Fig. 3, where the d-axis of the synchronous
As shown in the DFIG’s equivalent circuit in Fig. 2, in the
reference frame is fixed to the stator flux that results in |ψs | =
synchronous reference frame, the stator and rotor voltage vectors
ψsd , (6) can also be expressed using d–q components as
can be expressed as
s Ps = −kσ ω1 ψsd ψr q
V ss = Rs I ss + jω1 ψ ss + ψ̇ s (1)
Lr 2
V sr = Rr I sr + j(ω1 − ωr )ψ sr + ψ̇
s
(2) Qs = −kσ ω1 ψ + kσ ω1 ψsd ψr d . (7)
r Lm sd

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
ZHI et al.: MODEL-BASED PREDICTIVE DIRECT POWER CONTROL OF DOUBLY FED INDUCTION GENERATORS 343

Thus, (7) indicates that the stator active and reactive pow- According to (2), the rotor flux changes within period Ts can
ers can be controlled independently by adjusting ψr q and ψr d , be calculated by integrating both sides of (2) as
respectively. 
∆ψ sr = (V sr − Rr I sr − jωs ψ sr ) dt. (13)
Ts
B. Principles of PDPC
For a short period Ts , (13) can be approximated using Euler
The principle of the proposed PDPC method involves the
backward method in the d–q axes as
following aspects:
1) to directly calculate the required rotor voltage over a fixed ∆ψr d (k) = ψr d (k + 1) − ψr d (k)
sampling period Ts based on the predictive power model
developed in (7); = [Vr d (k) − Rr Ir d (k) + ωs ψr q (k)] Ts
2) to generate appropriate voltage vectors over the fixed sam- ∆ψr q (k) = ψr q (k + 1) − ψr q (k)
pling period to approximate the effect of the required rotor
voltage. This is usually achieved using SVM. = [Vr q (k) − Rr Ir q (k) − ωs ψr d (k)] Ts . (14)
Thus, fast dynamic response of power control and a constant
Substituting (14) into (12) yields the required rotor voltage
switching frequency are achieved.
for the following period Ts
Assuming at the beginning of the kth sampling period, the
existing active and reactive power errors are given by 1 ∆Qs (k)
Vr d (k) = Rr Ir d (k) − ωs ψr q (k) +
Ts kσ ω1 ψsd (k)
δPs (k) = Ps∗ (k) − Ps (k)
1 ∆Ps (k)
δQs (k) = Q∗s (k) − Qs (k). (8) Vr q (k) = Rr Ir q (k) + ωs ψr d (k) −
Ts kσ ω1 ψsd (k)

The objective for the following fixed period Ts is to control (15a)

the stator active and reactive powers such that at the end of the V sr (k) = Vr d (k) + jVr q (k)
period Ts , i.e., the (k + 1)th sampling instance, their errors are
eliminated, viz 1 ∆Qs (k) − j∆Ps(k)
= Rr I sr (k) + jωs ψ sr (k) + .
Ts kσ ω1 ψsd (k)
δPs (k + 1) = Ps∗ (k + 1) − Ps (k + 1) = 0 (15b)
δQs (k + 1) = Q∗s (k + 1) − Qs (k + 1) = 0. (9) Neglecting the rotor resistance, (15a) and (15b) can be sim-
plified as
Thus, the changes of the active and reactive powers during
the period Ts in order to satisfy (9) are 1 ∆Qs (k)
Vr d (k) = −ωs ψr q (k) +
Ts kσ ω1 ψsd (k)
∆Ps (k) = Ps (k + 1) − Ps (k)
1 ∆Ps (k)
Vr q (k) = ωs ψr d (k) − (16a)
= Ps∗ (k + 1) − Ps∗ (k) + δPs (k) Ts kσ ω1 ψsd (k)
∆Qs (k) = Qs (k + 1) − Qs (k) 1 ∆Qs (k) − j∆Ps (k)
V sr (k) = jωs ψ sr (k) + .
= Q∗s (k + 1) − Q∗s (k) + δQs (k). (10) Ts kσ ω1 ψsd (k)
(16b)
If zero-order sample and hold is used for the stator power
references, i.e., Ps∗ (k + 1) = Ps∗ (k) and Q∗s (k + 1) = Q∗s (k), Under ideal conditions, the corresponding sampling point at
the required power changes in the kth sampling period are which the DFIG’s voltages and currents are sampled, and the
PWM update instance when the rotor control voltage for the
following period is applied should be identical, as shown in
∆Ps (k) = δPs (k)
Fig. 4. This ensures that the acting rotor voltage corresponds to
∆Qs (k) = δQs (k). (11) the real measured power errors and guarantees the effectiveness
of the PDPC method.
Thus, the aim of the proposed PDPC strategy is to generate the
required power changes shown in (11) by applying the correct III. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
rotor voltage. According to (7) and taking into account the fact A. Voltage Vector Calculation Using SVM
that the stator flux is usually constant, the active and reactive
For a two-level rotor-side converter, the rotor output three-
power changes over a small sampling period Ts can be predicted
phase voltages can be represented by a voltage vector, and ac-
as
cording to the output voltage levels of each phase, there are six
∆Ps (k) = −kσ ω1 ψsd (k)∆ψr q (k) active voltage vectors with amplitudes of 2Vdc /3 and two zero
vectors [30]. Fig. 5 shows these eight voltage vectors denoted
∆Qs (k) = kσ ω1 ψsd (k)∆ψr d (k). (12) as V 0 –V 7 , where the subscript of V is derived from the binary

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
344 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 25, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2010

Fig. 4. Ideal timing of the proposed PDPC control strategy.

Fig. 6. Active and reactive power variations within a PWM period.

DFIG is in the generation mode and operating at subsynchronous

speed.
Fig. 5. Spatial relationship of stator flux, rotor flux, and rotor voltage vectors. According to (18), during the effective period of the zero
voltage vectors V 0 and V 7 , the power variations are given as
number expressing the switching pattern in the phase sequence
(a, b, and c). With each sampling period, it is necessary to calcu- ∆Ps = kσ ω1 ψsd ωs ψr d T
late the required switching voltage vectors and their respective ∆Qs = kσ ω1 ψsd ωs ψr q T. (19)
durations based on the required average rotor voltage vector
calculated in (16). SVM technique is usually employed.
For the example shown in Fig. 5, where the average rotor For normal operation, the angle θ between the stator and rotor
voltage vector V r is located between V 6 and V 2 , the voltage flux is relatively small. Thus, the rotor d-axis flux component
vectors required to resemble V r are V 7 , V 6 , V 2 , and V 0 , and ψ r d is much bigger than its q-axis component ψr q . Therefore,
their respective durations are calculated as [30] (19) indicates that the active power variation is much greater
√ π  than the reactive power variation under zero-voltage vectors.
ta = 3kv Ts sin −δ The direction of the power variation is determined by the sign
3 of the rotor slip. In a subsynchronous operation case, both the
√
tb = 3kv Ts sin (δ) active and reactive powers increase (reducing generated active
Ts  √ π  and absorbed reactive powers) under zero voltage vectors V 0
t01 = t02 = 1 − 3kv sin +δ (17) and V 7 .
2 3
As can be seen in Fig. 5, for voltage vectors V 2 and V 6 ,
where kv = |V r |/Vdc and 0 ≤ δ < π/3. their q-axis components Vr q −V 2 and Vr q −V 6 are both positive,
and usually greater than ωs ψr d . Thus, according to (17), both
B. Power Variations Within PWM Periods decrease the active power. Their d-axis components Vr d−V 2 and
Due to the discrete nature of the converter operation, the Vr d−V 6 have opposite signs, and therefore, different impact on
active and reactive powers vary within each sampling period. the reactive power, e.g., V 6 increases it while V 2 reduces it.
Based on (16) and Fig. 5, the variations of active and reactive Fig. 6 shows a schematic diagram of the active and reactive
powers during a short period of T for the voltage vector V x can power variations during a PWM period for the case studied. At
be predicted as the start and end of each sampling period Ts , the active and
reactive power is maintained at their reference values, e.g., at
∆Ps = kσ ω1 ψsd (ωs ψr d − Vr q −V x )T the kth sampling instant, Ps(k) = Ps∗(k) and Qs(k) = Q∗s(k).
∆Qs = kσ ω1 ψsd (ωs ψr q + Vr d−V x )T (18) Whereas during the period, the active and reactive powers vary
according to the directions analyzed previously.
where V x represents one of the eight voltage vectors, Vr d−V x According to (18), Fig. 6, and as analyzed previously, the
and Vr q −V x are the d- and q-axis components of V x . amplitudes of active and reactive power ripples within each
The following analysis assumes that the DFIG is operating at sampling period can be estimated. It is assumed that the stator
a point, as shown in Fig. 5, i.e., both the rotor and stator flux and rotor flux angle θ is small, and the rotor voltage leads the
are presented in Section (I), whereas the desired rotor voltage is rotor flux by 90◦ . Under this condition, the amplitude of the
presented in Section (II). The rotor flux leads the stator flux as the active power ripple can be considered to equal the variation

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
ZHI et al.: MODEL-BASED PREDICTIVE DIRECT POWER CONTROL OF DOUBLY FED INDUCTION GENERATORS 345

Fig. 7. Typical sampling and PWM update for PDPC in a practical system.

during one of the zero vectors as

Ts  √ π 
|∆Ps | ≈ kσ ω1 ψsd ωs ψr d 1 − 3kv sin + δ . (20)
2 3
Thus, according to (20), the active power ripple reaches its Fig. 8. Sampled power errors due to the delay td .
maximum when δ = 0, i.e., the rotor voltage is located close to
the sector boundaries, and it is given as


Ts 3
|∆Ps |m ax = kσ ω1 ψsd ωs ψr d 1 − kv . (21)
2 2

According to (18) and Fig. 6, the reactive power ripple within

each sampling period can be considered to be determined by the
active voltage vectors as


2 π
|∆Qs | = kσ ω1 ψsd ωs ψr q + Vdc cos − δ + θ ta
3 2
2 π √ π 
≈ kσ ω1 ψsd Vdc cos −δ 3kv Ts sin −δ
3 2 3
2 π 
= kσ ω1 ψsd √ |V r | Ts sin (δ) sin −δ . (22) Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of the proposed PDPC for a DFIG system.
3 3

According to (22), maximum reactive power ripple is pro-

duced when δ = π/6, i.e., the rotor voltage is located in the
D. Compensation of the Control Delay
middle of each 60◦ sector, and is given as
Fig. 8 shows the sampled, and desired active and reactive
1 power feedback using the typical sampling sequence shown in
|∆Qs |m ax ≈ √ kσ ω1 ψsd |V r | Ts . (23) Fig. 7. As shown in Fig. 8 and as previously described, the
2 3
ideal power feedbacks required in the control system are Ps (k)′
and Qs (k)′ , i.e., at the PWM update instant. However, due to
C. Sampling in Practical Systems
the td delay, the actual sampled power available to the control
The ideal sampling and PWM update sequence mentioned system are Ps (k) and Qs (k). If the error between the ideal and
in Fig. 4 cannot be implemented due to the time required for actual power feedback is significant, it can result in considerable
data sampling and the necessary calculations. A realistic time control errors. Depending on the operating conditions and delay
sequence for a practical system is shown in Fig. 7, where the length, various voltage vectors can be effective within the td
sampling points are in advance of the PWM update points by period. In general, longer td period has greater impact on the
a period td during which the necessary voltage and current sampled power error.
are sampled, and the required rotor voltage calculations for The power errors due to the sampling delay can be compen-
the following period Ts are carried out. Thus, td has to be sated to eliminate steady-state error and possible oscillation.
long enough to ensure that all the required activities can be At any sampling instance, the PWM pattern for the previous
accomplished. However, it indicates that the actual power error PWM period including the delay period, the effective voltage
when the rotor control voltage starts to take effect (update PWM) vectors, their sequence, and duration times are known. There-
differs from the one sampled and used to calculate the rotor fore, the possible power variation during the period td can be pre-
control voltage. Thus, it is important to examine the impact of dicted. Assuming that the voltage vector sequence and the cor-
such a delay on PDPC performance and provide appropriate responding duration times are V 0 , V a , V b , V 7 , and t01 , ta , tb ,
compensation if necessary. and t02 , respectively, the effective voltage vector duration within

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
346 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 25, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2010

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of the experimental system.

TABLE I E. Compensation Due to Rotating Reference Frame

PARAMETERS OF THE TESTED DFIG
As shown in (16b), the rotor voltage contains two parts,
specifically, the first term (namely, V sr1 ) that ensures the ro-
tor flux rotates at the same angular speed as the stator flux, and
keeps the stator active and reactive powers at constant, while
the second term (namely, V sr2 ) generates the desired power
changes.
Similarly, as shown in [22], the two rotor voltage compo-
nents need to be phase-shifted due to the stator flux movement
(synchronous d–q reference frame) within each sampling period
′
V sr = V sr1 ej (∆ θ /2) + V sr2 ej ∆ θ (27)

the delay period td can be expressed as where ∆θ = ω s Ts .

  To further improve the power control accuracy, an integral
tV 0 controller with a large time constant Ti can be added to the
 tV b  rotor voltage generation module to compensate errors due to
tV a machine parameters mismatch, improper compensation, or nu-
 merical error as
 [td , 0, 0]T , if td < t02  
1

= [t02 , td − t02 , 0]T , if (t02 + tb ) > td > t02 ′
V sr3 = ∆Qs dt − j ∆Ps dt . (28)

[t02 , tb , td − t02 − tb ]T , if td > (t02 + tb ) Ti
The integrator’s inputs are the active and reactive power er-
(24) s
rors, while the outputs from the integrator are added to Vr2 .
where tV 0 , tV b , and tV a are the effective durations of V 7 , V b , This has little impact on system dynamics due to its large time
and V a during the td period, respectively. constant Ti . However, the steady-state power errors are reduced
In the synchronous reference frame, the d- and q-axis com- so as to achieve precise stator active and reactive power control.
ponents of V a and V b , namely, Vad , Vaq , Vbd , and Vbq can be Thus, the required rotor voltage in the synchronous reference
calculated. The sampled power errors due to the delay period td frame is given as
can then be predicted based on (18) as ′′
V sr = V sr1 ej (∆ θ /2) + (V sr2 + V sr3 ) ej ∆ θ . (29)
∆Pcom p = kσ ω1 ψsd (ωs ψr d td − Vbq tV b − Vaq tV a ) The completed schematic diagram of the proposed PDPC is
shown in Fig. 9.
∆Qcom p = kσ ω1 ψsd (ωs ψr q td + Vbd tV b + Vad tV a ) . (25)
Thus, the active and reactive powers at the ideal (k ′ )th point IV. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
(PWM update instance) can be calculated based on the kth
sampled and the predicted values shown in (25) as The schematic diagram of the experimental rig is shown in
Fig. 10. The system contains a 1.5-kW DFIG with its rotor cou-
Ps (k)′ = Ps (k) + ∆Pcom p (k) pled directly to a dc machine. The DFIG’s parameter values are
listed in Table I. The speed of the dc machine is controlled by
Qs (k)′ = Qs (k) + ∆Qcom p (k). (26) a commercial thyristor drive, providing either speed or torque

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
ZHI et al.: MODEL-BASED PREDICTIVE DIRECT POWER CONTROL OF DOUBLY FED INDUCTION GENERATORS 347

Fig. 11. Experimental results under various stator active and reactive power
steps with ω r = 1200 r/min. (1): Stator active power input (1 kW/div); (2):
stator reactive power input (1 kvar/div); (3): stator phase current (5 A/div);
and (4): rotor phase current (10 A/div). (a) P s step from 0 to −1.0 kW with
Q s = −1.0 kvar. (b) Qs step from 0 to −1.0 kvar with P s = 0 W.

Fig. 12. Stator current and background voltage spectra, P s = −1.5 kW, Q s =
−1.0 kvar, ω r = 1200 r/min. (a) LUT-DPC, average switching frequency = Fig. 13. Experimental results during rotor speed variation (from 1200 to
2.3 kHz, THD = 6.13%. (b) PDPC, THD = 4.15%. (c) Conventional VC, THD 1800 r/min), P s = −1.0 kW and Q s = −0.5 kvar. (a) (1): DC-link voltage
= 4.51%. (d) Background voltage, THD = 1.43%. (40 V/div); (2) GSC line-to-line voltage (50 V/div); (3) GSC phase current
(5 A/div). (b) (1): P s (1 kW/div); (2): Q s (1 kvar/div); (3): stator line-to-line
voltage (1 kV/div); (4): stator phase current (5 A/div). (c) (1)–(3): Rotor phase
a, b, and c currents (10 A/div); (4): rotor slip (0.2 pu/div).
control. Two 3-phase variacs are used, one supplying the stator
winding and the other connecting the grid-side converter (GSC).
The GSC uses VC and controls the dc-link voltage at 80 V. The First, the dynamic performance of the proposed PDPC strat-
rotor-side converter (RSC) and GSC are controlled separately egy was studied for active and reactive power steps. For com-
by two TI TMS320F2812 DSPs. The sampling and switching parison, system response with traditional LUT-DPC and con-
frequencies for both converters are 5 and 2.5 kHz, respectively, ventional VC were also tested. The sampling frequency for
while the delay time td is 25 µs. Due to the relatively small LUT-DPC was 20 kHz, whereas VC used the same sampling
magnetizing impedance of the tested DFIG, it absorbs consider- and switching frequencies as PDPC, i.e., 5 and 2.5 kHz, respec-
able active and reactive powers even when the rotor is an open tively. The hysteresis power control band for LUT-DPC was set
circuit, e.g., 130 W (absorbing) and −1.5 kvar (inductive). at ±4% of 1.5 kVA. The test results are compared in Fig. 11

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
348 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 25, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2010

Fig. 14. Comparison of the impact of different compensation methods on active and reactive power errors, P s = −1.0 kW and Q s = −0.5 kvar. (a) Active
power errors versus speed (P s base defined as −1.5 kW). (b) Reactive power errors versus speed (Q s base defined as −1.5 kvar).

with the rotor speed constant at 1200 r/min. For Fig. 11(a), the
active power was stepped from 0 to −1 kW (generating) with
the reactive power fixed at −1 kvar (inductive). For Fig. 11(b),
the active power was kept constant at 0 with the reactive power
stepped from 0 to −1 kvar. As seen, the dynamic responses dur-
ing active and reactive power steps for the two DPC strategies
are similar, both within a few milliseconds. In contrast, the dy-
namic response of VC is slower, over 10 ms in the tests, and is
highly dependent on the tuning of the control parameters.
The stator current harmonic spectra for the three different
Fig. 15. Comparison of dynamic response during P s step from 0 to −1 kW
control strategies are shown in Fig. 12 together with the back- with and without delay compensation, Q s = −1.0 kvar and ω r = 1200 r/min.
ground voltage harmonic spectrum. For LUT-DPC, the harmon- (1): P s (1 kW/div); (2): Q s (1 kvar/div); (3): stator phase current (5 A/div);
ics are spread over a wide frequency range, whereas PDPC and (4): rotor phase current (10 A/div). (a) With delay compensation. (b) Without
delay compensation.
VC have similar harmonic spectra with the dominant harmon-
ics concentrated around the 2.5 kHz switching frequency and
multiples thereof. The low-order harmonics, e.g., below 1 kHz To validate the effectiveness of the proposed compensation
are largely due to the background harmonics in the supply volt- methods, active and reactive powers were measured for different
age as substantiated from Fig. 12(d). The harmonics around operating speed and different compensation. Four different cases
1.5 kHz are generated by the stator and rotor slotting, and exist were considered, which are as follows.
even when the DFIG’s rotor is an open circuit, i.e., the RSC
Case 1: Without any compensation.
is disconnected. Tests have also been carried out at different
Case 2: With the angle shift shown in (29) and integrator with
operating speeds, and the results are similar to those shown in
an 18-s time constant.
Figs. 11 and 12.
Case 3: With delay time td compensation only.
The performance of the PDPC is also examined during vary-
Case 4: Fully compensated, cases 2 and 3.
ing the rotor speed from 1200 to 1800 r/min, as shown in Fig. 13.
During the test, the stator active and reactive powers are con- Fig. 14 compares the measured steady-state power errors for
stant at −1.0 kW and −0.5 kvar, respectively. As can be seen, the four cases. As shown in Fig. 14(a), for case 1 without any
during the speed variation, the stator active and reactive powers compensation, there exists significant active power error. Once
are controlled, as are the stator and rotor currents. The rotor the angle shift and integrator are implemented in case 2, the
current frequency initially decreases due to the reduced rotor active power error is shifted a fixed value across the operating
slip, reaching zero at the synchronous speed of 1500 r/min, speed range and the error is proportional to the rotor slip. With
and increases after passing 1500 r/min. From Fig. 13, the com- delay compensation, case 3, only a fixed error exists. This also
mon dc voltage is also maintained by the GSC. The different proves that the error introduced by the delay time is proportional
amplitude of the GSC current at 1200 r/min (+0.2 slip) and to the rotor slip as indicated in (18), since only a zero-voltage
1800 r/min (−0.2 slip) is due the fact that the power consump- vector is effective in the period td in the experiments. In case
tion in the rotor resistors has opposite sign during sub- and 4, with all the compensation methods applied, the active power
supersynchronous operations, which affects the active power error is reduced to near zero.
exchange between the rotor and the RSC. Consequently, the For the reactive power shown in Fig. 14(b), again, case 1
power exchange between the GSC and the grid is different for results in a steady-state error. As previously analyzed, due to
sub- and supersynchronous operations. the effective zero voltage vector during the delay time, it has

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
ZHI et al.: MODEL-BASED PREDICTIVE DIRECT POWER CONTROL OF DOUBLY FED INDUCTION GENERATORS 349

Fig. 16. Comparison of system performance with L m errors. (a) During rotor speed variation from 1200–1800 r/min, P s = −1.0 kW, and Q s = −1.0 kvar.
(1): P s (1 kW/div); (2) Q s (1 kvar/div); (3)–(4) rotor phase a and b currents (10 A/div); (5) rotor slip (0.4 pu/div). (b) During Q s step change from 0 to −1.0 kvar
with P s = 0 W. (1): P s (1 kW/div); (2): Q s (1 kvar/div); (3): stator phase current (5 A/div); (4): rotor phase current (10 A/div).

little impact on the reactive power. Thus, as seen from Fig. 14(b), system varied by ±20%. As can be seen in Fig. 16, such errors
applying td compensation in case 3 has little impact on reactive have minimal influence on system dynamic and steady-state
power error. Thus, cases 2 and 4 result in a similar performance. performances. The responses are almost identical for the three
From Fig. 14, precise control of both the active and reactive different inductance values, which indicate that the proposed
powers has been achieved with the proposed PDPC method. PDPC is robust to inductance variation with excellent dynamic
Fig. 15(a) and (b) compares the dynamic performance during and static performances.
an active power step with and without delay td compensation. As As shown in (15b), rotor resistance variation could affect the
can be seen, without compensation, the reactive power oscillates rotor control voltage. Due to the small rotor resistance, its im-
during the active power step, whereas with compensation, it pact during system transient is insignificant. Under steady state,
becomes more stable and less oscillatory. rotor resistance error generates a static rotor voltage error, and
Tests on the impact of the variation of mutual inductance that consequently, it results in small steady-state power errors if no
can occur due to possible machine saturation and temperature integral compensator is applied. However, such static power
variation, etc., on system performance with the PDPC, were errors can be easily compensated by the proposed integral con-
also carried out. The test results are compared in Fig. 16(a) troller since the variation of rotor resistance due to temperature
and (b) with the mutual inductance values used in the control variation is a slow process. Further tests with the rotor resistance

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
350 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 25, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2010

Fig. 18. Comparison between the PDPC and VC during active and reac-
tive power tracking, average P s = −1 kW, average Q s = −1 kvar, ω r =
1200 r/min. (a) Varying active power reference. (1): P s reference (1 kW/div);
(2): P s measured (1 kW/div); (3): active power error (1 kW/div). (b) Varying
reactive power reference. (1): Q s reference (1 kvar/div); (2) Q s (1 kvar/div);
(3) reactive power error (1 kvar/div).

1) Smaller Rs and Rr than the prototype.

2) Bigger Ls , Lr , and Lm than the prototype.
3) Bigger Rm and smaller no-load loss than the prototype.
As the inductance values have been fully taken into account in
deriving the equations, their differences should have negligible
impact on system control. Smaller stator and rotor resistances
in MW DFIGs can result in slightly higher accuracy for power
control than the prototype as the derivations of (6), (7), and (18)
Fig. 17. Comparison between the PDPC and VC during small-source neglect Rs and Rr . Much larger Rm in practical MW systems
harmonic distortion (5th: 0.5%, 7th: 0.4%, 11th: 0.3%), P s = −1 kW, also indicates higher accuracy than that for the prototype, as
and Q s = −500 var. (1): Active power (500 W/div); (2) reactive power the theoretical model shown in Fig. 2 assumed infinite Rm .
(500 var/div); (3) stator phase current (2 A/div).
Nevertheless, full simulation studies using typical parameters
value used in the control system being twice the actually value seen in practical systems were conducted, and the results match
proved its insignificant effect on both steady-state and transient the prototype tests well. The simulation results are not shown
performances of the proposed method. here due to space limitations.
Tests during small-source voltage harmonic distortion have
V. CONCLUSION
also been carried out, and Fig. 17 compares the results with
PDPC and VC. As shown, due to the limited control bandwidth, A PDPC strategy for DFIGs has been proposed in this pa-
the generated stator active and reactive powers with VC contain per. A DFIG model that defines the stator active and reactive
considerable oscillations in the presence of small-source voltage power flow was presented. Based on such a model, a DFIG’s ac-
harmonics (mainly, the fifth and the seventh). However, with the tive and reactive power variations with a fixed sampling period
PDPC strategies, the power oscillations are insignificant due to were predicted, which was then used to directly calculate the
the direct control of the active and reactive power. required rotor voltage to eliminate stator power errors at the end
With varying active and reactive power references, further of the sampling period. The practical impact of sampling delay
tests have been conducted, and Fig. 18 compares the measured on the accuracy of the sampled active and reactive power was
waveforms with PDPC and VC. In Fig. 18(a), with the reactive analyzed, and detailed compensation methods were proposed
power maintained at −1 kvar, the active power reference con- to improve both the steady-state and dynamic performances of
tains an average dc value of −1 kW and a 100 Hz sinusoidal the PDPC method. Experimental results from a 1.5-kW DFIG
signal with an amplitude of 300 W. Similarly, in Fig. 18(b), test system proved the dynamic performance and power control
with the active power maintained at −1 kW, a 100-Hz-/300-var accuracy of the PDPC method. System performance during pa-
sinusoidal signal was injected on to the average reactive power rameter variation and with varying reference further illustrated
reference of −1 kvar. As can be seen, due to the high band- the performance of the PDPC method.
width of the PDPC, it results in a much high accuracy with
small power errors. In contrast, the conventional VC scheme REFERENCES
results in significant control errors due to its insufficient control [1] W. Leonhard, Control of Electrical Drives. London, U.K.: Springer-
bandwidth. Verlag, 2001.
[2] R. Pena, J. C. Clare, and G. M. Asher, “Doubly fed induction generator
For practical megawatt (MW) DFIG systems, their parameters using back-to-back PWM converters and its application to variable-speed
can differ significantly from those of the prototype system in the wind-energy generation,” Inst. Electr. Eng. Proc. Electr. Power Appl.,
following categories. vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 231–241, May 1996.

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
ZHI et al.: MODEL-BASED PREDICTIVE DIRECT POWER CONTROL OF DOUBLY FED INDUCTION GENERATORS 351

[3] A. Petersson, L. Harnefors, and T. Thiringer, “Evaluation of current control [25] S. G. Jeong and M. H. Woo, “DSP-based active power filter with predictive
methods for wind turbines using doubly-fed induction machines,” IEEE current control,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 329–336,
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 227–235, Jan. 2005. Jun. 1997.
[4] H. Akagi and H. Sato, “Control and performance of a doubly-fed induction [26] S. J. Jeong and S. H. Song, “Improvement of predictive current con-
machine intended for a flywheel energy storage system,” IEEE Trans. trol performance using online parameter estimation in phase controlled
Power Electron., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 109–116, Jan. 2002. rectifier,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1820–1825,
[5] R. W. De Doncker, S. Muller, and M. Deicke, “Doubly fed induction Sep. 2007.
generator systems for wind turbines,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 8, no. 3, [27] H. T. Moon, H. S. Kim, and M. J. Youn, “A discrete-time predictive
pp. 26–33, May/Jun. 2002. current control for PMSM,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 18, no. 1,
[6] K. P. Gokhale, D. W. Karraker, and S. J. Heikkila, “Controller for a wound pp. 464–472, Jan. 2003.
rotor slip ring induction machine,” U.S. Patent 6 448 735 B1, Sep. 2002. [28] P. Wipasuramonton, Z. Q. Zhu, and D. Howe, “Predictive current control
[7] R. Datta and V. T. Ranganathan, “Direct power control of grid-connected with current-error correction for PM brushless AC drives,” IEEE Trans.
wound rotor induction machine without rotor position sensors,” IEEE Ind. Appl., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1071–1079, Jul./Aug. 2006.
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 390–399, May 2001. [29] M. W. Naouar, A. A. Naassani, E. Monmasson, and T. S. Belkhodja,
[8] L. Xu and P. Cartwright, “Direct active and reactive power control of DFIG “FPGA-based predictive current controller for synchronous machine
for wind energy generation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 21, no. 3, speed drive,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2115–
pp. 750–758, Sep. 2006. 2126, Jul. 2008.
[9] I. Takahashi and T. Noguchi, “A new quick-response and high-efficiency [30] H. W. Van De Broeck, H. C. Skudelny, and G. V. Stanke, “Analysis and
control strategy of an induction motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. realization of a pulsewidth modulator based on voltage space vectors,”
IA-22, no. 5, pp. 820–827, Oct. 1986. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 142–150, Jan./Feb. 1988.
[10] M. Depenbrock, “Direct self-control (DSC) of inverter-fed induction ma-
chine,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. PE-3, no. 4, pp. 420–429, Jul.
1988.
[11] T. G. Habetler, F. Profumo, M. Pastorelli, and L. M. Tolbert, “Direct
torque control of induction machines using space vector modulation,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1045–53, Oct. 1992.
[12] Y. S. Lai and J. H. Chen, “A new approach to direct torque control of in-
duction motor drives for constant inverter switching frequency and torque Dawei Zhi (S’07) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. de-
ripple reduction,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 220– grees from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, in
227, Sep. 2001. 2000 and 2003, respectively. He is currently work-
[13] N. R. N. Idris and A. H. M. Yatim, “Direct torque control of induction ing toward the Ph.D. degree at the University of
machines with constant switching frequency and reduced torque ripple,” Strathclyde, Glasgow, U.K.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 758–767, Aug. 2004. From 2004 to 2005, he was with Delta Power Elec-
[14] J. Kang and S. Sul, “New direct torque control of induction motor for tronics Center, Shanghai, China.
minimum torque ripple and constant switching frequency,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1076–1082, 1999.
[15] S. Aurtenechea, M. A. Rodrı́guez, E. Oyarbide, and J. R. Torrealday,
“Predictive control strategy for DC/AC converters based on direct power
control,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1261–1271, Jun.
2007.
[16] S. Vazquez, J. A. Sanchez, J. M. Carrasco, J. I. Leon, and E. Galvan,
“A model-based direct power control for three-phase power converters,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1647–1657, Apr. 2008. Lie Xu (M’03–SM’06) received the B.Sc. degree
[17] M. Malinowski, M. Jasinski, and M. P. Kazmierkowski, “Simple direct from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, in 1993,
power control of three-phase PWM rectifier using space-vector modulation and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Sheffield,
(DPC-SVM),” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 447–454, Sheffield, U.K., in 1999.
Apr. 2004. From 2007 to 2008, he was with the Univer-
[18] G. Abad, M. A. Rodrı́guez, and J. Poza, “Two-level VSC-based predictive sity of Strathclyde, Glasgow, U.K. He is currently a
direct power control of the doubly fed induction machine with reduced Senior Lecturer in the School of Electronics, Elec-
power ripple at low constant switching frequency,” IEEE Trans. Energy trical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s
Convers., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 570–580, Jun. 2008. University of Belfast, Belfast, U.K. His current re-
[19] G. Abad, M. A. Rodrı́guez, and J. Poza, “Two-level VSC-based predictive search interests include power electronics, wind en-
torque control of the doubly fed induction machine with reduced torque ergy generation and grid integration, and application
and flux ripples at low constant switching frequency,” IEEE Trans. Power of power electronics to power systems.
Electron., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1050–1061, May 2008.
[20] D. Zhi, L. Xu, and B. W. Williams, “Improved direct power control of
grid-connected DC/AC converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24,
no. 5, pp. 1280–1292, May 2009.
[21] D. Zhi and L. Xu, “Direct power control of DFIG with constant switching
frequency and improved transient performance,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 110–118, Mar. 2007.
[22] D. Zhi, L. Xu, and J. Morrow, “Improved direct power control of doubly- Barry W. Williams received the Ph.D. degree in elec-
fed induction generator based wind energy system,” in Proc. IEMDC, trical and electronic engineering from the University
2007, pp. 1–6. of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K., in 1980.
[23] Q. Zeng and L. Chang, “An advanced SVPWM-based predictive current He is currently a Professor in the Department of
controller for three-phase inverters in distributed generation systems,” Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1235–1246, Mar. 2008. Strathclyde, Glasgow, U.K. His current research in-
[24] Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed and E. F. El-Saadany, “Robust high bandwidth terests include application of power electronics.
discrete-time predictive current control with predictive internal model—
A unified approach for voltage-source PWM converters,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 126–136, Jan. 2008.

Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:48 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.