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

net/publication/352751209

DFIG-WECS Non Linear Power Controls Application

Chapter · June 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-73882-2_132

CITATIONS READS

0 93

5 authors, including:

Manale Bouderbala Badre Bossoufi

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University Faculty of Sciences; Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
30 PUBLICATIONS 556 CITATIONS 176 PUBLICATIONS 2,631 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alami Hala Mohammed Taoussi

Mohamed I University Higher School of Technology, SMBA University Fez, Morocco
31 PUBLICATIONS 439 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 2,098 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Badre Bossoufi on 07 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DFIG-WECS Non Linear Power Controls Application

BOUDERBALA-Manale *1 and BOSSOUFI-Badre1 and ALAMI-AROUSSI-Hala2

and TAOUSSI-Mohammed1 and LAGRIOU-Ahmed3

1
LISTA Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El Mahraz, Sidi Mohammed Ben Abdellah Uni-
versity Fez, Morocco
2
Laboratory of Electrical and Maintenance Engineering (LGEM),
Ecole Supérieur de Technologie, Mohamed Premier University Oujda, Morocco
3
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The Higher National School of Arts and
Trades, Moulay Ismail University Meknes, Morocco
[email protected]

Abstract. This study proposes two different controlling approaches of Wind En-
ergy Conversion System (WECS). The first one deals with Field/Oriented/Con-
trol/ (FOC) and the second with Direct*Power Control (DPC). Both approaches
were applied on Doubly-Fed-Induction-Generator-(DFIG).
DPC seems to give good tracking and better efficiency compare to FOC. Infact,
by comparing Stator active and reactive powers, DPC gives much less oscilla-
tions. Regarding rotor and stator currents, DPC needs less time to achieve steady-
state.

Keywords: DFIG, FOC, DPC, WECS.

1 Introduction

The field of electric machine control has known a great evolution in industrial sector.
Used for several centuries (windmills), wind energy has been developed considerably.
This significant development of this energy is going to be essential to attain the aimes
set for renewable energies. A wind system is usually composed of turbine, gearbox, and
generator. There are two varieties of wind turbines: vertical axis wind turbines and hor-
izontal. The latter is the most used because of its great efficiency. Regarding the gener-
ator, DFIG is often used thanks to its several advantages: the rotor power reaches around
30% of the total power. As result, the dimensions of converters among the conversion
system is reduced [1].
For many years, power control has been the topic of many researches. Many control
strategies have been proposed. Among these strategies, "vector controls" gives dynamic
performance identical to that acquired by the-direct-current(DC) machine. Nowadays,
2

the improvement of modern digital signal processing strategies has prompted exten-
sively, to give a rise to "Direct Control of the Powers" [2].
Blaschke was the first one to developed the primary theory of the field-oriented tech-
niques in 1970. Ten years later, its effective applications were adopted. Indeed, it re-
quires calculations of Park transform, evaluation of trigonometric functions and regula-
tions, which could not be done in an analogical approach. Vector control is designed to
provide the same control performance as a separately excited DC machine, which is
characterized by a natural decoupling of the variable flux and torque [3].
In the middle of the 1980s, TAKASHI initiated the Direct control methods of asynchro-
nous machines as concurrent with classical controls depending on Pulse-Width-Modu-
lation(PWM) which uses field’s orientation to guarantee the decoupling between flux
and torque. This study deals with direct+power+control+(DPC) that lies on the principle
of+direct+torque+control+(DTC) [4].
These two control strategies discussed previously both aims to control the/active/and/re-
active/powers/separately.
The comparison between FOC and DPC evaluate the difference between two different
regulators: PI and hysteresis. However, each control lies on a different approach. Vector
control is based on PI controllers, which are highly dependent on the machine parame-
ters, while DPC control is based on hysteresis/comparators, which do not depend on the
machine parameters.
In order to compare between DPC and FOC control strategies, this work is organized as
follows: First, In Section 2 the turbine and DFIG was modelled to model the WECS. The
Field Oriented Control and Direct Power Control are described in Section 3 and Section
4 resectively. The resuts simulations are obtained using Matlab/Simulink(Section 5).
Finally, an extensive results discussions are presented in Section 6.

2 The modeling of the WECS

Fig. 1 illustrates the synopsis of the studied system. The/wind/turbine drives the DFIG
at a variable rotational speed through a multiplier. The DFIG stator is linked to the net-
work directly. On the other hand, the rotor is linked to the network via a/back-to-
back/converter and transformer [1].
First of all, it is necessary to model the system before proceeding to control.

Stator Power
Grid 50Hz

Wind
DFIG
turbine
Rotor
Power
Controls

Fig. 1. WECS model

 3

2.1 Turbine model

The aerodynamic/power (Paer) is the product of power coefficient (Cp) and wind
power(Pv). This power is calculated from wind speed(V), blades swept area (S), and air
density (𝜌).
The power coefficient presents efficiency as a function of beta angle(𝛽) and the lambda
ratio(𝜆). The ratio depends on the wind speed(V), blade-radius(R), and tur-
bine/speed. (Ω)𝒕 [2].
The following equations describe wind turbine system.

𝑷𝒂𝒆𝒓 = 𝑪𝒑 . (𝛌, 𝛃). 𝑷𝒗 (1)

𝛒.𝐒.𝐕𝟑
𝑷𝒗 = (2)
𝟐
𝐑.Ω𝐭
𝛌= (3)
𝐕
The multiplier is described by the equations cited below:
𝐶𝑡
𝐶𝑔 = (4)
𝐺
Ω𝑚𝑒𝑐
Ω𝑡 = (5)
𝐺

With, Cg, Ωmec and G are generator/torque, mechanical/speed of the generator, and
multiplier/gain respectively.
The dynamic equation of the turbine is given by:
d mec
J = Cmec = Cg − Cem − C f .mec
dt (6)
With, “Cem, Cmec, Cf, and J: electromagnetic torque, mechanical torque, and viscous
friction torque, total inertial respectively.

2.2 “Doubly/Fed/Induction/Generator/model”

There are three types of equations organize the dynamic modeling of “DFIG” in the
park frame (d.q) : Electrical equations, Flux equations and electromagnetic torque [5]
Electrical equations :
𝑑𝜑𝑠𝑑
𝑉𝑠𝑑 = 𝑅𝑠. 𝐼𝑠𝑑 + − 𝜑𝑠𝑞. 𝜔𝑠 (7)
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝜑𝑠𝑞
𝑉𝑠𝑞 = 𝑅𝑠. 𝐼𝑠𝑞 + + 𝜑𝑠𝑑. 𝜔𝑠
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝜑𝑟𝑑
𝑉𝑟𝑑 = 𝑅𝑟. 𝐼𝑟𝑑 + − 𝜑𝑟𝑞. 𝜔𝑟
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝜑𝑟𝑞
𝑉𝑟𝑞 = 𝑅𝑟. 𝐼𝑟𝑞 + + 𝜑𝑟𝑑. 𝜔𝑟
𝑑𝑡
4

Flux equations: 𝜑𝑠𝑑 = 𝐿𝑠. 𝐼𝑠𝑑 + 𝐿𝑚. 𝐼𝑟𝑑 (8)

𝜑𝑠𝑞 = 𝐿𝑠. 𝐼𝑠𝑞 + 𝐿𝑚. 𝐼𝑟𝑞

𝜑𝑟𝑑 = 𝐿𝑟. 𝐼𝑟𝑑 + 𝐿𝑚. 𝐼𝑠𝑑
𝜑𝑟𝑞 = 𝐿𝑠. 𝐼𝑟𝑞 + 𝐿𝑚. 𝐼𝑠𝑞

Electromagnetic torque :
𝑀
𝐶𝑒𝑚 = 𝑝. . (𝜑𝑠𝑞 . 𝐼𝑟𝑑 − 𝜑𝑠𝑑 . 𝐼𝑟𝑞 ) (9)
𝐿𝑠

“Vs (d.q), φs (d.q), Is (d.q): voltages, flux, and currents statoric in PARK reference””
“Vr (d.q), φr (d.q), Ir (d.q): voltages, flux, and currents rotoric in PARK reference” “
$Rs, Rr: stator and rotor resistances$
$Ls, Lr: cyclic stator and rotor Inductances$
$M: mutual inductance$
𝜔𝑟 = 𝜔𝑠 − 𝜔 (10)
𝜔 = 𝑝. Ω (11)
p: machine’s pairs of pole
ωs, ωr: stator and rotor angular speed

3 Field Oriented Control (FOC)

The direct current machine is utterly adjusted to variable speed applications. By decou-
pling the electromagnetic torque and the flux. Consequently, FOC command makes
DFIG same as DC machine. This method lies on the transformation of the electrical
variables of the machine to a reference frame that rotates with the flux vector.
The flux may be oriented according to the stator (SFOC) or the rotor (RFOC), i.e. the dq
frame can be fixed to the stator or the rotor. In this study the SFOC has been used.The
following equation describe the orientation of the flux according to the axis d therefore:

𝜑𝑠𝑞 = 0 𝜑𝑠𝑑 = 𝜑𝑠 (12)

As result, the DFIG can easly be controlled. Active power is controlled separately from
reactive power[6], [7].
It is assumed that the stator resistance is negligible as well as the flux is constant.
Equations 7 becomes then:
𝑉𝑠𝑑 = 0 (13)
𝑉𝑠𝑞 = 𝜑𝑠𝑑. 𝜔𝑠
Injecting equations 12 and 13, in equations 8 and we obtain the following equations
of stator currents and stator flux respectively:
𝜑 𝑀
𝐼𝑠𝑑 = 𝑠 . . 𝐼𝑟𝑑 (14)
𝐿𝑠 𝐿𝑠
𝑀
𝐼𝑠𝑞 = − . 𝐼𝑟𝑞
𝐿𝑠
 5

𝜑𝑠𝑑 = 𝜑𝑠 = 𝐿𝑠. 𝐼𝑠𝑑 + 𝑀. 𝐼𝑟𝑑 (15)

𝜑𝑠𝑑 = 0 = 𝐿𝑠. 𝐼𝑠𝑞 + 𝑀. 𝐼𝑟𝑞

The following equations are obtained using stator currents (equations 14) and stator volt-
ages (equations 13).

3 𝑀
𝑃𝑠 = − . . 𝑉𝑠. 𝐼𝑟𝑞 (16)
2 𝜑𝑠𝑑

3 𝜑𝑠𝑑 𝑀
𝑄𝑠 = . 𝑉𝑠( − . 𝐼𝑟𝑑)
2 𝐿𝑠 𝐿𝑠

M 2 dI rd M2
Vrd = Rr .I rd + ( Lr − ). − g.s .( Lr − ).I qr
Ls dt Ls (17)
2 2
M dI rq M M .Vs
Vrq = Rr .I rq + ( Lr − ). − g.s .( Lr − ).I dr + g.
Ls dt Ls Ls

The equations above shows clearly that:

• Vr depends on Ir
• Ps depends on Iqr
• Qs depends only on Idr.

In order to establish this command, the PI controllers will be used.

Based on the equations (17), the following Synopsis Fig.2 presents the vector control
modelling

Fig.2 FOC modeling

6

4 Direct Power Control (DPC)

Based on direct torque control(DTC) approach, which is specifically designed to control

torque and flux. Direct Power Control (DPC) has been developed to control directly
machine's power outputs [8],[9].
As mentioned above, the DPC control is based on hysteresis controllers. However, the
obtained errors between the reference and measured power values are inserted in hyste-
resis controllers.Those controllers define the switching state of the semiconductors, de-
pending on the switching_table and voltage vectors values [10],[11].

4.1 Switching table:

The switching table presented in this section divides the plan into six sectors ((1) - (6)).
Other tables divide the plan into twelve sectors to improve accuracy.
When the voltage vector is aligned with the chosen rotating reference frame, the power
is related to the direct component of the output current and the power instantaneous re-
activation to the quadrature current [12].
The selection of the inverter switching mode is imposed by two hysteresis bands Hp, Hq
in order to maintain the errors between the power reference values (Pref and Qref) and
their measured values in these bands.
To accomplish this, the errors of the instantaneous%active%and%reactive%powers are
processed by the hysteresis%comparators. Their outputs are set to 1 to increase the con-
trol variable (P or Q) and to 0 when the variables controlled are unchanged or must
decrease [13] [14].

4.2 Hysteresis comparators :

The hysteresis controllers are used for the purpose to adjust the active and reactive power
settings.
One is influenced by the error ep = Pref - P for active power. The other is influenced by
the error eq = Qref - Q for reactive power.
The hysteresis band widths affect the efficiency of the inverter, especially, the distortion
of the harmonic current, and the frequency average switching time [15], [16].
The following Synopsis Fig.3 presents the DPC modelling through the hysteresis com-
parators then, vector selection after that the pulse generation as indicated above:

Fig.3 DPC modeling

 7

5 /Results/:

Fig.4.a Stator Active Power Fig.5.a Stator Active Power

Fig.4.b Stator Reactive Power Fig.5.b Stator Reactive Power

Fig.4.c Rotor Currents Fig.5.c Rotor Currents

Fig.4.d Stator Currents Fig.5.d Stator Currents

Fig.4(a,b,c,d) FOC control responses Fig.5(a,b,c,d) DPC control responses
8

To approve these controls, Matlab/Simulink was used. The results identified with a
DFIG of 2MW are given as follows.
Both FOC and DPC control strategies are simulated, tested, and compared to their pow-
ers reference. Due to this reason, steps have been applied as references.
The active$power step varies from 0 to -2MW at times t=4s; while the reactive$power
step varies also from 0 to -2MVAR at times t=25s. The simulation results are presented
in Fig. 4 for the FOC strategy and Fig. 5 for the DPC strategy; as follows (a): active
power Ps, (b): reactive power Qs, (c): rotor current Ir, (d): stator current Is.
Firstly, based on fig.4.(a,b) and fig.5.(a,b) we can clearly conclude that; active and reac-
tive powers are decoupled. Also, the variables follow their references for both types of
controls. At the instant t=2 and t=4, the currents fig.4.(c,d) and fig.5.(c,d) change values
with the variations of powers fig.4.(a,b) and fig.5.(a,b) respectively.
By comparing Stator active fig.4(a) & fig.5(a), and reactive powers fig.4(b) & fig.5(b),
DPC gives much less oscillations. Regarding rotor and stator currents, DPC needs less
time to achieve steady-state
From the results, it can be deduced that with hysteresis comparators, there are less os-
cillations even the response time is reduced compared to the PI controllers.
The Table 1 summarizes the principal differences between the FOC and the DPC strat-
egy.

Table 1. FOC & DPC difference’s

FOC DPC
Coordinates d-q reference α-β
reference frame reference
frame frame
Controllers PI hysteresis
controllers controllers
Switching fre- Constant Variable
quency
Active and re- Indirectly Directly
active controlled by controlled
power control rotor
currents
PWM Required Not required
Robustness Low Medium
 9

Transitory re- Medium Good

sponse

Conclusion
This work was dedicated to a comparative study between field-oriented control (FOC)
and//direct//power//control// (DPC) applied to a//wind//energy//conversion//system//
(WECS). The configuration and principle of the FOC and the DPC has been detailed.
The FOC is based on the PI regulator. This regulator has some drawbacks among them
it depends greatly on machine parameters. Though, The DPC is based on hysteresis com-
parators and independent of parameter variations.
In this way, the authors can attest that the utilization of the hysteresis comparators in
DPC control has different focal points, for example, diminishing the exchanging recur-
rence of intensity switches and improving the waveforms of the yield factors of the ma-
chine, instead of the utilization of the corresponding fundamental regulator (PI) in the
FOC.
Thus, the authors can affirm that the use of the hysteresis comparators in DPC control
has various advantages such as: decreasing the switching frequency of power switches
and improving the waveforms of the output variables of the machine, rather than the use
of the proportional-integral controller (PI) in the FOC.
The results achieved prove the effectiveness of the DPC strategy employed for DFIG-
based system control and attest to the expected performance.
After obtaining these results in the Matlab software, as a perspective, we envisage ap-
plying these commands on the test bench.

//Acknowledgment

“Funding: The authors declare that they have funding for research from CNRST.”
“Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.”

References
1. Gonzalo A., Jesus L., Miguel R., Luis M., Grzegorz I., “Doubly Fed Induction Machine:
Modeling and Control for Wind Energy Generation”, John Wiley
2. Bossoufi B., Aroussi H., Bouderbala M., “Direct Power Control of Wind Power Systems
based on DFIG-Generator (WECS)” The 12th International Conference On Electronics,
Computers And Artificial Intelligence, Proc. IEEE-ECAI’2020, June 25 – June 27, 2020
 10

3. Shanzhi Li., HaopingWang., YangTian., AbdelAitouch., JohnKlein., “Direct power control

of DFIG wind turbine systems based on an intelligent proportional-integral sliding mode
control”., ISA TransactionsVolume 64, September 2016, Pages 431-439
4. Alami Aroussi H., Ziani El.M., Bouderbala M., Bossoufi B., “DPC & DNPC Applied To
Wind Energy Converter System” The 5th International Conference on Renewable Energy
in Developing Countries, Proc. IEEE-REDEC’2020, March 24-26,2020, Marrakech, Mor-
roco
5. Bouderbala M., Bossoufi B., Aroussi H., Lagrioui A., Taoussi M.,Livinti P., “DEADBEAT
Control Applied to Wind Power System” The 5th International Conference on Renewable
Energy in Developing Countries, Proc. IEEE-REDEC’2020, March 24-26,2020, Marrakech,
Morroco
6. Siegfried H., "Grid Integration Of Wind Energy Conversion Systems", Wiley, Chichester,
West Sussex ; Hoboken, N.J, (2006).
7. Muller S., Deicke M. and De Doncker R. W., "Doudly Fed Induction Genertor Systems for
Wind Turbines", IEEE Industry Applications Magazine , (2003).
8. Alami Aroussi H., Ziani El.M., Bouderbala M., Bossoufi B “Improvement of the Direct
Torque Control of the Doubly Fed Induction Motor under Variable Speed” in International
Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems Vol.11 No.1, pp.97-106, March 2020.
9. Noguchi T., Tomiki H., Kondo S. and Takahashi I., "Direct power control of PWM converter
without power source voltage " [14] Kendouli F., Boulahia A., Nabti K., Benalla H., "Mod-
eling of a variable speed wind turbine driving PMSG using hysteresis band pulse width
modulation (PWM)", International Review on Modelling and simulation., Vol. 3, N. 6, pp
1196-1201, December 2010.
10. Kumar D. K., Ram Das G. T., "Simulation and Analysis of Modified DTC of PMSM ",
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering., Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 2894-2903,
2018.
11. Alami Aroussi H., Ziani El.M., Bouderbala M., Bossoufi B., “Enhancement of the direct
power control applied to DFIG-WECS”, International Journal of Electrical and Computer
Engineering (IJECE)., Vol. 10,No. 1, February 2020, pp. 35~46
12. Tamalouzt S., Idjdarene K., Rekioua T., Abdessemed R., "Direct torque control of wind
turbine driven doubly fed induction generator", Rev. Roum. Sci. Techn.– Électrotechn. et
Énerg., Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 244–249, 2016.
13. Daoud A., Derbel N. (2019) "Direct Power Control of DFIG Using Sliding Mode Control
Approach". In: Derbel N., Zhu Q. (eds) Modeling, Identification and Control Methods in
Renewable Energy Systems. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Singapore
14. Kairous D., & Belmadani B., (2015). "Robust fuzzy-second order sliding mode based direct
power control for voltage source converter", International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications, 6, 167–175.
15. Yousefi-Talouki A., Zalzar S., Pouresmaeil E.,”Direct Power Control of Matrix Converter-
Fed DFIG with Fixed Switching Frequency”. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2604.
16. E. MONMASSON, and M. Cirstea “FPGA Design Methodology for Industrial Control Sys-
tems – A Review,” IEEE Trans Ind. Electron.., vol.54, no. 4, pp.1824-1842, August. 2007.

View publication stats