This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
A Combined Vector and Direct Power
Control for DFIG-Based Wind Turbines
Jafar Mohammadi, Sadegh Vaez-Zadeh, Senior Member, IEEE, Saeed Afsharnia, and
Ehsan Daryabeigi
Abstract—In this paper, a combined vector and direct power
control (CVDPC) is proposed for the rotor side converter (RSC) of
doubly fed induction generators (DFIGs). The control system is
based on a direct current control by selecting appropriate voltage
vectors from a switching table. In fact, the proposed CVDPC enjoys
the benefits of vector control (VC) and direct power control (DPC) in
a compacted control system. Its benefits in comparison with VC
include fast dynamic response, robustness against the machine
parameters variation, lower computation, and simple implementa-
tion. On the other hand, it has benefits in comparison with DPC,
including less harmonic distortion and lower power ripple. An
extensive simulation study, using MATLAB/Simulink, is conducted
on a 9-MW wind farm composed of six 1.5-MW DFIG-based wind
turbines. The performance of the proposed CVDPC method is
compared with both VC and DPC under steady-state and transient
conditions. Simulation results confirm the superiority of the
CVDPC over either VC or DPC.
Index Terms—Direct power control (DPC), doubly fed induction
generator (DFIG), vector control (VC), wind turbine (WT).
NOMENCLATURE
Vector and Symbols
' Voltage, current, and flux vectors.
Active and reactive power.
Resistance and inductance.
Angular speed and angle.
Angle between rotor flux and stator flux.
Frequency and rotor slip.
Leakage factor and error.
Subscripts
Synchronous stator-voltage frame.
Stator, rotor, grid, and mutual.
Tangential and radial components.
Number of inverter voltage vector.
Supscripts
Reference value for controllers.
Manuscript received July 27, 2013; revised October 31, 2013 and December
10, 2013; accepted January 14, 2014.
The authors are with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran 1439957131, Iran (e-mail:
j.mohammady@ece.ut.ac.ir; safshar@ut.ac.ir; vaezs@ut.ac.ir; daryabeigi_e_e_e@
yahoo.com).
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/TSTE.2014.2301675
1949-3029 © 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
N THE past decades, a great increase in electrical power
I demand and depletion of natural resources have made
environmental and energy crises. These have led to an increased
need for production of energy from renewable sources so that the
world wind energy production has grown significantly due to
cleanness and renewability. Wind power generation is estimated
to be 10% of the world’s total electricity by the year 2020 and is
expected to be double or more by the year 2040 [1]. Wind
turbines (WTs), which play a main role in wind energy, are
basically divided into fixed and variable-speed technologies.
Variable-speed WTs have been increasingly employed
recently due to several advantages compared with the fixed-
speed technologies, including maximized power capture,
decreased mechanical stresses imposed on the turbine, improved
power quality, and decreased acoustical noise [2]. The variable-
speed technologies can be further subdivided into two types:
synchronous generators with full-scale converters and doubly
fed induction generators (DFIGs) with partial-scale converters.
The DFIG is particularly employed for high-power applications,
due to the lower converters cost and lower power losses. The
DFIG control comprises both the rotor side converter (RSC) and
grid side converter (GSC) controllers so that the RSC controls
stator active and reactive powers and the GSC regulates dc-link
voltage as well as generates an independent reactive power that is
injected into the grid [3].
Vector control (VC) is the most popular method used in the
DFIG-based WTs [4], [5]. Some of the advantages are precise
steady-state performance, less power ripple, and lower converter
switching frequency. However, it has some disadvantages, such
as its dependence on the machine parameters variation due to the
decoupling terms and high online computation owing to the
pulsewidth modulation (PWM) procedure. Moreover, the coef-
ficients of proportional–integral (PI) controllers, in the conven-
tional VC, must be optimally tuned to ensure the system stability
within the whole operating range and attain sufficient dynamic
response during the transient conditions [6]. This will deteriorate
the transient performance of VC and affect the system stability
within changing operation conditions. In order to overcome the
aforementioned problems, different nonlinear control methods
such as direct torque control/direct power control (DTC/DPC)
have been proposed [7], [8]. The main advantages of DTC/DPC
methods include fast dynamic response, robustness against the
machine parameters variation, reduction in computation, and
simple implementation. However, they have some disadvantages
including significant torque/power ripples due to the high
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

bandwidth of the hysteresis controllers, variable switching fre- As the SVOF is used for the controllers synchronization,
quency of the converters, and deterioration of the controller vanishes and the stator active and reactive power equations are
performance during the machine starting and low-speed opera- simplified to
tions. Although many modified methods have been presented to
overcome these problems [9]–[11], their drawback is complex
online computation.
In order to enjoy the benefits of VC and DTC, the combined
VC and DTC (CVDPC) method has been applied successfully to
induction motor [12]–[14] and permanent magnet synchronous According to the stator flux equations in the synchronous
motors [15], [16]. However, the CVDPC method has not been frame [3], in this condition, the stator currents can be written as
studied appropriately for the DFIG. In this paper, it is focused on
comparison of VC and DPC by looking for similarities between
their principles and searching for a fundamental common basis.
From this common basis, in order to enjoy the benefits of VC and
DPC and to avoid some of the implementation difficulties of
either of two methods, the CVDPC method is proposed for the Subtituting (5) and (6) into (3) and (4) yields
RSC of the DFIG. The proposed CVDPC has several advantages
in comparison with VC, including fast dynamic response, ro-
bustness against the machine parameter variations, lower com-
putation, and simple implementation. On the other hand, it has
benefits in comparison with DPC, including less harmonic
distortion and lower power ripple. The rest of this paper is
organized as follows. In Section II, the VC and DPC methods So, the stator active and reactive powers are controlled through
are described and the common basis of them is investigated. In and , respectively. The block diagram of the RSC-based
Section III, the proposed control system and its basic idea are VC is shown in Fig. 1.
discussed. In Section IV, simulation results are shown, and
finally, in Section V, the conclusion is presented. B. Direct Power Control
In the DPC method, the current control loop is eliminated and
the stator active and reactive powers are controlled directly.
II. COMBINED VECTOR AND DIRECT POWER CONTROL The principles of DPC can be explained by the following stator
active and reactive power equations [7]:
A. Vector Control
VC is the most popular method used in the DFIG-based ' '
WTs. In this method, the stator active and reactive powers are
controlled through the rotor current VC. The current vector is
' ' '
decomposed into the components of the stator active and
reactive power in synchronous reference frame. This decouples
the active power control from the reactive power control. The By assuming constant magnitude for the stator and rotor flux,
stator active and reactive power references are determined by the derivative of (9) can be represented approximately as
the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) strategy and the
grid requirements, respectively. The phase angle of the stator ' '
flux space vector is usually used for the controller synchroni-
zation. However, if the stator flux-oriented frame (SFOF) is
used, the overall performance of VC will be highly dependent Equation (11) shows that the stator active power dynamics
on the accurate estimation of the stator flux position. This can depends on the variation of . Therefore, the fast active power
be a critical problem under the distorted supply voltage control can be achieved by rapidly changing . By assuming
condition or varying machine parameters. Therefore, in this constant magnitude for the stator flux and , the derivative of (10)
paper, the stator-voltage-oriented frame (SVOF) is used for the can be represented approximately as
controller synchronization. In order to extract the synchroni-
zation signal from the stator voltage signal, a simple phase- '
'
locked-loop (PLL) system is used. The stator active and
reactive powers are expressed as [3]
Equation (12) shows that the stator reactive power dynamics
depend on the rotor flux magnitude variation. Therefore, the fast
reactive power control can be achieved by rapidly changing the
rotor flux magnitude. The variation in the rotor flux can be carried
out by applying the appropriate inverter voltage vectors to the
rotor windings to rotate the rotor flux linkage vector. The rotor
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

MOHAMMADI et al.: CVDPC FOR DFIG-BASED WTs 3

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the vector-controlled RSC.

TABLE I
SWITCHING TABLE OF ROTOR VOLTAGE VECTOR IN DPC METHOD

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the direct power-controlled RSC.

In the VC method, at constant stator voltage, (7) and (8) imply

voltage equation can be represented and approximated in a short that
interval of as
'
'

The six inverter voltage vectors can be appropriately used to
control the position and value of the rotor flux ' by knowing the
sector in which ' is located. The block diagram of the direct
power controlled RSC is shown in Fig. 2. The hysteresis con-
trollers generate flags ( and ) via the stator active and
reactive power errors to choose the best voltage vector from the
switching table presented in Table I [3].
C. Mathematical Similarities Between VC and DPC
In this section, the mathematical similarities between VC and
DPC are presented to prove that these methods have a common
basis despite their implementation differences.
On the other hand, considering the principles of DPC, Fig. 3
shows the rotation of the rotor flux vector ' to ' in an inverter
switching period, while ' remains intact at the stator time
constant which is much longer than the inverter switching period.
Here, ' is decomposed into its radial component ' and its
tangential component ' , where the former contributes to the
flux magnitude and the latter provides the flux angle rotation.
According to Fig. 3, (9) and (10), the stator active and reactive
power variations are obtained as
' ' '
' ' '
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

methods provide the same performance if the number of inverter

voltage vectors is not limited.

III. PROPOSED CONTROL SYSTEM

A. The Basic Idea
As shown in Section II, there is a direct relationship between
the hysteresis control of the stator active power in DPC and the
rotor direct axis current control in VC. On the other hand, it is
illustrated that the hysteresis control of the stator reactive power
Fig. 3. Flux linkage vector variation during a switching period in DPC. in DPC closely corresponds to the rotor quadrature axis current
control in VC. Owing to these facts, it is possible to propose a
where the constant values of , , and are given in new control system based on the common fundamentals of both
Appendix A. According to the small value of , with a good methods by combining the merits of DPC and VC. This way, it
approximation of may be possible to provide a control system with a desirable
performance and a rather simpler implementation. Equivalently,
it may be regarded as a new system without some of the
difficulties associated with either DPC or VC.
and As was proven, by faster selection of the power electronic
'
switches status, DPC can provide faster torque/power response.
'
This, in turn, is due to the use of a predetermined switching table
' ' ' instead of a much more time consuming PWM procedure. Also,
the use of hysteresis controllers, which provide inputs to the
Substituting (17)–(19) into (15) and (16) yields switching table, contributes to the fast dynamics of DPC. There-
fore, the hysteresis controllers and switching table are good
' '
' ' ' candidates for the construction of the new control system. In the
indirect VC system, the direct and quadrature axis components of
the rotor current are controlled instead of the stator active and
' ' reactive power.

B. The Control System Structure

In (20), the second term in the bracket is created due to the
limited inverter voltage vectors and inverter failure to separate The proposed control system in Fig. 4 is divided into a VC part
the radial and tangential flux components. This term becomes and a DPC part that are shown on the left side and the right side of
extremely small by decreasing the bandwidth of the hysteresis the figure, respectively. As seen, the system uses the - and -axis
controllers. Also, the third term in the bracket contains multipli- hysteresis current controllers similar to those in VC and the
cation of small terms, such that a good approximation of the switching table like the one in DPC. The - and -axis current
stator active power variations is obtained as commands are conventionally generated by the PI power con-
trollers and compared with their actual values. Of course, the
' '
reference frame transformation is required as in VC. The - and
Thus, -axis flags as inputs to the switching table are produced from the
' rotor current errors by the hysteresis controllers. The third input
' to the switching table determines the sector through which the
rotor flux vector is passing. It is produced by measuring the stator
From (23) and (24), the stator active and reactive power and rotor currents and the rotor position. The switching table
variations are negatively proportional to the tangential and radial provides the proper voltage vectors by selecting the status of the
components variation in the rotor flux respectively. By compar- inverter switches, the same as in DPC. The switching table is
ing (23) and (24) with (14), the following results are obtained: shown in Table I, which produces all eight voltage vectors
including zero voltages. The system lacks PI current controllers,
' a PWM, and feed-forward terms that are usually available in the
' VC systems. In fact, the system is a current VC system by means
of a voltage vector selection of the DPC type.
It means that the variations in the tangential and radial
components of the rotor flux in DPC are proportional to the
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
variations in the direct and quadrature axis components of the
rotor current vector in VC, respectively. Therefore, there is an In this section, an extensive simulation study, using MATLAB/
obvious analogy between VC and DPC methods, so that two Simulink, is conducted on a 9-MW wind farm consisting of
perpendicular variables are responsible for controlling the stator six 1.5-MW DFIG-based WTs to compare the performance of
active and reactive powers independently. Indeed, two control the proposed CVDPC method with both VC and DPC. Fig. 5
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

MOHAMMADI et al.: CVDPC FOR DFIG-BASED WTs 5

Fig. 4. Proposed control system.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the simulated system.

shows the schematic diagram of the simulated system with

parameters given in Appendix B. Generally, in order to evaluate
the CVDPC method, the evaluation is divided into two parts: the
first part is related to the steady-state conditions and the second
part is regarding the transient conditions. The bandwidth of
hysteresis current controllers are set to in
this study. By selecting these values, a tradeoff between the rotor
current tracking accuracy and the maximum switching frequency
(MSF) of the RSC is obtained. An optimal tuning of the PI Fig. 6. Converge of the cost function in GA.
controller gains is necessary to achieve a fair comparison be-
tween the three methods. Therefore, an optimal conventional Fig. 7 shows the system simulation results in the steady-state
controller (OCC) of the PI type is used. The controller parar- conditions for . The assumed constant wind speed
meters are optimized by using the standard optimization genetic is 15 m/s when the generators rotate at based on
algorithm (GA). The control loops of the stator active and the simulated optimal power–speed curve. As so, the active
reactive powers and rotor currents have been optimized under power of 9 MW is generated in the wind farm. As the DFIGs
the constant conditions of rotor speed and stator reactive power at rotate at supersynchronous speed with , the active
and simultaneously. The cost func- power is delivered to the grid through both stator and rotor
tion of the optimization algorithm is defined as windings ( and ). According to
the maximum use of the RSC current capability for producing
active power, the stator reactive power production is zero.
Considering the results given in Fig. 7, it can be concluded that
the CVDPC has power ripple as low as that of VC, which is equal
The convergence of the cost function in each optimization step to 0.55%. Also, it operates the machine significantly softer than
is shown in Fig. 6. DPC with a ripple of 2.22%.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Fig. 8. (a) Stator output current in steady-state conditions and (b)–(d) THD of
VC, DPC, and CVDPC.

Fig. 7. System simulation results in steady state conditions.

Moreover, the steady-state performance of the CVDPC is
compared with both VC and DPC in terms of the harmonic
distortions of the stator output current and the MSF of the RSC by
a fast Fourier transform (FFT) analysis. Fig. 8 shows the stator
three-phase currents and harmonic spectra. For VC, the total
harmonic distortion (THD) is equal to 1.28% and the switching
frequency specified by the carrier waveform, e.g., 2.5 kHz. Also,
in case of the DPC, the THD is equal to 4.64%, and the MSF is
limited to 7.5 kHz. However, by using CVDPC, the THD of the
stator current is equal to 2.10% and the MSF is limited to 7.5 kHz.
So, the THD level and the amplitudes of the individual harmonic
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

MOHAMMADI et al.: CVDPC FOR DFIG-BASED WTs 7

Fig. 10. System simulation results when is changed.

step changes from 15 to 10 m/s at , the rotor speed

Fig. 9. Simulation results when the wind speed varies from 15 to 10 m/s.
changes from 1.2 to 0.8 p.u. and the stator active power produc-
tion decreases from 7.58 to 2.81 MW. When the DFIGs rotate at
subsynchronous speed with , 20% of the stator active
components are lower than the permitted distortion limits sug- power is fed back to the machine through the converters
gested in IEEE Standard 1547 [17]. Therefore, it can be con- ( ). Note that the stator active power changes
cluded that the CVDPC has a suitable THD as low as that of VC, are obtained by decreasing from 0.79 to 0.3 p.u., while is
which is less than that of DPC. kept constant. This matter illustrates the independent control of
The second part of the evaluation includes the transient the stator active and reactive powers. Note that during the
conditions under the variable wind speed. Fig. 9 shows the synchronous operation around , no active power is
simulation results in these conditions. While the wind speed transferred from the back-to-back converters connected to the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
rotor. Considering the results, it can be concluded that the
CVDPC responds to the wind speed variations approximately
as fast as that of DPC, which outperform the VC in terms of
dynamic response.
In order to compare the proposed CVDPC with VC in terms of
robustness and decoupled performance, changing is sug-
gested. Fig. 10 shows the simulation results in this condition. So,
at , is increased to four times the current value. As a
result, the total active power expriences the transient state before
returning to the steady-state operation. The stator active power
increases from 7.58 to 8 MW and the rotor active power
decreases from 1.42 to 1 MW, whereas the stator reactive
power remains unchanged. As it is noticed in Fig. 10, when is
changed, the CVDPC-like DPC operates more robustly in com-
parison with VC.
V. CONCLUSION
In this work, with considering the structure of VC and DPC, an
innovative combined control structure based on the common
basis of both methods has been presented for the RSC of the
DFIG. The combined system enjoys the current VC approach,
which generates the rotor current components and uses the DPC-
based switching table. The proposed CVDPC method has been
compared with both the VC-based optimized PI controllers and
DPC in terms of simple implementation, acceptable power
ripples, and suitable dynamic response. As a result, the proposed
CVDPC method provides a compromise of the advantages of
two methods.
In the steady-state conditions, the CVDPC has power ripple as
low as that of VC. The ripple is significantly lower in comparison
with that of DPC. Furthermore, an FFT analysis shows that
CVDPC has a suitable THD as low as that of VC, which is less
than that of DPC. In the transient conditions, the CVDPC
responds to the wind speed variations approximately as fast as
DPC, which outperform VC in terms of dynamic response.
Moreover, the CVDPC-like DPC outperforms VC in providing
proper decoupling and robustness against the machine para-
meters variation. Consequently, the proposed CVDPC not only
enjoys lower power ripple as good as VC but also keeps high
dynamic response as fast as DPC.
APPENDIX
A. Constant Values
B. Parameters of the System Under Study in Fig. 5
1) Parameters of 10-MVA wind farm consisting of six
1.5-MW DFIG-based WTs
Grid filter impedance:
2) Transmission line parameters:
Length: 30 km;
Positive and zero sequence resistances: 0.1153,
Positive and zero sequence inductances: 1.05, 3.32 mH/km
Positive and zero sequence capacitances: 11.33, 5.01 nF/km
3) Transformer parameters:
: 12 MVA, 585 V/25 KV, impedance:
: 47 MVA, 25 KV/120 KV, impedance:
4) Network impedance:
REFERENCES
[1] World Wind Energy Association WWEA. (2011, Apr.). World Wind
Energy Report 2010, Germany [Online]. Available: http://www.
WWindEA.org.
[2] M. Mohseni, S. Islam, and M. A. S. Masoum, “Enhanced hysteresis-based
current regulators in vector control of DFIG wind turbines,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 223–234, Jan. 2011.
[3] G. Abad, J. Lopez, M. A. Rodriguez, L. Marroyo, and G. Iwanski, Doubly
Fed Induction Machine Modeling and Control for Wind Energy Generation
Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2011.
[4] H. M. Jabr, D. Lu, and N. C. Kar, “Design and implementation of neuro-
fuzzy vector control for wind driven doubly fed induction generator,” IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 404–413, Oct. 2011.
[5] S. Li, T. A. Haskew, K. A. Williams, and R. P. Swatloski, “Control of DFIG
wind turbine with direct-current vector control configuration,” IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–11, Jan. 2012.
[6] J. P. A. Vieira1, M. V. A. Nunes, U. H. Bezerra, and A. C. Nascimento,
“Designing optimal controllers for doubly fed induction generators using a
genetic algorithm,” IET Gen. Transm. Distrib., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 472–484,
May 2009.
[7] L. Xu and P. Cartwright, “Direct active and reactive power control of DFIG
for wind energy generation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 21, no. 3,
pp. 750–758, Sep. 2006.
[8] J. Hu, H. Nian, B. Hu, and Y. He, “Direct active and reactive power
regulation of DFIG using sliding-mode control approach,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1028–1039, Dec. 2010.
[9] G. Abad, M. A. Rodriguez, and P. Poza, “Two-level VSC-based predictive
direct power control of the doubly fed induction machine with reduced
power ripple at low constant switching frequency,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 570–580, Jun. 2008.
[10] A. J. Sguarezi Filho and E. R. Filho, “Model-based predictive control
applied to the doubly-fed induction generator direct power control,” IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 398–406, Jul. 2012.
[11] J. Hu, J. Zhu, Y. Zhang, and G. Platt, “Predictive direct virtual torque and
power control of doubly fed induction generators for fast and smooth grid
synchronization and flexible power regulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Elec-
tron., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 3182–3194, Jul. 2013.
[12] S. Vaez-Zadeh and E. Jalali, “Combined vector control and direct torque
control method for high performance induction motor drives,” Energy
Convers. Manage., Elsevier, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 3095–3101, Dec. 2007.
[13] Z. Boulghasoul, A. Elbacha, E. Elwarraki, and D. Yousfi, “Combined vector
control and direct torque control an experimental review and evaluation,”
in Proc. Int. Conf. Multimedia Comput. Syst. (ICMCS), Ouarzazate,
Morocco, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[14] M. Farasat and E. Karaman, “Efficiency-optimized hybrid field oriented and
direct torque control of induction motor drive,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Electr.
Mach. Syst. (ICEMS), Beijing, China, Aug. 2011, pp. 1–4.
[15] S. Vaez-Zadeh and E. Daryabeigi, “Combined vector and direct torque
control methods for IPM motor drives using emotional controller
(BELBIC),” in Proc. 2nd Power Electron., Drive Syst. Technol. Conf.
(PEDSTC), Tehran, Iran, 2011, pp. 145–150.
[16] S. Vaez-Zadeh and R. Shafaie, “Toward a common framework for
analysis of high performance controls of PMS motor drives,” in Proc.
2nd Power Electron., Drive Syst. Technol. Conf. (PEDSTC), Tehran, Iran,
Feb. 2011, pp. 241–245.
[17] IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric
Power Systems, IEEE Standard 1547, 2003.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
MOHAMMADI et al.: CVDPC FOR DFIG-BASED WTs
Jafar Mohammadi received the B.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering from the University of
Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran, in 2009, and the M.Sc.
degree in electrical engineering from the University of
Tehran, Tehran, Iran, in 2012.
He is currently working as a Research Assistant at
the University of Tehran. His current research inter-
ests include motor drives and application of power
electronics in renewable energy conversion, especial-
ly control and operation of doubly fed induction
generator for wind power generation.
Sadegh Vaez-Zadeh (S’95–M’03–SM’05) received
the B.Sc. degree from Iran University of Science and
Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 1985, and the M.Sc. and
Ph.D. degrees from Queen’s University, Kingston,
ON, Canada, in 1993 and 1997, respectively, all in
electrical engineering.
Currently, he is a Professor and the Director of
Advanced Motion Systems Research Laboratory in
the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Tehran. His research interests include
advanced rotary and linear electric machines and
drives, magnetic levitation, electric vehicles, and power system control and
policy issues. He has authored or coauthored about 60 journal papers in these
areas and holds a U.S. patent.
Prof. Vaez-Zadeh is an Editor of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION
and a member of editorial boards of International Journal of Power System
Optimization and Iranian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He
has been a Coeditor of the Journal of Asian Electric Vehicles. He is the president
of Power Electronics Society of Iran and a member of IEEE PES Motor Sub-
Committee and Power System Stability Control Sub-Committee. He has received
a best paper award from the Iran Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in
2001 and a best research award from the University of Tehran in 2004. He has also
been awarded an International Khwarizmi Award and the first prize of The
Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the
South (COMSATS) in 2011.
9
Saeed Afsharnia received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. de-
grees in electrical engineering from the University of
Amirkabir, Tehran, Iran, in 1987 and 1990, respec-
tively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from the Institute National Polytechnique de Lorraine
(INPL), Lorraine, France, in 1995.
Currently, he is an Associate Professor in the
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Uni-
versity of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. His research interests
are the application of power electronics to power-
quality problems and distributed generation.
Ehsan Daryabeigi received the B.Sc. degree in elec-
trical engineering from the Islamic Azad University
(IAU), Yazd, Iran, in 2005 and the M.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering from the IAU, Najafabad, Iran,
in 2009.
He has been an Associate Researcher with the
Advanced Motion Systems Research Laboratory,
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, since 2011. His
research interests include applications of advanced
control and optimization techniques in electric drive
control, power electronics, and power systems.
Mr. Daryabeigi has been a Student Member of Young Researchers and Elite
Club, since 2008, and a member of the American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, since 2012. Furthermore, he has been a reviewer for the Journal
of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, since 2013.