Comparison and Performance Analysis of Model Predictive Control

Developed by Transfer Function Based Model and State Space Based

Model for Brushless Doubly Fed Induction Generator

Abstract – Model predictive control (MPC) is an important control technique for Brushless doubly-fed induction
generators (BDFIGs) which are commonly used for wind turbines, and its control performance can be affected
by the MPC design. In this study, the performances of the transfer function based model and the state space
based model are compared in MPC design for BDFIG. For this purpose, transfer function based model
predictive control (TFMPC) and state space based model predictive control (SSMPC) were developed for
BDFIG. The vector control of the BDFIG was simulated using the designed MPCs. The simulation results have
shown that TFMPC produces better results than SSMPC. Additionally ,The simulation results clearly show the
effectiveness and good response of TFMPC in both dynamic operation and steady-state operation. TFMPC
reduces power ripple and decreases harmonics, resulting in an improvement in the quality of the electrical
power generated by the BDFIG. The reference value (set point) was brought closer to the set point with TFMPC,
and the duration of the transient condition was also reduced in this system. The study demonstrated that using
the transfer function to calculate the parameters of the MPC can eliminate the drawbacks of other design
models.

Keywords: Brushless Doubly Fed Induction Generator, Model Predictive Control, State Space Model Based
Model Predictive Control (SSMPC), Transfer Function Model Based Model Predictive Control (TFMPC)

1. Introduction nonlinear direct control methods such as direct torque

During the previous two decades, power generation
by wind has seen a lot of development. There are many types
of generators that can be used in wind turbines, and each has
its own advantages and disadvantages. In the last fifteen
years, doubly fed induction generators (DFIG) have been
used in applications of wind energy, especially variable
speed [1]-[2]-[3]. Although there are several advantages to
using DFIG machines, the inclusion of slip rings and brush
gears increases the complexity of wind energy generation.
Due to carbon accumulation and brush gear on internal
components, these factors necessitate frequent maintenance
of the generator [4]. To overcome this problem, we can use a
brushless doubly fed induction generator (BDFIG) which
provides the advantages of DFIG along with high reliability
of the system and low maintenance costs owing to the lack
of slip rings and brush gears [5].
The BDFIG is a brand-new type of AC induction
machine. It resembles the commonly used doubly fed
induction generator (DFIG). The BDFIG consists of two
groups of windings in the stator with separate pairings of
poles, one of them is the power winding PW and the second
one is the control winding CW, where PW has been
connected to the grid or load and another CW is connected
to the inverter [6]. Since BDFIG is considered as a new type
of machine, researchers have made great efforts to enhance
its performance, especially in control. First, they focused on
scalar control (open-loop & closed-loop), then on vector
control, and then on nonlinear direct control methods
including direct voltage control (DVC), direct torque control
(DTC), and direct power control (DPC), and finally on
control (DTC), a direct power control (DPC), and direct
voltage control (DVC). The DVC method is reliable and
inexpensive, there are no external sensors of stator current
and no additional parameters, which can improve the control
performance [7].
The complexity of control in DVC can be reduced by
using the direct power control (DPC), and large tuning
overhead can be overcome. Moreover, DPC provides
exceptional dynamic performance. However, the major
disadvantage of this method is that the ripple of power is
large. Methods of predictive control have shown to
effectively improve steady-state and dynamic performance.
Model predictive control (MPC) is an important control
technique for BDFIG. The design of the MPC affects the
control performance of the BDFIG. Three approaches-step
response based model,a transfer function based model and
state space based model-are used for MPC design. The step
response based model is not suitable for BDFIG control.
Transfer function based model predictive control (TFMPC)
and state space based model predictive control (SSMPC) are
used for BDFIG’s control.
Model predictive power control (MPPC) for a brushless
doubly fed induction generator (BDFIG) is achieved in [8].
The BDFIG's state-space equations are concluded, where the
current of PW, current of CW, and flux of PW have been
chosen as state variables. Then, to predict the future behavior
of the power accurately, a complete power model is
developed to represent the relationship between the applied
voltage and the power.
In [8], the optimization of a predetermined objective
function which appears the absolute of power error has been
used for achieving MPPC. Its discrete nature is considered in
power converters and no additional modulator is needed,
however, the main disadvantage of this method is that it has
some complexity due to using discrete nature in power
converters. In this study, this problem has been overcome. In
[9], a model predictive power control (MPPC) was
developed to overcome the main drawback of DTC/DPC,
namely, large torque/power ripple. In each control period, a
zero vector is combined with an active vector. In order to
achieve model predictive power control (MPPC), where
BDFIG's state-space equations must be concluded, the PW
flux, CW flux, and rotor flux should be nominated as state
variables One of the disadvantages of this method is the
estimation of the flux.
The finite-set model predictive power control method
(FS-MPPC) was developed for the BDFIG in [10]. To avoid
the tedious process of estimating the control winding flux in
the FS -MPPC controller, the flux of power winding (PW),
the current of power winding (PW), and the current of
control winding (CW) were selected as state variables.
Moreover, to increase the accuracy of the BDFIG power
control, the rotor circuit's influence was included in the
predictive power model and intrinsically considered in the
FS-MPPC controller (which has long been ignored in
existing controllers for brushless doubly-fed induction
machines). Moreover, the feasibility and performance of the
FS-MPPC controller are discussed for many cases, but rotor
circuit influence has been considered into the calculations so
the complexity of this system has been increased.
In [11], during grid synchronization, for a brushless
doubly fed induction generator (BDFIG), a model predictive
virtual power control (MPVPC) is developed. To realize the
grid synchronization condition by controlling the virtual
power, the characteristics of control for the virtual power are
analyzed. In [11], the flux feedback must be changed
between the grid connection mode and the grid
synchronization mode, so that the MPVPC controller is
designed to be suitable for both modes. The MPVPC
controller is capable of achieving rapid and smooth grid
synchronization as well as outstanding active and reactive
power decoupling control.
In [12], for doubly-fed induction generators (DFIGs),a
predictive direct power control is achieved, which predicts
the stator active and reactive power changes of the DFIG
within a specific sample period and calculates the needed
rotor voltage to remove power errors at the conclusion of the
subsequent sampling period. In this method, the required
switching pulses are generated by space vector modulation
within the fixed sample period, so the frequency of switching
will be constant. The results have shown that this strategy of
control increases the effectiveness and robustness of the
system performance.
In [13], to achieve stable switching frequency and
enhanced performance of the system, a modulated model
predictive control (MPC) algorithm for BDFIMs is given.
[13] shows an improvement in power quality as compared to
the traditional finite control set MPC.
In [14], based on the multi-objective model predictive
control (MOMPC) approach, a simple and effective control
technique for doubly fed induction generators (DFIGs) is
presented; the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) can
be achieved. When compared to traditional switching table-
based direct power control (DPC), the MOMPC method
achieves faster transient response, better steady-state
performance, and lower switching frequency; this method
has the disadvantage of not using a laboratory model, while
in [15], novel sensorless model predictive control (MPC)
method of a wind-driven doubly fed induction generator
(DFIG) connected to a dc microgrid has been achieved,
where the stator is directly connected to the dc microgrid
through a diode rectifier, and the rotor is fed by only a
voltage source converter (VSC). The main advantage of this
connection is reduced power converter cost, but in this
method, the non-linear nature of the diode rectifiers have
been used, so the THD of the stator current is increased.
A model predictive voltage control (MPVC) method for
stabilizing the frequency and amplitude of the output
voltages in a Brushless Cascade Doubly-Fed Induction
Generator (BCDFIG) under load changing and variable
speed of generator shaft in stand-alone mode has been
presented in [16]. However, it is a modern method, that is, it
is not used in the case of connecting with the grid. In [17],
the Low-complexity method for model predictive direct
power control (MPDPC) has been presented for doubly fed
induction generator (DFIG) under both unbalanced and
balanced cases.
According to the analysis above, this paper presents a
comparison between TFMPC and SSMPC. To this end, a
mathematical model of the BDFIG is created. The
mathematical model of BDFIG can be used to build TFMPC
and SSMPC. Then a complete power model is developed to
compare TFMPC with SSMPC. SSMPC was designed using
the state space model. The state space model was used to
obtain matrices that are used to build control loops for
SSMPC. TFMPC was designed using the transfer function
for the BDFIG, which was derived in detail based on the
machine parameters. The transfer function was used to
calculate the parameters of TFMPC by converting the
derived transfer function of BDFIG to Z coordinate. The
predicted model coefficients are determined by comparing
the Z-transformed system transfer function with the
generalized state space equation in TFMPC. This step saves
time and effort because you do not have to calculate the
predicted model coefficients using equations, which is very
time-consuming. After calculating the MPC parameters, two
current control loops were designed. Two current control
loops were used to create a control diagram for the BDFIG,
which was the final step in this study. Finally, a digital
simulation was designed using Matlab/Simulink for the two
controllers TFMPC and SSMPC. The article presents
simulation results and performance comparisons of two
different model-based MPCs.
2. Mathematical Model of BDFIG
A variable speed (generator) BDFIG drive system, as
illustrated in Figure (1), includes two major parts (CW
winding of control and PW winding of power), where the PW
should be connected to the grid at 90% of the machine power,
whereas the CW should be connected through the converter
system at 10% of the machine power which is shown in
Figure (1) [18] -[19]- [20].
A BDFIG can be classified according to rotor types as
nested-loop-cage type [21]- [22], or reluctance type [23]-
[24]. Brushless doubly-fed reluctance machines
(DFRMs) have slightly different operating principles.
Although, A BDFIG with a nested-loop-cage type has more
complicated and it is not straightforward to manufacture but
it offers more flexible connections in addition to reducing the
space harmonics of the rotor winding .as a result Compared
with reluctance rotors, nested-loop- cages rotors have the
advantages of ruggedness, lower impedance, and higher fill
factors. Moreover, it is cheaper to cast a cage rotor using
aluminum or copper[25].
rotor flux;
𝑅𝑠𝑝 , 𝑅𝑠𝑐 , 𝑅𝑟 PW, CW, and rotor resistance (referred to
stator);
𝐿𝑠𝑝 , 𝐿𝑠𝑐 , 𝐿𝑟 PW, CW, and rotor self-inductance;
𝐿𝑚𝑝 , 𝐿𝑚𝑐 mutual-inductances between PW and rotor, and
CW and rotor.
BDFIG's mathematical model will be employed in the
modeling and simulation procedure for BDFIG that we will
implement in this study.
3. State Space Model Based Model Predictive
Control (SSMPC) of the BDFIG
In this section, state space model based model predictive
control (SSMPC) for the BDFIG was designed, according to
mathematical model equations for the BDFIG.
To build a state space model based model predictive
control (SSMPC), several steps must be taken which are the
derivation of the state space model, prediction, and then
optimization.

3.1 State Space Models

Fig. 1. Diagram of the BDFIG system [19] Typically, the state space model has been used to
investigate the attributes and stability of systems by
The mathematical model is a set of mathematical connecting the system's inputs and outputs to model
equations that describe the principal operation of the including the constants determined based on the parameters
machine by linking the variables. The mathematical model of systems.
can be used to build the state space model as well as the The SSMPC systems are built using state space model
transfer function model. where state space model can be written as:
To build the mathematical model of BDFIG, we need to
find the mathematical model for each part of the machine 𝒙𝒎 (𝒌 + 𝟏) = 𝑨𝒎 𝒙𝒎 (𝒌) + 𝑩𝒎 𝒖(𝒌) (1)
(power winding PW -control winding CW -rotor) separately
and then combine them into one model.
The resulting dynamic mathematical electrical model of 𝒚(𝒌) = 𝑪𝒎 𝒙𝒎 (𝒌) (2)
BDFIG can be presented as follows:
Where u is the variable of input; y is the output of
𝑞
𝑣𝑠𝑝 process, and 𝑥𝑚 is the variable of state.
We obtain (3), using the difference between two
𝑣𝑠𝑑𝑝
successive samples of (1),
𝑞
𝑣𝑟 𝑥𝑚 (𝑘 + 1) − 𝑥𝑚 (𝑘) = 𝐴𝑚 (𝑥𝑚 (𝑘) − 𝑥𝑚 (𝑘 − 1)) +
=
𝑑
𝑣𝑟 𝐵𝑚 (𝑢(𝑘) − 𝑢(𝑘 − 1)) (3)
𝑞
𝑣𝑠𝑐
𝑑
[ 𝑣𝑠𝑐 ] Equation (3) can be rewritten as:
𝑞
𝑅𝑠𝑝 + 𝑆𝐿𝑠𝑝 𝜔𝑝 𝐿𝑠𝑝 𝑆𝐿𝑚𝑝 𝜔𝑝 𝐿𝑚𝑝 0 0 𝐼𝑠𝑝
−𝜔𝑝 𝐿𝑚𝑝 𝑆𝐿𝑚𝑝 0 0 𝐼𝑠𝑑𝑝 ∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘 + 1) = 𝐴𝑚 ∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘) + 𝐵𝑚 ∆𝑢(𝑘) (4)
−𝜔𝑝 𝐿𝑠𝑝 𝑅𝑠𝑝 + 𝑆𝐿𝑠𝑝
𝑞
𝑆𝐿𝑚𝑝 𝜔𝑟 𝐿𝑚𝑝 𝑅𝑟 + 𝑆𝐿𝑟 𝜔𝑟 𝐿𝑟 𝑆𝐿𝑚𝑐 𝜔𝑟 𝐿𝑚𝑐 𝐼𝑟
𝑑
A new vector of state variable has been selected to
−𝜔𝑟 𝐿𝑚𝑝 𝑆𝐿𝑚𝑝 −𝜔𝑟 𝐿𝑟 𝑅𝑟 + 𝑆𝐿𝑟 −𝜔𝑟 𝐿𝑚𝑐 𝑆𝐿𝑚𝑐 𝐼𝑟 connect ∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘) to output 𝑦(𝑘) as follows:
𝑞
0 0 𝑆𝐿𝑚𝑐 𝜔𝑐 𝐿𝑚𝑐 𝑅𝑠𝑐 + 𝑆𝐿𝑠𝑐 𝜔𝑐 𝐿𝑠𝑐 𝐼𝑠𝑐
[ 0 0 −𝜔𝑐 𝐿𝑚𝑐 𝑆𝐿𝑚𝑐 −𝜔𝑐 𝐿𝑠𝑐 𝑅𝑠𝑐 + 𝑆𝐿𝑠𝑐 ] [ 𝐼𝑠𝑑𝑐 ] 𝑥(𝑘) = [∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘)𝑇 + 𝑦(𝑘)]𝑇
Where variables are defined as:
𝑣𝑠𝑝 , 𝑣𝑠𝑐 , 𝑣𝑟 vectors of space for PW voltage, CW voltage, Note that
and rotor voltage; 𝑦(𝑘 + 1) − 𝑦(𝑘) = 𝐶𝑚 ∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘 + 1)
𝐼𝑠𝑝 , 𝐼𝑠𝑐 , 𝐼𝑟 vectors of space for PW current, CW current,
𝑦(𝑘 + 1) − 𝑦(𝑘) = 𝐶𝑚 𝐴𝑚 ∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘) + 𝐶𝑚 𝐵𝑚 ∆𝑢(𝑘) (5)
and rotor current;
𝜓𝑠𝑝 , 𝜓𝑠𝑐 , 𝜓𝑟 vectors of space for PW flux, CW flux, and
The following state-space model can be obtained by
composing (4) with (5) : 𝐽 = (𝑅𝑠 − 𝑌)𝑇 (𝑅𝑠 − 𝑌) + Δ𝑈 𝑇 𝑅̅ Δ𝑈 (8)
Equation (8) has two terms. The first one is related to the
∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘 + 1) 𝐴 𝑜𝑚 𝑇 ∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘) objective of error minimization, while the second one is
[ ]=[ 𝑚 ][ ]+
𝑦(𝑘 + 1) 𝐶𝑚 𝐴𝑚 1 𝑦(𝑘) related to the magnitude of ΔU. Using (7), we can find the
𝐵 optimal ΔU that minimizes J.
[ 𝑚 ] ∆𝑢(𝑘)
𝐶𝑚 𝐵𝑚
𝑇
∆𝑥 (𝑘) 𝐽 = (𝑅𝑠 − 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 )) (𝑅𝑠 − 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 )) − 2Δ𝑈 𝑇 Φ𝑇 (𝑅𝑠 −
𝑦(𝑘) = [𝑜𝑚 1] [ 𝑚 ] (6) 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 )) + Δ𝑈 𝑇 (Φ𝑇 Φ + 𝑅̅ )Δ𝑈 (9)
𝑦(𝑘)
Differentiating (9) with respect to Δ𝑈, the cost function
Where 𝑜𝑚 = [00 … 0] can be obtained as:
(𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶) are augmented models, note that (𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶) can
be calculated based on parameters of systems, in SSMPC, 𝜕𝐽
= −2Φ𝑇 (𝑅𝑠 − 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 )) + (Φ𝑇 Φ + 𝑅̅ )Δ𝑈 (10)
(𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶) have been calculated in accordance with BDFIG 𝜕Δ𝑈

parameters such as stator resistance, rotor resistance, 𝜕𝐽

inductance of stator leakage, inductance of rotor leakage,
inductance of magnetizing. One of the major advantages of
the TFMPC system is that it eliminates the need to compute
matrices (𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶) because all we have to do is transform the
transfer function of the system to the Z coordinates and then
compare the resulting equations to the state space equations
to determine the (𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶).
3.2 Prediction of State
In order to design the predictive control algorithm, the
second step is to calculate the predicted value. An
optimization window is used to describe this prediction. This
is described within an optimization window. We have used
𝑘𝑖 as the current time and the length of the optimization
window is 𝑁𝑝 as the samples number.
The control horizon is denoted by 𝑁𝑐 . To calculate the
prediction of state and variables of output, we can use form
of a compact matrix where:
𝑌 = 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 ) + ΦΔ𝑈 (7)
Note that the dimension of 𝑌 and Δ𝑈 are 𝑁𝑝 , and 𝑁𝑐
respectively.
Where
𝐶𝐴
𝐶𝐴2
𝐹 = 𝐶𝐴3
⋮ the predictive control algorithm and a complete control
[𝐶𝐴𝑁𝑝 ]
𝐶𝐵 0 0 … 0
𝐶𝐴𝐵 𝐶𝐵 0 … 0
Φ= 𝐶𝐴2 𝐵 𝐶𝐴𝐵 𝐶𝐵 … 0
⋮ follows:
[𝐶𝐴𝑁𝑝 −1 𝐵 𝐶𝐴𝑁𝑝 −2 𝐵 𝐶𝐴𝑁𝑝 −3 𝐵 … 𝐶𝐴𝑁𝑝 −𝑁𝑐 𝐵]
3. 3 Optimization
The last step for designing the SSMPC is an optimization
which can be calculated through the error function between
reference point and predicted output, it must be as small as
possible in order to bring the predicted value as near to the
set-point as possible. So, the cost function 𝐽 can be defined
as:
For obtaining the cost function, we should write: =
𝜕Δ𝑈
0 so Δ𝑈 will be:
Δ𝑈 = (Φ𝑇 Φ + 𝑅̅ )−1 Φ𝑇 (𝑅𝑠 − 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 )) (11)
The relationship between optimal solution and set-point is
Δ𝑈 = (Φ𝑇 Φ + 𝑅̅ )−1 Φ𝑇 (𝑅̅𝑠 𝑟(𝑘𝑖 ) − 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 )) (12)
Where 𝑟(𝑘𝑖 ) is set-point signal at sample time k.
4. Transfer Function Model Based Model
Predictive Control (TFMPC) of BDFIG
In this part, a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm
for the BDFIG was designed using the transfer function.
Transfer function model based model predictive control
(TFMPC), like SSMPC, consists of many steps. The main
advantage of TFMPC is that instead of relying on the
complex computations employed in the SSMPC, the transfer
function of the BDFIG is derived and converted into Z
coordinates, then the (𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶) matrices are calculated by
comparison between the calculated equations in Z
coordinates and state space model. First, for the sake of
simplicity, the TFMPC was completely developed for the
single-input single-output (SISO) system. Then, the BDFIG
equations were also applied to the predictive control
algorithm. Finally, two closed loop currents were built: the
first one for 𝐼𝑑 while the second one for 𝐼𝑞 . A flowchart for
diagram for the machine was constructed.
The transfer function model based model predictive
control (TFMPC) is applied to BDFIG as follows:
Firstly, the transfer function for BDFIG is derived as
1−𝑒 −𝑠𝑇𝑠
𝐻(𝑆) = (13)
𝑆
1
𝐺𝑃(𝑆) = (14)
𝑅𝑟 +𝐿𝑟 𝑠
𝐺(𝑍) = 𝐻(𝑆) 𝐺𝑃(𝑆) (15)
Substituting (13) and (14) into (15), a transfer function is
obtained as follows:
1−𝑒 −𝑠𝑇𝑠 1
𝐺(𝑍) = 𝐻(𝑆) 𝐺𝑃(𝑆) = (16)
𝑆 𝑅𝑟 +𝐿𝑟 𝑠
 Where be concluded as:
𝑅𝑟 : Rotor resistance (referred to stator) 𝑥(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐴𝑥(𝑘) − 𝐵𝑔𝑚𝑝𝑐 𝑥(𝑘) + 𝐵𝑔𝑦 𝑟(𝑘) (23)
𝐿𝑟 :Rotor leakage inductance (referred to stator)
𝑥(𝑘 + 1) = (𝐴 − 𝐵𝑔𝑚𝑝𝑐 )𝑥(𝑘) + 𝐵𝑔𝑦 𝑟(𝑘) (24)
By transferring (15) to Z, equation (16) can be obtained
as: Thus, by using the characteristics of the closed loop
equation, eigenvalues of the closed-loop can be calculated.
1 𝑑𝑒𝑡[𝜆𝐼 − (𝐴 − 𝐵𝑔𝑚𝑝𝑐 )] = 0 (25)
𝑍[𝐻(𝑆) 𝐺𝑃(𝑆) ] = (1 − 𝑧 −1 ) 𝑍 [(𝑅 ] (17)
𝑟 +𝐿𝑟 𝑠)𝑆 Note that vector of state variables:
𝑥(𝑘) = [∆𝑥𝑚 (𝑘)𝑇 + 𝑦(𝑘)]𝑇 , 𝑔𝑚𝑝𝑐 = [𝑔𝑥 𝑔𝑦 ]
By simplifying (17), a transfer function can be written as:
0.02924 5. Simulation Model
𝐺(𝑍) = (18)
𝑍−0.9999
The derived transfer function of BDFIG should be In the last step, the model predictive control is added to
converted into state space equations so (18) must be written the complete control scheme of the BDFIG to compare and
as: analyze the performance of SSMPC and TFMPC by
𝑌(𝑍) 0.02924
= 𝑍−0.9999 (19) modeling and simulation with the Matlab program as we can
𝑈(𝑍)
see in figure (2).
𝑌(𝑘 + 1) − 0.9999. 𝑌(𝑘) = 0.02924. 𝑈(𝑘) This scheme consists of three main control loops: one for
𝑌(𝑘 + 1) = 𝑋(𝑘 + 1) speed and two for current one of them for 𝐼𝑞 , while the
𝑌(𝑘 + 1) = 0.02924. 𝑈(𝑘) + 0.9999. 𝑋(𝑘) another one for 𝐼𝑑 , employing compensation of the cross
𝑌(𝑘) = 𝑋(𝑘) terms has been applied by adding cross term to each loop, in
𝑋(𝑘 + 1) = 0.9999. 𝑋(𝑘) + 0.02924. 𝑈(𝑘) (20) addition to neglecting the effect of the voltage source
The necessary parameters were determined by comparing converter and the possible delays in computation or
(20) with (1), and (2). measurements, as we can see in figure 2, the current control
Where loops have been built based on MPC controller, while the
𝐴 = 0.9999 , 𝐵 = 0.02924 , 𝐶=1 speed control has been built based on PI controller.
As we said before, the major disadvantage for TFMPC is The angle 𝜃𝑟 must be estimated for reference frame
the calculation of (𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶). transformation, in addition to transforming rotor voltage and
After determining (𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶), two current control loops currents into DQ coordinates since the control must be
were formed: the first one for 𝐼𝑑 and the second for 𝐼𝑞 . performed in DQ coordinates.
To get 𝜃𝑠 , firstly, the angle of vector of stator voltage
4.1 Closed-loop Control System space can be obtained, after that, 90 degrees must be
subtracted from it. To suppress small disturbances or
A closed loop control system can be defined as a system with harmonics, a simple phase-locked loop (PLL) should be
utilized. In addition, (PLL) can be used to provide robustness
a feedback loop (or) a control system that uses a feedback
to the estimation. It is worth noting that the turn ratio on the
signal to generate the output. The stability of this system can stator and rotor should be taken into account in the control
be controlled by the feedback system, these systems are stage. In the control block diagram shown in the figure
highly accurate. In this part, two current control loops are above, rotor currents are referenced to the stator side in
built: first one for 𝐼𝑑 , whereas second one for 𝐼𝑞 . current loops, whereas the currents are converted to rotor-
To construct a closed loop control system, the optimal referenced values in the measurement step, and the voltages
parameter vector Δ𝑈 must be written as follows: are converted before pulses are generated for the inverter.
Δ𝑈 = (Φ𝑇 Φ + 𝑅̅ )−1 (Φ𝑇 𝑅̅𝑠 − Φ𝑇 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 ))
Where all terms are dependent on the system's 6. Simulation Results
parameters.
The incremental control is only the first element of Δ𝑈 at To compare the performance of SSMPC and TFMPC, a
time 𝑘𝑖 , i.e.: simulation was performed under the same conditions in the
Δ𝑢(𝑘𝑖 ) = [1 0 … 0](Φ𝑇 Φ + 𝑅̅ )−1 (Φ𝑇 𝑅̅𝑠 𝑟(𝑘𝑖 ) MATLAB/Simulink platform. In this section, the simulation
results are given and discussed briefly. In the table (1),
− Φ𝑇 𝐹𝑥(𝑘𝑖 ))
parameters of the BDFIG related to the stator PW are listed.
Δ𝑢(𝑘𝑖 ) = 𝑔𝑦 𝑟(𝑘𝑖 ) − 𝑔𝑚𝑝𝑐 𝑥(𝑘𝑖 ) (21) Note that Sampling time has been equaled to 𝑇𝑆 = 5 ∗
Where 10−6 (𝑠𝑒𝑐)
𝑔𝑦 = (Φ𝑇 Φ + 𝑅̅ )−1 Φ𝑇 𝑅̅𝑠 , Figure (3) shows the results of the simulated voltages for
𝑔𝑚𝑝𝑐 = (Φ𝑇 Φ + 𝑅̅ )−1 Φ𝑇 𝐹 SSMPC and TFMPC. It can be seen that there is an
The vector of state feedback control gain is 𝑔𝑚𝑝𝑐 . The asymmetric voltage dip in the third second. The voltage dip
augmented system equation is is terminated in the fourth second. Note that for the SSMPC,
𝑥(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐴𝑥(𝑘) + 𝐵 Δ𝑢(𝑘) (22) the voltage 𝑉𝑆 is not plotted as it is the same in MPC because
Substituting (21) into (22), a closed loop system can it is the voltage grid.
 Fig. 2. Block diagram of predictive control system for 𝐼𝑞 , 𝐼𝑑 current control loop for BDFIG

Table 1. BDFIG's Parameters changes is very large. It is also worth noting that the transfer
function model based model predictive control (TFMPC)
Stator resistance 𝑅𝑆 0.46 (Ω)
currents are smaller than the SSMPC currents, from 𝑡 =
Rotor resistance (referred to stator) 𝑅𝑟 0.7 (Ω) 0.1 𝑡𝑜 𝑡 = 2(𝑠) in this part of transient state. It can be seen
Inductance of stator leakage 𝐿𝑠 3.5 (𝑚H) that the current change has decreased, the value of current
Inductance of rotor leakage (referred 𝐿𝑟 3.5 (𝑚H) has come closer to reference value, the transient state lasts
to stator) for 2 seconds, then the system enters the stability case where
Inductance of magnetizing (referred to 𝐿𝑚 50 (𝑚H) the oscillations are damped. In stability case, figure (4)
stator) proves that TFMPC has fewer harmonics than SSMPC, i.e.,
the quality of power for TFMPC is higher than the quality of
Figure (4) shows the results of the simulated 𝐼𝑞 current power for SSMPC. Figure (4) shows that TFMPC is closer
for SSMPC and TFMPC. It can be seen that the oscillation is to the set point than SSMPC.
particularly large during the start of the transient state, from
𝑡 = 0 𝑡𝑜 𝑡 = 0.1(𝑠), in this part the value of the current
Voltages for MPC controller
500
Vs

-500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time(s)
500 500

0 0

-500 -500
3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 7.6 7.7 7.8
Fig. 3. Simulation results for voltage 𝑉𝑆 for model predictive control (MPC)
Fig. 4. Simulation results of 𝐼𝑞 current for state space (SSMPC) & transfer function model predictive control (TFMPC)

Fig.5.Simulation results of 𝐼𝑑 current for state space (SSMPC) & transfer function model predictive control (TFMPC)

Fig.6.Simulation results of torque for state space (SSMPC) & transfer function model predictive control (TFMPC)

Figure (5) shows the results of the simulated 𝐼𝑑 current
for SSMPC and TFMPC. Figure (5) proves that TFMPC has
fewer harmonics than SSMPC, therefore the power quality
of TFMPC is higher than the power quality of SSMPC.
Figure (5) has shown that the ripple in TFMPC is lower than
the ripple in the SSMPC. It can be observed that TFMPC is
closer to the set point than SSMPC.
The ripple ratio (currents changing) in the model
predictive controller designed by the transfer function model
is smaller than the change of currents in the model predictive
control (MPC) designed by the state space model, as we can
see in the figures above where the reference value for is
𝐼𝑑 =400 A.
In the model TFMPC, the ripple current is
∆𝐼𝑑 = 420 − 382 = 38 (𝐴),
where in the SSMPC the ripple current is
∆𝐼𝑑 = 475 − 372 = 103 (𝐴).
Thus, we can conclude from the preceding considerations
that the power losses in TFMPC are lower than the power
losses in SSMPC. Subsequently, the efficiency is higher in
TFMPC.
Figure (6) shows the simulated torque results for SSMPC
and TFMPC. It can be seen that the oscillation is particularly
large during the start of the transient state, from 𝑡 = 0 𝑡𝑜 𝑡 =
0.15(𝑠), in this part the value of the torque changes is very
large. It is also worth noting that TFMPC torque changes are
smaller than the SSMPC torque changes, from 𝑡 = less need for filters, and due to reduced losses, the efficiency
0.15 𝑡𝑜 𝑡 = 2(𝑠) in this part of transient state. It can be increases and the costs are reduced.
observed that the changing of torque has decreased, there is The simulation results have proved that TFMPC provides
a transient condition which lasts for 2 seconds, then the a higher response speed for the system and also reduces the
system enters the stability case where the oscillations are transient condition, which reduces the losses and increases
damped. Figure (6) clearly shows that TFMPC has fewer the efficiency.
harmonics than SSMPC, therefore, the power quality of In table (2), the comparison between TFMPC and
TFMPC is higher than the power quality of SSMPC. It has SSMPC has been summarized.
been noted that TFMPC is closer to the set point than Table 2. Comparison Summary
SSMPC.
TFMPC SSMPC
It is known that parameter changes occur while BDFIGs
are running. Which affects the operation of MPC; so we Saves time and effort Utilize complex equations
have studied the effect of parameter changing to the MPC. so it needs more time
First, we increased the value of stator and rotor resistance by
a specified percentage (10 %), and the simulation results The transient state The transient state
have been obtained. Then, we increased the value of stator completed within 2 completed within 3
and rotor inductance by a specified percentage (10 %), and seconds seconds
the simulation results have been obtained. Finally, we Provides higher response It has normal response
compared the simulation results we obtained with the speed speed
original simulation results to note the difference in MPC
running. It was observed that there was no discernible effect Reduces the transient The transient state
of changing parameters on MPC. Thus, the figures for condition, transient state completed within 3
parameter variations are not given in this paper. completed within 2 seconds
seconds
7. Conclusion The ripple ratio Ripple ratio (currents
(currents changing) is changing) is big
In this research, a comparison and analysis between small which reduces the
TFMPC and state SSMPC are presented. In addition, the losses and increases the
advantages and disadvantages of TFMPC and SSMPC have efficiency
been determined to improve BDFIG's performance. In this Through this study, we can be concluded that when the
study, the advantages of TFMPC have been discussed briefly. process model is not obtained, the traditional controllers like
Simulations have been done with MATLAB/Simulink to PIDS should be implemented. Having a process model is
analyze the steady-state behaviors and transient behaviors of easy to tune, thus, MPC can be implemented. Additionally,
the model predictive control designed based on the transfer TFMPC is suitable for the most sensitive and important
function model (TFMPC) and state space model (SSMPC). applications, while SSMPC can be used for other
The results have shown that TFMPC can achieve good applications. For future studies, this work will be followed
steady-state features, such as: by an experimental validation using dSPACE DS1103
TFMPC saves time and effort since it reduces the or DSP TMS320F28335 processors.
mathematical effort required to get the (𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶) matrices; in
addition to that the transfer function can be simply concluded References
for the system and converted it to the Z coordinate, then
compared to the state space model to get (𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶) matrices [1] Prangya Parimita Pradhan and Bidyadhar Subudhi,
which can be used to build control loops.
“Real-time Active and Reactive Power Control of a
TFMPC reaches a steady state faster than SSMPC as
shown in the figures above, where the settling phase for the Doubly-Fed Induction Generator based Wind Energy
TFMPC is completed within 2 seconds, while the settling Conversion System,” in Proceedings of IEEE Region
phase for SSMPC is completed within approx. 3 seconds 10 Conference (TENCON), Malaysia, November 2017.
(note that the transient can be changed depending on the type [2] Mohammadreza Toulabi, Shahab Bahrami and Ali
of parameter 𝐼𝑞 or 𝐼𝑑 or torque). Note that the oscillation is Mohammad Ranjbar, “An Input-to-State Stability
particularly large during the start of the transient state, in this Approach to Inertial Frequency Response Analysis of
part the value of the torque and currents change is very large.
Doubly-Fed Induction Generator-Based Wind
It is also worth noting that TFMPC torque and currents
changes are smaller than SSMPC torque and currents Turbines,” IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversions, vol.32,
changes. Moreover, the current in the model predictive no.4, pp.1418-1431, Dec. 2017.
controller designed based on transfer function has fewer [3] S. Muller, M. Deicke and R. W. De Doncker, “Doubly fed
harmonics after reaching the stabilization state. This means induction generator systems for wind turbines,” IEEE
that the quality of power in TFMPC is higher than the quality Industry Applications Magazine, vol.8, no.3, pp.26-33,
of power for SSMPC. In which leads to the conclusion that Jun. 2002.
TFMPC has better performance, less noise, less losses, and
[4] Kostyantyn Protsenko and Dewei Xu, “Modeling and
Control of Brushless Doubly Fed Induction Generators
in Wind Energy Applications,” IEEE Trans. on Power
Electronics, vol.23, no.3, pp.1191-1197, May. 2008.
[5] Xingwei Wang, Hua Lin and Zhe Wang, “Transient
Control of the Reactive Current for the Line-Side
Converter of the Brushless Doubly-Fed Induction
Generator in Stand-Alone Operation,” IEEE Trans. on
Power Electronics, vol.32, no.10, pp.8193-8203, Oct.
2017.
[6] Jianping Gao, Wei Xu, Yi Liu and Kailiang Yu,
“Improved Control Scheme for Unbalanced Standalone
BDFIG Using Dead Beat Control Method,” IEEE,
pp.4505-4510, 2018.
[7] Xinchi Wei, Ming Cheng, Wei Wang, Peng Han and
Rensong Luo, “Direct Voltage Control of Dual-Stator
Brushless Doubly Fed Induction Generator for Stand-
Alone Wind Energy Conversion Systems,” IEEE Trans.
on Magnetics, vol.52, no.7, pp.8193-8203, July. 2016.
[8] Xinchi Wei, Ming Cheng, Wei Hua, Jianguo Zhu, and
Haitao Yang, “Model Predictive Power Control of a
Brushless Doubly Fed Twin Stator Induction
Generator,” IEEE, pp.5080-5085, 2017.
[9] Xinchi Wei, Ming Cheng, Jianguo Zhu and Haitao Yang,
“Model Predictive Power Control of Dual-Stator
Brushless Doubly-Fed Induction Generator with
Reduced Power Ripple,” IEEE PEDS, vol.52, pp.607-
612, Dec. 2017.
[10] Xinchi Wei, Ming Cheng, Jianguo Zhu, Haitao Yang and
Rensong Luo, “Finite-Set Model Predictive Power
Control of Brushless Doubly Fed Twin Stator Induction
Generator,” IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, vol.34,
no.3, pp.2300-2311, March. 2019.
[11] Xinchi Wei, Ming Cheng, Rensong Luo, Litong Xu and
Jianguo Zhu, “Model predictive virtual power control
of brushless doubly-fed induction generator for fast and
smooth grid synchronization,” IEEE Trans. on Power
Electronics, vol.13, Iss.16, pp.3080-3087, 2019.
[12] Dawei Zhi, Lie Xu and Barry W. Williams, “Model-
Based Predictive Direct Power Control of Doubly Fed
Induction Generators,” IEEE Trans. on Power
Electronics, vol.25, no.2, pp.341-351, Feb. 2010.
[13] Xuan Li, Tao Peng, Hanbing Dan, Guanguan Zhang,
Weiyi Tang, Weiyu Jin, Patrick Wheeler and Marco
Rivera, “A Modulated Model Predictive Control
Scheme for the Brushless Doubly Fed Induction
Machine,” IEEE Journal of Emerging And Selected
Topics In Power Electronics, vol.6, no.4, pp.1681-1691,
Dec. 2018.
[14] Jiefeng Hu, Yong Li and Jianguo Zhu, “Multi-objective
model predictive control of doubly-fed induction
generators for wind energy conversion,” IET Gener.
Trans. Distrib., vol.13, Iss.1, pp.21-29, 2018.
[15] Sertac Bayhan, Haitham Abu-Rub and Omar Ellabban,
“Sensorless Model Predictive Control Scheme of Wind-
Driven Doubly Fed Induction Generator in DC
Microgrid,” IET Renew. Power Gener., vol.10, Iss.4,
pp.514-521, 2016.
[16] H. Abdolrahimi and D. ArabKhaburi, “A Novel Model
Predictive Voltage Control of Brushless Cascade
Doubly-fed Induction Generator in Stand-Alone Power
Generation System,” International Journal of
Engineering,B:applications, vol.34, no.5, pp.1239-
1249, 2021.
[17] Yongchang Zhang, Jian Jiao, Donglin Xu, Dong Jiang,
Zhankuo Wang and Chaonan Tong, “Model Predictive
Direct Power Control of Doubly Fed Induction
Generators Under Balanced and Unbalanced Network
Conditions,” IEEE Trans. on Industry App., vol.56,
no.1, pp.771-786, Jan. 2020.
[18] L. Xu, B. Guan, and H. Liu, “Design and control of
ahigh-efficiency doubly-fed brushless machine for
wind power generator application,” IEEE Energy
Convers. Congr. Expo., Atlanta, GA, USA, pp.2409-
2416, Sep. 2012.
[19] Tang, J. Yang, G. Zhang, Y. Sun, S. Ademi, F.
Blaabjerg,and Q. Zhu, “Sensorless control of brushless
doubly-fed induction machine using a control winding
current MRAS observer,” IEEE Trans. on Industry
Electron.. , 2018.
[20] Hamed Gorginpour, Hashem Oraee and Richard A.
McMahon, “Performance Description of Brushless
Doubly-Fed Induction Machine in Its Asynchronous
and Variable Speed Synchronous Modes,” Journal of
Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications, no.3,
pp.490-511, Oct. 2011.
[21] ]R. A. McMahon, X. Wan , E. Abdi-Jalebi, P. J. Tavner,
P. C. Roberts and M.Jagiela, “The BDFM as a generator
in wind turbines,” Proc. 12th Int.Power Electron.
Motion Control Conf., , pp.1859-1869, Aug. 2006.
[22] P. C. Roberts, “A study of brushless doubly-fed
(induction) machines,” Ph.D. dissertation, Emanuel
College, University of Cambridge., England,2004.
[23] S. Ademi and M. G. Jovanovic, “Control of emerging
brushless doubly-fed reluctance wind turbine
generators,” in Large Scale Renewable Power
Generation (Ser. Green Energy and Technology), Eds.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 395-411, 2014.
[24] S. Ademi and M. G. Jovanovic, “A novel sensorless
speed controller design for doubly-fed reluctance wind
turbine generators,” Energ. Convers. Manage., vol.120,
pp.229-237, Jul. 2016.
[25] Wang, Xuezhou; Liu, Dong; Lahaye, Domenico;
Polinder, Henk; Ferreira, Bram, “Comparison of
Nested-Loop Rotors in Brushless Doubly-Fed
Induction Machines,” IEEE, In 19th International
Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems,
ICEMS, pp. 1-6, 2016.