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
Maximum Power Point Tracking of Variable Speed
Wind Turbines With Flexible Shaft
Kalyan Yenduri and Parthasarathi Sensarma, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Optimum torque (OT)-based maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) is widely used in high power turbines because of
its simplicity. Several recent improvements claim better response
speeds by augmenting the basic OT algorithm with a suitably
scaled inertial torque. However, the underlying dynamic model for
all these improved methods is premised on a rigid shaft, which
ignores all torsional behavior. This lacuna is addressed in this
paper, where a small-signal system description is developed con-
sidering a more accurate flexible shaft model. It is shown that the
improvements have three possible forms, the third being proposed
in this paper. Close-loop stability with each of these is analyti-
cally investigated using this accurate small-signal model. It is also
proved that one of the reported approaches causes system insta-
bility while attempting even moderate improvement over the OT
method. The problems in realization of the other two forms are
highlighted and a realizable alternative proposed, which requires
no additional sensor. Design of the proposed approach is presented
in appropriate detail. It is analytically established that the pro-
posed method ensures superior dynamic response. All analytical
conclusions are validated by numerical simulations.
Index Terms—Maximum power point tracking (MPPT), torque
control, wind turbine.
I. I NTRODUCTION
V ARIABLE speed wind turbine systems (VSWS) have
several advantages over traditional fixed speed wind tur-
bine systems (FSWS), viz. reduced mechanical loads, low
noise levels and, in particular, increased energy capture. Unlike
FSWS, a VSWS captures maximum possible power for every
wind speed below rated value by changing the turbine rotational
speed to always track the incoming wind speed. Since wind
turbine operates at below rated wind speed for a considerable
portion of its life time, significant additional energy is captured
by VSWS. Due to these advantages, most new installations are
of variable speed type [1]–[2].
Reported maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algo-
rithms [3]–[10] differ based on the required input data and
the implied assumptions made while extracting the maximum
possible power of the incoming wind in partial-load regime
[11]. Most of these methods in general fall into three major
categories, namely, Tip Speed Ratio(TSR) control, Optimal
Torque(OT)/ Power Signal Feedback(PSF) control and Hill
Manuscript received March 05, 2015; revised July 21, 2015, July 31, 2015,
and October 12, 2015; accepted December 11, 2015. Paper no. TSTE-00154-
2015.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India (e-mail: kalyan.
yenduri@gmail.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.2015.2510422
1949-3029 © 2015 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
Climbing/ Perturb and Observe(PO) method [11]. TSR con-
trol uses the wind speed sensor, rotational speed sensor and
the optimal tip speed ratio value, determined offline, to set
the speed reference [8], [9]. OT control uses a lookup table,
decided offline, mapping turbine speed to optimal torque, which
sets the online generator torque reference [2], [5], [10]. Both
these methods may fail to track exact MPP during param-
eter variations caused by changes in air density, aging and
blade surface contamination etc [12]. The PO algorithm dis-
penses with all offline data and uses only rotational speed and
generator active power measurements. Even though the PO
method is generic, its slow response for high inertia turbines
renders it suitable only for small scale systems. High power
modern turbines generally use the OT approach because of its
simplicity [11].
Of the reported improvements on the OT algorithm, Power
signal feedback(PSF) method is essentially similar except that
the feedback and reference are active power instead of torque
[6]. An improvement [13], proposing a sub-optimal gener-
ator torque reference, is shown to result in more captured
power in real turbulent wind. However, energy gains for a
given sub-optimal value depends heavily on the level of turbu-
lence. Another novel approach involves quickening the turbine
speed transient response while approaching MPP. This is typi-
cally done [15] by an additional torque reference term, which
acts only in transient condition, and its dynamic behavior is
explained in [16] by a small-signal model.
In [16], a lumped single-mass model is considered to design
the drive train dynamics, neglecting all torsional behavior.
However, modern high power turbine shafts have consider-
able torsional behavior and therefore any realistic model must
include a two-mass, flexible-shaft representation [17], [18].
Dynamic effects of the OT based MPPT method on the close-
loop system, using flexible shaft model of the drive train, has
not been addressed in existing literature. This paper, firstly,
presents a small-signal model for the realistic flexible-shaft
drive train. This model is used for comparative evaluation of
the reported variants of the OT based MPPT techniques, where
one is shown to inevitably cause instability if any meaningful
improvement in speed dynamics is attempted. Secondly, two
alternative control laws are proposed which ensure stable opera-
tion with improvement in speed dynamics, leading to significant
increase in energy harvest. Though the first alternative needs
an additional sensor for its implementation, the second can be
retrofitted in the existing wind installations requiring only soft-
ware changes. All dynamic analysis is clearly presented and
validated by numerical simulation of the large-signal model of
a 5 MW system.
 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
Fig. 1. The configuration of the system considered.
II. S YSTEM C ONFIGURATION
The system considered here consists of a direct drive wind
turbine with an electrical generator as shown in fig. 1. The gen-
erator output is connected to the grid through a full-scale back-
to-back voltage source converter. Generally, permanent magnet
synchronous generator (PMSG) have advantages of higher effi-
ciency, power density and reliability. Also, a high pole-number
facilitates low-speed operation, thus dispensing with the gear-
box which further improves drive train efficiency and power
density [19]–[20]. However, this paper is not premised on any
particular generator technology.
III. O PTIMAL T ORQUE MPPT A LGORITHM
A. Conventional Optimal Torque MPPT Method
Mechanical power, Pt , generated by a wind turbine, as a
function of its aerodynamic efficiency Cp is expressed as
1 ωt R
Pt = ρAυ 3 Cp (λ, β); λ =
2 υ
where, υ is the wind velocity, ωt is the rotational speed of the
turbine, R the radius of the turbine blade and β the pitch angle
of the turbine, all expressed in consistent units [1]–[2].
The basic power equation of the turbine (1) is modified to
obtain the aerodynamic torque in the following form.
1 1
Tt = ρCp (λ)πR5 3 ωt2 .
2 λ
For any wind velocity below rated value, the turbine torque
that corresponds to the maximum power lies on the trajectory
specified by,
1 1
Tto = ρCpo πR5 3 ωt2 = Kωt2 .
2 λo
Eq. (3) is the basis for optimal torque MPPT and is used to
set the reference value, Tg∗ , for the electromagnetic (genera-
tor) torque. The control law of the conventional optimal torque
MPPT is thus given by [3]
Tg∗ = Kωg2
In steady state, under constant wind speed, the OT scheme
ensures that the generator torque becomes equal to the tur-
bine torque and the system reaches MPP. If a positive (neg-
ative) wind perturbation is now applied, the generator speed
increases (decreases) along the above trajectory and reaches
the new MPP. Hence the system has a tendency to reach
MPP. However, recorded wind flow in actual wind-farms being
mostly turbulent [21], [22], the frequent wind speed changes
rarely allow the turbine-generator to operate steadily at the opti-
mum speed. Consequently, the energy captured is sub-optimal
and is especially true for a typical modern Megawatt scale wind
turbine, with large rotating mass, for which the speed transient
is very sluggish.
B. Improved Optimal Torque MPPT Method
From the previous discussion, it emerges that improving the
dynamic response of the generator speed ensures additional
energy capture. A possible realization would require a cor-
rection component to the reference generator torque which
acts to improve the speed transients, thereby quickening the
MPPT process. This is obtained by augmenting Tg∗ with the
net accelerating torque, coupled with a suitable weight, a, as
Tg∗ = Kωg2 − a(Tt − Tg ) (5)
where, Tg is the generator torque. This approach ensures that
for the same Tt and ωg , the accelerating torque with the aug-
(2)
mented reference, Ta , is related to the accelerating torque
(1)
obtained with the OT method, Ta , as
Ta(2) = (1 + a) Ta(1) . (6)
With increasing a, this leads to decrease in the effective iner-
tia offered by the wind turbine with consequent reduction in
the mechanical time-constant. For positive values of a, the
generator torque reference is reduced when the turbine is
(1) accelerating and vice-versa, thereby improving the dynamic
response. However, realization of this improved control law (5)
requires real-time updates of the aerodynamic torque, Tt .
In literature [3]–[10], the drive train of the turbine has been
modeled predominantly by a single lumped mass (stiff-shaft
model), which is an aggregate inertia of all the moving parts.
For example, the aerodynamic torque estimation premised on a
stiff-shaft model, formulates (5) effectively as
(2)
dωg
Tg∗ = Kωg2 − a(Jt + Jg ) (7)
dt
where Jt and Jg are the turbine and generator inertia respec-
tively. Though this model is simple, the stiff-shaft model fails
to capture the complete mechanical dynamics since it totally
ignores all torsional dynamics due to flexibility of the shaft.
(3)
Validity of that model is therefore questionable, particularly so
when the focus is on large systems characterized by low-speed
turbines with large torques and large inertias.
A first consequence of the flexible-shaft model is that the
rotational speeds of the shaft, measured at the generator (ωg )
and turbine (ωt ) ends, are not identically equal. Hence the net
accelerating torque is correctly defined as
(4)
dωt dωg
+ Jg
Ta = Jt (8)
dt dt
which in effect is a linear combination of the acceleration at the
turbine and generator ends. In a large turbine, since Jg ≪ Jt ,
the approximation of the accelerating torque used in (7) is not
accurate. This leads to the first alternative control law proposed
in this paper.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

YENDURI AND SENSARMA: MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING OF VARIABLE SPEED WIND TURBINES 3

Fig. 3. Two mass drive train model.

by a flexible shaft. The state model of the drive train is

given by
Fig. 2. Torque control scheme of PMSG. ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤⎡ ⎤
ω̇t 0 0 −K Jt
sh
ωt Jt 0 0 Tt
⎢ ω̇ ⎥ ⎢ Ksh ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ −1 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
C. Proposed Control Law - I =
⎣ g ⎦ ⎣0 0 ω
Jg ⎦ ⎣ g ⎦
+ ⎣ 0 Jg 0 T
⎦ ⎣ g ⎦ (11)
Assuming the turbine end speed, ωt , is measurable, an θ̇sh 1 −1 0 θsh 0 0 0 0
alternative realization of (5) is proposed as
where Ksh is the shaft stiffness constant, Tg is the generator
dωt torque, and θsh represents the torsional displacement of the
Tg∗ = Kωg2 − a(Jt + Jg ) (9) shaft. The turbine torque Tt is given by (2). Since the response
dt
of the generator torque loop, whose bandwidth is designed to
which retains the simplicity of (7). But is expected to result in be 100 rad/s in this paper, is much faster compared to that of
a different dynamic behavior when evaluated using the more the mechanical states, Tg can be approximated with Tg∗ for
accurate flexible shaft model. This exercise is systematically investigation of mechanical phenomena. The OT control law (4)
carried out in the next section. makes the system non-linear and hence a small signal model
about an equilibrium operating point is derived in subsequent
sections to asses system dynamics.
D. PMSG Torque Control
The generator torque control system, depicted by (fig. 2),
B. Small-Signal Model Analysis
is responsible for tracking the reference torque given by the
MPPT control law. This control system is implemented in the Starting from an initial equilibrium condition, defined by
rotor reference frame. The angle, θg , between the magnetic
axes of the rotor and A-phase coil, is used to convert machine Tt = Tg = Tt0
currents into rotor reference frame. This results in identify- ωt = ωg = ωg0 = (λopt ν0 )/R (12)
ing the torque and flux producing components of the machine
currents iq and id respectively. The electromagnetic torque is a small perturbation to the turbine torque (δTt ), leads to con-
given by sequent perturbations in the turbine (δωt ) and generator (δωg )
speeds. By linearizing (4) about the equilibrium point given
3 by (12),
Tg = P ψiq = Kt iq . (10)
2
δTg∗ (s) = 2Kωg0 δωg (s) ≈ δTg (s) (13)
The constant torque angle control strategy [23] is used, where
reference for id is zero and iq reference is proportional to From the state space model (11), the following equations can
required generator torque based on (10). The machine side be written.
converter ensures these currents follow their reference values. 
Jg s2

JgJt s3

Since id is zero, machine current magnitudes are proportional δTg (s) = 1 + δTt (s) − (Jg +Jt)s + δωt (s)
Ksh Ksh
to the torque generated by the machine [24]–[25]. Machine
parameters are listed in Appendix B. Bandwidth of the current F1 (s) F2 (s)
control loop is designed to be 100 rad/s. (14a)
 2
−s Jt s
δωg (s) = δTt (s) + 1 + δωt (s). (14b)
Ksh Ksh
IV. S MALL S IGNAL M ODEL W ITH F LEXIBLE S HAFT
F3 (s) F4 (s)
In this section, the state equations of the drive-train are first
presented, which are non-linear in input. Therefore, the small- The small signal transfer function between Tt and ωt , is
signal transfer functions are subsequently derived to analyze its obtained from (13) and (14) as
dynamic behaviour.
Jg 2 K
δωt (s) Ksh s + 2 Ksh ωg0 s + 1
= Jt Jg 3 2Kωg0 Jt 2
.
δTt (s)
Ksh s + Ksh s + (Jt + Jg )s
+ 2Kωg0
A. Drive Train Model (15)
Fig. 3 depicts the two-mass model of the shaft, considering In a similar manner, the reference torque, Tg∗ , for reported con-
separate lumped inertias of turbine and generator, connected trol laws [15], [16], and for the proposed law -I (9), can be
 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
TABLE I
C ONTROL L AWS AND C ORRESPONDING S MALL S IGNAL T RANSFER F UNCTIONS OF THE S YSTEM
TABLE II
D RIVE T RAIN PARAMETERS
linearized and substituted in (14) to obtain corresponding small
signal transfer functions. In general, the small signal reference
torque for any method can be expressed as
δTg∗ (s) ≈ δTg (s)
= F5 (s)δωg (s) + F6 (s)δωt (s) + F7 (s)δTt (s) (16)
where F5 (s),F6 (s) and F7 (s) depend on the method and are
given in Appendix B. Then the small signal transfer function
between Tt and ωt for any method is given by
δωt (s) F1 (s) − F7 (s) − F3 (s)F5 (s)
= .
δTt (s) F4 (s)F5 (s) + F6 (s) − F2 (s)
The final transfer functions are listed in Table I. Results for the
OT method are included as baseline.
V. C OMPARATIVE E VALUATION OF R EPORTED M ETHODS
In method 1 [16], the correction term is synthesized using
estimation and measurements of the turbine (aerodynamic) and
generator (electromagnetic) torque signals. Methods 2 [15] and
3 (proposed -I) are based on estimation of the accelerating
torque, derived from the stiff-shaft model. This estimation is
based on speed measurement at different ends of the turbine
shaft. In all the methods, the parameter a can be varied from 0
to 1, though values closer to 1 are better avoided since it causes
severe torsional stress on the shaft.
As expected, all the transfer functions listed in Table I are
third order. For the denominator polynomial of these transfer
functions to be Hurwitz, all the coefficients must be positive.
The baseline method, as well as methods 1 and 3, satisfy this
necessary condition for every value of a in the range (0, 1).
However, in method 2, system stability requires
Jg ∆
a< = â(2) . (18)
(Jg + Jt )
Since the inertia of the turbine (Jt ) is usually about an order
greater than the generator inertia (Jg ) [26], â(2) ≪ 1. Since sta-
bility considerations restrict a to such low values, the inertia
of the system can not be appreciably compensated. If the
drive train is indeed a single mass, the last three control laws
are essentially same and result in identical dynamic response.
However, by subjecting these laws to the more accurate two-
mass single-spring representation, this paper establishes that the
consequent transfer functions, hence corresponding dynamic
responses, have significant differences. For a detailed quanti-
tative analysis, each of these transfer functions are evaluated
at an equilibrium speed, equal to its rated value, using turbine
parameters listed in Table II [26]. Since the dominant poles
of the corresponding transfer functions decide the settling time
of speed transients, these provide a basis for quantitative eval-
uation of different control laws. Fig. 4 shows the pole-zero
(17) locations for each of the three modified methods, along with
the baseline OT approach, as the parameter a is varied in the
range [0.2, 0.8]. Analytical conclusions regarding instability
of method 2 is borne out by the presence of a right-half pole.
Therefore this method is not of much practical use. For meth-
ods 1 and 3, augmentation with accelerating torque information
generally shifts the dominant pole further left in the complex
plane, as evident from Table III. Thus in the whole range of
a, their dynamic response is faster than the baseline. Method
1 requires the information of the instantaneous aerodynamic
torque, Tt , direct measurement of which is not possible. In
method 3, speed measurement at the turbine side of the shaft
is required for realization of the control law. Though this addi-
tional sensor does not greatly increase cost, however, it reduces
the system reliability, given that [27] sensor defects account for
about 11% of wind turbine failures. Hence, an alternate method
is proposed in the next section which synthesizes the correc-
tion torque using only the measurements involved in the OT
approach. This is an improved realization of (5) and considers
the realistic two-mass model of the shaft, which includes its
torsional behavior.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

YENDURI AND SENSARMA: MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING OF VARIABLE SPEED WIND TURBINES 5

Fig. 4. The Pole-Zero plots of small signal transfer function of the system using a) OT control law b) method 1 c) method 2 d) Proposed method I as a varies
from 0.2 to 0.8.

TABLE III
R EAL PART OF THE D OMINANT P OLE ( S )

VI. P ROPOSED M ETHOD -II

From fig. 3, the accelerating torque of the turbine can be
expressed as Fig. 5. Magnitude plots of the transfer functions G′1 (s),G2 (s) and G′p (s).

dωt dωg ∆
Tt − T g = J t + Jg = Ta (19) A. Relative Influence on Ta
dt dt
In a normalized representation with respect to the rated speed
By using the second and third rows of the state space model (ωb ) and rated torque (Tb ), the corresponding variables
(11), the above equation can be written as
 ω̄g = ωg /ωb and T̄g = Tg /Tb (24)
d J g d2 ωg 1 dTg dωg
Ta = J t ωg + + + Jg . (20) are expected to acquire values with similar orders of magnitude.
dt Ksh dt2 Ksh dt dt
Using these normalized variables, (23) is expressed as
Considering zero initial conditions in (20), frequency domain 
Ta ωb
description of the shaft dynamics is expressed as T̄a = = G1 (s) ω̄g (s) + G2 (s)T̄g (s). (25)
Tb Tb
 
Jt Jg 2 Jt s 2 G′1
Ta = s (Jt + Jg ) + s ωg (s) + Tg (s). (21)
Ksh Ksh
G1 G2
Relative contributions of each of the input variables (T̄g , ω̄g )
on T̄a are evaluated from the magnitude (Bode) plots of G′1
Obviously G1 has an anti-resonance at Ωg , with an extremely and G2 , shown in fig. 5. Since |G2 | ≪ |G′1 | in general, Tg
low minimum arising out of the negligible mechanical damp- has marginal effect on the estimated value of Ta . Hence G2
ing, where is excluded from the estimation law, which is now sought to be
solely determined by G′1 .
Jt Jg Since G′1 is not proper, a realizable estimation law is pro-
Ωg = (22)
(Jt + Jg )Ksh posed as

is the natural frequency of the turbine-generator shaft. ˆ G′1 (s) ∆ G1 (s) ωb
From a foregoing discussion on the relative time-scales of the T̄a (s) = ω̄g (s) = ω̄g (s) (26)
H(s) H(s) Tb
shaft speed and generator torque dynamics, (21) is expressed as
Gp (s)
Ta = G1 (s)ωg (s) + G2 (s)Tg (s). (23)
where,
Direct inclusion of (23) in (5) does not offer a realizable def- H(s) = 1 + b1 s + b2 s2 + b3 s3 . (27)
inition of Tg∗ , since the coupling transfer functions in (23) are
improper. This aspect is separately investigated to arrive at a Roots of the general third degree polynomial in (27) can
feasible estimation law. either be all real or one real and a complex conjugate pair.
 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. 6. (a) stability trajectories at different ζ values and equilibrium speeds (b) Maximum possible normalized bandwidth at different ζ values. (c) The real part
of the dominant pole(s) at different equilibrium speeds for all control methods.

Therefore, it is factorized and written in another general choice of (a1 , a2 , ζ) decide the estimator bandwidth, ωb ,
form as defined as
 
s s s2 ωb = sup{(ω/Ωg ) : 0.9 ≤ |1/H(jω)|≤ 1.1}. (33)
H(s) = 1 + 1+ζ + 2 2 . (28)
a2 Ωg a1 Ωg a1 Ωg
Bandwidth of the quadratic term in the √ denominator of
The first term in (28) ensures a band-limited differentia- (32) increases monotonically with ζ(ζ ≤ 2). Also, for
tor component in Gp , while the second introduces a complex | log(a2 /a1 )| ≫ 0, either the linear factor minimally affects
or real pole-pair, based on the damping coefficient, ζ. An bandwidth or ωb is drastically reduced. Thus an exhaustive
undamped resonator (ζ = 0) is not considered to avoid inter- numerical search for the maximum bandwidth is carried√ out
nal instability. Substituting (26) and (28) in (5), the proposed within the localized parameter space 0.4 ≤ ζ ≤ 2, 0.5 ≤
control law for the reference generator torque is obtained as (a2 /a1 ) ≤ 2, following the steps detailed below. The parameter
space is discretized using
Tg∗ = Kωg2 − aGp (s)ωg (s). (29)
ζ[i] − ζ[i − 1] = 0.01; (a2 /a1 )[n] − (a2 /a1 )[n − 1] = 0.01
Transfer function between Tt and ωt is derived from the small-
signal model of (29) and state space model (11), linearized to allow numerical computation.
about the equilibrium point (12). Thus, Step 1: Over the parameter space, record the normalized
 5   6  bandwidth (ωb′ ), defined in (33), of
δωt (s) 
m

k 1 1
= cm s dk s (30) = (34)
δTt (s) H(jω ′ ) jω ′
 
m=0 k=0 1+ a2 /a1 1 − ω ′ 2 + jζω ′
where the coefficients cm , m ∈ [0, 5] and dk , k ∈ [0, 6]
where, ω ′ = ω/(a1 Ωg ). The results are arranged in an ordered
are detailed in Appendix A. Design of the parameter set
array {ω ′ [i, n], ζ[i], (a2 /a1 )[n]}.
(a, ζ, a1 , a2 ) is based on stability as well as dynamic perfor-
Step 2: For a given equilibrium speed, overall system stability
mance criteria and is detailed subsequently.
boundary in the (a2 /a1 − a1 ) plane is determined by apply-
ing Routh-Hurwitz criterion on the denominator polynomial of
B. Design of Estimator Parameters (30). This results in a second array {a1 [i, n], ζ[i], (a2 /a1 )[n]},
During a wind-gust, the torsional shock load on the shaft corresponding to a particular equilibrium speed. A family of
increases with a. Hence its choice is subject to the condition such boundaries are obtained for different equilibrium speeds,
   ranging from cut-in to rated. A few representative results are
a≤ ξ T̂sh T̂t − 1 (31) plotted in fig. 6a, where feasible solutions are in the region to
the left of these curves. As the equilibrium speed is seen to have
where, T̂t is the maximum allowable aerodynamic torque on minimal effect on the stability boundary, it is sufficient to con-
the given turbine, T̂sh is the torsional yield limit and ξ a factor sider the specific small-signal model at cut-in speed for optimal
of safety. These are design inputs and a detailed discussion is estimator design.
beyond the scope of this paper. The value of a (=0.6) is chosen Step 3: For every ζ[io ], io ∈ {i}, the local maximum band-
in this paper. width, evaluated at cut-in speed, is obtained as
Investigating the transfer function
ω̂b [io ] = max{ωb′ [io , n] × a1 [io , n]} (35)
n
Gp (s) 1 1
= =   , (32) and the result is plotted in fig. 6(b). The global maximum band-
G1 (s)
′ H(s) 1+ s
1 + ζ a1sΩg + s2
a2 Ω g a21 Ω2g width is seen to occur at ζ[î] = 0.59, which corresponds to
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
YENDURI AND SENSARMA: MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING OF VARIABLE SPEED WIND TURBINES
Fig. 7. Step response for OT and proposed method II: (a) wind speed, (b) ωg ,
(c) Cp , and (d) Tg .
a2 /a1 [n̂] = 0.629. This is indicated by the point A(xA , yA ) in
fig. 6a, where
xA = (a2 /a1 )[n̂], yA = a1 [î, n̂].
Step 4: However since A is on the stability boundary, the
final solution to ensure positive stability margin is a designer’s
choice. In this paper this is indicated by the point B(xB , yB )
where
xB = xA , yB = 0.9yA .
The optimal parameter set is thus {yB , xB yB , ζ[î]}.
For verification, the magnitude plot of Gp is added in fig. 5.
For comparison, real part of the dominant pole/pole-pair is plot-
ted in fig. 6(c) for the other methods. It is observed that the
proposed method-II ensures superior dynamics compared to the
all other methods.
VII. S IMULATION R ESULTS
Numerical simulations using the large-signal, non-linear sys-
tem model, including the proposed non-linear control law, are
carried out in MATLAB platform to verify system performance.
To avoid over-current in the converter switches, the Tg∗ com-
mand is magnitude limited. Turbine data used are listed in
Table II. Simulation results are presented in two subsections and
compared with the baseline. The first deals with step change in
wind speed and is included for validation of the small-signal
dynamic analysis. In the second, a realistic wind profile is con-
sidered and results of real interest, viz. energy capture, are
presented.
A. Step Wind Speed Change
A positive step in the wind speed from 9 m/s to 10 m/s is
applied at 30 s and the reverse step applied at 70 s. The corre-
sponding simulation results are shown in fig. 7. Reported results
depict the wind speed profile (fig. 7a), Cp profile (fig. 7b),
turbine speed (fig. 7c) and generator torque (fig. 7d) for both
methods. Before and after the wind speed steps, both algorithms
7
ensure that Cp attains its maximum value (0.449) in steady-
state. With the proposed method, ωg settles within 9 s, which
agrees with the corresponding real part of the dominant pole,
plotted in fig. 6c. Settling time with the OT method is about
18 s, implying delay in reaching MPP, and is therefore capable
of lesser energy capture than the proposed method. Similar
results are also observed for the negative step.
The correction term in the generator reference torque is
responsible for this improved turbine dynamics by introduc-
ing the under/over-shoots in the generator torque as evident
from fig. 7d. If left unregulated, these torque overshoots could
possibly exceed the rated torque of the generator, along with
a corresponding violation its current limits. To avoid this, the
generator torque reference is magnitude limited to its rated
value on the higher side. Similarly, to avoid large undershoots
causing the generator torque to become negative and power
being drawn from the grid, the machine torque reference is
magnitude limited to zero on the lower side. However, these
also increase the shaft torsional stress. Hence, the value of a
is a critical parameter and an optimal choice implies the best
trade-off between equipment reliability and energy harvest.
B. Turbulent Wind Speed
To test the performance of these algorithms under realistic
turbulent conditions, a wind profile with stochastic variations
around an average wind velocity of 6 m/s is generated. A
white noise having unitary variance is passed through a ratio-
nal shaping filter to generate the turbulent component of the
wind speed [22]. Energy distribution of the horizontal wind
speed [28] shows that the total energy content is distributed
among two main frequency clusters. Of these, the low fre-
quency content can be properly tracked by the OT method,
while the high frequency content cannot be accurately tracked
due to the high mechanical inertia. However, this frequency
band in the wind profile can be tracked by the proposed faster
control law. Simulation results for the turbulent wind speed are
shown in Fig. 8. Owing to the correction torque, enabling rapid
acceleration (deceleration) of the turbine, the generator torque
is somewhat more than that of the OT method as shown in
Fig. 8(d). By restricting the reactive power component of the
machine current to zero, amplitude of the machine currents is
minimized. This also minimizes the losses in the machine wind-
ings and converter switches. Fig. 8(e) shows the consequent rms
currents in the machine. The differential torque, i.e. the differ-
ence between the turbine and generator torques, is shown in
the Fig. 8(f). As expressed in (31), this torque is crucial for the
selection of the parameter a.
Because of the stochastic nature of wind speed, comparative
evaluation of OT and proposed method-II is made by plotting
a histogram of Cp , as shown in fig. 8(g), which distributes Cp
values into 25 bins between 0 to Cp,max . The height of each
bin represents the normalized dwell time in each bin. So, if Cp
remains in the k−th bin for a total duration of tk , its height has
a value
hk = tk /Tsim (36)
where, Tsim is the total simulation run-time. Ideally Cp is
desired to always remain in the last bin (Cp,max ) but because of
 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

Fig. 8. (a) Wind speed (m/s) vs time (s); (b) Cp vs time (s); (c) generator speed (rad/s) vs time (s); (d) generator torque (N-m) vs time (s); (e) generator rms
current (A) vs time (s); (f) shaft torque (N-m) vs time (s); (g) Cp histogram; (h) λ histogram; (i) month-wise incremental energy (as % of baseline).

TABLE IV VIII. C ONCLUSION

VARIANCE C OMPARISON
This paper focuses on the hitherto neglected aspect of shaft
flexibility in large wind turbines, in the context of MPP tracking
performance. Dynamic modeling of the shaft is presented for
a two-mass, single-spring equivalent and is used for compara-
tive evaluation of existing MPPT approaches. It is shown that
that one of the existing methods leads to unstable operation if
wind turbulence and high inertia, this is not achievable. A good it is designed for any meaningful improvement in MPP track-
metric for quantitative evaluation appears to be the variance, ing, a fact not detectable with a stiff-shaft model. Subsequently,
computed for the histogram data of each of the methods, using two control laws for generator torque reference are proposed.
the following equation. The first requires measurement of shaft speed at both turbine
and generator ends for computation of net accelerating torque,
k=25
 while the second includes a realizable estimation algorithm
2
σ2 = hk {(k − kopt ) wbin } (37) which obviates turbine speed measurement and can be retro-
k=1 fitted to an existing installation. Structured derivation of the
estimation algorithm is presented. Using the metric of real part
where kopt (= 25) is the bin corresponding to Cp,max = 0.45
of stable dominant poles, it is shown that both the proposed
and wbin is the bin width. The results are summarized in
methods ensure superior performance. Analytical results are
Table IV for the two proposed methods along with the base-
validated through numerical simulation of the large-signal, non-
line. Variance in Cp reduces by 54% and 50% of the baseline
linear system. A realistic situation of stochastic wind velocity
with proposed methods I and II, respectively, which indicates
profile was considered and the proposed method is shown to
a significant improvement in dynamic response. This is further
ensure greater energy capture.
confirmed by the histogram of the tip speed ratio (λ), presented
in Fig. 8(h) for the baseline and proposed methods. Variance
in λ is also computed using (37), for which kopt (= 8) is the
bin corresponding to optimal tip speed ratio (λopt = 7), and is
A PPENDIX A
again seen to reduce by 56% and 51% of the baseline. Fig. 8(i)
P OLYNOMIAL C OEFFICIENTS
shows the month-wise increment in captured energy, as a per-
centage of baseline. The average wind velocity for each month
at Iliamna airport, Alaska [29] is used for the simulation study c5 = CJg ; c4 = 2Kωg0 C + BJg − a(Jt + Jg )/Ω2g ;
of energy capture. At each mean wind velocity, the simulation
run time is 3600s for this study. Aggregated annually, this c3 = Ksh C + 2Kωg0 B + AJg ;
increment is around 7.04% over baseline. c2 = Ksh B + 2Kωg0 A + Jg − a(Jt + Jg );
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
YENDURI AND SENSARMA: MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING OF VARIABLE SPEED WIND TURBINES
c1 = Ksh A + 2Kωg0 ; c0 = Ksh ;
d6 = CJt Jg ; d5 = 2Kωg0 CJt + BJt Jg − aJt (Jt + Jg )/Ω2g ;
d4 = C(Jt + Jg ) + 2Kωg0 BJt + AJt Jg ;
d3 = Ksh (2Kωg0 C + (Jt + Jg )B) + 2Kωg0 AJt + Jt Jg
− (Jt + Jg )(aJt + aKsh /Ω2g );
d2 = 2Kωg0 BKsh + (Jt + Jg )AKsh + 2Kωg0 Jt ;
d1 = 2Kωg0 AKsh + Ksh (1 − a)(Jt + Jg ); d0 = 2Kωg0 Ksh ;
where A = ζ/a1 Ωg + 1/a2 Ωg , B = 1/a21 Ω2g + ζ/a1 a2 Ω2g and
C = 1/a21 a2 Ω3g .
A PPENDIX B
PMSG PARAMETERS & W EIGHTING F UNCTIONS
R EFERENCES
[1] D. S. Zinger and E. Muljadi, “Annualized wind energy improvement
using variable speeds,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1444–
1447, Nov./Dec. 1997.
[2] E. Muljadi and C. P. Butterfield, “Pitch-controlled variable-speed wind
turbine generation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 240–246,
Jan./Feb. 2001.
[3] R. Datta and V. T. Ranganathan, “A method of tracking the peak power
points for a variable speed wind energy conversion system,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 163–168, Mar. 2003.
[4] K. Tan and S. Islam, “Optimum control strategies in energy conversion
of PMSG wind turbine system without mechanical sensors,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 392–399, Jun. 2004.
[5] S. Morimoto, H. Nakayama, M. Sanada, and Y. Takeda, “Sensorless
output maximization control for variable-speed wind generation system
using IPMSG,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 60–67, Jan./Feb.
2005.
[6] E. Koutroulis and K. Kalaitzakis, “Design of a maximum power track-
ing system for wind-energy-conversion applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 486–494, Apr. 2006.
[7] S. M. R. Kazmi, H. Goto, H.-J. Guo, and O. Ichinokura, “A novel
algorithm for fast and efficient speed-sensorless maximum power point
tracking in wind energy conversion systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 29–36, Jan. 2011.
[8] T. Thiringer and J. Linders, “Control by variable rotor speed of a fixed-
pitch wind turbine operating in a wide speed range,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 520–526, Sep. 1993.
[9] R. M. Hilloowala and A. M. Sharaf, “A rule-based fuzzy logic controller
for a PWM inverter in a stand alone wind energy conversion scheme,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 57–65, Jan./Feb. 1996.
[10] M. E. Haque, M. Negnevitsky, and K. M. Muttaqi, “A novel control
strategy for a variable-speed wind turbine with a permanent-magnet syn-
chronous generator,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 331–339,
Jan./Feb. 2010.
9
[11] S. M. Raza Kazmi, H. Goto, H.-J. Guo, and O. Ichinokura, “Review and
critical analysis of the research papers published till date on maximum
power point tracking in wind energy conversion system,” in Proc. Energy
Convers. Congr. Expo. (ECCE), Sep. 12–16, 2010 pp. 4075–4082.
[12] Z. M. Dalala, Z. U. Zahid, W. Yu, Y. Cho, and J.-S. Lai, “Design and
analysis of an MPPT technique for small-scale wind energy conversion
systems,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 756–767, Sep.
2013.
[13] K. E. Johnson, L. J. Fingersh, M. J. Balas, and L. Y. Pao, “Methods for
increasing region 2 power capture on a variable-speed wind turbine,” J.
Sol. Energy Eng., vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 1092–1100, 2004.
[14] L. J. Fingersh and P. W. Carlin, “Results from the NREL variable-speed
test bed,” in Nat. Renew. Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Rep. NREL/CP-
500-23811, 1998.
[15] W. E. Leithead and B. Connor, “Control of variable speed wind turbines:
Design task,” Int. J. Control, vol. 73, no. 13, pp. 1189–1212, 2000.
[16] K.-H. Kim, T. L. Van, D.-C. Lee, S.-H. Song, and E.-H. Kim, “Maximum
output power tracking control in variable-speed wind turbine systems
considering rotor inertial power,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60,
no. 8, pp. 3207–3217, Aug. 2013.
[17] B. Boukhezzar and H. Siguerdidjane, “Nonlinear control of a variable-
speed wind turbine using a two-mass model,” IEEE Energy Convers.,
vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 149–162, Mar. 2011.
[18] I. Girsang, J. Dhupia, E. Muljadi, M. Singh, and L. Pao, “Gearbox and
drivetrain models to study dynamic effects of modern wind turbines,” in
Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2013, pp. 874–881.
[19] L. Soderlund, J.-T. Eriksson, J. Salonen, H. Vihriala, and R. Perala, “A
permanent-magnet generator for wind power applications,” IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2389–2392, Jul. 1996.
[20] J. Y. Chen, C. V. Nayar, and X. Longya, “Design and finite-element anal-
ysis of an outer-rotor permanent-magnet generator for directly coupled
wind turbines,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 3802–3809, Sep.
2000.
[21] I. Munteanu, A. I. Bratcu, and E. Ceanga, “Wind turbulence used as
searching signal for MPPT in variable-speed wind energy conversion
systems,” Renew. Energy, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 322–327, Jan. 2009, doi:
10.1016/j.renene.2008.03.001.
[22] C. Nichita, D. Luca, B. Dakyo, and E. Ceanga, “Large band simulation
of the wind speed for real time wind turbine simulators,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 523–529, Dec. 2002.
[23] R. Krishnan, Permanent Magnet Synchronous and Brushless DC Motor
Drives. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2009.
[24] M. Chinchilla, S. Arnaltes, and J. C. Burgos, “Control of permanent-
magnet generators applied to variable-speed wind-energy systems con-
nected to the grid,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 21, no. 1,
pp. 130–135, Mar. 2006.
[25] W. Leonhard, Control of Electrical Drives. New York, NY, USA:
Springer, 1997.
[26] S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott, “Definition of a 5-MW reference
wind turbine for offshore system development,” Nat. Renew. Energy Lab.,
Golden, CO, USA, Rep. NREL/TP-500-38060, 2009.
[27] A. Steinberg and H. Holttinen, “Analysing failure statistics of wind
turbines in Finland,” in Proc. Eur. Wind Energy Conf., Apr. 2010,
pp. 20–23.
[28] I. Van der Hoven, “Power spectrum of horizontal wind speed in the fre-
quency range from 0.0007 to 900 cycles per hour,” J. Meteorol., vol. 14,
no. 2, pp. 160–164, 1957.
[29] Western Regional Climate Center. (2016, Jan 07). Average wind speeds
data [Online]. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwind.
final.html .
Kalyan Yenduri received the B.Tech. degree in
electrical engineering from the Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University, Hyderabad, India, and the
M.Tech. degree in power electronics and drives from
National Institute of Technology, Warangal, India, in
2007 and 2009, respectively. He is currently pursu-
ing the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India. His
research interests include renewable energy integra-
tion and power converters.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Parthasarathi Sensarma (M’00) received the B.E.E.

degree from Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India,
the M.Tech. degree from the Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India, and the
Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, India, all in electrical engineering, in
1990, 1992, and 2001, respectively. He had held
positions in Bharat Bijlee Ltd., Thane, India, CESC
Ltd., India, and ABB Corporate Research, Baden-
Daettwil, Switzerland, where he was a Staff Scientist
with the Power Electronics Department. Since 2002,
he has been with the Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur,
India, where he is currently a Professor of Power Electronics and Electrical
Engineering. His research interests include power quality, FACTS devices,
power converters, and renewable energy integration.