International Journal of Applied Power Engineering (IJAPE)

Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2022, pp. 218~228

ISSN: 2252-8792, DOI: 10.11591/ijape.v11.i3.pp218-228  218

Hybrid MPPT-based predictive speed control model for

variable speed PMSG wind energy conversion systems

Mai N. Abu Hashish, Ahmed Ali Daoud, Medhat Hegazy Elfar

Department of Electrical Power Engineering, Port-Said University, Port-Said, Egypt

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: In this research, a predictive speed control (PSC) technique based on
permanent magnet synchronous generators is proposed for variable-speed
Received Mar 3, 2021 wind energy conversion systems (VS-WECS) (PMSG). The control
Revised Aug 1, 2022 approach that has been developed makes it possible to regulate mechanical
Accepted Aug 9, 2022 and electrical variables concurrently within the context of a single cost
function. The power converter will then use the optimum switching state that
will result in the lowest possible cost function when it has been chosen. The
Keywords: maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithms used in the proposed
control approach are combined in order to achieve optimum efficiency. As a
MPC direct result of this, the conventional cascade structure of proportional-
MPPT integral (PI) controllers has been removed, which results in an improvement
PMSG in the system's dynamic responsiveness. In addition, predictive current
WECS control, also known as PCC, is implemented on the grid-side converter, also
known as the GSC, in order to accomplish decoupled grid current control.
Using MATLAB/SIMULINK, we analyze the performance of the suggested
control methods and compare it to the performance of a traditional PI speed
controller. The findings demonstrated that the MPC controller is superior
than the PI controller in terms of its ability to handle system dynamics.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Ahmed Ali Daoud
Department of Electrical Power Engineering, Port Said University
Port Fouad, Port Said, 42523, Egypt
Email: [email protected], [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
With the growing demand for electrical energy, an increasing attention was paid to search for
alternative methods of electricity generation. Renewable energy sources are considered as the best alternative
methods of electricity generation compared to the conventional ones. This is mainly due to that the
conventional sources of energy have several drawbacks, such as relying on burning fossil fuels, which has a
bad side effect on the Earth’s atmosphere and the non-renewable nature of fossil fuels. Renewable energy is
an abundant and clean energy, which has been considered as an effective solution to overcome the
aforementioned problems. Wind power is recognized as one of the renewable energy sources that is
expanding at one of the highest rates [1]. Wind power is only one of various forms of renewable energy
sources. In many countries, the integration of wind power production into the utility grid has developed into
an integral component of the process. According to [2], the global market for wind power capacity increased
by around 60 GW in 2019.
Wind generators and power converters are the two primary electrical components that make up wind
energy conversion systems (WECS). Different kinds of WECS have been created as a result of the worldwide
wind power markets by combining these two components in a wide variety of permutations and
combinations. These may be broken down into WECS with a constant speed, also known as FS-WECS, and

Journal homepage: http://ijape.iaescore.com

Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  219

WECS with a variable speed, known as VS-WECS [3]–[5]. The efficiency of wind energy conversion is
greatest in type 4 WECS [3] out of all of these kinds of wind energy conversion systems. Therefore, the
type 4 WECS has the benefit of being able to achieve fully variable-speed operation; hence, it is feasible to
acquire the maximum potential power at a variety of various wind speeds [6]. The permanent magnet
synchronous generator, also known as a PMSG, is the most popular option for use in type 4 WECS because it
features direct-drive operation, eliminates the requirement for a DC excitation system, reduces rotor losses,
and requires less maintenance than other types of generators [7].
In vertical-axis wind energy conversion systems (VS-WECS), it is essential to get the greatest
possible amount of power from the wind in order to achieve the highest possible degree of energy conversion
efficiency. This is because of the unpredictable nature of the wind. There is an essential design parameter for
wind turbines (WT) called the optimal tip speed ratio (TSR), which ensures that the amount of electricity that
is harnessed is increased to its full potential. In order to maintain the ideal TSR at all times, variable-speed
wind turbines, also known as VSWTs, are able to modify the rotating speed of their blades in response to
instantaneous shifts in the wind speed [8]. It is very necessary to have a maximum power point tracking
(MPPT) algorithm in order to collect the most possible power from the wind. The optimal TSR and optimal
torque (OT) control methods are widely used in WT systems. These methods provide the best compromise
between complexity and performance across a wide range of wind speeds [4], [7]–[12]. Among the various
MPPT control techniques that have been applied to wind energy systems, the optimal TSR and optimal
torque (OT) control methods are the most common.
Power electronic converters are essential components in WECS because they allow the system to
function in variable-speed conditions and make it possible for wind turbines to connect to the grid [13].
These converters take the variable voltage and frequency produced by the wind generator and convert it into
a fixed voltage and frequency. Back-to-back (BTB) connected converters, which are similar on both the
machine-side and grid-side and are coupled by a DC-link capacitor, are often used in type 4 WECS [14].
Back-to-back converters are denoted by the acronym "BTB."
Several control systems for precise control to accomplish the intended operation and boost WECS
energy conversion efficiency have been developed. Traditional control approaches, such as linear control
using pulse width modulation (PWM) and nonlinear hysteresis control, are extensively documented in the
literature and commonly used to regulate machine-side converters (MSC) and grid-side converters (GSC) in
WT systems [6], [15]–[17]. The most commonly used linear control methods for MSCs and GSCs,
respectively, are field oriented control (FOC) and voltage-oriented control (VOC), in which a cascaded
configuration of proportional-integral (PI) controllers is used in the outer and inner control loops and the
PWM stage to generate the switching signals for the power converters [12], [14], [18], [19]. The FOC scheme
for MSC in type 4 WECS with PMSG has a fast inner current control loop implemented in synchronously
rotating dq-axes reference frame to obtain decoupled control of generator currents, combined with an outer
slower speed control loop for regulating the generator speed at its reference value. Meanwhile, the VOC design
for GSC includes an outside DC-link voltage management loop to keep the DC-link voltage constant and an
inner current loop to inject actual power from the MSC to the grid at unity power factor [20], [21]. Nonetheless,
traditional linear control approaches have several limitations. The linear controller's transient response is
heavily influenced by the setting of various gain levels in the PI cascaded control structure. Control variables
such as dq-axes generators or grid currents display significant coupling effects; hence, extra feed-forward
terms are required for decoupling of dq components of the current with increased control complexity. The
nature of the control variables influences steady-state performance, which is best in the dq-axes reference
frame. Others may be found in [13], [22]–[24] for modest dynamic performance. Because of the rapid
advancement of microprocessors, it is now feasible to use more complicated control methods to increase
energy conversion efficiency and achieve optimum system performance.
One of these sophisticated control methods, model predictive control (MPC), has numerous
significant features that make it appropriate for power converter control [13], [25]–[28]. According to the
literature, MPC is simple to grasp and can be used to a wide range of systems. When compared to linear
controllers, MPC may give an outstanding transient response. There are two kinds of MPC schemes:
continuous-control-set MPC (CCS-MPC) and finite-control-set MPC (FCS-MPC) [25], [26]. The
controller output in CCS-MPC systems is a continuous reference signal that requires a modulator to create
switching signals. FCS-MPC, on the other hand, takes use of the power converters' limited number of
switching states, and a discrete-time (DT) model of the system is utilized to forecast the behavior of the
variables just for those potential switching states. The projected values of the variables are then utilized to
calculate a cost function, and the switching state that minimizes the cost function is chosen and applied
directly to the converter [23], [26], [27]. As a result, in type 4 WECS, FCS-MPC leveraged the operational
principles of the FOC scheme to create predictive current control (PCC) for PMSG by merely changing the
inner PI current control loops, which increases the control system's dynamic responsiveness [4], [10], [29], [30].
However, a cascaded structure with a PI speed controller is still used, and the dynamic responsiveness of the
A model predictive speed control based on hybrid MPPT algorithms for variable … (Mai N. Abu Hashish)
220  ISSN: 2252-8792

outer speed loop may be increased. In [21], an MPC method is implemented just for MSC in PMSG VS-
WECS as a substitute for the PI speed controller in the outer loop, with the inner loop employed for current
control using a traditional hysteresis controller. As a result, cascaded control configuration remains in the
MSC control scheme. MPC enables the incorporation of several variables into a single cost function without
the need for a cascaded structure or an external PI speed control loop. In [26], [31]–[35], the predictive speed
control (PSC) approach was applied to a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM), allowing
simultaneous modification of the speed and electrical variables in a single control law. In [36], a PSC scheme
for PMSG in WT systems is given; however, the control method implementation does not take into
consideration the WT system's features.
In this study, a PSC approach for PMSG VS-WECS is presented for further investigation. To locate
the ideal switching state of the power converter without the use of a cascade structure, the mechanical speed
as well as the electrical variables (i.e., speed and current/torque) are included into a single cost function. The
solution that has been suggested is straightforward and takes into consideration the fundamental workings of
WT systems. A comparison is made between the efficiency of the suggested PSC technique and that of the
conventional approach (i.e., PI speed controller in the outer loop and PCC in the inner current control loop).
The PCC scheme, on the other hand, is implemented on the GSC in order to inject actual power into the grid
while maintaining a power factor of unity. The following is a condensed version of the primary contributions
that this paper makes: i) Elimination of the well-known cascaded structure of PI controllers for the MSC in
PMSG VS-WECS by controlling mechanical and electrical variables in a single control loop with the PSC
scheme; ii) The proposed control method is based on a combination of two MPPT algorithms, namely
optimal TSR and OT control; iii) Because the control variables have different natures, error terms, including
normalization, have been added to the cost function; iv) A comparison of the proposed PSC method and the
traditional one is carried out under wind speed variation (i.e., PI speed controller in the outer loop and PCC in
the inner current control loop); v) PCC is also applied to the GSC as a replacement for the inner PI current
control loop; and vi) The effectiveness of the proposed control methods is evaluated using MATLAB
simulations.
This paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents the model of type 4 WECS with PMSG. The
MPPT algorithms are discussed in section 3. The FCS-MPC principles and the proposed speed and current
control strategies are described in section 4. The performance of the system is tested via simulations in
section 5. Finally, the conclusion of this work is given in section 6.

2. MODELING OF TYPE 4 WECS WITH PMSG

Figure 1 depicts the system setup of a type 4 VS-WECS equipped with PMSG. It is a three-phase
PMSG that is directly linked to the WT and constitutes this component. Through the attached two-level
voltage source converter of BTB, the stator of PMSG is in electrical communication with the grid (2L-VSC).
The MSC and GSC are connected to one another by a DC-link capacitor, which prevents the generator and
the grid from being connected to one another.

2.1. Wind turbine model

Wind turbines transform the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical energy, which is then used
to drive the generator rotor and produce electrical energy. The output of the wind power in the form of
mechanical power is provided by [37]:
1
𝑃𝑚 = 𝜌𝐴𝐶𝑝 (λ, 𝛽)𝑉𝑤3 (1)
2

where ρ is the air density (kg/m3), A is area swept by the WT blades (m2), Vw is the wind speed (m/s), Cp is the
power coefficient of the WT which is a function of TSR (λ) and blade pitch angle (β). The TSR is an
important parameter of the WT expressing the ratio of the blade tip speed to the incoming wind speed, and
can be defined by (2):
𝜔𝑚 𝑅
λ= (2)
𝑉𝑤

where ωm is the rotational speed of turbine rotor (rad/s) and R is the length of the blade (m). In this paper, the
value of Cp can be determined from (3) and (4):
−𝐶5
𝐶2
𝐶𝑝 (λ, 𝛽) = 𝐶1 ( − 𝐶3 𝛽 − 𝐶4 ) 𝑒 λ𝑖
+ 𝐶6 λ (3)
λ𝑖

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2022: 218-228
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  221
1 1 0.035
= − (4)
𝜆𝑖 𝜆+0.08𝛽 1+𝛽 3

where the turbine coefficients 𝐶1 − 𝐶6 are given as: 𝐶1 = 0.5176, 𝐶2 = 116, 𝐶3 = 0.4, 𝐶4 = 5, 𝐶5 = 21, 𝐶6 =
0.0068 [16]. The mechanical torque developed by a WT is given by:
𝑃𝑚
𝑇𝑚 = (5)
𝜔𝑚

Figure 1. Grid-connected PMSG based wind energy conversion system

2.2. PMSG dynamic model

Depending on the amount of shaft mechanical torque applied, a permanent magnet synchronous
machine, also known as a PMS machine, may either function as a motor or a generator (Tm). The flow of the
current and the direction of the power are both altered, yet the dynamics of the machine are unaffected. In
applications using wind energy, the PMS machine functions as a generator by only reversing the sign of the
mechanical torque [13]. In the dq reference frame, the equations for the stator voltage of the three-phase
PMSG may be written as [29]:
𝑑
ν𝑑𝑠 = 𝑅𝑠 𝑖𝑑𝑠 + 𝐿𝑑 𝑖 − 𝜔𝑟 𝐿𝑞 𝑖𝑞𝑠 (6)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑠

𝑑
𝜈𝑞𝑠 = 𝑅𝑠 𝑖𝑞𝑠 + 𝐿𝑞 𝑖 + 𝜔𝑟 𝐿𝑑 𝑖𝑑𝑠 + 𝜔𝑟 𝜓𝑟 (7)
𝑑𝑡 𝑞𝑠

where ids and iqs are the dq-axes stator currents, Rs is the stator winding resistance, Ld and Lq are the dq-axes
stator inductances, ωr is the electrical angular speed of the generator, 𝜓𝑟 is the permanent magnet flux
linkage. The electromagnetic torque Te of the PMSG is given by:
3
𝑇𝑒 = 𝑃𝑝 [𝜓𝑟 𝑖𝑞𝑠 + (𝐿𝑑 − 𝐿𝑞 )𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑞𝑠 ] (8)
2

where Pp is the pole pairs number. In surface-mounted PMSG (SPMSG), Ld and Lq are equal; i.e., Ld = Lq = Ls.
Hence, the electromagnetic torque in (8) can be rewritten as:
3
𝑇𝑒 = 𝑃𝑝 𝜓𝑟 𝑖𝑞𝑠 (9)
2

The mechanical equation of rotor speed dynamics is given by:

A model predictive speed control based on hybrid MPPT algorithms for variable … (Mai N. Abu Hashish)
222  ISSN: 2252-8792

𝑑
𝐽 𝜔𝑚 + 𝐹𝜔𝑚 = 𝑇𝑒 − 𝑇𝑚 (10)
𝑑𝑡

where ωm is the mechanical angular speed of the generator. J is the moment of inertia (kg.m2) and F is the
friction coefficient (N.m.s). The relation between mechanical and electrical angular speed is given by:

𝜔𝑟 = 𝑃𝑝 𝜔𝑚 (11)

According to (10), the control of the rotational speed of the generator may be accomplished by
adjusting the amount of electromagnetic torque that is applied. In addition, according to (9), since the
permanent magnet flux linkage 𝜓𝑟 of PMSG has a constant value, the electromagnetic torque can be
controlled by controlling the q-axis component of stator current only. As a result, the generator speed control
is accomplished by modifying the q-axis stator current component of PMSG. A zero value is assigned to the
stator d-axis current component in order to maximize the efficiency of the machine by reducing the amount
of stator current that flows for a given torque [16], [30].

3. MPPT ALGORITHMS
The operating regions of wind turbines can be divided into four different regions as shown in
Figure 2. Below cut-in wind speed (region 1), WTs are kept in parking mode, where the wind power is
negligible and insufficient to overcome the inertia of the WTs. Above cut-out wind speed (region 4), WTs are
shut down to ensure safety. In region 3, for wind speed values between rated and cut-out, the pitch controller
is employed to reduce mechanical stress on the WT, and turbine power is limited to its rated value to protect
the WT and generator from being overloaded. Finally, the mechanical power maintains a cubic relationship
with wind speed in region 2, which is bounded by the cut-in and rated speed [8]. MPPT is activated in this
region and the turbine produces the maximum possible power from the wind. This paper focuses on region 2,
where the MPPT technique is needed. In VS-WECS, the MPPT control scheme is applied to extract
maximum available power during varying wind speed conditions. Figure 3 shows Cp as a function of λ at
pitch angle β equals zero. Continuous operation of the WT at λopt, where Cp is maximum, guarantees that the
extracted power will be maximized at any wind speed [8]. The optimal TSR and OT control methods are
applied in this work.
The optimal TSR control provides generator reference speed (12) by adjusting generator speed in
proportion to varying wind speed conditions, such that the WT always tracks maximum power points (MPP)
and operates at maximum Cp and optimal TSR λopt as illustrated in Figure 4 [9].

λ𝑜𝑝𝑡 𝑉𝑤 𝑜𝑝𝑡
𝜔𝑚,𝑟𝑒𝑓 = = 𝐾1 𝑉𝑤 (12)
𝑅

In case of OT MPPT method, the expression for the reference electromagnetic torque Te,ref can be written as a
function of the measured mechanical generator speed ωm and WT parameters [7], [13]:

1 𝐶𝑝−𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑜𝑝𝑡
𝑇𝑒,𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝜌π𝑅5 2
𝜔𝑚 2
= 𝐾2 𝜔𝑚 (13)
2 λ3
𝑜𝑝𝑡

Figure 2. Wind turbine operating regions Figure 3. Power coefficient vs tip speed ratio

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2022: 218-228
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  223

Figure 4. Power characteristic of wind turbine

4. FINITE-CONTROL-SET MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL

The FCS-MPC control technique is based on the facts that a power converter can only create a
limited number of switching states and that the future behavior of the variables may be predicted by using a
discrete model of the system for each switching state. The use of a cost function determines the projected
values, which in turn determines which switching state should be chosen. It is not necessary to include a
modulation stage in order to choose and create for the power converter the switching state that would result
in the lowest value for this cost function [26], [27]. In this study, the FCS-MPC method is used to adjust
generator speed to its optimum value at various wind speeds measured at MSC. In addition to this, it may be
used to manage grid currents by acting as a substitute for the inner PI current control loop at GSC. On the
other hand, the outer loop is put to use to regulate DC-link voltage by means of a PI controller.

4.1. Proposed predictive speed control for MSC

The planned power supply cabinet (PSC) at MSC is shown in diagram form in Figure 1. In order to
arrive at the predictive model for the purpose of designing the PSC scheme, the continuous-time (CT) model
of SPMSG will need to be discretized. This model is used in order to make predictions about the future
behavior of the system variables at the subsequent sampling moment. Using (6) and (7), we can determine
how the current through the dq frame stator varies as a function of time in SPMSG.
𝑑 𝑅𝑠 1
𝑖 =− 𝑖 + ω𝑟 𝑖𝑞𝑠 + 𝜈 (14)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑠 𝐿𝑠 𝑑𝑠 𝐿𝑠 𝑑𝑠

𝑑 𝑅𝑠 1 ω 𝑟 𝜓𝑟
𝑖 =− 𝑖 − ω𝑟 𝑖𝑑𝑠 + 𝜈 − (15)
𝑑𝑡 𝑞𝑠 𝐿𝑠 𝑞𝑠 𝐿𝑠 𝑞𝑠 𝐿𝑠

By using the forward Euler approximation method, the first order derivatives of generator mechanical speed
and the stator currents in (10), (14), and (15) can be discretized with sampling time Ts as:

𝑑𝑥 𝑥(𝑘+1)−𝑥(𝑘)
= (16)
𝑑𝑡 𝑇𝑠

Hence, the DT model of stator current and generator mechanical speed of SPMSG can be written as:

𝑅𝑠 𝑇𝑠 𝑇𝑠
𝑖𝑑𝑠 (𝑘 + 1) = (1 − ) 𝑖𝑑𝑠 (𝑘) + ω𝑟 (𝑘)𝑇𝑠 𝑖𝑞𝑠 (𝑘) + 𝜈 (𝑘) (17)
𝐿𝑠 𝐿𝑠 𝑑𝑠

𝑅𝑠 𝑇𝑠 𝑇𝑠 𝜔𝑟 (𝑘)𝜓𝑟 𝑇𝑠
𝑖𝑞𝑠 (𝑘 + 1) = (1 − ) 𝑖𝑞𝑠 (𝑘) − 𝜔𝑟 (𝑘)𝑇𝑠 𝑖𝑑𝑠 (𝑘) + 𝜈 (𝑘) − (18)
𝐿𝑠 𝐿𝑠 𝑞𝑠 𝐿𝑠

𝑇𝑠
𝜔𝑚 (𝑘 + 1) = 𝜔𝑚 (𝑘) + (𝑇𝑒 (𝑘 + 1) − 𝑇𝑚 (𝑘)) (19)
𝐽

A single cost function, 𝑔𝑀 , is used in the PSC plan that has been suggested, and it takes into account both
mechanical and electrical factors. As a result, the structure of the cascading loop has been done away with.
The cost function might be constructed as follows:

𝑔𝑀 = 𝑔1 + 𝑔2 + 𝑔3 + 𝑔𝑐 (20)

A model predictive speed control based on hybrid MPPT algorithms for variable … (Mai N. Abu Hashish)
224  ISSN: 2252-8792

where:

|𝜔𝑚,𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝜔𝑚 (𝑘+1)|

𝑔1 = (21)
𝜔𝑚,𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑

|𝑖𝑑𝑠,𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝑖𝑑𝑠 (𝑘+1)|

𝑔2 = (22)
𝐼𝑠

|𝑇𝑒,𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝑇𝑒 (𝑘+1)|

𝑔3 = (23)
𝑇𝑒,𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑

∞, 𝑖𝑓 𝜔𝑚 > 𝜔𝑚,𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑
∞, 𝑖𝑓 √𝑖𝑑𝑠 (𝑘 + 1)2 + 𝑖𝑞𝑠 (𝑘 + 1)2 > 𝐼𝑠
𝑔𝑐 = { + { (24)
0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

The first term, which is produced from the most effective TSR MPPT method, is utilized to monitor
the mechanical reference speed. The second term is known as the d-axis stator current term, and it is
implemented in the SPMSG in order to accomplish a zero direct axis current control approach (i.e., ids, ref=0).
The third term ensures that the electromagnetic torque stays at the value that was determined by the OT
algorithm as the reference value. Therefore, in steady state, Te is equal to Tm, and the final term is a restricted
term, which means that it equals zero while circumstances are normal but may equal infinite if the stator
current amplitude or speed is greater than their rated values (i.e., Is or ωm, rated). It is not possible to choose the
voltage vectors that are responsible for such very high function cost values.
It is possible to compute the future values of dq stator currents and generator mechanical speed by
using the predictive model presented in (17), (18), and (19). The seven alternative switching state
combinations that are available with 2L-VSC each result in one of seven different values for and. In turn,
these values result in seven distinct values for ids (k+1), iqs (k+1), and ωm (k+1). In the end, the predicted
variables are assessed, and the switching state that has a cost function that is the lowest is selected as the
optimum action to apply to MSC [13], [38].

4.2. Predictive current control for GSC

Figure 1 demonstrates how the PCC approach may be used to GSC in order to manage the active
and reactive power that is injected into the grid. The following are the voltages for the dq-axes of the GSC:
𝑑
𝜈𝑑𝑔 = 𝑅𝑔 𝑖𝑑𝑔 + 𝐿𝑔 𝑖 − 𝜔𝑔 𝐿𝑔 𝑖𝑞𝑔 + 𝑒𝑑𝑔 (25)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑔

𝑑
𝜈𝑞𝑔 = 𝑅𝑔 𝑖𝑞𝑔 + 𝐿𝑔 𝑖 + 𝜔𝑔 𝐿𝑔 𝑖𝑑𝑔 + 𝑒𝑞𝑔 (26)
𝑑𝑡 𝑞𝑔

where idց and iqց are the dq grid currents, ωց is the grid angular frequency, Lց and Rց are the grid filter
inductance and resistance, respectively, edց and eqց are the dq grid voltages. By using the forward Euler
approximation method, the DT model of grid currents is given as:

𝑅𝑔 𝑇𝑠 𝑇𝑠
𝑖𝑑𝑔 (𝑘 + 1) = (1 − ) 𝑖𝑑𝑔 (𝑘) + 𝜔𝑔 𝑇𝑠 𝑖𝑞𝑔 (𝑘) + (𝜈𝑑𝑔 (𝑘) − 𝑒𝑑𝑔 (𝑘)) (27)
𝐿𝑔 𝐿𝑔

𝑅𝑔 𝑇𝑠 𝑇𝑠
𝑖𝑞𝑔 (𝑘 + 1) = (1 − ) 𝑖𝑞𝑔 (𝑘) − 𝜔𝑔 𝑇𝑠 𝑖𝑑𝑔 (𝑘) + (𝜈𝑞𝑔 (𝑘) − 𝑒𝑞𝑔 (𝑘)) (28)
𝐿𝑔 𝐿𝑔

The cost function for GSC is designed as:

𝑔𝐺 = |𝑖𝑑𝑔,𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑖𝑑𝑔 (𝑘 + 1) | + | 𝑖𝑞𝑔,𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑖𝑞𝑔 (𝑘 + 1)|

∞, 𝑖𝑓 √𝑖𝑑𝑔 (𝑘 + 1)2 + 𝑖𝑞𝑔 (𝑘 + 1)2 > 𝐼𝑔
+{ (29)
0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒

with a constrained term, which penalizes the voltage vectors that cause grid current exceeding its rated value
(i.e., Iց). The reference value of d-axis grid current idց, ref is obtained from an outer DC-link voltage PI control
loop, while the reference value of q-axis grid current iqց, ref is set to zero to inject pure active power to the
grid. Again, the seven possible switching state combinations of 2L-VSC give seven different values for 𝜈𝑑𝑔

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2022: 218-228
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  225

and 𝜈𝑞𝑔 , which in turn, leads to seven different values for idց (k+1) and iqց (k+1). The predicted grid currents
are then evaluated using the cost function in (29) and the switching state that minimizes the current error is
selected as an optimal action and applied to GSC.

5. SIMULATION RESULTS
The performance of the proposed control schemes applied to PMSG VS-WECS is studied and
evaluated through a simulation model built in MATLAB/Simulink. The system parameters are listed in
Table 1. To investigate the dynamic performance of the proposed PSC strategy and classical one for MSC
control, a step change in wind speed profile is assumed as shown in Figure 5. By comparing
Figures 5(a) and 5(b), it is seen that below rated wind speed, the Cp and the TSR are at their optimal values
(Cp=0.48 and λopt=8.11); however, the proposed control method gives a better performance than that of the
classical one.

Table 1. System parameters

Parameter Symbol Value Parameter Symbol Value
Blade radius R 1.6 m Moment of inertia J 0.01 Kg.m2
Optimal tip speed ratio λopt 8.1 Permanent magnet flux linkage ψr 0.85 Wb
Maximum power coefficient Cp 0.48 DC-link voltage Vdc 700 V
Rated wind speed Vw 20 m/s Capacitor of the DC-link C 3 mF
PMSG RMS line voltage Vs 400 V Grid frequency f 50 Hz
Pole pairs number Pp 3 Grid resistance Rg 0.16 Ω
Stator resistance Rs 0.2 Ω Grid inductance Lg 10 mH
Stator inductance Ls 15 mH

(a) (b)

Figure 5. The characteristics of WT (a) proposed PSC method and (b) classical speed control method

Figures 6(a) and 6(b) illustrate the capability of the speed controllers to regulate the mechanical
speed of the generator in accordance with its reference value (b). In Figures 6(a) and 6(b), Figure (i) which
ensures that the maximum amount of power is extracted despite changes in wind speed, is shown. When the
proposed PSC is used to control the speed of the mechanical rotor, it is noted that there is no overshoot in the
speed of the rotor, in contrast to the traditional PI speed controller. In addition, the proposed technique results
in a settling time of 6.8 milliseconds (within a 5% tolerance band), whereas the PI controller results in a
settling time of 11.2 milliseconds. As can be seen in Figures 6(a) and 6(b), the electromagnetic torque
follows the mechanical torque in a manner that is entirely accurate (ii). However, when compared to the
traditional control method, the dynamic response of Te when utilizing the new control method is much
improved. The dynamic response of the phase-a stator current and the dq stator current components is
illustrated in Figure 6(a) and 6(b) (iii), respectively.

A model predictive speed control based on hybrid MPPT algorithms for variable … (Mai N. Abu Hashish)
226  ISSN: 2252-8792

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Generator side control results (a) proposed PSC method and (b) classical speed control method

Using the proposed PSC approach, the magnitude and frequency of phase-a stator current vary
smoothly with generator mechanical speed. The d-axis stator current remains constant, whereas the q-axis
stator current varies linearly with Te. We also notice that the regulation of the stator current's dq components
is significantly disconnected. Figure 7 depicts the GSC control results, on the other hand. As seen in Figure 7,
the DC-link voltage follows its reference value (i). Figures 7(ii) and 7(iii) illustrate that the d-axis grid
current follows the active power with the change in wind speed, while the q-axis current is driven to zero to
inject zero reactive power into the grid. The grid voltage and current are in phase, resulting in unity power
factor functioning, as illustrated in Figure 7(iv).

Figure 7. Grid side control results

6. CONCLUSION
In this research, a predictive speed control (PSC) method is given for the model predictive control
(MPC) in the PMSG VS-WECS. The PSC strategy is based on the operational principles of a finite-control-
set model predictive control (FCS-MPC). Controlling both the mechanical and electrical variables inside a

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2022: 218-228
Int J Appl Power Eng ISSN: 2252-8792  227

single cost function allows the proposed control technique to avoid the requirement for the cascaded control
structure. This allows the control method to create the optimal switching signal for the power converter. The
maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithms used in the proposed control approach are combined in
order to achieve maximum efficiency. In addition, a predictive current control, also known as PCC, is
implemented in place of a PI current control loop within the GSC in order to maintain control over the active
and reactive power that is injected into the grid. Through the use of MATLAB simulations, we evaluate how
well the system functions when subjected to varying wind speeds. The simulation results demonstrated that
MPC is superior to classic PI controllers whenever there is a change in the speed of the wind.

REFERENCES
[1] N. Huang, “Simulation of power control of a wind turbine permanent magnet synchronous generator system,” M.S. thesis,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, USA, 2013.
[2] Global Wind Energy Council, “Global wind report 2019,” Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), 2019. https://gwec.net/global-
wind-report-2019/.
[3] V. Yaramasu, B. Wu, P. C. Sen, S. Kouro, and M. Narimani, “High-power wind energy conversion systems: state-of-the-art and
emerging technologies,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 103, no. 5, pp. 740–788, May 2015, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2014.2378692.
[4] V. Yaramasu, S. Kouro, A. Dekka, S. Alepuz, J. Rodriguez, and M. Duran, “Power conversion and predictive control of wind
energy conversion systems,” in Advanced Control and Optimization Paradigms for Wind Energy Systems, R.-E. Precup, T.
Kamal, and S. Z. Hassan, Eds. Singapore: Springer, 2019, pp. 113–139, doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-5995-8_5.
[5] V. Yaramasu and B. Wu, “Power electronics for high-power wind energy conversion systems,” in Encyclopedia of Sustainable
Technologies, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2017, pp. 37–49.
[6] Y. Errami, M. Ouassaid, and M. Maaroufi, “Control of a PMSG based wind energy generation system for power maximization
and grid fault conditions,” Energy Procedia, vol. 42, pp. 220–229, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.11.022.
[7] V. Yaramasu, A. Dekka, M. J. Durán, S. Kouro, and B. Wu, “PMSG‐based wind energy conversion systems: survey on power
converters and controls,” IET Electric Power Applications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 956–968, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1049/iet-epa.2016.0799.
[8] M. A. Abdullah, A. H. M. Yatim, C. W. Tan, and R. Saidur, “A review of maximum power point tracking algorithms for wind
energy systems,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 3220–3227, Jun. 2012, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.016.
[9] D. Kumar and K. Chatterjee, “A review of conventional and advanced MPPT algorithms for wind energy systems,” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 55, pp. 957–970, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.013.
[10] M. Abdelrahem, C. Hackl, and R. Kennel, “Model predictive control of permanent magnet synchronous generators in variable-
speed wind turbine systems,” Proceedings of Power and Energy Student Summit (PESS 2016), 2016.
[11] H. H. H. Mousa, A.-R. Youssef, and E. E. M. Mohamed, “Model predictive speed control of five-phase PMSG based variable
speed wind generation system,” in 2018 Twentieth International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON), Dec. 2018,
pp. 304–309, doi: 10.1109/MEPCON.2018.8635190.
[12] D. K. Porate, S. P. Gawande, A. P. Munshi, K. B. Porate, S. G. Kadwane, and M. A. Waghmare, “Zero direct-axis current (ZDC)
control for variable speed wind energy conversion system using PMSG,” Energy Procedia, vol. 117, pp. 943–950, Jun. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.214.
[13] V. Yaramasu and B. Wu, Model predictive control of wind energy conversion systems. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons,
2016.
[14] K. Milev, V. Yaramasu, A. Dekka, and S. Kouro, “Modulated predictive current control of PMSG-based wind energy systems,” in
2020 11th Power Electronics, Drive Systems, and Technologies Conference (PEDSTC), Feb. 2020, pp. 1–6, doi:
10.1109/PEDSTC49159.2020.9088365.
[15] S. M. Tripathi, A. N. Tiwari, and D. Singh, “Optimum design of proportional-integral controllers in grid-integrated PMSG-based
wind energy conversion system,” International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1006–1031, May
2016, doi: 10.1002/etep.2120.
[16] A. H. Kasem Alaboudy, A. A. Daoud, S. S. Desouky, and A. A. Salem, “Converter controls and flicker study of PMSG-based grid
connected wind turbines,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 75–91, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2012.06.002.
[17] A.-R. Youssef, M. A. Sayed, and M. Abdel-Wahab, “MPPT control technique for direct-drive five-phase pmsg wind turbines with
wind speed estimation,” variations, vol. 21, p. 22, 2015.
[18] M. Abdelrahem, C. Hackl, Z. Zhang, and R. Kennel, “Sensorless control of permanent magnet synchronous generators in
variable-speed wind turbine systems,” Proceedings of Power and Energy Student Summit (PESS 2016), 2016.
[19] M. Abdelrahem, C. M. Hackl, and R. Kennel, “Implementation and experimental investigation of a sensorless field-oriented
control scheme for permanent-magnet synchronous generators,” Electrical Engineering, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 849–856, Jun. 2018,
doi: 10.1007/s00202-017-0554-y.
[20] S. Li, T. A. Haskew, and L. Xu, “Conventional and novel control designs for direct driven PMSG wind turbines,” Electric Power
Systems Research, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 328–338, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2009.09.016.
[21] H. H. H. Mousa, A. Youssef, and E. E. M. Mohamed, “Model predictive speed control of five‐phase permanent magnet
synchronous generator‐based wind generation system via wind‐speed estimation,” International Transactions on Electrical
Energy Systems, vol. 29, no. 5, p. e2826, May 2019, doi: 10.1002/2050-7038.2826.
[22] J. Rodriguez et al., “Predictive current control of a voltage source inverter,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 54,
no. 1, pp. 495–503, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2006.888802.
[23] H. A. Young, M. A. Perez, J. Rodriguez, and H. Abu-Rub, “Assessing finite-control-set model predictive control: a comparison
with a linear current controller in two-level voltage source inverters,” IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 44–
52, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1109/MIE.2013.2294870.
[24] J. Rodriguez and P. Cortes, Predictive control of power converters and electrical drives. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons,
2012.
[25] P. Cortes, M. P. Kazmierkowski, R. M. Kennel, D. E. Quevedo, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive control in power electronics and
drives,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4312–4324, Dec. 2008, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2008.2007480.
[26] J. Rodriguez et al., “State of the art of finite control set model predictive control in power electronics,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1003–1016, May 2013, doi: 10.1109/TII.2012.2221469.

A model predictive speed control based on hybrid MPPT algorithms for variable … (Mai N. Abu Hashish)
228  ISSN: 2252-8792

[27] S. Kouro, P. Cortes, R. Vargas, U. Ammann, and J. Rodriguez, “Model predictive control—a simple and powerful method to
control power converters,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1826–1838, Jun. 2009, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2008.2008349.
[28] S. Vazquez, J. Rodriguez, M. Rivera, L. G. Franquelo, and M. Norambuena, “Model predictive control for power converters and
drives: advances and trends,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 935–947, Feb. 2017, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2016.2625238.
[29] A.-R. Youssef, E. E. M. Mohamed, and A. I. M. Ali, “Model predictive control for grid-tie wind-energy conversion system based
PMSG,” in 2018 International Conference on Innovative Trends in Computer Engineering (ITCE), Feb. 2018, pp. 467–472, doi:
10.1109/ITCE.2018.8316668.
[30] E. G. Shehata, “A comparative study of current control schemes for a direct-driven PMSG wind energy generation system,”
Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 143, pp. 197–205, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2016.10.039.
[31] E. J. Fuentes, C. Silva, D. E. Quevedo, and E. I. Silva, “Predictive speed control of a synchronous permanent magnet motor,” in
2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, Feb. 2009, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/ICIT.2009.4939731.
[32] E. J. Fuentes, C. A. Silva, and J. I. Yuz, “Predictive speed control of a two-mass system driven by a permanent magnet
synchronous motor,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 2840–2848, Jul. 2012, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2011.2158767.
[33] M. Preindl and S. Bolognani, “Model predictive direct speed control with finite control set of PMSM drive systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1007–1015, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2012.2204277.
[34] J. Gao and J. Liu, “A novel FCS model predictive speed control strategy for IPMSM drives in electric vehicles,” in IECON 2019 -
45th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Oct. 2019, pp. 3169–3173, doi: 10.1109/IECON.2019.8927788.
[35] A. Formentini, A. Trentin, M. Marchesoni, P. Zanchetta, and P. Wheeler, “Speed finite control set model predictive control of a
PMSM fed by matrix converter,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 6786–6796, Nov. 2015, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2015.2442526.
[36] M. Abdelrahem, C. Hackl, R. Kennel, and J. Rodriguez, “Sensorless predictive speed control of permanent-magnet synchronous
generators in wind turbine applications,” in PCIM Europe 2019; International Exhibition and Conference for Power Electronics,
Intelligent Motion, Renewable Energy and Energy Management, 2019, pp. 1–8.
[37] B. Wu, Y. Lang, N. Zargari, and S. Kouro, Power conversion and control of wind energy systems. Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
[38] S. Kouro, M. A. Perez, J. Rodriguez, A. M. Llor, and H. A. Young, “Model predictive control: MPC’s role in the evolution of
power electronics,” IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 8–21, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1109/MIE.2015.2478920.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Mai N. Abu Hashish is an M.Sc. Student and demonstrator in the Electrical

Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Port Said University, Egypt. She received
her B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering from Port Said University in 2016. Her research
interests are renewable energy systems and model predictive control of power converters.

Ahmed Ali Daoud is an Associate Professor in EE Department at Port Said

University, Egypt. His research interests are renewable energy, network analysis, power
system stability, demand-side management, and smart grid applications. He is the CEO of the
Egyptian Engineering Association, Port Said Branch. He is currently working on a research
project involving microgrids incorporating renewable resources and EVs to enhance grid
energy management and control. He can be contacted at email: [email protected] or
[email protected].

Medhat Hegazy Elfar is an assistant professor in the Electrical Engineering

Department, Faculty of Engineering, Port Said University. He received his Ph.D. degree in
Electrical Engineering in 2010, from Port Said University. Since then, he has been an assistant
professor at the Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Port Said
University. From June 2014-Dec. 2014, he was a post-doctoral researcher with Energy
Research Center, UOIT University, Canada. His current research interests include power
electronics and artificial intelligence applications on electrical machines and renewable energy
systems. He can be contacted at email: [email protected] or [email protected].

Int J Appl Power Eng, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2022: 218-228