processes

Review
A Review of Generators and Power Converters for Multi-MW
Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Saravanakumar Rajendran 1, *, Matias Diaz 1 , Roberto Cárdenas 2 , Enrique Espina 1 , Emilio Contreras 1
and Jose Rodriguez 3

1 Electrical Engineering Department, University of Santiago of Chile, Santiago 9170125, Chile

2 Electrical Engineering Department, University of Chile, Santiago 8370451, Chile
3 Engineering Faculty, Universidad San Sebastian, Santiago 4080871, Chile
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The rated power of wind turbines has consistently enlarged as large installations can
reduce energy production costs. Multi-megawatt wind turbines are frequently used in offshore and
onshore facilities, and today is possible to find wind turbines rated over 15 MW. New developments
in generators and power converters for multi-MW wind turbines are needed, as the trend toward
upscaling the dimensions of wind turbines is expected to continue. Therefore, this paper provides a
detailed review of commercially available and recently proposed multi-MW wind turbine generators
and power converters. Furthermore, comparative analyses indicate the advantages and disadvantages
of commercially available and promising technologies for generators and power converters at the
multi-MW target.

Keywords: generators; power converters; wind turbine; onshore and offshore wind turbine






Citation: Rajendran, S.; Diaz, M.;
1. Introduction
Cárdenas, R.; Espina, E.; Contreras,
E.; Rodriguez, J. A Review of
Renewable energy sources have become one of the most attractive alternatives to
Generators and Power Converters for
lessening the consequences of global warming. Accordingly, renewable energy sources
Multi-MW Wind Energy Conversion have been expanding worldwide [1]. As a result, the total global renewable energy capacity
Systems. Processes 2022, 10, 2302. has increased from 1331 GW in 2011 to 3068 GW in 2021 [2]. Furthermore, renewable
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112302 capacity is predicted to maintain its constant growth, accounting for almost 95% of new
power installations, averaging about 305 GW per year between 2021 and 2026 [3].
Academic Editor: Jiaqiang E
Wind energy has the fastest and most relevant evolution out of all renewable energy
Received: 7 October 2022 sources. At the end of 2020, the world’s total installed wind power capacity reached
Accepted: 24 October 2022 743 GW, with 93 GW being installed in 2020 [4,5]. By 2021, the installed capacity of global
Published: 5 November 2022 wind energy exceeded 840 GW, driven by an unprecedented expansion in China that
exceeded 47.6 GW [6]. According to the International Energy Agency, wind energy will
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
keep expanding as 160 GW of new Wind Turbine (WT) installations are expected by 2025,
published maps and institutional affil-
and 280 GW by 2030 [7].
iations.
The power that can be extracted from the wind depends on the size of the turbine, the
length of its blades, and it is proportionate to the cube of the wind velocity [8]. Therefore,
the development of Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECSs) has relied on upscaling
WT dimensions and looking at installations with higher wind speeds. On the one hand,
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. WTs have reached WT diameters over 170 m [9], and companies such as Siemens, General
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Electric, Bewind and Mingyang have WTs models for power ratios above 10 MW [5] as
This article is an open access article shown in Figure 1. Currently, Mingyang MySE 16.0-242 is the world’s largest single WT
distributed under the terms and with a rating of 16 MW [10]. On the other hand, offshore technology has rapidly evolved as
conditions of the Creative Commons offshore installations can produce more energy due to the increased availability of wind
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// resources. As a result, the offshore worldwide installed capacity is expected to reach
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
134 GW in 2026 [3].
4.0/).

Processes 2022, 10, 2302. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112302 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2022, 10, 2302 2 of 24

[m] Airbus
A380

Rotor Diameter
242
225
180

150

[MW] 10 12 13 14 15 16

Siemens GE Aerodyn
SG 10.0-193 Haliade-X13MW SCDnezzy2
GE Bewind Mingyang
Haliade-X12MW MBW14.xM225 MySE 16.0-242

Figure 1. Multi-MW WT models.

In addition to the incipient development of multi-MW WECSs at the industrial level, a

great deal of academic research is being carried out to enhance the operation of multi-MW
WTs, especially for generators and power converters. For example, detailed analyses of elec-
trical generators are presented in [11–14], recommending Permanent Magnet Synchronous
Generators (PMSGs) [15], and Doubly-fed Induction Generators (DFIGs) as the leading WT
generator technologies. For higher up to 2.5 MW, [16] presents an extensive investigation
of WT generators and their market trends, concluding that superconducting generators
could replace Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generators (PMSGs). Detailed technical
reviews of WECS and driving train topology with Maximum PowerPoint Tracking (MPPT)
techniques are presented in [17]. Also, WECSs are compared based on volume, weight,
cost, efficiency, system reliability, and fault ride-through capability. Finally, four different
MPPT techniques are compared, and modifications for each method are discussed. Recent
improvements in WECS, wind farm-related issues, and a review of a critical component
in WTs have been discussed and analyzed in [18,19]. The unpredictable nature of the
wind causes the following problems in wind power systems: voltage instability, frequency
oscillation, and small signal stability issues. Therefore, the transient stability of large-scale
wind farms with DFIG WT has been analyzed [20]. In addition, the impact of various
faults in power systems has been studied in [21]. The transient response of large-scale
offshore WTs has been investigated in the presence of symmetrical and unsymmetrical
disturbances [22]. An overview of power converters and the technical requirements for
MW WECSs are discussed in [23]. Furthermore, the authors studied the impact of the
full-scale converter in PMSG WT [24].
Different power converter topologies applied to permanent magnet generators, In-
duction Generators (IGs), Synchronous Generators (SGs), and DFIGs with control schemes
are discussed in [11,13]. A comprehensive analysis of various power converter topologies,
grid-connected wind farms, and fault ride-through methods for PMSGs is discussed in [25],
which predicts that PMSG will be dominant in the future wind industry. The design of the
multiphase generator and the multiphase converter topology for the WT has been studied
in [15]. The overview of power converters and the technical requirements for MW WECSs
are discussed in [23].
This study focuses on the current trends in generators and power converters solely
used for multi-MW WTs (above 6 MW). In summary, the main contributions of this work
are as follows.
• Multi-MW WT generators for onshore/offshore WTs reported in the literature are
discussed in the paper with benchmarks based on technological trends and market
penetration.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 3 of 24

• A detailed comparative study of WT generators is discussed in Section 3.7, and the

commercially available generators for different manufacturers are presented and
discussed.
• The future trend for WT generators is discussed (ref Section 4), and the high-power
generators under the development stage are also presented.
• In addition, a broad range of power converters employed for multi-MW WT generators
is presented in this article, with benchmarks focused on technological and market
status.
• A detailed comparative study of the different converters and future trends for power
converters are also presented.
The paper is organized as follows. First, the overview of WECSs is discussed in
Section 2 and then, different types of generators employed in multi-MW WECS are dis-
cussed in Section 3. Next, Section 4 presents recent trends in multi-MW generators. Further-
more, Section 5 describes recent power converters used for multi-MW WTs, and finally, in
Section 6, conclusions and recommendations are drawn, and future trends are illustrated.

2. Wind Energy Conversion Systems

WECS size and functionalities have increased over the past few decades. As presented
in Figure 2, a modern WECS comprises a wind turbine, a gearbox, an electric generator and
a power converter. The first generation of WT was known as Type I WECS or “Danish” WT
for fixed-speed operation. Most of the time, the electric generator was directly connected to
the grid. Later, limited variable speed WECSs was developed, known as Type II WECS.
Currently, state-of-the-art WECSs can provide full variable speed operation and several
control functionalities. Figure 2 shows a Type III WECS when using DFIG or a Type IV
WECS when using IG, PMSG, or other generators. The main requirements for a WECS
control system are summarized in Figure 2 as follows:
• Basic control functions
• WECS-specific control functions
• Grid services
Basic control functions, such as voltage/current controllers and grid synchronization,
guarantee the proper operation of the power converters and maintain the voltage and
frequency in the grid, respectively. Furthermore, specific control functions are divided into
MPPT/power limitations and fault ride-through. The wind speed is classified according to
its regions, such as region 1, region 2 and region 3. Region 1 refers to low wind speed. In
Region 2, the torque control extracts the maximum power from the wind at a wind speed
below the nominal rate [26,27]. In Region 3, a pitch controller maintains constant power
at high wind speed [28,29]. In addition, a Low Voltage Ride-Through (LVRT) has enabled
the retention of the WECS in the utility network under low voltage conditions [30,31].
Generally, a grid-forming WECS controller considers the nominal voltage and frequency as
a reference signal, and it is also called V-f mode. As mentioned in [32], the V-f controller
provides a low output impedance, and for parallel operation with other WECSs, it demands
synchronization modules. However, these types of structures involve additional costs to
WT. Therefore, to avoid this issue, decentralized droop control is employed to control the
parallel converters in an autonomous grid [33]. Finally, other auxiliary services such as
droop control [34] and synthetic inertia control [35] are adapted to improve frequency drop
and system stability.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 4 of 24

Converter
DFIG IG
Line Line
Filter Filter
SG Others Grid
Vdc Current/Voltage Grid
Control Control Synchronisation
Basic control functions
Power maximization Fault ride through
and Pitch Control and Grid Support
Wind Speed WECS-specific control functions
Inertia Energy Power
Emulation Storage Quality
Grid services

Figure 2. Overall control requirements for grid-connected WECS.

3. Generators for MW-WECS

Several alternatives used to implement multi-MW variable speed WECS are illustrated
in Figure 2. Three typical generators used in this power range are IG, DFIG, and SG [36–39].
The latter could be either the PMSG or the Wound Rotor Synchronous Generator (WRSG).
This section illustrates conventional and recent generators utilized in high-power WECS.

3.1. Induction Generator

The Squirrel Cage Induction Generator (SQIG) is a simple and robust machine. The
cage machine is inherently brushless (unlike the DFIG) and requires reduced mainte-
nance [36]. For variable speed operation, the IG is interfaced to the grid using two full-
power converters allowing good fault ride-through capability with this topology. Because
the IG is an induction machine, constructing a low-speed multi-pole machine is not techni-
cally feasible for direct drive operation [40]. Further, the variable speed operation does not
exist in IGs (as in the DFIG).

3.2. Doubly-Fed Induction Generator

DFIGs are widely employed for wind energy applications [37]. For a typical DFIG, the
rotor is connected to the power converter, and the speed range is restricted, e.g., typically a
30% of this value.
For DFIGs-based WECSs, majorly 3-stage gearboxes are usually required because of
design problems associated with the implementation of multi-pole low-speed DFIGs [40].
However, the design of a WECS based on DFIG with a single stage gearbox is presented
in [40], and the design of a direct drive multi-MW DFIG is discussed in [41]. Unfortunately,
commercial implementations of WECSs based on DFIGs operating at low speed (direct
drive) have not yet been reported.
Nowadays, the topology based on DFIGs with partial-scale power converters is still
widely used in wind energy applications. However, the difficulties associated with fulfilling
the new stringent grid codes of several countries [42]. Therefore, in the future, the pre-
ferred multi-MW WECS will be based on synchronous generators (either PMSG or WRSG)
interfaced to the grid using full-scale power converters [23,43]. Sinovel (SL6000/128 and
SL6000/155), Senvion (6.2M126), United Power (UP6000-136) and Ingeteam are commercial
DFIG manufacturers with a power rating of 6 MW and above.
Two of the frequently mentioned disadvantages of the doubly-fed induction generators
are
• The conventional DFIG requires slip rings and brushes to connect the rotor to the
power converter. This produces well-known issues associated with maintenance and
robustness.
• The hardware and control systems required to achieve fault-ride-through capability in
DFIG-based WECS are relatively complex.
However, to overcome the above disadvantages, the following doubly-fed genera-
tors such as Brushless Doubly-Fed Induction Generator (BDFIG), Brushless Doubly-Fed
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 5 of 24

Reluctance Generator (BDFRG), Brushless Cascade Doubly Fed Induction Generator (BCD-
FIG) and Dual-Stator Brushless Doubly-Fed Induction Generator (DSBDFIG) have been
proposed in the literature.

3.2.1. Brushless Doubly-Fed Induction Generator

A WECS based on BDFIG is shown in Figure 3a, and it is made up of two stators
wounded to be magnetically independent between them. The two independent stators
are called “Power winding” and “Control winding”. In addition, the control winding is
designed to supply a fraction of the nominal power. Usually, a back-to-back (BTB) power
converter connects the control winding and the grid. In addition to brushless operation
capability and robust rotor construction, one of the advantages of this configuration is the
ability to ride through faults without crowbars [44]. However, the main drawback of the
BDFIG is the torque density; that is, this machine produces less torque per volume than the
DFIG.

3.2.2. Brushless Doubly-Fed Reluctance Generator

The BDFRG consists of two sets of three-phase winding, such as primary and sec-
ondary winding [45,46]. In WECS, the primary winding is directly connected to the grid,
whereas the secondary winding is connected through the grid via a partial scale converter.
Figure 3b shows a WECS based on BDFRG. The reliability of the BDFRG has been in-
creased due to the brushless construction. In addition, the fault ride-through capability has
been improved because of the high leakage inductance presented in the stator winding
of BDFRG [47].

3.2.3. Brushless Cascade Doubly Fed Induction Generator

Conventional DFIG requires brush wear and maintenance of carbon accumulation,
leading to additional maintenance costs and less reliability. BCDFIG can overcome the
above demerits [48]. A cascade induction machine combines two wound rotors, i.e., a
Permanent Machine (PM) and a Control Machine (CM). The pole pairs for PM and CM
are p1 and p2 respectively. Figure 3c shows the schematic of BCDFIG. The brushes are
eliminated by coupling both machines mechanically and electrically via rotors. A BCDFIG
wind turbine is connected to a gearbox, and the generator variable speed range determines
the gear ratio, i.e., ±30%. The number of poles is increased in BCDFIG, which reduces
the gear ratio; subsequently, the size and cost of a gearbox are reduced. In BCDFIG, the
converter directly connects to the control machine and improves the transient behaviour.

Power Primary
winding winding

3 3
BDFIG BDFRG

Gearbox Grid Gearbox Grid

or 3 or
Gearless Gearless 3
3 3
Control Secondary
winding winding

a) b)

Outer Stator
3 BCDFIG Rotor
DSBDFIG Inner stator
3
CM PM
Gearbox Grid Gearbox Grid
3
3 3
3

c) d)

Figure 3. Different types of DFIG WECS configurations. (a) BDFIG. (b) BDFRG. (c) BCDFIG. (d) DSBDFIG.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 6 of 24

3.2.4. Dual-Stator Brushless Doubly-Fed Induction Generator

Generally, brushless DFIG has direct coupling between stator fields, and it introduces
inevitable harmonics [49]. To overcome these effects, a novel DSBDFIG is proposed [49,50].
Figure 3d shows the schematic of DSBDFIG. It consists of three parts, i.e., the outer and
inner stator with three-phase balanced winding and nonmagnetic support with a dual-layer
reversely connected to balanced three-phase winding. It has a compact structure with a
lower gear ratio which helps to reduce the size of the gearbox. Wind generation based
on DSBDFIG requires a partially rated converter, which increases system reliability and
efficiency.
The above-discussed generators, such as BDFIG, BDFRG, BCDFIG and DSBDFIG, are
conceptually well-established techniques but not commercially available.

3.3. Synchronous Generators

The SGs, particularly the PMSGs, are considered essential technologies for implement-
ing WECSs. There are several commercial solutions based on this generator for low-speed
operation (direct-drive) or medium-speed operation (“Multibrid” concept with reduced-
size gearbox [51]). Some examples are the Enercon E-126 of 7.58 MW equipped with a
synchronous annular generator; and the Siemens SWT-8.0-154 (PMSG) of 8 MW. There
are several advantages to using SG-based WECSs. For instance, good fault ride-through
capability is provided by the full-scale power converters [43]. Moreover, neither slip-ring
nor brushes are required in a typical PMSG, and direct drive operation reduces the audible
noise because the gearbox is eliminated from WECSs. The weight, cost, and efficiency
of direct-drive WRSGs, direct-drive PMSGs, and three-stage geared DFIGs are compared
in [37,40]. Generally, the PMSG has divided into two categories based on the direction of
the magnetic flux crossing in the airgap: Radial Flux (RF) and Axial Flux (AF) machines
[52]. However, due to economic constraints, most commercially available PMSGs are RF
machines [53]. In addition, this topology provides robust design and high structural stabil-
ity. Siemens already has commercially existing RF-PMSG, such as SG 11.0-200 DD (11 MW),
and a 14 MW DD-RF-PMSG is under development. In addition, the Haliade-X 12 MW
from GE developed an offshore RF-PMSG with DNV-GL certification. The AF-PMSGs have
been investigated for small and medium WTs. Detailed examination of AF-PMSG-based
wind generators for offshore applications has been studied in [54] for the range of 3 to
12 MW. Furthermore, a 10 MW iron-less AF-PMSG has been discussed in [53] for offshore
application. This analysis concluded that the overall weight of the machine is reduced
because of the ironless generator. Finally, the commercial availability of the AF-PMSGs is
in the development stage. Overall, a PMSG-WECS heavily depends on the price of the rare
earth elements required to fabricate the permanent magnets. This commodity has suffered
large price fluctuations in the past years; for instance, in 2021, the cost of neodymium
increased about 78 times compared to the cost in January 2015 [55].
Aerodyn, Goldwind, and MingYang have manufactured synchronous generators with
more than 7 MW power ratings. Nevertheless, Enercon (the 7.5 MW E-126) and Aerodyn
(SCD nezzy2 twin rotor) have successfully used this technology (electrical excitation) to
produce one of the largest and most reliable WECS solutions available in the WT market.

3.4. xDFM
The xDFM is a new WECS topology proposed in [56] and is marketed by the Span-
ish company Ingeteam for onshore and offshore applications with power ranges up to
6 MW [56].
The proposed “xDFM” topology is shown in Figure 4a. It is based on a permanent
magnet machine, and a DFIG affixed to the same mechanical shaft. The BTB converters are
connected to a PM machine typically operated as a generator below synchronous speed
and as a motor above the synchronous velocity, feeding a fraction of the power back to the
shaft. The rating of the PM machine is reduced, but, on the other hand, the DFIG-stator
must be designed to deliver nominal power. According to [56], the main advantage of
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 7 of 24
Power Power
winding winding

the xDFM, compared to the conventional DFIG, is the much enhanced LVRT capability.
Another advantage
BDFIG of xDFIM is that DFIG-stator windingsBDFRGcould be designed for medium
voltage operation, i.e., reducing the size of the transformer required for grid connection.
Gearbox Grid Gearbox Grid
or
Moreover, or
the PM machine can be controlled using standard field-oriented techniques to
Gearless
reduce the torque peaks and oscillations producedGearless
in the mechanical shaft during faults.
AC DC AC DC
Control it is claimed that power smoothing of the Control
Furthermore, generated power could be achieved
winding DC AC winding DC AC
using the proposed topology.
a) b)

AC DC
Grid
DC AC
3
Encoder 3 Grid
PM 3 AC DC
DFIG Machine SG
DC AC
Gearbox Gearbox
3
AC DC 3 AC DC
DC AC DC AC

Control System

a) b)

Figure 4. WECS configurations. (a) xDFM. (b) Multi-channel synchronous generator.

3.5. Superconducting Generators

Superconducting Generators (SCG) offer advantages such as high efficiency, low
maintenance, and high-power density. Due to the high current density, it is feasible
to reduce the weight and volume of the superconductor generators by about 40% [57].
Therefore, superconducting generators offer an up-and-coming solution for high-power
WECSs rated at 10 MW or above.
Nowadays, three main superconducting wires are available in the market: High-
Temperature superconductors (HTS), Low-Temperature superconductors (LTS), and Mag-
nesium diboride (MgB2 ). A comparative study of HTS and LTS generators for WECS
applications has been carried out in [57]. This study demonstrates that development in
HTS generators is more significant than LTS generators. However, the high cost of super-
conductive wires, along with cryogenic and refrigeration systems, are the main drawbacks
of the commercialization of SCGs in the wind power sector [58].

3.5.1. High-Temperature Superconducting Generator

An HTS generator achieves a high power density for multi-MW applications [59,60].
The high current densities reduce the mass and volume of HTS generators by about 40–50%.
Moreover, the generator losses could be halved. A cooling system is required to maintain
the temperature in the superconducting winding. Therefore, it reduces efficiency and
increases complexity. For example, a typical 4.5 MW generator operates at 30◦ K, requiring
0.16% of total power to cool [60]. Detailed information on the mass and volume reduction
attainable in the generator, nacelle, tower, etc. of WECSs based on the HTS generator is
available in the report published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
in 2010 [61]. In addition, WindTec has a 10 MW direct drive WECS (the SeaTitan) made
up of an HTS generator [62]. The EU-funded project Suprapower (see [62] ) also seeks to
develop WECS of 10 MW or more using HTS technology. Converteam [63], and Changwon
National University [64] are developing a second generation of HTS-based wind turbine
generators.

3.5.2. Low-Temperature Superconducting Generator

A detailed study of 12 MW, SuperConducting wind generator (SCWG) with LTS field
winding for offshore WT has been discussed in [65]. A comparison has been made between
SCWG and PMSG on the basics of cost and weight. This analysis concludes that SCWG is
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 8 of 24

46% lighter than PMSG. In addition, a weight-to-power ratio is compared with different
SCWGs like AMSC, GE, and TECNALIA.
General Electric Research of Niskayuna, Newyork, developed an LTS generator with
high-efficiency ultra-lightweight [66,67].

3.5.3. Magnesium Diboride

A 10 MW, 8.1 rpm direct drive partially SCG has been developed using MgB2 as a
field coil [68]. It consists of a warm rotor with a superconducting coil, which works at 20 K.
A cryocooler is installed on the rotor, which extracts the heat from the superconducting
coil. As a result, the SCG has a 26% and 11% reduction in weight and a lighter tower
than a permanent magnet generator, respectively. A 20 MW superconducting synchronous
generator is designed using MgB2 superconductor on both stator and rotor windings [69].
The stator and rotor windings operate at 10 K and 20 K, respectively. Two separate cryogenic
systems are considered to improve system reliability. The proposed superconducting
generator is 2.5 times lighter than PMSG, reducing the cost of the tower and foundation;
also, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is reduced by 8.5%. In addition, the MgB2 is an
alternative for HTS and LTS because the cost is lower than HTS and the cooling method is
more superficial than LTS [70].
Furthermore, HTS-based SCWGs are commercially available. Moreover, the remaining
two, that is, LTS and MgB2 , are under the conceptual level.

3.6. Multi Channel Generator

A fault-tolerant WECS could be implemented using a generator with several separate
and isolated stator windings, each feeding a BTB converter. This solution has shown in
Figure 4b. The main advantage of the multichannel topology is fault redundancy [71,72].
Suppose a fault is created in one of the phases; the generator could be designed to maintain
nominal power operation even in one phase failure. It is recommended to design the
machine with a phase inductance of 1.0 p.u to limit the internal failure [72]. Moreover, to
increase the fault tolerance capacity of the system, a multiple-window transformer could
be used [23]. The multi-channel generator is used in commercial solutions, for instance, the
Gamesa 10x WECSs of 4.5 MW and 5 MW.

3.7. Comparison of Multi-MW WECS

Table 1 shows the pros and cons of different wind turbine generators. Several re-
searchers have compared various types of wind turbine generators [40,73–77]. Five differ-
ent multi-MW generators, such as Doubly-Fed Induction Generators with a three-stage
Gearbox (DFIG3G), Direct-Drive Synchronous Generator (DDSG) with electrical excitation,
Direct-Drive Permanent-Magnet Generator (DDPMG), Permanent-Magnet generator with
single-stage gearbox (PMG1G), and Doubly-Fed Induction Generator with a single-stage
Gearbox (DFIG1G) are compared based on the cost and annual energy yield without con-
sidering the integral parts of the installation of turbines [40]. DFIG3G is lighter and widely
used; at the same time, low energy yield due to the gearbox. DDSG and DDPMG are
expensive alternative solutions for high-power WECS. DFIG1G offers a higher energy yield
per cost, but it is too special for manufacturers. On the other hand, a DDPMG is considered
an optimal generator for the fully rated converter due to the absence of a gearbox. Four
different generators are compared based on cost, efficiency, power consumption, topology,
and control complexity [73,74]. This study demonstrates that a permanent magnet gen-
erator with a fully rated converter is more appropriate for offshore wind locations. The
replacement of an asynchronous generator with a synchronous generator is discussed in
[75]. This study deduces that replacing induction with synchronous is appropriate for a
power rating of less than 750 kW machines. Various ratings of large multi-MW DDPMG are
compared based on mass, mass per torque, and active & inactive materials [76]. This study
discloses that a shorter flux path is required to minimize the active material of DDPMG.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 9 of 24

Commercially available multi-MW generators are compared based on generator topol-

ogy with their connections to the turbine [77]. This study infers that the reliability of the
turbine can be improved by eliminating the gearbox and large-scale converters. Three
different generators have been compared based on weight, stator radius, power loss, cost
estimation, fault recovery, and noise reduction [36]. It shows that Direct Drive (DD) syn-
chronous and permanent magnet generators are suitable for offshore applications because
of their robustness and reliability. The geared and direct drive generators are compared
on the basis of energy yield, cost, and weight [53]. This study concludes that DD PMSG
feature the highest energy density among available technologies.
Economic, technical benefits and limitations for DD PMSG are studied in [78]. The
main drawback of this topology is considerable in size and weight. Therefore, logistics
and construction are limited in the case of offshore applications. Similarly, high-rated
power generators introduce high current density in stator coils and produce more heat.
So, proper cooling is necessary to overcome this heat and executed by the liquid cooling
method. Different types of wind turbine generators and a comparison of generators based
on technical data and commercial availability are presented in [16]. This analysis infers
that more than 80% of the generators are DFIG on the market. However, for large-rating
turbines, PMSG is a better option. Three different generators have analysed and concluded
that geared SCIG is most appropriate for small-scale standalone wind energy systems [79].
SC generators and permanent magnet generators are compared on the basis of weight,
volume, and cost in [57]. This study discloses that SC generators are more appropriate
in weight, volume, and cost for more than 8 MW. The mass of HTS generators is roughly
50% less than Permanent Magnet Direct Drive (PMDD). In addition, the cost of materials
is the main drawback of HTS generators. A detailed study on a constant speed with a
squirrel cage induction generator and three variable speed systems with DFIG and DD
are discussed in [39]. The BDFIG with enhanced LVRT is a better option for low-cost,
high-reliability analogized with DFIG. Also, BDFIG is more suitable for medium-speed
generators, but it is slightly oversized due to additional windings.

Table 1. Comparison of different generator topologies.

Generator Gear Box Type Advantages Disadvantage Comments

• Low energy yield due to high
• DFIG3Gs are commercially used. • Losses are higher due to gearbox.
losses in the gearbox.
• The power rating of the converter is about • Addition protection is required.
• Grid fault ride through
of rated power and the range of the speed
DFIG 1G and 3G requirements are essential for DFIG.
roughly varies from 60%to 110% of rated speed.
• Only 30% of the generated power
is used for the converter.

• Low cost constructions and permanent

magnets are not required.
• Fractional rated converters are used. Since
• Its slightly larger due to additional • Commercially not available for
Brushless DFIG Medium speed brushes are absent so failure
windings multi-MW WT.
due to brushes are completely removed.
• Significantly improved LVRT performance
compared with DFIG.
• Electrical excitation should be provided • Full scale and reduced scale
Synchronous Direct Drive –
either rotor side or permanent magnet. converters are required.
Generator
• Higher efficiency and reliability.
• According to generator structure RFPM • Most of the offshore wind
is quite simple compared to AFPM and TFPM. • Permanent magnet cost is turbines are DDPMSG.
PM generator Direct Drive • Complicated in construction structure fluctuating in market. • The rare-earth PM materials are
• TFPM is more flexible for new technology. • Rare earth materials are required. eliminated by electrical and
• Overall PM are more suitable offshore hybrid excitation.
wind turbine.
• Low weight, small size and higher
efficiency.
• SC generators are significantly advanced • Cryogenic cooling system is most
over DD PMG in terms of shear stress of 53 kPa essential for SC generator.
• Technically under development
and efficiency of 96%. • Cost of HTS material is about
High tempera- Direct Drive stage.
• HTS concepts are high superior than 90% total active material, due to this
ture supercon- • MgB2 is an alternative for HTS and LTS.
reason the cost of the generator
ducting
DDPM for more than 8 MW. Rotating is very high.
field and radial topology concepts are
most common in SC.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 10 of 24

Various design techniques have been investigated for the weight and cost of HTS
generators [58]. Also, this study deals with minimizing the use of the HTS field coil, which
reduces the cost of generators. A qualitative comparison for brushless DFIM, BDFRM, and
others is presented in [80]. Three types of wind generators are compared, namely DFIG1G,
DFIG3G, and DDPMG [81]. This study demonstrates that DDPM generator efficiency is
about 96%, and the overall efficiency of the PMSG improvers by optimising its parameters.
SC generators are significantly advanced over PMDD generators in terms of shear
stress of 53 kPa and efficiency of 96% [82]. Different types of large wind generators are
compared based on direct drive, semi-direct drive, and indirect drive [83]. This analysis
found that DD generators are more capable of high-power WECSs. In addition, electrical
excitation and hybrid excitation are proposed to eliminate the rare-earth PM material in
the case of PMSG. Different drive train topologies of a 10 MW PMSG, namely DDPMSG,
medium-speed PMSG, and high-speed PMSG, are extensively compared for offshore
WTs [84]. This study claims that gearbox usage reduces the size of WT and raw materials.
A comprehensive analysis of the commercial design of electrical generators utilised in
the high-power wind industry is presented in [85]. In addition, the performance of the
generators is assessed by their mass, cost and mass-to-torque ratio. Finally, this analysis
concluded that radial flux machines are appropriate for DD WTs.

4. Recent Trends in Generators

This section presents the recent advances in wind turbine generators. Table 2 shows
the different topologies of wind generators with a power rating of 6 to 15 MW. High-power
WTs are classified mainly into two categories, such as direct and indirect drive trains.
Except for HTS and EESG, other topologies prefer the indirect drive train WT (geared) as
presented in Table 2. In an indirect drive train, gearbox failure is a crucial parameter for
turbine downtime [86]. Specifically, in the case of offshore, this technology is complex and
highly expensive. Although DDs have many advantages, certain drawbacks need to be
addressed for further development in DD WTs. Rotating velocity decreases at high power
levels, introducing a torque increase in DD generators [87]. Furthermore, this increase in
torque is directly proportional to the tangential force density and the diameter of the air gap
[76]. Thus, a larger diameter with a higher force density is essential to accommodate these
changes. However, the above modifications increase the weight and cost of the generator.
Presently, most of the WT generators are DD EESG and DD PMSG. Enercon manu-
factures the EESG rated at 7.5 MW, which is the updated version of E-112 4.5 MW [88]. In
addition, some manufacturers like Lagerwey and Torres adapted EESG, and the rating of
the machines varies from fractional kW to 3 MW. However, upscaling these machines is a
challenging task and expensive. Due to the above reasons, most manufacturers do not pre-
fer the EESG. Furthermore, the direct drive wind turbine (DDWT) requires a large number
of poles, whereas pitched poles are limited EESGs [85]. Hence, high-power, high-torque
generators require higher volume and weight, and a complex cooling system is essential
to minimize thermal losses. Overall, EESGs are robust and easy to construct, but are the
weightiest and most expensive generators compared to other topologies such as DFIG,
DDPMSG, and single-stage gear PMSG [40].
DD PMSGs are highly suitable for high-power wind energy applications. Generator
reliability has increased due to the elimination of the slip rings, which reduces maintenance
costs [40]. In addition, the absence of an external energy source reduces the copper loss.
Table 3 shows the list of manufacturers that prefer DD PMSG over other configurations for
the above reasons. The following manufacturers, such as Siemens, Vestas, General Electric,
MingYang, Goldwind, and Samsung, have DD and geared PMSGs. For example, Siemens
has a 10 MW DD PMSG with a rotor diameter of 193 m. Also, Vestas and MingYang have
geared and medium-speed PMSGs with a rating of 8 to 10 MW. Table 4 shows the wind
turbine generators in the development stage. The details mentioned in Table 2, Table 3 and
Table 4 are gathered from the online portals [89,90]. The highest power rating of the WT
generators has been manufactured by MingYang and Vestas, with a power rating of 16 MW
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 11 of 24

and 15 MW, respectively. In addition, General Electric and Siemens develop a 14 MW

generator with an annual energy production of approximately 74 GWh and 80 GWh. This
table shows that the current trend of the generators is moving towards permanent magnet
generators. However, manufacturing these generators demands Rare Earth Materials (REM)
like neodymium iron boron or samarium cobalt [85]. Most PMSGs utilize neodymium iron
boron as a result of its magnetic property. Therefore, the main drawback of these generators
is the REM, even though the technical merits of these generators are well enough. The
following alternative solutions may be considered for replacing REM in the wind industry.
• The HTS generator is one of the promising technologies without using REM. In
addition, this technology offers lightweight generators with higher efficiency. At
present, AMSC has this HTS generator with a power rating of 10 MW.
• The theoretical analysis has been conducted between ferrite magnet-based syn-
chronous generators with conventional PMSG for 6 MW WT with the same stator
design [91]. This study concludes that both generators are almost similar in terms
of energy cost. However, optimizing the ferrite PMSG would be the alternative for
neodymium iron boron-based PMSG (this solution is appropriate when the price of
neodymium iron boron is increased continuously).
• REM can be replaced by double excitation [85]. In addition, the radial flux machines
have the better option for DD WTs.

Table 2. Different topologies of High power WT generators.

Power (MW)/Rotor
Generator Commercial
Manufacture Model Gear Box Diameter (m)/Speed Onshore or Offshore
Type Status
(rpm)/Voltage (kV)
DFIG Manufacture
SL6000/128 1-Stage and 2-Stage
Sinovel, China DFIG 6MW/128/1200/6.3 Onshore Available
SL6000/155 Planetary
United Power UP6000-136 DFIG – 6 MW/136/–/6.6 Onshore Available
Senvion 6.2M126 DFIG – 6.15 MW/126/1170/33 Onshore Available
REpower 6.2M152 DFIG planetary 6.2 MW/152/–/– – Available
Ingeteam – DFIG 3-Stage 9 MW/ Both Available
HTS Manufacture
HTS (cryo-
AMSC, USA wt10000dd genic and DD 10 MW/190/10/12 Offshore Available
water cooling)
EESG Manufacture
Enercon E-126 7.580 EESG DD 7.5 MW/127/12/0.69 Onshore Available
Aerodyn SCD 8.0 MW EESG DD 8 MW/168/–/– – –
SG Manufacture
aerodyn aM
ASG / PMSG – 6MW/139/–/3.3 – –
6.0/139
aerodyn
Synchronous Planetary 8 MW/168/308/– Both –
SCD 8.0/168
Aerodyn, Ger-
synchronous
many aerodyn two-stage planetary
with brushless
SCD nezzy2 gearbox with flex 15 MW/150/– Both 2022
electrical field
twin-rotor pins
excitation
synchronous
aerodyn
(electrically Planetary 8 MW/168/– – –
SCD 8.0/168
excited)
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 12 of 24

Table 3. PMSG based commercially available high power WT generators.

Power (MW)/Rotor
Generator Commercial
Manufacture Model Gear Box Diameter (m)/Speed Onshore or Offshore
Type Status
(rpm)/Voltage (kV)
PMSG Manufacture
Ingeteam – PMSG DD/1G/3G 9 MW/– Both Available
SWT-7.0-154 PMSG DD 7 MW/154/– Offshore Available
SWT-7.0-154 PMSG DD 7 MW/154/– Offshore Available

Siemens SWT-6.0-154 PMSG DD 6 MW/154/– Offshore Available

Gamesa SG 10.0-193 PMSG DD 10 MW/193/– Offshore Available
Under develop-
SG14-222 PMSG DD 14 MW/222/– Offshore
ment (2024)
Under develop-
SG 11.0-200 PMSG DD 11 MW/200/– Offshore
ment (2022)
V174-9.5
PMSG Geared (1:41) 9.5 MW/174/400/– Both Available
MW
V164-8.0
PMSG planetary 8 MW/164/500/30 Both Available
MW
MHI Vestas Off-
shore, Denmark V164-8.3
PMSG planetary 8 MW/164/500/66 Both –
MW
V164-8.8
PMSG planetary 8.8 MW/164/500/30 Both Available
MW
V164-10 MW PMSG Geared (1:41) 10 MW/167 Both –
YZ127/6.0 6MW/150/12/3
YZ140/6.0 PMSG DD 6MW/170/12/3 Both –
Swiss Electric, YZ160/6.0 6MW/190/12/3
China YZ150/10.0 10MW/127/12/3
YZ170/10.0 PMSG DD 10MW/140/12/3 Both –
YZ190/10.0 10MW/160/12/3
Haliade-X 12
PMSG DD 12 MW/220/–/6.6 – Available
MW
Haliade-X 13
General Electric PMSG DD 13 MW/220/–/6.6 – 2023
MW
Haliade150-
PMSG DD 6 MW/151/11.5/0.9 – Available
6 MW
GW184-6.45
PMSG DD 6.5 MW/184/–/ – Available
MW
Goldwind
GW175-8
PMSG DD 8 MW/175/–/ – Available
MW
MySE6.45- medium-speed
PMSG 6.45 MW/178/ Offshore Available
180 gearbox
MingYang, MySE7.25- medium-speed
PMSG 7 MW/158/ Offshore Available
China 158 gearbox
MySE8.3- medium-speed
PMSG 8.3 MW/178/ Offshore Available
180 gearbox
CSIC, China MH152-6.2 PMSG – 6.2 MW/152/–/– Both –
Bewind BW 6.xM172 PMSG 2-stage gearbox 6 MW/172/–/– Offshore Available
D10000-185 PMSG DD 10 MW/185/10/12 Both –
Dongfang, D10000-185 PMSG DD 11 MW/185/10/12 Both –
China D8000-185 PMSG DD 8 MW/185/–/– Both –
D7000-186 PMSG DD 7 MW/186/–/– Both –
Samsung S7.0-171 PMSG planet flexpin 7 MW/171.2/400/3.3 Both –
Sewind, Shang- El.W8000-
PMSG DD 8 MW/167/12/069 Both –
hai 167
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 13 of 24

Table 4. High power WT generators under development stage

Power (MW)/Rotor Diame-

Generator Onshore or Off- Commercial
Manufacture Model Gear Box ter (m)/Speed (rpm)/Voltage
Type shore Status
(kV)
Siemens
SG14-222 PMSG DD 14 MW/222/– Offshore 2024
Gamesa
Haliade-X 14
General Electric PMSG DD 14 MW/220/11.5/6.6 – 2023
MW
MingYang, MySE16.0- medium-speed gear-
PMSG 16 MW/242/ Offshore 2024
China 242 box
BW
Bewind PMSG 2-stage gearbox 14 MW/225/–/– Offshore –
14.xM225
V236-15.0 medium speed gear- second half of
Vestas PMSG 15 MW/236/–/– Offshore
MW box 2022

5. Power Converter Topologies for Multi-MW WECS

The WECS power converter has been classified into two categories, i.e., Low voltage
(LV) (<1 kV) and Medium voltage (MV) converter (1–35 kV). The LV converters are used
up to 3 MW WTs. Different power converter configurations have been developed for a
multi-MW WECS. Nowadays, the nominal power of single WT has increased to 10 MW.
Due to this, the number of converter modules also increases. A detailed study of LV and
MV converters for 6 MW has been studied in [13,92] and the authors concluded that MV
converters are more suitable for high power ratings. Figure 5 shows the classification of
power converters for multi-MW WECS (DFIG and PMSG).

5.1. Parallel Two Level Back-to-Back Converter with Common and Individual dc-Link
Type 3 and Type 4 turbines are configured through BTB common or individual dc-
link for DFIG and PMSG generators [93–95]. Two BTB Voltage Source Converter (VSC)
configurations are connected in parallel with a common dc-link for a 1.5 to 5 MW power
rating. A common dc-link is shared with two BTB converters, which reduces cost and space.
The main drawback of this type of configuration is the circulating current that exists both
on the generator side and on the grid [93]. The circulating current can be minimized by
connecting inductive filters between each converter on the generator side. In addition, Total
Harmonic Distortion (THD) at the grid side is eliminated by connecting inductive filter
[94]. An individual dc-link resolves the reliability issues. It may lead to higher costs and
increase the failure of dc-link capacitors. Figure 6a,b depicts BTB converter for individual
and common dc-link, respectively.

5.2. Current Source Back-to-Back Converter

Several studies have reported that BTB converters have a significant failure rate in
DDWT; also, dc bus electrolytic capacitors are required for special attention among other
components [96]. Two Current Source Converters (CSCs) are connected BTB through an
inductor [97,98]. It is more suitable for a 5 MW power rating, and the dc-link inductor
increases total loss and weight. On the other hand, two VSC are connected BTB through a
dc-link which results in the highest maintenance cost [99]. Another disadvantage of CSC is
the bulky inductor, which has a slower dynamic response than VSC. Figure 6c shows the
BTB CSC.

5.3. Neutral Point Clamped Back-to-Back Converter

Two Level (2L) VSCs are placed in this topology by a split dc link capacitor and
clamping diode. Figure 6d shows Neutral Point Converter (NPC) for PMSG and DFIG
machines. Compared to 2L VSC, it has reduced dv dt electromagnetic inference. This topology
is widely used in MV WTs such as Shandong, XEMC-Darwind, and Zephyros for PMSG.
Moreover, the MV stator voltage removes the WT step-up transformer, which is an added
benefit of this converter, as well as a considerable reduction in overall cost [100–102].
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 14 of 24

Full/Partial
G power
converter
Gearbox Grid
(optional)

High power (3-10 MW) PMSG/DFIG converter

Medium voltage (MV)

Low voltage (LV)(<1kV)
(2.3kV-13.8kV)
Voltage source Converter
Converter

2 level Parallel BTB Modular

VSC connection connected multilevel
two level PWM MV Converters
back to back current
VSC based sourse
on LV Converter
(CSC)

Multilevel 2-level Modular Modular Series

VSCs VSCs multilevel multilevel Shunt
Cascade Matrix Modular
Converters Converters multilevel
Converters

Series 3L and 3L Active 3L and 4L

switches 4L diode NPC FC
clamped Converter Converter

Figure 5. Power converters for PMSG and DFIG.

Table 5 shows the commercial availability of power converters for multi-MW WECSs.
The parallel 2L BTB and NPC converters are widely used for multi-MW WECSs [92,103].
Most power converters operate in the LV range using semiconductor switches based on LV-
IGBT, such as the SINAMICS W180, DFIG 500-5000 and FC LV 100-10000 models. Recently,
MV power converters have been widely adopted in the wind turbine industry [104]. For
instance, the 15 MW Ingeteam WT (model FC MV 3000-15000) is equipped with a BTB NPC
converter. In this case, MV-IGBTs are used to connect the WT to a 3 kV grid. The details
mentioned in Table 5 have been gathered from the manufacturer’s online portals [105–108].
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 15 of 24

Back to back Back to back

Converter 1 Converter 1
Gearbox Grid Gearbox Grid
3 3 3 3

WRSG WRSG
PMSG PMSG

3 3
Back to back Back to back
Converter 2 Converter 2
(a) (b)

DC DC
choke link

Gearbox Grid Gearbox Filter

3
LCL
WRSG 3
SCIG
WRSG PMSG
PMSG (MV)
3L VSR 3L VSR 3
(c) (d) Grid

Figure 6. (a) Parallel BTB converter with individual dc-link. (b) Parallel BTB converter with common
dc-link. (c) Current source BTB converter. (d) Neutral point clamped BTB converter.

Table 5. List of commercially available power converters.

Converter Semiconductor
Commercial Model Power Rating Nominal Voltage
Type Type
PCS6000 NPC BTB 4–12 MW 3.3 kV IGCTs
ACS800-87LC 2L BTB 1.5–6 MW 525–690 V LV-IGBTs
ACS880-87LC 2L BTB 1.5–8 MW – LV-IGBTs
Parallel 2L
SINAMICS W180 2 to 10 MW 690 V LV-IGBTs
BTB
DFIG 500-5000 2L BTB 2 MW–5 MW 690 V LV-IGBTs
FC LV 100-10000 2L BTB 2 MW–5 MW 690 V LV-IGBTs
FC MV 3000-15000 NPC 7.5–15 MW 3000 V HV-IGBTs
INGECON WIND MV100 NPC BTB 5–15 MW 3.3 kV HV-IGBTs
Siemesns HVDC plus M2 C – 13.2–13.8 kV HV-IGBTs

5.4. Trends in Power Converters for Multi-MW WECSs

Most existing WECSs are equipped with low-voltage power converters. Therefore,
multi-MW WTs imply high current magnitudes that decrease efficiency and increase cost
and cable sizing. Consequently, novel medium-voltage power converters have been pro-
posed in addition to the topologies above-mentioned. Modular Multilevel Cascade Con-
verters (MMCC) are connected in parallel to form multiple cells, eliminating lower voltage
harmonics and electromagnetic inference. In addition, a fault ride-through capacity is
enabled due to its modular structure. Some of the MMCCs in the literature can achieve
direct AC/AC conversion, which is desirable in modern WECS [109,110]. The conversion
of AC/AC use MMCCs has two methods. First, the three-phase generator voltage is con-
verted to grid voltage with a frequency of 50 Hz. Second, three single-phase voltages to
three-phase grid voltage with a line frequency of 50 Hz.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 16 of 24

5.4.1. Modular Multilevel Back-to-Back Converters

In this configuration, two Modular Multilevel Converter (M2 C) is connected by their
DC ports to enable AC / AC conversion. Each converter is made of clusters and is cascaded
with one inductor. Bidirectional choppers and a flying capacitor are utilized to form power
cells. Of all the MMCC topologies, the M2 C BTB converter is currently available on the
market [111]. The M2 C has been proposed for multi-MW WECS [112,113]. Figure 7a shows
M2 C. The M2 C has some difficulties when applying low speed and high torque. In addition,
M2 C is not a direct conversion from AC/AC and requires a BTB converter, increasing the
size of the converter.

5.4.2. Modular Multilevel Matrix Converter

The Modular Multilevel Matrix Converter (M3 C) is an AC/AC converter capable of
achieving high voltage levels by utilizing the series connection of full-bridge modules.
The M3 C has been proposed for multi-MW WECS [114,115]. It has several advantages,
including modularity, flexible control, and high-voltage operation. Moreover, especially
in offshore applications, reliability is a crucial parameter, and it has been addressed by
M3 C topology with reduced transformer size. The M3 C has been proposed for the variable
operation of WTs [116,117]. However, the converter branches did not have inductors, and
each branch was controlled as a voltage source instead of the modern control system where
each branch is controlled as a current source.
The M3 C is an excellent alternative for high-power applications. The main advantages
are low harmonic distortion in the grid and machine side currents due to high effective
switching frequency. In addition, the M3 C has several technical benefits such as better volt-
age range and adequate fault ride-through performance [118]. Also, the fault redundancy
is improved even though the machine is under low rotational speed [119]. In the latter case,
the machine currents are relatively large, but the machine back-emf is small. From this, it is
found that the power oscillations (at twice the machine electrical frequency) are reduced,
and the simple control system is enough to control voltage fluctuations in capacitors [118].
The operation of the converter at high power is quite difficult, as is overheating.
However, the M3 C could perform a stable operation at this operating point. Therefore, an
M3 C -based WECS is designed to achieve rated output power even though the machine
operates at least 5–10% below the grid frequency. In addition, the M3 C is utilized for
controlling multi-channel generators [120]. In this topology, it is possible to improve the
fault-redundancy capability of the entire system. An M3 C has been proposed for DFIG-
based WECS and depicted in Figure 7b. Further, the M3 C has been proposed to control
DFIG-based WECSs, with appropriate low voltage ride-through performance [121]. The
M3 C can introduce a large voltage into the DFIG rotor and maintain the current controller;
at the same time, the demagnetization of the machine is achieved by ignoring the utilization
of crowbars.

5.4.3. Hexverter
The Hexverter performs AC/AC conversion, composed of six clusters equipped with
full-bridge power cells, and it can be analyzed as a six-clusters M3 C. Figure 7c illustrates the
hexverter. The Hexverter has been proposed as an alternative for high-power WECSs [122].
Compared to the M3 C, this converter has a 33% lower power cell requirement. However,
to ensure proper steady-state operation, the power transfer among adjacent clusters has
to be compensated by injecting an adjacent-power component that leads to an oversized
design, underrated efficiency, and undesired effects on the generator.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 17 of 24

PMSG Transformer
3 3 3
MMCs

Gearbox Grid

(+) a b c
(2)

(1) r
r
s
t
s

(-) t

(a) (b)
a r
b b s
a c
c t
(2)
r s
t
(2)

(c) (d)

(1) (2)

Figure 7. (a) M2 C. (b) M3 C. (c) Hexverter. (d) Shunt-series.

5.4.4. Shunt Series Modular Multilevel Converter

The WECS is equipped with shunt series modular multi-level converter for medium
voltage AC grid [123]. The circulating current of the converter is identified by the control
system that is used to control the average value of the floating capacitor without affecting
the input and output. This topology could offer a proper solution subject to several cell
and semiconductor requirements. Figure 7d shows the shunt series modular multilevel
converter.

5.4.5. Comparison of Different Converter Topology

This section compares the most popular converter topologies for multi-MW WECS in
the power range of 3 to 10 MW and above. The following power converters are selected for
this comparison: parallel two-level BTB converter, current source BTB, NPC BTB converter,
Hexverter, M2 C, and M3 C. Table 6 shows the performance evaluation of converters based on
power rating, typical voltage, technological status, system reliability, grid code compliances,
circulating current, and commercial examples. The current source BTB, M2 C, Hexverter and
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 18 of 24

M3 C are utilized for 10 MW WECSs. The semiconductor demand for the M2 C, Hexverter,
and M3 C are the same. However, the DC capacitor requirements for M2 C are twice that of
the Hexverter [124]. Furthermore, the operation of the M2 C at low frequencies demands
the injection of common-mode voltages and higher circulating currents, which increases
the size of the converter. Wind turbine downtime highly relies on generator and power
converter failure [125]. Therefore, power converters with modular structures are preferred
[126]. Reliability and grid code compliance performance are best in modular multilevel
converters. In the future, the Hexverter and M3 C will be the predominant solution for
multi-MW WECSs with a power rating of more than 10 MW.

Table 6. Comparison of different power converter topologies for WTs.

Neutral-Point
Parallel 2L BTB Current Source
Parameters Clamped BTB M2 C Hexverter M3 C
Converter BTB Converter
Converter
10 MW and 10 MW and 10 MW and
Power rating 0.75–6 MW 3–8 MW 3–10 MW
above above above
Typical Voltage LV LV LV LV and MV LV and MV LV and MV
Research Research
Technology Status Well Established Well Established Research Only Research Only
Only Only
Reliability of system High Medium High High High High
Grid Code Compliance Medium Good Good Excellent Low Excellent
Circulating Currents Medium – – High High Low
Ingeteam FC
Rockwell PL Siemens HVDC
Commercial Example Ingeteam FC LV MV, Con- – –
7000 plus
verteam 7000

6. Conclusions
This article presents a comprehensive study of multi-MW WT generators and power
converters. Currently, WT can easily surpass the 10 MW barrier with nominal power up to
16 MW and a rotor diameter of 250 m. The NPC BTB converter, equipped with medium
voltage semiconductors, is the most commonly used power converter in multi-MW WT,
but new topologies based on modular structures have been indicated as potential solutions
for the next generation of large WTs. This review has drawn the following conclusions.
• The DD PMSGs are highly preferable generators for high-power WECSs, whereas
these generators are associated with REM, which could increase the cost, size and
mass of the generators.
• The HTS generators can lead to the most significant weight and size reductions.
However, the initial cost of this technology is still an issue to solve before reaching a
higher technology readiness level.
• The LTS and MgB2 superconducting generators are under conceptual level. Therefore,
there is an opportunity to explore these generators for the high-power wind industry.
• Currently, low-voltage power converters are highly dominating the wind industry.
However, the reliability of those converters is a critical issue, and it needs to be
addressed in future.
• This study suggests that MMC converters, such as Hexverter and M3 C, could be
an appropriate future solution for WTs above 10 MW operating at the MV level as
these converters have high power density, fault tolerance, modularity and high power
quality.
In the future, massive enlargement of high-power WECSs will be available worldwide.
However, the technological development of WECS will play a significant role in wind
power systems. Therefore, the following future studies could be beneficial for further
development in WECSs.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 19 of 24

• The HTS generator is the alternative solution to replace DFIG and PMSG [16]. How-
ever, the superconducting generators are still in the process of concept level. Currently,
the AMSC manufactures the HTS generator, and replacing HTS with MgB2 could
reduce the total cost [70]. Therefore, further studies are needed in this area to expand
superconducting generators.
• WECS downtime is strongly dependent on power converter failures. Therefore, the
reliability of power converters is a challenging area for future research, and medium-
voltage power converters could improve the reliability issues.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.R., M.D. and R.C.; methodology, R.C. and J.R.; writing:
S.R., M.D. and E.E.; supervision, R.C. and J.R., visualization, E.C.; review and editing: S.R., M.D. and
E.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) of
Chile, under projects FONDECYT Post Doctoral Project N° 3200934, FONDECYT N° 11191163 and
FONDEQUIP EQM-200234.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Painuly, J.P.; Wohlgemuth, N. Chapter 18—Renewable energy technologies: Barriers and policy implications. In Renewable-Energy-
Driven Future; Ren, J., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA , 2021; pp. 539–562. [CrossRef]
2. INERA. Renewable Energy Statistics 2021 The International Renewable Energy Agency. 2021. Available online: https:
//www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021 (accessed on 5 August 2021 ).
3. IEA. Renewables 2021, IEA. 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2021 (accessed on December
2021).
4. GWEC. Global Wind Turbine Supplier Ranking for 2020. 2021. Available online: https://gwec.net/gwec-releases-global-wind-
turbine-supplier-ranking-for-2020/ (accessed on 10 March 2022. ).
5. WWEA. World Wide Energy Association. 2020. Available online: https://wwindea.org/worldwide-wind-capacity-reaches-744-
gigawatts/ (accessed on 30 March 2022 ).
6. Global Wind Energy Council. GWEC|Global Wind Report 2021; Global Wind Energy Council: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
7. Cozzi, L.; Gould, T.; Bouckart, S.; Crow, D.; Kim, T.; Mcglade, C.; Olejarnik, P.; Wanner, B.; Wetzel, D. World Energy Outlook
2020. 2000, volume 2050, pp. 1–461. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020 (accessed on 10
October 2021)
8. Richardson, R.; McNerney, G. Wind energy systems. Proc. IEEE 1993, 81, 378–389. [CrossRef]
9. Musial, W.; Spitsen, P.; Beiter, P.; Duffy, P.; Marquis, M.; Cooperman, A.; Hammond, R.; Shields, M. Offshore Wind Market Report
2021. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/Offshore%20Wind%20Market%20Report%2020
21%20Edition_Final.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2022)
10. Durakovic, A. MingYang Launches 16 MW Offshore Wind Turbine. 2021. Available online: http://www.offshorewind.biz/2021
/08/20/mingyang-launches-16-mw-offshore-wind-turbine/ (accessed on 20 August 2021 ).
11. Khan, M.; Saleh, S.; Rahman, M. Generation and harmonics in interior permanent magnet wind generator. In Proceedings of the
2009 IEEE International Electric Machines and Drives Conference, Miami, FL, USA, 3–6 May 2009; pp. 17–23. [CrossRef]
12. Shourangiz-Haghighi, A.; Diazd, M.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Yuan, Y.; Faraji, R.; Ding, L.; Guerrero, J.M. Developing More Efficient
Wind Turbines: A Survey of Control Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2020, 14, 53–64. [CrossRef]
13. Yaramasu, V. Predictive Control of Multilevel Converters for Megawatt Wind Energy Conversion Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Ryerson University Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014.
14. Hansen, L.; Helle, L.; Blaabjerg, F.; Ritchie, E.; Munk-Nielsen, S.; Bindner, H.; Sørensen, P.; Bak-Jensen, B. Conceptual Survey of
Generators and Power Electronics for Wind Turbines; Number 1205(EN) in Technical Report, Riso National Laboratory: Roskilde,
Denmark, 2002; p. RISO-R-1205(EN). ISBN 87-550-2743-1 [CrossRef]
15. Peng, X.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, D. A review of multiphase energy conversion in wind power generation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2021, 147, 1–14. [CrossRef]
16. Goudarzi, N.; Zhu, W. A review of the development of wind turbine generators across the world. In Proceedings of the ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Houston, TX, USA,
9–15 November 2012; Volume 45202, pp. 1257–1265.
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 20 of 24

17. Cheng, M.; Zhu, Y. The state of the art of wind energy conversion systems and technologies: A review. Energy Convers. Manag.
2014, 88, 332–347. [CrossRef]
18. Sawant, M.; Thakare, S.; Rao, A.P.; Feijóo-Lorenzo, A.E.; Bokde, N.D. A Review on State-of-the-Art Reviews in Wind-Turbine-
and Wind-Farm-Related Topics. Energies 2021, 14, 2041. [CrossRef]
19. Rezamand, M.; Kordestani, M.; Carriveau, R.; Ting, D.S.K.; Orchard, M.E.; Saif, M. Critical Wind Turbine Components Prognostics:
A Comprehensive Review. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2020, 69, 9306–9328. [CrossRef]
20. Ameur, A.; Loudiyi, K.; Aggour, M. Steady State and Dynamic Analysis of Renewable Energy Integration into the Grid using
PSS/E Software. Energy Procedia 2017, 141, 119–125 . [CrossRef]
21. Mohapatra, G. Renewable Energy Interconnection and Compliance—An Australian Perspective. Destech Trans. Environ. Energy
Earth Sci. 2016 . [CrossRef]
22. Wang, L.; Vo, Q.S.; Hsieh, M.H.; Ke, S.C.; Kuan, B.L.; Lu, X.Y.; Prokhorov, A.V. Transient stability analysis of Taiwan Power
System’s power grid connected with a high-capacity offshore wind farm. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 3rd International
Future Energy Electronics Conference and ECCE Asia (IFEEC 2017—ECCE Asia), Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 3–7 June 2017; pp. 585–590.
[CrossRef]
23. Yaramasu, V.; Wu, B.; Sen, P.C.; Kouro, S.; Narimani, M. High-power wind energy conversion systems: State-of-the-art and
emerging technologies. Proc. IEEE 2015, 103, 740–788. [CrossRef]
24. Gashi, A.; Kabashi, G.; Kabashi, S.; Ahmetaj, S.; Veliu, V. Simulation the Wind Grid Code Requirements for Wind Farms
Connection in Kosovo Transmission Grid. Energy Power Eng. 2012, 4 , 482–495. [CrossRef]
25. Yaramasu, V.; Dekka, A.; Durán, M.J.; Kouro, S.; Wu, B. PMSG-based wind energy conversion systems: Survey on power
converters and controls. IET Electr. Power Appl. 2017, 11, 956–968. [CrossRef]
26. Apata, O.; Oyedokun, D. An overview of control techniques for wind turbine systems. Sci. Afr. 2020, 10, 1–13. [CrossRef]
27. Rajendran, S.; Diaz, M.; Chavez, H.; Cruchaga, M.; Castillo, E. Terminal Synergetic Control for Variable Speed Wind Turbine Using
a Two Mass Model. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE CHILEAN Conference on Electrical, Electronics Engineering, Information
and Communication Technologies (CHILECON), Valparaíso, Chile, 6–9 December 2021; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
28. Novaes Menezes, E.J.; Araújo, A.M.; Bouchonneau da Silva, N.S. A review on wind turbine control and its associated methods. J.
Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 945–953. [CrossRef]
29. Njiri, J.G.; Söffker, D. State-of-the-art in wind turbine control: Trends and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 377–393.
[CrossRef]
30. Moghadasi, A.; Sarwat, A.; Guerrero, J.M. A comprehensive review of low-voltage-ride-through methods for fixed-speed wind
power generators. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 823–839. [CrossRef]
31. Cárdenas, R.; Díaz, M.; Rojas, F.; Clare, J.; Wheeler, P. Resonant control system for low-voltage ride-through in wind energy
conversion systems. IET Power Electron. 2016, 9, 1297–1305. [CrossRef]
32. Rocabert, J.; Luna, A.; Blaabjerg, F.; Rodríguez, P. Control of Power Converters in AC Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
2012, 27, 4734–4749. [CrossRef]
33. Pogaku, N.; Prodanovic, M.; Green, T.C. Modeling, Analysis and Testing of Autonomous Operation of an Inverter-Based
Microgrid. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2007, 22, 613–625. [CrossRef]
34. Van de Vyver, J.; De Kooning, J.D.M.; Meersman, B.; Vandevelde, L.; Vandoorn, T.L. Droop Control as an Alternative Inertial
Response Strategy for the Synthetic Inertia on Wind Turbines. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2016, 31, 1129–1138. [CrossRef]
35. Ganzel, S.; Gierschner, M.; Ritschel, U. Synthetic inertia control in the generator-side converter control of a grid-connected PMSG
wind turbine. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 21st Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics (COMPEL),
Aalborg, Denmark, 9–12 November 2020; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
36. Liserre, M.; Cárdenas, R.; Molinas, M.; Rodriguez, J. Overview of Multi-MW Wind Turbines and Wind Parks. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2011, 58, 1081–1095. [CrossRef]
37. Cardenas, R.; Pena, R.; Alepuz, S.; Asher, G. Overview of Control Systems for the Operation of DFIGs in Wind Energy Applications.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013, 60, 2776–2798. [CrossRef]
38. Polinder, H. Overview of and trends in wind turbine generator systems. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting, Detroit, MI, USA, 24–28 July 2011; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
39. Polinder, H.; Ferreira, J.A.; Jensen, B.B.; Abrahamsen, A.B.; Atallah, K.; McMahon, R.A. Trends in Wind Turbine Generator
Systems. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2013, 1, 174–185. [CrossRef]
40. Polinder, H.; van der Pijl, F.; de Vilder, G.J.; Tavner, P. Comparison of direct-drive and geared generator concepts for wind
turbines. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2006, 21, 725–733. [CrossRef]
41. Delli Colli, V.; Marignetti, F.; Attaianese, C. Analytical and Multiphysics Approach to the Optimal Design of a 10-MW DFIG for
Direct-Drive Wind Turbines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 2791–2799. [CrossRef]
42. Iov, F.; Teodorescu, R.; Blaabjerg, F.; Andresen, B.; Birk, J.; Miranda, J. Grid code compliance of grid-side converter in wind
turbine systems. In Proceedings of the 2006 37th IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference, Jeju, Korea, 18–22 June 2006;
pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
43. Blaabjerg, F.; Ma, K. Future on Power Electronics for Wind Turbine Systems. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2013,
1, 139–152. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 21 of 24

44. Long, T.; Shao, S.; Malliband, P.; Abdi, E.; McMahon, R.A. Crowbarless Fault Ride-Through of the Brushless Doubly Fed Induction
Generator in a Wind Turbine Under Symmetrical Voltage Dips. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013, 60, 2833–2841. [CrossRef]
45. Yassin, E.F.; Yassin, H.M.; Hemeida, A.; Hallouda, M.M.; Yassin, Emad F. Real Time Simulation of Brushless Doubly Fed
Reluctance Generator Driven Wind Turbine Considering Iron Saturation. IEEE Access. 2022, 10, 9925–9934. [CrossRef]
46. Ademi, S.; Jovanović, M.G.; Hasan, M. Control of Brushless Doubly-Fed Reluctance Generators for Wind Energy Conversion
Systems. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2015, 30, 596–604. [CrossRef]
47. Tohidi, S.; Tavner, P.; McMahon, R.; Oraee, H.; Zolghadri, M.R.; Shao, S.; Abdi, E. Low voltage ride-through of DFIG and brushless
DFIG: Similarities and differences. Electric Power Systems Research. 2014, 110, 0378–7796. [CrossRef]
48. Gowaid, I.A.; Abdel-Khalik, A.S.; Massoud, A.M.; Ahmed, S. Ride-Through Capability of Grid-Connected Brushless Cascade
DFIG Wind Turbines in Faulty Grid Conditions—A Comparative Study. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 1002–1015. [CrossRef]
49. Cheng, M.; Wei, X.; Han, P.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, Z. Modeling and control of a novel dual-stator brushless doubly-fed wind power
generation system. In Proceedings of the 2014 17th International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS),
Hangzhou, China, 22–25 October 2014; pp. 3029–3035. [CrossRef]
50. Han, P.; Cheng, M.; Wei, X.; Li, N. Modeling and Performance Analysis of a Dual-Stator Brushless Doubly Fed Induction Machine
Based on Spiral Vector Theory. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2016, 52, 1380–1389. [CrossRef]
51. Ding, K. The Rare Earth Magnet Industry and Rare Earth Price in China. EPJ Web Conf. 2014, 75, 04005. [CrossRef]
52. Dehlinger, N. Étude des Performances d’une Machine à Flux Transverse à Noyaux Ferromagnétiques Amorphes. Ph.D. Thesis,
Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada , 2007.
53. Bang, D.; Polinder, H.; Shrestha, G.; Ferreira, J.A. Review of generator systems for direct-drive wind turbines. In Proceedings of
the European Wind Energy Conference & Exhibition, Brussels, Belgium, 31 March – 3 April 2008 ; Volume 31, pp. 1–11.
54. Svechkarenko, D. On Analytical Modeling and Design of a Novel Transverse Flux Generator for Offshore Wind Turbines. Ph.D.
Thesis, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden , 2007.
55. Economics, T. Neodymium. 2021. Available online: http:https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/neodymium (accessed on
10 April 2022).
56. Ingeteam. INDAR DFIG Series. 2017. Available online: https://www.ingeteam.com/indar/en-us/electric-generators/wind-
generators/pc30_10_186/indar-dfig-series.aspx (accessed on 15 April 2022 ).
57. Qu, R.; Liu, Y.; Wang, J. Review of Superconducting Generator Topologies for Direct-Drive Wind Turbines. IEEE Trans. Appl.
Supercond. 2013, 23, 5201108. [CrossRef]
58. Karmaker, H.; Ho, M.; Kulkarni, D. Comparison between Different Design Topologies for Multi-Megawatt Direct Drive Wind
Generators Using Improved Second Generation High Temperature Superconductors. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2015, 25, 1–5.
[CrossRef]
59. Yang, Y.; Duan, S.; Ren, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Feng, L.; Zhang, X.; Chai, H.; Kuang, M.; Wu, J.; Yang, X.; et al. Design and Development of a
Cryogen-Free Superconducting Prototype Generator With YBCO Field Windings. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 26, 1–5.
[CrossRef]
60. Keysan, O. Application of high-temperature superconducting machines to direct drive renewable energy systems. In Electrical
Drives for Direct Drive Renewable Energy Systems; Mueller, M., Polinder, H., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Woodhead
Publishing: Sawston, UK , 2013; pp. 219–252. [CrossRef]
61. Maples, B.; Hand, M.; Musial, W. Comparative Assessment of Direct Drive High Temperature Superconducting Generators in Multi-
Megawatt Class Wind Turbines; Technical Report; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2010.
62. Suprapower. Uprapower (EU) Project. 2016. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308793 (accessed on 10
March 2022 ).
63. Sung, H.J.; Badcock, R.A.; Jiang, Z.; Choi, J.; Park, M.; Yu, I.K. Design and Heat Load Analysis of a 12 MW HTS Wind Power
Generator Module Employing a Brushless HTS Exciter. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2016, 26, 1–4. [CrossRef]
64. Karmaker, H.; Chen, E. Design concepts for a direct drive wind generator using new superconductors. In Proceedings of the 2015
IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC), London, ON, Canada, 26–28 October 2015; pp. 22–25. [CrossRef]
65. Wang, J.; Qu, R.; Tang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, B.; He, J.; Zhu, Z.; Fang, H.; Su, L. Design of a Superconducting Synchronous Generator
With LTS Field Windings for 12 MW Offshore Direct-Drive Wind Turbines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 1618–1628.
[CrossRef]
66. Research, G.E. High Efficiency Ultra-Light Superconducting Generator. 2019. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/
default/files/2021-08/CX-024181.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2021 ).
67. Evangelous Trifon Laskaris, LaskarisKiruba Sivasubramaniam Method and Apparatus for a Superconducting Generator Driven
by a Wind Turbine. US Patent 7,821,164 B2, 26 October 2010 .
68. Marino, I.; Pujana, A.; Sarmiento, G.; Sanz, S.; Merino, J.M.; Tropeano, M.; Sun, J.; Canosa, T. Lightweight MgB2 superconducting
10 MW wind generator. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 2015, 29, 024005. [CrossRef]
69. Hoang, T.K.; Quéval, L.; Berriaud, C.; Vido, L. Design of a 20-MW Fully Superconducting Wind Turbine Generator to Minimize
the Levelized Cost of Energy. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2018, 28, 1–5. [CrossRef]
70. Liu, D.; Polinder, H.; Abrahamsen, A.B.; Ferreira, J.A. Topology Comparison of Superconducting Generators for 10-MW
Direct-Drive Wind Turbines: Cost of Energy Based. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2017, 27, 1–7. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 22 of 24

71. Wolmarans, J.; Gerber, M.; Polinder, H.; de Haan, S.; Ferreira, J.; Clarenbach, D. A 50 kW integrated fault tolerant permanent
magnet machine and motor drive. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference, Rhodes, Greece,
15–19 June 2008; pp. 345–351. [CrossRef]
72. Andresen, B.; Birk, J. A high power density converter system for the Gamesa G10x 4,5 MW wind turbine. In Proceedings of the
2007 European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications, Aalborg, Denmark, 2–5 September 2007; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
73. Li, H.; Chen, Z. Overview of different wind generator systems and their comparisons. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2008, 2, 123–138.
[CrossRef]
74. Amirat, Y.; Benbouzid, M.; Bensaker, B.; Wamkeue, R. The state of the art of generators for wind energy conversion systems.
Electromotion 2007, 14, 163–172.
75. Ameli, M.T.; Moslehpour, S.; Mirzaie, A. Feasibility study for replacing asynchronous generators with synchronous generators in
wind farm power stations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering & Technology , Nashville, TN, USA,
17–19 November 2008. .
76. Bang, D.j.; Polinder, H.; Shrestha, G.; Ferreira, J.A. Promising Direct-Drive Generator System for Large Wind Turbines. In
Proceedings of the 2008 Wind Power to the Grid—EPE Wind Energy Chapter 1st Seminar, Delft, The Netherlands, 27–28 March
2008 ; pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]
77. Duan, Y.; Harley, R.G. Present and future trends in wind turbine generator designs. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Power
Electronics and Machines in Wind Applications, Lincoln, NE, USA, 24–26 June 2009 ; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
78. Semken, R.S.; Polikarpova, M.; Röyttä, P.; Alexandrova, J.; Pyrhönen, J.; Nerg, J.; Mikkola, A.; Backman, J. Direct-drive permanent
magnet generators for high-power wind turbines: Benefits and limiting factors. IET Renew. Power Genern. 2012, 6, 1–8. [CrossRef]
79. Patil, N.S.; Bhosle, Y.N. A review on wind turbine generator topologies. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on
Power, Energy and Control (ICPEC), Dindigul, India, 6–8 February 2013 ; pp. 625–629. [CrossRef]
80. Strous, T.D.; Polinder, H.; Ferreira, J.A. Brushless doubly-fed induction machines for wind turbines: Developments and research
challenges. IET Electr. Power Appl. 2017, 11, 991–1000. [CrossRef]
81. Prashanth, N.; Sujatha, P. Commonly Used Wind Generator Systems: A Comparison Note. Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci.
2017, 7, 299–311. [CrossRef]
82. Liu, D.; Polinder, H.; Abrahamsen, A.B.; Ferreira, J.A. Potential of Partially Superconducting Generators for Large Direct-Drive
Wind Turbines. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2017, 27, 1–11. [CrossRef]
83. Bensalah, A.; Benhamida, M.; Barakat, G.; Amara, Y. Large wind turbine generators: State-of-the-art review. In Proceedings of the
2018 XIII International Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM), Alexandroupoli, Greece, 3–6 September 2018 ; pp. 2205–2211.
[CrossRef]
84. Moghadam, F.K.; Nejad, A.R. Evaluation of PMSG-based drivetrain technologies for 10-MW floating offshore wind turbines:
Pros and cons in a life cycle perspective. Wind Energy 2020, 23, 1542–1563. [CrossRef]
85. Bensalah, A.; Barakat, G.; Amara, Y. Electrical Generators for Large Wind Turbine: Trends and Challenges. Energies 2022, 15, 6700.
[CrossRef]
86. Faulstich, S.; Hahn, B.; Tavner, P.J. Wind turbine downtime and its importance for offshore deployment. Wind Energy 2011,
14, 327–337. [CrossRef]
87. Dubois, M.; Polinder, H.; Ferreira, J. Comparison of generator topologies for direct-drive wind turbines. In Proceedings of the
2000 Nordic Countries Power and Industrial Electronics Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 13–16 June 2000; pp. 22–26.
88. Keysan, O. Future electrical generator technologies for offshore wind turbines. Eng. Technol. Ref. 2014, 1, 1–14. [CrossRef]
89. The Portal of Wind Turbine Models. Wind Turbine. 2022. Available online: https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines
(accessed on 24 October 2022).
90. Turbine List. Wind Turbine and Wind Farm Database. 2022. Available online: http://www.thewindpower.net (accessed on 24
October 2022).
91. Bhuiyan, N.A.; McDonald, A. Assessment of the suitability of ferrite magnet excited synchronous generators for offshore wind
turbines. In Proceedings of the EWEA Offshore 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark, 17–20 November 2015 .
92. Yaramasu, V.; Wu, B. Predictive Control of a Three-Level Boost Converter and an NPC Inverter for High-Power PMSG-Based
Medium Voltage Wind Energy Conversion Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2014, 29, 5308–5322. [CrossRef]
93. Chinchilla, M.; Arnaltes, S.; Burgos, J. Control of permanent-magnet generators applied to variable-speed wind-energy systems
connected to the grid. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2006, 21, 130–135. [CrossRef]
94. Geng, H.; Xu, D.; Wu, B.; Yang, G. Active Damping for PMSG-Based WECS With DC-Link Current Estimation. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2011, 58, 1110–1119. [CrossRef]
95. Xu, Z.; Li, R.; Zhu, H.; Xu, D.; Zhang, C.H. Control of Parallel Multiple Converters for Direct-Drive Permanent-Magnet Wind
Power Generation Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2012, 27, 1259–1270. [CrossRef]
96. Song, Y.; Wang, B. Survey on Reliability of Power Electronic Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2013, 28, 591–604. [CrossRef]
97. Dai, J.; Xu, D.; Wu, B. A Novel Control Scheme for Current-Source-Converter-Based PMSG Wind Energy Conversion Systems.
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2009, 24, 963–972. [CrossRef]
98. Lang, Y.; Wu, B.; Zargari, N. A Novel Reactive Power Control Scheme for CSC Based PMSG Wind Energy System. In Proceedings
of the 2008 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 5–9 October 2008; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 23 of 24

99. Wu, B.; Pontt, J.; Rodriguez, J.; Bernet, S.; Kouro, S. Current-Source Converter and Cycloconverter Topologies for Industrial
Medium-Voltage Drives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2008, 55, 2786–2797. [CrossRef]
100. Yazdani, A.; Iravani, R. A neutral-point clamped converter system for direct-drive variable-speed wind power unit. IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers. 2006, 21, 596–607. [CrossRef]
101. Schmitt, B.; Sommer, R. Retrofit of fixed speed induction motors with medium voltage drive converters using NPC three-level
inverter high-voltage IGBT based topology. In Proceedings of the ISIE 2001. 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial
Electronics Proceedings (Cat. No.01TH8570), Pusan, Korea, 12–16 June 2001; Volume 2, pp. 746–751. [CrossRef]
102. Helle, L.; Munk-Nielsen, S. Comparison of converter efficiency in large variable speed wind turbines. In Proceedings of the
APEC 2001 Sixteenth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (Cat. No.01CH37181), Anaheim, CA,
USA, 4–8 March 2001; Volume 1, pp. 628–634. [CrossRef]
103. Zhang, Z.; Hackl, C.M.; Kennel, R. Computationally Efficient DMPC for Three-Level NPC Back-to-Back Converters in Wind
Turbine Systems With PMSG. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2017, 32, 8018–8034. [CrossRef]
104. Zhang, Y.; Yuan, X.; Al-Akayshee, M. A Reliable Medium-Voltage High-Power Conversion System for MWs Wind Turbines. IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy 2020, 11, 859–867. [CrossRef]
105. ABB, Medium Voltage Wind Turbine Converter PCS6000. 2022. Available online: https://new.abb.com/power-converters-
inverters/wind-turbines/utility-scale/pcs6000 (accessed on 24 October 2022).
106. ABB, Low Voltage Wind Turbine Converter ACS8000. 2022. Available online: https://new.abb.com/power-converters-inverters/
wind-turbines/utility-scale/acs800 (accessed on 24 October 2022).
107. Ingeteam Wind Converters. 2022. Available online: https://www.ingeteam.com/cl/es-cl/convertidores-de-frecuencia-e-
inversores/energia-eolica/pc28_3_22/convertidores.aspx (accessed on 24 October 2022).
108. Siemens Energy HVDC Plus. 2022. Available online: https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/offerings/power-
transmission/portfolio/high-voltage-direct-current-transmission-solutions/hvdc-plus.html (accessed on 24 October 2022).
109. Perez, M.A.; Rodriguez, J.; Fuentes, E.J.; Kammerer, F. Predictive Control of AC–AC Modular Multilevel Converters. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 2832–2839. [CrossRef]
110. Kawamura, W.; Akagi, H. Control of the modular multilevel cascade converter based on triple-star bridge-cells (MMCC-TSBC)
for motor drives. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Raleigh, NC, USA, 15–20
September 2012; pp. 3506–3513. [CrossRef]
111. Davies, M.; Dommaschk, M.; Dorn, J.; Lang, J.; Retzmann, D.; Soerangr, D. HVDC PLUS-basics and principle of operation.
Siemens Ag 2008 , 1–24.
112. Novakovic, B.; Nasiri, A. Modular Multilevel Converter for Wind Energy Storage Applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017,
64, 8867–8876. [CrossRef]
113. Nakanishi, T.; Orikawa, K.; Itoh, J.i. Modular Multilevel Converter for wind power generation system connected to micro-grid.
In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Application (ICRERA), Milwaukee, WI,
USA, 19–22 October 2014; pp. 653–658. [CrossRef]
114. Diaz, M.; Cardenas, R.; Espinoza, M.; Rojas, F.; Mora, A.; Clare, J.C.; Wheeler, P. Control of Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Based on the Modular Multilevel Matrix Converter. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 8799–8810. [CrossRef]
115. Melendez, C.; Diaz, M.; Cerda, S.; Rojas, F.; Chavez, H. Frequency Support Control of a Modular Multilevel Matrix Converter
based Wind Energy Conversion System. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Automation/XXIII Congress
of the Chilean Association of Automatic Control (ICA-ACCA), Concepcion, Chile, 17–19 October 2018; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
116. Angkititrakul, S.; Erickson, R. Capacitor voltage balancing control for a modular matrix converter. In Proceedings of the
Twenty-First Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, 2006. APEC ’06, Dallas, TX, USA, 19–23 March
2006; pp. 1659–1665. [CrossRef]
117. Erickson, R.; Al-Naseem, O. A new family of matrix converters. In Proceedings of the IECON’01. 27th Annual Conference of the
IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (Cat. No.37243), Denver, CO, USA, 29 November–2 December 2001; Volume 2, pp. 1515–1520.
[CrossRef]
118. Diaz, M.; Cárdenas, R.; Espinoza, M.; Mora, A.; Wheeler, P. Modelling and control of the Modular Multilevel Matrix Converter
and its application to Wind Energy Conversion Systems. In Proceedings of the IECON 2016—42nd Annual Conference of the
IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Florence, Italy, 23–26 October 2016; pp. 5052–5057. [CrossRef]
119. Okazaki, Y.; Kawamura, W.; Hagiwara, M.; Akagi, H.; Ishida, T.; Tsukakoshi, M.; Nakamura, R. Which is more suitable for
MMCC-based medium-voltage motor drives, a DSCC inverter or a TSBC converter? In Proceedings of the 2015 9th International
Conference on Power Electronics and ECCE Asia (ICPE-ECCE Asia), Seoul, Korea, 1–5 June 2015; pp. 1053–1060. [CrossRef]
120. Thitichaiworakorn, N.; Hagiwara, M.; Akagi, H. A Medium-Voltage Large Wind Turbine Generation System Using an AC/AC
Modular Multilevel Cascade Converter. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2016, 4, 534–546. [CrossRef]
121. Kammerer, F.; Gommeringer, M.; Kolb, J.; Braun, M. Benefits of Operating Doubly Fed Induction Generators by Modular
Multilevel Matrix Converters. In Proceedings of the PCIM EUROPE 2013—International Exhibition and Conference for Power
Electronics, Intelligent Motion, Renewable Energy and Energy Management, Nuremberg, Germany 14–16 May 2013.
122. Rong, F.; Yan, J.; Sun, W.; Huang, S.; Wu, Q. Control strategy of wind energy conversion system based on H-MMC under
asymmetrical grid faults. IET Power Electron. 2019, 12, 3149–3157. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2302 24 of 24

123. Pizarro, P.; Diaz, M.; Rojas, F.; Espinoza, M.; Tarisciotti, L.; Gomis-Bellmunt, O. A decoupled control strategy for a shunt-series
modular multilevel converter in wind energy conversion system applications. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International
Conference on Automation/24th Congress of the Chilean Association of Automatic Control, ICA-ACCA 2021, Valparaíso, Chile,
22–26 March 2021; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
124. Diaz, M.; Cárdenas Dobson, R.; Ibaceta, E.; Mora, A.; Urrutia, M.; Espinoza, M.; Rojas, F.; Wheeler, P. An Overview of Applications
of the Modular Multilevel Matrix Converter. Energies 2020, 13, 5546 [CrossRef]
125. Gao, Z.; Liu, X. An Overview on Fault Diagnosis, Prognosis and Resilient Control for Wind Turbine Systems. Processes 2021,
9, 300 [CrossRef]
126. Blaabjerg, F.; Liserre, M.; Ma, K. Power Electronics Converters for Wind Turbine Systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2012, 48, 708–719.
[CrossRef]