15th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference, EPE-PEMC 2012 ECCE Europe, Novi Sad, Serbia

Current Control of a Six-Phase Induction

Generator for Wind Energy Plants
H.S. Che1,2, W.P. Hew2, N.A. Rahim2, E. Levi1, M. Jones1, M.J. Duran3
1

Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom (e.levi@ljmu.ac.uk, m.jones2@ljmu.ac.uk)

University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (cehase@hotmail.com, w.p.hew@yahoo.com, nasrudin@um.edu.my)
3
University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain (mjduran@uma.es)

Abstract A wind energy conversion system (WECS),

using a six-phase asymmetrical induction generator, is
elaborated in this paper. The current control strategy for
the system, including the method of suppressing imbalance
caused by the asymmetrical conditions in the six-phase
generator, is discussed. A new modified transformation
matrix, which allows a more effective suppression of the
asymmetries in the six-phase machine, is suggested.
Simulation results, obtained using Matlab/Simulink, are
used to verify the effectiveness of the suggested method.
Keywords Multiphase machines, six-phase, wind energy
conversion system, asymmetries.

I. INTRODUCTION
Being the core element of wind energy conversion
technology, power electronics switching devices are one
of the limiting factors for the achievable power rating of
wind generators. One viable solution, which has been
widely adopted by the industry, is to use multi-level
converters where power electronics switches are
cascaded, to provide the necessary voltage and power
sharing [1]. Alternatively, the power issue can be
resolved by connecting power converters in parallel, to
provide current sharing [2]. In line with this concept,
another promising solution that has been considered
recently is the use of multiphase generators. Some
comprehensive reviews of multiphase machines have
been presented in [3], [4]. The use of multiphase
generators has the following benefits: increased total
power rating while maintaining the same per-phase
rating, lower torque ripple, and possibility of fault
tolerant operation. Multiphase generators are well suited
for use in remote offshore wind farms where the HVDC
transmission line effectively decouples the generator
from the grid, thus removing the requirement for the
generator to be of three-phase structure [5].
While multiphase motor drives have been extensively
studied, the available considerations of multiphase
generator systems are relatively few. Among the
multiphase machines, multiple three-phase winding
machines are widely studied [5-9]. These machines can
be conveniently obtained by rewinding standard threephase machines, and such modular nature allows full
exploitation of the readily available three-phase
converters. Nonetheless, some multiphase wind
generators with special machine structure have also been
studied, such as dual-stator generator [10] and modular
generators [11], [12]. One example of the uptake of
multiphase wind generator is the solution offered by
Gamesa, which patented and commercialised a permanent

978-1-4673-1972-0/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE

magnet generator with six three-phase windings, powered

by six separate back-to-back fully rated converters [13].
The system is reported to provide better reliability, lower
grid-side harmonics and better conversion efficiency.
Several studies on six-phase generators for wind
applications have been reported earlier, such as a sixphase permanent magnet generator with back-to-back
converters [6], a six-phase induction generator for standalone generation [8], [14] and for offshore-wind energy
conversion [5]. The system studied in this paper, based on
an asymmetrical six-phase induction generator with fully
rated back-to-back converter system, closely resembles
the one of [5]. However, the issue of asymmetry
suppression was not addressed in [5] and it is discussed
here, in conjunction with the requirements on generator
current control in rotor flux oriented control system. A
novel modified transformation matrix is suggested as an
alternative method of suppressing the asymmetries. The
effectiveness of the suggested method is verified using
simulations.
This paper is organised as follows. Section II gives a
general description of the system, including the control
strategies used for the generator-side and the grid-side
converters. Impact of asymmetries on operation of a sixphase machine and methods used for the suppression are
then discussed in Section III. In Section IV, analysis of
the performance of an existing method for suppressing
asymmetries is presented and a novel modified method,
related to a different transformation matrix, is suggested.
Simulation results, discussion and conclusions are
presented in Sections V and VI, respectively.
II. GENERATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A. System Overview
In the studied system, Fig. 1, the generator used is an
asymmetrical six-phase induction machine, i.e. its two
three-phase windings are mutually shifted in space by
30. The neutral points of the two windings are isolated.
As shown in Fig. 1, the generator is controlled using the
generator-side converter, which consists of two parallel
connected three-phase two-level voltage source
converters. For the grid-side, a two-level voltage source
converter is used. The generator-side and grid-side
converters are interconnected via a dc-link.
B. Generator Model
Using vector space decomposition (VSD) method [3],
the machine six phase variables (a1b1c1a2b2c2) can be
transformed into stationary reference frame quantities
(xy), which appear in two mutually orthogonal planes.
The torque and flux producing components are mapped

LS5b.2-1

into plane, while the loss-producing components map

into the xy plane. Zero sequence components have been
omitted because zero sequence current cannot flow due to
the isolated neutrals. A rotational transformation is then
used to transform the stationary reference frame to a
synchronous rotating reference frame (dqxy), suitable for
vector control. Assuming that the reference frame is
rotating at an arbitrary speed , the model of the
induction generator can be described in the dq plane with
(motoring convention for positive power flow is used):

ia1b1c1 ia2b2c2

v ds = Rs ids + d ds / dt qs
v qs = Rs iqs + d qs / dt + ds

0 = Rr idr + d dr / dt ( r ) qr

m*

(1)

0 = Rr iqr + d qr / dt + ( r ) dr

ds = ( Lls + Lm )ids + Lm idr

qs = ( Lls + Lm )iqs + Lm iqr
dr = ( Llr + Lm )idr + Lm ids
qr = ( Llr + Lm )iqr + Lm iqs

(2)

(4)

For a machine with p pole pairs, the electrical torque,

which solely depends on the dq components, is given by
(power invariant transformation is used):
Te = pLm idr iqs ids iqr
(5)

Tm

Pg

Qg

Vdc

Fig. 1. Structure of wind energy conversion system with asymmetrical

six-phase squirrel-cage induction generator (SCIG).

Here, indices s and r indicate stator and rotor quantities,

respectively. Rs and Rr are the stator and rotor resistance,
while Lls, Llr and Lm are stator- and rotor leakage
inductance, and magnetising inductance. Additional stator
equations, which describe machine in the xy plane, are:
v xs = Rs i xs + d xs /dt
(3)
v ys = Rs i ys + d ys /dt

xs = Lls i xs
ys = Lls i ys

ig

Finally, equation of rotor motion is

d m
(6)
dt
where m is the rotor mechanical speed, J is the inertia,
and Tm is the mechanical (prime mover) torque.
Te Tm = J

C. Indirect Rotor Flux Oriented Control (IRFOC)

With the VSD model, the six-phase generator can be
controlled using indirect rotor flux oriented control
method in a similar manner as a three-phase induction
generator [3]. The rotor flux angle is calculated from the
estimated slip speed and the measured rotor speed, and is
used for rotational transformation. With the d-axis
aligned to the rotor flux vector, the flux and torque of the
machine are controlled by regulating the d and q axis
currents, respectively. Using a maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) algorithm similar to that in [5], the
generators torque can be controlled according to the
varying wind speed, to generate maximum power.
In [5], two PI controllers are used to regulate the dq
currents for implementing IRFOC of a six-phase
induction wind generator. However, two current
controllers suffice only under ideal conditions, which do
not exist in practice. As will be discussed later, to handle
asymmetries in multiphase machine, additional current
controllers have to be used.

D. Voltage-Oriented Control (VOC)

For the grid-side converter, the well known voltageoriented control (VOC) method [15] is employed. With
the d-axis of the control reference frame aligned to the
grid voltage vector, active and reactive powers delivered
to grid can be controlled by regulating d-axis and q-axis
current respectively. The dc-link voltage can then be
regulated at a constant value by controlling the active
power.
III. SUPPRESSION OF ASYMMETRIES
One important consideration when operating a sixphase generator is the suppression of xy currents. Ideally,
if the two windings are supplied with two balanced
sinusoidal three-phase voltages which are symmetrical
and phase shifted by 30, two sets of balanced three-phase
currents of same amplitude will flow in each winding. In
this case, there will be no current flowing in the xy plane
(except for the switching harmonics related ripple
current). However, if there are some phase and/or
magnitude deviations from this ideal condition, xy current
will flow, and the machine is considered to be operating
with asymmetries. As shown in [16], asymmetries due to
pulse width modulation (PWM) of the voltage source
converter can be minimised by choosing suitable
modulation technique, such as double zero sequence
injection method. However, the compensation of
asymmetries due to machine and/or supply is not so
straightforward. A comprehensive analysis of the
operation of a six-phase induction machine with machine
and/or supply asymmetries was presented in [17].
Conventional control method which utilises only one set
of dq controllers is incapable of suppressing the xy
currents, so additional controllers must be added.
However, since the asymmetries introduce alternating xy
currents, direct compensation using PI xy current
controllers does not suffice.
Several methods have been proposed in line with this.
In [7] and [18] it was suggested to control a six-phase
machine based on the dual dq model: the two windings
are treated as separate three-phase windings and two sets
of dq current controllers are used. Some other authors
prefer to control the machine based on the VSD model
[19], [20]. In [19], the control was done in the stationary
reference frame, with the xy currents regulated by two
additional resonant controllers. In [20], synchronous
reference frame xy current controllers for five-phase

LS5b.2-2

induction machine were considered.

rotational transformation matrix

Ddq

d cos s
q sin s

=
xdq

ydq

sin s
cos s
cos s
sin s

sin s

cos s

modified

i x = C1 cos(t ) + C 2 sin(t )
The coefficients C1 and C2 are given with

(7)

C1 =

*
ds

iqs

ed

For IRFOC, is the rotational speed of the rotor flux

vector and t is time, while is the angle between rotor
flux vector and stator current vector.
Using (7), (10) and (12), the modified xy currents are
given by the following equations:
i xdq = 2C2 sin + (C1 cos C2 sin )cos(2t )
+ ( C1 sin C 2 cos )sin( 2t )

ia2b2c2

[D ]

(13)

+ ( C1 sin C 2 cos )sin( 2t )

Using

[T ]1

eq

A cos + B sin = A 2 + B 2 cos( )

ixdqs
*

(11)

i ydq = 2C 2 cos + (C1 cos C 2 sin )cos(2t )

dq

*
qs

I [ 32 34 (m + n)]

Without any loss of generality, the rotational

transformation angle in (7) can be defined as
s = t +
(12)

[D ] [T ] ia1b1c1
ids

1
3

C2 = 14 I (n m)

was introduced to rotate the xy plane at the same

synchronous speed as the dq plane. PI controllers are then
used to compensate the asymmetries, making this method
intuitively simple and easy for implementation. Structure
of the current control scheme with modified
transformation is shown in Fig. 2, where [T] is the sixphase decoupling (Clarkes) transformation, while edeq
are the feed forward terms for IRFOC.

dq

(10)

i y = C1 sin(t ) 3C 2 cos(t )

(14)

tan 1 BA

where =
, equations (13) can be simplified and
expressed in terms of a dc component and an ac
component:

ixdqs = iydqs = 0

iydqs

i xdq = 2C2 sin + C12 + C 2 2 cos(2t 1 )

Fig. 2. Current control using modified transformation and additional PI

controllers for xy current suppression [20].

IV.
AN ALTERNATIVE MODIFIED TRANSFORMATION
Using the existing modified transformation, the xy
currents are decomposed into a dc component and an ac
component. For instance, fundamental frequency
component in xy current appears as a dc and a double
frequency component upon transformation, as will be
shown later. The dc component can be easily eliminated
using the PI controller, while the double frequency
component will be suppressed to an extent determined by
the controller gains and other system parameters. The
efficiency of this method hence relies on how well the xy
current can be decomposed into the dc and ac component.
The higher the dc component and the lower the ac
component, the better the controller will work.
To illustrate the effect of (7), assume that the currents
in winding 1 are balanced,
i a1 = I cos(t )
ib1 = I cos(t 120 D )

(8)

i ydq = 2C2 cos + C12 + C2 2 cos( 2t 2 )

Note that coefficient C2 is proportional to (n-m), i.e.

the difference between amplitudes of the phase currents.
If the phase currents in winding 2 are balanced, but have
an amplitude scaled by a factor k, i.e. m=n=k, the dc
components in ixdq and iydq will disappear. The unbalance
will appear purely as an ac quantity, and performance of
the PI controller will deteriorate.
In this paper an alternative modified transformation
matrix is suggested, which rotates the xy plane in countersynchronous (or anti-synchronous) direction:

Ddq '

ia 2 = mI cos(t 30D )
ib 2 = nI cos(t 150D )

(9)

ic 2 = ia 2 ib 2
By applying the six-phase decoupling transformation,
xy currents are obtained as:

d cos s

q sin s
=
x'

y'

sin s
cos s
cos s
sin s

sin s

cos s

(16)

Using this alternative modified transformation matrix,

the xy currents of (10) take the following form in the
reference frame defined with (16):
i x ' = C12 + C 2 2 cos( 3 ) + 2C2 sin( 2t + )

ic1 = I cos(t 240 )

while the amplitude of phase currents in the other
winding differs by arbitrary factors m and n:

(15)

i y ' = C12 + C2 2 cos( 4 ) 2C 2 cos( 2t + )

(17)

Note that the coefficient C2 now directly governs the

double-frequency components. If m=n=k, the ac
component will disappear. This is in contrast to (15). The
current unbalance between windings will appear as a dc
component, and will be easily compensated using PI
controllers. However, in some other cases (e.g., when
m+n = 2, so that C1 = 0) the original transformation matrix
(7) will perform better than the alternative transformation

LS5b.2-3

matrix (16). So, the choice of the transformation matrix

very much depends on the type of the asymmetry. Since
the transformation matrices rotate the xy current
components in different directions, their performance is
directly related to the rotational direction of the current
vector in xy plane. With unbalance, xy currents appear as
ac components with fundamental frequency. If x current
leads y current, the current vector in the xy plane will be
rotating counter clockwise, and the original
transformation matrix will have good performance. On
the other hand, if y current leads x current, the alternative
transformation will be better. If the leading and lagging is
not obvious, then the two transformation matrices will
yield rather similar performance.
V.

SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Simulation Conditions
To investigate the performance of the alternative
modified current control scheme, obtained using the
alternative modified transformation matrix (16),
simulations have been done using Matlab/Simulink
environment. Three scenarios are tested to investigate
three different types of asymmetries.
Test (A): 5 resistors (50% of stator resistance) are
added to phases a1, b1, and c1. In this case, the currents
within each winding will remain balanced (m=n=k).

However, the magnitudes of currents in winding 1 and

winding 2 are different.
Test (B): A 5 resistor is inserted into phase a1,
causing the phase currents to be unbalanced.
Test (C): Stator resistance in phase a1 is increased by
5, while stator resistance in phase b1 is reduced by 5.
An unbalance different from Test (B) is simulated.
Since the simulation goal is to illustrate the effect of
asymmetry suppression, the generator is operated under
rated conditions and the fundamental frequency of the
stator currents is 50 Hz. Initially, the system is simulated
with just dq controllers. At t=1.5 s, the xy controllers are
activated to suppress the asymmetries. System parameters
are given in the Appendix.
B. Simulation Results
For easier comparison, the simulation results are
shown together for both methods in the same figure. Part
(a) shows operation with the existing modified
transformation, while part (b) illustrates the use of the
alternative modified transformation. Figures 3-6 show the
results for Test (A), while Figs. 7-10 show the results for
Test (B). Results for Test (C) are shown in Figs. 11-14.
C. Discussion
Figure 3 shows the stator currents of the generator.
Before compensation (t < 1.5 s), the stator currents within
1
peak current (A)

Stator Currents (A)

4
2
0
-2
-4
1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
1.56

1.54

(a)

1.565

1.57
1.575
1.58
1.585
1.59
Time (s)
Harmonics Spectrum (fundamental = 0.14422)

1.595

1.6

0.2
0.15
A (peak)

Stator Currents (A)

4
2
0

0.05
-2
-4
1.46

0
-500
1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

3000

3500

4000

4500

0
-0.5
-1
1.56

1.565

1.57
1.575
1.58
1.585
1.59
1.595
Time (s)
Harmonics Spectrum (fundamental = 2.2059e-005)

1.6

0.2
1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

1.54

0.15

A (peak)

(a)

x-current
y-current

0.1
0.05
0
-500

0
-1
-2
1.46

1500 2000 2500

Frequency (Hz)

0.5

-1
-2
1.46

1000

(a)

x-current
y-current

500

1
peak current (A)

Stator xy Currents (A)

1.54

(b)
Fig. 3. Stator currents without (before 1.5 s) and with (after 1.5 s)
asymmetry suppression.

Stator xy Currents (A)

0.1

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

500

1000

1500 2000 2500

Frequency (Hz)

3000

3500

4000

4500

(b)

1.54

(b)

Fig. 4. Stator xy currents after decoupling transformation (in stationary

reference frame).

Fig. 5. FFT analysis of the stator x current in the stationary reference

frame, after compensation, based on transformation of (7) (a) and
transformation of (16) (b).

LS5b.2-4

analysis in the previous section. Note that in this case,

prior to compensation, y current leads x current, so the
alternative transformation performs better, as predicted.
The effect of the compensation can be better visualised
by looking at the transformed xy currents, shown in Fig.
4. After compensation with the existing method, the xy
currents still contain visible ac components (Fig. 4(a)),
while the alternative method fully eliminates the ac
component (Fig. 4(b)). This is further verified with the
FFT analysis of the x currents, where a fundamental
1

2
x-current
y-current

peak current (A)

Modified stator xy Currents (A)

winding 1 (blue, green and red traces) and winding 2

(magenta, yellow and cyan traces) are balanced.
However, currents in winding 1 have lower amplitudes
than those in winding 2, because of the additional
resistors added. Figure 3(a) shows that after the xy
controllers have been activated (t>1.5 s), the difference in
current amplitudes is reduced. However, it is not fully
eliminated. On the other hand, with the alternative
modified transformation, the difference in amplitude is
practically fully eliminated. This verifies the theoretical

0
-1
-2
1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

A (peak)

Modified stator xy Currents (A)

0.5

500

1.6

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

peak current (A)

-2

4500

-0.5

1.565

1.51

1.52

1.53

1.57

1.575

1.58
1.585
1.59
1.595
Time (s)
Harmonics Spectrum (fundamental = 0.048616)

500

1.6

0.15

1.54

(a)

4000

0.2
1.5
Time (s)

3500

0.5

-1
1.56

1.49

3000

1.48

1500 2000 2500

Frequency (Hz)

1.54

1.47

1000

(a)

A (peak)

Stator Currents (A)

1.58
1.585
1.59
1.595
Time (s)
Harmonics Spectrum (fundamental = 0.048385)

0.1

0
-500

-0.5

Stator Currents (A)

1.575

0.05

0.1
0.05

2
0
-500

1000

1500 2000 2500

Frequency (Hz)

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

Modified stator xy Currents (A)

x-current
y-current

0.5
0
-0.5

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

4000

4500

x-current
y-current

0.5
0
-0.5

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

x-current
y-current

0
-0.5
-1
1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

1.54

(a)
Modified stator xy Currents (A)

1
0.5

1.54

(a)

-1
1.46

3500

Fig. 9. FFT analysis of the stator x current in the stationary reference

frame, after compensation, based on (7) (a) and (16) (b).

1.54

(b)
Fig. 7. Stator currents without (before 1.5 s) and with (after 1.5 s)
asymmetry suppression.

-1
1.46

3000

(b)

-2
-4
1.46

Stator xy Currents (A)

1.57

0.15

x-current
y-current

(b)
Fig. 6. Stator xy currents after application of the rotating transformations
(7) (a) and (16) (b).

Stator xy Currents (A)

1.565

0.2

-4
1.46

0
-0.5
-1
1.56

1.54

(a)

-1
1.46

0.5

1.54

(b)
Fig. 8. Stator xy currents after decoupling transformation (in stationary
reference frame).

LS5b.2-5

x-current
y-current

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Time (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

1.54

(b)
Fig. 10. Stator xy currents after application of the rotating
transformations (7) (a) and (16) (b).

frequency component of 0.144 A remains when using the

existing transformation (Fig. 5(a)), while no fundamental
component appears any more when using the alternative
method (Fig. 5(b)). The difference is due to the
modification of the transformation. With the existing
transformation, the asymmetry results in a double
frequency ac component, as shown in Fig. 6(a). Using the
alternative transformation, however, the asymmetry
results in dc-quantities (Fig. 6(b)) that can be better
compensated using PI controllers. This is in accordance
with the analysis done in Section IV.
For Test (B), a different type of asymmetry is
introduced. For the stator currents shown in Fig. 7, it is
obvious that the asymmetry results in unbalanced currents
in both windings. After compensation (t>1.5s), the
unbalance has been reduced with no observable
difference between the existing method (Fig. 7(a)) and
the alternative method (Fig. 7(b)). From Fig. 8, there is
no obvious leading or lagging relation between the xy
currents prior to compensation, so the two
transformations are expected to give similar results.
Comparison of the xy currents before and after
compensation shows that both methods have significantly
reduced the fundamental frequency component in the xy
currents. However, From the FFT plots in Fig. 9, it can be
seen that the fundamental frequency components are not
fully eliminated. This is explained by Fig. 10, which
shows that with both transformations, the unbalance

appears as both a dc component and a double frequency

component in the both rotating xy planes. While the dc
component can be compensated easily, the PI controller is
only capable of suppressing the ac component to a certain
degree but not eliminating it fully.
In Test (C), the asymmetries cause currents in both
windings to be unbalanced, as shown in Fig. 11. From the
xy current plots in Fig. 12, both methods seem to have
suppressed the asymmetries to a certain extent. However,
FFT plots in Fig. 13 indicate that the original
transformation (Fig. 13(a)) actually performs better than
the alternative transformation (Fig. 13(b)). Unbalance in
this case appears as predominantly dc component in the
modified xy plane under the original transformation (Fig.
14(a)). On the other hand, the alternative transformation
results in modified xy currents with large double
frequency component. By checking the xy currents prior
to compensation in Fig. 12, it can be seen that x current
leads y current. This is in agreement with the fact that
original transformation performs better in this scenario.
From the simulation results, when the asymmetry is
such that the currents within each winding remain
balanced (Test (A)), the alternative transformation
outperforms the existing method. However, if the
asymmetry causes unbalanced currents, the two
transformations show similar performance (Test (B)) for
some cases, while in some other scenarios the original
transformation is better (Test (C)). Since currents are
1

peak current (A)

Stator Currents (A)

0
-2
-4
1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Times (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
1.56

1.54

1.565

(a)

A (peak)

Stator Currents (A)

0.15

2
0

0
-1000
1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Times (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

peak current (A)

1.5
Times (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

5000

-0.5

1.565

1.57
1.575
1.58
1.585
1.59
1.595
Time (s)
Harmonics Spectrum (fundamental = 0.085876)

1.6

0.2

1.54

0.15
A (peak)

(a)
1

0.1
0.05

0.5

0
-1000

0
-0.5
-1
1.46

4000

-1
1.56

1.49

3000

0.5

-0.5

1.48

2000
Frequency (Hz)

(a)

0.5

1.47

1000

1
Stator xy Currents (A)

1.54

(b)
Fig. 11. Stator currents without (before 1.5 s) and with (after 1.5 s)
asymmetry suppression.

Stator xy Currents (A)

0.1
0.05

-2

-1
1.46

1.6

0.2

-4
1.46

1.57
1.575
1.58
1.585
1.59
1.595
Time (s)
Harmonics Spectrum (fundamental = 0.0017121)

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Times (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

1000

2000
Frequency (Hz)

3000

4000

5000

(b)
Fig. 13. FFT analysis of the stator x current in the stationary reference
frame, after compensation, based on (7) (a) and (16) (b).

1.54

(b)
Fig. 12. Stator xy currents after decoupling transformation (in stationary
reference frame).

measured in the actual control, the phase difference

between the xy currents in the stationary reference frame

LS5b.2-6

Modified stator xy currents (A)

x-current
y-current

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
1.46

[3]
1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Times (s)

(a)

Modified stator xy currents (A)

[2]

1.51

1.52

1.53

1.54

( )

[4]

x-current
y-current

0.5

[5]

0
-0.5
-1
1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.5
Times (s)

1.51

1.52

1.53

[6]

1.54

(b)
Fig. 14. Stator xy currents after application of the rotating
transformations (7) (a) and (16) (b).

[7]

can be used to determine the suitable transformation

matrix. If the x current leads y current, the original
modified transformation should be used, while the
alternative modified transformation should be chosen if y
current leads x current.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, current control of an asymmetrical sixphase induction machine for wind energy conversion is
analysed. Compensation of xy currents, caused by
asymmetries, is performed by using PI controllers in two
synchronous frames, using an existing modified
transformation
and
an
alternative
modified
transformation, introduced in the paper. Analysis of the
performance of the current control based on the existing
modified transformation is presented and its limitations
are addressed. An alternative modified transformation is
then suggested and the performance of current control is
compared with the existing method via simulation.
Results show that when mitigating unbalance caused by
asymmetry, the original modified transformation may
perform better in some cases. However, for some other
cases, both the original and alternative modified
transformations show similar performance.
The compensation of xy currents using PI controller is
desirable due to the ease of implementation. Since the
two methods have almost no difference in terms of
implementation complexity, this study provides an
alternative view to the selection of a suitable rotational
transformation matrix for implementing xy current
control with PI controllers.
APPENDIX
Machine parameters, ratings, and other data:
Rs = 10 Rr = 6.3 Lls = Llr = 0.04 H Lm = 0.42 H
Ten = 10.1 Nm p = 2 Pn = 1.32 kW Pin = 1.66 kW
Vn(phase) = 220 V
In = 2.1 A nn = 1573 rpm
r = 0.63 Wb (rms) Vdc = 600 V
Cdc = 1500 F
REFERENCES
[1]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]

[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]

[18]
[19]

[20]

S. Kouro, M. Malinowski, K. Gopakumar, J. Pou, L. G.

Franquelo, B. Wu, J. Rodriguez, M. A. Perez, J. I. Leon, Recent

LS5b.2-7

advances and industrial applications of multilevel converters,

IEEE Trans. on Ind. Electronics, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 2553-2580,
2010.
Z. Xu, G. Li, D. Xu, Control of parallel multi-converters for
permanent magnet wind power generation systems, Int. Conf. on
Electrical Machines and Systems ICEMS, Incheon, South Korea,
CD-ROM, 2010.
E. Levi, R. Bojoi, F. Profumo, H. A. Toliyat, S. Williamson,
Multiphase induction motor drives a technology status
review, IET Electric Power Applications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 489516, 2007.
E. Levi, Multiphase electric machines for variable-speed
applications, IEEE Trans. on Ind. Electronics, vol. 55, no. 5, pp.
1893-1909, 2008.
M. J. Duran, F. Barrero, S. Toral, M. Arahal, R. Gregor, R. Marfil,
Multi-phase generators viability for offshore wind farms with
HVDC transmission, Int. Conf. on Renewable Energies and
Power Quality ICREPQ, Valencia, Spain, CD-ROM, 2009.
M. J. Duran, S. Kouro, B. Wu, E. Levi, F. Barrero, S. Alepuz,
Six-phase PMSG wind energy conversion system based on
medium-voltage multilevel converter, European Conf. on Power
Electronics and Appl. EPE, Birmingham, UK, CD-ROM, 2011.
G. K. Singh, K. Nam, S. K. Lim, A simple indirect field-oriented
control scheme for multiphase induction machine, IEEE Trans.
on Ind. Electronics, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1177-1184, 2005.
G. K. Singh, A. S. Kumar, R. P. Saini, Selection of capacitor for
self-excited six-phase induction generator for stand-alone
renewable energy generation, Energy, vol. 35, pp. 3273-3283,
2010.
D. Vizireanu, S. Brisset, X. Kestelyn, P. Brochet, Y. Milet, D.
Laloy, Investigation on multi-star structures for large power
direct-drive wind generator, Electric Power Components and
Systems, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 135-152, 2007.
B. Feifei, H. Wenxin, H. Yuwen, C. Xiaobo, S. Kai, W.
Qianshuang, A novel 6/3-phase dual stator-winding induction
generator system applied in wind power generation, Int. Conf. on
Power Electronics and Drive Systems PEDS, Taipei, Taiwan, pp.
1360-1365, 2009.
C. H. Ng, M. A. Parker, L. Ran, P. J. Tavner, J. R. Bumby, E.
Spooner, A multilevel modular converter for a large, light
weight wind turbine generator, IEEE Trans. on Power
Electronics, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1062-1074, 2008.
M. A. Parker, C. Ng, L. Ran, Fault-tolerant control for a modular
generatorconverter scheme for direct-drive wind turbines, IEEE
Trans. on Ind. Electronics, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 305-315, 2011.
B. Andresen, J. Birk, A high power density converter system for
the Gamesa G10x 4,5 MW wind turbine, European Conf. on
Power Electronics and Applications EPE, Aalborg, Denmark,
CD-ROM, 2007.
G. K. Singh, K. B. Yadav, R. P. Saini, Analysis of a saturated
multiphase (six-phase) self-excited induction generator, Int. J. of
Emerging Electric Power Appl., vol. 7, no. 2, Article 5, 2006.
B. Wu, Y. Lang, N. Zargari, S. Kouro, Power conversion and
control of wind energy systems, IEEE Press - John Wiley and
Sons, 2011.
R. Bojoi, A. Tenconi, F. Profumo, G. Griva, D. Martinello,
Complete analysis and comparative study of digital modulation
techniques for dual three-phase AC motor drives, IEEE Power
Electronics Specialists Conference PESC, Cairns, Queensland,
Australia, pp. 851-857, 2002.
R. Bojoi, F. Farina, M. Lazzari, F. Profumo, A. Tenconi,
Analysis of the asymmetrical operation of dual three-phase
induction machines, IEEE Int. Electric Machines and Drives
Conference IEMDC, Wisconsin, Madison, USA, pp. 429-435,
2003.
R. Bojoi, M. Lazzari, F. Profumo, A. Tenconi, Digital fieldoriented control for dual three-phase induction motor drives,
IEEE Trans. on Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 752-760, 2003.
R. Bojoi, E. Levi, F. Farina, A. Tenconi, F. Profumo, Dual threephase induction motor drive with digital current control in the
stationary reference frame, IEE Proceedings - Electric Power
Application, vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 129-139, 2006.
M. Jones, S. N. Vukosavic, D. Dujic, E. Levi, A synchronous
current control scheme for multiphase induction motor drives,
IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 860-868,
2009.