4242 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 63, NO.
7, JULY 2016
Robust Energy Management of a Hybrid Wind
and Flywheel Energy Storage System
Considering Flywheel Power Losses
Minimization and Grid-Code Constraints
Hussein Hassan Abdeltawab, Student Member, IEEE,
and Yasser Abdel-Rady I. Mohamed, Senior Member, IEEE
AbstractThe maximum power and power ramp rate
are important grid codes for integrating renewable energy
resources in transmission systems. The power curtailment
regulates the maximum power and ramp rate; however,
adding an energy storage system (ESS) can time shift
surplus wind energy instead of curtailing it. The flywheel
energy storage system (FESS) has the advantages of high
efficiency and long lifetime; however, it has non-negligible
standby losses and its lifetime is reduced exponentially
as the rotating speed increases. Considering such practi-
cal constraints, this work presents an energy management
system (EMS) for a hybrid power system composed of a
wind farm with a FESS. The FESS time shifts the surplus
wind energy to respect the grid codes and reduce wind
curtailment; meanwhile, the EMS aims at minimizing the
FESS standby losses and boosting its lifetime using the
predicted wind power data. The EMS is composed of two
controllers. The first controller is a linear model predictive
controller that defines the long-term FESS power set-point.
The second controller is a real-time adaptive hysteresis
controller that compensates for the wind-power prediction
error. Comparative simulation studies and hardware-in-the-
loop test results validate the effectiveness of the proposed
EMS in reducing the FESS losses while respecting the grid
integration code constraints.
Index TermsEnergy management system (EMS), fly-
wheel energy storage system (FESS), grid codes, losses
minimization, model-predictive control (MPC), wind energy.
I. I NTRODUCTION
R ENEWABLE energy sources (RESs) will occupy a high
share in the future power generation fleet. With such
a high penetration level, different transmission system opera-
tors (TSOs) have developed special grid codes for wind farms
[1]. A typical grid code provides requirements for wind farms
regarding fault-ride-through, reactive power control, voltage
regulation and active power control, and frequency regulation.
Many grid codes require RESs to periodically announce the
maximum output power to the TSO [2], [3]. The power ramp
Manuscript received May 28, 2015; revised August 18, 2015 and
November 16, 2015; accepted November 17, 2015. Date of publication
February 18, 2016; date of current version June 9, 2016.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, The University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G2V4, Canada
(e-mail: abdeltaw@ualberta.ca; yasser_rady@ieee.org).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2016.2532280
0278-0046 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
rate is also an important requirement that affects voltage power
quality, especially with higher wind penetration [4]. The max-
imum output power and up-ramp are controllable via power
curtailment techniques conducted by turning off turbines or
using pitch control [1]. For down-ramp requirements, a power
reserve (i.e., power imported from the grid) is required. Instead
of forfeiting curtailed wind power, an energy storage system
(ESS) can shift surplus energy for periods with low wind gen-
eration (time shifting). A short-term storage is possible via
various ESS technologies [5]. One of these promising technolo-
gies is the flywheel ESS (FESS) which has many applications
and advantages [6][13].
The main advantage of FESSs is the high power density that
enables them to cover peak loads for short times [6]. Thus,
the FESS starts to replace uninterruptable power supply (UPS)
units that are combined with a back-up diesel generator. The
FESS can replace an expensive 15-min UPS system to provide
a 15-s ride-through until the diesel engine is synchronized with
the system. Thus, the FESS fulfills the same task with a remark-
ably reduced cost and with higher lifetime than the UPS system
[14]. The FESSs provide a wide range of services in power
systems, transportation, and air aviation [15], [16]. Further, a
FESS has a fast response time that makes it a perfect tool for
improving the power quality, such as voltage sag correction
[17]. Furthermore, the FESS has a very long life that can reach
20 years or 100 000 cycles in commercial systems [18].
Because the FESS has a very long life and fast response,
it is a perfect candidate for various power regulation services.
In a dc microgrid, the authors of [19] used a FESS for real-
time model uncertainty compensation using active disturbance
rejection control. The authors of [20] proposed a hybrid sys-
tem consists of a FESS combined with pumped hydro storage
(PHS). The FESS provides a fast response by generating the
high-frequency power signals components that cannot be accu-
rately fulfilled by the slow PHS; thus, the total system accuracy
improves. On a higher level, some independent system opera-
tors (ISOs), such as the California ISO (CAISO), have tested
the FESS performance in regulating reserve services [21] and it
has a proven fast response time and an accurate tracking for the
regulation signal. In the PennsylvaniaNew JerseyMaryland
Interconnection (PJM), USA, the biggest FESS station with
a 20-MW-rated capacity is participating in the frequency
ABDELTAWAB AND MOHAMED: ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT OF A HYBRID WIND AND FESS
regulation [22]. Recently, temporal power has started the com-
mercial operation of a 2.0-MW FESS in Harriston, ON, Canada
[23]. Economically speaking, the FESS has proven to be an
economical solution in frequency regulation, since it has the
lowest net present value (NPV) when compared with other tech-
nologies such as lead-acid batteries and coal stations [22]. The
final application of the FESS is RES integration, where FESS
can provide power smoothing for RES generation, either in an
isolated network [24], or in a grid connected system [25], [26].
Regarding the obstacles facing a FESS, the self-discharge
losses (standby losses) may reach high levels [25] mainly
due to windage losses [27]. This is the main reason limit-
ing the FESS to the short-period storage; however with the
rapid technology in magnetics, windage losses is reduced by
using magnetic bearings carrying a shaft rotating in vacuum
chambers at very high speeds [28]. A high-speed FESS, driven
by induction machines, can work in a very wide speed range
(reaching 16 000 r/min in some practical systems [18]) via field
weakening [29]. However, the FESS lifetime is depleted dra-
matically when the operating speed increases [30], [31]; there-
fore, a smart energy management system (EMS) is necessary
to achieve optimum operation while considering such practi-
cal constraints. The work in [32] proposes a smart EMS for
smoothing the output power of a wind turbine using short-term
prediction; however, the power losses minimization objective is
not considered.
Indeed, the FESS can be depleted very quickly if a poorly
designed EMS is adopted. Thus, the work in [25] addresses this
problem by reducing the FESS losses used with a wind farm
for power smoothing. In [25], an offline nonlinear optimization
algorithm is used to derive a relationship between the moving
average wind speed and the optimal FESS operation speed such
as to extend the lifetime of the FESS. The main disadvantage
of this technique is the sensitivity to the process parameters as
any change in the wind-energy conversion system parameters
demands a new solution. The same research team developed
a multiple-task EMS for a FESS in [26], where the FESS is
used for both frequency control and active power smoothing
(APS). The grid-interfacing converter is switched between the
two modes via the frequency-regulation error-threshold value,
whereas the reactive power is always controlled to regulate the
ac-side voltage magnitude. A fuzzy controller is designed for
APS to decide the active power setpoint depending on the fil-
tered wind power and the FESS speed. On the other hand, the
frequency control is manipulated by a lag compensator with a
traditional (Pf ) droop gain. The main drawback in [26] is the
expert design criteria and the use of a basic frequency regula-
tion technique without participating in the regulating market.
Further, the wind predictions are not used to improve the EMS
of the FESS or boost its lifetime.
To overcome the aforementioned difficulties, this work pro-
poses an EMS for a hybrid system composed of a wind energy
conversion system (WECS) and a FESS in the transmission sys-
tem. The FESS regulates the hybrid system output power such
that the grid code is respected (maximum power and ramp rate
limits) while minimizing the FESS standby losses boosting its
lifetime using the predicted wind-power data. The proposed
EMS is a two-stage controller composed of 1) a long-term
4243
(in the range of minutes and hours) multiobjective controller
based on the model-predictive control (MPC) theory; and 2) an
online adaptive hysteresis controller (AHC) (in the range of
seconds).
The contributions of this paper to the research field are as
follows.
1) Designing a multiobjective MPC-based algorithm that
aims at maximizing the power imported from the hybrid
system to the grid under typical grid-code constraints
while reducing FESS losses and boosting its lifetime.
2) Converting the MPC optimization problem from a mixed-
integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problem into a
convex one with global optimum and guaranteed feasibil-
ity; the latter is more suitable for real-time control and
optimization without loss of accuracy.
3) Developing an adaptive online hysteresis controller that
is tuned by the MPC algorithm to compensate for the pre-
diction error; therefore, a robust MPC optimization with
robustness against prediction error is yielded.
4) The two-stage EMS is a multisample-rate algorithm that
serves the optimization goals while compensating inter-
samples and predictions errors.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II briefly
describes the problem formulation, whereas Section III explains
the proposed EMS. Section IV presents a case study on a typ-
ical 150-MW wind farm in Canada. Section V presents the
hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) test results. Finally, the conclusion
is drawn in Section VI.
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
This work aims at designing an EMS for a hybrid sys-
tem composed of a large wind farm with a FESS. The hybrid
system must respect the grid codes regarding the maximum
output power and its rate. Instead of an excessive wind cur-
tailment, a FESS facilitates short-term storage for this energy
to increase the hybrid system generation while respecting the
grid code. The wind turbines are controlled via a maximum
power point tracking (MPPT) algorithm to harvest the max-
imum wind power. Assuming an ideal MPPT and zero pitch
angle, the steady-state wind turbine power is calculated as
follows [33]:
3
Pw (t) = 0.5 W cp (o ) Avw (t) (1)
where (Pw , t, W , , cp , o , A, Vw ) are the WECS harvested
electrical power, time index, WECS efficiency (including shaft
and gears, generator, power converter, and cables efficiencies),
air density, power coefficient, optimal tip speed ratio, rotor
disk area, and the effective wind speed across the rotor disk,
respectively.
Many TSOs demand the WECS owners to commit in advance
a maximum generated power (Pw (t)), with a rate (Pw ). This
commitment is updated periodically depending on the market.
For example, in typical markets in Canada, the WECS owner
updates the maximum power to the TSO every 20 min [3].
Other markets, such as the Spanish market [34], require an
advance commitment and impose a penalty as well in case of
4244 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 63, NO. 7, JULY 2016

overall round trip efficiency; J is the FESS inertia; E f is the

Fig. 1. Hybrid system structure.
violation. The power transferred to the grid according to the
grid code (Pgc (t)) is
Pgc (t) = {Pw (t) |Pw (t) P w (t),
P w Pw (t) P w } (2)
Pw (t) = Pw (t) Pw (t 1) . (3)
As given in (2), the wind-power magnitude and rate are lim-
ited by the grid-code regulations [1]. The power curtailment is
used to achieve this target by limiting the up-ramp rate and
maximum magnitude. An extra energy is exported from the
grid in case of sudden wind-power drop. The curtailed power
is calculated as
Pc (t) = Pgc (t) Pw (t) . (4)
An effective way to reduce Pc (t) is to add a FESS. An EMS
controls the FESS active power set-point as shown in Fig. 1. A
conventional EMS defines both the curtailed wind power and
the FESS active power, given the wind generation as follows:
Max (Pg (t)) (5)
Pg (t) = Pw (t) Pf (t) + Pc (t) (6)
rated energy of the FESS; and r , r are the FESS maximum
and minimum mechanical speeds.
The problem in (5) shows the EMS strategy that aims at
hybrid system power maximization. Equation (6) represents
the power balance relation at the PCC with the grid. The
power exported (or imported) from or to the grid Pg (t) equals
the available wind power minus the curtailed wind power
(Pw (t) + Pc (t), Pc (t) 0) minus the FESS power Pf (t). It
is worth mentioning that the FESS has negative and positive
powers during the discharge charge modes, respectively. In the
standby mode, the FESS power is ideally zero. The grid code
is embedded in constraints (7) and (8) that define the maximum
system-generated power and its rate, respectively. The curtail-
ment power is constrained in (9) as a negative power up to the
wind farm rated power Pwr . The FESS is represented as an
integrator. It has two constraints that represent the power limits
in (10) and the state-of-charge (SOC) in (11). The SOC is the
integration of the per-unit power as given in (12) taking into
consideration the FESS efficiency f (including converter and
cables losses), whereas (13) calculates the FESS rated capacity
E f that depends on the FESS inertia (J) and the FESS maxi-
mum and minimum mechanical speeds (r , r ). Problem (5)
charges the FESS up to its limits when wind power exceeds the
constraints (7), (8). On the other hand, it fully discharges the
FESS when the wind power is less than the expected value. It
is a linear programming problem (LP) that can be easily solved
online in a real-time fashion (with a sample time in the range
of seconds); however, it does not take into consideration the
following points:
1) minimizing the standby losses of the FESS;
2) utilizing the knowledge of predicted short-term wind
speed in the management decisions to improve the overall
hybrid system performance;
3) taking into consideration the FESS number of cycles as
the FESS life is affected significantly by its operating
speed.
This paper presents an improved EMS that considers these
objectives. To address this extended EMS problem, a detailed
model for the FESS is required.

Pre Pg (t) Pw (t) (7)

A. FESS Model
P w Pg (t) Pw (8)
The storage station is composed of a number of smaller
Pwr Pc (t) 0 (9) FESS units connected in parallel. There have been already
commercial FESS units with up to 250-kW power and 15-min
Pf Pf (t) Pf (10)
commitment time (62.5 kWh) for each unit [18]. A commercial
0 SOC(t) 1 (11) 20-MW station is already in service for frequency regulation
in the PJM system [18]. In the case of wind-power smooth-
Pf (t)
SOC (t) = SOC (t 1) + Ef (12) ing, the sizing of the FESS is taken no more than 10% of the
f WECS size [25]. As the FESS is a relatively expensive technol-
 2 2

f = 0.5J
E r r (13) ogy, a maximum 10% of WECS rating is a reasonable choice
[25]. A FESS unit is a permanent-magnet synchronous machine
where Pg (t), Pg (t) are the hybrid system total power (PMSM) with high speed. Each unit is connected via a back-to-
exported to the grid measured at the point of common coupling back converter to the PCC as shown in Fig. 1. The grid-side
(PCC) and its change; Pre is the reserve power imported from converter is controlled to regulate the dc-link voltage. Further,
grid; Pwr is the WECS rated power; Pf (t) is the FESS out- the reactive power can be controlled for voltage control at the
put power; SOC (t) is the FESS state-of-charge; f is the FESS PCC in the case of a weak grid [35]. On the other hand, the EMS
ABDELTAWAB AND MOHAMED: ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT OF A HYBRID WIND AND FESS 4245

defines the active power set-point for the FESS-side inverter.

The FESS-side inverter is current-controlled in the dq-frame
[25]. The direct-current set-point is set to zero to reduce losses
[35], whereas the quadrature current set-point is controlled to
manipulate the electric torque as follows:

3p Pf*
Te * = pm i*sq = (14)
22 r
where Te is the FESS electric torque set-point; p is the MSM
number of pole pairs; pm is the PMSM flux constant; isq is
the stator quadrature current set-point; Pf is the FESS power
set-point; and r is the FESS mechanical speed. The current
controller is a proportional-integral (PI) controller that defines
a quadrature stator voltage set-point. A pulsewidth modulation
scheme embeds the converter voltage commands into switching
pulses for the converter switches. Neglecting the fast converter
switching dynamics, the converter acts as an amplifier with a Fig. 2. Hybrid system nonlinear model.
gain equals half the dc-link voltage. Further details are given in
[35]. Since this work focuses on EMS that works with a sam-
accelerating, then the output power is reduced by Ploss . In the
ple time in range of several seconds, all the current closed-loop
standby mode, there is still a windage loss in the machine.
dynamics is modeled as a low-pass filter [35]
Finally, in the discharge mode, the output power is still reduced
*
Isq (s) by the power losses. Therefore, the power flow in the FESS can
Isq (s) = (15) be described by
i s + 1
Pf = Pgab iPloss + (1 i) Ploss (17)
where Isq is the stator quadrature current; s is the Laplace
transform variable; and i is the time-constant of the closed- Ploss = c1 r2 + c 2 r + 1.5rs i2sq , Pgab = Te r (18)
loop current control dynamics. The electric torque manipulates 
the machine mechanical speed according to the following shaft 1, Pf* 0
i: (19)
dynamics [25]: 0, Pf* < 0.

Te (s) Tl (s) 1 The SOC is calculated using (20) while the number of charg-
= (16) ing cycle (N) is defined by (21). N will increase by one each
r (s) Js + B
time
 the FESS fully charges and discharge the full capacity
where B and Tl are the friction and mechanical torque, respec- f
E
tively. The output power (Pf ) is the difference between the 
Pf (t) Pf (t)
air-gab power (Pgab ) and the power losses (Ploss ) [25]. It SOC (t) = SOC (t 1) + = dt (20)
Ef Ef
is worth mentioning that the power losses in the FESS are
mainly due to the windage losses that produce a drag force pro- i (t) Pf (t) (1 i (t)) Pf (t)
N (t) = N (t 1) + f
portional to the square of the rotational speed. Further, eddy 2E
currents produce another drag force that is proportional to the   
 Pf (t) 
rotational speed [27]. The hysteresis loss is neglected in high- =   dt.
 (21)
speed machines as it decays exponentially with the speed [27]; 2Ef
because current FESSs operate at very high speed, the hys- The hybrid system model is shown in Fig. 2. The system
teresis losses are negligible. The stator copper loss is also can be presented as a state-space fourth-order model from
considered in this study. The copper loss depends on the quadra- (14) to (21). The control inputs are the FESS power set-
ture current (as the direct current is zero at steady state) and point Pf and the curtailed wind power Pc . The expected
the stator resistance rs . A simple and practical way to calcu- wind speed vw is considered as a known forecasted input,
late the losses constants c1 and c2 can be realized as follows. whereas the prediction error vw is an unknown disturbance.
The FESS operates at different speeds, and at each operating The model outputs include the grid power value and its rate,
speed, the power losses are measured in steady state as the dif- the FESS output power Pf , the FESS power losses Ploss , SOC,
ference between the gab and output power. By mapping the and N
power losses in the desired speed domain, a simple quadratic
curve-fitting technique, e.g., the least-square error method, can X = F (X, i, U ) (22)
be adopted to estimate c1 and c2 . Y = H (X, i, U, Ud ) (23)
The power losses calculation depends on the mode of oper- T
ation (standby, charging, or discharging) which is modeled here X = [isq , , SOC, N ] (24)
 
by the sign of the FESS power set-point (i). If the FESS is U = Pf* , Pc (25)
4246 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 63, NO. 7, JULY 2016

Ud = [
vw ] (26)
Y = [Pg , Pg , Pf , Ploss , SOC, N ] . (27)

B. Proposed Control Structure

To utilize the knowledge of future expected wind speeds v w ,
a finite-horizon model predictive controller is used to optimize
the future controlled inputs Pf , Pc according to a certain objec-
tive function. Because the maximum wind power is updated
each commitment period Tcom , the prediction horizon is cho-
sen as np = TTcom s1
, where Ts1 is the sampling time of the
expected wind speed. Ts1 is in the range of minutes to provide
a long prediction period with low number of samples. Now, the Fig. 3. Optimization objectives at different cost function weight.
operational control problem can be formulated as


np

np
value for that reflects the operators preferences for power
Min Ploss (kTs1 ) Pg (kTs1) (28) minimization.
k=1
k=1 The state-space model is discretized with a sampling time
X (kTs1 + Ts1 ) = F (X (kTs1 ), i (kTs1 ), Ts1 as given in (29) and (30). The inequalities (31)(34) repre-
sent the output constraints, whereas (35) and (36) are the input
U (kTs1 ), Ud (kTs1 )) (29) constraints. In (31), the power exported to the grid is upper
Y (kTs1 ) = H(X (kTs1 ), i (kTs1 ), bounded by the maximum WECS power committed with the
grid at this time (Tcom ) and the down limit is the maximum
U (kTs1 ), Ud (kTs1 )) (30) allowed grid support in case of wind down-ramp that cannot
be handled by the FESS. Equation (32) defines the grid-code
Pre Pg (kTs1 ) Pw (Tcom ) (31)



Pw Pg (kTs1 ) Pw
rising and falling power ramp rates. The SOC limits are given
(32) by (33), and the number of cycles at the end of the commit-
Y (KTs1 ) Y

0 SOC (kTs1 ) 1 (33) ment period is given by (34). The FESS power constraint is


expressed by (35). Finally, the curtailed wind power is defined
N (Tcom ) n
(34)
as a negative power up to the rated WECS Pwr as given by
 (36). The problem in (28) is a nonconvex optimization prob-
Pf Pf* (kTs1 ) Pf (35)
U (KTs1 ) U lem that is solved in this work by two model modifications.
Pwr Pc (kTs1 ) 0 (36) First, the nonlinear state-space model converts the optimization
into a nonlinear mixed integer problem that faces feasibility
vw (kTs1 ) [vw (jTs2 ), vw (jTs2 + SR)] ,
problems and has no guaranteed global minimum. This prob-
Ts1 lem is solved in Section III-A by converting the system into a
SR = , j = k SR k. (37) time-variant linear model without loss of accuracy. Second, the
Ts2
wind speed data have a prediction error which affects the results
The objective function given in (28) is a multiobjective func- optimality (that is why many works do not include weather
tion that maximizes the exported power to the grid under typical forecasts in EMS decisions, e.g., [36]). Further, the predicted
grid-code constraints while minimizing the flywheel losses. wind speed data are discretized using a large sample rate (e.g.,
The setting of the weight defines the EMS inclination to 5 min); in reality, the wind speed remarkably changes during
power losses minimization, by reducing the FESS activity, this time window. Equation (37) models this change as the wind
or total system power generation. By increasing , the EMS speed vw (kTs1 ) is defined as a set of wind speeds during the
focuses more on losses minimization and vice versa as shown same time window if a smaller sample time Ts2 is considered
in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 shows the relation between the energy losses in (e.g., 1 s). In other words, [vw (jTs2 ), vw (jTs2 + SR)] is the
a 100 kW/6.6 kWh FESS unit and a 1.0-MW WECS for a 20- intersamples wind speed set during the larger time window
min time window. The values of = 0 to = 100 are tested kTs1 , where SR is defined as the sample times ratio. Such
with an increment of 10. The optimal value (Pareto-point) is uncertainty-related problems are addressed by a faster online
the one that gives the minimum losses while yielding the maxi- AHC (presented in Section III-B).
mum output power. This value is found as op = 40. It is worth
noting that the optimal value of depends on the expected wind
power during the incoming horizon. Thus, the operator can III. P ROPOSED CONTROL ALGORITHM
conduct a periodic test for , [, ] in each commitment
period Tcom . A simple recursive search can detect the optimal A. Hybrid System Linearization
weight that achieves the maximumexported power  such that To convert the optimization problem into a convex one suit-
the losses are minimal or op = [, ] | P g |P loss . able for online operational control, a linear state-space model is
Another simpler suboptimal technique is using a constant required. The nonlinear model has an integer state represented
ABDELTAWAB AND MOHAMED: ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT OF A HYBRID WIND AND FESS 4247

by the sign of the FESS mode of operation. To obtain a lin-

ear model, the integer state is converted to a constant, and then
a time-variant linearized model is driven. The integer state (i)
depends on the absolute value of (Pf ) as given in (19). In order
to find a constant integer that indicates the FESS mode of oper-
ation, the following approach is proposed. It is known that the
FESS is only allowed to operate in the charge mode when the
wind power is greater than the maximum allowable power. On
the contrary, the FESS is allowed to operate in the discharge
mode when the expected generated wind power is below the
maximum grid power. As a result, the relation between the
expected wind power and the maximum one (both known for
the incoming horizon) gives a sufficient relation to identify the
FESS operating mode, and in such a case, the integer variable i
is generated as follows: Fig. 4. Hybrid system time-variant linearized model.

1, Pw (t) Pw (t)
i (t) : (38)
0, Pw (t) < Pw (t) .

Now, a linear model of (22) and (23) can be reached by

linearizing the power losses relation in (18). The system iden-
tification technique is adopted for this purpose because it is a
practical, reliable, and accurate modeling method [37].
The system identification process is implemented by excit-
ing the system using a time-series consisting of 2000 random
inputs with a magnitude
 between
 the maximum and minimum
FESS powers Pf Pf , Pf . Owing to the fact that the EMS
dynamics is in the range of minutes, a sample time of 1 s is
used in the identification process. The identification data set
is divided into training data (70% of the data set) and system
validation data (30% of the data set) [37]. The identification
process is repeated at different initial FESS speeds 0 to derive
different models. It is found that the dc-gain of the linearized
system transfer-function changes in these models; however, the Fig. 5. Linearized model performance.
system dynamics (poles and zeros) are the same; this finding
makes sense as the model has static nonlinearities in the out-
the linearized FESS model, the following complete state-space
put (Wiener model) [38]. Thus, the power losses can be easily
model is reached:
determined by tuning the model gain as a function of the initial
FESS speed. X (k + 1) = A (k) X (k) + B (k) U (k) (43)
The FESS resulting system can be easily formulated as a
time-variant linear model that depends on 0 and i values as Y (k) = C (K) X (k) + DU (k) + Dd Ud (k) (44)
follows: T
X = [Xf , SOC, N, Pg (K 1)]
 
X f = Af (t) Xf + Bf (t) Uf (39) U = Pf , Pc
 
Yf = Cf (t) Xf (40) Ud = Pw
{Af , Bf , Cf } (t) = (i (t), 0 ) (41) Y = [Pg , Pg , Pf , Ploss , SOC, N ] . (45)
Uf = Pf* Yf = [Pf Ploss ] (42)
The linearized model converts the MPC into a convex prob-
where is a look-up table array that generates the system lin- lem as shown by (46). First, given the expected and maximum
earized model depending on the mode of operation and initial WECS power, np linearized models are calculated at each sam-
speed. By considering the wind power instead of the wind ple in the coming horizon as shown by (47) and (48). Further,
speed, the overall system can be expressed as a linear model the prediction error is assumed to be zero as this error is com-
as shown in Fig. 4. By comparing the performance of differ- pensated by a faster controller as explained in Section III-B.
ent identification models, it is found that a third-order model Since the MPC control action compensates for the expected
gives the best fitting with a fitting accuracy of 93.1%. Fig. 5 disturbance Pw , the
 generated
 MPC set-points are designated

compares the results of the linearized model (39) and the non- as follows: U = Pf , Pc . Further modifications for the input
linear model (22). After augmenting the other linear states with constraints are also considered, where the curtailment is only
4248 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 63, NO. 7, JULY 2016

allowed if the expected WECS power is greater than the max-

imum as given by (53). The FESS is allowed to charge in case
of over maximum WECS power and vice versa; however, it can
operate in the standby mode in both cases as expressed in (53)

np
np 
MinP * ,Pc Ploss (kTs1 ) Pg (kTs1 ) (46)
f k=1 k=1

X (kTs1 + Ts1 ) = A (kTs1 ) X (kTs1 ) + B (kTs1 ) U (kTs1 )

(47)
Y (kTs1 ) = C (KTs1 ) X (kTs1 ) + DU (kTs1 ) (48)


Pgs Pg (kTs1 ) Pw (Tcom ) (49) Fig. 6. Relation of actual wind power with expected, maximum power.



Pw Pg (kTs1 ) Pw (50)
Y (KTs1 ) Y is not the case, a different control action is required to bring

0 SOC (kTs1 ) 1


(51) the current output within the hysteresis limits again as will be

N (T ) n explained later. It is worth mentioning that the hysteresis lim-
com (52)
its can be given some flexibility which means that the output

Pf (1 i (kTs1 )) Pf (kTs1 )
*
can slightly diverge from the optimal solution given by the
(KTs1 ) U
U P i (kT ) (53) MPC. This is possible by modifying the condition (55) to be


f s1
as follows:
Pr i (kTs1 ) Pc (kTs1 ) 0.
Y (jTs2 ) [Y (kTs1 ) , Y ((k + 1) Ts1 )+] HYS (kTs1 ) .
(56)
B. Adaptive Hysteresis Controller
As shown in (56), the output is allowed to diverge outside the
For prediction and WECS intersamples error compensation,  optimal MPC solution by a tolerance (). The next step is how
a change in the control action U (jTs2 ) = Pf , Pc is to design the AHC that guarantees that Y HYS.
required. Adaptive control for an ESS was discussed before in This section is composed of two parts. First, Section III-B1
[39] for distributed storage in a dc microgrid to balance the investigates different uncertainty modes and how U (jTs2 )
SOC. The adaptation is applied for the droop coefficients. In is calculated. Second, Section III-B2 discusses how the AHC
this study, an additive corrective control action is proposed. satisfies the MPC constraints by fulfilling (56).
The update in the control action is generated by the AHC; how- 1) Uncertainty Modes: The actual wind power can have
ever, as this controller works with a faster sampling rate, it may six different positions, defined here as six modes if compared
affect the original MPC constraints and solution optimality. To to the expected value of wind power Pw (t) and the maximum
overcome this issue, the following condition must be fulfilled: wind power Pw (t) as shown in Fig. 6. In the first mode (M1),
 *  the real wind power Pw is greater than the expected wind power
Pf (jTs2 )
U (jTs2 ) = =U (kTs1 ) + U (jTs2 ) Pw and the maximum wind power Pw . In such a case, the sur-
Pc (jTs2 ) plus wind power (e.g., the prediction error Pw ) is stored in the
   
Pf* (kTs1 ) Pf* (jTs2 ) FESS, as described by (57)
= * + (54)
Pc (kTs1 ) Pc* (jTs2 )
M = {M 1Pw (jTs2 ) > Pw (KTs1 ) > Pw (KTs1 )} (57)
S.t. Y (jTs2 ) [Y (kTs1 ), Y ((k + 1) Ts1 )]
Pf*1 (jTs2 ) = Pw (jTs2 ) = Pw (jTs2 ) Pw (KTs1 ) .
j
HYS, k = . (55)
SR In the second mode (M2), the real wind power is less than
the expected wind power, but it is still greater than the maxi-
As given in (54), the final control action consists of two
mum wind power. In such a case, the FESS is required to be
parts: 1) the main part is the MPC long-term control effort
(kTs1 ), and 2) the second part is a compensation for WECS charged to a level less than the nominal value. If the difference
U
between the real wind power and the maximum wind power is
prediction error generated by an AHC U (jTs2 ). In case the
less than the nominal FESS set-point, then a reduction in the
compensation error is zero, the condition in (55) is always
charge power is required. This process is described by (58)
satisfied, and the AHC generates zero.
To guarantee that the AHC correction will not signifi- M = {M 2Pw (KTs1 ) < Pw (jTs2 ) < Pw (KTs1 )}
cantly change the output of the MPC, the controlled output
Pf*2 (jTs1 ) =
at any intersample jTs2 should be located between the previ-  
ous and next values, known here as the hysteresis limits, as Pw (jTs2 ) |Pf* (KTs1 ) > Pw (KTs1 ) Pw (jTs2 ) .
expected by the MPC problem (46). For example, at jTs2 = (58)
630 s (Ts2 = 1 s), the AHC can produce a control action such
that the current outputs are within the MPC hysteresis val- In the third mode (M3), the real wind power is less than the
ues; Y (jTs2 ) [Y (10Ts1 ), Y (11Ts1 )] , Ts1 = 1 min. If this expected wind power and the maximum wind power. In such
ABDELTAWAB AND MOHAMED: ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT OF A HYBRID WIND AND FESS 4249

a case, the FESS is required to change from the charge to dis-

charge mode till the total hybrid system power is maximum.
This process is described by (59)
M = {M 3Pw (KTs1 ) < Pw (KTs1 ) < Pw (KTs1 )}
Pf*3 (jTs2 ) = Pf* (kTs1 ) [Pw (KTs1 ) Pw (jTs2 )].
(59)
In the fourth mode (M4), the real wind power is less than
the expected wind power and the maximum wind power. In this
case, the expected wind power is less than the maximum wind
power. Thus, the FESS is in the discharge mode. In M4, the
FESS can discharge further till the hybrid system power reaches
its maximum. This process is described by (60)

M = {M 4Pw (jTs2 ) < Pw (KTs1 ) < Pw (KTs1 )}

(60)
Pf*4 (KTs2 ) = Pw (jTs2 ) .
In the fifth mode (M5), the real wind power is less than the
maximum wind power but more than the expected wind power.
In this case, the expected wind power is less than the maxi-
mum wind power. Thus, the FESS is in the discharge mode. In
M5, the FESS can discharge less till the hybrid system power
reaches its maximum. This process is described by (61)
M = {M 5Pw (KTs1 ) < Pw (jTs2 ) < Pw (KTs1 )}
Pf*5 (jTs2 ) (61)
 
= Pw (jTs2 ) |Pf* (KTs1 ) < Pw (KTs1 ) Pw (jTs2 ) .
Finally, in the sixth mode (M6), the real wind power is more
than both the maximum and expected wind powers. In this
case, the expected wind power is less than the maximum wind
power. Thus, the FESS is in the discharge mode. In M6, the
FESS changes its mode to charge the surplus wind power. This
process is described by (62)
M = {M 6Pw (jTS2 ) > Pw (KTs1 ) > Pw (KTs1 )}
 
Pf*6 (jTs2 ) = Pw (jTs2 ) Pw (KTs1 ) Pf* (KTs1 ) . control action is charging in order to increase the SOC. In this
(62)
Only one of modes (57)(62) is enabled at any time. The
total FESS is calculated and limited by the FESS thermal
limit in (34). However, Pf may lead to undesired changes
in the controlled outputs Y. It is very important to make sure
that the outputs will be within the predefined limits deter-
mined by the MPC controller to guarantee optimum solution.
Generally speaking, the outputs change Y (jTs2 ) due to the
AHC correction Pf (jTs2 ) at steady state depends on the sys-
tem dc gain H (kTs1 ) as shown in (64), which depends on the
linearized FESS model
Y (jTs2 ) = H (kTs1 ) Pf* (jTs2 ) (63)
H (kTs1 ) = lim D (kTs1 ) + C (kTs1 )
z1
1
(zI A (kTs1 )) B (kTs1 ) (64)
where A, B, C, and D are extracted from (43) to (44) assuming
zero disturbance, and I is a unity matrix.
Fig. 7. Proposed EMS.
The AHC applies the following rule to guarantee overall
system operation within the MPC optimal constraints:
Y (KTs1 ) + Y (jTs2 ) > HY S : {Pf (jTs2 ) = Pf (kTs1 )
Y (KTs1 ) + Y (jTs2 ) HY S : {Pf (jTs2 )
= Pf (kTs1 ) + Pf (jTs2 ) H
Y (KTs1 ) + Y (jTs2 ) < HY S : {Pf (jTs2 )
= Pf (kTs1 ), H < 0. (65)
The control law (65) means that the compensating control
action Pf (jTs2 ) is applied if and only if all the resulting
controlled outputs are within their allowable domain or hys-
teresis limit (Y (KTs1 ) + Y (jTs2 ) HYS), or if this control
action will direct the outputs back to HY S depending on the
output sensitivity to this input. For example and without loss
of generality, let us consider that Y is the SOC and the input
is Pf (jTs2 ) that has a positive sensitivity (positive dc gain)
with respect to the SOC. In the case SOC < HY S, the allowed
case, the SOC is within the allowable HYS, and vice versa in
the case of discharging.
Finally, both charging and discharging are allowed if
SOC HYS. The number of cycles also has a positive sensitiv-
ity with the charging power and it follows the same rules. After
the final FESS power is calculated by (63), the curtailed power
value is used to respect the maximum grid-code power given in
(2) after replacing Pw by Pw Pf . The final curtailment power
is calculated as follows:
Pc (jTs2 ) = Pgc (jTs2 ) [Pw (jTs2 ) Pf (jTs2 )] . (66)
Fig. 7 shows the proposed EMS block diagram in the two-
stage control framework.
IV. C ASE S TUDY
In this case study, a 150-MW wind farm is participating in
the power market in a typical transmission system in Canada.
The ISO requires that the wind facility updates its maximum
4250 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 63, NO. 7, JULY 2016
Fig. 8. Wind power prediction error distribution.
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF A S INGLE FESS U NIT [25]
power limit every 20 min. Further, the ramp rate should not
exceed 10% of the rated plant power per minute [2], [3]. The
prediction horizon is taken as 20 min (i.e., equal to the com-
mitment period). A typical wind-speed profile is generated by
TurbSim [40], a wind simulator developed by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). A Great Plains Low-
Level Jet (GP-LLJ) turbulence model is used with a mean wind
speed of 7 m/s; the normal turbulence intensity is sampled
each 6 s [40]. The resulting wind profile is applied to a dou-
bly fed induction generator-based wind farm Simulink model
developed by Hydro-Quebec [41]. By this way, the resulting
wind power represents a real wind-power profile. By averaging
this profile each 1 min, the expected wind power is calcu-
lated, and this datum is assumed to be known for the MPC.
The prediction error is the difference between the real wind
power and the averaged value. A distribution of the predic-
tion error is shown in Fig. 8 for a data set of 400 samples.
As shown in Fig. 8, the prediction error range is approxi-
mately 15%. For the MPC, the prediction horizon is taken as
(Ts1 = 60 s, np = 20) when the AHC operates at a sample rate
Ts2 = 6 s.
A 15 MW/1 MWh FESS station that is composed of 150 100-
kW units is added to the wind farm to realize the hybrid system.
In order to enhance the lifetime of the FESS, it is only allowed
to have one cycle each commitment period, i.e., N = 1, which
yields 72 cycles per day. The FESS model parameters are given
in Table I [25].
The FESS can operate up to the charge/discharge rated power
continuously for 4 min for providing energy coverage of 20%
of the commitment period.
The AHC updates its hysteresis limits from the MPC each
minute and generates ten corrections per minute. The hysteresis
setting gives a tolerance = 2% for deviation from the optimal
solution.
To show the advantages of the proposed MPC-based EMS,
it is compared to the traditional EMS that is calculated in a
real-time fashion based on the formulation in (5)(13). Fig. 9
shows the performance of the traditional EMS controller (C1)
and the proposed MPC-based EMS (C2). Different powers are
shown in Fig. 9. In Fig. 9(a), the expected wind power is plot-
ted by the blue dotted line, whereas the maximum WECS is
plotted by the red line. The simulation is conducted for two
commitment periods (40 min), and actual wind power is mea-
sured each 6 s. It should be noted that the wind power has a
high ramp rate at t = 1200 s which is followed by a sudden
drop in power. Furthermore, in the first commitment period, the
wind power has two peaks exceeding the maximum, typically
at t = 0 and 300 s. Similarly, in the second commitment period,
two peaks occur at t = 1200 and1800 s. The controller C1 has
managed to maximize the power exported to the grid slightly
than the controller C2 as shown in Fig. 9(b) during the starting
period of the commitment period; however, C2 decided to keep
the FESS idle (standby) during this early period. The main rea-
son for this performance is the lifetime constraints embedded
in C2 where it aims at maximizing the power without overact-
ing on the FESS. Fig. 9(c) shows that the proposed controller
(C2) charges the FESS late at t = 300 s to discharge this energy
back at the wind-power gab at t = 600 s. On the other hand, the
traditional controller (C1) keeps charging and discharging the
FESS in order to regulate the WECS power to the maximum.
Further, this performance can be noted in Fig. 9(d), which
shows that the curtailed wind power in (C2) is higher than that
in (C1) due to the higher activity of the FESS in the case of
C1. However, this difference is only 1% regarding the energy
exported to the grid. Fig. 10 shows the internal dynamics for
the FESS in both cases. As C1 keeps operating the FESS all
the time, it leads to early acceleration for the FESS (fast actu-
ator saturation) as depicted in Fig. 10(a). As a result, the FESS
has reached its maximum capacity in C1 earlier than C2; this
is observed in Fig. 10(b), where C1 starts charging at t = 0,
whereas C2 starts charging 500 s later. The power losses have
increased dramatically in C1 as compared to C2 as shown in
Fig. 10(c). The latter keeps the FESS in the idle mode till the
second peak of the wind power. Further, the number of cycles
with C1 exceeds the two cycles limit with 20%, whereas C2
keeps it 20% below the limit as shown in Fig. 10(d). A similar
performance occurred in the second commitment period when
C2 managed to pick-up the ideal charging and discharge times
given the operational constraints. On the other hand, C1 keeps
operating the FESS in all cases. The energy loss has dropped
from 155.7 kWh with C1 to 117.3 kWh with C2. That is 24.7%
reduction in the losses.
The AHC changed the MPC output power as depicted in
Fig. 9(c) according to the prediction error. The AHC is limited
by the output variables such as the SOC depicted in Fig. 11.
For instance, in the idle periods (e.g., t = [0, 300] s), no con-
trol action is allowed by the hysteresis controller to keep the
SOC and N within limits. Fig. 10(b) shows that the AHC man-
aged to direct the FESS SOC to follow the set-points produced
by the MPC. Further, in other time periods, a compensation
for the prediction error is allowed as shown in the period
t = [2100, 2400] s. To sum up, the proposed EMS managed to
ABDELTAWAB AND MOHAMED: ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT OF A HYBRID WIND AND FESS 4251

Fig. 10. FESS internal dynamicsA comparison between (C1) and

(C2). (a) Speed (rad/s). (b) SOC. (c) Power losses (PU). (d) No of cycles.

Fig. 9. Simulation results comparing the performance of the traditional

EMS (C1) and the proposed MPC-based EMS (C2). (a) Wind power
(PU). (b) Grid power (PU). (c) FESS power (PU). (d) Curtailed power
(PU).

reduce the FESS losses and boost its lifetime while dealing
with prediction errors and compensating for their effect with-
out diverging from the optimal solution generated by the MPC
algorithm.

Fig. 11. AHC limits for SOC.

V. VALIDATION S TUDY
To show the effectiveness of the proposed control algo-
rithm and its applicability in a real-time environment, a HIL
setup, for the hybrid system shown in Fig. 1, is used. The
HIL test is used in this study due to the extreme difficulty to
experiment with high power wind turbines (e.g., in the MW
level) which are usually combined with FESS. The OPAL-
RT (OP 5600) [42] real-time emulation and control system
is used to emulate the typical characteristics of a 1.0-MW
doubly fed-based WECS using a typical wind speed profile
and the aerodynamic and electro-mechanical models devel-
oped in [40] and [41]. A dedicated processor in the OPAL-RT
real-time computing platform emulates the WECS dynamic
characteristics and calculates the associated expected and max-
imum wind powers. The average model of the power electronic
converters in the doubly fed wind turbine is used as it facili-
tates accurate emulation of the WECS dynamics with reduced
computational burden [43]. Therefore, the WECS processor
4252
Fig. 12. Performance of the proposed EMS. (a) Wind power
(100 kW/div). (b) FESS power (20 kW/div). (c) SOC (5%/div). (d) Power
losses (0.35 kW/div). Time scale: 2.5 s/div.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 63, NO. 7, JULY 2016
has a time step of 5 ms. Another processor on the OPAL-
RT real-time computing platform is dedicated to execute the
proposed EMS in real time. Using the WECS emulated and
predicted wind-power data, the MPC algorithm is solved each
125 s to fulfill the long-term optimization objectives. The MPC
generates the SOC hysteresis-limits to the lower level con-
troller, the AHC. The sampling time of the AHC is 100 ms.
The AHC calculates the power set-point for the FESS under
control. The FESS used in the HIL setup is a full-scale
PMSM drive system rated at 100 kW, 0.69 kWh, which pro-
vides the rated power for 25 s as nominal delivered energy.
The standard vector control scheme is adopted in the PMSM
drive system, which facilitates fast control characteristics over
the drive system torque. The closed-loop torque response
is dictated by the closed-loop current response. The system
responses are measured by a four-channel digital oscilloscope
(Agilent DSOX2004A). Key system variables are shown in
Fig. 12.
The wind profile is generated in a 25-s period as shown
in Fig. 12(a). The expected and maximum wind-power pro-
files are also shown in Fig. 12(a). The output power of the
FESS is shown in Fig. 12(b). The hysteresis limits for the
SOC, which are generated by the MPC algorithm, are shown
in Fig. 12(c). The hysteresis limits are desired to be bounded
between SOCmin , 5% < SOCmin < 7% and SOCmax , 20% <
SOCmax < 35%, which are depicted by the red and blue lines
in Fig. 12(c), respectively. The resulting real-time SOC profile
is shown by the green line in Fig. 12(c). Knowing the SOC
limits and the difference between real and expected wind pow-
ers, the AHC generates the FESS power set-point in real time,
which is used to generate the torque command of the PMSM
drive system. The resulting FESS power-loss profile is shown
in Fig. 12(d).
As shown in Fig. 12(b), the wind power starts with a value
that it less than the maximum wind power, i.e., Pw < Pw .
Since the initial SOC lies within the SOC limits, the AHC
allows the FESS to discharge till point (0) where Pw > Pw .
In such a case, the AHC charges the FESS with this surplus
wind power (Pw Pw ). At point (1), again, the wind power
decreases below the maximum value (Pw < Pw ); thus, the
FESS is discharged till point (2). Although Pw < Pw , the AHC
prevents further discharge for the FESS in order to stay inside
the SOC limits provided by the MPC to satisfy the optimiza-
tion problem in (28). The FESS stays in the stand-by mode till
a jump in the wind power occurs again, i.e., Pw > Pw . In this
case, the FESS is fully charged with this excessive wind power
till it reaches point (3). Between points (3) and (4), a drop in
the wind power occurs. As a result, the EMS changes the FESS
mode from charge to discharge during this period. From point
(4) to (5), the wind power climbs up to the maximum limit
again. Thus, the FESS mode is changed by the EMS back to
the charge mode. Although Pw > Pw after point (5), the AHC
keeps the FESS in the standby mode in order to respect the SOC
upper limit. After the upper limit is updated and the wind power
drops below the maximum power as well, the FESS starts dis-
charging again. The proposed EMS managed to track the wind
power changes in real time, while keeping the FESS dynamics
ABDELTAWAB AND MOHAMED: ROBUST ENERGY MANAGEMENT OF A HYBRID WIND AND FESS
within the optimal operational region provided by the MPC to
minimize the FESS losses while respecting the grid integration
codes.
VI. C ONCLUSION
A two-stage real-time EMS for a hybrid system composed
of a FESS connected with a WECS was presented in this
paper. The EMS used an MPC-based algorithm to respect typi-
cal grid codes while minimizing the FESS losses and boosting
its lifetime. The proposed technique converted the MPC opti-
mization problem from a nonlinear mixed integer into a linear
convex problem without loss of accuracy. The second stage
was realized by an AHC. The AHC was tuned by the MPC to
ensure optimum operation under uncertainties associated with
wind-power pr ediction errors. The proposed EMS was com-
pared with a traditional EMS on a typical 150-MW WECS.
Furthermore, the real-time performance of the proposed EMS
was validated in a HIL test bench. The proposed EMS managed
to reduce the FESS losses by 25% as compared to the conven-
tional EMS while compensating for the prediction errors and
respecting the grid integration codes.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Tsili and S. Papathanassiou, A review of grid code technical
requirements for wind farms, IET Renew. Power Gener., vol. 3, no. 3,
pp. 308332, 2009.
[2] AESO, AESO recommendation paper (Implementation of market &
operational framework for wind integration in Alberta), Alberta Energy
System Operator, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2009.
[3] AESO, Wind power management protocol for Alberta, Alberta Energy
System Operator, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2008.
[4] M. Leblanc, L. Evans, P. Gardner, and N. Scott Canadian grid code
for wind development review and recommendations, Canadian Wind
Energy Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2006.
[5] G. C. Jim Eyer, Energy storage for the electricity grid: Benefits and mar-
ket potential assessment guide, Sandia Nat. Labs., Albuquerque, NM,
USA, Tech. Rep. SAND2010-0815, 2010.
[6] S. Vazquez, S. Lukic, E. Galvan, L. Franquelo, and J. Carrasco, Energy
storage systems for transport and grid applications, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 38813895, Dec. 2010.
[7] G. O. Cimuca, C. Saudemont, B. Robyns, and M. Radulescu, Control
and performance evaluation of a flywheel energy-storage system asso-
ciated to a variable-speed wind generator, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 10741085, Jun. 2006
[8] C. Xiaoyong Chang et al. Active disturbance rejection control for a fly-
wheel energy storage system, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 2,
pp. 9911001, Feb. 2015.
[9] P. Jae-Do, C. Kalev, and H. F. Hofmann, Control of high-speed solid-
rotor synchronous reluctance motor/generator for flywheel-based unin-
terruptible power supplies, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 8,
pp. 30383046, Aug. 2008.
[10] R. Cardenas, R. Pena, G. Asher, and J. Clare, Control strategies for
enhanced power smoothing in wind energy systems using a flywheel
driven by a vector-controlled induction machine, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 625635, Jun. 2001.
[11] R. Cardenas, R. Pea, M. Perez, J. Clare, G. Asher, and P. Wheeler,
Power smoothing using a flywheel driven by a switched reluctance
machine, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 10861093, Jun.
2006.
[12] R. Cardenas, R. Pena, G. Asher, J. Clare, and R. Blasco-Gimenez,
Control strategies for power smoothing using a flywheel driven by a
sensorless vector-controlled induction machine operating in a wide speed
range, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 603614, Jun.
2004.
4253
[13] S. Xiang-Dong, K. Kang-Hoon, Y. Byung-Gyu, and M. Matsui,
Fuzzy-logic-based V/F control of an induction motor for a dc grid
power-leveling system using flywheel energy storage equipment, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 31613168, Aug. 2009.
[14] R. Arghandeh, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, Flywheel energy
storage systems for ride-through applications in a facility microgrid,
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 19551962, Dec. 2012.
[15] Y. Suzuki, A. Koyanagi, M. Kobayashi, and R. Shimada, Novel applica-
tions of the flywheel energy storage system, Energy, vol. 30, nos. 1112,
pp. 21282143, Aug. 2005.
[16] H. Liu and J. Jiang, Flywheel energy storageAn upswing technology
for energy sustainability, Energy Build., vol. 39, pp. 599604, 2007.
[17] S. Samineni, B. Johnson, H. Hess, and J. Law, Modeling and analysis of
a flywheel energy storage system for voltage sag correction, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 4252, Dec./Jan. 2006.
[18] Beacon Power. 2014 [Online]. Available: http://beaconpower.com/,
accessed on Sep. 30, 2014.
[19] X. Chang, Y. Li, W. Zhang, N. Wang, and W. Xue, Active disturbance
rejection control for a flywheel energy storage system, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 9911001, Feb. 2015.
[20] C. Jin, N. Lu, S. Lu, Y. Makarov, and R. Dougal, A coordinating
algorithm for dispatching regulation services between slow and fast
power regulating resources, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2,
pp. 10431050, Mar. 2014.
[21] N. Lu et al., The wide-area energy storage and management system
Phase II, PNNL, Richland, WA, USA, Tech. Rep. PNNL-19669, 2010.
[22] G. Thijissen and J. Enslin, Cost comparison for a
20 MW flywheel-based frequency regulation power plant,
KEMA, Raleigh, NC, USA, Tech. Rep. BPCC.0003.001,
2007.
[23] Temporal Power. (2014). Temporal power, what we do [Online].
Available: http://temporalpower.com/, accessed on Sep. 30, 2014.
[24] R. Sebastian and R. P. Alzola, Flywheel energy storage systems: Review
and simulation for an isolated wind power system, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 16, pp. 68036813, Dec. 2012.
[25] F. Daz-Gonzlez, A. Sumper, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, and F. D. Bianchi,
Energy management of flywheel-based energy storage device for wind
power smoothing, Appl. Energy, vol. 110, p. 207219, 2013.
[26] G. O. Suvire, M. G. Molina, and P. E. Mercado, Improving the integra-
tion of wind power generation into ac microgrids using flywheel energy
storage, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 19451954, Dec.
2012.
[27] Z. Kohari and I. Vajda, Losses of flywheel energy storages and joint
operation with solar cells, J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 161, pp. 62
65, 2005.
[28] D. Gerada, A. Mebarki, N. Brown, C. Gerada, A. Cavagnino, and
A. Boglietti, High-speed electrical machines: Technologies, trends, and
developments, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 29462959,
Jun. 2014.
[29] R. Cardenas, R. Pena, G. Asher, J. Clare, and R. Blasco-Gimenez,
Control strategies for power smoothing using a flywheel driven by a
sensorless vector-controlled induction machine operating in a wide speed
range, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 603614, Jun.
2004.
[30] J. Beno, R. Thompson, M. Werst, S. Manifold, and J. Zierer, End-of-
life design for composite rotors [flywheel systems], IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 284289, Jan. 2001.
[31] S. M. Arnold, A. Saleeb, and N. Al-Zoubi, Deformation and life analysis
of composite flywheel disk systems, Composites, vol. 33, pp. 433459,
2002.
[32] F. Islam, A. Al-Durra, and S. Muyeen, Smoothing of wind farm out-
put by prediction and supervisory-control-unit-based FESS, IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 925933, Oct. 2013.
[33] F. Valenciaga, P. Puleston, P. Battaiotto, and R. Mantz, Passivity/sliding
mode control of a stand-alone hybrid generation system, Proc. Ist. Elect.
Eng.Control Theory Appl., vol. 147, no. 6, pp. 680686, Nov. 2000.
[34] E. Perez, H. Beltran, N. Aparicio, and P. Rodriguez, Predictive power
control for PV plants with energy storage, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 482490, Apr. 2013.
[35] A. Yazdani and R. Iravani, Voltage-Sourced Converters in Power Systems.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, Feb. 2010.
[36] S. Kim, S. Bae, Y. Kang, and J. Park, Energy management based on
the photovoltaic HPCS with an energy storage device, IEEE. Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 46084617, Jul. 2015.
[37] K. J. Keesman, System Identification: An Introduction. New York, NY,
USA: Springer, 2011.
4254 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 63, NO. 7, JULY 2016

[38] S. Norquay, A. Palazoglu, and J. Romagnoli, Application of Wiener Yasser Abdel-Rady I. Mohamed (M06
model predictive control (WMPC) to a pH neutralization experiment, SM011) was born in Cairo, Egypt, on November
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 437445, Jul. 1999. 25, 1977. He received the B.Sc. (with honors)
[39] X. Lu, K. Sun, J. Guerrero, J. Vasquez, and L. Huang, State-of-charge and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering
balance using adaptive droop control for distributed energy storage sys- from Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, in 2000
tems in dc microgrid applications, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, and 2004, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree
no. 6, pp. 28042815, Jun. 2014. in electrical engineering from The University of
[40] L. K. B. J. Jonkman, TurbSim Users Guide: Version 1.0600. Golden, CO, Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, in 2008.
USA: NREL, Sep., 2012. Currently, he is with the Department of
[41] Mathworks. (2015). Wind Farm (DFIG Phasor Electrical and Computer Engineering, The
Model) [Online]. Available: http://www.mathworks.com/ University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, as
examples/simpower/105-wind-farm-dfig-phasor-model, accessed Aug. an Associate Professor. His research interests include dynamics and
12, 2015 controls of power converters; grid integration of distributed generation
[42] OPAL-RT TECHNOLOGIES, OP5600 HILBOX User Guide-Real-Time and renewable resources; microgrids; modeling, analysis, and control of
Simulator. Montreal, QC, Canada, 2011. smart grids; and electric machines and motor drives.
[43] V. Jalili-Marandi, L.-F. Pak, and V. Dinavahi, Real-time simulation of Dr. Mohamed is a Registered Professional Engineer in the
grid-connected wind farms using physical aggregation, IEEE Trans. Ind. Province of Alberta, Canada. He is an Associate Editor of the IEEE
Electron., vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 30103021, Sep. 2010. T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRIAL E LECTRONICS and an Editor of the
IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON P OWER S YSTEMS.

Hussein Hassan Abdeltawab (S12) was born

in Bani-Souwaif, Egypt, on April 6, 1987. He
received the B.Sc. (with honors) and M.Sc.
degrees in electrical engineering from Cairo
University, Cairo, Egypt, in 2009 and 2012,
respectively. Currently, he is working toward the
Ph.D. degree in the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, The University of
Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
His research interests include control sys-
tems applications in renewable energy systems,
energy storage, and smart distribution systems.