2980

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 34, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 1998

ultio~jective Optimal Design of Three-phase Induction Motor Using Improved Evolution Strategy
Min-Kyu Kim, Cheol-Gyun Lee, Hyun-Kyo Jung F.A. Research Institute, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Kyunggi-Do 442-742, KOREA Research Institute Hyundai Heavy Industries Co.,Ltd.,Kyunggi-Do 449-910, KOREA School of Electrical Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, KOREA
Abstract - This paper presents the multiobjective optimal design of induction motor for Electric Vehicle(EV) using a modified evolution strategy(ES). The Optimization process is performed by using (1+1) evolution strategy(ES). The conventional ES algorithm falls into a trap of local minima with high probability in solving the optimization problem that has many design variables. To overcome this problem, ES algorithm is modified by introducing shaking technique. To verify its validity, the proposed method is applied to an induction motor design.

Index terms - Optimization methods, evolution strategy, induction motors

I. INTRODUCTION

But in case of the optimization problems that have many design variables, such as the design of induction motor, the conventional ES algorithm falls into a trap of local minima with high probability. To overcome this problem, the shaking technique is introduced. In the induction motor design procedure, the main dimensions are selected as design variables and the other dimensions that have little effect on the objective function as constants. T-equivalent circuit is used for the performance analysis of the designed motor. The equivalent circuit analysis using lumped parameter is sometimes imprecise, especially in the rotor part. To reduce the error of calculation of rotor leakage reactance, the parameters of rotor are corrected utilizing the results of finite element analysis. 11. MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION

Multiobjective optimization deals with two or more objective functions. In the multiobjective optimization problem, the solution which maximizes one objective may not usually maximize any other objectives. New concept called noninferiority can serve a optimality for the multiobjective problems. A feasible solution to multiobjective problem is noninferior if there exists no other feasible solution that yields an improvement in one objective without causing a degradation in at least one of other objectives. The noninferior set includes many alternatives, which cannot be selected obviously in general. The noninferior solution selected as a preferred alternative is called the best compromise solution. Several techniques are suggested to solve the multiobjective problems: the weighting method, the constraint method and the multiobjective simplex method[ 1],[2]. Among the multiobjective optimization methods, the weighting method is used in this paper. The method is to combine all the objective functions into one weighted objective function by weighting. In the area of design of motor for electric vehicles(EV),
the weight a d the efficiency of the traction motor is very

To solve the multiobjective problems the weighting method is used. In case of a two-objective problem, both objectives, Z, andZ,, can be weighted using weighting values, w1 and w 2 ,respectively so that
maximize z = [ Z , ,Z , ] becomes ,w 2 ) = w,.Z, maximize Z( w, (1)

+ w 2 .Z ,

(2)

And an objective function can be divided by a positive number without altering the solution. After divide (2) by w,,

w 2 Iw, can be redefined as w.Then, (2) can be written as

follows : maximize Z ( w ) = Z , + w.Z, where w = [ 0, 00 ]

(3)

important because of the limitation of electric power from batteries. So the aim of the design of induction motors for EV is to achieve lighter motor and higher efficiency, which becomes a multiobjective design problem. Optimization process for searching optimal point is performed by using the (1+1) evolution strategy(ES). ES is a non-deterministic method that can find a global minimum.
Manuscript received November 3, 1997. Min-Kyu Kim, 82-33 1-200-2427, fax 82-331-200-2434, mkkimasrtf sec.samsung co.kr

Because it is difficult to realize according to the w in total range, objective function is reformed for covering the total range. The final objective function is represented by (4).
Z ( w ) = w.Z,(X>+(l-w).Z,(X) where w = [ 0, 1 ] X : a set of design variables and a convex set
(4)

Equation (4) is rewritten as (5) in case of a fixed w.

0018-9464/98$10.00 0 1998 IEEE

2981

Z(W)= U [ Z , z,1
7

(5)

= X p if F, 5 Fp
where Nup : number of updating of objective function step 4 ( Annealing ) changing the mutation step length.

The algorithm for finding the best Compromise solution are as follows :
step I : Set i=O, j=O and W O . Solve (4) to find X o . step 2 : Increase w by specified value : w ' " = w J+ 6 . If .-I, then go to step 4. step 3 : Compare U [ Z l i , Z,']with U [ ZIJ+', Z2Jc1] :

a = %.85 if Nup Cul-obj x 0.2 a = a .0.85 if Nup 5 Cal-obj x 0.2

where Cul-obj : total calculation number of objective func. step 5( Shaking ) calculating the objective function of random individuals in whole evolution window. According to the convergence, frequency of shaking is varied. When random individual is superior to parent, replace the old parent by individual as parent of next generation. The number of Shaking is defined by following equation. N Shaking No.= (7) Convergence
a i Convergence = C i=l N where N : number of design variables step 6 ( Termination ) If the termination criterion is satisfied, stop this procedures. Otherwise, go to step 2 .
N

If U[Z,',Z,'] I U[z1J+1,z2J+1], j = i+l, increase i by 1 and go to step 2. If U[Z,',Z,'] >U[z1'+1,z2'+1], increase i by 1 and go to step 4. step 4 : I f j = 0, stop. : X o is the best compromise solution. If j 2 1 the best compromise solution is in between wJ-l and wJ+' . step 5 : If 6 I S , , , , slop. : Else reduce 6 and repeat from step 1 between wJ-land w'+* . The solution that maximizes U over the interval is the best compromise solution.
EVOLUTION STRATEGY ALGORITHM 111. MODIFIED

When we search the noninferior set with variable w for best-compromise solution, the optimization algorithm to find the global maximum value is needed. The (1+1) evolution strategy that could find the global maximum is used as the optimization algorithm. Evolution strategy combines two optimization algorithms, i.e., simulated annealing and genetic algorithm, which shows the characteristics of the fast convergence as a non-deterministic method[3][4]. In the case of the optiinization problem such as the optimal design of induction motor which has many design variables, the conventional ES algorithm falls into the trap of local minima with high probability. To resolve this problem, ES algorithm is improved by introducing shaking technique as follows :
step I ( Initialization ) calculating the initial individual as parent of first generation. step 2 ( Reproduction ) producing offsprings by reproduction

The convergence characteristics of the conventional ES and the improved ES in case of five design variables are compared in Fig. 1. Sinc function is chosen as test function. In the improved ES, the convergence speed is improved by 25%. According to the variation of the number of design variables, the probability of convergence to global maximum is compared in Table I. When the number of design variable
.*
Y

2 0.8
e'
e,

.-.' '
._____

---*

---

Lq

.* ? 0.6
Y

0.4 0.2

Improved ES Conventional ES

E;

50

100

150 200 250 300 350 400 No. of Generation

Fig. 1. Comparison of convergence

where

X,., = X,,-t a, * R I (6) a, : mutation step length RI : nominal probability function over [-1,1]

TABLE I COMPARISON OF CONVERGENCE PROBABILITY N 3

4
3

X P : parent generation vector

1 ,offgpring generation vector

Shaking ES 100
100

Conventional ES 98 94
78

IO0

FP , F, : object function of X P and X,

step 3 ( Selection ) selecting superior individual by the principle of fitness.

6
7

100
91 73

54 39
21

X, = X,

if F, > Fp increase Nup

2982

becomes more than five, the proposed ES algorithm shows a higher convergence probability than conventional one. From the above results, we know that the improved ES algorithm is fast and robust. Therefore for the optimization problem such as the design of induction motor which has many design variables, the proposed method can be very useful. IV. INUDCTION MOTOR DESIGN PROCEDURE The design procedure is based on the set of the design variables and the motor specifications. At first, a set for finding a feasible machine must be selected. The objective function becomes very sensitive to the selection of design variables. A. Synthesis Synthesis includes the selection of optimization variables and feasible design. If the search is made without any reference to optimization criteria, it is called a synthesis[3]. The synthesis is a procedure for producing the feasible machine, on the basis of a set of values for the design variables, other design data and the motor specification. The design variables for induction motor are chosen as consisting of four flux densities at teeth and yokes for the stator and rotor, one current density in stator winding and three geometric variables. Three geometric variables are the depth of stator slot, the ratio of rotor slot bottom width to rotor teeth width and the ratio of rotor slot top radius to rotor slot bottom radius. Therefore the number of design variables is eight. The number of pole P, supply voltage U l , frequency f a r e given. In Fig. 2, a cross section of induction motor is represented. From the rotor design variables, the stack length L, and the nominal slip s,, [ 5 ] are given by
NO-

r--

Electric Equivalent Circuit

AdjustN\ --Tp2

Fig. 3. Flow chart of the synthesis

Air gap length and stator slot opening are dictated by mechanical considerations. The important quantities to be considered are stator flux densities. The height of the stator yoke and the width of a stator teeth are determined from the stator yoke flux density and stator teeth flux density. The flow chart of the synthesis routine is presented in Fig. 3. The feedback loop in Fig. 3 is to meet output power Po from the change of the number of series turns per phase N,. After that, the ratio of starting torque to nominal torque is checked. T-equivalent circuit is used for performance calculation of the designed motor[6].
B Parameter Correction

The stator is dosigned from dcsign vmiablcs and rotor data.

Fig. 2. Cross section of induction motor

Because the equivalent circuit method uses lumped parameters, it takes short computational time but it cannot get locally distributed characteristics. Whereas the finite element method(FEM) can deal with the distributed characteristics of induction motors but it requires much computational time and large memory capacity. So in this paper the merits of both methods are combined and utilized[7l.[Sl The entire characteristics of induction motor are calculated by equivalent circuit method. Then the equivalent circuit parameters of rotor part are recalculated by finite element analysis using the rotor current from equivalent circuit method. From the result of FEM calculation, the equivalent circuit components for rotor part are changed. Therefore it enables improved estimates of the equivalent circuit components to be obtained, taking magnetic saturation and deep bar effect into account[8]. FEM calculation is performed only in the rotor part for a fast execution time, because the rotor part has stronger effect than stator on the characteristics

2983

TABLE I1 COMPARISON OF INITIAL VALUES TO OPTIMAL VALUES Design Variable Wsbr I Wtr Stator currentdensity[A/mm2] Stator slot depth [mm] BYS [TI Bts I Btr Btr [TI Byr [TI Rotor slot depth ratio Weight (Power Density) [Kg] Efficiency [%I Initial Value 1.o 6.0 50 1.7 0.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 69.8(0.215) Optimal Value 0.602 2.948 26.998 1.342 0.988 1527 1.056 2.196 47.4(0.316) 90.5

Eauivalent Circuit Parameters

FEM Calculation of Rotor Part

I New Parameters + Rotor Part

of

84.0

Fig. 4. Flow chart of parameter correction.

of the induction motor. The rotor model for FEM consists of a sector corresponding to a single rotor slot pitch applying periodic boundary condition. The flowchart of parameter correction is represented in Fig. 4.
DESIGN V. SAMPLE

From the result of the algorithm explained at section 11, the best compromise solution is determined when the w is 0.124. In that case, the efficiency is 90.5[%] and power density is 0.316[kW/kg] which means the weight of motor is 47.4[kg]. Table I1 shows the comparisons between the initial model and optimized model. It is noted that the variables related to the weight are decreasing for low weight and those related to the efficiency such as flux density are decreasing for high efficiency. VI. CONCLUSION

The 1SKw, 4-pole, three-phase squirrel-cage induction motor for EV is designed as a sample design. The rated frequency is 100[Hz] and voltage is 17O[V]. Also, the ratio of maximum torque to nominal torque is set 2.5 as a constraint. Lower limit of efficiency is 90[0/,] and that of power density is 0.3[kW/kg]. The efficiency has to be maximized and the weight be minimized in the case of the design of traction motor for EV. To solve. the problem in terms of maximum, the weight of motor is transformed into the power density. Therefore Z I is efficiency and Z2 is power density. Because the number of design vxiables is eight, ES proposed in this paper should be used for optimization algorithm. Fig. 5 shows the non-inferior solutions as the weighting w varies. Generally the non-inferior solutions have the relation of tradeoff each other. Iheefficiency changes from 54.02[%] to 93.43[%] and the power density does from 0.068[kW/kg] to 1.24[kW/kg].
_ 1

For the design of high efficient and light-weight induction motor, the multiobjective optimal design method of induction motor employing the weighting method and the best compromise solution search technique is suggested. To get around the trap of local minima, ES algorithm is modified by introducing shaking technique. And the parameter correction using finite element analysis is carried out to obtain the more accurate motor parameters[S]. Through the results from sample motor design, it is found that the proposed method is useful for multiobjective optimal design of an induction motor.
REFERENCES
[ 11 Jared L. Cohon, Multiobjective programming andplanning,

0 95

~~

065

060

ACADEMIC Press, New York, U.S.A, 1978. [2] Andrezj Osyczka, Multicriterion optimization in engineering with FORTRANprograms, ELLIS HORWOOD LIMITED, England, 1984. [3] Hans-Paul Schwefel, Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, Great Britain, 1981. [4] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic algorithms and rule learning in dynamic system control, Proc. Intl. Con$ on Genetic Algorithm and their Applications, pp. 8-15, July 1985. [5] M. Nurdin, M. Poloujadoff and Faure, Synthesis of squirrel cage motors : A key to optimization, IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion, Vol. 6, NO.2, 1991, pp. 327-335. [6] C. G. Veinott, Theory and design o f small induction motor,

000 020 0 4 0 0 6 0 080 100 1 2 0 Power density [kWkg]

Fig 5 Noninferior solutions

Mcoraw-Hill BOOK company, New Tow, U.S.A, 19s9 [7] S. Williamson, and M. C. Begg, Analysis of cage induction motors - A combined fields and circuit approach, IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, V01.21, NO. 6, 1985, pp. 2396-2399. [8] S. Williamson, and M. J. Robinson, Calculation of cage induction motor equivalent circuit parameters using finite elements, IEE Proceedings-B, Vol. 138, No. 5, pp. 264-276, September 1991.