IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. EC-2, No.

3, September 1987 415

OPTIMIZATION OF THREE-PHASE INDUCTION MOTOR DESIGN

PART II: THE EFFICIENCY AND COST OF AN OPTIMAL DESIGN

J. Appelbaum*, Senior Member, IEEE I.A. Khan E.F. Fuchs, Senior Member, IEEE
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder Colorado 80309
Was on Sabbatical from Tel-Aviv University

J.C. White, Fellow, IEEE

Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California 94303

Abstract - With the continuing increase of the

under
opiiainmto 1944-1, is to use a mathematical
Contract No. RP ocmueteotml dsg
cost of electrical cost motornegy manufacturers and opizaonmtdtocpue he pial esg
energy,
ofelcticl
otr anfatuer a
parameters of a three-phase squirrel-cage induction
consumers became increasingly concerned with the motor that result in (a) maximum motor efficiency, and
energy conservation available from highly efficient (b) minimum motor cost. The study addresses itself to
electrical motors. Motor cost and efficiency are the effects of electrical steels, power factor, and
thrfr,teefcto'oo
interrlated therefore, the effect Of motor cost
interrelated;
the maximum obtainable efficiency is of interest both
otoon
locked rotor current for a maximum of efficiency, and
a minimum of motor cost. The optimization procedure,
to the motor manufacturer and to the consumer. The described in Part I[11, was used for these studies.
relation between the power factor and the maximum
efficiency of a motor is another aspect of energy There are two different, partially conflicting
conservation. The optimal motor design, with respect approaches to the design of an induction motor from an
to the maximum efficiency, and with respect to the economic viewpoint: from the manufacturer's viewpoint,
minimum motor cost (by means of a mathematical an optimal motor is one of minimum production cost
optimization method described in Part I), was used in including the active and construction materials, as
Part II to investigate the above-mentioned motor well as the manufacturing cost; from the consumer's
relations. Three motor-cost functions were viewpoint, an optimally designed motor has the lowest
investigated: production cost, capitalized cost, and annual cost, including the initial capital cost,
annual cost. The motor that was used in the study interest rate, energy cost (losses), yearly operation
was a 100 hp, three-phase, squirrel-cage induction time, etc.. Because of these differences optimally
motor. designed motors, based on the different approaches,
have different optimal parameters, and might have
INTRODUCTION different performance characteristics.
t A similar approach to the
capitalized costannual cost function
function is is
Economic considerations in the design of induction
motorsmotorwere
wer introduced in the early
intoducd ary years
eas of
o
the capitalized cost function that is obtained by
electrical motor production. However, full utilization converting the energy cost from an annual cost ($/kW
of the motor materials became possible only with the year) to an investment cost($/kW). This investment cost
is then added directly to the production cost of the
advent of the digital computer, and the development of eelpmotor. The basic difference in the cost functions is
advent ofteiialcmptradth
optimization techniques. The manufacturer's approach that the annual and capitalized cost functions include
to minimize the production cost of the motor,which is
' ~~the cost of losses, whereas the production cost
understandable from his economic point of view, ' may be
~~consists of the cost of materials and their processing
in conflict with the consumer's desire for a low
cost only. Therefore, by minimizing the annual and
operating cost, i.e., a highly efficient motor. The capitalized costs, the losses are correspondingly also
optimal design of an induction motor for maximum minimized, whereas for the production cost function
efficiency or minimum motor cost, using mathematical the motor design parameters are optimized to obtain
optimization techniques, is an appropriate approach to minimum manufacturer's cost, and usually comply with
the motor design. With this approach, any desired minimum allowable efficiency. Depending upon the
- ' ~~~~~the
requirement of either the manufacturer, or the yearly operating time, the cost of energy, the
consumer, may be expressed easily in the formulation interest rate and the investment cost, different
of the optimization problem. The optimal design efficiencies correspond to the optimally designed
parameters can be derived by solving a constrained
-
optimization problem, which belongs to a family of ~~~~~~~motors for the two types of cost functions, with
higher efficiencies being obtained for the annual and
"general nonlinear programming problems". The problem capitalized cost functions, compared to that of the
consists of an objective cost function which is production cost function.
minimized, or an objective efficiency function which is
maximized, both with a set of constraints (which _ The_motor equations C(k2,kx,x), gi(k2,kx,x) and
represent the motor properties). hj(k2,kx,x) (Part I, eqs. (5)), as a function of the
principal deig parameters x, constants
design paaeesX k2, and
The purpose of the present study, supported by
TheElecpuricPoserofesethe pesentitudy, supporAted
prnia
variable constants kX ,
ontns
',a
were initially prepared for
the Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
the optimization procedure. It should be noted that
the equations were written as accurately as possible
and include, among others, the B-H and specific iron
loss curves of the different electrical steels, and a
36 5 4873Apape reommeded nd pproedmagnet wire table. For the magnetizing current,
Simpson's three-point formula was used for the
thy he [EERtatig Mahiney Comitte ofthecalculation of the average magnetic field intensity in
IEEE~-oe ~ niern oit o rsnaina the stator and rotor teeth . The correction for the
th IRE/E 198 'unrMei ~Mxc iy
Mlexico, July 20 - 25, [986. Mlanulscripat suhanittedl
flux densities in the stator and rotor teeth, due to
the radial flux passing through the slots, was taken
Feray3 1984
May 28S, 193,6. 'ad avial fo rntnnto account. Also, for the iron losses, the surface
and pulsation (zig-zag) losses in the stator and rotor
teeth were considered. The temperature equation was
Printed nl. th 1JTSJ
rLn.e(s.LS Lle
.<. ~based on the heat flow in different parts of the
motor .
0885-8969/87/0900-0415$01 .OO 1987 IEEE
416

The following were chosen as the principal motor 0.7

parameters for the optimization: \ \l
D - stator bore diameter; sC loo
L - length of the laminated core stack;
h1 - height of stator slot;
05 -
E
I
pr Increosing /
Cf
a12- mean width of stator slot;
h2 - height of rotor slot; cs
a22 - mean width of rotor slot; W '\
hj1 - height of stator backiron; w \\\ \A.
Bg - maximum air gap flux density;
jl - current density of stator winding;
j2- current density of rotor winding. 03
The standard requirements (constraints) for a 0
three-phase squirrel-cage induction motor are: C

1. power -factor at rated load - pf; c

2 . l ocked-rotor current to rat ed current ratio- 1\ \ LMINTIONEGTH-L()
iLRiLR o0.1 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LAMINATION
0.2
LENGTH -L(m
0.4 0.6
3. starting torque to rated torque ratio - -tst ;
4. breakdown torque to rated torque ratio - tm -
5. efficiency at rated load - n Fig. . Production cost function of the motor and
6. rated slip-s ; all constraints in the (D,L) plane.
7. temperature rise according to the insulation
used for the windings - AT. 0.8o
-
I
For the purpose of illustration, the motor
characteristics (constraints) are shown in Fig. 1, in
0

0.6
-f \ \

two dimensions as a function of the bore diameter-D,

and the length of the core stack-L, for given values
of the constraints. The set of inequality constraints
defines the feasible region F (dotted), where any
combination of D and L in this region or on its
boundary satisfies the desired motor performance
characteristics. This figure also includes isocost
lines of the motor production cost. (The cost is a
posinomial function and hence it has a single minimum).
Fig. 2 describes the feasible design region F with the
efficiency as a parameter (n=0.80-0.9397). It can be
seen that the efficiency function has a single
maximum (point P on the boundary of the feasible
region) corresponding to the best combination of D and
L for maximum efficiency (conditional maximum). This
figure also shows that higher efficiencies are not
always achieved by increasing the motor dimensions (D
The
or L), or increasing the motor production cost.
optimal point is determined by the relative position of
the feasible region with respect to the maximum
efficiency point (global maximum). The possible motor
production cost may vary between the values of Ci and
C2. No motor can be designed with a lower cost than C1
or a higher cost than even C2, since such a point
would not comply with the required motor performance.
For a desired production cost of less than C3, for
example, the maximum motor efficiency will correspond
to point P', which is lower than that for point P.
MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY
First, the study of optimal motor designs for
maximum efficiencies was performed. The objective
function was the efficiency equation, and the set of
constraints was the standard motor performance
equations for desired values, including the production
cost as an inequality constraint. The study addressed
itself to: different electrical steels; the relation
between the maximum efficiency and the production
cost; the power factor; and the locked-rotor current.
The effects Of the load and vroltage variations on the
efficiency, power factor, and temperature rise were
also investigated. The calculated efficiencies refer
to the temperature of 950 C. The steel range was from
carbon steel to silicon s;teel: Con-Core, 026 M4I7 FP,
026 M145 FP, 026 M143 FP and 026 M36 FP, of the Unrited
States Steel Company. The material and processing
costs refer to values as they prevailed in 1981.
ncrea ng
o
c
I
3
02 o\
m
LAMINATION LENGTH-L(m
oLAINI LENTHL(
0.2 0.4 0.6
Fig. 2. .`ficiancy and production cost functions in
the (D,L) plane.
A. Maximum Motor Efficiency For Different Steels
In this study, the effect of different steels on
the maximum obtainable motor efficiencies was
investigated. The production cost equation is used as
a constraint, and is set to both very high, C<$2000,
and low C<$1000 values, respectively. The results are
illustrated in Fig. 3, together with the motor's
required performance. The study provides information
regarding the maximum obtainable motor efficiency,
complying with the motor performance requirements
under the assumption that the production cost can
reach $2000. This high value of the motor cost is used
in the study in order to allow the efficiency to reach
its highest possible value and not be affected by the
cost limitation. The value of cost up to $1 000 was
chosen as a low limit for a possible motor production
cost that still met the required motor performance,
alnd in this case, the cost was a limiting constraint.
The efficiencies obtained for each type of steel are
the upper and the lower possible maximum efficiency
limits for the given set of motor requirements. For
example, fSor the steel M36, the upper efficiency limit
(for $2000) is 95.3~4%, and the lower limit (for $1000)
is 93.02% . The -corresponding production costs are
$1Yi3Q and $1000. respectively.
 417

M(%) C($) s 0.O/

~MAX G26 M36 fP
l C.lO000 IC52000 aT'80f C iLRI6-0, tst 125, tm>2.0
s <0.05, AT< 800C
-2500 a 2500Production
Cost
iLR 56.0
tst 2 1.25 95
-
Eftficiency-j. v Moximum tm > 2.0
Efficiency
95-
-2000 Production/
Cost
:1 I94
94.5
1500
0 86

I1 :j 'I
-1000,1 i I I i9

I 1 I10 : oo 10 140ol0 180 20

500~~~~~~ 0500 ~~~~~~~~~Il ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4a.
~~ 000 1200 1400 C1600 1800 2000

92.5 0 ..
Con-Core I*on-.o.Fig.
G26 M45
4a.
G26 M36
The effect of the production cost on the
maximum efficiency.
G26 M47 G26 M43

Fig. 3. Maximum efficiency for different steels

for C<$1000 and C<$2000. A %)
(%)
2 --94.88
An important conclusion that can be derived from
this study is that it is possible to obtain about the
same maximum efficiency with a wide range of 1 93.95
electrical steels for a motor optimally designed with
respect to efficiency. For C<$1000, the variation ihn
the efficiencies is about 0.37% and for C<$2000, it is /3.02 1_____/\C(%)
about 0.814%. For different steels, the corresponding 0 20 40 60 80 100
optimal values of the design parameters are also not
much different. Fig. 4b. The percentage cost increase of an
efficiency improvement.
B. The Effect of the Production Cost on the Maximum
Efficiency
The cost of efficiency improvement is optimization, rather than with additional materialalone.
investigated in this section by two methods: . . \ namely, ' ~~The percent increase in motor production cost
by addingby active
adding m ateri al
activematerial (model
(model law),
law), and
and by
by
with the percent increase in motor efficiency (taken
maximizing the ef ficiency, It iS well known that
meaximizing the improvement
measures for theirnprovenent
the efficiency.tiswell kwnthat
of the efficiency entail from Fig. 4a) is illustrated in Fig. 4b. This figure
shows (for pf>0.84) that for a 100 percent increase in
an increase in the manufacturing cost. Therefore, the
maximum obtainable efficiency . . and the added cost are ~~~~~~~~~production cost,
t the increase 'in efficiency is only
2.37 %. and the percent of cost increase is larger for
important to the motor manufactuarer. importan
tothemotormanufacturer.higher motor efficiencies. The increase in production
For the motor optimization, the problem reads as cost per kilowatt loss reduction is $520/kW.
follows: find optimal design parameters that result in The variation of the optimal motor design
maximum efficiency for given motor perrformance parameter values with efficiency for power factor
requirements, provided the production cost can pf>0.84, and production costs, as in Fig. 4a, are
increase to an upper limit. illustrated in Figs. 4c,d and e. With the increase of
The results are illustrated in Figs. 4a,b,c,d,e the maximum efficiency, the stator and rotor slot
and f, for three power factors: pf>0.84, pf>0.86 and heights (ha,h2) increase; the stator and rotor slot
pf>0.88 for G26 M36 FP steel. The conclusions are: widths (al2,a22) decrease; the stator and rotor
current densities (ijli2) decrease considerably; and
a) Higher efficiency can be obtained with higher. the stator backiron height h;1 increases by a large
motor poductin cost amount. Smaller' changes occur in -the bore diameter D,
b) The efficiency curve is bounded by a lower and
lamination stack length L, and air-gap flux density Bg,.
an.upperlimit. ..
lower limitisdictatedby
Consequently, there is a slight decrease in the
the lowest possible production cost, and the
upper limit by the asymptotic behavior of the percentage of the ohmic losses, and a slight increase
in the percentage of the core and the mechanical
ef f iciency f unction;
A
c) higher required power
c) A higher required power factor reslults in a
factor results in a losses, which are illustrated in Fig. 4f. The average
lower lower motoref
motor effciency
ficiency for the thesame productio
samne production percent breakdown
pecn radw offtemtrlse
the motor losses for o h
the range
ag

of maximum efficiencies, as in Fig. 4a, for a power

cost. cost.
The motor efficiencies obtained by additional
active materials, part 1, eq. ( 12) arse also shown in
Fig. 14a, for the sake of a comparison with the~ motor
ef ficiencies that are obtained by optimization.
dimensions of a standard motor are increased by the
scale factor a=1 .0 to 1. 1, and the motor production
co.st is cornputed accordingly. It should be noted that
eq. (1 2) (Part I) .is an approximate relation between
the new and the reference efficiencies. Thetse figures
show that higher efficiencies can be obtained w.ith
~~~~~~~~~~factor
pf>0.814, is: stator ohmic losses-145 %; rotor
ohmic losses-30 %: core losses-1 5%; and mnechanical
losses 1 0% .
The C. EfficiencyX-Power Factor Relation
The variation of the mnaximum efficiency with
respect to the power factor for two values of the
production cost function is described in Fig. 5. These
cur-ves were obtained by maximizing the efficiency with
the constrai.nts ofs thle power factor, the producetioBn
418

D, L Bg9 h2 a22
(in) 1(in)
j
Cm) CT)
0.05 (A/rn 2)
0.3 -1.2 D 6 3 ac 6x106
L 0.04-I
12
0.03 4xIO6 4xIO6
0.2 -0.8 Bg

0.02-
-2x103 2 xI06
02 0.4 0.01
93 94 95
7X (%)
Fig. 4c. Variation of the optimal motor parameters
with regard to efficiency. 93 94 95
Fig. 4e. Variation of the optimal motor parameters
h1 h11 a12 j with regard to efficiency.
(m) (m) (m)3 CA/rm2
0.06- 03 -8x1
al2 Losses
0.05 (%) Stator Ohmic LQsses
-6xI0-3 6
6 x06 40
0.04 -0.2
Rotor Ohmic Losses

0.03 4x10 4x106 30

0.02 -0.1 20

-2xI0-3 2nI066
Iron Losses
0.01 h11 1

93 94 95 0Mechanical Losses
0
Fig. 4d. Variation of optimal motor parameters with 94
93 95 ()
regard to efficiency. Fig. 4f. The change of motor losses in percentage
with respect to efficiency.
cost, and the other constraint values: iLR<6, tst>1.25,
tm>2.0, s<0.05,and AT<80oC, for G26 M36 FP steel.- The
power factor has been changed from 0.80 to 0.885 for )
two cost values: C<$1500, and C<$2000. This figure G26 M36 FP
shows that higher efficiencies are associated with
lower power factors; and a large decrease in power C $2000
factor is required for a small improvement in motor
efficiency. A decrease of about 8% in power factor
leads to an increase of only about 1% in efficiency, C<$1500
for C<$1500. The power factor has an upper and lower
limit value, depending upon the value of the
production cost. The production costs of $1 500 and 94-
$2000 were chosen to indicate the relation between the
power factor and the efficiency, for the case where t st 25, ti > 2.0
the cost was limiting ($1500), and where the cost did s < 0.05, AT< 80'C, LR.6O
not affect the results ($2000). This figure also pf
shows that a high allowable production cost leads to 93 i
^^. . (see
more efficient motors .
. also .
Fig. *.
4a). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.80
0.82 0.04 0.86 0.88 0.90

D. The Effect of the Locked-Rotor Current on the Fig. 5. Efficiency and power factor relation.
Efficiency
A motor can be designed f or the case where it is
important - to have a lower inrush current for
across-the-line motor starting, but it may be at the7o
expense of -the ef ficiency. The study of the efflect of 9
the locked-rotor current -ratio, iLR, on the efficiency
was performed by maximization of the ef,ficiency with
the locked-rotor current ratio as a constraint for
production cost C < $1200, pf>0. 814, tst>1. 25, tin>2. 0,
s<0.05, AT(800C and 026 M36 FP. -The results are given 93 7 $I200,pf<0.84,tst.l.Z5,tm~2.0
in Fig. 6 and show that there is a small increase in s<00' I.0' 'lRl
efficiency .for quite a large range of the locked-rotor 0 4i.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0
current ratio variation. It is possible then to design
an optimal motor (with respect t~o efficiency) with a Fig. 6. The effect of, l ocked-rotor current ratio
lower locked-rotor current ratio. -on the e,fficiency.
 419
E. The Effect Of External Conditions On The Optimal AT(MC) 7(%) pf
and Standard Motor Designs 55 96 0.90

The effect of external conditions on the motor

performance is important from an application point of 45 - 95- -0.85 encY
view. In this section, the effect of voltage and load
variations on the efficiency, power factor and
temperature rise is investigated both for the optimal 35 - 94--0.80
motor design (with respect to efficiency for the case
of pf 2 0.84, C S $2000, G26 M36 FP steel), and for 2-3-7
the standard motor* design (for G26 M36 FP steel). 25 93 0.75
Fig. 7a shows the variation in efficiency and power e
factor for a change in the voltage of Vn 10%, where 15 92 0.70 LOAD (%)
Vn is the nominal voltage of the motor. For both
motor types, the efficiency increases an-d the power 0 50 60 70 80 90 100
factor decreases with an increase in voltage. The
variation in efficiency for the optimal motor is Fig. 7b. The change in efficiency, power factor and
smaller than that for the standard motor, but the temperature rise, with respect to the load
power factor variation is larger. for the optimal motor.
The variation in efficiency, power factor and
temperature rise, with respect to variation of the T
load is described in Figs. 7b and c, both f or the (oC) (%), pf
optimal and standard motors, respectively. Both motor 55 96-- 0.90
types behave similarly for a variation of the load.
45 95 0.85

pf & 77M 35 94 0.80

040

0.93 96 EffiCiencY 25 - 93 0.75 erCS

GrmoI msiotor ev
0.90- 15 92 70 LOAD
0 (%)

0.87- s95 F0s41toa,.

S,-
Fig. 7c.
50 60 70
The change in efficiency, power factor and
80 90 loo

temperature rise, with respect to the load

<Stc'dof
94 -0r for the standard motor

04-0 A. The Effect of the Efficiency on the Minimum

081- D e,
Al
z _93 /o93
0.78 - \design parameters and the corresponding minimum
I I _.
0.9Vn 0.95Vn Vn 1.OSVn 1.1 vn
Fig. 7a. Variation of efficiency and power factor,
THE PRODUCTION COST OF AN INDUCTION MOTOR IN AN
OPTIMAL DESIGN
Probably, the most common approach in motor
design is for the manufacturer to have the objective
of producing motors with the lowest production cost.
Different customer requirements (e.g.,
efficiency), can be incorporated into the optimal
design by the constraint equations. The production
cost, which consists of the cost -of materials, the
cost of material processing, and a fixed cost, is a
direct measure of the motor cost to the manufacturer.
This study deals with the effects of the different
required values of efficiency and power factor on the
minimum production cost. The study shows the amount
of the additional cost -to the manufacturer if higher
efficiencies and higher power factors are desired.
___________________________________________
A standard motor is defined here as a motor that
satisfies the desired motor performance (feasible
design), and its design parameters correspond to the
starting point in the optimization procedure.
Production Cost
Required values of efficiency affect the optimal
production cost. This study was performed by
minimizing the production cost, subject to the
inequality constraints: iLR_6.0, tst>1.25, tm>2.0,
s<0.05, AT<800C, and for two values of power factor,
pf>O.84 and pf>O.86. The efficiency was also treated
as an inequality constraint. The results are given in
Fig. 8.
The cross-section of a magnet wire has discrete
values; therefore it may affect the optimal results.
A comparison was made for the case where the wire
table was not -considered in the optimization (a
continuous cross-section variation was used) for a
power factor of pf>O.84. The results are also plotted
high in Fig. 8. The following conclusions can be drawn:
a) A higher required efficiency corresponds to a
higher production cost;
b) For a required value of efficiency, a higher power
factor is associated with a higher production
cost;
c) If a wire tabl e is not used in the design, or in
practice if a denser wire table is available, the
production cost may be lower.
The maximum possible efficiencies are shown in
Fig. 8 by the right-end points of the curves. At these
points, the efficiency reaches its asymptotic values,
and any further increase in cost will not lead to a
significant improvement in the efficiency. The average
percentage breakdown of the motor cost and losses fSor
the range of production costs, as shown in Fig. 8 (for
420

C($) Steel: G26 M36 FP THE CAPITALIZED COST OF AN INDUCTION MOTOR IN AN

1200 'LR< 6.0
tst > 1.25 l-pf20.86 OPTIMAL DESIGN
tm 1 2.0
s < 2.0
L~T. /80'C/
pf > 0.84 The capitalized cost function consists of two
terms that depend on the motor design parameters,
1100 / / pf> 0.84 namely, the production cost and the investment cost of
v/ / (Without the losses (Part I, eq. (10)). The loss term in this
X / / Table) function is expressed by the c, v factor, measured in
,' / / dollars per kilowatt loss of the motor. The optimal
1000 - / design depends on the weights attached to the
// production cost and to the loss cost terms. For
higher cinv , the minimization process tends to reduce
the losses, usually achieved by increasing the motor
900 _ dimensions; whereas for a lower cinv , the
minimization process tries to reduce the motor
0 92 93 94 95 dimensions and, hence, to reduce the production cost.
The specific losses of the electrical steel affect the
Fig. 8. Effect of efficiency on production cost. capitalized cost function through the iron losses. A
higher grade of electrical steel will reduce the
capitalized cost, and increase the efficiency of the
motor for a given high value of cinv. The studies
concerning the effects of the electrical steel and
AC($) cinv on the efficiency and costs are described in the
1300 next two sections.

iLR 6. 0 A. The Investment Factor and the Capitalized Cost

t t > 1.25/
1200 - tm > 2.0 The optimization problem reads as follows: find
X~.0.932 / optimal design parameters for which the capitalized
0.059 cost is minimum and that comply with the following
AT< 80 C motor requirements (constraints): n>91 %, pf>O.84,
1100 iLR_6.0,tst>L1.25, tm >2.0, s<0.05 , and AT<800C, for the
electrical st-eel G26 M36 FP, and for different values
G26 M36 FP /Of cinv . The results are shown in Fig. 10, where the
minimum capitalized cost and the -corresponding
1000 _ efficiencies are plotted versus cinv. The capitalized
cost is almost a straight line, and the efficiency
G26 M45 FP increases with cinv , reaching a maximum value. Any
further increase in cinv cannot affect the efficiency
900 appreciably.
pf For an optimal design with the above specified
00.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 Q86 0.87 0.88 0.89 motor requirements, and for cinv = $1800/kW, the
breakdown of the motor cost and the losses is given in
Fig. 9. Effect of the power factor on the Table II. The cost function C comprises the production
pr~oduction cost. cost CM = 20.47%, and investment cost
Pcu)
cinv(P o+ am =7 9.5 3 %a

pf>O.84), is listed in Table I.

Table II: Breakdown of motor cost and losses for cinv

Table I: Percent breakdown of the motor production = $1800/kW
cost and losses
Cost ( W Losses (%
Cost ( W Losses ( M stator copper 1 4.90 ohmic loss in stator 41.65
stator copper 1 4.4 ohmic loss in stator 42.5 rotor aluminum 14.11 ohmic loss in rotor 21.75
rotor aluminum 3.0 ohmic loss in rotor 29.9 electric steel 50.78 iron loss 21.52
electric steel 48.3 iron loss 19.0 frame etc. 30.21 mechanical losses 15.08
frame etc. 34.3 mechanical losses 8.-6
B. The Effect of the Electrical Steel on the
B. The Effect of the Power Factor on the Minimum Capitalized Cost
Production
Production Cost
Cost ..
The capitalized cost was minimized, subject to the
motor constraints: n>91 %, pf>O.84, iLRP6.0, tst>1.25,
The minimization of the production cost for andA -for
ti>2.0, s<0.05 and AT-800C, for cinv=1 800$/kW
varying power factors as inequality constraints was five different steels. The results are shown in Fig.
studied next for an efficiency of n>93.2% and for two 11, that indicates both the minimum capitalized cost
core materials 026 M36 FP and 026 M145 FP. The results and the efficiency at the optimal design. The
are given in Fig. 9 that also verifies the results of investment factor of $1 800/kW, used in the
Fig. 8, namely, a higher required power factor and a optimization process, causes the cost of losses to
mor-e expensive electrical steel result in a higher decrease more than the production cost to increase
production cost (for the same efficiency). This figure (due to the more expensive electrical steel). This is
shows that there is an upper limit for the power illustrated by the decrease of the capitalized cost,
factor, and the additional cost increases sharply and the increase in efficiency with a better grade of
(close to this limit), for the improvement of the electrical steel. For the same reason, the motor
power factor. effPiciencies are relatively high.
 421

Steei:
Stel
G26
G26M368
M36 FP F
77C
caop ($) 'ri(%) Steel: G26 M36 FP
pf ?0.84
pfLR 1 0.84
6 9000 96 Minimum _
Cost tsts LR260
'>1.25
'v~~(/.) ccap(s)
C~~0~($) >
25 Ef ficiency-1 0.05
>
f tm > 2. 0 sso/ l AT'A800C
m
5

/\T 80C
71 >0.91 2/ 1720.91 1
96 9000 s S0.05 8000 95 l

969000 I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
95 507000 l 1

0 / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Con-Core
G26 1045 G26 M36
d / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G26
G26 M43 FP
FPM47
93- 3000 FP FP

92/00C(/W 92 10008 Effincy

Fig. 1 1. Effect of the electrical
motor capitalized cost and the efficiency.
steel on the

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 x 100

Fig. 10. Effect of investment cost factor on motor

capitalized cost and motor efficiency. pf ' 0.84
Con($) i7 (%) iLR 60 G26 M36 FP
2000 -99 tm > 2.0
77 2 0.91
THE ANNUAL COST OF AN INDUCTION MOTOR IN AN OPTIMAL s < 0.05 NNUAL
DESIGN AT _ 80C, COST

The annual cost function is very similar in 1500 -97

structure to the capitalized cost function, and
consists of two terms that depend on the motor
parameters (Part I, Eq. (8)). One term is related to EFFICIENCY
the production cost, and the- other term is related to
the motor losses. The annual operating time T, and 1000 - 95
the energy cost W, in the annual cost function, have
the same role as the investment cost factor cinv in
the capitalized cost function. It is , theref ore,
expected that the behaviour of the optimal designs of
these two motors will be similar. Fig. 12 shows the 500 93 Time (Hours)
minimum annual cost and the corresponding motor
efficiency as functions of the operating time T, for the 0 2 4 6 8 10 xlO3
case: T>91 %, pf>O.84, iLRS6.0,tSt>L1.25, tm>2.0, s<0.05
, and AT<800C, r-17 % per year, W-0.07 $/kWh-, and 026 Fig. 12. Effect of operating time on the motor
M36 FP. the breakdown of the motor cost and losses is annual cost and the efficiency.
given in Table III for an optimal design with the above
specified motor requirements, and for r=17% per year,
W=0.07$/kWh, T=7500 hours per year. The cost function quantities. Although 100 hp and 5 hp motors are
Can consists of production cost CM=12.6 %, and the different in some respects, the experimental
annual loss cost W T (Po+Pcu)=87.4 %. verification of the calculated results for the 5 hp
motor was considered satisfactory enough to accept the
Table III. Breakdown of the motor production cost and accuracy of the design program. For this motor, the
losses for T=7500 hours per year. measured and the calculated quantities, corresponding
to rated operation, were in good agreement, as can be
Cost [% ] Losses [% ] seen from the table presented in the Appendix.
stator copper 15.05 ohmic loss in stator 36.02
rotor aluminum 2.80 ohmic loss in rotor 27.12 CONCLUSIONS
electrical steel 52.65 iron loss 22.-74
frame etc. 29.50 mechanical losses 114.12 In the literature, the optimization of induction
motors is based on variables x (principal design
parameters) and on constant parameters k 1 (secondary
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE DESIGN parameters). However, some of the secondary
PROGRAM parameters that depend upon the principal parameters
(such as the copper-slot fill-f actor, saturation
As mentioned above, all studies described in this factor) change during the course of the optimization
two part paper were performed for a three-phase, 100 process. It is, therefore, important to take into
hp, induction motor. In order to confirm the validity account this variation of such secondary parameters in
of the resul ts -of the various stludies, an the optimization of an induction motor . In the studies
experimental verification of the results of the design of this paper, _the secondary parameters are classified
program, which is a part of the optimization program, as "constants k2"g and "variable constants kx" according
was done. Complete design data of the 100 hp motor to their dependence on the principal parameters x.
used in this stludy were available, but the actual This is a new formulation of the optimization problem
motor unfortunately could not be tested. Therefore, a of the induction motor design. The studies cover a
three-phase, 5 hp squirrel-cage induction motor was wide range of optimal motor designs from different
purchased, tested, and disassembled, in order to obtain points-of-view than have been published on the subject
accurate design data for calculating rated performance before. The main conclusions are:
422

- It is possible to obtain about the same maximum APPENDIX

efficiency for a wide range of electrical steels;
- Higher motor efficiencies and higher motor power Experimental Verification of the Results of the Design
factors are associated with higher motor Program
production costs; Performance Measured* Calculated
- A relatively large increase in the production cost Quantity Value Value
is required to improve the efficiency by a
relatively small amount; power factor: 0.841 0.847
- Higher motor efficiencies are associated with locked-rotor
lower motor power factors; current ratio: 5.637 5.440
- The locked-rotor current ratio does not affect output torque(Nm): 10.234 10.234
significantly the maximum motor efficiency; i.e., efficiency( %): 82.1 82.8
it is possible to design an efficient motor with a slip( %): 2.3 2.4
lower locked-rotor current ratio; stator winding *
- The use of a denser wire table may reduce the temperature( 0C): 74.45 75.00
motor production cost;
- The optimal motors obtained from a minimization REFERENCES
of the annual cost and a minimization of
capitalized cost behave similarly. [1]J. Appelbaum, E.F. Fuchs, J.C. White, "Optimization
A detailed documentation of the optimization of of Induction Motor Design , Part I: Formulation of
three-phase induction motor design is given in [2]. the Optimization Technique, a companion paper,
submitted to the IEEE Summer Meeting 1986.
[2] E.F. Fuchs, J. Appelbaum, I.A. Khan, J. Holl and
U.V. Frank, "Optimization of Induction Motor
Efflciency, Volume 1: Three-Phase Induction
Acknowledgements Motors", Final Report, EPRI EL-4152-CCM, Volume 1,
Project 1944-1, July 1985.
The authors would like to acknowledge the
contributions of Dr. J. Holl and Dipl.-Ing. U.V. Frank measurement error = 1%
to this two part paper. ** measured by the resistance method