Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Methods For Electrical Machines and Drive Systems - Lei Zhu Guo

Power Systems
GangLei
JianguoZhu
YouguangGuo
Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Methods for
Electrical Machines and
Drive Systems
Power Systems
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/4622
Gang Lei Jianguo Zhu Youguang Guo

Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization Methods
for Electrical Machines
and Drive Systems
123
Gang Lei Youguang Guo
University of Technology Sydney University of Technology Sydney
Sydney, NSW Sydney, NSW
Australia Australia
Jianguo Zhu
University of Technology Sydney
Sydney, NSW
Australia
ISSN 1612-1287 ISSN 1860-4676 (electronic)

Power Systems
ISBN 978-3-662-49269-7 ISBN 978-3-662-49271-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016930283
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microlms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specic statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by SpringerNature

The registered company is Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg
Preface
Electrical machines and drive systems account for about 46 % of all global elec-
tricity consumption, resulting in about 6,040 Mt of CO2 emissions. This is by far
the largest portion of electricity use, easily outstripping lighting, which takes up to
19 % of the worlds demand. Therefore, the energy efciency of electrical drive
systems is very important for the energy conservation, environment and sustainable
development of the world.
Electrical drive systems are key components in many modern appliances, as well
as industry equipment and systems. In order to achieve the best design objectives,
such as high performance and low cost, various optimization methods have been
developed for design optimization of electrical machines and drive systems. The
traditional design optimization is at the component level, e.g. optimization of a
motor design or the parameters of a control algorithm. However, modern appliances
or systems demand that the drive systems be specically designed and optimized to
provide full support to their best functionalities with multiple performance indi-
cators. For such applications, the authors developed an application-oriented
multi-objective system-level design optimization method. Because of the com-
plexity of drive system design that involves many disciplines, such as electro-
magnetics, materials, mechanical dynamics including structural, thermal, and
vibrational analyses, power electronic convertors, and control algorithms, a
multi-level optimization method was developed by the authors to improve the
effectiveness of the optimization of electrical machines as well as drive systems.
On the other hand, the real quality of motors and drives in mass production
highly depends on the available machinery technology and those unavoidable
variations or uncertainties in the manufacturing process, assembly process and
operation environment. The manufacturing precision and tolerances are two main
issues in the manufacturing process, including mainly the variations of material
characteristics, such as magnetization faults in terms of magnitude and magneti-
zation direction for permanent magnets (PMs), and density and permeability of
soft-magnetic-composite (SMC) stator cores manufactured by powder metallic
moulding technology, and dimensional variations of parts of drive systems, such as
v
vi Preface
the rotor, stator, winding and PMs. The assembly process variations mainly include
the lamination of silicon steel sheets and misalignments of stator, rotor and PMs.
The operating uncertainties mainly include the load variations, changes of electrical
and mechanical parameters, such as the changes of resistance and inductance due to
the operational temperature rise, and fluctuations of drive voltage.
Limited by these variations in the practical machinery technology, an aggres-
sively optimized design may be difcult for high-quality batch production and end
up with high rejection rates. Similarly, variations in system parameters and oper-
ational conditions may also lead to sub-optimal performance, and in a severe case,
even instability. To solve this type of problems, the methodology of Six-Sigma
quality control can be adopted to develop a robust design optimization method to
guarantee the high-quality batch production of drive systems.
Based on many years of research experience of the authors, this book aims to
present efcient application-oriented, multi-disciplinary, multi-objective, and
multi-level design optimization methods for advanced high-quality electrical drive
systems. The multi-disciplinary analysis includes materials, electromagnetics,
thermotics, mechanics, power electronics, applied mathematics, machinery tech-
nology, and quality control and management.
This book will benet both researchers and engineers in the eld of motor and
drive design and manufacturing, thus enabling the effective development of the
high-quality production of innovative, high-performance drive systems for chal-
lenging applications, such as green energy systems and electric vehicles.
This book consists of eight chapters, based on our several research projects, and
covering the aspects of electrical machines, drive systems, high-quality mass pro-
duction and application-oriented design optimization methods.
Like most books, this book starts with an introduction in Chap. 1 to provide an
overview of application elds of electrical machines and drives as well as the
state-of-art design optimization methods for electrical machines, drive systems and
high-quality mass production.
Chapter 2 presents an overview of the design fundamentals of electrical
machines and drive systems. Design analysis models in terms of different disci-
plines (domains) are investigated in this chapter, such as the analytical models or
methods for electromagnetic and thermal analyses, magnetic circuit model for
electromagnetic analysis, nite element model (FEM) for all electromagnetic,
thermal and mechanical analyses, and eld-oriented control and direct torque
control algorithms for the control systems.
Chapter 3 reviews the popular optimization algorithms and approximate models
used in the optimization of electrical machines as well as electromagnetic devices.
Optimization algorithms include classical gradient-based algorithms and modern
intelligent algorithms, such as genetic algorithms, differential evolution algorithm
and multi-objective genetic algorithms. Approximate models include response
surface model, radial basis function model and Kriging model.
Chapter 4 presents the design optimization methods for electrical machines in
terms of different optimization situations, including low- and high-dimensional,
single and multi-objectives and disciplines. Five new types of design optimization
Preface vii
methods are presented to improve the optimization efciency of electrical machines,

particularly those PM-SMC motors of complex structures. They are the sequential
optimization method (SOM), multi-objective SOM, multi-level optimization
method, multi-level genetic algorithm and multi-disciplinary optimization method.
Chapter 5 develops the system-level design optimization methods for electrical
drive systems, including single- and multi-level optimization methods. Not only the
steady-state performance parameters but also the dynamic motor performance
parameters, such as output power, efciency and speed overshoot are investigated at
the same time.
Chapter 6 presents a robust approach based on the technique of Design for
Six-Sigma for the robust design optimization of high-performance and high-quality
electrical machines and drive systems for mass production. A multi-level opti-
mization framework is presented.
Chapter 7 develops the application-oriented design optimization methods for
electrical machines under deterministic and robust design approaches, respectively.
Applications including home appliance and hybrid electric vehicles are
investigated.
Chapter 8 concludes the book and proposes the future works for further research
and development.
Four electrical machines and several benchmark test functions/problems are
employed throughout the book to verify the efciency of those proposed design
optimization methods. Those machines are a PM-SMC transverse flux machine, a
PM-SMC claw pole motor, a surface-mounted PM synchronous machine and a
flux-switching PM machine. All the design optimization models including FEM
and thermal network model are validated by experimental results. Therefore, the
proposed methods and obtained optimal solutions are reliable.
This book can be used as a reference for designers and engineers working in the
electrical industry and undergraduate and graduate students majoring in electrical
engineering. Students majoring in automotive engineering and mechanical engi-
neering may also nd this book useful when dealing with vehicle motor and drive
related design, optimization and control development.
The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to Prof. Shuhong Wang, Xian
Jiaotong University, China, for his contribution on the multi-level genetic algorithm
for electrical machines and drive systems and other contributions to this book. The
authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Yi Wang and Mr.
Tianshi Wang on part of control algorithms, Dr. Wei Xu and Mr. Chengcheng Liu
on part of PM flux-switching machines and multi-disciplinary design analysis of
PM-SMC motors.
The authors would also like to thank their families who have given tremendous
support all the time.
Finally, the authors are extremely grateful to Springer and the editorial staff for
the opportunity to publish this book and help in all possible manners.
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 1
1.1 Energy and Environment Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 1
1.2 Introduction of Electrical Machines, Drive Systems,
and Their Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3
1.2.1 General Classication of Electrical Machines. . . . ..... 3
1.2.2 Electrical Machines and Applications . . . . . . . . . ..... 4
1.3 The State-of-Art Design Optimization Methods
for Electrical Machines and Drive Systems . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 8
1.3.1 Design Optimization of Electrical Machines . . . . ..... 8
1.3.2 Design Optimization of Electrical Drive Systems . ..... 11
1.3.3 Design Optimization for High Quality
Mass Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4 Major Objectives of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.5 Organization of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2 Design Fundamentals of Electrical Machines and Drive Systems . . . 25
2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.1 Framework of Multi-disciplinary Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.2 Power Losses and Efciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2 Electromagnetic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2.1 Analytical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2.2 Magnetic Circuit Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2.3 Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3 Thermal Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3.1 Thermal Limits in Electrical Machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.3.2 Thermal Network Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.3.3 Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4 Mechanical Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5 Power Electronics Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
ix
x Contents
2.6 ControlAlgorithms Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2.6.1 Six-Step Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.6.2 Field Oriented Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.6.3 Direct Torque Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.6.4 Model Predictive Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.6.5 Numerical and Experimental Comparisons
of DTC and MPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 58
2.6.6 Improved MPC with Duty Ratio Optimization . . ...... 63
2.6.7 Numerical and Experimental Comparisons
of DTC and MPC with Duty Ratio Optimization ...... 66
2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 69
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 69
3 Optimization Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.2 Optimization Algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.2.1 Classic Optimization Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.2.2 Modern Intelligent Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.3 Multi-objective Optimization Algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.3.1 Introduction to Pareto Optimal Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.3.2 MOGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.3.3 NSGA and NSGA II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.3.4 MPSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.4 Approximate Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.4.2 RSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.4.3 RBF Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.4.4 Kriging Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.4.5 ANN Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.5 Construction and Verication of Approximate Models . . . . . . . . 97
3.5.1 DOE Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.5.2 Model Verication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.5.3 Modeling Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4 Design Optimization Methods for Electrical Machines . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.2 Classical Optimization Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.3 Sequential Optimization Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.3.1 Method Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.3.2 Test Example 1A Mathematical Test Function . . . . . . 114
4.3.3 Test Example 2Superconducting Magnetic
Energy Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.3.4 Improved SOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Contents xi
4.3.5 A PM Claw Pole Motor with SMC Stator . . . . . . . . . . . 121

4.4 Multi-objective Sequential Optimization Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.4.2 Example 1Poloni (POL) Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.4.3 Example 2A PM Transverse Flux Machine . . . . . . . . 129
4.5 Sensitivity Analysis Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.5.1 Local Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.5.2 Analysis of Variance Based on DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.5.3 Example StudyA PM Claw Pole Motor . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.6 Multi-level Optimization Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.6.1 Method Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.6.2 Example StudySMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.7 Multi-level Genetic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.7.1 Problem Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.7.2 Description of MLGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.7.3 Example StudySPMSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.8 Multi-disciplinary Optimization Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4.8.1 Framework of General Multi-disciplinary
Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4.8.2 Electromagnetic Analysis Based on Molded
SMC Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.8.3 Thermal Analysis with Lumped 3D Thermal
Network Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.8.4 Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
4.8.5 Optimization Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5 Design Optimization Methods for Electrical Drive Systems . . . . . . . 161
5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
5.2 System-Level Design Optimization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.3 Single-Level Design Optimization Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
5.4 Multi-level Design Optimization Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.4.1 Method Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.4.2 Design Example for a Drive System of TFM
and MPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
5.5 MLGA for a SPMSM Drive System with FOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
5.5.1 Optimization Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
5.5.2 Optimization Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.5.3 Optimization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
xii Contents
6 Design Optimization for High Quality Mass Production. . . . . . . . . . 183

6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.2 Design for Six-Sigma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.3 Robust Design Optimization of Electrical Machines . . . . . . . . . . 190
6.3.1 Single Objective Situation with a PM TFM . . . . . . . . . . 190
6.3.2 Multi-objective Optimization with a PM TFM . . . . . . . . 194
6.4 Robust Design Optimization of Electrical Drive Systems . . . . . . 198
6.4.1 Single-Level Robust Optimization Method . . . . . . . . . . 198
6.4.2 Multi-level Robust Optimization Method. . . . . . . . . . . . 199
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
7 Application-Oriented Design Optimization Methods
for Electrical Machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
7.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
7.2 Application-Oriented Design Optimization Method. . . . . . . . . . . 216
7.2.2 An Optimal PM-SMC Machine for a Refrigerator . . . . . 218
7.3 Robust Approach for the Application-Oriented Design
Optimization Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.3.2 An Optimal FSPMM for a PHEV Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
7.4 Summary and Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
8 Conclusions and Future Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
8.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
8.2 Future Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Abbreviations
AC Alternating current
ANN Articial neural network
ANOVA Analysis of variance
BLDC Brushless direct current motor
CCD Central composite design
CEMPE Centre for Electrical Machines and Power Electronics
COP Coarse optimization process
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientic and Industrial Research Organization
CSRBF Compactly supported radial basis function
DC Direct current
DEA Differential evolution algorithm
DFSS Design for Six-Sigma
DOE Design of experiments
DPMO Defects per million opportunities
DTC Direct torque control
EAs Evolutionary algorithms
EDA Estimation of distribution algorithms
EMF Electromotive force
FEA Finite element analysis
FEM Finite element model
FOC Field-oriented control
FOP Fine optimization process
FSPMM Flux-switching permanent magnet machine
GA Genetic algorithm
GCD Greatest common divisor
GEVIC Green Energy and Vehicle Innovations Centre
HEVs Hybrid electric vehicles
HTS High-temperature superconductor
LCM Least common multiple
LSA Local sensitivity analysis
LSM Least square method
MCA Monte Carlo analysis
MDO Multi-disciplinary design optimization
xiii
xiv Abbreviations
MLE Maximum-likelihood estimation

MLGA Multi-level genetic algorithm
MLSM Moving least square method
MOGA Multi-objective genetic algorithm
MPC Model predictive control
MPSO Multi-objective particle swarm optimization
MQ Multi-quadrics
MSOM Multi-objective sequential optimization method
NSGA Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm
NSW New South Wales
PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
PM Permanent magnet
PMSM Permanent magnet synchronous machine
POF Probability of failure
PSO Particle swarm optimization
PWM Pulse width modulations
RBF Radial basis functions
RMSE Root mean square error
RSM Response surface model
SMC Soft magnetic composite
SMES Superconducting magnetic energy storage
SOM Sequential optimization method
SPMSM Surface-mounted permanent magnet synchronous machine
SVM Space vector modulation
TFM Transverse flux machine
UTS University of Technology Sydney
Chapter 1
Introduction
Abstract This chapter presents a brief introduction focusing on various aspects of

electrical machines, drive systems, their applications, energy usage, and the
state-of-art design optimization methods. The design optimization of electrical
machines and drive system is a multi-disciplinary, multi-objective, multi-level,
high-dimensional, highly nonlinear and strongly coupled problem, which has long
been a big challenge in both research and industry communities. The contents of
this chapter form a good foundation for the whole book, and pave a smooth path to
major goal of this book to present efcient design optimization methods for
achieving high-performance high-quality electrical machines and drive systems for
challenging applications, such as green energy systems and electric vehicles.
Keywords Electrical drive systems

Multi-disciplinary design optimization

Optimization methods Electrical machines High quality manufacturing Mass

production Efciency
1.1 Energy and Environment Challenges
In an electrical drive system, the role of electric motor is to convert electrical power
into mechanical power. It is found that electric motors account for about 46.2 % of
all global electricity consumption, leading to about 6,040 Megatons (Mt) of CO2
emissions. This is by far the largest portion of electricity use, as shown in Fig. 1.1.
Around the world, over 300 million motors are being used in industry, large
buildings and infrastructure, and about 30 million new electric motors are sold each
year for industrial purposes alone [1, 2].
Figure 1.2 illustrates the estimated electricity demand for all motors by sector. It
can be seen that the motors used in industry consume about 63.1 % of the total
energy consumption. The corresponding energy costs are estimated to be USD 362
billion per year. In the industrial sector, motors are used primarily for four areas of
applications, namely pumps, fans, compressors, and mechanical movement. These
applications and their respective shares are illustrated in Fig. 1.3 [1].
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016 1

G. Lei et al., Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Methods
for Electrical Machines and Drive Systems, Power Systems,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0_1
2 1 Introduction
Fig. 1.1 Global electricity 18.6%

Lighting
demand by sector and end-use 46.2%
Electronics
Electrolysis
Heat
Stand-by
10.3%
Motors
3.2%
18.6%
3.2%
Fig. 1.2 Estimated electricity 13.3%

demand for all electric motors 2.2% Industry
by sector 63.1%
1.4% Commercial
Agricultural
Transport
Residential
19.9%
Fig. 1.3 Estimated demand 21%

38%
by application in industrial Pumps
motor system energy use Fans
Compressors
Mechanical
movement
16%
25%
In terms of the life cycle cost of motors, the electric energy cost accounts for
more than 90 % of all cost in general, which are much larger than the other two
parts, purchase-price and repair or maintenance cost. As an example, Fig. 1.4
depicts the breakdown of the life cycle cost for an 11 kW motor operated 4000 h per
year, where the electric energy cost accounts for 96.7 % of the total cost [2].
1.1 Energy and Environment Challenges 3
Fig. 1.4 Life cycle cost 1% 2.3%

breakdown for an 11 kW
motor operated 4000 h per
Motor price
year Maintenance cost
Electric energy cost
96.7%
Therefore, the energy efciency of motors is a crucial issue for the energy
conservation, environment, and sustainable development of the world, and this is
also the main reason that high efciency motors have attracted so much attention all
over the world. Even 1 % increase in motor efciency would save about 20 billion
kWh per year or USD 1.4 billion in electricity and 3.5 million barrels of oil in the
U.S. alone. These savings would be multiplied by about a factor of four on a
worldwide basis [3, 4].
1.2 Introduction of Electrical Machines, Drive Systems,

and Their Applications
1.2.1 General Classication of Electrical Machines
Electrical machines are electromagnetic devices for transforming electricity of one

voltage or current to another voltage or current by the principle of electromagnetic
induction for safe and convenient use (transformers), or electromechanical energy
conversion (generators and motors).
Transformers can be generally classied as
Power (step-up/down, and isolation) transformers, instrumentation transformers,
and signal transformers by application,
Three phase and single phase transformers by number of phases,
Dry type or oil type transformers by cooling method, and
Power frequency and high frequency transformers by application frequency.
Generators and motors can be classied as
DC and AC machines by types of electricity they generate or are supplied,
Rotating and linear electrical machines by motion style,
4 1 Introduction
Synchronous and asynchronous/induction machines by operational feature or

principle,
Round/cylindrical, salient, wound, and squirrel cage rotors by structure,
Permanent magnet (PM) and high temperature superconductor (HTS) machines
by construction materials,
Brushless DC motor (BLDC) by combination of structural feature and opera-
tional characteristics, etc.
Since around 69 % of total electricity in industry is consumed by electrical
motors worldwide, it is of great signicance to use high efciency motors and drive
techniques. In a lot of applications, variable speed drive is more efcient than xed
speed drive.
1.2.2 Electrical Machines and Applications
In general, there are three main kinds of applications for electrical machines, which
are electricity generation, electricity transformation, and electrical drives. The fol-
lowing are some examples.
A. Electricity generation
In most electricity generation systems, except the photovoltaic systems in which the
solar energy is converted directly into DC currents by static solar cells, various
types of energy resources, such as fossil fuels (coal, diesel, and natural gas, etc.),
water, wind, sun light, and atomic energy, etc., are rstly converted into mechanical
energy by rotating turbines and then electricity by AC rotating electrical generators.
Figure 1.5 shows the working principle of a hydroelectric generation with a
synchronous generator. Hydroelectric plants use the energy from water to power a
process that turns water potential energy into electricity. This process involves the
water flowing from the dam, through a tunnel which leads to a turbine. Once the
water reaches the turbine, the force from the water spins a generator to generate
electricity. The generator terminal is connected to a transformer, which is where the
electricity generated is transformed, e.g. to high voltage, and for long distance
transmission [5].
Wind turbines as another application of AC generators have been employed
worldwide. In general, both synchronous and induction machines are commonly
employed for wind power generation. Moreover, various rotating AC generators are
also commonly used for electricity generation from other energy sources, such as
nuclear and solar thermal power plants, gas red turbines, and diesel/petrol engines,
to meet different needs, such as power supply for grid, air planes, trains, and ships.
B. Electricity transformation
Electricity transformers can be dened as a type of static electrical device which
transfers power from one circuit to another by means of electromagnetic induction.
1.2 Introduction of Electrical Machines, Drive Systems, and Their Applications 5
Fig. 1.5 Hydroelectric generation (synchronous generator)
Power transformers are used in distribution systems wherever there is a need to

interface between different voltage levels, i.e. to step up and step down voltages. In
order to improve the performance of transformers in renewable generation systems,
some high-frequency transformers with cores of advanced magnetic materials, such
as nanocrystalline and amorphous materials have been investigated recently. This
offers a new route of step-up-transformer-less compact and lightweight direct grid
integration of renewable generation systems [69].
C. Electrical drives
Electrical drives are a major application of electrical machines, which have been
widely used in all aspects of our life. The following are some examples mainly
investigated by the Green Energy and Vehicle Innovations Centre (GEVIC, for-
merly known as Centre for Electrical Machines and Power Electronics, or CEMPE)
at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).
Figure 1.6 shows a high efciency (>90 %) 4 pole NdFeB PM brushless DC
motor developed jointly by UTS CEMPE and the Commonwealth Scientic and
Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) for a submersible deep well (>120 m)
mono-pump drive. The motor is lled with water and operated at 3000 rev/min. The
product series has three power ratings of 300, 600, and 1200 W, respectively.
6 1 Introduction
(a)
(b) (c)
Fig. 1.6 A solar powered deep well submersible pump drive
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.7 a Aurora solar car and b its in-wheel permanent magnet motor
1.2 Introduction of Electrical Machines, Drive Systems, and Their Applications 7
Fig. 1.8 UTS HEV test

facility
Figure 1.7 shows a picture of the Aurora solar car and a photo of the in-wheel
permanent magnet motor developed by UTS CEMPE and CSIRO. The ratings of
the motor are 5.5 kW, 50 Nm peak for 72 s, with the maximum efciency of
98.5 %.
In-wheel motors and other PM motors are widely used as drive machines in
(plug-in) hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). In a plug-in hybrid car, the battery bank
is charged by the grid power supply when the car is not in use, and the electrical
motor plays the major role of drive. A small internal combustion engine is
employed to provide extra torque when the car accelerates, or to charge the battery
when the state of charge is low. Since the motor controlled by a power electronic
inverter can operate in all four quadrants of the torque-speed plane, the car is able to
retrieve the kinetic energy by regenerative braking when it is decelerating.
Therefore, hybrid electrical cars have much higher energy efciency than the tra-
ditional internal combustion engine drive cars.
Currently, GEVIC researchers are designing several PM machines including
flux-switching machine for plug-in HEVs. The designed and fabricated machines
will be tested in the powertrain testing facility at UTS Automotive Laboratory, as
depicted in Fig. 1.8. This facility can simulate urban and highway drive cycles and
measure the torque and speed along with the powertrain performance in various
operation modes, including regenerative braking [10].
Figure 1.9 shows the photos of the SolarSailor boat powered by 2 40 kW, 400
Nm, 3 phase, 16 pole, 950 rev/min, 100 V, 250 A direct drive high efciency PM
brushless DC motors and the power electronic controller developed by
UTS CEMPE in 2000.
For propulsion and power supply of large ships, multi-MW electrical machines
are used. In such cases, the efciency, volume and weight of the electrical machines
become a serious concern. With the technological breakthrough, large capacity
HTS generators and motors are being built around the world for application in large
cargo ships and gun boats.
8 1 Introduction
(a)
(b) (c)
Fig. 1.9 a The SolarSailor boat, b power electronic converter, and c PM drive motor
1.3 The State-of-Art Design Optimization Methods

for Electrical Machines and Drive Systems
1.3.1 Design Optimization of Electrical Machines
The design optimization of electrical machines is a multi-disciplinary,

multi-objective, high-dimensional, highly nonlinear and strongly coupled problem,
1.3 The State-of-Art Design Optimization Methods 9
which is a challenge to both research and industry communities. This work consists
of two parts: design analysis and performance optimization.
A. Design analysis
For design analysis, electromagnetic, thermal, mechanical design analyses and
manufacturing design are the main concerns. The electromagnetic design is con-
ducted by using mainly the analytical model, magnetic circuit model, and nite
element model (FEM) to calculate the electromagnetic parameters of the machines
being designed, such as flux linkage, back electromotive force (EMF), inductance
and core losses. These parameters are then used to evaluate the machine perfor-
mance indicators, such as output power and efciency. The thermal design is
conducted by using mainly the FEM and thermal network model to compute the
temperature-rises in the machine. The mechanical design is often done by stress
and/or modal analyses using the FEM to calculate the maximum stress, deforma-
tion, and resonant frequency of the machine structure under various operating
conditions. In general, the thermal and mechanical analyses are usually conducted
to check the insulation, magnetic strength (e.g. the Curie temperature of PMs), and
mechanical material and structural strengths to ensure the machines safety. In
electrical machine design optimization, they are often used as design constraints.
B. Performance optimization
Performance optimization includes two aspects as well, namely optimization
models and optimization methods. There are several popular optimization models.
For example, from the perspective of objective numbers, optimization models can
be classied as single-objective or multi-objective models. Generally, the cogging
torque, torque ripples, material and manufacturing as well as sometimes operating
costs, weight, and energy consumption are the main concerns in the design and
optimization process. From the industrial perspective, the optimization models can
consist of three main types: the deterministic, reliability and robust models.
Regarding the optimization methods, despite many kinds of optimization methods
have been developed, their effective application for design optimization of electrical
machines and systems has always been a research focus in electrical engineering.
Since 1987, it has been selected as one of the most important development directions
in computational electromagnetics by the premier International Conferences on
Magnetics, such as Intermag (International Magnetics Conferences), CEFC
(Conference on Electromagnetic Field Computation) and Compumag (Conference on
the Computation of Electromagnetic Fields). In CEFC 2000, a special academic
lecture about these problems was organized [11]. Electrical machines and drives are
also an important section in several international conferences on electrical machines
and energy systems, such as ICEMS (International Conference on Electrical
Machines and Systems), ECCE (IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition)
and IECON (Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society). Recently, the
research interest in electromagnetic optimization design problems, particularly for
electrical machines, has increased signicantly. A special section on optimal design of
electrical machines was presented in the IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion in
Sep. 2015 [12]. The main driving forces behind this interest are the rapid development
10 1 Introduction
of computational techniques and the rapid increase of industrial applications of

electromagnetic devices.
Many electromagnetic optimization problems are solved by means of FEM with
intelligent optimization algorithms. In the past two decades, a number of innovative
intelligent algorithms, such as the genetic algorithm (GA), Tabu search, clonal
selection algorithm, immune algorithm, particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm
and differential evolution algorithm (DEA) have been developed [1315].
The FEM can be accurate and applicable to nonlinear problems as well as
general complex geometrical structures. However, it may not be appropriate to
many design problems of electromagnetic systems because it is relatively complex
and computationally intensive. As an alternative, some approximate models (also
known as surrogate models) are employed in the practical engineering design
problems to ease the computational burden of optimization process, such as
response surface model (RSM), radial basis functions (RBF) model, Kriging model
and articial neural network model [13, 1622].
C. Multi-objective optimization
From the perspective of practical engineering applications, the design optimization
of electrical machines is actually a multi-objective problem as there are many
objectives can be dened and one or some of them can be selected for different
applications. For example, for home appliances, such as washing machines and
refrigerators, the motor price and output power may be the two most important
issues, while for hybrid electric vehicles, the volume, power density and torque
ripples are very important. Therefore, multi-objective optimization design problems
of electrical machines as well as other electromagnetic devices have become a topic
of great interest recently. A few bench-mark problems have been proposed, such as
TEAM benchmark problem 22 (superconducting magnetic energy storage: SMES)
and Problem 25 (die-press model) [2325].
In order to deal with these problems, many multi-objective optimization algorithms
developed in the eld of evolutionary computation have been employed, such as
multi-objective genetic algorithm, non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA)
and NSGA II, and multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MPSO) algorithm.
Meanwhile, some research works have been presented to improve these optimization
algorithms, such as the improved NSGA, and improved MPSO [2631]. A state of art
multi-objective optimization methods in electromagnetism was presented recently in a
monograph [32]. Approximate models have been employed to replace the FEM in
multi-objective optimization problems to improve the optimization efciency.
D. Challenges
For the above optimization methods, the direct optimization method based on FEM
and intelligent algorithms are usually time-consuming and computationally
expensive as a lot of FEM samples are needed in the optimization, especially for
those machines with complex structures requiring 3D FEM and high-dimensional
design parameters, such as the transverse flux machine (TFM) and claw pole motor.
Moreover, premature is still a problem for all these algorithms though a lot of
improvements have been made.
For example, the optimization process of a motor with 10 parameters (dimension

D = 10) by using the GA and FEM with the population size of 50 (5 D) and
iteration number of 200 requires about 10,000 (50 200) samples, which can be a
huge computational burden for many motors, especially those requiring 3D FEM.
On the other hand, it is impossible to replace the FEM with approximate models,
such as RSM and Kriging model, because they cannot approximate high dimensional
problems with sufcient accuracy by using reasonably small number of samples. For
example, the rst step in the construction of approximation models is to use the
design of experiments (DOE) technique to obtain the initial samples. If 5 samples are
required for each parameter, in total, 510 FEM samples are required, which are more
than those required by direct optimization method of GA&FEM [33].
Therefore, the traditional optimization methods based on FEM and the
approximation models cannot solve the high dimensional design optimization
problems. To solve this type of problems effectively, multi-level optimization
methods developed in our previous work will be presented in this book [3437].
The multi-disciplinary design optimization of electrical machines is still a challenge
problem because of the huge computational cost of the coupled eld analysis.
A multi-disciplinary design optimization method will be presented for a PM TFM
with soft magnetic composite (SMC) core in this book [38].
1.3.2 Design Optimization of Electrical Drive Systems
Electrical machines and the corresponding drive systems have a history of over a
century and the design procedure has become almost standard. When designing an
appliance that needs an electrical drive system, the designer rstly selects the motor,
inverter/converter and controller from the existing products. The appliance
designer, on one hand, has to deliver the functions that the appliance is supposed to
have, and on the other hand, has to take into account the availability and perfor-
mance that the existing motor drive can provide. This motor manufacturer-oriented
approach has been the dominant design concept for drive systems for a long time.
However, this approach would apply many constraints to the design and therefore
limit the functions of the appliance [39].
With the fast development of numerical eld analysis, CAD software, and
flexible mechanical manufacturing technology, it is possible to design and manu-
facture a motor to meet the special requirements of a particular application such that
the designer can concentrate on pursuing the best appliance functions. Since early
1990s, this application-oriented approach has been gradually becoming a common
practice [4048]. In many cases, the motor and control electronics are closely
integrated into the appliances.
For example, the solar powered deep well submersible pump drive as shown in
Fig. 1.6 that UTS CEMPE developed in 1991 has an integrated structure. The high
efciency motor and its electronic controller are packed into the pump and installed
down the deep well. The concept of integrated design can be better illustrated by the
12 1 Introduction
in-wheel motor for the Aurora Solar Car drive (Fig. 1.7) developed jointly by
UTS CEMPE and CSIRO in 1997. In this drive, to meet the special requirement of
extremely low weight and high efciency, a core-less in wheel motor topology was
employed.
No doubt, the application-oriented integrated design concept is very advanced,
but the design methodology used in these examples and also by all other motor
designers is still very traditional. As illustrated in Fig. 1.10, the traditional design is
conducted on the component level, i.e. the motor and the electronic controller are
separately designed by the standard procedure. The major part of the motor design
is the electromagnetic design whereas the thermal and sometimes mechanical
analyses are carried out as verication only but not coupled to the electromagnetic
analysis. In the case of design optimization, inaccurate circuit, eld, and material
models, and even empirical formulae are commonly used in order to reduce the
computing time. This approach has two problems: (a) the real optimum design is
not possible because of the inaccurate models used, and (b) the system performance
cannot be optimized because the design is on the component level.
Meanwhile, the system performance optimization is becoming essential, espe-
cially when new materials, for example, the SMC, and new topologies are
employed. SMC is a relatively new soft magnetic material developed for extremely
low cost motor manufacturing using the highly matured powder metallurgical
technology [4953]. However, the magnetic properties of the SMC material are
much poorer than those of the traditionally used silicon sheet steels. In order to
develop low cost high performance SMC motor drive systems, we must explore
new motor topologies of 3D magnetic flux and new drive schemes, and optimize
the design at the system level.
The electric vehicles and HEVs are attracting great attentions and funding from
the governments and general public around the world because of the worldwide
fossil fuel energy crisis and severe greenhouse gas emissions of the conventional
vehicles powered by the internal combustion engines. To improve the efciency
and drive performance with reduced volume, weight, and cost of novel drive sys-
tems to meet the challenging requirements of hybrid electric vehicles, a great
amount of recent efforts are being directed towards the development and optimum
design of high performance drive systems for (plug-in) HEVs [54, 55].
Through the extensive research practice, it is recognized that when designing
such an electrical drive system, it is important to pursue the optimal system per-
formance rather than the optimal components like motors, because assembling
individually optimized components into a system would not necessarily guarantee
an optimal system performance. The optimal system performance can only be
achieved through a holistic approach of integrated simultaneous optimization of all
components at the system level [39].
Figure 1.11 shows a brief design framework and the coupled relations of an
electrical drive system. As shown, design optimization of such a system is a
multi-disciplinary, multi-level, multi-objective, and high dimensional problem. It
mainly includes electromagnetic, material, mechanical, thermal, and power elec-
tronic designs, which are strongly coupled [38, 39, 56, 57].
Fig. 1.10 Flowchart of traditional motor design procedure

14 1 Introduction
Fig. 1.11 Multi-disciplinary and multi-level design framework of electrical drive systems
Although the importance of system-level design optimization of electrical drive

systems is well known, not much work has been reported in the literature [38, 39].
The traditional design and optimization methods are mostly on the component level
of different kinds of motors [13, 16, 17, 34, 3638].
On the other hand, regarding the controller design, though various control
algorithms have been developed, such as the eld oriented control (FOC), direct
torque control (DTC), and model predictive control (MPC) [5864], the design
optimization remains on the component (controller) level, and is not combined with
the motor design optimization [65].
This component-level-based method may be reasonable for some conventional
motors and drive systems since there are a great amount of design experience and
experimental test results. When designing a novel drive system, however, the
designer does not have much design experience, and a holistic system-level
approach becomes essential [39].
In this book, several types of system-level design optimization methods devel-
oped in our previous work will be presented and discussed for electrical drive
systems.
1.3.3 Design Optimization for High Quality Mass

Production
The design optimization method mentioned above are all deterministic design
optimization approaches which do not take into account the unavoidable variations
(noise factors) in the engineering manufacturing, including mainly the material
diversity, manufacturing error and assembly inaccuracy, and system parameter
variations in practical operation environment [6668]. The motor and drive system
performance depends highly on the manufacturing quality, which is in turn deter-

mined by the machinery technology or the manufacturing method and conditions.
The variations or noise factors in the manufacturing process will result in big
variation in motor and drive system performance. Limited by the manufacturing
technology, an aggressively optimized deterministic design may be very difcult to
make, and result in high rejection rates in mass production. Some details for the
variations in manufacturing and assembly processes are discussed as follows.
A. Manufacturing process and tolerances
The manufacturing process and tolerances mainly include the material character-
istics and dimensions of all parts of a drive system, such as the rotor, stator,
winding, PMs and insulating material.
The manufacturing quality of PMs, for example, is crucial to the performance of
PM motors. There are at least two kinds of variations in the manufacturing of PMs
[66]. The rst one is the dimension, such as the height and width, and the second
one is the magnetization error of magnitude and direction. In [66], a practical
example about the measurement data of PM width for a batch of 2,000 PMs was
presented. These PMs were from three manufacturing groups with the same lower
limit (14.60 mm) and upper limit (14.70 mm). The measurement revealed that the
average of one group (1,000 PMs) is obviously smaller than the lower limit, and
there is about 0.05 mm deviation from the average.
Figure 1.12 shows the manufacturing process of a stator core (one stack)
designed for a claw pole motor made of the SMC material. Compared with the
traditional silicon steel sheets, the motor cores made of SMC material are isotropic
Fig. 1.12 Low cost mold, press, and molded core before and after curing
16 1 Introduction
both mechanically and magnetically, so that they are natural choices for the design
of motors requiring 3D magnetic flux paths. Unlike the laminated cores made of the
traditional silicon steel sheets, SMC cores can be manufactured by compacting
SMC powders in a mold, and thus suitable for constructing motors of complex
structures.
Figure 1.12 also shows a photo of the mold, press in the lab, and molded core of
a three phase PM claw pole motor before (white) and after (black) thermal curing.
On the other hand, because of specic nature of iron powders, the pressing must be
done in multiple steps in order to obtain uniform powder distribution.
The manufacturing cost of SMC cores is directly related to the size of press used
for the molding, while the productivity is inversely proportional to the press size.
For a given SMC core, it is desirable to choose a smaller press in order to keep the
manufacturing cost low. In the case where the volume of the motor is not a big
problem, in order to reduce further the manufacturing cost, it is possible to use a
low density SMC core. For example, for a 100 ton press, it can produce 500 pieces
per hour with a cost of $ 100, resulting in the manufacturing cost of $ 0.2 per piece.
For a 500 ton press, on the other hand, it can produce only 100 pieces per hour with
a cost of $ 500, and thus the manufacturing cost is $ 5 per piece [34, 6971].
Therefore, the manufacturing process is a major parameter in design optimization of
SMC motors.
B. Assembly process variations
The assembly process variations mainly include the lamination of silicon steel
sheets and misplacements of stator, rotor and PMs. Severe misplacements can result
in big variations of the motor quality and cause large vibration and excessive
resistive torque and mechanical power loss. Table 1.1 lists several manufacturing
tolerances (such as magnet strength and skew error) and assembly variations (such
as magnet disposition and rotor/stator eccentricity) obtained from industrial motor
manufacturing experiences [66].
In the assembling process, due to the structural asymmetry (such as keyway and
tag hole), non-uniform material quality (such as the thickness or sand hole) and
manufacturing error (such as drill hole and others), and big mechanical disequi-
librium in the rotating parts (such as rotors and fans) may appear, and the rotating
parts will displace from their gravity centre, resulting in unbalanced centrifugal
force and causing the motor to vibrate. Vibration has large negative effects to the
motor, such as extra energy consumption, efciency reduction, direct damage to the
Table 1.1 Variations for some factors of a PM motor [66]

Factor Description Ideal Variation
1 Magnet strength Nominal Nominal 5 %
2 Skew error Nominal Nominal 0.6666
3 Magnetization offset 0 1.0
4 Magnet disposition 0 1.0
5 Rotor to stator eccentricity 0 mm 0.35 mm
shaft, acceleration of abrasion, which shortens signicantly the lifetime of the motor
and drive system.
The assembly of stator cores can also be a big challenge for SMC motors. For
manufacturing convenience, the stator core of an SMC motor is often molded in
separate pieces. Any extra air gap between two pieces of the stator core caused by
poor assembly process will result in large reduction of air gap flux density and in
turn the motor efciency. Good assembly structures should be investigated in the
design stage of SMC motors.
Figure 1.13 illustrates a multi-disciplinary design framework of electrical motors
and drive systems that we propose to take into account the manufacturing quality in
mass production in the design stage. The rst step is to dene the acceptable
maximal defect-ratio and system performance. Under these specications, the
motor types, topologies, materials, inverters, and controllers will be designed and
optimized under the multi-disciplinary design and machinery technology design.
Due to these manufacturing tolerances, the design optimization of electrical
drive systems for mass production is really a challenge in both research and
industrial communities as it includes not only the theoretical multi-disciplinary
design and analysis but also the practical engineering manufacturing of electrical
machines and drive systems. Meanwhile, many new control algorithms, e.g. MPC,
have been proposed for motor control, and in the design optimization stage, various
many algorithm parameters should be optimized for the best drive system dynamic
performance. From the industrial application perspective, it is a natural requirement
that the obtained optimal control algorithm parameters are robust against the
variations of motor parameters. This is a crucial issue for the batch production of
novel drive systems [6971].
To nd effective ways to deal with this problem, several robust design opti-
mization methods have been investigated, such as Taguchi method [7277] and
Six-Sigma robust optimization method [6971, 78]. These two methods have been
found useful to optimize motor performances (including torque ripples, cost, and
output power) and quality against the manufacturing tolerances.
Fig. 1.13 Proposed design framework of drive systems for mass production
18 1 Introduction
In our previous work, several kinds of manufacturing tolerances and assembly

variations have been investigated for reducing the cogging torque and harmonics
for PM motors, and several dimensional variations have been investigated for
optimization of the material cost, output power, and overshoot for an SMC motor
and drive system based on a technique known as Design for Six-Sigma (DFSS)
[6971, 78, 79]. DFSS is a robust design technique based on the Six-Sigma
methodology. The term Six Sigma is originated from the terminology associated
with high quality manufacturing, based on statistical modeling of manufacturing
processes. The maturity of a manufacturing process can be described by a sigma
rating indicating its yield or the percentage of defect-free products it creates. For the
short term quality control, Six-Sigma quality is equivalent to a probability of
99.9999998 %. However, there is about 1.5 shift from the mean in the long term
quality control, so that one six sigma process is actually one in which 99.99966 %
of all opportunities to produce some feature of a part are statistically expected to be
free of defects (3.4 defects per million opportunities: DPMO) [78, 79]. By taking
the DFSS, it can be seen that the motor or system reliabilities can be greatly
improved by the proposed methods.
1.4 Major Objectives of the Book
This book presents efcient multi-disciplinary design approaches and

application-oriented system-level optimization methods for advanced high quality
electrical drive systems. The multi-disciplinary analysis includes materials, elec-
tromagnetics, thermotics, mechanics, power electronics, applied mathematics,
machinery technology, and quality control and management. This book will benet
the researchers and engineers in the eld of design and manufacturing of electric
motors and drive systems. The outcomes will enable effective development and
high quality mass production of novel high performance drive systems for chal-
lenging applications, such as green energy systems and electric vehicles. The main
objectives are as follows.
(1) To present a systematic overview of the application-oriented system-level
design optimization methods for high quality mass production of advanced
electrical drive systems. This is a promising as well as challenging research
and application topic in the eld of electrical engineering.
(2) To review the popular design optimization methods for electrical machines
and drive systems, including design analysis models and methods, such as
FEM and magnetic circuit model, and optimization models and algorithms,
such as GA and RSM.
(3) To develop novel efcient design optimization methods for electrical machi-
nes, including sequential optimization methods for single- and multi-objective
problems, multi-level optimization methods for high-dimensional problems
and multi-disciplinary design optimization methods for PM machines.
1.4 Major Objectives of the Book 19
(4) To present system-level design optimization methods for electrical drive

systems, which will optimize both the steady-state and dynamic performances
of the drive systems, including average output power and material cost of the
motor, and overshoot and settling time of the controller.
(5) To develop system-level robust design optimization methods for improving
the manufacturing quality of electrical machines and drive systems in mass
production.
(6) To present application-oriented design optimization methods for electrical
machines and drive systems, including two different applications, where one is
a home application, and the other is a HEV application.
1.5 Organization of the Book
Chapter 2 presents an overview of the design fundamentals for electrical machines

and drive systems. Design analysis models in terms of different disciplines are
investigated, such as the analytical models or methods for electromagnetic and
thermal analyses, magnetic circuit model for electromagnetic analysis, FEM for
coupled or uncoupled electromagnetic, thermal and mechanical analyses, and FOC
and DTC algorithms for the control systems. All these design analysis models can
be employed for the performance evaluation of electrical machines and drive
systems.
Chapter 3 reviews popular optimization algorithms and approximate models
used in optimization of electrical machines as well as electromagnetic devices. The
optimization algorithms include the classical gradient-based algorithms and modern
intelligent algorithms, such as GA, DEA, and MOGA. Approximate models
mainly include RSM, RBF and Kriging models [46].
Chapter 4 presents the design optimization methods for electrical machines in
terms of different optimization situations, including low- and high-dimension, and
single and multi-objectives and disciplines. Five new types of design optimization
methods are presented to improve the optimization efciency of electrical machines,
particularly those complex structure PM machines, in terms of different optimiza-
tion situations.
Chapter 5 aims to present the system-level design optimization methods for
electrical drive systems, including single- and multi-level optimization methods. Not
only the steady-state but also the dynamic motor performance indicators, such as
output power, efciency, and speed overshoot, are investigated at the same time [1].
It should be noted that the design optimization methods in Chaps. 4 and 5 are
under the framework of deterministic approach, which means that all material and
structural parameters in the manufacturing process do not have any variations from
their nominal values. However, as aforementioned, there are many unavoidable
uncertainties or variations in the industrial manufacturing process of electrical
machines and drive systems. These variations will affect the reliability and quality
20 1 Introduction
of electrical machines and drive systems in mass production, which cannot be

investigated by the deterministic approach. Chapter 6 presents a robust design
optimization approach based on the technique of DFSS for high quality mass
production of high-performance electrical machines and drive systems.
On the other hand, from the perspective of engineering applications, these design
optimization methods of electrical machines and drive systems are proposed with
several general requirements and constraints, such as the rated torque and given
volume and mass, for general applications. Chapter 7 aims to develop
application-oriented design optimization methods for electrical machines under
deterministic and robust design approaches, respectively. Two kinds of applications
are investigated. The rst one is about the design optimization of PM-SMC motor
for refrigerator and air-conditioner compressors, which can be regarded as home
appliance applications. The second one is about the design optimization of
flux-switching PM machines for plug-in HEVs drives.
Chapter 8 concludes the whole book and proposes future research and
development.
References
1. Waide P, Brunner CU (2011) Energy-efciency policy opportunities for electric motor-driven

systems. International energy agency working paper, energy efciency series, Paris
2. Industrial efciency technology database. The Institute for Industrial Productivity (2015).
http://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/motor-systems. Accessed on 20 June 2015
3. Dorrell DG (2014) A review of the methods for improving the efciency of drive motors to
meet IE4 efciency standards. J Power Electron 14(5):842851
4. Saidur R (2010) A review on electrical motors energy use and energy savings. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 14:877898
5. Kumar A, Schei T et al (2011) Hydropower. In: IPCC special report on renewable energy
sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
6. Islam MR, Lei G, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2014) Optimal design of high frequency magnetic links
for power converters used in grid connected renewable energy systems. IEEE Trans Magn 50
(11), Article 2006204
7. Islam MR, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2014) Power converters for medium voltage networks. Springer,
Germany
8. Islam MR, Guo YG, Lin ZW, Zhu JG (2014) An amorphous alloy core medium frequency
magnetic-link for medium voltage photovoltaic inverters. J Appl Phys 115(17), Article
17E710
9. Islam MR, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2013) A medium frequency transformer with multiple secondary
windings for medium voltage converter based wind turbine power generating systems. J Appl
Phys 113(17), Article 17A324
10. Xu W, Lei G, Zhang YC, Wang TS, Zhu JG (2012) Development of electrical drive system for
the UTS PHEV. In: Proceedings of IEEE energy conversion congress and exposition (ECCE).
Raleigh, No. EC-1300. 1520 Sept 2012
11. Mohammed OA, Lowther DA, Lean MH, Alhalabi B (2001) On the creation of a generalized
design optimization environment for electromagnetic devices. IEEE Trans Magn 37(5):3562
3565
References 21
12. Fahimi B, Mohammed O (2015) Optimal design of electrical machines. IEEE Trans Energy
Convers 30(3):1143
13. Hasanien HM, Abd-Rabou AS, Sakr SM (2010) Design optimization of transverse flux linear
motor for weight reduction and performance improvement using RSM and GA. IEEE Trans
Energy Conver 25(3):598605
14. Hasanien HM (2011) Particle swarm design optimization of transverse flux linear motor for
weight reduction and improvement of thrust force. IEEE Trans Ind. Electron 58(9):40484056
15. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution- a simple and efcient heuristic for global
optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11:341359
16. Lei G, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Shao KR, Xu W (2014) Multiobjective sequential design
optimization of PM-SMC motors for six sigma quality manufacturing. IEEE Trans Magn 50
(2), Article 7017704
17. Yao D, Ionel DM (2013) A review of recent developments in electrical machine design
optimization methods with a permanent magnet synchronous motor benchmark study. IEEE
Trans Ind Appl 49(3):12681275
18. Ishikawa T, Tsukui Y, Matsunami M (1999) A combined method for the global optimization
using radial basis function and deterministic approach. IEEE Trans Magn 35(3):17301733
19. Lei G, Yang GY, Shao KR, Guo YG, Zhu JG, Lavers JD (2010) Electromagnetic device
design based on RBF models and two new sequential optimization strategies. IEEE Trans
Magn 46(8):31813184
20. Wang LD, Lowther DA (2006) Selection of approximation models for electromagnetic device
optimization. IEEE Trans Magn 42(2):12271230
21. Lebensztajn L, Marretto CAR, Costa MC, Coulomb J-L (2004) Kriging: a useful tool for
electromagnetic device optimization. IEEE Trans Magn 40(2):11961199
22. Mendes MHS, Soares GL, Coulomb J-L, Vasconcelos JA (2013) Appraisal of surrogate
modeling techniques: a case study of electromagnetic device. IEEE Trans Magn 49(5):1993
1996
23. Alotto P, Baumgartner U, Freschi F, Kstinger A, Magele Ch, Renhart W, Repetto M (2008)
SMES optimization benchmark extended: introducing Pareto optimal solutions into TEAM22.
IEEE Trans Magn 44(6):10661069
24. Guimaraes FG, Campelo F, Saldanha RR, Igarashi H, Takahashi RHC, Ramirez JA (2006) A
multiobjective proposal for the TEAM benchmark problem 22. IEEE Trans Magn 42(4):1471
1474
25. Lebensztajn L, Coulomb JL (2004) TEAM workshop problem 25: A multiobjective analysis.
26. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic
algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182197
27. Reyes-Sierra M, Coello CAC (2006) Multi-objective particle swarm optimizers: A survey of
the state-of-the-art. Int J Comput Intell Res 2(3):287308
28. Dias AHF, Vasconcelos JA (2002) Multiobjective genetic algorithms applied to solve
optimization problems. IEEE Trans Magn 38(2):11331136
29. dos Santos Coelho L, Alotto P (2008) Multiobjective electromagnetic optimization based on a
nondominated sorting genetic approach with a chaotic crossover operator. IEEE Trans Magn
44(6):10781081
30. Ho SL, Yang SY, Ni GZ, Lo EWC, Wong HC (2005) A particle swarm optimization-based
method for multiobjective design optimizations. IEEE Trans Magn 41(5):17561759
31. Xie DX, Sun XW, Bai BD, Yang SY (2008) Multiobjective optimization based on response
surface model and its application to engineering shape design. IEEE Trans Magn 44(6):1006
1009
32. Di Barba P (2010) Multiobjective shape design in electricity and magnetism. Lecture notes in
electrical engineering, vol. 47
33. Lei G, Shao KR, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2012) Multi-objective sequential optimization method for
the design of industrial electromagnetic devices. IEEE Trans Magn 48(11):45384541
22 1 Introduction
34. Lei G, Guo YG, Zhu JG et al (2015) Techniques for multilevel design optimization of
permanent magnet motors. IEEE Trans Energy Conver 30(4):15741584
35. Lei G, Guo YG, Zhu JG, Chen XM, Xu W (2012) Sequential subspace optimization method
for electromagnetic devices design with orthogonal design technique. IEEE Trans Magn 48
(2):479482
36. Lei G, Xu W, Hu JF, Zhu JG, Guo YG. Shao KR (2014) Multilevel design optimization of a
FSPMM drive system by using sequential subspace optimization method. IEEE Trans Magn
50(2), Article 7016904
37. Wang SH, Meng XJ, Guo NN, Li HB, Qiu J, Zhu JG et al (2009) Multilevel optimization for
surface mounted PM machine incorporating with FEM. IEEE Trans Magn 45(10):47004703
38. Lei G, Liu CC, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2015) Multidisciplinary design analysis for PM motors with
soft magnetic composite cores. IEEE Trans Magn 51(11), Article 8109704
39. Lei G, Wang TS, Guo YG, Zhu JG, Wang SH (2014) System level design optimization
methods for electrical drive systems: deterministic approach. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 61
(12):65916602
40. Ramsden VS, Dunlop JB, Holliday WM (1992) Design of a hand-held motor using a rare earth
permanent magnet rotor and glassy metal stator. In: Proceedings of international conference on
electrical machines, pp 376380
41. Ramsden VS, Watterson PA, Dunlop JB (1992) Optimization of REPM motors for specic
applications (invited). In: Proceedings of the international workshop on rare earth materials
and applications, Canberra, pp 296307
42. Ramsden VS et al (1992) Optimization of a submersible brushless rare-earth
permanent-magnet motor for solar power. In: Proceedings of internationl workshop on
electric and magnetic elds, Liege, pp 461464
43. Lovatt HC, Ramsden VS, Mecrow BC (1997) Design of an in-wheel motor for a
solar-powered electric vehicle. In: Proceedings of international conference on electrical
machines and drives, pp 234238
44. Ramsden VS, Zhu JG et al (2001) High performance electric machines for renewable energy
generation and efcient drives. J Renew Energy 22(13):159167
45. Widdowson GP, Howe D, Evison PR (1991) Computer-aided optimization of rare-earth
permanent magnet actuators. In: Proceedings of international conference on computation in
electromagnetics, 2527 Nov 1991, pp 9396
46. Chhaya SM, Bose BK (1993) Expert system based automated simulation and design
optimization of a voltage-fed inverter for induction motor drive. Int Conf IECI 2:10651070,
1519 Nov 1993
47. Guo YG, Zhu JG, Liu DK, Wang SH (2007) Application of multi-level mult-domain
modelling in the design and analysis of a PM transverse flux motor with SMC core. In:
Proceedings of the 7th international conference on power electronics and drive systems
(PEDS07), Bangkok, Thailand, pp 2731
48. Lei G, Liu CC, Zhu JG, Guo YG (in press) Robust multidisciplinary design optimization of
PM machines with soft magnetic composite cores for batch production. IEEE Trans Magn (in
press)
49. Guo YG, Zhu JG, Dorrell D (2009) Design and analysis of a claw pole PM motor with molded
SMC core. IEEE Trans Magn 45(10):5824585
50. Zhu JG, Guo YG, Lin ZW, Li YJ, Huang YK (2011) Development of PM transverse flux
motors with soft magnetic composite cores. IEEE Trans Magn 47(10):43764383
51. Guo YG, Zhu JG, Watterson PA, Wei Wu (2006) Development of a PM transverse flux motor
with soft magnetic composite core. IEEE Trans Energy Conver 21(2):426434
52. Huang YK, Zhu JG et al (2009) Thermal analysis of high-speed SMC motor based on thermal
network and 3D FEA with rotational core loss included. IEEE Trans Magn 45(106):4680
4683
53. Liu CC, Zhu JG, Wang YH, Guo YG, Lei G, Liu XJ (2015) Development of a low-cost double
rotor axial flux motor with soft magnetic composite and ferrite permanent magnet materials.
J. Appl Phys 117(17), Article# 17B507
References 23
54. Zhu ZQ, Howe D (2007) Electrical machines and drives for electric, hybrid, and fuel cell
vehicles. Proc IEEE 95(4):746765
55. Emadi A, Lee YJ, Rajashekara K (2008) Power electronics and motor drives in electric, hybrid
electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 55(6):22372245
56. Kreuawan S, Gillon F, Brochet P (2008) Optimal design of permanent magnet motor using
multidisciplinary design optimization. In: Proceeings of 18th international conference on
electrical machines, Vilamoura, 69 Sept 2008, pp 16
57. Vese I, Marignetti F, Radulescu MM (2010) Multiphysics approach to numerical modeling of
a permanent-magnet tubular linear motor. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 57(1):320326
58. Buja GS, Kazmierkowski MP (2004) Direct torque control of PWM inverter-fed AC motors
a survey. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 51(4):744757
59. Kouro S, Cortes P, Vargas R, Ammann U, Rodriguez J (2009) Model predictive controla
simple and powerful method to control power converters. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 56
(6):18261838
60. Bolognani S, Bolognani S, Peretti L, Zigliotto M (2009) Design and implementation of model
predictive control for electrical motor drives. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 56(6):19251936
61. Xia CL, Wang YF, Shi TN (2013) Implementation of nite-state model predictive control for
commutation torque ripple minimization of permanent-magnet brushless DC motor. IEEE
Trans Ind Electron 60(3):896905
62. Morel F, Lin-Shi XF, Retif J-M, Allard B, Buttay C (2009) A comparative study of predictive
current control schemes for a permanent-magnet synchronous machine drive. IEEE Trans Ind
Electron 56(7):27152728
63. Zhang YC, Zhu JG, Xu W, Guo YG (2011) A simple method to reduce torque ripple in direct
torque-controlled permanent-magnet synchronous motor by using vectors with variable
amplitude and angle. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 58(7):28482859
64. Wang TS, Zhu JG, Zhang YC (2011) Model predictive torque control for PMSM with duty
ratio optimization. In: Proceedings of ICEMS, 2023 Aug 2011, pp 1-5
65. Liu C-H, Hsu Y-Y (2010) Design of a self-tuning PI controller for a STATCOM using particle
swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 57(2):702715
66. Khan MA, Husain I, Islam MR, Klass JT (2014) Design of experiments to address
manufacturing tolerances and process variations influencing cogging torque and back EMF in
the mass production of the permanent-magnet synchronous motors. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 50
(1):346355
67. Coenen I, Giet M, Hameyer K (2011) Manufacturing tolerances: Estimation and prediction of
cogging torque influenced by magnetization faults. In: Proceedings of 14th European
conference on power electronics and applications, pp 19
68. Gasparin L, Fiser R (2011) Impact of manufacturing imperfections on cogging torque level in
PMSM. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE ninth international conference on power electronics and
drive systems (PEDS), pp 10551060
69. Lei G, Wang TS, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Wang SH (2015) System level design optimization
method for electrical drive system: robust approach. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 62(8):4702
4713
70. Lei G, Guo YG, Zhu JG et al (2012) System level six sigma robust optimization of a drive
system with PM transverse flux machine. IEEE Trans Magn 48(2):923926
71. Lei G, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Hu JF, Xu W, Shao KR (2013) Robust design optimization of
PM-SMC motors for Six Sigma quality manufacturing. IEEE Trans Magn 49(7):39533956
72. Taguchi G, Chowdhury S, Wu Y (2004) Taguchis quality engineering handbook, Wiley
73. Omekanda AM (2006) Robust torque and torque-per-inertia optimization of a switched
reluctance motor using the Taguchi methods. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 42(2):473478
74. Kim S-I, Lee J-Y, Kim Y-K et al (2005) Optimization for reduction of torque ripple in interior
permanent magnet motor by using the Taguchi method. IEEE Trans Magn 41(5):17961799
75. Ashabani M, Mohamed YA, Milimonfared J (2010) Optimum design of tubular
permanent-magnet motors for thrust characteristics improvement by combined
Taguchi-neural network approach. IEEE Trans Magn 46(12):40924100
24 1 Introduction
76. Hwang C-C, Lyu L-Y, Liu C-T, Li P-L (2008) Optimal design of an SPM motor using genetic
algorithms and Taguchi method. IEEE Trans Magn 44(11):43254328
77. Lee S, Kim K, Cho S et al (2014) Optimal design of interior permanent magnet synchronous
motor considering the manufacturing tolerances using Taguchi robust design. IET Electr
Power Appl 8(1):2328
78. Koch PN, Yang RJ, Gu L (2004) Design for six sigma through robust optimization. Struct
Multidiscipl Optim 26(34):235248
79. Meng XJ, Wang SH, Qiu J, Zhang QH, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Liu DK (2011) Robust multilevel
optimization of PMSM using design for six sigma. IEEE Trans Magn 47(10):32483251
Chapter 2
Design Fundamentals of Electrical
Machines and Drive Systems
Abstract This chapter presents a brief summary of the design fundamentals

including the analysis models and methods for electrical machines and drive sys-
tems, based on our design experiences, particularly for permanent magnet electrical
machine with soft magnetic composite cores. Because of the multi-disciplinary
nature, these design models and methods will be investigated at the disciplinary
level, including electromagnetic, thermal, mechanical, power electronics, and
control algorithm designs. Several design examples will be presented to illustrate
the corresponding design models and methods based on our research ndings, such
as the nite element model for design analysis of motors, and the model predictive
control algorithm and its improvement form for the drive systems. These models
and algorithms will be employed in the design optimization of electrical machines
and drive systems in the following chapters.

Keywords Electrical drive systems Electromagnetic design Thermal design

Mechanical design Power electronics design Control algorithms Finite element

model Model predictive control
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Framework of Multi-disciplinary Design
Figure 2.1 illustrates a general framework of multi-disciplinary design for electrical

machines and drive systems. As shown, three main components, i.e., motor, power
electronics and controller, have to be investigated when designing such electrical
drive systems [1, 2]. The main design procedure includes the following steps.
Firstly, dene the specications of the electrical machine and drive system
required by a given application, which include the steady state specications, such
as the rated power, speed range, voltage, current, efciency, power factor (in case of
AC machines), volume and cost, and dynamic performances, such as the maximum
overshoot, settling time, and stability.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0_2
26 2 Design Fundamentals of Electrical Machines and Drive Systems
Fig. 2.1 Multi-disciplinary design framework of electrical machines and drive systems
Secondly, select a type of the motor, power electronic converter, and control
algorithm from possible options. The motor options include permanent magnet
(PM) motors, induction machines, synchronous machines, DC machines, and swit-
ched reluctance machines. For servo drives, stepping motors and other types of servo
motors can be considered. In this step, different motor topologies have to be inves-
tigated as well. The power electronic converter options mainly include the different
topologies of AC/DC, DC/DC, and DC/AC converters. The controller design mainly
investigates the control strategies and algorithms, such as eld oriented control
(FOC), direct torque control (DTC), and model predictive control (MPC).
Thirdly, based on the selected motor type, converter circuit, and control scheme,
various disciplinary-level analyses should be conducted to evaluate the performance
of the drive system. For example, the motor design analysis consists of mainly the
electromagnetic, thermal and mechanical analyses (the shaded boxes in the gure).
Coupled-eld analyses may be required in the design process, such as
electromagnetic-thermal and electromagnetic-mechanical stress analyses.
In summary, the design of electrical machines and drive systems mainly consists
of the analyses of ve coupled disciplines or domains: electromagnetic, thermal,
mechanical, power electronics, and controller designs. The following sections will
present the popular design analysis models and methods for each discipline.
2.1.2 Power Losses and Efciency
Power losses and efciency are two main issues in the design analysis of electrical
machines and drive systems. The power losses are mainly composed of the copper
loss, core loss, mechanical loss, and stray loss.
2.1 Introduction 27
(1) The copper loss or Ohmic loss: PCu I 2 R is the power dissipated in stator and
rotor windings due to the resistance of copper wire, where I is the winding
current and R the winding resistance. Normally the DC resistance is used in
the calculation. However, it should be noted that the winding resistance
depends on the operating conditions, i.e., temperature and frequency (due to
the skin effects). In case of the brushes and slip rings/commutator, the effect of
contact resistance is often accounted for by assuming a voltage drop of 2 V.
(2) The core loss is the power dissipated in a magnetic core due to the variation of
magnetic eld. This occurs in the stator and/or rotor iron core of an electrical
machine subject to AC excitations. Practically, it can be measured by
open-circuit or no-load tests. When the magnetic material is under an alter-
nating sinusoidal flux excitation, the alternating core loss can be calculated by
Pa Cha fBh Cea fB2 Caa fB1:5 2:1
where f is the excitation frequency, B the magnitude of sinusoidal magnetic

flux density, and Cha, Cea, Caa, and h are the alternating core loss coefcients.
In case of rotating electrical machines, the rotational core losses have to be
considered. Figure 2.2 plots the average core losses with alternating flux
density from 2 to 2,000 Hz and circular rotating flux density vectors from 5 to
1,000 Hz of a cubic soft magnetic composite (SMC) SOMALYTM 500 sample
[3]. These are the standard core loss data used to identify the core loss model
parameters. The circularly rotational core loss can be calculated by
Pr Phr Cer fB2 Car fB1:5 2:2
where
" #
Phr 1=s 1=2 s
a1
f a2 1=s2 a23 a2 1=2 s2 a23
and
q
B
s1 1 1=a22 a23
Bs
Bs is the saturation flux density, and Cer, Car, a1, a2 and a3 are the rotational
core loss coefcients.
When the material is under a two dimensional elliptically rotating B excitation,
the core loss can be computed by
Per RB Pr 1 RB 2 Pa 2:3
Fig. 2.2 Average core losses

under a alternating and
b circular rotating magnetic
fluxes [3]
where RB Bmin =Bmaj is the axis ratio, Bmin and Bmaj are the magnitudes of
the minor and major axes of the ellipse, respectively, and Pr and Pa the
corresponding rotational and alternating core losses when B = Bmaj. More
details about the rotational core losses can be found in [39].
(3) The mechanical losses are the power losses caused by the friction (brushes,
slip rings/commutator, shaft and bearing), damping, windage, and cooling fan.
It can be approximately determined by no-load test. In design, empirical data
are used.
(4) The stray loss is the power loss caused by stray factors that are hard to
determine separately, such as the non-uniform current distribution in con-
ductors and additional core loss due to distorted magnetic flux distribution for
various reasons. Because it is usually difcult to determine accurately the stray
loss, estimations based on experimental tests and empirical judgment are
2.1 Introduction 29
acceptable. For most types of machines, this can be assumed to be 1 % of the

output power.
In most electrical machines, the stator and/or rotor cores subject to varying
magnetic fluxes are made of laminated silicon steels, which have low core loss, and
hence the major power loss is the copper loss. Depending on the type of machine,
the copper loss normally accounts for 8090 % of the total loss.
Based on the above analysis, the efciency of a machine can be calculated by
Pout Pin PCu PCore PMec PStray

g 2:4
Pin Pin
Typical values of full load efciency for rotating machines are:

50 % or less for fractional horse power motors (a few W to a few hundreds of
W),
7585 % for electrical machines of 1 kW to a few tens of kW,
8595 % for electrical machines of 100 kW to 1 MW, and
9598 % or above for electrical machines of 1 MW to a few hundreds of MW
(e.g. 98 % for 100 MVA turbo generator).
2.2 Electromagnetic Design
Since electrical machines are electromagnetic devices for transforming electrical

power at one voltage to another (transformers) or converting electric power into
mechanical power or vice versa (motors or generators) by the principle of elec-
tromagnetic induction, electromagnetic design is a fundamental design stage of
electrical machines and drive systems, and is usually based on the following three
kinds of analysis models: the analytical model, magnetic circuit model, and nite
element model (FEM) [1020].
2.2.1 Analytical Model
Analytical model is generally used to calculate the performance indicators of

electrical machines, such as the output power, torque, and cogging torque. For
example, the power and sizing equations are the powerful ways to guide the design
of PM motors [10, 11]. By utilizing the current density in the sizing equation, some
basic internal relationships can be found among the main dimensions to maximize
the torque density.
Assuming the flux linkage of stator winding in a PM motor is sinusoidal, and
ignoring the winding resistance, the input power Pin can be expressed by
ZT ZT
m m 2p 2p m
Pin etitdt Em sin t Im sin t dt Em Im 2:5
T T T T 2
0 0
where m is the number of phases, Em the peak value of back electromotive force
(EMF), Im the peak value of phase current, and T the electrical time period. The
output torque can be calculated by
Pout m
Tout g pkp Ksf As Jm 2:6
xr 2
where is the efciency, p the number of pole pairs, p the peak value of PM flux
linkage, r the mechanical rotary speed, Ksf the slot ll factor, As the slot area, and
Jm the peak of current density. For different kinds of PM motors, p and As are
related differently to their dimensions [2123].
2.2.2 Magnetic Circuit Model
The magnetic circuit model acts as a uniform principle in descriptive magneto-

statics, and as an approximate computational aid in electrical machine design. The
model uses the conception of magnetic reluctance to establish an equivalent circuit
for approximate analysis of static magnetic eld in electrical machines [24]. To
illustrate this model, a PM transverse flux machine (TFM) designed by SMC
material is investigated.
The SMC material is a relatively new soft magnetic material that has many
advantages over the conventional silicon steel sheets. The main advantages of SMC
material are the magnetic and mechanical isotropy and low cost, high productivity,
and high quality manufacturing capability of complex electromagnetic components
by the matured powder metallurgical molding technology, which will enable low
cost high productivity commercial manufacturing of SMC motors for a great variety
of electrical appliances [2432].
In our previous work, a 3D flux PM TFM with SMC stator core was developed.
Figure 2.3 shows a photo of the PM-SMC TFM prototype. This machine was
initially designed to deliver an output power of 640 W at 1800 rev/min. It has 20
poles in the external PM rotor, i.e., 120 PMs in the rotor and 60 SMC teeth in the
stator. The stator core is made of SMC SOMALOYTM 500. The operating fre-
quency of this motor is 300 Hz at 1800 rev/min. Table 2.1 tabulates the main design
dimensions for this TFM [24, 25].
In order to briefly predict the performance of this TFM, a sketchy magnetic circuit
model as shown in Fig. 2.4 can be used. Figure 2.4 illustrates the main flux circuit
model and flux path of this TFM, where the resistances represent the magnetic
reluctances and the current source (PhiPM) stands for the magneto-motive forces
(mmfs) of PMs, and thus Rry represents the magnetic reluctance of rotor, Rm the
2.2 Electromagnetic Design 31
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2.3 Photo of the PM-SMC TFM prototype, a PM rotor, and b 3 stack SMC stator
Table 2.1 Main design Par. Description Unit Value

dimensions of PM-SMC TFM
Number of phases 3
Number of poles 20
Number of stator teeth 60
Number of magnets 120
Stator outer radius mm 40
Effective stator axial length mm 93
x1 PM circumferential angle degree 12
x2 PM width mm 9
x3 SMC tooth circumferential width mm 9
x4 SMC tooth axial width mm 8
x5 SMC tooth radial height mm 10.5
x6 Number of turns 125
x7 Diameter of copper wire mm 1.25
x8 Air gap length mm 1.0
magnetic reluctance of PM, Rg the magnetic reluctance of the air gap, Rst1 the
magnetic reluctance of the stator teeth, Rst2 and Rsy stand for the magnetic reluctance
of the stator yoke. By analyzing this model, the main magnetic flux can be calculated.
Meanwhile, the magnetic flux leakage is a serious problem in this TFM, thus it
should be considered in the magnetic circuit model. Several flux leakage models
can be constructed for this TFM. Figure 2.5 illustrates the main flux leakage model.
In this model, the adjacent PM in the one side of the machine is modeled, where
Rry1 represents the magnetic reluctance of rotor, Rg1 and Rg2 represent the magnetic
reluctance of the air gap, Rs1 stands for the magnetic reluctance of the stator.
With the computed flux linkage, the resultant magnetic flux density in the air gap
and the flux per turn of coil can be estimated. After calculation, the obtained flux
per turn of this PM-SMC TFM is 0.32 mWb, which is higher than the calculated
result (0.28 mWb) by using the FEM [24].
This model can be also used to evaluate the performance of the motor. Based on
the calculated magnetic flux of the motor, the flux linkage per phase equals the
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2.4 Main flux circuit and flux path of the PM-SMC TFM, a magnetic circuit model, b flux
path in 2D plane
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2.5 Flux leakage circuit and path of the PM-SMC TFM, a magnetic circuit model, b leakage
path in 2D plane
number of coil turns multiplied by the magnetic flux of each coil turn, and it can be
computed as
kPM kl Ncoil pUgap 2:7
where PM is the PM flux linkage per phase, kl the leakage coefcient, Ncoil the
number of turns of the phase winding, p the number of pole pairs, and gap is flux
per coil turn. The back EMF can be expressed as
Em xe kPM pxm kPM 2:8
where e = pm is the electrical angular frequency, and m the mechanical angular

speed. The electromagnetic torque Tem can be expressed as
p
Pem 2
Tem mpkPM Im 2:9
xm 2
After the calculation, the no-load back EMF is 53.26 V at the rated speed of
1800 rev/min. According to (2.9), the electromagnetic torque is 4.66 Nm at the
rated current of 5.5 A (RMS value). Compared to the electromagnetic torque
obtained from FEM, i.e., 4.08 Nm, the relative error is about 0.58/4.08 = 14.21 %.
2.2.3 Finite Element Model
FEM is a widely used analysis model for eld analysis in electrical machines as
well as other electromagnetic devices. The theory of FEM can be found in many
books and research papers. The PM-SMC TFM investigated above will be
employed as an example to show the application of FEM for designing electrical
machines.
When analyzing the magnetic eld distribution, we used eld analysis software
package ANSYS, and taking advantage of the periodical symmetry, we only need
to analyze one pole-pair region of the machine, as shown in Fig. 2.6a. At the two
radial boundary planes, the magnetic scalar potential obeys the periodical boundary
conditions:
um r; Dh; z um r; Dh; z 2:10
Fig. 2.6 a One pole pitch of FEM solution region for one phase (stack), and b magnetic eld
distribution under no-load
Table 2.2 Key PM-SMC Parameter Unit Calculated Measured

TFM parameters
Motor back EMF Vs 0.247 0.244
constant
Phase resistance 0.310 0.305
Phase inductance mH 6.68 6.53
Maximal cogging torque Nm 0.339 0.320
where Dh 18 mechanical is the angle of one pole pitch. The origin of the
cylindrical coordinate is located at the center of the stack.
Figure 2.6b illustrates the magnetic eld distribution under no-load. Based on
the FEM analysis, the calculated key motor parameters for this machine are listed in
Table 2.2. The measured parameters are also listed in the table to show the effec-
tiveness of the FEM method. As shown, the measured motor back EMF constant is
0.244 Vs, 1 % lower than the calculated value of 0.247 Vs. The calculated phase
resistance and inductance, and maximal cogging torque are 0.310 , 6.68 mH and
0.339 Nm, respectively, which are very close to the measured values (0.305 ,
6.53 mH and 0.320 Nm). In summary, the estimated parameters calculated by the
FEM-based method are well aligned with the experimental results. Therefore, FEM
is better than magnetic circuit model, and it is reliable to be used for optimization of
the electromagnetic design of electrical machines.
Moreover, the output performance parameters, such as output power, torque and
efciency, can be estimated with the calculated electromagnetic parameters men-
tioned above. In the estimation, the control method is assumed to maintain that the
d-axis component of current equals zero. Figure 2.7 shows the per phase equivalent
electric circuit of this motor under the assumed control method.
Based on this per phase equivalent electrical circuit, the main relationships of the
motor can be predicted by
q
Vin Ea Ia Ra 2 xe La Ia 2 2:11
Pin 3Vin Ia cos u 2:12
Pout Pin Pcore Pcopper Pmech 2:13
Pout
Tout 2:14
xr
where Vin is the input voltage, Ea the back EMF, Ia the armature current, e the
electric angular frequency, La the inductance, Ra the resistance, the angle between
Vin and Ea, Pin the input power, Pout the output power, Pcore the core loss, Pcopper
the copper loss, Pmech the mechanical loss, Tout the output torque, and r the
mechanical angular speed.
In motor with SMC cores, unlike the conventional motors made of silicon sheet
steels, the core loss can be a major part among all power losses, and the mechanical
Fig. 2.7 Per phase equivalent

electric circuit and phasor
diagrams of the motor
loss is generally considered as 11.5 % of the output power. In general, the core
loss prediction in the TFM should be calculated by using the FEM based on the
multi-frequency core loss characteristic of the material. More comparison results
can be seen in [24, 25].
2.3 Thermal Design
2.3.1 Thermal Limits in Electrical Machines
The rating of an electrical machine gives its working capability under the specied
electrical and environmental conditions. Major factors that determine the ratings are
thermal and mechanical considerations. To obtain an economic utilization of the
materials and safe operation of the motor, it is necessary to predict with reasonable
accuracy the temperature rise of the internal parts, especially in the coils and
magnets.
The temperature rise resulted from the power losses in an electrical machine
plays a key role in rating the power capacity of the machine, i.e., the amount of
power it can convert without being burnt for a specied length of life time. The life
expectancy of a large industrial electrical machine ranges from 10 to 50 years or
more. In an aircraft or electronic equipment, it can be of the order of a few thousand
hours, whereas in a military application, e.g. missile, it can be only a few minutes.
Table 2.3 Classication of electrical insulation materials

Class Maximum temperature rise Materials
(C)
O 90 Paper, cotton, silk
A 105 Cellulose, phenolic resins
B 130 Mica, glass, asbestos with organic binder
F 155 Same as above with suitable binder
H 180 Mica, glass, asbestos with silicone binder, silicone
resin, Teflon
The operating temperature of a machine is closely associated with its life

expectancy because deterioration of the insulation is a function of both time and
temperature. Such deterioration is a chemical phenomenon involving slow oxida-
tion and brittle hardening, leading to loss of mechanical durability and dielectric
strength. In many cases the deterioration rate is such that the life of the insulation
can be expressed as
Life Time AeB=T 2:15
where A and B are constants and T is the absolute temperature. Roughly, it says that
for each 10 C temperature rise exceeding the maximum allowable temperature rise,
the life time of insulation is halved.
Insulation materials used in electrical machines are classied by the maximum
allowable temperature rise that can be safely withstood. Table 2.3 lists the classi-
cation of electrical insulation materials by the IEC (International Electrotechnical
Commission).
Generally, there are two kinds of analysis models for thermal analysis in elec-
trical machines, namely the thermal network model and the FEM [14, 15, 20, 25].
The following sections will present examples for the two methods.
2.3.2 Thermal Network Model
Two design examples will be illustrated to show the usage of thermal network
model for the thermal analysis of PM-SMC motors. The rst one is a TFM, and the
second is a high speed claw pole motor.
A. Transverse flux machine
In this study, the temperature rise was calculated by using a hybrid thermal network
model with distributed heat sources, as shown in Fig. 2.8.
For high computation accuracy, every part, e.g. the air gap, is divided into two or
more segments. The thermal resistances to heat conduction in the following sections
are calculated: rotor yoke (Rry), magnets (Rm), glue between magnets and rotor yoke
2.3 Thermal Design 37
Fig. 2.8 Thermal network model of the TFM prototype
(Rmg), air gap (Rag), stator yoke (RFe1), stator side discs (RFe2), stator teeth (RFe3),
varnished copper wire (Rcu), and insulations (RI1, RI2, RI3) between the winding and
the stator yoke, the stator wall disc, and the air gap, respectively. In addition, the
thermal resistances of the stator shaft (Rss), the aluminum end plates (Ral), and the
stationary air (Rsa) between the side stator discs and the end plates are calculated
separately [25].
The equivalent thermal resistances to the heat convection of the following
sections are calculated: that between the stator tooth surface and the inner air in the
air gap (RFeA), that between the winding and the inner air (RWA), that between the
magnet and the inner air (RmA), that between the rotor yoke and the inner air
(RryA1), and that between the rotor yoke and the outer air (RryA2).
The heat sources include the stator winding copper losses (Pcu), the stator and
rotor core losses (PFes, PFer), and the mechanical losses due to windage and friction
(Pmec). The improved method for core loss calculation can obtain the loss distri-
bution, which is a great advantage for thermal calculation by the hybrid thermal
model.
The temperature rises in the middle of several parts are calculated as 64.9 C in
the stator winding, 78.6 C in the stator core, 59.3 C in the air gap, 36.1 C in the
magnets, and 25.3 C in the rotor yoke outer surface. The experimentally measured
results are 66 C in the stator winding and 27 C in the rotor yoke, and it can be
seen that the maximum relative error between the calculated and measured results is
only 3 %. Thus, it is reliable to use the thermal network method for design of this
TFM.
Fig. 2.9 Prototype of a high speed claw pole motor
B. High speed claw pole motor

In our previous work, a high speed claw pole motor as shown in Fig. 2.9 with an
SMC stator core was developed [3, 8, 9]. The major motor parameters are tabulated
in Table 2.4, and the structure (one pole pitch of one stack) is shown in Fig. 2.10.
Figure 2.11 illustrates the topology of one of the three stacks. The stator consists
of the claw poles, the yoke, and the phase winding. The rotor is simply made of a
ring PM magnetized in four poles and mounted on the rotor core. The three stator
stacks are shifted for 120o (electrical) apart from each other.
Table 2.4 Main dimensions Parameter Unit Value

and design parameters
Number of phases 3
Rated power W 2000
Rated frequency Hz 666.7
Rated speed rev/min 20,000
Number of poles 4
Stator outer diameter mm 78
Rotor outer diameter mm 29
Rotor inner diameter mm 18
Airgap length mm 1
Axial length mm 48
Stator core material SOMALOYTM 500
PM material NdFeB
Fig. 2.10 Magnetically

relevant parts of one stack of
three-phase claw pole motor
Fig. 2.11 Structure of a

high-speed claw pole motor
(one pole pitch of one stack)
In general, the geometrical complexity of an electrical machine requires a large

thermal network if a high resolution of temperature distribution is required. Instead
of using a whole model, the geometrical symmetries of the machine can be used to
reduce the size of the model. The distributed thermal properties have been lumped
together to form a small thermal network, representing the whole machine. For the
calculation of temperature distribution in the SMC motor, a thermal resistance
network, as shown in Fig. 2.12, is used. It has ten nodes (the outer air, frame, yoke,
and so on). Each node represents a specic part or region of the machine, and the
thermal resistances (Rn, n = 1,,16) between the nodes include complex processes,
Fig. 2.12 Thermal network

of one stack of a high-speed
claw pole motor
such as the 2D and 3D heat flow, convection, internal heat generation, and varia-
tions in material properties. To account for the three dimensional heat flows at a
node, the thermal structure shown in Fig. 2.13 can be employed.
As shown in Fig. 2.13, the thermal resistances of an element are built in three
directions, and the heat source if any can be placed at the center point. In this
model, the thermal conduction equation can be expressed as
Tb Ta Tc Ta Td Ta Te Ta Tf Ta Tg Ta
qa
Rab Rac Rad Rae Raf Rag
0
@Ta Ta
Ca 2:16
@t
where Ta, Tb, Tc, Td, Te, Tf, and Tg are the temperatures at nodes a, b, c, d, e, f, and
g, Rab, Rac, Rad, Rae, Raf, and Rag the thermal resistance between nodes a-b, a-c, a-d,
0
a-e, a-f, and a-g, respectively, qa is the heat source, Ca the heat specic, and Ta the
Fig. 2.13 Nodal thermal

structure for 3D heat flow
temperature of node a at the next time instant. The thermal resistance in Fig. 2.13
can be calculated by
DX
Rab Rac 2:17
2kx DYDZ
DY
Rad Rae 2:18
2ky DXDZ
DZ
Raf Rae 2:19
2kz DXDY
where x, y and z are the thermal conductivities in the x, y and z directions,

respectively [8].
The calculation results at no load are 324.6 K in the frame, 326.3 K in the yoke,
330.8 K in the winding, 337.7 K in the claw poles, 334.4 K in the air gap, 331 K in
the magnets, and 324.7 K in the bearing.
2.3.3 Finite Element Model
In the thermal network, the core loss at each node cannot be obtained easily from
the magnetic eld calculation. In most cases, the average value is used. Since the
core loss distribution is quite different in different positions of the stator core, 3D
FEM is used to analyze the temperature distribution in this section. Two design
examples investigated in the previous section will be illustrated to show the usage
of FEM for the thermal analysis of PM-SMC motors.
Fig. 2.14 Temperature distribution in the PM-SMC TFM obtained by 3D FEM
Figure 2.14 illustrates the temperature distribution of the PM-SMC TFM based
on FEM. As shown, the average temperature rises in the winding is 62.5 C, which
is close to the measured value 65 C.
Figure 2.15 depicts the distributions of core loss and temperature at full load in
the SMC core of the high speed claw pole motor. The temperature is measured by
an infrared temperature probe. At 20,000 rev/min and no load, the frame temper-
ature is 331.4 K and the stator yoke temperature is 333.5 K, respectively. The
Fig. 2.15 a Distributions of core loss, and b temperature in SMC core of the high speed claw pole
motor
measured temperatures are slightly higher than the FEM results, because the actual
loss is greater than the calculation. The FEM method is more accurate than the
thermal network method because there are only ten nodes in the network. The
advantage of the thermal network is the calculation speed, which is much faster than
the FEM method [8, 9].
2.4 Mechanical Design
Mechanical design is another important issue in the design analysis of electrical

machines, especially for high speed motors. Generally, the following three aspects
should be investigated for the mechanical design analysis:
(1) Mechanical structures and materials,
(2) Field of stress and material strength (including elastic and plastic deforma-
tions), and
(3) Modal analysis for vibration and noise.
The rst and the second aspects are often noncritical and can be readily satised
through empirical design, whereas the third one requires special attention for most
situations, especially those operated at high frequencies. The modal analysis is
generally used to calculate the resonance frequency of the motor in operation.
Enough distance between this frequency and the electromagnetic frequency should
be designed for motors to avoid resonance. The modal analysis is generally con-
ducted by using the FEM. The two design examples used in the previous section
will be employed as follows.
The PM-SMC TFM is operated at 300 Hz, which is relatively high compared
with the conventional motors operated at the power frequency of either 50 or 60 Hz.
From experience, we only need to do the rst-order modal analysis and compare the
frequency with the electromagnetic frequency [20]. Figure 2.16 illustrates the
rst-order modal analysis for this motor of the electromagnetic optimized design. It
can be seen that the resonance frequency of the optimal motor is about 4,435 Hz,
which is much higher than the electromagnetic frequency of 300 Hz.
Regarding the high speed claw pole motor, because it is operated at high speed,
it is essential to carry out a modal analysis to nd and adjust the resonant points, so
that in practical operation, these frequencies can be avoided. Figure 2.17 shows the
vibration patterns and the corresponding resonant frequencies of the rotor structure.
These frequencies are well above the operating frequency and therefore have almost
no influence to the practical operation. Through the analysis and adjustment, it was
found that the bearing stiffness, the shaft length, the shaft diameter and the position
of bearing have signicant influence on the rotor natural frequency [3].
Fig. 2.16 Illustration of rst order modal analysis for PM-SMC TFM
Fig. 2.17 Vibration patterns at a 4,102 Hz (Y axis), b 4,102 Hz (X axis), c 9,562 Hz (Z axis), and
d 10,321 Hz (Y axis)
2.5 Power Electronics Design 45
Fig. 2.18 A three-phase

inverter
2.5 Power Electronics Design
The design of power electronics for electrical machines and drive systems is also an
important and complex stage. Among many aspects in power electronics, the
converter/inverter and switching scheme are two main concerns in the design of
electrical machines and drive systems.
The converter/inverter is an important component to drive an electrical machine.
An inverter, for example, is an electronic apparatus that can convert a DC voltage to
an AC voltage of specied waveform, frequency, magnitude, and phase angle.
Among many different topologies, the three phase bridge power circuit as shown in
Fig. 2.18 has become favorite and standard for use in the control systems of
electrical machines. Many different topologies can be obtained from this structure
for different applications. For example, two extra switches can be added to establish
two bridges for the fault tolerant control scheme [33, 34].
For controlling the waveform, frequency, magnitude, and phase angle of the AC
voltage, many switching schemes can be used, such as square wave and sine wave
pulse width modulations (PWMs) and space vector modulation (SVM), as well as
hard and soft switching.
2.6 Control Algorithms Design
Control algorithms play an important role in the determination of dynamic and

state-state performances of electrical drive systems. Various control algorithms
have been developed and employed successfully in commercial drive systems, such
as the six-step control, FOC, DTC and MPC [3539].
While FOC is commonly used in various high performance electrical drive

system, the merits of DTC are simple in structure (thus low cost), fast dynamic
response, and strong robustness against motor parameter variation [4042]. The
major advantages that affect the commercial application of the conventional DTC
are large torque and flux ripples, variable switching frequency, and excessive
acoustic noises.
To overcome these problems, many methods have been proposed in the litera-
ture. One of them is to apply the technique of SVM to DTC, known as the
SVM-DTC. In the conventional DTC, the switching table only includes a limited
number of voltage vectors with xed amplitudes and positions. The implementation
of SVM enables the generation of an arbitrary voltage vector with any amplitude
and position [4348]. In this way, the SVM-DTC can generate the torque and flux
more accurately to eliminate the ripples. Another merit of SVM-DTC is that the
sampling frequency required is constant and lower than that of the conventional
DTC.
Recently, the MPC has attracted increasing attention in industry and academic
communities [4954]. In the SVM-DTC, the power converter with modulation can
be considered as a gain in controller design. In the predictive control methods, the
discrete nature of power converters is taken into account by considering the con-
verter and the motor from a systemic viewpoint. There are various different versions
of predictive control algorithms, differing in the principle of vector selection,
number of the applied vectors and predictive horizon.
The conventional DTC and MPC are similar in that they both select only one
voltage vector in each sampling period. This can result in overregulation, leading to
large torque and flux ripples and acoustic noise.
As all the design examples used in this book are permanent magnet synchronous
machines (PMSMs), several control algorithms will be presented with details for
PMSMs in the following sections. Numerical and experimental examples will be
presented for some of them.
2.6.1 Six-Step Control
The six-step control method was oriented to drive brushless DC (BLDC) motors
with trapezoidal back EMF waveforms. In many applications, however, the
trapezoidal excitation is also used to drive PMSMs with sinusoidal back EMF
waveforms because the trapezoidal excitation or six-step method based drive is
robust and low cost [35].
In the six-step control scheme, the stationary reference frame is always used to
model the PMSM. The phase variables are used to express the machine equations as
they can account for the real waveforms of the back EMF and phase current.
Assuming that the resistances of three phase stator windings are equal, the three
phase voltage equations of the motor can be written as
2.6 Control Algorithms Design 47
2 3 2 32 3 82 32 39 2 3
d <4 aa
va Rs 0 0 ia L Lba Lca ia = ea
4 vb 5 4 0 Rs 0 54 ib 5 Lba Lbb Lcb 54 ib 5 4 eb 5
dt : ;
vc 0 0 Rs ic Lca Lcb Lcc ic ec
2:20
where va, vb, and vc are the phase voltages, ia, ib, and ic the 2phase currents, e3a, eb,
Laa Lba Lca
and ec the phase back EMF, Rs is the phase resistance, and 4 Lba Lbb Lcb 5 the
Lca Lcb Lcc
inductance matrix, including both the self-and mutual-inductances.
Assuming further that the reluctance is independent of the rotor position, one can
obtain

La Lb Lc Ls
2:21
Lab Lca Lbc M
As ia + ib + ic = 0 for a symmetric three phase system, the voltage equation can

be simplied as
2 3 2 32 3 82 32 39 2 3
va Rs 0 0 ia
d < LM 0 0 ia = ea
4 vb 5 4 0 Rs 0 54 ib 5 4 0 LM 0 54 ib 5 4 eb 5
dt : ;
vc 0 0 Rs ic 0 0 LM ic ec
2:22
Assuming linear system, the machine model in state space form can be expressed
as
2 3 2 382 3 2 32 3 2 39
i 1=L M 0 0 < va Rs 0 0 ia ea =
d 4 a5 4 5 4 vb 5 4 0
ib 0 1=L M 0 Rs 0 54 i b 5 4 eb 5
dt : ;
ic 0 0 1=L M vc 0 0 Rs ic ec
2:23
The generated electromagnetic torque is given by
Te ea ia eb ib ec ic =xm 2:24
where m is the mechanical angular speed of the rotor.

The mechanical equation of the machine is
dxm
Te J Fxm TL 2:25
dt
where J is the inertia of the machine rotating parts, F the friction coefcient, and TL
the load torque on the rotor shaft.
DC voltage source or
rectified from AC power
iDC
-
ref + Speed + Current PWM & Inverter
Controller Controller Commutation
r -
Speed Hall
Sensor PMSM
Calculation
Fig. 2.19 Block diagram of PMSM six-step drive system
Figure 2.19 shows the block diagram of six-step drive scheme. The drive system
is operated with the feedback information of rotor position, which is obtained at
xed points, typically every 60 electrical degrees for commutation of the phase
currents.
The 120 conduction mode is applied to drive the PMSM. The voltage may be
applied to the motor every 120 (electrical), with a current limit to hold the phase
currents within the motors capabilities. Because the phase currents are excited in
synchronism with the back EMF, a constant torque is generated. A simulation
model is built in MATLAB/SIMULINK as shown in Fig. 2.20.
Fig. 2.20 Simulation block diagram of six-step controlled PMSM drive system
As shown in Fig. 2.20, the rotor position information comes from the Hall effect
sensors, which are integrated in the machine model in MATLAB/SIMULINK. The
resolution of the feedback signals is only 60 (electrical). Since most applications
require a stable speed, a speed feedback loop is employed. The rotor speed infor-
mation can be deduced from the low resolution Hall signals, which is marked as
Speed Calculation in Fig. 2.20. Typically, the average speed in one 60 section is
used as the speed feedback.
However, by using the average speed, there is always a lag when the motor
speed is not constant in accelerating or other dynamic state. To overcome this, the
rotor position can be expressed in Taylors series as the following:
2
1 h2k
ht hk t h1k t tk t t k 2 2:26
2!
1
p=3
where tk is the last commutation time, h1k tk tk1
the average speed of last section,
1 1
2 h h
and h2k 1ktk tk1
1k1
the average acceleration of last section.
As shown above, with the higher order calculation, more accurate speed and
position information can be deduced, whereas the computing cost rises. As a
compromise, in some situations, the following equations are used to estimate the
rotor position and speed:
( 2
1 h2k
ht hk t h1k t tk 2! t tk 2 2:27
1 2
xt h1k t h2k t tk
2.6.2 Field Oriented Control
For a PMSM under sinusoidal excitations, the original voltage equations can be
expressed in the stationary reference frame as the following
2 3 2 3 2 3
va ia ka
4 vb 5 Rs 4 ib 5 d 4 kb 5 2:28
dt
vc ic kc
where a, b, and c are the flux linkages of phases a, b, and c, respectively.

Equation (2.28) represents a system of differential equations with time varying
(periodic) coefcients. For sinusoidally distributed windings, a Park-Clark trans-
formation can be used to transform the above equations to a system of differential
equations with constant coefcients, represented in a d-q coordinate frame attached
to the rotor. The reference frames are shown in Fig. 2.21.
The Park-Clark orthogonal transformation can be expressed in the matrix form
as
Fig. 2.21 Stationary and

rotating reference frames
2 3 r2 32 3
rd cos h cos h 23 p cos h 23 p ra
4 rq 5 24 sin h sin h 23 p sin h 23 p 54 rb 5 2:29
3 p1 p1 p1
r0 2 2 2
rc
where is dened as the angle between two reference frames.

The subscripts d, q, and 0 in (2.29) represent some ctitious windings attached to
the rotor. The variables d, q, 0, a, b, and c may represent voltages, currents, or
flux linkages. As a result, the transformed set of electrical equations describing the
behavior of PMSM in the d-q rotating frame become
8
< vd Rs id dtd kd kq dh
dt
v Rs iq dtd kq kd dh 2:30
: q dt
v0 Rs i0 dtd k0
where vd, vq, and v0 are the phase voltages, id, iq, and i0 the phase currents, and d,
q, and 0 the phase flux linkages.
For the linear PMSM model, the magnetic saturation saliency is not considered.
The flux linkages of the d- and q-axes can be further expressed as

kd Ld id km
2:31
kq Lq iq
where Ld and Lq are the constant d- and q-axes inductances, respectively, and m is
the flux linkage generated by the rotor PMs.
On the other hand, the voltage equation of the 0 axis in (2.30) is usually ignored
by assuming well-balanced three-phase windings for the controller design.
Therefore, the electrical voltage equations in the rotor reference frame can be
rewritten as
(
vd Rs id Ld didtd Lq iq dh
di
dt
2:32
vq Rs iq Lq dtq Ld id km dh
dt
The torque expression after the application of the transformation becomes
3
Te p kd iq kq id
2 2:33
3
p km iq Ld Lq id iq
2
where p is the number of pole pairs.

By this transformation, the flux and torque control of the PMSM are decoupled.
The q-axis current, in the FOC method, is regulated to produce sufcient torque
while the d-axis current is controlled to modify the air-gap flux linkage. For normal
operation, the d-axis current is set to zero to achieve the maximum
torque-to-ampere ratio, and for the flux weakening control, the d-axis current is
modied to weaken the air-gap flux.
The reference speed value is the main input for the drive system, and the
electromagnetic torque and rotor speed are the output. Two feedback loops, current
or torque loop and speed loop, are added to provide desired performance. The
output of the speed controller will be the reference value for the q-axis current while
the d-axis current is set to zero. Both of the d- and q-axes currents are controlled to
generate the torque and achieve the maximum efciency drive. Figure 2.22 shows
the implementation diagram of the typical FOC scheme, where the traditional PWM
method is applied for the variable speed drive by the vectorial variable voltage and
variable frequency control strategy.
ref + + vd va
PI PI va
r - - 1/ Park
v
1/ Clark vb
PWM VSI
+ vq Transform Transform vc
PI
id_ref -

id ia ia
iq Park i Clarke
Transform ib
Transform
Position and Encoder
Speed PMSM
Estimation
Fig. 2.22 Block diagram of FOC scheme for PMSM drive

Fig. 2.23 Simulation block diagram of typical FOC based PMSM drive system
Similar to the six-step method, a simulation model of the FOC scheme based
PMSM drive is built in MATLAB/SIMULINK. The sinusoidal back EMF machine
model is selected from the SimPowerSystem tool box, in which the current sensors
and rotor position sensor are integrated. The Park and Clark transformations are
synthesized as one abc_to_dq block to transfer the variables between the sta-
tionary and rotating reference frames, as shown in Fig. 2.23. Two discrete PI
controllers are used for the speed and current feedback loops.
The traditional triangulation PWM generation technique is applied. A triangular
carrier wave sampling signal is compared directly with a sinusoidal modulating
wave to determine the switching instants, and therefore the resultant pulse widths.
2.6.3 Direct Torque Control
In the DTC strategy, the flux linkage and torque are calculated in the two-phase
stator reference frame, i.e., the - frame, which is transformed from the
three-phase a-b-c reference frame by using the Clark transformation. The Clark
transformation can be expressed in the matrix form as

r" #2 3
1
p12 ra
ra 2 1 p2 4 rb 5
2:34
rb 3 0 3
23
2 rc
After the measured phase voltages and currents are transformed to the - frame,
the flux linkage components of the - and -axes can be calculated as
R
ka R va Rs ia dt
2:35
kb vb Rs ib dt
ref + e Hysteresis
- controller
Switch
Inverter
table
ref + + eT Hysteresis
Controller
- - controller
r s
vdc
Flux & Torque ia
calculation ib
Encoder
1/s PMSM
Fig. 2.24 Block diagram of typical DTC scheme based PMSM drive
The torque observer can then be designed as
3 pm
Te ka ib kb ia 2:36
2 2
Figure 2.24 shows the block diagram of a typical DTC scheme for PMSM drive.
Two hysteresis controllers are applied to the flux linkage and torque control loops.
The calculated flux linkage is also sent to the switching table to identify the current
flux vector position.
From (2.35), the stator flux linkage is
Z
ks vs Rs is dt 2:37
where vs and is are the stator voltage and current spatial vectors, respectively.
In the case of a PMSM, s always varies even when the zero voltage vectors are
applied because of the rotating rotor magnets, and thus, zero voltage vectors are not
used for DTC driven PMSM. s should always be in motion with respect to the rotor
flux.
According to (2.36), the electromagnetic torque can be controlled effectively by
controlling the amplitude and rotating speed of s. For counter-clockwise operation,
if the actual torque is smaller than the reference, the voltage vectors that keep s
rotating in the same direction are selected. The angle increases as fast as it can, and
the actual torque increases as well. Once the actual torque is greater than the
reference, the voltage vectors that keep s rotating in the reverse direction are
selected instead of the zero voltage vectors. The angle decreases, so does the torque.
By selecting the voltage vectors in this way, s will rotate all the time in the
Table 2.5 Switching table of typical DTC scheme for PMSM drive
e eT
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 V2(110) V3(010) V4(011) V5(001) V6(101) V1(100)
0 V6(101) V1(100) V2(110) V3(010) V4(011) V5(001)
0 1 V3(010) V4(011) V5(001) V6(101) V1(100) V2(110)
0 V5(001) V6(101) V1(100) V2(110) V3(010) V4(011)
Fig. 2.25 Voltage vectors

and spatial sector denition
direction determined by the output of the hysteresis controller for the torque. The
switching table for controlling both the amplitude and rotating direction is shown in
Table 2.5, in which the inverter voltage vector and spatial sector denitions are
illustrated in Fig. 2.25.
Figure 2.26 shows the simulation model built based on the typical DTC scheme.
The inverter switching status and DC bus voltage are utilized to calculate the stator
voltage. The stator flux linkage is obtained in the observer. The traditional two-level
hysteresis controllers are applied and the switching table is designed based on
Table 2.5.
2.6.4 Model Predictive Control
The principle of MPC was introduced for industrial control applications in the
1970s after the publication of this strategy in the 1960s. The MPC requires great
computational effort and it has been formerly limited to slowly varying systems,
such as chemical processes. With the availability of inexpensive high computing
Fig. 2.26 Simulation block diagram of typical DTC based PMSM drive system
power microcomputers and modern digital control techniques, MPC is able to be

applied to electrical drive systems [36, 55, 56].
Different from the employment of hysteresis comparators and the switching table
in conventional DTC, the principle of vector selection in MPC is based on eval-
uating a dened cost function. The selected voltage vector from the conventional
switching table in DTC may not necessarily be the best one for the purposes of
torque and flux ripple reduction. Since there are limited discrete voltage vectors in
the two-level inverter-fed PMSM drives, it is possible to evaluate the effects of each
voltage vector and select the one minimizing the cost function.
The key technology of MPC lies in the denition of the cost function, which is
related to the control objectives. The greatest concerns of PMSM drive applications
are the torque and stator flux, and thus, the cost function is dened in such a way
that both the torque and stator flux at the end of control period are as close as
possible to the reference values. In this book, the cost function is dened as

min: G jTe Tek 1 j k1 jws j jwsk 1 j
2:38
s.t. uks 2 fV0 ; V1 ; . . .; V7 g
where Te and ws are the reference torque and flux, Tek 1 and wsk 1 the predicted
values of torque and flux, respectively, and k1 is the weighting factor. Because the
physical natures of electromagnetic torque and stator flux are different, the
weighting factor k1 is introduced to unify these terms. In this work, k1 is selected to
be Tn =wn , where Tn and wn are the rated values of torque and stator flux, respec-
tively. It should be noted that when a null vector is selected, the specic state (V0 or
V7) will be determined based on the principle of minimal switching commutations,
which is related to the switching states of the previous voltage vector.
The voltage equations in the d-q reference frame are as follows:
did
ud Rs id Ld xLq iq 2:39
dt
diq
u q R s i q Lq xLd id xwf 2:40
dt
Given the voltage and current values at sampling instant k, the predicted current,
torque and flux at instant k + 1 can be expressed as follows:
1
ikd 1 ikd Rs ikd xk Lq ikq ukd Ts 2:41
Ld
1 k k
ikq 1 ikq x Ld id Rs ikq ukq xk wf Ts 2:42
Lq

wks 1 Ld ikd 1 wf jLq ikq 1 2:43
3
Tek 1 pwks 1 iks 1 2:44
2
where ikd 1 and ikq 1 are the predicted values of stator current for the sampling
instant k + 1, Ts is the sampling period, Tek 1 and wks 1 are the predicted values of
torque and flux, respectively, which are also the main concerns for the cost function
in the following MPC control scheme [1, 36, 49].
The block diagram of MPC is shown in Fig. 2.27. The inputs of the system are
the reference and estimated values of torque and flux. By evaluating the effects of
each voltage vector when applied to the machine, the voltage vector which mini-
mizes the difference between the reference and predicted values is rst selected, and
then it is generated by the inverter.
Fig. 2.27 Block diagram of MPC drive system in MATLAB/SIMULINK

2.6.4.1 One-Step Delay Compensation
The cost function in (2.38) assumes that all calculations and judgments are
implemented at the kth instant and the selected vector will be applied immediately.
However, in practical digital implementation, this assumption is not true and the
applied voltage vector is not applied until the (k + 1)th instant.
In other words, for the duration between the kth and (k + 1)th instants, the
applied rotor voltage vector uks has been decided by the value in the (k-1)th instant
and the evolutions of ws and Te for this duration are uncontrollable. What is left to
be decided is actually the stator voltage vector uks 1 , which is applied at the
beginning of the (k + 1)th instant. To eliminate this one step delay, the variables of
wks 2 and Tek 2 should be used rather than wks 1 and Tek 1 for the evaluation of the
cost function in (2.38). This fact is clearly illustrated in Fig. 2.28, where x indicates
the state variables of a dynamic system and u is the input to be decided. For PMSM,
x represents torque or stator flux value.
To eliminate the one-step delay in digital implementation, the cost function in
(2.38) should be changed to (2.45) as shown below

min: G jTe Tek 2 j k1 jws j jwks 2 j
2:45
s.t. uks 2 fV0 ; V1 ; . . .; V7 g
Obtaining wks 2 and Tek 2 in (2.45) requires a two-step prediction. To obtain the
best voltage vector minimizing the cost function in (2.45), each possible congu-
ration for uke 1 will be evaluated to obtain the value at the (k + 2)th instant.
2.6.4.2 Linear Multiple Horizon Prediction
A linear multiple horizon prediction formula is introduced in this section. This

formula incorporates two formulas. The rst one is the same as in (2.38). The linear
Fig. 2.28 One-step delay in digital control systems

multiple horizon prediction formula, which is multiplied by a factor A, considers the

errors in the (k + N)th instant (N > 1). Different from the model-based predictions
for wsk 1 and Tek 1 , the stator flux and torque at the (k + N)th instant are predicted
from the value at the kth and (k + 1)th instants using linear extrapolations, which are
expressed as
Tek N Tek N 1Tek 1 Tek 2:46

jwk N j jwk j N 1jwk 1 j jwk j
s s s s 2:47
The expression of the proposed cost function is

min: G jTe Tek 1 j k1 jws j jwsk 1 j

A jTe Tek N j k1 jws j jwks N j s:t: uks 2 fV0 ; V1 ; . . .; V7 g
2:48
2.6.5 Numerical and Experimental Comparisons of DTC

and MPC
2.6.5.1 Numerical Simulation
In this section, the simulation tests of DTC and MPC are carried out by using
Matlab/Simulink. The parameters of the motor are listed in Table 2.6. The sampling
frequency of both methods is set to 5 kHz. The values of control parameters are
k1 25:4; A 0:1; and N 10 [36].
This simulation test combines start-up, steady-state and external load tests. The
motor starts up from 0 s with several reference speeds (500 rev/min, 1000 rev/min,
1500 rev/min and 2000 rev/min). After reaching the reference speed, the motor
maintains the speed for at least 0.2 s and an external load is applied at 0.3 s.
Figures 2.29, 2.30, 2.31 and 2.32 show the combined load test for four control
strategies for one reference speed, 1000 rev/min. From top to bottom, the curves are
the stator current, stator flux, torque, motor speed, and switching frequency,
respectively. The test results for other speed situations can be found in [36].
Table 2.6 Motor parameters Number of pole pairs p 3

Permanent magnet flux wf 0.1057 Wb
Stator resistance Rs 1.8
d- and q-axis inductance Ld, Lq 15 mH
Rated torque TN 4.5 Nm
DC bus voltage Vdc 200 V
Fig. 2.29 Combined load test Classic DTC

for DTC 10
ia/A
0
-10
0.2
Phi/Wb
0.15
0.1
0.05
6
4
Te/Nm
2
0
2000
Speed/rpm
1500
1000
500
0
4000
fs/Hz
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t/s
By comparing Fig. 2.30 with Fig. 2.29, it is shown that the torque and flux
ripples of MPC are lower than that of DTC. In Fig. 2.31, MPC with one-step delay
compensation (indicated as MPC + comp) presents torque and flux ripples even
lower than MPC along with an increase in switching frequency. Figure 2.32
illustrates the responses by using cost function (2.48), where factor A is included in
the simulation. As shown, the introduction of linear multiple horizon prediction
(factor A, and indicated as MPC + A) can greatly reduce the switching frequency
only with a quite limited degradation of torque and flux ripples. As shown, all these
methods present similar dynamic performance and the motor can reach the refer-
ence speed rapidly. When the load was applied, the motor speed returned to its
original value in a very short time period.
The recorded data from 0.1 to 0.3 s are picked to calculate the torque and flux
ripples (obtained by standard deviations). The torque and flux ripples of these
control methods are summarized in Table 2.7. A segment (three periods) of the
stator current of phase A is used to calculate the total harmonic distortion
(THD) and current harmonic spectrum.
As shown, MPC can achieve lower torque ripple than that of DTC as proven.
However, MPCs characteristic in flux ripple reduction is quite unstable. With the
help of one-step delay compensation, the steady-state performance of MPC is
Fig. 2.30 Combined load test MPC

for MPC 10
ia/A
0
-10
0.2
Phi/Wb
0.15
0.1
0.05
6
4
Te/Nm 2
0
2000
Speed/rpm
1500
1000
500
0
4000
fs/Hz
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t/s
improved signicantly. It should be noticed that the switching frequency has

increased by almost two times in most tests when one-step delay is compensated.
The introduction of linear multiple horizon prediction can effectively reduce the
switching frequency and flux ripple. However, its ability on torque ripple reduction
is quite insignicant.
2.6.5.2 Experimental Testing
In addition to the simulation study, the control methods mentioned above are
further experimentally tested on a two-level inverter-fed PMSM motor drive. The
experimental setup is illustrated in Fig. 2.33. A dSPACE DS1104 PPC/DSP control
board is employed to implement the real-time algorithm coding using C language.
A three phase intelligent power module equipped with an insulated-gate bipolar
transistor (IGBT) is used as an inverter. The gating pulses are generated in the
DS1104 board and then sent to the inverter. The load is applied using a pro-
grammable dynamo-meter controller DSP6000 (Fig. 2.34). A 2500-pulse incre-
mental encoder is equipped to obtain the rotor speed of PMSM. All experimental
results are recorded by the ControlDesk interfaced with DS1104 and PC at 5 kHz
sampling frequency [36].
Fig. 2.31 Combined load test MPC + comp

for MPC with one-step delay 10
compensation
ia/A
0
-10
0.2
Phi/Wb
0.15
0.1
0.05
6
4
Te/Nm 2
0
2000
Speed/rpm
1500
1000
500
0
4000
fs/Hz
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t/s
The steady-state responses at 1000 rpm are presented in this section. From top to
bottom, the curves shown are torque, stator flux and switching frequency,
respectively.
Figures 2.35 and 2.36 show the measured steady-state performance at 1000 rpm.
It is seen that the implementation of MPC can reduce the torque ripple, but does not
reduce the flux ripple. When the one-step delay is compensated, a signicant
decrease of torque and flux ripples can be found as well as an obvious increase of
switching frequency. When the linear multiple horizon prediction is added to MPC,
it can be seen that the torque and flux ripples are slightly decreased along with a
limited reduction of the switching frequency.
Table 2.8 lists the torque and flux ripples of these control methods in experiment.
As shown, similar conclusions can be obtained as those from Table 2.7. According
to the analysis above, it can be concluded that:
(1) MPC can achieve lower torque ripple than that of DTC whilst
maintaining/reducing the switching frequency as proven in both simulation
and experimental tests. However, MPCs ability in flux ripple reduction is
insignicant and even unstable.
Fig. 2.32 Combined load test MPC + A

for MPC with linear multiple 10
horizon prediction
ia/A
0
-10
0.2
Phi/Wb
0.15
0.1
0.05
6
4
Te/Nm 2
0
2000
Speed/rpm
1500
1000
500
0
4000
fs/Hz
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t/s
Table 2.7 Steady-state Method THD fav wrip Wb Trip Nm

response (simulation) (%) (kHz)
DTC 28.83 1.5972 0.0155 0.6869
MPC 18.55 1.5692 0.0138 0.4952
MPC + comp 8.17 1.5812 0.0059 0.2253
MPC + A 15.52 0.6640 0.0090 0.5102
(2) When one-step delay is compensated, the steady-state performance of MPC in

terms of torque and flux ripples reduction is signicantly improved. It should
be noticed that the performance improvement also comes with a remarkable
switching frequency increase (two times or more).
(3) By introducing linear multiple horizon prediction to MPCs, a signicant
switching frequency reduction can be found as well as an obvious decrease in
flux ripple. However, it comes with heavy penalty of torque ripple increasing,
especially at low motor speed.
Fig. 2.33 Experimental setup of testing system: a overview of the testing platform and b front
view of the PMSM and inverter control board
2.6.6 Improved MPC with Duty Ratio Optimization
There are many improvements for these control algorithms. One of them known as
MPC with duty ratio optimization will be selected for the control of PM-SMC
TFM. As a general algorithm, the theory and test results will be presented in this
section.
Fig. 2.34 Dynamo-meter controller DSP6000
(a) Classic DTC (b) MPC

2 2
1 1
Te/Nm
Te/Nm
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
0.16 0.16
s/Wb
s/Wb
0.10 0.10
0.04 0.04
4000 4000
fs/Hz
fs/Hz
2000 2000
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
t/s t/s
Fig. 2.35 Steady-state response for: a DTC, b MPC
In the conventional MPC, the selected voltage vector works during the whole
sampling period. In many cases, it is not necessary to work for the entire period to
meet the performance requirement of torque and flux. This is one of the main
reasons for the torque and flux ripples. By introducing a null vector to each sam-
pling period, the effects of voltage on torque can be adjusted to be more moderate,
in order to diminish the ripples of torque and flux.
(a) MPC + comp (b) MPC + A

2 2
1 1
Te/Nm
Te/Nm
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
0.16 0.16
s/Wb
s/Wb
0.10 0.10
0.04 0.04
4000 4000
fs/Hz
fs/Hz
2000 2000
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
t/s t/s
Fig. 2.36 Steady-state response for: a MPC with one-step delay compensation, and b MPC with
linear multiple horizon prediction
Table 2.8 Steady-state Method fav (kHz) wrip Wb Trip Nm

response at 1000 rpm
(experimental) DTC 1.2129 0.0167 0.8446
MPC 1.1393 0.0173 0.6394
MPC + comp 2.7335 0.0056 0.2310
MPC + A 0.6045 0.0136 0.4460
Actually, the torque can be changed by adjusting the amplitude and time
duration of us . The amplitude is decided by the DC bus voltage and is usually xed,
while the time duration of us can be varied from zero to the whole period, which is
equivalent to changing the voltage vector length. The null vector only decreases the
torque, while appropriate non-zero vectors can increase the torque, and it is possible
to employ both null and nonzero vectors during one cycle to reduce the torque
ripple. The appropriate non-zero vectors are also referred as active vector. The key
issue is how to determine the time duration of the two vectors, or the duty ratio of
the active vector.
The expression of duty ratio for MPC is shown as follows

T Tek 1 ws wek 1
d e

;
2:49
C T C w
Fig. 2.37 Diagram of an improved MPC with duty ratio optimization in MATLAB/SIMULINK
where d is the duty ratio of the active voltage vector, and CT and C are two
positive parameters. The idea of this method is that the larger the difference between
the reference and predicted torque values, the larger is the duty ratio value [36]. On
the other hand, the lower the CT and C values, the quicker is the dynamic response
(e.g. take less time to reach the given speed), but the poorer will be the steady-state
response (e.g. higher torque and flux ripples). Higher values of CT and C could
lead to better steady-state responses, but slower dynamic responses. Therefore, the
determination of these values is a compromise between the steady-state and
dynamic performances. Extensive simulation and experimental results have proven
that the PM flux value and half-rated torque value for CT and C can provide a good
compromise between the steady state performance and the dynamic response. The
block diagram of the proposed improved MPC is shown in Fig. 2.37.
2.6.7 Numerical and Experimental Comparisons of DTC

and MPC with Duty Ratio Optimization
2.6.7.1 Numerical Simulation
The parameters of the motor and control system simulated in this section are listed
in Table 2.9. Similar to the previous test example, this simulation test combines the
start-up, steady-state and external load tests. The motor starts up from 0 s with
several reference speeds (500 rev/min, 1000 rev/min, 1500 rev/min and 2000
rev/min). After reaching the reference speed, the motor maintains the speed for at
least 0.2 s and an external load is applied at 0.3 s. Figure 2.38 shows the combined
load test for one reference speed, 1000 rev/min. From top to bottom, the curves are
Table 2.9 Motor and control Parameter Symbol Value

system parameters
Number of pole pairs p 3
Permanent magnet flux wf 0.1057 Wb
Stator resistance Rs 1.8
d-axis and q-axis inductance Ld, Lq 15 mH
DC bus voltage Vdc 200 V
Inertia J 0.002 kg m2
Torque constant gain CT 2
Flux constant gain Cw 0.1
Sampling frequency fsp 5 kHz
Fig. 2.38 Combined load test MPC + Duty

for MPC with duty ratio 10
optimization at 1000 rev/min
ia/A
-10
0.2
Phi/Wb
0.15
0.1
0.05
6
4
Te/Nm
2
0
2000
Speed/rpm
1500
1000
500
0
1
Duty
0.5
6000
fs/Hz
4000
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t/s
the stator current, stator flux, torque, motor speed, and switching frequency,
respectively. The test results for other speed situations can be found in [36].
It can be found that the proposed MPC scheme present very low torque and flux
ripples and excellent dynamic response. The proposed MPC scheme also presents
very low stator current THDs and narrow harmonic spectrums with the dominant
harmonics of around 5 kHz.
2.6.7.2 Experimental Test
The experimental tests are performed on the same testing platform introduced in the
last section. Figure 2.39 shows the steady-state responses at 1000 rpm for three
control strategies, namely (a) DTC, (b) MPC, and (c) MPC with duty ratio
optimization.
(a) Classic DTC (b) MPC

2 2
1 1
Te/Nm
Te/Nm
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
0.16 0.16
Phis/Wb
Phis/Wb
0.10 0.10
0.04 0.04
4000 4000
fs/Hz
fs/Hz
2000 2000
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
t/s t/s
MPC Duty
(c) 2
1
Te/Nm
0
-1
-2
0.16
Phis/Wb
0.10
0.04
4000
fs/Hz
2000
0
1
duty
0.5
0
0 1 2
t/s
Fig. 2.39 Steady-state response at 1000 rpm for: a DTC, b MPC and c MPC with duty ratio
optimization
It can be seen that in MPC with duty ratio optimization, the torque and flux
ripples are reduced signicantly compared to other methods. The duty ratio
increases along with the increase in motor speed.
According to the analysis above, it can be concluded that:
(1) MPC with duty ratio optimization can achieve a better performance than DTC
and original MPC in terms of torque and flux ripples reduction;
(2) Under the same system sampling frequency (5 kHz), the switching frequency
of the improved method is much higher than other methods; and
(3) In DTC and MPC, the switching frequency slightly decreases along with the
increase of motor speed. However, the switching frequency is almost stable in
the proposed method.
More experimental results including different speed, dynamic response and data
analysis can be found in [36].
2.7 Summary
This chapter presents the multi-disciplinary design analysis models and methods for
electrical machines and drive systems. All the models and methods are discussed in
terms of the three major parts of electrical drive systems, namely electrical
machines, power electronic converters and controllers. Electromagnetic, thermal
and mechanical analyses based on different models, e.g. FEM, have been investi-
gated for the design of electrical machines with several prototypes developed in our
research center. Various kinds of popular control algorithms have been described
for the controller design. Several examples investigated in our previous work have
been presented to show the effectiveness of the proposed models and analysis
methods.
References
methods for electrical drive systems: deterministic approach. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 61
(12):65916602
4713
4. Zhu JG, Ramsden VS (1998) Improved formulations for rotational core losses in rotating
electrical machines. IEEE Trans Magn 34(4):22342242
5. Guo YG, Zhu JG, Lu HY, Lin ZW, Li YJ (2012) Core loss calculation for soft magnetic
composite electrical machines. IEEE Trans Magn 48(11):31123115
6. Guo YG, Zhu JG, Lu HY, Li YJ, Jin JX (2014) Core loss computation in a permanent magnet
transverse flux motor with rotating fluxes. IEEE Trans Magn 50(11). Article#: 6301004
7. Guo YG, Zhu JG, Zhong JJ, Wu W (2003) Core losses in claw pole permanent magnet
machines with soft magnetic composite stators. IEEE Trans Magn 39(5):31993201
8. Huang YK, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Lin ZW, Hu Q (2007) Design and analysis of a high speed claw
pole motor with soft magnetic composite core. IEEE Trans Magn 43(6):24922494
network and 3-D FEA with rotational core loss included. IEEE Trans Magn 45(10):46804683
10. Pster P-D, Perriard Y (2010) Very-high-speed slotless permanent-magnet motors: analytical
modeling, optimization, design, and torque measurement methods. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
57(1):296303
11. Komeza K, Dems M (2012) Finite-element and analytical calculations of no-load core losses
in energy-saving induction motors. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 59(7):29342946
12. Wang SH, Meng XJ, Guo NN, Li HB, Qiu J, Zhu JG et al (2009) Multilevel optimization for
13. Barcaro M, Bianchi N, Magnussen F (2012) Permanent-magnet optimization in
permanent-magnet-assisted synchronous reluctance motor for a wide constant-power speed
range. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 59(6):24952502
15. Bornschlegell AS, Pelle J, Harmand S, Fasquelle A, Corriou J-P (2013) Thermal optimization
of a high-power salient-pole electrical machine. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 60(5):17341746
16. Lee D-H, Pham TH, Ahn J-W (2013) Design and operation characteristics of four-two pole
high-speed SRM for torque ripple reduction. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 60(9):36373643
17. Flieller D, Nguyen NK, Wira P, Sturtzer G, Abdeslam DO, Merckle J (2014) A self-learning
solution for torque ripple reduction for nonsinusoidal permanent-magnet motor drives based
on articial neural networks. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 61(2):655666
motor for weight reduction and performance improvement using response surface
methodology and genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 25(3):598605
weight reduction and improvement of thrust force. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 58(9):40484056
20. Lei G, Liu CC, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2015) Multidisciplinary design analysis for PM motors with
soft magnetic composite cores. IEEE Trans Magn 51(11). Article 8109704
21. Hua W, Cheng M, Zhu ZQ, Howe D (2006) Design of flux-switching permanent magnet
machine considering the limitation of inverter and flux-weakening capability. In: Proceedings
of 41st IAS annual meeting-industry applications conference, vol 5, pp 24032410
22. Liu CC, Zhu JG, Wang YH, Lei G, Guo YG, Liu XY (2014) A low-cost permanent magnet
synchronous motor with SMC and ferrite PM. In: Proceedings of 17th international conference
on electrical machines and systems (ICEMS), pp 397400
23. Fei W, Luk PCK, Shen JX, Wang Y, Jin M (2012) A novel permanent-magnet flux switching
machine with an outer-rotor conguration for in-wheel light traction applications. IEEE Trans
Ind Appl 48(5):14961506
24. Guo YG (2003) Development of low cost high performance permanent magnet motors using
new soft magnetic composite materials, UTS thesis (PhD)
26. Guo YG, Zhu JG, Watterson PA, Wei Wu (2003) Comparative study of 3-D flux electrical
machines with soft magnetic composite cores. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 39(6):16961703
References 71
31. Lei G, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Shao KR, Xu W (2014) Multiobjective sequential design
optimization of PM-SMC motors for six sigma quality manufacturing. IEEE Trans Magn, 50
(2). Article 7017704
32. Liu CC, Zhu JG, Wang YH, Guo YG, Lei G, Liu XY (2015) Development of a low-cost
double rotor axial flux motor with soft magnetic composite and ferrite permanent magnet
materials. J Appl Phys, 117(17). Article # 17B507
33. Teng QF, Zhu JG, Wang TS, Lei G (2012) Fault tolerant direct torque control of three-phase
permanent magnet synchronous motors. WSEAS Trans Syst 8(11):465476
34. Teng QF, Bai J, Zhu JG, Sun Y (2013) Fault tolerant model predictive control of three-phase
permanent magnet synchronous motors. WSEAS Trans Syst 12(8):385397
35. Wang Y (2011) Investigation of rotor position detection schemes for PMSM drives based on
analytical machine model incorporating nonlinear saliencies, UTS thesis (PhD)
36. Wang TS (2013) Model predictive torque control of PMSM with duty ratio optimization for
torque ripple reduction, UTS thesis (Master degree)
37. Kim SY, Lee W, Rho MS, Park SY (2010) Effective dead-time compensation using a simple
vectorial disturbance estimator in PMSM drives. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 57(5):16091614
38. Lee J, Hong J, Nam K, Ortega R, Praly L, Astol A (2010) Sensorless control of
surface-mount permanent-magnet synchronous motors based on a nonlinear observer. IEEE
Trans Power Electron 25(2):290297
39. Genduso F, Miceli R, Rando C, Galluzzo GR (2010) Back EMF sensorless-control algorithm
for high-dynamic performance PMSM. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 57(6):20922100
40. Takahashi I, Noguchi T (1986) A new quick-response and high-efciency control strategy of
an induction motor. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 22(5):820827
41. Depenbrock M (1988) Direct self-control (DSC) of inverter-fed induction machine. IEEE
Trans Power Electron 3(4):420429
42. Buja GS, Kazmierkowski MP (2004) Direct torque control of PWM inverter-fed AC motors-A
survey. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 51(4):744757
43. Lai YS, Chen JH (2001) A new approach to direct torque control of induction motor drives for
constant inverter switching frequency and torque ripple reduction. IEEE Trans Energy
Convers 16(3):220227
44. Lascu C, Trzynadlowski A (2004) A sensorless hybrid DTC drive for high-volume low-cost
applications. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 51(5):10481055
45. Zhang Y, Zhu J, Xu W, Hu J, Dorrell DG, Zhao Z (2010) Speed sensorless stator flux oriented
control of three-level inverter-fed induction motor drive based on fuzzy logic and sliding mode
control. In: Proceedings of 36th IEEE IECON, pp 2926293
46. Zhang Y, Zhu J (2011) Direct torque control of permanent magnet synchronous motor with
reduced torque ripple and commutation frequency. IEEE Trans Power Electron 26(1):235248
47. Zhang Y, Zhu J (2011) A novel duty cycle control strategy to reduce both torque and flux
ripples for DTC of permanent magnet synchronous motor drives with switching frequency
reduction. IEEE Trans Power Electron 26(10):30553067
48. Zhang Y, Zhu J, Xu W, Guo Y (2011) A simple method to reduce torque ripple in direct
torque-controlled permanent-magnet synchronous motor by using vectors with variable
amplitude and angle. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 58(7):28482859
ratio optimization. In Proceedings of 2011 international conference on electrical machines and
systems (ICEMS), pp 15, 2023 August 2011
50. Miranda H, Cortes P, Yuz J, Rodriguez J (2009) Predictive torque control of induction
machines based on state-space models. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 56(6):19161924
51. Geyer T, Papafotiou G, Morari M (2009) Model predictive direct torque controlPart I:
Concept, algorithm, and analysis. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 56(6):18941905
(6):18261838
53. Morel F, Retif J-M, Lin-Shi X, Valentin C (2008) Permanent magnet synchronous machine
hybrid torque control. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 55(2):501511
54. Drobnic K, Nemec M, Nedeljkovic D, Ambrozic V (2009) Predictive direct control applied to
AC drives and active power lter. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 56(6):18841893
55. Zhang Y, Xie W (2014) Low complexity model predictive control-single vector-based
approach. IEEE Trans Power Electron 29(10):55325541
56. Zhang Y, Qu C (2015) Model predictive direct power control of PWM rectiers under
unbalanced network conditions. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 62(7):40114022
Chapter 3
Optimization Methods
Abstract Optimization is an art of searching the best one/ones among a great

number of feasible solutions. The main optimization target of electromagnetic
devices and systems including electrical machines and drive systems is to determine
a set of parameters involving material, topology and structural parameters to satisfy
certain design specications and constraints, such as output power, efciency,
volume, and cost. Engineers have been using optimization methods to optimize the
designs of electromagnetic devices, components and systems for decades. This
chapter aims to presents the optimization methods commonly used in the eld of
electrical machines and drive systems, as well as computational electromagnetics.
Classic and modern intelligent optimization algorithms will be discussed rstly,
followed by the multi-objective optimization algorithms. Four kinds of approximate
models will be described, and the modelling methods will be discussed with two
numerical examples.
Keywords Optimization methods

Intelligent optimization algorithms

Approximate models Multi-objective optimization algorithms
3.1 Introduction
In Chap. 2, the design fundamentals, and various design analysis models for
electrical machines and drive systems have been investigated in terms of different
disciplines or subject domains, such as the analytical models or methods for
electromagnetic and thermal analyses, magnetic circuit model for electromagnetic
analysis, nite element model (FEM) for all electromagnetic, thermal and
mechanical analyses, and eld oriented control (FOC), direct torque control (DTC),
and model predictive control (MPC) algorithms for the control systems. While
some of them are physical analysis models which can reveal the basic operational
principles of the electrical machines and drive systems, the FEM is a kind of
numerical analysis model, which is widely used in the design optimization of
electrical machines to get a further understanding and illustrations for the eld

DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0_3
74 3 Optimization Methods
analysis. All these design analysis models can be employed for the performance
evaluation of electrical machines and drive systems.
On the other hand, solving an optimization problem consists of two main issues:
denition of optimization models and selection/development of (new) optimization
methods. Generally, an optimization model for a single-objective with m constraints
can be dened as
min : f x
s:t: gi x 0; i 1; . . .; m ; 3:1
x l x xu
where x, f and g are the design parameter vector, objectives and constraints,
respectively, xl and xu the lower and upper boundaries of x, respectively, and m is
the number of constraints. Typical optimization objectives for electrical machines
and drive systems are the minimization of cost, cogging torque, torque ripples,
overshoot, and maximization of output power and efciency. Popular constraints
are volume, mass, current density and temperature rises [1].
Theoretically, the optimization model (3.1) is always a strongly-constrained,
highly- nonlinear and high-dimensional problem for electrical machines and drive
systems. Many kinds of optimization algorithms have been employed to nd the
optimum for the above equation, such as the sequential quadratic programming
algorithm, genetic algorithm (GA), differential evolution algorithm (DEA), and
particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm [25]. Section 3.2 presents an over-
view for the classical and modern optimization algorithms for solving (3.1).
On the other hand, from the perspective of practical engineering applications, the
design optimization of electrical machines is actually a multi-objective problem as
there are many objectives which can be dened and different objectives can be
selected for different applications. For example, for applications in home appli-
ances, such as washing machines and refrigerators, the motor price and output
power may be the two most important issues; while for applications in hybrid
electric vehicles, the volume, power density and torque ripple are very important.
Therefore, multi-objective optimization design problems of electrical machines as
well as other electromagnetic devices have become a topic of much interest recently
[68].
Generally, a multi-objective optimization model with p objectives and m con-
straints can be dened as
min : ff1 x; f2 x; . . . fp xg
s:t: gi x 0; i 1; . . .; m ; 3:2
x l x xu
The solutions of (3.2) are often illustrated by Pareto optimal gure, which can be
obtained by using multi-objective optimization algorithms. Many multi-objective
3.1 Introduction 75
optimization algorithms developed in the eld of evolutionary computation have

been introduced to the design of electrical machines, such as multi-objective genetic
algorithm (MOGA), non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) and
NSGA II, multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MPSO) algorithm [68].
Section 3.3 briefly describes several popular multi-objective optimization algo-
rithms employed in the design of electrical machines.
The above optimization methods (physical models or FEMs plus optimization
algorithms) can be regarded as direct optimization method. Though they are always
of high accuracy, the optimization efciency is not good for many situations due to
the high nonlinearity of the problem, particularly for the FEMs. Approximate
models (or surrogate models) present an alternative way for the optimization to
increase the optimization efciency. Section 3.4 presents a summary for four kinds
of widely used approximate models, response surface model (RSM), radial basis
function (RBF) model, Kriging model and articial neural network (ANN) model.
Section 3.5 presents an introduction of construction and verication of approxi-
mation with example analyses of two classical test functions, followed by the
summary Sect. 3.6.
3.2 Optimization Algorithms
3.2.1 Classic Optimization Algorithms
Many kinds of classic optimization algorithms have been introduced to solve the
constrained and nonlinear optimization problem (3.1). Some are gradient-based
algorithms, such as conjugate gradient algorithm, sequential quadratic program-
ming algorithm and augmented Lagrange multiplier method [5, 912]. Generally,
the rst or second order derivative or Hessians matrix is required in the imple-
mentation. To use these algorithms efciently, there are several constraints, such as
(a) The objective functions should be continuous and derivable;
(b) The objective functions and constraints can be expressed analytically; and
(c) The constrained optimization models have to be converted to unconstrained
forms for some initial gradient-based algorithms, e.g. the conjugate gradient
algorithm.
Analytical models or methods for electromagnetic, thermal and other disci-
plinary analyses should be constructed before the optimization. However, many
analysis models for electrical machines are based on FEM, and there is no analytical
expression for the optimization model. Therefore, various intelligent optimization
algorithms using non-analytical machine models have been employed, such as
those based on the GA and PSO algorithms.
3.2.2 Modern Intelligent Algorithms
In the past several decades, a number of innovative intelligent algorithms, such as

the evolutionary algorithms including GA and DEA, PSO algorithms, immune
algorithm, and ant colony algorithm, have been developed and employed for design
optimization problems [1318]. Several evolutionary algorithms will be presented
in this chapter due to the wide usage of them. PSO will also be introduced in this
section as an example of different kind of optimization algorithms.
The evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are a kind of heuristic optimization algo-
rithms, which use techniques inspired by mechanisms from biological evolution
such as reproduction, mutation, recombination, natural selection and survival of the
ttest to nd an optimal conguration for a specic system. There are four main
branches during the development of EAs: (a) GAs, (b) evolution programming,
(c) evolution strategy, and (d) differential evolution. The general flowchart for EAs
is illustrated in Fig. 3.1.
Fig. 3.1 Flowchart for

general EAs
3.2 Optimization Algorithms 77
In the flowchart of EAs, tness calculation is related to the objective functions,

which is used to evaluate the performance of each individual in the (initial) pop-
ulation. Then, the algorithm parameters should be dened prior to the implemen-
tation of the optimization, such as the population size, crossover, mutation,
selection and recombination factors, maximal iteration number, and convergence
criteria. Through a broad research, it is found that EAs have the following merits:
(a) They are global optimization methods;
(b) They can be applied to almost any optimization problems and scale well to
higher dimensional problems;
(c) They are robust in terms of noisy evaluation functions;
(d) They are conceptually simple and can easily be adjusted to the problem at
hand; Almost any aspect of the algorithm may be changed and customized;
and
(e) EAs have strong parallel searching capability as evolution is a highly parallel
process.
Several EAs will be introduced as follows with more details, and several of them
will be used as optimization algorithms in this book.
3.2.2.1 GAs
GAs have been employed in science and engineering as adaptive intelligent algo-
rithms for solving practical problems. They are inspired by Darwins theory about
evolution. Solution to a problem provided by GAs is evolved. Figure 3.2 illustrates
a general optimization flowchart of GAs. As shown, the algorithm is started with a
set of population (represented by chromosomes). Solutions from one population
(known as parent) are taken and used to form a new population (known as offspring
or children) by three genetic operations, crossover, mutation and selection.
Solutions which are used to generate new solutions (offspring or children) are
selected in terms of their tness, which means that the more suitable they are, the
more opportunities they have to reproduce in the evolution process [14, 19, 20].
This is repeated until some conditions or criteria are satised, for example the
maximal iteration number. The outline of the basic GA is listed as follows.
(a) StartGenerate initial population of NP chromosomes;
(b) FitnessEvaluate the tness f(x) of each chromosome x in the initial
population;
(c) New populationCreate a new population by repeating following steps;
SelectionSelect two parent chromosomes from a population in terms of
their tness (the better tness, the bigger chance to be selected);
CrossoverForm a new offspring with a crossover probability over the
parents;
MutationMutate new offspring at each locus (position in chromosome)
with a mutation probability;

general GAs
(d) ReplaceUse new generated population for a further run of algorithm; and
(e) TestIf the end condition is satised, stop, and return the best solution in
current population. Otherwise, go to step (b) and do the optimization loop till
convergence.
In the implementation, there are several algorithm parameters needed to dene.
They are the population size (NP), crossover probability (Pc), mutation probability
(Pm) and determination of the type of selection strategies. Generally, the population
size can be dened as 510 times of the problem dimension, Pc = 0.61.0, and
Pm = 0.0050.05. For the selection operation (regarding the problem of how to
select parents for crossover), this can be done in many ways. A popular one is to
select the better parents (assuming that the better parents will produce better off-
spring), and this is generally called elitism select strategy. It means that at least one
best solution is copied without changes to a new population, so that the best
solution found can survive to the end of run. Other selection strategies are roulette
wheel selection and rank selection methods [19, 20].
GAs have many advantages. For example, GAs work on the chromosome, which
is an encoded version of potential solutions parameters, rather than the parameters
themselves. On the other hand, they use tness score, which is obtained from
objective functions, without other derivative or auxiliary information. Thus, they

have the ability to avoid to be trapped in local optimal solution unlike the traditional
methods, which search from a single point.
3.2.2.2 DEA
DEA is a relatively new evolutionary optimization algorithm [2123]. Many studies

demonstrated that DEA converges fast and is robust, simple to implement, requiring
only a few control parameters. The procedure of DEA is almost the same as that of
the GA whose main process has mutation, crossover, and selection. The main
difference between DEA and GA lies in the mutation process.
Figure 3.3 shows the optimization flowchart of DEA. The implementation of
DEA consists of the following ve main steps:
Step 1: Population initialization
Assume that fxti ; i 1; 2; . . .; NPg is the population, where NP is the
population size. The initial population can be dened as
L U L
x0ji xj randji 0; 1 xj xj ; j 1; 2; . . .; D 3:3
L U
where xj and xj are the lower and upper boundaries of x. In details, it
can be expressed as
8
> L U L
>
> x01i x1 rand1i 0; 1 x1 x1
>
< x0 xL rand 0; 1 xU xL
2i
2i 2
..
2 2
3:4
>
>
>
> .
: 0 L U L
xDi xD randDi 0; 1 xD xD
Step 2: Mutation process

Assume that
vit i xtr1 Fxtr2 xtr3 ; 3:5
where r1, r2, and r3 are three different numbers in [1, NP], that are
different from i, and F 2 0; 2 is the mutation factor. This mutation
method is called as DE/rand/1. There are several other situations:
DE=best=1 : vit i xtbest Fxtr2 xtr3 3:6
DE=best=2 : vit i xtbest Fxtr2 xtr3 xtr4 xtr5 3:7


general DEA
DE=rand to best=1 : vti i xtbest F1 xtr2 xtr3 F2 xtbest xtr1

3:8
where r4 and r5 are two different numbers in [1, NP], and subscript
best means the best one in the iteration t.
Step 3: Crossover process

(
vjit 1 ; rand0; 1 CR
ujit 1 3:9
xtji ; others
where CR 2 0; 1 is the crossover factor, and j 2 f1; 2; . . .; Dg .

Step 4: Selection process
(
uit 1 ; f uit 1 \ f xti
xit 1 3:10
xti ; others
Step 5: Test process

If the population xit 1 meets the criteria, stop the optimization, and
output the best one in xit 1 as the optimal solution. Otherwise, go to step
2 and do the optimization loop again till convergence.
From the above discussion, it can be seen that there are only 3 algorithm
parameters in the DEA. They are population size (NP), mutation factor (F), and
crossover factor (CR).
3.2.2.3 EDA
Estimation of distribution algorithms (EDAs) are a class of evolution algorithms

based on probability model, sometimes known as probabilistic model-based GAs,
which are an outgrowth of GAs. Figure 3.4 shows the comparison of the main
flowcharts of GAs and EDAs. As shown, the main difference is the generation
methods of the new population. The new population and nal solutions of EDAs
are obtained by learning and sampling statistically the probability distribution of the
best individuals of the population in each iteration of the algorithm. The genetic
operators, such as crossover and mutation, used in GAs are not required for this
process in EDAs [2427]. Therefore, EDAs have introduced a new paradigm for
evolutionary computation without using the conventional evolutionary operators,
and have become a hot topic in the eld of evolutionary computation recently.
The most important issue in EDAs is the construction method of the probability
model as shown in Fig. 3.4. According to the complexity of probability models for
learning the interdependencies between the variables, a number of EDAs have been
developed in terms of the interactions between parameters, namely dependency-free,
bivariate dependencies, and multivariate dependencies. The popular one is the
Bayesian optimization algorithm, which uses a probability graph model based on
Bayesian network model to handle the interactions between different parameters.
More information can be found in references [2427].
Fig. 3.4 Comparison of GAs and EDAs, a GA, b EDA
3.2.2.4 PSO
The PSO algorithm is an evolutionary algorithm that simulates the movement of

flocks of birds. In this algorithm, a population of individuals (known as particles)
updates their movements to reach the target point (the optimum) by continuously
receiving information from other members of the flocks [11]. In the classical PSO,
the nth particle velocity and position are updated by
vti 1 wvti c1 r1 pi xti c2 r2 pg xti 3:11
xtDi 1 xtDi avtDi 1 3:12
where w is the inertial weight factor, subscript D the dimension of parameter, pi the
local best vector of the tth particle, pg the global best vector, c1 and c2 are adjustable
social factors, r1 and r2 random numbers between 0 and 1, respectively, and is the
time step.
Figure 3.5 shows a flowchart of the PSO algorithm. The PSO algorithm has been
used in many applications and has had many improvements. Compared with GAs,
PSO is very much similar in many aspects. It is also a kind of evolutionary tech-
nique with its algorithm starting with a group of a randomly generated population,
using tness value to evaluate the population, updating the population, and
searching for the optimum with random techniques.
Fig. 3.5 Flowchart of PSO

algorithm
However, PSO does not have genetic operators like crossover and mutation.
Particles update themselves with the internal velocity. They also have memory,
which is important to the algorithm.
The information sharing mechanism in PSO is also signicantly different from
that of GAs. In GAs, the chromosomes share information with each other, so that
the whole population moves like a group towards an optimal area. In PSO, only pg
and pi give out the information to others, which is a one-way information sharing
mechanism. The evolution only looks for the best solution. Unlike GAs, in PSO, all
the particles tend to converge to the best solution quickly even in the local version
in most cases [11, 2830].
3.3 Multi-objective Optimization Algorithms
3.3.1 Introduction to Pareto Optimal Solution
There are many kinds of multi-objective design optimization problems in the design
of electrical machines and other electromagnetic devices [7, 8, 3035].
Theoretically, the objectives in multi-objective optimization problems are always
conflicting. The improvement of an objective may result in performance decrease of
the other objectives. For example, the material cost and output power are two
important issues for designing the transverse flux machines. The improvement of
output power is often accompanied by the increase of material cost [7]. Therefore, it
is always impossible to achieve the optimum for each of these objectives, and the
corresponding optimal solutions are actually a compromise between these objec-
tives by making the objectives close to their optimums as much as possible. The
corresponding optimal solutions are called the Pareto optimal solutions.
Theoretically, the Pareto solutions are only acceptable solutions or non-inferior
solutions. The number of these solutions may be very large or even innite.
There are several conceptions which are widely mentioned in the multi-objective
optimization to dene the Pareto optimal solutions [8].
Denition 1 Given two vectors, x; y 2 Rq , we say that x y if xi yi for i = 1,,
q, and that x dominates y (denoted by x y if x y and x 6 y:
Figure 3.6 shows a particular case of the dominance relation in the presence of
two objective functions for a minimization situation.
Denition 2 We say that a vector of decision variables x 2 X is non-dominated in
X, if there does not exist another x0 2 X such that f x0 f x:
Denition 3 We say that a vector of decision variables x 2 F (F is the feasible
region) is Pareto-optimal if it is non-dominated in terms of F:
Denition 4 The Pareto optimal set is dened by
P fx 2 Fjx is Pareto-optimalg
Fig. 3.6 Illustration of

dominated solutions
3.3 Multi-objective Optimization Algorithms 85
Denition 5 The Pareto front is dened by:
PF ff x 2 Rq jx 2 P g
Figure 3.7 shows a particular case of the Pareto front in the presence of two
objective functions [8].
Different from the single objective optimization algorithms, the multi-objective
optimization algorithms have to provide a set of non-inferior solutions with large
population, and this set approaches the front of the global Pareto optimal solutions.
Those solutions should be uniformly distributed at the front of Pareto solutions as
much as possible.
Based on these basic principles, a number of multi-objective optimization
algorithms have been developed in the eld of evolutionary computation and have
been employed for the design optimization of multi-objective problems, such as
MOGA, NSGA and its improvement NSGA II, MPSO algorithm [6, 3640]. Three
of them, MOGA, NSGA II and MPSO will be introduced in the following sections.
3.3.2 MOGA
Figure 3.8 illustrates a general flowchart for MOGA based on multi-objective

ranking method. The multi-objective ranking method is one of the methods for
evaluating the multi-objectives. Figure 3.9 shows an example of ranking in two
objectives. The rank of an individual is determined as 1 + NP when it is dominated
by other NP individuals [36, 37].
Since there is a toolbox for GA and MOGA in Matlab, it is ready to implement
for practical problems. The following is an example.
Fig. 3.7 Illustration of Pareto

optimal solutions
Fig. 3.8 Flowchart of

MOGA
The Poloni (POL) function

(
f1 x1 ; x2 1 A1 B1 2 A2 B2 2
min : ; 3:13
f2 x1 ; x2 x1 32 x2 12
A1 0:5 sin 1 2 cos 1 sin 2 1:5 cos 2

A2 1:5 sin 1 cos 1 2 sin 2 0:5 cos 2
B1 0:5 sin x1 2 cos x1 sin x2 1:5 cos x2 :
B2 1:5 sin x1 cos x1 2 sin x2 0:5 cos x2
p x1 ; x2 p
Fig. 3.9 Illustration of

Multiobjective ranking
method
Fig. 3.10 Pareto optimal 35

solutions for POL function by MOGA
30
using MOGA
25
20
f2
15
10
-5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
f1
is a classic test function for multi-objective optimization methods as its Pareto

optimal solutions are not continuous and non-convex [7, 41].
Figure 3.10 illustrates the Pareto optimal solutions obtained from MOGA. As
shown, the Pareto solutions of this function are divided into two parts. It is not
continuous on the whole region. This function will be used to verify the efciency
of the new proposed multi-objective optimization method in the next chapter.
3.3.3 NSGA and NSGA II
NSGA stands for non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm, which was rst pre-
sented by Srinivas and Deb in 1994 [42, 43]. In this NSGA, a new method was
presented to classify individuals in layers before the selection is performed.
Individuals of the rst layer have the highest tness while the members of the last
layer have the smallest tness. Individuals from the rst layer produce more copies
than other layers in the next generation.
The NSGA II is an improved version of NSGA. It is one of the most efcient and
famous multi-objective evolutionary algorithms and has been widely applied in
many kinds of engineering multi-objective optimization problems. Figure 3.11
shows a flow chart of the algorithm. The method includes two important compo-
nents: the non-dominated sorting approach and the crowd comparison operator.
A detailed description can be found in Ref. [41].
Fig. 3.11 Flowchart of NSGA II

3.3.4 MPSO
Figure 3.12 shows a general MPSO framework. MPSO has similar optimization
procedures as multiobjective evolution algorithms, such as MOGA and NSGA.
Many successful strategies, for example, external archive, have been introduced to
MPSO. On the other hand, tness evaluation is not a necessary step in MPSO, so
that the algorithm design can be simplied. However, a global optimal position
should be selected from the external archive for each particle, and this step is not
required for multi-objective evolution algorithms. There are many kinds of
improvements for MPSO, and many of them have been widely employed in the
design optimization of electrical machines. Detail descriptions of them can be found
in references [39, 40, 43].
Fig. 3.12 Flowchart of MPSO algorithm

3.4 Approximate Models
3.4.1 Introduction
The above contents are about the single- and multi- optimization algorithms. As we
know, they are only one important component in the optimization as well as a direct
factor for the optimization efciency. Another important issue for the optimization
efciency is related to the optimization models. FEM has been widely used in the
design optimization of electrical machines. However, as mentioned previously, the
computational cost of FEM is always high, especially for complex structured
electrical machines, such as permanent magnetic (PM) soft magnetic composite
(SMC) machines [1, 7]. As an alternative, some approximate models (or surrogate
models) are employed in the practical engineering design problems to ease the
computational burden of optimization process, such as RSM and Kriging model
[44, 45].
Many research works have found that the optimization design based on
approximate models presents an effective way to solve the aforementioned prob-
lems. By using the design of experiments (DOE) technique and statistical analysis
methods, approximate models can be established as surrogate models for those
physical models, such as FEMs and circuit models, so as to reduce the high sim-
ulation cost in the iterative process of optimization. Meanwhile, approximate
models can degrade the nonlinearity of the practical problems, which can benet the
nding of the global optimal solution.
Generally, constructing an approximate model consists of the following two
steps.
Sampling: determine the required samples for constructing the approximate
models by using the DOE technique, X fx1 ; x2 ; . . .; xn jxi 2 RD g and their
responses fy1 ; y2 ; . . .; yn jyi 2 Rq g ; and
Modelling construction or tting: Fit the samples X, y with a suitable
approximate model, and test the model accuracy with some new samples.
There are four kinds of approximate models which have been widely used in
optimization design of electromagnetic devices, namely RSM, RBF model, Kriging
model, and ANN model. While RSM and RBF models are parametric models,
Kriging is a semi-parametric model, and ANN model a non-parametric model.
3.4.2 RSM
RSM is an empirical modeling approach for determining the relationship between

various input variables and responses with various statistical criteria. It is one of the
most widely used models to solve the electromagnetic optimization problems.
Generally, the direct simulation can be too expensive or time consuming to carry
3.4 Approximate Models 91
out. RSM can effectively replace the simulation and rapidly investigate tradeoffs
between various optimization tasks and conditions [46].
Generally, RSM ts the response data to lower-order quadratic polynomials
using the least-square method, and the sample data are usually obtained from the
uniform sampling method. Quadratic polynomials are generally used in electro-
magnetic problems and have been successfully developed for RSM in the form as
X
D X
D X
D
^yx b0 bi xi bij xi xj 3:14
i1 i1 j1;i j
where s are the regression parameters. To estimate the regression parameters, the
least square method (LSM) is commonly used to minimize the quadratic sum of
residual errors
X
n
Se yi ^yi 2 3:15
i1
Let the partial derivatives for all parameters be zero, and one can obtain a linear
equation system in the matrix form as the following
XT Xb XT y 3:16
The model parameters can be calculated as
b XT X1 XT y 3:17
where y y1 ; . . .; yn T , b b0 ; b1 ; . . .; bm T , and m is the dimension of

parameter. For quadratic polynomials, m D 1D 2=2. The structural
matrix X is
2 3
1 x11 x1D x211 x1i x1j x21D
6 1 x21 x2D x221 x2i x2j x22D 7
6 7
X6. .. .. .. .. 7 3:18
4 .. . . . . 5
1 xn1 xnD x2n1 xni xnj x2nD
However, there is a conflict between the accuracy of tting value and the step
size of sample data. A smaller step size may induce higher accuracy, but the
structural matrix may be poorly conditioned because the quadratic polynomials are
in general globally supported in LSM. The moving least square method (MLSM)
can overcome this defect. The centers of MLSM are randomly chosen and the
randomness is controlled by the point density and surface geometry [47].
There are two main reasons for why the RSM based on MLSM is better than
LSM. The rst one is the construction of tting functions that consist of a vector
function with coefcients and a basis function instead of the traditional polyno-
mials. Both are functions of sample points. The second is the introduction of
compactly supported domain in MLSM. Within MLSM, the response of y f x is
only determined by those samples in a small sub-domain around the point x, and
this sub-domain is called the compactly supported domain. Then the samples
outside this sub-domain do not have any effects on the response. Therefore, a
weighting function is dened in this compactly supported domain. If the weight
function is constant in the whole design space, MLSM is the traditional LSM. In
other words, LSM is a special case of MLSM.
In the MLSM, tting function ^yx can be approximated as a sum of linearly
independent function as the following
X
m
^yx pi xai x pT xax 3:19
i1
where ax a1 x; a2 x; . . .; am xT is the matrix of unknown coefcients,

which are functions of the spatial coordinates, and m is the sample size in the
tting domain. If ax is constant, the LSM can be obtained.
px p1 x; p2 x; . . .; pm xT is a matrix of complete polynomial based func-
tions, and for a two-dimensional optimization problem, it can be expressed as

1; x1 ; x2 T linear base function
px 3:20
1; x1 ; x2 ; x21 ; x1 x2 ; x22 T quadratic base function
To calculate the coefcient vector, minimize the weighted quadratic sum of

tting errors below
X
np
Jx wx xi ^yxi yxi 2
i1
3:21
X
np
2
wx xi p xi ax yxi
T
i1
where np is the sample size in the compactly supported domain, and wx xi a

weighted function for sample xi . By using the LSM, the model parameter matrix
can be calculated as
^ax pT xwxpx1 pT xwxy: 3:22
It should be noted that the tting accuracy highly depends on the selection of
weight functions, which should be equal to 0 outside the compactly supported
domain. The cube spline function is widely used to get the coefcient matrix by
minimizing the weighted square sum of error, which has the form as
8
< 2=3 4s2 4s3 s 1=2
Ws 4=3 4s 4s2 4s3 =3 1=2\s 1 ; 3:23
:
0 s[1
where s jjx xi jj=s0 ; and s0 is the radius of the compactly supported domain.
As a summary, the following lists the computational procedure of the RSM
based on MLSM:
(a) Generate samples by DOE technique, and calculate the responses (objectives)
of those samples;
(b) For each new sample x needing evaluation, implement the following steps:
determine the compactly supported domain for x;
count the sample size inside the supported domain;
calculate the model coefcient vector; and
compute the tting value of x;
(c) Draw the response surface by connecting all samples.
3.4.3 RBF Model
Compared with the RSM, RBF is also an empirical modeling approach for deter-
mining the relationship between various process parameters and responses with the
various desired criteria. RBF can effectively replace the time consuming simulation
(or measurement) and investigate very rapidly the tradeoffs between conflicting
performance criteria for optimization tasks. RBFs are commonly used in electro-
magnetic problems and have been successfully developed for constructing the
response surface [4850].
In general, the multivariate functions H : Rd ! R can be efciently evaluated
if they are expressible as univariate functions H Hjj jj of the Euclidean
norm jj jj; and such functions are called RBFs. With a set of scattered points
xi 1 i n ,the analytical expression of RBF can be given by
X
n
f x b j H x x j 3:24
j1

where Hr H x xj is the RBF, r x xj the Euclidian norm, and bj
(j = 1,2,,n) are the unknown parameters. Three most widely used RBFs in the
electromagnetic optimization problem are the Gauss, multi-quadrics (MQ) and

inverse multi-quadrics (IMQ), which have the forms as
Gauss : Hr expc2 r 2 3:25
MQ : Hr r 2 c2 1=2 3:26
IMQ : Hr r 2 c2 1=2 3:27
where r jjx xi jj; and c is the RBF constant to be determined.

As we have
f xi yi ; i 1; 2; . . .; n 3:28
Then
8
>
> b H k x 1 x 1 k b2 H k x 1 x 2 k bn H k x 1 x n k y 1
> 1
< b1 H kx2 x1 k b2 H kx2 x2 k bn H kx2 xn k y2
.. 3:29
>
> .
>
:
b1 H kxn x1 k b2 H kxn x2 k bn H kxn xn k yn
In matrix form, it is expressed as
Hb Y 3:30
2 3
H kx1 x1 k; H kx1 x2 k; . . .; H kx1 xn k
6 H kx2 x1 k; H kx2 x2 k; . . .; H kx2 xn k 7
6 7
where H 6 .. 7:
4 . 5
H kxn x1 k; H kxn x2 k; . . .; H kxn xn k
When there are no superposition points, H is a positive denite matrix and (3.30)
has an unique solution as
b H1 Y 3:31
However, RBFs are generally globally supported and poorly conditioned (sim-
ilar to the LSM). Although there are several remedies for these problems, such as
domain decomposition, preconditioning, and ne tuning of the variable parameter
of RBF, the compactly supported radial basis function (CSRBF) provides a
promising approach.
The centers of CSRBF are randomly chosen from the points and the randomness
is controlled by the point density and surface geometry. When the CSRBFs are
used, the evaluation of (3.31) will not run over the whole set of n summands and the
coefcient matrix will be sparse. The following two classes of CSRBF will be
studied in this book [51, 52]
CSRBF1 : Hr 1 r6 6 36r 82r 2 72r 3 30r 4 5r 5 ; 3:32
and
CSRBF2 : Hr 1 r8 1 8r 25r 2 32r 3 ; 3:33
where r jjx xj jj=r0 , r0 is the radius of the compactly supported domain, and
1 r is given by

1r if 0 r 1
1 r : 3:34
0 otherwise
3.4.4 Kriging Model
Given n sample points fx1 ; x2 ; . . .; xn g and their responses fyx1 ; yx2 ; . . .; yxn g;
for an input x, the response value y(x) of the Kriging model can be expressed as
yx f xT b zx 3:35
where f xT b is a deterministic term for global modeling. f x is a known

approximation model, which is generally assumed as a polynomial and has the form
of f x f1 x; f2 x; . . .; fq xT , where q is the dimension of polynomial. is the
model parameter vector to be estimated. z(x) is a random error term used for the
modeling of local deviation. It is usually assumed to be a vector with the mean of
zero, variance of 2 and covariance matrix of
cij r2 RRxi ; xj ; 3:36
where R is the correlation matrix, and R the user-specied correlation function.

Gaussian correlation functions are most commonly used. More details about
Gaussian correlation functions and the estimation methods for the parameters in
them can be found in references [5359].
Adopting the Gaussian correlation functions, one can express the correlation
matrix as
2 3
rx1 ; x1 rx1 ; x2 rx1 ; xn
6 rx2 ; x1 rx2 ; x2 rx2 ; xn 7
6 7
R6 .. .. .. .. 7 3:37
4 . . . . 5
rxn ; x1 rxn ; x2 rxn ; xn
where
X
D
rxi ; xj expf ak jxik xjk j2 g 3:38
k1
By using the best linear unbiased estimation in Statistics, the predictor of yx

and parameter can be expressed as follows:
^yx f xT ^b rxT R1 y F^b 3:39
^b FT R1 F1 FT R1 y 3:40
where F, r(x) and y are dened as

2 3
f1 x1 f2 x1 . . . fq x1
6 .. 7;
F 4 ... ..
.
..
. . 5 3:41
f1 xn f2 xn . . . fq xn
2 3
Rx; x1
6 .. 7
rx 4 . 5; 3:42
Rx; xn
and
y yx1 ; yx2 ; . . .; yxn T ; 3:43
respectively.
By using the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) method, the estimation of
r2 can be obtained as
1
^2 y F^bT R1 y F^b
r 3:44
n
The estimation of ak in correlation function can be obtained from MLE. As zx

follows a n-dimensional normal distribution with zero 0 and covariance r2 R; the
probability density function of error is
( )
1 Y HbT R1 Y Hb
pY; b p exp 3:45
2pn detr2 R 2r2
Substituting the predicted b and r2 , i.e. (3.40) and (3.44), into the above
equation, the only unknown parameter ak can be estimated.
In summary, implementing the Kriging method consists of estimating the

parameters in (3.35), r2 in (3.36), and the parameters ak in Gaussian correlation
functions (3.38). All the parameters can be estimated by the software package
DACE (Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments) [59]. Compared with the
parameter model, e.g. RSM, the Kriging model can include not only the mean trend
term but also the variances of the responses. Therefore, it is superior in the mod-
eling of local nonlinearities, and has been widely used in the optimization design of
electromagnetic devices recently.
3.4.5 ANN Model
According to the model classication, the ANN model is a non-parameter model.

Among the various types of network models in this research eld [6062], for data
tting and forecast, the back propagation (BP) network and RBF network may be
the two most commonly used models. The BP ANN model has the form as
y f Wx b 3:46
where x is an input vector, y the output, f a transfer function, W a matrix vector of

weighted value, and b a threshold value vector, respectively. W and b can be
obtained from the model training process with the given sample points and
responses.
The RBF ANN model has the form as
y f jjW xjj b: 3:47
where jj jj is the Euclid norm. Gaussian function is always used as the transfer
function in this network.
3.5 Construction and Verication of Approximate Models
Figure 3.13 shows the main three design steps for the approximate models. Firstly,
the samples are generated by using the DOE techniques. Then, the approximate
models are constructed, including the selections of model basis functions and tting
methods. Finally, the effectiveness/accuracy of the constructed approximate models
is veried [63, 64]. While the second step has been discussed previously, this
section presents the rst and the last steps.
Fig. 3.13 Design flowchart

of approximate models
3.5.1 DOE Techniques
Many DOE techniques have been developed, such as the full-factor design, Latin
hypercube design, orthogonal design, and central composite design. To improve the
tting accuracy, the full-factor design has been employed in many situations. For
example, consider an optimization problem with three parameters, and 5 levels are
dened for each parameter. In total, 53 = 125 samples are needed to construct an
approximate model. The Latin hypercube design is a sampling method with con-
straints. It rstly divides the initial design space into a number of non-overlapping
sub-spaces, and then sampling with equal probability is implemented in each
sub-space [57, 63, 64].
3.5 Construction and Verication of Approximate Models 99
3.5.2 Model Verication
After the construction of approximate models, the accuracy of effectiveness of the

constructed models should be veried by some new samples. There are several
verication methods as follows:
(a) Root mean square error (RMSE)
Assume that there are Ne new samples fxi g and the true responses fyi g , and
we also have their tting values by a kind of approximate model. The RMSE
of this model is then
!1=2
1 X Ne
RMSE yi ^yi 2 3:48
Ne i1
The smaller the RMSE value is, the better the accuracy of tting model.
(b) Multiple correlation coefcient
The multiple correlation coefcient, R, or the coefcient of multiple correlation
is used to reveal the correlation between one factor/parameter with another one
or several other factors/parameters. It is dened as
R 1 SSe =SST 1=2 3:49

P e P e P e
where SSe Ni1 yi ^yi 2 ; SST Ni1 yi y2 , and y Ni1 ^yi . The
higher the R value is, the stronger the linear correlation is between those
factors or parameters.
(c) Coefcient of determination R2 and adjusted R2adj
The coefcient of determination is dened as the square of multiple correlation
coefcient, i.e.
R2 1 SSe =SST 3:50
It is a number that indicates how well the data t a kind of model sometimes
simply a line or curve. It is one of the indexes for evaluating the modelling accuracy
of approximate models. A high modelling accuracy is achieved when R2 approa-
ches to 1. However, this R2 coefcient can be easily affected by the number of
parameters. To avoid this undesired effect, the adjusted coefcient of determination
dened as
SSe =Ne D 1
R2adj 1 3:51
SST =Ne 1
can be employed.
3.5.3 Modeling Examples
Two examples of classical test functions with multiple local minimums will be
presented as follows to show the verications for the RSM, RBF (Gauss type) and
Kriging models.
The rst one is the Rastrigin function expressed in the form of
X
2
f1 x1 ; x2 x2i 10 cos2pxi 10; xi 2 5:12; 5:12 3:52
i1
The global minimum of this function is (0, 0), and the objective is 0. There are
99 local minimums around the global minimal point (0, 0). To have a clear illus-
tration, Fig. 3.14 shows the 3D surface prole of this function in a smaller region of
xi 2 2; 2 instead of the whole region [17, 41, 48, 63].
Figure 3.15 illustrates the RMSE curves for this Rastrigin function with the
RSM, RBF, and Kriging models, where the horizontal axis is the sample size for
each parameter. The minimal and maximal sample sizes are 5 and 33, respectively.
For the situation of minimal sample 5, the whole optimization region [5.12 5.12]
is rstly divided into 4 parts uniformly, and then ve points at [5.12, 2.56, 0,
2.56, 5.12] are sampled with a step size of 2.56. For the situation of maximal
sample 33, the whole optimization region [5.12 5.12] is divided into 32 parts with
equal length, and 33 points are sampled with a step size of 0.32. Thus, we have in
total 29 situations (from 5 to 33) for each approximate model. To verify the
accuracy of the constructed approximate model, 50 sample points are generated for
each parameter in [5.12, 5.12], with a step size of 0.21.
As shown in Fig. 3.15, all the three curves oscillate when the sample size is smaller
than 12. When the sample size is larger than 19, the RMSE values of the RBF and
Kriging models are smaller than those of the RSM, meaning that the RBF and Kriging
models are better than the RSM model in terms of the modelling accuracy.
Fig. 3.14 3D surface prole

of the Rastrigin function
Figure 3.16 illustrates the curves of adjusted coefcients of these approximate

models for the Rastrigin function. As shown, when the sample size is larger than 19,
the R2adj values of the RBF and Kriging models approach 1 whereas those of the
RSM model remain around 0.5, showing again that the RBF and Kriging models
are better than the RSM model in terms of the modelling accuracy.
The second test function is dened as
X
2
f2 x1 ; x2 0:01 xi 0:54 30x2i 20xi ; xi 2 5:12; 5:12 3:53
i1
and Fig. 3.17 plots the 3D surface prole of this function.
Fig. 3.15 RMSE curves of 25

three approximate models for RSM
the Rastrigin function RBF
20 Kriging
15
RMSE
10
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sample size for each parameter
Fig. 3.16 Curves of adjusted 1

coefcient of determination of
three approximate models for
the Rastrigin function 0.8
0.6
R2adj
0.4
0.2 RSM
RBF
Kriging
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
This function has four minimal points located in each of the four quadrants,
respectively. The global minimum is 5.23 and is located at [4.45, 4.45] in the
third quadrant [63, 6567]. The other minimal points are 3.68 at [3.29, 3.29] (the
rst quadrant), 4.46 at [4.45, 3.29] (the second quadrant), and 4.46 at [3.29,
4.45] (the fourth quadrant).
Figure 3.18 illustrates the RMSE curves of the RSM, RBF, and Kriging models
for this test function. The horizontal axis is the sample size for each parameter.
Similar to the last example, the minimal and maximal sample sizes are chosen as 5
and 33, respectively. To verify the accuracy of the constructed approximate models,
100 sample points are generated for each parameter. As shown, the RMSE values of
the RBF and Kriging models are signicantly smaller than those of the RSM model.
It can also be seen that the Kriging model has fastest convergence and the smallest
RMSE values for almost all sample sizes.
Figure 3.19 illustrates the curves of the adjusted coefcient of these approximate
models for the second test function. As shown, when the sample size is larger than
Fig. 3.17 3D surface prole

of the second test function
Fig. 3.18 RMSE curves of

1.4
three approximate models for
the second test function 1.2
0.8
RMSE
RSM
0.6
RBF
0.4 Kriging
0.2
-0.2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Fig. 3.19 Curves of adjusted 1.2

coefcient of determination of
three approximate models for 1
the second test function
0.8
0.6
R2adj
0.4
0.2 RSM
RBF
0 Kriging
-0.2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
19, the R2adj values of the RBF and Kriging models approach 1 quickly, whereas
those of the RSM model remain around 0.4, which means the RBF and Kriging
models are better than the RSM model in terms of the modelling accuracy.
As shown by these two examples, the RBF and Kriging models are better than the
RSM model in terms of the modelling accuracy, and in both cases, the Kriging model
is better than the RBF model. It can also be seen that the modelling accuracy of these
models for the second test function is higher than that for the rst one because of the
stronger nonlinearity and much more number of minimums of the rst function.
3.6 Summary
This chapter presents a brief summary of the most commonly used numerical opti-
mization algorithms for electrical machines and drive systems, including the classic
gradient-based algorithms, modern intelligent algorithms, and multi-objective opti-
mization algorithms. Four kinds of approximate/surrogate models, namely RSM,
RBF, Kriging, and ANN models, have been presented with details. Two examples are
studied to illustrate the procedure of construction and verication of approximate
models.
References
method for electrical drive system: deterministic approach. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 61
(12):65916602
optimization methods with a permanent-magnet synchronous motor benchmark study. IEEE
3. Chechurin VL, Korovkin NV, Hayakawa M (2007) Inverse problems in electric circuits and
electromagnetics. Springer, New York
4. Coelho L, Alotto P (2007) Electromagnetic device optimization by hybrid evolution strategy
approaches. Int J Comput Math Electr Electron Eng (COMPEL) 26(2):269279
5. Nguyen TD, Lanfranchi V, Doc C, Vilain JP (2009) Comparison of optimization algorithms
for the design of a brushless DC electric machine with travel time minimization. In:
Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on advanced electromechanical motion
systems & electric drives (ELECTROMOTION), pp 16
6. Di Barba P (2010) Multiobjective shape design in electricity and magnetism. Lect Notes Elect
Eng 47
7. Lei G, Shao KR, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2012) Multiobjective sequential optimization method for
the state-of-the-art. Int J Comput Intell Res 2(3):287308
9. Dubas F, Sari A, Hissel D, Espanet C (2008) A comparison between CG and PSO algorithms
for the design of a PM motor for fuel cell ancillaries. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Vehicle
Power and Propulsion Conference, pp 17
10. Razik H, Defranoux C, Rezzoug A (2000) Identication of induction motor using a genetic
algorithm and a quasi-Newton algorithm. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Power
Electronics Congress, pp 6570
11. Qteish A, Hamdan M (2010) Hybrid particle swarm and conjugate gradient optimization
algorithm. Proc Adv Swarm Intell 6145:582588
12. Popa D-C, Micu DD, Miron O-R, Szabo L (2013) Optimized design of a novel modular
tubular transverse flux reluctance machine. IEEE Trans Magn 49(11):55335542
13. Whitley D (1994) A genetic algorithm tutorial. Stat Comput 4(2):6585
16. Chun JS, Kim MK, Jung HK (1997) Shape optimization of electromagnetic devices using
immune algorithm. IEEE Trans Magn 33(2):18761879
17. Campelo F, Guimaraes FG, Igarashi H et al (2005) A clonal selection algorithm for
optimization in electromagnetics. IEEE Trans Magn 41(5):17361739
18. Ho SL, Yang SY, Ni G et al (2005) A particle swarm optimization-based method for
multiobjective design optimizations. IEEE Trans Magn 41(5):17561759
19. http://www.obitko.com/tutorials/genetic-algorithms/ga-basic-description.php
20. Srinivas M (1994) Genetic algorithms: a survey. Computer 6:1726
21. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution - a simple and efcient heuristic for global
22. Lei G, Shao KR, Guo Y, Zhu J, Lavers JD (2008) Sequential optimization method for the
design of electromagnetic device. IEEE Trans Magn 44(11):32173220
23. Lei G, Shao KR, Guo Y, Zhu J, Lavers JD (2009) Improved SOM for high dimensional
electromagnetic optimization problems. IEEE Trans Magn 45(10):39933996
24. Larranaga P, Lozano JA (2002) Esitimation of distribution algorithm: a new tool for
evolutionary computation. Kluwer Acadmic Publisher, Boston
25. Pelikan M (2005) Hierarchical Bayesian optimization algorithm: toward a new generation of
evolutionary algorithms. Springer, New York
26. Hauschild M, Pelikan M (2011) An introduction and survey of estimation of distribution
algorithms. Swarm and Evol Comput 1(3):111128
27. Campelo F, Guimaraes FG, Ramirez JA, Igarashi H (2009) Hybrid estimation of distribution
algorithm using local function approximations. IEEE Trans Magn 45:15581561
References 105
28. Ho SL, Yang SY, Ni GZ, Wong HC (2006) A particle swarm optimization method with
enhanced global search ability for design optimizations of electromagnetic devices. IEEE
Trans Magn 42(4):11071110
29. Al-Aawar N, Hijazi TM, Arkadan AA (2011) Particle swarm optimization of coupled
electromechanical systems. IEEE Trans Magn 47(5):13141317
30. Elhossini A, Areibi S, Dony R (2010) Strength Pareto particle swarm optimization and hybrid
EA-PSO for multi-objective optimization. Evol Comput 18(1):127156
31. Beniakar ME, Sarigiannidis AG, Kakosimos PE, Kladas AG (2014) Multiobjective
evolutionary optimization of a surface mounted PM actuator with fractional slot winding
for aerospace applications. IEEE Trans Magn 50(2), Article 7016404
32. dos Santos Coelho L, Barbosa LZ, Lebensztajn L (2010) Multiobjective particle swarm
approach for the design of a brushless DC wheel motor. IEEE Trans Magn 46(8):29942997
34. Guimaraes FG, Campelo F, Saldanha RR, Igarashi H, Takahashi RHC, Ramirez JA (2006) A
multiobjective proposal for the TEAM benchmark problem 22. IEEE Trans Magn 42(4):1471
1474
35. Lebensztajn L, Coulomb JL (2004) TEAM workshop problem 25: a multiobjective analysis.
36. Dias AHF, Vasconcelos JA (2002) Multiobjective genetic algorithms applied to solve
optimization problems. IEEE Trans Magn 38(2):11331136
37. dos Santos Coelho L, Alotto P (2008) Multiobjective electromagnetic optimization based on a
nondominated sorting genetic approach with a chaotic crossover operator. IEEE Trans Magn
44(6):10781081
38. Caravaggi Tenaglia G, Lebensztajn L (2014) A multiobjective approach of differential
evolution optimization applied to electromagnetic problems. IEEE Trans Magn 50(2), Article
7015404
39. Ho SL, Yang JQ, Yang SY, Bai YN (2015) Integration of directed searches in particle swarm
optimization for multiobjective optimization. IEEE Trans Magn 51(3) Article: 7000804
40. Al-Aawar N, Hijazi TM, Arkadan AA (2011) Particle swarm optimization of coupled
electromechanical systems. IEEE Trans Magn 47(5):13141317
42. Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic
algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3):221248
43. Sooksaksun N (2012) Pareto-based multi-objective optimization for two-block class-based
storage warehouse design. Ind Eng Manage Syst 11(4):331338
45. Mendes MHS, Soares GH, Coulomb J-L, Vasconcelos JA (2013) Appraisal of surrogate
1996
46. Dyck D, Lowther DA, Malik Z et al (1998) Response surface models of electromagnetic
devices and their application to design. IEEE Trans Magn 35(3):18211824
47. Liu WK, Li S, Belytschko T (1997) Moving least-square reproducing kernel methods
(I) Methodology and convergence. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 143:113154
48. Ishikawa T, Tsukui Y, Matsunami M (1999) A combined method for the global optimization
using radial basis function and deterministic approach. IEEE Trans Magn 35(3):17301733
49. Gutmann HM (2001) A radial basis function method for global optimization. J Global Opt 19
(3):201227
Magn 46(8):31813184
51. Wu ZM (1995) Compactly supported positive denite radial basis functions. Adv Comput
Math 4:283292
52. Song KZ, Zhang X, Lu MW (2004) Meshless method based on collocation with consistent
compactly supported radial basis functions. Acta Mech Sin 20(5):551557
53. Lebensztajn L, Marretto CAR, Costa MC et al (2004) Kriging: a useful tool for
54. Xia B, Pham M-T, Zhang YL, Koh C-S (2013) A global optimization algorithm for
electromagnetic devices by combining adaptive Taylor Kriging and particle swarm
55. Lim D-K, Woo D-K, Kim I-W, Ro J-S, Jung H-K (2013) Cogging torque minimization of a
dual-type axial-flux permanent magnet motor using a novel optimization algorithm. IEEE
Trans Magn 49(9):51065111
56. Kim JB, Hwang KY, Kwon BI (2013) Optimization of two-phase in-wheel IPMSM for wide
speed range by using the Kriging model based on Latin hypercube sampling. IEEE Trans
Magn 47(5):10781081
57. Lei G, Guo YG, Zhu JG, Wang TS, Chen XM, Shao KR (2012) System level six sigma robust
optimization of a drive system with PM transverse flux machine. IEEE Trans Magn 48
(2):923926
(2):479482
59. Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Sondergaard J (2002) DACE: A MATLAB Kriging toolbox
version 2.0. Technical Report IMM-TR-200212. Technical University of Denmark,
Copenhagen
60. Dorica M, Giannacopoulos DD (2006) Response clustering for electromagnetic modeling and
61. Marinova I, Panchev C, Katsakos D (2000) A neural network inversion approach to
electromagnetic device design. IEEE Trans Magn 36(4):10801084
62. Burrascano P, Fiori S, Mongiardo M (1999) Review of articial neural networks applications
in microwave computer-aided design. Int J RF Microw CAE 9(3):158174
63. Lei G (2009) Statistical analysis method for electromagnetic inverse problems . Ph D thesis.
Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China (in Chinese)
64. Wu CFJ, Hamada MS (2000) Experiments: planning, analysis and parameter design
optimization. Wiley, New York
65. Rashid K, Farina M, Ramirez JA et al (2001) A comparison of two generalized response
surface methods for optimization in electromagnetics. Int J Comput Math Electr Electron Eng
(COMPEL) 20(3):740752
66. Coulomb JL, Kobetski A, Caldora M, Costa et al (2003) Comparison of radial basis function
approximation techniques. Int J Comput Math Electr Electron Eng (COMPEL) 22(3):616629
67. Pahner U, Hameyer K (2000) Adaptive coupling of differential evolution and multiquadrics
approximation for the tuning of the optimization process. IEEE Trans Magn 36(4):10471050
Chapter 4
Design Optimization Methods
for Electrical Machines
Abstract This chapter presents the design optimization methods for electrical
machines in terms of different optimization situations, including low- and
high-dimensional, single- and multi- objectives and disciplines. Firstly, the tradi-
tional design optimization methods are briefly reviewed, and the challenges pre-
sented. Then, ve new types of design optimization methods are presented to improve
the optimization efciency of electrical machines, particularly those complex struc-
tured permanent magnet machines, in terms of different optimization situations. They
are (a) a sequential optimization method for design optimization of low-dimensional
problems of electromagnetic devices including electrical machines, (b) a
multi-objective sequential optimization method for engineering multi-objective
problems, (c) a multi-level design optimization method (or sequential subspace
optimization method) for high dimensional problems, (d) a multi-level genetic
algorithm for high dimensional optimization problems as well, and (e) the
multi-disciplinary design optimization method. Design examples with detailed
experimental and optimization results are illustrated for each optimization method.

Keywords Design optimization Sequential optimization method Multi-objective

sequential optimization method Multi-level optimization method Multi-level

genetic algorithm Multi-disciplinary optimization method Permanent magnet
motors
4.1 Introduction
Design optimization methods actually consist of two parts, design methods with
analysis models, and optimization methods with algorithms. In Chap. 2, the popular
design methods and analysis models for electrical machines and drive systems are
reviewed. As shown, the design of electrical machines is a complex
multi-disciplinary or multi-physics problem, including electromagnetics, thermotics,
mechanics and control, and each discipline has its own design methods and analysis
models [13]. For example, the electromagnetic design is mainly based on analytical

DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0_4
108 4 Design Optimization Methods for Electrical Machines
model, magnetic circuit model and nite element model (FEM). The thermal design
is mainly based on FEM and thermal network model. The control system design is
mainly based on the topologies of power electronic circuits and control algorithms,
such as the eld oriented control algorithm and the direct torque control algorithm.
In Chap. 3, the popular optimization algorithms and approximate models used in
optimization of electrical machines as well as other electromagnetic devices are
discussed. The optimization algorithms include the classical gradient-based algo-
rithms and modern intelligent algorithms, such as genetic algorithms (GA), dif-
ferential evolution algorithm (DEA), and multi-objective genetic algorithms
(MOGA). The approximate models include the response surface model (RSM),
radial basis function (RBF) model, compactly supported radial basis function
(CSRBF) model, and Kriging model [46].
The general procedures for design optimization of electrical machines are listed
as follows:
(1) Determine the design analysis model for the investigated machine, including
selection of material, motor type and topology, and develop the
multi-disciplinary analysis model, for example, electromagnetic-thermal cou-
pled model based on FEM.
(2) Establish the optimization model, including the denition of objectives (such
as maximization of output power and efciency, and minimization of cost),
constraints (such as volume, mass and temperature rises) and design param-
eters (such as material and structural parameters). The optimization regions of
these parameters and their types, such as discrete and continuous, have to be
dened in this step as well.
(3) Select an optimization method and optimize the established optimization
model. There are many kinds of available optimization methods. The most
popular one is the direct optimization method, which uses an optimization
algorithm to optimize the optimization model established on FEM.
(4) Validate the effectiveness of the obtained optimal solutions by experiments or
other ways. If necessary, update the optimization model in terms of the
experimental results and do the optimization again.
4.2 Classical Optimization Methods
In general, there are two kinds of classical optimization methods, and they are
(1) The direct optimization methods, and
(2) The optimization methods based on approximate models.
The direct optimization methods use the optimization algorithms to directly
optimize the physical models, such as the analytical model, magnetic circuit model,
and FEM for the design of electrical machines. For example, the conjugate gradient
algorithm and sequential quadratic programing algorithm have been employed to
4.2 Classical Optimization Methods 109
optimize several kinds of motors based on the analytical models for electromagnetic
analysis. The most popular formula of this type of methods is the combination of
intelligent algorithms and FEM, such as GA&FEM, DEA&FEM and
MOGA&FEM [2, 711].
This approach can present global optimal design schemes for electrical machines.
However, the computational cost of this kind of optimization methods is always
huge due to the extensive computational burdens of FEM, practically for some
complex structured electrical machines requiring 3D FEM, such as the transverse
flux machines (TFM) and claw pole motors. Most importantly, the computational
cost will increase greatly with the increase of problem dimension. For example, for a
motor design problem with four parameters, about 4,000 (4 5 200, where 4 5 is
the population size and 200 the general iteration number of GAs) FEM samples are
needed if the GA&FEM method is applied. However, if a motor has 10 design
parameters, about 20,000 (10 5 200) FEM samples are required, which is a huge
computational burden for many situations.
An effective way to solve this problem is to use the second kind of optimization
method: the optimization based on approximate models. This method replaces the
FEM with a kind of approximate model, such as RSM and Kriging, so as to form
the optimization method, GA&RSM and GA&Kriging. As mentioned in Chap. 3,
the approximate models can degrade the nonlinearity of the optimization problem.
Therefore, the optimization efciency can be improved signicantly.
This method is relatively simple to implement. However, the optimization
accuracy is an important problem for this kind of methods, particularly for high
dimensional problems. Actually, it is very hard or impossible to replace the FEM
with approximate models for high dimensional problems, because they cannot
approximate high dimensional problems with sufcient accuracy by using limited
number of samples. As we know, the rst step in the construction of approximation
models is to obtain the initial samples by using the design of experiments
(DOE) technique. If 5 samples are required for each parameter in a design problem
with ten parameters, 510 FEM samples are required in total, which is greater than
that required by direct optimization method of GA and FEM [1].
Therefore, the classical or traditional direct optimization methods based on both
FEM and the approximation models have challenges for the design optimization of
electrical machines, especially for the high dimensional design optimization
problems. The following sections will present several new optimization methods.
4.3 Sequential Optimization Method
4.3.1 Method Description
In the traditional optimization methods, the optimization models and intelligent

algorithms are processed almost separately though the optimization is indeed a
Fig. 4.1 Optimization

strategy for SOM
simultaneous updating process about them. This is one of the main reasons why the
traditional optimization methods cause huge computational costs. To overcome this
problem, a sequential optimization method (SOM) was developed to reduce the
computational cost for single-objective low-dimensional optimization problems of
electromagnetic devices in 2008 [12, 13].
Figure 4.1 illustrates the optimization strategy of SOM. Assume that square
ABCD is the initial design space and point S is the optimal point. The traditional
direct optimization method, e.g. GA&FEM, searches the whole design space for the
optimal point by an iterative process, and many new samples in the population are
required in the whole design space. However, the optimal point is located in a small
subspace (shown as the shaded rectangle) around point S. If we can nd this
interested subspace and sample more points in it instead of the whole design space,
the optimization efciency would be improved greatly. Based on this idea, the main
question is how to nd this subspace efciently. SOM is a method to deal with this
problem. It can reduce the design space step by step. As shown in Fig. 4.1, it
reduces the design space from ABCD to ABCD in the rst step, then to ABCD
in the second step, and so on until the shaded rectangle is reached in the last step.
Figure 4.2 depicts a brief flowchart of SOM. Basically, SOM can be regarded as
a space-to-space optimization strategy compared with the point-to-point optimiza-
tion strategy of the traditional intelligent algorithms, such as GA and DEA. SOM
consists of two optimization processes, coarse and ne optimization processes. The
main aim of the former is to reduce the design space to a small space (the shaded
rectangle as shown in Fig. 4.1). The purpose of the latter is to update the model in
the local space and nd the optimal solutions [12, 13].
SOM is conducted in the following six main steps:
Step 1: Dene optimization model, such as objectives, constraints and design
parameters. Select the approximate models and optimization algorithms
that will be used in the SOM, and dene the algorithm parameters, such as
population, genetic operators and maximal iteration number.
4.3 Sequential Optimization Method 111
Fig. 4.2 Flowchart of SOM
Step 2: Use the coarse optimization process (COP) to reduce the design space.
The traditional optimization methods based on approximate models will
be employed in this step. The DOE is required in this method to generate
samples for the construction of approximate models.
k k
In general, one can assume that the design space of the kth COP is xli ; xui ,
k
i 1; 2; . . .; D, where D is the dimension, li the interval of the ith variable,
k k1 k
hi hi =2 the step size, and Ni the sample size, respectively. The sample set
S(k) can be obtained by using a DOE technique, e.g. the full-factor design. Based on
these samples, the approximate model can be constructed. Finally, through the
k k
optimization of the model, the current optimal point xo fxoi ji 1; 2; . . .; Dg
and objective f k can be obtained.
Note that the step size must ensure that the minimum number of sample points is
no less than 3. Otherwise, a singular matrix may appear in the matrix inversion
process of model construction.
k 1
Step 3: Terminate COP by the step size. If hi =li \d, where d is a positive
constant and can be a value in [1 %, 5 %], stop COP and go to step 5.
Otherwise, go to step 4.
Step 4: Reduce the current design space with the obtained optimal value. Under
the boundary condition of design space, the design space of next step can
be updated as follows:
8 k
>
> k 1 k x Dl
>
< xli max xli ; round oiDh Dh
k ; 4:1
>
> x Dl
> k 1
: xui
k
min xui ; round oi Dh Dh
k k
where function round(x) rounds x to the nearest integer, Dl li =nl, Dh hi =nh,
and nl and nh are the reduction factors.
For a practical problem, three parameters, nl, nh and N, can be used to determine
the construction of an approximate model. nl can be 4, 6 or 8, meaning that the
corresponding intervals of reduced space are 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 of the former space,
respectively. nh can be 2, 4, or 8, which let function round(x) round x with 1/2, 1/4
and 1/8 of the current step size, respectively, and N can be 3, 4 or 5 for a stan-
dardization space of [0, 1].
To nd the best values of these parameters, the Monte Carlo analysis
(MCA) method is employed. Firstly, assume that the initial design space is [0, 1]
and nl is 4. Then, generate 106 random numbers by using the Monte Carlo method
as the optimal results of an approximate model. Thereafter, use these numbers to
reduce the design space under N = {3, 4, 5} and nh = {2, 4, 8}. The target of this
analysis is to compare the mean of the errors between . the current optimal results
k k
and the average of the reduced space xli xui 2. Table 4.1 lists the MCA
results for the case of nl = 4. Similarly, Tables 4.2 and 4.3 list the results for the
cases of nl = 6 and nl = 8, respectively.
As shown, the mean error decreases with the increase of N and nh for all three
cases. Thus, in the later implementation, the default value of nh is 8 and N is 5. The
Table 4.1 Mean of errors for N nh = 2 nh = 4 nh = 8

space reduction strategy with
nl = 4 3 0.0625 0.0469 0.0390
4 0.0555 0.0416 0.0364
5 0.0469 0.0391 0.0352

nl = 6 3 0.0417 0.0260 0.0200
4 0.0417 0.0278 0.0209
5 0.0260 0.0199 0.0168

nl = 8 3 0.0625 0.0313 0.0195
4 0.0243 0.0243 0.0156
5 0.0313 0.0195 0.0137
factor nl must be selected in terms of the practical problems. If we have some

experience about the problem or the given space is very large and we want to
reduce the design space quickly, nl = 6 or 8 can be selected. Otherwise, nl = 4 may
be a better choice. In the later discussions, the default value of nl is 4 if there is no
further explanation.
Secondly, to illustrate the efciency of the new method, two examples are shown
below. For the rst example, assume that the initialization of design space is [0, 1]
and the step size is 0.2; which means that six sample points are composed of the rst
sample data S(1) = {0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0}. If the optimal value is 0.35, the next
sample space is [0.1, 0.6], and the new sample data are S(2) = {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5,
0.6}, i.e. three points have been sampled in the last step. In other words, the com-
putational cost is reduced by 50 %. Similarly, if the optimal value is 0.15, the new
sample space is [0, 0.4], and new sample data are S(2) = {0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4}. In this
case, the computational cost is reduced by 60 %.
The second example is about the value of nh. If nh is 2 and the current optimal
value is 0.5, the next sample space is [0.5, 1.0]. If nh is 8, the next sample space is
[0.25, 0.75]. Therefore, we can minimize the distance between the optimal results
and the average of the next design space by using a bigger nh.
Step 5: Use ne optimization process (FOP) to nd the nal optimal results. To
ensure the accuracy and robustness of optimization process, the local
multipoint sample updating method is proposed here. Given the current
optimal value, the next sample set S(k+1) is updated by
Sk 1 Sk [ fxok Dxop jp 1; . . .; Np g; 4:2
which is constructed by Np perturbations around the current optimal value, where

Np is the number of new samples, and can be dened as 2D, meaning that two new
points are sampled for each variable.
Step 6: Terminate the optimization process according to predened error. If
jDf k =f k j \ e, where is a small positive constant, and can be a value in
[1, 5 %], stop the optimization process and output the nal optimal results;
otherwise go to step 5 until the termination condition is satised.
4.3.2 Test Example 1A Mathematical Test Function
A test function shown in Chap. 3 is used here to verify the efciency of the
proposed SOM [12], which has the form as
X
2
f2 x1 ; x2 0:01 xi 0:54 30x2i 20xi ; xi 2 5:12; 5:12 4:3
i1
The parameters in SOM are = = 5 % and N(1) = [5, 5]. The DEA is used as
the optimization algorithm in this example [14]. The algorithm parameters are
chosen as 0.8 for the mutation scaling factor, 0.8 for the crossover factor, 1000 for
the maximum number of iteration, and 100 for the maximum stall generation, which
is selected for the stop criterion [12, 13].
Table 4.4 tabulates the optimization results obtained by SOM with ve different
approximate models. They are the general RSM model based on least square
method, improved RSM model based on moving least square (MLS) method,
Gauss RBF model, CSRBF 1 model, and Kriging model. As shown, the obtained
optimal solutions by using the SOM are of good accuracy compared with the exact
values.
4.3.3 Test Example 2Superconducting Magnetic Energy

Storage
Superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) is an attractive research area in

application of superconducting materials. Taking advantage of the property of low
power loss and fast response of superconducting magnets, SMES can be employed
as a multi-functional electromagnetic system to store and release electricity for
power systems with the connection of power electronic converters. SMES is able to
store large amount of energy with very low power losses, so as to improve the
power supply quality and enhance the stability and reliability of power systems.
TEAM Workshop Problem 22 deals with the optimization design problem of a
specic SMES, which is often used as a benchmark problem to verify and compare
Table 4.4 Optimization Method x1 x2 f

results of SOM for an analytic
function Exact 4.4538 4.4538 5.2328
RSM 4.4060 4.4060 5.2299
RSM (MLS) 4.4060 4.4060 5.2299
RBF (Gauss) 4.4519 4.4519 5.2328
CSRBF 1 4.4567 4.4567 5.2327
Kriging 4.4405 4.4405 5.2325
Fig. 4.3 The geometry

conguration of SMES
(axisymmetric)
the efciencies of different optimization methods [12, 13, 1519]. This problem
consists of several cases, including low and high dimensional, single- and
multi-objective, and discrete as well as continuous parameter optimization cases.
Figure 4.3 illustrates the optimization structure of this SMES. As shown, it consists
of two solenoids and there are eight design parameters.
For this benchmark problem, there are three optimization objectives as listed
below:
(1) The expect value of the stored energy, E, in this SMES is 180 MJ;
(2) The mean stray elds, Bstray, should be as small as possible; The value of Bstray
21
P jBistray j2 1=2
can be calculated by Bstray 21 , where Bistray is the magnetic flux
i1
density evaluated along 21 equidistant points on lines a and b, and
(3) The magnetic eld should maintain the superconducting condition of the
storage. The superconducting material employed in this SMES is NbTi.
Figure 4.4 illustrates the critical curve of this material. To ensure the super-
conducting condition, the current density, Ji, in the solenoids and magnetic
eld density in the storage must follow the following constraint
jJi j 6:4jBmax ji 54:0 4:4
In the optimization case of discrete parameters, the dimensions of the inner

solenoid, R1, h1/2, and d1, are xed at the values as shown in Table 4.5, and the
current densities, J1 and J2, are xed at 22.5 A/mm2. The dimensions of the outer
solenoid, R2, h2/2, and d2, are to be optimized to reduce the stray elds while
keeping the stored energy close to 180 MJ. The optimization model is dened as
Fig. 4.4 Critical curve of 60

superconducting material
Current density |J| [A/mm2]

50
NbTi
40 Material
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Magnetic field density |B| [T]
Table 4.5 Design parameters Par. Unit Min Max Step size xed
and values of SMES for
discrete case R1 m 2.0
R2 m 2.6 3.4 0.01
h1/2 m 0.8
h2/2 m 0.204 1.1 0.007
d1 m 0.27
d2 m 0.1 0.4 0.003
J1 A/mm2 22.5
J2 A/mm2 22.5
min: f x Bstray =Bnorm

hx jE=180 1j 0 ; 4:5
s.t.
gx Bmax 4:92 0
where Bnorm = 3 mT, hx and gx are two constraints, and gx is an inequality

constraint concerning the quench condition that guarantees superconductivity. As
the current density is xed at 22.5 A/mm2, the corresponding Bmax is 4.92 T
obtained by (4.4). In the optimization, the constraints are maintained by using a
penalty function dened as
Fx f x 1000hx2 maxgx; 02 : 4:6
Table 4.6 lists the optimization results for this SMES by using different opti-
mization methods, including direct optimization method and SOM based on dif-
ferent approximate models. The parameters used in SOM are d e 2:5 % and
Table 4.6 Optimization results of SMES

Par. R2 h2/2 d2 E Bmax Bstray F FEM
Unit m m m MJ T mT
TEAM 3.08 0.239 0.394 179.86 4.73 0.9084 0.3034
DEA 3.18 0.428 0.211 180.00 3.83 1.0323 0.3441 2310
RSM 3.08 0.246 0.382 179.68 4.70 0.9051 0.3049 164
RSM-MLS 3.10 0.274 0.337 179.93 4.53 0.9171 0.3058 171
RBF-Gauss 3.16 0.365 0.244 179.95 3.94 0.9573 0.3192 202
CSRBF1 3.11 0.267 0.340 179.94 4.50 0.9431 0.3145 157
Kriging 3.11 0.267 0.340 179.94 4.50 0.9431 0.3145 157
Fig. 4.5 Convergence rates 0.6

of SOM by using different RSM
models MLS
0.55
Gauss
0.5 CSRBF1
Kriging
Objective
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
1 2 3 4 5
Iterative number of SOM
N 1 5; 5; 3. The best solution of this problem given by the TEAM workshop is
also listed in the table. Figure 4.5 illustrates the convergence rates of SOM by using
different approximate models. The rst three iteration processes are for the COPs.
The last one or two iteration processes are for the FOPs. The following conclusions
can be drawn from the table and gure:
(1) By using the direct optimization method based on FEM and DEA, the obtained
optimal result is 180.00 MJ for the stored energy (slightly better than the TEAM
value, 179.86 MJ), 3.83 T for the maximum magnetic flux density, and
1.0323 mT for the mean stray flux density (slightly higher than the TEAM value,
0.9084 mT). The objective is 0.3441, which is much higher than the TEAM
objective, 0.3034. To obtain this optimal result, 2310 FEM samples are used.
(2) By using the SOM based on RSM, the obtained optimal result is 179.68 MJ
for the stored energy, 0.9051 mT for the mean stray flux density, and 0.3049
for the objective. The obtained objective is lower than that obtained by the
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
d2
0.2
0.15
0.1
1
0.8
0.6 3.4
3.2
0.4 3
2.8
h2/2 0.2 2.6 R2
Fig. 4.6 Total FEM samples required by RSM-SOM
direct optimization method and close to the TEAM value. Most importantly,
this method requires only 164 FEM samples to obtain the optimal result.
Figure 4.6 depicts these samples using +, and to denote the points
sampled from three COPs, and o the points sampled in the FOP. As shown,
the samples are distributed non-uniformly in the whole design space, and the
sampling processes approach the nal optimal solutions step by step.
Figure 4.7 illustrates the magnetic flux density distribution in the SMES for this
optimal solution. As shown, the maximal flux density is 4.702 T, which is very
close to 4.70 T, the value listed in Table 4.6.
Therefore, SOM based on RSM has high optimization efciency while main-
taining the accuracy of optimum.
(3) The detailed optimization results of SOM based on other models are shown in
Table 4.6. As shown, all optimal objectives obtained from SOM with different
models are slightly higher than the TEAM value and smaller than that of DEA.
Both the SOM based on CSRBF1 model and the SOM based on Kriging
model used only 157 FEM samples, which is 6.8 % (=157/2310) of that used
by the DEA method.
Fig. 4.7 Field analysis by ANSYS for SMES
In summary, all solutions obtained by the SOM based on various models are
better than that of the direct optimization or DEA method, and there is not much
difference between the approximate models. In other words, SOM has high opti-
mization efciency whereas the model type does not affect its optimization accuracy
very much. Unlike the case presented in Chap. 3 that MLS is better than LSE for
RSM and CSRBF is better than RBF, they do not have much difference within the
framework of SOM. On the other hand, the MLS and CSRBF require extra
parameters, which make them more complex compared with RSM, RBF and
Kriging. Therefore, RBF and Kriging are two good models for SOM.
4.3.4 Improved SOM
As mentioned in the above section, space reduction strategy plays an important role
in SOM. The design purpose of the former space reduction strategy is to minimize
the distance between the mean of next design range and the optimal result [12]. It is
accurate from the point of view of distance minimization, but it has not considered
the issue that reduces the number of FEM samples effectively. To make full use of
most points sampled in the last set, we present a new space reduction strategy in this
section.
k k
Assume xk xli ; xui is the boundary of the ith variable in the kth opti-
mization process, lk the interval, hk the step size, N k the number of sample
k
points, Sk the sample set, and xo and f k are the optimal result and corresponding
function value, respectively. The new space reduction strategy consists of the fol-
lowing two steps.
Reduction step:
( ! )
k
k 1 k xoi Dl
^xli max xli ; round Dh ; 4:7
Dh
( ! )
k
k 1 k xoi Dl
^xui min xui ; round Dh : 4:8
Dh
Correction step:
!
k 1 k k
k 1 k 2^xli xli hi
xli xli round k
; 4:9
h 2
i
!
k 1 k k
k 1 k 2^xui xli hi
xui xli round k
; 4:10
h 2
i
k
where round(x) is a function to round x to its nearest integer, Dl li =nl ,
k
Dh hi =nh , and nl and nh are the two reduction factors with defaults 4 and 8,
respectively [20].
To check the efciency of the new method, a comparison with the former space
reduction strategy is conducted.
As an example, assume that the initial design space is [0, 1], N = 6, and the
uniform sampling method is used. The rst sample data is then S(1) = {0.0, 0.2, 0.4,
0.6, 0.8, 1.0}, and the optimal value is supposed as 0.35. By the former space
reduction strategy, the next design space is [0.1, 0.6], and the next sample set
S(2) = {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6}. Thus, 3 sample points have been sampled in S(1),
or 50 % computation cost is saved. On the other hand, by the new space reduction
strategy, the next sample space is [0.2, 0.6], and S(2) = {0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6},
resulting in a save of 60 % computation cost, which is better than the former
strategy.
As another example, if the optimal value is 0.3, the next sample space is [0.05,
0.55] by the former strategy, and S(2) = {0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55}. Thus,
no sample point has been sampled. By the new strategy, however, the next sample
space is [0.0, 0.6], and S(2) = {0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6}. Thus, 4 sample
points have been sampled in the S(1), resulting in a reduction of 57.14 % compu-
tation cost.
Therefore, the new strategy is more effective than the former one.
Table 4.7 shows mean saving rates of sample points for the former and new
space reduction strategies by using MCA. For each strategy and every sample
Table 4.7 Mean saving rates N 3 4 5 6

by two strategies of SOM
Former 0.2293 0.2531 0.2428 0.2375
New 0.5415 0.5383 0.5334 0.5221
Table 4.8 Optimization Par. Unit DEA Gauss MQ

results of SMES by using
improved SOM R2 m 3.18 3.12 3.07
h2/2 m 0.428 0.309 0.295
d2 m 0.211 0.295 0.328
E MJ 180.00 179.94 179.64
Bstray mT 1.0323 0.9300 0.9657
Bmax T 3.83 4.31 4.60
F 0.3441 0.3101 0.3259
FEM 2310 214 129
number N, 106 random numbers are generated as the current optimal points by
Monte Carlo method. Then, the mean saving rate is obtained for each case. As
shown, all saving rates by the new strategy are more than 50 %, which are higher
than those obtained by the former strategy [20].
Table 4.8 lists the optimization results of the SMES by using two kinds of RBF
models. As shown, the Gauss RBF model gives the best result, and the
multi-quadrics (MQ) RBF model requires the least number of FEM samples.
Furthermore, either RBF model requires less than 1/10 of the FEM samples needed
by DEA.
4.3.5 A PM Claw Pole Motor with SMC Stator
A three-phase PM claw pole motor is investigated in this section to demonstrate the

efciency of the improved SOM. Figure 4.8 shows the stator part and FEM region
for this motor [21, 22]. It can be seen that 3D FEM is required for the performance
analysis of this motor. The stator of this motor is made of SMC material. Figure 4.9
shows a molded SMC claw pole disk. This motor was designed to deliver a power
of 60 W at 3000 rev/min to replace an existing single-phase induction motor in a
dishwasher pump. Table 4.9 lists the design dimensions of this motor.
Figure 4.10 illustrates the prototype of this claw pole motor fabricated with the
dimensions shown in Table 4.9. Figure 4.11 shows the measured motor speed
against DC link voltage with different loads. It is found that the estimated perfor-
mance parameters calculated from the FEM-based method agreed well with the
experimental results, for example, the inductance. More details can be found in
[21]. Therefore, it is reliable to use the FEM to optimize the investigated motor.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4.8 a Molded stator of a PM claw-pole motor, and b FEM region of a pole of a stack
Fig. 4.9 Molded SMC

claw-pole disk
Table 4.9 Main design Par. Description Unit Value

dimensions and variables
Number of poles 12
Rso Stator outer radius mm 33.5
Rsi Stator inner radius mm 21.5
bs Width of side wall mm 6.3
hrm Radial length of magnet mm 3.0
SMC cores density g/cm3 5.8
g1 Air gap mm 1.0
hp Claw pole height mm 3.0
hsy Stator yoke thickness mm 3.0
Nc Number of winding turns turn 256
Regarding the optimization of this motor, the objective is chosen to minimize the
material cost while maximizing the output power or torque at 3000 rev/min. The
outer radius and axial length, or volume, of the motor is xed in the optimization.
The material cost mainly includes the costs of PM, copper, SMC core, and steel.
Fig. 4.10 Experimental setup

for the test of prototype
Fig. 4.11 Speed versus DC

link voltage with constant
torque
Three constraints are also considered. The optimization model can be dened as the
following
Cost P0
min: f x
C0 Pout
s.t: g1 x 0:78 g 0 4:11
g2 x 60 Pout 0
g3 x Jc 4:5 0
where C0 and P0 are the cost and output power of the initial prototype, 0.78 and 60
the rated values of efciency () and output power (Pout), respectively for the initial
design, and the last constraint is the current density, Jc, of winding, which should be
no more than 4.5 A/mm2 in terms of its specications [22].
From previous design experience, three parameters Rsi, bs and hrm, are important
to the motor performance. Therefore, they are selected as the optimization variables.
Table 4.10 lists the optimization results by using improved SOM and Kriging
model. As shown, the obtained output power and material cost are 98 W and $8.99,
which are better than those of the initial design (60 W and $14.18). Meanwhile,
only 197 FEM samples are reuqired by improved SOM to obtain the optimal
Table 4.10 Optimization Par. Unit Initial SOM

results of the SMC claw pole
motor Rsi mm 21.50 18.50
bs mm 6.30 4.00
hrm mm 3.00 2.00
% 78 83
Pout W 60 98
Torque Nm 0.19 0.31
Cost $ 14.18 8.99
fm 2.00 1.25
FEM 197
solution. Compared with the samples required by direct optimization method, for
example, DEA requiring about 3 5 170 or 2550 FEM samples to obtain the
optimization results, where 3 5 is the population size and 170 the average iteration
number, 92.27 % of FEM computation cost has been saved. Therefore, the
improved SOM is efcient for low-dimensional electromagnetic design problems.
4.4 Multi-objective Sequential Optimization Method
Multi-objective design optimization problems of electrical machines and electro-

magnetic devices have attracted great amount of research interests recently. Various
design examples and benchmark problems have been proposed, such as TEAM
Problems 22 (SMES) and 25 (die-press model) [17, 2325]. To deal with these
problems, many evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms have been
employed, such as MOGA and multi-objective particle swarm optimization
(MPSO) algorithm.
These algorithms have been proven efcient by many test functions and engi-
neering examples, e.g. the TEAM workshop problems. The greatest advantage of
these methods is that the designer can obtain a set of Pareto optimal solutions by a
single run. For a practical design requirement, one only needs to choose the best
from the obtained Pareto solutions, rather than to run the algorithm again. Thus,
these algorithms can improve the computational efciency for engineering appli-
cations with the obtained Pareto solutions.
For practical design optimization of industrial electromagnetic devices, the
implementation process can be usually very time-consuming because of the use of
FEM which takes most of the optimization time, especially for some complex
electromagnetic devices, e.g. 3D flux PM motors. Therefore, how to efciently
employ these algorithms to deal with the multi-objective design problems of
industrial electromagnetic devices of complex structures is still an open problem
[23, 25, 26]; and not much work has been reported in the literature.
To address this problem, an alternative method is to use approximate models.
Many kinds of approximate models, which are widely used in single-objective
4.4 Multi-objective Sequential Optimization Method 125
optimization, have been investigated in multi-objective optimization problems as

well, such as RBF and Kriging models [25]. For this approach, the optimization
efciency depends highly on the model accuracy, which in turn depends on the
sampling method and model type. As mentioned previously, the high level and full
factor sampling method has been used in many researches because of its capability
of producing an accurate solution. However, its computational cost may be
expensive in many situations. Meanwhile, it should be noted that there are some
key differences between single- and multi-objective optimizations based on
approximate models. Each objective or constraint in the multi-objective optimiza-
tion has its own characteristic, such as linear or nonlinear, convex or non-convex,
and maximal or minimal value, and thus how to ensure the same modeling accuracy
for all models is a key issue.
A multi-objective sequential optimization method (MSOM) is presented to deal
with these problems in this work. A test function and a 3D PM TFM will be
investigated to show the efciency of the proposed method.
Generally, a multi-objective optimization model has the form as
min : ff1 x; f2 x; . . .; fp xg
s.t: gi x 0; i 1; 2; . . .; m ; 4:12
xl x xu ; x x1 ; . . .; xD T
where p, m and D are the numbers of objectives, inequality constraints and vari-
ables, respectively.
In general, the solutions of a multi-objective optimization problem can be
illustrated as a Pareto optimal set, and its front is not a point, but a continuous or
non-continuous curve or surface. Thus, we should pay more attention to the sub-
space as shown in Fig. 4.12 which includes all these Pareto points and seek for a
new method to sample more points in this subspace rather than the total design
Fig. 4.12 Design idea of (a) (b)

MSOM, a 2D illustration,
b 3D illustration
Fig. 4.13 Flowchart of MSOM
space. This approach may improve the modeling efciency because it includes the
investigation of model characteristic.
Figure 4.13 shows the flowchart of MSOM, which mainly includes the following
three steps [23]:
(1) Generate an initial sample set S(0), and construct Kriging models for all FEMs
in the design optimization problem (4.12) to get a Kriging multi-objective
optimization model.
(2) Optimize the Kriging multi-objective optimization model with a
multi-objective optimization algorithm, for example, NSGA II, and get the
Pareto optimal solutions P(k). Then compute the root mean square error
(RMSE) of the obtained Pareto points for each model. If all the RMSEs are no
more than a constant , output the solutions; otherwise go to the next step.
(3) Update the sample set S(k) and Kriging model. As the constructed models are
getting more and more accurate through the optimization process, the true
Pareto solutions are probably located around the current P(k). To improve the
modeling efciency, a modied central composite design (CCD) sampling
method is presented to update the sample sets.
The CCD is a classic sampling method for the construction of RSM. It divides the
samples into two subsets, one for the property estimation of the linear term, and the
Fig. 4.14 Illustrations of the (a) (b)

modied CCD sampling
method, a 2D, and b 3D
other for the curved surface. It is claimed to be superior in the modeling of RSM [27].
Considering that RSM was used as the determined term in the Kriging model, a
modied CCD sampling method has been presented in our previous work.
Figure 4.14 shows two illustrations of the proposed method for (a) a two-variable
case, and (b) a three-variable case. The circle points in the gure are the Pareto points.
The triangle points (with number of 2D) are sampled by the two levels full factor
design method. The square points (with number of 2D) in the axial direction are the
peaks of circumscribed circle or sphere. The relationship between the diameter (d) of
p
the circle (sphere) and the side length (l) of the square (cube) is d l D. For the kth
optimization step, the side length is dened as half of the step size in the last step.
4.4.2 Example 1Poloni (POL) Function
POL function investigated in Chap. 3 is a classic test function for multi-objective

optimization methods as its Pareto optimal solutions are not continuous and
non-convex [23, 28]. It is rewritten as (4.13). Figure 4.15 illustrates the two
objectives of this function.
(
f1 x1 ; x2 1 A1 B1 2 A2 B2 2
min : ; 4:13
f2 x1 ; x2 x1 32 x2 12
A1 0:5 sin 1 2 cos 1 sin 2 1:5 cos 2

A2 1:5 sin 1 cos 1 2 sin 2 0:5 cos 2
B1 0:5 sin x1 2 cos x1 sin x2 1:5 cos x2 :
B2 1:5 sin x1 cos x1 2 sin x2 0:5 cos x2
p x1 ; x2 p
In the optimization, a controlled elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm (a

variant of NSGA II) in MATLAB is used in this example. Except for the population
size, all other parameters use the default values, e.g. the default Pareto fraction is
0.35, and the default value of in MSOM is 1 %.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4.15 POL function: f1 (left) and f2 (right)
Figure 4.16 illustrates the Pareto optimal solutions obtained by two methods, the
direct function optimization with NSGA II and the proposed MSOM. For the latter
case, only one model updating process is needed to get the nal Pareto solutions. As
shown, the Pareto solutions of this function are separated to two parts. It is
non-continuous on the whole. The Pareto front of the 2nd Kriging model (k = 2 in
MSOM) ts that from the true function very well. Figure 4.17 illustrates the total
sample points sampled by MSOM which includes only 109 points. As shown, the
obtained samples are non-uniformly distributed in the whole space and include
more points in the subspace to which the Pareto points belong, so that the sampling
efciency can be improved by the proposed method.
Fig. 4.16 Pareto solutions of

POL function 30
Function
MSOM-1st model
MSOM-2nd model
20
f2
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
f1
Fig. 4.17 Sample points by

using MSOM 3
x2
0
-1
initial samples
-2 1st Pareto points
updated samples
-3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
x1
4.4.3 Example 2A PM Transverse Flux Machine
In our previous work, a PM TFM with soft magnetic composite (SMC) stator core
was developed [1, 2932]. A multi-objective design optimization is conducted here
for the broad industrial applications of this machine. A PM-SMC TFM prototype
was illustrated previously in Fig. 2.3, Chap. 2 This machine was initially designed
to deliver an output power of 640 W at 1800 rev/min. Table 2.1 tabulates the main
dimensions. Figure 2.6 illustrates the FEM model used in ANSYS. The computa-
tion of FEM of this machine is very time-consuming as 3D FEM is required for the
performance evaluation.
To get reliable analysis and optimization results, the analysis model based on
FEM (as shown in Fig. 2.6) should be veried by experimental results. Figures 4.18,
4.19, 4.20 and Table 2.2 show the calculated and measured key parameters for this
machine. Figure 4.18 shows the measured motor speed against output torque with
different DC link voltages. Figure 4.19 illustrates the measured electromotive force
(EMF) waveforms at 1800 rev/min. The measured motor back EMF constant is 0.
244 Vs, which is 1 % lower than the calculated value of 0.247 Vs. The calculated
Fig. 4.18 Speed against

output torque with different
DC link voltages
Fig. 4.19 Measured 80 Phase A Phase B

line-to-neutral back EMF
40 Phase C
Back EMF (V)

0
60 120 180 240 300 360
-40
-80 t (electrical degree)
Fig. 4.20 Measured curves 900 Pin & Pout (W) 0.9
for input, output powers and
motor efciency in terms of Efficiency
torque 700 0.7
Pin
500 Pout 0.5
300 0.3
100 0.1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Output torque (Nm)
phase resistance and inductance, and maximal cogging torque are 0.310 , 6.68 mH
and 0.339 Nm, respectively, which are very close to the measured values of 0.305 ,
6.53 mH and 0.320 Nm. Figure 4.20 shows the measured curves of the input power,
output power, and efciency against the output torque. It is found that the estimated
performance parameters calculated from FEM-based method are well aligned with
the experimental results, such as the inductance and cogging torque. Therefore, all
the experimental results have veried the effectiveness of this FEM-based analysis
method, and it is reliable to be used for optimizing the electrical machine under
investigation.
The multi-objective optimization model of this machine can be dened as

f1 x = Cost(PM) + Cost(Cu)
min :
8 f2 x 640 Pout
> g1 x 0:795 g 0;
> 4:14
<
g2 x 640 Pout 0;
s.t:
>
> g x sf 0:8 0;
: 3
g4 x Jc 6 0:
Fig. 4.21 Pareto solutions of

820
PM transverse flux machine
790
Output power [W]

760
730
700
FEM
670 MSOM-1st model
MSOM-3rd model
640
28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Cost [$]
where and Pout are the efciency and output power of the machine, respectively, sf
is the winding ll factor, and Jc in A/mm2 is the current density of the copper wire.
The rst objective cost mainly consists of the costs of PM and copper winding.
Four parameters are selected as the optimization variables in this work. They are
circumferential angle and axial width of PM, and the number of turns and diameter
of copper wire winding. These are the signicant parameters for the objectives from
our previous design experience [30].
For this problem, three model updating processes (k = 3 in MSOM) are needed
for the MSOM to get the nal Pareto solutions as shown in Fig. 4.21, which
includes the initial and the last Pareto points of MSOM. Figure 4.21 also illustrates
the Pareto points obtained by the direct optimization of FEM with NSGA II. As
shown, the Pareto front from the MSOM ts that from FEM very well. Moreover,
the needed FEM sample points of MSOM are only 556, which is about 6 % that by
the direct multi-objective optimization of FEM, in which about 10,000 FEM
samples are needed [23].
4.5 Sensitivity Analysis Techniques
In high dimensional design optimization problems, some design parameters relate to

the objectives more signicantly than others. Ignoring this fact and optimizing all
design parameters in a single level (at the same time) may result in huge computing
cost. For example, the optimization process of a motor with 10 parameters (dimension
D = 10) by using the GA and FEM with the population size of 50 (5 D) and iteration
number of 200 requires about 10,000 (50 200) samples, which can be a huge
computational burden for many motors, especially those requiring 3D FEM.
On the other hand, it is impossible to replace the FEM with approximate models,
such as RSM and Kriging model, because they cannot approximate highly
dimensional problems with sufcient accuracy by using reasonably small number of
samples. For example, the rst step in the construction of approximation models is
to use the DOE technique to obtain the initial samples. If 5 samples are required for
each parameter, in total, 510 FEM samples are required, which is greater than those
required by direct optimization method of GA and FEM.
Therefore, the traditional direct optimization method based on FEM and the
approximation models cannot solve the highly dimensional design optimization
problems. To solve these problems, a multi-level optimization method was pre-
sented for electrical machines and drive systems and other electromagnetic devices
in our previous work [22, 33, 34]. The main idea of the multi-level optimization
method is that the high dimensional design space can be divided into two or several
low dimensional design spaces in terms of the order of their sensitivities. The
detailed discussion of multi-level optimization method will be presented in the next
section and Chaps. 5 and 6. This section presents a brief investigation for sensitivity
analysis (SA) techniques. In general, there are four types of techniques for the
signicance analysis of parameters in the design of PM motors. They are the sizing
equation [3537], local sensitivity analysis (LSA) [38], global sensitivity analysis
[3942], and analysis of variance (ANOVA) [22, 27] techniques, respectively. The
last one, ANOVA, is based on the DOE technique. Two of them, LSA and DOE
will be introduced in the following sections.
4.5.1 Local Sensitivity Analysis
Assume that f(x) is the objective function (such as output power, torque and cost) to
be optimized. Mathematically, the sensitivity of the ith parameter, xi, at the point x0
can be dened as

@f x
Si 4:15
@xi xx0
where Si is the sensitivity. The larger the jSi j, the more sensitive the objective
function f(x) is to the parameter xi [22, 38].
It should be noted that an analytical expression of objective function is required
in (4.15). However, there is no analytic form of objective function if motors
performance is calculated by using FEM. In this case, a differential form of (4.15)
should be used to calculate the sensitivity as the following
f x0 Dxi f x0
Si 4:16
Dxi
4.5 Sensitivity Analysis Techniques 133
where xi is the increment of parameter xi. In general, there are two methods to
determine this increment. The rst one is known as the parameter variation method,
in which xi is usually dened as 10, 20 % or both of its initial value. The other
method is known as the deviation variation method, in which xi is usually dened
as the standard deviation of xi . In this work, as the parameters deviation is not
given, the rst method will be used to calculate the sensitivity.
As an example, let us consider the output power as the objective and the
dimensions of PMs, such as width, x1, and height, x2, as the design parameters. The
sensitivity of PM width can be calculated as the following. Firstly, apply 10 %
perturbations to the PM width, and calculate the objective function (the output
power) corresponding to the two samples, i.e. (1 10 %)x1 and (1 + 10 %)x1.
Secondly, calculate the relative errors of these two samples by comparing the
objective function of these two samples to that obtained from the initial reference
point (x0). Finally, the average of absolute values of these two relative errors is
taken as the sensitivity of PM width on the output power.
It should be noted that different parameters have different units. To make the
obtained sensitivity values comparable, a normalization step below is needed
@f x=f x @f x 1 Df x 1
SSi 4:17
@xi =xi f x d f x d
where is the ratio of changed amplitude of parameter xi. By taking this normal-
ization, only the ratios of Dff x
x
are compared to acquire the sensitivity value for each
of the design parameters.
4.5.2 Analysis of Variance Based on DOE
Basically, DOE is a kind of statistical method which has been widely used in the
design and data analysis of experiments in many areas, such as experiments in
agriculture, chemistry, and industrial design. The main aim of DOE is to arrange an
efcient experiment with smaller number of experiments, shorter experimental
cycle, and lower experimental cost, so as to obtain good experimental results and
scientic analysis conclusions. There are two types of DOE techniques, the full
factor design and partial factor design. The latter includes many further types, such
as orthogonal design and Latin hypercube design [22, 27].
ANOVA is a technique based on DOE, which can be used to determine the
signicant factors from all the design parameters. To implement the ANOVA, an
experiment table should be designed rstly by using DOE. The full-factor design
and orthogonal design are the two most popular DOE techniques. Because of the
high dimensional feature of motor design, it is time consuming to use the full-factor
method. For example, a motor design optimization problem of 8 parameters would
need 28 or 256 samples if a two-level full-factor design scheme is used. However,
Table 4.11 The orthogonal No of exp. Par. 1 Par. 2 Par. 3 Par.4

design table of L9(34)
1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 2
3 1 3 3 3
4 2 1 2 3
5 2 2 3 1
6 2 3 1 2
7 3 1 3 2
8 3 2 1 3
9 3 3 2 1
only 12 samples are needed if the orthogonal design is used. Similarly, 38 or 6,561
samples are needed if a three-level full-factor design scheme is used, whereas if we
use the orthogonal design, only 27 points are needed. Therefore, orthogonal design
should be a good choice for most motor design optimization problems.
To implement the orthogonal design, the rst step is to select an orthogonal
design table from available tables. Table 4.11 shows an orthogonal design table of
L9(34), where subscript 9 indicates the number of experiments, and 3 the levels for
each parameter, while superscript 4 indicates that this table can be used for a
problem with no more than 4 design parameters and no interactions between them.
Then, the numbers 1, 2, and 3 in the table are the corresponding levels for each
parameter. Table 4.12 illustrates an orthogonal design table of L12(211), which can
be used for a problem with no more than 11 design parameters and no interactions
between them. Similarly, there are many available orthogonal design tables, such as
L12(241), L16(45), and L27(313).
Table 4.12 The orthogonal design table of L12(211)

No of exp. Parameter no.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
4 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2
5 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1
6 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1
7 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1
8 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
9 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1
10 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2
11 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2
12 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1
4.5 Sensitivity Analysis Techniques 135
After the DOE step, ANOVA can be used to determine the signicance of each
parameter. ANOVA is a family of multivariate statistical technique for helping infer
whether there are real differences between the means of three or more groups or
variables in a population, based on the sample data. In order to determine whether
the differences are signicant, ANOVA is concerned with differences between the
samples, known as the variance. By comparing the variance among sample mem-
bers, the differences are considered to be signicant if the variance is larger between
samples. Therefore, ANOVA can be regarded as a statistical test that looks for
signicant differences between means.
The understanding of ANOVA requires the background of multivariate statistics.
Fortunately, its implementation is very simple and can be realized by various
software packages, such as SPSS, Minitab, Matlab, and Excel.
4.5.3 Example StudyA PM Claw Pole Motor
This section presents an example for the sensitivity analysis of a PM claw pole
motor investigated in SOM. Six design parameters listed in Table 4.9 (Rsi, bs, hrm,
g1, hp and hsy) will be investigated for the sensitivity analysis of this motor by using
LSA. Table 4.13 lists the samples needed for the data analysis of LSA. For each
parameter, its initial value and four variation amplitudes, 20, 10, 10, and 20 %
will be considered. Totally, 25 samples are needed for the calculation, which
includes 24 points for those four variations (20, 10, 10, and 20 %) of six
parameters and 1 initial sample (0 column in the table).
Table 4.14 tabulates the analysis data obtained from the LSA technique. For the
sake of comparison, an average column, i.e. mean sensitivity, is listed in this table.
The sensitivity order can be obtained from the data in this column as

jbs j [ jhrm j [ jRsi j [ jg1 j [ hp [ hsy 4:18
To balance the optimization framework, we can take three of them as the sig-
nicant factors, which are Rsi, bs, and hrm. Actually, they are the parameters used
for the analysis of improved SOM in Sect. 4.3.5 [22].
Table 4.13 Samples for LSA Par. Amplitude variations of parameter ()

20 % 10 % 0 10 % 20 %
Rsi 17.2 19.35 21.5 23.65 25.8
bs 5.04 5.67 6.30 6.93 7.56
hrm 2.40 2.70 3.00 3.30 3.60
g1 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
hp 2.40 2.70 3.00 3.30 3.60
hsy 2.40 2.70 3.00 3.30 3.60
Table 4.14 Sensitivity analysis data for claw pole motor

Par. Amplitude variations of parameter () Sensitivity
20 % 10 % 0 10 % 20 %
Rsi 0.002 0.012 0 0.027 0.066 0.0267
bs 0.071 0.045 0 0.079 0.244 0.1095
hrm 0.100 0.051 0 0.051 0.101 0.0754
g1 0.018 0.010 0 0.009 0.020 0.0141
hp 0.011 0.004 0 0.003 0.004 0.0053
hsy 0.003 0.002 0 0.001 0.002 0.0019
4.6 Multi-level Optimization Method
4.6.1 Method Introduction
Figure 4.22 illustrates the flowchart of the multi-level optimization method or

sequential subspace optimization method. This method is mainly proposed to
improve the optimization efciency of high dimensional design optimization
problems of electrical machines and other electromagnetic devices. It consists of the
following main steps [1, 22, 33, 34].
Step 1: Dene the optimization problems, including objectives, constraints,
design parameters and their ranges.
Step 2: Implement sensitivity analysis for all design parameters, and obtain the
order of sensitivities of them.
Step 3: Divide the initial high dimensional design space into two or three low
dimensional subspaces in terms of the sensitivity order of design param-
eters obtained in Step 2. Consider the situation of three subspaces as an
example. The rst subspace (X1) includes all highly signicant factors,
and the second subspace (X2) consists of all signicant factors, while the
third subspace (X3) all non-signicant factors.
Step 4: Optimize the highly signicant factor subspace X1. In the implementation,
the initial parameters in X2 and X3 are xed.
Step 5: Optimize the signicant factor subspace X2. In the implementation, the
parameters in X1 are xed at the solutions from Step 2, and the parameters
in X3 are xed at those in Step 4.
Step 6: Optimize the non-signicant factor subspace X3. In the implementation,
the parameters in X1 and X2 are xed at the solutions from the last two
steps.
Step 7: If the objective meets the specication, output the optimal solutions.
Otherwise, update the parameters in X2 and X3, and go to Step 4 and
conduct the optimization again till convergence.
4.6 Multi-level Optimization Method 137
Fig. 4.22 Flowchart of multi-level optimization method
It should be noted that two subspaces maybe reasonable for some problems. In
that case, combine X1 and X2 into one subspace, which may be known as the
signicant factor subspace. Meanwhile, the dimension of subspace is much smaller
than that in the initial space. Thus, the traditional direct optimization methods and
approximate models can be used in each of them.
4.6.2 Example StudySMES
Figure 4.3 illustrated a benchmark design example about the SMES. A three
parameter discrete optimization case has been investigated in Sect. 4.3.3. This
section will investigate an eight parameter continuous case. Table 4.15 lists the
scope of these eight parameters. From the previous discussion, it can be found that
those eight parameters can be divided into two subspaces in terms of their signi-
cances. One subspace involves the four parameters of inner coil {R1, h1, d1, J1}, and
the other one includes the other four parameters of outer coil {R2, h2, d2, J2} [33].
Table 4.16 shows obtained optimization solutions for this continuous case of
SMES. As shown, 4720 FEM samples are needed for DEA to get the optimal
solution under the direct optimization framework. The optimal stored energy in
SMES is 178.75 MJ (the error is 1.25 MJ), and mean stray eld is 2.27 mT.
By the multi-level optimization method, only 1078 FEM samples are needed for
the optimization, which is less than 1/4 of that by DEA. The resultant optimal mean
stray eld is 3.23 mT, slightly higher than that by DEA, and the error of energy is
1.01 MJ which is smaller than that given by DEA. Therefore, the proposed
Table 4.15 Design Parameter Unit Min. Max.

parameters of SMES under
continuous case R1 m 1.0 4.0
R2 m 1.8 5.0
h1/2 m 0.1 1.8
h2/2 m 0.1 1.8
d1 m 0.1 0.8
d2 m 0.1 0.8
J1 A/mm2 10.0 30.0
J2 A/mm2 10.0 30.0
Table 4.16 Optimization Var. Unit DEA Multi-level

results for SMES under
continuous case R1 m 2.382 2.662
R2 m 3.377 4.015
h1/2 m 1.118 1.049
h2/2 m 0.366 0.421
d1 m 0.188 0.223
d2 m 0.653 0.368
J1 A/mm2 22.57 18.09
J2 A/mm2 11.06 11.08
Bstray mT 2.27 3.23
E MJ 178.75 178.99
FEM 4720 1078
4.6 Multi-level Optimization Method 139
multi-level optimization method is more efcient than DEA for high dimensional
design problems of electromagnetic devices. It will be employed to optimize
electrical machines and drive systems in the following two chapters.
4.7 Multi-level Genetic Algorithm
4.7.1 Problem Matrix
The aforementioned multi-level optimization method is based on the space division

strategy. The following multi-level optimization method is mainly based on a kind
of intelligent optimization algorithm called multi-level genetic algorithm (MLGA).
It presents an alternative and efcient way to implement the multi-level optimiza-
tion for electrical machines as well as other electromagnetic devices and systems
[4346].
In MLGA, the relationship between the design variables, constraints, and
objective functions can be described by the problem matrix, as shown in Fig. 4.23.
The design variables may be assigned into different sub-vectors according to the
relationships between design variables. The variables which have close relationship
should be allocated to the same sub-vector.
In the gure, the symbols Pij i 0; 1; . . .; n; j 0; 1; . . .; m are the coefcients
indicating the relative importance between the design variables and objective
functions, as well as constraints in the correlation analysis [44]. The P value tests
whether there is sufcient evidence that the correlation coefcient is not zero. The
greater the P value is, the less the relative importance of the design variable to the
objective function is. The samples of variables are determined by the DOE. Some
commercial statistic software packages, such as SPSS and Minitab, can provide the
modules for relative importance analysis.
According to the P values in the problem matrix, the design variables may be
arranged on diverse levels. For one objective function, the variables possessing
similar P values will be managed on the same level.
Fig. 4.23 Structure of Design parameters x1 x2 x3 x4 xm

problem matrix for MLGA
Objective function P01 P02 P03 P04 P0m
Constraint 1 P11 P12 P13 P14 P1m
Constraint 2 P21 P22 P23 P24 P2m

Constraint n Pn1 Pn2 Pn3 Pn4 Pnm

4.7.2 Description of MLGA
The traditional GA creates a vector (chromosome) encoded by all the design

variables and then applies evolution operation to all the individuals described as
chromosomes in one population. In MLGA the design optimization variables are
classied and allocated to different levels according to the relative importance
between the variables and objective functions, constraints, as well as the practical
engineering weighting factors and optimization sequence. The variables on different
levels are encoded independently. Each level may have multiple populations and
each of them can adopt different genetic operators and parameters. The relationship
between sub-problems in multi-level problems can be handled by MLGA.
The architecture of MLGA is illustrated in Fig. 4.24. As shown, the upper level
(GA1) is the master GA module. The second (GA2i) and third (GA3i) consist of a
number of modules (or subsystems). The GA in one subsystem will be affected by
other modules. The module in the upper level of the MLGA acts not only as a
solver of the corresponding sub-problem, but also as a coordinator and controller of
the modules on the lower level. This means that the lower level module GAij will be
affected by the upper level module GAi1;j , and even by the adjacent modules
GAi;j1 and GAi;j 1 on the same level.
The GA can be described as follows:
GA IP; PS; EL; FIT; SO; CO; MO 4:19
where IP, PS, EL and FIT represent the initial population, population size,
encoding length and tness value, respectively, SO, CO and MO are the genetic
operations, namely, selection, crossover and mutation operations.
The MLGA can be described as follows.
GAij IPij ; PSij ; ELij ; FITij ; SOij ; COij ; MOij 4:20
where GAij stands for applying the independent GA to the ith level and the jth
module. With the reaction between different levels and adjacent sub-modules on the
same level, GAij can be described as the following:

GAij IPi j GAi ;j1 ; GAi1 ;j ; GAi ;j 1
PSi j GAi ;j1 ; GAi1 ;j ; GAi ;j 1
ELi j GAi ;j1 ; GAi1 ;j ; GAi ;j 1
FITi j GAi ;j1 ; GAi1 ;j ; GAi ;j 1 4:21
SOi j GAi ;j1 ; GAi1 ;j ; GAi ;j 1
COi j GAi ;j1 ; GAi1 ;j ; GAi ;j 1

MOi j GAi ;j1 ; GAi1 ;j ; GAi ;j 1
4.7 Multi-level Genetic Algorithm 141
Fig. 4.24 Framework of MLGA
The MLGA can be implemented by the following steps:

Step 1: Determine the objective functions, constraints and design variables.
Step 2: Analyze the relationship of design variables, objective functions and
constraints by using the correlation analysis, and construct the problem
matrix.
Step 3: Determine the architecture of MLGA, including the number of levels and
the number of modules in each level.
Step 4: Allocate the design variables, objective functions and constraints on dif-
ferent levels according to the problem matrix, and build up the relation-
ships among different levels and different modules on each level. Each
module corresponds to a genetic algorithm module.
Step 5: Implement the MLGA modules of each level from the top to the lowest
level. The upper level module sends control messages and parameter
values to the lower level module. Feedback messages from the lower level
are used as the evaluation function by the upper level.
Step 6: The total solving process ends when the termination criterion of the top
level has been reached. Otherwise, Step 5 will be repeated.
4.7.3 Example StudySPMSM
4.7.3.1 Optimization Model of SPMSM
In this section, a surface-mounted permanent magnet synchronous machine

(SPMSM) will be optimized by using the MLGA. The motor is rated with an output
power of 950 W (or rated torque of 4.5 Nm) at speed 2000 rev/min and supplied by
the rated line-to-line voltage of 128 V. Figure 4.25 shows two photos of the
commercially manufactured motor and its name plate. Figure 4.26 shows the model
for the 2D nite element analysis of this machine, and Table 4.17 lists the main
structural parameters.
The stator and rotor cores are not permitted to be modied due to manufacture
limitation. The coil pitch, number of parallel branches, and number of wires per
conductor of the 3-phase windings are xed. The magnet thickness hm and width
bm, the diameter of conductor WindD and the conductors per slot Ns are chosen as
the design optimization variables. The optimization objective is to achieve the
maximum efciency within reasonable cost of conductors and magnets. The con-
straints are the ll factor and rated output power. The optimization model can be
described as
max f x w 100g
K
1 100 w2 Costmax
Cost
s.t. P2 [ 945W 4:22

sf \78 %
where the design variable x hm; bm; Ns; WindD, Ns and WindD are discrete
variables, is the efciency of the SPMSM, P2 the output power, sf the ll factor,
and K, w1 and w2 are the weighting factors specied by the designer [44].
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.25 Photos of the SPMSM, a whole motor, b name plate
Fig. 4.26 FEM model for the

SPMSM
Table 4.17 Main dimensions Parameters Unit Values

of the SPMSM
Stator Number of slots 36
Length of stack mm 40.83
Length of slot mm 41.4
Conductors per slot 72
Diameter of conductor mm 0.5
Rotor Number of poles 6
Length of PM mm 40.0
Width of PM mm 31.4
Thickness of PM mm 1.8
Number of PMs per pole 5
Shaft diameter mm 19.0
Air gap Length of air gap mm 1
4.7.3.2 Optimization Results and Discussion
A. Determination of multi-level optimization framework

The bi-level optimization model is chosen, with the objective function and con-
straints (4.22) shared by both levels. The tness functions of both levels are the
same, and the penalty function method is applied to deal with the constraints.
Figure 4.27 shows the problem matrix. According to the theory of correlation
analysis and DOE, the P values which represent the relative importance between
design variables and the objective functions as well as the constraints are analyzed
by Minitab, a commercial statistic software package.
As shown, the P values of Ns and WindD are less than those of hm and bm with
respect to the objective function. Therefore, Ns and WindD are signicant to ef-
ciency and costs. hm and bm are regarded as the variables of level 1 and Ns and
WindD are assigned on level 2.
B. Experimental results and FEM for no-load EMF, Lad and Laq
On level 1, to account for the nonlinear characteristics of the core, the quasi-static
FEM is applied to calculate the no-load EMF per turn and the d- and q- axis
components of per turn inductances, i.e. Lad and Laq, to acquire highly accurate
Fig. 4.27 Problem matrix of MLGA for SPMSM

Table 4.18 Experimental Method Unit Experiment FEM

results versus FEM results
Back-EMF V 74.0 81.0
Lad H 0.015 0.0126
Laq H 0.015 0.0124
Fig. 4.28 Magnetic eld (a)

distribution for calculation of
a Lad and b Laq
(b)
parameters when the magnet thickness and width are changed. Table 4.18 lists the
main motor parameters obtained from the experimental results, and the calculated
results based on FEM. Figure 4.28 illustrates the magnetic eld distribution when
Lad and Laq are calculated. Figure 4.29 shows the bi-level architecture of opti-
mization for SPMSM [44].
Fig. 4.29 Optimization

flowchart for SPMSM
Table 4.19 Optimization Par. Unit Original MLGA GA

results by MLGA and GA
hm mm 1.8 2.3 2.1
bm mm 31.4 30.3 30.3
Ns 72 67 66
WindD mm 0.5 0.56 0.56
% 83.7 86.4 86.1
Cost $ 26.1 22.6 21.5
P2 W 946 950 951
sf % 67 78 77
C. Comparison between MLGA and traditional GA

Both the MLGA and the traditional GA (single-level) are conducted for solving the
optimization problem of SPMSM. The numbers of populations on levels 1 and 2 are
15 and 25, respectively. The number of evolution generations is 20 in each level.
40 populations and 40 evolution generations are dened in the single level GA.
Table 4.19 lists the original design, the optimal results by MLGA and traditional
GA.
As shown, both the MLGA and the traditional GA may achieve higher ef-
ciencies than the original design. The efciency optimized by the MLGA is higher
than that optimized by the traditional GA. The higher the efciency is, the higher
the costs of conductors and permanent magnets will be.
Figure 4.30 illustrates the traces of tness functions of the MLGA and the
traditional GA. It can be seen that the MLGA possesses better optimal tness values
than the single-level GA. It is suggested that MLGA can provide the better design
solution because the number of populations in each level may be adjusted easily. In
this case study, the GA operators have the same conguration in both MLGA and
single level GA. However, the designer may dene appropriate GA parameters in
different levels to nd the satisfactory optimum [44].
4.8 Multi-disciplinary Optimization Method 147
Fig. 4.30 Traces of tness

functions of MLGA and GA
4.8 Multi-disciplinary Optimization Method
4.8.1 Framework of General Multi-disciplinary

Optimization
Figure 4.31 shows a classic design framework and the coupled relations for elec-
trical machines. As shown, the design optimization is really a multi-domain
problem which includes electromagnetic, material, mechanical, and thermal aspects,
and they can be strongly coupled. In order to achieve high performance, the
multi-disciplinary design optimization (MDO) of electrical machines must be
investigated. It includes the following ve main steps [47]:
Step 1: Denition of the motor specications. It mainly consists of cost, such as
material cost and manufacturing cost, output performance, such as power,
torque, efciency and speed, and other constraints, such as volume,
weight, temperature rise, mechanical strength and resonance frequency,
etc.
Step 2: Selection of motor type and its topology. For example, for the motor types
of the PM-SMC motor investigated above, there are several options, such
as TFM, claw pole and flux switching motors. The topology options may
include outer rotor, inner rotor and numbers of poles for SMC motors.
Step 3: Initial design. To acquire a possible design scheme, three main
designs/selections in terms of dimensions, materials and manufacturing
methods are required to investigate in this step. For example, for the
materials of PM-SMC motors, PM, steel, SMC and ferrite can be the
options. For the manufacturing method, the press method (the moulding
method) is recommended based on our design and prototyping experi-
ences as it is widely used for batch production of PM-SMC motors.
Fig. 4.31 Multi-domain design framework for electrical machines
Step 4: Development of multi-disciplinary analysis models for motors. As shown,

three models are generally needed to evaluate the motor performance
parameters. They are electromagnetic model including the core loss
model, thermal model and mechanical model.
Step 5: Performance calculation. If the performances of the designed motor are
satisfactory in terms of design specications, this motor can be taken as an
initial design scheme and can be used in the later part of optimization.
This section will take the multi-disciplinary analysis and design optimization of
a PM-SMC TFM as an example to illustrate the proposed method. First of all, the
electromagnetic, thermal and modal analyses are investigated for this machine
based on the moulding method of the SMC cores. As modal analysis for this
machine has been investigated in Sect. 2.4, the electromagnetic and thermal anal-
yses will be the main contents in this section. Meanwhile, a lumped 3D thermal
network model is developed for the thermal analysis. Then, a multi-disciplinary
optimization model is proposed to minimize the material cost and maximize the
output power based on the proposed thermal network model. Finally, the FEM is
employed to verify the performances obtained from optimal results in terms of
thermal analysis and modal analysis.
4.8.2 Electromagnetic Analysis Based on Molded SMC Core
As mentioned in Chap. 2, the electromagnetic analysis is mainly used to calculate

the characteristic parameters of the machine, such as PM flux, core loss and
inductance, so as to evaluate the performance parameters, such as output power and
efciency. On the other hand, there are two main issues which are directly related to
the manufacturing of the SMC cores and will affect the electromagnetic analysis
and material cost.
The rst one is the mass density of SMC core. The magnetic characteristics of
SMC cores depend highly on its mass density. Figure 4.32 illustrates the magne-
tization curves for four different densities respectively for a low density SMC core.
As shown, there are signicant differences between these curves and this will affect
the electromagnetic analysis results.
The second one is the manufacturing cost of SMC cores. As the SMC core is
compressed by a mould, the core mass density is calculated from the compacting
pressure applied on the core surface and the pressure is related to press size in tons.
For a given press size and dimensions of SMC core, the mass density of SMC core
can be determined, and this density is directly related to the B-H curves of that core.
Generally speaking, a press of larger size can produce SMC cores with higher mass
density and better magnetic characteristic, but its cost is higher too. Therefore, the
Fig. 4.32 B-H curves for 2.5

three SMC density values
2
1.5
B (T)
1
7.32 g/cm3
0.5 7.16 g/cm3

6.69 g/cm3
5.80 g/cm3
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
H (kA/m)
Fig. 4.33 Manufacturing cost (a)

and productivity for SMC 500
cores
400
Cost ($/hour)
300
200
100
100 200 300 400 500
(b) Press size (ton)
500
Productivity (pieces/hour)
400
300
200
100
100 200 300 400 500
Press size (ton)
manufacturing condition is a very important factor for the design optimization of

PM-SMC motors.
Figure 4.33 shows the manufacturing cost and productivity of SMC cores by
using different sizes of stamping press. It can be seen that the cost is directly
proportional to the press size while the productivity is inversely proportional to the
press size. For example, a 100 ton press can produce 500 SMC cores per hour with
a cost of $100 per hour, i.e. only $0.20 each core, while a 500 ton press can only
produce 100 cores per hour with a cost of $500 per hour, meaning $5 each core.
This is a big difference in industrial mass production.
4.8.3 Thermal Analysis with Lumped 3D Thermal Network

Model
Thermal analysis is used to calculate the temperature rises in winding and PM rotor
for this machine, so as to ensure that the motor works safely [47, 48]. For this
machine, a 2D thermal network model as shown in Fig. 2.8 was developed in our
previous work to simulate the thermal analysis. Considering the thermal isotropy of
SMC material, we developed a 3D thermal network of lumped parameters as it can
provide more accurate results than the 2D network model.
Fig. 4.34 3D thermal network model of the PM-SMC TFM
Figure 4.34 describes the 3D thermal network model for the middle stack of the
studied PM TFM. The two side stacks can be neglected as the temperature of the
middle stack is higher than those of two side stacks. Therefore, only the middle
stack is investigated in this model. Meanwhile, the major heat dissipates from the
rotor. The resistances to the thermal conduction of the following sections are cal-
culated: two segments of stator yoke (Rsy1and Rsy2), stator side disk (Rsd1 and Rsd2),
coils (Rcu1, Rcu2, and Rcu3), stator teeth (Rst1), air gaps (Rg1, Rg2, Rg3, Rg4 and Rg5),
PMs (Rpm1, Rpm2), rotor in radial direction (Rrt1, Rrt2), rotor in axial direction
(Rry1, Rry2), and shaft (Rsf1 and Rsf2). The equivalent resistances are calculated for
thermal convection between the air and stator teeth (Rsta), air and stator disk (Rsda),
air and coil (Rcua), air and PM (Rpm1, Rpm2), air and rotor (Rrta), rotor and outer
ambient air (Rrya), and shaft and air (Rsfa), respectively. The thermal resistances in
the circumferential direction in this motor are calculated for thermal conduction in
the stator yoke (Rsya1 and Rsya2), coil (Rcu3), stator teeth (Rsta1), and rotor (Rra1 and
Rra2).
The heat sources in this model include the stator and rotor core losses, copper
loss, and mechanical loss. In order to gain a relatively high accuracy, each loss is
divided into several parts. The stator core loss is divided into six parts (PFes1), the
copper loss two parts (Pcu1), the rotor core loss four parts (PFer1), and mechanical
loss six parts (Pmech1), respectively.
Based on this 3D thermal network model, it is found that there is 68 C tem-
perature rise in the coil and 27 C in the rotor yoke surface for this PM-SMC TFM
prototype. Comparison with experimental results will be shown in Sect. 4.8.5.
4.8.4 Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization
Based on the above analysis methods, a multi-disciplinary optimization model can

be developed for this PM-SMC TFM in the form as the following
min: C0 Pout
f x Cost P0
s.t: g1 x 0:795 g 0;
g2 x 640 Pout 0; 4:23
g3 x sf 0:7 0;
g4 x TPM 65 0;
g5 x TCoil 65 0;
where x is a vector of design parameters, C0 and P0 are the cost and output power of
the initial design scheme, and Pout in g1 and g2 the motors efciency and output
power, respectively, sf in g3 is the ll factor, and TPM and TCoil in g4 and g5 are the
temperature rises in the PM and windings, respectively. From our design experi-
ence, six parameters as shown in Table 4.20 are signicant to the performance of
this machine. The cost in the objective function mainly includes the material and
manufacturing costs of the SMC core.
Modal analysis is not included in this optimization model. However, to ensure
that the optimized motor has good mechanical performance, modal analysis will be
presented in the next section to verify the performance of the optimized motor. For
the thermal analysis in optimization, the lump 3D thermal network model is used to
replace the FEM analysis to improve the optimization efciency. Then, a FEM
method will be presented for the thermal analysis of the nal optimal scheme in the
next section.
Table 4.20 Optimization Par. Description Unit Initial MDO

results of PM-SMC TFM
PM circumferential angle deg 12 10.02
PM width mm 9 7.53
Number of turns of Turn 125 110
winding
Diameter of copper wire mm 1.25 1.3
Air gap length mm 1.0 0.9
Core density g/cm3 7.32 6.39
Efciency 79.5 % 84.3 %
Pout Output power W 640 677
TPM Temperature rise in PM C 36.1 23.9
TCoil Temperature rise in coil C 64.9 65.0
Cost $ 35.8 26.5
4.8.5 Optimization Results and Discussion
A. Experimental verication of electromagnetic and thermal analyses

To get reliable optimization results, all analysis models should be veried by
experimental results rst. Figures 4.18, 4.19, 4.20 and Table 2.2 compare the
calculated and measured key motor parameters for this machine. As investigated in
Sect. 2.2.3, the calculated motor electromagnetic parameters are very close to the
measured values.
Regarding the thermal analysis, the experimental results has shown that the
temperature rises in the coil and rotor yoke are 66 and 27 C, respectively.
Compared with the calculated values (68 and 27 C) obtained from 3D thermal
network model, the maximal relative error is only 3 %. The calculated temperature
rise in the coil by using the FEM method is about 63 C, resulting in a relative error
of 4.8 % compared with the experimentally measured results.
In summary, it is found that the performance parameters calculated based on
both FEM and 3D thermal network model agree well with the experimental results.
Therefore, these models are reliable for the optimization.
B. Optimization results
Table 4.20 lists the optimization results. By comparing these results, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(1) By the MDO, the obtained optimal cost is $26.5, the output power 677 W, and
the efciency 84.3 %, respectively. The obtained output power and efciency
are higher than those of the initial design scheme, namely 640 W and 79.5 %.
(2) The optimal SMC core density obtained by MDO is 6.39 g/cm3, which is
much smaller than that of the initial one, namely 7.32 g/cm3. Therefore, lower
manufacturing condition and cost may be requested compared with initial

design.
(3) By the thermal optimization, the temperature rises in the coil and PM from
MDO are 65 and 23.9 C, respectively.
C. FEM verication for electromagnetic, thermal and modal analyses

As only FEM model was employed for electromagnetic analysis in the optimiza-
tion, FEM verications are presented in this part for all electromagnetic, thermal
and modal analyses for the obtained optimal design scheme. Figure 4.35 illustrates
the electromagnetic analysis for this motor under the MDO optimum. Figure 4.36
illustrates the thermal analysis for this motor under the MDO optimum. As shown,
the average temperature rise in the coil is around 62.3 C lower (or 4.6 % relative
error) than that obtained from the thermal network model.
Figure 4.37 illustrates the rst-order modal analysis for this motor with MDO
optimum. As shown, the resonance frequency of the optimal motor is about
4,262 Hz, which is much larger than the electromagnetic frequency of 300 Hz.
Fig. 4.35 Filed distribution for the MDO optimum

Fig. 4.36 Distribution of temperature rise in the coil for MDO optimum
Fig. 4.37 Illustration of rst order modal analysis for MDO optimum
4.9 Summary
For different design optimization problems of electrical machines with various

numbers of objectives, dimensions of design parameters, and numbers of disci-
plines involved, different kinds of optimization methods have been presented in this
chapter.
Firstly, SOM was presented to improve the optimization efciency of
low-dimensional design problems of electrical machines. Compared to the tradi-
tional direct optimization methods, SOM can be regarded as a space-to-space
optimization method, which uses the space reduction technique to reduce the initial
large design space to a small subspace around the optimal point step by step. To
illustrate the optimization efciency of the proposed method and its improvement, a
standard test function and TEAM Workshop Benchmark Problem 22 (SMES) are
investigated rst. As shown, (improved) SOMs are efcient for these standard
examples. The required FEM samples for the SMES by using SOM are less than
10 % that of traditional optimization method. As a conclusion of this section, a PM
claw pole motor was investigated for the application in dishwasher. From the
discussion, it can be found that the optimal solution given by SOM is better than the
traditional direct optimization method in terms of output power, efciency, material
cost and optimization efciency. Therefore, SOM is efcient for the design of
low-dimensional electrical machines.
Secondly, MSOM was presented for the situation of multi-objective design
optimization of electrical machines. A mathematical test function was investigated
to verify the efciency of the proposed method. Then, a design example of
PM-SMC TFM was investigated to maximize the output power and minimize the
material cost. As shown, the obtained Pareto front was well aligned with the one
obtained by the MOGA. Most importantly, the required FEM samples are less than
10 % of that of MOGA based on FEM.
Thirdly, two kinds of multi-level optimization methods are presented for
high-dimensional design optimization problems of electrical machines. The rst
one is based on sequential subspace optimization method. It uses the results of
sensitivity analysis to divide the whole high dimensional design spaces into several
low-dimensional design sub-spaces. Then, optimize these subspaces sequentially to
get the nal optimal results. To construct the optimization flowchart of this method,
two kinds of sensitivity analysis techniques are discussed. Another kind of
multi-level optimization method is based on the MLGA. It uses the problem matrix
to determine the multi-level optimization framework. MLGA is also employed to
optimize the FEM model of the design problem. From the investigation of a SMES
and a SPMSM, it can be seen that both methods are efcient.
Finally, the MDO method was proposed due to the natural structure of electrical
machines. The MDO of electrical machines mainly includes material, electro-
magnetic, thermal and mechanical analyses. For new kinds of materials and
topologies, new manufacturing method should be investigated as well, which will
affect the material performance of the material and manufacturing cost of the
4.9 Summary 157
components of electrical machines. A design example about the PM-SMC TFM

was investigated to illustrate the efciency of the proposed optimization method. As
shown, the MDO method can provide good optimal solutions which can satisfy the
multi-disciplinary constraints, which are very important to the safe operation of the
machine, including temperature rise and resonant frequency.
In summary, the proposed new optimization methods are efcient for the design
optimization of electrical machines. It should be noted that the optimization models
for the electrical machines are veried by comparing the FEM calculation results
with experimental results. SOMs for single and multi-objective situations have been
veried by test functions and TEAM Workshop Benchmark Problem 22 as well.
Therefore, the efciency of the proposed methods has been validated and can be
employed for extensive engineering applications.
References
(12):65916602
multi-disciplinary design optimisation, In: proceedings of 18th international conference on
electrical machines, Vilamoura. pp 16, 69 Sep 2008
5. Di Barba P (2010) Multi-objective shape design in electricity and magnetism, Lecture Notes
Elect Eng, vol 47
the state-of-the-art. Int J Computat Intell Res 2(3):287308
7. Yamazaki K, Ishigami H (2010) Rotor-shape optimization of interior-permanent-magnet
motors to reduce harmonic iron losses. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 57(1):6169
9. Komeza K, Dems M (2012) Finite-element and analytical calculations of no-load core losses
in energy-saving induction motors. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 59(7):29342946
10. Zhao W L, Lipo T A, Kwon B-I (2015) Optimal design of a novel asymmetrical rotor structure
to obtain torque and efciency improvement in surface inset PM motors, IEEE Trans Magn, 51
(3), Article no 8100704
11. Kim H-W, Kim K-T, Jo Y-S, Hur J (2013) Optimization methods of torque density for
developing the neodymium free SPOKE-type BLDC motor. IEEE Trans Magn 49(5):2173
2176
12. Lei G, Shao KR, Guo Y, Zhu J, Lavers JD (2008) Sequential optimization method for the
13. Lei G, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Zou Y (2014) State of art of sequential optimization strategies for the
design of electromagnetic devices. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on
electrical machines and systems (ICEMS), pp 706709, Oct. 2225, 2014
14. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution - a simple and efcient heuristic for global
15. Takahashi RHC, Vasconcelos JA, Ramrez JA, Krahenbuhl L (2003) A multi-objective
methodology for evaluating genetic operators. IEEE Trans Magn 39(3):13211324
16. Campelo F, Guimaraes FG, Igarashi H, Ramirez JA (2005) A clonal selection algorithm for
optimization in electromagnetics. IEEE Trans Magn 41(5):17361739
19. Lei G, Shao KR, Guo Y, Zhu J, Lavers JD (2009) Improved SOM for high dimensional
electromagnetic optimization problems. IEEE Trans Magn 45(10):39933996
Magn 46(8):31813184
22. Lei G, Liu CC, Zhu JG, Guo YG (2015) Techniques for multi-level design optimization of
permanent magnet motors. IEEE Trans Energy Conver 30(4):15741584
24. Lebensztajn L, Coulomb JL (2004) TEAM workshop problem 25: A multi-objective analysis.
25. Xie DX, Sun XW, Bai BD, Yang SY (2008) Multi-objective optimization based on response
surface model and its application to engineering shape design. IEEE Trans Magn 44(6):1006
1009
26. Di Barba P (2009) Evolutionary multi-objective optimization methods for the shape design of
industrial electromagnetic devices. IEEE Trans Magn 45(3):14361441
27. Wu CFJ, Hamada MS (2000) Experiments: Planning, Analysis Parameter Design
Optimization. Wiley, New York
(2):479482
34. Lei G, Xu W, Hu JF, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Shao KR (2014) Multi-level design optimization of a
FSPMM drive system by using sequential subspace optimization method, IEEE Trans Magn,
50(2), Article no 7016904
35. Liu CC, Zhu JG, Wang YH, Lei G, Guo YG, Liu XJ (2014) A low-cost permanent magnet
synchronous motor with SMC and ferrite PM, In: Proceedings of 17th international conference
on electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), pp 397400
Ind Appl 48(5):14961506
References 159
machine considering the limitation of inverter and flux-weakening capability. In: proceedings
of 41st IAS annual meeting-industry applications conference, vol 5, pp 24032410
38. Morio J (2011) Global and local sensitivity analysis methods for a physical system. Eur J Phys
32(6):15771583
39. Rodriguez-Fernandez M, Banga JR, Doyle FJ (2012) Novel global sensitivity analysis
methodology accounting for the crucial role of the distribution of input parameters: application
to systems biology models. Int J Robust Nonlin Control 22:10821102
40. Morris MD (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments.
Technometrics 33(2):161174
41. Sobol IM (2011) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte
Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55:271280
42. Herman JD, Kollat JB, Reed PM, Wagener T (2013) Technical note: method of morris
effectively reduces the computational demands of global sensitivity analysis for distributed
watershed models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:28932903
43. Li QS, Liu DK, Leung AYT, Zhang N, Luo QZ (2002) A multi-level genetic algorithm for the
optimum design of structural control systems. Int J Numer Meth. Engng 55:817834
44. Wang SH, Meng XJ, Guo NN, Li HB, Qiu J, Zhu JG et al (2009) Multi-level optimization for
45. Meng XJ, Wang SH, Qiu J, Zhu JG, Wang Y, Guo YG et al (2010) Dynamic multi-level
optimization of machine design and control parameters based on correlation analysis. IEEE
Trans Magn 46(8):27792782
46. Meng XJ, Wang SH, Qiu J, Zhang QH, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Liu DK (2011) Robust multi-level
47. Lei G,Liu CC, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2015) Multi-disciplinary design analysis for PM motors with
soft magnetic composite cores, IEEE Trans Magn, 51(11), Article no 8109704
network and 3D FEA with rotational core loss included. IEEE Trans Magn 45(106):4680
4683
Chapter 5
Design Optimization Methods
for Electrical Drive Systems
Abstract Electrical drive systems are key components in modern appliances,

industry equipment and systems, such as digital machine tools and hybrid and pure
electric vehicles. To obtain the best performance of these drive systems, the motors
and their control systems should be designed and optimized simultaneously at the
system level rather than the component level. This chapter presents system-level
design and optimization methods for electrical drive systems, namely the single-level
optimization method, multi-level optimization method, and multi-level Genetic
Algorithm (MLGA). Two electrical drive systems are investigated to illustrate the
effectiveness of those proposed methods. The performances of two machines are
evaluated by the nite element models, which have been veried by comparing with
the experimental results on prototypes. The proposed multi-level method can increase
the performance of the whole drive system, such as higher output power, lower
material cost and lower dynamic overshoot, and decrease the computational cost
signicantly compared with those of single-level design optimization method.

Keywords Electrical drive systems System-level design optimization Multi-level

design optimization Field oriented control Finite element methods Model pre-

dictive control Transverse flux machine Permanent magnet synchronous machine
5.1 Introduction
Electrical machines and the corresponding drive systems have a history of over a
century and the design procedure has become almost standard. When designing
an appliance that needs an electrical drive system, the designer rstly selects the
motor, inverter/converter and controller from the existing products. The appliance
designer, on one hand, has to deliver the functions that the appliance is supposed to
have, and on the other hand, has to take into account the availability and perfor-
mance that the existing motor drive can provide. This motor manufacturer-oriented
approach has been the dominant design concept for drive systems for a long time.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0_5
162 5 Design Optimization Methods for Electrical Drive Systems
However, this approach would apply many constraints to the design and therefore
limit the functions of the appliance [1].
With the fast development of CAD/CAE software, new material, flexible
mechanical manufacturing technology, advanced optimization and control algo-
rithms, it is possible to design a motor to meet the special requirements of a
particular application. Since early 1990s, this application oriented approach has
become a common practice. Nowadays, the motors and their control systems are
generally closely integrated into the appliances. Therefore, more and more holistic
integrated design problems of the electrical drive systems have boomed in industry,
for example, the drive systems for hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) [24].
Through the extensive research practice, it is recognized that when designing
such an electrical drive system, it is important to pursue the optimal system per-
formance rather than the optimal components like motor, because assembling
individually optimized components into a system cannot necessarily guarantee an
optimal system performance. The optimal system performance can only be
achieved through a holistic approach of integrated simultaneous optimization of all
components at the system level [1, 5, 6].
Figure 2.1 illustrated a general design framework and the interactions between
different disciplines/domains for electrical drive systems. As shown, the design
optimization of such a drive system is really a multi-disciplinary problem. It mainly
includes electromagnetic, material, mechanical, thermal and power electronic
designs, which are strongly coupled [79]. In order to achieve high system-level
performance, the perfect cooperation of motor and its drive and control systems
must be designed and optimized simultaneously.
Although the importance of system-level design optimization of electrical drive
systems is noted, not much work has been reported in the literature [1, 5, 6].
Traditional design and optimization methods are mostly on the component level of
different kinds of motors [1016]. Generally, cogging torque, torque ripple, cost,
weight and energy consumption are the main concerns for motors performance
parameters in the design and optimization process [1719]. For the design opti-
mization of these motors, Chap. 4 presented several kinds of optimization methods,
including the combinations of intelligent optimization algorithms and nite element
model (FEM) or approximate models, for example, the differential evolution
algorithm (DEA) plus Kriging model. Approximate models are generally used to
replace the FEM in the performance evaluation of motors so as to reduce the FEM
computational costs [1, 5, 10, 20, 21].
On the other hand, for the controller part, though a lot of control algorithms have
been developed, such as eld oriented control (FOC), direct torque control
(DTC) and model predictive control (MPC) [2226], they are also generally
designed and optimized on the controller level, and have not been combined with
the design optimization of motors [27].
This component-level-based method may be reasonable for some traditional
motors and their drive systems where there is much design experience that can be
used. However, there is not much design experience for novel electrical drive
systems. Furthermore, these methods are not system-level holistic design basically.
5.1 Introduction 163
As previously discussed, by this component level approach, one can hardly achieve
the optimal system performance. Therefore, how to design and optimize novel high
performance drive systems is an important problem in both research community
and industrial applications [1, 5].
In order to deal with the above problems, this chapter presents three types of
system-level design optimization methods for electrical drive systems. This chapter
is structured as follows. Section 5.2 presents the system-level design optimization
framework and models for electrical drive systems. Section 5.3 presents a
single-level (only at the system level) optimization method for the design of drive
systems. Section 5.4 presents a multi-level design optimization method for drive
systems, including the investigation of the rst design example: a drive system
consists of a permanent magnet (PM) transverse flux machine (TFM) with soft
magnetic composite (SMC) core and an improved MPC system. Section 5.5
introduces the multi-level Genetic Algorithm (MLGA) for the design optimization
of drive systems, including the second drive system example which is composed of
a surface-mounted permanent magnet synchronous machine (SPMSM) and a
classical FOC system, followed by the summary section.
5.2 System-Level Design Optimization Framework
Figure 2.1 briefly illustrated a multi-disciplinary (or multi-domain) design frame-

work for electrical drive systems. However, the design modules are strongly cou-
pled and it is not easy to derive the design and optimization flowchart from this
framework. Figure 5.1 shows a deductive system-level design and optimization
framework for electrical drive systems [1]. It mainly includes ve steps, namely
system inputs, selection, design, optimization, and evaluation, as the following:
Step 1 Determination of systems requirements and specications. In this step,
systems design objectives and constraints, such as cost, weight, torque
ripple and motor efciency, have to be considered and dened.
Step 2 Selection or design of motor type, drive and controller type with respect to
the system specications. This step can be done through a qualitative
comparison based on literature survey and experience. A drive system in
general consists of two parts, namely motor and controller, and the latter
includes a power electronic converter and drive control algorithm. There
are some interactions between these two parts, e.g. a special type of
controller ts the given type of motor better than the others.
Step 3 Design of motor and controller jointly. The motor design consists of
material selection and modelling, electromagnetic and thermal designs, and
so on [79]. The controller design mainly includes the design of control
algorithms and parameters. These two designs are done simultaneously.
Step 4 Construction of design optimization models for the motor, controller and
the whole system. The motor design optimization model can be dened as
Fig. 5.1 System-level design optimization framework for drive systems
min : fm xm
s:t: gmi xm 0; i 1; . . .; Nm ; 5:1
xml xm xmu
where xm, fm and gm are the motor design parameter vector, objectives and con-
straints, xml and xmu the lower and upper boundaries of xm, respectively, and Nm is
the number of the constraints. It should be noted that the objectives and constraints
5.2 System-Level Design Optimization Framework 165
in (5.1) must be dened in terms of the required system objectives and constraints
in Step 1.
The control design optimization model can be dened as
min : fc xc
s:t: gci xc 0; i 1; . . .; Nc ; 5:2
xcl xc xcu
where xc, fc and gc are the control design parameter vector, objectives and con-
straints, xcl and xcu the lower and upper boundaries of xc, respectively, and Nc is the
number of controller constraints. Similarly, the objectives and constraints in (5.2)
must also be dened in terms of the required system objectives and constraints.
Combining the motor and controller design optimization models, (5.1) and (5.2),
one obtains the system-level design optimization model as the following:
min : fs xs Ffm ; fc
s:t: gmi xs 0; i 1; 2; . . .; Nm
; 5:3
gci xs 0; i 1; 2; . . .; Nc
xsl xs xsu
where xs xm ; xc , xsl and xsu are the lower and upper boundaries of xs, respec-
tively, and fs is the system objective which is generally a function of fm and fc.
Step 5 Evaluation of the system performance. This step consists of two parts. One
is the evaluation of steady performance of motor, such as cost and ef-
ciency. The other is the evaluation of dynamic performance of controller or
the whole drive system, such as overshoot, settling time, torque ripple, and
speed ripple.
5.3 Single-Level Design Optimization Method
Figure 5.2 illustrates the rst type of optimization method for electrical drive
systems. It can be seen that the optimization process is implemented at a single level
for the whole system, which is thus known as the single-level design optimization
method [1].
This method mainly includes the following three steps:
Step 1 Determination of system level optimization model (5.3). It includes the
selection of motor and controller for the specic drive system.
Step 2 Selection of an optimization method. As drive systems are always high
dimensional and non-linear design problems, intelligent algorithms, such
as genetic algorithm (GA) and DEA, can be good choices in many situ-
ations. Therefore, the algorithm parameters should be determined in this
step, such as genetic operators in GA and mutation operator in DEA.
Fig. 5.2 Single-level optimization method for electrical drive systems
Step 3 Implementation of optimization process. Firstly, generate initial population

of xs. Secondly, evaluate the drive system performance parameters,
objectives, and constraints in (5.3). Thirdly, implement the optimization
algorithm until the convergence criteria are met. Finally, terminate and
output the optimal solutions.
However, the computational cost of this single-level optimization method is
always very high as these design problems are generally high dimensional, non-
linear, and strongly coupled multi-domain design analyses. As different domains
have different analysis techniques and software, the computational cost of whole
system is very expensive. For example, power electronic circuit analysis is needed
in the control design, but the needed characteristic parameters of motor are gen-
erally calculated by FEM in the motor design, i.e. the power electronic circuit
design and electromagnetic design are strongly coupled in electrical drive systems.
The computational cost of nite element analysis is usually very expensive in most
cases, especially for some motors of complex structures. To overcome these
problems, a multi-level design optimization method is presented as follows [1].
5.4 Multi-level Design Optimization Method
5.4.1 Method Flowchart
Figure 5.3 depicts a multi-level design optimization framework for electrical drive
systems. Three levels are considered in this framework, namely the motor, control,
and system levels [1].
5.4 Multi-level Design Optimization Method 167
This optimization method includes three steps as follows:

Step 1 Determination of optimization models (5.1) and (5.2) for the motor and
control levels, respectively. All the required system objectives and con-
straints should be dened in (5.1) and (5.2), so that only two levels, the
motor and control levels, are needed to be optimized in this framework.
Step 2 Optimization. This step includes the optimization processes for motor and
control levels, respectively.
The motor levelThe aim of this level is to optimize the motor model (5.1) and
evaluate the motor steady state performance, such as the cost, weight, output power
and efciency. The motor characteristic parameters should be calculated in this step,
such as the winding resistance, inductance and magnetic flux for the design opti-
mization of the control level.
Fig. 5.3 Multi-level optimization framework for electrical drive systems

The control levelThe aim of this level is to optimize the control model (5.2) and
evaluate the system dynamic performance, such as the overshoot and settling time.
Step 3 Verication of system level performance (5.3). The aim of this step is to
evaluate the system performance and output the optimization results.
As outlined above, the drive system design optimization is always high
dimensional and nonlinear. The optimization efciency of multi-level optimization
method mainly depends on two issues. The rst one is how to construct an efcient
multi-level optimization framework, especially for high dimensional problems. The
second one is how to reduce the computational cost of optimization models, which
are the main contents of the previous chapter. Therefore, the proposed new opti-
mization methods for electrical machines can be employed for the optimization of
motor and control levels, respectively. For example, if there are seven optimization
parameters for the motor, then the multi-level optimization method presented in
Sects. 4.6 and 4.7 can be introduced to improve the optimization efciency, and the
sensitivity analysis techniques presented in Sect. 4.5 can be employed to determine
the multi-level optimization framework.
5.4.2 Design Example for a Drive System of TFM and MPC
5.4.2.1 Design Optimization Model for Motor Level
In this example, we will investigate a drive system consisting of a PM-SMC TFM

and an improved MPC control system. More details of this motor can be found in
the previous chapters.
Figure 5.4 shows the structure of one phase of this TFM with main dimensions
shown in Table 2.1. Figure 5.5 shows the FEA model for this TFM, which contains
one pole pitch of a phase because of the symmetry. The main design and opti-
mization parameters are also shown in this gure.
To optimize this machine, eight parameters are considered as the optimization
variables as shown in Table 5.1 (more motor dimensions can be seen in Table 2.1)
and Fig. 5.5. All these parameters should be optimized to minimize the cost of
material and maximize the output power of the motor. The objective cost mainly
includes the material costs of PMs, copper, SMC core and steel. Four constraints are
also considered for this machine. The optimization model can be dened as follows:
min : fm xm w1 Cost
C0 w2 Pout
P0
s:t: gm1 xm 0:795 g 0;

gm2 xm 640 Pout 0; 5:4
gm3 xm sf 0:8 0;
gm4 xm Jc 6 0;
xml xm xmu
Fig. 5.4 Structure of the PM-SMC TFM with SMC stator (one phase)
Fig. 5.5 FEM and optimization parameters for PM-SMC TFM
where w1 and w2 are weighting factors, C0 and P0 the cost and output power (Pout)
of the initial PM TFM, , sf and Jc the motor efciency, winding ll factor, and
current density, respectively [1, 5, 28, 29].
5.4.2.2 Design Optimization Model for Control Level
In Chap. 2, an improved MPC scheme with a duty ratio optimization module was
presented to drive PM motors [30]. It will be used in this chapter as the control
method for the PM-SMC TFM. This control scheme was shown in Fig. 2.37.
Table 5.1 Main motor design and optimization parameters

Par. Description Unit Value Min. Max. Step size
xm1 PM PM circumferential angle Deg. 12 9 12 0.05
xm2 WPM PM width mm 9 6 9 0.05
xm3 Wstc SMC tooth circumferential width mm 9 8 10 0.05
xm4 Wsta SMC tooth axial width mm 8 7 9 0.05
xm5 Hstr SMC tooth radial height mm 10.5 9 11 0.05
xm6 Nc Number of turns 125 110 128 1
xm7 Dc Diameter of copper wire mm 1.25 1.0 1.3 0.01
xm8 lg Air gap length mm 1.0 0.95 1.15 0.01
As mentioned in Chap. 2, the key issue of MPC is the denition of cost function.
Since the two greatest concerns of a PM motor are the torque and stator flux, the
cost function is dened to ensure that both the torque and stator flux at the end of
control period are as close as possible to the reference values. To illustrate the
optimization parameters of the control level, the cost function is rewritten as

G jTe Tek 1 j k1 jws j jwks 1 j
5:5
A jT T k N j k1 jw j jwk N j
e e s s
where Te , ws , Tek 1 and wsk 1 are the reference torque and flux, predicted torque
and flux, Tek N and wks N the linear predictions of torque and flux at the (k + N)-th
instant, and k1 and A weighting factors, respectively.
The other important part of this improved MPC is the duty ratio module. The
expression of duty ratio optimization module has the form as

Te Tek 1 ws wek 1

d ;
C C 5:6
T w
where CT and C are two positive parameters. The idea of this method is that a
larger difference between the reference and predicted torque values would lead to a
larger duty ratio value [30].
Six parameters should be optimized in the control level. They are A, N, CT, C,
Kp and Ki, where Kp and Ki are the PI controller parameters as shown in Fig. 2.37.
One objective and four constraints are considered for this level. The objective is to
minimize the sum of root mean square errors (RMSE) of torque (T) and speed (n) in
the steady state operation period. At the same time, the speed overshoot should be
minimized for this control system. The optimization model of the control system
can be expressed as
min : fc xc w3 RMSE
Trated
T
w4 RMSE
nrated
n
w5 nos
s:t: gc1 xc RMSET=Trated 0:06 0;
gc2 xc RMSEn=nrated 0:05 0; 5:7
gc3 xc nos 0:02 0;
gc4 xc ts 0:02 0;
xcl xc xcu
where w3 to w5 are weighting factors, the subscript rated indicates that the values
are obtained from the motor optimization model (5.4), nos is the speed overshoot,
which should be no larger than 2 % of the rated speed, 1800 rev/min, and ts the
settling time, which should be no larger than 0.02 s after the load is applied to the
control system [1].
5.4.2.3 Optimization Flowchart and Results
A.Multi-level Optimization Flowchart

Firstly, for the eight parameters at motor level, it was found that they can be divided
into two subspaces according to our design experience [1]. The rst subspace X1
includes xm1, xm2, xm6 and xm7, which are signicant to the cost and output power of
the motor. The second subspace X2 includes xm3, xm4, xm5 and xm8. Therefore, the
optimization flowchart of the motor level has two sublevels.
Secondly, for the six parameters in the control level, after the Design of
experiments (DOE) analysis, it is found that except the third control parameter CT,
the other parameters have the same signicant level. Table 5.2 shows the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) results for the control level. As shown, the second column
means the sum of square of deviations, the third column DF the degree of freedom,
the fourth column Var. the variance, and the F column the value of hypothesis
testing with F distribution. F is a reference value, and is signicant level for
hypothesis test. 0.01 is a generally used value for . If the value of F is larger than
F, the corresponding factor is a signicant factor. Therefore, only the third
parameter is a signicant factor for the objective of control level. Theoretically, we
can use multi-level optimization method with two subspaces for the control level.
Table 5.2 DOE and Source Sum. DF Var. F F Sig.

ANOVA data for control level
xc1 0.013 4 0.003 0.80 2.87
xc2 0.015 4 0.004 0.88 2.87
xc3 0.057 4 0.014 3.44 2.87 *
xc4 0.020 4 0.005 1.24 2.87
xc5 0.013 4 0.003 0.76 2.87
xc6 0.022 4 0.006 1.33 2.87
Error 0.083 20 0.004
Total 0.139 24
However, since the signicant space only has 1 factor, we just select all six
parameters as the same level.
In summary, the total optimization framework of this drive system has three
levels as shown in Fig. 5.6. The rst and second levels are the subspaces X1 and
X2, respectively, which should be optimized with model (5.4). After the opti-
mization of motor level, the motor characteristic parameters, such as R, L and flux
can be obtained. They will be used as the input parameters of MPC control system
in the control level. The third level is the subspace of all the control parameters in
model (5.7).
B.Optimization Results
First of all, DEA is selected as the optimization algorithm in the multi-level opti-
mization of this drive system. The algorithm parameters include the mutation
scaling factor of 0.8, crossover factor of 0.8, and the maximum number of iterations
of 1000. Then in the multi-level optimization method is dened as 1 %. All
weighting factors are assumed to be 1 in this work. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 list the
optimization results of motor and control levels obtained by the single-level and
multi-level optimization methods, respectively. From these tables, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The motor level. For the initial design scheme, the motor efciency is 79.5 %,
the output power 640 W, average torque 3.40 Nm, and material cost $35.8.
By the single-level optimization method with DEA and FEM, all the 14
parameters (8 motor and 6 control parameters) are optimized as shown in
Fig. 5.2. The obtained motor efciency is 81.5 %, output power 658 W,
average torque 3.49 Nm, and material cost $28.3. They are better than those of
the initial design.
For the multi-level optimization method, 3 iteration processes are required to
get the optimal results. Figure 5.7 shows the iteration process of multi-level
optimization for the motor level. As shown, level 1 is optimized twice while
level 2 is optimized only once. After the optimization, the optimal output
power reaches 670 W and the average torque 3.55 Nm while the motor ef-
ciency decreases to 81.3 %. The cost is only $26.9, which is the smallest
among these three designs, and the output power is increased by 4.7 %
(30/640) by using the proposed multi-level optimization method compared
with the initial design.
(2) The control level. As shown in Table 5.4, the relative RMSEs of torque and
speed are 4.17 and 0.10 %, respectively, the speed overshoot is 1.03 % and the
objective 5.30 % for control level by using the single-level optimization
method. After the multi-level optimization, all these objectives have been
increased signicantly. For example, the relative RMSE of speed has been
Fig. 5.6 Multi-level optimization flowchart for PM TFM drive system

Table 5.3 Optimization Par. Unit Initial Single-level Multi-level

results of TFM parameters
(Motor level) xm1 Deg. 12 10.65 10.00
xm2 mm 9 8.00 7.65
xm3 mm 9 8.45 8.0
xm4 mm 8 7.65 7.95
xm5 mm 10.5 9.15 10.9
xm6 turn 125 117 110
xm7 mm 1.25 1.23 1.27
xm8 mm 1.0 1.00 0.95
% 79.5 81.5 81.3
Pout W 640 658 670
sf 0.56 0.55 0.50
Jc A/mm2 4.72 5.88 5.96
T Nm 3.40 3.49 3.55
Cost $ 35.8 28.3 26.9
fm 1.70 1.65
FEM 14,000 16,25
Table 5.4 Optimization Par. Single-level Multi-level

results of MPC parameters
(control level) xc1 0.320 0.386
xc2 6 7
xc3 0.959 1.17
xc4 0.03427 0.03568
xc5 0.199 0.23
xc6 2.698 1.619
RMSE(T)/Trated 4.17 % 3.95 %
RMSE(n)/nrated 0.10 % 0.02 %
nos 1.03 % 0.90 %
ts 0.01 0.01
fc 5.30 % 4.87 %
Simulation calls 14,000 6,000
decreased from 0.10 to 0.02 %, and the objective of control level from 5.30 to
4.87 %. Therefore, the dynamic performances have been greatly improved by
using the multi-level optimization method. Figure 5.8 illustrates the dynamic
performance of the drive system obtained by the multi-level method. As
shown, the dynamic performances of speed and torque are very good.
(3) For the computational cost, the cost of FEM analysis at the motor level and the
cost of Simulink simulation calls at control level are the largest computational
burden for the whole optimization process. For the single-level optimization
method with DEA, about 14,000 FEM samples and 14,000 Simulink simu-
lation calls (5 14 200, where 5 14 is the population size and 200 the
Motor objective 1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Initial Level 1 - 1st Level 2 - 1st Level 1 - 2nd
Iteration number of multilevel optimization
Fig. 5.7 Iteration process of multi-level optimization for the motor level
6
Torque [N*m]
-2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time [s]
2000
Speed [r/min]
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time [s]
Fig. 5.8 Dynamic performance of TFM with optimized MPC parameters

average iteration number of DEA) are needed to achieve the optimal results.
Actually, it is hard for an intelligent algorithm to deal with this kind of
high-dimensional and highly nonlinear optimization problem. It is time con-
suming and tends to nd a local optimal point.
On the other hand, only 1625 (see Table 5.3) FEM samples are needed for the
motor level optimization by using the proposed multi-level optimization method,
which is about 11.6 % of the direct single-level optimization method. Moreover,
about 6,000 Simulink simulation calls are needed for the control level by using the
multi-level optimization method. This is less than half of the simulation cost of
single level optimization method. Therefore, the proposed multi-level design
optimization method can signicantly reduce the computational cost, and produce
better solutions than the single-level optimization method.
In summary, compared with the schemes gained from the initial design and
single-level method, the solutions obtained by the multi-level optimization method
have many improvements, such as larger output power, less material cost, and less
overshoot. As a matter of fact, both the steady state and dynamic performances of
this drive system have been improved by using the multi-level method.
5.5 MLGA for a SPMSM Drive System with FOC
5.5.1 Optimization Model
MLGA was introduced as a kind of optimization method for the high dimensional
optimization problems of electrical machines in Chap. 4. Its efciency has been
veried by a design example of an SPMSM [31, 32]. MLGA can be applied to
design optimization of electrical drive systems with a similar optimization frame-
work. In this section, MLGA is presented for design optimization of a motor drive
system consisting of a SPMSM and FOC control scheme. The main design
parameters of this SPMSM can be seen in Sect. 4.7, and the FOC control scheme in
Fig. 2.22. As shown, three PI controllers are used for the d- and q-axis components
of stator current, and speed control, respectively.
For the motor level optimization, the objective is to minimize the cost of copper
and permanent magnets, and to maximize the motor efciency, . The optimization
model can be expressed as
K
max : fm xm
w1 100g w2 Cost
Cost
100 max 5:8
s.t. P2 [ 945W
sf \78 %
5.5 MLGA for a SPMSM Drive System with FOC 177
where the design variable xm hm; bm; Ns; WindD, Ns and WindD are discrete
variables, K, w1 and w2 the weighting factors dened by the designer, P2 is the
output power, and sf the ll factor [6].
For the control level optimization, the six integral and proportional gain factors
in the three PI controllers as shown in Fig. 2.22 are chosen as the design
optimization variables. The optimization model can be dened as
min : fc xc a1 Trip a2 nos a3 Id

s.t. Trip 0:5 Nm
5:9
nos 0:5 %
Id 0:45 A
where xc stands for the vector of six PI variables, Trip is the torque ripple, nos the
overshoot of speed, Id the d-axis component of stator current, and i (i = 1, 2, 3) are
weighting factors.
5.5.2 Optimization Framework
As mentioned in Chap. 4, the problem matrix is a method to determine the

multi-level optimization framework for MLGA, which can be conducted by using
the correlation analysis and DOE techniques. Note that the optimization model and
parameters of the motor level of this drive system are the same as those investigated
in the MLGA for SPMSM in Chap. 4. Therefore, the same multi-level optimization
structure obtained in that chapter can be applied to the motor level of this drive
system. That is, hm and bm are the variables of level 1 (indicated as X1), and Ns
and WindD are the parameters in level 2 (indicated as X2). For the control level, all
parameters can be placed into one level, i.e. level 3 (indicated as X3). Therefore, a
three-level optimization framework as shown in Fig. 5.9 can be constructed for this
drive system.
5.5.3 Optimization Results
In the implementation of MLGA, all weighting factors are dened as 1 in this work.
Table 5.5 lists the optimization results obtained by MLGA, and Table 5.6 the
proportional and integral gains calculated on the third level. It can be seen that the
motor efciency and output power have been increased greatly by using MLGA
compared with the initial design. For example, the motor efciency after MLGA
optimization reaches 86.4 %, an increase by 2.7 % compared with the initial
83.7 %. Figure 5.10 illustrates the speed responses of SPMSM before and after the
Fig. 5.9 Three-level optimization structure for a SPMSM drive system
Table 5.5 Optimal results for SPMSM on levels 1 and 2

Par. Description Unit Initial MLGA
hm Thickness of PM mm 1.8 2.3
bm Width of PM mm 31.4 30.3
Ns Conductors per slot turn 72 67
D Diameter of conductor mm 0.5 0.56
Iq q-axis component of current A 4.78 5.27
Id d-axis component of current A 1.60 0.05
Efciency 83.7 % 86.4 %
Cost Cost of PM and winding $ 26.1 22.6
P2 Output power W 946 950
sf Fill factor % 67 78
optimization of PI controller parameters. The speed overshoot is about 0.7 rev/min,

or 0.035 % of the rated speed (2000 rev/min) after the MLGA optimization in
contrast to 6 rev/min, or 0.3 % of the rated speed, in initial design, a signicant
reduction of speed overshoot. In summary, the steady state and dynamic perfor-
mances of the whole drive system have been improved greatly by using MLGA.
5.6 Summary 179
Table 5.6 Optimal results for Parameters Initial MLGA

control on level 3
Proportional gain in speed loop 1 18
Integral gain in speed loop 1 0.2
Proportional gain in Id loop 1 20
Integral gain in Id loop 1 0.32
Proportional gain in Iq loop 1 29
Integral gain in Iq loop 1 2
Fig. 5.10 Transient speed

a before and b after
optimization
5.6 Summary
From the above discussions, it can be seen that the system-level design optimization
method is necessary for electrical drive systems in order to achieve high steady state
and dynamic performances at the system level. The proposed multi-level method is
efcient for the design optimization of high dimensional drive systems. This
method will build a solid foundation to enable the effective development of novel
high performance drive systems with new materials, low cost and high efciency
for industrial applications. This method can be also applied to other high dimen-
sional design optimization problems in industrial applications. It will shorten the
design cycle, reduce the design cost and improve the design efciency for the
industrial products in the early stage of product development.
References
(12):65916602
3. Chan CC (2007) The state of the art of electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles. Proc IEEE 95
(4):704718
Trans Magn 46(8):27792782
7. Lei G, Liu CC, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2015) Multi-disciplinary design analysis and optimization of
a PM transverse flux machine with soft magnetic composite core, IEEE Trans Magn, 2015,
vol 51(11). Article 8109704
multi-disciplinary design optimisation. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference
on Electrical Machines, 69 Sept., Vilamoura, pp 16
11. Li WL, Zhang XC, Cheng SK, Cao JC (2013) Thermal optimization for a HSPMG used for
distributed generation systems. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 60(2):474482
12. Pster P-D, Perriard Y (2010) Very-high-speed slotless permanent-magnet motors: analytical
modeling, optimization, design, and torque measurement methods. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
57(1):296303
13. Laskaris KI, Kladas AG (2011) Permanent-magnet shape optimization effects on synchronous
motor performance. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 58(9):37763783
14. Yamazaki K, Ishigami H (2010) Rotor-shape optimization of interior-permanent-magnet
motors to reduce harmonic iron losses. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 57(1):6169
15. Ma C, Qiu L (2015) Multi-objective optimization of switched reluctance motors based on design
of experiments and particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 30(3):11441153
References 181
17. Lee D-H, Pham TH, Ahn J-W (2013) Design and operation characteristics of four-two pole
high-speed SRM for torque ripple reduction. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 60(9):36373643
18. Flieller D, Nguyen NK, Wira P, Sturtzer G, Abdeslam DO, Merckle J (2014) A self-learning
solution for torque ripple reduction for nonsinusoidal permanent-magnet motor drives based
on articial neural networks. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 61(2):655666
FSPMM drive system by using sequential subspace optimization method. IEEE Trans Magn
50(2). Article 7016904
22. Buja GS, Kazmierkowski MP (2004) Direct torque control of PWM inverter-fed AC motors
a survey. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 51(4):744757
(6):18261838
25. Xia CL, Wang YF, Shi TN (2013) Implementation of nite-state model predictive control for
commutation torque ripple minimization of permanent-magnet brushless DC motor. IEEE
Trans Ind Electron 60(3):896905
Electron 56(7):27152728
27. Liu C-H, Hsu Y-Y (2010) Design of a self-tuning PI controller for a STATCOM using particle
swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 57(2):702715
with soft magnetic composite core. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 21(2):426434
ratio optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Electrical
Machines and Systems (ICEMS), 2023 Aug 2011, pp 15
Chapter 6
Design Optimization for High Quality
Mass Production
Abstract In the last two chapters, the design optimization methods under the
framework of deterministic approach were presented for electrical machines and
drive systems. By the deterministic approach, all material and structural parameters
in the manufacturing process are exact values that do not have any variations from
their nominal values. However, there are many unavoidable uncertainties or vari-
ations in the industrial manufacturing process of electrical machines and drive
systems, including mainly material diversity, manufacturing errors and assembly
inaccuracy. These will result in big variations affecting the reliability and quality of
electrical machines and drive systems in mass production. These variations are not
investigated in the deterministic approach. The main aim of this chapter is to
present a robust approach based on the technique of design for six-sigma (DFSS)
for the design optimization of high-performance and high-quality electrical
machines and drive systems in mass production. Meanwhile, two multi-level
optimization strategies are presented to improve the optimization efciency for high
dimensional problems. Through the investigation of several design examples, it is
shown that the reliability and quality of the investigated electrical machines and
drive system can be increased greatly by using the proposed robust approach.

Keywords Design for six-sigma Electrical drive systems Model predictive
control Robust design optimization
System-level design optimization
Multi-objective optimization
Transverse flux machine
Permanent magnet

motors Monte carlo analysis
6.1 Introduction
Chapters 4 and 5 presented several design optimization methods for electrical

machines in terms of different optimization situations, including multi-objective and
high dimensional situations, and the system-level design optimization methods for
electrical drive systems, including single- and multi-level optimization methods,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0_6
184 6 Design Optimization for High Quality Mass Production
Fig. 6.1 Manufacturing

tolerances for PMs,
a dimension, b magnetization
faults of magnitude BR, and
direction
respectively. Through the investigation of several design examples, it is shown that

these proposed methods are efcient. For example, the multi-level optimization
method can increase the steady-state and dynamic motor performances, such as
higher output power and efciency, and lower speed overshoot [1].
However, these proposed methods are a kind of deterministic design approach
from the industrial design perspective and have not investigated the unavoidable
variations (similar to the term of noise factors used in communication eld) in the
engineering manufacturing, including mainly material diversity, manufacturing
error and assembly inaccuracy, and system parameter variations in practical oper-
ation environment [2, 3].
For example, the manufacturing quality of permanent magnets (PMs) is crucial
to the performance of PM motors. There are at least two kinds of variations in the
manufacturing of PMs. As shown in Fig. 6.1, the rst one is the dimension, such as
the height and width, and the second one is the magnetization faults of magnitude
(BR) and direction () [46]. In [4], a practical example about the measurement data
of PM width for a batch of 2000 PMs was presented. These PMs were from 3
manufacturing groups with the same lower limit (about 14.6 mm) and upper limit
(about 14.7 mm). After the measurement, it was found that the average of one group
(about 1000 PMs) is obviously smaller than the lower limit, and there is about
0.05 mm deviation from the average.
The problem mentioned above is really a challenge in both research and
industrial communities as it includes not only the theoretical multi-disciplinary
design and analysis (such as electromagnetic, thermal and mechanical analysis and
power electronics), but also the practical engineering manufacturing of electrical
machines and drive systems.
On the other hand, many new control algorithms have been developed for motor
drives, e.g. model predictive control (MPC) and its improvements. Many algorithm
parameters need to be optimized for good dynamic drive system performance. From
the industrial application perspective, it is a natural requirement that the obtained
optimal control algorithm parameters are robust against the variations of motor
6.1 Introduction 185
performance parameters due to the variations existing in material characteristics and

manufacturing process. This issue is crucial for the batch production of novel drive
systems [2, 79].
In order to nd effective ways to deal with this problem, several robust design
optimization methods have been investigated, such as Taguchi method [1015] and
six-sigma robust optimization method [1619]. These two methods have been
widely used to optimize the motor performance (including torque ripple, cost and
output power) and quality against the manufacturing tolerances.
In our previous work, a six-sigma robust optimization method was rst proposed
to investigate a PM transverse flux machine (TFM) and a surface mounted PM
synchronous machine (PMSM), respectively, by using different optimization
algorithms [1719]. Meanwhile, a drive system combining a PM TFM with a eld
oriented control (FOC) scheme was investigated in [3]. From the discussion, some
interesting results have been obtained and it was that the system reliability has been
improved signicantly.
However, that work is only a case study. Only 6 parameters (4 motor structural
parameters plus 2 control algorithm parameters) were investigated, and all of them
are optimized at the same time. This method may be workable for some low
dimensional problems, e.g. dimension D is smaller than 6, but it is very hard or
ineffective for high dimensional problems due to the huge computational cost.
Unfortunately, the practical drive systems are always high dimensional and D is
often larger than 10.
The huge computational cost mentioned above is mainly from two parts. The
rst one is the nite element analysis (FEA) of motor and simulation of control
algorithm required by the optimization algorithm. For example, considering a drive
system optimization problem with 14 parameters, about 200*5*14 = 14,000 points
are required if the differential evolution algorithm (DEA) is used as the optimization
algorithm [3], where 5*14 is the population size and 200 is the iteration number of
DEA. The second one is the sample size of Monte Carlo analysis (MCA) used to
obtain the mean and standard deviation terms of objective and constraints in the
robust model (see model (6.3) in the next section). Generally, this sample size is a
large number, e.g. 10,000, which means for each design option in those 14,000
points, 10,000 extra points need to be calculated for MCA. Therefore, robust
optimization for high dimensional problems can be a real challenge.
To solve the aforementioned questions, a systemic study was presented for this
general and fundamental research topic. A design example of an electrical drive
system has been investigated. This chapter also presents a robust approach for the
design optimization of an electrical drive system based on the design for six-sigma
(DFSS) technique. Section 6.2 describes the robust technique of DFSS. Section 6.3
presents two robust optimization methods for electrical machines in terms of single-
and multi-objective situations. Section 6.4 presents the system-level robust design
optimization methods for electrical drive systems, followed by the summary.
6.2 Design for Six-Sigma
In general, there are three kinds of design approaches from industry perspective,
namely deterministic, reliability and robust approaches. Figure 6.2 illustrates a
general optimization flowchart and features for them.
Figure 6.2a illustrates the optimization solutions obtained from the robust and
deterministic approaches, respectively. As shown, the optimal solution obtained by
deterministic approach (namely function minimum) is smaller than the robust
optimum. However, when a variation or noise x happens, the objectives variation
f(x) of the deterministic approach is obviously larger than that of the robust
approach. Most importantly, some variations from deterministic approach violate
the basic constraints of design problem, e.g. lying inside the infeasible domain, and
this is prohibited in engineering design [2].
Fig. 6.2 Illustrations of deterministic, reliability and robust design approaches

6.2 Design for Six-Sigma 187
Figure 6.2b illustrates the optimizing flowcharts for these three design approa-
ches. As shown, the distance between constraint boundary and the solution obtained
from robust approach is the furthest one, which means the reliability of the product
is the highest. Meanwhile, the objectives variance of robust approach is the
smallest, which means that the quality variance of robust approach is also the
smallest and the products quality is the highest. Generally, if a design scheme is
not robust, it may be very difcult or even impossible to manufacture (e.g. requiring
extreme material characteristics or unrealistically high manufacturing precision) due
to current manufacturing technology or to operate (e.g. unstable system perfor-
mance in the application environment).
As shown in Fig. 6.2b, the deterministic approach tends to push a design toward
one or more constraint boundaries until those constraints are reached, which pro-
vides a high-risk design to the designer. Furthermore, the deterministic approach
tends to search for the valley solutions or global minimal values from the point of
view of mathematics. However, the valley point is highly sensitive to design
parameter variations, i.e. the product performance will be degraded signicantly in
practical industry manufacturing [2]. Therefore, the robust approach is very
important for modern quality control and design and should be taken into account in
the system-level design optimization of drive systems.
Generally, a deterministic design with respect to an objective f(x) and m con-
straints g(x) has the form as
min : f x
s:t: gi x 0; i 1; . . .; m ; 6:1
xl x x u
where xl and xu are the boundaries of design parameter x which is deterministic and
does not cover any uncertain information. As mentioned above, there are many
unavoidable noise factors in the industrial design and manufacturing process, such
as the assembly tolerances and manufacturing imperfections in mass-production
[46, 2023]. Therefore, reliability design is developed to include the noise factors
in the constraints to improve the reliability of products, in which g(x) is converted
to a probability function as
Pf Pgx [ 0 PU ; 6:2
where x is a vector of random variables, Pf the failure probability, and PU its upper
bound [2].
However, reliability design just focuses on the constraint boundary, and does not
consider the variations of objectives and constraints in terms of those noise factors.
Therefore, the quality distribution and average product performance cannot be
evaluated. Fortunately, DFSS technique can deal with these problems very well.
Actually, DFSS is a kind of robust design approach which was originated from the
Six-Sigma Methodology developed by MOTOROLA and GE [16]. It is generally
used to develop products to meet customer needs with very low defect levels. It has
the design form as
min : Flf x; rf x
s:t: : gi lf x; rf x 0; i 1; . . .; m
; 6:3
xl nrx lx xu nrx
LSL lf nrf USL
where and are the mean and standard deviation of the corresponding terms
which are generally estimated by MCA method, LSL and USL the lower and supper
specication limits, n is the sigma level, which is generally equivalent to a prob-
ability of a standard normal distribution as shown in Fig. 6.3.
Table 6.1 tabulates the equivalent percentage/probability for each sigma level.
For example, 3 means that the probability of P3r x 3r is 99.73 %
assuming that x follows a standard normal distribution with mean 0 and variation 1
(r 1). In other words, 3 is equivalent to a probability of 99.73 % or the POF is
0.27 %. This probability was deemed acceptable in statistical terms, and this value
can be regarded as the quality control of short term, which means that there are
2,700 defects per million products.
However, with the development of long term quality control and management, this
3 quality level is insufcient from the manufacturing perspective. From the rich
experience of MOTOROLA, GE and others, an approximate 1.5 sigma shift in the mean
(as shown in Fig. 6.4) was observed and this has been used to dene the long term sigma
quality as opposed to the above short term sigma quality [2, 1618, 2427].
For example, if there is a 1.5 shift for 3 quality control, the equivalent
probability is
P4:5 x 1:5 93:3107 % 6:4
Fig. 6.3 Sigma level and its

equivalent probability for a 0.4
normal distribution Standard Normal
Distribution N(0,1)
0.3
0.2
0.1
1
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
68.27%
99.73% (3 )
99.9999998% (6 )
6.2 Design for Six-Sigma 189
Table 6.1 Percentages and defects per million in terms of sigma level
Sigma level () Percentage Defects per million (short term) Defects per million (long term)
1 68.26 317,400 697,700
2 95.46 45,400 308,733
3 99.73 2,700 66,803
4 99.9937 63 6,200
5 99.999943 0.57 233
6 99.9999998 0.002 3.4
Fig. 6.4 Illustration of a 1.5

shift in the mean for a normal
0.4
distribution
N(0,1)
1.5 shifted N(0,1)
0.3
0.2 Lower limit Upper limit
0.1
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Therefore, the failure rate is 6.6803 %, which means that the 3 quality control is
actually equivalent to 66,803 defects per million products being manufactured in
the long term quality control technique. Obviously, this quality is not acceptable for
the mass production of a product in industry. Similarly, 4 and 5 are equivalent to
6,200 and 233 defects per million, respectively, and they are not good choices for
quality control either. To achieve the highest prot, 6 level should be selected as it
is equivalent to only 3.4 defects per million products, and it has been adopted in
many companies worldwide nowadays.
To compare the product reliability by using different design approaches, a criterion
called product probability of failure (POF) was used in many works. Assuming that all
constraints in (6.3) are independent events, and then according to the Multiplication
Theorem of Probability, the POF of the system described by (6.3) has the form as
Y
m
POF 1 Pgi 0 6:5
i1
where Pgi 0 means that the probability of event constraint gi is correct for all
samples in the MCA [2].
6.3 Robust Design Optimization of Electrical Machines
This section will investigate two optimization situations of single and

multi-objectives, based on example study for the robust design of electrical
machines.
6.3.1 Single Objective Situation with a PM TFM
6.3.1.1 Example on PM-SMC TFM
In this section, a PM TFM with SMC core (PM-SMC TFM) is investigated to

illustrate the performance of the proposed method for electrical machines [2830].
Figure 2.3 showed the prototype of this machine. It is designed to deliver a power
of 640 W at 1800 rev/min. More details for this machine can be seen in Chaps. 2
and 4. From our design experience, eight structure parameters listed in Table 5.1 are
signicant to the performance of this machine [1]. They will be taken as the
optimization parameters as well as variation parameters in the following robust
optimization.
Another issue that has to investigate in the robust design of this PM-SMC TFM
is the manufactuing quality of its SMC stator core. As the SMC core is compressed
by a mould, the core density is related to the press size used. As mentioned in
Sect. 4.8, the electromagnetic performance of this motor highly depends on this
core density as shown in Fig. 4.33. Meanwhile, as shown in Fig. 4.34, the manu-
facturing cost of SMC cores directly depends on the selected press size.
Consequently, the press size is a critical design variable as well as a variation factor
for the evaluating of manufacturing quality of this machine.
Based on the above discussion, the optimization model for this machine can be
dened as,
min : f x Cost=C0 P0 =Pout

8
>
> g1 x 0:795 g 0;
>
< g2 x 640 Pout 0; 6:6
s:t:
>
> g3 x sf 0:8 0;
>
:
g4 x Jc 6 0:
where x is a vector of design parameters which include eight structure parameters

and one manufacturing condition (indicated as x9 in Table 6.2), C0 and P0 are the
material cost and output power of the initial design scheme [1], and Pout the motor
efciency and output power, sf and Jc the ll factor and current density of the
winding, respectively.
6.3 Robust Design Optimization of Electrical Machines 191
With the robust optimization framework of (6.3), the robust optimization model
of (6.6) can be expressed as
min : lf x
s:t: : lgi x 6rgi x 0; i 1; . . .; 4
xl 6rx lx xu 6rx 6:7
lf 6rf LSL
lf 6rf USL
MCA is used to estimate the mean and standard deviation terms in (6.7), and the
sample size is 104. It should be noted that the optimization parameters in (6.6) and
(6.7) are discrete values, and their step sizes are shown in Table 6.2 as well.
6.3.1.2 Optimization Results and Discussions
In the implementation, each parameter is dened to follow a normal distribution

with standard deviation as 1/3 of its manufacturing tolerance. The tolerance values
of the sixth and ninth motor parameters are dened as 1 % of their mean values. The
tolerance values of other parameters are the same as their step sizes as shown in
Table 6.2. To illustrate the performance of different methods, POF dened in (6.4)
is taken as the criterion [17].
Tables 6.2 and 6.3 list the optimization results and the corresponding perfor-
mance parameters obtained by two methods for this TFM, namely the deterministic
design optimization of (6.6) and the robust design optimization of (6.7). Eight
parameters shown in Table 5.1 are selected as the optimization parameters. Table 6.4
lists the robust levels for all constraints, and the POF values for the motor. Based on
these results and comparison, the following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) For the deterministic design optimization, the obtained performance parame-
ters of this machine include the cost of $27.8 and output power of 718 W. For
the robust design optimization, the cost is $28.8 and output power 700 W. As
shown, the robust design scheme has slightly higher cost and lower output
power. Meanwhile, these values are better than those of the initial design
scheme, which are $34.1 and 640 W, respectively.
(2) Considering the manufacturing cost, 200-ton press is suggested by the
deterministic approach, the corresponding manufacturing cost of SMC core is
$0.5/piece, and its density is 7.27 g/cm3. However, 100-ton press is suggested
by the robust approach, the manufacturing cost is only $0.2/piece, and density
6.60 g/cm3. Therefore, lower manufacturing condition and cost are obtained
by the robust method, and this is very important for the mass production.
(3) After MCA, the reliability of constraint g4 is 50.37 % for the deterministic
optimal scheme as shown in Table 6.4, and the corresponding sigma level is
Table 6.2 Robust optimization results for PM-SMC TFM

Par. xm1 xm2 xm3 xm4 xm5 xm6 xm7 xm8 xm9
Unit Deg. mm mm mm mm turn mm mm ton
Step size 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 1 0.01 0.01 100
Deter. 10.95 7.35 8.00 7.00 9.05 115 1.30 0.95 200
Robust 10.00 8.30 8.15 7.30 9.90 118 1.30 0.97 100
Table 6.3 Performances for PM-SMC TFM after robust optimization

Par. cost Pout sf Jc
Unit $ W % A/mm2 g/cm3
Deter. 27.8 0.82 718 60 6.00 7.27
Robust 28.8 0.83 700 59 5.76 6.60
Table 6.4 Sigma levels for constraints and POF for TFM after robust optimization
Par. g1 g2 g3 g4 POF (%)
Deter. 6 6 6 50.37 % 49.63
Robust 6 6 6 6 *0
less than 1. Actually, the current density is 6.00 A/mm2, which is the same as
the limit of this constraint. As a result, the POF of motor is 49.63 %. For the
robust scheme, the sigma levels for all constraints are larger than 6 and the
POF is almost 0.
(4) Figures 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 show the distributions of cost, output power, ef-
ciency and current density respectively for both methods. As shown, the
standard deviations of cost and output power of robust optimal scheme are
smaller than those of the deterministic optimization scheme. As shown in
Fig. 6.7, the robust optimal scheme can produce a larger mean and a smaller
standard deviation for the efciency of this TFM compared with the deter-
ministic scheme.
As shown in Fig. 6.8, all current distribution points of robust design scheme
are satised with the condition g4 of no larger than 6.0 A/mm2. It can also be
seen that many points of deterministic design scheme are not satised with
this condition. Therefore, the reliability and sigma level of this constraint of
deterministic method is very low, and the POF of motor is high. Actually, the
lower cost of deterministic optimization is obtained at the cost of low relia-
bility and robustness. This is not acceptable in engineering design.
Fig. 6.5 Cost distributions of

Deterministic (left)
deterministic and robust Robust (right)
optimal schemes 0.25
0.2
Probability
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
27 27.5 28 28.5 29 29.5 30
Cost [$]
Fig. 6.6 Output power

Deterministic (right)
distributions of deterministic
0.25 Robust (left)
and robust optimal schemes
0.2
Probability
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760
Pout [W]
Fig. 6.7 Efciency

Deterministic (left)
0.25 Robust (right)
and robust optimal schemes
0.2
Probability
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.815 0.82 0.825 0.83 0.835 0.84
Efficiency
Fig. 6.8 Current density

Deterministic (right)
Robust (left)
and robust optimal schemes 0.25
0.2
Probability
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3
Jc [A/mm2]
6.3.2 Multi-objective Optimization with a PM TFM
6.3.2.1 Multi-objective Robust Optimization Model
Section 6.3.1 presents a robust design optimization for a PM-SMC TFM under
single-objective optimization situation. From the discussion, it can be found that the
manufacturing quality of the motor has been increased signicantly. However, two
other issues should be investigated for the industrial applications of PM-SMC
motors besides the robust analysis. Firstly, multi-objective design schemes are
necessary as it is hard to determine the weights for different objectives without
detailed information of industrial applications. Secondly, high computational cost is
also an important issue as this is a high dimensional optimization problem and 3D
nite element model (FEM) is involved. Therefore, this section presents an
improved multi-objective sequential optimization method (MSOM) for the robust
multi-objective design optimization of these PM-SMC motors to improve their
industrial applications. The PM-SMC TFM discussed in the last section will be
investigated here to illustrate the proposed new method.
Considering the manufacturing condition and material characteristic of SMC
cores, the multi-objective design optimization model of PM-SMC motors can be
dened as

f1 x Cost
min :
8 2 x Pout
f
>
> g1 x 0:795 g 0;
< ; 6:8
g2 x 640 Pout 0;
s:t:
>
> g x sf 0:8 0;
: 3
g4 x Jc 6 0:
where xs, xmt, and xmf are the structure, material and manufacturing parameters,
respectively. To achieve the six sigma quality manufacturing, the design model can
be converted into (6.9) within the framework of DFSS [2, 18].

min : Fk lfk x; k 1; 2
: 6:9
s:t: lgi x nrgi x 0; i 1; . . .; 4
where and stand for the mean and standard deviation of the corresponding
terms.
6.3.2.2 Improved Multi-objective Sequential Optimization Method
An MSOM has been presented for the multi-objective optimization of electrical

machines in Sect. 4.4. However, it is hard to handle high dimensional problems for
that MOSM. To solve this problem, this section presents an improved MSOM,
which includes the following four steps:
(1) Generate an initial sample set S(0) and obtain an initial Pareto optimal solution
P(0) by using the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) II [31], a
classical multi-objective optimization algorithm, which can be used to opti-
mize models (6.8), (6.9) and their approximate models. To increase the
optimization efciency, the Kriging model will be employed to construct the
optimization models of (6.8) and (6.9) in this work.
(2) Update the samples based on the obtained Pareto optimal solutions. Firstly,
nd the signicant parameters by using the sensitivity analysis techniques
introduced in Sect. 4.5, such as the local sensitivity analysis and design of
experiments (DOE) techniques. Secondly, generate new samples by using a
2-level sampling method. Finally, update all the Kriging models.
(3) Optimize the obtained Kriging model [3234] by using NSGA II, and get the
updated Pareto optimal solution P(k).
(4) Compute the root mean square error (RMSE) of the obtained Pareto points for
each Kriging model. If all RMSEs are no more than , output the solution,
otherwise go to the second step.
6.3.2.3 Optimization Results and Discussion
Figures 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 illustrate the optimization results for both deterministic
and robust design approaches. The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Figure 6.9 illustrates the Pareto optimal solution obtained from deterministic
model (6.8) and robust model (6.9), respectively. It can be found that the
output power increases with the increase of cost and vice versa. The front of
Fig. 6.9 Pareto optimal 840

solutions for both
deterministic and robust
800
design approaches
760
Pout [W]
720
680
640 Deterministic
Robust
25 27 29 31 33 35
Cost [$]
Fig. 6.10 POFs of the Pareto 1

points of deterministic and Deterministic
robust design approaches Robust
0.8
Probability of Failure (POF)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of Pareto Points
Fig. 6.11 Mean of current 6.3

density of the Pareto points Deterministic
6.2
Robust
6.1
Mean of current density (A/mm2)
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Fig. 6.12 SMC core density

of the Pareto points 7.6 Deterministic
Robust
7.4
Core density (g/cm 3)

7.2
6.8
6.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
Pareto solutions obtained by the robust approach is lower than that by the
deterministic approach, meaning that to achieve the same output power, the
needed cost of robust design approach is higher than that of deterministic one.
(2) Figure 6.10 illustrates the POF values of all Pareto points for both approaches.
It can be found that the POF values of deterministic design approach (or Pareto
points) are unstable and higher than those of robust approach. Some of them
are even over 50 % higher. These are bad designs from the point of view of
high quality industrial design.
For the robust multi-objective design approach, the POF values are almost 0.
Therefore, although the needed cost for the same output power of the deter-
ministic scheme is less than that of the robust approach, its lower cost is
achieved at the cost of lower POF.
(3) Figure 6.11 shows the means of current density (Jc) for all Pareto points. It can
be seen that deterministic designs have higher means of Jc. The means of Jc of
the robust designs are obviously smaller than the limit of 6 A/mm2, and the
average of these means is 5.67 A/mm2. However, many of the deterministic
designs are beyond the limit, and the average is 5.99 A/mm2. Thus, the POF
values of g4 of the deterministic approach are higher than those of the robust
approach. For other constraints, the POFs and means for all Pareto points are
also obtained, but not much difference has been founded. Therefore, the
current density issue is the main reason why the deterministic approach has
higher POFs than the robust approach as shown in Fig. 6.10.
(4) Figure 6.12 illustrates the core density for all Pareto points. It can be found
that the core densities of deterministic designs are around 7.2 g/cm3, which
means that a 200-ton press is needed to compact these cores. On the other
hand, the core densities of all robust designs are around 6.6 g/cm3, and only a
100-ton press is required. Therefore, the robust approach needs lower manu-
facturing condition and cost than the deterministic approach.
(5) In terms of the computational cost, the direct optimization method (NSGA II
with FEM) requires about 12,000 FEM points, in which half points were
sampled for the no-load analysis and others were used for the operation
analysis of this machine. The proposed method requires only about 3,800
FEM points, which is much less than that required by the direct optimization
method.
In summary, the proposed robust multi-objective optimization method can sig-
nicantly improve the reliability and manufacturing quality of the motor with lower
manufacturing condition and cost. Consequentially, it will promote signicantly the
industrial applications of PM-SMC motors.
6.4 Robust Design Optimization of Electrical Drive

Systems
6.4.1 Single-Level Robust Optimization Method
Figure 6.13 illustrates a block diagram of the system-level robust optimization

method for electrical drive systems. Since all parameters are directly optimized at
the system level, it is called the single-level robust optimization method.
It consists of the following three steps:
Step 1: Determination of system-level robust optimization model
Fig. 6.13 Single level robust optimization method for drive systems
6.4 Robust Design Optimization of Electrical Drive Systems 199
Based on the deterministic form of system-level optimization model (5.3), the

system-level robust optimization model of drive system can be expressed as
min : Flfs xs ; rfs xs

s:t: : lgmi xs nrgmi xs 0; i 1; . . .; Nm
lgcj xs nrgcj xs 0; j 1; . . .; Nc : 6:10
xsl nrxs lxs xsu nrxs
LSL lfs nrfs USL
To estimate the mean and standard deviation terms in (6.10), each design
parameter xi in xs is assumed normally distributed as Nxi ; r2xi with rxi Dxi =3,
where Dxi is the manufacture tolerance of xi.
Step 2: Selection of an optimization method for model (6.10)
As drive systems are always high dimensional and non-linear design problems,
intelligent algorithms can be good choices in many situations, such as the genetic
algorithm (GA) and DEA [13, 3537].
Step 3: Implementation of optimization process
Firstly, determine the manufacture tolerance for xs and obtain the distribution
parameters for each parameter. Secondly, generate an initial population of xs and its
noise population. Thirdly, evaluate the steady-state and dynamic performance
parameters of the drive system. Meanwhile, the objectives, constraints in (6.10),
and their means and standard deviations can be gained by using the MCA method.
Finally, apply the optimization algorithm until the convergence criterion is met.
Because, as mentioned above, the computational cost of this single-level method
is always huge as these design problems are generally high dimensional and non-
linear, the computational cost of whole system optimization is very expensive, in
which the major part is the computational cost of FEM for the motors. To solve this
problem, a multi-level robust optimization method is proposed.
6.4.2 Multi-level Robust Optimization Method
6.4.2.1 Method Description
Figure 6.14 illustrates the framework of multi-level robust optimization method for
drive systems, which consists of three levels, namely the motor, control, and system
levels. In the implementation, the rst step is to dene the deterministic and robust
optimization models for the motor and control levels, respectively. For the motor
level, its deterministic optimization model has been dened in Chap. 5, and has the
form as
Fig. 6.14 Multi-level robust optimization framework for drive systems

min : fm xm
s:t: gmi xm 0; i 1; . . .; Nm ; 6:11
xml xm xmu
where xm, fm and gm are the design parameter vector, objective and constraint,
and xml and xmu the lower and upper boundaries of xm, respectively.
With the DFSS technique, the corresponding robust model can be expressed as
min : Flfm xm ; rfm xm

s:t: : lgmi xs nm rgmi xs 0; i 1; . . .; Nm
; 6:12
xml nm rxm lxm xmu nm rxm
LSL lfm nm rfm USL
where nm is the sigma level specied for the motor level. It should be noted that the
required sigma levels for motor level and control level may be different from that in
system level model, and different symbols are specied for them.
For the control level, its deterministic design optimization model has the form as
min : fc xc
s:t: gcj xc 0; j 1; . . .; Nc ; 6:13
xcl xc xcu
where xc, fc and gc are the design parameter vector, objective and constraint, and xcl
and xcu the lower and upper boundaries, respectively.
Similarly, its robust model can be expressed as
min : Flfc xc ; rfc xc

s:t: : lgcj xc nc rgcj xc 0; j 1; . . .; Nc
; 6:14
xcl nc rxc lxc xcu nc rxc
LSL lfc nc rfc USL
where nc is the sigma level specied for the control level.

Based on the above robust optimization models for motor, control, and system
levels, the proposed multi-level robust optimization method shown in Fig. 6.14 can
be implemented in the following four steps:
Step 1: Determination of the POF values for motor, control and system levels,
respectively, in terms of design requirements and available manufacturing
conditions
Step 2: Optimization of motor level with model (6.12)
Besides the motor performance parameters, such as output power and efciency,
some characteristic parameters of the motor, such as winding resistance and
inductance and PM flux, should be calculated at the same time, because they will be
considered as the noise factors in the optimization of control level.
Step 3: Optimization of control level with model (6.14)
The main aim of this step is to evaluate the fluctuations of dynamic performance
with respect to the noise factors from the motor characteristic parameters.
Step 4: Performance evaluation of system level
Here are two remarks for this multi-level robust optimization method. Firstly, if
the dimension of motor level or control level is large, the optimization of corre-
sponding level can be divided into two or three sub-levels. Secondly, as mentioned
before, the optimization process is usually quite time-consuming because of the
huge computational costs of FEM for electromagnetic analysis of the motor and the
MCA process in robust optimization. Approximate models, such as the response
surface model and Kriging model, can be used to replace the FEM [3234]. The
Kriging model will be employed for the design example in this work.
6.4.2.2 Design Example of a Drive System with TFM and MPC
A. Optimization model for motor level

The optimization objective is to minimize the material cost while still keeping or
improving its performance compared with the initial design. The optimization
model is
min : fm xm w1 Cost
C0 w2 Pout
P0
s:t: : gm1 xm 0:795 g 0;

gm2 xm 640 Pout 0; 6:15
gm3 xm sf 0:8 0;
gm4 xm Jc 6 0;
xml xm xmu
where C0 and P0 are the cost and output power (Pout) of the initial prototype, is
motor efciency, sf the winding ll factor, and Jc the current density of copper wire
winding. The optimization parameters are illustrated in Table 5.1 and Fig. 5.5.
B. Optimization model for control level
Figure 2.37 showed a diagram of this improved MPC control scheme. There are
two important modules needed to be designed and optimized in this improved
MPC, namely cost function and duty ratio module [3840]. Six parameters pre-
sented in Sect. 5.4.2 should be optimized in the control level. They are A, N, CT, C,
Kp and Ki, where Kp and Ki are the parameters of PI controller. One objective and
four constraints are considered for this level as the following
min : fc xc w3 RMSE(
Trated
T
w4 RMSE(
nrated
n
w5 nos
s:t: : gc1 xc RMSE(T=Trated 0:06 0;
gc2 xc RMSE(n=nrated 0:05 0; ; 6:16
gc3 xc nos 0:02 0;
gc4 xc ts 0:02 0;
xcl xc xcu
where RMSE is the root mean square error of an item in the steady operation
period, the motor speed, nos the overshoot of speed, and ts the settling time.
C. Robust optimization models
Firstly, based on (6.15), the robust optimization model for the motor level has the
form as
min : 8
lfm xm
< lgmi xm nm rgmi xm 0; i 1; . . .; 4
>
xmlj nm rxmj lxmj xmuj nm rxmj ; : 6:17
s:t:
>
:
j 1; . . .; 8
In the implementation, the manufacturing tolerances of motor parameters (xm1 to

xm8) are specied as 0.05 deg., 0.05 mm, 0.05 mm, 0.05 mm, 0.05 mm, 0.5 turn,
0.01*xm7 mm and 0.01 mm, respectively, according to the previous engineering
experience.
Secondly, based on (6.16), the robust optimization model of control level can be
dened as
min : lfc xc

lgci xc nc rgci xc 0; i 1; . . .; 4 : 6:18
s:t:
xclj xcj xcuj ; j 1; . . .; 6
It should be noted that the parameters of control level (xc1 to xc6) are digital
parameters and do not have disturbances for the MCA. There are only four robust
constraints in (6.18).
However, there are four random variables in this model, namely the resistance
(R), inductance (L), torque (T), and PM-flux corresponding to the random variables
of all motor parameters xm1 to xm8. After the MCA, the output parameters are the
means and deviations of objectives and constraints of control level. Then, model
(6.18) can be calculated and the POF of control level can be obtained.
D. Optimization flowchart, results and discussion

Figure 6.15 shows the multi-level robust optimization flowchart for this drive
system. It mainly includes the following ve steps:
Step 1: Specifying the expected sigma level or POF for the drive system
In this work, 6 manufacturing quality is the expected quality level. Therefore,
nm and nc are dened as 6.
Step 2: Dividing the initial design space into three subspaces/levels
Empirically, the eight parameters in the motor level can be divided into two
levels. The rst one (X1) includes PM parameters (xm1 and xm2) and coil parameters
(xm6 and xm7), which are signicant to the optimization objective. The others are
non-signicant factors and will be placed in the second level X2. Therefore, the
optimization flowchart of the motor level is dened as two sublevels. In total, a
three-level optimization framework can be obtained for the whole drive system with
control as the third level.
Step 3: Optimizing the motor level
Firstly, let the parameters in X2 be the initial design dimensions and optimize the
parameters in X1. Secondly, optimize the parameters in X2 with the obtained
optimal parameters in X1. If the relative error of the objective is not smaller than a
given value (the default is 1 %), update X2 and conduct the optimization again
until Dlfm =lfm e is met. After the optimization of motor level, the motor
characteristic parameters, such as R, L and PM-flux, can be obtained as well, and
they will be used as the input parameters in the control level.
Step 4: Optimizing the control level
The input parameters of this level are the algorithm parameters (xc1 to xc6) in
MPC and characteristic parameters obtained from the above motor level opti-
mization. These characteristic parameters are also taken as the noise parameters in
the optimization of this level.
Step 5: Calculating the POF for the whole system and outputting the optimization
results.
Table 6.5 lists the optimization results for the TFM (motor level) obtained from
three approaches, namely the initial, deterministic, and robust design approaches.
Table 6.6 tabulates the optimization results for the improved MPC (control level)
obtained by the deterministic and robust design approaches. Table 6.7 lists the
reliabilities (column p) and robust levels (column ) for all constraints, and the POF
values for the motor, controller, and drive system, respectively. Based on these
results and a comparison of them, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) By the deterministic approach based on models (6.15) and (6.16), the optimum
motor efciency, output power, and material cost are 81.3 %, 670 W, and
$26.9, respectively. After the MCA, the reliability of constraint gm4 is
Fig. 6.15 Flowchart for the multi-level robust optimization method

Table 6.5 Optimization Par. Nota. Unit Initial Robust Deterministic

results of the TFM (motor
level) xm1 PM deg. 12 10.20 10.00
xm2 WPM mm 9 7.90 7.65
xm3 Wstc mm 9 8.15 8.0
xm4 Wsta mm 8 8.05 7.95
xm5 Hstr mm 10.5 10.85 10.9
xm6 Nc turn 125 111 110
xm7 Dc mm 1.25 1.27 1.27
xm8 lg mm 1.0 0.97 0.95
79.5 % 81.1 % 81.3 %
Pout W 640 671 670
sf 0.56 0.51 0.50
Jc A/mm2 4.72 5.75 5.96
Cost $ 35.8 28.0 26.9
fm $ 1.68 1.65
Table 6.6 Optimization Par. Nota. Robust Deterministic

results of the improved MPC
(control level) xc1 A 0.806 0.386
xc2 N 5 7
xc3 CT 0.882 1.17
xc4 C 0.0366 0.03568
xc5 Ki 0.116 0.23
xc6 Kp 0.725 1.619
RMSE(T)/Trated 4.64 % 3.95 %
RMSE(n)/nrated 0.13 % 0.02 %
nos 1.78 % 0.90 %
ts 0.01 0.01
fc 6.55 % 4.87 %
Table 6.7 Reliability and Par. Robust Deterministic

robust level of the drive
p p
system
gm1 1 >6 1 >6
gm2 1 >6 1 >6
gm3 1 >6 1 >6
gm4 1 >6 83.45 % 1.4
gc1 1 >6 1 >6
gc2 1 >6 99.90 % 3.3
gc3 1 >6 1 >6
gc4 1 >6 19.40 % 0.2
POF motor *0.0 % 16.55 %
POF control *0.0 % 80.62 %
POF system *0.0 % 83.83 %
Fig. 6.16 Distributions of (a)

current density in winding, 0.35
a deterministic approach, and
b robust approach 0.3
Deterministic
0.25
Probability
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
5.6 5.8 6 6.2
2
Jc [A/mm ]
(b)
0.3
Robust
0.25
Probability
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2
Jc [A/mm2]
83.45 %, and the corresponding sigma level is 1.4. As a result, the POF of
motor is 16.55 %. As an example, Fig. 6.16 illustrates the current density
distribution of copper wire corresponding to constraint gm4. As shown, many
points in Fig. 6.16a are beyond the limit of current density, 6 A/mm2.
Meanwhile, the reliabilities of constraints gc2 and gc4 are 99.90 % and 19.40 %, and
the corresponding sigma levels are 3.3 and 0.2, respectively. As a result, the POF of
control level is 80.62 %. As another example, Fig. 6.17 illustrates the distribution of
the settling time corresponding to constraint gc4. As shown, most of the points
violate constraint gc4 of no more than 0.02 s after the load is applied. This results
in a high POF for the control level. It should be noted that the last column
(t = 0.14 s) in deterministic gure shows the probability for the issue that settling
times are no less than 0.14 s instead of exactly equaling 0.14 s. Figure 6.18
illustrates the distribution of g2, which is related to speed. As shown, there are also
several points violating the limit no more than 0.05.

settling time (load is applied
at time 0.07 s), a deterministic 1
approach, and b robust
approach
0.8
0.6
Probability Deterministic
0.4
0.2
0
0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Settling time [s]

(b)
1
Robust
0.8
0.6
Probability
0.4
0.2
0
0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Settling time [s]

constraint g2 related to speed, 0.3
a deterministic approach, and
b robust approach 0.25 Deterministic
0.2
Probability
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
RMSE(n) / nrated
(b) 1
0.8
Probability
0.6
Robust
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
RMSE(n) / nrated
Finally, the POF of the whole drive system is 83.83 %. This is absolutely not an
acceptable system design for engineering applications.
(2) By the robust approach, three iteration processes are required to get the
optimal results of the multi-level optimization method. Figure 6.19 shows the
iteration process of multi-level optimization for the motor level. As shown,
level 1 is optimized twice while level 2 is optimized only once. The optimum
motor efciency is 81.1 %, and output power 671 W, which are close to those
obtained by the deterministic approach, whereas the material cost is $28,
which is bigger than that of deterministic design. Regarding the control level,
as shown in Table 6.6, the dynamic performance of this drive system after
robust optimization is slightly worse than that of the deterministic optimiza-
tion. However, all comply well with those constrains in control level.
Fig. 6.19 Iteration process of 2

multi-level robust
optimization for motor level
1.8
Motor objective
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Initial Level 1 - 1st Level 2 - 1st Level 1 - 2nd
Iteration number of multilevel optimization
Fig. 6.20 Dynamic 5

performance output by robust
Torque [N*m]
optimization
0
-5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time [s]
2000
Speed [r/min]
1000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time [s]
Figure 6.20 illustrates the dynamic performance of drive system by using the
algorithm parameters obtained from the robust optimization approach.
After MCA, the reliabilities of all constraints are 1, and the corresponding sigma
levels are all more than 6. As a result, the POFs for the motor, controller, and whole
system are almost zero. This is much better than those obtained by the deterministic
design approach and satises the initial reliability requirements. Therefore, the POF
of deterministic optimization is bigger than the robust optimization. As a matter of
fact, the lower cost of deterministic optimization is obtained at the expense of low
reliability and robustness. This is not acceptable in engineering design.
In summary, compared with the initial design, the solutions of robust opti-
mization have many improvements, such as higher output power and efciency,
lower cost, and better reliability and robustness. Meanwhile, the objectives obtained
by the deterministic design are smaller than those by the robust design optimization,
but the reliabilities, robust levels and POFs of the motor, control, and system levels
are obviously worse than the latter. Finally, the obtained control parameters by the
robust multi-level optimization are not sensitive to the disturbances of motor output
parameters. Therefore, the system dynamic performances can be ensured by the
proposed method. This is very valuable for engineering batch production.
6.5 Summary
The manufacturing quality and reliability are two terms used to evaluate the vari-
ations of motor performance against the material variations, manufacturing toler-
ances, and assembling errors, which is very important for the industry. The robust
approach based on DFSS has been presented for the design optimization of elec-
trical machines and drive systems so as to improve their manufacturing quality and
reliability in mass production in this chapter. Several cases of single- and
multi-objective optimization are investigated. The multi-level robust design opti-
mization method has been presented for the system-level design optimization of
electrical drive systems. From the investigation of the design example, it can be
seen that this approach can signicantly improve the drive system reliability, which
will benet the manufacturing of those devices and extent their applications in
industry. Therefore, the robust design optimization is a valuable and necessary step
for design optimization of electromagnetic devices and systems from the perspec-
tive of engineering design, which can improve the product reliability and quality,
and save the design cost and cycle.
References
method for electrical drive system: deterministic approach. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 61
(12):65916602
4713
4. Khan MA, Husain I, Islam MR, Klass JT (2014) Design of experiments to address
manufacturing tolerances and process variations influencing cogging torque and back EMF in
the mass production of the permanent-magnet synchronous motors. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 50
(1):346355
5. Coenen I, Giet M, Hameyer K (2011) Manufacturing tolerances: estimation and prediction of
cogging torque influenced by magnetization faults. In: Proceedings of 14th european
conference on power electronics and applications, pp 19, Aug./Sep. 2011
6. Gasparin L, Fiser R (2011) Impact of manufacturing imperfections on cogging torque level in
PMSM. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE ninth international conference on power electronics and
drive systems (PEDS), pp 10551060
7. Lei G, Liu CC, Guo YG, Zhu JG (2015) Multi-disciplinary design analysis and optimization of
a PM transverse flux machine with soft magnetic composite core. IEEE Trans Magn 51(11),
Article 8109704
multi-disciplinary design optimisation In: Proceedings of 18th international conference on
electrical machines, Vilamoura, pp 1-6, 69 Sept 2008
10. Taguchi G, Chowdhury S, Wu Y (2004) Taguchis quality engineering handbook. Wiley, New
Jersey
11. Omekanda AM (2006) Robust torque and torque-per-inertia optimization of a switched
reluctance motor using the Taguchi methods, IEEE Trans Ind Appl, 42(2):473478
12. Kim S-I, Lee J-Y, Kim Y-K et al (2005) Optimization for reduction of torque ripple in interior
permanent magnet motor by using the Taguchi method. IEEE Trans Magn 41(5):17961799
13. Ashabani M, Mohamed YA, Milimonfared J (2010) Optimum design of tubular
permanent-magnet motors for thrust characteristics improvement by combined
Taguchi-neural network approach. IEEE Trans Magn 46(12):40924100
14. Hwang C-C, Lyu L-Y, Liu C-T, Li P-L (2008) Optimal design of an SPM motor using genetic
algorithms and Taguchi method. IEEE Trans Magn 44(11):43254328
15. Lee S, Kim K, Cho S et al (2014) Optimal design of interior permanent magnet synchronous
motor considering the manufacturing tolerances using Taguchi robust design. IET Electr
Power Appl 8(1):2328
16. Koch PN, Yang RJ, Gu L (2004) Design for six sigma through robust optimization. Struct.
Multidiscip. Optim. 26(34):235248
18. Lei G, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Shao KR, Xu W (2014) Multi-objective sequential design
optimization of PM-SMC motors for Six Sigma quality manufacturing. IEEE Trans Magn 50
(2):7017704
20. Gasparin L, Cernigoj A, Markic S, Fiser R (2008) Prediction of cogging torque level in PM
motors due to assembly tolerances in mass-production. Int J. Comput Math Elect Electron Eng
(COMPEL) 27(4):911918
21. Gasparin L, Cernigoj A, Markic S, Fiser R (2009) Additional cogging torque components in
permanent-magnet motors due to manufacturing imperfections. IEEE Trans Magn 45
(3):12101213
22. Islam MS, Islam R, Sebastian T, Ozsoylu S, Chandy A (2010) Cogging torque minimization in
PM motors using robust design approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on energy
conversion congress and exposition (ECCE), pp 38033810
23. Islam MS, Mir S, Sebastian T (2004) Issues in reducing the cogging torque of mass-produced
permanent-magnet brushless DC motor. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 40(3):813820
24. Tjahjono B, Ball P, Vitanov VI et al (2010) Six Sigma: a literature review. Int J Lean Six
Sigma 1(3):216233
25. Reosekar RS, Pohekar SD (2014) Six Sigma methodology: a structured review. Int J Lean Six
Sigma 5(4):392422
26. Aboelmaged MG (2010) Six Sigma quality: a structured review and implications for future
research. Int J Quality Reliab Manag 27(3):268317
with soft magnetic composite core. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 21(2):426434
References 213
33. Mendes MHS, Soares GL, Coulomb J-L, Vasconcelos JA (2013) Appraisal of surrogate
1996
Trans Magn 46(8):27792782
36. Hasanien HM, Abd-Rabou AS, Sakr SM (2010) Design optimiz-ation of transverse flux linear
motor for weight reduction and perfo-rmance improvement using response surface
methodology and GAs. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 25(3):598605
Electron 56(7):27152728
ratio optimization. In Proceedings of 2011 international conference on electrical machines and
systems (ICEMS), 20-23 Aug. 2011, pp. 15
Chapter 7
Application-Oriented Design Optimization
Methods for Electrical Machines
Abstract From the perspective of engineering applications, the design optimiza-

tion of electrical machines and drive systems are generally proposed with several
specic requirements and constraints, such as the rated torque, the rated speed, the
given volume and mass, etc. Therefore, the corresponding design optimization
problems are actually oriented by the applications. This chapter aims to develop an
application-oriented design optimization method for electrical machines by the
deterministic and robust design approaches, respectively. Two kinds of applications
are investigated. The rst one is about the design optimization of permanent magnet
soft magnetic composite machines for compressor drives in refrigerators and
air-conditioners. The second one is about the design optimization of flux-switching
permanent magnet machines for hybrid electric vehicle drives.

Keywords Application-oriented design optimization method Motor topologies

Hybrid electric vehicles Transverse flux machine Flux-switching permanent
magnet machine
7.1 Introduction
With the fast development of CAD/CAE software, new materials, flexible

mechanical manufacturing technologies, and advanced optimization and control
algorithms, it is possible to design a motor to meet the special requirements of a
particular application.
The electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are good examples,
which are attracting great attentions and funding from the governments and general
public around the world because of the worldwide fossil fuel energy crisis and
severe greenhouse gas emissions. To improve the efciency and drive performance
with reduced volume, weight, and cost of novel electrical machines and drive
systems to meet the challenging requirements of HEVs, a great amount of research
efforts are being directed towards the development of high performance electrical
machines and their drive systems [14].

DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0_7
216 7 Application-Oriented Design Optimization
Since each vehicle company has its own design conception, the requirements for
drive motors of different companies are different. On the other hand, there are many
motor types and design schemes for each application. Therefore, for a given
application, all possible motor topologies and structural parameters should be
investigated to get a globally optimum among different options.
This chapter presents an application-oriented design optimization method for
novel electrical machines for domestic appliances and HEVs, respectively.
Section 7.2 presents the proposed optimization method for electrical machines by
the deterministic approach. Section 7.3 presents a robust approach for the
application-oriented design optimization method with a design example of the
plug-in HEV (PHEV) drive, followed by the remarks and a summary.
7.2 Application-Oriented Design Optimization Method
Figure 7.1 illustrates a framework for the proposed application-oriented design

optimization method for electrical machines by the deterministic approach. It
mainly includes the following ve steps:
Step 1: Dene the specications in terms of specic applications, such as refrig-
erators and HEVs, including the rated speed, output power, torque and
volume.
Step 2: Determine the design options, such as motor types, topologies and mate-
rials. Even when the motor type is chosen, there could be various different
options, e.g. the flux-switching permanent magnet machine (FSPMM) and
variations of different winding congurations and combination of
stator/rotor poles [57]. Also, different materials can be employed to
design the stator cores of permanent magnet (PM) motors, such as silicon
sheet steel and soft magnetic composite (SMC). For PMs, the rear-earth
and ferrite magnets are two popular options. Other options include the
winding type and cooling methods etc. All these are directly related to the
output performance and safe operation of the designed machines, such as
torque and temperature rise.
Step 3: Establish an initial design for each option. This step includes the devel-
opment of multi-disciplinary analysis model, determination of initial
dimension and performance evaluation model for each motor option. The
analysis model mainly includes the nite element model (FEM) for the
evaluation of motor performance, such as electromagnetic torque and
temperature distribution.
Step 4: Develop a uniform optimization model for all options and optimize each
option to acquire its optimal design parameters and performance by using
the optimization methods discussed in Chaps. 3 and 4, such as genetic
7.2 Application-Oriented Design Optimization Method 217
Fig. 7.1 Framework of application-oriented design optimization method for electrical machines
algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm [8, 9],
and response surface model (RSM) and Kriging model [1012]. It should
be noted that, sequential optimization method can be employed here to
improve the optimization efciency for the low-dimensional design
problems, and multi-level optimization method can be employed for
high-dimensional design problems [1217].
Step 5: Compare the optimal results of all options, and output the best one as the
nal optimal solution for that specic application.
7.2.2 An Optimal PM-SMC Machine for a Refrigerator
Refrigerators are commonly used domestic appliances, and each has different
specications for its drive machine. Several popular ones are the cost, output power
and efciency. Meanwhile, many types of electrical machines have been designed
for driving refrigerators so far. Therefore, in order to achieve a best design, all
possible motor types and structures should be investigated, and each of them should
be optimized for its best performance. The best ones of these motors will be
compared to nd the nal optimal design.
In our previous work, a PM transverse flux machine (TFM) with SMC core as
shown in Fig. 2.3 has been developed for the drive machine used in a kind of
refrigerator [18, 19]. This refrigerator will be considered as the rst application for
the proposed application-oriented design optimization method. Table 7.1 lists some
of the specications for this application.
This PM-SMC TFM was designed to deliver an output power of 640 W (or
torque of 3.4 Nm) at the rated speed of 1800 rev/min. From the experimental
results, it can be seen that this prototype can present good performance [18, 19].
Meanwhile, this motor was compared with two other commercial motors of lami-
nated cores. One is a high efciency induction motor with the rated torque of
3.72 Nm at 1410 rev/min, 75 % efciency and 80C temperature rise in the coil. Its
outer diameter is 160 mm and total length is 234 mm. The second one is a radial
eld NdFeB brushless DC servo motor with rated torque of 3.45 Nm at the rated
speed of 3000 rev/min. Its outer diameter is 100 mm and axial length 217 mm.
Through the comparison, it can be seen that the proposed SMC motor features a
Table 7.1 Main motor Parameter Unit Value

specications for a
refrigerator Number of phases 3
Rated speed rpm 1800
Rated power W 640
Rated torque Nm 3.4
Motor outer diameter mm 100
Stator axial length mm 93
Fig. 7.2 Analysis model in Ansoft, a one phase motor stack, and b one phase SMC stator stack
Fig. 7.3 Stator claw pole topologies: a rectangular-shoe pole structure, b and c arc pole structures
torque per unit volume of 4.5 times that of the laminated induction motor.
Meanwhile, it delivers 2.25 times the torque per unit volume of the second
brushless DC servo motor [18]. Therefore, the proposed PM-SMC TFM has better
performances than those two commercial motors.
As shown in Fig. 7.2, only one stator phase stack has been investigated for that
PM-SMC TFM in our previous work. In practice, the PM claw pole motor with
SMC core may have various other kinds of stator phase stack structures besides the
original one shown in Fig. 7.2b. Figure 7.3 shows several possible SMC claw pole
stator topologies. The rst one has rectangular-shoe poles, which is derived from
the design of SMC stator for claw pole motors [20, 21]. The second and third are
arc tooth stator. The following work will investigate several stator topologies for
this TFM and present an optimal design by using the proposed application-oriented
design optimization method.
To obtain the optimal SMC core for this PM TFM, all three topology structures
of phase stacks and the dimensions of SMC stator have to be investigated.
Meanwhile, in the manufacturing process, besides the density and dimensions of
SMC stator, the dimensions of PMs are also important to the machine performance.
Therefore, all the factors mentioned above are considered to minimize the material
cost and maximize the output power of this TFM. Based on the specications listed
in Table 7.1, the uniform optimization model for these motors can be dened as
Cost P0
min : f x w1 w2
C0 Pout
s:t: g1 x 0:795 g 0
; 7:1
g2 x 640 Pout 0
g3 x sf 0:8 0
g4 x Jc 6 0
where w1 and w2 are the weighting factors, C0 and P0 the material cost and output
power of the initial prototype, , Pout, sf and Jc the motor efciency, output power,
ll factor and current density, respectively.
Five parameters are selected as the optimization parameters for these three
topology structures of stator phase stacks. Three of them are the circumferential
angle, axial width of PMs, and core density. In the case of rectangular-shoe poles,
the other two parameters are the axial and circumferential widthes of SMC teeth
while the tooth height is xed as 3 mm. In the case of arc poles, the other two
parameters are the inner and outer circumferential angles of SMC teeth. Excluding
the claw pole part, the other parameters of the three structures are the same.
Tables 7.2,7.3,7.4,7.5 and 7.6 list the optimization results for this motor in terms
of different weighting factors. From the tables, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
Table 7.2 Optimization Parameter Unit Original design Arc Rectangular shoe
results for w1 = 0.3 and
Cost $ 35.6 40.5 43.6
w2 = 0.7
Pout W 768 870 878
Efciency % 82.2 80.3 81.6
Density g/cm3 5.84 5.81 5.80
Objective 0.859 0.829 0.849
Cost $ 32.5 35.1 38.4
w2 = 0.6
Pout W 730 781 802
Efciency % 82.2 79.5 80.6
Density g/cm3 6.15 6.02 5.91
Objective 0.861 0.855 0.876
Cost $ 28.7 32.6 32.4
w2 = 0.5
Pout W 672 734 690
Efciency % 83.0 79.5 80.0
Density g/cm3 6.27 6.13 6.35
Objective 0.847 0.858 0.883
Cost $ 27.1 32.3 30.1
w2 = 0.4
Pout W 640 726 642
Efciency % 83.3 79.5 79.5
Density g/cm3 6.33 6.15 6.55
Objective 0.789 0.848 0.844
Cost $ 27.1 32.3 30.2
w2 = 0.3
Pout W 642 726 645
Efciency % 83.3 79.5 79.5
Density g/cm3 6.31 6.15 6.54
Objective 0.820 0.853 0.865
(1) For the situation that w1 = 0.3 and w2 = 0.7 (Table 7.2), TFM with original
design stator has the least material cost of $ 35.6 and the highest efciency of
82.2 %, TFM with rectangular-shoe stator has the highest output power of
878 W. However, the best topology structure is the TFM with arc-teeth stator.
The objective is 0.829, which is the minimal one among them and the cor-
responding material cost and output power are $ 40.5 and 870 W, respectively.
(2) For the situation that w1 = 0.4 and w2 = 0.6 (Table 7.3), similarly, the best
topology structure is still the arc teeth stator. The objective is 0.855, which is
the minimal one among them and the corresponding material cost and output
power are $ 35.1 and 781 W, respectively.
(3) For the situation that w1 = 0.5 and w2 = 0.5 (Table 7.4), TFM with original
design stator has the least material cost of $ 28.7 and the highest efciency of
83.0 %, TFM with arc teeth stator has the highest output power of 734 W. The
best topology structure is the TFM with original design stator. The objective is
0.847.
(4) For the situations that w1 = 0.6 (Table 7.5) and w1 = 0.7 (Table 7.6), similarly,
the best topology structure is the TFM with original design stator. The optimal
objectives and other motor performances can be seen in those two tables.
Therefore, the TFM with arc-teeth stator is the best one for the rst two situa-
tions of w1 = 0.3 and 0.4, and the TFM of the original stator is the best one for the
latter three situations of w1 = 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7. The best topology structure and
dimension parameters are related to the weighting factors in the optimization model
chosen according to the applications. In a situation that the cost is more important
than the output power, the TFM with arc teeth stator should be taken as the best
design schemes.
7.3 Robust Approach for the Application-Oriented

Design Optimization Method
Figure 7.4 shows the framework for the proposed application-oriented design
optimization method based on the robust approach for PM machines. Compared to
the framework under deterministic approach, there are two main differences.
The rst one is the development of robust analysis model for each option. The
robust analysis model mainly includes the determination of variations or noise
factors and the manufacturing tolerances or distribution parameters. The robust
optimization model can be constructed by using the design for Six-Sigma (DFSS)
technique. The second one is that the Monte Carlo analysis (MCA) method is
required in this method to evaluate the manufacturing quality of the motors in mass
production, e.g. one million products per batch, which mainly includes the mean
and standard deviation of variations of motor performance and reliability.
7.3.2 An Optimal FSPMM for a PHEV Drive
7.3.2.1 FSPMMs and Topologies
PHEVs have been developed in many countries due to the shortage of fossil fuels.
The electric drive system as one of key units in the PHEV plays crucial role for its
widely successful commercialization. Figure 7.5 shows a novel PHEV powertrain
dependent on one electric machine has been proposed by the University of
Technology Sydney (UTS) since 2009 [4, 22]. It consists of an energy storage unit
comprising of batteries and super-capacitors, a power control unit including the DC
link, DC/DC converters and a back to back inverter/rectier, an electric machine,
functioning as either a motor or a generator (M/G), and an internal combustion
engine (ICE) working mainly during fast acceleration to provide the extra torque.
The system operation is governed by a special energy management strategy as
illustrated in Fig. 7.6 [22], where SOC stands for the state of charge of the energy
storage unit, and EM the electric machine. Initially, it is assumed that the battery
and super-capacitor banks are fully charged from the grid, and the capacity of the
7.3 Robust Approach for the Application-Oriented Design Optimization Method 223
Fig. 7.4 Framework of application-oriented design optimization method based on robust

approach
Grid Supercapacitor DC/DC
Inverter/
Rectifier
Charger Battery DC/DC
M/G
ICE Power split device

Gear
Wheel
Fig. 7.5 Proposed PHEV conguration
Fig. 7.6 The energy Braking Cruising

management strategy for
proposed PHEV High Mechanical
SOC braking mode EM only mode
ICE and EM
Moderate assist mode
SOC EM only or ICE
recharge mode
Regenerative
braking mode ICE recharge ICE only
Low mode
mode
SOC
Negative Moderate High
Power Demand of Vehicle
energy storage is designed such that the car could cover a reasonable long range. In
the normal operation mode (high SOC and moderate load), the EM works alone as
the prime mover of the car. When it needs extra torque for fast acceleration, the
internal combustion engine (ICE) will provide the assistance. When SOC drops, the
ICE will recharge the battery through EM while the system is idle. If the load is
high and SOC very low, the ICE will work alone to drive the car and recharge
battery through EM. It can be seen that the EM in different working conditions has
to work continuously. Hence, it must have good attributes of high torque density,
high efciency, strong robustness, and convenience of cooling, etc.
The PHEVs have strict requirements on the drive machine, mainly including
high torque/power density, strong flux weakening ability (wide speed range for
cruising), good mechanical robustness, strong thermal dissipation capability, etc.
[2326]. Due to these requirements, several FSPMMs with different topology
structures have been investigated for a PHEV system in our previous work.
Figure 7.7a illustrates the structure of an FSPMM with 12 stator poles and 10 rotor
Fig. 7.7 Structures for FSPMM with 12/10 poles, a whole motor, and b rotor topology
poles (abbreviated as 12/10 FSPMM). Figure 7.7b shows the structure of the rotor.
Compared with those traditional PM machines, such as rotor surface mounted or
rotor inserted PM machines, FSPMMs have the following main advantages.
(a) Strong thermal dissipation capabilityAs the PMs are inserted in the stator,
they can have greater cross sectional area and are less likely to suffer the
demagnetization problem. The winding current density can reach 78 A/mm2
or even larger. In continuous operation, the stator temperature can be main-
tained well below 125 C, which is in the range of H-class insulation by water
cooling.
(b) Strong structure robustnessSimilar to switched reluctance motors, the rotor
of FSPMM has no PMs or brushes as shown in Fig. 7.7, and therefore is
suitable for high speed operation, e.g. above 20,000 rev/min. For a given
power rating, as the rated speed increases, the machine volume can be reduced
gradually.
(c) Concentrated windingThe edge connection of stator winding is shorter than
distributed ones, which means less copper loss with the same amplitude of
stator current.
(d) High power or torque densitySame as the traditional PM machines, PMs in
the FSPMM are employed to generate the major air gap flux linkage, and the
merit of high power or torque density is retained without extra excited loss
[23, 27, 28].
From the extensive research work, it is found that the combination of stator/rotor
poles is a very important topology issue for the motor performance [5, 6, 2931].
Generally, there are many feasible options for the combinations of stator and rotor
poles of FSPMMs by the following equation.
Fig. 7.8 Rotor structures with different poles: a 11 poles, b 13 poles, and c 14 poles

N s k1 m
k1 ; k2 1; 2; 3. . .; 7:2
Nr Ns k2
where Ns and Nr are the numbers of stator and rotor poles, respectively, and m is the
number of phases. For example, for the FSPMM with 12 stator poles as shown in
Fig. 7.7a, there are several promising numbers of rotor poles, such as 10, 11, 13, 14
and 16 poles, respectively, which have been widely investigated in many research
works [5, 6, 17, 30]. Figure 7.8 shows three other rotor topology structures for this
case. For another example, for the FSPMM with 6 stator poles as shown in Fig. 7.9,
several promising numbers of rotor poles are 5, 7 and 8.
On the other hand, there are also some disadvantages for this kind of machine
compared with the traditional doubly salient structure machines, such as high
cogging torque and odd harmonics in the back electromotive force (EMF). These
will reduce the efciency and increase the torque ripple [7, 22, 2729]. To over-
come these disadvantages, many new topology structures including different
combinations of stator/rotor poles, different laminated structures for sheet steels,
such as the traditional radially-laminated and new axially-laminated structures [7],
and different rotor structures, such as the pole-pairing and pole-skewing [30], have
been investigated for the FSPMMs.
Take the FSPMM with 6/7 poles for example. In order to operate at
2000 rev/min, it should be excited by 233 Hz current. As the speed or frequency
goes up, the core loss will increase greatly. To reduce this negative influence, a new
laminated-structure FSPMM (LSFSPMM) as illustrated in Fig. 7.9b has been
proposed in our previous work [7]. Different from the traditional FSPMM,
LSFSPMM is laminated axially in parallel to the shaft. As shown, the stator
includes 6 respective lamination modules, while the rotor involves 7 modules,
which are all made of 0.3 mm high grain oriented silicon steel sheet (HiB). For high
magnetic permeability of HiB, each phase flux linkage loops along the lamination
and make full use of PMs. Figure 7.10 shows the manufacturing modules for rotor
and stator, respectively. Table 7.7 lists the main dimensions for both machines [7].
Fig. 7.9 Structure diagrams of two machines with 6/7 poles, a traditional FSPMM, and
b LSFSPMM
Fig. 7.10 Manufactured modules for the 6/7 LSFSPMM, a rotor, and b stator
Table 7.7 Main dimensions Items Unit Value

of two FSPMMs
Outer radius mm 49.9
Stator Yoke height mm 8.8
Pole width mm 21.2
Pole height mm 12.4
Number of turns per pole mm 72
winding
PM Width mm 5.4
Height mm 19.8
Relative permeability mm 1.03
Magnetic remanence Tesla 1.19
Air gap length mm 0.6
Rotor Pole width mm 11
Pole height mm 13.1
Yoke height mm 5.5
Effective axial length mm 44
(a) (b)
4
4
Torque T (Nm)
Torque T (Nm)
3
3
2 12/10 poles
2 6/5 poles
12/14 poles
6/7 poles
12/16 poles
1 6/8 poles 1
0 0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
Rotor position r (elec.deg) Rotor position r (elec.deg)
Fig. 7.11 Torque curves versus different combinations of stator/rotor poles, a 6-pole stators, and
b 12-pole stators
Figure 7.11 shows performance comparisons for radially-laminated FSPMMs

with different topologies. As shown, 6/7 is the best stator/rotor combination for
FSPMM with 6 stator poles, and 12/14 is the best one for FSPMM with 12 stator
poles [7].
It should be noted that the above comparison was carried out mainly by expe-
rience and with similar structure parameters. This is not fair as the comparison is
not based on the optimal design of each combination. Consequently, an interesting
problem arising here is that how to accurately seek for an optimal FSPMM among
several topology structures for a specic application, e.g. for the drive machine of a
specic PHEV/HEV with the given number of stator poles and volume. To solve
this problem, the size equation method and some introductory optimization works
based on one or two design parameters have been employed [29]. By using these
methods, a brief comparison for the performances of different FSPMMs can be
obtained.
However, as aforementioned, it is difcult to fairly compare the performances of
FSPMMs with different topology structures if each option of them is not fully
optimized based on all major structural parameters. The following two sub-sections
present a brief qualitative and a quantitative accurate comparison method to solve
the above problems through an example of designing an optimal 75 kW FSPMM
with 12 stator poles for the drive machine of a PHEV investigated in our previous
work [23]. More design requirements for drive machine can be found in that work.
As an illustration of the proposed method, two rotor topology structures and motor
design parameters are investigated, and their performances are presented and
compared.
7.3.2.2 Qualitative Analysis Based on Size Equation
Size equation is a good method to present a qualitative analysis and comparison for
FSPMMs with different rotor topology structures. The effect of the combinations of
stator/rotor poles on electromagnetic torque can be expressed by the sizing equation
as,
p
2p Nr
Tem ks kd As Bg D2si la cs g 7:3
4 Ns
where ks and kd are the skew and leakage factors, respectively, As is the armature
current electrical loading, Bg the peak flux density at no-load situation, Dsi the inner
diameter of stator, la the active stack length, cs the stator tooth arc factor, and the
efciency of the machine [32].
As shown, the electromagnetic torque is directly proportional to the number of
rotor poles and inversely proportional the number of stator poles. The combinations
of stator/rotor poles have also great impacts on the cogging torque. As stated in
[32], the period number and magnitude of cogging torque in the FSPMMs can be
briefly evaluated by the least common multiple (LCM) and greatest common
divisor (GCD) of Nr and Ns, respectively. A higher LCM and a lower GCD have
been suggested for effective decrease of the cogging torque.
Table 7.8 tabulates the comparison of FSPMMs with two different combinations
of stator/rotor poles based on the size equation. It can be seen that the FSPMM with
12/14 structure has the higher LCM and ratio of Nr over Ns, which can be regarded as
the index of smaller cogging torque and bigger magnitude of electromagnetic torque.
As aforementioned, Table 7.8 only shows a brief comparison for FSPMMs with
different rotor topology structures. Since the efciency and structural parameters are
involved in (7.3) but not included in the performance evaluation in this table, an
accurate quantitative analysis method involving both topology structures and
structural parameters are required. This is the main aim of the next sub-section.
7.3.2.3 Quantitative Analysis Based on Optimization
The proposed quantitative analysis is based on the proposed application-oriented

design optimization method in Sect. 7.3. It includes three steps, construction of uni-
form optimization model and its robust form for all topology structures of FSPMMs,
development of optimization methods for all design parameters, and quantitative
comparison for all performance parameters. The comparison is based on the optimized
Table 7.8 Qualitative Ns Nr Nr/Ns LCM GCD

analysis results for FSPMMs
with 12 stator poles 12 10 0.83 60 2
12 14 1.17 84 2
performances for all topology structure of FSPMMs for the same objectives and
constraints. Therefore, the nal optimal FSPMM will possess not only the best
topology but also the optimal structural parameters for this topology structure.
A. Uniform Optimization Model
As an example, a FSPMM with two topology structures will be investigated to
illustrate the efciency of the proposed method. The FSPMM is designed to deliver
75 kW output power at a rated speed of 3000 rev/min for a drive machine proposed
in the UTS PHEV [23]. For the optimization, objectives are minimizing cogging
torque (Tcog) and torque ripple (Trip) and maximizing average torque (Tave); and
objective function has the form as
Tcog Tave Trip

min : f x
Tcog initial Tave initial Trip initial
8
> g1 x 0:9 g 0
>
>
>
< g2 x sf 0:6 0 ; 7:4
s:t:
>
> g3 x 220 Tave 0
>
>
:
g4 x Trip 25 0
where the subscript initial means the values calculated from the initial design
scheme as shown in Table 7.9, is the efciency, and sf the slot lling factor.
Considering the manufacturing tolerances, the robust optimization model of
(7.4) can be obtained within the framework of design for Six-Sigma (DFSS) shown
in the last chapter, and it has the form as
Table 7.9 Initial dimensions Parameters Unit Value

for FSPMMs with 12 stator
poles Stator Yoke height mm 17.5
Pole width mm 23.4
Pole height mm 16.8
Turns of winding turns 6
Slot lling factor % 60
Current density A/mm2 7
PM Width mm 8
Height mm 33.8
Relative permeability 1.03
Magnetic remanence T 1.19
Air gap length mm 0.6
Rotor Pole width mm 12
Pole height mm 24.1
Yoke height mm 17.5
min : lf x
7:5
s:t: lgi x nrgi x 0; i 1; . . .; 4
where and are the mean and standard deviation of the corresponding terms
estimated by MCA, n is the sigma level and is selected as 6 in this work to
guarantee that the obtained optimal design can achieve the Six-Sigma quality in
industry manufacturing, namely 3.4 defects per million products. To obtain the
mean and standard deviation in this equation, the sample size in the MCA is dened
as 10,000 [3336].
From previous experience, it is found that four parameters including depth of
stator pole, width of rotor pole, height of rotor yoke and width of permanent magnet
are signicant to the motor performance. Therefore, they are selected as the opti-
mization parameters in the optimization. For the robust optimization, 0.05 mm was
chosen to be the manufacturing tolerances for all these parameters, which means
that the standard deviations are 0.05/3 mm. To calculate the reliability of different
motors, a term known as probability of failure (POF) will be calculated as follows
Y
4
POF Probgi 0 7:6
i1
This POF will be used to calculate the defect rate in the 10,000 products used in
the MCA.
B. Optimization Results and Comparison
Figure 7.12 illustrates the comparison of cogging torque curves of 12/10 and 12/14
FSPMMs after robust optimization of (7.5). As shown, the minimal and maximal
cogging torques for 12/10 FSPMM are 9.27 and 8.95 Nm, respectively, while they
are 6.95 and 8.52 Nm, respectively for 12/14 FSPMM. Therefore, 12/14 has
smaller amplitudes of cogging torques.
Fig. 7.12 Cogging torque 20

curves after robust 12/10 FSPMM
optimization 15 12/14 FSPMM
10
Cogging torque(N*m)
-5
-10
-15
0 90 180 270 360
Rotor position (electrical degree)
Fig. 7.13 Torque curves after 260

robust optimization 12/10 FSPMM
250 12/14 FSPMM
Moving torque(N*m)
240
230
220
210
200
0 90 180 270 360
Rotor position (electrical degree)
Figure 7.13 shows the comparison of torque curves of 12/10 and 12/14 FSPMMs
at rated speed after robust optimization. As shown, the minimal and maximal
torques for the 12/10 FSPMM are 215.09 and 236.71 Nm, respectively, and
therefore the average torque is 225.90 Nm, the torque ripple is 21 62 Nm (or
9.57 %). The minimal and maximal torques for the 12/14 FSPMM are 230.18 and
244.89 Nm, respectively. Thus, the average torque is 237.54 Nm, and the torque
ripple is 14.71 Nm (or 6.19 %). It can be seen that the average torque of the optimal
12/14 motor is higher than that of the optimal 12/10 motor, while the torque ripple
is smaller than that of 12/10 motor.
Meanwhile, the reliability and POF of both optimal 12/10 and 12/14 FSPMMs
can be calculated by using (7.6) and MCA. It can be found both motors reliabilities
are almost 100 % after calculation.
In conclusion, 12/14 FSPMM has better performance parameters compared with
those of 12/10 motor in terms of average torque, torque ripple and cogging torque.
It should be noted that only two rotor topologies were investigated in that example.
However, other topology structures can be easily investigated and compared by
using this method, including different stator/rotor pole combinations and different
laminated structures of the steel sheets.
7.4 Summary and Remarks
This chapter presents an application-oriented design optimization method for PM

motors by the deterministic and robust approaches, respectively. Two practical
applications are investigated as well, namely the drive machines for refrigerators
and the UTS PHEV. In the proposed method, both motor topology structures and
7.4 Summary and Remarks 233
dimension parameters are investigated to acquire the best performance for each
design option.
On the other hand, several remarks could be presented here for this
application-oriented design optimization method. The rst also the most important
one is that only one discipline (electromagnetic analysis) has been investigated for
these examples. However, system-level and integrated design optimizations should
be the starting points of this application-oriented design optimization method,
which means that besides the performance of motor itself, the integrated perfor-
mance of the whole drive system as well as the whole appliance should be
investigated. Therefore, multi-disciplinary design analysis is more important from
the perspective of industry applications, particularly the integration of motor and
control systems, and should be involved for the application-oriented design opti-
mization method.
The second one is that only ve structural parameters (TFM example) and four
parameters (FSPMM example) are investigated in this work. For the
high-dimensional optimization situation, the multi-level (robust) optimization
method presented in Chaps. 46 should be employed to improve the optimization
efciency. Due to the high efciency of the multi-level optimization method, it is
able to efciently optimize and accurately compare the optimal performances
among several electrical machines and drive systems with different topologies and
parameters.
The third one is that only single objective has been considered in these exam-
ples. For the multi-objective optimization situation, the multi-objective sequential
optimization strategy presented in Chap. 4 can be taken to improve the optimization
efciency. Therefore, all the developed design optimization methods as shown in
Chaps. 46 can be employed for the proposed application-oriented design opti-
mization method.
References
(12):65916602
4. Salisa AR, Zhang N, Zhu JG (2011) A comparative analysis of fuel economy and emissions
between a conventional HEV and the UTS PHEV. IEEE Trans Veh Techno 60(1):4454
5. Chen JT, Zhu ZQ (2010) Winding congurations and optimal stator and rotor pole
combination of flux-switching PM brushless AC machines. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 25
(2):293302
6. Chen JT, Zhu ZQ, Iwasaki S, Deodhar RP (2011) Influence of slot opening on optimal stator
and rotor pole combination and electromagnetic performance of switched-flux PM brushless
AC machines. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 47(4):16811691
7. Xu W, Zhu JG, Guo YG et al (2011) New axial laminated-structure flux switching permanent
magnet machine with 6/7 poles. IEEE Trans Magn 47(10):28232826
optimization methods with a permanent magnet synchronous motor benchmark study. IEEE
Tran Ind Appl 49(3):12681275
11. Lebensztajn L, Marretto CAR, Costa MC, Coulomb J-L (2004) Kriging: a useful tool for
12. Lei G, Shao KR, Guo YG, Zhu JG, Lavers JD (2008) Sequential optimization method for the
13. Lei G, Shao KR, Guo YG, Zhu JG, Lavers JD (2009) Improved Sequential optimization
method for high dimensional electromagnetic optimization problems. IEEE Trans Magn 45
(10):39933996
Magn 46(8):31813184
(2):479482
FSPMM drive system by using SSOM. IEEE Trans Magn 50(2), Article no. 7016904
18. Guo YG, Zhu JG, Watterson PA, Wu W (2006) Development of a PM transverse flux motor
19. Zhu JG, Guo YG, Lin ZW et al (2011) Development of PM transverse flux motors with soft
magnetic composite cores. IEEE Trans Magn 47(10):43764383
network and 3D FEA with rotational core loss included. IEEE Trans Magn 45(106):
46804683
22. Xu W, Lei G, Zhu JG, Guo YG (2012) Theoretical research on new laminated structure flux
switching permanent magnet machine for novel topologic plug-in HEV. IEEE Trans Magn 48
(11):40504053
23. Xu W, Zhu JG, Zhang YC, Wang TS (2011) Electromagnetic design and performance
evaluation on 75 kW axially laminated flux switching permanent magnet machine.
Proc ICEMS, pp 16
24. Cao R, Mi C, Cheng M (2012) Quantitative comparison of flux-switching permanent-magnet
motors with interior permanent magnet motor for EV, HEV and PHEV applications. IEEE
Trans Magn 48(8):23742384
25. Dorrell DG, Knight AM, Evans L, Popescu M (2012) Analysis and design techniques applied
to hybrid vehicle drive machinesassessment of alternative IPM and induction motor
topologies. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 59(10):36903699
26. Takeno M, Chiba A, Hoshi N, Ogasawara S, Takemoto M, Rahman MA (2012) Test results
and torque improvement of the 50-kW switched reluctance motor designed for hybrid electric
vehicles. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 48(4):13271334
27. Zhu ZQ, Chen JT (2010) Advanced flux-switching permanent magnet brushless machines.
References 235
28. Hua W, Cheng M, Zhu ZQ, Howe D (2008) Analysis and optimization of back EMF
waveform of a flux-switching permanent magnet motor. IEEE Trans Energy Conver 23
(3):727733
Ind Appl 48(5):14961506
30. Xu W, Zhu JG, Zhang YC, Hu JF (2011) Cogging torque reduction for radially laminated
flux-switching permanent magnet machine with 12/14 poles. In: Proceedings of the 37th
Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON), pp 35903595
31. Xu W, Lei G, Zhang Y, Zhu JG et al (2011) Development of electrical drive system for the
UTS PHEV. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition
(ECCE), pp 18861893
machine considering the limitation of inverter and flux-weakening capability. In: Proceedings
of the 41st IAS Annual MeetingIndustry Applications Conference, vol. 5, pp 24032410
33. Lei G, Guo YG, Zhu JG et al (2012) System level six sigma robust optimisation of a drive
35. Lei G, Zhu JG, Guo YG, Shao KR, Xu W (2014) Multi-objective sequential design
optimization of PM-SMC motors for six sigma quality manufacturing. IEEE Trans Magn 50(
2):701720
4713
Chapter 8
Conclusions and Future Works
Abstract This chapter concludes the book. In summary, this book has focused on
the development of new efcient design optimization methods for novel
high-performance electrical machines and drive systems under two design
approaches, namely the deterministic and robust approaches. These new methods
include sequential optimization method and its multi-objective form, multi-level
optimization method, multi-level Genetic Algorithm, multi-disciplinary design
optimization method and application-oriented system-level design optimization
method. To illustrate the efciency of those proposed methods, several classical test
functions, a TEAM benchmark problem, and four kinds of motors have been
investigated. As shown, the proposed new design optimization methods can achieve
better design objectives for electrical motors and drive systems, such as higher
output power and lower material cost, with much smaller computational cost than
the traditional methods. The proposed robust design optimization approach can
yield optimal designs of electrical drive systems for high quality and high reliability
mass production. Based on these investigations and outcomes, several directions
have been recommended for the future research.
8.1 Conclusions
After a review of the design fundamentals for electrical machines and drive sys-
tems, this book presents several novel efcient design optimization methods in
terms of different optimization situations including:
(1) Low-dimensional situation: The sequential optimization method (SOM) was
presented for this situation. It consists of two processes, the coarse and ne
optimization processes. The main aim of the rst process is to reduce the initial
big design space to a small one by using the space reduction technique. The
main aim of the second process is to nd the optimal solution by using local
sample updating method. From the investigation of a test function, a TEAM
Workshop problem (superconducting magnetic energy storage: SMES) and a
permanent magnet (PM) claw pole motor with soft magnetic composite

DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-49271-0_8
238 8 Conclusions and Future Works
(SMC) core, it can be found that SOM and its improved form can present
better optimal solutions while the required computational cost of nite element
analysis (FEA) can be reduced by about 90 %.
(2) Multi-objective situation: The multi-objective sequential optimization method
(MSOM) was proposed for this situation. It uses the strategy of SOM and
improved central composite design technique to reduce the FEA computa-
tional cost. From the investigation of a classic test function and a PM-SMC
transverse flux machine (TFM), it can be seen that the obtained Pareto fronts
are very close to the exact ones.
(3) High-dimensional situation: The multi-level optimization method based on the
sequential subspace optimization strategy and multi-level genetic algorithm
(MLGA) was proposed for this situation. Two popular techniques, the local
sensitivity analysis and the design of experiments (DOE) techniques have been
presented for the sensitivity analysis of design parameters so as to establish the
framework of multi-level optimization method. From the investigation of a
SMES and a surface-mounted permanent magnetic synchronous machine
(SPMSM), it can be found that the multi-level optimization method is efcient
and the obtained optimal solutions are better than those obtained by the tra-
ditional single-level optimization methods.
(4) Multi-disciplinary situation: A multi-disciplinary analysis, design, and opti-
mization framework was presented for PM motors. The multi-disciplinary
analysis includes electromagnetic, thermal, modal and manufacturing analy-
ses. From the investigation of a PM-SMC TFM, it is shown that the obtained
optimal solutions are better than the initial design and those obtained by
non-multi-disciplinary design optimization methods.
(5) Electrical drive systems situation: The system-level design optimization
method based on multi-level optimization strategy and multi-level genetic
algorithm is proposed for this situation. The design parameters in both motor
and control parts have been optimized at the system level rather than the
component level to achieve good steady-state and dynamic performances for
the whole drive systems, including larger output power and higher efciency,
and lower material cost and dynamic overshoot. Two examples have been
investigated to show the efciency of the proposed method. The rst one is a
drive system consisting of a PM-SMC TFM and an improved model predictive
control (MPC) system. The second example is composed of an SPMSM and a
eld oriented control (FOC) system. Through the investigation of these two
drive systems, it is found that both the steady-state and dynamic performances
of the whole drive systems have been greatly improved, and the computational
costs required to obtain the solutions have been reduced signicantly.
(6) Mass production situation: The main concerns in mass production of electrical
machines and drive systems are the product quality and reliability. There are
many unavoidable uncertainties or variations in the industrial manufacturing
process of electrical machines and drive systems, including mainly the
material diversity, manufacturing error, and assembly inaccuracy, which can
result in big variations for the reliability and quality of electrical machines and
8.1 Conclusions 239
drive systems in mass production. The robust optimization approach based on

the technique of Design for Six-Sigma (DFSS) has been presented for different
design optimization situations to achieve optimal designs of high-performance
and high-quality electrical machines and drive systems in mass production.
Two multi-level optimization strategies are presented to improve the opti-
mization efciency for high dimensional problems. From the investigation of a
PM-SMC machine and a drive system consisting of this machine and the MPC
control scheme, it is found that the reliability and quality level of the inves-
tigated electrical machines and drive system have been increased greatly by
using the proposed robust approach.
(7) Application-oriented situation: This is the ultimate design optimization target
of electrical machines as well as drive systems. The system-level and inte-
grated design optimizations are the two main aspects in this application.
A concise application-oriented design optimization method has been presented
for only electrical machines in this book with two design approaches, the
deterministic and robust approaches. Two examples including an optimal
PM-SMC motor for a refrigerator and an optimal FSPMM for the UTS plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) drive have been investigated to show the ef-
ciency and necessity of the proposed method. It is shown that not only the
topology structures but also their dimensional parameters of different motor
designs have to be optimized before the nal comparison and conclusion so as
to nd an optimal motor for a specic application.
In summary, the proposed new optimization methods are efcient for design
optimization of electrical machines and drive systems. It should be noted that all
optimization models for electrical machines are veried by comparing the FEA
calculations with experimental results. Therefore, the correctness and efciencies of
the proposed methods have been validated and can be employed for extensive
engineering applications.
8.2 Future Works
The design optimization of electrical machines and drive systems is a

multi-disciplinary, multi-objective, and multi-level problem and an important and
challenging issue in both research and industry communities. In order to nd
efcient ways to solve this kind of problems, further efforts are required for
researchers and engineers coming from different disciplines, including mainly
material, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, quality management and
control, and applied mathematics. This section intends to draw a picture for the
readers about the trends in this research eld. The following six aspects are the
recommendations from the authors:
240 8 Conclusions and Future Works
(1) Novel motors with new materials and topologies

Firstly, as more and more new materials are employed for design and man-
ufacturing of electrical machines, new material models are required, including
the models of core losses, and thermal and manufacturing properties.
Secondly, with these new materials and manufacturing methods, novel
topologies will be possible for some types of electrical machines.
(2) Efcient control circuits and algorithms
New topologies for the control circuits are required, which can reduce the
feedback time and improve the control accuracy. Meanwhile, improved con-
trol algorithms based on current ones are very important for this part,
including the improved MPC.
(3) System-level design optimization models
Firstly, the optimization models based on the component level should be
established based on the new design models mentioned in the above two parts.
Secondly, the system-level multi-disciplinary analysis model should be con-
structed for the whole appliance or system. For example, the models for the
drive systems in HEVs should be integrated with the energy-storage model
and power-train model. Meanwhile, the system-level reliability and lifetime
models should be constructed for evaluation of the reliability of the motors and
drive systems. All these models can be employed to extend the usage and
enhance the signicance and value of the application-oriented design opti-
mization method.
(4) New design optimization methods
Firstly, the efciency of MSOM for the high-dimensional multi-objective
optimization situation has to be improved. The MSOM based on manifold
reduction technique is a promising strategy for this issue.
Secondly, the topology optimization is an important topic in electrical engi-
neering, which should be included in the system-level design optimization.
Thirdly, new modeling methods for high dimensional problems are required,
e.g. high dimensional Taylor model.
Finally, the multi-level optimization is based on a series framework in this
book. It can be used by combining with current parallel optimization frame-
work to improve the multi-disciplinary optimization efciency. More inter-
actions between motor and control, for example, the feedback from control
system to the motor part, should be investigated as well.
(5) Reliability and quality in mass production
Firstly, the qualitative and quantitative analyses (including probability distri-
butions) of the variations/uncertainties in material modelling, manufacturing
and assembly process and control process, and their effects on the performance
of the whole drive systems, and new equivalent reliability model for drive
systems have to be developed for novel electrical machines and drive systems.
Secondly, some robust control strategies should be investigated for drive
systems, such as robust MPC, H control, and tolerant control, to improve the
reliability of drive systems in the operation environment.
8.2 Future Works 241
(6) Application
While there are many sophisticated new optimization methods, each with its
own advantages and disadvantages, a problem we are facing is to decide
which one would be the best for a particular engineering problem. Therefore, a
selection strategy should be established and a design platform is required to
include all these information. The platform will be a powerful tool for
designing and testing novel high performance electrical drive systems with
new materials, novel topologies, low cost, high efciency, reliability and
robust system performance, and can greatly shorten the design cycles.
Meanwhile, the platform will enable designers to focus their attention on the
system performance which they have the best expertise, rather than the
mathematical algorithms. This will be very valuable for industry mass
production.

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Methods For Electrical Machines and Drive Systems - Lei Zhu Guo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Methods For Electrical Machines and Drive Systems - Lei Zhu Guo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power Systems

ISSN 1612-1287 ISSN 1860-4676 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016930283

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by SpringerNature

methods are presented to improve the optimization efciency of electrical machines,

2.6 ControlAlgorithms Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.3.5 A PM Claw Pole Motor with SMC Stator . . . . . . . . . . . 121

6 Design Optimization for High Quality Mass Production. . . . . . . . . . 183

MLE Maximum-likelihood estimation

Abstract This chapter presents a brief introduction focusing on various aspects of

Keywords Electrical drive systems

1.1 Energy and Environment Challenges

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016 1

Fig. 1.1 Global electricity 18.6%

Fig. 1.2 Estimated electricity 13.3%

Fig. 1.3 Estimated demand 21%

Fig. 1.4 Life cycle cost 1% 2.3%

1.2 Introduction of Electrical Machines, Drive Systems,

1.2.1 General Classication of Electrical Machines

Electrical machines are electromagnetic devices for transforming electricity of one

Synchronous and asynchronous/induction machines by operational feature or

1.2.2 Electrical Machines and Applications

Fig. 1.5 Hydroelectric generation (synchronous generator)

Power transformers are used in distribution systems wherever there is a need to

Fig. 1.6 A solar powered deep well submersible pump drive

Fig. 1.8 UTS HEV test

1.3 The State-of-Art Design Optimization Methods

1.3.1 Design Optimization of Electrical Machines

The design optimization of electrical machines is a multi-disciplinary,

of computational techniques and the rapid increase of industrial applications of

For example, the optimization process of a motor with 10 parameters (dimension

1.3.2 Design Optimization of Electrical Drive Systems

Fig. 1.10 Flowchart of traditional motor design procedure

Although the importance of system-level design optimization of electrical drive

1.3.3 Design Optimization for High Quality Mass

performance depends highly on the manufacturing quality, which is in turn deter-

Table 1.1 Variations for some factors of a PM motor [66]

In our previous work, several kinds of manufacturing tolerances and assembly

1.4 Major Objectives of the Book

This book presents efcient multi-disciplinary design approaches and

(4) To present system-level design optimization methods for electrical drive

1.5 Organization of the Book

Chapter 2 presents an overview of the design fundamentals for electrical machines

of electrical machines and drive systems in mass production, which cannot be

1. Waide P, Brunner CU (2011) Energy-efciency policy opportunities for electric motor-driven

Abstract This chapter presents a brief summary of the design fundamentals

2.1.1 Framework of Multi-disciplinary Design

Figure 2.1 illustrates a general framework of multi-disciplinary design for electrical

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016 25

2.1.2 Power Losses and Efciency

Pa Cha fBh Cea fB2 Caa fB1:5 2:1

where f is the excitation frequency, B the magnitude of sinusoidal magnetic

Pr Phr Cer fB2 Car fB1:5 2:2

Fig. 2.2 Average core losses

acceptable. For most types of machines, this can be assumed to be 1 % of the

Pout Pin PCu PCore PMec PStray

Typical values of full load efciency for rotating machines are:

2.2 Electromagnetic Design

Since electrical machines are electromagnetic devices for transforming electrical

2.2.1 Analytical Model

Analytical model is generally used to calculate the performance indicators of