Uncertainty Analysis of

Power System Components

based on Stochastic Response Surfaces
C. Bastiaensen, W. Deprez, E. Haesen, J. Driesen, R. Belmans

AbstractThe output of a power system analysis mostly

requires extensive knowledge and correct handling of input
uncertainties. Analytical approaches often depend on simplified
models whereas Monte Carlo based sampling methods are often
time consuming. This paper presents an uncertainty analysis
based on a limited number of well chosen samples which are used
to model a stochastic response surface, based on a polynomial of
independent standard normal random variables. To illustrate the
approach a torque estimation model for induction machines is
studied. The model requires different machine parameters as
input. The analysis consists of three steps: the characterization of
the input uncertainty, the uncertainty propagation and the
characterization of the output uncertainty. First a simple
sensitivity testing method is performed after which different
sampling based methods are compared. The specific advantages
of the stochastic response surface method over the Monte Carlo
and Latin Hypercube sampling method are shown.
Index Terms-- Sampling Methods, Stochastic Response
Surface Method, Torque Estimation, Induction Machines

I. INTRODUCTION

N literature on probabilistic power system analysis three

approaches can often be distinguished, i.e.
Analytical Probabilistic Analysis uses a linearization around
an equilibrium point. Assumptions like normality and
independence of uncertainties relax calculations significantly.
Strongly non-linear systems are not well suited for this
approach. Also the assumption of independence is often
erroneous;
Monte Carlo based Probabilistic Analysis performs numerous
evaluations of the system for input samples. This allows
taking into account all possible probability density functions
and correlation structures in a straightforward manner.
Variance reduction methods to ensure a rapid deduction of
C. Bastiaensen, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Leuven, Kasteelpark Aremberg, 10, 3001 Leuven, Belgium, Phone: +32 16
18 79, Fax: +39 16 32 19 85, E-mail: cindy.bastiaensen@esat.kuleuven.be
W. Deprez, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Leuven,
E-mail: wim.deprez@esat.kuleuven.be
E. Haesen, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Leuven, Email: edwin.haesen@esat.kuleuven.be
J. Driesen, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Leuven,
E-mail: johan.driesen@esat.kuleuven.be
R. Belmans, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Leuven,
E-mail: ronnie.belmans@esat.kuleuven.be

performance characteristics moments is crucial;

Interval Arithmetic and in extension Fuzzy Analysis handle
levels of possibility of occurrence of system inputs. The use of
interval arithmetics is still based on a single system
assessment adapted to arithmetic operators for intervals
instead of single values. The often used trapezoidal fuzzy
variables represent two levels of possibility for which the
same interval arithmetic rules can be applied.
This paper describes the case of reliable torque estimations of
induction machines. The stochastic nature of this analysis is
illustrated from measurement, through processing, to output
estimation. An efficient method for the response analysis is
presented based on stochastic response surfaces. The input
random variables are first expressed in terms of independent
standard normal distributed random variables, either exact or
as an approximation of a series expansion. Then the output
variable is approximated through a series expansion of these
standard random variables. The series expansion is known as
Polynomial Chaos expansion and is composed by Hermite
Polynomials. To obtain the unknown coefficients in the
expansion the deterministic model is used with a limited
number of well chosen samples. A schematic overview of the
stochastic response surface method (SRSM) is shown in
Figure 1. The schematic overview for the conventional
sampling based methods is given for comparison in Figure 2.
It is the authors opinion that a similar approach can be used
in many other fields of probabilistic power system analysis.

Fig. 1. Schematic overview of the SRSM

Fig. 2. Schematic overview of conventional sampling method

The structure of the paper is as follows. In the second section

the torque estimation model is briefly discussed and the
necessary input parameters for the model are deduced. In the
third section the probability distribution functions of the input
parameters are deduced from measurement datasets. In the
fourth section a simple sensitivity testing method is
performed. As sample points the mean value and some error
bound of the input parameters are taken. This gives qualitative
and quantitative information regarding variation in the model
output due to variations in the input. In the fifth section
different sampling based methods are compared. In the Monte
Carlo and Latin Hypercube sampling methods sample points
are chosen from the input distributions. From the results of the
successive model runs the distribution of the output is
obtained. A third sampling based method is the stochastic
response surface method. The output is expressed as a series
expansion in normal random variables. The number of
samples compared to the conventional sampling methods is
reduced significantly, since the model runs are only dedicated
to obtain the unknown coefficients in the expansion. The
machine used in lab experiments is an off-the-shelf 7.5 kW
premium efficiency two pole induction machine with a rated
speed of 2925 rpm.
II. TORQUE ESTIMATION MODEL
Reliable torque measurement equipment is expensive and
often also calibration and maintenance are required. In some
applications, due to a variety of reasons, the overhead of
torque measurement devices is not desired or not optimal.
Sometimes there is also no space to equip the application with
such systems. In most cases it is sufficient to make an accurate
estimation of the torque. Many expressions for the
electromechanical torque of an induction machine can be
found [1]. Based on basic formulae requiring electrical
quantities and sometimes mechanical speed, the mechanical
torque can be estimated. In this paper, it is illustrated that such
torque estimation expressions could be used to replace
mechanical torque measurement devices.
There are several expressions that describe the
electromechanical torque of an induction machine [1].
However, they all originate from the same general description
of three-phase ac machines, namely the stator and rotor
voltage equations with Rs and Rr representing the resistance of
the stator and the resistance of the rotor windings (stator
referred) respectively:

usa , sb , sc = Rs isa , sb , sc +
ura ,rb ,rc = Rr ira ,rb ,rc +

d
dt
d
dt

sa ,sb , sc

(1)

ra ,rb,rc

(2)

with ira, irb and irc the phase currents in the rotor, isa, isb and isc
the phase currents in the stator, ura, urb and urc the rotor phase

voltages, usa, usb and usc the stator phase voltages, ra, rb and
rc the rotor flux and sa, sb and sc the stator flux. These
equations can be simplified according to established
transformations in electrical engineering [1], i.e. the
transformation of rotor and stator variables to the -reference
frame (Clarke transformation) [4] and the transformation to
the dq-reference frame (Park transformation) [5]. Depending
on the chosen reference frame, this can lead to different
expressions for the torque. The expression for the torque,
obtained according to a reference frame rotating with the rotor
flux, becomes:

Tel = p ( rq ird rd irq ) = p

Lh
Lr

rd isq = p

Lh 2
Lr

i isq

(3)

with p the number of pole pairs, i the magnetizing current, isq

the stator current in the q-axis, Lh the magnetizing inductance
and Lr the rotor leakage inductance. The developed torque
estimation model is based on this expression. The inputs for
the model are two currents isa and isb and the mechanical rotor
speed. The angular velocity of the rotor flux and the
magnetizing current are calculated from the rotor equations:

Lr di
Rr dt

+ i = isd

= r +

Rr isq
Lr i

(4)

(5)

with Rr the rotor resistance, r the rotor speed and the

synchronous speed.
As can be noticed from equations (3) to (5), the torque
estimation model requires three important machine
parameters: the magnetizing inductance Lh, the rotor resistance
Rr and the rotor leakage inductance Lr from the single phase
T-equivalent circuit representation of induction machines. The
elements of this equivalent scheme can be obtained by basic,
straightforward calculations based on a short circuit and a noload test [2]-[3]. However, in order to obtain correct torque
estimates, skin effect in the rotor bars [6]-[7] and, to a minor
extent, temperature corrections should be taken into account.
Such a correction is provided in the proposal for an IEC
standard [3] for the determination of the quantities of
equivalent circuit diagrams. To obtain the motor parameters
necessary as input for the torque estimation model, the
conditions prescribed by the norm are observed. From the
different motor tests, performed according to the norm, the
motor parameters can be determined. By repeating the motor
tests several times, a dataset for each parameter is obtained.
From these sets the input uncertainties are characterized.
III. CHARACTERIZATION OF INPUT UNCERTAINTIES
The datasets obtained from the measurements according to the
norm are analyzed in this section. First the parameters are
handled separately. The appropriate distribution of each
parameter is determined. Secondly, each set of a motor
parameter is used as input for the model and the distribution
of the set of outputs is determined. This is performed to verify

the results of the propagation methods discussed in the fifth

section.
A. Model input: distributions
The tests necessary to calculate the motor parameters
according to the IEC norm are repeated 55 times. Although
the IEC norm already implements corrections for analysis of
rated power situations, measurement errors are still present.
This results in a data set of 55 points for each parameter. From
the dataset it is possible to estimate the probability distribution
function. Since the normal distribution is the most obvious
distribution, the data sets are first tested on normality.
Therefore a graphical method as well as a numerical method is
performed. The normal probability plot and the normal
probability plot correlation coefficient respectively are
appropriate for determining whether or not a data set comes
from a population with approximately a normal distribution.
The normal probability plot is a plot of the ordered data points
Xi versus the normal order statistic medians Yi. Since the data
are plotted against a theoretical normal distribution, the points
should form an approximate straight line in case of normality.
Substantial deviations from straightness are considered
evidence against normality of the distribution. To measure the
linearity of a normal probability plot the normal probability
plot correlation coefficient is defined as the product moment
correlation coefficient between the ordered data and the order
statistic medians from a normal distribution.

Corr ( X , Y ) =

(X

the first few and the last few points show a marked departure
from the reference fitted line. The non-linearity of the normal
probability plot also shows up in the S-like pattern in the
center of the data set. In this case it can be reasonably
concluded that the normal distribution can be improved upon
as a model for these data.

X ) (Yi Y )
(6)

(X

X ) 2 (Yi Y )2

The correlation coefficient of the normal probability plot can

be compared to a table of critical values to provide a formal
test of the hypothesis that the data come from a normal
distribution. The test statistic is the correlation coefficient of
the points that make up a normal probability plot. This test
statistic is compared with the critical value in the table. The
values in this table were determined from simulation studies
by Filliben [12]. If the test statistic is less than the tabulated
value, the null hypothesis that the data comes from a
population with a normal distribution is rejected.
The two methods described above are used to determine
whether the data sets of the motor parameters are normal
distributed. The normal probability plots are shown in Figure
3 for the motor parameters Lr, Rr and Lh. The following
conclusions can be made from the plots. The points on the Lr
plot show a strongly linear pattern. There are only minor
deviations from the line fit to the points on the probability
plot. This indicates that the normal distribution is a good
model for this data set. The points on the Rr plot shows a
reasonably linear pattern in the centre of the data. However,
the tails, particularly the lower tail, show departures from the
fitted line. It can not be concluded exclusively that the normal
distribution is a good model for this data set. This should be
verified by the correlation coefficient. The same phenomenon
appears in the normal probability plot of the data points for Lh,

Fig. 3. Normal probability plot for Lr, Rr and Lh

These findings are verified by the normal probability plot

correlation coefficients. Table 1 lists the coefficients for the
parameters. Since perfect normality implies perfect correlation
(i.e. a correlation value of 1), one wants to reject normality for
correlation values that are too low. Therefore, the correlation
coefficients should be compared to the values in the table
made up by Filliben [12]. At the 0.5% and 5% significance
level, the critical values are respectively 0.962 and 0.978.
Since all the coefficients for the parameters are greater than
0.962, the null hypothesis that the data sets come from a
population with a normal distribution can not be rejected at
the 0.5% significance level. However at the 5% significance
level the correlation coefficient of the Lh dataset is lower than
the critical value.The null hypothesis that the data comes from
a normal population is rejected.
TABLE I
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

PARAMETER
Lr
Rr
Lh

of the motor parameter Rr. This is plausible since Rr has the

largest influence on the torque. It can be concluded that the
torque dataset is normal distributed. This is also verified by
the correlation coefficient of 0.98462 of the line fit to the
probability plot.
Since the distribution of the datasets of the motor parameters
and the torque are normal, the mean and variance are easy to
determine. The values are listed in Table 2.
TABLE II
MEAN AND VARIANCE OF NORMAL DISTRIBUTED PARAMETERS AND OUTPUT

MEAN
Lr
Rr
Lh
Tel

0.00398
0.32292
0.14595
20.9468

STANDARD
DEVIATION
0.000084
0.004183
0.001210
0.258589

CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.99246
0.98024
0.96473

The above methods give a decisive answer about the first two
parameters. The normal distribution provides a good model
for the data. For the last dataset the normal distribution can be
improved upon as a model for these data. However, since the
influence of this motor parameter is limited, the distribution is
assumed normal in this paper. Figure 4 shows the cumulative
probability of the dataset. All the data points are located in the
99% confidence bounds of the normal fit. The assumption of
normality seems to be a plausible choice.

Fig. 5. Normal probability plot for Tel

IV. SENSITIVITY TESTING

Fig. 4. Cumulative probability plot for Lh

B. Model output: distribution

Now the distribution of the motor parameters is known, the
distribution of the torque dataset is determined. The results
will be used to verify results from the uncertainty propagation
methods in the next section. Figure 5 shows the normal
probability plot. The plot bears a close resemblance to the plot

To understand the behavior of the computer model and to

determine the input parameters for which it is desirable to
have more accurate values, a sensitivity analysis is important.
The sensitivity of the torque calculation to inaccuracies or
changes of the motor parameters is analyzed. First the
influence of the parameters on the torque calculation is
simulated by assuming the parameters are independent. From
this analysis it can be concluded which motor parameter has
the largest influence on the torque calculation. In reality the
motor parameters are dependent and therefore the analysis is
repeated for the dataset of dependent parameters obtained
from the measurements. The principal component analysis is
used for this purpose. This analysis shows again which
parameter has the largest influence on the calculated torque,
but also indicates the interdependency of the parameters and
how the influence on the torque is changed by this
interdependency.
The influence of a deviation on the independent motor
parameters is shown in Figure 6 by changing in turn the motor
parameters. The deviation on the motor parameters is plotted

on the x-axis, while the corresponding torque is plotted on the

y-axis. The order of the parameters according to the sensitivity
of the calculated torque is: Rr > Lh > Lr. A deviation of 5% on
the rotor resistance leads to a deviation of 4.25% on the
electromechanical torque, while a deviation of 5% of the rotor
leakage inductance or the magnetizing inductance causes
smaller torque deviations. The motor parameter Rr influences
motor performance the most and therefore an accurate
determination of this parameter is important. This supports the
importance of the accurate consideration of the rotor bar
height and material to take into account the skin effect, as
discussed in the previous section.

Fig. 7. Principal component analysis

In the sensitivity testing method the model response is studied

for selected model input parameter combinations. The input
parameters are not handled as random variables. As sample
points only the mean value and some error bound of the input
parameters are taken. This method does not provide adequate
information about the nature of the output uncertainty.
Especially as the probability density functions of the input
parameters are known, this method ignores the available
information.
V. PROPAGATION OF UNCERTAINTIES
Fig. 6. Influence of the independent motor parameters

Up till now the motor parameters are examined separately. As

the parameters are not independent, the parameters show some
correlation. To visualize the dependency of the parameters the
principal component analysis [16] is performed. PCA is a
technique that reduces multidimensional datasets to lower
dimensions. The simplification of the dataset is performed by
an orthogonal linear transformation which transforms the data
to a new coordinate system. The first principal component
indicates the largest variance of the original data; the second
component corresponds with the largest variance in the
subspace orthogonal to the first component, etc Results
indicate that third and following components are negligible.
Therefore 2D plots can be made which simplifies the analysis
of the data. PCA starts with the set [Lr, Lh, Rr, Tel]. Figure 7
shows the data mapped into the new coordinate system, the
interdependency of the motor parameters and the influence on
the calculated torque. One can conclude that Rr has the largest
influence, while the influence of Lr is almost negligible and
opposite. The influence of Lh is small and in the same
direction as Rr. These results correspond to previous results of
the independent influence of the parameters. However from
Figure 7 it is clear that the parameters are dependent. So it is
not realistic to change the parameters in turn. The
interdependency of the motor parameters can not be neglected
when analyzing the influence on the torque. This
interdependency should also be taken into account in the
sampling methods described in the next session. This can be
done by determining the covariance matrix of the datasets.

In this section different sampling based methods are

compared. In all methods the model runs for a set of sampling
points. The model results at these sampling points are used to
establish a relationship between the inputs and the output. The
sampling based methods discussed are the Monte Carlo and
Latin Hypercube sampling method and the stochastic response
surface method.
A. Monte Carlo and Latin Hypercube sampling
In the Monte Carlo and Latin Hypercube sampling method the
input parameters are handled as random variables [8]-[10].
The sample points are chosen from the input distributions.
From the results of the successive model runs the distribution
of the output is obtained.
From [8] it is clear that the number of samples, the sampling
method and the choice of random generator are important for
the Monte Carlo method. According to [9] information
derived from the output of a Monte Carlo sampling should not
be presented as constant, but as random variable that depend
on the sampling method, the number of samples taken and the
random number generator. As in [8] and [9], the influence of
these effects is quantitatively examined by considering two
different sampling methods namely random sampling and
Latin hypercube sampling, and two different numbers of
samples, 55 and 200. The tests are performed 5 times to assess
the impact of different sets produced by the random generator.
The sampling methods performed are random sampling and
Latin Hypercube sampling. Simple random sampling involves
repeatedly forming random vectors of input parameters from
prescribed probability distributions, namely random vectors
from the multivariate normal distribution. Random samples

are taken without taking into account previously generated

sample points. It is not necessary to determine beforehand the
number of sample points. In Latin Hypercube Sampling it is
necessary to decide how many sample points one wants to
take. Suppose the number of sample points is n, the range of
each variable is divided in n non overlapping intervals of
equal probability. One value from each interval is selected at
random. The n values obtained for the first variable are
combined in a random manner with the n values obtained for
the second variable. These n pairs are combined in a random
manner with the n values of the third variable, to form the
input vectors of the model. This way of sampling ensures a
full coverage of the range of each variable by maximally
stratifying each marginal distribution. However, whenever the
variables are dependent, combining variables can not be done
completely in a random manner. The pairing is restricted due
to the correlation among the variables. Iman and Conover [11]
proposed a method by restricting the way the variables are
paired based on the rank correlation of some target values.
Here the method proposed by Stein is used. The method is
based on the rank of a target multivariate distribution. For
more details see [12].
Figure 8 shows the results for the two sampling methods, two
different sample sizes and for 5 different sets produced by the
random generator. For each sample the mean and standard
deviation is displayed. From the random sampling plots it is
clear that the predicted values of the mean from the 55
samples vary much more widely over the 5 sets as compared
to the 200 sample results. It is also immediately clear from the
figure that for the same number of samples the random
sampling results vary much more widely than the Latin
hypercube results do. Even for a small sample size the means
of the sample results approach the earlier determined torque
mean.
B. Stochastic response surface method
The stochastic response surface method (SRSM) can be seen
as an extension of the classical response surface method
(RSM). Therefore the response surface method is briefly
discussed first. The response surface method gives insight into
the relationship between multiple input parameters and an
output variable. This is realized by considering the output
variable as a polynomial function of the input parameters. The
approximated model is called the response surface model. The
RSM is described extensively in [13] and consists in essence
of three steps. The first step is the determination of the
different input parameters of the model. If the set of input
parameters is large, the most important parameters need to be
selected. This selection can be done for example by a principal
component method as in the previous section. The second step
is making several runs of the computer model to estimate the
values of the unknown coefficients in the expansion. The
input sets are chosen according to a specific response surface
design, for example the central composite design, see Figure
9. In the last step a polynomial response surface is fitted for
the output variable as a function of the input parameters. The
least square method is used for this purpose.

Fig. 8. Mean and Standard deviation for Random Sampling and Latin
Hypercube Sampling at 55 and 200 samples

For the torque estimation model discussed in the previous

section the second order model is:

Tel = a0 + a1 x1 + a2 x2 + a3 x3 + a12 x1 x2 + a13 x1 x3

+ a23 x2 x3 + a11 x12 + a22 x22 + a33 x32

(7)

The input parameters are referred to respectively as x1, x2 and

x3. The various response surface methods proposed in the
literature differ only in the terms retained in the polynomial
expression, for example with or without cross terms, and the
selection of the input parameter sets for the determination of
the unknown coefficients. The fitting points have to be chosen
in a consistent way in order to get independent equations.
Once the coefficients are known, the expression is an
approximation for the computer model and can be used to
characterize the output parameter. However, this method can
not be used to analyze the uncertainty of the output. For this
purpose the method should be adapted.

collocation point. For each term the values of the involving

variables are set to a root of the higher order Hermite
Polynomial and the non involving variables are set to zero.
The number of sample points obtained exceeds the number of
unknowns. The system of equations is solved using the
singular value decomposition. The number of model runs is
limited to the number of sample points.
The SRSM is now applied to the torque estimation model
discussed in section 2. First the three input parameters are
transformed to standard random variables i (i= 1, 2, 3).
Second the torque is approximated by a second order
Polynomial Chaos expansion. The number of unknown
coefficients to be determined is 10. After the determination
the torque is completely expressed as function of the input
variables:

Tel = a0 + a11 + a2 2 + a33

+ a4 (12 1) + a5 ( 22 1) + a6 (32 1)

(9)

+ a71 2 + a813 + a9 23
The values of the coefficients ai (i=1,,10) are shown in
Table 3. The statistical properties of the torque can be easily
deduced from this expression. By taking a large number of
samples of the standard random variables, the probability
distribution can be calculated using standard methods. The
first and second moment of the output variable are calculated
through:

1
N

T2 =

1 N
(Tel ,i Tel )2
N 1 i =1

el

Fig. 9. Central composite design

The stochastic response surface method can be seen as an

extension of the classical response surface method, since the
inputs are handled as random variables. The method is
extensively described in [14]. The different steps in the
method are discussed briefly and applied to the torque
estimation model. As a first step in the SRSM the input
random variables are expressed in terms of independent
standard normal distributed random variables, either exact or
as an approximation of a series expansion. Then the output
variable is approximated through a series expansion of these
standard random variables. The series expansion is known as
Polynomial Chaos expansion and is composed by Hermite
Polynomials [15]:
n

i1

y = a0 + ai1T1 (i1 ) + ai1i2 T2 (i1 , i2 )

i1 =1

i1

i2

i1 =1 i2 =1

(8)

+ ai1i2i3 T3 (i1 , i2 , i3 ) + ...

i1 =1 i2 =1 i3 =1

Tp(i1, i2, , ip) represents the Hermite polynomial of degree

p, y represents the model output and the coefficients ai are
constants to be determined.
To determine the unknown coefficients in the expansion, the
collocation method proposed in [14] is used. This method
selects for each term in the series expansion a corresponding

T =
el

T
i =1

(10)

el ,i

(11)

TABLE III
COEFFICIENTS OF THE EXPANSION

COEFFICIENT
a0
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9

VALUE
20.9468
0.22773
0.10912
-0.05663
-0.00047
0.00038
-0.00007
-0.00011
0.00001
0.00004

In order to test the accuracy of the functional approximation,

the calculations are repeated for a higher order of the
Polynomial Chaos expansion. The resulting probability
distribution function is compared to the previous one to check
the convergence. The results are also compared with the
Monte Carlo simulations performed earlier to ensure the
approximation converges to the real distribution. Figure 10

shows the similarity of the second and third order Polynomial

Chaos expansion and the Monte Carlo sampling method for
10000 samples. The time necessary to attain these results
(Pentium IV, 3.20 GHz) varies from 12 seconds for the
second order Polynomial Chaos expansion, 45 seconds for the
third order Polynomial Chaos expansion to 2173 seconds for
the Monte Carlo simulations. For the Monte Carlo simulation
it is necessary to run the model for each sample, while for the
SRSM it is only necessary to run the model to determine the
unknown coefficients in the approximation. Once the
functional approximation is known, the model is replaced by
this formula. The number of simulations for the SRSM
compared to the number of simulations of the Monte Carlo
simulation proves the efficiency of the method. This can be
concluded only in case the number of random variables is
limited and in case the order of the Polynomial Chaos
expansion can be kept low.

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]

Fig. 10. Comparison of second and third order Polynomial Chaos expansion
and Monte Carlo simulations

VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper an uncertainty analysis of a torque estimation
model is performed. After the characterization of the input
parameters, a simple sensitivity test is performed to achieve a
better understanding of the behavior of the model. To provide
adequate information about the nature of the output
uncertainty three sampling based methods are compared.
From Monte Carlo and Latin Hypercube sampling method the
distribution of the output can be deduced, however these
methods are computationally expensive. It is proven that the
stochastic response surface method is more efficient to
analyze the torque estimation model.
It is the authors strong opinion other branches in probabilistic
power system analysis can benefit as well from the presented
approach.
VII. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

G. Terrde, Electrical Drives and Control Techniques,

Leuven/Belgium: Acco 2004
IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators, IEEE Power Engineering Society 1996, IEEE Std 1121996, New York, NY/USA

IEC Rotating Electrical Machines - Part 28: Test methods for

determining quantities of equivalent circuit diagrams for three-phase
low-voltage cage induction motors, 60034-28, Ed.1 (to be published)
P. Vas, Electrical Machines and Drives: a space vector theory
approach, New York/USA: Oxford University Press, 1992
R. H. Park, Two-reaction Theory of Synchronous Machines, Trans
AIEE, 1929
J. Langheim, Modeling of Rotorbars with Skin Effect for Dynamic
Simulation of Induction Machines, Industry Applications Society
Annual Meeting, Conference Record 1-5, Oct. 1989, pp. 38 44, Vol.1
O. I. Okoro, Steady State Analysis of Squirrel-Cage Induction
Machine with Skin-Effect, The Pacific Journal of Science and
Technology 5 , 2004 No. 2
M.D.Mckay, R.J.Beckman, W.J.Conover, A Comparison of Three
Methods for Selecting Values in the Analysis of Output from a
Computer Code, Technometrics, Vol. 21, No.2. (May 1979), pp. 239245
Vicente J. Romero, Effect on Initial Seed and Number of Samples on
Simple-Random and Latin-Hypercube Monte Carlo Probabilities
(confidence Interval Considerations), Specialty Conference on
Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, 2000
M. Stein, Large Sample Properties of Simulations Using Latin
Hypercube Sampling, Technometrics, V. 29, No.2, p.143, 1987
R.L. Iman, W.J. Conover, A Distribution Free Approach to Inducing
Rank Correlations Among Input Variables, Communications in
Statistics, Part B, Simulation and Computation, 11, pp. 311-334
J.J. Filliben, The probability Plot Correlation Coefficient Test for
Normality, Technometrics, Vol. 17, No. 1 Feb. 1975, pp. 111-117
R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology, John
Wiley & Sons, INC., 1995
S.S. Isukapalli, A. Roy, P.G. Georgopoulos, Stochastic Response
Surface Methods (SRSMs) for Uncertainty Propagation: Application to
Environmental and Biological Systems, Risk Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 3,
1998
R.G. Ghanem, P.D. Spanos, Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral
Approach, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991
D. N. Lawley, A. E. Maxwell, Factor Analysis as a statistical method,
London Butterworths, 1971