© All Rights Reserved

0 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- Dynamic Programming Approach to Economic Power
- inte2E20152E0802
- Optimizing Site Layout and Material Logistics Planning During the Construction of Critical Infrastructure Projects
- r5
- 1-s2.0-S1877050913009368-main
- Linear Model for Optimization
- Swarm Intelligence
- The Three Phases of Mine Planning
- Modal Analysis MG
- IEEE70a
- Differential Evolution Algorithm With Self-Adaptive Population Resizing Mechanism
- Mentor Brochure
- Operation Research Teaching Manual.pdf
- Tayangan M4
- OJOp_2017122815291536
- Power to Volume of High Speed Generators
- 10.1.1.114
- 29-756
- Analysis of Mechanical Cooling Tower by Jaya Algorithm
- ppt_final_biblio.pptx

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Motors

Y. Duan, R.G. Harley and T.G. Habetler

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

makes an optimal design a difficult and challenging task. Particle

II. ELECTROMAGNETIC TOOLS TO SUPPORT MACHINE

DESIGN

Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm (GA) are two

popular methods for their advantages such as gradient-free and There are currently three broad classes of modeling

ability to find global optima. Due to the fact that the machine approaches used in machine design: the analytical method, the

design models are sometimes computationally intense, it is FEA [2] and the magnetic equivalent circuits (MEC) method

important for the optimization algorithms used in the design [3]. The FEA and MEC are able to consider the nonlinearities in

practice to have high computational efficiency. This paper uses the the material and generally have higher accuracy, but are

design of a Surface Mount Permanent Magnet (SMPM) machine computationally intense [2]. Moreover, a machine prototype

with an analytical model as a benchmark and compares the must be designed before FEA or MEC can analyze it. On the

performance of PSO and GA in terms of their accuracy, the other hand, the analytical design method, which is based on the

robustness to population size and algorithm coefficients. The physical and mathematical relationships in the machine, is able

results show that PSO has advantages over GA on those aspects to compute machine design parameters according to certain

and is preferred over GA when time is a limiting factor. specifications, thus can generate a design. The analytical design

Similarities in the machine design problems make the comparison method is also computationally fast, which provides a good

result also applicable to the design of other types of machines and starting point for finer FEA or MEC based analysis.

with other modeling methods For the above reasons, this work uses the SMPM machine

analytical model improved from [1] to design a 15 KW, 1800

I. INTRODUCTION rpm, 480 V (line-line), 60 Hz SMPM motor as a benchmark.

Fig. 1 shows the flowchart of this analytical design model.

The complexity of the electric machine structure makes an DiaSGap

optimal design a difficult and challenging task. The Length

Inductance

ThichMag

nonlinearities in materials and the complex relationships

between many of the geometrical parameters truly make optimal

machine design a multi-objective optimization. Moreover, the Tooth Width

AirGap Flux

Stator and Rotor

modeling of an electric machine is also challenging [2]. All of Yoke Thickness

Density

turns per

because the optimization problem needs to be formulated as a phase

nonlinear, non-gradient, constrained minimization problem, Back EMF

which requires a computational intelligence based method, such

as the GA and the more popular PSO. Output

Power

The electrical machine design model has to relate the

geometric and materials’ data to the performance, and such a Current

model usually contains a large number of input variables. The

Current

computation of the model itself is therefore time-consuming, Desnity

especially when a Finite Element Method (FEA) is used. This Slot Fill Factor

Design

PSO and GA in terms of their computational efficiency. This Parameters

paper considers the design of a SMPM motor with an analytical

design model based on [1], as an example, and does a

comprehensive comparison against using a GA or PSO Loss Weigth Volume

technique. The result is also informative for other types of motor

Figure 1: Flowchart of the SMPM analytical design model

and other modeling techniques.

There are only three free design variables in this analytical o Update the particles’ velocity according to the

design model: the stator inner diameter at the airgap relative values of pbest and gbest, using the following

side(DiaSGap), the machine axial length (Length), and the expression:

magnet thickness (MagThck). The stator slot fill factor, the

stator current density, the output power and the excitation vn = ω * vn + c1rand () * ( pbest ,n − xn ) + c2 rand () * ( gbest ,n − xn )

voltage are set as constraints. Given the values of the three

design variables and constraints, other design parameters can be o Move the particle: The velocity is applied for a

solved, such as the stator turns per phase, the slot width, etc. normalized time-step Δt, which is usually chosen to

This analytical design model is nonlinear and contains both be 1, and the position is updated to

continuous and discrete variables, which makes the traditional xn = xn + Δt * vn

gradient based optimization method, such as Newton’s method

[8], ineffective. However, the computational based method, • Repeat process starting at step 4. In this way the particle

such as PSO and GA, are good candidates in solving such moves for discrete time intervals until the termination

optimization problems with complicated system model. PSO criteria are met. The maximum number of iteration is taken

and GA are both applied for this machine design optimization as the terminating criteria here.

problem and their performances are compared.

III. IMPLEMENTATION OF PSO AND GA C. Genetic Algorithm [5]

Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a search procedure which

A. Objective Function emulates the mechanics of natural selection and genetics. The

To account for various requirements in the PM motor design,

algorithms explore the motor parameter space using

the objective functions used here have five performance

mechanisms of reproduction, crossover and mutation, with the

indexes, namely: volume (m3), weight (kg), efficiency, weight

aim of optimizing the machine design. Steps of solving the

of the magnets (kg) and the torque per ampere at the rated

condition (Nm/Arms). Weighting factors have two purposes: the machine design optimization problem using the analytical

first purpose is normalizing each term to be in approximately the design model with GA can be summarized as follows:

1) Encode any potential solution of the optimization problem into a

same magnitude range, the second is putting emphasis on each

binary string, called a chromosome.

index to represent how much importance is attached to each In this paper, the three design variables DiaSGap, Length and

index. One example of such an objective function that pays MagThck are first converted into binary strings and a typical

roughly equal attention to each of the performance indexes is chromosome is shown in Fig. 2. As the airgap diameter and axial

defined as follows: length for the motor being designed typically lies between 50

output = Volume *10000 + Weight + (1 − Efficiency) *200 mm to 250 mm from previous experiences, an offset of 50 and a

(1)

+ WtMagnet *12 − TperA *10 scaling coefficient of 500 is used to scale the values of DiaSGap

and Length contained in the binary string to fall into the range of

B. Particle Swarm Optimization[4] 50 mm to (217-1)/500+50 = 312 mm. Similarly, a scaling

PSO is an evolutionary computation technique based on the coefficient of 100 is used to scale the binary value of the magnet

behavioral patterns of swarms of bees in a field trying to locate thickness to the range of 0 mm to (211-1)/100 = 20.1 mm. Here

the area with the highest density of flowers. The algorithm can NdFe35 with a residual flux density of 1.23 T and relatively

be as summarized as follows: permeability of 1.099 is used and 0 to 20.1 mm is just enough to

• Define the solution space: select the parameters to be cover the magnet thickness range for the machine under

optimized. Here, the parameters are DiaSGap, Length and consideration.

MagThck.

• Define a fitness function, which is the objective function

defined above in (1)

• Initialize Random Swarm Location and Velocities: 6

particles are used. The initial values for DiaSGap and

Length are random numbers between 50 mm to 300 mm and Figure 2 Illustration of chromosome

the initial value for MagThck is a random number between

0 and 20 mm. This initial value range comes from the 2) Create an initial population of chromosomes

typical values according to previous experience for 15 kW, For comparison purposes, the same population size of 6 is

60 Hz and 1800 rpm SMPM machines. The particle is able chosen for the GA. The initial chromosomes are randomly

to travel out of this range if a better solution is found. generated.

• Travel the particles through the solution space with the 3) Evaluate the chromosomes by the objective function and assign a

following steps performed on each particle individually: fitness score accordingly.

o Evaluate particle fitness: compare to global best Since the problem is trying to minimize the objective

and personal best function, the fitness score for each chromosome is 1 over its

objective function value, and then the chromosomes with less

823

objective function value will have a larger probability of being observations can be summarized by running the program many

selected to produce offspring. Sigma scaling as described in [5] times. Statistical based performance comparisons are necessary

is applied to avoid premature convergence. for such methods with probability and random initialization

4) Select members from the current population to produce offspring. involved. As a result, the optimization process is repeated for

Stochastic universal sampling [6] is used here, which exhibits both PSO and GA 18 times and the results are summarized in

no bias and minimal spread and ensures a selection of offspring. Table I, where the coefficients of PSO and GA are carefully

As the population size is 6, 6 pointers will be used in the tuned to improve the performance.

universal sampling and 6 chromosomes will be selected.

5) Perform crossover TABLE I

COMPARISON OF OPTIMAL OBJECTIVE FUNCTION VALUE (OFV) FOR 18 RUNS BY

6 pairs of parents are randomly picked from the 6

PSO AND GA

chromosomes selected in step 4). Uniform crossover is used,

where each gene in the offspring is created by copying the Best Worst Average Standard Times to find correct

corresponding gene from one or the other parent chosen OFV OFV of OFV deviation optimal objective

according to a random generated binary crossover mask [7]. of OFV

6) Perform mutation PSO 53.4 58.3 55.2 1.8 7

Each bit in the chromosome is subject to mutation with a GA 53.6 59.7 56.0 2.1 3

probability.

7) Repeat 3) to 6) until terminating criterion is met If we use the criterion that a value of fewer than 54 for the

The terminating criterion in this paper is chosen to be that the objective function is considered to be an optimal solution, then

number of generations has reached a prespecified maximum Table 1 shows that PSO and GA are both able to find the optimal

value. solution with the 18 runs. However, PSO have a lower average

optimal OFV (55.2) than GA (56.0). The PSO also have less

standard deviations of the optimal OFV in 18 runs than the GA.

IV. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Moreover, PSO also has a higher probability to find the correct

PSO and GA are implemented with the analytical model optimal than GA (7 in 18 versus 3 in 18). All the above

described in section II and the objective function (1). PSO and comparison results indicate that the PSO have better

GA will be compared in terms their ability to find the correct performance in finding the correct optimal solution than GA

optimal solution and the computational efficiency in solving the from a stochastic point of view.

optimization problem. For comparison purposes, the PSO uses 6

particles and 100 iterations, while the GA uses a population size B. Computational efficiency

of 6 and 100 generations. This results in an evaluation of 600 In this machine design problems, running the machine design

designs for both GA and PSO in a single run. A typical result of model to evaluate design candidates is the dominate part of the

running the PSO and GA for this machine design problem is overall computational burden. As a result, high computational

shown in Fig.4, where the best objective means the lowest value efficiency here means to find the correct optimal design solution

of the objective function found by the GA or the PSO from the with less number of design candidates evaluated. In the actual

beginning to the current iteration or generation. The result implementation of the computational intelligence algorithm in

shows that as the number of iterations or generations increases, optimization problems, the best optimal solution is found by

the PSO and GA are finding better solutions and finally reaches running the algorithm sufficient times with different running

the correct optima. coefficients. The overall computational efficiency is the product

of the population size, the number of iterations or generations,

and the times needed to run the algorithm in order to ensure a

sufficiently good optimal solution.

1) Number of iterations or generations and population size

362 *$ The number of iterations or generations needed depends on the

convergence rate of the problem, which is determined primarily

%HVW2EMHFWLYH

)XQFWLRQ9DOXH

social acceleration constant in PSO or a lower sigma scaling

coefficient will increase the convergence rate. In fact,

convergence actually means reduced population size. As a

result, PSO and GA are compared by running both algorithms

with reduced population size.

,WHUDWLRQVRU*HQHUDWLRQV Results in Table II show that the performance of GA degrades

much faster than PSO as the population size goes down. With a

Figure 3 Typical results of PSO and GA population size even as low as 2, the PSO still maintains

acceptable performance while GA is much worse.

A. Ability in finding the optimal solution

3) Number of times needed to run the algorithm

Although both the PSO and GA are actually stochastic

The previous running experience in Table I shows that, once

process where the performance may vary case by case, useful

824

the running coefficients is properly tuned, a correct optimal V. CONCLUSIONS

solution can be found with certain probability by running the PSO and GA are applied to optimize the design of an SMPM

algorithm within 20 times. The problem of how many times motor according to user defined multi-objective functions with a

needed to run the algorithm is then effectively converted to how previous developed analytical model. The results are compared

many times needed to tune the running coefficients. The and show that PSO and GA both have the ability to find the

algorithm whose performance is more robust to the values of the correct optimal solution, and PSO has a slightly better

running coefficients needs less tuning, thus less number of times performance in terms of average and standard deviation from

will be needed to run the algorithm in total. The robustness of multiple runs of the algorithm. However, in terms of the

GA and PSO to their running coefficients is compared by computational efficiency, which is a key requirement for the

running the algorithms with randomly chosen running algorithms in the machine design, PSO outperforms GA

coefficients. The result is shown below in Table III. significantly. PSO has a lower performance degrading with a

smaller population size, and higher robustness to algorithm

TABLE II coefficients, which indicates that the fewer design candidate

PERFORMANCES COMPARISON OF PSO AND GA FOR REDUCED POPULATION SIZE evaluations is necessary for PSO. The comparison results

WITH 5 TIMES OF RUNNING EACH indicate that PSO can be preferred over GA when time is a

limiting factor. Although this work is carried out for a SMPM

Population size = 3 machine with and analytical design model, similarities in

Best Worst Average Standard Deviation machine design problem make it also applicable to the design of

other types of machines and with other modeling methods.

OFV OFV of OFV of OFV

PSO 55.2 59.7 57.5 2.1

GA 56.4 64.7 61.8 3.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Population size = 2 Financial support for this work from the Office of Naval

Best Worst Average Standard Deviation Research is gratefully acknowledged.

OFV OFV of OFV of OFV

PSO 56.4 60.5 58.8 1.7 REFERENCES

GA 59.8 83.1 67.4 9.5 [1] Y. Duan, R. G. Harley and T. G. Habetler, "Multi-objective Design

Optimization of Surface Mount Permanent Magnet Machine with Particle

Swarm Intelligence", Swarm Intelligence Symposium 2008, St. Louis, pp.

1-5, September 2008.

TABLE III

[2] W. Ouyang, D. Zarko and T.A. Lipo, “Permanent Magent Machine Design

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF PSO AND GA FOR RANDOMLY CHOSEN

Practice and Optimization”, IEEE conference on Industrial Applications,

COEFFICIENTS WITH 15 TIMES OF RUNS EACH

pp. 1905 – 1911, 2006

[3] V. Ostovic, “Magnetic equivalent circuit presentation of electric macines”,

Best Worst Average Standard deviation of OFV Electric Machines and Power Systems. Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 407-432, Jun.

1984

OFV OFV of OFV

[4] J. Robinson and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Particle Swarm Optimization in

PSO 53.9 61.8 56.7 2.7 Electromagnetics”, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,

Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 397 – 407, February 2004

GA 55.8 72.0 61.2 5.3 [5] Melanie Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, 3rd ed., MIT

Press, 1998, pp. 167-168

[6] James E. Baker. “Reducing Bias and Inefficiency in the Selection

In Table III, the coefficients in the PSO and GA are chosen to be Algorithm”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on

uniformly distributed random variables between values of 0 to 1. Genetic Algorithms and their Application, pp. 14-21, 1987

For PSO, they are the inertia, self and social acceleration [7] S.N. Sivanandam and S.N. Deepa, Introduction to Genetic Algorithms,

Springer, 2008, pp.50 and pp. 53

constant and for GA are the probability of crossover and [8] Bazaraa, Mokhtar S. and Shetty, C. M., “Nonlinear programming : Theory

mutation, the sigma scaling coefficient and linkage coefficients. and algorithms”, John Wiley & Sons, 1979

Because the maximum speed in the PSO can be chosen

according to the range of the variable and it does not need

carefully tuning, they will not be randomized. The results show

clearly that PSO has a lower average and standard deviation and

GA’s worst solution of 72, is significantly higher than the 61.8

of the PSO. The comparison shows that tuning of the parameters

is important for GA while can be neglected or not carefully

treated for PSO and the time saving in the tuning is pronounced

as the modeling techniques become more intensive.

825

- Dynamic Programming Approach to Economic PowerTransféré parselaroth168
- inte2E20152E0802Transféré parMatías Ochoa
- Optimizing Site Layout and Material Logistics Planning During the Construction of Critical Infrastructure ProjectsTransféré parsam
- r5Transféré parShankar G
- 1-s2.0-S1877050913009368-mainTransféré parAdam Buchanan
- Linear Model for OptimizationTransféré parVamshi Krishna Mallela
- Swarm IntelligenceTransféré parRajesh Jalisatgi
- The Three Phases of Mine PlanningTransféré partamiworku
- Modal Analysis MGTransféré parSurya Kiran
- IEEE70aTransféré paringabos
- Differential Evolution Algorithm With Self-Adaptive Population Resizing MechanismTransféré parCristian Klen
- Mentor BrochureTransféré pardiazlaz
- Operation Research Teaching Manual.pdfTransféré parWesen Legesse
- Tayangan M4Transféré parLan Basso
- OJOp_2017122815291536Transféré parKJ JK
- Power to Volume of High Speed GeneratorsTransféré parjfloresta
- 10.1.1.114Transféré parHossein Yadollahtabar
- 29-756Transféré parFernando Martins
- Analysis of Mechanical Cooling Tower by Jaya AlgorithmTransféré parSagar Agrawal
- ppt_final_biblio.pptxTransféré parAbhilash UN
- STAGE-I Format for Project (2)Transféré parVarun Nair
- Data Leakage DetectionTransféré parVishnu Vijayan
- V2I12-IJERTV2IS120560Transféré parPolikanti Goutham
- Thacker 1980Transféré parKaustubh
- IJETR022025Transféré parerpublication
- Mixed Integer Linear Programming Formulations for Open Pit ProductionTransféré parDavid Halomoan
- 07 Dynamic Programming[1]Transféré parAn Nguyen
- E421-2_13Transféré parGnob Berto
- Eigenfeldt GECCO2013Transféré pargakeisha
- 07 Rr410210 Optimization TechniquesTransféré parandhracolleges

- Estabilizador Del Sistema de Alimentación Basado en El Algoritmo de Ciclo de Agua Diseño Robusto Para Los Sistemas de AlimentaciónTransféré parCésar Lifonzo
- Comparación de La Optimización Del Enjambre de Partículas y El Algoritmo Genético Para El Entrenamiento HMMTransféré parCésar Lifonzo
- Comparación de la Optimización de Enjambre de Partículas y Algoritmo Genético en el diseño de motores de imanes permanentes.pdfTransféré parCésar Lifonzo
- Comparison of Genetic Algorithm and Particle Swarm OptimizationTransféré parMikemekanics
- Algoritmo Inteligente de Gotas de Agua Para Espacios MultimodalesTransféré parCésar Lifonzo
- Modelado de Elementos Finitos de Drenaje Subsuperficial en Suelos Finos de Arcilla FinlandesaTransféré parCésar Lifonzo
- Una Revisión de Explicaciones Convencionales de Observaciones Anómalas Durante Eclipses SolaresTransféré parCésar Lifonzo
- Un Nuevo Algoritmo Metaheuristico Inspirado en El MurcielagoTransféré parCésar Lifonzo
- Modelo de Dimensionamiento Óptimo de Los Sistemas de Distribución de AguaTransféré parCésar Lifonzo

- Bronze SAE 40Transféré parfahazumee
- Engine Vibration Analysis Guidelines_InProgressTransféré paruser
- Storage Seepage Evaporation Results Summary FinalTransféré parwanradhiah
- LRR3Transféré parChandu Kolipaka
- Chapter 3- SOIL GRADING CLASSIFICATION.pdfTransféré parKasturi Letchumanan
- 8. Renewable Energy - Wind and Water v2.0Transféré parNauman Qureshy
- mcqs physics.docxTransféré parAmmara Iftikhar
- Datasheet EE061 RH TX-cost-effTransféré parGunawan
- stochastic processessTransféré parAlbert Ingwani
- Brief Notes on Surface ChemistryTransféré parAshwini Kumar Shukla
- Analysis of Baffle Wall Gap in the Design of Stilling Basin ModelTransféré parIAEME Publication
- Lab 9Transféré pardtucom
- Performance Analysis of Depleted Oil Reservoirs for Underground Gas StorageTransféré parAsia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
- EN-GJL-250Transféré parStefanoDelTedesco
- New Features in CMG 2012 SoftwareTransféré paranon_123975877
- Wpe WorksheetTransféré parIsrael Lives
- Energy Modernisation of Industrial HeatingTransféré parthermosol5416
- Complex ProblemsTransféré parHarry King Corral Avenido
- FMH606+Master Prcent 26 Prcent 23039 Prcent 3Bs+Thesis+2011+Including+DescriptionsTransféré parShyam Thapa
- Specific GravityTransféré parHussein Beqai
- Volume-7. Essential Knowledge Required for Design and Manufacturing of Hydraulic PressesTransféré parQ.S. Khan
- Curvature, Riemman, And Christoffel SymbolsTransféré parCarolina Torres Lozano Ψ
- Mcs Ta Science MisconceptionsTransféré parTamil Selvan
- HPLC Troubleshooting GuideTransféré parNaresh Babu
- BasicSystem_2.pdfTransféré parMichael Wilson
- unit 8 bookletTransféré parapi-308639563
- T13314Transféré parAnonymous 8qUHG4Sl
- Using Carbon Dioxide as a Tracer GasTransféré parAgrim Khatry
- Lab 9 - Fluid Properties (Viscosity)Transféré parAmanda Amani
- Microindentation for in Vivo Measurement of Bone Tissue Mechanical Properties in HumansTransféré parImran Sajid Shahid