Error Analysis of Motor-Efficiency Estimation and

Measurement
Bin Lu
Eaton Corporation - Innovation Center
4201 North 27
th
Street
Milwaukee, WI 53216, USA
Phone: +1 (414) 449-6036
Fax: +1 (414) 449-6131
binlu@ieee.org
Wenping Cao
School of Science and Technology
University of Teesside
Tees Valley, TS1 3BA, UK
Phone: +44 (0)1642-342585
Fax: +44 (0)1642-342401
w.cao@tees.ac.uk
Thomas G. Habetler
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Phone: +1 (404) 894-9829
Fax: +1 (404) 894-4641
thabetler@ece.gatech.edu
Abstract Uncertainties and errors exist in all areas of the
scientific and engineering world. Accurate error analysis is
needed to justify the correctness of the experimental results and
investigate the effects of errors in motor efficiency estimation and
measurement. This paper presents the classification and
mathematical derivation of the errors in motor efficiency
evaluation. An extended motor efficiency error analysis, using
the maximum error estimation (MEE), worst-case error
estimation (WCEE), and realistic error estimation (REE)
techniques, is presented. Two efficiency methods, the direct
efficiency measurement and the nonintrusive air-gap torque
(NAGT) methods, are analyzed, considering all possible error
sources. It is concluded that the REE method provides the most
accurate error estimate. For the NAGT method, REE predicts
the motor efficiency estimation error to be within 2.25%, which
agrees well with the 2.0% error obtained from the experimental
results. Another contribution of this paper is that the influence
of each error source (motor variable) on the motor efficiency
evaluation accuracy can be quantified and ranked. This will
greatly facilitate efficiency evaluation method improvement and
experimental instruments selection.
I. INTRODUCTION
Accurate motor efficiency measurement and estimation
have long been regarded as a very difficult topic in industry.
Almost all of the efficiency evaluation methods justify their
accuracies by comparing to the directly measured efficiencies
through voltage, current, temperature, speed, and torque
measurements. However, the accuracy of the directly
measured efficiency is often questionable.
In the existing motor testing standards, the measurement
error is defined as the deviation between the measured value
and the true value. However, this definition cannot be used to
find the error of a measurement, because the true value of the
measured quantity can never be determined exactly and
always remains unknown. Theorems of measurement errors
have been historically developed as abstract mathematical
disciplines. Most of them allow estimations of uncertainties
of some ideal measurements. These theorems are difficult and
sometime not realistic to be directly applied into the practical
cases in the engineering world. The author in [1] generalizes
these theorems and gives methods for estimating errors and
uncertainties of real measurements. These methods provide
the theoretical foundation of this study.
II. SOURCES OF MEASUREMENT ERRORS
A typical experimental measurement often consists of three
key components: 1) the measurement method itself, 2) the
measuring instruments, and 3) the personnel who perform the
experiment. As a result, the imperfection of each component
contributes the measurement error. In [1] and [2], these
sources of the measurement errors are generalized in the
following form
i h m

,
(1)
where is the absolute measurement error;
m
is the
methodological error;
h
is the human error, or the personnel
error; and
i
is the instrumental error.
In particular, the methodological errors in the motor losses
and efficiency measurement are caused by the measurement
method applied. The amount of such errors presented in final
results is closely related to the intrusion level of the method,
which is eventually determined by the physical nature of the
method itself. This has been observed and concluded in [3]
and [4]. Human errors include errors primarily from
temperature, resistance, and torque measurements, the
individuals judgment on the load conditions and stability of
the system, and so on. In the motor losses and efficiency
measurements, the instrumental errors are the dominant errors.
The following study will focus on such errors.
III. ERROR ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES
This section discusses three error estimation techniques: the
MEE, WCEE, and REE methods. Special focus is on the
mathematical derivations of the WCEE and REE methods.
A. Maximum Error Estimation
In the motor losses and efficiency evaluation, the concept of
maximum error estimation has been adopted by almost all the
previous work in the literature, such as [5] and [6]. The MEE
method is based on the assumption that the maximum error of
the measurement occurs when the possible and maximum
uncertainties of all the instruments present simultaneously in
612 1-4244-0655-2/07/$20.002007 IEEE
the measurement system. For motor efficiency evaluation,
this MEE concept can be expressed as
1
1
1

=
input
output
P
P
Max
c
c
c
q
,
(2)
where
output
P
c and
input
P
c are the relative errors in the output
power and input power, relatively.
The MEE method successfully provides an estimate for the
efficiency measurement error. It gives a rather large and
unrealistic boundary and is only useful for justifying the
confidence of the efficiency measurement if the precision
requirement is low. Another drawback of the MEE method is
that it lacks a strict mathematical proof.
B. Worst-Case Error Estimation
The WCEE method is also based on the assumption that the
maximum error of the measurement occurs when the possible
and maximum uncertainties of all the instruments present
simultaneously in the measurement system [1], [2]. In this
sense, it is similar with the MEE method discussed before.
However, this method separates the effects of each error
source in the measurement system.
The WCEE method proposed in [2] provides some
fundamental mathematical analysis and experimental results.
However, it fails to give a strict mathematical proof. In this
section, a complete mathematical derivation is presented.
In a general form, the output variable y (e.g., efficiency) of
a complex system (e.g., a motor system) is related to the
informative parameter of the system parameter (e.g., motor
parameters), the input variables x
i
(i = 1, , n), and other
noises giving rise to errors but can not be expressed as
deviations z
j
(j = 1, , m), by the relation
) , , (
j i
z x f y H =
.
(3)
Assume that the errors
i
x
, of input variables x
i
(i = 1, ,
n) are independent and random and their error ranges are
known. Let y
t
be the true value of y and x
i,t
be the true values
of x
i
, the absolute errors of y and x
i
can be expressed as
t y
y y = ,
,
t i i x
x x
i
,
= ,
.
(4)
Since the additive noises z
j
can not be expressed as
deviations, their absolute errors are assumed to be themselves
(i.e., z
j,t
= 0, j = 1, , m),
j z
z
j
= ,
(5)
The relative errors of y and x
i
can be expressed as
y y
y y
y
t
y
,
c =

=
,
i
x
i
t i i
x
x x
x x
i
i
,
c =

=
,
.
(6)
Now, considering the small perturbation in the input
variables x
i
and the additive noise z
j
, the output function y can
be expanded at their true values x
i,t
and z
j,t
, using a Taylor
series. This can be mathematically expressed as (7) and (8),
where R
k+1
is the Lagrangian remainder.
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1
1
, ,
1
, ,
1
, ,
1
, ,
, ,
, , , ,
!
1
...
, , , ,
, , ) , , (
+
= =
= =
+

(
(

c
H c
+
(

c
H c
+ +

(
(

c
H c
+
(

c
H c
+ H = H =
_ _
_ _
k
m
j
k
j
t j t i
k
k
z
n
i
k
i
t j t i
k
k
x
m
j j
t j t i
z
n
i i
t j t i
x t j t i j i
R
z
z x f
x
z x f
k
z
z x f
x
z x f
z x f z x f y
j i
j i
, ,
, ,
(7)
( ) ( )

(
(

c
+ + H c
+
(
(

c
+ + H c
+
=
_ _
= =
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
n
i
m
j
k
j
z j t j x i t i
k
k
z k
i
z j t j x i t i
k
k
x k
z
z x f
x
z x f
k
R
j i
j
j i
i
1 1
1
, ,
1
1
1
, ,
1
1
1
, , , ,
)! 1 (
1
, | , o
,
, | , o
,
where 0 <
i
< 1 and 0 <
j
< 1.
(8)
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
_ _
= = (
(

c
H c
+
(

c
H c
~ H H =
m
j j
t j t i
z
n
i i
t j t i
x t j t i j i y
z
z x f
x
z x f
z x f z x f
j i
1
, ,
1
, ,
, ,
, , , ,
, , , , , , , (9)
613
In practice, to simply the problem, only the first linear term
of the Taylor series is used for error calculation, assuming the
output is linear to the perturbations of all the input variables.
Then, the error in the output
y
is simplified as (9).
Considering only one specific independent input variable,
e.g., x
p
(1 p n) , its error impacts the output, y, as
p p
x
p
p
x
p
y
y
x
f
y
x
x
f
y y
c ,
,
c
c
c
=
c
c
= =
1
.
(10)
The above formula provides a means to evaluate the
contribution of each individual component in the measurement
system on the output variable. The sensitivity of such
influence can be expressed as an influence coefficient.
Define the influence coefficient of the error of x
p
, in a
relative form
p
p
x
y
x
x
f
y
x
I
p
p
c
c
= =
c
c
.
(11)
The influence coefficient of noise z
j
can be represented in a
standard form
j
z
z
f
W
j
c
c
=
.
(12)
Therefore, the maximum error in the output variable y is
determined by
_ _
= =
+ =
m
j
j z
n
i
x x y
z W
y
I
j i i
1 1
1
c c
.
(13)
For a complex system where explicit expressions of the
derivatives are not available, the influence coefficient can be
alternately approximated by injecting a small perturbation in a
specific input variable and measuring the corresponding
change in the output variable.
The WCEE method does not assume any distribution for the
random errors. This method separates the effect of each error
source (e.g., each measuring instrument) and greatly reduces
the complexity of the error analysis process. Aside from
providing a confidence range of the measurement result, this
method also gives an evaluation of the influence of the error
from each measuring instrument on the final measurement
results (e.g., motor efficiency).
C. Realistic Error Estimation
The MEE method and WCEE method treat all the
uncertainties in the instruments equally in spite of their actual
influence on the measurement result. Since the probability of
all the instrument errors reaching their maximum limits
simultaneously is extremely small in reality, especially for
repeated measurements, these methods exaggerate the
uncertainties and errors in the measurement.
The REE method is introduced in [2] as an improvement of
the WCEE method. Some fundamental mathematical analysis
and experimental results are provided in [2]. However, it does
not give a strict mathematical proof for this theorem.
The mathematical derivation follows the same steps in
Taylor expansion as previous section. Since the distribution
of the error in each input variable is usually not known, it can
be best assumed to be uniformly distributed. It is concluded in
[1] that for uniformly distributed errors, the relative error in
the output variable y can be expressed by a quadratic form
( ) ( )
_ _
= =
+ =
m
j
j z
n
i
x x y
z W
y
I
j i i
1
2
2
1
2
1
c c
.
(14)
This method discriminates various errors from different
instruments based on their influence on the overall
measurement result. As a result, the estimate of the
measurement error is more realistic.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
To evaluate and validate the accuracy of the estimated
efficiencies, the actual motor efficiencies must be measured
and their accuracies must be guaranteed. This is a key step in
the entire testing process. This section presents an in-depth
discussion on the accuracies of the measured and estimated
motor efficiencies from motor experiments, using the MEE,
WCEE, and REE techniques.
In the experiments, a three-phase induction motor with the
following parameters is used: 10 hp, 230 volts, 25.6 amps,
1750 rpm, NEMA-B, and TEFC. Fig. 1 shows the actual
experimental setup in the experiments.
Fig. 1. Experimental setup of motor testing.
A. Instrumental Errors of Testing Equipments
1) Direct Efficiency Measurement
The measured motor efficiencies are used as references to
justify the accuracies of the less-intrusive methods and
measuring systems [7], [8]. These directly measured motor
614
efficiencies are regarded as the actual efficiencies. They are
calculated as the ratio between the mechanical output power
and the electrical input power
input
r shaft
input
output
P
T
P
P e
q

= =
.
(15)
The input power is directly measured from two voltage
transducers and two current transducers. The output power is
directly measured from in-line rotary torque transducer and a
non-contact digital tachometer. Their instrumental errors are
given in Table I.
2) Nonintrusive Efficiency Estimation
To analyze the errors in efficiency estimation, a
nonintrusive air-gap torque (NAGT) efficiency estimation
method has been studied [7]. This method estimates the shaft
torque (then motor efficiency) by first estimating air-gap
torque as in (16) and then subtracting the torque losses
associated with the rotor side power losses as in (17),
( ) ( ) | |
( ) ( ) | |

)

+ +
+ +
=
)
)
dt i i R v i i
dt i i R v i i
P
T
b a s ab b a
b a s ca b a
ag
2
2
6
3
,
(16)
input
LLr fw r ag
input
output
P
W W T
P
P
= =
e
q
,
(17)
where, v and i are the motor input voltages and currents, P is
the number poles, R
s
is the stator resistance,
r
is the rotor
speed, T
ag
is the air-gap torque, W
fw
.is the friction and windage
loss, and W
LLr
.is the rotor stray-load loss.
In this method, the instrumental errors of the voltage and
current transformers keep the same. However, more error
sources need to be considered, since this nonintrusive method
consists of sensorless rotor-speed, stator-resistance, and loss
estimations. Each of them contributes additional errors.
Specifically, the sensorless rotor-speed detection method used
has approximately 0.50% errors; the on-line stator-resistance
estimation method has 0.50% errors. The loss estimation is
based on the empirical values and, as a result, the errors in the
losses are prune to be larger. For a rather strict consideration,
assume the maximum errors in the friction and windage loss
and the stray-load loss are 100% each. This assumption is
enough to cover the worse circumstances.
B. Influence Coefficients of Error Sources
Without losing generality, computation of the influence
coefficients of all the error sources are performed at one
selected operating point: 96.43% rated load at 1761.8 rpm.
The directly measured motor efficiency is 88.81%. The
estimated motor efficiency using the NAGT method is 88.56%.
To get the influence coefficient of a certain variable (e.g.
voltage), a fixed percentage of perturbation (e.g. 5% for
voltage) is introduced on top of the collected data. By finding
the ratios between the measured and estimated efficiencies
over this perturbation, the influence coefficients of this
selected variable on the measured and estimated efficiencies
are obtained. Fig. 2 to Fig. 8 show the influence coefficients
of all relevant variables, including input voltage, current, shaft
torque, rotor speed, stator resistance, friction/windage loss,
and stray-load loss. These error sources and their
corresponding influence coefficients in both the direct
efficiency measurement and the NAGT method are
summarized in Table I.
C. Measurement Error of the Direct Efficiency Measurement
The errors in the directly measured and nonintrusively
estimated motor efficiencies are estimated using the MEE,
WCEE, and REE techniques.
The relative errors in the directly measured efficiency
estimated using three error estimation methods are
summarized in Table II. The errors estimated by the MEE
(1.72%) and WCEE (1.73%) methods are very close,
because both are essentially based on worst-case analysis by
assuming all errors reach their limits simultaneously. The
REE method gives a much lower and more realistic error limit
1.05%.
The influences of all the error sources can be ranked by
comparing their influence coefficients, as in Table I. It is
found that the absolute influence coefficients of the voltage,
current, torque, and speed are all close to 1. Therefore, it is
concluded that in the direct motor efficiency measurement
using the voltage, current, torque, and speed transducers, each
instrument contributes to the final measurement error equally.
D. Estimation Error of NAGT Method
The same WCEE and REE techniques can be also applied to
analyze the estimation errors of nonintrusive motor-efficiency-
estimation methods. In this section, the WCEE and REE
methods are applied to the NAGT method proposed in [7].
The MEE method is omitted here for simplicity.
The error sources and their corresponding influence
coefficients in the NAGT method are summarized in Table I.
The relative errors in the efficiency estimate of the NAGT
method estimated using two error estimation methods are
summarized in Table II. Compared with the error limit
3.74% estimated by the WCEE method, the REE method
gives a much lower and more realistic error limit 2.25%. It
agrees well with the experimental results presented in [7] and
[8], where the NAGT method estimates motor efficiencies
with approximately 2% errors.
From Table I, clearly, the dominant error source is the rotor
speed estimate. Its influence on the final efficiency estimate is
about 10 times more than any other variables. The input
voltages and currents are ranked after the rotor speed. Their
influences are comparable. But for the NAGT method, the
accuracy of the current signals should be valued more,
because the rotor speed estimation accuracy also depends
greatly on the accuracy of the currents. Stator resistance is
ranked next. In the bottom of the rank list are the estimated
loss terms, W
fw
and W
LL
.
615
V. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented an in-depth discussion on the error
analysis for motor efficiency measurements and estimations.
Three error estimation techniques, the MEE, WCEE, and REE
methods, have been studied. Using these techniques, an
extended error analysis for both the direct efficiency
measurement and the nonintrusive air-gap torque method has
been presented.
The errors in the direct efficiency measurement from the
speed and torque transducers are found to be within 1.72%,
1.73%, and 1.05%, using the MEE, WCEE, and REE
methods, respectively. The errors in the efficiency estimates
from the NAGT method are found to be within 3.74% and
2.25%, using the WCEE and REE methods, respectively.
These results have verified the experimental results
presented in [7] and [8] by the same authors, through a more
strict analytical approach. Based on the error analysis results,
the following conclusions can be confidently drawn:
1. The NAGT method is expected to have around 2%
relative estimation errors.
2. The directly measured efficiencies in [7] and [8] contain
around 1% relative errors and can be used to justify
efficiency estimate with proved confidence.
Another contribution of this paper is that the influence of
each error source (motor variable) on the efficiency evaluation
accuracy is quantified and ranked. This will greatly facilitate
efficiency evaluation method improvement and experimental
instruments selection.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported in whole by a United States
Department of Energy (DOE) award (DE-FC36-04GO14000).
REFERENCES
[1] S. G. Rabinovich, Measurement Errors and Uncertainties: Theory
and Practice, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2005.
[2] W. Cao, K. J. Bradley, H. Zhang, and I. French, Experimental
uncertainty in estimation of the losses and efficiency of induction
motors, in Proc. IEEE Industry Applications Annual Meeting, vol.
1, Oct. 2006, pp. 441-447.
[3] B. Lu, T. G. Habetler, and R. G. Harley, A survey of efficiency-
estimation methods of in-service induction motors, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 924-933,
July/August 2006.
[4] J. D. Kueck, M. Olszewski, D. A. Casada, J. Hsu, P. J. Otaduy, and
L. M. Tolbert, Assessment of methods for estimating motor
efficiency and load under field conditions, Oak Ridge Nat. Lab.,
Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Rep., ORNL/ TM-
13165, 1996.
[5] R. S. Colby and D. L. Flora, Measured efficiency of high efficiency
and standard induction motors, in Proc. IEEE Industry Applications
Annual Meeting, vol. 1, October 1990, pp. 18-23.
[6] D. R. Turner, K. J. Binns, B. N. Shamsadeen, and D. F. Warne,
Accurate measurement of induction motor losses using balanced
calorimeter, in Proc. IEE Electric Power Applications, vol. 138, no.
5, September 1991, pp. 233-242.
[7] B. Lu, T. G. Habetler, and R. G. Harley, A nonintrusive and in-
service motor efficiency estimation method using air-gap torque with
considerations of condition monitoring, in Proc. IEEE Industry
Applications Annual Meeting, vol. 3, October 2006, pp. 1533-1540.
[8] B. Lu, T. G. Habetler, and R. G. Harley, A novel motor energy
monitoring scheme using wireless sensor networks, in Proc. IEEE
Industry Applications Annual Meeting, vol. 5, October 2006, pp.
2177-2184.
Table I. Instrumental errors in motor efficiency measurement and estimation.
Influence Coefficients on Motor
Efficiency
Rank
Error Sources
Relative Errors
(%) Direct
Measurement
NAGT
Method
Direct
Measurement
NAGT
Method
Input Voltage (v) 0.80 1.0000 0.1103 1 2
Input Current (i) 0.65 1.0000 0.0908 1 3
Shaft Torque (T
shaft
) 0.18 0.9906 N/A 1 N/A
Measured Rotor Speed (
r
) 0.10 1.0020 N/A 1 N/A
Estimated Rotor Speed (
r
) 0.50 N/A 1.0330 N/A 1
Stator Resistance (R
s
) 0.50 N/A 0.0796 N/A 4
Friction and Windage Loss (W
fw
) 0.10 N/A 0.0123 N/A 6
Stray-Load Loss (W
LL
) 0.18 N/A 0.0182 N/A 5
Table II. Estimated errors in direct efficiency measurement and NAGT method using MEE, WCEE, and REE methods.
Error Estimation Method
Relative Error in Directly Measured
Efficiency (%)
Relative Error in NAGT Estimated
Efficiency (%)
Maximum Error Estimation (MEE) 1.72 N/A
Worst-Case Error Estimation (WCEE) 1.73 3.74
Realistic Error Estimation (REE) 1.05 2.25
616
(a) Direct efficiency measurement: 0000 . 1
mea v
I (b) NAGT: 1103 . 0
est v
I
Fig. 2. Influence coefficient of voltage on efficiency.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
% error in voltage
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Voltage
y = - 1*x + 1.241e-017
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
% error in voltage
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

e
s
t
im
a
t
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Voltage
y = 0.11*x - 0.001125
(a) Direct efficiency measurement: 0000 . 1
mea i
I (b) NAGT: 0908 . 0
est i
I
Fig. 3. Influence coefficient of current on efficiency.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
% error in current
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Current
y = - 1*x + 1.241e-017
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
% error in current
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

e
s
t
im
a
t
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Current
y = - 0.09078*x - 0.000125
(a) Direct efficiency measurement: 0020 . 1
mea
r
I

(b) NAGT: 0330 . 1

est
r
I

Fig. 4. Influence coefficient of rotor speed on efficiency.

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
% error in speed
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Speed
y = 1.002*x - 0.0883
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
% error in speed
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

e
s
t
im
a
t
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Speed
y = 1.033*x - 0.09378
(a) Direct efficiency measurement: 9906 . 0
mea T
I (b) NAGT: 0
est T
I
Fig. 5. Influence coefficient of shaft torque on efficiency.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
% error in shaft torque
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Shaft Torque
y = 0.9906*x - 0.0863
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
% error in shaft torque
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

e
s
t
im
a
t
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Shaft Torque
y = 0
617
(a) Direct efficiency measurement: 0
mea R
s
I
(b) NAGT: 0796 . 0
est R
s
I
Fig. 6. Influence coefficient of stator resistance on efficiency.
(a) Direct efficiency measurement: 0
mea W
fw
I
(b) NAGT: 0123 . 0
est W
fw
I
Fig. 7. Influence coefficient of on efficiency. W
fw
(a) Direct efficiency measurement: 0
mea W
LL
I
(b) NAGT: 0182 . 0
est W
LL
I
Fig. 8. Influence coefficient of W on
LL
efficiency.
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
% error in W
LL
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

e
s
t
im
a
t
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of W
LL
y = - 0.01818*x - 0.002875
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
% error in W
f w
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

e
s
t
im
a
t
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of W
fw
y = - 0.01226*x - 0.000625
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
% error in stator resistance
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

e
s
t
im
a
t
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Stator Resistance
1
y = - 0.08*x + 1.552e-018
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
% error in stator resistance
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of Stator Resistance
y = 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
% error in W
fw
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of W
fw
y = 0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
% error in W
LL
%

e
r
r
o
r

in

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

e
f
f
ic
ie
n
c
y
Influence Coefficient of W
LL
y = 0
618