Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Elektrotechnisches Institut
Dresden University of Technology
Email: Robert.Seifert@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
I.
I NTRODUCTION
(Ld Id + m )2 + (Lq Iq )2 (
(1)
3
pm Iq
2
3
3
= p(sd Iq sq Id ) = p(1 )Iq Id Ld
2
2
Trel
(2)
(3)
Iq = Ir sin()
and
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
and
Vq = d ()
(8)
and
2
Vd2 + Vq2 Vmax
Vmax 2
)
(10)
In this equation becomes apparent why IPMSM are often denoted as a hybrid combination of the conventional
synchronous-reluctance SM and surface mounted PMSM. [4]
The first term of the equation describes the interaction of the
q-axis current with the magnetic flux due to the permanent
magnets, orientated to the d-axis, and is called field-alignment
torque Tal equally to machines with surface mounted magnets.
Additionally the second term represents the reluctance torque
which is generated by interaction of the stator current components and its orthogonal magnetic flux components. It is highly
dependent on the saliency ratio .
Tal =
defining an ellipse
(9)
2 In the experiments the q-axis inductance was reduced about 24% for
maximum q-axis current, equally the saliency ratio as the direct axis was just
slightly influenced. Further analysis regarding saturation effects was made by
Soong and Miller [5].
3 Assuming d-axis and phase A axis are aligned.
CVL =
m
m
m
=
Id ( = 180 ) =
Ir
Ld
sd
sd
(11)
m
, respectively the difLater will be shown that the ratio sd
ference m sd , which defines this point, is a very suitable
criterion to optimize the constant power speed range (CPSR) as
it directly expresses the field weakening ability. It is described
by the ratio 2 /1 of maximum speed 2 to minimum speed
1 = r at which rated power can be achieved. Furthermore
hyperbolas of constant torque can be defined using eq. 1:
1
2T m
Iq =
+ (1 )Id
(12)
3pLd Ld
a) Finite Type
b) Infinite Type
voltage limit
elipse
Mode I
A
current limit
circle
Iq
Iq
Mode I
A
voltage limit
elipse
Mode 0
Mode II
Mode II
Mode 0
Mode III
maximum
speed
CVL > Ir
current limit
circle
Id
C
CVL > Ir
innite speed
Id
III.
The Response Surface Methodology (RSM) was first introduced by Box and Wilson in the Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society [9] in 1951 for the purpose of optimizing conditions
in chemical investigations and became well established in this
field. It originated from the difficulty that a process can not
always be described by physical laws and analytic models
or simply involves indeterminate factors. Rather RSM creates
an empirical model that relates the process response to well
known input parameters.
Its application to electromagnetic
problems started in the 90s for instance by Rong and Lowther
[10], those who applied RSM to a non-linear optimization
problem of an electromagnetic actuator. The subject of this
paper was already analyzed by Jabbar [11] and Jolly [3] in the
last decade.
The objective is to achieve a set of design variables in
which the response is maximum or minimum within the
experimental region R, that is defined by practical limitations
like geometry, mechanical restrictions or saturation. The k independent design variables are normalized to equally bounded
factors x1 , x2 , ..., xk and need to be capable of exact measurement. In order to determine the response y the regression
method least squares is applied to multiple order polynomials
to fit the sure values y of n design samples computed by
FE-analysis. To minimize the computation time it is desired
to keep n as small as possible, which is dependent on the
polynomial order and the number of factors k. For satisfying
results the Design of experiments (DoE) to determine y has
to be chosen advisedly. RSM can not substitute measurements
and additional FEM computations in the experimental region
around the optimized response, but reduce them to a feasible
number.
A. Procedure
Every process is characterized by a true response such as
the actual torque of a real synchronous motor, which can be
measured and hence underlies a measurement error m . It is
self-explanatory that there are no prototypes available for every
design sample to verify the FEM computations. For this reason
a single computation result itself is assumed to be an adequate
image of a real machine and defined as the true response .
However the evaluation of the FE-analysis is not always trivial
and underlies an error eva . Considering this, the so-called sure
value or mean response y is described as:
y = + eva
(16)
(17)
(18)
D2
.
. ... .
.
D=
(22)
.
. ... . = .
.
. ... .
.
xn1 xn2 ... xnk
Dn
For every design sample a mean response y is known, computed by the previous FE-Analysis. Furthermore X n can be
created for every geometry by inserting D n in X, which leads
us to the following overdetermined linear system of equations:
y1 0
1
X1
0
y
2
2 X2
.
. .
=
(23)
+
.
. .
.
.
.
yn
n
X 0n
and accordingly the vector of evaluation errors eva,n :
Y =Z +
(24)
(25)
y = X 0
(26)
Var (
y ) = 2 X 0 (ZZ 0 )1 X
(27)
Name
Mean value of all mean responses
Average relative error
Maximum relative error
Total sum of squares (variance of samples)
Regression sum of squares (var. of responses)
Residual sum of squares (var. of errors)
Equation
y=
yi yi
y
i
y y
max |y/y| = max iy i
i
Pn
2
SST =
i=1 (yi y)
|y/y| =
1
n
Pn
i=1
SSR =
Pn
y)2
SSE =
Pn
yi )2
yi
i=1 (
i=1 (yi
R2 = 1
Coefficient of determination
Adjusted coefficient of determination
y1 +y3 +...+yn
n
SSE
SST
2 = 1 (1 R2 ) n1
R
nc1
B. Error estimation
There are various statistical attributes, which can evaluate
the accuracy of a regression model (Table I). In case the regression model just involves interpolations and no extrapolations,
the summation of SSE and SSR equals the total sum of
squares SST . For instance in case the whole experimental
region R lies inside of the space framed by the Full Factorial
Design. The explained coefficient of determination R2 is
commonly used for the rating of regression models (1 =
ideal regression), even though it is not utterly correct for all
2 , which also
cases. Preferable is the unexplained coefficient R
involves the number of sampling points and the degree of the
polynomial represented by its number of terms c (eq. 21).
b)
c)
FFD1
FFD2
FFD3
CCD
BBD
0.59
0.52
2.54
6.14
2.51
0.96
0.93
0.65
3.82
0.65
0.98
0.90
0.36
3.14
0.35
0.96
0.87
0.66
2.07
0.66
0.96
0.74
0.67
3.58
0.66
0.98
0.97
0.50
0.90
0.50
1.00
0.99
0.16
0.33
0.16
0.96
0.87
0.62
2.07
0.63
0.98
0.87
0.51
1.24
0.51
0.90
0.88
53.87
1430.74
9.02
0.98
0.97
14.24
286.52
3.98
0.98
0.92
4.80
49.76
2.41
0.98
0.94
5.42
24.69
3.92
0.98
0.87
18.38
424.25
4.18
0.17
0.02
185.14
545.61
0.47
0.13
180.51
689.60
0.73
-0.16
186.74
695.92
0.35
-1.26
254.24
884.81
0.08
-4.50
16.41
91.19
12.20
90.6
8.09
43.43
7.57
69.08
7.89
33.84
8.45
65.86
0.17
0.01
265.10
863.27
0.46
0.12
255.60
1096.36
0.73
-0.17
277.35
1140.47
0.35
-1.28
363.57
1409.30
0.07
-4.56
20.65
92.57
11.61
92.45
6.29
46.12
5.30
78.70
5.52
32.8
6.95
69.00
a) for Tmax
0
1
1
1
1 0
R2
2
R
|y/y|
max |y/y|
|y|/|y|
c) for
R2
2
R
|y/y|
max |y/y|
|y|/|y|
d) for CP SR
R2
2
R
|y/y|
max |y/y|
derived from :
|y/y|
max |y/y|
e) for Nmax
R2
2
R
|y/y|
max |y/y|
derived from :
|y/y|
max |y/y|
(28)
CPSR
100
50
0.05
in Wb
0.1
6
4
V.
2
0
0.05
in Wb
0.1
p
2
2) Application on the non-linear model: The field weakening ability can be determined by a single FEM computation
for Iq = 0 and Id = Ir , but for maximum torque the electric
angle is not constant within R. Hence it is necessary to
evaluate the entire second quadrant of the rated current circle,
considering all saturation effects.
3) Selection of suitable optimization objectives: It was
claimed before, that Nmax and CP SR are no suitable optimization objectives, as they are able to reach an infinite
value. This behavior can not be handled by the regression
models. The occurring errors are unacceptable. Rather the flux
linkage is used as optimization objective as it is the actual
initiator of the hyperbolic behavior The maximum speed can
therefore be estimated indirectly using eq. 14, reducing the
errors to satisfactory levels and enable rough predictions, as
small estimation errors of are still increased substantial by
the hyperbolic function.
p2 1
Nmax
Vmax 60 Wb
p
=
= 1.0982 104
(29)
2
rpm
V
Wb
2p
For the regression of CPSR no trivial equation is available
and a xa polynomial is used, fitting Y with an accuracy of
R2 = 0.9999.
p2 0.913
(30)
CPSR = 0.285
Wb
F. Conclusion
All introduced designs of the Response Surface Methodology can adequately predict motor characteristics and parameters based on few advisedly chosen motor design samples.
It became apparent that the choice of the regression model is
only secondary as long as the significance of its shortcomings
is considered and the input variables are selected wisely
avoiding substantial non-linearities. Sensitive parameters can
be estimated using robust substitutes deduced from the analytic
model.
The preferential decision criterion should rather be the
complexity of the subordinated experiments or computations.
Since magnet and circuit properties can be easily changed
using scripts, the determination of the response vector is
automatable and suggests the use of high-order polynomials
and the FFD. On the contrary optimization problems considering geometrical motor parameters usual require manual
modifications and are often initiated exerting first-order models
which will be rearranged or improved in a second step. In this
case flexible and efficient designs like the CCD are suited. It
is the first choice for the optimization process in this paper
as it provides the most precise regression results in the fringe
areas of the exemplary experimental region. The BBD would
O PTIMIZATION
In motor design naturally appear multi-objective optimisation problems which lead to compromises, as the optimum
designs for every objective are usually mutually exclusive. For
instance high efficiency contradicts to low production costs
or, like in this case, a high torque excludes a high maximum
speed. There are various approaches to solve this problems,
for instance evolution strategy methods (ES) [14] and in
particular genetic algorithms (GA) [15]. They are already
high developed and use genetic operators, like recombination
and mutation, to manipulate prior solutions. Enhancements
are then considered in further variations. They all tend to
find Pareto optimal solution sets, means vectors of design
variables D whose variation does not decrease any response
without increasing at least one another, while one is optimal
regarding the others. The entirety of all vectors forms one
or multiple so-called Pareto frontiers. Basically ES methods
are controlled trial-and-error methods. The genetic operators
minimize the number of trials by evaluation of every iterative
step. Furthermore partial solutions and finally Pareto optimal
solutions are connected to its causative machine design. But
technically the optimal solution can be found without any
knowledge about the underlying design parameters. For this
purpose the most rudimentary of all statistical approaches is
used, the Monte Carlo Method. Within a few seconds a large
number of random vectors of design variables is generated and
the responses are calculated. The visualization of the results
reveals the Pareto frontier precisely.
A. Pareto optimization with Monte Carlo Method
Unavoidable improving one criterion adversely affects another. However a so-called Pareto optimal solution set of
compromises can be found in between. For one preferable
value of criterion A, contrary criterion B is optimized. The
entirety of all optimized combinations of A and B leads to
the Pareto frontier, in case of two-dimensional problems a
strictly monotonic function in the AB plane. For more than
three objectives the visualization is hardly possible and the
use of complex evaluation algorithms is inevitable.
In general a multi-objective optimization problem can be
formulated as:
F (x) = min f1 (x), f2 (x), . . . , fk (x)
(31)
wherein f are functions representing the k design objectives
regarding the decision makers x R, which are in this case
the design variables. If an objective function is to be maximized, it needs to be transformed into its inverse monotonic
function. The global optimum does not exist generally and is
therefore called utopian solution.
xutopian R if
x R, fi (xutopian ) fi (x)
for
i [1, 2, . . . , k] (32)
(33)
T max in Nm
50
100
150
200
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.2
CPSR
10
3.2
0.2
0.4
10
0.6
0.8
N max in 10 6 rpm
(37)
and
f (D ) < f (D P
)
(38)
C ONCLUSION
T max in Nm
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
example A
= 0.0157 Wb
T max = 3.41 Nm
T cog= 0.113 Nm
x1= 0.26
x2= 1.61
x3= 0.631
}
}
response
example B
input parameters
(e.g. actual geometry)
3.3
0
0.02
0.2
x1= 1.65
x2= 1.44
x3= 0.858
1= 39.8
2= 36.6
R = 5.37 mm
3.4
3.2
0.25
= 0.0957 Wb
T max = 3.8 Nm
T cog= 0.195 Nm
0.04
0.06
= = f ( 1/ max ) in Wb
0.08
1= 34.1
2= 19.7
R = 11.6 mm
0.1
T cog in Nm
3.9
0.15
0.12
0.1
Fig. 7: Scatter plot of 200,000 responses, filtered for a two-objective Pareto optimal solution set of maximum torque and field weakening
ability (cancellation for = 0) and adjusted for invalid parameter combinations; cogging torque as informative additional objective (color
coded); immediate output of responses and their corresponding (normalized) design parameters; computation time less than 5 seconds on an
average workstation assuming existing training data (by previous FE computations)
model of the machine taking into account all saturation effects.
Motor parameters and performance characteristics can be
estimated adequately for the entire space of design parameters.
The determination of torque and power capability shows only
minor regression errors of less than 2%, while the field weakening ability is merely vaguely predictable as the influences
of frequency dependent effects like iron losses and the skin
effect of the windings are regarded inadequate. In case this is
the main object of investigation, the model can be enhanced
by including stator resistance, end-winding inductance and an
iron loss factor. But even so the resisting torque due to friction
constrains the maximum speed to less than a hundred thousand
rpm, though the development of magnetic bearings obliterate
this limitation.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
R EFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]