## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

ALGORITHMS

Marián Jančovič, Milan Žalman, Ján Jovankovič

MicroStep-HDO s r.o.,

Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Slovak University of Technology,

Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Slovak University of Technology

mjancovic@gmail.com, milan.zalman@stuba.sk, jan.jovankovic@stuba.sk

Abstract

This paper aims at demonstrating the possibilities of

genetic algorithms application for parameter

identification of induction motor. The basic procedure to

develop a genetic algorithm is described and the

examples of its application for parameter identification

are introduced. Genetic algorithms (GA) present

universal optimization methods, which can be used to

solve a wide scope of optimization problems. One of

them is the identification of nonlinear systems. For this

ability, we can use GA for parameter identification of

induction motor. We need to know the values of these

parameters for control design, state observer design or

modeling of induction motor. Parameter identification of

induction motor by using genetic algorithm is based on

calculating the values of appropriate quality criterion

which compare input-output data from induction motor

and from simulation model. Minimization of this quality

criterion leads to obtain more precise parameters.

Keywords: induction motor, genetic algorithm,

parameter identification

1. INTRODUCTION

Genetic algorithms (GA) present universal optimization

methods, which use global stochastic search algorithms.

Owing to their universality these algorithms can be used

to solve a wide scope of optimization problems. One of

them is the identification of nonlinear systems. For this

ability, we can use GA for parameter identification of

induction motor. We need to know the values of these

parameters for control design, state observer design or

modeling of induction motor. The accuracy of designed

structures is also dependent on the accuracy of the motor

parameters. As their values can vary from various

reasons so the quality of motor control can be reduced.

Then, for the optimization of control we need to know

the new values of the parameters. Because a direct

measure some of these parameters is very complicated or

impossible, the various researches developed different

techniques for their identification.

Distribution of the identification methods starts from the

measured data set of motor. Under this we can classify

next categories [1]:

• with the measurement of voltage, current and

angular speed,

• with the measurement of current and angular speed –

for the structures with the measurement of angular

speed,

• with the measurement of voltage, current – for the

structures without direct measurement of angular

speed (sensorless control).

The methods of parameter estimation and identification

for servo-drive with induction motor can be divided also

into the following categories:

• Observers that are derived from the dynamic model

of induction motor

o Direct observers that use measured stator

voltages and currents

o Model Reference Adaptive Systems

(MRAS)

o Feedback observers with the adaptation

(Kalman, Luenberger)

• Observers with artificial intelligence

o Systems based on fuzzy logic

o Neural networks

o Neuro-fuzzy systems

o Evolution algorithms (genetic algorithms)

• Observers that use the properties of motor

construction

o Salient motor poles, motor slots, asymmetry

of the air gap

o The third harmonic of the voltage that are

caused by the saturation of the magnetic

circuit

o Using the superposed signals

Parameter identification of induction motor using genetic

algorithm is based on calculating the values of

appropriate quality criterion which compare input-output

data from induction motor and from simulation model.

Minimization of this quality criterion leads to obtain

more precise parameters. The advantage of GA is that it

provides the identification of parameters with adequate

accuracy also for noised and quantized measured signals.

On the other hand, the system complexity and number of

searched parameters influence the number and time

demands on simulation of dynamical processes. These

properties also causes that genetic algorithms are

significantly time consuming.

2. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION USING GA

For parameter identification of induction motor, we used

mathematical model of motor in stator coordinate system

described in [2]. The state equations for this model are as

follows:

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ +

′ +

= ω ψ ψ

β α α α r r r

r

r

s

s

s

k

T

k

u

s L R

i

1

1

(1)

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− +

′ +

= ω ψ ψ

α β β β r r r

r

r

s

s

s

k

T

k

u

s L R

i

1

1

(2)

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

−

+

=

m

r

r s

r

m

r

L

T

i

sT

L

β α α

ωψ ψ

1

(3)

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+

+

=

m

r

r s

r

m

r

L

T

i

sT

L

α β β

ωψ ψ

1

(4)

( )

α β β α

ψ ψ

s r s r

r

m

m

i i

L

L

p T − ′ =

2

3

(5)

dt

d

J T T

m

z m

ω

= − ,

m

p ω ω ′ = (6)

where

2

2

1

r

m

r s

L

L

R R R + = ,

1

1

R

L

T

s

′

= ,

r

r

r

R

L

T = ,

r

m

r

L

L

k = ,

s s

L L σ = ′ ,

r s

m

L L

L

2

1− = σ (7)

i

sα

– real axis stator current,

i

sβ

– imaginary axis stator current,

u

sα

– real axis stator voltage,

u

sβ

– imaginary axis stator voltage,

ψ

rα

– real axis rotor flux,

ψ

rβ

– imaginary axis rotor flux,

ω – rotor electrical angular speed,

ω

m

– mechanical angular speed,

T

m

– motor torque,

T

z

– load torque,

p’ – number of the pole pairs,

R

s

– stator resistance,

R

r

– rotor resistance,

L

s

– stator self inductance,

L

r

– rotor self inductance,

L

m

– magnetizing inductance,

J – moment of inertia.

For this model we need to identify the values of stator

and rotor resistance, stator and rotor inductance,

magnetizing inductance and moment of inertia. The two

parameters L

s

and L

r

are linearly dependent [3] and the

differences between their values are small. Therefore we

used simplification

s r

L L = , and so reduced the number

of the searched parameters and thereby accelerated the

research process. Searched motor parameters represent

genes of GA and together create the chromosome, which

has a form:

( ) J L L R R r

m s r s

, , , , = (8)

To represent these parameters we choose real number

values. In using real number code in comparison with

binary code the procedure of the respective solution is

more stable, since the values of real numbers change

continuously, proportionally to the required value of

change.

For each gene of the chromosome we must define the

feasible values intervals, i.e. the search space of solution.

The search space must be large enough to contain the

global optimum, but if made too large, the GA might not

be able to find the global optimum at the required

parameter identification accuracy and in a reasonable

period of time (the convergence will be slow). For this,

we can start from catalogue values.

The speed of convergence is also influenced by our

choice of the population size. The population represents

group of chromosomes, i.e. potential solutions in the

time period. The size of it depends on a particular case.

In most cases it is recommended to choose the size

between 10 and 100, most frequently between 20 and 50

[4]. Small population does not provide enough space for

diversity of genetic information, too big population does

not provide better effect and the solution is much longer.

The GA tests each candidate – chromosome by an

objective function, which compare a set of measured

values with simulated data. The objective function

consists of two steps. The first one is the implementation

of parameters into simulation model and the following

simulation of the dynamic system with such input data as

for measured system. During the simulation, the system

output is recorded in each sampling period and this

output data are then returned into the quality criterion

with measured output data. The next step is the

calculation of the appropriate criterion. The identification

values of the system parameters approximate to their real

values by the minimalization of this criterion. For the

parameter identification, the integral criterion is used:

( )

∫

− =

T

m

dt y y F

0

2

(9)

where y

m

is output of the simulation model and y is

output of the real system.

In our case, the real system is represented by the

induction motor whose input parameters are the

components of the stator voltage u

sα

and u

sβ

and output

parameters are the components of the stator current i

sα

a i

sβ

. Then criterion has a form:

( ) ( )

∑ ∑

= =

− + − =

N

k

i s i s

N

k

i s i s

i i i i F

1

2

1

2

ˆ ˆ

β β α α

(10)

where

i s

i

α

and

i s

i

β

are currents from real motor,

i s

i

α

ˆ

and

i s

i

β

ˆ

are estimated currents from model, N is the

number of samples and F is the fitness function value.

The GA implementation for motor parameter

identification is illustrated in Fig. 1.

usα

Frequency

inverter

Simulation

model

Objectives

function

Genetic

algorithm

isα

isβ

F

Induction

motor usβ

∗

α s

u

∗

sβ

u

r

z

T

~

z

T

i

sα

i

~

sβ

i

~

Fig. 1 Principle of parameter identification of

induction motor using GA

On the basic of fitness values of all candidates, some of

them are selected to the new population and some to the

work group. The operations of crossover and mutations

are applied only to the work group. The copying of the

best individuals into to next population insures the

convergence of solution. The multiple selection of the

best individuals into the work group insures good values

for the crossover and mutation accelerates the

convergence to the optimal values. But it can lead to

local optimum deadlock, therefore we use random

selection of several individuals into the work group for

more diversity during the realization of genetic

operations.

The convergence speed problems can also be at the last

phase of the algorithm, when the differences between

estimated and optimal values are small. For this we used

the multiplicative mutation, which multiplies the value of

the chosen gene by a random number from the defined

range.

The GA procedure can be described as follows:

1. Initially, a population of 50 chromosomes generated

at random in the given interval.

2. Successively, all 50 chromosomes are applied into

the simulation model. The sinusoidal voltages u

sα

and u

sβ

with the same amplitude and frequency are

lead to the model input. After simulation taking 2

second a value of chosen criterion is evaluated. The

GA aims at its minimization.

3. The chromosomes with the smallest and second

smallest fitness value are copied into a new

population.

4. We copy into the working group: three times the

chromosome with the smallest fitness value, twice

the chromosome with the second smallest and once

the chromosome with the third smallest fitness

value.

5. 32 chromosomes are randomly copied into the

working group.

6. The crossover operator is applied to the working

group, where the choice of parents for the crossover

is random. This operator realizes exchange of genes

between parent strings.

7. The multiplicative mutation operator is applied to

the working group, where the value of the chosen

gene is multiplied by a random number from the

range (0, 2), with a mutation probability 0.1.

8. The intermediate crossover operator is applied on

the working group, where the choice of parents for

the crossover is random with parameter 25 , 1 = α .

This operator can be used for real number values. It

represents the combination between crossover and

mutation. New string will be created according to

equation:

) (

1 2 1

r r r p − + = α (11)

where p is a new string, r

1

and r

2

are the parent

strings and α is a random value from interval

25 , 1 25 , 0 < < α .

9. Then, the work group is moved to the new

generation.

10. The algorithm is repeated with the next generation

population until the 500 generations is reached.

Then the best string is assessed as the best solution.

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF GA AND

SIMULATION RESULT

To verify our proposed genetic algorithm the

Matlab/Simulink environment is used. We used the

simulation model instead of real induction motor because

of checking algorithm. We realized simulations with

sample time 0.25 ms and we defined the space of

solutions by the following intervals:

10 ; 1 ∈

s

R , 5 ; 1 ∈

r

R , 1 ; 1 . 0 ∈

s

L , 1 ; 1 . 0 ∈

m

L ,

1 , 0 ; 0001 . 0 ∈ J

We tested the application of designed GA for the

different amplitudes and frequencies of the input

voltages. The results of several identifications are

presented in Tab. 1, where the percentage errors of this

results and reference values are calculated. From the

table, you can see that the increase of the frequency

decreases the accuracy of parameter identification.

Tab. 1 Results of identification for the different

amplitudes and frequencies of the input voltages

Rs Rr Ls Lm J

Reference

value

7.608 3.7 0.6015 0.5796 0.0017

Identified

value

7.5954 3.7093 0.60227 0.58047 0.0017059

7.5V, 5Hz

F=1.5062x10

-3

Relative

error

0.166% 0.251% 0.127% 0.150% 0.350%

Identified

value

7.5587 3.7269 0.60204 0.58028 0.0017174

15V, 10Hz

F=1.6439x10

-2

Relative

error

0.648% 0.726% 0.090% 0.117% 1.021%

Identified

value

7.4066 3.8124 0.62926 0.60741 0.0017529

30V, 20Hz

F=1.8171 Relative

error

2.647% 3.039% 4.616% 4.799% 3.111%

Identified

value

7.2382 3.9168 0.70633 0.68436 0.0018073

45V, 30Hz

F=15.3852 Relative

error

4.861% 5.858% 17.43% 18.07% 6.311%

In the case of parameter identification of real motor, the

results are influenced by the noise of the measured

signals and by the quantization of the signals. Therefore

we tested the ability of the parameter identification by

GA also in this case. As the source of the noise we used

white noise with the gain 1.10

-6

. From the result of the

identifications in Tab. 2 you can see that the noise and

quantization didn’t have a great effect on the accuracy of

parameter identification compared with the results in

Tab. 1. The Fig. 2 and 3 describe the confrontation

between reference and identified currents for the noised

and quantized signals.

Tab. 2 Results of identification for the different

amplitudes and frequencies of the input voltages for

the noised and quantized reference currents

Rs Rr Ls Lm J

Reference

value

7.608 3.7 0.6015 0.5796 0.0017

Identified

value

7.6558 3.7203 0.59966 0.57804 0.0016947

7.5V, 5Hz

F=65.798 Relative

error

0.628% 0.548% 0.305% 0.270% 0.310%

Identified

value

7.5915 3.7133 0.5987 0.57701 0.0017053

15V, 10Hz

F=66.0976 Relative

error

0.217% 0.359% 0.465% 0.446% 0.312%

Identified

value

7.5184 3.7514 0.61277 0.59093 0.001728

30V, 20Hz

F=66.0636 Relative

error

1.178% 1.389% 1.873% 1.955% 1.644%

Identified

value

8.1683 3.3823 0.49211 0.47021 0.0015378

45V, 30Hz

F=97.9766 Relative

error

7.364% 8.587% 18.19% 18.87% 9.543%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

t [s]

i

s

α

[

A

]

reference model

identified model

Fig. 2 Stator current i

sα

responses for the noised and

quantized reference signals

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

t [s]

i

s

β

[

A

]

reference model

identified model

Fig. 3 Stator current i

sβ

responses for the noised and

quantized reference signals

The accuracy of parameter identification can depend on

the sample period. The size of the sample period depends

on the available computing resources. The increase of the

frequency of the input voltage needs the decrease of the

sample period. The results of parameter identification for

different sample periods are presented in the Tab. 3. For

the frequency of the input voltage equal to 5 Hz we

obtained the error less than 1% also with sample period

equal to 2.5 ms. For frequency 10 Hz we needed for this

accuracy the sample period 2 ms and for frequency 20

Hz we need the sample period 0.5 ms. For frequency 30

Hz we obtained the error less than 5% with the sample

period 0.2 ms.

Tab. 3 Results of identification for the different

amplitudes and frequencies of the input voltages

and for the different sample periods

Rs Rr Ls Lm J

Reference

value

7.608 3.7 0.6015 0.5796 0.0017

Identified

value

7.5974 3.684 0.59917 0.5772 0.0016948 7.5V, 5Hz

Tvz=2.5ms

F=1.3542x10

-3

Relative

error

0.139% 0.432% 0.388% 0.414% 0.305%

Identified

value

7.597 3.7073 0.60399 0.58205 0.0017019 15V, 10Hz

Tvz=2ms

F=1.5665x10

-3

Relative

error

0.145% 0.197% 0.414% 0.423% 0.109%

Identified

value

7.628 3.6868 0.59853 0.57663 0.0016941 30V, 20Hz

Tvz=0.5ms

F= 8.2013x10

-3

Relative

error

0.263% 0.356% 0.494% 0.512% 0.344%

Identified

value

7.8813 3.5953 0.59221 0.57026 0.0016332 45V, 30Hz

Tvz=0.2ms

F=2.8285

Relative

error

3.593% 2.829% 1.545% 1.612% 3.932%

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

After the simulation verification we applied the designed

genetic algorithm to the real system. The real system is

represented by a computer with development software

MATLAB/Simulink/Stateflow from MathWorks,

frequency inverter and induction motor. The computer is

connected with the frequency inverter by interface

DS1104 from company dSPACE. Analogous to the

simulations experiments we realized identification for the

different amplitudes and frequencies of the input

voltages. The results of several identifications are

presented in Tab. 4, where the percentage errors of this

results and values of identification by software for

frequency inverter are calculated. Fig. 4 to Fig. 7 show

the comparison of stator currents i

sα

and i

sβ

responses

from the real system and identified model for the input

voltage with frequency 25 Hz. You can see in Tab. 4.,

that the results of the identification of the stator

resistance are situated at the edge of the interval. The

differences between the values of the other parameters

may be caused by non-linearity of the frequency inverter

and motor structures and also by unknown load torque.

Therefore we repeat the experiments with the addition of

the parameters of Coulomb friction (T

z0

) and viscous

friction (B

’

) into the motor model:

ω ω B T T

z z

′ + = sgn

0

(12)

and into the chromosome:

( ) B T J L L R R r

z m s r s

′ = , , , , , ,

0

(13)

For new parameters we defined the following intervals:

1 . 0 ; 0001 . 0

0

∈

z

T , 1 . 0 ; 0001 . 0 ∈ ′ B

Tab. 5 shows the results of identifications of (13) for the

different amplitudes and frequencies of the input

voltages and Fig. 8 to Fig. 11 show the comparison of

stator current i

sα

and i

sβ

responses from the real system

and identified model for the input voltage with frequency

25 Hz. We can see that the results of the identification of

the stator resistance are better than the results of

identifications of (8) and the differences between stator

current i

sα

responses are smaller. But the differences

between the results of the identification of Coulomb and

viscous friction are too large.

Tab. 4 Experimental results of identification of (8)

for the different amplitudes and frequencies of the

input voltages

Rs Rr Ls Lm J

Identification

by frequency

inverter

6.3783 3.9558 0.3796 0.3502 0.0068

Identi fied

value

10 2.8509 0.37274 0.31881 0.00325

15V, 5Hz

F=54.8578 Relative

error

56.78% 27.93% 1.81% 8.96% 52.21%

Identi fied

value

10 4.2446 0.42614 0.38074 0.00411

30V, 10Hz

F=313.1876 Relative

error

56.78% 7.30% 12.26% 8.72% 39.56%

Identi fied

value

10 4.4441 0.41365 0.37274 0.00485

35V, 15Hz

F=559.2084 Relative

error

56.78% 12.34% 8.97% 6.44% 28.68%

Identi fied

value

10 4.5360 0.40418 0.36589 0.00474

50V, 20Hz

F=639.4507 Relative

error

56.78% 14.67% 6.47% 4.48% 30.29%

Identi fied

value

9.2844 4.8792 0.38927 0.35272 0.00483

70V, 25Hz

F=647.8662 Relative

error

45.72% 23.34% 2.55% 0.72% 28.97%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

t [s]

i

s

α

[

A

]

real system

identified model

Fig. 4 Stator current i

sα

responses for the input

voltage with frequency 25 Hz

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

t [s]

e

r

r

o

r

i

s

α

[

A

]

Fig. 5 Error of stator current i

sα

responses for the

input voltage with frequency 25 Hz

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

t [s]

i

s

β

[

A

]

real system

identified model

Fig. 6 Stator current i

sβ

responses for the input

voltage with frequency 25 Hz

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

t [s]

e

r

r

o

r

i

s

β

[

A

]

Fig. 7 Error of stator current i

sβ

responses for the

input voltage with frequency 25 Hz

Tab. 5 Experimental results of identification of (13)

for the different amplitudes and frequencies of the

input voltages

Rs Rr Ls Lm J Tz0 B´

Identification

by frequency

inverter

6.3783 3.9558 0.3796 0.3502 0.0068 - -

Identified

value

7.7701 4.1915 0.40205 0.36616 0.00569 0.00484 0.02276 15V,

5Hz

F=26,35

Relative

error

21.82% 5.96% 5.91% 4.56% 16.32% - -

Identified

value

8.2009 4.7236 0.44727 0.40803 0.00471 0.02623 0.01077 30V,

10Hz

F=44,17

Relative

error

28.58% 19.41% 17.83% 16.51% 30.74% - -

Identified

value

7.6785 5.011 0.45112 0.4138 0.00521 0.01970 0.00715 35V,

15Hz

F=34,85

Relative

error

20.38% 26.67% 18.84% 18.16% 23.38% - -

Identified

value

7.4173 5.3356 0.43607 0.39994 0.00543 0.03162 0.00559 50V,

20Hz

F=36,99

Relative

error

16.29% 34.88% 14.88% 14.20% 20.15% - -

Identified

value

7.7299 5.276 0.40314 0.36761 0.00504 0.01806 0.00479 70V,

25Hz

F=75,63

Relative

error

21.19 33.37% 6.20% 4.97% 25.88% - -

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

t [s]

i

s

α

[

A

]

real system

identified model

Fig. 8 Stator current i

sα

responses for the input

voltage with frequency 25 Hz

5. CONCLUSION

The results of our experiment show that genetic

algorithms can be used for the parameter identification of

induction motor. The GA obtains more accurately values

of searched parameters using serial reproduction of the

new solutions and by using the objective function that

compares the current components from the simulation

and real systems.

The accuracy of identification depends on the frequency

of the input voltage, the sample period, the number of

generations and the accuracy of simulation model. Our

simulation results where very good but the experimental

results were influenced by the differences between

simulation model and real system. It’s better if we can

exactly describe the real system by the simulation model.

It’s possible for identification by GA. The simulation

model can consider the non-linearity of frequency

inverter and pulse wide modulation and so we can obtain

better parameters of the real system.

The disadvantage of the genetic algorithms is their time

demand that follows mainly from a number of required

simulations.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

t [s]

e

r

r

o

r

i

s

α

[

A

]

Fig. 9 Error of stator current i

sα

responses for the

input voltage with frequency 25 Hz

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

t [s]

i

s

β

[

A

]

real system

identified model

Fig. 10 Stator current i

sβ

responses for the input

voltage with frequency 25 Hz

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

t [s]

e

r

r

o

r

i

s

β

[

A

]

Fig. 11 Error of stator current i

sβ

responses for the

input voltage with frequency 25 Hz

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work has been carried out under the financial

support of the KEGA project 3/4196/06 and RLZ VVA

project no. 13120200015 (Europe Social Program).

REFERENCES

[1] Jančovič, M., Žalman, M.: Parameter identification of

induction motor by genetic algorithm. AT&P Journal.

2006, no. 2, pp. 90-96.

[2] Žalman, M.: Actuating devices. STU Publishing house,

Bratislava, 2003.

[3] Ursem, R. K.: Models for Evolutionary Algorithms and

Their Application in System Identification and Control

Optimization. PhD thesis, EVALife, Department of

Computer Sience, Univerzity of Aarhus, 2003.

[4] Sekaj, I.: Evolution computations and their practice using.

IRIS Publishing house, Bratislava, 2005.

[5] Chrzan, P., J., Klaassen, H.: Parameter identification of

vector-controlled induction machines. Electrical

Engineering, vol. 79 (1996), pp. 39-46.

[6] Chung, P. Y., Dölen, M., Lorenz, R. D.: Parameter

Identification for Induction Machines by Continuous

Genetic Algorithms. ANNIE 2000 Conference, St. Louis,

November 2000.

[7] Huang, K., S., Wu, Q., H.: Effective Identification of

Induction Motor Parameters Based on Fewer

Measurements. IEEE Transaction on Energy Conversion,

vol. 17, no. 1, March 2002, pp. 55-60.

THE AUTHORS

Marián Jančovič (Ing) was born in Piešťany, in 1976.

He graduated from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering

and Information Technology, Slovak University of

Technology (FEI STU), Bratislava, in 2001. Since 2001

he has been a PhD student in the Department of Control

and Automation FEI STU. His research interests include

neural networks, genetic algorithms and the control of

electrical drive.

Milan Žalman (Prof, Ing, CSc) was born in Necpaly, in

1945, graduated from the Faculty of Electrical

Engineering of the Slovak University of Technology,

Bratislava, in 1968. At the same university he received

his CSc (PhD), in 1981. Since 1987, appointed Associate

Professor, and from 1999 as a Full Professor, is at the

Department of Control and Automation FEI STU

Bratislava. His research and teaching interests include

the control of electrical drive and motion control

systems.

Jan Jovankovič (Ing, PhD) was born in 1973 in Novi

Sad, Yugoslavia. He received the M.SC and Ph.D.

degrees from Technical University of Bratislava, Slovak

Republic, in 1997 and 2003 respectively. He is author

and co-author of more than 40 journal and conference

papers. His main research interests include modelling,

control and identification of electrical drives using

artificial intelligence.

- Optimization Model Formulation
- MINLP
- 2014- Firefly Algorithm a Brief Review of the Expanding Literature
- method of reducing resource fluctuations.pdf
- Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for Dynamic Economic Dispatch
- IJETAE_0314_07
- IUST-v21n2p97
- Complex Controller for Three-Phase Induction Motor Direct Torque Control.pdf
- 10.1.1.101.3905
- Determine the Optimal Order Quantities in Lot Sizing Models Regarding Minimum Order Quantity with Simulation
- Optimal load flow for electrical power systems
- Ecoli Protein Fermentation Optimization
- Consumer Behaviour and Optimal Advertising
- Arindam Seminar 11 (1)
- Optimal Location Facts
- IABSE IASS2011 Block Lachauer
- Bi Criteria in Constrained n x 3 Flow Shop to Minimize the Rental Cost, Setup Time, Processing Time
- How to use Solver in MS Excel
- CFD TUTORIAL – RIGID BODY MODELING - EDR
- 03 CGL Optimization of Transformer Tanks
- SLM-Unit-07-MB0048
- Quantitative Techniques for Business Decisions
- 04 GSM Frequency Optimisation OPT 3.0
- World-Oil
- EC Applications.pptx
- prbl
- Electrical Complete
- 03 GSM Adjacency Optimisation OPT 3.0
- ICRA11-0083
- 09 Quantitative Techniquesin Management

- Comparative study of Conventional and Traditional Controller for Two Equal Area interconnected power plant for Automatic Generation Control
- Emerging Trends of Ant Colony Optimization in Project Scheduling
- UT Dallas Syllabus for opre7330.001.07f taught by Milind Dawande (milind)
- tmp5DD5.tmp
- Weight Optimization of Composite Beams by Finite Element Method
- tmp5056.tmp
- Surveying, Planning and Scheduling For A Hill Road Work at Kalrayan Hills by Adopting ISS Method
- Determining the shortest path for Travelling Salesman Problem using Nearest Neighbor Algorithm
- UT Dallas Syllabus for opre7313.001.11s taught by Milind Dawande (milind)
- Multi-objective Optimization for Ultrasonic Drilling of GFRP Using Grey Relational Analysis
- The Optimizing Multiple Travelling Salesman Problem Using Genetic Algorithm
- Comparative Analysis of Optimization Algorithms Based on Hybrid Soft Computing Algorithm
- Analysis of CAS Using Improved PSO with Fuzzy Based System
- tmpBFF4
- Optimization of Water Distribution Network for Dharampeth Area
- Optimal Power Flow Analysis of Bus System using Practical Swarm Optimization
- Combined Economic and Emission Load Dispatch using PPF using PSO
- Classification of Lung Diseases Using Optimization Techniques
- A Review on Various Approach for Process Parameter Optimization of Burnishing Process and TAGUCHI Approach for Optimization
- Optimization Approach for Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem Using Genetic Algorithm
- Mathematics-III
- UT Dallas Syllabus for math6321.521 06u taught by Janos Turi (turi)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for eco5302.501.07f taught by Chetan Dave (cxd053000)
- Planning of Supply when lead time uncertain
- tmpA166.tmp
- A Review on Image Segmentation using Clustering and Swarm Optimization Techniques
- tmp82D3.tmp
- Optimization of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger
- Quantitative Management for Analysis
- Recent Advancements in Scheduling Algorithms in Cloud Computing Environment

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading