1 views

Uploaded by Ángel Encalada

© All Rights Reserved

- 2. Introduction to Multiobjective Optimization, Interactive Approaches
- 2001 American Control Conference
- 06061.DebKalyanmoy.Slides1
- calculation of portal frame deflection
- Or Note Farhan Idzni
- 271
- NC. 1. ETSNT 2009 - A Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms
- 1-s2.0-S1568494610000773-main RUTEO.pdf
- 55_1
- Reduction Process of Weight for Folding Stroller byGoal Driven Optimization
- EE Mock Test-1 Modes of Heat Transfer 3 Ac Theory Module04 Dc theory module 5885
- D1,L9 Linear Programming.ppt
- ose0502003 (1)
- New Rich Text Document
- Bi-level Linear Programming Problem with Neutrosophic Numbers
- P3
- Optimization With Excel
- Power System With PSS
- Greef_2010
- Simulated Binary Crossover for.pdf

You are on page 1of 10

Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Induction Motor operating in transient regime using a

HamiltoneJacobieBellman equation

Imen Kortas*, Anis Sakly, Mohamed Faouzi Mimouni

Research Unit of Industrial Systems Study and Renewable Energy (ESIER), National Engineering School of Monastir (ENIM), Ibn El Jazzar, Skaness, 5019,

Monastir, University of Monastir, Tunisia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The problem of energy optimization of a DSIM (Double Stator Induction Motor) using the concept of a

Received 4 February 2015 RFOC (Rotor Field Oriented Control) can be treated by an OCS (Optimal Control Strategy). Using OCS, a

Received in revised form cost-to-go function can be minimized and subjected to the motor dynamic equations and boundary

22 June 2015

constraints in order to ﬁnd rotor ﬂux optimal trajectories. This cost-to go function consists of a linear

Accepted 10 July 2015

Available online 6 August 2015

combination of magnetic power, copper loss, and mechanical power. The dynamic equations are rep-

resented by using a reduced Blondel Park model of the DSIM. From the HJB (HamiltoneJacobieBellman)

equation, a system of nonlinear differential equations is obtained, and analytical solutions of these

Keywords:

Double Star Induction Machine

equations are achieved so as to obtain a time-varying expression of a minimum-energy rotor ﬂux. This

Rotor Field Oriented Control analytical solution of rotor ﬂux achieved maximum DSIM's efﬁciency and was implemented in the

HamiltoneJacobieBellman ORFOC (optimal rotor ﬂux oriented control) and compared to the conventional RFOC at different dynamic

Optimal control regime of the DSIM. Simulation results are given and improved the effectiveness of the proposed

Energy minimization strategy.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

achieve performance, a strategy of optimizing energy of the DSIM

Some of the largest opportunities to save energy and reduce in transitory regime using calculus of variation theory is developed.

operating costs in buildings and industrial facilities come from An integral function is considered and decomposed into a weighted

optimizing electric motor systems. In general, the most part of sum of power-energy of the DSIM for a given time interval. This

electricity assumed ﬂows through motors mainly induction motors function called the cost function will be constrained to boundaries

[13]. The DSIM (Double Stator Induction Motor) is the dominant conditions and to rotor ﬂux and motor speed dynamical equations

technology used today due to its high performance, its high reli- which are developed from the DSIM transient model in a turning

ability, and its speed and torque capabilities. In many electrical (d,q) reference frame [1]. However, the variational calculation leads

drive applications, the Double Star Induction Motor does not to solving a nonlinear differential equation which depends explic-

operate at the nominal point since the desired torque may change itly on the boundary conditions.

according to position or velocity. It is then interesting to consider In this context; Lorenz et al. [2,3] have opted for an operating

other ﬂux operation modes in order to optimize the system per- loss modeled by copper and core losses. In order to compute the

formance, particularly when the task is to reduce the DSIM energy minimal loss ﬂux trajectory, they developed an optimal control

consumption under transient modes. In the industrial applications, strategy using a dynamic programming technique. C. Canudas de

many electrical drives operate with a rapidly-varying load torque Wit et al. [4,5] considered a convex energy cost function including

[15]. The transient regime is explained by nonlinear models that the stored magnetic energy and coil losses. They developed a

nonlinear EulereLagrange equation from which an optimal ﬂux

norm trajectory can be derived. The obtained equation was un-

* Corresponding author.

solvable for an arbitrary torque. They proposed a suboptimal

E-mail addresses: kortas.imen@yahoo.fr (I. Kortas), sakly_anis@yahoo.fr analytical solution aligned with a constant torque operation. In Ref.

(A. Sakly), Mfaouzi.mimouni@enim.rnu.tn (M.F. Mimouni). [6], the authors present the solution of the nonlinear optimal

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.07.035

0360-5442/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

56 I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64

control problem of threeephase IM (induction motor). A third or- objective optimization has been utilized distinctly with each

der nonlinear model described in arbitrary rotating frame of in- objective function, nonetheless of other objectives. Throughout the

duction motor is used in this paper along with a quadratic last setting, input power, coefﬁcient of performance and ecological

performance index. The problem is solved using the quasilinera- function objectives are optimized concurrently employing a non-

ization approach which converts the nonlinear optimal control dominated sorting GA (genetic algorithm) named the non-

problem into sequence linear quadratic optimal control problems. dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). As in multi-

In Ref. [7], a new minimum-time minimum-loss speed control al- objective optimization, an assortment of optimum results named

gorithm for induction motors is suggested to obtain high perfor- the Pareto optimum frontiers are gained rather than a single ulti-

mance, as well as high efﬁciency, under ﬁeld-oriented control with mate optimum result gained via conventional single-objective

practical constraints on voltage and current. This algorithm utilizes optimization. Thus, a process of decision making has been uti-

a two-stage control. In the transient stage, a maximum torque lized for choosing an ultimate optimum result.

control algorithm is utilized to get the minimum-time response. In In Ref. [18], an optimization investigations of an irreversible

the steady state, a minimum-loss control algorithm is applied to absorption heat pump system on the basis of a new thermo-

improve the efﬁciency. Simulation studies show the performance of ecological criterion is developed. The objective functions which

the proposed minimum-time minimum-loss control algorithm considered are the speciﬁc heating load, COP (coefﬁcient of per-

under ﬁeld-oriented control. formance) and the ECOP (ecological coefﬁcient of performance).

S. M. Yang and F.C. Lin [8] propose a scheme that uses power Three objective functions of the ECOP, COP and the speciﬁc heating

factor control with automatic measurement of the minimum-loss load are optimized simultaneously using the multi-objective opti-

power factor commands. A fuzzy logic compensator is included in mization algorithm NSGAII. COP and ECOP are maximized and

the controller to improve the accuracy of the generated commands. speciﬁc heating load is minimized in order to get the best perfor-

The scheme is simple for implementation and does not require an a mance. Decision making is done by means of three methods of

priori knowledge of motor parameters. Experimental results have LINAMP and TOPSIS and FUZZY. Finally, sensitivity analysis and

validated the effectiveness of this scheme to minimize the motor error analysis was performed for the system.

operating losses. A design of an adaptive nonlinear control system S. Hoseyn et al. [19] present an optimal design of a solar-driven

for high performance induction motors is developed in Ref. [9]. The heat engine Based on thermal and ecological criteria. In the present

proposed control system is of the explicit model reference type. It investigation, thermodynamic analysis and an EA (evolutionary

consists of a nonlinear controller (inner loop) that controls the rotor algorithm) were employed to optimize the dimensionless ecolog-

speed, an adaptation mechanism (outer loop) that involves a ical function, thermal efﬁciency, and dimensionless power of a

maximum likelihood estimator, communicating with a feedback solar-driven engine system. Four scenarios were conducted for

control law that uses the results of the adaptation mechanism to optimization of the solar heat engine. In the ﬁrst three, a traditional

redesign the inner loop controller online. The advantage of syn- single objective optimization was employed separately with each

thesizing this type of controller lies in the fact that the desired objective function, regardless of other objectives. In the fourth

trajectory of the rotor speed is determined from the output of the scenario, efﬁciency and power objectives were optimized simul-

reference model, while the control trajectories that lead to that taneously using a nondominated sorting GA (genetic algorithm)

behavior are computed through the developed state feedback called the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). As in

control law. The control system is simulated under a situation multiobjective optimization, a set of optimal solutions called the

where some of the parameters vary in the presence of noise. It is Pareto optimal frontier was obtained instead of a single ﬁnal

shown that the adaptive controller keeps the performance of the optimal solution obtained in traditional single-objective optimi-

drive system close to the desired performance even in the presence zation. Therefore, a process of decision making was employed for

of uncertainty. The effect of measurement noise is also taken into selecting a ﬁnal optimal solution. Three decision-making pro-

consideration to show that the controller is feasible for practical cedures were applied to ﬁnd optimized solutions from the Pareto

situations. optimal solutions in the objectives' space. The results obtained

M. H. Ahmadi et al. [16] present a developed ecological function from four optimization scenarios were compared and discussed

for absorption refrigerators with four-temperature-level. Moreover, using a deviation index introduced in this paper. It was shown that

aforementioned absorption refrigerator is optimized by imple- the optimal results obtained in single-objective optimization with

menting ecological function. With the aim of the ﬁrst and second an ecological objective are very close to the corresponding results

laws of thermodynamics, an equivalent system is initially deter- obtained in the multiobjective optimization, in that the power and

mined. To reach the addressed goal of this research, three objective thermal efﬁciency are optimized simultaneously.

functions that the COP (coefﬁcient of performance), the ecological In this paper, minimum energy control will be solved by an

function and thermoeconomic criterion have been involved in alternative approach called the HJB (Hamilton-Jacobi Bellman), in

optimization process simultaneously. Three objective functions are which the optimal control is not interested in the speciﬁc initial

maximized at the same time. Developed MOEAs (multi objective states, but in any unspeciﬁed initial conditions. In fact, the cost

evolutionary approaches) on the basis of Non-dominated Sorting function subject to the criterion index is transformed into a cost-to-

Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) method are implemented throughout go function. By imposing a transient mode to the DSIM drive, the

this work. nonlinear HJB equation was successfully solved in an analytical

In Ref. [17], authors propose an ecological and thermal ap- form and offered a time-varying expression of minimum energy

proaches for the Ericsson cryogenic refrigerator. Three objective rotor ﬂux. This analytical solution was implemented in an optimal

functions (input power, coefﬁcient of performance and ecological RFOC (Rotor Field Oriented Control) in which both a deadbeat rotor

objective function) are gained for the suggested system. ﬂux controller and a saturation model are introduced.

Throughout the current research, an EA (evolutionary algorithm) This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is mainly intended

and thermodynamic analysis are employed to specify optimum to describe the full DSIM model. Section 3 is devoted to present the

values of the input power, coefﬁcient of performance and ecological reduced model. In the fourth section the energy model of the DSIM

objective function of an Ericsson cryogenic refrigerator system. is explained. In Section 5, the optimal control strategy is presented

Four setups are assessed for optimization of the Ericsson cryogenic in details by the energy-power cost function, the presentation of

refrigerator. Throughout the three scenarios, a conventional single- the optimal control problem, the mechanical system operation (the

I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64 57

> 4_ _ rðd;qÞ þ bU

¼ ðaI þ rJÞ4

toneJacobieBellman equation and its resolution and ﬁnally the < rðd;qÞ

cUt J4rðd;qÞ (3)

RFOC scheme. Section six deals with the simulation results by >

:U _ ¼ Kl þ

comparing the optimized RFOC with the conventional one. Jm Jm

2.3. Energy model of DSIM

2.1. Full-order dynamic model of DSIM

The instantaneous active power in the (deq) rotating frame is

By selecting the stator current, the rotor ﬂux vectors and the given by:

motor speed as state variables, the complete DSIM dynamic model t

in the synchronous Park reference frame is given as [10]: Pa ¼ 3 2 Vsðd;qÞ Isðd;qÞ

=

(4)

8 From the system (1), the input power is given by:

>

>

> I_sðd;qÞ ¼ ðgI þ ðr_ þ pUÞJÞIsðd;qÞ

>

> t

<

4_ rðd;qÞ ¼ ðaI þ rJÞ4

_ rðd;qÞ þ bI Pa ¼ 3 2 s1 Ls þ s2 Lsp : I_sðd;qÞ

=

Isðd;qÞ

(1)

>

>

> t t

>

>

:U _ ¼ Kl þ Y

Jm Jm þ g: I_sðd;qÞ Isðd;qÞ 2ha 4rðd;qÞ Isðd;qÞ

t

where: þ hpU 4rðd;qÞ JIsðd;qÞ

(5)

Is1d þ Is2d Isd Vsd1 þ Vsd2

Isðd;qÞ ¼ ¼ ; Vsðd;qÞ ¼

Is1q þ Is2q Isq Vsq1 þ Vsq2 The relation between the stator and rotor current can be given

as follows:

Vsd 4rd

¼ ; 4rðd;qÞ ¼

1

;

Vsq 4rq

Irðd;qÞ ¼ 4rðd;qÞ Ls Isðd;qÞ (6)

Lr

2

M2 M The instantaneous active power becomes then:

s1 ¼ 1 ; s2 ¼ 1 ;g

L r Ls Lr Lsp

! t

Pa ¼ 3 2 s1 Ls þ s2 Lsp : I_sðd;qÞ

=

Isðd;qÞ

1 M2

¼ Rs þ 2 Rr ;

s1 Ls þ s2 Lsp Lr 1 t t

þ : 4_ rðd;qÞ 4rðd;qÞ 3 2 Rs I_sðd;qÞ

=

Isðd;qÞ

Lr

t

1 0 0 1 Rr

I¼

0 1

;J ¼

1 0

; a ¼ ; b ¼ aM; þ Rr I_rðd;qÞ Irðd;qÞ þ UY (7)

Lr

By noting us ¼ r_ is the sleep frequency, Rs and Rr are stator and Finally, the instantaneous active power is given as:

rotor resistances, Ls and Lr are stator and rotor inductances; M is

v

the magnetizing inductance, Lsp is the principal cyclic inductance. Pa ¼ W þ PJ þ Pm (8)

Jm is the total moment of inertia of the rotor, Kl is the load torque vt

constant. Isd1 , Isd2 , Isq1 and Isq2 are respectively the direct and By means of a ﬁeld-oriented control drive, we deﬁne from

quadrature current of stator 1 and stator 2. Vsd1 ; Vsd2 ; Vsq1 ; Vsq2 Equation (7):

are respectively, the stator voltages in d-q axis of each stator, p is the derivate of stored magnetic given as follows:

the poles number, Y is the electromagnetic torque.

2.2. Reduced model of the DSIM v s1 Ls þ s2 Lsp 2 1 2

W ¼ 32 =

: u1 þ u22 þ 4r (9)

vt 2 2Lr

In order to eliminate the nonlinear terms in the DSIM dynamic

model and allow an easy resolution of a possible optimal control

problem, the system can be forced into a current-command mode

the Joule losses:

using high-gain feedback. Furthermore, the reduced order current-

fed DSIM model can be simpliﬁed by restraining the Proportional -

Integral (PI) to a sample proportional gain [4], as follows:

t t

s1 Ls þ s2 Lsp PJ ¼ 3 2=

Rs I_sðd;qÞ Isðd;qÞ þ Rr I_rðd;qÞ Irðd;qÞ

Vsðd;qÞ ¼ (2)

ε

(10)

with By using the ﬁrst equation of system (1) and Equation (10), the

Joule losses can be expressed with respect to U and 4r as follows:

u1 Is1d þ Is2d

U¼ ¼

u2 Is1q þ Is2q 2 ! !

M 3R 3 d42r

2 2 r 2

PJ ¼ 32

=

Rs þ Rr : u1 þ u2 4

which 0 < ε < 1 and U is a new command of the system. Lr 2 L2r r 2Lr dt

The standard reduced model form is obtained through singular

(11)

perturbation. It is given by the following system:

58 I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64

M

r1 ¼ 34

=

s1 Ls þ s2 Lsp 41 þ 2 Rs þ Rr

3 =

42 ;

Lr

Pm ¼ UY (12) r2 ¼ r1 þ r0 a3

In term of rotor variables and torque current ðIsq Þ, we get:

M a1 3 Rr 3M

Pm ¼ 3 2 =

4 Isq U (13) q1 ¼ 3 4 =

2 2 a2 þ a3 q0 ; q2 ¼

=

a

Lr r Lr Lr 2 Lr 4

In this paper, the mechanical process operations are restricted to

3. The optimal problem control the accelerate modes in order to limit the study to the transient

operation. Then the motor speed can be chosen as the following

3.1. Determination of the cost function expression:

U* ¼ c0 t þ c1 (19)

Cost function can be deﬁned as an integral of the index,

f ðIsd ; Isq ; 4r ; UÞ given as follows:

with c0 > 0.

ZT

J¼ f Isd ; Isq ; 4r ; U dt (14) 3.2. Determination of HamiltoneJacobieBellman equation

0

In order to increase the subsequent equations' readability, we

The index corresponds to the weighted sum:

denote x1 ¼ 4r and x2 ¼ U.

f Isd ; Isq ; 4r ; U ¼ b1 WL þ b2 PJ þ b3 Pm (15) The dynamic system and the cost function described in (17) and

(18) respectively become:

The weighting factors b1 , b2 and b3 are used to scale power-

energy combined convex criteria terms deﬁned above. Minimize

the cost function provides two important advantages: ﬁrst, mini- ZT

b2 2

mizing the corresponding magnetic energy stored, allowing thus Jr ¼ 4r ð0Þ 42r ðTÞ þ r1 u21 þ r2 u22 þ q1 x21 þ q2 4r u2 x2 dt

maximizing the power factor, the second being the minimization of Lr

0

losses in the winding thus increasing the machine efﬁciency.

(20)

Using equations (9), (11), (13) and (14), the cost function is given

as follows:

2 2 ! !3

1 M R

r

ZT 6 b1 s1 Ls þ s2 Lsp : u21 þ u22 þ : 42 þ b2 Rs þ Rr u21 þ u22 2 42r 7

6 2Lr r Lr Lr 7

J ¼ 32 = 6 7dt (16)

6 7

4 b2 d 2 M 5

0 4r þ b3 p 4r u2 U

Lr dt Lr

and

Z T

b d 2 b 8

with 2 ð4r Þ dt ¼ 2 ð42r ð0Þ 42r ðTÞÞ representing the

0 Lr dt Lr < x_1 ¼ ax1 þ bu1

>

boundary conditions of the rotor ﬂux in [0, T]. Kl cu2 x1 (21)

Considering the new control vector U ¼

u1

, the system

>

: x_2 ¼ x2 þ

u2 Jm Jm

described by (4) can be deﬁned as follows:

8 Therefore, the task is to ﬁnd an optimal cost-to-go function

< 4_ r ¼ a4r þ bu1

> VðT; x1 Þ that must necessarily satisfy the boundary condition

(17)

>

:U _ ¼ Kl U þ cu2 4r VðT; x1 Þ ¼ Kðx1 ðtÞÞ, with Kðx1 ðtÞÞ is deﬁned as the ﬁnal state pen-

Jm Jm alty term. In our case:

Using the new constraint given by (17) and the cost function

b2 2 b

given by (16), an optimal control problem can be presented as Kðx1 ðtÞÞ ¼ 4r ð0Þ 42r ðTÞ ¼ 2 x21 ð0Þ x21 ðTÞ (22)

follows: Find the optimal control variables ðu*1 Þ and ðu2 Þ that Lr Lr

transfers the dynamic system described in (17) from the initial The Optimality principle has shown that the optimal co-state

states: 4r ð0Þ ¼ 4r0 and U(0) to admissible ﬁnal states 4r ðTÞ and l* ðtÞ as deﬁned in the Hamiltonian-Jacobi [11] equation corre-

U(T) so that the cost function is minimized: sponds to the gradient of the optimal cost-to-go function given as

follows:

ZT

b2 2

Jr ¼ 4r ð0Þ 42r ðTÞ þ r1 u21 þ r2 u22 þ q1 42r þ q2 4r u2 U dt * vV T; x*1 ðtÞ

Lr l ðtÞ ¼ (23)

0 vx*1

(18) vV ðT;x* ðtÞÞ

where vx*1

1

is continuously differentiable with respect to x1 et

where the weighting factors r1 , r2 , q1 and q2 must be positives. x1 ¼ x*1 ðtÞ.

I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64 59

l1 ¼ r1 ; l2 ¼ r 1 A2 ; l3 ¼ q2 c0 A; l4 ¼ 2r1 AB; l5

corresponding suboptimal cost-to-go function

¼ q2 ðc0 B þ c1 AÞ; l6 ¼ q1 ; l7 ¼ r1 B2 ; l8 ¼ q2 c2 B

ZT

V t; x*1 ¼ Kðx1 ðtÞÞ þ LðxðtÞ; uðtÞ; t Þdt (24) The optimal control variable u*1 ðt; x1 Þ is obtained from

vHðt;x1 ; u1 Þ

t vu1 ¼ 0, and then we have:

u*1 ðt; x1 Þ ¼ (32)

2l1 vx1

ZT

b2 2

By replacing the Hamiltonian expression in (31), the equivalent

Vðt; x1 Þ ¼ x1 ð0Þ x21 ðTÞ þ r1 u21 þ r2 u22 þ q1 x21

Lr HJB equation becomes:

0

! !

þ q2 x1 u2 x2 dt (25) vV t; x*1 l2 l4

¼ min l1 u*1 þ þ l 2

3 t þ þ l 2

5 t þ l6 x1

vt u*1 x21 x21

according to the following differential equation: !

l7 vVðt; x1 Þ

þ þ l8 þ ðax1 þ u1 Þ

Vðt; x1 Þ Vðt; x1 Þ Vðt; x1 Þ vVðt; x1 Þ x21 vx1

¼ x1 þ ¼ lð ax1 þ bu1 Þ þ

dt dx1 dx1 vt

(33)

¼ Lðx1 ; u1 ; tÞ Substituting u*1 ðt; x1 Þ expression in (33), we deduce:

(26) !2 * !

hence, vV t; x*1 b2 vV t; x*1 * vV t; x1 l2 2

¼ 2 þ ax þ l3 t

vt 4l1 vx*1 1

vx*1 x21

vVðt; x1 Þ !

¼ lð ax1 þ bu1 Þ Lðx1 ; u1 ; tÞ ¼ Hðt; x1 ; u1 ; lÞ

vt l4 l

þ l5 t l6 x21 72 l8

This corresponds to the partial differential equation for the x21 x1

optimal cost-to-go function Vðt; x1 ðtÞÞ which we call the HJB (34)

equation [11,12].

The control problem is, then, expressed as follows: Find an op-

timum control variable u* ðt; x1 Þ which generates the corresponding

state variable x*1 ðtÞ, with the consideration of the following 3.3. Resolution of the HJB equation

condition:

c 2 ZT

*

V t; Fr ¼ min 2

Fr ð0Þ Fr ðTÞ þ r1 u21 þ r2 u22 þ q1 F2r 2 1

u*1 Lr V t; x*1 ¼ a1 ðtÞ x*1 þ a2 ðtÞ 2 þ a3 ðtÞ (35)

t x*1

þ q2 Fr u2 U vt These yields:

(27) vV t; x*1 2

¼ 2a1 ðtÞx*1 a2 ðtÞ 3 (36)

which transfer the initial state Fr ð0Þ ¼ Fr0 to an admissible ﬁnal vx*1 x* 1

state x1 ðTÞ ¼ Fr ðTÞ under the following constraint:

and

x_1 ¼ ax1 þ bu1 (28)

vV t; x*1 2 1

This determines directly the following HJB equation: ¼ a_ 1 ðtÞ x*1 þ a_ 2 ðtÞ 2 þ a_ 3 ðtÞ (37)

vt x*

vV t; F*r vVðt; Fr Þ 1

¼ min H t; F*r ; u*1 ; (29) Using the expressions of the partial derivatives given by (36)

vt u*1 vFr

and (37) into (34), we obtain the following equation:

then 0 12

* 2 1 b2 @ * 2 A

1 a_ 1 ðtÞ x1 þ a_ 2 ðtÞ 2 þ a_ 3 ðtÞ ¼ 2a1 ðtÞx1 a2 ðtÞ 3

Hðt; x1 ; u1 Þ ¼ r1 u21 þ r1 ðAt þ BÞ2 þ q1 x21 x*1 4l1 x*1

x2 0 1

vVðt; x1 Þ 2

þ q2 ðAt þ BÞðc0 t þ c1 Þ þ ðax1 þ u1 Þ þ ax*1 @2a1 ðtÞx*1 a2 ðtÞ 3 A

vx1

x*1

(30) ! !

l2 2 l4

þ l t þ l

with A ¼ kl :cc0 , and B ¼ Jcm ðc0 þ kl c1 Þ x21

3

x21

5

l7

! ! t l6 x21 l8

x21

l2 l4 l

Hðt; x1 ; u1 Þ ¼ l1 u21 þ þ l3 t 2 þ þ l5 t þ l6 x21 þ 72 (38)

x21 x21 x1

To satisfy the relation (38) for any x1 > 0 we must solve the

vVðt; x1 Þ

þ l8 þ ðax1 þ u1 Þ following sets of equations:

vx1

(31) b2 2

a_ 1 ðtÞ a ðtÞ 2aa1 ðtÞ þ l6 ¼ 0 (39)

With: 4l1 1

60 I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64

b2 0sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 1

a_ 2 ðtÞ þ 2aa2 ðtÞ þ 2a1 ðtÞa2 ðtÞ þ l2 t 2 þ l4 t þ l7 ¼ 0 (40) 1 al1 @ l 6 b2

l1 a1 ðtÞ ¼ ! þ 2 1þ 1A

0 1" b l1 a2

t#

2b2 a1p

b2

2aþ l1

2

a_ 3 ðtÞ þ l3 t þ l5 t þ l8 ¼ 0 (41) @ l1

A 1e

2b2 a 1p

2aþ l1

(52)

b2 1 2b2 a1 ðtÞa2 ðtÞ

a22 ðtÞ 6 þ ¼0 (42)

l1 x1 l1 x21 Now consider the second Equation (40):

b2

a_ 2 ðtÞ þ 2a þ 2a1 ðtÞ a2 ðtÞ þ l2 t 2 þ l4 t þ l7 ¼ 0 (53)

l1

a_ 3 ðtÞ ¼ l3 t 2 þ l5 t þ l8 (43)

we pose

These yields:

b2

t3 t2 AðtÞ ¼ 2a þ 2a1 ðtÞ ; BðtÞ ¼ l2 t 2 þ l4 t þ l7 (54)

a3 ¼ l3 þ l5 þ l8 t (44) l1

3 2

Then, Equation (54) became:

From the ﬁrst Equation (39) and for all x1 > 0, a ﬁrst order dif-

ferential equation can be deﬁned as follows:

a_ 2 ðtÞ þ AðtÞa2 ðtÞ þ BðtÞ ¼ 0 (55)

b2 2 This is a ﬁrst order differential equation with second member

a_ 1 ðtÞ a ðtÞ 2aa1 ðtÞ þ l6 ¼ 0 (45)

4l1 1 with non-constant coefﬁcients.

The solution to Equation (56) gives the following expression of

This type of equation is called in the literature the Riccati

a2 ðtÞ:

equation. The integration of a Riccati differential equation requires

the knowledge of a particular solution a1p of this equation. It is

determined from the following equation: l4 t 2

a2 ðtÞ ¼ þ l7 t þ C1 (56)

2

b2 2 with C1 is the constant of integration deﬁned from initial

a ðtÞ 2aa1p ðtÞ þ l6 ¼ 0 (46)

4l1 1p conditions.

vVðt;x*1 Þ

Then we ﬁnd: Using (52) and (56), the expression x*1

in Equation (37)

becomes:

0sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 1

al1 @ l6 b2 0 1

a1p ¼ 2 1þ 1A

(47) vV t; x*1 1 al 1

b l1 a2 ¼ 2@ 2 t

þ 2 1

1 Ax*1 ðtÞ

x*1 bl1b 1 e =b b 2ab

Using the following substitution: zðtÞ ¼ a1 ðtÞ a1p ðtÞ, we get

the following differential equation: 2l2 t 3 1

þ þ l4 t 2 þ 2l7 t þ C1 (57)

3 x*3

1 ðtÞ

0 b2 2

zðtÞ þ a1p ðtÞ zðtÞ þ a1p 2a zðtÞ þ a1p þ l6 ¼ 0 Finally, from the expression of the optimal control given in (32),

4l1 is expressed by Equation (58):

(48)

0 1

Moreover, we have: b @ 1 al1 1

u*1 ðtÞ ¼ þ 2 1 Ax*1 ðtÞ

l1 b2 b 1 et=b b 2ab

l1

b2 b2 3

_

zðtÞ a1p þ 2a zðtÞ ¼ ðzðtÞÞ2 (49)

2l1 4l1 b l2 t l t2 1

þ 4 þ l7 t þ C1 (58)

l1 3 2 x*3

1 ðtÞ

This simpliﬁcation leads to the Bernoulli equation (a ¼ 2).

The solution to Equation (50) gives the following expression of 2b2 a

with b ¼ 2a þ l1 1p

zðtÞ:

Using the dynamic equation of the ﬂux, and replacing the

command u*1 in (58), we obtain a nonlinear ﬁrst order differential

1

zðtÞ ¼ ! (50) equation of rotor ﬂux:

0 1"

t#

2b2 a1p

b2

2aþ l1 0 1

@ l1

A 1e

b 1A * b2 l2 t 3 l4 t 2 1

x_*1 ðtÞ¼ @

2b2 a

2aþ l 1p t=

þ x 1 ðtÞ þ þl7 t þC 1 *3 ðtÞ

1

1e b 2b l 1 3 2 x 1

Finally, the solution a1 ðtÞ is described by the following equation:

(59)

a1 ðtÞ ¼ zðtÞ þ a10 ðtÞ (51) Substitute sðtÞ for x*1 ðtÞ

as follows: sðtÞ¼ðx*1 ðtÞÞ3 .

By introducing this new variable sðtÞ in the Equation (59), a ﬁrst-

whether order differential equation is obtained:

I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64 61

0 1 150

b 1 A b2 l2 t 3 l4 t 2

_ ¼ sðtÞ@

sðtÞ t

þ þ þ l7 t þ C 1

1 e =b 2b l1 3 2 reference rotor speed

(60)

where: sðt0 Þ ¼ ðx*1 ðt0 ÞÞ3

et sðTÞ ¼ ðx*1 ðTÞÞ3 100

The solution pðtÞ of the equation is given as follows:

0 1

Zt

1 b

@ t

þ Adt Z t

1 e =b 2b b2 l2 t 3 l t2 50

pðtÞ ¼ e 0 þ 4

l1 3 2

0

0 1

Zt

1b

@ t

þ Adt

1 e =b 2b

þ l7 t þ C1 e0 dt 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The ﬁnal solution of the Equation (61) is expressed as follows:

2 3

2b2 þ 1 l t 3 l t 2

4b2

6

6

2

þ 4 þ l7 t þ C1 2

2 l2 t þ l4 t þ l7 7

7

2b 3 2

b2 b

2

log 1t 1 6

6

2

2b þ 1 7

7

pðtÞ ¼ e

=

eb 6 7 (62)

l1 6 7

6 8b3

32b 4

l 7

6 2 7

4 3 ð2l2 t þ l4 Þ 4 5

2 2

2b þ 1 2b þ 1

4. Simulation results

Then we determine an analytical solution of the rotor ﬂux which

minimizes energy consumption of the DSIM as follows: The Double Star Induction Machine models with conventional

and optimal RFOC were numerically simulated. The conventional

vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

2 33ﬃ

u2

u 2b 2

þ 1 3

u6 l2 t l t 2

4b 2

u6 6 6 þ 4 þ l7 t þ C1 2

2 l2 t þ l4 t þ l7 77

77

u6 6 2b 3 2 77

u 6 b 2

log 1

1 6 2b 2

þ 1 77

u b

4 2 t

F*r ðtÞ ¼ u6 6 77

=

e eb (63)

u6 l1 6 77

u66

6

6 8b 3

32b 4

l 77

77

u4 4 3 ð2l t þ l Þ

2

4 55

t 2 4

2 2

2b þ 1 2b þ 1

From a transient rotor speed reference showed in Fig. 1, a these two control laws, a saturation model with respect to the rotor

comparative study in both of conventional and optimal regimes ﬂux was taken into account.

was performed. Fig. 2 illustrate the time-varying curve of the The reference variations and estimated motor speed (Fig. 4),

minimum-energy rotor ﬂux. the dynamically optimized ﬂux trajectory as well as the con-

The proposed control scheme was studied by simulation as stant value-rated ﬂux with its estimated one (Fig. 5), quadrature

shown in Fig. 3. A time-varying ﬂux is predicted by using the and the direct stator current (Figs. 6 and 7), energy consump-

expression in Equation (63) with respect to the motor speed tion of the (Fig. 8) obtained from both of the proposed ORFOC

reference injected in the input of the deadbeat rotor ﬂux (optimal rotor ﬂux oriented control) and the RFOC are all

controller. presented.

62 I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64

0.35

optimal rtor flux 140

0.3

120

0.25

100

0.2

80

phir P

O

0.15

60 estimated rotor speed

0.1 40

0.05 20

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

time(s) time(s)

Fig. 2. Optimal rotor ﬂux. Fig. 4. Reference and estimated rotor speed.

In order to be restricted to the transient operation, only the Fig. 8 indicates that major energy-loss savings with dynami-

acceleration (from t ¼ 0 s to t ¼ 1 s) and permanent (from t ¼ 1 s to cally optimized rotor ﬂux trajectories. It is obvious to observe

t ¼ 2 s) modes were taken into account in the motor speed proﬁle, that the RFOC taking into account the magnetic effect and

as shown in Fig. 4. operating with optimal ﬂux leads to the best DSIM energy con-

Fig. 5 present the minimum energy ﬂux trajectory correspond- sumption decreasing. This decrease is more considerable for

ing to the motor speed proﬁle, all the unknown boundary condi- smalls loads.

tions and parameters shown in the optimal rotor ﬂux expression in Energy saving of the optimum rotor ﬂux trajectories is demon-

Equation (63) were determined. strated by the following comparison with the constant value-rated

In Fig. 6 the ﬂux current remains constant during motor ﬂux trajectory summed up in Table 1.

speed increase. We see that the ﬂux current delivered by the

ORFOC registers a signiﬁcant decrease compared to the one

5. Conclusion

delivered by the conventional RFOC. This means that the pre-

sented method saves energy. Fig. 7 prove that the torque current

This paper presents an optimal control strategy using energy

have the same evolution compared to the electromagnetic

minimization. The criterion used in this optimal control is

torque.

subjected to dynamic equations of a DSIM reduced-order model.

Inverter Inverter

current+MLI current+MLI

(Stator1) (Stator2)

Speed

MADE

DC

AC

InversePark

InversePark

Trans

Trans

Estimeted

Flux control

18

I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64 63

0.35

a x 10

4

energy under optimal RFOC

0.25

reference rotor flux

1.8

estimated rotor flux

rotor flux (Wb)

0.2

1.6

0.15

energy (J)

0.1

1.4

0.05 1.2

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1

time(s)

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

time(s)

50

flux current under RFOC

b x 10

4

energy under RFOC

40 energy under optimal RFOC

4.2

35

4.1

30

Isd (A)

4

25

energy (J)

3.9

20

3.8

15

3.7

10

3.6

5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

time(s) 3.5

Fig. 6. Direct current evolution from both of the proposed ORFOC and the RFOC. 3.4

1.64 1.66 1.68 1.7 1.72 1.74

time(s)

Fig. 8. a: Energy consumption evolution from both of the proposed ORFOC and the

RFOC for large loads. b: Energy consumption evolution from both of the proposed

ORFOC and the RFOC for small loads.

50

torque current under RFOC

45 torque current under optimal RFOC

40 The rotor ﬂux and the motor speed are considered as state

variables. A closed-cycle mechanical process operation is pre-

35

sented by a transient and constant regime. Based on the optimal

30 control theory, this approach provides a cost function given as

weighted sum of a DSIM energy-power model. In order to

Isq (A)

task is to minimize this cost function constrained to a two dy-

20

namic equations of the rotor ﬂux and the motor speed. The

15 optimal control problem is then treated by the HJB equation and

a minimum energy rotor ﬂux solution is successfully deter-

10 mined in an analytical form. This time-varying solution is

implemented in an RFOC in which a deadbeat rotor ﬂux

5

controller and a saturated model with respect to the rotor ﬂux

0 are introduced.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

This optimal rotor ﬂux oriented control is compared to the one

time(s)

using the conventional RFOC. This comparative study proves that

Fig. 7. Quadrature current evolution from both of the proposed ORFOC and the RFOC. optimal control allowed much lower energy consumption and a

better efﬁciency than the conventional RFOC.

64 I. Kortas et al. / Energy 89 (2015) 55e64

Table 1

Compared energy consumption of 20 KW DSIM under rotor ﬂux oriented controls.

%D energy þ0.0067% 1.8% 1.46% 0.72% 1.1% 1.07%

Acknowledgments [2] Lorenz, RD., Yang SM. Efﬁciency-optimized ﬂux trajectories for closed cycle

operation of ﬁeld oriented induction machine drives, IEEE industry applica-

tion society Annual Meeting, 1988 Conference, vol. 1, 457e762.

Thank you to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their [3] Lorenz RD, Yang SM. AC induction servo sizing for motion control applications

detailed and helpful comments, which considerably clariﬁed and via loss minimizing real-time ﬂux control. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 1992;28.

strengthened the paper. I want to thank Mr. Mohammed Fawzi and [4] Canudas de Wit C, Ramirez J. Optimal torque control for current-feeded in-

duction motors. IEEE Trans Automat Control 1999;44.

Mr. Anis Mimouni Sakly for their patience, their availability, their [5] Didier G, de Wit CC, Ramirez J. Nonlinear H2 and H∞ optimal controllers for

advice and constant help throughout this work. current-fed induction motors. IEEE Trans Automat Control 1999;44.

[6] Jasem MKh, Jaddu HM. The optimal control of a three-phase induction motor.

In: Proceedings of the 25th IASTED conference, Lanzarote, Spain; 2006.

[7] Chang JH, Kim BK. Minimum-time minimum-loss speed control of induction

Appendix motors under ﬁeld-oriented control. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 1997;44.

[8] Yang SM, Lin FC. Loss-minimization control of vector-controlled induction

motor drives. J Chin Inst Eng 2003;26:37e45.

[9] Rubaai A, Uribina O, Kankam MD. Design of an adaptative nonlinear

controller-based optimal control theory for a voltage source induction motor

Simulation motor parameters. drive system, industry applications conference. In: Thirty-sixth IAS Annual

Meeting Conference Record of the IEEE, vol. 2; 2001. p. 1279e84.

Rated voltage V 220/230 V Stator self inductance Ls 81.2 mH [10] Chiasson J. Modelling and high-performance control of electric machines, IEEE

press series on power engineering. John Willey & Sons; 2005.

Current Rating IN 19 A Rotor Self Inductance Lr 8.9 mH

[11] Geering HP. Optimal control with engineering application. Springer-Verlog

frequency F 50 Hz Mutual Inductance 26.3 mH Berlin Heidelberg; 2007.

Stator-Rotor M [12] Locatelli A. Optimal control. Birkhauser Verlog; 2001.

rated torque Y 127 Nm Stator self leakage 0.78 mH [13] Buoro D, Pinamonti P, Reini M. Optimization of a distributed cogeneration

inductance ls system with solar district heating. Appl Energy 2014;124:298e308.

Number of pairs 2 Rotor self leakage 0.38 mH [15] Song Z, Hofmann H, Li J, Han X, Ouyang M. Optimization for a hybrid energy

of poles p inductance lr storage system in electric vehicles using dynamic programming approach.

Stator resistance Rs 0.4 Ohm Moment of inertia J 0.6 Kgm2 Appl Energy 2015;139:151e62.

Rotor resistance Rr 0.4 Ohm Viscosity coefﬁcient f 0.02 [16] Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mehrpooya M, Hosseinzade H, Feidt M. Thermo-

dynamic and thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of performance of

irreversible four-temperature-level absorption refrigeration. Energy Convers

Manag 2014;88:1051e9.

[17] Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of an

irreversible Ericsson cryogenic refrigerator cycle. Energy Convers Manag

2015;89:147e55.

References [18] Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mehrpooya M, Sameti M. Thermo-ecological anal-

ysis and optimization performance of an irreversible three-heat-source ab-

[1] Mimouni MF, Dhifaoui R. Modelling and simulation of double-star induction sorption heat pump. Energy Convers Manage 2015;90:175e83.

machine vector control using copper losses minimization and parameters [19] Sayyaadi H, Ahmadi MH, Dehghani S. Optimal design of a solar-driven heat

estimation. Int J Adapt Control Signal Process 2002;16:1e24. http://dx.doi.org/ engine based on thermal and ecological criteria. J Energy Eng 2014:04014012.

10.1002/acs.767.

- 2. Introduction to Multiobjective Optimization, Interactive ApproachesUploaded byGerardo Escobar Ayala
- 2001 American Control ConferenceUploaded byCamilo Andres Medina Gomez
- 06061.DebKalyanmoy.Slides1Uploaded byRaja Sekhar Batchu
- calculation of portal frame deflectionUploaded byKonstantinos Kalemis
- Or Note Farhan IdzniUploaded bySyafiq Ibnu Radzuan
- 271Uploaded bypouyarostam
- NC. 1. ETSNT 2009 - A Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary AlgorithmsUploaded byManish Khare
- 1-s2.0-S1568494610000773-main RUTEO.pdfUploaded byCESARPINEDA
- 55_1Uploaded byAhmed Sayed
- EE Mock Test-1 Modes of Heat Transfer 3 Ac Theory Module04 Dc theory module 5885Uploaded byAnonymous 8pCXXs
- D1,L9 Linear Programming.pptUploaded bymokhtarppg
- Bi-level Linear Programming Problem with Neutrosophic NumbersUploaded byMia Amalia
- Reduction Process of Weight for Folding Stroller byGoal Driven OptimizationUploaded byRaihan Kabir
- ose0502003 (1)Uploaded byMj
- P3Uploaded byNoman Rizwan
- Power System With PSSUploaded byFaiza Fofa
- New Rich Text DocumentUploaded bySriram Kumar
- Optimization With ExcelUploaded byathangarasu
- Greef_2010Uploaded byIbtissem Bencheikh El Hocine
- Simulated Binary Crossover for.pdfUploaded byHako Khechai
- OPTIMISATION OF THE GEOMETRY OF CLOSED ROTOR SLOTS FOR CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS.pdfUploaded byJuanRamos
- A Real-Time Solver For Time-Optimal Control of Omnidirectional Robots with Bounded Acceleration.pdfUploaded byTan Tien Nguyen
- Single Phase IM Design 1 (1998)Uploaded byaacusm
- 20170719-WorkshopAssessment-Scratch2017BDX1Uploaded byYudhi Kurnia
- predictivUploaded byCatalin Pirlog
- DowlingUploaded byGonKil
- BUENAZO 6.pdfUploaded byRafael Calle Napoleon Luis
- ScienceUploaded byEdson Marques
- 2013 Facts Electronic DetonatorsUploaded byAndre Gunawan
- Optimization With ExcelUploaded bymohsindalvi87

- Optimization vs TransparencyUploaded byÁngel Encalada
- paper_02Uploaded byÁngel Encalada
- Dev Reese 2017Uploaded byÁngel Encalada
- e25b0b587634778d8899299ce209c6e672f4Uploaded byÁngel Encalada
- US20160256153A1.pdfUploaded byÁngel Encalada
- 1890-Article Text-9569-2-10-20171219.pdfUploaded byÁngel Encalada
- 06909052.pdfUploaded byÁngel Encalada

- Integral TableUploaded byDimuthu Dharshana
- SOA Exam P SyllabusUploaded byMuneer Dhamani
- Trabajo_1.pdfUploaded bysebax1693
- 0 Unit 2016 Syllabus. Metodos numéricos. Syllabus del curso.SCILAB,EXCEL-VBAUploaded byHenry Lambis Miranda
- Golub FlyerUploaded bySaher
- tocom02Uploaded byavnika sogani
- Solution of the Transportation ModelUploaded byrahul
- analytical_methoddev_en.pptUploaded byYulis Adriana
- Mercer P_More Calculus for a Single VariableUploaded byWichi
- c94b792acd997f0e11ff87828fb1c3867692Uploaded bypm
- Lecture 13Uploaded byBenjamin Mullen
- TP5027 Lecture 8 - Optimization SolversUploaded byBragadesh Rajaraman
- The Finite Element Method With Lagrange MultipliersUploaded byAshish Zachariah
- JDN 1-15, Operation Assessment, 2015Uploaded byRichard J. Campbell https://twitter.com/
- Ch 1-Relations and FunctionsUploaded byAnshuman Singh
- ITK-234 Slide 1 - Intro-RaoultUploaded byIndah
- 1 Eutiquio C Young Partial Differential Equations an Introduction Allyn and Bacon 1972Uploaded byJefferson
- Hw 1 SolutionsUploaded byFakhar Abbas
- Rycroft, C., Psychoanalysis and the Occult (Review)Uploaded bymiguel_henriques1112
- Symmetry 414Uploaded byWajahat Ali Khan
- MAT 142 Course OutlineUploaded byThomas Edwards
- Fe Prob StatsUploaded byKazi Moinul Islam
- On the Limit Cycles for Lienard EquationUploaded byLuis Alberto Fuentes
- Lecture 04Uploaded bypraneix
- Floquet Theory BasicsUploaded byPraneeth Kumar
- 15_foodsci0311Uploaded byErica Sanchez
- MAS_CHM_08212017Uploaded bychubodr
- Mathcad EjerciciosUploaded byJulio César Hernandez
- Inequations Part 1Uploaded byarpitgarg1989
- ChaosUploaded bywladuzz