IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. EC-2, No.

3, September 1987 407

OPTIMIZATION OF THREE-PHASE INDUCTION MOTOR DESIGN
PART I: FORMULATION OF THE OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE

J. Appelbaum,* Senior Member, IEEE E.F. Fuchs, Senior Member, IEEE J.C. White, Fellow, IEEE
Dept. of Electrical Engineering Dept. of Electrical Engineering Electric Power Research Institute
University of Colorado University of Colorado Palo Alto, California 94303
Boulder, Colorado 80309 Boulder, Colorado 80309
* Was on Sabbatical from Tel Aviv University

Abstract - This two-part paper deals with the In general) two different optimization approaches
optimization of the induction motor designs with may be considered for the optimal design of the
respect to cost and efficiency. Most studies on the induction motor: "theoretical optimization" and
design of an induction motor using optimization "technical optimization". In the theoretical
techniques are concerned with the minimization of the optimization approach; the optimized design parameters
motor cost and describe the optimization techniqUe may receive any positive value that satisfies the
that was employed, giving the results of a single (or motor performance. In the technical optimization
several) optimal design(s). In the present paper, a approach, some of the design parameters are bounded by
more comprehensive study on the optimization of a dimensional limits that are dictated by the standards
three-phase induction motor design was performed. (e.g. frame size) and by the manufacturer's policy
This includes the relationship between motor cost, (based on the practice of motor design). Because of
efficiency, and power factor; the effect of the this basic difference in the optimization approach, the
properties of the electrical steel; and other effects optimal designed motors resulting from both approaches
as they occur in an optimal design. In addition, the are different in their design parameters) as well as
optimization procedure that was used in this paper' in their performance characteristics. It iS clear that
includes a design program, where some of the the theoretical optimization leads to a "better" design
secondary parameters (which are called here variable than the technical optimization, because in the first
constants), are modified according to the optimal approach, the degree of freedom of the design is
results, in contrast to other studies where these larger than in the second approach. In general, the
parameters remain constant for the entire results of the theoretical optimization may be viewed
optimization. In this part, a new mathematical as the best possible values obtainable for the given
formulation of the optimization problem of the set of parameters and problem definition, whereas the
induction motor is presented. optimal results of the technical optimization may only
approach the results of the theoretical optimization.
INTRODUCTION
The present study was performed on a
This study on the optimization of three-phase three-phase,
wihtefloigdt:10 deep-bar, squirrel-cage
p iov induction inotor
-once,6
inducion mtoresignconsits o two artswith the following data: 100 hp, 460 V, A-connected,6
pole, 60 Hz, design B, insulation class B, continuous
Part I - Formulation of the Optimization Technique; duty, totally enclosed and fan cooled. The
Part II - The Efficiency and Cost of an Optimal theoretical optimization approach was used to find the
Design. optimal design parameters of the motor.
The purpose of the project, which was supported by The optimization of the induction motor design is
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), uinder usually formulated as a general nonlinear programming
Contract No. 1944-1,. is the optimization of induction problem, as follows:
motors with respect to motor cost and efficiency.
Part I outlines the mathematical formulation of Find X = X1,X2,..Xn X x a O,
the induction motor design optimization problem, and such that
describes an optimization technique that was used in
the study. C(k1,t) is minimum (maximum), (1a)
Part II is concerned with the maximum motor
efficiency obtained by the optimization procedure. It subject to:
discusses motor efficiencies for different electrical
steels, and the additional cost for improving the
motor efficiency. Another part of this study deals
g i
(kl,x) < 0, is1,2,., (1b)
with the optimal design of the motor for different h.(k1,x) = 0, j1,2,..,s (1c)
cost functions (production cost, capitalized cost, and
annual cost), and the effect of efficiency and power where C(k1,x) gi(kl,x) and hj(k1,x) are real-valued
factor on the minimum motor cost. scalar functions; k1 is a set of -constant parameters;
and x are the n variables for which the optimization
is to be performed. The funotion C(k1,x) is called the
ttobjective function", for which the optimal values of x
result in the minimum (maximum) of C(k1 ,x). Usually,
the objective function may be identified with the
86 SM 4836-5 A parper recomnmended andl an)proved production cost, annual cost, capitalized cost,
by the IEE:E Rostating Mlachinery Commnittee of the efficiency, weight) etc. of the motor. The
IEEE Power Engineering .Society for presentation at performiance properties of the motor (given in
the IEEE/PES 1986 Sumlnmer MIeeting, Mexico City, standards), additional requirements, and dimensional
Mexico, July 20 - 25, 1906. MIanuscript submitted limits are referred to as "constraints", and can be of
February 3, 1984; made available for printing two types: inequality, eq. (1b), and equality, eq. (1c).
Mlay 28, 1t936,. The locked-rotor current, starting torque, temperature
rise, etc.,e are inequality constraints of the standard
Printed in the U .S . A. motor requirements, whereas the motor power rating is
an equality constraint. Any design x that satisfies

- 0885-8969/87/0900-0407$01 .00©r 1987 IEEE

408
eqs. (lb) and (1c) is called a feasible design, and the
region, generated by these constraints is called a
"feasible design region". The values of x in this
region comply with the design requirements, and among
these points is the optimal solution. In the case of
the induction motor, both the objective function and
the constraints are nonlinear and multivariable
functions.
The number of design parameters of an induction
motor is large. The designer may wish to find the
optimal values of a certain number of parameters,
while keeping the others constant. Usually, the
parameters to be parameters referred to as variables
optimized to beoptiized,rferredoasvaioptimized
are the principal ones (e.g., bore diameter, stack
arenthe principalremainin (e
ones ore d
ether stdack
length), and the remaining ones are the secondary
parameters, referred to as constants (e.g., slot-fill
facr,ab windi factor).
factor, winding
variables and factor.t
distinction between
The distincton
on btwee
the
tesi
constants depends the design method solves the constrained optimization problem
philosophy and the manufacturing constraints.mto
In general, the solution to an optimization
problem may be obtained analytically or numerically.
However, due to the complicated structure of most
engineering problems, numerical techniques are used.
With these techniques, the solution is obtained in an
iterative manner starting from an initial design, and
the improvement is achieved with successive iterations
until the optimal solution has converged to the
desired accuracy.
Generally speaking, the search techniques for
solving constrained optimization problems (eq. (1)) may
be classified into two categories:
1. search methods that solve the constrained
optimization problem directly;
2. search methods that first transform the
constrained optimization problem into an
unconstrained one, and then make use of any
unconstrained optimization method to achieve the
solution [1-7].
solution [1-7].
Each of the above methods may be further
classified into either interior or exterior search
methods, depending upon whether the search is
performed from the inside or outside of the feasible
region, respectively. Both the interior and exterior
methods have disadvantages. For example, the interior
method requires that the starting point and all other
points obtained from the intermediate calculations be
inside the feasible region, which requires additional
computations to enter back into the feasible region in
case of violation of the constraints. On the other
hand, the exterior method may lead to a design which
is not feasible.
New optimization algorithms have recently been
developed that solve the constrained optimization
problem directly [7]. This algorithm uses iterations
that minimize a quadratic approximation to the
Lagrangian function subject to linear approximations of
the constraints.
optinmrecentuyea hflecrilavnes
optimum design design
e
of electrical machines apoacd tner
as a general
programing roble as sated i eq. 1 ) The ethod
of optimization, known as geometric programming, was
originated and used in conjunction with transformers
by Zener, Duffin and Peterson [8]. The method
minimizes a generalized positive polynomial
(posinomnial) cost function, subject to generalized
positive polynomial inequality constraint functions.
The application of this method is limited by the
requirement that all functions involved in the problem
should be posinomials, which is, in general, not the
case for an electromagnetic device. Thus, in order to
use this method, there is a need for a special
formulation of the problem, and in many cases it means
an addition of constraints or slack variables [9].
Schinzinger [10] dealt with the optimization of a
transformer by different methods, including geometric
programming. Anderson [11] used a Monte Carlo
("Monica") random-search routine to optimize power
transformers and generators. Ramarathnam, et al.
[12,13], and Singh [144] used the Sequential
Unconstrained Minimization Technique (SUMT) by Fiacco
and McCormick [6] to optimize the design of an
induction motor. Menzies, et al. [15,16] used -an
optimization program based on- a 'least p-th
approximation method by Bandler et al. [17], for an
design of a large induction motor.
Appelbaum and Erlicki [18,19] developed a minimization
method based on searching the minimum along the
con baoundres, thatmasposiledunt the
constraint boundaries, that was possible due to the
posinomial form of the cost function [20]. This
directly.
ovstecntandotmzto rbe
The novel approach of the present study
leads to results that were neither obtained by other
optimization techniques, nor reported by others. These
include: functional dependencies between the motor
characteristics; a physical insight of the design
through plots of the motor characteristics in
different planes; variation of secondary parameter
values according to the values of the principal
parameters; and inclusion of functions of discrete
parameters (e.g. wire table) in the optimization
procedure.
THE METHOD OF BOUNDARY SEARCH ALONG ACTIVE CONSTRAINTS
The different studies of an induction motor that
are discussed in Part II were performed with the basic
optimization method of boundary search [21].
Modifications of this method will be described in the
following sections.
~~~~~~~The
objective functions are of the form,
p n Sim
C(x) = , (Ai fE xRJ), x 2 0, xeR, (2)
i=1 j=1
where C(x) is a real-valued scalar function of n
variables, and is the sum of p terms. The exponents
8ij are real numbers (positive or negative), and the
coefficients Ai are positive. This type of function is
called a "posinomial function", and has the property of
having a single minimum in n
the non-negative region of
the n dimensional space R , defined by the variables,
x1,x2,...,xn.
The optimization method of boundary-search is
based on the above property of the posinomial
objective function. If the optimum of the objective
function lies within the feasible region F, Fig. 1, the
optimum point satisfies the motor performance
characteristics, and can be located using any standard
unconstrained optimization technique (e.g. the simplex
method of Nelder and Mead [22], pattern search [23],
etc.). If th
rein the optimum
cosand of C(x)pobm wllthe feasible
is outside av a
region, the constrained problem will have a
order to find this optimum, C(x) is to be evaluated at
points on the boundary, and the best point can then be
chsn
In general, the minimization (maximization)
problem P, eq. ( 1), may be decomposed into a sequence
of suboptimization problems, Pm(Xm,Ym)' m=1,2,...,i-
The Ym is a set of real-valued coordination variables,
that consists of all the constant values of the
variables, except those variables Xm that are being
optimized in Pmx ym). Each suboptimization problem
 409

X2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~In
this Fig. 3,

C(k1,7m,C(k1
y ) p xI =
Ym

XGLOBAL MINIMUM OF C(XW

- \ ~BOUNDARY OFTH\\
\I(71 '7M yM= [gi(k1 'x)jYJI <, (4)

OF THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION h.(k1px,Y) = [hj(ki x)j ] = 0.

xi The coordinator is the set of coordination variables Y,
whose elements are the optimum values of the
Fig. 1 Global optimum in feasible region. suboptimization problem variables i.e.,
Y = { X1, m-1,2,...,Q},
X2 that is, Ym is a subset of Y, or Ym cZ Y. The
suboptimization problem Pm is a function of a small
BOUNDARY OF THE number of variables xm, and the coordination variables
Ym that
X LOCAL
/ L. . FEASIBLE REGION
constants. represent the remaining variables by
F MINIMU According to the decomposition procedure, the
coordinator assigns numerical constants to the (n-ql)
\ coordination variables Y1, as shown by the arrow
b\ b. leaving the coordinator, thus obtaining a
ql-dimensional problem P1(X,Y1), whose optimal
CONDITIONAL MINIMUM solution xi is then computed. The next
INCREASING VALUES I suboptimization problem is P2(x2,Y2), where the Y2
OF THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION coordination variables are updated using the recently
GLOBAL MINIMUM OF C(XI) computed optimum xl, as shown by the arrow entering
the coordinator. All other subproblems are optimized
xi |similarly.

Fig. 2 Global optimum outside of f easible region. An iteration of computation is said to be

completed when each of the Q subproblems has been
sequentially optimized. In the optimization of an
COORDINATOR individual subproblem, the optimum is bound to improve
with respect to the previous subproblem, and in the
yu(i*i*...i*)i*ERf worst case there will be no change, i.e.
717**
r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(i,1x2
:,L
M+- ym+ <
c
* m
x*
||ttxm| |Xm xil Y Computation is halted when an iteration is completed
SUBPRFOBLEMS with no improvement in cost from that of the previous
cycle,i.e.,
c (ki .iXlOY c (E,i,lry
gi~lg(k,,);12 ir;(i 1,i ,,t)il2 ,C(71 (t)(1X*(t+l))] <6

c C(Ii,imrpym)
(k i
hj.) S ,,j1,2;...S
where
. i,y 6 is a small positive number depending on the
desired accuracy,
-Xry) .required
and t is the number of iterations
for convergence to the optimum.
optimization process will result in a sequence of
The
positive values of the objective function C. This
hj(k1,xff.ym)j:JI.2;,S. sequence monotonically decreases (in the wider sense)
and is bounded from below; hence, it has a limit that
Fig. 3 equential :',composition of the optimization is the optimum solution.
algorithm.
The optimization algorithm is as follows:
is defined as follows; minimize (maximize) the
objective function C(xm,Ym) with respect to xm (1) Find the global optimum of the objective function
C(k1,x), xeR I using any unconstrained
xm: C(ki.xm,Ym). optimization technique;
subject to: -(2) Check whether or not all the constraints are
Xm FF(Ym),
- ~~~~~~~~~~satisfiedat
the global optimum;

qm (3) If 'all the constraints are satisfied at the global

where the vector xmER , i.e.,xm exists in the qm optimum, the desired (constrained) optimal
dimensional space psqm. The feasible design region solution of the problem (point a in Fig. 1 ) has
F(rm ) for the suboptimization problem is a subset of been obtained;
the entire feasible design region of P, that is defined
by the set of constraint equations, (1.b) and (1.c) (14) If at least one of the constraints is violated at
The decomposition is illuDstrated in Fig.-3. the global optimum then the constrained optimnum
410

solution lies on the boundary of the feasible X4 x

region (point b in Fig. 2);
(5) The problem P is decomposed into suboptimization | o.\
problems, eq. (4), with qm=2 i.e., suboptimization _g
proplems with two variables; g Xgn
xl x3 Xnl-
(6) The subproblem with the two variables of the
objective and constraint functions may have its ERATION
optimum solution either at point a or at point b
of Figs. 1 and 2,respectively. Repeat steps (1) to Fig. 5 Optimization method
(4) for, the suboptimization prQblem with two
variables and find the optimal point.
A NEW FORMULATION OF THE OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
The reason why qm=2 is chosen is that the searoh
can be performed along a boundary that generates the
feasible region on which the optimum solution lies. Optimization methods were developed for solving
This makes a graphical representation possible and the problem given by eq. (1) which contains variables
enhances the physical insight through plots of the (principal parameters) and constants (secondary
motor characteristics in different planes. It should parameters). In the course of optimization, the
be noted that, although the objective function has a secondary parameters remain constant and the optimal
single optimum,' the constrained problem may have values of the principal parameters depend on these
several local optima along the boundary. In order to constants. In practice, for the case of the induction
find the optimal point, the objective function must be motor (and probably in many other engineering
evaluated at points on the boundary of F in a problems), some secondary parameters remain constant
procedure as illustrated, for example, in Fig. 4. One during the optimization (e.g., line frequency, slot
iteration of the optimization algorithm is shown in openings) whereas other parameters (e.g., slot-fill
Fig. . factor, saturation factor) depend on the optimal
Let us assume that the starting point values of the principal parameters.
x5=(x15 ,x25) is outside the feasible region in the In general, if dependencies between problem
(x1,x2) plane. An unconstrained-optimization method is parameters exist, they could be expressed by
used to find *the global optimum-point xgl. This point additional constraint functions. But in many cases,
is outside the feasible region, and therefore, the these dependencies may be nonlinear functions, or
constrained optimal point lies on the boundary. Since given in graphs or tables (discrete values) so that an
the optimization method is based on a starting point elimination of variables, or a formulation of these
within the feasible region, this point xo is found by a additional constraint equations, is complicated,
method that is described in the Appendix. inaccurate, or even impossible. Let us call these
parameters: "variable constants". In this case, the
The search is then perf ormed along the The boundary.
sr itn e rd ooptimization* problem may be formulated by variables
to find the constrained optimal point x1. The - v c
x7). variable constants (kx). and constants (7),i
(o,i
optimization
optimiztion no enters the net
now enter plane
next planeX3,x (x3,x14
starting point for this plane is the optimal point of
.The
T contrast to variables and constants of a common
the preceding plane, and hence, it is always in the optimization problem. Therefore,
feasible region (including its boundary). The global Find x -
x 1,x2,...,xn, x '0,
optimal point, xg, for example, is found by
performing unconstrained optimization; this is also the such that
constrained optimal point in the (X3,X14) plane, because
all the constraints are satisfied at this point. It is C(k2,kx,x) is minimum (maximum), (5a)
not necessary in this case to search along the
boundary of the feasible region, and the optimization subject to:
enters the next plane. This procedure continues until
the optimal point xn is found in the (xnl1, xn) plane, gi(2,k,x) < 0, i=1,2,... ,p., (5b)
which completes one iteration. The next iteration
begins again with the (x1,x2 plane. The starting hj(k2,kx,x) - 0, j=1,2,*...,qp (5c)
point for this plane is the optimal point of the
preceding iteration, and is already in the feasible where eqs. (5) do not contain the additional
region. complicated constraints, but instead contain the
variable constants, kx. Numerical optimization
methods use iterative procedures; therefore, a
sequence of tentative optimal points is obtained
converging to the optim-al solution. Since the values
of the variable constants depend upon the values of
the optimal principal parameters, by updating these
values accordingly during the course of the
optimization, the final kx will correspond to the

, ~ ~~ § THE MODIFIED OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURE

~~~~~~~~The
' updating of the variable constants
corresponding to the intermediate optimal points is
performed -in a separate program, which is called the
- > ~~~~~~~design program". This program calculates all motor
xl ~~~parameters and performance characteristics for the
known optimal motor principal parameters. The design
Fig. ~4 Unidirectional ssearch. progran includes a wire table, where the number of
 411
parallel wires, parallel branches, and the wire gauge several functions (Part II). Functional
are determined. Since the number of turns and the relationships between the motor characteristics,
wire gauge are discrete values, the program takes into including the motor cost, were obtained for the
account the modification of the current and flux optimal designs. These include the relationships
densities. It also makes correction for the magnetic between the motor efficiency and its cost, the
flux densities in the stator and rotor teeth, in order motor efficiency and the power factor, the effect
to take into account the radial flux passing through of the properties of different steels on the
the slots. maximum efficiency, etc.
As mentioned before, the optimization algorithm
is based on interior points of the feasible region; (b) A new formulation of the optimization problem of
the induction motor design is presented. In this
therefore, any modification of the variable constants formulation, the secondary parameters are
by the design program may move the optimal point
outside the feasible region, as is illustrated in Figs. constants i2(eqs.
(5)), whereas other authors
treat all secondary parameters as constants
k1 (eqs. (1)). The introduction of the variable
X2 x
2 constant in the optimization problem takes into
account the dependence of some secondary
parameters on the principal parameters.
X* - X -- (c) The optimization technique that was used in the
present study solves directly the given
- - constrainted optimization problem without any

XI
| k, kxl
|K
xl x|
k, k2
xl
transformation; and enables a physical insight
into the design problem through possible plots of
the motor characteristics in the different planes
(a) (b) (Part II).
Fig. 6 Point outside the feasible region for k (d) Separation of the optimization procedure into two
x2 ~ programs: 1) the optimization program; and 2) the
design program that enables the inclusion of
functions with discrete parameters (e.g. wire
6a and b. In Fig. 6a, point a is based on the variable table) and the updating of the values of the
constants, kxl and is feasible, whereas, in Fig. 6b, variable constants according to optimal values of
for the variable constants kx2 this point is outside principal parameters.
the feasible region. Also, it is very likely that the
feasible regions for kxl and kx2 are different. For
these reasons, whenever the design program is called,
the procedure for entering back into the feasible
region might be required. OPTIMIZATION
Several possibilities exist for interfacing the x2
design program with the optimization algorithm. The
optimization of the problem usually results in a small (
feasible design region; therefore, using the design
program at the end of the optimization may lead to a xi
design that is not feasible, because the variable X OPTIMIZATION
constants kx at the starting point may be quite
different compared to those of the optimal point. PROGRAM FEASIBLE F
Gradually updating kx after each suboptimization will REGION
not change the values of the variable constants k
(X*
significantly, and entering back, if necessary, into
the feasible region becomes possible. In case the
violated constraint optimization proc-edure fails to °1t
enter back into the feasible region (which is still,
possible iFf a feasible region does not exist for the _
xOTMZIN
given set of variable constants), the variable l4IJ
constants are not updated, and the optimization is VIOLATED FEASIBL
carried on in the next plane with the previous values CONSTRAINTS
of the variable constants. The modified optimization
procedure is shown in Fig. 7 for the first two planes.
OPTIMI ZATION REGION J X X
As the optimization progresses, the changes in the ,E
principal parameter values decrease; therefore, the
changes in the variable constants also become small,
' OPTIMIZATION
and the solution converges to the optimal parameter is V FEASIBLE
values . >
The approach of the present study on the CONSTRAINTS
optimization of the three-phase induction motor design X
is different from the studies by other authors both by
the extent of the results (a), and its optimization kESIG
technique (b,c,d). PRGA| l
(a) Most studies were concerned with the minimization lk
of the motor cost, giving results of a single or
several optimal designs. The present study deals Fig. 7 Incorporation of the design program into the
with the optimal design for obtaining both optimization procedure for the first two
maximum motor efficiency, and the minimum cost of planes.
412

THE MOTOR OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS IN THE OPTIMAL DESIGN Capitalized Cost - C cap

Maximum Motor Efficiency -n

The capitalized cost-function is obtained by
-

Maximizing the motor efficiency is equivalent to converting the energy cost from an annual cost ($/kW
minimizing the motor losses, and since the motor year) to an investment cost ($/kW), which is added to
losses are the sum of the individual loss components, the production cost of the motor:
this sum is a posinomial function. The motor losses
consist of the stator and rotor, ohmic losses, core ccap = CM + Cinv (P0 + a Pcu + Co (10)
losses (including surface and pulsation losses in the
stator and rotor teeth), friction, windage, and stray where
losses. Hence, the objective function is:
cinv is the investment cost factor of losses in
1-n, = (po+Pcu)/P1 (6)
where, $/kW, and

n is motor efficiency; am is the motor load factor.

PO are no load losses; THE "ENERGY-EFFICIENT MOTOR" AND THE MOTOR MODEL LAW
Generally, the motor efficiency can be improved
PCU are ohmic losses; and by two distinct methods. One possibility is to follow
the avenue of the "energy-efficient motor" [24-27],
P1 is input power. where the improvement is basically achieved by the
addition of materials, and by using more expensive
technologies. The other possibility is by the
The production cost of the motor is the optimization- of the motor design with respect to
manufacturer's cost, and comprises the cost of active efficiency (eq. (6)) using optimization methods. The
and construction materials, including the fixed cost. difference between the two approaches is that in the
The active material includes the laminated core and first case the improvement is accomplished by changing
the current conduction materials of the stator and the an existing design, whereas in the second case, totally
rotor. The construction materials include the frame, new designs are derived.
end bells, shaft, etc. The cost of all the materials In the energy-efficient motor, the improvement in
include their processing cost. The fixed cost is efficiency is achieved by increasing the volume of the
independent of the motor design for a certain range of active materials (electrical steel and current
power ratings. Therefore, the equation for the conducting material), and by technological
production cost is: improvements (better electrical steel, larger copper
slot fill-factor, increased stator, and rotor slots,
C =CM + C Cf + CFe + CCU1 + Ccu2 + C0 ( etc.). If one seeks design laws for energy efficient
where motor's, the motor model law is probably the most

C M is the cost of processed materials; suitable, i.e. a linear increase of the main dimensions
of the active materials by a scale factor "a" results
in an increase of the losses by a3, and an increase of
O the motor input Sower (excluding mechanical losses) by
approximately a ; provided the flux and current
Cf is the cost of processed construction densities are kept constant, and the mechanical losses
materials; are small as compared to the other motor losses, i.e.,

CFe is the cost of processed electrical steel; losses 1 (1

input power a
Ccul is the cost of processed stator copper, and
If the efficiency improvement is obtained by increasing
Ccu2 is the cost of processed rotor copper the volume of the active material only, one can
express the dependency of the efficiency on the scale
(aluminum). f actor a of the motor (using the model law) as:

Annual Cost-C a1 ( n (12)

The annual consumer's cost includes the
acquisition cost of the motor, and is related to the where nO is the efficiency of the reference motor.
cost of processed active and construction materials - However, because of the asymptotic behavior of the
CM, the cost of annual losses - CL, and the fixed cost efficiency (see eq. (12)), as a+ -, n+100 percent, the
-
CO: achievable improvement becomes smaller and smaller
with the increasing size of the motor. For example,
C an = (r/100) (C M + C 0 ) + C Lt (8) for a linear increase of 10% of the dimensions of a
motor which has an efficiency of no=90 %, i.e.
where r is the fixed interest rate on capital a=L/L0='**D/D0=1.1, the increased motor
investment and efficiency would be only about 0.91 %. In addition,
since the active material volu'me' is directly
CL = W T(Po + Pcu), 9 proportional to the material cost, the additional cost
where L ubecomes, in relation to the increase in eff iciency ,
less and less favorable. In the present study, a
comparison is also made between motor efficiencies
obtained by using the model law, and the optimization
W is the energy cost in $/kWh and mnethod. It should be emphasized that although this is
T is heanual
oeratig tim in hurs,only an approximate comparison, it can still serve as
 413
a basis for predicting the efficiency of the [51 L. Cooper, D. Steinberg, Introduction to Methods
"energy-efficient motor", and the associated cost of of Optimization, W.B. Saunders Company, 1970.
the efficiency improvement.
[61 A.V. Fiacco, G.P. McCormick, Nonlinear Programming
Details of the optimization technique and the Sequential Unconstrained Minimization
results of the optimal designs are given in [28] and Techniques, Wiley, 1969.
[29].
APPENDIX [71 M.J.D. Powell, "A Fast Algorithm for Nonlinearly
Constrained Optimization Calculations", 1977
LOCATING A FEASIBLE POINT Dundee Conference On Numerical Analysis,
Springer-Verlag, series on Lecture Notes in
Constrained optimization methods that are based Mathematics, pp.1'44-157.
on interior search require a feasible starting point.
Also, during the optimization process it may be [8] R.J. Duffin, E.L. Peterson, C. Zener, Geometric
required to enter back into the feasible region in the Appl , WileyT167
case of violation of constraints. The following
procedure may be used to find a feasible point. [9] J.H. McWhirter, "Optimum Design by Geometric
Suppose that at the point, x5, (Fig. 5) the Programming", IEEE Conference paper CP 532-PWR,
constraints, 1971.
[10] R. Schinzinger, "Optimization in Electromagnetic
gi(xs) . 0, i=1,2,...,p, (Al) System Design"in Recent Advances in Optimization
Techniques, A. Lavi, T.P. Vogl., Wiley, 1966.
are satisfied, but the other constraints, -~

li(Xs) > 0, i=p+l,p+2,...,r ()

[11] O.W. Anderson, "Optimum Design of Electrical
are violated. Take k, for which gk(xs) is maximum, Machines", IEE rn Power Apparatus1an
where k=p+1,p+2,...,r, and temporarily define it as the Systems", Vol. PAS-86, 1967, pp. 707-711.
objective function,for the following problem:
[12] R. Ramarathnam, B.G. Desai, V. Subba Rao, "A
Comparative Study of Minimization Techniques for
Find Optimization of Induction Motor Design", ibid.,
Vol. PAS-92, 1973, pp. 1448-1454.
x = X29...,xn9
[1 3] R. Ramarathnam, B.G. Desai, "Optimization of
such that Polyphase Induction Motor Design - A Nonlinear
ProgramTming Approach", ibid, Vol. PAS-90, 1971,
gk(x) is minimum, (A3) pp. 570-578.
subject to: [14] B. Singh, et al. "Experience in Design Optimization
of Polyphase Induction Motor Using "SUMT"
g.Jx) ' 0, i=1,2,...,p,
1
(A4) Algorithm", IEEE, Trans. on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No. 10, pp. 3379-3384,
i (x)-gi(Xs) 0, i=p+1,p+2,...,r. (A5) 1983.
Equation (A3) minimizes the most violated constraint, [15] R.W. Menzies, G.W. Neal, "Optimization Program for
whereas eq. (A5) tries to make the violation of the Large Induction Motor Design", Proc. IEEE, Vol.
other constraints no worse; because by improving the 122, No. 6, 1975, 643-646.
violation of one constraint, it is possible to make the
violation of other constraints more severe. Whenever, [16] R.W. Menzies, "Design of Induction Motors Using
during the process of solving this problem (eqs. Optimization Techniques", International Conference
(A3)-(A5)), the value of gk(x) drops below zero, the of Electrical Machines, 13-15 Sept., Vienna,
procedure is halted. The point so obtained then 1976, pp. Dl-10.
satisfies at least one more constraint than the
original point xs did. The procedure can be repeated [17] J.W. Bandler, C. Charalambous, "Practical Least
until all the constraints are satisfied, and a point xo p-th Optimization of Networks", IEEE Trans.
is obtained for which gi(xo) ' 0, i=1,2, ...,r. The Microwave Theory-and Techniques, Vol., MTT-20, No.
method of finding a feasible starting point may also 12, 1972, pp. 834-840.
use the same optimization algorithm that is used for
the main optimization of the induction motor. Finding [18] J. Appelbaum, M.S. Erlicki, "Optimized Design of
a feasible point by optimization is referred to as Induction Machines", IEEE Summer Power Meeting,
"violated-constraint optimization". Paper 68CP 604-PWR, 1968.

REFERENCES [19] M.S. Erlicki, J. Appelbaum, "Solution of Practical

Optimization Problems", IEEE Trans. Systems,
[1 ] D.A. Wismer, R. Chattergy, Introduction to Science and Cybernetics, Vol. SSC-6, No. 1, 1970,
Nonlinear Programming, North Holland, 1978. pp. 49-52.
[2] M. Avriel, Nonlinear Programming, Prentice Hall, [20] J. Appelbaum, M.S. Erlicki, "A Problem of Economic
1976. Optimization of Electric Equipment Design", IEEE
Trans.__Com munication and Electronics, Vol . 83,
[3] M.S. Bazaraa, C.M. Shetty, Nonlinear Programming, 1964, pp. 773-776.
John Wiley and Sonts, 1979.
[21 ] J. Appelbaum, J. Shamash, "gA Method for the
[4] P.E. Gill, W. Murray, N.H. Wright, Practical Optimization of Production Line of Electromagnetic
Programming, Academic Press, 1981. Devices", IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and
Cybernletics, Vol. SMC-7, No. 7, 1977, pp. 443-452.
414

[221 G.R. Walsh, Methods of Optimization, Wiley, 1975. [27] H. Auinger, et "Wirkungsgrad Electrischer
al.,
Maschinen-Mbglichkeiten und Grenzen f ir eine
[23] G.S.G. Beveridge, R.S. Scheehter, Optimization: Verbesserung", Siemens-Energietechnik, 2.
Theory and Practice, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Jahrgang, Heft 7, 1980, pp. 271-276.
1970.
[28] E.F. Fuchs, J. Appelbaum, I.A. Khan, J. Hbll and
[24] A.H. Bonnett, "Understanding Efficiency in Squirrel U.V. Frank, Optimization of Induction Motor
Cage Induction Motors", IEEE Trans. on Industry Efficiency, Volume- 1: Three-phase Induction Motor,
Application, Vol. IA-16, No. 4, 1980, pp. 476-483. Final Report, EPRI EL-4152-CCM, Volume 1, Project
19944-1; July 1985.
[25] D.R. Aldworth, "The Design, Application Benefits
and- Economics of Energy-Efficient Motors", AIPE
Journal, Fall 1981. [29] J. Appelbaum, I.A. Khan, E.F. Fuchs, J.C. White,
"Optimization of Induction Motor Design, Part II:
[26] D. R. Aldworth, "Effect of Motor Efficiency on The Efficiency and Cost of an Optimal Design", a
Energy Saving", Electrical Construction and companion paper, submitted to the IEEE Summer
Maintenance, 1981, pp. 36-48. Meeting 1986.