2008 IEEE Region 10 Colloquium and the Third ICIIS, Kharagpur, INDIA December 8-10.
Paper Identification No. 79
Induction motor Parameter Estimation Using Hybrid
Genetic Algorithm
K.Sundareswaran, H.N.Shyam, S.Palani
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
National Institute of Technology
Tiruchirappalli, India
Abstract—The main objective of this work is to develop a cost
effective off-line method for determination of induction motor
equivalent circuit parameters by conducting a single load test on
the motor. The proposed scheme is an alternative viable method
to conventional means of no-load and blocked rotor tests. The
identification of motor parameters is redrafted as a multi-
objective optimization problem and solution is sought through
conventional optimization method as well as Genetic Algorithm
(GA). The conventional method employed is the well known
Rosenbrock’s (RB) rotating coordinates method. When the
results of the two methods are analyzed, it is observed that while
GA offers near optimal solution to the problem, the method of
RB always results in global optima, provided initial values are
chosen judiciously. Hence, it is proposed to combine these two
methods to gain the advantages of both the methods. In such a
hybrid optimization method, the task of global search is carried
out by GA, while Rosenbrock’s method is devoted to local search.
Comparison of these two techniques are discussed and presented
in conjunction with computed and practical results. It is shown
that combination of GA with conventional method yields
improved results.
Keywords-Induction motors, Equivalent circuit parameters,
Genetic Algorithms
I. INTRODUCTION
Induction motors have been extensively used in fixed and
variable speed applications for many years owing to their size,
cost, weight, reliability, ease of maintenance and efficiency.
Recent advanced control techniques such as vector control
make them to compete with DC motors in many aspects. The
information regarding motor circuit parameters is very much
essential for design, manufacture, performance evaluation and
vector control applications.
Generally, the equivalent circuit parameters are predicted at
the design stage by the manufacturer and subsequently
confirmed by test. However, designer’s data may not be
available in many cases especially for an old motor in a plant.
The classical technique for the determination of induction
motor parameters is based on no load and blocked rotor tests.
The main disadvantage of blocked rotor test is that the motor
has to be locked mechanically and performed by skilled
operators. Further, this test requires a lower voltage than the
existing supply voltage. With motor permanently coupled with
load, it is not feasible to conduct no load test also. Thus,
978-1-4244-2806-9/08/$25.00© 2008 IEEE
Joby James
Viswajyothi College of Engineering and Technology
Kerala, India
determination of circuit parameters of induction motors which
are running continuously in industries is not possible using
traditional methods.
The problem of induction motor parameter determination
has been addressed extensively by many researchers in the past
[1-8]. Deep bar machines were considered in [1] and motor
parameters were identified from standstill tests in [2].
Parameter estimation was carried out with emphasis on leakage
reactances in [3]. Rotor time constant calculation for vector
controlled drives is available in [4]. The method of finite
element analysis was employed in [5], while an iterative
method was seen in [6]. A standstill frequency test was utilized
in [7] for motor parameter determination. This method requires
sophisticated equipments such as frequency spectrum analyzer.
Another approach used a single test on the motor with an
inverter for parameter estimation [8]. Even though these
methods are very rigorous in principle and procedure, the
results are highly accurate, which is a basic denominator for
vector controlled applications.
However, such a high degree of accuracy is not demanded
in many other applications such as relaying and power system
protection [9, 10] and also in analysis, performance evaluation
and simulation studies. Further in many of the references
mentioned above, a pertinent drawback is that iron loss
component is neglected in the computation. Even though, this
component may not have an impact in many drive control
characteristics, this parameter plays a vital role in the
determination of motor efficiency and power factor, in
particular, at light load conditions. In this paper, a novel off-
line method suitable for determination of steady state
equivalent circuit parameters of three-phase induction motors is
reported. The proposed scheme possesses a few distinguished
features. The prominent one is that it requires only a single load
test on the motor at the existing supply voltage and frequency.
This makes it possible to estimate parameters of induction
motors running continuously in a plant. Another distinct aspect
of the new dispensation is that the estimation process is
redrafted as an optimization task and conventional as well as
evolutionary methods such as genetic algorithm (GA) are
employed for the solution. The conventional optimization
method employed is the well known Rosenbrock’s rotating
coordinates method [11, 12]. It is found that this method
performs well, when initiated with suitable starting values. In
fact, the method starts diverging, with random initial guess.
1
2008 IEEE Region 10 Colloquium and the Third ICIIS, Kharagpur, INDIA December 8-10.
Paper Identification No. 79
Secondly GA is used for this optimization problem. It is
observed that GA has several advantages, when compared to
conventional methods, such as reduced computational burden,
faster convergence, convergence to near optimal solution in
most cases with random initial values etc. However, GA has
the main disadvantage of converging to near-optimal values
rather than true optimal values. Hence, it is proposed to
combine the two methods such that GA is used first with
random initial values; after certain number of iterations,
Rosenbrock’s method is applied using the solution obtained
with GA as starting values. This hybrid approach allows GA to
search for near global optima, while conventional method
carries out local search, leading to true optimal values.
Computed results for two induction motors are presented with
experimental results to validate the new dispensation.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The well known per phase equivalent circuit of a three-
phase induction motor is depicted in Figure 1. There are six
unknown parameters in the circuit. However, stator resistance
of the motor can be measured using a DC test and as usual, the
ratio X1/X2 is assumed unity, leading to only four unknown
variables in the motor model.
These variables are X1, Xm, Rm and R2. In the proposed
method, a single load test is conducted on the motor at the
existing supply voltage and frequency. Input current, I1, motor
terminal voltage V1, and input power factor angle, together
with motor speed are measured. Thus, the objective of the
method is to obtain four unknown equivalent circuit
components which are compatible with the measured current
and power factor. In order to proceed with the optimization
process, the problem is formulated as follows:
Find ( φ ) such that
Minimize F (φ ) = e1 + e2
Subject to φ min ≤ φ ≤ φ max.
Where
F (φ ) is the objective function,
φ is a set of machine parameters and is {X1, Xm, Rm, R2},
e1 = I 1 − I 1∗ , I 1 is the measured stator current and I1∗ is
estimated current,
e 2 = θ1 − θ 1∗ , θ1 is the measured power factor angle and θ1∗
is the estimated power factor angle, and the subscripts, min
and max represent the lower and upper bounds of the variables
and are obtained from the prior knowledge.
Figure 1. INDUCTION MOTOR EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT
978-1-4244-2806-9/08/$25.00© 2008 IEEE
III. EVALUATION OF MOTOR PARAMETERS USING
CONVENTIONAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD
The conventional optimization method selected in this work
is Rosenbrock’s rotating coordinates method. This method
comes under unconstrained optimization techniques. For
details, one may refer to [11]. Dedicated software is developed
in C programming language for this optimization problem. The
accelerating factor α and the decelerating factor β employed in
Rosenbrock’s optimization scheme are fixed at 3.0 and 0.5
respectively and the program is executed for 300 iterations.
Load tests are conducted on a 5 hp and 2 hp induction motors
and the data obtained from the test is used for the optimization.
The initial values are selected based on certain standard
assumptions [13]. The no load power factor for the test motors
is assumed at 0.25 and no load current is taken as 30% of rated
current. These two assumptions help in determining initial
values of Rm and Xm. Starting value of R2 is taken nearer to
known value of stator resistance; first value of leakage
reactance is computed assuming full load power factor around
0.80. With these initial values, optimization is carried out and
the results are tabulated in table I. In order to verify the results,
no load and blocked rotor tests are conducted on the test motors
and the parameters thus obtained are shown within the
brackets. It is seen from table I that the motor parameters
estimated by Rosenbrock’s method agree to a larger extent to
the one obtained with conventional method with marginal
difference. It may be noted that the values obtained from
conventional tests need not be taken as bench mark values,
since, motor parameter estimation in these tests are based on
certain assumptions. Another important point observed is that a
judicial choice of initial values, as done in table I, is a must for
convergence of this conventional optimization problem. For
example, when starting values are assumed randomly, the
results are converging, as shown in table II. The result is that
even after 1000 iterations or so, the method does not converge.
Thus, for this method to yield satisfactory results, a prior
knowledge of variables is a pre-requisite. However, it may be
noted that this is not a major drawback, since, in the present
problem, suitable initial values can always be obtained, as
mentioned earlier.
TABLE- I
RESULTS OF ROSENBROCKS METHOD WITH JUDICIAL CHOICE OF
INITIAL VALUES
Motor 1 (5 hp) Motor 2(2hp)
Parameters Initial
Final values
Initial
Final values
values values
X1(=X2) 7.599 5.462(4.947) 25 12.566(12.9716)
R2 1.321 2.386 (2.6782) 20 7.473(7.807)
Rm 407.187 408.108(320.666) 1140.246 1029.296(1223.82)
Xm 105.135 118.458(79.268) 294.183 489.703(356.86)
2
2008 IEEE Region 10 Colloquium and the Third ICIIS, Kharagpur, INDIA December 8-10.
Paper Identification No. 79

IV. APPLICATION OF GENETIC ALGORITHM TO MOTOR
PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION
The GA is a search mechanism based on the principle of
natural selection and population genetics. The primary concept
of GA was first proposed by Dr. Holland in 1975 [14, 15]. GA
constitutes biologically inspired multi-parameter
search/optimization algorithms that have proven to be
effective in solving a variety of complex problems where other
algorithms have either failed or faced difficulties. There are
many advantages that make GA attractive [14]. GA does not
require the use of derivatives. They offer a parallel searching
of the solution space rather than the point-by-point searching
in a small region. Since the location of the optimal solution is
unknown before the search, it is very likely that the point-by-
point search needs to search through the entire solution space
in order to find the optimal solution, not mention the traps of
the local optima. Hence, GA can find near-optimal solution for
a complex problem very quickly. GA is started by possible
sets of solutions to a problem; each set is termed as a
chromosome. A group of chromosomes is called population.
Each chromosome consists of combinations of individual
solutions, called genes. Genes are normally represented in
binary form. In this work, each unknown motor parameter is
coded as 10 bit unsigned binary number and as such each
chromosome has a bit length of 40. The maximum value of
each coded parameter is taken as double the expected
parameter value. Chromosomes in a generation are forced to
evolve toward better once in the next generation by three basic
GA operators, namely reproduction, crossover and mutation.
Reproduction, also termed as selection, is based on the
suitability or fitness of each chromosome to the problem. For
this, a fitness function pertaining to the problem is to be
defined. Only a certain number of chromosomes screened and
selected by the fitness function can survive and pass their
genes to the next generation. Since, GA can be used only for
maximization, the following fitness function F is used in the
present method:
1
F =
1 + F (φ )
The Roulette wheel selection is the most common and easy-to-
implement selection mechanism. A virtual wheel is
implemented for this selection process. Each chromosome is
assigned a sector in this virtual wheel and the area of the
sector is proportional to their fitness value. In Roulette wheel
selection, an angle is generated randomly and the chromosome
corresponding to this angle is selected. The chromosomes thus
selected are called parent population and are subjected to
undergo crossover and mutation to produce offspring for the
next generation. Conventional method adopted in GA is
Roulette wheel selection and in this work, this selection
method is modified by combining it with Elitism. Using
Elitism, a definite number of best solutions are retained and
are re-used in the next generation without undergoing the steps
of selection, crossover and mutation.
Following the selection of parent population, offspring
population is generated by performing cross over and mutation.
In crossover, randomly selected sub sections of two individual
chromosomes are swapped to produce the offspring. In this
work, multipoint crossover is adopted for increased efficiency
since four variables are embedded in one chromosome.
Mutation is another genetic operation by which a bit within a
chromosome may toggle to the opposite binary. The crossover
and mutation are performed based on the probability of
crossover and mutation.
Dedicated software in C programming language is
developed for the implementation of GA to the present
problem. No attempt has been made to identify optimal GA
parameters. The parameters are selected via a trial and error
process to achieve best solution set [16]. The parameters used
in the implementation of GA are listed below:
Population size 30
Coding Binary
Number of generations 300
Selection scheme Combination of Roulette
wheel selection with
Elitism
Crossover operator Multipoint crossover
(1) Crossover probability 0.7
Mutation probability 0.01
Termination criterion 300 iterations

TABLE- II TABLE III

RESULTS OF ROSENBROCKS METHOD WITH RESULTS OF GENETIC ALGORITHM
RANDOM INITIAL VALUES
Parameters Motor 1 (5 hp) Motor 2(2 hp)
Parameters Motor 1 (5hp) Motor 2 (2hp)
Initial values Final values Initial values Final values
X1(=X2) 3.90039 (4.94) 7.524 (12.9176)
X1=X2 5 3.11(4.947) 10 14.063(12.9716)

R2 5 4.178(2.6782) 10 12.332(7.807) R2 2.6686 (2.678) 7.3313 (7.807)

Rm 100 98.608(320.666) 250 270.464(1223.82)

Rm 280.0586 (320.666) 1372.277 (1223.829)

Xm 50 49.219 (79.268) 100 120.030(356.86) Xm 98.826 (79.268) 398.816 (356.86)

978-1-4244-2806-9/08/$25.00© 2008 IEEE 3

2008 IEEE Region 10 Colloquium and the Third ICIIS, Kharagpur, INDIA December 8-10.
Paper Identification No. 79

The load test data obtained from the 5 hp and 2 hp motors
are used for the optimization. The results are tabulated in table
III. The values in brackets indicate parameters obtained
through no load and blocked rotor tests. It can be seen that
there is a good agreement between parameters predicted by GA
and conventional tests. Further, comparing results of table I and
table III, it is evident that the method of GA results in better
estimation of motor parameters than conventional optimization
method. One of the chief advantages of GA is that there is no
necessity of judicial choice of initial values to the problem;
with random initial guess, the program converges satisfactorily.
This can be attributed to the fact that GA use multiple starting
points (different chromosomes in the initial population) as
opposed to a single starting point in conventional optimization
method while searching the solution space. Since, initial values
are scattered randomly in the whole of the solution space, GA
investigates simultaneously much larger portion of the solution
space. This helps GA from falling in to the trap of local optima.
Thus, conventional techniques can get trapped in one of the
local optima. The solution is then to try different starting points
and run the same program several times.
V. DEVELOPMENT OF COMBINED GENTIC/ROSENBROK’S
ALGORITHM AND RESULTS
After analyzing the results obtained with the two methods, it is
interesting to compare them. The comparison is performed
based on certain characteristic curves pertaining to the
problem. The graphs in Fig. 2(a) compare convergence
characteristics of the two methods. This graph shows variation
of objective function of conventional method and GA. It is
seen that GA converges faster, resulting in a reduced objective
value of 1.4 in the 10-th iterative step and as low as 0.2011in
the 200-th iterative step. It is obvious that GA achieves larger
changes at the initial part of the convergence process, whereas
it tends to slow down at the final part. This is mainly due to
crowding factors of GA, which have a tendency to attempt
newer solutions in the surroundings of the best solution
attained till then [17]. On the other hand, the convergence in
conventional method is slow, with arbitrary starting points,
which were taken from the initial population of GA. A
significant observation is that even though conventional
method converges slowly, the process is at a steady pace.
load and blocked rotor tests. These graphs give better
understanding of parameter identification process. As can be
seen, the variation of parameter value is little with traditional
optimization scheme; with GA, it is more dynamic and
oriented towards global optimum values. In order to gain both
the advantages of faster initial convergence of GA and steady
rate of convergence of conventional method, it is now
proposed to combine the two schemes. In such a hybrid
scheme, GA is first used with random starting values in order
to reach a stable low objective function value. The optimal
chromosome, containing the information regarding the optimal
machine parameters is then used as the initial starting point for
Rosenbrock’s algorithm, which then takes over.
The change over from GA to Rosenbrock’s method can be
initiated as soon as a low and stable objective function value is
achieved with pure GA.
In order to illustrate performance comparison of the three
schemes, the transition is demonstrated at the 200-th iterative
step in Fig. 2(a). The fusion of GA with conventional method
enables the optimization process to speed up considerably, as
depicted in Fig. 2(a) and attains a very low objective function
value. The novel optimization algorithm prevents
Rosenbrock’s method to end up in local optima and also
greatly reduces optimization time of pure GA schemes. Table
IV shows motor parameters identified through the combined
algorithm. Comparing tables I, III and IV, it is obvious that
better parameter estimation is performed with the combined
algorithm.
For further verification and illustration, tests were carried out
on a 2 hp motor and certain performance characteristics of the
motor were measured. These performance indices are now
calculated using the machine parameters obtained through
combined GA/Rosenbrock’s algorithm. The results are shown
in Fig. 3. It is obvious that there is a good agreement between
measured and computed results, validating the veracity of the
new method.

The variation of motor parameters for 2 hp motor with each

iterative step using the two methods is depicted in Fig. 2. The
point “c” represents the value of the parameter obtained via no
TABLE IV
RESULTS OF THE COMBINED METHOD
Parameters Motor 1(5 hp) Motor 2(2 hp)

X1(=X2) 3.8665 (4.94) 9.622 (12.9176)

R2 2.6687 (2.678) 7.597 (7.807)

Rm 294.553 (320.666) 1412.75 (1223.829)

Xm 80.7908 (79.268) 355.193 (356.86)

978-1-4244-2806-9/08/$25.00© 2008 IEEE 4

2008 IEEE Region 10 Colloquium and the Third ICIIS, Kharagpur, INDIA December 8-10.
Paper Identification No. 79
Figure 2.PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION THROUGH ITERATIVE
STEPS
a)OBJECTIVE FUNCTION b) X1(=X2) c) R2d) Rm e) Xm
978-1-4244-2806-9/08/$25.00© 2008 IEEE
Figure 3.COMPUTED RESULTS ON A 2HP MOTOR
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a new dispensation for determination
of induction motor equivalent circuit parameters. A single
load test data alone is sufficient for parameter identification
and this enables the application of the method for an old motor
in a plant or a motor which is continuously running, where
conventional methods of parameter determination cannot be
easily applied. The parameter identification is redrafted as an
optimization task and conventional and evolutionary methods
are used for the solution. It is observed that both the methods
possess several merits as well as demerits and it is natural to
see that the two schemes as potentially complementary
methodologies. Hence, the two methods are combined to gain
advantages of both the methods such that genetic algorithm is
used for initial search and conventional method for the final
stage of optimization. This hybrid optimization algorithm
prevents conventional method to be “trapped” in local optima
and also significantly reduces optimization time of pure GA
schemes, besides settling with global optima. Computed and
experimental results are supplied to validate the proposed
method.
5
2008 IEEE Region 10 Colloquium and the Third ICIIS, Kharagpur, INDIA December 8-10.
Paper Identification No. 79

REFERENCES
[1] Z.Zhang, G. E Dawson, and T. R. Eastham, “Evaluation of dynamic
parameters and performance of deep-bar induction machines,” in
Proc.IEEE-IAS Annu Meeting, 1993, pp. 62-66.
[2] S. Moon and A. Keyhani, “Estimation of induction machine parameters
from standstill time-domain data,” IEEE Trans. Iind. Applcat., vol. 30,
pp. 1609-1615, Nov./Dec. 1994.
[3] T. A. Lipo and A. Consoli, “Modeling and simulation of induction
motors with saturable leakage reactances,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat.,
Vol. IA-21, pp. 180-189, Jan/Feb. 1984.
[4] L. Zai, C. L. de Marco, and T. A. Lipo, “ An extended Kalman filter
approach to rotor time constant measurement in PWM induction motor
drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., Vol. 28, pp. 96-104, Jan/Feb. 1992.
[5] S. Williamson and M. J. Robinson, “Calculation of cage induction
motor equivalent circuit parameters using finite elements,” IEE
Proceedings-B, vol. 138, No.5, pp. 264-270, Sept 1991.
[6] B. K. Johnson and J. R. Willis, “Tailoring induction motor analytical
models to fit known motor performance characteristics and satisfy
particular study needs,” IEEE Tans. On Power Systems, Vol. 6, pp. 959-
965, Aug. 1991.
[7] M. Bertoluzzo, G. S. Buja, and R. Menis, “Inverter voltage drop-free
recursive least-squares parameter identification of a PWM inverter
induction motor at standstill,” in Proc. IEEE. ISIE, 97, vol.2, pp.649-
654, 1997.
[8] A. Gastli, “Identification of induction motor equivalent circuit
parameters using the single-phase test,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Conversion, vol. 14, pp. 51-56, mar. 1997.
[9] T. A Higgins, W. L. Snider, P. L. Young, and H. J. Holley, “Report on
bus transfer: Part 1-Assessment and application,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Conversion,, vol. 5, pp. 462-469, Sept1990.
[10] S.S. Mulukutla and E.M. Gulachenski, “ A critical survey of
consideration in maintaining process continuity during voltage dips
while protecting motors with with reclosing and bus- transfer practices,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7 pp. 266-272, Aug. 1992.
[11] G.S.G. Beveridge and R.S. Schechter, Optimization: Theory and
Practice, McGraw Hill Inc. 1970.
[12] S.S.Rao, Optimization theory and applications, Mohinder Singh Sejwal
publications, Wiley Eastern Limited, 1987.
[13] M.G.Say, “Alternating current machines”, 5th edition, ELBS, 1992.
[14] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and
Machine Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[15] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution
Programs. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1992.
[16] J.J. Grefenstette, “Optimization of control parameters for genetic
algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. SMC-16, pp. 122-
128, Jan./Feb. 1986.
[17] T.Furuhashi, Advances in Fuzzy logic, Neural Networks, and Genetic
Algorithms. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1995.

978-1-4244-2806-9/08/$25.00© 2008 IEEE 6