OPTIMAL OPERATION OF INDUCTION MOTORS USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK
BASED ON PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION (PSO)
Radwan H. A. Hamid Amr M. A. Amin Refaat S. Ahmed
Faculty of Engineering, Helwan University, Helwan, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: AmrmaAnminyahoo.com, ade1_e1gamma12000 yahoo.com
Abstract: This paper presents the application of neural network
based on PSO for losses and operating cost minimization control in
the induction motor drives. In this paper, four strategies for
induction motor speed control are proposed. Those four strategies
are based on PSO and called Maximum Efficiency Strategy,
Minimum Stator Current Strategy, Maximum Power Factor
Strategy, and Maximum Weighted Cost Strategy. The proposed
technique is based on the principle that the flux level in a machine
can be adjusted to give the minimum amount of losses and
minimum operating cost for a given value of speed and load torque.
The main advantages of the proposed technique are; its simple
structure and its straightforward maximization of induction motor
efficiency and its operating cost for a given load torque. As will be
demonstrated, PSO is so efficient in finding the optimum operating
machine's flux level. The optimum flux level is a function of the
machine load and speed requirements. Simulation results show that
a considerable energy and cost savings is achieved in comparison
with the conventional method of operation under the condition of
constant voltage to frequency ratio and field oriented control.
Keywords: Induction Motor, Maximum Efficiency, operating cost,
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
NOMENCLATURE
rs stator resistance; r, rotor resistance ; Xls stator leakage
reactance; XI, rotor leakage reactance; a, 3ez Supply frequency; S
slip; (o, rotor speed; (Ob base speed; 03s slip speed; (m air gap flux;
is stator current I rotor current; Te electromagnetic torque ; TL
load torque; Ploss total power losses; PC, copper losses; Pfe iron
losses; Ps stray losses; Pf,, mechanical losses; ke, kh eddy current
and hysteresis coefficients; cst, stray losses coefficient; Cf,,
mechanical losses coefficient; SI,S2,S3 magnetizing curve
coefficients.
1. INTRODUCTION
It is estimated that more than 50% of the world electric energy
generated is consumed by electric machines [1]. Improving
efficiency in electric drives is important, mainly, for two reasons:
economic saving and reduction of environmental pollution.
Induction motors have a high efficiency at rated speed and torque.
However, at light loads, the iron losses increase dramatically,
reducing considerably the efficiency. The main induction motor
losses are usually split into 5 components: stator copper losses,
rotor copper losses, iron losses, mechanical losses and stray losses.
The efficiency which decreases with increasing losses can be
improved by minimizing the losses. Copper losses decrease with
decreasing the stator and the rotor currents while the core losses
essentially increase with increasing air-gap flux density. A study of
the copper and core losses components reveals that their trends
conflict. When the core losses increase, the copper losses tends to
decrease. However, for a given load torque, there is an air-gap flux
density at which the total losses is minimized. Hence, electrical
losses minimization process ultimately comes down to the selection
of the appropriate air-gap flux density of operation. Since the air-
gap flux density must be variable when the load is changing, control
schemes in which the (rotor, air-gap) flux linkage is constant will
1-4244-0726-5/06/$20.OO '2006 IEEE
Adel A. A. El-Gammal
yield sub-optimal efficiency operation especially when the load is
light [2]. Then to improve the motor efficiency, the flux must be
reduced when it operates under light load conditions [2], obtaining a
balance between copper and iron losses.
The challenge to engineers, however, is to be able to predict the
appropriate flux values at any operating points over the complete
torque and speed range which will minimize the machines losses,
hence maximizing the efficiency.
In general, there are three different approaches to improve the
induction motor efficiency especially under light-load conditions
[4].
A. LOSSES MODEL CONTROLLER (LMC)
This controller depends on a motor losses model to compute the
optimum flux analytically [8]. The main advantage of this approach
is its simplicity and it does not require extra hardware. In addition,
it provides smooth and fast adaptation of the flux, and may offer
optimal performance during transient operation [5]. However, the
main problem of this approach is that it requires the exact values of
machine parameters. These parameters include the core losses and
the main inductance flux saturation, which are unknown to the users
and change considerably with temperature, saturation, and skin
effect. In addition these parameters may vary due to changes in the
operating conditions. But with continuing improvement of
evolutionary parameter determination algorithms as presented in
[11] the disadvantages of motor parameter dependency is slowly
disappearing.
B. SEARCH CONTROLLER (SC)
This controller measures the input power of the machine drive
regularly at fixed time intervals and searches for the flux value
which results in minimum power input for given values of speed
and load torque [2], [4], [7]. This particular method does not
demand knowledge of the machine parameters and the search
procedure is simple to implement. However, some disadvantages
appear in practice, such as continuous disturbances in the torque,
slow adaptation (7 sec.) [4], difficulties in tuning the algorithm for a
given application, and the need for precise load information. In
addition, the precision of the measurements may be poor due to
signal noise and disturbances. This in turn may cause the SC
method to give undesirable control performance. Moreover,
nominal flux is applied in transient state and is tuned after the
system reaches steady state to an optimal value by numerous
increments, thus lengthening the optimization process [3], [9-10].
So the SC technique may be slow in obtaining the optimal point.
Also, in real systems, it may not reach a steady-state and so cause
oscillations in the air gap flux that result in undesirable torque
disturbances. For these reasons, this is not a good method in
industrial drives.
C. LOOK UP TABLE SCHEME
It gives the optimal flux level at different operating points. This
table, however, requires costly and time-consuming prior
measurements for each motor [4].
In this paper, a new control strategy uses the loss model controller
based on PSO is proposed. This strategy is simple in structure and
has the straightforward goal of maximizing the efficiency for a
given load torque. The resulting induction motor efficiency is
2408
reasonably close to optimal. It is well known that the presence of The slip is defined by:
uncertainties (the rotor resistance, for instance) makes the result no s -___ ___° (4)
more optimal. Digital computer simulation results are obtained to °e ° s + °
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
The rotor current is given by
2. PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION (5)
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is an evolutionary computation I '2
technique (a search method based on a natural system) developed '¾ + x /2
by Kennedy and Eberhart [3], [5]. The system initially has a X
population of random solutions. Each potential solution, called a The electromagnetic torque is given by
particle. Each particle is given a random velocity and is flown ( r' >
through the problem space. The particles have memory and each K s 9 (6)
particle keeps track of its previous best position (called the pbest) T r 2 0
and its corresponding fitness. There exist a number of pbest for the r + X 2
respective particles in the swarm and the particle with greatest sa
fitness is called the global best (gbest) of the swarm. The basic The stator current is related to the air gap flux and the
concept of the PSO technique lies in accelerating each particle electromagnetic torque as:
towards its pbest and gbest locations, with a random weighted 2 T2
acceleration at each time step. is + 3
+ + CL (7)
The main steps in the particle swarm optimization process are in

described as follows: x
(a) Initialize a population of particles with random positions and Where C L = 1+ 2 x
xm
ir (8)
velocities in d dimensions of the problem space and fly them. The air gap flux is related to the electromagnetic torque as:
(b) Evaluate the fitness of each particle in the swarm.
(c) For every iteration, compare each particle's fitness wit its 2+ X I 2 (9)
previous best fitness (pbest) obtained. If the current value is r ± VT e
better than pbest, then set pbest equal to the current value and The efficiency is defined as the output power divided by the
the pbest location equal to the current location in the d- electric power supplied to the stator (inverter losses are included):
dimensional space. p
(d) Compare pbest of particles with each other and update the t, out (10)
swarm global best location with the greatest fitness (gbest). P in
(e) Change the velocity and position of the particle According to The conventional power factor is defined as the input power divided
equations (1) and (2) respectively. by the apparent power.
Vid W*Vid+c1 *rand 1*(Pid - Xid)+ C2 * rand2* (Pgd - Xid) (1) = Pe (11)
d - X id + Vid (2) +
Where: Vid and Xid represent the velocity and position of the The induction motor losses are the following:
i_th particle with d dimensions, respectively. randl and rand2 1. Copper losses: these are due to flow of the electric current
are two uniform random functions, and W is the inertia through the stator and rotor windings and are given by:
weight, which is chosen beforehand. p = r I + (12)
(f) Repeat steps (a) to (e) until convergence is reached based on 2. Iron losses: these are the losses due to eddy current and
some desired single or multiple criteria.
PSO has many parameters and these are described as follows: W is hysteresis, given b
called the inertia weight that controls the exploration and Pcore = ke(i + a ( + kh (I + s) a ( (13)
exploitation of the search space because it dynamically adjusts
velocity. Vmax is the maximum allowable velocity for the particles 3. Stray losses: these arise on the copper and iron of the motor
(i.e. in the case where the velocity of the particle exceeds Vmax, and are given by:
then it is limited to Vmax). Thus, resolution and fitness of search p = C co
2 i 2 (14)
depends on Vmax. If Vmax is too high, then particles will move s str r r
4. Mechanical losses: these are due to the friction of the
beyond a good solution. If Vmax is too low, particles will be
trapped in local minima. The constants cl and c2 in (1) and (2), 2
termed as cognition and social components, respectively. Theses are P = C c) r (15)
the acceleration constants which changes the velocity of a particle 5. inverter losses
towards pbest and gbest (generally, somewhere between pbest and The approximate inverter loss as a function of stator current is
gbest).gieby
3. BACKGROUNDgieby
The following definitions are useful in subsequent analyses. Pim =KK, jili is + Ki is(6
Referring to the analysis of the induction motor presented in [6], the Where K1nv K2n are coefficients determined by the electrical
per-unit frequency is characteristics of a switching element where: K1nv 3.1307e-
a =0 O±)
e(0)s+ (3) 005, K2jnV=0.0250
d) b d) b ~~~~~~~~~~~~The
total power losses are expressed as:

2409
P~oss -Pu+P~oe +P + P +P_ -[r I 2 +r'I2.ilsses]+ . Ps+i,Pi,
P
,e
This objective function gives an operating point which trades off the
=inverse
of stator current, PF, and efficiency of the motor depending
+[ke(k+S2) 2 _,+kh(1+s) a QbJ+[Cstr 11]+( 7) onthe values of weights cUl, c2, and U3.
+[C1a i +K21 is] Weighted cost function=ac, (77) + ca2 + ca3(PF) (25)
The output power is given by:
P out = T l x CO r (18) Where(aX + C2 + a3 (26)
The input power is given by: Where Uc1, U2, and U3 are weighting functions of motor efficiency,
inverse of stator current, and the motor power factor, respectively.
Pin =PoI + Iosses [r5< + ]+ [ke (i +S )a2 0t4n+ These weighting functions vary in different cases according to the
.2
.2]+[C
. importance of cost function components. For example, if stator
+[kh (+s) a OM]+[Cstr 2 ( current minimization is given a higher priority, U2 is increased. The
C

(O +

i2 . weighting factors are dependent of the operating condition (TL, (0r).

+ [Kin s +K2inv is ]+T, X Cr At certain operating point, there are unique values of U,, U2, U3 D
The efficiency is expressed as: and ez, that maximize the weighted cost function. PSO adjusts these
factors at certain load condition to maximize the weighted cost
(Tee x O)r (20) function. The optimization in should observe the fact that the
77 amplitude of the stator current and flux cannot exceed their
s s + rr r e + s a m
+sspecified maximum.
s) a /2)+
(k(I + s)astrr C r2 i 2)+ Four objective functions are generated from the weighted cost
Lskhif
over
+ Crfc r
irl2ll
)+ (Klinvi2;
K 2invis (TlxC r) )+
function. These functions are
1- Ul= 1, 2 = 0 and C3 = 0, Maximize i
The operating cost of the induction machine should be calculated 2. ( = u,2 = 1, and (X3 = 0, Minimize I,
over the whole life cycle of the machine. That calculation can be 3. (xI = 0, u2 = 0, and (X3 = 1, Maximize PF
made to evaluate the cost of the consumed electrical energy. The 4. (x , cX2, and (X3, are adjusted using PSO to Maximize the
value of average energy cost considering the power factor penalties weighted cost function
can be determined by the following stages: 4.1 MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY STRATEGY
1. If 0 < PF < 0.7 In MES (Maximum Efficiency Strategy), the slip frequency is
L0.9 - PF 1 (21) adjusted so that the efficiency of the induction motor drive system
C = Co L is maximized. In this the weighting factors take the
C 0.01l J 100o
2. If 0.7 < PF < 0.92, If PF . 0.9 PF = 0.9
following values: = 1,strategy
U, U2 = 0, and U3 = 0. Figure I shows the
efficiency variation with respect to the rotor and slip speed at
c 1+ 0. 9 - PF 0.51 (22) various levels of load torque. From the figure, it is obvious that at
0LY 0.01 ) 100 j certain load torque and rotor speed, there is a certain value of slip
frequency at which the maximum efficiency occurs. The task of
3. If 0.9 < PF . 1 If 0.95 . PF PF . PF=0.95 PSO controller is to find that value of flux or slip frequency at
c = C 0 1 + r 0.9 -PF ) 0.5 1 (23) which the maximum efficiency occurs. At certain load torque and
L V 0.01 ) 100 l rotor speed, the PSO controller determines the slip frequency (0, at
If the average energy cost C is calculated, it can be used to establish which the maximum efficiency occur.
the present value of losses. The total cost of the machine is the sum 4.2 MINIMUM STATOR CURRENT STRATEGY,
In MSCS (Minimum Stator Current Strategy), the slip frequency
is adjusted so that the stator current of the induction motor is
maintenance costs. minimized. In this strategy the weighting factors take the following

cXTXNXPout xK 1
PW L =CxTxNxP (F24i
(24)
values: U =0, U2 =1, and U3 =0. Figure 2 shows the stator current
variation with respect to the rotor and slip speed at various levels of
L'/1_ load torque. From the figure, it is obvious that at certain load torque
Where: and rotor speed, there is a certain value of slip frequency at which
PWL - present worth value of losses the minimum stator current occurs. The task of PSO controller is to
C0 energy cost (L.E/KwH), L.E is the Egyptian Pound find that value of flux or slip frequency at which the minimum
C modified energy cost (L.E/KwH) stator current occurs. At certain load torque and rotor speed, the
T running time per year (Hrs / year) PSO controller determines the slip frequency oz, at which the
N evaluation life (years) minimum stator current occur.
Pout the output power (Kwatt) 4.3 MAXIMUM POWER FACTOR STRATEGY
In MPFS (Maximum Power Factor Strategy), the slip frequency is
adjusted so that the power factor of the induction motor is
4. MOTOR DRIVE PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION maximized. In this strategy the weighting factors take the following
In this work, the proposed objective function is given by (25) and values: U1l 0, UC2 =0, and UC3 =1. After extensive manipulation
called the weighted cost function. This function is a combination [12],
between important three terms in induction motor drive. The first{K xK2+K (7
term is the efficiency, the second is the inverse of the stator current, PF l (K12 K 2±{K ) (27)
and the third is the power factor. j(Kv ± K 3 )( 2 ±+1)
Where

2410
K CO s x X rr (28)
0 b X r OR1PX
K = x K t ' " X (9)E
CO - Xrr )A

K =r e(X~~xKe (30) 1'

Where: cbi 11

rr Ir + M X ss XIs + XM (31) Ws (iU 0 wr flA

Where X" is the subtransient reactance. Figure 1 Efficiency versus rotor speed and slip speed at rated load
x x=X X I (32) torque.
X m+ X Ir
The power factor of the selected machine versus the rotor speed
and the slip frequency is shown in fig. (3).
4.4 MAXIMUM WEIGHTED COST STRATEGY 2
In MWCS (Maximum Weighted Cost Strategy), the weighting
factors and the slip frequency are adjusted for each operating point fi

so that the weighted cost function is maximized. At certain load

torque and rotor speed, the PSO controller determines the weighting
factors and the slip frequency os at which the maximum weighted
cost function occur. Table (1) lists the output of the PSO controller I
over a wide range of operating points. The range of each load
torque and rotor speed is 0.2 PU to 1.2 PU with a step of 0.2 PU
Wt IpVl aPU W
Figure 2 stator current versus rotor speed and slip speed at
making 36 operating points. different levels of load torque.
5. PRINCIPLES OF THE NEURAL NETWORK MODELING
Since the relation between the rotor flux level and shaft speed
and torque is a complex function of machine parameters, a trained
back-propagation network is considered most appropriate for this
application. In this study, 36 sets of input-output are sufficient to _,4
train the network to predict correctly the optimal value of the slip
speed (es and weighting factors. In the input training data, the speed
varies as follows: 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% 120% of its oM
rated values. Corresponding to each speed, the load torque has also
six different values (20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% 120% of its W'S 0-5
rated values). In each case ezs is tuned continuously until the input Fig 3 Power factor versus slip frequency and rotor speed.
power to the motor reaches its minimum. Subsequently the
command speed and load torque values are recorded as a pair of
inputs for the NN and the final eos value is taken as the
corresponding output.
3 - Phase supply
380 V- 50 Hz d-Ln

controlle generIao
7 ib iiai
TLIIII1 1 1 1 111
Neural (O* We l

Basedon
PSO| | tO)r |Reference CHysteresis llll
ll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~T*e| Current ||Current| | l

Figure 4 the proposed drive system using PSO based on the loss model controller

2411
 Table (1) training model for MMWCS S1=1.07, S2=-0.69, S3=0.77. For cost analysis, the following
(a) or = 0.2 PU (b) or = 0.4 PU (c) (or = 0.6 PU values were assumed: CO=0.05, N=15, T=8000.
(d) or = 0.8 PU (e) or = 1 PU (f) cor = 1.2 PU The block diagram of the optimization process based on PSO is
(a) shown in fig. 4. In the proposed controller, the trained neural
cor - 0.2 PU, MMWCS network based on PSO algorithm receives the rotor speed and
T (PU) al a2 a3 (os (PU) load torque. The neural network then determines the slip
0.2 0.4556 0.4556 0.0888 0.0343 frequency at which the optimal fitness function occurs at that
0.4 0.4690 0.4690 0.0620 0.0355 rotor speed and load torque.
0.6 0.4942 0.4942 0.0117 0.0399 Figures (5) shows the comparison between the constant voltage to
0.8 00.50 000.50 0.0000 0.0447 frequency ratio strategy, the field oriented control strategy, the
1 0.4976 0.4976 0.0049 0.0506 maximum efficiency strategy MES, the minimum stator current
1.2 0.4986 0.4986 0.4986 0.0028 0.0552 strategy MSCS, and the maximum power factor strategy at rated
(b)
(b) -
0.0028
0.4986
0.0552rotor speed. It is obvious from fig. (5-a) that: The stator current is
minimized using MES and MSCS, on the other hand, the stator
T_______
T (PU) at
or (U0.4 PU, MNIWCS
a2 a3 Cos (PU)
current exceeds its limit using MPFS if the load torque increases
to 0.5 PU. Figure (5-b) show a great improvement in efficiency
0.2 0.4024 0.4024 0.1953 0.0386 using MES and MSCS when compared with other strategies
0.4 0.4280 0.4280 0.1440 0.0385 especially at light loads. A high PF is reached using MPFS over
0.6 0.4651 0.4651 0.0697 0.0415 all range of load torque. A very poor PF is obtained using
0.8 0.4651 0.4651 0.0347 0.0461 conventional methods (field oriented control strategy and
1 0.4927 0.4927 0.0147 0.0510 constant voltage to frequency ratio) especially at light loads. This
1.2 0.4952 0.4952 0.0096 0.0557 is clear through fig. (5-c). On the other hand, fig. (5-d) shows the
(c) percentage of operating cost saving when comparing MES with
cor= 0.6 PU, MMNWCS other strategies for ez, 1 PU. It is obvious from fig (6-d) that the
T (PU) al a2 a3 cos (PU) saving has a noticeable value especially at light loads and rated
0.2 0.3713 0.3713 0.2574 0.0428 speed that can as high as 450 % using CVFRS. This difference
0.4 0.3876 0.3876 0.2248 0.0428 decreases to 65% using MPFS and decay to 1% using MSCS. It is
0.6 0.4345 0.4345 0.1310 0.0435 clear that the PWL using MSCS is approximately the same of the
0.8 0.4646 0.4646 0.0708 0.0474 PWL using the maximum efficiency strategy MES.
1 0.4761 0.4761 0.0479 0.0521 Figure (6) compares the stator current, the efficiency, the PF, and
1.2 0.4833 0.4833 0.0333 0.0567 the operating cost saving of the induction motor drive system
(d) under the maximum efficiency strategy with the maximum

(PU _c
T__T (PU) PU,d0.8
MNIWCS= _(or PU,MMWCSweighted cost strategy at ez, 1 PU. It is obvious from this figure
both strategies for all operating efficiency
al a2 a3 (OS (PU) that the stator current and the points. is almost the same for
0.2 0.3483 0.3483 0.3033 0.0462 It is obvious from this figure that the saving has a noticeable
0.4 0.3758 0.3758 0.2483 0.0452 value especially at light loads and rated speed that can as high as
0.6 0.4076 0.4076 0.1848 0.0465 17 00. It is clear that the PWL using the maximum weighted cost
0.8 0.4333 0.4333 0.1333 0.0498 strategy is less than the PWL using the maximum efficiency
1 0.4608 0.4608 0.0783 0.0535 strategy. The reason for that difference is due to the difference in
1.2 0.4758 0.4758 0.0483 0.0575 their power factor values. The difference in power factor values is
(e) shown in fig. (6-c).
|_ _ wor =1 PU, MMWCS
T (PU) al a2 a3 Cos(PU) Wu= 1 PU
0.2 0.3452 0.3452 0.3096 0.0474 2 -------- -- ----------- _.--..
0.4 0.3702 0.3702 0.2596 0.0469 __M
0.6 0.4002 0.4002 0.1996 0.0479
0.8 0.4202 0.4202 0.1596 0.0512
1 0.4452 0.4452 0.1096 0.0547 -
1.2 0.4702 0.4702 0.0596 0.0582 ......

(I) -w
|_____ Ocor 1.2 PU, MMWCS
T (PU) al a2 a3 Cos(PU)
T~~~~~~~~~~-
02 0T3 04 05P } 0
0.2 0.3277 0.3277 0.3446 0.0505 (a)
0.4 0.3552 0.3552 0.2896 0.0494 Wr I PU
0.6 0.3852 0.3852 0.2296 0.0501
0.8 0.4102 0v41020.4102
0v4102 0.1796
0v1796 0.0527
.... 0. 527 ~~~~~~~
~~~~~.7......... ............. ........

1 0.4302 0.4302 0.1396 0.0560

1.2 0.4552 0.4552 0.0896 1-0.0595
6. SIMUL ATIONRESULTS -.;W-
The simulation is carried out on a three-phase, 380 V, 1-HP, 50 0.Ei--f--------------.-----------.-------'- PS1
Hz, and 4-pole, squirrel cage induction motor. The motor r
parameters are RS=0.0598, X1S=0.0364, Xm=0.8564,Xir=0.0546, -5 ' .4 '. 'l

Rr=0.0403, Ke=0.0380, Kh=O.O38O, Cstr=0.0 150, CfW-O.OO93, T 4PU)

(b)

2412
 -- ----1 adaptively adjusts the slip frequency such that the drive system is
- --
operateda h iiu osadmnmmoeaigcs.I
___------___was found that the optimal system slip changes with variations in
speed and load torque. When comparing the proposed strategy
_ _ __-- F; with the conventional methods field oriented control strategy and

voltage to frequency ratio), It was found thata

constant
_------- _--------------_------ significant efficiency improvement is obtained at light loads for
--------
-----------------------

all speeds. On the other hand, small efficiency improvement is

(c) achieved at near rated loads. Finally, when comparing the
MWCS with MES, it was found that, the saving in PWL using the
-----------it
AA
E ---MWCS is greater than that of the MES, especially at light loads
VC>

and rated speed.

------8.-----
[1] Ojo, 0.; Dong, G.; "Efficiency optimizing control of
c3c)-------- ----------- -- ---------------- --induction-----motor----using---naturalcionvariables"nturlApplied"App Powerwe
Electronics Conference and Exposition, 2004. APEC '04.
r (1-") ~~~~~~Nineteenth Anmual IEEE Volume 3, 2004 Page(s): 1622 -
(d) 1627 Vol.3
Figure 5 the comparison between CVFRS, FOGS, MES, MSCS, [2] Abdin, E.S.; Ghoneem, G.A.; Diab, H.M.M.; Deraz, S.A.;
and MPFS of the induction motor at rated rotor speed. a- Stator "Efficiency optimization of a vector controlled induction
current b-Efficiency c-power factor d-operating cost saving motor drive using an artificial neural network" Industrial
____________________________________Electronics Society, 2003. IECON '03. The 29th Annual
1 _-4
~~~~~~~~~~~Conference of the IEEE, Volume 3, 2-6 Nov. 2003
Page(s):2543 - 2548 Vol.3
------[3] Poirier, E.; Ghribi, M .; Kaddouri, A.; "Losses minimization
------control of induction motor drives based on genetic
algorithms" Electric Machines and Drives Conference, 2001.
___________------------------_------------------_-------IEMDC---2001.----IEEE- International001IEE2001rnPage(s)01 :475(s)4754787
(a)
(F.") r
~~~~~~~[4]
Abrahamsen, F.; Blaabjerg, F.; Pedersen, J.K.; Thoegersen,
P.B.; "Efficiency-optimized control of medium-size induction
0.-7.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~motor
drives" Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on,
Volume: 37, Issue: 6, Nov.-Dec. 2001 Pages: 1761 - 1767
0o7 1111111-1[5] Zhao, B.; Guo, C.X.; Gao, Y.J.; "A multiagent-based particle
------------swarm----optimization---- -approach-----forimoptimalprachreactivel
_Y~~----- rac powerwe
o i I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dispatch"
Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on Volume 20,
~ ~~ -e!9 _____[6 Issue 2, May 2005 Page(s): 1070 - 1078
----------------Kioskeridis,-------I;--Margaris,-----N.;Kio"Losses1; Mminimizationses
niinat
m scailar-ar
7 (F")controlled induction motor drives with search controllers"
(b) Power Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, Volume: 1 1, Issue:
Pli i ilst-t, Cp,, FVI E-=32, March 1996 Pages: 213 -220
-0--73
i
V,~~~~~~~~~_i.[] ui axi; han Cengui;ZhoFM;IOptmaleficinc
---------control of field-oriented induction motor drive and rotor
-
--------resistance adaptive identifying" Power Electronics and
Motion Control Conference, 2004. IPEMC 2004. The 4th

-r (F- LJ) ~~~~~[8] Vukosavic, S.N.; Levi, E.;

"A method for transient torque
(c) response improvement in optimum efficiency induction
____ -. ~~~~~~~~~motor
drives" Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions
on, Volume: 18, Issue: 4, Dec. 2003 Pages: 484 - 493

----------_-drives" Industry Applications,

IEEE Transactions
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~o,Volume: 39, Issue: 4, July-Ag
E=
03Pgs 0017
[10] Vukosavic, S.N.; Levi, E.; "Robust DSP-based efficiency
0.20.3 0.4 0.7 F.U optimization of a variable speed induction motor drive''
(d) Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, Volume:
Figure 6 the comparison between MES and MWCS of the 50, Issue: 3, June 2003 Pages: 560 - WO
induction motor at rated rotor speed. a- Stator current b- [11] M. Kouki, and all. "High-Response Flux Control of Direct-
Efficiency c-power factor d-operating cost saving Field-Oriented Induction Motor with High Efficiency Taking
7. CONCLUSONSCor Lose itoAcout" IEEE Trns n nusr