Design optimization of a BLDG motor: a comparative analysis

Miroslav Markovic, Patrick Ragot and Yves Perriard

Laboratory of Integrated Actuators (LAI) Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) ELG-Ecublens 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Abstract-The paper presents an application of the Matlab optimization algorithms to a slotless brushless DC (BLDC) motor design, with 7 design parameters chosen to be free. The tested algorithms are: classical (gradient-based), direct-search and genetic. As a conclusion, the direct-search algorithm is not suitable for this application, as it is highly dependent on the initial values. The classical or genetic algorithms are suitable to apply, but within loops. The best results are produced by the sequence genetic-classical algorithms.

II. MOTOR CONFIGURATION AND ANALYTICAL MODEL A M o c The mathematical model of a slotless BLDC motor which will be used is completely based on [5] and [6]. It will be repeated here for a reference. This model, containing 7
free variables, is sufficiently complex so that the optimization algorithms can be tested, but on the other hand it is sufficiently simple to implement and to follow the path towards an optimal design. It is also true that some of the model equations can be improved, but anyway the aim of this paper is not to analyze the motor model but rather to apply various optimization algorithms, in order to produce an optimal design. The motor is presented in Fig. 1. Its design parameters are presented in Table I. If a parameter already has a fixed value, it is written; the abbreviation 'free' means that the parameter will be free during the design (they are seven in total).
f

I. INTRODUCTION
The design optimization of the electric motors using advanced optimization algorithms is a powerful tool for the motor designers. In literature, many interesting ideas are presented, and they generally combine an optimization tool with an analytical or numerical (usually FEM) motor model. For example, in [1] a commercial optimization software ProDesign is combined with a BLDC motor analytical model to obtain the motor optimal design. A very interesting optimization procedure is presented in [2]: it presents a reduced analytical and a complete numerical (FEM) PM motor model. An optimization algorithm, developed by the authors, is combined with the analytical model in a preliminary optimization, and then with the numerical model in a final optimization. Reference [3] presents the following procedure: the response surface method is applied in combination with FEM which gives a simple second-order model, which is then combined with a genetic algorithm to perform the optimization. Reference [4] is also worth mentioning: it combines a differential evolution method with a FEM model to optimize an interior permanent magnet (1PM) motor. This paper is an attempt to simplify the optimization procedure. At first, it uses the Matlab optimization algorithms, instead of developing an original optimization software. Furthermore, for the configurations which are difficult to solve analytically (such as the IPM motor), it is indeed necessary to apply a motor numerical model, but there are many configurations for which an analytical solution exists, and it can be easily combined with the optimization algorithm. This paper presents a design optimization of a slotless BLDC motor using three Matlab optimization tools, and their comparison. The Matlab optimization algorithms are combined with a motor simple analytical model, with 7 free design variables.
1 -4244-0743-5/07/$20.00 2007 IEEE

Fig. 1. Cross section of the analyzed slotless BLDC motor. B. Motor analytical model StrigwhtepamtrsnTblI,he oorahmtclmdli salse.Temtrbr imtrDi gieby gienby D =A (1)

1520

TABLE I
MOTOR DESIGN PARAMETERS

L la

JC.

E C e v
p

free free free free

AP
M

free free free

iron axial length magnet thickness winding thickness stator and rotor yoke thickness mechanical air gap
ratio: polar arc to polar pitch

Eh = 1011, Bfer = 1.5 and Kf < 0.30. In addition, the minimal value of the mechanical air gap is emim = 10-3 m. The final goal of the optimization is to minimize the Joule losses Pj. Although [5] and [6] additionally present the minimization of the total motor volume and the magnet volume, in this paper Pj is chosen as the objective function.

kM

Pcu

100 mm 4 0.70 0.90 T 0.018 /jiQm

polar pitch number of pole pairs filling factor magnet remanency copper resistivity

current

density

IV.

OPTIMIZATION PROCESS

The motor form factor A is given by: D L (2) The motor electric loading Ech, which determines the motor heating, is given by:

Ech

cukrEJc

(3)
(4) (

A. Optimization procedure Contrary to [5] and [6], where an original optimization algorithm is developed, a commercial software will be applied. The impression is that a development of an original optimization software is a too difficult task for a motor designer. In addition, many optimization software packages exist already at the market, so it would be useful to apply them. At first, we introduce the vector of free variables as X = [L la E C e Q Jc,]. A general procedure to perform the optimization process using the presented model would be as follows: . The values of constants AP, p, kr, M and Pc,, are set as in Table I.

The interpolar leakage coefficient Kf is given by: +E K = 1.5p D The no-load magnetic flux density Be is given by: 2laM D log Dr+2E The electromagnetic torque Fern is given by:

The Joule losses Pj, given by (8), are chosen as the objective function. . The four constraints (three equalities and one inequality) are set as shown in Section III. The vectors of lower and upper limit values XL and Xu are set.

. If required, the vector of initial values Xo is set. B. Vectors of limit values

(1 - Kf) k/3EchED2 (D + E)Be (6) 2A Using the flux conservation law, the stator and iron magnetic flux density Bfer is given by:

Fem =

According to [5] and [6], the vectors XL and Xu are set as in Table II. The limits have logical values (for example, Q < 1). As e is already a free parameter, the limit e > emim is implemented here, instead of writing an additional inequality constraint
TABLE II

-7/3BD

(7)

LOWER AND UPPER LIMIT VALUES FOR THE FREE PARAMETERS

Finally, the Joule losses Pj are given by:

= PJ:7PCQl A + E)Ech (D

parameter L (m)

lower limit (L)

The motor non-linear mathematical model is now completed. If all the design parameters from Table I were known, it would allow to calculate other motor quantities using (1)-(8).
III. MOTOR SPECIFICATIONS AND TECHNICAL
CONSTRAINTS

A~~~~~~~~~ (m) m e
(M)

(8)

la (m) E (m)

4. 10-3 l 10-3 1 10-3

upper limit (U) 500 10-3

50 10-3 50 10-3 5010-3 5 10-3 1 1 -o07

1 .10-3 emi

i Jc7 (A/m2)

0.8n

1 .105

Now, the optimization process can begin. The motor specifications are as follows. The electromagnetic torque should be 10 Nm; the allowed motor heating gives the electrical loading of 1011 A2m-3; the iron material is fully utilized if it operates at the limit of saturation, in this case 1.5 T; the interpolar leakage should be limited to 30% of the total flux created by the magnet. All this gives the constraints: Frnm 10,

C. Optimization algorithms To perform the optimization, the Matlab with its optimization toolboxes [7] is applied. Three algorithms are selected to perform the optimization. The first algorithm is 'classical' (from now on: K algorithm). It is gradient-based, and uses an advanced SQP method (function fmincon).

1521

The second algorithm is the 'direct-search' (from now on: D require initial values, the G algorithm is applied to converge algorithm), which applies a deterministic pattern search logic to a proximity of the global optimum, and finally the gradient(function patternsearch). Starting with a given initial based K algorithm is applied to find the global optimum. point, a set of points (called mesh) is created according to The results of 10 runs of the algorithm G, and 10 runs of defined rules, and then the point corresponding to the minimal the combination G-K are shown in Fig. 2. The lower dashed function value is chosen to create a new mesh. line shows the level of the global minimum P*; the upper Both these algorithms require an initial vector X0 to start one denotes .lP* which is assumed to delimit the area of the optimization process, and the algorithms look for a local acceptable solutions. minimum near this point. Although some algorithm parameters can influence the way to look for the minimum (which sometimes gives another local minimum for the same initial 100_ 0 vector), the impression is that the initial vector is essential for a G 90 * GK these two optimization algorithms. The third algorithm is the 'genetic algorithm' (from now on: 0 80 G algorithm), which applies genetic evolution rules (function ga). An initial generation of vectors is created randomly, c 70 and each new generation is created by varying the previous one, with changes which are partly deterministic and partly ~ 60 random. This algorithm does not require initial values, which is a great advantage. On the other hand, due to its random c 50 a nature, the optimization process should be repeated sufficiently 0 many times in order to find the global optimum. c 40~~~~ . 40( It is sometimes useful to combine two algorithms sequentially, which means to apply one and to use the obtained values _____ 4 1 2 5 3 6 7 8 9 10 as the initial ones for another. The combinations G-K and DK are very interesting.
V. OPTIMIZATION RESULTS

Fig. 2. The solution of the algorithms G and G-K during 10 runs.

A. Searching for the global minimum After some number of changes of the initial values, both K and D algorithms (and their combination D-K) give the same B Sensitivity to the initial values solution, which is thought to be the global optimum X*. The corresponding values (elements of the vector X*) are written It is interesting to see how the algorithms K, D and D-K in Table III and correspond to the minimal Joule losses of are sensitive to the initial values which they require. They will P* = 35.40 W. It is better than obtained in [5], which reports be tested as follows: the vector of the initial values X0 will 38.215 W. take the values koX*, where ko will be varied from 0.1 to 2.0. It corresponds to the deviation A = 100(ko - 1) in percents TABLE III from the global minimum. In other words, we will test the PARAMETERS VALUES CORRESPONDING TO THE GLOBAL OPTIMUM k three algorithms, when the initial value vector is more or less parameter value far from the value corresponding to the global optimum. L (m) 47.28 10-3 The results are presented in Fig. 3. If for some value 20.90 10-3 F( of deviation A the result is not present, it means that the E 5.22 (n10-3 algorithm failed to find any solution. C () 9.84 10-3 10-3 Obviously, all the three algorithms are very sensitive to the e (i) ( initial parameters. The algorithm K either fails or finds an 1 0 J (A/m2 75.229 H 7106 unacceptable solution, if A is out of the interval [-30, 60] %. The algorithm D never fails, but it almost never produces an acceptable solution: for example, even if the initial values are Concerning the G algorithm, after 10 runs it did not find only 10% far from the global optimum ones, the obtained the global optimum. The best of 10 solutions corresponds to solution is unacceptable. The combination D-K only slightly Pj=39.06 W. If the number of runs were increased (for improves this situation, providing sometimes an acceptable example by running the algorithm in a time limited loop), it solution. The impression is that the D algorithm implemented would probably give a better solution. in Matlab is not applicable to the motor design; a tuning of the However, the combination G-K quickly finds the global algorithm parameters (such as the mesh size or poll method) optimum. This combination is very interesting: it does not does not improve the result.
1522

70

65 _
60
55

x K
0 D-K A
A A

A A
A

50
45

A
A

0 0
A 0
x

o o0 o o Q
X

A A

o
x

[4] D. Zarko, D. Ban, T. Lipo, "Design optimization of interior permanent magnet (IPM) motors with maximized torque output in the entire speed range", presented at European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE), Dresden (Germany), 2005 [5] A. Kone, B. Nogarede, M. Lajoie-Mazenc, "Le dimensionnement des actionneurs electriques: Un probleme de programation non lineaire" (in french), J. Physique III, France 3, pp. 285-301, 1993. [6] F. Messine, B. Nogarede, J-L. Lagouanelle, "Optimal design of electromechanical actuators: a new method based on global optimization", IEEE TMAG, Vol. 34, No. 1, January 1998. pp. 299-308 [7] Mathworks website [Online]: opti-

mization/

http://www.mathworks.com/products/

40
35 _

X A

A
x

Qx

>

-100

30

-80

-60

-40

-20
A

(%)

20

40

60

80

100

Fig. 3. The solution of the algorithms K, D and D-K versus the deviation A from the global optimum.

VI. CONCLUSION

After the design optimization of a given slotless BLDC motor using the Matlab algorithms K, D and G and their combinations D-K and G-K, some conclusions can be drawn. At first, modifications of the algorithm parameters do not significantly change the obtained results. An additional problem is that the designer cannot be sure how to tune these parameters (typically the penalty factor), as [7] gives only vague explications on how they influence the algorithm. The algorithms D and D-K are highly sensitive to the initial vector, and therefore are not suitable for this application. The algorithm K is less sensitive to the initial vector, and should be run within a loop, by varying the initial vector. However, this solution could be awkward and time-consuming. The algorithm G (having the advantage of requiring no initial vector) should be run within a time-limited loop as well, which is easy to implement but time-consuming. The best algorithm is the combination G-K. It could be very interesting for the motor design, as it requires no initial values: the genetic algorithm is applied to determine the 'direction' towards the global optimum, and then the gradientbased classical algorithm finishes the optimization process. Concerning the computational efforts, all algorithms were very fast, requiring a few seconds to find the optimum.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Ragot, M. Markovic, Y. Perriard, "Optimization of electric motor for a solar airplane application", IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 42, No. 4, July/August 2006, pp. 1053-1061

[2] T. Higuchi et al., "Optimization procedure of surface PM synchronous motors", IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 33, No. 2, March 1997, pp. 1943-1946 [3] L. Jolly, M. Jabbar, L. Qinghua, "Desing optimization of permanent magnet motors using responce surface methodology and genetic algorithms", IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 41, No. 10, October 2005, pp. 3928-3930

1523