Multi-objective Design Optimization of Three-Phase Induction Motor Using NSGA-II Algorithm

Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 32)


The modeling of electrical machine is approached as a system optimization, more than a simple machine sizing. Hence wide variety of designs are available and the task of comparing the different options can be very difficult. A number of parameters are involved in the design optimization of the induction motor and the performance relationship between the parameters also is implicit. In this paper, a multi-objective problem is considered in which three phase squirrel cage induction motor (SCIM) has been designed subject to the efficiency and power density as objectives. The former is maximized where the latter is minimized simultaneously considering various constraints. Three single objective methods such as Tabu Search (TS), Simulated Annealing (SA) and Genetic Algorithm (GA) is used for comparing the Pareto solutions. Performance comparison of techniques is done by performing different numerical experiments. The result shows that NSGA-II outperforms other three for the considered test cases.


Multi-objective optimization Induction motors Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms Single objective evolutionary algorithm 


  1. 1.
    Appelbaum, J., Fuchs, E.F., White, J.C.: Optimization of three-phase induction motor design. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2, 407–422 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Madescu, G., Bolea, I., Miller, T.J.E.: An analytical iterative model (AIM) for induction motor design. In: Conference Record of the IEEE-IAS Annual Meeting, vol. 1, pp. 556–583, San Diego, CA (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Appelbaum, J., Khan, I.A., Fuchs, E.F.: Optimization of three-phase induction motor design with respect to efficiency. In: Proceedings of ICEM, pp. 639–642, Lousanne, Switzerland (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramarathnam, R., Desai, B.G.: Optimization of poly-phase induction motor design—a nonlinear programming approach. IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. PAS-90, 570–578 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fetih, N.H., El-Shewy, H.M.: Induction motor optimum design, including active power loss effect. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 1(3), 155–160 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb, K.: Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, pp. 48–55. Wiley, New York (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fuchs, E.F., Appelbaum, J., Khan, I.A, Holl, J., Frank, U. V.: Optimization of induction motor efficiency, vol. 1. Three Phase Induction Motors, Final Report, EPRIEL-4152-ccm, Project, Colorado (1985)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K., Anand, A., Joshi, D.: A computationally efficient evolutionary algorithm for real-parameter optimization. Evol. Comput. 10(4), 371–395 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ranjan, S., Mishra, S.K., Behera, S.K.: A comparative performance evaluation of evolutionary algorithms for optimal design of three-phase induction motor. In: IEEE Xplore, pp. 1–5 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ranjan, S., et al.: Multiobjective optimal design of three-phase induction motor for traction systems using an asymmetrical cascaded multilevel inverter. IJISM 19–125 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coello, C.A.C., Gregorio, T.P., Maximino, S.L.: Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 8(3), 256–279 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pareto, V., Cours, D.: Economie Politique, vol. 8 (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhou, A., Qu, B.-Y., Li, H., Zhao, S.-Z., Suganthan, P.N., Zhang, Q.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Swarm Evol. Comput. 1(1), 32–49 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montes, E.M., Coello, C.A.C.: Constraint-handling in nature-inspired numerical optimization: past, present and future. Swarm Evol. Comput. 1(4), 173–194 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang, S., Luo, J., Leonardi, F., Lipo, T.A.: A general approach to sizing and power density equations for comparison of electrical machines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 34(1), 92–97 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, M.K., Lee, C.G., Jung, H.K.: Multiobjective optimal design of three-phase induction motor using improved evolution strategy. IEEE Trans. Magn. 34(5), 2980–2983 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ojo, O.: Multiobjective optimum design of electrical machines for variable speed motor drives. Tennesse Technological University, Cookeville, TN 38505Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronics EngineeringNISTBerhampurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Electronics EngineeringBirla Institute of TechnologyMesra, RanchiIndia

Personalised recommendations