Optimized Design

of Electric Power Equipment

0.W. Andersen *
In the design of rotating electric machines and trans- The leg width W and depth H are rounded t o the
formers, the objective is usually to minimize the cost, nearest mm, and the leg cross-section is calculated as
including the cost of losses, at the same time meeting the stacking factor times W2. Multiplying this with the
performance requirements and other limitations. The constant flux density gives the flux. Knowing the fre-
minimization of the cost function is further complicated quency, the volts per turn VPT can now be calculated.
by the fact that the function is discontinuous. Dimen- The synthesis of the inner low voltage winding with
sions must be rounded, numbers of turns and parallel voltage UL starts with determining the number of turns
strands must be integers, and in rotating machines, NL by using the equation NL = UL/VPT, rounded t o the
numbers of slots and parallel circuits can assume only nearest integer. For the high voltage winding UH, the
certain values. number of turns NH is determined from the voltage
This article describes a method, used since about ratio as NH = NL*UH/UL, rounded t o the nearest integer.
1965, for design optimization by computer. It has been The depth of the windings is set equal to the depth
applied t o a large variety of transformers, turbine gen- of the core leg H minus twice the constant clearance to
erators, hydroelectric generators, smaller salient pole the core. The current is VA divided by voltage, and the
synchronous machines, and squirrel-cage induction wire diameter is found from the current and the desired
motors. T h e programs h a v e been
developed in close cooperation with in-
dustrial users. The method is surprisingly
simple and efficient. W
A small program has been made solely
for the purpose of explaining the method
and demonstrating how it works. The pro-
gram designs small single-phase trans-
f o r m e r s with t w o r o u n d w i r e layer H
windings, a s shown in Figure 1.
An optimizing program consists of three
parts: synthesis, analysis, and a n optimiz-
ing routine.
iw/2
Synthesis
The synthesis is a procedure for produc-
ing a design, on the basis of:
rn A set of values for independent vari-
ables, here the width and the depth of
the core leg and t h e current density.
For simplicity, the current density is
set equal for the two windings.
rn A set of constants, in this case the
frequency, flux density, insulation
thicknesses and clearances, and the
stacking factor for the core.
rn Rated values, here voltamperes and
voltages for the two windings.
A normal design practice.
0
* Norwegian Institute of Technology Figure 1. Small, single-phase transformers

0895-O156/91/0100-O011$1.000 1991 IEEE January 1991 11

 % penalty
Permissible range
with penalty = 0
Figure 2. Penalty for short-circuit reactance
current density (one of the independent variables). The
wire diameter is rounded to the nearest .01 mm. The
number of turns per layer can now be calculated, taking
into account the wire insulation and a small axial
clearance. The number is rounded down to the nearest
integer. Then the number of layers is determined,
rounded up to the nearest integer, and the width of the
winding can be found.
The remaining core dimensions can now be estab-
lished, and the synthesis is complete.
Analysis
Here the analysis includes the calculation of weights,
losses, temperature rise, reactance, and costs. Since
the program is intended only for demonstration pur-
poses, the magnetizing current is ignored, and the
temperature rise is calculated from a very simple for-
mula.
Optimizing Routine Monica
The optimizing logic is contained in a routine called
Monica. The name is derived from Monte Carlo, which
is used as a description of mathematical methods using
random numbers. The function of Monica is to guide
the choice of independent variables in such a way that
t h e optimum, usually t h e lowest cost design, is
reached. For this design, all the technical requirements
must also be met, if at all possible.
12 IEEE Computer Applications in Power
During the optimization, the program goes through
a large number of alternative designs, each with a dif-
ferent set of values for the independent variables. Typi-
cally, the number of alternative designs ranges between
a few hundred and a few thousand.
Choice of independent variables
Values for t h e independent variables a r e chosen
by Monica, and, after this is done, t h e optimizing
program p r o c e e d s t o synthesize a design. T h e
designer can exercise control over t h e independent
variables by specifying limits, and t h e y should
therefore b e a s meaningful a s possible a s design
parameters.
When a design is made, it is evaluated in terms
of its cost and performance characteristics. Control
is then transferred back t o Monica, which chooses a
new set of variables for a new alternative design. It
will be explained later how this is done in such a way
that the program works systematically in the direc-
tion of better designs, finally converging on t h e op-
timum.
Performancerequirementsand other limitations
In a transformer program, there may be lower and
upper limits on the short-circuit reactance. The cost
function, which is minimized by Monica, has an addi-
tional penalty term for designs that d o not meet this
requirement.
 In order for t h e
program t o decide
which corrective ac-
tion t o take when the
requirements are not
met, it is only neces-
s a r y t o h a v e less
penalty the closer to
the permissible
r a n g e t h e charac-
teristics are. Monica
t h e n forces t h e
penalty t o become
zero, thereby meet-
ing all t h e require-
ments. The
corrective action
does, therefore, not
h a v e t o b e built
specifically into the
programs.

Figure 3. Optimizing logic with two variables
Figure 2 shows how the penalty is arrived at. Outside
the permissible range, it is equal to a small percentage of
the total cost, plus a percentage proportional to the
difference between the actual and the permissible reac-
tances. Inside the permissible range, the penalty is zero.
In the demonstration program, an upper limit on
temperature rise can also be specified, which is taken
care of by a similar penalty function.
Penalties are applied on the basis of all requirements
that cannot be handled easily by the design synthesis,
with the exception of the limits for the independent
variables. They are taken care of by Monica directly.
The penalties are added and become part of a criterion
function, which is equal t o cost plus penalty.
The optimum design has the minimum value of the
criterion function. For this design, the penalty is zero,
if at all possible. This means that all the performance
requirements and other limitations are met. Further-
more, the design has the minimum cost, considering all
the constraints.
The amount of penalty must be large enough so that
meeting all requirements is assured even when this
adds considerably to the cost. On the other hand, it
should not be too large, since sometimes moving to a
less expensive design is easier, if the characteristics are
temporarily allowed to assume values slightly outside
their permissible range.
Optimizing logic
with two variables
The criterion func-
tion, which normally
is equal to cost plus
penalty, is a func-
tion of t h e inde-
pendent variables. The optimizing problem consists of
minimizing this function within the limits of the vari-
ables.
Various methods can be applied t o problems of
this kind, but Monica is particularly well suited. It
combines speed, accuracy, reliability, simplicity, and
also t h e ability t o handle discontinuous functions.
During the design synthesis, it is therefore possible
to round off dimensions, numbers of turns, layers,
and so on, and have each alternative represent a
practical design.
The logic will first be explained on the basis of only
two variables. In the demonstration program, they
would be the core leg width and depth, and the current
density would be kept constant. The optimization can
then be visualized, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Optimizing logic with two variables
The optimization starts in some point, shown as
point 1 in the figure. The value of y, which is a function
of the variables x l and x2, is found in this point.
Monica is, as the name suggests, a Monte Carlo
routine and makes use of random numbers t o find a
direction in which t o move. Such an arbitrary direction
takes it t o point 2. The distance between successive
points is, for the purpose of this explanation, con-
sidered as being constant. This distance is called the
size of the step, and, since going from point 1 to point

January 1991 13
2 resulted in a lower value of the function, it is called a
successful step.
Encouraged by its success, Monica continues in the
same direction, taking two more successful steps. How-
ever, point 5 has a higher value of the function than
point 4. Monica therefore returns t o point 4 and tries a
new direction, using a new set of random numbers.
As it turns out, point 6 also has a higher value of y.
An important feature of Monica is that it now turns
around 180 degrees, changing the signs of Ax1 and Axz.
It does this on the assumption that, since one direction
is uphill, the opposite direction is probably downhill.
Point 7 is lower than point 4. Another successful step
follows. Then it again becomes necessary t o try a new
direction with a new set of random numbers. Assume
now that Monica moves directly on t o point 12.
From this point, it is impossible to reduce the func-
tion further with the size of step that has been used so
far. Rather than give up, however, Monica now reduces
the size of the step, moving even closer to the true
minimum.
More complete description
When there are more than two variables, Monica
works in much the same way as just described, al-
though the logic cannot be visualized as easily. Further-
more, if another variable that is not a length also comes
in, such as the current density, the notion of a constant
step size obviously needs some amplification. There
are also some additional features of Monica, which
have not yet been mentioned. The example that follows
explains the procedure in more detail.
Lesm LegDensity Current Density
mn mm A/mm2
Alternative 1 50.
70. 2.0
Unit vector 2. 4. 0.2
Random no. 0.45 -0.9 0.54
Adjusted
I
random no. 0.5 -1 .o
AX1 .O -4.0 0.12
Alternative 2 51. 66. 2.12.
o'6
The criterion function is evaluated for values of the
variables as given for alternative 1 in the table. In order
t o find a new set of variables for a second alternative,
Monica uses random numbers with a flat distribution
between -1 and + 1 (row 3 in the table). The numbers are
divided by the largest absolute value among them,
which in the example is 0.9, to obtain the adjusted
random numbers in row 4.They are then multiplied by
the unit vectors to get the change Ax for each of the
variables. This way, the change is always a full unit
14 IEEE Computer Applications in Power
vector for one of the variables, and less than a full unit
vector for the others. This is actually what takes place,
rather than the step size being constant, as assumed in
the initial simplified explanation of the logic.
If alternative 2 (row 6) has a lower value of the
criterion function than alternative 1, the values of Ax
remain t h e s a m e also for alternative 3. This is
equivalent t o keeping the direction constant in the
initial explanation as long as successful steps are the
result. Alternative 3 will then have the values:
I I
Legwidth LegDepth CunentDensity
mm mm A/mm2
Alternative 3 52. 62. 2.24
If, on the other hand, alternative 2 has a higher value
of the criterion function than alternative 1, the values
of Ax change signs. This is the equivalent of the earlier
180 degree change of direction. Alternative 1 is now the
reference. and the values for alternative 3 will be:
leg Width Leg Depth Current Density
mm mm A/mm2
Alternative 3 49. 74. 1.88
Lower and upper limits are specified for all the vari-
ables. If an addition of Ax would cause a variable t o
exceed such a limit, the variable is simply set equal t o
the limit.
It is also possible t o specify lower and upper limits
the same, changing a variable into a constant. If this is
done for all the variables, the optimizing program will
function as a synthesis program. Normally, however,
the limits are set far enough apart to ensure that the
optimum is somewhere in between. In practical
programs for use by the industry, starting points for the
optimization are always determined by the limits for
the variables, and there are usually five such starting
points.
When in the vicinity of the optimum the number of
unsuccessful steps exceeds a certain limit, Monica
switches to smaller unit vectors, thereby reducing the
step size, or it switches to a new starting point. When
the initial coarse optimization is performed from five
different starting points, the best end point is chosen
as the starting point for the final fine stage of the
optimization.
Programs for the Industry
With t h e exception of t h e t u r b i n e generator
programs, which were developed exclusively for the
General Electric Company, all the programs are now
available for use on IBM compatible personal com-
puters (PCs). On 20 MHz PCs, more than 1,000 alterna-
tive designs are usually evaluated in less than a minute,
before the optimum is found.
By specifying limits for the variables and overriding
built-in standards for insulation thicknesses, clearan-
ces, etc., the designer has complete control of what
comes out of the programs. It is also possible to break
into the programs and change them, since most parts
are supplied in Fortran source code.
Input files for companion analysis programs are
produced automatically. The designer, therefore, also
has the possibility of bypassing both t h e optimization
and the synthesis, and make all the adjustments he
wants of dimensions and winding data directly.
The transformer program and t h e synchronous
machine program produce input files for subsequent
finite element field analysis automatically (see CAP,
October 1989).
Power transformers
Early versions were developed for National Industri
in Norway, starting in 1965, for a limited number of
winding arrangements. The present program can hand-
le practically all core type transformers, ranging from
distribution transformers up t o the largest sizes, and
also including special types, such a s rectifier trans-
formers. The program optimizes on core diameter,
depth, and flux density. For the windings, it varies
depending on the type, but temperature rise oil-copper
and axial copper dimension are often used a s i n d e
pendent variables.
Capitalized cost of losses is usually included in the
cost function, but upper limits can also be specified for
open and short circuit losses. If so, they are handled by
penalty functions.
Turbine generators
Three programs for partial optimization of large tur-
bine generators were made during 1967-1968 for t h e
General Electric Company, based on these same prin-
ciples.
Two programs maximized output from hydrogen
cooled rotors of different types with given diameters
and lengths, also taking into account field winding los-
ses. Mechanical stresses in the teeth, rotor body, and
wedges were kept below their maximum limits automat-
ically by means of penalty functions, and the optimum
often had stresses very close t o the limits.
Another program minimized losses in water cooled
stator windings for a given slot size. It gave t h e op-
timal mix and dimensions of solid and hollow strands,
designing upper and lower bars differently, because
of t h e different slot leakage flux producing different
eddy current losses.
Salient pole synchronous generators
The same program can handle all types ranging from
small two pole diesel driven generators, up t o large
hydroelectric generators. It has evolved during t h e last
20 years. Formulas and methods for calculating reac-
tances, pole leakage, etc., now incorporate the results
of advanced finite element field calculations.
The program optimizes on up t o eleven independent
variables, seven for the stator, three for t h e rotor, and,
in a few cases, the synchronous reactance is also a
variable. Limits on temperature rise, losses, transient
reactance, rotor inertia, rim stress, etc., are handled by
penalty functions.
For hydroelectric generators, there is a separate
optimizing program, minimizing the weight of main
brackets, with penalty functions for mechanical stres-
ses and deflection.
Squirrel-cage induction motors
This is the newest program, with the first version
completed in 1989. It can handle all sizes of three phase
motors with a variety of single, double, and triple squir-
rel cages.
It is not practical t o calculate rotor skin effect by
finite elements for t h e more than 1,000 alternative
designs that are usually evaluated. Therefore, this is
done with an equivalent 20 step ladder circuit, but the
calculations have been checked against more accurate
finite element calculations and have been modified t o
give very close agreement.
The number of independent variables ranges b e
tween 8 and 11. Limits can be specified for starting
current, starting torque, pullout torque, temperature
rise, efficiency, etc.
For Further Reading
O.W. Andersen, "Optimum Design of Electrical Machines," IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus andsystems, vol. 86, June 1967, pp.
707-711.
O.W. Andersen, "Optimum Design of Turbine Generators," IEEE
Conference Paper 70 CP I9@PWR, New York, January 1970.
O.W. Andersen, "PC-Based Field Calculations for Electric Power
Applications,"IEEE Computer Applications in Power, October 1989.
Biography
O.W. Andersen has been Professor of Electric Power
Engineering at the Norwegian Institute of Technology
since 1964. Before that time, he was a synchronous
machine designer with Canadian General Electric. He
has been on sabbatical leave three times in the United
States, where h e has worked for the General Electric
Company in the Turbine Generator Department in
Schenectady and in the Transformer Department in
Pittsfield, a n d h a s been a Visiting Professor a t
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy and at the
University of Minnesota.
January 1991 15