Bio-inspired optimization

algorithms for parameter

determination of three-phase
induction motor
V.P. Sakthivel and S. Subramanian
Department of Electrical Engineering, Annamalai University,
Tamilnadu, India
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this research paper is to examine the bio-inspired optimization algorithms,
namely, genetic algorithm(GA), particle swarmoptimization (PSO) and bacterial foraging optimization
(BFO) algorithm with adaptive chemotactic step for determining the steady-state equivalent circuit
parameters of the three-phase induction motor using a set of manufacturer data.
Design/methodology/approach The induction motor parameter determination issue is devised
as a nonlinear constrained optimization problem. The nonlinear equations of various quantities
(torque, current and power factor) are derived in terms of equivalent circuit parameters from a single
and a double-cage model, and then, equates to the corresponding manufacturer data. These equations
are solved by the bio-inspired algorithms. Using the squared error between the determined and the
manufacturer data as the objective function, the parameter determination problem is transferred into
an optimization process where the model parameters are determined that minimize the dened
objective function. The objective function is iteratively minimized using GA, PSO and BFOtechniques.
In order to balance the exploration and exploitation searches of the BFO algorithm, an adaptive
chemotactic step is utilized.
Findings Comparisons of the results of GA, PSO, BFOand IEEE Std. 112-F (using no-load, locked-rotor
and stator resistance tests) methods for two sample motors are presented. Results showthe superiority of the
bio-inspired optimization algorithms over the classical one. Besides, BFO-based parameter determination
method is observed to obtain better quality solutions quickly than GA and PSO methods.
Practical implications The parameters obtained by the proposed approaches can be used in
analyzing the stalling and/or reacceleration process of a loaded motor following a fault or during
voltage sag condition as well as in system-level studies.
Originality/value The most signicant contribution of the research is the potential to determine
the equivalent circuit parameters of induction motor only from its manufacturer data without
conducting any lab tests on the motor. The bio-inspired optimization based parameter determination
approaches are faster and less intrusive than the IEEE Std. 112-F method.
Keywords Parameter determination, Induction motor, Bio-inspired algorithms, Sensitivity analysis,
Genetic algorithms, Circuits
Paper type Research paper
Nomenclature
V
ph
stator voltage per phase (V)
I
1
stator current per phase (A)
I
2
rotor current per phase (A)
R
1
stator resistance per phase
(V)
X
1
stator leakage reactance
per phase (V)
R
c
iron or core resistance (V)
X
m
magnetizing reactance per
phase (V)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0332-1649.htm
COMPEL
31,2
528
COMPEL: The International Journal
for Computation and Mathematics in
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Vol. 31 No. 2, 2012
pp. 528-551
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0332-1649
DOI 10.1108/03321641211200572
R
2
rotor resistance referred to
stator side (V)
X
2
rotor reactance referred to
stator side (V)
R
21
inner cage rotor resistance
(V)
R
22
outer cage rotor resistance
(V)
X
21
inner cage rotor leakage
reactance (V)
X
22
outer cage rotor leakage
reactance (V)
Y
1
stator admittance (9)
Y
m
magnetizing admittance
(9)
Y
21
inner cage rotor admittance
(9)
Y
22
outer cage rotor admittance
(9)
Y
tot
total admittance (9)
T
st
(mf),
T
max
(mf), T

(mf) manufacturer starting

torque, maximum torque
and full-load torque data
I
st
(mf), I

(mf),
pf

(mf) manufacturer starting

current, full-load current
and full-load power factor
data
T
st
(d), T
max
(d),
T

(d) determined starting torque,

maximum torque and
full-load torque data
I
st
(d), I

(d),
pf

(d) determined starting

current, full-load current
and full-load power factor
data
V
th
, R
th
and X
th
Thevenins equivalent
voltage, resistance and
reactance, respectively
v
s
motors angular velocity
(rad/s)
s slip
s
max
slip at which maximum
torque occurs
h

full-load efciency (%)

P

rated power (W)

P
rot
rotational losses (W)
X
m.f.
and X
d
manufacturer and
determined data of
performance characteristic
X
R a function that returns the
real part of the given
complex number
X
min
and X
max
minimum and maximum
limits of the equivalent
circuit parameters
r
c
crossover rate
r
m
mutation rate
V
k
i;n
velocity of particle i at
iteration k
W weighting factor
C
1
, C
2
acceleration factor
rand
j
random number between 0
and 1
X
k
i;n
current position of particle i
at iteration k
Xpbest
i
personal best of particle i
Xgbest global best of the group
W
max
nal weight factor
W
min
initial weight factor
K current iteration number
K
max
maximum iteration number
S population size
N dimension of the
optimization problem
F(i, j, k, l) cost at the location of ith
bacterium
X
i
(j, k, l) location of the ith bacterium
at jth chemotactic step,
kth reproduction step and
lth elimination-dispersal
step
X
g
global minimum bacteria
from all the cost functions
evaluated till that point
Fcc
swarm attractant cost
F
i
health
health of the bacterium i
i individual, particle or
bacterium number
j counter for chemotactic step
k counter for reproduction
step
l counter for
elimination-dispersal step
m counter for swimming
locomotion
N
c
maximum number of
chemotactic steps
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
529
N
re
maximum number of
reproduction steps
N
ed
number of
elimination-dispersal
events
p
ed
the probability of
occurrence of
elimination-dispersal
events
N
s
maximum number of
swims
d
attract
depth of attractant
v
attract
width of attractant
h
repellant
height of repellent
v
repellant
Width of repellent
C(i) adaptive step size
1. Introduction
Three-phase induction motors are usually used in industries because of their lower
price, ruggedness, and almost maintenance-free operation. The performance
characteristics of an induction motor are determined from its equivalent circuit. The
equivalent circuit with a single-cage rotor model of an induction motor is commonly
used. Such an equivalent circuit can forecast the motor characteristics from normal
speed to breakdown speed. But it provides erroneous results at starting. So as to get
better results at starting, it is necessary to consider the equivalent circuit with a
double-cage rotor model (Pedra and Corcoles, 2004; Pedra and Sainz, 2006; Corcoles et al.,
2002; Johnson and Willis, 1991).
The single-cage model parameters of an induction motor are generally determined
from the no-load, locked-rotor and stator resistance tests (IEEE Power Engineering
Society, 2004; Say, 1983). The same tests cannot be used to determine the double-cage
model parameters. The motor parameters can also be determined from manufacturer
data to satisfy some external characteristics. Several methods of determining the motor
parameters, for both single- and double-cage rotor models, from manufacturer data are
reported in literature (Pedra and Corcoles, 2004; Pedra and Sainz, 2006; Johnson and
Willis, 1991).
Toliyat et al. (2003) have surveyed various approaches to machine parameter
estimation. A very simple method for determining squirrel cage induction motor
parameters and problems in the determination of parameters with the two methods
proposed in IEEE Standard 112 was discussed (Pedra and Sainz, 2006). In this method,
the equivalent circuit parameters were calculated from data of three tests: no-load,
locked-rotor and over-load tests. The method had the advantage of not requiring torque
measurements. The mathematical method for estimating the equivalent circuit
parameters of induction machines from the most available performance characteristics
was presented (Ansuj et al., 1989). These methods utilize machine equations to estimate
the parameters and then performs sensitivity analysis with respect to the circuit
parameters to match the given performance characteristics.
A new parameter estimation method for induction motors has been presented
(Lindenmeyer et al., 2001). In this method, the double-cage induction motor was modeled
from manufacturer data such as name plate data and motor performance
characteristics. Attaianese et al. (2002) proposed a self-commissioning algorithm for
the determination of the parameters of an induction motor fed by a VSI. The parameter
values obtained by classical approaches can reveal signicant differences in the entire
range of slip (Filho et al., 1991). This leads to the conclusion that to describe the
performance of the induction machine more precisely and to reduce the differences
COMPEL
31,2
530
between the estimated and real performances, one must modify the parameters obtained
from the classical method.
To achieve this goal, the use of optimization techniques seems to be a promising
alternative to the classical approaches. Evolutionary algorithm (Nangsue et al., 1999),
genetic algorithm (GA) (Bishop and Richards, 1990; Alonge et al., 1998; Pillay et al.,
1997; Rahimpour et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2001; Nollan et al., 1994; Orlowska Kowalska
et al., 2006), adaptive GA (Abdelhadi et al., 2004), articial neural network (Michael and
Ronald, 1995; Bae, 1997), differential evolution (Ursemand Vadstrup, 2003) and particle
swarm optimization (PSO) (Sakthivel et al., 2010b; Nikranajbar et al., 2010) have been
used for parameter estimation of induction motor.
Bacterial foraging optimization (BFO) algorithmis a recently introduced optimization
technique inspired by the foraging behavior of the Escherichia coli bacteria (Passino,
2002). BFO has been successfully applied to various optimization problems such as
distributed optimization and control (Passino, 2002), optimal power ow (Tang et al.,
2006; Vahedi et al., 2010), design of optimal power system stabilizers (Das et al., 2008),
harmonic estimation (Mishra, 2005), economic load dispatch (Panigrahi and Pandi, 2008)
and non-intrusive efciency determination of induction motor (Sakthivel et al., 2010c).
The conventional BFOuses xed step size (the step by which the bacteria run or tumble)
in updating the position of the bacteria. Recently, an adaptive BFO algorithm has been
proposed for the design of energy efcient induction motor (Sakthivel et al., 2010a). This
algorithmemploys an adaptive step size to improve the global and local search ability. It
has been shown that the adaptive BFOalgorithmyields better performance compared to
the GA, PSO and conventional BFO methods.
To the best of the knowledge, it is the rst report of applying BFO with an adaptive
chemotactic step to solve induction motor parameter determination problems. The
present work is a humble contribution in this direction.
This paper proposes bio-inspired algorithms such as GA, PSO and BFO for
determining the equivalent circuit parameters of three-phase induction motor from
manufacturer data. The no-load, locked-rotor and stator resistance tests are
conducted on the test motors in order to compute their parameters traditionally (IEEE
Std. 112-F method). The proposed method is tested on two sample motors of different
sizes. The parameters obtained by the proposed methods are then used to predict
starting, maximum and full-load torques of the motors and compare with the
corresponding values supplied by the manufacturer. The results obtained using IEEE
Std. 112-F method is also provided for comparing the performance of the proposed
methods.
The primary contributions of this paper are as follows:
.
bio-inspired optimization algorithms, GA, PSO and BFO with adaptive step size
are developed for parameter determination of three-phase induction motor from
manufacturer data; and
.
the performances of algorithms are compared in terms of robustness, convergence
and computation time.
2. Review of parameter determination methods
The parameter determination methods can be classied into ve categories as follows.
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
531
2.1 Parameter calculation from construction data
This method requires information of the machines construction, such as geometry and
material parameters. It is the most accurate procedure, since it is most closely related to
the physical reality. On the other hand, it is the most costly one since it is based on eld
calculation methods, such as the nite element method (Belmans et al., 1992; Dolinar
et al., 1998). This method is mainly applied in induction motor design.
2.2 Parameter determination based on steady-state motor models
The steady-state equivalent circuit parameters of the single-cage induction motor are
determined from the no-load, locked-rotor and stator resistance tests, as dened by
IEEE Std. 112-F method (IEEE Power Engineering Society, 2004). In this category, the
methods use iterative solutions based on induction motor steady-state network
equations and manufacturer data ( Johnson and Willis, 1991; Hung and Dommel, 1996;
Awadallah, 2008). This is the most common type of parameter estimation for system
studies because the data needed for it are usually available.
2.3 Frequency-domain parameter determination
The stand-still frequency response method is based on measurements that are
performed at standstill. The motor parameters are estimated fromthe resulting transfer
function (Willis et al., 1989). The major advantage of this method is its accuracy.
However, stand-still tests are not common industry practice, and this method can
therefore not be used very often.
2.4 Time-domain parameter determination
For this type of method, time-domain motor measurements are performed and model
parameters are adjusted to match the measurements (De Kock et al., 1994; Moon and
Keyhani, 1994; Ju et al., 1996). Since not all parameters can be observed using
measurable quantities, the motor models need to be simplied ( Ju et al., 1996). The
method is costly, and the required data are usually not available.
2.5 Real-time parameter determination
This type of parameter determination is used to tune the controllers of induction motor
drive systems. This requires real-time parameter estimation techniques, using simplied
induction motor models that are fast enough to continuously update the motor
parameters and therefore prevent the detuning of induction machine controllers
(Stephan et al., 1994).
The motor parameter determination methods proposed in this paper belong to the
second group of methods. It is suitable for system studies since sufcient data are
usually available to determine a motor model of sufcient accuracy.
3. Problem formulation
An induction motor can be modeled by using a single- or double-cage model. The
parameter determination problem is formulated as an optimization problem, the
objective being the minimization of error between the estimated and the manufacturer
data. The problem formulation for the parameter estimation of two different induction
motor models is described below.
COMPEL
31,2
532
3.1 Single-cage rotor model formulation
The problem formulation uses starting torque, maximum torque, full-load torque and
full-load power factor manufacturer data to estimate stator resistance, rotor resistance,
core or iron resistance, stator leakage reactance, rotor leakage reactance and
magnetizing leakage reactance parameters.
Figure 1(a) shows the equivalent circuit of a single-cage rotor model of an induction
motor. The Thevenin equivalent of Figure 1(a) is shown in Figure 1(b), where the
Thevenin parameters (V
th
, R
th
and X
th
) are given by:
V
th

V
ph
Z
sh
Z
1
Z
sh

Z
th
R
th
jX
th

Z
1
Z
sh
Z
1
Z
sh
Here, Z
1
R
1
jX
1
and Z
sh
R
c
==jX
m
.
The input impedance of the motor is:
Z
in
Z
1
Z
sh
==Z
2
where, Z
2
is the rotor impedance and is given by:
Z
2

R
2
s
jX
2
The maximum torque, full-load torque, full-load current and power factor of the motor
are determined by the following equations:
T
max
d
3V
2
th
2v
s
R
th

R
2
th
X
th
X
2

2
_
_ _ 1
T
fl
d
3V
2
th
R
2
sv
s
R
th
R
2
=s
2
X
th
X
2

2
I
fl
d
V
ph
Z
in

3
pf
fl
d cos tan
21
X
th
X
2
R
th
R
2
=s
_ _ _ _
4
Figure 1.
Single-cage rotor model
R
1
R
2
R
th
V
th
X
th
X
2
R
2
S
S
I
1
Notes: (a) General equivalent circuit; (b) Thevenin equivalent circuit
V
ph
R
c
X
1
(a) (b)
X
m
X
2
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
533
The objective of the bio-inspired optimization algorithms is to minimize the deviation
between the determined and the manufacturer data. The objective function of the
problem is formulated as follows:
Minimize F
T
max
d
T
max
mf
21
_ _
2

T
fl
d
T
fl
mf
21
_ _
2

I
fl
d
I
fl
mf
21
_ _
2

pf
fl
d
pf
fl
mf
21
_ _
2
5
The minimization of the above objective function is subjected to the following
constraints:
.
Minimum and maximum parameter limits:
X
i;min
# X
i
# X
i;max
.
Maximum torque constraint:
T
max
d 2T
max
mf
T
max
mf
# ^0:2
.
Efciency balance:
P
fl
2 I
2
1fl
R
1
I
2
2fl
R
2
P
rot
_ _
P
fl
h
fl
mf
3.2 Double-cage rotor model formulation
The problem formulation uses the starting torque, maximum torque, full-load torque,
full-load current and full-load power factor manufacturer data to estimate the
parameters of the double-cage rotor model. Figure 2 shows the equivalent circuit of a
double-cage rotor model of an induction motor. The mathematical formulation is done
as follows.
The admittance of each branch of the equivalent circuit model is calculated as
follows:
Y
1

1
R
1
jX
1
Y
m

1
jX
m
Y
21

1
R
21
=s jX
1
Y
22

1
R
22
=s jX
2
Y
tot

jY
1
kY
m
Y
21
Y
22
j
jY
1
Y
m
Y
21
Y
22
j
Figure 2.
Equivalent circuit of a
double-cage rotor model
R
1
V
ph
X
m
X
21
R
21
I
21
X
22
R
22
I
22
I
1
X
1
COMPEL
31,2
534
The starting torque, maximum torque and full-load torque of the motor are determined
as follows:
T
st
d
3V
2
th
jY
1
j
2
R
21
jY
21
j
2
R
22
jY
22
j
2

v
S
jY
1
Y
m
Y
21
Y
22
j
2
6
T
max
d
3V
2
th
Y
1
j j
2
R
21
Y
21
j j
2
R
22
Y
22
j j
2
_ _
s
max
v
s
Y
1
Y
m
Y
21
Y
22 j j
2
7
T
fl
d
3V
2
th
Y
1 j j
2
R
21
Y
21 j j
2
R
22
Y
22 j j
2
_ _
sv
s
Y
1
Y
m
Y
21
Y
22
j j
2
8
The starting current and full-load current of the motor are given by:
I
st
d V
ph
jY
tot
j
s1
9
I
fl
d V
ph
jY
tot
j 10
The power factor of the motor is given by:
pf
fl
d
RY
21
RY
22
jY
1
j R
1
jY
1
kY
m
Y
21
Y
22
j
2
jY
m
Y
21
Y
22
kY
1
Y
m
Y
21
Y
22
j
11
The following objective function should be minimized:
F
T
st
d
T
st
mf
21
_ _
2

I
st
d
I
st
mf
21
_ _
2

T
max
d
T
max
mf
21
_ _
2

T
fl
d
T
fl
mf
21
_ _
2

pf
fl
d
pf
fl
mf
21
_ _
2

I
fl
d
I
fl
mf
21
_ _
2
12
The parameter determination problem is subjected to the following constraints:
.
Minimum and maximum parameter limits:
X
i;min
# X
i
# X
i;max
.
Inner and outer cage leakage reactance constraint:
X
21
. X
22
.
Inner and outer cage rotor resistance constraint:
R
22
. R
21
.
Maximum torque constraint:
T
max
d 2T
max
mf
T
max
mf
# ^0:2
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
535
.
Efciency balance:
P
fl
2 I
2
1fl
R
1
I
2
2fl
R
2
P
rot
_ _
P
fl
h
fl
mf
4. Overview of bio-inspired optimization algorithms
4.1 Genetic algorithm
GA is one of the biologically inspired algorithms developed by Holland which mimics
the principle of natural evolution (Goldberg, 1989). In GA, candidate solution for a
specic problem is called an individual or a chromosome. Each individual is made-up
from genes. GA works with a population of potential solutions. Each individual is
decided by an evaluating mechanism to obtain its tness value. Based on the tness
value and undergoing genetic operators, a new population is generated iteratively with
each successive population referred to as a generation. The GA uses three basic
operators such as reproduction, crossover, and mutation to manipulate the genetic
composition of a population (Sadeghierad et al., 2010).
Reproduction is a process in which individual strings are selected according to their
tness. The tness is determined by calculating how well each string ts an objective
function. Copy strings according to their tness value implies that strings which t the
objective function well have a higher probability of contributing one or more offspring
in the next generation.
Crossover is a two-step process that involves mating and swapping of partial
strings. Each time the crossover operator takes action; two randomly selected strings
from the mating pool are mated. Then, in the case of simple crossover, a position along
one string is selected at random, and all binary digits following the position are
swapped with the second string. The result is two entirely new strings that move on to
the next generation.
Mutation follows crossover and protects against the loss of useful genetic
information. The operator works by randomly selecting one string and one bit location,
and changing that strings bit from 1 to a 0 or vice versa. The pseudo-code for the GA
algorithm is given in Elbeltagi et al. (2005).
4.2 Particle swarm optimization
PSO is a stochastic global optimization technique which uses swarming behaviors
observed in ocks of birds, schools of sh or swarms of bees, which the intelligence
is emerged. It was developed in 1995 by James Kennedy and Russell Eberhart and
uses a number of particles that constitute a swarm moving around in an
N-dimensional search space looking for the best solution (Kennedy and Eberhart,
1995; Eberhart and Shi, 2000). Each particle keeps track of its coordinates in the
solution space which are associated with the best solution that has achieved so far
by that particle is called as personal best position (Xpbest) and the another best
value obtained so far by any particle in the neighborhood of that particle is called as
global best position (Xgbest). Each particle tries to modify its position using the
concept of velocity.
In a physical N-dimensional search space, the position and velocity of individual i are
represented as the vectors X
i
[X
i, 1
, X
i, 2
. . . X
i, N
] and V
i
[V
i, 1
, V
i, 2
. . . V
i, N
],
repectively, in the PSOalgorithm. Let Xpbest
i
(X
i, 1
Pbest
, . . . , X
i, N
Pbest
)
, and Xgbest
i

(X
i, 1
gbest
, . . . X
i, N
gbest
), respectively, be the best position of individual i and its neighbors
COMPEL
31,2
536
best position so far. Using the information, the updated velocity of individual i is
modied under the following equation in the PSO algorithm:
V
k1
i;n
W V
k
i;n
C
1
rand
1
Xpbest
k
i;n
2X
k
i;n
_ _
C
2
rand
2
Xgbest
k
n
2X
i;
k
n
_ _
i 1; 2; . . . ; S n 1; 2; . . . ; N
13
Each individual moves from the current position to the next one by the modied
velocity using the following equation:
X
k1
i;n
X
k
i;n
V
k1
i;n
X
min;i;n
# X
k1
i
# X
maxi;n
X
min;i;n
if X
k1
i;n
, X
maxi;n
X
min;i;n
if X
k1
i;n
. X
max;i;n
14
The inertia weight factor (IWA) is a linearly decreasing dynamic parameter framework
(Chaturvedi et al., 2009; Chung and Tsu, 2010) descending from W
max
to W
min
to
enhance the convergence characteristics as follows:
W W
max
2W
max
2W
min

K
K
max
15
The pseudo-code for the PSO algorithm is given in Elbeltagi et al. (2005).
4.3 BFO with adaptive chemotaxis
BFO is a newly introduced evolutionary optimization algorithm that mimics the
foraging behavior of Escherichia coli (commonly referred to as E. coli ) bacteria. BFOwas
rst introduced by Passino (2002). BFO models the movement of E. coli bacterium
moves using a pattern of two types of movements: tumbling and swimming. Tumbling
refers to a randomchange in the direction of movement, and swimming refers to moving
in a straight line in a given direction. A bacterium in a neutral medium alternates
between tumbling and swimming movements.
Suppose it is desired to search for the position Xin an N-dimensional space. Let X
i
be
the initial position of bacterium i in the search space, i 1, 2, . . . , S, where S is the
number of bacteria. In biological bacteria populations, S can be as high as 10
9
and N is
three. Let F (X
i
) represent an objective function. Let F (X
i
) , 0, F (X
i
) 0, and F (X
i
) . 0
represent the bacterium at location X
i
in nutrient rich, neutral, and noxious
environments, respectively. Chemotaxis is a foraging behavior that captures the
process of optimization, where bacteria to climb up the nutrient concentration gradient.
The chemotactic step size parameter is the main factor for controlling the search ability
of the BFO. The BFO algorithm with xed step size suffers from the following
problems:
.
If the step size is high, then the bacteria reach to optimum value quickly but
accuracy of optimum value gets low.
.
If the step size is very small, then it requires many generations to reach optimum
solution. It may not achieve global optima with less number of generations.
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
537
From these perspectives, balancing the exploration and exploitation of the search could
be achieved by adjusting the step size parameter. In this paper, an adaptive step size to
perform the swim walk instead of the constant step is proposed. This function is
expressed as follows (Sakthivel et al., 2010a):
Ci
jFX
i
j
jFX
i
j a

1
1 a=jFX
i
j
16
where:
a positive constant.
FX
i
objective function of the ith bacterium.
Ci variable step size of ith bacterium.
The bacterium i at position X
i
takes a chemotactic step j with the step size C(i) and
evaluates itself for objective function F (X
i)
at each step. If at position X
i
( j 1), the
objective value F is better than at position X
i
( j), then another step of same size C(i) in the
same direction will be taken again, if that step resulted in a position with a better value
than at the previous step. This is referred to as a swimming step. Swimming is continued
until for a maximumnumber of steps N
s
. After N
c
chemotactic steps, a reproductionsteps
is taken in which the population is sorted in ascending order of the objective function
value F and least healthy bacteria are replaced by the copies of the healthier bacteria.
After N
re
reproduction steps, an elimination-dispersal step is taken. Here, a bacteriumis
eliminated and a newbacteriumis created at a randomlocation in the search space with
probability r
ed
. The optimization stops after N
ed
elimination-dispersal steps.
Bacteria create swarms by means of cell-to-cell signaling via an attractant and a
repellant. Cell-to-cell attraction for bacterium i is represented with F
cc
(X
g
, X
i
), i 1,
2, . . . , S. This is dened as follows:
F
cc
X
g
; X
i

S
i1
d
attract
exp 2v
attract

N
n1
X
g
2X
i

2
_ _ _ _

S
i1
h
repellant
exp 2v
repellant

N
n1
X
g
2X
i

2
_ _ _ _ 17
The cell-to-cell signaling F
cc
( ) helps cells to move toward other cells, but not very close
to them. In BFO algorithm, the maximum number of objective function evaluations is
given by:
N
evl
S N
c
N
s
N
re
N
ed
The detailed pseudo-code for BFO algorithm is given in the Appendix.
5. Application of bio-inspired algorithms to parameter determination of
induction motor
Bio-inspired algorithms are used to search the optimal equivalent circuit parameters of
single- and double-cage rotor models of the induction motor. The procedure of the
proposed parameter determination method is as follows:
COMPEL
31,2
538
.
Step 1. Input the manufacturer data of the motor.
.
Step 2. Initialize the parameters of a bio-inspired algorithm (GA, PSO or BFO).
.
Step 3. Specify the lower and upper boundaries of the equivalent circuit
parameters.
.
Step 4. Generate the positions of equivalent circuit parameters randomly for a
population.
.
Step 5. Evaluate the objective value using equation (5) or (12).
.
Step 6. Apply the bio-inspired algorithm to nd a set of equivalent circuit
parameters of the motor which minimize the error between the
determined and the manufacturer data.
.
Step 7. Output the optimal equivalent circuit parameters corresponding to the
overall best solution.
.
Step 8. Compute the starting, maximum and full-load torques of the motor and
compare with the corresponding values supplied by the manufacturer.
6. Simulation results and analysis
In order to compare the performances of the bio-inspired algorithms, GA, PSOand BFO
in solving the parameter determination problem, two sample motors (5 and 40 hp) are
considered. The specications of the motors are given in Table I. To validate the
parameter determination results obtained by the bio-inspired algorithms, the equivalent
circuit parameters are also determined from no-load, locked-rotor and stator resistance
tests (IEEE Std. 112-F method). Owing to the randomness of the bio-inspired
algorithms, their performances cannot be decided by the results of a single run. Many
trials should be made to reach a valid conclusion about the performance of the
algorithms. In this paper, 20 independent runs have been carried out. All the algorithms
are implemented in MATLAB 7.0 and employed on an Intel Core 2 Duo, 3 GHz personal
computer with 2 GB RAM.
6.1 Parameters selection for bio-inspired algorithms
To compare the performance of GA, PSO and BFO algorithms, the population size and
number of generations are set as 20 and 200, respectively, for all the three algorithms. In
GA, the cross over probability and mutation rate are taken as 0.8 and 0.05, respectively,
as these values found to give the best results.
Specications Motor 1 Motor 2
Capacity (hp) 5 40
Voltage (V) 400 400
Current (A) 8 45
Frequency (Hz) 50 50
No. of poles 4 4
Full-load slip 0.07 0.09
Full-load torque (Nm) 25 190
Full-load efciency (%) 88 90
Table I.
Specications
of the test motors
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
539
Selection of the acceleration constants and inertia weight factor considerably affect the
performance of the PSO algorithm. The acceleration constants, C
1
and C
2
are set as 2.
These values are experimentally determined as the best choice and also commonly used.
The concept of time varying inertial weight is implemented and W is varied from 0.9 to
0.4 using equation (14).
For the implementation of BFO algorithm, several parameters such as
population size (S), maximum number of chemotactic steps (N
c
), maximum
number of swims (N
s
), maximum number of reproduction steps (N
re
), maximum
number of elimination-dispersal events (N
ed
), depth of attractant (d
attract
), width of
attractant (v
attract
), height of repellent (h
repellant
) and width of repellent (v
repellant
) are
initialized.
If the parameters S, N
c
, N
s
, N
re
and N
ed
are too small, the algorithm may converge
prematurely; however, larger values of the parameters increase the computational
complexity and also affect the solution quality. A general biologically inspired
thumb-of-rule for choosing the parameters of BFO is: N
c
. N
re
. N
ed
(Das et al., 2008).
The BFO algorithm is applied repetitively by considering different values of BFO key
parameters such as N
c
, N
s
, N
re
and N
ed
. In the implementation, N
c
, N
s
, N
re
and N
ed
are
selected as 10, 5, 4 and 2, respectively. To choose the parameters of swarming, the
algorithm is run for different values of d
attract
, v
attract
, h
repellant
and v
repellant
. It was
found that these values are chosen as 0.1, 0.2, 0.1 and 10, respectively, give the fastest
convergence.
6.2 Case studies
6.2.1 Case study 1 (single-cage rotor model). GA, PSO and BFO algorithms are used to
determine the optimal equivalent circuit parameters, R
1
, R
c
, X
1
, X
m
, X
2
and R
2
of the
single-cage model. The equivalent circuit parameters obtained from various methods
are presented in Table II for the two motors. The efcacy of the proposed methods of
determining the motor parameters are appraised by calculating the starting, maximum
and full-load torques through its equivalent circuit parameters and comparing them
with the corresponding manufacturer data. The percentage error in the determined
values is dened as:
e%
X
d
2X
mf
X
m:f
100 18
Tables III and IV summarize the torque values and errors obtained from classical, GA,
PSO and BFO methods. For both the motors, the single-cage rotor model produces
less errors in maximum torque and full-load torque, and large errors in starting torque.
Motor 1 Motor 2
Parameters IEEE Std. 112-F GA PSO BFO IEEE Std. 112-F GA PSO BFO
R
1
2.67 2.69 2.63 2.09 0.0153 0.0188 0.011 0.02
R
2
7.4 6.01 5.87 5.844 0.417 0.4396 0.435 0.438
X
1
, X
2
14.82 14.8 13.42 15.45 0.592 0.609 0.622 0.6
R
c
1,245 1,268 1,307 1,238 190 213.68 220.4 205
X
m
310 297.48 244.26 206 10.5 11.35 9.83 10.54
Table II.
Summary of single-cage
rotor model parameters
for motors 1 and 2
COMPEL
31,2
540
I
E
E
E
S
t
d
.
1
1
2
-
F
G
A
P
S
O
B
F
O
T
o
r
q
u
e
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
d
a
t
a
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
T
s
t
1
5
1
5
.
8
9
5
.
9
3
1
7
.
0
7
1
3
.
8
1
6
.
3
9
9
.
2
7
1
6
.
0
5
7
.
0
T
m
a
x
4
2
3
7
.
1
2
2
1
1
.
6
2
4
2
.
2
2
0
.
5
2
4
4
1
.
4
2
2
1
.
3
8
4
1
.
1
1
2
2
.
1
2
T
f
u
l
l
2
5
2
2
.
7
2
9
.
2
2
7
.
2
1
8
.
8
4
2
6
.
4
2
5
.
6
8
2
3
.
9
2
2
4
.
3
2
Table III.
Comparison of
bio-inspired algorithms
and IEEE Std. 112-F
method results with
manufacturer data for
single-cage rotor model of
motor 1
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
541
I
E
E
E
S
t
d
.
1
1
2
-
F
G
A
P
S
O
B
F
O
T
o
r
q
u
e
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
d
a
t
a
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
T
s
t
2
6
0
2
5
1
.
3
5
2
3
.
3
3
2
3
7
.
9
8
2
8
.
4
7
2
3
9
.
2
2
8
.
0
7
2
4
2
.
8
4
2
6
.
6
T
m
a
x
3
7
0
3
9
1
.
0
9
5
.
7
3
6
9
.
3
7
2
0
.
1
7
3
6
7
.
6
3
2
0
.
6
4
3
7
1
.
2
2
0
.
3
3
T
f
u
l
l
1
9
0
1
8
4
.
5
9
2
2
.
8
5
1
8
4
.
1
2
3
.
1
1
1
8
4
.
2
6
2
3
.
0
2
1
9
3
.
4
5
1
.
8
2
Table IV.
Comparison of
bio-inspired algorithms
and IEEE Std. 112-F
method results with
manufacturer data for
single-cage rotor model of
motor 2
COMPEL
31,2
542
Furthermore, the BFO algorithm yields lesser error than those produced by GA and
PSO methods.
6.2.2 Case study 2 (double-cage rotor model). Case study 2 deals with the parameter
determination of double-cage rotor model. Here, GA, PSO and BFO are used to
determine the seven optimal equivalent circuit parameters, R
1
, X
1
, X
m
, R
21
, R
22
, X
21
and
X
22
of the double-cage rotor model. Table V presents the equivalent circuit parameters
achieved by the bio-inspired algorithms. The torque values and errors of various
methods are given in Tables VI and VII. It can be seen that the magnitudes of torque
errors obtained by the BFO method is smaller than those using the GA and PSO
methods. On the whole, it is clear that the parameter determination of double-cage rotor
model by BFO method gave better results. The torque versus slip characteristics
obtained fromthe various methods for the test motors are shown in Figures 3 and 4. It is
obvious that the torque-slip characteristic of the motors obtained by the double-cage
model parameters of the BFO algorithm shows good agreement with the manufacturer
data for the entire slip range. Thus, the double-cage rotor model can be used as an
accurate model in the parameter determination problem over a wide speed range.
6.3 Comparison of bio-inspired algorithms
6.3.1 Convergence characteristics. To test the convergence behavior of the bio-inspired
algorithms, the convergence test is carried out by employing same number of function
evaluations. The convergence characteristics of the different algorithms are shown in
Figure 5 from which it is evident that the BFO and PSO algorithms converge quickly
than the GA algorithm.
6.3.2 Robustness. To verify the robustness of the bio-inspired algorithms, 20
independent runs are executed. The standard deviation of objective values obtained by
each algorithm is given in Table VIII. It can be observed that the standard deviation
produced by BFO is the least as compared to other algorithms, emphasizing the
robustness of the method.
6.3.3 Computational efciency. The computational efciencies of all the algorithms
are compared based on the average central processing unit (CPU) time to converge the
solution. The CPUtime taken by each algorithmis depicted in Table IX. FromTable IX,
it is clear that the average convergence time taken by the BFO is minimum.
7. Conclusion and future work
Bio-inspired optimization algorithms GA, PSOand BFOwith adaptive chemotactic step
have been developed in this paper for determining the equivalent circuit parameters of
Motor 1 Motor 2
Parameters GA PSO BFO GA PSO BFO
R
1
1.93 2.05 1.94 0.0234 0.0228 0.0244
X
1
13.72 15.65 15.93 0.588 0.597 0.59
X
m
205.04 332.23 386 10.15 12.515 12.18
R
21
0.436 0.842 0.72 0.276 0.218 0.23
R
22
5.678 5.86 5.94 0.462 0.449 0.437
X
21
53.2 48.34 68.3 1.162 1.23 1.06
X
22
15.07 14.65 16.93 0.726 0.674 0.681
Table V.
Summary of double-cage
rotor model parameters
for motors 1 and 2
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
543
I
E
E
E
S
t
d
.
1
1
2
-
F
G
A
P
S
O
B
F
O
T
o
r
q
u
e
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
d
a
t
a
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
T
s
t
1
5
1
5
.
8
9
5
.
9
3
1
5
.
7
2
4
.
8
1
5
.
6
8
4
.
5
3
1
5
.
4
2
.
6
7
T
m
a
x
4
2
3
7
.
1
2
2
1
1
.
6
2
4
1
.
4
5
2
1
.
3
1
4
1
.
6
3
2
0
.
8
8
4
1
.
6
5
2
0
.
8
3
3
T
f
u
l
l
2
5
2
2
.
7
2
9
.
2
2
6
.
8
6
7
.
4
4
2
3
.
7
7
2
4
.
9
2
2
5
.
5
2
2
.
0
8
Table VI.
Comparison of
bio-inspired algorithms
and IEEE Std. 112-F
method results with
manufacturer data for
double-cage rotor model
of motor 1
COMPEL
31,2
544
I
E
E
E
S
t
d
.
1
1
2
-
F
G
A
P
S
O
B
F
O
T
o
r
q
u
e
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
d
a
t
a
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
a
t
a
E
r
r
o
r
(
%
)
T
s
t
2
6
0
2
5
1
.
3
5
2
3
.
3
3
2
5
1
.
2
1
2
3
.
3
8
2
5
2
.
4
3
2
2
.
9
1
2
5
6
.
2
2
1
.
4
6
T
m
a
x
3
7
0
3
9
1
.
0
9
5
.
7
3
7
8
.
0
6
2
.
1
8
3
8
0
.
0
3
2
.
7
1
3
8
1
.
7
3
3
.
1
7
T
f
u
l
l
1
9
0
1
8
4
.
5
9
2
2
.
8
5
1
8
2
.
4
7
2
3
.
9
6
1
9
5
.
2
6
2
.
7
7
1
8
9
.
8
5
2
0
.
0
8
Table VII.
Comparison of
bio-inspired algorithms
and IEEE Std. 112-F
method results with
manufacturer data for
double-cage rotor model
of motor 2
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
545
three-phase induction motor frommanufacturer data. The bio-inspired algorithms have
been tested on two test motors. Comparing with the IEEE Std. 112-F method, the
bio-inspired algorithms-based parameter determination of double-cage model provides
lesser deviation between the determined and the manufacturer data. Besides, BFO
algorithmoutperforms GAand PSOmethods in terms of robustness and computational
efciency. Most signicantly, the equivalent circuit parameters of the motor are
determined only from the manufacturer data. The parameter determination methods
described in this paper are faster and less intrusive than the IEEE Std. 112-F method,
and also constitute a promising tool in analyzing the stalling and/or reacceleration
process of a loaded motor following a fault or during voltage sag condition as well as in
system-level studies. The mathematical model improvement of single-cage rotor and
the parameter determination of dynamic model of an induction motor using the
biologically inspired algorithms will be considered in the future work.
Figure 3.
Torque versus slip
characteristics of 5-hp
motor obtained from IEEE
Std. 112-F, GA, PSO and
BFO methods
50
40
30
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
20
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Slip
0.8 1
Manufacturer data
IEEE Std. 112 method
GA method for single cage rotor model
PSO method for single cage rotor model
PSO method for double cage rotor model
BFO method for double cage rotor model
BFO method for single cage rotor model
GA method for double cage rotor model
Figure 4.
Torque versus slip
characteristics of
40-hp motor obtained
from IEEE Std. 112-F,
GA, PSO and BFO
methods
500
400
300
200
100
0
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Slip
0.8 1
Manufacturer data
IEEE Std. 112 method
GA method for single cage rotor model
PSO method for single cage rotor model
PSO method for double cage rotor model
BFO method for double cage rotor model
BFO method for single cage rotor model
GA method for double cage rotor model
COMPEL
31,2
546
References
Abdelhadi, B., Benoudjit, A. and Nait Said, N. (2004), Identication of induction machine
parameters using a new adaptive genetic algorithm, Electric Power Components and
Systems, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 767-84.
Alonge, F., Dippolito, F., Ferrante, G. and Raimondi, F.M. (1998), Parameter identication of
induction motor model using genetic algorithms, IEE Proceedings Control Theory
& Applications, Vol. 145 No. 6, pp. 587-93.
Ansuj, S., Shokooh, F. and Schinzinger, R. (1989), Parameter estimation for induction machines
based on sensitivity analysis, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 1035-40.
Attaianese, C., Nardi, V. and Tomasso, G. (2002), Self-commissioning of induction motors fed by
VSI, Electric Power Components and Systems, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Awadallah, M.A. (2008), Parameter estimation of induction machines from nameplate data
using particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithm techniques, Electric Power
Components and Systems, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 801-14.
Motor 1 Motor 2
Methods Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2
GA 0.0198 0.0132 0.0014 0.0078
PSO 0.0016 0.0013 0.0020 0.0015
BFO 0.0010 0.0008 0.0003 0.00025
Table VIII.
Comparison of standard
deviation results
Methods Case 1 Case 2
GA 2.8 3.1
PSO 2.54 2.87
BFO 2.36 2.64
Table IX.
Comparison of
computation time in
seconds of bio-inspired
algorithms for motor 1
Figure 5.
Convergence
characteristics of
bio-inspired algorithms
for motor 1
0.64
GA method
PSO method
BFO method
0.54
0.44
0.34
0.24
0.14
0.04
0.06
0 200 400 600
Number of Evaluation
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

v
a
l
u
e
800 1,000
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
547
Bae, D. (1997), Determination of induction motor parameters by using neural network based on
FEM results, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 1924-7.
Belmans, R., Verdyck, D., Geysen, W., Findlay, R.D., Szabados, B., Spenser, S. and Lie, S. (1992),
Magnetic eld analysis in squirrel cage induction motors, IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 1367-70.
Bishop, R.R. and Richards, G.G. (1990), Identifying induction machine parameters using a
genetic optimization algorithm, Proceedings of IEEE Southeastcon-90, New Orleans, LA,
USA, April 01-04, Vol. 2, pp. 476-9.
Chaturvedi, K.T., Pandit, M. and Srivastava, L. (2009), Particle swarm optimization with time
varying acceleration coefcients for non-convex economic power dispatch, Electrical
Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 249-57.
Chung, Y.D. and Tsu, P.H. (2010), A particle swarm optimization for solving joint pricing and
lot-sizing problem with uctuating demand and unit purchasing cost, Computers and
Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 1895-907.
Corcoles, F., Pedra, J., Salichs, M. and Sainz, L. (2002), Analysis of the induction machine
parameter identication, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 183-90.
Das, T.K., Venayagamoorthy, G.K. and Aliyu, U.O. (2008), Bio-inspired algorithms for the
design of multiple optimal power system stabilizers: SPPSO and BFA, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Applications, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1445-57.
De Kock, J.A., Van der Merwe, F.S. and Vermeulen, H.J. (1994), Induction machine parameter
estimation through an output error technique, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 69-76.
Dolinar, D., Stumberger, G. and Grear, B. (1998), Calculation of the linear induction motor model
parameters using nite elements, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 3640-3.
Eberhart, R.C. and Shi, Y. (2000), Comparing inertia weights and constriction factors in particle
swarm optimization, Proceedings of the IEEE International Congress Evolutionary
Computation, La Jolla, CA, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 84-8.
Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T. and Grierson, D. (2005), Comparison among ve evolutionary-based
optimization algorithms, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 43-53.
Filho, E.B.S., Lima, A.M.N. and Jacobina, C.B. (1991), Parameter estimation for induction
machines via non-linear least squares method, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control and Instrumentation IECON 91., Kobe,
Japan, October 28-November 1, pp. 639-43.
Goldberg, D.E. (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Huang, K.S., Kent, W., Wu, Q.H. and Turner, D.R. (2001), Parameter identication for induction
motors using genetic algorithm with improved mathematical model, Electric Power
Components and Systems, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 247-58.
Hung, R. and Dommel, H.W. (1996), Synchronous machine models for simulation of induction
motor transients, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 833-8.
IEEE Power Engineering Society (2004), IEEE standard test procedure for polyphase induction
motors and generators, IEEE Std. 112, IEEE Power Engineering Society, Austin, Tx.
Johnson, B.K. and Willis, J.R. (1991), Tailoring induction motor analytical models to t known
motor performance characteristics and satisfy particular study needs, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 965-9.
COMPEL
31,2
548
Ju, P., Handschin, E., Wei, Z.N. and Schluecking, U. (1996), Sequential parameter estimation of a
simplied induction motor load model, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 319-24.
Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. (1995), Particle swarm optimization, Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Neural Networks ICNN95, Perth, Australia, Vol. 4, pp. 1942-8.
Lindenmeyer, D., Dommel, H.W., Moshref, A. and Kundur, P. (2001), An induction motor
parameter estimation method, Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 251-62.
Michael, T.W. and Ronald, G.H. (1995), Identication and control of induction machines using
articial neural networks, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 612-9.
Mishra, S. (2005), A hybrid least square-fuzzy bacterial foraging strategy for harmonic
estimation, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Moon, S.I. and Keyhani, A. (1994), Estimation of induction motor parameters from standstill
time-domain data, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1609-15.
Nangsue, P., Pillay, P. and Conry, S. (1999), Evolutionary algorithms for induction motor
parameter determination, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 447-53.
Nikranajbar, A., Ebrahimi, M.K. and Wood, A.S. (2010), Parameter identication of a cage
induction motor using particle swarm optimization, Journal of Systems and Control
Engineering, Vol. 224 No. 5, pp. 479-91.
Nollan, R., Pillay, P. and Haque, T. (1994), Application of genetic algorithms to motor parameter
determination, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE-IAS Conference, Denvar, CO, USA, October
2-6, pp. 47-54.
Orlowska Kowalska, T., Lis, J. and Szabat, K. (2006), Identication of the induction motor
parameters using soft computing methods, COMPEL: International Journal of
Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 181-92.
Panigrahi, B.K. and Pandi, V.R. (2008), Bacterial foraging optimization: Nelder-Mead hybrid
algorithm for economic load dispatch, IET Generation, Transmission and Distribution,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 556-65.
Passino, K.M. (2002), Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed optimization and control,
IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 52-67.
Pedra, J. and Corcoles, F. (2004), Estimation of induction motor double-cage model parameters
from manufacturer data, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 310-7.
Pedra, J. and Sainz, L. (2006), Parameter estimation of squirrel-cage induction motors without
torque measurements, IEE Proceedings Electric Power Applications, Vol. 153 No. 2,
pp. 263-9.
Pillay, P., Nollan, R. and Haque, T. (1997), Application of genetic algorithms to motor parameter
determination for transient torque calculations, IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1273-82.
Rahimpour, E., Rashtchi, V. and Pesaran, M. (2007), Parameter identication of deep-bar
induction motors using genetic algorithm, Electrical Engineering, Vol. 89, pp. 547-52.
Sadeghierad, M., Darabi, A., Lesani, H. and Monsef, H. (2010), Optimal design of the generator of
micro turbine using genetic algorithm and PSO, International Journal of Electrical Power
& Energy Systems, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 804-8.
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
549
Sakthivel, V.P., Bhuvaneswari, R. and Subramanian, S. (2010a), Design optimization of
three-phase energy efcient induction motor using adaptive bacterial foraging algorithm,
COMPEL: International Journal of Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and
Electronics Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 699-726.
Sakthivel, V.P., Bhuvaneswari, R. and Subramanian, S. (2010b), Multi-objective parameter
estimation of induction motor using particle swarm optimization, Engineering
Applications of Articial Intelligence: The International Journal of Intelligent Real-Time
Automation, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 302-12.
Sakthivel, V.P., Bhuvaneswari, R. and Subramanian, S. (2010c), Nonintrusive efciency
estimation method for energy auditing and management of in-service induction motor
using bacterial foraging algorithm, IET Electric Power Applications, Vol. 4 No. 8,
pp. 579-90.
Say, M.G. (1983), Alternating Current Machines, 4th ed., Pitman, Totowa, NJ.
Stephan, J., Bodson, M. and Chiasson, J. (1994), Real time estimation of induction motor
parameters, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Applications, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 746-59.
Tang, W.J., Li, M.S., He, S., Wu, Q.H. and Saunders, J.R. (2006), Optimal power ow with
dynamic loads using bacterial foraging algorithm, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Power System Technology (POWERCON), Chongqing, China, October
22-26, pp. 1-5.
Toliyat, H.A., Levi, E. and Raina, M. (2003), A review of RFO induction motor parameter
estimation techniques, IEEETransactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 271-83.
Ursem, R.K. and Vadstrup, P. (2003), Parameter identication of induction motors using
differential evolution, The 2993 Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC 03, Vol. 2,
pp. 790-6.
Vahedi, H., Hosseini, S.H. and Noroozian, R. (2010), Bacterial foraging algorithm for security
constrained optimal power ow, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the
European Energy Market, Madrid, Spain, June 23-25, pp. 1-6.
Willis, J.R., Brock, G.J. and Edmonds, J.S. (1989), Derivation of induction motor models from
standstill frequency response tests, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 608-15.
Appendix. Pseudo-code for BFO algorithm
1: Initialize S, N, N
c
, N
s
, N
re
, N
ed
, r
ed
, d
attract
, h
repellant
, v
attract
, v
repellant
, X
min
and X
max
2: Initialize X
i
randomly for i 1, 2, . . . , S
3: Initialize C(i) for i 1, 2, . . . ,S
4: Set the loops counters j, k and l to 0
5: //Elimination-Dispersal loop:
6: while l # N
ed
do
7: l l 1
8: //Reproduction loop:
9: while k # N
re
do
10: k k 1
11: //Chemotaxis loop:
12: while j # N
c
do
13: j j 1
14: for each bacterium i 1, 2, . . . , S do
15: Compute F(i, j, k, l)
16: Let F (i, j, k, l) F(i, j, k, l) F
cc
(X
g
, X
i
)
COMPEL
31,2
550
17: Let F
last
F (i, j, k, l)
18: //Tumble:
19: Generate a N-dimensional random vector D
m
(i), i 1, 2, . . . , N on [21, 1]
20: //Move:
21: Let X
i
j 1; k; l X
i
j; k; l Ci
Di

D
T
iDi
p
22: Compute F (i, j 1, k, l) with X
i
( j 1, k, l)
23: //Swim:
24: Let m 0
25: while m< N
s
do
26: Let m m 1
27: if F (i, j 1, k, l) < F
last
then
28: Let F
last
F (i, j 1, k, l)
29: Let X
i
j 1; k; l X
i
j 1; k; l Ci
Di

D
T
iDi
p
30: Use this X
i
( j 1, k, l) to compute new F (i, j 1, k, l)
31: else
32: m N
s
33: end if
34: end while
35: end for
36: end while
37: Compute for each bacterium i, for given k and l:
F
i
health

N
c
1
j1
Fi; j; k; l
38: Eliminate S
r
fraction of bacteria with highest F
health
and split the other bacteria into two at
their locations.
39: end while
40: For each bacterium, with probability r
ed
eliminate the bacterium and create a new one at a
random position.
41: end while
Corresponding author
V.P. Sakthivel can be contacted at: vp.sakthivel@yahoo.com
Bio-inspired
optimization
algorithms
551
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints