1

Improved Parameter Estimation Techniques for
Induction Motors using Hybrid Algorithms

arXiv:1704.02424v1 [] 8 Apr 2017

Julius Susanto, Member, IEEE, and Syed Islam, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—The performance of Newton-Raphson, LevenbergMarquardt, Damped Newton-Raphson and genetic algorithms
are investigated for the estimation of induction motor equivalent
circuit parameters from commonly available manufacturer data.
A new hybrid algorithm is then proposed that combines the
advantages of both descent and natural optimisation algorithms.
Through computer simulation, the hybrid algorithm is shown to
significantly outperform the conventional algorithms in terms of
convergence and squared error rates. All of the algorithms are
tested on a large data set of 6,380 IEC (50Hz) and NEMA (60Hz)
motors.

I. I NTRODUCTION

T

HE three-phase induction motor is arguably the
workhorse of modern industry, found in almost all industrial settings from manufacturing to mining. Equivalent
circuit parameters of induction machines are essential for timedomain simulations where the dynamic interactions between
the machine(s) and the power system need to be analysed, for
example:
• Motor starting and re-acceleration
• Bus transfer studies
• Changes in motor loading
• Motor behaviour during faults
• Dynamic voltage stability
However, motor manufacturers do not tend to provide the
equivalent circuit parameters for their machines. As the parameters are motor specific, typical values found in the literature
are often not sufficiently accurate. Moreover, power system
studies involving motors are normally performed during the
design phases of projects, where the motors themselves have
not yet been ordered and on-site testing is not possible.
It is therefore desirable to estimate motor equivalent circuit
parameters from the data that manufacturers make available
in their catalogues, data sheets and technical brochures (e.g.
performance parameters such as breakdown torque, locked
rotor torque, full-load power factor, full-load efficiency, etc).
A number of parameter estimation techniques have been
proposed in the literature based on manufacturer data (for
example [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]). The de facto approach that
has emerged, and which has been adopted by the majority of
commercial software packages, has been to use an algorithm
based on the Newton-Raphson method. However, it has been
observed that the Newton-Raphson based algorithms can have
poor convergence and error performance. Therefore, parameter
estimation algorithms with improved performance are desired.
Corresponding author: J. Susanto, e-mail: susanto@ieee.org

Fig. 1. Double cage equivalent circuit (eight parameter model)

In this article, the performance of a number of parameter
estimation algorithms based on readily available manufacturer
data is investigated for the double-cage induction motor model.
Section II describes the double-cage motor model and the
formulation of the parameter estimation problem. In Section
III, descent algorithms such as the Newton-Raphson method
are discussed, followed by an overview of natural optimisation
algorithms in Section IV. The properties of descent and natural
optimisation algorithms are combined to overcome some of the
limitations of descent algorithms and a new hybrid algorithm
is proposed in Section V. The algorithms are then tested via
computer simulation in Section VI and finally, the conclusions
of this study are presented in Section VII.
II. PARAMETER E STIMATION P ROBLEM FOR I NDUCTION
M OTORS
A. Double Cage Induction Motor Model
It has been previously shown that the double-cage model
is appropriate for squirrel-cage induction motors in order to
capture both the starting and breakdown performance of the
motor [1] [6].
The double cage equivalent circuit model with eight slipinvariant parameters valid over the full range of slip values
(i.e. from 0 to 1 pu) is shown in Figure 1.
In the equivalent circuit, the inner cage leakage reactance
Xr1 is always higher than the outer cage leakage reactance
Xr2 , but the outer cage impedance is typically higher than
the inner cage impedance on starting. These conditions can be
resolved by including the following two inequality constraints
in the model [6]:
• Xr1 > Xr2
• Rr2 > Rr1
In order to estimate motor efficiency, the core (and mechanical) losses also need to be included in the model. For
simplicity, the core (and mechanical) losses are represented
as a single shunt resistance Rc at the input of the equivalent
circuit [8].

2

B. Parameter Estimation Problem Formulation
The characteristics of an induction motor are normally provided by manufacturers in the form of standard performance
parameters, with the following parameters being the most
common:
• Nominal voltage, Un (V)
• Nominal frequency, f (Hz)
• Rated asynchronous speed, nf l (rpm)
• Rated (stator) current, Is,f l (A)
• Rated mechanical power, Pm,f l (kW)
• Rated torque, Tn (Nm)
• Full load power factor, cos φf l (pu)
• Full load efficiency, ηf l (pu)
• Breakdown torque, Tb /Tn (normalised)
• Locked rotor torque, Tlr /Tn (normalised)
• Locked rotor current, Ilr /Is,f l ) (pu)
Given a set of performance parameters that contain features
on the torque-speed and current-speed curves (e.g. breakdown
torque, locked-rotor current, etc), the goal of a parameter estimation algorithm is to determine equivalent circuit parameters
that yield these features.
While all of the performance parameters in the list above
can be used in the estimation procedure, there are actually
only six indpendent magnitudes that can be formed from them:
Pm,f l , Qf l , Tb , Tlr , Ilr and ηf l [6].
The six independent magnitudes can be used to formulate
the parameter estimation problem in terms of a non-linear least
squares problem, with a set of non-linear equations of the form
F(x) = 0:
f1 (x) = Pm,f l − P (sf ) = 0

(1)

f2 (x) = Qf l − Q(sf ) = 0

(2)

f3 (x) = Tb − T (smax ) = 0

(3)

f4 (x) = Tlr − T (s = 1) = 0

(4)

f5 (x) = Ilr − I(s = 1) = 0

(5)

f6 (x) = ηf l − η(sf ) = 0

(6)

where F = (f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 , f5 , f6 ) and
x = (Rs , Xs , Xm , Rr1 , Xr1 , Rr2 , Xr2 , Rc )
In the formulation above, there are six independent equations in F, but eight unknown parameters in x. The non-linear
system is therefore underdetermined, which leads to one of the
key limitations in descent algorithms (refer to Section III for
further discussion).
C. Classes of Parameter Estimation Algorithms
The parameter estimation problem formulated previously
can be solved by a variety of non-linear least squares solver
algorithms. As is usually the case with non-linear least squares
problems, a closed form solution is not available and iterative
algorithms are used to converge on a solution by minimising
error residuals.
Induction motor parameter estimation algorithms generally
fall under two broad classes:
1) Descent Methods: are the class of algorithms based
on variations of Newton’s method for convergence to

a solution, e.g. Newton-Raphson, Levenberg-Marquardt,
etc
2) Natural Optimisation Methods: are the class of algorithms based on processes found in nature where
successive randomised trials are filtered for ”fitness” at
each iteration, e.g. genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimisation, ant colony optimisation, simulated annealing,
etc
These classes of parameter estimation algorithms are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
III. D ESCENT A LGORITHMS
A. Requirement for Linear Restrictions
It was mentioned in Section II that the non-linear system
of equations in the problem forumulation is underdetermined.
Therefore, in order to make the systems exactly determined
and solvable with descent algorithms, one must either:
1) Fix two parameters a priori (i.e. parameters are
”known”), or;
2) Impose two constraints on the problem formulations, e.g.
linear restrictions
The use of linear restrictions was found to be superior to
fixed parameters and therefore, all of the descent algorithms
in this paper will include two linear restrictions by default.
It was shown in [6] that the stator resistance Rs was the
least sensitive parameter in the equivalent circuit, i.e. variations
in the value of Rs had the least significant effect on the
resulting torque-speed and current-speed curves. Therefore, Rs
can be subject to a linear restriction by linking it to the inner
cage rotor resistance Rr1 . Moreover, it is assumed that the
outer cage rotor reactance Xr2 is linearly related to the stator
reactance Xs . This leads to the following linear restrictions:
• Rs = kr Rr1
• Xr2 = kx Xs
Where kr and kx are constant linear restrictions
B. Newton-Raphson Algorithm
Of the class of descent methods used to solve non-linear
least squares problems, the Newton-Raphson (NR) algorithm
is probably the most straightforward. The NR algorithm is an
iterative method where each iteration is calculated as follows:
xk+1 = xk − hn J−1 F(xk )
k+1

(7)
k

where x
is the solution at the (k + 1)th iteration, x is
the solution at the kth iteration, hn is the step-size coefficient
and J is the Jacobian matrix evaluated with the parameters at
the kth iteration, xk .
The Jacobian matrix J has the general form:
 ∂f1
∂f1 
. . . ∂x
∂x1
6

.. 
..
(8)
J =  ...
.
. 
∂f6
∂f6
. . . ∂x6
∂x1
For systems where it is impractical to compute the exact
partial derivatives analytically, a numerical approximation may
be used with finite difference equations:

3

∂fi
fi (x + δj h) − fi (x)
≈
∂xj
h

(9)

where δj is vector of zeros with a single non-zero value of
1 at the j-th element and h is a constant with a very small
absolute value (e.g. 1 × 10−6 ).
In this paper, a modified form of the NR algorithm proposed
by Pedra in [8] for the double cage model is used as the
default NR solver. This algorithm was selected because of its
completeness, numerical accuracy and robustness compared to
previously proposed methods (for example, in [2], [3] and [4]).
Furthermore, the algorithm can be applied using commonly
available manufacturer data, whereas other algorithms require
more detailed data that may not be readily available (for
example, multiple points on the torque-speed curve in [5]).

b) Error Term Adjustment: An alternative to using the
gain ratio is to adjust the damping parameter based only on the
error term (i.e. the numerator of the gain ratio). The damping
parameter is therefore updated as follows:
(
λ × β, if F(xk ) − F(xk+1 ) < 0
(13)
λ= λ
if F(xk ) − F(xk+1 ) > 0
γ,
Where ρ1 , ρ2 , β and γ are algorithm control parameters.
Computer simulations showed that the error term adjustment
yielded significantly better performance than the gain ratio adjustment. Therefore in these studies, the error term adjustment
is used exclusively along with the following algorithm control
parameters: ρ1 = 0.25, ρ2 = 0.75, β = 3 and γ = 3.
D. Damped Newton-Raphson Algorithm

C. Levenberg-Marquardt Algorithm
The Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm, sometimes
called the damped least-squares algorithm, is another popular
technique for solving least-squares problems [9] [10]. In the
LM algorithm, each iteration is calculated as follows:
x

k+1


−1 T
= x − JT J + λ diag(JT J)
J F(xk )
k

xk+1 = xk − hn (J−1 + λI)F(xk )
(10)

where xk+1 is the solution at the (k + 1)th iteration, xk is
the solution at the kth iteration, λ is the damping parameter
(more on this later) and J is the Jacobian matrix evaluated with
the parameters at the kth iteration, xk (as described previously
in Equation 8).
1) Choice of Damping Parameter: The selection of the
damping parameter λ affects both the direction and magnitude
of an iteration step. If the damping parameter is large, then
the algorithm will move at short steps in the steepest descent
direction. This is good when the iteration is far away from the
solution. On the other hand, if the damping parameter is small,
then the algorithm approaches a Gauss-Newton type method,
which exhibits good convergence in the neighbourhood of the
solution.
The damping parameter should thus be updated at each
iteration depending on whether the algorithm is far or close
to the solution. Two methods for adjusting the damping
parameter are described below.
a) Gain Ratio Adjustment: Marquardt suggested updating the damping parameter based on a ”gain ratio” [10]:
F(xk ) − F(xk+1 )
(11)
− JT F(xk ))

−1 T
Where ∆x = − JT J + λ diag(JT J)
J F(xk ) is the
correction step at iteration k.
The damping parameter is adjusted depending on the value
of the gain ratio as follows:
(
λ × β, if ρ < ρ1
λ= λ
(12)
if ρ > ρ2
γ,
ρ=

The damped Newton-Raphson algorithm is a variation of the
conventional NR algorithm where a damping factor helps to
get around problems with near-singular and/or ill-conditioned
Jacobian matrices. In the damped NR algorithm, each iteration
is calculated as follows:

T
1
2 ∆x (λ∆x

Where ρ1 , ρ2 , β and γ are algorithm control parameters.

(14)

Where the damping parameter λ is adjusted at each iteration
based on the error term as follows:
(
λ × β, if F(xk ) − F(xk+1 ) < 0
(15)
λ= λ
if F(xk ) − F(xk+1 ) > 0
γ,
IV. NATURAL O PTIMISATION A LGORITHMS
A. Genetic Algorithm
In the context of motor parameter estimation, the genetic
algorithm (GA) is used to minimise the squared error of
the problem formulation vector F. In GA terminology, the
squared error is called the ”fitness function” and is calculated
as follows:
f itness = FF0

(16)

where F = (f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 , f5 , f6 )
Genetic algorithms can be binary coded where the solution
paramaters are quantized into binary strings (for example, in
[11], [12] and [13]). However, the equivalent circuit parameters in a motor are continuous parameters and not naturally
quantized. Thus, binary coding necessarily imposes limits on
the precision of the parameters (i.e. due to the chosen length
of the binary string). For this reason, a continuous parameter
algorithm is used in this study. A description of the genetic
algorithm as it applies to motor parameter estimation follows.
An initial population of npop parameter estimates are randomly sampled from a uniform distribution with upper and
lower limits as shown in Table I.
The fitness of each member in the population is then calculated and ranked. The lowest fitness members are discarded
and the rest are retained to form the mating pool for the next
generation (there are npool members in the mating pool).

4

B. Other Natural Optimisation Algorithms

TABLE I
R ANGE OF INITIAL PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Parameter

Since the popularisation of the genetic algorithm in the
1980s, a number of other natural optimisation algorithms have
been introduced. All of these algorithms are inspired by natural
processes and all share the basic methodology of injecting
randomness and selecting for fitness in order to iteratively
reach an optimal point in the search-space.
The literature has numerous examples of natural optimisation algorithms adapted for the estimation of induction motor
parameters, for example:
• Simulated annealing [14]
• Particle swarm optimisation [15] [16]
• Artificial immune system [17]
• Bacterial foraging technique [18]
• Ant colony optimisation [19]
• Harmony search [20]
The results of these investigations indicate that while some
of the alternative algorithms lead to faster convergence than the
genetic algorithm, they tend to converge to the same solution
and error rates. The aim of this study is to improve error rates
and for this reason, alternative natural optimisation algorithms
are not explored further.

Range of Initial Estimate (pu)
Lower Bound Upper Bound

Rs

0

0.15

Xs

0

0.15

Xm

0

5

Rr1

0

0.15

Xr1

0

0.30

Rr2

0

0.15

Xr2

0

0.15

Rc

0

100

TABLE II
S TANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR MUTATION NOISE
Parameter

Standard Deviation (σ)

Rs

0.01

Xs

0.01

Xm

0.33

Rr1

0.01

Xr1

0.01

Rr2

0.01

V. P ROPOSED H YBRID A LGORITHM

Xr2

0.01

Rc

6.67

In the descent algorithms, linear restrictions are imposed on
Rs and Xr2 in order to make the underdetermined system of
equations solvable. It was shown in [7] that the double cage
model with core losses has 8 minimum independent variables
(MIVs). Therefore, by constraining Rs and Xr2 with linear
restrictions, the solution space is also constrained by two
degrees of freedom. Therefore, a solution could potentially
exist to an otherwise non-converging problem were the linear
restrictions removed.
The proposed hybrid algorithm attempts to overcome this
limitation of descent algorithms by applying a genetic algorithm to select Rs and Xr2 . In other words, a baseline descent
algorithm (e.g. NR, Damped NR, LM, etc) is run with fixed
values for Rs and Xr2 , which are in turn iteratively selected
using a genetic algorithm in an outer loop. A flowchart of
the proposed hybrid algorithm is shown in Figure 2. A more
detailed description of the proposed algorithm follows.
An initial population of npop estimates for Rs and Xr2 are
randomly sampled from a uniform distribution with upper and
lower limits as shown in Table IV. Each pair of Rs and Xr2
estimates is referred to as a member of the population.

TABLE III
D EFAULT SETTINGS FOR GENETIC ALGORITHM
Setting

Setting Description

Default Value

npop

Population of each generation

20

npool

Number of members in the mating pool

15

ne

Number of elite children

2

cf

Crossover fraction

80%

The fittest ne members in the mating pool are retained
the next generation as elite children.
Of the remaining npop − ne children to be created for
next generation, cf % will be produced by crossover and
rest (1 − cf %) by mutation. The proportion cf is called
crossover fraction.

for
the
the
the

1) Crossover: in the crossover process, two members of
the mating pool are randomly selected and combined by
taking a random blend of each member’s parameters.
2) Mutation: in the mutation process, a member of the
mating pool is randomly selected and its parameters
are mutated by adding Gaussian noise with parameterdependent standard deviations (see Table II).
The fitness of the next generation is then calculated and the
process repeats itself for ngen generations.
The default settings for the genetic algorithm implemented
in this project for motor parameter estimation are shown in
Table III.

TABLE IV
R ANGE OF INITIAL PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Parameter

Range of Initial Estimate (pu)
Lower Bound Upper Bound

Rs

0

0.15

Xr2

0

0.15

The descent algorithm is then run on each member of
the population. The fitness of each member (in terms of
the squared error F0 F) is calculated and ranked. As in the

5

1) Crossover: in the crossover process, two members of
the mating pool are randomly selected and combined by
taking a random blend of each member’s parameters,
e.g. the crossover of parameter Rs :
Rs,child = αRs,parent1 + (1 − α)Rs,parent2

(17)

where α is a random variable selected from a uniform
distribution over the interval [0, 1]
2) Mutation: in the mutation process, a member of the
mating pool is randomly selected and its parameters
are mutated by adding Gaussian noise with standard
deviations of 0.01.
The descent algorithm is then run for the next generation
of estimates for Rs and Xr2 . The fitness is calculated and
the process repeats itself for ngen generations. If at any point
during the process the descent algorithm converges, then the
hybrid algorithm stops and selects the parameter estimates
from the converged descent algorithm as the solution. Otherwise, the parameter estimates yielding the best fitness after
ngen generations are selected.
TABLE V
D EFAULT SETTINGS FOR PROPOSED HYBRID ALGORITHMS
Setting

Setting Description

Default Value

npop

Population of each generation

15

npool

Number of members in the mating pool

10

ne

Number of elite children

2

cf

Crossover fraction

80%

ngen

Maximum number of generations

10

The following hybrid algorithms are investigated in this
paper:
• NR-GA - Conventional NR and GA selection of Rs and
Xr2
• LM-GA - Levenberg-Marquardt (with an error term
lambda adjustment) and GA selection of Rs and Xr2
• DNR-GA - Damped NR (with a maximum number of 30
iterations for each damped NR step) and GA selection of
Rs and Xr2
The default settings applied for the proposed hybrid algorithms are shown in Table V.
VI. C OMPUTER S IMULATIONS

Fig. 2. Flowchart for hybrid algorithm (with natural selection of Rs and
Xr2 )

A. Motor Data Set

conventional genetic algorithm, the lowest fitness members are
discarded and the rest are retained to form the mating pool for
the next generation.
The fittest ne members in the mating pool are retained for
the next generation as elite children. Of the remaining npop −
ne children to be created for the next generation, cf % will be
produced by crossover and the rest (1 − cf %) by mutation.
The proportion cf is called the crossover fraction.

The algorithms presented in this paper were tested by
computer simulation on a large data set from the EuroDEEM
and MotorMaster databases (version 1.0.17 - 4 April 2007)
[21]. The original data set included over 15,000 IEC and
NEMA type motors. From the original set, the motor data was
conditioned by eliminating duplicate records, removing motors
without power factor, efficiency or torque data and removing
motors with strange or inconsistent data (e.g. full load torque
greater than breakdown torque, asynchronous speed greater
than synchronous speed, etc). After data cleansing, the final

6

TABLE VI
S IMULATION RESULTS FOR ALL ALGORITHMS

Case

Convergence

IEC Motors
Squared Error
Average Maximum

NEMA Motors
Squared Error
Convergence
Average
Maximum

Newton-Raphson (kx = 1, kr = 0.5)

685 (17.1%)

0.5411

5.9996

751 (31.6%)

0.2514

Levenberg-Marquardt (kx = 1, kr = 0.5)

740 (18.5%)

0.9114

6

770 (32.4%)

0.2867

6

Damped NR (kx = 1, kr = 0.5)

628 (15.7%)

0.2058

9.2314

568 (23.9%)

0.0899

4.6188

Newton-Raphson (kx = 0.5, kr = 1)

974 (24.3%)

0.9261

120.08

934 (39.3%)

0.1425

5.999

Levenberg-Marquardt (kx = 0.5, kr = 1)

1035 (25.9%)

2.691

6

945 (39.7%)

1.7268

6

Damped NR (kx = 0.5, kr = 1)

1006 (25.1%)

0.04

4.4584

935 (39.3%)

0.05054

4.6574

Genetic Algorithm (Max gens = 30)

0 (0.0%)

0.0471

3.6459

0 (0.0%)

0.04029

0.50916

Genetic Algorithm (Max gens = 50)

0 (0.0%)

0.0281

2.031

0 (0.0%)

0.03279

0.45363

Genetic Algorithm (Max gens = 100)

0 (0.0%)

0.01861

0.8062

0 (0.0%)

0.02676

0.37716

Hybrid NR-GA

1363 (34.1%)

0.0625

5.9998

1159 (48.7%)

0.0282

0.9682

Hybrid LM-GA

1388 (34.7%)

1.0941

6

1181 (49.7%)

0.53387

6

Hybrid DNR-GA

1373 (34.3%)

0.0174

5.9995

1168 (49.1%)

0.01948

0.42282

data set consisted of motors with nominal ratings from 0.37kW
to 1000kW, and the following total quantities:
• 4,002 IEC 50Hz motors
• 2,378 NEMA 60Hz motors
B. Simulation Results
A summary of the computer simulation results is shown
in Table VI. The table depicts the convergence rate, average
squared error and maximum squared error for each of the
algorithms described in this paper. Note that in this study, the
convergence criterion is a squared error value of 1 × 10−5 and
the maximum number of iterations for the descent algorithms
is 30.
In terms of convergence and error rates, it can be seen from
Table VI that the hybrid algorithms are superior to the other
algorithms. However, there is no hybrid algorithm that clearly
stands out as the best option. The LM-GA has the highest
number of converging solutions, but when it fails, it yields
poor results (as evidenced by the high average error rate). The
DNR-GA is more consistent in terms of low error rates, but
the convergence rate is also lower.
The genetic algorithms with maximum number of generations ≥30 also yield low average and maximum error rates,
but never low enough to qualify for convergence (as defined
by a squared error of < 1 × 10−5 ). However, the performance
of the genetic algorithm is unaffected by the choice of linear
restrictions / initial conditions.
On the other hand, the results show that the descent algorithms are significantly affected by the choice of linear
restrictions kr and kx , and yield inferior convergence and error
rates when compared to the proposed hybrid algorithms.
The simulations suggest that the LM algorithm can lead to
a higher convergence rate compared to the conventional NR
algorithm, but at the cost of a higher average squared error.
The LM algorithm works well in the neighbourhood of the
solution, but does not perform very well at the early stages,
particularly when the initial estimates are far from the solution.

5.9902

The LM algorithm can also produce spectacularly bad results
when the Jacobian matrix is ill-conditioned or near-singular.
The damped NR algorithm is intended to help address the
issue of ill-conditioned and near-singular Jacobian matrices.
Adding a damping factor λI to the Jacobian matrix makes it
more likely to be invertible. However, while the damped NR
algorithm leads to lower average squared error, it also takes
more iterations to converge.
C. Algorithm Computation Time
Indicative computation times for the different algorithms in
this project are shown in Table VII. The computation times
were obtained from simulations performed on a 2.1GHz Intel
dual core processor with 2GB RAM and are presented here
primarily for comparison.
TABLE VII
AVERAGE ALGORITHM SOLUTION TIME

Algorithm

Solution Time (s)
Average Maximum

Newton-Raphson

0.257

0.742

Levenberg-Marquardt

0.162

0.332

Damped NR

0.241

0.427

Genetic Algorithm (10 Gens)

0.257

0.328

Genetic Algorithm (30 Gens)

0.778

0.947

Genetic Algorithm (50 Gens)

1.356

1.758

Genetic Algorithm (100 Gens)

2.753

3.036

Hybrid NR-GA

24.395

53.290

Hybrid LM-GA

14.289

42.198

Hybrid DNR-GA

29.050

64.568

From Table VII, it can be seen that the hybrid algorithms
have average solution times between 50 and 100 times slower
than the conventional descent algorithms (i.e. NR, LM and
DNR algorithms). This is because the evolutionary part of
the hybrid algorithm must run the descent algorithm multiple

7

times for each generation. For example, based on the default
settings as shown in Table V, the hybrid algorithm may have
to perform up to npop × ngen = 10 × 15 = 150 descent
algorithms. This would occur in the worst case condition when
the hybrid algorithm fails to converge.
The genetic algorithm has average solution times that are
dependent on the maximum number of generations to be
simulated. For a low number of generations (e.g. 10), the
GA solution times are comparable to that of the descent
algorithms. The solution times increase more or less linearly
as the maximum number of generations is increased.

large improvements in convergence and error rates over the
conventional algorithms.
The key drawback for the hybrid algorithms is their computation time, which depending on the algorithm settings, can
be significantly slower than conventional descent or genetic
algorithms. In any case, it can be argued that motor parameter
estimation for the purpose of power system studies is not
particularly time critical and a slow computation time can be
tolerated in return for better algorithm performance.

R EFERENCES
D. Algorithm Performance and Motor Rated Power
The performance of the algorithms are analysed with the
data sets broken down by motor rated power. Table VIII
presents the breakdown of the IEC and NEMA motor data
sets, showing the quantity of motors for various nominal power
ranges.
TABLE VIII
B REAKDOWN OF MOTOR DATA SETS BY MOTOR RATED POWER
Motor Rating

No. IEC Motors

No. NEMA Motors

0.37kW - 3.6kW

1208

630

4kW - 15kW

963

598

18.5kW - 75kW

973

741

90kW - 185kW

477

284

200kW - 630kW

355

123

>630kW

26

2

TOTAL

4002

2378

Tables IX and X show the convergence and average squared
error rates for the IEC and NEMA motor data sets respectively,
with the data sets subdivided by rated power. It is observed
that the convergence and average error rates are not uniformly
distributed across the full range of motor rated powers.
Of interest is the poor performance of all algorithms on
smaller motors, particularly motors rated below 4kW, where
convergence rates are between 0.3% and 12.3% for IEC motors
and between 1.4% and 37.3% for NEMA motors. Performance
begins to improve for all algorithms as the motor size is
increased. For motors ≥90kW, the convergence rates of the
hybrid algorithms improve to >60% for the IEC motors and
>50% for the NEMA motors. It should be noted that dynamic
modelling is least likely to be performed on individual small
motors, since they are often aggregated as lumped loads in
power system studies.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, a number of algorithms were investigated
for the estimation of induction motor parameters based on
manufacturer data. Simulations on a large data set of IEC and
NEMA motors showed that the conventional Newton-Raphson
algorithm performs quite poorly. Hybrid algorithms were introduced as an alternative to the conventional NR algorithm
and computer simulations suggested that the proposed hybrid
algorithms show promise as a parameter estimation tool, with

[1] P. Vas, Electric Machines and Drives. A Space-Vector Theory Approach,
Clarendon Press, London, 1993
[2] B. K. Johnson and J. R. Willis, Tailoring induction motor analytical
models to fit known performance characteristics and satisfy particular
study needs, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, no. 3, 1991.
[3] G. Rogers and D. Shirmohammadi, Induction machine modelling for electromagnetic transient program, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,
vol. EC-2, no. 4, 1987.
[4] S. S. Waters and R. D. Willoughby, Modeling induction motors for system
studies, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 1A-19, no. 5,
1983.
[5] D. Lindenmeyer, H. W. Dommel, A. Moshref, and P. Kundur, An
induction motor parameter estimation method, Electrical Power and
Energy Systems, vol. 23, pp. 251–262, 2001.
[6] J. Pedra, Estimation of induction motor double-cage model parameters
from manufacturer data, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol.
19, no. 2, 2004.
[7] F. Corcoles, J. Pedra, M. Salichs, and L. Sainz, Analysis of the induction
machine parameter identification, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 17, no. 2, 2002.
[8] J. Pedra, On the determination of induction motor parameters from manufacturer data for electromagnetic transient programs, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 4, 2008.
[9] K. Levenberg, A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems
in least squares, The Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2, 1944.
[10] D.W. Marquardt, An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 2, 1963.
[11] P. Nangsue, P. Pillay, and S. E. Conry, Evolutionary algorithms for
induction motor parameter determination, IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, vol. 14, no. 3, 1999.
[12] H.H. Weatherford and C.W. Brice, Estimation of induction motor parameters by a genetic algorithm, in Conference Record of the 2003 Annual
Pulp and Paper Industry Technical Conference, 2003., 2003, pp. 21–28.
[13] R Nolan, P Pillay, and T Haque, Application of genetic algorithms to
motor parameter determination, in Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Industry
Applications Society Annual Meeting, 1994, pp. 47–54.
[14] R. Bhuvaneswari and S. Subramanian, Optimization of three-phase
induction motor design using simulated annealing algorithm, Electric
Power Components and Systems, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 947–956, 2005.
[15] V.P. Sakthivel, R. Bhuvaneswari, and S. Subramanian, Multi-objective
parameter estimation of induction motor using particle swarm optimization, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 23, no. 3,
pp. 302–312, 2010.
[16] V.P. Sakthivel, R. Bhuvaneswari, and S Subramanian, An Improved Particle Swarm Optimization for Induction Motor Parameter Determination,
International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 71–76,
2010.
[17] V.P. Sakthivel, R. Bhuvaneswari, and S. Subramanian, Artificial immune
system for parameter estimation of induction motor, Expert Systems with
Applications, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 6109–6115, 2010.
[18] V. P. Sakthivel, R. Bhuvaneswari, and S. Subramanian, Bacterial Foraging Technique Based Parameter Estimation of Induction Motor from
Manufacturer Data, Electric Power Components and Systems, vol. 38,
no. 6, pp. 657–674, 2010.
[19] Zhenfeng Chen, Yanru Zhong, and Jie Li, Parameter identification
of induction motors using ant colony optimization, in Evolutionary
Computation, 2008. CEC 2008. (IEEE World Congress on Computational
Intelligence). IEEE Congress on, 2008, pp. 1611–1616.

8

TABLE IX
A LGORITHM PERFORMANCE BROKEN DOWN BY RATED POWER (IEC MOTORS )

0.37 - 3.6kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

4 - 15kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

18.5 - 75kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

90 - 185kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

200 - 630kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

>630kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

Newton-Raphson
(kx = 1, kr = 0.5)

4
(0.33%)

0.8323

52
(0.33%)

0.4891

305
(31.4%)

0.5880

166
(34.8%)

0.1788

137
(38.6%)

0.0887

21
(80.8%)

0.0092

Levenberg-Marquardt
(kx = 1, kr = 0.5)

14
(1.16%)

1.9423

62
(6.44%)

0.6743

336
(34.5%)

0.1055

190
(39.8%)

0.3229

122
(34.4%)

0.9954

16
(61.5%)

1.6178

Damped NR (kx =
1, kr = 0.5)

4
(0.33%)

0.5279

36
(3.7%)

0.1132

262
(26.9%)

0.0447

160
(33.5%)

0.0402

143
(40.3%)

0.0401

23
(88.5%)

0.0047

Genetic
Algorithm
(Max gens = 30)

0 (0.0%)

0.0830

0 (0.0%)

0.0196

0 (0.0%)

0.0266

0 (0.0%)

0.0469

0 (0.0%)

0.0550

0 (0.0%)

0.0569

Genetic
Algorithm
(Max gens = 50)

0 (0.0%)

0.0446

0 (0.0%)

0.0157

0 (0.0%)

0.0180

0 (0.0%)

0.0251

0 (0.0%)

0.0362

0 (0.0%)

0.0313

Hybrid NR-GA

48
(3.97%)

0.1842

245
(25.4%)

0.0219

559
(57.5%)

0.0035

281
(58.9%)

0.0032

207
(58.3%)

0.0040

23
(88.5%)

0.0014

Hybrid LM-GA

149
(12.3%)

2.147

274
(28.5%)

1.196

405
(41.6%)

0.5132

303
(63.5%)

0.1923

240
(67.6%)

0.1185

17
(65.4%)

0.0005

Hybrid DNR-GA

140
(11.6%)

0.037

265
(27.5%)

0.014

404
(41.5%)

0.0104

303
(63.5%)

0.0021

244
(68.7%)

0.0014

17
(65.4%)

0.0014

Case

TABLE X
A LGORITHM PERFORMANCE BROKEN DOWN BY RATED POWER (NEMA MOTORS )

0.37 - 3.6kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

4 - 15kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

18.5 - 75kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

90 - 185kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

200 - 630kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

>630kW
ConvAverage
ergence
Error2

Newton-Raphson
(kx = 1, kr = 0.5)

9
(1.43%)

0.3225

100
(16.7%)

0.3254

415
(56.0%)

0.1455

162
(57.0%)

0.1052

65
(52.9%)

0.0469

0 (0.0%)

0.2338

Levenberg-Marquardt
(kx = 1, kr = 0.5)

83
(13.2%)

0.2788

158
(26.4%)

0.2833

395
(53.3%)

0.3086

102
(35.9%)

0.3288

31
(25.2%)

0.1653

1
(50.0%)

0.0765

Damped NR (kx =
1, kr = 0.5)

58
(9.21%)

0.0820

110
(18.4%)

0.0751

297
(40.1%)

0.0722

74
(26.1%)

0.1683

28
(22.8%)

0.0863

1
(50.0%)

0.2711

Genetic
Algorithm
(Max gens = 30)

0 (0.0%)

0.0366

0 (0.0%)

0.0362

0 (0.0%)

0.0449

0 (0.0%)

0.0515

0 (0.0%)

0.0493

0 (0.0%)

0.0926

Genetic
Algorithm
(Max gens = 50)

0 (0.0%)

0.0306

0 (0.0%)

0.0303

0 (0.0%)

0.0374

0 (0.0%)

0.0405

0 (0.0%)

0.0344

0 (0.0%)

0.0872

Hybrid NR-GA

161
(25.6%)

0.0317

311
(52.0%)

0.0245

512
(69.1%)

0.0226

123
(43.3%)

0.0294

51
(41.5%)

0.0059

1
(50.0%)

0.0416

Hybrid LM-GA

237
(37.6%)

0.519

308
(51.5%)

0.5374

413
(55.7%)

0.4339

153
(53.9%)

0.5693

69
(56.1%)

0.5659

1
(50.0%)

0.0554

Hybrid DNR-GA

235
(37.3%)

0.02

307
(51.3%)

0.0181

405
(54.7%)

0.0192

151
(53.2%)

0.0141

69
(56.1%)

0.0125

1
(50.0%)

0.0586

Case

[20] J.R. Marques, I.F. Machado, and J.R. Cardoso, Induction motor parameter determination using the harmony search algorithm to power, torque
and speed estimation, in IECON 2012 - 38th Annual Conference on
IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 2012, pp. 1835–1840.
[21] EuroDEEM, Eurodeem: The european database of efficient electric
motors, http://sunbird.jrc.it/energyefficiency/eurodeem/, 2007.

Julius Susanto (M’11) received the B.Eng and M.Sc degrees in electrical
engineering from Curtin University, Perth, Australia, in 2001 and 2013
respectively. Since 2002 he has worked in industry for WorleyParsons Ltd,
DIgSILENT GmbH, TransGrid and Synergy Engineering focusing on power
system studies. He is a Chartered Professional Engineer in Australia.

Syed Islam (M’83, SM’93) received the B.Sc. from Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh, M.Sc. and PhD degrees from King
Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia, all in electrical
power engineering in 1979, 1983 and 1988 respectively.
He is currently the Chair Professor in Electrical Power Engineering at
Curtin University, Perth, Australia. He received the IEEE T Burke Hayes
Faculty Recognition award in 2000. His research interests are in Condition
Monitoring of Transformers, Wind Energy Conversion and Power Systems. He
is regular reviewer for the IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Power
Systems and Power Delivery. Prof. Islam is an editor of the IEEE Transaction
on Sustainable Energy.

