90
Pareto-Optimal Firing Angles for Switched Reluctance Motor Control
Jan H. Fisch
Institut für Regelungstechnik
Fachgebiet Regelsystemtechnik und
Prozeßautomatisierung
Technical University of Darmstadt
D-64283 Darmstadt, Landgraf-Georg-Str. 4
GERMANY
Abstract - Research into integrated control of the
severely nonlinear switched reluctance motor is in its
infancy. This paper reports an application of genetic
algorithms to this area, aiming at providing motor and
drive engineers with a helpful method and data for
commissioning. Using the genetic algorithm method,
optimal firing angles are obtained for maximal torque
control under multiple operating conditions. For
‘minimum commitment design’ at the CAD stage,
Pareto-optimal firing angles are also evolved for both
efficiency and torque maximisation, which have not
been successful in the past due to methodological
limitations. The outcome should be of immediate use
in inverse model based optimal operation and
integrated manufacturing of switched reluctance
motors.
I. Introduction
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest
in switched reluctance motors (SRMs). Since high
voltage and current switching devices for SRM
control have been available at relatively low cost, it is
now practical to make use of the advantages of SRMs,
such as simple design, rigidity, low manufacturing
cost, reliability, robustness, and efficiency [1]. Most
of these properties are due to the simple geometric
construction of the SRM, whose rotor consists of a
simple iron core without a single winding.
On contrast, control of an SRM appears not
simple. The behaviour of the SRM and its drive are so
nonlinear that modern control methods can hardly be
applied in the known manner for integrated
manufacturing [1]-[5]. One of the issues is to find
optimal firing angles in current control. Despite
extensive research over the past two decades, there is
still no complete knowledge about how control
parameters should be set for desirable operation.
Largely due to these reasons, Miller [1] stated that
the only method available to find a global mapping for
optimal angles appeared to be conducting exhaustive
search, either by dynamometer tests or by numerical
simulations or by both extensively, if one does not
wish to carry out ‘intelligent’ manual search by trial-
and-error.
Such a manual trial-and-error based search
Yun Li, P.C. Kjaer, J.J. Gribble, T.J.E. Miller
Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering
University of Glasgow
Rankine Building
Oakfield Avenue
Glasgow G12 8LT
UNITED KINGDOM
process can, however, be automated in a more
computerised way. In nature, the process of evolution
provides continuously improving solutions in terms
of adapting to the environment. This process is
emulated in evolutionary optimisation methods such
as genetic algorithms (GAs). These algorithms
combine the Darwinian-Wallace principle of
‘survival-of-the-fittest’ with ‘intelligent’ information
exchange. They have found to be highly efficient and
robust in searching for multi-optimal solutions in a
difficult multi-dimensional solution space [6], [7].
Obviously, GAs have potential to offer in SRM
control. Examples of this will be reported in this
paper. Following setting the scene of the control
problem in Section II, existing methods and the GA
based method will be discussed in Section III. Firing
angles for various operating conditions will be
optimised with respect to maximum torque
production and maximum efficiency in Sections IV
and V. Conclusions are drawn in Section VI.
II. Firing Angle Optimisation in Inverse
Model Based Control of SRMs
For an SRM, a number of variables may need to be
controlled, such as torque and speed. This paper
focuses on inverse model based speed control. The
basic idea of inverse model control is to cascade a
nonlinear filter in front of the system element that
tends to cancel out the nonlinear behaviour of the
motor such that the resulting transfer from the
demand to actual speeds is unity. Such a control
technique is mainly used for steady-state
performance at different operating points for
propulsion systems rather than servo systems.
To proceed, study the torque produced by a single
motor phase for a single pole pair
∂W '(i ,θ ) ∂
i
∂θ ∫0
Tk (i, θ ) = = ψ (i1 ,θ ) di1 (1)
∂θ
where Tk denotes the torque for phase k, W’ the
coenergy converted, θ the rotor angle, ψ the flux
linkage, i1 the instantaneous phase current and i the
current level. By assumption of superposition, the
sum of all phase torque given by Tk yields the total
motor torque, where k = 1, 2, …, m for an m-phase
 91
SRM. By Faraday’s law, ψ is given by
θ2
dθ
ψ = ∫ (v − Ri ) + ψ0 (2a)
θ1
ω optimisation work reported here delivers torque and
where the voltage at the phase terminals, v, is
obtained from the fixed supply voltage, VDC, by
chopping:
v = VDC sgn(i ref - i) . (2b)
Here iref is the reference current, which is usually
constant. In (2a), R is the phase resistance, ω the
angular velocity of the rotor (assumed constant) and
[θ1, θ2] the range of the shaft movement in
mechanical degrees.
Speed control is achieved through torque control.
In current driven torque control, positive torque
generated by a pole pair in a single phase is
determined by the amplitude and duration of an
idealised rectangular wave of current running through
the phase windings of the SRM during the period of
rising inductance, i.e., while the rotor poles are
attracted to the stator poles. Supply voltage is
chopped to achieve such a waveform. Hence, the
control variables are:
1. Reference current iref: amplitude of the rectangle,
2. Turn-on angle θon: beginning of the rectangle,
3. Turn-off angle θoff: end of the rectangle.
By (1) and (2), the steady-state torque also
depends on the angular velocity and thus optimal
torque control is derived at a given ω. The average
torque of the SRM may be calculated according to (1)
and (2) within an iteration loop (in time steps),
starting at the time when the rotor passes θon. For
this, the hard chopping controller is simulated first,
where the phase voltage is alternated between the full
supply voltage +VDC and the full reversed supply
voltage -VDC depending on whether the phase current
exceeds iref or not. The new rotor position is
computed from ωt. The actual flux is calculated by
adding ∆t(v - Ri) to the former value according to (2).
The phase current corresponding to the rotor angle θ
and flux ψ can be derived from the individual
magnetisation curves of an SRM. The work done, W,
is then updated using (1) by a contour integration
from θon to θext , where θext is the rotor position at
which the phase current reaches zero (i.e. where the
energy conversion terminates). For an m phase and Nr
rotor pole SRM, the total torque averaged over one
revolution, T, is thus given by
m Nr
T= W (3)
2π
which leads to the efficiency
Tω
η= . (4)
T ω + m R I 2RMS
Here IRMS represents the root mean-square ampere in
one phase. Based on these equations, the simulation
subroutine SRM_model() to be used in the
efficiency as a function of the turn-on angle, turn-off
angle, reference current and angular velocity in the
form:
T 
[
η  = SRM _ model θon θoff i ref ω VDC R . (5) ]
 
Given the torque, inverse model speed control can
be derived. Fig. 1 shows a block diagram representing
an SRM and its load with an inverse model in front.
Here, T is controlled by iref, the major control
variable, with θon and θoff chosen from a lookup table.
The table is pre-set at distinct values of iref and ω [1],
[4], [5]. The following discusses how iref can be
derived in order to obtain a desired ω.
1 Tdes 1 iref T ω
ωdes SRM load
load SRM
θon θoff
lookup
table
Fig.1. Inverse model speed control of an SRM.
Desired torque Tdes may be calculated from
desired angular speed ωdes via the inverse dynamics of
the SRM and its load using the lookup table
containing the firing angles. Such inverse model
control technique offers a simple and effective way
for motor engineers practically to handle the
nonlinearity of SRMs as is well-known [1], [4], [5].
Model inaccuracy could be tackled by adding a
conventional feedback control loop that ensures zero
steady-state errors or, if desired, by adding a robust
nonlinear controller such as the sliding mode
controller [8]. However, a crucial problem remains,
which is how exactly the firing angles should be
chosen to appear in the lookup table that are needed
to optimise the performance of the SRM.
To obtain maximum torque, θon should be set near
the minimum inductance position to start positive
torque production and θoff must be about the
maximum inductance position. To prevent negative
torque, flux should be allowed to decay before the
rotor reaches the area of negative torque production.
This implies that the supply may be turned off early,
but if θoff is not carefully chosen it may result in
possible loss of positive torque production. Thus an
optimisation problem arises concerning both θon and
θoff for a range of iref and ω settings. In this paper, the
optimisation problem is studied for a 3 horse power
42-frame 4-phase 8/6 SRM, driven by a 300 V / 60 A
 92
DC power supply via a 4-phase insulated-gate bipolar
transistor inverter with a fully digital controller. The
first tasks can be characterised as follow:
• To find average-torque maximising firing angles
θon and θoff at
• a fixed supply voltage VDC = 270 V with
• constant phase resistance R = 0.3 Ω,
• reference current iref in the interval [5, 40] A at
steps of 5 A and
• angular velocity ω in the interval [50, 300] rad/s at
steps of 25 rad/s.
III. A-Posteriori Guided Search Method
A. Existing Techniques
As discussed in the previous sections, the problem of
designing an SRM controller is an optimisation
problem. For this, Lovatt and Stevenson [2]
maximised the torque output per RMS ampere by
varying the current waveform via the derivative of an
objective function. The obtained waveform can result
in optimised torque, but can also lead to considerable
torque ripple and place a high demand on the current
control loop. Less effort is involved in fixing the
current waveform and changing the firing angles only.
For this, Chiba and Fukao [3] derived phase angles
that promise maximum power output per RMS
ampere by a calculus means. In order to be able to
derive these angles analytically, however, a very
restrictive assumption must be made, where the
inductance between the rotor and the stator is
approximated by a sinusoidal function of the rotor
angle. Another analytical approach to finding torque
maximising turn-off angles was presented by
Orthmann and Schoener [4], where SRM inductance
was modelled by a piece-wise linear function of the
rotor angle in order to obtain the derivative
information analytically.
To circumvent difficulties in obtaining analytical
derivatives for the severely nonlinear SRM,
numerical optimisation techniques may be favoured.
Kjaer et al. [5] developed a firing angle based
controller that is capable of reducing reactive power
flow of switched reluctance generators using an on-
line gradient guidance based algorithm. For this
application, off-line simulations of torque versus
firing angles showed that there existed one global
optimum and thus on-line adjustments around the
simulated optimal angles were possible in real-time.
Conventional a-priori guidance based numerical
optimisation techniques usually require the existence
and pre-determination of a smooth objective
function. Such conditions are often difficult to satisfy
in SRM system designs, due to the severely nonlinear
nature inherent in the motor and its chopping circuits.
Even when these conditions can be satisfied, a-priori
techniques may only offer a local optimum and are
usually only applicable to uni-modal, single-objective
and, preferably, single-parameter optimisation [6],
[7]. Largely due to these difficulties, practical
methods for finding a global mapping for optimal
angles have been by way of exhaustive search [1].
The exhaustive search or enumeration technique
belongs to a-posteriori based guidance methods. As
the terminology implies, the best solution can only be
found after all possible trials have been conducted,
since there is no ‘intelligent’ means incorporated in
the search. An example of such action was reported
by Torrey and Lang [9], who found firing angles for
optimised efficiency in the course of iterative
simulations similar to hill-climbing. An example of
applying such a technique to finding an optimal θoff
(in electrical degrees) for maximum torque control
under a pre-determined operating condition is shown
in Fig. 2. However, in practice, this technique may
only be applied to single parameter optimisation [1],
since the search time will increase exponentially with
the number of parameters involved. The design cycle
may be shortened by manually incorporating trial-
and-error based adjustment. This was attempted by
Stiebler and Ge [10], who found firing angles that
deliver certain maximal efficiency, maximal
effectiveness and minimal noise. Clearly, manual
trial-and-error based search can be painstakingly long
and room may still be left for further improvement.
These existing difficulties in optimal designs of such
nonlinear control systems have thus led to the
conclusion that no perfect methods are yet known for
finding optimal firing angles in SRM control [1].
1.8
T [Nm]
x
1.6
1.4
1.2
300 320 340 θoff [ d e g ] 360
Fig. 2. Exhaustive search for θoff maximising T at
fixed θon = 166°, ω = 100 rad/s and iref = 10 A.
B. Genetic Algorithm Based Method
The manual trial-and-error process can, however, be
automated in a computer. This is to emulate natural
evolution by computerised ‘intelligent’ search such as
that implemented in a genetic algorithm. A GA
mimics the course of natural selection to evolve
continuously improving solutions. The so far fittest
solutions have the advantage to reproduce themselves
more. Poor candidate solutions will be discouraged
to survival to the next generation. The new generation
as a whole are very likely to perform better than their
 93

antecedent generation, but individuals will have to IV. Torque Maximising Firing Angles
prove their fitness in comparison within their own
A. Software Interfacing
generation.
In an evolutionary algorithm, candidate solutions The 8/6 motor data are included in the SRM_model()
can be encoded in numerical or symbolic strings that module. The performance of the integrated on-board
mirror genetic chromosomes. A GA encourages controller plus the SRM system is evaluated by the
information exchange and diversifies the search by module as part of a computer-aided SRM design
structured creativity via ‘genetic’ crossover and package written in C. The use of efficient C compiled
mutation of the ‘chromosomes’, whose usefulness executable code is to speed up the simulation. As
can only be judged a-posteriori. Thus a GA requires shown in Fig. 4, this module is linked to the Matlab
no derivatives of objective functions. Such algorithms environment by a mex-file, link-SRMt(), which passes
have been found highly robust and efficient in a non- θon and θoff for evaluation with various iref and ω. The
deterministic polynomial (NP) manner in searching evaluated fitness is used by anther m-file, SRM-
for multiple optimal solutions in a multi-dimensional taut(), to call the GA toolbox to optimise iref and ω
and multi-modal space [6]-[8]. Obviously genetic for inverse model based control.
algorithms have potential to offer in SRM control.
The GA software used for optimal control settings Matlab environment
reported in this paper is a commercially available
call
Matlab toolbox, FTGA® [7]. The system parameters to FTGA
toolbox f (Τ, η )
SRM
taut
be optimised can be encoded by binary, floating-point
θ on θ off
or logarithmic strings. The toolbox provides a i ref
ω
graphical user interface and user flexibility in setting link
R
SRMt
the GA operators, selection mechanism and niching VDC
for up to four objectives. Pareto optimality is enabled
for multi-objectives, which acknowledges only
superior solutions that leave at least one goal better θon
off and not a single goal worse off. The operation of a θ off η
iref
decimal-coded GA can be summarised in Fig. 3 [8]. ω S R M _ m o d e l (in C)
VDC T
R
Initial/random Final optimised
designs coded designs
Selection
f(P 3) Fig. 4. Matlab FTGA® interfacing with C simulation.
f(P1: 1 2 0 9 0 2 1 7)=5%
f(P2: 4 0 0 3 0 1 6 1)=60% f (P1)
f(P 3: 0 1 6 4 1 8 0 1)=35% f( P2)
B. Results Obtained for Controller
New Integration
Decoding, generation
simulation, The optimisation was run with a candidate population
evaluation

Mutation
P2: 4 0 0 3 0 1 6 1
P2’: 4 0 1 3 0 8 0 1
P3’: 0 1 6 4 1 1 6 1
Conventional CAD
Fig.3. GA optimisation coupled CAD simulation.
In the figure, the conventional CAD package
simulates the performance of candidate solutions.
The evaluated performance is then fed back to the GA
to guide the evolutionary selection a-posteriori,
which in turn alters candidates by crossover and
mutation. Then new candidates are further tested by
the CAD program. Such a process continues until the
candidates may not be improved meaningfully.
Clearly, the human intelligence used in a manual trial-
and-error based search process is borrowed in the GA
to automate the trial and search. Owing to the NP
characteristics, a GA requires an exponentially
reduced time compared with exhaustive search.
Crossover
P 2: 4 0 0 3 0 1 6 1
P 2: 4 0 0 3 0 1 6 1
P 3: 0 1 6 4 1 8 0 1
size of 39, 1 of which was used for “steady-state” GA
inheritance. A size 2 tournament selection scheme
and efficient integer coding at a resolution of 1°
(electrical) for θon ∈ [140°, 300°] and θoff ∈ [200°,
360°] were used. Such resolution is deemed
sufficient by motor engineers. The selection of the
turn-on and turn-off ranges is based on the argument
made in Section II. Should exhaustive search be used,
the number of function evaluations would be (300-
140) × (360-200) = 25600 per set of (iref, ω).
Using the GA toolbox, the probability of
crossover was selected as 0.77 and that of mutation
as 0.077. It was observed that one GA optimisation
run typically involved some 780 function evaluations
for each operating point and it took approximately
four hours on a 100 MHz Pentium processor to
complete the torque optimisation for entire 88
operating conditions. Note that the time taken would
be some 780/25600 = 3% of that needed by
exhaustive search. At the end of the torque
optimisation process, multiple optimal turn-on angles
were revealed by the terminating generation of the
 94

evolved candidates. They indicated that the torque

produced was not relatively sensitive to θon. To In contrast, optimal θoff values lack such
visualise this, a torque versus turn-on angle plot is robustness and an example was shown in Fig. 2. Thus
shown in Fig. 5 for θoff = 358°, ω = 100 rad/s (955 care must be taken when control by the turn-off
rpm) and iref = 10 A. angles, since not many adjacent optimal solutions
exist. The GA recommended optimal turn-off angles
1.8
1% {
are given in Table III. These tables show that the
angles should be advanced (i.e., decreased) with
1.6 increased iref or ω in general, revealing the tendency
T [Nm]
that needs to be adopted for commissioning. The
1.4 resulting maximal torque values are very similar to
those plotted in Fig. 6. Note that, however, the
1.2 usefulness of these tables depends on the accuracy of
the SRM model contained in the SRM_model() CAD
1.0 program.
80 120 160 200 240 280
θon [ d e g ] TABLE III
GA RECOMMENDED TORQUE MAXIMISING TURN-OFF
Fig. 5. Multiple optimal θon solutions for fixed θoff = ANGLES
358°, ω = 955 rpm and iref = 10 A indicates the ω 477 716 955 1194 1432 1671 1910 2149 2387 2620 2865
iref
insensitivity in selecting this control parameter.
5 359 358 358 358 357 356 356 355 354 354 353
10 359 358 358 357 356 355 353 353 352 351 351
Post-analysis on the GA recommended multiple 15 359 357 356 355 354 353 352 351 350 350 349
choices was carried out for further objectives. The 20 358 357 355 354 353 353 352 352 350 349 347
insensitivity revealed by the multiple adjacent 25 358 356 355 354 353 352 351 350 350 348 346
solutions should give a motor engineer insight, 30 357 355 355 353 352 351 350 349 348 347 345
35 357 355 354 353 352 350 350 349 347 346 345
confirmation, or flexibility in choosing the turn-on 40 356 355 354 353 352 350 350 348 347 345 344
angles. To provide such information to practising
engineers, angles that offer torque within 1% of the
Importantly, Fig. 5 also reveals that room is left in
maximum have been evolved. In this regard, the GA
selecting the turn-on angles. For example, if the
recommended upper and lower limiting values of
primary objective of the design is committed to
optimal turn-on angles are shown in Table I and Table
torque maximisation, then the room may be used for
II, respectively, for all required operating conditions.
efficiency maximisation. Further studies show that
Note that the unit of iref is A, ω’s are in rpm and the
the θon range of [157°, 207°] corresponds to an η
angles are in electrical degrees.
range of [72.3%, 78.6%]. This means an efficiency
gain up to 10% could be achieved by sacrificing the
TABLE I
torque for up to 1%. For this, the upper bound of the
UPPER BOUND OF TORQUE MAXIMISING TURN-ON ANGLES
ω 477 716 955 1194 1432 1671 1910 2149 2387 2620 2865
turn-on angles shown in Table I would be
iref recommended.
5 212 210 208 207 206 206 206 206 206 205 205
10 211 209 207 206 205 205 205 205 204 204 203
15 210 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 201 200 V. Multi-Objective Firing Angles
20 210 208 206 204 202 201 201 199 199 197 197
Ways of achieving both maximal torque and maximal
25 210 207 205 202 201 198 198 196 196 194 193
30 210 205 203 200 199 197 195 194 194 192 190 efficiency could be through relatively weighting the
35 208 203 202 199 196 193 193 191 189 188 186 two objectives before the design, or through
40 207 205 200 197 194 192 189 189 188 185 183 obtaining maximal torque first and then maximising
the efficiency within an acceptable torque sacrificing
TABLE II range. These methods, however, lack flexibility and
LOWER BOUND OF TORQUE MAXIMISING TURN-ON ANGLES transparency in the design. More significantly, it is
ω 477 716 955 1194 1432 1671 1910 2149 2387 2620 2865 against the ‘minimum commitment principle’ at the
iref
CAD stage [10], i.e., a designer should not
5 172 171 171 171 170 170 170 170 169 170 170
10 159 158 158 158 157 157 157 156 156 155 155
prematurely commit to one goal before others.
15 156 152 155 152 152 153 153 152 151 151 150 A GA is, in fact, able to realise multi-objective
20 154 151 150 151 152 153 150 152 149 149 148 optimisation in which it is not necessary to pre-
25 153 152 152 151 151 151 151 149 148 149 147 determine how meaningful a single goal should be
30 153 153 152 152 152 149 149 148 147 146 147 compared with the others. Due to the criterion of
35 152 151 151 150 151 150 148 148 148 147 146
Pareto, all goals are regarded as important since one
40 151 149 149 151 151 149 149 147 146 145 144
solution can only be better if it delivers more payoff
 95

towards at least one goal and does not harm any other. Fig. 6. Maximal torque offered by Pareto-optimal
The price of gaining true multi-objective optimisation angles given by Tables IV and V for both maximal
is, however, that the solutions may not be unique. torque and maximal efficiency.
η
Usually, various Pareto-optimal solutions exist which 0.9
are not Pareto dominated by other solutions. So the
designer can have the final decision on which solution 0.8

from the multiple Pareto-optimal suggestions made 0.7

by the GA should be adopted.
Since a large population size helps in 0.6

accommodating multiple objectives, the size is iref [ A ]

35 300
increased to 59 here. Other parameters were taken 25 200 ω [rad/s]
15
over from the former torque optimisation exercise. 5
100

The FTGA toolbox was able to recommend both firing

angles for truly multi-objective optimal SRM control. Fig. 7. Maximal efficiency offered by Pareto-optimal
Multiple Pareto-optimal solutions were obtained. The angles given by Tables IV and V for both maximal
time taken in the Pareto evolution process was torque and maximal efficiency.
increased by some 50%, mainly due to the increase It can be seen that the turn-on angles shown in
of the population size. Tables IV and V show a typical Table IV are within the ranges limited by Tables I and
set of GA recommended optimal turn-on and turn-off II, confirming the Pareto choices are reasonable.
angles, respectively. The corresponding torque and Compared with Table III, the turn-off angles in Table
efficiency, which are maximised with Pareto multi- V are advanced to give a shorter conduction period
objective optimality, are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. and lower RMS current, leading to lower losses and
higher efficiency, while retaining high torque. To
TABLE IV visualise the comparison between single objective
TORQUE AND EFFICIENCY MAXIMISING TURN-ON ANGLES and Pareto-optimal turn-on and turn-off angles, the
ω 477 716 955 1194 1432 1671 1910 2149 2387 2620 2865
iref
five sets of these angles for iref = 10 A are depicted in
5 192 192 191 190 190 190 188 188 188 187 187 Fig. 8. To view the GA recommended angles of Tables
10 191 190 189 188 188 187 185 185 185 184 184 IV and V over all operating points, they are plotted in
15 190 187 185 183 183 183 181 179 179 179 177 3-D graphs in Figs. 9 and 10. Note again that the
20 187 185 183 181 180 179 178 175 173 172 169 optimality of these recommendations are dependent
25 186 185 181 179 175 174 173 172 170 168 165 upon the accuracy of the CAD package used.
30 185 182 179 175 173 171 171 171 165 162 159
35 183 180 177 175 173 169 167 166 162 157 157
40 181 179 177 174 172 167 165 163 161 153 149 Electrical Degrees
4 0 0

θoff | Tmax
3 5 0

TABLE V 3 0 0 θoff | Tmax, ηmax

TORQUE AND EFFICIENCY MAXIMISING TURN-OFF ANGLES 2 5 0

Max θon | Tmax

ω 477 716 955 1194 1432 1671 1910 2149 2387 2620 2865
2 0 0

iref
1 5 0
θon | Tmax, ηmax
1 0 0

5 359 358 357 355 353 351 348 347 346 344 342
5 0 Min θon | Tmax
10 358 357 355 352 349 346 344 343 342 340 338
0

15 356 354 352 351 347 346 344 344 342 341 337
477
716
955
1194
1432
1671
1910
2149
2387
2620
2865

20 355 354 352 348 347 343 341 341 341 341 337 ω (rpm)
25 355 354 352 347 347 343 341 341 341 339 336
30 355 353 350 347 346 341 341 340 338 336 335
35 354 352 349 347 345 341 340 338 336 334 332
Fig. 8. GA recommended single-objective and Pareto-
40 354 352 349 346 344 341 338 336 334 332 330
optimal angles versus steady-sate ω for iref = 10 A.
θon [deg]
T [Nm]
200

30
180
20

10 160
0

ω [rad/s] ω [rad/s]
100

iref [A]
100
200 35 iref [A]
25
35
300 15 200
25
5
15
300 5
 96
Fig. 9. Pareto-optimal turn-on angles in Tables IV.
θoff [deg]
360
350
340
ω [rad/s]
100
iref [A]
200 35
25
15
300 5
Fig. 10. Pareto-optimal turn-off angles in Tables V.
VI. Conclusions and Further Work
Applications of genetic algorithms to the infant
research area of nonlinear integrated control of
switched reluctance motors have been investigated. It
has been shown that a GA can be used easily to find
optimal firing angles efficiently. Torque maximising
firing angles for 88 operating conditions have been
obtained. The multiple solutions offered by the GA
reveal the merit of these optimal angles in terms of
sensitivity and robustness. This has led to the search
for optimal bounds of the turn-on angles, within
which any setting may be used for torque maximising
control. Hence, within these ranges, room is left for
choosing turn-on angles for another objective, such
as efficiency, speed or current limit.
The GA has also been applied to Pareto multi-
objective optimisation for ‘minimum commitment
design’ at the CAD stage, resulting in Pareto-optimal
firing angles for both torque and efficiency
maximisation. This avoids pre-commitment on
weighting the design objectives, which has not been
successful in the past due to methodological
limitations. The method and outcome should be of
immediate use by design and commissioning
engineers for optimal operation and integrated
manufacturing of switched reluctance motors.
Note that, however, the usefulness of the
recommended optimal turn-on and turn-off angles
depends upon the accuracy of the motor and drive
CAD package used, but the recommendations can at
least act as a guide for fine adjustments via on-line
dynamometer tests. Further work related to this
would thus be to establish a highly accurate model of
the severely nonlinear SRM and its drive for highly
accurate CAD. The model may be described by a
‘grey-box’, representing the global dynamics
determined by physical laws in a clear structure,
whilst accommodating unmeasurable dynamics in
local black-boxes.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to their colleague, Dr. G.J.
Gray, for his generous and enduring help on linking
between the C and Matlab code and to Lucas
Aerospace and MagnaPhysics Corp for motors. It is
gratefully acknowledged the EPSRC funding for
GR/J06238 (Control Techniques for Switched
Reluctance Drives) and GR/K24987 (Evolutionary
Programming for Nonlinear Control) that provided
the environment in which this work was embedded.
References
[1] T. J. E. Miller, Switched Reluctance Motors and
Their Control, Hillsboro, OH: Magna Physics and
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
[2] H. C. Lovatt and J.M. Stephenson, “Computer-
optimised current waveforms for switched
reluctance motors,” IEE Proc. - Electr. Power
Appl., vol. 141, no. 2, pp. 45-51, 1994.
[3] A. Chiba and T. Fukao, “An analysis and an
operating method of switched reluctance motors
based on a simple inductance representation,”
Proc. IAS Annual Meeting, 1995, pp. 419-426.
[4] R. Orthmann and H. P. Schoener, “Turn-off angle
control of switched reluctance motors for
optimum torque output,” EPE Proc., 1993, pp.
20-25.
[5] P. C. Kjaer, C. Cossar, J. J. Gribble, T. J. E.
Miller, and Y. Li, “Minimization of reactive
power flow in switched reluctance generators,”
Proc. IPEC, Yokohama, Japan, 1995, pp. 1022-
1027.
[6] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search,
Optimization, and Machine Learning, Reading,
MA: Addison Wesley, 1989.
[7] FlexTool(GA) User Manual, Tuscaloosa, AL:
Flexible Intelligence Group LLC, 1995.
[8] Y. Li, K. C. Ng, D. J. Murray-Smith, G. J. Gray,
and K. C. Sharman, “Genetic algorithm
automated approach to design of sliding mode
control systems,” Int. J. Control, vol. 63, no. 4,
1996, pp. 721-739.
[9] D. A. Torrey and J. H. Lang, “Optimal-efficiency
excitation of variable-reluctance motor drives”,
IEE Proc - Pt. B, vol. 138, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1-14.
[10] M. Stiebler and J. Ge, “A low voltage switched
reluctance motor with experimentally optimised
control”, ICEM Proc., 1992, pp. 532-536.
[11] X. Guan and K. J. MacCallum, “Adopting a
minimum commitment principle for computer
aided geometric design systems,” in Artificial
Intelligence in Design, Gero, J. S. and
Sudweeks, F., eds, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
1996, pp. 623-639.