Specifications of an EV
1. Introduction
Battery electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid EVs are now at the forefront of transportation researches in order to reduce the emission of pollutant gasses, especially in the inner cities. However, the present performances of EVs are far from being competitive to those of traditional combustion engine vehicles, mainly in terms of autonomy. Therefore,powersaving and masssaving are of the upmost importance when designing the entire drive system of EVs and their electric motor drives (Tseng & Chen, 1997).
In conventional EVs, the power system consists of battery, electric motors with drives, transmission gears and differentials to the wheels (Yang & Chuang, 2007). The mechanical transmission system contributes greatly to the power loss, through the heat dissipation in the various components, and to the weight of the vehicle. An interesting alternative to this conventional power system is the concept of inwheel motors or hubin motors as illustrated in Fig.1. In this concept, the motor is directly integrated into the wheel, thus eliminating transmission gears and differentials with their associated power loss (Yang et al., 2004). Furthermore, the elimination of mechanical components in transmission chains or gears reduces the weight of the vehicle. Each of the inwheel motors has its own voltage supply inverter (VSI) as well as its own speed or torque controller. All the inwheelmotors are coordinated by a digital vehicularspeed controller with differential gear.
Due to their robustness, low cost, performances and simplicity of design, induction motors (IMs) are often preferred for EVs propulsion. However, in recent years,NeodymiumIronBore (NdFeB) axial flux permanent magnet (AFPM) motors have become an interesting alternative to IMs due to their compactness, low weight and high torque density. Moreover, AFPM motors are pancaketype, fit perfectly the wheel of an automobile vehicle and, thus, can be easily and compactly integrated into the wheel. According to these properties, axial flux motors seem to be a better choice than more conventional radial flux motors for this kind of application. Note that this issue is discussed in (Versèle et al., 2009).
There are many alternatives for the design of AFPM motors (Sahin & Vandenput, 1999): slotted or slotless stator, rotor with interior or surfacemounted permanent magnets (PMs), internal or external rotor, numbers of rotors and stators, etc. In this chapter, a doublesided motor with internal slotted stator and surfacemounted PMs is proposed as basic design choice essentially motivated by the presence of two air gaps doubling the torque.
Among the various researches, many authors have published papers about the optimal design of inwheel motors for EVs or wheelchairs (Espanet et al., 1999; Nilssen et al., 2005; Tseng & Chen 1997; Yang et al., 2004) as well as about the optimization of AFPM motors (Azzouzi et al., 2006; Chun et al., 2007; Cvetkovski & Petkovska, 2002).
In this chapter, the objective is to optimize simultaneously one of the four inwheel motors of an EV and its own VSI in terms of weight and power loss. Note that the simultaneous optimization of the inwheel motor and its own VSI, rarely discussed in literature, results in a system optimized towards the requirements of the EV.
To do so, a multiobjective optimization (MO) technique based on evolutionary algorithms (EAs) is used. EAs are stochastic search techniques that mimic natural evolutionary principles to perform search and optimization procedure. Among the several approaches to evolutionary optimization, GAs have been chosen and the socalled Elitist Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGAII) (Deb, 2002) is used to perform the optimal design of the inwheel motor and its own VSI. Note that GAs are chosen because they have already proved their efficiency to optimize every kind of electrical machines (Skaar & Nielssen, 2003) and power electronics converters (Helali, 2005; Malyna et al., 2007; Versèle et al., 2010).
The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. First, the requirements in terms of power and torque of an EV are discussed in Section 2. Then, Section 3 describes the AFPM motor and VSI models used in the design procedure. In Section 4, the MO technique based on GAs as well as the proposed optimization routine are described. Finally, a design example is exposed in Section 5 and the advantages and limitations of the new design procedure are discussed in Section 6.
2. Requirements of an EV
In order to determine the requirements, in terms of power and torque, of one of the four inwheel motors (considering an EV driven by four inwheel motors), a computer model of an EV traction system is presented in this section.
The road load on the vehicle consists of three forces (Yang & Chuang, 2007): (1) the rolling resistance
where
Once the total tractive effort is computed, the total torque
where
Based on the specifications of an urban EV (Ehsani et al., 2005), summarized in Table 1, and on the abovedescribed EV traction system, the requirements of one inwheel motor can be easily computed. All the results are presented in Table 2. Note that, in addition to provide its requirements, the inwheel motor must also respect some constraints. The main constraints are the total weight of each of the four inwheel motors
Weight 
1150 kg 
Max. speed 
13.9 m/s (50 km/h) 
Acceleration 
1 m/s² 
Frontal area 
2.5 m² 
Coefficient of aerodynamic resistance 
0.32 
Rolling resistance coefficient 
0.015 
Max. road angle 
5.7° (10%) 
Rim diameter  14’’ 
Number of inwheel motors  4 
Torque 
"/ 107 Nm 
Power 
"/ 8.7 kW 
Weight of the motor 
< 43.125 kg 
3. Modeling of the AFPM motor and VSI
In order to evaluate the two objective functions, viz. the weight and the losses of the motor and the VSI, and to verify if the constraints are not violated during the design procedure, two models are necessary: one for the motor and one for the VSI. It should be noticed that analytical models have been chosen in this paper with the aim of reducing the computational time. These models permit to evaluate the weight and the losses of the motor and the VSI as well as to estimate the torque and power developed by the motor.
3.1. AFPM motor model
Analytical design of AFPM motors is usually performed on the average radius
where
The use of the average radius as a design parameter allows evaluating motor parameters and performances based on analytical design methods (Gieras et al., 2004).
The air gap flux density
where
On the one hand, in order to obtain an accurate estimation of the air gap flux density and torque developed by the motor, the factor
On the other hand, the main magnetic flux density in the air gap decreases under each slot opening due to the increase in reluctance. The Carter coefficient permits to take into account this change in magnetic flux density caused by slot openings defining a fictitious air gap greater than the physical one. It can be computed as follows (Gieras et al., 2004):
where
where
Assuming sinusoidal waveform for the air gap flux density and the phase current, the average electromagnetic torque
where
The electromagnetic power
The doublesided AFPM motor losses are the sum of the stator winding losses, the stator and rotor cores losses, the PMs losses and the mechanical losses, whereas its weight is the sum of the stator and the two rotors weights, the stator winding weight and the PMs weight. Note that the computation of those different parts of the two objective functions can easily be found elsewhere (Gieras et al., 2004) and, so, it is not described in this chapter.
Finally, it should also be pointed out that some electrical parameters of the AFPM motor, such as the stator resistance (
3.2. AFPM motor model validation
In order to validate the analytical AFPM motor model presented in this chapter, analytical and experimental results are compared. To do so, the proposed model is applied to a 5.5 kW, 4000 rpm AFPM motor. The calculated motor parameters are then compared with parameters obtained by classical tests (test at dc level, noload test, etc.) performed on an existing AFPM pump motor. All the results are reported in Table 3. As can be seen, very small differences are obtained between the analytical and experimental results, whatever the parameters. According to this validation method, one can conclude that the proposed analytical design process gives reasonable results in this particular case and can be used in the optimization procedure of the inwheel motor of an EV.




0.45 Ω  0.423 Ω 

0,129 H  0,117 H 

0,127 H  0,117 H 

13.97 Nm  15.04 Nm 

5.85 kW  5.5 kW 
3.3. VSI model
The total loss of the semiconductor devices (IGBTs and diodes) of the VSI (employing sinusoidal pulsewidthmodulation) consists of two parts: the onstate losses and the switching losses. The onstate losses of the devices are calculated from their average
where
The switching losses are, as for them, calculated by the following formula (Semikron, 2010):
where
Based on the total loss of the semiconductor devices, the heatsink can be designed in order to limit the junction temperature to a predefined temperature (typically in the order of125 °C). This temperature can be estimated from the ambient temperature
From (15), the thermal resistance of the heatsink
The total weight of the VSI is the sum of the weight of all the semiconductor devices and the weight of the heatsink.
4. Optimization routine based on the NSGAII
As mentioned previously, in this contribution, a MO technique based on EAs is used. Those are stochastic search techniques that mimic natural evolutionary principles to perform the search and optimization procedures (Deb, 2002).
GAs have been chosen because they overcome the traditional search and optimization methods (such as gradientbased methods) in solving engineering design optimization problems (Deb & Goyal, 1997). Indeed, there are, at least, two difficulties in using traditional optimization algorithms to solve such problems. Firstly, each traditional optimization algorithm is specialized to solve a particular type of problems and, therefore, may not be suited to a different type. As this is not the case with the GAs, no particular difficulties have been met to adapt the considered GA (viz. the NSGAII, see below) to the multiobjective optimal design of the AFPM motor and its VSI. Only the models of these converters had to be used in combination with the GA in order to evaluate the values of the considered objectives. Secondly, most of the traditional methods are designed to work only on continuous variables. However in engineering designs, some variables are restricted to take discrete values only. In this chapter, this requirement arises, e.g., for the choice of the number of poles pairs.
Mixedvariable optimization problems are difficult to tackle because they pose the problems of the combinatorial and continuous optimization problems (Socha, 2008). For this reason, there are not many dedicated algorithms in literature and most of the approaches used in these algorithms relax the constraints of the problem. The most popular approach consists in relaxing the requirements for the discrete variables which are assumed to be continuous during the optimization process (Deb & Goyal, 1997). This type of approach is, often, referred as continuous relaxation approach.
Apart from the relaxationbased approach, there are methods proposed in literature that are able to natively handle mixedvariable optimization problems. However, only a few such methods have been proposed. Among them, the Genetic Adaptive Search is based on the fact that there are versions of the GAs dedicated to discrete variables and other versions dedicated to continuous variables. So, the GAs can be easily extended to natively handling both continuous and discrete variables. Such an approach has been proposed in (Deb & Goyal, 1997) and will be used in this chapter as it has already proved to be efficient to solve engineering problems (see, e.g. (Deb & Goyal, 1997)). Pattern Search Method (Audet & Dennis, 2001), Mixed Bayesian Optimization Algorithms (Ocenasek & Schwarz, 2002) and Ant Colony optimization (Socha, 2008) are other methods which permit to tacklemixedvariable problems.
Among the several MO techniques using GAs (see, e.g., (Deb, 2007)), the socalled NSGAII (Deb et al., 2002), described in the next Section, will be used to perform the optimal design.
4.1. NSGAII
NSGAII is a recent and efficient multiobjective EA using an elitist approach (Deb, 2002). It relies on two main notions: nondominated ranking and crowding distance. Nondominated ranking is a way to sort individuals in nondominated fronts whereas crowding distance is a parameter that permits to preserve diversity among solutions of the same nondominated front.
The procedure of the NSGAII is shown in Fig. 4 and is as follows (Deb, 2002). First, a combined population
NSGAII has been implemented in Matlab with real and binary coding schemes. So, a discrete variable is coded in a binary string whereas a continuous variable is coded directly. Such coding schemes are used in this paper because the considered optimization variables (see Table 4 in Section 5) belong to the two categories.
These coding schemes allow a natural way to code different optimization variables, which is not possible with traditional optimization methods. Moreover, the real coded scheme for the continuous variables eliminates the difficulties (Hamming cliff problem and difficulty to achieve arbitrary precision) of coding such variables with a binary scheme.
So, e.g., with the coding scheme used in this paper, the structure of the chromosome (composed by the seven considered optimization variables) of the solution #3 (see Table 5 in Section 5) is as follows:
There are three fundamental operations used in GAs: selection, crossover and mutation. The primary objective of the selection operator is to make duplicate of good solutions and eliminate bad solutions in a population, in keeping the population size constant. To do so, a tournament selection (Deb, 2002) based on nondominated rank and crowding distance of each individual is used. Then, the selected individuals generate offsprings from crossover and mutation operators. To cross and to mutate the real coded variables the Simulated Binary Crossover and Polynomial Mutation operators (Deb & Goyal, 1997) are used in this chapter. The singlepoint crossover (Deb, 2002) is, as for it, used to cross the discrete optimization variables. Note that to mutate this type of variables, a random bit of their string is simply changed from ‘1’ to ‘0’ or
Finally, the constraints must be taken into account. Several ways exist to handle constraints in EAs. The easiest way to take them into account in NSGAII is to replace thenondominated ranking procedure by a constrained nondominated ranking procedure as suggested by its authors elsewhere (see, e.g., (Deb, 2002)). The effect of using this constraineddomination principle is that any feasible solution has a better nondominated rank than any infeasible solution.
It is important to emphasize that the GA must be properly configured. The size of the population is one of the important parameters of the GA as well as the termination criterion. In this contribution, the size of the population
4.2. Design procedure
The overall design procedure, presented in Fig. 5, has been implemented in the Matlab environment. First, a random initial population is generated. Then, the objective functions, i.e. the total weight and the total losses of the VSIfed AFPM inwheel motor, are evaluated based on the initial population and on the abovedescribed models (see Section 3). A convergence test is then performed to check for a termination criterion. If this criterion is not satisfied, the reproduction process using genetic operations starts. A new population is generated and the previous steps are repeated until the termination criterion is satisfied. Otherwise, the Pareto front, i.e. the nondominated solutions within the entire search space, is plotted and the optimization procedure ends.
5. Design example
In order to illustrate the design procedure, a VSIfed AFPM inwheel motor with the specifications given in Tables 1 and 2 is designed in this Section.
The lower and upper bounds of the seven considered optimization variables, viz. the factor
It should also be recalled that the inwheel motor must provide the requirements of the EV as well as respect some constraints. The main constraints are the total weight




[0.5 ; 0.9]  Continuous 

[1 ; 6] A/mm²  Continuous 

[1 ; 20] mm  Continuous 

[1 ; 5] mm  Continuous 

[1 ; 10] kHz  Continuous 

[1 ; 15]  Discrete 

[50 ; 255]  Discrete 
The results, i.e. the Pareto front, are presented in Fig. 6. Each point of this Pareto front represents an optimal VSIfed AFPM inwheel motor that respects all the constraints. Moreover, the values of the optimization variables corresponding to three particular solutions of the front are detailed in Table 5.
For a practical design, one particular solution of the Pareto front should be chosen. On the one hand, the choice of this particular solution can be let to the designer who can choose
On the other hand, the designer can also use some dedicated techniques to choose a particular solution of the Pareto front. These can be categorized into two types (Deb, 2002): postoptimal techniques and optimizationlevel techniques.





0.89  0.89  0.88 

4.9  5.5  4.9 

5  5  5 

1.9  3.2  1 

1972  2110  1410 

14  15  10 

222  255  158 

207  208  207 

8.72  8.77  8.72 

17.2  15.1  26 
In the first approach, the solutions obtained from the optimization technique are analyzed to choose a particular solution whereas, in the second approach, the optimization technique is directed towards a preferred region of the Pareto front. Therefore, only the techniques belonging to the first category are helpful in this chapter. Among these techniques, the Compromise Programming Approach (CPA) (Yu, 1973) is often used in multiobjective problems. The CPA picks a solution which is minimally located from a given reference point (e.g. the ideal point which is a nonexistent solution composed with the minimum value of the two objectives). Note that other techniques, such as the Marginal Rate of Substitution Approach (Miettinen, 1999), the PseudoWeight Vector Approach (Deb, 2002) or a method based on a sensitivity analysis (Avila et al., 2006), can also be used.
For instance, using the CPA, the solution #3 of the Pareto front is minimally located from the ideal point. This solution can therefore be considered for a practical design and corresponds, moreover, to a good tradeoff between the two objectives.
The evolution of the percentage of individuals belonging to the first nondominated front during the optimization procedure is shown in Fig. 7. From this figure, one can easily conclude that all the individuals are located in the first front at the end of this procedure. Moreover, it can also be observed that new nondominated solutions have been found after approximately 150 generations.
From Fig. 8, it can be conclude that all the individuals respect all the constraints since the fourth generation.
In order to study more in details the evolution of the optimization variables, their values have been plotted along the Pareto front (as a function of the weight) in Fig. 9 to Fig. 15. From these figures, it can be concluded that some of them have converged to an optimal value.
First, the optimal value of the factor
Second, the optimal value of
In order to further analyze the optimization results, a study of the correlation level between the optimization variables and the objective functions is performed. The results are graphically represented in Fig. 16 and discussed below. Note that a positive value of the correlation factor indicates that the objective function grows when the optimization variable grows whereas a negative value indicates that the objective function reduces when the optimization variable grows.
From Fig. 16, it can be concluded that the optimization variables which have not converged to an optimal value, viz.
One can easily conclude that the variables
Finally, the distribution of the weight and the power loss among the AFPM motor and the VSI for the three particular solutions presented in Table 5 are respectively shown in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 respectively. Figures 19 and 20 present, as for them, the distribution of these two objectives among the several parts of the motor (stator, rotor, PMs and windings).
Figure 17 shows that the major contributor in weight is the AFPM motor. Indeed, it represents at least 75% of the total weight. Instead, the power loss is, as for it, more equally distributed among the two parts. In fact, approximately 60% of the loss is due to themotor (see Fig. 18).
Figure 19 shows that the PMs are the minor contributor in terms of weight and represent more or less 5% to 10% of the total weight whatever the solution. One can also conclude that the rotor is the heavy part of the AFPM motor.
In solution #2, the stator and rotor weights largely dominate the winding and PMs weights compared with the other solutions. This can be explained regarding the value of the flux density in the air gap. Indeed, this value is the greatest among the three solutions (in the order of 0.90 T). So, the stator and rotor must be thick enough to avoid saturation of steel. As these thicknesses are computed using the air gap flux density, the stator and rotor of the solution #2 are thicker and, therefore, heavier. Moreover, the windings of the solution #2 are lighter than the windings of the two other solutions since the frequency is greater. Indeed, according to Faraday’s law (Mohan et al., 2003), the windings turns necessary to obtain a same electromotive force is less than in the other solutions which, therefore, yields lighter windings realization.
As can be easily seen from Fig. 20, the mechanical and, more especially, the winding losses are the major contributors in terms of power loss. The fact that the winding losses are so high can be explained by the medium frequency effects (skin and proximity effects).
6. Advantages and limitations of the design procedure
The design procedure proposed in this paper presents several advantages but also some limitations.
A first advantage of this design procedure is that it is multiobjective. So, several conflicting objectives, often present in engineering design problems, can be optimized simultaneously.
A second advantage is the number of solutions considered in a small time. Indeed, the optimization procedure compares a large number of solutions (in the order of several thousands) to retain only the best in a time of approximately 120 s (for 400 generations of 100 individuals with a Pentium (R) D CPU 3.40 GHz, 3 Go RAM).
A third advantage is the simultaneous optimization of the inwheel motor and its own VSI. Indeed, it results in a system optimized towards the requirements of the EV.
At last, the design procedure has the major advantage that a set of optimalsolutions – instead of a single one – is proposed to the designer who can choose
The main limitation of the design procedure is related to the analytical modeling of the AFPM motor. Indeed, an analytical modeling of such motor can lead to a lack of accuracy in some cases, e.g. with a PM shape of higher complexity when the magnet occupation ratio varies along the radius of the rotor (Parviaien et al., 2003). This lack of accuracy arises from the reduction of the 3D design problem to a 2D design problem performed on the average radius of the machine.
It should also be noticed that the most accurate method to predict the performances of an AFPM motor is a 3D finite element analysis (FEA) but it is often too much time consuming to be included in an optimal design procedure in which a large numbers of solutions have to be evaluated. Therefore, the optimal design procedure presented in this contribution is very useful during the first stages of the design, although more sophisticated methods, such as 2D or 3D FEA, are required in more advanced phases of the design.
Note that, in this chapter, the magnet occupation ratio has been considered as constant along the radius of the rotor and, therefore, this limitation is not taken into account in the design of the AFPM motor.
7. Conclusion
This chapter has addressed the problem of MO design of a VSIfed AFPM synchronous motor using GAs and a new design procedure has been proposed. The weight and the losses of both the motor and the VSI have been chosen as objective functions whereas the factor
Finally, recall that, although many authors have published papers about the optimal design of inwheel motors for EVs, the simultaneous optimization of the inwheel motor and its own VSI has, to the authors’ knowledge, rarely been discussed in literature.
References
 1.
Audet C. Dennis Jr J. 2001 Pattern search algorithms for mixed variable programming.  2.
Avila S. L. Lisboa A. C. Krähenbühl L. Carpes Jr W. P. Vasconcelos J. A. Saldanha R. R. Takahashi R. H. C. 2006 Sensitivity Analysis Applied to Decision Making in Multiobjective Evolutionary Optimization,  3.
Azzouzi J. Belfkira R.. AbdelKarim N. Barakat G. Dakyo B. 2006 Design Optimization of an Axial Flux PM Synchronous Machine: Comparison Between DIRECT Method and GAs Method,  4.
Chun Y. D. Koo D. H. Cho Y. H. 2007 Multiobjective optimization design of axial flux permanent magnet motor.  5.
Cvetkovski G. Petkovska L. 2008 Efficiency Maximisation in Structural Design Optimisation of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor,  6.
Deb K. Goyal M. 1997 Optimization Engineering Designs Using a Combined Search,  7.
Deb K. 2002  8.
Deb K. 2007 Current trends in evolutionary multiobjective optimization,  9.
Ehsani M. Gao Y. Gay S. E. Emadi A. 2006  10.
Espanet C. Kauffmann J. M. Wurtz F. Bigeon J. 1999 Application of a new optimization approach to the design of electrical wheels.  11.
Gieras J. F. Wang R. J. Kamper M. J. 2004  12.
Helali H. et al. 2005 Power converter’s optimisation and design. Discrete cost function with genetic based algorithms,  13.
Malyna D. V. Duarte J. L. Hendrix M. A. M. van Horck F. B. M. 2007 Optimization of Combined Thermal and Electrical Behavior of Power Converters Using MultiObjective Genetic Algorithms,  14.
Miettinen K. 1999  15.
Mohan N. Undeland T. Robbins W. 2003  16.
Nilssen R. Skaar S. E. Lund R. Skjellnes T. Øvrebø S. Løvli E. 2005 Design of a permanent magnet synchronous integrated in the wheel rim on wheelchairs,  17.
Ocenasek J. Schwarz J. 2002 Estimation distribution algorithm for mixed continuousdiscrete optimization problems,  18.
Parviaien A. Niemelä M. Pyrhönen J. 2003 Analytical, 2D FEM and 3D FEM Modeling of PM Axial Flux Machine,  19.
Qu R. Lipo T. A. 2002 Analysis and Modeling of Airgap & Zigzag Leakage Fluxes in a SurfaceMoutedPM Machine,  20.
Sahin F. Vandenput A. J. A. 1999 Design Considerations of the FlywheelMounted AxialFlux Permanent Magnet Machine for a Hybrid Electric Vehicle,  21.
Semikron 2010 Application Manual”, available from http://www.semikron.com/skcompub/en/application_manual193.htm.  22.
Skaar S. E. Nielssen R. 2003 Genetic Optimization of Electric Machines, a State of the Art Study,  23.
Socha K. 2008 Ant colony optimization for continuous and mixedvariable domains,  24.
Tseng K. J. Chen G. H. 1997 ComputerAided Design and Analysis of DirectDriven Wheel Motor Drive.  25.
Versèle C. et al. 2009 Analytical Design of an Axial Flux Permanent Magnet InWheel Synchronous Motor for Electric Vehicle,  26.
Versèle C. Deblecker O. Lobry J. 2010 Multiobjective Optimal Design of Medium Frequency Transformers for FullBridge DCDC Converters,  27.
Yang Y. P. Luh Y. P. Cheung C. H. 2004 Design and Control of AxialFlux Brushless DC Wheel Motors for Electric Vehicles Part I: Multiobjective Optimal Design and Analysis.  28.
Yang Y. P. Chuang D. S. 2007 Optimal Design and Control of a Wheel Motor for Electric Passengers Cars.  29.
Yu P. L. 1973 A class of solutions for group decision problems,