Sequential optimization method for the design of electromagnetic device

Lei, G; Shao, KR; Guo, Y; Zhu, J; Lavers, JD

Sequential optimization method for the design of electromagnetic device

Lei, G

Shao, KR Guo, Y

Zhu, J

Lavers, JD

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 2008, 44 (11 PART 2), pp. 3217 - 3220
Issue Date:: 2008-11-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (599.15 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Lei, G https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8369-6802	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Shao, KR	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Guo, Y https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6182-0684	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Zhu, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9763-4047	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Lavers, JD	en_US
dc.date.issued	2008-11-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 2008, 44 (11 PART 2), pp. 3217 - 3220	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0018-9464	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/9210
dc.description.abstract	Three sequential optimization methods, sequential least square method, sequential Kriging method, and sequential linear Bayesian method, are presented for the optimization design of electromagnetic device. Sequential optimization method (SOM) is composed of coarse optimization process and fine optimization process. The main purpose of the former is to reduce the design space; while the target of the latter is to update the optimal design parameters. To illustrate the performance of the proposed methods, an analytic test function and the TEAM Workshop Problem 22 are investigated. Experimental results of test function demonstrate that SOM can obtain satisfactory solutions; and practical application illustrates that the number of finite element sample points is less than 1/10 compared with that by direct optimization method, while the optimal results are even better than that by direct optimization method. © 2008 IEEE.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	IEEE Transactions on Magnetics	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1109/TMAG.2008.2002779	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Applied Physics	en_US
dc.title	Sequential optimization method for the design of electromagnetic device	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	11 PART 2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	44	en_US
utslib.for	090608 Renewable Power and Energy Systems Engineering (excl. Solar Cells)	en_US
utslib.for	090607 Power and Energy Systems Engineering (excl. Renewable Power)	en_US
utslib.for	090699 Electrical and Electronic Engineering not elsewhere classified	en_US
utslib.for	02 Physical Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	09 Engineering	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Electrical and Data Engineering
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CCET - Centre for Clean Energy Technology
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	11 PART 2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	44	en_US

Abstract:

Three sequential optimization methods, sequential least square method, sequential Kriging method, and sequential linear Bayesian method, are presented for the optimization design of electromagnetic device. Sequential optimization method (SOM) is composed of coarse optimization process and fine optimization process. The main purpose of the former is to reduce the design space; while the target of the latter is to update the optimal design parameters. To illustrate the performance of the proposed methods, an analytic test function and the TEAM Workshop Problem 22 are investigated. Experimental results of test function demonstrate that SOM can obtain satisfactory solutions; and practical application illustrates that the number of finite element sample points is less than 1/10 compared with that by direct optimization method, while the optimal results are even better than that by direct optimization method. © 2008 IEEE.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/9210