Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Modified parameter optimization of distribution transformer design

using covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy
S. Tamilselvi ⇑, S. Baskar
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai 625 015, Tamil Nadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Optimal transformer design (TD) is a complex multi-modal, multi-objective, mixed-variable and non-lin-
Received 16 April 2013 ear problem. This paper discusses the application of Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy
Received in revised form 18 March 2014 (CMA-ES) for distribution TD, minimizing four objectives; purchase cost, total life-time cost, total mass
Accepted 21 March 2014
and total loss individually. Two independent variables; voltage per turn and type of magnetic material
are proposed to append with the usual TD variables, aiming at cost effective, reduced weight, and energy
efficient TD. Three case studies with three sets of TD vectors are implemented on 400 KVA, 20/0.4 KV
Keywords:
transformer to demonstrate the superiority of Modified Design Variables (MDV), in terms of cost savings,
Distribution transformer design
CMA-ES
material savings, and loss reduction. Simulation results of CMA-ES provide better TD on comparison with
Magnetic material conventional transformer design procedure, branch and bound algorithm tailored to a mixed-integer
Purchase cost non-linear programming, Self Adaptive Differential Evolution (SaDE), and real coded GA (RGA). Statistical
Total life time cost analysis has proven the faster convergence and consistency of CMA-ES. Moreover, NSGA-II is applied for
Voltage per turn solving multi-objective TD optimization problem with the aim of providing tradeoff between conflicting
TD objectives.
Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction generation needed to accommodate the losses, operating cost,

emission of green house gases and environmental cost, among the
All power utilities are much worried about the high failure rate other TD objectives. But this TLTC minimization objective is rarely
of distribution transformers. Transformers can be expected to attended in most of the literatures.
operate 20–30 years. But losses in the form of heat reduce the trans- From the overview of research papers in TD, efforts are focusing
former life by causing damage to the insulation. Finding ways to on prediction of specific transformer characteristics, techniques
decrease the losses of the transformer is an important factor adopted for transformer design optimization, transformer post
towards reducing transformer failure rate, costs and CO2 emissions. design performance and modeling and recent trends on trans-
Total life time cost (TLTC) is the total life cycle cost which considers former technology. In a nutshell, TD optimization problem remains
the future operating costs of a unit over its lifetime, brought back an active area [1]. TD optimization can be minimization of no-load
into present day cost and then added to its total purchase price. A loss [2,3], minimization of load loss [4], maximization of efficiency
transformer with low TLTC is expected to have low losses and [5–8], maximization of rated power [9], minimization of mass [9] or
longer life. Selecting energy efficient distribution transformers minimization of cost [5,6,10–19], based on the objective functions.
‘SEEDT’ project also concluded that electricity distribution compa- Comparison of non-linear programming techniques for opti-
nies and commercial and industrial users should use the TLTC mum design of transformers was presented in [20]. Optimization
method for making transformer purchasing decisions. Energy done by geometric programming for the minimization of total
efficient transformers are more expensive, but use less energy, mass of the transformer, [9] provided solution for low and high fre-
resulting in lesser TLTC [1]. So designing a transformer based on quency transformers. But this method finds difficulty in combina-
purchase cost, without considering the future losses is therefore tion with cost estimation algorithm and requires mathematical
not a right decision. TD based on minimizing TLTC alone can drop model.
off the transformer failure rate by reducing losses, amount of power Mixed integer programming (MIP) in combination with finite
element method (FEM) [10], MIP in combination with branch
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9003225642.
bound algorithm (BBA) [11], bacterial foraging algorithm (BFA)
[5] and simulated annealing technique [12] have been adopted
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Tamilselvi), [email protected] (S. Baskar).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.03.039
0142-0615/Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218 209

Nomenclature

TD transformer design GLV weight of LV conductor in kg

CMA-ES Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy GHV weight of HV conductor in kg
TLTC total life time cost GSS weight of sheet steel in kg
MIP mixed integer programming GOIL weight of mineral oil in kg
FEM finite element method GINS weight of insulating paper in kg
BBA branch bound algorithm GDS weight of duct strips in kg
BEM boundary element method GCORR weight of corrugated panel in kg
BBA-MINLP BBA-mixed integer non-linear programming CTM total main materials cost of transformer in Euro
BFA bacterial foraging algorithm CTLT total life time cost of transformer in Euro
MC manufacturing cost Twt total mass of transformer in kg
MM magnetic material Tlos total loss of transformer in Watts
TMM type of magnetic material Crem cost of transformer remaining materials in Euro
GA genetic algorithm Clab labor cost in Euro
CTDP conventional transformer design procedure AA no load loss cost rate in Euro per Watts
LV low voltage PNLL designed no-load loss in Watts
HV high voltage BB load loss cost rate in Euro per Watts
MDV Modified Design Variables PLL designed load loss in Watts
SD Standard Deviation Sm sales margin in percentage
CT computation time dvi=1,..3 design vector
k
NA not applicable ov output variables
LMT length of mean turn Uk designed short circuit impedance in percentage
EAs evolutionary algorithms Tcl thickness of core leg in mm
SaDE Self Adaptive Differential Evolution Hdiss total heat dissipated by convection and radiation
RGA Real coded Genetic Algorithm through cooling arrangement.
MOP multi-objective optimization problem C(g) covariance matrix ‘C’ at generation g
MOEAs Multi-Objective EAs N normal search distribution
POF Pareto Optimal Front r(g) overall standard deviation; step size at generation g
NSGA-II non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II m(g) mean value ‘m’ of the search distribution at generation g
CMA Covariance Matrix Adaptation Rn linear transformation
ES Evolution Strategy n search space dimension, i.e., number of decision vari-
SymbolsPGNLL ables
guaranteed no-load loss in Watts g iteration number
ðgþ1Þ
PGLL guaranteed load loss in Watts Xk kth offspring from generation g + 1; search point
Uks guaranteed short circuit impedance in percentage k number of sampling points
e1 IEC standard tolerance for no-load and load loss con- l number of selected best individuals in the population
ðgÞ
straints in % pc evolution path at generation g
ðgÞ
e2 IEC standard tolerance for total loss and impedance pr conjugate evolution path at generation g
voltage constraints in % FF fitness function
CFE,i=1,..10 unit cost of ith magnetic material in Euro per kg gmax maximum number of generations
CCOND unit cost of conductor in Euro per kg zmax objective function value of the worst feasible solution
CSS unit cost of sheet steel in Euro per kg z(x) objective function value of the feasible solution
COIL unit cost of mineral oil in Euro per kg errj(x) normalized constraint violation
CINS unit cost of insulating paper in Euro per kg Feval Maximum number of function evaluations
CDS unit cost of duct strips in Euro per kg H Hessian matrix
CCORR unit cost of corrugated panel in Euro per kg Pt parent population of MOP
xt=1,2.n tth design variable Qt offspring population of MOP
zp=1,..,4 pth objective function Rt combined population of MOP
hj=1,2..q jth inequality constraint fi=1,..,M ‘M’ objective function values of MOP
GFE,i=1,..10 weight of ith magnetic material in kg Np population size in MOP problem

for the minimization of main material cost (CTM) of transformer, for the minimization of transformer manufacturing cost (MC),
without considering the transformer losses. However, all these which is mere sum of CTM and labor cost, excluding the operational
methods have got their own drawbacks. MIP-FEM is sensitive to cost.
the selection of value range of design variables and fails to find BBA tailored to a mixed integer non-linear programming (MIN-
the global optimum. MIP-BBA is time consuming, since the number LP) [15], numerical field analysis technique in combination with
of nodes in a branching tree is too large. The drawbacks of simu- BEM [19] and multiple algorithm based hybrid approach [23] have
lated annealing technique are finding difficulty in extending itself addressed the minimization of TLTC of transformer. These papers
to the multi-objective case and long searching time to find the have overcome the above said weaknesses, by including losses in
optimum. When the search space and complexity grow exponen- the objective function calculation. But the numerical field analysis
tially in scalable problems, basic BFA would not be suitable. technique has the disadvantage of complex mesh size in 3D config-
Hybrid FEM with boundary element method (BEM) [21], trial urations [22]. Besides, minimization of only one TD objective is
and error based heuristic approach [13] have been implemented considered [19,23] resulting in a single solution, which may not
210 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218

suit the requirements of all the categories of decision makers. Type Design of distribution transformer
of magnetic material (TMM) is also not utilized as a design variable
in the optimization process [15,19,23]. Preliminary input for TD
A novel gamma approach [24] and BFA based optimal design [6]
have been proposed for solving the multi-objective TD optimiza- The design procedure is presented for three phase oil immersed
tion problem. But the authors failed to consider a three phase shell type wound core distribution transformer. The specified
transformer and have not taken TLTC as one of the TD objectives. information consists of desired input variables [29] required for
Generally, the objective functions of the TD problem are non- the transformer design employing analytical formulae to calculate
differentiable, non-convex, mixed-variable, non-linear, and the transformer parameters. These transformer variables include
multi-modal and it is very difficult to obtain an optimal solution. transformer rating, design requirements on guaranteed no-load
Furthermore, TD calculations require access to several look-up loss (PGNLL), guaranteed load loss (PGLL), guaranteed short circuit
tables’ data for the evaluation of specific core loss at various flux impedance (Uks), minimum full load efficiency, maximum temper-
densities, winding gradient, oil gradient, and heat transmission. ature rise, voltage regulation, tolerances e1, (e2), core stacking fac-
Such complex analytical calculations interacting with graphical tor, mass density of core, magnetization curve of the magnetic
data are not handled accurately by the derivative based methods material (MM), specific core loss data [30] for various maximum
discussed above and thus the optimal solution is not guaranteed magnetic flux densities at 50 Hz frequency for 10 magnetic mate-
for the TD optimization problem solved by the analytical methods. rials (M3-0.27, M4-0.27, MOH-0.23, MOH-0.27, 23ZDKH90,
Apart from the deterministic methods, soft computing tech- 23ZH90, 23ZH95, 27ZDKH95, 23ZDMH85, and 27ZDMH), resistiv-
niques such as genetic algorithm (GA) and neural network are also ity of the conductor material (copper) at the maximum specified
employed for the TD optimization. GA has been applied for the temperature, type of internal and external winding, typical practi-
minimization of MC, incorporating TMM as design variable [14], cal values for insulation of conductor, distance and insulation
transformer cost plus running cost minimization [16,17], and opti- between windings and core, mass density of conductor, distance
mal placement of distribution transformers [18]. Neural network between two adjacent cores, maximum ambient and winding tem-
technique has been applied for the prediction and minimization perature, direction space factor for turns and layer, HV taps, etc.
of power losses [22], and minimization of no load loss [2,3]. But Copper sheet is used for LV conductor and copper wire is used
these papers used single optimization method for TD which lim- for HV conductor.
ited the optimization performance of their approach. A more
recent approach to adapting the search direction is the Covariance Mathematical model
Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) proposed by Han-
sen and Ostermeier [25]. Its important property is invariance Mathematically, multi-variable, non-linear, multi-objective,
against the linear transformations in the continuous search space, mixed-variable and mixed programmed transformer design
when compared to other evolutionary algorithms (EAs). optimization problem can be stated in the form as,
CMA-ES is a continuous (real-parameter) EA that generates new Find x = {x1,x2,. . ..,xn}, which
population members by sampling from a probability distribution
Minimize zðxÞ
that is constructed during the optimization process. Owing to the
learning process, CMA-ES is invariant to rotation and scaling of Subject to hj ðxÞ 6 dj ; for j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; q
ð1Þ
the coordinate system, reliably adapts well to ellipsoidal functions, xt 6 0; for t ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n
and significantly improves convergence rate especially on non-sep- xt;min 6 xt 6 xt;max ; for t ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n
arable and/or badly scaled objective functions. CMA-ES thus finds a
global or near optimal minimum without using derivatives of the where ‘z’, is the objective function to be minimized and hj, jth
objective functions. CMA-ES is a strong optimizer that outper- inequality constraint are functions of ‘n’ decision variables ‘x’; dj,
formed its other similar learning algorithms in CEC2005 bench- are constants of constraints; and, xt,min and xt,max are lower and
mark functions [26,27] and BBOB-2009 [28]. Hence in this paper upper limit on ‘x’, respectively.
CMA-ES is applied for solving this complex TD optimization (i) Minimum purchase cost design-Objective function z1: This
problem. objective minimizes the total cost of transformer main materials
The main contributions of the paper are: (a) application of CMA- (CTM) including core, LV conductor, HV conductor, insulating paper,
ES for TD optimization for the first time, assuring accuracy, consis- duct strips, oil, corrugated panel, and sheet steel using [15,29]:
tency and convergence; (b) incorporation of TMM as one of the
Min;z1 ¼ C TM
design variables for representing 10 different materials; (c) inclu-
sion of variable, voltage per turn in place of low voltage (LV) turns; ¼ fC FE;i  GFE;i þ C COND  GLV þ C COND  GHV þ C INS  GINS
(d) implementation of three case studies to show the superiority of þ C DS  GDS þ C OIL  GOIL þ C CORR  GCORR þ C SS  GSS g ð2Þ
MDV; (e) optimization of four different objectives such as minimi-
zation of purchase cost, minimization of TLTC, minimization of where GFE, GCU, GINS, GDS, GOIL, GCORR, GSS and GSS are weight of
total mass, and minimization of total loss, individually suggesting magnetic material, LV conductor, HV conductor, insulating paper,
the designer a set of optimal transformers instead of single solu- duct strips, oil, corrugated panel, and sheet steel in kg respectively;
tion, so that he can choose which of them best fits the requirement CFE,i=1,2. . .10, CCOND, CSS, COIL, CINS, CDS, and CCORR are the unit cost of
of the customer and application under consideration; (f) compari- magnetic material, LV/HV conductor, sheet steel, oil, insulating
son of simulation results with recent report [15], conventional paper, duct strips, and corrugated panel respectively.
transformer design procedure (CTDP) [29], Self Adaptive Differen- (ii) Minimum TLTC design-Objective function z2: The cost optimal
tial Evolution (SaDE), and Real coded Genetic Algorithm (RGA); design of transformer has to minimize the sum of transformer cost
(g) use of multi-objective TD optimization using NSGA-II. and running cost. In this objective, transformer’s selling price and
This paper is organized as follows: Sections Design of distribu- losses are considered as transformer price. So material saving
tion transformer, CMA-ES algorithm an overview, CMA-ES based and energy saving are the two important aspects in minimization
TD optimization, Multi-objective TD optimization, Computational of TLTC. This objective minimizes TLTC of transformer (CTLT), (using
results and Conclusion the paper. [15,29]:
 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218 211

 
ðC TM þ C rem þ C lab Þ (viii) Constraints of material performance:
Min;z2 ¼ C TLT ¼ þ AA  PNLL þ BB  P LL ð3Þ
ð1  Sm Þ
 Heat transfer constraint: Total heat produced by total loss of
where, CTLT, AA, BB, Crem, Clab, Sm, PNLL and PLL are total life time cost
transformer must be smaller than the total heat dissipated by
in euro, no-load loss cost rate in euro per watts, load loss cost rate in
convection and radiation (Hdiss) through cooling arrangement;
euro per watts, remaining materials cost in euro, labor cost in euro,
sales margin, designed no-load loss in watts and designed load loss P NLL þ PLL 6 Hdiss ð15Þ
in watts respectively.
(iii) Minimum mass design-Objective function z3: This objective  Magnetic flux density constraint;
minimizes the total mass of transformer materials (Twt) (like core,
x4;min 6 x4 6 x4;max ð16Þ
LV conductor, HV conductor, insulating paper, duct strips, oil,
corrugated panel, and sheet steel using [15,29]:

Min;z3 ¼ T wt CMA-ES algorithm an overview

¼ fGFE þ GLV þ GHV þ GINS þ GDS þ GOIL þ GCORR þ GSS g ð4Þ
Evolution strategies (ES) are stochastic, derivative free methods
(iv) Minimum total loss design-Objective function z4: This objec- for numerical optimization of non-linear problems. CMA-ES is an
tive minimizes the total loss of the transformer (Tlos) using [13]: efficient ES for problems for which derivative based methods are
unsuccessful, due to rugged search space with multiple discontinu-
Min;z4 ¼ T los ¼ fPNLL þ PLL g ð5Þ ities, sharp bends, and local optima. This algorithm is analogous to
(v) Design vector dv: Design variables are collectively called as gradient based quasi-Newton method. CMA-ES has emerged as a
design vector. Modified Design Variables (MDV) are described in very competitive real-parameter optimizer for continuous search
the following three sets of design vectors (dv) to realize the TD case spaces. It adapts two unique principles; maximum likelihood prin-
study, detailed in section ‘Computational results’. ciple and two evolution paths and thus distinct from other ES.
It is a continuous EA that generates new population members
dv1 ¼ fx1; x2; . . . :x6 g ð6Þ by sampling from a multi-variate normal distribution N(m, C) con-
structed by its mean value, m e Rn and its symmetric positive def-
dv2 ¼ fx2; x3; . . . :x7 g ð7Þ inite covariance matrix, C e Rnxn during the optimization process.
‘m’ of the distribution determines the translation displacement
dv3 ¼ fx2; x3; . . . :x8 g ð8Þ and gets updated such that the likelihood of previous successful
where x1 (integer variable) is LV turns; x2 (integer variable) is width candidate solutions is maximized. ‘C’ has geometrical interpreta-
of the core leg in mm; x3 (integer variable) is height of the core win- tion, can be uniquely identified with the iso-density ellipsoid
dow in mm; x4 (discrete variable) is maximum magnetic flux den- [31]. ‘C’ determines the shape of the distribution ellipsoid, whose
sity in Tesla; x5 (discrete variable) is current density in LV principal axes are eigen vectors of ‘C’ and squared axes lengths
winding in A/mm2; x6 (discrete variable) is current density in HV are eigen values [31,32]. This algorithm exploits two adaptation
winding in A/mm2; x7 (discrete variable) is voltage per turn in volts; mechanisms; Covariance Matrix Adaptation (CMA) and step size
x8 (integer variable) is TMM. (r) adaptation.
(vi) Constraints of performance indices: Transformer performance CMA learns all pairwise dependencies between the variables
must meet certain standards and rules, specified in IEC 60076-1, and increases the probability to repeat the successful steps. One
include, evolution path, pc enhances CMA procedure in place of single suc-
cessful search steps and facilitates possibly much faster increase of
favorable directions. CMA identifies the function landscape which
 No-load loss constraint:
is convex-quadratic one with the concept of Hessian matrix (H).
PNLL 6 P GNLL ð1 þ e1 Þ ð9Þ The CMA-ES estimates the inverse Hessian matrix (H1) in the form
 Load loss constraint: of a covariance matrix of the search distribution within an iterative
procedure. Setting C = H1 on convex quadratic function is to
PLL 6 PGLL ð1 þ e1 Þ ð10Þ rescale the ellipsoid projection of the multi-variate normal distri-
 Total loss constraint: bution into a spherical one. The aim of CMA is to approximate
the matrix, ‘H’ and to closely suit the search direction to the
ðP NLL þ PLL Þ 6 ðPGNLL þ PGLL Þð1 þ e2 Þ ð11Þ contour lines of the objective function to be optimized [28,32].
 Impedance voltage constraint: The use of covariance matrix adaptation is clearly depicted in
Fig. 1, generated by CMA-ES [32], for the linear function,
U ks ð1  e2 Þ 6 U k 6 U ks ð1 þ e2 Þ ð12Þ P
flinear ¼  2i¼1 xi to be minimized, population size, k = 150, number
of selected best individuals in the population, l = 50, and weights,
(vii) Constraints of manufacturing process indices: These con- wi=1,. . .,l = 1/l. This Fig. 1 illustrates that there is an increase in the
straints are based on the transformer manufacturer specifications. expected variance in gradient direction, for all l < k=2. Left image
of Fig. 1 shows the sample of k = 150 distributed points. Middle
 Ratio of width of the core leg to the height of the core window image of Fig. 1 demonstrates the l selected vectors and the esti-
should be less than or equal to unity; mated covariance matrix ellipsoid. Right image of Fig. 1 shows
the search distribution of the next generation. Thus for a particular
x 2 6 x3 ð13Þ function landscape if it becomes qualified to convert it into a
spherical projection by correspondingly adapting the eigen-
 2-Multiplied core leg thickness (Tcl) must be between a mini-
decomposed matrix, then the algorithm converges fully to the
mum of half core leg width and a maximum of 90% core leg
global optimum.
width;
The CMA influences the scale of the distribution. Nevertheless,
0:5x2 6 2T cl 6 0:9x2 ð14Þ additional step-size, r control is necessary [28]. So, the step size
update is also introduced to enhance the scaling adaptation and
212 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218

P2
Fig. 1. Estimation of the covariance matrix on flinear ¼  i¼1 xi .

in particular to facilitate the increase of distribution spread, which (i) Transform all the constraints Eqs. (9)–(15) into inequality
is very difficult with CMA only. Step size adaptation aims to make form, hj ðxÞ 6 dj ; for j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; q, Eq. (1).
consecutive movements of the distribution mean orthogonal in (ii) Since the constraint violation, (hj(x)  dj) for each constraint
expectation and prevents the premature convergence. The method ‘j’ is of different range, calculate the normalized constraint
used for step size control is path length control (cumulative step violation using, errj(x) = (hj(x)/dj)1. Positive value of errj(x)
size adaptation). To control the step size, other evolution path, pr denotes the violation of constraint and negative value of
is utilized [31]. (a) Whenever pr is short, single steps cancel each errj(x) shows no violation.
other and are anti-correlated. Hence, r should be decreased. (b) (iii) Calculate the overall normalized constraint violation as
Pq
Whenever the evolution path, pr is long, single steps are pointing j¼1 max ð0; err j ðxÞÞ and used in fitness function evalua-
to similar directions and they are correlated causing r to be tion using penalty parameter less constraint handling
increased. (c) Submitting in the desired situation the steps are scheme.
approximately perpendicular in expectation and therefore uncor-  Tuning of CMA-ES Parameters k and Feval
related [31,28]. To decide if pr is long or short, the length of the
path is compared with its expected length under random selection. Initially, TD optimization problem is solved using the default
In ideal situation, selection does not bias the length of the evolu- parameter setting of CMA-ES with population size (k) as
tion path and the length equals its expected length under random 4 + floor(3logn) and maximum number of function evaluations
selection. Thus pr controls the step-size. (Feval) as 3e3  ½ðn þ 5Þ2 þ k. But it is trapped in local optima.
Hence, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted to identify the
appropriate values for k and Feval. Twenty-five independent runs
CMA-ES based TD optimization are carried out for each objective with dv3 (n = 7), to check the con-
sistency of obtaining optimal solutions, with different settings of k,
CMA-ES minimizes objective functions z1 to z4, Eqs. (2)–(5) and Feval, and statistical results are recorded. Algorithm did not
individually, subject to the constraints, Eqs. (9)–(16). Set the TD converge to global value in all the trials, until the maximum num-
objective function, and design vector dv. Assume suitable values ber of objective function evaluations, Feval was increased to 4000
for the transformer variables in section ‘Preliminary input for and population size, k to 20. The aim of the analysis is not only
TD’, lower and upper bounds of ‘n’ transformer design variables xt,- to obtain the best global value, but also minimum Standard Devi-
min, xt,max and constants of the constraints in section ‘Mathematical ation (SD). Only when k is high (80 or above) with the minimum
model’. of 6000 function evaluations, minimum SD and lesser computa-
tional time are observed. k and Feval are finally fixed at 100 and
10,000 respectively for all the objectives. Increased population size
Modifications on CMA-ES algorithm
rather than default is encouraged for such very difficult problem, as
it improves the performance of CMA-ES on multi-modal functions
Our contributions on the optimization algorithm CMA-ES for
[34]. In this case, the stopping criterion is not based on Feval alone.
handling the TD optimization problem are constraint handling
Stop flag is set, when any one of the following conditions get sat-
segment and tuning of CMA-ES parameters namely, population
isfied. (i) if maximum number of iterations is exceeded (ii) if num-
size (k), and maximum number of function evaluations (Feval).
ber of function evaluations reaches maximum value (iii) if ‘x’
values changes smaller (iv) if fitness value changes smaller and
 Penalty parameter less constraint handling
(v) if fitness values are equal.

Penalty parameter less constraint handling is more suitable

than the other constraint handling methods and it is incorporated
for treating the complex constraints of this TD optimization prob- Single objective TD optimization by CMA-ES
lem [33]. This method is preferred in such a way that the different
magnitude violation of every constraint is handled properly and Step 1: As CMA-ES is a quasi-parameter free algorithm, set
the algorithm can get away from the local optima. In this handling default values [32] for all CMA-ES parameters except for k, Feval,
method the infeasible solutions are compared based on their gmax, and initial step size r(0). Choose r(0) = 0.25(xt,max  xt,min),
overall constraint violation, whereas the feasible solutions are k = 100, Feval = 10,000 and gmax = 100.
compared only based on their objective function values and the Step 2: Initialize generation count, g = 0.
overall normalized constraint violation is calculated using the Step 3: If stopping criterion is met: i.e., if stop flag is set, go to
following steps. step 11. Else go to step 4.
 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218 213

Step 4: Generate k candidate solutions by sampling from a Minimize FðxÞ ¼ ffi : 8i ¼ 1; . . . ; Mg

multi-variate Gaussian distribution, N(m, C) with mean, covariance x ¼ fxt : 8t ¼ 1; . . . ; ng
matrix and standard deviation [32].
Subject to hj ðxÞ 6 dj ; for j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; q ð18Þ
Step 5: Determine the fitness function, (FF(x)), using penalty
parameter-less constraint handling [33],
xt P 0; for t ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n
8 9 xt;min 6 xt 6 xt;max ; for t ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n
> zðxÞ; if feasible >
< =
FFðxÞ ¼ X
q
ð17Þ where, fi=1,. . .,M is the objective function values of ‘M’ objectives.
max
:z þ
> max ð0; errj ðxÞÞ; otherwise >
;
j¼1
NSGA-II
where, FF(x) is the fitness function; z(x) is the objective function
value; q = no. of constraints, excluding the boundary constraints The steps involved in the working of NSGA-II are given below.
of design variables; errj(x) is the normalized constant violation for Step 1: Initially generate a random parent population, Pt of size
each constraint; zmax is the objective function value of the worst fea- Np at generation ‘t’.
sible solution in the current population. The fitness of a feasible Step 2: Calculate all the objective function values separately for
solution is always fixed and is equal to its objective function value the entire population. Sort the population based on non-domina-
z(x). However the fitness of the infeasible solutions not only tion levels.
depends on the overall constraint violation, but also on the fitness Step 3: Assign a rank for each solution based on its non-domina-
of the worst feasible solution, zmax. If there is no feasible solution tion level.
in the current population zmax, is zero. The infeasible solutions are Step 4: Apply the binary tournament selection, Simulated Binary
compared based on their overall normalized constraint violation. Crossover (SBX) crossover, and polynomial mutation operators on
Step 6: The (k) sampled points are sorted in order of ascending Pt and create an offspring population Qt of size Np.
fitness and (l) best are selected. The new mean (m(g+1)) of all cur- Step 5: Combine parent and offspring populations to implement
rent population vectors which is a weighted average of (l) selected elitism and form an intermediate population, Rt of size 2Np.
ðgþ1Þ Step 6: Evaluate the fitness for 2Np population solutions using
vectors from the samples X 1 ; . . . ; X k ðg þ 1Þ with weight param-
eter being updated using weighted recombination of the selected multiple objective functions.
points [32]. Step 7: Perform non-dominated sorting over 2Np population to
ðgþ1Þ ðgþ1Þ rank and divide the individuals into different POFs [35]. Assign
Step 7: Update evolution paths pc and pr [32].
(g+1) ðgþ1Þ rank for the POFs in such a way that the first non-dominating
Step 8: Update the covariance matrix C by pc [32].
ðgþ1Þ POF with rank one and so on.
Step 9: Update global step size r(g+1) using pr [32].
Step 10: Increment generation count, g = g + 1; Go to step 3. Step 8: Calculate crowding distance of all the solutions [35].
Step 11: Stop the optimization process. Higher the value of crowding distance better is the probability of
the solution to be selected for the next generation.
Multi-objective TD optimization Step 9: Select Np member for the new population Pt+1 from the
combined population 2Np, on the basis of ranking and crowding
So far we have discussed the application of CMA-ES for distribu- distance. i.e., choose individuals of the best low ranked POFs first
tion TD optimization, minimizing four objectives; purchase cost, followed by the next best POF and so on. In case there is space only
total life-time cost, total mass and total loss, individually that for a portion of a POF to accommodate in the new population,
resulted in four independent transformer designs. But the decision choose individuals among those in the front that are from the least
maker may be interested in the tradeoffs between each of the con- crowded regions (determined by a crowded-distance operator
flicting criteria. For example, compromising a design that would [35]) and fill up the required number in the new population, Pt+1.
provide low weight transformer without imposing too much of Step 10: Form the parent population for the next generation Pt+1.
losses. Therefore it is necessary to look at this TD problem as a Step 11: Check if termination criteria is met. If yes, get the Par-
multiple criterion decision making problem that is concerned with eto optimal solution. Else go to step 4.
more than one objective function to be optimized simultaneously.
Classical optimization methods have limitation in handling Computational results
MOP as they convert the MOP into a single objective optimization
problem to generate only one Pareto optimal solution using To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed MDV, a design
weighted-sum of objectives. To generate multiple Pareto solutions, example of 400 KVA, 50 Hz, 20/0.4 kV, 3 phase, shell type, wound
the classical optimization model has to be used several times. core transformer with vector group, Dyn11 has been considered.
Nowadays several Multi-Objective EAs (MOEAs) have gained pop- The upper and lower bounds of the design variables, AA, BB, unit
ularity with the advantage of generating the whole Pareto-optimal price of transformer materials Crem, Clab, Sm, e1 = 15%, e2 = 10% are
solutions in a single simulation. The main principles of MOEA are derived from [15]. As reference transformer, the transformer with
to push the entire population toward Pareto Optimal Front (POF) loss category AB0 according to CENELEC [36] is selected, which
and to maintain diversity among the solutions in the POF. In this means that PGNLL = 750 W, PGLL = 4600 W, and Uks = 4%. Coding for
paper, we have applied an elitist non-dominated sorting genetic TD optimization is developed using MATLAB 7.4 on Intel core, i3
algorithm, NSGA-II, one of the state-of-the art multi-objective opti- processor Laptop, operating at 3.2 GHZ, with 3 GB RAM. Suitable
mization algorithms for solving the TD MOP, since Deb [35] sug- modifications are incorporated for handling TD constraints in the
gested that NSGA-II outperforms two other contemporary coding of CMAES algorithm [37]. The population size and maxi-
MOEAs: Pareto-archived ES (PAES), Strength Pareto EA (SPEA), in mum number of function evaluations are fixed at 100 and 10,000
terms of finding a diverse set of solutions and in converging near respectively.
the true Pareto-optimal set.
Case study 1
Multi-objective problem description
This case study is done particularly to prove the efficiency of
A general MOP can be stated as CMA-ES over deterministic method, BBA-MINLP [15] and heuristic
214 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218

Table 1
Optimization Results of CMA-ES with dv1.

dv1/ov z1 z2
CTDP [33] BBA–MINLP [19] CMA-ES CTDP [33] BBA-MINLP [19] CMA-ES
x1 17 18 18 17 20 17
x2 (mm) 220 239 212 220 231 242
x3 (mm) 245 248 241 245 299 242
x4 (Tesla) 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6
x5 (A/mm2) 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0
x6 (A/mm2) 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0
CTM (Euro) 4475 4203 3863 4475 4428 4617
PLL (Watts) 4148 4288 5012 4148 4613 4265
PNLL (Watts) 818 859 856 818 719 685
CTLT (Euro) 27199 27500 28790 27199 27467 26588

Table 2
Optimization Results of CMA-ES.

dv/ov z1 z2 z3 z4
With dv1 With dv2 With dv3 With dv1 With dv2 With dv3 With dv1 With dv2 With dv3 With dv1 With dv2 With dv3
k k k k k k k k
x1 18 NA NA 17 NA NA 19 NA NA 16 NA NA
x2 (mm) 212 224 224 242 245 245 248 244 232 232 220 219
x3 (mm) 241 227 227 242 245 245 270 275 285 232 220 219
x4 (Tesla) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.75
x5 (A/mm2) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
x6 (A/mm2) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.45 3.0 3.0 3.0
k k k k
x7 (Volts) NA 13.22 13.22 NA 13.20 13.20 NA 11.85 11.27 NA 14.90 14.91
k k k k k k k k
x8 NA NA 4 NA NA 5 NA NA 10 NA NA 9
CTM (Euro) 3863 3817 3817 4617 4543 4629 3993 3970 4820 4754 4837 5680
PLL (Watts) 5012 4886 4886 4265 4297 4215 4771 4781 4981 4092 3958 3827
PNLL (Watts) 856 854 854 685 662 613 818 804 563 737 765 664
CTLT (Euro) 28790 28394 28394 26588 26371 25882 28060 27936 27648 26786 26794 26844
Twt (kg) 1271 1260 1260 1460 1428 1360 1238 1229 1216 1533 1587 1470
Tlos (Watts) 5868 5740 5740 4950 4959 4828 5589 5585 5544 4829 4723 4491
k
NA – Not applicable.

Table 3
Comparison of TD Optimization results of CMA-ES, SaDE, RGA for z1.

dv/ov dv1 dv2 dv3

CMA-ES SaDE RGA CMA-ES SaDE RGA CMA-ES SaDE RGA
k k k k k k
x1 18 18 18 NA NA NA NA NA NA
x2 (mm) 212 212 212 224 223 226 224 227 224
x3 (mm) 241 241 241 227 228 236 227 237 227
x4 (Tesla) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
x5 (A/mm2) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
x6 (A/mm2) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
k k k
x7 (Volts) NA NA NA 13.22 13.23 13.20 13.22 13.21 13.22
k k k k k k
x8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 4 4
CTM (Euro) 3863 3863 3863 3817 3824 3817 3817 3820 3817
PLL (Watts) 5012 5012 5012 4886 4880 4865 4886 4864 4886
PNLL (Watts) 856 856 856 854 858 861 854 862 854
CTLT (Euro) 28790 28790 28790 28394 28422 28400 28394 28411 28394
Twt (kg) 1271 1271 1271 1260 1263 1255 1260 1256 1260
Tlos (Watts) 5868 5868 5868 5740 5738 5726 5740 5726 5740
k
NA – Not applicable.

search technique, CTDP [29], in solving this complex TD optimiza- Case study 2
tion problem. Here, CMA-ES minimize objective functions z1, and
z2, Eqs. (2) and (3), subject to the constraints Eqs. (9)–(16), by find- The CMA-ES optimizes the design vector dv2, minimizing the
ing optimum values for the design vector, dv1 [15]. Transformer objective functions z1 to z4, Eqs. (2)–(5) subject to the constraints,
output variables (ov) like CTM, CTLT, PLL, PNLL, Twt, Tlos are given in Eqs. (9)–(16), and simulation results are tabulated in Table 2. This
Table 1. As can be seen from Table 1, three techniques converged case study discusses the effectiveness of the addition of proposed
to three different solutions for both the objectives. In particular, TD variable x7, voltage per turn in place of x1, LV turns in the exist-
the CMA-ES algorithm converges to the best result with the cost ing design vector dv1 taken from [15]. Variable x7 is varied at dis-
savings of about 8% and 15%, for z1 and, 3% and 2%, for z2, when crete levels in the interval [0 15] with step 0.01. In this case, an
compared with BBA-MINLP method and CTDP. additional constraint is included that variable x1, LV turns must
 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218 215

Table 4
Comparison of TD Optimization results of CMA-ES, SaDE, RGA for z2.

dv/ov dv1 dv2 dv3

CMA-ES SaDE RGA CMA-ES SaDE RGA CMA-ES SaDE RGA
k k k k k k
x1 17 17 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA
x2 (mm) 242 242 242 245 245 245 245 245 245
x3 (mm) 242 242 242 245 245 245 245 245 245
x4 (Tesla) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7
x5 (A/mm2) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
x6 (A/mm2) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
k k k
x7 (Volts) NA NA NA 13.20 13.20 13.20 13.20 13.20 13.20
k k k k k k
x8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 5 5
CTM (Euro) 4617 4617 4617 4543 4543 4543 4629 4629 4629
PLL (Watts) 4265 4265 4265 4297 4297 4297 4215 4215 4215
PNLL (Watts) 685 685 685 662 662 662 613 613 613
CTLT (Euro) 26588 26588 26588 26371 26371 26371 25882 25882 25882
Twt (kg) 1460 1460 1460 1428 1428 1428 1360 1360 1360
Tlos (Watts) 4950 4950 4950 4959 4959 4959 4828 4828 4828
k
NA – Not applicable.

Table 5
Comparison of TD Optimization results of CMA-ES, SaDE, RGA for z3.

dv/ov dv1 dv2 dv3

CMA-ES SaDE RGA CMA-ES SaDE RGA CMA-ES SaDE RGA
k k k k k k
x1 19 19 19 NA NA NA NA NA NA
x2 (mm) 248 248 248 244 245 244 232 213 232
x3 (mm) 270 270 270 275 273 273 285 277 285
x4 (Tesla) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
x5 (A/mm2) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.4 3.0
x6 (A/mm2) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.45 3.45 3.45
k k k
x7 (Volts) NA NA NA 11.85 11.91 11.90 11.27 11.27 11.27
k k k k k k
x8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 10 9 10
CTM (Euro) 3993 3993 3993 3970 3971 3970 4820 4781 4820
PLL (Watts) 4771 4771 4771 4781 4779 4779 4981 5157 4981
PNLL (Watts) 818 818 818 804 805 805 563 552 563
CTLT (Euro) 28060 28060 28060 27936 27941 27939 27648 27939 27648
Twt (kg) 1238 1238 1238 1229 1229 1229 1216 1220 1216
Tlos (Watts) 5589 5589 5589 5585 5584 5584 5544 5709 5544
k
NA – Not applicable.

Table 6
Comparison of TD Optimization results of CMA-ES, SaDE, RGA for z4.

dv/ov dv1 dv2 dv3

CMA-ES SaDE RGA CMA-ES SaDE RGA CMA-ES SaDE RGA
k k k k k k
x1 16 16 16 NA NA NA NA NA NA
x2 (mm) 232 232 232 220 220 230 219 219 219
x3 (mm) 232 232 232 220 220 231 219 219 219
x4 (Tesla) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.75 1.75 1.75
x5 (A/mm2) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
x6 (A/mm2) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
k k k
x7 (Volts) NA NA NA 14.90 14.93 14.55 14.91 14.91 14.91
k k k k k k
x8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 9 9 9
CTM (Euro) 4754 4754 4754 4837 4837 4750 5680 5680 5680
PLL (Watts) 4092 4092 4092 3958 3958 4072 3827 3827 3827
PNLL (Watts) 737 737 737 765 767 740 664 664 664
CTLT (Euro) 26786 26786 26786 26794 26820 26756 26844 26844 26844
Twt (kg) 1533 1533 1533 1587 1589 1530 1470 1470 1470
Tlos (Watts) 4829 4829 4829 4723 4725 4812 4491 4491 4491
k
NA – Not applicable.

be an integer. MM used for building the core is fixed as MOH-0.27 Case study 3
like the previous case study 1 [15]. Objective values optimized after
the inclusion of variable x7 are found lesser than the results of the In this case study, CMA-ES optimizes the design vector dv3, for
case before adding x7, for all the objectives. Optimization results the objective functions z1 to z4, Eqs. (2)–(5), subject to the con-
of CMA-ES with dv2 have yielded performance improvement of straints from Eqs. (9)–(16), and the results are depicted in Table 2.
1%, 0.8%, 0.7%, and 2%, respectively, for all the objective functions In the TD optimization problem, soundness of the TD variable x8,
z1 to z4, on comparison with the results of CMA-ES with dv1. TMM is analyzed by adding it with the design vector dv2. Here,
216 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218

MM used is not common for all the objective functions, whereas Table 7
MM is also optimized, during the run. The proposed variable x8 is Design Optimization Results of 400 KVA, 20/0.4 kV, 50 Hz transformer by CMA-ES
with dv3 for z2.
used, such that the no-load losses and cost due to no load losses
for different MM can be evaluated during the design phase, and Design variables Width of core leg 245 mm
the appropriate core material, out of 10 materials can be optimized Height of core window 245 mm
Maximum flux density 1.70 Tesla
for each design objective considered. Variable x8 is defined as an Current density in LV winding 3.00 A/sq.mm
integer, such that it varies from 0 to 10 for representing the 10 Current density in HV winding 3.00 A/sq.mm
magnetic materials. In this case, an additional constraint is Voltage per turn 13.20 V
included that variable x1 LV turns must be an integer. From Table 2, Magnetic material 5 (23ZDKH90)
it is explicit that the optimization results of dv3 by CMA-ES are Core design Thickness of core leg 74 mm
superior to the solutions of dv2 for the objective functions z2, z3 Window width of small core 71 mm
Window width of large core 142 mm
and z4. The design variable x8 can impart appreciable change in
Weight of small core 72 kg
the objective values, only when the core loss calculation is used Weight of large core 142 kg
during the fitness function evaluation. Since z1 design does not rely
Tank design Total width of transformer 585 mm
on losses computation, TMM optimized in this case study 3 Total height of transformer 757 mm
(material no: 4) is same as that of the MM fixed in case study 2, Total length of transformer 1056 mm
i.e. MOH-0.27. Complete design results of 400 KVA, 20/0.4 kV, LV winding design Current in LV winding per phase 577.35 Amps
50 Hz, shell type, wound core distribution transformer by CMA- Area of LV conductor 192.45 sq.mm
ES with dv3 for the function z2 are given in Table 7. From Table 2 Total number of LV Turns 17
it is evident that CMA-ES with dv3 has given cost savings of about Width of LV conductor 226 mm
Total radial thickness of LV winding 29.58 mm
1%, 2%, for z2, material savings of about 1%, each for z3, and loss Inner diameter of LV winding 258.68 mm
reduction of about 5%, 7% for z4, on comparison with CMA-ES Outer diameter of LV winding 318.08 mm
dv2, CMA-ES dv1 respectively. From the simulation results, it is LMT of LV winding 905.50 mm
evident that CMA-ES with proposed MDV is able to find the opti- Resistance of LV winding 0.001677 ohms
Weight of LV 82.64 kg
mal solution for TD optimization problem, irrespective of the
objective function. HV winding design Total Number of HV Turns(20 KV) 1515
Max number of HV turns (+5% tap) 1591
Min number of HV turns (5% tap) 1439
Statistical analysis of CMA-ES results Area of HV conductor 2.11 sq.mm
Diameter of HV conductor 1.6 mm
Current in HV winding 6.349206 Amps
Due to the stochastic nature of CMA-ES algorithm, 25 indepen- Number of layers in HV 17
dent runs are performed to prove the consistency in obtaining the Number of HV turns per layer 91
optimal solutions and their statistical results such as mean, and SD, Thickness of HV winding 35.25 mm
Total radial thickness of HV winding 41.89 mm
apart from the best, and worst solutions are reported in Table 8 for
Total height of HV winding 161 mm
all the four objective functions z1 to z4, using dv1, dv2, and dv3. The Inner diameter of HV winding 331.92 mm
performance of CMA-ES is shown with respect to solution Outer diameter of HV winding 424.18 mm
accuracy, and computation time (CT) to reach the optimum in LMT of HV winding 1187.09 mm
Table 8. For all the objective functions employed, the numerical Resistance of HV winding 17.81 ohms
Weight of HV 132.72 kg
results of CMA-ES are found more satisfactory, in terms of
performance, consistency, and faster convergence for the TD opti- Specific Total copper loss 4215 W
characteristics Total core loss 613 W
mization problem.
Total loss 4828 W
Percentage resistance 1.05%
Percentage reactance 4.08%
Comparison of CMA-ES results with other EAs Percentage impedance 4.21%
Percentage regulation 3.29%
In order to provide a comparative study of CMA-ES results with Full load efficiency 98.81%
other meta heuristics, two other EAs namely, Self Adaptive Differ- Average oil temperature rise 50 °C
Total heat transferred by convection 6086 W
ential Evolution (SaDE), and Real coded Genetic Algorithm (RGA)
and radiation
are also employed to optimize the TD optimization problem and
Weight of main Weight of LV winding 82.64 kg
their simulation results are tabulated in Tables 3–6, for all the
materials Weight of HV winding 132.72 kg
objective functions z1 to z4 respectively. It is seen from Table 4 Total weight of copper 215.37 kg
that all the three algorithms converge to the same global opti- Total weight of core 497.85 kg
mum for z2 objective alone. Table 3 shows that CMA-ES and Weight of insulating paper 18.24 kg
RGA are able to attain the global solution in all the TD case stud- Weight of duct strips 9.92 kg
Weight of tank 156.52 kg
ies, whereas SaDE gets struck in local minima for dv2 and dv3 Weight of corrugated panel 111.93 kg
cases. Table 5 depicts that RGA and SaDE, find difficult to reach Weight of oil in tank 350.11 kg
the optimum weight of the transformer, when optimized with Total weight 1360 kg
the design vector dv3, on comparison with CMA-ES. Table 6 Cost of Purchase cost 4629 Euros
explains that RGA and SaDE are unable to reach the optimum loss transformer Bid price 10293 Euros
of the transformer, when compared with CM-ES for the case dv2. Operating cost 15589.38 Euros
Total cost of transformer 25882 Euros
In order to compare the efficiency of the three different EAs with
respect to consistency, 50 independent runs have been conducted
in obtaining the global solution for the objective ‘minimization of
TLTC’. On comparative study as well as statistical study, CMA-ES is Multi-objective results of NSGA-II
found suitable for TD optimization, as it is giving satisfactory glo-
bal results consistently, irrespective of the objective functions and NSGA-II has been applied to solve this TD MOP. We have
case studies. adopted the following control parameters: population size Np is
 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218 217

Table 8
Statistical analysis of CMA-ES results.

z1 (Euro) z2 (Euro) z3 (kg) z4 (Watts)

With dv1 With dv2 With dv3 With dv1 With dv2 With dv3 With dv1 With dv2 With dv3 With dv1 With dv2 With dv3
Best value 3863 3817 3817 26588 26371 25882 1238.3 1228.6 1216 4829 4723 4491
Worst value 3869 3834 3826 26588 26371 25882 1238.6 1236 1216.5 4852 4741 4491
Mean 3865 3834 3819.8 26588 26371 25882 1238 1229 1216.22 4831 4733 4491
SD 8.91 3.5 3.82 0 0 0 0.7882 1.3 0.00865 12.3 7.6 0
CT (sec) 95 88 96 92 89 86 98 102 92 93 97 98

Fuzzy set theory is then employed to find the best compromise

solution over the tradeoff curve [38] and is given in Table 9. TD
obtained from the best compromise solution shoots up the pur-
chase cost to 4227 Euros, which is 410 Euros higher than the global
minimum purchase cost of 3817 Euros obtained from single objec-
tive TD optimization by CMA-ES. But at the same time, this best
compromise solution saves 1785 Euros of TLTC, which is found to
be the effective transformer design objective.

Conclusion

In this paper, CMA-ES algorithm is employed for the optimum

design of three phase distribution transformer. The work proposed
aiming at contributing a TD that minimize the objective(s) such as
purchase cost, total life-time cost, total mass, and total loss of the
transformer using proposed MDV, taking into account the con-
straints imposed by the international standards, transformer spec-
ifications and customer needs. The validity of the CMA-ES
algorithm for solving TD optimization problem is illustrated by
its application to a 400 KVA distribution transformer design and
Fig. 2. Pareto optimal front of NSGA-II.
comparison of its simulation results with CTDP, BBA-MINLP
method, SaDE, and RGA. Case studies 1–3 have clearly investigated
Table 9
the significance of MDV for all the TD objective functions and have
Best compromise solution of TD MOP by fuzzy set theory. proven that MDV is efficient for the TD optimization problem. The
proposed MDV are not only capable of producing optimum design,
dv3/ov Single objective optimization by CMA-ES Compromise solution
by fuzzy set theory
but also render considerable cost savings, material savings and loss
z1 z2 reduction. Statistical analysis has clearly demonstrated the effec-
x1 k
NA k
NA k
NA
tiveness of CMA-ES with respect to its global searching, solution
x2 (mm) 224 245 245 precision, consistency in obtaining solutions, and faster conver-
x3 (mm) 227 245 245 gence. Thus it is evident that CMA-ES with dv3 is able to give least
x4 (Tesla) 1.8 1.7 1.75 purchase cost (z1), TLTC (z2) with cost savings of about 10%, 6% and,
x5 (A/mm2) 3.6 3.0 3.2
17%, 5% respectively on comparison with BBA-MINLP method [15]
x6 (A/mm2) 3.6 3.0 3.0
x7 (Volts) 13.22 13.20 13.2 and CDTP [29]. This paper has also dealt the solution of TD MOP
using NSGA-II with the tradeoff between purchase cost and TLTC.
x8 4 5 3
CTM (Euro) 3817 4629 4227 The best compromise solution obtained by fuzzy set theory for
PLL (Watts) 4886 4215 4274 the multi-objective TD optimization gives much better transformer
PNLL (Watts) 854 613 752 design than the one obtained by single objective TD optimization
CTLT (Euro) 28394 25882 26609 using CMA-ES, by saving 1785 Euros of TLTC, which is accepted
Twt (kg) 1260 1360 1320
Tlos (Watts) 5740 4828 5026
by SEEDT as an energy efficient TD objective.

Acknowledgements

200, stopping criterion is 20,000 function evaluations, crossover The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of Marina A.
probability is 0.9, and mutation probability rate is 0.14. Two TD Tsili, and Eleftherios I. Amoiralis for their valuable assistance in
optimization objectives: the purchase cost (z1), and the TLTC (z2) supplying the transformer design specifications.
are minimized simultaneously by NSGA-II and a trade-off is
achieved between these competing objectives in POF. Considering
the complexity of the TD problem, 30 independent runs have been References
carried out. From all the best optimization runs, non-dominated
[1] Amoiralis Eleftherios I, Tsili Marina A, Kladas Antonios G. Transformer design
solutions of the first POF are filtered and combined to form a and optimization: a literature survey. IEEE Trans Power Delivery
new Pareto set. Non-dominated sorting is again performed on this 2009;24(4):1999–2024.
augmented new Pareto set to extract the true POF as shown in [2] Georgilakis PS, Doulamis ND, Doulamis AD, Hatziargyriou ND, Kollias SD. A
novel iron loss reduction technique for distribution transformers based on a
Fig. 2. The tradeoff curve so obtained in Fig. 2 has better diversity combined genetic algorithm-neural network approach. IEEE Trans Syst Man
characteristics than the POF obtained from single run of NSGA-II. Cybern 2001;31:16–34.
218 S. Tamilselvi, S. Baskar / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 61 (2014) 208–218

[3] Georgilakis P, Hatziargyriou N, Paparigas D. AI helps reduce transformer iron [20] Sridhara G, Sastry VV, Venkata Rao. Comparison of non linear programming
losses. IEEE Comput Al Power 1999;12(4):41–6. techniques for the optimal design of transformers. Proc IEE
[4] Tsivgouli Anastassia J, Tsili Marina A, Kladas Antonios G, Georgilakis Pavlos S, 1977;124(12):1225–6.
Souflaris Athanassios T, Skarlatini Annie D. Geometry optimization of electric [21] Amoiralis Eleftherios I, Georgilakis Pavlos S, Kefalas Themistoklis D, Tsili
shielding in power transformers based on finite element method. J Mater Marina A, Kladas Antonios G. Artificial intelligence combined with hybrid fem-
Process Technol 2007;181:159–64. be techniques for global transformer optimization. IEEE Trans Magn
[5] Subramanian S, Padma S. Optimization of transformer design using bacterial 2007;43(4):1633–6.
foraging algorithm. Int J Comput Appl 2011;19(3):52–7. [22] Amoiralis Eleftherios I, Tsili Marina A, Georgilakis Pavlos S. The state of the art
[6] Subramanian S, Padma S. Bacterial foraging algorithm based multi objective in engineering methods for transformer design and optimization: a survey. J
optimal design of single phase transformer. J Comput Sci Eng 2011;6(2):1–6. Optoelectron Adv Mater 2008;10(5):1149–58.
[7] Hernandez C, Arjona MA, Dong Shi-Hai. Object-oriented knowledge based [23] Cheema MAM, Fletcher JE, Dorrell David. A practical approach for the global
system for distribution transformer design. IEEE Trans Magn 2008;44(10). optimization of electromagnetic design of 3-phase core type distribution
[8] Arjona MA, Hernandez C, Cisneros-Gonzalez M. Hybrid optimum design of a transformer allowing for capitalization of losses. IEEE Trans Magn 2013;49(5).
distribution transformer based on 2-D FE and a manufacturer design [24] Coelho Leandro dos Santos, Mariani Viviana Cocco, Ferreira da Luz Mauricio V,
methodology. IEEE Trans Magn 2010;46(8):2864–7. Leite Jean Vianei. Novel gamma differential evolution approach for
[9] Jabr Rabih A. Application of geometric programming to transformer design. multiobjective transformer design optimization. IEEE Trans Magn
IEEE Trans Magn 2005;41(11):4261–9. 2013;49(5):2121–4.
[10] Amoiralis Eleftherios I, Georgilakis Pavlos S, Tsilia Marina A. Design [25] Hansen N, Ostermeier A. Completely derandomized self-adaptation in
optimization of distribution transformers based on mixed integer evolution strategies. Evol Comput 2001;9(2):159–95.
programming methodology. J Optoelectron Adv Mater 2008;10(5):1178–83. [26] González Fernández Yasser, Ortiz Marta Rosa Soto, Benchmark for the CEC
[11] Amoiralis Eleftherios I, Tsili Marina A, Georgilakis Pavlos S, Kladas Antonios G, 2005 Special Session on Real-Parameter Optimization, Aug 29 2013.
Souflaris Athanassios T. A parallel mixed integer programming-finite element [27] Suganthan PN, Hansen N, Liang JJ, Deb K, Chen Y-P, Auger A et al. Problem,
method technique for global design optimization of power transformers. IEEE definitions and evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2005. In: Special session on real-
Trans Magn 2008;44(6):1022–5. parameter optimization, technical report, Nanyang Technological University,
[12] Padma S, Bhuvaneswari R, Subramanian S. Optimal design of power Singapore, May 2005.
transformer using simulated annealing technique. In: IEEE conference on [28] Hansen N, Auger A, Ros R, Finck S, Pošík P. Comparing results of 31 algorithms
industrial technology (ICIT), Mumbai, India, December 15-17, 2006, p. 1015– from the black-box optimization benchmarking BBOB-2009. In: Proceedings of
19. the 12th annual conference companion on genetic and evolutionary
[13] Georgilakis Pavlos S, Tsili Marina A, Souflaris Athanassios T. A heuristic computation, GECCO 2011, ACM, July 2010, p. 1689–96.
solution to the transformer manufacturing cost optimization problem. J Mater [29] Georgilakis PavlosS. Spotlight on modern transformer design. Springer-Verlag
Process Technol 2007;181:260–6. London Limited; 2009.
[14] Georgilakis PS. Recursive genetic algorithm-finite element method technique [30] http://www.nsc.co.jp/en/product/kind/sheet/product-list.html.
for the solution of transformer manufacturing cost minimization problem. IET [31] Nikolaus Hansen, The covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy: a
Electr Power Al 2009;3(6):514–9. tutorial –: April 2008.
[15] Amoiralis Eleftherios I, Georgilakis Pavlos S, Tsili Marina A, Kladas Antonios G. [32] Hansen N. The CMA evolution strategy: a comparing review. In: Lozano JA,
Global transformer optimization method using evolutionary design and Larrañga P, Inza I, Bengoetxea E, editors. Towards a new evolutionary
numerical field computation. IEEE Trans Magn 2009;45(3):1720–3. computation. Advances in estimation of distribution algorithms. Springer;
[16] Li Hui, Han Li, He Bei, Yang Shunchang. Application research based on 2006. p. 75–102.
improved genetic algorithm for optimum design of power transformers. [33] Deb Kalyanmoy. An efficient constraint handling method for genetic
Electrical Machines and Systems, ICEMS, Proceedings of the fifth international algorithms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2000;186(2/4):311–38.
conference 2001;1:242–5. [34] Hansen N, Kern S. Evaluating the CMA evolution strategy on multimodal test
[17] Zhang Shuang, Hu Qinghe, Wang Xingwei, Zhu Zhiliang. Application of chaos functions. In: Yao Xin et al., editors. Parallel problem solving from nature –
genetic algorithm to transformer optimal design. In: IEEE computer society, PPSN VIII, LNCS, vol. 3242. Springer; 2004. p. 282–91.
2009, International workshop on chaos-fractals theories and applications, [35] Deb Kalyanmoy, Pratap Amrit, Agarwal Sameer, Meyarivan T. A Fast and elitist
2009. multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6(2).
[18] Ramezani M, Falaghi H, ParsaMoghaddam M, Haghifam MR. Genetic based [36] CENELEC, Harmonization Document HD428: 1 S1, 1992.
algorithm for optimal placement of distribution transformers. IEEE 2006:1–5. [37] Hansen N. The CMA evolution strategy: a tutorial, June 28, 2011.
[19] Kefalas Themistoklis, Tsili Marina A, Kladas Antonios. Unification of anisotropy [38] Abido MA. Multi objective evolutionary algorithms for electric power dispatch
and FEM-BE models for distribution transformer optimization. IEEE Trans problem. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2006;10(3):315–29.
Magn 2008;10(5):1143–8.