Application of Multi-Objective Optimisation To MRT Systems: Founded 1905
Application of Multi-Objective Optimisation To MRT Systems: Founded 1905
Application of Multi-Objective Optimisation To MRT Systems: Founded 1905
APPLICATION OF MULTI-OBJECTIVE
OPTIMISATION TO MRT SYSTEMS
BY
TIAN LIFEN
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
A THESIS SUBMITTED
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING
Acknowledgements
The author genuinely appreciates the help from her supervisor, Professor C. S. Chang,
who has provided invaluable guidance to the author while the author works on the
Sincere thanks and gratitude are also extended to Mr. Seow Hung Cheng of Power
This thesis is dedicated to the author’s family and friends. They always have the
I
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................................I
II
Table of Contents
4.4.3 Discussions............................................................................................................................ 37
III
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 71
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 75
IV
List of Figures
List of Figures
V
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 6-1: Improvement of optimised energy consumption and load sharing .............53
Table 6-2: Parameter limits for bi-criterion optimisation............................................54
Table 6-3: Maximum deviation for energy consumption............................................55
Table 6-4: Maximum deviation for load sharing ........................................................55
Table 6-5: Performance check results for case 1.1 .....................................................57
Table 6-6: Performance check results for case 2.2 .....................................................58
Table 7-1: Typical arrangements of earthing and bonding..........................................62
Table 7-2: Multi-objective optimisation of earthing & bonding for configuration 1 ...67
Table 7-3: Multi-objective optimisation of earthing & bonding for configuration 2 ...68
Table 7-4: Performance check for case 2.1 ................................................................69
Table C-1: Non-dominated solution numbers for Test 1.............................................88
Table C-2: Non-dominated solution numbers for Test 2.............................................90
VI
List of Abbreviations
List of Abbreviations
VII
List of Publications Related to this Thesis
[1] C.S. Chang and L. Tian,” Worst-case identification of touch voltage and stray
current of DC railway system using genetic algorithm”, IEE Proceedings,
Electric Power Applications, Vol. 146, No. 5, 1999
VIII
Summary of the Thesis
first stage, the basic design of a MRT section is optimised by extensively searching
through a large set of design alternatives. Only the key or primary variables are
optimised in this stage. The second stage evaluates the worst-case performance of the
basic design using secondary variables arising from operational deviations and other
random variables. The need for changing the basic design to cater for both the normal
condition and failure conditions is ascertained and implemented in the third stage.
MRT supply networks can be divided into the traction substation, the go-circuit and
converted to DC. Catenary wires or third rails are used in the go-circuit while running
rails and return cables are the main components of return-circuit. In this work, the go-
circuit and return-circuit are each optimised with the procedure as outlined above.
Energy consumption and load sharing are two important issues in the go-circuit.
Energy consumption calculates the total energy consumed at all the traction
substations, and load sharing measures the load distribution among all traction
substations. They are influenced by many factors and their optimisation cannot be
timetables deviate continually from the predefined train despatch frequency due to
variations of train headway, synchronisation delay and dwell time. This work focuses
IX
Summary of the Thesis
energy consumption and load sharing under normal condition. The system
With running rails used as part of the traction current return-circuit, the main concerns
in the return-circuit are the touch voltage and stray current. Touch voltage is the
voltage between the running rail and the ground. Excessive instantaneous touch
voltage jeopardises safety. Stray current is the leakage current between the running rail
and the ground. The stray current is likely to be picked up by the underground
structures in the vicinity and cumulative stray current may accelerate their corrosion.
The earthing and bonding strategy within the system has a profound impact on the
control of touch voltage and stray current. Meanwhile, the improvement of touch
voltage or stray current tends to deteriorate the other. The return-circuit optimisation is
thus composed of two-stage implementation. In the first stage, different earthing and
explored under normal operation. The second stage conducts performance check on
each appropriate earthing and bonding arrangement with the list of credible failure
The technique of Pareto-optimal set is developed for the above go-circuit and return-
circuit optimisations. The solutions are often multi-objective and seldom unique, as
evolutionary algorithms are applied, which are namely: the Multi-Objective Genetic
X
continuous problems. MOPS and MODE are proposed to solve MRT problems for the
first time.
The three proposed algorithms are based on the concepts of population, rank-based
solutions is evolved in the feasible space to search for the Pareto-optimal set. Ranking
of the population is accomplished through Pareto ranking, where all points in the
evolution consists of selecting subsets of points with respect to their ranks and moving
them toward the Pareto-optimal set. Test analysis of the proposed algorithms is made
MOPS and MODE against the Multi-Attribute Genetic Algorithm (MAGA) favour the
XI
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background
In recent years, many high performance Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and Light Rapid
Transit (LRT) systems have been built. They are playing increasingly significant roles
in public transportation. In general, the MRT power supply systems comprise three
parts [10] of traction substation, go-circuit and return circuit as shown in Figure 1-1.
Being focused on the DC transit system, this thesis mainly examines how to achieve
trade-off in the go-circuit and the return-circuit optimisation. The harmonic effects are
not discussed in this thesis, but will be addressed by other researchers [30].
AC Busbar (22kV)
Transformer Transformer
TSS 1
TSS 2
Go-circuit Go-circuit
Train
Runnung rail
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
consideration. From the viewpoint of electrifying the MRT systems, TSSs function
as energy sources, transferring power between the AC side and the DC side. The
DC so as to provide the go-circuit with traction current. While trains are usually
equipped with the regenerative braking, some TSSs are configured with inverters
• Go-circuit: This contains the catenary wires or third rails and positive feeders. In
most MRT systems, running rails are used as traction return paths. Hence the
traction current, distributed from the TSSs, flows along the catenary wires or third
rails to supply trains with power and then flows back to the TSSs through the
running rails.
• Return-circuit: Running rails, rail bonds and negative feeders are the main
components of the return-circuit. Running rails are often lightly insulated from the
ground so a fraction of the traction currents may leak into the earth whereas the
bulk of traction currents return to the TSSs via the negative feeders.
2
Chapter 1 Introduction
simultaneously. Likewise, the mitigation of touch voltage and stray current in return-
circuit are not likely to be achieved at the same time. Practical solutions for multi-
objective optimisation are seldom unique, as they comprise a finite set of non-
(Section 4.2) is developed for the go-circuit and return-circuit optimisations in MRT
MOPS and MODE are proposed to solve MRT problems for the first time.
In MRT systems, TSSs supply train power via the rectifiers and receive the
regenerated power via the inverter. The energy consumption, which is calculated as the
sum of the power flowing through the rectifiers and the inverters installed at each TSS,
is quite crucial to the efficiency of the MRT system. In addition to energy flows
through rectifiers and inverters, load sharing among TSSs is also of importance. As
trainloads are highly fluctuating, the TSS loads can be unevenly distributed. Some
TSSs are overloaded but others are under-loaded. In case of some traction substations
outage, the power flowing through the nearby traction substations could exceed their
3
Chapter 1 Introduction
capacity. Therefore, energy consumption and load sharing are selected as optimisation
Energy consumption and load sharing are dependent on the instantaneous train
positions and control status (accelerating, coasting, dwelling or braking). These are
influenced by the service schedule (declared train despatch frequency or headway) and
substation placements also have profound impact on the energy consumption and load
sharing.
energy consumption or load sharing. Energy consumption and load sharing are not
consistent with each other. The same train running timetable will probably lead to their
different regulation direction. At the second stage, the effect of operational timetable is
discussed, and the competing nature of energy consumption and load sharing is
dwell times, vary continually during the simulation period. In order to solve this
continuous problem, MOPS and MODE algorithms are proposed and applied for the
worst-case energy consumption and load sharing is then identified for performance
optimisation.
4
Chapter 1 Introduction
Running rails are usually used as the traction current return paths. Owing to the rail-to-
ground and rail resistance, there will be a voltage difference caused by the return
current flows from between the rails and the local ground known as touch voltage.
Excessive touch voltages jeopardises safety. As running rails are often lightly
insulated, the traction current flowing back to the substations may partly take the
structures in the vicinity and through the ground to enter another structure before
returning to the TSS. Accumulative stray currents may accelerate the structures’
corrosion. Accurate evaluation and effective control of touch voltage and stray currents
Simulations and field tests reveal that both touch voltage and stray current are greatly
influenced by the earthing strategy and bonding arrangement adopted in MRT system.
However, the improvement of touch voltage or stray current tends to deteriorate the
other. A two-stage scheme is thus proposed for return-circuit optimisation. At the first
touch voltage and stray current is obtained under normal running condition. At the
second stage, the most appropriate earthing and bonding patterns are then picked up
MRT systems are complex and highly integrated. The scope of this research is
5
Chapter 1 Introduction
effects of operational parameters rather than design parameters are investigated for the
safety and efficiency of MRT system. Two sets of objectives are defined for the
problem of energy consumption and load sharing in the go-circuit, and the problem of
touch voltage and stray current in the return-circuit. Variables governing these two sets
in these two problems is explored. Evolutionary algorithms are then applied for
Although the use of rectifiers and inverters does introduce harmonic in the MRT
converters and by placing active harmonic filters [29]. This thesis focuses on the
harmonic effects on go-circuit and return-circuit optimisation are not addressed in this
it is never a simple task to specify an appropriate set of weights, optimal solutions are
individually obtained for a range of weights and the so-called trade-off curves are
6
Chapter 1 Introduction
generated [5]. The computing time required for generating the trade-off curves is high
The need for an improved multi-objective optimisation method to seek the Pareto-
optimal solutions is evident, and such a method should have the following
characteristics [23]:
Swarm (PS) algorithm and Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm are appropriately
deal with multiple conflicting objectives, a degree of control should be exerted over
the selection process. With the employment of rank assignment method [16], MOGA
selects individuals for survival according to their mutual dominance as well as their
fitness values. It attempts to trace all the non-dominance individuals in the present
7
Chapter 1 Introduction
population as far as possible and each objective function is utilised separately rather
than collectively. When all the non-dominated individuals in the current generation are
picked, the recombination operators are then applied to produce the next generation.
The above procedure is iterated to locate the Pareto-optimal points and produce
subsequent populations until convergence is met. At the end of MOGA evolution, the
final non-dominated set represents the collection of compromising solutions among all
the objectives.
domain. Contrary to GA, MOPS and MODE avoid parameter encoding and work
directly on real-value parameter vectors to search for the optimal solutions. The
concept of scalarising function is also introduced to replace the global and individual
individual in the population is influenced not only by its own historical performance
but also by its peers. Moreover, rank-based selection is applied in MOPS and MODE
is allowed in MOGA, MOPS and MODE. The technique of fitness sharing is adopted
8
Chapter 1 Introduction
• Chapter 1 describes briefly the background and the objective of the research. Two
kinds of multi-objective problems, i.e., touch voltage versus stray current (discrete
problem) and energy consumption versus load sharing (continuous problem) are
• Chapter 2 defines the energy consumption and load sharing in go-circuit. After
presenting the DC-powered two-track MRT system model, this chapter formulates
a three-stage scheme for optimising energy consumption and load sharing and
• Chapter 3 defines the touch voltage and stray current in return-circuit. The
explained. A two-stage scheme is also put forward to attain the trade-off between
touch voltage and stray current, and to evaluate the system performance under
failure conditions.
optimisation approach is also proposed for the first time to solve the continuous
problems.
consumption and load sharing calculation. The traction substation placements are
9
Chapter 1 Introduction
first configured by obtaining either minimal load sharing or equal load sharing.
explore the compromise nature of energy consumption and load sharing against
• Chapter 7 discusses the influence of earthing and bonding policies, and, employs
touch voltage and the stray current. The priority assigned to different objectives
Simulation results for different earthing and bonding arrangements are compared
and the promising solutions are further checked under failure conditions.
• Chapter 8 summarises the research with final conclusion and some suggestions for
future work.
10
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
2.1 Introduction
Energy consumption by TSSs and load sharing among TSSs in go-circuit are
influenced by diverse factors such as station spacing, service schedule, firing angles of
rectifiers and inverters, and transformer tap positions. The impact of traction substation
placements and firing angles of rectifiers and inverters were investigated in [3,5]. In
[3], the energy consumption and load sharing were treated as two separate objective
functions, and Tabu Search (TS) algorithm was applied to explore different
energy consumption and load sharing were combined linearly in [5] to form a single
objective. The conventional Genetic Algorithm (GA) was then employed to examine
the effect of firing angles of rectifiers and inverters. The performance curves were
plotted against the objective weights reflecting the relative significance among
objectives, and the so-called trade-off was made between energy consumption and load
sharing.
The competing nature between energy consumption and load sharing is not fully
discussed in the above work. The traction substation placements and train operational
timetable have great influence on the MRT system, which runs under normal
presents normal and failure conditions, and is carried out in three stages. Stage I uses
the algorithm of [3] to optimise the traction substation placements, so that minimum
11
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
energy consumption or equal load sharing is attained. At Stage II, the train operational
algorithm) are developed for the first time in this work to obtain the Pareto-optimal set,
and achieve the trade-off between energy consumption and load sharing under normal
running conditions. At Stage III, the worst-case solutions are picked up from Pareto-
optimal set and the performance check is implemented under failure conditions.
components are modelled in terms of resistances and current sources, and the
From the viewpoint of circuit theory, the DC-fed MRT system can be divided into go-
circuit and return-circuit. In go-circuit, the traction power provided by TSS flows
through the catenary wire or third rail, supplies trains and passes back to TSS via
The return-circuit deals with the touch voltage and leakage current. Its simulation is
explained in Chapter 3.
12
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
Negative Busbar
Substation
Positive Busbar
Feeders
Up Track
Catenary or
Train Third Rail
Rails
Earth
Crossbond
Down Track
Energy consumption and load sharing are two objective functions in the go-circuit
optimisation.
In order to increase the system receptivity, some of the traction substations (TSSs) are
fitted with inverter to provide stable regenerative braking and transfer the surplus
braking energy to the AC side. That is, TSS supplies trains with nominal DC voltage
(1500 V in Singapore MRT system) via rectifiers, and recovers energy by the use of
inverter. Although the presence of rectifiers and inverters introduces harmonic to MRT
13
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
power converters and by placing active harmonic filters [29]. Therefore, the harmonic
effects are not addressed in this thesis and will be covered by other researchers [30].
The energy consumption here is defined as the sum of traction energy contributed by
all the TSSs, i.e. the total power flows through the rectifiers and the inverters installed
at the TSSs.
t0 + headway N tss
EC = ∫ ∑ Ptss (t ) ⋅ dt / headway
i
t0 i =1 (2-1)
i
where EC represents the energy consumption. Ptss (t ) stands for the power flow through
the i-th TSS at time t. Ntss is the total number of TSS. t0 is the simulation start time.
Considering the respective rectifier loading and inverter loading, load sharing is
formulated as the sum of the deviation power of each rectifier and inverter from their
mean values.
t0 + headway
N rec j N inv
LS = ∫ ∑ Prec (t ) − Prec,mean (t ) + ∑ Pinvk
(t ) − Pinv ,mean (t ) ⋅ dt / headway
t0 j =1 k =1
(2-2)
j
where LS represents the load sharing. Prec (t ) stands for the power flow through the j-
k
th rectifier and Pinv (t ) stands for the power flow through the k-th inverter. Nrec and Ninv
are the number of rectifiers and inverters installed at TSSs respectively. The mean
rectifying power Prec ,mean (t ) and the mean inverting power Pinv ,mean (t ) are computed as
14
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
N rec
Prec.mean (t ) = ∑ Prec
i
(t ) / N rec
i =1
N inv
(2-3)
Pinv. mean (t ) = ∑ P (t ) / N inv
i
inv
i =1
with dynamically varying demand. Energy consumption and load sharing, which are
functions of the instantaneous net power drawn from TSSs, largely depend on the
Operational timetable variations can be described with three time variables in units of
second: headway, synchronisation delay and dwell time. Headway and synchronisation
delay variables determine the distance between two adjacent trains running in the same
direction and in the opposite (up- or down-) directions respectively. Dwell time, also
known as the station-waiting period, leads to deviation of each train schedule from the
prescribed timetable.
Under ideal operating condition, trains travel along the track in accordance with
established train movement profile and schedule. Trains in the same direction are
are run with certain synchronisation delay. Headway varies with the time of the day,
being shorter during rush hours and longer during late-evening and early-morning
hours. When trains stopover at stations, regardless of how passengers are crowded,
trains are ideally assumed to leave for the next station after fixed dwell time. Due to
15
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
repeatable nature of MRT systems, each train follows ideally the same movement
pattern.
Under actual operating conditions, however, headway, synchronisation delay and train
dwell time will deviate from the prescribed pattern due to variations in passenger load
and the state of the track ahead. Therefore, the net power drawn from the TSSs, which
is governed by the relative positions and demands of trains both in the same direction
and in the opposite direction, will be inevitably affected. Energy consumption and load
load sharing under predefined operational timetable. By guiding the local search
descent method to avoid bad local optima, TS leads to the appropriate traction
substation placements for either minimum energy consumption or equal load sharing.
taken as the optimisation variable, and the compromise worst cases between energy
consumption and load sharing are identified. Multi-Objective Particle Swarm (MOPS)
16
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
Section 5.3 are applied to exploit the competing nature of energy consumption and
load sharing with varying headway, synchronisation delay and dwell times. The
Pareto-optimal set is obtained to reflect the trade-off between energy consumption and
load sharing.
Start
No All solutions
selected?
Yes
Yes
All solutions fail?
No
Stop
17
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
In the failure conditions, some rectifiers and inverters at the TSSs or even the TSS are
out-of-service. The MRT system should sustain from such credible failure scenarios.
Stage III conducts the performance check for solutions picked up from the Pareto-
after all the Pareto-optimal solutions are checked. In case that all the worst cases fail in
the performance check, the traction substation placements derived from Stage I need
The power flow in MRT system is affected by numerous factors, which include track
In the go-circuit simulation as illustrated in Figure 2-3, given certain track topology
and train movement control strategy, the train movement module is first executed and
the train current-distance and speed-distance profiles are obtained. Then, according to
the specified operational timetable, the locations of trains are computed as functions of
simulation time. The system nodal admittance matrix is also formed given the traction
admittance matrix to fluctuate, the load referral method [4] is utilised to eliminate the
train nodes by referring them to the nearest traction substations. The formed network
nodal admittance matrix thus has fixed dimension. After calculating the TSS injection
currents and the train consumption currents, the TSS and train voltages are computed.
18
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
In this way, the power flow in go-circuit is deduced, and the energy consumption and
Start
Return-circuit simulation
End
2.5 Summary
Based on the DC-powered MRT system model, this chapter outlines the go-circuit
consumption and load sharing. The optimisation of energy consumption and load
sharing are conflicting and affected by traction substation placements and operational
19
Chapter 2 Outline of Go-Circuit Optimisation
criterion optimisation of energy consumption and load sharing under normal condition
20
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
3.1 Introduction
In MRT systems, running rails are used as the traction current return conductor, which
causes concern for touch voltage and stray current. In order to realise the computer-
based simulation of touch voltage and stray current, the finite-cell idea in power
system was introduced for return-circuit modelling. By dividing the track into a
accordingly set up to calculate the touch voltage [7]. The follow-on work [8] then
examined and discussed the relative merits of four earthing schemes, namely: float
earth, float earth with rail potential control device, direct earth and diode earth, on the
rail potential and stray current. The control of touch voltage and stray current were also
addressed in [11,12,13] from the viewpoint of engineering rather than from computer
simulation.
The monitoring and mitigation of touch voltage and stray current are receiving
increasing attention while their computer simulation is well done. The problem of
reducing the touch voltage and stray current in DC railways is multi-objective and
conflicting. It is affected by many factors such as the earthing and bonding design as
well as the normal and failure operating conditions. Therefore, the return-circuit
various earthing and bonding arrangements to obtain Pareto-optimal set for touch
21
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
voltage and stray current. The worst cases are then picked up for performance check at
Stage II.
In the return-circuit, trains inject traction currents into the running rails, and, TSSs
absorb the return currents from the running rails. All these currents are actually
injected currents with appropriate (positive or negative) signs. Since the running rail is
Running Rails
22
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
When the four running rails in double track MRT systems are not bonded together, the
system model as in Figure 3-1(b) will be used. This model is based on the multi-
The touch voltage and stray current are the objective functions in return-circuit
optimisation.
The touch voltage in this thesis refers to the voltage difference between the rails and
Vtouch = Vr − V g (3-1)
where Vtouch is the touch voltage, Vr is the running rail voltage and Vg is the local
Touch voltage takes instantaneous value and brings about immediate harm to
personnel, which is not accumulated with the time. On the contrary, as stray current
to the product of the magnitude of stray current and the time duration, stray current
used in this thesis is represented by the stray-current integral collected from all
defined as [8]:
N (t )
I str = ( ∫tt12 ∑ i re (t , k ) ⋅ dt ) /(t 2 − t1 ) (3-2)
k =1
23
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
where i re (t , k ) is the current flow from running rail to the earth at electrical node k and
at time t, and N(t) is the total number of electrical nodes at time t. The simulation spans
Touch voltages and stray current are influenced under normal condition by factors,
such as the traction substation spacing, rail resistance and rail conditions, headway
interval, synchronisation delay, weather condition, soil resistivity, and earthing and
bonding design. Among these factors, a close TSS spacing decreases the go-circuit
voltage drops but the spacing is determined by other considerations such as the ease of
construction and commercial benefit. Once the MRT system is designed, the rail
resistance is fixed and cannot be changed easily. The headway depends on the
passenger traffic flow. It usually takes constant values during certain periods, e.g., rush
hours, normal hours and evening hours. The synchronisation delay varies during the
actual train run from zero to the headway specified at that time. In addition, the touch
voltage and stray current are affected by operational abnormality (or failure), which
can be results of track paralleling switched off, substations out of service etc.
To briefly estimate the impact of earthing and bonding arrangement on the return-
circuit, a simplified single-TSS and single-train model for DC transit system is shown
in Figure 3-2. The impacts of harmonics are not shown in the model, as they can be
filters. The harmonic effects on MRT systems are discussed in [30]. The stray current
24
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
RR I T
Is = (3-3)
RT + RR + RS
where I T is the train current. RR is the running rail resistance. RS is the earth
resistance at the TSS and RT is the earth resistance as seen at the train.
Catenary wire
+
Substation Train
IT
- IR
RR
IS Running rail IS
RS RT
Figure 3-2: Simple case study of touch voltage and stray current
In Equation (3-3), the train current IT is largely affected by the train schedule and
passenger flow. As the running rail resistance RR is decided at the design stage of the
MRT system, RS and RT are the only variables to be investigated. In general, low RS
and RT give rise to a high stray current but a relatively low rail potential. Regular
bonding of the rails equalises the rail-to-earth potentials of all rails along the return-
circuit. It also reduces the return resistance because of parallel rail paths constituting
the return-circuit. The earthing and bonding arrangements hence play a significant role
25
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
To provide accurate modelling of stray current, the peak loading condition should be
studied. On the other hand, touch voltage tends to be higher under failure conditions.
Meanwhile, improvement of the stray current or touch voltage tends to deteriorate the
other. For instance, high rail-to-ground insulation is liable to present large touch
to best improve the objectives of touch voltages and stray current for normal running
is applied to obtain a set of Pareto-optimal solutions. In each solution, the earthing and
between touch voltages and stray current. The Pareto-optimal set from Stage I contains
a large collection of optimal designs. This is also a source of reference for different
design variations. Because the specific times at which initiating events that cause
failure conditions are unpredictable, any optimal design taken from Stage I must be
operated at all times, in such a way that the system will not be endangered, should any
At Stage II, the decision-maker picks one optimal design from the Pareto-optimal set,
and performs performance-check with the list of credible failure conditions. The worst-
case touch voltage and stray-current integral is identified during checking. The
decision-maker prepares his/her own list of credible failures from predefined events
another optimal design from the Pareto-optimal set for further performance-check.
26
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
Start
Preference of
decision-maker
Performance No
Accepted ?
Yes
Stop
Figure 3-3: Two-stage procedure for touch voltage and stray current
specifying the load configuration, the train movement module is first run to obtain the
speed-distance profile and the current-distance profile. The AC/DC load flow is then
employed to calculate the train currents and TSS currents in the go-circuit. Using these
27
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
Start
No
t < Tmax ?
Yes
Calculate load flow to produce Search the minimum
system operation parameters touch voltage and
calculate the stray
current integral
Apply Gauss elimination to
form π circuit
Output results
Solve eqn. [I]=[Y][V] to obtain
instantaneous values of touch
voltage and stray current End
t = t+1
3.5 Summary
After introducing the return-circuit modelling, this chapter discusses the impact of
earthing and bonding arrangements. The control of touch voltage and stray current are
thus formulated to carry out multi-objective optimisation for different earthing and
28
Chapter 3 Outline of Return-Circuit Optimisation
29
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
Optimisation Approaches
4.1 Introduction
Problems with multiple criteria can be broken down into two broad categories:
18th century. Since then, multi-objective optimisation has been introduced to several
solution parameter vector so that all the objectives can be optimised in a compromise
30
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
where n (≥2) defines the number of objective functions in the vector F(x). x is
presented as the decision variable vector and C denotes the feasible set of x that is
Observing that the values f1(x),…, fn(x) represent incommensurable quantities that
acceptable solutions. These solutions are not optimal at the viewpoint of any single
objective, and they cannot be improved with respect to one criterion without
deteriorating at least one other criterion. But they are superior to the rest of the
solutions in the search space when all the objectives are considered. Elements with
Since none of the solutions in a Pareto-optimal set is absolutely better than any other,
only if there is no x ′ ∈C such that fi( x ′ )≤fi(x*) for all i∈{1,2,…n} with at
31
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
non-dominated
solutions
f2
dominated
solutions
f1
Figure 4-1: Pareto front for bi-criterion minimisation problem
Figure 4-1 shows all the possible (dominated and non-dominated) solutions of a bi-
criterion optimisation problem for f1(x) and f2(x), where all non-dominated solutions
are situated on a circular arc known as a Pareto-optimal front. Point A and point B are
in f2. Solution points that are not situated at the front are dominated solutions and are
directly in the multi-objective problem because the objective vector F(x) lacks a
some of the trade-offs being associated with the problem at hand and determine the
finding a feasible alternative, x, that yields the most preferred vector of objective
32
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
In order to effectively discriminate between two candidate solutions x0 and x1, some
type of preference structure is imposed on F(x), which defines the relevance of each
• Value function preference: x0 is said to dominate x1, in the case that a function g
preferred to x1.
solving it to identify the Pareto-optimal front, a rarely finite set, is not an easy task.
objective approaches can be summarised into three categories, e.g., methods that
33
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
scalarising the multiple objectives into a single objective whose solution is a Pareto-
optimal point for the original multi-objective problem. In this way, the theory of single
The weighing objective method, one of the typical traditional approaches, transforms
objective with a positive constant and aggregating them to obtain the overall objective
function:
k
H ( x ) = ∑ wi * f i ( x ) (4-2)
i =1
where k is the total number of the objectives and fi(x) is the i-th objective function. The
weights wi are non-negative numbers assumed beforehand but not all zero, that is, for
weights yields a particular point within the Pareto-optimal front. By assigning different
weight vectors for the objectives, this weighing algorithm will generate and converge
to various efficient solutions. Since the chosen weights sometimes do not reflect the
and the Pareto front is such that a uniform spread of weight parameters rarely produces
a uniform spread of points on the Pareto front. [21] Often, all the points found are
clustered in certain parts of the Pareto front with no points in the interesting area. A
34
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
weighing method. The concave portions on the Pareto front as the segment between
point A and B shown in Figure 4-2, however, cannot be found for concave problems.
f2
f1
Figure 4-2: Non-convex solution boundary
particle swarm algorithm and their variants. So far there is no literature on the multi-
The Vector Evaluated Genetic Algorithm (VEGA) [16], which treats the non-
the next generations. The selection procedure is executed independently for each
35
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
objective has the risk for bias against the middle individuals. Those middle points that
have average values on all objectives are discarded during selection procedure. Hence,
the generated candidate solutions tend to satisfactory results at only one objective but
perform poorly at the other objectives as shown in Figure 4-3. This problem is even
f2
f1
Figure 4-3: Outline of VEGA evolution results
Different from the VEGA, the Pareto-based approach is to process selection and
reproduction based on not only the objective values themselves but also their
dominance properties. All the locally non-dominated points achieve equal reproductive
algorithm assigns rank to each individual in the population with regard to its own
fitness value and mutual dominance feature. In a rank assignment scheme [16], the
non-dominated individuals in the population are ranked as 1 and marked. Then the
non-dominated individuals among the unmarked points are ranked as 2 and marked.
The procedure is repeated until the entire population is ranked or a certain termination
36
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
condition is met. Figure 4-4 provides an example of rank assignment to six points. This
f2 e(2)
d(2)
b(1)
f(3)
c(2)
a(1)
f1
Figure 4-4: Rank assignment for Pareto-based genetic algorithm
has an additional feature, i.e. attribute. The number of attributes is as many as that of
the objectives. In the crossover process, the individuals from each attribute are
recombined to generate offspring, which represents intermediate solutions that are not
totally optimal with respect to any single objective. During the execution of the
terminated
4.4.3 Discussions
Usually there are two methods to apply genetic algorithm for multi-objective
exert selection pressure during recombination process with respect to all the multiple
objectives other than one single objective. The other method, like multi-attribute GA,
37
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
embeds the information of multiple objectives into the GA parent strings and then
similar to that of weighing method. VEGA ignores the mutual dominance between
objective values during selection process, and it never selects candidates according to
trade-offs among objectives. At the end of the evolution, this approach ultimately
converges to a few points on the Pareto front and there is usually only one objective
that the offspring has a chance to be non-dominant. Since MAGA exerts very little
control on the evolution process, it is only used for performance comparison in this
thesis.
In Pareto-based GA, the solutions on the Pareto front are assigned the same rank. The
other solutions are assigned a lower rank with relation to the population density of the
region of solutions that dominate them. The candidate fitness is also represented by
dominance with partial preference information in the form of a goal vector, this
algorithm can perform local search. Moreover, with the technique of fitness sharing to
maintain the population diversity, the Pareto-based GA seems suitable to solve the
38
Chapter 4 Literature Review of Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
4.5 Summary
presented and the preference structures posed on objective spaces are introduced. An
extensive review of the literature for multi-objective optimisation is also made. At the
39
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
Approaches
5.1 Introduction
Section 4.4.2 shows that Pareto-Based GA performs selection based on not only the
objective values but also their mutual dominance, which distributes the population and
redirects the search towards the apparently most profitable areas. Three evolutionary
algorithms are applied in this thesis, which are namely: the Multi-Objective Genetic
Objective Differential Evolution (MODE) algorithm. They utilise the same rank
assignment method as Pareto-Based GA to select the parents for evolution, so that the
obtained Pareto-optimal solutions spread uniformly along the Pareto-optimal front and
reflect the trade-offs among objectives. The fitness sharing technique is also adopted to
much of its breadth, but it ignores the information of the trade-off, which can be
40
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
discretisation of the search space for continuous problems. On the contrary, PS and DE
work directly on the continuous search space, which makes them suitable to solve
problem), and MOPS and MODE are proposed for return-circuit optimisation
While retaining the same concept of crossover and mutation as the conventional GA,
MOGA, which is derived from the Pareto-Based GA, exerts a degree of control over
the selection process by applying the rank assignment method as developed in [16] for
the multi-objective problem. During the present evolution, candidates in the current
generation are compared by considering the following Pareto optimality conditions and
ranked to decide on their chances for survival in the next generation. First, all the non-
dominated candidates in the current generation are identified as rank 1 and marked.
Then the non-dominated candidates among the unmarked solutions are ranked as 2 and
marked. The solutions of rank 2 are of course inferior to those of rank 1. The above
rank assignment procedure is repeated recursively until the current rank number
reaches a pre-specified value or the size of the unmarked population becomes smaller
than a certain value. Afterwards, those candidates with a favourable rank (say, less
than 6) survive whereas candidates with a rank higher than the threshold (greater than
41
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
6) are discarded. The preserved candidates are then selected and recombined to
the preserved ones are recorded in the Pareto-optimal set. Each time a non-dominated
solution is generated, the set of existing Pareto solutions will be updated. If any
member in the set of Pareto solutions does not dominate the new non-dominated
candidate, this candidate will be added to the set. On the other hand, any solution in
the set that is dominated by the added point will be eliminated from the set. This
In conventional GA, if there are a few extraordinary individuals in a population and the
Conventional GA suffers from one inherent drawback of genetic drift [16], which
forces all candidate solutions into a few clusters rather than uniform scatter along the
Pareto front. In order to maintain appropriate diversity, the technique of fitness sharing
is used at the phenotypic level. Fitness sharing requires points that are close together to
share fitness and avoids an excessive number of individuals into one area. The multiple
42
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
sub-populations that arise along the Pareto front are thus stabilised and the obtained
In a typical GA, the crossover and mutation operators are the most important
components that influence the GA’s efficiency to give maximum exploration of the
search space and to ensure convergence towards global optima. To attain the best GA
mutation probability is varied in the opposite direction. The equations for changing
Pt = P0 − (P0 − PT )*t /T
crossover crossover crossover crossover
(5-1)
Pt = P0 + ( PT − P0 )*t /T
mutation mutation mutation mutation
where T is the total number of iterations and t is the current iteration number.
Superscripts 0 and T denote probability values at the start and the end of search
procedure.
objectives. MOGA allows the decision-maker to exercise such preference. The rank
example of Figure 5-1(b). Figure 5-1(a) shows the rank assignment for 6 candidate
solutions, where equal priorities are placed between minimising objective f1 and
43
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
minimising objective f2. Both solutions a and b are ranked as level 1 since f1(a)>f1(b)
but f2(a)<f2(b). Likewise, solutions c, d and e are ranked as level 2 and solution f is
minimising the objective f2 than minimising the objective f1, candidate solutions a, c
and f are ranked at a higher level (more successful) than candidate solutions b, d and e.
For instance, candidate solution b is ranked as level 4 in Figure 5-1(b) instead of level
1 in Figure 5-1(a) because b has a larger f2 value than c and f. Candidate solutions a, c
and f will thus be selected for reproduction, and will have a higher probability of
survival in subsequent generations. At the end of the evolution, more solutions will
gather in the region of lower f2 values along the Pareto-optimal front, which means that
f2 e(2) f2 e(6)
d(2) d(5)
b(1) b(4)
f(3) f(3)
c(2) c(2)
a(1) a(1)
f1 f1
(a) f2 has the same priority as f1 (b) f2 has greater priority than f1
44
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
The Particle Swarm (PS) algorithm is another population-based method for optimising
hard numeric functions. The underlying motivation for its development is the metaphor
of individuals refining their knowledge by interacting with one another [27]. The
hyperspace. Each particle adjusts its search direction according to its previous best
position and the global best location, that is, the search direction is guided by the best
local and global solutions. Therefore, the key task of applying PS to multi-objective
optimisation is to determine the best solutions. The main difference between single-
and multi-objective optimisation rests on the fact that objectives are not guaranteed to
45
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
~ ~ ~ ~
F = ( f1 , f 2 ,Κ , f n ) (5-3)
~
where f i = inf{ f i ( x)} .
For any solution Fˆ , the distance between Fˆ and the utopian point F~ can be
approximated by the metrics S(y,q,w), according to some specified norm lq-norm and a
n
~ ~
S ( Fˆ , q, w) = Fˆ − F = [∑ wiq ( Fˆi − Fi ) q ]1 / q (5-4)
q ,w
i =1
The weight vector w reflects the different degrees of importance among the objectives.
The value of q chosen determines the specific way in which the distance between the
particle and the utopian point is measured. Frequently used measures for q are 1,2 and
∞. In this way, the compromise solution, which is nearest to the utopian solution, can
Once the global compromise solution is determined, the individual best solutions can
be captured. Similarly, the individual best solutions are denoted in the sense of
compromise. From all the locations visited by the particle so far, the position, which
has the smallest weighed distance from the global compromise solution, is set as the
Different from the original version of PS, MOPS replaces the previous global best
solutions with the current global compromise solution. At each generation, the current
positions of all the particles are compared to the utopian solution and the compromise
location is calculated. The previous locations visited by the particle influence the
46
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
The rank-based selection in MOPS utilises the particle’s rank in the population to
determine its likelihood of producing offspring. First, the objective vector values of
each particle in the population are calculated. According to their relative dominance,
the assigned ranks are 1,2,3,…, Rmax, where Rmax≤p. The highest-ranked particles are
the closest to the Pareto-optimal set while the lowest-ranked ones are the farthest.
Rmax − rk + 1 Rmax − rk + 1
pbk = p
= p
(5-5)
∑ ( Rmax − r j + 1) p × ( Rmax + 1) − ∑ r j
j =1 j =1
where rk is the rank value of the k-th individual, and Rmax is the maximum rank value
The selected particles keep records of their current positions and velocities, as well as
their personal best points to affect their next position. With the addition of rank-based
47
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
calculate the distance metrics. The weight value wi associated with the i-th objective
wi = γ i ⋅ µ i
n
γ i = [ Ri ∑ 1 / R j ]−1 (5-6)
j =1
µ i = randomi
where Ri is the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the i-th
objective function and randomi is the random number between 0 and 1. n is the total
The gradation element γ i standardises the ranges for the different objective function
solution leads to explore efficient solutions only in the direction of the utopian
solution. Nevertheless, the changing element µ i may help to browse the border of the
During population evolution, all the generated non-dominated candidates are checked
against the existing Pareto-optimal set. If any solution in the set does not dominate the
new generated non-dominated candidate, then the candidate is added to the set. In the
same way, all the solutions in the set that are Pareto dominated by the newly generated
48
Chapter 5 Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
are the same as those embedded in MOPS. However, the Multi-Objective Differential
the performance of evolutionary algorithms. In this thesis, MOPS and MODE are
parameters.
5.5 Summary
namely MOGA, MOPS and MODE, are given. These algorithms employ Pareto
ranking to sort the individuals with respect to their mutual dominance as well as their
favours the individuals with acceptable ranks to survive throughout the evolution. The
use of fitness sharing further helps the non-dominated solutions distribute evenly along
Contrary to GA discretises the search space, MOPS and MODE search directly over
replace best solutions with compromise solutions. With the employment of rank-based
49
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
substations (5 of them with inverters) from the 16 passenger stations in the test MRT
system. The tabu tenure is set to be 5 and the optimisation runs for 100 iterations. The
time step of simulation is taken as one second. The headway for the UP- and DOWN
directions can be different, but are assumed identical in the study cases (= 180
seconds). The optimisation period is set equal to the same value, since the train
movement pattern repeats in each headway interval [3]. The synchronisation delay is
The algorithm will have a choice of two objectives as defined in Section 2.2, namely:
the overall energy consumption or load sharing among traction-substations. Two study
50
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
Configuration 1
Configuration 2
Initial Configuration
St10
St11
St12
St13
St14
St15
St0
St1
St2
St3
St4
St5
St6
St7
St8
St9
Passenger station Traction substation (Rectifier only)
Traction substation (Rectifier and Inverter)
The optimised traction-substation placements of the 2 study cases are given in Figure
6-1. In order to compare the nature of energy consumption and load sharing
optimisation, Figures 6-2 and 6-3 display the convergence plots of the optimised
where only energy consumption is optimised, the energy consumption drops from
12.41 MW to 12.39 MW but the load sharing value occasionally increases and form a
glitch in Figure 6-3. On the other hand, to obtain Configuration 2, where only load
sharing is optimised, the load sharing decreases dramatically from 6.69 MW to 5.71
MW whereas the energy consumption keeps rising in Figure 6-2. It is also revealed
from Figure 6-2 and 6-3 that energy consumption and load sharing are unlikely to be
51
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
12.47
Iteration
7.00
6.80
Load Sharing (MW)
6.60
6.40 Configuration 1
6.20
6.00
5.80 Configuration 2
5.60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Iteration
load sharing for Configuration 2, receive more improvement than the non-optimised
52
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
The final improvements of the two study cases (Configuration 1 and Configuration 2)
and dwell time deviate continuously from their nominal values. Stage II of the go-
circuit optimisation assesses the impact of these deviations, and evaluates the
Stage I. The worst-case scenarios are thus identified. In contrast to Stage I, which is
Chapter 5, are used for the bi-objective optimisation. The optimisation program is
written in Visual C++ and takes about 30 minutes with a population of 300 and a
53
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
DOWN-track, the two algorithms each takes 30 deviation variables (namely: headway
these variables during optimisation are listed in Table 6-2. The non-dominated
solutions for the worst-case operational scenarios for the two study cases
Headway (90,420) 30
16.00
15.00 MODE
Load sharing (MW)
14.00 MOPS
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
17.50 18.00 18.50 19.00 19.50 20.00
Energy consumption (MW)
54
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
14.00
MODE
13.00
MOPS
Tables 6-3 and 6-4 capture the maximum deviations of the two objectives for the non-
dominated solutions as in Figures 6-4 and 6-5. These are expressed in percentage
Due to their different search strategies, MODE1 and MOPS each produces solutions
exhibiting a different distribution. This point is demonstrated in Figure 6-4, where the
55
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
solutions generated by MODE are close together in one area whereas the solutions
produced by MOPS uniformly scatter along the Pareto front. In this sense, the
performance of MOPS is better than that of MODE. As seen from Figures 6-4 and 6-5,
the solutions produced for Configuration 1 have a wider spread than Configuration 2
Occasionally some of the rectifiers and inverters, or even the traction-substation may
be out of service. The MRT system should maintain acceptable operation from such
failure conditions. To verify the non-dominated solutions (Section 6.2) obtained for
go-circuit optimisation.
A list of 16 credible failure conditions is conducted on the test MRT system. Table 6-5
summarises the performance results for case 1.1 (the non-dominated solution with
the lowest train voltage is required to be above 900V. Hence, the design requirement
for case 1.1 is acceptable, as the lowest train voltage of all the 16 testing scenarios is
about 1000V.
The performance check results for case 2.2 (the non-dominated solution with minimum
load sharing under Configuration 2) are shown in Table 6-6. When substation St0 is
out of service, the lowest train voltage is about 800V. In this case, either the
corresponding operational timetable for Case 2.2 should be avoided during system
56
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
revised.
57
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
6.4 Summary
58
Chapter 6 Results of Go-Circuit Optimisation
algorithms, MOPS and MODE1 proposed in Section 5.3, are then applied to attain
trade-off between energy consumption and load sharing in the go-circuit. Operational
timetable, namely headway, synchronisation delay and dwell time, is varied to identify
set, the decision-maker picks up some solutions for performance check. If the selected
solutions fail the performance check, the corresponding operational timetable should
placements. In this way, the safety and efficiency of system operation are ensured.
Simulation results show the effectiveness of MOPS and MODE1 to identify the
MOPS produces non-dominated solutions evenly spread along the Pareto-optimal front
and the solutions generated by MODE1 gather in one area, MOPS outperforms
59
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
the return-circuit optimisation explores all possible earthing and bonding arrangements
at the fixed passenger stations and traction substations to seek compromise solutions
between touch voltage and stray current. In this sense, the return-circuit and go-circuit
none of the solutions for multi-objective optimisation is optimal for each objective.
Instead, the non-dominated solutions are superior to the rest of solutions in the search
space with all the objectives considered. Different solution is selected from the Pareto-
optimal set corresponding to the user’s preference. Based on such considerations, the
initial system configuration in Figure 6-1 is also used in this chapter for return-circuit
optimisation.
The test MRT system in this chapter has two tracks as in Figure 7-1. There are 16
passenger stations, 7 of which are chosen as TSSs. The passenger stations are located
at an interval of 1∼2 kms. At each passenger station, the pair of running rails carrying
each train is bonded (known as cross bonding) to reduce the impedance of the return-
circuit. However the pair of running rails has the option of being bonded to the other
pair of running rails in the opposite direction (interbound bonding). Since all trains are
60
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
sufficient to use the headway interval as the period of the optimisation [3]. The time
step of simulation is set to be one second. It is also assumed that the stray current path
resistance, which changes with many practical factors, is known and can be varied later
St10
St11
St12
St13
St14
St15
St0
St1
St2
St3
St4
St5
St6
St7
St8
St9
Passenger station Traction substation (Rectifier only)
Traction substation (Rectifier and Inverter)
As Section 3.3 shows, earthing and bonding strategies have great impact on the touch
voltage and stray current in the return-circuit. To gain further insight, a simulation
program is written in Visual C++ to carry out simulations for a variety of earthing and
corresponding touch voltage and stray current listed in Table 7-1 have exhibited
certain patterns of variations for the given earthed and unearthed arrangement.
Moreover, Figure 7-2 [8] reveals that floating the return pole reduces the touch voltage
arrangement however makes the low-level stray current difficult to detect and clear.
The bonding of rails provides adequate path for return traction current, decreases the
mutual resistance and thus increases the traction current in return path.
61
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
Note: As default, all TSSs and PSs are not provided with interbound bonding and are
floating.
62
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
Catenary wire
+
TSS -
Train
Running rail
2Vmax
Earthed System
Vmax
Floating System
0V
-Vmax
Generally speaking, both the touch voltage and the average stray current tend to
increase when the headway is decreased. The headway used in this study is 180s,
MRT systems have been provided with total floating, direct earth or diode earth
arrangement [8]. The return-circuit simulation also allows a mix of different earthing
arrangements at either the TSSs or passenger stations. To best improve the touch
Section 5.2 is executed to optimise the three objectives: the maximum positive touch
voltage (f1), the minimum negative touch voltage (f2) and the total integral stray current
collected from all earthing points (f3). The function f2 is chosen due to the
63
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
Since the study MRT system has 16 passenger stations, a GA string of 48 bits (16 x 3
bits substrings) is formed for Configuration 2 to represent the earthing and interbound
bonding at all 16 passenger stations. It is assumed that all passenger stations are cross-
bonded. Each substring consists of 3 binary bits. The first 2 bits are used for
identifying the earthing strategy, which can be floating, directly earthed or diode
earthed. The last bit is set to either one or zero for providing either or not interbound
bonding at each passenger station. Likewise, the GA uses a string of 21 bits for the 7
of touch voltage and stray current is written in Visual C++. The program takes
population of 100.
64
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
140
100
80
60
40 -50
50 -60
60 e
tag
posi 70 vol
-70
tive 80 ch
touc
h vo 90
-80
e tou
ltage ativ
neg
100 -90
(a) Equal priority assigned to minimum touch voltage and stray-current integral
80
60
40 -40
50
60 -60 e
70 tag
posi -80 h vol
80 c
tive
touc tou
h vo 90
ative
ltage 100 -100 neg
(b) Different priority assigned to minimum touch voltage and stray-current integral
Figure 7-3: Pareto-optimal sets for Configuration 1
65
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
70
60
50
40 -60
60
70 -70
ge
posi 80 -80 volta
tive uch
touc
h vo
90
tive to
ltage 100 -90 a
neg
(a) Equal priority assigned to minimum touch voltage and stray-current integral
80
stray current integral
70
60
50
40 -60
50
60 -70
ge
posi 70
volta
tive -80 ch
touc 80 tou
h vo
ltage
90
ative
100 -90 neg
(b) Different priority assigned to minimum touch voltage and stray-current integral
Figure 7-4: Pareto-optimal sets for Configuration 2
66
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
As shown in Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4, the decision-maker is presented with four
Pareto-optimal sets, which contains the solutions with equal and different priorities for
different trade-off among the three objective functions. If the positive touch voltage
(f1) takes priority over the other two objectives, then more solutions (“ο” in Figures 7-
3(b) and 7-4(b)) gather in the region of large positive touch voltage values. Similar
observation is made if priority is assigned to the other two objectives. From Figures 7-
3(b) and 7-4(b), three extreme solutions are picked from the vertices of the plots for
Configuration 1 and Configuration 2. Tables 7-2 and Table 7-3 each contains the three
extreme solutions together with a well-balanced solution obtained in the case of equal
67
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
By comparing the four solutions in Table 7-2 with the four solutions in Table 7-3,
Configuration 2 appears to carry higher stray current (f3) than Configuration 1. The
former has however outperformed the latter from the point of view of both f1 and f2.
This appears reasonable as the former provides more earthing and bonding locations.
Since both Configuration 1 and Configuration 2 are optimised, the solutions in Tables
7-2 and 7-3 have out-performed the typical cases as in Table 7-1.
are further verified under some credible failure conditions. Table 7-4 shows the
row of Table 7-3. The list of ten credible failure conditions is given in the second
column. Almost all the three objectives have deteriorated drastically due to outage of a
TSS or a rectifier at TSS. However, the optimisation solution under test yields the
lowest train voltage of more than 1000V among the ten failure cases. As expected, the
68
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
return-circuit has little impact on train voltage because only leakage current is involved
in the return-circuit. The train voltages are required to be above 900V under abnormal
conditions, so the selected solution performs well and the corresponding earthing and
7.3 Summary
implemented in this chapter to attain trade-off between the touch voltage and stray
current in MRT systems. After further discussing the influence of earthing and
bonding arrangements on touch voltage and stray current, MOGA described in Section
69
Chapter 7 Results of Return-Circuit Optimisation
5.2 is applied, and the method of Pareto-optimal set is developed to best improve the
touch voltage and stray current for normal condition. Care is taken to ensure
comprehensive and uniform spread of optimal solutions within the set. The decision-
maker is then given a powerful tool for picking the most appropriate earthing and
bonding design from the set and for identifying the worst-case performance from the
list of credible failure conditions. Simulation results indicate that MOGA successfully
traces the Pareto-optimal solutions. The process of performance check helps maintain
70
Chapter 8 Conclusions
Chapter 8 Conclusions
In MRT system design and operation, several competing objectives are always
scheme is accordingly put forward in this thesis to implement go-circuit and return-
circuit optimisation. At the first stage, the basic deign is obtained by optimising the
applied and the trade-off among conflicting objectives is attained. As the varying
running parameters influence the system performance, the second stage takes into
account the operational deviation and identifies the worst-case of the basic system
design derived from the first stage. The need for changing the basic design to cater for
both the normal condition and failure conditions is further ascertained by performance
Energy consumption and load sharing have been adopted for measuring the cost-
load sharing cannot be achieved simultaneously. Energy consumption and load sharing
Search (TS) algorithm, so that minimum energy consumption or equal load sharing is
71
Chapter 8 Conclusions
operational timetable, i.e., the headway, synchronisation delay and dwell times. The
worst-case energy consumption and load sharing are then identified for the
As running rails are used as traction current return conductors, there are increasing
concerns on touch voltage and stray current in the return-circuit. The mitigation of
both touch voltage and stray current is one kind of conflicting multi-objective. As seen
from the return-circuit model, earthing and bonding strategies have a profound impact
Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA) is employed to best improve touch voltage and
stray current under normal condition for a variety of earthing and bonding
arrangements at passenger stations and/or traction substations. At Stage II, the most
appropriate earthing and bonding policies are picked up for performance check from
Simulation results for the above go-circuit optimisation and return-circuit optimisation
indicate that the proposed multi-objective evolutionary algorithms take full advantage
of the problem nature and are very effective to provide the decision-maker with a
techniques, such as the weighing methods, cannot capture the non-dominated solutions
72
Chapter 8 Conclusions
advantage of being able to deal with multi-objective optimisation. Despite GA’s great
problem domain to string presentation and thus suffers from the discretisation of
search space for continuous problem. On the contrary, PS and DE work directly on the
continuous search space. In order to exploit the merits of different algorithms, three
evolutionary algorithms are used in this thesis for different problems, which are
namely: MOGA for return-circuit optimisation (discrete problem), MOPS and MODE
for go-circuit optimisation (continuous problem). Especially, MOPS and MODE are
proposed to solve the MRT problems for the first time. These presented algorithms are
At the heart of MOPS and MODE is the replacement of the best solution with
sort candidates according to the values of several objectives and even to the decision-
makers’ preference. The individuals with favoured ranks have higher probability to
determine a direction of improvement and evolve the entire population towards the
Pareto-optimal set.
In the development stage, MOPS and MODE are compared to another type of
population of points and competitive evolution to direct the population towards the
optima. By properly adjusting the algorithm parameters, MOPS and MODE perform
quite well on the test numerical problems. Not only the concave trade-off curve but
73
Chapter 8 Conclusions
also the discontinuous trade-off curve is successfully reached with a relatively small
The generation of Pareto-optimal set and the selection of preferred solutions from the
Pareto-optimal set are two critical issues for multi-objective optimisation problems.
The first issue has been well addressed in literatures and discussed in detail in this
thesis. The second issue, however, needs more studies since the decision-maker is still
left with a challenge to pick up the preferred solutions from so large a Pareto-optimal
set.
To end this thesis, the author would like to mention two interesting as well as
74
References
References
[2] S. D. Jacimovic, "Maximum permissible values of step and touch voltages with
special consideration to electrified railroads", IEEE Trans. Industry Application,
Vol. IA-20, No. 4, 1984
[3] C.S. Chang, J.S. Low and D. Srinivasan, “Application of Tabu Search in Optimal
Design and Operation of MRT Power Supply System”, IEE Proceedings,
Electric Power Applications, No.1, 1999
[4] C.S. Chang, T.T. Chan and K.K. Lee, "Network switching and voltage
evaluation using an expert system in AC railway systems", IEE Proceedings,
Electric Power Applications, Vol.139, No.1, 1992
[5] C.S. Chang, W. Wang. A.C. Liew and F.S. Wen, “Bicriterion optimisation for
traction substations in mass rapid transit systems using genetic algorithm”, IEE
Proceedings, Electric Power Applications, Vol.145, No.1, 1998
[6] James B. Forsythe, “Light Rail/Rapid Transit: New Approaches for the
Evaluation of Energy Savings, Part I-Life-Cycle Cost from Synthetic
Routes/Operational Models”, IEEE trans. Industry Applications, Vol. IA-16,
No.5, 1980
[7] J.G. Yu and C.J. Goodman, "Modelling of rail potential rise and leakage current
in DC rail transit systems", IEE colloquium on stray current effects of DC
railways and tramways, 1990
[8] J.G. Yu, "The effects of earthing strategies on rail potential and stray currents in
DC transit railways", International conference on developments in mass transit
systems, 1998
75
References
[9] Y. Cai, M.R. Irving, S.H. Case, "Modelling and numerical solution of
multibranched DC rail traction power systems”, IEE Proceedings, Electric Power
Applications, Vol.142, No.5, 1995
[10] C.S. Chang and L. Tian,” Worst-case identification of touch voltage and stray
current of DC railway system using genetic algorithm”, IEE Proceedings,
Electric Power Applications, Vol. 146, No. 5, 1999
[11] K.S. Bahra and P. G.Batty, "Earthing and bonding of electrified railways",
International conference on developments in mass transit systems, 1998
[12] W. Sidoriak, "Rail isolation on the Baltimore central light rail line", Materials
Performance, Vol.32, No.7, 1993
[13] S.R. Farnsworth and N. J. Moriber, "MAX: Porland's light rail system-control of
stray currents at the source", Materials Performance, Vol.29, No.7, 1990
[14] P.L. Yu, “Multiple criteria decision making: five basic concepts”, Handbooks in
Operations Research and Management Science, Vol. 1 (Optimisation), 1989
[15] G. Colson and C.de Bruyn, Models and methods in multiple criteria decision
making, 1989
[18] C.M. Fouseca and P.J. Fleming, “Genetic algorithms for multi-objective
optimisation: formulation, discussion and generalisation”, Proceedings of the
fifth international conference on genetic algorithms, 1993
76
References
[20] K.C. Tan and Y. Li, "Multi-objective genetic algorithm based time and
frequency domain design unification of linear control systems", Technical
Report CSC-97007, University of Glasgow, 1997
[22] Joanna Lis and A.E.Eiben, “A multi-sexual genetic algorithm for multi-objective
optimisation”, Proceedings of 1997 IEEE international Conference on
Evolutionary Computation
[26] Storn R. and Proce K., “Minimising the real functions of the ICEC’96 contest by
differential evolution”, International Conference on Evolutionary Computation,
Japan, 1996
[28] R. C. Eberhart and Y. Shi, “Comparison between genetic algorithms and particle
swarm optimisation”, Proceedings of 1998 International Conference on
Evolutionary Programming, 1998
[29] H. Fujita and H. Akagi, "An approach to harmonic current-free AC/DC power
conversion for large industrial loads: the integration of a series active filters with
a double-series diode rectifier", IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
Vol.33, 1997
77
References
[30] Fan Wang, “Genetic algorithm based harmonic evaluation and filter placement
for a rapid transit system”, Master’s Thesis, National University of Singapore,
1999
78
Appendix A Evolutionary Algorithms
A.1 Introduction
Evolutionary Algorithms are a class of stochastic search and optimisation methods that
algorithm, Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm, and their variants. They seldom
require much auxiliary information to search for better candidates, and are robust and
suitable for finding optima effectively with a small probability of falling in the local
of individuals and incorporating random variation and selection for iterations. Each
fitness value is first assigned to each offspring. Depending on its fitness, each
converges after some number of generations. In most cases, the best individual
The Genetic Algorithm (GA) was motivated by ideas from natural genetics. GA starts
79
Appendix A Evolutionary Algorithms
dependent fitness function. Those chromosomes with higher fitness are selectively
the subsequent generation. In this way, GA attempts to find all the optima in the search
The key feature of the GA is its ability to exploit accumulating information about an
initially unknown search space so as to bias subsequent search into the useful
information from the current points to direct subsequent search. Its merit to maintain
[19].
implicitly three key operations of GA: crossover, mutation and fitness evaluation. The
fitness evaluation merely depends on the problem structure, but the crossover and
Both PS and DE replace GA’s traditional bit-inversion mutation scheme with a method
that perturbs real-valued vectors with population-derived noise and make mutation an
80
Appendix A Evolutionary Algorithms
adaptive procedure [28]. Besides their good convergence properties and suitability for
parallelism, PS and DE are simple to operate. They work on only a few control
The PS algorithm, introduced by Eberhart and Kennedy [27], was inspired from the
points. During the optimisation procedure, they evolve towards the global and local
best positions. That is, each particle’s searching trajectory is influenced by its own and
Each particle in the population keeps a record of its current position, velocity, and its
best position found so far. Specifically, a particle is manipulated using the following
equation:
vi = w * vi + α * ( p i − xi ) + β * ( p g − xi )
(A-1)
xi = xi + vi
where xi is the position of the ith member of the population and vi is the current
velocity of the individual. The local best for the ith individual is denoted by pi and
p g is the global best position. α and β are random numbers in the range of [0,1].
They reflect the degree of global best and local best to guide the particle’s subsequent
search. The inertia weight w is used here to control the impact of the previous history
of velocities on the current velocity, thereby influencing the trade-off between global
81
Appendix A Evolutionary Algorithms
with random position x and velocity v. Each particle is then evaluated at the time step,
i.e., each position vector xi is calculated to obtain the fitness value for the particle. The
best position vector for each particle is accordingly adjusted, and the fitness value of
each particle is compared with the best fitness found so far in the population to identify
Particle swarm optimisation does not have crossover and mutation operation, but the
concepts are characterised. Unlike GA, an individual (particle) in the population does
individuals. There is no parts (chromosomes in GA) divided in each particle and its
which changes the velocity of the particles between the local best and global best. In
this way, any point in the search space is eventually accessed if there is enough
Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm developed by Stron and Price is the best genetic
type of algorithm for solving the real-valued test function suite of the first International
The performance of DE is dependent on three variables: the population size NP, the
mutation-scaling factor F and the crossover constant CR. A new scheme is used in DE
to generate variation vector in the population, which is totally different from other
evolutionary algorithms except PS. The two or four individuals in the population are
82
Appendix A Evolutionary Algorithms
randomly selected and their difference vector is taken as the variation vector. In this
way, the direction and distance information is extracted from the population to
population. For the ith individual in the population, the variation vector ∆xi is
∆xi = x j + F * [( x p − x q ) + ( x m − x n )] (A-2)
where j, p, q, m, n∈[0,NP-1] are randomly chosen integer and mutually different from
the running index i. F is a scaling factor∈[0,2] which controls the amplification of the
variation vector.
In order to increase the potential diversity of the population, the crossover operation is
also introduced to DE. Assuming the ith individual takes the vector form of
(xi1,xi2,…,xiD), the value of its jth element is then calculated as below after crossover.
where the crossover factor CR∈[0,1] is a control variable that effectively determines
when a parameter should be mutated and thus helps the algorithm converge.
83
Appendix B Flowchart of Proposed Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
as below.
84
Appendix B Flowchart of Proposed Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimisation Approaches
Evaluate P(t+1);
t:=t+1;
until termination condition is met
85
Appendix C Preliminary Testing of Multi-objective Optimisation Algorithms
Optimisation Algorithms
C.1 Introduction
Two numerical multi-objective optimisation problems are used here to test the
Algorithm (MAGA) [22], the parameters of MOPS and MODE are varied to observe
how these values affect the algorithm efficiency, measured in terms of the number of
non-dominated solutions obtained and the tendency of the resultant trade-off curve.
There are several variants of DE that generate variation vectors during evolution
procedure. In order to explain MOPS and MODE in a uniform way, two variants of
DE that make use of the global best individual are employed, namely MODE1 and
MODE2.
In MODE2, the variation vector is generated based on the best member, with a
86
Appendix C Preliminary Testing of Multi-objective Optimisation Algorithms
In equation (C-1) and (C-2), r1, r2, r3 and r4 are random integer numbers that differ
from each other. The subscript best represents the index of the best individual in the
The velocity limit of each dimension Vmax in MOPS determines how large steps
through the feasible space each particle is allowed to take. When these steps are
constrained to be too small, individuals may be unable to jump out of poor regions.
When the steps are set to be big, individuals often speed past the target region but
discover even better positions they set out for. Further, individuals are able to escape
from local optima with sufficiently large steps. The mathematical experiments below
demonstrate the effect of the steps each particle takes on the search procedure. For
simplicity, the inertia weight w for PS is set to be 0.9 at the start of the run and
f 1 ( x , y ) = ( x 2 + y 2 )1 / 8
f 2 ( x, y ) = (( x − 0.5) + ( y − 0.5) )
2 2 1/ 4
where x∈(-5,10)
The trade-off surface of this example is concave, which leads to potential difficulty for
algorithms meaningfully, the population of MOPS and MODE is set to 30 and allowed
87
Appendix C Preliminary Testing of Multi-objective Optimisation Algorithms
to evolve for 100 generations. The MAGA population is set to 30 and its iteration
number is 197. During the evolution procedure, individuals that violate the constraint
are treated as lethal ones and are discarded. Table C-1 lists the number of non-
dominated solutions found by each algorithm at the end of evolution. The results of
different Vmax for MOPS in terms of f1 and f2 are shown in Figure C-1 whereas the
C-2.
88
Appendix C Preliminary Testing of Multi-objective Optimisation Algorithms
0.9
0.8
0.7 Vxmax=2.0
0.6 Vymax=0.5
0.5 Vxmax=0.5
f2 0.4 Vymax=0.1
0.3 Vxmax=0.2
0.2 Vymax=0.05
0.1
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
f1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 MODE1
0.5
f2
0.4 MODE2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
f1
89
Appendix C Preliminary Testing of Multi-objective Optimisation Algorithms
− x x ≤1
f ( x ) = x − 2 1< x ≤ 3
4 − x 3< x ≤ 4
1
x − 4 x>4
f 2 ( x ) = ( x − 5) 2
The trade-off curve for this problem is not continuous over the problem domain. The
population size of MOPS, MODE and MAGA is set to 100. The total iteration number
is 200 for the first two algorithms and 631 for the last algorithm. Similarly, the number
Table C-2 and the performances of MOPS and MODE are shown in Figure C-3 and
Figure C-4.
90
Appendix C Preliminary Testing of Multi-objective Optimisation Algorithms
18.0
16.0
14.0 Vxmax=40.0
12.0
Vxmax=20.0
2
10.0
f Vxmax=10.0
8.0
6.0 Vxmax=5.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
f1
18
16
14
12
MODE1
10
f2
8
MODE2
6
4
2
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
f1
C.4 Summary
As seen from the above optimisation results, Vmax does influence the performance of
MOPS to a great extent. With small Vmax, MOPS is liable to be trapped into local
optima but can perform a fine grain search to improve upon the quality of obtained
91
Appendix C Preliminary Testing of Multi-objective Optimisation Algorithms
non-dominated solutions, which is obvious from Test 1. On the other hand, large value
of Vmax accelerates MOPS to search the whole feasible space but the interested area is
likely to be ignored.
In fact, any evolutionary algorithm faces with the same challenge of determining
appropriate parameter values to solve specific problem. As far as the two test problems
in this section concerned, MODE outperforms MOPS since the distribution rather than
and mutation operation, which may result in premature convergence. The search
procedures of MOPS and MODE, however, are guided by the compromise solutions so
92