Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
NOTATION
The notation used throughout this paper is reproduced below
for quick reference.
Sets:
Set of network buses.
Set of network lines.
Set of lines which would be unobservable when
line is out.
Small number.
Functions:
Objective function of the PMU placement
problem.
Observability function of bus .
Observability function of bus due to
non-synchronous measurements of bus
between buses
).
(or
2137
2138
This paper reports a modified multi-objective PMU placement method. First, worth of observability is calculated for a
set of PMUs in contingency, by ranking the prospective contingencies. As the most note-worthy contribution of this paper, the
prevalent PMU placement problem formulation is extended and
new concepts are considered, as for maximizing measurement
redundancy and observability valuation under contingencies, all
in presence of conventional measurements. The contingencies
considered in this paper include line outages and PMU losses.
Moreover, as the second contribution of this paper, the optimization problem is tackled by Cellular Learning Automata (CLA),
introducing new CLA local rules to enhance the optimization
process. Finally, the developed method is applied to the IEEE
standard test systems as well as the Iranian 230- and 400-kV
transmission network, followed by presenting the results and
comparing them to those of previous research.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
A. Mathematical Modeling
In this paper, the multi-objective PMU placement problem is
formulated as in (1)(12). Equation (1) represents the objective
function of the PMU placement problem, in which, the first term
represents total cost of PMUs installed throughout the network.
The second term represents a penalty factor for observability redundancies in normal operation; and the third and fourth terms
provide penalty functions for buses unobservability under contingencies. Finally, the fifth term is a penalty function which accounts for the network unobservability in normal operation. The
PMU placement problem constraints are represented in (2)(3).
While (2) assures that whole buses possess their least predefined redundancies, and (3) guarantees that total project cost is
less than the project budget:
(1)
Subject to:
(2)
(3)
where:
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
disturbances not to be observed in contingency situations. To resolve this issue, the researchers have solved the PMU placement
problem with respect to
contingency criterion [10][15].
This criterion guarantees that the system is observable under
single contingencies. Although the
criterion substantially improves the system reliability, it may be economically
inefficient as it proposes excessive PMUs, comparing to the situation without this criterion [14], [15]. Similarly, observability of
some lines may have little significance [19]. On the other hand,
from the technical point of view, the system operator may tend
to observe the current flows through a corridor in any situation,
thus need to consider higher orders of reliability like
and
so on. Therefore, it is not reasonable to limit the observability
level of such lines by
criterion [20], [21]. Addressing
these concerns is the motivation behind proposing the observability value in this work, i.e., the third and fourth terms of the
objective function.
Therefore, worth of observability in contingencies is evaluated and the PMU placement is conducted based upon an economic objective function. Third and fourth terms of (1) show
effects of PMU losses and line outages, respectively. It is assumed that a PMU is the main element for sensing a set of line
disturbances which are observed directly or by the aid of this
PMU. Therefore, it can be said that the PMU cost is depreciated to sense a set of disturbance during its lifecycle. Hence,
each disturbance has a monetary value like (8). Since some of
network disturbance may be missed without PMUs within contingencies, it would be economical to place a PMU at a bus, if
that helps a considerable number of disturbances to be sensed
in such situation. Thus the financial benefit of installing a PMU
is significant comparing to its cost.
Worth of un-sensed disturbances due to PMU losses and line
outages are formulated through (6) and (7), respectively. In (6),
the annual PMU outage time
is multiplied by the
set of disturbances which are not sensed during its outage time.
It should be noted that the set of disturbance that are sensed
directly or by the aid of PMU is calculated as
.
Since the cost of PMU is depreciated to observe these disturbances, (6) is able to calculate worth of disturbances which are
not sensed because of the PMU outages. In this equation, the
union
operator is used to represent the simultaneous occurrence of disturbances in contingencies.
A monetary factor for observability value of line is considered in the penalty function, to represent the criticality of the
line. A line may have strategic role regarding its usage, the path
which it construct, and so on. For instance, transmission lines
which export electrical energy between two countries or two regions might have more importance for the system operator. In
order to meet these constraints in the proposed penalty function,
, which shows the monetary factor for observability value of
line , is added to (6). The factor
can be set equal to 1 for
a simple network or when the actual value of
is not determined. However, if
is set to , the optimization algorithm
tries to find the PMU layout in which line shall be observed
under contingencies.
In (7), similar to (6), the annual line outage time
is multiplied by the set of disturbances which
are not sensed during its outage time. Worth of each distur-
2139
2140
Since (10)(12) are dependent, in order to calculate observability function for the entire buses of a network, a pseudo-repetitive procedure is conducted as follows:
using (13):
Step 1) Initialize for
(13)
(15)
other
Step 2) Calculate (12) for the entire network buses.
Step 3) Update
using (10)(11).
Step 4) Repeat steps (2)(3) until
all buses.
for
2141
Fig. 2. Neighboring lines of a CLA cell and CLA local rules. (a) First CLA local rule. (b) Second CLA local rule. (c) Third CLA local rule.
the
automata are as follows: As it is mathematically
proven that the
automata are -optimal [24], [25],
enlisting proper learning rate guarantees the achievement of the
optimal solutions [32]. Moreover, the significant performance
of the learning algorithms illustrated in (14)(15) for the
automata is reported in several studies [26][33].
Each automaton contains two allowed actions: expressing a
PMU to either be installed in the cell or not. Environmental
rule is defined based on (1) and all members of the set
are assumed as neighbors of the bus (CLA cell) . Local rules
which show local improvement of neighboring cells is achieved
by applying (1) to the set of neighboring buses and neighboring
lines which are defined as follows:
(16)
Neighboring lines for a simple case is shown in Fig. 2. Accordingly, in any iteration, CLA cells select proper actions based
on their actions probability vector. Then, the observability function is determined for all buses using (10)(12) in a pseudorepetitive procedure. Afterwards, objective function of the PMU
placement problem is calculated using (1). If the current CLA
status improved the objective function, the response sent from
the environment is positive and all the selected actions are primarily rewarded, otherwise penalized. Then, CLA local rules
are investigated for each cell using (1) and (16). According to
the local rules, the CLA cell is again rewarded or penalized. By
repeating the mentioned process for several times, the algorithm
converges to the optimal solution. In this paper, the CLA local
rules are defined as follows:
If the present action of a cell differs to that of the previous
one:
If the cell action differs to that of the previous actions of
some of its neighbors, and if at least one action among its
neighbors equals to that of the cell previous action, the
reward or penalty is based on local rule. Thus, if local
rule is improved, the cell action is rewarded, otherwise
penalized. This is schematically shown in Fig. 2(a).
If the cell action equals to that of all previous actions
of its neighbors, and if the number of neighbors which
have changed their action is more than those that have
not changed, the reward or penalty is based on local rule.
This is schematically shown in Fig. 2(b).
If the present action of a cell equals to the previous one:
2142
TABLE I
OBTAINED RESULTS OF THE PMU PLACEMENT FOR IEEE STANDARD TEST SYSTEMS
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF OBTAINED RESULTS BY SEVERAL METHODS FOR IEEE STANDARD TEST SYSTEMS
TABLE III
PMU PLACEMENT IN PRESENCE OF NON-SYNCHRONOUS CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENTS FOR IEEE 57-BUS TEST SYSTEM
execution times for test systems are 1.61, 19.19, 43.45, 337.09
and 1691.27 seconds, respectively.
The obtained results of [14] for 118-bus test system are better
than this paper proposed solutions in terms of minimization of
number of PMUs. Moreover, the results obtained in [14] are infeasible, as they cannot meet the topological observability of
the system due to buses 63 and 64 [15]. This part of the network
is shown in Fig. 3. In this figure, according to the results presented by [14], no PMU is installed in buses 59, 61, 63, 64 and
65; yet buses 59, 61 and 65 are observable due to the adjacent
PMUs or effects of zero-injection buses. Moreover, according to
[34], buses 63 and 64 are zero-injection buses. Since buses coinciding to an unobservable zero-injection bus (buses 63 or 64) are
not all observable, the zero-injection bus cannot be identified
as observable by applying the KCL at zero-injection bus [14].
Hence, the IEEE 118-bus test system cannot be completely observed using these PMUs formation. These authors have found
that the modeling proposed by [14] for zero-injection buses may
achieve infeasible solutions when two or more zero-injection
buses are connected together [15]. Accordingly, buses 13, 14
and 32 of the 39-bus test system reported in [14] are not topologically observable, while PMU can be installed in zero-injection
B. Second Scenario
In this scenario, effects of conventional measurements are investigated in various situations for the IEEE 57-bus test system
and obtained results are presented in Table III. As shown in
this table, while power injection measurements could reduce
the number of PMUs, average measurements redundancy is increased (3%). Besides, combination of power injection and current flow measurements has produced better solutions (10%).
Moreover, while effects of voltage measurements in a number
of PMUs are negligible for this case, they could properly improve measurement redundancies (9.5%). According to these
results, effects of non-synchronous conventional measurements
in PMU placement are non-negligible, but change according to
conventional measurement locations and situation of the zeroinjection buses.
The binary search algorithm that is proposed in [9] is implemented to solve the PMU placement problem in presence
of non-synchronous measurements. Obtained results of the
implemented direct search algorithm for the IEEE 57-bus test
systemwhich is achieved after approximately two hours of
computationare completely consistent with results presented
in Table III. Accordingly, the proposed observability function results appropriate solutions in presence of conventional
non-synchronous measurements.
2143
TABLE IV
PMU PLACEMENT UNDER SINGLE CONTINGENCY FOR IEEE 57-BUS TEST SYSTEM
TABLE V
PMU PLACEMENT CONSIDERING WORTH OF STATE ESTIMATION UNDER CONTINGENCIES FOR IEEE 57-BUS TEST SYSTEM
C. Third Scenario
In this scenario, PMU placement is conducted under single
contingencies including line outages and loss of PMUs [14]. In
order to meet the full observability under single line outages,
no line must be unobservable when a line is out. Hence, the set
of
in (7) should be null for the entire line outages, which
leads to
. To do so, the monetary factor of observability
value of each line is set equal to a very large number
.
By minimizing the objective function (1), the optimization algorithm tends to choose the layouts in which
to decrease the fitness level. In addition, since the algorithm does not
tackle with the PMU outages, the
is set equal to zero. Similarly, to meet the full observability under single loss of PMUs,
is set to zero and
. The mentioned model is conducted on the IEEE 57-bus test system and obtained results are
compared to those of [14]. As it can be seen in Table IV, the
total number of required PMUs under single contingencies is
reported, beside average measurement redundancies. As shown
in the first row of this table that the CLA solution requires 19
PMUs under single line outages which is the same as the result reported in [14] from the number of PMUs point of view.
However, the proposed algorithm has improved the measurement redundancy by 8% which demonstrates the performance
of the second term of (1). Moreover, the second row of Table IV
compares the CLA results with those of [14] under single loss
of PMUs. According to these results, while the CLA proposed a
solution with 25 PMUs, the associated result in [14] requires 26
PMUs. In addition, the CLA solution has better measurement redundancy (5%). Hence, the proposed model has achieved better
solution for single loss of PMUs which shows the quality of the
CLA algorithm form the optimization viewpoint. Moreover, the
comparisons presented in Tables II and IV illustrate that the proposed worth of state estimation formulated in (6) and (7) results
proper solutions under boundary conditions.
In order to investigate the PMU placement under the proposed contingency model, the problem is conducted for the
same test case and obtained results are presented in Table V.
For this reason, rate of line outages and rate of PMU losses are
set equal to 0.08 (fr/year/km) and 20 (fr/year), respectively.
In addition, average fault clearance time for lines and PMUs
2144
TABLE VI
OBTAINED RESULTS OF PMU PLACEMENT FOR THE IRANIAN 230- AND 400- KV TRANSMISSION NETWORK
TABLE VII
OBTAINED RESULTS OF PMU PLACEMENT FOR THE IRANIAN 230- AND 400-KV TRANSMISSION NETWORK UNDER VARIOUS WORTH OF CONTINGENCIES
Fig. 5. Trajectory of best solution for the BPSO, CLA, and GA.
TABLE VIII
RESULTS OF THE PROPOSED PMU PLACEMENT MODEL FOR THE IRANIAN
TRANSMISSION NETWORK USING EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS
optimal planning. Hence, the authors propose that PMU placement be studied in two phases for practical networks: In the first
phase, PMU placement by the proposed approach be investigated using
. Then, PMUs be installed throughout the
network considering results of the first phase. Afterwards, network disturbances are stored during state estimation for a period
of time. In the second phase, the problem would be conducted by
the proposed approach using actual worth of disturbances based
on obtained information of real operational periods. Final output
of the mentioned phases leads to a PMUs placement which has
optimal performance in both normal and contingency situations.
In order to investigate optimality of the CLA solutions for the
Iranian transmission grid, the proposed objective function of (1)
is minimized by means of a binary particle swarm optimization
2145
TABLE IX
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR DIFFERENT LEARNING RATES
TABLE X
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED CLA LOCAL RULES FOR THE IRANIAN 230- AND 400-KV TRANSMISSION NETWORK
VI. CONCLUSION
The multi-objective PMU placement problem was investigated as an optimization problem using CLA. The prevalent
PMU placement problem formulation is extended and new concepts of measurement redundancy and observability value in
contingencies were defined and added to the model. A new
observability function was proposed in which effects of conventional measurements and zero-injection buses were considered during a pseudo-repetitive process. Furthermore, effects of
conventional measurements on PMU placement were studied
in various situations. Finally, the problem was conducted for
the IEEE standard test systems as well as the Iranian 230- and
400-kV transmission network and compared to those of the previous research. The obtained results revealed that the proposed
approach can be used as an effective tool for optimal PMU
placement of a practical network under contingencies.
Further research may be conducted on preparing an integer
linear programming based formulation for the proposed objective function, and investigating the effects of installing redundant PMUs at a bus on the worth of observability in contingencies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Prof. M. R. Meybodi and
Dr. J. Akbari-Torkestani for their valuable help, comments, and
suggestions.
The insightful and constructive comments of the editors and
the anonymous refereesthat greatly improved the content and
presentation of this manuscriptare thankfully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] A. G. Phadke, Synchronized phasor measurements in power systems,
IEEE Comput. Appl. Power, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1015, Apr. 1993.
[2] A. Abur and A. G. Esposito, Power System State Estimation: Theory
and Implementation. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.
[3] A. S. Debs, Modern Power Systems Control and Operation. London,
U.K.: Kluwer, 1998.
[4] R. E. Wilson, Satellite synchronized measurements confirm power
equation, IEEE Potentials, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 2628, Apr. 1994.
[5] F. J. Marn, F. Garca-Lagos, G. Joya, and F. Sandoval, Genetic algorithms for optimal placement of phasor measurement units in electric
networks, Electron. Lett., vol. 39, no. 19, pp. 14031405, Sep. 2003.
[6] T. L. Baldwin, L. Mili, M. B. Boisen, and R. Adapa, Power system observability with minimal phasor measurement placement, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 707715, May 1993.
[7] F. Aminifar, C. Lucas, A. Khodaei, and M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, Optimal
placement of phasor measurement units using immunity genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 10141020, Jul.
2009.
[8] B. Milosevic and M. Begovic, Nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for optimal phasor measurement placement, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 6975, Feb. 2003.
[9] S. Chakrabarti and E. Kyriakides, Optimal placement of phasor measurement units for power system observability, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 14331440, Aug. 2008.
[10] S. Chakrabarti, E. Kyriakides, and D. G. Eliades, Placement of synchronized measurements for power system observability, IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1219, Jan. 2009.
[11] J. B. Gou, Generalized integer linear programming formulation for
optimal PMU placement, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 3, pp.
10991104, Aug. 2008.
[12] D. Dua, S. Dambhare, R. K. Gajbhiye, and S. A. Soman, Optimal
multistage scheduling of PMU placement: An ILP approach, IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 18121820, Oct. 2006.
[13] N. H. Abbasy and H. M. Ismail, A unified approach for the optimal
PMU location for power system state estimation, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 806813, May 2009.
[14] F. Aminifar, A. Khodaei, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Shahideh-pour,
Contingency-constrained PMU placement in power networks, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 516523, Feb. 2010.
[15] S. M. Mahaei and M. Tarafdar-Hagh, Minimizing the number of
PMUs and their optimal placement in power systems, Elect. Power
Syst. Res., vol. 83, pp. 6672, 2012.
2146