Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149

Measurement placement for power system state estimation

using decomposition technique
Chawasak Rakpenthai a , Suttichai Premrudeepreechacharn b, ,
Sermsak Uatrongjit b , Neville R. Watson c
a North-Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50230, Thailand
b Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
c Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received 31 August 2004; received in revised form 25 November 2004; accepted 24 January 2005
Available online 7 April 2005

Abstract

This paper applies the concept of distributed processing to the problem of measurement placement for power system state estimation. The
proposed method uses the minimum condition number of the measurement matrix as a criterion in conjunction with sequential elimination to
reach the near optimal placement positions. Firstly, the entire network of the power system is decomposed into smaller sub-networks. Then,
in each sub-network, the optimal positions for measurement placement are determined by using the minimum condition number criteria. A
heuristic algorithm for reducing the number of placement sites is also presented in order to minimize the communication costs. The numerical
experimental results on the IEEE 14, 30, and 118 bus systems indicate that the proposed technique will provide a measurement matrix with
smaller condition number and the computation time is much shorter than the non-decomposition approach.
2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Measurement placement; Phasor measurement units; Decomposition technique; State estimation

1. Introduction [1,2]. Phasor measurement units (PMUs) are measuring de-

State estimation (SE) is an essential function in energy
management system for system security monitoring and the
control of power systems. SE is based on mathematical rela-
tion between system state variables and actual measurements.
Weighted least squares (WLS) method is generally used to
solve the state estimation problem [12]. For the conventional
state estimation, the measurement equations for bus voltage
magnitude, real power, and reactive power are non-linear.
The solution must be obtained through an iterative algorithm
as in the NewtonRaphson power-flow procedure. Recently,
phasor measurements are applied to the power system SE
Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 53 944140; fax: +66 53 221485.
E-mail addresses: chawasak@northcm.ac.th (C. Rakpenthai),
suttic@eng.cmu.ac.th (S. Premrudeepreechacharn),
sermsak@eng.cmu.ac.th (S. Uatrongjit), n.watson@elec.canterbury.ac.nz
(N.R. Watson).
vices that synchronize using synchronization signals from
global positioning system (GPS) satellite transmission. They
are employed to measure positive sequence voltage phasors
and current phasors. The PMUs are more accurate and also
can take measurements synchronously. Since the voltage and
current phasors are used, the state estimation equations be-
come linear and the solution can be obtained directly.
The purpose of measurement placement algorithm is to
find the optimal placement (numbers, types, and positions)
for measurement set [3,4]. The solution of measurement
placement problem of a large power system SE usually takes
long a time due to the computational burden. An optimal so-
lution is very difficult to find and verify. Moreover, due to the
large size of the problem the obtained measurement matrix
may become ill-conditioned and the computation speed and
performance are poor.
In practice, the large power system is split into small sub-
networks and each sub-network is managed by local control

0378-7796/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2005.01.002
42 C. Rakpenthai et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149
center (or individual company). The information of each sub-
network may be sent to the central control center that controls
these sub-networks [5]. An algorithm based on combining
the recursive quadratic programming with the dual method
[6] and the parallel processing algorithm [7] is developed to
solve WLS problem. The distributed state estimator based on
reduced model is presented in [8]. The distributed state esti-
mator based on Lagrange theory to solve large power system
SE problem is presented in [9]. These papers were intended to
show the improved robustness and computational efficiency
of the distributed state estimator. However, these papers do
not address the problem of where to install the measuring de-
vices. In this paper, the idea of decomposing the large power
system into small sub-networks is employed to help finding
a measurement placement set of a large power system SE
problem. By properly assigning the appropriate measuring
devices, the measurement matrix of each sub-network is de-
coupled. Hence, the placement algorithm can be applied to
each sub-network independently.
This paper is organized as follows. Firstly, a WLS state
estimation problem is briefly explained. Next, the proposed
measurement placement algorithm is described. The numeri-
cal experimental of the proposed algorithm is applied to find
the positions of measurement placement in three IEEE test
systems. The performances of the proposed algorithm are
illustrated and compared with the measurement placement
method based on minimum condition number [10]. Finally,
concluding comments are given.
2. Power system state estimation
The measurement model used in power system state esti-
mation is represented by:
z = [H]x + (1)
where z is a vector of measurement values obtained from
PMUs, x a vector of state variables to be estimated, [H] is a
measurement matrix, and is a measurement error vector.
The state estimation problem of a power system can be
considered as the following WLS optimization problem [12]:
Min J(x) = [z [H]x]T [R]1 [z [H]x] (2)
where [R] is called a measurement covariance matrix. Usu-
ally, the distribution of each measurement error is assumed to
be Gaussian noise with zero mean and independent; thus, [R]
becomes a diagonal matrix [20]. These weights are chosen
as proportional to the accuracy of measurement. Normally,
the covariance of the measurements are unknown and often
assumed to be an identity matrix since the same instrumenta-
tion is used to obtain them. The solution of Eq. (2), in WLS
sense, is obtained by
[[H]T [R]1 [H]]x = [[H]T [R]1 [H]]z (3)
In this paper, the voltage phasors at all busbars are chosen
as state variables, since they allow the branch currents, shunt
currents, and currents injected into the busbar to be deter-
mined. The measured values are the busbar voltage phasors,
the injection current phasors, and the line current phasors.
Based on these measured values, all possible relations of the
estimated state variable vector v and the measurement vector
z in the presence of measurement error can be expressed as,
zV [I] [0]   V
vM
z =
I IM ]
[Y [Y IC ] + I (4)
vC
zL [Y LM ] [Y LC ] L
where [I] is an identity matrix, zV , zI , and zL are the mea-
sured values of the busbar voltage, the injection current, and
the line current sub-vectors, respectively, [YIM ] and [YIC ] are
the bus admittance sub-matrix of the measured and the cal-
culated busbar voltage related to zI , respectively, [YLM ] and
[YLC ] are the bus admittance sub-matrix of the measured and
the calculated busbar voltage related to zL , respectively, vM
and vC the measured and the calculated busbar voltage sub-
vectors, respectively, and V , I , and L are the corresponding
measurement noise sub-vectors.
Eq. (4) indicates all possible relationships between the
measured values and the estimated state variables. In practi-
cal, the measuring devices will not be placed at all possible
positions because of economical reasons. Thus, it is neces-
sary to find an appropriate measurement placement position
set such that all state variables under considerate conditions
can still be estimated with minimum number of measuring
devices.
3. Proposed measurement placement algorithm
3.1. Decomposition technique
Let us assume that the entire network under considera-
tion is decomposed in r non-overlapping observable sub-
networks. Each sub-network consists of internal buses, which
are adjacent to branches belonging only to this sub-network,
and boundary buses. These buses are connected to other sub-
networks by tie-lines. For example, decomposition of a net-
work into four non-overlapping sub-networks is shown in
Fig. 1. To obtain decoupled state estimation equations of
these sub-networks, constraints of measurement placement
are as follows:
(1) There is no injection current measurement at the bound-
ary bus.
(2) There is no line current measurement on the tie-line.
(3) Each sub-network has at least one busbar voltage mea-
suring device.
Based on the above conditions, parameters of the tie-lines
do not appear in the estimation equations and the measure-
ment model of the power system state estimation can be
 C. Rakpenthai et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149 43

this work, the proposed method in [10] is applied to this task

because of its simplicity. The optimal measurement place-
ment of each sub-network is selected independently to ob-
tain completely determined condition [5], i.e. the number of
measurements is equal to the number of state variables. It
should be noted that with this method even if the tie-line are
out of service, the values of the state variables can still be
estimated. In addition, if some sub-network is unobservable,
the singular value decomposition (SVD) approach may be
used to solve this partially observable network [17]. How-
ever, SVD approach is significantly slower than solving by
the normal equations and requires more storage.

3.2. Reduction of placement sites

Fig. 1. Decomposition of a network into four non-overlapping sub- Practically, the measuring devices will be installed at the
networks. buses representing power system substations. The measured
data are exchanged and synchronized to the central control
written as, center through GPS satellite or optical fiber channels. This
process requires extensive communication equipment. Thus,
z1 [H 1 ] [0] v1 1 it is important to minimize the number of placement sites in
z v
2 [H 2 ] 2 2 order to reduce the communication costs. It is noticed that
= + (5)
.. .. .. .. although the line current measuring device installed close to
. . . . one site is moved to the other site of the branch, the condition
zr [0] [H r ] vr r number of the measurement matrix did not change. However,
the bus voltage and the injection current measuring devices
where zi , vi , and Hi denote the measurement vector, the state cannot be moved from its original position. Thus, the mea-
variable vector, and the measurement matrix of the ith sub- surement placement obtained from the minimum condition
network, respectively. i represents the measurement error number criteria can be rearranged to minimize the number of
vector related to zi . These zi , vi , Hi , and i are formulated placement sites by the following heuristic algorithm:
according to Eq. (4) for the ith sub-network.
Step 1. Based on the placement position list obtained from
In Eq. (5), it can be noticed that there is no coupling be-
the measurement placement algorithm, determine the bus
tween sub-networks. Thus, there is no need to interchange
where either an injection current or a busbar voltage measur-
the measurement or state vector between them. Moreover,
ing device is installed. These buses are called major buses.
the state variables of each sub-network can be estimated inde-
Other buses are called minor buses.
pendently. Since the size of the sub-network is smaller, deter-
mining an optimal measurement placement can be performed Step 2. If there is a line current measuring device on the
with less computation efforts using either the minimum con- branch connected to the major buses, the device is moved
dition number criteria [10] or other approaches [1416]. In close to the major buses.

Fig. 2. Six-bus power system (a) before reduce site and (b) after reduce site.
44 C. Rakpenthai et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149

Step 3. From the branches with line current measuring de-
vices which are not connected to major buses, determine the
minor bus with the maximum connection number of those
branches which have line current measurements. Then, the
line current measuring device on the connected branches is
moved close to the selected bus. Note that this minor bus will
not be considered again in the next iteration.
Step 4. Repeat Step 3 until the maximum connection num-
ber of line current measuring branches equals to one.
Example. The six-bus power system is shown in Fig. 2(a)
in which there are five placement sites.
4. Results and discussions
In this section, the proposed algorithm is applied to the
IEEE test systems under balanced conditions in which single-
phase representation is adequate. The results are compared
with the proposed method in [10] called Madtharads algo-
rithm. The true state of the network is computed by using
power-flow calculation. It is assumed that the suitable mea-
surement equipment capable taking synchronized measure-
ments are available. The covariance of the measurements is
assumed to be an identity matrix. The program has been de-
veloped using MATLAB and the tests have been performed
on Intel Celeron 2.2 GHz 256 MB PC.

Step 1: Determine the major buses and minor buses.

From To Measurement type Bus type

1 Busbar voltage Major
2 4 Line current Minor
3 1 Line current Minor
3 2 Line current Minor
5 6 Line current Minor
6 2 Line current Minor

Step 2: Move devices close to major buses.

From To Measurement type Bus type

1 Busbar voltage Major
2 4 Line current Minor
1 3 Line current Minor
3 2 Line current Minor
5 6 Line current Minor
6 2 Line current Minor

Step 3: Considering only bold numbers, it can be seen that

the bus no. 2 has the maximum connection number of three
since it is connected to bus nos. 3, 4, and 6. Thus, the bus
no. 2 will be chosen in this iteration.
From To Measurement type Bus type
1 Busbar voltage Major
2 4 Line current Minor
1 3 Line current Minor
3 2 Line current Minor
5 6 Line current Minor
6 2 Line current Minor

Then, move the device close to bus no. 2.

From To Measurement type Bus type

1 Busbar voltage Major
2 4 Line current Minor
1 3 Line current Minor
2 3 Line current Minor
5 6 Line current Minor
2 6 Line current Minor

Step 4: After moving the device, bus nos. 5 and 6 have

the connection number of one. Thus, iteration procedure
is stopped and the placement positions of six-bus power
system become as shown in Fig. 2(b). Notice that the number Fig. 3. IEEE 14 bus system and associated measurement set obtained from
of placement sites reduces to three. (a) Madtharads algorithm and (b) the proposed algorithm.
 C. Rakpenthai et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149 45

Table 1
Internal buses, boundary buses, and slack bus of each sub-network in the IEEE test systems
System Sub-network Buses in sub-network Internal buses Boundary buses Slack bus
IEEE 14 bus 1 13, 5 1 2, 3, 5 1
2 4, 79 7, 8 4, 9 8
3 6, 1014 1113 6, 10, 14 6
IEEE 30 bus 1 19, 11, 28 13, 5, 7, 8, 11 4, 6, 9, 28 1
2 1219, 23 1316, 18 12, 17, 19, 23 13
3 10, 2022, 2427, 29, 30 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30 10, 20, 24, 27 22
IEEE 118 bus 1 118, 31, 33, 3537, 113, 117 17, 914, 16, 18, 33, 35, 113, 8, 15, 17, 18, 31, 36, 37, 113 1
117
2 6871, 7390, 97, 116, 118 7379, 81, 8388, 116, 118 6871, 80, 82, 89, 90, 97 116
3 1930, 32, 34, 38, 43, 44, 65, 2023, 2528, 43, 114, 115 19, 24, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38, 44, 32
66, 72, 114, 115 65, 66, 72
4 3942, 4564, 67 41, 42, 46, 48, 5061, 63 39, 40, 45, 47, 49, 62, 64, 67 59
5 9196, 98112 9395, 100112 91, 92, 96, 98, 99 110

Table 2
The numerical experimental results of Madtharads algorithm
System Sub-network Number of Results
possible positions
Number of Number of placement sites Number of CPU time (s) Condition
measurement measurement number
positions Before reduce After reduce typesa
IEEE 14 bus None 57 14 9 8 3, 0, 11 1.14 22.00
IEEE 30 bus None 115 30 23 16 3, 8, 19 14.48 146.05
IEEE 118 bus None 481 118 98 88 4, 79, 35 b 1, 113.19
a For example, 3, 8, 19 indicate that the number of busbar voltage, injection current, and line current measurement types are 3, 8, and 19, respectively.
b Denotes 11,805.29 s or 3.28 h.

For the proposed algorithm, the entire network is appropri-
ately decomposed into many sub-networks and the slack bus
of each sub-network is chosen. The bus no. 1 is defined as the
global reference bus of the system; the slack bus of each sub-
network will be calculated by referencing to this reference
bus. After the measurement placement of each sub-network is
performed based on the minimum condition number criteria,
the number of placement sites is reduced using the outlined
heuristic algorithm.
For the Madtharads algorithm, which considers the entire
network, the busbar voltage measurements are the same as
in the proposed algorithm. And the reduction of the place-
ment sites is also performed after the placement positions are
determined.

Table 3
The numerical experimental results of the proposed algorithm
System Sub-network Number of Results
possible positions
Number of Number of placement sites Number of CPU time (s) Condition
measurement measurement number
positions Before reduce After reduce typesa
IEEE 14 bus 1 10 4 4 2 1, 0, 3 0.03 19.23
2 11 4 2 2 1, 0, 3 0.02 18.96
3 16 6 4 3 1, 0, 5 0.04 20.72
IEEE 30 bus 1 34 11 8 6 1, 0, 10 0.34 82.58
2 24 9 6 5 1, 0, 8 0.12 34.83
3 29 10 8 5 1, 1, 8 0.20 59.21
IEEE 118 bus 1 78 25 18 12 1, 6, 18 4.37 681.46
2 81 25 18 14 1, 8, 16 4.94 654.98
3 58 22 16 12 1, 2, 19 1.66 196.40
4 90 25 17 13 1, 8, 16 6.11 548.84
5 75 21 13 9 1, 1, 19 3.19 127.10
a For example, 1, 1, 8 indicate that the number of busbar voltage, injection current, and line current measurement types are 1, 1, and 8, respectively.
46 C. Rakpenthai et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149

Table 4
Measurement placement of Madtharads algorithm
System Busbar voltage at bus Injection current at bus Line currenta
IEEE 14 bus 1, 6, 8 None (1, 5), (3, 2), (4, 7), (4, 9), (5, 2), (6, 12), (8, 7), (9, 14), (11, 6), (11,
10), (13, 12)
IEEE 30 bus 1, 13, 22 1, 5, 12, 14, 15, 16, 27, 30 (1, 2), (5, 2), (6, 2), (6, 8), (6, 9), (6, 28), (10, 17), (10, 20), (10, 21),
(11, 9), (12, 4), (13, 12), (15, 12), (19, 18), (19, 20), (24, 23), (26,
25), (27, 28), (27, 29)
IEEE 118 bus 1, 59, 110, 116 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, (8, 5), (9, 8), (11, 4), (17, 15), (17, 30), (17, 31), (17, 113), (18, 17),
1519, 2125, 2729, 32, 33, (19, 20), (25, 26), (32, 114), (34, 36), (35, 37), (38, 37), (38, 65), (49,
38, 4052, 63, 66, 6972, 54), (50, 49), (51, 49), (51, 58), (59, 55), (59, 56), (59, 63), (61, 60),
7476, 7984, 8697, 99107, (61, 64), (65, 68), (66, 49), (66, 62), (66, 67), (69, 68), (71, 70), (80,
110112, 115, 117, 118 77), (80, 79), (80, 98), (81, 68), (105, 108)
a For example, (1, 5) represents the line current measuring device on the branch connecting bus nos. 1 and 5 (I15 ).

The IEEE 14 bus system is a small system and can be
decomposed to three observable sub-networks. The IEEE 30
and 118 bus systems are decomposed based on the method
in [18] to three and five sub-networks, respectively. Table 1
shows the internal buses, the boundary buses and the slack
bus of each sub-network. The numerical experimental results
of the Madtharads algorithm and the proposed algorithm are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. In these tables,
the CPU time indicates the computational time for solving
the measurement placement algorithm, not including the re-
duction of placement sites in order to compare both algo-
rithms. Notice that the CPU time of the proposed algorithm is
shorter than Madtharads algorithm, especially for the large
power system. The condition numbers of the measurement
matrices of all sub-networks are less than that obtained from
Madtharads algorithm. The number of placement sites is re-
duced when the heuristic reduction algorithm is applied for
most cases. In addition, by this decomposition technique,
the state estimation can be performed in parallel. The mea-
surement placements of the Madtharads algorithm and the
proposed algorithm for all IEEE test systems are shown in
Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate the IEEE
test systems and the associated measurement set from the pro-
posed algorithm in case of the IEEE 14 and 30 bus systems,
respectively. The figure for the case of IEEE 118 bus can be
likewise obtained with both cases using results in Table 5.

Table 5
Measurement placement of the proposed algorithm
System Sub-network Busbar voltage at bus Injection current at bus Line currenta
IEEE 14 bus 1 1 None (1, 5), (2, 3), (2, 5)
2 8 None (4, 7), (4, 9), (8, 7)
3 6 None (6, 11), (6, 12), (11, 10), (13, 12), (13, 14)
IEEE 30 bus 1 1 None (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 4), (2, 5), (2, 6), (6, 9), (6, 28), (7, 5), (8, 28),
(11, 9)
2 13 None (12, 14), (12, 16), (13, 12), (15, 14), (15, 23), (15, 18), (17,
16), (19, 18)
3 22 30 (10, 20), (10, 21), (22, 10), (22, 24), (25, 24), (25, 26), (25,
27), (29, 27)
IEEE 118 bus 1 1 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 35 (5, 6), (5, 8), (7, 6), (9, 8), (11, 5), (11, 13), (12, 7), (12, 14),
(12, 16), (12, 117), (15, 14), (15, 33), (17, 16), (17, 18), (17,
31), (17, 113), (35, 37), (37, 33)
2 116 74, 75, 81, 8386, 118 (71, 70), (71, 73), (75, 69), (75, 74), (77, 69), (77, 80), (77,
82), (79, 78), (79, 80), (80, 97), (81, 68), (81, 80),
3 32 20, 43 (83, 82), (85, 88), (89, 88), (89, 90), (19, 34), (20, 21), (22,
21), (23, 22), (23, 24), (23, 25), (24, 72), (26, 25), (26, 30),
(27, 28), (27, 115), (29, 28), (32, 23), (32, 27), (32, 114), (38,
30), (38, 65), (43, 34), (66, 65)
4 59 41, 42, 46, 48, 51, 57, 59, 63 (40, 39), (42, 49), (46, 47), (48, 49), (51, 58), (54, 49), (54,
53), (57, 56), (58, 56), (59, 54), (59, 55), (59, 56), (59, 63),
(62, 60), (62, 67), (64, 61)
5 110 107 (92, 91), (92, 93), (94, 93), (96, 95), (94, 96), (100, 92), (100,
98), (100, 99), (100, 101), (100, 104), (102, 101), (103, 104),
(103, 105), (107, 105), (108, 105), (110, 103), (110, 109),
(110, 111), (110, 112)
a For example, (2, 3) represents the line current measuring device on the branch connecting bus nos. 2 and 3 (I23 ).
 C. Rakpenthai et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149
Fig. 4. IEEE 30 bus system and associated measurement set obtained from the proposed algorithm.
Each sub-network is connected together through the
tie-lines. With the placement position obtained from the
proposed algorithm, the power system can still be observ-
able although any tie-line is outage. On the contrary, with
the placement obtained from Madtharads algorithm, the en-
tire network may become unobservable if some measuring
devices are installed on these tie-lines since these measur-
ing devices are lost when they are out of service. For ex-
ample, according to the placement positions obtained from
Madtharads algorithm shown in Fig. 3(a), if the line (914) is
outage the network becomes completely unobservable since
the line current measurement (I914 ) is lost. However, for the
placement positions obtained from the proposed algorithm as
shown in Fig. 3(b), the network can still be observable under
the same outage condition.
The effect of gross error condition is performed for the
proposed algorithm and the results are compared to the
Madtharads algorithm. Table 6 illustrates the error in the
magnitude and the angle of bus voltages when the gross error
is occurred. For the proposed algorithm, since the error is not
propagated into other sub-networks, the estimated values of
those sub-networks are still the true solution. On the other
47
hand, for the Madtharads algorithm the error may affect the
system globally.
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
algorithm, the proposed approach is compared with one of the
well-known methods [19]. In [19], the concept of spanning
tree has been applied to obtain a fully observable measure-
ments set. Then, the number of placement sites is minimized
by using the modified bisection search combined with the
simulated annealing-based method. The result of IEEE 14
bus system by this method has three placement sites, at bus
nos. 2, 6, and 9. Each placement site consists of one injec-
tion measurement and four flow measurements. A current
pseudo-measurement is installed at bus no. 7. Thus, network
observability is obtained by 15 measurements and 1 pseudo-
measurement. The condition number of measurement matrix
of this result is 7.5 1016 . Comparison of the placement re-
sults obtained by both methods is summarized in Table 7.
Note that although the method in [19] gives smaller num-
ber of placement sites, the condition number of the mea-
surement matrix is much higher than the proposed method.
Thus, the precision of the estimated states tends to be less
accurate.
48 C. Rakpenthai et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149

Table 6 gorithm finds an optimal measurement placement based on

Percentage of bus voltage error when there is gross error of +50% on I1312 minimum condition number criterion of each sub-network.
(in case of the IEEE 30 bus system)
Since the problem size is smaller, this decomposition im-
Bus Proposed algorithm Madtharads algorithm proves the computational time required to obtain types and
Magnitude Angle Magnitude Angle positions of the available measurement compared to the pre-
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 viously proposed method with considering the whole net-
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 work. From the numerical experimental, the decomposition
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 technique provides a promising strategy to solve the mea-
4 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.41 surement placement problem of a large power system state
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
estimation.
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 2.41 2.34
Acknowledgements
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.00 The authors would like to thank the Thailand Research
13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund (TRF) through the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program
14 0.66 0.04 0.66 0.04 for supporting this research. This paper was written when the
15 0.66 0.04 0.66 0.04
16 0.65 0.02 1.55 1.53
first author studied in Chiang Mai University.
17 0.66 0.04 2.43 2.31
18 0.66 0.06 2.46 2.13
19 0.67 0.07 2.47 2.09
20 0.00 0.00 2.46 2.14
References
21 0.00 0.00 2.45 2.24
22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 [1] R.O.J. Burnett, M.M. Butts, P.S. Sterlina, Power system applications
23 0.66 0.06 1.00 2.09 for phasor measurement units, IEEE Trans. Comput. Appl. Power 7
24 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.07 (1) (1994) 813.
25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 [2] T.W. Cease, B. Feldhaus, Real-time monitoring of the TVA power
26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 system, in: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE Computer Applications in
27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Power, vol. 7, No. 3, 1994, pp. 4751.
28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 [3] M.E. Baran, Z. Jinxiang, Z. Hongbo, K.E. Garren, A meter place-
29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ment method for state estimation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 10 (3)
30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1995) 17041710.
[4] M.K. Celik, W.-H.E. Liu, An incremental measurement placement
algorithm for state estimation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 10 (3) (1995)
16981703.
Table 7 [5] A.J. Wood, B.F. Wollenberg, Power Generation, Operation, and Con-
Comparison of results between the proposed algorithm and algorithm in [19] trol, second ed., Wiley, NY, 1996.
(in case of the IEEE 14 bus system) [6] S.Y. Lin, A distributed state estimator for electric power systems,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 7 (2) (1992) 551557.
Proposed algorithm Algorithm in [19]
[7] D.M. Falcao, F.F. Wu, L. Murphy, Parallel and distributed state es-
Number of measurement 14 15 timation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 10 (2) (1995) 724730.
Number of placement site 7 3 [8] G.N. Korres, G.C. Contaxis, Application of a reduced model to a
Measurement types distributed state estimator, in: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Power
Bus voltage at bus 1, 6, 8 None Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol. 3, 2000, pp. 9991004.
Injection currents at bus None 2, 6, 9 [9] R. Ebrahimian, R. Baldick, State estimation distributed processing,
Line currentsa (1, 5), (2, 3), (2, 5), (2, 1), (2, 3), (2, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15 (4) (2000) 12401246.
(4, 7), (4, 9), (8, 7), 4), (2, 5), (6, 5), [10] C. Madtharad, S. Premrudeepreechacharn, N.R. Watson, D. Saenrak,
(6, 11), (6, 12), (11, (6, 11), (6, 12), (6, Measurement placement method for power system state estimation,
10), (13, 12), (13, 13), (9, 4), (9, 7), in: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Power Engineering Society Gen-
14) (9, 10), (9, 14) eral Meeting, 2003, pp. 16291632.
Pseudo-measurements at bus None 7 [12] A. Monticelli, State Estimation in Electric Power Systems: A Gener-
alized Approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, 1999.
Condition number 23.56 7.5 1016 [14] C. Ki-Seon, S. Joong-Rin, H.H. Seung, Optimal placement of phasor
a For example, (2, 3) represents the line current measuring device on the measurement units with GPS receiver, in: Proceedings of the 2001
branch connecting bus nos. 2 and 3 (I23 ). IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol. 1, 2001, pp.
258262.
[15] B. Milosevic, M. Begovic, Nondominated sorting genetic algorithm
5. Conclusions for optimal phasor measurement placement, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
18 (1) (2003) 6975.
[16] G.M. Huang, L. Jiansheng, A. Abur, A heuristic approach for power
In this paper, the application of the distributed process- system measurement placement design, in: Proceedings of the 2003
ing SE to the problem of PMUs measurement placement for IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, vol. 3,
power system state estimation is presented. The proposed al- 2003, pp. 407410.
 C. Rakpenthai et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 75 (2005) 4149 49

[17] C. Madtharad, S. Premrudeepreechacharn, N.R. Watson, Power sys-
tem state estimation using singular value decomposition, Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 67 (2) (2003) 99107.
[18] I.O. Habiballah, M.R. Irving, Multipartitioning of power system state
estimation networks using simulated annealing, Electr. Power Syst.
Res. 34 (2) (1995) 117120.
[19] T.L. Baldwin, L. Mili, M.B. Boisen Jr., R. Adapa, Power system
observability with minimal phasor measurement placement, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 18 (2) (1993) 707715.
[20] J.J. Grainger, W.D. Stevenson Jr., Power System Analysis, McGraw-
Hill, Singapore, 1994.