On the impact of PMU placement on observability and cross-validation

Significant investments have been made into deploying phasor measurement units (PMUs) on electric power grids worldwide. PMUs allow the state of the power system - the voltage phasor of system buses and current phasors of all incident transmission lines - to be directly measured. In some cases, it is also possible to infer the voltage and current phasors at neighboring buses and lines. Because PMUs are expensive, it is typically not possible to deploy enough PMUs to observe all phasors in a grid network [3, 6]. In this paper, we prove the NP-Completeness of four problems relating to PMU placements at a subset of system buses to achieve different goals: FullObserve, MaxObserve, FullObserve-XV, and MaxObserve-XV. FullObserve considers the minimum number of PMUs needed to observe all nodes, while MaxObserve considers the maximum number of buses that can be observed with a given number of PMUs. While the first of these two has been considered in the past, our formulation here generalizes the systems being considered. Next, FullObserve-XV and MaxObserve-XV consider these two problems under the constraints that PMUs must be placed “close” to each other so their measurements can be cross-validated. FullObserve-XV considers observing the entire network, while MaxObserve-XV considers maximizing the number of observed buses under this new constraint. Motivated by their high complexity, for each problem we investigate the performance of a suitable greedy approximation algorithm for PMU placement. Through simulations, we compare the performance of these algorithms with the optimal placement of PMUs over several IEEE bus systems as well as over synthetic graphs. In our simulations these algorithms yield results that are close to optimal - for all four placement problems, the greedy algorithms yield, on average, a PMU placement that is within 97% of optimal.

[1]  David Lichtenstein,et al.  Planar Formulae and Their Uses , 1982, SIAM J. Comput..

[2]  Greg Welch,et al.  Observability and estimation uncertainty analysis for PMU placement alternatives , 2010, North American Power Symposium 2010.

[3]  R. Adapa,et al.  Phasor measurement placement for voltage stability analysis of power systems , 1990, 29th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[4]  James S. Thorp,et al.  Synchronized Phasor Measurement Applications in Power Systems , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid.

[5]  T. Baldwin,et al.  Power system observability with minimal phasor measurement placement , 1993 .

[6]  L Vanfretti,et al.  A Phasor-Data-Based State Estimator Incorporating Phase Bias Correction , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[7]  Ali Abur,et al.  Optimal Placement of Phasor Measurement Units for State Estimation , 2005 .

[8]  Ashkan Aazami,et al.  Approximation Algorithms and Hardness for Domination with Propagation , 2007, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[9]  Ashkan Aazami,et al.  Approximation Algorithms and Hardness for Domination with Propagation , 2009, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[10]  Lenwood S. Heath,et al.  The PMU Placement Problem , 2005, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[11]  A. Abur,et al.  Observability analysis and measurement placement for systems with PMUs , 2004, IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2004..

[12]  A. Abur,et al.  Placement of PMUs to Enable Bad Data Detection in State Estimation , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[13]  Michael A. Henning,et al.  Domination in Graphs Applied to Electric Power Networks , 2002, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[14]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .