Advertisement

Enhancing observability in MILP-based optimal joint allocation of PMU channels and conventional measurements with new security concepts

  • Masoud Esmaili
  • Mohammad Ghamsari-Yazdel
  • Reza Sharifi
Original Paper

Abstract

Since buses in power systems have a different number of connected branches, they require Phasor Measurement Units (PMUs) with different number of measuring channels. In this paper, a multi-objective channel-based method is proposed for optimal allocation of PMU base units, PMU measuring channels, and Flow Measurements (FMs) for power system observability. The main objective function encompasses cost of PMU base units and their measuring channels as well as FMs. Unlike previous methods, PMU channels are modeled as binary optimization variables, the optimal assignment of which is decided by the optimization problem. Under this framework, a PMU assigns measuring channels to observe its adjacent buses only if they are economically justified. The second objective function maximizes measurement redundancy at selected buses in a more controlled way. For a more economical solution, existing FMs are employed as network resources along with placing new PMUs and FMs. Moreover, PMU failures and branch outages are modeled using a novel approach that is more cost-effective than existing methods. Furthermore, channel failure is also introduced and modeled as a new type of contingency. Results obtained from the proposed method clarify its efficiency from economic perspective.

Keywords

Phasor measurement unit PMU measuring channel Flow measurement Measurement redundancy Channel failure 

List of symbols

Sets

\( SB \)

Set of buses

\( SFM \)

Set of existing flow measurements

\( SB_{out}^{br} \)

Set of branches considered for outage

Parameters/constants

\( C_{PMU} \)

Unit cost for a base PMU

\( C_{ch} \)

Unit cost for a PMU measuring channel

\( C_{FM} \)

Unit cost for an FM

\( a_{ij} \)

Connectivity matrix binary entries: 1 if buses \( i \) and \( j \) are connected or if \( i = j \); otherwise 0

\( z_{i} \)

1 if bus \( i \) is a zero-injection bus, otherwise 0

\( \rho_{i} \)

1 if bus \( i \) has a conventional voltage measurement, otherwise 0

\( b_{ij} \)

1 if bus \( j \) is one of terminal buses in existing FM set \( i \), otherwise 0

\( y_{ij}^{0} \)

1 if there is an existing FM on branch \( ij \), otherwise 0

\( s_{i} \)

Significance of bus \( i \) for redundant observability

\( p_{i} \)

1 if bus \( i \) is connected to more than one ZIB, otherwise 0

\( \omega_{i} \)

Weighting factor of objective function \( i \)

\( F_{i}^{nadir} \), \( F_{i}^{ideal} \)

Nadir and ideal values for objective function \( i \)

Variables

\( f_{i} \)

Observability function of bus \( i \) provided from PMU channels or ZIB properties

\( g_{i} \)

Augmented observability function of bus \( i \) including FM observability

\( x_{i} \)

1 if a PMU is installed at bus \( i \), otherwise 0

\( x_{i}^{'} \)

1 if a secondary PMU is installed at bus \( i \), otherwise 0

\( ch_{ij} \)

1 if PMU at bus \( i \) assigns a voltage channel to observe its host bus (if \( i = j \)) or a current channel to observe its adjacent bus \( j \) across branch \( ij \), otherwise 0

\( ch_{ij}^{'} \)

Binary variable denoting measuring channels of secondary PMUs

\( y_{ij} \)

1 if a new FM is to be placed on branch \( ij \) to observe bus \( i \) through already observed bus \( j \), otherwise 0

\( u_{ij} \)

Auxiliary binary variable to handle ZIB property

\( q_{i} \)

Binary variable denoting buses that can have single observation in branch outages due to being connected to multiple zero injection buses

\( F_{i} \)

Objective function \( i \)

\( \mu_{i} \)

Fuzzy membership of objective function \( i \)

References

  1. 1.
    Aminifar, F., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., Shahidehpour, M., Khodaei, A.: Observability enhancement by optimal PMU placement considering random power system outages. Energy Syst. 2(1), 45–65 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-011-0025-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jamei, M., Scaglione, A., Roberts, C., Stewart, E., Peisert, S., McParland, C., McEachern, A.: Anomaly detection using optimally-placed μPMU sensors in distribution grids. IEEE Trans Power Syst 99, 1 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2017.2764882 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fan, N., Watson, J.-P.: On integer programming models for the multi-channel PMU placement problem and their solution. Energy Syst. 6(1), 1–19 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-014-0132-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aminifar, F., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., Safdarian, A., Shahidehpour, M.: Observability of hybrid AC/DC power systems with variable-cost PMUs. IEEE Trans. Power Del. 29(1), 345–352 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrd.2013.2264022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abiri, E., Rashidi, F., Niknam, T., Salehi, M.R.: Optimal PMU placement method for complete topological observability of power system under various contingencies. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 61, 585–593 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.03.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manousakis, N.M., Korres, G.N.: Optimal PMU placement for numerical observability considering fixed channel capacity—a semidefinite programming approach. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 31(4), 3328–3329 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2490599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manousakis, N., Korres, G.: Optimal allocation of PMUs in the presence of conventional measurements considering contingencies. IEEE Trans. Power Del. Early Access (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2016.2524658 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Azizi, S., Gharehpetian, G.B., Dobakhshari, A.S.: Optimal integration of phasor measurement units in power systems considering conventional measurements. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4(2), 1113–1121 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tsg.2012.2213279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koutsoukis, N.C., Manousakis, N.M., Georgilakis, P.S., Korres, G.N.: Numerical observability method for optimal phasor measurement units placement using recursive Tabu search method. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 7(4), 347–356 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2012.0377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahari, A., Seyedi, H.: Optimal PMU placement for power system observability using BICA considering measurement redundancy. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 103, 78–85 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2013.04.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mazhari, S.M., Monsef, H., Lesani, H., Fereidunian, A.: A multi-objective PMU placement method considering measurement redundancy and observability value under contingencies. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28(3), 2136–2146 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2012.2234147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, L., Sun, Y., Xu, J., Gao, W., Zhang, J., Wu, Z.: Optimal PMU placement considering controlled islanding of power system. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 29(2), 742–755 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2013.2285578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Esmaili, M.: Inclusive multi-objective PMU placement in power systems considering conventional measurements and contingencies. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.2099 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Esmaili, M., Gharani, K., Shayanfar, H.A.: Redundant observability PMU placement in the presence of flow measurements considering contingencies. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28(4), 3765–3773 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2013.2257883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, H.H., Castro, C.A.: Genetic algorithm-based phasor measurement unit placement method considering observability and security criteria. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 10(1), 270–280 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aminifar, F., Khodaei, A., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., Shahidehpour, M.: Contingency-constrained PMU placement in power networks. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 25(1), 516–523 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2009.2036470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramachandran, B., Thomas Bellarmine, G.: Improving observability using optimal placement of phasor measurement units. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 56, 55–63 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghamsari-Yazdel, M., Esmaili, M.: Reliability-based probabilistic optimal joint placement of PMUs and flow measurements. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 78, 857–863 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.11.106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kavasseri, R., Srinivasan, S.K.: Joint placement of phasor and power flow measurements for observability of power systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26(4), 1929–1936 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2011.2130544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kavasseri, R., Srinivasan, S.K.: Joint placement of phasor and conventional power flow measurements for fault observability of power systems. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 5(10), 1019–1024 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albuquerque, R.J., Paucar, V.L.: Evaluation of the PMUs measurement channels availability for observability analysis. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28(3), 2536–2544 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2013.2244620 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Esmaili, M., Ghamsari-Yazdel, M.: Voltage stability-constrained optimal simultaneous placement of PMUs and channels enhancing measurement reliability and redundancy. IEEE Power Energy Technol. Syst. J. 4(2), 32–39 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/JPETS.2017.2688020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cai, J.Y., Zhenyu, H., Hauer, J., Martin, K.: Current status and experience of WAMS implementation in North America. Paper presented at the Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exhibition: Asia and Pacific, 2005 IEEE/PES (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, (NERC): Real-time application of synchrophasors for improving reliability. http://www.nerc.com/docs/oc/rapirtf/RAPIR%20final%20101710.pdf (2010)
  25. 25.
    Pal, A., Sanchez-Ayala, G.A., Centeno, V.A., Thorp, J.S.: A PMU placement scheme ensuring real-time monitoring of critical buses of the network. IEEE Trans. Power Del. 29(2), 510–517 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrd.2013.2279172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zimmerman, R.D., Murillo-Sanchez, C.E., Thomas, R.J.: MATPOWER: steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power systems research and education. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26(1), 12–19 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2051168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosenthal, R.E.: General algebraic modeling system (GAMS) user guide. GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC, USA (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Azizi, S., Dobakhshari, A.S., Nezam Sarmadi, S.A., Ranjbar, A.M.: Optimal PMU placement by an equivalent linear formulation for exhaustive search. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 3(1), 174–182 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tsg.2011.2167163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Enshaee, A., Hooshmand, R.A., Fesharaki, F.H.: A new method for optimal placement of phasor measurement units to maintain full network observability under various contingencies. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 89, 1–10 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2012.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saha Roy, B.K., Sinha, A.K., Pradhan, A.K.: An optimal PMU placement technique for power system observability. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 42(1), 71–77 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringWest Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations