This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
10, October 1983
3473
THE SOLUTION OF ILLCONDITIONED POWER SYSTEM STATE ESTIMATION PROBLEMS VIA THE METHOD OF PETERS AND WILKINSON J. W. Gu, K. A. CLements, G. R. Krumpholz, P. W. Davis
Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, Massachusetts OL609
ABSTRACT Power system state estimation is usually formulated as a weighted leastsquares problem and solved iterativeLy by the normal equations method. The normal equations soluti on method is wellknown to exhi,bit a tendency to be numeri'cally unstable on some netA manifestation of this numerical instability works. is an iLlconditioned set of linear equations that are to be solved at each iterative step. Recent papers have presented orthog,onaL factorization methods as Experience shows, remedies for this ,instability'. however, that these methods tend to suffer'from excessive fillin when confronted with networks that have.a The redundancy. high measurement foLklore of powersystem state estimation says that large numbers of 'bus injection measurements (as opposed to line fLow measurements] tend, to aggrevate the instabi Lity; no however, has observation, explanation for th'is appeared in the Literature. This paper presents an analysis of the' sources of illconditioning in the power system state estimation problem and offers an alternative solution method, due to Peters and Wilkinson, that overcomes this illconditioning without losing matrix sparsity. I
reLiably and in realtime. The measurement model estimation is
y
=
for
power
system
state
h(x1
+
n,
(1)
where: y is the measurement vector, consisting of real and reactive line flow and bus injection power measurements and voltage magnitude measurements; x 'is the state vector of bus voltage angles and magnitudes; h(x1 is the nonlinear function that relates the states to the ideal measurements; and n is a vector of measurement errors. A state estimate x is sought that minimizes the cost function J =
(y.  h(x] T R 1 (y  htx] ],
(2]
where R1 is a diagonaL matrix whose nonzero entries the measurement This nonlinear are weights. leastsquares problem is usual ly solved iteratively as a sequence of Linear leastsquares problems. At each step of the iteration, a weighted Leastsquares 'solution to the fotlowing noisecorrupted system of Linear equations is sought:
y
=
INTRODUCTION
Hx
+
n.
(3)
The heart of the data processing activities of the modern electric utility energy control center is U sing both the power system state estimator. realtime measurements and an histo'rical date bass, the power system state estimator detects errors in the measurements and the data base and calculates an optimal estimate of the system state vector 'of bus This optimal state voltage magnitudes and angles. estimate and corrected data base is then used by the security. monitoring and operation and control functions of the center. Thecalculation of this vital weighted state estimate is usualLy formuLated as leastsquares problem, which is targe, sparse, and occasionally poorly conditioned. Equipment failures and switching operations affect the topology of the power system and the availabiLity ,of the measurements; consequently, the leastsquares problem to be solved ,by the state estimator changes during the course of system operation. The Leastsquares problem that is to be solved for a normal operating mode may be reLatively benign'; 'a faulted condition, however, may result in a poorly' conditioned leastsquares problem that is difficult to solve. If the data processing activities of'the control center are to be secure, the algorithm employed by the state estimator must, be fast and robust, so that a state estimate is calculated
a
In equation (3] y is now the measurement residual vector, the difference between the actual measurement vector and the value of h at the current iterate, x is the incremental change in the state, the difference between the next vaLue for the state estimate and the current iterate, and H is the Jacobian of h(x1 evaluated at the current iterate. The normal equations method calcuLates j by solving the linear system
[HTR HI" = [HTRI] X.
(4]
of'the 1983 Power Industry Computer 1983. Application Conference PICA
Record

This paper
was
published in the
IEEE Conference
The coefficient mat,rix in (4), [HTR H], is called the information matrix and is denoted by C. C is a symmetric matrix, which is positive definite when enough measurements are available, so that equation (4) may The difficulty be solved by Cholesky factorization. with this approach is that C may be an illconditioned matrix, and consequently, the calculated solution to (4) using finite precision arithmetic may differ considerably from the ideal soLution to (4] which could only be obtained if infinite precision arithmetic were avai lab le. SimoesCosta and Quintena [1,2] have proposed two orthogonal factorization methods that circumvent the These possibLy poorly conditioned equation (4). methods 'perform an orthogonal transformation on the measurement vector that', enable the leastsquares solution to (3] to be calculated by a backward substitution. Although SimoesCosta and Qluintana have reported favorable performance with their algorithms, such orthogonal factorization techniques tend to produce excessive fillin' in the matrices used in the calculation. This problem is especially severe for wellmeasured networks with a high degree of measurement redundancy. Another aspect of illconditioning in power system state estimation is how the condition of the information matri x is affected by measurement type.
00189510/83/10003473$01.00 © 1983 IEEE
For this speciaL case.nnv are the vectors of respective measurement noises (5]. It has.be computed cheapLy from the upper and lower triangular factors of A in this case [4]. As a result. The matrices HA. In addition.* = 1 if measurement i is either a line flow measulment on line j in the opposite direction of j or a bus injection measurement at the (1bus of line 0 if measurement i is not incident to j. for this phenomenon has not been offered. under certain conditions. is either a line flow measuremeAt on line j in the same di'rection as j or a bus injection measurement at the (+1bus of line j. The Decoupled Linear Model Analytical expressions for the . This method has the advantage that it can effect a compromise between the confLicting requirements of numerical stability and matrix sparsity. where: yp isthe vector of real power measurements. the linear leastsquares solution method of Peters and Wilkinson is applied to the power system state estimathe problem tion problem to overcome of illconditioning. 4A is the vector qf bus voltage angles. On the other hand. PetersWilkinson method is applied to power system . it hard to show that i A has columns &j. is . however. bus Voltage magnitudes equal to one and all bus vottages angles equal to zero and assuming that alt lines. A. a suitable numerical measure of matrix conditioning [3] is defined. This approximation resuLts from linearizing about the flat start of all. and a linear anaLysis of the condition of some simpLe measured networks is performed. the state estimator may fail to converge. J matrix. *x2 * lxnl (7) [HA (131 The norm of a square matrix A is defined as . (6] The most familiar vector norm is the Euclidean Length. Y. numerical analysts. to be solved for x. introduces the condition number of the information matri. (5) The condition number of a matrix provides an estimate of how much the uncertainty in the right hand side of Ax = b may be magnified in the solution for x: llAxIVhIxIl < cond(A) IlAbll/llbll.j O line j. = I if i is the (+1bus of linne j. yQ is the vector of reactive power measurements. used to derive cLosedform expressions The for the condition number of simple networks. Section II This paper has five sections. an estimate of the condition number can . AV is the vector of . HV may be written as: llxli = 'x11 + + . is (t) Computation of IIAII when A is .a large sparse sepn to.x as a measure of the illconditioning of.. Fortunately. A is the nodetobranch incidence matri x with the voltage measured bus chosen as reference. In this section. A is defined as folLows: choose an arbitrary direction for each of the lines of the network. then IIAIl = max IlaI.state estimation in Section III. HV assume particularly simple forms when the measurement set consists of paiired real and reactive measurements and one bus voltage magnitude measurement. so that each line has a plus (+1bus and a minus (1bus.This paper presents an analysis of the ilLconditioning that may occur in the normal equations method for power system state estimation using a decoupled linear approximation to (3].condition numbers of the .. is expensive in this case since A is usualty full. incident to Y is the diagonal branchtobranch matrix of line admittance magnitudes. °extremeLy illconditioned cases.n solvthe normal In ing equations. and n~p j. and M. = 0 if buJ i is not line j. Section V contains some concluding remarks.bus voltage magnitudes. IIAIl = max IlAx i.information matrices of simple measured networks may be obtained if the Jacobian matrix H of equation (3) is approximated by the block diagonal decoupLed linear modeL yp = l HAsA + F p (10) [ILLCONDITIONING IN THE NORMAL EQUATIONS STATE ESTIMATOR HV + [ l ] (11) The method most commonly employed in the solution of leastsquares problems is the normal equations technique which yields the square set of equations. M. been observed in power system state estimation problems that. II. The purpose of this section is to provide insight into the cause of illconditioning in more realistic networks.V is the v ector of voltage magnitude measurements. (4].I. = 1 if i is atie ()bus of line j. evaLuatine IIA 11. these equations are ilLconditioned [1. A decoupled linear approxiis mation to the state estimation equation (H presented and. Y (12) A. M is the power measurementtobranch incidence matri. A. Aj.as the product of the norm of A and the norm = cond(A IIAII IIA 11.3474 It has long been observed that a network with only line f Low measurements is reLatively benign and amenabLe to soLution by the normal equations approach (4).. when the L vector norm is used.x defined as M = 1 if measurement i. then.. HA may be wri tten as the product of three matrices: HA M VAT. x lixil = i. B. If it is further assumed that shunts to ground are negLigible.II and the PetersWilkinson method of Section III. however. A1. The Condition Number as a Measute of Numerical Instabi litv definvd of A The condition number of a square matrix.the state estimation p'roblem. longprecision arithmetic is usually employed i. The L1 norm of a vector x is defined to be: In equation (12). have a high X/R ratio. the presence of numerous bus power injection measurements tends to make the normaL equaAn explanation tions method increasingLy unstable. frequently work with the Li norm because it is more readi Ly computed. Section IV contains examples that illustrate both the analyses of Section .. be an inexpensive computation. is (8) not however. and.2].
becomes: then the information matrix. * 0 0 0 0 0 0 : (18) * Pi Ji ~P. if all branch admittance magnitudes are equal. then M in equation (12) is an identity matrix. with nodetobranch incidence matrix for this graph is given by 1 0 O 1 cond(HARp1HA) = 2n(n+1). the information matrix i sgiven by: 0 1 A = Lo (16) . (22) 0 1 1 0 a 001 001 OOj Equation (22) indicates that. Now it is not hard to show that the condition number of a block diagonal matrix of the form A = 1 2 3 3 * 1 2 3 4 9 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 ( 20) ( ( r/y2) 1 _ L 0 B (15) 2 3 4 23 4 2 3 4 has the same condition number as the block B: cond(A) = cond(B). Jacobian matrix H may be approximated as follows: H = the The inverse of this information matrix can citly determined. ConsequentLy. 0 '1 1j (y2/r) If the measurement set consists of real Line flow power measurements at every branch of the network. algebraic exercise atlows the + 0 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 pij and I. If it is again assumed that all line admittance magnitudes are equal and alL measurement weights are equal. approximate decoupled linear model (10] described in the previous section is used in the analysis. A. it is given by: C be expli HA ° ° HV (14) HTRp1HAI 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 * = where the matrix H has the convenient form of (12) and HV that of (13i.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O O . Consider a radiaL network containi'ng n+1 buses The nbyn bus 0 chosen as reference. The next subsection obtains analytical expressions for the condition number of [HTR"lHA] for simple radial networks. (21) Linear Analysis of Radial Networks Therefore. the condition number of [HARp HA] is: In order to provide some insight into the causes of numericaL illconditioning in power system state estimation. the L norm of this matrix is equal to the sum of the entries in its nt column: II[HTRp1HA 1 11 = (r/y2)n(n+1 )/2. where R is the matrix of weights of the real power measurements. the measurement set consisting of real power injections at nodes I through n is anaLyzed. equals the nodeto branch incidence matrix. . the condition numbe. (25) 0 (y2/r) . . Thus. 00 HARp: HA] = 0 . A tedious. HARp1 HA]. C. furthermore. (24) tHTR1HA ] = straightforward.0001 0 . HA. eqyaL (r. . for a radial network with a measurement set consisting solely of line fLow measuremen$s. (27) is IHTR1HA 11 = 4t y/r (19) and thus the condition number of [HARp1HA] . t4e qondition number of the entire information matrix [H R H] may b# approximated by the condition number of the matrix [HARp HA]. determination of P: [HTRp1HA] is denoted by P. then 0 5 4 1 4 6 4 1 1 4 6 4 0 1 4 6 . the condition numbers for information matrices of measured radial networks are analyzed The real power/angle portion. i 1 2 I The no m of P is obtained by summing the its nt column: of The L1 norm of this matrix is: IIP11 = (r/y2)n(n+1 t(5n2+5n+2)/24.. For this measurement set. increases as n Next. (23) HA = (yL) * AT p (17) 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 6 4 1 4 6 3 1 3 2 where YL is the branch admittance magnitude.n2 n2 n2 n2I n2 nI n1 n2 n1 n The elements of this matrix are aLL positive. of the information matrix. (26) entri es 1 . M. [HARp HA]. and the elements of the nt column are greater than or equal to the corresponding elements of the other columns. of the here. the Li norm of (HTRp1HAI is: IIHTR1HA 11 The inverse of but = 16(y2/r). = Ir/y2)(i/2)t(1i2)/3 n j(2nj+1)] i. In this case the measurementtobranch incidence matrix. Upon the further assumption that all measurement weights are = r). fjom1equations (19) and (21).3475 where * is an unspecified column vector..j i >j . thus..
The particular pivot chosen is determined by sparsity considerations. the stabiLity criterion is reLaxed choosing a pivot that satisfies the bound A = BC.ak the kt step of the factorization. U is an nbyn unit upper triangular matrix. Sparsitv Considerations (30) where A = R1/2H and b = R1/2 1. LI in the LDT decomposition. There are three stages in the PetersWiLkinson method at which the sparsity present in the original system may deteriorate. Form the 0obian matrix = R H[il and b = R and then HiA [yh(&(i))] form and x r1 z. Let i denote the iteration count. ignores sparsi ty. iB the need it is convenient to remove the weights from explicit consideration15 premultiplying both sides of the yielding equation by R Ax = b . and 3) in the Cholesky factorization of the matrix L L. PetersWilkinson method to power system state estimation results in the following algorithm. This method may be thought of as a change of coordinates in the state space. THE METHOD OF PETERS AND WILKINSON X = UIDIJLTL]LTb. for a radiaL network with a measurement set containing only bus number of i n{ec4ion measurements. the result is stilL a Leastsquares problem that is to be solved using the normal equations method: Z where u is a parameter in the range 0 to 1. Step 3. (32) Letting z = Cx equation (32) becomes Bz = b. It is seen from the above equation that.3476 (28) cond(HTRp1HA] = 2n(n+1)(5n2+5n+2)/3. culties of equation decomposition. where: Step 1. equation (30) becomes: BCx = b. The vaLue of the parameter u is chosen to effect a compromise between stabiLity and sparsity. From the point of view of stabiLity. 2) in forming the matrix L T. the pivot chosen at each stage is that diagonaL eLement with the Least number of ionzeros in its row. DescriDtion of the PetersWi lkinson Aloorithm IA3k) I = kk (29) max When considering the weighted leastsquares solution of the overdetermined set of linear equations Hx= . Alil is (36) a Step 2. Step 4. The Linear analysis of Section II is extended to the PetersWiLkinson method to demonstrate the improved problem conditioning that resuLts from this method. the element Akk that is selected as the pivot sati sfi es A. the element in the current row or column of the unfactorized part of the matrix which has the Largest absolute vaLue is the best choice of the pivot. L is an inbyn unit Lower trapezoidaL matrix (unit means with one's aLong the diagonaL). FTrm the symmetric positive definite matrix L (i)L(i) Factor LT(i)L(i) us+ng Cholesy deco0osition. To aLLeviate the numericaL difficuLties associated with calculating the least squares solution to equation (30). Then equation (34) becomes . 0 is an nbyn diagonal matrix. B and C are not unique. A nonzero eLement is chosen as pivot if the product of the number of other nonzeros in its row and the number of other nonzeros in its column is a minimum among those pQ. resuLting in L (i)L(i) = LtiMD(i)L ti). In order to preserve the sparsity. Peters and Wilkinson have suggested an alternative procedure to alLeviate the soLution diffiThey use the (4) [6]. the transformed leastsquares problem is betterconditioned than the original probLem. A convenient form of the factorization (32) triangular factorization which may be written as A = LDU . ~i (k) k< max kI. IAk I}. k to (39) preserve This choice. In the ChoLesky factorization. Factor A(i) decomposition A(i) with = the resulting trianguLar L[iMD(i)U(i1. the matrices With this factorization.~j. the condition [HARp HA] increases as n III. In the LDU decomby position. (33) The leastsquares solution is now obtained by minimizing IlBzbl 1. 'k max k. and x(i) the state estimate at iteration i. where: L is an nbyn unit Lower trianguLar matrix. (40) tric). [BTB1 BTb = (34) of the the In application summary. In such case.. of A. In general. D is an nbyn diagonal matrix.ssible pivot choices that satisfy the threshold criterion (40). (35) Hopefully. the factorization of equation (36) must employ some form of pivoting strategy to avoid zero pivots and improve numerical stability. (31) IAWkk > u max where B is an mbyn matrix with rank n and C is a nonsingular nbyn matrix. In general. The technique for effecting a compromise between the conflicting requirements of numericaL stability (good conditioning) and sparsity is described. however. or equivalently. column (since L L is symme ~~~k. = (37) C0o Lesky facto rization is used to decompose the matrix L L resulting in LTL L LT (38) This section describes the PetersWilkinson method E6] for soLving weighted leastsquares probLems.i. two procedures are employed: one in the LDU decomposition process and the other in the Cholesky factorization process.m (max IA5k) I.n kj IA(k) 11. (maxAik I.
L. computed condition number for radial networks of between of the 5 and 30 The performance buses. This section tests the theoretical analyses of Section II by comparing the theoreticaL condition number of the information matrix with the actual. 20. . . as the normal equations technique. save for scaling by yL2M/r). With a proper ordering of nodes and branches. In fig. The PetersWilkinson algorithm has been appLied to 5. . Hence for this case. sets are examined. RadiaL Networks If the pivot elements are chosen as the diagonal ments of HA. 1. loopfree network.3 pu). 2. tL LI is unaffected by a wide range of branch admittances. The first case examines the effect of the R/X ratio oi the condition number of the information matrix H H. growth is much milder than the n4 growth for the norThe condition number of mai equations technique.A with the result that the method of Peters and Wi lkinson yields the same equations.3 pu. The reactance of each line is kept constant at X = 0. The agreement is not quite as good for the bus injection case. . In contrast. The line resistance is set to zero for this case (X = 0. A is unit lower triangular. a onsequently. m Condition Number Improvement as a Result of Usina the PetersWi lkinson Alporithm The Linear analysis of Section IIC is applied to the method of Peters and Wilkinson in this section. then the Jacobian matrix.3 pu. the curves show that the condition number is only sLightly influenced by the R/X ratio of the transmission lines. the factors are D L = A an0 = Y. The preceding analysis extends directLy to any n+1 bus loopfree network with n real injection measnodetobranch If A is the (reduced) urements. A comparison of this growth with the n4 growth for the normal equations technique leads to the expectation that the method of Peters and Wilkinson should resuLt in much better conditioning on large reaListic electric power networks. is (42) ele HA = LDU. IV. the norm OfYTL is IILTLII = 4 (45) whi le the norm of [LTLfIn(n + is IILTLfIIl = 1)/2. the condition number for this case again increases as n In the case of an n+1 bus radial network with n real injection measurements. The line flow case has nearly perfect agreement between the theoretical and the computed condition numbers so that only one curve is pLotted. In fig. . The condition numbers in alL cases are computed at flat start. HA assumes the tridiagonal form 1 1 O O 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 . 2 1 1 2 HA Equations (45) and (46) reveal . H t to be factored by the PetersWiLkinson aLgorithm is [AYA J. Hence. much less rapid growth of condition number with system size and relative insensitivity to disparate branch admi ttances. . and IILTL i111 < n(n+13/2. not jusb as n This n for the radial string analyzed above.Step 5. The second case compares the resuLts of the theoreticaL linear analysis of Section II with the computed results for the actual nonlinear power equaBoth line flow and bus injection measurement tions. then the LDU factors are: 1 1 0 A. as n gets condition number of tL L] increases as n the Smaller condition numbers can be obtained if the pivoting strategy is changed as discussed in Section IIB. The actual data points are marked. equations (16J and (171 reveal that HA is lower trapezoidal matrix. these affect onLy the factor D. For the case of an n+1 bus radial network with real line fLow measurements at every branch of the network. incidence matrix and Y is the diagonal matrix of branch admittances. the The soLid curve shows and D is a diagonal matrix whose nonzero elements are y It can then be shown that. 0 1 0 0 1 1 O O O a a 0 L =1 0 L U 00 0 0 1 1 1j (44) 0 = LT . PetersWilkinson method is demonstrated on the radiaL networks and on the IEEE 30bus test system. HA = 1 YL) (41) L0 0 0 0 0 .10. Applying the PetersWi'lkinson factored into algorithm.hat. The line resistance is varied from 0 to 0. Consequently. The reaL power/angLe portion of the approximate decoupLed model is again used in the analysis. Continue this iterative process (Steps 15) until the absolute value of the difference between the consecutive increments of the state variables is less than a predetermined toLerance. the condition number of tLTL] grows for any injected.and 30bus radial networks in which the line impedances are all equal. in this case. COMPUTATIONAL EXAMPLES 3477 largE. where d is the maximum nodal degree. the condition number of the normal equations coefficient matrix for an injection Xeasurea radiaL string + ye if branch k has of n+1 buses grows like n admittance Yk and the other branch admittances are all unity [ Yk < 1 ) the that suggest These special cases PetersWilkinson algorithm wi ll offer two advantages. the results ilLustrate that the size of the network and/or the type of power measurement have a great infLuence on the condition number.the smooth curve is drawn from a cubic spline fit to the data. Compute the incremental change in x with one forward substitution and two backward substitutions. A straightforward analysis shows that IIL Ll < 2(1+d).
the actuaL points are marked.0 0.3 pu . 4. 0E+00 5 10 NO. 0E+02 1. the actual computed condition numbers are indicated by the broken curve. B Ly of equal theoretical value of the condition number. U. Both the PetersWilkinson and the conventional weighted leastsquares state estimation algorithms are applied to radial networks of 5. injections. 0. 0 I 1. and the smooth curve is drawn by means of a cubic spline interpo lation. the values of the weights of the measurements have been given a wide range. OE+02 o 1. the condition inequality (40]. Such a range may reasonably occur in the practical situation of a power system with a measurement set consisting actual. The pivot parameter u for this example is 1 . The condition number of the matrix HTH evaluated at flat start as a function of the number of buses of a radial network for the injectionsonly and line flowsonly measurement sets.LINE FLOW 1. 67 1.08 pu. NO. In general. in the matrices L. Had the parameter u been chosen less than or equal to 0. 0 100. In order to demonstrate the improvement in conditioning that results from this algorithm as compared to the conventional normaL equations method. = = 1. CONDITION NUMBER 1. 0E+06 1000. The PetersWilkinson algorithm has also been tested and compared with the conventional normal equations method (WLS) using the IEEE 30bus test system with the measurement set shown in fig. and 30 buses and measurement sets consisting sole agree perfectly. the measurement 1sigma errors range from 0. the theoretical and computed condition numbers cannot IEEE 30Bus Network Figure 3 demonstrates the improvement in the condition number of the Leastsquares problem that results from using the PetersWilkinson algorithm in a power system state estimator in place of the conventional algorithm. the results would have agreed almost exactly with the analysis of IIIC. the condition number is significantLy reduced (especially in the case of all bus injection measurements) compared with the radial case. D an. in the matrix L L and in the matrices L. The resistance of the lines is set to 0. and pseudo measurements. consequently. 00 1. Such a choice of weight for the voltage magnitude measurement is not possible in the bus injections case. the improvement in the problem conditioning that results from the PW method is considerable.) As the size of the network increases. 0EE+06 1. 20 30 OF BUSES Fi gure 2. (In both cases. OF BUSES A comparison of the condition numbers of the conventional WLS method (H] and the PW method (L) as a function of the number of buses of a radial network for the injectionsonly measurement set. The curve labeled H shows the condition number of the H H matrix of the conventional WLS method evaluated at flat start. virtual. 0E+04 10. whereas the actual nonlinsar case must include a voltage magnitude measurement in addition to the power measurements. 20. 0E+00 5 10 20 30 R/X Figure 1.0.1 pu.3478 CONDITION NUMBER A N N N 0 = CONDITION NUMBER 30 20 10 1. 0E+04 INJECTION . The theoretical analysis dealt exclusively wi.th the real power/angLe case.5. 0 0. Figure 3. Computer results also show that if the network is a loop. 10. ThT curve labeled L shows the condition number of the L L matrix of the PW method evaluated at flat start. the reactance. Thg curve for the PW method is somewhat better than the n growth predicted by the analysis of Section IIIC. A suitable choice of weight for this measurement allows the numerical values in the Jacobian at flat start to be the same as those used in the theoretical linear analysis for the line flow case.00004 to 0. and L are shown in Table 1 fpr difparameter u of ferent values of the pivoting In the same table. number of the matrix HTH and the number of nonzeros in . 33 IZ0. radial networks of a given size tend to be more poorly conditioned than comparable networks containing Loops. The condition number of the matrix LTL as well as the number of nonzero terms in the Jacobian matrix H. The condition number of the matrix HTH evaluated at flat start as a function of the R/X ratio for radial networks with N buses.
system with measurement u 1.465 * 1010 .189 * 354 Cond+tion Number af H H Cond tion Number of L L .151 * 354 726 105 109 Nonzeros in H Nonzeros in HTH Nonzeros in LWU Nonzeros in LTL 726 746 1406 726 579 1104 1130 4 726 726 462 998 462 812 848 4 497 834 874 4 Nonzeros in LTWLI 1408 1060 4 Number ot Iterations for Convergence Ot PetersWi Lki nson ALgorithm 4 Tab Le 1. IEEE 30bus test set.465 * 1010 0. .05 .465 * 1010 .465 * 0.0 .465 * 1010 .491 * 10 354 .5 10 0.01 .241 * 1 354 .3479 0 indicates bus number line number + miesan is a injection lineflow Ol indicates Figure 4.169 *10 354 .1 0. A comparison of condition numbers and nonzeros in the PetersWiLkinson algorithm with different vaLues of the parameter u when appLied to the IEEE 30bus systam.
8. pp 15341542. PAS. Clements. 01 0. [4] NUMBER OF NONZEROS 1500 AT 1250 [5] + [6] 1000 750 500 t G. Peters and J.1. PAS.W. PASIO0. No.A. 0 1 0.H. illconditioned systems. K. (3] J.A. the condition number decreases. Three of G. and P. Matrix Computations and Mathematical Software. promise of making the PetersWiLkinson power system state estimator a superior estimation technique for The appLication of large. pp 309316.H. the normal equations method does not converge to a solution. Krumpholz. 1 1. this method to such large systems is a topi'c for current research." problem Journal. 0E+00 40. express their appreciation to the National Science Foundation for their support of the research reported in this paper (NSF Grant ECS7808407]. as . Vol. state estimation. M. Computer Methods for Mathematica l Comgutations. The corresponding c4ange in the number of nonzero elements in the matrix L L is shown in fig." IEEE Trans. February 1981. 001 0.R. G. As u increases. August 1970. 1 u [2] A. G.B.H. 13. The condition number of the matrix LTL as a function of the pivoting parameter u. 4. Davis. 0 PARAMETER u Figure 6. Vol. No. "A numericaL technique for power system state estimation. pp 691698. CLements. Malcom.for improving the conditioning of the leastsquares problemthat is to be solved. No. In this case. The PetersWilkinson method is unique in that it allows a tradeoff to be selected between soLution storage requirements (sparsity) and numerical stabi liThis fLexibiLity has the ty (matrix conditioning). V. Moler. 1. PAS100. EngLewood CLiffs. and the number of nonzeros increases. CONDITION NUMBER 1. Quintana. Davis. New York: McGrawHill. Rice. PAS. "Power system observability: a practical algorithm using network topology. OE+04 1. PrenticeHaLl. Krumpholz. Quintana. the aLgorithm has good stability and the sparsity of the matrices remains cLose to that of the original information matrix.W.R." IEEE tiaL Vol.E. The number of nonzeros of the matrix LTL a function of the pivoting parameter u." IEEE Trans. 6. and P.01 0. 0.A.pivoting onLy for stability. Wilkinson. the authors.R.for analyzing the nature of illconditioning in the power system state estimation problem and a prectical tool .the PetersWilkinson method . OE+10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT K. PAS99. For this case. OE+02 1. This behavior corresponds to the Limiting cases u = 0 . able compromise vaLue of the parameter u is about 0. OE+08 1. 001 [1] REFERENCES robust A. No. "An orthogonal PARAMETER Figure 5. "The leastsquares and The Computer pseudoinverses.pivoting only for sparsity An acceptand u = I . 0E+06 1. Vol.  CONCLUSIONS This paper has presented both a theoretical tooL the decoupLed linear model . July/August 1980. 1981. Forsythe. August 1981. New Jersey: 1977. SimoesCosta and V. and C. 4. Figure 5 showy the change in the condition number of the matrix L L evaluated at a fLat start that resuLts from changes in the pivoting parameter u. row processing algorithm for power system sequenTrans. SimoesCosta and V. 2.3480 it are also Listed for comparison. pp 37913800.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.