© All Rights Reserved

17 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Basic Math Symbols
- Universal Scalable Matrix Multiplication
- Higher Mathematics for Engineering and Technology Problems and Solutions
- Advanced Excel Formulas
- EE602
- Matrix Ops
- Introduction to Matlab Mit
- Introduction to Matlab
- syllabus
- 3 Months Strategy
- Pure Pass) Syllabus
- Matrix Algebra
- Fast Fourier Transform
- Technique to Construct Trend Free Ffd Using Some Linear Codes
- tips for iit.doc
- Matrix
- 00975511
- 14-ME-98
- ty
- Syllabus IITJEE 2012

You are on page 1of 18

1. Department of Electrical Engineering

Stanford University, Stanford, CA

2. Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering, Stanford, CA

{raffisev, umnouyp}@stanford.edu

Abstract

The need for real time power system state estimation to be performed on a large

number of smart grid components make the use of distributed algorithms very attractive. This report explores the current state of the art of distributed power system state

estimation algorithms and evaluates their performance on multiple IEEE benchmark

transmission and distribution systems as well as randomly generated graphs.

Three

distributed estimation algorithms are evaluated in terms of convergence, communication cost, computational cost and robustness to communication errors for the IEEE 14

bus network. Analysis is also performed for convergence of one algorithm for a general

graph.

Introduction

Power system state estimation (PSSE) refers to obtaining the voltage phasors of all system buses at a given moment.

observations of the many power ows through the network, then performing an inference to

determine the underlying phasor values. In early days, PSSE was performed in a centralized

data processing center which aggregated all the observations and computed a global solution

for the entire network [8, 7]. However, there is a a move towards expansion of system sensing

capabilities as well higher rate of estimation making decentralized estimation very attractive.

Also, the new grid structure is open for two-way electricity ow and distributed generations

down to distribution level.

in a large scale where the centralized operations might not as eective. Distributed power

system state estimation algorithms allow system operators to deal with large scale problems

by dividing the measurements and buses into control areas. Each control area will collect

it's measurements, perform it's own state estimation and exchange information with other

control areas.

Recently proposed methods for solving for state estimates come from the sensor networking literature. [9, 4]. This report provides an experimental study for the use of these

two techniques. It also evaluates the performance of recent work in distributed sub gradient

based optimization [1]. The study divides into two parts. In the rst part, three algorithms

are implemented and their performance compared with a centralized estimator. Comparisons

are made in four performance indicators of interest: (1) convergence behavior, (2) computational complexity (3) communication cost and (4) local observability requirement. In the

second part, we analyze the performance of these techniques on dierent tree networks and

present an empirical model for one of the algorithms.

The centralized state estimation problem is the following: Given an underlying state of the

network

X = {(V0 ), (1 , V1 ), . . . (N , VN )}

at every bus except the reference, the state estimator will use a set of measurements of the

form

hk (X) + k

each measurement,

argmin

X

x.

2

M

X

zk hk (X)

k

k=1

(1)

For the sake of simplicity, we only consider power measurements for the entire system.

In the fully non linear AC power ow, a state estimator will receive the following sets of

measurements.

Real and reactive power injection at bus

Pi = Vi

(2)

(3)

jN (i)

Qi = V i

X

jN (i)

to bus

j.

Qij = Vi2 bij + Vi Vj ( gij sin(ij ) bij cos(ij ))

Where the line admittance of branch

(i, j)

is

and

(4)

(5)

ij = i j .

In this

paper, however we will solve the state estimation problem based on linearized DC power

ow. In linearized DC power ow, we assume rst that all bus voltage magnitudes are close

to 1.0 per unit. Next, that all the transmission lines are lossless and the nodal voltage phase

angle dierences are small. Applying these to the nonlinear measurements to eq. (2), (4) we

have the following equation relating bus angle and real bus injection and branch ow power.

Pi =

Bij (i j )

(6)

Pij = bij (i j )

(7)

jN (i)

The linearized measurement model allows us to represent the measurement set as well

as central estimator as a simple weighted least squares formulation. From the relations in

eq. (7), the measurement vector and system state vector are related by Z = HX + . Here

Z Rnobs is the column vector containing all bus injection and branch ow measurements

n nbus

is the matrix containing elements of eq. (7). From the

(M = nbus + nbranch ). H R obs

DC modeling assumptions the state vector only contains bus angles

now on, state variable

x = {1 . . . N }.

Fron

We can therefore

simplify eq. (1) to the following centralized weighted linear least squares estimate.

xc = (H T R1 H)1 H T R1 Z

(8)

Note that in order to be able to estimate the state vector, mbus must be at least N 1

rank(H T H) = nbus 1. To make the system of equation full rank, we assume that

and

the bus

is always the slack bus with phase angle zero. We solve for each angle relative to

0 , this leads to a reduced sensing matrix Hr Rnobs nbus 1 which is H but with the rst

column removed. We can apply eq. (8) with

Hr

[1 0 . . . N 0 ]T = (HrT R1 Hr )1 HrT R1 Z

(9)

State Estimation

Distributed algorithms for estimation work by splitting large problems into many locally

computable problems.

shown in Figure 1.

A decentralized

algorithms work by distributing the observations and computation into dierent domains.

Here, each area receives observations of variables local only to itself as well as variables

it shares with neighboring areas.

messages from it's neighbors to compute estimates of it's unknown variables and possibly the

unknown variables contained in other areas. Local observability of an area is an important

assumption in many distributed techniques. If an area is locally observable, then estimation

can occur without the rest of the network. Many early and heuristic methods required local

observability, however this is not required.

local observability. In the following sections we will introduce the various algorithms and

illustrate their behavior using the 14 bus network.

into dierent computational domains. Block markers on edges represents branch ow measurement. Circle markers on vertices represents bus injection measurement. Network contains 26 measurements and is overdetermined.

3.1

CSE

The algorithm introduced in [9] for use in the distributed power system state estimation

originates from work in distributed estimation in sensor networks [3].

builds an estimate of the entire state of the system. In each step, an area will compute a

local estimate of the global state, and then transmit the full estimate to all neighbors in it's

communication network. Note that in CSE, each area's state vector is the full set of unkown

variables.

estimate

xtk Rnbus

if

k

l Nk .

to area

at time

"

xt+1

= xtk a b

k

#

X

(

xtk xtl ) HnT (zn Hn xtk )

(10)

lNk

This method puts no limitations on the communication architecture required. That is

the structure of

Nk

term of eq. (10) does not involve any matrix inversion, the algorithm does not assume any

local observability. Therefore, it can be used in a fully decentralized manner, in that each

bus can be a computing area. However, is no implicit inversion, since the update term is

similar to a gradient ascent direction.

Analysis of the algorithm is based mainly on introducing an aggregate state

[

xT1 (i) . . . xTnarea (i)]T .

x(i) =

T

x)

x(i + 1) = (Inbus Inarea ab(L Inarea )x) DH (Z DH

(11)

necker product over matrices. IM represents an identity matrix in R

. Finally the matrix

Here

DH

is

H1T . . . 0

.

.

DH = ...

.

T

0 . . . HM

Note the similarity of the update step with that of recursive least squares lters in

With this, we can show that the error process evolves as.

(12)

ek+1 = (I Ak H)ek .

In the case

of the CSE algorithm, we can use a similar method to show that the error process evolves

T

as ek+1 = (IM N ab(L IM + DH DH ))ek . Like RLS lters, this technique has an associate

Riccatti equation relating error covariance as a function of iteration.

3.2

ADMM

The ADMM algorithm was rst introduced to power system state estimation in [4].

It

the global optimization problem that needs to be solved in eq. (1). We can decompose the

objective function into

min

x

s.t.

L

X

kzk Hxk k2

k=1

xk [l] = xkl ,

l Nk .

From this we can formulate the augmented Lagrangian for the system. This is given for

the problem as

=

nX

area

k=1

nX

area

"

#

kzk Hxk k2 +

T

vk,l

(xk [l] xkl ) + ckxk [l] xkl k2

lNk

(13)

k=1

The alternating direction term comes from the fact that the augmented Lagrangian in eq.

(16) is maximized by each area partially minimizing their local Lagrangian

xt+1

=

k

arg min

x

t

Lk ({xk }, {xtkl }, {vk,l

})

(14)

xt+1

=

kl

argmin

xkl

t

L({xt+1 }, {xkl }, {vk,l

})

(15)

t+1

vk,l

=

argmin

vk,l

L({xt+1 }, {xt+1

kl }, {vk,l })

(16)

Note that in ADMM, each area's state vector is the local set of unkown variables as well

as variables that eect the obsevations set in the area. For example, the state vector for area

4 and 5. As shown in [4] this reduces to the following set of recursions.

a function of bus

xt+1

= (HkT Hk + cDk )1 (HkT zk + cDk pk )

k

1 X r+1

xl [i]

st+1

=

kl

|Nki |

i

is

(17)

(18)

lNk

pt+1

k

prk (i)

sr+1

k

xrk + srk

(19)

(20)

i

corresponding to xk (i) dened for all l Nk . Nk is

th

dened as the set of all areas which share the i element of area k 's state vector (xk [i]). Dk is

i

a diagonal matrix with the (i, i) entry of |Nk |. With appropriate choice of c, for each control

r

area k, xk converges to the estimate of the subset of the whole system estimate. Combining

values from all areas, one can obtain the whole system estimate.

Here,

3.3

xl [i]

xl

In distributed dual averaging (DDA), estimates are constructed by each node calculating a

local estimate of the global subgradient and then sharing it with neighbors dened by a communication graph. In the case of the power system estimation problem, the communication

graph is independent of the topology of the power network as shown in 1. This makes DDA

similar to the CSE algorithm in that regard. Specically, we have a neighbor set

for each node

where

i V N (i) = {j V |(i, j) E}

The core algorithm dened for a general optimization problem is dened as the following.

For a given generic convex objective function of the form.

1X

fi (x)

n k=1

min

xX

t

t

node k V computes an element gk fk (xk ) the subdierential of the local function fk

t

and receives information about the parameters wk , j N (i). It updates it's estimate of the

t

solution xi based on a combination of the current subdierential and the messages from it's

neighbors, via a projection operation . The algorithm is therefore.

We must assume that

fi (x)

wkt+1 =

(21)

lN (k)

xt+1

k

= X (wit , (t))

(22)

(23)

is dened as.

X (z, )

= argmin

xX

1

< z, x > + (x)

(24)

Here is the proximal function, and in this study is set to the canonical proximal function

1

kxk22 as stated in [1].

2

In the case of distributed linear estimation for power system state estimation, the algoT 1

rithm reduces to the following. The objective function now is fk (x) = (zk Hk x) Rk (zk

1 T

Hk x) which gives us gk (t) = 2Hkt R1 (zk Hk x). Next, X (z, ) = argmin z T x + 2

x x .

xX

t+1

In an unconstrained case, the solution becomes xk

= t+1 zkt+1 . Since x [, ] we need

to constrain the update. The nal recursion becomes.

wi (t + 1) =

(25)

jN (i)

xi (t + 1) =

min

max

n

o o

t wi (t + 1),

,

4

4

(26)

The centralized and three distributed algorithms are numerically tested using MATLAB.

The power system used in the test is the IEEE 14-bus system which is shown in Figure

1. The associated admittance matrix and true underlying power states/measurements are

obtained using MATPOWER and veried with the benchmark source. In the IEEE 14-bus

grid, measurements sites and types are shown in the gure.

An abstraction of the buses, measurements and control areas is also shown in 1 The

four rectangles represent local control areas with a total of 23 measurements in p.u. where

boxes on an edge represents branch ow measurement. The redundancy ratio is 23/14=1.64

therefore, the system is very likely to have a unique solution. The communication between

the areas forms a fully connected graph.

4.1

noise.

MSE shown is between the current estimate and the underlying true power state.

In the preliminary test, we draw measurement values as appeared in the gure above

(IEEE 14-bus system) from true measurement values without adding simulating errors.

Hence, we expect all algorithms to give the true underlying power state as a solution. Here

we keep the iterations run until the dierence between any pair of the estimate and true

underlying value diers by less than a specied threshold. The results are shown in Figure

2.

xc

true underlying state vector obtained from MATPOWER. That means all pieces of

centralized algorithm and related information are consistent.

that the iterations terminated in

13, 626

a = 8e10

and

b = 1e10 , we found

area agree with true underlying state vector obtained from MATPOWER.

computed from formula discussed above, with extra tuning until

found that the algorithm terminated in

495, 536

0 = 2.66e10 as

N EW = 2000 ,

we

we

control area agree with true underlying state vector obtained from MATPOWER.

the iterations terminate in

34 iterations ,

c = 9,

we found that

after matching with true underlying state vector obtained from MATPOWER.

4.2

appeared above from IEEE 14-bus system with observation noise as well as communication

noise.

The convergence behavior is shown by calculating the error with respect to the

xc xrk k2 and the error to the true underlying

centralized solution x

c dened as erk,c = N1 k

1

r

r

state dened as ek,c =

k

xc xk k2 . Here is the size of vector . Note that we do not

N

use stopping criteria here in order to see the convergence behavior across large number of

iterations. The error curves obtained from the IEEE 14-bus network are shown below.

4.2.1

Figure 3: Performance three algorithms under only observation noise. Measurement noise

indicates values of

HIGH = 0.01

and

HIGH = 0.00001.

Convergence behavior for measurement noise only experiments is shown in Figure 3. In

term of convergence behavior, the ADMM algorithm is the most eective method.

The

convergence rate is high and the number of steps to reach the cut-o level is about 35

iterations, while other two methods require 3 or 4 more order of magnitude number of

iterations. Moreover, the convergence rate of the ADMM algorithm in terms of

be linear after reaching the cut-o level of

M SE .

ek,c

tends to

after reaching this cut-o level, while the dual averaging algorithm has very at convergence

rate long before reaching the cut-o level. It would be interesting to see why the convergence

behavior of the dual averaging algorithm has a sudden increase and then become at.

4.2.2

Figure 4:

HIGH = 0.01

and

HIGH = 0.001.

Measurement

We now simulate the three methods using perfect observations and having additive gaussian noise in the messages transmitted between the areas. The results are shown in Figure 4.

In term of convergence behavior, the ADMM algorithm is still most eective method since

for both low and high communication noise, there the MSE reaches the lowest point quickly.

It is interesting to note however, that when the technique is run for the same iterations as

DDA and CSE the accuracy tends to decrease. In these experiments we also see the benet of

decreasing step size in the estimate updates in that in the high noise, no measurement case,

when the iterations tend to innity, the DDA and CSE algorithms will have higher accuracy

since they weight down more recent messages as opposed to the standard ADMM which will

weigh it equally with previous estimates.

technique, messaging times are nite thus these techniques seem of only theoretical interest

for this application.

4.2.3

Here we simulate the three methods by having noise in the message as well as the observations. The results are shown in Figure 7. Using the same variances as in 4.2.3 and 4.2.3. We

only present cases where both are in low and high noise conditions. In the rst experiment

we see again, that given enough time, the CSE algorithm will outperform ADMM and DDA

in terms of forming consensus, however like in the other situations, ADMM performs many

orders of magnitude faster.

10

Figure 5:

HIGH = 0.01

and

HIGH = 0.001.

Measurement

and time for the three algorithms based on their formulation. To assess computation and

communication cost (time), we simulate measurements as appeared above from IEEE 14-bus

system with no noise in the experiment in 4.1. Here we will estimate computation cost and

communication cost (time) for the experiment and will extend it to general settings.

To measure the computational complexity, we count the number of basic mathematical

operations needed in the algorithm until the algorithm converges with criterion as set above.

Note that we assume there is no computational complexity for inverting

is diagonal.

since we assume

To measure the communication cost, we dene the maximum cost of sending one number

from a local control area to the central control center to be

clc

sending one number for a local control area to its neighbor local area to be

clcl .

We also

assume there is no communication cost to collect local measurements to local control areas.

Notice that the communication cost is proportional to the number and size of messages sent

during the algorithm.

Similarly, to measure the communication time, we dene the maximum time of sending

one number to for a local control area to the central control center to be

tll

, and the

maximum time of sending one number for a local control area to its neighbor local area to be

tll .

network. Notice that the communication time is not necessarily proportional to the number

and size of messages sent during the algorithm if there is not bandwidth congestion problem.

We also dene

approximate

Centralized algorithm:

11

2

matrix-vector multiplication: O(nbus narea + (nbus ) ).

Communication cost:

measurements to the central control area. Hence, the communication cost is bounded

above by:

O(mclcl )

O(tlc )

found that ni terate = 14184 for low observation noise. It would be interesting to nd a

complexity bound on the number of iterations required for a given epsilon of accuracy.

Computational complexity: There is no pre-operational computational complexity for

by matrix-vector multiplication and the summations with information from neighbors:

Communication cost: the communication cost here is the cost of sending whole vec-

tor

to the neighbors.

bounded above by

Communication time: the communication time is bounded above by

509334

O(niterate tll )

new = 2000

as

iterations.

matrix-vector multiplication and the summations with information from neighbors:

Communication cost: the communication cost here is the cost of sending whole vector

ADMM-based algorithm:

niterate = 33.

nated by the matrix-matrix multiplication and matrix inversion: O((narea )(maxi |zi |) +

(maxi |xi |)3 ). The operational complexity for each implementation is dominated by

Computational complexity:

Communication cost: The communication cost here is the cost of sending components

xrk

12

Computational Complexity

Algorithm

Centralized

CSE

DDA

ADMM

Pre-Operational

Operational

O(nbus M 2 + (nbus )3 )

0

0

O((narea )(maxi |zi |)2 + (maxi |xi |)3 )

O(nbus M + (nbus )2 )

O((narea )(niterate )(maxi |zi |) + (d)(nbus ))

O((narea )(niterate )(nb us)(maxi |zi |) + (d)(nbus ))

O((narea )(niterate )(maxi |xi |)(maxi |zi | + d))

Table 1: Computational complexity of three algorithms separate with pre-operational complexity and operational complexity.

Algorithm

Communication Cost

Communication Time

Centralized

O(mclcl )

O ((niterate )(d)(narea )(nbus ))

O((niterate )(d)(nbus )(narea )(cll ))

O(niterate )(d)(narea (maxi |xi |)clc + (narea )2 (maxi |xi |)

O(tlc )

O(niterate tll )

O((niterate )(tll ))

O(narea tll )

CSE

DDA

ADMM

by

the whole system state, it requires extra communication cost of sending incomplete

state information to all other control areas through local communication channels.

Only for this 4 control area system, with careful counting, we found that this extra

2

communication cost is bounded by O((narea ) (maxi |xi |). So the total communication

2

cost is O(niterate )(d)(narea (maxi |xi |)clc + (narea ) (maxi |xi |)

Communication time: The communication time is bounded by

O(narea tll ).

However,

to make every control area know the whole system state, it requires extra time to

send incomplete states information to all other control areas through local communication channels. This extra communication time is bounded by

communication cost is bounded by

O(narea tll ).

The total

O(narea tll )

The computational complexity and communication time/cost for each algorithm are in

Tables 5, 5, The table includes a numerical result from IEEE 14-bus system.

5.1

Discussion

are the best among four algorithms, while the centralized algorithms is the worst. This is

because the centralized algorithms require a big matrix inversion.

four algorithms, while the dual averaging algorithm is the worst. This is because the dual

averaging algorithm requires high number of iterations.

13

Once the pre-operational computation is done, the result can be stored and reused unless

there is any update in the system (e.g. a bus connection line is cut). The numerical result

here implies that, in term of overall computational complexity, the centralized algorithm is

more advantageous than the distributed algorithm. Among the distributed algorithms, the

ADMM algorithm is the best algorithm. In the general setting, especially when the problem

is large, the ADMM algorithm may be as good or better than the centralized algorithm if

niterate

is in the same order as the problem size. In, [4] for the larger problem, IEEE 118-bus

4

system, niterate does not grow as the problem size grows. The 118-bus system reaches 10

accuracy in

ek,c

after

10

clc cll

and

tlc tll .

clc cll

and

tlc tll .

Then, the

CSE and dual averaging algorithms has disadvantages due to large number of iterations and

large bits of messages.

We need a model

for relationship between local-to-local parameters and local-to-central parameters when the

problem is large as well as how in the ADMM algorithm relates to the problems size.

Roughly speaking, if the local-to-central parameters grow as fast as

niterate ,

the ADMM

Local Observability

T

In CSE no explicit inversion is taking place, therefore we do not require Hk Hk to be full

rank for all k . In [9] the authors illustrate numerically how lack of observability leads to

P T

the global solution. The CSE algorithm only requires global observability, that is

k Hk Hk

needs to be full rank. ADMM does not require local observability, since matrix inversion step

is being performed with psuedo measurments from it's neighbors. For the dual averaging

algorithm, this is a new result in which one may explore its mathematical proof.

Due to proliferation of sensing and computation capabilities on the distribution grid. Exploring the convergence properties of distributed estimation on tree like graphs seems and

interesting direction of study. We simulated the PSSE problem using the ADMM only. It

would be fruitful to explore the other techniques as well, however the large converegence

times limited study to faster converging techniques. In the simulations, we tested randomly

generated trees of size

N = 251020.

documented in [6]. For these simulations, the ground truth state vectors were randomly generated as well as the observation matrices. We assumed that each bus made complete power

observations of the entire system. That is, each bus had a bus power measurement as well

as a branch ow measurement. This was chosen to reduce the variability of the convergence

n

results. Convergence was measured by the number of iterations taken for the ec,k < . We

14

chose an

value of

0.01

and

0.001.

5

10

10

10

Iterations

Iterations

10

10

10

10

10

15

10 2

10

20

Tree Size

10

10

10

10

Iterations

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Iterations

10

10

10

10

10

15

20

Tree Size

10 2

10

10

10

10

k

Figure 6: (Top Left) Number of iterations required for ec < 0.001 to be satied vs. tree size.

k

(Top Right) Number of iterations required for ec < 0.001 to be satied v.s. 2 . (Bottom

k

Left) Number of iterations required for ec < 0.01 to be satied vs. tree size. (Bottom Right)

k

Number of iterations required for ec < 0.01 to be satied v.s. 2 .

Figure 6 illustrates the convergence properties of ADMM on randomly generated tree

networks. The rst result that is apparent is that there is a large variation of termination

time for a given graph size. In the second sets of plots, we see the variation of minimum

iteration counts vs. the second smallest eigenvalue of the system. The loglog scale of the

plots show a linear relationship. Also, there is high variation in the termination conditioning

on

2 .

This is because each randomly generated tree had a randomly generated bus matrix

as well as observation.

on the ADMM algorithm assuming single bus areas. However, the experimental results

point towards a polynomial relationship O(2 (L)). The simulation data is used to t a

simple regression model. In the two experiments a exponent value of =01 = 0.52143

and =001 = 0.51850. The 95% percent condence intervals under linear regression is

95

95

=(.001)

= [0.56, 0.48] and (.01)

= [0.56 0.47]. It would be of theoretical interest to

derive this bound based on rst principles, however the scope of this work leaves this to the

future.

Table 3 shows the mean number of iterations required before termination for dierent

sized trees.

The results hint towards a linear relationship, however there is a vary large

15

Tree Size

10

20

.01

32

125

542

2198

.001

20

116

1083

2931

Table 3: Mean computation interations required for convergence for trees of size N.

3000

= 0.01

= 0.001

Mean Iterations

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0

10

15

20

Tree Size

Figure 7: Mean computation time for various sizes of trees.

by the sensing matrix generated (randomly generated for each test), observations (randomly

generated for each test), and

to undertand the fundemental evolution of the ADMM algorithm. One avenue of interest

would be interpreting the entire algorithm as a linear dynamical system. It can be shown,

thatusing the following

state vector.

x1 (t + 1)

s1 (t)

s1 (t + 1)

p1 (t + 1)

x1 (t)

s1 (t 1)

s1 (t)

p1 (t)

.

.

.

.

=

A

+B z

.

.

xM (t)

xM (t + 1)

sM (t 1)

sM (t + 1)

sM (t)

sM (t + 1)

pM (t + 1)

pM (t)

This system can be treated in the same manner as other stochastic approximation problems. It would be interesting to apply similar methodologies used in [5] in uncovering the

emprically determined results relating convergence and graph spectrum as well as introducing

damped update sceams to combat communication noise.

16

Conclusion

In 4, we investigated the CSE and ADMM algorithms, which have appeared in the distributed power system estimation literature.

dual averaging method. It turns out that CSE and the dual averaging algorithms suer from

a large number of iterations and size of messages needed to be sent. The ADMM algorithm

is experimentally justied to be a good algorithm for power system state estimation for

many reasons. It converges fastest among three algorithms. It requires small computational

complexity, communication cost and time.

ADMM algorithm. The only poor performance indicator for the ADMM algorithm is the

tolerance to the communication noise.

It is less tolerant to the communication noise than the CSE algorithm. Yet this ammount

is small for moderate termination steps. In comparison with the centralized algorithm, the

ADMM algorithm may be more ecient in term of computational complexity, communication time and cost when the problem size is large.

number of iterations in the power state system estimation to grow not as fast as the size of

whole network, we found there to be a large increase as the size of the network grew in the

case of trees. Future work should also include experimental results on connected graphs to

correspond with future theoretical ndings.

References

[1] J. Duchi, A. Agarwal, and M. Wainwright. Dual averaging for distributed optimization:

convergence analysis and network scaling.

(99):11, 2010.

[2] S. Haykin. Adaptive lter theory (ise). 2003.

[3] S. Kar, J.M.F. Moura, and K. Ramanan.

arXiv:0809.0009, 2008.

[4] V. Kekatos and G.B. Giannakis. Distributed robust power system state estimation. Arxiv

preprint arXiv:1204.0991, 2012.

[6] A. Rodionov and H. Choo. On generating random network structures: Trees. Computational ScienceICCS 2003, pages 677677, 2003.

[7] F.C. Schweppe. Power system static-state estimation, part iii: Implementation. Power

Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on, (1):130135, 1970.

17

[8] F.C. Schweppe and D.B. Rom. Power system static-state estimation, part ii: Approximate model. power apparatus and systems, ieee transactions on, (1):125130, 1970.

[9] L. Xie, D.H. Choi, and S. Kar. Cooperative distributed state estimation: Local observability relaxed. In Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2011 IEEE, pages 111.

IEEE, 2011.

18

- Basic Math SymbolsUploaded byRamnaresh Sharma
- Universal Scalable Matrix MultiplicationUploaded bySoumitry J Ray
- Higher Mathematics for Engineering and Technology Problems and SolutionsUploaded byAnonymous 5AamXv
- Advanced Excel FormulasUploaded byajaydhage
- EE602Uploaded byAkhil Garg
- Matrix OpsUploaded byrogwar
- Introduction to Matlab MitUploaded byHalil İbrahim Küplü
- Introduction to MatlabUploaded byMuni Sankar Matam
- syllabusUploaded byViren Singh
- 3 Months StrategyUploaded byAPURVA2009
- Pure Pass) SyllabusUploaded byarinmath
- Matrix AlgebraUploaded byhectorcflores1
- Fast Fourier TransformUploaded byKauser Jaffar
- Technique to Construct Trend Free Ffd Using Some Linear CodesUploaded byPuja Thapliyal
- tips for iit.docUploaded byaashrayenergy
- MatrixUploaded byAfolabi Olaniyi
- 00975511Uploaded byjunedboerhan
- 14-ME-98Uploaded bymueed6074
- tyUploaded byKhajuria Chetan
- Syllabus IITJEE 2012Uploaded byshitajit
- PC-10-esf.pdfUploaded byAnisorac Vasile
- Lab_1Uploaded byAfnan Ahmed
- kbbaannUploaded bysathjoe
- Appendix AUploaded bycemnuy
- Departmental Seminar 050918Uploaded byTukesh Soni
- Physics SyllabusUploaded bySanjeev Kumar
- JEE Syllabus n CAT SyllabusUploaded byvenkat6299
- Jee SyllabusUploaded byYash Khandelwal
- syllabusUploaded bySuraj Kumar S
- iitUploaded byAravind

- ProblemsUploaded bycalifauna
- LW-1125-cs341notesUploaded byAnandh Sridharan
- Mathematical InductionUploaded byFahimAbrar
- Formation Control of Multi-Agent SystemsUploaded byfabrizio01
- Tree ProofsUploaded byManuelAcosta98
- Multiway TreeUploaded bypravin2m
- Probability PracticeUploaded bysandeep_leo088714
- Articulation Point, SccUploaded byRashedulIslamRiyad
- Ssignment IXUploaded byCLAP or SLAP II
- APPLICATION OF GRAPH THEORY IN COMMUNICATION NETWORKSUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- Chapter 5 - TreesUploaded bytrevorsum123
- data structure quizUploaded byMayank Baiswar
- UG Question Papers & Answer Keys(Paper 1 & 2)Uploaded byNikhil Damle
- B.Sc.III MathsUploaded bykankirajesh
- finalexamsol.pdfUploaded byAashish D
- 10.1.1.89Uploaded byKanapon Gunprom
- Visibility Graph AlgorithmUploaded byDan Schiopu
- Analysis and Design of Algorithm Lecture notesUploaded byEfrain Sanjay Adhikary
- Electrical FlowUploaded byBenjamin Kha
- Elementry Graph AlgorithmUploaded byNeha Verma
- graceful.pdfUploaded byMuflih Mubarak Darmadi
- Constructive Heuristic s for the TspUploaded byms6675223
- Database & query Analysisi tools for MySQL - Exploiting Hypertree & Hypergraph decompositionsUploaded byeljem_nefta
- A Course in Combinatorics Lint, WilsonUploaded byStephan Caamano
- Mth202-Final Term Solved McqsUploaded byMuhammad Saqib
- 11.VLSI SystemsUploaded byjoe20883
- CS-1991Uploaded byKumar Kumarr
- Kenneth a. Ross, Charles R. Wright - Discrete Mathematics (2002, Prentice Hall)Uploaded byamy1gray-1
- TreesUploaded byBasabdatta Das
- 04 Centrality IndicesUploaded bymorgoth12