This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
Novel Optimal PMU Placement Approach Based on the
Network Parameters for Enhanced System Observability
and Wide Area Damping Control Capability
Mohamed Elimam, Younes J. Isbeih, Member, IEEE, Mohamed Shawky El Moursi, Senior Member, IEEE, Khaled
Elbassioni, and Khalifa Al hosani, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—The placement of phasor measurement units (PMUs) in
modern power systems provides improved monitoring and control
characteristics of the entire electrical network. Nevertheless, the
installation of additional PMU devices is associated with relatively
high cost and complicated communication infrastructure. As a
result, the allocation of the PMU devices needs to be optimized to
achieve complete observability of the system while minimizing the
related cost. This paper proposes a new method for solving the
optimal PMU placement (OPP) problem using integer linear
programming (ILP) such that the global optimal solution is
guaranteed. As opposed to the reported studies in the literature,
the proposed method considers the network parameters such as
the series impedances and the shunt admittances of the
transmission lines and transformers impedances in the
formulation of the OPP problem. These parameters are found to
have a crucial impact on the observability of the entire network. A
distinguishing feature of the proposed approach is that it
decomposes the network into smaller subnetworks, with reduced
dependence between them, thus making it scalable when applied
to typical networks. In addition, the proposed method seeks to
achieve the maximum measurement redundancy while
considering the impact of failures among individual PMU devices
(N-1 contingency), the PMU channel limitation and the pre-
existing conventional measurements. Furthermore, the presented
approach incorporates additional constraints which are associated
with the control feedback signals of the supplementary damping
controllers and thus enhance the small signal stability of the power
grid. The effectiveness of the proposed method is tested using
different standard IEEE systems as well as a large practical
network.
Index Terms—PMUs allocation, Measurement redundancy,
Supplementary Damping Controller
This work was supported by the Khalifa University of Science and
Technology under Award No. [CIRA-2018-37] in collaboration with Abu
Dhabi Transmission and Dispatch Company (TRANSCO) and Manitoba Hydro
International.
Mohamed Elimam, Younes J. Isbeih, and Khaled Elbassioni are with the
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Khalifa
University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi 127788, United Arab
Emirates (e-mail: Mohamed.elimam@ku.ac.ae; younes.isbeih@ku.ac.ae;
khaled.elbassioni@ku.ac.ae).
Mohamed Shawky El Moursi and Khalifa Al hosani are with the Advanced
Power and Energy Center (APEC), EECS Department, Khalifa University, Abu
Dhabi 127788, UAE. M. S. El Moursi is on leave from the Faculty of
Engineering, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt (e-mail:
mohamed.elmoursi@ku.ac.ae; khalifa.halhosani@ku.ac.ae).
0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
P HASOR measurement units (PMUs) play an important
role in state estimation, wide-area monitoring and control,
as they provide real-time measurements for the voltage and
current phasors across the entire electrical network. Due to
the advantages of PMU technology, large budgets have been
invested in installing these devices at various substations [1].
The transmission network can be made completely observable
where voltage measurements at all buses are provided by
installing a bus-type PMU at every bus. However, the relatively
high cost of installing additional PMU devices and the required
communication infrastructure impose limitations on achieving
this objective. Nevertheless, the number of installed PMUs in
practical power systems is considerably reduced when some
voltages and currents are computed using Ohm’s law and
Kirchhoff’s current law (KCL) at the zero injection buses
(ZIBs) [2]. In this context, the optimal PMUs placement (OPP)
problem is presented as an economic optimization problem [3].
Several methods have been presented in the literature for
solving the OPP problem and can be classified into two
categories: deterministic and heuristic methods [4]. A detailed
review for a large number of studies and techniques is presented
in [5].
Different heuristic methods are applied to solve the OPP
problem, such as genetic algorithms [6]–[11], particle swarm
optimization (PSO) [12]–[14], imperialistic competition
algorithm [15], chemical reaction optimization [16], and TABU
search [17]. A new comprehensive multi objective OPP method
is proposed to achieve the best assessment of small signal
stability by prioritizing the buses according to their importance,
maximum probability of observability, and minimum total cost
of PMUs [10]. A graph theory-based method is also proposed
to solve the OPP problem using candidate vertex search
technique [18]. The concepts of power dominating set (PDS)
and power edge set (PES) have been studied and applied to
solve the OPP problem [19]–[21]. In these approaches, the
network is considered as a graph of vertices connected together
by edges G(V,E). The main drawback of these methods is
considering only the topological observability of the network,
that is each bus is reached by either PMU or by ZIB effect. This
observability may be satisfied but the numerical observability
is not achieved and the voltage at some buses cannot be
calculated, hence the solution becomes infeasible. For instance,
in [19] the PMU placement locations for the 57-bus system for
full observability are (4, 13, 20, 25, 29, 32, 38, 51, 54, 56), and
this solution is infeasible because buses (1, 2, 16, 17) are not
observable. Although the proposed heuristic methods in the
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
literature can provide in many cases an optimal solution to the
OPP problem, they generally do not guarantee to reach the
global optimal one. However, they are used to solve the
optimization problems in a reasonable time when the problem
is too complicated to be formulated and solved by a
mathematical algorithm.
The mathematical methods use systematic approaches to
reach the global optimal solution. There are mainly three
mathematical methods which are employed to solve the OPP
problem; exhaustive search [22], [23], integer linear
programming (ILP) [2]–[4], [24]–[28], [29]–[36] and semi-
definite programming (SDP) [1][37][38]. Exhaustive search
method relies on enumerating all possible solutions and
selecting the one with the best objective among all feasible
solutions. The main drawback of this approach is the
computational time required to find the optimal solution. To
resolve this issue, an integer linear programming (ILP)-based
method is proposed to find an optimal solution of the OPP
problem. This technique provides a good approach to solve the
OPP problem, as it guarantees to reach the global optimal
solution in a reasonable time. However, the main challenge
when using the ILP is to formulate the problem linearly,
considering the effect of the ZIBs. Different linear formulations
are proposed for PMU placement using ILP approach, some of
them considered the ZIBs [2]–[4][24]–[32], and others ignore
their effect [33]–[36], which may lead to non-optimal solutions.
On the other hand, different studies have been reported in
the literature to incorporate certain operating conditions and
contingencies, such as single or multiple PMUs loss and line
outage [1]–[4], [26]–[31], limitation of PMU channel capacity
[22]–[24], [30]–[32], consideration of the pre-existing
conventional measurements [1][3][27][29]. The maximization
of the measurements redundancy has been considered as a
secondary objective along with minimizing the number of
installed PMUs [1], [2], [25]–[28]. Moreover, the incomplete
observability and its effect on the PMUs placement has been
studied in some research works [33][34]. The PMUs are
optimized in [39] based on estimation -theoretic criteria to
enhance the state estimation accuracy rather than finding the
minimum number of PMUs for full observability. In addition to
the optimal placement of the bus-type PMU, some studies
investigate the optimal placement of the branch-type PMU,
which measures the phasors of the branch current and the
voltage of one of the buses between which that branch is
connected [40][41]. In all previous studies of the OPP problem
based on optimal algorithms, the network parameters - mainly
the series impedances and the shunt admittances of the
transmission lines and transformers - are not considered; and
thus, can affect the optimal solution of the OPP problem.
In power system stability, the electromechanical dynamics
are controlled through power system stabilizer (PSS) and FACT
devices-based power oscillation damper (POD). To damp the
inter-area low frequency oscillations, PODs are implemented to
use remote feedback signals which are available from wide-area
measurement system (WAMS) [42]. These signals are usually
obtained from PMUs because of their real time measurement
feature. As discussed earlier, it is not required to install PMU at
each bus, thus some measurements are estimated rather than
directly measured. These estimated measurements are subjected
to errors due to some approximations in the system parameters
0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2
calculations, or assumptions which are difficult to avoid. Using
an estimated measurement as a feedback signal can
significantly affect the overall performance of the designed
damping controller, and hence may affect the system stability.
The reported studies in the literature have not considered the
impact of the feedback signals when solving the OPP problem.
To address the aforementioned issues, a binary ILP model
is proposed in this paper to solve the OPP problem. The main
objective of the proposed approach is to minimize the number
of installed PMUs such that full observability of the entire
system is achieved. In addition, the presented formulation
considers the impact of network parameters and feedback
signals on the optimal solution of the OPP problem. The
main contributions of the proposed OPP formulation can be
summarized as follows:
• Considering the effect of the network parameters on the
system observability which are assumed to be negligible
in the previous optimal studies.
• Providing an optimal solution in which the feedback
control signals are obtained by direct measuring to avoid
estimation errors and guarantee a good performance for
the damping controller.
• Assuring that the given solution has the maximum possible
measurements redundancy.
• Incorporating the contingency of a single PMU loss, PMU
channel limitation and the pre-existing conventional
measurements. These considerations have been studied in the
literature based on the previous formulations that do not
consider the network parameters in the problem formulation. In
this paper, these parameters are proved to have a non-negligible
impact on the system observability.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section
II discusses the effect of the network parameters on the
observability, whereas the selection of the damping controller
feedback signals is explained in section III. In section IV, the
proposed problem formulation is described. Section V presents
the case studies and results. Section VI concludes the
paper, and finally Section VII presents the suggested future
work.
II. THE EFFECT OF THE NETWORK PARAMETERS ON THE
OBSERVABILITY
The previous studies of the PMUs placement for full
observability were conducted based on the network topology,
which is associated with the connection between buses and the
ZIBs locations. However, the impact of the network parameters
on optimal placement of PMUs was neglected in the
mathematical approaches. To investigate the effect of these
parameters on the network observability, the 8-bus system
example shown in Fig. 1 is considered. The buses 1 and 2
represent ZIB ones.
It can be clearly seen that installing only 1 PMU cannot make
the network fully observable. However, installing 2 PMUs at
buses 5 and 6 may guarantee observability for the entire
network. Buses 7, 5 and 1 are observed by a PMU at bus 5, and
buses 2, 6 and 8 are observed by a PMU at bus 6. The voltages
at buses 3 and 4 can be obtained by applying KCL at bus 1 and
bus 2 as in (1) and (2) below:
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
3

𝐺(𝑠) = 𝐶(𝑠𝐼 − 𝐴)−1 𝐵 + 𝐷 (7)

By dropping the D term which doesn’t affect the mode, and

using the orthogonal relationship between the right (𝓋) and the
left (𝓌) eigen-vectors, the transfer function can be expressed
by:
𝑛 𝑛
𝐶𝓋𝑖 𝓌𝑖 𝐵 𝑅𝑖
𝐺(𝑠) = ∑ =∑ (8)
𝑠 − 𝜆𝑖 𝑠 − 𝜆𝑖
𝑖=1 𝑖=1

Fig. 1. 8-bus system example where 𝐶𝓋𝑖 is the modal observability, 𝓌𝑖 𝐵 is the modal
controllability, 𝜆𝑖 is the eigen-value, 𝑅𝑖 is the residue matrix for
𝑌13 𝑉3 + 𝑌14 𝑉4 = −𝑌11 𝑉1 − 𝑌15 𝑉5 (1) certain mode and 𝑛 is the number of states [43].
Each element in the residue matrix represents how an input-
𝑌23 𝑉3 + 𝑌24 𝑉4 = −𝑌22 𝑉2 − 𝑌26 𝑉6 (2) output pair influences the transfer function. The outputs are the
and in a matrix form: feedback signal candidates, and the inputs correspond to the
locations where the PSS and POD are to be installed. A proper
𝑌13 𝑌14 𝑉 −𝑌 𝑉 − 𝑌15 𝑉5 selection of the best feedback signal corresponds to the output
[ ] ∙ [ 3 ] = [ 11 1 ] (3)
𝑌23 𝑌24 𝑉4 −𝑌22 𝑉2 − 𝑌26 𝑉6 with the maximum residue magnitude [43]. Therefore, solving
the OPP problem should guarantee the availability of these
where 𝑉𝑖 is the voltage at bus 𝑖, and 𝑌𝑖𝑗 is the element of the
feedback signals.
indices (𝑖, 𝑗) in the bus admittance matrix (𝑌𝑏𝑢𝑠 ).
The linear system of equations in (3) is solvable if and only
IV. PROPOSED PROBLEM FORMULATION
if the 2 × 2 coefficients matrix is of full rank. The determinant
of that matrix is given by equation (4) below: The OPP problem is formulated and solved using an ILP
𝑑𝑒𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓. 𝑚𝑎𝑡. ) = 𝑌13 𝑌24 − 𝑌14 𝑌23 (4) approach with binary decision variables, which are defined as
follows:
If the determinant in equation (4) is zero, then the voltages at 1, 𝑖𝑓 𝑎 𝑃𝑀𝑈 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑏𝑢𝑠 𝑖
𝑥𝑖 = { (9)
buses 3 and 4 cannot be calculated, and hence the network is 0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
not fully observable.
Now it is clear that the observability of the network depends 1, 𝑖𝑓 𝑎 𝑃𝑀𝑈 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑏𝑢𝑠 𝑖
on the 𝑌𝑏𝑢𝑠 matrix – which is mainly computed using the 𝑢𝑖 = { 𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑠 (10)
0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
network parameters – and these parameters should be
considered when solving the OPP problem. 𝑋 = [𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 … 𝑥𝑁 𝑢1 𝑢2 𝑢3 … 𝑢𝑁 ]′ (11)

III. OPTIMAL PLACEMENT OF PMU FOR ENHANCING The cost vector is defined as follows:
SMALL-SIGNAL STABILITY 𝐶 = [𝑐1 𝑐2 𝑐3 … 𝑐𝑁 ]′ (12)

The small-signal instability problem of practical power
systems is largely associated with insufficient damping of low-
frequency power system oscillations. Therefore, supplementary
damping controllers such as PSS and POD are employed to
enhance the overall damping of these oscillations. These
controllers modulate the input signals such as the angular speed
deviations of the synchronous generators to provide phase
compensation such that the small-signal stability of the entire
system is enhanced. In this context, designing the
supplementary damping controller relies heavily on the
selection of the appropriate feedback signal [43]. One
commonly used method to select that signal is the residue
analysis method.
The linearized state space model of the power system is
expressed by:
𝑥̇ = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝐵𝑢 (5)
𝑦 = 𝐶𝑥 + 𝐷𝑢 (6)
where 𝑥 is the state vector, 𝑢 is the input vector, and 𝑦 is the
output vector. 𝐴, 𝐵 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶 are the state, input and output
matrices respectively. 𝐷 is the direct input-output connection.
The transfer function of the system is given by:
Where 𝑐𝑖 represents the total cost of installing a PMU at bus
𝑖, and 𝑁 is the number of busses in the network.
Notice that the variable 𝑥𝑖 represents the PMU installation at
bus 𝑖 (whether to install a PMU at bus 𝑖 or not), and the variable
𝑢𝑖 represents the direct observability of bus 𝑖 (whether bus 𝑖 is
seen by a PMU or not).
The following integer linear programming (ILP) formulation is
considered for solving the OPP problem:
𝑁
min ∑ 𝑐𝑖 ∙ 𝑥𝑖
(13)
𝑖=1
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡𝑜: 𝐴 ∙ 𝑋 ≥ 𝐵
where 𝐴 is an 𝑁𝑐 × 2𝑁 matrix, 𝐵 is an 𝑁𝑐 × 1 vector, and 𝑁𝑐
is the number of linear constraints.
In this study the installation cost of each PMU is assumed to
be the same, thus; the cost parameter 𝑐𝑖 is set to 1. As a result,
the objective of the OPP problem corresponds to minimizing
the number of installed PMUs.
To explain the formulation of the constraints inequality in
(13), the 13-bus system shown in Fig. 2 is considered, where
buses 2, 5, 6 and 9 are ZIBs.

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
4

variable 𝑢𝑖 to be 1 if at least one bus in 𝑆 𝑖 has a PMU, and to be

0 otherwise.
For bus 1 in the 13-bus system example, the observability
constraints are:
𝑥1 + 𝑥2 + 𝑥6 ≥ 𝑢1 (20)
𝑥1 + 𝑥2 + 𝑥6 ≤ 3 𝑢1 (21)

2- Group constraints:
As explained earlier, each group consists of some ZIBs and
their neighbors. By applying KCL at the ZIBs, a system of
linear equations can be formed where the number of unknowns
Fig. 2. 13-bus system example
in this system of equations should not exceed the number of
For each ZIB, a set is formed consisting of that ZIB and the equations which equals the number of ZIBs. In other words, the
buses connected to it (its neighbors). The matrix of all sets of number of observable buses in each group should not be less
the 13-bus system example is shown in (14), where each row than the number of all buses in that group minus the number of
represents one set. ZIBs in that group.
2 1 3 7
𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠 = [ 5 6 10 11 ] (14) ∑ 𝑢𝑗 ≥ 𝑁𝑖 − 𝑁𝑧𝑖 (22)
6 1 5 7
𝑗∈𝐺 𝑖
9 4 8 13
Disjoint groups of buses are formed such that each group is
where 𝐺 𝑖 is group 𝑖, 𝑁𝑖 is the number of busses in group 𝑖, 𝑁𝑧𝑖
a maximal connected componenent of some ZIB's and their
neighbours. In other words, each group is a union of intersected is the number of ZIBs in group 𝑖.
sets. If a set has no intersection with any other one, then it is For the 13-bus system example, the group constraints are:
considered as a separate group. The groups for the 13-bus 𝑢2 + 𝑢5 + 𝑢6 + 𝑢1 + 𝑢3 + 𝑢7 + 𝑢10 + 𝑢11 ≥ 5 (23)
system example are shown in (15), where each row represents 𝑢9 + 𝑢4 + 𝑢8 + 𝑢13 ≥ 3 (24)
one group.
2 5 6 1 3 7 10 11 3- Linear dependency constraints:
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠 = [ ] (15)
9 4 8 13 The group constraints in (22) assure that the number of
Three types of constraints are formed, observability unknowns (unobservable buses) does not exceed the number of
constraints, group constraints and linear dependency equations (which is equal to the number of ZIBs) for each
constraints. The description of each type is explained in the group. This constraint may be satisfied but there exist linear
following paragraphs. dependent rows in the coefficient matrix; and hence the system
of equations becomes unsolvable.
1- Observability constraints: For example, in the first group of the above 13-bus system,
For buses which do not exist in the matrix Sets (neither ZIB if the observable buses are 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11, and the
nor connected to ZIB), at least one PMU must be installed at unobservable buses are 1,2 and 3, then the coefficients matrix
the bus itself or one of its neighbors. is not full rank and the system of equations – as shown in (25)
𝑖𝑓 (𝑖 ∉ 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠) 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛: below - is unsolvable, although the inequality in (23) is
satisfied.
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 1 (16)
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖 𝑌21 𝑌22 𝑌23 𝑉1 −𝑌27 𝑉7
where 𝑆 𝑖 is a set contains bus 𝑖 and its neighbors. [ 0 0 0 ] [𝑉2 ] = [−𝑌55 𝑉5 − 𝑌56 𝑉6 − 𝑌5,10 𝑉10 − 𝑌5,11 𝑉11 ] (25)
For 13-bus system example there is only one bus of this type 𝑌61 0 0 𝑉3 −𝑌65 𝑉5 − 𝑌66 𝑉6 − 𝑌67 𝑉7
(bus 12), and the constraint is:
To overcome this problem, combinations of buses are formed
𝑥11 + 𝑥12 + 𝑥13 ≥ 1 (17)
for each group, from two up to the number of ZIBs in that
Note that in this case the variable 𝑢 is not needed. group. For each combination, the coefficient matrix is formed
and checked against linear dependency. If it is not of full rank,
For other busses (either ZIB or connected to ZIB), the then this combination of buses must not be allowed to be
variables 𝑥 and 𝑢 are related as follows: unobservable together, i.e. at least one bus in that combination
𝑖𝑓 (𝑖 ∈ 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠) 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛: must be observable. Moreover, any combination which contains
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 𝑢𝑖 another smaller combination that forms a non-full rank
(18) coefficient matrix, is not considered. A set contains all these
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖
combinations is defined as follows:
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≤ 𝑛𝑖 𝑢𝑖 (19)
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖 𝑀𝑖 = {𝑚𝑖 1 , 𝑚𝑖 2 , … } (26)
𝑖
where 𝑆 is a set containing bus 𝑖 and its neighbors, 𝑛𝑖 is the
∑ 𝑢𝑗 ≥ 1 ∀ 𝑚𝑖 𝑘 ∈ 𝑀𝑖 (27)
number of buses in 𝑆 𝑖 . The constraints (18) and (19) force the
𝑗∈𝑚𝑖 𝑘

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
where 𝑀𝑖 is a set containing subsets of buses from group 𝑖,
each subset is a minimal set of buses whose corresponding
columns in the coefficient matrix form a non-full rank
coefficient matrix.
In the first group of the above 13-bus system, combinations
of two-buses and three-buses are considered due to the presence
of three ZIBs. The set of some considered combinations for that
group is:
𝑀1 = {{2,3}, {10,11}, {1,2,7}, {1,3,7}, {5,6,10}, {5,6,11}, … }
and the constrains for these combinations are:
𝑢2 + 𝑢3 ≥ 1
𝑢10 + 𝑢11 ≥ 1
𝑢1 + 𝑢2 + 𝑢7 ≥ 1
𝑢1 + 𝑢3 + 𝑢7 ≥ 1
𝑢5 + 𝑢6 + 𝑢10 ≥ 1
𝑢5 + 𝑢6 + 𝑢11 ≥ 1
Notice that even though the combinations {2,3,6} and
{7,10,11} form non-full rank coefficient matrices, they are not
considered as they contain the smaller combinations {2,3} and
{10,11} respectively, which are already considered.
There may exist other combinations which form non-full rank
coefficient matrices depending on the 𝑌𝑏𝑢𝑠 elements, like (1,7).
We argue next that the proposed formulation for the OPP
problem presented in (13) is general and always guarantees the
global optimal solution:
Theorem 1. The OPP problem is equivalent to the ILP
formulation (13).
Proof of Theorem 1. It is enough to show that all the constraints
in (13) are necessary and sufficient for the system to be
observable. To prove this, two directions are considered:
1- A feasible solution to the OPP problem should satisfy the
constraints:
Given a certain PMU placement such that the system is fully
observable, the vector X in (11) is formed using (9) and (10).
For a bus that is neither ZIB nor connected to a ZIB, the
constraint in (16) is satisfied, since the system is fully
observable. For a bus i that is ZIB or connected to a ZIB, the
constraints in (18) and (19) are satisfied, since the variable ui is
0 if no PMU is installed at one of the neighbors, and ui is 1 if at
least one PMU is installed at one of the neighbors. Since the
system is fully observable i.e. every voltage can be measured or
calculated, any combination of buses that form a non-full rank
coefficient matrix cannot be unobservable together, i.e., must
have at least one bus j with uj = 1, otherwise, the
corresponding linear system is underdetermined. Hence the
constraint in (27) is satisfied for all subsets in each group. By
the same argument, the coefficient matrix of the whole group is
also of full rank, thus; the constraint in (22) is satisfied for all
groups.
2- A solution that satisfies the constraints should be a feasible
solution to the OPP problem:
0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5
Given a vector X that satisfies all the constraints, then each
bus that is neither ZIB nor connected to a ZIB is observable
because of the constraint in (16). Satisfying the constraints in
(22) and (27) guarantees that for each group the unobservable
buses form a full rank coefficient matrix, so the system of
equations is solvable and the voltage at all unobservable buses
can be calculated, which results in a fully observable network.
It follows that the proposed formulation always gives the
(28)
global optimal solution that makes the system fully observable
with minimum number of PMUs.
(29) The set of constraints which are previously described
correspond to the base case formulation of the OPP problem.
(30) This formulation seeks to find the optimal number of PMU
devices along with their locations across the entire system.
(31) However, additional constraints are required to ensure that this
(32)
allocation achieves the maximum measurement redundancy,
robustness against individual PMU failures, PMU channel
(33) limitation, consideration of the pre-existing conventional
measurements, in addition to control feedback signals for
(34) enhancing small-signal stability. These constraints can be
added to base case formulation as follows.
A. Measurements Redundancy:
The measurements redundancy refers to obtaining the
measurement from multiple PMUs, which is a valuable feature
for measurements security and bad data detection [25]. If more
than one optimal solution to PMUs placement can be found,
then the solution with the highest measurement’s redundancy is
preferable to be selected. Two common measures to calculate
the measurements redundancy are the bus observability index
(BOI), which is the number of PMUs observing certain bus, and
system observability redundancy index (SORI) which is the
summation of the BOI for all the buses in the network [2].
To incorporate the measurement redundancy in the proposed
formulation, the OPP problem is solved in two steps. Firstly,
the optimization problem defined in (13) is solved to obtain the
minimum number of PMUs required for full observability. In
the next step, another optimization problem is solved with the
objective defined in (35), subjected to the same constraints
defined in (13), added to them the constraint in (36) below.
Therefore, the number of installed PMUs is restricted to what
obtained in the first step (𝑁𝑝𝑚𝑢 ).
𝑁
𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∑ 𝑟𝑖 ∙ 𝑥𝑖 (35)
𝑖=1
𝑁
∑ 𝑥𝑖 ≤ 𝑁𝑝𝑚𝑢 (36)
𝑖=1
Where 𝑟𝑖 is the number of buses connected to bus 𝑖 (including
bus 𝑖 itself).
B. Control Feedback Signals:
In this paper, three control feedback signals are considered;
the generator output power, generator speed and active power
line flow. If the generator output power or the generator speed
is selected as a feedback signal, then a PMU needs to be
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
6

installed at the generator bus to measure the bus voltage phasor where 𝑛𝑏_𝐺 𝑖 is the set of buses in Gi and their neighbors. If
and the generator injected current phasor. A constraint is added 𝑘 is not a neighbor to 𝑗 then 𝑣𝑗 𝑘 is replaced by 𝑢𝑗 .
to the optimization problem to force a PMU placement at that The group constraints for the first group in the 13-bus
bus as follows. example when excluding bus 1 and 2 are shown in (45) and (46)
𝑥𝑖 ≥ 1 (37) respectively:
where 𝑖 is the generator bus. 𝑣21 + 𝑢5 + 𝑣61 + 𝑣11 + 𝑢3 + 𝑢7 + 𝑢10 + 𝑢11 ≥ 5 (45)
For the power flow between two buses 𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑗, at least one
PMU should be installed at one of them, and the added 𝑣2 2 + 𝑢5 + 𝑢6 + 𝑣1 2 + 𝑣3 2 + 𝑣7 2 + 𝑢10 + 𝑢11 ≥ 5 (46)
constraint is:
The linear dependency constraints in (27) are changed to (47).
𝑥𝑖 + 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 1 (38)

C. PMU Loss Contingency: ∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 2 ∀ 𝑚𝑖 𝑘 ∈ 𝑀𝑖 (47)

𝑗∈𝑛𝑏_𝑚𝑖 𝑘
In the OPP solution obtained by solving the base case
formulation, some buses are observable by only one PMU. As
Where 𝑛𝑏_𝑚𝑖 𝑘 is the set of buses in 𝑚𝑖 𝑘 and their neighbors.
a result, losing that measurement – which is a common situation
– makes the network not fully observable. To improve the
Theorem 2. Under the assumption that only one PMU can be
system reliability under single PMU loss contingency (N-1), the
placed at each bus, the OPP problem under single PMU loss
base case formulation has to be modified. New restricted
contingency (N-1) is equivalent to the ILP formulation (13)
observability variables are defined for each bus that belongs to
with the inequality in (13) defined by constraints (18), (19),
the groups as follows:
(40), (41), (42), (44) and (47).
1, 𝑖𝑓 𝑎 𝑃𝑀𝑈 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑏𝑢𝑠 𝑖 𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑛𝑒 Proof of Theorem 2. The proof goes along the same lines as in
𝑣𝑖 𝑘 = { 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑢𝑠 𝑘 (39) the proof of Theorem 1. The group constraints in (44) guarantee
0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 that for each group the number of unobservable buses does not
exceed the number of ZIBs in that group, even if a single PMU
These new variables are attached to the decision variable vector is lost. Whereas the linear dependency constraints in (47)
defined in (11). guarantee that for each linear dependent set at least one bus is
observable, even if a single PMU is lost.
For each bus that in neither ZIB nor connected to ZIB, at least
two PMUs should be installed at that bus and/or its neighbors. The number of PMUs under N-1 contingency can be
𝑖𝑓 (𝑖 ∉ 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠) 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛: relatively large. Therefore, installing PMUs to cover a single
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 2 PMU loss may be costly, especially for large practical
(40) networks. Another method to increase the system reliability is
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖
to provide backup measurements for the control signals only, as
For each bus that is either ZIB or connected to ZIB, the they are crucial to damp the system oscillations. This can be
variables 𝑥 and 𝑣 are related as follows: applied by duplicating the PMU at the generator bus when the
𝑖𝑓 (𝑖 ∈ 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠) 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛: generator output power or the generator speed is selected as a
feedback signal. On the other hand, if the selected signal is the
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 𝑣𝑖 𝑘 , ∀ 𝑘 ∈ 𝑆 𝑖
(41) power flow between two buses 𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑗, the constraint in (38) is
𝑗∈{𝑆 𝑖 −{𝑘}}
modified to (48) to force a PMU placement at both buses.
𝑥𝑖 + 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 2 (48)
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≤ (𝑛𝑖 − 1) 𝑣𝑖 𝑘 , ∀ 𝑘 ∈ 𝑆 𝑖 (42)
𝑗∈{𝑆 𝑖−{𝑘}} D. PMU Channel Limitation
𝑖
where {𝑆 − {k}} is a set containing bus 𝑖 and its neighbors To consider the effect of limited number of PMU channels
excluding bus k. for current measurements, the same approach proposed in [4] is
For bus 1 in the 13-bus system example, the restricted adopted. Consequently, new variables are defined as follows:
observability constraints are:
1, 𝑖𝑓 𝑏𝑢𝑠 𝑖 𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑎 𝑃𝑀𝑈 𝑎𝑡 𝑏𝑢𝑠 𝑗
𝑤𝑖𝑗 = { (49)
𝑥2 + 𝑥6 ≥ 𝑣11 , 𝑥1 + 𝑥6 ≥ 𝑣1 2 , 𝑥1 + 𝑥2 ≥ 𝑣1 6 0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
(43)
𝑥2 + 𝑥6 ≤ 2 𝑣11 , 𝑥1 + 𝑥6 ≤ 2 𝑣1 2 , 𝑥1 + 𝑥2 ≤ 2 𝑣1 6
These new variables are attached to the decision variable vector
defined in (11).
The group constraints in (22) are changed to (44). The observability constraints in (16), (18) and (19) are changed
to (50), (51) and (52) respectively.
∑ 𝑣𝑗 𝑘 ≥ 𝑁𝑖 − 𝑁𝑧𝑖 , ∀ 𝑘 ∈ 𝑛𝑏_𝐺 𝑖 (44) 𝑖𝑓 (𝑖 ∉ 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠) 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛
𝑗 ∈ 𝐺𝑖
∑ 𝑤𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 1 (50)
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
7

𝑖𝑓 (𝑖 ∈ 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠) 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 method is applied to the standard IEEE systems, as well as the
∑ 𝑤𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 𝑢𝑖 8-bus system example shown in Fig. 1. The per unit line data of
(51) the 8-bus system are presented in Table I. To show the
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖
effectiveness of the proposed method, the obtained results are
∑ 𝑤𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗 ≤ 𝑛𝑖 𝑢𝑖 (52) compared with the reported ones in the literature. Table IV
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖
shows the minimum number of PMUs and their locations for
full observability a long with the measurement redundancy
The product wij xj is linearized by replacing it with the variable
indices.
𝑝𝑖𝑗 , which is defined using the following constraints. The redundancy index (SORI) values presented in Table IV are
𝑤𝑖𝑗 + 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 2 𝑝𝑖𝑗 (53) calculated according to the given PMUs locations based on the
SORI definition in [2]. Since the 8-bus system is an illustrative
𝑤𝑖𝑗 + 𝑥𝑗 ≤ 𝑝𝑖𝑗 + 1 (54) example, and only used in this paper, its PMUs placement
The number of current measurement channels for each PMU is results using the method proposed in [4] are not reported. The
restricted to the value L using the constraint in (55) below. corresponding results are obtained using the same method
proposed in that reference. It is clear from Table IV that, the
proposed method always guarantees the optimal solution
∑ 𝑤𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝐿 , ∀ 𝑗 = 1, 2, 3 , … , 𝑁 compared to other reported results. The maximum
(55)
𝑖∈{𝑆 𝑗 −{𝑗}} measurements redundancy is assured too, and is not less than
where {𝑆𝑗 − {j}} is a set containing the neighbors of bus 𝑗. the other results with the same number of PMUs.

E. Considering the Pre-existing Conventional Measurements: TABLE I

LINE DATA FOR 8-BUS EXAMPLE
Two types of conventional measurements (CMs) are
From bus To bus R X B
considered in this paper, the power injection measurement (IM)
1 3 0.004 0.023 0.0
and the power flow measurement (PFM). Since the IM installed
at certain bus measures the injected power, that bus is treated as 1 4 0.004 0.023 0.0
a ZIB, such that the summation of the powers from all the 1 5 0.017 0.057 0.079
branches becomes known. To include the PFM in the OPP 2 3 0.008 0.045 0.0
problem, the base case formulation is modified as follows: 2 4 0.008 0.045 0.0
If a PFM is installed between bus 𝑖 and bus 𝑘, then any one 2 6 0.012 0.081 0.153
of them can be observable if the other is observed. The 5 7 0.0119 0.07 0.109
observability constraints in (16), (18) and (19) are changed to 6 8 0.0085 0.052 0.074
(56), (57) and (58) respectively. For 𝑞 = 𝑖, 𝑘:
𝑖𝑓 (𝑞 ∉ 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠) 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 Table II
COMPUTATIONAL TIME (SECONDS)
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 1 (56) Case Study SDP [37] SDP [38] ILP [2] Proposed
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖𝑘
𝑖𝑓 (𝑞 ∈ 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑠) 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 IEEE 14-bus 0.213 - - 1.06
IEEE 30-bus 0.313 - - 1.42
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≥ 𝑢𝑞 (57) IEEE 39-bus - - - 5.77
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖𝑘
IEEE 57-bus 0.647 0.7 - 55.86
∑ 𝑥𝑗 ≤ 𝑛𝑖𝑘 𝑢𝑞 (58) IEEE 118-bus 0.984 1.266 0.0468 190.63
𝑗∈𝑆 𝑖𝑘
where 𝑆 𝑖𝑘 is a set of bus 𝑖 and 𝑘 and their neighbors, 𝑛𝑖𝑘 is Table III
the number of buses in 𝑆 𝑖𝑘 . OPTIMAL NUMBER OF PMUS FOR FULL OBSERVABILITY FOR THE
POLISH 2383-BUS SYSTEM
V. CASE STUDIES Graph Theory Tabu Search ILP ILP
Proposed
[18] [17] [24] [4]
In this section, the performance of the proposed method is
investigated using different standard IEEE systems to find the 776 553 553 553 553
optimal placement of PMUs. In addition, the impact of PMU
loss and feedback control signals is studied and compared to the For the 8-bus system example, the determinant of the
base case scenario. Furthermore, the results are compared with coefficient matrix in (4) is zero for the line data given in Table
the previously proposed techniques in the literature. The I, and the system of equations in (3) is unsolvable. Therefore,
maximum measurement redundancy is applied in all cases as a placing only two PMUs results in an infeasible solution, and the
secondary objective. The optimization problems in this paper system becomes not fully observable. Since the method
are solved using Matlab optimization toolbox on an intel core proposed in [4] does not consider the effect of the network
i7 dual-core CPU @ 2.5 GHz and 8 GB RAM. parameters, it fails to give a feasible solution in case of the 8-
A. The Base Case: bus system example.
In this case, the OPP is solved without considering any Table II presents the computational time (in seconds) of the
contingency or feedback control signals. The new placement proposed approach compared to other methods. For the

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
8

TABLE IV
PMU PLACEMENT FOR FULL OBSERVABILITY
Case
GA [7] PSO [12] SDP [37] ILP [30] ILP [3] ILP [4] Proposed
study
No. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
IEEE
Loc. 2, 6, 9 2, 6, 9 2, 6, 9 2, 6, 9 2, 6, 9 2, 6, 9 2, 6, 9
14-bus
SORI 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
No. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
IEEE 1, 5, 10, 12, 18, 2, 4, 10, 12, 15, 1, 2, 10, 12, 19, 1, 5, 10, 12, 19, 2, 3, 10, 12, 15, 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, 2, 4, 10, 12, 15,
Loc.
30-bus 24, 30 19, 27 24, 30 24, 27 18, 27 24, 27 19, 27
SORI 29 36 31 31 34 31 36
No. - 8 - 9 8 8 8
IEEE - 3, 8, 13, 16, 20, - 3, 6, 13, 16, 20, 8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 3, 8, 11, 16, 20, 3,8,10,16,20,23,
Loc.
39-bus 23, 25, 29 23, 25, 29, 39 23, 25, 29 23, 25, 29 25,29
SORI - 33 - 37 32 33 33
No. 11 11 11 12 11 11 11
1, 6, 13, 19, 25, 1, 6, 13, 19, 25, 1, 6, 13, 19, 25, 1, 4, 9, 20, 25, 28, 1, 5, 13, 19, 25, 1, 4, 13, 20, 25, 1, 4, 13, 19, 25,
IEEE 29, 32, 38, 51, 54, 29, 32, 38, 51, 54, 29, 32, 38, 41, 51, 32, 38, 46, 50, 53, 29, 32, 38, 42, 51, 29, 32, 38, 51, 54, 29, 32, 38, 41, 51,
Loc.
57-bus 56 56 54 56 54 56 54
SORI 48 48 48 50 44 48 48
No. 28 28 28 29 28 28 28
3, 8, 11, 12, 17, 3, 8, 11, 12, 17, 1, 10, 11, 12, 17, 3, 9, 11, 12, 17, 21 1, 8, 11, 12, 17, 3, 9, 11, 12, 17, 3, 8, 11, 12, 17, 21
21, 25, 28, 34, 35, 21, 27, 31, 32, 34, 21, 25, 28, 34, 35, 23, 29, 34, 37, 40, 21, 25, 28, 33, 34, 21, 25, 28, 34, 37, 27, 31, 32, 34, 37,
IEEE 40, 45, 49, 53, 56, 37, 40, 45, 49, 52, 40, 45, 49, 52, 56, 45, 49, 52, 56, 62, 40, 45, 49, 53, 56, 40, 45, 49, 53, 56, 40, 45, 49, 52, 56,
Loc.
118-bus 62, 72, 75, 77, 80, 56, 62, 72, 75, 77, 62, 72, 75, 77, 80, 65, 71, 75, 77, 80, 62, 72, 75, 77, 80, 62, 72, 75, 77, 80, 62, 72, 75, 77, 80,
85, 86, 90, 94, 80, 85, 86, 90, 94, 85, 86, 90, 94, 85, 87, 91, 94, 85, 86, 91, 94, 85, 86, 90, 94, 85, 86, 91, 94, 102
102, 105, 110, 114 102, 105, 110 101, 105, 110, 114 101, 105, 110, 115 102, 105, 110, 114 102, 105, 110, 114 105, 110
SORI 138 147 135 147 137 141 147
No. - - - - - 2 3
8-bus
Loc. - - - - - 5, 6 * 2, 5, 6
example
SORI - - - - - 6 10
No. is the number of PMUs required for full observability
Loc. is the PMUs locations (buses).
SORI is the system observability redundancy index.
* Infeasible solution, the system is not fully observable
determine these signals. In this study, the dynamic performance
of synchronous generators is described using the two-axis
proposed method, this time includes all the stages of solving the model. They are also equipped with static automatic voltage
problem, starting from collecting the system data, through regulators (AVRs) with 𝐸𝑓𝑑 limiters. In addition, all
groups formation and constraints preparation, until obtaining synchronous generators except 𝐺4 and 𝐺6 are equipped with
the solution (number and locations of the PMUs). Since the power system stabilizers (PSSs) which comprise of two phase-
OPP is a planning problem and does not require a real-time shift blocks and a washout filter. However, The detailed system
solution, the time spent by the proposed method to obtain the modelling can be found in [42].
optimal feasible solution is considered reasonable time. The
main advantage of the proposed method not to provide a fast
solution, but to give an optimal feasible solution in cases where
other methods fail.

In addition to the standard IEEE systems, the proposed

method is applied to a large practical network, namely the
polish 2383-bus system which contains 2896 lines and 552
ZIBs. The system data can be found in [44]. The optimal
number of PMUs for full observability for this system obtained
by the proposed approach and other methods in the literature
are shown in Table III. It is clear from the obtained results that
the proposed method is efficient and effective to find the
optimal PMU placement even for large practical systems.

B. Considering the Control Signals for Wide Area Damping

Control (WADC)
1) The IEEE 39-bus Test System
Fig. 3. The IEEE 39-bus test system
Fig. 3 shows the single line diagram of the IEEE 39-bus test
system. To incorporate the control signals in the PMUs The modal analysis of the linearized system reveals the
placement, the residue analysis method is used to first presence of a poorly damped inter-area mode of oscillation as

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
9

shown in Table V, where 𝜁 is the damping ratio, f is the through the line which connects buses 8 and 9 (𝑃8−9 ),
oscillation frequency and R is the normalized residue respectively. A three-phase fault is applied at bus 28 at time t=1
magnitude. sec and is naturally cleared after 50 ms. The second signal
The most effective measured output signal and control input (𝑃8−9 ) is selected from computed residues in light of the PMU
location for damping the inter-area mode correspond to the placement to achieve complete observability which is presented
highest residue magnitude. This residue corresponds to the best in Table IV. As a result, the PMU that is placed at bus 8 is used
pair of input and output signals which are computed with to provide the measured signal for the second WADC
respect to the inter-area mode. It can be observed from Table V controller. The supplementary damping signal for both WADC
that the active output power of generator 1 ( 𝑃𝐺1 ) is associated 𝑟𝑒𝑓
controllers is implemented at the input voltage reference 𝑉4 .
with the highest residue magnitude to best damp out the inter- Furthermore, the WADC controller is designed using 𝐻∞
area mode. In addition, Table V shows that the output of the mixed sensitivity robust control techniques to enhance the
wide-area damping controller should be placed at the input overall damping of the entire system. The controller is solved
reference voltage of the excitation loop which regulates in the linear matrix inequality framework which allows the
generator 9 (𝑉9 𝑟𝑒𝑓 ). Since a local PSS is already installed at placement of the closed loop poles inside a pre-defined region.
generator 9, the second-best choice to provide additional The interested reader is referred to [42] for more information.
damping is to implement the WADC at generator 4 as shown in In this study, a conic sector with inner angle 𝜃 =
Table V. 2 cos −1 (0.3) = 145.08° and apex at the origin is used for pole
placement. It can be seen that the designed WADC using 𝑃𝐺1
Table VI shows the minimum number of PMUs and their provides better damping in comparison with the second WADC
locations for IEEE 39-bus system when considering the effect controller which is designed using 𝑃8−9 . This is evident from
of the control feedback signals. the dynamic response of active power output and relative rotor
Table V
INTER-AREA MODES FOR IEEE 39-BUS SYSTEM speed of generator 1 and the active power flow through the line
Mode R signal input 𝑃8−9 . When the first WADC controller is employed, the
1 𝑃𝐺1 𝑉9 𝑟𝑒𝑓 oscillatory response of the system is completely suppressed as
0.66 𝜔1 𝑉9 𝑟𝑒𝑓 the simulation time reaches 5 seconds. However, the oscillatory
0.66 𝑃𝐺𝑖 𝑉4 𝑟𝑒𝑓 response of the system with the second WADC controller lasts
0.58 𝑃𝐺1 𝑉5 𝑟𝑒𝑓 longer than 5 seconds as shown in Fig. 3.
0.49 𝑃𝐺1 𝑉3 𝑟𝑒𝑓
−0.4731 ± 3.5385𝑖 0.48 𝑃(1 − 39) 𝑉9 𝑟𝑒𝑓
(𝜁 = 13.25% , 𝑓 = 0.56 𝐻𝑧) 0.48 𝑃(1 − 2) 𝑉9 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.47 𝑃𝐺1 𝑉7 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.46 𝑃𝐺1 𝑉6 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.45 𝑃(9 − 39) 𝑉9 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.45 𝑃(8 − 9) 𝑉9 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.29 𝑃(8 − 9) 𝑉4 𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝑃(𝑖 − 𝑗) is the power flow between bus 𝑖 and 𝑗.
𝑃𝐺𝑖 is the power generated by generator 𝑖.
𝜔𝑖 is the speed of generator 𝑖.
𝑉𝑖 𝑟𝑒𝑓 is the input reference for generator 𝑖.

TABLE VI
PMU PLACEMENT FOR IEEE 39-BUS SYSTEM CONSIDERING THE
CONTROL SIGNALS
Control Signals
No. of PMUs PMUs busses
signals busses
3, 6, 11, 16, 20,
𝑃𝐺1 39 9
23, 25, 29, 39

Fig. 4. The dynamic performance of the IEEE 39-bus test system

The results in Table VI show that, the minimum number of
PMUs for full observability is higher when considering the
control signals. The reason is that some signals in the base case
are obtained by estimation rather than direct measuring, which
may affect the performance of the damping controllers.
Considering the control signals when solving the OPP problem
is an important factor for enhancing the system small signal
stability.
Fig. 4 shows the dynamic response of the IEEE 39-bus test
system when two WADC controllers are designed using the
active power output of generator 1 (𝑃𝐺1 ) and active power flow
2) The IEEE 118-bus Test System
The IEEE 118 bus test case represents a portion of the American
Electric Power System (in the Midwestern US) as of December,
1962. This test system comprises of 54 synchronous generators
and condensers, 177 transmission lines, 9 transformers, and 91
loads. All synchronous machines are modeled via the round
rotor generator model with quadratic saturation (GENROU). In
addition, the synchronous generators are equipped with IEEE
type 1 (IEET1) excitation system. Moreover, some of the
synchronous generators are equipped with IEEE dual-input

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
10

stabilizer model (PSS2A) and steam turbine-governor model
(TGOV1). The nonlinear model of the IEEE 118-bus test
system is developed in MATLAB/SIMULINK.
Small signal stability analysis of the linearized model reveals
the presence of one inter-area mode of oscillation that has a
frequency and damping ratio of 0.75 Hz and 3.68% as shown in
Table VII. Residual analysis is carried out to determine the
feedback signal which has the highest residue with respect to
the inter-area mode. Table VII shows that the active power flow
through the line that connects buses 65 and 68 is associated with
the highest residue. Nevertheless, this signal cannot be directly
measured by the PMU placement of the base case that is
presented in Table IV as a PMU is neither placed at bus 65 nor
bus 68. As a result, the control signals should be included in the
formulation of the OPP problem to ensure the effectiveness of
the designed WADC controllers and thus to enhance the
damping of inter-area modes of oscillations. Table VIII shows
the minimum number of PMUs and their locations for IEEE
118-bus system when considering the effect of the control
feedback signals.
designed WADC controllers were able to improve the overall
damping of the inter-area mode of oscillation. Nevertheless,
better damping is achieved when the active power flow through
the line 𝑃65−68 is taken as the feedback signal of the WADC
controller. The oscillatory response is completely suppressed
before the simulation time reaches 10 seconds. On the other
hand, the deployment of the active power flow through the line
𝑃81−80 results in more oscillatory response in comparison to
that of the first designed WADC controller.
The comparative analysis for both WADC controllers is also
presented for the dynamic response of the relative rotor angles
of the synchronous generators (𝛿38−47 ) as shown in Fig. 6. As
a result, feedback signals should be considered in the
formulation of the OPP problem to ensure the availability of the
proper feedback signals which exhibit high residue with respect
to inter-area modes of oscillations.

Two different WADC controllers are synthesized using the

active power flow in the lines between buses 65 and 68 (𝑃65−68 )
and 81 and 80 (𝑃81−80 ), respectively. These signals are selected
in light of the calculated residues with respect to the inter-area

Table VII
INTER-AREA MODES FOR IEEE 118-BUS SYSTEM
Mode R signal input
1.00 P(65-68) 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.91 P(81-80) 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.90 P(68-81) 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.65 P(38-65) 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓
−0.1747 ± 4.7405𝑖 0.62 P(30-38) 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓 Fig. 5. Dynamic response of active power flows through lines P(65-
(𝜁 = 3.68% , 𝑓 = 0.75 𝐻𝑧) 0.60 𝜔40 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓 68) and P(81-80)
0.53 𝑃𝑔40 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.42 P(77-82) 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.37 P(69-77) 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓
0.34 P(8-30) 𝑉40 𝑟𝑒𝑓

Table VIII
PMU PLACEMENT FOR IEEE 118-BUS SYSTEM
CONSIDERING THE CONTROL SIGNALS
Control Signals No. of
PMUs busses
signals buses PMUs
3,8,11,12,17,21,27,31,32,
34,37,40,45,49,53,56,62,
P(65-68) 65 or 68 29
65,72,75,77,80,85,86,91,
94,102,105,110

mode as shown Table VII. Fig. 5 shows the dynamic

performance of the active power flow through the lines 𝑃65−68
and 𝑃81−80 with and without the deployment of WADC
controllers. A three-phase fault is applied at bus 77 at time t =
1 sec, and is naturally cleared after 100 ms. The presence of the
inter-area mode is evident from the oscillatory response of the
system without WADC controller. It can be seen that the Fig. 6. Dynamic response of the relative angles of synchronous
generators δ(38-47).

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
11

Table IX corresponding to [4] in Table XII to represent only the channels

PMU PLACEMENT FOR SINGLE PMU LOSS
available for the current measurements.
Case study No. Locations
IEEE 14-bus 7 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 Table XII
1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, PMU PLACEMENT RESULTS CONSIDERING CHANNEL LIMITATION
IEEE 30-bus 14
27, 30 Channel
2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, limit
3 4
IEEE 39-bus 17
29, 34, 36, 37, 38 Case ILP ILP ILP ILP
1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 25, 28, 29, Proposed Proposed
IEEE 57-bus 22 study [30] [4] [30] [4]
30, 32, 33, 38, 41, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56 IEEE
1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 5 4 4 4 3 3
14-bus
23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 42, 43, IEEE
45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 59, 62, 66, 9 7 7 8 7 7
IEEE 118-bus 61 30-bus
69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, IEEE
87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 100, 101, 105, 10 8 8 9 8 8
39-bus
106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 117 IEEE
15 12 12 13 11 11
57-bus
TABLE X IEEE
COMPARISON OF PMU PLACEMENT FOR SINGLE PMU LOSS 38 30 30 31 28 28
118-bus
Case Study ILP [30] ILP [3] ILP [4] Proposed
IEEE 14-bus 7 7 7 7 Table XIII
IEEE 30-bus 16 14 15 14 THE LOCATIONS OF CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENTS
IEEE 39-bus 19 17 18 17 Case study PFMs IMs
IEEE 57-bus 27 22 26 22 IEEE 14-bus 1-5, 6-11, 10-11 -
IEEE 118-bus 62 61 63 61 14-15, 15-45, 18-19, 21-22, 22-38,
IEEE 57-bus 24-26, 28-29, 30-31, 34-35, 36-40, -
TABLE XI 39-57, 47-48, 50-51, 53-54
PMU PLACEMENT FOR IEEE 39-BUS UNDER SINGLE PMU LOSS 5-6, 11-12, 12-14, 15-17, 17-18,
FOR THE CONTROL SIGNALS ONLY 19-20, 23-24, 27-28, 30-38, 32-113,
Control Signals IEEE 118- 34-36, 37-38, 40-41, 49-50, 54-55, 51, 54,
No. of PMUs PMUs busses
signals busses bus 56-57, 59-60, 61-62, 62-66, 69-70, 92, 115
3, 6, 11, 16, 20, 70-71, 75-77, 77-78, 80-81, 85-86,
𝑃𝐺1 39 10 23, 25, 29, 39, 39 92-93, 94-95, 96-97, 100-101, 105-106

Table XIV
C. Single PMU loss PMU PLACEMENT RESULTS IN PRESENCE OF THE PRE-EXISTING
CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENTS
The PMU placement results under N-1 contingency are Case
shown in Table IX for different Standard IEEE systems. To PFMs IMs
study
make the system fully observable if any PMU is lost, the IEEE No. 2
number of installed PMUs has to be higher than that of the -
14-bus Loc 4, 13
normal case. The extra PMUs provide back-up measuring No. 8
IEEE
source for that lost PMU, and that is clear when comparing the Loc 1, 4, 9, 23, 32, 38, 52, -
57-bus
results in Table IV and Table IX. A comparison of the PMU 56
placement results under N-1 is presented in Table X. Table XI No. 24 27
shows the PMUs placement for 39-bus system under single Loc 3, 8, 12, 15, 22, 24, 3, 8, 11, 12, 17, 21,
PMU loss for the control signals only. The number of PMUs is IEEE 27, 31, 32, 40, 43, 46, 24, 27, 31, 34, 37, 40,
118-bus 51, 54, 66, 75, 77, 80, 45, 49, 56, 62, 70, 75,
clearly reduced (17 to 10), and the controls signals are secured
85, 87, 89, 92, 105, 77, 80, 85, 86, 91, 94,
if a single PMU is lost, and hence the system stability is 110 100, 105, 110
maintained. Notice that two PMUs have be installed at bus 39.
D. PMU Channel Limitation
E. Considering the Pre-existing Conventional Measurements
The minimum number of PMUs for full observability when
The locations of the CMs are shown in Table XIII. For the
the number of current measurement channels is limited is
IEEE 14-bus system and IEEE 57-bus system these locations
presented in Table XII. All PMUs are assumed to have the same
are available in [27], whereas for the IEEE 118-bus system they
number of channels. Two cases of channels limitations are
can be found in [3]. The PMU placement results in the presence
considered and the obtained results are compared to the results
of CMs are presented in Table XIV. It can be observed that the
presented in the literature. Note that in [4] the voltage
number of PMUs when considering the pre-existing CMs is less
measurement is included in the channels limit, however in this
compared to the base case, and considering these CMs helps to
paper only the current measurement channels are considered,
reduce the required number of PMUs for full observability.
since the PMU always measure the bus voltage. One
measurement channel is subtracted from the results

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
12

VI. CONCLUSION [6] S. Kumar, B. Tyagi, V. Kumar, and S. Chohan,

In this paper, the proposed approach considers the impact of
network parameters such as lines and transformers impedances
in the formulation of the OPP problem. The main findings
reveal that network parameters have a crucial impact on the
observability of the entire network. The obtained results are
compared to other techniques reported in the literature to show
the effectiveness of the proposed method which exhibits
superior performance in terms of finding the global optimal
solution. Moreover, additional operating conditions and
contingencies have been studied such as single PMU loss, PMU
channel limitation and consideration of the pre-existing power
injection and power flow measurements. Furthermore, the
proposed formulation considers the impact of control feedback
signals of the supplementary damping controls such that small-
signal stability is enhanced. It is found that this incorporation
ensures full observability of the selected output signal with
respect to poorly damped inter-area oscillations. This is evident
through time-domain simulation.
VII. FUTURE WORK
The work presented in this paper can be extended further by
considering the following studies:
• Developing an efficient method for finding the
minimal dependent columns in the
coefficient’s matrix of each disjoint group in the OPP
problem formulation.
• Deployment of the PMUs based on the substation
design and network configuration, this can be
achieved in collaboration with a power utility.
• Incorporating the single and multiple branch outage
contingencies into the problem formulation.
REFERENCES
[1] N. M. Manousakis and G. N. Korres, “Optimal
Allocation of Phasor Measurement Units Considering
Various Contingencies and Measurement
Redundancy,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 69, no.
6, pp. 3403–3411, 2020.
[2] D. Dua, S. Dambhare, R. K. Gajbhiye, and S. A.
Soman, “Optimal multistage scheduling of PMU
placement: An ILP approach,” IEEE Trans. Power
Deliv., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1812–1820, 2008.
[3] K. G. Khajeh, E. Bashar, A. M. Rad, and G. B.
Gharehpetian, “Integrated Model Considering Effects
of Zero Injection Buses and Conventional
Measurements on Optimal PMU Placement,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1006–1013, 2017.
[4] F. Aminifar, A. Khodaei, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M.
Shahidehpour, “Contingency-constrained PMU
placement in power networks,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 516–523, 2010.
[5] N. M. Manousakis, G. N. Korres, and P. S. Georgilakis,
“Taxonomy of PMU placement methodologies,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1070–1077,
2012.
“Incremental PMU placement considering reliability of
power system network using analytical hierarchical
process,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 12, no. 16,
pp. 3900–3909, 2018.
[7] F. Aminifar, C. Lucas, A. Khodaei, and M. Fotuhi-
Firuzabad, “Optimal Placement of Phasor
Measurement Units Using Immunity Genetic
Algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 24, no. 3,
pp. 1014–1020, 2009.
[8] H. H. Müller and C. A. Castro, “Genetic algorithm-
based phasor measurement unit placement method
considering observability and security criteria,” IET
Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 270–280,
2016.
[9] A. Asgari and K. G. Firouzjah, “Optimal PMU
placement for power system observability considering
network expansion and N - 1 contingencies,” IET
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 12, no.
18. pp. 4216–4224, 2018.
[10] M. K. Arpanahi, H. H. Alhelou, and P. Siano, “A Novel
Multiobjective OPP for Power System Small Signal
Stability Assessment Considering WAMS
Uncertainties,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics, vol. 16,
no. 5, pp. 3039–3050, 2020.
[11] Z. Miljanić, I. Djurović, and I. Vujošević, “Optimal
placement of PMUs with limited number of channels,”
Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 90, pp. 93–98, 2012.
[12] N. H. A. Rahman and A. F. Zobaa, “Integrated
Mutation Strategy With Modified Binary PSO
Algorithm for Optimal PMUs Placement,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Informatics, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 3124–3133, 2017.
[13] T. K. Maji and P. Acharjee, “Multiple Solutions of
Optimal PMU Placement Using Exponential Binary
PSO Algorithm for Smart Grid Applications,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 2550–2559, 2017.
[14] A. A. Saleh, A. S. Adail, and A. A. Wadoud, “Optimal
phasor measurement units placement for full
observability of power system using improved particle
swarm optimisation,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol.
11, no. 7, pp. 1794–1800, 2017.
[15] M. B. Mohammadi, R. A. Hooshmand, and F. H.
Fesharaki, “A new approach for optimal placement of
PMUs and their required communication infrastructure
in order to minimize the cost of the WAMS,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 84–93, 2016.
[16] M. H. F. Wen, J. Xu, and V. O. K. Li, “Optimal
Multistage PMU Placement for Wide-Area
Monitoring,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 4,
pp. 4134–4143, 2013.
[17] N. C. Koutsoukis, N. M. Manousakis, P. S. Georgilakis,
and G. N. Korres, “Numerical observability method for
optimal phasor measurement units placement using
recursive tabu search method,” IET Gener. Transm.
Distrib., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 347–356, 2013.
[18] P. K. Ghosh, S. Chatterjee, and B. K. S. Roy, “Optimal
PMU placement solution: Graph theory and MCDM-
based approach,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 11,
no. 13, pp. 3371–3380, 2017.
[19] X. Guo, C. Liao, and C. Chu, “Decentralized PMU

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
Placements in a Dynamic Programming Approach,” in
2019 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual
Meeting, 2019, pp. 1–8.
[20] N. Dean, A. Ilic, I. Ramirez, J. Shen, and K. Tian, “On
the Power Dominating Sets of Hypercubes,” 2011.
[21] A. S. Kare and S. Valluru, “Heuristics for the Power
Edge Set Problem,” in 2020 11th International
Conference on Computing, Communication and
Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), 2020, pp. 1–7.
[22] S. Azizi, A. S. Dobakhshari, S. A. Nezam Sarmadi, and
A. M. Ranjbar, “Optimal PMU placement by an
equivalent linear formulation for exhaustive search,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 174–182,
2012.
[23] R. J. Albuquerque and V. Leonardo Paucar,
“Evaluation of the PMUs measurement channels
availability for observability analysis,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2536–2544, 2013.
[24] S. Azizi, G. B. Gharehpetian, and A. S. Dobakhshari,
“Optimal integration of phasor measurement units in
power systems considering conventional
measurements,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 2,
pp. 1113–1121, 2013.
[25] B. Gou, “Generalized integer linear programming
formulation for optimal PMU placement,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1099–1104, 2008.
[26] J. Aghaei, A. Baharvandi, A. Rabiee, and M. A. Akbari,
“Probabilistic PMU Placement in Electric Power
Networks: An MILP-Based Multiobjective Model,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 332–
341, 2015.
[27] M. Esmaili, K. Gharani, and H. A. Shayanfar,
“Redundant observability PMU placement in the
presence of flow measurements considering
contingencies,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no.
4, pp. 3765–3773, 2013.
[28] S. Nikkhah, J. Aghaei, B. Safarinejadian, and M. A.
Norouzi, “Contingency constrained phasor
measurement units placement with n - k redundancy
criterion: A robust optimisation approach,” IET
Science, Measurement and Technology, vol. 12, no. 2.
pp. 151–160, 2018.
[29] N. H. Abbasy and H. M. Ismail, “A unified approach
for the optimal PMU location for power system state
estimation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 806–813, 2009.
[30] C. Lu, Z. Wang, M. Ma, R. Shen, and Y. Yu, “An
Optimal PMU Placement with Reliable Zero Injection
Observation,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 54417–54426,
2018.
[31] Y. Shi, H. D. Tuan, T. Q. Duong, H. V. Poor, and A. V.
Savkin, “PMU Placement Optimization for Efficient
State Estimation in Smart Grid,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 71–83, 2020.
[32] F. Aminifar, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, A. Safdarian, and
M. Shahidehpour, “Observability of hybrid AC/DC
power systems with variable-cost PMUs,” IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 345–352, 2014.
[33] A. Pal, G. A. Sanchez-Ayala, V. A. Centeno, and J. S.
Thorp, “A PMU placement scheme ensuring real-time
0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
13
monitoring of critical buses of the network,” IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 510–517, 2014.
[34] M. H. R. Koochi, S. Esmaeili, and G. Ledwich,
“Locating minimum number of PMUs for preand post-
disturbance monitoring of power systems,” IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 127–136, 2019.
[35] M. Korkali and A. Abur, “Impact of network sparsity
on strategic placement of phasor measurement units
with fixed channel capacity,” ISCAS 2010 - 2010 IEEE
Int. Symp. Circuits Syst. Nano-Bio Circuit Fabr. Syst.,
pp. 3445–3448, 2010.
[36] M. H. Rezaeian Koochi, P. Dehghanian, and S.
Esmaeili, “PMU Placement with Channel Limitation
for Faulty Line Detection in Transmission Systems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 819–827,
2020.
[37] G. N. Korres, N. M. Manousakis, T. C. Xygkis, and J.
Löfberg, “Optimal phasor measurement unit placement
for numerical observability in the presence of
conventional measurements using semi-definite
programming,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 9, no.
15, pp. 2427–2436, 2015.
[38] N. M. Manousakis and G. N. Korres, “Semidefinite
programming for optimal placement of PMUs with
channel limits considering pre-existing SCADA and
PMU measurements,” 19th Power Syst. Comput. Conf.
PSCC 2016, 2016.
[39] V. Kekatos, G. B. Giannakis, and B. Wollenberg,
“Optimal placement of phasor measurement units via
convex relaxation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27,
no. 3, pp. 1521–1530, 2012.
[40] R. Emami and A. Abur, “Robust measurement design
by placing synchronized phasor measurements on
network branches,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25,
no. 1, pp. 38–43, 2010.
[41] A. Pal, A. K. S. Vullikanti, and S. S. Ravi, “A PMU
Placement Scheme Considering Realistic Costs and
Modern Trends in Relaying,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 552–561, 2017.
[42] Y. J. Isbeih, M. S. El Moursi, W. Xiao, and E. El-
Saadany, “H∞ mixed-sensitivity robust control design
for damping low-frequency oscillations with DFIG
wind power generation,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib.,
vol. 13, no. 19, pp. 4274–4286, 2019.
[43] L. P. Kunjumuhammed and B. C. Pal, “Selection of
feedback signals for controlling dynamics in future
power transmission networks,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1493–1501, 2015.
[44] “The Polish 2383-bus system,”
https://matpower.org/docs/ref/matpower5.0/case2383
wp.html. .
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3076576, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
14

Mohamed Elimam received his B.Sc. degree
in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from
University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan in
2015 and the M.Sc. degree in Electrical and
Computer Engineering from Khalifa University,
Abu Dhabi, UAE in 2020. Currently, he is a
Research Engineer in the Department of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at
Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE. His research interests include
power system modelling, transient and small-signal stability
assessment and enhancement, renewable energy integration into
power grid and deployment of machine learning techniques into the
smart grid.
Khaled Elbassioni received B.S. and M.S.
degrees in Computer Science from
Alexandria University, Egypt, and a Ph.D.
degree in Computer Science from Rutgers
University, USA. From 2006 to 2012, he was
a senior researcher at Max-Planck Institute
for Informatics, Saarbruecken, Germany. He
is currently a professor in the Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science
department at Khalifa University of Science
and Technology. His main research interests are in the design and
analysis of efficient algorithms, with focus on discrete and continuous
optimization, approximation algorithms, game theory and their
applications in smart grid and power systems.

Younes J. Isbeih received the B.Sc. degree from

the German Jordanian University, Jordan in 2011 Khalifa Hassan Al Hosani (Senior Member,
and the M.Sc. and the PhD degrees from Khalifa IEEE) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees
University of Science and Technology - Masdar in electrical engineering from the University
Campus, UAE in 2015 and 2019, respectively. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA, in
He is currently working as a Post-Doctoral 2005 and 2007, respectively, and the Ph.D.
Fellow at the Electrical Engineering and degree in electrical and computer
Computer Science department at Khalifa engineering from The Ohio State University,
University of Science and Technology. His research interests are Columbus, OH, USA, in 2011. He is
diverse and include power system modeling and stability, robust currently an Associate Professor with the
control design in addition to renewable energy integration. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Khalifa
University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. He is the Co-Founder
with the Power Electronics and Advanced Sustainable Energy Center
Laboratory, ADNOC Research and Innovation Center (now Power
Electronics and Sustainable Energy (PEASE) Research Lab at Khalifa
Mohamed Shawky El Moursi ((M’12, SM15)
University), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates .His research interests
received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from
include a wide range of topics including nonlinear control, sliding
Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt, in 1997
mode control, control of power electronics, power systems stability
and 2002, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree and control, renewable energy systems modeling and control, smart
from the University of New Brunswick (UNB), grid, microgrid and distributed generation, and application of control
Fredericton, NB, Canada, in 2005, all in theory to oil and gas applications.
electrical engineering. He was a Research and
Teaching Assistant in the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, UNB,
from 2002 to 2005. He joined McGill University
as a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Power Electronics Group. He joined
Vestas Wind Systems, Arhus, Denmark, in the Technology R&D with
the Wind Power Plant Group. He was with TRANSCO, UAE, as a
Senior Study and Planning Engineer. He is currently a Professor in the
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at Khalifa
University of Science and Technology- Masdar Campus and seconded
to a Professor Position in the Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura
University, Mansoura, Egypt and currently on leave. He was a Visiting
Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA. Dr. Shawky is currently an Editor of IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
Guest Editor of IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Guest
Editor-in-Chief for special section between TPWRD and RPWRS,
Editor for IEEE Power Engineering Letters, Regional Editor for IET
Renewable Power Generation and Associate Editor for IET Power
Electronics Journals. His research interests include power system,
power electronics, FACTS technologies, VSC-HVDC systems,
Microgrid operation and control, Renewable energy systems (Wind
and PV) integration and interconnections.

0885-8950 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 22,2021 at 12:11:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.