Strategic and Robust Deployment Of. Synchronized Phasor Measurement Units With. Restricted Channel Capacity

Strategic and Robust Deployment of
Synchronized Phasor Measurement Units with

Restricted Channel Capacity
A Thesis Presented
by
Mert Korkal
to
The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts
December 2010
copyright by Mert Korkal 2010

All Rights Reserved
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Graduate School of Engineering
Thesis Title: Strategic and Robust Deployment of Synchronized Phasor
Measurement Units with Restricted Channel Capacity
Author:
Mert Korkal
Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering

Approved for Thesis Requirements of the Master of Science Degree
Thesis Adviser: Professor Ali Abur
Date
Thesis Reader: Professor Hanoch Lev-Ari
Date
Thesis Reader: Professor Aleksandar M. Stankovic
Date
Department Chair: Professor Ali Abur
Date
Graduate School Notified of Acceptance:
Director of the Graduate School: Sara Wadia-Fascetti
Date
Northeastern University
Abstract
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Master of Science in Electrical and Computer Engineering
by Mert Korkal
iv
Synchronized phasor measurements are changing the way power systems are monitored and operated. Their efficient incorporation into various applications which are
executed in energy management control centers requires strategic placement of these
devices. Earlier studies which consider placement of synchronized phasor measurement units (PMUs) to be used for state estimation assume that these devices will
have unlimited channel capacities to record as many phase voltages and currents as
needed. What differentiates this study from those already reported in the literature
is the fact that it accounts for the number of available channels for the chosen type
of PMU since all existing PMUs come with a limited number of channels and their
costs vary accordingly. This is shown to be a critical factor in strategic placement
of these devices. In this study, a revised formulation of the placement problem and
its associated solution algorithm will be presented. Examples will be used to illustrate the impact of having limited number of channels on the location and number of
required PMUs to make the system observable. Developed methods will take into account existing injection measurements, in particular the virtual measurements such
as zero-injections that are available at no cost at electrically passive buses.
Moreover, despite the advances in related technologies, it is almost impossible
to guarantee occasional device or communication failure that will lead to loss of
data to be received from a given PMU. This work is also aimed to illustrate how the
measurement design can be made reliable against such events while maintaining the
cost of PMU installations at a minimum by using strategically placed PMUs with
the proper number of channels.
Furthermore, it is also demonstrated that depending upon the topology of the
network, there will be an upper limit on the number of channels for the PMUs beyond
which installation costs will not be reduced any further. Accordingly, numerical
results of applying the developed optimization method to power systems with varying
sizes and topologies will be presented to illustrate the typical numbers of PMUs and
their channel capacities that are required for optimal performance. The results of
this work will be more useful as the number of PMU installations increases to levels
that will make the system fully observable based solely on PMUs with different
number of channel capacities.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply indebted to my mentor and research advisor, Professor Ali Abur, for an
incomparably rewarding educational and personal experience. I have been indescribably enlightened and inspired by his patient teaching and vast technical expertise.
His constant support, gentle guidance, and warm encouragement gave a positive
impetus to the successful completion of my thesis. His inspiring ability to treat
problems from a new perspective integrated with many hours of constructive discussions were the raison detres of the progressive improvements in this thesis. Indeed,
being a research assistant to him will definitely fortify my competence to stay in the
forefront of my current research area.
In the meantime, this is an opportunity to thank some of the people who have
shaped my academic personality prior to my arrival to Northeastern. Special thanks
go to my undergraduate advisor, Professor B
ulent Bilir, for his invaluable patience
and incessant encouragement throughout my studies at Bahcesehir University and
Professor H. Fatih Ugurdag for his irreplaceable endeavor that undoubtedly paved
the way for my being a graduate student in the United States. I am more than grateful for experiencing a mentoryounger friend relationship as well as an instructor
student relationship with them.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Professor Hanoch Lev-Ari and
Professor Aleksandar M. Stankovic not only for serving as my thesis committee
members, but also giving me an inspiration and immense knowledge of their areas
of expertise during my graduate studies.
My deepest gratitude and love are reserved for my parents, who made me who I
am and whose love embraces me everywhere regardless of the wide distance between
us.
Contents
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgments
List of Figures
viii
List of Tables
ix
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivations for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Contributions of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
2
3
2 Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

2.1 Historical Overview of Phasor Measurement Units . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Applications of Synchronized Phasor Measurements in Power Systems
2.3 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
5
7
8
3 Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Number of Channels
3.1 Statement of the PMU Placement Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Proposed Formulation for the PMU Placement Problem . . . . . . . .
3.3 Modeling of Zero-Injection Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Case 1Arbitrary Selection of Neighbor Buses . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Case 2Selection of Neighbor Buses which Have Minimum
Number of Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.3 Case 3Selection of Neighbor Buses which Have Maximum
Number of Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.4 Case 4Modeling of Zero-Injection Buses as Linear Constraints
3.4 Effect of Network Sparsity on PMU Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Optimal Placement Accounting for Single PMU Loss . . . . . . . . .
14
14
16
21
21
21
22
23
25
28
4 Simulation Results
31
4.1 Conventional PMU Placement with Fixed Channel Capacity . . . . . 31
vi
Contents
4.2
4.3
4.4
vii
Impact of Network Sparsity on Strategic Placement of PMUs . . . . . 32

Reliable Measurement Design Against Loss of PMUs . . . . . . . . . 34
Illustration of Unified PMU Placement Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5 Concluding Remarks and Further Study

49
5.1 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2 Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A Functions and Scripts Used in the PMU Placement Algorithm

A.1 Read Network Parameters and Build the Single-Hop Connectivity Matrix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.2 Find the Required Number of PMUs for Complete Network Observability (Ignoring Zero-Injection Measurements) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.3 Find the Required Number of PMUs for Complete Network Observability (Considering Zero-Injection Measurements) . . . . . . . . . . .
51
B IEEE Test Systems Data Used in the

B.1 IEEE 14-Bus Test System Data . . .
B.4 IEEE 118-Bus Test System Data . .
64
65
68
72
79
Bibliography
PMU
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Placement
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
Algorithm
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
51
54
57
94
List of Figures
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Phasor measurements provided by PMU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7-bus system for illustration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PMU placement for IEEE 14-bus system when the channel limit is 3.
Network diagram and measurement configuration for the IEEE 14-bus
system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration of 3 one-channel PMUs in 7-bus system. . . . . . . . .
Network diagram for the 7-bus system with two-hop neighborhood
topology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reliable placement against single PMU loss for the IEEE 14-bus system when the channel limit is 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zero-injections and optimally placed 22 PMUs for the IEEE 57-bus
system assuming no channel limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Optimally placed 7 PMUs for the IEEE 14-bus system when the channel limit is 1 (ignoring the zero-injections). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Optimally placed 15 PMUs for the IEEE 30-bus system when the
channel limit is 1 (ignoring the zero-injections). . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Zero-injection and optimally placed 3 PMUs for the IEEE 14-bus
system when the channel limit is 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Zero-injections and optimally placed 7 PMUs for the IEEE 30-bus
4.9 Reliable placement against single PMU loss for the IEEE 14-bus system when the channel limit is 3 (considering the zero-injection). . . .
4.10 Reliable placement against single PMU loss for the IEEE 30-bus system when the channel limit is 3 (considering the zero-injections). . . .
4.11 Reliable placement against single PMU loss for the IEEE 57-bus system when the channel limit is 3 (considering the zero-injections). . . .
4.12 Reliable placement against single PMU loss for the IEEE 118-bus
system when the channel limit is 3 (considering the zero-injections). .
17
19
20
22
25
28
30
30
4.1
viii
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
List of Tables
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Conventional PMU Placement without Zero-Injections for Miscellaneous Power Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PMU Placement with Zero-Injections for IEEE Test Systems . . . . .
Conventional PMU Placement with 2-Hop Connectivity for Five IEEE
Test Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reliable Placement Against Loss of PMUs without Zero-Injections for
Miscellaneous Power Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reliable Placement Against Loss of PMUs with Zero-Injections for
IEEE Test Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
33
34
35
36
B.1 System Information of Studied IEEE Test Systems . . . . . . . . . . 64
ix
To my beloved parents,
Selma and Hasan Korkal,
with love and gratitude
A good companion shortens the longest road.

Turkish Proverb
xi
Chapter 1
Introduction
Power systems have long been monitored based on measurements provided by remote
terminal units (RTU). These measurements typically include branch power flows, bus
power injections, and magnitude of bus voltages. A critical quantity of interest is the
phase difference between a given pair of bus voltage phasors in the system. Until
recently, this quantity was not easily measurable. Direct measurement of phase
angles of voltage and/or current phasors is now possible by phasor measurement
units (PMUs) thanks to the availability of the Global Positioning System (GPS)
that facilitates time synchronization of measured signals at geographically remote
locations. However, even when there are no phase angle measurements, phase angle
associated with each bus voltage phasor can be estimated along with its magnitude
provided that there are sufficient number of power flow and bus injections measured
with negligible time skew. This is accomplished by the help of a power system state
estimator.
Having synchronized phasor measurements for bus voltages and branch currents
in a given power system has a significant effect on the application functions in control
centers. In particular, the state estimation application will be affected in a rather
fundamental manner in that the problem formulation can transform from nonlinear
to linear if sufficiently large number of such phasors can be measured. Hence, there
is interest on the part of state estimator users with respect to the requirements of
such a transformation, namely the cost associated with installing the right number
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
and type of PMUs at strategic locations in order to drastically improve their state
estimators.
1.1
Motivations for the Study
Synchronized phasor measurement units are rapidly populating power systems as

their benefits become more and more evident for various power system applications.
One such function is the state estimation [1]. In fact, state estimation provides the
much needed real-time database for several application functions which facilitate
power system control and efficient operation. Given the limited resources, it is
practical to place these devices strategically in order to minimize the cost/benefit
ratio.
Optimal placement methods to account for contingencies, loss of measurements
as well as existing conventional measurements and zero-injections have already been
presented in previous publications. A common assumption in all of these studies
is that each PMU can measure unlimited number of voltages and currents. This
assumption allows the PMU placement problem to be formulated in a straightforward
manner since placement of a PMU at a given bus automatically ensures availability
of phasors at all of its neighboring buses. This is true as long as the network
connectivity and associated branch parameters are perfectly known, which is also
commonly assumed by all state estimators. Available PMUs have limited number of
channels which are used to sample voltage or current signals. These sampled signals
are processed to generate a positive-sequence phasor voltage and current from the
three-phase voltages and currents. Hence, channel capacities of PMUs may play an
important role in their strategic placement for maximum coverage.
1.2
Contributions of the Thesis
The main contribution of this thesis is to recognize the effect of channel capacity
of a given type of PMU on their optimal placement for network observability and
to develop an optimal solution to the PMU placement problem given a specified

number of available channels for the candidate PMUs. As in earlier studies, problem
formulation accounts for bus injections which may be known due to measurements
or due to their zero values at passive buses.
In formulating the problem it is realized that for a given number of channel capacity there will be a finite combination of possible assignments of incident branches
to a given PMU placed at a bus. Hence, the choices will increase with the number of
incident branches for a given bus, but will remain bounded irrespective of the overall
system size, thanks to the sparse interconnection of power system buses.
1.3
Thesis Outline
This thesis comprises five chapters. It is organized as follows. In the current chapter,
the motivations for the research problem and our contributions to PMU placement
problem are discussed.
In the succeeding chapter (Chapter 2), we first present the general background
information about synchronized phasor measurement units and review the relevant
literature to the existing PMU placement strategies flourished in the field of power
systems state estimation.
Chapter 3 delineates the method of determining optimal number and locations
of PMUs, so that the system state of an entire power system will be observable. In
doing so, the technique to be introduced is a numerical procedure where the problem
is formulated as an integer linear programming (ILP) problem. In addition, different
cases are suggested for the modeling of zero-injection buses.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the simulation results of our optimization model including various conditions where zero-injections are considered and ignored, the sparsity
of the studied networks is reduced fictitiously; and the reliability is maintained under
a single PMU failure. Several case studies are conducted to evaluate the algorithms
performance and effectiveness.
Finally, Chapter 5 concludes this thesis with the discussion on the benefits of
the proposed formulation for optimal PMU placement along with its usability in
the existing power systems. Also, we express our ideas about what can be done for
further study.
Chapter 2
Optimal PMU Placement for State
Estimation
This chapter is mainly devoted to the history of the evolution of synchronized phasor
measurement units used for the purpose of state estimation and provides an overview
of the applications and miscellaneous techniques that have been introduced so far in
the power systems literature regarding PMU placement.
2.1
Historical Overview of Phasor Measurement

Units
Synchronized phasor measurements are considered as a promising measurement tool

for electric power systems. They supply positive-sequence voltage and current measurements synchronized to within a microsecond thanks to the availability of Global
Positioning System (GPS) and the sampled data processing algorithms designed
for computer relaying applications. Apart from the positive-sequence voltage and
current measurements, these systems are able to quantify both local frequency and
frequency rate-of-change. Moreover, they can be altered according to the several
needs of users in order to extract the data relating to zero- and negative-sequence
quantities, harmonics, as well as individual phase voltages and currents. Currently,
5
Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation
there are 24 commercial PMU manufacturers. In this respect, standards established

by the IEEE Power System Relaying Committee have enabled the data sharing capability among distant units from different manufacturers. Considering that blackouts
are occurring overwhelmingly on the existing power networks, widespread allocation
of PMUs has gained tremendous interest. In particular, positive-sequence measurements provide the accessibility to the power system state at any instant. Various
applications of synchronized phasor measurements have been presented in the literature, and more applications will certainly be developed in coming years [2].
The modern era of phasor measurement technology has its origin in research
conducted on computer relaying of transmission lines. Early study on transmission line relaying with relays based on microprocessors unveiled that the available
computer power in 1970s was not substantial enough to manage the computations
required to execute all the line relaying operations.
Positive-sequence voltages of a network constitute the state vector of a power
system, and it is of fundamental importance in all of power system analyses. The
first paper to identify the importance of positive-sequence voltage and current phasor measurements, and some of the uses of these measurements, was published in
1983 [3], and this work can be viewed as the starting point of modern synchronized
phasor measurement technology. The GPS was being entirely installed around these
years. Later on, it became evident that this system provided the most effective way of
synchronizing power system measurements over long distances. The first prototypes
of the existing PMUs using GPS were developed at Virginia Tech in 1980s. These
prototype PMUs built at Virginia Tech were placed at certain substations of the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the New York Power Authority (NYPA),
and the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC) [2]. For the moment, a number of commercial manufacturers offer PMUs and placement of PMUs
on the modern power systems is being carried out profoundly in many countries.
Along with the development of PMUs, there is substantial amount of continuing
research on the applications of the measurements provided by the PMUs. In this
respect, the recent advancement in synchronized phasor measurements is reaching
towards improvements in its maturity, and a majority of modern power systems

across the globe are continually placing wide-area measurement systems made up of
the phasor measurement units.
2.2
Applications of Synchronized Phasor Measurements in Power Systems
Advances and applications in research studies of synchronized phasor measurement

units have been presented by several recent papers. Reference [4] introduces a possible approach towards formulating a standard that would facilitate interoperability
of PMUs under transient conditions. In [5], the authors propose a wide-area network
of phasor measurement units as a means for monitoring and control of voltage stability. A new technique for wide-area protection utilizing PMU is suggested in [6].
In particular, the proposed protection scheme is dependent upon the comparison
of the positive-sequence voltage magnitudes for certain areas along with the differences of positive-sequence current phase angles for each line between two areas in
the power system. The authors of [7] show that the realization of optimal measurement designs can be achieved in order to determine the types and locations of few
extra measurements that will considerably improve the capability of topology error
processing. To accomplish this task, emerging PMUs are suggested for use in addition to the conventional power flow and injection measurements. In order to help
prevent a large-scale blackout, the authors of reference [8] present an online voltage
security assessment scheme making use of synchronized phasor measurements as well
as decision trees which are periodically updated.
With the latest progress in smart grid technology, the use of phasor measurement units has definitely drawn substantial interest in order to render power system
reliability within transmission and distribution infrastructure. Hence, the utilization
of wide-area monitoring systems (WAMS) using synchrophasor measurements has
gained momentum achieving improved system monitoring, control, and protection.
In one of recent studies [9], the authors discuss the detailed architecture and the recent implementations and applications of a wide-area frequency monitoring network
(FNET). In [10], it is shown that single line outages can be detected by using phasor angle measurements data provided by PMUs even if there is extremely limited
coverage. In a two-paper set [11, 12], the authors present a PMU-based technique
for fault detection/location as well as multifunction transmission line protection for
both arcing and permanent faults by processing the synchronized voltage and current
phasors. In order to avoid reclosure on a permanent fault, arcing fault discrimination
technique is proposed via processing the synchronized harmonic voltage and current
phasors.
In [13], energy function analysis has been adapted using phasor data in order
to monitor the dynamic security of power transfer paths. Utilizing the phasor data
provided by a system of well-located PMUs, the transfer paths and their associated
parameters are identified and the transfer path reactances and equivalent inertias
are estimated by using the power-angle curves and the oscillation frequencies. A
wide-area identification of long-term voltage instability from the bus voltage phasors provided by synchronized phasor measurements is devised in [14, 15]. A generalized fault section selector, as well as fault locator, is proposed by Liu et al. [16] for
multiterminal transmission lines based on synchronized phasor measurement units.
In [17], the authors investigate the feasibility of estimating the rotor angle of synchronous generators from the measurements of field voltage of the generator and
terminal voltage measurements acquired from PMUs.
2.3
Related Work
In order to estimate the system state, power system state estimator makes use of the
set of available measurements. Given a set of measurements and their corresponding
locations, the network observability analysis will determine if a unique estimate
can be found for the system state. This analysis are carried out offline during
the initial phase of a state estimator installation in order to check the sufficiency
of the existing measurement configuration. If the system is not found observable,
then additional meters may have to be installed at certain locations. Observability

analysis is executed online prior to performing the state estimator. It ensures that a
state estimate can be obtained using the set of measurements at the last measurement
scan. Telecommunication errors, telemetry failures, or changes in topology may at
times result in the cases where the state of the whole system cannot be estimated.
Network observability test allows detection of such cases right before the execution
of the state estimator. Observability of a given network is determined by the type
and location of the available measurements as well as by the topology of the network.
Therefore, the analysis of network observability exploits the graph theory since it has
connection with networks, their respective equations and solutions. Also, the system
is said to be topologically observable if the meters are placed such that there exists at
least one spanning measurement tree of full rank [18]. On the other hand, installing
a PMU at every bus in a wide-area interconnected network is neither reasonable
nor prudent. For that reason, the optimal PMU placement problem deals with
determining the minimum number of PMUs to achieve full network observability.
Intrinsically, the optimal PMU placement problem is shown to be NP-complete
with a solution space having 2N possible combinations for an N -bus electric network [19]. In this respect, it is regarded as a combinatorial optimization problem
and a considerable amount of work has been done by several researchers, accordingly.
These approaches are broadly classified into two main categories: the metaheuristic
techniques and conventional deterministic optimization methods. As formulations
based on metaheuristics (e.g., simulated annealing (SA), genetic algorithm (GA),
Tabu search (TS), etc.) do not involve derivative of cost functions and the variables
of the meter placement problem are discrete; they have been extensively used in
dealing with discrete variables when solving the optimal PMU placement problem.
The utilization and development of PMUs are first introduced in [20] and [21].
An algorithm for finding the minimum number of PMUs required for power system
state estimation is developed in [22] and [23] in which the simulated annealing (SA)
method and the graph theory are utilized in formulating and solving the problem.
Nuqui and Phadke [24], [25] utilize a simulated annealing (SA) technique in their
graph-theoretic approach to determine the optimal PMU locations. In their work, a
10
novel concept of depth-of-unobservability is presented and how this has an effect

on the PMU placement is also shown. An optimal placement method founded on
nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) is proposed by Milosevic and Begovic [26]. The algorithm unites the graph theory and a simple GA to estimate each
optimal solution of the objective function. The best tradeoff between the competing
objectives is then searched by customized NSGA. This method is limited by the size
of the problem as it requires more complex computations. Another GA-based procedure for the placement problem is presented by Marn et al. [19]. In this letter, the
relationship between the number of current phasors that must be measured on each
PMU and the required number of PMUs is also sought by the authors. Cho, Shin,
and Hyun [27] propose three approaches aiming at alleviating computational burden
of the optimal placement problem. First, SA method is modified in setting the initial temperature and cooling procedure. Second, direct combination (DC) method
is suggested using a simple yet effective heuristic rule to identify the most effective
sets in the observability sense. At the end, TS method is utilized to diminish the
searching spaces effectively. A novel technique established upon TS and augmented
incidence matrix is introduced by Peng, Sun, and Wang [28]. Aminifar et al. [29]
investigate the applicability of immunity genetic algorithm (IGA) for minimal PMU
placement problem. Chakrabarti et al. [30] propose a methodology based on binary
particle swarm optimization (BPSO). In this study, the objectives of the optimization
problem lie at the intersection of minimization of the required number of PMUs and
maximization of the measurement redundancy. Analogously, Hajian et al. [31] use a
modified BPSO algorithm as an optimization tool for obtaining the minimal number of PMUs for complete system observability. Sadu, Kumar, and Kavasseri [32]
solve the placement problem by particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, and
the idea of introducing randomness in selecting the buses for the PMU placement
is suggested by the authors. Chakrabarti and Kyriakides [33] propose binary search
algorithm as a technique for solving the problem.
In addition to the metaheuristic methods, several conventional deterministic
techniques are applied to the optimal PMU placement problem [3446]. In [34]
and [35], the algorithm for optimal placement of PMUs is developed using integer
11
programming (IP) established upon the network observability and installation costs
of PMUs. Gou [36] makes a simplification in the placement algorithm by using
ILP and considering both the presence and absence of the conventional flow and
injection measurements. In his another simultaneously published work [37], the
author extends the formerly developed model and generalizes the ILP formulation
to satisfy various needs by integrating redundant PMU placement, full observability
and incomplete observability cases. Dua et al. [42] propose another formulation using
ILP. Integer quadratic programming (IQP) model is proposed as a solution method
in [40] and [41].
Among the published techniques, a certain number of those take into account
the power system contingencies broadly associated with the line outages and/or
measurement losses [33, 3844, 4751]. The integration of such contingencies in the
placement problem would certainly contribute to the reliable measurement designs.
A sequential meter addition/elimination process based on the measurement sensitivities has been presented by Park et al. [47]. Abur and Magnago [38] propose an
LP-based method in which a number of additional measurements are then systematically added to ensure full observability under the loss of any single network branch.
The same authors propose a numerical algorithm based on the measurement Jacobian and sparse triangular factorization to optimally upgrade the measurements and
yield a configuration which can remain robust against loss of single measurement
and single branch outage without sacrificing network observability [48]. Xu, Yoon,
and Abur [39] address a binary integer programming method taking into account
the loss of a single PMU in order to lessen the vulnerability of state estimation to
PMU breakdowns. The identical efforts to obtain a reliable measurement system
based on numerical observability are made by Rakpenthai et al. [49]. The authors
utilize the minimum condition number of the normalized measurement matrix as a
criterion. Then, the sequential addition and elimination methods are employed to
determine the essential measurements and to identify the redundancy measurements
under the contingency, respectively. Later work by Chakrabarti and Kyriakides [33]
propose a strategy utilizing a binary search algorithm to find the minimum number
of PMUs for full topological observability under normal operating conditions, as well
12
as single branch outages. In the paper, the search process is said to be exhaustive;
as a result, they aspire to overcome the restrictions of the conventional optimization
methods such as the integer programming and the uncertainties of the evolutionary
programming techniques such as the genetic algorithm. In their another collaborative works [40], [41], they propose an IQP approach to minimize the total number
of PMUs required to maintain the complete observability of the system for normal
operating conditions and under the outage of a single PMU or a transmission line.
Also, they aim to provide the maximization of the measurement redundancy at all
system buses. Dua et al. [42] devise a procedure for optimal multistage scheduling
of PMU placement phased over multiple time horizons. Furthermore, they suggest
zero-injection constraints be modeled as linear constraints in an ILP framework. The
two indices, Bus Observability Index (BOI) and System Observability Redundancy
Index (SORI), are utilized to rank the multiple solutions obtained via minimum
PMU placement problem. In their generic PMU placement formulation, the authors
offer some modifications to deal with the issues of PMU loss and communication
line outage. Likewise, Abbasy and Ismail [43] study the impact of single PMU loss
or multiple PMU losses on the decision strategy of the PMU placement problem.
In [50] and [51], the authors come up with the so-called branch PMUs which are
designed to monitor a single branch by measuring the associated current and terminal voltage phasors. Further, they also address the robustness of the measurement
design by considering not only the cases of PMU loss or failure, but contingencies
stemming from line or transformer outages. More recently, Aminifar et al. [44] offer a practical ILP-based model taking account of several contingency conditions
involving communication constraints, loss of measurements, and line outages.
Chen and Abur [45], [46] propose an IP-based solution that leads to the smallest
number of strategically located PMUs eliminating the measurement criticality in the
system. In these papers, it is shown that the bad data detection and identification
capability of a system can be enhanced greatly with few additional PMUs.
A fault location scheme for transmission networks using PMUs is developed and
the idea of fault location observability is presented by Lien et al. [52]. A method
for placing minimum number of PMUs to locate any fault in a power system is
13
proposed by Pokharel and Brahma [53]. The method is formulated on the basis
of ILP structure which is introduced in [34]. Mahmoodianfard et al. [54] utilize
a scheme based on decision trees to find an optimum PMU placement for voltage
security assessment. In the work by Zhou et al. [55], a virtual data preprocessing
technique and a matrix reduction algorithm are introduced to show the effectiveness
in reducing the computational effort for determining the optimal placement set.
The performance validation for the proposed algorithm is proven by applying the
method of Lagrangian relaxation to calculate the lower bound of the minimal number
of PMUs.
Chapter 3
Strategic Placement of Phasor
Measurement Units with Optimal
Number of Channels
3.1
Statement of the PMU Placement Problem
Power systems are assumed to operate in pseudo-steady-state due to the slow dynamics of system loads and generation. Hence, measurements of various quantities
such as power flows, voltages, and currents at various substations are used to approximately determine the operating conditions of this pseudo-steady-state of the
system. These measurements typically have time skew which may be in the order
of minutes and therefore an estimate of the system state obtained based on these
measurements will only be an approximation. Time skew among collected measurements is eliminated when the measurements are replaced by those provided by
synchronized phasor measurement units (PMU). These devices are quickly becoming
the preferred metering choice at bulk power transmission substations. They provide
magnitude and phase angle measurements of bus voltages and branch currents for
the positive-sequence components of three-phase signals. These measurements are
time-stamped and phase angles are defined with respect to a common reference
14
Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Number of Channels
15
determined by the global positioning satellite system. PMU measurements can improve the performance and capabilities of various network applications due to their
unique features. One of the applications which will benefit most from availability
of PMU measurements is the state estimator. In fact, if the entire network can be
made fully observable by just using PMU measurements, then the state estimation
problem will become linear and will be solved directly without requiring the use of
iterative methods. If these devices can be strategically placed at proper substations
in sufficient numbers, then such a transformation will be possible, making a very
significant improvement in the performance of existing state estimators, essentially
eliminating the issues of divergence due to numerical problems.
All of the aforementioned studies in Section 2.3 consider the PMU placement
problem in such a way that these devices are assumed to have unlimited number of
channels. Hence, placing them at a given bus ensures that in addition to the phasor
voltage at that bus, phasor voltages of all its immediate neighbors will be available
due to the monitored phasor currents along all the branches incident to that bus.
In practice, every PMU comes with a channel limit and therefore a more realistic
placement of the PMUs should take into account their varying channel capacities.
The authors of [56] attempt to introduce the limit on the number of measurements
each PMU can make and a modified PageRank placement algorithm is utilized in the
importance modeling of the network nodes. However, the optimal numbers required
to make the studied test systems observable are not provided explicitly. Rather, the
effect of the number of measurements on the nodes to fully observe the network is
given as a criterion for the usefulness of the method.
In this study, the PMU placement problem is revisited with the aim of relaxing
the abovementioned assumption based on the fact that the bus voltage phasor and
all current phasors along branches connected to that bus are available. The problem
is reformulated where the number of channels for each PMU can be changed and
the problem can be solved repeatedly to find the optimal locations. Furthermore,
the formulation takes into account any existing injection measurements, in particular those virtual measurements provided by the zero-injections of passive buses.
Afterwards, the formulation is extended to account for loss of PMUs so that the

Number of Channels
16
final PMU measurement design remains robust against loss of a PMU due to device
or communication link failures. Another contribution of this study is to recognize
the effect of channel capacity of a given type of PMU on their optimal placement
for network observability and to develop an optimal solution to the PMU placement
problem given a specified number of available channels for the candidate PMUs.
The approach taken in this study is one of exhaustive search among all possible
combinations at a given bus for a given limit on the number of available channels.
In formulating the problem it is realized that for a given number of channel capacity
there will be a finite combination of possible assignments of incident branches to
a given PMU placed at a bus. Hence, the choices will increase with the number
of incident branches for a given bus, but will remain bounded irrespective of the
overall system size, thanks to the sparse interconnection of power system buses.
The developed measurement placement procedure will be outlined and illustrated
by examples in the succeeding sections. Precisely, the main goal is to allow optimal
placement of PMUs which may have limited number of channels.
3.2
Proposed Formulation for the PMU Placement Problem
Formulation of optimal PMU placement problem for the case of varying channels will
be briefly reviewed first. Subsequently, the revision of this formulation to account
for a PMU loss will be described in Section 3.5.
Consider a PMU which has L channels and installed at bus k as shown in
Figure 3.1. Also assume that bus k is connected to Nk number of buses. Note that the
actual number of channels may be three times more since the phasor measurements
are usually the positive-sequence components derived from sampled waveforms of
three-phase signals. So, it is understood that the number of channels refers to
the number of positive-sequence phasor measurements that can be produced by the
considered PMU.

Number of Channels
17
Bus 1
I phasors
Bus 2
..
.
..
.
PMU
Bus k
Bus Nk
V phasor
Figure 3.1: Phasor measurements provided by PMU.
If the number of channels, L, is larger than the number of neighbors Nk , then a

single PMU placed at the bus will provide phasor voltages at all its neighbor buses.
Otherwise, there will be rk combinations of possible channel assignments to branches
incident at bus k:
rk =
Nk CL
if L < Nk ,
if Nk L.
where the number of possible combinations of L out of Nk branches is defined as:
Nk
CL =
Nk !
(Nk L)!L!
(3.1)
Since a PMU is able to measure both the voltage phasor of the bus at which it is
installed and the current phasors of all the lines in the neighborhood of this bus,
the placement of PMUs becomes a problem with an objective of finding a minimal
set of PMUs such that a bus must be observed at least once by the solution set of
the PMUs. This leads us to define the binary connectivity matrix H consisting of
all possible combinations at a given bus for a given limit on the number of available

Number of Channels
18
channels such that each bus k will have rk rows, each row containing (L+1) nonzeros
for the bus itself and its neighbor buses. However, when Nk < L, i.e., the number of
branches incident to bus k is less than the channel limit of the PMUs, the associated
row needs to be kept unchanged. The channel limit constraints can thus be imposed
so that a PMU placed at a bus will observe its neighboring buses by selecting the
appropriate combination(s) of L.
Description of the procedure can be illustrated using a 7-bus system example
shown in Figure 3.2. Assuming a channel limit of 2 for the PMUs, the number of
rows for each bus is found to be r1 = r5 = r6 = r7 = 1, r2 = 6, and r3 = r4 = 3. In
fact, consider the buses connected to bus 2, which are buses 1, 3, 6, and 7; therefore,
the 2-combinations of this set will result in the pairs 1 3, 1 6, 1 7, 3 6, 3 7,
and 6 7. In this sense, each row associated with bus 2 in the matrix H will include
a 1 corresponding to bus 2 and its neighbor pairs. Accordingly, let H be defined as
H=
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 1 0
1 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 1 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 1 1
0 1 1 1 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 1 0 1 0
0 0 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 1 0 1
0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Bus 1
Bus 2
Bus 3
Bus 4
Bus 5
Bus 6
Bus 7

Number of Channels
19
Using this approach, the relevant PMU placement problem can be formulated as
follows:
7
Figure 3.2: 7-bus system for illustration.
Minimize
n
X
w i xi
i=1
Subject to HT X U
(3.2)
X = [x1 x2 xn ]T
xi {0, 1}
where
n=
N
X
j=1
rj ,
U =
1
1
..
.
1
, and w = [1 1 1]1n .
N 1
Here, w represents the vector of installation cost of the PMUs, elements of which
are assumed to be uniform for simplicity, and xi are binary variables for the PMU
placement, and N denotes the number of buses in the system. In the above matrix
inequality, X represents a binary vector of all possible PMU channel assignments.

Number of Channels
20
Correspondingly, the nonzero entries in X will point to the rows of associated buses,
voltage angles of which can be observed by these PMU measurements.
The solution of the aforecited PMU placement problem where the specified
channel limit for PMUs is 2, that is,
X =
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
iT
yields a total of 3 PMUs, two of which are to be located at bus 2, and one at bus
4, enabling the entire network observability. Indeed, one PMU installed at bus 2
measures the voltage phasor at bus 2 as well as the current phasors for branches
2 1 and 2 6; whereas, the other PMU at bus 2 measures branch current phasors
2 1 and 2 7. Furthermore, a PMU located at bus 4 will measure the voltage
phasor at bus 4 and current phasor on two of the incident branches 4 3 and 4 5.
Similarly, the location of PMUs for the IEEE 14-bus system with the channel
limit of 3 is illustrated in Figure 3.3. The optimal solution for this case points out
that 4 PMUs are required to achieve full network observability. A PMU located at
bus 2 will observe buses 1, 2, 3, and 5; the one at bus 6 will observe buses 6, 11, 12,
and 13; and so on.
Figure 3.3: PMU placement for IEEE 14-bus system when the channel limit is
3.

Number of Channels
3.3
21
Modeling of Zero-Injection Buses
The procedure of forming the constraint equations is straightforward for a system

without conventional measurements and/or zero-injections. However, when the zeroinjection pseudomeasurements are considered, the method of topology transformation introduced in [35] should be utilized in reforming the constraint equations.
Consider the IEEE 14-bus system shown in Figure 3.4, where the dot next to
bus 7 indicates that bus 7 is a zero-injection bus. It is obvious that if the phasor
voltages at any three out of the four buses 4, 7, 8, and 9 are known, then the fourth
one can be calculated using the power balance equations at bus 7 where the net
injection is known to be zero. Topology transformation method is then used to
merge the bus having the zero-injection measurement, with the buses connected to
that bus. In the selection of the candidate buses, three different strategies are first
considered and comparatively evaluated:
3.3.1
Case 1Arbitrary Selection of Neighbor Buses
In this case, the bus which has the injection measurement is merged with one of its
arbitrarily chosen neighbors.
3.3.2
Case 2Selection of Neighbor Buses which Have Minimum Number of Neighbors
In this case, the bus which has the injection measurement is merged with its neighbor
having the least number of neighbors.

Number of Channels
3.3.3
22
Case 3Selection of Neighbor Buses which Have Maximum Number of Neighbors
In this case, the bus which has the injection measurement is merged with its neighbor
having the most number of neighbors.
Figure 3.4: Network diagram and measurement configuration for the IEEE 14bus system.
For Case 1, the appropriate algorithm is developed so that any of the neighbor buses
connected to bus 7, say bus 9, is chosen randomly. Since bus 8 has only one neighbor,
it is selected in the second case; whereas, bus 4 is to be selected in Case 3 since it has
five neighbors connected to it. The network will be updated after the merger of zeroinjection bus and the selected neighbor bus into a new single bus. In this context,
it is realized that the number of required PMUs can be reduced with the growing
system size, or almost equivalently, the increased availability of zero-injection buses.
Apart from these suggested cases involving intuition, we have developed a more
systematic methodology to incorporate the zero-injection buses into the problem
formulation by using linear constraints as shown in the following case.

Number of Channels
3.3.4
23
Case 4Modeling of Zero-Injection Buses as Linear

Constraints
In this case, zero-injection buses, which provide free measurements to the system,
are incorporated into the optimization formulation as done in [42]. Particularly, zeroinjections can be used to reduce the number of required PMUs by selectively allowing
some buses to be unreachable by the PMU measurements, as long as these buses
belong to a certain set of buses. This set is defined as the union of all zero-injection
buses and their immediate neighbors.
Let us define a set Ni as a set of buses including zero-injection bus i and all
its neighbors. Assuming ` zero-injection buses to be present in the system, the
following set can be defined:
Ni = Ni1 Ni2 Ni` ,
iI
where I = {i1 , i2 , , i` } designates the set of zero-injection buses.

Thus, the inequality constraints in (3.2) can be reestablished based on the above
considerations as follows:
C
D
X
b
R
c
where
C jk =
1 if j Ni and k {j },
D jk =
otherwise.
1 if j {Ii }iI and k {m }mNi ,
0 otherwise.
(3.3)

Number of Channels
24
and X , R, b, and c are vectors of dimension n, N , ||, and |I|, respectively, with
|{}| denoting the cardinality of a set; and the matrices H, C, 0, and D in (3.3) are
of sizes n N , N ||, |I| n, and |I| ||, respectively. Also, ci are equal to
(|Ni | 1) such that i I.
In building the matrices C and D, the set { }E is defined such that the
elements of set are indexed or labeled by means of set E. For the sake of convenience, the first row associated with the first partitioned matrix on the left-hand
side of (3.3) splits up into two parts in such a way that the zero-injection buses and
their neighbors are heaped together on the top of the new matrix. In this way, the
elements of the matrix D are clustered in the order of union set . Moreover, the
elements of vector R on the right-hand side of (3.3) take on a 0 for the variables
related to zero-injection buses, and a 1 for those of the remaining buses.
For the sake of illustration, consider 7-bus system shown in Figure 3.5 where
single-channel PMUs are used and the dots designate the zero-injection buses present
in the system. Then, we can build the sets NBus 4 = {3, 4, 5, 7}, NBus 6 = {2, 3, 6},
and = NBus 4 NBus 6 = {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} based on the definitions above. In this
context, Ineq. (3.3) will take form of Ineq. (3.4) as shown in the following:
016
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
H1 616

HT
2 116
0216
922
X
u2
u3
u4
u5
u6
u7
221
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
2
91
(3.4)

Number of Channels
25
The inequalities b3 + b4 + b5 + b7 3 and b2 + b3 + b6 2 with bi {0, 1} ensure that

there is at most one unobservable bus in these sets provided that their observability
is realized via the use of zero-injection buses in the corresponding sets. Indeed,
b6 = b7 = 0, meaning that bus 6 is not reached by a PMU by taking advantage of its
being zero-injection bus and bus 7 is observed via zero-injection bus 4. Figure 3.5
also illustrates the installed 3 PMUs along with the associated branches through
which the corresponding buses are observed.
6
PMU
PMU
PMU
7
Figure 3.5: Configuration of 3 one-channel PMUs in 7-bus system.
3.4
Effect of Network Sparsity on PMU Placement
Buses in typical power networks are known to be sparsely connected. However, sparsity of systems may vary significantly depending on the geographic and operational
requirements. In order to study the effect of sparsity on the PMU placement, systems with increasingly dense bus interconnections are defined. This is accomplished
by systematically adding connections between second, third, etc. neighbors.
First, the binary adjacency matrix A is defined to describe the topology of the
network in which the ij-th entry is 1 if there is a connection between bus i and bus
j, and zero otherwise. All diagonal entries will also be 1 by default. The matrix A

Number of Channels
26
for the simple network of Figure 3.2 will be given by:
A=
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 1 1 1 0 1 0
0 0 1 1 1 0 1
0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 1 0 0 1
This matrix will be referred to as single-hop connectivity matrix since it represents

the connectivity of the buses with their immediate neighbors. Those buses that can
be reached from a given bus by a single hop over an existing branch will contain
nonzero entries. Similarly, matrices representing systems where buses have direct
connections to those buses that can be reached in two, three or more hops in the
original network can be easily generated by multiplying the single-hop connectivity
matrix by itself as many times as the number of hops [57]:
A(m+1) = A(m) A.
Let A(1) = A. Then, A(m+1) is defined as follows:
A(m+1) (i, j) =
m+1
if A(m) (i, j) = 0 and

A(m+1) (i, j) > 0;
A(m) (i, j) if A(m) (i, j) > 0.
(3.5)

Number of Channels
27
Hence, the 2-hop connectivity matrix A(2) will be given by:
A(2)
1 1 2 0 0 2 2
Bus
1 1 1 2 0 1 1
2 1 1 1 2 1 2
0 2 1 1 1 2 1
0 0 2 1 1 0 2
2 1 1 2 0 1 2
2 1 2 1 2 2 1
Bus 1
Bus 2
Bus 3
Bus 4
Bus 5
Bus 6
Bus 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
which shows all the bus pairs that can reach each other within two hops. From the
1-hop connectivity matrix, we can obtain all (m + 1)-hop connectivity matrices, thus
all possible (m + 1)-hop routes.
The binary version of the multi-hop connectivity matrix B(m+1) can be defined
by simply replacing nonzeros in the matrix A(m+1) by 1s, as given below:
B(2)
Bus
1 1 1 0 0 1 1
1 1 1 1 0 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 1 1 1 0 1
1 1 1 1 0 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Bus 1
Bus 2
Bus 3
Bus 4
Bus 5
Bus 6
Bus 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
The effect of reduced sparsity on the number and location of required PMUs
can then be studied by using this matrix instead of the original connectivity matrix.
The corresponding network connectivity is shown in Figure 3.6.
Again, from the newly formed network topology, we can easily build the matrix
H consisting of all potential set of combinations incident to each and every bus.

Number of Channels
28
7
Figure 3.6: Network diagram for the 7-bus system with two-hop neighborhood
topology.
When the PMU channel limit is assumed to be 2, the number of rows related to
each bus in the new matrix H becomes r1 = 6, r2 = r4 = r6 = 10, r3 = r7 = 15,
and r5 = 3. In this case, the solution of the PMU placement problem still yields 3
PMUs as the optimal number; however, the locations for these PMUs will now be
at buses 1, 4, and 7.
3.5
Optimal Placement Accounting for Single PMU

Loss
The initial studies consider a simplified model to represent the reach of individual
PMUs. Each PMU is assumed to provide the voltage phasor at the bus it is connected
and the current phasors at all of its neighbors as well. This assumption is relaxed in
[58] where the effects of channel capacity of a given type of PMU on their optimal
placement for network observability are taken into account.
In this section, the formulation is extended to account for loss of PMUs so that
the final PMU measurement design remains robust against loss of a PMU due to
device or communication link failures.

Number of Channels
29
It is worth mentioning that PMUs are prone to failures like any other measuring
device even though they are highly reliable. Therefore, it is necessary to guard
against such unexpected failures of PMUs. In [34] and [39], the primary set of
PMUs is backed up by a secondary set which is determined based on the same
optimization formulation. In this study, the formulation of (3.2) is modified as done
in [4143] to ensure that each bus will be observed by at least two PMUs. This
ascertains that a PMU loss will not lead to loss of observability. In the integer linear
programming framework, this can be easily achieved by multiplying U by 2, viz.,
U = [2 2 2]T
1N .
In this regard, the solution of the aforecited PMU placement problem where the
specified channel limit for PMUs is 2, will be given as:
X =
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
iT
which yields a total of 5 PMUs, two at buses 2 and 4 each and the remaining one
at bus 3, enabling the entire network to be observable even when the measurements
from any one of the PMUs are lost.
Similarly, the location of PMUs for the IEEE 14-bus system with the channel
limit of 3 is illustrated in Figure 3.7. The optimal solution for this case requires
placement of 9 PMUs to achieve full network observability under loss of a single
PMU.
Figure 3.8 illustrates the results of solving the above problem of PMU placement
for the IEEE 57-bus system assuming no channel limits for PMUs, accounting for
loss of a single PMU and making use of zero-injection measurements based on the
fourth case. The solution validates that each and every bus in the network is reached
at least twice either by PMUs or zero-injection measurements located at the bus or
its neighbors. Zero-injection buses are designated by dots next to the bus names in
Figure 3.8.

Number of Channels
Figure 3.7: Reliable placement against single PMU loss for the IEEE 14-bus
system when the channel limit is 3.
Figure 3.8: Zero-injections and optimally placed 22 PMUs for the IEEE 57-bus
system assuming no channel limits.
30
Chapter 4
Simulation Results
4.1
Conventional PMU Placement with Fixed Channel Capacity
Simulations of the proposed method are carried out on various power systems. The
binary integer programming problem is solved using the TOMLAB /CPLEX Solver
Package [59]. The simulation results for the optimum number of PMUs with respect
to channel limits for the cases where zero-injections are ignored and considered, are
presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. As shown in Table 4.1, simulations are
carried out using five IEEE test systems as well as one larger-size system with 4520
buses. Also, Table 4.2 illustrates the results of simulations performed on the IEEE
14-, 30-, 57-, and 118-bus systems. For the case without zero-injection measurements,
the upper channel limit of the PMUs is determined by the maximum number of
branches incident to a certain bus in the corresponding test system. For those cases
where zero-injection measurements are considered, these limits are the number of the
branches incident to the fictitious bus, which is created by merging one or several
actual buses. Four ways to account for zero-injections are considered and compared
via simulations. The third case appears to have an advantage over the others in
particular when using multichannel PMUs. Second case may, however, be a better
choice when single-channel PMUs are to be used.
31
Chapter 4. Simulation Results
32
As evident from Table 4.2, zero-injections help reduce the number of required
PMUs. In Table 4.1,
min/N
is the ratio of the minimum number of required PMUs
to the number of buses in the system.
Table 4.1: Conventional PMU Placement without Zero-Injections for Miscellaneous Power Systems
Channel
System under study
Limit
for the
IEEE IEEE IEEE IEEE
IEEE
PMUs
4520-Bus
14-Bus 30-Bus 57-Bus 118-Bus 300-Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
min/N
4.2
7
5
4
4
4
15
11
10
10
10
10
10
29
19
17
17
17
17
61
41
33
32
32
32
32
32
32
0.2857 0.3333 0.2982 0.2712
167
105
91
89
88
88
88
87
87
87
87
0.2900
2543
1639
1490
1454
1436
1430
1429
1427
1422
1422
1422
1422
1422
1422
1422
1422
0.3146
Impact of Network Sparsity on Strategic Placement of PMUs
Considering the densely connected topologies, revised topologies with 2-hop connectivity are obtained for five IEEE test systems. PMU placement problem is then
solved using these revised systems and the results are shown in Table 4.3. Among
the five power systems studied, it is observed that this ratio ranges from 27% to 33%
33
in Table 4.1, and from 10% to 21% in Table 4.3. In a similar vein, one can clearly
observe how the loss of sparsity leads to strategic placement of smaller number of
PMUs having larger number of channels.
Table 4.2: PMU Placement with Zero-Injections for IEEE Test Systems
Channel
IEEE Test Number of
Limit
Number of PMUs
System
Zero-Inj.s
for
the PMUs CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4
1
7
7
7
7
2
5
5
5
5
14-Bus
1
3
4
4
5
4
4
3
3
4
3
5
3
3
4
3
1
13
14
14
14
2
9
8
9
9
3
7
7
8
8
4
7
7
7
7
5
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
30-Bus
6
7
6
7
8
6
9
6
10
6
11
6
12
6
1
22
21
23
23
2
14
14
14
16
3
12
12
12
14
4
12
11
11
14
57-Bus
15
5
12
11
11
14
6
12
11
11
14
7
11
8
11
1
57
56
57
57
2
39
39
39
38
3
30
31
31
32
4
28
30
28
31
118-Bus
10
5
28
30
28
29
6
28
30
28
29
7
28
30
28
29
8
28
30
28
29
9
28
30
28
29
34
Table 4.3: Conventional PMU Placement with 2-Hop Connectivity for Five IEEE
Test Systems
IEEE Test System
Channel Limit
for the PMUs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17
20
23
27
min/N
4.3
7
5
4
3
3
3
15
10
8
6
5
5
4
3
29
19
15
12
10
9
8
59
40
30
24
21
..
.
150
101
77
68
59
..
.
41
13
0.2143 0.1000 0.1404 0.1102
0.1367
Reliable Measurement Design Against Loss of

PMUs
PMU placement problem as formulated in Section 3.5 is solved for power systems of
different sizes. The solutions for the optimum number of PMUs for different channel
limits for the cases where zero-injections are ignored and considered, are presented
in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. Table 4.4 presents solutions that are obtained for five IEEE
test systems as well as for a 4520-bus utility system when zero-injections are ignored.
When the zero-injections are taken into account, results change significantly as shown
in Table 4.5 for four IEEE test systems. Once again, for the cases with and without
zero-injection measurements, the upper channel limit of the PMUs is determined
by the maximum number of incident branches to a bus in the corresponding test
system. Among the six power systems studied, it is observed that this ratio ranges
from 58% to 69%. As evident from Table 4.5, zero-injections help reduce the number
of PMUs required for complete network observability while maintaining robustness
against single PMU failure.
35
Table 4.4: Reliable Placement Against Loss of PMUs without Zero-Injections

for Miscellaneous Power Systems
Channel
System under study
Limit
for the
IEEE IEEE IEEE IEEE
IEEE
PMUs
4520-Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
min/N
4.4
14
10
9
9
9
30
22
20
20
21
21
21
57
38
34
33
33
33
121
82
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
0.6429 0.6667 0.5789 0.5763
332
219
189
190
190
193
193
195
195
195
202
0.6300
5080
3439
3160
3125
3135
3151
3162
3205
3224
3232
3235
3261
3265
3265
3265
3283
0.6914
Illustration of Unified PMU Placement Schemes
In order to provide a more comprehensive picture of our overall methodology and

draw attention to the effect of channel limits on PMU placement accounting for
various combinations of abovementioned criteria, we have illustrated a number of
PMU placement strategies as shown in Figures 4.14.12. In cases where the zeroinjection measurements are considered, we have bounded our simulations merely by
the fourth case since it allows for a more systematic treatment of zero-injections.
36
Table 4.5: Reliable Placement Against Loss of PMUs with Zero-Injections for
IEEE Test Systems
IEEE Test
System
Number of
Zero-Inj.s
14-Bus
30-Bus
57-Bus
118-Bus
15
10
Channel
Limit
for
the PMUs
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Number of PMUs
CASE 1
13
9
7
8
8
26
18
15
14
15
16
CASE 2
13
9
7
7
7
28
16
14
14
15
15
44
28
24
24
24
24
42
28
24
23
23
23
111
75
62
61
61
62
62
62
62
110
76
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
CASE 3
13
9
8
8
7
28
19
15
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
17
46
29
24
24
24
23
23
23
112
77
62
61
60
63
63
63
63
CASE 4
12
8
7
7
7
21
14
13
13
13
13
13
34
23
22
22
22
22
103
69
58
58
58
58
59
59
59
Figure 4.1: Optimally placed 7 PMUs for the IEEE 14-bus system when the
channel limit is 1 (ignoring the zero-injections).
37
38
39
Figure 4.4: Optimally placed 41 PMUs for the IEEE 118-bus system when the channel limit is 2 (ignoring the zero-injections).

40
Figure 4.5: Zero-injection and optimally placed 3 PMUs for the IEEE 14-bus
41
42
43
Figure 4.8: Zero-injections and optimally placed 29 PMUs for the IEEE 118-bus system when the channel limit is 5.

44
system when the channel limit is 3 (considering the zero-injection).
45
system when the channel limit is 3 (considering the zero-injections).
46
system when the channel limit is 3 (considering the zero-injections).
47
Figure 4.12: Reliable placement against single PMU loss for the IEEE 118-bus system when the channel limit is 3 (considering the
zero-injections).

48
Chapter 5
Concluding Remarks and Further
Study
5.1
Concluding Remarks
This thesis presents a new problem formulation and its associated solution based on
mixed integer linear programming method for obtaining the best locations of synchronized phasor measurement units. The main contribution of the new formulation
is the way it accounts for the available number of PMU channels. Furthermore, zeroinjection measurements are incorporated into the problem formulation in order to
further minimize the required number of PMUs. Applying the developed technique
to different size systems, it is observed that PMUs having more than 4 channels
(positive-sequence) may not reduce the overall installation cost for medium-size systems. Moreover, it is observed that the channel limits which reduce the overall
installation cost will be larger for larger-size and/or more densely connected systems. In order to demonstrate the effect of sparsity on the required channel limits,
certain test systems are artificially modified by increasing connectivity in a systematic manner. The results indicate that densely connected systems will allow efficient
utilization of PMUs with large number of channels.
49
Chapter 5. Concluding Remarks and Further Study
50
This study also extends the results of conventional PMU placement to the case
where the solution is expected to be robust against failure of any single PMU. Any
existing injection measurements in the system, in particular those virtual ones at
passive buses with no generation or load, are also accounted for in the modified
optimization formulation. In this case, results of simulations on different type and
size test systems imply that using PMUs with large number of channels does not
minimize the investment in the measurement system. In most cases, having more
than 4 channels (positive sequence) does not reduce the required PMU count. Furthermore, by strategic placement of PMUs, a very reliable metering design can be
achieved by placing PMUs at less than 70% of the buses in the system. This number
may be reduced significantly by taking advantage of zero-injection buses.
Ultimately, these results may be useful for the system planners as well as PMU
manufacturers when they make decisions on the next set of PMUs to be purchased
and installed or to be designed and marketed, respectively.
5.2
Further Study
We have studied and solved the problem of using PMUs with limited input capabilities to achieve complete observability of the network. In other words, it is intended
to monitor at most a fixed number of currents from a bus. As a further study, the
PMU placement problem can be reinvestigated by taking into account the fact that
each PMU may have variations in channel capacity for a particular placement strategy. Additionally, the costs for the proposed placement strategy and the prospective
placement procedures may be comparatively evaluated in order to determine the
best option. Undoubtedly, novel methodologies can also be implemented for modeling of zero-injection buses and reliable PMU placement to investigate the feasibility
of further reducing the number of PMUs required for entire network observability.
Appendix A
Functions and Scripts Used in the
PMU Placement Algorithm
A.1
Read Network Parameters and Build the SingleHop Connectivity Matrix A
function [y NoBran branch external_bus internal_bus] =

readAndBuildA(PowerFlowInputData,NoBus)
% read parameters of the network

fnet = fopen(PowerFlowInputData,r);
line = fgetl(fnet);
line = fgetl(fnet);
iter1 = 0;
iter2 = 0;
iter3 = 0;
while 1
51
Chapter A. Appendix A
52
line = fgetl(fnet);
iter1 = iter1 + 1;
if line(1:4) == BRAN
break;
end
bus(iter1,1) = str2num(line(1:4));
end
bus(end,:) = [];
% this entry corresponds to -9999
for ii = 1 : NoBus
% specify external bus numbers
external_bus(ii,1) = bus(ii,1);
% internal bus numbers
internal_bus(external_bus(ii),1) = it;
end
while 1
line = fgetl(fnet);
if line(1:4) == -999
break;
end
iter2 = iter2 + 1;
cir(iter2,1) = str2num(line(17));
if cir(iter2,1) == 0
iter3 = iter3 + 1;
From_Bus(iter3,1) = str2num(line(1:4));
To_Bus(iter3,1) = str2num(line(6:9));
end
end
NoBran = iter3;
From_Bus = internal_bus(From_Bus);
To_Bus = internal_bus(To_Bus);
branch = [From_Bus To_Bus];
% create the bus admittance matrix, Y, with jX = j1.0.

ys = 1; [rowBran colBran] = size(From_Bus);
for iter = 1 : rowBran

Yi(ys) = From_Bus(iter,1);
Yj(ys) = To_Bus(iter,1);
Yv(ys) = 1; ys = ys + 1;
Yi(ys) = To_Bus(iter,1);
Yj(ys) = From_Bus(iter,1);
Yv(ys) = 1; ys = ys + 1;
Yi(ys) = From_Bus(iter,1);
Yj(ys) = From_Bus(iter,1);
Yv(ys) = 1; ys = ys + 1;
Yi(ys) = To_Bus(iter,1);
Yj(ys) = To_Bus(iter,1);
Yv(ys) = 1; ys = ys + 1;
end
y = sparse(Yi,Yj,Yv,NoBus,NoBus);
A = spones(y) + zeros(NoBus,NoBus);
disp(Matrix A is found to be as follows: );
ST = fclose(fnet);
53
A.2
54
Find the Required Number of PMUs for Complete Network Observability (Ignoring ZeroInjection Measurements)
clear;
clc;
A = readAndBuildA(pfinput14.dat,14);
% A = readAndBuildA(pfinput30.dat,30);
%% reduce the network sparsity by adding 2nd, 3rd, etc. neighbors

% B2 = spones(A ^ 2) + zeros(size(A,1))
% B3 = spones(A ^ 3) + zeros(size(A,1))
[m,n] = size(A);
L = [];
for j = 1 : n
for i = 1 : j
if A(i,j) == 1
if j ~= i
L(i,j) = 1;
L(j,i) = 1;
end
end
end
end L;
ChannelLimit = input(Choose a channel limit for the PMUs:
H = [];
for k = 1 : n
if sum(L(:,k)) < ChannelLimit
V = find(L(:,k));
T = sparse(1,n);
T(1,k) = 1;
T(1,V) = 1;
H = sparse([H;T]);
else
V = nchoosek(find(L(:,k)),ChannelLimit);
[a,b] = size(V);
T = sparse(a,n);
for i = 1 : a
for j = 1 : b
T(:,k) = 1;
T(i,V(i,j)) = 1;
end
end
H = sparse([H;T]);
end
fprintf(%d\n,k)
end
H;
tic
f = ones(size(H,1),1);
Hnew = -H;
b = -ones(n,1);
55
);
56
N = length(f);
x_L = zeros(N,1);
x_U = ones(N,1);
IntVars = ones(N,1);
PriLev = 1;
cpxControl.EPGAP = 0.1/100;
cpxControl.TILIM = 60*5;
[x, slack, v, rc, f_k, ninf, sinf, Inform, basis, lpiter, ...
glnodes, confstat, iconfstat, sa, cpxControl, presolve] = ...
cplex(f, Hnew, x_L, x_U, -inf*ones(n,1), b, ...
cpxControl, [], PriLev, [], IntVars);
disp(The optimum number of PMUs is:
fprintf(%d\n,sum(x))
toc
A.3
57
Find the Required Number of PMUs for Complete Network Observability (Considering ZeroInjection Measurements)
clear;
clc;
A = readAndBuildA(pfinput14.dat,14);
[m,n] = size(A);
L = [];
for j = 1 : n
for i = 1 : j
if A(i,j) == 1
if j ~= i
L(i,j) = 1;
L(j,i) = 1;
end
end
end
end
L;
ChannelLimit = input(Choose a channel limit for the PMUs:
);
58
H = [];
for k = 1 : n
if sum(L(:,k)) < ChannelLimit
V = find(L(:,k));
T = zeros(1,n);
T(1,k) = 1;
T(1,V) = 1;
H = [H;T];
else
V = nchoosek(find(L(:,k)),ChannelLimit);
[a,b] = size(V);
T = zeros(a,n);
for i = 1 : a
for j = 1 : b
T(:,k) = 1;
T(i,V(i,j)) = 1;
end
end
H = [H; T];
end
fprintf(%d\n,k)
end
H;
tic
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% for the IEEE 14-bus test system
C = zeros(size(H,2),4);
C(4,1) = 1;
C(7,2) = 1;
C(8,3) = 1;
59
C(9,4) = 1;
D = zeros(1,4);
D(1,1:4) = -1;
R = -ones(n,1);
% use R = -2 * ones(n,1) for reliable PMU placement, instead
R(4) = 0;
R(7) = 0;
R(8) = 0;
R(9) = 0;
c = -3;
f = [ones(size(H,1),1);zeros(size(D,2),1)];
Hnew = [-H,C;[zeros(size(D,1),size(H,1)),D]];
RHS = [R; c];
X = bintprog(f,Hnew,RHS);
X = X(1:size(H,1));
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% C = zeros(size(H,2),17);
%
% C(2,1) = 1;
C(4,2) = 1;
C(6,3) = 1;
C(7,4) = 1;
% C(8,5) = 1;
C(9,6) = 1;
C(10,7) = 1;
C(11,8) = 1;
% C(21,9) = 1;
C(22,10) = 1;
C(24,11) = 1;
C(25,12) = 1;
% C(26,13) = 1;
C(27,14) = 1;
C(28,15) = 1;
C(29,16) = 1;
60
% C(30,17) = 1;
%
% D = zeros(6,17);
% D(1,1:7) = -1;
D(1,15) = -1;
D(2,3) = -1;
% D(2,6:8) = -1;
D(3,7) = -1;
D(3,9:11) = -1;
% D(4,11:14) = -1;
D(5,12) = -1;
D(5,14:17) = -1;
% D(6,9) = -1;
D(6,11) = -1;
D(6,14:15) = -1;
%
% R = -ones(n,1);
% R(2) = 0;
R(4) = 0;
R(6) = 0;
R(7) = 0;
% R(8) = 0;
R(9) = 0;
R(10) = 0;
R(11) = 0;
% R(21) = 0;
R(22) = 0;
R(24) = 0;
R(25) = 0;
% R(26) = 0;
R(27) = 0;
R(28) = 0;
R(29) = 0;
% R(30) = 0;
%
% c = [-7 -3 -3 -3 -4 -3];
%
% f = [ones(size(H,1),1);zeros(size(D,2),1)];
% Hnew = [-H,C;[zeros(size(D,1),size(H,1)),D]];
% RHS = [R; c];
% X = bintprog(f,Hnew,RHS);
% X = X(1:size(H,1));
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% C(3,1) = 1;
C(4,2) = 1;
C(5,3) = 1;
61
% C(6,4) = 1;
C(7,5) = 1;
C(8,6) = 1;
% C(9,7) = 1;
C(11,8) = 1;
C(13,9) = 1;
% C(14,10) = 1;
C(15,11) = 1;
C(18,12) = 1;
% C(20,13) = 1;
C(21,14) = 1;
C(22,15) = 1;
% C(23,16) = 1;
C(24,17) = 1;
C(25,18) = 1;
% C(26,19) = 1;
C(27,20) = 1;
C(29,21) = 1;
% C(32,22) = 1;
C(34,23) = 1;
C(35,24) = 1;
% C(36,25) = 1;
C(37,26) = 1;
C(38,27) = 1;
% C(39,28) = 1;
C(40,29) = 1;
C(41,30) = 1;
% C(43,31) = 1;
C(44,32) = 1;
C(45,33) = 1;
% C(46,34) = 1;
C(47,35) = 1;
C(48,36) = 1;
% C(49,37) = 1;
C(56,38) = 1;
C(57,39) = 1;
% D(1,1:4) = -1;
D(1,12) = -1;
D(2,4:6) = -1;
% D(2,21) = -1;
D(3,7:9) = -1;
D(3,30:31) = -1;
% D(4,13:15) = -1;
D(5,14:16) = -1;
D(5,27) = -1;
% D(6,16:19) = -1;
D(7,17) = -1;
D(7,19:20) = -1;
% D(8,22:24) = -1;
D(9,24:26) = -1;
D(9,29) = -1;
% D(10,25:28) = -1;
D(11,26) = -1;
D(11,28) = -1;
% D(11,39) = -1;
D(12,25) = -1;
D(12,29) = -1;
% D(12,38) = -1;
D(13,11) = -1;
D(13,32:33) = -1;
% D(14,10) = -1;
D(14,34:35) = -1;
D(15,27) = -1;
%
% D = zeros(15,39);
% D(15,35:37) = -1;
%
% R = -ones(n,1);
% R(3:9) = 0;
R(11) = 0;
R(13:15) = 0;
% R(18) = 0;
R(20:27) = 0;
R(29) = 0;
% R(32) = 0;
R(34:41) = 0;
R(43:49) = 0;
% R(56:57) = 0;
%
%
62
% c = [-4 -3 -4 -2 -3 -3 -2 -2 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3];
%
% RHS = [R; c];
% X = X(1:size(H,1));
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% C(3,1) = 1;
C(4,2) = 1;
C(5,3) = 1;
% C(6,4) = 1;
C(8,5) = 1;
C(9,6) = 1;
% C(10,7) = 1;
C(11,8) = 1;
C(17,9) = 1;
% C(26,10) = 1;
C(30,11) = 1;
C(33,12) = 1;
% C(34,13) = 1;
C(35,14) = 1;
C(37,15) = 1;
% C(38,16) = 1;
C(39,17) = 1;
C(40,18) = 1;
% C(59,19) = 1;
C(61,20) = 1;
C(63,21) = 1;
% C(64,22) = 1;
C(65,23) = 1;
C(68,24) = 1;
% C(69,25) = 1;
C(70,26) = 1;
C(71,27) = 1;
% C(72,28) = 1;
C(73,29) = 1;
C(80,30) = 1;
% C(81,31) = 1;
C(116,32) = 1;
%
% D = zeros(10,32);
% D(1,1:5) = -1;
D(1,8) = -1 ;
D(2,5:7) = -1;
% D(3,5) = -1;
D(3,9:11) = -1;
D(3,16) = -1;
% D(4,12:18) = -1;
D(5,11) = -1;
D(5,15:16) = -1;
63
% D(5,23) = -1;
D(6,19) = -1;
D(6,21:22) = -1;
% D(7,20:23) = -1;
D(8,23:25) = -1;
D(8,31:32) = -1;
% D(9,26:29) = -1;
D(10,24) = -1;
D(10,30:31) = -1;
% R(3:6) = 0;
R(8:11) = 0;
R(17) = 0;
% R(26) = 0;
R(30) = 0;
R(33:35) = 0;
% R(37:40) = 0;
R(59) = 0;
R(61) = 0;
% R(63:65) = 0;
R(68:73) = 0;
R(80:81) = 0;
%
%
% R = -ones(n,1);
% R(116) = 0;
%
% c = [-5 -2 -4 -6 -3 -2 -3 -4 -3 -2];
% RHS = [R; c];
% X = X(1:size(H,1));
disp(The optimum number of PMUs is:

fprintf(%d\n,sum(X))
toc
Appendix B
IEEE Test Systems Data Used in
the PMU Placement Algorithm
This appendix section contains the data regarding the IEEE 14-, 30-, 57-, and 118bus test systems [60], which are utilized in our simulations. The system information
of these IEEE test systems is shown in Table B.1 given below:
Table B.1: System Information of Studied IEEE Test Systems
Test
Number of
System Branches
IEEE
20
14-Bus
IEEE
41
30-Bus
IEEE
78
57-Bus
IEEE
179
118-Bus
Number of
Zero-Injections
Zero-Injection
Bus(es)
6, 9, 22, 25, 27, 28
15
10
64
4, 7, 11, 21, 22, 24, 26, 34,

36, 37, 39, 40, 45, 46, 48
5, 9, 30, 37, 38, 63, 64, 68,
71, 81
HV
HV
HV
HV
LV
ZV
TV
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV
2 Bus 2
3 Bus 3
4 Bus 4
5 Bus 5
6 Bus 6
7 Bus 7
8 Bus 8
9 Bus 9
10 Bus 10
11 Bus 11
12 Bus 12
13 Bus 13
14 Bus 14
1 1 0
1 1 0
-4.98
0.0
-8.78
0.05403
0.22304
0.05917
0 1.036 -16.04
0 1.050 -15.16
0 1.055 -15.07
0 1.057 -14.79
0 1.051 -15.10
0 1.056 -14.94
2 1.090 -13.36
0 1.062 -13.37
2 1.070 -14.22
0 1.020
0 1.019 -10.33
5.0
5.8
1.6
1.8
5.8
16.6
0.0
0.0
7.5
1.6
-3.9
19.0
12.7
0.0
0.0492
20 ITEMS
0.0528
14.9
13.5
6.1
3.5
9.0
29.5
0.0
0.0
11.2
7.6
47.8
94.2
21.7
0.0
14 ITEMS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
232.4
1962 W IEEE 14 Bus Test Case
2 1.010 -12.72
2 1.045
3 1.060
0.01938
-999 BRANCH DATA FOLLOWS
HV
1 Bus 1
BUS DATA FOLLOWS
100.0
IEEE 14-Bus Test System Data
08/19/93 UW ARCHIVE
B.1
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.0
12.2
0.0
0.0
23.4
42.4
-16.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.090
0.0
1.070
0.0
0.0
1.010
1.045
1.060
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-6.0
0.0
-6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
12
13
10
14
11
13
14
10
12
13
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.17093
0.22092
0.08205
0.12711
0.03181
0.0
0.0
0.06615
0.12291
0.09498
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01335
0.06701
0.05695
0.05811
0.04699
-99 INTERCHANGE DATA FOLLOWS
1 IEEE 14 BUS
-999 LOSS ZONES FOLLOWS
0.34802
0.19988
0.19207
0.27038
0.08450
0.11001
0.17615
0.13027
0.25581
0.19890
0.25202
0.55618
0.20912
0.04211
0.17103
0.17388
0.17632
0.19797
1 ITEMS
1 ITEMS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0128
0.0346
0.0340
0.0438
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.932
0.969
0.978
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2 Bus 2
HV
END OF DATA
-9 TIE LINES FOLLOWS
0.0
999.99
IEEE 14 Bus Test Case
0 ITEMS -999
IEEE14
132
132
132
132
132
1.0
33
11
33
11
33
33
33
33
3 Kumis
4 Hancock
5 Fieldale 132
132
2 Claytor
6 Roanoke
7 Blaine
8 Reusens
9 Roanoke
10 Roanoke
11 Roanoke
12 Hancock
13 Hancock
14 Bus 14
15 Bus 15
16 Bus 16
17 Bus 17
1 Glen Lyn 132
BUS DATA FOLLOWS
-9.62
-7.96
-5.48
0.0
0 1.040 -16.14
0 1.045 -15.83
0 1.038 -16.22
0 1.042 -16.13
2 1.071 -15.24
0 1.057 -15.24
2 1.082 -14.39
0 1.045 -15.97
0 1.051 -14.38
2 1.010 -12.10
0 1.002 -13.12
0 1.010 -11.34
9.0
3.5
8.2
6.2
0.0
11.2
0.0
5.8
0.0
30.0
22.8
0.0
94.2
7.6
2.4
21.7
0.0
30 ITEMS
5.8
1.8
2.5
1.6
0.0
7.5
0.0
2.0
0.0
30.0
10.9
0.0
19.0
1.6
1.2
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
260.2
2 1.010 -14.37
0 1.012
0 1.021
2 1.043
3 1.060
100.0
08/20/93 UW ARCHIVE
B.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
0.0
16.2
0.0
0.0
37.3
0.0
0.0
37.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
-16.1
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
11.0
33.0
11.0
33.0
1.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.071
0.0
1.082
0.0
0.0
1.010
0.0
0.0
1.010
0.0
0.0
1.045
1.060
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-6.0
0.0
-6.0
0.0
0.0
-10.0
0.0
0.0
-40.0
0.0
0.0
-40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.19
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
22 Bus 22
23 Bus 23
24 Bus 24
25 Bus 25
26 Bus 26
28 Cloverdle132
33
21 Bus 21
27 Cloverdle 33
33
20 Bus 20
29 Bus 29
30 Bus 30
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.0119
0.0581
0.0472
0.0132
0.0570
0.0452
0.0414
0.1763
0.1983
0.0379
0.1737
0.1652
0.0575
0 0.992 -17.94
0 1.003 -17.06
0 1.007 -11.97
0 1.023 -15.82
0 1.000 -16.77
0 1.017 -16.35
0 1.021 -16.78
0 1.027 -16.61
0 1.033 -16.41
0 1.033 -16.42
0 1.030 -16.80
0 1.026 -17.00
0 1.028 -16.82
0.0192
33
19 Bus 19
33
18 Bus 18
1.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
6.7
1.6
0.0
11.2
0.7
3.4
0.9
0.0090
0.0374
0.0418
0.0084
0.0368
0.0408
41 ITEMS
0.0528
10.6
2.4
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
8.7
3.2
0.0
17.5
2.2
9.5
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
33.0
132.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.043
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
11
10
12
13
14
15
16
15
17
18
19
20
20
17
21
22
12
12
12
12
14
16
15
18
19
10
10
10
10
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.0727
0.0348
0.0324
0.0936
0.0340
0.0639
0.1073
0.0524
0.2210
0.0945
0.0662
0.1231
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0120
0.0267
0.0460
0.1499
0.0749
0.0845
0.2090
0.0680
0.1292
0.2185
0.1923
0.1997
0.1987
0.1304
0.2559
0.1400
0.2560
0.1100
0.2080
0.5560
0.2080
0.0420
0.0820
0.1160
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0090
0.0170
0.0204
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.932
0.0
0.0
0.969
0.978
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
24
24
25
26
27
27
29
30
30
28
28
15
22
23
24
25
25
28
27
27
29
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.0169
0.0636
0.2399
0.3202
0.2198
0.0
0.1093
0.2544
0.1885
0.1320
0.1150
0.1000
0.0116
2 Claytor
END OF DATA
TIE LINES FOLLOWS
132
0.0
1 IEEE 30 BUS
22
21
999.99
0.0599
0.2000
0.4533
0.6027
0.4153
0.3960
0.2087
0.3800
0.3292
0.2700
0.1790
0.2020
0.0236
0 ITEMS -999
IEEE30
1 ITEMS -9
1 ITEMS
0.0130
0.0428
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.968
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V1
V1
V1
V1
V1
V2
13 Bus 13
14 Bus 14
15 Bus 15
16 Bus 16
17 Bus 17
18 Sprigg
9 Saltville V1
V1
8 Clinch Rv V1
12 Glen Lyn
V1
7 Bus 7
V1
6 Beaver Ck V1
11 Tazewell
V1
5 Bus 5
V1
V1
4 Sprigg
10 Bus 10
V1
3 Logan
V1
2 Turner
V1
1 Kanawha
BUS DATA FOLLOWS
-9.56
-4.45
-7.58
-8.65
-8.52
-7.32
-5.97
-1.18
0.0
-5.39
-8.85
-7.18
-9.33
-9.79
0 1.001 -11.71
0 1.017
0 1.013
0 0.988
0 0.970
0 0.979
2 1.015 -10.46
0 0.974 -10.17
27.2
42.0
43.0
22.0
10.5
18.0
377.0
0.0
5.0
121.0
150.0
0.0
75.0
13.0
0.0
41.0
3.0
55.0
57 ITEMS
9.8
8.0
3.0
5.0
5.3
2.3
24.0
0.0
2.0
26.0
22.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
21.0
88.0
17.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
310.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
450.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
128.9
0 0.986 -11.43
2 0.980
2 1.005
0 0.984
2 0.980
0 0.976
0 0.981
2 0.985
2 1.010
3 1.040
100.0
08/25/93 UW ARCHIVE
B.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
128.5
0.0
0.0
2.2
62.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
-1.0
-0.8
-16.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.015
0.0
0.0
0.980
1.005
0.0
0.980
0.0
0.0
0.985
1.010
1.040
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
200.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
60.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-150.0
0.0
0.0
-3.0
-140.0
0.0
-8.0
0.0
0.0
-10.0
-17.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V2
V2
V3
V3
V3
V3
V4
V5
V5
V5
V5
V4
V4
V4
V4
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
19 Bus 19
20 Bus 20
21 Bus 21
22 Bus 22
23 Bus 23
24 Bus 24
25 Bus 25
26 Bus 26
27 Bus 27
28 Bus 28
29 Bus 29
30 Bus 30
31 Bus 31
32 Bus 32
33 Bus 33
34 Bus 34
35 Bus 35
36 Bus 36
37 Bus 37
38 Bus 38
39 Bus 39
-9.75
0 0.983 -13.46
0 1.013 -12.71
0 0.985 -13.41
0 0.976 -13.59
0 0.966 -13.86
0 0.959 -14.10
0 0.947 -18.50
0 0.949 -18.46
0 0.936 -19.34
0 0.962 -18.68
0 1.010
0 0.997 -10.45
0 0.982 -11.48
0 0.959 -12.95
0 0.982 -18.13
0 0.999 -13.25
0 1.008 -12.91
0 1.010 -12.84
0 1.008 -12.89
0 0.964 -13.41
0 0.970 -13.20
0.0
14.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
3.8
1.6
5.8
3.6
17.0
4.6
9.3
0.0
6.3
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
2.3
3.3
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
1.9
0.8
2.9
1.8
2.6
2.3
0.5
0.0
3.2
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.059
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V6
V7
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V5
V5
V5
V6
43 Tazewell
44 Bus 44
45 Bus 45
46 Bus 46
47 Bus 47
48 Bus 48
49 Bus 49
50 Bus 50
51 Bus 51
52 Bus 52
53 Bus 53
54 Bus 54
55 Saltville V5
V6
42 Bus 42
56 Bus 56
57 Bus 57
1 1 0
1 1 0
-9.25
0.0298
0.0850
0.0280
0 0.965 -16.56
0 0.968 -16.04
0 1.031 -10.78
0 0.996 -11.69
0 0.971 -12.23
0 0.980 -11.47
0 1.052 -12.52
0 1.023 -13.39
0 1.036 -12.92
0 1.027 -12.59
0 1.033 -12.49
0 1.050 -11.89
0 1.036
0 1.017 -11.86
0 1.010 -11.33
0 0.966 -15.50
0 0.996 -14.05
0 0.973 -13.62
0.0083
V6
41 Tazewell
V3
40 Bus 40
2.0
2.2
3.4
1.4
10.0
2.2
5.3
10.5
8.5
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.0
4.4
3.0
0.0
0.0818
80 ITEMS
0.1290
6.7
7.6
6.8
4.1
20.0
4.9
18.0
21.0
18.0
0.0
29.7
0.0
0.0
12.0
2.0
7.1
6.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.063
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
16
17
15
18
18
12
13
13
10
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.0277
0.0139
0.0302
0.0
0.0
0.0162
0.0238
0.0454
0.0178
0.0269
0.0132
0.0481
0.0648
0.0258
0.0369
0.0099
0.0339
0.0200
0.0430
0.0625
0.0112
0.1262
0.0712
0.0641
0.4300
0.5550
0.0530
0.1080
0.2060
0.0910
0.0869
0.0434
0.1580
0.2950
0.0848
0.1679
0.0505
0.1730
0.1020
0.1480
0.1320
0.0366
0.0328
0.0194
0.0124
0.0
0.0
0.0544
0.0286
0.0546
0.0988
0.0230
0.0110
0.0406
0.0772
0.0218
0.0440
0.0548
0.0470
0.0276
0.0348
0.0258
0.0380
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.978
0.970
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
13
16
17
15
19
20
20
22
23
24
25
25
26
27
28
29
29
30
31
32
11
12
12
12
14
18
19
21
21
22
23
24
24
24
26
27
28
25
30
31
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.5070
0.3260
0.1350
0.0
0.0418
0.0618
0.1650
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1660
0.0099
0.0736
0.0
0.2830
0.4610
0.0171
0.0397
0.0180
0.0178
0.0223
0.7550
0.4970
0.2020
0.0648
0.0587
0.0954
0.2540
0.0473
1.2300
1.1820
0.2560
0.0152
0.1170
0.7767
0.4340
0.6850
0.0547
0.1790
0.0813
0.0580
0.0732
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0084
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0148
0.0476
0.0216
0.0604
0.0188
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.967
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.043
1.000
1.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.043
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
32
35
36
37
38
39
40
38
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
51
32
34
34
35
36
37
37
36
22
11
41
41
38
15
14
46
47
48
49
50
10
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.0
0.1386
0.0801
0.0834
0.0182
0.0230
0.0
0.0
0.0289
0.0
0.2070
0.0
0.0192
0.0300
0.0239
0.0651
0.0290
0.0430
0.0520
0.0
0.0392
0.0712
0.2200
0.1280
0.1290
0.0233
0.0680
0.0735
0.1042
0.0585
0.4120
0.3520
0.7490
0.0295
0.0466
0.0379
0.1009
0.0366
0.0537
0.0780
0.9530
0.0360
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0048
0.0
0.0032
0.0
0.0
0.0020
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0020
0.0
0.0016
0.0032
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.930
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.900
0.955
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.955
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.975
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52
53
54
55
43
45
56
41
42
57
56
49
48
55
29
52
53
54
11
44
40
56
56
39
57
38
38
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.0
0.0312
0.1150
0.1740
0.0
0.2125
0.5530
0.0
0.0624
0.0
0.1732
0.1878
0.0762
0.1442
0.0
8 Clinch Rv V1
END OF DATA
TIE LINES FOLLOWS
0.0
1 IEEE 57 BUS
49
13
999.99
0.1205
0.0482
0.1770
0.2600
1.3550
0.3540
0.5490
1.1950
0.1242
0.1530
0.2265
0.2320
0.0984
0.1870
0.1910
0 ITEMS -999
IEEE57
1 ITEMS -9
1 ITEMS
0.0
0.0
0.0030
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0040
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.940
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.980
0.0
0.0
0.958
0.0
0.958
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.895
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V2
V2
V2
V2
14 GoshenJt
15 FtWayne
16 N. E.
17 Sorenson
V1
9 Bequine
V2
V1
8 Olive
13 Concord
V2
7 JacksnRd
V2
V2
6 Kankakee
12 TwinBrch
V2
5 Olive
V2
V2
4 NwCarlsl
11 SouthBnd
V2
3 HickryCk
V1
V2
2 Pokagon
10 Breed
V2
1 Riversde
BUS DATA FOLLOWS
0 0.995
0 0.984
2 0.970
0 0.984
0 0.968
2 0.990
0 0.985
2 1.050
0 1.043
2 1.015
0 0.989
2 0.990
0 1.002
2 0.998
0 0.968
0 0.971
2 0.955
13.74
11.91
11.23
11.50
11.35
12.20
12.72
35.61
28.02
20.77
12.56
13.00
15.73
15.28
11.56
11.22
11.0
25.0
90.0
14.0
34.0
47.0
70.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.0
52.0
0.0
30.0
39.0
20.0
51.0
57 ITEMS
3.0
10.0
30.0
1.0
16.0
10.0
23.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
22.0
0.0
12.0
10.0
9.0
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
85.0
0.0
450.0
0.0
-28.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.67
100.0
08/25/93 UW ARCHIVE
B.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.970
0.0
0.0
0.990
0.0
1.050
0.0
1.015
0.0
0.990
0.0
0.998
0.0
0.0
0.955
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
0.0
120.0
0.0
200.0
0.0
300.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
300.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
-10.0
0.0
0.0
-35.0
0.0
-147.0
0.0
-300.0
0.0
-13.0
0.0
-300.0
0.0
0.0
-5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.40
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V1
V2
V2
V2
V1
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V1
18 McKinley
19 Lincoln
20 Adams
21 Jay
22 Randolph
23 CollCrnr
24 Trenton
25 TannrsCk
26 TannrsCk
27 Madison
28 Mullin
29 Grant
30 Sorenson
31 DeerCrk
32 Delaware
33 Haviland
34 Rockhill
35 WestLima
36 Sterling
37 EastLima
38 EastLima
0 0.962
0 0.992
2 0.980
0 0.981
2 0.986
0 0.972
2 0.964
2 0.967
0 0.968
0 0.963
0 0.962
2 0.968
2 1.015
2 1.050
2 0.992
0 1.000
0 0.970
0 0.959
0 0.958
2 0.963
2 0.973
16.91
11.77
10.87
10.87
11.30
10.63
14.80
12.75
18.79
12.63
13.62
15.35
29.71
27.93
20.89
21.00
16.08
13.52
11.93
11.05
11.53
0.0
0.0
31.0
33.0
59.0
23.0
59.0
43.0
0.0
24.0
17.0
62.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
10.0
14.0
18.0
45.0
60.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
9.0
26.0
9.0
23.0
27.0
0.0
4.0
7.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
5.0
8.0
3.0
25.0
34.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-9.0
314.0
220.0
-13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.980
0.0
0.984
0.0
0.963
0.967
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.968
1.015
1.050
0.992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.962
0.973
-47.0
-300.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-8.0
-16.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
42.0
300.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
300.0
0.0
0.0
-8.0
0.0
-8.0
0.0
-14.0
-300.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-300.0
1000.0 -1000.0
140.0
300.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.25
0.0
0.0
0.14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
39 NwLibrty
40 West End
41 S.Tiffin
42 Howard
43 S.Kenton
44 WMVernon
45 N.Newark
46 W.Lancst
47 Crooksvl
48 Zanesvll
49 Philo
50 WCambrdg
51 Newcmrst
52 SCoshoct
53 Wooster
54 Torrey
55 Wagenhls
56 Sunnysde
57 WNwPhil1
58 WNwPhil2
59 Tidd
2 0.985
0 0.959
0 0.971
2 0.954
2 0.952
2 0.955
0 0.946
0 0.957
0 0.967
0 1.001
2 1.025
0 1.021
0 1.017
2 1.005
0 0.987
0 0.985
0 0.978
2 0.985
0 0.967
2 0.970
0 0.970
19.37
15.51
16.36
15.16
14.97
15.26
14.35
15.32
16.28
18.90
20.94
19.93
20.73
18.49
15.67
13.82
11.28
8.53
6.92
7.35
8.41
277.0
12.0
12.0
84.0
63.0
113.0
23.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
87.0
20.0
34.0
28.0
53.0
16.0
18.0
37.0
37.0
20.0
27.0
113.0
3.0
3.0
18.0
22.0
32.0
11.0
5.0
8.0
4.0
30.0
11.0
0.0
10.0
22.0
8.0
7.0
23.0
10.0
23.0
11.0
155.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
204.0
0.0
0.0
19.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-59.0
0.0
-46.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.985
0.0
0.0
0.954
0.952
0.955
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.025
0.0
0.0
1.005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.985
0.0
0.970
0.0
180.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
23.0
300.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
210.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
300.0
0.0
300.0
0.0
-60.0
0.0
0.0
-8.0
-8.0
-300.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-85.0
0.0
0.0
-100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-300.0
0.0
-300.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V2
V2
V2
V1
V1
V1
V2
V2
V1
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
60 SWKammer
61 W.Kammer
62 Natrium
63 Tidd
64 Kammer
65 Muskngum
66 Muskngum
67 Summerfl
68 Sporn
69 Sporn
70 Portsmth
71 NPortsmt
72 Hillsbro
73 Sargents
74 Bellefnt
75 SthPoint
76 Darrah
77 Turner
78 Chemical
79 CapitlHl
80 CabinCrk
2 1.040
0 1.009
0 1.003
2 1.006
2 0.943
0 0.967
2 0.958
2 0.991
2 0.980
0 0.987
2 0.984
3 1.035
0 1.003
0 1.020
2 1.050
2 1.005
0 0.984
0 0.969
2 0.998
2 0.995
0 0.993
28.96
26.72
26.42
26.72
21.77
22.91
21.64
21.94
20.98
22.15
22.58
30.00
27.55
24.84
27.48
27.65
24.52
22.75
23.43
24.04
23.15
130.0
39.0
71.0
61.0
68.0
47.0
68.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
66.0
0.0
0.0
28.0
39.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.0
0.0
78.0
26.0
32.0
26.0
28.0
36.0
11.0
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
18.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
0.0
3.0
477.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-6.0
-12.0
0.0
0.0
516.4
0.0
0.0
392.0
391.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
160.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.040
0.0
0.0
1.006
0.943
0.0
0.958
0.991
0.980
0.0
0.984
1.035
0.0
0.0
1.050
1.005
0.0
0.0
0.998
0.995
0.0
280.0
0.0
0.0
70.0
23.0
0.0
9.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
32.0
300.0
0.0
0.0
200.0
200.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
300.0
0.0
-165.0
0.0
0.0
-20.0
-8.0
0.0
-6.0
-100.0
-100.0
0.0
-10.0
-300.0
0.0
0.0
-67.0
-67.0
0.0
0.0
-20.0
-100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V1
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V3
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
81 Kanawha
82 Logan
83 Sprigg
84 BetsyLne
85 BeaverCk
86 Hazard
87 Pinevlle
88 Fremont
89 ClinchRv
90 Holston
91 HolstonT
92 Saltvlle
93 Tazewell
94 Switchbk
95 Caldwell
96 Baileysv
97 Sundial
98 Bradley
99 Hinton
100 Glen Lyn
101 Wythe
0 0.993
2 1.017
2 1.010
0 1.024
0 1.011
0 0.993
0 0.981
0 0.991
0 0.987
2 0.993
2 0.980
2 0.985
2 1.005
0 0.987
2 1.015
0 0.987
2 0.985
0 0.980
0 0.985
0 0.989
0 0.997
29.61
28.03
27.04
27.40
27.88
27.51
27.67
28.64
30.79
33.80
33.31
33.29
39.69
35.64
31.40
31.14
32.51
30.95
28.42
27.24
28.10
22.0
37.0
0.0
34.0
15.0
38.0
42.0
30.0
12.0
65.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
48.0
0.0
21.0
24.0
11.0
20.0
54.0
0.0
15.0
18.0
0.0
8.0
9.0
15.0
31.0
16.0
7.0
10.0
0.0
42.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
10.0
15.0
7.0
10.0
27.0
0.0
0.0
252.0
-42.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-10.0
-85.0
607.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.017
1.010
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.990
0.980
0.985
1.005
0.0
1.015
0.0
0.985
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
100.0
300.0
300.0
0.0
1000.0
0.0
23.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.0
-100.0
-300.0
-210.0
0.0
-100.0
0.0
-8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.10
0.20
0.0
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
V2
103 Claytor
104 Hancock
105 Roanoke
106 Cloverdl
107 Reusens
108 Blaine
109 Franklin
110 Fieldale
111 DanRiver
112 Danville
113 Deer Crk
114 WMedford
115 Medford
116 KygerCrk
117 Corey
118 WHuntngd
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.00176
0.01290
21.92
10.67
27.12
14.46
14.46
13.74
14.99
19.74
18.09
18.93
19.38
17.53
20.32
20.57
21.69
24.44
32.30
0.00798
0.04240
0.09990
0 0.949
0 0.974
2 1.005
0 0.960
0 0.960
2 0.993
2 0.975
2 0.980
2 0.973
0 0.967
0 0.967
2 0.952
0 0.962
2 0.965
2 0.971
2 1.001
0 0.991
0.03030
V2
102 Smythe
15.0
8.0
0.0
7.0
3.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
30.0
3.0
1.0
12.0
16.0
26.0
25.0
16.0
3.0
0.00210
0.01082
80 ITEMS
0.02540
33.0
20.0
0.0
22.0
8.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
39.0
8.0
2.0
28.0
43.0
31.0
38.0
23.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
-184.0
0.0
0.0
-6.0
-43.0
36.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-22.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.0
23.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-100.0
-100.0
-100.0
-8.0
0.0
0.0
-200.0
0.0
-8.0
-8.0
-15.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1000.0 -1000.0
0.0
0.0
200.0
1000.0
1000.0
23.0
0.0
0.0
200.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
1.005
0.0
0.0
0.993
0.975
0.980
0.973
0.0
0.0
0.952
0.0
0.965
0.971
1.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.20
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
14
15
15
16
17
17
18
19
11
11
12
13
14
12
15
16
17
18
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.01119
0.01230
0.04540
0.01320
0.02120
0.05950
0.07440
0.02150
0.02225
0.00862
0.04840
0.01870
0.00595
0.02030
0.02090
0.00258
0.00000
0.00244
0.00459
0.01190
0.02410
0.04930
0.05050
0.18010
0.04370
0.08340
0.19500
0.24440
0.07070
0.07310
0.03400
0.16000
0.06160
0.01960
0.06820
0.06880
0.03220
0.02670
0.03050
0.02080
0.05400
0.10800
0.01142
0.01298
0.04660
0.04440
0.02140
0.05020
0.06268
0.01816
0.01876
0.00874
0.04060
0.01572
0.00502
0.01738
0.01748
1.23000
0.0
1.16200
0.00550
0.01426
0.02840
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.985
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
19
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
29
17
30
30
31
31
32
32
32
33
34
19
15
20
21
22
23
23
26
25
27
28
30
26
17
29
23
31
27
15
19
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.07520
0.03800
0.02290
0.02980
0.03170
0.01080
0.04740
0.00799
0.00431
0.00000
0.02370
0.01913
0.03180
0.00000
0.01560
0.01350
0.03420
0.02090
0.01830
0.01200
0.02520
0.24700
0.12440
0.07550
0.09850
0.11530
0.03310
0.15630
0.08600
0.05040
0.03880
0.09430
0.08550
0.16300
0.03820
0.08000
0.04920
0.15900
0.09700
0.08490
0.03940
0.11700
0.06320
0.03194
0.01926
0.02510
0.11730
0.00830
0.03990
0.90800
0.51400
0.0
0.02380
0.02160
0.17640
0.0
0.08640
0.04980
0.04040
0.02460
0.02160
0.01010
0.02980
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.960
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.960
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36
37
37
36
37
37
39
40
38
40
41
42
42
44
43
45
46
47
48
49
49
35
35
33
34
34
38
37
37
30
39
40
40
41
43
34
44
45
46
46
47
42
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.07150
0.01910
0.06010
0.03800
0.04000
0.02240
0.04130
0.06080
0.04100
0.05550
0.01450
0.01840
0.00464
0.05930
0.03210
0.00000
0.00256
0.00871
0.04150
0.01100
0.00224
0.32300
0.06250
0.18900
0.12700
0.13560
0.09010
0.16810
0.24540
0.13500
0.18300
0.04870
0.06050
0.05400
0.16800
0.10600
0.03750
0.00940
0.02680
0.14200
0.04970
0.01020
0.08600
0.01604
0.04720
0.03160
0.03320
0.02240
0.04226
0.06068
0.03440
0.04660
0.01222
0.01552
0.42200
0.04200
0.02700
0.0
0.00984
0.00568
0.03660
0.01318
0.00268
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.935
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49
49
49
50
51
52
53
54
54
54
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
59
59
42
45
48
49
49
51
52
53
49
49
54
54
55
56
50
56
51
54
56
56
55
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.04739
0.08030
0.08250
0.05030
0.02550
0.03430
0.04740
0.03430
0.00488
0.00275
0.01690
0.08690
0.07300
0.02630
0.04050
0.02030
0.04860
0.02670
0.01790
0.06840
0.07150
0.21580
0.23900
0.25100
0.22930
0.07190
0.09660
0.13400
0.09660
0.01510
0.00955
0.07070
0.29100
0.28900
0.12200
0.16350
0.05880
0.13700
0.07520
0.05050
0.18600
0.32300
0.05646
0.05360
0.05690
0.05980
0.01788
0.02420
0.03320
0.02420
0.00374
0.00732
0.02020
0.07300
0.07380
0.03100
0.04058
0.01396
0.03420
0.01874
0.01258
0.04440
0.08600
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60
61
61
62
62
59
64
61
65
65
66
66
66
67
66
67
68
69
69
69
70
59
59
60
60
61
63
63
64
38
64
49
49
62
62
65
66
65
47
49
68
69
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.03000
0.00000
0.09850
0.08440
0.00138
0.02240
0.00000
0.02580
0.04820
0.01800
0.01800
0.00269
0.00901
0.00000
0.00172
0.00000
0.00824
0.01230
0.00264
0.03280
0.03170
0.12700
0.03700
0.32400
0.27780
0.01600
0.10150
0.03700
0.11700
0.21800
0.09190
0.09190
0.03020
0.09860
0.02680
0.02000
0.03860
0.03760
0.05610
0.01350
0.15000
0.14500
0.12200
0.0
0.08280
0.07092
0.63800
0.02682
0.0
0.03100
0.05780
0.02480
0.02480
0.38000
1.04600
0.0
0.21600
0.0
0.00980
0.01468
0.01456
0.03880
0.03760
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.935
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.935
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.985
0.0
0.960
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
70
71
72
72
73
74
75
75
75
77
77
77
78
79
80
80
80
81
80
82
83
24
70
24
71
71
70
70
69
74
76
69
75
77
78
77
77
79
68
81
77
82
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.01120
0.02980
0.00000
0.00175
0.01560
0.02940
0.01700
0.00546
0.00376
0.06010
0.03090
0.04440
0.01230
0.04050
0.04280
0.04010
0.00866
0.04460
0.04880
0.00882
0.00221
0.03665
0.08530
0.03700
0.02020
0.07040
0.10500
0.04850
0.02440
0.01240
0.19990
0.10100
0.14800
0.04060
0.12200
0.14100
0.13230
0.04540
0.18000
0.19600
0.03550
0.41150
0.03796
0.08174
0.0
0.80800
0.01870
0.02280
0.04720
0.00648
0.01264
0.04978
0.10380
0.03680
0.01034
0.12400
0.03600
0.03368
0.01178
0.04444
0.04880
0.00878
0.10198
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.935
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
84
85
85
86
87
88
89
89
90
90
91
92
92
92
93
94
94
95
96
96
96
83
83
84
85
86
85
85
88
89
89
90
89
89
91
92
92
93
94
80
82
94
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.02690
0.01620
0.03560
0.01320
0.02230
0.04810
0.02580
0.03870
0.03930
0.00990
0.02540
0.02380
0.05180
0.01390
0.02390
0.02000
0.02828
0.03500
0.03020
0.04300
0.06250
0.08690
0.05300
0.18200
0.04340
0.07320
0.15800
0.08480
0.12720
0.15810
0.05050
0.08360
0.09970
0.18800
0.07120
0.17300
0.10200
0.20740
0.12300
0.06410
0.14800
0.13200
0.02300
0.05440
0.04940
0.01110
0.01876
0.04060
0.02180
0.03268
0.04140
0.05480
0.02140
0.10600
0.05280
0.01934
0.04700
0.02760
0.04450
0.02760
0.01234
0.03480
0.02580
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
97
98
99
100
100
96
97
100
100
101
102
102
103
104
104
105
106
105
106
107
108
80
80
80
92
94
95
96
98
99
100
92
101
100
100
103
103
100
104
105
105
105
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.02610
0.05300
0.01400
0.00994
0.06050
0.05350
0.04660
0.04510
0.01600
0.02460
0.01230
0.02770
0.01800
0.03970
0.01730
0.01710
0.01780
0.06480
0.04540
0.02380
0.01830
0.07030
0.18300
0.05470
0.03780
0.22900
0.16250
0.15840
0.20400
0.05250
0.11200
0.05590
0.12620
0.08130
0.17900
0.08850
0.05470
0.05800
0.29500
0.20600
0.10800
0.09340
0.01844
0.04720
0.01434
0.00986
0.06200
0.04080
0.04070
0.05410
0.05360
0.02940
0.01464
0.03280
0.02160
0.04760
0.02400
0.01474
0.06040
0.04720
0.05460
0.02860
0.02540
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
109
110
110
111
112
113
113
114
115
115
116
117
118
118
108
103
109
110
110
17
32
32
27
114
68
12
75
76
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
0.01640
0.01450
0.03290
0.00034
0.00230
0.01640
0.01350
0.06150
0.00913
0.02470
0.02200
0.02780
0.03906
0.01050
0.05300
80 CabinCrk
V2
END OF DATA
-9 TIE LINES FOLLOWS
0.0
1 IEEE 118 BUS
107
106
999.99
1 ITEMS
1 ITEMS
0.01356
0.01198
0.03580
0.16400
0.00276
0.01972
0.01628
0.05180
0.00768
0.06200
0.02000
0.02020
0.04610
0.00760
0.04720
0 ITEMS -999
IEEE118 IEEE 118 Bus Test Case
0.05440
0.04810
0.14000
0.00405
0.01040
0.07410
0.06120
0.20300
0.03010
0.06400
0.07550
0.07620
0.18130
0.02880
0.18300
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bibliography
[1] A. Abur and A. G. Exposito, Power System State Estimation: Theory and
Implementation. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.
[2] A. G. Phadke and J. S. Thorp, Synchronized Phasor Measurements and Their
Applications. New York: Springer, 2008.
[3] A. G. Phadke, J. S. Thorp, and M. G. Adamiak, A new measurement technique for tracking voltage phasors, local system frequency, and rate of change
of frequency, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 102,
no. 5, pp. 10251038, May 1983.
[4] A. G. Phadke and B. Kasztenny, Synchronized phasor and frequency measurement under transient conditions, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
2009.
[5] B. Milosevic and M. Begovic, Voltage-stability protection and control using
a wide-area network of phasor measurements, IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 121127, Feb. 2003.
[6] M. M. Eissa, M. E. Masoud, and M. M. M. Elanwar, A novel back up wide area
protection technique for power transmission grids using phasor measurement
unit, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 270278, Jan.
2010.
[7] J. Chen and A. Abur, Enhanced topology error processing via optimal measurement design, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp.
845852, Aug. 2008.
94
Bibliography
95
[8] R. Diao, K. Sun, V. Vittal, R. J. OKeefe, M. R. Richardson, N. Bhatt, D. Stradford, and S. K. Sarawgi, Decision tree-based online voltage security assessment
using PMU measurements, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24,
no. 2, pp. 832839, May 2009.
[9] Y. Zhang, P. Markham, T. Xia, L. Chen, Y. Ye, Z. Wu, Z. Yuan, L. Wang,
J. Bank, J. Burgett, R. W. Conners, and Y. Liu, Wide-area frequency monitoring network (FNET) architecture and applications, IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 159167, Sep. 2010.
[10] J. E. Tate and T. J. Overbye, Line outage detection using phasor angle measurements, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1644
1652, Nov. 2008.
[11] Y.-H. Lin, C.-W. Liu, and C.-S. Chen, A new PMU-based fault detection/location technique for transmission lines with consideration of arcing fault
discrimination-part I: theory and algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 15871593, Oct. 2004.
[12] Y.-H. Lin, C.-W. Liu, and C.-S. Chen, A new PMU-based fault detection/location technique for transmission lines with consideration of arcing fault
discrimination-part II: performance evaluation, IEEE Transactions on Power
[13] J. H. Chow, A. Chakrabortty, M. Arcak, B. Bhargava, and A. Salazar, Synchronized phasor data based energy function analysis of dominant power transfer
paths in large power systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 727734, May 2007.
[14] M. Glavic and T. Van Cutsem, Wide-area detection of voltage instability from
synchronized phasor measurements. part I: Principle, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 14081416, Aug. 2009.
[15] M. Glavic and T. Van Cutsem, Wide-area detection of voltage instability from
synchronized phasor measurements. part II: Simulation results, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 14171425, Aug. 2009.
Bibliography
96
[16] C.-W. Liu, K.-P. Lien, C.-S. Chen, and J.-A. Jiang, A universal fault location
technique for N-terminal (N = 3) transmission lines, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 13661373, Jul. 2008.
[17] P. Tripathy, S. C. Srivastava, and S. N. Singh, A divide-by-difference-filter
based algorithm for estimation of generator rotor angle utilizing synchrophasor measurements, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement,
vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 15621570, Jun. 2010.
[18] K. A. Clements and W. A. Wollenberg, An algorithm for observability determination in power system state estimation, in IEEE Power Engineering Society
Summer Meeting, 1975.
[19] F. J. Marn, F. Garca-Lagos, G. Joya, and F. Sandoval, Genetic algorithms
for optimal placement of phasor measurement units in electrical networks,
Electronics Letters, vol. 39, no. 19, pp. 14031405, Sep. 2003.
[20] A. G. Phadke, J. S. Thorp, and K. J. Karimi, State estimation with phasor
measurements, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 233
238, Feb. 1986.
[21] A. G. Phadke, Synchronized phasor measurements in power systems, IEEE
Computer Applications in Power, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1015, Apr. 1993.
[22] L. Mili, T. Baldwin, and R. Adapa, Phasor measurement placement for voltage
stability analysis of power systems, in Proceedings of the 29th IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, vol. 6, Dec. 57, 1990, pp. 30333038.
[23] T. L. Baldwin, L. Mili, M. B. Boisen, and R. Adapa, Power system observability with minimal phasor measurement placement, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 707715, May 1993.
[24] R. F. Nuqui and A. G. Phadke, Phasor measurement unit placement based on
incomplete observability, in IEEE 2002 Power Engineering Society Summer
Meeting, vol. 2, Jul. 25, 2002, pp. 888893.
Bibliography
97
[25] R. F. Nuqui and A. G. Phadke, Phasor measurement unit placement techniques

for complete and incomplete observability, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 23812388, Oct. 2005.
[26] B. Milosevic and M. Begovic, Nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for optimal phasor measurement placement, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 6975, Feb. 2003.
[27] K.-S. Cho, J.-R. Shin, and S. H. Hyun, Optimal placement of phasor measurement units with GPS receiver, in IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter
Meeting, vol. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2001, pp. 258262.
[28] J. Peng, Y. Sun, and H.-F. Wang, Optimal PMU placement for full network
observability using Tabu search algorithm, International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, pp. 223231, May 2006.
[29] F. Aminifar, C. Lucas, A. Khodaei, and M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, Optimal placement of phasor measurement units using immunity genetic algorithm, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 10141020, Jul. 2009.
[30] S. Chakrabarti, G. K. Venayagamoorthy, and E. Kyriakides, PMU placement
for power system observability using binary particle swarm optimization, in
Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC), Dec. 2008.
[31] M. Hajian, A. M. Ranjbar, T. Amraee, and A. R. Shirani, Optimal placement
of phasor measurement units: particle swarm optimization approach, in International Conference on Intelligent Systems Applications to Power Systems
(ISAP), Nov. 58, 2007.
[32] A. Sadu, R. Kumar, and R. G. Kavasseri, Optimal placement of phasor measurement units using particle swarm optimization, in 2009 World Congress
on Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing (NaBIC), Dec. 911, 2009, pp.
17081713.
[33] S. Chakrabarti and E. Kyriakides, Optimal placement of phasor measurement
units for power system observability, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 14331440, Aug. 2008.
Bibliography
98
[34] B. Xu and A. Abur, Observability analysis and measurement placement for

systems with PMUs, in Proceedings of the IEEE PES 2004 Power Systems
Conference and Exposition, vol. 2, Oct. 1013, 2004, pp. 943946.
[35] B. Xu, Optimal monitoring and visualization of steady-state power system
operation, Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, May 2006.
[36] B. Gou, Optimal placement of PMUs by integer linear programming, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 15251526, Aug. 2008.
[37] B. Gou, Generalized integer linear programming formulation for optimal PMU
placement, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1099
1104, Aug. 2008.
[38] A. Abur and F. H. Magnago, Optimal meter placement for maintaining observability during single branch outages, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 12731278, Nov. 1999.
[39] B. Xu, Y. J. Yoon, and A. Abur, Optimal placement and utilization of phasor
measurements for state estimation, in Power System Computation Conference,
Li`ege, Belgium, Aug. 2005.
[40] S. Chakrabarti, D. Eliades, E. Kyriakides, and M. Albu, Measurement uncertainty considerations in optimal sensor deployment for state estimation, in
IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing (WISP), Oct.
2007.
[41] S. Chakrabarti, E. Kyriakides, and D. G. Eliades, Placement of synchronized
measurements for power system observability, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1219, Jan. 2009.
[42] D. Dua, S. Dambhare, R. K. Gajbhiye, and S. A. Soman, Optimal multistage
scheduling of PMU placement: an ILP approach, IEEE Transactions on Power
Bibliography
99
[43] N. H. Abbasy and H. M. Ismail, A unified approach for the optimal PMU location for power system state estimation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 806813, May 2009.
[44] F. Aminifar, A. Khodaei, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Shahidehpour,
Contingency-constrained PMU placement in power networks, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 516523, Feb. 2010.
[45] J. Chen and A. Abur, Improved bad data processing via strategic placement
of PMUs, in IEEE 2005 Power Engineering Society General Meeting, vol. 1,
Jun. 1216, 2005, pp. 509513.
[46] J. Chen and A. Abur, Placement of PMUs to enable bad data detection in
state estimation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 21, no. 4, pp.
16081615, Nov. 2006.
[47] Y. M. Park, Y. H. Moon, J. B. Choo, and T. W. Kwon, Design of reliable measurement system for state estimation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 830836, Aug. 1988.
[48] F. H. Magnago and A. Abur, A unified approach to robust meter placement against loss of measurements and branch outages, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 945949, Aug. 2000.
[49] C. Rakpenthai, S. Premrudeepreechacharn, S. Uatrongjit, and N. R. Watson,
An optimal PMU placement method against measurement loss and branch
outage, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 101107,
Jan. 2007.
[50] R. Emami and A. Abur, Reliable placement of synchronized phasor measurements on network branches, in IEEE PES 2009 Power Systems Conference
and Exposition (PSCE), Mar. 1518, 2009.
[51] R. Emami and A. Abur, Robust measurement design by placing synchronized
phasor measurements on network branches, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 3843, Feb. 2010.
Bibliography
100
[52] K.-P. Lien, C.-W. Liu, C.-S. Yu, and J.-A. Jiang, Transmission network fault
location observability with minimal PMU placement, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 11281136, Jul. 2006.
[53] S. P. Pokharel and S. Brahma, Optimal PMU placement for fault location in a
power system, in 2009 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Oct. 46,
2009.
[54] F. Mahmoodianfard, M. Mohammadi, G. B. Gharehpetian, and H. A. Abyaneh,
Optimal PMU placement for voltage security assessment using decision tree,
in 2009 IEEE PowerTech, Jun. 28Jul. 2, 2009.
[55] M. Zhou, V. A. Centeno, A. G. Phadke, Y. Hu, D. Novosel, and H. A. R. Volskis, A preprocessing method for effective PMU placement studies, in Third
International Conference on Electric Utility Deregulation and Restructuring and
Power Technologies (DRPT), Apr. 2008, pp. 28622867.
[56] M. Hurtgen, P. Praks, J.-C. Maun, and P. Zajac, Measurement placement
algorithms for state estimation when the number of phasor measurements by
each PMU is limited, in 43rd International Universities Power Engineering
Conference (UPEC), Sep. 2008.
[57] J. Zhang and W. K. G. Seah, Topology-based capacity analysis for ad hoc
networks with end-to-end delay constraints, in Proceedings of the IEEE 6th
Circuits and Systems Symposium on Emerging Technologies: Frontiers of Mobile and Wireless Communication, vol. 2, May 31Jun. 2, 2004, pp. 541544.
[58] M. Korkal and A. Abur, Placement of PMUs with channel limits, in Proceedings of the IEEE PES 2009 General Meeting, Jul. 2630, 2009.
[59] K. Holmstrom, A. O. Goran, and M. M. Edvall, Users Guide for TOMLAB
/CPLEX v11.2, Nov. 2008.
[60] R. D. Christie, Power systems test case archive, Aug. 1999. [Online]. Available: http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca.

Strategic and Robust Deployment Of. Synchronized Phasor Measurement Units With. Restricted Channel Capacity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic and Robust Deployment Of. Synchronized Phasor Measurement Units With. Restricted Channel Capacity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic and Robust Deployment of

Synchronized Phasor Measurement Units with

copyright by Mert Korkal 2010

Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering

Thesis Adviser: Professor Ali Abur

Thesis Reader: Professor Hanoch Lev-Ari

Thesis Reader: Professor Aleksandar M. Stankovic

Department Chair: Professor Ali Abur

Graduate School Notified of Acceptance:

Director of the Graduate School: Sara Wadia-Fascetti

2 Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

3 Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Impact of Network Sparsity on Strategic Placement of PMUs . . . . . 32

5 Concluding Remarks and Further Study

A Functions and Scripts Used in the PMU Placement Algorithm

B IEEE Test Systems Data Used in the

Phasor measurements provided by PMU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conventional PMU Placement without Zero-Injections for Miscellaneous Power Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B.1 System Information of Studied IEEE Test Systems . . . . . . . . . . 64

A good companion shortens the longest road.

Motivations for the Study

Synchronized phasor measurement units are rapidly populating power systems as

Contributions of the Thesis

to develop an optimal solution to the PMU placement problem given a specified

Historical Overview of Phasor Measurement

Synchronized phasor measurements are considered as a promising measurement tool

Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

there are 24 commercial PMU manufacturers. In this respect, standards established

Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

towards improvements in its maturity, and a majority of modern power systems

Applications of Synchronized Phasor Measurements in Power Systems

Advances and applications in research studies of synchronized phasor measurement

Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

then additional meters may have to be installed at certain locations. Observability

Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

novel concept of depth-of-unobservability is presented and how this has an effect

Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

Chapter 2. Optimal PMU Placement for State Estimation

Statement of the PMU Placement Problem

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Proposed Formulation for the PMU Placement Problem

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

If the number of channels, L, is larger than the number of neighbors Nk , then a

where the number of possible combinations of L out of Nk branches is defined as:

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Modeling of Zero-Injection Buses

The procedure of forming the constraint equations is straightforward for a system

Case 1Arbitrary Selection of Neighbor Buses

Case 2Selection of Neighbor Buses which Have Minimum Number of Neighbors

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Case 3Selection of Neighbor Buses which Have Maximum Number of Neighbors

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal

Case 4Modeling of Zero-Injection Buses as Linear

Ni = Ni1 Ni2 Ni` ,

where I = {i1 , i2 , , i` } designates the set of zero-injection buses.

1 if j {Ii }iI and k {m }mNi ,

Chapter 3. Strategic Placement of Phasor Measurement Units with Optimal