Professional Documents
Culture Documents
jb/2 jb/2
The real and reactive components of Y gives matrices
G and B with elements Gij and Bij. The equations for
real and reactive power flow at both ends of the line
are given by the following:
Figure 1. Pi Line Model
phasor quantities. The assumption is that the P2 V22G22 V2V1 G21 cos
21 B21 sin
21
(4)
measurements for this application are P1, Q1, V1, P2,
2152
2150
G12 sin
12 B12 cos
12
(5)
Q1 V12 B11 VV SCADA estimation problem, some approximation is
1 2
necessary. The choice of the approximation is
Q2 V22 B22 V2V1 G21 sin
21 B21 cos
21
(6) therefore important.
From (2)-(6), the equations for the real and reactive 3.4. Estimation Equations
power losses in the line are thus given by P1+P2 and
Q1+Q2 respectively: The equations used to perform the SCADA
estimation are presented in this section. The
Plosses V12 V22 G11 2VV G12 cos
12
(7)
1 2
following two equations for real power losses and
reactive power losses contain the three unknowns (r,
Qlosses V12 V22 B11 2VV B12 cos
12
(8)
1 2 x, and b) which are time independent.
Thus, four out of the six equations in (3)-(8) are Plosses I 2 r (10)
independent. The loss equations are obviously not Qlosses V 1
2
b / 2 V2 b / 2 I
2 2
x (11)
independent of the first four since they are each the
sum of two other equations. In equations (3)-(6), the
The need for approximation arises since the current
unknowns are G12, B12, b/2, and 12 = (1-2). Thus,
magnitude I in (10) and (11) is not known exactly
there are four equations and four unknowns.
from the measurable quantities. Due to current
This looks similar to a traditional state estimation
injections from the shunt elements, I differs from I1
problem except with different unknown variables.
and I2 which are known from (1). As an
The difficulty is that the unknowns appear in the
approximation, the average of I1 and I2 is taken for I.
equations in a nonlinear manner. Thus, it follows
This avoids the problem of unknowns which depend
that use of a linear technique to estimate these
on time.
quantities will not yield complete success. To see
Other variations of the estimation equations are
this, observe that what appears in the equations is
possible depending upon which approximations are
always a product term of Gij and Bij multiplied with
desirable to make. Future work may investigate the
either the term sin(12) or cos(12). Solution requires
impact of the model approximation on the parameter
a nonlinear iterative approach such as Newtons
estimation. For example, a bias term u can be added
method to find b, x, and r to minimize the difference
to the estimation equation for r,
between the measurements and the calculated
quantities. Essentially, this is state estimation. The
key difficulty is that from one snapshot, there are Plosses u I 2 r (12)
more unknowns than equations so traditional state V V2
2 2
2153
2151
r Aey fp,q (16) DataSet = DataSet (keepIndex)
and results in the following estimate (14), Algorithm 1. Procedure for Dataset Selection
2154
2152
threshold = f(r, ) The estimated line is between Bus 3 and Bus 4, with
If residual(row) > threshold then begin model parameters: r=0.01 pu, x=0.03 pu, b=0.02 pu.
Remove row from DataSet
Increment(nR)
End 5.1. Simulated Error-Free Data
End
End
Algorithm 3. Outlier Filtering A simulated SCADA dataset for line (3,4) is
obtained from five different operating points. The
In Algorithm 3, Matlab functions ksdensity and normfit units of P, Q, and V measurements are MW, MVAr
have been used from the Statistics toolbox. The and per unit, respectively. Using only these points
function ksdensity (r) is used to compute a probability with no added error, the estimate matches the model,
distribution estimate for the sample vector r. This as expected. The values of the estimates are given in
function returns a vector of density values F Table 2. Real and reactive power plots of the actual
evaluated at the points in vector xi. The function data, the estimate, and the model are shown in Figure
normfit(r) fits r to a normal distribution and returns the 3 and Figure 4. The per unit base is 100 MVA.
estimates of mean and standard deviation of the
data with a 95% confidence interval. Estimates on Table 1. Study system noise-free estimates
the bounds of the confidence intervals are given by ci Line u (pu) r (pu) x (pu) b (pu)
and ci. The objective of Algorithm 3 is to detect and (3, 4) -1.99e-5 0.010055 0.030161 0.020058
remove bad data characterized by deviation of
0.01
residual from the zero mean. If the error residual for r: 0.010055
0.009
a data point exceeds the threshold, the point is u: -1.9901e-005
0.008
removed.
Ploss(pu) 0.007
0.006
5. Application to Simulated Data 0.005
0.004
-0.005 Data
Estimate
Model
-0.01
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Current(pu)
Figure 4. Seven-bus error-free data Qgen plot
2155
2153
from the five exact operating points, we create 200*5 As may be evident when comparing the results,
= 1000 hypothetical measurement data points. Each some sets of operating points facilitate better
measurement is per-unitized and randomized by a estimates than others. The issue is that when
normal probability distribution of mean zero and simulating data, it is challenging to reproduce data
standard deviation 2 MW, 2 MVAr, and 0.02 per unit with a realistic distribution. The question arises of
voltage. These 1000 points are used to compute the how one should perturb the system to obtain
estimate. The results from the new dataset are shown representative operating points since there are infinite
in Figure 5 and Figure 6, and the corresponding possible ways to change the system and obtain a new
estimates are shown in Table 2. operating point. Thus, rather than speculate on what
representative operating points exist that should be
0.15
r: 0.0063688 Data studied, the most value is obtained from testing the
Estimate procedure on real data.
u: 0.0012165 Model
0.1
0.05
0
The proposed procedures are applied to historical
SCADA data from a real North American power
-0.05
system. Identifiers of buses and lines in the real
system have been made anonymous. From a
-0.1
practical point of view, it is extremely valuable to be
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Current(pu)
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
able to present these results for actual SCADA data.
Figure 5. Seven-bus noisy dataset Ploss plot Estimation on artificially constructed data is a
special/trivial case. However, parameter estimation
0.1 using real world data can be extremely challenging as
x: 0.029319 Data
0.08 b: 0.017988 Estimate evident in the results and discussions presented in the
Model
0.06
following sections. Real world data rarely follows a
0.04
Gaussian or known probability distribution.
Qgen(pu)
0.02
0
6.1. Study System - North American Utility
-0.02
-0.04
From a North American utility, SCADA data
collected over several months is available for the
-0.06
three transmission lines illustrated in Figure 7. The
-0.08
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 model values of the line parameters for these lines are
Current(pu)
also available, tabulated in Table 3. Results for these
Figure 6. Seven-bus noisy dataset Qgen plot three lines are presented.
As indicated by the estimates for (3, 4)* in Table 2, Line A Line B Line C
the accuracy of the r estimate is considerably
improved when the static error u is not estimated. Bus 1 Bus 2 Bus 3 Bus 4
Table 2. Study system estimates with noise Figure 7. Three Lines with Available Data
Line u (pu) r (pu) x (pu) b (pu)
(3, 4) 0.0012165 0.006369 0.02932 0.017988 Each line identifier =(i,j) in Table 3 denotes a line
(3, 4)* - 0.010153 0.02931 0.020321 between bus i and bus j, from Figure 7.
It is interesting to note that the five operating Table 3. Existing Model Values for Lines
points result in five distinct clusters of points on the Line r (pu) x (pu) b (pu)
graphs. In real data, the authors have observed the A=(1, 2) 0.00056 0.01054 0.9079
presence of these bands, especially when a relatively B=(2, 3) 0.00052 0.00999 0.75194
small set of points is examined. Thus, multiple noisy C=(3, 4) 0.00025 0.00445 0.32042
measurements of the same operating point seem to
cause this feature. 6.2. Comparison of Model to Data
2156
2154
loss
8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 plot Ploss and Qgen vs. I for r: 0.00086639
Ploss(pu)
1
u: 0.0067853
each line. The red and blue lines on these plots show
respectively the expected data points when using the
0.5
estimated and model parameter values. Figures 9, 10,
13, 15, 17, and 19 show distributions of the residuals
0
about the parameter estimate as well as Gaussian
distributions of the same mean and standard deviation
-0.5
(red dotted lines). The available datasets for lines A, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Current(pu)
B, and C lead to reasonable and consistent parameter Figure 10. Ploss vs. I (Line A)
estimates.
Resistance r and static power offset u are estimated 1
from the real power losses, while x and b are 0.9
estimated from the reactive power losses. These Mean: -3.551e-017
0.5
0.3
g
1.2
0.2
Data
1 Estimate 0.1
Model
0.8 0
-0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
x: 0.010794 Ploss Deviation (pu)
Qgen(pu)
0.6
b: 0.90628
Figure 11. Ploss residual distribution (Line A)
0.4
0.2
0
6.2.2. Line B plots.
-0.2
g
1.5
-0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Data
Current(pu) 1 Estimate
Model
Figure 8. Qgen vs. I (Line A) 0.5
x: 0.01163
0
b: 0.7144
1
Qgen(pu)
-0.5
0.9
Density Distribution Estimate
-1
0.8
-1.5
0.7 Mean: 2.0811e-006
0.6
Std: 0.014912 -2
-2.5
0.5
0.4 -3
8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0.3 Current(pu)
0.2 Figure 12. Qgen vs. I (Line B)
0.1
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Qgen Deviation (pu)
Figure 9. Qgen residual distribution (Line A)
2157
2155
1 1
x: 0.0044154 Data
0.9 Estimate
0.8 b: 0.35742
Qgen(pu)
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3 0
0.2
-0.2
0.1
-0.4
0 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Qgen Deviation (pu) Current(pu)
Figure 13. Qgen residual distribution (Line B) Figure 16. Qgen vs. I (Line C)
0.7 1
Data 0.9 Mean: -1.3784e-005
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.3
0
0.2
-0.1 0.1
-0.2 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Current(pu) Qgen Deviation (pu)
Figure 14. Ploss vs. I (Line B) Figure 17. Qgen residual distribution (Line C)
1.4 0.3
r: -0.00025763 Data
Density Distribution Estimate
1
Mean: 2.7123e-017 0.1
Std: 0.039822
Ploss(pu)
0.8 0
0.6 -0.1
0.4 -0.2
-0.3
0.2
-0.4
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Ploss Deviation (pu) Current(pu)
Figure 15. Ploss residual distribution (Line B) Figure 18. Ploss vs. I (Line C)
1
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Ploss Deviation (pu)
Figure 19. Ploss residual distribution (Line C)
2158
2156
6.2.4. Parameter Estimates for All Lines 0.3
0.2
Ploss(pu)
0
2159
2157
from [15] [16] where the two DC coil currents IH and [4] A. K. Al-Othman, M. R. Irving, "Uncertainty
IL may be measured, and at is the transformer turns modelling in power system state estimation," IEE
ratio. Proceedings- Generation, Transmission and
When the K values of transformers are not known, Distribution, vol. 152, no. 2, pp. 233- 239, March
2005.
they are often approximated in the analysis by default [5] G. L. Kusic, D. L. Garrison, "Measurement of
values. Obviously, it is preferable to use actual values transmission line parameters from SCADA
to improve the meaningfulness of the GIC results. data," IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and
The NERC report [13] identifies as an action item the Exposition, 2004, pp. 440- 445 vol. 1, Oct. 2004.
development of tools for GIC flow and subsequent [6] J. Zhu, A. Abur, "Identification of network parameter
reactive power loss modeling. Parameter estimation errors," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.
can help validate transformer parameters which are 21, no. 2, pp. 586- 592, May 2006.
needed for GIC analysis. [7] J. Zhu, A. Abur, "Improvements in network
parameter error identification via synchronized
phasors," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.
9. Conclusion 25, no. 1, pp. 44-50, Feb. 2010.
[8] J. F. Dopazo, G. Irisarri, A. M. Sasson, Real-time
external equivalent for on-line contingency analysis,
The value of using data collected over time is
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. PAS-98,
apparent when estimating transmission line no. 6, pp. 2153-2171, Nov. 1979.
parameters, as shown in this paper. Results for both [9] K. M. Rogers, R. D. Spadoni, T. J. Overbye,
simulated and real data are discussed. It is clear that Identification of power system topology from
estimation based on real measurement data presents synchrophasor data, IEEE Power Systems
challenges which are not encountered in simulation. Conference and Exposition (PSCE), pp. 1-8, March
The presentation of the proposed solution approach 2011.
to real data is thus valuable. The approach is [10] J. Mandel, The Statistical Analysis of Experimental
validated on actual SCADA data from a real North Data, (Reprint) Dover, 1984, Mineola, N.Y.
American utility. In summary, the proposed [11] R. Bergen, V. Vittal, Power System Analysis,
2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 2000.
methodology is a valuable tool which can allow [12] S. Smolleck, J. Sims, Guidelines for the selection
planners to find and correct model errors based on and operation of bare ACSR conductors with regard
data which is already collected. to current carrying capacity, Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 5, 1982, pp. 179-190.
10. Acknowledgments [13] 2012 Special Reliability Assessment Interim Report:
Effects of Geomagnetic Disturbances on the Bulk
Power System, NERC, Feb. 2012.
The authors would like to acknowledge support from [14] X. Dong, Y. Liu, J. G. Kappenman, "Comparative
the Stanford University Global Climate and Energy analysis of exciting current harmonics and reactive
Project (GCEP), the Power Systems Engineering power consumption from GIC saturated
Research Center (PSERC), Trustworthy Cyber transformers," IEEE Power Engineering Society
Infrastructure for the Power Grid (TCIPG), and Winter Meeting, pp. 318-322, Feb 2001.
[15] V.D. Albertson, J. G. Kappenman, N. Mohan, G. A.
Consortium for Electric Reliability Technology
Skarbakka, "Load-flow studies in the presence of
Solutions (CERTS). geomagnetically-induced currents," IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
11. References PAS-100, no.2, pp.594-607, Feb. 1981.
[16] K. Zheng, et. al., Influence of system characteristics
on the amplitudes of geomagnetically induced
[1] A. G. Phadke, "Synchronized phasor measurements in
currents, submitted to IEEE Transactions on Power
power systems," IEEE Computer Applications in
Delivery, March 2012.
Power, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 10-15, Apr 1993.
[2] A. Monticelli, State estimation in electric power
systems: a generalized approach. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1999.
[3] A. S. Debs, "Estimation of steady-state power system
model parameters," IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-93, no. 5, pp. 1260-
1268, Sept. 1974.
2160
2158