Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

State estimation and bad data processing for systems including PMU and SCADA
measurements
George N. Korres ∗ , Nikolaos M. Manousakis
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens 9, Iroon Polytechneiou Street, Zografou 15780, Athens, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Conventional state estimators (SE) are based on real-time measurements, consisting of bus voltages
Received 30 November 2010 and active and reactive power flows and injections, and estimate the voltage phasors of the network
Received in revised form 3 March 2011 buses. Until recently, these measurements were obtained only through SCADA. With the advent of GPS
Accepted 6 March 2011
synchronized measurements obtained by phasor measurement units (PMU), effective techniques are
Available online 2 April 2011
required to incorporate the extremely accurate PMU measurements into state estimation, in order to
improve its performance and observability. This paper develops a non-linear weighted least squares
Keywords:
estimator by modeling the current phasor measurements either in rectangular or in polar coordinates
State estimation
Phasor measurement unit
and compares the two approaches. Any numerical problems arised at flat start or for lightly loaded
Voltage phasor lines, are resolved. The error amplification, due to the current phasor measurement transformation from
Current phasor polar into rectangular coordinates, is also investigated. The normalized residual test is used to effectively
Bad data processing identify any bad data in the conventional and phasor measurements. The proposed techniques are tested
with the IEEE 14-bus system.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction problem is formulated without using any actual or virtual refer-

Secure operation of a power system requires monitoring of its
operating conditions. This is traditionally accomplished by the state
estimator, which provides optimal estimates of the bus voltage
phasors, based on redundant measurements commonly provided
by SCADA, including active and reactive power flows and injec-
tions and bus voltage magnitudes. With the increasing use of PMUs
in recent years, the accuracy and reliability of state estimates and
bad data detection can be enhanced [1–3]. Unlike traditional SCADA
systems, the PMU is able to measure the voltage phasor of the
installed bus and the current phasors of all the lines connected
with that bus. In spite of their enormous potential for improving
the operation and real-time control of large transmission systems,
PMUs will not make state estimation obsolete but will help improv-
ing its performance.
When rectangular coordinates are used for the phasor measure-
ments and state variables, in a system completely observable by
only PMUs, their relationship becomes linear and states can be
obtained by a linear non-iterative algorithm [4]. However, since the
majority of measurements in existing estimators are of the tradi-
tional type, it is hard to be fully replaced by PMUs in the near future.
As a consequence, state estimators including both phasor and tradi-
tional measurements have to be developed. In [5], state estimation
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 772 3621; fax: +30 772 3659.
E-mail address: gkorres@softlab.ece.ntua.gr (G.N. Korres).
ence bus. The main advantage of this formulation is that it can
successfully detect and identify erroneous PMUs. A multi-area state
estimator is suggested in [6], where a central coordinator receives
the results of individual area state estimators as well as measure-
ments from the area boundaries and few globally synchronized
phasor measurements from area buses, and computes the system
wide solution. In [7] a two-step algorithm is proposed, which incor-
porates the phasor measurements and the results of the traditional
SE in a post processing linear estimator and provides the same
results as the nonlinear algorithm. In [8] a rectangular coordinate
formulation is presented, by which numerical problems encoun-
tered during flat start when using current phasors are avoided.
Furthermore, no reference bus is used, which facilitates bad data
processing for conventional as well as phasor measurements. A
distributed state estimator, utilizing synchronized phasor mea-
surements, is presented in [9]. The aggregated solution is obtained
from the distributed solution using a sensitivity analysis based
update at chosen boundary buses and an algorithm is developed
to locate PMUs and determine the slack bus in each subsystem to
coordinate the distributed SE solution. A hybrid state estimator,
using conventional as well as PMU measurements in rectangular
coordinates, is presented in [10]. Its main disadvantage is that mea-
surement transformation from polar into rectangular coordinates
will amplify the errors of PMU measurements. In [11], the effect
of measurement asynchronicity on the state estimation accuracy
and the effect of using PMU as well as SCADA measurements are
analyzed. In [12] an iterative least square state estimator is for-

0378-7796/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2011.03.013
 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524 1515

mulated, with bus voltage and line current magnitudes and phases
as the estimated variables. An important aspect of this formula-
tion is its ability to correct for constant or random phase biases
that may exist in some PMUs. A comprehensive strategy to com-
bine conventional measurements with the direct measurements
by the PMUs in a weighted least square SE formulation is demon-
strated in [13]. The proposed methodology can be also used as
a screening method to determine the optimal location and num-
ber of PMUs for maximum performance enhancement of the state
estimator. In [14] a method is presented to assign weights to the
measurements obtained through PMUs in a WLS state estimator.
These uncertainties are evaluated by using the classical uncer-
tainty propagation theory. In [15], two alternative SE algorithms
are used. In the first, branch current phasors and bus voltage pha-
sors are converted into equivalent branch flows and a conventional
non-linear WLS algorithm is used. In the second, a two stage SE
is used, where the results of the first stage from a conventional
Fig. 1. Phasor measurements by a PMU installed at a bus.
SE and the phasor measurements are used in the second stage to
form a linear SE. Inclusion of phasor measurements within static
Fig. 1 shows a phasor measurement unit installed on a typical
SE has been reported by several utilities [16–19]. The penetration
bus. The voltage of this bus is measured together with the current
of PMU measurements compared to conventional measurements
flows in each adjacent branch.
is, however, still too limited to have a noticeable impact on the SE
In order to construct the mathematical model of the state esti-
solution [20].
mation problem, we consider the typical pi-model of a branch
This paper proposes a non-linear WLS estimator including con-
connecting the PMU bus i with the non-PMU bus j, as shown in
ventional measurements, provided by SCADA, as well as voltage
Fig. 2. We denote by yij = gij + jbij the series admittance of branch i–j,
and current phasor measurements, provided by PMUs. The pro-
by ysi = gsi + jbsi the shunt admittance between bus i and the ground,
posed method does not use an explicit angle reference bus and
and by Ṽi = Vi ∠ıi and Ṽj = Vj ∠ıj the voltage phasors at buses i and
all bus phase angles are considered with regard to the refer-
j respectively.
ence dictated by the global positioning system (GPS). When using
Phasor measurement units provide direct measurements of syn-
current phasor measurements in polar coordinates, numerical
chronized phase angles with respect to the time reference provided
problems may occur. In particular, for lightly loaded systems or
by the GPS satellites [22]. In SCADA-based estimator, usually one
flat start initialization, the corresponding elements of the measure-
bus is chosen as the reference bus to get the relative phase angles
ment Jacobian may become undefined. The proposed formulation
at all buses. The proposed algorithm is formulated without using a
resolves this problem, by using rectangular coordinates for the first
reference bus and all bus phase angles are relative to the reference
iteration and polar coordinates for the next iterations. However, the
dictated by the GPS system. If no phase measurements exist, then
polar coordinate formulation of current phasors is a better choice
an artificial phase angle measurement of zero value is introduced
than the rectangular coordinate formulation, because the magni-
at an arbitrarily selected reference bus, without excluding that bus
tude and phase of a phasor quantity as measured and computed
from the problem formulation. That is equivalent to the traditional
in a PMU are largely independent variables [21]. A performance
formulation, where the phase angle of the reference bus is assigned
comparison among the current phasor formulations in rectangular
a zero value and is not included in the problem formulation.
and polar coordinates is also conducted. The paper is organized as
Expressions of active and reactive power flows at bus i of branch
follows. The state estimation formulation is given in Section 2. The
i–j and active and reactive power injections at bus i, as functions of
numerical problems of the Jacobian matrix are discussed in Section
Ṽi and Ṽj and branch parameters, can be found in [23]. According
3. The bad data processing is presented in Section 4. Test results
to KCL, the current Ĩij can be written as:
for the IEEE 14 bus system are provided in Section 5, and Section 6
concludes the paper. Ĩij = Ṽi ysi + (Ṽi − Ṽj )yij = Ṽi (ysi + yij ) − Ṽj yij (2)

2. The proposed state estimation formulation

The state estimation measurement model is given by

z = h(x) + e (1)

where z is the m × 1 vector of measurements, x is the (n × 1) state

vector (n = 2N < m), h(x) is a m × 1 vector function relating measure-
ments to states, e is the m × 1 measurement error vector, and N is
the number of buses. The errors are assumed to be independent
and uncorrelated, having a Gaussian distribution, with zero mean
E(e) = 0 and covariance R = cov(e) = E(eeT ). Matrix R is diagonal and
each diagonal entry Rii equals i2 , where  i is the standard devia-
tion of the ith measurement. The measurement vector is composed
of traditional measurements (bus voltage magnitudes, active and
reactive branch power flows, and active and reactive bus injections)
provided by SCADA and phasor measurements (bus voltage phasors
and current phasors of branch in and out) provided by PMUs. Fig. 2. Bus voltage and current phasors at a branch represented by pi-model.
1516 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524

The current Ĩij can be expressed in rectangular coordinates as: matrix. Because the observability calculations are similar to that of
the traditional SE, we have not addressed these calculations further
Ĩij = Iij,r + jIij,i (3) in this paper.
where the subscripts “r” and “i” represent the real and imaginary The coupled Jacobian matrix Hp , when using polar coordinates
parts of the current phasor, and for bus voltage and branch current phasors, and Hr , when using
polar coordinates for bus voltage phasors and rectangular coordi-
Iij,r = Vi [(gij + gsi ) cos ıi − (bij + bsi ) sin ıi ] nates for branch current phasors, have the following structure:
− Vj [gij cos ıj − bij sin ıj ] (4) ⎛ ∂Pij ∂Pij ⎞ ⎛ ∂Pij ∂Pij ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟ ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟
Iij,i = Vi [(bij + bsi ) cos ıi + (gij + gsi ) sin ıi ] ⎜∂Q ij ∂Qij ⎟ ⎜ ∂Qij ∂Qij ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
− Vj [bij cos ıj + gij sin ıj ] (5) ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟ ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟
⎜ ∂Pi ∂Pi ⎟ ⎜ ∂Pi ∂Pi ⎟
The current Ĩij can be expressed in polar coordinates as: ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟ ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟
Ĩij = Iij ∠ij = Iij cos ij + jIij sin ij (6) ⎜ ∂Qi ∂Q i ⎟ ⎜ ∂Qi ∂Qi ⎟
⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟ ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟
where Hp = ⎜ ⎟ Hr = ⎜ ⎟
 ⎜ ∂δ i ∂δ i ⎟ ⎜ ∂δ i ∂δ i ⎟
Iij = 2 + I2
Iij,r ij,i
(7) ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟ ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
  ⎜ ∂Vi ∂ Vi ⎟ ⎜ ∂Vi ∂ Vi ⎟
Iij,i
ij = arc tg (8) ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟ ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟
Iij,r ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ∂I ij ∂ Iij ⎟ ⎜ ∂Iij,r ∂ Iij,r ⎟
The phase angle of the voltage phasor of bus i (ıi ) and the phase ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟ ⎜ ∂δ ∂V ⎟
angle of the current phasor at branch i–j ( ij ), as being measured by ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
a PMU installed at bus i, with regard to a common angle reference, ⎜ ∂θij ∂δ ij ⎟ ⎜ ∂Iij,i ∂ Iij,i ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
are shown in Fig. 2. It is to be noted that ϕij = ıi −  ij is the power ⎝ ∂δ ∂V ⎠ ⎝ ∂δ ∂V ⎠ (17)
factor angle (relative phase shift between voltage phasor Ṽi and
current phasor Ĩij ). From (4), (5), (7), and (8), we have The expressions of partial derivatives for the conventional active
 (Pij ) and reactive (Qij ) flow on branch i–j, the active (Pi ) and reactive
Iij = Aij Vi2 + Bij Vj2 + 2Cij Vi Vj (9) (Qi ) injection at bus i, and the voltage angle (ıi ) and magnitude
(Vi ) at bus i, with respect to state variables (bus voltage angles and
  magnitudes) can be found in [23]. The branch current phasors in
Vi [(bij + bsi ) cos ıi + (gij + gsi ) sin ıi ] − Vj [bij cos ıj + gij sin ıj ] polar form (Iij ∠  ij ) are regarded as direct measurements, while in
ij = arc tg
Vi [(gij + gsi ) cos ıi − (bij + bsi ) sin ıi ] − Vj [gij cos ıj − bij sin ıj ] rectangular form (Iijx + jIij,i ) are regarded as indirect measurements.
(10) The expressions of partial derivatives for the magnitude Iij and
the angle  ij of current phasor Ĩij , with respect to state variables
where (bus voltage angles and magnitudes) at buses i and j, are given by
2 the following equations.
Aij = (gij + gsi )2 + (bij + bsi ) (11)
∂Iij Dij Vi Vj ∂Iij Dij Vi Vj ∂Iij
Bij = (gij2 + b2ij ) (12) =  =−  =− (18)
∂ıi Eij ∂ıj Eij ∂ıi

Cij = (bsi gij − gsi bij ) sin(ıi − ıj ) ∂Iij Aij Vi + Cij Vj ∂Iij Bij Vj + Cij Vi
=  =  (19)
∂Vi Eij ∂Vj Eij
− (gij2 + b2ij + bsi bij + gsi gij ) cos(ıi − ıj ) (13)

In order to find the optimal state estimate, the following objective ∂ij Aij Vi2 + Cij Vi Vj ∂ij Bij Vj2 + Cij Vi Vj
= = (20)
function of square errors is minimized: ∂ıi Eij ∂ıj Eij

min J(x) = (z − h(x)) R−1 (z − h(x))

T
(14) ∂ij Dij Vj ∂ij Dij Vi
=− = (21)
∂Vi Eij ∂Vj Eij
An iterative solution of (14), based on the first order optimality
condition for J(x), where
∂J(x) ˛ij = gij cos(ıi − ıj ) + bij sin(ıi − ıj ) (22)
= −H T (x)R−1 (z − h(x)) = 0 (15)
∂x
ˇij = gij sin(ıi − ıj ) − bij cos(ıi − ıj ) (23)
is formulated as follows:
2 2
Aij = (gij + gsi ) + (bij + bsi ) (24)
G(xk )xk = H T (xk )R−1 z k (16)
Bij = (gij2 + b2ij ) (25)
where k is the iteration index, xk is the solution vector at iteration
k, xk = xk+1 − xk , zk = z − h(xk ), H(x) = ∂h(x)/∂x is the measure- Cij = (bij + bsi )ˇij − (gij + gsi )˛ij (26)
ment Jacobian matrix (m × n), and G(xk ) = HT (xk )R−1 H(xk ) is the gain
matrix (n × n). Dij = (gij + gsi )ˇij + (bij + bsi )˛ij (27)
Using the numerical observability method, network observ-
Eij = Aij Vi2 + Bij Vj2 + 2Cij Vi Vj (28)
ability can be checked by identifying zero pivots during the
factorization of the gain matrix [23]. The system will be declared as and a(i) denotes the set of buses that are adjacent to bus i. In case of
observable if no zero pivots are encountered in the factors of gain polar coordinates, the differences ıi − ıj are used in Eqs. (18)–(28).
 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524 1517

It is worth to be noted that analytic equations for these derivatives Table 1

Partial derivatives of current phasor Ĩij in polar coordinates, for flat start or lightly
cannot be found in the literature, although the majority of tradi-
loaded line.
tional state estimators use polar coordinates for state variables and
PMU usually provide the current phasors in polar form. Flat start or lightly loaded line
The expressions of partial derivatives for the real part Iij,x and
=− 
∂Iij g b −bsi gij
si ij ∂Iij gsi bij −bsi gij
∂ıi ∂ıj
=
imaginary part Iij,i of current phasor Ĩij , with respect to state vari- g 2 +b2
si si
g 2 +b2
si si

ables (bus voltage angles and magnitudes) at buses i and j, are given g 2 +b2 +gij gsi +bij bsi

by the following equations.

∂Iij
∂Vi
= si
 si
∂Iij
∂Vj
=−
bsi bij +gsi gij

g 2 +b2 g 2 +b2
si si si si

∂ij g 2 +b2 +gij gsi +bij bsi ∂ij bsi bij +gsi gij
∂Iij,r = si si
=−
= (gij + gsi ) cos ıi − (bij + bsi ) sin ıi (29) ∂ıi g 2 +b2
si si
∂ıj g 2 +b2
si si
∂Vi
Flat start
∂ij gsi bij −bsi gij ∂ij bsi gij −gsi bij
∂Iij,r = =
= −gij cos ıj + bij sin ıj (30) ∂Vi g 2 +b2
si si
∂Vj g 2 +b2
si si
∂Vj Lightly loaded line
∂ij gsi bij −bsi gij ∂ij bsi gij −gsi bij
∂Iij,r = =
∂Vi Vi (g 2 +b2 ) ∂Vj Vi (g 2 +b2 )
= −Vi [(bij + bsi ) cos ıi + (gij + gsi ) sin ıi ] (31) si si si si

∂ıi

∂Iij,r 4. Bad data processing

= Vj (bij cos ıj + gij sin ıj ) (32)
∂ıj
Detecting and identifying bad data not only in conventional
∂Iij,i measurements but also in phasor measurements is very important
= (bij + bsi ) cos ıi + (gij + gsi ) sin ıi (33) since these errors will have a significant impact on the estimated
∂Vi
state. It has been shown that for a single or multiple non-interacting
∂Iij,i bad data, the largest normalized residual corresponds to the bad
= −bij cos ıj − gij sin ıj (34) data [23]. The normalized residuals are defined as follows:
∂Vj
−1/2
r̂N = (diag Pr ) r̂ (37)
∂Iij,i
= Vi [(gij + gsi ) cos ıi − (bij + bsi ) sin ıi ] (35)
∂ıi where

∂Iij,i r̂ = z − h(x̂) (38)

= −Vj (gij cos ıj − bij sin ıj )
∂ıj
In case of rectangular coordinates the absolute values ıi and ıj
are used in Eqs. (29)–(36).
3. Numerical problems of Jacobian matrix
The use of current measurements may lead to various numerical
problems, which in turn may seriously deteriorate the performance
of state estimation. The Jacobian elements (partial derivatives) for
the current phasor Ĩij in branch i − j connected with a PMU bus i, for
flat start (Vi = Vj = 1 p.u. and ıi = ıj = 0 rad) or lightly loaded branch i–j
(Vi ≈ Vj and ıi ≈ ıj ), are provided in Tables 1 and 2 for polar and rect-
angular coordinates respectively. When polar coordinates are used
(Table 1), all the partial derivatives will be undefined if the shunt
conductance gsi and susceptance bsi of the PMU bus i are negligi-
ble (case of a short line or a transformer). The solution suggested
to circumvent this problem, is to use rectangular coordinates for
current measurements in the first iteration and polar coordinates
for the next iterations, when flat start is used, or substitute the
measurements Iij ≈ 0 and  ij ≈ 0 by Iij,x ≈ 0 and Iij,i ≈ 0, in case of a
lightly loaded branch i–j. Note that there will be no such numer-
ical problems if rectangular coordinates are used for the current
measurements (Table 2).
(36)
are the estimated residuals, and
−1
Pr = cov(r) = R − H(H T R−1 H) HT (39)
is the residual covariance matrix.
Note that zero diagonal entries of Pr correspond to critical mea-
surements [23]. The vector r̂N is a Gaussian random variable with
zero mean and unit variance, in the absence of bad data or topology
and parameter errors. The measurement having the largest normal-
ized residual rNmax > 3 will be suspected as bad data, with 0.27%
false alarm probability, and will be removed from the measure-
ment set before estimating the state again. This will be repeated
until removing all bad data. Repetitive solutions start from the most
recent estimate instead of flat start, and hence take fewer iterations
to converge.
It is worth to be noted that when there is only one phase angle
measurement in the system, then this case can be reduced to the
conventional formulation with an assigned reference bus. Since
that single phase angle measurement is critical [23], any gross error
will pass undetected and bias the estimated state.
5. Test results
A coupled WLS state estimation algorithm is implemented
in Matlab and illustrated with the IEEE 14-bus system. The

Table 2
Partial derivatives of current phasor Ĩij in rectangular coordinates, for flat start or lightly loaded line.

Flat start Lightly loaded line

∂Iij,r ∂Iij,r ∂Iij,r ∂Iij,r
∂ıi
= −bij + bsi ∂ıj
= bij ∂ıi
= −Vi [(bij + bsi ) cos ıi + (gij + gsi ) sin ıi ] ∂ıj
= Vi (bij cos ıi + gij sin ıi )
∂Iij,r ∂Iij,r ∂Iij,r ∂Iij,r
∂Vi
= gij + gsi ∂Vj
= −gij ∂Vi
= (gij + gsi ) cos ıi − (bij + bsi ) sin ıi ∂Vj
= −gij cos ıi + bij sin ıi
∂Iij,i ∂Iij,i ∂Iij,i ∂Iij,i
∂ıi
= gij + gsi ∂ıj
= −gij ∂ıi
= Vi [(gij + gsi ) cos ıi − (bij + bsi ) sin ıi ] ∂ıj
= −Vi (gij cos ıi − bij sin ıi )
∂Iij,i ∂Iij,i ∂Iij,i ∂Iij,i
∂Vi
= bij + bsi ∂Vj
= −bij ∂Vi
= (bij + bsi ) cos ıi + (gij + gsi ) sin ıi ∂Vj
= −bij cos ıi − gij sin ıi
1518 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524

12 13 14

6 11 10 9
G

8 7

1 5 4

2 3

Power Flow Measurement

Power Injection Measurement

PMU Measurement

Fig. 3. IEEE 14 bus system and measurement configuration.

measurement system includes conventional as well as phasor mea- The true values of active power flows Pijtrue , reactive power flows
surements. In Fig. 3 all the available measurements are shown. Each Qijtrue , active bus injections Pitrue , reactive bus injections Qitrue , bus
PMU will measure the voltage phasor of the bus where it is placed
voltage magnitudes Vitrue , and bus voltage angles ıtrue i
, are com-
and the current phasors in all lines that originate on that bus. Bus 1
puted from a load flow study. The corresponding measured or bad
is assumed to be the conventional slack bus. The convergence toler-
values are computed by (40) or (42) respectively, using the corre-
ance of the state estimation algorithm is equal to 10−4 . To simulate
sponding standard deviations Ptrue , Qtrue , Ptrue , Qtrue , Vtrue , ıtrue as
normally distributed (Gaussian) error on the ith measurement, the ij ij i i i i

following formula is used: computed by (41).

The true values of the magnitudes Iijtrue and angles ijtrue for the
zimeas = zitrue + rand × i (40) current phasors at incident branches of a PMU installed at bus i, are
computed from a load flow study. The corresponding measured
where zimeas is the measured value, zitrue is the true value provided by or bad values are computed by (40) or (42) respectively, using the
a load flow solution, rand is a N(0,1) random number, and  i is the corresponding standard deviations Itrue , true as computed by (41).
standard deviation of the measurement error. Considering that zitrue ij
true and imaginary part I true of the
ij
The true values of the real part Iij,r
is the mean value of the ith measurement, then a ±3 i deviation ij,i
around the mean covers about 99.7% of the Gaussian curve. Hence, current phasors are computed as:
the standard deviation  i is computed as follows [24]: true
Iij,r true
+ jIij,i = Iijtrue cos ijtrue + jIijtrue sin ijtrue (43)
i × error% zitrue × error%
i = = (41) Based on the error propagating theory, the standard deviations
3 × 100 3 × 100 Itrue , Itrue due to the measurement transformation can be calcu-
ij,r ij,i
where error% expresses the corresponding percent meter uncer- lated by the following formulas [10]:
tainty. A gross error on the ith measurement is simulated as: 
2 2 2 2
Itrue = (cos ijtrue ) (Itrue ) + (Iijtrue sin ijtrue ) (true ) (44)
ij,r
zibad = zitrue + bi i
ij ij
(42)

2 2 2 2
where zibad is the bad measurement and bi > 3 is a multiple of  i . Itrue = (sin ijtrue ) (Itrue ) + (Iijtrue cos ijtrue ) (true ) (45)
ij,i ij ij
The standard deviation and true value of a phase angle measure-
ment is expressed in rad. For all other measurements is expressed The corresponding measured or bad values are computed by
in p.u. In the simulations we consider an error of 2% for the con- (40) or (42) respectively, using the corresponding standard devia-
ventional measurements and 0.5% for the phasor measurements, tions Itrue , Itrue as computed by (44) and (45). As can be seen from
ij,r ij,i
taking into account that phasor measurements are more accurate (44) and (45), the measurement transformation from polar coordi-
than conventional measurements. nates (direct measurement) into rectangular coordinates (indirect
 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524 1519

Table 3
Measurement configurations for the IEEE 14 bus system.

Case Measurement configuration Number of meas. (m) Number of states (n) Redundancy (r = m/n)

1 Only traditional measurements 44 28 1.57

2 Traditional measurements and PMUs at buses 2, 7, 9 50 28 1.78
3 Traditional measurements and PMUs at buses 2, 6, 7, 9 50 28 1.78
4 Traditional measurements and PMUs at buses 2, 6, 7, 9, 13 50 28 1.78

Table 4
True and measured values of conventional measurements.

Type True Measured Type True Measured

ı1 (◦ ) 0.00000 0.00573 V1 (p.u.) 1.06000 1.06707

P1–2 (p.u.) 1.57788 1.58577 Q1–2 (p.u.) −0.20616 −0.20512
P1–5 (p.u.) 0.74957 0.74408 Q1–5 (p.u.) 0.09203 0.09135
P2–5 (p.u.) 0.41642 0.41905 Q2–5 (p.u.) 0.07881 0.07931
P3–4 (p.u.) −0.22964 −0.23086 Q3–4 (p.u.) 0.07808 0.07766
P4–5 (p.u.) −0.61898 −0.61423 Q4–5 (p.u.) 0.04951 0.04989
P4–7 (p.u.) 0.29018 0.28709 Q4–7 (p.u.) 0.06091 0.06026
P4–9 (p.u.) 0.16444 0.16345 Q4–9 (p.u.) 0.06866 0.06825
P6–11 (p.u.) 0.06582 0.06529 Q6–11 (p.u.) 0.03364 0.03337
P6–12 (p.u.) 0.07697 0.07733 Q6–12 (p.u.) 0.02524 0.02536
P6–13 (p.u.) 0.17384 0.17324 Q6–13 (p.u.) 0.07189 0.07126
P7–8 (p.u.) 0.00000 0.00010 Q7–8 (p.u.) −0.16888 −0.16899
P7–9 (p.u.) 0.29018 0.28883 Q7–9 (p.u.) 0.21147 0.21048
P9–10 (p.u.) 0.06001 0.06050 Q9–10 (p.u.) 0.04422 0.04457
P9–14 (p.u.) 0.09961 0.10021 Q9–14 (p.u.) 0.03785 0.03808
P10–11 (p.u.) −0.03018 −0.02986 Q10–11 (p.u.) −0.01428 −0.01413
P12–13 (p.u.) 0.01513 0.01490 Q12–13 (p.u.) 0.00750 0.00738
P13–14 (p.u.) 0.05147 0.05174 Q13–14 (p.u.) 0.01653 0.01662
P3 (p.u.) −0.94200 −0.95770 Q3 (p.u.) 0.04400 0.04327
P5 (p.u.) −0.07600 −0.07580 Q5 (p.u.) −0.01600 −0.01596
P13 (p.u.) −0.13500 −0.13374 Q13 (p.u.) −0.05800 −0.05746
P14 (p.u.) −0.14900 −0.14761 Q14 (p.u.) −0.05000 −0.04953

measurement) increases the uncertainties of the PMU measure-
ments. Therefore, utilization of direct PMU measurements is the
best choice for improving the precision of state estimation. We use
the same multiplier rand and bi , when simulating measured or bad
data, for both the polar and rectangular formulations.
In order to test the performance of the proposed algorithms,
four observable cases are simulated (Table 3). Case 1 includes only
traditional measurements (power flows at branches 1–2, 1–5, 2–5,
3–4, 4–5, 4–7, 4–9, 6–11, 6–12, 6–13, 7–8, 7–9, 9–10, 9–14, 10–11,
12–13, and 13–14, traditional power injections at buses 3, 5, 13,
and 14, and voltage magnitude at bus 1). Case 2 includes traditional
measurements and three PMUs (power flows at branches 4–5, 4–7,
4–9, 7–9, 10–11, 12–13, and 13–14, power injections at buses 3, 5,
13, and 14, and PMUs at buses 2, 7, and 9). Case 3 includes tradi-

Table 5
True and measured values of PMU measurements.

Mag. (p.u.) True Meas. Angle (◦ ) True Meas. Real (p.u.) True Meas. Imag. (p.u.) True Meas.

PMU at bus 2
V2 1.0450 1.0509 ı2 −5.0126 −4.9841
I2–1 1.4926 1.4906  2–1 5.3441 5.3370 I2–1,r −1.4862 −1.4881 I2–1,i −0.1390 −0.1393
I2–3 0.7096 0.7078  2–3 −11.8940 −11.9257 I2–3,r 0.6944 0.6926 I2–3,i −0.1463 −0.1468
I2–4 0.5454 0.5472  2–4 −12.7553 −12.7128 I2–4,r 0.5319 0.5337 I2–4,i −0.1204 −0.1199
I2–5 0.4056 0.4083  2–5 −15.7300 −15.6251 I2–5,r 0.3904 0.3930 I2–5,i −0.1100 −0.1089
PMU at bus 6
V6 0.9805 0.9776 ı6 −14.9247 −14.9695
I6–5 0.4454 0.4426  6–5 −25.9841 −26.1486 I6–5,r −0.4004 −0.4030 I6–5,i 0.1952 0.1935
I6–11 0.0754 0.0749  6–11 −42.0005 −42.2805 I6–11,r 0.0560 0.0556 I6–11,i −0.0504 −0.0509
I6–12 0.0826 0.0828  6–12 −33.0834 −33.0820 I6–12,r 0.0692 0.0693 I6–12,i −0.0451 −0.0450
I6–13 0.1919 0.1917  6–13 −37.9110 −37.4160 I6–13,r 0.1524 0.1523 I6–13,i −0.1165 −0.1166
PMU at bus 7
V7 0.9907 0.9887 ı7 −13.6736 −13.7009
I7–4 0.2960 0.2980  7–4 −22.0225 −21.8757 I7–4,r −0.2744 −0.2726 I7–4,i 0.1110 0.1120
I7–8 0.1705 0.1697  7–8 76.3264 75.9702 I7–8,r 0.0403 0.0393 I7–8,i 0.1656 0.1648
I7–9 0.3624 0.3627  7–9 −49.7559 −49.7227 I7–9,r 0.2342 0.2344 I7–9,i −0.2766 −0.2764
PMU at bus 9
V9 0.9678 0.9742 ı9 −15.5817 −15.4778
I9–4 0.1779 0.1782  9–4 −32.8296 −32.7858 I9–4,r −0.1495 −0.1492 I9–4,i 0.0965 0.0966
I9–7 0.3624 0.3627  9–7 −49.7559 −49.7227 I9–7,r −0.2342 −0.2302 I9–7,i 0.27665 0.2769
I9–10 0.0770 0.0768  9–10 −51.9660 −52.1392 I9–10,r 0.0475 0.0472 I9–10,i −0.0607 −0.0609
I9–14 0.1101 0.1094  9–14 −36.3886 −36.6311 I9–14,r 0.0886 0.08800 I9–14,i −0.0653 −0.0660
PMU at bus 13
V13 0.9594 0.9636 ı13 −16.0145 −15.9451
I13–6 0.1919 0.1931  13–6 −37.3911 −37.1543 I13–6,r −0.1524 −0.1514 I13–6,i 0.1165 0.1175
I13–12 0.0175 0.0176  13–12 −42.2919 −42.0099 I13–12,r −0.0130 −0.0128 I13–12,i 0.0118 0.0119
I13–14 0.0564 0.0563  13–14 −33.8197 −33.8761 I13–14,r 0.0468 0.0467 I13–14,i −0.0313 −0.0314
1520 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524

Table 6
True and estimated states for the various test cases.

True Case 1 Case 2 Case 2 Case 3 Case 3 Case 4 Case 4

Polar Rect. Polar Rect. Polar Rect.

ı1 (◦ ) 0.00000 0.02762 0.02517 0.02128 0.00732 0.03135 0.00767 0.03135

ı2 (◦ ) −5.01253 −5.01034 −4.98856 −4.99567 −4.98691 −4.98995 −4.97786 −4.98995
ı3 (◦ ) −12.73979 −12.58964 −12.79257 −12.79342 −12.76418 −12.77855 −12.66468 −12.77855
ı4 (◦ ) −10.1673 −10.18644 −10.16117 −10.18736 −10.15626 −10.17443 −10.13989 −10.17443
ı5 (◦ ) −8.65046 −8.67606 −8.63973 −8.63126 −8.637446 −8.64826 −8.62384 −8.64826
ı6 (◦ ) −14.92473 −14.93210 −14.91665 −14.94219 −14.91652 −14.93599 −14.90185 −14.93599
ı7 (◦ ) −13.67358 −13.67124 −13.67430 −13.68102 −13.66231 −13.67208 −13.65193 −13.67208
ı8 (◦ ) −13.67358 −13.67134 −13.68473 −13.68394 −13.67307 −13.66450 −13.66297 −13.66450
ı9 (◦ ) −15.58169 −15.53640 −15.58623 −15.61808 −15.56549 −15.58614 −15.55351 −15.58614
ı10 (◦ ) −15.80722 −15.74073 −15.81051 −15.83454 −15.78869 −15.81038 −15.77571 −15.81038
ı11 (◦ ) −15.52248 −15.43423 −15.52750 −15.54674 −15.50708 −15.52815 −15.49437 −15.52815
ı12 (◦ ) −15.92980 −15.84047 −15.91952 −15.95419 −15.92223 −15.94267 −15.90485 −15.94267
ı13 (◦ ) −16.01450 −15.91699 −16.00331 −16.03982 −16.00554 −16.02628 −15.99122 −16.02628
ı14 (◦ ) −16.96869 −16.76763 −16.96337 −16.97923 −16.94011 −16.96836 −16.93485 −16.96836
V1 (p.u.) 1.06000 1.05663 1.05755 1.05909 1.06045 1.05921 1.06217 1.05921
V2 (p.u.) 1.04500 1.04171 1.04253 1.04389 1.04546 1.04416 1.04719 1.04416
V3 (p.u.) 0.99961 0.99500 0.99673 0.99784 0.99965 0.99846 1.00168 0.99846
V4 (p.u.) 1.00156 0.99822 0.99923 0.99962 1.00197 1.00084 1.00364 1.00084
V5 (p.u.) 1.00808 1.00564 1.00574 1.00659 1.00850 1.00731 1.01017 1.00731
V6 (p.u.) 0.98051 0.97812 0.97843 0.97862 0.98088 0.97968 0.98240 0.97968
V7 (p.u.) 0.99069 0.98743 0.98846 0.98890 0.99119 0.98985 0.99270 0.98985
V8 (p.u.) 1.02072 1.01752 1.01835 1.01799 1.02108 1.01966 1.02258 1.01966
V9 (p.u.) 0.96775 0.96543 0.96553 0.96576 0.96825 0.96694 0.96973 0.96694
V10 (p.u.) 0.96192 0.95706 0.95971 0.95819 0.96242 0.96109 0.96391 0.96109
V11 (p.u.) 0.96736 0.96404 0.96510 0.96636 0.96780 0.96647 0.96928 0.96647
V12 (p.u.) 0.96442 0.96204 0.96237 0.96285 0.96475 0.96355 0.96633 0.96355
V13 (p.u.) 0.95940 0.95710 0.95742 0.95799 0.95980 0.95860 0.96128 0.95860
V14 (p.u.) 0.94437 0.94205 0.94232 0.94325 0.94503 0.94368 0.94629 0.94368

Table 7
True and estimated phase angle for the various test cases with adjustment to conform with the convention of zero reference bus angle.

True Case 1 Case 2 Case 2 Case 3 Case 3 Case 4 Case 4

Polar Rect. Polar Rect. Polar Rect.

ı1 (◦ ) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

ı2 (◦ ) −5.01253 −5.01963 −5.01373 −5.01695 −4.99423 −5.02130 −4.98553 −5.00627
ı3 (◦ ) −12.73979 −12.77964 −12.81774 −12.81470 −12.77145 −12.80990 −12.67235 −12.69323
ı4 (◦ ) −10.16730 −10.1864 −10.18634 −10.20864 −10.16358 −10.20578 −10.14756 −10.17926
ı5 (◦ ) −8.65046 −8.79606 −8.66490 −8.65254 −8.64476 −8.67961 −8.63151 −8.65611
ı6 (◦ ) −14.92473 −14.93210 −14.94182 −14.96347 −14.92384 −14.96733 −14.90952 −14.92786
ı7 (◦ ) −13.67358 −13.68124 −13.69947 −13.70230 −13.66963 −13.70342 −13.65960 −13.66833
ı8 (◦ ) −13.67358 −13.68435 −13.70991 −13.70522 −13.68038 −13.69585 −13.67064 −13.66149
ı9 (◦ ) −15.58169 −15.49640 −15.61141 −15.63936 −15.57281 −15.61749 −15.56118 −15.57712
ı10 (◦ )) −15.80722 −15.74073 −15.83568 −15.85582 −15.79610 −15.84173 −15.78338 −15.80023
ı11 (◦ ) −15.52248 −15.43423 −15.55267 −15.56802 −15.51440 −15.55949 −15.50204 −15.51932
ı12 (◦ ) −15.92980 −15.85047 −15.94470 −15.97547 −15.92955 −15.97402 −15.91252 −15.92777
ı13 (◦ ) −16.01450 −15.91699 −16.02848 −16.06110 −16.01286 −16.05763 −15.99889 −16.00938
ı14 (◦ ) −16.96869 −16.86763 −16.98854 −17.00051 −16.94743 −16.99970 −16.94252 −16.95528

tional measurements and four PMUs (power flows at branches 4–9, presents the true and the estimated states for each case. Table 7
10–11, and 12–13, power injections at buses 3, 5, and 14, and PMUs presents the same results with phasor angles adjusted so that
at buses 2, 6, 7, and 9). Case 4 includes traditional measurements they conform with the convention that the reference bus angle is
and five PMUs (a power flow at branch 10–11, a power injection zero.
at bus 5, and PMUs at buses 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13). Simulations with Figs. 4 and 5 show the error% of the estimated bus voltage angles
random and gross errors will be provided. and magnitudes with respect to the true values, when branch cur-
rents are expressed in polar coordinates. Figs. 6 and 7 show the
5.1. State estimation with random measurement errors (no bad
data) Table 8
Bad data for the test cases.
The true and measured values of the traditional and synchro- Case Bad data Noise added
nized measurements are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
2 P4–7 −4.6P4–7
Using polar coordinates for branch currents, the algorithm con- I2–3 −4.4I2–3
verged in 4 iterations for case 1, 6 iterations for cases 2 and 3, and 3 P3 −4.6P3
7 iterations for case 4. Using rectangular coordinates for branch I7–4 4.6I7–4
currents, the algorithm converged in 4 iterations for case 1, 6 4 P10–11 11P10–11
 6–5 −5.56–5
iterations for case 2, and 5 iterations for cases 3 and 4. Table 6
 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524 1521

0.8

0.6

% Bus Voltage Angle Error

0.4

0.2 CASE 1
CASE 2
0
CASE 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
-0.2 CASE 4

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
Bus Number

Fig. 4. Estimated bus voltage angles with respect to the true values for branch currents in polar coordinates.

0.3

0.2
% Bus Voltage Magnitude Error

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CASE 1
-0.1 CASE 2
CASE 3
-0.2
CASE 4
-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
Bus Number

Fig. 5. Estimated bus voltage magnitudes with respect to the true values for branch currents in polar coordinates.

error% of the estimated bus voltage angles and magnitudes with 5.2. State estimation with gross measurement errors (bad data)
respect to the true values, when branch currents are expressed in
rectangular coordinates. As can be seen from Figs. 4–7, we have The measurement configurations of cases 2, 3 and 4 are used to
the worst results when only traditional measurements are used test the bad data detection and identification performance. Table 8
(case1). Addition of PMUs results in significant improvement of the shows the bad data for each case, when current measurements are
SE performance (cases 2–4). The more number of PMU the system   estima-
expressed in polar coordinates. A cycle of successive state
has, the better results get. tion runs and bad data elimination is established until r̂N,i  <3
max

Table 9
Bad data analysis for case 2.

Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized

residuals (1st run) residuals (2nd run) residuals (3rd run)

I2–3 −5.2737927 P4–7 −3.8433749 P12–13 −1.5652712

P3 −4.4937954 I7–4 2.2851059 P13 −1.5612857
P4–7 −4.0267047 V9 1.8246539 ı2 1.4128903
I6–5 2.4050491 P12–13 −1.4806201 Q3 1.3966393
P13 −1.7021527 P13 −1.4752576 P13–14 −1.3499825
1522 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524

0.8

0.6

% Bus Voltage Angle Error

0.4
CASE 1
0.2
CASE 2
CASE 3
0
CASE 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Bus Number

Fig. 6. Estimated bus voltage angles with respect to the true values for branch currents in rectangular coordinates.

Table 10
Bad data analysis for case 3.

Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized

residuals (1st run) residuals (2nd run) residuals (3rd run)

I7–4 3.9644529 P3 −3.0451822  6–5 −1.5243909

P3 −3.0698754 I2–3 −2.5927956  9–10 1.5241162
P4–9 −2.1948656 Q10–11 −1.6682899 Q10–11 −1.4420463
 9–10 1.9296083  6–5 −1.6504320  6–13 1.2587065
 6–11 −1.9214778  9–10 1.6275999 P2–3 1.2265944

Table 11
Bad data analysis for case 4.

Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized

residuals (1st run) residuals (2nd run) residuals (3rd run)

 6–5 −4.2000287 P10–11 3.5264595 I6–12 −1.0909473

P10–11 3.2141597 P6–13 −2.6530376 P5 −1.0365171
 9–10 3.0752578  6–11 2.6360537 I2–1 0.9183223
 6–11 −2.9552111  2–3 −2.5756068 I2–4 0.9150354
 9–4 2.8519842  2–1 2.3207849 V6 −0.8770409

and all bad data are identified. The five largest normalized residuals Table 12
Bad data for the test cases.
for each case are shown in Tables 9–11, respectively. After suc-
cessful bad data identification, all normalized residuals are lower Case Bad data Noise added
than 3. Table 12 shows the bad data for each case, when cur- measurements
rent measurements are expressed in rectangular coordinates. A 2 P4–7 −4.6P4–7
 estimation runs and bad data elimination
cycle of successive state I2–3,r −4.5I2–3,r
is established until r̂N,i  < 3 and all bad data are identified. 3 P3 −4.6P3
max I7–4,r 4.9I7–4,r
The five largest normalized residuals for each case are shown in 4 P10–11 11P10–11
Tables 13–15, respectively. After successful bad data identification, I6–5,i −9.4I6–5,i
all normalized residuals are lower than 3.

Table 13
Bad data analysis for case 2.

Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized

residuals (1st run) residuals (2nd run) residuals (3rd run)

I2–3,r −5.0311410 P4–7 −3.3675389 I9–7,r 2.1180119

P3 −3.7289440 I9–7,r 2.1765410 I7–9,r 2.0211649
P4–7 −3.3996242 P3 −2.0086826 P4–5 1.9260233
I9–7,r 2.1701574 I2–3,i 2.0086825 P5 1.7945598
P5 1.7722698 Q3 −2.0086824 P3 −1.6997556
 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524 1523

0.3

0.2

% Bus Voltage Magnitude Error

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
-0.1

-0.2
CASE 1
-0.3 CASE 2
CASE 3
-0.4
CASE 4
-0.5

-0.6

Bus Number

Fig. 7. Estimated bus voltage magnitudes with respect to the true values for branch currents in rectangular coordinates.

Table 14
Bad data analysis for case 3.

Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized

residuals (1st run) residuals (2nd run) residuals (3rd run)

P3 −3.3725391 I7–4,r 3.1464400 I9–14,i −1.8564395

I7–4,r 3.2023817 I7–9,r −2.8767965 Q14 1.8545869
I7–9,r −2.8482171 I9–14,i −1.9322008 I2–5,r 1.3348493
I2–3,r −2.3365824 Q14 −1.9311927 I6–13,r 1.2347157
Q14 2.1280256 I6–5,r −1.5895606 I6–13,i 1.2031639

Table 15
Bad data analysis for case 4.

Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized Measurement Normalized

residuals (1st run) residuals (2nd run) residuals (3rd run)

I6–5,i −9.0781518 P10–11 3.8189716 I13–14,r 1.1477000

P10–11 5.4076037 I2–1,i 2.8717686 I9–14,r −1.1454867
I7–4,i 3.9666083 I6–13,r −2.1539904 I6–5,r −0.9245703
I2–1,i 3.9638776 I9–14,r −2.1404095 V6 −0.8964797
Q5 3.87995420 I13–14,r 2.1381962 I13–12,i −0.8690715

As it is expected, the formulation of the current phasors in polar
form provides more accurate state estimates than the rectangular
formulation.
6. Conclusions
A weighted least square formulation for the state estimation
problem, including traditional as well as voltage and current phasor
measurements, is proposed in this paper. The proposed algorithm
resolves any numerical problems raised during state estimation
iterations. The proposed algorithm can process the current pha-
sor measurements directly, therefore eliminating the propagation
of measurement uncertainty due to transformations from polar to
rectangular coordinates. Test results for the IEEE 14 bus system are
given to demonstrate the performance of the proposed state esti-
mation algorithms and the efficiency of the bad data identification
algorithm.
References
[1] J.S. Thorp, A.G. Phadke, K.J. Karimi, et al., Real time voltage-phasor measure-
ments for static state estimation, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. 104 (11)
(1985) 3098–3106.
[2] A.G. Phadke, J.S. Thorp, K.J. Karimi, State estimation with phasor measurements,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1 (1) (1986) 233–241.
[3] A.G. Phadke, J.S. Thorp, Synchronized Phasor Measurements and Their Appli-
cations, Springer Science and Business Media, New York, 2008.
[4] R.F. Nuqui, A.G. Phadke, Hybrid linear state estimation utilizing synchronized
phasor measurements, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Power Tech, Lausanne,
Switzerland, July 1–5, 2007, pp. 1665–1669.
[5] Z. Jun, A. Abur, Effect of phasor measurements on the choice of reference bus for
state estimation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE PES General Meeting, June 24–28,
Tampa, FL, 2004.
[6] L. Zhao, A. Abur, Multiarea state estimation using synchronized phasor mea-
surements, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 20 (2) (2005) 611–617.
[7] M. Zhou, V.A. Centeno, J.S. Thorp, A.G. Phadke, An alternative for including pha-
sor measurements in state estimators, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 21 (4) (2006)
1930–1937.
[8] Z. Jun, A. Abur, Bad data identification when using phasor measurements, in:
Proceedings of Power Tech, Lausanne, 2007, pp. 1676–1681.
[9] W. Jiang, V. Vittal, G.T. Heydt, A distributed state estimator utilizing synchro-
nized phasor measurements, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2 (2007) 563–571.
[10] T.S. Bi, X.H. Qin, Q.X. Yang, A novel hybrid state estimator for includ-
ing synchronized phasor measurements, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 78 (2008)
1343–1352.
[11] M. Hurtgen, J.-C. Maun, Advantages of power system state estimation using
phasor measurement units, in: 16-th PSCC Conference, Glasgow, Scotland,
2008.
[12] L. Vanfretti, J.H. Chow, S. Sarawgi, D. Ellis, B. Fardanesh, A framework for esti-
mation of power systems based on synchronized phasor measurement data,
in: Power Energy Society General Meeting, 2009, pp. 1–6.
[13] S. Chakrabarti, E. Kyriakides, G. Valverde, V. Terzija, State estimation includ-
ing synchronized measurements, in: IEEE Power Tech Conference, Bucharest,
Romania, 2009.
[14] S. Chakrabarti, E. Kyriakides, PMU measurement uncertainty considerations in
WLS state estimation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2 (2009) 1062–1071.
1524 G.N. Korres, N.M. Manousakis / Electric Power Systems Research 81 (2011) 1514–1524
[15] R. Sodhi, S.C. Srivastava, S.N. Singh, Phasor-assisted hybrid state estimator,
Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 38 (2010) 533–544.
[16] I.W. Slutsker, et al., Implementation of phasor measurements in state estima-
tor at Sevillana de Electricidad, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Power Industry
Computer Application Conference, May, 1995, pp. 392–398.
[17] B. Fardanesh, Use of Phasor Measurements in a Commercial (or Industrial) State
Estimator, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Final Rep. 1011002, 2004.
[18] M. Parashar et al., Implementation of Phasor Measurements in SDG&E State
Estimator, California Energy Commission, Tech. Rep., PIER Program Energy
Commission-l500-02-04 MR053, 2008.
[19] R. Avila-Rosales, M.J. Rice, J. Giri, L. Beard, F. Galvan, Recent experience with a
hybrid SCADA/PMU on-line state estimator, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Power
and Energy Society General Meeting, July, 2009.
[20] A. Ghassemian, B. Fardanesh, Phasor assisted state estimation for NYS trans-
mission system – implementation and testing, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/PES
Power Systems Conference and Exposition, March, 2009, pp. 1–8.
[21] K. Martin, J. Hauer, T. Faris, PMU testing and installation considerations at the
Bonneville power administration, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Power Energy
Society General Meeting, June, 2007, pp. 1–6.
[22] IEEE Std C37.118-2005-IEEE Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems,
IEEE Power Engineering Society, 2005.
[23] A. Abur, A.G. Exposito, Power System State Estimation. Theory and Implemen-
tation, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 2004.
[24] R. Singh, B.C. Pal, R.A. Jabr, Choice of estimator for distribution system state
estimation, IET Gen. Transm. Distrib. 152 (2) (2009) 240–246.
George N. Korres received the Diploma and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the
National Technical University of Athens, Greece, in 1984 and 1988 respectively. Cur-
rently he is Associate Professor in the School of Electrical & Computer Engineering
of the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. His research interests are
in power system state estimation and protection, and industrial automation. He is
senior member of IEEE and member of CIGRE.
Nikolaos M. Manousakis received the B.S. and the Diploma degrees from Technolog-
ical Educational Institute of Piraeus and National Technical University of Athens,
Greece, in 1998 and 2003 respectively. He is now pursuing the Ph.D. degree at
National Technical University of Athens, Greece. His special fields of interest include
power system state estimation and PMU technology.