Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2, FEBRUARY 2014
Vs =Vs∠δs Z∠θz = R+ jX Vr =Vr∠δr distribution function is assumed for the random transmission
√
s r parameter error in which the standard deviation is (2 3)−1
Is = Is∠δIs
PMU of the associated confidence intervals. The calculations in this
Y∠θy = G + jB Y∠θy = G + jB section correspond to buses without PMU. The PMU place-
ment scheme is assumed to be given by either deterministic
or probabilistic studies [25]–[28].
Fig. 1. Phasor measurement and calculation in a transmission line.
III. DYNAMIC S TATE E STIMATION
A. General Background
confidence in the indirect phasors measurement is required
which can be calculated by three approaches including the DSE has two objectives: 1) prediction of power system
uncertainty propagation, Monte Carlo simulation, and ran- state at the next time period and 2) SE based on both sets
dom fuzzy variables. Fixed transmission line parameters are of predicted and measured data. The first feature provides the
assumed in [20], which may not be the case in practice. power system operator an additional time for making control
For instance, the line resistance is dependent on the ambient decisions and analyzing the security of operating system.
temperature, and the asymmetry of three-phase currents could Talking specifically about WAMS, this feature is less important
impact the line reactance. A typical uncertainty bound for line since the measurement time instants are very close. The second
parameters is ±2% [21]. Hence, it is imperative to model line attribute would significantly improve the performance of DSE.
parameter uncertainties, which are discussed in this section. The consideration of predicted values in the estimation process
The inaccuracy of conventional measurement devices for would enhance the data redundancy and make the DSE more
measuring voltage, current, and power quantities, is usually robust as compared with SSE and TSE, which use real
over ±1% of the full scale [18]. In contrast, PMU mea- measurements alone.
surements are much more precise and time tagged with an Two consecutive stages are recognized in DSE which are
accuracy of better than 1 μs [9]. They are, however, still state prediction and SE (it is referred to as state filtering
prone to precision errors due to the inaccuracy of PMU in some documents). The power system state at the next
instruments including transformers, cables, and A/D convert- time period is predicted at the first stage, and upon receiving
ers [22]. The first two sets of random errors are mostly biased the measurement set, the system state is determined by the
and can be compensated by sophisticated PMU calibration estimation process.
techniques [23]. The A/D-induced errors are more random
and consequently difficult to eliminate. The total vector error B. Major DSE Challenges
(TVE) is a measure of the PMU measurement accuracy level Power systems follow a quasi-static regime as the daily
with acceptable ranges in steady-state and dynamic conditions, load profile is followed by small random fluctuations. This
which are provided in the IEEE C37.118.1 standard [24]. situation is referred to as normal operating condition in which
Fig. 1 shows the π model of a transmission line between the power system state varies slowly and the performance
buses s and r and a PMU located at bus s. The PMU measures of DSE is highly satisfactory. The major DSE challenge
the voltage phasor of bus s and the current phasor of the line occurs during sudden changes in power system conditions
connected to bus s. Hence including abrupt changes in load and generation and network
Vr δr = Vs ϕ1 − Is Z ϕ2 + Vs Y Z ϕ3 (1) reconfiguration [29]. When a sudden change occurs, state
variables that are geographically close to the affected area
where ϕ1 = δs , ϕ2 = δ I s + θz , and ϕ 3 = δs + θ y + θz . could experience large transitions. Hence, there could be
Since large differences between actual measurements and predictions
based on historical data. In such cases, the predictions could
P = {Vs , δs , Is , δ I s , Z , θz , Y, θ y } (2)
affect the final estimated values and render degradation of the
through applying the guide to the expression of uncertainty in overall performance of DSE. The proposed solutions to this
measurement (GUM), the standard deviations of Vr and δr are shortcoming are reviewed as follows.
calculated as The first proposed approach to detect the sudden change
2 2 condition is based on the innovation analysis [3]–[5],
σVr = ∂ Vr ∂ p σ p (3) [29]–[32]. This method compares the predicted measurements
p∈P with the real measurement set and decides whether or not
2 2 a sudden change condition has occurred. Two methods are
σδr = ∂δr ∂ p σ p (4)
offered to deal with this situation: 1) deemphasizing the
p∈P
importance of predicted values by reducing their weight (or
and the corresponding detailed formulation is presented in the analogously attach a higher weight to the measurements) and
Appendix. 2) labelling the prediction as unreliable and perform SSE or
We assume that the random measurement error is repre- TSE.
sented by a normal distribution. Thus, the standard deviation An algorithm to increase the robustness of DSE has been
of each PMU measurement, i.e., Vs , δs , Is , and δ I s , would be proposed in [33] and [34]. In contrast to the approach based
one sixth of the corresponding confidence intervals. A uniform on the innovation analysis, this technique does not need
AMINIFAR et al.: POWER SYSTEM DSE WITH SYNCHRONIZED PHASOR MEASUREMENTS 355
and equating it to zero. The solution would be as long as the estimated value of variable i is unknown.
Accordingly, σ̂it is a dependent variable, which is defined in
i
NM
x̄ i j t x̃ it
σ̄i2j
+ σ̃it2
terms of independent variables. Similar to the calculation of
j =1 (13), the solution of (14) is given as
x̂ it = , i = 1, . . . , Ns . (13)
i
NM
i
NM
1
σ̄i2j
+ 1
σ̃it2
x̄ i j t
+ (1 − γit ) σ̃x̃it2
j =1 σ̄i2j
j =1 it
x̂ it = . (17)
Using this approach, the solution of the optimization prob-
i
NM
lem is readily computable and the time interval between
1
σ̄i2j
+ (1 − γit ) σ̃12
j =1 it
estimations would be significantly decreased. There are, how-
ever, disadvantages attributed to this approach. The first issue If we apply the variance operator to (17) and assume that
is in relation with the comparison criteria. For each state x̄ i j t , j = 1, 2, · · · , Nmi , and x̃ it are independent, we will have
variable, we might have several redundant measurements along 1
with one prediction. It could be challenging to decide which σ̂it = . (18)
one of the measurements should be considered to measure
i
NM
1
σ̄i2j
+ (1 − γit ) σ̃12
the distance of prediction. The other disadvantage of this j =1 it
approach is that when the prediction is compared with a The proposed model is summarized as follows: 1) (14)
measurement, or in general the equivalent of all measurements, is the objective function; 2) (16) expresses the constraints;
the effect of prediction is not considered in the reference and 3) (15) and (18) define auxiliary variables. The solution
point. Whereas the inclusion of the impact of prediction in the methodology is proposed next.
comparison reference values would make the rejection process The current representation of the model is highly nonlinear
more authentic. that includes the multiplication of a binary variable and a
2) Simultaneous Discarding: Another technique is proposed quadratic term in (14), absolute value function in (15), and
here to overcome the disadvantages associated with the first binary variable in denominator in (18). Thus, the current model
approach. With the considerations discussed earlier, the second is the mixed-integer nonlinear program (MINLP). The present
term of (12) should be omitted from the objective function MINLP solvers are not powerful enough to effectively solve
during the sudden change condition. This characteristic is this type of problems even with a long execution time.
achievable by accommodating binary variables γit in (14)
⎧ ⎫
⎨ i (x̄ i j t − x̂ it )2
NS NM NS
(x̃ it − x̂ it ) ⎬
2 C. MIP-Based Formulation of SE
minJt = + (1 − γit ) .
⎩ σ̄i j
2 σ̃it2 ⎭ The efficient MIP solver can tackle very large-scale power
i=1 j =1 i=1 system problems with thousands of continuous and inte-
(14) ger variables within a tolerable time. It also guarantees a
This binary variable is an indicator of the sudden change solution that is globally optimal or one that is within an
condition corresponding to the state variable i . One of the acceptable tolerance. MIP proposes very flexible and accu-
advance topics in SSE is the bad data identification and rate modeling capabilities which are extremely desirable in
rejection. In [2], it has been pointed out that when the absolute practical problems. MIP includes two types of problems:
value of the measurement residual is greater than the triple of 1) mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problems and
the estimation standard deviation, there is a good chance that 2) mixed-integer quadratic programming (MIQP) problems.
the corresponding measurement is bad. Comparing this subject MILP models comprise both linear objective function and
with the prediction elimination reveals the same. Accordingly, constraints; while MIQP models consist of quadratic objective
the rule is employed to detect the sudden change condition. function but linear constraints. The latter is the case in this
The prediction residual is represented by r̃it as paper which is denoted as a MIP model hereafter. Substituting
the residuals of measurement and prediction with r̄i j t and
r̃it = x̃ it − x̂ it . (15) r̃it , respectively, and (1 − γit )(r̃it )2 with ( R̃it )2 , the objective
function (14) is rewritten as
The following formulation is proposed for γit : ⎧ ⎫
⎨ i r̄i2j t
NS NM
NS
R̃it ⎬
2
r̃it − 3σ̂it r̃it − 3σ̂it
≤ γit ≤ +1 (16) Min Jt = + (19)
Mi Mi ⎩ σ̄i2j σ̃it2 ⎭
i=1 j =1 i=1
where Mi is a positive constant number, which is always
larger than the numerator. In (16), when r̃it is <3σ̂it , the which is a quadratic function. To linearize R̃it in terms of γit
lower limit of γit would be a small negative number and its and r̃it , the following inequities are presented [38]:
upper limit would be a positive number smaller than unity. rimin (1 − γit ) ≤ R̃it ≤ rimax (1 − γit ) (20)
γit is consequently set to 0 and the prediction is included in
r̃it − rimax γit ≤ R̃it ≤ r̃it − rimin γit . (21)
objective function. Otherwise, for r̃it ≥ 3σ̂it , the variable γit
is 1 and the prediction is excluded. If x̂ it represents a voltage magnitude, and are rimin rimax
In (16), σ̂it is the standard deviation associated with the selected as 0 and 2 (p.u.), respectively, and if x̂ it represents
estimation of variable i at time t; however, it is unknown a voltage phase angle, rimin and rimax are set at –π and
AMINIFAR et al.: POWER SYSTEM DSE WITH SYNCHRONIZED PHASOR MEASUREMENTS 357
π (rad), respectively. When γit is equal to 1, R̃it will vanish PMU locations could be, however, examined for enhancing
due to (20) and the bounds in (21) will be inactive. Otherwise, the performance of DSE.
when γit is equal to 0, (21) will enforce R̃it to be equal to r̃it Among performance indexes for quantifying the accuracy
and (20) will not bind R̃it . of state estimators, the root mean square deviation (RMSD)
Here, (22)–(25) represent a set of linear expressions for r̄i j t of estimated states is a commonly used indicator. Here, the
and r̃it in terms of x̂ it RMSD of states corresponding to period t would be averaged
over the entire time horizon
r̄i j t ≥ x̄ i j t − x̂ it (22)
NT
r̄i j t ≥ x̂ it − x̄ i j t 1
(23) NS
RMSD = 1 (x̂ it − x it )2 . (27)
r̃it ≥ x̃ it − x̂ it (24) NT NS
t =1 i=1
r̃it ≥ x̂ it − x̃ it . (25)
The above index is computed separately for voltage mag-
Also, (18) is restated as a linear representation of σ̂it in nitudes and phase angles because these state variables have
terms of γit different scales. The estimator performance should be analyzed
γit (1 − γit ) statistically for enhancing the reliability and generality of the
σ̂it = + . (26) obtained results. We consider 1000 executions with random
i
NM
i
NM
measurement sets in which the performance indexes are aver-
1 1
+ 1
σ̄i2j σ̄i2j σ̃it2
j =1 j =1 aged over all executions. The variability range (or standard
deviation) of performance indexes is another index that would
Therefore, the SE problem is formulated in MIP. The
reflect the impact of measurement random errors on the overall
estimated states x̂ it and its corresponding standard deviation
performance of the estimator. The performance analysis is
σ̂it will be calculated accordingly.
usually carried out considering various network topologies,
An important point is to be emphasized with regards to
loading levels, and generation dispatch. This requirement is
the detection/rejection of bad measurement data in estimators.
satisfied in our analyzes since each execution has several time
WAMS is an accurate, reliable, viable, and secure mea-
instants with a variety of scenarios.
surement infrastructure. However, the inclusion of bad data
In the following studies, true system states are represented
detection/rejection in the proposed DSE, if intended, can be
by power flow solutions, measurements are simulated by
accommodated by adding a binary variable to the measurement
adding random noises within designated ranges to true values,
residual term in (14).
and prediction and estimated quantities are calculated based on
The other issue is that the proposed model is on the
the presentation in Section IV. Line parameter uncertainties
basis that the state variables are the same as measurement
are assumed to be typical as discussed in Section II, and
quantities, which is the case in WAMS. This assumption does
PMU measurement errors are adopted based on the maximum
not hold in conventional metering system in which a nonlinear
allowable TVE (1%) associated with steady-state and small
measurement function would correlate state variables with
change conditions [24]. Since the drastic changes considered
measurement quantities. Hence, the model proposed here
in this paper might correspond to dynamic conditions, the
is not applicable in a metering system composed of only
TVE associated with dynamic situations (3%) is also studied
conventional measurements. It should also be noted that due
as part of sensitivity analyzes. In practical cases, appropriate
to inherent differences of conventional measurements with
and realistic values could be employed which depend on
PMU data, which are being reported very fast and equipped
parameters specified by PMU manufacturers and experiences
with exact time stamps, adding conventional measurements
with periodical calibrations. The CPLEX solver in the general
to the WAMS is not a technically feasible choice. The
algebraic modeling system (GAMS) environment is employed
reverse relation in which some PMU data are, however, being
for the optimization purpose and the simulations were carried
added to a SCADA system does make sense and is reported
out using an Intel Core (TM) i7 at 1.60-GHz CPU with 4 GB
by several works. In such cases, the proposed DSE model
of RAM.
could be used. To do so, an old-fashioned SE with only
conventional measurements is first executed. Its output, which
includes voltage magnitude and phase angle, is then consid- A. Three-Bus System
ered as a set of phasor data for the proposed WAMS-based
DSE [9]. The three-bus power system is shown in Fig. 3 and the
corresponding data are given in the Appendix (Tables VI
and VII). The PMU located at bus 1 measures the voltage
V. N UMERICAL S TUDIES
phasor of bus 1 and current phasors of transmission lines
In this section, a three-bus power system is analyzed to 1 and 2. Accordingly, the voltage phasors at buses 2 and 3
illustrate the performance of the proposed method. In addition, would be measured indirectly. According to the power flow
the effectiveness of the proposed method is examined on the solution, unit 1 would generate 0.8 + j 0.25 (p.u. on the
IEEE 57-bus power system. Various scenarios are considered 100 MVA base) and the remaining load plus transmission
in each case for simulating sudden changes in the system state. system losses are generated by unit 2, which is located at
The PMU locations are assumed to be given here. Additional the slack bus.
358 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 63, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2014
TABLE I
B INARY VARIABLES γit IN C ASE 0
Bus 1 Bus 1
0.01 0.01
Estimation. Estimation.
Vol. Mag. Error [p.u.]
0 0
-0.005 -0.005
-0.01 -0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time Instant Time Instant
Bus 2 Bus 2
0.01 0.01
Estimation. Estimation.
Vol. Mag. Error [p.u.]
-0.01 -0.015
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time Instant Time Instant
Bus 3 Bus 3
0.015 0.02
Estimation. Estimation.
Vol. Mag. Error [p.u.]
-0.01 -0.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time Instant Time Instant
TABLE II
C OMPARISON OF M EASUREMENT, P REDICTION , E STIMATION , AND T RUE VALUES
57-bus system are expected to be more general. The index referred to as SSE. There is, however, only one measurement
defined in (27) considered for assessing the performance of associated with each state variable and the SE leads to the
the proposed DSE is calculated as RMSDm = 0.0038 (p.u.) for measurement data set. Thus, the performance indexes of
voltage magnitudes and RMSD p = 0.0045 (rad) for voltage RMSDm = 0.0049 (p.u.) and RMSD p = 0.0057 (rad) are
phase angles. These indexes are calculated statistically with identical to the average values of RMSD of measurements.
1000 executions. The comparison of performance indexes in Cases 1 and 2
Case 1: In this case, the discarding capability is not consid- with those in Case 0 verifies the advantage of using DSE for
ered and all predictions are included in the estimation process. enhancing the estimation accuracy.
Hence, the objective function (12) is considered with both 1) Sensitivity Analysis: Here, Case 3 is considered to extract
measurement and prediction residuals, with a solution derived the sensitivity of DSE performance in preserving or discarding
already in (13). This attribute shows that an optimization the prediction terms with respect to measurement uncertainties.
would not be required as the solution is obtained with a In this case, PMU measurement uncertainties are multiplied
simple calculation. This simplicity is achieved at the cost of by three; thus, the confidence bounds of uncertain values are
not omitting the drastic changes. The performance indexes wider and equal to 3% which is the maximum allowable
associated with this case are RMSDm = 0.0046 (p.u.) and TVE of PMU measurements in dynamic conditions [24].
RMSD p = 0.0056 (rad). The measurements of V2 , δ2 , V3 , and δ3 are more volatile
Case 2: In this case, the state prediction is disregarded. By and it is expected that the role of prediction would become
definition, this situation corresponds to the conventional SE, more significant. Table III presents the binary variables in
360 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 63, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2014
TABLE III
B INARY VARIABLES γit IN C ASE 3
[16] EPRI. (2008). Next Generation State Estimation (Predictive, Dynamic [37] J. Zhu and A. Abur, “Effect of phasor measurements on the choice of
With System Identification), Charlotte, NC, USA [Online]. Available: references bus for state estimation,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc.
http://portfolio.epri.com/ General Meeting, Jun. 2007, pp. 1–5.
[17] S. Chakrabarti and E. Kyriakides, “PMU measurement uncertainty [38] C. A. Floudas, Nonlinear and Mixed-Integer Optimization: Fundamen-
considerations in WLS state estimation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., tals and Applications. New York, NY, USA: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995.
vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1062–1071, May 2009. [39] (2013). MATPOWER: A MATLAB Power System Simulation Package
[18] A. Abur and A. G. Expósito, Power System State Estimation: Theory [Online]. Available: http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower
and Implementation. New York, NY, USA: Marcel Dekker, 2004.
[19] (2013). High-Performance Mathematical Programming Solver for Lin-
ear Programming, Mixed Integer Programming, and Quadratic Pro-
gramming [Online]. Available: http://www.ilog.com/products/cplex/ Farrokh Aminifar (S’07–M’11) received the B.Sc. (Hons.) degree from the
[20] S. Chakrabarti, E. Kyriakides, and M. Albu, “Uncertainty in Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2005, and the
power system state variables obtained through synchronized measure- M.Sc. (Hons.) and Ph.D. degrees from the Sharif University of Technology,
ments,” IEEE Trans. Instr. Meas., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 2452–2458, Tehran, in 2007 and 2010, respectively, all in electrical engineering.
Aug. 2009. He has been collaborating with the Robert W. Galvin Center for Electricity
[21] J. K. Al-Othman and M. R. Irving, “Analysis of confidence bounds Innovation with the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA,
in power system state estimation with uncertainty in both measurements since March 2009. He is currently an Assistant Professor with the School
and parameters,” Elec. Power Syst. Res., vol. 76, no. 12, pp. 1011–1018, of Electrical and Computer Engineering, the University of Tehran, Tehran.
Aug. 2006. His research interests include wide-area measurement systems, reliability
[22] J. Zhu, A. Abur, M. J. Rice, G. T. Heydt, and S. Meliopoulos, “Enhanced modeling and assessment, and smart grid technologies.
state estimators,” PSERC, Tempe, AZ, USA, Tech. Rep. 06-45, Dr. Aminifar has served as the Guest Editor of two Special Issues (Micro-
Nov. 2006. grids and Smart DC Distribution Systems) of the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON
[23] Performance Requirements Part II Targeted Applications: State Estima- S MART G RID. He received the IEEE Best Ph.D. Dissertation Award from the
tion, PRTT, New York, NY, USA, Nov. 2005. Iran Section for his research on the probabilistic schemes for the placement
[24] IEEE Standard for Synchrophasor Measurements for Power Systems, of pharos measurement units.
IEEE Standard C37.118.1-2011, Dec. 2011.
[25] F. Aminifar, A. Khodaei, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Shahideh-
pour, “Contingency-constrained PMU placement in power net-
works,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 516–523,
Feb. 2010. Mohammad Shahidehpour (F’01) is the Bodine Chair Professor and Director
[26] F. Aminifar, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and A. Safdarian, “Optimal PMU of the Robert W. Galvin Center for Electricity Innovation with the Illinois
placement based on probabilistic cost/benefit analysis,” IEEE Trans. Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA. He is a Research Professor with
Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 566–567, Feb. 2013. King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, North China Electric Power
[27] F. Aminifar, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M. Shahidehpour, and A. Saf- University, Beijing, China, and the Sharif University, Tehran, Iran. He was
darian, “Impact of WAMS malfunction on power system reliability the general chair of the 2012 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
Conference, and Chair of the 2012 Great Lakes Symposium on Smart Grid
assessment,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1302–1309,
Sep. 2012. and the New Energy Economy. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE
[28] F. Aminifar, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M. Shahidehpour, and A. Khodaei, T RANSACTIONS ON S MART G RID and an IEEE Distinguished Lecturer.
“Observability enhancement by optimal PMU placement considering He is a recipient of the 2012 IEEE PES Outstanding Power Engineering
Educator Award. He was a recipient of the 2009 Honorary Doctorate from
random power system outages,” Energy Syst., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 45–65,
Mar. 2011. the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, Romania.
[29] M. B. D. C. Filho, A. M. L. da Silva, J. M. C. Cantera, and
R. A. da Silva, “Information debugging for real-time power systems
monitoring,” IEE Proc. Generat. Trans. Distribut., vol. 136, no. 3,
pp. 145–152, May 1989. Mahmud Fotuhi-Firuzabad (SM’99) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in
[30] K. Nishiya, J. Hasegawa, and T. Koike, “Dynamic state estimation electrical engineering from Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, and
including anomaly detection and identification for power systems,” Tehran University, Tehran, in 1986 and 1989, respectively, and the M.S. and
IEE Proc. Generat. Trans. Distribut., vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 192–198, Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Saskatchewan,
Sep. 1982. Saskatoon, SK, Canada, in 1993 and 1997, respectively.
[31] A. M. Leite da Silva, M. B. Do Coutto Filho, and J. F. He joined the Department of Electrical Engineering, the Sharif University
de Queiroz, “State forecasting in electric power systems,” IEE of Technology, in 2002. Currently, he is a Professor and the Head of the
Proc. Generat. Trans. Distribut., vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 237–244, Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology. He
Sep. 1983. is an Honorary Professor with the Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam,
[32] J. K. Mandal, A. K. Sinha, and L. Roy, “Incorporating nonlinearities Malaysia.
of measurement function in power system dynamic state estimation,” Dr. Fotuhi-Firuzabad is a member of the Center of Excellence in Power
IEE Proc. Generat Trans. Distribut., vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 289–296, System Management and Control. He serves as an Editor of the IEEE
May 1995. T RANSACTIONS ON S MART G RID.
[33] K. R. Shih and S. J. Huang, “Application of a robust algorithm for
dynamic state estimation of a power system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 141–147, Feb. 2002.
[34] S. J. Huang and K. R. Shih, “Dynamic-state-estimation scheme including Saeed Kamalinia (S’07–M’11) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in
nonlinear measurement-function considerations,” IEE Proc. Generat. electrical engineering from the University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, in 2005
Trans. Distribut., vol. 149, no. 6, pp. 673–678, Nov. 2002. and 2007, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
[35] J. M. Lin, S. J. Huang, and K. R. Shih, “Application of sliding the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA, in 2010. He is currently
surface-enhanced control for dynamic state estimation of a power a Project Engineer with S&C Electric Company-Power System Solutions,
system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 570–577, Chicago. His research interests include operation and control of power systems
May 2003. and integration of renewable energy resources.
[36] S. G. Makridakis, S. C. Wheelwright, and V. E. McGee, Forecasting: Dr. Kamalinia is the Chair of Award Committee at IEEE-Chicago Section
Methods and Applications. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1983. and a member of two technical working groups in Cigré.