1

A New Algorithm to Find the Optimal Numbers

and Locations of Power Quality Monitors
Dong-Jun Won, Member, IEEE, Seon-Ju Ahn, Student Member, IEEE,
Il-Yop Chung, Member, IEEE, Seung-Il Moon, Member, IEEE

Abstract-- This paper proposes monitor positioning algorithm

which determines the optimal number of monitors and their
locations. The bus incidence matrix is modified using monitor
locations. The principles of monitor positioning are suggested
and the weighting factors of each component are defined
following these principles. Ambiguity indices are newly suggested
to evaluate the monitor locations in terms of topological
ambiguity. Finally, the overall algorithm for monitor positioning
is developed and applied to IEEE 37 node test feeder. It realizes
the experts knowledge on monitor positioning into sophisticated
automatic computing algorithm.

cal ambiguity.
Therefore, in this paper a new algorithm on monitor
positioning is developed. The coverage matrix is constructed
and the principles of monitor positioning are suggested.
Following these principles, the weighting factors of each
component are defined. Finally, this method newly defined
ambiguity indices. At the end of this paper, the overall
algorithm for monitor positioning is developed.

Index Terms-- ambiguity, event, event direction, monitor,

optimization, power quality

A. Graph Theory and Incidence Matrices

In power system analysis, the graph theory and incidence
matrices have been frequently used for computer simulation.
The power system network is represented by a simple graph
and converted into the corresponding incidence matrix to get a
network matrix e.g. impedance matrix Z or admittance matrix
Y [4]. For monitor positioning, these are also useful
methodology. Therefore, the graph and corresponding
incidence matrices are introduced in this section. Let us first
introduce the example power system. This example system
will also be used in the proceeding chapters.

I. INTRODUCTION

N distributed monitoring scheme [1], [2], selecting the

number and location of monitors is a critical problem
because it is directly related to the efficiency of the
monitoring system. This problem will be called as monitor
positioning. It is a matter of course that more monitors will
result in more accurate identification results. Ideally, it is best
to install monitors at all components but all components can
not be monitored for economic reason. There is a tradeoff
between the accuracy of results and the economical efficiency
[3]. Thus appropriate locations for monitor installation must
be carefully selected for maximum efficiency. The followings
are arising important issues.
How many monitors are needed?
Where are their locations?
How can the adequacy of the locations be estimated?
Typically, the number of monitors required is determined or
guided by the customer considering the size of their site and
economic capability. Therefore it becomes important to decide
the location of monitors under the given number of monitors.
To decide the locations, some principles for monitor
positioning are also needed. Through these principles,
monitors can be positioned at proper locations. The last
problem can be solved by introducing the concept of topologiDong-Jun Won is with Advanced Power Technologies Center, Department
of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2500
USA (e-mail: dwon@ee.washington.edu).
Il-Yop Chung is with Department of Electrical Engineering, Korea
University, Seoul 136-701, Korea (e-mail: iryop@powerlab.snu.ac.kr).
Seon-Ju Ahn and Seung-Il Moon are with the School of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742,
Korea (e-mail: lion52@powelab.snu.ac.kr, moonsi@plaza.snu.ac.kr).

II. TREE REPRESENTATION AND MODIFIED INCIDENCE MATRIX

13

Equivalent
source

(1)

Transformer

(n) Bus

(2)
2

6
(3)

(4)
7

Line

Load

(5)

10

(6)

12
9

11

Fig. 1 One-line diagram of example power system

Fig. 1 shows the topology of typical distribution power

system. This system consists of an equivalent source, a
transformer representing distribution substation, 4 distribution
lines and 7 loads. Each component gets its number separately
so that total 13 components are numbered.
This one-line diagram can be converted into Graph,
which represents the geometrical interconnection of power
system network. In graph, there exist nodes and elements. The
lines and other connecting segments are elements and their
terminals are nodes [4]. Fig. 2 shows the graph representation
of example system.

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Sun Yat Sen University. Downloaded on July 20,2010 at 12:56:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

B. Tree Representation
(1)
1
(2)
(4)

(3)

Node

Element

13

(n)

8 (5) 10 (6)

11
12

(0)
Fig. 2 Graph representation of example system

A node and an element are incident if the node is a terminal

of the element. Following this relation, an incidence matrix
can be constructed from the graph. Element-node incidence
matrix represents the incidence of elements to nodes. The
following matrix is the element-node matrix of Fig. 2. Rows
are the elements of the graph and columns represent the nodes
of the graph. Matrix dimension is 13 7 which is equal to the
number of elements and nodes of the example system.

In data structure of computer engineering, a tree consists

of a set of nodes and a set of directed edges that connect pairs
of nodes [5]. A rooted tree is the tree which has only one
root that does not receive information from other nodes. For
this reason, rooted tree is suitable for representing the
topology of radial distribution power system.
For power quality events happen in the lines or the
elements connected to the lines, other components except line
are merged with lines. Buses and loads are merged with
nearby lines. The merged components become the nodes of
rooted tree and are newly numbered in Fig. 3. Equivalent
source and transformer are not included in this tree because
they are part of external system.
External system

L4

L3

e\n
1
2
3
4
Element node
incidence =
matrix

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

1 1
0 1
0
0

1
0

0
0

0
1

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
1 0 0 0

1
0 0 0
1
0 0 0

0 1 0 0
0 1
0 0

0 1 1 0
0 0 1
0

0 0 1 1

0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0
0
0

0
0

0
0

(1)

Bus incidence
matrix

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Parent of
L4 & L5
L5

L6

L7

L8

L9

L10

L10
L4

L5

L7

L8

L12
L9

Descendants of L6

L11

L12

L11

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3 Rooted tree representation of example system

(a) One-line diagram of example system for rooted tree
(b) Rooted tree representation and parent-child relationship

e \ n (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

0 0
0
1 1 0
0 1
0
0
0
0

0 1 1 0 0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0

0 0 1
0 0
0

0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0

0 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0
0 1
0

0 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1

1
0
0
0 0 1

L3

Children of L3

L2

The node (0) is the reference node which means common

ground. By deleting the column corresponding to the
reference node, bus incidence matrix is obtained. Busincidence matrix shows the relation between the elements and
real nodes. It also includes all the information about the
topology of the system so that the graph can be constructed
from this matrix conversely.

1
2
3

L6

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

0
1

1
1

0
1

0
1

1
1

Parent of
L2 , L3 & L6
Child of L1

L2

Internal system

L1

L1
Child of L1

(2)

In Fig. 3(a), L1 becomes the root of tree. For L1 is

connected with L2, L3 and L6 in Fig. 3(a), the node L1 is
connected with the node L2, L3 and L6 in Fig. 3(b). Other
nodes are connected with one another in this way. In rooted
tree, there is parent-child relationship between nodes. For
example, L1 is the parent of L2, L3 and L6. L3 is the parent of L4
and L5. L4 and L5 are the children of L3. In this way, L7 ~ L12
become the descendants of L6. These relationships will be
used later to construct modified incidence matrix.
C. Up/Down Area Definition
If a monitor is installed in power system, the monitor can
identify the relative location of event source [6], [7]. In other
words, the monitor can determine whether the event has come
from UP area or DOWN area. Determination of relative
location of event source is called event direction
identification.
The relative location of event source is classified into UP
area and DOWN area. Fig. 4 shows the UP/DOWN area in
example system. These areas can be defined in two different
viewpoints. In electrical view, the power always flows from
source to load through power quality monitor in radial
distribution system. Therefore DOWN area can be defined as
the area to which the power flows from the monitoring point.

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Sun Yat Sen University. Downloaded on July 20,2010 at 12:56:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

UP area is the other area which is not included in DOWN area,

that is, the area from which the power flows to monitoring
point and their neighborhood area. In topological view
considering tree structure, DOWN area can be defined as the
monitored component and its descendants in tree. UP area is
the other area which is not included in DOWN area, that is,
the ascendants of the monitored component and their
neighborhood in tree.
Up Area

which are the descendants of L1 are all set to +1, that is, a21 ~
a12 1 are all +1. For M2 is installed at L3, a32 is +1. Because L4
and L5 are the descendants of L3, a42 and a52 are also +1.
Similarly, other elements of matrix are determined.
c \ m M1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 M 7
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5

Direction of
Power flow

Coverage matrix = L6
L7
L8

Monitor

L9
L10
Down Area

Fig. 4 Definition of UP/DOWN area considering monitor location

D. Modified Incidence Matrix

Once the monitors are located in power system, the
UP/DOWN area according to the monitor location is uniquely
determined. This means that the bus incidence matrix can be
modified considering the monitor locations. If the monitor
location replaces the bus locations in bus incidence matrix, the
modified incidence matrix can be obtained, which is called
coverage matrix.
Coverage matrix informs us of the relation between the
monitor and the component. It indicates whether the
component is in UP area or DOWN area of a monitor. In other
words, it reveals the coverage of the monitors. The coverage
matrix is L M matrix. L is the number of lines and M is the
number of monitors. The elements of coverage matrix are
determined as follows.
+ 1 if ith component is in DOWN area of jth monitor
aij =
1 if ith component is in UP area of jth monitor
External system
M1

L3
L2

Internal system
L1
M2 M3

M4
L4

Ln : Line
Mn : Monitor

L6
M5

L5

L7

L10
L8

M6 L9

L12
M7 L11

L11
L12

+ 1
+ 1

+ 1

+ 1
+ 1

+ 1
+ 1

+ 1
+ 1

+ 1

+ 1
+ 1

1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
+ 1 1 1 1 1 1

+ 1 1 + 1 1 1 1
+ 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 + 1 1 1 1 1
1 + 1 1 + 1 1 1

1 + 1 1 1 1 1
1 + 1 1 1 + 1 1

1 + 1 1 1 1 1

1 + 1 1 1 1 + 1
1 + 1 1 1 1 1

(3)

By just looking at this matrix, the topology and UP/DOWN

area can be inferred. This matrix is fairly useful for monitor
positioning and event source locating. In monitor positioning,
this matrix is used for ambiguity checking.
III. WEIGHTING FACTORS
A. Four Principles of Monitor Positioning
For there is a tradeoff between the accuracy of results and
the economical efficiency, the proper number of monitors and
their locations must be determined. In the past, this procedure
was performed manually by the power quality experts. The
experts installed the monitors according to their own
guidelines and knowledge on power quality and system
topology. For automatic approach to power quality diagnosis,
these guidelines must be clearly stated and formulated. Thus
this paper suggests a few principles to select the appropriate
monitor locations. The principles can be summarized as the
following four categories.
Principle 1: (N-1) criterion by KCL
If N lines diverge from a bus, there are N possible points to
monitor. In this case, it is ineffective to monitor all N points
because the information of one line can be computed by those
of other (N-1) lines from KCL (Kirchhoffs Current Law).
However, (N-2) monitors are not sufficient because ambiguity
happens between the two lines that are not monitored.
Therefore, (N-1) is the minimum number of monitor to avoid
ambiguity.

Principle 2: Higher weight on load branch

Typically the damages caused by power quality problems
In Fig. 5, total 7 monitors are located in the example system. appear at the customer loads. Customer loads are selected as
The monitors are positioned arbitrarily just to show the important monitoring points and monitored first in most cases.
elements of coverage matrix. The resulting coverage matrix is For this reason, the load branch and the branch near load must
(3). In (3), for M1 is installed at L1, a11 is +1. Other elements be considered first in selecting (N-1) lines to monitor. Main
Fig. 5 Example system with 7 monitors

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Sun Yat Sen University. Downloaded on July 20,2010 at 12:56:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

feeder or lateral line should be in the next order. In this

manner, ambiguity usually happens along the main feeder or
lateral line. It means that it becomes easy to use fault distance
calculation along the lines. This principle is also consistent
with the fact that monitors are typically installed at the service
entrance of customer loads.
Principle 3: Higher weight on the component with many
descendants
The component which has many descendants can monitor
more extensive areas than the component with few descendants.
It means that it can produce more accurate results. Therefore,
these components with many descendants must receive more
attention in monitoring. This principle has the tendency to
install monitors at the points near power source. This tendency
may be thought to be somewhat opposite to the principle 2.
However, it will be proven in proceeding section that principle
2 and 3 can cooperate with each other to get reasonable results.
Principle 4: Installation at branch beginning point
Monitors have to be installed at beginning point of branch,
that is, just after a branch diverges from a bus. In this manner,
the branch where a monitor is installed can be included in the
monitoring coverage of the monitor. The fact that the branch is
not included in the monitoring coverage requires the complex
modifications of tree and incidence matrix. This principle is a
kind of technical approach to avoid these problems.

factors which properly estimates the degree. In this section,

these weighting factors are defined according to the principles.
To formulate the weighting factors, it is necessary to give
each component a property and a number. The property of
component is classified as main feeder, lateral line and load.
The component is numbered considering bus number and the
number of branch connected to the bus. For example, cij is the
jth component connected to the bus i. The results of component
numbering and component properties are shown in Fig. 7.
L1
(C11 , Mf)

Load

Main feeder
L2
(C21 , Lo)

Lateral line

L3
(C22 , La)

L4
(C31 , Lo)

L5
(C32 , Lo)

L6
(C23 , Mf)

L7
(C41 , Lo)

Component Property

L8
(C42 , Mf)

L9
(C51 , Lo)

L10
(C52 , Mf)

Mf : Main feeder
La : Lateral line
Lo : Load

Component number : Cij

L11
(C61 , Lo)

L12
(C62 , Lo)

Fig. 7 Tree representation with component number and property

With these properties and notations, the weighting factors

can be formulated as follows considering principle 1, 2 and 3.
Principle 3 results in the weighting factor i , principle 2
corresponds to the weighting factor ij and principle 1 is
related to the weighting factor ij .

Principle 1 & 3

M1

Principle 1

i =

L1

L3
L2

M2 M3

M4
L4

L6
M5

L5

L7

L10
L8

ij =

Principle
1&2

M6 L9

L12
M7 L11

Fig. 6 Application of monitor positioning principles

Four principles are applied to the example system in Fig. 6.

M1 is compulsory monitor location at service entrance. M2 and
M3 follow principle 1 for two monitors should be positioned
from 3 possible positions. M2 and M3 also follow principle 3
for L3 and L6 has several times of descendants compared to L2.
M5 and M6 follow principle 1 and principle 2 as shown in the
figure. M4 and M7 follow only principle 1 because two parallel
loads are topologically same branches.
B. Definitions of Weighting Factors
According to the principles suggested in section III.A, each
component of system has its own degree of importance. The
degree of importance should be formulated for the application
to computing algorithm. It can be formulated by weighting

Bi
A
Dij

(4)
(5)

Ci

1
B , if cij is not load and has minimum
i
ij =
weighting ( i ij ) among all cij of bus i

1 , others or if c = c
ij
11

(6)

(7)

A = Ni
i =1

Bi =

Nk

(8)

k = i & descendant
bus of ith bus

i
i
i
Ci = wMf N Mf
+ wLa N La
+ wLo N Lo

wMf ,

Dij = wLa ,
w
Lo ,

if cij is main feeder

if cij is lateral line
if cij is load

where,
i : bus number
j : child number at a bus
n : total number of bus
N i : total number of child at bus i
i : number of main feeder at bus i
N Mf

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Sun Yat Sen University. Downloaded on July 20,2010 at 12:56:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

(9)
(10)

5
i : number of lateral line at bus i
N La

components. This topological ambiguity can be expressed in

the form of ambiguity index. There can be two kinds of
ambiguity. One is System Total Ambiguity (STA) and the
other is Section Maximum Ambiguity (SMA)

N : number of load at bus i

i
Lo

wMf : predetermined weighting for main feeder

wLa : predetermined weighting for lateral line
wLo : predetermined weighting for load

STA =

cij : component number

i is the normalized value representing the number of
descendants of a bus i compared to the total number of
components. Therefore i informs us of how extensive area
can be monitored at bus i. i holds for all the branches

connected to bus i. ij is the normalized value representing

the weight of a component j compared to the total weights at a
bus i. Main feeder receives the half value of weighting factor
of lateral line and load has twice of the weight of lateral line,
that is, wLa = wLo = 2wMf . Therefore the load branch receives
2

higher weight than main feeder or lateral line. ij reduces the

weighing factor of a component which has minimum
weighting factor at a bus i to be as small as that of a
component at the end of the system. It means that the
component will have less possibility to be monitored by (N-1)
criterion because the component may be selected at last order.
i , ij and ij will be used together in optimization routine
which will be formulated in chapter V.

k
ND

(11)

for k ,
all sections
n

N
i =1

k
max N ND

(12)

for k ,
all sections
n

SMA =

N
i =1

where,
k
: the number of components which cannot be
N ND
distinguished at section k
STA represents the ability to discriminate the location of
event source under the assumption that the event can happen
at all components. SMA represents the degree of how equally
the section is divided. Two indices are normalized by the total
number of components of the system. Using these two indices,
the System Average Ambiguity (SAA) can be calculated. SAA
has adopted the geometric mean to give smaller value when
the ambiguity is equally distributed all over the sections.
n

(13)

SAA = N i STA SMA

i =1

B. Ambiguity Checking with Coverage Matrix

IV. AMBIGUITY INDEX

A. Definitions of Ambiguity Indices
Ambiguity happens when (N-1) criterion is not satisfied.
When 5 children are connected to a bus, if only 2 children are
monitored, the remaining 3 children cannot be discriminated
by the monitors. It is because the 3 children are in the same
position topologically. In other words, they are topologically
ambiguous. Fig. 8 shows the topological ambiguity problem in
example system.

Ambiguity is inspected using coverage matrix in computing

algorithm. The following flowchart briefly explains the
algorithm to get ambiguity index using coverage matrix.
Find sections from coverage matrix
For every section
For every component in each section
Yes
It is Monitor-installed component ?

M1

Ambiguity happens! :
Violate (N-1) Criterion

L1
M2
L3

No
Its parent is ambiguous ?
No

Yes

Satisfy (N-1) criterion?

M3

L6

L2

M4
L4

Yes

L5

L7

No

L10
L8

L9

L12
L11

Fig. 8 Illustration of topological ambiguity

The component is ambiguous

No
End of component ?
Yes

No

End of section ?
Yes

For all the components can not be monitored, ambiguity

problem happens. If the number of monitors is not sufficient,
there exists topological ambiguity in distinguishing the

Calculate STA , SMA and SAA

Fig. 9 Ambiguity checking algorithm

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Sun Yat Sen University. Downloaded on July 20,2010 at 12:56:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

For ambiguity checking, each section must be found from

coverage matrix. The algorithm is repeated for all sections and
all the components of each section are investigated whether
they are ambiguous or not. Ambiguity checking has three steps,
that is, monitor checking, parent checking and (N-1) criterion
checking. After all the components are investigated, STA, SMA
and SAA are calculated.
This algorithm is applied to the example system shown in
Fig. 8. (14) is the coverage matrix of Fig 8.
c\m

+ 1
+ 1

+ 1

+ 1
+ 1

+ 1
+ 1

+ 1
+ 1

+ 1

+ 1
+ 1

L1
L2
L3
L4
L5

Coverage matrix
=
of Fig .3.8

M1 M 2 M 3 M 4

L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12

1 1 1
+ 1 1 1
1 + 1 1

1 + 1 1
1 + 1 1

1 1 1
1 1 + 1

1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1
1 1 1

(14)

NMmin: minimum number of monitor

NMmax: maximum number of monitor
0 if component cij is monitored
xij =
1 if component cij is not monitored
The objective function implies that the total weights of a
system must be minimized. The constraint condition means that
the number of monitor must be bounded by the predetermined
value, NMmin and NMmax. Usually this bound is determined by
the customer considering the economic capability and
efficiency. To minimize the objective function, xij tends to be
set to zero. However, too many zeros of xij may violate the
constraint condition. The optimization routine will find the
optimal solution between these tendencies.
The overall algorithm for monitor positioning is illustrated in
Fig. 10. It gives the minimum number of monitor which has the
minimum SAA under given constraint condition. If there are
multiple locations which have the same weights, the
optimization routine will find the optimal location among these
locations.
Construct tree from power system network
(Topology matrix)

Using (14), each section is classified by counting the

number of +1. The resulting sections are (L1, L6, L8, L9, L10,
L11, L12), (L2), (L3, L4, L5), (L7). Among these components, L1,
L2, L3 and L7 are monitor-installed components. Therefore,
they are not included in calculating ambiguity index. L6 and L8
follow the (N-1) criterion. They are not also included.
Therefore, the remaining components (L4, L5), (L9, L10, L11,
L12) are included in calculating ambiguity index. The resulting
ambiguity indices are STA = 6 , SMA = 4 and SAA = 4.899 .
12

12

Calculate weighting factors ( i , ij , ij )

from the tree

Set k = 1 and initial number of monitor to install

(NMk = NMmin )

Minimize the objective function F(X)

min F ( X )
X

Construct coverage matrix

NMk+1=NMk+1

V. FORMULATION AND APPLICATION

k=k+1

Calculate the ambiguity index (SAA k ) at the

optimum(Xk ) by ambiguity checking routine

A. Formulation of Optimization Problem

NMmin = NMmax
No

No

With the results in chapter III and IV, the optimization

routine to find the optimal number and locations of monitors
can be formulated. Objective function and its constraint
condition are formulated in (15).
min F ( X )
X

= min
x ij

Ni

(
n

i =1

j =1

ij

ij xij )

Set SAAopt ,
NMopt , Xopt

Yes

Modify Xk

k>1
Yes

Update SAA opt = min{ SAAopt, SAAk } and

corresponding NMopt , Xopt
Yes

Equal Weight
Component?

(15)

No

No

NMk = NMmax
Yes

subject to
n

NM min Ni xij < NM max + 1

i =1

i =1 j =1

where,
i: bus number
j: component number
n: total number of bus
Ni: number of component at bus I

Store the optimum number of monitor (NM opt ),

their locations (Xopt )
and system ambiguity index (SAA opt)

Fig. 10 Overall monitor positioning algorithm

B. Application to IEEE 37 node test feeder

Fig. 11 shows the configuration of IEEE 37 node test feeder
in the form of one-line diagram [8].

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Sun Yat Sen University. Downloaded on July 20,2010 at 12:56:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

7
799
L1

712 L
5

L2

L6
742
L7

L8

L4

705

L26

L32
728 L31 744

L29

L28

L30

732

L36
727

L38

775

L50
L52

736
L51

710

L11 L12

L13

L10 714

L25
L20
725

L17

718
L15

L14

731

L40

IEEE 37 node Test Feeder

- Bus: 37
- Load: 25
- Line: 36
- Component: 61

L47
737

L54

L55
738

L56

L57

L58

711
L60

741

previous NM opt , the customer can select 17 or 19 monitor

considering economic efficiency. If NM min = 6 and
NM max = 10 , it is rather economic to choose 9 monitors than
10 monitors because the difference of SAA is fairly slight
between NM opt = 9 and NM opt = 10 .
VI. CONCLUSIONS

L39

L46
734
L53

L48

740

L16

L44
733
L45

L59

L23

724
L
707 24
L18
L19

L9

L41
708

L42

722

L21

706

L35
730 713
L37
709

L27

L43
735
L49

704

702

703

729 L33
L34

701

L3

L22

720

L61

Fig. 11 One-line diagram of IEEE 37 node test feeder

The total number of component is 61. Therefore, it is fairly

difficult to select the appropriate monitoring point manually.
Therefore, the monitor positioning algorithm is applied to this
test feeder. The results are shown in Fig. 12 relating SAA with
the number of monitor.

VII. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

SAA and optimal number of monitor

SAA

In this paper, monitor positioning algorithm has determined

the optimal number of monitors and their locations. It has
constructed the coverage matrix and adopted weighting
factors and ambiguity indices. The monitors have been
positioned at appropriate locations using the weighting factors
and the results have been proven to be adequate in the sense
of ambiguity. The proposed algorithm has realized the
experts knowledge into sophisticated automatic computing
algorithm. It gives a guideline for monitor positioning and
also suggests an answer for the number of monitor and
locations.

NM_opt

60

SAA and NM

opt

50

Optimum(10~20)
NMopt = 20
SAAopt = 8.7187

40

Optimum(20~61)
NMopt = 25
SAAopt = 0.0

[3]
[4]

30
20

[5]

10

[6]

0
1

11

16

21

26

NM max

[7]

Fig. 12 Optimal number of monitor and SAA according to NMmax

As NMmax increases, the SAA decreases gradually. If

NMmax25, SAA reaches to zero value. It means that no
ambiguity exists and it is unnecessary to install more monitors.
The solution at NMmax=25 is Xopt = {L1, L2, L27, L4, L9, L36,L39,
L45, L42, L10, L47, L16, L54,L56, L28, L17, L48, L30, L21, L5,L22, L49,
L58, L15, L31}.
Careful investigation of Fig. 12 will also give the customer
a good understanding on the relation between system
efficiency and economic efficiency. Until NM opt = NM max = 25 ,
the SAA decreases as more monitors are installed. However,
the SAA drops slowly at a certain regions and drops rapidly in
some regions. By noticing this tendency, the customer can
decide the number of monitor to install more efficiently in
economic view. For example, if the customer has the
economic capability of NM min = 15 and NM max = 20 , the
customer may install 20 monitors. However, for SAA drops
rapidly at NM opt = 17 or NM opt = 19 compared to SAA of

[8]

L. Cristaldi, A. Ferrero, S. Salicone, A Distributed System for Electric

Power Quality Measurement, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation
and Measurement, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 776 -781, Aug. 2002.
Ben Byman, Tom Yarborough, Rudolf Schnorr von Carolsfeld, John
Van Gorp, Using Distributed Power Quality Monitoring for Better
Electrical System Management, IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1481-1485, Sep.-Oct. 2000.
G. Olguin, M.H.J. Bollen, Optimal Dips Monitoring Program for
Characterization of Transmission System, Proceedings of IEEE/PES
General Meeting, 13-17, July 2003.
Glenn W. stagg, Ahmed H. El-Abiad, Computer methods in power
systems analysis, New York: Mcgraw-Hill, Inc., 1968.
Mark Allen Weiss, Data Structures & Problem Solving using JAVA,
2nd edition, Addison Wesley, Inc., 2002, pp. 570.
Anthony C. Parsons, W. Mack Grady, Edward J. Powers, John C.
Soward, A Direction Finder for Power Quality Disturbances Based
Upon disturbance Power and Energy, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.
15, no. 3, pp. 1081-1086, July 2000
Anthony C. Parsons, W. Mack Grady, Edward J. Powers, John C.
Soward, Rules for Locating the Sources of Capacitor Switching
Disturbances, IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, vol.
2, pp. 794-799, 1999
W. H. Kersting, Radial distribution test feeders, IEEE/PES Winter
Meeting, vol. 2, pp. 908 -912, 28 Jan. - 1 Feb. 2001.

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Dong-Jun Won (M 2005) received the B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
electrical engineering from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea in 1998,
2000 and 2004 respectively. He is currently a post-doctoral fellow at APT
center, University of Washington..
Seon-Ju Ahn (S 2002) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in Electrical
Engineering from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea in 2002 and 2004,
respectively. He is currently Ph.D. student at Seoul National University.
Il-Yop Chung (S 2001) received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
electrical engineering from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea in 1999,
2001 and 2005 respectively. He is currently a post-doctoral fellow at Korea
University.
Seung-Il Moon (M 1993) received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea in 1985. He
received the M.S. and Ph. D. degrees in electrical engineering from The Ohio
State University in 1989 and 1993, respectively. Currently, he is an associate
professor of school of electrical engineering and computer science at Seoul
National University.

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Sun Yat Sen University. Downloaded on July 20,2010 at 12:56:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.