2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2018.10.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-objective evolutionary algorithm in tables for placement of SCADA and PMU considering the concept of Pareto Frontier

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By letting F(x) = 0, F(y) = 0, F(z) = 0, i.e., letting the rate of strategy change be zero, we can obtain the equilibrium points of this dynamic system, which are (0,0,0), (0,0,1), (0,1,0), (1,0,0), (1,1,0), (1,0,1), (0,1,1), and (1,1,1), respectively. These eight equilibrium points constitute the boundary of the domain of this evolutionary game, and the stability of these equilibrium points in this evolutionary system can be obtained by local stability analysis of the Jacobian matrix [57][58][59].…”
Section: Stability Analysis Of the Evolutionary Gamementioning
confidence: 99%
“…By letting F(x) = 0, F(y) = 0, F(z) = 0, i.e., letting the rate of strategy change be zero, we can obtain the equilibrium points of this dynamic system, which are (0,0,0), (0,0,1), (0,1,0), (1,0,0), (1,1,0), (1,0,1), (0,1,1), and (1,1,1), respectively. These eight equilibrium points constitute the boundary of the domain of this evolutionary game, and the stability of these equilibrium points in this evolutionary system can be obtained by local stability analysis of the Jacobian matrix [57][58][59].…”
Section: Stability Analysis Of the Evolutionary Gamementioning
confidence: 99%
“…By analyzing the data in Table 3, it can be seen that the difference of the placement schemes between the two models lies in the locations of the PMUs. For example, 29 PMUs are needed in both models under case 2, and the majority of PMUs are placed at the same location, namely, bus 1, 3,9,12,20,22,24,27,29,30,32,33,35,39,47,51,53,55,57; meanwhile, the rest few PMUs are placed at a different location, namely, bus 4,6,11,15,19,36,41,44,46,49 in multi-objective model and bus 5,7,14,18,38,40,42,43,45,50 in single-objective model. Obviously, the sum of adjacent buses of bus 4,6,11,15,19,36,41,44,46,49 is larger than bus 5,7,14,18,38,40,42,43,45,50. Thus, compared to single-objective models, parts of PMUs in multi-objective models are placed at the buses with more adjacent buses.…”
Section: Numerical Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Apparently, the developed placement model can provide solutions with higher reliability. ,11,12,15,19,20,22,24,26,28,29,30,31, 32,33,35,36,37,38,41,45,46,47,50,51,53,54,56,57 Multi-objective 29 0.00180 1,3,4,6,9,11,12,15,19,20,22,24,27,29,30,32,33,35,36,39,41,44,46,47,49,51,53,55,57 Single-objective 29 0.00298 1,3,5,7,9,12,14,18,20,22,24,27,29,30,32,33,35,38,39,40,42,43,45,47,…”
Section: Numerical Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In [14], information theory was used to formulate the PMU placement in terms of mutual information, which was then optimized by means of a greedy algorithm in order to reduce the number of PMU units while guaranteeing complete system observability. In [15,16], respectively, variable neighborhood search heuristic and genetic algorithms were applied for optimizing PMU placement considering minimum observability constraints. In [17], a multi-objective differential evolution algorithm was used to optimize placement cost and measurement reliability.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%