IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-104, No.

5, May 1985 1035

NETWORK OBSERVABILITY: IDENTIFICATION OF OBSERVABLE ISLANDS AND MEASUREMENT PLACEMENT

A. Monticelli Felix F. Wu

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences

and the Electronics Research Laboratory
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720

Abstract - Two algorithms are presented; one for (i) testing the taminate the state estimation of the observable islands. In this paper an
observability of a network and (ii) identifying the observable islands algorithm is also presented for measurement placement which
when the network is unobservable, and the other for selecting a (i) selects a minimal set of additional measurements to make the net-
minimal set of additional measurements to make the network observ- work observable
able. The two algorithms are based on triangular factorization of the (ii)
guarantees the additional measurements would not contaminate
gain matrix and are characterized by (i) being extremely simple, (ii) the state estimation results.
using, subroutines already in a state estimation program, and (iii) incur-
ring very little extra computation. The design and testing of the algo- It should be noted that a more general problem for measurement
rithms are presented in this paper. placement in the planning stage is the problem of selecting an optimal
set of measurements based certain criterion, such
on the quality of as

I. INTRODUCTION the state estimation, or the reliability of having observable network

an

under different contingencies, etc. [10-15].

The static state estimation for on-line applications in power sys-
tem control centers processes a set of often redundant measurements to The observability analysis is performed during the triangular fac-
obtain the best estimate of the state of the system. A power network is torization of the gain matrix G. For identification of observable
observable if the set of measurements makes the state estimation possi- islands, usually one solution of linearized state estimation is required
a

ble. The observability depends on the number of measurements and where the triangular factorization of the gain matrix already done was

their geographic distribution. Even if the system is designed to be
observable, temporary unobservability may occur due to network topol-
ogy changes or failures in the telecommunication systems.
Mathematically network observability is related to the rank of the
Jacobian matrix of the estimation equations. However the rank of a
matrix is very sensitive to the numerical values of its elements,
whereas the observability should not. Therefore most of the proposed
in the observability test. The measurement placement algorithm also
makes use of the triangular factorization of the gain matrix and the
solution of a linearized state estimation problem. Thus the observabil-
ity analysis imposes very little extra cost in computation. Indeed it is a
fraction of the computation required for the state estimation algorithm
itself. The method is also stable and robust. The proposed algorithms
use essentially the same subroutines already available in the existing
state estimation program. The approach of this
new reduces the paper

methods on network observability are combinatoric in nature and use observability problem to a subproblem of general state estima-
more
no float-point calculation. Clements and Wollenberg [11 proposed a
a

tion problem, which means simplification in coding, reduction of inter-

heuristic procedure to process measurements for observability. facing problems, in addition to computational savings.
Allemong, Irisarri and Sasson [2] pointed out that the method in [1] is
conservative in the sense that they may label an observable system as The two algorithms are based the results derived
on in [16]. At
unobservable and proposed a modified version. Horton and Masiello least Conclusion section of that should be consulted for the
paper

[3] extended the method in [11 to decoupled state estimators. understanding of the algorithms. After the presentation of each algo-
Handschin and Bongers [41, based on a necessary condition for observa- rithm in what follows, an illustrative example is worked out in detail.
bility, proposed a method which tests the connectivity of the Jabobian The algorithms have been tested extensively on all systems that have
matrix. Clements, Krumpholz and Davis [5-81 developed a theoretic been studied for observability in the published literature. Some test
topological basis of a "correct" algorithm for network observability. The results are included in the paper.
algorithm utilizes concepts from graph theory. Quintana, Simoes-
Costa, and Mandel [91 recognized the fact that the problem formulated
in [4-8] may be solved by a matroid intersection algorithm. The com- II. THE OBSERVABILITY ALGORITHM
binatoric methods seem very complex and computationally expensive. This algorithm tests the observability of network and identifies
a

They are a set of completely separate algorithms from the state estima- observable islands (the sub-network and the measurement subset)
tion problem. when the network is not observable. It is based the results derived
on

in the theory of network observability that have developed [16.

In this paper, first an algorithm is presented which: we

Strictly speaking one should apply the observability algorithm first

to the P 0 model and then to the QV model. The intersections of the
(i) tests the observability of the network and resulting observable islands from the models two the observable are
(ii)
identifies the observable islands of the network when it is not islands of the system. But since in practice the real and reactive power
observable. measurements usually come in pairs, the second application of observa-
When the network is not observable, one would like to know bility algorithm is seldom necessary.

where additional measurements should be placed so that the network It should be pointed out thAt in state estimation if branch that a

will become observable. In system operation when temporary unobser- neither has a flow measurement it on injection measurement at
nor an

vability occurs, sometimes it is possible to add some pseudo- one of its terminal nodes, that branch does not come into the matrix H
measurements to make the system observable. In such cases, it is and thus it does not play any role neither in observability analysis nor
desirable that the lower quality pseudo-measurements should not con- in state estimation. Such a branch be discarded from further con-
may

On leave from Departamento de Engenharia Eletrical, UNICAMP, Campinas, S. P., sideration.

Brazil.
Step 1. Initialize the measurement set of interrest (current content
of the measurement set for observability analysis) as consist-
ing of all available measurements.

84 SM 580-7 A paper recommended and approved Step 2. Update the power network of interests (current content of
by the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of the network for observability analysis ) by removing all
the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation branches that neither have flow measurement nor at least
a

at the IEEE/PES 1984 Sumner Meeting, Seattle, one injection measurement at its terminal nodes.
Washington, July 15 - 20, 1984. Manuscript submit- Step 3. Form gain matrix Go.
ted 7ebruary 2, 1984; made available for printing 0-
June 6, 1984.
Step 4. Perform triangular factorization of
pseudo-measurements whenever a zero
Go
pivot is
introducing
encountered.
If only one zero-pivot occurs (necessarily at the end), stop.
Else
0018-9510/85/0005-1035$01.00©1985 IEEE
1036
Step 5. Solve the DC estimator equation GOO = H7oWpzp for 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
considering all the measured values equal to zero, except for 1 1-3/5 -2/5 1
the 0-pseudo-measurements that assume the values
=k -0,1,2, and so on. . 1 -1 I 2
Step 6. Evaluate branch flows Pkm = xk,:, (4, - 0"),G and £ being
G(4) 1 -3 1 1 3
_= =~~1 1 O1
=
the k-th and m-th components of q for all branches k-m
4

Step 7.
within the power network obtained in Step 2. If there are
no power flows Pkm .0, stop. Else
Update the power network of interest by removing all
branches k-m with Pkm .0, these are unobservable
branches.
Step 8. Update the measurement set of interest by removing power
injection measurements from buses adjacent to at least one
of the branches removed in Step 7. These are irrelevant
measurements.
Step 9. Return to Step 2.
Comment: The algorithm as presented is an iterative scheme as
evidenced by the presence of Step 9. The iteration is required because
the subnetworks identified can only be classified theoretically as candi-
dates for observable islands (see discussion in [161). Except for patho-
logical cases, however, these subnetworks are usually indeed observable
islands. Thus in the identification of observable islands, usually only
two solutions of the linearized state estimator is required (in Step 5).
III. EXAMPLE
The six-nodes network of Fig. 1 is used to illustrate how the
observability algorithm works. All branch impedances are equal to jI,
and.all weighting factors are equal to 1. For the sake of simplicity, in
the examples discussed in this section the triangular factorization of GO
is performed without using any optimal pivot ordering criterion.
,#I
#2
==O 0 54k=5
_1 0 6+-n=6
In this case we have two zero-pivots, which means that the
system is divided into two or more observable islands (an
isolated node is considered a one-node island). The zero
pivots occur at nodes 5 and 6. We can introduce 0-pseudo-
measurements at nodes 5 and 6. Let wo = 1 be the weight-
ing factor assigned to these measurement. The introduction
of these two measurements makes G0(5,5) = 3 and
G0(6,6) = 2. The (5,5)-th and (6,6)-th elements of the
upper triangular matrix Uo become equal to 1.
Step 5. At this,step we have to solve the DC state estimator equa-
tion GOO = H TWpzp. All the regular measurements are
considered equal to zero; the 0-pseudo-measurements are
05 = 0 and 06 = 1. Thus the independent vector:
H T Wpzp = [0,0,0,0,0,1.] T
Step 6. The branch flows in the power network of interest are:
P1,2 = 0.;P1,3= 0.;P3,4 =-1.;P4,5 = 0.; and
P4,6 =-1.
Step 7. The unobservable 3-4 and 4-6 are removed from the power
network.
Step 8. The irrelevant injection measurement P4 is removed from
the measurement set of interest.
Step 9. Return to Step 2. Notice that at this stage of the observabil-
ity analysis, the power network of interest and the measure-
ment set of interest are as given in Fig. 2.
Step 2'. No branches are removed at this step.
Step 3'. The new gain matrix Go is:

1 2 3 4 5 6
5 -3 -2 1
-3 3 1 2
G6 =
-2 1 1 3
1 -1 4
~-1 1 5
Fig. 1. Six-nodes network example.
6
Step 1. The measurement set of interest is {PI,P4,PP12,P4,5}
Step 2. Branch 2-3 is removed from the power network. ,#1
Step 3. The gain matrix Go is:

1 2 3 4 5 6
5 13 -2 1
-3 2 __
1 =- 2
-2 I 3 -4 3 #4
-4 11 -4 -3 4
-1 -4 2 3 5
_= ~~~~~1-_3 1 _ 6

Step 4. By Gaussian elimination we get:

Fig. 2. Six-nodes network example.

Step 4'. By Gaussian elimination we get:

 1037
1 2 3 *4 5 6
Test B-2: 'After 2 measurements are removed, there are two
1 -3/5 -2/5 _ 1 observable islands. The smaller island is formed by nodes 86 through
1 -1 2 90.
I 1 3÷03=0
u6
I = __ 1 -1 4

E-I__ 1 _ 6+e6=2
O-pseudo-measurements have been introduced in nodes 3,
5, and 6, with weightings w = 1.
Step 5'. At this step we solve the DC state estimator equation for 0
HJTWpzp = [0.,0.,O.,O.,l.,2JT
O = [O.,O.,o.,1.,1.,2.]T
Step 6'. The branch flows in the power network of interest are:
P1,2 P1 3 P4,5 0. We have three islands, each one
= = =

with a different angle as shown in Fig. 3.

#I

IC, 8421 85:1

3t n ,3 4 I
02-° oIII
r% e6- 2
013
Fig. 3. Observable islands
IV. TEST RESULTS
The new observability algorithm has been tested on all systems
that have been studied for observability in the published literature.
Each network has been studied for a variety of measurement systems,
including both observable and nonobservable cases. The new algorithm
worked satisfactorily in all cases. Some of the tests performed on a
14-bus network and a 121-bus network are summarized in the follow-
ing.
In the observability algorithm that is presently implemented, we
set all line reactances and all weighting factors equal to one in the
linearized state estimation model. Thus only topological data of the
network and of the measurement system are used. All computations
are performed in single precision on a 32-bit word machine. Values of
the pivot elements and the flows with magnitude less than 10-4 are
considered zero.
A. The 14-bus Network
The 14-bus network shown in Fig. 4, was studied by Krumpholz,
Clements, and Davis in Ref. [5].
Test A-i: The measurement system is as in Fig. 4. The network
is observable.
Test A-2: Injection measurement 5 is removed. The network
splits into an observable island [1;2;3;4;5;6;7;8;9) and an unobservable
island {6;10;11;12;13;141.
B. The 121-Bus Network
This is the 121-buses network studied by Quintana, Simoes-Costa,
and Mandel in Ref. [9].
Test B-i: The measurement system has 148 flow measurements
and 8 injection measurements. Due to space limitation, the data is not
reproduced here, but is available in an internal report. The network is
observable.
e_
Fig. 4. The 14-bus network
V. MEASUREMENT PLACEMENT ALGORITHM
This algorithm selects a set of additional pseudo-measurements to
make' the network barely observable. Thus they would not contaminate
the state estimation of the observable' islands. The selection is per-
formed sequentially by adding one pseudo-measurement at a time. The
candidates for additional pseudo-measurements to make the whole net-
work observable are the injection measurements for which the nodes it
is connected to belong to different observable islands. The additional
pseudo-measurement if not redundant will make some unobservable
branches observable, thus coalescing observable islands into larger
ones. Computationally this selection process can be accomplished by a
scheme which adds a pseudo-measurement from the candidate list and
then recalculates the observable islands at each iteration until the whole
network becomes one observable island. In order to guarantee that the
new injection measurement is not redundant, it should be selected at a
node at which the calculated (estimated) power injection from the
result of the state estimation of the observable islands is nonzero.
Thus an algorithm may be designed for measurement placement which
blends into itself the basic steps of the observability algorithm. The
algorithm presented below is an embodiment of such an idea. The
computational requirement of the algorithm depends on an efficient
scheme for updating the triangular factors of the gain matrix after a
new measurement is added. This is given in the Appendix.
Step 1. Form gain matrix G0.
Step 2. Perform triangular factorization of Go introducing 0-
pseudo-measurements whenever a zero pivot is encountered.
If only one zero pivot occurs, stop.
Step 3. Solve the DC state estimator equation for Q considering all
the measured values equal to zero, except for the 0-pseudo-
measurements that assume tha values ok = 0,1,2, and so
on.
Step 4. Determine the set of the nodes that do not have injection
measurements and whose adjacent branches have at least
one non-zero flow. These nodes are candidates to have
injection pseudo-measurements. If there is no candidate
nodes, stop. Else
Step 5. Introduce a injection pseudo-measurements at one of the
candidate nodes and update the LDLT factors of G9 using
the algorithm (A20) in the Appendix.
Step 6. Solve the DC state estimator equation for Oas in step 3.
Compute the residuals ok' - for- all 0-pseudo-
1038
measurements with non-zero residual. Update the LDLT
factors of Go using algorithm (A20) in the Appendix.
Step 7. Return to Step 3.
A i-
N =N Q
=
VI. EXAMPLE
In this section we present an example to illustrate how the
pseudo-measurement placement algorithm works. Consider the unob-
servable network of Fig. 1.
Step 1. The gain matrix Go is: A
e2 = I
1 2 3 4 5 6 l
A
f
5 -3 -2 1 e6: e z I

-3 2 1 2
-2 1 2 -3 1 1 3
-- -3 -j:0 -4 -3 4 Fig. 5. State of the network after step 3.
1 -4 2 1 5
1 2 3 4 5 6
L- ...I _1 -3 1 1 6
1 1
Step 2. By Gaussian elimination we get:
-3/5 1 2
1-2/5 -i 1- 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 -3 1 4
1 Il 1 1 11 -1/2 ~1 5
-3/5 1 = = = 2 _____ 1 -1/2 -1/2 1 6
-2/5 -Y1 1I 3
~ ~ ~ -
1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6
6÷dm
_

1 -1 1
5 1
l1 0 0 1 6-+- 1/5 2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 - -T~~~~~~~~~ 4
5 1
- 1/5
_I_I

=
~~~3/2 5
2
3 1 1 ~~~~~4/3 6
1 4
1 Step 6. Solving GO0O HpOWpz p for q considering
5 Pj" =P4 = P6- P1,2 = P4"5 = 0° 0Sm =O, and
1
6 6= 1, we get ( ' 1/2,½,1/2,lh,1/4,1/41. The 0-
residuals are 0'm - - ½ and -6 = - 1/4.
Pseudo-measurement 04m is removed. The new LDL T fac-
0-pseudo-measurements have been introduced in nodes 5
tors, are the same as in step 5, except for the D(6,6) 1/3.
and 6. Step 3'. Solving GOO = H/oWpzp for q considering
Step 3. At this step we have to solve the equation P1¶.= P4 = P6 = Pj,2 = P4 5 =0 and 0 m = 0, we
Goo H p1;WpZ p.
= All measurements are made equal to get 0T = (0,0,0,0,0,0].
zero, except for the 0-pseudo-measurements that are
Step 4'. The system is observable.
= and 0 = 1. Thus the independent vector is
VII. TEST RESULTS
H TWpzp [0,0,0,0,0,1] T The new pseudo-measurement placement algorithm has been tried
The solution Ois obtained through the factors LDLT: on two systems: the 14-bus system studied in ref. [8] and the 121-bus
system of ref. [9].
@= 1-1,-1,-1,0,0,1]

A. The 14-Bus Network 181

The solution is illustrated by Fig. 5. Figure 8 of ref. [8] shows the IEEE 14-bus system with the "must
use" measurements (injections at nodes 1,2,3,7,9,12, and 14, and flows
Step 4. The set of nodes that are candidates to have injection in branches 1-2, 1-5, 2-3, 4-7, 4-9, 6-13, 7-8, and 7-9) and pseudo
pseudo-measurements is f3,6). measurements (injections ar nodes 3, 5, and 10). Pseudo-
Step 5. A power injection pseudo-measurement is introduced at measurements are used only if necessary to make the system observ-
node 6. The new factors LDLT are obtained using algo- able.
rithm (A20). Initially we consider only the must-use measurements. At step 3
of the algorithm we realize that the system is unobservable: 0-pseudo-
measurements are introduced at nodes 5, 10, and 14. At step 4 the fol-
lowing nodes are candidates to have an injection pseudo-measurement:
5, 6, 10, 11, and 13. Pseudo-measurements are available at nodes 3, 5,
and 10. At step 5 an injection pseudo-measurement is introduced at
node 5. At step 6 0 " is deleted. At step 4' (second cycle) we still
have three candidates to receive injection pseudo-measurements: nodes
6, 10, and 11. There is an available injection pseudo-measurement at
node 10. At step 5' an injection pseudo-measurement is introduced at

node 10. At step 6' Ofl is deleted. At step 4" (third cycle) all nodal
injections are equal to zero. So, the algorithm stops. The introduction
of pseudo-measurements p5 and pj7 have made the system observ-
able.
B. The 121-Bus Network 191
The measurement system used is such that the nodes 87 through
90 are unobservable. At step 2 pseudo-measurements 0o2,86',oj8, and
90 are introduced. Injection pseudo-measurements are added as fol-
lows: add P#8m and delete Ofl; add P86 and delete O 6; and finally add
P(4 and delete O m. Pseudo-measurement 04T is kept as angular refer-
ence.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Two algorithms are presented, one for (i) testing the observability
of a network and (ii) identifying the observable islands when the net-
work is unobservable, and the other for selecting a minimal set of addi-
tional pseudo-measurements to make the network observable. Both
algorithms are characterized by:
* being extremely simple.
* using subroutines already in a state estimation program.
* requiring only the triangular factorization of the gain matrix of the
linearized state estimator when the system is observable, and the
solution of usually two linearized state estimation when the sys-
tem is unobservable.
* being numerically stable and robust.
The computational requirement of the proposed algorithm is only a
fraction of the cost of the state estimation itself. Since subroutines in
the state estimation are used, the approach proposed in this paper
reduces the observability analysis to a subproblem of a more general
state estimation problem, which means simplification in coding, reduc-
tion of interfacing problems, in addition to computational savings.
The algorithm proposed in this paper can be easily implemented
in any existing state estimation program and take advantage of the
available subroutines therein. Since the linearized estimation state is
actually the first iteration of the decoupled state estimation algorithm,
further simplifications are possible when the observability algorithm is
implemented on a decoupled state estimation program. If so imple-
mented, we expect that the observability test would incur almost no
extra cost when the network is observable. This is extremely desirable
since most of the time the network is observable. We are currently
testing the feasibility of such simplifications.
The approach proposed in this paper represents our continuing
effort in the development of a comprehensive methodology to reduce
all state estimation related problems into a more general state estima-
tion problem. Recently the external network modeling has been suc-
cessfully incorporated into the general state estimation problem [171.
The bad data identification problem has been addressed earlier [18].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute,
Power System Planning and Operations Program, under Contract RP
1999-6.
REFERENCES
[1] K. A. Clements and B. F. Wollenberg, "An Algorithm for Obser-
vability Determination in Power System State Estimation," Paper
A75 447-3, IEEE PES Summer Power Meeting, San Francisco,
CA, 1975.
[2] J. J. Allemong, G. D. Irisarri, and A. M. Sasson, "An Examina-
tion of Solvability for State Estimation Algorithms," Paper A80
008-3, IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, 1980.
[3] J. S. Horton and R. D. Masiello, "On-Line Decoupled Observabil-
ity Processing," PICA Proc., Toronto, Ontario, pp. 420-426,
1977.
[4] E. Handschin and C. Bongers, "Theoretical and Practical Con-
siderations in the Design of State Estimators for Electric Power
Systems," in Computerized Operation of Power Systems, S. C.
Savulescu, Editor, Elsevier, pp. 104-136, 1972.
[5] G. R. Krumpholz, K. A. Clements, and P. W. Davis, "Power Sys-
tem Observability: A Practical Algorithm Using Network Topol-
ogy," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 99, pp.
1534-1542, July/Aug. 1980.
1039
[6] K. A. Clements, G. R. Krumpholz and P. W. Davis, "Power Sys-
tem State Estimation Residual Analysis: An Algorithm Using Net-
work Topology," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
100, no. 4, pp. 1779-1787, April 1981.
[7] K. A. Clements, G. R. Krumpholz and P. W. Davis, "Power Sys-
tem State Estimation with Measurement Deficiency: An Algo-
rithm that Determines the Maximal Observable Subnetwork,"
IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 101, no. 9, pp.
3044-3052, September 1982.
[81 K. A. Clements, G. R. Krumpholz and P. W. Davis, "Power Sys-
tem State Estimation with Measurement Deficiency: An
Observability/Measurement Placement Algorithm," IEEE Trans.
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-102, pp. 2012-2020, July
1983.
[9] V. H. Quintana, A. Simoes-Costa, and A. Mandel, "Power System
Observability Using a Direct Graph-Theoretic Approach," IEEE
Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 617-626,
March 1982.
[10] H. Edelmann, "A Universal Assessment of the Superior Quality of
Distribution of Measuring Points for the State Estimation of
High-Voltage Network," Proc. PSCC, Cambridge, U.K., 1975,
Paper No. 2.3/7.
[11] F. Ariatti, L. Marzio and P. Ricci, "Designing State Estimation in
View of Reliability," Proc. 5th, PSCC, Cambridge, U.K., Paper
No. 2.3/8.
[12] H. J. Koglin, "Optimal Measuring System for State Estimation,"
Proc. PSCC, Cambridge, U.K., 1975, Paper No. 2.3/12.
[13] E. E. Fetzer and P. M. Anderson, "Observability in the State Esti-
mation of Power Systems," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Sys-
tems, vol. PAS-94, pp. 1981-1988, Nov./Dec. 1975.
[14] K. Phua and T. S. Dillon, "Optimal Choice of Measurements for
State Estimation," PICA Proc., Toronto, Ontario, May 1977, pp.
43 1-441.
[15] S. Aam, L. Holten and 0. Gjerde, "Design of the Measurement
System for State Estimation in the Norwegian High-Voltage
Transmission Network," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems,
vl. PAS-102, pp. 3769-3777, December 1983.
[16] A. Monticelli and F. F. Wu, "Network Observability: Theory,"
submitted for presentation at IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Seat-
tle, WA 1984.
[17] A. Monticelli and F. F. Wu, "A Method that Combines Internal
State Estimation and External Network Modeling," IEEE PES
Winter Meeting, 1984, Dallas, 84WM 034-5, to appear in IEEE
Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems.
[18] A. Monticelli and A. Garcia, "Reliable Bad Data Processing for
Real-Time State Estimation," IEEE Trans. PAS, vol. 102, no. 5, pp.
1126-1139, May 1983.
[19] E. C. Housos and G. D. Irisarri, "A Sparse Variable Metric Optim-
ization Method Applied to the Solution of Power System Prob-
lems," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 101, no. 1,
pp. 195-202, January 1982.
[20] J. M. Bennett, "Triangular Factors of Modified Matrices," Numer-
ische Mathematik 7, pp. 217-221, 1965.
TRIANGULAR FACTORS UPDATING
Let A be a (nxn) symmetric matrix, whose triangular factors
LDLT are known, and let A be a matrix given by
A =A + av vT (A. 1)
where v is a nxl vector and a is a scalar (rank one modification). We
)yant to determine the triangular factors LDLT of the modified matrix
A as a function of the triangular factors LDLT of the original matrix.
Here we present a new derivation of triangular factors updating algo-
rithm, which is simpler than the ones given in [19,20] and can be easily
extended to rank p modifications.
Matrix A can be factorized as
A = LDLT (A.2)
when L is a lower triangular matrix given by
L = L1 2L n- I (A.3)
1040
and D is a diagonal matrix given by which means that we can put the elements of the original matrix A(°)
D =Dj1D-D D-' (A.4) as functions of d1,Q1, and A(lb-where A(') is the reduced matrix that
results from pivoting around a11 .
The elementary matrix Lj can be written down as Using the same kind of partition as in (A.8) and introducing
expressions (A.9), (A.1) can be rewritten as follows
J , 1- 1 1-%- 1 I 1 I

an a1 2 ._I d, #I I

L. =
- t
i (A.5) a (0) A 022 d111 A( +d l

A
..(0)
I .I I

where J is a (n-j) x 1 vector given by

[L. j,J,Lj+2,j, *--, Lnj
IT+ (A.6) LVI V2I Z
where Lsj is the ,j-thelement of L.
where L,j is the ij-th element of L.
The elementary matrix Dj is identical to a unit matrix except for (A.10)
the (j,j)-th element that is equal to df-1, where dj is the (j,j)-th ele- V2
ment of D. h
We know that by elementary matrix operations we can transform
A into a unit matrix:
av VT
[A(')
LIA(°)LlTD0 (A.7)
Let L 1 be the elementary matrix
L2A(l)L22D2D =AM
1 _T
Ln_lA(n-2)LTl Dn-I= -An-13
A(n-)Dn =In L= (A.11)
I
Let us now consider the first transformation in (A.7) with more _11 ': n-I
detail:
I
I i I OT an ~ (0) a12(0) T
a

Premultiplying (A.10) by L1 and posmultiplying LT, we get

rn-il 22 a1 dI d, (11 _-1) T

a0) A(O)
0 ~(1)
wA(.'22 )
aK

22 +
.
-:
d.d , - _I1) (11
#l6 I
_-I1)T
d-11 -11
t
T 1 o

o 1n-1 .II
22 v1 V v2- jl T|
I

PE (A.12)
LT11I
D
(A.8)
Identifying the corresponding submatrices in (A.8) we get

=() = d11 (A.9)

From the (1,1)-th element, we have
?1 =d, +av2 (A.13)
A2(O) A2(2) + dluIIT
From the (i,l)-th elements, for i = 2,---,n, we have
 1041
the expense of an additional subroutine, if the alternative theoretical ap-
0 = d1(Q1 -X1) + av1(v -v_ () A.14) proach required an additional factorization.
Finally, could the algorithms presented by the authors be extended
11 = (dlll +a v1V2)/?l (A.15) to insure redundancy at all busses rather than only observability? Such
redundancy would insure that the loss of any single measurement would
From the the (ij)-th elements, for i = 2,*--,n andj = 2,*,n, we have not cause observable islanding. Many electric utilities are interested in
meter placement algorithms which not only guarantee observability but
= A22) +
d,(1 -7 ) Tl -7) (A.16) also guarantee redundancy so as to insure that a bad measurement can
be identified.
+ a (v2 V1d1)(V2 VIII) -

Manuscript received July 30, 1984.

Introducing (A.14) into (A. 16) and simplifying:
(2) = A2(1) + a(l)v(l)v(l)T
where
a(1) =
Id1/d,
v =
V2 -
vlj 1 (A.19)
Thus, and711 can be obtained through (A.13) and (A.15) as func-
tions of d1, , and v. Also, expression (A.17) shows that the reduced
system (A.17) has the same structure of the original system (A.1),
which means that the same procedure can be used to determine d2 and
12, and so on.
The following algorithm can be used to update L and D:
For j =1,2,---,n
/3 =dj
dj,-dj + (-lI) a 2
terminate if j = n
y = a (-l) vjldj
For i = j+l,",n
v-vi -vjL(i,j)
L(i,j)<-L(i,j) + yv1
a(j) = a(i-1)8/ dj
Discussion
Walter L. Snyder, Jr. (Leeds & Northrup Company, North Wales, PA):
The authors are to be congratulated for a well-organized, rigorous, and
complete theoretical presentation of network observability. A Topological
approach has been used at Leeds & Northrup based on Refs. [1] and
[3] of the paper. This approach appears fully compatible with the more
theoretical approach as presented by Monticelli and Wu.
The topological approach was applied to a customer system of about
650 busses and 1,800 lines, including a very dense external equivalent.
Initially, the observability algorithm contained an error with respect to
the placement of pseudo-injections for coupling a load flow (injections
only) area to an area observed by line measurements. As a consequence,
there were actually two observable islands although this was not detected
at the time. The resultant solution converged to a point where the worst
angle correction was about one degree per iteration and then slowly
diverged until it blew up. Terminating the solution at the best iteration
showed unusually large voltage angle swings and hence, erroneous
lineflows over lines at the boundary between the two observable islands.
Eventual correction of the observability algorithm eliminated this
problem.
My question with respect to the above experience regards the fact that
no zero diagonals were experienced during the gain matrix factorization.
Most likely, one or more diagonals were extremely small due to round-
off error; and this caused the eventual divergence. Do the authors feel
that a tolerance value could be specified such that any diagonal below
this value indicates observable islanding and not a possible ill-
conditioning? In particular, could this tolerance be applied to the fac-
torization of the actual gain matrix without setting weighting factors and
parameters to 1.0 which would require a separate factorization?
The above question is asked because the observability module required
only about 10 percent of the time required by the factorization module
for the above-mentioned customer system. Hence, it would be more
desirable to retain a topologically oriented observability approach, at
A. Monticelli and F. F. Wu: We thank Mr. Snyder for his valuable com-
(A.17) ments. We would like first to point out the difference between (a)
topological observability [5, 7] and (b) numerical observability [5]. In the
literature, observability usually refers to topological observability. This
definition is followed in this paper. Numerical observability refers to the
(A.18) ability to solve the nonlinear state estimation equations from a given set
of initial conditions, i.e., the matrix equation at each iteration of the
state estimation solution is numerically nonsingular. The simple exam-
ple of Fig. 6 illustrates the difference. The three-bus system with the given
measurements is topologically observable. However the gain matrix (flat
voltage start) is singular is (i) E < 10-4 and (ii) a 32-bit work machine
is used [21]. This system is numerically unobservable when "normal equa-
tions approach" is used. The problem may be alleviated if other methods
for SE solution are used instead [21]. It is seen from this example that
numerical observability depends on the solution method used, the word
length of the machine, as well as the initial point. Numerical observability
implies topological observability, but the converge need not hold.
The approach to observability analysis that we proposed in this paper
is capable of unifying the analysis for topological observability and
numerical observability. Setting all line impedances and weighting fac-
tors to one in the dc state estimator, as done in the paper, provides the
analysis for topological observability. When real data are used in the
nonlinear state estimator, the analysis on Jacobian matrix at each itera-
tion gives numerical observability. In such a case, the specification of
(A.20) tolerance (as zero) is system dependent. There is no ready answer to Mr.
Snyder's question.
The "'topological-oriented approach" [1-9] uses graph-theoretic
criterion for (topological) observability analysis that has no direct link
to numerical observability. The software for (topological) observability
is a completely separate one from the state estimation solution software
itself. This separation is precisely the root of the problem encountered
by Mr. Snyder. An error in the (topological) observability software that
wrongly classifies an unobservable system observable would not be deleted
in the state estimation solution phase and might create false confidence
in the erroneous results. Therefore when the topoloigcal method is us-
ed. some sort of numerical checking is needed (additional software) in
performing triangular factorization of the gain matrix. Our approach
basically extends that methodology for numerical checking to the com-
plete topological observability analysis.
It should be noted that there is practically no overhead in computa-
tion when applying our approach for numerical observability. For
topological observability, one should not charge the full factorization
as computational overhead because the same optimal ordering is used
for state estimation solution. Moreover, the computational efficiency
of the topological method- varies from case to case; as pointed out in
[2], in cases where injection measurements cannot be transformed into
equivalent flows (see example in Ref. [2]), the topological method becomes
cumbersome.
To insure that the loss of any single measurement would not cause
unobservability, there should be no measurement in the system which
is critical [6]. Critical measurements may be detected by checking whether
the residual is zero.
We do not agree with the labeling of our approach as theoretical. The
algorighm presented in this paper is simple, readily implementable into
an existing state estimation software, and computationally efficient. The
theoretical foundation of the method presented in the companion paper
[16] merely justifies that the simple algorithm works.
REFERENCE
[21] A. Monticelli, C. A. F. Murari, and F. F. Wu, "A hybrid state
estimator: Solving normal equations by orthogonal transforma-
tions," submitted for publication.
Manuscript received December 26, 1984.