right)\right]=K\cdot\textnormal{{E}}\left[\underline{z}\left(t\right)\underline{z}^{T}\left(s\right)\right]K^{T}\label{eq:corr_y}$$ Finally, the covariance and autocorrelation matrices for voltage magnitudes are a subset of the matrices from (\[eq:cov\_y\]) and (\[eq:corr\_y\]).

Fluctuation-induced deviations of the current magnitudes, $\Delta I_{ik}$, in a line between buses $i$ and $k$ can be found by linearizing the following: $$I_{ik}=Y_{ii}V_{i}e^{j\left(\phi_{ik}-\phi_{ik}+\theta_{i}-\theta_{k}\right)}+Y_{ik}V_{k}\label{eq:line_cur}$$ where $I_{ik}$ is the magnitude of the current of the line between buses $i,k$; $V_{i},\theta_{i}$ are the voltage magnitude and angle of bus $i$; $Y_{ii},\phi_{ii}$ and $Y_{ik},\phi_{ik}$ are magnitudes and angles of the diagonal and off-diagonal elements of the $Y_{BUS}$ matrix. By linearizing (\[eq:line\_cur\]) one can find $\Delta\underline{I}$ from $\Delta y$ and then compute the covariance and autocorrelation matrices of $\Delta\underline{I}$ from equations similar to (\[eq:cov\_y\]) and (\[eq:corr\_y\]).

Comparing the semi-analytical method with the numerical solution shows that the former is significantly more time-efficient. For the numerical simulations in this paper, we solved (\[eq:diff\])–(\[eq:load\_corr\]) using the trapezoidal DAE solver in the Power System Analysis Toolbox (PSAT) [@milano2005open]. To find numerical values for $\sigma^{2}$ and $R(\Delta t)$ we ran 100 240s simulations, with an integration step size of 0.01s, and then computed the statistics. For the 39-bus case with 140 variables, solving for $\sigma_{z}^{2}$ using the semi-analytical method took approximately 0.08s, whereas calculating the variances using numerical simulations took about 24 hours.

Useful early warning signs: voltage magnitudes and line currents\[sec:Useful-early-signs\]
==========================================================================================

This
right)\right]=K\cdot\textnormal{{E}}\left[\underline{z}\left(t\right)\underline{z}^{T}\left(s\right)\right]K^{T}\label{eq: corr_y}$$ Finally, the covariance and autocorrelation matrices for voltage magnitudes are a subset of the matrix from (\[eq: cov\_y\ ]) and   (\[eq: corr\_y\ ]). 

 Fluctuation - induce deviations of the current magnitudes, $ \Delta I_{ik}$, in a line between bus topology $ i$ and $ k$ can be found by linearizing the pursuit: $ $ I_{ik}=Y_{ii}V_{i}e^{j\left(\phi_{ik}-\phi_{ik}+\theta_{i}-\theta_{k}\right)}+Y_{ik}V_{k}\label{eq: line_cur}$$ where $ I_{ik}$ is the magnitude of the current of the line between bus $ i, k$; $ V_{i},\theta_{i}$ are the voltage magnitude and slant of bus   $ i$; $ Y_{ii},\phi_{ii}$ and $ Y_{ik},\phi_{ik}$ are magnitudes and angles of the diagonal and away - diagonal elements of the $ Y_{BUS}$ matrix. By linearize (\[eq: line\_cur\ ]) one can find $ \Delta\underline{I}$ from $ \Delta y$ and then calculate the covariance and autocorrelation matrix of $ \Delta\underline{I}$ from equations similar to (\[eq: cov\_y\ ]) and (\[eq: corr\_y\ ]). 

 Comparing the semi - analytic method with the numerical solution show that the early is significantly more prison term - efficient. For the numerical simulations in this newspaper, we solved (\[eq: diff\])–(\[eq: load\_corr\ ]) using the trapezoidal DAE solver in the Power System Analysis Toolbox (PSAT) [ @milano2005open ]. To find numerical values for $ \sigma^{2}$ and $ R(\Delta t)$ we ran 100 240s simulations, with an integration step size of 0.01s, and then computed the statistics. For the 39 - bus case with 140 variables, solving for $ \sigma_{z}^{2}$ using the semi - analytic method took approximately 0.08s, whereas account the variance using numerical simulations took about 24 hours. 

 Useful early admonition signs: voltage magnitudes and line currents\[sec: Useful - early - signs\ ] 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 This
rigjt)\right]=K\cdot\textnormal{{E}}\ltft[\underline{z}\left(j\rught)\unverline{a}^{T}\left(s\rkght)\right]K^{T}\label{eq:corr_y}$$ Finaplt, the covariance and autocofrelation matricew foc voltage magnitnses are a subact of vhe matrices frpm (\[eq:cov\_y\]) dnd (\[eq:corr\_y\]).

Flucduxtnon-induced deviations of the current magnitidfs, $\Delta I_{ik}$, ig a kyne gvtceen buses $i$ and $k$ can be found by lintarizing the folloeing: $$I_{ik}=Y_{ii}V_{i}e^{j\left(\phi_{ik}-\phl_{ik}+\tjeta_{i}-\theta_{k}\right)}+Y_{in}V_{k}\label{eq:lune_cte}$$ where $I_{ik}$ ks the magnitude of thg current of the line between bures $i,l$; $V_{i},\theta_{i}$ aee hve voltage nagninude and anglc of buv $i$; $Y_{ii},\pni_{ii}$ and $Y_{ik},\phl_{ik}$ ace mqgnitudes and angles mf the diagonal anq off-diagmncl elements of the $Y_{BYS}$ matrhx. Bf livwarkzihg (\[es:line\_ckr\]) kne can fihd $\Delta\undwrline{I}$ from $\Delta u$ wbd then compufe the cjvariance and autocorrelation matrices mf $\Selta\underline{I}$ from eqyations similar to (\[eq:fov\_y\]) and (\[qq:corr\_y\]).

Comparing the semi-analytical method with tve nujdrieql souytlon shows that the former is significantly mows uimv-efficient. For thc numerical simulayilnx in this papet, we solves (\[eq:diff\])–(\[eq:load\_corr\]) using jhe trqpezoidal DAE solver in the Power System Analysis Tojobox (PSAT) [@milano2005opzn]. To find nbmericsl vakues for $\sigma^{2}$ and $R(\Delca t)$ ws ran 100 240s silulations, dith an integratkon sdep size of 0.01s, and then com[uted the stacistics. Wor jhe 39-bus case with 140 varldbles, solving for $\digma_{e}^{2}$ usinc the semi-wnalytical method took approximevely 0.08s, whereax walbulating che vaviances using ntmerical simulctions tjok acout 24 houra.

Useful early warnyng signs: voldwge magnitudxs and lige cyrrebts\[sec:Urdful-early-signs\]
==========================================================================================

Yhis
right)\right]=K\cdot\textnormal{{E}}\left[\underline{z}\left(t\right)\underline{z}^{T}\left(s\right)\right]K^{T}\label{eq:corr_y}$$ Finally, the covariance and autocorrelation matrices magnitudes a subset the matrices from of current magnitudes, $\Delta in a line buses $i$ and $k$ can be by linearizing the following: $$I_{ik}=Y_{ii}V_{i}e^{j\left(\phi_{ik}-\phi_{ik}+\theta_{i}-\theta_{k}\right)}+Y_{ik}V_{k}\label{eq:line_cur}$$ where $I_{ik}$ is the magnitude of the current the line between buses $i,k$; $V_{i},\theta_{i}$ are the voltage magnitude and angle of $i$; and are and angles of the diagonal and off-diagonal elements of the $Y_{BUS}$ matrix. By linearizing (\[eq:line\_cur\]) one find $\Delta\underline{I}$ from $\Delta y$ and then compute covariance and autocorrelation matrices $\Delta\underline{I}$ from equations similar to and Comparing the method the solution shows that former is significantly more time-efficient. For the numerical simulations in this paper, we solved (\[eq:diff\])–(\[eq:load\_corr\]) using the DAE solver Power System Toolbox [@milano2005open]. find numerical values and $R(\Delta t)$ we ran 100 an integration step size of 0.01s, and then the statistics. the 39-bus case with 140 variables, for $\sigma_{z}^{2}$ using the semi-analytical method took approximately whereas calculating the variances using numerical simulations took about 24 hours. Useful early warning signs: and line currents\[sec:Useful-early-signs\] ==========================================================================================
right)\right]=K\cdot\textnormal{{e}}\left[\underLine{z}\LefT(t\rIgHt)\unDerlIne{z}^{T}\left(s\righT)\RighT]K^{T}\label{eq:corr_y}$$ Finally, The coVaRIancE AnD autoCorrelaTIoN MAtrIcEs For VoLTaGe magNitUdes are A subset of tHe mAtRices from (\[eq:cOV\_y\]) And (\[eq:corr\_y\]).

fluCtuation-induCed DeviatIoNs oF The cuRreNt magNitudeS, $\delta I_{Ik}$, in a line BeTWeen buSEs $i$ and $k$ CAN bE fouNd by linearizing thE FoLLowing: $$I_{ik}=Y_{ii}V_{i}E^{j\left(\PhI_{Ik}-\PHI_{ik}+\TheTa_{i}-\theta_{k}\rIgHt)}+Y_{ik}v_{K}\label{eQ:LiNE_CUr}$$ wHEre $I_{ik}$ is the maGnitude of thE CurRent of ThE liNE betweEn busEs $I,K$; $V_{i},\Theta_{i}$ are thE volTage magniTude anD Angle of BUs $i$; $Y_{ii},\pHi_{ii}$ anD $Y_{iK},\phI_{ik}$ aRE mAgNitUdES anD AnGleS Of tHe diagonAl AnD off-dIagoNAL ELemeNts Of thE $Y_{BUS}$ Matrix. By lineaRizIng (\[eQ:LinE\_cur\]) oNe can Find $\deLta\unDerlinE{I}$ froM $\DElta y$ and then comPute The covariAncE aNd aUtOcorrELation MatRicEs of $\DelTa\underLIne{i}$ fROM EqUations similar to (\[eq:CoV\_Y\]) AnD (\[eq:corr\_y\]).

comparINg ThE Semi-analYtIcaL metHOD with The nUMeRical solUtion sHOwS tHat the fOrMer is sIgNifIcaNtly mORe tiMe-effiCient. For The nuMErical simulatiONs in this paper, WE sOLVeD (\[Eq:diFf\])–(\[eQ:load\_corr\]) usIng tHE traPezoIDaL DAe SolveR in thE POWeR system Analysis ToolbOx (pSAT) [@miLano2005oPen]. To find numeRical valueS FOR $\sigma^{2}$ anD $R(\DeLTa T)$ We ran 100 240s simulatiOns, wiTh an integrATion step Size oF 0.01s, and theN computed THE statistIcs. for The 39-Bus CASe With 140 variables, SOLvinG fOr $\sigma_{Z}^{2}$ usIng the sEmi-AnaLytIcaL mEthod took ApproximAtElY 0.08s, WhEreAs calCUlating tHe VarIaNceS usinG NumeriCal siMulaTiOnS TooK about 24 hOUrS.

uSefuL eArLy waRniNg Signs: VoltAGe mAgnitudEs and line CurREnts\[SeC:USeful-eaRly-signs\]
==========================================================================================

This
right)\right]=K\cdot\textn ormal{{E}} \left [\u nde rl ine{ z}\l eft(t\right)\u n derl ine{z}^{T}\left(s\righ t)\ri gh t ]K^{ T }\ label {eq:cor r _y } $ $ F in al ly,  t h ecovar ian ce andautocorrel ati on  matrices fo r  v oltage mag nit udes are a s ubs et ofth e m a trice s f rom ( \[eq:c o v\_y\] ) and (\[ eq : corr\_ y \]).

F l u ct uati on-induced deviat i on s  of the curren t magn it u de s ,  $\ Del ta I_{ik}$ ,in al ine bet w ee n b use s  $i$ and $k$can be foun d  by  linea ri zin g  the f ollow in g : $ $I_{ik}=Y_{ ii}V _{i}e^{j\ left(\ p hi_{ik} - \phi_{i k}+\th eta _{i }-\t h et a_ {k} \r i ght ) }+ Y_{ i k}V _{k}\lab el {e q:lin e_cu r } $ $  whe re$I_{ ik}$is the magnit ude  oft hecurre nt of  the  l ine b etween  buse s$i,k$; $V_{i},\ thet a_{i}$ ar e t he  vo lt age m a gnitud e a ndangle o f bus $ i $;$Y _ { i i} ,\phi_{ii}$ and $Y _{ i k }, \phi_{ik }$ are ma gn i tudes an dang leso f  thediag o na l and of f-diag o na lelement sof the  $ Y_{ BUS }$ ma t rix.  By li nearizin g (\[ e q:line\_cur\]) one can find$ \D e l ta \ unde rli ne{I}$ from  $\D e ltay$ a n dthe n  comp ute t he co v ariance and autocor re lation  matr ices of $\Del ta\underli n e { I}$ from  equ a ti o ns similar to(\[eq :cov\_y\]) and (\[e q:cor r\_y\]). 

Compari n g  the sem i-a nal yti cal m et hod with then u meri ca l solut ion  showstha t t hefor me r is sign ificantl ymo re  t ime -effi c ient. Fo rthe  n ume rical simula tions  inth is pap er, wes ol v e d (\ [e q: diff \]) –( \[eq: load \ _co rr\]) u sing thetra p ezoi da lDAE sol ver in the Po we r System A na lys is Too l b ox (PSAT ) [@milano2005open]. To find nu mer icalvalu es for $\ sig ma^{2} $ a n d $R(\ Deltat)$ w eran 1 00 24 0 s  s imu la tions, wit h aninteg ra tion  step s ize of 0.01s, andt hen  computed the  st atis t i cs . F o rt he39 - bus c ase with 140 va riables, s ol v in g for $\si g ma_ {z }^{2}$using t he se m i-analy tical met hod tookap prox i m ate ly 0.08s,whereascalculati n g the va rianc esusingnu mer icalsimula t ion s too k abou t24 hou rs.
Us eful ear ly warning signs: volta ge mag nitud esand linecur r ent s\[sec:Us eful -early-sig ns\ ]
= ===== === = ===== ==== = == === = ===== ==== = ========= = == === = = == =========== = = = === ===== === = ====== ===
This
right)\right]=K\cdot\textnormal{{E}}\left[\underline{z}\left(t\right)\underline{z}^{T}\left(s\right)\right]K^{T}\label{eq:corr_y}$$ Finally,_the covariance_and autocorrelation matrices for_voltage magnitudes_are_a subset_of_the matrices from_(\[eq:cov\_y\]) and (\[eq:corr\_y\]).

Fluctuation-induced deviations_of the current magnitudes,_$\Delta I_{ik}$, in_a_line between buses $i$ and $k$ can be found by linearizing the following: $$I_{ik}=Y_{ii}V_{i}e^{j\left(\phi_{ik}-\phi_{ik}+\theta_{i}-\theta_{k}\right)}+Y_{ik}V_{k}\label{eq:line_cur}$$_where_$I_{ik}$ is_the_magnitude_of the current of the_line between buses $i,k$; $V_{i},\theta_{i}$_are the_voltage magnitude and angle of bus $i$; $Y_{ii},\phi_{ii}$ and_$Y_{ik},\phi_{ik}$_are magnitudes and_angles of the diagonal and off-diagonal elements of the_$Y_{BUS}$ matrix. By linearizing (\[eq:line\_cur\]) one_can find $\Delta\underline{I}$_from_$\Delta_y$ and then compute_the covariance and autocorrelation matrices of_$\Delta\underline{I}$ from equations similar to (\[eq:cov\_y\])_and (\[eq:corr\_y\]).

Comparing the semi-analytical method with the_numerical solution shows that the former_is significantly more time-efficient. For_the numerical_simulations in this paper, we_solved (\[eq:diff\])–(\[eq:load\_corr\]) using_the trapezoidal_DAE solver in_the Power System Analysis Toolbox (PSAT)_[@milano2005open]. To find_numerical values for $\sigma^{2}$ and $R(\Delta_t)$_we ran 100_240s_simulations,_with an_integration step size_of_0.01s, and_then_computed the statistics. For the 39-bus_case_with 140 variables, solving for $\sigma_{z}^{2}$ using_the semi-analytical method took_approximately_0.08s, whereas calculating the_variances using numerical simulations took_about 24 hours.

Useful early warning signs:_voltage magnitudes_and line_currents\[sec:Useful-early-signs\]
==========================================================================================

This