Comparisons of complex network based models and direct current power flow model to analyze power grid vulnerability under intentional attacks

被引:35
作者
Ouyang, Min [1 ]
Zhao, Lijing [1 ]
Pan, Zhezhe [1 ]
Hong, Liu [1 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Sch Automat, Wuhan 430074, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Power grid; Complex network models; Direct current flow; Vulnerability; Intentional attack; CASCADING FAILURES;
D O I
10.1016/j.physa.2014.01.070
中图分类号
O4 [物理学];
学科分类号
0702 ;
摘要
Many scholars have applied complex network based models to investigate power grid. vulnerability, but how effective are these models to capture the real performance is an interesting topic. This paper selects two typical complex network based models, including a purely topological model (PTM) and a betweenness based model (BBM), as well as a direct current power flow model (DCPFM), to simulate the topology-based and flow-based vulnerability of power grid under degree, betweenness, maximum traffic and importance based intentional attacks. The relationships of vulnerability results from different models are analyzed and discussed for model comparisons. Taking IEEE 300 power grid with line capacity set proportional to tolerant parameter tp as example, the results show that there exists a critical node attack intensity Al = 0.147, above which the three models produce almost identical topology-based vulnerability results under each attack strategy at any tp >= 1, while producing identical flow-based vulnerability results from PTM and DCPFM occurs atAl > 0.147, and Al > 0.73 for BBM and DCPFM, which indicates that the PTM can better approach the DCPFM for flow-based vulnerability analysis under intentional attacks. Similar results are also found for intentional edge attacks and other power grids. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:45 / 53
页数:9
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Structural vulnerability of the North American power grid [J].
Albert, R ;
Albert, I ;
Nakarado, GL .
PHYSICAL REVIEW E, 2004, 69 (02) :025103-1
[2]   Error and attack tolerance of complex networks [J].
Albert, R ;
Jeong, H ;
Barabási, AL .
NATURE, 2000, 406 (6794) :378-382
[3]  
[Anonymous], 40 HAW INT C SYST SC
[4]   On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience [J].
Aven, Terje .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2011, 31 (04) :515-522
[5]   Extended topological approach for the assessment of structural vulnerability in transmission networks [J].
Bompard, E. ;
Napoli, R. ;
Xue, F. .
IET GENERATION TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION, 2010, 4 (06) :716-724
[6]   Evidence for self-organized criticality in a time series of electric power system blackouts [J].
Carreras, BA ;
Newman, DE ;
Dobson, I ;
Poole, AB .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS I-REGULAR PAPERS, 2004, 51 (09) :1733-1740
[7]   Cascading dynamics and mitigation assessment in power system disturbances via a hidden failure model [J].
Chen, J ;
Thorp, JS ;
Dobson, I .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL POWER & ENERGY SYSTEMS, 2005, 27 (04) :318-326
[8]   A topological analysis of the Italian electric power grid [J].
Crucitti, P ;
Latora, V ;
Marchiori, M .
PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 2004, 338 (1-2) :92-97
[9]   Vulnerability to environmental hazards [J].
Cutter, SL .
PROGRESS IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY, 1996, 20 (04) :529-539
[10]  
Dobson I., 2001, HICSS, P2017