4.7 Article

AC power flow importance measures considering multi-element failures

Journal

RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY
Volume 160, Issue -, Pages 89-97

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.11.010

Keywords

AC power flow; N-k reliability; Importance ranking; Cascading failure; Functional reliability

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Project of China [2016YFC0802505, 2016YFC0802501]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51534008, 51576212]
  3. U.S. Department of Defense through the MURI [W911NF-13-1-0340]
  4. U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CMMI-1435845]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Quantifying the criticality of individual components of power systems is essential for overall reliability and management. This paper proposes an AC-based power flow element importance measure, while considering multi-element failures. The measure relies on a proposed AC-based cascading failure model, which captures branch overflow, bus load shedding, and branch failures, via AC power flow and optimal power flow analyses. Taking the IEEE 30, 57 and 118-bus power systems as case studies, we find that N-3 analyses are sufficient to measure the importance of a bus or branch. It is observed that for a substation bus, its importance is statistically proportional to its power demand, but this trend is not observed for power plant buses. While comparing with other reliability, functionality, and topology-based importance measures popular today, we find that a DC power flow model, although better correlated with the benchmark AC model as a whole, still fails to locate some critical elements. This is due to the focus of DC-based models on real power that ignores reactive power. The proposed importance measure is aimed to inform decision makers about key components in complex systems, while improving cascading failure prevention, system backup setting, and overall resilience.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available