4.7 Article

Optimal siting of substations of traction power supply systems considering seismic risk

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2023.109801

关键词

Seismic risk; Multi-objective optimization; Traction power supply system; Electrified railway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes an optimal substation siting method considering seismic risks. By integrating earthquake scenario simulation and substation fragility analysis, the method mitigates seismic risks in the traction power supply system (TPSS) planning and provides theoretical bases for disaster prevention and mitigation.
The traction power supply system (TPSS) is a critical infrastructure that provides electrified railways with power. However, its safe and reliable operation is threatened by earthquake disasters. Due to the strong randomness, uneven spatial distribution, and destructive risk of earthquake disasters, it is crucial to develop reasonable planning schemes to mitigate seismic risks of the system. This paper proposes a substation optimal siting method considering seismic risks. By establishing the chain circuit model of the TPSS and employing the dynamic power flow calculation method, the power loss of the system is obtained. By integrating the earthquake scenario simulation and substation fragility analysis, the substation seismic risk is calculated through Monte Carlo simulation. On this basis, the optimization model for substation site selection is formulated, aiming to minimize both the system power loss and the substation seismic risk while adhering to constraints of construction cost, operating safety, and geographical locations. The Pareto optimal solutions are then obtained. Simulation analysis based on actual system parameters shows that compared with traditional site selection methods, the proposed method can effectively mitigate system seismic risks while considering system power loss, providing theoretical bases for the disaster prevention and mitigation in the TPSS planning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据