journal article·2019-11-21Open access

Cyber–Physical Active Distribution Networks Robustness Evaluation against Cross-Domain Cascading Failures

Pengpeng Sun, Yunwei Dong, Chong Wang, Changchun Lv, Khursheed Yousuf War

Applied Sciences· Volume 9· Issue 23

Abstract

Active distribution networks (ADNs) are a typical cyber–physical system (CPS), which consist of two kinds of interdependent sub-networks: power networks (PNs) and communication networks (CNs). The combination of typical characteristics of the ADN includes (1) a large number of distributed generators contained in the PN, (2) load redistribution in both the PN and CN, and (3) strong interdependence between the PN and CN, which makes ADNs vulnerable to cross-domain cascading failures (CCFs). In this paper, we focus on the robustness analysis of the ADN against the CCF. Rather than via the rate of the clusters with size greater than a predefined threshold, we evaluate the robustness of the ADN using the rate of the clusters containing generators after the CCF. Firstly, a synchronous probabilistic model is derived to calculate the proportions of remaining normal operational nodes after the CCF. With this model, the propagation of the CCF in the ADN can be described as recursive equations. Secondly, we analyze the relationship between the proportions of remaining normal operational nodes after the CCF and the distribution of distributed generators, unintentional random initial failure rate, the interdependence between the sub-networks, network topology, and tolerance parameters. Some results are revealed which include (1) the more distributed generators the PN contains, the higher ADN robustness is, (2) the robustness of the ADN is negatively correlated with the unintentional random initial failure rate, (3) the robustness of the ADN can be improved by increasing the average control fan in of each node in the PN and the average power fan in of each node in the CN, (4) the robustness of the ADN with Erdos–Renyi (ER) network topological structure is greater than that with Barabasi–Albert (BA) network topological structure under the same average node degree, and (5) the robustness of the ADN is greater, when the tolerance parameters increase. Lastly, some simulation experiments are conducted and experimental results also demonstrate that the conclusions above are effective to improve the robustness of the ADN against the CCF.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Smart Grid Security and Resilience · Optimal Power Flow Distribution · Software-Defined Networks and 5G

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China

School of Mechatronical Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China

Funding

the National Key Research and Development Program of China

References (28)

Show source-provided references
1. Voltage control with inverter-based distributed generation10.1109/TPWRD.2004.834679 ↗
2. Fuangfoo, P., Lee, W.J., and Kuo, M.T. (2006, January 8–12). Impact study on intentional islanding of distributed generation connected to radial subtransmission system in Thailand’s electric power system. Proceedings of the Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE Industry Applications Conference Forty-First IAS Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL, USA.10.1109/IAS.2006.256676 ↗
3. Distribution network capacity assessment: Variable DG and active networks10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2031223 ↗
4. Cyber-Physical System Security for the Electric Power Grid10.1109/JPROC.2011.2165269 ↗
5. Complex networks: The fragility of interdependency10.1038/464984a ↗
6. Characterization of cascading failures in interdependent cyber-physical systems10.1109/TC.2014.2360537 ↗
7. Cascading failures in interdependent infrastructures: An interdependent Markov-chain approach10.1109/TSG.2016.2539823 ↗
8. Cascading Failure Analysis of Cyber-physical Power System With Multiple Interdependency and Control Threshold10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2855441 ↗
9. Cascading failure analysis of power flow on wind power based on complex network theory10.1007/s40565-014-0088-5 ↗
10. Multi-contingency cascading analysis of smart grid based on self-organizing map10.1109/TIFS.2013.2249065 ↗
11. Cascade Failures from Distributed Generation in Power Grids10.1504/IJCIS.2015.067395 ↗
12. Assessment of robustness of power systems from a network perspective10.1109/JETCAS.2015.2462152 ↗
13. Impacts of Wind Power Uncertainty on Grid Vulnerability to Cascading Overload Failures10.1109/TSTE.2017.2718518 ↗
14. Optimal robustness in power grids from a network science perspective10.1109/TCSII.2018.2832850 ↗
15. Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks10.1038/nature08932 ↗
16. Cascade of failures in coupled network systems with multiple support-dependence relations10.1103/PhysRevE.83.036116 ↗
17. Balancing system survivability and cost of smart grid via modeling cascading failures10.1109/TETC.2013.2273079 ↗
18. Pinnaka, S., Yarlagadda, R., and Çetinkaya, E.K. (2015, January 24–27). Modelling robustness of critical infrastructure networks. Proceedings of the 2015 11th International Conference on the Design of Reliable CNs (DRCN), Kansas City, MO, USA.10.1109/DRCN.2015.7148995 ↗
19. Chai, W.K., Kyritsis, V., Katsaros, K.V., and Pavlou, G. (2016, January 17–19). Resilience of interdependent communication and power distribution networks against cascading failures. Proceedings of the 2016 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) and Workshops, Vienna, Austria.10.1109/IFIPNetworking.2016.7497224 ↗
20. Cascading failures in interdependent systems: Impact of degree variability and dependence10.1109/TNSE.2017.2738843 ↗
21. Critical effect of dependency groups on the function of networks10.1073/pnas.1008404108 ↗
22. Rahnamay-Naeini, M., and Hayat, M.M. (2013, January 3–5). On the role of power-grid and communication-system interdependencies on cascading failures. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing, Austin, TX, USA.10.1109/GlobalSIP.2013.6736931 ↗
23. Cascading failures in smart grid: Joint effect of load propagation and interdependence10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2506503 ↗
24. Cascading failure analysis considering interaction between power grids and communication networks10.1109/TSG.2015.2478888 ↗
25. Robustness of interdependent power grids and communication networks: A complex network perspective
26. Small cluster in cyber-physical systems: Network topology, interdependence and cascading failures10.1109/TPDS.2014.2342740 ↗
27. Modeling cascading failures and mitigation strategies in PMU based cyber-physical power systems10.1007/s40565-018-0407-3 ↗
28. Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: Cascading failure, critical points, and self-organization10.1063/1.2737822 ↗