Search

While many large infrastructure networks, such as power, water, and natural gas systems, have similar physical properties governing flows, these systems tend to have distinctly different sizes and topological structures. This paper seeks to understand how these different size-scales and topological features can emerge from relatively simple design principles. Specifically, we seek to describe the conditions under which it is optimal to build decentralized network infrastructures, such as a microgrid, rather than centralized ones, such as a large high-voltage power system. While our method is simple it is useful in explaining why sometimes, but not always, it is economical to build large, interconnected networks and in other cases it is preferable to use smaller, distributed systems. The results indicate that there is not a single set of infrastructure cost conditions under which optimally-designed networks will have highly centralized architectures. Instead, as costs increase we find that average network sizes increase gradually according to a power-law. When we consider the reliability costs, however, we do observe a transition point at which optimally designed networks become more centralized with larger geographic scope. As the losses associated with node and edge failures become more costly, this transition becomes more sudden.

The topological (graph) structure of complex networks often provides valuable information about the performance and vulnerability of the network. However, there are multiple ways to represent a given network as a graph. Electric power transmission and distribution networks have a topological structure that is straightforward to represent and analyze as a graph. However, simple graph models neglect the comprehensive connections between components that result from Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws. This paper describes the structure of the three North American electric power interconnections, from the perspective of both topological and electrical connectivity. We compare the simple topology of these networks with that of random (Erdos and Renyi, 1959), preferential-attachment (Barabasi and Albert, 1999) and small-world (Watts and Strogatz, 1998) networks of equivalent sizes and find that power grids differ substantially from these abstract models in degree distribution, clustering, diameter and assortativity, and thus conclude that these topological forms may be misleading as models of power systems. To study the electrical connectivity of power systems, we propose a new method for representing electrical structure using electrical distances rather than geographic connections. Comparisons of these two representations of the North American power networks reveal notable differences between the electrical and topological structure of electric power networks.

In order to identify the extent to which results from topological graph models are useful for modeling vulnerability in electricity infrastructure, we measure the susceptibility of power networks to random failures and directed attacks using three measures of vulnerability: characteristic path lengths, connectivity loss and blackout sizes. The first two are purely topological metrics. The blackout size calculation results from a model of cascading failure in power networks. Testing the response of 40 areas within the Eastern US power grid and a standard IEEE test case to a variety of attack/failure vectors indicates that directed attacks result in larger failures using all three vulnerability measures, but the attack vectors that appear to cause the most damage depend on the measure chosen. While our topological and power grid model results show some trends that are similar, there is only a mild correlation between the vulnerability measures for individual simulations. We conclude that evaluating vulnerability in power networks using purely topological metrics can be misleading.