apec earthquake response cooperation program for energy supply system

1

APEC Earthquake Response Cooperation Program for Energy Supply System

Advances in Seismic Performance Evaluation of Power Networks

Advances in Seismic Performance Evaluation of Power Networks

Masanobu ShinozukaUniversity of California, Irvine

Seminar on Earthquake Disaster Management Of Energy Supply Systems

September 3, 2003

2

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

$

$

$

%

River

Sylmar

Toluca

Harbor

Valley

Tarzana

Atwater

Olympic

Airport

Fairfax

Rinaldi

Century

Velasco

HynessG

HarborG

CasticG

Gramercy

St. John

Halldale

Glendale

Adelanto

Hollywood

Northridge

Wilmington

Victorvlle

Scattergood

ScattergoodG

Santa Monica Bay

LongBeach

SealBeach

Land.shpOcean.shp

Area.shp12

Line.shp

Sub_station.shp# Receiving Station$ Generating Station(Thermal)% Power Plant(Hydro)

LADWP Service AreasLADWP Service Areas

Part of Western Systems CoordinatingCouncil’s (WSCC’s) network covering 14US western states,

2 Canadian provincesand northern part of

Baja California

3

Electric Power Output for Service Areasunder Intact Condition

Electric Power Output for Service Areasunder Intact Condition

6,300 MW at peak hour for a

population of 3.7 million

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

Electric Power (Intact)<100100 - 200200 - 300300 - 400>400SCE

Line# Sub_station

MW

4

Fragility Curves for Transformers in Transmission Network

Fragility Curves for Transformers in Transmission Network

5

Brief Flow Chart of IPFLOWBrief Flow Chart of IPFLOW

Isolate disabled linesIsolate disabled nodes

No

Yes

IPFLOW

Outage?

All nodes normal?

Yes

Extracting Power

No power for all service areas

NoDetermine

disabled nodes

Power output for service areas

Start

6

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

PGA (g)0.1 - 0.180.18 - 0.260.26 - 0.340.34 - 0.420.42 - 0.500.50 - 0.6

ServiceareasLine

# Sub_station

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

PGA (g)0.1 - 0.180.18 - 0.260.26 - 0

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

PGA (g)0.1 - 0.180.18 - 0.260.26 - 0.340.34 - 0.420.42 - 0.500.50 - 0.6

ServiceareasLine

# Sub_station

PGA under Northridge Earthquake PGA under Northridge Earthquake

7

#

#

# #

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

# #

##

#

# #

#

# #

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

###

##

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

Pe r c e n t a ge

0 - 2 0

20 - 4 0

40 - 6 0

60 - 8 0

80 - 1 0 0

S C E

Lin e# Su b _s t a t io n

Case 1 Case 2

Case 3

Relative Average Power Output with only Transformers Vulnerable

Relative Average Power Output with only Transformers Vulnerable

8

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

PercentageSCE0 - 2020 - 4040 - 6060 - 8080 - 100

Transmission Line# Substation

Relative Average Power Output with Transformers, Circuit Breakers and Disconnect Switches Vulnerable

Relative Average Power Output with Transformers, Circuit Breakers and Disconnect Switches Vulnerable

9

Fragility Curve of Circuit Breakers Fragility Curve of Circuit Breakers

10

Fragility Curve of Disconnect Switch Fragility Curve of Disconnect Switch

11

Risk Curves of LADWP's Power System Risk Curves of LADWP's Power System

12

Annual Probability of Exceedance for Households without Power (enlarged view)

Annual Probability of Exceedance for Households without Power (enlarged view)

13

Restoration Probability for Transformers, Circuit Breakers and Disconnect Switches Restoration Probability for Transformers, Circuit Breakers and Disconnect Switches

14

0

25

50

75

100

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Time (days)

Cus

tom

ers

Res

tore

d (%

)

`

1-exp(-2.68*t1.17)

Northridge Earthquake Actually Observed Curve

Northridge Earthquake Simulation Result

1-exp(-2.68*t1.17)



0

25

50

75

100

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Time (days)

Cus

tom

ers

Res

tore

d (%

)

`

1-exp(-2.68*t1.17)



1-exp(-2.68*t1.17)



LADWP’s Power System Customers Restored versus Time

LADWP’s Power System Customers Restored versus Time

15

System Performance Criterion I for Pre-event Assessment and Rehabilitation System Performance Criterion I for Pre-event Assessment and Rehabilitation

Robustness and Resourcefulness Reliability

PowerA majority (at least 80%) of households will have continued power supply after earthquake

With a high level of reliability (at least 99% per year)

WaterA majority (at least 80%) of households will have continued water supply after earthquake


HospitalA majority (at least 95%) of injured or otherwise traumatized individuals will be accommodated in acute care hospitals for medical care


System Performance Criterion II for Post-Event Response and Recovery System Performance Criterion II for Post-Event Response and Recovery Robustness and Resourcefulness Reliability

PowerA majority (at least 95%) of households will have power supply as rapidly as possible within a short period of time (3 days)

With a high level of reliability (at least 90% of earthquake events)

WaterA majority (at least 95%) of households will have water supply as rapidly as possible within a short period of time (3 days)


HospitalAll the injured and traumatized individuals will be accommodated in acute care hospitals as rapidly as possible within a short period of time (1 days)


System Performance CriterionSystem Performance Criterion

16

Unmitigated Case Mitigated Case Mitigation Cost $ 0.00 $ 6.54 Repair Cost (discounted) $ 0.39 $ 0.07 Revenue Loss (discounted) $ 1.28 $ 0.14 Direct Economic Loss (discounted) $ 95.52 $ 10.45 Total Life Cycle Costs $ 97.19 $ 17.19 Total Life Cycle Costs without Direct Economic Loss

$ 1.67 $ 6.75

Unmitigated Case Mitigated Case Mitigation Cost $ 0.00 $ 6.54 Repair Cost (discounted) $ 0.39 $ 0.07 Revenue Loss (discounted) $ 0.89 $ 0.09 Direct Economic Loss (discounted) $ 39.38 $ 4.29 Total Life Cycle Costs $ 40.66 $ 11.00 Total Life Cycle Costs without Direct Economic Loss

$ 1.28 $ 6.70

Life Cycle Cost Results (2000$ millions)Life Cycle Cost Results (2000$ millions)

Life Cycle Cost Results without Urban Growth (2000$ millions) Life Cycle Cost Results without Urban Growth (2000$ millions)

Life Cycle CostLife Cycle Cost

17

ConclusionsConclusions

1: Represented regional seismic hazard by a set of scenario earthquakes

2: Developed empirical fragility curves of substation equipment using past damage data

3: Quantified fragility enhancement due to seismic retrofit

4: Studied performance of power network and grid integrating WECC data, Monte Carlo simulation, fragility information and IPFLOW software

5: Developed risk curves for LADWP transmission system with respect to households without power

6: Introduced seismic performance criteria in reference to robustness and rapidity in restoration.

7: Considered future research to prevent, protect and quickly restore the power network and grid from the outage due to natural, technological and malicious causes.

apec earthquake response cooperation program for energy supply system

Documents