PDF(11624 KB)
PDF(11624 KB)
PDF(11624 KB)
山火情景下输电通道动态韧性评估
Dynamic resilience assessment of transmission corridors under wildfire scenarios
开展山火情景下输电通道韧性评估是提升电网应对山火灾害能力的关键。针对当前山火情景下输电通道韧性定义尚未统一, 缺乏针对灾害孕育、发生和发展全过程韧性关键维度的考虑, 以及现有评估方法建模复杂等问题, 该文旨在构建一套可量化和可操作的山火情景下输电通道动态韧性评估模型。该文首先结合韧性理论与输电通道山火事故特征, 梳理了山火情景下输电通道韧性的核心内涵, 并构建了涵盖预防能力、抵抗能力、吸收能力、恢复能力和适应能力5个维度的韧性评估指标体系; 其次, 引入地理信息系统和遥感技术, 整合多源数据并提取指标数据, 采用组合赋权法确定指标权重, 构建了山火情景下输电通道的韧性评估流程; 最后, 以泰安市为例进行实例验证, 并对韧性评估结果进行了时空分析和敏感性分析。研究结果表明:该文所提评估模型能针对山火灾害全过程, 系统和量化地评估输电通道韧性状态; 该模型的可操作性和适用性均较好, 可有效支持韧性水平的时空分析和关键影响因素识别, 还可及时识别输电通道韧性薄弱环节, 为制定针对性韧性提升策略提供决策支持。该文研究结果可为后续相关研究和工程实践提供参考。
Objective: Conducting resilience assessments of transmission corridors under wildfire scenarios is crucial for enhancing the power grid's ability to respond to wildfire disasters. Given the lack of a unified definition for the resilience of transmission corridors under wildfire scenarios, the insufficient consideration of key resilience dimensions throughout the process of disaster incubation, occurrence, and development; and the complexity of existing assessment methods, this study aims to establish a quantifiable and operable dynamic resilience assessment framework for transmission corridors under wildfire scenarios. Methods: Combining resilience theory with the characteristics of wildfire incidents affecting transmission corridors, this study clarified the core connotations of resilience in wildfire scenarios. On this basis, a resilience assessment index system was developed considering 5 dimensions, namely preventive, resistance, absorptive, recovery, and adaptive capabilities, and 37 indicators, such as relative air humidity, temperature, vegetation coverage, operating voltage of power transmission lines, and centrality degree of transmission lines. By incorporating geographic information systems and remote sensing technologies, multisource data were integrated, and the data of the indicators were extracted. The analytic hierarchy process-entropy weight combination method was employed to determine indicator weights, and a systematic resilience assessment framework was developed. The framework was applied to the Tai'an region as a case study, with spatiotemporal analysis and sensitivity analysis conducted on the resilience assessment results. Results: (1) The spatiotemporal analysis revealed that on the whole, more than 70.00% of the transmission corridors in Tai'an presented high or very high resilience levels. The resilience levels of transmission corridors in different months and regions fluctuated to varying degrees. The resilience level of the transmission corridors at the border between the Daiyue District and Xintai City remained low for a long time. In May and September 2024, the proportions of transmission corridors with low resilience levels in Tai'an were 0.66% and 0.02%, respectively. Compared with that in the entire year, the resilience level of the transmission corridors significantly decreased in May and September 2024, indicating that these months are the key periods for strengthening the management of system resilience levels. (2) The sensitivity analysis showed that indicators such as the centrality degree of transmission lines, the density of the power department, vegetation coverage, distributed power sources, and transmission-line material significantly affect the overall resilience level of a system. Management measures for enhancing the resilience level of transmission corridors can be formulated based on such indicators. Conclusions: The research results revealed the following: (1) The proposed assessment framework systematically and quantitatively evaluated the resilience status of transmission corridors throughout wildfire disasters using geographic information systems and remote sensing technologies. (2) This framework shows good operability and applicability and can effectively support the spatiotemporal analysis of resilience levels and the identification of key influencing factors. (3) This framework can also promptly identify weak links in the resilience of transmission corridors, providing decision support for the formulation of targeted resilience improvement strategies.
韧性 / 输电通道 / 山火 / 时空分析 / 层次分析法-熵权法
resilience / power transmission corridor / wildfire / spatiotemporal analysis / analytic hierarchy process-entropy weight method
| 1 |
刘泽洪, 周原冰, 李隽, 等. 中国西北西南电网互联研究[J]. 全球能源互联网, 2023, 6 (4): 341- 352.
|
| 2 |
郭剑波. 我国电力科技现状与发展趋势[J]. 电网技术, 2006, 30 (18): 1- 7.
|
| 3 |
田鑫, 王林钰, 冀星沛, 等. 基于现代化基础设施体系政策要求的电网规模预测及优化需求[J]. 中国电力, 2024, 57 (2): 1- 8.
|
| 4 |
张雷. 华北电网输电线路受山火影响特征分析[J]. 山东电力技术, 2019, 46 (9): 18- 22.
|
| 5 |
周恩泽, 龚博, 刘淑琴, 等. 南方电网架空线路因山火跳闸故障统计分析[J]. 广东电力, 2022, 35 (4): 80- 86.
|
| 6 |
VUGRIN E D, CASTILLO A, SILVA-MONROY C A. Resilience metrics for the electric power system: A performance-based approach [R]. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, 2017.
|
| 7 |
别朝红, 林雁翎, 邱爱慈. 弹性电网及其恢复力的基本概念与研究展望[J]. 电力系统自动化, 2015, 39 (22): 1- 9.
|
| 8 |
CHAUDRY M, EKINS P, RAMACHANDRAN K, et al. Building a resilient UK energy system: Research report [R]. London: UK Energy Research Centre, 2009.
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
许寅, 和敬涵, 王颖, 等. 韧性背景下的配网故障恢复研究综述及展望[J]. 电工技术学报, 2019, 34 (16): 3416- 3429.
|
| 13 |
阮前途, 谢伟, 许寅, 等. 韧性电网的概念与关键特征[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2020, 40 (21): 6773- 6783.
|
| 14 |
别朝红, 卞艺衡, 张理寅, 等. 新型电力系统应对极端事件的风险防范与应急管理关键技术[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2024, 44 (18): 7049- 7067.
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
方超颖, 许军, 丁志龙, 等. 山火灾害下输电系统的弹性评估方法及其提升措施[J]. 电力工程技术, 2024, 43 (2): 239- 247.
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
李正兆, 傅大放, 王君娴, 等. 应对内涝灾害的城市韧性评估模型及应用[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 62 (2): 266- 276.
|
| 19 |
姜沣珊, 傅星峰, 赵雷, 等. 基于洪涝灾害韧性GIS空间量化评价的城市应急避难规划[J]. 测绘通报, 2024 (1): 169- 174.
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
AL SAEED Q, NAZARIPOUYA H. Impact of wildfires on power systems [C]//Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2022 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe. Prague, Czech Republic: IEEE, 2022: 1-5.
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
普子恒, 阮江军, 黄道春, 等. 火焰条件下间隙的直流电压击穿特性研究[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2014, 34 (3): 453- 459.
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
吕常笑, 秦乃花, 李萍, 等. 山东省森林火灾时空分布及火源特征研究[J]. 森林防火, 2023, 41 (2): 1- 6.
|
| 28 |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |