Dergiler / Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics / 2021 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

Rapid power outage estimation for typical electric power systems in Turkey

Sayfa
84–92
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The proposed methodology through the power outage graphics enable a quick preliminary evaluation of the power outage based on the current design status and location for any electric power systems in the Marmara region.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Electric power systems have critical importance in the sustainability of social life and economy.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The earthquake hazard curves at five different sites for two different earthquake levels, and two different site conditions as soft and stiff site classes according to the Turkish Building Seismic Design Code 2018 have been obtained.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The proposed methodology through the power outage graphics enable a quick preliminary evaluation of the power outage based on the current design status and location for any electric power systems in the Marmara region.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2018 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Electric power systems have critical importance in the sustainability of social life and economy. The past and recent earthquakes showed clearly that these systems have high vulnerability due to earthquakes. In this study, the typical electric power systems which are commonly preferred and located at five different sites in high seismic zone of Turkey, Marmara region, have been examined. In the first part of the study, the earthquake hazard for Marmara region has been accomplished. The earthquake hazard curves at five different sites for two different earthquake levels, and two different site conditions as soft and stiff site classes according to the Turkish Building Seismic Design Code 2018 have been obtained. The seismic vulnerability assessment of substation and distribution circuits for two different design states, namely anchored and unanchored, achieved by the fragility functions. The probability of power outage durations have been evaluated based on the restoration curves. It has been observed that the results obtained within the scope of the study are highly consistent with post-earthquake studies in the literature. The proposed methodology through the power outage graphics enable a quick preliminary evaluation of the power outage based on the current design status and location for any electric power systems in the Marmara region.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YEŞİLYURT, A., AKCAN, S. O., ZÜLFIKAR, A. C. (2021). Rapid power outage estimation for typical electric power systems in Turkey. Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 84–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/351788

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (9)

  1. Abrahamson N, Silva W (2008). Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 67-97.
  2. Bompard E, Wu D, Xue F (2011). Structural vulnerability of power systems: A topological approach. Electric Power Systems Research, 81(7), 1334-1340.
  3. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008). Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%- damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 99-138. Buriticá Cortés JA, Sánchez-Silva M, Tesfamariam S (2015). A hierarchy-based approach to seismic vulnerability assessment of bulk power systems. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(10), 1352-1368.
  4. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008). NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 139-171.
  5. Chiou BJ, Youngs RR (2008). An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 173-215.
  6. Cornell CA (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58, 1583-1606.
  7. Eidinger J, Tang A, O'Rourke T (2010). Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE), Report of the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Canterbury (Darfield), New Zealand Earthquake. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1-49.
  8. Eidinger J, Davis C, Tang A, Kempner L (2012). M 9.0 Tohoku earthquake March 11 2011 performance of water and power systems. G & E Engineering Systems Inc, Oakland, CA. Fujisaki E, Takhirov S, Xie Q, Mosalam KM (2014). Seismic vulnerability of power supply: lessons learned from recent earthquakes and future horizons of research. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics (EURODYN 2014). European Association for Structural Dynamics, Porto, Portugal, 345-350. G&E Engineering Systems, Inc. (1994). NIBS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methods. Technical Manual, (Electric Power Systems), June. Giovinazzi S, Wilson TM, Davis C, Bristow D, Gallagher M, Schofield A, Tang A (2011). Lifelines performance and management following the 22 February 2011
  9. Christchurch Earthquake, New Zealand: Highlights of Resilience. HAZUS-MH (2011). Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology: Earthquake Model Hazus-MH MR5 Technical Manual. Holmgren ÅJ, Molin S (2006). Using disturbance data to assess vulnerability of electric power delivery systems. Jo