Electrical Centrality Measures for Power Grids

  • Zhifang WangEmail author
  • Anna Scaglione
  • Robert J. Thomas
Part of the Power Electronics and Power Systems book series (PEPS, volume 3)


This chapter investigates measures of centrality that are applicable to power grids. Centrality measures are used in network science to rank the relative importance of nodes and edges of a graph. Here we define new measures of centrality for power grids that are based on its functionality. More specifically, the coupling of the grid network can be expressed as the algebraic equation YU = I, where U and I represent the vectors of complex bus voltage and injected current phasors; and Y is the network admittance matrix which is defined not only by the connecting topology but also by the network’s electrical parameters and can be viewed as a complex-weighted Laplacian. We show that the relative importance analysis based on centrality in graph theory can be performed on power grid network with its electrical parameters taken into account. In the chapter the proposed electrical centrality measures are experimented with on the NYISO-2935 system and the IEEE 300-bus system. The centrality distribution is analyzed in order to identify important nodes or branches in the system which are of essential importance in terms of system vulnerability. A number of interesting discoveries are also presented and discussed regarding the importance rank of power grid nodes and branches.


Centrality Measure Power Grid Betweenness Centrality Closeness Centrality Eigenvector Centrality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Carreras BA, Lynch VE, Dobson I, Newman DE (2002) Critical points and transitions in an electric power transmission model for cascading failure blackouts. Chaos 12(4):985–994zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert R, Albert I, Nakarado GL (2004) Structural vulnerability of the north american power grid. Phys Rev E 69:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crucittia P, Latorab V, Marchioric M (2004) A topological analysis of the italian electric power grid. Physica A 338:92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosas-Casals M, Valverde S, Sol\acute{e} R (2007) Topological vulnerability of the european power grid under erros and attacks. Intl J Bifurcat Chaos 17(7):2465–2475Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang Z, Thomas RJ, Scaglione A (2008) Generating random topology power grids. In: 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-41), Big Island, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang Z, Scaglione A, Thomas RJ (2010) The node degree distribution in power grid and its topology robustness under random and selective node removals. In: 1st IEEE International Workshop on Smart Grid Communications (ICC’10SGComm), Cape Town, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang Z, Scaglione A, Thomas RJ (2010) Generating statistically correct random topologies for testing smart grid communication and control networks. IEEE trans on Smart Grid 1(1):28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks. Nature 393:440–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. PNAS 99(12):7821–7826zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newman MEJ (2005) A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Soc Network 27:3954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hines P, Blumsack S (2008) A centrality measure for electrical networks. In: the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hines P, Blumsack S, Sanchez EC, Barrows C (2010) The topological and electrical structure of power grids. In: the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rajasingh I, Rajan B, D FI (2009) Betweeness-centrality of grid networks. In: International Conference on Computer Technology and Development, Kota Kinabalu, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torres A, Anders G (2009) Spectral graph theory and network dependability. In: Fourth International Conference on Dependability of Computer Systems, Brunow, pp 356–363Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorton I, Huang Z, Chen Y, Kalahar B, Jin S, Chavarra-Miranda D, Baxter D, Feo J (2009) A high-performance hybrid computing approach to massive contingency analysis in the power grid. In: International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing, Oxford, UK, pp 277–283Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zio E, Piccinelli R (2010) Randomized flow model and centrality measure for electrical power transmission network analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95(4):379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horn R, Johnson C (1990) Matrix Analysis, chapter 8. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabidussi G (1966) The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika 31(4):581–603zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dangalchev C (2006) Residual closeness in networks. Phisica A 365(2):556–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhifang Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Scaglione
    • 1
  • Robert J. Thomas
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations