Structural Vulnerability of Power Grid Under Malicious Node-Based Attacks

  • Minzhen Zheng
  • Shudong LiEmail author
  • Danna Lu
  • Wei Wang
  • Xiaobo WuEmail author
  • Dawei Zhao
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1123)


In recent years, the collapse of power grid in many countries not only has brought great inconvenience to national life, but also caused huge economic losses. Therefore, it is particularly important to analyze the vulnerability of network structure of power grid. In this paper, US power grid with 4941 nodes and 6594 edges is taken as examples. The network is attacked by deleting some percent nodes according to degree, k-shell value, betweenness centrality, and clustering coefficient, apparently. The largest connected component G, efficiency E, and average distance L are analyzed for measuring vulnerability of US power grid. The simulation results show that, in view of the largest connected component G and efficiency E, Betweenness Centrality-based attack is most destructive to the network structure than other attacks, and the attack based on Aggregation coefficient is the least destructive.


Complex networks US power grid Vulnerability Largest connected component Robustness 



This research was funded by NSFC (No. 61672020, U1803263, U1636215, 61702309), (No. 18-163-15-ZD-002-003-01), National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2019QY1406), Key R&D Program of Guangdong Province (No. 2019B010136003, 2019B010137004), Project of Shandong Province Higher Educational Science and Technology Program (No. J16LN61), and the National Key research and Development Plan (No. 2018YFB1800701, No. 2018YFB0803504, and No. 2018YEB1004003).


  1. 1.
    Xin, L., Dongmei, J., Guoquan, Y.: The method in researching the vulnerability of the internet and the problems existing in it. Software 1(1) (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nicholson, C.D., Barker, K., Ramirez, M.J.E.: Flow-based vulnerability measures for network component importance: Experimentation with preparedness planning. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145, 62–73 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huan, P., Rong, G., Gangdun, H.: Analysis and assessment of a realistic power grid’s dynamic structure vulnerability. Smart Grid 7(5), 392–401 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hong, L., Ouyang, M., Peeta, S., et al.: Vulnerability assessment and mitigation for the Chinese railway system under floods. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 137, 58–68 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minghui, X.: The Vulnerability Analysis of Urban Complementary Teansit Network under Spatially Localized Failures, Huazhong University of Science (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Skelton, R.P., Anderegg, L., Prahlad, P.: No local adaptation in leaf or stem xylem vulnerability to embolism, but consistent vulnerability segmentation in a North American oak. New Phytologist 223(3), 1296–1306 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hwang, T.S., Park, S.Y.: A seamless control strategy of a distributed generation inverter for the critical load safety under strict grid disturbances. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 28(10), 4780–4790 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atanov, I.V., Khorol’Skii, V.Y., Ershov, A.B., et al.: Formalization of the process of directional composition of structures of autonomous power-supply systems during design. Russ. Electr. Eng. 88(8), 475–479 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bahmani-Firouzi, B., Azizipanah-Abarghooee, R.: Optimal sizing of battery energy storage for micro-grid operation management using a new improved bat algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 56(3), 42–54 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gini, F., Luise, M., Reggiannini, R.: Cramer-Rao bounds in the parametric estimation of fading radiotransmission channels. IEEE Trans. Commun. 46(10), 1390–1398 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Umberger, A.: Distributed Generation: How Localized Energy Production Reduces Vulnerability to Outages and Environmental Damage in the Wake of Climate Change. Golden Gate U.envtl.l.j (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dan, L.: Overview of research on grid vulnerability based on complex network theory. Heilongjiang Sci. Technol. Inf. 36 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lixiong, X., Junyong, L., Yang, L., Zhanxin, Y., Li, Z., Yang, W.: Structural Characteristics Investigation of Electric Power, Transmission Networks (S2) (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Motter, A.E., Lai, Y.C.: Cascade-based attacks on complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 66(6), 065102 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jing, G., Wang, D.R.: The vulnerability analysis on power communication networks based on complex network theory. Power Syst. Commun. 30(9), 6–10 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, S., Wu, X., Li, A., Zhou, B., Tian, Z., Zhao, D.: Structural vulnerability of complex networks under multiple edge-based attacks. In: 2018 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace (IEEE DSC 2018), pp. 405–409 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crucitti, P., Latora, V., Marchiori, M.: A topological analysis of the Italian electric power grid. Physica A 338, 92–97 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhao, D., Li, L., Li, S., Huo, Y., Yang, Y.: Identifying influential spreaders in interconnected networks. Physica Scripta 89(1) (2014). 0031-8949Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, S., Li, L., Jia, Y., Liu, X., Yang, Y.: Identifying vulnerable nodes of complex networks in cascading failures induced by node-based attacks. Math. Probl. Eng. (2013). 938398Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wei, Z., Liu, J., Zhu, G., et al.: A new integrative vulnerability evaluation model to power grid based on running state and structure. Autom. Electr. Power Syst. 33(8), 11–15 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, S., Li, L., Yang, Y., Luo, Q.: Revealing the process of edge-based-attack cascading failures. Nonlinear Dyn. 69(3), 837–845 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tian, Z., Su, S., Shi, W., Du, X., Guizani, M., Yu, X.: A data-driven method for future internet route decision modeling. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 95, 212–220 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anji, M., Yu, J., Guo, Z.: Electric power grid structural vulnerability assessment. In: Power Engineering Society General Meeting. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhao, D., Li, L., Peng, H., Luo, Q., Yang, Y.: Multiple routes transmitted epidemics on multiplex networks. Phys. Lett. A 378, 770–776 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coppo, M., Pelacchi, P., Pilo, F., et al.: The Italian smart grid pilot projects: selection and assessment of the test beds for the regulation of smart electricity distribution. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 120, 136–149 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and StatisticsGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Cyberspace Institute of Advance TechnologyGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.School of Computer Science and Cyber EngineeringGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Computer Networks, Shandong Computer Science Center (National Supercomputer Center in Jinan), Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences)JinanChina

Personalised recommendations