The cross-networks impact analysis and assessment in multilayer interdependent networks: A case study of critical infrastructures

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (07) ◽  
pp. 1940007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fang Zhou ◽  
Yanchao Du ◽  
Yongbo Yuan ◽  
Mingyuan Zhang

Critical infrastructures are tightly connected and extremely fragile multilayer coupled networks. This paper discusses the cross-networks impact of subnetworks and global network of networks on robustness by taking a critical infrastructures with three-layer interdependent networks as an example. The percolation theory is applied to capture the flow characteristics of cascading failures and evaluate the robustness of multilayer networks. And further discuss and compare the situation of each subnetwork affecting or being affected. The quantitative evaluation model of the interaction of multilayer networks is proposed based on cascading failures, where the influence expansion matrix and the dependency matrix are obtained. The results show that the power network has a high influence on other networks, and it is difficult to be affected. Meanwhile the influence ability of water network and gas network is limited.

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-549
Author(s):  
Diego F. Rueda ◽  
Eusebi Calle ◽  
Xiangrong Wang ◽  
Robert E. Kooij

Interconnection between telecommunication networks and other critical infrastructures is usually established through nodes that are spatially close, generating a geographical interdependency. Previous work has shown that in general, geographically interdependent networks are more robust with respect to cascading failures when the interconnection radius (r) is large. However, to obtain a more realistic model, the allocation of interlinks in geographically interdependent networks should consider other factors. In this paper, an enhanced interconnection model for geographically interdependent networks is presented. The model proposed introduces a new strategy for interconnecting nodes between two geographical networks by limiting the number of interlinks. Results have shown that the model yields promising results to maintain an acceptable level in network robustness under cascading failures with a decrease in the number of interlinks.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Malgorzata Turalska ◽  
Ananthram Swami

AbstractComplex systems are challenging to control because the system responds to the controller in a nonlinear fashion, often incorporating feedback mechanisms. Interdependence of systems poses additional difficulties, as cross-system connections enable malicious activity to spread between layers, increasing systemic risk. In this paper we explore the conditions for an optimal control of cascading failures in a system of interdependent networks. Specifically, we study the Bak–Tang–Wiesenfeld sandpile model incorporating a control mechanism, which affects the frequency of cascades occurring in individual layers. This modification allows us to explore sandpile-like dynamics near the critical state, with supercritical region corresponding to infrequent large cascades and subcritical zone being characterized by frequent small avalanches. Topological coupling between networks introduces dependence of control settings adopted in respective layers, causing the control strategy of a given layer to be influenced by choices made in other connected networks. We find that the optimal control strategy for a layer operating in a supercritical regime is to be coupled to a layer operating in a subcritical zone, since such condition corresponds to reduced probability of inflicted avalanches. However this condition describes a parasitic relation, in which only one layer benefits. Second optimal configuration is a mutualistic one, where both layers adopt the same control strategy. Our results provide valuable insights into dynamics of cascading failures and and its control in interdependent complex systems.


Author(s):  
Xiaokun Wang ◽  
Dong Ni

To scientifically and reasonably evaluate and pre-warn the congestion degree of subway transfer hub, and effectively know the risk of subway passengers before the congestion time coming. We analyzed the passenger flow characteristics of various service facilities in the hub. The congested area of the subway passenger flow interchange hub is divided into queuing area and distribution area. The queuing area congestion evaluation model selects M/M/C and M/G/C based on queuing theory. The queuing model and the congestion evaluation model of the distribution area select the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method. Queue length and waiting time are selected as the evaluation indicators of congestion in the queuing area, and passenger flow, passenger flow density and walking speed are selected as the evaluation indicators of congestion in the distribution area. And then, K-means cluster analysis method is used to analyze the sample data, and based on the selected evaluation indicators and the evaluation model establishes the queuing model of the queuing area and the TOPSIS model of the collection and distribution area. The standard value of the congestion level of various service facilities and the congestion level value of each service facility obtained from the evaluation are used as input to comprehensively evaluate the overall congestion degree of the subway interchange hub. Finally we take the Xi’an Road subway interchange hub in Dalian as empirical research, the data needed for congestion evaluation was obtained through field observations and questionnaires, and the congestion degree of the queue area and the distribution area at different times of the workday was evaluated, and the congestion of each service facility was evaluated. The grade value is used as input, and the TOPSIS method is used to evaluate the degree of congestion in the subway interchange hub, which is consistent with the results of passenger congestion in the questionnaire, which verifies the feasibility of the evaluation model and method.


2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (5) ◽  
pp. 58004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawei Zhao ◽  
Zhen Wang ◽  
Gaoxi Xiao ◽  
Bo Gao ◽  
Lianhai Wang

2019 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Malgorzata Turalska ◽  
Keith Burghardt ◽  
Martin Rohden ◽  
Ananthram Swami ◽  
Raissa M. D'Souza

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 241
Author(s):  
Dan Cui ◽  
Charles Shen ◽  
Feniosky Peña Mora ◽  
Jianguo Chen

2019 ◽  
Vol 535 ◽  
pp. 122222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tianqiao Zhang ◽  
Yang Zhang ◽  
Xuzhen Zhu ◽  
Junliang Chen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document