SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “resiliency”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Quantifying Distribution System Resilience From Utility Data: Large Event Risk and Benefits of Investments

We focus on blackouts in electric distribution systems that have a large cost to customers. To quantify resilience to these events, we show how to calculate risk metrics from the historical outage data routinely collected by utilities' outage management systems. Risk is defined using a customer cost exceedance curve. The exceedance curve has a heavy tail that implies large fluctuations in large blackout costs, and this makes estimating the mean large cost in the usual way impractical. To avoid this problem, we use new resilience metrics describing the large event risk; these metrics are the probability of a large cost event, the annual log cost resilience index, and the average of the logarithm of the cost of large-cost events or the slope magnitude of the tail on a log–log exceedance curve. Resilience can be improved by planned investments to upgrade system components or speed up restoration. The benefits that these investments would have had if they had been made in the past can be quantified by “rerunning history” with the effects of the investment included, and then recalculating the large event risk to find the improvement in resilience. An example using utility data shows a 2% reduction in the probability of a large cost event due to 10% wind hardening and 6%–7% reduction due to 10% faster restoration in two different areas of a distribution utility. This new data-driven approach to quantify resilience and resilience investments is realistic and much easier to apply than complicated approaches based on modeling all the phases of resilience. Moreover, an appeal to improvements to past lived experience may well be persuasive to customers and regulators in making the case for resilience investments.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2025

Equity-Centered Engagement Through Climate Resilience Policy in Massachusetts

Communities who experience disproportionate climate change impacts tend to be excluded from resilience planning (Vale, 2014). Those efforts typically follow top-down processes within established governance practices that are inaccessible to marginalized folks and reinforce inequalities (Malloy & Ashcraft, 2020; Adger, 2003). Such participatory planning processes may offer the public little opportunity to influence the process itself or the outcomes (Smith & McDonough, 2001). They might ignore important public values or alternative ways of knowing which can be critical assets in resilience (Few et al., 2007). Designing communities for climate action and resilience means creating opportunities for everyone to meaningfully shape those decisions and experience related benefits. Having the opportunity to shape one’s community is necessary for human flourishing (Allen, 2016). Resilience planning that shifts power into communities and focuses on social vulnerability can affect how people survive and thrive in a climate changed world. The Massachusetts Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) 2.0 program is an attempt to change the status quo in resilience planning by bringing new voices into decision-making power, recognizing their labor, addressing root causes of vulnerability, and investing in social infrastructure. It aspires to build capacity for equity-focused community engagement within teams of municipal staff and community liaisons, and ultimately build social capital and community cohesion. My mixed methods research investigates implementation of this state grant program in several western Massachusetts towns. I am using document review, participant observation, and interviews to understand the MVP 2.0 process as written, how different towns navigate it, and how individuals make sense of their experiences in it. I seek to understand how those experiences explain relationships between engagement approaches, mediating factors, and process outcomes. I am interested in the conditions that allow for community empowerment and how a model like MVP 2.0 can shift conditions that hold systems in place. In a practical sense, our findings will help municipalities reflect on their work during MVP 2.0 and plan for future community engagement. They may be informative for designing future iterations of the MVP program and for other municipalities, offices of community engagement, and practitioners. The findings will also contribute to the participation, resilience, and climate justice literatures, by adding perspectives on equity-centered resilience and community engagement approaches in smaller towns and rural settings. References: Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79, 387-404. Allen, D. (2016). Toward a connected society. Our compelling interests: The value of diversity for democracy and a prosperous society, 71-105. Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 46–59. Malloy, J. T., & Ashcraft, C. M. (2020). A framework for implementing socially just climate adaptation. Climatic Change, 160(1), 1–14. Smith, P. D., & McDonough, M. H. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society & natural resources, 14(3), 239-249. Vale, L. J. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: whose resilience and whose city? Building Research & Information, 42(2), 191–201.

Callaham, Shannon↗

DOE OSTI2025

Scenario Generation for Built Environment Decision Support under Uncertainty: Case Studies of Airflow Modeling and Climate-Resilient Infrastructure System Design

When confronted with unforeseen challenges, practicing informed decision making is crucial for enhancing resilience in the built environment. While scan-to-building information modeling (BIM) is a well-established approach for creating detailed digital representations of physical assets, its application in assessing and improving infrastructure resilience remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by proposing a novel application of scan-to-BIM, namely, scan-to-BIM-to-digital twin (S-BIM-DT) workflow. By integrating reality capture and digital twin technologies, this workflow creates continuously updated and accurate digital representations of physical assets, enabling the generation of various scenarios. Unlike traditional methods, the S BIM-DT workflow facilitates continuous model refinement, supporting informed resilience strategies. By combining these technologies into a cohesive process, the workflow facilitates decision making under uncertainty, enabling stakeholders to evaluate and respond to various scenarios effectively. We demonstrate the implementation of the S-BIM-DT workflow through two use cases that highlight its capability to enhance resilience at different scales. The first use case involves the Combined Transportation, Emergency, and Communications Center (CTECC) in Austin, Texas. BIM-enriched computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling simulates airflow and develops alternative scenarios for optimizing the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. This approach enhances resilience against airborne health threats in a postCOVID context. The second use case focuses on designated areas within Beaumont, Texas, as part of the Southeast Texas Urban Integrated Field Laboratory (SETx-UIFL) research. By developing inundation maps to assess extreme weather events, this modeling aids in preparedness efforts and informs the development of climate-resilient infrastructure in vulnerable neighborhoods. Results indicate that the S-BIM-DT workflow effectively generates scenarios that enhance resilience in the built environment by facilitating informed decision making. Furthermore, this study serves as a bridge between advanced scan-to-BIM methodologies and the practical strategies needed to improve built infrastructure resilience.

Built environment↗

DOE OSTI2026

Planning for cooler communities: Vacant lots as components of heat resilience in Mesa, Arizona

Vacant lots are often perceived as contributing to negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts on surrounding communities. However, they also offer opportunities for strategic interventions that promote heat resilience. This study uses a decision-scale congruence analytic approach to examine the correlation between extreme heat and community resilience in the context of vacant lots in the city of Mesa, Arizona. By identifying and analyzing over 1,200 vacant lots, we assessed spatial patterns of Community Resilience Estimates (CRE) for Heat and Body Heat Storage (BHS) to understand their correlation at the unit of analysis of vacant lots, where key decisions are made concerning land use. The results reveal a nonrandom spatial distribution of CRE for Heat and BHS across Mesa’s vacant lots. Vacant lots are disproportionately concentrated in neighborhoods with lower resilience, exacerbating heat exposure. Communities with limited access to cooling infrastructure, tree canopy, and other resources experience lowered heat resilience. A positive correlation between CRE for Heat and BHS shows that areas with higher heat exposure tend to have lower community resilience, reinforcing the need for cooling interventions. This study highlights the potential for converting vacant lots into heat-resilient, community-serving spaces. Using our findings, decision makers can identify priority areas and leverage vacant lots to mitigate heat impacts and foster community resilience.

community resilience↗

DOE OSTI2025

Accelerating Resilience of the Community through Holistic Engagement and use of Renewables (ARCHER) Planning Framework

The primary objective of the Accelerating Resilience of the Community through Holistic Engagement and Use of Renewables (ARCHER) initiative was to identify and incorporate the unique variations in energy burden, social vulnerability, living conditions, and access to essential services that differ across communities. By accounting for these localized factors—down to the neighborhood level—the project supports more targeted and effective investments in community resilience. The framework seeks to establish practical planning guidance, methods, and performance measures for community energy resilience, integrate community-level and electric utility system resilience planning, and assess its effectiveness through comparison with conventional and operational planning approaches. A key component of the project was its data exchange platform, which is used to evaluate and demonstrate the tools, methodologies, and planning approaches developed through ARCHER. This open-source platform enables developers and vendors of distribution and outage management systems to build upon the research by incorporating its concepts into their own tools and workflows. This capability is enabled by the transparent availability of data, functional requirements, and the underlying information model. The project yielded several important insights. First, meaningful engagement with communities is essential to achieving comprehensive resilience outcomes. Second, resilience planning is most effective when electric grid considerations and broader community needs are addressed in a coordinated manner. Third, the use of platforms that allow for real-time input from communities can enhance utility responsiveness during restoration activities. Fourth, a structured and systematic planning approach can successfully translate ARCHER concepts into practice. Fifth, the development of an integrated metric that reflects both grid performance and community impacts provides a more holistic basis for evaluating resilience. Finally, incorporating community engagement and equity considerations into grid operations is critical, particularly during severe weather events that result in extended outages.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2025

Integrated Metrics for County-Level Resilience Ranking Using Entropy and TOPSIS

In the face of atypical weather events, power infrastructure failures, and limited resources for resilience investment, energy decision-makers need data-driven metrics to allocate resilience investments and maximize the reduction of power outage impacts. For state-level planning, for instance, ranking the resilience of each county is key to ensuring effective distribution of resources. In such cases, resilience for each spatial unit is multifaceted and is captured by a set of indicators (i.e., metrics) that can be combined into an overall score that reduces the complexity of power outage dynamics to a single decision metric. However, weighting of these indicators is often addressed by simplifying assumptions (i.e., equal weights) or semi-subjective methods that rely on user-defined weights that can introduce biases (e.g., weighted average score). Within the disaster risk reduction and resilience engineering community, a recurring challenge in multicriteria decision-making is the objective weighting of indicators for composite indices. To address this issue, we have leveraged a Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) combined with an entropy-based weighting approach to calculated the integrated scores. This method objectively determines the importance of each metric, better discerns between spatial units (i.e., counties), and offers a more reliable ranking of counties according to their relative resilience attributes. By improving methods for integrating resilience indicators, our approach helps planners and decision-makers prioritize resources more effectively for more efficient resilience investments.

Bhusal, Narayan [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (OR↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going beyond reliability to robustness and resilience in space systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience, are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environments is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes are usually unanticipated. They often invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging events. These three are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems, the ability to perform after unanticipated events, would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness can be done by dealing with known sources of problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. Two contrasting approaches are reducing system complexity and adding supervisory control. The need for resilience has been claimed for decades but little has been accomplished. Systems designers assume that they understand requirements, technologies, designs, architectures, integration, testing, operations, and environments. The potential problems of changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns are ignored. Systems designers are typically overconfident and ignore the need for robustness and resilience.

Harry W Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going Beyond Reliability to Robustness and Resilience in Space Life Support Systems

Harry W. Jones↗

NASA NTRS2022

Resiliency in Future Cislunar Space Architectures

This work introduces and explores the concept of resiliency as it relates to future cislunar space architectures by 1) citing examples of its growing demand across government; 2) describing potential characteristics of resilient systems; 3) introducing a framework for evaluating the linkages between resilient capabilities and visions for future cislunar architectures; and 4) exercising the framework to identify and evaluate resiliency-enabling technical capabilities for cislunar space architectures. We assert that resiliency can emerge from a layered approach of deliberately chosen capabilities with overlap and flexibility that, in aggerate, result in a resilient system. The challenge is to identify capabilities that contribute to resiliency and to accurately characterize their value. Resiliency is discussed through the lens of future architecture planning, outlining how the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) can benefit from a shift in approach when transitioning focus to the cislunar environment.

Jason Hay↗

DOE OSTI2025

Hierarchical Resilience Planning for Networked Microgrids: A Case Study of Puerto Rico

Microgrids can be designed to enhance the energy resilience of communities and critical infrastructures, such as hospitals, data centers, and communication networks, which are vulnerable to frequent weather-related disruption. Coordinating multiple microgrids in a network can leverage the geographical diversity of load and generation resources while enabling resilient and cost-effective planning of the distribution system. Designing a networked microgrid is complex, involving intricate technical assessment, cost-benefit analysis, site-specific requirements, and the evaluation of existing resources. Therefore, this paper proposes a hierarchical resilience planning framework and performs an extensive techno-economic analysis for the design of a networked microgrid. Hierarchical resilience planning involves technology sizing at an individual community level to meet the critical load and satisfy resilience criteria, and resource optimization at networked microgrid level to provide a higher level of resilience and energy adequacy. A real-world case of Puerto Rico's cooperative microgrid “Microrred de la Montaña” is investigated considering localized electricity tariffs, site-specific demand profiles, solar generation, and existing hydro resources. Multiple optimization scenarios are developed based on the resiliency requirement to estimate the capacity of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage (BES) to be installed at each substation. The results provide the optimal sizing for individual community and networked microgrid to withstand 1day and 3-day outages along with the criteria for critical load.

13 - HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2026

Integrating three plan evaluation approaches for coordinated heat resilience in cities across the Arizona urban corridor

Increasing heat poses a growing threat to cities worldwide due to both climate change and the urban heat island effect. While heat planning and governance are still emergent, research suggests that silos and conflicts within cities' networks of plans often impede heat resilience. Integrated heat resilience planning, therefore, requires a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the silos and conflicts relevant to heat resilience within networks of plans. This study is the first to combine three complementary plan evaluation methods to assess how cities' networks of plans address heat resilience. We applied 1) plan cross-referencing, 2) Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, and 3) Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat to 19 plans from seven Arizona cities. We find similarities and differences in how these cities' networks of plans address heat hazards. The plans have consistently high-quality participation and coordination principles but lack details on vulnerability and climate change uncertainty, suggesting a need to move beyond immediate heat risks. We also identify opportunities to diversify policy mechanisms, spatially target high heat risk areas, and enhance the connection between planning efforts. These results validate that plan elements are interlinked and the importance of integrative plan development processes to improve heat resilience.

Extreme heat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Degradation Modeling to Identify Fragile Operational Conditions in Human- and Component-driven Resilience Assessment

Studying failure events shows that many high-impact events result from the complex interactions between precipitating failure events and degraded operational conditions. Often, when a system is put in operations, unforeseen practical realities (e.g., maintenance and/or workforce availability) lead the system to be operated in configurations outside its envisioned nominal range. However, design-time failure models often assume that the failure events are initiated in an idealized, nominal state of system operation, resulting in an incomplete assessment of future risk. To solve this, this paper develops a framework to consider degraded operational performance in scenario-based resilience models which uses a corresponding model of performance degradation to determine the values of deteriorated model parameters in the resilience model. This framework is demonstrated on a remotely-piloted rover to determine the (individual and combined) effect of drive-train wear and operator fatigue on the resilience of the rover to drive-train faults. This demonstration showed the substantial impact that degradation has on resilience, highlighting the need to account for degradation in resilience models–specifically, unconsidered degradation can lead to overestimates of resilience (and thus underestimates of safety margin) and because resilience can degrade prior to visible unreliability, which can lead to an operational environment with a high propensity for high-impact unforeseen failure events.

resilience↗

DOE OSTI2026

Resilience Metrics for Solar Photovoltaics

This workshop presentation proposes the development of solar photovoltaic (PV) system resilience metrics and a methodology and framework for evaluation of PV resilience metrics. PV resilience metrics are needed to establish a consistent basis for reporting, evaluation, and data collection by industry, evaluate performance of PV systems that have been subject to natural hazards, correlating resilience to system attributes, and predicting resilience for any PV system. PV resilience metrics can guide improved system design, standards, and insurance coverage. Establishing consistent metrics can foster data collection on impacts of natural hazards on PV systems.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

The temporal onset of associations of cortical proteins with cognitive resilience vary during late life

Background: Cortical proteins associated with cognitive resilience have been identified but their temporal onset in older adults is unknown. We present a multistage approach to first identify cortical proteins associated with cognitive resilience and then examine their associated temporal onset. Methods: We used data from a subset of 1088 decedents from two cohort-studies who had selected reaction monitoring proteomics from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and at least 3 cognitive assessments. Cognition was assessed using a composite derived from 19 tests. We first used linear mixed-effects models to identify cortical proteins associated with cognitive resilience. We then used functional mixed-effects models to examine non-linear associations between proteins and cognitive resilience to identify their temporal onset. Results: Mean age at death was 90 years (SD = 6.4); 69 % were female. On average, cognition started to decline at around 15 years before death, with accelerated decline in the last 7 years. We identified 40 proteins associated with cognitive resilience, of which 17 proteins also showed non-linear associations. Non-linear associations indicated that higher levels of 10 proteins were associated with slower cognitive decline between 23 and 4 years before death. In contrast, higher levels of 7 proteins were associated with faster decline only within the last 7 years before death. Conclusions: Cognitive resilience proteins are differentially related to late-life cognitive aging; the onset of proteins that maintain cognition may begin many years before the onset of proteins that hasten cognitive decline. The temporal onset of cognitive resilience proteins may be crucial for timing efficacious interventions.

Zammit, Andrea↗

DOE OSTI2025

Bridging the Gap on Data, Metrics, and Analyses for Grid Resilience to Weather Events: Information that utilities can provide regulators, state energy offices, and other stakeholders

A growing number of states require regulated utilities to file resilience plans to improve the electric grid’s ability to anticipate, withstand, adapt to and recover from increasingly severe weather events. This report aims to help state regulators identify and request data, metrics, and analyses from utilities and use it in decisions on utility resilience plans and investments. The report reviews state requirements and utility plans focused on overall grid resilience, climate change resilience and vulnerabilities, infrastructure modernization, storm protection, and wildfire mitigation. It details types of data, metrics, and analyses across five categories--and provides examples of each from the utility plans. The first category is vulnerability assessments, or evaluations of the susceptibility of systems, communities, or assets to potential harm from identified hazards. The second is data on hazards and the exposure of utility assets and customers to these hazards. The third is attribute metrics, or system characteristics that contribute to or describe the resilience of a system. The fourth is performance metrics, which are impacts of resilience investments on system performance--typically a reduction of negative impacts from hazard events. Finally, evaluation and prioritization are analyses that utilities conduct to estimate impacts from resilience measures (evaluation) and prioritize measures based on costs and estimated impacts (prioritization). The report concludes with examples of key trends and emerging best practices for states and utilities, and identifies areas for further research.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Using Degradation Modeling to Identify Fragile Operational Conditions in Human- and Component-driven Resilience Assessment

Studying failure events shows that many high-impact events result from the complex interactions between precipitating failure events and degraded operational conditions. Often, when a system is put in operations, unforeseen practical realities (e.g., maintenance and/or workforce availability) lead the system to be operated in configurations outside its envisioned nominal range. However, design-time failure models often assume that the failure events are initiated in an idealized, nominal state of system operation, resulting in an incomplete assessment of future risk. To solve this, this paper develops a framework to consider degraded operational performance in scenario-based resilience models which uses a corresponding model of performance degradation to determine the values of deteriorated model parameters in the resilience model. This framework is demonstrated on a remotely-piloted rover to determine the (individual and combined) effect of drive-train wear and operator fatigue on the resilience of the rover to drive-train faults. This demonstration showed the substantial impact that degradation has on resilience, highlighting the need to account for degradation in resilience models--specifically, unconsidered degradation can lead to overestimates of resilience (and thus underestimates of safety margin) and because resilience can degrade prior to visible unreliability, which can lead to an operational environment with a high propensity for high-impact unforeseen failure events.

Daniel Hulse↗

DOE OSTI2025

Graph-based Simulation Framework for Power Resilience Estimation and Enhancement

The increasing frequency of extreme weather events poses significant risks to power distribution systems, leading to widespread outages and severe economic and social consequences. This paper presents a novel simulation framework for assessing and enhancing the resilience of power distribution networks under such conditions. Resilience is estimated through Monte Carlo simulations, which simulate extreme weather scenarios and evaluate the impact on infrastructure fragility. Due to the proprietary nature of power network topology, a distribution network is synthesized using publicly available data. To generate the weather scenarios, an extreme weather generation method is developed. To enhance resilience, renewable resources such as solar panels and energy storage systems (batteries in this study) are incorporated. A customized Genetic Algorithm is proposed to determine the optimal locations and capacities for solar panels and battery installations, maximizing resilience while balancing cost constraints. Experiment results demonstrate that on a large-scale synthetic distribution network with more than 300,000 nodes and 300,000 edges, the proposed framework can efficiently evaluate the resilience, and enhance the resilience through the installations of distributed energy resources (DERs), providing utilities with valuable insights for community-level power system resilience estimation and enhancement.

Wang, Xuesong [Wayne State Univ., Detroit, MI (Uni↗