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 91 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2021

Resilience Metrics and Framework for Distributed Wind Presentation

This presentation communicates information about the MIRACL project Resilience Metrics report and Resilience Framework report. It was created for the 2021 MIRACL advisory board meeting. We propose a three-tiered approach for the resilience framework. At the top level, we consider the time horizons on which resilience will be evaluated and executed. At the middle level, we consider the core functions of resilience, which span across the time horizons. At the lower level, we consider the process steps that correspond to implementing practices for resilience in each of the core functions. The framework considers three time horizons in order to enable organizations to assess and improve their system’s resilience throughout its lifecycle. We call these time horizons the planning, operational, and future stages. The planning stage uses organizational needs and current system evaluation to prepare for potential hazards. The operational stage seeks to execute responses to hazards as prudently and efficiently as possible to maintain system resilience. The future stage seeks to improve on current system resilience and feeds back into the planning stage to promote continuous improvement. While all three time horizons are important when considering a specific topic, the planning and evaluation phase (i.e., what is done in advance of the event) is critical in defining a system’s resilience characteristics and in outlining how a system responds to an event. This framework intentionally emphasizes the planning stage to highlight the overarching emphasis of this effort, not to imply that the other two time-related horizons (i.e., operational and change the future) are less important. The core functions in the framework are identify, prepare, detect, adapt, and recover. These five functions stem from a rigorous analysis of definitions used across the industry, and they represent the core capabilities that an organization must have to enable lifecycle resilience. Within each core function, process steps are described that help walk an organization through the information gathering, evaluation, decision-making, and implementation processes they will need to ensure their resilience goals are maintained throughout the system and the system lifecycle. Also highlighted in the figure is the concept that a resilience framework should be cyclical in nature. Because a system’s resilience is based on finite resources and time, it must continually evolve through this framework’s risk management and capital investment steps at an appropriate level of scope and pace.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Cortical Proteins and Individual Differences in Cognitive Resilience in Older Adults

Background and objectives: Cognitive resilience is a well-recognized concept, but knowledge gaps about its underlying mechanisms have made it difficult to develop instruments that identify older adults with high or low resilience. We tested whether aggregating cortical peptides associated with cognitive resilience into an index can identify adults with higher or lower cognitive resilience. Methods: We used data from 1,192 older decedents, including annual clinical testing, indices of 10 Alzheimer disease (AD) and related dementia (ADRD) pathologies, and 226 proteotypic peptides measured in the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. We used linear mixed-effects models to identify peptides that were related to cognitive resilience (i.e., cognitive decline not explained by ADRD pathologies [false discovery rate <0.05]). We aggregated the expression levels of these resilience peptides into a person-specific cognitive resilience index and examined its association with AD clinical and pathologic phenotypes. Results: We constructed a resilience index from 52 of 226 peptides related to cognitive resilience. A higher index was associated with slower cognitive decline (estimate 0.05, SE 0.003, p < 0.001) and slower motor decline (estimate 0.005, SE 0.001, p < 0.001). Most resilience peptides (70%) were specific to cognitive decline, but 30% also provided resilience for motor decline. A higher index was also related to a lower burden of AD pathologies (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, SE 0.01, p < 0.001) and modified the association of AD pathology with cognition in that a higher index modified the negative effects of AD pathology on AD dementia proximate to death (OR 0.70, SE 0.14, p = 0.010). Up to 90% of cognitive resilience peptides were related to AD pathologic phenotypes. Discussion: Cortical proteins may provide some degree of cognitive resilience. These multifunctional proteins also seem to provide resilience to other AD clinical phenotypes and have independent associations with ADRD pathologies. Resilience proteins may be high-value therapeutic targets for drug discovery of interventions that maintain brain health in aging adults via multiple pathways.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Data-driven Community-centered Resilient Assessment and Planning Toolkit for Nexus of Energy and Water (DCRAPT-NEW)

Urban areas, including Detroit and Pittsburgh, have suffered significant dual outages of the electrical and water infrastructure in the past decade due, in part, to the increasing number of extreme weather events. With increasing temperatures and rainfall intensity, these regions need to prepare for increasing extreme events through community-based energy and water resilience analysis, planning, and enhancement. This project developed a suite of open-source, open-access, community-centered, data-driven assessment and distributed energy resource (DER) and planning tools for energy and water resilience enhancement in urban areas. Through establishing a multi-level community awareness and engagement mechanism and a comprehensive collection of power outage and flooding data, an innovative group of community energy and water resilience assessment and planning tools have been developed for a wide range of users with differing and variable sets of data available to them. The developed tools include (1) DOE EAGLE-I data-driven, deep-learning assisted resilience assessment and DER planning tools at the county level with socioeconomic factors incorporated; (2) Utility annual power outage data-driven tools for long term resilience assessment and DER planning and 15-min power outage data-driven tools for short term resilience assessment and planning; (3) Detailed engineering tools for energy and water systems resilience assessment and planning when the system topology and component fragility curves are available; (4) Alternative Resiliency Metric Calculation that extracts and separates outage and restoration processes; and (5) Co-optimization tools that evaluate the resilience of the power and sewage system and allow users to conduct joint planning with energy and wastewater systems. The developed tools provide planners, decision-makers, and stakeholders with powerful capabilities to systematically evaluate system/community resilience and optimal and actionable guidance for enhancing resilience while prioritizing DER investments. The tools have been used and validated in Detroit and Pittsburgh and can be used in other areas of the nation. In addition, this project will (1) advance the knowledge and applications of machine-learning methods in analyzing and fusing different layers of information and generating meaningful data points such as generating rare weather events; (2) significantly improve the energy and water resilience of the identified communities in Detroit and Pittsburgh and prepare for more frequent and severe weather conditions; (3) help communities assess extreme weather event impacts and address short-term and long-term resilience-related issues The developed tools have been made public via GitHub and demonstrated to community stakeholders and utility companies via the two annual workshops and numerous community engagement meetings. The project outcomes are also disseminated through publications in various journals and conference proceedings, and presentations at top conferences.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Regulatory Mechanisms to Enable Investments in Electric Utility Resilience

In 2019, Sandia National Laboratories contracted Synapse Energy Economics (Synapse) to research the integration of community and electric utility resilience investment planning as part of the Designing Resilient Communities: A Consequence-Based Approach for Grid Investment (DRC) project. Synapse produced a series of reports to explore the challenges and opportunities in several key areas, including benefit-cost analysis, performance metrics, microgrids, and regulatory mechanisms to promote investments in electric system resilience. This report focuses on regulatory mechanisms to improve resilience. Regulatory mechanisms that improve resilience are approaches that electric utility regulators can use to align utility, customer, and third-party investments with regulatory, ratepayer, community, and other important stakeholder interests and priorities for resilience. Cost-of-service regulation may fail to provide utilities with adequate guidance or incentives regarding community priorities for infrastructure hardening and disaster recovery. The application of other types of regulatory mechanisms to resilience investments can help. This report: characterizes regulatory objective as they apply to resilience; identifies several regulatory mechanisms that are used or can be adapted to improve the resilience of the electric system--including performance-based regulation, integrated planning, tariffs and programs to leverage private investment, alternative lines of business for utilities, enhanced cost recovery, and securitization; provides a case study of each regulatory mechanism; summarizes findings across the case studies; and suggests how these regulatory mechanisms might be improved and applied to resilience moving forward. In this report, we assess the effectiveness of a range of utility regulatory mechanisms at evaluating and prioritizing utility investments in grid resilience. First, we characterize regulatory objectives which underly all regulatory mechanisms. We then describe seven types of regulatory mechanisms that can be used to improve resilience--including performance-based regulation, integrated planning, tariffs and programs to leverage private investment, alternative lines of business for utilities, enhanced cost recovery, and securitization--and provide a case study for each one. We summarize our findings on the extent to which these regulatory mechanisms have supported resilience to date. We conclude with suggestions on how these regulatory mechanisms might be improved and applied to resilience moving forward.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2023

Community Resilience Indicator Analysis: Commonly Used Indicators from Peer-Reviewed Research (Updated for Research Published 2003-2021)

In 2017, FEMA’s National Integration Center (NIC) Technical Assistance (TA) Branch identified a need to establish a data-driven basis for prioritizing locations for TA investment and guiding local emergency management planning. To achieve this goal, FEMA tasked Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) with identifying commonly used indicators of community resilience across the landscape of published peer-reviewed research. FEMA and Argonne completed the first Community Resilience Indicator Analysis (CRIA) in 2018 and repeated the process in 2022. The CRIA process begins with a literature review and cataloguing of published peer-reviewed assessment methodologies on social vulnerability and community resilience. The literature review findings are then filtered by inclusion criteria established by the CRIA research team to ensure the methodologies are: (1) Quantitative, (2) Data and methodology are publicly available, (3) Calculated at the county level or lower, (4) Examine generalized hazard risk (rather than a singular hazard), and (5) Focused on pre-disaster community conditions. After this, the research team identifies the commonly used indicators across these methodologies and selects the best data source for each indicator. Finally, the research team bins the data for visual display, conducts a correlation analysis and creates a composite index, the FEMA Community Resilience Index (FEMA CRI). In 2018, the CRIA identified eight resilience and vulnerability assessment methodologies and 20 commonly used indicators (indicators used in three or more of the eight methodologies). The FEMA CRI in 2018 was created from these 20 indicators and was produced for at the county level. The 2022 CRIA updated the literature review to expand the list of methodologies examined and followed the same process, resulting in an analysis of 14 methodologies published between 2003 and 2021 and 22 indicators identified as commonly used (indicators used in five or more of the 14 methodologies). In 2022, the research team produced the FEMA CRI at the county and the census tract levels. To make the CRIA data more accessible and more actionable, each individual indicator and the FEMA CRI is binned and included in FEMA’s Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT). RAPT enables emergency managers and community partners to quickly visualize relative differences in potential resilience by county, tribe and census tract. By reviewing the data for each of these 22 indicators individually, emergency managers can gain insights for targeted outreach strategies, planning, mitigation investments and response and recovery operations. Communities, regional governments and others can use this data to better understand potential challenges to resilience. As the social science field of examining and validating indicators of resilience evolves, FEMA will update RAPT to provide emergency managers and community partners with additional data and tools to inform planning, mitigation, response and recovery. It is important to understand that the role of the emergency manager is not to change or to “improve” the data, but to plan appropriately for the community characteristics reflected in the data. These datasets are community characteristics that researchers have identified as important considerations for resilience. For example, people with disabilities may have greater challenges to be resilient to disasters. If a community has a high population of people with disabilities, the emergency manager(s) may need to create tailored preparedness outreach programs and strategies to ensure those residents have support if evacuation is necessary. Rather than label these indicators as an absolute measure of resilience, FEMA considers “potential challenges to resilience” a better frame to understand these indicators. Everyone is vulnerable to disasters. While scholars theorize that certain characteristics may make an individual or a household more socially vulnerable, the data does not reflect measures that individuals and/or communities have taken to address potential challenges, such as emergency management planning and outreach or household preparedness measures. To aid emergency managers in understanding how to use these indicators, calling them potential challenges to resilience supports a more positive and strategic application of the data in all phases of emergency management.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Personal Resiliency Index

A plethora of information exists in literature focusing on different aspects of personal resilience. There are a number of questionnaires available to measure resilience in different aspects of an individual’s life, such as mental health. However, there is a lack of comprehensive information on the subject of personal resilience to natural and man-made disasters. A Personal Resiliency Index identifying four key areas of resilience related to natural and man-made disasters will help fill this gap by providing individuals an idea of where the stand comparatively to their peers on this topics. As an increasing amount of man-made disasters, natural disasters and pandemics occur, we realize that preparation is key.?“Crisis can be experienced at individual, group and mass levels and at local, regional, national or supra-national levels.” 1? Dr. Ron Fisher, the principal investigator has over 20 years’ critical infrastructure protection including developing vulnerability assessment methodology, risk and resiliency analyses and infrastructure interdependencies. Dr. Fisher and his team will research and develop a voluntary survey which evaluates the user’s personal resilience level to natural and man-made disasters. The research team is focusing on 4 main categories:? financial resilience, cyber security, physical and mental health, and emergency preparedness.?The web based application will?provide a resilience score for each of the categories and also a comprehensive personal resiliency score based on the voluntary survey. The application will also provide feedback to the user on actions to take to become more resilient to natural and man-made disasters. Through this effort, we will also be able to identify the areas where participants are excelling as well as opportunities for improvement in terms of resilience. This information will provide insight into areas of further investigation and identify potential areas of support needed for the general public to adopt strategies to become more resilient. 1 Lynott, William. “Surviving a Natural (or Man-Made) Disaster: How to Prepare for and Bounce Back? from a Crisis in Your Business | 2018-02-01 | NOLN.” Home Page, NOLN, 1 Feb. 2018, https://www.noln.net/articles/2683-surviving-a-natural-or-man-made-disaster-how-to-prepare-for-and-bounce-back-from-a-crisis-in-your-business.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Exploring stages of resilience maturity as communities confront climate risks

Coastal communities are facing increased risks due to climate change, as evidenced by heightened shocks such as hurricanes and wildfires, and stressors including sea-level rise and drought. To confront these risks, many coastal communities are planning and designing their built environments in new ways, with the overall goal of increasing their resilience. However, resilience practices have been widely guided by an event-based timeframe, which may not be sufficient to confront the multiple and overlapping threats expected over the coming decades. To address this concern, this study investigated a long-term perspective on resilience progression, termed resilience maturity. To better understand resilience maturity in practice, this study drew directly on community perspectives, thereby identifying common challenges. Furthermore, variation in resilience maturity across communities provided an opportunity to identify existing successful strategies. Inductive qualitative analysis was used to examine perspectives from 15 interviews with local practitioners across 12 coastal communities. The analysis revealed that communities in early stages of resilience maturity often struggle with local stakeholder alignment and minimal dedicated resilience resources. In contrast, those further along the maturity path often face technology barriers and challenges in aligning regional stakeholders. Few examples of a fully mature resilience culture were found within the communities studied, underscoring systemic barriers to achieving advanced resilience maturity. Overall, these findings supported development of a practical framework for classifying community resilience efforts, identifying common obstacles, and informing localized resilience advancement.

Resilience maturity↗

DOE OSTI2022

Case Study: Applying the INL Resilience Framework to Iowa Lakes Electric Cooperative Distributed Wind Systems

Traditional metrics and evaluation methods for resiliency are not sufficient to evaluate the effect that distributed wind systems will have, particularly in light of the challenges described above. While the concept of resiliency is not new, its application to the electric grid is neither standardized nor well-defined, and there is little to no guidance on how to evaluate resilience specifically for distributed wind systems. To fill this gap, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), as part of the multi-laboratory Microgrids, Infrastructure Resilience, and Advanced Controls Launchpad (MIRACL) project, has developed a resilience framework for electric energy delivery systems (EEDS). The framework provides detailed steps for evaluating resiliency in the planning, operational, and future stages, and encompasses five core functions of resilience. It allows users to evaluate the resilience of distributed wind, taking into consideration the resilience of the wind systems themselves, as well as the effect they have on the resiliency of any systems they are connected to. In this study, we evaluate the resilience of the distributed wind systems at Iowa Lakes Electric Cooperative to cybersecurity hazards. We show that the wind resource can benefit the overall system resilience during some hazards. We show that the practices in place make the wind subsystems resilient against some cybersecurity hazards but that there are still significant risks associated with other cybersecurity hazards

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2026

Stakeholder-guided holistic, Adaptive Framework for enhancing community Energy Resilience (SAFER) (Final Technical Report)

The Stakeholder-guided holistic, Adaptive Framework for enhancing community Energy Resilience (SAFER) project advances resilience science and engineering by addressing challenges in rural Kansas communities where aging infrastructure, extreme weather, and socioeconomic disparities heighten vulnerability to energy disruptions. Traditional approaches often focus on technical performance while overlooking community concerns and priorities. SAFER responds by integrating community perspectives with advanced analytical frameworks to create a holistic model for measuring and improving resilience. Project objectives included developing novel resilience metrics, advancing modeling frameworks that capture interdependencies across infrastructures, and embedding community-centric indicators directly into planning processes for distributed energy resources. The key technical innovations included the creation of self-organizing map (SOM)-based indices for objective resilience quantification, hetero-functional graph theory (HFGT) models linking power, water, transportation, and community assets, and graph neural network (GNN) tools for identifying critical nodes in complex systems. Community-centric energy planning was demonstrated through optimal siting and sizing of (photovoltaic) PV and battery storage, ensuring resilience enhancements also addressed energy burden and energy insecurity. SAFER engaged community partners in Dodge City and Ford County through surveys, focus groups, and workshops, generating more than 600 responses that established baseline measures of energy burden, financial insecurity, and willingness-to-pay to avoid outages. This data, organized in terms of a community capitals framework, informed the development of weighted reliability indices that better reflect community costs than traditional utility metrics. SAFER’s GNN-based critical node identification framework identified expert-labelled critical nodes with over 99% accuracy, while also uncovering additional functionalities essential for proactive resilience planning. The project’s models demonstrated that optimal PV and storage deployment could improve resilience indices by over 11 percent, with dispatch strategies further enhancing outcomes, confirming both the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of these approaches. Through its combined emphasis on rigorous modeling, community-focused planning, and community engagement, SAFER advances the state of resilience research while delivering direct benefits to rural communities. The project provides tools, guidelines, and resilience heatmaps that help utilities, local governments, and residents better anticipate disruptions, prioritize investments, and strengthen the capacity to withstand and recover from energy-related hazards. Furthermore, the developed HFG and GNN frameworks are designed for transferability, allowing them to be adapted for resilience planning in other communities with minimal retraining. This inductive learning capability provides a scalable pathway to extend the SAFER project’s impact. Thus, creating a foundation for a nationally applicable model of infrastructure resilience. Additionally, the HFG can also be extended to include other FEMA community lifelines.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Performance Metrics to Evaluate Utility Resilience Investments

In 2019, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) contracted Synapse Energy Economics (Synapse) to research the integration of community and electric grid resilience investment planning as part of the Designing Resilient Communities (DRC): A Consequence-Based Approach for Grid Investment project. Synapse produced a series of reports to explore the challenges and opportunities in several key areas, including benefit-cost analysis (BCA), performance metrics, microgrids, and regulatory mechanisms. This report focuses on BCA. BCA is an approach that electric utilities, electric utility regulators, and communities can use to evaluate the costs and benefits of a wide range of grid resilience investments in a comprehensive and consistent way. While BCA is regularly applied to some types of grid investments, application of BCA to grid resilience investments is in the early stages of development. Though resilience is increasingly cited in connection with grid investment proposals and plans, the resilience- related costs and benefits of grid resilience investments are typically not fully identified, infrequently quantified, and almost never monetized. Without complete assessments of costs and benefits, regulators can be hesitant to approve some types of grid resilience investments. This report provides the first application of the framework developed in the 2020 National Standard Practice Manual for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Distributed Energy Resources (NSPM for DERs) to grid resilience investments. We provide guidance on next steps for implementation to enable grid resilience investments to receive due consideration. We suggest developing BCA principles and standards for jurisdiction-specific BCA tests. We also recommend identifying the resilience impacts of the investments and quantification of these impacts by establishing utility performance metrics for resilience. Proactive integration of grid resilience investments into existing regulatory processes and practices can increase the capacity of jurisdictions to respond to and recover from the consequences of extreme events. 1 National Energy Screening Project. 2020. National Standard Practice Manual for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Distributed Energy Resources.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2020

Adapting Existing Energy Planning, Simulation, and Operational Models for Resilience Analysis

Resilience is a topic receiving much attention in relation to energy systems, with particular attention being paid to the supply of electricity. As a result, research communities have proposed a plethora of candidate indicators and metrics for resilience, most of which remain immature at different scales and segments within the energy system. Given the complexity of resilience analyses and mitigation strategies, there is limited value in attempting to identify a single resilience metric, as no one metric can quantify resilience or its associated value for all stakeholders. Instead, a necessary focus of the research community should lie in implementing, testing, and validating resilience metrics and analysis approaches in energy sector models, which will be invaluable for informing resilience planning and investment decisions. Recognizing that implementing, testing, and validating resilience metrics are challenges that need to be addressed, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) dedicated staff and time to researching how to effectively integrate resilience considerations into energy sector models and tools, as part of the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program. The overarching goal of the effort was to evaluate the data needs, methodologies, and outcomes - including consequences and/or changes in investment or operational decisions due to avoided consequences - based on resilience analysis in a range of existing tools. In particular, we selected five models originally built at NREL to explore non-resilience energy research questions to implement and exercise resilience metrics and analysis approaches.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Applications of Measuring and Valuing Resilience in Energy Systems

The electricity sector is vulnerable to numerous hazards that are being exacerbated by climate change, which can cause an increase in the hazards' frequency and intensity. Consumers, system regulators, system operators, and communities are now preparing to mitigate the increased risks posed by climate change. New York State's energy infrastructure resilience can be increased with targeted investments including but not limited to installing emergency backup systems, integrating microgrid solutions, weatherizing buildings, increasing energy efficiency, adding redundancy, investing in restoration and recovery, and hardening critical components. Such investments can reduce the likelihood, impact, and consequences of disruptive events but can also increase capital and operating costs. A barrier to prioritizing investments in resilience is that there is no widely established method for quantifying and assigning the benefits of resilience investments across various stakeholders. Decision-makers need better information detailing the value of resilience improvements. Developing methods to quantify, value, and price resilience helps meet resilience needs in an effective manner that also supports broader societal welfare. This report lays out considerations for quantifying and valuing resilience, discusses the current state of resilience valuation tools, and provides case studies of resilience projects that demonstrate how resilience attributes could be measured while highlighting broader, project-specific challenges to increasing resilience. Further, we present insights into methods and challenges to measuring, valuing, and enacting resilience investments.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2023

Determinants of cognitive and brain resilience to tau pathology: a longitudinal analysis

Mechanisms of resilience against tau pathology in individuals across the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum are insufficiently understood. Longitudinal data are necessary to reveal which factors relate to preserved cognition (i.e. cognitive resilience) and brain structure (i.e. brain resilience) despite abundant tau pathology, and to clarify whether these associations are cross-sectional or longitudinal. We used a longitudinal study design to investigate the role of several demographic, biological and brain structural factors in yielding cognitive and brain resilience to tau pathology as measured with PET. In this multicentre study, we included 366 amyloid-β-positive individuals with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease dementia with baseline 18 F-flortaucipir-PET and longitudinal cognitive assessments. A subset (n = 200) additionally underwent longitudinal structural MRI. We used linear mixed-effects models with global cognition and cortical thickness as dependent variables to investigate determinants of cognitive resilience and brain resilience, respectively. Models assessed whether age, sex, years of education, APOE-ε4 status, intracranial volume (and cortical thickness for cognitive resilience models) modified the association of tau pathology with cognitive decline or cortical thinning. We found that the association between higher baseline tau-PET levels (quantified in a temporal meta-region of interest) and rate of cognitive decline (measured with repeated Mini-Mental State Examination) was adversely modified by older age (Stβ interaction = -0.062, P = 0.032), higher education level (Stβ interaction = -0.072, P = 0.011) and higher intracranial volume (Stβ interaction = -0.07, P = 0.016). Younger age, higher education and greater cortical thickness were associated with better cognitive performance at baseline. Greater cortical thickness was furthermore associated with slower cognitive decline independent of tau burden. Higher education also modified the negative impact of tau-PET on cortical thinning, while older age was associated with higher baseline cortical thickness and slower rate of cortical thinning independent of tau. Our analyses revealed no (cross-sectional or longitudinal) associations for sex and APOE-ε4 status on cognition and cortical thickness. In this longitudinal study of clinically impaired individuals with underlying Alzheimer’s disease neuropathological changes, we identified education as the most robust determinant of both cognitive and brain resilience against tau pathology. The observed interaction with tau burden on cognitive decline suggests that education may be protective against cognitive decline and brain atrophy at lower levels of tau pathology, with a potential depletion of resilience resources with advancing pathology. Finally, we did not find major contributions of sex to brain nor cognitive resilience, suggesting that previous links between sex and resilience might be mainly driven by cross-sectional differences.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Distributed Wind Resilience Metrics for Electric Energy Delivery Systems: Comprehensive Literature Review

While most people have a general concept of what it means to be “resilient,” an examination of definitions from different sources reveals that there are key commonalities but key differences as well. The lack of a generally accepted definition and application of resilience extends to electric energy delivery systems. Without an accepted definition, it is difficult to implement programs or processes to improve resiliency. In this paper, existing work from industry, regulatory bodies, and national laboratories to define and apply resilience to electric energy delivery systems is studied to understand the key components to define resilience and better understand associated metrics. This understanding is then applied to distributed wind for a specific example of how resilience of a system is affected by the technologies and generation sources used to support it. A key finding is that there is no “one size fits all” process for resilience. Each system has a “distinctiveness” characteristic, which qualifies the possibility of differences in resilience due to different threats, geography, stakeholders, risk tolerance, and mitigations. The distinctiveness characteristic extends to distributed wind, where different configurations may lend the distributed wind to contribute to the resilience of systems in a variety of ways. The findings of this research demonstrate the need for a resilience framework that can be readily applied by stakeholders to improve resilience based on the specific system, threat, risk tolerance and stakeholders.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Power System Resilience Evaluation Framework and Metric Review: Preprint

Power system resilience is an emerging hot topic in recent years to study the increasing threats of extreme events such as natural disasters, severe weather, and cyberattacks. Although many research works have been done to define, model, and quantify resilience from different aspects, the lack of universally accepted resilience metrics and evaluation methods makes it difficult to assess and compare resilience across different power systems like what is typically done in power system reliability studies. In this paper, we first review the definitions of resilience and summarized two core concepts shared by most literature. On top of that, we conduct a thorough review of resilience metrics and develop a new framework to assess power system resilience from two perspectives, i.e., pre-event estimation and post-event evaluation, to capture system resilience performance in both general and specific fashions. Existing resilience metrics are summarized and categorized using the proposed framework, where recommendations are also proposed to capture core concepts of resilience.

power system resilience↗

DOE OSTI2024

A Resilient Integrated Resource Planning Framework for Transmission Systems: Analysis and Optimization

This article presents a resilient Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) framework designed for transmission systems, with a specific focus on analyzing and optimizing responses to High-Impact Low-Probability (HILP) events. The framework aims to improve the resilience of transmission networks in the face of extreme events by prioritizing the assessment of events with significant consequences. Unlike traditional reliability-based planning methods that average the impact of various outage durations, this work adopts a metric based on the proximity of outage lines to generators to select HILP events. The system’s baseline resilience is evaluated by calculating load curtailment in different parts of the network resulting from HILP outage events. The transmission network is represented as an undirected graph. Graph-theoretic techniques are used to identify islands with or without generators, potentially forming segmented grids or microgrids. This article introduces Expected Load Curtailment (ELC) as a metric to quantify the system’s resilience. The framework allows for the re-evaluation of system resilience by integrating additional generating resources to achieve desired resilience levels. Optimization is performed in the re-evaluation stage to determine the optimal placement of distributed energy resources (DERs) for enhancing resilience, i.e., minimizing ELC. Case studies on the IEEE 24-bus system illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In the broader context, this resilient IRP framework aligns with energy sustainability goals by promoting robust and resilient transmission networks, as the optimal placement of DERs for resilience enhancement not only strengthens the system’s ability to withstand and recover from disruptions but also contributes to efficient resource utilization, advancing the overarching goal of energy sustainability.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2021

Planning for a Resilient Home Electricity Supply System

Resilience of power systems is already a key issue that is getting frequent attention all over the world. It is useful to analyze resilience issues not only for bulk supply, but at all levels including at a customer level. This is because distributed energy resources can play a prominent role in enhancing resilience. Although the literature on planning models, tools and data for bulk supply and distribution systems have expanded in recent years, customer-centric planning, e.g., for an individual household, is yet to receive adequate attention. Although solar PV and battery storage at a household level have been analyzed, how these resources can be optimally combined, together with grid supply, from a resilience perspective is the focus of this study. The study demonstrates how a conceptual framework can be developed to show the trade-off between system costs and resilience including its dimensions such as duration, depth and frequency of service outages. A planning model is developed that incorporates multiple facets of resilience and individual customer preferences. The model considers power system resilience explicitly as a constraint. The model is implemented for a household level case study in Miami, Florida. The results show there are complex trade-offs among different dimensions of resilience. The study demonstrates how combined resilience metrics can be formulated and evaluated using the proposed least-cost planning model at a household level to optimize grid supply together with solar, battery storage and diesel generators. The model allows a planner to directly embed a resilience standard to drive the optimal supply mix. These concepts and the modeling construct can also be applied at other levels of planning, including community level and bulk supply system planning.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2022

Power System Resilience Evaluation Framework and Metric Review

Power system resilience has been an emerging hot topic in recent years to investigate the increasing threats of extreme events, such as natural disasters, severe weather, and cyberattacks. Although much research has been done to define, model, and quantify resilience from different aspects, the lack of universally accepted evaluation methods and resilience metrics makes it difficult to assess and compare resilience across different power systems, such as what is typically done in power system reliability studies. In this paper, first, we review the definitions of resilience, and we summarize two core concepts shared by most of the literature. Then, we develop a new framework to assess power system resilience from two perspectives - i.e., pre-event estimation and post-event evaluation - to capture system resilience performance in both general and specific fashions. We conduct a thorough review of existing resilience metrics and categorize them using the proposed framework, where recommendations are also proposed to capture core concepts of resilience.

power system resilience↗