Engineering Papers⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 127 records · Page 7

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↗

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↗

Co-regulation of water and energy in the spatial heterogeneity of drought resistance and resilience

Vegetation resistance and resilience to drought are linked to the stability of terrestrial ecosystems under climate change. However, the factors driving the spatial heterogeneity in drought resistance and resilience remain poorly understood. In the study, we utilized multiple satellite-derived vegetation indices to calculate and analyze changes in drought resistance and resilience across various biomes worldwide. Results indicated that drought resistance showed a significant increase with the increase in water availability, but no significant relationship was observed between drought resistance and energy. In contrast, drought resilience exhibited a significant increase with an increase in energy rather than in water. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between drought resistance and resilience across different biomes worldwide, indicating a trade-off between resistance and resilience. However, the strength of the negative correlation varied based on water and energy conditions. These findings provide compelling evidence that water and energy co-regulated the spatial heterogeneity in drought resistance and resilience across the globe. The robust linear relationship between drought resistance and resilience and available water and energy demonstrated in our study is critical to accurately predicting and assessing the impact of climate change on vegetation growth and terrestrial carbon cycling in the future.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Will Solar Panels Help When the Power Goes Out? Planning for PV Resilience

PV systems, like all energy systems, must chart a difficult course in order to improve resilience. They need to simultaneously withstand extreme conditions that cause grid power disruptions, be configured in a way that allows electricity to be delivered to meet the PV user's needs, and overcome disruptions arising from solar resource intermittency. Certain considerations reveal themselves as key to a PV system's resilience benefits. Choice of hardware is critical, as is site selection for the PV array. Voluminous evidence in a hurricane context demonstrates that durable hardware, properly maintained and sited, leads to PV systems surviving extreme weather with their functionality intact. Structurally weak or poorly maintained PV equipment, on the other hand, has demonstrated failures during extreme weather events. PV system stakeholders should ensure that best practices are followed for hardware procurement and siting. It is also important to understand that PV systems are not one-size-fits-all. While incorporating islanding capabilities and energy storage into the system's electrical topology will typically enhance resilience, the user's needs will determine the optimally resilient conformation of any given system. These factors - appropriate hardware, siting, maintenance, and system design - are the primary drivers of PV resilience. PV systems possess high potential for resilient energy generation due to their distributed, abundant, and free fuel supply, but the technology itself does not inherently lead to resilient outcomes. Realizing PV's potential for resilience requires consideration of these determinative factors.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

SEIN: Breaking Barriers Resilient Energy System Analysis [Slides]

The Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) is a collaborative research program that supports multi-stakeholder teams in researching and sharing solutions to real-world challenges associated with solar energy adoption. The Breaking Barriers project was selected to participate in the Solar Energy Innovation Network, Round 2, and was led by Groundswell, a D.C.-based clean energy project developer. The Breaking Barriers team included Partnership for Southern Equity, Atlanta University Center campus facility managers and professors, the City of Atlanta's Neighborhood Planning Unit T, and Georgia Power Company. The project aimed to design and construct innovative urban energy resiliency hubs integrating microgrid technology, solar generation, and energy storage in Atlanta colleges and communities. The hubs will help these historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and the energy-burdened broader community in West Atlanta be more resilient, in addition to informing new course curricula at Atlanta University Center campuses. With many possible options for the system's battery size, the Breaking Barriers team needed insight into the relationships between BESS size, economic performance, and resilience at Spelman College's Manley Center. These insights are crucial for entering procurement negotiations with project developers, establishing resilience capabilities that the HBCU campuses can plan around, and guiding the team's fundraising targets. This analysis includes estimates of PV and battery performance, costs, savings, and resilience for multiple battery sizes. In order to provide power during a grid outage, the resilient energy system also needs to be connected to the Manley Center in a safe and island-able manner (electrically isolated from the grid). Analysis of potential electrical configurations and estimated setup costs is key to successfully entering a required interconnection agreement with Georgia Power, as well as informing requests for engineering firms to construct the system. This analysis includes conceptual options and rough order of magnitude cost estimates for electrically interconnecting the resilient energy system to the Manley Center and the grid. The Breaking Barriers team used this analysis to select preferred system characteristics and design for the resilient energy system.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Current Practices in Distribution Utility Resilience Planning for Winter Storms

This report is part of a series of hazard-focused case studies examining common practices in electric utility resilience planning. We use standard terminology defining resilience as the ability to anticipate, withstand, absorb, and recover from hazards that cause long duration outages. We distinguish between reliability and resilience using Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1366-2022, which defines major events as an event that exceeds reasonable design and/or operational limits of the electric power system. Resilience planning is focused on major event days and reliability planning is focused on nonmajor event days. Utility resilience plans are assessed according to common resilience components identified in existing resilience frameworks. The focus of this report is on winter storms in which the primary hazards are heavy snowfall, freezing rain, ice, extreme cold, severe wind, and flooding. These hazards can also contribute to generation shortages, resulting in bulk power system impacts that have consequences for the distribution system, such as load shedding. Stand-alone reports focusing on wildfires and nonwinter storms have been published in parallel with this report. This report can be used as a starting point for understanding potential investment prioritization processes and investment options. This report is intended to improve utility resilience planning by supporting constructive dialogue among utilities, regulators, and other stakeholders.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Current Practices in Distribution Utility Resilience Planning for Wildfires

This report is part of a series of hazard-focused case studies examining common practices in electric utility resilience planning. We use standard terminology defining resilience as the ability to anticipate, withstand, absorb, and recover from hazards that cause long duration outages. We distinguish between reliability and resilience using IEEE 1366-2022, which defines major events as "an event that exceeds reasonable design and/or operational limits of the electric power system." Resilience planning is focused on major event days, and reliability planning is focused on non-major event days. Utility resilience plans are assessed according to common resilience components identified in existing resilience frameworks. The focus of this report is on wildfires. Standalone reports focusing on severe storms (including hurricanes and non-winter storms) and winter storms have been published in parallel with this report. This report can be used as a starting point for understanding potential investment prioritization processes and investment options. This report is intended to improve utility resilience planning by supporting constructive dialogue among utilities, regulators, and other stakeholders.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

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↗

Emerging signals of declining forest resilience under climate change

Forest ecosystems depend on their capacity to withstand and recover from natural and anthropogenic perturbations (that is, their resilience). Experimental evidence of sudden increases in tree mortality is raising concerns about variation in forest resilience, yet little is known about how it is evolving in response to climate change. Here we integrate satellite-based vegetation indices with machine learning to show how forest resilience, quantified in terms of critical slowing down indicators, has changed during the period 2000–2020. We show that tropical, arid and temperate forests are experiencing a significant decline in resilience, probably related to increased water limitations and climate variability. By contrast, boreal forests show divergent local patterns with an average increasing trend in resilience, probably benefiting from warming and CO 2 fertilization, which may outweigh the adverse effects of climate change. These patterns emerge consistently in both managed and intact forests, corroborating the existence of common large-scale climate drivers. Reductions in resilience are statistically linked to abrupt declines in forest primary productivity, occurring in response to slow drifting towards a critical resilience threshold. Approximately 23% of intact undisturbed forests, corresponding to 3.32 Pg C of gross primary productivity, have already reached a critical threshold and are experiencing a further degradation in resilience. Together, these signals reveal a widespread decline in the capacity of forests to withstand perturbation that should be accounted for in the design of land-based mitigation and adaptation plans

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

Incorporating climate change into risk-informed resilience planning

In response to the development of portfolio-wide Climate Action Plans by federal agencies, federal sites are working to incorporate the impacts of climate change into their resilience assessments. However, it can be challenging to incorporate climate change scenarios into resilience assessments given the uncertainty inherent in climate change modeling. Incorporating these factors into a resilience plan requires an understanding of what the different climate scenarios mean, as well as how to estimate potential impacts of climate change on hazard occurrence on a regional, or even local, scale under different scenarios. We discuss approaches to incorporating this data into risk-informed resilience assessment processes, such as those implemented in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program’s (FEMP) Technical Resilience Navigator (TRN) and the Sustainability Performance Division’s (SPD) Vulnerability Assessment and Resilience Plan (VARP) Risk Assessment Tool. We also describe the climate scenarios and the availability of hazard data for site resilience planning, based on modeling included in the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Climate Assessment (NCA), and state-level reports. We present examples from the TRN risk assessment and the VARP Risk Assessment Tool to illustrate how sensitivity analysis can be used to incorporate climate change projections into the resilience planning process.

Rabinowitz, Hannah S.↗

Methods for Analysis and Quantification of Power System Resilience

This paper summarizes the report prepared by an IEEE PES Task Force. Resilience is a fairly new technical concept for power systems, and it is important to precisely delineate this concept for actual applications. As a critical infrastructure, power systems have to be prepared to survive rare but extreme incidents (natural catastrophes, extreme weather events, physical/cyber-attacks, equipment failure cascades, etc.) to guarantee power supply to the electricity-dependent economy and society. Thus, resilience needs to be integrated into planning and operational assessment to design and operate adequately resilient power systems. Quantification of resilience as a key performance indicator is important, together with costs and reliability. Quantification can analyze existing power systems and identify resilience improvements in future power systems. Given that a 100% resilient system is not economic (or even technically achievable), the degree of resilience should be transparent and comprehensible. Several gaps are identified to indicate further needs for research and development.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Resilient Power and Energy Systems: Progress, Prospects, and Future Avenues

In recent years, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has garnered substantial attention in the context of enhancing resilience in power and energy systems. Resilience, characterized by the ability to withstand, absorb, and quickly recover from natural disasters and human-induced disruptions, has become paramount in ensuring the stability and dependability of critical infrastructure. This comprehensive review delves into the latest advancements and applications of DRL in enhancing the resilience of power and energy systems, highlighting significant contributions and key insights. The exploration commences with a concise elucidation of the fundamental principles of DRL, highlighting the intricate interplay among reinforcement learning (RL), deep learning, and the emergence of DRL. Furthermore, it categorizes and describes various DRL algorithms, laying a robust foundation for comprehending the applicability of DRL. The linkage between DRL and power system resilience is forged through a systematic classification of DRL applications into five pivotal dimensions: dynamic response, recovery and restoration, energy management and control, communications and cybersecurity, and resilience planning and metrics development. This structured categorization facilitates a methodical exploration of how DRL methodologies can effectively tackle critical challenges within the domain of power and energy system resilience. The review meticulously examines the inherent challenges and limitations entailed in integrating DRL into power and energy system resilience, shedding light on practical challenges and potential pitfalls. Additionally, it offers insights into promising avenues for future research, with the aim of inspiring innovative solutions and further progress in this vital domain.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Conceptualizing Energy Security and Resilience

Climate resilience and energy resilience are inextricably linked, since the transition to a safe and secure grid powered by renewables is central to both adaptation and mitigation efforts. As geopolitical tensions intensify and it becomes clear how integral supply chains are to our clean energy future, the term "energy security" has become a central concept, similar to resilience in the climate and energy lexicon. This project seeks to understand the role of energy system resilience within energy security. The key research questions are: "How are energy system resilience and energy security related?" and "What is the role of renewables within both security and resilience?" A strong conceptual understanding of these terms will set the stage for truly accelerating secure and resilient innovations at scale.

climate resilience↗