SEARCH · Search NASA

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 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 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↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Foundational Concepts in Simulation-Based Resilience Analysis and Design

Resilience is a topic of increasing interest–with ever-present calls from policymakers to increase the resilience of complex systems and infrastructure. However, resilience as a concept can be confusing, because of a lack of a common unified definition and frame of reference. Sometimes it can appear as if resilience analysis is merely duplicating other, more mature fields such as safety, reliability, or risk, while other times it seems as if resilience is providing an “alternative” view with limited rigor. To better understand the resilience concept (and its relation to the broader field of risk management), this paper will present the perspective of simulation-based resilience analysis and design, including some of the foundational precepts and resultant concepts defining the resilience concept. It will further present the motivation for using simulation to understand resilience and highlight some ongoing work and research challenges in this area. From this frame of reference, one can better understand the field of resilience, including how different aspects and definitions of resilience relate to each other, and how resilience relates to broader design considerations and practices.

resilience↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Foundational Concepts in Simulation-Based Resilience Analysis and Design

resilience↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Understanding Resilience Optimization Architectures With an Optimization Problem Repository

Optimizing a system’s resilience can be challenging, especially when it involves considering both the inherent resilience of a robust design and the active resilience of a health management system to a set of computationally-expensive hazard simulations. While prior work has developed specialized architectures to effectively and efficiently solve combined design and resilience optimization problems, the comparison of these architectures has been limited to a single case study. To further study resilience optimization formulations, this work develops a problem repository which includes previously-developed resilience optimization problems and additional problems presented in this work: a notional system resilience model, a pandemic response model, and a cooling tank hazard prevention model. This work then uses models in the repository at large to understand the characteristics of resilience optimization problems and study the applicability of optimization architectures and decomposition strategies. Based on the comparisons in the repository, applying an optimization architecture effectively requires understanding the alignment and coupling relationships between the design and resilience models, as well as the efficiency characteristics of the algorithms. While alignment determines the necessity of a surrogate of resilience cost in the upper-level design problem, coupling determines the overall applicability of a sequential, alternating, or bilevel structure. Additionally, the application of decomposition strategies is dependent on there being limited interactions between variable sets, which often does not hold when a resilience policy is parameterized in terms of actions to take in hazardous model states rather than specific given scenarios.

Resilience↗

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 OSTI2024

Current Practices in Distribution Utility Resilience Planning for Hurricanes and Non-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 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 recommended resilience components that we have identified in existing resilience frameworks. The focus of this report is on hurricanes and severe storms in which the primary hazards are precipitation or high winds. We exclude winter storms with primary hazards of ice and extreme cold, as they are a unique set of hazards with different resilience considerations. Standalone reports focusing on wildfires 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↗

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 OSTI2024

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↗

DOE OSTI2024

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↗

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↗