Models for Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of Power Networks: Comparative Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric power networks are spatially distributed systems, subject to different magnitude and recurrence of earthquakes, that play a fundamental role in the well-being and safety of communities. Therefore, identification of critical components is of paramount importance in retrofit prioritization. This article presents a comparison of five seismic performance assessment models (M1 to M5) of increasing complexity. The first two models (M1 and M2) approach the problem from a connectivity perspective, whereas the last three (M3 to M5) consider also power flow analysis. To illustrate the utility of the five models, the well-known IEEE-118 test case, assumed to be located in the central United States, is considered. Performances of the five models are compared using both system-level and component-level measures. Spearman rank correlation ρ is computed between results of each model. Highest ρ values, at both system- and component-level, are obtained, as expected, between M1 and M2, and within models M3 to M5. The ρ values between component-level measures are relatively high across all models, indicating that simpler ones (M1 and M2) are appropriate for vulnerability assessment and retrofit prioritization. The complex flow-based models (M3 to M5) are suitable if actual performance of the systems is desired, as it is the case when the power network is considered within a larger set of interconnected infrastructural systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".