MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

System-reliability-based disaster resilience analysis: Framework and applications to structural systems

2022· article· en· W4212766037 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Safety · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)InterdependenceReliability engineeringResilience (materials science)Computer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Natural hazardRisk analysis (engineering)Disaster recoveryEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the recent effort to understand the performance capabilities of various engineering systems from their initial disruptions to the recovery phase, interest in the concept of resilience has been growing. In particular, to assess the disaster resilience of civil infrastructures subjected to natural or man-made hazards, various resilience criteria have been proposed. Given that infrastructures are complex systems consisting of components whose post-disaster performance capabilities are uncertain and interdependent, a system-reliability-based perspective is needed for a comprehensive evaluation of their disaster resilience. To this end, this paper characterizes disaster resilience from a system-reliability-based perspective in terms of three criteria: reliability, redundancy, and recoverability. These criteria are then discussed at each of the three scales of infrastructure systems, i.e., individual structures, infrastructure networks, and urban communities. Among the research needs and opportunities identified for the nine combinations of the resilience criteria and application scales (termed a “3x3 resilience matrix”), this paper focuses on a comprehensive assessment of the reliability and redundancy of an individual structure and proposes what is termed a “reliability-redundancy (β-π) analysis” method along with a consideration of recoverability. For each of the initial disruption scenarios of component failures, the proposed analysis method computes the reliability index (β) and redundancy index (π) based on the probabilities of the scenario and the corresponding system-level failure, respectively. Using a β-π diagram that shows the pairs of the calculated indices for a given type of hazard, one can compute the system-level failure probability per hazard occurrence and identify critical initial disruption scenarios requiring further investigations and actions to assure proper disaster resilience. By incorporating a recoverability index into the β-π diagram, decision-makers can identify top-priority initial disruption scenarios from a disaster resilience viewpoint. Numerical examples illustrate the proposed β-π analysis method and demonstrate its general applicability and effectiveness during the effort to evaluate and manage the disaster resilience of structural systems. The source codes of the paper are available for download at https://github.com/Seonghyun-Lim/beta-pi_analysis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it