Integrating HEC-RAS, GIS, and LISREL for assessing and enhancing urban building resilience against flood threats: Comprehensive model and analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floods pose significant threats to urban areas, resulting in substantial human and financial losses annually. The vulnerability of key urban centers to these risks diminishes their efficiency, leading to public dissatisfaction and service deficiencies. Recognizing and enhancing the resilience of essential buildings becomes crucial in mitigating these challenges. This study employs a comprehensive approach to achieve a resilience model for critical buildings facing floods. The research process involves the identification of city assets based on leveling criteria, utilizing GIS technology for spatial mapping. HECRAS software aids in river flow modeling, identifying areas lacking flood-carrying capacity. By overlaying vulnerable gravity centers with flood-prone regions, building resilience components are computed through structural factor analysis and LISREL modeling. The study identifies ten key criteria. Further analysis includes resilience modeling using TOPSIS and AHP methods. The positive ideal and negative ideal solutions are determined, resulting in the grading of building resilience. Notably, the balance redundancy index with cascading potential effects attains the highest positive ideal value at 0.257, while the resistance to a level of stress index achieves the lowest negative ideal value at 0.02. This comprehensive approach and modeling contribute to the understanding and enhancement of urban building resilience in the face of flood threats.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".