Resilience Investment Against Extreme Weather Events Considering Critical Load Points in an Active Microgrid
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events pose significant threats to power systems, particularly at the distribution level. The most detrimental consequence of such events is observed in critical loads due to high outage costs. As a result, there is a pressing need for utilities to invest in enhancing system resilience, which requires a comprehensive resilience investment framework and metrics to evaluate system performance. This paper proposes a distribution system resilience assessment framework to guide strategic investment decisions. The framework incorporates a mathematical model that estimates system restoration time after an extreme event, considering the criticality of loads, the interdependence of component failures and repair sequences, and the availability of repair crews. In addition, two new resilience metrics—disconnected load point hours (DLH) and normalized DLH (NDLH)—are introduced, which provide a more comprehensive view of system resilience by reflecting both vulnerability and the ability to withstand and recover from extreme events. Case studies are performed on a modified IEEE 69-bus test system utilizing the developed framework. The results evaluate the effectiveness of different resilience investment strategies, including infrastructure hardening, distributed energy resources management, and repair process coordination, in improving the system resilience for maintaining the critical loads and the overall distribution system.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it