Summary (Paper II)

This paper aims at quantifying the seismic resilience of EPSS (Electric Power Supply System) by using a
compositional approach. Lack of resilience (LOR) is defined as the area under the curve during which
electric supply is not able to meet the demand of the community. The LOR is found by using component
vulnerability functions (demand and supply) as well as the component recovery functions.

A case study of electric network grid of 34 buses with 15 generation sub stations and 19 distribution sub
stations along with the community that it serves was used for quantifying the lack of resilience.
Earthquake magnitude from 4.5 to 7.5 was assumed and the ground acceleration at various locations
was found by attenuation equations.

Using the fragility functions from the literature for both EPSS and community, the electricity demand
and supply during the absorption phase was calculated. Using the recovery functions, the electricity
demand and supply during the recovery phase was calculated. Results generated from the simulation
showed that it took almost 7 days for the supply to meet the demand. Thus the quantification of LOR for
an EPSS system was successfully carried out.

Summary (Paper I)

The above paper defined a fundamental framework for evaluating community resilience without any
actual quantification and implementation. It also defines what is resilience, its measures and dimensions
(both at system and community level). Resilience of a community can be quantified by robustness
(functionality level after hazard) and rapidity (how quickly it can recover) which depends upon
resourcefulness and redundancy.

The authors suggested that resilience can be conceptualized along four interrelated dimensions:
technical, organizational, social and economic (TOSE). The first two components are more related to the
resilience of critical physical systems such as water systems and hospitals. The last two components are
more related to the affected community. Finally a systems diagram is presented that defines a
conceptual frame work for community resilience.
Questions & Answers:

Q-1

The 4 R factors of resilience defined by Brenau is applicable to community or system level?

The 4 R factors of resilience defined by Brenau can be applied to both community and system level.
Definition of resilience and its dimension is done for the community level and a conceptual framework is
proposed for community level.

Q-2

What is the difference between redundancy and robustness as well as rapidity and resourcefulness?

Redundancy is the ability of system to have spare systems available having a desired functionality level
to resist hazards. For example, temporary electrical supply system.

Robustness is the ability of system or a community to sustain functionality after the hazard. So if a
system is more redundant it implies it is more robust.

Rapidity refers to the rate at which community or a system can recover. It depends upon the amount of
resources (man power, financial, material, etc.) available.

Resourcefulness refers to the manipulation as well as the availability of resources (man power, financial,
material, etc.) to mitigate the losses due to hazard and recover as quickly as possible.

Thus robustness and rapidity are the measures of resilience and rapidity and redundancy are the means
to achieve it.

Q-3

What are TOSE dimensions of resilience and how they are related?

The TOSE dimensions of resilience are technical, organizational, social and economical. Each of which
corresponds to the measures required to reduce the overall community losses.

Technical refers to the ability of a system or a community to sustain maximum functionality under
hazard.

Organization refers to the steps taken by the community to mitigate the damage due to hazard by
enhancing

Social refers to the steps taken to reduce the social disruption in the society.

Economical refers to the steps taken to reduce direct and indirect losses.

For example if technical measures of a system is high then there are chances that the loss of life and
property will be less i.e. ensuring less social and economical loss.

Q-4

Are the TOSE dimensions be considered as an individual system?

No they cant be considered as individual system. They are just performance criteria for quantifying
resilience.

Q-5

How can one quantify resilience for an EPSS system discussed in paper II?

The decrease in both demand and supply due to hazard can be found out by fragility functions for both
EPSS and community. Similarly the recovery in demand and supply can be found out by recovery
functions for both EPSS and community. So by knowing the entire absorption and recovery phase one
can find the region which has more demand than supply and integrate the region to find LOR.

Q-6

What is bus bar in electric network?

Q-7

How damage state is quantified using fragility functions?

For every damage state, one can develop fragility function (i.e. probability of exceedence v/s ground
motion measure)
 S: Minimum social loss IITGN Community E: Minimum economical loss

T: Max Bld. Availability T: Max Water Availability

O: Emergency Organization Residential Water System O: Emergency Organization
& infrastructure in place & infrastructure in place

T: Max electrical supply T: Max medicinal supply

O: Emergency power Electrical System Dispensary O: Emergency medical supply

T: Max road Availability

O: Emergency pathways for supply Road Network