Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Frameworks, quantitative indicators, characters, and modeling approaches

to analysis of energy system resilience: A review
Somayeh Ahmadi a, b, Yadollah Saboohi a, Ali Vakili c, *
a
Energy Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-9567, Tehran, Iran
b
Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, 10587, Berlin, Germany
c
Research Institute for Energy Management and Planning, Tehran University, P.O. Box 1417466191, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The rise of the damage to energy systems caused by both natural and man-made disruptive events and the
Energy system resilience connection between energy systems and socio-economic systems have motivated the study of energy system
Indicators and index of energy resilience resilience. This paper conceptualizes and comprehensively presents a systematic review of the recent literature
Energy resilience models
focused on the analytical, technical, and mathematical points from the standpoint of the energy systems facing
Energy resilience characters
Energy resilience frameworks
disruptive events. To this end, five phases are developed. Firstly, the concept of the energy system resilience is
Energy resilience review presented, and then the energy resilience characters and the resilience states are introduced and connected.
Thirdly, the formulation and indicators of the energy resilience are demonstrated, and modeling features,
modeling approach, and solving methods are discussed and compared. Finally, the gaps in the existing literature
on the energy system resilience are identified, and future research opportunities are suggested.

disasters; it was about 186,000 MW [6]. For the 2008 Wenchuan

1. Introduction
The high reliability of energy supply and the compatibility of the
energy sector with the environment are essential factors in the process of
the economic reconstruction and the sustainable development of coun­
tries [1,2]. Thus, most of our activities, well-functioning of modern so­
cieties, and the growth of economies (such as the gross domestic product
(GDP) of countries) depend on a reliable and efficient supply of energy
[3]. In today’s global and increasingly dynamic and turbulent environ­
ments, energy systems and supply energy are challenged with numerous
disruptive events which threaten to disrupt the activities and perfor­
mance of energy systems [4], [5]. There is a bilateral relation between
energy sector hazards and social and economic systems. Therefore, the
effects of threats and hazards caused by the energy sector on the envi­
ronment and human society, as well as the impact of natural disasters,
technology, and society disruptions on the energy sector, are the factors
affecting social and economic systems.
Natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, snowstorms, and wildfires and man-made threats,
including terrorist attacks or labor strikes can cause temporary or per­
manent damage to the energy infrastructure [8]. For example, Hines
et al. calculated the size of North American electricity blackout using
the observed statistical trends for 100 years according to natural
earthquake, nearly 23% of direct economic losses were caused by the
damage to infrastructures, such as energy infrastructure [7]. Also, as
mentioned, the hazards of energy systems can affect social and economic
systems. For instance, the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, tsunami,
and nuclear disaster was a catastrophe which led to over 15,000 deaths
and caused 470,000 people to evacuate their homes. Direct economic
losses have been estimated at 16.9 trillion yen (US$199 billion), and the
reconstruction budget over a nine-year reconstruction period is esti­
mated at 32 trillion yen (US$263 billion) [8]. Moreover, during the
period from 1990 to 2016 over the mainland of China, the 192 records
selected in this study are linked to 1153.4 billion China Yuan (CNY) of
direct economic losses [9].
Hence, the given examples provide enough evidence that the eval­
uation of the risks, threats, and disturbances to the energy supply and
demand and the energy system resilience is one of the major challenges
of energy planning and policy making because of the relationship of
economic and social systems with energy systems. Resilience is consid­
ered as a strategy for risk management, and its goal is to minimize
vulnerability, improve flexibility, adapt to the surrounding environ­
ment, and increase the tolerance of the system in the face of threats and
system disturbances [10–14]. Holling defined the term of resilience for
the first time in 1973 as the ability of a system to absorb or resist the
effects of failures without any changes in the functioning of the system

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vakiliali55@gmail.com (A. Vakili).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110988
Received 21 September 2020; Received in revised form 14 March 2021; Accepted 16 March 2021
Available online 30 March 2021
1364-0321/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Ahmadi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988

Nomenclature MREC Market recovery effort cost

TREC Transportation recovery effort
R Resilience index TMV Target market value of production
F(t)D Performance of system at the post-disruption time F(t) Performance of system at the time of t
F(t)R Performance of system after an initial post-disruption F(t)
´ Performance of system at the post-disruption time from
D
equilibrium state 100% performance at the original state
F(t)E Original stable system performance ϕenhanced Parameters used such as physical hardiness, feeder
SP Recovery speed maximum capacity, or restoration time.
tE Times of the event start, completed restoration ϕpre− event Parameters used such as physical hardiness, feeder
tR Times of completed restoration capacity, or restoration time prior to the event
tD Times of the worst damaged condition S Safety of system
RC Resilience cost PP Probability of correctly predicting the failure event
Pm Probability of successfully mitigating the event (1 − ρ) System failure probability
Pd Probability of correctly diagnosing the failure event αi , , i = 1, 2 Weighting coefficient
Ys Year split ECI Energy cost increase
UE Unserved energy Δmin and Δmax Minimum and maximum of xi (k)
xi (k) Characterized comparability sequence S Stability of system
p Distinguish coefficient = 0.5 ICmax Maximum possible imposed costs in each scenario
ρi Probability that energy will pass to any predator OC Operational costs
IC Imposed costs PC Penalty costs
FL Functionality loss Pi Share of energy source i
TC Transportation cost ru Remaining network utilization
H Shannon–Weaver index Ti,j Energy flow at the prey and predator
aru Average remaining network utilization P Energy production
FC Total discounted cost D Energy demand
BC Cost in the case of the baseline scenario Wmax Possible maximum network output
SCF Spare capacity factor Wbase Network output of the baseline
Wmin Possible minimum network output Si Proportion of electricity generated
D Diversity
SIC Systemic impact cost

[15]. Resilience is a multi-dimensional concept, and research on resil­
ience is categorized into social resilience [16–18], ecologic resilience
[19,20], hybrid socio-ecologic resilience [21–23], engineering resilience
[24–26], and economic resilience [27,28].
Although there is a lack of consensus on the definition of energy
resilience, the terminology of energy system resilience was elaborated
along with the study on the resilience of critical infrastructures in en­
gineering category [29–31]. The National Infrastructure Advisory
Council defined infrastructure resilience as “infrastructure resilience is
the ability to reduce the magnitude and/or the duration of disruptive
events. The effectiveness of a resilient infrastructure or enterprise de­
pends upon its ability to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly
recover from a potentially disruptive event [32]. Rehak et al. defines
infrastructure resilience (such elec.) as a quality which reduces the
vulnerability of an element, absorbs the effects of disruptive events,
enhances its ability to respond and recover, and facilitates its adaptation
to disruptive events similar to those encountered in the past [29]. Zhang
et al. allocated restoration resources for enhancing the resilience of
interdependent infrastructure systems. They measured the resilience of
the system using the economic loss and the inoperability of the system
[33].
Erker et al. presented the topic of energy crises and designed an
assessment of regional energy resilience (RERA) to determine the pre­
sent baseline-resilience of a region, referring to an energy crisis in a
specific spatial context. They studied sectors and energy services being
affected by the constraints on fossil energy, and their need for im­
provements surveyed attitudes and risk sensitivity referring to energy
crises [34,35]. Sharifi and Yamagata presented a review of developing a
framework for identifying planning and designing the criteria for urban
energy resilience. They introduced sustainability-related dimensions of
urban energy with integrating resilience features, namely “planning and
preparing for”, “absorbing”, “recovering from”, and “adapting”, with the
main abilities of urban systems, namely “availability”, “accessibility”,
“affordability”, and “acceptability” [36].
Although there are very few literature reviews of energy system
resilience, the existing ones are conceptually and empirically oriented.
Nevertheless, despite the growing number of the works on infrastructure
and energy resilience, there are few studies that focus on quantifying the
characteristics of resilience in energy systems. The motivation of this
paper lies on the need to present a comprehensive study of the energy
systems resilience including all energy levels. The particular contribu­
tions of this paper are exploring the energy system resilience characters
and indicators as quantitative drivers to analyze energy systems with
respect to the disruption events. Also, reviewing different energy system
modeling approaches implies utilizing resilience-based indicators/fac­
tors during the evaluation of models selection that is used for recom­
mendations as to which quantitative methods to use, at different levels
of defense and identification of the future research areas. Hence, in this
paper, we present a comprehensive study of energy system resilience by
focusing on the analytical, technical, and mathematical points from the
standpoint of the energy systems facing disruptive events. To this end,
we analyze the energy system resilience in five phases as shown in Fig. 1.
We introduced the concept of energy resilience in the first phase and
then presented the characters and states of energy system resilience for
identifying an energy resilience framework and the relation between the
characters and states of energy system resilience in the second phase.
This paper also provides a set of quantitative methods and energy
resilience indicators related to each energy resilience character for
measuring and comparing the resilience of one energy system with that
of the others. Then, the models of energy resilience are summarized by
considering energy system modeling features and approaches; the
methods are solved in the fourth phase. Lastly, the shortcomings and
limitations of the current research are identified. This paper will provide
the readers with the knowledge about:

2
S. Ahmadi et al.
Fig. 1. The methodology of the literature review.
(1) what is the concept of energy system resilience?
(2) what are the indicators, characters, and states of energy
resilience?
(3) what kinds of modeling approaches and features are used for
analyzing energy system resilience, and what methods are used to
solve them?
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 in­
troduces the concept of energy system resilience, and Section 3 proposes
the characters and states of energy system resilience and the relation
between them. Section 4 demonstrates the quantification of the in­
dicators of energy system resilience, and Section 5 presents the modeling
features of and the modeling approaches to energy system resilience.
Finally, Section 6 concludes the findings and presents the shortcomings
of the current research.
2. Energy system resilience
Energy systems include supply and demand which are considered in
a number of levels, including resources (oil, rich gas, coal, nuclear, solar,
wind, biomass, hydro, and other), processes, conversion, transportation,
storage, distribution, and consumption.
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
2.1. Energy resilience characters
Energy resilience is a multifaceted capability of an energy system.
Resilience characters vary as authors and research objectives change. As
energy resilience is a concept with an ambiguous definition, there are
not any resilience factors in finding the resilience quantification of
models [37]. Indeed, there is no comprehensive model of presenting a
set of quantitative metrics. This is clearly specified in Table 1 presenting
the set of resilience characters and factors. Some of the characters and
factors are used for energy resilience, and the others, which can possibly
be used in energy systems, are considered for other engineering systems
as shown in as shown in Table 2.
Ponomarov and Holcomb introduced important factors such as
adaptive capability, unexpected disruptive events, response and recov­
ery ability, and control over the structure for considering supply chain
systems [38]. Ponis and Koronis presented anticipating unexpected
events, responding adaptively, maintaining control over structure, and
system robustness as the resilience factors in the supply chain [39].
Melnyk et al. examined two critical and complementary factors: (1) the
ability of a system to minimize the impact of a disruption by evading it
entirely (resistance capacity) and (2) the ability of a system to find a
return path to a steady state of functionality (recovery capacity) [40].
S. Ahmadi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988

Table 1 system resilience, which is allowed by predictive capabilities. Resistance

The set of energy system resilience characters and factors. to disruptive events is another factor in energy system resilience, which
Characters and factors Considered Ref. needs the energy system to be robust. This character is attained by
systems absorbing the disruption. On the other hand, adapting to unexpected
McDaniels et al. (2008) - Robustness Infrastructure [47] events necessitates the ability to reorganize energy systems. Finally,
- Rapidity systems recovering of the energy system after disruptive events is the ability of
Ponomarov and Holcomb - Adaptive capability Supply chain [38] the system to restore its pre-disruption state. Therefore, energy system
(2009) - Anticipating resilience includes avoiding, resistance, adapting to, and recovering
unexpected events
- Response ability
from disruptive events as demonstrated in Fig. 2.
- Recovery ability The related literature has extensively tried to identify the key char­
- Control over system acteristics of energy system resilience from a qualitative point of view as
Ponis and Koronis (2012) - Anticipating Supply chain [39] summarized in this subsection. These characters are recognized by
unexpected events
relevant authors who have identified, referred to, or examined energy
- Responding
adaptively system resilience. The key characteristics are anticipation, absorption,
- Control over system adaptation, and recovery. Although sometimes these characters have
- Robustness been applied interchangeably by different authors, we obviously iden­
Roege et al. (2014) - Planning/preparing Energy systems [41] tify them to contribute to the definition of the quantitative indicators.
- Recovery
- Absorption
- Adaptation 2.1.1. Anticipation
Melnyk et al. (2014) - Resistance capacity Supply chain [40] The anticipation of disruptive events is one of the most important
- Recovery capacity characters of energy system resilience. New complex cascading failures
Zobel and Khansa (2014) - Robustness Engineering [48]
may stem from unanticipated or emergent system characteristics as they
- Rapidity systems
Woods (2015) - Sustainability Engineering [49] develop in an incremental and ad hoc fashion [53]. This character can be
systems used to increase the adaptation and robustness of energy systems by
Philieps et al. (2016) - Preparation Energy systems [50] predicting and appropriately responding to disruptive events [54].
- Recovery Anticipation is defined as the ability to learn, adapt, take preventive
- Mitigation
action, resist, and recover the system in disrupted events [55,56].
- Response
Kamalahmadi and Melat- - Anticipating Supply chain [42]
parast (2016) unexpected events 2.1.2. Absorption
- Resistance capacity Abimbola et al. argued that the absorption of disruptive events is one
- Recovery capacity
of the most powerful means of achieving resilience in energy systems.
- Flexibility
- Redundancy They defined absorptive capacity as a measure of the ability of a system
Sato et al. (2017) - Diversity Energy systems [51] to withstand turbulent conditions and to lessen the consequences [57].
Schlor et al. (2018) - Resource productivity Energy systems [43] Absorption is defined as the capability of energy systems to resist the
- Sustainability impact of disruptive events similar to the robustness of a system [58].
Wang et al. (2019) - Absorbability Solar power plant [44]
Absorption is also defined as the degree to which an energy system can
- Recovery
Akhtar et al. (2019) - Preparation capacity Micro grid [45] absorb the impacts of system perturbations and minimize consequences
- Restoration capacity systems with little effort [59,60]. Roege et al. described absorption as a character
- Adaptation capacity of resilience to maintain most critical asset functions and service avail­
Ajaz (2019) - Adaptation capacity Micro grid [46]
ability while repelling or isolating the disruption [13].
systems

Roege et al. considered energy system resilience and presented its
characters as planning and preparing of energy systems before the start
of disruptive events and regarded recovery, absorption, and adaptation
as the important factors after the events [41]. Anticipating the occur­
rence of disruptions and preparing the supply chain for any expected and
unexpected changes in the environment (anticipating unexpected
events) and the ability of the supply chain to resist and deactivate the
perturbation before it expands play a vital role in ensuring the conti­
nuity of the operations (resistance capacity), and the ability to minimize
the negative impacts of the disruptions on the supply chain (recovery
capacity) is another character of the energy system resilience presented
by Kamalahmadi and Melat-parast [42]. Schlor et al. used sustainability
and energy resource productivity as the resilience characters of an en­
ergy system [43]. In another work, Wang et al. proposed absorbability
and recoverability as the two important resilience factors in an energy
system [44]. Also, Akhtar Hussien et al. presented preparation, resto­
ration, and adaptation for considering the resilience of a micro grid
power system [45], and Ajaz considered the adaptation capacity as a
resilience factor in evaluating the resilience of micro grid systems [46].
Based on the above discussion, we gather all the possible resilience
characters and factors to consider energy system resilience according to
Table 1. As shown, avoiding the disruption of the system before the
disruptive event by anticipation is one of the important factors in energy
2.1.3. Adaptation
The adaptive capacity is defined as the degree to which a system can
self-organize and overcome a disruptive event to regain system perfor­
mance and overcome a disruption without any recovery activities [57,
58,60]. Francis also stated that adaptation is one of the most important
characters of energy system resilience which is defined as the ability of a
system to absorb system perturbations and adjust to undesirable situa­
tions by undergoing some changes [59]. However, Jufri et al. defined the
adaptation state as the fully restored state that occurs after the disrup­
tive event up to the next disruptive event [61]. Using knowledge from
the disruptive event, altering the protocol, configuring the system,
training the personnel, or other aspects are most of the adaptation ac­
tivities which help energy system become more resilient [41]. Moreover,
agility usually refers to the system ability to quickly adapt the network
structure and operation policy to the dynamic and turbulent re­
quirements of customers [62,63].
2.1.4. Recovery
The literature on empirical and conceptual energy resilience has
shown that recovery is a key factor in energy system resilient as
mentioned in Table 1. The restorative capacity is a measure of the ease of
repairing or restoring the damage to a disrupted energy system [57,58].
Recovery is also defined as the capacity to fulfill priorities and achieve
goals in a timely manner in order to contain losses and avoid future
disruption [64]. The failed processes in the given system recover

4
S. Ahmadi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988

Table 2
The collection of characters, indicators, and formula of energy system resilience.
Name System considered Resilience Characters Resilience Indicators Formulation Ref

Anticipation Absorption Adaptation Recovery

Resilience modeling of Power system ✓ — ✓ ✓ - Reliability Index Recovery = Pm × Pd × PP × [57]

engineering systems - Recovery Index (1 − ρ)
Modeling infrastructure waterway — ✓ ✓ ✓ — — [58]
resilience
Resilience analysis of infrastructure — ✓ ✓ ✓ - Resilience Index F(t)D F(t)R [59]
R = SP
engineered and systems (an electric - Speed recovery F(t)E F(t)E
infrastructure systems. power example) &
tD − tE
SP =
tR − tE
Resilience Analysis of Petrochemical units — ✓ ✓ ✓ Resilient cost SIC + MREC + TREC [60]
RC =
Petrochemical Supply TMV
Chains to a Hurricane
Generic metrics and — ✓ — ✓ - Resilience Index as recovery(t) [96]
R = =
quantitative the function of time loss (td )
approaches for system - Cost F(t) − F(t)D
resilience F(t)E − F(t)D
&
C = Costresilience action +
Lsystem disruption
∫T
Multi-dimensional Electric power — ✓ — ✓ - Resilience Index F(t)dt [97]
hurricane resilience system R(t) = ∫ T0
0 F(t)E dt
assessment of systems
Resilience of integrated Power and water — ✓ — ✓ - Rapidity Index F(t)R − F(t)D [98]
Rapidity =
power and water system - Robustness Index tR − tD
systems &
Robustness = F(t)
´
D
power grid resilience to Power system — ✓ ✓ ✓ - Adaptability Index ϕ [61]
Adaptability = enhanced
extreme weather events ϕpre− event
∫ tD
Resilient design and Chemical process — ✓ — ✓ - Resilience Index F(t)dt [65]
operations of process - Total cost R(t) = ∫ t0D
0 F(t)E dt
systems &
C = total cost of system
A Framework to — ✓ — ✓ - Resilience Index t∫D [64]
R = (100 − F(t))dt
Quantitatively Assess 0
and Enhance the
Seismic Resilience of
Communities
Assessment of Transport system — ✓ — — - Resilience Index t∫R dS [99]
R =
Transportation System tE dt
Resilience
energy security Energy system — — — — - Energy security ESC = exp( − [3]
assessment considering coefficient (ESC) α1 .UE.exp(Ys ) − α2 .ECI.
energy system exp(Ys ))
resilience to disruptions
solar-assisted carbon Solar system — ✓ — — - Resilience Index [100]
R =
capture and storage - Spare capacity Factor
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
power plant by - Diversity k
∏k Δmin + p × Δmax
adopting resilience i=1
Δxi (k) + p × Δmax
Wmax − Wmin
SCF =
Wbase
∑
D = Si
i
Measuring resilience in Power System — — ✓ — - Stability Index S = ρi log ρi [101]
energy systems
A performance-based A large office — ✓ — — - Resilience Index ICmax − IC [102]
R =
resilience assessment building - Cost Index ICmax∑
methodology IC = OC + FLk × PCk
k
Resilience oriented water — — ✓ — — - Cost Index C = OC + PC + TC [103]
and energy hub
∑
Examining the resilience Power system — — — — - Shannon–Weaver H = Pi ln Pi [104]
i
of national energy Index
systems
∑T
A distributed energy Power system — ✓ — — - The average t=1 rut
[105]
management strategy remaining network aru =
T
for resilient shipboard utilization
power
System
Measuring resilience in Energy system — — — — - Resilience Index Ti,j 2 [80]
R = − log
aquatic trophic T0,j T0,i
networks

5
S. Ahmadi et al.
Fig. 2. The main characters of the energy system resilience (adopted after
ref [52]).
gradually, and the system performance function increases to its original
operating level [65]; also, in the recovery section, all the asset functions
are restored, and services to their pre-event functionality should be
available [41]. Melnyk et al. defined recovery as the ability of a system
to find a return path to a steady state of functionality once a disruption
has occurred [40].
2.2. Relationship of characters and states of energy system resilience
Fig. 3 demonstrates the performance of energy system conditions
with a disruptive event (the total energy supply) as a function of time. If
the energy system is considered under normal conditions, the perfor­
mance of the system increases (the red line). This is due to the fact that
the energy demand is anticipated to increase significantly in the coming
years as a result of population growth and economic development, and
because of the need to balance the energy supply and the energy
Fig. 3. The relationship between the characters of energy system resilience and the states of energy system resilience.
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
demand, the energy supply is projected to grow in the future [66–69].
Therefore, the total supply energy supply can be calculated by balancing
the energy demand and the energy supply from t0 to t1 , and this state is
named the stable original state. A disruptive event occurs at time t1 , and
the total energy supply decreases until stopping at time t2 and restoring
the time start. This state is the disrupted state of the energy system. From
t2 , the performance of the energy system gradually increases, and this
trend continues to t3 when the system achieves a stable condition.
Disruptions in the energy system may be transverse to other depen­
dent infrastructure systems and possibly even back to itself, where the
failure originated [70–72]. For example, some climate change events,
hurricanes, and terrorist attacks can cause the disruption in water in­
frastructures, and because of the relation between the energy system and
the water structure, it can occasion failures in power plants, oil and gas
refineries, etc. [73]. Hence, the vulnerability of energy systems may
relate to the vulnerability of other infrastructures.
Resilience of energy systems can be defined as the ability of an en­
ergy system to minimize disruptions to energy service by anticipating,
resisting, absorbing, adapting to, and recovering from a disruptive
event. Fig. 3 illustrates the relationship between the characters of energy
system resilience and the states of energy system resilience. As can be
seen, the anticipation of a disruptive event can be considered in the
stable original state, and the resistance, absorption, and adaption of the
energy system can be measured in the disrupted state; the recovery of
the disrupted system is determined in the recovery state.
2.2.1. State 1: original stable state
The energy system operates in normal conditions, and sufficient
anticipating of the disruptive event can cause the application of pre­
ventive actions in a disrupted state. Thus, the estimation of the condi­
tions of energy systems in different scenarios using historical data such
as the number of affected technologies can be useful for predicting the
damage [74]. Hence, by using the result of this anticipation, some
strategies such as using multiple parallel units in place of a single unit
with the same total capacity [65,75], building backup systems [64], and
designing the alternative sets for each technology [76] can be organized
to increase the resilience of energy systems. Also, monitoring the situ­
ation of the energy system [77] and using mobile technology are two
important actions in this state [77,78].
2.2.2. State 2: disrupted state
The disrupted state is the damaged condition of energy systems. This
state starts when a disruptive event occurs, and the performance of the
S. Ahmadi et al.
system is functionally dropped. In this state, the system resistance to an
event can be evaluated. This resilience character is identified by the
performance level of energy systems. The high robustness or resistance
of the energy system can lead to improving the resilience at the initial
impacts of the disruptive event and reducing the level of performance
degradation [34,79,80]. In addition to the resistance of the system, the
magnitude of the impact depends on the absorption of the disruption
[37,63,81]. The absorptive capacity of the energy system is the capa­
bility of the system components to withstand the impact of the event. In
some energy systems, the damaged part may be the principal part for
flowing failure because the other parts of the system will burden addi­
tional loads on it [82]. Also, adaptability is particularly important as it
attempts to overcome a disruptive event without any recovery activities
[83,84]. This capability of the energy system can reduce the rate or
speed of the resilience degradation [77,85,86]. The identification of the
critical components of the energy system and the selection of adaptive
technologies in the energy supply and demand sides are two main ac­
tivities in this states which initiate the procedures for withstanding the
damaged infrastructure as fast as possible.
2.2.3. State 3: recovery state
The recovery state is the transition state of the energy system from its
damaged condition to its equilibrium condition, which starts from t2 to
t3 in Fig. 3. Following the actions in the disrupted state, a resilient en­
ergy system should demonstrate high recovery capabilities in order to
restore the infrastructures distorted and the components and technolo­
gies damaged during the impacts caused by a disruptive event and the
dynamic characteristics of the energy system. The recovery functions are
formulated according to the desirable characteristics of versatility and
physical interpretation [87]. A restoration action may bring back 100%
of the performance of the energy system or only a certain portion of it.
There are two important amounts in this state: 1) the maximum energy
performance damaged (the difference between the target and the min­
imum performance level), and 2) the time needed to return to the
equilibrium condition [88–90]. These two features depend on the
restoration resources of the energy system, including cost, energy
resource availability, access, energy storage units, transportation, and
temporary energy supply [91–93]. A number of actions such as
reenergizing transmission and distribution lines, restoring damaged
components, restarting units, resynchronizing areas, restoring the load,
etc. Should be taken in this phase [77].
2.2.4. State 4: stable recovered state
This state is the recovered state of the energy system which imme­
diately occurs after the restoration of the damaged energy system when
the recovery state is finished. In this state, if the performance of the
energy system is optimum before the desorption, the performance level
in the stable recovery state is exactly equal to the performance level
before the occurrence of the disruption event in that time period.
However, if it is not optimum, the performance of the system in the
stable recovered state may not be equal to the one in the normal con­
dition. It can be considered as a long-term prevention state, in which the
impact of the disruptive event and the performance of the energy system
should be thoroughly analyzed to identify the weaknesses or limitations
of the system so as to improve it to be better prepared for future events
[61,85].
3. Quantification of energy system resilience
This section highlights the qualitative approaches to resilience
assessment to specify resilience index in energy systems. Quantitative
indices are required to study energy system resilience, and general in­
dicators of energy system resilience provide a quantitative tool to
evaluate resilience by measuring the performance of the system ac­
cording to the structure of the energy system before and after disruptive
events without concentrating on system-specific characteristics. Good
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
indicators should be quantifiable, repeatable, and comparable across
different systems [94,95]. Although the study on resilience index in
energy systems is still limited, we characterize the indicators of energy
system resilience used in various references.
Francis and Bekera considered resiliency of a system based on three
resilience capacities: adaptive capacity, absorptive capacity, and
recoverability. They presented a metric for measuring resilience based
on system performance (F(t)) and the speed of recovery (SP ) which are
calculated by Eqs. (1) and (2) respectively. The speed of recovery is a
function of time at the event start tE , at the completed restoration (tR ),
and in the worst damaged condition (tD ). Actually, they defined slack
time as the maximum amount of post-disaster time that is acceptable
before recovery. The indicator of system resilience is the absorptive
capacity of the system described by the performance level of the system
at the post-disruption time (F(t)D ), after an initial post-disruption
equilibrium state (F(t)R ) and the performance of the original stable
system (F(t)E ) [59].
F(t)D F(t)R
R= SP (1)
F(t)E F(t)E
tD − tE
SP = (2)
tR − tE
Another index was proposed by Vurgin et al. [6]. They used a
comprehensive resilience assessment framework for evaluating the
resilience of infrastructures and economic systems. They proposed the
resilience cost (RC) as an indicator of calculating the resilience of
chemical systems. They divided the resilience cost into two categories:
costs resulting from decreased system productivity (SI) and costs
attributed to recovery activities (TRE). Therefore, the resilience cost is
calculated as a function of systemic impact cost (SIC), market recovery
effort cost (MREC), transportation recovery effort cost (TREC), and
target market value of production (TMV) [6]. It is expressed by:
SIC + MREC + TREC
RC = (3)
TMV
Henry and Marquez considered two characters of the system resil­
ience, namely absorption and recovery, and presented two indicators of
calculating the resiliency of a system. Indicators are expressed in Eqs. (4)
and (5). The resilience index is the ratio of recovery to loss suffered by
the system at some previous point. It is a function of the system per­
formance in three states: the performance of a system in the stable
original state before the disruption occurs (F(t)E ), the performance of a
system at the post-disruption time (F(t)D ), and the performance of a
system at the stable recovered state which refers to the new steady state
performance level once the recovery (F(t)R ) is complete. Also, they
presented another indicator of calculating the total cost of a system as
given in Eq. (5). This index is a function of the cost incurred in imple­
menting the resilience action (Costresilienceaction ) and the cost loss incurred
due to the inability of the system to perform at a normal level due to
system disruption (Lsystemdisruption ) [96].
recovery(t) F(t) − F(t)D
R= = (4)
loss (td ) F(t)E − F(t)D
C = Costresilience action + Lsystem disruption (5)
Ouyang et al. presented an index between zero and one which can
calculate the resilience of energy systems by the ratio of the real per­
formance of the energy system recording change under major disruptive
events and system restoration efforts (F(t)) to the target of that system
(F(t)E ) as expressed in Eq. (6). They also considered two characters of the
system resilience: absorption and recovery [97].
∫T
F(t)dt
R(t) = ∫ T0 (6)
F(t)E dt
0
S. Ahmadi et al.
Shinozuka et al. introduced rapidity and robustness as two indicators
of calculating the energy and water system resilience. The rapidity of the
system is the ratio of the average recovery rate to the recovery time. The
average recovery of the energy system was calculated by the difference
between the performance of the system at the post-disruption time
(F(t)D ) after an initial post-disruption equilibrium state (F(t)R ). tR And tD
are the time at the completed restoration and at the worst damaged
condition respectively. The robustness of the energy system was defined
as the performance of the system at the post-disruption time from 100%
performance at the original state (F(t) ´ ) [98].
D
F(t)R − F(t)D
Rapidity = (7)
tR − tD
´
Robustness = F(t)D (8)
Adaptability is another index of calculating the resilience of energy
systems presented by Jufri et al. This index is evaluated based on the
improvement on the energy system parameters used in degradation and
restoration stages (as presented in Eq. (9)). These parameters can be
restoration time, the maximum system capacity, etc. Hence, adaptability
is calculated by the ratio of the system parameters at restoration time
(ϕenhanced ) to the system parameters prior to the disruptive event
(ϕpre− event ) [61].
ϕenhanced
Adaptability = (9)
ϕpre− event
Gong et al. evaluated the resilience of energy systems by two in­
dicators: resilience index and total cost. They calculated resilience index
as a function of the accumulated system performance in the same period
in two states of the system: 1) no disruptive event occurs (F(t)E ) and 2)
the disruptive event occurs (F(t)). The key advantage of this indicator is
that it accounts for recovery time and performance degradation simul­
taneously. Also, they presented the total cost of the energy system,
which includes all the system costs, namely investment cost, fuel cost,
and operation and maintenance cost, as another index of evaluation the
system resilience [65].
∫ tD
F(t)dt
R(t) = ∫ t0D (10)
0
F(t) E dt
C = total cost of system (11)
According to Bruneau et al. the resilience of energy systems can be
measured by the resilience triangle. They considered four resilience
characters: robustness, rapidity, resourcefulness, and redundancy. The
introduced index is the accumulated difference between the energy
system performances (F(t)) under normal conditions and disruption
conditions. If the performance of the system is assumed to be 100 under
normal conditions, the resilience index is calculated by Eq. (12) [64].
∫tD
R= (100 − F(t))dt (12)
0
Enjalbert et al. correlated the resilience of a system with system
safety according to Eq. (13). They considered absorption as a resilience
character and calculated the system safety by summing the effect of the
factors which can affect the system safety; then, they measured the local
resilience of the system. The local resilience of the system can be
negative if the performance decreases or positive if the system recovers
from the disturbance. The global resilience is found by integrating the
local resilience from when the disruptive event starts (tE ) to when the
restoration is complete (tR ) [99].
∫tR ∫tR
dS
R= local resilience = (13)
dt
tE tE
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
Martišauskas presented an energy security coefficient for calculating
the energy resilience of a system. This index is a function of unserved
energy (UE) and energy cost increase (ECI) at different years (Ys ) which
are added together with weighting coefficients (α1 and α2 ) as given by
Eq. (14). The energy cost increase is evaluated in a specific disruption
scenario based on the total discounted cost in the case of analyzed sce­
nario (FC) and the cost in the case of the baseline scenario (BC). This
variable is always larger than 0%. Also, the unserved energy is part of
the needed energy which is not supplied. This variable is defined as a
percentage and can be measured according to Eq. (16) based on energy
production (P) and energy demand (D) [3].
ESC = exp( − α1 .UE.exp(Ys ) − α2 .ECI.exp(Ys )) (14)
FC − BC
ECI = (15)
BC
UE = 1 −
P
(16)
D
Wang et al. introduced three resilience indices for energy systems
considering the absorption state of the system as presented in Eqs. (17)–
(19). Spare capacity factor (SCF) is one of them which is calculated as
the ratio of the difference between the possible maximum network
output (Wmax ) and the possible minimum network output (Wmin ) to the
network output of the baseline (Wbase ). Diversity (D) is another index
ensuring different types of options for energy systems that is a function
of the proportion of electricity generated from each energy sources (Si ).
The composite resilience index (R) is a function of the minimum and
maximum of the value in each criteria in each scheme (Δmin .and
Δmax), distinguish coefficient (p), and k dealing with the serial number
of the criteria [100].
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ k
√ ∏ Δmin + p × Δmax
R=√ (17)
k
i=1
Δxi (k) + p × Δmax
Wmax − Wmin
SCF = (18)
Wbase
∑
D= Si (19)
i
Stability index is another index of energy system resilience that was
presented by Molyneaux et al. They used this index as a stability index
and related it to the diversity of energy systems, which was a function of
the probability that energy will pass to any predator (ρi ). They consid­
ered adaptation as an energy resilience character and reported that
when the parameters of redundancy and diversity are present, resilience
is enhanced [101]. It is expressed by:
S = ρi log ρi (20)
Moslehi and Reddy measured the resilience of energy systems
considering the imposed cost of the system as demonstrated in Eqs. (21)
and (22). Since resilience is a positive capacity of an energy system,
higher numbers should reflect better performance, while higher
imposed costs should represent poorer resilience in dealing with dis­
ruptions. The resilience index is a function of the maximum possible
imposed costs in each scenario (ICmax ) and the imposed cost in the failure
mode (IC) that is measured based on operational costs during the failure
mode and each time period and the penalty costs associated with one
unit of k functional service loss during the time period (PCk ). In this
formulation, the penalty costs do not vary based on the failure modes
but may vary depending on the time period. They also introduced en­
ergy resilience matrix based on this index [102].
ICmax − IC
R= (21)
ICmax
S. Ahmadi et al.
∑
IC = OC + FLk × PCk (22)
k consequences of the selected models are presented in Table 3.
Ghaffarpor et al. presented another resilience index based on the
total cost of the energy system, including the total operation cost (OC)
consisting of the operation costs of the components, the start-up costs,
and the shutdown costs along the operating horizon; the total penalty
cost (PC); and the total cost of transferring energy resources and fuels
(TC), which is expressed as follows. For enhancing the system reliability
and calculating the total penalty cost of the energy system, operators
have to select an operation scheme that limits the lost loads. Hence, the
value of electrical, heat, and drinking water lost loads on the operation
scheme was used to calculate the penalty costs [103].
C = OC + PC + TC (23)
Shannon–Weaver index is another energy resilience index presented
by Kharrazi et al. and is given by Eq. (24). In this formula, Pi represents
the share of energy source i in the mix of energy generation for an energy
system. It is clear that the higher the value of H is, the more diverse the
energy system becomes. They indicated that secure and responsible
consumption requires the diversification of not only energy generation
but also energy imports based on this index [104].
∑ needs. Most energy models will necessitate the data of a quantitative,
H= Pi ln Pi (24)
i tary units. The availability and sufficient quality of the input data are
Lai and Illindala determined the resilience of a power system by
average remaining network utilization index (aru) which was calculated
as the average of the ratio of the remaining capacity after satisfying the
current load demand to the total network capacity at each time. They
showed that enforcing a higher weight to the resilience enhancement
would increase the remaining capacity [105]. This index is measured by
Eq. (25):
∑T
rut
aru = t=1 (25)
T of data requirement are proposed for studying resources: low, medium,
Sánchez presented a resilience index of energy systems according to
a dynamic balance between the supply and demand of energy to persist
the redundancy of system. He related the system resilience to the
effective number of the connections per node as expressed in Eq. (26).
This index is a function of energy flow at the prey and predator (Ti,j ).
This index of resilience derived from the supply and demand of energy in
the system represented a possibility to identify its changes over time in
addition to a particular state of the ecosystem in a given time [80].
Ti,j 2
R = − log (26)
T0,j T0,i
According to Abimbola and Khan [57], the resilience of an engi­
neered system can be characterized with three capacities of absorption,
adaptation, and restoration which are modeled as a function of time.
They introduced a recovery index that is a function of the probability of
successfully mitigating the disruptive event (Pm ), the probability of
correctly predicting the failure event (PP ), and the probability of
correctly diagnosing the disruptive event (Pd ) as presented in Eq. (27)
[57].
Recovery = Pm × Pd × PP × (1 − ρ) (27)
4. Energy resilience models
4.1. Energy resilience modeling features
In order to elaborate on energy system models and gain an insight
into the characteristics of different modeling approaches in the context
of energy resilience modeling, some features of the models, including
the level of modeling, data requirements, the analytical approach, time
frame for forecasting, and sectoral coverage are considered in this
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
section. The modeling features of energy resilience and the assessment
4.1.1. Level of energy resilience modeling
Macro-level and micro-level are two main categories of energy
resilience modeling designed to answer different questions and effects
on the modeling approach, the sectoral coverage, and the time frame of
forecasting. The macro-level modeling focuses on the entire energy
system and the interaction between different sectors. For energy de­
mand top-down models, a neo-Keynesian approach is usually used at a
macro level. In this category, the interaction between energy and eco­
nomic is considered. The input–output table can be employed for
showing this interaction. One of the disadvantages of macro-level
modeling is that the specific technology is not well presented in en­
ergy systems because of a relatively high level of expertise.
4.1.2. Data requirements
The data requirement of the models is one of the main classification
of all energy models because of the input data. Generally, internal data
(implicit in the code) and external data (input data) are two categories of
data in energy models which should be carefully scrutinized for data
cardinal type, and some even require aspects to be expressed in mone­
essential for the practical use of energy models, and the lack of satisfying
data is a ubiquitous problem for modeling the energy system [106]. The
qualitative or ordinal data are used when the input data are not available
or unreliable. This feature of models (requiring data) is very dependent
on the modeling approach and the time frame of forecasting of models;
long-term models necessarily need highly aggregated data. The quality
of the output of the models is related to the quantity and quality of the
input data, so a model with a high quality and quantity of the input data
delivers well-founded outputs, and vice versa. In this paper, three levels
and high.
4.1.3. Analytical approach
There are two analytical approaches to modeling the energy system
based on the technological details at each energy level, the economy,
and the environment: top-down approach, bottom-up approach, and
hybrid approach [107–111].
Top-down models generally focus on the aggregate macro-economic
metrics and incorporate less details of energy technologies [112]. These
models employ historically derived variables to analyze the aggregate
behaviors of energy systems [113]. Indeed, the typical top-down model
approach emphasizes the economy as a whole and designates substitu­
tion across different inputs on the basis of historically calibrated factors
[114]. The well-established top-down approach to modeling of ener­
gy–economy policies has been dominated by computable general equi­
librium (CGE) models [115]. Another top-down approach used in energy
system modeling is econometric models that specify the statistical
relationship between the variables and estimate the relevant model
parameters [116,117]. Energy models in this category give pessimistic
estimates on the “best” performance.
The typical bottom-up approach needs rich details of technologies
and emphasizes how a number of individual energy technologies can be
used at each energy level [118,119]. The typical bottom-up approach
focuses on the energy system itself and does not include the interactions
between the energy system and the broader economic system as a whole
[120]. MARKAL is a well-known bottom-up energy model which ana­
lyzes energy supply systems [121]. The integrated MARKAL-EFOM
[122] (TIMES), EnergyPLAN model [123], OSeMOSYS [124], PRIMES
[125], energy systems model (ESM) [126], and MESSAGE [127] are
other famous bottom-up energy system models. In this category, the
interactions between the energy sector and other sectors are assumed
negligible, and models give optimistic estimates on the “best”
 Table 3
The models and modeling features of energy system resilience.
Model name Modeling Level of Data requirements Analytical Time frame of forecasting Energy sectoral Endogenous/ Ref.

S. Ahmadi et al.
approach modeling approach coverage exogenous damage
and restore
Macro Micro Low Medium High Bottom- Top- Short- Medium- Long-
up down term term term

Two-stage method for the outage Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power Distribution Endogenous [130]
management of power distribution modeling Systems
systems.
Sequential Service Restoration for Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power Distribution Endogenous [131]
Unbalanced Distribution Systems modeling Systems and Micro-
grids
Model for Resilient Distribution Systems by Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power Distribution Endogenous [132]
Micro-grids Formation modeling Systems
Resilient Operation of Multiple Energy Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Micro-grids Endogenous [133]
Carrier Micro-grids model modeling
Resilient distribution network planning Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power Distribution Endogenous [134]
problem (RDNP) modeling Systems
The planner–attacker–defender mode Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power system Endogenous [135]
modeling
Risk optimization model for enhanced power Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power grid Endogenous [136]
grid resilience modeling
Nonlinear adaptive robust optimization Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Chemical process Endogenous [137]
model and algorithm for resilience analysis modeling
Quantifying the resilience of an urban traffic- Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Transport sector Endogenous [138]
electric power coupled system modeling
Resilience-driven multi-objective restoration Optimization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power and water Endogenous [139]
model modeling systems
An agent-based model of power and water Agent-Based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power and water Endogenous [140]
infrastructure modeling systems
A dynamic supply chain network Agent-Based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Supply chain network N/A [141]
modeling (power)
10

Integrated energy systems based on smart Agent-Based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Integrated energy Endogenous [142]
agent communication modeling system
A multi-agent model for power management Agent-Based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power systems Endogenous [143]
modeling
Methods and techniques for simulating Agent-Based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – Endogenous [144]
human systems modeling
Agent-Based Electricity Market Simulation Agent-Based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power systems N/A [145]
modeling
A Multi-Agent Solution to Distribution Agent-Based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power systems Endogenous [146]
Systems Restoration modeling

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988

Multi-agent-based reconfiguration for Agent-Based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ distribution Endogenous [147]
restoration of distribution systems modeling generation systems
An analytical framework for supply network Stochastic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ supply networks N/A [148]
risk propagation modeling
A Bayesian network model for resilience- Stochastic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power system N/A [149]
based supplier selection modeling
A general frame work for assessing system Stochastic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Chemical factories Endogenous [150]
resilience using Bayesian networks modeling
Resilience improvement planning of power- Stochastic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power and water Endogenous [151]
water distribution systems modeling system
Statistical trend tests for resilience of power Stochastic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power system Endogenous [152]
systems modeling
Resilience assessment for interdependent Stochastic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power system Endogenous [153]
urban infrastructure systems modeling
Resilience of Critical Electrical Power model Stochastic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power system Endogenous [154]
modeling
A framework for the reliability/availability Stochastic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Power system Endogenous [155]
assessment of a power transmission grid modeling
An adaptation of the Baseline Indicator based ✓ ✓ ✓ Building sector N/A [156]
Resilience Indicators for Communities model
Energy security assessment in terms of energy Indicator based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Energy systems N/A [3]
system resilience model
S. Ahmadi et al.
performance.
4.1.4. Time frame of forecasting
Time frame of energy forecasting and time horizon vary due to the
different modeling techniques, purposes, and energy scenarios. The time
horizon is typically associated with the model focus, that is, a long-term
model for which the user can choose the exact period. The time horizon
is very important because different economic, social, and environmental
processes are important on different time scales. There are three cate­
gories for the time frame of forecasting, and there is no standard for
defining them. In this paper, we use the definition of Grubb et al. [128],
which is demonstrated in the following forms:
➢ Short term: 5 years or less;
➢ Medium term: Between 5 and 15 years;
➢ Long term: Over 15 years.
The modeling approach in different energy resilience models may
depend on the time frame of forecasting. For example, Boero et al. re­
ported that models of relatively long-term analysis may, to a reasonable
approximation, assume an economic equilibrium in which resources are
fully allocated. However, short-term models focus on “transitional” and
disequilibrium effects such as transitional market responses, capital
constraints, unemployment, and inflation [129].
4.1.5. Sectoral coverage
An energy resilience model can be developed only for one sector such
as electricity sector or can include more sectors based on the reference
curve of the energy system which designs, for instance, the renewable
sector; final energy consumption sectors such as household, industry,
agriculture, transportation, and energy services; and others. Generally,
single sectoral models are used only for micro-level modeling because
they cannot provide enough information on macro-economic models
because of ignoring the other sectors of economy. Most of bottom-up
energy models are multi sectoral models, but all the multi sectoral
models do not apply a bottom-up approach to modeling the energy
system.
4.2. Modeling approach
Analyses done in Table 3 demonstrate that the modeling approaches
can be classified into three main types: optimization modeling; agent-
based modeling; stochastic modeling. Some authors also used different
modeling approaches such as system dynamic or indicator-based
modeling (based on the models collected in Table 3) which, because
of their low frequency in the reviewed works, have not been included in
the main categories of this paper. Table 4 lists the modeling approaches,
the corresponding models, the indicators used, and the solving methods
which are collected in this paper. The presented four modeling ap­
proaches are illustrated in detail in the following subsections. Hosseini
et al. presented some commercial software tools and algorithms for
utilizing optimization and stochastic modeling approaches. GAMS,
CPLEX, Lingo, AnyLogic, and anyLogistix are used in optimization
modeling, and meta-heuristic algorithms; multi-criteria decision-mak­
ing approaches such as AHP, ANP, and VIKOR; Markov chain; and
Bayesian are employed for stochastic models [63].
4.2.1. Optimization models
Optimization modeling approach is one of the most extensively used
technique to consider the energy system resilience. In this approach, a
problem to optimize the total system cost, restore time, performance
loss, etc. After a disruptive event occurs is developed to achieve the
maximum amount of resilience in the energy systems. Different authors
have used various indicators, objective functions, and solving methods
to optimize the resilience of a system as described in this subsection.
Arif et al. developed a two-stage optimization model which is
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
formulated as a mixed integer linear program (MILP) for power man­
agement in DG systems. The objective function of the first stage is
minimization of the distance between the depot in each cluster and the
damaged component of them. In the second stage of this model, the
picked-up load is maximized, and the repair time is minimized consid­
ering the network operation, the repair crew, and the constrains on the
resources [130]. Chen et al. expanded a sequential service restoration
(SSR) model for providing restoration solutions to distribution systems
in the event of large-scale power outages. In this model, the total
restored energy over the time horizon is maximized considering the
system operation, connectivity, topology, and sequencing constrains
with an MILP formulation [131]. Ding et al. also formulated the resilient
distribution system by sectionalizing switches of the systems. The
objective function is to maximize the total weighted sum of loads picked
up after natural disasters upon a mix integer liner programing with
operation and topology constraints [132]. Nezamoddini et al. developed
an optimization model as a mixed integer linear programming problem
to determine the optimal investment decision (without considering the
generation costs in the objective function) for the resilient design of the
transmission systems against attacks. They measured the damage caused
by the physical attacks in terms of the load curtailment [136].
Some authors have developed an optimization model of energy
resilience at multiple levels or stages. For example, Manshadi and
Khodayar presented a mixed integer bi-level linear programming model
of calculating the vulnerability of multiple energy carrier (electricity
and natural gas) micro-grids to various interdictions so as to increase the
resilience of the energy supply and decrease the operation cost [133].
Yuan et al. also solved a resilient distribution network planning problem
(RDNP) to organize the reinforcing and distributed generation re­
sources. They developed a two-stage robust optimization model so as to
minimize the system damage. The objective was maximizing the damage
through a max–min bi-level game after the network planning decision
[134]. Fang and Sansavini formulated a min–max–min model which
implements the planner–attacker–defender model. The model objective
functions were the minimization of the total cost, the maximization of
the system disruptions, and the minimization of the system performance
loss after the attack. They solved this model as a three-level mixed
integer program (TLMIP) [135].
Some researchers have presented a multi-objective model which was
solved in one or two stages for checking the optimal point of energy
resilience. For example, Gong and You presented a multi-objective, two-
stage, adaptive, robust, mixed-integer, fractional programming model.
The first objective function is the maximization of the resilience, and the
second objective function is the minimization of the total capital cost.
They formulated the problem in a three-level structure for optimization:
the network configuration, equipment capacities, and capital costs; the
worst-case realization of the availability of process units; and the
number of available processes and operating levels in each time period
[137]. Almoghathawi et al. developed a resilience-driven multi-­
objective restoration model as a mixed-integer program for maximizing
the resilience of interdependent infrastructure systems while mini­
mizing the total cost associated with the restoration process. In this
model, the availability of the time periods along with the resources, the
different restoration times for the disrupted components, and the system
performance are the main parameters [139].
To summarize, the existing optimization models share common ob­
ject functions such as the minimization of the damage to the energy
system, investment and operational costs, and recovery time and the
maximization of the system performance and the load restored. Table 4
demonstrates that all the models use a mixed integer linear program­
ming for solving the problem; some models solved the problem in one
stage, and the others solved it in multiple stages.
4.2.2. Agent-based models
Agent-based modeling (ABM) is a methodological and simulation
approach which can be used for measuring energy system resilience. As
S. Ahmadi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988

Table 4
Energy resilience modeling approaches, solving methods and indicators.
Modeling Model name Solving method Description Indicators Ref.
approach

Optimization Two-stage method for the outage mixed integer linear Co-Optimization of Repairs, 1- Distance between the depot in [130]
modeling management of power distribution program (MILP) Reconfiguration, and DG Dispatch cluster σ and damaged
systems. component m- (d(depσ , m))
2- The picked-up loads and
minimize the repair time of the
damaged components.
Sequential Service Restoration for mixed integer linear Optimization of total restored energy Total restored energy over the [131]
Unbalanced Distribution Systems program (MILP) time horizon
Model for Resilient Distribution mixed integer linear Optimization of total loads after The total weighted sum of loads [132]
Systems by Micro-grids Formation program (MILP) disasters picked up after natural disasters
Resilient Operation of Multiple Energy Mixed integer bi-level Optimization of the operation cost 1- The operation cost of the [133]
Carrier Micro-grids model linear programming system subjected to the
(MIBLP) limitation of resources to trigger
disruptions
2- The operation cost of the
multiple energy carrier micro-
grid under attack.
Resilient distribution network planning Mixed integer linear Optimization of the damage (two-stage Load shedding [134]
problem (RDNP) program (MILP) robust optimization)
The planner–attacker–defender mode Three-level mixed integer Optimization of the investment and 1- Performance loss [135]
program operating costs, and loss after attacks 2- The total nominal costs
Risk optimization model for enhanced Mixed integer linear Optimization of the investment costs The investment costs [136]
power grid resilience program (MILP)
Nonlinear adaptive robust optimization Mixed integer linear Optimize the resilience and economic 1- Performance loss [137]
model and algorithm for resilience program objectives (Multi-objective two-stage 2- The total nominal costs
analysis adaptive robust mixed-integer fractional
program)
Resilience-driven multi-objective Mixed integer linear Maximization of the resilience and 1- availability of the time and [139]
restoration model program (MILP) Minimizing the total cost resources
2- The total cost
3- System performance
Agent based An agent-based model of power and The independent system minimizing the cost of power dispatched The total cost [140]
modeling water infrastructure operator agent
A dynamic supply chain network simulation program Simulation the supply chain network (as Distribution size [141]
power)
Integrated energy systems based on Monte Carlo simulation Reliability of system 1-Time to Repair [142]
smart agent communication 2- Failure rate
A multi-agent model for power Pareto-front in multi- minimizing operational cost 1-total cost [143]
management objective and maximization of the system 2-system’s performance
performance
Agent-Based Electricity Market agent-based modeling and the consumption behaviors of 1-energy consumption [145]
Simulation simulation (ABMS) commercial buildings 2-total cost
techniques, Gen-Co Agent in a real-time pricing environment under
different market structures
A Multi-Agent Solution to Distribution multi-agent systems maximize the supply of power 1-power supply [146]
Systems Restoration 2-Load Restoration
Multi-agent-based reconfiguration for multi-agent systems Maximization of load restoration 1- Load shedding [147]
restoration of distribution systems 2-load restoration
Stochastic An analytical framework for supply Bayesian approach Supply of power [148]
modeling network risk propagation
A Bayesian network model for Bayesian approach Power supply Load shedding [149]
resilience-based supplier selection
A general frame work for assessing Bayesian approach Trade-off between budget availability 1- Absorptive capacity of [150]
system resilience using Bayesian and resilience capacities manufacturing facility
networks 2- Absorptive capacity of
suppliers
Resilience improvement planning of Stochastic integer linear minimizes the expected inaccessibility 1-power and water load [151]
power-water distribution systems programming values of loads to power and water under 2-budget of system
hurricanes
and minimizes the budget
Statistical trend tests for resilience of Econometrics statistical trend and empirical evidence 1-performance losses [152]
power systems 2-recobery time
Resilience assessment for Stochastic programing Minimization of cost flow 1-total cost [153]
interdependent urban infrastructure 2-recovery time
systems 3-failure time
Resilience of Critical Electrical Power Monte-Carlo-based time- Power supply Performance of system [154]
model series simulation
A framework for the reliability/ Monte-Carlo Repair time and performance of the 1-power supply [155]
availability assessment of a power power systems 2- Restoration time
transmission grid
Hybrid Adaptive robust framework for the Mixed-integer tri-level Optimization of the 1- Restoration time [164]
modeling optimization of the resilience program (MITLP) Resiliency (Adaptive robust 2- failure and recovery
optimization (ARO)) probabilities
(continued on next page)

12
S. Ahmadi et al.
Table 4 (continued )
Modeling Model name Solving method
approach
A multi-mode restoration model Mixed integer linear
program (MILP)
a computational simulation technique, ABM enables the modeling of
individual, heterogeneous, autonomous agents or decision-making en­
tities [157] which are able to account for emergent patterns and
self-organization through simulation [158]. Agent-based models consist
of dynamically interacting, rule-based agents the behavior of which is
described (encoded) in simple rules [159,160]. Bonabeau defined an
agent as an entity which can be identified by its capabilities, the expe­
rience history, and data (the memory of the entity). The memory of the
entity can have multifaceted patterns that provide valuable data on the
dynamics of the simulated real-world energy systems [144]. One of the
advantages of using ABM is the ability to incorporate heterogeneous
agents. For example, heterogeneity in energy systems can be assumed
primarily by fuel type, the relative cost of fuel, heating and cooling
technology, conversion technologies, and nameplate capacity [140].
ABM is gradually being accepted as a suitable tool for studying complex
societal challenges such as energy resilience [158,161].
Thompson et al. presented an agent-based model of power and water
infrastructure systems. In this model, the interdependent critical infra­
structure model (ICIM) contained power plant agents of different fossil-
fuel types, a hydroelectric dam agent, a wind farm agent, a solar farm
agent, a centralized agent that manages the dispatch of power, water
objects which are representative of the reservoirs providing cooling
water for the power plants, and a water management agent; also, the
cost of the power dispatched is the objective function of this model
[140]. Hou et al. characterized a multi-stage multi-agent model
considering supply chain network resilience as a complex adaptive
system consisting of diverse firms and demand–supply relationships
among them, where the macro-level system behaviors can emerge from
the interactions between the micro-level behaviors of the firms. The
distribution size is the indicator in this model [141]. Li et al. also
evaluated the reliability of an integrated energy system (power and
natural gas) based on two-state smart agent model of most repairable
components simulated in AnyLogic platform. In this model, the system
state evaluation after failures was conducted autonomously along with
the reconfiguration process, which effectively improves the reliability
evaluation efficiency of integrated energy systems. The time to repair,
the failure rate, and the total cost are the main indicators in this model
[142].
Dehghanpour et al. introduced a smart agent-based micro-grid for
resilient/self-healing grids. They used smart control techniques for the
control and management of micro-grids in a multi-agent model with
multi-objective functions to find the Pareto-front of the objective func­
tions (minimizing the operational cost and maximizing the system per­
formance). In addition, the paper presented the application of Nash
bargaining solution for solving the problem [141]. Zhou et al. used this
modeling approach to simulate an electricity market with commercial
building demand response. Power generation companies, load services,
buildings, and system operators are the main agents, and the energy
consumption and the total cost are two indicators in this model [145].
Also, Solanki et al. employed agent-based modeling to calculate power
system resilience based on restoration time after disruptive events.
Power supply, load shedding, and load restoration are the main in­
dicators in these models [146,147].
To sum up, agent-based models are commonly used for simulating
energy system resilience because of the behavior analysis of agents and
decision makers by making certain rules. However, there is a limitation
for the most existing agent-based models which can only simulate one
type of interdependency of a system [33]. The total cost, distribution
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
Description Indicators Ref.
Optimization of the 1- Intensity and time allocation [165]
Resiliency (Two-stage stochastic of the repair activities
optimization) 2- system performance
size, time to repair, failure rate, energy consumption, load restoration,
and performance of energy systems are the common indicators used in
collected agent-based models (see Table 4).
4.2.3. Stochastic models
According to the related literature, stochastic models are another
approach to modeling energy system resilience and reliability, which
has been applied to capturing the uncertain characters and system
failures. Chang and Shinozuka presented a stochastic model of assessing
resilience based on the system performance loss and the length of re­
covery and restoration time after a disruptive event [162].
Many models adopt the sequential Bayesian method which is a
powerful methodology for handling uncertainty and risk assessment.
Forward and backward propagation analysis is a unique feature of the
Bayesian approach that does not exist in any other methodologies such
as regression models, structural equation modeling, or neural network
modeling [63]. Garvey et al. utilized a Bayesian network approach to
develop a model of risk propagation as a natural fit for the goal of
measuring risks within a supply chain [148]. Hosseini and Barker pro­
posed a Bayesian network model for evaluating and selecting the best
supplier based on the criteria falling into primary, green, and resilience
categories. They applied the developed model to power systems and
calculated two types of uncertainty: operational uncertainty such as
demand uncertainty and disruption uncertainty such as natural di­
sasters. They also analyzed both forward propagation and backward
propagation analysis using the proposed model [149]. Hosseini et al.
also implemented this approach to design the resilience of supply chains
based on the notion of absorptive, adaptive, and restorative capacities
using five key phases: threat analysis, resilience capacity design, resil­
ience cost evaluation, resilience quantification, and resilience
improvement [150].
Najafi et al. presented a planning framework for enhancing the
resilience of power distribution network and water distribution network
with multiple micro-grids against hurricanes with stochastic modeling
approach. The main objective function was the minimization of the in­
vestment cost of the strategies for improving resilience and the expected
load values of inaccessibility to power and water under hurricanes
[151]. Shen et al. also developed a statistical trend model of the resil­
ience of power systems based on three key components: the time be­
tween disruptions, the performance loss of each disruption, and the time
needed for recovery. Then, they examined the modified model with
Lewis–Robinson test [152].
Monte Carlo simulation is another popular stochastic method for
modeling energy system resilience and uses repeated sampling to
determine the properties of some phenomenon trend [163]. Panteli and
Mancarella presented a stochastic model considering power resilience in
the presence of high-impact weather disruptive events. They captured
the random nature and the impact on the different system components
using a time-series simulation model based on sequential Monte Carlo
[154]. Cadini et al. also proposed an extreme weather stochastic model
of power systems. They introduced a restoration model accounting for
the operating conditions that a repair crew may encounter during an
extreme weather event and solved it by a customized sequential Monte
Carlo scheme in order to quantify the impact of extreme weather events
on the reliability/availability performance of the power grid [155].
To review, stochastic approaches are one of the frequently used
models for considering energy system resilience. Bayesian and Monte
Carlo are two famous methods used to solve the stochastic resilience
S. Ahmadi et al.
model. Moreover, the total system cost, recovery time, failure time, and
system performance are the main indicators employed in these models.
4.2.4. Hybrid model
Fang and Zio introduced a two-stage robust optimization model for
maximizing the resilience of interdependent infrastructures under a
limited budget. They calculated the potential impacts of natural hazards
on an infrastructure in terms of failure and recovery probabilities of the
system components and solved their model as a tri-level max–min–max
mixed integer program [164]. Fang and Sansavini considered the effects
of uncertain repair time and resources on the post-disruption restoration
of critical infrastructures. They presented a two-stage stochastic pro­
gramming model for the post-disruption critical infrastructure restora­
tion planning problem for system resilience, which was solved by a
mixed-integer program [165].
5. Conclusions and future works
5.1. Discussion and conclusions
This paper presents a systematic literature review of energy system
resilience by focusing on analytical, technical, and mathematical points
and aiming at identifying frameworks, quantitative indicators, charac­
ters, and modeling methods of the analysis of energy system resilience.
We introduced the concept of energy system resilience and reviewed the
qualitative and quantitative drivers of energy system resilience. We
presented qualitative drivers as the characters of energy resilience and
quantitative drivers as the indicators of energy resilience.
Avoiding the disruption of energy systems before a disruptive event
by anticipation, resistance to disruption by absorbing the disruption,
adapting to unexpected events, and recovering energy systems after
disruptive events are the main characters of energy system resilience.
Therefore, we defined the energy system resilience as the ability of an
energy system to minimize disruptions to energy services by antici­
pating, resisting, absorbing, adapting to, and recovering from a
disruptive event. We also presented that the anticipation of disruptive
events can be considered in a stable original state, that the resistance,
absorption, and adaption of energy systems can be measured in a dis­
rupted state, and that the recovery of the disrupted system is determined
in a recovery state.
We reviewed the quantification of energy system resilience and their
indicators, and we related the indicators to the energy resilience char­
acters in different researches. Comparing the results demonstrates that
the energy performance, total cost, time of repair, and damaged per­
formance are the main indicators of analyzing the energy system
resilience.
Then, the models of energy system resilience are presented in the
fourth phase of the review from a viewpoint of modeling features and
approaches. The level of modeling (micro or macro), data requirements
(low, medium, and high), the analytical approach (bottom-up or top-
down), time frame for forecasting (short-term or long-term), and sec­
toral coverage were organized as the features of the energy resilience
models. The models collected in this work present that optimization
modeling, agent-based modeling, and stochastic modeling are the
commonly used methods for analyzing energy system resilience; the
solving methods and objective functions of each model were reviewed in
this work. Based on the review, all the optimization models use a mixed
integer linear programming for solving the problem. Some of them
solved the problem in one level/stage, and the others solved it in mul­
tiple levels/stages. Further, agent-based models are commonly used for
simulating energy system resilience because of the behavior analysis of
agents and decision makers by making certain rules. Moreover, Bayesian
and Monte Carlo are two famous methods employed for solving the
stochastic resilience model.
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
5.2. Future works
Although this paper presents a comprehensive review of energy
system resilience, some obvious gaps listed below have been identified
based on the works of literature examined and should be elaborated in
the future.
• Since the resilience of an energy system against disruptions affects
the level of social welfare, supplying the needs of economic systems,
and the environment, it can be used to calculate the sustainability of
a system in the face of disruption. There are few researches in which
multi-objective modeling is used sustainability as a critical factor.
• Since some disturbances such as climate change occur in the long
run, the development of the models of energy system resilience with
a long-term planning perspective is really necessary. In fact, most
existing models of energy resilience focus on immediate effects of
disruptions, and no research work has provided a detailed systematic
energy model for planning the dynamic behavior of an energy system
facing disruptions in the long term.
• A holistic research on the evaluation of energy system resilience
considering all energy levels, including transfer, processing, refine­
ment, conversion, and distribution has not yet been published. In
most researches, energy system resilience is considered as a section
of infrastructure systems or the resilience of one section of an energy
system as power sector measured.
• There are few works on modeling energy resilience in energy re­
fineries such gas or oil refineries while considering the storage level
or carbon capture section.
• To the best of the authors’ knowledge, anticipation is one of the main
characters of energy system resilience that plays an important role in
enhancing the system resilience. There are no indicators of this
character although it is necessary.
• The development of technology and applying advanced technologies
to the energy network are one of the most important issues that
should be considered in the design of energy supply systems.
Therefore, the effect of the new technologies on the influence of the
resilience of energy systems due to disruptive events is one of the
important issues that has an essential role in the improvement to
energy development strategies and has been neglected in the related
literature.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Zhou Y, Li J, Wang G, Chen S, Xing W, Li T. Assessing the short-to medium-term
supply risks of clean energy minerals for China. J Clean Prod Apr. 2019;215:
217–25.
[2] Mirkhani S, Saboohi Y. “Stochastic modeling of the energy supply system with
uncertain fuel price – a case of emerging technologies for distributed power
generation. Appl Energy May 2012;93:668–74.
[3] Martišauskas L, Augutis J, Krikštolaitis R. Methodology for energy security
assessment considering energy system resilience to disruptions. Energy Strateg.
Rev. 2018;22(August):106–18.
[4] Schlör H, Venghaus S, Märker C, Hake J-F. Managing the resilience space of the
German energy system - a vector analysis. J Environ Manag Jul. 2018;218:
527–39.
[5] Wainstein ME, Dangerman J, Dangerman S. Energy business transformation &
Earth system resilience: a metabolic approach. J Clean Prod Apr. 2019;215:
854–69.
[6] Hines P, Apt J, Talukdar S. Large blackouts in North America: historical trends
and policy implications. Energy Pol Dec. 2009;37(12):5249–59.
[7] N. C. for D. R. (NCDR). Wenchuan earthquake disaster-a comprehensive analysis
and evaluation. 2008.
[8] Mochizuki J, Chang SE. Disasters as opportunity for change: tsunami recovery
and energy transition in Japan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. Mar. 2017;21:331–9.
S. Ahmadi et al.
[9] Wu J, He X, Ye M, Wang C. Energy and asset value elasticity of earthquake-
induced direct economic losses. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. Feb. 2019;33:
229–34.
[10] Garcia-Dia MJ, DiNapoli JM, Garcia-Ona L, Jakubowski R, O’Flaherty D. Concept
analysis: resilience. Arch Psychiatr Nurs Dec. 2013;27(6):264–70.
[11] Proag V. The concept of vulnerability and resilience. Procedia Econ. Financ. Jan.
2014;18:369–76.
[12] Pęciłło M. The resilience engineering concept in enterprises with and without
occupational safety and health management systems. Saf Sci Feb. 2016;82:190–8.
[13] Peng C, Yuan M, Gu C, Peng Z, Ming T. A review of the theory and practice of
regional resilience. Sustain. Cities Soc. Feb. 2017;29:86–96.
[14] Yoo M, Kim T, Yoon JT, Kim Y, Kim S, Youn BD. A resilience measure formulation
that considers sensor faults. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. Feb. 2020;199. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.02.025.
[15] Holling CS. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Systemat
Nov. 1973;4(1):1–23.
[16] Bakker YW, de Koning J, van Tatenhove J. Resilience and social capital: the
engagement of fisheries communities in marine spatial planning. Mar Pol Jan.
2019;99:132–9.
[17] Maclean K, et al. Building social resilience to biological invasions. A case study of
Panama Tropical Race 4 in the Australian Banana Industry. Geoforum Dec. 2018;
97:95–105.
[18] Aslam Saja AM, Goonetilleke A, Teo M, Ziyath AM. A critical review of social
resilience assessment frameworks in disaster management. 2019.
[19] Chaffin BC, et al. Biological invasions, ecological resilience and adaptive
governance. J Environ Manag Dec. 2016;183:399–407.
[20] Anthony Stallins J, Corenblit D. Interdependence of geomorphic and ecologic
resilience properties in a geographic context. Geomorphology Mar. 2018;305:
76–93.
[21] Chaffin BC, Scown M. Social-ecological resilience and geomorphic systems.
Geomorphology Mar. 2018;305:221–30.
[22] Panpakdee C, Limnirankul B. Indicators for assessing social-ecological resilience:
a case study of organic rice production in northern Thailand. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci.
Sep. 2018;39(3):414–21.
[23] Cumming GS, Peterson GD. “Unifying research on social–ecological resilience and
collapse. Trends Ecol Evol Sep. 2017;32(9):695–713.
[24] Cai B, Xie M, Liu Y, Liu Y, Feng Q. Availability-based engineering resilience
metric and its corresponding evaluation methodology. Reliab Eng Syst Saf Apr.
2018;172:216–24.
[25] Azadeh A, Yazdanparast R, Zadeh SA, Zadeh AE. Performance optimization of
integrated resilience engineering and lean production principles. Expert Syst Appl
Oct. 2017;84:155–70.
[26] Harvey EJ, Waterson P, Dainty ARJ. Applying HRO and resilience engineering to
construction: barriers and opportunities. ” Saf. Sci.; Aug. 2016.
[27] Dormady N, Roa-Henriquez A, Rose A. Economic resilience of the firm: a
production theory approach. Int J Prod Econ Feb. 2019;208:446–60.
[28] Sabatino M. Economic resilience and social capital of the Italian region. Int Rev
Econ Finance May 2019;61:355–67.
[29] Rehak D, Senovsky P, Hromada M, Lovecek T. Complex approach to assessing
resilience of critical infrastructure elements. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. Jun.
2019;25:125–38.
[30] Pursiainen C. Critical infrastructure resilience: a Nordic model in the making? Int.
J. Disaster Risk Reduct. Mar. 2018;27:632–41.
[31] Mao Q, Li N, Peña–Mora F. Quality function deployment-based framework for
improving the resilience of critical infrastructure systems. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct.
Prot. May 2019:100304.
[32] Berkeley AR, Grayson ME, Gallegos GG. National infrastructure advisory council
critical infrastructure partnership strategic assessment final report and
recommendations. 2008.
[33] Zhang P, Peeta S. A generalized modeling framework to analyze
interdependencies among infrastructure systems. Transp Res Part B Methodol
Mar. 2011;45(3):553–79.
[34] Erker S, Stangl R, Stoeglehner G. “Resilience in the light of energy crises – Part I: a
framework to conceptualise regional energy resilience. J Clean Prod Oct. 2017;
164:420–33.
[35] Erker S, Stangl R, Stoeglehner G. “Resilience in the light of energy crises – Part II:
application of the regional energy resilience assessment. J Clean Prod Oct. 2017;
164:495–507.
[36] Sharifi A, Yamagata Y. Principles and criteria for assessing urban energy
resilience: a literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jul. 2016;60:1654–77.
[37] Pires Ribeiro J, Barbosa-Povoa A. “Supply Chain Resilience: definitions and
quantitative modelling approaches – a literature review. Comput Ind Eng Jan.
2018;115:109–22.
[38] Ponomarov SY, Holcomb MC. Understanding the concept of supply chain
resilience 2009;20(1).
[39] Ponis ST, Koronis E. Supply chain resilience: definition of concept and its
formative elements. J Appl Bus Res Aug. 2012;28(5):921.
[40] Melnyk M, A S, Closs DJ, Griffis SE, Zobel CW. Understanding supply chain
resilience. Supply Chain Manag Rev 2014;18(1):34–411.
[41] Roege PE, Collier ZA, Mancillas J, Mcdonagh JA, Linkov I. Metrics for energy
resilience. 2014.
[42] Kamalahmadi M, Parast MM. A review of the literature on the principles of
enterprise and supply chain resilience: major findings and directions for future
research. Int J Prod Econ Jan. 2016;171:116–33.
[43] Schl H, Venghaus S, € Arker CM, Hake J-F. Managing the resilience space of the
German energy system - a vector analysis. 2018.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
[44] Wang J, et al. Integrated assessment for solar-assisted carbon capture and storage
power plant by adopting resilience thinking on energy system. 2019.
[45] Hussain A, Bui V-H, Kim H-M. Microgrids as a resilience resource and strategies
used by microgrids for enhancing resilience. Appl Energy Apr. 2019;240:56–72.
[46] Ajaz W. Resilience, environmental concern, or energy democracy? A panel data
analysis of microgrid adoption in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. Mar.
2019;49:26–35.
[47] T. Mcdaniels, S. Chang, D. Cole, J. Mikawoz, and H. Longstaff, “Fostering
resilience to extreme events within infrastructure systems: characterizing
decision contexts for mitigation and adaptation.”.
[48] Zobel CW, Khansa L. Characterizing multi-event disaster resilience. 2013.
[49] Woods DD. Four concepts for resilience and the implications for the future of
resilience engineering. Reliab Eng Syst Saf Sep. 2015;141:5–9.
[50] Phillips J, Finster M, Pillon J, Petit F, Trail J. State energy resilience framework
2016;42.
[51] Sato M, Kharrazi A, Nakayama H, Kraines S, Yarime M. Quantifying the supplier-
portfolio diversity of embodied energy: strategic implications for strengthening
energy resilience. Energy Pol 2017;105:41–52. June 2016.
[52] Madni AM, Jackson S. Towards a conceptual framework for resilience
engineering 2009;3(2):181–91.
[53] Marana P, et al. “Towards a resilience management guideline — cities as a
starting point for societal resilience. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019;48(1):1–13.
[54] L. L. (TECNUN) Raquel Gimenez (TECNUN). Patricia maraña (TECNUN) and
josune hernantes (TECNUN). Smart mature resilience deliverable 2.1. CI D
EPENDENCIES WORK SHOP REPORT; 2015.
[55] Brown K, Westaway E, “Agency. Capacity, and resilience to environmental
change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annu Rev
Environ Resour Nov. 2011;36(1):321–42.
[56] Davidson DJ. The applicability of the concept of resilience to social systems: some
sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Soc Nat Resour Nov. 2010;23(12):
1135–49.
[57] Abimbola M, Khan F. Resilience modeling of engineering systems using dynamic
object-oriented Bayesian network approach. Comput Ind Eng 2019;130:108–18.
[58] Hosseini S, Barker K. Modeling infrastructure resilience using Bayesian networks:
a case study of inland waterway ports. Comput Ind Eng 2016;93:252–66.
[59] Francis R, Bekera B. A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of
engineered and infrastructure systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014;121:90–103.
[60] and M AE, Vugrin Eric D, Warren Drake E. A resilience assessment framework for
infrastructure and economic systems: quantitative and qualitative resilience
analysis of petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane. Process Saf Prog 2011;30
(3):280–90.
[61] Jufri FH, Widiputra V, Jung J. State-of-the-art review on power grid resilience to
extreme weather events: definitions, frameworks, quantitative assessment
methodologies, and enhancement strategies. Appl Energy 2019;239:1049–65.
January.
[62] Dubey R, Altay N, Gunasekaran A, Blome C, Papadopoulos T, Childe SJ. Supply
chain agility, adaptability and alignment. Int J Oper Prod Manag Jan. 2018;38(1):
129–48.
[63] Hosseini S, Ivanov D, Dolgui A. Review of quantitative methods for supply chain
resilience analysis. Transp. Res. Part E Logist Transp Rev May 2019;125:285–307.
[64] Bruneau M, et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic
resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra Nov. 2003;19(4):733–52.
[65] Gong J, You F. Resilient design and operations of process systems: nonlinear
adaptive robust optimization model and algorithm for resilience analysis and
enhancement. Comput Chem Eng 2018;116:231–52.
[66] “2. Energy supply and demand: trends and prospects.”.
[67] Energy Agency I. World energy balances 2018. 2018.
[68] World oil outlook 2040 2017 organization of the petroleum exporting countries.
2019.
[69] BP. BP energy outlook 2019. 2019.
[70] Huang C-N, Liou JJH, Chuang Y-C. A method for exploring the interdependencies
and importance of critical infrastructures. Knowl Base Syst Jan. 2014;55:66–74.
[71] Buldyrev SV, Parshani R, Paul G, Stanley HE, Havlin S. Catastrophic cascade of
failures in interdependent networks. Nature Apr. 2010;464(7291):1025–8.
[72] Wang J, Zuo W, Rhode-Barbarigos L, Lu X, Wang J, Lin Y. Literature review on
modeling and simulation of energy infrastructures from a resilience perspective.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf Mar. 2019;183:360–73.
[73] Delft TU, Bollinger LA. Evolving climate-resilient energy infrastructures A proof-
of-concept model. 2011.
[74] Eskandarpour R, Khodaei A, Arab A. Improving power grid resilience through
predictive outage estimation. In 2017 North American power symposium (NAPS).
2017. p. 1–5.
[75] Y. Ye, I. E. Grossmann, and J. M. Pinto, “MINLP models for optimal design of
reliable chemical plants.”.
[76] Ma S, Chen B, Wang Z. Resilience enhancement strategy for distribution systems
under extreme weather events. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid Mar. 2018;9(2):1442–51.
[77] Panteli M, Trakas DN, Mancarella P, Hatziargyriou ND. Power systems resilience
assessment: hardening and smart operational enhancement strategies. Proc IEEE
Jul. 2017;105(7):1202–13.
[78] Hoffman P YK, Bryan W, Farber-DeAnda M, Cleaver M, Lewandowski C.
Hardening and resiliency: U.S. Energy industry response to recent hurricane
seasons. 2010.
[79] Haimes YY. On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Anal 2009;29(4).
[80] Arreguín-Sánchez F. Measuring resilience in aquatic trophic networks from
supply-demand-of-energy relationships. Ecol Model 2014;272:271–6.
S. Ahmadi et al.
[81] Lin Y, Bie Z. Study on the resilience of the integrated energy system. Energy
Procedia Dec. 2016;103:171–6.
[82] Cadini F, Agliardi GL, Zio E. A modeling and simulation framework for the
reliability/availability assessment of a power transmission grid subject to
cascading failures under extreme weather conditions. Appl Energy Jan. 2017;185:
267–79.
[83] Beheshtian A, Donaghy KP, Richard Geddes R, Oliver Gao H. Climate-adaptive
planning for the long-term resilience of transportation energy infrastructure.
Transp. Res. Part E Logist Transp Rev May 2018;113:99–122.
[84] Fang Y-P, Zio E. An adaptive robust framework for the optimization of the
resilience of interdependent infrastructures under natural hazards. Eur J Oper Res
Aug. 2019;276(3):1119–36.
[85] Espinoza S, Panteli M, Mancarella P, Rudnick H. Multi-phase assessment and
adaptation of power systems resilience to natural hazards. Elec Power Syst Res
2016;136:352–61.
[86] Mccarthy IP, Collard M, Johnson M. Adaptive organizational resilience: an
evolutionary perspective 2017;28:33–40.
[87] Vugrin ED, Warren DE, Ehlen MA. A resilience assessment framework for
infrastructure and economic systems: quantitative and qualitative resilience
analysis of petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane. Process Saf Prog Sep.
2011;30(3):280–90.
[88] Cassottana B, Shen L, Tang LC. Modeling the recovery process: a key dimension of
resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf May 2019:106528.
[89] Todman LC, et al. Defining and quantifying the resilience of responses to
disturbance: a conceptual and modelling approach from soil science. Sci Rep Sep.
2016;6(1):28426.
[90] Zobel CW. Representing perceived tradeoffs in defining disaster resilience. Decis
Support Syst Jan. 2011;50(2):394–403.
[91] He P, Ng TS, Su B. Energy-economic recovery resilience with Input-Output linear
programming models. Energy Econ Oct. 2017;68:177–91.
[92] Reed DA, Powell MD, Westerman JM. Energy supply system performance for
hurricane katrina. J Energy Eng Dec. 2010;136(4):95–102.
[93] Sansavini G. Engineering resilience in critical infrastructures. Dordrecht: ”
Springer; 2017. p. 189–203.
[94] Eshghi K, Johnson BK, Rieger CG. “Metrics required for power system resilient
operations and protection,” in 2016 Resilience Week (RWS). 2016. p. 200–3.
[95] Jufri FH, Widiputra V, Jung J. State-of-the-art review on power grid resilience to
extreme weather events: definitions, frameworks, quantitative assessment
methodologies, and enhancement strategies. Appl Energy Apr. 2019;239:
1049–65.
[96] Henry D, Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez J. Generic metrics and quantitative
approaches for system resilience as a function of time. Reliab Eng Syst Saf Mar.
2012;99:114–22.
[97] Ouyang M, Dueñas-Osorio L. Multi-dimensional hurricane resilience assessment
of electric power systems. Struct Saf 2014;48:15–24.
[98] W Y, Masanobu Shinozuka PS, Chang Stephanie E, Cheng Tsen-Chung,
Feng Maria, O’Rourke Thomas D, Ala Saadeghvaziri M. Xuejiang dong, xianhe jin,
“resilience of integrated power and water systems. Res. Prog. Accompl. 2004:
65–87.
[99] Enjalbert S, Vanderhaegen F, Pichon M, Ouedraogo KA, Millot P. “Assessment of
transportation system resilience,” in human Modelling in assisted transportation.
Milano: Springer Milan; 2011. p. 335–41.
[100] Wang J, et al. Integrated assessment for solar-assisted carbon capture and storage
power plant by adopting resilience thinking on energy system. J Clean Prod 2019;
208:1009–21.
[101] Molyneaux L, Brown C, Wagner L, Foster J. Measuring resilience in energy
systems: insights from a range of disciplines. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Jun.
2016;59:1068–79.
[102] Moslehi S, Reddy TA. Sustainability of integrated energy systems: a performance-
based resilience assessment methodology. Appl Energy Oct. 2018;228:487–98.
[103] Ghaffarpour R, Mozafari B, Ranjbar AM, Torabi T. Resilience oriented water and
energy hub scheduling considering maintenance constraint. Energy 2018;158:
1092–104.
[104] Kharrazi A, Sato M, Yarime M, Nakayama H, Yu Y, Kraines S. Examining the
resilience of national energy systems: measurements of diversity in production-
based and consumption-based electricity in the globalization of trade networks.
Energy Pol Dec. 2015;87:455–64.
[105] Lai K, Illindala MS. A distributed energy management strategy for resilient
shipboard power system. Appl Energy 2018;228:821–32.
[106] Eusgelda Irene, Kröger Wolfgang. Comparative evaluation of modeling and
simulation techniques for interdependent critical infrastructures. Zurich; 2008.
[107] Hall LMH, Buckley AR. A review of energy systems models in the UK: prevalent
usage and categorisation. Appl Energy May 2016;169:607–28.
[108] Hossein A, et al. The impact of energy conservation policies on the projection of
future energy demand. Energy Technol. Policy 2015;2(1):104–21.
[109] Jebaraj S, Iniyan S. A review of energy models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2006;
10(4):281–311.
[110] Crespo del Granado P, van Nieuwkoop RH, Kardakos EG, Schaffner C. Modelling
the energy transition: a nexus of energy system and economic models. Energy
Strateg. Rev. 2018;20:229–35.
[111] Pandey R. Energy policy modelling: agenda for developing countries. Energy Pol
Jan. 2002;30(2):97–106.
[112] Andersen KS, Termansen LB, Gargiulo M, Ó Gallachóirc BP. Bridging the gap
using energy services: demonstrating a novel framework for soft linking top-down
and bottom-up models. Energy Feb. 2019;169:277–93.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
[113] Bohringer C, Loschel A. Promoting renewable energy in europe: a hybrid
computable general equilibrium approach. Energy J Sep. 2006;SI2006. 01.
[114] van Vuuren DP, et al. Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of
sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials. Energy Pol
Dec. 2009;37(12):5125–39.
[115] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. A review of computer tools for
analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems. Appl
Energy Apr. 2010;87(4):1059–82.
[116] Steven CR, Gabriel A, Conejo Antonio J, David Fuller J, Hobbs Benjamin F, ,
Complementarity modeling in energy markets - steven A. Gabriel, Conejo Antonio
J, David Fuller J, Hobbs Benjamin F. Carlos ruiz - google books. first ed. new york:
Springer; 2013.
[117] E3ME technical manual. Cambridge. 2014., Version 6.0.
[118] Löschel A. Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a
survey. Ecol Econ Dec. 2002;43(2–3):105–26.
[119] Krook-Riekkola A, Berg C, Ahlgren EO, Söderholm P. Challenges in top-down and
bottom-up soft-linking: lessons from linking a Swedish energy system model with
a CGE model. Energy Dec. 2017;141:803–17.
[120] de la Rue du S. Can et al., “Modeling India’s energy future using a bottom-up
approach. Appl Energy Mar. 2019;238:1108–25.
[121] Loulou R, Goldstein G, Noble K. Energy technology systems analysis programme
documentation for the MARKAL family of models. 2004.
[122] Van Den Broek M, Van Oostvooreh F. The EC energy and environment model
EFOM-ENV specified in GAMS the case of The Netherlands. ECN; 1992.
[123] Connolly D. A user’s guide to EnergyPLAN. 2010.
[124] Introduction to OSeMOSYS — OSeMOSYS 0.0.1 documentation.” [Online].
Available: https://osemosys.readthedocs.io/en/latest/manual/Introduction.html.
[Accessed: 04-Jun-2019].
[125] PRIMES MODEL, VERSION 2018. Detailed model description E3MLab PRIMES.
2018.
[126] Yadoolah Soboohi. ESM manual. 1995.
[127] Mccollum D, Krey V, Riahi K, Kolp P, Makowski M, Schreck B. The IIASA energy-
multi criteria analysis tool (ENE-MCA) user manual with contributions from.
2012.
[128] Grubb Michael MM. Edmonds Jae,Brink patrick ten, “the costs of limiting fossil-
fuel CO2 emissions. Integr. Assess. Model. Resour. 1993;18(1):1–19.
[129] Boero G, Clarke R, Winters LA. The macroeconomic consequences of controlling
greenhouse gases: a survey. first ed. London (United Kingdom): Birmingham
Univ. Department of the Environment; 1991. United Kingdom.
[130] Arif A, Wang Z, Wang J, Chen C. Power distribution system outage management
with Co-optimization of repairs, reconfiguration, and DG dispatch,. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid Sep. 2018;9(5):4109–18.
[131] Chen B, Chen C, Wang J, Butler-Purry KL. Sequential service restoration for
unbalanced distribution systems and microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Syst Mar.
2018;33(2):1507–20.
[132] Ding T, Lin Y, Li G, Bie Z. A new model for resilient distribution systems by
microgrids formation. IEEE Trans Power Syst Sep. 2017;32(5):4145–7.
[133] Manshadi SD, Khodayar ME. Resilient operation of multiple energy carrier
microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid Sep. 2015;6(5):2283–92.
[134] Yuan W, Wang J, Qiu F, Chen C, Kang C, Zeng B. Robust optimization-based
resilient distribution network planning against natural disasters. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid Nov. 2016;7(6):2817–26.
[135] Fang Y, Sansavini G. Optimizing power system investments and resilience against
attacks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf Mar. 2017;159:161–73.
[136] Nezamoddini N, Mousavian S, Erol-Kantarci M. A risk optimization model for
enhanced power grid resilience against physical attacks. Elec Power Syst Res Feb.
2017;143:329–38.
[137] Gong J, You F. Resilient design and operations of process systems: nonlinear
adaptive robust optimization model and algorithm for resilience analysis and
enhancement. Comput Chem Eng Aug. 2018;116:231–52.
[138] Fotouhi H, Moryadee S, Miller-Hooks E. Quantifying the resilience of an urban
traffic-electric power coupled system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf Jul. 2017;163:79–94.
[139] Almoghathawi Y, Barker K, Albert LA. Resilience-driven restoration model for
interdependent infrastructure networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf May 2019;185:
12–23.
[140] Thompson JR, Frezza D, Necioglu B, Cohen ML, Hoffman K, Rosfjord K.
Interdependent Critical Infrastructure Model (ICIM): an agent-based model of
power and water infrastructure. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. Mar. 2019;24:
144–65.
[141] Hou Y, Wang X, Wu YJ, He P. How does the trust affect the topology of supply
chain network and its resilience? An agent-based approach. Transp. Res. Part E
Logist Transp Rev Aug. 2018;116:229–41.
[142] Li G, Bie Z, Kou Y, Jiang J, Bettinelli M. Reliability evaluation of integrated
energy systems based on smart agent communication. Appl Energy Apr. 2016;
167:397–406.
[143] Dehghanpour K, Colson C, Nehrir H, Dehghanpour K, Colson C, Nehrir H.
A survey on smart agent-based microgrids for resilient/self-healing grids.
Energies May 2017;10(5):620.
[144] Bonabeau E. Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating
human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci Unit States Am May 2002;99(suppl 3):7280–7.
[145] Zhou Z, Zhao F, Wang J. Agent-based electricity market simulation with demand
response from commercial buildings. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid Dec. 2011;2(4):
580–8.
[146] Solanki JM, Khushalani S, Schulz NN. A multi-agent solution to distribution
systems restoration. IEEE Trans Power Syst Aug. 2007;22(3):1026–34.
S. Ahmadi et al.
[147] Solanki JM, Solanki SK, Schulz N. Multi-agent-based reconfiguration for
restoration of distribution systems with distributed generators. Integrated
Comput Aided Eng Oct. 2010;17(4):331–46.
[148] Garvey MD, Carnovale S, Yeniyurt S. An analytical framework for supply network
risk propagation: a Bayesian network approach. Eur J Oper Res Jun. 2015;243(2):
618–27.
[149] Hosseini S, Barker K. A Bayesian network model for resilience-based supplier
selection. Int J Prod Econ Oct. 2016;180:68–87.
[150] Hosseini S, Al Khaled A, Sarder M. A general framework for assessing system
resilience using Bayesian networks: a case study of sulfuric acid manufacturer.
J Manuf Syst Oct. 2016;41:211–27.
[151] Najafi J, Peiravi A, Anvari-Moghaddam A, Guerrero JM. Resilience improvement
planning of power-water distribution systems with multiple microgrids against
hurricanes using clean strategies. J Clean Prod Jun. 2019;223:109–26.
[152] Shen L, Cassottana B, Ching Tang L. Statistical trend tests for resilience of power
systems. 2018.
[153] Goldbeck N, Angeloudis P, Ochieng WY. Resilience assessment for interdependent
urban infrastructure systems using dynamic network flow models. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf Aug. 2019;188:62–79.
[154] Panteli M, Mancarella P. Modeling and evaluating the resilience of critical
electrical power infrastructure to extreme weather events. IEEE Syst. J. Sep. 2017;
11(3):1733–42.
[155] Cadini F, Agliardi GL, Zio E. A modeling and simulation framework for the
reliability/availability assessment of a power transmission grid subject to
cascading failures under extreme weather conditions. Appl Energy Jan. 2017;185:
267–79.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021) 110988
[156] Scherzer S, Lujala P, Rød JK. A community resilience index for Norway: an
adaptation of the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC). Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. May 2019;36:101107.
[157] Bonabeau E. Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating
human systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. May 2002;99(Suppl 3):7280–7.
suppl 3.
[158] Macal CM, North MJ. Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation.
J Simulat Sep. 2010;4(3):151–62.
[159] U. Wilensky and W. Rand, An introduction to agent-based modeling : modeling
natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo.
[160] d’Inverno M, Luck M, Luck M. Understanding agent systems. first ed. 2004. Berlin
Germany.
[161] Hansen P, Liu X, Morrison GM. Agent-based modelling and socio-technical energy
transitions: a systematic literature review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. Mar. 2019;49:
41–52.
[162] Chang SE, Shinozuka M. Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of
communities. Earthq Spectra Aug. 2004;20(3):739–55.
[163] Fishman G. Monte Carlo: concepts, algorithms, and applications. 2013.
[164] Fang Y-P, Zio E. An adaptive robust framework for the optimization of the
resilience of interdependent infrastructures under natural hazards. Eur J Oper Res
Aug. 2019;276(3):1119–36.
[165] Fang Y-P, Sansavini G. Optimum post-disruption restoration under uncertainty for
enhancing critical infrastructure resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf May 2019;185
(1–11).