See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312666268

Fuzzy methods for prediction of seismic

resilience of bridges

Article in International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction January 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.01.001

CITATION READS

1 116

2 authors:

Jelena M. Andri Da-Gang Lu

Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin Institute of Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 77 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Risk assessment of bridges under multiple hazards in operation period View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jelena M. Andri on 21 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Fuzzy methods for prediction of seismic resilience of bridges

Jelena M. Andri, Da-Gang Lu
Research Group of Reliability and Risk Engineering (RARE), School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Huanghe Road 73, 150090 Harbin,
PR China

A BS T RAC T

Communities are exposed to natural catastrophes, such as tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. Therefore,
building and making resilient communities could lead to the reduction of the disastrous negative impacts and
enable fast recovery. In this paper, novel seismic recovery functions and a metric for seismic resilience
assessment have been proposed employing the concepts from fuzzy sets theory. The basic resilience parameters
have been dened by fuzzy knowledge representation theory, the recovery process of bridges has been modeled
in terms of fuzzy functions and the concepts from fuzzy measure theory have been used to determine resilience
metrics. In addition, the presented model is integrated into a decision-making process for disaster preparedness
of communities. Moreover, the model has been simulated in Java. A bridge in Santa Barbara has been
investigated for this case study. The proposed method has revealed that fuzzy set theory has been a more
ecient tool for estimating the relationship between bridge damage and functionality since the collected data
has been established based on experts judgments. The conclusion has been drawn that improving the disaster
preparedness of communities would enhance the resilience of the bridge. The proposed model could be adapted
for seismic resilience assessment of other infrastructure components such as tunnels, highway segments and in
the case of bridges under multiple hazards.

1. Introduction frameworks and denition of resilience are provided by Bruneau et al.

Communities are exposed to natural catastrophes, such as tsuna-
mis, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. The number, intensity and conse-
quences of disasters have increased in recent years [1]. Therefore,
making and building disaster resilient cities and disaster risk reduction
have become of global imperative, and they have been supported
through regional and international programs [24]. Moreover, another
aspect of disaster risk reduction has been to ensure that critical
infrastructure systems which represent a large scale, spatially distrib-
uted, complex and integrated networks embedded in nature [5], could
withstand disasters and remain functional in order to provide a fast
recovery [6]. The reduced capacity of the vital infrastructure system
could have a huge impact on health, safety, economics and the social
well-being of aected communities [7]. Transportation networks have a
task to provide secure, reliable, ecient and uninterrupted ow of
goods and services. The emphasis of this research is on highway
bridges which are the most vulnerable components of the transporta-
tion system [8].
The concept of resilience appears in dierent research domains
from engineering to psychology and economics [9]. The meaning of the
word resilience is to jump back or return [10]. The frequently used
[11]. According to them, resilience has been dened as the ability of
social units to mitigate hazards, contain the eects of disasters when
they occur, and carry out recovery activities in a way that minimize
community disruption and mitigate the eects of future earthquakes.
Mathematically, resilience is dened as the functionality of a system
over a time period. Further, resilience could be used for dierent
purposes such as planning, optimal design [12,13], optimal restoration
strategies [14,15] and decision-making processes [16,17].
The seismic resilience assessment of bridges is a highly uncertain
process since it requires complex analysis of various factors that have
contributed to dierent types of uncertainty. It includes seismic
hazards, bridge vulnerability, the relationship between bridge damage
and functionality, and recovery functions. The review of the existing
literature exposes that modeling seismic resilience is traditionally
carried out by the probabilistic approach which enables the treatment
of stochastic uncertainties. The characteristic of stochastic uncertainty
is randomness. However, besides randomness, vague uncertainty
appears in the process of seismic resilience assessment. For example,
one of the sources of the vague uncertainty originates from decision
makers judgment about the highway lanes that should be closed after
an earthquake. Decision makers bring their decision about closing the

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jln.andric@gmail.com, jln.andric@hit.edu.cn (J.M. Andri), ludagang@hit.edu.cn (D.-G. Lu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.01.001
Received 26 May 2016; Received in revised form 7 January 2017; Accepted 9 January 2017
2212-4209/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Andric, J.M., International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.01.001
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu
lanes according to the level of the bridges damage. The relationship
between bridge damage and residual functionality includes vague
uncertainty, which should be considered in the seismic resilience
assessment model. The characteristic of vague uncertainty is fuzziness.
The treatment of fuzziness is based on the concepts from fuzzy set
theory.
The purpose of this paper is to propose and build a new mathe-
matical model for resilience index and recovery function, in which the
fuzziness will be considered in order to overcome the aforementioned
problems. In the proposed model, the basic seismic resilience para-
meters for bridges have been dened by fuzzy knowledge representa-
tion theory, the recovery process of bridges has been modeled in terms
of fuzzy functions and the concepts from fuzzy measure theory have
been used to determine resilience metrics.
The application of fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic for modeling
seismic recovery and resilience has been studied in this paper. Kuo and
Lu [18] have demonstrated that experts subjective judgment and
individual knowledge have shown as more reliable and practical tools
than traditional probabilistic approaches for project risk assessment in
construction industry.
Zadeh [19,20] introduced the fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic. The
purpose of the fuzzy logic is to solve high degree uncertainty problems
and represent vague, ambiguous, conicting and chaotic information
[2123]. Practically, there is no left eld intact by fuzzy logic systems
[24]. The motivation to apply fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic systems
has its origin in its eectiveness and reliability [25]. In the existing
literature, the fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic have been applied in
earthquake engineering for earthquake damage evaluation [2628],
fragility curve analysis [29], vulnerability computation of bridges [30],
seismic hazard analysis [31,32], deriving attenuation relationships for
peak ground acceleration [33], earthquake risk assessment [34,35] and
risk management of natural disasters [36,37] . Furthermore, fuzzy logic
has been shown as an ecient tool for solving risk assessment of
bridges under multiple hazards based on fuzzy logic approach [38],
among others.
Furthermore, we hypothesize that the proposed method for seismic
resilience assessment could be integrated into decision-making process
for disaster preparedness of communities in which bridges are located.
The paper is organized as follows: the second part gives a proposed
framework for seismic resilience analysis of bridges based on fuzzy set
theory; the third part describes a fuzzy model for seismic resilience
assessment with the following seismic loss model of bridges; the fourth
part investigates a case study of a bridge in Santa Barbara; and the fth
part provides conclusions and further research directions.
2. Framework for seismic resilience assessment of bridges
The complexity of seismic resilience assessment of bridges is
divided into simple steps. Logically arranged steps for the seismic
resilience assessment have formed a hierarchical structure. This
hierarchically structured framework enables a more systematic and
detailed analysis of seismic resilience of bridges. A schematic of the
framework to estimate seismic resilience of bridges is depicted in
Fig. 1.
First, the process begins with seismic hazard analysis of the site
where the bridge is located. The seismic hazard analysis estimates the
potential level of ground-motion intensity parameters such as peak
ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), etc., that could
be produced by future earthquakes [39] at the site of interest. In order
to predict the magnitude of future earthquakes at the particular
location, historical seismic data and time histories are used. The
historical earthquake data can be found in dierent earthquakes
catalogs.
Bridge vulnerability under dierent earthquake scenarios is then
evaluated in the second step. Structural vulnerability analysis could be
determined by dierent ways, such as fragility functions, damage
2
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx
Fig. 1. Hierarchical framework for seismic resilience assessment of bridges.
probability matrices, and expert judgements [36]. Similarly, computa-
tional intelligence techniques can be used for damage evaluation after
earthquakes [40]. However, the vulnerability analysis of bridges is
carried out by fragility curves in this research.
The basic resilience parameters, including residual functionality,
target functionality, idle time interval and recovery time, have been
inuenced by the level of bridge damage. These resilience parameters
have been converted into fuzzy sets through the fuzzication process.
Fuzzication converts linguistic variables into corresponding fuzzy sets
using linguistic scales. Further, linguistic variables represent natural
language expressions that refer to some quantity of interest and it has
linguistic values which can be descriptive or numeric [41,42]. In this
research, the bridge damage states are represented in linguistic
variables. The linguistic scale for each resilience parameter is devel-
oped by the collected data from the expert opinions. In addition, the
linguistic scale represents the set of linguistic variables.
The shape of the recovery function has been inuenced by the
disaster preparedness of the community in which the bridge is located.
Aggregation is a process that combines resilience parameters for a
certain damaged bridge state and uses a recovery function depending
on the type of disaster preparedness to estimate the resilience index.
The estimated resilience index is given in a fuzzy number value.
Finally, seismic resilience is evaluated by the defuzzication
process. Defuzzication is the opposite process of fuzzication which
converts a fuzzy resilience index into a crisp result.
3. Fuzzy models for seismic resilience of bridges
3.1. Seismic hazard analysis
The purpose of seismic hazard analysis is to ensure that a bridge
can withstand an earthquake of a specic return period and perform a
desired level of functionality enabling a fast recovery to full capacity.
Deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis are traditional
approaches that have been used for evaluating seismic hazard in terms
of the most probable earthquake scenarios [43]. The deterministic
approach [44] assesses the intensity measure of ground motion at a
given location in the case of one earthquake scenario with a prescribed
magnitude and source-to-site distance. However, the uncertainties
which come from the size of the earthquake magnitude, fault location
and resulting shaking caused by the earthquake should be considered.
The Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) approach estimates
the annual frequency of exceedance as a function of a ground measure,
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx

such as spectral acceleration or peak ground acceleration based on
seismological and geological data which is found in earthquakes
catalogs [45]. An earthquake catalog is a list that provides the
information of recorded earthquakes: time of occurrence (year, day,
time), longitude and latitude of location, focal depth, and earthquake
size magnitudes [46].
3.2. Bridge fragility analysis
The level of bridge damage depends on the earthquake intensity
and the bridges structural type. Moreover, the task of structural
vulnerability analysis is to estimate the expected level of damage which
is used to predict resilience. Commonly, this analysis is carried out by
fragility curves, which represent the probability of exceeding certain
damage states for a given peak ground motion intensity (PGA). Based
on the method which has been used in the determination of the fragility
curves, there are judgemental [47], empirical [48], and analytical
fragility functions [49].
Besides fragility curves, the computational intelligence techniques
for soft-computing can be applied to damage evaluation. After the
earthquake, the number of experts to perform the damage assessment
could be insucient and the nonexperts tend to overestimate or to
underestimate damage due to the lack of experience [28]. In addition,
the information obtained by all evaluation methods is highly subjective
since the damage levels are described by linguistic qualications, such
as light, moderate, severe. In order to overcome these issues, the
computational intelligence techniques have been applied which make it
possible to avoid or reduce the mistakes made by nonexpert building
inspectors [28].
However, analytical fragility functions are used in this research
since fragility curves are the most commonly used tools for vulner-
ability analysis of bridges. In the current literature, fragility curves are
dened for ve dierent damage states of bridges [50,51]:
no damage (N);
slight damage (S);
For membership functions, the triangular fuzzy numbers are used since
they are very suitable to describing parameters of resilience due to their
characteristics to refer to three possible case scenarios: pessimistic,
most-probable and optimistic. A triangular fuzzy number is determined
with three points A(a, b , c ). Likewise, for the residual functionality, the
other resilience parameters, i.e., target functionality, idle time interval,
and recovery time, are all represented using fuzzy set theory as
triangular fuzzy numbers. The subsequent denitions of the resilience
parameters are given and applied to four resilience parameters.
In this research, the resilience parameter is dened as a convex,
normalized fuzzy set a(i ) = <a1, a 2 , a3>, which is determined by the
interval bounds by the value a1 and the value a3. The membership
function is segmentally continuous, and has the functional va-
lue (ai )=1, at exactly one value, for ai = a 2 . The membership function
for the resilience parameter is given as:
ai a1 , a < a < a
a2 a1 1 i 2
(ai ) = 3 i , a < a < a
a a
a3 a2 2 i 3
0, otherwise (1)
The residual functionality is a resilience parameter that is given by a
fuzzy set: Qr (i ) = <Qr1, Qr2 , Qr3> with a corresponding membership
function:
Qri Qr1
Qr Qr , Qr1 < Qri < Qr2
2 1
(Qri ) = Qr 3 Qri
Qr Qr , Qr2 < Qri < Qr3
3 2
0, otherwise (2)
The residual functionality is determined by the damage state of the
structure. Dierent damage states of a structure correspond to dierent
levels of the residual functionality. Since, there are ve damage states,
ve linguistic terms corresponding to these damage states form the
linguistic scale.
The target functionality is a resilience parameter presented by fuzzy

moderate damage (M); set Qt =<Qt1, Qt2 , Qt3>, with the following membership function:
extensive damage (E); and Qt Qt1
complete damage (C). Qt Qt , Qt1 < Qt < Qt2
2 1
(Qt ) = Qt Qt2
3.3. Fuzzy resilience parameters Qt Qt , Qt2 < Qt < Qt3
3 2
0, otherwise (3)
The disaster resilience parameters are residual functionality, target
functionality, idle time interval, and recovery time. The reduced In this research, it is suggested that the idle time interval varies for
functionality of a bridge after a disaster is directly associated with its dierent bridge damage states. More seriously damaged or collapsed
level of damage [52]. The relationship between bridge damage and bridges require a more complex rehabilitation project initiation,
residual functionality is critical to assess, since uncertainties arise in implementation, and commissioning prior to recovery which will take
the decision making processes of bridge rehabilitation after an extreme more time to prepare. The idle time interval is dened as a resilience
event. In order to determine the residual functionality, the information parameter and is represented by fuzzy set ti=<ti1, ti2, ti3> with the
of the relationship between bridge damage and its functionality could membership function:
be gathered by surveys, in which decision makers provide their
ti ti1
opinions of the expected level of trac capacity after the earthquake. ti2 ti1 , ti1 < ti < ti2
Experts have made decisions on which bridge lanes would have been
(ti ) = ti ti2 , t < t < t
opened or closed for trac. ti3 ti2 i2 i i3

In the proposed fuzzy resilience model, the residual functionality is

0, otherwise (4)
termed by linguistic variables and fuzzy sets since the relationship
between bridge damage and functionality could not be precisely The recovery time depends on the damage state, and it is dened as
measured, and can only be determined by experts through their a resilience parameter given by fuzzy set tr (i ) = <tr1, tr2, tr3>, with the
subjective judgments. A ve-member linguistic scale is proposed for membership function:
measuring residual functionality since ve dierent bridge damage tri tr1
states are dened in [51]. A linguistic scale represents a set of linguistic tr tr , tr1 < tri < tr2
terms dened by membership functions, which are fuzzy numbers. A 2 1
(tri ) = tr 3 tri
fuzzy number is a fuzzy subset on the real line which satises the tr 3 tr 2 , tr2 < tri < tr3
properties of normal, fuzzy convex, upper semi-continuous, and
0, otherwise (5)
compact [53]. Experts opinions are used to develop this linguistic
scale and to dene values for membership functions of linguistic terms. To reveal the degree of uncertainty, the -cut concept is applied to

3
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu
measure dierent levels for residual functionality, idle time interval
and recovery time, and to analyze the possible case scenarios since
fuzzy resilience parameters are represented as fuzzy triangular num-
bers indicated by (a, b, c). For example, in the case of residual
functionality, the minimum represents a system with low robustness,
most likely value moderate robustness, and the maximum high
robustness. Then, in the case of idle time interval, the minimum
denotes a short idle time, most likely value moderate idle time, and
the maximum long idle time of system. In the case of recovery time,
the minimum describes fast, most likely moderate, and the maximum
slow recovery of the system.
3.4. Fuzzy recovery model
Disaster preparedness represents an indicator that describes the
level of the systems preparedness for the disaster pertaining to
emergency response, recovery plans and availability of resources
during the recovery. Moreover, redundancy and resourcefulness have
been associated with the disaster preparedness. Redundancy is the
quality of having alternative paths in the structure by which the
lateral forces can be transferred, and allows the structure to remain
stable following the failure of any single element [54].
Resourcefulness is represented by the capacity to identify problems,
establish priorities and mobilize resources when a condition exists
that threaten to disrupt some element, system, or other unit of
analysis [11]. Furthermore, resilience could be enhanced through
resourcefulness and redundancy since they represent the means of
resilience. If these two properties change, it would aect the shape of
recovery function. The community where the bridge is located could be
well-prepared, average-prepared and unprepared for a disastrous
event.
The recovery signies key aspects of resilience and it is labeled as a
non-linear and dynamic process with aims to increase and return previous
functionality of a system [55]. Furthermore, Smith and Wenger [56] have
denoted the recovery process as the dierential process of restoring,
rebuilding, and reshaping the physical, social, economic, and natural
environment through preventative planning and post-event actions. In the
literature, four dierent approaches for modeling restoration process are
suggested: statistical curve tting, deterministic resource constraint,
Markov process, and network models [56].
The recovery process is complex to describe due to its stochastic
nature. Besides, it is comprised of the rehabilitation and reconstruction
processes. The duration of this phase depends on the activity planning,
construction technology and techniques, available mechanization,
building materials, and labor forces. Furthermore, various factors from
dierent sources have inuenced the shape of the recovery process.
Among these factors, the disaster preparedness of a community in
which the bridge is located has a major impact on the recovery nature.
Due to this fact, the model has included uncertainties in possible
recovery paths.
Generally, the recovery process is divided into two phases: the idle
time interval and the recovery period. The rst phase represents the
time between the earthquakes occurrence and the beginning of the
rehabilitation/reconstruction procedure. The functionality of a bridge
during this period stays the same as it is after the earthquake. In
addition, activities that will not increase the functionality, such as
debris removal, are concluded in this phase. Therefore, during this
period, the functionality is constant and equal to the residual function-
ality. Hence, the functionality curve is straight. The second phase is a
period between the time in which the rehabilitation process starts, and
the time in which the process ends. During this process, the function-
ality increases from the residual to the target value.
Cimellaro and Reinhorn [10] have suggested three dierent sim-
plied functions to describe the recovery process: a linear recovery
function in the case if there is no available information regarding the
preparedness; an exponential recovery function when the response and
4
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx
recovery have been inuenced by a good inux of resources and good
organization; a trigonometric recovery is applied in the case when the
recovery speed is slow due to limited resources and organization of the
society in the post-disaster period.
A novel recovery model is established via fuzzy mathematics
regarding that the recovery process is characterized by vague uncer-
tainty. The proposed model is called the fuzzy recovery model, since it
is developed using concepts from the fuzzy set theory. In this model,
the fuzziness originates from lexical uncertainties considered. The
source of lexical uncertainties is derived from resilience parameters.
Furthermore, recovery functions are described by fuzzy functions. The
fuzzy recovery function could be dened as an uncertain mapping of
x(t ):F (T )F (X ) that assigns exactly one xF (X ) to each t F (T ).
Graphically, the fuzzy recovery process is described by trajectories that
are the real functions or elements x (t ) of x(t ) dened for all t T .
The proposed types of fuzzy recovery functions are: a fuzzy positive-
exponential function in the case of unprepared communities; a fuzzy
linear function for average prepared communities and a fuzzy negative-
exponential function for well-prepared communities. A bridge placed
in a well-prepared community restores its functionality faster in the
beginning of the rehabilitation process than at the end. Moreover, well-
prepared communities can gain back functionality faster since recovery
plans, priorities and mobilized resources have already been established
for disasters. In addition, the behavior of the recovery process in such
communities is characterized by a fuzzy negative-exponential function.
For average prepared communities, the recovery speed is approxi-
mately constant during the entire recovery period, and it is the best
tted with the fuzzy linear function. An unprepared community has the
lowest speed recovery in the beginning, and it increases over time, so at
the end of process it is the highest. To describe this behavior, a fuzzy
positive-exponential function is employed.
The fuzzy function for the functionality of a system for a well-
prepared system is a fuzzy negative-exponential function that is given
as follows:
Qr , t < ti
Q (t ) = (Q
ln(200) * t t ti
t Qr )*e r + Qt , ti < t < ti + tr
Qt , t > ti + tr
(6)
in which Qt , Qr , and tr are the fuzzy target functionality, fuzzy residual
functionality and fuzzy recovery time.
The fuzzy function for functionality in the case of an average-
prepared system is a fuzzy linear function:
Qr , t< ti
t t
Q (t ) = (Qt Qr )* t i + Qr , ti < t < ti + tr
r
Qt , t > ti + tr (7)
The fuzzy function for a poor-prepared/unprepared system is a
fuzzy positive-exponential function:
Qr , t < ti
t t
Q (t ) = (Q
ln(200) * i 1
Q )*( e tr * )+Qr , ti < t < ti + tr
t r 200
Qt , t > ti + tr
(8)
3.5. Fuzzy resilience index
In the existing research, the resilience is generally estimated by
probabilistic approaches, and the value of resilience index is between 0
and 1.
However, to quantify the resilience index in this research, a novel
resilience metric is proposed. Since the resilience index is used for the
fuzzy resilience model, it is implemented in fuzzy mathematics. The
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu
fuzzy resilience index represents a fuzzy measure on domain [0,1] as
the fuzzy measure meets the set of requirements for the resilience
denition and it is computed by a fuzzy integral.
Mathematically, the fuzzy resilience index is expressed by a fuzzy
integral which represents the bridge functionality over the time period
noted as the time horizon:
th
Q (t )
R = 0 th
dt
(9)
where, Q (t ) is the fuzzy function representing the functionality of the
bridge and th is a time horizon, and R is the fuzzy resilience index.
Therefore, the concept of the fuzzy resilience index is introduced by
a fuzzy triangular number, (R1, R2, R3), which are suitable for
representing resilience since each of the values relate to three possible
case scenarios: optimistic, most-possible and pessimistic. Moreover, to
establish a crisp numerical value of resilience, the defuzzication
process could be applied. In this case, the Incentre-of-Centroids
[57] method is employed for defuzzication.
The -cut concept is applied to measure dierent levels of resilience
in order to analyze the possible case scenarios and possible recovery
paths. The value of is between 0 and 1, denoting that the degree of
uncertainty is the highest and the lowest, respectively. In the decision-
making processes, =0, =0.5 and =1 designates pessimistic, mod-
erate and optimistic views, respectively.
The functionality Q (t) is given as a fuzzy function, Fig. 2 depicts the
possible recovery paths that are referred as trajectories of the fuzzy
function. The curve with =1 denotes the optimistic view for the
particular damage state of the bridge. In addition, the optimistic view
indicates a highly resilient system that is characterized by a high
robustness and a rapid recovery. Moreover, the most-probable case
scenario denotes a moderately resilient system with a moderate
recovery time and robustness. As a nal curve, the pessimistic view is
marked as =0 in Fig. 2, signifying the low resilience of the system that
is labeled with low robustness, a long period of idleness and recovery
time. Using this curve (=0), the system functionality will be further
described. The disaster occurred at time t0=0 (Point O). The idle time
interval is the period between point O and point A. The recovery
process begins at point A, in which the idle time interval is concluded.
At point B, the recovery process is concluded and the system nally
reaches the target functionality.
3.6. Seismic loss model of bridges
The consequences of disasters are specied in terms that could
aect and inuence communities, the environment and people.
Furthermore, disasters can result in highly uncertain losses.
Generally, these losses are classied into four dierent aspects: direct
economic, direct social, indirect economic and indirect social losses.
The direct economic losses depend on the damage ratio of the
bridge. Such losses include repair fees of the bridges structural
components (foundations, bearings, piers, beams, and girders), non-
structural components (lightning, bridge drainage, trac and signaling
Fig. 2. The proposed fuzzy resilience model.
5
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx
installation, grounding bridge, monitoring, and heating system of the
roadway), debris removal, and temporary bypass construction.
In this research, a novel formula for direct economic losses is
proposed which evaluates the direct economic loss in terms of fuzzy
numbers. The direct economic loss of a bridge structure can be
estimated by the following fuzzy integral:
tr
u*L*W * tan
C = 0 (1+r )t
dt
(10)
in which, C the direct economic loss is expressed as a fuzzy triangular
number; u unit cost of the original bridge construction per square
meter; L bridge length; W bridge width; tan - recovery speed; r
discount factor; and tr - recovery time.
Mathematically, the speed of recovery can be expressed as:
Qt Qr
tan =
tr (11)
The validity of the above formula can be checked in the case of the
complete damaged or total destruction of the bridge (residual function-
ality is equal to 0, Qr =0 ); herein the eect of the money discount rate is
not considered (the discount rate is equal to 0, r = 0 ). In this case, a
new bridge with the same structural characteristics is needed to be
built. The total restoration cost is equal to the value of construction of
the new bridge. The target functionality is equal to 1 since the bridge
returns functionality which it had before the disaster.
tr u*L*W *(Qt Qr ) tr u*L*W *(1 0)
C= 0 dt = 0 dt = u*L*W
tr*(1+r )t tr (12)
The indirect economic losses arise from transportation ow dis-
ruption of goods, services and people due to bridge damage or collapse.
It is very complex to compute these losses since a great deal of data of
trac ow before and after disasters, alternative routes and others are
required. The car/truck drivers must nd alternative routes that are
functional and didnt undergo damage. However, this route will have a
longer distance requiring time to reach the destination. Thus, the
reduction or loss of functionality will result in increased traveling
distance and traveling time. In addition, the minimization of the
recovery time and disaster preparedness is another salient aspect in
the post-disaster period. The rapid recovery time will reduce the
indirect economic losses and enable the system to return to the initial
state as soon as practically possible, but it will increase the direct
economic cost [58,59].
Social losses such as loss of life or injuries are dicult to compare to
economic losses since they are expressed in dierent units. Economic
losses could be expressed as monetary units. However, diculties
appear in estimating social losses such as loss of life, injury or social
disruptions since these losses are non-monetary loss [60]. In some
literature, there have been a few attempts to quantify the economic
value of a human life. However, it is not common and not good practice
to discuss the value of human life in public.
The direct social losses are expressed in loss of lives or injuries
which is estimated as a ratio of the number of the injured or dead
people Nid during the disaster and the total number of people Nt that are
present on the bridge:
Nid
LDC =
Nt (13)
For earthquakes, the number of the injured and dead people
depends on the time of day when the earthquake occurrs and the age
of the population. During the daytime, the number of injured people
and casualties will be higher than in the nighttime. The peak trac
hours in the daytime will contribute to probability of having more
casualties. The second factor is the age of the population, which is
identied by Peek-Asa and Kraus [61]. From their studies of the 1994
Northridge earthquake, the majority of the wounded were elderly
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx

people.
Indirect social loss arises due to the bridge dysfunction. After the
disaster has struck, injured people need medical treatment. If the
bridge collapses in disaster it is dicult to receive medical treatment
since ambulances cant reach the location where the injured people are.
The indirect social loss is dened as a ratio of the people injured and
dead number Nid due to bridge collapse or damage and the total
number Nt of people who have been served in a hospital:
Nid
LIND =
Nt
4. Case study: a bridge in Santa Barbara, California
classied in one of the damage states. Therefore, the criteria used for
assigning the damage state of the bridge for the specic IM is:
"no damage" for F1(a) < RN;
"slight damage" for F2(a) < RN F1(a) ;
"moderate damage" for F3(a) < RN F2(a) ;
"extensive damage" for F4(a) < RN F3(a) ;
"complete damage" for RN F4(a).
where RN random number, which is simulated by MCS; F1(a)
(14)
fragility curve for slight damage; F2(a) fragility curve for moderate
damage; F3(a) fragility curve for extensive damage; F4(a)-fragility
curve for complete damage.

4.1. Description of the bridge in Santa Barbara 4.4. Seismic resilience assessment

For the case study, a bridge located on the Route 225/Route 101 The residual functionality is assessed based on the collected data on
separation on the Las Positas Road in Santa Barbara, California, USA the relationship between bridge damage functionality. This data is
(structure id number: 510190 according to California Department of estimated by expert's opinions and gathered in order to develop a ve-
Transportation [62]) is investigated. The proposed procedure is applied member linguistic scale that is associated with ve dierent damage
to this multiple-span continuous girder bridge which was built in 1957. states. Padgett and DesRoches [70] have collected data based on
The total bridge length is 53.5 m and the width is 30.5 m with a left and experts subjective judgment of the expected level of trac capacity
right side walk of 1.5 m. The trac functions on the deck of the on a bridge after earthquakes. A ve-member linguistic scale consists of
structure. This bridge is selected since it is located in a seismic active linguistic terms dened by the membership function corresponding to
area and the seismic resilience of the bridge is used as a criterion for a fuzzy triangular number [47]. Furthermore, the linguistic scale for
disaster preparedness decision making. recovery duration is created by data taken from Shinozuka and Zhou
[71].
The linguistic scale for residual functionality is developed and the
4.2. Seismic hazard analysis of California
fuzzy linguistic terms with the corresponding fuzzy sets are illustrated
in Fig. 3. The estimated triangular fuzzy numbers for membership
California has high seismicity since a great number of active faults
functions of the linguistic terms in the case of the linguistic scale for
belong to this area. The seismicity of the California region has been
residual functionality are:
studied in numerous references. For example, Chang et al. [63] have
proposed a new method which will evaluate probabilistic seismic risk
1. Residual functionality in the case of "no damage": Qr1= < 1,1,1>
analysis of the region. This method detects a set of deterministic
2. Residual functionality in the case of "slight damage":
earthquake scenarios and for each scenario assigns hazard probability
Qr2= < 1,0.75,0.5>
in order to estimate the regional seismicity. In this case, from the
3. Residual functionality in the case of "moderate damage":
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 47 representative earthquake
Qr3= < 0.5,0.25,0>
scenarios have been identied. The state of bridge damage under these
4. Residual functionality in the case of "extensive damage":
conditions is evaluated in the next section.
Qr4= < 0.2,0.1,0>
5. Residual functionality in the case of "complete damage":
4.3. Bridge fragility analysis
Qr5= < 0,0,0>

The current literature reveals that the aim of many previous
research is the development of fragility curves for bridges in the
Caltrans Network [6468]. Due to this fact, in this case study, the
fragility curves which have been developed by Karamlou and Bocchini
[69] are used for seismic resilience evaluation. The conditional
probabilities of the fragility curves are given in Table 1. The rst
column in Table 1 represents Intensity Measure (IM) of ground
motions of the earthquake.
In order to estimate resilience, 10,000 earthquake scenarios have
been simulated for each dierent level of PGA and the conditional
probabilities of fragility curves for evaluating the damage state of the
bridge for a given level of PGA are listed in Table 1. The random
number RN is generated and according to its value, the bridge is
Table 1
Fragility analysis of the bridge in Santa Barbara.
IM (g) Slight damage Moderate Extensive Complete damage
damage damage
The values of the membership functions for the fuzzy set slight
damage (which is given by triangular shape) is < 1.0, 0.75, 0.5 > ,
which means that 1.0 and 0.5 are the boundary values of this triangular
fuzzy number, that is why it is gone down to 0.5. In the case of the fuzzy
set moderate damage, the value is < 0.5, 0.25, 0 > , which means that
0.5 and 0 are the boundary values of this triangular fuzzy number, that
is why it is gone down to 0.5.
The membership functions for each linguistic term in the linguistic
scale for residual functionality are:
The residual functionality in the case of "no damage": MF1 (x; 1.0;
0);.
The residual functionality in the case of "slight damage":
1 0 . 75 x , 0. 5x0. 75
0 . 25
MF2(x;0. 75; 0. 25)= 1 x 0 . 75 , 0. 75x1
0 . 25
0, otherwise
The residual functionality in the case of "moderate damage":

0.4 0.3662456 0.0630436 0.0207945 0.005381667 1 0 . 25 x , 0x0. 25

0.5 0.4409618 0.163904 0.0605925 0.010642667
0 . 25

0.6 0.4896744 0.2354598 0.1053345 0.015879333 MF3 (x;0. 25; 0. 25)=1 x 0 . 25 , 0. 25x0. 5
0 . 25
0.7 0.5240146 0.2690746 0.1376875 0.021156333
0, otherwise

6
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx

Fig. 3. Linguistic scales for bridge residual functionality.

The residual functionality in the case of "extensive damage": holds for "moderate", "extensive" and "complete" damage with dier-
ent values for recovery time.
1 0 . 1 x , 0x0. 1

0.1
The estimated triangular fuzzy numbers for membership functions
MF4 (x;0. 1; 0. 1)=1 x 0 . 1 , 0. 1x0. 2 of linguistic terms in the case of the linguistic scale for residual
0.1
functionality are:
0, otherwise

The residual functionality in the case of "complete damage": MF5 1. Recovery period in the case of "no damage": tr1= < 0,0,0>
(x; 0; 0). 2. Recovery period in the case of "slight damage":
In the case of no damage, it means that the bridge has stayed intact tr2= < 0.333,2.667,5.0>
after the earthquake since there is no any physical damage. Hence, 3. Recovery period in the case of "moderate damage":
there is no need to close any lane and the trac can ow without tr3= < 0.667,3.667,6.667>
interruption. Since all the lanes are functional, the residual function- 4. Recovery period in the case of "extensive damage":
ality is equal to full functionality 100% and it is represented with the tr4= < 2.0,5.167,8.333>
crisp number equal to 1.0. 5. Recovery period in the case of "complete damage":
Whereas in the case of complete damage, it means that it is tr5= < 2.5,6.25,10>
expected that the bridge will be collapsed according to HAZUS MR-4
Earthquake Technical Manual. Therefore, all the lanes must be closed The mathematical expressions for the membership functions of the
for trac in order not to endanger drivers and passengers. So, the recovery time taken from (DHS [51]) are:
residual functionality is null and it is represented with the crisp Recovery period in the case of "no damage": MF1 (x; 0; 0).
number 0. Recovery period in the case of "slight damage":
The target functionality is equal to 100% since it is assumed that the
bridge returns to its previous functionality before the earthquake. The 1 2 . 667 x , 0. 333x2. 667

2 . 333

target functionality can be presented as a single fuzzy number. The MF2 (x;2. 667; 2. 333)= x 2 . 667
1 2 . 333 , 2. 667x5
value of the target functionality is:

0, otherwise

Qt =<Qt1, Qt 2 , Qt 3> = < 1, 1, 1>

Recovery period in the case of "moderate damage":
For the recovery time, a ve-member linguistic scale is developed
since dierent levels of bridge damage will have dierent recovery time 1 3 . 667 x , 0. 667x3. 667
periods. Such a ve-member linguistic scale is highlighted in Fig. 4.
3

The recovery time in the case of "no damage" is represented as a single MF3 (x;3. 667; 3)= 1 x 3 . 667 , 3. 667x6. 667
3
fuzzy number with values (0, 0, 0), depicted by a vertical line.
0, otherwise
Furthermore, in the case of "slight damage", the smallest value is
0.333 months and the largest value is 5 months as well the mean value
Recovery period in the case of "extensive damage":
of 2.667 months with a membership degree of 1. The same explanation

Fig. 4. Linguistic scale for bridge recovery time.

7
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx

1 5 . 167 x , 2x5. 167 1 1 . 233 x , 0. 8x1. 233

3 . 167

0 . 433

MF4 (x;5. 167; 3. 167)=1 x 5 . 167 , 5. 167x8. 333 MF4 (x;1. 233; 0. 433) = 1 x 1 . 233 , 1. 233x1. 666
3 . 167 0 . 433

0, otherwise 0, otherwise

Recovery period in the case of "complete damage": Idle time interval in the case of "complete damage":
1 1 . 5 x , 1x1. 5
1 6 . 25 x , 2. 5x6. 25
0.5


3 . 75
MF5 (x;1. 5; 0. 5) = 1 x 1 . 5 , 1. 5x2
MF5 (x;6. 25; 3. 75)= 1 x 6 . 25 , 6. 25x10 0.5


3 . 75
0, otherwise
0, otherwise

Dec et al. [52] have assumed that the value of the idle time interval 4.5. Results and discussions
is between 1 and 2 months. In addition, they have used the same value
for every bridge damage level. In this case study, the values for the idle The seismic resilience index of the bridge in Santa Barbara is
time interval are assumed. The rst assumption is that the minimum obtained by performing a Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). To compute
value of idle time interval is 40% of the minimum value of recovery the resilience and losses, the simulation is developed in the Java
time for the same damage state, while the maximum value represents programming language under NetBeans [72] and the graphs are
20% of the maximum value of recovery time, as shown in Fig. 5. plotted in Matlab [73]. As indicated previously, three levels of
The idle time interval values, which are assumed, for each damage disaster-preparedness of the community are considered for this bridge:
state of the bridge are: (1) well-prepared; (2) average-prepared; and (3) unprepared. The
simulation is run to generate a set of 10,000 samples for three dierent
1. Idle time interval in the case of "no damage": ti1= < 0,0,0> levels of community disaster-preparedness and dierent PGA (0.4g;
2. Idle time interval in the case of "slight damage": 0.5g; 0.6g; 0.7g).
ti2= < 0.133,0.566,1.0> The estimated fuzzy values of residual functionality, idle time
3. Idle time interval in the case of "moderate damage": period and recovery time for dierent ground motions are summarized
ti3= < 0.267,0.8,1.333> in Table 2. For each of these parameters, three dierent values are
4. Idle time interval in the case of "extensive damage": associated with three dierent views. For example, the expected
ti4= < 0.8,1.233,1.667> residual functionality of the bridge, for peak ground acceleration of
5. Idle time interval in the case of "complete damage": 0.7g is (0.73, 0.52, 0.31) where the value of 0.73 represents residual
ti5= < 1.0,1.5,2.0> functionality of the bridge for an optimistic view, the value of 0.52 is
the most-probable residual functionality and the value of 0.31 repre-
The mathematical expressions for membership functions for idle sents the pessimistic view of residual functionality.
time interval are: The predicted annual resilience values for dierent levels of
Idle time interval in the case of "no damage": MF1 (x; 0; 0). community preparedness and PGA are stated in Table 3. If the bridge
Idle time interval in the case of "slight damage": is located in a well-prepared community and an earthquake with a PGA
equal to 0.7g occurs, then the expected seismic resilience is equal to
1 0 . 566 x , 0. 133x0. 566
93.54%. However, the proposed method shows if the community is
0 . 433
MF2 (x;0. 566; 0. 433) = 1 x 0 . 566 , 0. 566x1 average-prepared for disasters, then the seismic resilience of the bridge
0 . 433 can be enhanced up to 5%, compared to the unprepared communities

0, otherwise
for ground motion intensity of 0.7g. In the case of the well-prepared
communities for disasters, the resilience of the bridge is enhanced up
Idle time interval in the case of "moderate damage": to 10% more than in case of the unprepared systems when the PGA is
0.7g.
1 0 . 8 x , 0. 267x0. 8

0 . 533
Fig. 6 displays the functionality of the bridge in Santa Barbara for a
MF3 (x;0. 8; 0. 533) = 1 x 0 . 8 , 0. 8x1. 333 period of one year after the earthquake struck. The estimated trian-
0 . 533
gular fuzzy numbers for membership functions of linguistic terms in
0, otherwise
the case of linguistic scale for residual functionality are represented
with the assumption that the bridge is located in the well-prepared
Idle time interval in the case of "extensive damage":
region which is exposed to the earthquake intensity measure of 0.7 g.

Fig. 5. Linguistic scale for bridge idle time interval.

8
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx

Table 2 Section 4. The output result is a fuzzy number and it is obtained by the
Resilience parameters for three different views and different earthquake intensities. method of Incenter-of-centroids for the defuzzication process. The
results of the expected disaster losses are shown in Table 4. The unit
IM View Residual Idle time interval Recovery time
functionality (months/days) (months/days) cost of a bridge per square meter represents the cost of the construction
of a new bridge with the same structural characteristics. This data is
0.4g =1 0.94 0.09/3 0.22/7 taken from the ocial website of The State of Michigan [74] and for
=0.5 0.84 0.29/9 1.33/40
this case, the unit cost of construction of new bridge is $1620/m2. The
=0 0.73 0.49/15 2.43/73
discount factor is equal to 5%. Fig. 8 displays the change of direct
0.5g =1 0.86 0.16/5 0.40/12 economic losses towards the peak ground acceleration. Disaster losses
=0.5 0.70 0.47/14 2.15/65 and ground motion intensity change in the same order. If the ground
=0 0.55 0.78/24 3.89/117 motion intensity increases, then the disaster loss enhances.
0.6g =1 0.78 0.22/7 0.57/17
=0.5 0.59 0.61/18 2.80/84
=0 0.40 1.00/30 5.02/151 5. Conclusions

0.7g =1 0.73 0.27/8 0.68/20
=0.5 0.52 0.71/21 3.23/97
=0 0.31 1.16/35 5.78/173
Curve (=1) depicts the optimistic view, wherein the residual function-
ality is equal to 0.73. Hence, this curve begins at this point, and it is
horizontal during an 8 day idle time. Moreover, the recovery phase
follows a negative-exponential function since the bridge is located in a
well-prepared community and during the recovery period of 20 days
the bridge succeeds to return to its full functionality of 100%. After this,
the curve is straight. The curve for the most-probable case scenario
(=0.5) has the residual functionality equal to 0.52, and it starts from
this point. During a 22 days idle time, the functionality is constant. The
recovery phase then follows the negative-exponential function during
the recovery period of 97 days when the bridge achieves 100%
functionality. Curve (=0.5) is smoother than curve (=1), since the
recovery time is longer and the bridge returns more slowly to full
recovery. Curve (=0) represents the pessimistic view. The residual
functionality in this case scenario is 0.31 for a 35 day of idle time
period. Also, the recovery phase follows the negative-exponential
function and during the recovery period of 174 days the bridge
functionality from 0.31 gradually proceeds to 1. The curve (=0) is
the smoothest since it has the longest recovery time.
Fig. 7 illustrates the results for dierent settings of disaster
preparedness indicated in Table 2, and it shows the results of annual
resilience for dierent ground motion values. It can be observed that
the resilience for well-prepared communities is decreasing when PGA
increases and it is decreasing slower than in the cases of unprepared
and average-prepared communities. Also, the resilience in the case of
an unprepared community decreases the fastest, compared to the other
two communities when the intensity of ground motion increases.
The direct economic losses are calculated by using formula given in
In this research, the recovery process has been considered as a fuzzy
process and it has been modeled by fuzzy set theory. The proposed
model has been followed by an innovative resilience assessment model
in order to develop an ecient system for the decision-making process
for disaster preparedness. The suggested model has been based on
fuzzy set theory and fuzzy knowledge representation approach, and the
fuzzy methodology has been used for the resilience assessment
procedure. Such an approach has been shown as an eective tool to
deal with uncertainties that arise from a lack of data. The input of the
model is an expected earthquake PGA where the bridge is placed, and
the output is the performance of the bridge after the earthquake
regarding seismic resilience and disaster loss. Finally, the prediction of
resilience has its applications for decision-making processes for
disaster-preparedness of a community in which the bridge has been
placed. The decision on the measures which will be applied in order to
prepare the community for disasters is made using the predicted
resilience results. The conclusions can be drawn that the resilience of
the bridge can be enhanced up to 10% if it is located in well-prepared
communities compared to the unprepared, according to the simulation
results in the case of the peak ground acceleration of 0.7g.
Compared to the traditional probabilistic approach, the advantage
of the proposed fuzzy resilience model is that: (1) it is more practical
for quick resilience assessment and decision-making about the disaster
preparedness; (2) it deals with imprecise, vague and fuzzy data which
includes lexical uncertainties in the model; and (3) it can provide
resilience assessment of a bridge under multiple hazards. The above
suggested model can be easily applied to other highway infrastructure
components such as tunnels and roadways after the data about the
relationship between damage-residual functionality and recovery time
are collected.
The focus of further research will be to treat a recovery process as a
fuzzy-random process as well as to develop a model according to this
consideration which is proposed in the paper [75]. Such a model would

Table 3
Annual resilience of the bridge in Santa Barbara.

Disaster Preparedness View (Case scenario) Fuzzy Resilience Value (%) Crisp Resilience Value (%)

Intensity measure Intensity measure

0.4g 0.5g 0.6g 0.7g 0.4g 0.5g 0.6g 0.7g

Well-prepared =1 99.64 99.12 98.60 98.21 98 96.22 94.64 93.54

=0.5 98.13 96.26 94.67 93.56
=0 95 90.95 87.72 85.54

Average-prepared =1 99.45 98.66 97.86 97.26 96.66 93.41 90.64 88.72

=0.5 96.70 93.43 90.65 88.73
=0 91 83.70 77.88 73.96

Unprepared =1 99.26 98.19 97.11 96.32 95.25 90.57 86.62 83.86

=0.5 95.28 90.59 86.63 83.87
=0 87 76.43 68.02 62.34

9
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx

Fig. 6. Seismic resilience of the bridge (id: 510190).

Fig. 7. Expected annual resilience for ground motion intensity between 0.4g and 0.7g in the cases of dierent disaster preparedness of communities.

Table 4
Direct economic losses of the bridge in Santa Barbara.

View Direct economic loss in ($1000) Crisp direct economic loss in ($1000)

Intensity measure Intensity measure

0.4g 0.5g 0.6g 0.7g 0.4g 0.5g 0.6g 0.7g

=1 143 369 558 691 411 746 1001 1168

=0.5 411 746 1001 1168
=0 658 1082 1384 1575

Acknowledgements
Disaster Loss
1600
The nancial support received from the National Science
Disaster Loss in $ 1000

1400
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51678209, 51378162), the
1200
Research Fund from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China
1000
(2013BAJ08B01), the Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory for
800
600
Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering (SLDRCE12-MB-04) is grate-
400 Well-prepred community
fully appreciated.
Average-prepared community
200
Unprepared community
0
References
0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Ground motion (g) [1] E.A. Gencer, Natural disasters, urban vulnerability, and risk management: a
theoretical overviewThe Interplay between Urban Development, Vulnerability, and
Fig. 8. Economic loss estimation for ground motion intensity between 0.4g and 0.7g.
Risk Management, Springer, 2013, pp. 743.
[2] ISDR, U. Hyogo framework for action 20052015: building the resilience of
emphasize the characteristics of uncertainties randomness and nations and communities to disasters. in Extract from the nal report of the World
Conference on Disaster Reduction (A/CONF. 206/6). 2005.
fuzziness. In addition, the corresponding model for resilience assess-
[3] L.A.T. Cox, Community resilience and decision theory challenges for catastrophic
ment will be outlined based on a fuzzy-probabilistic approach and the events, Risk Anal. 32 (11) (2012) 19191934.
resilience will be modeled as a fuzzy-random variable. [4] D.R. Godschalk, Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities, Nat. Hazards
Rev. 4 (3) (2003) 136143.
[5] W. Krger, E. Zio, Vulnerable Systems, Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.
[6] G.P. Cimellaro, et al. The state of art of community resilience of physical

10
J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu
infrastructures, in Structures Congress, 2011.
[7] L.A. Dueas-Osorio, Interdependent response of networked systems to natural
hazards and intentional disruptions, Citeseer, 2005.
[8] M. Liu, D.M. Frangopol, Optimizing bridge network maintenance management
under uncertainty with conicting criteria: Life-cycle maintenance, failure, and
user costs, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (11) (2006) 18351845.
[9] A. Rose, Dening and measuring economic resilience to disasters, Disaster Prev.
Manag.: Int. J. 13 (4) (2004) 307314.
[10] G.P. Cimellaro, A.M. Reinhorn, M. Bruneau, Framework for analytical quantica-
tion of disaster resilience, Eng. Struct. 32 (11) (2010) 36393649.
[11] M. Bruneau, et al., A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic
resilience of communities, Earthq. Spectra 19 (4) (2003) 733752.
[12] M. Ouyang, et al., Vulnerability analysis of complementary transportation systems
with applications to railway and airline systems in China, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 142
(2015) 248257.
[13] M. Ouyang, L. Dueas-Osorio, X. Min, A three-stage resilience analysis framework
for urban infrastructure systems, Struct. Saf. 36 (2012) 2331.
[14] M. Ouyang, L. Zhao, Do topological models contribute to decision making on post-
disaster electric power system restoration?, Chaos: Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 24
(4) (2014) 043131.
[15] M. Ouyang, Z. Wang, Resilience assessment of interdependent infrastructure
systems: with a focus on joint restoration modeling and analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst.
Saf. 141 (2015) 7482.
[16] B.M. Ayyub, Systems resilience for multihazard environments: Denition, metrics,
and valuation for decision making, Risk Anal. 34 (2) (2014) 340355.
[17] B.M. Ayyub, Practical resilience metrics for planning, design, and decision making,
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng. (2015) 04015008.
[18] Y.-C. Kuo, S.-T. Lu, Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making approach to
enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construction projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 31 (4) (2013) 602614.
[19] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy logic, IEEE Computer 21 (4) (1988) 8393.
[20] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control 8 (3) (1965) 338353.
[21] J. Quelch, I.T. Cameron, Uncertainty representation and propagation in quantied
risk assessment using fuzzy sets, J. loss Prev. Process Ind. 7 (6) (1994) 463473.
[22] S. Bonvicini, P. Leonelli, G. Spadoni, Risk analysis of hazardous materials
transportation: evaluating uncertainty by means of fuzzy logic, J. Hazard. Mater. 62
(1) (1998) 5974.
[23] V.J. Davidson, J. Ryks, A. Fazil, Fuzzy risk assessment tool for microbial hazards in
food systems, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 157 (9) (2006) 12011210.
[24] V. Kecman, Learning and soft computing: support vector machines, neural
networks, and fuzzy logic models, MIT press, 2001.
[25] J. Buckley James, E. Eslami, An introduction to fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets, Physica-
Verlag, A Springer-Verlag Company, Heidelberg, 2005.
[26] S. Tesfamariam, M. Saatcioglu, Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced
concrete buildings using hierarchical fuzzy rule base modeling, Earthq. Spectra 26
(1) (2010) 235256.
[27] S. Tesfamariam, M. Saatcioglu, Risk-based seismic evaluation of reinforced
concrete buildings, Earthq. Spectra 24 (3) (2008) 795821.
[28] M.L. Carreo, O.D. Cardona, A.H. Barbat, Computational tool for post-earthquake
evaluation of damage in buildings, Earthq. Spectra 26 (1) (2010) 6386.
[29] F. Colangelo, Probabilistic characterisation of an analytical fuzzy-random model for
seismic fragility computation, Struct. Saf. 40 (2013) 6877.
[30] Barreras;, F.E., et al., Seismic study of the Urban Bridges of the city of Ensenada,
Baja California, Mexico, in: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering: Beijing, 2008.
[31] M. Lamarre, W. Dong, Evaluation of seismic hazard with fuzzy algorithm, Eng.
Geol. 20 (1986) V1.
[32] J.R.G. Crdenas, et al., Social Aggravation Estimation to Seismic Hazard Using
Classical Fuzzy MethodsSimulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies
and Applications, Springer, 2015, pp. 275293.
[33] A. Ahumada, A. Altunkaynak, A. Ayoub, Fuzzy logic-based attenuation relation-
ships of strong motion earthquake records, Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (3) (2015)
12871297.
[34] I. Karimi, E. Hllermeier, Risk assessment system of natural hazards: a new
approach based on fuzzy probability, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 158 (9) (2007) 987999.
[35] M.L. Carreo, O.D. Cardona, A.H. Barbat, New methodology for urban seismic risk
assessment from a holistic perspective, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 10 (2) (2012) 547565.
[36] I. Karimi, K. Meskouris, Risk management of natural disasters: a fuzzy-probabil-
istic methodology and its application to seismic hazard, Fakultt fr
Bauingenieurwesen, 2006.
[37] M.L. Carreo, O.D. Cardona, A.H. Barbat, A disaster risk management performance
index, Nat. Hazards 41 (1) (2007) 120.
[38] J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu, Risk assessment of bridges under multiple hazards in
operation period, Saf. Sci. 83 (2016) 8092.
[39] H. Sucuolu, S. Akkar, Basic Earthquake Engineering, Springer, 2014.
[40] M. Carreo, O. Cardona, A. Barbat, of Building Damage and Safety After an
EarthquakeIntelligent Computational Paradigms in Earthquake Engineering, IGI
Global, 2007, pp. 123157.
[41] G. Chen, T.T. Pham, Introduction to Fuzzy Systems, CRC Press, 2005.
11
View publication stats
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (xxxx) xxxxxxxx
[42] G. Chen, T.T. Pham, Introduction to Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Control
Systems, CRC press, 2000.
[43] J.-U. Klgel, Seismic hazard analysisQuo vadis?, Earth-Sci. Rev. 88 (1) (2008)
132.
[44] L. Reiter, Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights, Columbia University
Press, 1991.
[45] R.K. McGuire, Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Earthquake engineering research
institute, 2004.
[46] A.F. Ares, A. Fatehi, Development of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for
international sites, challenges and guidelines, Nucl. Eng. Des. 259 (2013) 222229.
[47] Applied Technology Council, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California,
Applied Technology Council, 1985.
[48] A.A. Kiremidjian, N.I. Basz, Evaluation of bridge damage data from recent
earthquakesBulletin NCEER, US National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, 1997, pp. 17.
[49] R.E. Melchers, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, 2nd ed., JohnWiley
& Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England, 2001.
[50] A. Karamlou, P. Bocchini, Computation of bridge seismic fragility by largescale
simulation for probabilistic resilience analysis, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44 (12)
(2015) 19591978.
[51] HAZUS. MR4 earthquake model user manual. Whashington (DC): department of
Homeland Security 2009 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation
Division.
[52] A. Dec, P. Bocchini, D.M. Frangopol, A probabilistic approach for the prediction of
seismic resilience of bridges, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (10) (2013) 14691487.
[53] B. Bede, Fuzzy Set-Theoretic OperationsMathematics of Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy
Logic, Springer, 2013, pp. 1331.
[54] Building Seismic Safety Council. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. Report FEMA-356, Washington, DC, 2000.
[55] E. Jordan, A. Javernick-Will, Measuring community resilience and recovery: A
content analysis of indicators. in Construction Research Congress, 2012.
[56] G.P. Smith, D. Wenger, Sustainable disaster recovery: operationalizing an existing
agendaHandbook of disaster research, Springer, 2007, pp. 234257.
[57] C. Samantra, S. Datta, S.S. Mahapatra, Risk assessment in IT outsourcing using
fuzzy decision-making approach: an Indian perspective, Expert Syst. Appl. 41 (8)
(2014) 40104022.
[58] P. Bocchini, D.M. Frangopol, Restoration of bridge networks after an earthquake:
multicriteria intervention optimization, Earthq. Spectra 28 (2) (2012) 426455.
[59] P. Bocchini, D.M. Frangopol, Optimal resilience-and cost-based postdisaster
intervention prioritization for bridges along a highway segment, J. Bridge Eng. 17
(1) (2010) 117129.
[60] M.H. Faber, M.G. Stewart, Risk assessment for civil engineering facilities: critical
overview and discussion, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 80 (2) (2003) 173184.
[61] C. Peek-Asa, et al., Fatal and hospitalized injuries resulting from the 1994
northridge earthquake, Int. J. Epidemiol. 27 (3) (1998) 459465.
[62] California Department of Transportation, S.M.I., California Log of Bridges on State
Highways District, 5, 2014
[63] S.E. Chang, M. Shinozuka, J.E. Moore, Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: ex-
tending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems, Earthq.
Spectra 16 (3) (2000) 557572.
[64] Y. Zhou, S. Banerjee, M. Shinozuka, Socio-economic eect of seismic retrot of
bridges for highway transportation networks: a pilot study, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.
6 (12) (2010) 145157.
[65] Y. Dong, D.M. Frangopol, D. Saydam, Sustainability of highway bridge networks
under seismic hazard, J. Earthq. Eng. 18 (1) (2014) 4166.
[66] M. Shinozuka, et al., Eect of seismic retrot of bridges on transportation networks,
Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2 (2) (2003) 169179.
[67] B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches, Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in
the central and southeastern United States, Earthq. Spectra 23 (3) (2007) 615633.
[68] Y. Dong, D.M. Frangopol, Risk and resilience assessment of bridges under
mainshock and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties, Eng. Struct. 83 (2015)
198208.
[69] A. Karamlou, P. Bocchini, Computation of bridge seismic fragility by largescale
simulation for probabilistic resilience analysis, Earth. Eng. Struct. Eng. 44 (12)
(2015) 19591978.
[70] J.E. Padgett, R. DesRoches, Bridge functionality relationships for improved seismic
risk assessment of transportation networks, Earthq. Spectra 23 (1) (2007)
115130.
[71] M. Shinozuka, et al., Socio-economic eect of seismic retrot implemented on
bridges in the Los Angeles highway network, Citeseer, 2008.
[72] T. Boudreau, et al., NetBeans: the denitive guide, O'Reilly Media, Inc, 2002.
[73] MATLAB, Users Guide, The MathWorks, Inc.: Natick MA, USA, 2010.
[74] Website, S.o.M.s.O. 2015 [cited 2015 September 6th]; Available from: http://
www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/Bridge_Repair_Cost_Estimate_Worksheet_
2015_480468_7.xls.
[75] J.M. Andri, D.-G. Lu, Seismic resilience of a bridge based on fuzzy-probabilistic
approach, in: M. Papadrakakis, V. Papadopoulos, V. Plevris (eds.), Proceedings of
COMPDYN 2015, Crete Island, Greece, 2015.