Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsri20

Probabilistic fragility and resilience assessment

and sensitivity analysis of bridges incorporating
aftershock effects

Ioannis Gidaris, Jamie E. Padgett & Sushreyo Misra

To cite this article: Ioannis Gidaris, Jamie E. Padgett & Sushreyo Misra (2022) Probabilistic
fragility and resilience assessment and sensitivity analysis of bridges incorporating aftershock
effects, Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 7:1, 17-39, DOI: 10.1080/23789689.2019.1708174

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2019.1708174

Published online: 05 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 267

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsri20
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE
2022, VOL. 7, NO. 1, 17–39
https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2019.1708174

Probabilistic fragility and resilience assessment and sensitivity analysis of

bridges incorporating aftershock effects
Ioannis Gidaris, Jamie E. Padgett and Sushreyo Misra
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper discusses a computationally efficient methodology for probabilistic fragility and resi- Received 13 November 2017
lience analysis of bridges explicitly incorporating the effects of aftershock seismic events, based on Accepted 23 November 2019
nonlinear time history analysis, stochastic simulation and kriging surrogate modeling. Aftershock KEYWORDS
fragilities dependent on mainshock-induced damage states are developed and used in conjunc- aftershock state-dependent
tion with restoration models for estimating bridge functionality and resilience. The input para- fragility; mainshock-
meter space for the surrogate models consists of uncertain hazard and structural parameters and aftershock sequences;
deterministic structural/geometrical bridge parameters, leading to probabilistic estimates of probabilistic seismic
bridge performance metrics (i.e., fragility, functionality, resilience). Kriging surrogate modeling is resilience; kriging surrogate
used for estimating these metrics, facilitating efficient adoption of these complex structural and modeling; stochastic ground
probability models. Relative importance of the predictive parameters is quantified by extending motions; sensitivity analysis
and integrating a probabilistic sensitivity analysis into the proposed framework. An illustrative
example of the proposed framework is demonstrated through fragility and resilience assessment
of a typical bridge in California subjected to mainshock and aftershock.

1. Introduction studies on aftershock fragility assessment of bridges

(Alessandri et al., 2013; Dong & Frangopol, 2015;
Notable past seismic events (e.g., seismic events in
Franchin & Pinto, 2009; Ghosh et al., 2015; Jeon
Christchurch, New Zealand in 2011) have shown that
et al., 2016), develop bridge-specific fragility models
the mainshock event can trigger sequences of after-
for single case study bridges using single parameter
shocks. In such cases the time between the primary
demand and fragility models. Furthermore, other
shock and the aftershocks might not be enough for
research efforts relevant to this topic either imple-
repairing the mainshock-induced damages to struc-
mented simplified (i.e., SDOF) models to evaluate
tures; hence their vulnerability can significantly increase
seismic response (Dong & Frangopol, 2015; Ghosh
and consequently their recovery is delayed. This issue is
et al., 2015), or used too few ground motions to
particularly critical for highway bridges that are one of
adequately quantify the uncertainties in the ground
the most vulnerable components of transportation net-
motion characteristics (Alessandri et al., 2013) or
works when exposed to earthquakes, since the higher
focused on the effect of degradation due to succes-
risk imposed due to the successive shocks can have
sive seismic events without considering specific
devastating effects to entire communities relying on
mainshock-aftershock sequences (Kumar & Gardoni,
them for their smooth functioning. Therefore, it is
2014). Regarding the probabilistic seismic resilience
important to develop methodologies that capture the
assessment of bridges including aftershock effects
impact of incorporating aftershocks in the seismic vul-
only Dong and Frangopol (2015) proposed
nerability and resilience modeling of highway bridges.
a methodology to perform this task; however as
The majority of previous aftershock risk or fragi-
mentioned before this approach focused on
lity assessment research endeavors have emphasized
a specific bridge and adopted a simplified SDOF-
on building structures (Abad et al., 2013; Ebrahimian
based equivalent model of the bridge structure to
et al., 2013, 2014; Jalayer & Ebrahimian, 2017; Jeon
simulate the nonlinear response.
et al., 2015; Li & Ellingwood, 2007; Ryu et al., 2011;
This study seeks to advance these efforts by present-
Song et al., 2016). Therefore, the topic of bridge risk/
ing a computationally efficient methodology for prob-
fragility assessment including aftershock effects has
abilistic fragility analysis and resilience assessment of
received limited attention so far. So far, the few
bridges that explicitly incorporates the effects of

CONTACT Ioannis Gidaris jamie.padgett@rice.edu

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
18 I. GIDARIS ET AL.
aftershock events in the seismic hazard description and
addresses various sources of uncertainty. Within this
methodology the structural response is evaluated
through nonlinear time history analysis and uncertainty
is included in various structural and hazard model para-
meters. Furthermore, a seismic hazard characterization
based on stochastic ground motion modeling is adopted
supporting the generation of mainshock-aftershock
sequences. In particular, a methodology for generating
synthesized mainshock-aftershock sequences based on
stochastic ground motion modeling is proposed.
Ultimately, the adoption of stochastic ground motion
modeling addresses the scarcity of recorded mainshock-
aftershock ground motion records (Goda & Taylor,
2012), as well as it avoids scaling of ground motions
that can distort the frequency content and introduce
bias in the estimated seismic fragility (Grigoriu, 2010).
Sophisticated finite element models are employed to
capture the inelastic behavior of the bridge subjected
to mainshocks and aftershocks. Engineering demand
parameters (EDPs) are utilized to link the bridge’s seis-
mic response with damage states and ultimately evaluate
damage state-dependent aftershock fragility. Then the
estimated mainshock and aftershock fragilities can be
mapped to restoration models describing the percentage
of the bridge’s functionality as a function of the damage
state attained and the time elapsed after the seismic
event. Subsequently, resilience of the bridge is evaluated
by integrating functionality over a chosen time horizon.
All required fragilities and resilience metrics may be
estimated through stochastic simulation, allowing accu-
rate estimation of these quantities potentially at an
increased computational cost depending on the com-
plexity of numerical and probabilistic models adopted.
Therefore, in this study, an efficient kriging surrogate
modeling technique (Gidaris et al., 2015) is adopted to
alleviate this burden. The surrogate model (known also
as a metamodel) is developed for approximating the
EDPs of interest with respect to various parameters
that impact the seismic response (i.e., uncertain hazard
and structural model parameters such as concrete
strength, bearing stiffness, etc., and deterministic struc-
tural/geometrical bridge parameters such as span
length, column height, etc.), whereas the inherent sto-
chastic characteristics of the earthquake ground
motions are addressed through adoption of an appro-
priate statistical distribution for the EDPs under the
influence of white noise. Such an input parameteriza-
tion of the surrogate model facilitates an efficient devel-
opment of fragilities that are functions of the various
parameters mentioned above. Once the metamodel is
established, the fragility and resilience assessment are
efficiently performed by stochastic simulation.
Furthermore, a probabilistic global sensitivity analysis
(Taflanidis & Jia, 2011) that investigates the contribu-
tion of uncertain parameters towards risk is integrated
in the proposed fragility assessment methodology. In
particular, this sensitivity analysis is extended here to
support the quantification of the importance of the
various risk factors (i.e., uncertain parameters) consid-
ered with respect to seismic risk defined as the prob-
ability that the bridge attains certain damage states,
when aftershock effects are incorporated in the hazard
description. In summary, the novel contributions of the
manuscript correspond to: (i) introduction of a formal
computationally efficient methodology for comprehen-
sive probabilistic mainshock-aftershock fragility and
resilience analysis, emphasizing explicit incorporation
of the effects of aftershocks in the probabilistic seismic
hazard characterization as well as considering various
sources modeling uncertainty, and (ii) extension and
integration within the proposed methodology of
a probabilistic global sensitivity analysis for investigat-
ing the contribution of uncertain model parameters
towards risk calculations. Finally, in the illustrative
example, the proposed methodology and probabilistic
sensitivity analysis is implemented for a typical bridge
class in California.
2. Mainshock and aftershock fragility analysis
In general, fragility is defined as the probability that
a structure will meet or exceed a specified ith damage
state (DS) conditioned on a given intensity measure
(IM) of the hazard causing the damage, e.g., peak
ground acceleration (PGA) for seismic hazard. This
conditional probability can be expressed as
P½DS
ijIM  ¼ P½z
bi jIM, where z denotes an
EDP, corresponding to a bridge response quantity
of interest (e.g., peak column drift, peak column
displacement ductility, etc.), and bi denotes
a capacity threshold that determines initiation of
the ith damage state. It is noted here that for the
remainder of the paper superscripts ms and as char-
acterize quantities/variables associated with main-
shock and aftershock excitations, respectively.
2.1. Probabilistic quantification of mainshock
seismic fragility
The evaluation of mainshock seismic bridge response
zms , established here in terms of nonlinear time history
analysis, which is ultimately required for quantification
of fragility, entails adoption of appropriate excitation
(i.e., seismic hazard) and bridge system models. These

models are characterized by a set of uncertain model
parameters pertaining to the properties of the bridge
system (e.g., material strengths) and/or characteristics
of the excitation. In this context, let θ 2 Θ  <nθ ,
denote the nθ – dimensional vector composed of all
model parameters for the individual structural and exci-
tation models, and Θ represents the space of possible
model parameter values. Usually, these parameters are
considered as uncertain variables characterized by
a probability density function (PDF) pðθÞ.
Furthermore, as discussed in the introduction,
a stochastic ground motion model is adopted here as
an excitation model, which involves as primary input
a (Gaussian) white noise sequence, w 2 W  <nw (more
details for this model are provided in the corresponding
section). Similar to θ, the uncertainty in the white noise
sequence w is described through a PDF denoted as
pw ðwÞ. Within this probabilistic framework for evaluat-
ing structural response, seismic fragility for a bridge
subjected to mainshock is quantified as
ð ð
P½DS ms

i jIM  ¼
ms
P½zms
bi jIM ms ; θ; w
Θ W
pðw; θjIM Þdwdθms
ð ð
¼ P½zms
bi jIM ms ; θ; w
Θ w
pw ðwÞpðθÞdwdθ
It can be observed from Equation 1 that the joint prob-
ability of w and θ for a given mainshock intensity measure
IM ms , expressed as pðw; θjIM ms Þ, can be simplified to
pw ðwÞpðθÞ, since w and θ are conditionally independent
for a given intensity measure. In this definition it is com-
mon to introduce uncertainty in the damage state threshold
by considering bi to be an uncertain parameter with prob-
ability model pðbi Þ. Then according to structural reliability
theory (Der Kiureghian, 1996) the probability that zms
exceeds bi can be expressed as P½zms
bi jIM ms ; θ; w ¼
zms
ò zms bi > 0 pðbi Þdbi ¼ ò 1 pðbi Þdbi : The conditional prob-
ability function in Equation 1 suggests that the event zms

bi is conditioned upon all the three variables IM ms ; θ and w.
However, the seismic demand zms depends on the ground
motion intensity measure IM ms , white noise parameters w
and bridge parameters θ, whereas the structural capacity bi
depends only on bridge parameters θ. The integral in the
right-hand side of the latter expression corresponds to the
definition of the cumulative distribution function of (CDF)
of the random variable bi (Tang & Ang, 2007). Assuming
now that bi follows a lognormal distribution (Padgett &
DesRoches, 2008) with median bi and logarithmic standard
deviation σ b leads to (Tang & Ang, 2007)
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 19
"  #
ln zms =bi
P ½z ms

bi jIM ; θ; w ¼ Φ
ms
(2)
σb
where Φð:Þ denotes the standard normal CDF.
2.2. Probabilistic quantification of aftershock
fragility for mainshock-damaged bridge
The formulation in the previous subsection described
fragility quantification for intact bridges subjected to
mainshock seismic events. However, bridges that are
subjected to mainshock-aftershock earthquake
sequences may sustain damages after the first shock.
Hence, aftershock fragility for a damaged bridge should
take into account the extent of the mainshock-induced
damages. This state-dependent fragility is defined as the
probability of meeting or exceeding the kth aftershock-
induced damage state DSas conditioned on the after-
shock intensity measure IM as and the initial mainshock-
induced damage state DSms ¼ i, and it is expressed as
(Ryu et al., 2011)
P½DSas
kjIMas ; DSms ¼ i
(1) ¼ ò Θ ò W ò zms P½DSas
kjIM as ; zms ; θ; w
pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞpw ðwÞpðθÞdzms dwdθ (3)
where i 2 ½1; nds ; k
i, zms 2 Zms  <1 denotes the
mainshock EDP and nds is the number of the considered
damage states.
The first term of the integrand in Equation (3),
P½as
kjIM as ; zms ; θ; w is the probability of reaching
or exceeding damage state k given the mainshock
response zms , which following similar considerations
for threshold bk as in the previous section can be
expressed similar to Equation (2) as
2  as 3
ln z
P½zas
bk jIM as ; zms ; θ; w ¼ Φ4
bk 5
(4)
σb
where zas denotes the response due to the aftershock
event. Computation of the latter probability requires
evaluation of zms and zas through nonlinear time-
history analysis of the bridge subjected to mainshock-
aftershock sequences simulated through a procedure
described later in the section discussing the excitation
model. Finally; pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞ denotes the joint
PDF of zms and θ conditioned on the case where bridge
has reached the ith mainshock damage state.
Using the state-dependent fragility P½DSas
kjIM as ;
DSms ¼ i in Equation (3), the fragility of the bridge due
to an aftershock event independent of the mainshock
20 I. GIDARIS ET AL.
damage state can be evaluated through the use of the total
probability theorem as (Luco et al., 2011)
Xnds
P½DSas
kjIM as  ¼ P½DSas
kjIMas ; DSms ¼ i
i¼1
P½DSms ¼ i (5)
where
P½DSms ¼ i ¼ P½DSms
i  P½DSms
i þ 1 (6)
is the probability of being in the ith damage state, and
P½DSms
i is evaluated by integrating the mainshock
fragility in Equation (1) over the probability distribution
pðIM ms Þ characterizing the mainshock seismic
hazard, i.e.,
P½DSms
i ¼ ò IMms P½DSms
ijIM ms pðIM ms ÞdIM ms
(7)
Similar to Equation (7) the probability of meeting or
exceeding the kth damage state due to an aftershock
event P½DSas
k is evaluated as
P½DSas
k ¼ ò IMas P½DSas
kjIM as pðIM as ÞdIM as (8)
By combining Equations (5) and (8) P½DSas
k is
ultimately expressed as
Xnds
P½DSas
k ¼ ò IMas P½DSas
kjIM as ; DSms ¼ i
i¼1
P½DSms ¼ iPðIM as ÞdIM as (9)
Whereas similar to Equation (6), P½DSas ¼ k is equal to
P½DSas ¼ k ¼ P½DSas
k  P½DSas
k þ 1 (10)
Finally, the probability of meeting or exceeding the ith
damage state due to either the mainshock or aftershock is
calculated as (Kumar & Gardoni, 2014; Ribeiro et al., 2014)
P½DS
i ¼ P½DSms
i
þ f1  P½DSms
igP½DSas
i (11)
and the probability of being in a damage state,
P½DS ¼ i, is evaluated as
P½DS ¼ i ¼ P½DS
i  P½DS
i þ 1 (12)
It is noted that Equation (11) is based on the implicit
assumption that a mainshock always triggers at least one
aftershock. If the occurrence of aftershocks is characterized
by a ‘triggering’ probability Ptr then probability P½DS
i
is expressed as P½DS
i ¼ P½DSms
k þ Ptr f1
P½DSms
kgP½DSas
k (Jalayer & Ebrahimian, 2017).
However, since this probability is found to be relatively
high (Reasenberg & Jones, 1994) for the sake of simplicity
in this study the common assumption (Jalayer &
Ebrahimian, 2017) that Ptr ¼ 1 is made.
3. Efficient fragility analysis through kriging
surrogate modeling
Fragility evaluation as described in the previous section
entails estimation of the bridge mainshock and aftershock
response through nonlinear dynamic analyses of sophis-
ticated finite element structural models. Therefore, sto-
chastic (i.e., Monte Carlo) simulation techniques may be
adopted for fragility calculation, which pose no con-
straints on the complexity of the numerical and prob-
ability models used. However, these simulation
techniques can impose significant computational chal-
lenges rendering their implementation prohibitive, espe-
cially in the context of evaluating bridge response
subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences, since the
structure can attain highly nonlinear levels of response
due to the successive shocks. Furthermore, the simulation
time of the nonlinear time-history analysis is usually
higher because of the significant duration of analysis
with multiple seismic shocks. Hence, for efficiently esti-
mating fragility the kriging surrogate modeling frame-
work presented in (Gidaris et al., 2015) is adopted for
approximating the bridge mainshock zms and aftershock
zas response corresponding to peak component response
quantities taken here as column displacement ductility,
with respect to a vector of input model parameters x. It is
noted that if a different bridge class than the one in the
illustrative example were considered, whose seismic vul-
nerability is described by different EDPs (e.g., abutment
displacement for a bridge with seat type abutments), then
the kriging surrogate modeling framework could be
implemented in a similar way. Efficient fragility
Surrogate models are developed for approximating both
zms and zas , abbreviated MS and AS, respectively. For MS
the vector x ¼ ½IM ms θp is composed by the mainshock
intensity measure IMms , uncertain model parameters θ
and deterministic bridge geometric and/or structural
parameters p such as column reinforcement ratio and/
or span length; whereas for AS x is further augmented
with mainshock response zms such that the history of the
response prior to the aftershock is considered, and the
aftershock intensity measure IM as replaces IM ms ,
i.e., x ¼ ½IM as θpzms .
3.1. Statistical approximation of white noise and
kriging formulation
The influence of the white noise sequence w involved in
the ground motion model is addressed through
a statistical approximation such that development of
a surrogate model in a high-dimensional space (that
would involve augmentation of x with w) is avoided.
Following recommendations in (Gidaris et al., 2015)
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 21

this statistical approximation is established by assuming appropriately after adopting the lognormal assumption
that, under the influence of white noise, response for the influence of white noise in the response (Gidaris
zq ; ðq ¼ ms; asÞ follows a lognormal distribution with & Padgett, 2017; Gidaris et al., 2015)
logarithmic mean lnðzq Þ and logarithmic standard devia- ~ms ðIM ms ; θÞ ¼ P½zms
bi jIM ms ; θ
tion σ z . This approximation is a common assumption in h " #
i
 
earthquake engineering (Aslani & Miranda, 2005). ln zms =bi
¼ Φ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (15)
The kriging surrogate model is formulated to provide σ b 2 þ σ zms 2 þ σ εms 2
predictions for the quantities needed to support evalua-
tion of fragility, corresponding to the statistics of the ~as ðIM as ; zms ; θÞ ¼ P½zas
bk jIM as ; zms ; θ
h
mainshock and aftershock responses.h i
These quantities k "   #
ln zas =bk
define the output vector y ¼ lnðzq Þσ zq , q ¼ ms, as. ¼ Φ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (16)
Details for the surrogate model development can be σ b 2 þ σ zas 2 þ σ εas 2
found in (Gidaris et al., 2015). The process starts by
  Derivation of Equations (15) and (16) is based (i) on the
generating nm samples for xl ; l ¼ 1; . . . ; nm , also fact that lnðbi Þ (or lnðbk ÞÞ, lnðzq Þand εq are normal
known as support points, following initially a Latin random variables and (ii) that the lognormal assump-
hypercube grid (Ayyub & Lai, 1989) over the expected tion for the distribution zq allows an analytical expres-
range of values possible for each component of x. sion for P½zms
bi jIM ms ; θ and P½zas
bk jIM as ; zms ; θ.
Stochastic ground motions are then generated according Mathematical details for the derivation of Equations
to the excitation model described in the corresponding (15) and (16) can be found in (Gidaris et al., 2015). It
section of this paper and the structural response is is noted that the differences of the above kriging-based
numerically evaluated. The influence of the white noise fragilities with the ones in Equations (1) and (3) is (i)
is addressed by considering nw different samples for each that the influence of w is removed and the inherent
xl and using the statistics under these samples to ulti- variability of the ground motions is incorporated
mately quantify the response sample yl . Using this dataset through introduction of σ zq in expressions (15) and
for the input-output pair x  y the kriging model is then (16), and (ii) the incorporation of the variability due to
obtained. When developing metamodel AS the logarith- the kriging prediction error through σ εq .
mic mean lnðzms Þ is used for the mainshock response zms
component of x. The input matrix x for response predic- Using Equations (6), (7) and (13) and adopting the
ms
notation θ ¼ ½θIM ms ; θ 2 Θ
ms
 ms  <nθ þ1 for the aug-
tion is a ðN Þ matrix, with N realizations of M parameters
each. The response vector y is a ðN  1Þ vector. mented vector of θ and IMms , the probability
Using this dataset the kriging surrogate model is devel- P½DSms ¼ i that the bridge reaches the ith damage
oped providing the approximation of y which is associated state due to a mainshock can be written as:
with a prediction error that is a zero mean normal variable  ms   ms  ms
P½DSms ¼ i ¼ ò Θ ms hi ms θ p θ dθ (17)
(Gidaris et al., 2015). The approximation for lnðzq Þ can be
     ms       
expressed as lnðzq Þ ¼ ln zbq þ εq , where ln zbq is the where hms θ ¼ ~ms θms  h
h ~ms θms and p θms
i i iþ1
kriging prediction of lnðzq Þ and εq is the associated pre- corresponds to the joint probability distribution of θ
diction error with standard deviation σ εq , whereas the and IM ms and it is equal to the product of their respec-
prediction error for σ zq can be neglected following recom-  ms 
mendations in (Gidaris et al., 2015). Ultimately, under the tive distributions, i.e., p θ ¼ pðθÞpðIM ms Þ, since the
ms
lognormal assumption for white noise influence and incor- components of θ are assumed to be independent. The
porating the kriging prediction error, the probabilistic assumed independence between θ and IM ms is a result of
integrals in Equations (1) and (3) for evaluating mainshock using PGA as the intensity measure; however if other
and aftershock fragility, respectively, simplify to (Gidaris & intensity measures such as spectral acceleration is used,
Padgett, 2017; Gidaris et al., 2015) then some components of θ will influence IM ms .
Similarly, using Equations (9), (10) and (14), the
~ms ðIM ms ; θÞpðθÞdθ
P½DSms
ijIM ms  ¼ ò Θ h (13)
i probability P½DSas ¼ k that the bridge reaches the kth
damage state due to an aftershock can be written as
~as ðIM as ; zms ; θÞ
P½DSas
kjIM as ; DSms ¼ i ¼ ò Θ ò zms h Xnds
k
pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞdzms dθ (14) P½DSas ¼ k ¼ ò IMas ò Θ ò zms has ðIM as ; zms ; θÞ
i¼1 k

^as ðIM as ; zms ; θÞ correspond to

~ms ðIM ms ; θÞ and h pðzms ; θ; DSms ¼ iÞP½DSms ¼ ipðIM as Þdzms dθdIM as
where h i k
(18)
the probabilities in Equations (2) and (4) modified
22 I. GIDARIS ET AL.

~as ðIM as ; zms ; θÞ  h

~as ðIM as ;

where hask ðIM ; 

z ; θÞ ¼ h
as ms
k kþ1
bi and biþ1 , i.e., zms 2 bi biþ1 . Then based on these
z ; θÞ. For simplifying the above expression, the nota-
ms
samples an approximation for pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞ is
as as
tion θ ¼ ½θIM aszms ; θ 2 Θ  as  <nθ þ2 is adopted for obtained through multivariate kernel density estimation
the augmented vector of θ, IM as and zms , and its joint (KDE) (Jia & Taflanidis, 2014). Finally, samples of ½zms θ
 as 
probability distribution is denoted as pi θ from the joint density pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞ estimated
through KDE are drawn through a stochastic sampling
¼ pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞpðIM as Þ. Then, Equation (18) is approach as discussed in (Au & Beck, 1999; Jia et al.,
written as 2015). It is noted here that implementation of sampling
 as   as  as
P½DSas ¼ k ¼ ò Θ as has p θ dθ algorithms capable of generating samples from arbitrary
k θ (19)
 as  distributions, such as accept-reject and Markov Chain
where p θ corresponds to a mixture distribution Monte Carlo (Robert & Casella, 2013), is not directly
 as  possible here because such approaches require ability to
equal to the sum of densities pi θ weighted by the
evaluate the target distribution [i.e., pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞ]
mainshock damage state probabilityP½DSms ¼ i, i.e., (Robert & Casella, 2013), which is not the
 as  Xn  as  case forpðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞ.
p θ ¼ ds
p θ P½DSms ¼ i (20)
i¼1 i Estimation, now, of the integral in Equation (19) for
evaluating the aftershock damage state probability
P½DSas ¼ k is approximated as
3.2. Computational details for fragility calculation XN  as;j 
^ ½DSas ¼ k ¼ 1
P has
θ (24)
The probabilistic integrals in Equations (13) and (14) N j¼1 k
for evaluating of mainshock and aftershock fragility, as;j

where θ ¼ θj IM as;jzms;j denotes the jth samples

respectively, are estimated through stochastic simula-  as   as 
tion (Robert & Casella, 2013) utilizing the kriging sur- drawn from pi θ . Generating samples from pi θ
rogate model for a computationally efficient evaluation. can be performed by the following procedure. First,
In particular, using a finite number of samples, N, of θ a discrete random variable i for each mixture is intro-
drawn from pðθÞ with θ j denoting the jth sample, an duced, with probability model for this variable
approximation for the integral in Equation (13) is described as fPðiÞ ¼ P½DSms ¼ i; i ¼ 1; . . . ; nds g. Once
given by a sample for i is drawn it tells us which exact mixture
 as 
XN   pi θ
as;j
does the sample θ that is sought belong to.
^ ½DSms
ijIM ms  ¼ 1
P ~s IM ms ; θ j
h i (21)
N j¼1
Then, samples θj and zms;j from pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞ are
Estimation of the integral in Equation (17) for evaluat- generated as described in the previous paragraph,
ing the mainshock damage state probability P½DSms ¼ i whereas IM as;j is drawn from pðIM as Þ.
can also be performed in a similar manner as
XN  ms;j 
P^ ½DSms ¼ i ¼ 1 hms
i θ (22) 3.3. Summary of kriging-supported fragility
N j¼1
ms;j analysis
where θ ¼ ½θ j IM ms;j  and IM ms;j denotes the jth sam-
ple drawn from pðIM ms Þ. Finally, combining the different concepts discussed in
Similar to Equation (21), the integral in Equation this section, the kriging-supported fragility analysis
(14) is approximated as methodology depicted in Figure 1 is established, com-
XN
posed of the following steps:
 
P^ ½DSms
kjIM as ; DSms ¼ i ¼ 1 ~as IM as ; zms;j ; θj
hk
Step 1: Establish an approximation for the influence
N j¼1
of the white noise within the stochastic representation of
(23)
the ground motion (discussed in later section) and
where θ j and zms;j denote the jth samples drawn from obtain response vector y needed to evaluate mainshock
pðzms ; θjDSms ¼ iÞ. Sampling from the latter distribu- and aftershock fragility.
tion, which in general does not correspond to a known Step 2: Formulate input x ¼ ½IM ms θp (or x ¼
PDF, is performed by the following procedure (Gidaris ½IM as θpzms  for aftershock response) and output
& Padgett, 2017). First, the population of samples from http : ==iwmsfs=iNetApp=#!=login; q ¼ ms, as database
½zms θ that led the bridge to DSms ¼ i is identified. This to develop kriging surrogate models.
is accomplished by identifying the samples of zms and Step 3: Establish kriging surrogate models in the
the associated ones for θ that lie on the interval between input parameter space x. Use these metamodels to
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 23

Figure 1. Flowchart for kriging-supported fragility analysis.

 ms   ms 
approximate mainshock and aftershock response   hms θ p θ
ms i
needed for evaluation of fragilities in Step 4. πi ms θ ¼  ms   ms  ms
Step 4: Estimate mainshock and aftershock fragilities ò Θ ms hms
i θ p θ dθ
through stochastic simulation.  ms   ms 
hask θ p θ  ms   ms 
¼ / h ms
θ p θ
P½DSms ¼ i i

4. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (25)

Beyond quantifying the probabilities P½DSms ¼ i and  as   as 
P½DSas ¼ k that the bridge reaches a certain damage   p θ
as k θ
has
state due to mainshock and aftershock, respectively, πk as θ ¼  as   as  as
identification of the significance of the various risk ò Θ as has θ p θ dθ
 kas   as 
factors (i.e., uncertain model parameters such as θ, p θ  as   as 
hask θ
IM ms and IM as ) considered towards these probabil- ¼ / p θ
k θ
as
h (26)
ities is crucial for obtaining an insight about the P½DSas ¼ k
probabilistic behavior of the bridge. Therefore, where / denotes proportionality and the denomina-
a sample-based probabilistic global sensitivity analy- tors in the above equations are simply normalization
sis is integrated within the proposed methodology constants. The global probabilistic sensitivity of
for mainshock and aftershock fragility analysis. This P½DSms ¼ i or P½DSas ¼ k for each uncertain para-
sensitivity analysis (Taflanidis & Jia, 2011) is based
meter (i.e., importance of each risk factor) θdms ; d ¼
on the definition of an auxiliary probability density
function that is proportional to the integrands of the 1; . . . ; nθ þ 1 or θdas ; d ¼ 1; . . . ; nθ þ 2 is expressed
through comparison between the marginal auxiliary
integrals (17) and (19) used for the evaluation of  ms   as 
P½DSms ¼ i andP½DSas ¼ k, respectively. In particu- density functions πms θ or πas k θ and the prior
 ms  i
 ms   as 
lar, the auxiliary density functions πms i θ and distributions p θ or p θ , respectively. Bigger
 as 
πas
k θ that are utilized for performing sensitivity deviations between the marginal auxiliary and the
analysis related to the mainshock P½DSms ¼ i and prior distributions indicate greater importance of θdms
aftershock P½DSas ¼ k probabilities, respectively, are and θdas towards P½DSms ¼ i andP½DSas ¼ k, respec-
defined as tively. Uncertainty in all other components of θdms or
24 I. GIDARIS ET AL.

θas is explicitly addressed by integration over the joint not decrease the efficiency of the stochastic sampling.
d  ms   as 
distribution πms θ π Then, uniform random numbers uj ðj ¼ 1; . . . ; N Þ are
k θ
as
i or to obtain the mar- ms;j
    generated and only the samples θ that satisfy the
ginal πms θms or πas θas (Taflanidis & Jia, 2011).
i d k d following inequality are kept
Evaluation of this probabilistic sensitivity requires the
 ms;j 
quantification of the difference between probability hms θ
i
density functions, which can be performed through > uj (31)
adoption of appropriate metrics (Jia & Taflanidis, γ
2014). In this study, the relative information entropy  ms 
These samples correspond to samples from πi ms θ .
(Jaynes, 2003) is adopted for measuring the difference  as 
 ms   as   ms    For the case that samples from πas
between πms i
θ
d or πas 
k θd and p θd
 or p θdas , and k θ are sought,
it is given through the flowing expressions exactly the same procedure is followed with the only
 ms   as 
 ! θ
 ms  ms   ms    ms ms difference that hms is replaced by has k θ in (29)
π
θms log i  θd  dθms
i
D πi θd jjp θd ¼ ò Θ d ms πms  ms 
i d
p θdms d
and (30). By projecting of these samples from πms i θ
 as 
to the space of each parameter θdms or θdas
(27)
and πask θ
 !  ms 
as as samples from the marginal distributions πms θ or
 as  as   as    π k θd   i d
D πk θd jjp θd ¼ ò Θ d as πas as
k θd log   dθdas as as
πk θd are obtained. Finally, these samples are utilized
p θdas  ms   as 
(28) to approximate πms i θ and π k θ
as
through KDE
(Jia & Taflanidis, 2014) and the integrals in (27) and (28)
The relative significance of each parameter is then quan-
can be numerically evaluated.
tified through the relative information
 ms  msentropy
  ms value
 for
it; larger values for D πi θd jjp θd   and
  as   as 
D πas θ jjp θ indicate higher importance of θd ms
k d d 5. Probabilistic resilience assessment
and θd , compared to the remaining parameters,
as

towards P½DSms ¼ i andP½DSas ¼ k, respectively. Quantification of the fragility of a bridge under main-
Estimation of the relative entropy in Equations shock and mainshock-aftershock seismic hazard as dis-
 ms  (27)
and (28) is performed by approximating πms θd and cussed in a previous section can facilitate evaluation of

as  as  i
its functionality and ultimately its resilience after the
π k θd by KDE through available samples. This is
occurrence of one (or more) shocks. Here the time-
implemented by generating samples θ ms and θ as from
 ms   as  variant functionality Qðt Þ of a bridge can be expressed
πms
i θ k θ
and πas , respectively, using the Accept- as (Dong & Frangopol, 2015)
Reject algorithm (Robert & Casella, 2013), exploiting Xnds
 ms  Qðt Þ ¼ QðtjDS ¼ iÞP½DS ¼ i (31)
i¼1
the readily available evaluations of hms i θ and
 as  where QðtjDS ¼ iÞ denotes the functionality of the
k θ
has for calculating Equations (17) and (19), respec-
bridge conditional on the ith damage state. Drawing
tively. The algorithm for obtaining samples from
 ms   ms  from previous literature (e.g., Cimellaro et al., 2010)
πms
i θ using p θ as proposal density for the where functionality is defined as a step function, this
rejection algorithm (Robert & Casella, 2013) is imple- quantity can be mathematically expressed as
mented according to the following process (Jia et al.,
QðtjDS ¼ iÞ ¼ QrjDS¼i þ H ðt  to  δQ Þ
2014; Lamprou et al., 2013). First calculate   (32)
 ms;j  f ðtjDS ¼ iÞ QtjDS¼i  QrjDS¼i
γ ¼ sf : max hms
i θ (29)
j¼1;...;N where t0 is the time of occurrence of the seismic event,
and Qr is the residual functionality after the event
where sf is a factor to guarantee that γ is larger than the
 ms  occurrence. H ð:Þ represents the Heaviside step function,
maximum value of hms i θ estimated over the entire Qt is the functionality reached at the end of the recovery

Θ and not simply over the available N samples. sf is
ms process, δQ is the idle time between the occurrence of
 ms;j 
the seismic event and the beginning of the recovery
selected so that γ
sf : max hms θ and in general
i
j¼1;...;N process and f ð:Þ is a restoration function describing
it should be kept small (close to 1.2 to 1.3) so that it does the profile of the recovery process. A characteristic

Qt
δQ
Qr
t0 ti
Figure 2. Characteristic representation of functionality evolution over time.
illustration of the variation of functionality with respect
to time is shown in Figure 2.
The second term in Equation (31) denotes the prob-
ability of the bridge being in damage state i. For the case
that only the mainshock hazard is considered the latter
probability corresponds to P½DSms ¼ i,which is esti-
mated through Equation (17), whereas when the after-
shock hazard is additionally considered this probability
corresponds to the probability that the specified damage
state is reached either due to mainshock or aftershock,
and it is calculated according to Equation (12). It is
noted that the assumption that no repair actions of the
bridge are performed between the occurrence of main-
shock and aftershock (Dong & Frangopol, 2015) is made
here for the calculation of functionality due to main-
shock and aftershock hazard.
After bridge functionality is calculated through
Equation (31), the resilience of the bridge under
a specified time horizon th can be quantified through
the following definition (Dong & Frangopol, 2015)
t0 þth
R ¼ 1=th ò t0 Qðt Þdt
It is noted that alternative definitions of resilience exist
in the relevant literature (Chang & Shinozuka, 2004).
Finally, for a fully probabilistic resilience assessment,
the functionality and resilience of a bridge must be
calculated by taking into account uncertainties pertain-
ing to the various parameters that characterize the
damage state-dependent functionality in Equation (32)
[e.g., δi , Qr , parameters defining f ð:Þ, etc.]. If
φ 2 Φ  <nφ denotes the vector of these parameters
and pðφÞ corresponds to the PDF adopted to describe
their uncertainty, the expected value of the bridge func-
tionality and resilience is expressed through Equations
(34) and (35), respectively:
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 25
t
E½Qðt Þ ¼ ò Φ Qðt; φÞpðφÞdφ (34)
E½R ¼ ò Φ RðφÞpðφÞdφ (35)
where the dependence of QðtÞ and R on φ is explicitly
addressed.
In probabilistic resilience assessment, it is also of
interest to calculate the probability P½Qðt Þ > Qthresh 
that functionality Qðt Þ exceeds a threshold Qthresh indi-
cating a specific bridge restoration level, such as for
example that the bridge has immediate access. This
probability can be evaluated as
P½Qðt Þ > Qthresh  ¼ ò Φ IF ðφÞpðφÞdφ (36)
where IF corresponds to an indicator function, which is
equal to one if ðt Þ > Qthresh and zero otherwise. It is noted
here that during estimation of E½Qðt Þ, E½R or
P½Qðt Þ > Qthresh  the uncertainty related to the seismic
hazard as well as to the various uncertain model para-
meters is addressed and propagated through evaluation
of P½DS ¼ i using Equations (17) and (19).
(33) Ultimately, the probabilistic integrals in Equations
(34), (35) and (36) are estimated through stochastic
simulation in a similar way as described in a previous
section, i.e., by drawing N samples of φ from pðφÞ and
P
approximating (34), (35) and (36) as 1=N Nj¼1 g ðφ j Þ,
where g ðφ j Þ corresponds to Qðt; φ j Þ, Rðφ j Þ and IF ðφ j Þ,
respectively.
6. Probabilistic excitation model and
simulation of mainshock-aftershock sequences
For describing the seismic hazard a stochastic ground
motion model (Boore, 2003) is adopted. The approach
involves as inputs two seismological parameters, the
26 I. GIDARIS ET AL.
moment magnitude M and the rupture distance r, as
well as predictive relationships that relate ground
motion characteristics to these parameters. In particu-
lar, the excitation is represented through a point-source
stochastic ground motion model (Atkinson & Silva,
2000) that entails modulation of the white noise
sequence w through functions, dependent upon M and
r, that address the frequency and time-domain charac-
teristics of the excitation. Further details for the excita-
tion model can be found in (Gidaris & Taflanidis, 2015).
The effect of aftershock seismic events on the struc-
tural response and ultimately on fragility and resilience
is taken into account in this study by subjecting the
structural model to mainshock-aftershock sequences
and performing nonlinear time-history analysis.
A methodology for generating mainshock-aftershock
sequences is developed in this paper that utilizes the
point-source stochastic ground motion model briefly
described above. It is noted that the choice of using
a stochastic ground motion model to generate main-
shock-aftershock sequences is motivated primarily by
the dearth of real sequences in the ground motion
databases (Goda & Taylor, 2012). Alternative
approaches rely on synthesizing mainshock-aftershock
sequences either through record selection of artificial
aftershock records [i.e., real aftershock ground motion
records that are not triggered by the selected mainshock
record] (Goda & Taylor, 2012) or by using scaled ver-
sions of mainshock records as aftershock records (Goda,
2015; Song et al., 2016; Yin & Li, 2010). The former
approach although it entails rigorous record selection
based on matching of target (aftershock) record char-
acteristics is relatively complicated and it also has the
drawback that mainshock and aftershock records corre-
sponding to different seismic events are paired. Whereas
the latter approach involves ground motion scaling that
can distort the frequency content of a ground motion
and can introduce bias in the estimated seismic fragility
(Grigoriu, 2010), as well as it is based on the unrealistic
assumption that mainshock and aftershock will have
identical frequency content. Therefore, in this study,
the adoption of stochastic ground motion modeling
was deemed appropriate since in the context of the
proposed methodology for generation of sequences it
can generate any desired number of mainshock-
aftershock sequences that (a) address the moment mag-
nitude and frequency content relationship between
mainshocks and aftershocks [see also discussion that
follows in step (iii)] and (b) it does not rely on scaling
of ground motions. It is important to note here that
although multiple aftershocks following the triggering
mainshock are possible, such consideration can signifi-
cantly increase the required computational effort when
performing nonlinear time history analyses to simulate
the structural response. Hence, it is common practice in
mainshock-aftershock seismic performance studies to
consider only one aftershock (Han et al., 2014, 2016;
Li & Ellingwood, 2007; Nazari et al., 2013; Yin & Li,
2010). Furthermore, a recent study (Han et al., 2016)
that investigated the effect of considering only one after-
shock relative to multiple showed that this simplifica-
tion yields similar results as considering multiple
aftershocks; thus this study considers only one after-
shock offering an acceptable balance between computa-
tional complexity and accuracy. The proposed process
for mainshock–aftershock simulation is illustrated
through a schematic flowchart in Figure 3 and is com-
posed by the following steps:
(i) Probabilistic characterization of mainshock seis-
mic hazard [part (a) in Figure 3]: Define prob-
ability models pðM ms Þ, pðrms Þ for the mainshock
seismicity characteristics M ms and rms . For M ms
a common choice is to adopt a probability model
based on the Gutenberg–Richter relationship
(Kramer, 1996) truncated on the interval
ms ms
Mmin Mmax leading to PDF
bms M ms
 b Mms ms 
bms Mmax
pðM Þ ¼ bms e
ms
= e ms min
e ,
where parameter bms corresponds to a mainshock
regional seismicity factor. For the rupture dis-
tance rms , any appropriate probability model can
be adopted, e.g., a lognormal PDF (Gidaris &
Taflanidis, 2015).
(ii) Mainshock scenario definition [part (b) in Figure 3]:
A scenario for the mainshock seismic event is
determined through the mainshock moment mag-
nitude M ms and rupture distance rms . This task is
performed by sampling from the probability dis-
tributions pðM ms Þ and pðrms Þ established in the
previous step.
(iii) Aftershock scenario definition [part (c) in Figure 3]:
A scenario for the aftershock seismic event is deter-
mined. Since aftershock events are not indepen-
dent to mainshocks, a relationship between them
should be established. Here the well-established
Gutenberg-Richter model in the interval
as as
Mmin Mmax for the frequency magnitude statistics
of aftershocks is adopted that has been validated by
multiple studies pertaining to various seismic
regions and types of seismic activity (Ebrahimian
et al., 2013; Shcherbakov et al., 2013, 2012, 2005,
2006; Utsu, 1970), whereas the dependence

(a) Probabilistic mainshock
seismic hazard
White Noise Sequence (w)
p(rms)
p(Mms)
5.5 6 7 8 0 10 30 50
Mms rms Point source stochastic
Mms, rms ground motion model
(b) Mainshock scenario
• Moment magnitude (Mms) Acceleration Time History
• Rupture distance (rms)
Mms, rms 0
(c) Aftershock scenario Mas, ras 0 5
as
• M max= Mms
• ras = rms
Figure 3. Schematic flowchart of the mainshock-aftershock sequence simulation process.
between mainshocks and aftershocks is established
by considering that the largest possible aftershock
as
in terms of magnitude Mmax is equal to M ms (Song
et al., 2016). This ultimately leads to PDF,
 ms 
pðM as Þ ¼ bas ebas Mmin = ebas Mmin  ebas M
as as
with
bas corresponding to an aftershock regional seismi-
city factor. It should be stressed that the above
constraint on the maximum possible aftershock
not only characterizes the dependence between
mainshock and aftershock magnitude following
typical considerations adopted in previous similar
studies (Li & Ellingwood, 2007; Song et al., 2016;
Sunasaka & Kiremidjian, 1993; Yin & Li, 2010), but
at the same time it implicitly addresses the relation-
ship in the frequency content. In particular, as
a result of the larger size of mainshocks in terms
of magnitude, the simulated mainshock ground
motions in step (iv) will in general be richer in
low frequencies than their corresponding after-
shock ones, which in turn will be richer in high
frequencies than their triggering mainshocks. The
latter characteristic is consistent also with findings
from investigation of ground motion features of
real mainshock-aftershock sequences (Ruiz-
García, 2012). Regarding, now the location of the
mainshock and aftershock, it is assumed to be the
same, i.e., rms ¼ ras (Goda, 2012). It is noted that
the latter assumption is made for simplicity and
more detailed considerations (Han et al., 2014; Yeo
& Cornell, 2009) can be incorporated in the
method in a straightforward manner.
(iv) Generation of mainshock and aftershock ground
motion realizations [part (d) in Figure 5]: After
the scenarios for the mainshock and aftershock
are determined, acceleration time-history
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 27
(d) Ground motion realization
(e) Mainshock and aftershock IMs
Mainshock acceleration • Calculation of IMms and IMas
time history (e.g. PGAms and PGAas)
(f) Mainshock-aftershock
sequence simulation
Aftershock acceleration
time history
10 15
realizations are generated through the adopted
stochastic ground motion model (Atkinson &
Silva, 2000).
(v) Calculation of mainshock and aftershock IMs
[part (e) in Figure 6]: The intensity measures
IM ms and IM as used to describe the intensity of
the seismic hazard in the metamodel input para-
meter vector x are computed in this step from
the mainshock and aftershock acceleration time-
history realizations generated in step (iv).
(vi) Synthesis of a mainshock-aftershock seismic
sequence [part (e) in Figure 3]: A mainshock-
aftershock sequence is obtained by assembling
the aftershock acceleration time-history follow-
ing the mainshock one with a time lag between
them.
It is stressed that through a probabilistic characteriza-
tion of M ms , M as , rms and ras with probability models
pðIM ms Þ, pðIM as Þ and pðrms Þ, a probabilistic model for
IM ms and IM as is also established, i.e., pðIM ms Þ and
pðIM as Þ are obtained. Ultimately, the probabilistic char-
acterization (discussed in the example section) of M ms ,
M as , rms and ras (based on the regional seismicity) and
consequently of IM ms and IM as , supports then
a comprehensive description of the seismic hazard.
7. Illustrative example
For the illustrative example, a two span continuous rein-
forced concrete box girder bridge with integral abutments,
which is a common bridge class in California (Ramanathan
et al., 2015), is considered and shown in Figure 4. The
bridge consists of two spans with equal length L,
a circular column pier with height Hc , diameter Dc and
28 I. GIDARIS ET AL.

W =10m
L =45.0 m L =45.0 m

ρ s = 1.0% Hc = 7.0m Dc = 1.8m

Figure 4. Layout of the bridge considered in the example.

0.8 k: Slight 0.8 k: Moderate

P[DSas>=k|PGAas,DSms=i] P[DSas>=k|PGAas,DSms=i]

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
(a) (b)
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.8 0.4
k: Extensive k: Complete
0.6 0.3 Intact
i : Slight
i : Moderate
0.4 0.2 i : Extensive

0.2 0.1
(c) (d)
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
PGA(g) PGA(g)

Figure 5. State-dependent aftershock fragilities representing the probability that the bridge meets or exceeds aftershock-induced
damage state k conditional on mainshock-induced damage state i and PGA.

i : Slight (a) i : Extensive (b) 80 i : Complete p(PGAms) (d)

100 (c) 2
100 60 i : Slight
( PGAms )

i : Moderate
40
50 50 1 i : Extensive
i : Complete
ms

20
i

0 0 00 0
0 0.5 1ms 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1ms 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PGA (g) PGAms (g) PGA (g) PGAms (g)

Figure 6. Samples from πm

i sðPGA Þ for damage states (b) k: Slight, (c) k: Extensive and (d) k: Complete. Part (d) illustrates probability
ms

distributions πi ðPGA Þ estimated using KDE, as well as pðPGAms Þ.

m ms

longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρs , supported on a pile of the bridge are shown in Figure 4 and correspond to
foundation, a deck with width Wd and two abutments common values for this bridge class (Ramanathan et al.,
supported by piles. Values of these geometrical parameters 2015). It is stressed here that the kriging models estimating
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 29

Table 1. Descriptions and probability distribution of bridge modeling and geometric parameters for response prediction.
PDF parameters+
Parameter PDF α β
Concrete Strength fc (MPa) Normal 34.5 4.34
Steel Strength fs (MPa) Lognormal 465 0.08
Damping ratio ζ (%) Lognormal 5.0 0.3
Mass multiplication factor madd Uniform 1.1 1.4
Translational stiffness of soil Kt (kN/m) Truncated Normal* 264,165 105,071
Rotational stiffness of soil Kr (kN/rad) Truncated Normal* 7,344,000 1,129,800
Effective pile stiffness at abutment Kp (kN/m) Lognormal 7000 0.2
Backfill soil stiffness at abutment Ks (kN/m) Lognormal 20,300 0.2
Length of bridge L (m) Deterministic 45
Width of bridge Wd (m) Deterministic 10
Percentage of steel ρs (%) Deterministic 0.01
Column height Hc (m) Deterministic 7
Column diameter Dc (m) Deterministic 1.8
+
α and β represent parameters of the respective distribution, denoting mean and standard deviation for Normal, median and coefficient of variation for
Lognormal and lower and upper bound for Uniform. For deterministic cases, the deterministic parameter value is reported as α.
* Left truncated normal distribution with lower bound equal to one and five times the standard deviation for Kt and Kr , respectively (Ramanathan et al., 2015).

the mainshock and aftershock bridge response are devel- 7.2. Excitation model
oped for a range of the above structural and geometrical
For the excitation model, the uncertainty in the
parameters composing vector p and that the bridge illu-
moment magnitude is modeled by the Gutenberg–
strated in Figure 4 corresponds to one realization of p. The
Richter relationship
ms ms
(Kramer, 1996) truncated on the
complete list of structural and geometric parameters com-
intervals M M ¼ ½5:58:0 for mainshocks and
posing vector p is shown in Table 1. as as
min max ms
Mmin Mmax ¼ ½5:5M  for aftershocks, respectively.
The regional seismicity parameters bms and bas char-
7.1. Structural model acterizing the Gutenberg-Richter law are taken to be
0:90lnð10Þ and 0:91lnð10Þ, respectively (Gidaris et al.,
A 3D finite element bridge model is developed in OpenSees
2015; Song et al., 2016). Regarding the uncertainty in
(Mazzoni et al., 2007) following modeling recommenda-
the event location, the rupture distance rms ¼ ras , is
tions in Ramanathan et al. (2015). In particular, the super-
assumed to follow a lognormal distribution with med-
structure is modeled with elastic beam-column elements
ian value 10 km and coefficient of variation 40%. As
with mass lumped along the centerline, whereas the col-
discussed in the previous section, through such
umn is modeled through discretized fiber cross sections
a probabilistic modeling of M ms , M as and rms ¼ ras ,
applied to a beam-column element. The constitutive mate-
a probabilistic characterization of IM ms and IM as is
rial laws for concrete and steel were Concrete02 and
also obtained. In this example, the peak ground accel-
Hysteretic, respectively. Concrete and steel material
eration (PGA) is used as the intensity measure,
strengths are denoted as fc and fs , respectively. The pile
although alternate intensity measures can also be
foundation of the pier is modeled with linear translational
used in this framework if deemed more appropriate
and rotational springs with stiffness values Kt and Kr ,
for specific application. It is noted that also other
respectively. The abutment active and passive response is
structure-dependent IMs such as spectral acceleration
modeled through nonlinear springs and the Hysteretic and
at the fundamental period can be adopted in the
HyperbolicGapMaterial laws, respectively. The primary
fragility assessment; however, the structure-
model parameters for characterizing these laws are the
independent PGA is deemed more appropriate since
effective abutment pile stiffness Kp and the initial backfill
the mainshock is likely to induce inelastic behavior to
soil stiffness Ks . It is noted that in the transverse direction
the bridge and cause period elongation, which would
only the active resistance due the piles’ stiffness is taken into
render adoption of spectral acceleration as IM not
account (Ramanathan et al., 2015). Rayleigh damping with
straightforward.
damping ratio ζ associated with the first two modes is
considered, and a multiplicative factor madd is applied to
the mass stemming from the structure such that additional
7.3. Surrogate model development details
sources of mass (e.g., guardrails, lighting, signage) are
considered. A more detailed description of the assumptions As discussed in the kriging surrogate modeling section,
and the analytical models can be found in Ramanathan two separate surrogate models, MS and AS, are devel-
et al. (2015). All the above bridge parameters are consid- oped for approximating mainshock and aftershock
ered uncertain with PDFs reported in Table 1. response. The uncertain model parameters θ that are
30 I. GIDARIS ET AL.
used for establishing the metamodels are
θ ¼ fc fs ζmadd Kt Kr Kp Ks . It is noted that the seis-
mological parameters M ms , M as , rms and ras , character-
izing the excitation model are not included in θ since the
intensity level of the ground motions is described
through IM ms and IM as . However, for a different risk
and resilience assessment application where the explicit
dependence on IM is not required, vector θ can be easily
augmented with these seismological parameters
(Gidaris et al., 2015). Vector p of bridge structural and
geometric deterministic parameters corresponds to
p ¼ LHc Dc ρs Wd . Therefore, the augmented input vec-
tor x is composed of θ, p ¸ IM ms or IM as as well as
lnðzms Þ (for the AS metamodel only), and it corresponds
to x ¼ IM ms fc fs ζmadd Kt Kr Kp Ks LHc Dc ρs Wd (nx ¼
14 parameters) and x ¼ IM as fc fs ζmadd Kt Kr Kp
Ks LHc Dc ρs Wd lnðzms Þ (nx ¼ 15 parameters), for MS
and AS, respectively. A total of nm ¼ 2000 support
points is used and the influence of the white noise is
addressed by considering nw ¼ 50 samples. Space filling
Latin hypercube sampling is used for the support points
in the range that are expected to take values based on the
assumed probability models for θ, whereas for the com-
ponents of p appropriate ranges for this bridge class
based on previous studies (Ramanathan et al., 2015)
are adopted. The Kriging surrogate model predicts the
 
mean mainshock response ln zc ms and aftershock
 
response ln zc as from the inputs xms and xas respec-
tively. The mean Kriging prediction is essentially
T tion, respectively, with distribution parameters reported
a function of a basis matrix F ¼ ½f ðx1 Þ; . . . f ðxnm Þ
and a correlation matrix R ¼ ½rðx1 Þ; . . . rðxnm Þ; the cor-
relation matrix is informed by correlation parameter s
which is the key parameter learnt during the model
training phase (Gidaris et al., 2015). Following the pre-
dicted mean response, the Kriging approximation for
mainshock and aftershock responses are evaluated as
   
lnðzms Þ ¼ ln zc
ms þ εms and lnð zas Þ ¼ ln zc as þ εas
respectively, where εms and εa represent the associated
model prediction errors with standard deviations of σ εms
and σ εas respectively. The response quantities zms and zas
predicted from the surrogate model correspond to the
peak over time displacement ductilities of the column
across the two orthogonal directions. The accuracy of
the developed metamodels is evaluated by calculating
different error statistics using the leave-one-out cross-
validation approach. This approach entails leaving one
support point out of the training set to serve as
a validation point and using the rest to train the surro-
gate model, then this left out validation point is used to
evaluate various error measures. This process is
successively repeated for as many validation points as
deemed appropriate and overall error statistics are eval-
uated (Meckesheimer et al., 2002). The accuracy estab-
lished is adequately high with coefficient of
determination over 90% and mean error less than 15%
for most approximated response quantities, i.e.
½lnðzq Þσ zq , q ¼ ms, as.
7.4. Fragility and resilience calculation details
The damage states that are used in this example are
qualitatively described as slight, moderate, extensive and
complete. The median displacement ductility thresholds
bi determining the onset of these damage states for both
mainshock and aftershock induced damages for similar
concrete bridge columns are adopted from the relevant
literature (Zhang & Huo, 2009) and are equal to 1.0, 1.20,
1.76, and 4.76, whereas σ b is taken equal to 0.35. Fragility
is evaluated by using the maximum value of peak over
time displacement ductility between the two orthogonal
directions for zms and zas . For estimation of mainshock
and aftershock fragility through stochastic simulation
[Equations (21) and (23)] a total of N ¼ 5000 samples
is used, as 5000 simulations were deemed sufficient for
reliable estimation of fragilities using a convergence
study. Regarding, the model parameters for functionality
evaluation through Equation (32), target functionality Qt
is considered equal to 1, whereas the residual function-
ality Qr and the idle time δQ are considered as uncertain
parameters following a triangular and uniform distribu-
in Table 2 that are chosen based on recommendations in
(Decò et al., 2013). For the restoration function f ð:Þ in
Equation (32) a normal CDF is defined by mean value μQ
and standard deviation σ Q as proposed in (HAZUS-MH,
2011). The values used for parameters μQ and σ Q are also
reported in Table 2 and are based on recommendations in
(Dong & Frangopol, 2015). Ultimately, vector φ of the
uncertain model parameters associated with the bridge
h i
functionality is composed as φ ¼ Qr;i δQ μQ;i , where
subscript idenotes different damage states. The total
time horizon th for evaluation of resilience in Equation
(33) is taken here equal to 600 days. Finally, the same
number of samples N is used for estimation of E½QðtÞ,
E½R and P½Qðt Þ > Qthresh  through stochastic simulation.
7.5. Results and discussion for fragility analysis
Using the kriging surrogate models established for
approximating the bridge nonlinear response for the
realizations of parameters composing p reported in

Table 2. Probability distributions for the functionality model parameters in different damage states.
Parameter i: Slight
+ +
Qr;i Tr (0.5,0.75,1)
δQ (days)
μQ;i (days) +
Tr (0.2,0.6,1)
σQ;i (days) 0.6 (deterministic)
+
Tr(a,b,c) denotes the triangular distribution with lower bound, mode and upper bound equal to a, b and c, respectively. U(a,b) denotes the uniform distribution
with lower and upper bound equal to a and b, respectively.
Figure 4 and the adopted probability models for the
various model parameters, mainshock and state-
dependent aftershock fragilities of the bridge under
study are estimated through stochastic simulation. In
particular, Figure 5 presents the aftershock fragilities
^ as
kjIM as ; DSms ¼ i for the four damage states
P½DS
considered estimated through stochastic simulation
[Equation (23)]. Parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the figure
correspond to aftershock damage states DSas ¼ slight,
moderate, extensive and complete, respectively. The
different curves for each sub-plot indicate different
levels of damage induced by the mainshock, whereas
the curve reported as ‘intact’ in the legend corresponds
to the mainshock fragility P½DS^ ms
ijIM ms  estimated
through Equation (22). Comparing the mainshock and
aftershock fragilities it is evident that inclusion of after-
shock events in the seismic hazard description leads to
increased vulnerability of the bridge as it was expected.
In addition, the probability of incurring moderate or
extensive damage increases noticeably for bridges with
some existing damage, as opposed to bridges intact from
the mainshock. The probability of complete damage due
to aftershock, however, does not change very signifi-
cantly conditioned upon whether it was intact or slight
damage from the mainshock, but increases significantly
if there was extensive damage from the mainshock
event. Moreover, the effect of different levels of main-
shock-induced damage to the bridge can be observed
through comparison of the different aftershock fragili-
ties. It can be seen that as the bridge sustains more
severe levels of damage due to the mainshocks the
corresponding aftershock fragility naturally increases.
The damage state probabilities P½DSms ¼ i,
P½DSas ¼ i and P½DS ¼ i estimated through
Equations (22), (24) and (12), respectively, are reported
in Table 3. It can be observed that the damage state
probabilities due to aftershocks P½DSas ¼ i are higher
than the ones due to mainshocks, which is expected
since when the aftershock occurs the bridge may have
already sustained some level of damage. Comparison,
now, of P½DSms ¼ i and P½DS ¼ i values indicate that
the damage probabilities attain considerably higher
values when aftershock effects are taken into account,
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 31
PDF
i: Moderate i: Extensive i: Complete
+
Tr (0,0.25,0.5) Tr (0,0.1,0.2) 0 (deterministic)
+
U(30,60)
+
Tri (1,2.5,5) +
Tr (30,75,120) +
Tr (120,230,360)
2.7 (deterministic) 42 (deterministic) 110 (deterministic)
Table 3. Damage state probabilities of the bridge under study.
The values of the damage state probabilities estimated when
considering uncertainty only for the parameters describing the
excitation model are reported in parentheses.
Case i: Slight i: Moderate i: Extensive i: Complete
P½DSms ¼ i (%) 5.40 (5.27) 9.85 (9.61) 14.84 (14.67) 4.66 (4.87)
P½DSas ¼ i (%) 5.55 (6.19) 10.37 (11.64) 16.56 (18.37) 5.72 (5.83)
P½DS ¼ i (%) 7.26 (7.44) 14.98 (15.53) 27.32 (28.60) 10.12 (10.42)
e.g. the probability P½DS ¼ i that the bridge attains the
‘Extensive’ damage state due to either mainshock or
aftershock is  84% higher than the probability
P½DSms ¼ i that considers only mainshocks. This result
reveals the importance of incorporating aftershocks in
the seismic hazard characterization, since seismic risk is
increased and consequently functionality and resilience
of the bridge is reduced as demonstrated in a following
section. Furthermore, to evaluate the effect of taking
into account modeling uncertainty in the fragility ana-
lysis the damage state probabilities P½DSms ¼ i,
P½DSas ¼ i and P½DS ¼ i are estimated considering
uncertainty only in the parameters describing the prob-
abilistic excitation model and using nominal values for
the bridge parameters reported in Table 1 (i.e., using the
mean and median values for the parameters described
by the normal and lognormal distributions, respectively,
and using the mean value for the uniform distribution).
These damage state probability values are reported in
parentheses in Table 3. Comparison between these
damage state probability values when modeling uncer-
tainty is taken into account or neglected reveals the
dominant contribution of the seismic hazard uncertain
model parameters towards risk calculations, since there
is minimal change in the probability values for the two
considerations for all damage states. This trend will
further be investigated and quantified through the sen-
sitivity analysis discussed in the next section.
7.6. Results and discussion for probabilistic
sensitivity analysis
The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis outlined
earlier are presented and discussed in this section. In
32 I. GIDARIS ET AL.

Table 4. Sensitivity results of the uncertain model parameters Table 5. Sensitivity results of the uncertain model parameters
towards the mainshock damage state probability. towards the aftershock damage state probability.
DSms ¼ i DSas ¼ k
i: Slight i: Moderate i: Extensive i: Complete k: Slight k: Moderate k: Extensive k: Complete
 ms  ms   ms   as  as   as 
θms 
D πi θd jjp θd θas 
D πk θd jjp θd
d d
PGAms 0.0737 0.1193 0.2831 0.7822 PGAas 0.0947 0.1395 0.2953 1.0047
fc 0.0036 0.0034 0.0020 0.0102 zms 0.0454 0.1112 0.2598 0.9221
fs 0.0020 0.0038 0.0081 0.0103 fc 0.0016 0.0032 0.0044 0.0158
Kp 0.0030 0.0027 0.0043 0.0079 fs 0.0011 0.0029 0.0039 0.0139
Ks 0.0015 0.0041 0.0035 0.0024 Kp 0.0022 0.0040 0.0036 0.0061
Kt 0.0026 0.0011 0.0019 0.0062 Ks 0.0006 0.0013 0.0022 0.0145
Kr 0.0020 0.0013 0.0012 0.0098 Kt 0.0025 0.0040 0.0033 0.0065
ζ 0.0080 0.0052 0.0093 0.0153 Kr 0.0037 0.0007 0.0034 0.0058
madd 0.0054 0.0048 0.0011 0.0032 ζ 0.0039 0.0029 0.0039 0.0156
madd 0.0039 0.0053 0.0159 0.0301

particular, Table 4 presents the relative entropy Dð:Þ calcu-

lated through Equation (27) with respect to the mainshock
damage state probability P½DSms ¼ i for all the damage
states considered and all the uncertain model parameters
θms ; d ¼ 1; . . . ; nθþ1 comprising vector θms . Higher values
d
for Dð:Þ indicate higher relative contribution of this para-
meter towards the calculated seismic risk (i.e., P½DSms ¼ i
in this case). It can be seen that for all damage states the
seismic hazard related parameter PGAms dominates seis-
mic risk which is consistent with past studies (Jia et al.,
θas ; d ¼ 1; . . . ; nθþ2 comprising vector θas are reported in
2014; Lamprou et al., 2013), whereas the relative contribu-
tion of the uncertain structural parameters is almost negli-
gible. It is also interesting to observe that the values of the
relative entropy corresponding to PGAms significantly
increase as we move towards higher damage states, reveal-
ing the higher importance of the seismic hazard when risk
corresponds to more severe damage states.
To obtain further insight of the sensitivity results,
Figure 6 shows samples [parts (a), (b) and (c)] from the
πms
i ðPGA Þ distribution for selected damage states, as
ms
well as to the KDE-based approximations of
πms
i ðPGA Þ for all damage states and distribution
ms
pðPGA Þ [part (d)]. It is noted that these samples are
ms
used to approximate the auxiliary densities πms i ðPGA Þ
ms
through KDE to ultimately evaluate the relative entropy
Dð:Þ in Equation (27). Comparison between pðPGAms Þ
and πms
i ðPGA Þ provides information about the sensitiv-
ms
events (i.e., samples corresponding to higher values of
PGAms ). This behavior further explains the trend related
with the variation of the importance of PGAms with
respect to different damage states.
Moving now to the case that aftershocks are included in
the hazard model, the relative entropy Dð:Þ results calcu-
lated through Equation (28) with respect to the aftershock
damage state probability P½DSas ¼ i for all the damage
states considered and all the uncertain model parameters
d
Table 5. It can be observed that for all damage states the
most dominant risk factor, similar to the mainshock-only
case, is the (aftershock) seismic hazard-related parameter
PGAas . The second most influential risk factor with just
slightly smaller relative entropy values corresponds to the
mainshock zms , revealing the importance of the level of
nonlinearity and consequently the damage extent that the
bridge has attained during the first shock. Moreover, this
increased contribution of zms towards aftershock risk indi-
cates also the influence that the mainshock hazard inten-
sity PGAms has on this risk, since zms and PGAms are
correlated (although not with a 100% correlation). As for
the case of mainshock risk, the results in Table 5 show that
the sensitivity of the uncertain structural parameters is
almost negligible for all damage states. Regarding now
the variation of the sensitivity of the various risk factors

ity of PGAms , with bigger discrepancies between the dis-
tributions implying greater importance towards
P½DSms ¼ i for the different considered damage states.
It can be observed that for the ‘Slight’ damage state
πms
i ðPGA Þ is similar to pðPGA Þ, whereas it starts
ms ms
deviating significantly from pðPGAms Þ as moving to
more severe damage states such as the ‘Extensive’ and
‘Complete’ ones. This pattern is attributed to the fact
that higher damage states that are associated with higher
inelastic bridge response are attained by stronger seismic
with respect to the various damage states, a similar pattern
as for the mainshock-only case is observed, i.e., the relative
entropy values for the two most influential parameters
(PGAas and zms ) significantly increase for higher DSs.
The latter trend is further investigated in Figure 7, which
presents samples (left column) from πas k ðPGA ;  z Þ for
as ms
damage states ‘Slight’ [part (b)], ‘Extensive’ [part (c)] and
‘Complete’ [part (d)]. Also samples (left column) from
pðPGAas ; zms Þ are presented [part (a)]. The KDE-based
approximations of the probability distributions are also
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 33

5
(a)
p ( PGAas , z ms )
4
z ms
3 1
0
2
5
1 1.5
z ms 1
0 0.5 PGAas (g)
0.5 1 1.5 0 0
5
(b) k : Slight
as
4 k
( PGAas , z ms )
z ms
3 1
0
2
5
1 1.5
z ms
1
0 0.5 PGAas (g)
0.5 1 1.5 0 0
5 k : Extensive
(c)
as
4 k
( PGAas , z ms )
z ms 0.5
3
0
2
5
1 1.5
z ms
1
0 0.5 PGAas (g)
0.5 1 1.5 0
0
5 (d) k : Complete
as
k
( PGAas , z ms )
4
z ms 0.2
3 0.1
0
2
5
1 1.5
z ms
1
0 0.5 PGAas (g)
0.5 1 1.5 0 0
PGAas (g)

Figure 7. Samples from πak sðPGAas ; zms Þ [left column] and their probability distribution estimated using KDE [right column] for damage
states (b) k: Slight, (c) k: Extensive and (d) k: Complete. Row (a) corresponds to samples from pðPGAas ; zms Þ and their probability
distribution.

provided (right column). It can be easily seen the charac- when risk corresponds to more severe damage states. These
teristic evolution of the ‘mass’ of distributions bigger discrepancies in higher damage states observed
k ðPGA ; 
πas z Þ towards higher values of PGAas and zms
as ms
between distributions pðPGAas ; zms Þ and πas
k ðPGA ; 
z Þ
as ms
34 I. GIDARIS ET AL.

further validate the pattern of increased sensitivity for the
these particular risk factors in Table 5. Regarding para-
meter PGAas this behavior is attributed similarly to the
mainshock hazard case to the fact that stronger seismic
events induce higher nonlinear structural response and
consequently more severe damage is sustained by the
bridge. Whereas for parameter zms this behavior stems
from the increased vulnerability of the bridge when the
aftershocks occur due to the structural damage accumula-
tion exhibited as a result of higher mainshock response.
Overall, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results dis-
cussed in this section underline the dominant contribution
of the seismic hazard model parameters towards risk for
both hazard descriptions with and without aftershock
effects, whereas for the latter case the uncertain mainshock
bridge response was shown to be nearly as important.
Finally, for both hazard cases the influence of the uncertain
structural parameters was almost negligible, a result that
indicates that considering these parameters as determinis-
tic would not significantly impact the estimated risk.
7.7. Results and discussion for functionality/
resilience analysis
Moving now to the investigation of the impact of includ-
ing aftershocks on functionality and resilience of the
bridge, Figure 8 presents the evolution of the expected
functionality E½Qðt Þ [part (a)] and the probability
P½QðtÞ > Qthresh  that functionality exceeds threshold
Qthresh [part (b)] with respect to time after seismic shock
occurrence for the two hazard descriptions, i.e., including
or disregarding aftershock events. E½Qðt Þ and
P½QðtÞ > Qthresh  is calculated by estimating the probabil-
istic integrals in Equations (34) and (36) via stochastic
simulation. Threshold Qthresh is chosen here to be equal to
0.90, a value that can be considered to correspond to
a post-hazard bridge performance level of ‘immediate
access’ (Dong & Frangopol, 2015). It can be observed
that aftershock events can have a significant negative
impact on the expected functionality of the bridge. As
time evolves the difference of the expected functionality
between the two cases is reduced, and ultimately the two
curves converge to values of 1.0 that represent full
restoration of the bridge. This result is attributed to the
shape of the restoration curves f ð:Þ used in Equation (32),
since they rapidly increase as time evolves. Similar trends
are also observed in Figure 8(b), where the probability
P½Qðt Þ > Qthresh ¼ 0:90 that the bridge will be immedi-
ately accessible is significantly reduced for the main-
shock-aftershock case underlining the importance of
including aftershocks in the seismic hazard characteriza-
tion for resilience assessment. It is noted herein that the
results of functionality evolution/resilience are dependent
on the choice of the recovery function Qðt Þ. Alternate
recovery functions such as stepwise functions (Padgett &
DesRoches, 2007) or binary functions can also be used in
place of the assumed form of Qðt Þ.
Calculation of the evolution of functionality can ulti-
mately support evaluation of the expected resilience
E½R of the bridge through stochastic simulation-based
estimation of Equation (35). Table 6 reports values of
E½R for both hazard cases and for different time instants
of the recovery phase of the bridge. The different time
Table 6. Expected resilience E ½R of the bridge calculated at
different time instants of the recovery phase.
E ½R
th (days) Mainshock Mainshock – aftershock
45 0.721 0.582 (19.4%)
60 0.748 0.620 (17.2%)
90 0.794 0.687 (13.5%)
300 0.913 0.868 (4.94%)
600 0.955 0.932 (2.44%)

1 (a) 1 (b)

0.9 0.8 Qthresh = 0.90

P[Q(t)>Qthresh]

0.8 0.6
E[Q(t)]

0.7 0.4

0.6 0.2
Mainshock - Aftershock
Mainshock only
0.5 0
10 1 t (days) 10 2 10 1 t (days) 10 2

Figure 8. Expected functionality [part (a)] and probability that functionality exceeds threshold Qthresh ¼ 0:90 [part (b)] of the bridge for
seismic hazard with and without inclusion of aftershock events.
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 35

800 400 MS
400 400 MS-AS
600
400 200 200 200
200
0 0 0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 1 0.9 0.95 1
Q(t = 45 days) Q(t = 60 days) Q(t = 90 days) Q(t = 300 days)

Figure 9. Histograms of functionality samples for different time instants of recovery phase.

instants considered correspond to the total time hori-
zon, i.e., th ¼ 600 days, as well as to the intermediate
instants th ¼ 45; 60; 90 and 300 days. The percentage
difference between the values of E½R for the two hazard
cases is reported in parentheses. The results indicate the
significant impact that aftershock events impose on the
recovery of the bridge, since the expected resilience can
be up to  20% smaller compared to the case that only
mainshock events are considered. As expected the mag-
nitude of percent change of this relative comparison of
E½R is strongly dependent upon the time horizon,
which is a parameter of interest that must be specified
by the stakeholder or decision-maker.
Finally, Figure 9 presents histograms of the functionality
samples of the bridge for different time instants
(t ¼ 45; 60; 90; 300 days) for both hazard cases. The cor-
responding mean values and the coefficient of variation
(cov) of the samples are reported in Table 7. Beyond the
expected trend [shown also in Figure 7(a)] of the reduced
functionality when aftershocks are considered, it is inter-
esting to observe that the cov for the mainshock-aftershock
hazard is always higher than the mainshock case, and that
for both cases the cov decreases as time evolves. The former
trend is attributed to the fact that the incorporation of
aftershocks in the hazard description introduces additional
uncertainty. On the other hand the latter trend is attributed
to the fact that the particular shape of the restoration
functions adopted leads to high values of functionality
with small dispersion for higher time instants, and that
the uncertain functionality model parameters Qr and δQ
influence the earlier part of the recovery process, as it is
evident in Figure 2. This characteristic of the recovery
process is clearly illustrated by the bimodal behavior of
Table 7. Mean values and cov of the functionality samples for
different instants shown in Figure 9.
Mainshock Mainshock – aftershock
(days) mean cov (%) mean cov (%th )
45 0.79 8.2 0.62 17.0
60 0.87 2.0 0.75 4.3
90 0.91 2.0 0.82 4.2
300 0.99 0.7 0.97 1.5
the functionality samples for t ¼ 45 days, which is
a result of the fact that the range of initial delay δQ is 30
to 60 days. Since 45 days lies in the assumed range of initial
delay, some bridges are yet to enter the recovery phase and
their functionality Qðt Þ is characterized by the residual
functionality Qr ; however other bridges have already
entered the recovery phase. This bimodal pattern is not
observed for other instants of time where all bridges have
entered the recovery phase.
8. Conclusions
A computationally efficient methodology based on kriging
surrogate modeling for probabilistic fragility and resilience
analysis of bridges subjected to mainshock and aftershock
seismic events is presented in this paper. The effect of
aftershocks is explicitly considered by developing
a procedure for simulating mainshock-aftershock
sequences using stochastic ground motion modeling, and
ultimately incorporating it in the mainshock-aftershock
seismic hazard description. To support the adoption of
complex numerical and probability models for risk and
resilience quantification, estimation of all probabilistic
quantities through stochastic simulation was considered.
For remedying the significant computation burden asso-
ciated with stochastic simulation, approximation of the
nonlinear mainshock and aftershock bridge response is
obtained using the surrogate models established with
respect to uncertain hazard and structural model para-
meters, deterministic bridge and geometrical parameters,
and the mainshock response (when estimating aftershock
response). These metamodels facilitate the development of
parameterized mainshock and state-dependent aftershock
fragilities and ultimately support investigation of the
impact of aftershocks on the probabilistic resilience and
functionality assessment of bridges. Additionally,
a probabilistic global sensitivity analysis is extended and
integrated within the proposed methodology to identify the
risk factors (uncertain parameters) exhibiting dominant
contribution towards mainshock and aftershock risk quan-
tified here as the probabilities that the bridge reaches the
different considered damage states.
36 I. GIDARIS ET AL.
As an illustrative example, the proposed methodology
was implemented for the fragility and resilience assess-
ment of a typical bridge class in California exposed to
seismic hazard that incorporates aftershock effects.
Comparison of the mainshock and the aftershock state-
dependent fragilities illustrated that the bridge exhibits
increased vulnerability when aftershocks are taken into
account and that this increase is higher for more severe
mainshock-induced damage states. The comparative
results between damage state probabilities further vali-
dated the latter trend. Furthermore, the probabilistic sen-
sitivity analysis results demonstrated the dominance of
the seismic hazard model parameters towards risk for
both mainshock-only and mainshock-aftershock hazard
cases, whereas for the latter also the uncertain model
parameter corresponding to the mainshock EDP was
shown to be equally dominant. Calculation of the damage
state probabilities facilitated the probabilistic resilience
assessment of the bridge that revealed that the evolution
of functionality and resilience metrics is considerably
impacted by aftershocks. In particular, it was shown
that aftershocks can have a significant negative impact
on them, i.e., substantially delaying the recovery process.
Finally, future research opportunities that can further
advance the present study could be directed towards
modeling degradation effects on capacity limit states,
incorporating restoration models that repair actions
may be performed between the occurrence of mainshock
and aftershocks, and extend the proposed methodology
to other bridge types and/or structural systems.
Acknowledgments
This study is based on research supported by the Center for
Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning and its financial
support is gratefully acknowledged. The Center for Risk-
Based Community Resilience Planning is a NIST-funded
Center of Excellence; the Center is funded through
a cooperative agreement between the U.S. National Institute
of Science and Technology and Colorado State University
(NIST Financial Assistance Award Number:
70NANB15H044). The views expressed are those of the
author/presenter, and may not represent the official position
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the
US Department of Commerce.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This study is supported by the Center for Risk-Based
Community Resilience Planning, a NIST-funded Center of
Excellence funded through a cooperative agreement between
the U.S. National Institute of Science and Technology and
Colorado State University (NIST Financial Assistance Award
Number: 70NANB15H044).
Notes on contributors
Ioannis Gidaris is a Natural Catastrophe Specialist in the
Catastrophe Perils team of Swiss Re Reinsurance Company
in Armonk, NY, where he is responsible for developing
Catastrophe models for a variety of perils (earthquake, tropi-
cal cyclone, etc.).Prior to this position he worked as a post-
doctoral researcher in Rice University in Houston focusing on
research related to natural hazard risk and resilience assess-
ment of civil infrastructure. Ioannis holds a PhD in Civil
Engineering from the University of Notre Dame, a MSc. Of
Earthquake Engineering from Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki and a BSc. In Civil Engineering from Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.
Jamie E. Padgett is an Associate Professor in the Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University in
Houston, TX. Padgett’s research focuses on the application of
probabilistic methods for risk assessment of infrastructure,
including the subsequent quantification of resilience and sus-
tainability. Her work emphasizes structural portfolios such as
regional portfolios of bridges or oil storage tanks exposed to
multiple hazards, including earthquakes, hurricanes, or aging
and deterioration. Among other projects, Dr. Padgett cur-
rently serves in leadership roles within several large national
or regional research efforts including the NIST Center of
Excellence for Community Disaster Resilience, the NSF
NHERI Cyberinfrastructure “DesignSafe-CI”, and the Severe
Storm Prediction Education and Evacuation from Disasters
(SSPEED) Center.
Sushreyo Misra is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at Rice University in
Houston, TX. Sushreyo’s research expertise lies in fragility
modeling, machine learning applications in probabilistic risk
and resilience analysis of infrastructure, and network analysis.
Previously, Sushreyo completed a MTech in Earthquake
Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)
Roorkee, India and a BE in Civil Engineering from Jadavpur
University, India. Sushreyo has held leadership roles within
the Student Leadership Council (SLC) under the NIST Center
of Excellence (CoE) for Risk Based Community Resilience
Planning project, EERI student chapter at Rice University as
well as various graduate student bodies.
ORCID
Sushreyo Misra http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8861-6162
References
Abad, J., Ulrich, T., Réveillere, A., & Gehl, P. (2013).
Development of damage state-dependent fragility functions
for a MDOF structure through dynamic analyses with
successive un-scaled time-histories. Vienna Congress on
Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2013 (VEESD 2013).

Alessandri, S., Giannini, R., & Paolacci, F. (2013). Aftershock risk
assessment and the decision to open traffic on bridges.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(15),
2255–2275.
Ang, A. H. S, & Tang, W. H. (2007). Probability concepts in
engineering planning and design: Emphasis on application to
civil and environmental engineering. New York City, NY:
Wiley.
Aslani, H., & Miranda, E. (2005). Probability-based seismic
response analysis. Engineering Structures, 27(8), 1151–1163.
Atkinson, G. M., & Silva, W. (2000). Stochastic modeling of
California ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 90(2), 255–274.
Au, S., & Beck, J. L. (1999). A new adaptive importance
sampling scheme for reliability calculations. Structural
Safety, 21(2), 135–158.
Ayyub, B. M., & Lai, K. L. (1989). Structural reliability assess-
ment using latin hypercube sampling. Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Structural Safety and
Reliability, San Francisco, CA.
Boore, D. M. (2003). Simulation of ground motion using the
stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 160(3–4),
635–676.
Chang, S. E., & Shinozuka, M. (2004). Measuring improve-
ments in the disaster resilience of communities. Earthquake
Spectra, 20(3), 739–755.
Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M. (2010).
Framework for analytical quantification of disaster
resilience. Engineering Structures, 32(11), 3639–3649.
Decò, A., Bocchini, P., & Frangopol, D. M. (2013).
A probabilistic approach for the prediction of seismic resi-
lience of bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 42(10), 1469–1487.
Der Kiureghian, A. (1996). Structural reliability methods for
seismic safety assessment: A review. Engineering Structures,
18(6), 412–424.
Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D. M. (2015). Risk and resilience
assessment of bridges under mainshock and aftershocks
incorporating uncertainties. Engineering Structures, 83,
198–208.
Ebrahimian, H., Jalayer, F., Asprone, D., Lombardi, A. M.,
Marzocchi, W., Prota, A., & Manfredi, G. (2013). Adaptive
daily forecasting of seismic aftershock hazard. Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, 104(1), 145–161.
Ebrahimian, H., Jalayer, F., Asprone, D., Lombardi, A. M.,
Marzocchi, W., Prota, A., & Manfredi, G. (2014).
A performance-based framework for adaptive seismic
aftershock risk assessment. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 43(14), 2179–2197.
Franchin, P., & Pinto, P. E. (2009). Allowing traffic over
mainshock-damaged bridges. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 13(5), 585–599.
Ghosh, J., Padgett, J. E., & Sánchez-Silva, M. (2015). Seismic
damage accumulation in highway bridges in
earthquake-prone regions. Earthquake Spectra, 31(1),
115–135.
Gidaris, I., & Padgett, J. (2017). Probabilistic fragility analysis
and resilience assessment of bridges subjected to earth-
quake mainshocks and aftershocks. 16th World
Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
Gidaris, I., & Taflanidis, A. A. (2015). Performance assessment
and optimization of fluid viscous dampers through
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 37
life-cycle cost criteria and comparison to alternative design
approaches. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(4),
1003–1028.
Gidaris, I., Taflanidis, A. A., & Mavroeidis, G. P. (2015).
Kriging metamodeling in seismic risk assessment based
on stochastic ground motion models. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44(14), 2377–2399.
Goda, K. (2012). Nonlinear response potential of main-
shock–Aftershock sequences from Japanese earthquakes.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(5),
2139–2156.
Goda, K. (2015). Record selection for aftershock incremental
dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 44(7), 1157–1162.
Goda, K., & Taylor, C. A. (2012). Effects of aftershocks on
peak ductility demand due to strong ground motion
records from shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(15), 2311–2330.
Grigoriu, M. (2010). To scale or not to scale seismic
ground-acceleration records. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 137(4), 284–293.
Han, R., Li, Y., & van de Lindt, J. (2014). Assessment of
seismic performance of buildings with incorporation of
aftershocks. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 29(3), 04014088.
Han, R., Li, Y., & van de Lindt, J. (2016). Seismic loss estima-
tion with consideration of aftershock hazard and
post-quake decisions. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil
Engineering, 2, 04016005.
HAZUS-MH. (2011). Multi-hazard loss estimation methodol-
ogy: Earthquake model HAZUS-MH MR5 technical manual.
Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Jalayer, F., & Ebrahimian, H. (2017). Seismic risk assessment
considering cumulative damage due to aftershocks.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 46(3),
369–389.
Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability theory: The logic of science.
Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Jeon, J. S., DesRoches, R., & Lee, D. H. (2016). Post-repair
effect of column jackets on aftershock fragilities of damaged
RC bridges subjected to successive earthquakes. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 45, 1149–1168.
Jeon, J.-S., DesRoches, R., Lowes, L. N., & Brilakis, I. (2015).
Framework of aftershock fragility assessment–Case studies:
Older California reinforced concrete building frames.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44(15),
2617–2636.
Jia, G., Gidaris, I., Taflanidis, A. A., & Mavroeidis, G. P.
(2014). Reliability-based assessment/design of floor isola-
tion systems. Engineering Structures, 78, 41–56.
Jia, G., & Taflanidis, A. A. (2014). Sample-based evaluation of
global probabilistic sensitivity measures. Computers &
Structures, 144, 103–118.
Jia, G., Taflanidis, A. A., & Beck, J. L. (2015). A new
adaptive rejection sampling method using kernel density
approximations and its application to Subset Simulation.
ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in
Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 3(2),
D4015001.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
38 I. GIDARIS ET AL.
Kumar, R., & Gardoni, P. (2014). Effect of seismic degradation
on the fragility of reinforced concrete bridges. Engineering
Structures, 79, 267–275.
Lamprou, A., Jia, G., & Taflanidis, A. A. (2013). Life-cycle
seismic loss estimation and global sensitivity analysis based
on stochastic ground motion modeling. Engineering
Structures, 54, 192–206.
Li, Q., & Ellingwood, B. R. (2007). Performance evaluation
and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under
main shock–Aftershock earthquake sequences.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(3),
405–427.
Luco, N., Gerstenberger, M. C., Uma, S., Ryu, H., Liel, A. B., &
Raghunandan, M. (2011). A methodology for
post-mainshock probabilistic assessment of building col-
lapse risk. Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. L.
(2007). OpenSees command language manual (pp. 451).
Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
(PEER) Center.
Meckesheimer, M., Booker, A. J., Barton, R. R., &
Simpson, T. W. (2002). Computationally inexpensive meta-
model assessment strategies. AIAA Journal, 40(10),
2053–2060.
Nazari, N., van de Lindt, J., & Li, Y. (2013). Effect of
mainshock-aftershock sequences on woodframe building
damage fragilities. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 29(1), 04014036.
Padgett, J. E., & DesRoches, R. (2007). Bridge functionality
relationships for improved seismic risk assessment of trans-
portation networks. Earthquake Spectra, 23(1), 115–130.
Padgett, J. E., & DesRoches, R. (2008). Methodology for the
development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted
bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
37(8), 1157–1174.
Ramanathan, K., Padgett, J. E., & DesRoches, R. (2015).
Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete
box-girder bridges in California. Engineering Structures, 97,
29–46.
Reasenberg, P., & Jones, L. (1994). Earthquake aftershocks:
Update. Science, 265(5176), 1251–1253.
Ribeiro, F. L., Barbosa, A. R., & Neves, L. C. (2014).
Application of reliability-based robustness assessment of
steel moment resisting frame structures under
post-mainshock cascading events. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 140(8), A4014008.
Robert, C., & Casella, G. (2013). Monte Carlo statistical meth-
ods. New York City, NY: Springer Science & Business
Media.
Ruiz-García, J. (2012). Mainshock-aftershock ground motion
features and their influence in building’s seismic response.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16(5), 719–737.
Ryu, H., Luco, N., Uma, S., & Liel, A. (2011). Developing
fragilities for mainshock-damaged structures through
incremental dynamic analysis. Ninth Pacific Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
T
Shcherbakov, R., Goda, K., Ivanian, A., & Atkinson, G. M.
(2013). Aftershock statistics of major subduction
earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 103(6), 3222–3234.
Shcherbakov, R., Nguyen, M., & Quigley, M. (2012). Statistical
analysis of the 2010 MW 7.1 Darfield earthquake aftershock
sequence. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics,
55(3), 305–311.
Shcherbakov, R., Turcotte, D. L., & Rundle, J. B. (2005).
Aftershock statistics. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 162
(6–7), 1051–1076.
Shcherbakov, R., Turcotte, D. L., & Rundle, J. B. (2006).
Scaling properties of the Parkfield aftershock sequence.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(4B),
S376–S384.
Song, R., Li, Y., & Van de Lindt, J. W. (2016). Loss estimation
of steel buildings to earthquake mainshock–Aftershock
sequences. Structural Safety, 61, 1–11.
Sunasaka, Y., & Kiremidjian, A. S. (1993). A method for
structural safety evaluation under mainshock-aftershock
earthquake sequences. Stanford, CA: John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center.
Taflanidis, A. A., & Jia, G. (2011). A simulation-based frame-
work for risk assessment and probabilistic sensitivity ana-
lysis of base-isolated structures. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 40(14), 1629–1651.
Utsu, T. (1970). Aftershocks and earthquake statistics (1):
Some parameters which characterize an aftershock
sequence and their interrelations. Journal of the Faculty of
Science, Hokkaido University. Series 7, Geophysics, 3(3),
129–195.
Yeo, G. L., & Cornell, C. A. (2009). A probabilistic framework
for quantification of aftershock ground-motion hazard in
California: Methodology and parametric study. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 38(1), 45–60.
Yin, Y.-J., & Li, Y. (2010). Loss estimation of light-frame wood
construction subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 25(6),
504–513.
Zhang, J., & Huo, Y. (2009). Evaluating effectiveness and
optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges
using the fragility function method. Engineering Structures,
31(8), 1648–1660.
Appendix
The details on Kriging surrogate metamodels follow the math-
ematical framework laid out in detail in Gidaris et al. (2015).
A summary of the methodology is presented herein.
The Kriging surrogate model relates input parameters x to
the mean Kriging response b yðxÞ using a basis vector f ðxÞ and
a correlation vector rðxÞ, which gives the correlation between
each element of the input x. The final Kriging approximated
response yðxÞ may be estimated as a Gaussian random vari-
able with mean b yðxÞ and standard deviation σ ðxÞ. The mean
Kriging response may be expressed as
^yðxÞT ¼ f ðxÞT α þ rðxÞT β (A1)
 
In the above expression, rðxÞ ¼  R x; xl ; . . . Rðx; xnm Þ is
the correlation vector, wherein R xl ; xm facilitates the local
correlation and ultimately provides Kriging accuracy through
the parameter vector s, which is shown in Equation A2.
 SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 39

  Ynx h   i
R xl ; xm ¼ exp s i
xi l  xi m snx þ1 ; s ¼ ½s1 ; . . . sn þ1 
i¼1 x
(A2)
The parameter s of the correlation function needs to be
properly tuned to train the models to approximate very com-
plex functions. All the model parameters required for evalu-
ating the Kriging prediction are infeasible to show herein in
the form a set of coefficients, like classical regression func-
tions. In addition to the correlation matrix R, a basis matrix
T The correlation parameters s are shown in 2013.
F ¼ ½f ðx1 Þ; . . . f ðxnm Þ is also defined to define a global
approximation over the input space X. With Y ¼
T
½yðx1 Þ; . . . yðxnm Þ as the corresponding output, the Kriging
prediction parameters α and β may be derived as per
Equation A3.
 1
α ¼ FT R1 F FT R1 Y; β ¼ R1 ðY  Fα Þ (A3)
Thus, the critical parameter in Kriging regression is the
correlation parameter s, using which the other parameters
are derived. Through proper tuning of this parameter,
Kriging may be used to approximate highly complex math-
ematical functions.the optimal value of s may be selected
using maximum likelihood estimation principle by solving
the following optimization problem.
h 1 Xn i
s ¼ argmin jRjnm ei 2
σ
y
i¼1
(A4)
s
The key insight from the parameter values tabulated in
Table A1 are that higher parameter values indicate higher
relative predictive importance of a particular parameter.
The intensity measure terms have high predictive impor-
tance for both the mainshock and aftershock responses,
reflected by their relatively high values. Also, the after-
shock response has an additional term, the mainshock
response which has a very high predictive response for
aftershock response.

Table A1. Kriging correlation parameters

Parameters Mainshock fragility – s Afterhock fragility – s
snx þ1 0.707 0.583
Main Shock/aftershock intensity measure IMs or IMas 0.550 1.019
Concrete Strength fc 0.428 0.354
Steel Strength fs 0.333 0.275
Length L 0.284 0.214
Width W 0.701 0.167
Reinforcement Ratio ρs 0.176 0.520
Column Height HC 0.139 0.154
Column Diameter DC 0.109 0.429
Pile Stiffness Kp 0.086 0.061
Soil Stiffness Ks 0.068 0.050
Transverse Abutment Stiffness logðKt Þ 0.053 0.058
Rotational Abutment Stiffness logðKr Þ 0.406 0.058
Damping Coefficient ζ 0.050 0.360
Added Mass madd 0.909 0.082
Mainshock reponse zms 1.557