Cloud-IDA-MSA Conversion of Fragility Curves for

Efficient and High-Fidelity Resilience Assessment

Yutao Pang 1 and Xiaowei Wang, A.M.ASCE 2

Abstract: In performance-based earthquake engineering framework, seismic fragility functions play a fundamental role for quantifying the
seismic resilience. There are three main approaches for performing the seismic fragility analysis: cloud analysis, incremental dynamic analy-
sis (IDA), and multiple strip analysis (MSA). These approaches require different levels of computational efforts and yield different levels of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

accuracy on fragility curve estimates, leading to different predictions of seismic resilience. This paper presents an efficient method for con-
verting fragility curves from the cloud to IDA and MSA and from IDA to MSA toward an efficient and high-fidelity resilience assessment.
The proposed method requires two fragility points to obtain the fragility median and dispersion parameters that yield converted fragility
curves agreeing with the target fragility curves. This method and associated resilience assessment are demonstrated through two case studies,
one a typical two-span highway bridge in firm ground under longitudinal seismic excitations and the other an extended pile-shaft-supported
bridge in liquefaction-induced laterally spreading ground under transverse seismic excitations. The results show that the converted fragility
curves coincide very well with the target fragility curves. An efficient and high-fidelity resilience assessment can be achieved leveraging the
proposed method. For easy implementation, codes of the proposed method are available online. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002998. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cloud analysis; Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA); Multiple stripe analysis (MSA); Performance-based earthquake
engineering; Seismic fragility.

Introduction defined as the basis of the functionality recovery curve after an

The concept of resilience, which initiated in the discipline of
ecology (Holling 1973), has been increasingly used in the field of
civil engineering [Bruneau et al. 2003; NRC 2011; PPD-21 (White
House 2013)]. The seismic resilience is usually defined as the abil-
ity of structures to recover the full functionality after an earthquake
(Bruneau et al. 2003), which has the benefit of allowing decision-
makers to quantitatively evaluate the socioeconomic impact of
investment and policies for structures and the transportation infra-
structures (Zhang and Miller-Hooks 2015; Sun et al. 2020;
Tabandeh et al. 2019; Gardoni and Murphy 2020). In early research
work, the qualitative descriptions were used in resilience analyses
for buildings and infrastructure systems (Kendra and Wachtendorf
2003; NIST 2016). In order to support more reliable decision-
making in quantitative manners, numerical or analytical resilience
analyses have attracted the attention of many researchers (Bruneau
et al. 2003; Cimellaro et al. 2010; Bocchini and Frangopol 2011;
Li et al. 2012b; Decò et al. 2013; Shafieezadeh and Burden 2014;
Biondini et al. 2015; Franchin and Cavalieri 2015; Alipour and
Shafei 2016; Ellingwood et al. 2016; Chandrasekaran and Banerjee
2016; Gidaris et al. 2017; Guidotti et al. 2016; Pang et al. 2020;
Xiang et al. 2020; among others), in which the resilience index is
1
Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering, China Univ. of
Geosciences, 338 Lumo Rd., Wuhan 430074, China.
2 difference on scale-factors used for selecting ground motions.
Postdoctoral Scholar, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Case Western Reserve Univ., Cleveland, OH 44106; formerly, Postdoctoral
Scholar, College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai Univ.,
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210024, China (corresponding author). ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4168-4328. Email: xwang@case.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 22, 2020; approved on
January 6, 2021; published online on February 25, 2021. Discussion per-
iod open until July 25, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
earthquake event (Reed et al. 2009). In analytical resilience analy-
sis, the development of seismic resilience curves involves three
main steps (Decò et al. 2013; Bocchini et al. 2014; Dong and
Frangopol 2015): (1) develop seismic fragility curves to quantify
seismic damage probabilities and functionality losses of structures
under different damage states; (2) map the structural damage to ap-
propriate recovery patterns to quantify the recovery functions for
the different damage states; and (3) estimate the restoration time
and resilience curves by the recovery functions and the damage
probability within each damage state of the fragility curves. Appa-
rently, the development of seismic fragility curves is the fundamen-
tal step for seismic resilience analyses of structures. In other words,
an efficient and accurate estimate of the fragility curve is the corner-
stone of high-fidelity resilience assessment of structures.
The fragility analysis describes the conditional probability
that the seismic demand of a structure exceeds its capacity at a
given level of intensity measure (IM) for a given damage state.
Three analytical approaches, namely cloud analysis (Cornell et al.
2002), incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) (Vamvatsikos and
Cornell 2002) and multiple strip analysis (MSA) (Singhal and
Kiremidjian 1996), have been widely used for the development
of probabilistic demand models (i.e., relationships between seismic
demands and IMs) towards the derivation of fragility curves. More
specifically, IDA and MSA are practically similar with a noted
IDA uses one set of ground motion records scaled to different
IM levels that are considered. By contrast, MSA adopts multiple
sets of ground motion records for individual IM levels (Jalayer
and Cornell 2009; Miano et al. 2017). Both methods require
enormous nonlinear dynamic analyses at different IM levels.
Nevertheless, MSA is deemed relatively less efficient [i.e., more
efforts on the selection of ground motion records with small scale-
factors (i.e., less than 4)] but more accurate because the excessive

© ASCE 04021049-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 scaling of ground motions in IDA often introduce biases in struc-
tural responses (Davalos and Miranda 2019). Compared with IDA
and MSA, Cloud Analysis (abbreviated as Cloud hereinafter) is
much more efficient, which requires a relatively smaller number
of nonlinear dynamic analyses to develop a simple regression
(e.g., linear) in the logarithmic space of structural responses versus
IM based on a set of ground motions with a wide range of inten-
sities. The quality of the simple linear regression is not only sen-
sitive to the selected set of ground motions, but also influenced by
the collapse data (Jalayer et al. 2017), thus may noticeably reducing
the accuracy of fragility estimates. In light of these features, is it
possible to achieve an accurate estimate based on an efficient
method, even at the cost of a small addition on the computation
effort? Namely, using Cloud to achieve IDA and MSA fragility re-
sults, or using IDA to achieve the MSA fragility result. Rare studies
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
seismic excitations, and the other is an extended pile-shaft-
supported bridge against liquefaction-induced lateral spreading
under transverse seismic excitations.
Proposed Fragility Conversion Method
The proposed fragility conversion method aims at converting the
fragility curve from an original approach to a target approach.
In the conversion process of Cloud to IDA, for example, Cloud
is the original approach and IDA is the target approach. For com-
pleteness, this section begins with a brief description of Cloud,
IDA, and MSA approaches, followed by the fundamental concept
and challenges for fragility conversion, as well as solutions to the
challenges, which finally leads to the proposed method interpreted

have been reported on this topic. Miano et al. (2017) proposed an in a step-by-step manner.
efficient method called Cloud to IDA, which applies the Cloud ap-
proach conditioned on the non-collapsed cases, with additional Description of Could, IDA, and MSA Approaches
computation efforts on a set of scaled intensities, to achieve fragil-
ity results that are close to the IDA results. However, this method Cloud uses the linear regression in the logarithmic scale by least
contains an empirical step for the selection of scaled intensities and squares as shown in Fig. 1(a) to establish the relationship between
associated iterative process of dynamic analyses, which may be engineering demand parameter (EDP) and IM (Cornell et al. 2002)
somewhat difficult-to-operate for inexperienced researchers. There- as follows:
fore, more studies towards a generalized method for fragility con-
version are required. E½ln EDPjIM¼ lnμd ¼ ln a þ b ln IM ð1aÞ
To reduce the above research gap as well as to achieve an effi- vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
cient and high-fidelity resilience assessment, the present paper aims u N
uX
to propose an efficient method to convert fragility curves from σd ¼ t ðln EDPj -lnμd Þ2 =ðN − 2Þ ð1bÞ
Cloud to IDA and MSA, and from IDA to MSA. The proposed j¼1
method is detailed first, followed by the demonstration of the
method through two case studies; one is a two-span reinforced con- where E½ln EDPjIM = expected value for the logarithm of EDP
crete (RC) highway bridge in firm ground under longitudinal given IM, μd = median of EDP given IM, σd = dispersion of EDP

Cloud IDA
Vertical statistics
ln(EDP)

IM

N points

Horizontal statistics
Cloud data n points
IDA curves
Linear regression Horizontal statistics data
Vertical statistics data

(a) ln(IM) (b) DS

EDP

MSA Fragility Fitting

Fragility probability
IM

N points
Fragility point
Fragility fitting
n points
MSA data

DS
(c) EDP (d) IM

Fig. 1. Description of Cloud, IDA, and MSA-based fragility modeling: (a) logarithmically linear regression between IM and EDP in Cloud; (b) IDA
curves for damage probability estimates in two ways; (c) MSA data for damage probability estimates; and (d) fitting-based fragility curve devel-
opment in IDA and MSA.

© ASCE 04021049-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 given IM, EDPj ¼EDP obtained from the j-th ground motion, a
and b = regression coefficients; and N = number of ground mo-
tions. The fragility function is expressed as the damage probability
that EDP exceeds the pre-defined value threshold for each damage
state (DS) conditional on IM, which can be derived based on the
above linear relationship between EDP and IM under the lognor-
mal probability distribution (Cornell et al. 2002; Nielson and
DesRoches 2007; Padgett et al. 2008; Jalayer and Cornell 2009;
Zhang and Huo 2009; Pang et al. 2014; Alipour and Shafei
2016; Miano et al. 2017; Xiang et al. 2020) as follows:
Pf ½EDP ≥ DSjIM; η; β
   
lnðμd Þ − lnðDSÞ lnðIMÞ − lnðηÞ
¼Φ ¼Φ ð2Þ
σd β
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where Φð·Þ = standard normal cumulative distribution function
(CDF); η = median of the fragility function, i.e., lnðηÞ ¼
½lnðDSÞ − lnðaÞ=b; and β = dispersion of the fragility function,
i.e., β ¼ σd =b. Note that Eq. (2) is a two-parameter (η and β) fra-
gility function given IM.
Compared to Cloud, IDA is quite computationally demanding,
as enormous nonlinear dynamic analyses are required at different
IM levels (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002). A set of ground mo-
tions is repeatedly scaled to the considered IM levels (with different
scale factors) in order to produce the IDA curves. Generally, there
are two ways to develop the IDA-based fragility curves (Zareian
et al. 2010). One is to adopt the vertical statistics of IDA curves
[Fig. 1(b)] to estimate the median and logarithmic standard
deviation by assuming that the IM levels at a given damage state,
IM DS , are lognormally distributed. The fragility function can then
be derived
 
lnðIMÞ − lnðηÞ
Pf ½EDP ≥ DSjIM ¼ P½IM DS < IM ¼ Φ ð3Þ
β that no fragility curve can be derived (Fig. 3). Therefore, the first
where η and β here are the median and standard deviation of the IM
levels at the given damage state.
The other way is to directly calculate the damage probability at a
given IM level based on the horizontal statistics of IDA curves
[Fig. 1(b)] through
n
Pf ½EDP ≥ DSjIM ¼ ð4Þ
N number of IM levels required for fragility curve conversions when
where n = the number of cases with EDPs exceeding the threshold
of each damage state for the given IM level. After exploring
all the considered IM levels, a set of discrete fragility points
ðjÞ
fðPf ; IMðjÞ Þ; j ¼ 1∶mg (m is the considered total number of IM
levels) can be fitted by the maximum likelihood method following
Baker (2015) to estimate the parameters η and β for the lognormal
fragility function in Eq. (2), which yields fragility curves as dis-
played in Fig. 1(d).
MSA follows the similar process in IDA, but with the major
difference on the adopted ground motions. In MSA, different sets
of ground motions are separately selected for multiple IM levels to
satisfy the requirement that the scale factors are less than 4 (Jalayer
and Cornell 2009). For this reason, the IM-EDP points (MSA data)
at different IM levels cannot be connected to form those lines in
IDA (i.e., IDA curves). Instead, the MSA data are discretely plotted
at the considered IM levels as shown in Fig. 1(c). The damage prob-
ability at a given IM level can be calculated following Eq. (4) as
well. After obtaining all the fragility points at the considered IM
levels, the same fitting method (Baker 2015) is used to estimate
η and β for deriving the fragility curves [Fig. 1(d)].
© ASCE 04021049-3
J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049
Fundamental Concept and Challenges
Based on the above description of Cloud, IDA, and MSA ap-
proaches, the two fragility parameters, η and β, need to be
determined in order to develop the fragility curve for each damage
state. Accordingly, the fundamental concept of fragility conversion,
as illustrated in Fig. 2, is to estimate η and β using two fragility
points (called converted fragility points) that are calculated using
the target approach, namely (IM 1 ; Pf ½DS=IM 1 ) and (IM 2 ;
Pf ½DS=IM 2 )
lnðIM 1 Þ · Φ-1 fPf ½DSjIM 2 g − lnðIM 2 ÞΦ-1 fPf ½DSjIM 1 g
lnðηÞ¼
Φ-1 fPf ½DSjIM 2 g − Φ-1 fPf ½DSjIM1 g
ð5Þ
lnðIM 2 Þ − lnðIM 1 Þ
β¼ ð6Þ
Φ-1 fPf ½DSjIM 2 g − Φ-1 fPf ½DSjIM 1 g
where IM1 and IM 2 are two IM levels, and Φ−1 f·g = inverse of the
standard normal CDF. Note that the converted fragility points are
expected to be close to, but may not exactly on the target fragility
curve, because the target fragility curve (IDA or MSA) is derived
from the fitting of fragility points at various IM levels.
Apparently, the main challenge in the fragility conversion pro-
cess is the selection of the two IM levels (i.e., IM 1 and IM 2 )
for deriving the two fragility points. The authors’ preliminary
analysis indicates that two unfavorable cases may occur that the
converted fragility curve shows a remarkable difference to the
target counterpart, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Specifically, one unfav-
orable case is that IM 1 and IM 2 are too close, which would
misestimate η and β. The other is that Pf ½DS=IM 1  ¼ 0 or
Pf ½DS=IM 2  ¼ 1, which would lead to Φ-1 fPf ½DSjIM1 g ¼ −∞
or Φ-1 fPf ½DSjIM2 g ¼ þ∞, thereby resulting in β ¼ 0 [Eq. (6)]
specific challenge is how to avoid these two unfavorable cases. On
the other hand, as converting the fragility curve for each damage
state needs two fragility points, fragility curves at multiple damage
states (e.g., four such as DS1 , DS2 , DS3 , and DS4 for slight, mod-
erate, extensive, and complete, respectively) theoretically need IM
levels twice as many as the number of damage states (e.g., eight for
the four damage states), which would leads to huge computational
efforts. Thus, the second specific challenge is how to reduce the
multiple damage states are assessed. The following section pro-
vides solutions to the two specific challenges to achieve efficient
and high-fidelity fragility estimates.
1
Fragility probability, Pf [DS| IM ]
Original FC
Target FC
Converted FPs
Converted FC
FPs: fragility points
FC: fragility curve
0
0 IM1 IM2
Intensity measure (IM)
Fig. 2. Concept of the proposed fragility conversion process.
J. Struct. Eng.
 1
[e.g., DS4 in Fig. 4(d)], no upper IM box is set up and the lower
Original FC

Fragility probability, Pf [DS| IM]

Target FC
IM box is cut at IM end . Note that IM end is normally close to the
maximum IM levels of adopted ground motions for the fragility
analysis. With the abovementioned IM boxes, the first challenge
can be preliminarily solved.
Converted FPs (Case 1) To solve the second challenge (i.e., too many IM levels when
Converted FC (Case 1)
multiple damage states are assessed), overlaps of IM boxes for
Converted FPs (Case 2) each pair of adjacent damage states (i.e., DS1 -DS2 , DS2 -DS3 , and
Zero No Converted FC for Case 2
fragility DS3 -DS4 ) are successively examined to check whether IM levels
prabability Too FPs: fragility points
close can be shared for different damage states. As schematically shown
FC: fragility curve from Figs. 4(e–g), IM levels at middles of the overlapping IM
0
0 IM1 IM1IM2 IM2 boxes (crosses and dashed lines) are taken as candidates [e.g., IMa
Intensity measure (IM) and IM c in Fig. 4(e)]. Also, it is worth noting that for the overlaps
of the last two damage states (i.e., DS3 and DS4 ), IM end is counted
Fig. 3. Challenges of the conceptual fragility conversion process: Two
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

as the candidate in addition to the IM levels at the middles of the

unfavorable cases of IM levels selection. overlaps. After all the IM level candidates are identified through
Figs. 4(e–g), a visual inspection is performed to select IM levels,
as less as possible, that ensure each damage state has two appro-
priate IM levels for deriving the converted fragility points. For this
Solutions to Challenges: Selection of IM Levels
illustrative example, IM a , IM b , IM d , and IM f are finally selected
To solve the first specific challenge (i.e., too close IM levels and [Fig. 4(h)] for saving the computation efforts. It is worth noting that
zero or one fragility probability), two IM boxes are first identified the illustrative example generally covers the possible shapes of
for the original fragility curves with multiple damage states structural fragility curves for different damage states with different
(i.e., DS1 to DS4 ), as shown in Figs. 4(a–d) as an illustrative ex- Pf ½DS=IM end , thereby the IM level selection process should be
ample. For damage states with fragility probabilities across 0 to 1 in also functional for other structural problems though the identified
the examined IM domain [e.g., DS1 and DS2 in Figs. 4(a and b)], IM level candidates and the finally selected ones may be somewhat
IM 1 is selected at the lower half of the fragility curve (i.e., 0.01 ≤ different from this illustrative example.
Pf ½DS=IM1  ≤ 0.5), and IM2 is selected at the upper half Someone may argue that IM boxes for particular pairs of dam-
(i.e., 0.5 < Pf ½DS=IM 1  ≤ 0.99). Note that the recommended age states may not overlap, thereby no IM candidates are identified
lower and upper boundaries of 0.01 and 0.99 are taken to strictly for those IM boxes. This is true. Nevertheless, based on the authors’
avoid fragility probabilities equal to 0 and 1. Also, it is worth noting experience as well as the case studies presented later, the lack of
that other values very close to 0 or 1 can be considered as the boun- those IM candidates does not significantly affect the final selection
daries. As for damage states having fragility probabilities at the of IM levels. For example, in case the upper IM boxes for DS1
end of the examined IM domain (IM end ) less than the recom- and DS2 do not overlap in Fig. 4(e), then IM c is not identified,
mended upper boundary (e.g., 0.99) but larger than 0.5, i.e., 0.5 < which does not affect the final selection of IM levels in Fig. 4(h).
Pf ½DS=IMend  < 0.99 [e.g., DS3 in Fig. 4(c)], the upper IM box Besides, in rare case the lower IM boxes for DS1 and DS2 do not
is cut at IMend . As for damage states with Pf ½DS=IM end  ≤ 0.5 overlap, the IM level at the middle of the lower IM box of DS1 can

DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4

1 1 1 For 0.5<P [DS|IM ]<0.99, 1
f end For Pf [DS|IMend]
Upper IM box the upper IM box is cut at no upper IM box, and
Pf [DS|IM]

Pf [DS|IM]

Pf [DS|IM]

Pf [DS|IM]

0.5 < Pf 0.99 IMend the lower is cut at IMend

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Original
Lower IM box fragility
0.01 Pf 0.5 curve
0 0 0 0
0 IMend 0 IMend 0 IMend 0 IMend
IM IM IM IM
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Overlap of DS1 and DS2 Overlap of DS2 and DS3 Overlap of DS3 and DS4 Final Selection of IM Levels
1 1 1 1
DS1 DS1 DS2 DS1 DS2 DS3 DS1 DS2
DS3
Pf [DS|IM]

Pf [DS|IM]

Pf [DS|IM]

Pf [DS|IM]

DS2
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
DS4 DS4
Middle of DS3
the Overlap
0 0 0 0
IMa IMc IMa IMb IMc IMe IMa IMb IMc IMd IMe IMf IMa IMb IMc IMd IMe IMf
(e) (f) (g) (h)

Fig. 4. Selection of IM levels for deriving converted fragility points: (a–d) IM boxes for individual damage states; (e–g) selection of IM levels from
the overlap of IM boxes of each pair of adjacent damage states; and (h) the final selection of IM levels. [In subfigures (e–g), the thick dashed lines
indicate the identified IM level candidates at this subfigure, while the thin dashed lines indicate the candidates that have been identified in the previous
subfigure(s). In subfigure (h), the thick dashed lines indicate the finally selected IM levels.]

© ASCE 04021049-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 be selected as a candidate, but this special treatment is only applied
to DS1 .
Step-by-Step Process for Fragility Conversion
To provide a clear flow path of the proposed Cloud-IDA-MSA fra-
gility conversion method towards the expedience of implementa-
tion, a step-by-step process is summarized as follows. MATLAB
version 8.3 codes of the proposed method are available online
(Pang and Wang 2021).
Step 1: Derive the original fragility curves at different damage
states using one of the approaches described above (Cloud or
IDA). More specifically, Cloud is adopted as the original approach
in conversions of Cloud to IDA and Cloud to MSA, while IDA
is utilized as the original approach in the conversion of IDA
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to MSA.
Step 2: Identify IM level candidates for each damage state and
select appropriate IM levels, as less as possible, from the candi-
dates. Make sure the finally selected IM levels can provide two
IM levels for each damage state.
Step 3: Perform additional nonlinear dynamic analyses using the
target approaches incorporating ground motion sets at the selected
IM levels to obtain the converted fragility points, i.e., two converted
fragility points, (IM1 ; Pf ½DS=IM 1 ) and (IM 2 ; Pf ½DS=IM 2 ), for
each damage state.
Step 4: Use the two converted fragility points to estimate the
fragility median, η, and dispersion, β, following Eqs. (5) and (6).
Step 5: Derive the converted fragility curve using the estimated
η and β as per Eq. (2).
Case Study 1: A Two-Span Highway Bridge in Firm
Ground
Description of the Bridge Model and Ground Motions
To demonstrate the proposed fragility conversion method, the first
case study is a typical two-span RC highway bridge under longi-
tudinal seismic excitations, as depicted in Fig. 5(a). The deck is
64 m in length and 8 m in width, which is supported by traditional
elastomeric bearings on tops of two abutments and a 6.5 m-height
single circular column with a diameter of 1.52 m. The column sec-
tion has a longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratio of 2.0%
and 0.9%, respectively. The abutments are supported by a row of
three piles, and the single column is supported by a 2 × 2 pile-
group foundation. Each pile has a diameter of 1.0 m and embedded
20 m into firm soil profiles.
A nonlinear three-dimensional finite element model of the RC
highway bridge is built in OpenSEES (version 2.5.0) (McKenna et
al. 2010). The deck is modeled by elastic beam-column elements
since the damage is not expected in deck. The abutment is modeled
by zero-length elements with coupled constitutive models
(Shamsabadi et al. 2010) to simulate the soil-abutment passive
and active actions [Fig. 5(b)]. The deck-abutment pounding spring
that follows Muthukumar and DesRoches (2006) is modeled in par-
allel with the elastomeric bearing represented by a bilinear constit-
utive model (Zhang and Huo 2009), as seen in Fig. 5(c). The
column is modeled by displacement-based beam-column elements
discrete into 0.5 m, each with five integration points, which has
been verified reliable to capture the inelastic seismic behavior of
RC columns (Wang et al. 2018). The column section is divided into
400 fibers, in which the rebars are simulated by the Steel01 material
model. The concrete cover is modeled by the Concrete01 material
model, while the concrete core is modeled by the Concrete02
material model [Fig. 5(d)]. Moreover, the foundation flexibility
© ASCE 04021049-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049
is represented by one rotational, one vertical, and two horizontal
springs at the center of the pile-cap.
The considered EDP is the column-section curvature ductility
that can reasonably represent seismic damage to the bridge col-
umn. Following the physical damage states of columns defined in
Mangalathu et al. (2019), four threshold limits of the curvature
ductility, namely 1.0, 2.64, 4.82, and 12.5, are calculated from
column-section moment-curvature analyses to represent the four
damage states of slight, moderate, extensive and complete, respec-
tively. The considered IM for this case study is the spectral accel-
eration at fundamental period (T 1 ¼ 0.5 s for this case study),
Sa ðT 1 Þ, as this IM has been approved an optimal IM for probabilistic
seismic demand modeling of typical short-to-medium span highway
bridges (Feng et al. 2018).
A suite of 80 unscaled non-pulse-like ground motions from
Baker et al. (2011), which is a standardized suite for seismic analy-
ses of infrastructure facilities at firm soil ground of California, is
adopted for Cloud and IDA. More specifically, for Cloud, the
adopted 80 unscaled non-pulse-like ground accelerations are scaled
by a scale-factor of 2 to obtain additional 80 ones to achieve total
160 Cloud data under a wide range of seismic intensities. For IDA,
16 intensity levels of Sa ðT 1 Þ are considered ranging from 0.1g to
3.0g, each using the 80 records scaled into the considered intensity
level (scale-factors as large as 40, leading to a total of 1,280
dynamic analyses). As for MSA, to avoid the excessive scaling,
additional 16 suites of scaled ground motions [80 in each suite
with scale-factors less than four (Davalos and Miranda 2019)]
are selected from PEER NGA-West2 Strong Motion Database
(Ancheta et al. 2014) for the considered 16 intensity levels of
Sa ðT 1 Þ, following these conditions: (1) the moment magnitude
(M w ) varies from 5.0 to 8.0, (2) the closest distance to ruptured-
area (RRUP ) is larger than 10 km, (3) the average shear-wave veloc-
ity in the top 30 m (V s30 ) falls in between 180 and 760 m=s that
generally follow the bridge site condition, and (4) scale-factors for
individual ground motions are smaller than 4.0, and the average
scale-factor is smaller than 2.0.
Fragility Conversion
This section presents the fragility conversion results following
the flow path of the proposed fragility conversion method. Fig. 6
shows the seismic responses in terms of curvature ductility for
Cloud, IDA and MSA. From Fig. 6(a), the 1,280 IDA curves gen-
erally cover the 160 cloud data, as expected. However, the median
regression line in Cloud is somewhat different from the median
IDA curve, especially at larger responses. Fig. 6(b) indicatively de-
picts MSA collapse and non-collapse data used for calculating the
fragility probability at the complete damage state.
Based on the results from Fig. 6, fragility curves can be derived
by Cloud, IDA and MSA in terms of four damage states. Among
them, the fragility curve by Cloud is the original fragility curve in
conversions of Cloud to IDA and Cloud to MSA, while that by IDA
is the original fragility curve in the conversion of IDA to MSA.
Based on these original fragility curves, IM level candidates are
identified following the proposed method. Fig. 7 shows the IM
level candidates and the finally selected ones. For this case study,
four IM levels [e.g., Sa ðT 1 Þ ¼ 0.5g, 1.05g, 2.08 g, and 3.0g for
Cloud in Fig. 7(a)] are finally selected to derive the two converted
fragility points for each damage state using the target approaches
(i.e., IDA in the conversion of Cloud to IDA, and MSA in conver-
sions of Cloud to MSA, and IDA to MSA).
As long as the converted fragility points are derived, fragility
median and dispersion parameters (η and β) can be obtained
through Eqs. (5) and (6). Accordingly, the converted fragility
J. Struct. Eng.
 32 m 32 m
Rigid
element Elastic beam-column element

Bearing spring
Elastomeric
6.5 m rubber
Displacement-based bearing
Abutment beam-column
pile spring element
Pounding spring
Abutment
soil spring 1.5 m
Large 8m
stiffness 0.2 m
vertical
spring 0.5 m 1.8 m
Six elastic springs
for pile-group 0.5 m
Abutment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

foundation 4m
pile spring
Deck Section Configuration
(a)

Force Force Force Force

15 2.5 0 (cm) 2.75 2.5 0 (cm)
Deformation 1.1 MN/m Deformation
80 kN Gap
10.67 MN/m 233 MN/m
0 Deformation
49 MN/m 1.2 3.8 (cm) 0 Deformation
80 MN/m
2.9 MN 9 MN/m

Abutment Soil Spring Model Abutment Pile Spring Model Bearing Spring Model Pounding Spring Model

(b) (c)

32 mm diameter 16 mm diameter Stress Stress Stress

rebar strriups @150 mm 0.01
435 MPa
1.49 MPa
200 GPa
0.05 m 0.1 MPa
dia .52 m

0.016 0.0043 0.006 0.002

ter

thickness
me

cover Strain Strain Strain

1

29.5 MPa
31.2 MPa
38.9 MPa
Column Fiber Section Rebar Model Concrete Core Model Concrete Cover Model

(d)

Fig. 5. Description of the bridge model for Case Study 1: (a) schematic overview; (b) abutment constitutive models; (c) elastomeric rubber bearing
and deck-abutment pounding spring constitutive models; and (d) column fiber section illustration and materials (rebar and concrete) constitutive
models.

3
3

2 2
Sa (T1) (g)
Sa (T1) (g)

1 IDA curves 1
Median IDA curves
Cloud data MSA no-collapse data
Median regression line MSA collapse data
in Cloud analysis
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 12.5 15 20
(a) Curvature ductility (b) Curvature ductility

Fig. 6. Seismic responses of the bridge for Case Study 1 in terms of curvature ductility: (a) cloud data and IDA curves; and (b) MSA data.

© ASCE 04021049-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 1 1
DS1 DS1
DS2 DS2
0.8 0.8
DS3
DS3
0.6 0.6
Pf [DS|IM]

Pf [DS|IM]

IMa = 0.54g

IMb = 0.87g

IMf = 3.00g
IMd = 1.50g
IMc = 1.09g

IMe = 1.99g
IMa = 0.50g

IMb = 1.05g

IMd = 2.08g

IMf = 3.00g
IMc = 1.25g

IMe = 2.58g
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
DS4
DS4
0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
(a) Sa (T1) (g) (b) Sa (T1) (g)

Fig. 7. Identified IM level candidates (dashed lines) and finally selected IM levels (thick dashed lines) for Case Study 1 in terms of original fragility
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

curves: (a) cloud; and (b) IDA.

Fragility point Cloud IDA MSA Converted fragility

Cloud to IDA Cloud to MSA IDA to MSA

1

0.8 DS1 DS1 DS1

DS2 DS2 DS2
Pf [DS|IM]

0.6
DS3 DS3 DS3
0.4

0.2 DS4 DS4

DS4
0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Sa (T1) (g) Sa (T1) (g) Sa (T1) (g)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Fragility conversion results of Case Study 1: (a) cloud to IDA; (b) cloud to MSA; and (c) IDA to MSA.

Table 1. p-values from the ANOVA of fragility curves between the original, converted and the target approaches for Case Study 1
Cloud to IDA Cloud to MSA IDA to MSA
Damage state Cloud Converted Cloud Converted IDA Converted
Slight 0.62 0.96 0.23 0.94 0.49 0.92
Moderate 0.08 0.62 0.99 0.89 0.08 0.63
Extensive 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.67 0.03 0.79
Complete 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.17
Note: Bold-faced values represent those less than 0.05, indicating statistically significant differences from the target approaches, while those larger than 0.05
indicates there are no significant differences.

curves can be derived, and compared with the target fragility curves evident that they agree very well with the target ones, indicating
to validate the proposed fragility conversion method. Fig. 8 shows that the proposed method can be employed to efficiently convert
fragility conversion results from Cloud to IDA, from Cloud to the fragility curves from one approach to another. An analysis
MSA, and from IDA to MSA. As expected, Cloud, IDA and MSA of variance (ANOVA) (Anscombe 1948) is also conducted to ex-
yield somewhat different estimates of fragility curves. The differ- amine whether there has statistical significance for the fragility
ence between IDA and Cloud fragility curves come from the curves derived from different methods.
abovementioned difference in median regression lines [Fig. 6(a)]. Table 1 presents the p-values from the ANOVA that quantify
Besides, the difference between IDA and MSA fragility curves is differences of the original and converted fragility curves with re-
attributed to the excessive scaling of ground motions used in IDA, spect to the target ones across different damage states. A commonly
which is known as the source for response biases in IDA (Davalos used limit significance of 5% is adopted in this study. Accordingly,
and Miranda 2019). As for the converted fragility curves, it is a p-value larger than 0.05 indicates the compared two fragility

© ASCE 04021049-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 curves have no statistical differences, whereas a p-value less than Fig. 9(a), an idle time, δ i , is often required to prepare the recovery
0.05 indicates a significant difference. It can be seen that the con- process that begins at time ti . The recovery process takes a period
verted fragility curves have no statistical differences with the target of δ r to reach a target functionality, Qt , at the end of the process at
fragility curves since the p-values are apparently larger than 0.05, time tr . For convenience, this study assumes a full functionality for
while the original fragility curves show significant differences par- Qt , i.e., Qt ¼ 1. The evolution of the bridge functionality under a
ticularly at high damage states such as extensive and complete. given post-event damage state, QðkÞ ðtÞ, can be represented by a
These results again validate the proposed fragility conversion general form (Bocchini and Frangopol 2012) as below:
method. This method provides a path that using the relatively effi-  
cient original approaches plus limited additional efforts of dynamic t − t0 − δ i
QðkÞ ðtÞ ¼ Qr þ Hðt − t0 − δ i Þ · Rf · ðQt − Qr Þ
analyses can achieve accurate fragility estimates. δr
ð8Þ
Resilience Assessment where k is the number of damage states, k ¼ 1, 2; 3, and 4 for
To demonstrate the major motivation of the proposed fragility con- slight, moderate, extensive, and complete, respectively; Rf ð·Þ =
version method for efficient and high-fidelity resilience assessment, recovery function; and Hð·Þ = Heaviside step function. Since
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the RC highway bridge model is further assessed to estimate its recovery processes are dependent on post-event damage states
seismic resilience. The seismic resilience is defined as the seismic of structures, different recovery functions with different recovery
capacity of the structural system to recover its target functionality paces should be defined for different damage states. As can be seen
after the occurrence of a seismic event (Bruneau et al. 2003), as in Fig. 9(b), this study adopts the exponential and sinusoidal
schematically shown in Fig. 9(a). functions-based fast-, average-, and slow-pace recovery functions
The resilience is often quantified by the post-event recovery proposed by Biondini et al. (2015):
functionality QðtÞ over a time range, i.e., the shaded area in
ðFÞ
Fig. 9(a): Fast-pace∶ Rf ðtÞ ¼ 1 − e−wt ; negative-exponential ð9aÞ
Z t
1 h
R¼ QðtÞ dt ð7Þ ðRÞ 1 − cosðπtÞ
th − t0 t 0 Average-pace∶ Rf ðtÞ ¼ ; sinusoidal ð9bÞ
2
where t0 = the occurrence time of an earthquake event; and th = the ðSÞ
investigated time point after the recovery process. Again from low-pace∶ Rf ðtÞ ¼ e−wð1−tÞ ; positive-exponential ð9cÞ

Resilience Curve Recovery Functions Fragility Curves

1 Event
1 1 DS1
Fragility probability, Pf
occurs (0)
Pf
Functionality, Q (t)

Functionality, Q (t)

Qt Qt DS2
Resilience Negative
curve exponential
(fast recovery)
Pf(1) DS3
R
Sinusoidal (2)
(average recovery) Pf
DS4
Qr Positive (3)
exponential Pf
i r (slow recovery) (4)
Pf
0 0t 0
t0 ti tr th i tr 0 a given IM level
(a) Time, t (b) Time, t (c) Intensity measure, IM

Fig. 9. Illustration of the definition of resilience: (a) general recovery process after an event occurs; (b) recovery functions; and (c) fragility curves
used for deriving the resilience curve.

Table 2. Random variables for the recovery functions at different damage states
Variable distribution Damage state
Key variables in resilience curve Distribution type Distribution parameters No damage Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Residual functionality, Qr Triangular Min 1 0.5 0 0 0
Mode 1 0.75 0.25 0.1 0
Max 1 1 0.5 0.2 0
Idle time, δi (month) Uniform Min — 1 1 1 1
Max — 2 2 2 2
Recovery duration, δr (month) Triangular Min — 0.333 0.667 2 2.5
Mode — 2.667 3.667 5.167 6.25
Max — 5 6.667 8.333 10
Target functionality, Qt Triangular Min — 1 1 1 1
Mode — 1 1 1 1
Max — 1 1 1 1
Source: Data from Decò et al. (2013).

© ASCE 04021049-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 Cloud to IDA Cloud to MSA IDA to MSA
1
Cloud Cloud IDA
0.9 IDA MSA MSA
Converted Converted Converted

Resilience, R
(+9.8%) (+3.7%) (-1.1%)
0.8
(+1.7%) (-0.9%) (-5.6%)

10%-50 years

10%-50 years

10%-50 years
5%-50 years

5%-50 years

5%-50 years
2%-50 years

2%-50 years

2%-50 years
0.7

0.6

0.5
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Sa(T1) (g) Sa(T1) (g) Sa (T1) (g)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. Seismic resilience results of Case Study 1 estimated by Cloud, IDA, MSA and the proposed conversion method at various IM levels:
(a) Cloud to IDA; (b) Cloud to MSA; and (c) IDA to MSA (percentages in parentheses indicate errors of original and converted fragility curves
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with respective to the target fragility curves).

Cloud to IDA Cloud to MSA IDA to MSA

1
Expected functionality

0.8

0.6

0.4 Cloud
Cloud IDA
0.2 IDA MSA MSA
Converted Converted Converted
0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Time from recovery phase (days) Time from recovery phase (days) Time from recovery phase (days)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 11. Functionality profile results of Case Study 1 predicted by Cloud, IDA, MSA and the proposed conversion method at the seismic hazard level
of 2%-50 years: (a) Cloud to IDA; (b) Cloud to MSA; and (c) IDA to MSA.

where w = shape parameter for the exponential functions. For con-

ðFÞ Deformed
venience, w ¼ 10 is adopted in this study and the Rf is assigned bridge
ðAÞ Elastomeric
to the slight damage state, Rf is assigned to the moderate damage rubber bearing
ðSÞ Ground slope
state, and Rf is assigned to both the extensive and complete D = 2.14 m 8m
Lateral = 4.15°
damage states. To estimate the resilience curve of a structure spreading
under a given IM level, QðtjIMÞ, structural damage probabilities
within different damage states are taken from the fragility curves Clay crust
River 5m Su = 75 kPa
[Fig. 9(c)] and multiplied by the resilience curves for individual
damage states, and finally sum them up (Decò et al. 2013):
Liquefiable
ð0Þ
X
4
ðkÞ
4m loose sand
QðtjIMÞ ¼ Pf ðIMÞ · 1 þ Pf ðIMÞ · QðkÞ ðtÞ Deformed Dr = 34%
soil profile
k¼1

ð0Þ
where Pf ðIMÞ is the probability of intact state (no damage) after Dense sand
21 m Dr = 75%
the event, which is multiplied by unity (1) that represents a full
ðkÞ
functionality; Pf ðIMÞ is the probability of damage state k. Since
the parameters in Eq. (8), are often uncertain in engineering prac-
tices, triangular and uniform distributions with the properties pro- Fig. 12. Schematic illustration of the assessed soil-bridge system in
posed by Decò et al. (2013) for individual damage states are Case Study 2.
adopted, as listed in Table 2. Based on these values, Monte Carlo
simulations with 10,000 trials are performed to derive the expected
(mean) functionality profiles.
Fig. 10 represents the seismic resilience results across IM 1.53g, respectively) are estimated through USGS unified hazard
levels. Three seismic hazard levels, namely 10%-50 years, 5%- tool with the updated edition of Conterminous US (Petersen
50 years, and 2%-50 years, are highlighted in Fig. 10. Note that et al. 2015). Differences of the original and proposed conversion
the Sa ðT 1 Þ values for the three hazard levels (0.75g, 1.05g, and method results from the target approach results at the highlighted

© ASCE 04021049-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 three hazard levels are also shown in Fig. 10. It can be found that respectively. The deck is modeled by a lumped mass that repre-
the proposed fragility conversion method has an error within 1.5% sents an axial load ratio of 8.6%. Traditional elastomeric rubber
when compared to the target method for seismic resilience esti- bearings are used to link the deck and the extended pile-shaft.
mates, indicating that the proposed conversion method is efficient The extended pile-shaft is embedded into typical liquefaction-
to provide high-fidelity resilience estimates. Fig. 11 illustrates an susceptible soil profiles with a gently sloping angle, θ ¼ 4.15°,
example of functionality profiles predicted by Cloud, IDA, MSA i.e., a 5 m-thickness clay crust with an undrained shear strength,
and the proposed conversion method under the seismic hazard level Su ¼ 72 kPa overlying a 4 m-thickness loose sand layer with a rel-
of 2%-50 years [i.e., Sa ðT 1 Þ ¼ 1.53g]. It can be seen that the pro- ative density, Dr ¼ 34% on top of a 21 m-thickness dense sand
posed method can yield almost the same results with the target layer with Dr ¼ 75%.
approaches. A two-dimensional coupled soil-bridge model is modeled in
OpenSEES version 2.5.0 (McKenna et al. 2010). More specifically,
displacement-based nonlinear beam-column elements, each with a
Case Study 2: An Extended Pile-Shaft-Supported length of 0.5 m, are adopted to represent the extended pile-shaft us-
Bridge in Liquefied and Laterally Spreading Ground ing fiber sections. The steel fibers are modeled using the Steel02
material in OpenSEES library (Mazzoni et al. 2006), while the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

concrete fibers are modeled using the Concrete04 material. The

Description of the Bridge Model and Ground Motions
elastomeric rubber bearing is modeled following Zhang and Huo
To further demonstrate the proposed fragility conversion method (2009). As for the soil modeling, the pressure-dependent-multi-
and associated resilience assessment, this study performs another yield material-based QuadUP elements (each with a thickness of
case study of an extended pile-shaft-supported bridge subjected 0.5 m), which are capable of simulating the liquefaction-related
to liquefaction and laterally spreading hazard under transverse pore pressure variation behavior, are adopted to model the loose
seismic excitations, as schematically shown in Fig. 12. In addition and dense sand layers, whereas the clay crust is represented by
to the differences of the bridges themselves and the seismic exci- the pressure-independent-multi-yield material. Horizontal soil-pile
tation directions (i.e., longitudinal versus transverse), the following interactions are modeled using zero-length p-y spring elements with
specific differences involve in the two case studies: (1) the exam- PyLiq1 and PySimple1 materials for the sand and clay layers, re-
ined EDPs, (2) the adopted IMs and the considered boundary val- spectively. Vertically frictional soil-pile interactions are simulated
ues (i.e., IM end ), and (3) the selected ground motion records. by zero-length t-z spring elements with TzLiq1 and TzSimple1 ma-
Details of these differences are narrated below. terials for the sand and clay layers, respectively. Note that the
Such soil-bridge systems are commonly multi-span girder PyLiq1 and TzLiq1 materials can account for the variations of soil
bridges located at coastal regions or along rivers in urban areas. pore pressures under earthquakes. As for the pile-tip vertical resis-
The transverse direction of the bridge is susceptible to liquefaction- tance, the zero-length q-z spring element with the QzSimple1
induced lateral spreading under strong earthquakes. In addition, material is utilized. For conciseness, details of the constitutive model
such bridges normally have multiple bents with approximately uni- parameters and associated validation refer to the previous works of
form strength and stiffness, each supported by an extended pile- the authors (Wang et al. 2017, 2019b, c).
shaft that is deemed a desired foundation type against lateral Different from the EDP of curvature ductility in Case Study 1,
spreading hazard (Khosravifar et al. 2014a). The transverse re- the examined EDP in Case Study 2 is the column maximum drift
sponses of the bridges can be represented by a single bent in light ratio, which has been reported as an optimal EDP that well repre-
of the fairly uniform distribution of strength and stiffness among sents the post-earthquake damage to bridges under lateral spreading
bents. Such a simplified modeling process has been utilized by sev- hazard (Wang et al. 2019a). Four threshold limits of the maximum
eral other researchers (e.g., Hutchinson et al. 2004; Khosravifar drift ratio, namely 1.45%, 2.6%, 4.3%, and 6.9%, are selected to
et al. 2014b). represent the four damage states of slight, moderate, extensive and
Based on engineering practice experiences (Aviram et al. 2008), complete (Li et al. 2012a). The adopted IM for the soil-bridge
the studied bridge is assumed to has an 8 m-height single circular model in the second case study is the spectral acceleration at 2.0 s,
RC extended pile-shaft with a diameter of 2.14 m. The RC section denoted as Sa−20 , because this IM has been approved by the authors
is reinforced by rebars with yielding strengths of 400 MPa towards (Wang et al. 2018) the optimal IM for probabilistic seismic demand
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios of 2% and 1%, modeling of the examined soil-bridge model.

1 1
DS1 DS1
DS2
0.8 DS2 0.8 DS3
DS3
DS4
Pf [DS|IM]
Pf [DS|IM]

0.6 0.6
DS4
IMe = 0.33g
IMd = 0.16g
IM c = 0.10g

IM f = 0.40g
IM a = 0.03g
IM b = 0.05g

IMb = 0.04g
IMc = 0.09g

IMe= 0.21g
IMa = 0.03g

IM f = 0.40g

0.4 0.4
IMd = 0.1g

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(a) Sa-20 (g) (b) Sa-20 (g)

Fig. 13. Identified IM level candidates (dashed lines) and finally selected IM levels (thick dashed lines) for Case Study 2 in terms of original fragility
curves: (a) Cloud; and (b) IDA.

© ASCE 04021049-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 As the considered 30 m-thickness soil profile in Case Study 2 is
deemed on the top of bedrock, a basic suite of 80 unscaled non-
pulse like ground motions selected by Baker et al. (2015) as a
standardized records for seismic analyses of infrastructure facilities
at rock site of California. These 80 unscaled ground motions are
adopted for the Cloud approach. For IDA, the basic suite of 80
ground motions is scaled to the considered 14 IM levels of Sa−20
ranging from 0.01g to 0.4g. As for MSA, 14 suites of ground mo-
tions (each with 80 records) are selected from PEER NGA-West2
Strong Motion Database (Ancheta et al. 2014) according to the fol-
lowing conditions: (1) M w varies from 5.0 to 8.0, (2) RRUP is larger
than 10 km, (3) V s30 falls in 360 to 1,500 m=s, and (4) the scale
factors for individual ground motions are smaller than 4.0 and the
average scale-factor is smaller than 2.0.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
demonstrates that the proposed method is effective to convert the
fragility curves at different damage states.
Resilience Assessment
Fig. 15 presents the Cloud-, IDA-, MSA-, and the proposed con-
version method-estimated seismic resilience, R, across IM levels.
Three seismic hazard levels are highlighted as well, i.e., 10%-
50 years, 5%-50 years and 2%-50 years with corresponding
Sa−20 of 0.18g, 0.25g, and 0.37g, respectively (Petersen et al.
2015). Maximum difference from the original, conversion to target
method at these three hazard levels are also illustrated in the paren-
theses in Fig. 15. It is observed that the proposed conversion method
can produce high-fidelity resilience estimates across the examined
IM levels, which have errors within 3.0% to the target approaches,

while the original approaches may yield errors as large as nearly

Fragility Conversion
Fig. 13 illustrates the identified IM levels candidates and the finally
selected ones for the calculation of converted fragility points for
Case study 2. Accordingly, the converted fragility curves from
Cloud to IDA, from Cloud to MSA, and from IDA to MSA can
be derived as shown in Fig. 14. Again, it is evident that the con-
verted fragility curves successfully reach the agreement with the
target fragility curves, indicating that the proposed method can
be effective to convert the fragility curves from one approach to
another. The ANOVA with the limit significance of 5% is also
adopted to test the statistical significance for the original and con-
verted fragility curves with respect to the target fragility curve, as
listed in Table 3. It can be seen that the original fragility curves
show significant differences with the target ones, whereas the con-
verted fragility curves have no significantly statistical differences
from the target counterparts. This quantitative evaluation further
10%. Fig. 16 illustrates an example of functionality profiles gener-
ated by Cloud, IDA, MSA and the proposed conversion methods
under the seismic hazard level of 10%-50 years (Sa−20 of 0.18g). It
is clear that the proposed conversion method can yield almost the
same results of functionality profiles as the target approaches.
Conclusions
The present paper proposes an efficient method for the conversion
of fragility curves from a less accurate but more efficient approach
(e.g., Cloud) to a more accurate one (e.g., IDA or MSA), thus pro-
viding a path forward efficient and highly-fidelity assessment of
seismic resilience. The core of this method is to leverage two con-
verted fragility points to obtain the fragility median and dispersion
parameters that can derive the converted fragility curves coinciding
very well with the target fragility curves. Codes of this method are

Fragility point Cloud IDA MSA Converted fragility

Cloud to IDA Cloud to MSA IDA to MSA

1
DS1 DS1 DS1
0.8 DS2 DS2 DS2
DS3
Pf [DS|IM]

0.6 DS3 DS3

0.4 DS4 DS4

DS4
0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Sa-20 (g) Sa-20 (g) Sa-20 (g)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 14. Fragility conversion results of Case Study 2: (a) Cloud to IDA; (b) Cloud to MSA; and (c) IDA to MSA.

Table 3. p-values from the ANOVA of fragility curves between the original, converted and the target approaches for Case Study 2
Cloud to IDA Cloud to MSA IDA to MSA
Damage state Cloud Conversion Cloud Conversion IDA Conversion
Slight 0.99 0.88 0.03 0.85 0.04 0.33
Moderate 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.92 0.72 0.47
Extensive 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.88 0.13
Complete 0.00 0.71 0.29 0.06 0.00 0.06
Note: Bold-faced values represent those less than 0.05, indicating statistically significant differences from the target approaches, while those larger than 0.05
indicates there are no significant differences.

© ASCE 04021049-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 Cloud to IDA Cloud to MSA IDA to MSA
1

10%-50 years

10%-50 years

10%-50 years
5%-50 years

2%-50 years

5%-50 years

2%-50 years

5%-50 years

2%-50 years
0.9

Resilience, R
0.8
(+8.2%) (+5.7%)
0.7
(-0.9%) (-2.7%) (-1.4%)
Cloud Cloud IDA
0.6 IDA MSA MSA (-5.4%)
Converted Converted Converted
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Sa-20 (g) Sa-20 (g) Sa-20 (g)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 15. Seismic resilience results of Case Study 2 estimated by Cloud, IDA, MSA and the proposed conversion method at various IM levels:
(a) Cloud to IDA; (b) Cloud to MSA; and (c) IDA to MSA (percentages in parentheses indicate errors of original and converted fragility curves
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with respective to the target fragility curves).

Cloud to IDA Cloud to MSA IDA to MSA

1
Expected functionality

0.8

0.6

0.4 Cloud IDA

Cloud
0.2 IDA MSA MSA
Converted Converted Converted
0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Time from recovery phase (days) Time from recovery phase (days) Time from recovery phase (days)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 16. Functionality profile results of Case Study 2 predicted by Cloud, IDA, MSA and the proposed conversion method at the seismic hazard level
of 10%-50 years: (a) Cloud to IDA; (b) Cloud to MSA; and (c) IDA to MSA.

available online (Pang and Wang 2021) for easy implementation. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 2018M640448
The proposed method and associated efficient and high-fidelity and 2019T120380). The authors greatly acknowledge the construc-
resilience assessment are demonstrated through two case studies tive comments given by the anonymous reviewers.
of bridge structures; one is a two-span highway bridge in firm
ground under longitudinal seismic excitations, and the other is
an extended pile-shaft-supported highway bridge in liquefaction- References
induced laterally spreading ground under transverse seismic
excitations. Alipour, A., and B. Shafei. 2016. “Seismic resilience of transportation
The analysis results verify the effectiveness of the proposed networks with deteriorating components.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (8):
method for Cloud-IDA-MSA fragility conversion. This method C4015015 . https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001399.
helps to facilitate an efficient and high-fidelity resilience assess- Ancheta, T. D., et al. 2014. “NGA-West2 database.” Earthquake Spectra
30 (3): 989–1005. https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS197M.
ment of structures under earthquakes. Besides, although the con-
Anscombe, F. J. 1948. “The validity of comparative experiments.” J. R.
sidered two case studies are both bridges, the proposed fragility Stat. Soc. Ser. A 111 (3): 181–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/2984159.
conversion method should work as well for other types of structures Aviram, A., K. Mackie, and B. Stojadinović. 2008. Guidelines of nonlinear
and infrastructure systems such as buildings, tunnels, dams, storage analysis of bridge structures in California. PEER Rep. Berkeley, CA:
tanks, coastal defenses, etc. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Baker, J. W. 2015. “Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dy-
namic structural analysis.” Earthquake Spectra 31 (1): 579–599. https://
doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M.
Data Availability Statement
Baker, J. W., T. Lin, S. K. Shahi, and N. Jayaram. 2011. New ground
motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER trans-
Some or all data, models, and codes that support the findings of the
portation research program. PEER Rep. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earth-
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable quake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California.
request. Biondini, F., E. Camnasio, and A. Titi. 2015. “Seismic resilience of con-
crete structures under corrosion.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44 (14):
2445–2466. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2591.
Acknowledgments Bocchini, P., and D. M. Frangopol. 2011. “A probabilistic computational
framework for bridge network optimal maintenance scheduling.” Reli-
This research was partially supported by National Natural Science ability Eng. Syst. Saf. 96 (2): 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51708527 and 52008155) and .2010.09.001.

© ASCE 04021049-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049

 Bocchini, P., and D. M. Frangopol. 2012. “Restoration of bridge networks
after an earthquake: Multicriteria intervention optimization.” Earth-
quake Spectra 28 (2): 427–455. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000019.
Bocchini, P., D. M. Frangopol, T. Ummenhofer, and T. Zinke. 2014. “Resil-
ience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Toward a unified ap-
proach.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 20 (2): 04014004 . https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177.
Bruneau, M., S. E. Chang, R. T. Eguchi, G. C. Lee, T. D. O’Rourke, A. M.
Reinhorn, M. Shinozuka, K. Tierney, W. A. Wallace, and D. von
Winterfeldt. 2003. “A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance
the seismic resilience of communities.” Earthquake Spectra 19 (4):
733–752. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497.
Chandrasekaran, S., and S. Banerjee. 2016. “Retrofit optimization for resil-
ience enhancement of bridges under multihazard scenario.” J. Struct.
Eng. 142 (8): C4015012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943
-541X.0001396.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cimellaro, G. P., A. M. Reinhorn, and M. Bruneau. 2010. “Seismic resil-
ience of a hospital system.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 6 (1–2): 127–144.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470802663847.
Cornell, C. A., F. Jalayer, R. O. Hamburger, and D. A. Foutch. 2002. “Prob-
abilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency
steel moment frame guidelines.” J. Struct. Eng. 128 (4): 526–533.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526).
Davalos, H., and E. Miranda. 2019. “Evaluation of the scaling factor bias
influence on the probability of collapse using Sa ðT 1 Þ as the intensity
measure.” Earthquake Spectra 35 (2): 679–702. https://doi.org/10
.1193/011018EQS007M.
Decò, A., P. Bocchini, and D. M. Frangopol. 2013. “A probabilistic
approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (10): 1469–1487. https://doi.org/10.1002
/eqe.2282.
Dong, Y., and D. M. Frangopol. 2015. “Risk and resilience assessment of
bridges under mainshock and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties.”
Eng. Struct. 83 (Jan): 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014
.10.050.
Ellingwood, B. R., H. Cutler, P. Gardoni, W. G. Peacock, J. W. Van De
Lindt, and N. Wang. 2016. “The centerville virtual community: A fully
integrated decision model of interacting physical and social infrastruc-
ture systems.” Sustainable Resilient Infrastruct. 1 (3–4): 95–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2016.1255000.
Feng, R., X. Wang, W. Yuan, and J. Yu. 2018. “Impact of seismic excitation
direction on the fragility analysis of horizontally curved concrete
bridges.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 16 (10): 4705–4733. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10518-018-0400-2.
Franchin, P., and F. Cavalieri. 2015. “Probabilistic assessment of civil infra-
structure resilience to earthquakes.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct.
Eng. 30 (7): 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12092.
Gardoni, P., and C. Murphy. 2020. “Society-based design: Promoting soci-
etal well-being by designing sustainable and resilient infrastructure.”
Sustainable Resilient Infrastruct. 5 (1–2): 4–19. https://doi.org/10
.1080/23789689.2018.1448667.
Gidaris, I., J. E. Padgett, A. R. Barbosa, S. Chen, D. Cox, B. Webb, and A.
Cerato. 2017. “Multiple-hazard fragility and restoration models of high-
way bridges for regional risk and resilience assessment in the United
States: State-of-the-art review.” J. Struct. Eng. 143 (3): 04016188.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001672.
Guidotti, R., H. Chmielewski, V. Unnikrishnan, P. Gardoni, T. McAllister,
and J. Van De Lindt. 2016. “Modeling the resilience of critical infra-
structure: The role of network dependencies.” Sustainable Resilient
Infrastruct. 1 (3–4): 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2016
.1254999.
Holling, C. S. 1973. “Resilience and stability of ecological systems.” Ann.
Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04
.110173.000245.
Hutchinson, T. C., Y. H. Chai, R. W. Boulanger, and I. M. Idriss. 2004.
“Inelastic seismic response of extended pile-shaft-supported bridge
structures.” Earthquake Spectra 20 (4): 1057–1080. https://doi.org/10
.1193/1.1811614.
Jalayer, F., and C. A. Cornell. 2009. “Alternative nonlinear demand
estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments.”
© ASCE 04021049-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 38 (8): 951–972. https://doi.org/10
.1002/eqe.876.
Jalayer, F., H. Ebrahimian, A. Miano, G. Manfredi, and H. Sezen. 2017.
“Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 46 (15): 2639–2663. https://doi.org/10
.1002/eqe.2922.
Kendra, J. M., and T. Wachtendorf. 2003. “Elements of resilience after the
world trade center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s emergency
operations centre.” Disasters 27 (1): 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1111
/1467-7717.00218.
Khosravifar, A., R. W. Boulanger, and S. K. Kunnath. 2014a. “Design of
extended pile shafts for the effects of liquefaction.” Earthquake Spectra
30 (4): 1775–1799. https://doi.org/10.1193/032512EQS107M.
Khosravifar, A., R. W. Boulanger, and S. K. Kunnath. 2014b. “Effects
of liquefaction on inelastic demands on extended pile shafts.” Earth-
quake Spectra 30 (4): 1749–1773. https://doi.org/10.1193/032412
EQS105M.
Li, J., B. F. Spencer, and A. S. Elnashai. 2012a. “Bayesian updating
of fragility functions using hybrid simulation.” J. Struct. Eng.
139 (7): 1160–1171. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.00
00685.
Li, Y., A. Ahuja, and J. E. Padgett. 2012b. “Review of methods to
assess, design for, and mitigate multiple hazards.” J. Perform. Constr.
Facil. 26 (1): 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509
.0000279.
Mangalathu, S., M. Shokrabadi, and H. V. Burton. 2019. Aftershock seismic
vulnerability and time-dependent risk assessment of bridges. PEER
Rep. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Univ. of California.
Mazzoni, S., F. McKenna, M. H. Scott, and G. L. Fenves. 2006. OpenSees
command language manual, 264. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
McKenna, F., M. H. Scott, and G. L. Fenves. 2010. “Nonlinear finite-
element analysis software architecture using object composition.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (1): 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CP.1943-5487.0000002.
Miano, A., F. Jalayer, H. Ebrahimian, and A. Prota. 2017. “Cloud to IDA:
Efficient fragility assessment with limited scaling.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 47 (5): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3009.
Muthukumar, S., and R. DesRoches. 2006. “A Hertz contact model with
non-linear damping for pounding simulation.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 35 (7): 811–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.557.
Nielson, B. G., and R. DesRoches. 2007. “Seismic fragility methodology
for highway bridges using a component level approach.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36 (6): 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.655.
NIST. 2016. Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infra-
structure systems. NIST Special Publication 1190. Gaithersburg, MD:
NIST.
NRC (National Research Council). 2011. National earthquake resilience:
Research, implementation, and outreach. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Padgett, J. E., B. G. Nielson, and R. DesRoches. 2008. “Selection of opti-
mal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of high-
way bridge portfolios.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (5): 711–725.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.782.
Pang, Y., and X. Wang. 2021. “MATLAB codes for Cloud-IDA-MSA con-
version of fragility curves (version 1.0).” Zenodo. Accessed February 7,
2021. https://zenodo.org/record/4515006#.YCvoS48zZdg.
Pang, Y., K. Wei, and W. Yuan. 2020. “Life-cycle seismic resilience assess-
ment of highway bridges with fiber-reinforced concrete piers in the cor-
rosive environment.” Eng. Struct. 222 (Nov): 111–120. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111120.
Pang, Y., X. Wu, G. Shen, and W. Yuan. 2014. “Seismic fragility analysis
of cable-stayed bridges considering different sources of uncertainties.”
J. Bridge Eng. 19 (4): 04013015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0000565.
Petersen, M. D., et al. 2015. “The 2014 United States national seismic haz-
ard model.” Supplement, Earthquake Spectra 31 (S1): S1–S30. https://
doi.org/10.1193/120814EQS210M.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Reed, D. A., K. C. Kapur, and R. D. Christie. 2009. “Methodology for
assessing the resilience of networked infrastructure.” IEEE Syst. J.
3 (2): 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2009.2017396.
Shafieezadeh, A., and L. I. Burden. 2014. “Scenario-based resilience as-
sessment framework for critical infrastructure systems: Case study
for seismic resilience of seaports.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 132 (Dec):
207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.07.021.
Shamsabadi, A., P. Khalili-Tehrani, J. P. Stewart, and E. Taciroglu. 2010.
“Validated simulation models for lateral response of bridge abutments
with typical backfills.” J. Bridge Eng. 15 (3): 302–311. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000058.
Singhal, A., and A. S. Kiremidjian. 1996. “Method for probabilistic evalu-
ation of seismic structural damage.” J. Struct. Eng. 122 (12): 1459–
1467. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:12(1459).
Sun, W., P. Bocchini, and B. D. Davison. 2020. “Resilience metrics and
measurement methods for transportation infrastructure: The state of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xiaowei Wang on 02/25/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the art.” Sustainable Resilient Infrastruct. 5 (3): 168–199. https://doi
.org/10.1080/23789689.2018.1448663.
Tabandeh, A., P. Gardoni, C. Murphy, and N. Myers. 2019. “Societal
risk and resilience analysis: Dynamic bayesian network formulation
of a capability approach.” ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst.,
Part A: Civ. Eng. 5 (1): 04018046 . https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6
.0000996.
Vamvatsikos, D., and C. A. Cornell. 2002. “Incremental dynamic analysis.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (3): 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002
/eqe.141.
Wang, X., F. Luo, Z. Su, and A. Ye. 2017. “Efficient finite-element model
for seismic response estimation of piles and soils in liquefied and lat-
erally spreading ground considering shear localization.” Int. J. Geo-
mech. 17 (6): 06016039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943
-5622.0000835.
Wang, X., A. Shafieezadeh, and A. Ye. 2018. “Optimal intensity measures
for probabilistic seismic demand modeling of extended pile-shaft-
supported bridges in liquefied and laterally spreading ground.” Bull.
© ASCE 04021049-14
View publication stats J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(5): 04021049
Earthquake Eng. 16 (1): 229–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017
-0199-2.
Wang, X., A. Shafieezadeh, and A. Ye. 2019a. “Optimal EDPs for post-
earthquake damage assessment of extended pile-shaft-supported
bridges subjected to transverse spreading.” Earthquake Spectra 35 (3):
1367–1396. https://doi.org/10.1193/090417EQS171M.
Wang, X., A. Ye, and B. Ji. 2019b. “Fragility-based sensitivity analysis on
the seismic performance of pile-group-supported bridges in liquefiable
ground undergoing scour potentials.” Eng. Struct. 198 (Nov): 109427.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109427.
Wang, X., A. Ye, A. Shafieezadeh, and J. E. Padgett. 2019c. “Fractional
order optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand
modeling of extended pile-shaft-supported bridges in liquefiable and
laterally spreading ground.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 120 (May):
301–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.02.012.
White House. 2013. Presidential policy directive/PPD-21: Critical infra-
structure security and resilience. PPD-21. Washington, DC: White
House.
Xiang, N., X. Chen, and M. S. Alam. 2020. “Probabilistic seismic fragility
and loss analysis of concrete bridge piers with superelastic shape
memory alloy-steel coupled reinforcing bars.” Eng. Struct. 207 (Mar):
110229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110229.
Zareian, F., H. Krawinkler, L. Ibarra, and D. Lignos. 2010. “Basic concepts
and performance measures in prediction of collapse of buildings under
earthquake ground motions.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 19 (1–2):
167–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.546.
Zhang, J., and Y. L. Huo. 2009. “Evaluating effectiveness and optimum
design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility func-
tion method.” Eng. Struct. 31 (8): 1648–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2009.02.017.
Zhang, X., and E. Miller-Hooks. 2015. “Scheduling short-term recovery
activities to maximize transportation network resilience.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 29 (6): 04014087. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943
-5487.0000417.
J. Struct. Eng.