Article
SRRI Methodology to Quantify the Seismic Resilience
of Road Infrastructures
Davide Forcellini
Citation: Forcellini, D. SRRI
Methodology to Quantify the
Seismic Resilience of Road
Infrastructures. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12,
8945. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app12188945
Academic Editor:
Dario De Domenico
Received: 19 August 2022
Accepted: 2 September 2022
Published: 6 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps
institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12188945
Department of Civil Engineering, University of San Marino, Via Consiglio dei Sessanta, 99,
47890 Serravalle, San Marino; d.forcellini@unirsm.sm
Abstract: The assessment of the seismic risk connected with the functionality of infrastructure has
become an important issue in civil engineering, and consists of estimating costs due to earthquakes.
In this regard, bridges are the most vulnerable systems among the various components of road
infrastructure and the assessment of their resilience has recently been proposed. However, the
development of methodologies that can assess the resilience of the full road infrastructure still
constitutes a gap in the literature. This paper aims to fill this gap by proposing a novel methodology
to include direct and indirect losses using a probability-based approach. A case study was carried
out to investigate a road network consisting of two interdependent infrastructures.
Keywords: seismic assessment; methodology; resilience; road infrastructure; direct costs; indirect
losses; PBEE methodology
1. Background
Infrastructure’s vulnerability is a topic of rising interest in the scientific literature due
to its strategic importance [1–4]. In particular, Ref. [5] proposed to divide the costs
connected with infrastructure assets into direct and indirect losses. Direct costs may be
defined as the losses that the owner of the infrastructure must incur to recover from the
event. For example, direct costs are connected with the materials and labor necessary to
rehabilitate or replace parts of the infrastructure. Indirect costs are more difficult to define.
For example, they may consist of the losses that the users incur due to increased travel
time or vehicle operations, but also the losses to the surrounding region (e.g., time delays
inducing interruption of goods and services). Another definition was proposed by [6],
dividing the losses into direct (e.g., repair of infrastructure in terms of replacement of
damaged contents and components and indirect (e.g., business disruptions, costs for
relocations, and losses due to interruption of business) losses.
Among the various components of road infrastructure, bridges are generally the
and
most vulnerable elements to damage, and their damage and/or collapse may induce
important losses to social and economic activities, as well as to transportation networks
and to the economies of entire regions [7,8]. The study of these critical assets has been the
object of several contributions, such as [9–15]. In particular, Refs. [16,17] considered
several post-disaster assessments [16,17].
In this background, several studies proposed to consider the seismic resilience of
infrastructures [18–20]. A method for the assessment of the seismic resilience of road
rnfrastructure (SRRI) is herein proposed. The basic hypothesis is that other sources of
losses may be neglected in relation to those due to the damage or collapse of bridges. In
this regard, the losses and the repair time that are necessary in order to calculate the
seismic resilience are calculated by the implementation of the framework presented in
[21] and the formulations presented in [7,8]. Indirect losses are calculated by considering
www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 2 of 13

two typologies of indirect costs (i.e., prolongation time and connectivity losses), as
proposed by [5]. A case study is herein performed to validate the SRRI methodology.
The main novelties consist of (1) developing a new SRRI methodology that may
assess the resilience of entire road infrastructures instead of their individual components,
(2) proposing a probabilistic-based approach (based on the PBEE methodology) instead
of a deterministic estimation of losses, (3) a new formulation that considers
interdependencies and needs to be considered in the assessment of indirect losses, and (4)
presenting a case study that validates the framework and may be taken as a first attempt
to implement the framework.

2. Loss Model (LM)

In this section, a loss model is proposed to assess the reduction in the road
infrastructure’s functionality due to earthquakes at the time of occurrence. In this regard,
it is fundamental to divide the direct and indirect losses. Traditionally, direct costs depend
on the vulnerable elements that may reach several failure/damage states after the
earthquakes. Indirect losses are associated with system failures, as shown in [22].
Recently, Ref. [23] divided these losses into two sources: economic costs, and those related
to casualties. Moreover, Ref. [24] proposed a methodology based on resilience to assess
the vulnerability of bridges, including direct and indirect losses. In particular, the
assessment of indirect losses may be a difficult issue, as shown in [7], for several reasons.
Mainly, these losses are extremely variable, since they depend on the system components
and network conditions. In this regard, Ref. [25] summarized various methods used to
assess the indirect costs of natural hazards. Other approaches (i.e., [26]) can be used to
estimate indirect losses considering the impact of natural disasters on public finances in
terms of the government’s capacity to cope with large amounts of expenditure due to
natural disasters, and their subsequent ability to deliver basic services in the aftermath. In
addition, indirect losses can be estimated with idealized models that emphasize the role
or one or more particular relation(s) or mechanism(s) in economic systems [27,28].
The loss model adopted in the present paper proposes to assess the direct and
indirect losses in a transportation network. In this regard, this paper considers the direct
costs that derive from the structural costs of the bridge by adopting the performance-
based earthquake engineering (PBEE) methodology in order to apply a probabilistic-
based approach.
Indirect losses are divided into the two typologies proposed in [5] (i.e., prolongation
time and connectivity losses). Indirect losses are computed from the assessment of repair
time, in order to reduce the uncertainties due to traffic flow estimations (before and after
the earthquakes), as described in [29]. As shown in [25], risk assessments require
probabilistic-based methodologies to consider all of the possible uncertainties in the
definition of the damage and failure scenarios of each component of the infrastructure. In
particular, indirect losses are calculated by referring to the PBEE framework, which is
based on the application of the total probability theorem to disaggregate the problem into
several intermediate models by calculating the repair quantities with the probabilistic-
based local linearization of repair cost and time (LLRCT) methodology [30,31], which is
based on the closed-form “Fourway method”, Ref. [32] and Monte Carlo simulations.
Furthermore, road infrastructures are similar with regard to dimensions (e.g., size,
area coverage), complexity, and interconnectedness, but may significantly differ in
specific details. Most such differences depend on (inter)dependencies that should not be
neglected in vulnerability assessments [33]. Interdependencies are fundamental in the
evaluation of connectivity, and Ref. [34] provides an overview of how to identify,
understand, and analyze them. To provide a detailed description and modeling of
interdependent road infrastructures, many relevant data are required, and are often
inaccessible—for example, due to confidentiality and privacy issues and a reluctance to
share data [35]. However, the assessment of indirect costs needs to consider the mutual
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 3 of 13

effects of different infrastructures that can supply one another when the functionality of
one of them is reduced or fails.

2.1. Prolongation of Travel (PT)

Prolongation of travel (PT) consists of the travel time added due to interventions in
the infrastructure and the eventual detours that might be necessary. Such losses are
significant in the event of redundancy (other roads may be used as alternative routes).
The economic impact of wasting work and leisure time traveling may be considered as
the loss of productivity of the users due to time spent traveling [36]. Other studies, such
as [29], proposed to calculate the indirect costs due to additional travel time, vehicle
operating costs, and accidents as the difference between costs at time t and the costs at
time t0, when the network was totally functional. The authors introduced costs as a
function that depends on the traffic flow. Therefore, it is fundamental to define the travel
time as the amount of time spent traveling on the road, determined by the driving speed
which, in turn, is affected by various factors (such as the condition, capacity, and geometry
of the road and, thus, the daily traffic volume) [36]. The existing approaches calculate PT
losses as the difference in the traffic flow after and before the event, requiring the
knowledge of such flows, which can be difficult to estimate in the event of pre-event
assessments, and are affected by many uncertainties. Since these approaches are
deterministic, they cannot model the uncertainties related to inputs such as restoration
time and costs [37]. The present paper aims to overcome this limit by developing the
probabilistic-based approach presented in [7], which calculates losses due to PT as a linear
interpolation of repair time.

2.2. Connectivity Losses (CL)

These losses are connected with the loss of economic activity (i.e., when the journey
is not possible or becomes prohibitive). In particular, connectivity can be defined as the
property of being joined, linked, or fastened together, and the purpose of a network is to
establish and maintain this property to facilitate the movement of valuable goods and
services across a system. This intangible nature of CL makes its assessment relatively
challenging. In addition, the estimation of CL becomes even more challenging because
connectivity depends on the ways in which networks are interconnected [38]. In addition,
CL quantifies the average decrease in the possible distribution of movements along the
infrastructure, and relies on the topological structure of the network and flow patterns,
requiring performance measures to capture network recovery time and long-term
reliability after disruptions [39]. Moreover, Ref. [29] proposes a deterministic approach
that consists of defining a cost function to assess CL, without considering the uncertainties
connected with such a definition. On the other hand, the formulation in [7] was proposed
to calculate CL as proportional to repair time, introducing the coefficient c, which
generally varies from 0 to 1.

3. SRRI Methodology
The proposed methodology considers the traditional formulation presented in [40]
and implemented in [18] to calculate the seismic resilience of a road infrastructure (SRRI):
𝑡0𝐸+RT 𝑄(𝑡)
SRRI = ∫𝑡0𝐸 𝑑𝑡 (1)
𝑅𝑇

where:
t0E is the time of occurrence of the earthquake E;
RT is the repair time (RT) that is necessary to recover the original functionality;
Q(t) is the recovery function that describes the recovery process necessary to return to the
pre-earthquake level of functionality (see Figure 1). It is important to note that the
recovery function starts at the time of occurrence (idle time neglected).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 4 of 13

Figure 1. Resilience calculation (L= losses; RT = repair time; Q = functionality).

as described in [18], this function may be defined as follows:

𝑄(𝑡) = β ∙ (𝑡 − 𝑡0𝐸 )𝛼 + Q0 (2)
where α and β are two parameters that describe the recovery to the original functionality.
β is the ratio between the final functionality Q and the original functionality of the
system before the earthquake.
α is the exponent of growth, which represents the rate of increase in the functionality
after the earthquake. It depends on several factors, such as the level of preparedness of
the community, the interdependencies amongst systems, and the state of the community
and the surrounding region. In particular, the proposed formulation was chosen because
it is based on a limited number of parameters (t0E, β, α, and Q0) and a mathematical
structure (power function) that can realistically describe restoration procedures. In
addition, Equation (2) allows flexibility in the calibration to cover various infrastructure
typologies. The existing data are fundamental in order to calibrate the parameters to be
consistent with the practical experience of multi-sectorial actors (i.e., infrastructure
owners, transportation authorities, and public administrators).
In order to consider both sources of losses with a probabilistic-based approach based
on the PBEE methodology, several contributions have been proposed [18,41]. The two
sources of losses have been calculated by considering the repair cost ratio (RCR),
representing the direct losses as a percentage of the construction cost and the repair time
(RT), which is used here to derive the indirect losses. It is significant to note that the
interdependencies are included in the calculation of CL to consider the interactions
between the various infrastructures.
The previous approach [7] proposed to calculate the losses as the sum of the direct
and indirect losses:
𝐿(𝐼𝑚) = 𝐷(𝐼𝑚) + 𝐼(𝐼𝑚) (3)
where:
Im is the intensity measure used for the definition of the hazard;
D(Im) are the direct losses as proportional as the sum of the RCR and of the repair time
(RT) calculated by the PBEE methodology:
𝑛

𝐷(𝐼𝑚) = 𝑅𝑇 ∙ ∑ 𝑅𝐶𝑅𝑖 (𝐼𝑚) (4)

𝑖=1

I(Im) are the indirect losses, calculated as follows:

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 5 of 13

𝑛 𝑛

𝐼(𝐼𝑚) = ∑(1 − 𝑟𝑖 ) ∙ 𝑃𝑇𝑖 (𝐼𝑚) + ∏(1 − 𝑟𝑖 ) ∙ 𝐶𝐿𝑖 (𝐼𝑚) (5)

𝑖=1 𝑖=1

where:
n is the number of interdependent infrastructures that are present in the network;
ri is the functionality ratio of the infrastructure (r = 1 means that the infrastructure is fully
operational, r = 0 means that the infrastructure is closed);
PTi are the losses connected with prolongation of travel (PT) for infrastructures i = 1…n:

𝑃𝑇𝑖 (𝐼𝑚) = 𝑝𝑖 ∙ 𝑅𝑇𝑖 (6)

pi is a parameter that needs to be calibrated to calculate the PT for infrastructure i;

CLi represents the losses connected with connectivity loss (CL) for infrastructures i = 1…n;

𝐶𝐿𝑖 (𝐼𝑚) = 𝑐𝑖 ∙ 𝑅𝑇𝑖 (7)

ci is a parameter that needs to be calibrated to calculate the PT for infrastructure i;
In particular, the second term of Equation (5) considers the interdependencies of the
various infrastructures, and consists of the products of the various functionality ratios. It
is worth noting that this term is zero when one infrastructure of the networks is open and,
thus, fully operational (r = 1). This simplification allows us to consider that there is no loss
in connection, since the open infrastructure can compensate for the closure of the others.
For example, there may be a case where one bridge is open and another is closed, but the
two bridges may connect different parts of a network, so the connectivity of the closed
bridge cannot be substituted by the fact that the first one is functional. In addition,
Equation (5) is a general formulation that depends on the definition of Im, which measures
the intensity of the considered seismic hazard.

4. Case Study
In this section, a case study is presented to compare two road networks
(Infrastructures 1 and 2) that link the same locations, called O (origin) and E (end), and
are subjected to a selected seismic hazard. Both infrastructures are built with the same
typology of bridge (named B1 and B2, respectively), and n1 and n2 are the numbers of the
bridges for each one. PGA (peak ground acceleration) was chosen as the reference Im,
because the two bridge models have different dynamic characteristics and, thus, it was
necessary to adopt an Im that does not depend on the structural properties (such as modal
shapes). Figure 2 shows the selected situation.

Figure 2. Scheme of the road infrastructures considered in the case study.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 6 of 13

Several assumptions were made:

(a) Direct costs and indirect losses were calculated by considering the bridges that
are present along the network (other losses due to other components were neglected);
(b) The two networks have the same initial traffic conditions.
Note that the infrastructures are interdependent (n = 2) and, thus, indirect losses (I)
can be calculated as follows:
I = (1 − 𝑟1 ) ∙ 𝑛1 ∙ 𝑝1 ∙ 𝑅𝑇1 + (1 − 𝑟2 ) ∙ 𝑛2 ∙ 𝑝2 ∙ 𝑅𝑇2 + (1 − 𝑟1 ) ∙ (1 − 𝑟2 ) ∙ [𝑛1 ∙ 𝑐1 ∙ 𝑅𝑇1 + 𝑛2 ∙ 𝑐2 ∙ 𝑅𝑇2 ] (8)
where:
n1 and n2 are the number of bridges for Infrastructure 1 and Infrastructure 2, respectively;
r1 and r2 are the functionality ratios of Infrastructures 1 and 2, respectively.
Note that the first and the second terms represent the contribution of PT, while the
third term represents that of CL.
In the following text, several values of r1 and r2 are varied in order to explore several
scenarios of PT, as shown in Table 1. In particular, it is worth noting that in Scenarios 1
and 5, the second infrastructure can compensate for the closure of the first one.

Table 1. Various scenarios.

Scenario r1 r2
n.1 0 1.0
n.2 0 0.5
n.3 0.5 0.5
n.4 0.5 0.75
n.5 0.5 1.0

4.1. Bridge Models

The bridges are two ordinary standard bridges (OSBs) representing California
highway bridges, and designed according to the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria [42],
Figure 3a. The two benchmark bridges differ because of their longitudinal connections
between the deck and the abutments, which are realized with different bearing pads in
symmetrical positions, according to the plan locations (Figure 3b).
Bridge 1 (B1): The connections are realized with sliding isolators implemented with
a simplified two-spring model, defined by the initial bending stiffness k1/2, yield strength
Fy0, and post-yield stiffness k20 (28,500 kN/m, 287 kN, and 166.67 kN/m, respectively).
More details may be found in [41,43,44].
Bridge 2 (B2): This scheme may move longitudinally because the connections
between the deck and the abutments are achieved with soft damping rubber bearings.
Such devices are modeled with two longitudinal elastic springs (730 kN/m) for each pad
(modulus of elasticity G = 0.4 MPa and equivalent viscous damping n = 10%). [41].
In both bridges, the vertical and transversal directions of the abutments are
restrained, and fixed connections are considered at the top of the column by restraining
the translations and the rotations of the deck in all directions. The presence of the isolation
allowed us to assume that the deck was capacity-designed; thus it was modeled with
linear elastic beam–column elements (length: 90.00 m; width: 11.90 m; depth: 1.83 m; cross
area: 5.72 m2, transversal inertia: 2.81 m4 and vertical inertia: 53.9 m4, weight per unit
length: 130.3 kN/m, as shown in Table 2). The 6.71 m RC column was represented with
nonlinear fiber beam–column elements (see [45]) fixed at the base. Soil–structure
interaction was also neglected, in correspondence with the connection between the soil
and the approach ramps, which simulate the typical OSB concrete abutments (height: 6.71
m and length: 25 m) by assuming masses proportional to deck dead loads (to include the
contribution of structural weight). The transversal direction of the bridge was constrained
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 7 of 13

with rigid elements with a sufficiently high stiffness to be considered infinite, but allowing
us to reproduce the rotation of the deck about the vertical axis [41].

(a)

(b)
Figure 3. (a) Benchmark bridges (vertical view). (b) Benchmark bridges (plan view).

Table 2. Deck characteristics.

Characteristic
Length (m) 90.00
Width (m) 11.90
Depth (m) 1.83
E (MPa) 2.80 × 105
G (MPa) 1.15 × 105
Area (m2) 5.72
Itrasv (m4) 2.81
Ivert (m4) 53.9
Weight (kN/m) 130.3

4.2. SRRI Calculation

The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Centre methodology, Ref. [31]
was utilized to calculate the repair cost ratio (RCR) and recovery time (RT). The seismic
scenario consisted of 100 input motions (from the PEER NGA database,
http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/, accessed on 15 August 2022) in order to reproduce typical
California seismicity, as previously applied in [41]. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) was
used as the reference intensity measure [31]. The losses were assessed by considering the
Caltrans Comparative Bridge Costs database [42] and utilizing the LLRCAT methodology
described in [33,35].
The results in terms of RCR (in %) and RT (in crew working days (CWD)) are shown
in Figures 4 and 5 for the two bridge configurations (B1 and B2). Figure 4 shows that at
lower intensities, RCR is low and similar, while for PGA > 0.22 g, B1 has greater values
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 8 of 13

than B2, and for PGA > 0.7 g, B1 reaches values of 1, meaning that the repair cost is the
same as the complete reconstruction of the bridge.
Figure 5 shows the repair time that is necessary to return the individual bridges to
their original functionalities. RT depends on the characteristics of the bridges, especially
the adopted isolators. It is worth noting that the rate of RT is similar for many values of
PGA. For the ranges 0.218 g–0.275 g and 0.402 g–0.427 g, B2 shows greater values of RT,
with the maximum difference between 0.238 g and 0.275 g with RT values of 52.4 and 18.0,
respectively, for Bridge 2 and Bridge 1. For these ranges of intensities, the sliders (model
B1) seem to work better than rubber bearings. On the other hand, at the highest intensities
(PGA > 0.684 g), the rubber bearings seem to perform better than the sliders. In particular,
model B1 presents greater values than model B2, with maximum values of 171 CWD
(corresponding to almost those times those associated with B2 (64.8 CWD)).

1.20

1.00

0.80
RCR (%)

0.60

0.40

0.20 RCR-B1
RCR-B2
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PGA (g)

Figure 4. Repair cost ratio (%).

200

180

160

140

120
RT (CWD)

100

80

60

40
RT-B1
20
RT-B2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PGA (g)

Figure 5. Repair time (CWD).

4.2.1. Case 1: n1 = 3, n2 = 6
Figure 6 shows the calculation of the losses (L) for the two infrastructures. Herein the
case is that of two infrastructures with a different number of bridges (n1 = 3 and n2 = 6). It
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 9 of 13

is possible to see that Scenario 2 is the worst, since Infrastructure 1 is totally closed and
Infrastructure 2 can compensate for only 50% of the traffic flow. Comparing Scenario 1
and Scenario 5 shows the impact of the partial opening of the first infrastructure (Scenario
5) on losses, especially at medium intensities (reduction of around 50%) and at higher
intensities (PGA > 0.68 g). Scenarios 3 and 4 represent cases where both of the
infrastructures are damaged and, thus, partially opened. The results show that for PGA <
0.68 g, partially opening the two infrastructures (Scenario 3 and 4) incurs more losses than
completely opening Infrastructure 2 (Scenario 1). For higher intensities (PGA > 0.68 g),
Scenario 1 incurs more losses than Scenario 4.

1200
SCENARIO1 CASE 1
SCENARIO2
1000 SCENARIO3
SCENARIO4
SCENARIO5
800
L (CWD)

600

400

200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PGA (g)

Figure 6. Case 1 (n1 = 3, n2 = 6).

4.2.2. Case 2: n1 = n2 = 3
Figure 7 shows the calculation of the losses (L) for the two infrastructures in the event
that the number of bridges is the same (n1 = n2 = 3) for the two infrastructures. It is possible
to see that Scenario 2 is the worst and Scenario 5 is the best. The results show that for PGA
< 0.68 g, Scenario 1 and Scenario 4 are similar. For PGA > 0.68 g, complete opening of
Infrastructure 2 (Scenario 1) has the same effects as partial closures (Scenario 3), meaning
that the results are intensity-dependent and, thus, that decision-makers need to carefully
consider the earthquake hazard before taking decisions of full opening/partial
opening/closure of the infrastructures.

1200
SCENARIO1 CASE 2
SCENARIO2
1000 SCENARIO3
SCENARIO4
SCENARIO5
800
L (CWD)

600

400

200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PGA (g)

Figure 7. Case 2 (n1 = n2 = 3).

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 10 of 13

4.2.3. SRRI Results

Figures 8 and 9 show the SRRI results for the two cases and the five considered
scenarios, with the following hypotheses: (1) The original functionality (at the time of
occurrence of the earthquake) for both the infrastructures was 100%. (2) The applied repair
functions were considered linear trends, as commonly assumed in the event of insufficient
information. (3) The parameters c and p (Equations (5) and (6), respectively) were both
considered to be 1, in order to consider both the prolongation of travel and losses
connected with connection loss at the same level. These assumptions may be developed
by improving the data from the characteristics of the road infrastructures. Figures 8 and 9
show that for intensities between 0.21 g and 0.68 g, resilience depends on the different
scenarios. The most resilient is Scenario 5, where the infrastructures are both opened (50%
of Infrastructure 1 and 100% of Infrastructure 2). SRRI is shown to be minimal for Scenario
3, at all intensities.
Overall, the results demonstrate the validity of resilience as a parameter to define the
state of road infrastructures after earthquakes. In particular, achieving a balance between
resilient infrastructures and services is a duty for civil engineers in order to maintain post-
earthquake functionality of communities. In this regard, a critical interpretation of SSRI
results is fundamental for decision-makers in order to guarantee a minimal level of
services for the infrastructures, adequate services and business for the communities, and
rapid recoveries following seismic events.

1.20

CASE 1
1.00

0.80
SRRI

0.60

0.40
SCENARIO1
SCENARIO2
SCENARIO3
0.20
SCENARIO4
SCENARIO5
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PGA (g)

Figure 8. SRRI: case 1 (n1 = 3, n2 = 6).

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 11 of 13

1.20

CASE 2
1.00

0.80
SRRI

0.60

0.40
SCENARIO1
SCENARIO2
SCENARIO3
0.20
SCENARIO4
SCENARIO5
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
PGA (g)
Figure 9. SRRI: case 2 (n1 = n2 = 3).

5. Conclusions
The paper proposes a novel methodology to calculate the seismic resilience of road
infrastructure by applying a performance-based approach for the computation of repair
cost ratio and repair time. In this regard, the SRRI methodology considers both direct and
indirect losses (i.e., prolongation of travel and connection losses), including the
interdependencies between different infrastructures. Several case studies (10 cases: 2
bridges, 5 scenarios) were considered to apply the framework to realistic simulations. The
ultimate goal of the proposed framework consists of assuming resilience as a valuable
parameter to help in making decisions of full opening/partial opening/closure of the
infrastructures. One limitation may be considered—the assessment of the role of soil–
structure interaction (SSI), which may have important effects on the seismic resilience, as
demonstrated in [8]. Such neglect does not compromise the high impact of the SRRI
methodology due to uncertainties of soil and site effects [46].

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
SRRI Seismic resilience of road infrastructure
PGA Peak ground acceleration
t0E Time of occurrence of earthquake E
RT Repair time (RT)
Q(t) Recovery function
β Ratio between the final functionality Q and the original functionality of the system
before the earthquake
α Exponent of the growth of the functionality curve
Im Intensity measure used for the definition of the hazard
L Losses
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 12 of 13

D Direct losses
I Indirect losses
PT Prolongation time
CL Connection losses
RCR Repair cost ratio
RT Repair time
n Number of interdependent infrastructures present in the network
ri Functionality ratio of the infrastructure

References
1. Dehgani, M.; FLintsch, G.; McNeil, S. Impact of road conditions and disruption uncertainties on network vulnerability. J.
Infrastruct. Syst. ASCE 2014, 20, 04014015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000205.
2. Moini, N. Modeling of Risks Threatening Critical Infrastructures: System Approach. J. Infrastruct. Syst. ASCE 2016, 22, 04015010.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000263.
3. Nourzad, S.H.H.; Pradhan, A. Vulnerability of Infrastructure Systems. Macroscopic Analysis of Critical Disruptions on Road
Networks. J. Infrastruct. Syst. ASCE 2016, 22, 04015014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000266.
4. Forcellini, D. A Resilience-Based (RB) Methodology to Assess Resilience of Health System Infrastructures to Epidemic Crisis.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3032. https:// doi.org/10.3390/app12063032
5. Adey, B.; Hajdin, R.; Brudwile, E. Effect of common cause failures on indirect costs. J. Bridge Eng. 2004, 9, 200–208.
6. Brookshire, D.S.; Chang, S.E.; Cochrane, H.; Olson, R.A.; Rose, A.; Steenson, J. Direct and indirect economic losses from
earthquake damage. Earthq. Spectra. 1997, 14, 683–701.
7. Forcellini, D. A new methodology to assess Indirect Losses in Bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.
2019, 4, 1–9.
8. Forcellini, D. Resilience-Based Methodology to Assess Soil Structure Interaction on a Benchmark Bridge. Infrastructures 2020, 5,
90.
9. Quang, C.; Shen, J.J.; Zhou, M.; Lee, G.C. Force-based and displacement-based reliability assessment approaches for highway
bridges under multiple hazard actions. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2015, 2, 223–232.
10. Alipour, A.; Shafei, B.; Shinozuka, M. Reliability-based calibration of load and resistance factors for design of RC bridges under
multiple extreme vents: Sour and earthquake. J. Bridge Eng. 2013, 18, 362–371.
11. Gelh, P.; D’Ayala, D. Development of a Bayesian Networks for the multi-hazard fragility assessment of bridge systems. Struct.
Saf. 2016, 60, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strsafe.2016.01.006.
12. Andric, J.M.; Lu, D. Risk assessment of bridges under multiple hazards in operation period. Saf. Sci. 2016, 83, 80–92.
13. Gardoni, P.; LaFave, J.M. Multi-hazard approaches to civil infrastructure engineering: Mitigating risks and promoting
resilience. In Multi-Hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering; Gardoni, P., LaFave, J.M., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 3–12.
14. Gidaris, I.; Padgett, J.E.; Barbosa, A.R.; Chen, S. Multiple-hazard fragility and restoration models of highway bridges for regional
risk and resilience assessment in the United States: State-of-the-art review. J. Struct. Eng. 2017, 143, 04016188.
15. Gautam, D.; Dong, Y. Multi-hazard vulnerability of structures and lifelines due to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and 2017 central
Nepal flash flood. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 17, 196–201.
16. Chang, S.E.; Shinozuka, M. Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of communities. Eng. Struct. 2004, 20, 739–755.
17. Renschler, C.; Frazier, A.; Arendt, L.; Cimellaro, G.P.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Bruneau, M. Framework for Defining and Measuring
Resilience at the Community Scale: The PEOPLES Resilience Framework; Technical Report MCEER-10-006; University at Buffalo:
Buffalo, NY, USA, 2010.
18. Bruneau, M.; Chang, S.E.; Eguchi, R.T. A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of
Communities. Earthq. Spectra 2003, 19, 733. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497.
19. Huang, Z.; Zhang, D.; Pitilakis, K.; Tsinidis, G.; Huang, H.; Zhang, D.; Argyroudis, S. Resilience assessment of tunnels:
Framework and application for tunnels in alluvial deposits exposed to seismic hazard. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 162, 107456,
ISSN 0267–7261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107456.
20. Mina, D.; Forcellini, D.; Karampour, H. Analytical fragility curves for assessment of the seismic vulnerability of HP/HT
unburied subsea pipelines. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 137, 106308.
21. Forcellini, D.; Walsh, K.Q. Seismic resilience for recovery investments of bridges methodology. In Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers—Bridge Engineering; ICE Publishing: London, UK, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1680/jbren.21.00023.
22. Saydam, D.; Frangopol, D.M.; Dong, Y. Assessment of Risk Using Bridge Element Condition Ratings. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2013,
19, 252–265.
23. Ranjbar, P.R.; Naderpour, H. Probabilistic evaluation of seismic resilience for typical vital buildings in terms of vulnerability
curves. Structures 2020, 23, 314–323.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8945 13 of 13

24. Argyroudis, S.A.; Nasiopoulos, G.; Mantadakis, N.; Mitoulis, S.A. Cost-based resilience assessment of bridges subjected to
earthquake excitations including direct and indirect losses. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2020, 12, 209–222.
25. Meyer, V.; Becker, N.; Markantonis, V.; Schwarze, R.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.; Bouwer, L.M.; Bubeck, P.; Ciavola, P.; Genovese,
E.; Green, C.; et al. Assessing the costs of natural hazards—State of the art and knowledge gaps. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
2013, 13, 1351–1373. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-1351-2013.
26. Mechler, R.; Linnerooth-Bayer, J.; Peppiatt, D. Microinsurance for Natural Disasters in Developing Countries: Benefits,
Limitations and Viability, ProVention Consortium, Geneva. 2006. Available online:
http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/ default/pdfs/Microinsurance study July06.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2022).
27. Hallegatte, S.; Dumas, P. Can Natural Disasters Have Positive Consequences? Investigating the Role of Embodied Technical
Change. Ecol. Econom. 2008, 68, 777–786.
28. Hallegatte, S.; Ghil, M. Natural Disasters Impacting a Macroeconomic Model with Endogenous Dynamics. Ecol. Econom. 2008,
68, 582–592.
29. Hackl, J.; Adey, B.T.; Lethanh, N. Determination of Near-Optimal Restorationprograms for Transportation networks following
Natural Hazard Events Using Simulated Annealing. Comput. -Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 33, 618–637.
30. Mackie, K.R.; Wong, J.; Stojadinovic, B. Integrated Probabilistic Performance-Based Evaluation of Benchmark Reinforced Concrete
Bridges; Report No. 2007/09; University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: Berkeley, CA,
USA, 2008.
31. Mackie, K.R.; Wong, J.-M.; Stojadinovic, B. Post-earthquake bridge repair cost and repair time estimation methodology. Earthq.
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2010, 39, 281–301.
32. Mackie, K.R.; Stojadinovic, B. Fourway: A graphical tool for performance-based earthquake engineering. J. Struct. Eng. 2006,
132, 1274–1283.
33. Kröger, W.; Zio, E. Vulnerable Systems; Springer: London, UK, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-655-9.
34. Rinaldi, S.M.; Peerenboom, J.P.; Kelly, T.K. Identifying, understanding, and analysing critical infrastructure interdependencies.
In IEE Control Systems Magazine; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2001; pp. 11–25. Available online: http://user.it.uu.se/~bc/Art.pdf
(accessed on 2 October 2012).
35. Ouyang, M. Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2014,
121, 43–60.
36. Adey, B.; Lethanh, N.; Lepert, P. An impact hierarchy for the evaluation of intervention strategies for public roads. In
Proceedings of the 4th European Pavament Asset Management Conference (EPAM), Malmo, Sweden, 5–7 September 2012.
37. Luna, R.; Balakrishnan, N.; Dagli, C.H. Postearthquake recovery of a water distributionsystem: Discrete event simulation using
colored Petri nets. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2011, 17, 25–34.
38. Grubesic, T.H.; Timothy, C.; Matisziw, T.C.; Murray, A.T.; Snediker, D. Comparative Approaches For Assessing Network
Vulnerability. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2008, 31, 88–112.
39. Duenas-Osorio, L.; Craig, J.I.; Goodno, B.J. Seismic response of critical interdependent networks. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2007,
36, 285–306.
40. Cimellaro, G.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Bruneau, M. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32,
3639–3649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct. 2010.08.008.
41. Forcellini, D. Cost assessment of isolation technique applied to a benchmark bridge with soil structure interaction. Bull. Earthq.
Eng. 2017, 15, 51–69.
42. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.3; Caltrans: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2003.
43. Forcellini, D.; Kelly, J.M. The analysis of the large deformation stability of elastomeric bearings. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 2014, 140,
04014036. https://doi.org/10.1061/EM.1943-7889.0000729.
44. Mazzoni, S.; McKenna, F.; Scott, M.H.; Fenves, G.L. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, User Command-Language
Manual; OpenSees Version 2.0; Pacifc Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA,
2009. Available online: http://opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/userm anual.(accessed on 15 August 2022).
45. Spacone, E.; Filippou, F.C.; Taucer, F. Fibre beam-column model for non‐linear analysis of r/c frames: Part I. Formulation. Earthq.
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1996, 25, 711–725.
46. Savvided, A.A.; Papadrakis, M. A computational study on the uncertainty quantification of failure of clays with a modified
Cam-Clay yield criterion. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04631-3.