Feng Et Al 2024 Climate Change Impacts On The Risk Assessment of Concrete Civil Infrastructures

State-of-the-Art Review
Climate Change Impacts on the Risk Assessment

of Concrete Civil Infrastructures
De-Cheng Feng, M.ASCE1; Jia-Yi Ding2; Si-Cong Xie3; Yue Li, M.ASCE4; Mitsuyoshi Akiyama, M.ASCE5;
Yong Lu, F.ASCE6; Michael Beer, M.ASCE7; and Jie Li, M.ASCE8
Abstract: The service life and performance of the civil infrastructure are affected by the changing climate, and the changing climate features
significant uncertainties that require rigorous consideration and quantification so they can be incorporated into the reliability assessment and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 139.255.192.18 on 03/13/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
risk management. A lack of quantification makes it difficult for the stakeholders, designers, and operators of the infrastructure to implement
the appropriate decisions for mitigating the risks exacerbated by the changing climate. In this paper, a state-of-the-art review is conducted on
existing studies in the literature concerning the influence of climate change on the risk assessment of concrete civil infrastructure. The review
covers the following key aspects: (1) climate variables and the associated uncertainties; (2) frequency and intensity of natural hazards under
various future climate scenarios; (3) the impact of climate change on the deterioration mechanisms of concrete structures; (4) the risk assess-
ment methodology considering climate change; (5) climate-related multihazard risk assessment; and (6) adaptation strategies for the increas-
ing risk of failure of civil infrastructure caused by climate change. The basic concepts, research development, and challenges concerning the
impact of climate change on concrete infrastructure are comprehensively discussed. The review can benefit future research in the field of
concrete infrastructure, especially on topics related to structural performance, durability, and risk assessment. Additionally, it will contribute
to promoting appropriate adaptation planning and risk-based decision-making for the designers and operators of concrete infrastructure
under the changing climate. DOI: 10.1061/AOMJAH.AOENG-0026. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Climate change; Concrete infrastructure; Risk assessment; Multihazard; Adaptation.
Introduction
1
Professor, Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete
Structures of the Ministry of Education, Southeast Univ., Nanjing Compared to the preindustrial era, the global climate is undergoing
211189, China (corresponding author). Email: dcfeng@seu.edu.cn an unprecedented rate of change, as evidenced by observed varia-
2
Ph.D. Student, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast Univ., Nanjing
tions in climate variables, such as CO2 concentration, temperature,
211189, China. Email: jiayiding@seu.edu.cn
3
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politec- relative humidity, precipitation, wind, and sea level (IPCC 2021).
nico Di Milano, Milano 20133, Italy. Email: sicong.xie@polimi.it This sustained climate change has severe direct or indirect detri-
4
Leonard Case Jr. Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi- mental effects on the performance and service life of civil infra-
neering, Case Western Reserve Univ., Cleveland, OH 44106. Email: yue structures. For example, climate change has led to variations in
.li10@case.edu the intensity, frequency, and spatial distribution of various haz-
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Waseda ards, e.g., hurricanes (Bender et al. 2010; Li and Stewart 2011;
Univ., Tokyo 169-8555, Japan. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001 Lee and Ellingwood 2017; Mudd et al. 2014; Zhu et al. 2021b),
-9560-2159. Email: akiyama617@waseda.jp flood (Devendiran et al. 2021; Dong and Frangopol 2016; Jevre-
6
Professor, Institute for Infrastructure and Environment, School of En-
jeva et al. 2018), and tsunami (Alhamid et al. 2022a; Qeshta
gineering, Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, United Kingdom.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2142-1299. Email: yong.lu@ed.ac.uk
et al. 2019), which ultimately result in increased external loads
7
Professor, Institute for Risk and Reliability, Leibniz Univ. Hannover, on civil infrastructures (Mishra and Sadhu 2023). In addition,
Callinstr. 34, Hannover 30167, Germany; Institute for Risk and Uncer- the deterioration of structural resistance, especially for concrete
tainty, Univ. of Liverpool, Peach St., L69 7ZF Liverpool, United Kingdom; structures, has accelerated due to the changes in atmospheric
International Joint Research Center for Resilient Infrastructure and Interna- CO2 concentration, temperature, and relative humidity
tional Joint Research Center for Engineering Reliability and Stochastic Me- (Bastidas-Arteaga et al. 2013; Stewart et al. 2011; Mortagi and
chanics, Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China. ORCID: https://orcid.org Ghosh 2020, 2022a; Khatami and Shafei 2021; Orcesi et al.
/0000-0002-0611-0345. Email: beer@irz.uni-hannover.de 2022a). As the service life of existing civil infrastructures typically
8
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai
extends over several decades, current design guidelines and safety
200092, China. Email: lijie@tongji.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 19, 2023; approved
assessment methods that rely on historical climate conditions or
on December 14, 2023; published online on February 8, 2024. Discussion stationary process assumptions will no longer be applicable to
period open until July 8, 2024; separate discussions must be submitted for the rapidly changing climate scenarios. Therefore, to ensure the
individual papers. This paper is part of the ASCE OPEN: Multidisciplinary safety and performance of civil infrastructure throughout its ser-
Journal of Civil Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 2995-4266. vice life, the influence of climate change must be considered in
© ASCE 03124001-1 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.
ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

well as integrating the impacts of climate change and the corre-
sponding adaptation strategies into the design, construction, and
maintenance of infrastructure, remains limited. There is, indeed, a
widespread lack of effort in bringing the various influencing fac-
tors, the current state of understanding and research, and future de-
velopment paths into a systematic framework.
To bridge this gap, this study comprehensively reviews the rel-
evant research on the impacts of climate change on the risk assess-
ment of civil infrastructure. Considering that concrete structures are
most widely used in civil infrastructure, this paper concentrates par-
ticularly on reviewing the research relevant to the deterioration and
risk assessment of concrete infrastructure. Fig. 1 illustrates a flow-
Fig. 1. Flowchart demonstrating the organization for review. chart of the paper, which includes the climate variables concerning
civil infrastructure and the associated uncertainties; the impact of
climate change on the occurrence of various hazards and the struc-
the design and risk assessment of civil infrastructure. In this con- tural resistance of concrete infrastructure; the infrastructure risk as-
text, some studies have attempted to deal with the issue (Dawson sessment considering climate change; climate-related multihazard
et al. 2018; Khandel and Soliman 2019; Neumann et al. 2015; risk assessment; and climate adaptation strategies for civil infra-
Salman and Li 2018; Palin et al. 2021; Nasr et al. 2023), but sig- structure. Finally, the research development and challenges on
nificant challenges remain due to limited understanding of climate this topic are provided.
change characteristics, the associated effects on hazards, and ade-
quate countermeasures for maintenance throughout the service life
(Guest et al. 2020b).
A primary challenge in dealing with the impact of a changing Climate Variables and Associated Uncertainties
climate stems from climate uncertainties. Such uncertainties may
Climate change has become a global political, economic, social,
be categorized into (1) scenario uncertainty that relates to different
and technological issue. Various industries are affected by changes
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenarios; (2) model uncertainty
such as temperatures, precipitation patterns, sea-level, relative hu-
that arises from different climate models in projecting future cli-
midity, and chloride levels. Concrete infrastructure, which typically
mate variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind; and
has a service life of 30 to 200 years, faces an escalating risk of fail-
(3) natural uncertainty that represents the inherent variability of cli- ure attributable to climate change (Stewart et al. 2011). Table 1 lists
mate change processes. These uncertainties permeate the entire ser- six climate variables related to the performance of concrete infra-
vice life of infrastructure, making it difficult to formulate optimal structure that should be considered throughout the phases of de-
planning or decision-making. Considerable attention has been design, maintenance, and management. As an illustration, the
voted to this issue. For instance, the UK Parliament passed a Cli- global average CO2 concentration is projected to rise from
mate Change Act in 2008, which required the government to 369 ppm in 2000 to 936 ppm in 2100, potentially resulting in an at-
provide a climate change risk assessment (CCRA) every five mospheric temperature increase of 1°C–5°C compared to the prein-
years. Correspondingly, three reports were published in 2012, dustrial era within this century (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, the
2017, and 2022, in which the risks and opportunities associated coupling of the aforementioned climate variables will bring more
with climate change for the United Kingdom were assessed diversified effects on the performance of concrete infrastructure
(ASC 2012, 2016, 2022). The third CCRA report pointed out in spatial, temporal, and magnitude terms. Therefore, the aforemen-
that the gap between the levels of risk and adaptation had increased, tioned climate variables need to be comprehensively considered in
such that adaptation actions failed to respond to the risk of aggra- the planning, design, and maintenance of infrastructure.
vating climate. Despite some developments, research into quantify- It is also a great challenge to reasonably represent the significant
ing the climate change variables and the associated uncertainties, as uncertainties associated with the prediction of future climate
Table 1. Climate variables and uncertainties

Climate
variables Descriptions Uncertainties
CO2 Increasing from 369 ppm in 2000 to 936 ppm by 2100 (IPCC 2021) Economy, population, and use of energy and technological
concentration resources (IPCC 2021)
Temperature Increasing to 1°C–5°C by 2100 compared to the preindustrial levels Emission scenarios and climate models (IPCC 2021)
(IPCC 2021)
Sea-level rise Rising by about 20–40 cm by 2050 due to the impact of climate Glacier model, climate model, emission scenarios, and internal
change (Vousdoukas et al. 2018) climate variability (Marzeion et al. 2020); climate extremes,
dynamic sea level, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glacial
isostatic adjustment (Vousdoukas et al. 2018)
Precipitation Extreme precipitation is very sensitive to local atmospheric Geographic location, atmospheric temperature, and emission
patterns temperature (Westra et al. 2014) Increase extreme precipitation with scenarios (Westra et al. 2014)
shorter duration and less seasonality in a warmer climate
(Moustakis et al. 2021)
Relative Increase slightly over oceans but decrease substantially over land Temperature, atmospheric circulations, and land-surface properties
humidity (Byrne and O’Gorman 2016, 2018) (Byrne and O’Gorman 2016, 2018)
Chloride levels Increase surface chloride levels in the global warming scenarios Atmospheric temperature, humidity, and seasonality
(Bastidas-Arteaga et al. 2010) (Bastidas-Arteaga et al. 2010)

Table 2. Examples and ways of climate change affecting concrete infrastructure
Potential impacts Ways References
Increase risks of concrete infrastructure due to carbonation Elevate CO2 levels and temperatures associated with Stewart et al. (2011)
and chloride-induced corrosion global warming
Exacerbate the seismic performance of aging bridge structures Increase the rate of chloride-induced corrosion under Mortagi and Ghosh (2020)
climate change scenarios
Expand carbonation depths to buildings Increase the rate of carbonation under climate change Saha and Eckelman (2014) and
scenarios Chen et al. (2021a)
Increase overall losses in residential buildings Increasing wind speed as an average temperature rise Pant and Cha (2019)
Increase scour risk of railway bridges in the United Kingdom Increase the frequency and severity of extreme Dikanski et al. (2018)
weather
Increase risk of bridge deck unseating Increase frequency and intensity of hurricanes and Yang and Frangopol (2020)
sea-level rise
Affect the susceptibility of railway infrastructure Increase the frequency and intensity of extreme Garmabaki et al. (2021)
weather
variables due to unknown future CO2 emission scenarios, diverse quantitative assessment of infrastructure risks under region-specific
climate change prediction models, and natural variability of climate climate scenarios.
(Dikanski et al. 2018; Marzeion et al. 2020; Palin et al. 2021; TRB In the following sections, the impacts of climate change on the
2008; Rosenzweig et al. 2011). To provide a reference for the quan- uncertainty analysis and risk assessment in concrete infrastructure
tification of climate variables and their uncertainties, a set of five are examined quantitatively based on relevant research studies in
emission scenarios was listed in the sixth assessment report the literature. Note that climate change will significantly impact
(AR6) by IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) both natural hazards and structural resistance, which are the two
(IPCC 2021), which included very high to very low GHG and CO2 key factors in the risk assessment of concrete infrastructures.
emission scenarios by 2050. It should be noted that the representa-
tive concentration pathways (RCPs) in the fifth assessment report
(AR5) have been more widely adopted, namely, the severe mitiga- Impacts of Climate Change on Natural Hazards
tion scenario (RCP2.6), two moderate emission scenarios (RCP4.5 Patterns
and RCP6.0), and a highly emitting GHG scenario (RCP8.5) (IPCC
2014), which are not to be expanded in this paper due to the space Climate variable changes will lead to fluctuations in hazard-related
limit. loads on civil infrastructure, including wind loads, snow loads,
The changing climate variables have significant effects on con- floods, and sea-level rise (SLR), as summarized in Table 3. Note
crete infrastructure, and some examples and ways are listed in that other natural hazards similarly affected by climate change
Table 2. Many existing studies indicated that the influence of cli- (e.g., wildfires, hailstones, and tornados) are not the focus of this
mate uncertainties on the risk assessment of infrastructure varies study, as they are not the primary loads on infrastructure. These
for different regions and infrastructural types. Most existing stud- changes typically manifest as increased frequency and/or intensity
ies, however, are limited to qualitative discussions without of extreme loads, potentially leading to elevated risk associated
Table 3. Summary of the impacts of climate change on natural hazards

Hazards Region Trend of change References
Wind and Atlantic Decrease in overall frequency but nearly doubling of the frequency of Category 4 and 5 Bender et al. (2010)
tropical cyclone storms
US East Increase in maximum wind speed and the annual hurricane genesis frequency (under Mudd et al. (2014)
Coast RCP 8.5)
China Decrease in return periods Xu et al. (2020)
Snow Europe Decrease in mean value but higher variance, leading to greater extreme values Croce et al. (2019) and Ivanov
et al. (2022)
Canada Increase in the north Canada but decrease in the south Canada Hong et al. (2021) and Jeong
and Sushama (2018)
River flooding Europe Increasing frequency in west Europe but decreasing frequency in south and Faggian (2018)
middle-east Europe
Finland Seasonal variance: the probability of flooding increases in autumn and winter but Veijalainen et al. (2010)
decreases in spring
Lehigh Increasing frequency under RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0 but decreasing frequency under Yang and Frangopol (2019)
River RCP 8.5
Ganjiang Increase in the magnitude and frequency under RCP 8.5, especially for the flood with a Yin et al. (2018)
River higher return period
SLR Global SLR by 14–34 and 24–41 cm under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, respectively IPCC (2014)
Global SLR by about 52 and 63 cm under the temperature rises of 1.5°C and 2°C, respectively Jevrejeva et al. (2018)
Global Regional variance: lower SLR for areas near the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean but Alhamid et al. (2022a)
higher SLR in the areas near the Arctic Ocean and North Atlantic Ocean

with various hazards. In addition, the serious trend of hazards import of the tropical cyclone on the building code for two coastal
caused by climate change cannot be described with certainty, and cities, Shanghai and Hangzhou in China, from 1979 to 2098. They
these uncertainties should also be considered in the risk assessment pointed out that when adapted to the future climate conditions, the
of infrastructure. return periods of tropical cyclones would decrease and the design
wind speeds recommended by current codes would be relatively
low.
Wind and Tropical Cyclone The aforementioned literature primarily focuses on the influence
Strong winds and tropical cyclones cause substantial damage of climate change on the frequency and intensity of strong winds,
worldwide every year. Atlantic hurricanes resulted in $150 billion and the validation of design wind speeds in structure codes. In ad-
in losses from 2004 to 2005 (Pielke et al. 2008). With the growth of dition, strong wind is a complex climatic phenomenon associated
population and economy, coastal regions are increasingly suscepti- with heavy precipitation and flooding, constituting a typical multi-
ble to more severe damage from hurricanes and tropical cyclones. hazard scenario that will be further discussed in the following
Additionally, global warming may lead to variations in hurricane sections.
wind speed, frequency, and hurricane-triggered storm surges (Bjar-
nadottir et al. 2014). Although the scientific community is still Snow

studying how the relative change of sea surface temperature affects
the occurrence and overall intensity of tropical cyclones (Wu et al. Snow pressure is one of the main environmental loads considered
2022; Wahiduzzaman et al. 2022), numerous studies have demon- in civil infrastructure design, generally determined by the ground
strated that global warming increases the frequency or/and intensity snow load. The representative value of ground snow load corre-
of strong wind and tropical cyclones. sponding to a certain annual exceedance probability can be deter-
Bender et al. (2010) investigated the influence of global warm- mined based on probability distributions (e.g., the Gumbel
ing on future Atlantic hurricanes using a hurricane prediction distribution being most widely adopted) obtained from the statisti-
model. Their findings indicated that despite the potential decrease cal analysis of extreme ground snow load over a 40–50-year period
in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones, there would be an al- (CEN 1991). To analyze the trend of annual extreme ground snow
most doubling of the frequency of Category 4 and 5 storms by the load, it is critical to consider not only the change in the mean value
end of the 21st century. The most substantial growth was predicted but also the change in variance, i.e., extreme snowfall conditions.
in the Western Atlantic north of 20°N. In the Pacific region, re- On the one hand, global warming induces an increase in rainfall
search results have indicated that the frequency of future typhoons rather than snowfall (i.e., the average snowfall decreases) and ac-
will decrease compared to the current climate, but extreme ty- celerates the rate of snow melting (O’Gorman 2014). On the
phoons will be more likely to occur and shift to the northeast other hand, an increased extreme snowfall intensity under future
(Chen et al. 2021b). A model was proposed by Esmaeili and Bar- climate scenarios will result in larger extreme ground snow loads
bato (2021) via historical data to aid in predicting the wind speeds (Raisanen 2008).
Croce et al. (2019, 2021) investigated snow load models in Eu-
of hurricanes under different climate conditions, as shown in Fig. 2.
rope considering climate change and established a correlation be-
The design wind speeds along the US Gulf and Atlantic coasts
tween snowfall, precipitation, and temperature by analyzing
would increase by approximately 14% and 26% by 2060 under
available observational data. A decreasing trend was observed in
RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, respectively.
the representative values of ground snow load due to global warm-
It becomes evident that the traditional design wind speeds are
ing, which decreases the maximum annual mean value of ground
inadequate for future nonstationarity climates, and this subject
snow loads. Conversely, the reduction in the mean value was fol-
has attracted significant attention from researchers. Mudd et al.
lowed by an increase in the variance so that larger extreme load val-
(2014) evaluated the most severe potential import of the RCP 8.5
ues could appear in some scenarios. Jeong and Sushama (2018)
scenario on hurricanes based on the historical hurricane events da-
studied the trend of snow loads in Canada by adopting the snow
tabase. According to the simulation results, the design wind speed water equivalent to quantify ground snow loads and predicted the
in the current codes requires to be increased to guarantee the safety ground snow load values for a 50-year return period via the global
and performance of structures. Xu et al. (2020) investigated the climate models (GCMs). The results demonstrated that the ground
snow load values generally decrease in southern Canada but in-
crease in northern Canada. The Canadian design codes were subse-
quently calibrated by Hong et al. (2021) based on historical data,
considering the influence of global warming. Fig. 3 illustrates the
effect of global warming on the annual extremes of snow loads
in Canada. It is evident that the impact of climate warming is not
consistent for different regions but overall shows a trend of decreas-
ing mean and increasing variance. Hence, they suggested that dif-
ferent safety factors should be used for the representative values of
snow loads in northern and southern Canada, which is consistent
with the conclusions drawn by Jeong and Sushama (2018).
ASCE7-22 (ASCE 2022) revises the reliability-targeted ground
snow loads based on nearly 30 years of additional snow load
data. This revision accounts for climate change and site-specific
variations in annual ground snow loads across the United States.
Fig. 2. Esmaeili And Barbato (2021) predicted hurricane wind speed
In summary, snow loads in Europe and Canada show increased
for the Year 2100 in Miami compared to predictions by Cui and
variability under climate change and the effects of various uncer-
Caracoglia (2016) and Pant and Cha (2019). (Reprinted from Esmaeili
tainties need to be comprehensively considered in climate adapta-
and Barbato 2021 @ ASCE.)
tion. It should be added that although the impact of climate

Fig. 3. Impact of warming on the annual extremes of snow load in Canada. (Reprinted from Structural Safety, Vol. 93, H. P. Hong, Q. Tang,
S. C. Yang, X. Z. Cui, A. J. Cannon, Z. Lounis, and P. Irwin, “Electrical conductivity of self-monitoring CFRC,” 102135, © 2021, with permission
from Elsevier.)
change on snow loads in other regions of the world has been rarely coherently, and this impact will correspondingly vary with the hy-
studied, the need to update snow load provisions in current design drological conditions of each region. Furthermore, significant var-
codes is well recognized (Mo et al. 2016; Al-Rubaye et al. 2022). iability in flooding occurs under various emission scenarios and
climate models. To accurately investigate future river flooding
for a particular region, it is crucial to have a deeper understanding
River Flooding of the local hydrometeorological conditions, the influence of pre-
Changes in river discharges are also one of the consequences of cli- cipitation and temperatures on floods, and the conversion of climate
mate change. For example, the melting of more snow caused by ris- scenarios into hydrological conditions (Veijalainen et al. 2010).
ing temperatures and the increase in local precipitation will lead to The increase in extreme floods is directly related to scour dam-
higher river discharges and increased flood frequency. The conse- age to bridges. Scouring endangers the bearing capacity of the
quence is that the global population affected by 100-year floods bridge foundation and consequently reduces the safety of the
under 2°C and 4°C warming above preindustrial levels exceeds bridge. According to Wardhana and Hadipriono (2003), 503 brid-
200 and 500 million, respectively (Kundzewicz et al. 2010). ges collapsed in the United States between 1989 and 2000, with
According to a report by the Joint Research Centre (Faggian roughly half of these collapses attributed to flood scouring. Per
2018), river floods exhibit greater spatial variability and more sig- the US Federal Highway Administration (Richardson and Davis
nificant fluctuations in the frequency of extreme values compared 2001), scour is defined as “the erosion or removal of a streambed
to other hazards under future climate conditions. In western or riparian material from bridge foundations due to the river dis-
Europe, both average and extreme precipitation are predicted to in- charges” and is generally classified as (1) long-term riverbed deg-
crease, leading to an increase in the frequency of floods. In the case radation; (2) riverbed shrinkage; and (3) localized scour. The most
of southern and east-central Europe, the frequency of floods tends significant damage is caused by localized scouring around piers or
to go down as a result of the decrease in snowmelt-induced floods, abutments, which can be quantified by scour depth. The calculation
which offsets the influence of the increased average and extreme of scour depth needs to consider many factors, including riverbed
precipitation. Veijalainen et al. (2010) quantified the impact of cli- types, river discharges, and bridge abutment shapes, of which
mate change on floods in Finland and found that the magnitude of river discharges are one of the key factors. Several scholars have
the impact varies by season and region. Tabari (2020) illustrates studied the calculation of the scour depth and scour risk of bridges
that 30-year flood intensity is expected to increase over most considering the influence of climate change on extreme river dis-
areas of the globe by the end of the 21st century, but there is charges and flood frequency (Imam 2019; Kallias and Imam
great uncertainty in different regions. Yang and Frangopol (2019) 2016; Khelifa et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2020). It is worth noting that
predicted and evaluated the flow rate of the Lehigh River and the river discharges, which are closely related to scour damage of brid-
flood scour risk of bridges. The results indicated that the Lehigh ges, may vary significantly among different rivers or even different
River will experience an increase in both flow rate and frequency locations within the same river. When considering climate change,
of flooding. The 20-year flood return period in 2020 is expected it is essential to account for the impact of this uncertainty.
to decrease to 13 years by 2099 under RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0 emis-
sions. In the extreme climate scenario, i.e., RCP 8.5 emission, the
Sea-Level Rise
frequency of floods is expected to decrease due to the rise in tem-
peratures and the reduction in river discharges. Furthermore, there Rising temperatures, increasing water acidity, and sea-level rise are
is considerable variability in the results predicted by different the major impacts of global warming on coastal systems (Nazarnia
GCMs. Yin et al. (2018) investigated the flood peak discharge et al. 2020). Among these impacts, the first two significantly accel-
and flood volume of the Ganjiang River in China under the RCP erate structural resistance degradation, while the latter augments the
8.5 emission scenario. It was illustrated that for floods with return structural load. Sea-level rise will elevate the frequency and inten-
periods > 50 years, the flood peak and 7-day flood volume are pro- sity of natural hazards, such as floods and tsunamis, affecting infra-
jected to increase by 12.1%–42.4% and 11.6%–37.4%, respec- structure in offshore areas and resulting in substantial economic
tively, by 2080. Generally, climate change has a greater impact losses. With every 50-cm sea-level rise, the tsunami risk in certain
on flood frequency than flood intensity. coastal areas may increase by as much as two times (Li et al. 2018).
Based on the preceding analysis, it can be seen that the impact of To quantify the threat of sea-level rise, it is first necessary to pre-
climate change on river discharges and flooding is difficult to define dict the extent of sea-level rise, which can be done using either the

semiempirical formula or the GCM-based approaches. In the semi- the Gulf of Mexico. To quantify the effect of sea-level rise (exclud-
empirical formula approach, the relationship between temperature ing the effect of storm surges on flood frequency), Hague and
rise and sea-level rise is fitted based on previous observation data Taylor (2021) proposed a conceptual model of tide-only inundation
to predict future sea-level rise (Rahmstorf 2007; Vermeer and and a practical approach for developing tidal inundation statistics,
Rahmstorf 2009). In the GCM-based approach, GCMs are estab- including means, historical trends, and future predictions.
lished based on the physical mechanisms, which are used to predict Apart from the floods, tsunamis are also a consequence of sea-
future climate and sea-level rise by assuming future emission sce- level rise. Li et al. (2018) investigated tsunami risk in Macau under
narios (Church et al. 2013). Compared to the semiempirical for- sea-level rise of 50 cm (by 2060) and 100 cm (by 2100) and created
mula approach, the GCM-based approach can more effectively a probabilistic tsunami inundation map. The results demonstrated
account for regional variability, making it more commonly used. that sea-level rise could result in a significant increase in the fre-
Noteworthy, the results predicted by different GCMs vary signifi- quency of tsunamis, doubling by 2060 and tripling by 2100. A
cantly due to the different assumptions and modeling approaches. semiempirical equation approach was used by Dawson et al.
Alhamid et al. (2022b) categorized sea-level rise into three compo- (2016) to investigate the relationship between flooding and rail
nents: (1) stereo dynamic sea-level rise; (2) glacier sea-level rise; transport restrictions caused by sea-level changes over the past
and (3) ice sheet sea-level rise. A probabilistic model, which con-
150 years and to estimate the extent of sea-level rise impact on

siders various uncertainties, including emission scenarios, GCMs, the railway from London to Penzance in the United Kingdom. It
and observational data, was proposed for predicting sea-level was indicated that the number of rail restrictions increased signifi-
rise. The prediction results from Alhamid et al. (2022b) are pre- cantly with rising sea levels. By the end of the century, the number
sented in Fig. 4. Sea-level rise exhibits regional variability and is of line closures will have increased to 3.6 times per year from once
relatively low in the areas near the Indian Ocean and the Pacific every 3–4 years by 2020. Although many researchers have studied
Ocean, such as India, New Zealand, and the west coast of the flood and tsunami risks under different sea-level rise scenarios, this
United States. Nevertheless, coastal cities near the North Atlantic is a complicated multihazard problem (e.g., floods brought by hur-
and the Arctic Ocean, such as some in England and Norway, are ricanes and tsunamis caused by earthquakes), which will be dis-
subject to a greater threat from sea-level rise.
cussed in the following sections.
One consequence of sea-level rise is the increase in coastal
flooding, which is also related to storm surges (already discussed
in the previous sections). This poses a significant threat to critical Analysis of Nonstationary Data and Design Loads
offshore infrastructure (Dismukes and Narra 2018). Moreover, sea- Considering Nonstationary Climate
level rise will greatly increase the frequency of coastal flooding
according to Kopp et al. (2014). Buchanan et al. (2017) observed Previous structural designs did not account for the effects of climate
variations in the amplification of flood frequencies for different change. In other words, climate variables were assumed to be sta-
magnitudes. For example, the probability of flooding in Seattle in- tionary, and design loads were determined based on historical data
creased 108, 335, and 814 times for the 10-, 100-, and 500-year re- on hazard occurrences. However, climate variables such as temper-
turn periods, respectively, under a 50-cm sea-level rise scenario, ature, precipitation patterns, and sea-level rise are undergoing
whereas the same scenario in Charleston led to increases of 148, global changes, introducing nonstationarity in external loads,
16, and 4 times for the corresponding return periods. The climate- e.g., extreme wind speeds, ground snow depths, flood return peri-
hydrodynamic modeling was adopted by Marsooli et al. (2019) to ods, and precipitation. Moreover, this trend is usually biased to-
quantify the effects of sea-level rise and tropical cyclones (under ward hazardous conditions. For instance, traditional infrastructure
RCP 8.5 emissions scenario) on flood hazards along the Atlantic designs that rely on stationary climate assumptions may substan-
and Gulf coasts of the United States in the late 21st century. The tially underestimate the frequency of extreme precipitation, result-
study illustrated that the relative influence of tropical cyclones ing in increased flood risks for the infrastructure system (Cheng and
will continue to increase from New England, the mid-Atlantic, AghaKouchak 2014). Consequently, it is important to integrate
and the southeast Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico, and this influence nonstationary climate scenarios into the new design codes to guar-
will be larger than that of the sea-level rise in 40% of the towns in antee the long-term safety and performance of infrastructure.
Fig. 4. Projected sea-level rise for 2100. (Reprinted from Structural Safety, Vol. 94, Abdul Kadir Alhamid, Mitsuyoshi Akiyama, Hiroki Ishibashi,
Koki Aoki, Shunichi Koshimura, Dan M. Frangopol, “Framework for probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment considering the effects of sea-level rise
due to climate change,” 102152, © 2022, with permission from Elsevier.)

To consider the nonstationarity climate changes and update the forms. For example, Köliö et al. (2014) demonstrated that CO2 con-
structural design loads, it is essential not only to model and predict centration and extreme precipitation have an impact on the carbon-
future climate but also to assess the effects of climate change on the ation initiation time, as well as temperature on the diffusion time,
frequency and extremes of various hazards. Eventually, these ef- based on collected climate scenario predictions and the durability
fects need to be reflected in determining design loads (Orcesi data of concrete structures in Finland. Khatami and Shafei (2021)
et al. 2022b). In preparation for future climate change and urbani- analyzed corrosion due to chloride ion ingress in concrete bridges
zation, Gilroy and McCuen (2012) developed a methodology for located in the Midwestern United States, considering climate
evaluating nonstationary flood frequency and applied it to the Little change. They argued that the corrosion initiation time would be
Patuxent River in Guilford, Maryland. The results revealed that shortened by 13%–39% for different emission scenarios, and the
there would be a 30.2% increase in flood frequency by 2,100 for crack width would expand with global warming.
the 100-year return period. Sarhadi and Soulis (2017) developed Despite the differences in mechanism, carbonation corrosion
a time-dependent risk framework that incorporated the precipitation and chloride-induced corrosion share great similarities in the devel-
intensity–duration–frequency to integrate the impact of climate opment process. Both types can be divided into two stages: diffu-
change into infrastructure design guidelines. Hong et al. (2021) cal- sion and propagation. In the diffusion stage, concrete is gradually
ibrated the design wind, snow, and companion load factors in the carbonated or eroded by chloride ions, eventually leading to the
National Building Code of Canada, considering the effects of non- breakdown of the passivation film on the reinforcement and the ini-
stationarity climate change on extreme wind and snow loads. tiation of corrosion. During the propagation stage, reinforcement
Climate is subject to great uncertainty. While epistemic uncer- corrosion progresses over time, resulting in the deterioration of
tainty can be reduced through research efforts, aleatory uncertainty structural resistance. Therefore, to investigate the influence of cli-
cannot be completely eliminated. The structural design and assess- mate change on the deterioration process of concrete structures,
ment need to include reliability, risk, and resilience (Akiyama et al. the first step is to study the impact of climate change on both the
2020; Wasko et al. 2021). To accurately quantify the predictive un- diffusion and propagation processes. The critical factors of the
certainties, it is advisable to use more comprehensive emission sce- two stages are the corrosion initiation time and corrosion rate,
narios and GCMs (Jeong and Sushama 2018). Lompi et al. (2021) respectively.
provided a method to quantify the expected changes in future hy- For the diffusion stage, the time-dependent effects of environ-
draulic risk in the Pamplona city catchment. The proposed method mental factors, including temperature and relative humidity, are
considered 12 climate models, 7 return periods, 2 emission scenar- taken into account by using a modified diffusion coefficient,
ios (i.e., RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5), and 3 time periods (i.e., 2011– which is expressed as follows:
2040, 2041–2070, and 2070–2100) in the EURO-CORDEX
project. The study identified that the maximum flood design values D(t) = fT (t)fRH (t)Dref (1)
decreased for the 10-year return period but increased for the 500- where Dref = diffusion coefficient for reference atmospheric envi-
and 1,000-year return periods across the aforementioned three spec- ronment, e.g., temperature T = 20°C and relative humidity
ified time periods. In the case of the RCP 8.5 emission scenario, the (RH) = 75%; fT (t) = effect coefficient of temperature variation;
flood quantile is expected to increase for the return periods exceeding and fRH(t) = effect coefficient of relative humidity variation, both
50 years, and the increase in design peak flow is about 10%–30% effect coefficients are related to time t. The Arrhenius law can be
greater than that of the RCP 4.5 emission scenario. adopted to calculate the temperature effect coefficient as follows
(DuraCrete 2000; Yoon et al. 2007):

Impacts of Climate Change on Structural Resistance E 1 1
fT (t) = exp − (2)
R Tref T (t)
The reliability of concrete infrastructure depends not only on
changes in external loads but also on variations in structural resis- where T(t) = time-dependent temperature (unit: K); Tref = reference
tance. Therefore, when assessing the impact of climate change on temperature, usually set as 20°C; E = activation energy required for
concrete infrastructure, both external loads and structural resistance diffusion; and R = gas constant.
should be taken into account. Indeed, the processes of structural re- The variation of fT (t) with temperature is illustrated in Fig. 5(a).
sistance deterioration will be significantly influenced by changes in As the temperature increases, the fT (t) tends to increase and both
climate variables, including CO2 concentration, temperatures, and CO2 and chloride ions have larger diffusion coefficients. This im-
relative humidity. Given that concrete infrastructures usually plies that both carbonation rates and chloride ions erosion rates in-
have a design life of several decades, they can hardly avoid expe- crease under global warming, leading to a previous initiation of
riencing the effects of climate change. Consequently, it is impera- corrosion. The specific rate of acceleration varies depending on
tive to consider the effects of climate change on structural the magnitude of the temperature increase.
resistance to accurately evaluate the overall life-cycle performance In terms of fRH(t), the calculation models for carbonation and
of structures. The trend of increasing uncertainties in structural re- chloride ion erosion differ. Chloride ion erosion predominantly de-
sistance due to changing climate should also be further pends on moisture transport, meaning higher relative humidity re-
investigated. sults in a higher erosion rate, i.e., a greater fRH(t). The fRH(t) under
chloride ion erosion can be calculated using the model proposed by
Saetta et al. (1993):
Structural Deterioration Process Considering Climate
−1
Change 1 − RH(t) 4
fRH (t) = 1 + (3)
Regarding concrete infrastructure, reinforcement corrosion stands 1 − RHc
out as a primary factor affecting structural durability. The corrosion
of reinforcement in concrete includes two forms: corrosion due to where RH(t) = time-dependent relative humidity; and RHc = rela-
carbonation and corrosion due to chloride ion ingress. Global cli- tive humidity at which the diffusion coefficient drops to half, usu-
mate change has an impact on both reinforcement corrosion ally considered as 75%. The effect of relative humidity on the

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Variation for temperature effect coefficient and relative humidity effect coefficient: (a) temperature effect factor; and (b) relative humidity
effect factor.
diffusion rate of chloride ion erosion is depicted in Fig. 5(b), where The nature of rebar corrosion is an electrochemical reaction that
the reference RH is equal to 75%. involves the combined effect of moisture and oxygen. The corro-
In the case of carbonation, the effect of relative humidity fol- sion rate of rebar is influenced by not only the material properties
lows a nonmonotonic pattern. When the relative humidity falls of the rebar and concrete but also the ambient temperature, mois-
within the range of 50%–100%, an increase in relative humidity ture, and oxygen. These environmental conditions are more diffi-
contributes to a reduction of the carbonation rate. In contrast, a re- cult to determine when concrete cracks exist, which is why
duction in relative humidity does not affect the carbonization rate accurately modeling the corrosion behavior of reinforcement is a
when relative humidity falls between 30% and 50% (Ahmad difficult task. The model provided by DuraCrete (2000) is usually
2003). Concrete carbonation ceases entirely at a relative humidity adopted to simulate the corrosion rate of reinforcement under dif-
level below 25% (Richardson 1988). A model that considers the ef- ferent temperature conditions:
fect of relative humidity is provided by the International Federation
for Structural Concrete as follows (fib 2006): icorr (t) = icorr,20 {1 + K[T (t) − 20]} (5)
where icorr,20 = corrosion current density at the reference condition
⎧ (T = 20°C); icorr(t) = corrosion current density at a temperature of
⎨ 0 RH(t) ≤ 25%
fRH (t) = 1 − (RH(t)/100) fe
ge
(4) T(t); and K = 0.025 and 0.073 at temperatures less and greater
⎩ RH(t) > 25% than 20°C, respectively.
1 − (RHref /100) fe Fig. 6 shows the predicted corrosion initiation time and corro-
sion rate of reinforced concrete (40-mm concrete cover thickness)
where RHref = relative humidity in the reference environment; and for five emission scenarios in the AR6. Note that the influence of
fe and ge = constants of 2.5 and 5.0, respectively. It is therefore con- temperature on corrosion rate is considered in this model, whereas
cluded that the diffusion process should be determined according to the effect of relative humidity is excluded. The effect of relative hu-
the specific condition of climate change at the infrastructure loca- midity is extremely complicated since both high and low relative
tion, considering the complex influence of relative humidity. The humidity could accelerate the corrosion process. Even under the
consensus of existing research is that global warming is generally same relative humidity conditions, the corrosion rate of reinforce-
responsible for accelerated carbonation and chloride ion ingress, re- ment differs significantly. Moreover, many previous studies treat
sulting in previous corrosion of reinforcement. carbonation and chloride ion corrosion as separate processes
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Initiation time and rate of corrosion (40-mm concrete cover thickness): (a) corrosion initiation time; and (b) corrosion rate.

without accounting for their combined impact. Therefore, further structures by up to 31%. Xu and Yang (2023) developed a hierar-
investigation is needed to develop a model for reinforcement corro- chical two-tier framework to investigate how projected climate
sion considering climate change. change may affect corrosion-induced damage for concrete bridges,
considering the exposure and environmental conditions (i.e., tem-
perature and relative humidity) at specific locations. Through
Influence of Climate Change on Structural Resistance case studies, the following conclusions can be drawn: due to cli-
The previous section provided a brief description of how climate mate change, the time to corrosion initiation, crack initiation,
change affects the deterioration process. This section is dedicated and severe cracking for Victoria and Toronto decreased by
to reviewing the specific research progress on structural resistance 10.9%–12.5%; under climate change impacts, the probability of
and reliability assessment under the influence of climate change. corrosion initiation may increase by 0.5%–28.9%, and the likeli-
Stewart et al. (2011) evaluated the probability of corrosion ini- hood of corrosion damage varies widely between different regions.
tiation and damage to infrastructure under changing climate vari- In summary, although the effects of climate change can be both
ables (i.e., CO2 concentration and temperature), considering positive and negative for different regions or countries, it generally
different emission scenarios. Taking Sydney and Darwin as exam- drives previous corrosion initiation and faster structural deteriora-
tion in most areas.
ples, they investigated the corrosion risk of Australian infrastruc-

tures under climate change. Their findings indicate that the The acceleration of the deterioration process implies that the
effects of climate change vary across different climate zones but structural resistance decreases at a faster rate, further impacting
generally result in accelerated corrosion propagation. If corrosion the reliability of structures. Bastidas-Arteaga (2018) investigated
damage is defined as the presence of corrosion-induced cracks ex- the failure of concrete beams in the context of climate change, con-
ceeding 1 mm in width, climate change could increase the likeli- sidering three different exposure environments and two potential
hood of corrosion damage by up to four times in certain severe future climate change scenarios. A 7% reduction in the service
exposure scenarios. Based on this, Stewart et al. (2012) further in- life of the bridge was observed due to the combined effect of vehi-
vestigated the risk of carbonation corrosion in Australian infra- cle fatigue loads and global warming. Mortagi and Ghosh (2020)
structure under an emission scenario. In arid regions of Australia, proposed a framework for seismic vulnerability assessment of high-
the carbonation depth was observed to decrease due to moisture speed bridges considering global warming. Bridges in the central
scarcity, with reductions of up to 15 mm in certain areas. On the and southeastern regions of the United States were selected to
contrary, in other regions, the carbonation depth could increase study the impact of climate change on both components and the
by 8 mm due to rising temperatures. They suggested that differ- overall structure. The study concluded that the failure probability
ences in climate conditions among regions must be considered to of concrete columns increased by 12.08% over a 100-year service
obtain accurate results when performing a large-scale analysis. life when only considering natural aging, while the failure probabil-
Peng and Stewart (2016) selected three representative cities in ity would increase by 19.18% when further considering climate
China (i.e., Kunming, Xiamen, and Jinan) and considered three dif- change. The impact of climate change on steel braces can be disre-
ferent emission scenarios to quantify the corrosion damage risk of garded, as the difference between cases with and without consider-
infrastructures under climate change. They concluded that the ing climate change is minimal (only 3%). On the other hand, since
structural carbonation depths increase rapidly due to climate the performance of columns is a crucial element in the seismic re-
change. Buildings located in temperate or cold climate areas in sistance of bridges, the heightened vulnerability of concrete col-
China may suffer an additional 7%–20% of carbonation-induced umns suggests an overall increase in the seismic vulnerability of
damage by the end of the 21st century due to the influence of cli- the entire bridge structural system. Mortagi and Ghosh (2022a) re-
mate change. de Larrard et al. (2014) proposed a method for quan- cently proposed an iterative approach that considers the coupled ef-
tifying the impact of climate change on the durability of concrete fect of carbonization and chloride ion ingress to calculate the
structures exposed to carbonation. The proposed method was ap- corrosion initiation time. They performed a case study evaluating
plied to assess the probability of carbonation effects for several cit- the seismic performance of offshore bridges and concluded that
ies across France under various climate scenarios. Chen et al. the corrosion initiation time obtained by considering both chloride
(2021a) introduced a carbonation model of concrete structures ion ingress and carbonation is significantly earlier than that by con-
that considers changes in climate variables (e.g., CO2 concentra- sidering chloride ion ingress only, leading to an increased seismic
tion, temperature, and relative humidity) to investigate the extent vulnerability of the bridge components.
to of climate change affects the concrete durability. The results in-
dicate that by the end of this century, climate change could cause an
additional 20%–160% concrete carbonation damage for the Chi- Risk Assessment Considering Climate Change
nese cities of Harbin, Qingdao, and Ningbo (representatives of se-
vere cold, cold coastal, and temperate coastal climates). Climate change, with features of various uncertainties, has signifi-
Bastidas-Arteaga et al. (2010) investigated the influence of cli- cant impacts on concrete infrastructure (Tolo et al. 2017b). There-
mate conditions on the chloride ingress into concrete structures in fore, risk-based assessment and management methods for concrete
various chloride-contaminated environments (i.e., continental, ma- infrastructure must be adopted to reasonably account for the uncer-
rine, and tropical) utilizing a stochastic approach. Their study indi- tainties. In recent years, researchers have predominantly focused on
cates that climate change has a more significant impact on risk assessment of concrete infrastructure considering climate
structures in marine environments, leading to a 2%–18% reduction change, particularly in the following directions: climate multiha-
in corrosion initiation time. Subsequently, Bastidas-Arteaga et al. zard scenarios (Dong and Frangopol 2016; Gallina et al. 2020;
(2013) explored the impact of global warming on the durability Yavuz et al. 2020; Roy and Matsagar 2023; Devendiran et al.
of concrete structures subjected to chloride ion ingress or carbon- 2021; Tursina et al. 2021); machine learning-based climate hazard
ation using time-dependent degradation models and simulations and risk prediction (Park and Lee 2020; Snaiki et al. 2020; Ayyad
of the effects of global warming on environmental factors such et al. 2023; Zhu et al. 2021a, b; Khandel and Soliman 2021; Zen-
as temperature, humidity, and CO2 concentration. The conclusion naro et al. 2021); and time-dependent vulnerability, loss, and risk
is that global warming could reduce the time to failure of concrete assessment (Khandel and Soliman 2021; Chirdeep et al. 2023;

Mortagi and Ghosh 2022b; Alhamid et al. 2023; Lee and Elling- experimental and numerical models). The empirical-based vulner-
wood 2017; Yang and Frangopol 2020). ability assessments are conceptually straightforward and computa-
A risk assessment of concrete infrastructure considering climate tionally efficient, serving as the fundamental approach to
change generally includes the following aspects: (1) identify and calculating the probability of structural damage. However, the em-
characterize the hazards under current and future climate scenarios; pirical models demand an adequate supply of practical engineering
(2) determine exposure and assess vulnerability; and (3) quantify data, and acquiring such data presents a substantial challenge in
the corresponding losses. A general expression of risk (Decò and vulnerability assessment (Dawson et al. 2018). Furthermore, such
Frangopol 2011) is given as follows: empirical models are based on past hazards and will not be appli-
cable to changing climate scenarios. The emergence of extreme cli-
R = P(Hi ) · P(D∣Hi ) · C(D) (6)
mate events has promoted the development of interdisciplinary
where P(Hi) = occurrence probability of a specific hazard Hi; vulnerability methods (Tolo et al. 2017a). For example, Kallias
P(D|Hi) = damage probability of structure under a given hazard in- and Imam (2016) developed a limit state function formula for brid-
tensity; and C(D) = losses caused by structural damage. Within the ges that takes climate variables into account. The failure probability
context of climate change, P(Hi) is affected by alterations in the fre- of bridge piers due to local scour exceeding the foundation depth
quency, intensity, and distribution of climate-related hazards and was estimated by the MCS method. The influence of climate
P(D|Hi) is affected by the decrease in structural resistance attribut- change was evaluated quantitatively by analyzing changes in stat-
able to climate change. istical data related to the expected annual maximum flow, including
mean values and variance. Khandel and Soliman (2021) proposed a
probabilistic vulnerability assessment framework for bridges under
Climate Hazard Identification and Assessment floods and flood-induced scour considering climate change. A neu-
Climate change impacts the intensity of wind, rain, and snow loads, ral network model was trained by historical temperature and precip-
as indicated in Table 3. Meanwhile, a large number of concrete in- itation, as well as corresponding river streamflow, to predict
frastructures have been built in regions along rivers, coasts, or areas streamflow. Another neural network model was trained by struc-
prone to flooding, rendering them susceptible to relevant hazards tural finite-element results to predict structural responses (e.g.,
such as sea-level rise, tsunamis, and floods. Compared to historical stresses and deformations). Zhu et al. (2021a, b) proposed a frame-
scenarios, climate change-induced fluctuations in the intensity, fre- work for reliability analysis of coastal bridges subjected to extreme
quency, and magnitude of these hazards introduce greater complex- hurricanes and waves. The artificial neural network was used to
ity into infrastructure loads in terms of not only the magnitude but build a surrogate model for the 3D computational fluid dynamics
also the spatial and temporal distributions. The characterization and simulations to predict the performance responses and vulnerability
description of hazards in the risk assessment of concrete infrastruc- of bridges, considering the uncertainties in structural capacity and
ture are primarily the responsibility of the domain experts rather the effects of climate change. The results indicated that climate
than risk analysts. Nevertheless, the hazard models proposed by do- change could markedly elevate the failure probability of coastal
main experts are usually complicated and computationally demand- bridges under hurricane waves, and bridges with longer service
ing. Despite their improved predictive accuracy, it is difficult to lives appeared to be more susceptible to the effects of climate
employ such models to analyze structural risk. The development change.
of suitable models for climate-related hazards, applicable in the Peng and Stewart (2016) concluded that climate change intensi-
risk analysis remains to be a subject of further research. fies the degradation of reinforced concrete structures, resulting in a
A key challenge in hazard risk assessment is to establish con- significant increase in the vulnerability of concrete infrastructure.
nections between the impacts of climate change and hazard charac- Mortagi and Ghosh (2022a) proposed a seismic vulnerability as-
teristics (e.g., the maximum annual flood flow). Based on a sessment framework for highway bridges that considers both
statistical analysis of the expected maximum annual flow of rivers, aging effects and global warming. An investigation was conducted
Kallias and Imam (2016) used the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) on a bridge in South Carolina, United States, with results indicating
method to estimate the failure probability of a bridge pier caused by that the aging effect increased the bridge vulnerability (total loss
local scour exceeding the foundation depth. In their study, climate stage) by 12.08%, while it increased by 19.18% when climate
change was represented by the gradual alteration of statistical char- change is considered. Recently, the impact of climate change and
acteristics within the expected maximum annual flow distribution. corrosion degradation on the lifetime seismic brittleness of high-
Alhamid et al. (2022b) developed a framework for probabilistic way bridges has been further studied by Chirdeep et al. (2023),
tsunami hazard assessment considering the effects and uncertain- based on the IPCC sixth assessment report. A case study of a non-
ties of sea-level rise. Initially, probabilistic assessments of sea-level seismically designed highway bridge located close to the ocean
rise under four climate change emission scenarios (i.e., RCP 2.6, environment shows that climate change-caused corrosion signifi-
RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5) were conducted based on avail- cantly increases the seismic fragility of aging bridges. Ha et al.
able data. Subsequently, uncertainties associated with stratum (2017) proposed a deterioration model to reflect the structural time-
movement were considered to simulate tsunami propagation sce- dependent reliability that considers climate change under RCP 4.5,
narios during periods of sea-level rise. Finally, the agent model, re- 6.0, and 8.5 emission scenarios using the gamma process. A dete-
lying on the radial basis function and the quasi-MCS, was used to rioration model of concrete structures that integrates chloride cor-
obtain the tsunami hazard curves. rosion, climate change, and cyclic loading was proposed by
Bastidas-Arteaga (2018). The reliability of the main girders was es-
timated considering the uncertainties associated with climate vari-
Vulnerability Analysis
ables. They demonstrated that the effects of climate change led to a
Structural vulnerability refers to the probabilistic description of reduction in service life ranging from 1.4% to 2.3% when fatigue
structural damage under a specific hazard, such as flood, earth- damage was ignored. Xie et al. (2018) studied the impact of climate
quake, hurricane, and so on. Vulnerability models are derived change on the durability of offshore concrete bridges. The results
based on damage data sourced from historical records (i.e., statisti- indicated that the rising temperatures accelerate the chloride ion
cal data or empirical models) or engineering models (i.e., penetration. According to the global warming scenario, the chloride

ion concentration on the reinforcement surface was predicted to in- Estimating losses is complex because it requires consideration
crease from 6% in 2000 to 15% in 2100, leading to a significant in- of the specific environmental and economic conditions in the re-
crease in the likelihood of erosion damage. Maniglio et al. (2021) gion, as well as the service life of the infrastructure. For instance,
developed a parameterized vulnerability model for port structures increasing the thickness of concrete cover can effectively mitigate
under hurricane-induced storm surges and waves, taking into ac- damage from chloride ion ingress. However, the cost effectiveness
count the potential influences of aging and degradation. Snaiki of this measure depends on the specific environmental exposure
et al. (2020) proposed a hurricane risk assessment method for conditions. Bastidas-Arteaga and Stewart (2016) discovered that
coastal bridges under different climate scenarios, which combines an adaptation strategy involving a 5 mm increase in cover thickness
the hurricane tracking model, height-resolving analytical wind was advantageous for Saint-Nazaire but not for Marseille. The
model, and machine learning-based surge model. study by Dong and Frangopol (2016) revealed that the overall life-
cycle losses were sensitive to factors such as the timing of the last
earthquake, currency discount rate, and remaining service life.
Loss Assessment due to Climate Change
The damage and failure of concrete infrastructure result in signifi-
cant losses, usually measured by economic costs, which is often the Climate Multihazard Risk Assessment
primary concern of decision makers. It should be noted that future
risk predictions need to consider the future monetary value of the
assets, and this also means that losses are time-dependent. The Climate Multihazard Risk
total loss associated with a civil infrastructure asset generally in- Hazards may occur simultaneously, cascadingly, or cumulatively in
cludes direct rebuilding costs CReb, indirect running costs CRun, time and space to become multihazard scenarios. This would be
and time loss costs CTL (Decò and Frangopol 2011), which can predictably more common in future climate scenarios, conse-
be expressed as follows: quently increasing the potential risk of infrastructure (Li et al.
2012). Coastal regions, in particular, face a convergence of various
CTotal (D, t) = CReb (D, t) + CRun (D, t) + CTL (D, t) (7) climate-related hazards, such as tsunamis, hurricanes, sea-level
rise, coastal erosion, saltwater corrosion, and so on. There are nu-
The economic losses stemming directly or indirectly from future merous multihazard events in accordance with historical records.
climate scenarios are projected to be substantial. For example, Jev- These events can be categorized into three types: (1) specific haz-
rejeva et al. (2018) predict that in the absence of further adaptive ards occurring in simultaneity but independent of each other (e.g.,
measures to account for a 1.5°C warming and its associated sea- earthquakes with hurricanes or strong winds); (2) cascading haz-
level rise by 2100, the worldwide annual cost of sea flooding ards (e.g., earthquakes triggering tsunamis); and (3) hazards that
could escalate to $10.2 trillion (1.8% of GDP). Streletskiy et al. do not occur simultaneously but threaten the same structure (e.g.,
(2019) investigated the impact of permafrost degradation on infra- floods and earthquakes) (Mahmoud and Cheng 2017). Although re-
structure and buildings in Russia, projecting their costs by the searchers have conducted numerous investigations concerning the
mid-21st century following the RCP 8.5 emission scenario. Mor- concept and approach of multihazards (Bruneau et al. 2017; Gill
tagi and Ghosh (2022b) conducted a life-cycle seismic loss assess- and Malamud 2014; Zaghi et al. 2016), generally speaking, the in-
ment for a continuous multispan concrete girder bridge. They found fluence of climate change has not been involved (Bruneau et al.
that the seismic losses of this bridge were underestimated by 2017; Zaghi et al. 2016). In some literature, climate change was
around 15% when the effects of aging and deterioration were ne- studied as a multihazard (Gill and Malamud 2014; Roy and
glected. Even when the effect of aging was taken into account, Matsagar 2023).
without considering the impact of climate change, the loss was To quantify the increasing structural vulnerability caused by
still underestimated by approximately 13.2% under the RCP 4.5 multihazards, a comprehensive approach should be employed in
emission scenario. On a broader scale, Alhamid et al. (2023) quan- the risk assessment of natural hazards, including those related to
tified the life-cycle economic risk associated with tsunami impact climate. Existing studies on multihazard risk primarily rely on static
under nonstationary sea-level rise effects. Their study revealed vulnerability analysis, which does not consider climate change
that, with a 50% exceedance probability, the life-cycle risk could (Gallina et al. 2016). Besides, the current vulnerability analysis is
increase by 20%–30% in several cities within the Kochi prefecture. commonly conducted on models of intact structures, while, in real-
Bjarnadottir et al. (2014) investigated the impact of climate ity, the structures that have been damaged by the primary hazard
change on losses resulting from hurricanes. A framework for may further suffer secondary hazards. For instance, in the case of
quantifying the potential damage risk of residential buildings ex- the 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan, multiple buildings were
posed to hurricanes was proposed, including the hurricane wind damaged in the mainshock‒aftershock sequences (Li et al. 2014).
field, hurricane-induced surge height, and hurricane vulnerability. In most existing code provisions, the combined effects of hazards
Miami-Dade County, New Hanover County, and Galveston are simulated by different load combinations, but unfortunately,
County in the United States underwent evaluation using the pro- this frequently results in the neglect of intricate interactions be-
posed framework, leading to the conclusion that climate change ex- tween different hazards (Zaghi et al. 2016).
erted a substantial influence on regional hurricane losses. Forcellini In recent years, there has been a notable surge in research atten-
(2021) proposed a resilience assessment framework that considers tion toward risk assessment for climate-related multihazards. Gal-
loss and recovery models under the influence of climate change. lina et al. (2016) conducted an insightful review of multihazard
González-Dueñas and Padgett (2022) extended the performance risk assessment considering the influence of climate change, cover-
and recovery assessment framework for coastal communities ing both concepts and analysis techniques. In a subsequent study
under hurricanes, considering time-varying aspects of the hazard, (Gallina et al. 2020), the authors proposed a multihazard risk meth-
depreciation, and aging or deterioration of coastal structures. odology aimed at quantifying the impact of climate change on the
Case studies have shown that the impact of climate change on haz- structures exposed to various hazards on a regional scale. The
ard conditions (i.e., storm forward velocity and local sea levels) method was semiquantitative on the basis of expert evaluation re-
changes the probability of building collapse and recovery. sults. Forzieri et al. (2016) combined different damage measures

Table 4. Examples of multihazards and the impacts of climate change
Multihazards Examples/regions Impacts References
Scour and earthquake A highway bridge in Climate-related hazard has a stronger effect on the total loss than the aging Dong and
California effects Frangopol (2016)
A river-crossing bridge in Climate change aggravated the scour damage and affected the seismic Devendiran et al.
California performance of the structure (2021)
Sea-level rise and A bridge in the Houston and Hurricane frequency most affects the risk of bridge deck unseating, Yang and
hurricane Galveston Bay area followed by hurricane intensity, sea-level rise, and aggregated appreciation Frangopol (2020)
rate
Sea-level rise, tsunami, Eastern Mediterranean As the sea level rose, tsunami inundation increased under the same Yavuz et al. (2020)
and earthquake Coastline earthquake magnitude
Banda Aceh city in Indonesia The tsunami inundation induced by earthquakes of 8.2–8.6 magnitude Tursina et al.
could be doubled if the impacts of sea-level rise were considered (2021)
induced by hazards into a multihazard indicator, enabling a quan- change aggravated the scour damage and affected the seismic per-
titative assessment of structural losses due to multiple formance of the structure. Climate change had an insignificant ef-
climate-related hazards. This method allows for comparability fect on minor and moderate damages, but it heightened the
among different hazards. The findings indicated a substantial rise seismic vulnerability of structures in cases of severe damage or col-
in climate-related hazards across Europe, particularly in coastal lapse. The failure probability of structures for the same earthquake
and floodplain regions in the southern and western parts of the magnitude increases by 20%–30% under flood level of 2051–2099
continent. These areas are often densely populated and of signifi- compared to those from 1930 to 2011. Recently, Ge et al. (2023)
cant economic importance. In addition, Steptoe et al. (2018) sum- integrated corrosion-induced deterioration, climate change, earth-
marized the primary climate factors inducing hazards and quake, and flood scour into the time-dependent seismic vulnerabil-
explained the multihazard mechanism. In summary, many studies ity of bridges. By analyzing an existing multispan concrete beam
related to multiple hazards have been conducted, covering earth- bridge, it was found that climate change and flood scour signifi-
quakes accompanied by floods or scour (Argyroudis and Mitoulis cantly increased the seismic vulnerability of deteriorating bridges.
2021; Prasad and Banerjee 2013; Guo and Chen 2016), earthquakes Although the hazard scenarios that combine scour and earth-
accompanied by hurricanes or strong winds (Mahmoud and Cheng quake have been studied to various extents, and the impact of
2017; Roy and Matsagar 2020; Zheng et al. 2019), and earthquakes scour on seismic vulnerability and risk of bridges has been evalu-
accompanied with tsunami (Akiyama et al. 2020; Carey et al. 2019; ated (Banerjee et al. 2019), relatively few studies have considered
Xu et al. 2021). Nevertheless, the multihazard risk assessment of climate change. Moreover, most previous studies are focused on
infrastructure accounting for the impacts of climate change is still the vulnerability and risk assessment of individual bridges, and
scarce, which is listed in Table 4. The following sections will pre- there is a scarcity of research addressing the combined impacts of
sent the current progress in research on climate multihazard risk scour and earthquakes at the bridge network level.
based on the available studies.
Coastal Infrastructure under Sea-Level Rise,

Bridges under Scour and Earthquakes Earthquakes, Tsunamis, and Hurricanes
Scour damage to piers or abutments inevitably occurs in the life Natural hazards such as tsunamis and hurricanes threaten the safety
cycle of bridges situated along rivers. Bridge piers are critical com- of offshore infrastructure throughout its entire life cycle, and these
ponents for resisting lateral forces, so any scouring of their founda- hazards naturally tend to become multiple hazards. For example,
tion tends to reduce the seismic resistance of the bridge system. hurricanes are often associated with large waves and flooding. Tsu-
Because climate change intensifies the impact of scouring on brid- namis are typically triggered by undersea earthquakes. As the sea
ges, it is crucial to consider climate change when assessing the vul- levels rise due to climate change, the multihazard coupling problem
nerability of bridges. will become more complicated.
Dong and Frangopol (2016) proposed a life-cycle assessment Mousavi et al. (2011) evaluated the impact of hurricane inten-
framework for the risk and resilience of bridges under earthquakes sity and sea-level rise due to global warming on coastal flooding
and floods. With this framework, the impact of climate change on based on hydrodynamic surge models and IPCC climate scenarios.
flood return period and intensity was considered, but the combined Yavuz et al. (2020) quantified the risk of tsunamis triggered by
effect of floods and earthquakes was neglected. Damage probabil- earthquakes in the eastern Mediterranean in the context of climate
ities for both hazards were individually calculated based on sepa- change. They concluded that as the sea level rose, the level of tsu-
rate failure models and then aggregated. Yilmaz et al. (2016) nami inundation in Fethiye city center and the Cairo agricultural
performed a more elaborate study on the vulnerability of bridges, area increased at the same earthquake magnitude. Tursina et al.
considering the coupling effect of floods and earthquakes. Simi- (2021) examined the tsunami risk in the Banda Aceh area and dis-
larly, Devendiran et al. (2021) analyzed the effect of climate change covered that a rising sea level resulted in tsunami inundation in-
on the flood and earthquake vulnerability, risk, and resilience of an duced by earthquakes of 8.2–8.6 magnitude, being twice as
existing bridge. The annual maximum flow of the San Joaquin extensive compared to scenarios without climate change. Alhamid
River in California was predicted until 2100 using the Coupled et al. (2022a) developed a time-dependent tsunami hazard assess-
Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5, and the results indicated ment method under the long-term progressive trend of sea level
an upward trend. Moreover, the seismic vulnerability of the se- due to climate change. The impact of nonstationary sea-level rise
lected bridge spanning over the San Joaquin River was evaluated on the tsunami hazard is predominantly determined by the geo-
under three different flood conditions (levels in 1930–2011, in graphic location of the study area; that is, the tsunami hazard
2012–2050, and in 2051–2099). The results showed that climate tends to be lower with the increase of land elevation.

While numerous studies have evaluated the vulnerability and in advance (Miao et al. 2018). Moreover, climate adaptation invest-
risk of offshore infrastructure under multihazard coupling, the cou- ments in infrastructure are huge and irreversible (Eisenack et al.
pling effects considered are usually hurricane and wave interactions 2012). Therefore, Mondoro et al. (2018) proposed a gain–loss
or sea-level rise and tsunami interactions. To the authors’ knowl- ratio (GLR) for systematically quantifying the possible gains and
edge, there is currently no framework for evaluating the combined losses concerning the delayed adaptation to achieve strategic flex-
impacts of hurricanes, tsunamis, and sea-level rise caused by cli- ibility. A biobjective robust model was proposed to optimize both
mate change. This presents a significant challenge for future the efficiency (i.e., benefit–cost ratio) and flexibility (i.e., GLR) for
research. climate adaptation. The model was applied to two typical bridges
spanning the Columbia and Mississippi Rivers.
Climate Risk Adaptation Strategies for Concrete Climatic Adaptation in the Design Phase
Infrastructure
To consider climate adaptation during the design phase, it is desir-
able to investigate the future nonstationary trends in hazard loads
Climate Risk Adaptation (e.g., sea-level rise, precipitation, hurricanes, and tsunamis) and
Infrastructure risks caused by climate change can be mitigated via the structural degradation mechanism. For instance, Fairburn in
adaptation measures during the design and service phases, as listed Wales faces a prolonged risk of flooding caused by sea-level rise,
in Table 5. Similarly, after reviewing the advances in infrastructure so the Shoreline Management Plan for the area has recommended
planning, design, and decision-making implementation to adapt to coastal adaptation planning, and eventually decommissioning Fair-
climate change, Buhl and Markolf (2023) emphasized that climate bourne (Buser 2020). After extreme floods and hurricanes, the Fe-
adaptation methods for infrastructure need to be integrated through- deral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revised the flood
out the entire phases. However, climate adaptation is a complex maps and proposed new provisions for structures affected by
decision-making process that needs consideration of climate vari- coastal storms (AASHTO 2008; FEMA 2015). The return levels
ables and associated uncertainties, including but not limited to and return periods in traditional engineering designs are not suit-
climate-related hazard analysis, structural degradation modeling, able for the assumption of climate change. To address this issue,
and infrastructure risk assessment. Rootzen and Katz (2013) defined the concept of Design Life
To establish effective adaptation strategies for mitigating the ef- Level (e.g., 5% of the maximum distribution of flood level over
fects of climate change, it has become a trend in recent years to in- the design life period) to quantify the risks in nonstationary
corporate emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, climates.
digital twins, point clouds, and building information modeling Another aspect is the structural capacity under design. The cur-
into risk and resilience assessment and management of critical in- rent degradation models for concrete infrastructure still rely exten-
frastructure (Argyroudis et al. 2022). These technologies help to as- sively on historical climate data, while climate change will
sess the asset condition and resilience of critical infrastructure accelerate the corrosion of steel bars and may affect the service
rapidly and accurately, thereby supporting decision-making and life. For example, the influence of climate change on the bridge
improving climate adaptation capabilities. Another effort is for deck without waterproof membrane rebar is significantly larger
government decision makers to adopt proactive infrastructure man- than on the bridge deck with waterproof membrane rebar (Guest
agement strategies rather than emergency response after extreme et al. 2020a). Stewart et al. (2012) compared three adaptive strate-
hazards occur. The proactive management approach implies the gies for corrosion control of steel rebar under climate change,
prevention of potential climate change impacts on infrastructure namely the increase of cover thickness, the improvement of con-
crete strength grade, and the application of surface coatings. There-
Table 5. Climate change events and adaptation strategies for concrete
fore, greater design loads (e.g., flood level, wind load, and snow
infrastructure load), anticorrosion materials [e.g., stainless steel bars (Williamson
et al. 2009) and glass fiber‒reinforced polymer composite bars
Phases Events Adaptation strategies (Manalo et al. 2021)], and urban planning adjustments can be
In the Threat of flooding due to Realignment of the coastline adopted in the structure for a better climate adaptation scheme
design sea-level rise and eventually (Bastidas-Arteaga and Stewart 2019).
decommissioning of
Fairbourne (Buser 2020)
Extreme events of floods Revised the flood maps and Climatic Adaptation of In-Service Structures
and hurricanes developed a new provision
(AASHTO 2008; FEMA 2015) With the acceleration of climate change and the increasing fre-
The return period is not Defined the concept of Design quency of severe climatic events, investments in maintenance for
suitable for the future Life Level (Rootzen and Katz service infrastructure may not achieve the expected benefits
climate scenario 2013) under the changing climate variables. Climate change should be in-
Acceleration of steel rebar Increasing cover thickness, cluded in monitoring and maintenance, and it is desirable to use
corrosion under climate improving concrete strength stricter design parameters to deal with various extreme weather
change grade, and applying surface conditions (TRB 2008). Choi et al. (2020) developed a framework
coatings (Stewart et al. 2012) for improving the adaptive capacity of existing dams under climate
In-service Collapse of dams due to Review and rehabilitate the change, which can be used to review and rehabilitate the aging
overtopping aging dams under climate dams.
change (Choi et al. 2020) Adaptation planning should balance infrastructure investment
Damage of bridges due to Armoring measures (Agrawal and the planning cycle, especially for the tight funding situation.
extreme precipitation et al. 2007) and flow-alerting As concluded by Becker et al. (2012), most of the ports surveyed
events or tropical cyclones measures (Prendergast and
can withstand a storm with a 100-year return period without
Gavin 2014)
being damaged. However, if the rate of climate change accelerates,

leading to changes in return periods from 100 to 30 years, such ad- using distinct climate characterization parameters, such as pre-
aptations would prove inadequate (Wang et al. 2020). For irrevers- cipitation and temperature, to calculate the probability and in-
ible investments, Koetse and Rietveld (2012) recommended tensity of potential hazards. The predictions of extreme events
delaying the decisions on infrastructure maintenance until critical like hurricanes, heavy snow, and floods primarily depend on
parameters concerning climate change had relative deterministic the occurrence probabilities and involve forecasting extreme
characteristics since maintenance design is a long-term process values of climate variables, such as extreme precipitation. How-
and incorrect decisions can be costly. Climate adaptation can ever, for certain natural hazards like tsunamis, mean values are
help mitigate the additional costs for future investments and main- preferred over extreme values because key climate variables,
tenance, thereby lowering the overall investment and damage costs. like sea-level rise, tend to change gradually. Considering these
Nasr et al. (2023) proposed a risk-based multicriteria decision anal- diverse requirements for climate characterization parameters
ysis method, systematically addressing the prioritization of climate presents another significant challenge.
change impacts and bridges more severely affected by climate 3. The third challenge comes from quantifying the correlation
change. among multiple hazards. Several quantitative hazard models
are based on the prediction of specific climate variables. In real-
ity, the changes in these climate variables are correlated under
Summary and Conclusions climate change, resulting in an implicit correlation between dif-
ferent hazards. Quantifying such correlation in the hazards
Climate change significantly impacts the safety and performance of under climate change will be a challenging problem.
concrete civil infrastructure. In recent years, there has been growing
interest in civil engineering research and practicing communities
toward better understanding and quantifying the effects of climate Data Availability Statement
change. However, a comprehensive review of the subject is still
lacking, and this paper has been prepared to fill this gap. No data were used for the research described in this article.
From the literature review, it can be seen that climate uncertain-
ties increase the complexity and difficulty in achieving reliable and
safe design and maintenance of civil infrastructure. Changes in cli- Acknowledgments
mate variables, such as temperature and precipitation patterns,
often result in increased frequency and intensity of hazard loads The first author greatly appreciates the financial support from
(e.g., hurricanes, tsunamis, extreme snows, and heavy precipita- the Project of National Key Research and Development Program
tion) on infrastructure, thereby accelerating the performance deteri- of China (Grant No. 2022YFC3803004), the National Natural
oration of infrastructure and reducing its safety and resilience. Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52311540017), and the
Climate uncertainties can be characterized and quantified through Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No.
infrastructure risk assessments, which provide a more rigorous ref- BK20211564). The support from the Royal Society (Award IEC
erence for climate adaptation to avoid significant losses under fu- \NSFC\211454) to the first and sixth authors is also gratefully
ture climate scenarios. Multiple hazards will occur more acknowledged.
frequently under climate change, posing the potential for substan-
tial damage to infrastructure. Therefore, the coupling effect of var-
ious hazards on structural damage should be considered References
comprehensively in the risk assessment of climate change-affected
infrastructure. Considering the uncertainties associated with cli- AASHTO. 2008. AASHTO BVCS—Guide specifications for bridges vul-
mate change and the huge and irreversible investment for infra- nerable to coastal storms. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
structure adaptation, it is imperative to quantify climate change Agrawal, A. K., M. A. Khan, Z. Yi, and N. Aboobaker. 2007. Handbook of
impacts and share exemplary practices. This will raise awareness scour countermeasures designs. Trenton, NJ: NJ DOT.
and encourage the development of policies for planning and imple- Ahmad, S. 2003. “Reinforcement corrosion in concrete structures, its mon-
menting climate adaptation strategies for infrastructure. itoring and service life prediction—A review.” Cem. Concr. Compos.
Based on the systematic review concerning the impacts of cli- 25 (4–5): 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00086-0.
mate change on civil infrastructure, three challenges that practical Akiyama, M., D. M. Frangopol, and H. Ishibashi. 2020. “Toward life-cycle
engineering should consider are identified as follows: reliability-, risk- and resilience-based design and assessment of bridges
and bridge networks under independent and interacting hazards:
1. The first challenge is the consideration of uncertainty. The un-
Emphasis on earthquake, tsunami and corrosion.” Struct. Infrastruct.
certainties related to climate change come from many sources, Eng. 16 (1): 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1604770.
e.g., uncertain carbon emission scenarios, diverse climate Alhamid, A. K., M. Akiyama, K. Aoki, S. Koshimura, and D. M.
change prediction models, and natural climate variability. Al- Frangopol. 2022a. “Stochastic renewal process model of time-variant
though the IPCC report predicts several possible emissions, tsunami hazard assessment under nonstationary effects of sea-level
these do not completely represent possible future scenarios. At- rise due to climate change.” Struct. Saf. 99: 102263. https://doi.org/10
mospheric circulation is a complex physical process. Even .1016/j.strusafe.2022.102263.
though many GCMs can predict future climate conditions, the Alhamid, A. K., M. Akiyama, K. Aoki, S. Koshimura, and D. M.
results often vary among GCMs due to different assumptions. Frangopol. 2023. “Life-cycle risk assessment of building portfolios
Minimizing the uncertainty of the GCMs based on the existing subjected to tsunamis under non-stationary sea-level rise based on a
compound renewal process.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 52 (7):
observational data will be a challenge. Clearly, considering cli-
1961–1982. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3857.
mate uncertainty is only a small step at the beginning, and the Alhamid, A. K., M. Akiyama, H. Ishibashi, K. Aoki, S. Koshimura, and
ultimate goal is to quantify and disseminate uncertainty using D. M. Frangopol. 2022b. “Framework for probabilistic tsunami hazard
advanced probability methods. assessment considering the effects of sea-level rise due to climate
2. The second challenge is how to select the climate characteriza- change.” Struct. Saf. 94: 102152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe
tion parameters. Different hazard prediction models necessitate .2021.102152.

Al-Rubaye, S., M. Maguire, and B. Bean. 2022. “Design ground snow design, and decision making.” Sustainable Resilient Infrastruct. 8:
loads: Historical perspective and state of the art.” J. Struct. Eng. 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2022.2134646.
148 (6): 03122001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X Buser, M. 2020. “Coastal adaptation planning in Fairbourne, Wales:
.0003339. Lessons for climate change adaptation.” Plann. Pract. Res. 35 (2):
Argyroudis, S. A., and S. A. Mitoulis. 2021. “Vulnerability of bridges to 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2019.1696145.
individual and multiple hazards- floods and earthquakes.” Reliab. Byrne, M. P., and P. A. O’Gorman. 2016. “Understanding decreases in land
Eng. Syst. Saf. 210: 107564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021 relative humidity with global warming: Conceptual model and GCM
.107564. simulations.” J. Clim. 29 (24): 9045–9061. https://doi.org/10.1175
Argyroudis, S. A., et al. 2022. “Digital technologies can enhance climate /JCLI-D-16-0351.1.
resilience of critical infrastructure.” Clim. Risk Manage. 35: 100387. Byrne, M. P., and P. A. O’Gorman. 2018. “Trends in continental temperature
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100387. and humidity directly linked to ocean warming.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
ASC (Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change). USA 115 (19): 4863–4868. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722312115.
2012. UK climate change risk assessment: Government report 2012. Carey, T. J., H. B. Mason, A. R. Barbosa, and M. H. Scott. 2019.
London: ASC. “Multihazard earthquake and tsunami effects on soil–foundation–
ASC (Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change). bridge systems.” J. Bridge Eng. 24 (4): 04019004. https://doi.org/10
2016. UK climate change risk assessment 2017 synthesis report: .1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001353.
Priorities for the next five years. London: ASC. CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1991. Actions on struc-
ASC (Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change). tures—Part 1-3: General actions—Snow loads. EN 1991-1-3:2004—
2022. UK climate change risk assessment 2022. London: ASC. Eurocode 1. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
ASCE. 2022. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings Chen, G., Y. Lv, Y. Zhang, and M. Yang. 2021a. “Carbonation depth pre-
and other structures. Reston, VA: ASCE. dictions in concrete structures under changing climate condition in
Ayyad, M., M. R. Hajj, and R. Marsooli. 2023. “Climate change impact on China.” Eng. Fail. Anal. 119: 104990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
hurricane storm surge hazards in New York/New Jersey Coastlines .engfailanal.2020.104990.
using machine-learning.” npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 6 (1): 88. https://doi Chen, Y., Z. Duan, J. Yang, Y. Deng, T. Wu, and J. Ou. 2021b. “Typhoons
.org/10.1038/s41612-023-00420-4. of western North Pacific basin under warming climate and implications
Banerjee, S., B. S. Vishwanath, and D. K. Devendiran. 2019. “Multihazard for future wind hazard of East Asia.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 208:
resilience of highway bridges and bridge networks: A review.” Struct. 104415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104415.
Infrastruct. Eng. 15 (12): 1694–1714. https://doi.org/10.1080 Cheng, L., and A. AghaKouchak. 2014. “Nonstationary precipitation
/15732479.2019.1648526. Intensity‒Duration‒Frequency curves for infrastructure design in a
Bastidas-Arteaga, E. 2018. “Reliability of reinforced concrete structures changing climate.” Sci. Rep. 4: 7093. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07093.
subjected to corrosion-fatigue and climate change.” Int. J. Concr. Chirdeep, N. R., S. Shekhar, and A. Bahurudeen. 2023. “Climate change
Struct. Mater. 12: 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0235-x. impact on seismic vulnerability of aging highway bridges.”
Bastidas-Arteaga, E., A. Chateauneuf, M. Sanchez-Silva, P. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part A: Civ. Eng. 9 (4):
Bressolette, and F. Schoefs. 2010. “Influence of weather and global 04023041. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.RUENG-1068.
warming in chloride ingress into concrete: A stochastic approach.” Choi, J. H., C. Jun, P. Liu, J. S. Kim, and Y. Moon. 2020. “Resolving
Struct. Saf. 32 (4): 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.03 emerging issues with aging dams under climate change projections.”
.002. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 146 (5): 04020025. https://doi.org
Bastidas-Arteaga, E., F. Schoefs, M. G. Stewart, and X. Wang. 2013. /10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001204.
“Influence of global warming on durability of corroding RC structures: Church, J. A., P. U. Clark, A. Cazenave, J. M. Gregory, S. Jevrejeva, A.
A probabilistic approach.” Eng. Struct. 51: 259–266. https://doi.org/10 Levermann, M. A. Merrifield, G. A. Milne, R. S. Nerem, and P. D.
.1016/j.engstruct.2013.01.006. Nunn. 2013. Sea level change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bastidas-Arteaga, E., and M. G. Stewart. 2016. “Economic assessment of Croce, P., P. Formichi, and F. Landi. 2021. “Extreme ground snow loads in
climate adaptation strategies for existing reinforced concrete structures Europe from 1951 to 2100.” Climate 9 (9): 133. https://doi.org/10.3390
subjected to chloride-induced corrosion.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. /cli9090133.
12 (4): 432–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1020499. Croce, P., P. Formichi, F. Landi, and F. Marsili. 2019. “Harmonized
Bastidas-Arteaga, E., and M. G. Stewart. 2019. Climate adaptation engi- European ground snow load map: Analysis and comparison of national
neering: Risks and economics for infrastructure decision-making. provisions.” Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 168: 102875. https://doi.org/10
Oxford, UK: Elsevier. .1016/j.coldregions.2019.102875.
Becker, A., S. Inoue, M. Fischer, and B. Schwegler. 2012. “Climate change Cui, W., and L. Caracoglia. 2016. “Exploring hurricane wind speed along
impacts on international seaports: Knowledge, perceptions, and plan- US Atlantic coast in warming climate and effects on predictions of
ning efforts among port administrators.” Clim. Change 110 (1–2): 5– structural damage and intervention costs.” Eng. Struct. 122: 209–225.
29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0043-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.05.003.
Bender, M. A., T. R. Knutson, R. E. Tuleya, J. J. Sirutis, G. A. Vecchi, S. T. Dawson, D., J. Shaw, and W. Roland Gehrels. 2016. “Sea-level rise im-
Garner, and I. M. Held. 2010. “Modeled impact of anthropogenic pacts on transport infrastructure: The notorious case of the coastal rail-
warming on the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes.” Science way line at Dawlish, England.” J. Transp. Geogr. 51: 97–109. https://
327 (5964): 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1180568. doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.11.009.
Bjarnadottir, S., Y. Li, and M. G. Stewart. 2014. “Regional loss estimation Dawson, R. J., et al. 2018. “A systems framework for national assessment
due to hurricane wind and hurricane-induced surge considering climate of climate risks to infrastructure.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A
variability.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 10 (11): 1369–1384. https://doi.org 376 (2121): 20170298. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0298.
/10.1080/15732479.2013.816973. Decò, A., and D. M. Frangopol. 2011. “Risk assessment of highway brid-
Bruneau, M., M. Barbato, J. E. Padgett, A. E. Zaghi, J. Mitrani-Reiser, and ges under multiple hazards.” J. Risk Res. 14 (9): 1057–1089. https://doi
Y. Li. 2017. “State of the art of multihazard design.” J. Struct. Eng. .org/10.1080/13669877.2011.571789.
143 (10): 03117002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X de Larrard, T., E. Bastidas-Arteaga, F. Duprat, and F. Schoefs. 2014.
.0001893. “Effects of climate variations and global warming on the durability of
Buchanan, M. K., M. Oppenheimer, and R. E. Kopp. 2017. “Amplification RC structures subjected to carbonation.” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst.
of flood frequencies with local sea level rise and emerging flood re- 31 (2): 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2014.913033.
gimes.” Environ. Res. Lett. 12 (6): 064009. https://doi.org/10.1088 Devendiran, D. K., S. Banerjee, and A. Mondal. 2021. “Impact of climate
/1748-9326/aa6cb3. change on multihazard performance of river-crossing bridges: Risk, re-
Buhl, M., and S. Markolf. 2023. “A review of emerging strategies for incor- silience, and adaptation.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil 35 (1): 04020127.
porating climate change considerations into infrastructure planning, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001538.

Dikanski, H., B. Imam, and A. Hagen-Zanker. 2018. “Effects of uncertain A case study of pavement service life performance.” J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (2):
asset stock data on the assessment of climate change risks: A case study 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12915.
of bridge scour in the UK.” Struct. Saf. 71: 1–12. https://doi.org/10 Guo, X., and Z. Chen. 2016. “Lifecycle multihazard framework for assess-
.1016/j.strusafe.2017.10.008. ing flood scour and earthquake effects on bridge failure.” ASCE-ASME
Dismukes, D. E., and S. Narra. 2018. “Sea-level rise and coastal inunda- J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part A: Civ. Eng. 2 (2): C4015004. https:
tion: A case study of the gulf coast energy infrastructure.” Nat. //doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000844.
Resour. 9 (4): 150–174. https://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2018.94010. Ha, S., K. Kim, K. Kim, H. Jeong, and H. Kim. 2017. “Reliability approach
Dong, Y., and D. M. Frangopol. 2016. “Probabilistic time-dependent multi- in economic assessment of adapting infrastructure to climate change.”
hazard life-cycle assessment and resilience of bridges considering cli- J. Manage. Eng. 33 (5): 04017022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
mate change.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil 30 (5): 04016034. https://doi ME.1943-5479.0000530.
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000883. Hague, B. S., and A. J. Taylor. 2021. “Tide-only inundation: A metric to
DuraCrete. 2000. “Statistical quantification of the variables in the limit state quantify the contribution of tides to coastal inundation under sea-level
functions.” In The European Union—Brite EuRam III—Contract rise.” Nat. Hazard. 107 (1): 675–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069
BRPR-CT95-0132—Project BE95-1347/R9. Washington, DC: CUR -021-04600-4.
Publication. Hong, H. P., Q. Tang, S. C. Yang, X. Z. Cui, A. J. Cannon, Z. Lounis, and
Eisenack, K., R. Stecker, D. Reckien, and E. Hoffmann. 2012. “Adaptation P. Irwin. 2021. “Calibration of the design wind load and snow load con-
to climate change in the transport sector: A review of actions and ac- sidering the historical climate statistics and climate change effects.”
tors.” Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global Change 17 (5): 451–469. Struct. Saf. 93: 102135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2021.102135.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9336-4. Imam, B. 2019. “Climate change impact for bridges subjected to scour and
Esmaeili, M., and M. Barbato. 2021. “Predictive model for hurricane wind corrosion.” In Climate adaptation engineering: Risks and economics
hazard under changing climate conditions.” Nat. Hazard. Rev. 22 (3): for infrastructure decision-making, edited by E. Bastidas-Arteaga and
04021011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000458. M. G. Stewar, 165–206. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann Inc.
Faggian, P. 2018. “Estimating fire danger over Italy in the next decades.” IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate change
Euro-Mediterr. J. Environ. Integr. 3: 15. https://doi.org/10.1007 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects.
/s41207-018-0053-1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
fib (Federation Internationale du Beton). 2006. Model code for service life IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. Climate change
design. fib Bulletin (34). Lausanne, Switzerland: fib. 2021: The physical science basis. New York: Cambridge University
FEMA. 2015. Guidelines and standards for flood risk analysis and map- Press.
ping activities under the risk MAP program. Washington, DC: FEMA. Ivanov, O. L., L. Barring, and R. A. I. Wilcke. 2022. “Climate change im-
Forcellini, D. 2021. “The role of climate change in the assessment of the pact on snow loads in Northern Europe.” Struct. Saf. 97: 102231. https://
seismic resilience of infrastructures.” Infrastructures 6 (5): 76. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2022.102231.
doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6050076. Jeong, D. I., and L. Sushama. 2018. “Projected changes to extreme wind
Forzieri, G., L. Feyen, S. Russo, M. Vousdoukas, L. Alfieri, S. Outten, M. and snow environmental loads for buildings and infrastructure across
Migliavacca, A. Bianchi, R. Rojas, and A. Cid. 2016. “Multi-hazard as- Canada.” Sustainable Cities Soc. 36: 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016
sessment in Europe under climate change.” Clim. Change 137 (1–2): /j.scs.2017.10.004.
105–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1661-x. Jevrejeva, S., L. P. Jackson, A. Grinsted, D. Lincke, and B. Marzeion.
Gallina, V., S. Torresan, A. Critto, A. Sperotto, T. Glade, and A. 2018. “Flood damage costs under the sea level rise with warming of
Marcomini. 2016. “A review of multi-risk methodologies for natural 1.5°C and 2°C.” Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (7): 074014. https://doi.org/10
hazards: Consequences and challenges for a climate change impact as- .1088/1748-9326/aacc76.
sessment.” J. Environ. Manage. 168: 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Kallias, A. N., and B. Imam. 2016. “Probabilistic assessment of local scour
.jenvman.2015.11.011. in bridge piers under changing environmental conditions.” Struct.
Gallina, V., S. Torresan, A. Zabeo, A. Critto, T. Glade, and A. Marcomini. Infrastruct. Eng. 12 (9): 1228–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080
2020. “A multi-risk methodology for the assessment of climate change /15732479.2015.1102295.
impacts in coastal zones.” Sustainability 12 (9): 3697. https://doi.org/10 Khandel, O., and M. Soliman. 2021. “Integrated framework for assessment
.3390/su12093697. of time-variant flood fragility of bridges using deep learning neural net-
Garmabaki, A. H. S., A. Thaduri, S. Famurewa, and U. Kumar. 2021. works.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 27 (1): 04020045. https://doi.org/10.1061
“Adapting railway maintenance to climate change.” Sustainability /(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000587.
13 (24): 13856. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413856. Khandel, O., and M. Soliman. 2019. “Integrated framework for
Ge, B., Y. Yang, and S. Kim. 2023. “Time-dependent multi-hazard seismic quantifying the effect of climate change on the risk of bridge
vulnerability and risk assessment of deteriorating reinforced concrete failure due to floods and flood-induced scour.” J. Bridge Eng.
bridges considering climate change.” Structures 55: 995–1010. https:// 24 (9): 04019090. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.06.068. .0001473.
Gill, J. C., and B. D. Malamud. 2014. “Reviewing and visualizing the in- Khatami, D., and B. Shafei. 2021. “Impact of climate conditions on deteri-
teractions of natural hazards.” Rev. Geophys. 52 (4): 680–722. https:// orating reinforced concrete bridges in the US midwest region.”
doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000445. J. Perform. Constr. Facil 35 (1): 04020129. https://doi.org/10.1061
Gilroy, K. L., and R. H. McCuen. 2012. “A nonstationary flood frequency /(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001528.
analysis method to adjust for future climate change and urbanization.” Khelifa, A., L. A. Garrow, M. J. Higgins, and M. D. Meyer. 2013. “Impacts
J. Hydrol. 414–415: 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10 of climate change on scour-vulnerable bridges: Assessment based on
.009. HYRISK.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 19 (2): 138–146. https://doi.org/10
González-Dueñas, C., and J. E. Padgett. 2022. “Considering time-varying .1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000109.
factors and social vulnerabilities in performance-based assessment of Koetse, M. J., and P. Rietveld. 2012. “Adaptation to climate change in the
coastal communities exposed to hurricanes.” J. Struct. Eng. 148 (8): transport sector.” Transport Rev. 32 (3): 267–286. https://doi.org/10
04022107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003400. .1080/01441647.2012.657716.
Guest, G., J. Zhang, R. Atadero, and H. Shirkhani. 2020a. “Incorporating Köliö, A., T. A. Pakkala, J. Lahdensivu, and M. Kiviste. 2014. “Durability
the effects of climate change into bridge deterioration modeling: The demands related to carbonation induced corrosion for Finnish concrete
case of slab-on-girder highway bridge deck designs across Canada.” buildings in changing climate.” Eng. Struct. 62–63: 42–52. https://doi
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 32 (7): 04020175. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) .org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.032.
MT.1943-5533.0003245. Kopp, R. E., R. M. Horton, C. M. Little, J. X. Mitrovica, M. Oppenheimer,
Guest, G., J. Zhang, O. Maadani, and H. Shirkhani. 2020b. “Incorporating D. J. Rasmussen, B. H. Strauss, and C. Tebaldi. 2014. “Probabilistic
the impacts of climate change into infrastructure life cycle assessments: 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-

gauge sites.” Earth’s Future 2 (8): 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1002 Mortagi, M., and J. Ghosh. 2022a. “Concurrent modelling of carbonation
/2014EF000239. and chloride-induced deterioration and uncertainty treatment in aging
Kundzewicz, Z. W., Y. Hirabayashi, and S. Kanae. 2010. “River floods in bridge fragility assessment.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 18 (2): 197–
the changing climate—Observations and projections.” Water Resour. 218. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1838560.
Manage. 24 (11): 2633–2646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009 Mortagi, M., and J. Ghosh. 2022b. “Consideration of climate change effects
-9571-6. on the seismic life-cycle cost analysis of deteriorating highway brid-
Lee, J. Y., and B. R. Ellingwood. 2017. “A decision model for intergener- ges.” J. Bridge Eng. 27 (2): 04021103. https://doi.org/10.1061
ational life-cycle risk assessment of civil infrastructure exposed to hur- /(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001815.
ricanes under climate change.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 159: 100–107. Mousavi, M. E., J. L. Irish, A. E. Frey, F. Olivera, and B. L. Edge.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.10.022. 2011. “Global warming and hurricanes: The potential impact of hurri-
Li, L., A. D. Switzer, Y. Wang, C.-H. Chan, Q. Qiu, and R. Weiss. 2018. cane intensification and sea level rise on coastal flooding.” Clim.
“A modest 0.5-m rise in sea level will double the tsunami hazard in Change 104 (3–4): 575–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009
Macau.” Sci. Adv. 4 (8): eaat1180. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv -9790-0.
.aat1180. Moustakis, Y., S. M. Papalexiou, C. J. Onof, and A. Paschalis. 2021.
Li, Y., A. Ahuja, and J. E. Padgett. 2012. “Review of methods to assess, “Seasonality, intensity, and duration of rainfall extremes change in a
design for, and mitigate multiple hazards.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil warmer climate.” Earth’s Future 9 (3): e2020EF001824. https://doi
26 (1): 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509 .org/10.1029/2020EF001824.

.0000279. Mudd, L., Y. Wang, C. Letchford, and D. Rosowsky. 2014. “Assessing cli-
Li, Y., R. Song, and J. W. Van De Lindt. 2014. “Collapse fragility of steel mate change impact on the U.S. East coast hurricane hazard:
structures subjected to earthquake mainshock‒aftershock sequences.” Temperature, frequency, and track.” Nat. Hazard. Rev. 15 (3):
J. Struct. Eng. 140 (12): 04014095. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST 04014001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000128.
.1943-541X.0001019. Nasr, A., J. Johansson, O. Larsson Ivanov, I. Björnsson, and D. Honfi.
Li, Y., and M. G. Stewart. 2011. “Cyclone damage risks caused by en- 2023. “Risk-based multi-criteria decision analysis method for
hanced greenhouse conditions and economic viability of strengthened considering the effects of climate change on bridges.” Struct.
residential construction.” Nat. Hazard. Rev. 12 (1): 9–18. https://doi Infrastruct. Eng. 19 (10): 1445–1458. https://doi.org/10.1080
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000024. /15732479.2022.2033278.
Liu, L., D. Y. Yang, and D. M. Frangopol. 2020. “Network-level risk-based Nazarnia, H., M. Nazarnia, H. Sarmasti, and W. O. Wills. 2020. “A system-
framework for optimal bridge adaptation management considering atic review of civil and environmental infrastructures for coastal adap-
scour and climate change.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 26 (1): 04019037. https: tation to sea level rise.” Civ. Eng. J. 6 (7): 1375–1399. https://doi.org/10
//doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000516. .28991/cej-2020-03091555.
Lompi, M., L. Mediero, and E. Caporali. 2021. “Future flood hazard assess- Neumann, J. E., et al. 2015. “Climate change risks to US infrastructure:
ment for the city of Pamplona (Spain) using an ensemble of climate Impacts on roads, bridges, coastal development, and urban drainage.”
change projections.” Water 13 (6): 792. https://doi.org/10.3390 Clim. Change 131 (1): 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013
/w13060792. -1037-4.
Mahmoud, H., and G. Cheng. 2017. “Framework for lifecycle cost assess- O’Gorman, P. A. 2014. “Contrasting responses of mean and extreme snow-
ment of steel buildings under seismic and wind hazards.” J. Struct. Eng. fall to climate change.” Nature 512 (7515): 416–418. https://doi.org/10
143 (3): 04016186. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X .1038/nature13625.
.0001663. Orcesi, A., et al. 2022a. “Investigating the effects of climate change on ma-
Manalo, A. C., P. Mendis, Y. Bai, B. Jachmann, and C. D. Sorbello. 2021. terial properties and structural performance.” Struct. Eng. Int. 32 (4):
“Fiber-reinforced polymer bars for concrete structures: State-of-the- 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2022.2107468.
practice in Australia.” J. Compos. Constr. 25 (1): 05020007. https:// Orcesi, A., et al. 2022b. “Investigating the effects of climate change on
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001105. structural actions.” Struct. Eng. Int. 32 (4): 563–576. https://doi.org
Maniglio, M., G. P. Balomenos, J. E. Padgett, and G. P. Cimellaro. 2021. /10.1080/10168664.2022.2098894.
“Parameterized coastal fragilities and their application to aging port Palin, E. J., I. Stipanovic Oslakovic, K. Gavin, and A. Quinn. 2021.
structures subjected to surge and wave.” Eng. Struct. 237: 112235. “Implications of climate change for railway infrastructure.” WIREs
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112235. Clim. Change 12 (5): e728. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.728.
Marsooli, R., N. Lin, K. Emanuel, and K. Feng. 2019. “Climate change ex- Pant, S., and E. J. Cha. 2019. “Wind and rainfall loss assessment for resi-
acerbates hurricane flood hazards along US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in dential buildings under climate-dependent hurricane scenarios.” Struct.
spatially varying patterns.” Nat. Commun. 10 (1): 3785. https://doi.org Infrastruct. Eng. 15 (6): 771–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479
/10.1038/s41467-019-11755-z. .2019.1572199.
Marzeion, B., et al. 2020. “Partitioning the uncertainty of ensemble projec- Park, S. J., and D. K. Lee. 2020. “Prediction of coastal flooding risk under
tions of global glacier mass change.” Earth’s Future 8 (7): climate change impacts in South Korea using machine learning algo-
e2019EF001470. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001470. rithms.” Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (9): 094052. https://doi.org/10.1088
Miao, Q., M. K. Feeney, F. Zhang, E. W. Welch, and P. S. Sriraj. 2018. /1748-9326/aba5b3.
“Through the storm: Transit agency management in response to climate Peng, L., and M. G. Stewart. 2016. “Climate change and corrosion
change.” Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 63: 421–432. https://doi damage risks for reinforced concrete infrastructure in China.” Struct.
.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.005. Infrastruct. Eng. 12 (4): 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479
Mishra, V., and A. Sadhu. 2023. “Towards the effect of climate change in .2013.858270.
structural loads of urban infrastructure: A review.” Sustainable Cities Pielke, R. A., J. Gratz, C. W. Landsea, D. Collins, M. A. Saunders, and R.
Soc. 89: 104352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104352. Musulin. 2008. “Normalized hurricane damage in the United States:
Mo, H. M., L. Y. Dai, F. Fan, T. Che, and H. P. Hong. 2016. “Extreme 1900–2005.” Nat. Hazard. Rev. 9 (1): 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1061
snow hazard and ground snow load for China.” Nat. Hazard. 84 (3): /(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:1(29).
2095–2120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2536-1. Prasad, G. G., and S. Banerjee. 2013. “The impact of flood-induced scour
Mondoro, A., D. M. Frangopol, and L. Liu. 2018. “Multi-criteria robust op- on seismic fragility characteristics of bridges.” J. Earthquake Eng.
timization framework for bridge adaptation under climate change.” 17 (6): 803–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.771593.
Struct. Saf. 74: 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.03.002. Prendergast, L. J., and K. Gavin. 2014. “A review of bridge scour monitor-
Mortagi, M., and J. Ghosh. 2020. “Climate change considerations for seis- ing techniques.” J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 6 (2): 138–149. https://
mic vulnerability assessment of aging highway bridges.” ASCE-ASME doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.01.007.
J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part A: Civ. Eng. 6 (1): 04020005. https:// Qeshta, I. M. I., M. J. Hashemi, R. Gravina, and S. Setunge. 2019. “Review
doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0001038. of resilience assessment of coastal bridges to extreme wave-induced

loads.” Eng. Struct. 185: 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct TRB (Transportation Research Board). 2008. Potential impacts of climate
.2019.01.101. change on US transportation. TRB Special Rep. No. 290. Washington,
Rahmstorf, S. 2007. “A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea- DC: TRB.
level rise.” Science 315 (5810): 368–370. https://doi.org/10.1126 Tursina, S., S. Kato, and M. Afifuddin. 2021. “Coupling sea-level rise with
/science.1135456. tsunamis: Projected adverse impact of future tsunamis on Banda Aceh
Raisanen, J. 2008. “Warmer climate: Less or more snow?” Clim. Dyn. city, Indonesia.” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 55: 102084. https://doi.org
30 (2–3): 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0289-y. /10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102084.
Richardson, M. G. 1988. Carbonation of reinforced concrete: Its causes Veijalainen, N., E. Lotsari, P. Alho, B. Vehvilainen, and J. Kayhko. 2010.
and management. Dublin, Ireland: Citis Ltd. “National scale assessment of climate change impacts on flooding in
Richardson, V. E., and S. R. Davis. 2001. Evaluating scour at bridges. Finland.” J. Hydrol. 391 (3–4): 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, Office of Bridge .jhydrol.2010.07.035.
Technology. Vermeer, M., and S. Rahmstorf. 2009. “Global sea level linked to global
Rootzen, H., and R. W. Katz. 2013. “Design life level: Quantifying risk in a temperature.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (51): 21527–21532.
changing climate.” Water Resour. Res. 49 (9): 5964–5972. https://doi https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907765106.
.org/10.1002/wrcr.20425. Vousdoukas, M. I., L. Mentaschi, E. Voukouvalas, M. Verlaan, S.
Rosenzweig, C., et al. 2011. “Developing coastal adaptation to climate Jevrejeva, L. P. Jackson, and L. Feyen. 2018. “Global probabilistic pro-
change in the New York City infrastructure-shed: Process, approach, jections of extreme sea levels show intensification of coastal flood haz-
tools, and strategies.” Clim. Change 106 (1): 93–127. https://doi.org ard.” Nat. Commun. 9 (1): 2360. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018
/10.1007/s10584-010-0002-8. -04692-w.
Roy, T., and V. Matsagar. 2020. “Probabilistic assessment of steel build- Wahiduzzaman, M., K. K. Cheung, J.-J. Luo, and P. K. Bhaskaran. 2022.
ings installed with passive control devices under multi-hazard scenario “A spatial model for predicting North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone in-
of earthquake and wind.” Struct. Saf. 85: 101955. https://doi.org/10 tensity: Role of sea surface temperature and tropical cyclone heat poten-
.1016/j.strusafe.2020.101955. tial.” Weather Clim. Extremes 36: 100431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Roy, T., and V. Matsagar. 2023. “Multi-hazard analysis and design of .wace.2022.100431.
structures: Status and research trends.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. Wang, T., Z. Qu, Z. Yang, T. Nichol, G. Clarke, and Y.-E. Ge. 2020.
19 (6): 845–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2021.1987481. “Climate change research on transportation systems: Climate risks, ad-
Saetta, A. V., R. V. Scotta, and R. V. Vitaliani. 1993. “Analysis of chloride aptation and planning.” Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 88:
diffusion into partially saturated concrete.” ACI Mater. J. 90 (5): 441– 102553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102553.
451. Wardhana, K., and F. C. Hadipriono. 2003. “Analysis of recent bridge fail-
Saha, M., and M. J. Eckelman. 2014. “Urban scale mapping of concrete ures in the United States.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil 17 (3): 144–150.
degradation from projected climate change.” Urban Clim. 9: 101– https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2003)17:3(144).
114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.07.007. Wasko, C., S. Westra, R. Nathan, H. G. Orr, G. Villarini, R. Villalobos
Salman, A. M., and Y. Li. 2018. “Flood risk assessment, future trend mod- Herrera, and H. J. Fowler. 2021. “Incorporating climate change in
eling, and risk communication: A review of ongoing research.” Nat. flood estimation guidance.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 379 (2195):
Hazard. Rev. 19 (3): 04018011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH 20190548. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0548.
.1527-6996.0000294. Westra, S., H. J. Fowler, J. P. Evans, L. V. Alexander, P. Berg, F. Johnson,
Sarhadi, A., and E. D. Soulis. 2017. “Time-varying extreme rainfall inten- E. J. Kendon, G. Lenderink, and N. M. Roberts. 2014. “Future changes
sity‒duration‒frequency curves in a changing climate.” Geophys. Res. to the intensity and frequency of short-duration extreme rainfall.” Rev.
Lett. 44 (5): 2454–2463. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072201. Geophys. 52 (3): 522–555. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000464.
Snaiki, R., T. Wu, A. S. Whittaker, and J. F. Atkinson. 2020. “Hurricane Williamson, G. S., R. E. Weyers, M. M. Sprinkel, and M. C. Brown. 2009.
wind and storm surge effects on coastal bridges under a changing cli- “Concrete and steel type influence on probabilistic corrosion service
mate.” Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2674 (6): 23–32. https:// life.” ACI Mater. J. 106 (1): 82–88.
doi.org/10.1177/0361198120917671. Wu, L., H. Zhao, C. Wang, J. Cao, and J. Liang. 2022. “Understanding of
Steptoe, H., S. E. O. Jones, and H. Fox. 2018. “Correlations between ex- the effect of climate change on tropical cyclone intensity: A review.”
treme atmospheric hazards and global teleconnections: Implications Adv. Atmos. Sci. 39 (2): 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021
for multihazard resilience.” Rev. Geophys. 56 (1): 50–78. https://doi -1026-x.
.org/10.1002/2017RG000567. Xu, H., N. Lin, M. Huang, and W. Lou. 2020. “Design tropical cyclone
Stewart, M. G., X. Wang, and M. N. Nguyen. 2011. “Climate change wind speed when considering climate change.” J. Struct. Eng.
impact and risks of concrete infrastructure deterioration.” Eng. 146 (5): 04020063. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
Struct. 33 (4): 1326–1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01 .0002585.
.010. Xie, H. B., Y. F. Wang, J. Gong, M. H. Liu, and X. Y. Yang. 2018. “Effect
Stewart, M. G., X. Wang, and M. N. Nguyen. 2012. “Climate change ad- of global warming on chloride ion erosion risks for offshore RC bridges
aptation for corrosion control of concrete infrastructure.” Struct. Saf. in China.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22 (9): 3600–3606. https://doi.org/10
35: 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2011.10.002. .1007/s12205-018-1547-8.
Streletskiy, D. A., L. J. Suter, N. I. Shiklomanov, B. N. Porfiriev, and D. O. Xu, J. G., G. Wu, D. C. Feng, and J. J. Fan. 2021. “Probabilistic multi-
Eliseev. 2019. “Assessment of climate change impacts on buildings, hazard fragility analysis of RC bridges under earthquake‒tsunami se-
structures and infrastructure in the Russian regions on permafrost.” quential events.” Eng. Struct. 238: 112250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (2): 025003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326 .engstruct.2021.112250.
/aaf5e6. Xu, M. S., and C. C. Yang. 2023. “Mapping the chloride-induced corrosion
Tabari, H. 2020. “Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation damage risks for bridge decks under climate change.” Struct.
increases with water availability.” Sci. Rep. 10 (1): 13768. https://doi.org Infrastruct. Eng. 2236599. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2023
/10.1038/s41598-020-70816-2. .2236599.
Tolo, S., E. Patelli, and M. Beer. 2017a. “Robust vulnerability analysis of Yang, D. Y., and D. M. Frangopol. 2019. “Physics-based assessment of cli-
nuclear facilities subject to external hazards.” Stochastic Environ. Res. mate change impact on long-term regional bridge scour risk using
Risk Assess. 31 (10): 2733–2756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016 hydrologic modeling: Application to Lehigh river watershed.”
-1360-1. J. Bridge Eng. 24 (11) 04019099. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
Tolo, S., E. Patelli, and M. Beer. 2017b. “Risk assessment of spent nuclear .1943-5592.0001462.
fuel facilities considering climate change.” ASCE-ASME J. Risk Yang, D. Y., and D. M. Frangopol. 2020. “Risk-based vulnerability analy-
Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part A: Civ. Eng. 3 (2): G4016003. https://doi sis of deteriorating coastal bridges under hurricanes considering deep
.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000874. uncertainty of climatic and socioeconomic changes.” ASCE-ASME

J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part A: Civ. Eng. 6 (3): 04020032. https:// in multihazard design.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (12): 1–8. https://doi.org/10
doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0001075. .1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001586.
Yavuz, C., E. Kentel, and M. M. Aral. 2020. “Climate change risk evalu- Zennaro, F., E. Furlan, C. Simeoni, S. Torresan, S. Aslan, A. Critto, and A.
ation of tsunami hazards in the Eastern Mediterranean sea.” Water Marcomini. 2021. “Exploring machine learning potential for climate
12 (10): 2881. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102881. change risk assessment.” Earth Sci. Rev. 220: 103752. https://doi.org
Yilmaz, T., S. Banerjee, and P. A. Johnson. 2016. “Performance of two /10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103752.
real-life California Bridges under regional natural hazards.” J. Bridge Zheng, X. W., H. N. Li, Y. B. Yang, G. Li, L. S. Huo, and Y. Liu. 2019.
Eng. 21 (3): 04015063. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592 “Damage risk assessment of a high-rise building against multihazard
.0000827. of earthquake and strong wind with recorded data.” Eng. Struct. 200:
Yin, J., S. Guo, S. He, J. Guo, X. Hong, and Z. Liu. 2018. “A copula-based 109697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109697.
analysis of projected climate changes to bivariate flood quantiles.” Zhu, D., Y. Li, and Y. Dong. 2021a. “Reliability-based retrofit assessment
J. Hydrol. 566: 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.08.053. of coastal bridges subjected to wave forces using 3D CFD simulation
Yoon, I. S., O. Copuroglu, and K. B. Park. 2007. “Effect of global climatic and metamodeling.” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 38 (1): 59–83. https://
change on carbonation progress of concrete.” Atmos. Environ. 41 (34): doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1895126.
7274–7285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.05.028. Zhu, D., P. Yuan, and Y. Dong. 2021b. “Probabilistic performance of
Zaghi, A. E., J. E. Padgett, M. Bruneau, M. Barbato, Y. Li, J. coastal bridges under hurricane waves using experimental and 3D nu-
Mitrani-Reiser, and A. McBride. 2016. “Establishing common nomen- merical investigations.” Eng. Struct. 242: 112493. https://doi.org/10
clature, characterizing the problem, and identifying future opportunities .1016/j.engstruct.2021.112493.

Feng Et Al 2024 Climate Change Impacts On The Risk Assessment of Concrete Civil Infrastructures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feng Et Al 2024 Climate Change Impacts On The Risk Assessment of Concrete Civil Infrastructures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State-of-the-Art Review

Climate Change Impacts on the Risk Assessment

© ASCE 03124001-1 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

Table 1. Climate variables and uncertainties

© ASCE 03124001-2 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

Table 3. Summary of the impacts of climate change on natural hazards

© ASCE 03124001-3 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

nadottir et al. 2014). Although the scientiﬁc community is still Snow

© ASCE 03124001-4 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-5 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

150 years and to estimate the extent of sea-level rise impact on

© ASCE 03124001-6 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-7 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-8 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

ples, they investigated the corrosion risk of Australian infrastruc-

© ASCE 03124001-9 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-10 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-11 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

Coastal Infrastructure under Sea-Level Rise,

© ASCE 03124001-12 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-13 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-14 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-15 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-16 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

26 (1): 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509 .org/10.1029/2020EF001824.

© ASCE 03124001-17 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-18 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

© ASCE 03124001-19 ASCE Open: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng.

ASCE OPEN: Multidiscip. J. Civ. Eng., 2024, 2(1): 03124001

You might also like