Structures 66 (2024) 106432
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures
Advancing seismic resilience: Focus on building design techniques
Shrikant M. Harle a, * , Samruddhi Sagane b , Nilesh Zanjad c , P.K.S. Bhadauria d ,
Harshwardhan P. Nistane e
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Prof Ram Meghe College of Engineering and Management, Badnera, Maharashtra, India
Department of Civil Engineering, Prof Ram Meghe Institute of Technology & Research, Badnera, Maharashtra, India
c
G. H. Raisoni University, Amravati, Maharashtra, India
d
Incharge, Civil Engineering Deptt. B.R.Ambedkar College of Agril. Engg. & Tech., Etawah, U.P., India
e
Prof. Ram Meghe Institute of Technology and Research, Badnera, Amravati, Maharashtra, India
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Seismic resilience
Behavior
Design criteria
Buildings
Lifeline systems
Earthquakes
Structural response
This review paper examines various aspects of seismic resilience, focusing on the behavior and design criteria for
buildings and lifeline systems in earthquake-prone areas. Beginning with an exploration of seismic resilience
concepts, including robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity, the paper delves into the behavior of
buildings during earthquakes. It discusses structural response levels and factors influencing building behavior,
supported by case studies illustrating different structural responses and lessons learned. Design criteria for
enhancing seismic resilience are then examined, encompassing seismic design codes, performance-based design
approaches, and innovative structural systems. Lifeline systems’ vulnerability to earthquakes and strategies for
improving their resilience are also addressed, emphasizing the importance of redundancy, hardening, and rapid
restoration. The paper concludes with a call to action for collaboration among stakeholders to integrate seismic
resilience into engineering practice and public policy, aiming to build more resilient communities capable of
withstanding and recovering from seismic events. Through this comprehensive exploration, the paper contributes
to a deeper understanding of seismic resilience and its significance in mitigating earthquake impacts.
1. Introduction
In the face of natural disasters, particularly earthquakes, the concept
of seismic resilience has emerged as a critical paradigm for safeguarding
civil infrastructure and ensuring the continuity of essential services [37,
70]. Seismic resilience encompasses the ability of structures, lifeline
systems, and communities to withstand seismic hazards, absorb the
impact of earthquakes, and swiftly recover functionality in their after­
math [4,108].
Seismic resilience is more than just withstanding the forces of an
earthquake; it involves a holistic approach that considers pre-event
preparedness, response during the event, and post-event recovery [40,
103]. This resilience extends beyond individual buildings or infra­
structure components to encompass entire communities and regions
[75]. It emphasizes not only minimizing damage and loss but also
facilitating rapid recovery and restoration of functionality [69].
Central to achieving seismic resilience is a deep understanding of
how buildings and lifeline systems respond to seismic forces [28].
Buildings, as primary elements of the built environment, must be
designed and constructed to resist seismic loading effectively [25].
Lifeline systems, including water supply, power distribution, trans­
portation networks, and communication infrastructure, play a crucial
role in supporting societal functions and must be resilient to seismic
disturbances to minimize disruptions [94].
Understanding the behavior of buildings and lifeline systems during
earthquakes involves studying factors such as structural integrity, ma­
terial properties, load distribution mechanisms, and system in­
terdependencies [67,80]. By comprehensively analyzing these aspects,
engineers can develop strategies to enhance the resilience of infra­
structure and mitigate the impacts of seismic events [7,81].
This review paper endeavors to explore the nuanced facets of seismic
resilience, specifically emphasizing the behavior and design principles
pertinent to both buildings and lifeline systems. Through a compre­
hensive analysis of existing knowledge, dialogue on prevailing meth­
odologies, and identification of emerging paradigms, the objective is to
furnish insights that can guide forthcoming research endeavors, policy
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shrikant.harle@prmceam.ac.in (S.M. Harle).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106432
Received 6 February 2024; Received in revised form 5 April 2024; Accepted 16 April 2024
Available online 28 June 2024
2352-0124/© 2024 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
formulation, and engineering methodologies within the realm of
earthquake-resistant infrastructure. Encompassing a wide array of topics
such as structural response dynamics, performance-oriented design
methodologies, retrofitting strategies, and resilience frameworks for
lifeline systems, this paper endeavors to delve deeply into these areas to
enrich the ongoing discourse on seismic resilience. By fostering collab­
orative endeavors, it aspires to catalyze the construction of more resil­
ient communities on a global scale.
Moreover, this review aims to bridge gaps between theoretical un­
derstanding and practical application by critically examining the effi­
cacy of current seismic design standards and implementation strategies.
By evaluating real-world case studies and lessons learned from past
seismic events, the paper seeks to highlight areas for improvement and
innovation in seismic resilience practices. Through this holistic
approach, it endeavors to empower stakeholders—from engineers and
policymakers to community leaders—to make informed decisions that
prioritize the safety and sustainability of built environments in seismicprone regions.
and other seismic hazards without significant damage or loss of
functionality [96].
2. Redundancy: Redundancy involves incorporating backup systems
or alternative pathways to maintain functionality in case of failure or
damage to primary components [41]. In seismic resilience, redun­
dancy can include redundant structural elements, redundant lifeline
systems (such as multiple routes for transportation or redundant
power supply networks), and redundant communication systems (X.
[69]). Redundancy enhances the ability of a system to withstand
disruptions and continue to provide essential services during and
after earthquakes [27,64].
3. Resourcefulness: Resourcefulness refers to the ability of in­
dividuals, organizations, and communities to effectively mobilize
resources and respond to seismic events [114]. This includes pre­
paredness measures such as emergency planning, training, and
stockpiling of essential supplies [11]. Resourcefulness also encom­
passes the capacity to adapt and innovate in the face of challenges,
such as developing new technologies for earthquake-resistant con­
struction or implementing resilient urban planning strategies [47,
71].
4. Rapidity: Rapidity refers to the speed and efficiency with which a
structure, system, or community can recover from seismic events and
restore functionality [95]. Rapid response and recovery efforts are
essential for minimizing the socio-economic impacts of earthquakes,
reducing downtime, and facilitating the return to normalcy [40,83].
This involves timely assessment of damage, efficient allocation of
resources, and coordinated efforts among various stakeholders
involved in the recovery process [25].
2. Seismic resilience concepts
2.1. Definition of seismic resilience and its significance
Seismic resilience refers to the ability of a structure, system, or
community to withstand, adapt to, and recover from the effects of
earthquakes [16]. It goes beyond just survival; it encompasses the ability
to bounce back to functionality quickly and effectively (J. [62]). Seismic
resilience is crucial in mitigating the impacts of earthquakes, as these
natural disasters can cause widespread destruction, loss of life, and
economic disruption [93]. By enhancing resilience, societies can reduce
the vulnerability of built environments and improve their ability to cope
with and recover from seismic events. Fig. 1.
2.3. The role of behavior and design criteria
Behavior and design criteria play a critical role in enhancing seismic
resilience by ensuring that structures and systems are capable of with­
standing seismic forces and responding effectively to earthquakes [53].
Behavior refers to the way in which structures and systems perform
under seismic loading, including their ability to dissipate energy, resist
deformation, and maintain stability [107]. Design criteria encompass
the guidelines, standards, and methodologies used to design structures
and systems for seismic resilience, taking into account factors such as
seismic hazard, site conditions, building materials, and structural
2.2. Key components of seismic resilience
1. Robustness: Robustness refers to the capacity of a structure or sys­
tem to maintain its essential functions and structural integrity
despite being subjected to severe loads or disruptions [30,108]. In
the context of seismic resilience, robustness involves designing
structures to withstand strong ground shaking, ground deformation,
Fig. 1. Concept of the seismic resilience.
2
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
configuration [61].
Effective behavior and design criteria are essential for achieving the
key components of seismic resilience discussed above [55]. For example,
robustness is achieved through the adoption of appropriate structural
systems, materials, and detailing techniques that enhance ductility,
stiffness, and strength [5]. Redundancy is achieved by incorporating
redundant structural elements, systems, or components into the design
to ensure alternative load paths and prevent progressive collapse [10].
Resourcefulness is facilitated by designing structures and systems with
provisions for emergency access, egress, and shelter, as well as by
implementing resilient urban planning strategies that promote com­
munity resilience [73]. Rapidity is supported by designing structures
and systems for rapid construction, repair, and retrofitting, as well as by
implementing efficient emergency response and recovery protocols
[44].
Table 1 provides an overview of research endeavors dedicated to
seismic resilience within different domains. These studies investigate
methodologies, present key discoveries, and outline both advantages
and limitations. Research spans from examining mitigation tactics for
buildings and lifeline systems to suggesting probabilistic techniques for
resilience evaluation. Results highlight the efficacy of particular strate­
gies, such as static importance-based approaches, in bolstering resil­
ience. While some methodologies offer computational efficacy and
accurate assessments, others may face challenges due to their
complexity or suitability to particular systems or locales. Collectively,
these investigations offer valuable insights aimed at enhancing seismic
resilience across varied contexts.
In summary, behavior and design criteria are fundamental aspects of
seismic resilience, as they determine the ability of structures, systems,
and communities to withstand, adapt to, and recover from the effects of
earthquakes. By incorporating robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness,
and rapidity into the design and behavior of buildings and lifeline sys­
tems, societies can enhance their resilience to seismic events and reduce
the socio-economic impacts of earthquakes.
3. Building behavior and design criteria for seismic resilience
During an earthquake, buildings are subjected to dynamic forces
caused by the ground shaking, which can lead to various types of
structural response. Understanding how buildings behave under seismic
forces is crucial for designing structures that can withstand these events
and protect occupants and contents.
3.1. Overview of structural response to seismic forces
Buildings respond to seismic forces primarily through inertial forces
induced by the ground motion. These forces cause lateral and vertical
displacements, rotations, and deformations in the building structure
[14,88]. The response of a building depends on its mass distribution,
stiffness, and damping characteristics, as well as the intensity, duration,
and frequency content of the earthquake ground motion [111,113].
The research explores the impact of various factors, such as dia­
phragm flexibility and building parameters, on seismic demands and
response in both linear elastic and nonlinear building models [90]. New
regression models and empirical formulas are proposed to quantify these
effects and estimate peak floor accelerations (PFAs) and floor response
Table 1
Comparative study on seismic resilience.
Author
Methodology
Key Finding
Advantages
Limitations
(W.[67])
Comparison of recovery trajectory of system
satisfaction degree and final SRI; Discussion
on static importance-based strategy
Effective in early recovery stage;
Computational efficiency
Does not consider dynamic
changes; Limited to
deterministic approach
Burton et al.,
[15]
Evaluation of mitigation strategies involving
enhanced seismic performance system in
existing building stock; Impact on
community resilience
Proposed probability-based method to assess
seismic resilience of complex systems; Case
study on 220 kV substation in China
Static importance-based strategy proves
best, especially in early recovery; Static
strategy offers computational efficiency
and high SRI value
Enhanced seismic performance reduces
housing occupancy loss and recovery
time; Slope of recovery curve linked to
building damage distribution
Functionality-based resilience assessment
method proposed; Functionality
prioritisation strategy enhances system
resilience significantly
Sustainable design techniques can
outweigh shortcomings; Benefits of
sustainable design outweigh structural
configuration and performance issues
Nonlinear FE model accurately simulates
aging bridge column response; Corrosion
reduces bridge system resilience
significantly
Vulnerability curves effective in seismic
resilience evaluation; Provide precise
assessment of vital building resilience
Reduces aggregate losses over
recovery period; Significant effect on
safety and resilience of residential
communities
Offers dynamic assessment of
resilience; Consideration of recovery
strategies
Limited to building
replacement strategies;
Community resilience focus
Offers comprehensive evaluation
framework; Considers multiple
objectives
Relies on survey data for
weight factors; Limited to
specific building type and
region
Relatively complex
modeling approach; Limited
to bridge systems
Annual resilience maps identify buildings
requiring immediate attention; Provide
valuable information for disaster
prevention and response
Building system shows stable capacity at
different seismic intensities; Lifeline
system resilience sensitive to seismic
intensity
Proposed model aids in prioritizing
retrofit interventions; Enables
probabilistic quantification of community
resilience
Initial damage and recovery process
related to traffic flow distribution; Role of
aging and seismic capacity correlation
studied
Offers graphical representation of
resilience distribution; Helps in
decision-making for disaster
prevention and response
Quantitative assessment of seismic
safety and resilience; Discussion on
resilience enhancement measures
(J.[62])
Asadi et al.,
[8]
Huang,
Huang[49]
Ranjbar,
Naderpour
[85]
MCDM framework for evaluating trade-off
between economic, social, and
environmental impacts of earthquakes; Case
study on archetype steel diagrid buildings
Simulation of seismic responses of RC piers
with different failure modes; Assessment of
component deterioration mechanisms in
resilience framework
Fragility and vulnerability curves-based
method for seismic resilience evaluation of
vital buildings; Case study on a hospital
González
et al.,[44]
Development of annual resilience maps for
school buildings in Mexico City; Assessment
of expected annual seismic resilience values
Dong-ping
et al.,[35]
Quantitative evaluation of seismic safety and
resilience of building and lifeline systems in
Beijing; Discussion on resilience
enhancement measures
Proposal of model to improve and quantify
resilience of communities; Discussion on
retrofit interventions prioritization
Vona et al.,
[97]
Capacci
et al.,[26]
Evaluation of time-variant seismic capacity
and traffic flow distribution over road
network; Investigation of factors affecting
seismic resilience
3
Accurate simulation of aging bridge
response; Comprehensive assessment
of deterioration mechanisms
Provides precise resilience
assessment; Directly derived from
fragility curves
Relatively untested method;
Limited to substation
systems
Relies on fragility and
vulnerability curve
accuracy; Limited to
hospital buildings
Limited to school buildings;
Relies on annual resilience
values
Limited to Beijing case
study; Relies on seismic
intensity data
Provides framework for prioritizing
resilience interventions; Quantifies
community resilience
Relatively new model;
Limited to housing system
resilience
Links seismic capacity with traffic
flow distribution; Investigates
various factors affecting resilience
Limited to road network
resilience; Relies on
spatially distributed bridge
data
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
spectra (FRS) [98]. The study evaluates the efficiency of these models
through case studies on existing buildings and compares them with
existing formulations [89]. Additionally, a new approach for predicting
the fundamental period of vibration in reinforced concrete buildings is
introduced and validated through regression analysis and case studies
[87]. These findings contribute to improving seismic design methodol­
ogies and are particularly relevant for pre-design phase considerations.
This paper by (X.-Y. [22]) provides a comprehensive review and
analysis of advancements and research interests in the field of seismic
retrofitting for existing frame buildings through externally attached
sub-structures. (X.-Y. [20]) begins by outlining the general concepts and
superiority of external sub-structure retrofitting technology, followed by
a summary of typical types of such technology, including external frame
sub-structures, frame-brace sub-structures, wall sub-structures, and
other variants. Additionally, (X.-Y. [21]) proposes a stochastic
displacement-oriented design strategy for precast SRC-UHPC composite
braced-frames, aligning with Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD)
principles to meet functional requirements under varying conditions.
Furthermore, (X.-Y. [23]) examines the combined influence of bond-slip
and joint-shear in seismic upgrading, emphasizing the importance of
considering both factors to accurately assess structural behavior and
potential risks during retrofitting processes.
several shortcomings can be identified. Firstly, while many studies
propose methodologies and models for assessing seismic resilience,
there is often a lack of standardized approaches, leading to difficulties in
comparison and implementation across different contexts. Secondly, the
focus of some studies may be too narrow, addressing specific compo­
nents or systems without considering the broader interdependencies
within the built environment. Additionally, there is a need for more
comprehensive consideration of socio-economic factors and community
resilience in seismic resilience research. Furthermore, the practical
applicability and scalability of some proposed strategies may require
further validation through real-world case studies.
The provided content covers various aspects of seismic resilience
assessment and enhancement strategies. Authors discuss methodologies
for calculating seismic resilience indices for existing and corroded
buildings, quantifying seismic performance and losses, comparing repair
strategies, and introducing resilience indices for urban power distribu­
tion systems. They also explore damage identification methods, best
practices for seismic retrofitting, energy dissipation systems, fragility
curve applications, and the evaluation of seismic resilience in critical
infrastructure like hospitals. The discussions highlight the importance of
considering factors such as building condition, hazard levels, and com­
munity needs in resilience planning and decision-making processes.
3.2. Performance levels of buildings
3.3. Factors Influencing Building Behavior
• Building codes and standards categorize the expected performance of
structures into different levels based on their ability to withstand
earthquakes. These performance levels typically include [38,57]:
• Material Properties: The choice of building materials, such as
concrete, steel, or wood, significantly influences the structural
response to seismic forces. Each material has unique characteristics
related to strength, stiffness, and ductility [36].
• Structural Configuration: Structural configuration encompasses
the overall arrangement and design of the building, including its
framing system, floor plan, and height. This configuration plays a
crucial role in determining the building’s response to seismic forces.
Irregularities or discontinuities in the structural layout, such as set­
backs, changes in mass distribution, or variations in stiffness, can
lead to localized stress concentrations during seismic events. These
irregularities can arise from various sources, including architectural
features, functional requirements, or site constraints. Therefore, a
thorough understanding and precise definition of structural config­
uration are essential for assessing seismic vulnerability and imple­
menting effective mitigation measures [13].
• Foundation Type: The type and condition of the foundation,
whether shallow or deep, and the soil properties beneath the build­
ing play a crucial role in determining how a building responds to
seismic forces. Soft or liquefiable soils can amplify ground motions
and increase the risk of settlement or overturning [2100].
• Immediate Occupancy: Buildings designed to remain functional
with minimal damage after a moderate earthquake, allowing occu­
pants to safely evacuate.
• Life Safety: Buildings designed to prevent collapse and ensure
occupant safety during a design-level earthquake, allowing for safe
evacuation.
• Collapse Prevention: Buildings designed to withstand a maximum
considered earthquake without collapse, protecting both occupants
and the structure itself [32,50].
Niazi et al., [80] discusses the calculation of seismic resilience index
for existing and corroded buildings under various hazard levels and
ground motion types, alongside depicting the functionality curve of a
school building over its lifespan. Welsh-Huggins, Liel [101] quantifies
seismic performance and losses, finding enhanced lateral strength re­
duces post-earthquake costs and carbon emissions. Anwar et al., [6]
compares repair strategies considering seismic risk, sustainability, and
resilience, aiding in the development of performance-based engineering.
Cardoni et al., [27] introduces a methodology and resilience index for
urban electric power distribution systems, considering redundancy and
resourcefulness. Asadi et al., [9] uses a nonlinear ARX model to identify
damage in archetype building structures, highlighting the effectiveness
of demand parameters. Zhang et al., [112] provides best practice rec­
ommendations for seismic retrofit processes, emphasizing local gov­
ernment responsibility in earthquake-prone areas. Wang, Zhao [99]
discusses energy dissipation systems and their dynamic responses, out­
lining research challenges and future directions. Forcellini [40] applies
fragility curves to assess seismic resilience, demonstrating the benefits of
base isolation techniques. Yu et al., [110] evaluates the seismic resil­
ience of a hospital using a proposed framework, identifying the need for
improvement in emergency functionality after earthquakes. Niazi et al.,
[80] examines waiting time and treatment quality changes during
seismic scenarios, proposing a resiliency plan to reduce waiting time and
enhance crisis management.
The array of studies discussed provides valuable insights into various
aspects of seismic resilience across different domains, from structural
engineering to urban infrastructure and healthcare facilities. However,
In this synthesis, [70] present an integrated platform designed to
assess seismic resilience and vulnerability of critical urban in­
frastructures, considering their interdependencies. They demonstrate its
efficacy through the application of different seismic scenarios to a vir­
tual city model, showcasing its effectiveness in analyzing emergencies
and implementing countermeasures for improved community response
and resilience. González et al., [44] highlights the importance of
assessing annual resilience values for school buildings, noting a lack of
consideration in seismic design codes. Koren, Rus [60] addresses the
potential of open spaces in enhancing urban seismic resilience, pro­
posing a complex network theory model. Khanmohammadi et al., [58]
introduces a model quantifying hospital functionality and resilience,
aiding administrators in decision-making for preparedness policies.
Yenidogan [107] offers an overview of isolation systems in seismic
design, emphasizing sustainable communities. Mokhtari, Naderpour
[78] proposes a methodology for seismic resilience evaluation, partic­
ularly in hospital buildings, stressing the benefit of proactive planning.
Yang et al., [106] evaluates retrofitting schemes for seismic resilience
improvement in RC frame buildings. (B. [33]) discusses modeling
4
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
challenges and future opportunities in building science. Freddi et al.,
[42] reflects on seismic risk mitigation policies, emphasizing the
importance of agent-based models in enhancing community resilience,
as advocated by [56].
The synthesis of various studies on seismic resilience reveals several
shortcomings in current approaches. Despite the development of inte­
grated platforms and models to assess resilience, there remains a lack of
consideration for critical factors such as interdependencies between
urban infrastructures and annual resilience values for school buildings
in seismic design codes. Additionally, while the potential of open spaces
and isolation systems in enhancing resilience is acknowledged, there is a
need for more comprehensive implementation strategies. Challenges in
modeling and retrofitting schemes for seismic improvement persist,
particularly in hospital buildings. Furthermore, reflections on seismic
risk mitigation policies highlight the necessity for more advanced
modeling techniques, such as agent-based models, to enhance commu­
nity resilience.
The papers collectively contribute valuable insights into the multi­
faceted aspects of seismic resilience, showcasing innovative methodol­
ogies, critical assessments of current practices, and practical
applications. However, a critical review would call for a more stan­
dardized approach to evaluating resilience across different studies,
ensuring consistency in metrics and methodologies. Additionally,
addressing the scalability and generalizability of proposed models and
methodologies could enhance their applicability across various contexts.
3.4.3. Incorporation of innovative structural systems and retrofitting
techniques
• Innovative structural systems, such as base isolation, energy dissi­
pation devices, and ductile reinforced concrete frames, can enhance
the seismic resilience of buildings by improving their ability to
absorb and dissipate seismic energy [22,82].
• Retrofitting techniques, including strengthening existing structures
with additional reinforcement or implementing structural upgrades,
can mitigate vulnerabilities in older buildings and infrastructure
systems [59,74].
• The incorporation of these technologies and techniques into design
practices can significantly improve the seismic performance and
resilience of structures, especially in regions prone to earthquakes
[46].
3.4.4. Integration of resilience into the entire lifecycle of a structure
• Seismic resilience should be considered throughout the entire life­
cycle of a structure, from initial planning and design to construction,
operation, and maintenance [84].
• Designing for resilience involves not only ensuring structural safety
during earthquakes but also considering factors such as postearthquake functionality, rapid recovery, and adaptive capacity
[51].
• Incorporating resilience into the decision-making process requires
collaboration among architects, engineers, planners, policymakers,
and stakeholders to prioritize resilient design strategies and in­
vestments [63,79].
3.4. Design criteria for seismic resilience
Seismic resilience refers to the ability of structures and infrastructure
systems to withstand and rapidly recover from the impacts of earth­
quakes, minimizing damage, and ensuring the safety of occupants [52,
53]. Achieving seismic resilience involves implementing robust design
criteria that consider various factors, including local seismic hazards,
structural performance objectives, and the lifecycle of the structure [54,
107]. Here’s a detailed discussion on the design criteria for enhancing
seismic resilience:
The table summarizes various research contributions related to
seismic resilience assessment and enhancement. Authors propose
methodologies ranging from probabilistic models for building resilience
to landscape architecture strategies for open space design. Key findings
include the identification of resilience factors, such as recovery time and
repair cost, and the development of comprehensive models for resilience
evaluation. Advantages encompass quantitative assessment capabilities
and support for emergency planning, while limitations include the
narrow scope of application to specific building types and the need for
further validation and interdisciplinary collaboration. .
The research encompasses several studies focusing on the seismic
performance enhancement of existing reinforced concrete frames (RCFs)
through various retrofitting techniques (X. [19]). Experimental verifi­
cation and numerical investigations were conducted on
externally-attached precast substructures, such as prestressed tendons
and steel-reinforced concrete braces, to improve the seismic resilience of
RCFs (X.-Y. [24]). Results demonstrate the effectiveness of these retro­
fitting methods in increasing collapse and demolition capacities,
reducing residual deformations, and enhancing energy dissipation ca­
pabilities [104]. Additionally, comparative studies validate the superi­
ority of externally-attached substructures in mitigating damage
accumulation and controlling shear demands on existing beams and
columns [105]. Dynamic analyses further emphasize the significance of
these retrofitting techniques in minimizing seismic demands and
enhancing capacity reliability.
In conclusion, enhancing seismic resilience requires a multifaceted
approach that encompasses rigorous design criteria, innovative tech­
nologies, and a holistic consideration of the structural lifecycle. By
implementing robust design practices, considering performance-based
approaches, and integrating resilience into every stage of a structure’s
development, engineers can create buildings and infrastructure systems
that are better equipped to withstand earthquakes and safeguard com­
munities against seismic hazards.
3.4.1. Review of seismic design codes and standards
• Seismic design codes and standards, such as the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 in the United States and Eurocode 8 in
Europe, provide guidelines and requirements for designing struc­
tures to resist earthquake forces.
• These codes specify seismic hazard maps, ground motion parame­
ters, and structural design methodologies to ensure the safety and
stability of buildings and infrastructure during earthquakes.
• Reviewing and adhering to these codes is fundamental for ensuring
the structural integrity and seismic performance of buildings and
lifeline systems.
3.4.2. Consideration of performance-based design approaches
• Performance-based design (PBD) approaches offer a more compre­
hensive framework for designing structures with specific perfor­
mance objectives under seismic loading [5,76].
• PBD allows engineers to define performance levels, such as imme­
diate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention, and design
structures to achieve these objectives [31,53].
• By considering the expected behavior of structures under different
levels of seismic intensity, PBD enables a more tailored and resilient
design approach compared to traditional prescriptive methods
[109].
5
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
Table 2
Comparative Analysis of Seismic Resilience Methodologies and Findings.
Author
Methodology
Key Finding
Advantages
Limitations
Sangaki et al.,
[91]
Probabilistic models compatible with
reliability methods, validated using
HAZUS, implemented in Rt
Employed methodology for hospital
buildings, with and without FPBs,
parametric study
Systematic review of literature on
landscape architecture’s role in seismic
resilience
Framework applied to case-study
hospital, seismic resilience assessment,
retrofit strategies
Introduction of resilience loss factor,
replacement threshold consideration
Enhanced resilience curve for a typical
concrete moment-resisting frame
building
Hospital resilience assessment under
seismic hazard scenarios, need for
improvement measures identified
Identified six key themes contributing to
seismic resilience in open space design
Validated methodology,
integration with existing software
Limited scope to concrete momentresisting frame buildings
Quantitative resilience
assessment, supports emergency
planning
Provides foundation for
incorporating seismic resilience in
design disciplines
Quantitative assessment of
resilience, supports emergency
planning
Incorporates engineering
application, focuses on recovery
process
Highlights discrepancies in
current modeling criteria
Limited application to hospital
buildings, need for further validation
Comprehensive model for
resilience evaluation
Limited to Tehran and Kish Island,
need for broader validation
Predictive model for seismic
resilience, optimization of design
schemes
Incorporates FEMA P-58
assessments, provides meaningful
expression of resilience
Provides sensitivity analysis,
handles conflicting attributes
Limited to bridge structures,
applicability to other structures not
explored
Limited to buildings evaluated using
REDi and FEMA P-58 assessments
Mokhtari,
Naderpour
[78]
French et al.,
[43]
Yu et al.,[110]
Wen et al.,
[102]
Hassan et al.,
[45]
Atrachali
et al.,[12]
Hu et al.,[48]
Castillo et al.,
[28]
Amini et al.,
[3]
Evaluation of ASCE 41-17 criteria,
underestimation of structural capacity
and resilience
Development and verification of a
resilience model using 37 indicators
Application of non-dominated sorting
genetic algorithm to bridge design,
resilience prediction
Incorporation of FEMA P-58
assessments in REDi, evaluation of
building resilience
Multi-attribute decision-making
method for design selection, simulation
techniques
Hospital’s recovery time postearthquake, need for improvement
measures
Resilience loss factor focuses on
recovery time and repair cost, effects of
thresholds and aftershocks noted
ASCE 41-17 overestimates collapse
probability, underestimates resilience
and capacity
Model’s ability to reproduce logical
resilience values confirmed, potential
for practical application noted
Optimized bridge design schemes
determined, resilience prediction
through response surface model noted
Downtimes due to delays factored into
resilience quantification, occupancy
level approach preferred
Method reconciles conflicting
attributes, sensitivity analysis of design
rankings demonstrated
Limited to landscape architecture,
may require interdisciplinary
collaboration
Limited to hospital buildings,
applicability to other structures not
explored
Complexity of factors influencing
resilience loss, need for further
validation
Limited to ASCE 41-17 criteria
evaluation
Limited to design selection process,
applicability to broader decisionmaking not explored
services, and impact the functioning of critical facilities such as hospitals
and emergency response centers [25]. Transportation network disrup­
tions impede evacuation and emergency response operations, delay the
delivery of essential supplies, and hinder economic recovery [77].
4. Lifeline systems and seismic resilience
Lifeline systems are critical infrastructures that provide essential
services to communities, including water supply, power distribution,
transportation networks, telecommunications, and emergency response
services [103]. During earthquakes, these lifeline systems are particu­
larly vulnerable to damage and disruption due to the shaking of the
ground, ground displacement, soil liquefaction, and secondary hazards
such as landslides [65]. The disruption of lifeline systems can have se­
vere consequences on societal functionality and the ability to mount
effective recovery efforts following an earthquake event [92].
4.3. Strategies for improving seismic resilience
Enhancing the seismic resilience of lifeline systems necessitates a
comprehensive and multifaceted strategy that encompasses proactive
measures to mitigate vulnerabilities, optimize performance, and ensure
continuity of critical services before, during, and after seismic events.
This approach involves a combination of structural reinforcements,
redundancy in infrastructure components, implementation of advanced
monitoring and early warning systems, development of robust emer­
gency response plans, and integration of resilient design principles into
infrastructure planning and development processes [67]. Moreover,
fostering collaboration among stakeholders, conducting risk assess­
ments, investing in research and innovation, and incorporating lessons
learned from past seismic events are integral aspects of this holistic
approach. By addressing the complex interdependencies and inter­
connectivity within lifeline systems, such as transportation, communi­
cation, energy, and water networks, this comprehensive strategy aims to
minimize disruptions, expedite recovery, and ensure the resilience of
essential services to support communities in earthquake-prone regions
[69]. Key strategies include:
4.1. Overview of lifeline systems and vulnerabilities
Lifeline systems are interconnected networks that play a crucial role
in supporting daily activities and emergency response operations [25].
Water supply systems deliver potable water for drinking, sanitation, and
firefighting, while power distribution networks provide electricity for
residential, commercial, and industrial purposes [39]. Transportation
networks, including roads, bridges, railways, and airports, facilitate the
movement of people and goods [72]. Telecommunication systems
enable communication among individuals, emergency responders, and
government agencies during and after an earthquake [70].
Lifeline systems are vulnerable to seismic hazards due to their
exposure to ground shaking, ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and other
geotechnical phenomena. The age, design, and construction quality of
infrastructure components also influence their susceptibility to damage
during earthquakes [1,86].
• Redundancy: Redundancy in lifeline systems entails the integration
of backup components and alternate systems to guarantee uninter­
rupted service provision amidst damage or disruption [108]. This
strategic approach encompasses various measures such as estab­
lishing alternative transportation routes, implementing redundant
power generation and distribution networks, and securing backup
water supply sources. By incorporating redundancy, lifeline systems
bolster their resilience, mitigating the impact of potential failures
and ensuring continued functionality during adverse conditions
[17].
4.2. Impact of lifeline disruptions
The disruption of lifeline systems can have cascading effects on so­
cietal functionality and recovery efforts following an earthquake [65].
Without access to clean water, communities face health risks from
contaminated water sources and hindered firefighting capabilities [66].
Power outages can disrupt communication systems, hamper medical
6
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
Discuss the role of social cohesion and collective action in building
resilient communities capable of withstanding and recovering from
seismic events.
• Hardening: Hardening refers to the process of reinforcing critical
lifeline infrastructure components to enhance their resilience against
seismic forces and minimize potential damage. This comprehensive
approach involves retrofitting structures such as bridges and build­
ings to improve their capacity to withstand earthquakes [18].
Additionally, it includes fortifying essential systems like water sup­
ply pipelines and storage tanks to ensure their functionality during
and after seismic events. Furthermore, hardening encompasses
securing power distribution facilities against ground shaking, safe­
guarding against disruptions to essential services. By implementing
robust hardening measures, communities can better withstand
seismic hazards and facilitate faster recovery in the aftermath of
earthquakes [68].
• Rapid Restoration: Accelerating restoration efforts for lifeline sys­
tems post-earthquake necessitates robust contingency plans and
well-coordinated emergency response protocols [60]. This encom­
passes strategic initiatives like pre-positioning essential supplies,
establishing seamless coordination channels among utility providers
and emergency responders, and prioritizing critical infrastructure
repairs to swiftly restore functionality and minimize downtime.
Proactive measures and efficient collaboration are pivotal in swiftly
mitigating the aftermath of seismic events, ensuring resilience in the
face of disruption, and facilitating the rapid recovery of vital lifeline
services essential for community well-being [29,34].
5.3. Application to future design and planning
1. Integration of Resilience Principles: Emphasize the importance of
integrating resilience considerations into future design and planning
processes. Encourage engineers, urban planners, and policymakers to
adopt a holistic approach that considers not only structural integrity
but also social, economic, and environmental factors.
2. Research and Innovation: Identify areas for further research and
innovation in seismic resilience, such as developing advanced
modeling techniques for predicting building and infrastructure
behavior, testing novel materials and construction methods, and
exploring interdisciplinary approaches to disaster risk reduction.
By examining successful case studies, identifying effective design
strategies, and learning from past earthquakes, stakeholders can
enhance the seismic resilience of buildings and lifeline systems, ulti­
mately contributing to safer and more resilient communities in
earthquake-prone regions.
6. Challenges and future directions
Implementing these strategies requires collaboration among gov­
ernment agencies, utility providers, engineers, urban planners, and
other stakeholders to integrate seismic resilience considerations into
infrastructure planning, design, construction, and maintenance prac­
tices. Additionally, public education and outreach efforts are essential to
raise awareness about earthquake risks and promote individual and
community preparedness measures. By enhancing the seismic resilience
of lifeline systems, communities can reduce the impacts of earthquakes
and improve their ability to recover and rebuild in the aftermath of a
seismic event.
6.1. Challenges
1. Complexity of Infrastructure Networks: One of the primary
challenges is the interconnected nature of infrastructure systems.
Lifeline systems such as water, power, and transportation are inter­
dependent, making it difficult to assess and mitigate the cascading
effects of failures during earthquakes.
2. Aging Infrastructure: Many regions have aging infrastructure that
was not originally designed to withstand seismic forces. Retrofitting
or replacing these structures to meet modern resilience standards is
costly and time-consuming.
3. Limited Resources: Budget constraints and competing priorities
often limit the resources available for seismic resilience initiatives.
This can impede progress in implementing proactive measures such
as retrofitting vulnerable buildings and infrastructure.
4. Uncertain Hazard Assessment: Despite advancements in seismic
hazard analysis, there remains uncertainty in predicting the timing,
location, and intensity of earthquakes. This uncertainty complicates
risk assessment and decision-making for resilience planning.
5. Public Awareness and Education: Building public awareness about
seismic risks and the importance of resilience measures is a signifi­
cant challenge. Many individuals and communities underestimate
the potential impact of earthquakes and may not prioritize pre­
paredness efforts.
5. Best practices
5.1. Identification of design strategies and technologies
1. Innovative Structural Systems: Discuss cutting-edge structural
systems and materials that contribute to seismic resilience, such as
high-performance concrete, fiber-reinforced polymers, and
advanced steel alloys. Highlight design strategies that prioritize
ductility, energy dissipation, and redundancy to enhance structural
robustness.
2. Retrofitting Techniques: Explore retrofitting methods that improve
the seismic performance of existing buildings and infrastructure.
This may include strengthening vulnerable structural elements, such
as columns and walls, through techniques like external posttensioning or fiber wrapping. Case studies can showcase successful
retrofitting projects and their impact on reducing earthquake risk.
6.2. Emerging trends and technologies
5.2. Lessons learned from past earthquakes
1. Advanced Structural Materials and Systems: Innovations in ma­
terials science and engineering are leading to the development of
new construction materials and structural systems with enhanced
seismic performance. Examples include high-performance concrete,
fiber-reinforced polymers, and base isolation systems.
2. Sensor Networks and Data Analytics: Advances in sensor tech­
nology and data analytics enable real-time monitoring of structural
health and seismic activity. These systems provide valuable insights
for assessing risks, predicting impacts, and prioritizing mitigation
efforts.
3. Resilient Infrastructure Design: There is a growing emphasis on
incorporating resilience principles into the design and planning of
infrastructure systems. This includes designing for redundancy,
1. Performance Observations: Analyze the performance of buildings
and lifeline systems during historical earthquakes, drawing insights
from post-event reconnaissance reports and damage assessments.
Identify common failure modes and vulnerabilities that have been
observed in structures and infrastructure, such as soft-story collapses
in older buildings or lifeline disruptions due to ground shaking or soil
liquefaction.
2. Community Resilience Efforts: Highlight examples of communities
that have implemented proactive measures to enhance seismic
resilience, such as land-use planning regulations, public education
campaigns, and community-based disaster preparedness programs.
7
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
flexibility, and rapid restoration to minimize downtime and service
disruptions.
4. Community-Based Approaches: Community engagement and
participation are increasingly recognized as critical components of
resilience planning. Collaborative approaches involving stakeholders
from government, academia, industry, and the public can foster
innovation and build social capital for resilience initiatives.
5. Integration of Risk-Informed Decision-Making: Utilizing riskinformed decision-making frameworks helps policymakers priori­
tize investments in resilience measures based on their potential to
reduce risks and enhance societal benefits. This approach considers
both the likelihood and consequences of seismic events.
3. Call to Action for Collaboration: The conclusion serves as a call to
action, emphasizing the need for collaboration among various
stakeholders, including engineers, policymakers, urban planners,
emergency responders, community leaders, and the public. Building
seismic resilience requires a multidisciplinary approach that draws
upon expertise from diverse fields and engages all relevant parties in
the process. Collaboration is essential for developing comprehensive
resilience strategies, implementing effective mitigation measures,
and fostering a culture of preparedness within communities.
4. Building More Resilient Communities: The conclusion un­
derscores the ultimate goal of building more resilient communities
capable of withstanding and recovering from seismic events.
Achieving this goal requires not only technical solutions but also
social, economic, and institutional measures that address the root
causes of vulnerability and enhance community capacity to adapt
and respond to earthquakes. By working together and prioritizing
resilience, communities can mitigate the impacts of earthquakes,
safeguard lives and livelihoods, and promote sustainable
development.
6.3. Recommendations for future research and policy development
1. Enhanced Risk Assessment and Modeling: Invest in research to
improve the accuracy and reliability of seismic hazard assessments,
including probabilistic methods for characterizing uncertainties and
incorporating multi-hazard considerations.
2. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Foster collaboration between
disciplines such as engineering, urban planning, sociology, and
economics to develop holistic approaches to resilience planning that
address technical, social, and economic dimensions.
3. Incentivize Retrofitting and Resilience Investments: Implement
policies and incentives to encourage property owners, businesses,
and government agencies to invest in retrofitting existing buildings
and infrastructure to meet modern resilience standards.
4. Education and Outreach: Develop educational programs and pub­
lic outreach campaigns to increase awareness about seismic risks and
resilience strategies, empowering individuals and communities to
take proactive measures for preparedness.
5. Policy Integration and Coordination: Establish coordinated pol­
icies and governance structures at local, regional, and national levels
to ensure consistency and alignment in resilience planning and
implementation across sectors and jurisdictions.
In conclusion, the review paper encapsulates significant insights into
bolstering communities’ resilience against seismic hazards. It synthe­
sizes key findings on seismic resilience concepts, building behavior
during earthquakes, and design criteria imperative for fortifying infra­
structure. The integration of seismic resilience into engineering practice
and public policy emerges as paramount, emphasizing the need for
proactive measures in urban planning, building regulations, and emer­
gency preparedness. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the inherent
limitations and gaps in current understanding, necessitating further in­
vestigations into nuanced aspects of seismic resilience. Moreover, the
novelty of this paper lies in its comprehensive exploration of both
structural and systemic resilience, underscoring the importance of
considering lifeline systems alongside building design. By addressing
these challenges and embracing innovative approaches, we can collec­
tively advance seismic resilience and build a safer, more sustainable
future for all.
By addressing these challenges, leveraging emerging trends and
technologies, and prioritizing research and policy development, com­
munities can enhance their resilience to seismic events and minimize the
impacts on lives, infrastructure, and economies.
Funding Information
Not Applicable.
7. Conclusion
Author contribution
In the conclusion of the review paper titled "Enhancing Seismic
Resilience: Behavior and Design Criteria for Buildings and Lifeline Sys­
tems," several key points are addressed to summarize the findings and
emphasize the significance of seismic resilience in both engineering
practice and public policy. Additionally, a call to action for collaboration
among stakeholders to build more resilient communities is highlighted.
Here’s a more detailed discussion of these points:
Shrikant Harle, Ruchita Ingole and Nilesh Zanjad has contributed
towards the writing manuscript, Rajan Wankhade & Amol Bhagat
contributed towards guiding.
Research Involving Human and /or Animals
Not Applicable.
1. Summary of Key Findings and Insights: The conclusion begins by
summarizing the key findings and insights obtained from the review
paper. This includes a recap of the discussions on seismic resilience
concepts, the behavior of buildings during earthquakes, design
criteria for enhancing resilience, and the critical role of lifeline sys­
tems in community resilience.
2. Importance of Integrating Seismic Resilience: It emphasizes the
crucial importance of integrating seismic resilience considerations
into both engineering practice and public policy. This integration
involves not only designing structures and infrastructure to with­
stand seismic events but also incorporating resilience measures into
urban planning, building codes, and emergency management stra­
tegies. By doing so, communities can better prepare for, withstand,
and recover from earthquakes, ultimately reducing the loss of life
and property damage.
Informed Consent
Not Applicable.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nilesh Zanjad: Methodology, Conceptualization. Dr. Rajan
Wankhade: Writing – review & editing. Ruchita Ingole: Writing – re­
view & editing, Resources. Shrikant M. Harle: Writing – original draft,
Project administration, Investigation. Amol Bhagat: Supervision.
Conflict of Interest
Not Applicable.
8
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
Data availability
107069. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026382312
0309435〉.
[22] Cao X-Y, Shen D, Feng D-C, Wang C-L, Qu Z, Wu G. Seismic retrofitting of existing
frame buildings through externally attached sub-structures: state of the art review
and future perspectives. J Build Eng 2022;57:104904. 〈https://www.sciencedir
ect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710222009160〉.
[23] Cao X-Y, Shi J, Xu J-G, Ji E, She Y, Wang Z. The combined influence of bond–slip
and joint-shear in the seismic upgrading via externally-attached BFRP-bar
reinforced precast sub-frames. J Build Eng 2023;80:107984. 〈https://www.scien
cedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710223021642〉.
[24] Cao X-Y, Wu G, Ju J-WW. Seismic performance improvement of existing RCFs
using external PT-PBSPC frame sub-structures: experimental verification and
numerical investigation. J Build Eng 2022;46:103649. 〈https://www.sciencedir
ect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710221015072〉.
[25] Capacci L, Biondini F, Frangopol DM. Resilience of aging structures and
infrastructure systems with emphasis on seismic resilience of bridges and road
networks. Resilient Cities Struct 2022;1(2):23–41. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S2772741622000205〉.
[26] Capacci L, Biondini F, Titi A. Lifetime seismic resilience of aging bridges and road
networks. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2020;16(2):266–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15732479.2019.1653937.
[27] Cardoni A, Cimellaro GP, Domaneschi M, Sordo S, Mazza A. Modeling the
interdependency between buildings and the electrical distribution system for
seismic resilience assessment. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2020;42:101315. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420919306296〉.
[28] Castillo JGS, Bruneau M, Elhami-Khorasani N. Functionality measures for
quantification of building seismic resilience index. Eng Struct 2022;253:113800.
〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102962101871X〉.
[29] Cheng S, He H, Sun H, Cheng Y. Rapid recovery strategy for seismic performance
of seismic-damaged structures considering imperfect repair and seismic
resilience. J Build Eng 2023:108422. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2352710223026050〉.
[30] Dall’Asta A, Leoni G, Micozzi F, Gioiella L, Ragni L. A resilience and robustness
oriented design of base-isolated structures: the New Camerino University
Research Center. Front Built Environ 2020;6:50. 〈https://www.frontiersin.org/a
rticles/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00050/full〉.
[31] Dedeoğlu A, Zülfikar AC. Earthquake performance based design and resilience
based analysis in high-rise buildings. Disaster Sci Eng 2020;6(1):12–34. 〈https://
dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/dse/issue/54270/678676〉.
[32] Di Michele F, Cantagallo C, Spacone E. Effects of the vertical seismic component
on seismic performance of an unreinforced masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng
2020;18(4):1635–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00765-3.
[33] Dong B, Liu Y, Fontenot H, Ouf M, Osman M, Chong A, Qin S, Salim F, Xue H,
Yan D. Occupant behavior modeling methods for resilient building design,
operation and policy at urban scale: a review. Appl Energy 2021;293:116856. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921003482〉.
[34] Dong Z, Li C, Wen S, Zhai P, Kang S. Study on seismic resilience quantitative
framework of subway stations and resilience improvement strategy. Front Earth
Sci 2022;10:869965. 〈https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2022.
869965/full〉.
[35] Dong-ping F, Quan-wang LI, Nan L, Fei W, Ying LIU, Dong-lian GU, Chu-jin SUN,
Sheng-jie PAN, Guan-jie HOU, Xin-zheng LU. An evaluation system for
community seismic resilience and its application in a typical community. 工程力
学 2020;37(10):28–44. 〈https://www.engineeringmechanics.cn/en/article/doi/
10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2019.11.0670〉.
[36] Etli S, Güneyisi EM. Assessment of seismic behavior factor of code-designed
steel–concrete composite buildings. Arab J Sci Eng 2021;46(5):4271–92. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04913-9.
[37] Fang C, Wang W, Qiu C, Hu S, MacRae GA, Eatherton MR. Seismic resilient steel
structures: a review of research, practice, challenges and opportunities. J Constr
Steel Res 2022;191:107172. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0143974X2200044X〉.
[38] Filiatrault A, Perrone D, Merino RJ, Calvi GM. Performance-based seismic design
of nonstructural building elements. J Earthq Eng 2021;25(2):237–69. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1512910.
[39] Forcellini D. A novel methodology to assess seismic resilience (SR) of
interconnected infrastructures. Appl Sci 2022;12(24):12975. 〈https://www.mdpi.
com/2076-3417/12/24/12975〉.
[40] Forcellini D. An expeditious framework for assessing the seismic resilience (SR) of
structural configurations. Structures 2023;56:105015. 〈https://www.sciencedir
ect.com/science/article/pii/S2352012423011050〉.
[41] Forcellini D. The role of redundancy of infrastructures on the seismic resilience
(SR) of Sustainable Communities. Sustainability 2023;15(15):11849. https://
www.mdpi.com/2071–1050/15/15/11849.
[42] Freddi F, Galasso C, Cremen G, Dall’Asta A, Di Sarno L, Giaralis A, GutiérrezUrzúa F, Málaga-Chuquitaype C, Mitoulis SA, Petrone C. Innovations in
earthquake risk reduction for resilience: recent advances and challenges. Int J
Disaster Risk Reduct 2021;60:102267. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2212420921002338〉.
[43] French EL, Birchall SJ, Landman K, Brown RD. Designing public open space to
support seismic resilience: A systematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2019;
34:1–10. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221242091
8307362〉.
[44] González C, Niño M, Jaimes MA. Event-based assessment of seismic resilience in
Mexican school buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2020;18(14):6313–36. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10518-020-00938-5.
Data may be made available as per the request.
References
[1] Alam MS, Simpson BG, Barbosa AR. Fragility and recovery models for energy,
water, and wastewater systems for seismic regional risk and resilience
assessment: state-of-the-art review and database. Nat Hazards Rev 2023;24(4):
04023036. https://doi.org/10.1061/NHREFO.NHENG-1661.
[2] Aly N, Galal K. Effect of ductile shear wall ratio and cross-section configuration
on seismic behavior of reinforced concrete masonry shear wall buildings. J Struct
Eng 2020;146(4):04020020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943541X.0002542.
[3] Amini M, Zhang B, Chang S. Selecting building designs with consideration of
sustainability and resiliency. J Archit Eng 2018;24(1):04018001. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000298.
[4] Anwar GA, Dong Y. Seismic resilience of retrofitted RC buildings. Earthq Eng Eng
Vib 2020;19(3):561–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0580-z.
[5] Anwar GA, Dong Y, Li Y. Performance-based decision-making of buildings under
seismic hazard considering long-term loss, sustainability, and resilience. Struct
Infrastruct Eng 2021;17(4):454–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15732479.2020.1845751.
[6] Anwar GA, Dong Y, Zhai C. Performance-based probabilistic framework for
seismic risk, resilience, and sustainability assessment of reinforced concrete
structures. Adv Struct Eng 2020;23(7):1454–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1369433219895363.
[7] Aroquipa H, Hurtado A. Seismic resilience assessment of buildings: a simplified
methodological approach through conventional seismic risk assessment. Int J
Disaster Risk Reduct 2022;77:103047. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2212420922002667〉.
[8] Asadi E, Salman AM, Li Y. Multi-criteria decision-making for seismic resilience
and sustainability assessment of diagrid buildings. Eng Struct 2019;191:229–46.
〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029618319527〉.
[9] Asadi E, Salman AM, Li Y, Yu X. Localized health monitoring for seismic
resilience quantification and safety evaluation of smart structures. Struct Saf
2021;93:102127. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0167473021000515〉.
[10] Asadi E, Shen Z, Zhou H, Salman A, Li Y. Risk-informed multi-criteria decision
framework for resilience, sustainability and energy analysis of reinforced
concrete buildings. J Build Perform Simul 2020;13(6):804–23. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19401493.2020.1824016.
[11] Aslani F, Amini Hosseini K, Fallahi A. A framework for earthquake resilience at
neighborhood level. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 2020;11(4):557–75. 〈http
s://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJDRBE-12-2019-0082/fu
ll/html〉.
[12] Atrachali M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Amini-Hosseini K, Arian-Moghaddam S.
Toward quantification of seismic resilience in Iran: Developing an integrated
indicator system. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2019;39:101231. 〈https://www.scien
cedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420918315115〉.
[13] Bensattalah T, Hassaine Daouadji T, Zidour M. Influences the shape of the floor
on the behavior of buildings under seismic effect. In: Benmounah A, Abadlia MT,
Saidi M, Zerizer A, editors. Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on
materials and sustainable development. Springer International Publishing; 2020.
p. 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43268-3_3.
[14] Biswas RK, Iwanami M, Chijiwa N, Nakayama K. Structural assessment of the
coupled influence of corrosion damage and seismic force on the cyclic behaviour
of RC columns. Constr Build Mater 2021;304:124706. 〈https://www.sciencedir
ect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061821024612〉.
[15] Burton HV, Deierlein G, Lallemant D, Singh Y. Measuring the impact of enhanced
building performance on the seismic resilience of a residential community. Earthq
Spectra 2017;33(4):1347–67. https://doi.org/10.1193/040916eqs057m.
[16] Byun J-E, D’Ayala D. Urban seismic resilience mapping: a transportation network
in Istanbul. Turk Sci Rep 2022;12(1):8188. 〈https://www.nature.com/articles/s
41598-022-11991-2〉.
[17] Calvi GM, Sousa L, Ruggeri C. Energy efficiency and seismic resilience: a common
approach. In: Gardoni P, LaFave JM, editors. Multi-hazard approaches to civil
infrastructure engineering. Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 165–208.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29713-2_9.
[18] Calvi GM, Sullivan TJ, Welch DP. A seismic performance classification framework
to provide increased seismic resilience. Perspect Eur Earthq Eng Seismol 2014;
Volume 1:361–400. 〈https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/han
dle/20.500.12657/27794/1/1002211.pdf#page=365〉.
[19] Cao X, Wu G, Feng D, Wang Z, Cui H. Research on the seismic retrofitting
performance of RC frames using SC-PBSPC BRBF substructures. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2020;49(8):794–816. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3265.
[20] Cao X-Y, Feng D-C, Wang C-L, Shen D, Wu G. A stochastic CSM-based
displacement-oriented design strategy for the novel precast SRC-UHPC composite
braced-frame in the externally attached seismic retrofitting. Compos Struct 2023;
321. 117308 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026382232
3006542〉.
[21] Cao X-Y, Feng D-C, Wu G, Zeng Y-H. Reusing & replacing performances of the ABBRB with thin-walled concrete-infilled steel shells. Thin-Walled Struct 2020;157:
9
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
[45] Hassan WM, Reyes JC, González C, Pallarés FJ, Spinel JS. Seismic vulnerability
and resilience of steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) composite column buildings with
non-seismic details. Eng Struct 2021;244:112810. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0141029621009603〉.
[46] Homam SM, Sheikh SA. Resilience and sustainability of FRP-retrofitted concrete
structures. Int J Sustain Mater Struct Syst 2021;5(1/2):35. https://doi.org/
10.1504/IJSMSS.2021.115785.
[47] Hosseini Y, Mohammadi RK, Yang TY. Resource-based seismic resilience
optimization of the blocked urban road network in emergency response phase
considering uncertainties. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2023;85:103496. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420922007154〉.
[48] Hu S, Chen B, Song G, Wang L. Resilience-based seismic design optimization of
highway RC bridges by response surface method and improved non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm. Bull Earthq Eng 2022;20(1):449–76. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-021-01232-8.
[49] Huang C, Huang S. Seismic resilience assessment of aging bridges with different
failure modes. Structures 2021;33:3682–90. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S2352012421005713〉.
[50] Işık E. A comparative study on the structural performance of an RC building based
on updated seismic design codes: case of Turkey. Challenge 2021;7:123–34.
〈http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/580〉.
[51] Ivanov D. Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and
sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19
pandemic. Ann Oper Res 2022;319(1):1411–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10479-020-03640-6.
[52] Joyner MD, Gardner C, Puentes B, Sasani M. Resilience-Based seismic design of
buildings through multiobjective optimization. Eng Struct 2021;246:113024. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029621011664〉.
[53] Joyner MD, Kurth MH, Pumo I, Linkov I. Recovery-based design of buildings for
seismic resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2021;65:102556. 〈https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420921005173〉.
[54] Joyner MD, Puentes B, Gardner C, Steinberg S, Sasani M. Multiobjective
Optimization of Building Seismic Design for Resilience. J Struct Eng 2022;148(4):
04022006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003286.
[55] Joyner MD, Sasani M. Building performance for earthquake resilience. Eng Struct
2020;210:110371. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141
029619313458〉.
[56] Kashani H, Movahedi A, Morshedi MA. An agent-based simulation model to
evaluate the response to seismic retrofit promotion policies. Int J Disaster Risk
Reduct 2019;33:181–95. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2212420918302917〉.
[57] Khanal B, Chaulagain H. Seismic elastic performance of L-shaped building frames
through plan irregularities. Structures 2020;27:22–36.
[58] Khanmohammadi S, Farahmand H, Kashani H. A system dynamics approach to
the seismic resilience enhancement of hospitals. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2018;
31:220–33. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221242091
8305879〉.
[59] Kiakojouri F, De Biagi V, Chiaia B, Sheidaii MR. Strengthening and retrofitting
techniques to mitigate progressive collapse: a critical review and future research
agenda. Eng Struct 2022;262:114274. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S014102962200400X〉.
[60] Koren D, Rus K. The potential of open space for enhancing urban seismic
resilience: a literature review. Sustainability 2019;11(21):5942. 〈https://www.
mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5942〉.
[61] Lagos R, Lafontaine M, Bonelli P, Boroschek R, Guendelman T, Massone LM,
Saragoni R, Rojas F, Yañez F. The quest for resilience: The Chilean practice of
seismic design for reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 2021;37(1):
26–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020970978.
[62] Li J, Wang T, Shang Q. Probability-based seismic resilience assessment method
for substation systems. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2022;18(1):71–83. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15732479.2020.1835998.
[63] Li Y, Dong Y, Frangopol DM, Gautam D. Long-term resilience and loss assessment
of highway bridges under multiple natural hazards. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2020;
16(4):626–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1699936.
[64] Liang H, Blagojević N, Xie Q, Stojadinović B. Seismic resilience assessment and
improvement framework for electrical substations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2023;
52(4):1040–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3800.
[65] Lin S-Y, El-Tawil S. Time-dependent resilience assessment of seismic damage and
restoration of interdependent lifeline systems. J Infrastruct Syst 2020;26(1):
04019040. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000522.
[66] Liu H, Tatano H, Kajitani Y. Estimating lifeline resilience factors using postdisaster business recovery data. Earthq Spectra 2021;37(2):567–86. https://doi.
org/10.1177/8755293020952455.
[67] Liu W, Song Z, Ouyang M, Li J. Recovery-based seismic resilience enhancement
strategies of water distribution networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2020;203:107088.
〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832020305895〉.
[68] Liu X, Xie Q, Liang H, Zhang X. Post-earthquake recover strategy for substations
based on seismic resilience evaluation. Eng Struct 2023;279:115583. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029622016595〉.
[69] Liu X, Xie Q, Liang H, Zhu W. Seismic resilience evaluation and retrofitting
strategy for substation system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2023;153:109359.
〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142061523004167〉.
[70] Marasco S, Cardoni A, Noori AZ, Kammouh O, Domaneschi M, Cimellaro GP.
Integrated platform to assess seismic resilience at the community level. Sustain
Cities Soc 2021;64:102506. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2210670720307241〉.
[71] Maroufi H, Borhani M. A measurement of community seismic resilience in subcity districts of Mashhad, Iran. J Environ Plan Manag 2022;65(4):675–702.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1902790.
[72] Mazumder RK, Salman AM, Li Y, Yu X. Seismic functionality and resilience
analysis of water distribution systems. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 2020;11(1):
04019045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000418.
[73] Medel-Vera C, Contreras MC. Resilience-based predictive models for the seismic
behaviour of mid-rise, base-isolated CLT buildings for social housing applications
in Chile. J Build Eng 2021;44:103397. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2352710221012559〉.
[74] Menna C, Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Mauro GM, Ascione F, Prota A.
Conceptual design of integrated seismic and energy retrofit interventions. J Build
Eng 2021;38:102190. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2
352710221000462〉.
[75] Menna C, Felicioni L, Negro P, Lupíšek A, Romano E, Prota A, Hájek P. Review of
methods for the combined assessment of seismic resilience and energy efficiency
towards sustainable retrofitting of existing European buildings. Sustain Cities Soc
2022;77:103556. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S22
10670721008222〉.
[76] Mirfarhadi SA, Estekanchi HE. Value based seismic design of structures using
performance assessment by the endurance time method. Struct Infrastruct Eng
2020;16(10):1397–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1712436.
[77] Mohammadgholibeyki N, Koliou M, Liel AB. Assessing building’s post-earthquake
functional recovery accounting for utility system disruption. Resilient Cities
Struct 2023;2(3):53–73. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2
772741623000340〉.
[78] Mokhtari M, Naderpour H. Seismic resilience evaluation of base-isolated RC
buildings using a loss-recovery approach. Bull Earthq Eng 2020;18(10):5031–61.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00895-z.
[79] Negri M, Cagno E, Colicchia C, Sarkis J. Integrating sustainability and resilience
in the supply chain: a systematic literature review and a research agenda. Bus
Strategy Environ 2021;30(7):2858–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2776.
[80] Niazi M, Dehkordi MR, Eghbali M, Samadian D. Seismic resilience index
evaluation for healthcare facilities: a case study of hospital in Tehran. Int J
Disaster Risk Reduct 2021;65:102639. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2212420921006002〉.
[81] Pan S, Zhao Z, Lim HW, Li N, Fang D. Restored quality of life-based approach
(REQUALIFE) for urban seismic resilience assessment: Quantitative method. Int J
Disaster Risk Reduct 2022;79:103169. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2212420922003880〉.
[82] Pohoryles DA, Bournas DA, Da Porto F, Caprino A, Santarsiero G, Triantafillou T.
Integrated seismic and energy retrofitting of existing buildings: a state-of-the-art
review. J Build Eng 2022:105274. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
icle/pii/S2352710222012803〉.
[83] Prasanth S, Ghosh G. Effect of Seismicity on the Seismic Resilience of a R.C.
Building. Proc Natl Acad Sci, India Sect A: Phys Sci 2023;93(1):147–61. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40010-022-00803-x.
[84] Rad MAH, Jalaei F, Golpour A, Varzande SSH, Guest G. BIM-based approach to
conduct Life Cycle Cost Analysis of resilient buildings at the conceptual stage.
Autom Constr 2021;123:103480. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
icle/pii/S0926580520310608〉.
[85] Ranjbar PR, Naderpour H. Probabilistic evaluation of seismic resilience for typical
vital buildings in terms of vulnerability curves. Structures 2020;23:314–23. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352012419301882〉.
[86] Rodriguez AJ. Building seismic resilience into a regional water system. Lifelines
2022 2022:809–18. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784484432.072.
[87] Ruggieri S, Fiore A, Uva G. A new approach to predict the fundamental period of
vibration for newly-designed reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 2022;26
(13):6943–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1961929.
[88] Ruggieri S, Porco F, Uva G. A practical approach for estimating the floor
deformability in existing RC buildings: evaluation of the effects in the structural
response and seismic fragility. Bull Earthq Eng 2020;18(5):2083–113. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00774-2.
[89] Ruggieri S, Vukobratović V. Acceleration demands in single-storey RC buildings
with flexible diaphragms. Eng Struct 2023;275:115276. 〈https://www.sciencedir
ect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029622013529〉.
[90] Ruggieri S, Vukobratović V. The influence of torsion on acceleration demands in
low-rise RC buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2024;22(5):2433–68. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-024-01873-5.
[91] Sangaki AH, Rofooei FR, Vafai H. Probabilistic integrated framework and models
compatible with the reliability methods for seismic resilience assessment of
structures. Structures 2021;34:4086–99. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
ce/article/pii/S235201242100936X〉.
[92] Shang Q, Guo X, Li Q, Xu Z, Xie L, Liu C, Li J, Wang T. A benchmark city for
seismic resilience assessment. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2020;19(4):811–26. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0597-3.
[93] Shang Q, Wang T, Li J. Seismic resilience assessment of emergency departments
based on the state tree method. Struct Saf 2020;85:101944. 〈https://www.scien
cedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473020300230〉.
[94] Shang Q, Wang T, Li J. A quantitative framework to evaluate the seismic
resilience of hospital systems. J Earthq Eng 2022;26(7):3364–88. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13632469.2020.1802371.
[95] Tasmen T, Sen MK, Hossain NUI, Kabir G. Modelling and assessing seismic
resilience of critical housing infrastructure system by using dynamic Bayesian
approach. J Clean Prod 2023;428:139349. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien
ce/article/pii/S0959652623035072〉.
10
S.M. Harle et al.
Structures 66 (2024) 106432
[105] Xu J-G, Cao X-Y, Wu G. Seismic collapse and reparability performance of
reinforced concrete frames retrofitted with external PBSPC BRBF sub-frame in
near-fault regions. J Build Eng 2023;64:105716. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S2352710222017223〉.
[106] Yang C, Xie L, Li A, Zeng D, Jia J, Chen X, Chen M. Resilience-based retrofitting of
existing urban RC-frame buildings using seismic isolation. Earthq Eng Eng Vib
2020;19(4):839–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0599-1.
[107] Yenidogan C. Earthquake-resilient design of seismically isolated buildings: a
review of technology. Vibration 2021;4(3):602–47. 〈https://www.mdpi.com
/2571-631X/4/3/35〉.
[108] Yin C, Kassem MM, Mohamed Nazri F. Comprehensive review of community
seismic resilience: Concept, frameworks, and case studies. Adv Civ Eng 2022;
2022. 〈https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ace/2022/7668214/〉.
[109] You T, Wang W, Chen Y. A framework to link community long-term resilience
goals to seismic performance of individual buildings using network-based
recovery modeling method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2021;147:106788. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267726121002104〉.
[110] Yu P, Wen W, Ji D, Zhai C, Xie L. A framework to assess the seismic resilience of
urban hospitals. Adv Civ Eng 2019;2019:1–11. 〈https://www.hindawi.com/journ
als/ace/2019/7654683/〉.
[111] Zakian P, Kaveh A. Seismic design optimization of engineering structures: a
comprehensive review. Acta Mech 2023;234(4):1305–30. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00707-022-03470-6.
[112] Zhang Y, Fung JF, Johnson KJ, Sattar S. Review of seismic risk mitigation policies
in earthquake-prone countries: lessons for earthquake resilience in the United
States. J Earthq Eng 2022;26(12):6208–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13632469.2021.1911889.
[113] Zhu T, Wang R, Zhang J-M. Evaluation of various seismic response analysis
methods for underground structures in saturated sand. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 2021;110:103803. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0886779820307574〉.
[114] Zona A, Kammouh O, Cimellaro GP. Resourcefulness quantification approach for
resilient communities and countries. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2020;46:101509.
〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420919312038〉.
[96] Taylor C, Huang S, Li C, Davies R, Beigi S, Carhart N. Theoretical framing of the
seismic robustness and resilience of smart cities and infrastructure. 17th World
Conf Earthq Eng, 17WCEE 2020. 〈https://wcee.nicee.org/wcee/article/17WCEE/
9a-0009.pdf〉.
[97] Vona M, Mastroberti M, Mitidieri L, Tataranna S. New resilience model of
communities based on numerical evaluation and observed post seismic
reconstruction process. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2018;28:602–9. 〈https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420918300487〉.
[98] Vukobratović V, Ruggieri S. Floor acceleration demands in a twelve-storey rc
shear wall building. Buildings 2021 2021;11:38 (s Note: MDPI stays neu-tral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in …), 〈https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ser
gio-Ruggieri-2/publication/348750496_Floor_Acceleration_Demands_in_a_Twe
lve-Storey_RC_Shear_Wall_Building/links/600ec9ea299bf14088bcf3f2/Floor
-Acceleration-Demands-in-a-Twelve-Storey-RC-Shear-Wall-Building.pdf〉.
[99] Wang J, Zhao H. High performance damage-resistant seismic resistant structural
systems for sustainable and resilient city: a review. Shock Vib 2018;2018.
〈https://www.hindawi.com/journals/sv/2018/8703697/abs/〉.
[100] Wei F, Chen H, Xie Y. Experimental study on seismic behavior of reinforced
concrete shear walls with low shear span ratio. J Build Eng 2022;45:103602. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710221014601〉.
[101] Welsh-Huggins SJ, Liel AB. Evaluating multiobjective outcomes for hazard
resilience and sustainability from enhanced building seismic design decisions.
J Struct Eng 2018;144(8):04018108. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943541X.0002001.
[102] Wen W, Zhang M, Zhai C, Liu W. Resilience loss factor for evaluation and design
considering the effects of aftershocks. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2019;116:43–9. 〈htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267726117312368〉.
[103] Xiao Y, Zhao X, Wu Y, Chen Z, Gong H, Zhu L, Liu Y. Seismic resilience assessment
of urban interdependent lifeline networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2022;218:108164.
〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832021006517〉.
[104] Xu J-G, Cao X-Y, Shi J, Wang Z. A comparative study of the novel externallyattached precast SRC braced-frames for seismic retrofitting under near-field
spectrum-compatible non-stationary stochastic earthquake. Structures 2023;50:
200–14. 〈https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235201242
3001844〉.
11