A new methodology to assess indirect losses in bridges subjected to multiple hazards


Modern society and economy rely heavily on bridges, as fundamental links for movement of goods and people. They are extremely vulnerable to multiple hazards that can compromise their functionality, which in turn impacts emergency response and ultimately the socioeconomic recovery of extended regions. In this regard, bridge resilience is a key issue in order to ensure their functionality and the possibility to recover as effectively as possible after damages. Decision-making methodologies have attracted increased attention recently with the aim to facilitate and enhance pre-hazard and post-hazard event mitigation and emergency response strategies of transportation systems and entire communities. Multiple hazards cause direct losses (loss of life and physical loss of the assets) and indirect losses (costs due to required repair actions or to the loss of functionality of the transportation network). The present models generally take into account direct losses only (neglecting indirect losses). In this background, this paper aims to develop a new framework that extends the existing restoration methodologies by considering indirect losses, which is particularly important in order to assess the organizational and social aspects related to the entire community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14


  1. 1.

    Adey B, Hajdin R, Brudwile E (2004) Effect of common cause failures on indirect costs. J Bridge Eng 9(2):200–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Alipour A, Shafei B, Shinozuka M (2013) Reliability-based calibration of load and resistance factors for design of RC bridges under multiple extreme vents: sour and earthquake. J Bridge Eng 18(5):362–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Andric JM, Lu D (2016) Risk assessment of bridges under multiple hazards in operation period. Saf Sci 83:80–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Billah AHM, Alam MS (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review. Struct Infrastruct Eng 11(6):804–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Brookshire DS, Chang SE, Cochrane H, Olson RA, Rose A, Steenson J (1997) Direct and indirect economic losses from earthquake damage. Earthq Spectra 14(4):683–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bruneau M, Chang S, Eguchi R, Lee G, O’Rourke T, Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K, Wallace W, Winterfelt D (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra 19(4):733–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chang SE, Svekla WD, Shinozuka M (2002) Linking infrastructure and urban economy: simulation of water-disruption impacts in earthquakes. Environ Plan B 29(2):281–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chang SE, Shinozuka M (2004) Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of communities. Eng Struct 20(2):739–755

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2015) Deficient Bridges by State and Highway System. US Department of Transportation. ASCE (2017) Infrastructure Report Card

  10. 10.

    Forcellini D (2018) Seismic assessment of a benchmark based isolated ordinary building with soil structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0268-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Forcellini D (2017) Cost assessment of isolation technique applied to a benchmark bridge with soil structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 15:51–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9953-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Forcellini D (2016) A direct–indirect cost decision making assessment methodology for seismic isolation on bridges. J Math Syst Sci 4(03–04):85–95. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-224X/2015.0304.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Forcellini D, Kelly JM (2014) The analysis of the large deformation stability of elastomeric bearings. J Eng Mech ASCE 140:04014036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gardoni P, LaFave JM (2016) Multi-hazard approaches to civil infrastructure engineering: mitigating risks and promoting resilience. In: Gardoni P, LaFave JM (eds) Multi-hazard approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gautam D, Dong Y (2018) Multi-hazard vulnerability of structures and lifelines due to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and 2017 central Nepal flash flood. J Build Eng 17:196–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gelh P, D’Ayala D (2016) Development of a Bayesian Networks for the multi-hazard fragility assessment of bridge systems. Struct Saf 60:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Gidaris I, Padgett JE, Barbosa AR, Chen S (2017) Multiple-hazard fragility and restoration models of highway bridges for regional risk and resilience assessment in the United States: state-of-the-art review. J Struct Eng 143(3):04016188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lu J, Mackie KR, Elgamal A, Almutairi A (2018) BridgePBEE: OpenSees 3D Pushover and Earthquake Analysis of Single-Column 2-span Bridges, User Manual, Beta 1.2. https://apps.peer.berkeley.edu/bridgepbee/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/BridgePBEE_UserManual_updated2018.pdf

  19. 19.

    Karamlou A, Bocchini P (2015) Computation of bridge seismic fragility by large-scale simulation for probabilistic resilience analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1959–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kelly JM (1997) Earthquake-resistant design with rubber, 2nd edn. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Karamlou A, Bocchini P (2017) Functionality-fragility surfaces. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1687–1709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mackie KR, Lu J, Elgamal A (2010) User interface for performance-based earthquake engineering: a single bent bridge pilot investigation. In: 9th US National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering: reaching beyond borders, Toronto, Canada

  23. 23.

    Miles SB, Chang SE (2003) Urban disaster recovery: a framework and simulation model. MCEER-07-0014 (PB2004-104388, CD-A07)

  24. 24.

    Pitilakis K, Argyroudis S, Kakderi K, Selva J (2016) Systemic vulnerability and risk assessment of transportation systems under natural hazards towards more resilient and robust infrastructures. Transp Res Procedia 14(2016):1335–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Quang C, Shen JJ, Zhou M, Lee GC (2015) Force-based and displacement-based reliability assessment approaches for highway bridges under multiple hazard actions. J Traffic Transp Eng 2(4):223–232

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Renschler C, Frazier A, Arendt L, Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M (2010) Framework for defining and measuring resilience at the community scale: the PEOPLES resilience framework. Technical report MCEER-10-006 (2010), University at Buffalo, NY

  27. 27.

    Tierney KJ (1995) Impacts of recent US disasters on businesses: the 1993 midwest floods and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Preliminary paper no. 270, University of Delaware Disaster Research Center

  28. 28.

    Wardhana K, Hadipriono F (2003) Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States. J Perform Constr Facil 17(3):144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wasileski G, Rodríguez H, Diaz W (2011) Business closure and relocation: a comparative analysis of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Andrew. Disasters 35(1):102–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Webb GR, Tierney KJ, Dahlhamer JM (2002) Predicting long-term business recovery from disaster: a comparison of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Andrew. Global Environ Change Part B: Environ Hazards 4(2):45–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Forcellini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forcellini, D. A new methodology to assess indirect losses in bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 4, 10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0195-7

Download citation


  • Direct costs
  • Indirect losses
  • New methodology
  • Multiple hazards
  • Bridge