Resilience based design approach for seismic-resilient infrastructures: a state-of-the-art review

Abstract

The infrastructure of the country server as an important pillar of a nation’s economy and maintaining continuity in functionality after seismic events is much required and important. The growing frequency of earthquakes in the past decades has made the developing communities an increasingly urgent priority. Resilience-Based Design (RBD) represents an extension from conventional engineering designs which focuses only on the life safety of the infrastructure, whereas the RBD accounts for the cost-effective recovery of structures in the aftermath of disasters. This design philosophy is closely oriented with the United Nations Sustainable Goals, like SDG 9 and SDG 11, which advocate for the creation of robust infrastructure and sustainability, seismic resilient infrastructures. The study also discusses the retrofitting techniques designed to strengthen structural resilience against seismic forces. Studies conducted previously have used steel jacketing, concrete jacketing and Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) systems that can yield considerable improvements, with functional recovery after seismic hazard enhanced by roughly 40 to 62 percent. Inspite of these developments there is a major gap remaining in knowledge, particularly regarding the combined integration of sustainability goals with resilience design. Furthermore, there is a crucial need for developing the hybrid recovery models capable of accounting for the simultaneous effect of multiple hazards. The effect of multi hazard is necessary as it influences the recovery time and consequently the overall resilience of infrastructure systems, making it more applicable and efficiently accurate across the various range of real-world scenarios.

1 Introduction

The advancement of structural design methodologies set with conventional force-based design, which depended on code requirement to ensure that structures could resist specified seismic loads through adequate strength and stiffness. These methods were analytical and empirical but had limitations: the conventional methods focused on global force equilibrium without fully accounting for how structures would perform under realistic, dynamic seismic loading. As earthquakes effect highlighted the limitations of these designs such as unexpected damage patterns and failure, despite code compliance there was a clear need for a more sophisticated design. This requirement extended to the development of PBD, indicating a impactful advancement in earthquake engineering. PBD defines performance objectives integrated to different hazard levels like Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP). It uses nonlinear static and dynamic analysis to predict how a structure will respond across these levels, giving designers and stakeholders to decide on expected damage, repair cost and safety. By overcoming the only strength checks, Performance Based Design (PBD) provided a more flexible, rigorous, and realistic way to address earthquake damage.

The PBD framework aids engineers to design RC buildings with tailored performance criteria that correspond to the seismic risks in specific regions, offering more flexibility and resilience compared to conventional methods. Steps involved in PBD are shown in Figure 1. The parameters that are considered are Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP), Intensity Measure (IM), Damage Measure (DM).

FIGURE 1

The PBD began to evolve further and extended to seismic resilience which has become an inevitable framework in both the design and retrofitting of RC infrastructures. Seismic resilience is defined as the ability of infrastructures, lifeline systems, and communities to absorb seismic effects, adapt to post disaster, and restore operational functionality with minimal repair time (Bruneau et al., 2003; Cimellaro et al., 2010b). The seismic performance of a building depends on various factors, including material used for construction, strength of the structural components, structural configuration, retrofitting techniques and the use of advanced design frameworks such as PBD as mentioned previously (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018).

The growing need for seismic resilience is occurring by rapid urbanization, ageing infrastructure, increasing seismic vulnerability, and environmental concerns associated with reconstruction of infrastructure. These challenges have led to the development of Resilience-Based Design (RBD), which emphasizes not only structural safety but also rapid recovery and long-term functionality. Advances in Performance-Based Design (PBD), fragility modelling, and real-time monitoring have further improved the assessment and enhancement of infrastructure resilience (Shadabfar et al., 2022).

RBD is a modern design philosophy that goes beyond ensuring structural safety to incorporate a systems’ capacity to maintain or rapidly restore functionality following a hazard event, like earthquake. RBD gives importance not only on structural performance but also on social economic, and operational continuity, RBD also incorporates downtime, repair cost, and recovery models into the design process. It treats infrastructure as an important part of community systems that must be functional post-disaster. RBD tends to balance technical robustness with recovery-based outcomes, thus representing a holistic, multidisciplinary framework that considers physical damage, system interdependence, and stakeholder-defined performance targets (Cimellaro et al., 2016).

In addition to it, seismic design philosophy has evolved significantly over recent decades, evolving from conventional design approaches like PBD to recently developed design RBD. PBD was a major advancement that shifted beyond life-safety focused minimum standards, introducing tailored performance targets for different levels of seismic demand (Decò et al., 2013). Thus, the approach helped engineers to specially design targeted damage states, offering flexibility and improved safety over traditional code-based methods incorporating economic friendly designs.

Moreover, PBD has some drawbacks. While it successfully addresses performance levels, it generally neglects post-earthquake functionality, repair costs, and recovery time. This limitation became increasingly important as urban areas demanded not only survival of buildings but rapid and economic efficient recovery to ensure continuity of services, minimum downtime and reduced socio-economic disruption after earthquakes for the infrastructure.

The increasing seismic resilience of reinforced concrete infrastructures can be interpreted as an evolution process aiming at safer, adaptive, standardized and sustainable built environments for communities. The importance of robust design methodologies that reduce vulnerability during earthquakes through considering structural behaviour, consideration of component damage, material properties, and the interdependence of critical lifelines has been highlighted in previous studies (Harle et al., 2024). Accordingly, researchers started to incorporate wider performance metrics in their resilience assessment. For example, PBD integrated estimates of repair costs, occupancy levels, and downtime into resilience metrics for structural and non-structural components, thereby linking engineering performance to functional recovery.

As the research progressed, analytical methods such as nonlinear pushover analysis were used to determine the trend of seismic resilience decreasing with an increase in peak ground acceleration, emphasizing the importance of effective recovery functions in restoring structural functionality after an earthquake (Prasanth et al., 2023a). Similar developments include the probabilistic frameworks that consider repair costs, downtime and environmental impacts such as carbon emissions, which show that fast-tracking recovery strategies can significantly improve post-earthquake performance (Anwar and Dong, 2020). Other studies have proposed piecewise functionality models to measure environmental, economic and social losses under high intensity seismic scenarios (Jia and Zhan, 2024).

Quantitative seismic resilience assessment methods were developed using vulnerability curves and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to predict performance under seismic loading (Cimellaro et al., 2010b). Resilience metrices for RC infrastructures that integrated functionality curves and vulnerability assessments, to evaluate resilience across RC building groups was introduced (Chee Yin et al., 2022). In healthcare infrastructure, research gave importance to the balance between retrofitting strategies, cost estimation, and multi-hazard resilience (Ranjbar and Naderpour, 2020), while other research modelled post-earthquake functionality by examining the interaction of structural, non-structural and lifeline using data from past earthquake damage (Yavari et al., 2010). At the same time, investigations into structural reliability highlighted the crucial roles of damage progression and redundancy in ensuring safety and performance (Eghbali et al., 2020).

In spite of this limitation, the present review presents itself as a multi-dimensional synthesis of these evolving methodologies. It combines together empirical testing, numerical modelling, recovery-based assessments, and resilience quantification frameworks such as HAZUS-MH MR4, the REDi Rating System, and FEMA P-58. Beyond summarizing existing knowledge, it underscores the growing importance of resilience-based design in RC buildings, mentioning the limitations of traditional Force-Based Design (FBD). Particular focus is placed on retrofitting strategies, the role of critical lifelines, recovery models that combines structural and functional restoration, and the emerging balance between seismic resilience and sustainability of RC infrastructure (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003b; Almufti and Willford, 2014).

Recent seismic resilience research has advanced beyond conventional seismic performance assessment by integrating hybrid recovery modelling, multi-hazard resilience, and infrastructure interdependency analysis. These approaches improve the understanding of post-disaster functionality, recovery processes, and cascading effects among interconnected systems, enabling more effective resilience-based decision-making and recovery planning (Ran et al., 2026; Forcellini and Kalfas, 2025; Jiang et al., 2026).

By summarising the perspectives, the review aims to provide a forward-looking reference for researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers seeking to strengthen resilience-oriented design and enhance the long-term performance of Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings in high seismic regions (Sediqi and Harmandar, 2025). A consolidated review of performance based seismic design, methodologies, and applications further aids this direction toward enhancing structural safety and resilience (Choudhury, 2020). Compared to previous studies that primarily focused on either performance-based design, resilience metrics, or individual infrastructure systems, the present study provides an integrated assessment of resilience-based design, recovery modelling, critical lifeline infrastructures, retrofitting strategies, sustainability considerations and emerging resilience assessment methodologies. Furthermore, this review identifies current research gaps associated with functional recovery, multi-hazard resilience and sustainability integration.

1.1 Review methodology

The review follows a structured literature review methodology. Relevant publications from 2000 to 2026 were collected from Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar using keywords including ‘seismic resilience’, ‘resilience-based design’, ‘functional recovery’, ‘critical infrastructure resilience’, and ‘seismic retrofitting’. Following duplicate removal and relevance screening, the selected studies were categorised into resilience concepts, recovery models, resilience assessment frameworks, critical lifeline infrastructures, retrofitting techniques and emerging methodologies.

2 Overview on seismic resilience

The idea of seismic resilience has undergone drastic evolution since the 1980s. In the aftermath of catastrophic events like the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, engineers focused mainly on improving structural strength and ductility to prevent collapse. As the field of structural engineering advanced, particularly after the introduction of PBD, RBD led to the development of rapid recovery and minimizing post event downtime (Carofilis Gallo et al., 2022). The lessons learned from these hazards have contributed to the development of new building codes and retrofitting techniques designed to enhance resilience.

To improve the seismic resilience of communities, more focus has been placed on assessing the resilience of infrastructure systems. It is reasonable that systems like wastewater networks, healthcare facilities and power distribution centres play a critical role in community resilience, as they provide essential safety, economic stability, and environmental support (Dong et al., 2017).

Seismic resilience is the capacity of a structure or system or community to endure, adjust and recover from the impact of seismic activity. Resilience aids in understanding a city’s ability to withstand unexpected events like earthquakes and gives as a theoretical and technical foundation for shaping national disaster prevention and mitigation policies, highlighting its practical requirements as an extension of conventional approaches that focus on preventing collapse or safeguarding life during earthquake like PBD. Enhancing resilience helps in reducing the vulnerability of communities and strengthens their capacity to withstand and recover from seismic events. The concept of seismic resilience was introduced by defining the recovery functionality curve for individual structures and communities. They identified the integrated area beneath this curve as the resilience index, representing a community’s ability to recover. Illustration of the generalized quantification of seismic resilience index methodology framework as shown in Table 1. Given the critical importance of seismic resilience, it became necessary to move beyond conventional design approaches, prompting the evolution of resilience-based design methodologies.

3 Resilience-based design

Resilience based design is an advanced design wherein the structure will be designed include both the factors - to avoid collapse and to recover quickly after earthquake with minimal loss of functionality, downtime and cost. Since PBD and RBD aim to improve seismic performance, they differ significantly in scope, objectives and metrics. PBD focuses on achieving specific damage states and structural safety, typically using drift, acceleration, and strength capacity as key metrics (Dong and Frangopol, 2015; Li et al., 2020). It mainly considers the physical infrastructure at the time of the event. In contrast, RBD expands this scope to include recovery duration operational continuity, and system-level impacts. RBD metrics include downtime, losses, and post-event functionality. Stakeholder involvement is also service requirements., RBD ensures that structures are not only sfe but also usable and serviceable within a defined recovery timeline. RBD is thus a more holistic framework integrating engineering, urban planning and risk management. The bibliometric representation of the research on seismic resilience based on type of RC structure till the date has been given in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

To implement RBD effectively, a comprehensive strategy is required. First, early stakeholder engagement is important to define acceptable levels of downtime, serviceability, and repair costs based on infrastructure function and occupancy type. Second, resilience metrics should be embedded into the design process using recovery curves, fragility-resilience relationships, and probabilistic modelling. Design should prioritize modularity and redundancy, enabling critical functions to resume even under partial failure. Integration of infrastructure interdependencies-such as electricity, water, and transport is also essential for community-scale resilience. On the policy side, resilience objectives must be incorporated into design standards and emergency response plans. The typical quantitative ranges of key seismic resilience indicators reported in literature for conventional and resilient reinforced concrete infrastructures, highlighting differences in functionality, recovery time, robustness, and loss levels are given Table 2.

3.1 The key components for seismic resilience-based design

FIGURE 3

3.2 Recovery time

Recovery time is one of the important parameters of resilience-based design, as it determines how quickly infrastructure can return to functionality after an earthquake. Several methods have been proposed to estimate recovery time, including sequential repair step models, ideal path analysis (Shang et al., 2022a), and tools such as HAZUS MH MR4, REDi (Resilience-Based Earthquake Design Initiative), PACT (FEMA P-58), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) (Yu et al., 2019), and methods like the Delphi technique (Shang et al., 2022b). Among these, REDi is widely applied for resilience quantification (Capacci, et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2024). Retrofitting measures have been shown to reduce recovery time significantly (Wang et al., 2019), while deterioration factors such as corrosion may increase it by lowering pre-event functionality (Mokhtari and Naderpour, 2020). More detailed repair-time models estimate downtime by combining reduction factors, damage state ratios, reconstruction rates, functional multipliers, and building area providing a realistic picture of recovery. Importantly, recovery and resilience curves allow evaluation of both repair timing and the effectiveness of strategies, making them useful for city-scale resilience assessments. Thus, rapid recovery planning is essential for minimizing downtime and socio-economic disruption (Mahini et al., 2015; Banerjee, et al., 2019). The figure of resilience loss factors of mainshock (MS) and mainshock-aftershock MSAS sequence as shown in Figure 4 (Banerjee, et al., 2019).

FIGURE 4

Although various models exist for quantifying recovery time, many remain data-intensive and case-specific, which limits practical implementation. Future research should emphasize simplified but reliable frameworks that can be applied in engineering practice without extensive computational effort. Bridging the gap between probabilistic recovery estimates and actionable design guidelines is essential for wider adoption of resilience-based design.

3.3 Recovery models

Recovery models in seismic resilience are recovery pathways, which are graph-based, that quantify the time and steps required for buildings, infrastructure, or communities to come back pre-earthquake functionality (Joyner et al., 2021). They account for functionality loss, repair needs, resource availability, and external factors such as policies and economic conditions, supporting effective resource allocation and reduced recovery time (Cimellaro et al., 2010a). Conventional models include linear recovery model, negative exponential recovery model, and trigonometric recovery model Figure 5, which help evaluate parameters such as rapidity and robustness Figure 6.

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

Advanced models expand RBD to infrastructures like bridges, buildings, and lifeline structures, incorporating mitigation strategies such as buckling-restrained braces and lead rubber bearings. Rapid recovery models considering limited resources and validated through fragility curves have been introduced (Cheng et al., 2025). Similarly, Susceptible–Infected–Recovered-based functions have been used to quantify functionality loss at multiple structural levels, similarly network-based frameworks assess interdependencies among infrastructure systems and combine community resilience with probabilistic seismic performance (You et al., 2021).

In addition, developments include resilience losses responsible considering aftershocks and decisions based on repair cost and time, along with probabilistic frameworks addressing uncertainties in functionality, recovery, and resource constraints (Wen et al., 2019). Despite these advancements, limited validation using real post-earthquake data highlights the need for empirical calibration and integration of socio-economic recovery factors.

3.4 Seismic resilience index

Seismic resilience has evolved as a crucial metric in the assessment of RC infrastructures using RBD, especially in earthquake-prone regions. Whereas traditional seismic design focuses on life safety and structural integrity, seismic resilience includes a broader perspective evaluating a infrastructure’s ability to withstand, absorb, and recover from seismic events in terms of functionality, downtime, and repair costs. The Seismic Resilience Index (SRI) gives a quantifiable measure of the infrastructure capacity.

By incorporating the time dimension, the Seismic Resilience Index (SRI) quantifies not only the extent of functionality loss following an earthquake but also the rate and duration of post-earthquake recovery. Generally, the SRI in real scenario of RC infrastructure will be less than 1 after the recovery of the infrastructure since targeted functionality cannot always return to the original functionality which was present before hazard. The recovery process considers the reasonable recovery strategies and optimal resource distribution which can manage pre-existing vulnerabilities, to ensure improved functionality beyond the original functionality. Thus, it depends on the decision makers, stakeholder expectation and habitants to decide the target functionality based on the extent of damage, pre-disaster condition and maintenance history, criticality of the structure in post-disaster operations (e.g., emergency shelter, utility center), intended use or habitation type of the infrastructure (e.g., hospital, residential, commercial) availability of resources, funding, allowable downtime and recovery time objectives, regulatory requirements and infrastructure codes etc. The seismic resilience index is quantified as shown in Equation 1 (Cimellaro et al., 2010b).

Where Q(t) represents total functionality remaining of infrastructure after event t₀ represents the occurrence time of the events, and T_LC is the control time which is generally defined as the whole life span time.

Many frameworks or assessments have been incorporated to find the seismic resilience index by the active research that is developing (Cimellaro et al., 2010b; Bruneau et al., 2003; Dong and Frangopol 2015). Over the decades many evaluation methods like time-based functionality models (Q(t)) have been commonly utilized, where the area under the functionality vs. time curve reflects resilience, accounting for both performance degradation and repair time. Standard frameworks like FEMA-P-58 offer probabilistic PBD approach, giving complete estimation of damage, recovery cost, and downtime, later which can be used to quantify SRI. Similarly, HAZUS-MH serves as a regional-level tool that calculates damage states, economic losses and repair time, which aids in the quantification of SRI. Also, functionality-based indices like robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness and rapidity are also used for the assessment. Likewise in other approach the fragility curves with recovery model are used to assess the target functionality instead of recovery time. Moreover, Recovery Time Index (RTI) methods simplify resilience quantification by highlighting the time required to achieve the target functionality level. At present, machine learning models have emerged for quantification of SRI’s.

The resilience index provides a practical metric by integrating functionality and time, yet its application is constrained by the lack of standardized definitions of target functionality. Future studies should establish hospitals require near-continuous operation, while residential buildings may tolerate partial losses. This differentiation will increase the index’s relevance for stakeholders and decision-makers. The steps involved in quantifying the seismic resilience of RC structure is shown in the Figure 7.

FIGURE 7

4 Role of resilience-based design in critical lifeline infrastructure

RBD is essential in ensuring the continuous operation and rapid recovery of critical lifelines such as electric substations, water treatment plants, wastewater facilities, and telecommunications centres. Given their interdependence, failure in one can disrupt others. RBD prioritises sustained performance, strengthening community resilience and minimizing societal and economic impacts.

4.1 Electric power substations

An electric power substation is one of the most important lifelines supporting functionality for the communities’ RC infrastructures, and its failure can spark cascading effects across other non-structural elements. Seismic vulnerability of electric power systems arises due to the sensitivity of their important components – power generation plants and electric substations. Fragility curves for electric power infrastructures have been discovered based on experiments, expert suggestions and empirical data. Since FEMA P-58 and the National Institute of Building Science (NIBS, 2023) consist of component-based fragility curves for transformers, breakers, and switchgear, typically represented as a lognormal distribution with damage states related to intensity measures such as Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and Peak Ground Velocity (PGV).

Substations are always installed inside the structure or enclosures, which are specifically vulnerable to subsystem failure, porcelain insulator damage, and internal components displacements (Kitayama et al., 2016). Dynamic correlation among components in connected configurations will lead to changes in seismic response shown by Baghmisheh and Estekanchi (2019). Recuperation of electric power systems is complicated and a time-dependent process. For urban electric networks a resilience assessment method was introduced which included redundancy, robustness and resourcefulness in unified Power Resilience Index (PRI). The PRI considers factors like transformer restoration rapidity, accessibility of portable generator, and backup routing path, supporting a dynamic assessment of recovery under various resource conditions. “Density Design Method” is widely used in recovery where the damage state of electrical substation is connected to the fragility of the effected building.

In most cases the power systems rarely fail in isolation. Research on the 2011 Tohoku and 2010 Maule earthquakes found significant relation between power systems and telecommunications infrastructure, indicating that the failure or delayed restoration of electric power can result in disruption across other lifelines.

Previous fragility and recovery models for substations primarily give importance to component-level vulnerabilities, while cascading effects and interdependencies remain underexplored. Resilience assessments should extend beyond structural reliability to consider redundancy, restoration plan, and resource allocation, in addition to it capturing the complex recovery dynamics of power networks.

4.2 Water treatment plant

Water treatment plants include treatment plants, wells and storage tanks which are essential for maintaining the livelihood and fire protection in infrastructures following seismic events. These water treatment plants are basically vulnerable due to the acute nature of many pipeline materials and their exposure to both ground shaking and ground failure (e.g., liquefaction, landslides). A comprehensive database was presented for water system components, specific failure modes such as ceramic pipe rupture and tank anchorage failure provided damage mechanisms categorized by pipe type (e.g., steel, concrete, PVC) and failure mode (e.g., wrinkling, crushing, joint rotation) (Alam et al., 2023; G. A.Antaki, J. D. Hart, 2001). Ground failure like liquefaction was also included using geospatial data overlays and empirical correlations (Ummah, 2019).

Water treatment plant rehabilitation is a nonlinear process which depends on the availability of workmanship, spare parts, and energy supply. Recovery time as a function was quantified of these variables, allowing for probabilistic estimation for multi hazards scenarios (Choi et al., 2018). Moreover, few studies underlined the necessity to assess not only the network connectivity but also service-level metrices such as sufficient pressure and water quality, suggesting that the water service recovery must be quantified in terms of function (Davis, 2014). Recent research have highlighted resilience-based design of pipeline systems by including structural integrity, recovery under seismic and multi-hazard conditions and service continuity through probabilistic fragility and recovery models (Mina et al., 2023; Antonelli et al., 2025; Adabavazeh et al., 2026; American Lifelines Alliance (ALA), 2001).

Resilience assessments of water systems often prioritize connectivity metrics, whereas service-based indicators such as water pressure, supply reliability, and quality provide a more accurate representation of recovery performance. Incorporating these functional measures into resilience frameworks is necessary to align engineering assessment with post-disaster community needs.

4.3 Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)

Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) are often given less importance in seismic resilience, yet their work is still needed for public health, mainly in highly populated urban areas. Wastewater infrastructure includes treatment plants and lift station. Due to the hydraulic pressure, these systems are vulnerable to tensile rupture, joint separation, and deformation under earthquake loading. Fewer fragility models exist, especially for wastewater systems, resulting in reliance on water pipeline proxies, which will underestimate the actual resilience value.

Empirical models help correlate pipeline (reinforced pipeline) damage with seismic intensity and ground characteristics (Baris et al., 2021; Pineda-Porras and Ordaz, 2007). However, conventional connectivity-based recovery metrics can overestimate the functionality of wastewater systems. Although connectivity-based recovery metrics are conventional, few studies used such metrics (Liu and Jiang, 2017; Porter, 2016). but other studies highlighted that service-based metrics evaluating flow, quality and treatment capacity provide a more rational picture of recovery (Zorn and Shamseldin, 2017; Davis, 2014).

Additionally, wastewater systems are highly dependent on electric energy. Power cut can affect recovery even when there is minor damage, underestimating the need to model interdependence in resilience planning.

Research on wastewater infrastructure resilience remains limited, with most models relying on proxies from water supply networks. Such approaches underestimate system-specific vulnerabilities. Dedicated fragility and recovery models are required to capture the unique operational and public health implications of wastewater system failures.

4.4 Telecommunications centers

Telecommunication centers, consisting of cellular towers (steel structures), switching centers and satellite communication nodes (ground station and earth terminal that is part of a satellite), are important to post-disaster emergency management. Telecommunications are physically less critical compared to water system and power systems which are functionally dependent on electricity and may suffer longer duration of outages if backup systems are failed. Very few literature are available in terms of fragility and recovery models.

The research has been extended to telecom and power systems interdependence. During Tohoku (2011) and Maule (2010), lag in restoration of electric power directly impacted telecom operations (Krishnamurthy and Kwasinski, 2016). A Bayesian network approach was proposed which combines component damage, interdependence, and uncertainty to model telecom systems downtime (De Iuliis et al., 2021).

Innovative recovery approaches are emerging, including resources like utilization of portable generators and microgrids and drone-assisted network diagnostics. Telecommunication stations incorporated into urban virtual models for resilience assessment, aiding the simulation to avoid cascading failure and testing of redundant configurations.

Telecommunication infrastructure has relatively lower structural vulnerability which leads to significant functional risk due to its strong dependency on power supply. Resilience enhancement should give importance to telecommunication through backup systems, microgrids, and renewable energy, along with strengthening physical components, to ensure continuity of communication services.

5 Retrofitting strategies

Retrofitting has emerged as an important strategy for enhancing the seismic resilience of existing RC infrastructures. Conventional retrofitting techniques include shear walls, external post-tensioning, and fiber reinforced polymers (FRP). The above strategies have shown a significant improvement in the structural performance of older infrastructures, reducing the risk of collapse and ensuring quicker recovery after earthquake. For example, some studies illustrated that carbon FRP (CFRP) laminates effectively and gives enhanced deformation capacity of damaged full-scale RC frames, recovering pre-damage strength and energy dissipation capacity (Balsamo et al., 2005).

The basic studies on the retrofitting that have been done recently were the use of green structural retrofitting material such as fiber reinforced composites for fire damaged buildings are used. Recent advances in seismic retrofitting emphasize sustainable materials such as UHPC, ECC, TRM, and geopolymer composites. These materials enhance structural resilience, durability, crack control, and energy dissipation while reducing environmental impacts. Consequently, future retrofit strategies should integrate seismic performance, recovery capability, and sustainability objectives. Integrated approaches combining seismic and energy retrofitting were introduced to enhance building performance and sustainability (Qiu et al., 2023). A case study was presented on the seismic retrofitting of deteriorated RC building through conventional strengthening techniques (Selim et al., 2023). Assessed seismic vulnerability and retrofitting design techniques were assessed for public buildings in Italy (Siano et al., 2022).

Likewise similar studies have been extended towards the RBD retrofitting strategies for RC buildings to recover the lost functionality. The retrofitting strategies like fiber reinforced polymer which improved the ductility RC jacketing and steel jacketing significantly reduced the downtime and collapse risk (Zou et al., 2007). PBD frameworks (FEMA P-58 and Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PEER PBEE)) approach allows efficient retrofitting solutions based on economic losses, downtime and casualty metrics (Steneker et al., 2020).

Retrofitting strategies like concrete or steel jacketing, and FRP confinement, are particularly effective in reducing collapse probability and downtime. For example, some research proposed an optimized FRP retrofit design framework that minimizes material use while ensuring improved performance during seismic events. Recent studies show that Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems are an effective alternative to conventional FRP retrofits, improving strength, ductility, crack control, and seismic energy dissipation. Despite some long-term environmental degradation, FRCM-retrofitted structures continue to exhibit enhanced seismic resilience and sustainability (Labernarda and Mazza, 2026).

Moreover, few studies have incorporated new frameworks along with retrofitting strategies such as broader system-level approaches, incorporating moment-based reliability analysis, which illustrated more integrated strategies that address both structural and non-structural elements (Biondini et al., 2015; ChienKuo et al., 2021). Furthermore, the downtime modelling and functionality cures were included to enhance retrofit planning.

Additionally, FRP retrofitted joints and frames exhibit significant improvement in seismic behavior factors and ductility, often performing better than steel bracing systems (Hadigheh et al., 2014; Niroomandi et al., 2010). Likewise, the CFRP retrofitted buildings demonstrated superior lateral load capacity and ductile behavior under pushover analysis (Ronagh and Eslami, 2013). A performance based retrofit strategy using FRP for beam-column joints and frames, achieving substantial enhancement in both local and global seismic behavior (Pampanin et al., 2007).

Base isolation is another effective strategy, achieved by decoupling the building from ground motion by placing isolators at the foundation which has proven highly effective in minimizing damage during earthquakes. It has been proven that the base isolation reduces damage and repair costs by up to 85%. The concrete steel jacketing is attached to the bridge pier as shown in Figure 8 similarly to the RC column the steel jacketing is attached as shown in Figure 9 (Yang et al., 2020; You et al., 2021). Base Isolation is utilized for the RC building as shown in Figure 10. Fiber-reinforced polymer around the RC beam-column joint as shown in Figure 11. The yield ratio is one of the important parameters while designing the isolation system. So, the value between 2%–3% for optimal resilience level was suggested. Similarly, energy dissipation devices, such as dampers, help absorb seismic energy, followed by reducing stress on the building’s primary structure. Table 3 details about the types of retrofitting studied by different authors.

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

Retrofitting techniques substantially enhance the seismic resilience of RC buildings and infrastructures, yet implementation is often constrained by cost and downtime considerations. Integrated strategies like seismic strengthening with energy efficiency evolves sustainable and cost-effective passage, supporting both resilience and long-term performance objectives.

6 Advancement in seismic resilience-based design

The concept of Resilience-Based Design (RBD) lies in the quantification of four key parameters like robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity which remain important aspect of structural, social, and economic dimensions of resilience. With the evolution of Performance-Based Design (PBD) and advanced analytical methods, resilience assessment has become more quantitative. The FEMA P-58 framework enables detailed evaluation of seismic performance through metrics such as damage, repair cost, and downtime, with studies validating its effectiveness for RC buildings under varying seismic conditions.

Beyond FEMA P-58, several frameworks address the multidimensional nature of resilience for evaluation of seismic performance through metrics such as damage, repair cost, and downtime, with studies validating its effectiveness for RC buildings under varying seismic conditions. The REDi Rating System expands life safety to functional recovery, reducing downtime and ensuring functional continuity; its repair sequence is illustrated in Figure 12.

FIGURE 12

Value-based approaches have also been suggested (Chen et al., 2024), which integrate sustainability and seismic resilience in the design selection. Long-term decision-making in PBD is supported by probabilistic models that capture uncertainties in damage, loss, and recovery (Anwar et al., 2020); life-cycle frameworks combine resilience, risk, and sustainability.

Other methods are seismic resilience indices based on component-level recovery and serviceability (Sangaki et al., 2021), fuzzy-based predictive models for uncertainty conditions (Andrić and Lu, 2017), and comparative techniques for evaluating systems such as diagrids in terms of resilience and energy efficiency (Asadi et al., 2019; Asadi et al., 2020). Region-specific frameworks capturing structural, economic and social dimensions have also been developed (Amini et al., 2018; Atrachali et al., 2019). Time-variant models considering corrosion effects in RC frames employ Incremental Dynamic Analysis and probabilistic approaches to evaluate functionality degradation over time, and life-cycle assessments of bridges made of fiber-reinforced concrete have demonstrated improved enhanced durability and seismic resistance (Pang et al., 2020).

Probabilistic approaches such as fragility functions, sinusoidal trigonometric recovery models and Monte Carlo simulations enable pre-event seismic resilience assessment (Xiong et al., 2020). On the community level, frameworks such as repair scheduling and resource constraints are used to simulate recovery processes and generate resilience indices. Similarly, models developed from fault tree analysis are used to assess hospital resilience and recovery time, emphasizing the importance of retrofitting critical infrastructure (Wang et al., 2019). The above tools are tabulated and compared in Table 4 (Shadabfar et al., 2022).

These developments indicate a move towards integrated, probabilistic and multi-scale frameworks which combine structural analysis, fragility modelling, recovery simulation and decision-support tools (Awoyera et al., 2024; Almufti and Willford, 2013). RBD is also aligned with the sustainability development goals (SDGs) which address environmental, social and economic objectives. Advanced techniques such as multi-criteria decision-making and life-cycle assessment are used to balance resilience metrics with sustainability targets, while Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) includes indicators such as carbon footprint for sustainable urban development (Hadigheh et al., 2016; Welsh-Huggins and Liel, 2018; Chelleri et al., 2015; Asadi et al., 2019). Table 5 shows the corresponding frameworks and limitations.

Despite progress, challenges remain: many models are region-specific and data-intensive, often neglect social and functional recovery, oversimplifying recovery paths, and lack standardized metrics, empirical validation, and integration into design codes.

6.1 Component level assessment

Seismic vulnerability and resilience were investigated of steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) composite columns with non-seismic detailing, proposing test-based nonlinear modelling parameters and highlighting significant underestimation of structural capacity when completely relying on ASCE 41–17 guideline (Pallar et al., 2021). A replaceable steel link (RSL) retrofitting system for RC columns was developed and tested, which significantly improved the load-carrying capacity loading experiments (Ro et al., 2023). Replaceable Corner Components (RCCs) in shear walls were assessed, resulting in enhanced seismic resilience through improved energy dissipation and ease of post-earthquake repair (Liu and Jiang, 2017).

Moreover, an alternative design for jointed precast walls equipped with energy dissipators was presented, having self-centering behavior which reduced residual displacement through a rocking mechanism, thus reducing post-earthquake repair needs (Restrepo and Rahman, 2007). Additional component-level simulations, used multi-spring models to test RC column behavior under bidirectional cyclic loading, identifying how axial load ratio and loading path significantly influences ductility and hysteresis (Ro et al., 2023). The influence of inclined columns on seismic performance was investigated, finding that inward-inclined perimeter columns increased stiffness and reduced displacement, offering a passive strategy for resilience enhancement (Poudel and Shrestha, 2024). Component-level seismic assessment has led to focus on fragility-based evaluation and non-linear modelling to predict damage in critical RC elements. Recent studies integrate experimental testing, probabilistic frameworks, and advanced simulations to enhance resilience and post-earthquake decision making. Innovations at the component level demonstrate clear potential to improve post-earthquake recovery and reduce repair demands. Innovative technologies such as replaceable steel link systems, replaceable corner components in shear walls, self-centring rocking systems, friction dampers, energy dissipators and advanced composite retrofitting systems demonstrate considerable potential for enhancing post-earthquake recovery and reducing repair requirements (Liu and Jiang, 2017; Shen et al., 2023).

7 Overview of methodologies used for vulnerability and resilience assessment

7.1 Empirical approaches

Various experimental tests were conducted for the RC structures to enhance their seismic resilience of RC structures. Empirical testing played a vital role in seismic resilience research by giving direct insights into structural behavior under seismic loads (Xu et al., 2024). The self-centering tension only braces were confirmed through shaking table tests on steel frames, demonstrating significant reduction in residual deformation and peak base moments, confirming their effectiveness in enhancing seismic resilience (Liu and Jiang, 2017). Similarly, RC shear walls with replaceable corner components (RCCs) were developed and tested through cyclic loading tests, where damage was localized to the RCCs, enabling quick post-earthquake repairs and improving overall resilience (Zhang et al., 2024). Likewise, an investigation on prestressed precast segmental bridge piers reinforced with high-strength bars (UHPC/UHSS reinforcement) using quasi-static cyclic tests and numerical modelling is carried out (Tong et al., 2019). In addition, prestressed precast segmental reinforced bridge piers were tested with high-strength energy-dissipation bars, showing improved ductility, load-bearing capacity, and self-centering capability compared to conventional designs (Lu et al., 2024). Self-centering friction spring dampers were verified experimentally, which showed a stable hysteretic curve, high energy dissipation and full reusability after multiple seismic events, significantly reducing the storey drift (Shen et al., 2023).

The RC bridge pier performance was enhanced by using steel jacketing, ultrahigh performance concrete (UHPC) and functional cementitious composites (FCC) for the cyclic tests which resulted in the reduction of damage in critical portions and there was an improvement in the self-centering. The hybrid seismic resistant system combining the base isolation along with the passive dampers was validated through the experiment shake table test resulting in the decrease in the structural displacement and improvement in the collapse margin ratio compared to the fixed base (Rakicevic et al., 2021). The above research conveys that experimental studies are important to validate real time structural behavior and reduce the damage and downtime along with improvement in the robustness of the structure.

Test studies have given support to resilience-enhancing methods but are frequently used for case studies. There is a requirement for the standardized database and report format that would lead to empirical results and are used in the practical design.

7.2 Numerical modelling approach

A seismic vulnerability assessment of the Delhi metro tunnel system was performed using the finite element analysis (FEA). The study considered the geostatic, response spectrum analysis and nonlinear time history analysis to analyse the tunnel surface stiffness, material, and the depth that is in excess. The findings suggested that the material property and the earthquake magnitude will affect the structural forces significantly (Ansari et al., 2024).

In addition to above study the Incremental Dynamic study (IDA) and nonlinear time history analysis in the region of subcontinent highlighted the importance of the region-specific ground motion selection and plotting the fragility curve in analysis to get the structural response (Ranjbar and Naderpour, 2020; Raisinghani et al., 2023). Further the PBD was used considering the fibre model which was introduced to analyse the reinforced structure resulting in the quantification of repair cost, downtime under uncertainty and non-structural element damage (Anwar et al., 2020). In addition to PBD monte Carlo simulation is used (Roohi et al., 2024). Similarly, RC buildings were analysed to see the effect of design variables like stiffness, strength and deformation capacity on repair cost and recovery model, suggesting the requirement of the resilience-based metrics (Joyner and Sasani, 2020). The use of Dynamic Bayesian Network (DBNs) was used to monitor the resilience variation in the housing systems for the multiple V in the region of Tokyo and the Kyoto, mentioning how the resilience reduces during the earthquake and recovers due to the mitigation (Tasmen et al., 2023).

This analysis the importance of the analytical study for the assessment of the Seismic resilience which helps in performance evaluation like PBD, risk evaluation and decision making in spite having the drawback in the not certain data input and boundary condition assumption.

Greater emphasis on regional calibration and integration with empirical testing would enhance model accuracy and strengthen their applicability to real-world scenarios.

Various studies have quantified seismic resilience in buildings, infrastructure and community levels using indicator-based frameworks, fragility analysis, vulnerability functions, system dynamics and retrofitting evaluations. The effectiveness of resilience assessment and retrofit strategies on improving post-earthquake performance and recovery in urban areas, hospitals, critical emergency facilities, and RC buildings was shown (Atrachali et al., 2019; Samadian et al., 2019; Ranjbar and Naderpour, 2020; Maroufi and Borhani, 2022; Moradi et al., 2023; Selim et al., 2023; Pianigiani et al., 2024). But existing studies often lack standardized resilience metrics and real-world validation, limiting comparisons across infrastructures and regions. Further research is needed to develop unified assessment frameworks and investigate retrofit strategies for enhancing seismic resilience (Zhou et al., 2023; Ademovic and Ibrahimbegovic, 2020).

7.3 Recent studies on resilience quantification

Recent research provides a valid future scope which is eminent for the seismic resilience quantification of different RC infrastructures. The current studies suggest the influence of the aftershocks effect on the assessment of the infrastructure which will affect the quantification of the damage and recovery time. Further the effect of corrosion also needs to be included for better assessment. The role of non-structural members, such as infilled unreinforced walls, is being re-evaluated, with studies demonstrating that neglecting their interaction with the main frame can lead to a considerable underestimation of resilience, with both repair costs and time being underestimated. Research on new technologies, such as base-isolated structures and composite moment frames, indicates their superior performance and satisfactory ductility under significant drift levels (Awoyera et al., 2024; Mokhtari and Naderpour, 2020).

The research highlights several key limitations in the current understanding and assessment of seismic resilience. A study points out that the present resilience assessment methods generally ignore the impacts of postseismic shocks, which can significantly increase functionality loss and recovery time. The exclusion of infill walls in finite element models also introduces a significant bias in resilience assessments (Prasanth and Ghosh, 2022). The research notes that component-level resilience assessment researches of buildings with innovative, performance enhanced infill wall systems are still limited.

Furthermore, the reliability of resilience assessments is deeply relies on the input data accuracy which will be used forcomponent level fragility functions estimation as well as repair costs and time. The studies also mention that repair cost indices and depreciation coefficients used in their models were based on regional engineering judgment and are subject to significant uncertainty. It is also noted that there is a critical need for accurate pre-earthquake resilience assessments that account for the effects of ageing and corrosion in reinforced concrete buildings.

In addition, the review overcomes the limitations of earlier work by providing a holistic synthesis that integrates structural, functional, socio-economic, and sustainability dimensions of seismic resilience (Harle et al., 2024). In contrary to the previous studies the recent studies include the standardised manuals like FEMA P-58, HAZUS MH-MR4, REDi to quantify the seismic resilience index. The consideration of experimental studies, case studies and analytical studies along with the retrofitting methods to enhance the seismic resilience are being implemented. In addition, the structural design is mandating the quantification of the repair time for the lifeline buildings allocating the comprehensive study which is beyond the scope of the previous studies (Prasanth et al., 2023c). In recent studies the resilience aspect into seismic design and evaluation has improved and further extended to the assessment including the varying in PGA and response reduction factor (Prasanth et al., 2023a).

8 Conclusion

The review examined the evolution of seismic design approaches from conventional performance-based design toward Resilience-Based Design (RBD), which incorporates functionality, recovery time, downtime, and economic losses into the design process. The study demonstrated that RBD provides a more comprehensive framework for assessing the seismic performance of infrastructures by considering not only the structural safety but also post-earthquake recovery and operational continuity.

The findings show that resilience assessment frameworks such as FEMA P-58, HAZUS-MH MR4, and REDi have significantly advanced the quantification of seismic resilience through the evaluation of damage, repair costs, recovery paths, and functionality loss. Furthermore, critical lifeline infrastructures, including power systems, water supply networks, wastewater facilities, telecommunication systems, and pipeline networks, play a important role in community resilience due to their interdependent nature and influence on post-disaster recovery.

The review also mentioned the effectiveness of various retrofitting strategies like concrete jacketing, steel jacketing, Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP), Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM), base isolation systems, and energy dissipation devices in enhancing infrastructural robustness, reducing downtime, and improving functional recovery. These retrofitting techniques support the practical implementation of resilience objectives in both new and existing infrastructures.

From an application perspective, the integration of resilience metrics into design, assessment, and retrofit decision-making can assist engineers, policymakers, and infrastructure managers in developing safer and more sustainable infrastructure systems capable of maintaining essential functions following earthquakes.

9 Recommendations for future research work

Incorporating the above will enhance the communities to withstand the seismic but also to recover gradually, sustainably and economically.

References

• 1

  AdabavazehN.NikbakhtM.AmindoustA.Hassanzadeh-TabriziS. A. (2026). Bayesian modeling for natural gas pipeline corrosion management. J. Ocean Eng. Sci.11 (1), 99–119. 10.1016/j.joes.2025.06.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AdemovicN.IbrahimbegovicA. (2020). Review of resilience-based design. Coupled Syst. Mech.9 (2), 91–110. 10.12989/csm.2020.9.2.091

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AlamM. S.SimpsonB. G.BarbosaA. R. (2023). Fragility and recovery models for lifelines. Nat. Hazards Rev.24 (4), 04023022. 10.1061/NHREFO.NHENG-1661

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AlmuftiI.WillfordM. (2013). Resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of buildings (REDi™ rating system). Arup. Available online at: https://www.arup.com (Accessed July 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AlmuftiI.WillfordM. (2014). “The REDi™ rating system: A framework to implement resilience-based earthquake design for new buildings. Proc. 10th US Natl. 10.4231/D3P26Q437

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) (2001). Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems: Part 1—Guideline. American Lifelines Alliance, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AminiM.ZhangB.ChangS. (2018). Selecting building designs considering resilience. J. Archit. Eng.24 (1), 04017025. 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000298

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AnagnosT. (1999). Electrical Substation Equipment Fragility Database PEER.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AndrićJ. M.LuD. G. (2017). Fuzzy methods for prediction of seismic resilience of bridges. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.22, 458–468. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AndrićJ. M. (2017). Fuzzy-Based Method for Prediction of Seismic Resilience of Bridges.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AnsariA.ThadaganiK. S.RaoK. S.ShekharS.AlluqmaniA. E. (2024). Seismic vulnerability in metro systems. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.9 (10), 1–26. 10.1007/s41062-024-01685-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  AntonelliF.YangM.CozzaniV. (2025). Enhancing pipeline system resilience: a reliability-centric approach. J. Pipeline Sci. Eng.5, 100252. 10.1016/j.jpse.2025.100252

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  AnwarG. A.DongY. (2020). Seismic resilience of retrofitted RC buildings. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib.19 (3), 561–571. 10.1007/s11803-020-0580-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  AnwarG. A.DongY.ZhaiC. (2020). Probabilistic framework for seismic resilience of RC structures. Adv. Struct. Eng.23 (7), 1454–1472. 10.1177/1369433219895363

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  AsadiE.SalmanA. M.LiY. (2019). Multi-criteria decision-making for seismic resilience of diagrid buildings. Eng. Struct.191, 229–246. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  AsadiE.ShenZ.ZhouH.SalmanA.LiY. (2020). Risk-informed multi-criteria decision framework. J. Build. Perform. Simul.13 (6), 804–823. 10.1080/19401493.2020.1824016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  AslaniF.Amini HosseiniK.FallahiA. (2020). A framework for earthquake resilience at neighborhood level. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ.11 (4), 557–575. 10.1108/IJDRBE-12-2019-0082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  AtrachaliM.Ghafory-AshtianyM.Amini-HosseiniK.Arian-MoghaddamS. (2019). Integrated indicator system for seismic resilience in Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.39, 101231. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  AwoyeraP. O.Akin-AdeniyiA.AlthoeyF.AbuhussainM. A.JolayemiK.RomeroL. M. B. (2024). Green retrofitting materials for RC buildings. Fire Technol.60 (3), 1955–1991. 10.1007/s10694-024-01557-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  BaghmishehA. G.EstekanchiH. E. (2019). Fragility of electrical substation equipment. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.125, 105733. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105733

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BalsamoA.ColomboA.ManfrediG.NegroP.ProtaA. (2005). Seismic behavior of a full-scale RC frame repaired using CFRP laminates. Eng. Struct.27 (5), 769–780. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BanerjeeS.VishwanathB. S.DevendiranD. K. (2019). Multihazard resilience of bridges. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.15 (12), 1694–1714. 10.1080/15732479.2019.1648526

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  BarisA.SpacagnaR. L.PaolellaL.KosekiJ.ModoniG. (2021). Liquefaction fragility of sewer pipes. Bull. Earthq. Eng.19 (10), 3963–3986. 10.1007/s10518-020-00957-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BiondiniF.CamnasioE.TitiA. (2015). Seismic resilience of concrete structures under corrosion. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.44 (14), 2445–2466. 10.1002/eqe.2591

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BruneauM.ChangS. E.EguchiR. T.LeeG. C.O’RourkeT. D.ReinhornA. M.et al (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq. Spectra19 (4), 733–752. 10.1193/1.1623497

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  CapacciL.BiondiniF.TitiA. (2019). Lifetime seismic resilience of bridges. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.15 (6), 757–778. 10.1080/15732479.2019.1653937

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  CapacciL.BiondiniF.FrangopolD. M. (2022). Resilience of aging structures and infrastructure systems. Resilient Cities Struct.1 (2), 23–41. 10.1016/j.rcns.2022.05.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  CardoniA.CimellaroG. P.DomaneschiM.SordoS.MazzaA. (2020). Interdependency in resilience assessment. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.42, 101315. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101315

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Carofilis GalloW. W.ClemettN.MonteiroR.GabbianelliG.O’ReillyG. (2022). Seismic resilience of retrofitted school buildings. Buildings12 (6), 845. 10.3390/buildings12060845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Chee YinH.KassemM. M.MohamedN. F. (2022). Comprehensive review of community seismic resilience. Adv. Civ. Eng.2022, 7668214. 10.1155/2022/7668214

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  ChelleriL.SchuetzeT.SalvatiL. (2015). Integrating resilience with urban sustainability. Habitat Int.48, 122–130. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  ChenZ.FengD. C.CaoX. Y.WuG. (2024). Time-variant seismic resilience of RC buildings under deterioration. Eng. Struct.305, 117759. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.117759

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  ChengS.HeH.SunH.ChengY. (2024). Rapid recovery strategy for seismic-damaged structures. J. Build. Eng.82, 108422. 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.108422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  ChengS.HeH.ChengY.SunH. (2025). Repair decision framework for damaged structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.190, 109159. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.109159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  ChienKuoC.EikiY.SantosoD. (2021). Seismic resilience analysis of a retrofit-required bridge considering moment-based system reliability. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.17 (6), 757–778. 10.1080/15732479.2020.1767658

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  ChoiJ.YooD. G.KangD. (2018). Restoration model for water supply networks. Sustainability10 (10), 3618. 10.3390/su10103618

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  ChoudhuryS. (2020). Performance-based seismic design of structures: a review. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. Technol.9 (12). 10.29121/ijesrt.v9.i12.2020.9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  CimellaroG. P.ReinhornA. M.BruneauM. (2010a). Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng. Struct.32 (11), 3639–3649. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  CimellaroG. P.ReinhornA. M.BruneauM. (2010b). Seismic resilience of a hospital system. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.6 (1–2), 127–144. 10.1080/15732470802663847

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  CimellaroG. P.ReinhornA. M.BruneauM. (2016). PEOPLES: a framework for evaluating resilience. J. Struct. Eng.142 (10), 04016063. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001514

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  DavisC. A. (2014). Water system restoration strategies. Earthq. Spectra30 (4), 1487–1509. 10.1193/022912EQS058M

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  De IuliisM.KammouhO.CimellaroG. P.TesfamariamS. (2021). Quantifying restoration time of power and telecommunication lifelines after earthquakes using Bayesian belief network model. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.208, 107320. 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107320

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  DecòA.BocchiniP.FrangopolD. M. (2013). A probabilistic approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.42 (10), 1469–1487. 10.1002/eqe.2271

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  DongY.FrangopolD. M. (2015). Risk and resilience assessment of bridges. Eng. Struct.83, 198–208. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  DongX.GuoH.ZengS. (2017). Resilience in urban drainage systems. Water Res.124, 280–289. 10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  EghbaliM.SamadianD.Ghafory-AshtianyM.RaissiM. (2020). Recovery and reconstruction of schools after earthquake. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.139, 106327. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106327

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2003a). HAZUS-MH MR3 Technical Manual. FEMA

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2003b). HAZUS-MH MR4 Earthquake Model Technical Manual. FEMA

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2018). Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of buildings FEMA P-58-6. Available online at: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/90380 (Accessed July 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  ForcelliniD.KalfasK. N. (2025). A framework to quantify the impact of deterioration on the seismic resilience of structures. Struct. Infrastructure Eng., 1–9. 10.1080/15732479.2025.2591824

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ForcelliniD. (2023). Role of redundancy in seismic resilience. Sustainability15 (15), 11849. 10.3390/su151511849Functional

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  HadighehS. A.MahiniS. S.MaheriM. R. (2014). Seismic behavior of FRP-Retrofitted RC frames. J. Earthq. Eng.18 (8), 1171–1197. 10.1080/13632469.2014.926301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  HadighehS. A.MahiniS. S.SetungeS.MahinS. A. (2016). Resilience and performance of rehabilitated buildings under earthquakes. Earthq. Struct.11 (6), 967–982. 10.12989/eas.2016.11.6.967

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  HarleS. M.SaganeS.ZanjadN.BhadauriaPKSSNistaneH. P. (2024). Advancing seismic resilience: focus on building design techniques. Structures66, 106432. 10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106432

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  HosseiniY.Karami MohammadiR.YangT. Y. (2023). Resource-based seismic resilience optimization of urban road networks. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.85, 103496. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103496

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  JangidR. S. (2022). “Base isolation for seismic retrofitting of structures,” in Seismic Des. Pract. next Century, 417–424. 10.1201/9780203740026-57

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  JiaS.ZhanD. J. (2024). Quantitative method for seismic resilience assessment of individual buildings. Structures64, 106588. 10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106588

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  JiangL.SunX.HanB.AliH. E. (2026). A multilevel seismic damage assessment framework guided by structural physics for low-rise reinforced concrete educational facilities under seismic loading. Structures87, 111643. 10.1016/j.istruc.2026.111643

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  JoynerM. D.SasaniM. (2020). Building performance for earthquake resilience. Eng. Struct.210, 110371. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110371

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  JoynerM. D.KurthM. H.PumoI.LinkovI. (2021). Recovery-based design of buildings. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.65, 102556. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102556

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  KitayamaS.ConstantinouM. C.LeeD. (2016). Seismic performance of isolated transformers. MCEER Rep. Univ. Buffalo. 10.13140/RG.2.2.32327.96167

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  KrishnamurthyV.KwasinskiA. (2016). Effects of power electronics, energy storage, power distribution architecture, and lifeline dependencies on microgrid resiliency during extreme events. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron.4 (4), 1310–1323. 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2598648

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  LabernardaR.MazzaF. (2026). Effects of the long-term degradation of fiber reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems on the seismic retrofitting of historical masonry structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.204, 110129. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2026.110129

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  LiY.DongY.QianJ. (2020). Probabilistic long-term loss analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.203, 107092. 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107092

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  LiangH.BlagojevićN.XieQ.StojadinovićB. (2023). Seismic resilience of substations. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.52 (4), 1040–1058. 10.1002/eqe.3800

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  LiuQ.JiangH. (2017). Experimental study on a new type of earthquake resilient shear wall. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.46 (14), 2479–2497. 10.1002/eqe.2912

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  LiuX.XieQ. (2024). Probabilistic framework for substations. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.249, 110219. 10.1016/j.ress.2024.110219

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  LuX.WeiK.DengK.XuL. (2024). Seismic resilience of cable-stayed bridges. Ocean. Eng.295, 116990. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.116990

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  MahiniS. S.SetungeS.HadighehS. A. (2015). Performance vs resilience-based design,” in Proc. Pac. Conf. Earthq. Eng.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  MaroufiH.BorhaniM. (2022). Measurement of community seismic resilience in mashhad. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.65 (4), 675–702. 10.1080/09640568.2021.1902790

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  MinaD.KarampourH.ForcelliniD. (2023). Resilience of HP/HT pipelines to combined seismic and thermal loadings. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip.201, 104874. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2023.104874

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  MokhtariM.NaderpourH. (2020). Seismic resilience of base-isolated RC buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng.18 (10), 4793–4815. 10.1007/s10518-020-00895-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  MoradiS.KhanM. M.HossainN. U. I.ShamsuddohaM.GorodA. (2023). System dynamics approach for seismic resilience. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot.43, 100639. 10.1016/j.ijcip.2023.100639

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  NiroomandiA.MaheriA.MaheriM. R.MahiniS. S. (2010). Seismic performance of RC frames retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets. Eng. Struct.32 (8), 2326–2336. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  OladokunV.ProverbsD.AdebimpeO.AdedejiT. (2023). Handbook of Flood Risk Management in Developing Countries. 10.1201/9781003160823

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  PallarF. J.HassanW. M.ReyesJ. C.SpinelJ. S. (2021). Seismic vulnerability and resilience of SRC composite column buildings. Eng. Struct.244, 112810. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112810

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  PampaninS.BologniniD.PaveseA. (2007). Performance-based seismic retrofit strategy using FRP composites. J. Compos. Constr.11 (2), 211–226. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(211)

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  PangY.WeiK.YuanW. (2020). Life-cycle seismic resilience of highway bridges. Eng. Struct.222, 111120. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111120

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  PianigianiM.VitiS.TanganelliM. (2024). Seismic resilience of emergency departments. Modelling5 (1), 315–338. 10.3390/modelling5010017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Pineda-PorrasO.OrdazM. (2007). A new seismic intensity parameter to estimate damage in buried pipelines due to seismic wave propagation. J. Earthq. Eng.11 (5), 773–786. 10.1080/13632460701242781

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  PorterK. A. (2016). Damage and restoration of water supply systems in an earthquake sequence. PEER Rep.

  • Google Scholar

• 82

  PoudelO.ShresthaK. C. (2024). Enhancing earthquake resilience using inclined columns. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.9 (6), 1–28. 10.1007/s41062-024-01540-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  PrasanthS.GhoshG. (2021). “Resilience-based design of buildings”, In. Reliability-Based Analysis and Design of Structures and Infrastructure.CRC Press. 79–88. 10.1201/9781003215059-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  PrasanthS.GhoshG. (2022). Role of resilience in selection of R factors. Front. Built Environ.8, 1029209. 10.3389/fbuil.2022.1029209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  PrasanthS.GhoshG.GhoshS. P. G. (2023a). Effect of seismicity on the seismic resilience of a RC building. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. A Phys. Sci.93 (1), 147–161. 10.1007/s40010-022-00803-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  PrasanthS.GhoshG.GuptaP. K.CasapullaC.GiresiniL. (2023b). Resilience-based selection of R factors for RC buildings. Appl. Sci.13 (3), 1316.

  • Google Scholar

• 87

  PrasanthS.GhoshG.GuptaP. K.KumarV.ParamasivamP.DhanasekaranS. (2023c). Selection of response reduction factor considering resilience. Buildings13 (3), 626. 10.3390/buildings13030626

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  QiuZ.PrabhakaranA.SuL.ZhengY. (2023). Performance-based seismic resilience and sustainability assessment of coastal RC bridges in aggressive marine environments. Ocean. Eng.279, 114547. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114547

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  RaisinghaniB. M.KumarA.JaiswalA.BhoraniyaT. H.PalI. (2023). Numerical methods for seismic resilience of structures in India. Lect. Notes Civ. Eng.294, 13–28. 10.1007/978-981-19-6297-4_2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  RakicevicZ.BogdanovicA.FarsangiE. N.Sivandi-PourA. (2021). Hybrid seismic isolation system. J. Build. Eng.38, 102194. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102194

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  RanL.LiJ.AbedA. M.AbdulahN. A.ElkamchouchiD. H.AliH. E. (2026). A swarm intelligent metaheuristic approach for efficient series compensation and seismic resilience enhancement in power networks. Structures87, 111493. 10.1016/j.istruc.2026.111493

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  RanjbarP. R.NaderpourH. (2020). Probabilistic evaluation of seismic resilience for vital buildings. Structures23, 314–323. 10.1016/j.istruc.2019.10.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  RestrepoJ. I.RahmanA. (2007). Seismic performance of self-centering structural walls. J. Struct. Eng.133 (11), 1560–1570. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1560)

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  RoK. M.KimM. S.LeeY. H. (2023). Seismic performance of RC columns retrofitted with steel links. Structures58, 105580. 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105580

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  RonaghH. R.EslamiA. (2013). Flexural retrofitting of RC buildings using GFRP/CFRP. Compos. B Eng.46, 188–196. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.072

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  RoohiM.GhasemiS.SediekO.JeonH.de LindtJ. W.ShieldsM.et al (2024). Multi-disciplinary seismic resilience modeling. Resilient Cities Struct.3 (2), 66–84. 10.1016/j.rcns.2024.07.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  Salado CastilloJ. G.BruneauM.Elhami-KhorasaniN. (2022). Functionality measures for seismic resilience index. Eng. Struct.253, 113800. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113800

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  SamadianD.Ghafory-AshtianyM.NaderpourH.EghbaliM. (2019). Seismic resilience of RC school buildings using vulnerability curves. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.127, 105844. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105844

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  SangakiA. H.RofooeiF. R.VafaiH. (2021). Probabilistic integrated framework for seismic resilience assessment. Structures34, 4086–4099. 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.089

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  SediqiZ.HarmandarE. (2025). Improving seismic resilience index of a school building. Nat. Hazards121 (2), 2397–2417. 10.1007/s11069-024-06990-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  SelimM.IbrahimY. E.EmaraM. (2023). Seismic retrofitting of a deteriorated RC building. Case Stud. Constr. Mater.18, e01758. 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01758

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  ShadabfarM.MahsuliM.ZhangY.XueY.AyyubB. M.HuangH.et al (2022). Resilience-based design of infrastructure: review of models, methodologies, and computational tools. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. A Civ. Eng.8 (1), 1–26. 10.1061/ajrua6.0001184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  ShangQ.GuoH.ZengS. (2022a). Seismic resilience of internet data centers. Resilient Cities Struct.1 (2), 42–56. 10.1016/j.rcns.2022.06.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  ShangQ.WangT.LiJ. (2022b). Quantitative framework for hospital resilience. J. Earthq. Eng.26 (7), 3364–3388. 10.1080/13632469.2020.1802371

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  ShenY.FreddiF.LiY.LiJ. (2023). Seismic resilient post-tensioned RC bridge piers. J. Struct. Eng.149 (3), 04023009. 10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-11831

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  SianoR.FatnassiA.De MaioF. V.BassoP.CademartoriM. (2022). Seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting design of Italian public buildings. Procedia Struct. Integr.44, 1038–1044. 10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.134

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  StenekerP.FiliatraultA.WiebeL.KonstantinidisD. (2020). Integrated structural–nonstructural performance-based seismic design and retrofit optimization of buildings. J. Struct. Eng.146 (8), 04020159. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002680

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  TasmenT.SenM. K.UllahN.HossainI.KabirG. (2023). Incomplete Reference—Details Required.

  • Google Scholar

• 109

  UmmahM. S. (2019). Seismic fragility formulation for water systems. Sustainability11 (1), 1–14.

  • Google Scholar

• 110

  WangW.FangC.ZhaoY.SauseR.HuS.RiclesJ. (2019). Self-centering friction dampers. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.48 (9), 1045–1065. 10.1002/eqe.3174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  WangB.NishiyamaM.ZhuS.TaniM.JiangH. (2021). Self-centering steel coupling beams. Eng. Struct.232, 111827. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111827

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  WangX.XieL.ZengD.YangC.LiuQ. (2021). Seismic retrofitting using isolation for resilience. Structures34, 4745–4757. 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.10.081

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  Welsh-HugginsS. J.LielA. B. (2018). Evaluating multiobjective outcomes for hazard resilience and sustainability. J. Struct. Eng.144 (8), 04018119. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  WenW.ZhangM.ZhaiC.LiuW. (2019). Resilience loss factor considering aftershocks. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.116, 43–49. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.10.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  XiongC.LuX.HuangJ. (2020). City-scale seismic resilience simulation framework. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.35 (4), 322–341. 10.1111/mice.12496

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  XuG.GuoT.LiA.WuY.ZhangH.ZhiG. (2024). Self-centering tension-only braces for seismic resilience. Eng. Struct.319, 118816. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.118816

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  YangZ.DehghanianP.NazemiM. (2020). Seismic-resilient power distribution systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.56 (3), 2304–2313. 10.1109/TIA.2020.2972854

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  YavariS.ChangS. E.ElwoodK. J. (2010). Modeling post-earthquake functionality of regional healthcare facilities. Earthq. Spectra26 (3), 869–892. 10.1193/1.3460359

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  YouT.WangW.ChenY. (2021). Linking community resilience to building performance. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.147, 106788. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106788

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  YuP.WenW.JiD.ZhaiC.XieL. (2019). Seismic resilience of urban hospitals. Adv. Civ. Eng.2019, 7654683. 10.1155/2019/7654683

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  ZhangM.ZhangJ.LiJ.DongH. (2024). Seismic performance of RAC precast walls. Structures68, 107128. 10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107128

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  ZhouZ.HanM.DongY.YuX. (2023). Seismic resilience of corroded RC structures under aftershocks. Eng. Struct.288, 116192. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116192

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  ZonaA.KammouhO.CimellaroG. P. (2020). Resourcefulness quantification. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.46, 101509. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101509

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  ZornC. R.ShamseldinA. Y. (2017). Dimensions of wastewater system recovery following major disruptions. J. Infrastruct. Syst.23 (2), 04016045. 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000327

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  ZouX. K.TengJ. G.De LorenzisL.XiaS. H. (2007). Optimal performance-based design of FRP jackets for seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete frames. Compos. B Eng.38 (5–6), 584–597. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.07.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar