Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 54 references

A continuous-time Markov chain with one generator matrix unifies reliability and resilience calculations in performance-based earthquake engineering.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 17:31 UTC pith:LDYSU7OR

load-bearing objection The CTMC framework unifies reliability and resilience metrics via one generator matrix but rests on a memoryless assumption that may not match path-dependent damage. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.12448 v1 pith:LDYSU7OR submitted 2026-05-30 physics.geo-ph stat.COstat.ME

A generalized framework for performance-based earthquake engineering: integrated assessment of structural reliability and resilience

C. NArdin , S. Marelli , B. Sudret , M. Broccardo This is my paper
classification physics.geo-ph stat.COstat.ME
keywords performance-based earthquake engineeringcontinuous-time Markov chainstructural reliabilityseismic resiliencegenerator matrixdamage accumulationrecovery dynamicsPBEE framework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a framework that integrates damage accumulation and recovery into a single model for assessing structural performance under seismic loads. It uses a continuous-time Markov chain where a generator matrix controls transitions between states of damage and recovery. This allows deriving both time-dependent reliability metrics and resilience as the expected operational time. The approach stays compatible with traditional PBEE methods but extends them to account for repeated events and recovery dynamics. This matters because conventional methods treat recovery separately and assume memoryless behavior, which can miss long-term effects on resilience.

Core claim

The central claim is that embedding damage and recovery into system dynamics via a continuous-time Markov chain governed by a single generator matrix provides a unified description of structural reliability and resilience, compatible with standard PBEE metrics, from which time-dependent failure probabilities and expected operational time before collapse can be derived efficiently using spectral properties of the matrix.

What carries the argument

A continuous-time Markov chain whose state transitions are governed by a single generator matrix that encodes both damage accumulation and recovery rates.

Load-bearing premise

The damage accumulation and recovery processes can be modeled accurately as a continuous-time Markov chain with memoryless transitions governed by a single generator matrix that fits existing PBEE exceedance assumptions.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of the model's predicted expected operational time and failure probabilities against empirical data from structures subjected to sequences of earthquakes, checking if deviations from the Markov assumption occur.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Time-dependent failure probabilities and reliability indices can be computed from the transient dynamics.
  • Resilience is quantified as the expected fraction of operational time before collapse.
  • The framework can be applied to structural archetypes like braced frames and base-isolated systems.
  • Recovery dynamics can strongly affect long-term resilience even when reliability measures show limited sensitivity.
  • Efficient computation is possible via spectral properties of the generator matrix.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This framework suggests that explicitly modeling recovery could reveal vulnerabilities in long-term performance not captured by standard reliability metrics.
  • It may enable more accurate life-cycle assessments by treating reliability and resilience within the same dynamic model.
  • The compatibility with PBEE metrics allows integration with existing tools for seismic risk analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generalized PBEE framework embedding damage accumulation and post-event recovery into system dynamics via a continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC). A single generator matrix governs state-dependent transitions, yielding time-dependent failure probabilities and reliability indices from transient dynamics, plus resilience via expected operational time before collapse; spectral properties of the matrix enable efficient computation. The approach is illustrated on a three-state example and applied to braced-frame and base-isolated archetypes, with results indicating that recovery dynamics can strongly influence long-term resilience even when conventional reliability metrics show limited sensitivity.

Significance. If the CTMC representation is adequate, the framework supplies a unified, Markovian treatment of reliability and resilience that remains compatible with standard PBEE exceedance metrics and exploits spectral properties for transparent computation. This addresses the common separation of recovery as post-processing and could improve life-cycle seismic assessments by making recovery an explicit dynamical component. The concrete archetype applications provide a starting point for quantitative comparison, though the overall significance hinges on the validity of the memoryless assumption for real damage processes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'a single generator matrix governs state-dependent transitions, providing a unified description of structural reliability and resilience' rests on the adequacy of a time-homogeneous CTMC for damage accumulation. This assumption is load-bearing, yet the manuscript supplies no analysis, validation, or discussion of when the memoryless property holds versus path-dependent mechanisms (cumulative plastic strain, residual drift, crack growth) that violate it and could alter long-term failure probabilities and expected operational time.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (three-state example and archetype applications): time-dependent failure probabilities and resilience (expected fraction of operational time) are derived from transient dynamics, but without reported error analysis, sensitivity to state discretization, or comparison against non-Markovian alternatives, it is unclear whether the reported strong effect of recovery on resilience is robust or an artifact of the memoryless idealization.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'exploits the spectral properties of the generator matrix to compute both metrics efficiently and transparently' is stated without any displayed equations or matrix definitions, making the computational advantage difficult to evaluate from the provided description.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting the importance of the Markov assumption and robustness checks. We respond point by point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'a single generator matrix governs state-dependent transitions, providing a unified description of structural reliability and resilience' rests on the adequacy of a time-homogeneous CTMC for damage accumulation. This assumption is load-bearing, yet the manuscript supplies no analysis, validation, or discussion of when the memoryless property holds versus path-dependent mechanisms (cumulative plastic strain, residual drift, crack growth) that violate it and could alter long-term failure probabilities and expected operational time.

    Authors: We agree that the time-homogeneous CTMC assumption underpins the unified framework and that its scope requires explicit discussion. The paper presents the approach under this standard modeling choice to enable the single-generator-matrix unification while remaining compatible with PBEE exceedance metrics. In revision we will add a limitations subsection that (i) states the memoryless property explicitly, (ii) identifies conditions under which it is a reasonable approximation (coarse performance-limit states rather than continuous path variables), and (iii) notes that path-dependent mechanisms such as cumulative plastic strain may necessitate non-homogeneous or semi-Markov extensions. Relevant literature on Markovian approximations in structural degradation will be cited to bound applicability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (three-state example and archetype applications): time-dependent failure probabilities and resilience (expected fraction of operational time) are derived from transient dynamics, but without reported error analysis, sensitivity to state discretization, or comparison against non-Markovian alternatives, it is unclear whether the reported strong effect of recovery on resilience is robust or an artifact of the memoryless idealization.

    Authors: The three-state example is purely illustrative and the archetype results demonstrate the framework on realistic systems. We accept that additional checks are needed to substantiate robustness. In revision we will (i) report sensitivity of the resilience metric to the number of damage states for both archetypes and (ii) supply numerical error bounds obtained by comparing the spectral solution of the Kolmogorov forward equation against direct integration. Systematic comparison against non-Markovian alternatives, however, would require an entirely separate modeling apparatus and is therefore noted as future work rather than performed here; the current contribution focuses on establishing the Markovian unification itself. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central derivation applies standard continuous-time Markov chain transient analysis (via the generator matrix and its spectral decomposition) to derive time-dependent failure probabilities and expected operational time. These steps follow directly from the mathematical properties of CTMCs and do not reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. The claimed compatibility with PBEE metrics is an extension rather than a tautological renaming or forced prediction. No load-bearing step in the provided text exhibits self-definitional, fitted-input, or uniqueness-imported circularity. The framework remains self-contained against external CTMC theory.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the Markov property for state transitions and the existence of a generator matrix whose entries encode both damage and recovery; transition rates are domain-specific parameters likely requiring calibration.

free parameters (1)
  • state transition rates
    Entries of the generator matrix are state-dependent and must be specified or fitted to represent damage accumulation and recovery dynamics.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Continuous-time Markov chain with memoryless transitions
    Invoked to embed damage and recovery into unified system dynamics via the generator matrix.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5756 in / 1150 out tokens · 21034 ms · 2026-06-28T17:31:27.662925+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Assessing structural performance under seismic hazard requires accounting for both damage accumulation and post-event recovery. In current performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE), recovery is generally treated as a post-processing attribute, while structural performance is modeled using Poissonian exceedance assumptions that imply renewability and memorylessness. These assumptions hinder a unified treatment of reliability and resilience under repeated seismic loading. This study proposes a generalized PBEE framework in which damage and recovery are embedded directly into the system dynamics through a continuous-time Markov chain. A single generator matrix governs state-dependent transitions, providing a unified description of structural reliability and resilience while remaining compatible with standard PBEE metrics. Time-dependent failure probabilities and reliability indices are derived from the transient system dynamics, whereas resilience is quantified through the expected fraction of operational time before collapse. The framework exploits the spectral properties of the generator matrix to compute both metrics efficiently and transparently. The methodology is illustrated on a three-state example and applied to two structural archetypes: a braced frame and a base-isolated system. Results show that recovery dynamics can strongly affect long-term resilience even when conventional reliability measures exhibit limited sensitivity, emphasizing the need to explicitly account for recovery in life-cycle seismic performance assessment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12448 by B. Sudret, C. NArdin, M. Broccardo, S. Marelli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: State-space diagram. Grey nodes represent transient states whilst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Three-state CTMC representing damage, recovery, and collapse. States [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time evolution of state probabilities for the three-state CTMC model for the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Failure probability FT (·) evaluated at the time horizon Thor. (b) Corresponding reliability index β, showing a monotonic decrease when either collapse transitions become more frequent or recovery becomes less effective. The dashed vertical line marks a reference collapse rate λ02 ≈ 1/475 [year]−1 , representative of seismic design prescriptions. Curves illustrate how increasing α reduces reliability f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reliability index β(γ, α) for Thor = 1 year (left) and Thor = 50 years (right), with µ10 = 1 [year] −1 and ε = λ12/λ01 fixed. The color scale ranges from low (red) to high (grey) reliability. Contour lines mark integer values of β. Three reference points at β = 1, 2, 3 (gold stars) are identified on the 50-year map and used as anchors in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Illustration of the time evolution of the conditional state probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Joint (β, ρ) performance space. Three structural configurations with fixed (λ01, λ02, λ12) rates and varying recovery rate µ10 (triangles: µ10 = 0.1 [year] −1 ; circles: µ10 = 1 [year] −1 ; squares: µ10 = 100 [year] −1 ), evaluated at Thor = 50 years. Arrows indicate the direction of increasing µ10. Gold stars mark the three reference configurations at β = 1, 2, 3 with µ10 = 1 [year] −1 identified in [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simplified sketches of the case study structures: (a) steel braced frame (BF); (b) steel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: State-dependent fragility functions for the two case-study systems, adapted from Nardin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time evolution of state probabilities πi(t) for the braced frame (BF, top) and base￾isolated (BI, bottom) systems under short- and long-term recovery scenarios. The vertical dashed line marks the approximate time when π0 = π2, highlighting the delayed condition in the isolated configuration. 4.3.2 Structural reliability analysis under seismic hazard We now examine the failure probability FT (·) defined in… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FT (·) (left) and corresponding β (right) as functions of the recovery rate µ10 and the reference time horizon Thor. Results for the BF (on the left) and for the BI (on the right). Color intensity denotes the time horizon, corresponding to 1, 10, and 50 years. Filled markers indicate the median recovery rates reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Q0 (left) and ρ (right) as functions of the recovery rate µ10 and the reference time horizon Thor. Results are shown for the BF and BI systems. Color intensity denotes the time horizon, corresponding to 1, 10, and 50 years. Filled markers indicate the median recovery rates reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Joint (β50y, ρ) performance space for the two industrial case studies. Each configuration is represented by two markers corresponding to the short-term (squares) and long-term (triangles) recovery scenarios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Time-to-functionality fragilities for performance assessment of buildings

    J. Furley, J. W. van de Lindt, S. Pei, S. Wichman, H. Hasani, J. W. Berman, K. Ryan, J. D. Dolan, R. B. Zimmerman, and E. McDonnell. “Time-to-functionality fragilities for performance assessment of buildings”.Journal of Structural Engineering, 147(12):04021217, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    F-Rec framework: novel framework for probabilistic evaluation of functional recovery of building systems

    V. Terzic, P. K. Villanueva, D. Saldana, and D. Y. Yoo. “F-Rec framework: novel framework for probabilistic evaluation of functional recovery of building systems”. Technical report,

  3. [3]

    Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center (PEER), PEER Report 2021-06

    2021

  4. [4]

    A framework for operationalizing the assessment of post-earthquake functional recovery of buildings

    O. Cook, A. B. Liel, C. B. Haselton, and M. Koliou. “A framework for operationalizing the assessment of post-earthquake functional recovery of buildings”.Earthquake Spectra, 38(4):2545–2571, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Non-ergodicity and PEER’s framework formula

    A. Der Kiureghian. “Non-ergodicity and PEER’s framework formula”.Earthquake Engi- neering & Structural Dynamics, 34(13):1643–1652, 2005

    2005

  6. [6]

    Progress and challenges in seismic performance assess- ment

    C. A. Cornell and H. Krawinkler. “Progress and challenges in seismic performance assess- ment”. PEER Center News, 2000. Spring issue

    2000

  7. [7]

    A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering

    J. Moehle and G. G. Deierlein. “A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering”. InProceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, August 2004

    2004

  8. [8]

    T. Y. Yang, J. Moehle, B. Stojadinovic, and A. Der Kiureghian. Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: Methodology and implementation.Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(10):1146–1154, 2009

    2009

  9. [9]

    Leelataviwat, S

    S. Leelataviwat, S. C. Goel, and B. Stojadinović. Toward performance-based seismic design of structures.Earthquake Spectra, 15(3):435–461, 1999

    1999

  10. [10]

    Probabilistic resilience assessment of civil systems: analysis and validity of the PEER framework

    M. Broccardo, P. Galanis, S. Esposito, and B. Stojadinovic. “Probabilistic resilience assessment of civil systems: analysis and validity of the PEER framework”. InSafety and Reliability of Complex Engineered Systems (ESREL 2015), volume 331, 2015

    2015

  11. [11]

    REDi™Rating System: Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative for the Next Generation of Buildings

    I. Almufti and M. Willford. “REDi™Rating System: Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative for the Next Generation of Buildings”, 2013. ARUP

    2013

  12. [12]

    HAZUS Earthquake Model 4.2., 2020

    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). HAZUS Earthquake Model 4.2., 2020. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/fema_hazus_earthquake_ 37 technical_manual_4-2.pdf

    2020

  13. [13]

    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA P-58-1: Seismic Performance As- sessment of Buildings, Volume 1 – Methodology, 2018.https://femap58.atcouncil.org/ documents/fema-p-58/24-fema-p-58-volume-1-methodology-second-edition/file

    2018

  14. [14]

    FEMA P-58-2: Seismic Per- formance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 2 – Implementation Guide, Appendix C: PACT Software, 2018

    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA P-58-2: Seismic Per- formance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 2 – Implementation Guide, Appendix C: PACT Software, 2018. https://femap58.atcouncil.org/documents/fema-p-58/ 25-fema-p-58-volume-2-implementation-second-edition/file

    2018

  15. [15]

    ATC-138: Seismic Performance As- sessment of Buildings

    Applied Technology Council. ATC-138: Seismic Performance As- sessment of Buildings. Volume 8: Methodology for Assessment of Functional Recovery Time. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2021. https://femap58.atcouncil.org/documents/fema-p-58/ 34-atc-138-3-volume-8-methodology-for-assessment-of-functional-recovery-time/ file

    2021

  16. [16]

    Seismic Performance Prediction Platform (SP3)

    Haselton Baker Risk Group, LLC. “Seismic Performance Prediction Platform (SP3)”, 2022. https://sp3risk.com/. Accessed: 2025-08-12

    2022

  17. [17]

    Zsarnoczay, F

    A. Zsarnoczay, F. McKenna, M. Gardner, C. Wang, S. Yi, A. B. Satish, A. Pakzad, and W. Elhaddad. NHERI-SimCenter/PBE: Version 4.1.0 (v4.1.0), 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Modeling the recovery process: a key dimension of resilience

    B. Cassottana, L. Shen, and L.C. Tang. “Modeling the recovery process: a key dimension of resilience”.Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 190:106528, 2019

    2019

  19. [19]

    Stochastic modeling of recovery from seismic shocks

    I. Iervolino and M. Giorgio. “Stochastic modeling of recovery from seismic shocks”. In12th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP), July 2015

    2015

  20. [20]

    Holistic modelling of loss and recovery for the resilience assessment to seismic sequences

    I. Iervolino and M. Giorgio. “Holistic modelling of loss and recovery for the resilience assessment to seismic sequences”.Findings, July 2022

    2022

  21. [21]

    Reliability and Availability Engineering: Modeling, Analysis, and Applications

    K. S. Trivedi and A. Bobbio.“Reliability and Availability Engineering: Modeling, Analysis, and Applications”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017

    2017

  22. [22]

    A Markov framework for generalized post-event systems recovery modeling: from single to multihazards

    S. L. N. Dhulipala, H. V. Burton, and H. Baroud. “A Markov framework for generalized post-event systems recovery modeling: from single to multihazards”.Structural Safety, 91:102091, 2021. 38

    2021

  23. [23]

    A Markov reward process-based framework for resilience analysis of multistate energy systems under the threat of extreme events

    Z. Zeng, Y. Fang, Q. Zhai, and S. Du. “A Markov reward process-based framework for resilience analysis of multistate energy systems under the threat of extreme events”. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 209:107443, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction

    R. E. Melchers and A. T. Beck.“Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction”. John Wiley & Sons, 2018

    2018

  25. [25]

    Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?

    A. Der Kiureghian and O. Ditlevsen. “Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?”.Structural Safety, 31(2):105–112, 2009

    2009

  26. [26]

    Bruneau, S

    M. Bruneau, S. E. Chang, R. T. Eguchi, G. C. Lee, T. D. O’Rourke, A. M. Reinhorn, M. Shinozuka, K. Tierney, W. A. Wallace, and D. von Winterfeldt. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities.Earthquake Spectra, 19(4):733–752, 2003

    2003

  27. [27]

    G. P. Cimellaro, A. M. Reinhorn, and M. Bruneau. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience.Engineering Structures, 32(11):3639–3649, 2010

    2010

  28. [28]

    Introduction to Probability Models

    S. M. Ross.“Introduction to Probability Models”. Academic Press, Boston, 11th edition, 2014

    2014

  29. [29]

    Broccardo, A

    M. Broccardo, A. Mignan, S. Wiemer, B. Stojadinovic, and D. Giardini. Hierarchical bayesian modeling of fluid-induced seismicity.Geophysical Research Letters, 44(22):11,357–11,367, 2017

    2017

  30. [30]

    Ghosh and J

    J. Ghosh and J. E. Padgett. Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent seismic fragility curves.Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(12):1497–1511, 2010

    2010

  31. [31]

    Wang and B

    C. Wang and B. M. Ayyub. Time-dependent seismic resilience of aging repairable structures considering multiple damage states.Earthquake Engineering and Resilience, 1(1):73–87, 2022

    2022

  32. [32]

    Lin and N

    P. Lin and N. Wang. Stochastic post-disaster functionality recovery of community building portfolios i: Modeling.Structural Safety, 69:96–105, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes

    P. Brémaud.“Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes”. Universitext. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2020

    2020

  34. [34]

    A tutorial on the spectral theory of Markov chains

    E. Seabrook and L. Wiskott. “A tutorial on the spectral theory of Markov chains”.Neural Computation, 35(11):1713–1796, 10 2023

    2023

  35. [35]

    Age- and state-dependent seismic reliability of 39 structures

    I. Iervolino, M. Giorgio, and E. Chioccarelli. “Age- and state-dependent seismic reliability of 39 structures”. In12th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP12), Vancouver, Canada, 2015

    2015

  36. [36]

    Markov chain modeling of seismic damage accumulation

    I. Iervolino, M. Giorgio, and E. Chioccarelli. “Markov chain modeling of seismic damage accumulation”.Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44(7):1015–1032, 2015

    2015

  37. [37]

    Extended and generalized fragility functions

    C. P. Andriotis and K. G. Papakonstantinou. “Extended and generalized fragility functions”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 144(9), 2018

    2018

  38. [38]

    Multi-hazard life-cycle consequence analysis of deteriorating engineering systems

    K. Otárola, L. Iannacone, R. Gentile, and C. Galasso. “Multi-hazard life-cycle consequence analysis of deteriorating engineering systems”.Structural Safety, 111:102515, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    UQ state-dependent framework for seismic fragility assessment of industrial components

    C. Nardin, S. Marelli, O. S. Bursi, B. Sudret, and M. Broccardo. “UQ state-dependent framework for seismic fragility assessment of industrial components”.Reliability Engineering & System Safety, page 111067, 2025

    2025

  40. [40]

    F-RecN + iRe-CoDeS: computational framework for regional recovery simulation using advanced building recovery models

    N. Blagojević, V. Terzić, and B. Stojadinović. “F-RecN + iRe-CoDeS: computational framework for regional recovery simulation using advanced building recovery models”. Engineering Structures, 288:116156, 2023

    2023

  41. [41]

    Kourehpaz and C

    P. Kourehpaz and C. Molina Hutt. TREADS: Tool for Recovery Estimation And Downtime Simulation of buildings, 2022.https://github.com/carlosmolinahutt/treads. Accessed: 2025-07-01

    2022

  42. [42]

    Risk-targeted seismic evaluation of func- tional recovery performance in buildings

    K. Blowes, P. Kourehpaz, and C. Molina Hutt. “Risk-targeted seismic evaluation of func- tional recovery performance in buildings”.Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 52(13):4245–4264, 2023

    2023

  43. [43]

    Estimating downtime from data on residential buildings after the Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes

    M. C. Comerio and H. E. Blecher. “Estimating downtime from data on residential buildings after the Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes”.Earthquake Spectra, 26(4):951–965, 2010

    2010

  44. [44]

    Ditlevsen

    O. Ditlevsen. Generalized second moment reliability index.Journal of Structural Mechanics, 7:435–451, 01 1979

    1979

  45. [45]

    The 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard Model: model overview

    L. Danciu, S. Nandan, C. Reyes, R. Basili, G. Weatherill, C. Beauval, A. Rovida, S. Vilanova, K. Sesetyan, P.Y. Bard, F. Cotton, S. Wiemer, and D. Giardini. “The 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard Model: model overview”, 2021. European Facilities for Earthquake Hazard and Risk (EFEHR). Accessed: August 05, 2025

    2020

  46. [46]

    Experimental performance of 40 a multi-storey braced frame structure with non-structural industrial components subjected to synthetic ground motions

    C. Nardin, O. S. Bursi, F. Paolacci, A. Pavese, and G. Quinci. “Experimental performance of 40 a multi-storey braced frame structure with non-structural industrial components subjected to synthetic ground motions”.Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 51(9):2113–2136, 2022

    2022

  47. [47]

    Seismic Experimental Analyses and Surrogate Models of Multi-Component Systems in Special-Risk Industrial Facilities

    C. Nardin.“Seismic Experimental Analyses and Surrogate Models of Multi-Component Systems in Special-Risk Industrial Facilities”. PhD Thesis, Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento, Italy, 2022

    2022

  48. [48]

    Isolation performance assessment of adaptive behaviour of triple friction pendulum

    F. Weber, J. Distl, and C. Braun. “Isolation performance assessment of adaptive behaviour of triple friction pendulum”.Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 7(1):17–33, 2017

    2017

  49. [49]

    D10.1 - Technical report on SERA Transnational Access activities TA1-TA10 M36

    C. Butenweg, I. Lanese, E. Rizzo Parisi, A. Pavese, F. Paolacci, O.S. Bursi, M. Marinković, M. Ciucci, G. Quinci, and C. Nardin. “D10.1 - Technical report on SERA Transnational Access activities TA1-TA10 M36”, 2020. SERA Project - European Union, Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme. Grant agreement No. 730900

    2020

  50. [50]

    Development of fragility curves and assessment of mass irregular structures with fixed base and base isolated under multiple earthquakes

    P. K. Thippa, R. K. Tripathi, and G. Bhat. “Development of fragility curves and assessment of mass irregular structures with fixed base and base isolated under multiple earthquakes”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 28(15):4453–4493, 2024

    2024

  51. [51]

    Inspection and repair considerations for downtime assessment of seismically isolated buildings

    S. Kitayama, E. A. M. Moncayo, and A. Athanasiou. “Inspection and repair considerations for downtime assessment of seismically isolated buildings”.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2023

    2023

  52. [52]

    Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, 2000.https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/ 2020-07/fema_356.pdf

    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, 2000.https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/ 2020-07/fema_356.pdf

    2000

  53. [53]

    Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16), Chapter 17: Seismically Isolated Structures

    American Society of Civil Engineers.“Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16), Chapter 17: Seismically Isolated Structures”. 2017. ASCE Standard

    2017

  54. [54]

    Using PBEE to assess and improve performance of different structural systems for low-rise steel buildings

    V. Terzic and S. A. Mahin. “Using PBEE to assess and improve performance of different structural systems for low-rise steel buildings”.International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 7(4):532–544, 2017. 41 A - Appendix – CTMC-based modelling: theoretical basis Assuming the Markov property (Hyp 3), the future evolution of the system depends only ...

    2017