PSI - Issue 78

Andrea Nettis et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1412–1419

1419

in the longitudinal direction, which instead may be a stronger driver for the design. Further research is suggested to identify the optimal simplified analysis approach to be included within a non-iterative loss-based design framework. Future efforts may explore alternative functional forms in probabilistic seismic demand models to improve consistency between cloud and multi-stripe methods. Additionally, surrogate modelling for predicting seismic demand, or directly deriving fragility functions, should be investigated. Finally, comparisons between system-level loss assessments and refined component-based approaches would further assess whether the errors introduced by simplified response methods are acceptable for design purposes. Acknowledgements This study was partially supported by FABRE – “Research consortium for the evaluation and monitoring of bridges, viaducts and other structures” (www.consorziofabre.it/en). Any opinion expressed in the paper does not necessarily reflect the view of the funder. References Baker, J.W., 2015. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthquake Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012. Multi- hazard loss estimation methodology technical manuals and user’s manuals for the earthquake advanced engineering building module (AEBM), the earthquake model, the flood model, and the hurricane model. Gentile, R., Calvi, G.M., 2023. Direct loss-based seismic design of reinforced concrete frame and wall structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 52. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3955 Gentile, R., Galasso, C., 2022. Surrogate probabilistic seismic demand modelling of inelastic single-degree-of-freedom systems for efficient earthquake risk applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 51. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3576 Gentile, R., Nettis, A., Raffaele, D., 2020. Effectiveness of the Displacement-Based seismic performance Assessment for continuous RC bridges and proposed extensions. Engineering Structures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110910 Hazus-MH, 2011. Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: Earthquake model Hazus-MH MR5 technical manual - Federal Emergency Management Agency. Jalayer, F., Ebrahimian, H., Miano, A., Manfredi, G., Sezen, H., 2017a. Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 46, 2639 – 2663. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2922 Jalayer, F., Ebrahimian, H., Miano, A., Manfredi, G., Sezen, H., 2017b. Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46, 2639 – 2663. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2922 McKenna, F., 2011. OpenSees: A framework for earthquake engineering simulation. Computing in Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.66 Nettis, A., Di Mucci, V.M., Ruggieri, S., Uva, G., 2025. Seismic fragility and risk assessment of isolated bridges subjected to pre-existing ground displacements. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 194, 109335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109335 Nettis, A., Gentile, R., Raffaele, D., Uva, G., Galasso, C., 2021. Cloud Capacity Spectrum Method: accounting for record-to-record variability in fragility analysis using nonlinear static procedures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106829 Nettis, A., Raffaele, D., Uva, G., 2023. Seismic risk-informed prioritisation of multi-span RC girder bridges considering knowledge-based uncertainty. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01783-y Perdomo, C., Abarca, A., Monteiro, R., 2022. Estimation of Seismic Expected Annual Losses for Multi-Span Continuous RC Bridge Portfolios Using a Component-Level Approach. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 26, 2985 – 3011. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1781710 Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J., 2007. Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy. Rubini, G., Calvi, G.M., Gentile, R., 2025. Direct loss-based seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete frames. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 23, 327 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-02027-3 Şadan, O.B., Petrini, L., Calvi, G.M., 2013. Direct displacement -based seismic assessment procedure for multi-span reinforced concrete bridges with single-column piers. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2257 Smerzini, C., Galasso, C., Iervolino, I., Paolucci, R., 2014. Ground motion record selection based on broadband spectral compatibility. Earthquake Spectra 30, 1427 – 1448. https://doi.org/10.1193/052312EQS197M Suarez, D., Calvi, G.M., Gentile, R., 2024. Direct loss‐based seismic design of low‐rise base‐isolated reinforced concrete bu ildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 53, 4641 – 4669. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4238 Zanini, M.A., Faleschini, F., Pellegrino, C., 2017. Probabilistic seismic risk forecasting of aging bridge networks. Engineering Structures 136, 219 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.029