International Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00657-1 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Pre-Event Assessment of Seismic Resilience Index for Typical Iranian

Buildings via a Web-Based Tool
Abed Ekhlaspoor1 • Morteza Raissi Dehkordi2 • Mahdi Eghbali3 • Delbaz Samadian4

Received: 30 January 2021 / Revised: 22 June 2021 / Accepted: 17 July 2021

 Iran University of Science and Technology 2021

Abstract
Rapid assessment of the resilience and vulnerability of critical structures and infrastructures is necessary to prepare
stakeholders and decision-makers for risk mitigation during future catastrophic events. The current study developed a web-
based software tool called a Resilience indicator (Ri) that can estimate the seismic resilience index of Iranian structures. Ri
can calculate seismic resilience index and draw functionality, IDA (Incremental Dynamic Analysis), fragility, and vul-
nerability curves. The approach includes rapid evaluation of the resilience index using vulnerability curves as well as
accurate evaluation of structural resilience through uploading the results of nonlinear dynamic analysis to the Ri software.
The current version of the software can be applied by civil engineers, stakeholders, and decision-makers. Meanwhile, the
on-going development of the software aims to expand its capabilities in the area of seismic risk assessment. Compared to
other similar tools, Ri is able to demonstrate the performance of structures right after the occurrence of an earthquake until
the considered control time. Having utilized a strong database of more than 300 existing fragility and vulnerability curves,
Ri will clearly show the vulnerability of structures by which the functionality curve can be attained as well.

Keywords Web-based software  Seismic resilience index  Vulnerability curves  Fragility curves

1 Introduction decision-makers and civil engineers. Researchers must find

effective and feasible methods of assessing the resilience
The extent to which societies can resist future catastrophic and robustness of communities and infrastructures, poten-
events, such as earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes tial losses and the recovery of structures after experiencing
and terrorist attacks, is of great concern to governments, natural and human disasters. To properly plan for disaster
risk management, it can be useful for decision-makers to
quickly assess the risk and probable damage to the com-
& Morteza Raissi Dehkordi
munity and structures. Several studies have developed
mraissi@iust.ac.ir
computer and software applications for risk analysis,
Abed Ekhlaspoor
especially for earthquake loss estimation (ELE).
abed_ekhlaspoor@civileng.iust.ac.ir
The main approaches in earthquake loss estimation
Mahdi Eghbali
(ELE) software are exposure models, hazard analysis,
eghbali@znu.ac.ir
vulnerability analysis, and loss estimation [1]. ELE pro-
Delbaz Samadian
grams can have one or more calculators, such as scenario
delbaz70@semnan.ac.ir
risk (SCN), scenario damage assessment (SDA), proba-
1
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and bilistic event-based risk (PEB), classic probabilistic seis-
Technology, Tehran, Iran mic hazard assessment (PSHA)-based risk (CPB), and the
2
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and benefit–cost ratio (BCR) [2]. The SCN calculator can
Technology, University St., Hengam St., Resalat Square, estimate losses caused by an earthquake scenario, while
P. O. Box. 1676512 163, 16846-13114 Tehran, Iran SDA is capable of estimating the damage distribution for
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, assets. PEB and CPB use probabilistic methods to compute
University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran losses based on PSHA. BCR can demonstrate the efficiency
4
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil and appropriateness of different retrofitting strategies for a
Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

123

collection of buildings. Most ELE softwares, such as
SELENA [3], OpenQuake [4], ELER [5], CAPRA [6],
LNECLOSS [7], EQRM [8], and MAEviz [9], use SCN
and SDA tools.
The OpenQuake Engine uses the calculators described
above to conduct online seismic hazard and risk analysis.
This tool is an open-source program developed by the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
[4]. SELENA (Seismic Loss Estimation Using a Logic
Tree Approach) was developed at NORSAR, the Interna-
tional Centre for Geohazards and the University of Ali-
cante [3]. With SELENA, users can estimate structural
damage to buildings, direct economic losses and casualties
caused by the estimated structural damage. SELENA uses
GIS software to display probable losses graphically. It also
uses SCN, SDA and PEB calculators and the capacity-
spectrum method (HAZUS, ATC-55 [10, 11]) with logic
tree-based weighting of input parameters that allows for the
computation of confidence intervals. EarthQuake Risk
Management (EQRM) is an open-source program having
SCN, SDA and PEB calculators developed by Geoscience
Australia for use with earthquake ground-motion and loss
modeling [8]. The risk analysis framework is based on
HAZUS with modifications for Australian conditions. This
tool is able to connect with earthquake monitoring pro-
grams to provide automatic loss estimates. ELER [5] uses
SCN and SDN calculators to carry out urban seismic
damage analysis for a variety of pipelines and buildings
and provide separate modules for handling intensity-based
and spectrum-based loss assessment. The Laboratorio
Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC) developed LNE-
CLOSS [7] in Portuguese for earthquake loss assessment
associated with a GIS which encompasses modules to
estimate human and economic losses, earthquake scenario
bedrock input, local soil properties and fragility analysis.
LNECLOSS uses the same calculators used by ELER for
loss estimation. MAEviz provides seismic risk assessment
that is commensurate with structural and non-structural
components in buildings, bridges and lifelines using a
built-in library of fragility functions [9]. It also integrates
spatial and visual information to conduct seismic risk
evaluation and analysis.
MAEviz uses SCN and SDN as well as the CPB cal-
culator. KOERILOSS is a scenario-based building loss and
casualty estimation model that estimates earthquake losses
for different cities in Turkey [12–14]. This software utilizes
both deterministic and probabilistic scenario forecasting
methods. The fragility calculation relies on the use of
empirical results or a response-spectrum-based method.
Loss estimation is in accordance with the Istanbul earth-
quake rapid response system. CAPRA (Central American
Probabilistic Risk Assessment), which is currently under
development [6], is developing a region-specific
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
earthquake loss estimation model using a web format using
both SCN and PEB calculators. FEMA-P58 methodology
[14] estimates the consequences of a probable seismic
event for a structure in terms of performance measures,
such as the number of casualties, repair cost, repair time,
and unsafe placards. These consequences then are com-
pared with the desired performance objectives as defined
by stakeholders and decision-makers for acceptable levels
of damage or loss at a given earthquake intensity. The
FEMA-P58 methodology employs PACT (performance
assessment calculation tool).
The concept of resiliency has attracted the attention of
engineers and researchers in recent years. The resilience
index has been discussed in many fields of science [15–19].
In earthquake engineering, in particular, seismic resilience
means the ability of structures and infrastructures to
grapple with the debilitating effects of an earthquake and
their ability to recover as quickly as possible [20–30]. In
addition to structural parameters, economic and social
parameters also affect the evaluation of the resilience
index. Bruneau et al. [31] defined four technical, organi-
zational, social, and economic (TOSE) dimensions and
four properties of redundancy, rapidity, robustness, and
resourcefulness (4 R’s) which should be considered during
the assessment of seismic resilience. The Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER)
suggested that the seismic performance of a structure can
be assessed through a unique decision variable (DV) called
‘‘resilience’’ that considers variables, such as economic
loss, casualties, and recovery time [32]. Given the impor-
tance of seismic resilience, evaluating the resilience level
of communities to allow for proper planning for seismic
risk management is on the agenda of seismic researchers.
Kammouh et al. [33] developed a web application to
compute community resilience based on the PEOPLE
framework. Although PEOPLE provides a useful software
program for urban resilience calculation, it cannot calculate
the seismic resilience index of buildings and vital struc-
tures. A pressing need remains for developing software that
can estimate the site-specific seismic resilience index of
buildings, especially for earthquake-prone areas such as
Iran. In pursuit of this goal, a Resilience indicator (Ri)
software has been developed that uses SCN and SDA
calculators to estimate economic losses caused by a given
earthquake in terms of the replacement-to-repair cost ratio
and draw functionality curves of the structures that con-
siders possible losses. To evaluate the resilience level of
buildings, Ri computes the seismic resilience index without
the need for dynamic analysis using its built-in library of
vulnerability functions. It also can import the results of
dynamic analysis into Ri and calculate the resilience index.
Compared with other similar software such as HAZUS in
which only the loss estimation can be performed, Ri is
International Journal of Civil Engineering
capable of not only calculating economic losses but also
quantifying the seismic resilience index of the designed
structures in line with their level of seismicity. Moreover,
functionality curves provided by Ri will enable users to
monitor the performance of structures right after the
earthquake till the respective control time. Another merit of
Ri compared with HAZUS and other similar software is
that the vulnerability of Iranian structures is adopted uti-
lizing a strong database consisting of more than 300
existing fragility and vulnerability curves from different
seismic codes and studies.
2 Ri Capabilities
Ri has been written in PHP programming language. The
graphic part uses HTML and CSS languages in combina-
tion with PHP. PHP language is independent of its working
environment, is applicable to all computers and operating
systems, and runs easily on Linux, Windows and other
operating systems. In the present project, the programming
has been coded in the LARAVEL PHP framework. All
sections of this software have been produced in both Farsi
and English. Ri currently features the following properties:
• Rapid assessment of seismic resilience without requir-
ing nonlinear analysis;
• Accurate estimation of resilience after performing
incremental dynamic analysis (IDA);
• Ability to draw fragility and vulnerability curves after
importing the results of IDA;
• Consideration of various economic and resilience
parameters;
• Depiction of functionality curves for structures and
infrastructures after a possible earthquake;
• Ability to perform hazard analysis for Iranian structures
according to the national seismic code.
To use Ri software, users should log in to www.elmooz.
ir. The homepage is designed in a simple but practical way
and provides information on site functionality and com-
puting features, as shown in Online Appendix A,
Fig. 1A(a). At the bottom of the first page, a video is
provided through which users can learn how to use Ri.
After clicking Start, the user will be redirected to the Ac-
counts panel login page, as shown in Online Appendix A,
in Fig. 1A(b). On this page, the user can log into the
website with their email address (if not signed up) and
enter the computing environment with the email address
and password they have chosen. After entering the com-
puting environment, the first page shows the format for
seismic resilience calculations, as shown in Online
Appendix A, in Fig. 2A. The menu to the right allows the
user to select the type of calculation by clicking on the item
on the drop-down menu. A button is available at the top left
to change the language of the site.
Figure 1 presents the workflow of resilience assessment.
Ri can estimate the resilience using two methods. When
calculating the resilience in the first method, structural
analysis is not required. Ri is capable of extracting the
resilience and functionality curves after defining the
structural, seismic, and resilience parameters associated
with the given structure or infrastructure. In this method,
users should select the option of calculation using the
existing building models.
In the second method, users must perform IDA before
using Ri and store the results in an Excel file having two
columns, one for the maximum inter-story drift ratio and
one for the pseudo acceleration in the fundamental period
of the structure (Sa(T1); 5%). The outputs of IDA should be
input into Ri and the resilience value can be estimated by
defining the thresholds for the different damage states,
defining the properties of the building, and assigning resi-
lience parameters for the structure. Then, Ri will draw
fragility and vulnerability curves using the results of IDA.
The value of Sa(T1) can be estimated by either Ri or by the
user. If the user intends to compute Sa(T1) using Ri,
eigenvalue analysis should be conducted to specify the
Eigen period of structure (T1) before using Ri. The Ri
software continuously checks the accuracy of the entries in
the input boxes to detect inaccuracies in the calculation of
the indexes and related graphs. When such a warning is
displayed, the software will not allow the user to continue
the process until the warning issue is resolved. At all stages
of calculation, clicking on the Previous button will take the
user back to the previous step to change the input param-
eters. This feature has been embedded to eliminate the need
to perform multiple computation steps. Clicking on the
Submit button will send the user inputs to the server. The
time interval between clicking the submit button and dis-
playing the results may require seconds or minutes,
depending on the volume of computing, number of control
functions performed, speed of the internet and computation
time required by the server. All charts shown can be
downloaded as an Excel file or a chart photo file. Also, on
all charts drawn, the exact coordinates will be displayed at
any point on the chart as denoted with the mouse or touch
device. All of the input and output will be stored by Ri on
the site database. This includes the input data from the user,
all Excel files uploaded by the user and the fragility and
vulnerability curves. These data will be used to improve
and optimize the calculations as well as to validate the
resilience index according to the type of structure and the
location of that structure. To avoid unnecessary traffic
growth, the data of each calculation are stored on the site
servers when the user goes through the final step of
calculation.
123

Fig. 1 Workflow of Ri software to extract resilience index
3 Method 1: Rapid Resilience Analysis Using
Vulnerability Curves
Ri can calculate the seismic resilience index using the
vulnerability curves associated with different structural
systems without requiring nonlinear analysis. In the current
version of Ri, these vulnerability curves are specific to the
properties of Iranian buildings, but the versions under
development will assess seismic codes, such as ASCE-07,
NBC 2015, and Eurocode 8. To estimate the seismic resi-
lience index directly from the vulnerability curves, users
should provide the properties of the structure as well as the
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
seismicity, time, and economic variables (Figs. 2 and
Online Appendix A, Fig. 3A).
The parameters required for the model building type are
the year of construction, hazard level, fundamental period
of the structure, number of stories, and soil type. For
seismicity, the location of the structure in Iran and the level
of damage relating to the reconstruction of the structure
must be defined. The required time and economic variables
are the annual depreciation rate, annual discount rate, delay
time threshold, recovery time threshold, control time, the
time between initial investment, and occurrence of an
extreme event. Generally, Ri will first extract the
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 2 Three steps in the first method of resiliency calculation by Ri
Fig. 3 Extracting damage percent from vulnerability curve
vulnerability curve based on the structural and seismic
information entered by the user. Next, according to the
selected hazard level and the value of Sa(T1), Ri will
determine the level of structural damage from the vulner-
ability curve. In the next step, the information that has been
input about recovery times and economic parameters will
be used to extract the seismic resilience index and plot the
functionality curve. The work plot for resilience evaluation
using Method 1 is summarized below.
3.1 Seismic Hazard Analysis
To determine the spectral acceleration of the fundamental
period of structure (Sa(T1); 5%)), the user is provided with
two options. The first is a fast prediction of Sa(T1; 5%) by
means of Ri based on the Iranian Code of Practice for
Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings (standard 2800)
[34]. The second is the exact computation of Sa(T1; 5%) for
a probability of exceedance (PoE), such as 2% or 10% over
50 years using sources and tools such as the 2014 Earth-
quake Model for the Middle East (EMME14) project [35],
and then importing the value of Sa(T1; 5%) into Ri. Before
using the first method, an eigenvalue analysis to specify T1
is required and will be used to determine Sa(T1; 5%) from
the design spectrum. Standard 2800 does not necessarily
provide a ‘‘10% in 50 years’’ design spectrum. It only
provides the reference peak ground acceleration (PGA)
map on bedrock, which is a key element for the generation
of the design spectrum. Standard 2800 divides Iran into
123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

four seismic zones (very high, high, moderate, and low
seismicity) with reference PGA values for a rock of
A = 0.35, 0.30, 0.25, and 0.20 g, respectively. The site
classification criteria in this standard are based on the
average shear wave velocity in the top 30 m of soil. In this
code, the site classes are rock, very dense soil and soft
rock, stiff soil, and soft soil [sites types I (Vs30 [ 750 m/
s), II (375 m/s \ Vs30 \ 750 m/s), III (175 m/s \
Vs30 \ 375 m/s), and IV (Vs30 \ 175 m/s), respectively].
To assign design spectra standard 2800, it is recommended
that the value of A should be multiplied by B, which rep-
resents the building response to ground motion. The value
of B must be computed by determining the product of B1N
in which B1 is the spectral shape and N is the correction
factor specific to each seismic zone. This is intended to
account for the near-source effects that normally occur in
high and very high seismic zones. The values of B1 and N
can be calculated using Eqs. (1)–(3) for which the quan-
tities of S, S0, T0, and TS can be determined from Table 1.
Ri creates product A.B to identify the design spectra cor-
responding to a 475-year return period and considers this to
be the spectral acceleration of the structure in the funda-
mental period (Sa(T1)).
 
T
B1 ¼ S0 þ ðS  S0 þ 1Þ: 0\T\T0
T0
B1 ¼ S þ 1 T0 \T\TS
 
TS
B1 ¼ ðS þ 1Þ  T [ TS
T
High and very high seismicity zones
N¼1 T\TS
N ¼ ½0:7=ð4  TS Þ :ðT  TS Þ þ 1 TS \T\4:0
N ¼ 1:7 T [ 4:0
Moderate and low seismicity zones
N¼1 T\TS
N ¼ ½0:4=ð4  TS Þ :ðT  TS Þ þ 1 TS \T\4:0 ð3Þ
N ¼ 1:4 T [ 4:0
Ri uses the recommendations of the Iranian Guidelines
for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Structures (Issue
360) [36] to set the design spectrum for a 2% hazard level
over 50 years as being 1.5 times that for the 10% hazard
level over a 50-year elastic design spectrum. The user can
choose either the 2% or 10% risk level because serious
structural damage can occur at these two levels of risk. In
the initial version of Ri, the seismic hazard analysis is
based only on standard 2800. Future versions will be able
to perform seismic hazard analysis based on the Canadian,
ASCE-07, and European regulations for hazard analysis. Ri
provides users with another option for inputting their
estimated value of Sa(T1; 5%) at different PoE values, as
shown in Online Appendix A, in Fig. 4A(b). Since standard
2800 cannot provide a uniform hazard spectrum and cannot
directly extract Sa(T1; 5%) for different PoE values, users
can employ a more exact method than the one provided in
standard 2800 to import their estimated Sa(T1; 5%) to Ri.
For example, the EMME14 project provides a useful tool
for estimating Sa(T1; 5%) at different PoE values for ele-
ven Middle Eastern countries [37–39]. After accessing
EMME14 by clicking on the Help option shown in
Fig. 4A(b), users can extract the value of Sa(T1; 5%) and
ð1Þ then import it into Ri. When the second method of hazard
analysis (user-calculated Sa) is used, the name of the city in
the Seismicity field and the soil type, fundamental period of
the structure, and hazard level in the Properties of the
Structure field will be hidden, as shown in Online
Appendix A, in Fig. 4A(b) and 4A(c). The user should only
enter the value of Damage percent represents the recon-
ð2Þ
struction index of the structure for the Seismicity field, as
shown in Online Appendix A, in Fig. 4A(c).
Only structural damage has been considered when cal-
culating damage in the initial version of Ri. Consequently,
after hazard analysis, the software estimates the value of
Sa(T1; 5%) and uses it for the evaluation of the level of
damage in step 3.2.

Table 1 Parameters for extraction of design spectra in Standard no.

2800 code
Soil type Vs30 (m/s) T0 TS Low and High and very
moderate high
seismicity seismicity
S S0 S S0

I [ 750 0.10 0.40 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00

II 375–750 0.10 0.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00
III 175–375 0.15 0.70 1.75 1.10 1.75 1.10
IV \ 375 0.15 1.00 1.75 1.30 1.75 1.10

Fig. 4 Reduced price of initial investment due to the depreciation rate

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering

3.2 Extraction of Vulnerability Curve and properties of different soil types according to standard
2800.
Vulnerability curves, which can be estimated using Eq. (4), Bsoil type j
provide the cumulative probability of a given percentage of a¼ ð5Þ
Bsoil type i
damage by computing and combining the PoE of each
damage state as follows: Sadeghi et al. [41] developed vulnerability curves for
Iran using a database of fragility and vulnerability curves
X n
Vulnerabilityð%Þ ¼ fP½ds ¼ DS  MDFds g ð4Þ from Iran and other countries via the logic tree method.
ds¼1 First, they collected more than 300 existing fragility and
vulnerability curves from different seismic codes and
where MDFds is the mean damage factor, ds is the damage
studies and then converted the fragility curves to vulnera-
state at a given seismic intensity, and n is the number of
bility curves in accordance with the recommendations of
damage states. HAZUS [40] provides the values of MDFds
HAZUS using Eq. (4). Next, a weight factor was assigned
for all damage states, as presented in Table 2.
to each vulnerability curve based on engineering judgment
Ri software extracts the vulnerability curves for typical
and considering the compatibility criteria of the curve with
Iranian buildings as recommended by Sadeghi et al. [41]
the type of structure. When considering uncertainty in logic
according to the construction year and fundamental period
tree analysis, the vulnerability parameters were estimated
of the building and the total height of the stories. In their
at the 50th (median) and 84th percentiles (median plus one
study, however, the effect of infill panels on the perfor-
standard deviation) of all data. They then developed vul-
mance of a structure was not considered. They classified
nerability curves that provided the median and log standard
typical buildings in Iran as being either engineered, such as
deviation (b) for each type of Iranian building. Sadeghi
steel-braced, steel moment-resistant, and concrete moment-
et al. [41] compared the percentage of damage derived
resistant frames and concrete shear wall structures, or as
from their vulnerability curves with those of empirical and
non-engineered, which includes all types of masonry
observed damage for 14 earthquakes that occurred in Iran
buildings. These classifications are based on the statistical
in the past for a wide range of buildings. Their validation
data collected from all urban and rural areas of Iran. The
shows a good agreement between the losses predicted by
concrete and steel structures also were classified as low-
the vulnerability curves and the real losses from past
rise (1–3 stories), mid-rise (4–7 stories), or high-rise
earthquakes. Online Appendix A presents the vulnerability
(8 ? stories). Masonry buildings were classified as low-
parameters for typical Iranian buildings. Using the values
rise (1–2 stories) or mid-rise (3? stories). Different edi-
of Sa(T1; 5%) from Sect. 3.1 and the vulnerability curve
tions of the Iranian Seismic Code for the design of build-
extracted in this section, the percentage of structural
ings also classify them as ‘‘pre-code’’ for buildings
damage can be estimated and used to calculate the resi-
constructed before 1990, ‘‘moderate code’’ for those con-
lience index as shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that if a
structed from 1990 to 2000, and ‘‘high code’’ for buildings
probable earthquake shakes a given structure with a Sa(T1)
constructed after 2000. Considering the significant effects
value of 1.0 g, its cumulative percentage of damage will be
of site and soil type on the seismic response of structures,
nearly 47%. Previous studies conducted in Iran have
Sadeghi et al. [41] obtained vulnerability curves for soil
defined the percentage of damage and vulnerability of
type I. Parameter a is used in Eq. (5) when converting the
structures during past earthquakes. For example, in the
vulnerability values for soil type i to the curve for soil type
Qayen, Borazjan, Manjil-Rudbar, and Lordegan earth-
j, owing to the linear relationship between soil types.
quakes, vulnerability and percentage of damage were
Online Appendix B presents the values of a for different
introduced as the ratio of the number of collapsed buildings
soil types, categories of Iranian buildings based on the year
to the total number of buildings [42–50].
of construction, structural frame type, number of stories,

Table 2 Probability of damage states and damage factor ranges Adapted from HAZUS-MH MR. 5 [40]
Probability of damage state Damage factor range (%) Mean damage factor (%)

P½ds ¼ Slight ¼ P½ds  Slight  P½ds  Moderate 0–4 [ 2

P½ds ¼ Moderate ¼ P½ds  Moderate  P½ds  Extensive 4–16 10
P½ds ¼ Extensive ¼ P½ds  Extensive  P½ds  Complete 16–84 50
P½ds ¼ Complete ¼ P½ds  Complete 100 100

123

3.3 Loss Estimation
The method proposed by Samadian et al. [51, 52] was used
to calculate economic losses as:
" #
CS Yti
ð1 þ di Þ
LDE;K ðI Þ ¼ :  Damageð%Þ ð6Þ
IS i¼1 ð1 þ ri Þ
where the value of Damage (%) was determined by the
vulnerability curves in Sect. 3.2, Cs and IS are building
repair costs and building replacement costs, respectively, ri
is the annual discount rate for time interval ti between the
initial investment and the extreme event (years), and di is
the annual depreciation rate. In Ri software, after assessing
the percentage of damage, the annual depreciation per-
centage and annual discount rate must be determined by the
user. Users can determine the depreciation rate of buildings
using the straight-line method [53] as shown in Fig. 4, in
which the initial value of the building is assumed to
depreciate annually over its lifespan. For example, assume
that the purchase price of a building, without considering
the portion allocated to land, is $100,000 and that the
building will have a 30-year useful lifespan. The salvage
value is the amount of money paid for a building that is
past its useful lifespan. In this example, this amount is
assumed to be $50,000. The depreciation rate is calculated
as in Eq. (7). The building value will depreciate $3800
each year and will reach $5000 at the end of the 25-year
period. Hence, the depreciation rate will be ($3800/
$100,000) = 3.8%.
ð100; 000$  5000$Þ  ð25 yearsÞ ¼ 3800 ð7Þ
The social discount rate (SDR) is used to estimate the
current value of future costs and benefits and is essential
for budget planning, government projects, and decision-
making. A very high SDR can result in under-investment in
socio-economic activities. A very low SDR may widen the
social sector and cause over-investment in different eco-
nomic activities. Every society has its own SDR, depend-
ing on its economic parameters and economic growth
[54–56]. SDR determines how the present value (PV) will
decline in the coming years. Equation (8) expresses the
discounted PV in which the payment of X dollars in the
middle of year t having an annual discount rate of r will
equal with the amount of PV in the middle of year 0
(present).
 
1
PV ¼ X  ð8Þ
ð1 þ r Þt
For example, payment of $100 in the middle of year 5 at
a 4% discount rate will have a PV of 100 9 1/
1.045 = 100 9 0.822 = $82.20.
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
The maximum damage (Cs/IS = 1) should also be
determined by users. If the structural damage exceeds a
certain damage level, retrofitting will no longer be feasible
or economical. Consequently, the structure should be
reconstructed and the ratio of building repair costs to
replacement costs will equal 1. This level of damage can be
defined by engineering judgment or post-event field
observations. The value of Cs/IS for damage levels below
Cs/IS = 1 will be linearly interpolated (proportionally).
3.4 Functionality Curve and Calculation
of Resilience Index
Cimellaro et al. [57] believed that the functionality of a
structure should be considered to be a non-stationary
stochastic process defined as:
QðtÞ ¼ ½1  LðI;TRE Þ  ½H ðt  tOE Þ  H ðt  ðtOE þ TRE ÞÞ
 fREC ðt;tOE ;TRE Þ
ð9Þ
where tOE is the time of occurrence of event E, I is its
intensity, TRE is the post-event recovery time, L(I, TRE) is
the loss function, fREC is the recovery function and H is the
Heaviside step function. These values are less than one
because the desired full functionality is 100% = 1. The
goal of a resilient system is to restore the reduced func-
tionality of the system to be similar to or better than the
original functionality over the period denoted as the ‘‘re-
covery time’’. When assigning the value of TRE, it is
imperative to take into account the socio-economic aspects
of a society, because TRE is a random variable with high
uncertainty. This means it is difficult to predict the
recovery time for resilience evaluation. Porter et al. [58]
quantified the repair time by making a distinction between
down time (recovery time) and repair time. They consid-
ered damage states with different probability distributions
by combining the repair times for assembly estimation of
recovery duration. In Ri, users should assign the recovery
time according to previous studies and databases on the
recovery process for a given type of building or estimated it
based on engineering judgment. The functionality curve
after loss estimation can be easily calculated using Eq. (9).
The recovery function must be proportionate to the system
and society preparation response. Hence, the recovery
function could be linear, exponential [59], or trigonometric
[60]. Other states can be selected based on the system
properties. The recovery function denotes the treatment of
a damaged structure during the recovery process and can
lead to a higher or lower level of pre-event functionality.
For example, in the Kobe earthquake in 1994, the Port of
Kobe was the sixth largest container port in the world in
terms of cargo throughput. However, after completion of
International Journal of Civil Engineering
the recovery process in 1997, it ranked seventeenth and had
declined to the lower pre-event functionality level [57]. In
summary, different areas in the same community or state
can have different recovery phases due to the complexity of
modeling the recovery process. In Ri, however, only the
linear recovery function has been considered as:
  
t  tOE
fREC ðt; TOE ; TRE Þ ¼ 1  ð10Þ
TRE
Cimellaro et al. [57] defined the seismic resilience index
as the ability of a structure to reach a desired level of
functionality over a specified period of time when sub-
jected to seismic events. The resilience index can be esti-
mated using Eq. (11).
ZþTLC
TOE
QðtÞ
R¼ dt ð11Þ
TLC
TOE
In which R is the resilience index, Q(t) is the function-
ality, and TLC is the control time set to evaluate resilience.
Generally, the seismic resilience index varies from 0 to
100%. While resiliency of 100% indicates the full func-
tionality of a structure after the recovery process, a resi-
lience index of 0.0% refers to those structures which cannot
withstand a given earthquake and should be reconstructed.
Resilience is measured over the time period TLC, which is
usually decided by the owner and decision-makers. For
TLC, decision-makers should take into consideration the
long-term and short-term influences of their decisions
about the structures. For example, in general, seismic los-
ses for vulnerable buildings will increase when longer
control times are considered. On the other hand, when
retrofitting vulnerable buildings, decision-makers should
use a long-term approach because, over a short time period,
retrofitting can hardly be justified because of the low
probability of experiencing a destructive event such as an
earthquake. Retrofitting process will be more cost-effective
when a longer control time is selected because the proba-
bility of an earthquake will strongly increase for a 50-year
period [57]. Figure 5 is a schematic of the functionality
curve. Between the time of earthquake occurrence and the
Fig. 5 Framework for extracting resilience index [51]
beginning of the recovery process, a delay time should be
expected and should be provided in the Ri software by the
user. The level of damage, recovery time, and delay time
are related to each other; thus, a higher level of damage
will result in longer recovery and delay times. Users should
determine the maximum recovery and delay times for the
maximum level of damage as Cs/IS = 1. In other words,
when the level of damage is lower than the maximum
damage represented by Cs/IS = 1, the recovery and delay
times should be interpolated.
The next step of the calculation is to draw the func-
tionality curve. It is assumed that, if the functionality
decreases more than 50%, a building must be evacuated
until the retrofitting is completed. This means that a
building cannot be used before retrofitting is complete and
the functionality curve will be a straight line. The seismic
resilience index can be computed using Eq. (11) through
estimation the area below the functionality curve.
4 Method 2: Resilience Analysis After IDA
Five information boxes should be completed by users to
perform resilience analysis using Method 2 as shown in
Online Appendix A, in Fig. 5A and Fig. 6.
4.1 Uploading IDA Results to Ri
Prior to completing the information required in Ri, the user
must perform IDA in software such as OpenSees [61] and
upload the results of nonlinear analysis to Ri as an Excel
file. The two columns of the file should provide the pseudo
acceleration in the fundamental period of a structure at 5%
damping and the maximum inter-story drift ratio. It is
important that the first row of the Excel file should contain
the names of each column as Sa and D (Fig. 7). The order
of the columns is not important because Ri can identify the
data in the columns. There is no limit to the number of
records used for nonlinear dynamic analysis, and the user is
allowed to enter an unlimited number of IDA charts from
different earthquake records. The size of the uploaded
Excel file should not be more than 100 MB.
4.2 Extracting Fragility and Vulnerability Curves
The results of IDA can be used by Ri software to draw
fragility and vulnerability curves. The coefficient-based
method [62] is used to develop the fragility curves. In this
method, it is assumed that demand parameter D of a
structure is log-normally distributed, meaning that this
variable is associated with normally distributed variable X
by Ln(D). Parameter D can be predicted using a power
model as follows [63, 64]:
123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 6 Three steps in the first method of resiliency calculation by Ri

 
D ¼ aðIMÞb ð12Þ Pf  PðD i C jIMÞ ¼ 1  U
Ln ðCÞ  mx ðIMÞ
ð16Þ
rX
where a and b are unknown regression coefficients
extracted from regression analysis of the demand data After assigning parameters a and b using regression
derived by either IDA or using the proposed coefficient- analysis on the values of Sa and the maximum inter-story
based method in logarithmic form: drift ratio, Ri will obtain the value of mx(IM) and rx as
shown in Eqs. (14) and (15), respectively. To estimate the
X ¼ Ln ðDÞ ¼ Ln ðaÞ þ b Ln ðIMÞ ð13Þ
PoE [Eq. (16)], the user must assign a value for parameter
The mean (mx) and standard deviation of X (rx) are C. This value can be derived from contemporary interna-
estimated as [64]: tional seismic codes or from experimental and analytical
  calculation. For example, HAZUS-MH MR5 [40] proposes
mx ðIMÞ ¼ Ln aðIMÞb ð14Þ a drift threshold for the slight, moderate, extensive, and
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi complete damage states for different structures based on
u n   2
u 1 X di the year of construction, total height, and type of lateral
rX ¼ rLn ðDÞ ¼ t Ln ð15Þ
n  2 i¼1 a IMbi load-resistant system. To estimate the loss function in
Eq. (6), the level of damage (%) should be obtained from
where di is the demand value. For random variable D, the the vulnerability curves using Eq. (4) by combining the
PoE of demand D from a specific threshold or capacity C probabilities for all damage states [40, 65]. In Ri, the
subject to a given IM is:

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 7 Correct form of uploading Excel file in Ri software
values of MDFds in all damage states are those given in
HAZUS, as presented in Table 2.
4.3 Loss and Resilience Estimation
and Extraction of Functionality Curve
After the vulnerability curve has been drawn, the remaining
steps are the same as in Method 1 as presented in Sects. 3.3
and 3.4. In the versions of Ri that are currently under
development, Methods 1 and 2 for extraction of the seismic
resilience index will be applied to all structures worldwide.
If the current methods are to be used for non-Iranian
structures, they should be made proportional to local
conditions in the selected country through the selection of
suitable vulnerability curves from the software database for
given case studies.
5 Software Validation
Given that few studies have evaluated the structural seis-
mic resilience index of Iranian buildings [51, 52, 65–70]
and that resilience index assessment using vulnerability
curves has been reported by Samadian [52], the results of
his study were used for validation of Ri. Therefore, after
gathering the IDA results of his research and his seismic
resilience index, the results of Ri software were compared
with those extracted from the methodology of Samadian
[52]. The structure studied by Samadian [52] was a three-
story reinforced concrete school built in Tehran in 1990
which was retrofitted with concrete shear walls about a
decade later (Fig. 8). The structural and resilience proper-
ties of the existing school are presented in Table 3.
The fundamental period of the school building was
0.495 s (T1) and the total height of the stories was 10 m.
According to Sadeghi et al., the school building was cat-
egorized as C-MRF low-rise at a = 1. The vulnerability
parameters were the median = 1.5 and log standard devi-
ation (b) = 0.8. The threshold recovery time, threshold
delay time, control time, annual depreciation rate, annual
discount rate, and time between initial construction and
extreme event are given in Table 4. These parameters are
input into the Ri software and the outputs were compared
to the results of Samadian [52].
Because the lifespan of more than 75% of Iranian
buildings is less than 30 years [71], Samadian used
20 years for the number of years between initial investment
and earthquake occurrence. Also, the Iranian direct tax law
recommends a depreciation rate of 7% [72]. Abdoli [73]
concluded that the annual social discount rate for Iran
should be considered as 7.02%. For the recovery time,
Samadian employed the information available in the
Development, Renovation, and Equipping of Schools
(DRES) organization of Iran and concluded that, if damage
to a school exceeds 35%, it should be reconstructed within
about 365 days of recovery time. The value of TLC was
selected to be 510 days, which is equal to the maximum
recovery time for the non-retrofitted schools. Online
Appendix A, Fig. 6A shows that the output of the Ri
seismic resilience index (0.8430) from Method 1 was very
close to the values calculated by Samadian (0.817). For
further explanation and the calculation of Ri, the numerical
procedure of extraction of the resilience index using Ri is
presented in Online Appendix C.
For Method 2, after uploading the output of IDA per-
formed by Samadian [52], the vulnerability and fragility
123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 8 Case study reported in Samadian’s research a elevation view, b plan view [52]

Table 3 Structural parameters of the high school [52]

Type of frame Year of construction Number of story Hazard level Location Soil type Fundamental period of structure

Concrete frame structure 1990 3 10%/50 years Tehran II 0.495 (s)

Table 4 Resiliency parameters of the high school [52]

Depreciation Discount Threshold Threshold Threshold Control The year between initial investment Resilience
rate rate damage percent recovery time delay time time and earthquake occurrences index

7% 7.02% 35 365 days 30 days 510 days 20 years 0.817

curves were extracted by Ri software as shown in Online
Appendix A, in Fig. 7A and were compared with the results
of Samadian [52]. It should be noted that the quantities in
in Fig. 7A(d), in Online Appendix A were extracted from
the HAZUS code based on the properties of existing
schools. According to the HAZUS classification, the type
of school studied was C1M (mid-rise concrete moment
frame). Table 6.4b of HAZUS shows that the threshold
drift for the slight, moderate, extensive, and complete
damage states for the C1M type are 0.0042, 0.0072,
0.0194, and 0.0500, respectively. Figures 9 and 10 show
satisfactory agreement between the curves of the current
study and those from Samadian [52]. The seismic resilience
index calculated by Ri software (0.815) was very close to
value of Samadian’s research (0.817) as shown in Online
Appendix A, in Fig. 8A. This confirms the acceptable and
feasible performance of the Ri software when calculating
the seismic resilience index and drawing the curves for
fragility, vulnerability, and functionality of the structures.

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering

(a) (b)

1.0 1
0.9 0.9
0.8
Probability of exccedance
0.8

Probability of exccedance
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Sa (g) Sa (g)

(c) (d)

1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
Probability of exccedance

Probability of exccedance

0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Sa (g) Sa (g)
Ri outputs Samadian’s outputs

Fig. 9 Comparison of fragility curves with Samadian et al. research at four damage states a slight; b moderate; c extensive; d complete damage
states

1 6 Conclusion
0.9
0.8
0.7
Resilience indicator (Ri) software has been designed to
0.6 calculate the seismic resilience index of critical structures
Damage

0.5 and infrastructures. Ri can estimate resilience via two

0.4 methods: (1) Using existing vulnerability curves; (2)
0.3
importing the results of IDA to the software to be used in
0.2
0.1
the evaluation of the seismic resilience index. When
0 employing Ri, comprehensive information about the
0 1 2 3
Sa (g)
4 5 6 structural, seismic, geographical, economic, and resilience
Ri outputs Samadian’s outputs conditions of the selected structures must be entered to
perform vulnerability and resilience analyses. This soft-
Fig. 10 Comparison of vulnerability curve extracted from Ri software ware is open source and can be used on Windows, Linux,
and Samadian’s research
and other operating systems. In the upcoming versions of

123

the software, hazard analysis capabilities using contem-
porary seismic codes, such as those from Eurocode, ASCE-
7, and Canada, will be added. The current version of the
software can be used to rapidly assess the resilience of
critical structures in Iran to assist decision-makers, policy-
makers, and stakeholders when identifying vulnerable
structures and assessing seismic risk mitigation measures.
Supplementary Information The online version contains
supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-
021-00657-1.
Acknowledgements The authors of this study thank all the staffs of
DRES and its managers and officials for their effective, extensive and
impressive efforts between 2003 and 2016 for schools’ safety in three
major parts, including retrofitting, reconstruction and standardization
of schools in Iran. Also, authors would like to appreciate DRES’s
support for providing us with fruitful and constructive information
regarding school buildings in Iran.
Funding There is no funding for this research.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no known
competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1. Daniell JE (2011) Open source procedure for assessment of loss
using global earthquake modelling software (OPAL). Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:1885–1899. https://doi.org/10.5194/
nhess-11-1885-2011
2. Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M et al (2014) Development of the
OpenQuake engine, the global earthquake model’s open-source
software for seismic risk assessment. Nat Hazards 72:1409–1427.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0618-x
3. Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010) SELENA—an open-
source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree
computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36:257–269. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.006
4. Global Earthquake Model. OpenQuake Engine. www.globalqua
kemodel.org/openquake/about. Accessed 2 Sept 2020
5. ELER v3.1. Earthquake loss estimation routine, technical manual
and users guide, Bogazici University, 2010, Department of
Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul. http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/
Haberler/NERIES%20ELER%20V3.1_6_176.depmuh. Accessed
2 Sept 2020
6. Anderson E (2008) Central American Probabilistic Risk Assess-
ment (CAPRA): objectives, applications and potential benefits of
an open access architecture. In: Global Risk Forum, GRF Davos,
Switzerland.
7. Sousa ML, Costa AC, Carvalho A, Coelho E (2014) An auto-
matic seismic scenario loss methodology integrated on a geo-
graphic information system. In: Proceedings of the 13th world
conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
8. Robinson D, Fulford G, Dhu T (2005) EQRM: geoscience Aus-
tralia’s earthquake risk model: technical manual: version 3.0.
Geoscience Australia, Canberra, p 148 (GA Record 2005/01)
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
9. Maeviz, Mid-America Earthquake Center in University of Illi-
nois, http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/software_and_tools/maeviz.html.
Accessed 2 Sept 2020
10. HAZUS-MH (2003) Multi hazard loss estimation methodology:
earthquake model-technical manual. Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency, Washington
11. ATC (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis
procedures, FEMA 440. Applied Technology Council, Redwood
City (ATC-55)
12. Erdik M, Aydinoglu N, Fahjan Y et al (2003) Earthquake risk
assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area. Earthq Eng Eng Vib
2:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857534
13. Erdik M, Fahjan Y, Ozel O et al (2003) Istanbul earthquake rapid
response and the early warning system. Bull Earthq Eng
1:157–163. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024813612271
14. FEMA (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings,
volume I—methodology, FEMA P-58. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington
15. Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Thomalla F (2003) Resilience to natural
hazards: how useful is this concept? Environ Hazards 5:35–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazards.2004.02.001
16. Batabyal A (1998) The concept of resilience: retrospect and
prospect. Environ Dev Econ 3(2):221–262
17. van der Leeuw SE, Aschan-Leygonie C (2005) A long-term
perspective on resilience in socio-natural systems. Micro meso
macro. World Scientific, pp 227–264
18. Waller MA (2001) Resilience in ecosystemic context: evolution
of the concept. Am J Orthopsychiatry 71:290–297. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0002-9432.71.3.290
19. Johnson JL, Wiechelt SA (2004) Introduction to the special issue
on resilience. Subst Use Misuse 39:657–670. https://doi.org/10.
1081/JA-120034010
20. Wildavsky A (1988) Searching for safety. Bull Sci Technol Soc
10:244–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769001000432
21. Holling CS, Schindler DW, Walker BW, Roughgarden J (1995)
Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: an ecological
synthesis. Biodiversity loss. Cambridge University Press,
pp 44–83
22. Home JF, Orr JE (1997) Assessing behaviors that create resilient
organizations. Employ Relat Today 24:29–39. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ert.3910240405
23. Mallak LA (1998) Measuring resilience in health care provider
organizations. Health Manpow Manag 24:148–152. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09552069810215755
24. Dennis M (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural
hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington.
https://doi.org/10.17226/5782
25. Comfort L (1999) Shared risk: complex systems in seismic
response. Pergamom Press
26. Paton D, Smith L, Violanti J (2000) Disaster response: risk,
vulnerability and resilience. Disaster Prev Manag 9:173–180.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560010335068
27. Kendra JM, Wachtendorf T (2003) Elements of resilience after
the world trade center disaster: reconstituting New York City’s
emergency operations centre. Disasters 27:37–53. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-7717.00218
28. Cardona DO (2003) The notions of disaster risk: conceptual
framework for integrated management. In: Technical report,
Inter-American Development Bank, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Istituto de Estudios Ambientales, Manizales.
29. Pelling M (2003) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and
social resilience. Earthscan LLC
30. UNISDR (2005) Hyogo framework for 2005–2015: building the
resilience of nations and communities to disasters. In: Technical
report, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Reduction—extract from the final report of the world conference
on disaster reduction, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.
31. Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT et al (2003) A framework to
quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of com-
munities. Earthq Spectra 19:733–752. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.
1623497
32. Miles SB, Chang SE (2003) Urban disaster recovery: a frame-
work and simulation model. In: Technical report, Multidisci-
plinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER).
33. Kammouh O, Marasco S, Zamani-Noori A, Cimellaro GP (2018)
PEOPLES: indicator-based tool to compute the community
resilience. In: 11th U.S. national conference on earthquake
engineering, June 25–29, 2018, Los Angeles, California.
34. Building, Housing Research Center (BHRC) (2014) Iranian code
of practice for seismic- resistant design of buildings, standard no.
2800. Building Housing Research Center, Tehran
35. http://www.efehr.org/en/Documentation/specific-hazard-models/
middle-east/overview/. Accessed 2 Sept 2020
36. VPSPS (Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision)
(2014) Instruction for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.
No. 360. Office of Deputy for Supervision, Tehran
37. Kohrangi M, Danciu L, Bazzurro P (2018) Comparison between
outcomes of the 2014 Earthquake Hazard Model of the Middle
East (EMME14) and national seismic design codes: the case of
Iran. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 114:348–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.soildyn.2018.07.022
38. Moinfar AA, Naderzadeh A, Nabavi MH (2012) New Iranian
seismic hazard zoning map for new edition of seismic code and
its comparison with neighbor countries. In: 15th WCEE, Lisbon,
Portugal
39. Şeşetyan K, Danciu L, Tümsa MBD et al (2018) The 2014
seismic hazard model of the Middle East: overview and results.
Bull Earthquake Eng 16:3535–3566. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-018-0346-4
40. HAZUS-MH MR.5 (2014) Multi-hazard loss estimation
methodology—earthquake model. Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, DC
41. Sadeghi M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Pakdel-Lahiji N (2015)
Developing seismic vulnerability curves for typical Iranian
buildings. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O J Risk Reliab 229:627–640.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X15596085
42. Earthquake Model of Middle East (EMME) booklet: hazard &
risk assessment, economics & mitigation, October 2013, http://
www.emme-gem.org. Accessed 2 Sept 2020
43. Taleb M, Alizadeh M (1996) Economic loss of 1990’s earthquake
in north of Iran. In: Research, planning and urban design against
earthquake group, project no. 38, Housing Foundation of Islamic
Revolution, Tehran, Iran.
44. Housing Foundation of Islamic Revolution (2013) Reconstruction
organization of Borazjan earthquake report (Borazjan earthquake
on 28 November 2013, M=5.6). Housing Foundation of Islamic
Revolution, Borazjan, Iran
45. Tiv M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Abbasi M (1998) Primary report on
Golestan (Ardabil) earthquake of 1 January 1997 report. Inter-
national Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
(IIEES), Tehran
46. Hosseini-Hashemi B, Hamzelo H, Davodi M (2005) Primary
report on Zaran-Dalahoyeh earthquake of 22 February 2005.
International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
(IIEES), Tehran
47. Hakuno M, Imaizumi T, Kagami H (1997) Reconnaissance report
on the damage due to the Qayen earthquake of May 10, 1997, in
Northeast Iran. J Nat Disaster Sci 19(1):67–81
48. Razani R, Lee KL (1973) The engineering aspects of the Qir
earthquake of 10 April 1972 in Southern Iran. National Academy
of Engineering, Washington, DC
49. Ambraseys N, Moeinfar AK, Chalinko J (1971) Report on
Gharnaveh earthquake on July 30, 1970, vol 2. The Management
and Planning Organization of Iran, Tehran
50. Ghaemaghamian MR, Ahmadzadeh S, Mirzaei N (2009) Estimate
the vulnerability curves for non-engineered buildings in Zarand
area. Sharif J Civ Eng 27(4):13–19
51. Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Naderpour H, Eghbali M
(2019) Seismic resilience evaluation based on vulnerability
curves for existing and retrofitted typical RC school buildings.
Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 127:105844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soil
dyn.2019.105844
52. Samadian D (2017) Evaluation of seismic resilience of RC
buildings in terms of vulnerability curves. Master’s thesis in
structural engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran. https://
doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24850.40643
53. Berg M, Moore G (1989) The choice of depreciation method
under uncertainty. Decis Sci 20:643–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-5915.1989.tb01409.x
54. Zhuang J, Liang Z, Lin T, Guzman FD (2007) Theory and
practice in the choice of social discount rate for cost-benefit
analysis: a survey; ADB economics working paper series. Asian
Development Bank (ADB), Metro Manila
55. London Economic School (LSE) (2018) What are social discount
rate?. http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-
are-social-discount-rates/. Accessed 2 Sept 2020
56. Rambaud SC, Torrecillas MJM (2006) Social discount rate: a
revision. An Estadios Econ Empres 16:75–98
57. Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M (2010) Framework for
analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng Struct
32:3639–3649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008
58. Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS, LeGrue JS (2001) Assembly-based
vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation.
Earthq Spectra 17:291–312. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586176
59. Kafali C, Grigoriu M (2005) Rehabilitation decision analysis. In:
Proceedings of ninth international conference on structural safety
and reliability (ICOSSAR). ISO Press, Netherlands.
60. Chang SE, Shinozuka M (2004) Measuring improvements in the
disaster resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra 20:739–755.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1775796
61. McKenna F, Fenves GL (2016) Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation, version 2.5.0. Pacific Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center, Berkeley
62. Su RKL, Lee CL (2013) Development of seismic fragility curves
for low-rise masonry infilled reinforced concrete buildings by a
coefficient-based method. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 12:319–332.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0174-0
63. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002)
Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management
agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng
128:526–533. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2002)128:4(526)
64. Konstantinidis D, Makris N (2009) Experimental and analytical
studies on the response of freestanding laboratory equipment to
earthquake shaking. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:827–848. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.871
65. Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Naderpour H, Eghbali M
(2016) Evaluation of resilience index using fragility curves.
Kyoto University Disaster Prevention Research Institute Annual
Report, A = Disaster Prevention Research Institute Annuals, vol
60(A), pp 250–267, Kyoto University Disaster Prevention
Research Institute. In: Proceedings of 7th international confer-
ence on integrated disaster riskmanagement. Iran, Isfahan,
pp 1–4, October 2016
66. Motlagh ZS, Dehkordi MR, Eghbali M, Samadian D (2020)
Evaluation of seismic resilience index for typical RC school
123

buildings considering carbonate corrosion effects. Int J Disaster
Risk Reduct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101511
67. Samadian D, Eghbali M, Dehkordi MR, Ghafory-Ashtiany M
(2020) Recovery and reconstruction of schools after M 7.3
Ezgeleh-Sarpole-Zahab earthquake of Nov. 2017; part I: struc-
tural and nonstructural damages after the earthquake. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 139:106305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.
106305
68. Eghbali M, Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Dehkordi MR
(2020) Recovery and reconstruction of schools after M 7.3
Ezgeleh-Sarpole-Zahab earthquake; part II: recovery process and
resiliency calculation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 139:106327. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106327
69. Sardari F, Dehkordi MR, Eghbali M, Samadian D (2020) Prac-
tical seismic retrofit strategy based on reliability and resiliency
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
analysis for typical existing steel school buildings in Iran. Int J
Disaster Risk Reduct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101890
70. Yazdi MHZ, Dehkordi MR, Eghbali M, Amiri GG (2021) Fuzzy-
based seismic risk prioritization of steel school buildings. Nat
Hazards Rev 22:04020044. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.
1527-6996.0000411
71. Statistical Center of Iran (2014) Building inventory statistical
data. http://www.amar.org.ir. Nov 17, 2014
72. Iranian National Tax Administration (INTA) (2002) Table of
depreciation rate, Article 151 of Direct 690 Tax Law. http://www.
intamedia.ir. Accessed 2 Sept 2020
73. Abdoli G (2009) Estimation of social discount rate for Iran. Econ
Res Rev 10(34):135–156