1. The article presents a framework for assessing the time-variant sustainability of bridges under seismic hazard, considering the effects of deterioration and flood-induced scour.
2. Sustainability is quantified in terms of social, environmental, and economic metrics such as expected downtime and number of fatalities, expected energy waste and carbon dioxide emissions, and expected loss.
3. The methodology involves identifying vulnerable components of the structure to seismic hazard, using an FE model to assess fragility, evaluating outcomes associated with each damage state, and repeating the procedure for each time instant to account for time effects.
The article presents a framework for assessing the time-variant sustainability of bridges under seismic hazard, considering the effects of deterioration and flood-induced scour. The approach accounts for the effects of multiple hazards on seismic fragility and quantifies sustainability in terms of social, environmental, and economic metrics. However, there are some potential biases and missing points of consideration in the article.
One potential bias is that the article focuses only on concrete bridges and does not consider other types of structures. This may limit the applicability of the proposed framework to other types of infrastructure systems. Additionally, while the article acknowledges that fragility curves associated with hazards can be obtained on the basis of numerical analyses due to a lack of adequate field and experimental data, it does not address potential limitations or uncertainties associated with these methods.
The article also presents unsupported claims regarding the effects of corrosion-induced deterioration on seismic vulnerability without providing evidence to support these claims. While there is significant research on this topic, it would have been beneficial for the authors to provide specific examples or references to support their claims.
Furthermore, while the article presents a methodology for assessing sustainability in terms of social, environmental, and economic metrics, it does not address potential trade-offs between these metrics or how they may conflict with each other. For example, reducing carbon dioxide emissions may require increased energy consumption or costs.
Finally, while the article notes that other hazards can be incorporated into the framework, it does not explore potential counterarguments or limitations associated with this approach. For example, incorporating multiple hazards may increase complexity and uncertainty in risk assessments.
Overall, while the proposed framework has potential benefits for assessing time-variant sustainability in infrastructure systems under multiple hazards, there are some biases and missing points of consideration that should be addressed in future research.