Guzman de la Cruz, A L (1998) Cost-performance criteria for seismic retrofitting. PhD thesis, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Roco.
Abstract
A methodology to facilitate the decision making process for seismic retrofitting of buildings is presented. To this end, the damage cost to a building is calculated as the sum of direct flows from the capital stock and human capital. Four damage cost functions are considered. These are the replacement or repair cost, loss of contents, human injury and fatality, and economic loss. The damage cost functions are conveniently expressed in terms of a global damage index, D$\rm\sb{m},$ which is a qualitative measure of the building performance after an earthquake. The Park-Ang damage model was incorporated into the SNAP-2D computer program in order to calculate damage indices for reinforced concrete members. Using the weighting scheme proposed by Bracci, the global damage index for the building structure is evaluated. Henceforth, the cost-performance methodology is implemented for reinforced concrete building prototypes in Puerto Rico. Two classes of building prototypes are considered. Class 1 buildings are older buildings that were properly designed for the time of their construction but may not be adequate by the current standards. Class 2 buildings are buildings that are designed using the current building code regulations. In all cases, steel bracing systems are the retrofitting schemes of choice. Results from an Input-Output analysis are used to estimate the economic losses for different classes of occupancies. Other factors explicitly considered are the socio-economic status of building population, business density, reconstruction time, and earthquake recurrence rates. The methodology also allows the designer to generate different cost schedules for different clients simultaneously. As the needs of potential clients may vary considerably, the process will address any specific concerns, whether the client is the owner, the business occupant, the government, or the insurance company.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Aponte, M |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | injury; insurance; reinforced concrete; replacement; standards; building performance; capital stock; decision making; earthquake; government; designer; owner; Puerto Rico; input-output analysis; regulation; client |
| Index terms: | density, reconstruction, human capital, decision-making process, owner, designer, earthquake, insurance, computer program, capital stock, input-output analysis, estimate, Puerto Rico, performance criteria, injury, prototype, building performance, population, decision-making, methodology, reinforced concrete, regulation, building code, repair, replacement, retrofitting |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, environmental hazards, political science, regulatory law, health conditions and diseases, building construction, decision analysis, sociology, demography, Geography, software systems, research methods, maintenance engineering, economics, renovation and retrofit, performance measurement, financial and cost management, analytical methods, economic analysis, data analysis and analytics, building materials, modelling and simulation, materials science, profession |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Governance, Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here