Zhang, H; Xing, F and Liu, J (2011) Rehabilitation decision-making for buildings in the Wenchuan area. Construction Management and Economics, 29(6), pp. 569-578. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The disastrous Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 claimed around 100 000 lives and caused direct economic losses of around RMB 845.1 billion. The tragedy has also led to accusations regarding poor or inadequate seismic resistant capabilities of buildings. Seismic rehabilitation, which includes repairing and strengthening existing or damaged buildings, is required to reduce losses in any future earthquakes. It is difficult to determine an appropriate rehabilitation option, especially for subjective or emotional building owners, because of the rehabilitation costs and the probabilistic nature of earthquake occurrences. A decision-making tree (DMT) model is proposed and constructed to help determine an economically feasible rehabilitation option. The required information, such as available rehabilitation options and costs, possible earthquake intensities and probabilities, possible damage, probabilities and loss of buildings is analysed and identified. Case analyses demonstrate the capability of the DMT model in making decisions on rehabilitation options for the buildings damaged during the Wenchuan earthquake, thus avoiding subjectivities or emotions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; decision-making tree; economic losses; seismic rehabilitation; wenchuan earthquake |
| Index terms: | subjectivity, earthquake, decision-making, Wenchuan earthquake, owner, option, strengthening |
| Subjects: | human factors and perception, decision analysis, sociology, environmental hazards, structural engineering |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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