Proposed Decision-Making Framework for the Risk Management of Publicly Owned Earthquake Prone Buildings
Publication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 34, Issue 5
Abstract
Previously developed seismic risk management frameworks generally aid decision makers in determining a specific retrofit strategy. In contrast, the decision-making framework (DMF) proposed herein is used to assist property portfolio managers to determine whether a particular building should be retrofitted in the first place as part of a more holistic facilities asset management planning process. A DMF was developed to help assist in such portfolio decision-making, which is necessary for governing agencies such as municipalities due to the size and diversity of their portfolios and to the need to have a semiobjective process in place to investigate and manage the seismic risk exposure of their portfolios in an efficient manner. The need for this standard decision-making process stems from growing regulations worldwide imposed on publicly owned facilities for risk reduction as well as the need to more efficiently allocate resources to manage large public service facility portfolios with limited budgets. Input criteria for the proposed DMF include heritage value, Council “appetite,” and financial costs. Based on other peer governing agencies’ seismic regulations and ordinances, these three major input criteria were further broken down into various subcomponents that can be incorporated into the DMF to guide decision makers to the most efficient mitigation option in a consistent and objective fashion. Four mitigation options may be pursued following the logic flow of the DMF: retrofit/strengthen, demolish/rebuild, sell/divest, and do nothing. Policies for “retrofit triggers” used by peer municipalities may also be imposed, and benchmarking was carried out against peer governing agencies in California, Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts. It is recommended that the DMF proposed herein created using criteria deemed essential by its utilizing stakeholders be used for an initial sorting of a large number of properties; then benefit-cost analysis can be used to refine the sorting of buildings to most efficiently allocate resources. An example building in Auckland, New Zealand, was considered in the context of the proposed DMF, and the conclusion drawn for the example was to sell or divest the facility, representing a unique outcome relative to the available outputs of other existing seismic risk reduction programs.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Daniel Gonzalez for the related field survey work he carried out as part of his undergraduate research experience at the University of Notre Dame (USA). The authors also acknowledge Auckland Council for providing the opportunity to investigate its building portfolio and use its internal data resources.
References
Auckland Council. 2019a. “Cultural heritage inventory (CHI).” Accessed November 17, 2019. https://chi.net.nz/home.aspx.
Auckland Council. 2019b. “General property revaluation.” Accessed July 12, 2018. https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuations/our-valuation-of-your-property/Pages/l-property-rev.aspx.
Au, E., W. Lomax, A. Walker, G. Banks, and G. Haverland. 2013. “A discussion on the differences between New Zealand’s philosophy for the seismic design of new buildings and seismic assessment of existing buildings and the issues that arise.” In Proc., New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conf., Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Bonowitz, D., D. McCormick, and P. Somers. 2014. “Alterations and seismic upgrade: The building code as mitigation policy.” Accessed August 8, 2018. https://www.eeri.org/wp-content/uploads/store/Free%20PDF%20Downloads/Alterations_and_Seismic_Upgrade.pdf.
Bostenaru Dan, M. D. 2004. “Multi-criteria decision model for retrofitting existing building.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 4 (4): 485–499. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-4-485-2004.
Bradshaw, A., P. Rajeev, and S. Tesfamariam. 2011. “Multi criteria decision making tool for the selection of seismic retrofitting techniques.” In Proc., Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2011 Conf., 1–8. Barossa Valley, Australia: Australian Earthquake Engineering Society.
Brown, J., K. Walsh, and P. Cummuskey. 2014. “The four R’s—Reduce risk, raise resilience: Local authority priorities and the Auckland perspective on engineering requirements for heritage buildings.” In Proc., 4th Australasian Engineering Heritage Conf. Christchurch, New Zealand: Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand.
Caterino, N., I. Iervolino, G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza. 2006. “Multi-criteria decision making for seismic retrofitting of an underdesigned RC structure.” In Proc., 1st European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 1–10. Geneva: European Seismology Commission.
City of Portland. 2014. Seismic design requirements for existing buildings: Section 24.85 of the Portland City Code. Portland, OR: City of Portland.
City of Seattle. 2014. “Recommendations for an unreinforced masonry policy.” Accessed November 20, 2018. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021936.%20pdf.
FEMA. 1992. A benefitcost model for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 227). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA. 1994. “FEMA 156.” In Typical costs for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Washington, DC.
FEMA. 2009. “FEMA P-774.” Accessed November 17, 2019. www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1728-25045-2959/femap774.pdf.
FEMA. 2011. FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis Re-engineering (BCAR). (FEMA 227), Vol 6.0. Sacramento, CA and Washington, DC: VSP Associates, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Guh, T. J. 2006. “Seismic retrofit of historic building structures.” In Proc., 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1565. San Francisco, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Heritage NZ (Heritage New Zealand). 2018. “The list.” Accessed November 20, 2018. http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list.
Kappos, A. J., and E. G. Dimitrakopoulos. 2008. “Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves.” Nat. Hazards 45 (1): 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9155-9.
MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment). 2004. “Building Act 2004.” Accessed July 18, 2018. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/whole.html#contents.
MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment). 2017a. “EPD methodology—The methodology to identify earthquake-prone buildings.” Accessed July 12, 2018. http://www.eq-assess.org.nz/assets/2017-07/Part_B-Initial_Seismic_Assessment.pdf.
MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment). 2017b. “The seismic assessment of existing buildings.” Accessed July 12, 2018. http://www.eq-assess.org.nz/assets/2017-07/Part_B-Initial_Seismic_Assessment.pdf.
New Zealand Parliament. 2004. Building act. Wellington, New Zealand: Dept. of Building and Housing, Ministry of Economic Development, New Zealand Parliament.
New Zealand Parliament. 2005. “Building (specified systems, change the use, and earthquake-prone buildings) regulations.” Accessed November 17, 2019. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2005/0032/latest/DLM313966.html.
New Zealand Parliament. 2015. “Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.” Accessed November 20, 2018. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5976660.html.
New Zealand Parliament. 2016. “Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016.” Accessed November 17, 2019. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0022/22.0/DLM5616102.html.
NZSEE (New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering). 2017. The seismic assessment of existing buildings. Wellington, New Zealand: NZSEE.
Paxton, B., F. Turner, K. Elwood, and J. Ingham. 2015. “URM bearing wall building seismic risk mitigation on the West Coast of the United States: A review of policies and practices.” Bull. New Zealand Soc. Earthquake Eng. 48 (1): 31–40. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.48.1.31-40.
Usama, D., S. Khan, and D. S. Shah. 2016. “Managing retrofit project.” Int. J. Recent Adv. Eng. Technol. 4 (3): 58–63.
Walsh, K., R. Jafarzadeh, N. Short, and J. Ingham. 2015. “Seismic risk management of a large public facilities portfolio: A New Zealand case study.” Accessed November 16, 2018. www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
©2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 17, 2019
Accepted: Mar 17, 2020
Published online: Jun 23, 2020
Published in print: Oct 1, 2020
Discussion open until: Nov 23, 2020
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.