This article presents the current state-of-practice with respect to quantifying the total cost to retrofit an existing building. In particular, we combine quantitative, qualitative, and heuristic data to provide a taxonomy for understanding the direct and indirect costs associated with seismic risk mitigation. Much of the literature to date has focused on estimating structural retrofit costs, the costs of retrofitting the structural elements of a building. In contrast, there is very little research or data on the remaining cost components of the total cost. We propose using structural cost as the foundation for approximating the remaining cost components and the total cost itself. To validate our findings, we compare the proposed approximations with actual cost estimates developed by engineering professionals.
BeckerTCJaselskisEJEl-GafyMDuJ (2012) Industry practices for estimating, controlling, and managing key indirect construction costs at the project level. In: Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World, (eds CaiHKandilAHastakM, et al.) pp. 2469–2478. Reston: ASCE.
2.
BOMA (2018) Office Experience Exchange Reports (EER). Available at: https://eer.boma.org/BOMA (accessed 5 March 2019).
3.
ChrysostomouCKyriakidesNPapanikolaouVKapposADimitrakopoulosEGiouvanidisA (2015) Vulnerability assessment and feasibility analysis of seismic strengthening of school buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13(12): 3809–3840.
4.
ComerioM (1989) Technical Report. Los Angeles, CA: Rent Stabilization Division, City of Los Angeles Community Development Department.
5.
ComerioMC (2006) Estimating downtime in loss modeling. Earthquake Spectra22(2): 349–365.
6.
ComerioMCBlecherHE (2010) Estimating downtime from data on residential buildings after the Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra26(4): 951–965.
CremenGBakerJW (2019) A methodology for evaluating component-level loss predictions of the FEMA P-58 seismic performance assessment procedure. Earthquake Spectra35(1): 193–210.
9.
Del VecchioCDi LudovicoMPampaninSProtaA (2018) Repair costs of existing RC buildings damaged by the L’Aquila earthquake and comparison with FEMA P-58 predictions. Earthquake Spectra34(1): 237–263.
10.
Di LudovicoMProtaAMoroniCManfrediGDolceM (2017a) Reconstruction process of damaged residential buildings outside historical centres after the LAquila earthquake: Part I: Light damage reconstruction. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15(2): 667–692.
11.
Di LudovicoMProtaAMoroniCManfrediGDolceM (2017b) Reconstruction process of damaged residential buildings outside historical centres after the LAquila earthquake: Part II: Heavy damage reconstruction. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15(2): 693–729.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1992a) FEMA 227: A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Vol. 1: A User’s Manual. Washington, DC: FEMA.
14.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1992b) FEMA 228: A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Vol. 2: Supporting Documentation. Washington, DC: FEMA.
15.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1994) FEMA 156: Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Vol. 1: Summary. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2018) FEMA P-58: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Washington, DC: FEMA.
18.
FungJButryDSattarSMcCabeS (2017) A methodology for estimating seismic retrofit costs. NIST TN 1973. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1973 (accessed 5 March 2019).
19.
FungJButryDSattarSMcCabeS (2018a) Cost estimates for the seismic retrofit of federally owned and leased buildings. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference in earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
20.
FungJButryDSattarSMcCabeS (2018b) Estimating structural seismic retrofit costs for federal buildings. NIST TN 1996. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1996 (accessed 5 March 2019).
21.
FungJSattarSButryDMcCabeS (2019) Selecting building characteristics for predicting seismic retrofit costs of a building portfolio. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on natural hazards & infrastructure, Chania, 23–26 June. Athens: National Technical University of Athens.
22.
FungJSattarSButryDMcCabeS (2020) A predictive modeling approach to estimating seismic retrofit costs. Earthquake Spectra36: 579–598.
23.
FungJFHelgesonJF (2017) Defining the resilience dividend: Accounting for co-benefits of resilience planning. NIST TN 1959. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1959 (accessed 5 March 2019).
24.
HollandNLHobsonDJr (1999) Indirect cost categorization and allocation by construction contractors. Journal of Architectural Engineering5(2): 49–56.
25.
HopkinsDCStuartG (2003) Strengthening existing New Zealand buildings for earthquake: An analysis of cost benefit using annual probabilities. In: 2003 Pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13–15 February, pp. 13–15. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
JafarzadehRInghamJWilkinsonSGonzálezVAghakouchakA (2013a) Application of artificial neural network methodology for predicting seismic retrofit construction costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management140(2): 04013044.
28.
JafarzadehRInghamJMWilkinsonS (2014) A seismic retrofit cost database for buildings with a framed structure. Earthquake Spectra30(2): 625–637.
29.
JafarzadehRWilkinsonSGonzalezVInghamJAmiriGG (2013b) Predicting seismic retrofit construction cost for buildings with framed structures using multilinear regression analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management140(3): 04013062.
30.
KapposAJDimitrakopoulosE (2008) Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves. Natural Hazards45(1): 33–54.
31.
LielABDeierleinGG (2013) Cost-benefit evaluation of seismic risk mitigation alternatives for older concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Spectra29(4): 1391–1411.
32.
Mitrani-ReiserJ (2007) An ounce of prevention: Probabilistic loss estimation for performance-based earthquake engineering. PhD Thesis, California Institute of Technology. Available at: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechETD:etd-05282007-233606 (accessed 5 March 2019).
33.
NasrazadaniHMahsuliMTalebiyanHKashaniH (2017) Probabilistic modeling framework for prediction of seismic retrofit cost of buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management143(8): 04017055.
34.
Nurul ZahirahMAbidinNZ (2012) Main elements of soft cost in green buildings. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology72: 992–997.
SmythAWAltayGDeodatisGErdikMFrancoGGulkanPKunreutherHLusHMeteESeeberNYüzügüllüÖ (2004) Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake damage mitigation: Evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey. Earthquake Spectra20(1): 171–203.
37.
ThomasDButryDGilbertSWebbDFungJ (2017) The costs and losses of wildfires: A literature review. NIST SP 1215. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1215 (accessed 5 March 2019).
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
