A comprehensive database for the specific challenge of cost prediction when undertaking seismic retrofitting of existing buildings is presented. A rigorous data collection effort performed in Iran resulted in the generation of a database of 158 data points, each pertaining to a public school building with a framed structure. The generated database includes the information on the seismic retrofit cost values reflected in construction tender documents, together with the information on 14 variables envisaged to have a degree of influence on this cost. This information for a given building was carefully elicited from the final enacted documents developed through the seismic retrofit study of that particular school. Construction costs include structural costs and the costs of architecture and finishes. The database could be of value to those attempting to determine key variables that influence retrofit cost, or to those comparing retrofit practices and costs in different areas of the world.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BodeJ., 2000. Neural networks for cost estimation: Simulations and pilot application, International Journal of Production Research38, 1231–1254.
Building and Housing Research Centre (BHRC), 1988. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard No. 2800 (1st Edition), Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Tehran, Iran.
4.
Building and Housing Research Centre (BHRC), 2005. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard No. 2800 (3rd revision), Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Tehran, Iran.
5.
California Seismic Safety Commission, 1999. Earthquake Risk Management: Mitigation Success Stories (SSC Report 99-05), Proposition 122: Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program, Product 2.2 Earthquake Risk Management Tools for Decision-Makers, Prepared by EQE International, Inc., for the California Seismic Safety Commission, Oakland, CA.
6.
ElhagT. M. S., and BoussabaineA. H., 1999. Tender price estimation: Neural networks vs. regression analysis, in Proceedings of the RICS Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference (COBRA), University of Salford, Manchester, UK.
7.
EshghiS., and AhariM. N., 2005. Performance of transportation systems in the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake. Earthquake Spectra21, 455–468.
8.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1992. A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Hazardous Buildings, Volume I: A User's Manual (FEMA 227), prepared by the VSP Associates, Inc., for FEMA, Washington, D.C.
9.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1994. Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Volume I: Summary (2nd Edition) (FEMA 156), prepared by the Hart Consultant Group, Inc. for FEMA, Washington, D. C.
10.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1995. Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Volume II: Supporting Documentation (2nd Edition) (FEMA 157), prepared by the Hart Consultant Group, Inc., for FEMA, Washington, D. C.
11.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273), prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC-33 Project) for the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), Washington, D. C.
12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for FEMA, Washington, D. C.
13.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007. Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds: Providing Protection to People and Buildings (FEMA 577), Washington, D. C.
14.
Ghafory-AshtiyaniM., and MousaviR., 2005. History, geography, and economy of Bam, Earthquake Spectra21, 3–11.
15.
GrossiP. A., 1998. Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Earthquake Mitigation (Working Paper 98-11-11), Risk Management and Decisions Processes Center, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
16.
GünaydinH. M., and DoğanS. Z., 2004. A neural network approach for early cost estimation of structural systems of buildings, International Journal of Project Management22, 595–602.
17.
HolzerT. L., and SavageJ. C., 2013. Global earthquake fatalities and population, Earthquake Spectra29, 155–175.
18.
HopkinsD., 2005. The value of earthquake engineering, Journal of the New Zealand Structural Engineering Society (SESOC)18, 40–42.
19.
HopkinsD. C., and StuartG., 2003. Strengthening existing New Zealand buildings for earthquake: An analysis of cost benefit using annual probabilities, in Proceedings of the 2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, NZ.
20.
JafarzadehR., 2012. Seismic Retrofit Cost Modelling of Existing Structures, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.
21.
JafarzadehR., InghamJ. M., WilkinsonS., GonzálezV., and AghakouchakA. A., 2014a. Application of artificial neural network methodology for predicting seismic retrofit construction cost, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 140, 04013062.
22.
JafarzadehR., WilkinsonS., GonzálezV., InghamJ. M., and Ghodrati AmiriG. R., 2014b. Predicting seismic retrofit construction cost for buildings with framed structures using multilinear regression analysis, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management140, 04013062.
23.
JafarzadehR., InghamJ. M., and WilkinsonS., 2013. A database for seismic retrofit construction cost of concrete and steel framed schools in Iran, Network for Earthqauke Engineering Simulation (distributor), Data Set.
24.
JaiswalK., WaldD., and PorterK., 2010. A global building inventory for earthquake loss estimation and risk management, Earthquake Spectra26, 731–748.
25.
MahdizadehA., RaissiM., and BorzouieJ., 2012. Report on retrofit procedure of school buildings in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in Proceedings of the 15th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal.
26.
NewtonS., 1991. An agenda for cost modeling research, Construction Management and Economics9, 97–112.
27.
PelletF., Amini HosseiniK., JafariM. K., ZerfaF. Z., MahdavifarM. R., and BakhshayeshM. K., 2005. Geotechnical performance of Qanats during the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake, Earthquake Spectra21, 137–164.
28.
PotangaroaR., 1985. The Seismic Strengthening of Existing Buildings for Earthquakes, Master of Architecture Thesis, Victoria University, Wellington, NZ.
29.
SaffariH., KuwataY., TakadaS., and MahdavianA., 2012. Updated PGA, PGV, and spectral acceleration attenuation relations for Iran, Earthquake Spectra28, 257–276.
30.
SmithI. C., 1979. Our old buildings can be safe in earthquake, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering12, 289–291.
31.
SmythA. W., AltayG., DeodatisG., ErdikM., FrancoG., GülkanP., KunreutherH., LuH., MeteE., SeeberN., and YüzügüllüÖ., 2004. Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake damage mitigation: Evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey, Earthquake Spectra20, 171–203.
32.
StocktonD., and WangQ., 2004. Developing cost models by advanced modeling technology, in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture218, 213–224.
33.
Technical Criteria Codification & Earthquake Risk Reduction Affairs Bureau, 2007. Instruction for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Code No. 360, Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision, Tehran, Iran.
34.
TobitaT., MiyajimaM., FallahiA., AlaghebandianR., and GhayamghamianM. R., 2007. Seismic intensity estimation through questionnaire survey and collapse rates of various building types in the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake, Earthquake Spectra23, 841–865.
35.
United States Congressional Budget Office, 2007. Potential Cost Savings from the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (Report 09-28-Disaster), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Washington, D.C., available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8653/09-28-Disaster.pdf.
36.
United States Government Accountability Office, 2007. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework (Report GAO-07-403), Government Accountability Office (GAO), Washington, D.C., available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07403.pdf.
Supplementary Material
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.
