Seismic risk mitigation of building structures: The role of risk aversion

Structural Safety

Volumn 40, Issue , 2013, Pages 11-19

  Cha, Eun Jeong ^a   Ellingwood, B R ^a  

^a Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

Buildings; Cumulative prospect theory; Decision modeling; Earthquakes; Structural engineering; Structural reliability

Indexed keywords

ASEISMIC DESIGN; BUILDING STRUCTURE; CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES; CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURES; CUMULATIVE PROSPECT THEORY; DECISION MAKERS; DECISION MODELING; DECISION MODELS; ENGINEERING DECISIONS; EXPECTED COSTS; LIFECYCLE COSTS; RISK AVERSION; RISK MITIGATION; SEISMIC RETROFITS; SEISMIC RISK MITIGATION; STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY; STRUCTURAL SAFETY;

BUILDINGS; COST ACCOUNTING; COST ENGINEERING; DECISION THEORY; EARTHQUAKES; MODELS; RELIABILITY THEORY; SEISMIC DESIGN; STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 84866498788     PISSN: 01674730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Arrow K.J. Essays in the theory of risk-bearing 1971, Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
2. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heurstics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
3. Slovic P. The perception of risk 2000, Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA.
4. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty 1992, 5:297-323.
5. Nathwani J.S., Lind N.C, Pandey M.D. Affordable safety by choice: the Life Quality Method 1997, University of Waterloo Earthscan, IRR, Ontario, Canada.
6. Murphy C., Gardoni P. Gauging the societal impacts of natural disasters using a capabilities-based approach. Disasters 2010, 34:619-636.
7. Cha, E.J. Ellingwood, B.R. Decision-making for civil infrastructure exposed to low-probability, high-consequence hazards: the role of risk-aversion. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering (ICASP), Zurich, Switzerland, August, 2011.
8. Ellingwood B.R., Wen Y.K. Risk-benefit-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America. Prog Struct Engng Mater 2005, 7:56-70.
9. Wen Y.K., Kang Y.J. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria I. Methodology, and II. Applications. J Struct Engrg ASCE 2001, 127:330-346.
10. Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior 1953, Princeton University Press.
11. Viscusi W.K. Fatal tradeoffs: Public and private responsibilities for risk 1992, Oxford University Press, New York.
12. Ang A.H-S., Tang W.H. Probability concepts in engineering planning and design, Volume II Decision, risk and reliability 1984, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
13. Sunstein C.R. Terrorism and Probability Neglect. J Risk Uncertainty 2003, 26:121-136.
14. Lichtenstein S., Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Layman M., Combs B. Judged frequency of lethal events. J Exp Psychol 1978, 4:551-578.
15. Prelec D. The probability weighting function. Econometrica 1998, 66:497-527.
16. Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs 1976, Wiley, New York.
17. Stewart MG, Ellingwood BR, Mueller J. Homeland security: a case study in risk aversion for public decision-making, Int J Risk Assess Manage, 15(5/6): 367-386.
18. Seismic retrofitting alternatives for San Francisco's unreinforced masonry buildings: estimates of construction cost & seismic damage 1990, Rutherford & Chekene, City and County of San Francisco Department of City Planning.
19. ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), On Shaky Ground, San Francisco; 1987.
20. Graymer RW, Bryant W, McCabe CA, Hecker S, Prentice CS. Map of Quaternary-active faults in the San Francisco Bay region. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2919; 2006.
21. Peterson MD, Bryant WA, Cramer CH, Cao T, Reichle MS, Frankel AD, et al. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96 08 (also U.S. Geological Open-File Report 96 706); 1996. Available from: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/ofr9608/Pages/Index.aspx.
22. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Benefit cost analysis reference guide; 2009.
23. Goda K., Hong H.P. Application of cumulative prospect theory: implied seismic design preference. Struct Safety 2008, 30:506-516.
24. Adams J., Halchuk S. Fourth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada: values for over 650 Canadian localities intended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. Open-File 4459 2003, Geological survey of Canada, Ottawa.
25. Goda K., Hong H.P. Optimal seismic design for limited planning time horizon with detailed seismic hazard information. Struct Safety 2006, 28:247-260.
26. Goda K., Hong H.P. Optimal seismic design considering risk attitude, societal tolerable risk level, and life quality criterion. J Struct Engrg 2006, 132:2027-2035.
27. Hong H.P., Hong P. Assessment of ductility demand and reliability of bilinear single-degree-of-freedom systems under earthquake loading. Can J Civ Engng 2007, 34:1606-1615.