Seismic vulnerability assessment of construction projects: A multi-criteria approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1776Abstract
In seismic-prone regions, construction projects face elevated vulnerability risks that extend beyond structural design. While technical evaluations are common, few frameworks integrate managerial, human, and logistical dimensions into seismic risk assessment. This study addresses this gap by applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate seismic vulnerability using a structured multi-criteria decision-making model. Key parameters—including human resources, materials, supply logistics, and organizational practices—are weighted through expert input and analysed in three Algerian case studies across various seismic zones. Findings reveal that human and organizational factors significantly influence overall vulnerability. The study offers a replicable framework and highlights opportunities for enhancing decision-making through AI integration.
References
1 Saaty TL (2005). “The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria for Decision-Making” in MCDA, Volume 78 of International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, pages 345–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_9
2 Stepanov A (2024). “Assessment of organizational and technological reliability monolithic works”. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 15(2): 115-122. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijscet.2024.15.02.010
3 Baqerin MH, Shafahi Y and Kashani H (2016). “Application of Weibull analysis to evaluate and forecast schedule performance in repetitive projects”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(2): 04015058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001040
4 Fan SL, Yeh IC and Chi WS (2021). “Improvement in estimating durations for building projects using artificial neural network and sensitivity analysis”. Journal of Construction Engineering Management, 147(7): 04021050. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002036
5 Beltrão LMP and Carvalho MTM (2019). “Prioritizing construction risks using Fuzzy AHP in Brazilian public enterprises”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(2): 05018018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001606
6 Shamma E and Edie M (2024). “Framework of the mediation effect of artificial intelligence usage on the relationship between innovation factors and organisational performance”. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 15(2): 175-188. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijscet.2024.15.02.015
7 Pettersen N (2000). “Évaluation du potentiel humain dans les organisations,Presses de l'Université du Québec”. Edition 1. https://www.puq.ca/catalogue/livres/evaluation-potentiel-humain-dans-les-organisations-26.html
8 RPA (2024). “Algerian Seismic Code: D.T.R.-B.C 2.48”. Régles Parasismique Algérien.
9 Kazaz A, Ulubeyli S and Tunçbilekli NA (2012). “Causes of delays in construction projects in Turkey”. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 18(3): 426-435. https://journals.vilniustech.lt/index.php/JCEM/article/view/4467
10 Vincke P (1989). “L’aide multicritère `a la decision”. Statistiques et mathématiques appliquées. Ellipses, Paris.
11 Roy B (1985). “Méthodologie Multicritère d’Aide a la Décision”. Collection Gestion – SProduction et techniques quantitatives appliquées `a la gestion. Economica, Paris.
12 Scharlig A (1985). “Décider sur plusieurs critères - Panorama de l’aide `a la décision multicritère”. Diriger l’entreprise. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne, 3èmeédition.
13 FEMA (2020). “HAZUS-MH 4.2 Technical Manual”. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/tools-resources/flood-map-products/hazus/user-technical-manuals
14 Cardona OD (2004). “The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: A necessary review and criticism for effective risk management”. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849771924
15 Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Vélez LF and Crowley H (2006). “Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years”. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(3): 75-104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241826044_Development_of_seismic_vulnerability_assessment_methodologies_over_the_past_30_years?utm_source=chatgpt.com
16 Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA and Bommer JJ (2014). “Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East”. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 12(1): 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9493-4
17 Kappos AJ (2007). “Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of urban habitat in Southern European cities”. Urban Habitat Constructions under Catastrophic Events Workshop (COST C26), Prague, 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482271300
18 Fong PSW and Choi SKY (2000). “Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process”. Construction Management and Economics 18: 547-557. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900407356
19 Kumar S, Raut RD and Narkhede BE (2021). “Application of AHP-TOPSIS in evaluating safety performance criteria in earthquake-prone construction zones”. Safety Science, 134: 105061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105061
20 Dikmen I, Birgonul MT, Anac C, Tah JHM and Aouad G (2008). “Learning from risks: A tool for post-project risk assessment”. Automation in Construction, 18(1): 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.04.008
21 Yildiz D and Duzgun HSB (2015). “GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis to assess earthquake vulnerability and risk in urban areas”. Natural Hazards, 78(2): 1443-1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1624-3
22 Hamami A (2003). “Modélisation technico économiqued’une économiqued’une chaine logistique dans une entreprise réseau”. PhD Dissertation, Laval university, Québec, Canada.
23 Saaty TL and Shih HS (2009). “Structures in decision making: On the subjective geometry of hierarchies and networks”. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(3): 867 – 872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.07.021
