Natural Hazards

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 845–868 | Cite as

Methodology and applications for the benefit cost analysis of the seismic risk reduction in building portfolios at broadscale

  • Jairo A. Valcárcel
  • Miguel G. Mora
  • Omar D. Cardona
  • Lluis G. Pujades
  • Alex H. Barbat
  • Gabriel A. Bernal
Original Paper


This article presents a methodology for an estimate of the benefit cost ratio of the seismic risk reduction in buildings portfolio at broadscale, for a world region, allowing comparing the results obtained for the countries belonging to that region. This methodology encompasses (1) the generation of a set of random seismic events and the evaluation of the spectral accelerations at the buildings location; (2) the estimation of the buildings built area, the economic value, as well as the classification in structural typologies; (3) the development of vulnerability curves for each typology; (4) the estimation of the annual average loss of the buildings portfolio in the current conditions as well as in the case of a hypothetical structural intervention. The benefit cost ratio is estimated as the difference between the estimates of the present value of these two annual average losses, divided by the retrofitting costs. This methodology has been applied to the portfolio of public schools of 14 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, for evaluating the feasibility of the seismic risk reduction at a national scale.


Seismic risk Benefit cost analysis Retrofitting of schools 



This work has been partially funded by the Spanish Government and with FEDER funds, through the research projects CoPASRE (CGL2011-29063), CGL2008-00869/BTE, CGL2011-23621, and by the European Commission with FEDER funds, through de research projects SEDUREC CONSOLIDER-CSD2006-00060, INTERREG: POCTEFA 2007-2013/73/08, MOVE-FT7-ENV-2007-1-211590 and DESURBS-FP7-2011-261652.


  1. ATC-13 (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Aven T, Kristinsen V (2005) Perspectives on risk: review and discussion of the basis for establishing a unified and holistic approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 90:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Moreno R (2006) Performance of buildings under earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 21:573–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbat AH, Lagomarsino S, Pujades LG (2007) Vulnerability assessment of dwelling buildings. Assessing and managing earthquake risk. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 261–286Google Scholar
  5. Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Moreno R (2008) Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: application to Barcelona. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:851–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbat AH, Carreño ML, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Cardona OD, Marulanda MC (2010) Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation methods for urban areas. A review with application to a pilot area. Struct Infrastruct Eng 6(12):17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbat AH, Carreño ML, Cardona OD, Marulanda MC (2011) Evaluación holística del riesgo sísmico en zonas urbanas. Revista internacional de métodos numéricos para cálculo y diseño en ingeniería 27(1):3–27Google Scholar
  8. Benito MB, Lindholm C, Camacho E, Climent A, Marroquin G, Molina E, Rojas W, Segura J, Talavera E (2008) A new evaluation of seismic hazard for the Central America Region in the frame of the RESIS II project In: 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Oct 12–17 2008, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  9. Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, Del Re D, Peterken O (2002) Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. J Seismol 6:431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardona OD, Ordaz MG, Reinoso E, Yamin LE, Barbat AH (2010) Comprehensive approach for probabilistic risk assessment (CAPRA): international initiative for disaster risk management effectiveness. 14th European conference on earthquake engineering (14ECEE). 30 August–3 September, 2010, Ohrid, MacedoniaGoogle Scholar
  11. Carreño ML, Cardona OD, Barbat AH (2007a) a) Urban seismic risk evaluation: a holistic approach. Nat Hazards 40:137–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carreño ML, Cardona OD, Barbat AH (2007b) Disaster risk management performance index. Nat Hazards 41:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carreño ML, Cardona OD, Barbat AH (2010) Computational tool for post-earthquake evaluation of damage in buildings. Earthq Spect 26(1):63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carreño ML, Cardona OD, Barbat AH (2012) Holistic evaluation of the seismic urban risk using the fuzzy sets theory. Bull Earthq Eng 10(2):547–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CIRCULAR S- Mediante la cual se dan a conocer a las instituciones de seguros las bases técnicas que se deberán utilizar para el cálculo de la Pérdida Máxima Probable de los seguros de huracán y/u otros riesgos hidrometeorológicos. Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público.-Comisión Nacional de Seguros y FianzasGoogle Scholar
  16. Climent A, Rojas W, Alvarado GE, Benito B (2008) Proyecto Resis II. Evaluación de la amenaza sísmica en Costa Rica. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Norsar. CEPREDENAC. Accessed 6 June 2012
  17. Coca C (2006). Risk management and sustainability in educative sector experience of Bogota, Colombia. Accessed 4 May 2013
  18. Comité AIS-300 (1996) Estudio general de amenaza sísmica de Colombia. Asociación Colombiana de Ingeniería Sísmica. Bogotá, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  19. ECLAC (2003) Handbook for estimating the socio-economic and environmental effects of disasters. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean Accessed 4 May 2013
  20. EERI-IAEE (2012) World housing encyclopedia. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. International Association of Earthquake Engineering. Accessed 4 May 2013
  21. ERN-AL (2009) Evaluación de riesgo específico de Bolivia, Guatemala, Jamaica y Perú. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo Washington, DC, Contrato BID C0009-08Google Scholar
  22. ERN-AL (2010) Seismic risk assessment of schools in the Andean Region in South America and Central America. International Labor Office-ILO/CRISIS. External collaboration contract 40062342/0. Route des Morillons 4 CH 1211 Geneva 22. Suiza. Accessed 4 May 2013
  23. Escobar JJ, Molina E, Marroquín G, Talavera E, Rojas W, Climent A, Camacho-Astigarrabia E, Benito B, Lindholm C (2008) Proyecto resis II. Evaluación de la amenaza sísmica en Honduras. Accessed 6 June 2012
  24. Estevez R, Schubert C (1993) Sismotectónica y prevención sísmica en los Andes venezolanos, Memorias del VIII Seminario Latinoamericano de Ingeniería Sismoresistente. volúmen 1. Mérida. Venezuela 5–8 julio 1993. pp 55–65Google Scholar
  25. Faleiro J, Oller S, Barbat AH (2008) Plastic-damage seismic model for reinforced concrete frames. Comput Struct 86(7–8):581–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. FEMA (1994a). Seismic rehabilitation of federal buildings: a benefit/cost model. volume 2—supporting documentation. (FEMA-256 I) Sept 1994 Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency Under Contract No. EMW-92-6-3976 by VSP Associates, Inc. 455 University Avenue, Suite 340 Sacramento, CA 95825 June 30, 1994Google Scholar
  27. FEMA (1994b) Typical costs for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings (FEMA 156). Second (ed). Earthquake hazards reduction series 39. Issued by FEMA in furtherance of the decade for natural disaster reduction. Earthquake hazards reduction series 39. Issued by FEMA in furtherance of the decade for natural disaster reduction. Accessed 4 May 2013
  28. FEMA (1994c) Typical costs for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Second (ed), vol 2—supporting documentation. (FEMA 157) Accessed 4 May 2013
  29. FEMA/NIBS (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. Earthquake model HAZUS®MH MR4 technical manual. Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Mitigation Division and National Institute of Building Sciences Washington, DC Accessed 4 May 2013
  30. Ferreira MA, Proença JM (2008) Seismic vulnerability assessment of the educational system of Bucharest, The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Oct 12–17, 2008, Beijing, China. Paper ID 09-01-0110Google Scholar
  31. Ferreira MA, Proença JM, Oliveira CS (2008) Vulnerability assessment in educational buildings–inference of earthquake risk. A methodology based on school damage in the July 9, 1998, Faial Earthquake in the Azores, The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Oct 12–17 2008, Beijing, China. Paper 09-01-0014Google Scholar
  32. Gallego M (1999) Estimación del riesgo sísmico en la república de Colombia, Tesis de Maestría, División de Estudios de Posgrado, UNAMGoogle Scholar
  33. GAR (2011) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2011. Revealing risk, redefining development, chapter 5, Investing today for a safer tomorrow. Accessed 5 May 2013
  34. GeoHazards International, Escuela Politécnica Nacional (1995) Invirtiendo en el futuro de Quito. Proyecto de Seguridad Sísmica de las edificaciones escolares de Quito, Ecuador. Accessed 4 May 2013
  35. GFRRD (2009) Guidance notes on safer school. Construction global facility for disaster reduction and recovery. Accessed 4 May 2013
  36. Graf WP, Lee Y (2009) Code-Oriented Damage Assessment for Buildings. Earthq Spect 25(1):17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grant DN, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Calvi GM, Goretti A, Meroni F (2007) A prioritization scheme for seismic intervention in school buildings in Italy. Earthq Spect 23(2):291–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grossi P, kunreuther H (2005) Catastrophe modeling: a new approach to managing risk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NorwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hadjian A (2002) A general framework for risk-consistent seismic design. Earth Eng Struct Dyn 31:601–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hansson SO (2007) Philosophical problems in cost–benefit analysis. Econ Philos 23:163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. IGC (2010). “Formularis per a l’ avaluació de la vulnerabilitat sísmica de edificis essencials”. Informe IGC GS-11/2010Google Scholar
  42. Jaiswal K, Wald D, Porter K (2010) A Global Building Inventory for Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk Management. Earthq Spect 26(3):731–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kappos AJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG (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):33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lantada N, Pujades LG, Barbat AH (2009) Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation. A comparison. Nat Hazards 51:501–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lantada N, Irrizari J, Barbat AH, Goula X, Roca A, Pujades LG (2010) Seismic hazard and risk scenarios for Barcelona. Spain, using the vulnerability index method, Bull Earthq Eng 8:201–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lantada N, Irrizari J, Goula X, Roca A, Pujades LG, Barbat AH (2011) Ground-shaking scenarios and urban risk evaluation of Barcelona using the risk-UE capacity spectrum based method. Bull Earthq Eng 9:441–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Li J, Pollard S, Kendall G, Soane E, Davies G (2009) Optimizing risk reduction: an Expected Utility Approach for marginal risk reduction during regulatory decision making. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94(11):1729–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. López OA, Hernandez JJ, Del Re G, Puig J, Espinosa L (2007) Reducing seismic risk of schools in Venezuela. Earthq Spect 23(4):771–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mata P, Oller S, Barbat AH (2008) Dynamic analysis of beam structures considering geometric and constitutive nonlinearity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:857–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miranda E (1999) Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands on multistory buildings. J Struct Eng 125(4):417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Molina E, Marroquín G, Escobar JJ, Talavera E, Rojas W, Climent A, Camacho-Astigarrabia E, Benito B, Lindhom C (2008) Proyecto resis II evaluación de la Amenaza Sísmica en Centroamérica. Accessed 10 July 2011
  52. Mora MG, Ordaz M, Yamin LE, Cardona OD (2011) Relaciones beneficio costo probabilistas de rehabilitación sísmica, Cuarto Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Sísmica, Granada, Spain, 18–20 de mayo de 2011. Paper ID 60Google Scholar
  53. Ordaz M (2000) Metodología para la Evaluación del Riesgo Sísmico Enfocada a la Gerencia de Seguros por Terremoto. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México DFGoogle Scholar
  54. Ordaz M, Miranda E, Reinoso E, Pérez-Rocha LE (1998a) Seismic loss estimation model for Mexico City. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México DFGoogle Scholar
  55. Ordaz M, Miranda E, Reinoso E, Pérez-Rocha LE (1998b) Seismic loss estimation model for México City. 12 world conference on earthquake engineering. Auckland, New Zealand, 30 Jan–Friday 4 Feb 2000 Paper No. 1902Google Scholar
  56. Ordaz M, Aguilar A, Arboleda J (2007) CRISIS2007. Program for computing seismic hazard. (version 7.2). Instituto de Ingeniería. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  57. Proyectos y Diseños –P&D (2000) Evaluación preliminar de vulnerabilidad sísmica centros educativos distritales. Secretaria De Educación Distrito Capital De Santafé De Bogotá. Bogotá, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruiz-García J Terán-Gilmore A, Zuñiga-Cuevas O (2010) Simplified drift-based fragility assessment of confined masonry buildings. Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering. Compte Rendu de la 9ième Conférence Nationale Américaine et 10ième Conférence Canadienne de Génie Parasismique. July 25–29, 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Paper no. 1240Google Scholar
  59. Secretaría de Educación del Distrito Capital (SED) (2004) REFORZAMIENTO ESTRUCTURAL SED.xls. [Excel workbook]Google Scholar
  60. Smyth AW, Altay G, Deodatis G, Erdick M, Franco G, Gülkan P, Kunreuther H, Luş H, Mete E, Seeber N, Yüzügüllü Ö (2004a) Probabilistic Benefit-Cost Analysis for Earthquake Damage Mitigation: evaluating Measures for Apartment Houses in Turkey. Earthq Spect 20:171–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smyth AW, Deodatis G, Franco G, He Y, Gurvich T (2004b). Evaluating earthquake retrofitting measures for schools: a cost-benefit analysis. School Safety and Security. Keeping Schools Safe in Earthquakes. Proceedings of the ad hoc Experts’ Group Meeting on Earthquake Safety in Schools, Paris, 9–11 February 2004.,3746,en_2649_39263294_34748797_1_1_1_1,00.html Accessed 4 May 2013
  62. Tarque N, Crowley H, Pinho R, Varum (2010) Seismic risk assessment of adobe dwellings in Cusco, Peru, based on mechanical procedures. 14 European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (14ECEE). Ohrid. Macedonia. 30-08; 03-09 2010Google Scholar
  63. Trendafiloski G, Wyss M, Rosset P, Marmureanub G (2009) Constructing City Models to Estimate Losses Due to Earthquakes Worldwide: application to Bucharest, Romania. Earthq Spect 25(3):665–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. UNESCO (2010) Reaching the marginalized. EFA global monitoring report. Education For All 2010. Oxford University Press. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 7, Place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, FranceGoogle Scholar
  65. Vargas YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Hurtado JE (2010) Probabilistic assessment of the global damage in reinforced concrete structures. 14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Ohrid: 30th August–3rd September 2010Google Scholar
  66. Vargas YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Hurtado JE. (2011) Pushover analysis and incremental dynamic analysis. A probabilistic comparison. Proceeding 3rd international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Corfu, Greece, 2011Google Scholar
  67. Vielma JC, Barbat AH, Oller S (2010) Seismic safety of limited ductility buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 8(1):135–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yakut A, Tonguç A, Gülkan P (2008) A comparative seismic performance assessment and rehabilitation of existing school buildings. The 14th World conference on earthquake engineering, Oct 12–17, 2008, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  69. Yamín LE, Phillips CA, Reyes JC, Ruiz DM (2004) Seismic behavior and rehabilitation alternatives for adobe and rammed earth buildings. 13th World conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Aug 1–6, 2004. Paper no. 2942Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jairo A. Valcárcel
    • 1
  • Miguel G. Mora
    • 2
  • Omar D. Cardona
    • 3
  • Lluis G. Pujades
    • 1
  • Alex H. Barbat
    • 2
  • Gabriel A. Bernal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences, Civil Engineering SchoolTechnical University of CataloniaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Structural Mechanics, Civil Engineering SchoolTechnical University of CataloniaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Universidad Nacional de ColombiaManizalesColombia

Personalised recommendations