Earthquake damageability criteria for due diligence investigations

被引:3
|
作者
Thiel, CC [1 ]
机构
[1] Telesis Engineers, Berkeley, CA 94707 USA
来源
STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS | 2002年 / 11卷 / 04期
关键词
D O I
10.1002/tal.197
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Earthquake vulnerability is an important financial issue in evaluating the acceptability of a property as a security for a loan or for an equity position. Such analyses are usually performed as part of the due diligence assessment of the property. Probable loss (PL) and scenario loss (SL), for both design basis and maximum capable earthquakes, were assessed to determine their utility in damageability analyses. Evaluations were made for a range of building damageabilities and for 14 sites throughout the United States that are representative of seismic hazard from very high to low. Portfolios from one to 16 buildings are considered. The analysis indicates that none of the damageability criteria is sufficient to distinguish between good and bad buildings to be securities for loans or to be good risks for equity investment for general use throughout the United States. Scenario upper loss (SUL) and probable loss (PL) values are consistently very stringent criteria for individual buildings in moderate-risk and high-risk regions, while scenario expected loss (SEL) values are too lenient in moderate risk areas. PL and SUL criteria are much too stringent at the 20% threshold level to be used generally, except for a group of well-designed buildings. They can be acceptable if threshold values for acceptance are set to be above 20%. The SEL criterion is evaluated as not adequate to discriminate between good and bad damageability buildings by itself. It can work well in combination with a stability criterion so that buildings with poor predicted earthquake performance are eliminated based on stability, not damageability. It is recommended that combined criteria be used for fiduciary evaluation that includes both an assessment of the stability of the buildings and a damageability assessment to achieve a balanced, consistent evaluation of the suitability of the buildings as securities or as investments. Four alternative acceptance criteria are recommended for due diligence assessments. It is recommended that all due diligence reports include evaluations of scenario and probable losses for each building and the group so that they can enter into the decision process for the property. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:233 / 263
页数:31
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Human due diligence
    Harding, David
    Rouse, Ted
    [J]. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, 2007, 85 (04) : 124 - +
  • [22] Authors' due diligence
    Sun, Yonghe
    [J]. INTERPRETATION-A JOURNAL OF SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION, 2015, 3 (02): : 1M - 3M
  • [23] DUE DILIGENCE AND FOOD HYGIENE
    ASTON, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF HEALTH, 1994, 114 (05): : 263 - 264
  • [24] Due Diligence and Investee Performance
    Cumming, Douglas
    Zambelli, Simona
    [J]. EUROPEAN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 2017, 23 (02) : 211 - 253
  • [25] Affirmative Consent and Due Diligence
    Dougherty, Tom
    [J]. PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 2018, 46 (01) : 90 - 112
  • [26] JUDICIAL APPROACHES TO DUE DILIGENCE
    PARRY, DL
    [J]. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW, 1995, : 695 - 703
  • [27] Due Diligence in Intellectual Property
    Lopez Cegarra, Jesus
    [J]. PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL, 2007, (10): : 153 - 165
  • [28] Scalability and scientific due diligence
    Neil Winterton
    [J]. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2011, 13
  • [29] Scalability and scientific due diligence
    Winterton, Neil
    [J]. CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, 2011, 13 (05) : 643 - 646
  • [30] Due diligence and culpable incompetence
    Emmerson, A
    [J]. ELECTRONICS WORLD, 2000, 106 (1776): : 913 - 913