Evaluation of Strengthening Techniques Using Enhanced Data Envelopment Analysis Models

Part of the Building Pathology and Rehabilitation book series (BUILDING, volume 9)


This research intends to develop a model to support the selection of the best strengthening technique to be adopted in rehabilitation projects. This methodology is particularly useful for project teams that need to select the most suitable strengthening technique among several solutions. The model proposed includes the typical variables that capture the main technical characteristics of the strengthening solution and also economic variables associated to the costs of the intervention. The model proposed is based on Data Envelopment Analysis specified with a directional distance function. It has the ability of calculating an overall performance score for each solution showing it in the best possible light. To demonstrate the advantages of the methodology developed, it were used the results of a study conducted in Portugal. From the empirical application, it was possible to conclude that the best strengthening solution may vary depending on whether the costs of the interventions are or not included in the model.


Strengthening solutions Rehabilitation Decision making Data envelopment analysis Directional distance function 


  1. 1.
    Andeweg MT, Brunoro S, Verhoef LGW, editors. COST C16 improving the quality of existing urban building envelopes: state of the art. Amsterdam: IOS Press BV; 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marini A, Passoni C, Riva P, Negro P, Romano E, Taucer F. Technology options for earthquake resistant, eco-efficient buildings in Europe: research needs. European Commission, Joint Research Centre Scientific and Policy Reports, 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander MG, Beushausen H-D, Dehn F, Moyo P. Concrete repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting III: 3rd International Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting (ICCRRR) Cape Town, South Africa, September 3–5, 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fardis MN. Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of Concrete Buildings: based on EN-Eurocode 8. Springer, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diz S, Costa A, Costa AA. Efficiency of strengthening techniques assessed for existing masonry buildings. Eng Struct. 2015;101:205–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Varum H, Vicente R, Rodrigues H, Silva JAR. Seismic evaluation of old masonry buildings: Performance and strengthening. In: Topping BHV, Montero G, Montenegro R (eds) Proceedings of 8th international conference on computational structures technology, CST2006. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, UK, 2006, p. 12–15.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams RJ, Gardoni P, Bracci JM. Decision analysis for seismic retrofit of structures. Struct Saf Risk Accept Risk Commun. 2009;31(2):188–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Costa AA, Arêde A, Costa A, Oliveira CS. In situ cyclic tests on existing stone masonry walls and strengthening solutions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2011;40(4):449–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vicente R, Rodrigues H, Varum H, Mendes da Silva J. Evaluation of strengthening techniques of traditional masonry buildings: case study of a four-building aggregate. J Perform Constr Facil. 2011;25(3):202–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa AA. Experimental testing of lateral capacity of masonry piers. An application to seismic assessment of AAC masonry buildings. Ph.D. Thesis. European School For Advanced Studies In Reduction Of Seismic Risk, Rose School, Universitá degli Studi di Pavia, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang EH, Lai SH. Cost-effectiveness of bridge seismic retrofit using lead-rubber bearings. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management—bridge maintenance, safety, management, life-cycle performance and cost. Porto; Portugal; 16 July through 19 July, 2006, p. 273–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caterino N, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng. 2009;24(6):432–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res. 1978;2(6):429–44.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horta IM, Camanho AS, Moreira da Costa J. Performance assessment of construction companies: a study of factors promoting financial soundness and innovation in the industry. Int J Prod Econ. 2012;137(1):84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El-Mashaleh M. Decision to bid or not to bid: a data envelopment analysis approach. Can J Civ Eng. 2010;37:37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Castro-Lacouture D, Medaglia A, Skibniewski M. Supply chain optimization tool for purchasing decisions in B2B construction marketplaces. Autom Constr. 2007;16(5):569–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheng E, Li U. Exploring quantitative methods for project location selection. Build Environ. 2004;39(12):1467–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee Y-S. A survey of DEA applications in measuring the efficiency performance of construction organizations. Korea J Constr Eng Manag. 2014;15(5):103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scheel H. Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. Eur J Oper Res. 2001;132(2):400–10.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Golany B, Roll Y. An application procedure for DEA. Omega Int J Manag Sci. 1989;17(3):237–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seiford LM, Zhu J. Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res. 2002;142(1):16–20.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chambers RG, Chung Y, Fare R. Benefit and distance functions. J Econ Theory. 1996;70(2):407–19.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chung YH, Fare R, Grosskopf S. Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag. 1997;51(3):229–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fare R, Grosskopf S, Pasurka CA. Potential gains from trading bad outputs: The case of U.S. electric power plants. Resour Energy Econ. 2014;36:99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering, GOVCOPPUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations