Risk Analysis, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01331.

Decision Making Under Uncertainty—An Example

for Seismic Risk Management

Solomon Tesfamariam,1∗ Rehan Sadiq,1 and Homayoun Najjaran1

Decision-making techniques are used to select the “best” alternatives under multiple and of-
ten conflicting criteria. Multicriteria decision making (MCDM) necessitates to incorporate
uncertainties in the decision-making process. The major thrust of this article is to extend the
framework proposed by Yager(1) for multiple decisionmakers and fuzzy utilities (payoffs).
In addition, the concept of expert credibility factor is introduced. The proposed approach is
demonstrated for an example of seismic risk management using a heuristic hierarchical struc-
ture. A step-by-step formulation of the proposed approach is illustrated using a hypothetical
example and a three-story reinforced concrete building.

KEY WORDS: Evidence theory; fuzzy; multicriteria decision making; OWA; seismic risk management;
uncertainty

1. INTRODUCTION tives Ai (i = 1, 2 , . . . , m) are predefined and the de-

cisionmaker(s) (DMs) evaluate them based on mul-
Risk analysis generally consists of “risk assess-
tiple criteria Cj (j = 1, 2 , . . . , n)(2,5) Therefore, the
ment” and “risk management,” where the former
SRM becomes the process of selecting the most suit-
generally involves objective elements and the latter
able retrofit alternative from a set {A1 , A2 . . . Am }.
involves both objective and subjective elements.(2,3)
A typical MCDM problem with m alternatives and n
Risk management is performed to ensure that risk
criteria can be described by the following equation:
is maintained within an acceptable (regulatory) level
to avoid any serious adverse effect to the public and C1 C2 ··· Cn
environment by selecting the most suitable alterna-
A1 x11 x12 ··· x1n
tive (e.g., least cost, most effective). Paté-Cornell(4)
suggested two strategies in the context of seismic risk A2 x21 x22 ··· x2n , (1)
management (SRM), (i) insurance or loss sharing in .. .. .. .. ..
case of an accident, and/or (ii) reduction/ prevention . . . . .
of the expected loss by implementing mitigation mea- Am xm1 xm2 ··· xmn
sures. In this article, the second strategy will be ex-
plored for SRM. where xij is an exogenous variable, called a perfor-
Risk management is a problem of multicriteria mance (payoff or utility) rating of an alternative Ai
decision making (MCDM), where retrofit alterna- for a given criterion Cj .
Generally, the decision-making process for SRM
is subjected to scarcity of data and lack of knowl-
1 School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, edge that necessitate decision making under un-
Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada.
∗ Address correspondence to Solomon Tesfamariam, 3333 Uni- certainty.(6) Klir and Yuan(7) identify uncertainties
versity Way, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1V 1V7; as fuzziness or vagueness (i.e., lack of definite or
tel: (1)250 807 8185; Solomon.tesfamariam@ubc.ca. sharp distinction), nonspecificity (i.e., if two or more

78 0272-4332/10/0100-0078$22.00/1 
C 2009 Society for Risk Analysis
Decision Making Under Uncertainty
alternatives are left unspecified), and discord or con-
flict (i.e., if there is a disagreement in choosing among
several alternatives). Ambiguity is related to both
nonspecificity and discord. Because of the involve-
ment of human (expert) judgment for the inter-
pretation of data and observations, the uncertain-
ties become an integral part of the decision-making
process.(8−10)
Yager(1) defined decision making under uncer-
tainty (DMUU) as a class of decision problems, when
different manifestations of a variable (x) lead to dif-
ferent payoffs. In these problems, the major issue
is the representation of knowledge about the vari-
able (x). Many uncertainty quantification methods,
including probability theory, possibility theory (fuzzy
sets), and Dempster-Shafer (DS) theory (random
sets), have been suggested for representing knowl-
edge. Any appropriate use of a given uncertainty
formulation in DMUU may lead to the selection of
a suitable alternative using a “valuation function”
V(Ai ). The determination of V(Ai ) depends on the
payoffs of various criteria (xij ) involved and knowl-
edge (pij ) of expert(s) about the state of the vari-
able.(1) The decision-making problem becomes more
complex when multiple experts are involved who
have different levels of credibility about their knowl-
edge of the state or value of the payoffs. In this arti-
cle, we have chosen five cases in the context of SRM,
which are ranked in the increasing order of associ-
ated uncertainties:
Number of Credibility Payoff
Cases DMs (k) of DMs (dk ) Value (xij )
Case 1 1 1 Crisp
Case 2 1 1 Crisp
Case 3 >1 1 Crisp
Case 4 >1 ≤1 Crisp
Case 5 >1 ≤1 Fuzzy
Case 1 can be best handled using probability
(Bayesian) theory, in which the valuation function
or a representative value V(Ai ) is an expected value,
 to select the most suitable repair alternative under
i.e., E(Ai ) = nj=1 xi j pi j ; where pij is a disjoint prob-
ability distinctively known for each xij .(11) For a given
alternative Ai , the basic probability axiom holds,

pi = nj=1 pi j = 1, i.e., the sum of probabilities (also
referred as weights) is unity. The DMUU problem
becomes more involved if these probabilities are
not “disjoint” (nonspecific) (this warrants the use
of belief functions(12) ) or if the utility values xij are
fuzzy.(1) The treatment of uncertainties related to in-
79
complete or partial information of pij (Cases 2–5)
requires the use of DS theory in conjunction with
ordered weighted averaging (OWA).(1) Further, if
belief functions are provided by k DMs, who may
(dis)agree on the assessment, the problem requires
the use of “rule of combinations,” e.g., DS(13−15)
to determine the combined assessment of the be-
lief function. The belief functions require to be dis-
counted before aggregation using the credibility of
DMs. The credibility factor (dk ) can be related to the
experience of a DM and the confidence on his/her
assessment. Cases 2–4 deal with uncertainties asso-
ciated to the state pij . For case 5, the utility value
xij is assumed “fuzzy,” whereas the knowledge about
the state pij is represented by a belief function. These
cases are articulated in such a way that case 1 is a sub-
set of case 2, and case 2 is a subset of case 3, and so
on. Therefore, case 5 becomes the most complex case
that encompasses all previous cases. These concepts
are discussed in detail subsequently.
The remainder of the article is organized as fol-
lows. The basic information about OWA operators
is provided in Section 2. Section 3 provides a discus-
sion on DS theory and associated different rule of
combinations. This section also discusses a method
to determine the credibility factor (dk ) for an assess-
ment of a DM to discount belief function (knowl-
edge about the state pij ). Section 4 provides a back-
ground on fuzzy set theory to deal with vagueness in
Uncertainty Knowledge About Uncertainty
Type in xij the State pij Type in pij
None Disjoint Conflict
None Nonspecific Ambiguity
None Nonspecific Ambiguity
None Nonspecific Ambiguity
Vagueness Nonspecific Ambiguity
the utility value xij . Section 5 provides a hypothetical
example for risk management to explain the above
five cases. Section 6 discusses a case study for SRM
uncertainty using case 5. The final section provides
the summary and conclusions.
2. OWA OPERATOR
2.1. Basic Concepts
Yager(16) introduced a new family of aggre-
gation techniques called the OWA operators to
80 Tesfamariam, Sadiq, and Najjaran

generalize the concept of “and” (minimum) and “or” Table I. Transformation of Linguistic Degree of Optimism
(maximum) logic. The OWA operators are gener- to Orness Values
alized mean operators that encompass the range of Degree of Optimism Orness
“anding” or “oring” and can incorporate the attitude
of a DM in the aggregation process. The OWA oper- Optimistic 0.9
Moderately optimistic 0.7
ator plays important role if available information is
Normative 0.5
not enough to assign disjoint pij to payoffs. Moderately conservative 0.3
An OWA operator of dimension n is a map- Conservative 0.1
ping OWA : R n → R that has an associated weight-
ing vector W = (w1 , w2 , . . . , wn )T . The require-
ments
n to be satisfied are R ∈ [0, 1], w j ∈ [0, 1], and
O’Hagan,(21) which entails the use of or ness and
j=1 w j = 1. For a given vector of payoffs for n cri-
optimizes the Disp function (entropy). These calcu-
teria (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ), the OWA aggregation is per-
lated weights are referred to as maximum entropy
formed as follows:
(ME-) OWA weights. The objective function and as-

n
sociated constraints can be written as:
OWA(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) = w j bj , (2)
j=1

n
Objective function: Max(Disp) = Max − wi ln(wi )
where b j is the jth largest element in the vector i=1
(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ), i.e., b1 ≥ b2 ≥ · · · ≥ bn . The weights 1 
n

w j of OWA are not associated with any particular Subjected to: orness(W) = wi (n − i);
n−1
x j ; rather, these are associated with the ordinal posi- i=1

tion of b j . The linear form of OWA provides a non- 

linear solution.(17) Yager(16) further introduced two
characterizing measures called or ness and “disper-
sion” (Disp) or entropy, which are associated with
the weighting vector W and are computed as:
1 
n
orness(W) = wi (n − i),
n−1
i=1
where orness ∈ [0, 1]
n
Disp(W) = − wi ln(wi ).
i=1
The or ness characterizes the degree to which the
aggregation is like an or (or and). Therefore, when
or ness= 0, the OWA becomes a “minimum” oper-
ator and, conversely, when or ness= 1, the operator
becomes a “maximum” operator. The measure Disp
provides a degree to which the information is dis-
tributed and is bounded by 0 ≤ Disp ≤ ln(n). For
or ness= 0 or 1, the dispersion becomes zero, and
when wi = 1/n (like a uniform distribution), the dis-
persion is maximum, i.e., ln(n).
2.2. Determination of Weights
One of the challenging tasks in OWA technique
is the generation of weights. Since Yager(16) first in-
troduced the OWA operators, various OWA weight
generation methods have been proposed.(18−20) The
procedure adopted in this article was proposed by
n
and w j = 1; 0 ≤ wi ≤ 1.
j=1
The degree of optimism (or ness) of a DM can
be defined linguistically, e.g., “optimistic,” “mod-
erately optimistic,” “normative,” “moderately con-
servative,” and “conservative,” and is associated to
or ness arbitrarily (Table I).
(3a) Assume that for four payoffs x = (x1 , x2 ,
x3 , x4 ) = (0.45, 0.5, 0.8, 0.7), a single value of pij is
assigned. It implies that there is not enough infor-
(3b)
mation that guides how to distribute the pij among
these payoffs and onus is on the DM. Therefore, it
becomes a problem of decision making under igno-
rance. To distribute pij among these payoffs, the DM
defines his/her degree of optimism as “moderately
optimistic” (Table I). To deal with this problem the
OWA technique is used as follows:
(1) Reorder the factors (payoffs)
x = (0.45, 0.5, 0.8, 0.7)
and after sorting in descending order
b = (0.8, 0.7, 0.5, 0.45).
(2) Determine the OWA weights
For “moderately optimistic,” the value of
or ness is taken as 0.7 (Table I). Using ME-
OWA algorithm, the corresponding weights
are calculated as:
W = (w1 , w2 , w3 , w4 ) = (0.46, 0.28, 0.16, 0.1).
Decision Making Under Uncertainty
These weights represent the fraction of pij dis-
tributed among (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) .
(3) Aggregate using Equation (2):
V(A) = OW A(x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 )
= 0.46 × 0.8 + 0.28 × 0.7 + 0.16 × 0.5
+ 0.1 × 0.45 = 0.69.
Therefore, based on DM’s attitude “mod-
erately optimistic,” the representative value
function is 0.69.
3. DS THEORY
Evidential reasoning or DS theory is named af-
ter Dempster(22) and Shafer,(13) which, in certain con-
texts, provides a generalization for Bayesian theory.
The DS theory is suited to handle nonspecific, con-
flicting, and ambiguous information. The DS theory
combines the rigor of probability theory with the
flexibility of rule-based systems.
3.1. Basic Concepts
Let x = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } be a mutually exclusive
and exhaustive set of payoffs (for n criteria), which is
called “frame of discernment.” The power set c has
a total of 2|x| subsets in the domain, where |x| is the
cardinality of the “frame of discernment.” For exam-
ple, |x| = n = 3, the power set c contains eight subsets
Xl (l = 1, 2 , . . . , 8), i.e.,
c = {φ, {x1 }, {x2 }, {x3 }, {x1 , x2 }, {x2 , x3 }, {x1 , x3 },
{x1 , x2 , x3 }}.
Three important concepts in DS theory are
“basic probability assignment (bpa),” “belief,” and
“plausibility.” The “basic probability assignment”
(p) expresses the proportion of all available rele-
vant evidence that supports the claim that a particu-
lar element of power set c belongs to the (sub)set Xl
but to no particular subset of Xl .(23) For a given evi-
dence, every subset Xl for which p(Xl ) = 0 is called a
“focal element,” where p(Xl ) → [0, 1]; p(φ) = 0 and
 where K = Xp∩Xq=φ p1 (Xp ) p2 (Xq ) is the degree of
Xl⊆X p(Xl ) = 1.
The lower bound, belief (bel), for a set Xl is de-
fined as the sum of all the “basic probability assign-
ments” of the proper subsets Xr of the set of interest
Xl , i.e., Xr ⊆ Xl . The general relation between bpa
and belief can be written as:
 tion is both “commutative” (i.e., p ⊕ q = p ⊕ q) and
bel(Xl ) = p(Xr ), (4a)
Xr ⊆Xl
81
where it can be shown that:
bel(φ) = 0; bel(x) = 1. (4b)
The upper bound, “plausibility,” is the summa-
tion of “basic probability assignment” of the sets Xr
that intersect with the set of interest Xl , i.e., Xr ∩ Xl
= φ, and therefore it can be written as:

pl(Xl ) = p(Xr ). (5)
Xr ∩Xl=φ
The belief interval is an interval representing
range [plausibility – belief ], where “true” probabil-
ity may lie. A narrow belief interval represents more
precise probabilities. It can be shown that the prob-
ability is determined uniquely if bel(Xl ) = pl(Xl );
therefore, probability theory is applicable only where
all probabilities are unique and disjoint.(14) The be-
lief interval of “one” implies that no information is
available for Xl and “zero” implies that it has been
completely confirmed by p(Xl ).
3.2. DS Rule of Combination
If the decision-making process requires informa-
tion from multiple sources, i.e., more than one DM
(i.e., k > 1) provides the assessment of pij , the ag-
gregation (fusion) of evidence is required to esti-
mate valuation function V(Ai ). The DS rule of com-
bination strictly emphasizes the agreement among
multiple sources and ignores all conflicting evidence
through “normalization.” A strict “conjunctive logic”
through an AND-type operator (product) is em-
ployed in the aggregation of evidence. The DS theory
also assumes that the sources of information are in-
dependent. The DS rule of combination determines
the joint pDS (Xl ) from the aggregation of basic prob-
ability assignments p1 (Xp ) and p2 (Xq ) as follows:

p1 (Xp ) p2 (Xq )
Xp∩Xq=Xl
pDS (Xl ) = ; (6)
1−K
when Xl =  φ and pDS (φ)= 0,

conflict between two sources of evidence. The de-
nominator (1 − K) is a normalization factor, which
normalizes the effect of conflicting evidence on ag-
gregation. The DS rule of combination has inter-
esting characteristics, e.g., the DS rule of combina-
“associative” (i.e., s ⊕ ( p ⊕ q) = s ⊕ ( p ⊕ q), but not
“idempotent” (i.e., p ⊕ p = p).
82
3.3. Extensions of DS Rule of Combination
Zadeh(24) has highlighted the shortcoming of
handling the conflict and normalization of DS rule of
combination. To address these issues, various mod-
ifications of the DS rule of combination have been
reported. The most common extensions on the DS
rule of combination include Yager,(17) Smets,(25) Ina-
gaki,(26) Dubois and Prade,(15) Zhang,(27) Murphy,(28)
and more recently by Smarandache and Dezert.(29)
Sentz and Ferson(12) provided a comprehensive but
nonexhaustive review of these extensions. The ma-
jor differences among various rules of combination
are handling of the conflicting mass and the closed
world (exhaustive) assumption of power set (e.g., tra-
ditional DS is closed over union, whereas the trans-
ferable belief model of Smets(25) uses open world as-
sumption, i.e., “frame of discernment” is assumed
nonexhaustive). A detailed discussion on this topic
can be found in Dezert and Smarandache.(29) In this
article, two modified rules, Yager and Dubois and
Prade (DP), are discussed.
3.3.1. Yager (Yg) Rule of Combination
The rule of combination proposed by Yager(14)
is similar to DS rule of combination, except that joint
evidence is not normalized with nonconflicting evi-
dence. Thus,

pYg (Xl ) = p1 (Xp ) p2 (Xq ). (7)
Xp∩Xq=Xl
The total conflicting evidence (K) is shifted to ig-
norance (x) and pYg (x) is given by:
 of discernment:
pYg (x) = p1 (Xp ) p2 (Xq ). (8)
Xp∩Xq=x
Xp∩Xq=φ
Sentz and Ferson(12) describe this rule as an
“epistemologically honest” interpretation of a body
of evidence, which does not change joint evidence
through the normalization process by nonconflicting
evidence. The Yager rule of combination is commu-
tative, but not idempotent and associative.
3.3.2. Dubois and Prade (DP) Rule of Combination
Dubois and Prade(15) proposed a change in the
DS rule of combination using disjunctive consensus.
Therefore, in the DP rule of combination, the mass
is assigned to disjunction to avoid normalization. It
is noted that this method may yield more nonspecific
Tesfamariam, Sadiq, and Najjaran
results than the DS rule of combination, but provides
more specific results than the Yager rule of combina-
tion that translates the specificity of a case, e.g., from
{x1 , x2 } into ignorance x = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }. The DP
rule is described as:

pDP (Xl ) = p1 (Xp ) p2 (Xq )
Xp∩Xq=Xl
Xp∩Xq=φ

+ p1 (Xp ) p2 (Xq ). (9)
Xp∪Xq=Xl
Xp∩Xq=φ
The DP rule is commutative and associative but
not idempotent.
3.4. Discounted Evidence
The formulation described above assumes im-
plicitly that all sources of information are equally
credible. The bodies of evidence obtained from dif-
ferent sources (i.e., k DMs) need to be discounted
using a credibility factor (dk ) as:

p(Xl )dk = p(Xl ) · dk
. (10)
p(x)dk = p(x) · dk + (1 − dk)
The credibility factor (dk ) is constrained by 0 ≤
dk ≤ 1, where zero represents the “fully incredible
evidence,” and one represents “fully credible evi-
dence.”
Yager(1) also discussed the discounting issue
in detail and suggested a credibility transformation
function. This approach discounts the evidence us-
ing dk , but distributes the remaining evidence (1 −
dk ) equally among the other elements of the frame
1 − dk
p(Xl )dk = p(Xl ) • dk + , (11)
g
where g is the number of the focal elements in the
frame of discernment. The formulation provided in
Equation (10) is used for discounting of evidence.
The assessment of pij for a single DM does not
require discounting. However, for multiple DMs, the
assessment of pij needs to be discounted using a cred-
ibility factor (dk ) (i.e., an expert’s weight). Kiremid-
jian(30) proposed a technique to determine dk based
on DM’s experience qk ∈ [0, 10], and his/her confi-
dence fk ∈ [0, 1] in the assessment. In this study, the
formulation is modified using a normalization factor
K β
Maxk=1 ( fkqk ). The normalization factor is derived
such that the expert’s weight for the most credible
DM is 1 and for remaining DMs dk ≤ 1. Therefore,
Decision Making Under Uncertainty 83

Table II. Derivation of Credibility Factor (dk ) for β = 1 uncertainties can effectively be handled using fuzzy
β
set theory.(31)
k qk fk fkqk dk

1 6 0.6 3.6 0.56 4.1. Basics

2 8 0.8 6.4∗ 1.00
3 9 0.5 4.5 0.70 A fuzzy set is an extension of the classical set the-
4 3 0.8 2.4 0.38 ory (where x is either a member of set A or not) in
5 4 0.4 1.6 0.25 that an x can be a member of set A with a certain
∗ Normalization
membership function μx ∈ [0, 1]. Fuzzy sets qual-
factor.
ify as fuzzy numbers, if they are normal, convex,
1.0
and bounded.(7) Different shapes of fuzzy numbers
DM 1
are possible (e.g., bell, triangular, trapezoidal, Gaus-
0.8 DM 2 sian). To simplify the implementation, in this article,
Expert weight, w

DM 3 triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) are used. A trian-

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
β = 0.1 β = 0.5 β=1
Parameter modification factor, β
Fig. 1. Credibility factor (dk ) as a function of β.
for K number of experts, the credibility factor (dk )
can be computed as:
fkqk
dk =
K
Maxk=1 fkqk
where β is a modification factor used to ensure
proper weighting of experts.
Assume that K (=5) DMs are solicited for their
assessment of pij . Further, assume that the experi-
ence qk, and confidence fk levels of the DMs are also
known (Table II). Thus, using Equation (12) for β =
1, the corresponding expert weights are computed as
0.56, 1, 0.7, 0.38, and 0.25 (Table II). For the same qk
and fk values, a sensitivity analysis for β is performed
(Fig. 1). The results show that the selection of higher
β values lead to the dominance of the assessment of
DMs with higher qk and fk values.
DM 4
gular fuzzy number is represented by three points
DM 5
(a, b, c) on the universe of discourse, representing the
“minimum,” “most likely,” and “maximum value,”
respectively.
One important feature of fuzzy numbers (sets) is
the concept of α-cut. The α-cut of a fuzzy set is a crisp
β=5 β =10
set Aα that contains all the elements of the univer-
sal set X whose membership grades in A are greater
than or equal to the specified value of an α, i.e.,
Aα = {x | μx ≥ α}.(7) Fuzzy operations are carried out
on the fuzzy numbers using fuzzy arithmetic. Fuzzy
arithmetic is based on two properties of fuzzy num-
bers: (1) each fuzzy number can fully and uniquely
β
be represented by its α-cut and (2) α-cuts of each
fuzzy number are closed intervals of real numbers for
 , (12)
β all α ∈ (0, 1]. Hence, once the interval number is ob-
tained, a well-established operation of interval analy-
sis can be used.(32) Some commonly used fuzzy arith-
metic operations are listed in Table III.
4.2. Defuzzification
Defuzzification is an important step to order
fuzzy numbers using a representative crisp value.
Many defuzzification techniques are available;(33)
Table III. Common Fuzzy Arithmetical Operations Using Two
Triangular Fuzzy Numbers
∗
Operators Formulae Results

Summation A+B [a1 + b1 , a2 + b2 , a3 + b3 ]

4. FUZZY UTILITIES Subtraction A–B [a1 – b3 , a2 − b2 , a3 – b1 ]
Multiplication A×B [a1 × b1 , a2 × b2 , a3 × b3 ]
The discussion in Section 3 focused on uncertain- Division A/B [a1 /b3 , a2 /b2 , a3 /b1 ]
ties related to state pij . The payoff values xij are gen- Scalar product Q·B [Q × b1 , Q × b2 , Q × b3 ]
erally assumed crisp (deterministic), which implies ∗
A = [a1 , a2 , a3 ]; B = [b1 , b2 , b3 ].
that the DM has a good knowledge of the payoff. a1 < a2 < a3 ; b1 < b2 < b3 ; ai and bi (i = 1 to 3) > 0; n > 0; Q > 0.
However, in many cases, the payoffs xij are either Note: The values of A and B are positive, if negative numbers are
elicited linguistically or vaguely known. This type of used, the corresponding min and max values have to be selected.
84 Tesfamariam, Sadiq, and Najjaran

however, the common defuzzification methods in- Table IV. Payoff (xij ) for Two Alternatives and Corresponding
clude center of area, first of maximums, last of Four Criteria
maximums, and middle of maximums. Different de- xij C1 C2 C3 C4
fuzzification techniques extract different levels of
information, and consequently are prone to rank A1 0.90 0.40 0.50 0.35
reversal.(34) In this article, generalized mean and A2 0.45 0.50 0.80 0.70
standard deviation are used to determine the rank
fuzzy numbers.(33) The definitions of generalized
mean and standard deviation are as follows:
5. RISK MANAGEMENT UNDER
 b UNCERTAINTY
xμx (x) dx In this section, a hypothetical example for a risk
x̄ = a b
(13) management decision-making problem is provided,
μx (x) dx where two alternatives Ai (i = 1, 2) are being eval-
a
uated based on four criteria Cj (j = 1, 2, 3, 4). For
each alternative and corresponding criterion, payoff
values xij are provided in Table IV. Assume that
⎡ b ⎤1/2 through DM’s knowledge elicitation, bpa values and
⎢ a x 2 μx (x) dx ⎥ credibility of DMs are as provided in Table V. In the
σ =⎢
⎣  b
− [x̄]2 ⎥
⎦ , (14) following five subsections (Sections 5.1–5.5), a step-
μx (x) dx by-step approach is provided to solve these prob-
a lems.

where a and b are the lower and upper bounds when

the membership is not equal to zero. The denomi- 5.1. Case 1
nator in the above equations accounts for the area
The disjoint probabilities for case 1 are sum-
under the TFN. Once mean and standard deviation
marized in Table V. Thus, using the payoff
are computed, the ranking orders for fuzzy numbers
values (Table
 IV) calculate the expected value
can be determined. The general rule is to rank fuzzy
E(Ai )= nj=1 xi j pi j
number with respect to first mean value, but if two
mean values are equal then rank them according to
standard deviation, in which the fuzzy number with E(A1 ) = 0.90 × 0.5 + 0.40 × 0.2 + 0.50 × 0.1
smaller standard deviation will be preferred. + 0.35 × 0.2 = 0.65

Table V. Data Used in the Example

Credibility Payoff
Case Decision maker of DM (xij ) Alternative A1 p(1 )§ Alternative A2 p(2 )§
∗
1 1 1.0 Crisp p11 = p21 = 0.50; p12 = p22 = 0.20; p13 = p23 = 0.10; p14 = p24 = 0.20
(Table IV)
2 1 1.0 Crisp p(C3 ) = 0.50 0.50 p(C4 ) = 0.20; p(C1 , C2 ) = 0.70 0.10
(Table IV)
3, 4 1 1.0, 0.6a Crisp p(C3 ) = 0.50 0.50 p(C2 , C3 ) = 0.70 0.30
(Table IV)
2 1.0, 1.0b p(C2 , C4 ) = 0.60 0.40 p(C1 , C4 ) = 0.40 0.60
3 1.0, 0.7c p(C1 , C2 ) = 0.70 0.30 p(C3 ) = 0.80 0.20
5 1 1.0 Fuzzy p(C3 ) = 0.50 0.50 p(C4 ) = 0.20; p(C1 , C2 ) = 0.70 0.10
(Table VII)

∗ Disjoint probabilities are same for both alternatives.

§ The remaining bpa values are assigned to ignorance p() = p(C , C , C , C ).
1 2 3 4
a Case 3, credibility of DM 1 = 1.0; Case 4, credibility of DM 1 = 0.6.
b Case 3, credibility of DM 2 = 1.0; Case 4, credibility of DM 1 = 1.0.
c Case 3, credibility of DM 3 = 1.0; Case 4, credibility of DM 1 = 0.7.
Decision Making Under Uncertainty 85

E(A2 ) = 0.45 × 0.5 + 0.50 × 0.2 + 0.80 × 0.1 1.0

V(A1) V(A2)
+ 0.70 × 0.2 = 0.545. 0.8

Valuation, V(A i)
As E(A1 ) > E(A2 ), thus A1 is the preferred al- 0.6

ternative. 0.4

0.2
5.2. Case 2
0.0
For each criterion Cj , the bpa p(Cj ) values may 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Orness, α
not easily be discernable, and often, we may group
more than one criteria, e.g., {C1 , C2 }. As a result, Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis based on orness values in the valuation
the p(Cj ) corresponds with {C1 , C2 } and is evaluated of two alternatives.
using decision making under ignorance (DMUI),
V(Ai ) = OWA(C1 , C2 ). The overall valuation of al- Step 4: Combine these two valuations using Equation
ternative A is: (15):

q

q
V(A) = Vj (A) p(C j ). (15) V(A1 ) = Vj (A1 ) p(C j )
j=1 j=1

Step 1: Define bpa (Table V) and the payoff values = 0.5 × 0.5 + 0.653 × 0.50 = 0.577, and
(Table IV):

q
A1 : A1 (C3 ) = <0.50> and V(A2 ) = Vj (A2 ) p(C j )
A1 () = <0.9, 0.4, 0.50, 0.35>, j=1

A2 : A2 (C4 ) = <0.7>, A2 (C1 , C2 ) = <0.45, 0.5>
and A2 () = <0.45, 0.5, 0.8, 0.7>.
Step 2: Define decision-making attitude, e.g., mod-
erately optimistic, thus orness = 0.7 (Table I). The
corresponding ME-OWA weights for n = 2, 3, and 4
are:
Wn=2 = (w1 , w2 ) = (0.7, 0.3),
Wn=3 = (w1 ,w2 ,w3 ) = (0.554, 0.292, 0.154), and
Wn=4 = (w1 ,w2 ,w3 ,w4 ) = (0.461, 0.276, 0.165, 0.098).
Step 3: The value for each alternative can be calcu-
lated as Vj (Ai ) = OWA(Ai (Ci )):
V1 (A1 ) = OWA(0.5) = 0.5,
V2 (A1 ) = OWA(0.9, 0.4, 0.50, 0.35)
= 0.461 × 0.9 + 0.276 × 0.50 + 0.165 × 0.4
+ 0.098 × 0.35 = 0.653.
Similarly, for A2 :
V1 (A2 ) = 0.7,
V2 (A2 ) = 0.485, and
V3 (A2 ) = 0.689.
= 0.70 × 0.2 + 0.485 × 0.7 + 0.689 × 0.1
= 0.548.
As V(A1 ) > V(A2 ), thus A1 is a preferred alter-
native.
In DMUI, the orness plays pivotal role. To see
the impact of orness values toward the evaluation
V(A1 ) and V(A2 ), sensitivity analysis is carried out
and results are plotted in Fig. 2. At lower orness val-
ues, i.e., <0.33, V(A2 ) > V(A1 ), this implies that A2
is the preferred alternative. However, with increas-
ing orness values, i.e., >0.38, V(A1 ) > V(A2 ), this
implies that the A1 is the preferred alternative. Be-
tween the orness intervals of [0.33, 0.38], there is no
significant different between V(A2 ) and V(A1 ), and
thus any of the two alternatives can be selected. For
orness = 0.7 (Table I), the valuation of the two alter-
natives is V(A1 ) = 0.63 and V(A2 ) = 0.76. It implies
that A2 is a desired alternative.
5.3. Case 3
Let us assume that the bpas are elicited from
three DMs, who are equally credible (Table V). Once
these bpas are obtained, the bpa of the two alterna-
tives Ai (i = 1, 2) are calculated using the DS rule
of combination (Equation (6)) (Table VI). Sensitiv-
ity analysis by varying orness values is carried out
86 Tesfamariam, Sadiq, and Najjaran

Table VI. DS Rule of Combination for Three Experts factor, and assigned to ignorance. The bpas for the
two alternatives after the DS rule of combination is
Alternatives
applied (Table VI). The variations in the two alter-
A1 A2 native valuations with respect to orness are provided
in Figs. 3b (DS), 3d (Yg), and 3f (DP) for different
Case 3 Case 4 Case 3 Case 4
rules of combination. It is interesting to note that the
Credibility (dk ) = 1 <> 1a 1 <> 1a discounted valuations are consistently lower than the
Subsets p(A1 ) p (A1 ) p (A2 ) p (A2 ) nondiscounted valuations. However, at orness = 1,
the impact of credibility factors diminishes.
{C1 } 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
{C2 } 0.38 0.27 0.00 0.00
{C3 } 0.11 0.07 0.77 0.48
5.5. Case 5
{C4 } 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
{C1 , C2 } 0.25 0.18 0.00 0.00 This case entails consideration of vagueness and
{C1 , C3 } 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
imprecision of the payoff values x̄i j . The correspond-
{C1 , C4 } 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.15
{C2 , C3 } 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.15 ing fuzzy payoffs x̄i j are provided in Table VII. For
{C2 , C4 } 0.16 0.28 0.00 0.00 x̄i j , the fuzzy number OWA (FN-OWA) is used.
{C3 , C4 } 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 The outlined procedure for FN-OWA is discussed
{C1 , C2 , C3 } 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in Sadiq and Tesfamariam.(18) The ranking of x̄i j is
{C1 , C2, C4} 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
performed based on the most likely values. The val-
{C1, C3, C4} 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
{C2, C3, C4} 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 uation results for alternatives Āi (i= 1, 2) are shown
{C1, C2, C3, C4} 0.11 0.19 0.06 0.23 in Fig. 4. Figs. 4a and 4b show the impact of orness
values (using DS rule of combination) on the valua-
a Credibility factors, DM 1 = 0.6, DM 2 = 1.0, and DM 3 = 0.7. tion of alternatives A1 and A2 , respectively. Figs. 4c
and 4d provide the similar comparison for both al-
ternatives using Yager rule of combination. Finally,
Figs. 4e and 4f provide the results for DP rule of com-
(Fig. 3). For all orness values, for both DST (Fig. 3a) bination.
and Yager (Fig. 3c) rule of combinations, V(A2 ) is The major challenge in this problem is to con-
consistently higher than V(A1 ). However, for the vert the TFN into representative crisp values for fi-
Yager rule of combination, at orness = 1, the valu- nal ranking. At orness = 0, the valuation V( Ā1 ) and
ation of V(A1 ) ≈ V(A2 ). V( Ā2 ) are TFN(0.25, 0.35, 0.50) and TFN(0.21, 0.45,
For DP rule of combination, for orness ∈ [0, 7), 0.70), respectively (Figs. 4a and 4b). If the most likely
V(A2 ) is higher than V(A1 ); therefore, A2 is the value is used for comparison, the V( Ā2 ) > V( Ā1 );
preferred alternative. However, for orness ∈ (0.7, therefore, Ā2 will be the desired alternative. The
1], V(A1 ) is higher than V(A2 ), and A1 is the pre- base of the TFN gives information on the impreci-
ferred alternative that refers to as rank reversal sion (vagueness). The difference between maximum
(Fig. 3e). and minimum values is 0.25 and 0.49 for TFN Ā1 and
Ā2 , respectively. This indicates V( Ā2 ) has higher un-
certainty; however, it is the desired alternative based
5.4. Case 4
on most likely value. Thus, an alternative ranking is
The multiple DMs in the previous example were desired to handle this type of problem.
assumed to have the same credibility. However, reli- The ranking based on generalized mean
ability of the source and credibility need to be taken x̄(V( Āi )) and standard deviation σ (V( Āi )) is dis-
into consideration.(12) The expert’s credibility can be cussed below. For orness = 0, using Equations (13)
elicited by considering the experience qk and confi- and (14), the x̄(V( Āi ))and σ (V( Āi )) are computed
dence levels ck (use Equation (12)). However, it sums as:
up to one, but in our analysis we divide it by the max-
V( Ā1 ) = (0.389, 0.052)
imum value so that the DM with the highest credi-
bility will be assigned a value of 1. Assume that we
V( Ā2 ) = (0.475, 0.100).
obtain the credibility of each DM as DM 1 = 0.6,
DM 2 = 1.0, and DM 3 = 0.7. Each of the bpa as- This result indicates that A2 is the preferred
signed by the DM are discounted with the credibility alternative.
Decision Making Under Uncertainty 87

1.0 1.0
a) V(A2) V(A1) b) V(A2) V(A1)

0.8 0.8

Valuation, V(Ai)

Valuation, V(Ai)
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 DS rule of combination

DS rule of combination
without credibility factor with credibility factor
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

1.0 1.0
c) V(A2) V(A1) d) V(A2) V(A1)

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis based on 0.8 0.8

Valuation, V(Ai)

Valuation, V(Ai)
orness in the valuation of two alternatives
Ai (i = 1, 2) (a) DST rule of combination, 0.6 0.6
(b) DST rule of combination with
credibility factor, (c) Yager rule of 0.4 0.4
combination, (d) Yager rule of
combination with credibility factor, (e) 0.2 0.2 Yager rule of combination
Yager rule of combination
DP rule of combination, (f) DP rule of without credibility factor with credibility factor
combination with credibility factor. 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

1.0 1.0
e) V(A2) V(A1) f) V(A2) V(A1)

0.8 0.8
Valuation, V(Ai)

Valuation, V(Ai)
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 DP rule of combination

DP rule of combination
without credibility factor with credibility factor
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
Orness, α Orness, α

Alternatives C1 C2 C3 C4
Table VII. Fuzzy Payoffs (x̄i j ) for Two
Alternatives and Corresponding A1 [0.9, 0.9, 0.9] [0.2, 0.4, 0.45] [0.2, 0.50, 0.8] [0.25, 0.35, 0.5]
Four Criteria A2 [0.2, 0.45, 0.7] [0.4, 0.5, 0.65] [0.75, 0.8, 0.85] [0.6, 0.7, 0.75]

6. SRM FOR BUILDINGS
6.1. Background
Reported damages from recent global earth-
quakes, 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China, 2004
Sumatra earthquake in Indonesia, 2003 Bingöl earth-
quake in Turkey, and 1994 Northridge earthquake
in USA, for example, highlight vulnerability of exist-
ing buildings and importance of seismic retrofit im-
plementation. The building vulnerability is due to
older building design codes, poor design practices,
and poor code enforcement. Most of these buildings
are currently operational and are required to be fur-
ther assessed and upgraded to minimize seismic dam-
age and improve life safety. From a decision-making
perspective of a city manager, comprehensive evalu-
ations of all buildings are not economically feasible,
and it is desirable to screen out deficient buildings.
The seismic risk analysis (SRA) is used to cal-
culate the probability of adverse economic or social
effects of an earthquake or series of earthquakes.(35)
Results of the SRA are used to determine(35) (i) what
88
level of risk is acceptable? (ii) What level of loss is
acceptable? and (iii) What options are available for
mitigating the anticipated losses? The SRM entails
selection of appropriate retrofit strategy to reduce
building damage(36) and/or consideration of buying
insurance.
A conceptual framework for SRM is shown in
Fig. 5. The risk assessment shown in Fig. 5 includes
consideration of site seismic hazard, building vul-
nerability, and the consequence of failure.(37) The
Tesfamariam, Sadiq, and Najjaran
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of orness
values without consideration of
credibility (a) DS rule of combination for
alternative A1 (b) DS rule of
combination for alternative A2 (c) Yager
rule of combination for alternative A1 (d)
Yager rule of combination for alternative
A2 (e) DP rule of combination for
alternative A1 (f) DP rule of combination
for alternative A2 .
risk management framework entails consideration of
retrofit and/or insurance. The framework shown in
Fig. 5 can be used iteratively to ensure desired relia-
bility (or acceptable risk).
The main objectives of SRM coincide with three
philosophies of new buildings design: (i) protect the
structure from collapse in a future strong earthquake,
(ii) keep damage at tolerable levels in earthquakes
of moderate intensity, and (iii) eliminate damage in
earthquakes with relatively short return period.(38)
Decision Making Under Uncertainty 89

Start Table VIII. Mitigation Alternatives for Building Against

Seismic Risk
Compute site seismic hazard index, I SH
Modification Factor

Is the SH below Retrofit Alternative Stiffness Strength Ductility

Yes
threshold?
RC jacketing
No Addition of walls
Steel jacketing
Risk assessment

Compute building vulnerability index IBV FRP jacketing

Prestressing wires
Estimate building damageability index IBD External buttresses
Steel bracing
Is the I BD none? Yes

No

Compute building importance/exposure II/E

of ductility). For example, if the presence of vertical
Compute risk index I R and plan irregularity is identified, reinforced concrete
(RC) jacketing or addition of RC walls, and RC walls
Is the IR below
or external buttresses can, respectively, be used as a
Yes
threshold? viable means to mitigate damage.(42)
The choice of particular retrofit technique or
No
consideration of insurance will depend on the
owner’s financial resources and risk tolerance.(35)
Risk management

Consider retrofit? Yes Thus, there is a need for a decision-making

No tool to select appropriate retrofit alternative. The
general reported methods are: cost-benefit anal-
Document

ysis (CBA),(43−47) life cycle costing (LCC),(48,49)

Consider insurance?
deterministic and stochastic net present values
(NPV),(50,51) and multiattribute utility based.(52) The
End CBA, LCC, and NPV are analytic procedures, which
estimate the net economic value of a given alter-
Fig. 5. Seismic risk management for RC buildings.(37)
native. This view, however, requires the presump-
tion that that economic factor is the only decision
driver.(53) However, the decision-making process is
Various retrofit alternatives (Table VIII) enhance affected by the consideration of social, cultural, po-
different engineering performance of the building, litical, economic, and engineering parameters.(38) Af-
which can be grouped into three categories: (i) sys- ter the 1985 Mexico earthquake, for example, use
tem ductility, (ii) stiffness, and strength, and (iii) duc- of bracing systems and addition of structural walls
tility, stiffness, and strength (Fig. 6).(38−41) Candi- induced a sense of security for the building occu-
date retrofit alternatives can be selected based on the pants,(38) and was a desired retrofit technique irre-
parameters that are identified to contribute to the spective of its economic performance.
building vulnerability; e.g., weak story, soft story, and Multiple parameters influence the selection of
year of construction (used as a surrogate measure the retrofit technique(54) that necessitates use of

existing structure existing structure

existing structure rehabilitated structure rehabilitated structure
Base Shear

Base Shear

Base Shear

rehabilitated structure
ΔV ΔV
Fig. 6. Alternative retrofit strategies for
seismic upgrading.(38)
Δu Δu

Roof Displacement Roof Displacement Roof Displacement

90 Tesfamariam, Sadiq, and Najjaran

Level 1 Seismic Risk Management

Level 2 Economical/social criteria Technical criteria

(E1) (E2)
Level 3

Installation Maintenance Duration of works/ Functional Skilled labor Significance of the Significance of Significance of
cost cost disruption of use compatibility requirement need for intervention at damage risk limitation risk
(C1) (C2) (C3) (C4) (C5) foundation (C6) (C7) (C8)

Level 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 … Alternative N

Fig. 7. Hierarchical framework for seismic risk management.

Alternative C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

A1 0.241 0.147 0.187 0.869 0.690 0.182 0.398 0.861 Table IX. Payoffs x̄i j of Four Repair
A2 0.564 0.728 0.690 0.120 0.200 0.951 0.434 0.006 Alternatives Against Eight Criteria
A3 0.117 0.255 0.192 0.443 0.087 0.186 0.723 0.509
A4 0.781 0.619 0.673 0.184 0.690 0.166 0.362 0.000

MCDM. The parameters that influence desired
retrofit selection could be grouped into “general cri-
teria” and “technical criteria.”(38) The general crite-
ria are: consideration of cost, durability, availability
of workmanship, possibility for appropriate quality
control, occupancy, aesthetics, preservation of archi-
tectural identity, and duration of work. The techni-
cal criteria can broadly be categorized as: enhance-
ment of system ductility, enhancement of stiffness
and strength, and enhancement ductility, stiffness
and strength.
Information for the MCDM parameters is often
obtained from experts. Identification of experts and
information solicitation is shown to be a daunting
task for the earthquake damage evaluation.(55) The
information solicitation from experts in the ATC-
13,(55) for example, is done through Delphi proce-
dure. The Delphi procedure consists of formulat-
ing questionnaires, obtaining individual answers to
the questioners, iterating the questionnaires one or
more times where the information feedback between
rounds and aggregating the responses by statistical
operations. Often solicitation of information from
experts is prone to biases, misrepresentation, and
anchoring of individual perceptions of earthquake
risk.(38,56,57) The experts should have greater diver-
sity in terms of experience of institutional affiliations.
Consequently, the evidence should be discounted
based on the credibility of the DM as discussed in
Section 3.4.
6.2. Illustrative Example
A MCDM hierarchical structure that incorpo-
rates both technical and general criteria is depicted in
Fig. 7. This illustrative example is based on a three-
story reinforced concrete building constructed in the
European Laboratory for Structural Assessment.(58)
Four potential retrofit alternatives Ai (i = 1, 2, 3, 4)
are considered, A1 = confinement by glass fiber re-
inforced plastic, A2 = steel bracing, A3 = concrete
jacketing, and A4 = base isolation. For the build-
ing under consideration, Caterino et al.(58) have un-
dertaken a structural analysis and expert elicitation
to evaluate performance of the four retrofit alterna-
tives. Payoff values xi j of each performance modifier
(Fig. 7) with respect to each alternative are summa-
rized in Table IX. Furthermore, in this article, the
Decision Making Under Uncertainty
Fig. 8. SRM—comparison of alternatives
using DST rule of combination
(a) alternative A1 , (b) alternative A2 , (c)
alternative A3 , and (d) alternative A4 .
crisp payoff values xi j are fuzzified to generate fuzzy
payoff value x̄i j . For illustration, a fuzzification fac-
tor ±15% is used, i.e., x̄i j = [0.85 xi j , xi j , 1.15 xi j ]. Let
us assume that bpa are elicited from three DMs, each
having a credibility factor of 1 and are summarized
below. The bpa values for all four alternatives with
respect to socioeconomical factors are:
Decisionmaker 1: p(C4 ) = 0.60, p() = 0.40;
Decisionmaker 2: p(C2 , C4 ) = 0.70, p() =
0.30; and
Decisionmaker 3: p(C2 , C4 ) = 0.90, p() =
0.10.
The bpa values for all alternatives with respect to
technical factors are:
Decisionmaker 1: p(C6 ) = 0.50, p() = 0.50;
Decisionmaker 2: p(C6 , C8 ) = 0.70, p() =
0.30; and
Decisionmaker 3: p(C5 , C6 , C8 ) = 0.85,
p() = 0.15.
The bpa values obtained for socioeconomical E1
and technical E2 criteria are:
Decisionmaker 1: p(E2 ) = 0.60, p() = 0.40;
91
Decisionmaker 2: p(E1 ) = 0.30, p(E2 ) = 0.50,
p() = 0.20; and
Decisionmaker 2: p(E1 ) = 0.40, p() = 0.6.
Using the DST rule of combination (Equation
(6)), the results of the four alternatives are shown
in Fig. 8. Figs. 8a–8d provide TFNs of V( Ā1 ),V( Ā2 ),
V( Ā3 ), and V( Ā4 ). The ranking is performed using
generalized mean x̄(V( Āi ) and standard deviation
σ (V( Āi ). The results are summarized below.
These results indicate that for all orness values,
V( Ā2 ) and V( Ā4 ) ranked first and second, respec-
tively. However, with a change in orness, there is a
possible rank reversal for V( Ā1 ) and V( Ā3 ). Over-
all, A2 is a preferred alternative. Sensitivity analy-
sis based on the fuzzification factor is performed and
the results are summarized in Fig. 9 (orness = 0). By
varying fuzzification factor from 10 to 50%, Fig. 9
shows that there is no rank reversal. However, for a
fuzzification factor of 5%, the rank of A4 is changed
from 2 to 1. Fig. 10 demonstrates that (orness = 0.5)
for all fuzzification factors (10–50%), no rank rever-
sal is observed.
92 Tesfamariam, Sadiq, and Najjaran

( x̄(V( Āi )), σ (V( Āi )))∗

[Rank]

Orness V( Ā1 ) V( Ā2 ) V( Ā3 ) V( Ā4 )

0 (0.217, 0.010) (0.376, 0.023) (0.264, 0.012) (0.372, 0.023)

[4] [1] [3] [2]
0.5 (0.399, 0.020) (0.550, 0.033) (0.326, 0.019) (0.507, 0.030)
[3] [1] [4] [2]
1 (0.607, 0.036) (0.713, 0.042) (0.390, 0.023) (0.638, 0.037)
[3] [1] [4] [2]

∗ The above table shows the results for fuzzification factor of 15%.

4 cycle cost, aesthetics, etc.), which necessitate consid-

Δ = 5% Δ = 10%
Δ = 15% Δ = 25% eration of MCDM. The MCDM process is subject to
Δ = 50%
scarcity of data, lack of knowledge, and subjectivity.
3 Various mathematical and statistical techniques are
Rank

available in the literature to deal with the complex

problem of decision making under various types of
2
uncertainties. This article extended the DMUU and
DMUI framework proposed by Yager(1) for multiple
DMs and for fuzzy utility values. In addition, the con-
1
A1 A2 A3 A4 cept of expert credibility factor is also introduced in
Alternatives the proposed approach. For the DMUI, OWA oper-
ators are used to describe DM attitude.
Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis based on fuzzification factor (orness = To demonstrate utility of the proposed decision
0).
making under various uncertainties, a heuristic hier-
archical structure is proposed. The proposed DMUU
4
Δ = 5% Δ = 10% and DMUI frameworks are illustrated for retrofit
Δ = 15% Δ = 25%
Δ = 50%
selection for a three-story RC building constructed
3
in the European Laboratory for Structural Assess-
ment.(58) Four potential retrofit alternatives Ai (i = 1,
Rank

2, 3, 4) were considered, A1 = confinement by glass

2
1
A1 A2 A3
Alternatives
Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis based on fuzzification factor (orness =
0.5).
7. CONCLUSIONS
Increasing reported seismic-induced damage of
buildings highlights vulnerability of existing buildings
and the importance of seismic retrofit implementa-
tion. Traditionally, the retrofit selection is carried out
using engineering performance indicators (stiffness,
strength) that can be analyzed through a computer
model. However, in practice, selection of retrofit
technique incorporates other social indicators (life
fiber reinforced plastic, A2 = steel bracing, A3 = con-
crete jacketing, and A4 = base isolation. Results of
the DMUU framework indicate that alternative Ā2
(steel bracing) ranked first and is followed by al-
A4 ternative Ā4 . However, with increase in orness val-
ues, a rank reversal between Ā1 and Ā3 is observed.
The proposed MCDM framework is versatile as it af-
fords the decision making under different uncertain-
ties. Furthermore, the heuristic hierarchical structure
used for this example should be expanded more, and
the input information needs to be solicited from dif-
ferent stakeholders.
REFERENCES
1. Yager RR. Uncertainty modeling and decision support. Re-
liability Engineering & System Safety, 2004; 85(1–3):341–
354.
2. Haimes Y. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
Decision Making Under Uncertainty
3. Asante-Duah DK. Hazardous Waste Risk Assessment. Ann
Arbor: Lewis Publishers, 1993.
4. Paté-Cornell ME. Global risk management. Journal of Risk
and Uncertainty, 1996; 12:239–255.
5. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of de-
cisions under risk. Econometrica, 1979; 47:313–327.
6. Wen YK, Ellingwood BR, Veneziano D, Bracci J. Uncertainty
Modeling in Earthquake Engineering. MAE Center Project
FD-2 Report, 2003.
7. Klir GJ, Yuan B. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and
Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Interna-
tional, 1995.
8. Grossi P, Kleindorfer P, Kunreuther H. The impact of un-
certainty in managing seismic risk: The case of earthquake
frequency and structural vulnerability. Financial Institution
Center, Technical Paper #99-23, Philadelphia, PA: Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania, 1999.
9. Hall JW, Le Masurier JW, Baker-Langman EA, Davis
JP, Taylor CA. A decision-support methodology for
performance-based asset management. Civil Engineering
and Environmental Systems, 2004; 21(1):51–75.
10. Blockley DI, Baldwin JF. Uncertain inference in knowledge-
based systems. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
1987; 113(4):467–481.
11. Fagin R, Halpern JY, Megiddo N. A logic for reason-
ing about probabilities. Information Systems Research, 1990;
87(1–2):78–128.
12. Sentz K, Ferson S. Combination of Evidence in Dempster–
Shafer Theory. SAND 2002-0835, 2002.
13. Shafer G. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, NJ,
USA: Princeton University Press, 1976.
14. Yager RR. On the Dempster–Shafer framework and new
combination rules. Information Sciences, 1987; 41:93–
137.
15. Dubois D, Prade H. On the combination of evidence in vari-
ous mathematical frameworks. Pp. 213–241 in Flamm J, Luisi
T (eds). Reliability Data Collection and Analysis. Brussels:
ECSC, EEC, EAFC, 1992.
16. Yager RR. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation in
multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, 1988; 18:183–190.
17. Yager RR, Filev DP. Induced ordered weighted averaging
operators. IEEE Transactions System Man and Cybernetics,
1999; 29:141–150.
18. Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S. Probability density functions based
weights for ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators:
An example of water quality indices. European Journal of Op-
erational Research, 2007; 182:1350–1368.
19. Xu Z. An overview of methods for determining OWA weights.
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2005; 20:843–865.
20. Filev DP, Yager RR. On the issue of obtaining OWA operator
weights. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1998; 94:157–169.
21. O’Hagan M. Aggregating template or rule antecedents in real-
time expert systems with fuzzy set logic. Pp. 681–689 in Pro-
ceedings of the 22nd Annual IEEE Asilomar Conference on
Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA: IEEE
and Maple Press, 1988.
22. Dempster A. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a
multi-valued mapping. Annals of Statistics, 1967; 28:325–339.
23. Klir GJ. Principles of uncertainty: What are they? Why do we
need them? Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1995; 74:15–31.
24. Zadeh LA. Review of books: A mathematical theory of evi-
dence. AI Magazine, 1984; 5(3):81–83.
25. Smets P. Data fusion in the transferable belief model. In Pro-
ceedings of the Third International Conference on Informa-
tion Fusion, Paris, France, 2000.
26. Inagaki T. Interdependence between safety-control policy and
multiple sensor scheme via Dempster–Shafer theory. IEEE
Transactions on Reliability, 1991; 40(2):182–188.
93
27. Zhang L. Representation independence and combination of
evidence in the Dempster–Shafer theory. Pp. 51–69 in Yager
RR, Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M (eds). Advances in Dempster–
Shafer Theory of Evidence. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1994.
28. Murphy CK. Combining belief functions when evidence con-
flicts. Decision Support Systems, 2000; 29:1–9.
29. Smarandache F, Dezert J. Advances and Applications of
DSmT for Information Fusion. Rehoboth, NM: American Re-
search Press, 2004.
30. Kiremidjian A. Subjective probabilities for earthquake dam-
age and loss. Structural Safety, 1985; 1:309–317.
31. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 1965; 8:338–353.
32. Ferson S, Hajagos JG. Arithmetic with uncertain numbers:
Rigorous and (often) best possible answers. Reliability Engi-
neering and Systems Safety, 2004; 85:135–152
33. Chen SJ, Hwang CL. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Mak-
ing: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag,
1992.
34. Prodanovic P, Simonovic SP. Comparison of fuzzy set rank-
ing methods for implementation in water resources decision-
making. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2002; 29:692–
701.
35. EERI Committee on Seismic Risk. The basics of seismic risk
analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 1989; 5(4):675–702.
36. Dean WE. Seismic risk and management in California. In
Molak V (ed). Fundamentals of Risk Analysis and Risk Man-
agement. New York: CRC Press, 1997.
37. Tesfamariam S, Saatcioglu M. Seismic risk assessment of re-
inforced concrete buildings using fuzzy synthetic evaluation.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2008; 12(7):1157–1184.
38. Penelis GG, Kappos AJ. Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Structures. E & FN SPON. London, UK: Chapman and Hall,
1997.
39. Thermou GE, Pantazopoulou SJ, Elnashai AS. Design
methodology for seismic upgrading of substandard reinforced
concrete structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2007;
11(4):582–606.
40. Rodriguez M, Park R. Repair and strengthening of reinforced
concrete buildings for seismic resistance. Earthquake Spectra,
1991; 7(3):439–460.
41. Sugano S. Seismic strengthening of existing reinforced con-
crete buildings in Japan. Bulletin of New Zealand National
Society of Earthquake Engineering, 1981; 14(4):209–222.
42. Thermou GE, Elnashai AS. Seismic retrofit schemes for RC
structures and local-global consequences. Progress in Struc-
tural Engineering and Materials, 2006; 8(1):1–15.
43. FEMA 227/228. A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Reha-
bilitation of Buildings, Volume 1: A User’s Manual and Vol-
ume 2: Supporting Documentation. Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 1992.
44. Smyth AW, Altay G, Deodatis G, Erdik M, Franco G, Gülkan
P, Kunreuther H, Lus H, Mete E, Seeber N, Yüzügüllü Ö.
Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake damage mit-
igation: Evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey.
Earthquake Spectra, 2004; 20(1):171–203.
45. Grossi P. Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Earthquake Mit-
igation. Working Paper 98-11-11, Risk Management and De-
cisions Processes Center, Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA,
1998.
46. Kanda J, Shah H. Engineering role in failure cost evaluation
for buildings. Structural Safety, 1997; 19(1):79–90.
47. Goda K, Hong HP. Optimal seismic design considering risk
attitude, societal tolerable risk level, and life quality criterion.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 2006; 132(12):2027–2035.
48. Wilkinson S, Ying F. Life cycle costing decisions for
retrofitting earthquake vulnerable buildings. P. 8 in Eighth
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San
Francisco, CA, 2006.
94
49. Wen YK, Shinozuka M. Cost-effectiveness in active struc-
tural control. Engineering Structures, 1998; 20(3):216–
221.
50. Dodo A, Xu N, Davidson RA, Nozick LK. Optimizing re-
gional earthquake mitigation investment strategies. Earth-
quake Spectra, 2005; 21(2):305–327.
51. Xu N, Davidson RA, Nozick LK, Dodo A. The risk-return
tradeoff in optimizing regional earthquake mitigation in-
vestment. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2007;
3(2):133–146.
52. Tamura H, Yamamoto K, Tomiyama S, Hatono I. Modeling
and analysis of decision-making problem for mitigating natu-
ral disaster risks. European Journal of Operational Research,
2000; 122(2):461–468.
53. Cowen T. Using cost-benefit analysis to review regula-
tion. New Zealand Business Roundtable Discussion Paper.
Tesfamariam, Sadiq, and Najjaran
Available at: http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/Tyler/Cowen%20on%
20cost%20benefit.doc, 1998.
54. Jirsa JO. Divergent issues in rehabilitation of existing build-
ings. Earthquake Spectra, 1994; 10(1):95–112.
55. ATC-13. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California.
Applied Technology Council, 1985.
56. Celsi R, Wolfinbarger M, Wald D. The effects of earthquake
measurement concepts and magnitude anchoring on individu-
als’ perceptions of earthquake risk. Earthquake Spectra, 2005;
21(4):978–1008.
57. May PJ. Making choices about earthquake performance. Nat-
ural Hazard Review, 2004; 5(2):64–70.
58. Caterino N, Iervolino L, Manfredi G, and Cosenza E. Multi-
criteria decision-making for seismic retrofitting of RC struc-
tures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2008; 12(4):555–
583.