IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4466-d186095.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Impact of Defect Risks in Residential Buildings at the Occupancy Phase

Author

Listed:
  • Sanghoon Lee

    (Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanynag University, 222, Wangsipri-ro, Sungdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea)

  • Sanghyo Lee

    (Division of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Kangwon National University, 346, Jungang-ro, Samcheok-si, Gangwon-do 25913, Korea)

  • Jaejun Kim

    (Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanynag University, 222, Wangsipri-ro, Sungdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea)

Abstract

This study investigated defect risks in residential buildings using the Loss Distribution Approach (LDA), a method of identifying and quantifying operational risks in economic terms. Analysis was performed on 7554 defects in 48 residential buildings where defect disputes occurred between 2008 and 2017. Defects were classified into eight types: affected functionality, broken items, corrosion, detachment, incorrect installation, missing task, surface appearance, and water problems. Work types were classified into seven groups: reinforced concrete (RC), masonry, finish, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP), door and windows, furniture, and miscellaneous. Using a risk matrix from these categories, the frequency distribution and severity distribution for each matrix cell was used to calculate loss distributions; these were combined to find the total loss distribution. The defect risks centered on RC and MEP. For RC, broken items and water leaks due to cracks or damage represented the most severe defects. For MEP, severe defects occurred owing to malfunctions in products and installation problems. Loss distributions can be used to create scenarios and corresponding response plans; thus, when a defect dispute occurs, the cost can be assessed. Furthermore, residential buildings’ loss distributions for each cell can be used to evaluate the types of work where defects occur and to verify relevant subcontractor’s abilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanghoon Lee & Sanghyo Lee & Jaejun Kim, 2018. "Evaluating the Impact of Defect Risks in Residential Buildings at the Occupancy Phase," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4466-:d:186095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4466/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4466/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tony Hopkin & Shu-Ling Lu & Phil Rogers & Martin Sexton, 2016. "Detecting defects in the UK new-build housing sector: a learning perspective," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 35-45, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clara Pereira & Jorge de Brito & José D. Silvestre, 2020. "Harmonised Classification of the Causes of Defects in a Global Inspection System: Proposed Methodology and Analysis of Fieldwork Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-27, July.
    2. Olanrewaju Abdul Lateef & Lee Alice Hui Jing, 2022. "Investigation of the poor-quality practices on building construction sites in Malaysia," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 2583-2600, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pablo Newberry & Paul Harper & Thea Morgan, 2021. "Understanding the Market for Eco Self-Build Community Housing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, October.
    2. Byeol Kim & Yonghan Ahn & Sanghyo Lee, 2019. "LDA-Based Model for Defect Management in Residential Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4466-:d:186095. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.