Skip to main content

Table 3 Specific scoring details of each subjective index

From: Safety risk assessment of heritage buildings in metro construction based on SPA theory: a case study in Zhengzhou, China

Index

Content

Grading (select one box per row)

\({c}_{1}\)

Importance degree

(100)

\({x}_{11}\)

Cultural relics

level (25)

Ungraded

(0–5)

County

(6–10)

Municipal

(11–15)

Provincial

(16–20)

National

(21–25)

\({x}_{12}\)

Historic value

(25)

Very low

(0–5)

Low

(6–10)

Average

(11–15)

High

(16–20)

Very high

(21–25)

\(x_{13}\)

Artistic value

(25)

Very low

(0–5)

Low

(6–10)

Average

(11–15)

High

(16–20)

Very high

(21–25)

\(x_{14}\)

Scientific value (25)

Very low

(0–5)

Low

(6–10)

Average

(11–15)

High

(16–20)

Very high

(21–25)

\(c_{2}\)

Geometric character (100)

\(x_{21}\)

Height (25)

 < 5 m

(0–5)

5–10 m

(6–10)

10–15 m

(11–15)

15–25 m

(16–20)

 > 25 m

(21–25)

\(x_{22}\)

Length–width ratio (25)

1.0–1.5

(0–5)

1.5–2.5

(6–10)

2.5–3.5

(11–15)

3.5–4.5

(16–20)

 > 4.5

(21–25)

\(x_{23}\)

Length–height ratio (25)

 > 5.0

(0–5)

3.0–5.0

(6–10)

1.0–3.0

(11–15)

0.5–1.0

(16–20)

 < 0.5

(21–25)

\(x_{24}\)

height–width ratio (25)

 < 0.5

(0–5)

0.5–1.0

(6–10)

1.0–1.5

(11–15)

1.5–2.0

(16–20)

2.0–2.5

(21–25)

\(c_{3}\)

Structure type (100)

\(x_{31}\)

Upper structure

(50)

Wooden structure

(0–10)

Brick/stone mix structure

(11–20)

Concrete structure

(21–30)

Frame/bent structure

(31–40)

Reinforced concrete structure

(41–50)

\(x_{32}\)

Foundation

(50)

No foundation or unknown

(0–10)

Brick / rubble foundation

(11–20)

Plain concrete foundation

(21–30)

Reinforced concrete foundation

(31–40)

Pile foundation

(41–50)

\(c_{4}\)

Deterioration degree (100)

\(x_{41}\)

Deterioration

(25)

No obvious degradation

(0–5)

Slight local degradation

(6–10)

Significant local

degradation

(11–15)

Serious local degradation

(16–20)

Serious degradation

(21–25)

\(x_{42}\)

Weathering

(25)

 ≤ 5%

(0–5)

5%–10%

(6–10)

10%–15%

(11–15)

15%–20%

(16–20)

 ≥ 20%

(21–25)

\(x_{43}\)

Damage

(25)

 ≤ 1%

(0–5)

 ≤ 10%

(6–10)

10%–30%

(11–15)

30%–50%

(16–20)

 ≥ 50%

(21–25)

\(x_{44}\)

Crack width

(25)

0

(0–5)

 ≤ 0.1 mm

(6–10)

0.1–0.3 mm

(11–15)

0.3–0.5 mm

(16–20)

 ≥ 0.5 mm

(21–25)

\(c_{13}\)

Monitoring measurements (100)

\(x_{131}\)

Monitoring frequency

(30)

1 time/ 3–5 days or no monitoring

(0–6)

1–2 times / 1 day

(7–12)

3–5 times / 1 day

(13–18)

1 time / 2–5 h

(19–24)

1–5 times / 1 h

(25–30)

\(x_{132}\)

Monitoring precision

(30)

Manual monitoring,

very low

(0–6)

Manual monitoring,

low

(7–12)

Manual monitoring,

average

(13–18)

Automated monitoring

high

(19–24)

Automated monitoring,

very high

(25–30)

\(x_{133}\)

Measuring point

(40)

Very lack

(0–8)

Lack

(9–16)

Average

(17–24)

Dense

(25–32)

Very dense

(33–40)

\(c_{14}\)

Management system (100)

\(x_{141}\)

Management system (25)

Worst

(0–5)

Poor

(6–10)

Average

(11–15)

Good

(16–20)

Perfect

(21–25)

\(x_{142}\)

Management personnel (25)

Worst

(0–5)

Poor

(6–10)

Average

(11–15)

Good

(16–20)

Perfect

(21–25)

\(x_{143}\)

Responsibility division (25)

Worst

(0–5)

Poor

(6–10)

Average

(11–15)

Good

(16–20)

Perfect

(21–25)

\(x_{144}\)

Management level (25)

Very low

(0–5)

LOW

(6–10)

Average

(11–15)

High

(16–20)

Very high

(21–25)

\(c_{15}\)

Contingency plan (100)

\(x_{151}\)

Emergency plan (50)

Worst

(0–10)

Poor

(11–20)

Average

(21–30)

Good

(31–40)

Ideal

(41–50)

\(x_{152}\)

Early warning response (50)

Very slow

(0–10)

Slow

(11–20)

Average

(21–30)

Fast

(31–40)

Very fast

(41–50)

\(c_{16}\)

Monitoring engineer (100)

\(x_{161}\)

Professional level (50)

Very low

(0–10)

Low

(11–20)

Average

(21–30)

High

(31–40)

Very high

(41–50)

\(x_{162}\)

Practical experience (50)

very low

(0–10)

low

(11–20)

average

(21–30)

high

(31–40)

very high

(41–50)