Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 173, Issue 6, pp 1881–1905 | Cite as

An Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Romania and Comparison with the Approach and Outcomes of the SHARE Project

  • Florin Pavel
  • Radu Vacareanu
  • John Douglas
  • Mircea Radulian
  • Carmen Cioflan
  • Alex Barbat


The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Romania is revisited within the framework of the BIGSEES national research project (http://infp.infp.ro/bigsees/default.htm) financed by the Romanian Ministry of Education and Scientific Research in the period 2012–2016. The scope of this project is to provide a refined description of the seismic action for Romanian sites according to the requirements of Eurocode 8. To this aim, the seismicity of all the sources influencing the Romanian territory is updated based on new data acquired in recent years. The ground-motion models used in the analysis, as well as their corresponding weights, are selected based on the results from several recent papers also published within the framework of the BIGSEES project. The seismic hazard analysis for Romania performed in this study are based on the traditional Cornell-McGuire approach. Finally, the results are discussed and compared with the values obtained in the recently completed SHARE research project. The BIGSEES and SHARE results are not directly comparable since the considered soil conditions are different—actual soil classes for BIGSEES and rock for SHARE. Nevertheless, the analyses of the seismic hazard results for 200 sites in Romania reveal considerable differences between the seismic hazard levels obtained in the present study and the SHARE results and point out the need for further analyses and thorough discussions related to the two seismic hazard models, especially in the light of a possible future harmonized hazard map for Europe.


Seismic source ground motion model acceleration response spectra soil class exceedance probability uncertainty 



The results presented in this paper are obtained within the BIGSEES Project financed by the Romanian Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (MECS) under Grant Number 72/2012. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Authors would like to thank Prof. M. Ordaz (Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, México) for providing the CRISIS 2014 software. The constructive comments from two anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated as they have helped us to improve considerably the quality of the manuscript.


  1. Abrahamson, N.A., Gregor, N., and Addo, K. (2015), BC Hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes, Eq Spectra, doi: 10.1193/051712EQS188MR.
  2. Ambraseys, N.N., Simpson, K.A., and Bommer, J.J. (1996), Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe, Eq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25, 371–400.Google Scholar
  3. Ambraseys, N.N., Douglas, J., Sarma, S.K., and Smit, P.M. (2005), Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration, Bull. Eq. Eng., 3, 1–53.Google Scholar
  4. Akkar, S., and Bommer, J.J. (2010), Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, Seismol. Res. Lett., 81(2), 95–206.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson, G., and Boore, D. (2003), Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 93(4), 1703–1729.Google Scholar
  6. Bala, A., Raileanu, V., Dinu, C., and Diaconescu, M. (2015), Crustal seismicity and active fault systems in Romania, Rom. Rep. Phys., 67(3), 1176–1191.Google Scholar
  7. Basili, R., Kastelic, V., Valensise, G., and DISS Working Group (2009). DISS3 tutorial series: Guidelines for compiling records of the Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources, version 3, INGV Technical Report 108.Google Scholar
  8. Bommer, J.J., Scherbaum, F., Bungum, H., Cotton, F., Sabetta, F., and Abrahamson, N.A. (2005), On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, 377–389.Google Scholar
  9. Bommer, J.J., and Scherbaum, F. (2008), The use and misuse of logic-trees in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Eq. Spectra 24, 997–1009.Google Scholar
  10. Cauzzi, C., and Faccioli, E. (2008), Broadband (0.05 to 20 s) prediction of displacement response spectra based on worldwide digital records, J. Seismol., 12(4), 453–475.Google Scholar
  11. Cornell, C.A. (1968), Engineering seismic analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58, 1583–1606.Google Scholar
  12. Coppersmith, K.J., and Youngs R.R. (1986), Capturing uncertainty in probabilistic seismic hazard assessments within intraplate environments. In: Proceedings of the Third US. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 24–28, 1986, Charleston, USA, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, El Cerrito CA USA, vol. 1, pp 301–312.Google Scholar
  13. Delavaud, E., Cotton, F., Akkar, S., Scherbaum, F., Danciu, L., Beauval, C., Drouet, S., Douglas, J., Basili, R., Sandikkaya, A., Segou, M., Faccioli, E., and Theodoulidis, N. (2012), Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe, J Seismol., 16(3), 451–473.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, J., Ulrich, T., and Negulescu, C. (2013), Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France, Nat. Haz., 65, 1999–2013.Google Scholar
  15. Douglas, J., Ulrich, T., Bertil, D., and Rey, J. (2014), Comparisons of the ranges of uncertainty captured in different seismic-hazard studies, Seismol. Res. Lett., 85, 977–985.Google Scholar
  16. EN 1998–1:2004 (2004), Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Brussels, CEN.Google Scholar
  17. EPRI (2006), Program on Technology Innovation: Use of Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) in Determining Effects of Small Magnitude Earthquakes on Seismic Hazard Analyses, Report No. 1014099, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
  18. Frohlich, C. (2006), Deep earthquakes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gardner, J.K., and Knopoff, L. (1974), Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershooks removed, Poissonian?, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 64, 1363–1367.Google Scholar
  20. Ismail-Zadeh, A., Matenco, L., Radulian, M., Cloetingh, S., and Panza, G. (2012), Geodynamics and intermediate-depth seismicity in Vrancea (the south-eastern Carpathians): current state-of-the art, Tectonophysics, 530531, 50–79.Google Scholar
  21. Kale, Ö., and Akkar, S. (2013), A new procedure for selecting and ranking ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs): the Euclidean distance-based ranking (EDR) method, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 103(2A), 1069–1084.Google Scholar
  22. Kaklamanos, J., Baise, L.G., and Boore, D.M. (2011), Estimating unknown input parameters when implementing the NGA ground-motion prediction equations in engineering practice, Eq Spectra, 27(4), 1219–1235.Google Scholar
  23. Kijko, A. (2004), Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude, m max, Pure Appl. Geophys., 161, 1655–1681.Google Scholar
  24. Kramer, S. (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. New Jersey, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Kulkarni, R.B., Youngs, R.R., and Coppersmith K.J. (1984), Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. In: Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 21–28, 1984, San Francisco, USA, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs NJ USA, Vol 1, pp 263–270.Google Scholar
  26. Lemoine, A., Douglas, J., and Cotton, F. (2012), Testing the applicability of correlations between topographic slope and Vs30 for Europe, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 102(6), 2585–2599.Google Scholar
  27. Lin, P.S., and Lee, C.T. (2008), Ground-motion attenuation relationships for subduction-zone earthquakes in Northeastern Taiwan, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 98(1), 220–240.Google Scholar
  28. Luco, N., Ellingwood, B., Hamburger, R.O., Hooper, J.D., Kimball, J.K., and Kircher, C.A. (2007), Risk-targeted versus currents seismic design maps for the conterminous United States, Proceedings of the 2007 Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention, Lake Tahoe, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Lungu, D., Aldea, A., Arion, C., Demetriu, S., and Cornea, T. (2000), Microzonage Sismique de la ville de Bucarest - Roumanie, Cahier Technique de l’Association Française du Génie Parasismique, 20, 31–63.Google Scholar
  30. Lungu, D., Demetriu, S., Aldea, A., and Arion, C. (2006), Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Vrancea earthquakes and seismic action in the new seismic code of Romania. Proceedings of the First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, paper 1003.Google Scholar
  31. Mäntyniemi, P., Marza, V.I., Kijko, A., and Retief, P. (2003), A new probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the Vrancea (Romania) seismogenic zone, Nat. Hazards, 29, 371–385.Google Scholar
  32. Marmureanu, G. (2015), Large Vrancea earthquakes after 1700 (in Romanian), AICPS Review, 12, 142–151.Google Scholar
  33. McGuire, R.K. (1976), FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis, US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 76–67.Google Scholar
  34. McGuire, R. (2004), Seismic hazard and risk analysis, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute MNO-10.Google Scholar
  35. Musson, R.M.W (2000), Generalized seismic hazard maps for the Pannonian Basin using probabilistic methods, Pure Appl. Geophys., 157, 147–169.Google Scholar
  36. Oncescu, M.C., Mârza, V.I., Rizescu, M., and Popa, M. (1999), The Romanian earthquake catalogue between 984–1997, In: F. Wenzel, D. Lungu, O. Novak. (Eds.), Vrancea Earthquakes: Tectonics, Hazard and Risk Mitigation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 43–47.Google Scholar
  37. Ordaz, M., Martinelli, F., D’Amico, V., Meletti, C. (2013), CRISIS 2008: a flexible tool to perform probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, Seismol. Res. Lett., 84(3), 495–504.Google Scholar
  38. P100-1/2013 (2013), Code for seismic design – Part I – Design prescriptions for buildings, Bucharest, Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration.Google Scholar
  39. Pavel, F., Vacareanu, R., Arion, C., and Neagu, C. (2014a), On the variability of strong ground motions recorded from Vrancea earthquakes, Eq. and Struct., 6(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  40. Pavel, F., Vacareanu, R., Neagu, C., and Arion, C. (2014b), Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Romania. Part I: Selection of GMPEs, In: Vacareanu R, Ionescu C, editors. Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering & 1st National Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Bucharest, CONSPRESS, p. 213–220.Google Scholar
  41. Pitilakis, K., Riga, E., and Anastasiadis, A. (2012), Design spectra and amplification factors for Eurocode 8, Bull. Earthq. Eng., 10, 1377–1400.Google Scholar
  42. Radulian, M., Mandrescu, N., Popescu, E., Utale, A., and Panza, G. (2000), Characterization of Romanian seismic zones, Pure Appl. Geophys., 157, 57–77.Google Scholar
  43. Reiter, L. (1990), Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights, New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rydelek, P.A., and Sacks, I.S. (1989), Testing the completeness of earthquake catalogs and the hypothesis of self-similarity, Nature, 337, 251–253.Google Scholar
  45. Scherbaum, F., Cotton F., and Smit, P. (2004), On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: the case of rock motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94(6), 2164–2185.Google Scholar
  46. Scherbaum, F., Delavaud, E., and Riggelsen, E. (2009), Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information theoretic perspective, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 99(6), 3234–3247.Google Scholar
  47. Silva, V., Crowley, H., and Bazzurro, P. (2014), Risk-targeted hazard maps for Europe. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, paper no. 1649.Google Scholar
  48. Simeonova, S.D., Solakov, D.E., Leydecker, G., Bushe, H., Schmitt, T., and Kaiser, D. (2006), Probabilistic seismic hazard map for Bulgaria as a basis for a new building code, Nat. Hazards Earth. Syst. Sci., 6, 881–887.Google Scholar
  49. Sokolov, V.Y., Bonjer, K.P., Wenzel, F., Grecu, B., and Radulian, M. (2008), Ground-motion prediction equations for the intermediate depth Vrancea (Romania) earthquakes based on Fourier amplitude spectra. Bull. Eq. Eng., 6(3), 367–388.Google Scholar
  50. Sokolov, V.Y., Wenzel, F., and Mohindra, R. (2009), Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Romania and sensitivity analysis: a case of joint consideration of intermediate-depth (Vrancea) and shallow (crustal) seismicity, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 29, 364–381.Google Scholar
  51. Stucchi, M., Rovida, A., Gomez Capera, A.A., Alexandre, P., Camelbeeck, T., Demircioglu, M.B., Gasperini, P., Kouskouna, V., Musson, R.M.W., Radulian, M., Sesetyan, K., Vilanova, S., Baumont, D., Bungum, H., Fäh, D., Lenhardt, W., Makropoulos, K., Martinez Solares, J.M., Scotti, O., Živčić, M., Albini, P., Batllo, J., Papaioannou, C., Tatevossian, R., Locati, M., Meletti, C., Viganò, D., and Giardini, D.. (2013), The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 10001899, J. Seismol., 17, 523–544.Google Scholar
  52. Vacareanu, R., Pavel, F., and Aldea, A. (2013), On the selection of GMPEs for Vrancea subcrustal seismic source, Bull. Eq. Eng., 11(6), 1867–1884.Google Scholar
  53. Vacareanu, R., Lungu, D., Aldea, A., Demetriu, S., Pavel, F., Arion, C., Iancovici, M. and Neagu, C. (2014), Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Romania. Part III: seismic hazard maps. In: Vacareanu R, Ionescu C, editors, Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering & 1st National Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Bucharest, CONSPRESS, p. 229–236.Google Scholar
  54. Vacareanu, R., Radulian, M., Iancovici, M., Pavel, F., and Neagu, C. (2015), Fore-arc and back-arc ground motion prediction model for Vrancea intermediate depth seismic source, J. Eq. Eng., 19(3), 535–562.Google Scholar
  55. Vanzi, I., Marano, G.C., Monti, G., and Nuti, C. (2015), A synthetic formulation for the Italian seismic hazard anc code implications for the seismic risk, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 77, 111–122.Google Scholar
  56. Wald, D.J., and Allen, T.I. (2007), Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 97, 1379–1395.Google Scholar
  57. Weatherhill, G., and Danciu, L. (2014), A regional perspective on Eurocode 8 seismic inputs in the context of a harmonised European seismic hazard model, Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, paper no. 3268.Google Scholar
  58. Wenzel, F., Achauer, U., Enescu, D., Kissling, E., Russo, R., Mocanu, V., and Musacchio, G. (1998), Detailed look at final stage of plate break-off is target of study in Romania, EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Uni., 79(48), 589–600.Google Scholar
  59. Wiemer, S., and Wyss, M. (2000), Minimum magnitude of complete reporting in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 90, 859–869.Google Scholar
  60. Woessner, J., Danciu, L., Giardini, D., Crowley, H., Cotton, F., Grünthal, G., Valensise, G., Arvidsson, R., Basili, R., Demircioglu, M.B., Hiemer, S., Meletti, C., Musson, R.M.W., Rovida, A.N., Sesetyan, K., Stucchi, M., and the SHARE Consortium (2015), The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results, Bull. Earthq. Eng., doi: 10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1.
  61. Youngs, R.R., Chiou, S.J., Silva, W.J., and Humphrey, J.R. (1997), Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes, Seismol. Res. Lett., 68(1), 58–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florin Pavel
    • 1
  • Radu Vacareanu
    • 1
  • John Douglas
    • 2
  • Mircea Radulian
    • 3
    • 4
  • Carmen Cioflan
    • 3
  • Alex Barbat
    • 5
  1. 1.Seismic Risk Assessment Research CentreTechnical University of Civil Engineering BucharestBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  3. 3.National Institute of Earth Physics (NIEP)Bucharest-MăgureleRomania
  4. 4.Academy of Romanian ScientistsBucharestRomania
  5. 5.Technical University of Catalonia UPCBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations