Seismic Risk Assessment of Romania

  • Cristian Arion
  • Florin Pavel
  • Radu Vacareanu
  • Cristian Neagu
  • Mihail Iancovici
  • Viorel Popa
  • Ionuț Damian
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)

Abstract

This paper summarizes the UTCB results for the “National Risk Assessment—RO RISK” project. Within the RO-RISK project, coordinated by the General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations, the first nation-wide assessment of all types of natural risks was performed in 2016. The work was supported by collaboration of disaster reduction experts and earthquake risk modelling specialists from INFP and URBAN-INCERC. The seismic risk assessment was performed for the entire country, at the most detailed resolution available, which is the administrative-territorial unit. For each building typology, four limit states were considered in order to generate fragility curves. Each limit state is associated with a loss percentage, in order to generate vulnerability curves. The assessment shows that among the 10 analysed hazards, the seismic hazard produces the largest impact at country level, 75% of the population and 45% of the vital networks are exposed to moderate and high earthquake risk and Romania’s capital Bucharest, is highly exposed to earthquakes.

Keywords

Buildings Population Networks Hazard Earthquake scenario Losses 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was performed within the framework of the RO-RISK research project “National Risk Assessment—RO RISK”—(SIPOCA code: 30), co-financed under EFS through the Operational Program Administrative Capacity 2014–2020 and under the coordination of the General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations.

References

  1. Cauzzi C, Faccioli E, Vanini M, Bianchini A (2015) Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. Bull Earthq Eng 13(6):1587–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ENTSOG AISBL (2017) European network of transmission system, operators for gas. www.entsog.eu
  3. Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra 16:573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. Earthquake model—HAZUS MH 2.1. Technical manual, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations (IGSU) (2016) Country report, 5.1 Conditionality Romania 2016, 78pGoogle Scholar
  6. HAZUS (1997) Earthquake loss estimation methodology, Technical Manual, Prepared by National Institute of Building Sciences for Federal Emergency Management Agency, NIBS Doc. 5201Google Scholar
  7. INS, National Institute of Statistics. www.insse.ro
  8. Lungu D, Arion C, Baur M, Aldea A (2000a) Vulnerability of existing building stock in Bucharest. In: 6ICSZ sixth international conference on seismic zonation, Palm Springs, California, USA, Nov 12–15, pp 837–846Google Scholar
  9. Lungu D, Aldea A, Arion C (2000b) Engineering, state & insurance efforts for reduction of seismic risk in Romania. In: Proceedings of the 12th WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand, Jan/FebGoogle Scholar
  10. Pavel F, Vacareanu R, Douglas J, Radulian M, Cioflan CO, Bărbat A (2016) An updated probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Romania and comparison with the approach and outcomes of the SHARE project. Pure Appl Geophys 173(6):1881–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Popescu IG (1941) Etude comparative sur quelques tremblements de terre de Roumanie, du type ducelui du 10 novembre 1940. Comptes Rendus des Seances de L'Academie des Sciences de Roumanie 5(3). Mai-Juin 1941, Cartea RomaneascaGoogle Scholar
  12. P100-1/2013 (2013) Code for seismic design—Part I—Design prescriptions for buildings. Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  13. Vacareanu R, Radulian M, Iancovici M, Pavel F, Neagu C (2015) Fore-arc and back-arc ground motion prediction model for Vrancea intermediate depth seismic source. J Earthquake Eng 19:535–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M (1994) Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 23:507–521Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristian Arion
    • 1
  • Florin Pavel
    • 1
  • Radu Vacareanu
    • 1
  • Cristian Neagu
    • 1
  • Mihail Iancovici
    • 1
  • Viorel Popa
    • 1
  • Ionuț Damian
    • 1
  1. 1.Seismic Risk Assessment Research Center, Technical University of Civil Engineering of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations