Advertisement

Comparison of Seismic Risk Results for Bucharest, Romania

  • Florin Pavel
  • Radu Vacareanu
  • Ileana Calotescu
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)

Abstract

This paper highlights some of the results regarding the seismic risk and resilience analysis for the residential building stock of Bucharest, obtained within the framework of the COBPEE research project financed by the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation and which was completed in September 2017. The seismic risk metrics are also compared with those from two other recent studies with the same focus. In addition, the issue of economic feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of high-rise RC buildings in Bucharest is also analyzed in this study.

Keywords

COBPEE Vulnerability Structural typology Seismic damage Seismic losses 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS—UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-0697. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support.

References

  1. Armas I, Toma-Dănila D, Ionescu R, Gavris A (2016) Quantitative population loss assessment: seismic scenarios for Bucharest using 2002 census data. GI_Forum 1:30–40Google Scholar
  2. Calotescu I, Pavel F, Sandulescu AM, Sibișteanu H, Vacareanu R (2016) Preliminary investigation on community resilience of Bucharest, Romania. In: Proceedings of the international conference on urban risks ICUR 2016, Lisbon, Portugal, paper no. 142Google Scholar
  3. Calotescu I, Pavel F (2017) Seismic preparedness of the population of Bucharest, Romania: questionnaire results. In: Pavel F et al (eds) Proceedings of the 6th national conference on earthquake engineering & 2nd national conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Bucharest, Romania, pp 225–232Google Scholar
  4. Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Eq Spectra 16:573–592Google Scholar
  5. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology. Earthquake model—HAZUS MH 2.1. Technical manual, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Kappos AJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2008) Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of buildings based on cost-benefit and life-cycle cost analysis, with the aid of fragility curves. Nat Hazards 45:33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):415–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. P100-1/2013 (2013) Code for seismic design—part I—design prescriptions for buildings. Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  9. Pavel F, Vacareanu R (2016) Scenario-based earthquake risk assessment for Bucharest, Romania. Int J Disast Risk Re 20:138–144Google Scholar
  10. Pavel F, Vacareanu R (2017a) Spatial correlation of ground motions from Vrancea (Romania) intermediate-depth earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(1):489–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pavel F, Vacareanu R (2017c) Feasibility of pre-earthquake strengthening of RC buildings in Bucharest, Romania. In: Pavel F et al (eds) Proceedings of the 6th national conference on earthquake engineering & 2nd national conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Bucharest, Romania, pp 375–382Google Scholar
  12. Pavel F, Vacareanu R, Douglas J, Radulian M, Cioflan CO, Barbat 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
  13. Pavel F, Vacareanu R, Calotescu I, Sandulescu AM, Arion C, Neagu C (2017a) Impact of spatial correlation of ground motions on seismic damage for residential buildings in Bucharest, Romania. Nat Hazards 87:1167–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pavel F, Calotescu I, Vacareanu R, Sandulescu AM (2017b) Assessment of seismic risk scenarios for Bucharest, Romania. Nat Hazards.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2991-3 Google Scholar
  15. Pavel F, Vacareanu R, Arion C, Neagu C, Calotescu I (2017d) Recent developments regarding seismic risk and resilience assessment for Bucharest, Romania. In: Pavel F et al (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th national conference on earthquake engineering & 2nd national conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Bucharest, Romania, pp 383–390Google Scholar
  16. Toma-Danila D, Armas I (2017) Insights into the possible seismic damage of residentialbuildings in Bucharest, Romania, at neighborhood resolution. Bull Earthq Eng 15:1161–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vacareanu R, Radulian M, Iancovici M, Pavel F, Neagu C (2015a) Fore-arc and back-arc ground motion prediction model for Vrancea intermediate depth seismic source. J Earthq Eng 19:535–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vacareanu R, Iancovici M, Neagu C, Pavel F (2015b) Macroseismic intensity prediction equations for Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source. Nat Hazards 79:2005–2031, http://cobpee.utcb.ro/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florin Pavel
    • 1
  • Radu Vacareanu
    • 1
  • Ileana Calotescu
    • 1
  1. 1.Seismic Risk Assessment Research Center, Technical University of Civil Engineering of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations