Presentation of Structural Systems and Characteristic Parameters of Romanian Buildings for Application of the RVS Method

  • Claudiu-Constantin Stere
  • Claudiu-Anton Ursu
  • Vasile-Virgil Oprişoreanu
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)


In current codes there is no rapid method of seismic evaluation of buildings, as the three utilised methods are intensively demanding in terms of time, human resource and materials. Due to this reason, it is necessary to adopt and develop a method based on international codes, applicable to the structural systems in our country. As a starting point, the rapid assessment procedure published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1988 is presented. To calibrate the method, 335 buildings were analysed; the vulnerability risk of these buildings was already known, previously certified by approved technical experts that used one of the three methodologies indicated in current seismic evaluation codes. Based on the research, an equivalent point system is created and applied to the structural systems suitable for rapid visual screening (RVS) and also to the characteristic parameters which influence the structural behaviour under seismic actions. Based on the point system applied, the building vulnerability can be determined using the rapid method of seismic evaluation. Moreover, a database is created which allows assessing which buildings require priority for a more detailed analysis through calculations.


Earthquake Risk Vulnerability Seismic evaluation Structural system 


  1. Bostenaru-Dan M (2009) Architectural layout and the seismic vulnerability of housing building of the modern movement and contemporary currents I:57–66Google Scholar
  2. Fattal G, Simiu E, Culver C (1977) Observations on the behavior of buildings in the Romania earthquake of March 4, 1977. NBS Special publication 490, US Department of Commerce/National Bureau of Standards, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  3. FEMA 154 (2007) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazard: a handbook. Report No. FEMA 461, Washington DC, USGoogle Scholar
  4. HAZUS (2000) Natural loss estimation methodology.
  5. ICCPDC (1978) Cutremurul din România din 4 martie 1977 și efectele sale asupra construcțiilor, SINTEZA MONOGRAFIEI BucureștiGoogle Scholar
  6. Lungu D, Aldea A, Arion C, Cornea T, Vacareanu R (2002) Risk UE, WP1: European distinctive features, inventory, database and typology. In Proceedings of the international conference October 24–26, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  7. MDRAP—Cod de evaluare seismică a clădirilor existente – P100-3:2008 București, 2008Google Scholar
  8. MLPAT—Normativ pentru proiectarea antiseismică a construcțiilor de locuințe, social-culturale, agrozootehnice și industriale P-100-92 București, 1992Google Scholar
  9. Pantea A, Constantin PA (2013) Re-evaluation of the macroseismic effects produced by the March 4, 1977, strong Vrancea earthquake in Romanian territory. Ann Geophys 56(1):1–12Google Scholar
  10. PMB (2014) Lista clădirilor expertizate tehnic, încadrate în claele de risc seismic I, II, III, IV și categorii de urgență.
  11. Stere C, Geangus R, Cotofana D, Albota E, Popa V (2015) Rapid visual seismic screening procedure for building stock in Bucharest. Carpatian J Earth Environ Sci 10(4):219–226Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudiu-Constantin Stere
    • 1
  • Claudiu-Anton Ursu
    • 1
  • Vasile-Virgil Oprişoreanu
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of Civil Engineering of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations