Hazard Risk Mitigation in Europe and Central Asia

WORLD BANK Workshop

Istanbul, October 26-28, 2004
Seismic risk mitigation in the
Vrancea region, Romania
Dan Lungu
Technical University of Civil Engineering, Bucharest and
National Institute for Building Research, Bucharest

Original Presentation has been modified for Internet
Use.
Contents
1. The Romanian earthquake hazard and the 1977 disaster
in Bucharest

2. Vulnerability (fragility) of existing building stock and Codes for
earthquake resistance of buildings

3. National programs and international projects for seismic risk
mitigation in Romania

"Nowhere else in the world is a center of population so exposed to
earthquakes originating repeatedly from the same source"
Charles Richter. 15 March 1977,
Letter to the Romanian government
World Map of Natural Hazards prepared by the Mnich Re, 1998
indicates for Bucharest: Large city with Mexico-city effect
1. The Romanian earthquake hazard and the 1977
disaster in Bucharest
The unusual nature of the ground motion and the extent and
distribution of the structural damage have important bearing
on earthquake engineering efforts in the United States.
Jennings & Blume, NRC & EERI Report
1000 yr catalogue of Vrancea earthquakes
Major historical events and major 20 century earthquakes
Number of events/century, having intensity larger than 9 and 7

Catalogue time span, years


Obs Epicentral intensity
(MSK)
984 - 1900 1901 - 2000
I
0
9.0 1 2
I
0
7.0 10
16
20 century shows the highest
seismic activity of the Vrancea
source




Event

Epicentral
intensity I
o


Focus
depth.
km

Moment
magnitude M
w


Obs
1802, October 26
1829, November 20
1838, June 23
> 9
8
8
7.9 Largest Vrancea event ever occurred
1940, November 10
1977, March 4
1986, August 30
9
8/9
7/8
150
109
133
7.7
7.5
7.2
Largest seismic losses ever experienced



Destroyed or seriously damaged 33,000 housing units and
caused lesser damage to 182,000 other dwellings
Destroyed 11 hospitals and damaged 448 others hospitals, etc.
March 4, 1977 earthquake
M
w
= 7.7 ; h = 109 km
Killed 1,578 people (1424 in Bucharest)
Injured 11,221 people (7598 in Bucharest)
The World Bank estimation of losses (Report 16.P-2240-RO, 1978):

Total losses in Romania : 2.05 billion USD (100%)
Construction losses : 1.42 (70%)
Building and housing losses : 1.02 (50%)
PSHA, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment
Lungu, Demetriu, 1994-2004
1. Recurrence of Vrancea magnitude

Date

Moment
magnitude,
M
w

Mean recurrence interval 1
)
w,o
M
w,max
.687(M 1
e 1
)
w
M
w,max
1.687(M
e 1
w
1.687M 8.654
e 1 Mw) (

= > T

26 Oct 1802
8.0
7.9

10 Nov 1940

7.7
7.6

4 March 1977

30 Aug 1986
7.5
7.3
7.2


82
50
40
50 yr
148
108


100 yr
778 yr
356


475 yr
2. Attenuation of Vrancea strong ground motion
0.502 0.006h 0.0005R 1.000lnR 1.053M 3.098 lnPGA
w
+ + =
PGA - peak ground acceleration at the site
M
w
- moment magnitude: M
w,0
= 6.3 Lower threshold magnitude; M
w, max
= 8.1 Max credible
R - hypocentral distance to the site; h - focal depth;
o
ln PGA
= 0.502- standard deviation of lnPGA
Database: 80 triaxial records at 48 free-field stations in Romania, R. of Moldavia, Bulgaria

MSK intensity,
from seismic
zonation map


Period of construction of building

before
1940


1941-1963


1964-1977


1978-1990


after 1990


VI












VII












VIII, Bucharest












IX











Pre-
code
Low-
code Moderate-high
code
Quality of seismic design incorporated into existing buildings stock is
modeled by four categories :
Pre-code; Low-code; Moderate-code; High-code.
2. Vulnerability (fragility) of existing building stock
and Codes for earthquake resistance of buildings
3 International lessons unlearnt from the 1977 earthquake
1
A systematic evaluation should be made of all buildings in Bucharest erected prior to
the adoption of earthquake design requirements and a hazard abatement plan should
be developed.
From:
Observation on the behaviour of buildings in the Romanian earthquake of March 4, 1977 by G. Fattal, E. Simiu and Ch.
Cluver. Edited as the NBS Special Publication 490, US Dept of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Sept 1977.
2
Tentative provisions for consolidation solutions would preferably be developed
urgently.
From:
The Romanian earthquake. Survey report by Survey group of experts and specialists dispatched by the Government of
Japan (K. Nakano). Edited by JICA, Japan International Cooperation Agency, June 1977.
3
Bucharest had been microzoned as part of UNESCO Balkan Project, with microzones
denoting three levels of risk. The worst destruction occurred in lowest-risk microzone.
From:
Earthquake in Romania March 4,1977. An Engineering Report by G. Berg, B. Bolt, M. Sozen, Ch. Rojahn. Edited by
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1980
The 1977 National strategy for strengthening
damaged buildings

The retrofitting of buildings must provide:
(i) For the old buildings the same resistance the have before 1940
earthquake (when they survived!);
(ii) For the new buildings the same resistance the have when they were
designed
Letter to the Municipality of Bucharest of the General Inspector for
Construction of Romania, based on March 30, 1977, Order of
Romanian Government


Retrofitting of the buildings damaged by the 1977 earthquake will consist of
strict local repairing of damaged elements. Additional measures for
seismic protection are not allowed.
Letter to the technical University of Civil Engineering, Bucharest from
General Inspector for Construction of Romania and General
Director of Central Institute for Research Design and Coordinator for
Construction, July 11, 1977

Importance and exposure class Vulnerability
class
I II III IV
i 1 1 2 3
ii 1 2 3 3
iii 3

Seismic risk class Matrix

Seismic risk class 1
buildings

Building to be immediately retrofitted!


City

Number of vulnerable
buildings

Number of
inhabitants

Bacau 6 208.643
Barlad 6 78.786
Braila 4 232.409
Brasov 8 312.481
Bucharest 123+ ... 2.011.305
Buzau 1 146.926
Campina 2 40.297
Iasi 49 347.606
Roman 1 81.731
Suceava 1 118.183
Targu-Mures 1 164.132
Vaslui 6 78.735

Vulnerable residential buildings
-from Ministry of Transports, Constructions and Tourism of Romania-


Number of vulnerable schools

City

Requiring
technical
assessment


Having a
technical
report
Having
technical
documents
Total
Bacau 1 - - 1
Barlad 11 - - 11
Brasov 7 2 - 9
Bucharest 13 7 2 22
Constanta - - 1 1
Craiova 2 - 5 7
Galati 1 2 - 3
Giurgiu 2 - - 2
Iasi 3 5 - 8
Pitesti - 1 1 2
Ploiesti 1 5 - 6
Sibiu 3 1 - 4
Vaslui 10 - - 10

Total 54 23 9 86

Vulnerable school buildings
-from Ministry of Education and Research of Romania-

Vulnerable hospital buildings
-from Ministry of Health and Family of Romania-

Number of vulnerable hospitals
CITY
Severely damaged.
Requiring immediate
technical assessment
Having a technical
report
Approved project
for retrofitting
Retrofitting in
work
Total
Bacau 3 3
Barlad 2 2
Bucharest 13 16 6 10 45
Buzau 9 9
Constanta 7 7
Craiova 4 4
Focsani 2 2
Galati 6 2 1 9
Giurgiu 1 1
Iasi 21 17 2 5 45
Pitesti 2 7 9
Ploiesti 2 2
Sibiu 1 1
Targu-Mures 2 2
Vaslui 4 1 5

Total 68 47 12 19 146

Objectives:

1. Strengthening of seismic risk class 1 buildings:
Legislation + Construction work;

2. Upgrading of the code for seismic design of buildings and
structures;
3. Seismic instrumentation
3. National programs and International projects for
seismic risk mitigation in Romania
Strengthening work for the 123 highly
vulnerable buildings in Bucharest
October 2004:
3 buildings are fully retrofitted
8 buildings are under retrofitting
16 buildings have retrofitting projects ready
8 buildings are on the waiting list for retrofitting


Upgrading the code for seismic design of buildings and
structures
The draft of the New code for earthquake resistance of new structures,
P100-2004, following EUROCODE 8 format, was just issued (Jan 2004)
The draft of the New code for earthquake resistance of existing buildings
and structures: to be prepared !
Name of network Bucharest
Romania
(including Bucharest)
INCERC & ISC, State
Inspectorate for
Construction
7 ETNA 31 ETNA
New digital
networks, installed in
2003
CNRRS & JICA,
Japan International
Cooperation Agency
Project
1
11 K2
16 instruments:
- 11 K2;
- 5 ETNA
INCERC
21 instruments:
- 10 SMA - 1 (analog)
- 9 ADS (digital)
- 2 digital stations for
continuous monitoring
70 instruments:
- 58 SMA - 1(analog)
- 9 ADS (digital)
3 digital station for
continuous monitoring Existing seismic
networks, in 2002 INFP/SFB 461
German Science
Foundation Project at
University of
Karlsruhe
15 K2 41 K2
TOTAL 54 digital instruments 158 instruments
instruments
100 digital


Seismic instrumentation in Romania, 2004
JICA technical cooperation project :
Reduction of seismic risk for buildings and structures
in Romania
Project signed in 2002, when 100 years of diplomatic relations between
Japan and Romania were celebrated

Project duration: 5 yr
JICA Project in Romania is based on partnership of 3
institutions:
NCSRR, National Center for Seismic Risk Reduction
UTCB, Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest
INCERC, National Institute for Building Research, Bucharest
under the authority of:
MTCT, Ministry of Transports, Constructions and Tourism.
Total cost of the project
5.27 mill. USD

Equipment cost 2.7 mill. USD:
- Soil testing laboratory
- Structure testing laboratory
- Seismic instrumentation network in Bucharest and Romania
(free field, borehole, buildings)


16 Romanian young students/engineer to be trained in Japan
34 Japanese short term and long term experts in Romania

Equipments for soil testing
and investigation

Triaxial testing equipment
Drilling equipment
SPT/CPT testing equipment
Equipment delivered by JICA and installed together with two OYO technicians
and one Japanese expert:
- Altus K2 accelerometer (11)
- borehole sensors FBA-23DH (14+1)
- sensors EPISENSOR ES-T (9+1)
- ETNA accelerometer (5+1)
Seismic network
Free field
outside Bucharest
ETNA
6 sites
Borehole
Bucharest
K2
7 sites
3 sensors
(surface +
2 in borehole)
Building
Bucharest
K2
4 sites
Equipment for strong ground motion observation


Borehole sensor
Altus K2
accelerometer
Borehole sensor
Free field
Shallow
borehole
2430m
Deep
borehole
60153m
Surface and
borehole cables
Borehole seismic instrumentation
Bucharest - Location of borehole instrumented sites
Instrumented buildings in Bucharest
RISK U.E. Project

An advanced approach to earthquake
risk scenarios with applications to
different European towns
Flow charts of RISK UE Project (P. Mouroux)

Workpackage 1 of RISK-UE



European distinctive features, inventory database
and typology

Objective 1 - Distinctive features of European towns

Town identity
Population characteristics
Urbanised area and elements at risk

Impact of past earthquakes on elements at risk
Strong motion data in the city and seismic hazard
Geological, geophysical and geotechnical information

Evolution of earthquake resistant design codes
Earthquake risk management efforts
References


Classification of buildings occupancy
Importance & exposure
category
Code
Occupancy category
1 2 3
B GENERAL BUILDING STOCK
B1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Residential
Single family dwelling (house)
Multi family dwelling (apartment bldg.)
Low-rise (1-2)
Mid-rise (3-7)
High-rise (8+)
Institutional dormitory
x
1)
x
1)
x
x
x
x
x
B2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Commercial
Supermarkets, Malls
Offices
Services
Hotels, Motels
Restaurants, Bars
Parking
Warehouse
x
2)
x
2)
x
2)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
B3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Cultural
Museums
Theatres, Cinemas
Public event buildings
Stadiums
x
3)
x
2)
x
2)
x
2)
x
x
x
x
1) Buildings with capacity greater than 150 people
2) Buildings with capacity greater than 300 people or where more than 300 people
congregate in one area
Objective 2 - Europe inventory database and typology
Building typology matrix, BTM
Label Building type description Height description Code level
*
Name No. of
stories
Height h,
m
N L M H
RC Reinforced concrete structures
RC1 Concrete moment frames Low-rise
Mid-rise
High-rise
1 - 3
4 - 7
8+
h s 9
9 < h s 21
h > 21
RC2 Concrete shear walls Low-rise
Mid-rise
High-rise
1 - 3
4 - 7
8+
h s 9
9 < h s 21
h > 21
RC3
3.1
3.2
Concrete frames with unreinforced masonry
infill walls
Regularly infilled frames
Irregularly frames (i.e., irregular structural
system, irregular infills, soft/weak story)
Low-rise
Mid-rise
High-rise
Low-rise
Mid-rise
High-rise
1 - 3
4 - 7
8+
1 - 3
4 - 7
8+
h s 9
9 < h s 21
h > 21
h s 9
9 < h s 21
h > 21
RC4 RC Dual systems (RC frames and walls)
Low-rise
Mid-rise
High-rise
1 - 3
4 - 7
8+
h s 9
9 < h s 21
h > 21
RC5 Precast Concrete Tilt-Up Walls Low-rise
Mid-rise
High-rise
1 - 3
4 - 7
8+
h s 9
9 < h s 21
h > 21
RC6 Precast Concrete Frames with Concrete
shear walls
Low-rise
Mid-rise
High-rise
1 - 3
4 - 7
8+
h s 9
9 < h s 21
h > 21
*Code level N - no code;
L - low-code (designed with unique arbitrary base shear seismic coefficient);
M - moderate-code;
H - high-code (code comparable with Eurocode 8)
Town Inhabitants Population density,
persons/km
2
Population growth,
20
th
century
*
GDP/person
(approx.)
Euro
Barcelona 1,503,451 15,176 1970+ 22,000
Bitola 79,456 12,600
1990
1,620
Bucharest 2,011,305 10,806
1989
1,980
Catania 333,075 6,125
1971-1991 +
9,000-15,000
Nice 342,738 4,766
1980
20,000
Sofia 1,133,183 4,680 1985+ 1,630
Thessaloniki 1,048,151 21,600 1991 15,290
Population and yearly GDP
I. Population and Building exposure
Comparative study for 7 towns
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Barcelona Bitola Bucharest Catania Nice Sofia Thessaloniki
WP1. UTCB
Population
Population of the 7 towns
Barcelona Bitola Bucharest Catania Nice Sofia Thessaloniki
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
WP1. UTCB
Population
density,

persons/km
2

Population density in the 7 towns
Barcelona Bitola Bucharest Catania Nice Sofia Thessaloniki
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
NA NA
WP1. UTCB
Number of
buildings
Number of buildings for the 7 towns
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
Barcelona Bitola Bucharest Catania Nice Sofia Thessaloniki
WP1. UTCB
Number of
housing units
Number of housing units for 7 towns
Barcelona Bitola Bucharest Catania Nice Sofia Thessaloniki
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.5
NA
WP1. UTCB
LARGEST HISTORICAL
EVENT
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.5
WP1. UTCB
Barcelona Bitola Bucharest Catania Nice Sofia Thessaloniki
20
th
CENTURY
MSK local-intensity of largest experienced earthquake for the 7
towns
II. Earthquake hazard and earthquake instrumentation
Seismic codes inter-benchmark periods Town
Pre-code Low-code Moderate code
Barcelona 79% 21% --
Bitola 48% 29% 23%
Bucharest 30% 30% 40%
Catania 92% - 8%
Nice 75% 25%
Sofia Data not available
Thessaloniki 20% 50% 30%
Building stock age in the 7 towns versus
Seismic codes inter-benchmark periods

III. Vulnerability and typology of European buildings stock
Masonry structures, M Wood Town
1.1 1.2 1.3 2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4 5 1
Barcelona
Bitola
Bucharest
Catania
Nice
Sofia
Thessaloniki
Masonry buildings types for the 7 towns
Buildings typology
World Bank project in Romania
Component B:
Earthquake Risk Reduction ~35%
Subcomponents:
Strengthening of high priority buildings and lifelines
Design & supervision
Building code review and study of code enforcement
Professional training in cost effective retrofitting
Component A:
Strengthening of Disaster management capacity ~5%
Components C D& E: Flood, Pollution & Project Management 60%
Implementation unit for Component B at
MTCT, Ministry of Transports, Construction and Tourism
Romanian Government has been approved the following list of
buildings to be retrofitted on April 7, 2004
Type of buildings
In
Bucharest
In seismic counties
of Romania
Total
Emergency bldg 12 18 30
Hospitals bldg 13 9 22
Educational bldg 6 6 12
Important public bldg 6 - 6
Essential facilities - 14 14
Total 37 47 84

The buildings list is splitted in two lists: priority list and additional list.

Priority list of buildings contains 65 buildings i.e:
Type of buildings
In
Bucharest
In seismic counties
of Romania
Total
Emergency bldg 11 187 28
Hospitals bldg 12 7 19
Educational bldg 6 6 12
Important public bldg 6 - 6
Total 35 30 65

Emergency
facilities
30%
Public
12%
Educational
18%
Hospitals
40%
Bucharest
Communication
26%
Emergency
facilities
39%
Public
4%Educational
11%
Hospitals
20%
Other cities
Distribution of buildings with occupancy
Other cities
62%
Bucharest
38%
Other cities
33%
Bucharest
67%
Distribution of number of
buildings to be retrofitted
Distribution of cost for
buildings to be retrofitted



0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Number of stories
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
5 8
Bucharest
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Number of stories
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
5 8
Other
cities
Distribution of buildings with number of stories
Distribution of buildings with floor area
0
5
10
15
<
2
5
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
>
3
0
0
0
Total floor area, m
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 2500
Bucharest
0
5
10
15
<
2
5
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
>
3
0
0
0
Total floor area, m
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 2500
Other
cities
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
<
1
9
0
0
1
9
4
0
1
9
6
3
:

P
1
3
-
6
3
1
9
7
8
:

P
1
0
0
-
7
8
1
9
9
2
:

P
1
0
0
-
9
2
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Year of constr. 1900 1940 1963 1978 1992
P13-63 P100-78
...
P100-92 Building code No code
59%
41%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
<
1
9
0
0
1
9
4
0
1
9
6
3
:

P
1
3
-
6
3
1
9
7
8
:

P
1
0
0
-
7
8
1
9
9
2
:

P
1
0
0
-
9
2
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Year of constr.
1900 1940 1963 1978 1992
P13-63 P100-78
...
P100-92
Building code
No code
40%
56%
4%
Distribution of buildings with year of construction
Distribution of buildings with present seismic intensity
map
1
77
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Seismic intensity
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s

VII VIII IX MSK
World Bank report
Preventable Losses: Saving Lives and Property through Hazard
Risk Management
Strategic Framework for reducing the Social and Economic Impact of
Earthquake, Flood and Landslide Hazards in the Europe and Central Asia
Region
Draft, May 2004
Romania is regarded as one the most seismically active countries in
Europe
Bucharest is one of the 10 most vulnerable cities in the world.
Recommendations for Romania:
Upgrade the legal framework for hazard specific management;
Review the existing buildings code for the retrofitting of vulnerable
buildings;
Conduct a comprehensive public awareness campaign for the
earthquake risk;
Invest in hazard mitigation activities in order to reduce the risks
caused by earthquakes;
Develop financing strategy for catastrophic events.