Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Seismic Risk Management in Bucharest

by pereulok Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 05:34:24 AM EST

The Municipality of Bucharest is one of the capitals with the highest seismic risk in the world, suffering the impact of the earthquakes generated in the Vrancea seismic source, at 150 - 170 km epicentral distance. Historical information over one thousand years suggests a rate of 2-3 damaging earthquakes per century. In the 20th Century, there have been four major Vrancea earthquakes: 1940 (7.7 Mw); 1977 (7.4 Mw); 1986 (6.9 Mw); 1990 (7.1 Mw).

The 1940 earthquake led to a first regulation of the Ministry of Public Works for earthquake resistant design (1943). On 4th March 1977, 21.20 local time, a 7.4-magnitude earthquake occurred, killing 1,570 people in Romania, and injuring around 11,000. The damages affected around 33,000 buildings and more than 700 factories, and were estimated by World Bank in two billion US dollars. Bucharest was severely affected: the earthquake caused the collapse of 32 buildings of 8-12 storeys, killing 1,424 people (90% of total casualties in Romania), while about 150 old buildings of 6 to 9 storeys were strongly damaged, many of them being subsequently demolished.

The earthquake especially affected tall (more than 6-7 storeys plus 2-3 setbacks) reinforced concrete buildings built in Bucharest historical centre before 1940, on the soft soil of the city centre characterized by a long predominant period of ground vibration (1.4-1.6s), and designed without earthquake requirements. However, cheap concrete shear wall constructions built after that date were also damaged, showing the inadequacy of 1940 regulation with regards to the actual earthquake threat in the area. Thus, anti-seismic construction requirements were raised; after 1989, the anti-seismic regulation was reviewed again, ruling out some unsafe building types still being built until that date.

The 1986 and 1990 earthquakes took place at noticeably different depths than the 1940 and 1977 earthquakes, and caused no remarkable damages in Bucharest; however, the risk of seismic catastrophe remains high, given the collapse probabilities of the existing pre-1940/45 buildings. In Bucharest there are 180-200 apartment blocks of this kind, with more than 27,000 inhabitants. In fact, only 40% of the population of Bucharest live in safe ductile buildings built after the 1977 earthquake: 1.2 million people are subject to different degrees of risk in case of earthquake.

Thus, anti-seismic policy, that has received constant support by international organizations and development agencies -World Bank funding and technical assistance from the Japanese JICA), is an important issue: amongst the prevention actions, the rehabilitation programme of Bucharest historical centre is one of the critical ones.

Promoted by DoDo


Clădire Clasa I risc seismic

All over Romania, buildings pass a technical audit in order to catalogue them according to their damage probabilities in case of earthquake, and there's both national and local programmes of inspection and rehabilitation (consolidation) of old buildings considered at risk.

Following technical audit, the buildings are divided in 4 types:

  • Class 4. No major risk in case of earthquake.
  • Class 3. Small damages in walls or decorations that can endanger the safety of the inhabitants.
  • Class 2. No major risk of collapsing in case of earthquake, but risk of structural damages. This kind of buildings has been only partially catalogued.
  • Class I. Major risk of collapsing in case of an earthquake with a magnitude higher than 7. In general, pre-1940 buildings, already affected by previous earthquakes. Of these, blocks of flats of more than 6 storeys (that is, highly populated)  are considered a public danger, and its consolidation compulsory. Most (if not all) of these building has already passed technical audit in the 1990s.

All buildings class I are marked with a "red spot" indicating its state, and, despite what one might think, those "spotted" buildings are far of being empty or emptying:  shops, restaurants, nice hotels and offices can be found in buildings showing the red signal.

Besides, the list of buildings that has passed the audit, and its classification, can be consulted at Bucharest City Hall and Regional Development and Housing Ministry websites. According to this list, 2639 buildings were inspected between 1993 and 2001, and 392 are catalogued as Seismic Risk Class I (126 of them, considered a public danger). According to Bucharest City Hall data (updated November 2008),  only 16 buildings have been consolidated...

Bd. Regina Elisabeta nr. 47

I don't know if this is a exhaustive list; or rather, I doubt it is exhaustive, as I haven't found any reference to the 1910 building at Bd. Regina Elisabeta nr. 47, of great significance, as it is the Bucharest City Hall & Prefecture:

The red spot is not shown at the main façade, but in the right lateral, Strada Elie Radu, maybe to hide the shame. From my point of view, it's not a shame to be in a pretty building that happened to be built in 1910 and have some problems to be resolved, but to have been audited 10-15 years ago, with no consolidation works having been performed yet. It is difficult to trust an institution managing the local anti-seismic rehabilitation programme that has been, so far, incapable to rehabilitate its own headquarters.

I have found some references on the consolidation project of the Bucharest City Hall Building in the Internet, which gives us some tips on corruption problems, political problems and administrative problems delaying this and other equally important projects included in Romanian development plans:

  • November 1999. The Ministry publishes the list of buildings at major risk in case of earthquake (Class I), which includes Bucharest City Hall. The Mayor, Viorel Lis, signs a contract (without tender) of 12 million EUR for a 5-year consolidation project.

  • 2000. The new Major, Traian Băsescu (currently Romanian President), cancel the contract. No tender for procurement is published for the project.

(...)

  • June 2007. The City Council (Mayor: Adriean Videanu) approves a consolidation project. The cost of the works is estimated in 15 million EUR, and the works would begin in 2007 and finish by 2010.

  • 1 June 2008. Local and regional Elections. Sorin Oprescu is elected new Bucharest City Mayor. He stops many of the projects of the previous mayor; the City Hall consolidation, although suffer some delays, is assumed. (The future of other mayor projects regarding parking, road infrastructures, etc., remain unclear, as they have been redefined completely).

  • January 2009. Tender for procurement closes (budget: 12 million EUR). The contract will be awarded in the following weeks, and the works would begin in March, lasting one year and a half, approximately.

Crossposted from Este-Sudeste

Display:
We need more localized Europe diaries, Thanks. Earthquakes and Romania are not two things I'd ever connect - and some politics thrown in!

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 04:11:21 PM EST
Thanks, I'm quite a lousy (and lazy) correspondent, but I'm glad that my local indignation is not sensed too local... You now, maybe EU is more and more like Roman Empire... Bruxelles (Rome) far far away...

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)
by pereulok on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 04:26:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No problem! ET has contributors all over Europe, though not every country is represented. I think several aspects of these contributions are useful: one is to simply hear - as your diary - about local situations. Another is to compare the effects of EU policies or other issues - such as transport -  locally. And a third is to discover that we aren't really all that different ;-)

We do spend a lot of time on global issues, but ET was founded primarily to specialize on European issues - as the name makes obvious.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 04:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you, pereulok for this diary, very interesting reading. Don't worry about the local, after all Romania is part of Europe and this site is called European Tribune. :-)

Would be nice if you could overcome the lazy thing once in a while and post more diaries.

by Fran on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 04:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In no way...in fact, as an ex-Californian, this article grabbed me from the first word. Thanks.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 04:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Earthquakes and Romania are not two things I'd ever connect

Well, methinks you'd kniw that earthquakes and young mountain ranges, especially twisted ones, are connected - and there are the Carpathian Mountains in a nice inverted S curve across Romania :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 04:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now you are just rubbing it in ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 04:37:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I had a diary idea where I would make an effort to analyse the potential risks of catastrophic earthquakes for EU countries; Romania was one of those...
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Tue Feb 3rd, 2009 at 08:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
corruption problems, political problems and administrative problems delaying this and other equally important projects included in Romanian development plans

Let's be charitable: I think the number one factor was lack of money; just in the field of infrastructure, there are too many projects in need of investment. So decisionmakers are also gambling.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 04:14:50 AM EST
Having spent 22 years between the San Andreas and Hayward faults (just to mention two), and experiencing up to 7.1 Richter, i can attest that even wealthy areas make gambles in their decision-making.  At some point, the gambles will be lost.

I always checked things from bedrock to the building before i made a move, learning to live on solid rock rather than liquifaction prone silt.

Thanks for bringing Romania's situation to the fore.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 06:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don´t feel too charitable today...

I didn´t include the budget issue because I'm not an expert and didn't found verified information. You´re right in one thing: it seems expensive, what I read is a cost of at least 100 euros/square meter. Fair enough, people cannot afford it. However, the budgetary allocation has been fairly great these years. What I should do is to take some time andgather all the numbers to prove that, as I haven´t done that research thoroughtly. There´s budgetary allocation for preventive programmes from World Bank financing, Japanese Development Agency Aid, Ministry budget, Local budget. In European programmes there´s no specific funding for that because the issue is covered by other "traditional" funding frameworks. Traditional, at work since 1989-1990 at least... but... working?

But let´s be a little charitable: they´ve done things, they DID improve the monitoring sites ans research centres (there used to be 1 and now there´s 4 or 5). That´s good, I agree.

About World Bank financing, having WB money allocatied to these expensive programmes is very significative, as Romania is now non elegible for almost every kind of WB or IMF aid. Infrastructure programmes where cut off after EU membership, and there´s already no support on monetary policy because of the same reason, but antiseismic programmes are still supported by international organisations. I reckon that´s because they are critical everywhere, hazards being closer to "Millenium Goals" than to "EU Goals".

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)

by pereulok on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 08:45:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I remember news of the two 1990 quakes.

I found an article (in Hungarian) about a simulation done in 2007 of a repeat of the 1977 quake, which paints an even more scary scenario. Due to the deterioration of the communism-era concrete apartment towers (plattenbau), the prediction for a quake at 21h is 450,000 dead, 30(0?),000 injured, 95,000 trapped in ruins. Worse, 25 of the 57 hospitals is expected to collapse. The conductors of the study emphasized that they did not even consider the collapse of the dam wall of an estuary upriver.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 04:30:29 AM EST
I found a longer list of strong Vrancea earthquakes:

Vrancea-Source Influence on Local Response in Bucharest

The records concerning the damage effects in Bucharest, due to the Vrancea earthquakes, start with the August 19, 1681 (MW=7.1) event, and continue with the June 11, 1738 (MW=7.7); October 26, 1802 (MW=7.9); November 23 and 26, 1829 (MW=7.3); January 11, 1838 (MW=7.5) events. In this century more detailed information is available for the strong events that occurred on November 10, 1940 (MW=7.7); March 4, 1977 (MW=7.4); August 30, 1986 (MW=7.1), and May 30, 1990 (MW=6.9), and it is briefly summarized in MÂNDRESCU & RADULIAN (1999,a).

...(a) the May 30, 1990 (Mw=6.9), and (b) the May 31, 1990 (Mw=6.4), Vrancea events...



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 04:49:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found a nice map:

Vrancea Earthquakes


Fig. 1:Top: Digital strong motion network of Kinemetrics K2 instruments in SE Romania and temporal stations during the Carpathian Arc Lithosphere Cross-Tomography (CALIXTO) experiment in 1999. Epicenters of Vrancea intermediate-depth earthquakes and shallow crustal events (since 1990) are marked by red circles and black crosses, respectively. Bottom: 3-component recordings of ground acceleration of the October 27, 2004 Vrancea earthquake (Mw=5.9) (epicenter marked in map by yellow star) at stations VRI (rock) and CFR (soil). Site effects at station CFR cause a significant higher level of ground shaking than expected from distant-dependent attenuation.

They also give what I sought after, the (significant) depths of the major earthquakes:

Four major events struck within this century:
DateDepth (km)Moment Magnitude
Nov. 10, 19401557.7
March 4, 1977957.4
Aug. 30, 19861307.1
May 30, 1990906.9


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 05:01:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can anyone explain me the scientific reason why 1977 earthquake was a catastrophe and the one at 1990 was "little"... Not so much difference, apparently. The same between 1940 and 1986... The papers I found on the internet are either too technical for me or consider that so clear that don´t explain further... Thanks!

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)
by pereulok on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 08:50:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My first reply would have been that the 1977 quake was 6-7 times stronger, which may make a difference. But then I Googled and found a few sources, from which the issue seems a still open question. I read that not only were there lots of dead, but even neighbouring blocks were very differently affacted.

Meanwhile, both theories advanced to explain it have holes: focussing (layers are aligned the wrong way for that) and the reactivation of an old fault line (no aftershocks and no damage along the entire length of the candidate paleo-fault).

<conspiracy theorist>
Maybe it was the Securitate...
</conspiracy theorist>

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 01:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Moment magnitude is measured on a logarithmic scale.

What that means is that a movement of +1 on the scale (say from 5.5 to 6.5) indicates that the earthquake is ten times larger.

So, to work out how many times bigger one earthquake is than another (say 1940 and 1986), you get yourself a scientific calculator (online version here) and calculate the difference between the numbers:

7.7-7.1 = 0.6

(OK, you didn't need a calculator for that bit)

and then press "INV" followed by "log".  This converts the answer back into "regular" numbers, and in this case, gives an answer of 3.98.  So the 1940 quake was about four times more powerful than the 1986 one.

For discussion, I'll just throw in the thought that whether or not an earthquake is a catastrophe is measured by loss of life (and property). Is it possible that the buildings that replaced those destroyed in the 1940 quake were built to a higher standard, leading to a lower rate of collapse next time?

by Sassafras on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 02:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, motion is one thing, power another: the multiplier for power is 30, not 10. So the 1940 quake was almost eight times more powerful than the 1986 one.

However, while I thought of the same as you, after some reading, the situation with the 1977 quake seems different, see my own reply to pereulok.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 06:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I´ll try to forget the killed for a minute. Yeah, meybe yoy´re right, standards are lowered. However, sometimes what happens also is that there´s an urgent need of housing to be solved, so many cheap buildings "prefabricados" (I think the word is pre-assembling estructures, but I´m not sure) are built. They are said to be temporal (3-5 years), but in practise they stay. I don´t know if that´s the case in Romania, I just remembered the case of the Soviet "Jrushovkas", 5-storey buildings built during the Khruschov years that never were rebuilt, and becoming a real danger in Russian cities of provinces. But in Romania I´ve heard complanis that standards were lowered after 1940 and after 1977, but not fully complied with until 1989...

Another issue in Bucharest is the consequences for the urban development in the city. Buildings that were built didn´t respect style, height or anything... In a context of disrespect (people blame Ceacescu, but Ceaucescu just made huge -because he was a megalomaniac- the kind of unrespectful development of Bucharest historical centre that was the habit in the 70s and is still the habit nowadays. If you look at the hedquarters of the Union of Arquitect you would imagine what they are doing around here... As this is not the only but one of many cocrete+glass let´s see if we change from being called little Paris to being called little Berlin buildings in city centre.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pereulok/2281943859/in/set-72157612909967720/

And an example of the kind fo buildings that were bbuilt were the 1940s/1977s collapsed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pereulok/2251542375/

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)

by pereulok on Tue Jan 27th, 2009 at 04:10:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That IS scary...

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)
by pereulok on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 08:29:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you find more on this report in Romanian? That article I linked doesn't name names, and only recounts an article in Gandul.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 09:38:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the story on that report is different that you and me both expected! It seems (press archives sais so) that it was not a scientific report, but a journalist report made by Gandul that, it seems, was a bit of a press scandal in 2007.

In the 30th aniversary of the earthquake, on March 4th 1977, an earthquake simulacre" (not simulation) was made in Bucharest streets by General Inspectorate for Emergency Situation (IGSU). It did show, it seems, failures in the reaction protocal in case of hazards. At the same time, "Gandul" published that frightening article, that was afterwards to be rejected as "alarmist" and "Holiwood-like". Thats why all the news on that report you find say "the experts" from a "public research centre". That should be, maybe, the National Centre for Seismic Risk reduction, supported by JICA, but couldn't find scientific reports published on the web. http://cnrrs.utcb.ro/)

As you asked the report in Romanian, I send you the link of a 2007 news form a different newspaper than Gandul where they show their disconformity with the alarmism of the "Gandul earthquake".

http://www.ultima-ora.ro/archive.php?action=toDetail&article_id=238

I can't advise you who to believe to, sincerely. I wasn't in Bucharest in 2007, so I can't tell you the reality of the scandal. And while I did some reading on this issue, I did find some papers on earthquake simulation, but from the point of view of the natural phenomenun, and other reports on risk perception by population. I haven't found a scientific report on consequences for buildings and civil population for us to have "non-journalistic" data. They may exist, of course...


"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)

by pereulok on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 12:19:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I read my Google translate right, the article you link mentions Gandul's likely source: a report that says that 450,000 people are endangered, by living in pre-1977 buildings; but that report estimated the number of actual dead at 'only' 6,500.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 01:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, you're right. 450.000 would be sleeping in endangered buildings. The Gandul kills them all. The INCERC experts estimates how many are killed... God knows how. I won't be able to find that report on the web, INCERC is a low digitalised institute, let's say. However, I do know people working there, so if I get the chance I'll ask them about this...

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)
by pereulok on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 01:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]