Acerca de

Introduction and Background

Each year earthquakes directly impact 3.5 million people, killing 60,000 and causing billions of US dollars of damage (Kenny, 2009). Additionally, earthquakes cause significant trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental disorders (Ishwari Adhikari & Bhagawati, 2019). Romania is especially vulnerable to earthquakes, as it sits near the Vrancea seismic zone. Despite experts predicting a major earthquake in the next 40 years (Pavel & Vacareanu, 2017), Romania remains underprepared for the next significant seismic event (M. Sumbasacu, personal communication, April 5, 2022).

 

During the 20th century, as cities grew, seismic risk also grew. Before 1940, although Bucharest had survived many earthquakes, due to the lack of urbanization and tall structures, the city only suffered minor damages. This changed in 1940 when a magnitude 7.7 earthquake killed 1,000 people and injured 11,000 more (see Figure E.1). A second earthquake struck in 1977, killing over 1,500 people and inflicting over 2 billion US dollars in infrastructure damages (Armaş et al., 2017).

​

The Romanian government has neglected earthquake vulnerability. For example, under Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime, builders completely ignored earthquake safety when constructing housing, as Ceausescu prioritized rapidly urbanizing Romania over ensuring the safety of the buildings (Mungiu-Pippidi, 2010). After many buildings collapsed or sustained damage in the 1977 earthquake, workers cosmetically fixed structures instead of structurally fixing them (see Figure E.1) (Simpson et al., 2020). Additionally, tens of thousands of communist era buildings only have to meet the codes of their era, rather than modern day codes (Pavel et al., 2021). Furthermore, the Romanian government is plagued with single bidding and political connections where construction companies have pocketed €200 million from corrupt contracts awarded by Romanian officials (Doroftei, 2016).

Additional systemic issues prevent widespread retrofitting and assessing. Current building assessment techniques require certified structural engineers and take two weeks to complete, which are expensive and time-consuming (M. Sumbasacu, personal communication, April 5, 2022). Additionally, if the results from an assessment categorize the building at the highest vulnerability class, authorities mark the structure with a red dot, which reduces property value  (Suditu et al., 2020).

This discourages building owners from allowing inspectors inside in the first place. Furthermore, even if an assessor inspects a building, each individual apartment owner needs to approve a retrofit and find alternative housing while construction workers fix the building (M. Sumbasacu, personal communication, April 5, 2022). These factors have led to only 23 retrofits out of 335 red dot buildings (Ivanov, 2021) with inspectors failing to assess tens of thousands of buildings (M. Sumbasacu, personal communication, April 5, 2022).

 

Romanian NGOs are taking action to reduce seismic vulnerability in Bucharest, Romania. One of these NGOs, Re:Rise, aims to “act as a bridge between people at risk of seismic risk and … the technological, financial, administrative and human resources available” (Sumbasacu, 2022). Re:Rise’s projects include a registry of construction vehicles and aerial photography methods to assist emergency services immediately following an earthquake. Additionally, Re:Rise maintains a publicly available seismic risk map containing seismic information for individual buildings in Bucharest .

The goal of this project is to assist Re:Rise in preparing to conduct seismic risk assessments and inform the public on the seismic risk of historically vulnerable buildings in Bucharest, Romania.

​

We address this goal through three main objectives:

     - Evaluate seismic risk assessment methods

      -Identify similar buildings across Bucharest

       -Educate the public on the prevalence of historically vulnerable buildings in Bucharest

 

Methodology

To accomplish the goals and objectives, the team used three methods: interviews with seismic experts from Romania, Greece, and the United States, locating seismically vulnerable buildings throughout Bucharest, and drafting a newspaper article.

​

            To achieve the first objective, the team evaluated seismic risk assessment (SRA) methods by conducting five interviews with SRA experts, such as engineers, academics and inspectors. The team designed the interviews to gain insight into how experts viewed SRA compared to RVSRA methods.

​

            The team geo-mapped structures throughout Bucharest to achieve the second objective. Buildings with similar architecture and attributes will likely have similar outcomes after an earthquake. Re:Rise founder Sumbasacu showed the team how to identify historically vulnerable double orientation (OD) buildings using GIS software. The team analyzed satellite images of Bucharest to try and mark all OD buildings.

​

            Lastly, to achieve the final objective, the team wrote a draft of a newspaper article to educate the Romanian public about seismic risk, as there is a need to increase awareness about seismic vulnerability.

Results

​

Expert Opinion of RVSRAs

Experts opined on the advantages and disadvantages of RVSRAs, the applications of RVSRAs, and how to conduct RVSRAs. They largely agreed on the advantages and disadvantages of RVSRAs. All interviewees agreed that RVSRAs are less expensive and faster than traditional SRAs but are less accurate.

​

Experts gave three major applications of RVSRAs. The first application regarded reducing the building stock to evaluate. Since traditional assessments can take two weeks, an RVSRA can prioritize the buildings most in need of retrofitting where the most people are in danger. Next, an RVSRA can be utilized in conjunction with a seismic model to predict the loss of life and economic loss of the next major earthquake. Lastly, an inspector recommended conducting RVSRAs post-earthquake to determine which structures residents can safely return to without fear of a delayed collapse.

​

Furthermore, engineers gave professional advice on the best way to conduct RVSRAs. One expert recommended grouping similarly constructed residential areas together, as damage within each zone will likely be similar. Experts expressed the importance of checking the data gathered in RVSRAs; seismic expert Mike Mahoney states “your findings are only as good as the information you have” (M. Mahoney, personal communication, March 23, 2022).

​

Experts disagreed on the requisite knowledge required for RVSRA inspectors. Some experts expressed the necessity for experienced and accredited inspectors, while others had successfully conducted RVSRAs with undergraduate students. Other experts thought graduate students were the right choice.

Geo-mapping

​

The team geo-mapped double orientation (OD) buildings throughout Romania using GIS software. In total, the team marked 480 OD buildings (see Figure E.4 and E.5), which could potentially house around 30,000 residents. A high portion of OD buildings have either collapsed or exhibited severe damages in prior earthquakes, meaning their residents are in direct danger for the next earthquake. OD buildings are just one of the many building types found in Bucharest that are seismically unsafe.

 

​

Newspaper Article Draft

Lastly, the team drafted an article explaining the team’s experience and findings. For example, the team was alarmed to learn that 30,720 residents living in OD buildings may be uninformed about the structures’ risk. The article utilizes these powerful statistics to attempt to sway Romanian citizens and the Romanian government to prioritize earthquake preparedness. Lastly, the team sent the article to the collaborator for further edits and eventual publication.

 

Recommendations

Use Geo-Mapping to Quicken RVSRA Program

Considering the similarities between different building types, the team believes that conducting RVSRAs on a sample from each building type can accurately indicate the structural integrity of the rest of the building stock.

Create a Seismic Model

Re:Rise should investigate seismic computer models as a tool to estimate the potential damages of the next major earthquake.

Use Graduate Students to Conduct RVSRAs

The team believes that graduate students are good candidates for Re:Rise’s RVSRA program, as they have adequate experience and are not as expensive as using professional engineers.

Use Quality Control for RVSRA Results

The team recommends having a quality control measure to ensure the data collected is accurate, as inaccurate data has the potential to make the whole RVSRA operation ineffective.

Establish Credibility for RVSRA Assessors

            As residents may be suspicious of individuals collecting information about their homes, it is important that local governments provide credibility and approval to assessors. Additionally, inspectors can wear identifying clothing to signify their official status.

Conclusions

Bucharest is incredibly vulnerable to earthquakes. Thousands of structures remain uninspected and most likely unsafe. The team concluded that RVSRAs are a useful tool to assess structures more quickly than current practices. The team also successfully geo-mapped 480 double orientation buildings and produced a draft of an article to present to the public, which is important because the next major earthquake is due sometime in the next 30 years. The team hopes that this project will inspire change and action to prepare Romania for the next earthquake and save thousands of lives.