Collapse Assessment for a RC Frame Structure in Bucharest (Romania)

  • Florin PavelEmail author
  • Andrei Pricopie
  • George Nica
Research Paper


The focus of this paper is to evaluate the collapse probability of a planar RC frame structure designed for the seismic conditions of Bucharest (Romania). The assessment is performed using both static and dynamic nonlinear analyses. 1000 pushover curves are sampled for the analysed structure taking into account the uncertainty due to the materials’ strengths and due to the gravitational loading. The nonlinear time–history analyses are conducted on equivalent SDOF structures derived from each sample of pushover curves. Finally, the collapse assessment is assessed through multiple stripe analyses performed using a ground motion dataset of 20 representative horizontal components recorded in Bucharest area during three past major intermediate-depth Vrancea earthquakes. The results show an annual collapse probability of the order 3.0 × 10−3 to 6.0 × 10−5, which represents a value similar with those obtained in order studies in the literature. The nonlinear analyses also show that the epistemic uncertainty due to the modelling uncertainties has a much smaller contribution to the total uncertainty as compared to the record-to-record variability. The most important parameters affecting the collapse fragility appear to be the concrete compressive strength and the Young’s modulus for concrete.


Pushover curve Multiple-stripe analysis Vrancea seismic source Equivalent SDOF Strength uncertainty Loading uncertainty 



The constructive comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers and from the Editor are greatly appreciated as they have helped us to considerable improve the quality of the original manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Kwon OS, Elnashai A (2006) The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure. Eng Struct 28:289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vamvatsikos D, Fragiadakis M (2010) Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthq Eng Struct D 39:141–163Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dolsek M (2009) Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties. Earthq Eng Struct D 38:805–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liel AB, Haselton CB, Deierlein GC, Baker JW (2009) Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Struct Saf 31:197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goulet CA, Haselton CB, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein GA, Porter KA, Stewart JP (2007) Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building—from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthq Eng Struct D 36:1973–1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fajfar P, Dolsek M (2012) A practice-oriented estimation of the failure probability of building structures. Earthq Eng Struct D 41:531–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ulrich T, Negulescu C, Douglas J (2014) Fragility curves for risk-targeted seismic design maps. B Earthq Eng 12:1479–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iervolino I, Spillatura A, Bazzurro P (2017) RINTC project: assessing the (implicit) seismic risk of code-conforming structures in Italy. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M, editors. COMPDYN 2017–6th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering; Rhodes Island, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P100-1/2013 (2013) Code for seismic design—part I—design prescriptions for buildings. Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CEN, Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Standard EN 1998-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Melchers RE (1999) Structural reliability analysis and prediction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franchin P, Mollaioli F, Noto F (2017) RINTC project: influence of structure-related uncertainties on the risk of collapse of Italian code-conforming reinforced concrete buildings. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M, editors. COMPDYN 2017–6th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering; Rhodes Island, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seismosoft (2016) SeismoStruct—a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. Accessed Aug 2018
  14. 14.
    Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114:1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baker JW, Cornell CA (2008) Uncertainty propagation in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Struct Saf 30:236–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bradley BA, Lee DS (2010) Accuracy of approximate methods of uncertainty propagation in seismic loss estimation. Struct Saf 32:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct D 38:951–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Luca F, Vamvatsikos D, Iervolino I (2013) Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis. Earthq Eng Struct D 42:523–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pavel F, Calotescu I, Vacareanu R, Sandulescu AM (2016) Derivation of scenario earthquakes for Bucharest, Romania. In: Proceedings of the international conference on urban risks ICUR, Lisbon, Portugal, paper no. 145Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manea EF, Michel C, Poggi V, Fäh D, Radulian M, Balan SF (2016) Improving the shear wave velocity structure beneath Bucharest (Romania) using ambient vibrations. Geophys J Int 207:848–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shafei B, Zareian F, Lignos DG (2011) A simplified method for collapse capacity assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural systems. Eng Struct 33:1107–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Camata G, Celano F, De Risi MT, Franchin P, Magliulo G, Manfredi V et al (2017) RINTC project: nonlinear dynamic analyses of Italian code-conforming reinforced concrete buildings for risk of collapse assessment. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M, editors. COMPDYN 2017–6th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering; Rhodes Island, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Eq Spectra 31:579–599Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pavel F, Vacareanu R (2017) Ground motion simulations for seismic stations in southern and eastern Romania and seismic hazard assessment. J Seismol 21:1023–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of Civil Engineering BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations