SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

PRIORITY FP6-2002-INCO-MPC-1

“EARTHQUAKE PROTECTION OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS

BY REVERSIBLE MIXED TECHNOLOGIES”

Instrument: Specific Targeted Research Project

Thematic Priority: FP6-2002-INCO-MPC-1
Start date of project: 1st October 2004
Duration: 36 months

Contribution of UTCB to the Workpackage 1

European distinctive features, inventory database and typology:
Risk UE WP1

Date of preparation: May 16, 2005, Doc. No. 08.01.02.01

Author(s): Dan Lungu, Cristian Arion, Alexandru Aldea, Radu Vacareanu
Organisation: Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest

WP Leader:
Organisation:

Project coordinator: Federico M. Mazzolani

Organisation: Department of Structural Analysis and Design,
University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy

Revision [draft]

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 1

Contents
Terminology ......................................................................................................................4
1. Classification of buildings occupancy ..........................................................................4
2.Building typology matrix, BTM.....................................................................................7
3. Description of structural typologies ..............................................................................9
3.1. M1.1 - Rubble stone, fieldstone masonry bearing walls............................................. 9
3.2. M1.2 - Simple stone masonry bearing walls ............................................................... 9
3.3. M1.3 - Massive stone masonry bearing walls............................................................. 9
3.4. M2 - Adobe ................................................................................................................. 9
3.5. M3.1 - Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with wooden slabs......................... 10
3.6. M3.2 - Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with masonry vaults ...................... 11
3.7. M3.3 - Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with composite steel and masonry slabs
12
3.8. M3.4 - Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with reinforced concrete slabs ...... 13
3.9. M4 - Reinforced or confined masonry bearing walls........................................... 15
3.10. M5 - Overall strengthened masonry buildings....................................................... 15
3.11. RC1 - concrete moment frames............................................................................... 15
3.12 RC2 - Concrete shear walls...................................................................................... 18
3.13. RC3.1 - Concrete frames with regular unreinforced masonry infill walls.............. 18
3.14. RC3.2 - Iregular concrete frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls ............. 19
3.15. RC4 - RC dual systems (rc frames and walls) ........................................................ 22
3.16. RC5 - Precast concrete tilt-up walls........................................................................ 22
3.17. S1 - Steel moment frames ...................................................................................... 23
3.18 S2 - Steel braced frames....................................................................................... 24
3.19. S3 - Steel frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls....................................... 24
3.20. S5 - Steel and RC composite systems ..................................................................... 25
3.21. W - wood structures ................................................................................................ 25

2 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

List of illustrations

FIGURES

Fig. 1 - Luxury dwellings built in late 19th century

Fig. 2 - Middle class dwellings in the former outskirts of Bucharest, early 20th century
Fig. 3 - Coltea Tower, damaged by 1802 and 1838 earthquakes, demolished in 1880
Fig. 4 - Manuc Inn in downtown Bucharest, 18th century
Fig. 5 - Palace of Justice, built late 19th century
Fig. 6 - Cantacuzino Palace, built late 19th century
Fig. 7 - Medicine Faculty in Bucharest, heavily damaged by 1977 earthquake
Fig. 8 - Romanian Peasant Museum, built in 1930’s
Fig. 9 - Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest, built early 1960’s
Fig. 10 - Carlton Building, built mid 1930’s - 11 stories, h = 47 m
Fig. 11 - Carlton Building, destroyed by 1940 earthquake
Fig. 12 - Damaged RC frame building (Computation Center of Ministry of Transportation) by
1977 earthquake
Fig. 13 - Typical RC frame apartment building, built in 1980's
Fig. 14 - ALMO apartment and commercial complex, built in early 1970's
Fig. 15 - Dunarea apartment and commercial building partially colpased in 1977
Fig. 16 - Wilson apartment and commercial building collapsed during 1977 earthquake
Fig. 17 - Wilson building today - front section removed
Fig. 18 - Apartment and commercial building, 2 Franklin Street, partially collapsed in 1977
Fig. 19 - Apartment and commercial building, 2 Franklin Street - today
Fig. 20 - Ministry building in Constitution Square
Fig. 21 - Office Building on 5 Calea Victoriei
Fig. 22 - Typical precast concrete tilt-up walls building in Bucharest
Fig. 23 - ROMTELECOM Main Switchboard Bldg. (strengthening works, Sept. 2001)
Fig. 24 - Parliament Building

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 3

TERMINOLOGY

The different kinds of intervention work are defined in various manners in normative
documents from different countries, as well as in technical literature.
(The Burra Charter, The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places
of cultural significance)

- Adaptation means modifying a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use.
- Consolidation: the rebuilding or renewal of any parts of the construction (of some elements or
an assembly of elements) with the purpose of obtaining an enhanced structural capacity; for
example, high-resistance capacity, enhanced stiffness, better ductility;
- Intervention : (structural and/or non-structural): a concept that involves standards regarding
consolidation, repair and reshaping;
- Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place, and is
to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction.
- Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding
deterioration.
- Repair: the rebuilding or renewal of any damaged or faulty part of the construction to obtain
the same level of resistance, stiffness and/or ductility with the one previous to its
degradation;
- Reshaping: the rebuilding or renewal of any parts of the construction resulting in the change
in function or in the occupancy rate;
- Rehabilitation: the rebuilding or renewal of a damaged construction in order to ensure the
same level of functioning similar to the one previous to the degradation of the building.
- Restoration means returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by
removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new
material.
- Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from
restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric.

Restoration and reconstruction should reveal culturally significant aspects of the place.
Restoration is appropriate only if there is sufficient evidence of an earlier state of the fabric.
Reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete through damage or alteration,
and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the fabric. In rare
cases, reconstruction may also be appropriate as part of a use or practice that retains the cultural
significance of the place. Reconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection or through
additional interpretation.

1. CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS OCCUPANCY

The assignment of each building to one of the three importance/exposure (combined)

categories significantly influences the expected performance of buildings during and after an
earthquake. The lower the importance/exposure category, the higher the seismic performance
required.
It is expected that buildings of importance/exposure category 1 should be capable of
responding to the maximum probable earthquake undamaged or with very minor damages.
However, even the buildings of importance/exposure category 3 should respond to such

4 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

earthquakes at a near collapse (or better performance) level, ensuring the life safety of the
occupants.
The occupancy exposure can be very simply evaluated by the number of persons
expected to be in the building during an earthquake.
In terms of post-earthquake recovery, certain types of occupancies are vital to the public needs.
These special occupancies are clearly identified as critical emergency services: fire and police
stations, hospitals, communication centres, etc.
Classification of building occupancy combined with building importance/exposure
categories given in Table 1.

Table 1. Classification of buildings occupancy

Name Occupancy category Importance/exposure category
1 2 3
B GENERAL BUILDING STOCK
B1 Residential
1.1 Single family dwelling (house) x
1.2 Multi family dwelling (apartment bldg.)
1.3 Low-rise (1-2) x
1.4 Mid-rise (3-7) x
1.5 High-rise (8+) x1) x
1.6 Institutional dormitory x1) x
B2 Commercial
2.1 Supermarkets, Malls x2) x
2.2 Offices x2) x
2.3 Services x
2.4 Hotels, Motels x2) x
2.5 Restaurants, Bars x
2.6 Parking x
2.7 Warehouse x
B3 Cultural
3.1 Museums x3) x
3.2 Theatres, Cinemas x2) x
3.3 Public event buildings x2) x
3.4 Stadiums x2) x
B4 Multiple use x or x2)
1)
x
B5 Monuments and historical heritage
5.1 Palaces, Mansion houses x4) x
5.2 Tower x
5.3 Castles x
5.4 Triumphal arch x
5.5 Obelisk x
5.6 Monumental fountains and Statues x
5.7 Gate of the town and surrounding walls x
5.8 Masonry bridges x5) x
5.9 Archaeological sites x
B6 Religion
6.1 Churches x1) x
6.2 Oratories, Chapels, Shrines x
6.3 Mosques x1) x
6.4 Convents and Monasteries x

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 5

 Name Occupancy category Importance/exposure category
1 2 3
B7 Industrial
7.1 Heavy x
7.2 Light x
7.3 Food x
7.4 Chemicals, Drugs x
7.5 High technology x
7.6 Construction x
B8 Agricultural none
B9 Temporary buildings none
EF ESSENTIAL FACILITIES
EF1 Government functions and civil defence
1.1 Government buildings x
1.2 Defence buildings x
1.3 Local administration buildings x
EF2 Health and medical care
2.1 Hospitals with surgery or emergency x
treatment facilities with more than 200
beds
2.2 Hospitals with 50 to 200 beds x
2.3 Hospitals with less than 50 beds x
2.4 Clinics, Labs x
2.5 Other health care facilities x
EF3 Emergency response
3.1 Fire stations x
3.2 Police stations x
3.3 Emergency operation facilities x
EF4 Education facilities
4.1 Kindergarten x
4.2 Elementary School x1) x
4.3 Secondary School x1) x
4.4 High school x1) x
4.5 University x2) x
H HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
H1 Facilities producing or containing:
1.1 Radioactive substances x
1.2 Toxic substances x x6)
1.3 Explosive substances x x6)
1.4 Other hazardous substances x x6)

Observations:
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
3) Museums housing very important cultural values
4) Buildings with essential functions and possibility of crowding
5) Old bridges which have an essential role in the traffic of the city
6) Facilities equipped with proper protection to prevent release of harmful quantities
• B1.6 Institutional dormitories includes military, jails and detention facilities
• B2.2 Offices includes professional/technical services and banks
• B4 Multiple use includes combinations of categories B1, B2 and B3
• EF3.3 Emergency operation facilities include rescue stations, emergency vehicle garages, emergency operation
centres, etc.
• EF4 Education facilities are categorised as Essential facilities only if they are designated as emergency shelters
• Exposure refers to element at risk such as number of people and value of building & it’s content. Buildings
belonging to Importance & exposure category 1 are the most important/exposed.

6 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

2.BUILDING TYPOLOGY MATRIX, BTM
The purpose of the building typology matrix, BTM is to group into a set of pre-defined
building classes the buildings with similar structural systems and behaviour characteristics.
Damage and loss prediction models can then be developed for model building types which
represent the average characteristics of the total population of buildings within each class.
The following primary parameters affecting building damage and loss characteristics
were given consideration in developing the building typology matrix:
- Structural parameters affecting structural capacity and response
- Seismic design criteria (code level)
- Basic structural system (material and system)
- Building height (low-rise, mid-rise, high-rise)
- Non-structural elements affecting non-structural damage.
Building height subclasses were introduced to represent the variation of typical building
periods and other design parameters with building height.

Table 2. Building typology matrix, BTM

Label Building type description Height description Code level*
Name No. of Height h, N L M H
stories m
M Masonry structures
M1 Stone masonry bearing walls made of:
1.1 Rubble stone, fieldstone Low-rise 1-2 h≤6
Mid-rise 3-5 6 < h ≤ 15

1.2 Simple stone Low-rise 1–2 h≤6

Mid-rise 3–5 6 < h ≤ 15
High-rise 6+ h > 15

1.3 Massive stone Low-rise 1–2 h≤6

Mid-rise 3–5 6 < h ≤ 15
High-rise 6+ h > 15
M2 Adobe Low-rise 1-2 h≤6
M3 Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with:
3.1 Wooden slabs Low-rise 1-2 h≤6
Mid-rise 3–5 6 < h ≤ 15
High-rise 6+ h > 15

3.2 Masonry vaults Low-rise 1-2 h≤6

Mid-rise 3–5 6 < h ≤ 15
High-rise 6+ h > 15

3.3 Composite steel and masonry slabs Low-rise 1-2 h≤6

Mid-rise 3–5 6 < h ≤ 15
High-rise 6+ h > 15
3.4 Reinforced concrete slabs Low-rise 1-2 h≤6
Mid-rise 3–5
6 < h ≤ 15
High-rise 6+
h > 15
M4 Reinforced or confined masonry bearing Low-rise 1–2 h≤6
walls Mid-rise 3–5 6 < h ≤ 15
High-rise 6+ h > 15

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 7

 Label Building type description Height description Code level*
Name No. of Height h, N L M H
stories m
M5 Overall strengthened masonry buildings Low-rise 1–2 h≤6
Mid-rise 3–5 6 < h ≤ 15
High-rise 6+ h > 15
RC Reinforced concrete structures
RC1 Concrete moment frames Low-rise 1-3 h≤9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h ≤ 21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC2 Concrete shear walls Low-rise 1-3 h≤9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h ≤ 21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC3 Concrete frames with unreinforced masonry
infill walls
3.1 Regularly infilled frames Low-rise 1-3 h≤9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h ≤ 21
High-rise 8+ h > 21

3.2 Irregularly frames (i.e., irregular structural Low-rise 1-3 h≤9

system, irregular infills, soft/weak story) Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h ≤ 21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC4 RC Dual systems (RC frames and walls) Low-rise 1-3 h≤9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h ≤ 21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC5 Precast Concrete Tilt-Up Walls Low-rise 1-3 h≤9
Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h ≤ 21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
RC6 Precast Concrete Frames with Concrete Low-rise 1-3 h≤9
shear walls Mid-rise 4-7 9 < h ≤ 21
High-rise 8+ h > 21
S Steel structures
S1 Steel moment frames Low-rise 1–3 h ≤ 10
Mid-rise 4–7 10< h ≤25
High-rise 8+ h > 25
S2 Steel braced frames Low-rise 1–3 h ≤ 10
Mid-rise 4–7 10< h ≤25
High-rise 8+ h > 25
S3 Steel Frames with Unreinforced masonry Low-rise 1–3 h ≤ 10
infill walls Mid-rise 4–7 10< h ≤25
High-rise 8+ h > 25
S4 Steel Frames with Cast-in-Place Concrete Low-rise 1–3 h ≤ 10
shear Walls Mid-rise 4–7 10< h ≤25
High-rise 8+ h > 25
S5 Steel and RC composite systems Low-rise 1–3 h ≤ 10
Mid-rise 4–7 10< h ≤25
High-rise 8+ h > 25
W Wood structures Low-rise 1-2 h ≤ 5.5
Mid-rise 3+ h > 5.5
* N - no code; L - low-code (designed with unique arbitrary base shear seismic coefficient and/or without proper
rules for structure & detailing); M - moderate-code (any code that is not low or high); H - high-code (code
comparable with Eurocode 8)

8 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

3. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL TYPOLOGIES

A short description of structural typologies is given in this chapter. Structural typologies

represent either specific European structural types or universal standard structure types.

3.1. M1.1 - Rubble stone, fieldstone masonry bearing walls

These are traditional constructions in which undressed stones are used as the basic building
material, usually with poor quality mortar, leading to buildings which are heavy and have little
resistance to lateral loads. Floors are typically of wood and provide no horizontal stiffening.

3.2. M1.2 - Simple stone masonry bearing walls

Simple stone constructions differ from fieldstone constructions in that the building stones
have undergone some dressing prior to be used. These hewn stones are arranged in the
construction according to some techniques to improve the strength of the structure. In this
typology also buildings with masonry of slit stones, roughly dressed, may be considered, as long
as stones are of significant size, with an accurate texture and, sometimes, with small stone flakes,
put in later in order to increase contacts. Moreover, it may be included in this type the fieldstone
masonry intercalated with horizontal layers, made up with bricks or larger stones.

3.3. M1.3 - Massive stone masonry bearing walls

Buildings with very large stones are usually monumental constructions, palaces, castles,
mansions, etc. Regarding the building techniques, this kind of masonry has been developed in the
Middle Ages; the stones are dressed with a great accuracy, and the materials and workmanship are
most of the times of a very good quality. Consequently, these buildings usually possess great
strength, which contributes to their good seismic behaviour.

3.4. M2 - Adobe

This type of construction can be found in many places where there are suitable clays.
Methods of adobe construction vary widely, and they introduce large variations in the
earthquake resistance of adobe houses. Walls built up of layers of adobe without the use of
bricks are stiff but weak; adobe buildings may perform better depending on the quality of mortar,
and, to a lesser extent, on the quality of the bricks. Adobe houses with infilled wooden frames or
braces possess an increased lateral strength and perform significantly better during earthquakes.
Such buildings may suffer adobe wall damage relatively easily, while the wooden frame remains
intact. One also encounters cases where unconnected wooden beams and columns are used in
adobe houses; these provide horizontal extra strength and therefore improve performance, but
not so much as a connected frame would do.
Most of these dwellings are in poor condition due to age and improper maintenance and
utilities.

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 9

3.5. M3.1 - Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with wooden slabs

They are buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls and wooden slabs. The majority of
floor and roof construction consists of wood sheathing supported by wood framing. In general,
the vulnerability is affected by the number, size and position of the openings. Large openings,
small piers between openings and quoins, as well as sparse internal walls due to the wideness of
the rooms, contribute to a more vulnerable building. One problem to watch out for is the use of
cavity walls, which can, if not properly connected, create very weak walls with insufficient
earthquake resistance.
There is a large number of such kind of buildings erected in the 19th and early 20th
centuries, most of them in relatively good condition, providing that good workmanship and
maintenance were ensured. The roof is supported by wood trestle framing system and the roofing
is usually metal or ceramic.

Fig. 1 - Luxury dwellings built in late 19th century

Fig. 2 - Middle class dwellings in the former outskirts of Bucharest, early 20th century

10 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

 Photo © Monumentele din Romania, Nr.III, vol.8, Societatea “Arta Romaneasca”, Bucuresti, 1939
Fig. 3 - Coltea Tower, damaged by 1802 and 1838 earthquakes, demolished in 1880

3.6. M3.2 - Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with masonry vaults

They are buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls and masonry vaults. The masonry
vaults are supported directly on the masonry bearing walls or indirectly through masonry arches.
In most of cases this structural type is encountered in religion related buildings. In general, the
vulnerability is affected by the number, size and position of the openings. Large openings, small
piers between openings and quoins, as well as sparse internal walls due to the wideness of the
rooms, contribute to a more vulnerable building. One problem to watch out for is the use of
cavity walls, which can, if not properly connected, create very weak walls with insufficient
earthquake resistance.
There are a few old buildings in which the floor over the basement (and sometimes over the 1st
level) consist of masonry vaults. The roof is supported by wood trestle framing system and the
roofing is usually metal or ceramic.
The massive masonry bearing walls and vaults confer a very high lateral stiffness of the
structural system.

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 11

Fig. 4 - Manuc Inn in downtown Bucharest, 18th century

3.7. M3.3 - Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with composite steel and
masonry slabs

They are buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls and composite slabs made of steel
and masonry. The slabs are composed of steel beams supported on the masonry bearing walls
and masonry vaults placed in between the beams and supported on beam flanges. In general, the
vulnerability is affected by the number, size and position of the openings. Large openings, small
piers between openings and quoins, as well as sparse internal walls due to the wideness of the
rooms, contribute to a more vulnerable building. One problem to watch out for is the use of
cavity walls, which can, if not properly connected, create very weak walls with insufficient
earthquake resistance.
There is a large number of buildings - luxury and middle-class dwellings, public and educational
– of this typology. Most of them were built in the second half of the 19th century and early in the
20th century till reinforced concrete became a very popular solution. The magnitude of the
damage depends heavily on the sizes of interior open spaces and the height of the levels. Mainly
the roof is supported by wood trestle framing system and the roofing is usually metal sheet or
ceramic tiles.

12 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

 Fig. 5 - Palace of Justice, built late 19th century Fig. 6 - Cantacuzino Palace, built late
19th century

Photo © UTCB - Dan Lungu

Fig. 7 - Medicine Faculty in Bucharest, heavily damaged by 1977 earthquake

3.8. M3.4 - Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with reinforced concrete slabs

Although the walls are the most important elements to be observed in a building, sometimes
horizontal elements may be equally decisive in determining the resistance of a structure to lateral
loading. Hence the type of construction where the walls are unreinforced (bricks, dressed stones,

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 13

concrete blocks) and the floors are of reinforced concrete, will behave significantly better than
older ordinary masonry buildings. If the walls are connected and tied together with a rigid floor
slab with ring beams, a box-like system is created which effectively reduces the risk of out-of-
plane collapse of walls, or the separation and drift of intersecting perpendicular walls. This
improved performance will only be realised if the RC floor is properly connected with the
structure; this is the case for recent masonry buildings (20th Century), in which ring beams were
realised during the construction.
There is a large number of buildings - luxury and middle-class dwellings, public and educational
– of this typology. Most of them were built in the first half of the 20th century when reinforced
concrete became a very popular solution. In most cases the roof is supported by wood trestle
framing system and the roofing is usually metal sheet or ceramic tiles, or flat terrace roof
supported directly by the uppermost reinforced concrete slab.
The magnitude of the damage depends heavily on the quality of the connections between
reinforced concrete slabs and masonry structural walls.

Fig. 8 - Romanian Peasant Museum, built in 1930’s

14 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

3.9. M4 - Reinforced or confined masonry bearing walls

In reinforced masonry, bars or steel mesh are embedded (in mortar or grout) in holes or between
layers of masonry bricks, creating a composite material acting as a highly resistant and ductile
wall. Such reinforcement will be present in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Confined
masonry is characterised by masonry built rigidly between structural columns and beams on all
four sides, and provides a similar level of resistance. It is not intended in such cases that the
connecting elements should perform as a moment resistant frame, and so masonry is not only a
non-structural infill but the main structural material.
This structural solution was firstly promoted in late 1940’s and during 1950’s, especially for low
and medium rise apartment buildings and scarcely for offices. In seismic zones the only
admissible structural masonry type for medium rise buildings is confined masonry.

3.10. M5 - Overall strengthened masonry buildings

Old masonry buildings might have undergone an overall strengthening, in order to reduce the
seismic vulnerability. The works that belong to this category are the following: a) new RC
floors, with continuos ring beams and stiff slabs; b) jacketing of the masonry panels by RC; c)
construction of RC ring beams columns in the wall thickness, in order to confine masonry with a
no-moment resistant frame; d) insertion of a steal frame in the wall thickness. The behaviour of
this kind of buildings is very scattered, because it depends on the effectiveness of the adopted
intervention, in relation to the original building, and on the quality of its actual realisation.
Although the above-mentioned typology represents somehow a “standard” solution, it is not so
frequently encountered because of the high costs and the limited financial resources of the
owners.

3.11. RC1 - concrete moment frames

These buildings have RC columns and beams frames. In some cases, the beam-column
connections have very small moment resisting capacity but, in other cases, some of the beams
and columns are fully designed as moment frames to resist lateral forces. Usually the structure is
concealed on the outside by exterior non-structural walls, which can be of almost any material
(curtain walls, brick masonry, or precast concrete panels), and on the inside by ceilings and
column furring. Diaphragms (usually made of RC) transfer lateral loads to moment-resisting
frames. If present, the low stiffness of the frames can result in large interstory drifts that may
lead to relatively greater non-structural damage. There are a large variety of frame systems.
Some older concrete frames may be proportioned and detailed such that brittle failure of the
frame members can occur in earthquakes leading to partial or full collapse of the buildings.
Modern frames in zones of high seismicity are proportioned and detailed for ductile behaviour
and are likely to undergo large deformations during an earthquake without brittle failure of frame
members and collapse.

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 15

Fig. 9 - Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest, built early 1960’s

Photo © postcard, UTCB, Lungu D.

Fig. 10 - Carlton Building, built mid 1930’s - 11 stories, h=47 m

16 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

 Photo © Ifrim, M., 1973. Analiza dinamica a constructiilor si inginerie seismica, Ed.Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucuresti
Fig. 11 - Carlton Building, destroyed by 1940 earthquake

Photo © UTCB - Dan Lungu

Fig. 12 - Damaged RC frame building (Computation Center of Ministry of Transportation) by
1977 earthquake

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 17

Fig. 13 - Typical RC frame apartment building, built in 1980's

3.12 RC2 - Concrete shear walls

The vertical components of the lateral-force-resisting system in these buildings are concrete
shear walls that are usually bearing walls. In older buildings, the walls often are quite extensive
and the wall stresses are low but reinforcing is light. In newer buildings, the shear walls often are
limited in extent, generating concerns about boundary members and overturning forces.
This typology began extensively in early 1960’s on various structural concepts, such as: closely
spaced shear walls (honeycomb) and sparsely spaced shear walls (cellular). Also, according to
the layout the buildings can be classified as “point” buildings and “bar” buildings.
The shear walls buildings exhibited a very good behavior during past earthquakes, undergoing
very slight structural damage. The only moderate damage occurred in shear walls poorly
reinforced for shear.

Fig. 14 - ALMO apartment and commercial complex, built in early 1970's

3.13. RC3.1 - Concrete frames with regular unreinforced masonry infill walls

18 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

Buildings, generally without earthquake resistant design, that, however, have good regular
masonry infills, which can significantly help the resistance to horizontal actions. The infill walls
usually are offset from the exterior frame members, wrap around them, and show a smooth
masonry exterior with no indication of the frame. Solidly infilled masonry panels, when they
fully engage the surrounding frame members (i.e. lie in the same plane), may provide stiffness
and lateral load resistance to the structure. In these buildings, the shear strength of the columns,
after cracking of the infill, may limit the semi-ductile behaviour of the system.
In most of the cases, the frame solution is adopted in order to ensure a flexibility of the space.
The destination is identical in all stories, but the groundfloor. That’s why the regularity of the
infill walls is hard to be encountered in buildings.

3.14. RC3.2 - Iregular concrete frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls

These buildings are similar to concrete frames with regular unreinforced masonry infill walls
buildings except that the structural system exhibit irregularities which might be due to the lack of
regularity of the concrete frames or of the infill walls. The concrete frame irregularities and/or
the presence of soft/weak stories produce poor structural behaviour under lateral loads.
This typology became widespread in the 1930’s when Bucharest faced a major construction
boom. This solution responded satisfactory to the various would-be owners requests for
partitioning and destination of the spaces. These buildings were not designed for resistance to
lateral forces and, in addition, due to the construction frenzy the quality of materials and
workmanship were in many cases low.
The majority of these high-rise buildings were heavily damaged or even destroyed during 1940
and 1977 earthquakes. Starting in 1950’s, some concepts regarding the structure regularity were
taken into consideration, but still a majority of high-rise buildings have soft/weak groundfloor.
The presence of soft story enabled very high interstory drifts and consequently very heavy
damage during the 1977 earthquake.

Photo © UTCB - Dan Lungu

Fig. 15 - Dunarea apartment and commercial building partially colpased in 1977

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 19

 Photo © UTCB - Dan Lungu
Fig. 16 - Wilson apartment and commercial building collapsed during 1977 earthquake

Fig. 17 -Wilson building today - front sections removed

20 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

 Photo © UTCB - Dan Lungu
Fig. 18 - Apartment and commercial building, 2 Franklin Street, partially collapsed in 1977

Fig. 19 - Apartment and commercial building, 2 Franklin Street - today

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 21

3.15. RC4 - RC dual systems (rc frames and walls)

These buildings have structural systems which are composed by RC frames and RC structural
walls.
The dual systems came into construction industry in early 1970’s and after 1977 earthquake their
usage became wider due to their good behaviour during the strong quake. The most evident
benefit of this system is the control of interstory drift through the interaction between shear walls
and frames – shear walls controlling the displacements at the lower stories and the frames at the
top stories.
This structural typology is used for apartment - commercial, office and public buildings.

Fig. 20 - Ministries buildings in Constitution Square

Fig. 21 - Office Building on 5 Calea Victoriei

3.16. RC5 - Precast concrete tilt-up walls

22 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

These buildings have RC diaphragms that distribute lateral forces to precast concrete shear
walls. Older buildings often have inadequate connections for anchorage of the walls to the roof
and floors for out-of-plane forces, and the panel connections often are brittle. Walls can have
numerous openings for doors and windows of such size that the wall looks more like a frame
than a shear wall.
This structural typology was used for the first time in 1959-1960 for five stories building. In
1961-1963 the usage was extended to eight stories buildings. Since 1973, nine stories buildings
were erected.
Generally, all these buildings have a bar shape with closely spaced shear walls on both
directions. A special attention was given to connections between precast elements in order to
achieve the overall monolithic behavior. This typology of buildings behaved well during 1977
earthquake, only reduced damage being exposed in some cases.

Fig. 22 - Typical precast concrete tilt-up walls building in Bucharest

3.17. S1 - Steel moment frames

These buildings have a frame of steel columns and beams. In some cases, the beam-column
connections have very small moment resisting capacity but, in other cases, some of the beams
and columns are fully developed as moment frames to resist lateral forces. Usually the structure

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 23

is concealed on the outside by exterior nonstructural walls, which can be of almost any material
(curtain walls, brick masonry, or precast concrete panels), and on the inside by ceilings and
column furring. Diaphragms transfer lateral loads to moment-resisting frames. The diaphragms
can be almost any material. The frames develop their stiffness by full or partial moment
connections. The frames can be located almost anywhere in the building. Usually the columns
have their strong directions oriented so that some columns act primarily in one direction while
the others act in the other direction.
The high-rise buildings of this type in Bucharest, built in 1930’s, namely: ROMTELECOM
Main Switchboard, Ministry of Public Works, Transportation and Housing, Office Building
Adriatica and an apartment-commercial building on Academiei Street.
For the first three buildings excessive permanent lateral displacements were noticed after 1977
earthquake. Also, we have to mention the incompatibility between a flexible metal structure and
the masonry partition walls that couldn’t sustain the large deformations and were severely
damaged. No earthquake resistant requirements were in force during the design process of these
buildings.

Fig. 23 - ROMTELECOM Main Switchboard Bldg. (strengthening works, Sept. 2001)

3.18 S2 - Steel braced frames

These buildings are similar to steel moment frame buildings except that the vertical components
of the lateral-force-resisting system are braced frames rather than moment frames.
After 1977 earthquake, Office Bldg. Adriatica were strengthened by K-braces on the groundfloor
and the second floor.

3.19. S3 - Steel frames with unreinforced masonry infill walls

The infill walls usually are offset from the exterior frame members, wrap around them, and
present a smooth masonry exterior with no indication of the frame. Solidly infilled masonry
panels, when they fully engage the surrounding frame members (i.e. lie in the same plane), may
provide stiffness and lateral load resistance to the structure.
The buildings above mentioned in category S1 would qualify for this typology but, due to the
absence of lateral force requirements the infill masonry stiffness and strength was not accounted
in the structural computations for design.

24 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB

3.20. S5 - Steel and RC composite systems

These buildings have a moment resisting frame of composite steel and concrete columns and
beams. Usually the structure is concealed on the outside by exterior non-structural walls, which
can be of almost any material (curtain walls, brick masonry, or precast concrete panels), and on
the inside by ceilings and column furring. Diaphragms transfer lateral loads to moment-resisting
frames. The diaphragms can be almost any material. The frames develop their stiffness by full or
partial moment connections. The frames can be located almost anywhere in the building. Usually
the columns have their strong directions oriented so that some columns act primarily in one
direction while the others act in the other direction.
The first steel and RC composite building, a monumental one presently named House of Free
Press, was erected in early 1950’s. The Parliament Building, the second largest in the world, was
erected during 1984-1990.
No structural damage but only slight damage in non-structural elements (exterior and interior
walls) were reported after 1977 earthquake for House of Free Press.

Fig. 24 - Parliament Building

3.21. W - wood structures

These are typically single-family or small, multiple-family dwellings. The essential structural
feature of these buildings is repetitive framing by wood rafters or joists on wood stud walls.
Loads are light and spans are small. These buildings may have relatively heavy masonry
chimneys and may be partially or fully covered with masonry veneer. Most of these buildings
usually have the components of a lateral-force-resisting system even though it may be
incomplete. Lateral loads are transferred by diaphragms to shear walls. The diaphragms are roof
panels and floors that may be sheathed with sawn lumber, plywood or fibreboard sheathing.
Shear walls are sheathed with boards, stucco, plaster, plywood, gypsum board, particle board, or
fibreboard, or interior partition walls sheathed with plaster or gypsum board.
This structural typology was promoted after 1990 and is used for one or two family residential
houses with one or two stories. No significant seismic event was recorded during this period so
we do not have any information about their seismic behaviour.

PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB 25

 References
ASCE 7-98, 2000. ASCE Standard: Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New-York, ASCE, SEI
Eurocode 8 - Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, 1994. Part 1-1: General rules - Seismic
actions and general requirements for structures. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Oct.
HAZUS – Technical Manual 1997. Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, 3 Vol.
Alexoudi M., Pitilakis, K., Stylianidis, K., Kappos, K., Makra, K., Anastasiadis A., Argyroudis, S., Papadopoulos
E., Penelis, G., 2001, Risk UE WP1, Thessaloniki City Report, 63p.
Bour, M., Arnal, C., Imbault, M., Lutoff, C., Marçot, N., Martin, R., Masure, Ph., Mouroux, P., 2001. Risk UE
WP1, Nice City Report, 2001. 42p
Faccioli, E., Frassine, L., Scuderi S., 2001. Risk UE WP1, Catania City Report, 2001. 32p+18p.
Irizarry, J. Goula, X., Susagna, T., Galan, J., Pujades, L.G., Lantada, N. 2001. Risk UE WP1, Barcelona City
Report, 49p+23p.
Lungu, D. et al., 2001, Risk UE WP1, Bucharest City Report, 52p+26p.
Kostov, M., Vaseva, E., Kaneva, A., Varbanov, G., Stefanov, D., Koleva, N., Hristoskov , L., Simeonova, S.,
Solakov, D., Lazarov, A., Kraleva, D., 2001. Risk UE WP1, Sofia City Report. 49p+9p
Milutinovic, Z., Olumceva T., Trendafiloski G., 2001, Risk UE WP1, Bitola City Report, 37p+28p.

26 PROHITECH – WP1 – UTCB