Seismic Risk Scenario for the City of Bitola: RISK-UE Approach

K. Anastasov
Institute for Protection of Cultural Heritage and Natural Rarities, Museum and Gallery, Bitola
Z. Vrskovski
Mayor of the City of Bitola
Z.V. Milutinovic, G.S. Trendafiloski and T.R. Olumceva
Institute of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology (IZIIS-Skopje), Section for Risk,
Disaster Management and Strategic Planning
B. Tagasovski
Institute of Spatial and Urban Planning of Macedonia (INPUMA)

ABSTRACT: Bitola is one of the seven European cities in which the RISK-UE project is implemented
in order to produce an original advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios that takes into
consideration all European distinctive features. Based on the methods, techniques and data bases
developed within the framework of the project, various seismic risk aspects inherent to the built-up
environment (current buildings, traditional and cultural heritage buildings, strategic and essential
facilities, urban lifelines and utility systems) of the City of Bitola are studied in order to define the
competent seismic risk scenarios for the city and to estimate the margins of the city's existing safety
and reliability. The project itself will define a rational basis for short- and long-term mitigation
strategy, prevention measures and an adequate action plan to be implemented in the City of Bitola.

KEYWORDS: Bitola, distinctive features, seismic risk scenario, RISK-UE project, mitigation strategy,
prevention measures, action plan

1 INTRODUCTION

The City of Bitola is situated in the southern part of Macedonia near the Greek border, in the western
part of the Pelagonia Plain, between the Baba and the Nidze Mountains, at altitude of 660 meters (Fig
1). The highest peak of the Baba Mountain is Pelister, rising 2601 m. above sea level. It is an
outstanding ski area with exceptional natural beauties, two glacial lakes, molika pine forests and
mountain lodges.
Since its foundation, as a result of its geographical position on the Balkan Peninsula, Bitola has
played an important role as economic, administrative, diplomatic, educational, health and cultural
center. Situated on the Roman road Via Egnatia which connected the Adriatic and the Aegean seacoast
towns, Bitola of the past was the site of historic events which are considered to have been the turning-
point in the life and development of the peoples living in the region.
Often destroyed and set fire to, Bitola kept surviving, growing and developing into large, beautiful
and dignified town. Having over 110,000 inhabitants, it is the third largest town in Macedonia and the
center of a wider region in the southwestern Macedonia with developed agriculture, industry,
handicrafts, public-health service, transportation, and University.
The town abounds significant cultural monuments inherited in the course of the past centuries: the
cathedral church "St. Dimitrios" (1830), one of the largest orthodox churches in wither region, with
beautiful iconostats and gilded engraving; the Bezisten (16th-19th centuries), a covered market place;
the old Bitola bazaar (19th century); the Clock Tower (17th century); Deboj (17th century); Ajdar-Qadi
Mosque (16th century); the ancient city of Heraclea Lyncestis (4th century BC - 6th century AD). A
large number of traditional structures (> 1,500 protected by law) from the latter half of XIX and the
beginning of the XX century characterize and dominate the urban ambient of the City of Bitola. The
old urban core of Bitola is a unique example in Republic of Macedonia that has autochthonously
preserved its architectural-urban characteristics and moulding.
 PRILEP

BITOLA 00 10
10 20
20

Kilometers
Kilometers

Prespa Lake
Prespa Lake

C EE
C
EE
EE
R
R
G
G

Fig. 1. Greater Region of the City of Bitola

2 SEISMICITY OF THE GREATER BITOLA REGION

The territory of Republic of Macedonia is a segment of the Alpine-Himalayan belt within the east
Mediterranean orogene zone. It is characterized by extensive neotectonic and recent destructive
processes that result in intensive seismic activity manifested in several regions. These destructive
processes are primarily associated with the mechanism of vertical blocks motion. The non-uniform
displacement of blocks is reflected by the presence of several different entities in the contemporary
relief. As a result of these processes, associated with the genesis and the evolution of the
morphostructural units, two regions of specific neotectonic characteristics are distinguished on the
territory of Macedonia: a) West Macedonia and b) Central and East Macedonia. The stretching of
morphostructural complexes in West Macedonia is in longitudinal (NE-SE) direction. The
morphostructures in Central and East Macedonia elongate dominantly in the E-W direction. The
boundary between the two regions is represented by the stable Pelagonian massif (Milutinovic and
Trendafiloski, 2002).
Main tectionic feature of the Bitola Region gives the Bitola fault that is part of the group of
Pelagonia faults (Fig. 2). It is clearly manifested at the southwest edge of Pelagonian massif, near Mt.
Pelister. Along this fault, as a result of differential tectonic movements, the west wing (Mt. Pelister) is
uplifted while the eastern wing is sinked. The amplitude of this movements during the neotectonic
period has amounted to 1500 m and this tectonic activity is still recognizable.
The town of Bitola has historically been exposed to a number of earthquakes. The earthquake of
518 destroyed the town of Heraclea Lyncestis - an antique town situated in the periphery of the present
Bitola. During the last century, Bitola was struck by several earthquakes from local (Bitola – Florina)
seismic zone: 1920 (M =5.3), 1958 (M = 5.3) and 1994 (M=5.2).
The economic losses caused by the most recent earthquake in 1994 have been estimated at 29
million for the City of Bitola and at total 38 million (Table 1) including the surrounding affected
cities: Ohrid, Resen and Demir Hisar, that was 3.4% of the GNP of Republic of Macedonia for the
corresponding year (Milutinovic et al., 1994, 1995).
 Magnitude

6 to 6.5

5.5 to 6
5 to 5.5
4.5 to 5
4 to 4.5

PRILEP

BITOLA 00 10
10 20
20

Kilometers

Prespa
Prespa Lake
Lake
EE
C
C
EE
EE
R
R
G
G
Fig. 2. Seismotectonic Map of Greater Bitola Region

Table 1. Economic Losses (in ) by Municipalities and Categories of Losses

Bitola D. Hisar Ohrid Resen Total

Buildings and dwellings in private 19,990,000 1,909,422 915,579 2,931,754 25,746,679

property
Buildings, dwelling houses and other 4,020,150 869,870 519,385 1,248,881 6,658,284
facilities in public property
Equipment 827,276 - - 12,220 839,496
Indirect losses 4,418,097 46,661 13,713 79,683 4,558,153

Total 29,255,523 2,825,952 1,448,676 4,272,538 37,802,687

These low magnitudes that can be generated by the local seismic zone, are insignificant for modern
reinforced concrete structures. However, to traditional structures dating back from the end of 19th and the
beginning of the 20th century, they can inflict relatively heavy damages.
The cultural heritage in Bitola region might also be affected by earthquakes from neighboring
(Valandovo, Kozani, Ohrid) and relatively distant (Pehcevo-Kresna) seismic zones that can generate
local intensities in the range I = 6-70 in MCS seismic scale.

3 RISK-UE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF BITOLA

The main objective of the RISK-UE project is to develop a general and modular methodology for
creating earthquake-risk scenarios that concentrates on the distinctive features of European towns,
including both current and historical buildings. It is based on seismic hazard assessment, systematic
inventory and typology of the elements at risk and the analysis of their relative value and vulnerability
in order to identify the weak points of the urban system. The resulting scenarios give concrete figures
of the expected direct and indirect earthquake damages and losses and lead to development of
earthquake risk management plan. The RISK-UE methodology is applied to seven European cities:
Barcelona (Spain), Bitola (Macedonia), Bucharest (Romania), Catania (Italy), Nice (France), Sofia
(Bulgaria) and Thessaloniki (Greece).
Within the framework of the project (workpackages WP1-WP7), various seismic risk aspects
inherent to the built-up environment of the City of Bitola are studied in necessary details in order to
define the margins of the city’s existing seismic safety and reliability, and to define a rational basis for
a short- and long-term mitigation strategy, prevention measures and an adequate action plan.
Based on existing inventories of the built-up environment of the city of Bitola (traditional and
cultural heritage buildings) and completed by additional inventories for the elements at risk (current
buildings, strategic and critical structures and facilities, urban lifelines and utility systems, population
distribution and concentration), adequate databases are developed under GIS environment.
The methodology and techniques for earthquake hazard assessment are applied to a geo-seismic
environment characterising the local and distant seismicity that Bitola is exposed to in order to define
the scenario earthquake and quantitatively assess its effects.
The developed vulnerability functions for current buildings, monumental and historical buildings,
and strategic structures and critical facilities are calibrated for the distinctive features of the existing
built-up environment of Bitola (where necessary) and applied in order to quantify adverse effects of
the decided scenario earthquake. Adequate vulnerability functions are used to quantify the behaviour
of Bitola's urban lifelines and public-utility systems.
Earthquake-risk scenarios (preparedness and contingency levels) are formulated and evaluated.
The results, in terms of generic seismic loss maps, are presented by the elements at risk considered
(population, built-up environment, collateral effects) and in aggregate form. Homeless and debris
management problems are estimated and adequate solutions (to be incorporated in the Bitola Master
Plan) proposed, considering the local topography, the availability of space and the city's development
directions and priorities. For both scenarios the disaster preparedness and emergency management
elements are quantified in order to review and improve the disaster management and contingency
plans in effect.
An action plan is formulated in order to incorporate the findings and results into the process of
regular master and detailed town planning, physical planning at subregional and regional level, and to
develop and enforce an adequate environmental policy.
A manual on simple technical measures for upgrading the seismic safety of traditional and
cultural heritage buildings is elaborated in order to help the building owners to increase the seismic
safety of their buildings during maintenance (rearrangement of roof structure, interventions on
building interior, repair of facades, etc.).

4 ELEMENTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RISK SCENARIOS IN THE CITY OF BITOLA

The elements for creating seismic risk scenarios for the City of Bitola are obtained through
implementation of the different RISK-UE workpackages.

4.1 Workpackage 1 (WP1) – European Distinctive Features, Inventory Database and Typology

The distinctive features of the City of Bitola are studied through the following elements (Lungu et al.,
2001; Olumceva, Milutinovic, Trendafiloski, 2001):
• Town identity;
• Population characteristics;
• Urbanised area and elements at risk;
• Impact of past earthquakes on elements at risk;
• Strong motion data in the city;
• Geological, geophysical and geotechnical information;
• Evolution of earthquake resistant design codes and of building types; and,
• Earthquake risk management efforts.
Taking into consideration the construction practice in the city of Bitola, seven building types are
distinguished, in general noted as: traditional non-earthquake resistant structures - NERS (stone
masonry structures (M1.2); adobe structures (M2); bondruck structures (BK); and, brick masonry
structures (M1.3)) and current earthquake resistant structures - ERS (strengthened masonry structures
(M5); RC frame structures (RC1); and, RC dual system (RC4)). Buildings typology matrix (BTM) for
the City of Bitola is defined accordingly, taking into consideration the height of the building and the
level of aseismic protection (Milutinovic and Trendafiloski, 2002).

4.2 Workpackage 2 (WP2) – Seismic Hazard Assessment

Reassessment of the seismic hazard for the City of Bitola has been performed within the WP2. It
included (Milutinovic and Trendafiloski, 2002): 1) Study of the regional seismo-tectonic settings of
the greater Bitola region; 2) Deterministic seismic hazard including macroseismic intensity and
spectral acceleration assessment; 3) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in terms of spectral
acceleration (Fig. 3); and, 4) Influence of the local soil conditions on the modification of regional
ground motions.

0.8

0.6
acc (in g)

0.4

0.2

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
T (sec)

Fig. 3 Seismic Hazard Map of the Greater Bitola Region (RP-475, T=0.3sec)

4.3 Workpackage (WP3) – Urban System Analysis

Completition and developing of the existing inventory database under GIS environment have been
performed within this workpackage.
The following GIS-oriented databases have been created:
• Residential buildings (Fig. 4);
• Administrative and public buildings;
• Historical and cultural heritage in the Region and City of Bitola;
• Orthodox churches (XIV - XIX cent.) in the Region of Bitola;
• School buildings in the Region and City of Bitola;
• Health care buildings in the Region and City of Bitola;
• Lifelines (street network, railway, water supply system, sewage system).

Fig. 4 Building Stock in the Central Area of the City of Bitola

4.4 Workpackage 4 (WP4) – Vulnerability Assessment of Current Buildings

Based on the Building Typology Matrix pertinent to the City of Bitola, fragility models and damage
probability matrices are developed for two levels of assessment (L1 and L2) and four damage states:
1) slight; 2) moderate; 3) extensive; and, 4) collapse (Milutinovic and Trendafiloski, 2003).
The L1 assessment refers to estimation of the probability of reaching or exceeding certain damage
state taking into consideration seismic hazard demand parameter (macroseismic intensity or peak
ground acceleration) (Fig. 5). The semi-empirical fragility models developed for this level of
estimation are calibrated to the empirical data from the past earthquakes.
The L2 assessment refers to estimation of the probability of reaching or exceeding certain damage
state taking into consideration structural response parameter (spectral displacement at the top of
equivalent SDOF).
A comparative analysis of the seismic design codes has been carried out in order to elucidate and
define the genesis of the seismic safety and design requirements to which the current buildings were
constructed.

4.5 Workpackage 5 (WP5) – Vulnerability Assessment of Monumental and Historical Buildings

The vulnerability assessment of historical buildings in the City of Bitola has been performed using
typological approach based on estimation of vulnerability index and macroseismic intensity parameter
(Lagomarsino et al, 2003).
 1.0

0.8

0.6

P[d>ds]
0.4

0.2 M3.1
PGA (g)
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse

1.0

0.8
RC1
0.6
P[d>ds]

0.4

0.2

PGA (g)
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse

Fig. 5 Fragility Models for M3.1 and RC1 Structures in the City of Bitola

The vulnerability assessment of building aggregates is performed using the same approach,
however the vulnerability index of the aggregate is calculated taking into consideration the following
behavior modifiers: 1) interaction with adjacent buildings; 2) position of the building in the aggregate;
3) structural heterogeneity; and 4) aseismic constructive elements.

4.6 Workpackage 6 (WP6) – Vulnerability Assessment of Lifelines and Essential Structures

Identification and inventory of the lifelines and essential structures in the City of Bitola have been
completed in accordance with the lifeline inventory form developed in WP6.

4.7 Workpackage 7 (WP7) – Earthquake Risk Scenarios

Two levels of seismic risk scenarios are developed for the City of Bitola: 1) The most probable case of
earthquake scenario (preparedness level); and, 2) The worst case earthquake scenario (contingency
level). A GIS based spatio-temporal evaluation method developed under this workpackage is used for
stated needs.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Elements for creating complex seismic risk scenario for the City of Bitola have been obtained through
application of the modular RISK-UE approach. Six workpackages (WP1-WP6) contributed to the
stated needs. Various seismic risk aspects inherent to the built-up environment of the City of Bitola are
studied in necessary details in order to define the margins of the city’s existing seismic safety and
reliability, and to define a rational basis for a short- and long-term mitigation strategy, prevention
measures and an adequate action plan.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The results presented in the paper are part of the global European research activities for developing an
Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios with Application to Different European Towns
(project RISK-UE), partially financed by the European Commission (Contract No. EVK4-CT-2000-
00014). The authors extend their most sincere gratitude for the financial support of the project. The
collaboration and participation of all the members of the RISK-UE consortium during the course of
research activities are acknowledged with appreciation.

REFERENCES

Lagomarsino S., S. Giovinazzi, S. Resemini and S. Podesta (2003). WP5: Vulnerability of Monumental and
Historic Buildings, RISK-UE Handbook, July 2003.
Lungu D., A. Aldea, C. Arion, R. Vacareanu, F. Petrescu and T. Cornea (2001). WP1: European Distinctive
Features, Inventory Database and Typology, RISK-UE Handbook, December 2001.
Milutinovic Z., M. Stojkovic, M. Manic, T. Olumceva and G. Trendafiloski (1994-1995). Assessment of
damages to private and public buildings in the municipalities: Bitola, Resen, Demir Hisar and Ohrid caused
by September 1, 1994 Earthquake (11 report prepared for the Government of Republic of Macedonia).
Milutinovic Z.V., T.R. Olumceva and G.S. Trendafiloski (2001). Distinctive Features of European Cities: City of
Bitola, RISK-UE Report, October 2001.
Milutinovic Z.V. and G.S. Trendafiloski (2001). WP1, Objective 2: Prevalent Building Typology in the City of
Bitola, RISK-UE Report, October 2001.
Milutinovic Z.V. and G.S. Trendafiloski (2002). Preliminary Seismic Hazard Assessment for the City of Bitola,
RISK-UE Report, March 2002.
Milutinovic Z.V. and G.S. Trendafiloski (2002). WP4: Level 2 Methodology - Code Based Approach, Case
Study: Asseismic Design Codes in Macedonia, RISK-UE Report, July 2002.
Milutinovic Z.V. and G.S. Trendafiloski (2003). WP4: Vulnerability Assessment of Current Buildings, RISK-
UE Draft Handbook, February 2003.