## 6 Conclusions  
This study focused on the evaluation of the potential impact of the Eurocode 8 draft revision [1] on the seismic zonation of Romania. To achieve this aim, the design spectra according to the methodology provided by the Eurocode 8 draft revision were obtained for sites for which both ground motion recordings and shear wave velocity profiles were available simultaneously. The impact of the proposed changes on the structural design of structures situated in the southern part of Romania was also discussed. The main results of this study can be summarised as follows:  
* The spectral ordinates for rock conditions computed from two seismic hazard models ([PERSON] et al. [19] and ESHM 2020) are almost identical. Therefore, the preliminary findings from this study highlight the need for more analyses in order to calibrate the site amplification factors for sites exposed to Vrancea intermediate-depth earthquakes;
* The design response spectra computed for two soil category F sites (Bucharest and Balloc) fail to capture the intermediate- and long-period spectral amplifications observed in the ground motions recorded at these sites;
* The design acceleration response spectrum for Bucharest, computed using the site-amplification factors proposed by [PERSON] et al. [8], has a much longer control period T\({}_{\text{C}}\) compared to that obtained using the site amplification factors from the Eurocode 8 draft revision [1];
* The largest differences between the metrics computed using P100-1/2013 [15] and the Eurocode 8 draft revision [1] were obtained for the control period T\({}_{\text{C}}\). In most cases (with the exception of Balloc), the approach from the Eurocode 8 draft revision [1] leads to higher spectral accelerations for short periods;
* The use of the design spectra computed based on the Eurocode 8 draft revision [1] in the areas exposed to Vrancea intermediate-depth earthquakes would lead to structures that have a lower structural safety level than the structures designed according to the current Romanian seismic design code P100-1/2013 [15], even though the mean return period of the seismic action increased;
* In the case of Bucharest, the maximum design spectral accelerations would correspond to those from the 2006 version of the seismic code P100-1/2006 [17], while the maximum design spectral displacements would be significantly smaller than the design values produced in the 1981 (P100-81 [24]) or 1992 (P100-92 [16]) versions of the code. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Seismic Design Code** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Limit State for Relative** \\ **Displacement Check** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Corresponding Mean Return** \\ **Period (Years)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Story Drift Limits** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline P100-92 [30] & ULS & 50 & 0.35\%/0.7\%/1.0\% \\ P100-2006 [31] & SLS & 30 & 0.5\%/0.8\% \\  & ULS & 100 & 2.5\% \\ P100-1/2013 [29] & SLS & 40 & 0.5\%/0.75\%/1.0\% \\  & ULS & 225 & 2.5\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The limit states, story drift limits and corresponding mean return periods for the relative displacement checks required by the different generations of the Romanian seismic design code. The results presented herein show that the differences in the seismic hazard and design ground motions are mainly due to the effects of local soil and site conditions and the associated site amplification proposed in the current Romanian seismic code and the EC8 draft revision [1]. Moreover, it has been shown that more analyses are needed to apply the seismic actions proposed in the Eurocode 8 draft revision [1] specifically for the sites in Romania that are under the influence of Vrancea intermediate-depth earthquakes so as to ensure an increased level of seismic safety for structures designed and built in the future. It also has to be considered that the seismic hazard of Romania is a combination of crustal seismic sources and the Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source.