Study On Indonesian Seismic Code SNI 03-1726-2002 and Seismic Impact To High-Rise Buildings in Jakarta, Indonesia

PROCEEDINGS OF WORLD ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN: 2070-3740
Study on Indonesian Seismic Code SNI 03-1726-2002 and

Seismic Impact to High-rise Buildings in Jakarta, Indonesia
C.M. Yang
Abstract --- The Author studies the basis of
Indonesian Seismic Code SNI 03-1726-2002 and
proposes an updated Seismic Hazard Map with Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA) for Indonesia in the
paper. The ground motion considered in the Code is
10% probability of being exceeded in a 50-year
reference period. On this basis, the relevant design
criteria, model of structural analysis and seismic
reduction factor are discussed. The Author concluded
that in the yielding process of structural system,
forming of plastic hinge at the base of columns and
shear walls should not be allowed. An adequate factor
of safety should be applied to prevent from reaching
the threshold of collapse. The Author also studies the
seismo-tectonic of Jakarta region, discuss the relevant
updated PGA and the structural design requirement.
It is considered that the PGA = 0.15g desinated for
Jakarta in SNI 03-1726-2002 is inadequate and
proposed the Authority to review the structural design
of highrise buildings in Jakarta, and take appropriate
action as necessary.
Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia with more

and more highrise buildings, of which seismic
resistance capacity is most concerned. The
seismo-tectonic of Jakarta Region is complicated, and
the Author considers the PGA specified in SNI
03-1726-2002 is inadequate. Hence the Author
queries and discusses it here-in, and wishes to lead
for a reasonable solution for the seismic resistance
design.
Keywords --- Seismic design Code, PGA and

hazard map, ground motion, seismic reduction factor,
highrise buildings in Jakarta.
A moderate earthquake of M=5.1 in Kalimantan

is included in Fig.1, where the source depth is 10 km
only. In 2007, there were one M=6.0 and one M=6.20
earthquake occurred near this one, but the source
depth is not known.
I.
II.
RECENT EARTHQUAKE AND HAZARD

MAP
The Earthquake Hazards Program of United

States Geological Survey (USGS) [3] and
Meteorology and Geophysics Agency of Indonesia
(BMG) [4] have provided Indonesian earthquake
records for many years. Based on the records, the
Author summarizes the events in Figure 1, which
shows the main earthquakes occurred in year 2002 to
2008 in Indonesia, historic major earthquakes are also
shown.
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is located in one of the worlds most

active seismic zone. Following the development of
technology, the Public Works Department of
Indonesia published an Indonesian National Standard
SNI 03-1726-2002 Tata Cara Perencanaan
Ketahanan Gempa Untuk Bangunan Gedung [1], i.e.
Seismic Resistance Design for Building Structures.
The Code has similar basic concept as U.S. Code
2000 IBC [2], such as Equivalent lateral force
procedure, seismic response modification factor in
2000 IBC and seismic reduction factor in SNI
03-1726-2002. However, the basic analysis for
seismic response in SNI 03-1726-2002 is not same as
the U.S. Code.
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is an important

factor in seismic analysis. The Author has proposed
his equation for evaluation of PGA and the
acceleration attenuation for Indonesia as follows [5],
ln (pga) = 1.486 M 2.386 ln (R1 + 1.782e0.554M)
(1)
where pga is the peak ground acceleration in g (g =

9.81m/s/s). M is the magnitude of the earthquake and
R1 is the closest distance to the source/hypocenter of
the earthquake in kilometer.
R1 = (Z2 +
2)0.5
(2)
Z is the depth of the source, in kilometer. is the

closest distance to the epicenter in kilometer.
It can be seen that, for pga, magnitude of the
earthquake M is important, depth Z of the source is
also an important factor.
C.M. Yang is a consultant with Mannings (Asia) Consultants Ltd., Hong

Kong (Telephone: 852-3168 2028; Fax: 852-3168 2022; e-mail:
cmyang@manningsasia.com)
PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740
961
2009 WASET.ORG
962
M 7.6
196 9 N o v.21
& M
7.5
190 7 J an .0 4
M 7 .0
1 9 98 A pr.0 1
M 7 .0
1 93 6 J an .02
M 7 .9
2 00 7 S e p.13
M 7.5
1 94 3 J un .09
M 7 .9
2 0 00 J u ne .0 4
M 7.3
2 0 01 Feb .1 3
M 8.1
19 0 3 Feb .27
M 7 .0
1 9 79 Ju l. 24
M 7 .0
194 9 J un e .2 4
M 7 .3
19 1 3 Au g .13
M 7.3
20 0 4 Jul .2 5
M 7 .3
1 93 6 J un e .2 4
M 7 .3
1 9 33 Ju n e. 24
M 7.1
19 4 3 Ap r.0 1
M 8 .5
M 8 .5
2 00 0 J une .0 4
M 7.0
Ju n e
19 7 5 Oct. 01
M 7 .3
1 9 31 S e pt. 25
M 7.1
19 3 1 Fe b .10
M 8 .7
18 3 3 N ov.0 4
M 7 .2
20 0 8 Fe b .25
M 7 .7
18 9 2
M 7 .1
1 9 7 1 Fe b.0 4
M 7 .8
19 3 5 D e c.2 8
M 6.2
2 0 08 Ju n. 23
M 7 .4
2 00 8
Fe b .20
M 7.8
20 0 2 N o v.02
M 7 .0
1 9 3 7 Se p t.2 7
M 7.0
M 7 .1
19 2 6 Se p t. 1 0
1 99 4 J un e .0 2
M 7 .8
1 9 94 Ju ne .2
M 7 .6
19 4 3 Ju l .2 3
M 5.1
2 0 0 8 Se p t.1 3
M 8 .3
1 9 77 A ug .1 9
M 7 .2
1 9 37 A ug .11
M 6 .6
2 0 0 8 A u g.7
M 7.8
19 9 2 D e c.1 2
M 7 .6
2 00 0 M a y.04
M 7 .8
1 9 3 9 D ec .21
M 7.3
20 0 8 N o v. 17
M 7 .5
1 9 91 J u ne .2 0
M 7.5
2 00 4 N o v.11
M 7 .7
19 9 8 N ov.2 9
M 6 .6
2 00 8 Feb .1 4
M 6 .6
20 0 8 Ja n .3 0
M 7 .5
1 9 50 Oct.08
M 7 .7
1 9 5 7 Se p t.24
M 7.0
19 9 8 N o v. 09
M 8 .2
1 96 5 J an.2 4
M 7 .5
1 9 07 Ju ne .2 5
M 7 .0
2 0 08 Se pt. 11
M 7.5
19 8 6 Au g .14
M 7 .7
1 9 36 A pr.0 1
M 8 .1
1 93 2 Ma y.1 4
M 6.5
2 0 08 S e pt.1 4
M 7 .1
1 9 77 A ug .2 7
M 8.2
19 1 8 Au g .15
M 7.5
20 0 1 Oc t.19
M 7 .6
1 9 6 5 Ja n.24
M 7 .8
1 9 05 Jan. 22
M 7. 6
196 8 Au g .1 0
M7 .6
1 91 0 D e c. 16
M 7 .9
19 1 3 Ma r.14
M 7 .6
1 9 90 A pr. 18
M 7 .8
1 97 2 J une .11
M 7.5
2 007 J an .2 1
See Fig.6
M 7.2
1 9 76 Ju ne .2 5
M 7 .5
19 2 6 Oct .26
Fig. 1 The main earthquakes occurred in year 2002 to 2008 in Indonesia, main historic
major earthquakes included.
2009 WASET.ORG
963
10
72
64
10
95
88
72
48 40 32
95
88
24
100
64
72
16
100
72
48
105
64
24
40
105
52
32
16
28
110
16
110
48 40
115
52
115
16
24
56
40
28 16
40
56
52
40
64
32
120
64
16
24
32
120
52
70
40
48
40
68
56
52
40
48
60
60
40
70
40
125
68
56
64
56
40
56
40
125
48
130
48
40
130
48
68
68
56
48
48
72
64
40
140
72
72
135
64
400
48
200
48
64
76
40
32 24
16
8
200
64
140
48
64
10
10
76
40 5
32
24
16
8
48
48
40
400 Miles
Kilometer
INDONESIA
Seismic Hazard Map, in %g
135
Fig. 2 Seismic hazard map with horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) in % g for
base rock in Indonesia, with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
2009 WASET.ORG
10
65 mm/y r
68 mm/yr
SU
ND
TR
EN
CH
71 m m/y r
76 mm/y r
77 mm /y r
111 mm /y r
10
Fig. 3 Tectonic Setting of Indonesia
964
2009 WASET.ORG
96
97
98
99
M 9.1
2004 Dec.26
M 7.6
2002 Nov.02
M 7.4
2008 Feb.20
M 8.7
2005 Mar.28
2
96
97
98
99
Fig. 4. M 9.1 Earthquake on 2004 Dec. 26

120
124
122
126
2
M 7.5
1 98 6 Aug .14
M 7.3
2 00 8 N ov.1 6
M 7 .6
19 68 Aug .1 0
M 7 .5
1 9 9 Jun e.2 0
M 7 .6
1 9 90 Ap r.1 8
M 7.5
20 0 7 Jan .21
M 7.8
1 91 5 Jan .22
M 7 .9
19 96 Ja n.0 1
M 8 .1
1 93 2 May.1 4
M 7.8
1 93 9 D ec.2 1
M 7.5
1 93 8 Ma y.1 9
M 7 .6
2 00 0 May.0 4
M 7.7
1 99 8 No v.2 9
M 8.2
19 65 Jan .2 4
120
122
124
126
Fig. 5 Major Earthquake in Northern Sulawesi

965
2009 WASET.ORG
134
132
136
140
138
M 6 .5
2 00 4 Ju l .28
M 6 .2
20 0 4 Oct.06
M 6 .2
2 0 01 Jan .2 9
M 8.2
19 96 Fe b.17
M 6.4
19 9 6 Fe b.18
M 7.6
2 0 02 Oct.1 0
M 6 .0
2 0 02 Sep t.20
M 7 .1
1 98 5 N ov.1 7
M 6 .1
1 9 72 D ec.0 4
M 7.6
19 79 Se pt.1 2
2
M 7.3
19 5 7 Ju ne .2 2
M 6.1
19 9 9 Oct.1 0
M 6 .8
1 9 94 Jan .1 9
M 6.2
1 9 70 N o v.08
M 7 .5
19 2 6 Oct.2 6
M 7 .1
2 0 04 N ov.2 6
M 7.0
2 0 04 Fe b.05
M 7 .3
2 0 04 Feb .0 7
M 6 .9
2 0 04 Feb .0 8
4
M 6 .5
19 9 4 Ma y.25
M 6 .5
19 7 6 No v.18
M 7 .1
1 9 36 Feb .1 5
M 7 .2
1 97 6 Ju n e.25
M 6 .8
1 95 5 Ja n .2 7
M 6 .9
1 9 95 Ma r.1 9
M 7 .1
19 4 2 Ja n.27
M 6 .1
19 9 3 Ju ne .1 2
M 6.3
19 7 8 Ap r.0 3
M 8 .5
19 3 8 Fe b.01
M 6 .4
1 98 5 Sep t.15
M 6 .4
2 0 01 Apr.0 4
M 6 .4
19 8 9 Se p t.0 4
M 7 .1
1 9 64 Apr.2 3
132
134
136
138
140
Fig.6 The Destructive/Major Earthquakes occurred in Irian Jaya Region

For M 6.0 to M 6.5, source depth Z < 15km shown;
For M 6.6 to M 6.9, Z 30km shown;
For M 7.0 to M 8.5, Z 35km shown.
966
2009 WASET.ORG
Based on the events, using equation (1), the

Author refers to the USGS and GSHAP Seismic
Hazard Map for Indonesia [2] & [6], and herein
proposes his Seismic Hazard Map with PGA for
Indonesia as shown in Figure 2. The PGA is in 10%
probability of being exceeded in a 50 year reference
period. This map is much different with the Hazard
Map specified in SNI 03-1726-2002.
In the analysis of the structural response, SNI

03-1726-2002 stresses the ductility of building
structures. In the yielding process of structural
system, SNI 03-1726-2002 stresses forming of the
plastic hinge at both ends of all the beams, forming of
plastic hinge at the base of all columns and all shear
walls simultaneously, until reaching the threshold of
collapse Clause 3.1.3.1, Clause 3.1.4, Clause 4.5,
Clause 9.1.3 and Clause A.4.5.1 of SNI
03-1726-2002 refers. Then, the base shear is analyzed
by equivalent lateral force procedure.
The PGA is based on the rock site. When the site is

soft soil, the PGA could be amplified as shown in
Table 1. The amplification factor taken is NEHRP
(1994) Correction Factor [7]. This amplification is
gradually dismished when ground motion increases
to 0.5g or above due to yielding of soil under it.
May the Author call this state at the threshold of

collapse, as collapse limit state.
The query is;
a.
TABLE 1
PGA FOR BASE ROCK AND SOIL IN g
PGA for
base rock
in g
As the plastic hinge forms at the base of the

shear wall, the hinged shear wall would not
function as shear wall again, could the structure still
stand? Or, any further ground motion or lateral force
would cause the structure collapse immediately?
PGA for soil in g

Firm soil
Medium
soil
Soft soil
vs t 750m / s
vs t 350m / s
175 d vs <350
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.20
0.16
0.19
0.24
0.32
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.32
0.32
0.38
0.38
0.40
0.40
0.44
0.44
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
b.
The equivalent lateral force procedure for
base shear analysis, the column and shear wall is
considered to be fixed at the base, not hinged, in
2000 IBC [2] and FEMA 450 [8].
v s 175
Please note that for any strong earthquake, there

will be many aftershocks follow up. Just after the 26
Dec. 2004 Sumatra M9.1 Earthquake, there were
more than hundred of aftershocks within 26 Dec.
2004 to 10 Jan. 2005, including 12 Nos. of M6.0
M6.9, 91 Nos. of M5.0-M5.9. 3 years after an M7.4
earthquake occurred on 20 Feb. 2008 in Simeulue,
just 65 km to the M9.1 one. As shown in Figure 4, it
was a M7.6 Earthquake occurring nearby.
In the M8.5 and M7.9 Southern Sumatra
Earthquakes of 12 & 13 September 2007, there were
6 Nos. and 17 Nos. of aftershocks with M6.0 to M6.9
respectively.
The distribution of the earthquakes in Fig.1 and the

Hazard Map in Figure 2 are somewhat complicated.
However, referring to Figure 3, it is generally in line
with the tectonic setting of Indonesia, and agreed
with the seismicity Records in Indonesia. It is
reminded that, in 2000 IBC definition, a fault for
which there is an average historic slip rate of 1 mm
per year or more is am active fault. As shown in
Figure 3, the motion between Tectonic Plate in
Indonesia could be 65mm/year to 111mm/year.
Hence, the complication of seismicity in Indonesia is
normal.
III.
A.
It means that, the aftershocks of a strong

earthquake should not be neglected. Besides
aftershocks, there often have some earthquakes
occurred near a Major Earthquake in few years. As
shown in Figure 5, in Northern Sulawesi Region,
there was a M7.3 Earthquake of 2008 Nov. 16 (M7.7
in BMG records) in Minahasa Peninsula. There were
a M7.6 and M7.5 Earthquakes in 1990 and 1991
respectively closed together nearby. In Irian Jaya
Region, as shown in Figure 6, there were more
earthquakes closed together -- The motion between
the Tectonic Plate is 111mm/year here, made it the
most active seismic zone. The question is:
GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS AND

STRUCTURAL MODEL FOR DESIGN
Ground Motion Analysis
Even the design structures do not collapse at the

collapse limit state, could it be repaired within 15
days or 3 years to resist the aftershocks or the next
earthquake?
In SNI 03-1726-2002, the design seismic load is

based on the earthquake ground motion with 10%
probability of exceedance in a 50-year reference
period, i.e. with 475-year or 500-year of return
period.
Shear wall is a cantilever structure to

resist lateral load to the building.
967
2009 WASET.ORG
B.
Ground Motion Considered and Design

Criteria
In 2000 IBC and FEMA 450, the Ground Motion

Considered is the earthquake with 2% probability of
being exceeded in a 50-year reference period, i.e. a
return period of 2475 years, not 475 years or 500
years. The corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration
(PGA) considered and the earthquake spectral
response acceleration Sa considered are much
different with those in SNI 03-1726-2002.
Refer to Figure 10 of Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessment for the state of California [9],
we can compare the PGA for 2% and 10%
probabilities of exceedance in 50 years, and get the
ratio between them is about 2.3 (Los Angeles) to 2.5
(San Francisco). The FEMA 450 Part 2 indicates in
coastal California, the ratio between the 0.2 second
spectral acceleration for 2% and 10% probabilities of
exceedance in 50 years is about 1.5 whereas, in other
parts of United States, the ratio varies from 2.0 to 5.0.
Fig. 7 Structural System

on model 2. Even this is not specified in the Code.
The same, the analysis of structural systems for
aftershocks and next earthquake, should also be based
on model 2.
This is the case in the U.S. However, the Author

considers that similar case would be in Indonesia.
U.S. is a highly developed, very rich country. The
maximum considered earthquake ground motion in
the U.S. Code is 2% probability of exceedance in 50
years. This is a high and good standard to be adopted.
On the other hand, Indonesia is a developing country.
The considered ground motion is 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. This is reasonable. As the
basis is different, the structural design criteria should
be different. The Author considers that the building
structures should in no case be allowed to reach the
threshold of collapse in Indonesia. An adequate factor
of safety should be specified and applied.
IV.
A.
SEISMIC IMPACT TO HIGHRISE

BUILDINGS IN JAKARTA
Seismo-tectonic and PGA of Jakarta

Region
In Figure 3 of SNI 03-1726-2002, Seismic

Zoning Map for base-rock, Jakarta is located in Zone
3 with a Peak Base-rock Acceleration of 0.15g, with a
return period of 500 years. That means PGA = 0.15g
for Jakarta with 10% probability of exceedance in a
50-year reference period.
Petersen et al. have analyzed the probabilistic
seismic hazard for Southeast Asia [10]. The research
indicates the seismic sources in Southeast Asia and
presents the seismic hazard map for Southeast Asia.
Where, as Author understanding, the PGA for Jakarta
is 0.25g.
C.
Structural Model for Design
Equivalent lateral force procedure is applied to
analysis the seismic base shear V. Then the internal
force due to seismic load is combined with the
internal force due to dead load, live load, etc. As
plastic hinge is developed in seismic analysis, the
Author considers that the structure model is
developed from model 1 to model 2 as shown in
Figure 7. Please note that the structures, including all
shear walls and columns, are fixed at the base, even
in model 2.
Sindku Rudianto et al. have analyzed the

seismo-tectonic of Jakarta region [11]. The research
indicates that the seismic sources of Jakarta include:
a.
Subduction zone earthquake, the recorded

maximum is M = 8.1 in year 1903
b.
Four large shallow crustal faults within
300 km of Jakarta, which are the great Semangka,
Krakatau, Sukabumi-Padalarang, and Cilacap
-Kuningan faults.
Normally, the structural system is analyzed with

model 1. But in seismic analysis, the Codes allow the
progressive forming of plastic hinges. The structural
systems will change to model 2. Hence, in this case,
all the internal forces due to dead load, live load,
wind load and seismic load should be analyzed based
c.
To accommodate earthquakes on
unknown faults, they indicate a background seismic
zone, which has a radius of 25 km from Jakarta,
where the maximum earthquake magnitude is
estimated to be 6.5.
As the result of their probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA), they adopted PGA = 0.23g for
Jakarta [11].
In fact, there were some earthquakes occurring in
Jakarta Region. As shown in Figure 8, they already
968
2009 WASET.ORG
105
106
107
108
M7.3
1913 Aug. 13
M7.0
1883
M7.5
2007 Aug. 08
6
M7.0
1949 June 24
M7.1
1943 Apr. 01
7
M7.0
1934
M8.1
1903 Feb. 27
Fig.8 Earthquakes in Jakarta Region, with M7.0
969
2009 WASET.ORG
have reached magnitude of M7.0 and higher. This

could not be ignored.
shear wall. Wayan Sengara et al. in their seismic

design of a 48-storey tower building in Jakarta [12],
consider seismic ground motion with 2% probability
of exceedance in 50 years and adopt R = 8.5. This
put a high demand on the ductility of all structural
elements. Yes, how should we achieve this
demand?
In the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program [3]

and GSHAP [6] Seismic Hazard Map for Indonesia,
Jakarta is located in the zone with PGA = 2.40 to
3.20 m/s2 = 0.245g to 0.326g, with 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years. The Author prefers to take
PGA = 0.28g for Jakarta Region. This is higher than
PGA = 0.15g specified in SNI 03-1726-2002.
In fact, this seismic reduction factor R would

dramatically reduce the design seismic base shear. As
shown in Figure 10, the design response spectrum
with R = 8.5 and the elastic response spectrum (R =1)
are much different. As a structural engineer, one must
be clearly aware of it.
In fact, PGA = 0.28g is corresponding to

moderate earthquake. As shown in Figure 9, assume
an earthquake of M = 6.0 occur in Jakarta at a depth
of 20km. Then using equation (1), PGA = 0.30g at
epicenter, and major of Jakarta is in the area with
PGA = 0.25g to 0.30g. It is not corresponding to
strong earthquake of M 7.0.
R=1.0
R=8.5
EPICENTER
PG A = 0.30 g
= 5km , PG A = 0.29g
= 10km, PG A = 0.27g
= 15km, PG A = 0.25g
Fig. 10 Spectral response acceleration with R :
10
20
30
40
50 km
In the Table 1617.6 of 2000 IBC, for dual systems

with special moment frames and special reinforced
concrete shear walls, response modification
coefficient R = 8, system over-strength factor o =
2.50 and deflection amplification factor Cd = 6.50.
Fig. 9 PGA in Jakarta, assuming an earthquake of

M = 6.0 with source depth 20km in Jakarta
In fact, the elastic design lateral force could be

significantly reduced by R provided suitable
structural systems are selected and detailed with
appropriate levels of ductility, regularity, and
continuity, so as complete plastification could be
performed. As indicated in Part 2 of FEMA 450:
If the earthquake is M = 5.0, occurs at a depth of

20km. Then using equation (1), PGA = 0.16g at
epicenter. This figure is closed to the PGA = 0.15g
for Jakarta specified by SNI 03-1726-2002.
B.
R = Rd xo
where Rd is system ductility reduction factor.
Structural System and Seismic Reduction

Factor
(3)
For this structural system, R = 8, o = 2.50, then

Rd = 8/2.50 = 3.20.
The structural systems for highrise buildings in

Jakarta commonly are the combination of reinforced
concrete open frames and reinforced concrete core
wall/shear walls. The seismic base shear is analyzed
by equivalent lateral force procedure. In this analysis,
the seismic reduction factor R (the seismic response
modification coefficient R in 2000 IBC) is applied. In
dynamic analysis procedures, including model
response spectra analysis and time-history analysis,
this reduction factor R is also applied. In SNI
03-1726-2002, the maximum R may be taken as 8.5
for dual systems with special reinforced concrete
Sa
R
As described in FEMA 450, there are three basic

components to system over-strength factoro. These
are the design over-strength ( D), the material
over-strength ( M) and the system over-strength
(s). Usually, the shear wall will resist most of the
lateral load, so as the systems are strength controlled.
As most designers will seek to optimize their designs
and provide a strength that is close to the minimum
requirement, the design over-strength coefficientD
970
2009 WASET.ORG
could be as low as 1.0.
revised, from SNI 03-1726-1987 to SNI

03-1726-2002, the basic analysis was developed, the
PGA specified for Jakarta was changed: PGA =
0.05g in year1987 and PGA = 0.15g in 2002. Now
the Author proposes PGA = 0.28g for Jakarta,
someone may propose other figure.
Material over-strength (M) results from the fact

that the design value used to be conservative lower
bound of the structural materials and is lower than
their effective strengths in the as-constructed
structure. Historically a factor of M = 1.25 is used
for concrete and steel.
Please note that, increase of one grade of

earthquake magnitude, means increase of 10 times of
energy released in the earthquake, such as:
System over-strength (S) is dependent on the

amount of redundancy contained in the structure. In
the dual system with reinforced concrete shear walls,
the shear wall will resist most of the lateral force in
the structural system. So as, the system will be
strength controlled and the system over-strength (S)
would be not more than 1.10.
Magnitude (Richter scale)
(ergs)
Then, the system over-strength factor O = 1.0 x

1.25 x 1.10 = 1.38, say O = 1.40. This gives R = Rd
xO = 3.20 x 1.40 = 4.48, say R = 4.50, not R = 8.0
or R = 8.5. Hence, it has to be studied further.
5.0-5.9
3-55 x 1019
6.0-6.9
8-150 x 1020
7.0-7.9
2-42 x 1022
BMG record about 50 events of M 5.0 each

month in Indonesia [4].
Back to the structural system for the highrise

building in Jakarta, we considered that the seismic
reduction factor R taken should not be more than R =
4.50 and correspondingly suitable factor of safety
should be taken in design. The structural details
should be properly designed to ensure that the
development of sequential plastic hinging conforms
to the design requirement.
Fortunately, there was no strong earthquake

occurred in Jakarta Region in the past 50 years.
However, there are still probabilities of moderate
/strong earthquake occurred in Jakarta Region. Hence,
it is worth reviewing the design of new/old highrise
buildings in Jakarta.
V.
In fact, concrete itself is brittle material, yielding

of reinforcement allows the forming of plastic hinge
and inelastic behavior. The modification effect of R is
the development of plastic yielding. In this process,
the structural systems dissipate the earthquake energy
by significant increase of displacement. This will also
damage the structure itself. Hence, the greater levels
of inelastic behavior correspond to increased
structural damage. The larger of reduction factor R,
the larger of structural damage. If R is too large and
over ductility of the structure, the structure will
collapse. Hence, the value of R must be chosen and
used with careful judgment. The limitation of R =
4.50 for highrise buildings in Jakarta is also a kind of
limitation to structural damage.
In this process, the Author wishes the followings

could be considered:
a.
b.
update the Seismic hazard map with

PGA
clarify the plastic yielding process and
seismic design criteria
c.
clarify the model of structural system to

be analyzed
d.
selection of seismic reduction factor R
The Author hereby proposes the Authority, the

owner and the relevant engineer to review the
structural design and details of existing highrise
buildings in Jakarta, and takes appropriate action as
necessary.
VI.
Structure of Existing Highrise Buildings

in Jakarta
[1]
Before year 2002, there have been lots of highrise

buildings in Jakarta. The seismic design code was
CONCLUSIONS
The publication of SNI 03-1726-2002 was over

six years. While three events of great earthquake (M
8.0) and 16 events of major earthquake (M =
7.0-7.9) occurred in Indonesia. Hence, the Author
considers this is the time to review and update the
Code now.
Concerning the performance of building, 2000

IBC in story drift determination specifies that, the
deflection amplification factor Cd should be
multiplied to the deflection determined by an elastic
analysis of the seismic-force-resisting system, Cd =
6.50 here. If it is ignored, it could substantially
underestimate the analyzed deflection and is
obviously inadequate!
C.
Approx. energy released
971
REFERENCE
SNI 03-1726-2002 Tata Cara Perencanaan

Ketahanan Gempa Untuk Bangunan Gedung,
2009 WASET.ORG
i.e. Indonesian National Standard SNI

03-1726-2002 Seismic Resistance Design for
Building Structures, Indonesian Public Works
Department, Jakarta, 2002
[2]
2000 IBC International Building Code (2000),

International Code Council, Inc., U.S.A, 2000
[3]
U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazard

Program, USGS Website, 2007 & 2008
[4]
BMG, Badan Meteorologi & Geofisika,

Indonesia, i.e. Indonesian Meteorology &
Geophysics Agency, Indonesia Earthquake
Records, BMG Website, 2007 & 2008
[5]
C.M.Yang, Study on Indonesian Seismic

Impact and Hazard Map for Design,
Proceedings of International Conference on
Earthquake
Engineering
and
Disaster
Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008,
P.308-314
[6]
GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Assessment

Program
(GSHAP),
United
Nations
International Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction (UN/IDNDR), (1990-2000), GSHAP
Website
[7]
Tianqing Cao, W.A.Bryant, B.Rowshandel,

D.Branum, and C.J.Wills, The Revised 2002
California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps,
June 2003, CGS Website
[8]
FEMA 450 Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 2003, NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450),
2003 Edition, Part 1, Provisions, Part 2
Commentary, Washington, D.E. 2004
[9]
California Geological Survey, Probabilistic

Seismic Hazard Assessment for the state of
California 1996, CGS Website
C.M. Yang, the Author, is a senior professional in Hong

Kong. He graduated in the civil engineering in 1960 in
China. He then attended Concrete Structures and
Technology Course in Imperial Collage, University of
London, UK in 1978 and was awarded MSc and DIC in
1979. He is the Fellow of The Institution of Structural
Engineers, U.K. and Class 1 Registered Structural Engineer
of PRC.
C. M. has over 40 years experience in civil, structural and
building engineering. He has extensive experience in the
design, contract administration and construction
supervision of various engineering projects, including
foundation, structural, geotechnical and civil engineering
works. He now leads the structural design team of
Mannings (Asia) Consultants Ltd responsible for a wide
range of permanent works designs, temporary works
designs and alternative designs both in Hong Kong and
International.
[10] M.D.Petersen, S.Harmsen, C.Mueller, K.Haller,

J.Dewey, N.Luco, A.Crone, K.Rukstales and
D.Lidke, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard for
Southeast Asia, Proceedings of International
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008,
P.126-136
[11] Sindhu Rudianto, E.Rathje and B.Soedjono,
Site-specific Seismic Analysis for Deep
Alluvial Jakarta Site, Indonesia, Proceedings
of International Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Disaster Mitigation, Jakarta,
April 14-15, 2008, P.381-388
[12] I.W.Sengara, D.Sukamta and P.Sumiartha, Site
Response Analysis for Seismic Design of a
48-storey Tower Building in Jakarta,
Proceedings of International Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Disaster
Mitigation, Jakarta, April 14-15, 2008,
P.399-406
972
2009 WASET.ORG

Study On Indonesian Seismic Code SNI 03-1726-2002 and Seismic Impact To High-Rise Buildings in Jakarta, Indonesia

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Study On Indonesian Seismic Code SNI 03-1726-2002 and Seismic Impact To High-Rise Buildings in Jakarta, Indonesia

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PROCEEDINGS OF WORLD ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN: 2070-3740

Study on Indonesian Seismic Code SNI 03-1726-2002 and

Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia with more

Keywords --- Seismic design Code, PGA and

A moderate earthquake of M=5.1 in Kalimantan

RECENT EARTHQUAKE AND HAZARD

The Earthquake Hazards Program of United

Indonesia is located in one of the worlds most

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is an important

where pga is the peak ground acceleration in g (g =

Z is the depth of the source, in kilometer. is the

C.M. Yang is a consultant with Mannings (Asia) Consultants Ltd., Hong

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

Fig. 3 Tectonic Setting of Indonesia

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

Fig. 4. M 9.1 Earthquake on 2004 Dec. 26

Fig. 5 Major Earthquake in Northern Sulawesi

Fig.6 The Destructive/Major Earthquakes occurred in Irian Jaya Region

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

Based on the events, using equation (1), the

In the analysis of the structural response, SNI

The PGA is based on the rock site. When the site is

May the Author call this state at the threshold of

As the plastic hinge forms at the base of the

PGA for soil in g

Please note that for any strong earthquake, there

The distribution of the earthquakes in Fig.1 and the

It means that, the aftershocks of a strong

GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS AND

Even the design structures do not collapse at the

In SNI 03-1726-2002, the design seismic load is

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

Shear wall is a cantilever structure to

Ground Motion Considered and Design

In 2000 IBC and FEMA 450, the Ground Motion

Fig. 7 Structural System

This is the case in the U.S. However, the Author

SEISMIC IMPACT TO HIGHRISE

Seismo-tectonic and PGA of Jakarta

In Figure 3 of SNI 03-1726-2002, Seismic

Sindku Rudianto et al. have analyzed the

Subduction zone earthquake, the recorded

Normally, the structural system is analyzed with

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

Fig.8 Earthquakes in Jakarta Region, with M7.0

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

have reached magnitude of M7.0 and higher. This

shear wall. Wayan Sengara et al. in their seismic

In the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program [3]

In fact, this seismic reduction factor R would

In fact, PGA = 0.28g is corresponding to

Fig. 10 Spectral response acceleration with R :

In the Table 1617.6 of 2000 IBC, for dual systems

Fig. 9 PGA in Jakarta, assuming an earthquake of

In fact, the elastic design lateral force could be

If the earthquake is M = 5.0, occurs at a depth of

Structural System and Seismic Reduction

For this structural system, R = 8, o = 2.50, then

The structural systems for highrise buildings in

PWASET VOLUME 38 FEBRUARY 2009 ISSN 2070-3740

As described in FEMA 450, there are three basic