Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

SEISMIC RESISTANT DESIGN STANDARD FOR

BUILDING STRUCTURES
SNI17262002
By :
Wiratman Wangsadinata
Emeritus Professor, Tarumanagara University
President Director, Wiratman & Associates
Chairman SNI-1726-2002 Committee

ABSTRACT
In this summary paper, the main principles of the Indonesian Seismic Resistant Design Standard for
Building Structures SNI-1726-2002 are explained. The summary covers seismic design provisions on
basic requirements for building design and material strengths. The Design Earthquake considered
has a return period of 500 years (10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years) and the resulting peak
base rock acceleration forms the basis for establishing the Indonesian Seismic Zoning Map. The peak
ground acceleration depends on the soil category (site-class) present on top of the base rock. With
this acceleration the response spectra of the Design Earthquake are defined for determining the effect
of the Design Earthquake upon building structures. Under the effect of the Design Earthquake the
building structure is at its state of near collapse with a maximum deflection, assumed to be the same
for any ductility level of the structure. With this assumption and known overstrength in the structure,
for a certain level of ductility, a simple formulation is established regarding the effect of the Design
Earthquake upon a building structure, such as elastic load, maximum load on the structure at its state
of near collapse, first yield load and nominal load for design. Against the effect of the Design
Earthquake, a building structure is in general analysed dynamically using response spectrum modal
analysis method. However, regular building structures, having their first and second mode motion
dominantly in translation, may be analysed statically using equivalent static seismic loads. The
substructure (basement and foundation) may be analysed as a separate structure subjected to the
effect of the Design Earthquake originating from the superstructure, from own inertial forces and
from the surrounding soil. Finally the strength design of the substructure based on the Load and
Resistance Factor Design method is discussed.

Key words: Standard, earthquake, dynamic response, structure, building, ductility.


1.

INTRODUCTION

This standard has taken into account as far as possible the latest development
of earthquake engineering in the world, particularly what has been reported by the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), USA, in its report titled
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures (February 1998), but on the other hand maintains as close as
possible the format of the previous Indonesian standard Rules for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Houses and Buildings (SNI 03-1726-1989).
In general this standard is sufficient to be used as the basis for the modern
design of seismic resistant building structures, particularly highrise buildings.
In order that the building engineering community understands what the basic
principles are of this standard, in this paper their background are explained. More
detailed explanations can be found in the commentary of the respective clauses,
which is an integral part of the standard.
2.
DESIGN EARTHQUAKE AND SEISMIC ZONING MAP OF

25-3

INDONESIA
An earthquake is a natural phenomena in the form of local ground motion
generated by tectonic movements of the earths crust, its occurrence being
probabilistic. This means that if a certain period of time is considered, the probability
of occurrence of mild earthquakes is higher than of large earthquakes during that
period. In other words, mild earthquakes have a relatively short return period, while
strong earthquakes a relatively long one.
For the seismic resistant design of building structures, according to this
standard a Design Earthquake causing local ground motion with a return period of
500 years must be considered. According to the probability theorem, approximately
such an earthquake has a probability of exceedance of 10% in a period of 50 years.
This period of 50 years is assumed to be the life time of normal buildings with no
particular importance.
The local ground motion as the basis for the seismic resistant design of
building structures, is generally expressed in the peak ground acceleration. This
motion is the result of seismic waves propagating from the base rock located below
the surface. While propagating, the waves undergo amplifications. The softer the soil
layers are on top of the base rock, the greater the amplification. Conversely, the
harder the soil layers are on top of the base rock, the smaller the amplification.
To determine the local ground motion with a return period of 500 years caused
by the Design Earthquake, a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis must be conducted.
From the result of such an analysis peak base accelerations with a return period of
500 years at numerous locations throughout Indonesia have been obtained. Thus, on
the map of Indonesia contour lines, showing points with equal peak base acceleration
with a return period of 500 years, have been drawn. Based on such a contour line
map, the Seismic Zoning Map of Indonesia has been established as shown in Figure
1.
The seismotectonic input data for the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
consist of: earthquake source areas; magnitude frequency distribution at the
earthquake source areas; attenuation function, relating local peak base acceleration,
earthquake magnitude at the focus and distance from the focus to the site; minimum
and maximum magnitude at the source areas; annual frequency of occurrence of
earthquakes of any magnitude at the source areas; and the mathematical model of the
earthquake occurrence itself. For the earthquake source areas, all foci recorded
in the seismic history of Indonesia have been considered, including foci at
subduction zones, shallow crustal foci within tectonic plates and foci on active faults
so far identified. The magnitude-frequency distribution at the earthquake source
areas has been computed based on the available statistical seismic data. This
distribution is better known as the Gutenberg-Richter and exponential magnitudefrequency recurrence function. For the attenuation functions, several ones have been
considered, namely the ones proposed by Fukushima & Tanaka (1990), Youngs
(1997), Joyner & Boore (1997) and Crouse (1991). Earthquake occurrence has been
mathematically modelled following Poissons function. In this probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis, peak base accelerations and their return periods have been obtained
through successive computations of the following items: (1) total probability by
considering all possible earthquake magnitudes and distances to the foci (the double
integral after

25-4

0 80

200

400

Kilometer

10O N

5O N

0O

I N
D

5O S

N
O

10OS

0.03 g

0.10 g

0.15 g

0.20 g

0.25 g

0.30 g

Figure 1.

140O

135O

130O

125O

120O

115 O

110 O

105O

100O

095

15OS

The Seismic Zoning Map of Indonesia with peak base acceleration with a
return period of 500 years.

Cornell, 1968), (2) the annual total probability, (3) the annual event probability
(Poissons function), (4) the return period (which is the inverse of the annual
probability), and (5) the peak base accelerations with a mean return period of 500
years, obtained through interpolation (logarithmic).
On the Seismic Zoning Map of Indonesia (Figure 1) it can be seen, that
Indonesia is divided into 6 seismic zones, Seismic Zone 1 being the least and
Seismic Zone 6 the most severe seismic zone. The mean peak base acceleration for
each zone starting from Seismic Zone 1 to 6 are respectively as follows : 0.03 g, 0.10
g, 0.15 g, 0.20 g, 0.25 g and 0.30 g (see Figure 1 and Table 2).
It should be noted, that the peak base acceleration for Seismic Zone 1 is the
minimum value to be considered in the design of building structures, to provide a
minimum robustness to the structure. Therefore, this peak base acceleration has a
rather longer return period than 500 years (conservative).
3.

LOCAL SOIL CATEGORY AND PEAK GROUND


ACCELERATION

From the previous discussion it follows, that the peak ground acceleration may
be obtained from the result of a seismic wave propagation analysis, whereby the
waves are propagating from the base rock to the ground surface. However, this
standard provides conveniently the value of the peak ground acceleration for every
seismic zone for 3 categories of soil present on top of the base rock, namely Hard
Soil, Medium Soil and Soft Soil.
According to this standard, the differentiation of the soil category is defined by
the following 3 parameters : shear wave velocity vs, Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
or N-value and undrained shear strength (Su). The base rock for example is defined
as the soil layer below the ground surface having shear wave velocities reaching 750

25-5

m/sec, with no other deeper layers having lower shear wave velocity values.
According to another definition, the base rock is the soil layer below the ground
surface having Standard Penetration Test values of at least 60, with no other deeper
layers having lower N-values.
The soil on top of the base rock generally consists of several layers, each with
different values of the soil parameters. Therefore, to determine the category of the
soil, the weighted average of the soil parameter must be computed using the
thickness of each soil layer as the weighing factor. The weighted average shear wave
velocity s , Standard Penetration Test value N and undrained shear strength S u ,
can be computed from the following equations :
m

vs =

i =1

i =1

i =1

i =1

ti
.. (2)

t i / Ni

i =1

Su =

.. (1)

t i / v si

i =1

N =

ti

ti
..... (3)

t i / S ui

where ti is the thickness of layer i, vsi the shear wave velocity of layer i, Ni the
Standard Penetration Test value of layer i, Sui the undrained shear strength of layer i
and m is the number of soil layers present in the considered soil.
Due to the fact that the amplification of waves propagating from the base rock
to the gound surface is determined only by the soil parameters up to a certain depth
from the ground surface, in using eqs.(1), (2) and (3) the total depth of the considered
soil must not be taken more than 30 m. To consider soil depths of more than this is
not allowed, as the weighted average of the soil strength tends to increase with depth,
whereas soil layers below 30 m do not contribute in amplifying the waves. So, using
the weighted average of soil parameters according to eqs.(1), (2) and (3) for a total
depth of not more than 30 m, the definition of Hard Soil, Medium Soil and Soft Soil
is shown in Table 1.
In Table 1, PI is the plasticity index and wn the natural water content.
Furthermore, what is meant by Special Soils are soils having high liquefaction
potentials, very sensitive clays, soft clays with a total thickness of 3 m or more,
loosely cemented sands, peat, soils containing organic materials with a thickness of
more than 3 m, and very soft clays with a plasticity index of more than 75 and a
thickness of more than 30 m. For these Special Soils the peak ground acceleration
must be obtained from the result of a seismic wave propagation analysis.
For the soil categories defined in Table 1, the peak ground acceleration Ao for
each seismic zone is shown in Table 2.

25-6

Table 1. Soil Categories


Average shear wave
velocity
s (m/sec)

Soil Category
Hard Soil
Medium Soil

Average undrained
shear strength
S u (kPa)

Average Standard
Penetration

s > 350

N > 50

175 < s < 350

15 < N < 50

s < 175

N < 15

S u > 100
50 < S u < 100

S u < 50

Soft Soil

Or, any soil profile with more than 3m of soft clays with PI > 20, wn
> 40% and Su < 25 kPa.

Special Soil

Site specific evaluation required.

Table 2.

Peak Base Acceleration and Peak Ground Acceleration Ao

Seismic
Zone

Peak Base
Acceleration
(g)

Hard Soil

Medium Soil

Soft Soil

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.15

0.20

0.15

0.18

0.23

0.30

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.34

0.25

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.30

0.33

0.36

0.38

4.

Peak Ground Acceleration Ao (g)


Special Soil
Site specific
evaluation
required.

RESPONSE SPECTRA OF THE DESIGN EARTHQUAKE AND


MODAL ANALYSIS

In general a response spectrum is a diagram representing the maximum


response acceleration of a Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) system to the input
earthquake ground motion, as a function of the damping factor (fraction of critical
damping) h and the natural vibration period T of the SDOF system. Thus, a response
spectrum may be computed analytically and its diagram plotted for any input
earthquake ground motion with given accelerogram. For T=0 the SDOF system is
very stiff, so that it follows almost completely the ground motion. Therefore, for T=0
the maximum response acceleration becomes identical with the peak ground
acceleration Ao. For a certain damping factor h, the maximum response acceleration
follows a random function. Taking the T-axis in horizontal direction and the
maximum response acceleration axis in vertical direction, that random function starts
with an initial value Ao at T=0, then goes upwards until it reaches a certain
maximum value, after which it goes downwards again approaching the T-axis
asymptotically.
In this standard the maximum response acceleration of the SDOF system due

25-7

to the Design Earthquake is expressed in the gravity acceleration (g) and is called the
Seismic Response Factor C (non-dimensional). Furthermore, the C-T function is
simplified into a smooth curve, consisting of 3 branches, namely : for 0 < T < 0.2 sec
the C value increases linearly from Ao till Am; for 0.2 sec < T < Tc the C value is
constant and equal to Am; for T > Tc the C value decreases following a hyperbolic
function C = Ar/T. In this case, Tc is called the natural corner period, while the
SDOF system considered has a damping factor of h = 5 %. For the short range of
natural period 0 < T < 0.2 sec, the C value contains various uncertainties in relation
to the ground motion as well as to the ductility of the SDOF system considered.
Therefore, in this range the C value should be taken equal to Am. It can then be stated
that for T < Tc the response spectrum is associated with a constant maximum
response acceleration, while for T > Tc it is associated with a constant maximum
response velocity, as a consequence of the hyperbolic function in this range.
Table 3. Response Spectra of the Design Earthquake
Seismic
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6

Medium Soil
Tc = 0.6 sec.

Hard Soil

Tc = 0.5 sec.

Soft Soil

Tc = 1.0 sec.

Ao

Am

Ar

Ao

Am

Ar

Ao

Am

Ar

0.04
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.28
0.33

0.10
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.70
0.83

0.05
0.15
0.23
0.30
0.35
0.42

0.05
0.15
0.23
0.28
0.32
0.36

0.13
0.38
0.55
0.70
0.83
0.90

0.08
0.23
0.33
0.42
0.50
0.54

0.08
0.20
0.30
0.34
0.36
0.38

0.20
0.50
0.75
0.85
0.90
0.95

0.20
0.50
0.75
0.85
0.90
0.95

According to this standard Am is defined as 2.5 Ao, which is an average


condition found in response spectra in general. It is also defined that Tc = 0.5 sec for
Hard Soil, Tc = 0.6 sec for Medium Soil and Tc = 1.0 sec for Soft Soil, all of which
being approximate values. Based on these conditions for each seismic zone, the
values of Ao, Am and Ar of the response spectra of the Design Earthquake are as
listed in Table 3.
For easy application, the response spectra of the Design Earthquake for Hard
Soil, Medium Soil and Soft Soil for each seismic zone of Indonesia are shown on
Figure 2.
The response spectra C-T of the Design Earthquake are used as input data for
the dynamic response analysis of building structures in the elastic range, using the
response spectrum modal analysis method. In this method the building structure is
modelled as a Multi Degree of Freedom (MDOF) system, being excited at its
foundation by the Design Earthquake. Applying the modal analysis method,
whereby a coordinate transformation is performed, the equations of motion of the
MDOF system, which in the original coordinates constitute of coupled second order
differential equations, become uncoupled in the new coordinates. Each free equation
has the form of the equation of motion of an SDOF system. The transformation
Seismic Zone 1

Seismic Zone 2

0.50

C=
0.38

C=

0.20
(Soft soil)
T

0.08
C=
(Medium soil)
T

C
0.20

C=

0.05

(Hard soil)

0.30

25-8

0.20
0.15

0.50
(Soft soil)
T
C=

0.23
(Medium soil)
T

C=

0.15
(Hard soil)
T

Figure 2.

Response Spectra of the Design Earthquake.

matrix involved is the eigenvector matrix, which contains orthogonality properties


among its modes, causing the uncoupling of the equations. Furthermore, the
expression of the total dynamic response of the MDOF system takes the form of a
superposition of the dynamic response of each single mode, whereby the higher the
mode is the smaller its participation in producing the total response. This fact creates
the possibility of using the response spectra of the Design Earthquake as a basis for
determining the maximum dynamic responses of those single modes. It should be
recognized however, that the dynamic responses of the single mode, determined from
the response spectra of the Design Earthquake, are maximum responses, whereas in
general each mode reaches its maximum response at different times. Therefore, the

25-9

superposition of the maximum dynamic responses must be modified. According to


this standard, which is based on various studies, if the MDOF system possesses
sparsely spaced natural periods, the superposition of the maximum dynamic
responses may be performed using the method known as Square Root of the Sum of
Squares (SRSS), while if those natural periods are closely spaced, the superposition
must be performed using the method known as Complete Quadratic Combination
(CQC). Natural periods must be considered closely spaced, if their difference is less
than 15%. The number of modes considered in the superposition may be limited, as
long as the total mass participation in producing the total response is at least 90%.
The vertical effect of earthquakes shall be considered in balconies, canopies,
long cantilevers, transfer beams, long-span prestressed beams, simultaneously with
their horizontal effect. The vertical acceleration induced by the Design Earthquake to
the building is expressed as Ao I, where Ao is the peak ground acceleration, I is the
importance factor (see section 6.1) and is a coefficient depending on the seismic
zone as listed in Table 4. It is obvious that the value of is increasing with
increasing seismicity of the seismic zone, as the epicenters become closer.
Table 4. Coefficient to compute the vertical acceleration
of the Design Earthquake

5.

Seismic Zone

Coefficient

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

DUCTILITY, OVERSTRENGTH AND THE EFFECT OF THE


DESIGN EARTHQUAKE ON THE BUILDING STRUCTURE

According to this standard, against the effect of the Design Earthquake any
building structure must be designed to remain standing, although it may have
reached a state of near collapse. The load-deflection history of a building structure
until reaching its state of near collapse, depends on the level of ductility of the
structure. However, whatever the level of ductility, the maximum deflection reached
by the building structure at its state of near collapse, is assumed to be the same
according to this standard. This is known as the constant maximum displacement
concept, a phenomena shown by many elasto-plastic systems (Veletsos, Newmark,
1960).
The load-deflection diagram of a building structure designed to remain elastic
and designed to possess a certain level of ductility, based on the constant maximum
displacement concept may be visualized as shown in Figure 3, whereby m =

25-10

constant. In this figure the load is represented by the base shear load V resisted by
the structure, and the deflection is represented by the top floor deflection of the
building structure. Furthermore, the level of ductility according to this standard is
expressed by a factor called ductility factor , which is the ratio between the
maximum deflection m and the deflection at first yield y (at which the first plastic
hinge develops), so that :
1 =

m
m
y

............. (4)

where = 1 is the ductility factor of a building structure designed to remain elastic


up to its state of near collapse (m = y), while m is the maximum ductility factor
which can be mobilized by the structure. For various structural systems this standard
provides the values of m. The largest m value is of a full ductile structure, namely
m = 5.3. The higher the value of possessed by a structure (the more ductile the
structure) the lower the value of the first yield load Vy and also the lower the value of
the maximum seismic load Vm absorbed by the structure at its state of near collapse.
In the process of load increase from Vy to Vm the V- diagram follows a parabolic
curve, during which more and more plastic hinges are developed in the highly
redundant structure, accompanied by continuous redistribution of moments, until a
condition is reached at which the structure is at its state of near collapse. The higher
the value of , the longer the V- curve will be.
V
R Vn

Ve
elastic

Vm

ductile
f

Vy
Vn

f Vn

f2
f1

Fi
zi

n y

Figure 3. Load deflection diagram (V- diagram) of a building structure.


If the elastic load Ve of a building structure in its elastic condition is known,
for example from the result of a response spectrum modal analysis as described in
section 4, and the building structure is to be designed to have a certain ductility
factor , which according to this standard may be chosen by the designer or the
building owner, then from Figure 3 it can be seen, that the seismic load producing
first yield is:

Vy =

Ve

.... (5)

25-11

At the seismic load level Vy, the first plastic hinge begins to develop at the most
critical section of the structure. To design the strength of that critical section based
on the Load and Resistance Factor Design method as required by this standard, the
seismic load to be considered, called the nominal seismic load Vn, must be taken
lower that Vy, to accommodate the strength margin required to cope with overload on
the structure and understrength of the material. The nominal seismic load Vn is
obtained by reducing Vy by a certain overstrength factor f1, so that the following
expression applies :
Vn =

Vy
f1

Ve
R

... (6)

in which
R = f1

.... (7)

where R is called the seismic reduction factor (see Figure 3).


Theoretically the minimum value of f1 is the product of the load factor and the
material factor used in the Load and Resistance Factor Design, namely f1 = 1.05 x
1.15 = 1.2. The material factor is the inverse of the capacity reduction factor (= 1/).
In reality there will always be oversized steel sections or excessive concrete
reinforcements in structural members, so that in general f1 > 1,2. According to this
standard the overstrength factor is assumed to be constant namely f1 = 1.6. Therefore,
eqs. (6) and (7) becomes :
Vn =

Vy
1.6

Ve
R

........ (8)

in which
1. 6 R = 1.6 R m

. (9)

where Rm is the maximum seismic reduction factor that can be mobilized by the
building structure, its value being given in the standard together with its related m
value for various structural systems. The largest Rm value is therefore that of a full
ductile structure, namely Rm = 1.6 x 5.3 = 8.5.
The ratio between Vm and Vy is another factor called overstrength factor f2,
which is mobilized because of the redundancy of the structure. Hence, the following
relationship can be written (see figure 3) :
Vm = f2 Vy

................................................. (10)

The higher the redundancy of the building structure, the higher the value of f2 that
can be mobilized by the building structure. The largest value of f2 is of a full ductile
structure ( = 5.3), namely f2 = 1.75. The smallest value of f2 is of a full elastic
building structure ( = 1.0), where no plastic hinges have developed nor
redistribution of moments has occurred, namely f2 = 1.00. Applying the equal initial
slope principle of a parabola, based on the above boundary conditions, the
relationship between and f2 may be expressed as follows :

25-12

= 0.83 + 0.17

f2

...................................... (11)

The relationship between Vm and Vn can now be expressed as follows :


Vm = f Vn

....(12)

f = f1 f2 = 1.6 f2

....(13)

where
For the whole spectrum of ductility of building structures, from the full elastic
( = 1) up to the full ductile ( = 5.3), in Table 5 the values of the parameters R, f2
and f are listed. All ductility levels between full elastic and full ductile is referred to
as partially ductile.
Table 5. Ductility parameters of building structures
Performance
level
Full elastic

Partially ductile

Full ductile

R
eq.(7)

f2
eq.(11)

f
eq.(13)

1.0

1.6

1.00

1.6

1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0

2.4
3.2
4.0
4.8
5.6
6.4
7.2
8.0

1.09
1.17
1.26
1.35
1.44
1.51
1.61
1.70

1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7

5.3

8.5

1.75

2.8

In the implementation of the seismic resistant design of building structures in


practice, the process starts with an analysis of the building structure under the effect
of the nominal seismic load Vn, for example by performing a response spectrum
modal analysis as described in section 4, using the response spectra of the Design
Earthquake. The ordinates are firstly multiplied by the importance factor I (see
section 6.1) and then divided by the seismic reduction factor R for the selected
value. The whole result can thus be used for the strength design of the structure
based on the Load and Resistance Factor Design method.
The deflection of the building structure n due to the nominal seismic load Vn,
can also be used to calculate deflections of the building structure at various
conditions under the effect of the Design Earthquake, such as the deflection at first
yielding :
y = f1 n = 1.6 n
and the deflection at its state of near collapse :

25-13

.... (14)

m = R n

.... (15)

The deflection at first yielding y is used as a measure of its serviceability limit state
performance, in preventing excessive yielding of the steel or excessive cracking of
the concrete, excessive non-structural damage and inconvenience to the occupants.
This deflection is oftenly said to have been caused by a small to moderate earthquake,
which occurs only once in the life time of the building, thus with a probability of
occurrence of about 60% in the life time of the building according to the probability
theorem. The deflection of the building structure at its state of near collapse m is
used as a measure of its ultimate limit state performance, in limiting the possibility of
structural collapse that may cause loss of human lives and limiting the possibility of
dangerous pounding between buildings or between structural components separated
by separation joints. The detailed provisions can be found in the respective clauses in
the standard.

6.

THE ANALISIS OF 3D STRUCTURES

6.1. GENERAL

If soil-structure interaction is not considered, for the analysis of the upper part
of a building structure (the superstructure), it may be assumed that it has its lateral
restraint (fixity) at the level of the ground floor, if there is a basement, and at the
level of the top of the pile cap of a pile foundation or at the level of the bearing plane
of a footing or a raft foundation, if there is no basement.
Based on the structural layout of the building, the most critical direction of the
earthquake action must be determined, which is parallel to the most dominant
direction of the structural subsystems (open frames, shear walls). Usually this
direction is also the most suitable one to be use as the direction of one of the
coordinate axis (x-axis or y-axis) of the global coordinate system for the structural
analysis. For highly irregular structural layouts, the critical direction of the
earthquake action must be determined through a trial and error procedure.
In reality the earthquake action will have an arbitrary direction, so that in
general there will always be 2 components of earthquake action on the structure,
each parallel to the orthogonal coordinate axes. Biaxial earthquake loading may have
a more detrimental effect on the structure than the full uniaxial one. This condition is
simulated by the requirement in this standard to always consider 100% earthquake
action in one direction, in combination with 30% earthquake action in its
perpendicular direction.
Stiffness reduction due to concrete cracking must be taken into account, by
assigning proper flexural and torsional stiffness modifiers in the analysis of the
structure.
If in the direction of a coordinate axis the R value is not known yet, its value
must be computed as the weighted average of the R value of all structural subsystems
present in that direction, using the seismic base shear Vs resisted by each subsystem
as the weighing factor. In this case the R value of each subsystem in that direction
must be known, for example R = 8.5 for an open frame and R = 5.3 for a shear wall,

25-14

which are their maximum values according to this standard. For the x-axis direction,
the weighted average R value may be computed as follows :
Rx =

Vxs
Vxo
=
Vxs /R xs
Vxs /R xs

....(16)

and for the y-axis direction :


Ry =

Vys
Vys / R ys

Vyo
Vys / R ys

....(17)

To be able to apply eqs. (16) and (17), a common way is to carry out a response
spectrum modal analysis as described in section 4 due to the elastic Design
Earthquake (R = 1 and I = 1) for each of the direction of the coordinate axis, to
determine Vs of each structural subsystem. The representative value of the overall
seismic reduction factor R of the 3D building structure, is then computed as the
weighted average of Rx and Ry, using Vxo and Vyo as the weighing factors :
R =

Vxo + Vyo
Vxo / R x + Vyo / R y

....(18)

The R value according to eq.(18) is a maximum value that can be used, so that a
lower value may be considered if desired in accordance with the chosen value.
In the analyses of the 3D building structure, the P-Delta Effect must be
considered, if the building height is more than 10 stories or 40 m. The P-Delta Effect
is a phenomena occurring in flexible building structures, where due to the large
lateral displacements of the floors, additional lateral loads are generated as the result
of the overturning moments produced by the laterally displaced gravity loads.
The 3D character of the building structure is reflected by the requirement in the
standard to consider a design eccentricity ed between the Center of Mass and the
Center of Rotation of each floor, each floor being considered as horizontally rigid
diaphragms. This is to cope with the effect of the rotational component of the ground
motion, the possible change of the position of the Center of Mass due to change in
gravity loads and the possible change of the Center of Rotation due to post-elastic
plastification. The detailed provisions can be found in the respective clauses in the
standard.
Before proceeding with the seismic response analysis of the structure, the
fundamental vibration period T1 of the building structure must be examined. For
irregular building structures, T1 is obtained directly from the result of a 3D free
vibration analysis (with due consideration of the P-Delta Effect and the design
eccentricity ed), while for regular building structures behaving almost as 2 D
structures in each principle direction (see section 6.3) T1 can be obtained from the
static deflections of the structure as the result of a static load 3D analysis (again with
due consideration of the P-Delta Effect and the design eccentricity ed), by
substituting those deflections into the well-known Rayleighs formula (see further
section 6.3). The fundamental vibration period must satisfy the following

25-15

requirement :
T1 < n

.... (19)

where n is the number of stories of the building and is a coefficient depending on


the seismic zone where the building is located according to Table 6.
Table 6. The coefficient for the limitation of T1
Seismic Zone

0.20

0.19

0.18

0.17

0.16

0.15

Before proceeding with the seismic response analysis of the structure, also the
category of the building must be determined, by assigning the value of its importance
factor I. This factor is intended to adjust the return period of the Design Earthquake,
whether it is longer or shorter than the return period of 500 years. A return period
longer then 500 years (I > 1) must be considered, if the 2 following cases are
encountered : (1) the probability of occurrence of the Design Earthquake in the 50
years life time of the building must be taken lower than 10% (for example for
hospitals), or (2) the life time of the building is much longer than 50 years (for
example for monuments and very tall buildings), while the 10% probability of
occurrencre of the Design Earthquake in the longer life time is maintained. For both
cases the return period of the Design Earthquake is longer than 500 years. A return
period shorter than 500 years (I < 1) may be considered, if the life time of the
building is shorter than 50 years (for example for low-rise buildings), so that with a
10% probability that in the shorter life time of the building the Design Earthquake
will occur, the return period of that earthquake is shorter than 500 years. For various
categories of buildings, the importance factor I according to this standard is
formulated as follows :
I = I 1 I2
.... (20)
where I1 is the importance factor to adjust the return period of the Design Earthquake
related to the adjustment of its occurrence probability and I2 is the importance factor
to adjust the return period of the Design Earthquake related to the adjustment of the
life time of the building. The factors I1 and I2 are given in Table 7.
Table 7. Importance Factor for several building categories
Building Category

I1

25-16

Importance Factor
I2
I

General buildings such as for residential,


1.0
1.0
1.0
commercial and office use
Monuments and monumental buildings
1.0
1.6
1.6
Post earthquake important buildings such as
hospital, clean water installation, power plant,
1.4
1.0
1.4
emergency and rescue center, radio and
television facilities
Buildings for storing dangerous goods such as
1.6
1.0
1.6
gas, oil products, acid, toxic materials
Chimneys, elevated tanks
1.5
1.0
1.5
Note:
For all building structures, which usage permit is issued prior to the enforcement
date of this standard, the importance factor I may be multiplied by 0.8.

6.2. THE IRREGULAR BUILDING STRUCTURE

After the fundamental period T1 satisfies eq.(19), its modal motions must
further be examined. According to this standard, the fundamental mode motion must
be dominant in translation, in order that the building structure doesnt respond
dominantly in torsion to the seismic loading, which is disturbing the convenience of
the occupants. If this requirement is not satisfied, the structural system must be
rearranged by placing more rigid structural elements at the periphery of the building
to increase its overall torsional stiffness.
Based on the fundamental period T1, the nominal static equivalent base shear
due to the Design Earthquake is computed as follows :
V1 =

C1 I
Wt
R

.... (21)

where C1 is the Seismic Response Factor obtained from the response spectra of the
Design Earthquake shown on Figure 2 for the first natural period T1, I the importance
factor of the building, R the representative seismic reduction factor of the building
structure (Table 5) and Wt the total weight of the building, including an appropriate
portion of the live load (see section 6.3). The base shear V1 is a reference quantity
for the total nominal base shear Vt obtained from the result of a response spectrum
modal analysis as described in section 4, whereby the response spectrum used is that
of the Design Earthquake shown on Figure 2, its ordinates being multiplied by I/R.
The following requirement must be satisfied :
Vt > 0.8 V1

.... (22)

to ensure that a certain minimum effect of the Design Earthquake is guaranteed in


cases where the total response is smaller than the static equivalent base shear.
To satisfy the requirement expressed by eq.(22), the nominal story shears
obtained from the result of the response spectrum modal analysis, must be multiplied
by a scaling factor as follows :

25-17

Scaling Factor =

0,8 V1
1
Vt

.... (23)

Visually the result of the above described scaling, is shown on Figure 4, where the
CQC curve is the nominal story shear distribution obtained from the result of the
response spectrum modal analysis.

CQC (total response)


0.8V1
Vt

CQC (design curve)

Story

First mode response


Modified design curve

Vt 0.8V1 V1

Nominal Story Shear

Figure 4.

The nominal story shear diagrams along the height of


the building structure.

The example shown on Figure 4 represents a case, where the nominal story
shear curve is showing an inward turn. For such a case, if desired the curve may be
modified conservatively as shown by the broken line. From the final nominal story
shear curve, the nominal static equivalent seismic load at each floor level can be
obtained by subtracting story shears of two adjoining stories. With these nominal
static equivalent seismic loads, a 3D static analysis is carried out to obtain the
internal forces in the building structure.
For the commonly used structural system, consisting of a combination of open
frames and shear walls, it is required by this standard, that the story shears resisted
by the open frames are not less than 25% of the total story shears. If this requirement
is not met, additional lateral loads must be applied in such a way, that the above
requirement is fulfilled, keeping the story shears resisted by the shear walls
unchanged. The objective of this requirement is to give the open frames extra
strength, to cope with a possible redistribution of lateral loads if cracking occurs in
the shear walls.
If desired, the dynamic response analysis of the irregular building structure
may be performed using 3D time history dynamic response analysis, using a
digitized accelerogram as the input earthquake motion. The detailed provisions can
be found in the respective clauses in the standard.

6.3. THE REGULAR BUILDING STRUCTURE

25-18

A building structure is catagorized as regular, if it meets the following criteria:


- The height of the building structure, measured from its ground floor, is not more
than 10 stories or 40 m.
- The building structure in plan has a rectangular layout without any protrusions;
where this is not met, the length of the protrusion is not more than 25% of the
largest plan dimension of the structural layout plan in that direction.
- The building structure in plan has no re-entrant angles at the corners; where this is
not met, the length of the wings is not more than 15% of the largest plan
dimension of the structural layout plan in that direction.
- The structural system of the building is composed of orthogonally arranged lateral
load resisting subsystems, each parallel to the orthogonal principle axes of the
building structure as a whole.
- The building structure has no setbacks; where this is not met, the plan dimension
of the upper portion in each direction is at least 75% of the largest corresponding
plan dimension of the lower portion of the building structure. In this case, a
penthouse structure of not more than 2 stories in height need not be considered as
a setback.
- The structural system has a uniform stiffness distribution along its height, without
having any soft story. A soft story is one having lateral stiffness less than 70% of
that of the story above it, or less than 80% of the average stiffness of 3 stories
above it. In this case, stiffness of a story is defined as the shear applied at that
particular story, causing unit interstory drift of that story.
- The structural system has a uniform floor weight distribution along its height,
meaning that the weight of any floor does not exceed 150% of the weight of the
floor above it. The weight of a penthouse need not be considered to comply with
this requirement.
- The structural system has continuous vertical structural elements of its lateral load
resisting subsystems without any offset of their vertical axis; where this is not met,
these offsets must not be more than half of the dimension of that element in the
offset direction.
- The structural system has continuous floor slabs without any opening larger than
50% of the area of the whole floor slab. If floor slabs with openings meeting this
requirement are present, their number must not exceed 20% of the total number of
floors of the building.
Regular building structures meeting the above criteria, has a typical dynamic
characteristic. If a 3D free vibration analysis is conducted on a regular building
structure, its first mode motion will be dominant in translation in the direction of one
of its principle axes, while its second mode motion will be dominant in translation in
the direction of the other principle axis. Therefore, the regular 3D building structure
behaves almost like a 2D structure in the direction of its principle axes.
With the above dynamic characteristic, the response spectrum modal analysis
described in section 4 may be modified, because the following 2 assumptions can be
made :
- the total dynamic response of the structure is dominantly determined by that of the
first mode, so that the contribution of the response of the other modes may be
neglected (as in the case of a 2D structure);
- the shape of the first mode may be simplified into a straight line (instead of a
curve), as the structure is not very high (less than 10 stories or 40 m).

25-19

With the above assumptions the effect of the Design Earthquake in the direction of
the principle axis of a regular building structure, will appear as an equivalent static
seismic loading according to the 2 following provisions :
- The nominal static equivalent base shear V at the base of the building structure
induced by the effect of the Design Earthquake is

V =

C1 I
Wt
R

.... (24)

- The nominal base shear according to eq.(24) may be distributed along the height
of the building structure into nominal static equivalent seismic loads Fi acting at
the center of mass of floor i according to the following expression :
F1 =

Wi z i
n

i =1

....(25)

Wi z i

where Wi is the weight of floor i, including an appropriate portion of the live load;
zi is the height of floor i measured from the level of its lateral restraint at the base;
while n is the top floor number.
Hence, for regular building structures dynamic analyses are not at all necessary.
Even to compute its fundamentral period T1 no free vibration analysis is necessary,
because as mentioned in section 6.1, to determine its value the well-known
Rayleighs formula of a 2D structure may be used :
n

T1 = 2

i =1

d i2

g Fi d i

....(26)

i =1

where Wi and Fi have the same meaning as described previously, while di is the
horizontal static deflection of floor i from the result of a static analysis and g is the
gravity acceleration. This static analysis may be performed using static equivalent
seismic loads Fi based on an arbitrary base shear V.
7.

SUBSTRUCTURE

7.1. SEISMIC LOADING ON THE SUBSTRUCTURE

What is meant by substructure is that portion of the building structure, which is


below the ground surface, consisting of the basement, if any, and the foundation. To
simplify the analysis, this standard allows the substructure to be considered as a
separate underground structure, isolated from the superstructure. The substructure is
then considered to be exerted by seismic loading originated from the superstructure,
from inertial forces at the basement floor levels and from the surrounding soil.
During any strong seismic event, it is not possible for the superstructure to

25-20

perform well, if the substructure has failed earlier. Therefore, this standard requires
the substructure to be designed to remain full elastic at any time, including under the
effect of the Design Earthquake, at which the superstructure is in its state of near
collapse. This means that the nominal maximum seismic load exerted by the
superstructure on the substructure is:
Vmn =

Vm f 1 f 2 Vn
=
= f 2 Vn
R
f1

....(27)

In line with eq.(27), the support reactions of all vertical elements (columns and shear
walls) at the ground floor level due to the nominal seismic loading on the
superstructure, multiplied by the overstrength factor f2, become the nominal seismic
loading on the substructure.
Inertial forces acting at the basement floors are generated by the interaction of
soil and structure under the effect of the Design Earthquake, so that masses on the
basement floors undergo accelerations. If it is not determined through other more
rational methods, the effect of the Design Earthquake on the basement floor masses
may be assumed to appear as static equivalent seismic loads. Its nominal value for
the strength design of the substructure based on the Load and Resistance Factor
Design method is to be computed according to the following empirical formula :
Fbn = 0.10 Ao I Wb

....(28)

where Ao is the peak ground acceleration due to the effect of the Design Earthquake
(Table 2), I the importance factor of the building and Wb the weight of the basement
floor, including an appropriate portion of the live load.
The last effect of the Design Earthquake upon the substructure, is the lateral
soil pressure from the front soil, the value of which may be assumed to have reached
its maximum possible value, that is equal to its yield stress (identical with the passive
soil pressure) along the height of the substructure and other components of the
substructure. As the substructure must be fully elastic under any circumstances, for
its strength design based on the Load and Resistance Factor Design method, the said
soil yield stress must be transformed into its nominal value by reducing it by the
required seismic reduction factor R = f1 = 1.6 (full elastic).
In the analysis of the 3D substructure, the existence of the back soil must be
considered by modelling it as compression springs, while the side and bottom soil
may be modelled as shear springs. The properties of the compression and shear
springs must be derived rationally from the existing soil data.
7.2. THE LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN FOR THE
SUBSTRUCTURE

The strength of the basement structure, similar to that of the superstructure,


must be designed based on the Load and Resistance Factor Design method according
to this standard. Therefore, it is but logical that the strength of the foundation is
designed based on the same principles, like it is recommended by this standard. By
so doing a consistency is reached in the strength design of the building structure as a

25-21

whole.
The Load and Resistance Factor Design method for the foundation is in
principle the same as that for the superstructure and the basement structure, namely
that at the ultimate condition, the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation Ru is at
least equal to the ultimate loading Qu on it, according to the following expression:
Ru > Qu

....(29)

where Ru, being the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation, is the multiplication
of the nominal bearing capacity Rn and the capacity reduction factor , as follows :
Ru = Rn

....(30)

and Qu, being the ultimate loading on the foundation, is the multiplication of the
nominal loading Qn and the load factor , summed up for all loadings, as follows :
Qu = Qn

....(31)

On the load-settlement curve, the nominal bearing capacity Rn is at a point,


where the foundations behaviour is still elastic, with an ample margin to the point
where any increase in load will produce continuing larger settlements. Therefore, the
nominal bearing capacity of a foundation is most accurate, if it is obtained from the
result of a loading test until failure. However, this standard allows its value to be
determined analytically using rational methods, based on the available soil data. As
an approximation, the nominal bearing capacity of a foundation is twice the
allowable bearing capacity computed in a conventional way.
The capacity reduction factor for a foundation is given in Table 8 for footings
and rafts, and in Table 9 for driven piles and bored piles.
Table 8. Capacity reduction factor for footings and rafts

Soil category
Sand
Clay
Rock

0.35 0.55
0.50 0.60
0.60

Table 9. Capacity reduction factor for driven piles and bored piles.
Foundation
type

Source of resistance

Driven piles

Friction + end bearing

0.55 0.75

Axial compression

pure friction

0.55 0.70

Axial compression/tension

pure end bearing

0.55 0.70

Axial compression

friction + end bearing

0.50 0.70

Axial compression

pure friction

0.55 0.75

Axial compression/tension

Bored piles

25-22

Type of loading

pure end bearing

0.45 0.55

Axial compression

In Table 8 and 9, the lowest value of in its range is used, if the nominal
bearing capacity of the foundation Rn is computed analytically using soil data
derived from Standard Penetration Test result (N-SPT). The average value of in its
range is used, if the nominal bearing capacity of the foundation Rn is computed
analytically using soil data derived from Cone Penetration Test result (CPT). The
highest value of in its range is used, if the nominal bearing capacity of the
foundation Rn is determined from the result of a loading test until failure.

8. REFERENCE

SNI-1726-2002, Indonesian Seismic Resistant Design Standard for Building


Structures.

25-23