The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

Quick Assessment of High-Rise Building Seismic Vulnerability Based on

Column Dimensions and Material Properties
Mulyo Harris Pradono*
Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT), Jl. M.H. Thamrin 8, Jakarta 15310, Indonesia

Abstract
Quick assessment method to determine the earthquake vulnerability of buildings is being built at the Center for Disaster
Risk Reduction Technology, BPPT. This method produces a relationship curve between number of floors, distance between
columns, and the column width. These curves are built on the assumption of concrete compressive strength of 30 MPa,
steel reinforcement tensile strength of 390 MPa, concrete reinforcement ratio of 0.02, and the earthquake hazard of Jakarta.
Assessment on site was carried out by testing the concrete strength of columns, scanning the number and diameter of
steel reinforcements, measuring the dimension of columns, distance between columns, and determine the number of
stories. The data is then compared to the data assumptions for making the curves. Additional data are year of
construction, function of the building, and shape of the building. The comparison is then expressed in percentage in order
to show the building strength percentage value. Vulnerability of the buildings is the value of one minus the percentage of
the building strength.
Keywords: Quick assessment; earthquakes; highrise buildings; vulnerability

1. INTRODUCTION

In the face of earthquake threat in Jakarta, it is necessary to assess the earthquake disaster risk. This study is expected to
be used for a basis to take steps in anticipating the earthquake disaster and mitigation in Jakarta and other cities. One of the
data required in earthquake disaster risk assessments is the building vulnerability. The data is usually obtained from the
curve that relates the magnitude of seismic hazard (in the value of the peak ground acceleration) and the degree of damage
to buildings.
The work about assessing vulnerability of building among others are by GESI [1]. In this method, the information needed
is: method of design, method of construction, contractor experience, and the quality of material. This method uses
interviews with owners of the building. The results may me subjective as it is from the point of view of the owner.
Rapid method for seismic vulnerability was also proposed by Pradono [2]. In this method, the data needed is building
shape, number of floors, functions, and year of design. This method uses direct observation of the physical exterior of the
building and interviews to obtain year of design. This method can quickly provide a preliminary description of the
vulnerability of a building.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-21-7579-1378; Fax.: +62-21-7579-1378.
E-mail address: mulyo.harris@bppt.go.id
 Both methods still do not look into detail the condition of the building. Therefore, it is considered necessary to develop
a method to assess the building vulnerability based on the dimensions and strength of building materials. This method is
expected to be more objective in assessing the vulnerability of buildings.

2. METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in making the vulnerability curves is based on:

a. The need of column dimensions due to building weight (gravity) for different number of stories and different span
between columns
b. The need of column dimensions due to earthquake loads on buildings (for Jakarta seismic zone) for different number
of stories and different span between columns
c. The seismic standard used is for Indonesia
d. The analysis finally produces curves that relate column dimensions to number of floors

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Column Dimension due to Building Weight

The floor load is based on the applicable standard [3]. It contains life load and dead load definitions. In total, the design
load for one floor is calculated to be 1500 kg/m2.

Table 1. Material Properties and Strength Reduction Factors for Analyzing Column Capacity
in Resisting Axial Load
Symbol Value Unit Remarks
f’c 30 MPa Concrete Strength
fy 390 MPa Steel Tensile Strength
 0.02 Steel Reinforcement Ratio
 0.65 Reduction Factor for Square Column

By using the data above and the formula below (Equation 1), the relation between column dimension, span between
columns, and number of floors, due to the weight of building is shown in Figure 1.

Pu  0.85 f c'  Ac  As   f y As (1)

Where:
fc’ is concrete cylinder specimen compressive strength [MPa]
fy is steel reinforcement tensile strength [MPa]
Ac is concrete column gross cross sectional area [mm2]
As is steel reinforcement sectional area [mm2]

3.2. Column Dimension due to Seismic Loading

In analyzing the column dimensions due to seismic loading, the data needed is the seismic acceleration spectrum for
Jakarta seismic zone area [4]. The spectrum is shown in Figure 2. This data will be used for making the relation curve
between column dimension, column span, and number of floors, due to seismic loading of Jakarta City. The seismic design
standard used for making the relation curve between column dimension, column span, and number of floors, is SNI 03
1726 2002 [5]. This is because at the moment, there are many buildings in Jakarta designed by using the standard. The
newer seismic design standard [6] is available, however, only a few buildings designed using the standard at the moment.
In the 2002 standard, the equivalent static seismic horizontal force V at the base of the structure is:

𝐶1 𝐼
𝑉= 𝑊𝑡 (2)
𝑅

Where:
C1 is Seismic Response Factor for natural vibration period of T1 (in this case “acceleration spectrum” in Figure 2)
Wt is total weight of building, including appropriate Life Load (in the case of seismic loading, it is taken to be 1.2 Dead
Load + 1.0 Life Load, it is 1300 kg/m2)
I:
I = 1.0 (Importance Factor for common buildings and offices)
R = 3.5 (Maximum Seismic Reduction Factor); in the analysis, R is taken as = 3.0.

Number of Floors vs Column Width (Gravitation)

120
Span 9 m
100
Span 8 m
Span 7 m
Column Width (cm)

80
Span 6 m

60 Span 5 m
Span 4 m
40
Span 3 m

20

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Number of Floors
Fig. 1. Relation between Number of Floors and Square Column Dimensions due to Gravity Load

Fig. 2. Ground Seismic Acceleration Spectrum of Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake with Exceedance
Probability of 1% in 50 Years for Jakarta Zone (Kemen PU, 2011)

Relation between number of floors and building natural vibration period is taken from the standard using the limitation
of natural vibration period of a building, as shown herein.

𝑇1 < 𝜉𝑛 (3)
 The equivalent static seismic horizontal force V is distributed along the height of the structure to become nominal static
equivalent seismic forces Fi that is working at the center of mass of floor ith according to the formula below:

𝑊𝑖 𝑧𝑖
𝐹𝑖 = ∑𝑛 𝑉 (4)
𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖 𝑧𝑖

Where:
Wi is weight of ith floor, including appropriate Life Load,
zi is height of ith floor, including appropriate Life Load,
n is number of floors

Fig. 3. Moment Diagram of Columns at Center Layer due to Equivalent Static Seismic Horizontal Force V (distributed as
discussed above)

Moment diagram at columns due to Equivalent Static Seismic Horizontal Force V is shown at Figure 3. Moments of
columns at center layer and at outer layers are not significantly different. For information, in the above results, the ratio of
moment of inertia of beams to columns is 1.0. If the ratio of moment of inertia of beams to columns is 0.5, then the moment
at columns becomes 1.14 larger than if the ratio is 1.0. Finally, beam to column moment inertia ratio of 1.0 is used for the
rest of analysis, because in some cases there are many beams large (stiff) beams used in buildings to accommodate less
columns as demanded by spacious room functions rather than seismic consideration.
The relation between moments at columns and number of floors due to seismic design loadings at Jakarta seismic zone
is shown in Figure 4.
 Number of Floors vs Moment at Column
4000 (Seismic at Jakarta)
Span 9 m
3500

Moment at Column (kN.m)

3000 Span 8 m

2500 Span 7 m

2000 Span 6 m

1500 Span 5 m

1000 Span 4 m
500
Span 3 m
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Number of Floors
Fig. 4. Relation between Moments at Columns and Number of Floors due to Seismic Design Loadings at Jakarta Seismic
Zone

After knowing the moments at columns due to seismic loadings, a correlation between column moment capacity and
column width (assuming rectangular cross sections of columns) is needed. With this relation, by knowing the moment
demand, the column width demand can be specified. The definitions of parameters in column cross section for the analysis
is shown in Figure 5. The parameters used in calculating the column capacity is shown in Table 2.

Fig. 5. Column Cross Section and Parameters

Table 2. Material Properties and Strength Reduction Factors for Analyzing Column Capacity
in Resisting Moments
Symbol Value Unit Remarks
f’c 30 MPa Concrete Strength
fy 390 MPa Steel Tensile Strength
 0.02 Steel Reinforcement Ratio
 0.80 Reduction Factor for Square Column
Pn 0 N Axial Force
(h-h’)/2 40 mm Concrete cover
 Column Width vs Moment Capacity
20
18
y = 2E-06x3.1414

Moment Capacity (MN.m)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Column Width (cm)

Fig. 6. Relation between Column Moment Capacity and Column Width

From the above result (relation between column moment capacity and column width), then a relation between number
of floors and column (at the ground floor) width can be obtained. In this case, directly column dimension demand due to
building weight and seismic demand is plotted in one graph (Figure 7). It can be seen that for a building more than 19
floors, the column width is more determined by building weight, whereas for a building lower than 19 floors, the column
width is more determined by seismic loading. This is because, for a high rise building, the stiffness become lower, therefore
the vibration natural period become longer. It means, the seismic coefficient becomes lower. However, high rise building
is restricted for having lower natural period than that specified in a standard [5].

Number of Floors vs Column Width (Jakarta Seismic and Gravitation)

110

100 Span 9 m
90 Span 8 m

80
JAKARTA SEISMIC Span 7 m
Column Width (cm)

Span 6 m
70
Span 5 m
60
Span 4 m
50
Span 3 m
40

30 GRAVITATION
20

10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Number of Floors

Fig. 7. Relation between Number of Floors and Column Dimension (Width and Span)
due to Seismic and Gravitational Loading

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

After developing the above curves, for measurements of parameters in the field with values different from the
assumption made above, then ratios should be given to correlate the structure strength to that of the ideal one above. The
ideal values and assumptions for making the above curve are shown below.
 Building shape is regular
 Concrete compressive strength fc' = 30 MPa
  Steel reinforcement tensile strength fy = 390 MPa
 Steel to concrete ratio  = 2%
 Concrete cover of 40 mm
 Column rectangular cross section

All values and conditions different from the above should be given percentage values based on criteria below. The
influence of steel to concrete ratio to column strength is shown in Figure 8. The influence of concrete compressive strength
to column strength is shown in Figure 9. The influence of concrete cover to column strength is shown in Figure 10.

Moment Capacity Ratio vs Steel Area to Momen Capacity Ratio vs Concrete

Concrete Area Ratio Strength
200% 140%
180% 130%
Moment Capacity Ratio

Moment Capacity Ratio

160%
120%
140%
110%
120%
100%
100%
80% 90%

60% 80%
40% 70%
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 20 25 30 35 40 45
Steel Area to Concrete Area ratio Concrete Strength [MPa]
Fig. 8. Percentage of Column Strength based on Steel to Fig. 9. Percentage of Column Strength based on Concrete
Concrete Ratio Compressive Strength

h'/h vs Mn/(fc'.Ag.h) b or D vs Mn

0.13 8

y = 0.1x2 - 0.0612x + 0.1077 7

0.125 6
Mn/(fc'.Ag.h)

Mn (MN.m)

5
0.12
4
0.115 r=0.02 3

0.11 Poly. 2
Square
(r=0.02) 1
Circle
0.105 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

h'/h b or D (cm)

Fig. 10. Influence of Concrete Cover on Column Strength Fig. 11. Influence of Column Cross Sectional Shape on
Column Strength

The influence of year of design to the strength of the building needs to be given a percentage. Year of design is related
to the year of the seismic design standard. In Indonesia, there is a very basic difference of seismic design concept made
before 1981 and those made after 1981 [7]. The seismic design concept made prior to 1981 is to resist the seismic force.
When the structure cannot resist the force, brittle failure is unavoidable.
After 1981, the concept change significantly. When the strength capacity is exceeded due to large earthquake, the
structure should have capacity to undergo large deformation without losing strength. This ability is called ductility.
 With this ductility, a structure has an ability also to absorb seismic vibration energy. Also when the structure enter
ductile phase, the natural frequency of the structure will be lowered. The low natural frequency may differ much from the
dominant frequency of the earthquake. Therefore, vibration resonance that may cause violent shaking of the structure can
be avoided. Structures with ductility would perform better during an earthquake event. During large earthquake, structural
damage is unavoidable. However, structural collapse would be prevented. In this case, a structure designed prior to 1981,
will be assumed to have a percentage of strength of about 33% of the ideal structural strength. The number is taken where
for a frame structure with sufficient lateral force resistance by structural wall or bracing would have ductility of about 3.
Therefore, for a structure with no ductility (designed prior to 1981), the ability to withstand earthquake loading is 1/3 or
33% to that of structure designed after 1981.

3.4. Application to Buildings in Jakarta

The method is applied to buildings in Jakarta. The data needed for each buildings are:
1. Representative concrete compressive strength using “hammer test” at columns or adjacent areas
2. Longitudinal reinforcing steel numbers and dimensions by using “profometer”
3. Column dimensions and distance between columns using ruler and “laser-meter”
4. Number of floors, year of design, building function, and building shape by interview and visual surveys

The data obtained from the above survey is then relativized to the data assumed for making the curve above as discussed
in sub-chapter 3.3. The procedure is as below:
1. The relativity of data is stated in percentage.
2. Percentage values in each data is then combined by multiplying each other to obtain the capacity of building to
survive the seismic hazard in Jakarta.
3. The seismic vulnerability is then value 1.0 minus the percentage of building capacity, with the minimum value is
0.0.

The buildings surveyed are three schools and two markets. The data obtained from the survey is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Data from the Survey

Concrete Steel
Distance Column
Year Number Compres to Concrete
Building Building between Width
No of of sive Concre Cover
Function Shape Columns [cm]
Design Floors Strength te [mm]
[m]
Real Ideal [MPa] Ratio
40
1 School 2012 3 Regular 4 30 48 44 0.08
30
2 Market 2012 10 Regular 8 80 92 39 0.04 50
4 28 43 30
3 School 1989 2 Regular 21 0.03
7 44 61 60
4 Market 1999 7 Regular 8 71 92 42 0.04 45
4 28 48 30
5 School 1972 3 Regular 45 0.02
7 57 70 50

The data (real) of column width is relativized to that from the graph (Figure 7, ideal). The procedure is shown in Table
4. By using the relation curve between column capacity and column width or diameter (Figure 11), then one can obtain the
capacity of existing column and the ideal capacity. The difference is shown percentage and is shown in last column of
Table 4.
 Table 4. Ratio between Real Column Capacity and Ideal Column Capacity
Column Width / Diameter Column Capacity
Ratio
No [cm] [MN.m]
[%]
Real Ideal Real Ideal
1 30 48 0.09 0.38 23
2 80 92 1.90 2.95 64
28 43 0.07 0.27 26
3
44 61 0.29 0.81 36
4 71 92 0.93 2.95 31
28 48 0.07 0.38 18
5
57 70 0.66 1.25 52

The data of concrete cover is shown in Table 5. The data is used for calculating the coupling distance of h’. Column
width is symbolized as h. Ratio of h’/h is used for graph in Figure 10 and results in column capacity value. The value is
relativized to the value of column capacity where h’/h is 0.134 (the assumed value when making the graph).

Table 5. Influence of Concrete Cover to Column Capacity

Column Concrete
h’ Ratio to Ideal
No width h Cover h’/h Mn/(fc'.Ag.h)
[cm] [%]
[cm] [mm]
40 19.8 0.66 0.111 83
1 30
30 21.5 0.72 0.115 86
67.0 0.84 0.127 95
2 80 50
67.2 0.84 0.127 95
28 30 20.3 0.73 0.116 87
3
44 60 30.8 0.70 0.114 85
4 71 45 58.8 0.83 0.126 94
28 30 19.9 0.71 0.115 86
5
57 50 45.4 0.80 0.122 92
Ideal 40 0.90 0.134 100

Table 6. Influence of Concrete Cover to Column Capacity

Concrete Building Building
Year of Column Compres- Steel to Concrete Building Seismic Seismic
No Design Width sive Concrete Cover Shape Capacity Vulnerability
[%]* [%] Strength Ratio [%] [%]** C V
[%] [%] [%]***
83 111 0
1 100 23 146 400 100
86 115 0
95 158 0
2 100 64 130 200 100
95 158 0
26 87 24 76
3 100 70 150 100
36 85 32 68
4 100 31 140 200 94 100 82 18
18 86 8 92
5 33 150 100 100
52 92 24 76
*For building designed before 1981, ratio of 33% is used, because the principle of ductility is not yet applied
**For regular shape building the ratio is 100%, for the irregular one the ratio is 75% (the value is debatable)
***Building seismic vulnerability is 100% minus the building seismic capacity, with minimum of 0%.
 All the parameter ratio in percentage is shown in Table 6. The percentage values are then multiplied to each other and
result in the building seismic capacity. Building seismic vulnerability is then the value of 100% minus the building seismic
capacity value, with minimum value of 0%.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Based on discussion above, some conclusions are made:

1. The above method for quick seismic vulnerability assessment is quite simple. It only needs data on:
a. Concrete compressive strength
b. Steel to concrete ratio of columns
c. Column dimension and distance between column
d. Number of floors, building function, year of design, and building shape
2. When the collection of buildings surveyed becomes significantly plenty, then it can be used for mapping the
distribution of building vulnerability in Jakarta City.
3. The method can also be used as a basis for further analysis when the structure is found to be vulnerable to seismic
loading.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank BPPT (Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology) and its PTRRB (Center
for Disaster Risk Reduction Technology) for funding the research and surveys.

REFERENCES

1. GeoHazards International (2001) Global Earthquake Safety Initiative (GESI) Pilot Project, Final Report, United
Nations Centre for Regional Development.
2. Pradono, M. H. (2013) Kerentanan Gedung di DKI Jakarta Terhadap Ancaman Gempabumi (Vulnerability of
Buildings in Jakarta against Seismic Hazard), Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi Mitigasi Bencana, Volume 8 Nomor 2,
Halaman 23-31, Desember 2013, ISSN: 0126-4907.
3. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum (1983) Peraturan Pembebanan Indonesia untuk Gedung (Standard for Loading of
Buildings), Bandung.
4. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum (2011) Desain Spektra Indonesia (Indonesia Design Spectrum), Kerjasama Pusat
Penelitian dan Pengembangan Permukiman dan Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum,
http://puskim.pu.go.id/Aplikasi/desain_spektra_indonesia_2011/
5. Departemen Permukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah (2002) Standar Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk Struktur
Bangunan Gedung (Standard for Seismic Resistance of Building Structure), SNI - 1726 – 2002, April.
6. Badan Standardisasi Nasional (2012) Tatacara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk Struktur Bangunan Gedung
dan Non Gedung (Standard for Seismic Resistance of Building and Non Building Structures), SNI 1726:2012
7. Lumantarna, B (2005) Perkembangan Peraturan Pembebanan dan Perencanaan Bangunan Tahan Gempa
(Development of Standards for Designing Seismic Resistance Building). Fakultas Teknik Sipil dan Perencanaan,
Jurusan teknik Sipil, Universitas Kristen Petra, Surabaya