Article Sidebar

Submitted
26 January 2022
Accepted
31 May 2022
Published
18 June 2022
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 239 Download : 245

Main Article Content

Abstract

Earthquake shocks generally cause the biggest shocks in building structures. Earthquake waves, generated by an earthquake event, are the main cause of this shaking. A new building of the Faculty of Law, Islamic University of Indonesia, was selected for this research to evaluate the effect of earthquake shaking on the structural response. A developed time history-based artificial earthquake ground motion was used in the structural analysis. Furthermore, the time history was developed based on spectral matching with target spectra derived from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. This analysis results in the building structure's seismic response, which is then evaluated based on the parameters set by the earthquake standards/regulations for buildings. This building is relatively safe against design earthquake shocks based on the results.

Keywords

gerakan tanah gempa time history probabilistik respon struktur Gerakan tanah gempa Time history Probabilistik Respon struktur

Article Details

Author Biography

Lalu Makrup, Jurusan Teknik Sipil, Fakultas Teknik Sipil dan Perencanaan, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Scopus ID : 57191708529

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57191708529

How to Cite
Erlangga, W., Makrup, L., Musthofa, M., & Suharyatmo. (2022). EVALUASI STRUKTUR GEDUNG FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSITAS ISLAM INDONESIA YOGYAKARTA BERDASARKAN PERCEPATAN GEMPA YANG DIHITUNG SECARA PROBABILISTIK. Teknisia, 27(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.20885/teknisia.vol27.iss1.art4
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. ASCE (2013), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia 20191-4400. (This second edition incorpora tes the corrections as shown in the errata found on www.Sein stitute.org, Revision of ASCE 7-98).
  2. ATC-40, (1996), Seismic Evalua tion and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Vol 1, Aplied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, USA
  3. ATC-40, (1997), Seismic Evalua tion and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Vol 2, Aplied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, USA
  4. Bayati Z, Soltani M. (2016) Ground motion selection and scaling for seismic design of RC frames against collapse. Earthquakes and Structures, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2016, pp.445-459.
  5. Carlson C. Pp., Zekkos D., McCormick J. P. (2014) Impact of time and frequency domain ground motion modification on the response of a SDOF system. Earthquakes and Structures, Volume 7, Issue 6, 2014, pp.1283-1301.
  6. Cornell, C.A. dan Vanmarcke, E.H. (1969), The Major Influences on Seismic Risk, Proc. Of the 4th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
  7. Ergun M. and Ates S. (2013) Selecting and scaling ground motion time histories according to Eurocode 8 and ASCE 7-05, Earthquakes and Structures, Volume 5, Issue 2, 2013, pp.129-142.
  8. EPRI, 1986. Seismic hazard methodology for the central and eastern United States. July. Report NP-4726, 1, Methodology, Section 4. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
  9. FEMA 310, (1998), Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA.
  10. FEMA 356, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
  11. Gutenberg, B. dan Richter, C. F. (1944), Frequency of Earthquake in Califor nia, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.34, No. 4, pp. pp. 1985-1988.
  12. Irsyam M., Hendriyawan, Dangkua, A.D (2003) Seismic Hazard Assessment LNG Storage Tank Terminal Teluk Banten, Report of Seismic Hazard Study, Bandung.
  13. Kramer S.L. (1996), Geotechnical Earthqu ake Engineering. Prentice Hall :New Jersey.
  14. Makrup, L. and Jamal A. U., (2016). The Earthquake Ground Motion and Response Spectra Design for Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia with Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Spectral Matching in Time Domain, American Journal of Civil Engineering, 4(6): 298-305
  15. Makrup, L., and Muntafi, Y. (2016) Artificial Ground Motion for the Cities of Semarang and Solo Indonesia Generated Based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Spectral `Geotechnical Engineering), Vol. 21, [2016] Bund. 21.
  16. Makrup, L. (2017) Generating Design Ground Motion by Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Code, EJGE (Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering), Vol. 22, [2017] Bund. 5.
  17. Nicolaou.A.S. (1998), A GIS Platform for Earthquake Risk Analysis. A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of State University of New York at Buffalo USA in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, August.
  18. Pavel F., Vacareanu R. (2016), Scaling of ground motions from Vrancea (Romania) earthquakes. Earthquakes and Structures, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2016, pp.505-516.
  19. Saputro I.T. (2016) Evaluasi respon struktur gedung bertingkat banyak menggunakan time history berdasarkan metode PSHA dengan sumber gempa shallow crustal, Tesis Master, Magister Teknik Sipil Univesitas Islam Indonesia Yogyakarta.
  20. SNI (Standar Nasional Indonesia), 2002. Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk Bangunan Gedung (SNI 03-1726-2002), Badan Standardisasi Nasional.
  21. Widodo P., Lalu Makrup, M Teguh, Mas Anggit (2018), Bidirectional and Directivity Effect Identifications of Synthetic Ground Motions at Selected Site in Yogyakarta City, Indonesia, nternational Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Volume 9, Issue 6, June 2018, pp. 637–648.
  22. Wood, R.L., Hutchinson, T.C. (2012) Effects of ground motion scaling on nonlinear higher mode building response, Earthquakes and Structures, Volume 3, Issue 6, 2012, pp.869-887.
  23. Youngs, R. R. dan Coppersmith, K. J. (1985), Implications of Fault Slip Rates and Earthquake Recurrence Models to probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 939-964