2021 Nugroho IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 871 012013

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Comparative study on using of SNI 1726-
Structure evaluation of building based on the 2012 and SNI 1726-2019 for calculating of
internal force magnitude of lecture building
earthquake response acceleration spectrum of the in D.I. Yogyakarta Province
M A T Windarta, D J Jaya and S Widodo
SNI 03-1726-2019 - Marked point process for modelling

seismic activity (case study in Sumatra
and Java)
To cite this article: N S Nugroho et al 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 871 012013 Hasih Pratiwi, Lia Sulistya Rini and I
Wayan Mangku
- Interpretation of laylatulqadr time by

analyzing earthquake data
A Rauf, Rusli and A Furaida
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 114.124.183.252 on 19/10/2021 at 15:55

ISCEE 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 871 (2021) 012013 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/871/1/012013
Structure evaluation of building based on the earthquake

response acceleration spectrum of the SNI 03-1726-2019
N S Nugroho1*, Erizal1, and H Putra1
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia 16680
*Email: nadhyasn20nugroho@apps.ipb.ac.id
Abstract. One hundred and thirteen cases of severe earthquakes in Indonesia have been
recorded. Makes Indonesia the moment most earthquake-prone second nation in the world.
The effects of earthquakes on buildings undergo many changes in regulations. For example,
the latest earthquake maps make the acceleration of the earthquake response spectrum
change. Until the issuance of SNI 1726-2019 as a revision of the previous regulation based
on differences in earthquake location factors published in 2013-13 PEER. The earthquake
data used in the formulation comes from GMPE NGAWest-2. There are more than 1,200
earthquake data locations in the world. Based on the formulation of the problem, it is
necessary to evaluate the strength of the building structure against earthquake resistance.
Whether there is an influence of the strength of the building structure on the high-rise
building, whether it can still be declared safe or not. In the construction of high-rise buildings
that apply SNI 1726-2012 as the basis for earthquake resistance analysis. While SNI 1726-
2019 has differences in loading formulations, response spectrum designs, analysis of
variance, and scale of forces. That way can be declared safe and meets the requirements after
the existence of SNI 1726-2019.
1. Introduction
High-rise Buildings in Indonesia are generally taking after the rules of SNI 1726-1989-F and SNI 03-
1726-2002 [1–3]. As technology develops, the effects of earthquakes on buildings undergo many
changes. For example, the latest earthquake map makes the acceleration of the earthquake spectrum
response change. To decrease the damage caused by the earthquake, the "Earthquake Resilience
Planning Regulation for Building Structures" been issued, namely SNI 03-1726-2012[3]. Until
December 2019, SNI 03-1726-2019 was issued as a revision of the previous regulation based on
differences in the sitefactor of the earthquake [4, 5]. The earthquake data used in the formulation
comes from GMPE NGAWest-2. There are more than 1,200 earthquake data locations in the world
(California, Japan, Taiwan). This data far exceeds the earthquake data used in SNI-2012 [6– 9].
Sukabumi earthquake map has an earthquake acceleration of 0.2 g with a constant acceleration
response in zone 4 of 150% g [10]. Based on the problem formulation above, it is necessary to
evaluate the strength of the building structure against earthquake resistance [11–13]. It is considering
the construction of high-rise buildings that apply SNI 03-1726-2012 as the basis for earthquake
resistance analysis [14– 17]. This is considered necessary, due to earthquake site factors based on the
latest Indonesian earthquake hazard map [18]. In addition, it will affect the response of the earthquake
acceleration spectrum during the analysis process of high-rise buildings [19, 20].
Strength analysis of high-rise buildings can be done by two methods, namely manual and
computerized. Of course, if using the manual method, will spend much analysis. Meanwhile, the
computerized method will speed up the planning and analysis process. For this study, the authors
chose the combination method. Which collects and analyzes data, integrates discoveries, and draws
conclusions inferentially utilizing two approaches in one study [21].
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
This method can determine the effect caused by the latest earthquake SNI when applied to
buildings that utilized the previous earthquake SNI in their structural strength analysis [22–25].
Especially in addressing the four main differences, one of which concerns the design of the response
spectrum. So that the building with SNI 2012 can be discovered the strength of its structure when
applying SNI 2019 in its structural analysis.
2. Materials and Method

2.1 Materials
The materials used in the research are as-built drawings, applicable regulations in Indonesia, and the
results of field surveys. The information collected will back the arrange, to get a redraw of the
structural analysis process. The analysis results will be being assessed, with the following steps.
The data collected are As-Built Drawings from contractors and applicable regulations in Indonesia.
Field surveys are conducted to alter As-Built Drawings to field conditions, given the numerous
changes within the layout of the study room. Redraw with the collected data and the results of the field
survey. Applications used, such as SAP 2000 v.22, Ms. Office, and AutoCAD. They are conducting
structural analysis that will be being integrated with applicable regulations. The calculation assessment
of the analysis of building structures used as research studies. Preparation of research reports.
2.2 Method
Analysis of the strength of high-rise buildings can utilize two strategies, particularly manual and
computerized. When using the manual method, you'll spend much time in the analysis. At the same
time, the computerized method will speed up the arranging and analysis process. For this study, the
authors chose the combination method. Where will collect and analyze information, integrate
discoveries, and draw conclusions inferentially utilizing two approaches in one study. The expected
improvement in this method is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Research flowchart
2
2.3 Structure Analysis

The structural analysis arrangement starts with redrawing the building structure plan with the collected
information, utilizing the SAP 2000 application. The design process has been displayed as follows. Set
the unit to be used, loading the structure model, define the material used, define the profile used, apply
the profile to the structure, define dead, live, earthquake, loads apply the load, check SAP2000 show
structure drawings (3 D, XY, XZ, YZ), run analysis, check the analysis results.
After the design process is complete, it has proceeded with the Analysis process. Which
employments SAP 2000 and proceeds the examination with Ms. Excel in the information processing.
The information processed includes. Mass Participation Ratio, which can be utilized to determine the
analysis. Variation Structure Vibration Period, which is utilized to determine the period distinction
between modals. Comparison of Static and Dynamic Shear Forces utilized to decide the force scale.
Inter-floor Deviation Review is used to decide safety level in the occasion of vibration within the
occasion of an earthquake.
3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Design and Structural Analysis based on SNI 03-1726-2012
Based SAP2000 results. By utilizing the steps in the method. And using information related to the
2012 earthquake regulations. Then a building structure design model 3D view is shown in Figure 2
and Figure 3 below.
Figure 2 3D Frame Structural Design
Figure 2 above is the result of the initial design with SAP2000 when applying the 2012 earthquake
regulations. This figure about 3D frame structural design shows the differences in the columns. Since
typically balanced to the genuine conditions of the research object and the as-built drawing gotten. In
addition, there's moreover a distinction in the beam, since the top beam is utilized as a roof beam.
Which means it has different specifications and volumes [16].
3
Figure 3 3D Structural Design with Resultant Forces on Dead Load
Figure 3 shows the force resultant influenced by the moment of the research object building. Based
on the observations in Figure 3, it can be said that the moments acting on the resultant force are safe.
The color that appears on each floor indicates the number of information close to 0 (zero) [26, 27].
Can be combined with the color table to the right of the force resultant of the working.
To determine the level of security of an object of research. In addition to reading the image, also
look at the table of analysis results from SAP 2000. As in table 1 regarding the vibration time of the
structure. This is necessary because to determine the time difference between models.
Table 1 Structure Vibration Period of SNI 1726-2012
Mode Period (T) T
1 1.1184 1.45
2 1.1022 7.41
3 1.0206 63.92
4 0.3682 1.56
5 0.3625 7.60
6 0.3349 35.44
7 0.2162 1.98
8 0.2120 7.85
9 0.1953 23.03
10 0.1504 1.40
11 0.1483 8.53
12 0.1356 13.56
In the data in Table 1 only modes 3, 6, and 9 have been valued most significantly than 15. This
happens because when inputting earthquake loads, the author uses the CQC and SRSS methods. Even
so, this analysis can still be used. The majority of modes are declared less than 15.
4
Table 2 InterFloor Inspection deviation SNI 1726-2012

HSX δx δy Δx Δy Δa (permits)
Floor Specification
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Roof 3620 0.0226 0.0221 0.0284 0.0278 90.5 Safe
6 3620 0.0149 0.0145 0.0546 0.0533 90.5 Safe
5 3620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 90.5 Safe
4 3620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 90.5 Safe
3 3620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 90.5 Safe
2 3620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 90.5 Safe
1 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 Safe
The data in Table 2, all show the level of security at each intersection between floors. In processing
this data, the author uses an amplification/magnification factor of deflection (Cd) of 5.5 and an
earthquake priority factor (I) of 1.5. This refers to SNI 1726-2012.
3.2. Design and Structural Analysis based on SNI 03-1726-2019

The design process at this stage is broadly the same as before. It is just that at the stage of entering
load information there is a difference. Because this step it refers to the provisions of SNI 1726-2019.
The results of the design served in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 as follows.
Figure 4 3D Display of Axial Force against Dead Load
Figure 4 shows the axial force acting on the dead load of the research object building. Observations
above, it can be explained that the pressure force that occurs has a difference at each point. For
example, at each corner of the building, the axial force is smaller than at the center point. This is
because the building will often receive dead load distribution at the midpoint[10].
5
Figure 5 3D Display of Axial Force on All Loading Combinations
However, the axial force acting on the research object building will be different when applied to a
combination of loadings[10]. This can be seen in Figure 5 above. The green color display shows the
same size. So it can be concluded that after the load combination, the load received by the building
structure becomes evenly distributed.
Figure 6 3D Display of Resultant Force on Dead Load
Figure 6 shows the force resultant influenced by the moment of the research object building. Based
on the observations in Figure 6, it can be said that the moments acting on the resultant force are safe.
The color that appears on each floor indicates the number of information close to 0 (zero) [26, 27].
Can be combined with the color table to the right of the force resultant of the working.
6
After the design process is complete, it is continued with the Analysis process, broadly speaking,
this stage is the same as the previous one. Regarding the mass participation ratio, the comparison of
static and dynamic shear forces will be presented in Table 8 and Table 12. As for the others, served in
Table 3 and Table 4 below.
Table 3 SNI Structure Vibration Period 2019
Mode Period (T) T
1 1.1184 1.45
2 1.1022 7.41
3 1.0206 63.92
4 0.3682 1.56
5 0.3625 7.60
6 0.3349 35.44
7 0.2162 1.98
8 0.2120 7.85
9 0.1953 23.03
10 0.1504 1.40
11 0.1483 8.53
12 0.1356 13.56
The data in Table 3, served that only modes 3, 6, and 9 have a value most significant than 15. This
happens because when inputting earthquake loads, the author uses the CQC and SRSS methods. Even
so, this analysis can still be used. Even so, this analysis can still be used. The majority of modes are
declared less than 15.
Table 4 Examination of the Inter Floor deviation SNI 2019
HSX δx δy Δx Δy Δa (permits)
Floor Specification
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Roof 3620 0.0241 0.0236 0.0305 0.0299 90.5 Safe
6 3620 0.0158 0.0155 0.0580 0.0567 90.5 Safe
5 3620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 90.5 Safe
4 3620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 90.5 Safe
3 3620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 90.5 Safe
2 3620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 90.5 Safe
1 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 Safe
The data in Table 4, all show the level of security at each intersection between floors. In processing
this data, the author uses an amplification/magnification factor of deflection (C d) of 5.5 and an
earthquake priority factor (I) of 1.5. This refers to SNI 1726-2019.
3.3. Comparison of SNI 1726-2012 with SNI 1726-2019
Based on the results of the comparison of these two earthquake SNIs, there are differences which
include:
a. Loading Formulation/Combination
From the two SNIs, the essential loading combination with the ultimate method is obtained as
shown in Table 5 below.
7
Table 5 Essential Imposition combination with the ultimate method

SNI 03-1726-2012 SNI 03-1726-2019
PGA MCEG (g) bedrock 0591 PGA MCEG(g) bedrock 0.5526
MCEr SS(g)bedrock 1,445 SS MCEr (g)bedrock 1.2987
S1 MCEr (g) bedrock 0.524 S1 MCEr (g) bedrock 0.5603
T0(sec) 0.109 T0(sec) 0.15
Ts(sec) 0.544 Ts(sec) 0.75
TL (sec) - TL (sec) 8
Sds(g) 0.963 Sds (g) 0.87
Sd1(g) 0.524 Sd1(g) 0.65
The data in Table 5 above, the first difference in the loading combination above is the change in
position (Re-Arrangement) and a more detailed description of the working earthquake load.
b. Earthquake Spectrum Response Design

Based on online data obtained, the 2012 earthquake SNI (puskim.pu.go.id) and the 2019
earthquake SNI (rsa.cipta karya.pu.go.id). The information obtained is serving in Table 6 below.
Table 6 Parameter Design Compiler Response Spectra
SNI 03-1726-2012 SNI 03-1726-2019
PGA MCEG (g) bedrock 0,591 PGA MCEG(g) bedrock 0.5526
MCEr SS(g)bedrock 1,445 SS MCEr (g)bedrock 1.2987
S1MCEr (g) bedrock 0.524 S1 MCEr (g) bedrock 0.5603
T0(sec) 0.109 T0(sec) 0.15
Ts(sec) 0.544 Ts(sec) 0.75
TL (sec) - TL (sec) 8
Sds(g) 0.963 Sds(g ) 0.87
Sd1(g) 0.524 Sd1(g) 0.65
Overall, among the data in table 6 above, there are no significant differences. However, there is one
point that has a significant difference namely TL (Long Period), and this is the main difference
between the two SNI earthquakes. So that it will affect the process of analyzing the structure of the
building on the object of research. From the data in Table 6 above, it can be utilized to design the
response spectrum manually with the assistance of Ms. Excel's expectations. However, due to the lack
of accuracy caused when inputting the calculation formulation. The author employments the response
spectrum design from the online data above. Served in Figure 7 and Figure 8 below.
8
T (s)
SB SC SD SE
Figure 7 Design of the Response Spectrum of SNI 1726-2012
T (s)
Figure 8 Design of the Response Spectrum of SNI 1726-2019
From the data in Table 6, it is clear that there is a difference in information between the two SNIs.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the design graph of the response spectrum also looks different.
When looking at the graphs in Figure 7 and Figure 8, ignore attention to the difference in vibration
period (T). Due to limitations when accessing online data, it is also caused by the existence of a long
period (TL) that appears in SNI 1726-2019. This is undoubtedly a significant differentiator in the
design parameters of the response spectrum.
9
c. Analysis of Variety/Amount of Variety

Analysis of change was carried out to determine the characteristic vibrations of the structure. The
analysis must incorporate a sufficient sum of fluctuation to get combined mass cooperation of at
slightest 90% of the fluctuation and the genuine mass in each of the orthogonal even headings of the
reaction being surveyed by the model. This is served in Table 7 below.
Table 7 Analysis of Variety SNI 1726-2012
No. Period UX UY UZ Sum UX Sum UY
unitless Sec unitless unitless unitless unitless unitless
1 1.118 0.831 0.000 0.000 0.831 0.000
2 1.102 0.000 0.829 0.000 0.831 0.829
3 1.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.831 0.829
4 0.368 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.930 0.829
5 0.362 0.000 0.102 0.000 0.930 0.931
6 0.335 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.930 0.931
7 0.216 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.967 0.931
8 0.212 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.967 0.968
9 0.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.967 0.968
10 0.150 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.987 0.968
11 0.148 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.987 0.988
12 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.987 0.988
The data in table 7 shows that the most significant Sum value of Sum Ux and Sum Uy has
exceeded 0.9 or 90% since the 5th model. There is still a significant difference in the 7th model with
Sum Ux 0.967 and Sum Uy 0.931. So that the 8th model can meet the minimum requirements, for this
example, there are at least 8 varieties that need to be reviewed. If the model in the last reviewed mode
has not reached the minimum requirements, then the number of modes during the analysis case
definition for the modal type should be increased.
For this reason, it can be stated that the analysis of variance that occurs in the research object when
applying SNI 1726-2012 is following the provisions. As for SNI 1726-2019, the analysis still has to be
done to determine the natural vibrations of the structure. However, the analysis must include a
sufficient amount of variance to obtain combined mass participation of variance of 100% of the mass
of the structure. To attain this prerequisite on a single rigid body with a period of 0.05 seconds, it may
be permitted to take all variants with a fewer 0.05 seconds. Alternatively, the analysis is permitted to
include the minimum amount of variance when it reaches the combined variance mass of at least 90%
of the actual mass in each of the orthogonal horizontal directions of the response under consideration
by the model, which is served in Table 8 as follows.
Table 8 Analysis of Variety SNI 1726-2019
No. Period UX UY UZ Sum UX Sum UY
unitless Sec unitless unitless unitless unitless unitless
1 0.750 0.418 0.535 0.000 0.4179 0.5345
2 0.740 0.567 0.432 0.000 0.8310 0.8290
3 0.595 0.015 0.033 0.000 0.8310 0.8290
4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9310
5 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9310
6 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9999
7 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9999
10
8 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9999

9 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9999
10 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9999
11 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9999
12 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9999
From Table 8 above, it served that the value of the largest sum of Sum Ux and Sum Uy since the
6th model has exceeded 0.9999 or 99.99%, which can be accumulated to 100%. For this reason, the
results above can be stated that the analysis of variance that occurs in the object of research when
applying SNI 1726-2019 is following the provisions.
d. Force Scaling The

The entire period (T) in the direction under thought, shall be obtained using the structural
properties and deformation characteristics of the resisting elements in the tested analysis. The entire
period (T) should not exceed the coefficient result for the upper bound on the calculated period (Cu)
from Table 5 and Table 6. Furthermore, the approximate fundamental period (T a) is determined from
the equation 𝑇𝑎 = 𝐶𝑡 ℎ𝑛𝑥 . As an alternative to carrying out the analysis to determine the fundamental
period (T), it is permitted to directly use the approximate building period (Ta), calculated according to
the above equation. Table 9 and Table 10 served as follows.
Table 9 Coefficient Upper Calculated Period
Parameter Design Acceleration Response Spectrum at 1 sec (SD1) Coefficient Cu
≥ 0.4 1.4
0.3 1.4
0.2 1.5
0.15 1.6
≤ 0.1 1.7
Table 10 Parameter Values Approach Period Ct and x

Structural Type Ct X
Moment resisting truss system in which the truss bears 100 percent of the
required seismic force and is not enclosed or associated with stiffer components
and will prevent the truss from deflecting when subjected to earthquake forces:
Moment-resisting steel frame 0,0724a 0.8
Moment-bearing concrete frame 0,0466 a 0.9
Steel frame with eccentrically 0,0731 a 0.75
Steel frame with braced restraint against buckling 0,0731 a 0.75
All other structural systems 0,0488 a 0.75
a.
The Metric equivalents have appeared in brackets.
Therefore, if the calculated fundamental period exceeds C uTa. Then CuTa is used instead of T in that
direction. The combined response for the base shear of variance (V t) is less than 80% of the base shear
calculated (V) using the equivalent lateral force procedure, then the force must be associated with
𝑉
0.85 . So it can be assumed that Dynamic > 0.85 Static. If the combined response for the basic shear
𝑉𝑡
𝐶𝑠 𝑊
of variance (Vt) is less than 85%, then the equation needs to use 0.85 . From this stage, the results
𝑉𝑡
are served in Table 11 below.
11
Table 11 Comparison of Static and Dynamic Slide Style (Style Scale) SNI 2012
Dynamic Static 0.85 xStatic Scale Factor Control
BaseShear Slide Slide Basic Slide Basic 0.85 Static<
Vd>85% Vs
(kN) (kN) (kN) Dynamic
X - Direction 349164,970 69716,720 59259,212 0.170 Meets
Y - Direction 353909,070 79567,810 67632,639 0.191 Meets
The data in Table 11, has been declared to meet the applicable provisions of SNI 1726-2012 related
to force scaling. As for SNI 1726-2019, when the periods of fundamental analysis result is most
significant than CuTa in a certain direction, then the period of structure (T) should be taken as C uTa. If
the response combination for the basic shear force as a result of the analysis of variance (V t) is less
than 100% of the shear force (V) calculated by the static equivalent method; then the force must be
𝑉
multiplied by . So it can be assumed that Dynamic > Static. From this stage, the results are served in
𝑉𝑡
Table 12 below.
Table 12 Comparison of Static and Dynamic Slide Style (Style Scale) SNI 2019
Base Shear Dynamic Static Scale Factor Control
Slide Slide Basic Static <
Vd> Vs
(kN) (kN) Dynamic
X - Direction 368810.470 69716,720 0.189 Meets
Y - Direction 373707,930 79567,810 0.213 Meets
From data processing using SNI 1726-2019 as shown in Table 12. The results show that they meet
the applicable provisions.
4. Conclusions
Based on the results of the design and analysis by applying the two SNIs to the research object. It
served that there are differences in the analysis results. This is due to changes in site factor data on the
earthquake map which resulted in differences in the design of the response spectrum, especially the
Long-period (TL). In addition to the above, the two SNIs have differences: Loading
Formulation/Combination, Earthquake Spectrum Response Design, Analysis of Variety/Amount of
Variety, Force Scaling. The above differences don't alter the strength of the building structure on the
object of research. It has been demonstrated that with the presence of SNI 1726-2019, the security
level of the research object is pronounced safe and meets the requirements.
Acknowledgments
This research has been supported by the PT. Sukses Bangun Investama and Nusa Putra University.
The authors sincerely appreciate their support.
References
[1] W. Apriani dan S. A. Rahim, “Evaluasi Respons Struktur Gedung Bertingkat Tinggi Eksisting
Menggunakan Peraturan Kegempaan Sni 03-1726-2012,” In Annual Civil Engineering Seminar
2015, 2015, Hal. 280–288.
[2] W. Apriani dan S. A. Rahim, “Evaluasi Respons Struktur Gedung Bertingkat Tinggi Eksisting
Menggunakan Peraturan Kegempaan Sni 03-1726-2012,” in Proceedings ACES (Annual Civil
Engineering Seminar), 2016, vol. 1, hal. 280–287.
[3] W. Apriani, F. Lubis, R. Suryanita, dan E. N. Sari, “Perilaku Struktur Jembatan Baja
Pelengkung Berdasarkan Spektrum Gempa,” JURNAL SAINTIS, 2019, doi:
12
10.25299/saintis.2019.vol19(02).3924.
[4] J. P. Stewart dan E. Seyhan, Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification and its application in
NEHRP site factors. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2013.
[5] E. Seyhan dan J. P. Stewart, “Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2
data and simulations,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 30, no. 3, hal. 1241–1256, 2014.
[6] K. W. Campbell dan Y. Bozorgnia, “NGA-West2 Campbell-Bozorgnia ground motion model
for the horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped elastic pseudo-acceleration
response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 sec,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 2013.
[7] K. W. Campbell dan Y. Bozorgnia, “NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average
horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra,”
Earthquake Spectra, 2014, DOI: 10.1193/062913EQS175M.
[8] M. Irsyam, M. Asrurifak, R. Mikail, A. Sabaruddin, dan L. Faisal, “Pemutahiran Sumber dan
Peta Gempa Indonesia 2017,” 2017.
[9] D. Prof. Dr. Ir. Masyhur Irsyam, “Motion at Foundation Peta Sumber dan Bahaya Gempa
Indonesia untuk Perencanaan Tahan Gempa,” no. April, hal. 1–28, 2019.
[10] B. Hastono dan R. Syamsudin, “Perbandingan Ketahanan Gempa SNI 03-1726-2002 & SNI
03-1726-2012 Pada Perencanaan Bangunan Gedung Di Kota Aceh,” Ge-STRAM: Jurnal
Perencanaan dan Rekayasa Sipil, 2018, doi: 10.25139/jprs.v1i1.799.
[11] A. N. Refani, H. Alrasyid, dan M. Irmawan, “Evaluasi Struktur Bangunan Gedung Beton
Bertulang Berusia 50 Tahun Bedasarkan SNI 1726 2012 dan SNI 2847 2013,” Jurnal Aplikasi
Teknik Sipil, vol. 13, no. 2, hal. 17–26, 2015.
[12] N. R. Aulia, “Evaluasi Kekuatan Struktur Bangunan X di Depok Berdasarkan SNI 1726: 2012
dan SNI 2847: 2013,” 2017.
[13] M. A. Sultan, “Evaluasi Struktur Beton Bertulang Tahan Gempa dengan Analisa Pushover,”
Jurnal Sipil Sains, vol. 6, no. 11, 2017.
[14] Soelarso, Baehaki, dan F. D. Subhan, “Analisis Struktur Beton Bertulang SPRMK terhadap
Beban Gempa Statik dan Dinamik dengan Peraturan SNI 1726: 2012,” Jurnal Fondasi, 2015.
[15] B. Afriandini, “Analisis Respon Dinamik Gedung Bertingkat Tujuh,” Techno (Jurnal Fakultas
Teknik, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto), 2017, doi: 10.30595/techno.v18i2.1961.
[16] B. Afriandini dan D. N. Saputro, “Analisis Gaya Geser Dasar Seismik Berdasarkan SNI-03-
1726-2002 dan SNI 1726:2012 pada Struktur Gedung Bertingkat,” Techno (Jurnal Fakultas
Teknik, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto), 2018, doi: 10.30595/techno.v19i2.3453.
[17] H. Suntoko, “Analisis Spektrum Respon Desain Gedung Reaktor RDE Menggunakan
SAP2000,” Jurnal Pengembangan Energi Nuklir, 2019, doi: 10.17146/jpen.2019.21.1.5047.
[18] A. F. Shobari, M. Iqbal Jabbari, N. Khoirullah, Z. Zakaria, R. I. Sophian, dan A. Mulyo,
“Hubungan Nilai Koefisien Gempa Horizontal (Kh) Dengan Nilai Safety Factor (Fs) Daerah
Cilengkrang, Jawa Barat,” Geoscience Journal, vol. 3, no. 4, hal. 243–253, 2019.
[19] A. I. Candra dan E. Siswanto, “Rekayasa Job Mix Beton Ringan Menggunakan Hydroton Dan
Master Ease 5010.” CIVILA, 2018.
[20] A. B. Siswanto, “Kriteria Dasar Perencanaan Struktur Bangunan Tahan Gempa,” Jurnal Teknik
Sipil, vol. 11, hal. 59–72, 2018.
[21] S. Andari, “Harapan Baru Bagi Gelandangan Dan Pengemis Melalui Implemenasi Program
Desaku Menanti Di Kota Padang,” Sosio Konsepsia, vol. 8, no. 1, 2019.
[22] Sudarman, H. Manalip, R. S. Windah, dan S. O. Dapas, “Analisis Pushover Pada Struktur
Gedung Bertingkat,” Jurnal Sipil Statik, 2014.
[23] K. K. Dwi Sungkono, “Respon Spektra Gempa Kota Yogyakarta, Surakarta Dan Semarang
Berdasarkan Peta Gempa Sni 2012 Dan Peta Gempa 2017,” JUTEKS : Jurnal Teknik Sipil,
2019, doi: 10.32511/juteks.v4i1.304.
[24] R. Geraldi, D. Christianto, dan H. Pranata, “Evaluasi Struktur Gedung Dengan Sistem Rangka
Beton Pemikul Momen Khusus Berbasis Kinerja,” JMTS: Jurnal Mitra Teknik Sipil, vol. 2, no.
13
2, hal. 115, 2019, doi: 10.24912/jmts.v2i2.4300.

[25] Y. Setiawan, B. Ryanto, dan M. Geraldine, “Evaluasi Gedung Arsip Politeknik Negeri Jakarta
Sesuai Sni 1726-2019 Dan Sni 2847-2019,” Construction and Material Journal, vol. 3, no. 1,
hal. 51–56, 2021.
[26] L. Ivan dan E. Leo, “Analisis Dinamik Perilaku Gedung Dengan Ketidakberaturan Massa Pada
Masing-Masing Tingkat Terhadap Beban Gempa,” JMTS: Jurnal Mitra Teknik Sipil, 2019, doi:
10.24912/jmts.v2i3.5836.
[27] A. Hariyanto, “Analisis Kinerja Struktur Pada Bangunan Bertingkat Tidak Beraturan Dengan
Analisis Dinamik Menggunakan Metode Analisis Respons Spektrum Peformance,” Universitas
Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, 2011.
14

2021 Nugroho IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 871 012013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Nugroho IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 871 012013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

SNI 03-1726-2019 - Marked point process for modelling

- Interpretation of laylatulqadr time by

This content was downloaded from IP address 114.124.183.252 on 19/10/2021 at 15:55

Structure evaluation of building based on the earthquake

2. Materials and Method

Figure 1 Research flowchart

2.3 Structure Analysis

3. Result and Discussion

Figure 2 3D Frame Structural Design

Figure 3 3D Structural Design with Resultant Forces on Dead Load

Table 2 InterFloor Inspection deviation SNI 1726-2012

3.2. Design and Structural Analysis based on SNI 03-1726-2019

Figure 4 3D Display of Axial Force against Dead Load

Figure 5 3D Display of Axial Force on All Loading Combinations

Figure 6 3D Display of Resultant Force on Dead Load

Table 5 Essential Imposition combination with the ultimate method

b. Earthquake Spectrum Response Design

Figure 7 Design of the Response Spectrum of SNI 1726-2012

Figure 8 Design of the Response Spectrum of SNI 1726-2019

c. Analysis of Variety/Amount of Variety

8 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.9999 0.9999

d. Force Scaling The

Table 10 Parameter Values Approach Period Ct and x

2, hal. 115, 2019, doi: 10.24912/jmts.v2i2.4300.

You might also like