J. Eng. Technol. Sci., Vol. 52, No. 5, 2020, 651-664

651

An Investigation of Building Seismic Design Parameters in
Mataram City Using Lombok Earthquake 2018
Ground Motion
Ni Nyoman Kencanawati1,*, Didi Supriyadi Agustawijaya1 &
Rian Mahendra Taruna2
1

Department of Civil Engineering, Mataram University, Jalan Majapahit No. 62,
Mataram 83115, Indonesia
2
Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG), Jalan
Tgh. Ibrahim Khalidi, 83362 Lombok Barat, Indonesia
*E-mail: nkencanawati@unram.ac.id

Highlights:
•
•
•
•

Spectral acceleration using the 2018 Lombok earthquake was analyzed.
The spectral acceleration was greater than the existing seismic code acceleration.
The seismic response coefficient was higher than the existing seismic code.
Existing seismic building standards need to be improved.

Abstract. Mataram is the capital of West Nusa Tenggara. West Nusa Tenggara is
made up of two islands, Lombok and Sumbawa. The 2018 earthquake on Lombok
undoubtedly affected spectral acceleration. This is an important factor to be
addressed in structural design. Short-period spectral acceleration, SS, increases
18.323% compared to the value listed in seismic code SNI 1976:2012,
corresponding to a 2500-year return period. However, even if the S S value
increases, the design category of the building does not change and remains in the
D category. In general, the acceleration value in this study was found to be
relatively greater than that of the existing code for periods of less than 0.462 s for
site class D and in periods of less than 0.830 s in site class E. In addition, the
seismic response coefficient, CS, for medium soil increases by 10.782% compared
to the CS calculated using of the current code. This effect is more severe in soft
soil areas, where the increase reaches 13.168%. Improving existing codes with
seismic design parameters for new buildings affected by the ground motion of
recent strong earthquakes will lead to more preparedness and will be an important
part of local disaster risk reduction.
Keywords: building seismic coefficient; 2018 Lombok earthquake; spectral
acceleration; seismic design parameters; seismic code.

1

Introduction

The West Nusa Tenggara region is an area of high seismic activity surrounded by
two active seismic sources. In the south is the subduction zone of the IndoReceived February 7th, 2020, 1st Revision April 25th, 2020, 2nd Revision May 15th, 2020, Accepted for
publication August 8th, 2020.
Copyright ©2020 Published by ITB Institute for Research and Community Services, ISSN: 2337-5779,
DOI: 10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2020.52.5.4

652

Ni Nyoman Kencanawati, et al.

Australia Sea Plate and in the north is the back-arc thrust zone. According to the
Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG), a
6.2 magnitude earthquake on June 9, 2016 occurred in Mataram and Central
Lombok and caused some damage. Later, in 2017, several quakes hit at a scale of
II-III MMI in Mataram City, as reported by Taruna, Banyunegoro and Daniarsyad
in [1]. In addition, officials reported that there were 3699 earthquake events in
2018 and 215 events were felt. One of a series of Lombok earthquakes on August
5, 2018, with a magnitude of 7.0, caused severe damage to a number of buildings
and houses and some even collapsed in the Lombok area, including the city of
Mataram, as announced by BMKG in [2] and published by Pomonis, et al. in [3]
and Asmirza and Sofian in [4].
In the past, some countries have changed their seismic codes after large
earthquakes that caused various damage to structures and buildings. As studied
by Okamura in [5] and Karakostas, et al. in [6], seismic codes have been
improved with a new response spectrum based on recent ground accelerations.
Similarly, Indonesia has an improved code for seismic structures, SNI 1726:2012
from [7]. The ground motion is calculated with a 2% probability of being
exceeded within 50 years. The return period of the spectral acceleration is 2500
years. It replaced SNI 1726:2002 in [8]. SNI 1726:2002 provided spectral
acceleration by dividing all areas of Indonesia into six seismic zones. The current
Seismic Building Code has been improved by providing spectrally accelerated
design values at each coordinate point in Indonesia. Seismic acceleration maps
are also attached for spectral accelerations at T = 0 s (PGA), T = 0.2 s (short
period), and T = 1 s (long period).
The previous seismic design code, SNI 1726:2002, has been reviewed by
Sengara, et al. [9]. In addition, compared to the previous seismic code SNI
1726:2002 presented by Arfiadi and Satyarno in [10], some of the Indonesian
short-period design spectral accelerations, SDS, significantly increased in the
current seismic code, SNI 1726:2012. Significant increases in SDS are evident in
some areas, such as Aceh, Palu, Yogyakarta, and Padang, which were affected by
major earthquakes during the time when the previous code was applied.
Therefore, the values have been modified in the current code. In Palu, SDS had the
largest increase, with 116.7%, 85.7% and 41.2% in hard, medium, and soft soils,
respectively. This region was hit by a 7.7 magnitude earthquake in 2008 and the
2012 seismic code changed the spectral acceleration. In the other earthquake
prone areas mentioned above, the SDS of the three types of soil were increased
from 10% to 80%. Conversely, Lombok did not show significant seismic activity
during that period. Therefore, the 2012 seismic code shows little change in
acceleration.

An Investigation of Building Seismic Design

653

To obtain a new spectral acceleration that includes the site amplification factor,
strong ground motions after the earthquake must be considered. This is compared
to the existing spectral acceleration provided by the existing code to make sure
there is a structural design that is sufficient to withstand strong earthquakes that
may occur in the future, as reported by Panzera, et al. in [11] and Mase,
Likitlersuang and Tobita in [12]. Furthermore, evaluation of seismic codes after
earthquakes has been carried out in some countries. Their earthquake code has
been updated to consider recent ground accelerations due to earthquakes. In
addition to the response spectrum, details of the structural design have been
improved further, as given by Okamura in [5], Karakostas, et al. in [6], Sezen, et
al. in [13], Ergün, Kiraç and Bacsaran in [14], Mosleh, et al. in [15] and Baros
and Santa-Maria in [16].
The current analysis describes the seismic hazard in Mataram city using seismic
data up to 2017 with a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (return period
of 2500 years). The short period of bedrock acceleration, SS (T = 0.2 s), and the
long period of bedrock acceleration, S1 (T = 1 s), were reported to be in the range
of 0.37-0.45 g (g = 9.81m/s2) and 0.16-0.18 g, respectively. Furthermore, the
values of SS and S1 in the northern region of Mataram are higher than those in the
southern region of Mataram. This is due to the superiority of the Back Arc Thrust
activity in northern Lombok, as given in [1].
The 2018 earthquake on Lombok is an important consideration for spectral
acceleration, which is an important factor to be addressed in a structural design.
Improving the calculation of parameters will lead to the reproduction of the
structural design under seismic loading, which is part of disaster risk reduction.
It could potentially save millions of lives and reduce major risks in the region in
the future. Therefore, a new spectral acceleration needs to be calculated using the
recent 2018 seismic data, which apply to some seismic parameters that will help
achieve better seismic structures.

2

Related Research and Theory

According to Agustawijaya, Sulistyono and Elhuda [17], Lombok is classified as
moderate to high seismic activity. Before the strong earthquake of 2018 this study
stated that the South Subduction Megathrust and the North Back-Arc Thrust have
established the tectonic pattern of Lombok Island as an effect of compression
between the Australian continental plate and Eurasia. Then in 2018, a series of
earthquakes occurred in North Lombok, triggered by the Flores back arc trust.
The ground motion initially began on July 28 with an Mw 6.4 earthquake in the
northern part of Lombok. Aftershocks with Mw < 5, followed the first earthquake
a few hours later.

654

Ni Nyoman Kencanawati, et al.

On August 5, a larger shock of Mw 7.0 occurred. Then, in the following two
weeks, an Mw 6.9 earthquake hit the island on August 19, 2018. The sequences
of Lombok ground motions have been studied in detail in [18,19].
As reported by Marjiyono in [20], in general, the plains of Mataram City are
dominated by alluvial deposits with sandy materials, either the product of the
eastern river process or marine products from the West Side. The alluvium fills
an ancient form in the form of a basin in the western part of Mataram. Physically,
alluvial sediments are soft and are indicated by low shear wave velocity values.
This condition is potential for areas that experience such wave amplification
during an earthquake [21]. In addition, the average measurement of shear wave
velocity (Vs) shows a value in the range of 135-201 m/s in Mataram city. This
value is included in site class D (SD) and site class E (SE) of the current building
seismic code.
SS and S1 must be determined at T = 0.2 s and T = 1 s, respectively, provided in
the ground motion map of the SNI 1726:2012 code, and may exceed 2% in 50
years. By multiplying the SS and S1 values by the amplification factor from each
site class, the short-period, SMS, and long-term SM1 surface maximum ground
acceleration can be calculated directly [22,23]. The amplification factor Fa is
related to the acceleration of the short-period SS, while the amplification factor
associated with S1 is Fv. Furthermore, the SMS and SM1 values are used to calculate
the design spectral acceleration parameters for short periods, SDS, and long
periods, SD1, as described by in SNI 1726:2012 [7].

3

Method

3.1

Ground Acceleration Data

The ground acceleration data used in this study were based on previous works
[24,25]. Earthquake data were obtained from Engdahl ISC (EHB), USGS, and
BMKG for 1922-2018. The data were taken at a latitude of 7°-12° and a longitude
of 113.5°-122.5°, or about 300 km from Mataram city, with magnitude Mw ≥ 4.5.
This magnitude is assumed to be the standard for earthquakes related to the risk
of seismic disaster.
In this study, the values of peak ground motion in the bedrock soil layer from the
previous studies were used. Ground motion or maximum acceleration were
adopted as the parameters used in this study. These parameters, SS and S1, are
related to the technical design of earthquake-resistant structures, as shown in
Figures 1 and 2.

An Investigation of Building Seismic Design

655

Figure 1 Spectral acceleration at T = 0.2 s in bedrock with a probability
exceeding 2% in 50 years for the Bali-West Nusa Tenggara region, Taruna in [24].

Figure 2 Spectral acceleration at T = 1 s in bedrock with a probability exceeding
2% in 50 years for the Bali-West Nusa Tenggara region, Taruna in [24].

As shown in Figure 1, in most Lombok regions, SS ranges from 1-1.2 g, while in
North Lombok the values are over 1.2 g. SS values tend to be larger than the 0.91.2 g values for Lombok calculated in SNI 1726:2012 (Figure 3). This could be
caused by the large earthquake data used in previous studies, especially the
increase in the 2018 Lombok earthquake series.
On the other hand, the maximum acceleration of S1 is 0.25 to 0.4 g. The S1 values
in the Lombok region used in this study were lower than those of SNI 1726:2012
(Figure 4). In SNI 1726:2012, Lombok’s S1 values range from 0.3 to 0.5 g, with
the maximum seen in the north.

656

Ni Nyoman Kencanawati, et al.

Figure 3 Spectral acceleration at T = 0.2 s in bedrock with a probability
exceeding 2% in 50 years for the Bali-West Nusa Tenggara region, SNI 1726:2012
in [7].

Figure 4 Spectral acceleration at T = 1 s in bedrock with a probability exceeding
2% in 50 years for the Bali-West Nusa Tenggara region, SNI 1726:2012 in [7].

3.2

Equivalent Lateral Load Factor

The dynamic properties of seismic loads were simplified to horizontal forces with
an equivalent lateral load procedure. For the analysis, the seismic response
coefficient CS was determined. SNI 1726:2012 provides instructions for
obtaining CS. It depends on spectral acceleration, the SDS and SD1 values and
parameters such as seismic design category, importance factor, structural
fundamental period, response modification factor, etc.

4

Result and Discussion

4.1

Spectral Acceleration

As shown in Figures 5 to 6, the strong earthquake in Lombok in 2018 increased
the spectral acceleration SS of Mataram by 1.143 g. This value represents the
location of Mataram latitude: -8.5606 and longitude: 116.0707. This is an
increase of 18.323% from the value listed in SNI 1976:2012. Approximately the

An Investigation of Building Seismic Design

657

same increase as the spectral acceleration in Padang city provided in the previous
seismic code compared to the current code (SNI 1976:2012). This is because
Padang experienced a major earthquake in 2009, the transition period between
the previous code and the current code.
The following Indonesian seismic code assumed that the acceleration of Mataram
would potentially be higher due to the 2018 Lombok earthquake, as this study
shows. Meanwhile, Sharma, et al. in [26] reported that after the Nepal earthquake
(Mw 7.9) ground motion, existing spectral accelerations were still applicable to
seismic structural engineering design.
1.4

SNI 1976:2012

1.2

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.4

This Study

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

SNI 1976:2012

1.2

This Study

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0
SS

S1

SMS

SM1

SDS

SS

SD1

Spectral Acceleration Parameter

Figure 5 Spectral acceleration
parameters in medium soil.

S1

SMS

SM1

SDS

SD1

Spectral Acceleration Parameter

Figure 6 Spectral acceleration
parameters in soft soil.

Figures 5 and 6 also shows the spectral acceleration of the maximum considered
and design basis earthquakes on the surface at T = 0.2 s (SMS and SDS) and T = 1
s (SM1 and SD1) on medium soil (Figure 5), whereas the parameters for soft soil
are illustrated in Figure 6. The acceleration of the surface is calculated for site
class D (SD) and site class E (SE), because Mataram city is made up of medium
and soft soils as given by Marjiyono in [20]. The spectral acceleration provided
by SNI 1726: 2012 is also shown for comparison.
Contrary to the acceleration of T = 0.2 s, the acceleration of T = 1 s used in this
study was smaller than that of SNI 1726:2012 because the constant attenuation
equation is not the same between SS and S1. Furthermore, theoretically, S1 is a
long-period spectrum affected by far-field earthquakes, whereas this study was
more dominantly about near earthquakes.

4.2

Building Seismic Design Category

Considering the ground motion of recent earthquakes, the SDS and SD1 values for
Mataram are 0.795 g and 0.367 g for medium soil and 0.686 g and 0.569 g for
soft soil, respectively. According to SNI 1976:2012, buildings at sites with an SDS
greater than 0.5 g are designed as D category for all risk categories I-IV (shown

658

Ni Nyoman Kencanawati, et al.

in bold in Table 1). Similarly, for SD1, as shown in Table 2, Mataram has values
greater than 0.2 g in both medium and soft soils. Therefore, it is included in the
D seismic design category (shown in bold in Table 2). SDS values exceed 0.5 g
and SD1 values exceed 0.2 g. This is similar to the value in the current code. Thus,
even though the results of this study’s spectral acceleration appear larger than
those in the current seismic code, there is no change in the seismic design
category between the current seismic code and the results of this study.
The D-design seismic category is intended for structures built on sites with
potential for severe and damaging earthquakes but not located close to major
faults. As given by Giouncu and Mazolani in [22] and Duggal in [23], structures
on poor soils generally fall into the D class for seismic design. According to
Sharma, et al. [26], as mentioned above, there was no change in the spectral
acceleration between the existing code and the spectral acceleration after the
Nepal earthquake, however, it is recommended to implement the existing code to
develop mitigation strategies and structures.
Seismic
design
categories for short period
response acceleration SDS [5].
Table 1

SDS (g)
SDS < 0,167
0.167 ≤ SDS ≤ 0.133
0.133 ≤ SDS ≤ 0.50
0.50 ≤ SDS

4.3

Risk Category
I or II
IV
or III
A
A
B
C
C
D
D
D

Seismic
design
categories for long period response
acceleration SD1 [5].
Table 2

SD1 (g)
SD1 < 0,067
0.067 ≤ SD1 ≤ 0.133
0.133 ≤ SD1 ≤ 0.20
0.20 ≤ SD1

Risk Category
I or II
IV
or III
A
A
B
C
C
D
D
D

Response Spectrum Curve

The spectral acceleration parameters previously obtained in Subsection 4.1 are
described using the response spectrum, which is important for building design, as
presented in Figures 7 and 8, intended for medium soil (SD) and soft soil (SE),
respectively. For comparison, the dashed line also shows the spectral acceleration
graph based on the current earthquake code SNI 1726:2012. In general, the
acceleration in this work was found to be relatively greater than that in the current
code for periods of less than 0.462 s for D site class (SD) and for periods less than
0.830 s in E site class (SE).
The maximum acceleration in SD is 0.795 g in the period of 0.092-0.462 s.
Meanwhile, in site class E, the maximum spectrum acceleration value is 0.686 g
in the period of 0.1166-0.830 s. Also, it can be seen that over this period, medium
soils amplify the spectral acceleration response more than soft soils.

An Investigation of Building Seismic Design

659

0.8
0.8
SNI 1726:2012

This Study

0.6

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

SNI 1976:2012

0.4

0.2

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

Period (s)

This Study

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

Period (s)

Figure 7 Response spectrum for
SD.

Figure 8 Response spectrum for
SE.

However, soft soils generate a long-period response more than the medium soils.
For a period of T = 1 s, the spectral acceleration for medium soil is 0.367 g and
0.569 g for soft soil. This trend is consistent with that found in existing building
seismic standards, where the medium soil spectrum has an acceleration of 0.386
g and soft soils of 0.606 g each over a long period. During this period, SNI
1726:2012 shows a slightly higher acceleration than the results of this study.
Primarily, a similar shape of the response spectrum curve is seen between the
results of this study and the current code. The trend is similar when medium soil
(SD) has higher spectral acceleration than soft soil (SE) over a short period, but
the higher effect of soft soil on spectral acceleration is seen over a longer period,
as shown in Figure 9.

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.8

0.6

0.4

SD
SE

0.2

0
T = 0,2 s

T =1s

T = 0,2 s

Research

T =1s

SNI 1726:2012
Period (s)

Figure 9 Spectral acceleration at T = 0.2 s and T = 1 s for different soil types.

Such findings have also been reported by Dhakal, et al. [27]. During the
calculation of seismic loads, the response spectrum is very important. Short

660

Ni Nyoman Kencanawati, et al.

period spectral acceleration values are used for an equivalent static analysis to
calculate the seismic response factor CS. Therefore, the effects of the 2018
Lombok earthquake, which produced higher spectral accelerations over a short
period of time, may increase the safety of structural designs and improve seismic
resistance.

4.4

Seismic Response Coefficient, CS

Using the procedure for determining the seismic response factors (CS) specified
by SNI 1726:2012 in [7], Table 3 shows the values for CS, maximum CS, and
minimum CS. The CS value was calculated under several conditions: risk category
= 2, importance factor = 1, response modification factor = 8, building height from
base = 20 meters. Coefficients were implemented for both SD and SE types of
site classes. The coefficient calculated based on the current code’s spectral
acceleration is also displayed for comparison.
Table 3
Seismic
Parameter
SDS (g)
SD1 (g)
CS
CS -maximum
CS -minimum

Seismic response coefficient, CS.

Site Class D
SNI 1726:2012 This Study
0.717
0.795
0.418
0.367
0.090
0.099
0.766
0.673
0.032
0.035

Site Class E
SNI 1726:2012 This Study
0.606
0.686
0.631
0.569
0.076
0.086
1.156
1.044
0.027
0.030

All CS values are between the minimum and maximum CS values. In general, the
CS of site class D is higher than the CS of site class E. This is because CS depends
on the value of the short period spectral acceleration, SDS. As can be seen from
Table 3, the SDS for site class D is higher than the SDS for site class E. Therefore,
CS increases in site class D. Conversely, the maximum C S value for site class E
is greater than the maximum value for site class D because of the large spectral
acceleration value of SD1 at T = 1 s. The maximum value of CS depends on the
value of SD1.
In this study, both sites had higher CS results compared to SNI 1976:2012. After
a strong Lombok earthquake, the seismic coefficient CS increases by 10.782%
when compared to CS calculated using the current code. The effect is more severe
in soft soil areas, with an increase of 13.168%. The higher CS, the greater the
seismic load on the building structure. It is recommended to revise the current
seismic regulations by considering the effects of the last strong earthquake, as
this will have a significant effect on the increase in seismic loads experienced by
the structure. Changes include enhancements to existing building structures so
that new or old buildings may become more resistant to future earthquakes. A
similar recommendation has also been given by Ramdani, Setiani and Setiawati

An Investigation of Building Seismic Design

661

[28], stating that studies on the Lombok earthquake could support the
development of a robust mitigation system for the area. Other works related to
the Lombok post-earthquake evidence have shown that several concrete
structures and steel structures were damaged, as evaluated by Salim, et al. in [29].
Further improvements have been recommended to the structures by considering
the basic requirements for earthquake resistant structures, as given by Siswanto
and Salim [30]. In addition, such a comprehensive structural design based on
seismic risk has been introduced by Mangkoesoebroto, Prayoga and Parithusta
[31] and Sidi [32]. It is suggested that the presented works should be considered
for the next seismic code to achieve a better structural response against future
earthquakes.

5

Conclusion

This paper presented the parameters of Mataram’s seismic building design by
considering the effects of the 2018 earthquake in Lombok. The short-period
spectral acceleration, SS, increased 18.323% compared to the values listed in SNI
1976:2012. However, the value of the spectral acceleration for the period T = 1
s, S1, was smaller than the value described in the existing earthquake code.
The higher design spectral acceleration values shown in this study do not change
the design of the Mataram earthquake category. According to the response
spectrum curve, overall, the acceleration value in this study was found to be
relatively greater than that of the existing code for periods shorter than 0.462 s
for site class D, and for periods shorter than 0.830 s in site class E. The maximum
acceleration in site class D from the results of this study is 0.795 g in periods from
0.092 to 0.462 s. For site class E, the maximum spectrum acceleration value is
0.686 g in periods from 0.1166 to 0.830 s. Soft soils react longer than medium
soils. For the time period of T = 1 s, the spectral acceleration of medium soil is
0.346 g, while soft soil produces 0.553 g. Basically, a similar shape of the
response spectrum curve is seen between the results of this study and recent
codes. Medium soil (SD) has higher spectral acceleration than soft soil (SE) over
a short period, but the higher effect of soft soil on spectral acceleration is seen
over a longer period.
In this study, both site classes D and E have a higher seismic response coefficient
compared to SNI 1976:2012. The seismic coefficient CS after the Lombok strong
ground motion increases by 10.782% compared to the CS calculated using the
current code. Soft soil is more prone to cause damage because CS increases by
13.168%. Immediate revisions to current seismic building codes by considering
the impact of the last strong earthquake to strengthen the preparation of seismic
structures is recommended.

662

Ni Nyoman Kencanawati, et al.

References
[1]

Taruna, R.M., Banyunegoro, V.H. & Daniarsyad, G., Peak Ground
Acceleration at Surface for Mataram City with a Return Period of 2500
Years Using Probabilistic Method, MATEC Web Conf., 195, 03019, 2018.
[2] BMKG, Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and
Geophysics,
Ground
Shaking
Reviews,
2018,
Available:
https://www.bmkg.go.id/seismologi-teknik/ulasan-guncangantanah.bmkg?p=ulasan-guncangan-gempa-lombok-timur-05-agustus2018&tag=ulasan-guncangan-tanah&lang=ID, (08-Dec-2018).
[3] Pomonis, A., Daniell, J., Gunasekera, R., Schaefer, A. & Skapski, J.U., The
2018 Lombok and Palu, Indonesia, Earthquakes: Loss Data Uncertainties,
Cascades and Implications, in 21st EGU General Assembly, EGU2019,
Proceedings from the conference held 7-12 April, in Vienna, Austria, 2019
[4] Asmirza. & Sofian, M., Analysis of School Damage Due to Lombok
Earthquake on August 2018, E3S Web Conf., 156, pp. 5019, 2020.
[5] Okamura, H., Japanese Seismic Design Codes Prior to Hyogoken-Nanbu
Earthquake, Cem. Concr. Compos., 19(3), pp. 185-192, 1997.
[6] Karakostas, C., Lekidis, V., Makarios, T., Salonikios, T., Sous, I. &
Demosthenous, M., Seismic Response of Structures and Infrastructure
Facilities During the Lefkada, Greece Earthquake of 14/8/2003, Eng.
Struct., 27(2), pp. 213-227, 2005.
[7] Indonesian National Standard Code, Earthquake Resistance Design for
Structures of Buildings and Non-Buildings (SNI 1726:2012), National
Standardization Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2012.
[8] Indonesian National Standard Code, Earthquake Resistance Design for
Building Structures (SNI 1726:2002), National Standardization Agency
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2002.
[9] Sengara, I.W., Sidhi, I.D., Mulia, A., Asrurifak, M. & Hutabarat, D.,
Development of Risk Coefficient for Input to New Indonesian Seismic
Building Codes, J. Eng. Technol. Sci., 48(1), pp. 49-65, 2016.
[10] Arfiadi, Y. & Satyarno, I., Comparison of Design Spectra of Several Large
Cities in Indonesia According to the SNI 2012 and the 2002 Seismic Code,
Proceeding of the 7th National Civil Engineering Conference, 2013. (Text
in Indonesian)
[11] Panzera, F., Lombardo, G., Imposa, S., Grassi, S., Gresta, S., Catalano, S.,
Romagnoli, G., Tortorici, G., Patti, F. & Di Maio, E., Correlation between
Earthquake Damage and Seismic Site Effects: The Study Case of Lentini
and Carlentini, Italy, Eng. Geol., 240, pp. 149-162, 2018.
[12] Mase, L.Z., Likitlersuang, S. & Tobita, T., Analysis of Seismic Ground
Response Caused During Strong Earthquake in Northern Thailand, Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 114, pp. 113-126, 2018.

An Investigation of Building Seismic Design

663

[13] Sezen, H., Whittaker, A.S., Elwood, K.J. & Mosalam, K.M., Performance
of Reinforced Concrete Buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli,
Turkey Earthquake, and Seismic Design and Construction Practise in
Turkey, Eng. Struct., 25(1), pp. 103-114, 2003.
[14] Ergün, A., Kiraç, N. & Bacsaran, V., The Evaluation of Structural
Properties of Reinforced Concrete Building Designed according to PreModern Code Considering Seismic Performance, Eng. Fail. Anal., 58, pp.
184-191, 2015.
[15] Mosleh, A., Rodrigues, H., Varum, H., Costa, A. & Arêde, A., Seismic
Behavior of RC Building Structures Designed According to Current Codes,
Structures, 7, pp. 1-13, Aug. 2016.
[16] Barros, J. & Santa-Maria, H., Seismic Design of Low-Rise Buildings Based
on Frequent Earthquake Response Spectrum, J. Build. Eng., 21, pp. 366372, 2019.
[17] Agustawijaya, D.S., Sulistiyono, H., Elhuda, I., Determination of the
Seismicity and Peak Ground Acceleration for Lombok Island: an
Evaluation on Tectonic Setting, MATEC Web Conf., 195, 03018, 2018.
[18] Supendi, P., Relocated Aftershocks and Background Seismicity in Eastern
Indonesia Shed Light on the 2018 Lombok and Palu Earthquake
Sequences, Geophys. J. Int., 221(3), pp. 1845-1855, 2020.
[19] Agustan, Hanifa, R.N., Anantasena, Y., Sadly, M. & Ito, T., Ground
Deformation Identification Related to 2018 Lombok Earthquake Series
Based On Sentinel-1 Data, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 280, 12004,
Aug. 2019.
[20] Marjiyono, M., The Potential of the Site Amplification by Surface Sediment
Layer in Mataram City Area West Nusa Tenggara, J. Environ. Geol.
Hazards, 7(3), pp. 135-144, 2016.
[21] Elnashai, A.S. & Di Sarno, L., Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering,
Wiley New York, 2008.
[22] Giouncu, V. & Mazzolani, F.M., Earthquake Engineering for Structural
Design, New York, USA: Routledge, 2013.
[23] Duggal, S.K., Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Oxford
University Press New Delhi, 2007.
[24] Taruna, R.M., Earthquake Intensity in Mataram City Based on Earthquake
Data of 1922-2018 Periods, M.Eng Thesis, Post Graduate Program of Civil
Engineering, Mataram University, Indonesia, 2019.
[25] Agustawijaya, D.S., Taruna, R.M. & Agustawijaya, A.R., An Update to
Seismic Hazar Levels and PSHA for Lombok and Surrounding Islands
After Earthquakes in 2018, Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 53(3), 2020.
[26] Sharma, B., Chingtham, P., Sharma, V., Kumar, V., Mandal, H.S. &
Mishra, O.P., Characteristic Ground Motions of the 25th April 2015 Nepal
Earthquake (Mw 7.9) and its Implications for the Structural Design Codes

664

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

Ni Nyoman Kencanawati, et al.

for the Border Areas of India to Nepal, J. Asian Earth Sci., 133, pp. 12-23,
2017.
Dhakal, R., Lin, S.L., Loye, A. & Evans, S., Seismic Design Spectra for
different Soil Classes, Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 46, pp. 79-87,
2013.
Ramdani, F., Setiani, P. & Setiawati, D.A., Analysis of Sequence
Earthquake of Lombok Island, Indonesia, Prog. Disaster Sci., 4, 100046,
2019.
Salim, M.A., Siswanto, A.B., Hari Setijo, P. & Ardhani, M.S., Recovery
Civil Construction Buildings Due to the Earthquake Lombok, Int. J. Sci.
Technol. Res., 8(11), pp. 814-817, 2019.
Siswanto, A.B. & Salim, M.A., Basic Criteria Design of Earthquake
Resistant Building Structures, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol., 9(4), pp. 426-436,
2018.
Mangkoesoebroto, S.P., Prayoga, M.H. & Parithusta, R., Collapse Risks of
Fail-Safe RC Frames Due to Earthquakes: Fragility Assessments, J. Eng.
Technol. Sci., 51(4), pp. 479-500, 2019.
Sidi, I.D., Probabilistic Modeling of Seismic Risk Based Design for a Dual
System Structure, J. Eng. Technol. Sci., 49(2), pp. 179-192, 2017.