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

Development on Risk-Based Seismic Design Criteria and Ground

Motions for High-Rise Buildings in Jakarta
Wayan Sengaraa,c,*, M. Addifa Yulmanb, Putu Sumiarthac, Andri Muliab
a
Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung
b
Former Research Assistant, Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, Engineering Center for Industry, Institut Teknologi Bandung
c
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, WSP Engineering Consultant

Abstract
Indonesia has followed development of new seismic design criteria in the new seismic building codes, from hazard-based
in the former SNI-03-1726-2002 to the current risk-based SNI-1726-2012. The 2012 codes introduce risk-targeted
ground motion (RTGM) of reference base rock (site-class B, SB) spectral acceleration at short and 1-second periods Ss
and S1, respectively, defined as risk of 1% probability of building collapse in 50 years. The new seismic design criteria
have combined both seismic hazard and building fragility. For performance-based analysis of high-rise buildings, a
complex non-linear time-history analysis is needed that require integrated site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA) and site-response analysis (SSRA) to derive seismic time-history input motions. The time-history input
motions shall be representative to the earthquake sources and potential dominant earthquakes, considering local site
effect, and various period modes of the building structures under consideration. This paper presents findings on site-
specific seismic design criteria and time-history ground motions development, incorporating RTGM and update on
PSHA of Jakarta. Update on PSHA of Jakarta considers higher maximum magnitude potential of Subduction Interface as
well as higher directivity factors. In addition, investigation on design spectra involving 3 specific sites in Jakarta is also
presented. Results of the analysis suggest that spectral accelerations of 20-30% higher should be considered as new
seismic design criteria for high-rise buildings in Jakarta.
Keywords: probabilistic; seismic hazard; time-history; risk-targeted ground motions; site-specific; response

1. INTRODUCTION

Recent development in seismic design criteria for high-rise buildings has shifted from hazard-based to risk-based
ground motions. The seismic design criteria could be simply referred from applicable seismic building codes specifying
spectral accelerations at referenced base-rock and corresponding Site-Class to provide design spectra. Past seismic design
criteria are based only on seismic hazard with specification on its probability of exceedance (PE), previously based on
level of hazard of 10% PE in 50 years such as Uniform Building Codes-1997 [1] including 2002 Indonesian seismic
building codes (SNI-03-1726-2002) [2]. More recent seismic building codes such as International Building Codes (IBC)-
2009 [3] are based on 2% PE in 50 years hazard. Recent building codes such as IBC-2012 [4] including current
Indonesian seismic building codes (SNI-1726-2012) [5] has adopted risk-based or risk-targeted ground motion (RTGM)
criteria ground-motions criteria of 1% probability of building collapse in 50 years.

*Email address: iws@geotech.pauir.itb.ac.id; wayansengara@yahoo.com

 Current SNI-1726-2012 adopts seismic design criteria ground motions with reference to probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA) of Seismic Hazard Map of Indonesia for Revision of Map in SNI-03-1726-2002 by Team-9 (Irsyam et
al., 2010) [6]. This PSHA has been conducted considering many past large subduction and shallow crustal earthquakes,
such as 2004 Aceh subduction interface (Mw= 9.3), 2005 Nias subduction interface (Mw=8.7), 2006 shallow crustal
Yogyakarta (Mw=6.3), 2006 Pangandaran subduction interface (Mw=7.2), 2007 Indramayu subduction intraplate
(Mw=7.5), 2007 Bengkulu subduction interface (Mw=8.4), 2009 West Sumatra subduction intraplate (Mw= 7.6), 2009
West Java subduction interface (Mw= 7.0). Some of the earthquakes were felt in capital city of Jakarta.
In 2012, new Indonesian seismic buildings code (SNI-1726-2012) was introduced officially with new seismic ground-
motion criteria adopting so-called Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) with new concept of
uniform risk of building collapse. The new ground motion criteria is with reference to ASCE-SEI-7-10 [7] and
FEMA/NEHRP (2009) [8], with specification of ground motions spectral accelerations at short (0.2 second) (S S) and 1-
second period (S1), respectively. The concept of current seismic design criteria depends on risk of building collapse, in
which the collapse of structure is not only based on seismic hazard but also on fragility of buildings. RTGM is derived
with risk criteria of 1% probability of building collapse in 50 years.
After almost 4 years adoption of 2012 Indonesian seismic building codes (SNI-1726-2012) for Jakarta, there have
been some developments in seismo-tectonic data information as well as advances in developing seismic design criteria
for high rise buildings. There have also some medium to large earthquakes occurred in the subduction zones of Sumatra
and Java. Among other is the 2012 North Sumatra earthquake (Mw=8.6). These earthquakes have risen concerns on what
is the potential ground shaking that could hit Jakarta city (Sengara, 2012) [9a, 9b]. After these recent earthquakes, it is
considered necessary to update and re-analyze the seismic hazard for the Jakarta, considering more recent geological and
seismological input and recent advances in seismic hazard and site-response analysis (SRA). This paper presents some
findings on update of PSHA for Jakarta and incorporation of risk-based approach to develop seismic design criteria for a
high-rise building. Updates on PSHA of Jakarta identify resulted hazard curves, uniform hazard spectra (UHS) for short
and 1-second spectral periods. Particular emphases are made on the maximum magnitude potential of Java subduction
interface from originally Mmax=8.1 adopted in 2010, to Mmax= (8.5-9.0) in this study. Risk-based criteria development is
made by integrating hazard curves resulted from updated PSHA and fragility function of the building to recommend risk-
targeted ground motion (RTGM) at reference subsurface rock (Site-Class B).
In addition to PSHA, site-specific response analysis considering local site effect of three (3) specific sites in Jakarta is
investigated. This investigation incorporates shear wave velocity profile to great depth to reference subsurface rock (300
m beneath ground surface), resulted from deep boring and micro-tremor survey. Some ground surface response spectra
resulted from seismic wave propagation analysis using procedures in accordance with ASCE-SEI-7-10 [7] and PEER
(2010) [10] procedures is identified, evaluated and compared with the current spectra specified by SNI-1726-2012.

2. PSHA AND BASEROCK RISK-TARGETED SPECTRA UPDATE FOR JAKARTA

2.1. Seismic Hazard Analysis of Jakarta

The primary seismic source zones within a radius of 500 km from Jakarta are the Java subduction located in the south
and shallow crustals scattered in Java and Sumatera. Recently, there is a concern by some geological specialists on
presence of faults crossing the city, despite the fact that this concern is not yet upheld by adequate data. In order to
account unregistered faults and random near-site earthquakes, a background gridded-seismicity model proposed by
Frankel et al. (1995) [11] has been incorporated for the development of seismic hazard map of Indonesia since the recent
study as reported by Irsyam et al. (2010) [6], Sengara et al. (2009 [12]), Sengara (2009) [13]. Seismicity and seismic
source zones for Jakarta site is shown in Figure 1.
The Java and sourthern Sumatera megathrust subductions are considered to have large uncertainties in maximum
magnitude which are not considered comprehensively in the current seismic hazard map of SNI-03-1726-2012. Update
on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) of Jakarta is conducted in this study by investigating the effect of
ground motions to the potential maximum magnitude of Java subduction. The evaluation distinguishes a sensible
maximum magnitude for the given potential seismic source. A potential maximum magnitude of 8.5-9.0 (Natawidjaja,
2014) [14] for the Java and Southern Sumatra Interface (mega-thrust) subductions is considered as input to PSHA in this
paper.
The updated PSHA in this study is adopting similar methodology as reported in Sengara, 2012 [9] and Irsyam et al.
(2010) [6]. Ground motion predictive equations (GMPE) by Young’s et al. (1997) [15] and Zhao et al. (2006) [16] are
adopted for computing spectral acceleration of subduction megathrust (interface) earthquake sources and Atkinson-Boore
(2003) [17] is adopted for deep intra-slab (deep background) sources. Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) functions of
Boore-Atkinson (2008) [18], Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) [19], and Chiou-Young (2008) [20], are adopted for shallow
crustals mechanism and shallow background. EZ-Frisk [21] computer program is used for this PSHA calculation.

Fig. 1. Seismicity and Source Zones Around Jakarta

2.2. PSHA Results

Three maximum magnitudes for Java subduction (Mmax = 8.1, 8.5 and 9.0) have been performed in order to identify
variation of spectral acceleration values for Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) hazard level of 2% PE in 50 years.
Results of three spectral acceleration values at periods of PGA, 0.2 second and 1.0 second are as summarized in Table 1.
Please note that, since the aforementioned adopted GMPEs for subduction are only valid for periods less than 3 seconds,
for periods of interest higher than 3 second, spectral accelerations are estimated using following relationship:
SaT = (Sa3.0 secs. × 3.0)/T (1)
where T is period of interest higher than 3 seconds.
Variation of maximum magnitude of 8.1, 8,5, and 9.0 for subduction Megathrust to resulted Uniform Hazard Spectra
(UHS) and hazard curves has been investigated herein. The resulted UHS plots and hazard curves are presented in Figure
2 and Figure 3, respectively. There is approximately 10-12% increase in spectral acceleration value resulted from
increasing maximum magnitude from original M8.1 to M9.0 for PGA and Ss. Surprisingly, there is significant increase of
as high as 40% for S1 to spectral values at periods of 3 seconds with diminishing increase up to 20% for higher periods.
Another finding to note is that the hazard curve for Ss looks not affected much, however affected relatively high for S1, as
shown in Figure 2.
Table 1. Spectral Acceleration Values of Level Hazard 2% PE in 50 Years (UHS)
Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (sec)
Java, M=8.1 Java, M=8.5 Java, M=9.0
PGA 0.330 0.367 0.372
0.2 sec (Ss) 0.646 0.701 0.715
1.0 sec (S1) 0.233 0.310 0.324
 Fig. 2. Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) of Jakarta with Variation of Maximum Magnitude of Java Subduction

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Hazard Curve for (a) T = 0.2 second; (b) T = 1.0 second

2.3 Notes on Ground Motion Maximum Direction of Response

As described in Whittaker, 2009 [22] and FEMA/NEHRP [8,23], most GMPEs are defined in terms of average
(geometric mean) horizontal response. Structures need to be designed to resist ground motions in maximum direction of
response. Maximum direction was adopted as the ground motion intensity parameter for use in seismic design for the
purpose of explicit consideration of directional effects. It has been identified through many researches that maximum
response in the horizontal plane is greater than average response by a certain amount. This response also varies with
period. As described in Huang et al., 2007 [24] maximum response may be reasonably estimated by factoring average
response by period dependent factors. ASCE-SEI-7-10 and IBC-2012 for US MCER (risk-targeted maximum considered
earthquake) map as described in FEMA/HEHRP [8] and also in [23] adopt directivity factor of 1.1 at short periods and
1.3 at a period of 1.0 second.
Indonesian seismic hazard map of 2010 for input to MCER map in SNI-1726-2012 adopts a consensus directivity
factors of 1.05 and 1.15 as short and 1.0 second periods, respectively. Since this factors could be considered as general
for maximum direction of response of structures which are independent of geographical condition, then in this study,
directivity factors adopted for MCE as input to computation of risk-targeted ground motion MCER, are 1.1 and 1.3 for
short and 1.0 second periods, respectively.
3. RISK-TARGETED GROUND MOTION (RTGM)

New concept in the current seismic building codes (SNI-1726-2012), which is also presented in ASCE-SEI-7-10 and
PEER (2010), shows that even when similar structures situated in different locations are constructed to withstand under
uniform-hazard ground motion, the probability of collapse is likely different. Therefore the current seismic design
criteria are based on both probability of earthquake occurances and fragility of buildings. This concept was firstly
introduced by Luco et al (2007) [25] and further known as risk-targeted ground motion (RTGM). The RTGM is directly
defined as ground motion spectral value, a, that has collapse probability of 1% in 50 years. In general the collapse
probability is expressed by following relationship

Risk, Pf = (a) (SA>a) da (2)

Where fEm (SA>a) and fR(a) are hazard curve and fragility function, respectively. Detail concept and calculation
procedure of this can be found in Luco et al (2007) [25] and Luco (2011) [26]. In addition Sengara et al (2015) [27]
presents detail procedure of computing RTGM for whole Indonesian area.
The fragility curve is defined as a lognormal distribution function which is controlled by two parameters, logarithmic
mean, μ, and logarithmic standard deviation, β. The logarithmic mean is associated with RTGM, whilst logarithmic
standard deviation is basically derived through evaluation of collected fragility models. However, the fragility curves for
Indonesian area are difficult to be determined due to lack of post-earthquake data. Sidi I.D. (2011) [28] proposed a
representative logarithmic standard deviation ranging from 0.65 to 0.70. The current code of SNI-1726-2012 adopts a
value of 0.70 for parameter β.
Additionally, the collapse of structure occured due to the effect of two direction horizontal movement (Kicher, 2009)
[29]. This issue has been accomodated with applying directivity factor for each period of interest. The current seismic
building code of Indonesia adopts directivity factors of 1.05 and 1.15 for short (T=0.2 sec) and long (T=1.0 sec) periods,
respectively. Whilst FEMA/NEHRP [8,23] and Whittaker, 2009 [22] suggest the factors of 1.1 and 1.3 for short and 1.0
second periods, respectively. This factors are adopted in this study.
Parametric study of β and maximum magnitude of Java subduction has been conducted and summarized in here. As
mentioned previously there are three maximum magnitudes of Java Subduction with hazard curves presented in Figure 3.
summarized in following table.
Table 2. RTGM and Cr Resulted from Parametric Study
Mmax = 8.1 Mmax = 8.5 Mmax = 9.0
Period β
RTGM (g) Cr RTGM (g) Cr RTGM (g) Cr
0.6 0.720 1.013 0.758 0.983 0.772 0.982
T = 0.2 s 0.7 0.766 1.078 0.795 1.032 0.809 1.029
0.8 0.830 1.168 0.851 1.103 0.864 1.099
0.6 0.294 0.971 0.382 0.948 0.397 0.944
T = 1.0 s 0.7 0.309 1.021 0.394 0.977 0.409 0.971
0.8 0.331 1.094 0.413 1.025 0.428 1.017

4. SSRA FOR THREE-CASE SITES IN JAKARTA

Geotechnical profiles of Jakarta vary widely from medium to hard in southern part to soft and specific-site of very
soft and liquefaction potential in the northern part of the city. Seismic design criteria can be simply derived from seismic
code of SNI-1726-2012, identifying its site-classification, with exception for specific site such as site with deep very soft
soil and liquefaction potential sites, then site-specfic response analysis (SSRA) shall be conducted to recommend its
ground-surface design spectra. Variation of site conditions and variation on potential earthquake base-motions are
investigated herein. The investigation is based on several site specific study for highrise buildings in Jakarta. In this
paper in particular, (three) 3 specific sites are selected as case study. Base case reference on the baserock motions is the
Ss and S1 spectral values in accordance with SNI-1726-2012.
As comparison to the base case, result of update on PSHA decribed in Section 3 of this paper is adopted. Prior to
SSRA for the three (3) specific sites with various baserock motions, comparisons of the design spectra with reference to
SNI-1726-2012 and that of PSHA update for two (2) differenct site-class (Medium SD, and Soft SE) have been made.
Figure 4 shows comparison of design response spectra adoptiong baserock motion with reference to SNI-1726-2012 to
that of PSHA update adopting M9.0 and new directivity factors for SD and SE site class. Furthermore, Figure 5 shows
comparison of design response spectra adopting baserock motion with reference to SNI-1726-2012 to that of PSHA
update with M9.0 and M8.5 for SE site class.

Fig. 4. Comparison of design spectra for Medium (SD) and Soft Soil (SE) of SNI-1726-2012 to PSHA Update

Fig. 5. Comparison of design spectra for Soft Soil (SE) of SNI-1726-2012 to PSHA Update of M8.5 and M9.0
Three (3) specific sites are selected for site-specific response analysis (SSRA) case study to identify how different site
and different baserock motions results in different seismic design spectra. The three specific sites are located in Sudirman
area, Kuningan area, and North Jakarta.
The SSRA conducted herein follows standard methodology of seismic wave propagation analysis, as decribed in
Sengara, 2012 [9] for one of the selected site in this case. SSRA process requires input of shear wave velocity profile of
the site to reference subsurface base (SB) and representative seismic input ground motions at the SB. The input ground
motion should represent earthquake amplitudes, duration, and frequency content of controlling earthquakes resulted from
de-aggregation analysis as an integrated part of PSHA. The current SSRA is with reference to ASCE-SEI-7-10, where
the recommended surface MCER ground motion response spectrum shall not be lower than the MCER response spectrum
of the base motion multiplied by the average surface-to-base response spectral ratios (calculated period by period)
obtained from the wave propagation analyses. The recommended surface ground motions that resulted from the analysis
should consider response to uncertainty in soil properties, depth of soil profile model, and input motions. Since the
period of interest of the highrise buildings may vary widely, then the input ground motions should also need to be
represented to cover various oscillatory periods. Therefore, the SSRA herein is conducted period by period using the
generated seismic input motions scaled at various periods.
4.1 Dynamic Soil Parameters

Illustration of shear dynamic soil properties in term of shear wave velocity (Vs) profile of one of the sites under study
(Site#1) is shown in Figure 6. The Vs profile is obtained from combination of seismic down-hole test and ambient noise
micro-tremor survey to characterize the base-rock to ground surface site-effect to a depth of 280m, where the reference
subsurface rock of Vs >= 760 m/s is identified. Correlation of Vs from several boreholes of Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) is also included. This data is used as an input in site specific response analysis. Similar process of Vs profiling is
developed for Site#2 and Site#3.

Fig. 6. Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) Profile for Site#1 Based on Average of 3 (three) N-SPT Correlation, Microtremor and
Seismic Downhole Tests

4.2 Spectral Match Input Ground Motions

Baserock seismic input motions are derived based upon target spectra resulted from de-aggregation analysis as part of
the PSHA. The target spectra are developed for various periods of interest (in this case T=0.2, 1, 2, 5, and 10 seconds),
synthetic input motion is generated by performing spectral-match of available strong motion records to the target spectra.
Spectral-matching technique proposed by Linda Al Atik and Norman Abrahamson 2010 [30] that is built in the EZ-
FRISK 7.62 computer program (Risk Engineering, 2012) is used for the analysis. Thirty-five (35) input ground motions
(7 different strong-motion records scaled at 5 periods of interest) at reference base rock (SB) are spectral-matched to the
developed MCER target spectra.
The original input motions are selected from strong-motions recorded worldwide such that representative to the site to
correspond with de-aggregation analysis of the PSHA. Controlling earthquakes from de-aggregation analysis for long
period structure such as T= 10 sec for example identify Megathrust earthquake with M8.5-M9.0 is controlling the
seismic hazard, as show in Figure 7. De-aggregation analysis for various range of periods identify different earthquake
magnitudes and distances. Among other selected strong-motion records for subduction sources are Chi-Chi 1999, Padang
2009, and Tohoku 2011. The selected strong-motion records associated with results of de-aggregation analysis are listed
in Table 3. This selected strong-motions records are also used for ground-surface spectral-matching time-history
involving pairs of ground-motions.
 Fig. 7. De-aggregation for PE 2% in 50 Year at T = 10 second

Table 3. Selected strong-motion records

Period Epicentral
Mechanism Code Catalog Source Earthquake Magnitude
(sec) Distance
Chi - chi Earthquake 20 September
ILA051-N PEER [22] 7.62 160.21
1999
5 Megathrust
MYG013110311146EW
K-NET [25] Tohoku Earthquake 11 March 2011 9.00 170.00
.at2
Chi - chi Earthquake 20 September
TAP075-N PEER [22] 7.62 160.21
Megathrust 1999
MYG12110311146EW K-NET [25] Tohoku Earthquake 11 March 2011 9.00 170.00
Padang Earthquake, 30 September
Benioff Padang 30-11-2009 Rusnardi, et al [26] 7.60 81.00
2009
10 Shallow
Whittier Narrows-01 Earthquake 10
Backgroun A-ORR000 PEER [22] 5.99 77.07
January 1987
d
Shallow
SER270 PEER [22] Landers Earthquake 29 June 1992 7.28 75.20
Crustal

4.3 Seismic Wave Propagation Analysis and Design Response Spectra

Results of seismic wave propagation analysis of Site#1 for MCER, 5% damping employing time-domain analysis from
reference subsurface rock (SB) to ground surface is presented in Figure 8. The analysis is conducted based on the input
motions and Vs profile using computer program NERA (Non-linear Earthquake Response Analysis, Bardet dan Tobita,
2001) [31]. Seismic wave propagation analyses were conducted for the developed input motions of the MCE R with 5%
damping, as also described in detail in Sengara, 2012 [9]. Furthermore, recommended ground surface MCER response
spectra is also shown in Figure 9. Recommended design spectra is formulated as SD = 2/3 * Sa MCER ). Recommended
design spectra resulted from wave propagation analysis of Site#1 is compared to that of Soft Soil (SE) and Medium Soil
(SD), M9.0, as shown in Figure 10. Figure 11 also presents comparison of recommended design spectra resulted from
wave propagation analysis for 3 sites under study to that of Soft site-class (SE) of SNI-1726-2012 and also to that of the
one adopting M9.0. Futhermore, Figure 11 presents comparison of recommended design spectra resulted from wave
propagation analysis for 3 sites under study, but with input-motion scaled to baserock Ss and S1 of SNI-1726-2012 (with
M8.1). These design spectra of the 3 sites are compared to that of Soft site-class (SE) of SNI-1726-2012 and also to that
of the one adopting M9.0.
 Fig. 8. Result of Seismic Wave Propagation Showing Ground-Response Spectra and Recommended Spectra

Fig. 9. Recommended Design spectra of Site#1 Compared to that of Soft Soil (SE) and Medium Soil (SD), M9.0

Figure 10. Recommended Design Spectra of 3 sites for M9.0, Compared to that of SE of (SNI-2012, M8.1) and M9.0
 Fig. 11. Recommended Design Spectra for 3 Sites for M8.1 Compared to that of SE of (SNI-2012, M8.1) and M9.0

4.4 Summary on Findings on Recommended Design Spectra

Several findings from this study are: spectral accelerations of 20-30% higher is identified for SD and SE with
reference to updated PSHA of higher maximum magnitude (M8.5-M9.0) and higher directivity factors. Design response
spectra for area in northern Jakarta is higher compared to Soft site-class (SE) both adopting baserock SS and S1 with
reference to SNI-1726-2012 (M8.1) or adopting updated PSHA of M9.0. The investigation suggest that it is essential to
update seismic design criteria for Jakarta.

5. TIME-HISTORY INPUT MOTIONS DEVELOPMENT

5.1. Developed Baserock and Ground Surface Time-histories

Ground surface time-history input motions need to be developed in case dynamic time-history structural analysis is
needed. Baserock input motions scaled to various periods of interest that have been developed through spectral matching
techniques adopting conditional mean square (CMS) are considered to be representative to the potential incoming
earthquakes to the site. Therefore, the ground surface time-history motions resulted from wave propagation analysis
within the SSRA are also considered representative for recommendations of the dynamic structural analysis. Detail
procedures on time-history input motions generation with case study of a site in Jakarta have been presented in Sengara
et al. (2016) [32]. The average of seven (7) maximum surface spectra is compared with recommended surface MCE R
spectral envelope as shown in Figure 12. It is shown that, the averaged and (averaged+1Standard Deviation) spectral
accelerations are reasonably close to the recommended spectral envelope for any periods that are larger than 3 seconds.
Therefore, these seven (7) surface time-history ground-motions are considered representative for time-history ground-
motions analysis of buildings. In this specific case, de-aggregation analysis shows that Megathrust mechanism is
controlling the ground-motion of the site, with M8.5 - M9.0 and radius of 170 km. Therefore, pair of time-histories that
have a similar seismic source characteristic was downloaded from a credible website. Chi-chi earthquake 1999 and
Tohoku 2014 strong-motions have been selected due to its similarity to South Java subduction.
Fig. 12. Averaged Seven Maximum Surface Spectra from SSRA Relative to Recommended MCER Surface Spectral Envelope

Generation of ground surface time-histories is carried out with spectrally scaling pair of the selected time-histories.
This scaling process is carried out by adopting Square Root of the Sum of the Square (SRSS) method. Ratios at each
period, K, was developed by dividing SRSS to the target (recommended) MCER spectra. Each component was divided by
the ratio at each period so that response spectra for each component would be lower than the given target MCER spectra.
Finally, each initial recorded component was spectrally matched to the recommended target spectra of Figure 12. For
more conservative spectrally matched time-histories for design recommendation and meeting code requirements of IBC-
2012 or SNI-1726-2012, SRSS average of 7 (seven) generated pairs of horizontal ground-motions are required to be
higher than recommended target spectra, as specified in ASCE-SEI-7-10. Figure 13 shows initial and SRSS spectra. K-
ratios are computed for each period as shown in Figure 14. Each component of initial spectra is divided by the ratio at
each period to define component target spectrum. Each initial spectrum need to be spectrally matched to each target
spectrum. Figure 15 shows both component target spectra, with results of spectrally matched input motions for MYG013-
EW component is shown in Figure 16 and its corresponding ground motions in Figure 17, indicating successful baseline
correction as induced by relatively very small deviation of the velocity and displacement at end of the simulated
earthquake. Other pairs of time-history ground motions are generated using the same procedures. Please note that,
recently FEMA/NEHRP P-1050, 2015 [23] revise the previous requirement that generated pairs of horizontal ground-
motions are required to (a) spectrally match recommended target spectrum, and (b) the average spectrum does not fall
below 90% of the target spectrum for any period within the period range of interest.

Fig. 13. Computed SRSS of the Response Spectra and Surface Target Spectra-MCER
 Fig. 14. Variation of K Ratio for MGY013

Fig. 15. Graph for MYG013-EW Target, MYG013-NS Target, and SRSS Target

Fig. 16. Spectral matching of MYG013-EW

 Fig. 17. Matched Time-histories / input motion of MYG130-EW

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Update on PSHA and development of risk-based seismic design criteria have been investigated and derived for a
high-rise building in Jakarta. The investigation involves identification on resulted hazard curves, MCE, SB uniform
hazard spectra, and ground surface spectra. Essential seismic input parameters have been identified to contribute in
higher resulted seismic ground motions. Sensitivity analyses on maximum magnitudes potential of the Java subduction
interface has been identified to contribute significantly to the seismic ground motions. Higher directivity factors applied
to short and 1-second periods to the ground motions have directly multiply the ground motions proportionally.
Comparison of design spectra adopting SNI-1726-2012 to the resulted design spectra from this study has been made.
Relatively high increase of ground-motions spectra criteria from the currently specified is identified. The comparisons
have been made for 3 specific site cases within city of Jakarta.
This study suggests that, spectral accelerations of 20-30% higher should be considered as new seismic design criteria
for high-rise buildings in Jakarta. The investigation suggest that it is essential to update seismic design criteria for
Jakarta. Higher directivity factors for maximum direction of response are suggested for new MCER for Jakarta and MCER
map for Indonesia. Procedures on development of risk-based seismic design criteria through site-specific seismic hazard
and response analysis as well as ground motion generation presented in this paper could be applied for other sites.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thankful on data support provided by PT. Grahamas Adisentosa, PT Pertamina, and PT Kencana Unggul
Sukses that have provided necessary data for the investigation. The author also thank Dr. G. Handayani who has
provided shear wave velocity data is appreciated. Numerous input by Dr. Ramin Goleshorki from Langan International
and Dr. Danny Natawidjaja as well as discussion with Dr. Sugeng Wijanto from PT Gistama is highly appreciated.
REFERENCES

[1] International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code.

[2] Indonesian Seismic Building Codes, SNI-03-1726, 2002, Indonesian Department of Public Work, 2002, Jakarta.
[3] International Code Council, 2009, International Building Code.
[4] International Code Council, 2012, International Building Code.
[5] Indonesian Seismic Building Codes, SNI-1726-2012, Indonesian Department of Public Work, 2012., Jakarta.
[6] Irsyam, M., Sengara, IW., Aldiamar, F., Widiyantoro, S., Triyoso, W., Natawijaya, D.H., Kertapati, E., Meilano, I.,
Asrurifak, M., Ridwan, M., Suhardjono, Development of Seismic Hazards Map of Indonesia for Revision of SNI
03-1726-2002, Report submitted to Australia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction (AIFDR) and Badan
Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB), 2010, Institute for Research and Community Services, Institut
Teknologi Bandung.
[7] Americam Society of Civil Engineers Standards, ASCE SEI-7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, Structural Engineering Institute ASCE, 2010, Virginia, USA.
[8] FEMA, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P – 750 / 2009
Edition, 2009
[9] Sengara, IW., “Investigation on Risk-Targeted Seismic Design Criteria for a High-Rise Building in Jakarta-
Indonesia”, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Proceedings, Lisboa, 24 - 28 September 2012.
[10] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Tall Building Initiative Guidelines for Performance Based Seismic
Design of Tall Buildings, Report N0. 2010/5, 2010.
[11]Frankel, A. D., “Mapping Seismic Hazard in the Central and Eastern United States”, Seismological Research Letters.
66:4. 8-21, 1995.
[12] Sengara, IW., Merati, G.W., Widiyantoro, S., Natawidjaja, D.H., Triyoso, W., Meilano, I., Kertapati, E., Sumiartha,
P., Hendarto, Final Report on Integrated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Investigation of Indonesia (Sumatra, Java,
and Nusa Tenggara)- in Indonesian, prepared for Ministry of Research and Technology, Center for Disaster
Mitigation-Institut Teknologi Bandung, 2009, Indonesia.
[13] Sengara, IW., “Development of Earthquake Scenario for Three Different Sites within City of Jakarta”, Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering Satellite Conference XVIIth International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical
Engineering, Alexandria, 2009, Egypt.
[14] Natawidjaja, Danny H, 2014, Personal discussion.
[15] Youngs, R. R., Chiou, S. J., Silva, W. J., Humphrey, J. R., “Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relationship for
Subduction Zone Earthquake”, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America Vol. 68, No. 1, 1997.
[16] Zhao, John X., Jian Zhang, Akihiro Asano, Yuki Ohno, Taishi Oouchi, Toshimasa Takahashi, Hiroshi Ogawa,
Koijiro Irikura, Hong K. Thio, Paul G. Sommerville, Yasuhiro Fukushima, and Yoshimitsu Fukushima,
“Attenuation Relations of Strong ground Motion in Japan Using Site Classification Based on Predominant Period”,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96: 3, 898-913, 2006.
[17] Atkinson, G.M., & Boore, D.M., “Empirical Ground-Motion Relations for Subduction-Zone Earthquakes and Their
Application to Cascadia and Other Regions”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93(4), pp. 1703-
1729, 2003.
[18] Boore, D.M., and Atkinson, G.M., “Ground-motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of
PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s”, Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), pp. 99-
138, 2008.
[19]Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., “Ground motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA,
PGV, PGD and 5% damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10.0 s”, Earthquake
Spectra, 24 (1), pp. 139-171, 2008.
[20] Chiou, S. J. and Youngs, R. R., “A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion
and Response Spectra”, Earthquake Spectra, 24 (1), pp. 139-171, 2008.
[21] Risk Engineering, EZ-FRISK (Software for in-depth Seismic Hazard Analysis), User’s Manual, Colorado, Risk
Engineering Inc., 2011.
[22] Whittaker, A, “Maximum Direction Shaking: Amplitude and Orientation”, COSMOS Annual Meeting Technical
Session, November 6, 2009, Millbrae, CA.
[23] FEMA, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures Volume I: Part 1
Provisions, Part 2 Commentary FEMA P-1050-1/2015 Edition, 2015.
[24] Huang, Y. N., A. Whittaker, and N. Luco, “NGA Relationships, USGS Seismic Hazard Maps, Near-Fault Ground
Motions and Site Effects”, BSSC Project 07 Final Draft Report. BSSC, 2007, Washington, D.C.
[25] Luco, N., Ellingwood, B.R., Hamburger, R.O., Hooper, J.D., Kimball, J.K., & Kircher, C.A., “Risk-Targeted versus
Current Seismic Design Maps for the Conterminous United States”, Structural Engineers Association of California
2007 Convention Proceedings, pp. 163-175, 2007.
[26] Luco, N., “Development of Risk-Targeted Earthquake Ground motions for Use in ASCE 7”, National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Advisory Committee (ACEHR) Meeting, 2011.
[27] Sengara IW., Irsyam, M., Sidi, I.D., Mulia, A., Asrurifak, M., Hutabarat, D., “Development of Earthquake Risk-
Targeted Ground-motions for Indonesian Earthquake Resistance Building Code SNI-1726-2012”, 12th International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP12), July 12-15, 2015,
Vancouver, Canada,
[28] Sidi, I.D., “Hazard Analysis and Probability Based Factor of Safety”, Research Report, Structural Engineering
Division, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2011, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
[29] Kicher, C., “Basis for the New-Risk-targeted Ground Motion Maps”, COSMOS Annual Meeting Technical Session,
November 6, 2009, Millbrae, CA.
[30] Al Atik, L. and Abrahamson, N., “An Improved Method for Non-stationary”, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute. Volume 26, No. 3, pages 601–617, 2010.
[31] Bardet J.P., Tobita T., “NERA, A Computer Program for Nonlinear Earthquake Site Response Analyses of layered
Soil Deposits”, 2001, University of Southern California.
[32] Sengara, IW., Yulman, M.A., and Mulia, A., “Seismic Time-History Ground-Motions for A Specific Site in
Jakarta”, Journal Teknologi Malaysia, 2016, Malaysia.