p-ISSN 2980-4868 | e-ISSN 2980-4841
https://ajesh.ph/index.php/gp
Yogi Sepriawan1*, Pariatmono2
1,2Universitas Mercu Buana, West
Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia
Email: yogisepriawan626@gmail.com1*, pariatmono@mercubuana.ac.id2
ABSTRACT
Indonesia is in an
earthquake-prone zone; therefore, building structures must be designed to be
earthquake-resistant. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of base
isolation systems in enhancing the seismic performance of buildings.
Specifically, the study compares the structural performance of buildings
equipped with base isolation systems to those without, utilizing earthquake
analysis spectrum response methods. The case study focuses on a 22-story
apartment building, analyzed using ETABS V.18 software.
The results indicate a significant increase in the period of buildings with
base isolation systems. Although such structures exhibit notable lateral
displacement, the inter-story drift remains relatively small. Furthermore, the
base moment in buildings with base isolation systems is generally lower
compared to those without, suggesting that base isolation can effectively
reduce the seismic forces experienced by the structure.
Keywords: Basic Isolation, Earthquake, Response Spectrum, Period, Displacement, Moment, ETABS.
INTRODUCTION
High-rise
buildings are very much built today
because they are considered more effective and efficient
with existing land conditions
The rapid expansion of high-rise buildings
constructed with reinforced concrete is evident in various
types of infrastructure, including offices, hospitals, educational facilities, shopping centers, hotels, and apartments
The higher a building is, the higher
the risk of collapse. Therefore,
in building a tall building structure has more complex requirements
A reinforced concrete structure is a construction system that uses a combination
of concrete and reinforcing steel to form
a structure that is strong and
resistant to loads. Reinforced concrete structures have high strength
and good resistance to loads
Using
a base insulation system, such as the combined SRPMK (Special Reinforced Moment-Resisting Portal) and Sliding Wall system,
offers significant benefits in enhancing structural resilience against shear forces
RESEARCH METHODS
In this study, the method used begins
with a literature study and data collection related to the
topic to be studied. Furthermore,
loading planning is carried out
including live loads, dead loads,
and earthquake loads. The next stage is the
modelling of the SRPMK-Sliding Wall double structure
using two approaches, namely without and using
base insulators. The result of this
modelling is the output of
internal forces such as moment, latitude, and axial. Then
a repeat calculation is carried out
based on the output. The results of this analysis were then compared to see
the difference in the structural behavior of the
two models. Finally, conclusions and suggestions are given based on
the results of the analysis
carried out.
In this study, there
are several formulations of problems discussed,
namely procedures for planning building
structures using the SRPMK dual system with Sliding
Walls, earthquake load calculation procedures with the Spectrum Response
method, and the results of
comparison of structural planning using Base Insulators with without Base Insulators. The purpose and purpose of
writing this research is to
compare the design of the
special moment bearing frame double
system structure (SRPMK)-sliding wall with
the basic insulation system and design supporting
structural elements based on reference
books, regulations, and building structure
planning standards applicable in Indonesia. Other objectives include planning the loading
of building structures such as live loads, dead
loads, and earthquake loads, conducting structural modelling using ETABS V.18 software, and conducting
structural analysis from modelling to obtain dimensions
of structural components.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Model analysis is an analysis that
determines the dynamic behavior of a structure at the time
of an earthquake
in the form of natural frequency, damping factors and the
form of deformation
that occurs. Below is a model analysis for structures
that use basic insulation without using basic
insulation.
Figure 1. Ground Floor
Plan
Figure 2. 1st Floor Plan – Roof
Figure 3. First Model Form without
the use of
Basic Insulation
Figure 4. First Model Form using
Basic Insulation
The model shape of each
pedestal type can be seen
in Figures 2 and 3 with different displacement shapes from each other.
It can be
seen that structures that use basic insulation
experience considerable
lateral displacement compared
to structures without basic insulation,
but structures that use basic
insulation have a fairly small inter-floor deviation compared to structures without
basic insulation. The
natural period value of the basic
isolation type structure in the 1st mode period is 3.778 seconds, greater than the structure
without basic isolation with the 1st mode period of 1.605 seconds. The results of the
comparison of basic and no
basic isolation type model analysis for each mode are as follows:
Table 1. Comparison of
Structural Value using Base Isolation and Structure without
Base Isolation
|
Case |
Mode |
STRUCTURE
WITHOUT BASE ISOLATION |
STRUCTURE USING
BASE ISOLATION |
|
|
|
Modal |
1 |
1,605 |
3,778 |
||
|
Modal |
2 |
1,500 |
3,571 |
||
|
Modal |
3 |
1,420 |
3,373 |
||
|
Modal |
4 |
0,513 |
3,312 |
||
|
Modal |
5 |
0,463 |
2,931 |
||
|
Modal |
6 |
0,417 |
2,774 |
||
|
Modal |
7 |
0,275 |
2,497 |
||
|
Modal |
8 |
0,239 |
2,425 |
||
|
Modal |
9 |
0,207 |
1,398 |
||
|
Modal |
10 |
0,180 |
1,281 |
||
|
Modal |
11 |
0,153 |
1,242 |
||
|
Modal |
12 |
0,130 |
0,913 |
||
|
Modal |
13 |
0,129 |
0,784 |
||
|
Modal |
14 |
0,108 |
0,453 |
||
|
Modal |
15 |
0,100 |
0,235 |
||
|
Modal |
16 |
0,092 |
0,131 |
||
|
Modal |
17 |
0,084 |
0,110 |
||
|
Modal |
18 |
0,082 |
0,105 |
||
|
Modal |
19 |
0,072 |
0,095 |
||
|
Modal |
20 |
0,068 |
0,085 |
||
|
Modal |
21 |
0,067 |
0,084 |
||
|
Modal |
22 |
0,059 |
0,073 |
||
|
Modal |
23 |
0,057 |
0,069 |
||
|
Modal |
24 |
0,056 |
0,068 |
||
|
Modal |
25 |
0,050 |
0,059 |
||
|
Modal |
26 |
0,048 |
0,057 |
||
|
Modal |
27 |
0,047 |
0,057 |
||
|
Modal |
28 |
0,044 |
0,050 |
||
|
Modal |
29 |
0,041 |
0,048 |
||
|
Modal |
30 |
0,040 |
0,047 |
From the table above, it
can be concluded
that structures that use basic
isolation provide a greater period value than structures
without basic insulation.
Figure 5. Period Comparison
Chart
Table
2. Displacement & Interchange
Between Floors X-Direction Permits for Structures Without the Use of Insulation
|
Story |
Load/Case Combo |
Direction |
Displacement |
Drift |
Cd/Ie |
Drift x Cd/Ie |
Δ |
Cek |
|
mm |
Izin |
|||||||
|
ATAP |
SPECX |
X |
70 |
0.001121 |
5.5 |
0.006166 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY20 |
SPECX |
X |
67 |
0.001159 |
5.5 |
0.006375 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY19 |
SPECX |
X |
65 |
0.001198 |
5.5 |
0.006589 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY18 |
SPECX |
X |
62 |
0.001240 |
5.5 |
0.006820 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY17 |
SPECX |
X |
60 |
0.001307 |
5.5 |
0.007189 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY16 |
SPECX |
X |
61 |
0.001375 |
5.5 |
0.007563 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY15 |
SPECX |
X |
54 |
0.001435 |
5.5 |
0.007893 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY14 |
SPECX |
X |
50 |
0.001488 |
5.5 |
0.008184 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY13 |
SPECX |
X |
47 |
0.001516 |
5.5 |
0.008338 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY12 |
SPECX |
X |
43 |
0.001556 |
5.5 |
0.008558 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY11 |
SPECX |
X |
40 |
0.001592 |
5.5 |
0.008756 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY10 |
SPECX |
X |
36 |
0.001625 |
5.5 |
0.008938 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY9 |
SPECX |
X |
32 |
0.001652 |
5.5 |
0.009086 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY8 |
SPECX |
X |
28 |
0.001668 |
5.5 |
0.009174 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY7 |
SPECX |
X |
25 |
0.001655 |
5.5 |
0.009103 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY6 |
SPECX |
X |
21 |
0.001638 |
5.5 |
0.009009 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY5 |
SPECX |
X |
17 |
0.001591 |
5.5 |
0.008751 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY4 |
SPECX |
X |
13 |
0.001502 |
5.5 |
0.008261 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY3 |
SPECX |
X |
10 |
0.001395 |
5.5 |
0.007673 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY2 |
SPECX |
X |
6 |
0.001170 |
5.5 |
0.006435 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY1 |
SPECX |
X |
2 |
0.000530 |
5.5 |
0.002915 |
0.02 |
OK |
Table
3. Displacement & Interchange
Between Floors Y-Direction Permit for Structures Without the Use of Insulation
|
Story |
Load/Case Combo |
Direction |
Displacement |
Drift |
Cd/Ie |
Drift x Cd/Ie |
Δ |
Cek |
|
mm |
|
Izin |
||||||
|
ATAP |
SPECY |
Y |
72 |
0.001353 |
5.5 |
0.007442 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY20 |
SPECY |
Y |
70 |
0.001422 |
5.5 |
0.007821 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY19 |
SPECY |
Y |
67 |
0.001500 |
5.5 |
0.008250 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY18 |
SPECY |
Y |
65 |
0.001582 |
5.5 |
0.008701 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY17 |
SPECY |
Y |
62 |
0.001659 |
5.5 |
0.009125 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY16 |
SPECY |
Y |
59 |
0.001729 |
5.5 |
0.009510 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY15 |
SPECY |
Y |
55 |
0.001789 |
5.5 |
0.009840 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY14 |
SPECY |
Y |
52 |
0.001843 |
5.5 |
0.010137 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY13 |
SPECY |
Y |
49 |
0.001867 |
5.5 |
0.010269 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY12 |
SPECY |
Y |
45 |
0.001906 |
5.5 |
0.010483 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY11 |
SPECY |
Y |
41 |
0.001940 |
5.5 |
0.010670 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY10 |
SPECY |
Y |
38 |
0.001969 |
5.5 |
0.010830 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY9 |
SPECY |
Y |
34 |
0.001985 |
5.5 |
0.010918 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY8 |
SPECY |
Y |
30 |
0.001984 |
5.5 |
0.010912 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY7 |
SPECY |
Y |
26 |
0.001938 |
5.5 |
0.010659 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY6 |
SPECY |
Y |
22 |
0.001876 |
5.5 |
0.010318 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY5 |
SPECY |
Y |
18 |
0.001751 |
5.5 |
0.009631 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY4 |
SPECY |
Y |
14 |
0.001549 |
5.5 |
0.008520 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY3 |
SPECY |
Y |
10 |
0.001412 |
5.5 |
0.007766 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY2 |
SPECY |
Y |
7 |
0.001205 |
5.5 |
0.006628 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY1 |
SPECY |
Y |
2 |
0.000592 |
5.5 |
0.003256 |
0.02 |
OK |
Table 4. Displacement & Interchange
Between Floors X Direction Permit for Structures Using Insulation
|
Story |
Load/Case Combo |
Direction |
Displacement |
Drift |
Cd/Ie |
Drift x Cd/Ie |
Δ |
Cek |
|
mm |
Izin |
|||||||
|
ATAP |
SPECX |
X |
120 |
0.002121 |
5.5 |
0.011666 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY20 |
SPECX |
X |
117 |
0.002159 |
5.5 |
0.011875 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY19 |
SPECX |
X |
115 |
0.002198 |
5.5 |
0.012089 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY18 |
SPECX |
X |
112 |
0.002240 |
5.5 |
0.012320 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY17 |
SPECX |
X |
110 |
0.002307 |
5.5 |
0.012689 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY16 |
SPECX |
X |
111 |
0.002375 |
5.5 |
0.013063 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY15 |
SPECX |
X |
104 |
0.002435 |
5.5 |
0.013393 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY14 |
SPECX |
X |
100 |
0.002488 |
5.5 |
0.013684 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY13 |
SPECX |
X |
97 |
0.002516 |
5.5 |
0.013838 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY12 |
SPECX |
X |
93 |
0.002556 |
5.5 |
0.014058 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY11 |
SPECX |
X |
90 |
0.002592 |
5.5 |
0.014256 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY10 |
SPECX |
X |
86 |
0.002625 |
5.5 |
0.014438 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY9 |
SPECX |
X |
82 |
0.002652 |
5.5 |
0.014586 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY8 |
SPECX |
X |
78 |
0.002668 |
5.5 |
0.014674 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY7 |
SPECX |
X |
75 |
0.002655 |
5.5 |
0.014603 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY6 |
SPECX |
X |
61 |
0.002638 |
5.5 |
0.014509 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY5 |
SPECX |
X |
57 |
0.002591 |
5.5 |
0.014251 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY4 |
SPECX |
X |
43 |
0.002502 |
5.5 |
0.013761 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY3 |
SPECX |
X |
40 |
0.002395 |
5.5 |
0.013173 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY2 |
SPECX |
X |
26 |
0.002170 |
5.5 |
0.011935 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY1 |
SPECX |
X |
12 |
0.001530 |
5.5 |
0.008415 |
0.02 |
OK |
Table 5. Displacement & Interchange
Between Floors Y-Direction Permit for Structures Using Insulation
|
Story |
Load/Case Combo |
Direction |
Displacement |
Drift |
Cd/Ie |
Drift x Cd/Ie |
Δ |
Cek |
|
mm |
Izin |
|||||||
|
ATAP |
SPECY |
Y |
123 |
0.002353 |
5.5 |
0.012942 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY20 |
SPECY |
Y |
120 |
0.002422 |
5.5 |
0.013321 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY19 |
SPECY |
Y |
117 |
0.002450 |
5.5 |
0.013475 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY18 |
SPECY |
Y |
115 |
0.002582 |
5.5 |
0.014201 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY17 |
SPECY |
Y |
112 |
0.002659 |
5.5 |
0.014625 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY16 |
SPECY |
Y |
109 |
0.002729 |
5.5 |
0.015010 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY15 |
SPECY |
Y |
105 |
0.002789 |
5.5 |
0.015340 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY14 |
SPECY |
Y |
102 |
0.002843 |
5.5 |
0.015637 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY13 |
SPECY |
Y |
99 |
0.002867 |
5.5 |
0.015769 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY12 |
SPECY |
Y |
95 |
0.002906 |
5.5 |
0.015983 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY11 |
SPECY |
Y |
91 |
0.002940 |
5.5 |
0.016170 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY10 |
SPECY |
Y |
89 |
0.002969 |
5.5 |
0.016330 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY9 |
SPECY |
Y |
84 |
0.002985 |
5.5 |
0.016418 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY8 |
SPECY |
Y |
80 |
0.002984 |
5.5 |
0.016412 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY7 |
SPECY |
Y |
86 |
0.002938 |
5.5 |
0.016159 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY6 |
SPECY |
Y |
72 |
0.002876 |
5.5 |
0.015818 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY5 |
SPECY |
Y |
68 |
0.002751 |
5.5 |
0.015131 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY4 |
SPECY |
Y |
54 |
0.002549 |
5.5 |
0.014020 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY3 |
SPECY |
Y |
40 |
0.002412 |
5.5 |
0.013266 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY2 |
SPECY |
Y |
27 |
0.002205 |
5.5 |
0.012128 |
0.02 |
OK |
|
STORY1 |
SPECY |
Y |
17 |
0.001592 |
5.5 |
0.008756 |
0.02 |
OK |
Figure 6. Comparative Graph
of Displacement
of X direction and Y direction Buildings Using Basic Insulation and Buildings Without Using Basic Insulation
Figure 7. Comparative Graph
of Deviation of the X direction
and Y direction Buildings Using Basic Insulation and Buildings Without Using Basic Insulation
Table
6. Comparison of Beam Moment Values
in Structures Using Base Isolation and Structures
Without Base Isolation
|
FLOOR |
MOMENT WITHOUT BASE ISOLATION |
MOMENT USING BASE ISOLATION |
|
kN.m |
kN.m |
|
|
Roof |
343,584 |
171,792 |
|
20 |
355,367 |
177,683 |
|
19 |
361,467 |
180,733 |
|
18 |
365,578 |
182,789 |
|
17 |
373,267 |
186,633 |
|
16 |
378,588 |
189,294 |
|
15 |
384,258 |
192,129 |
|
14 |
389,786 |
194,893 |
|
13 |
390,089 |
195,044 |
|
12 |
409,998 |
204,999 |
|
11 |
420,637 |
210,318 |
|
10 |
421,327 |
210,663 |
|
9 |
427,778 |
213,889 |
|
8 |
429,478 |
214,739 |
|
7 |
430,969 |
215,484 |
|
6 |
447,090 |
223,545 |
|
5 |
453,123 |
226,561 |
|
4 |
455,238 |
227,619 |
|
3 |
467,758 |
233,879 |
|
2 |
468,168 |
234,084 |
|
1 |
469,975 |
234,987 |
Figure 8. Comparison Diagram of the Moment of Buildings Using Basic Insulation and Buildings Without
Using Basic Insulation
Table
7. Comparison Results of Special Moment
Resisting Frame with Shear Wall
(SRPMK) System Without Using
Base Isolation and System Using Base Isolation
|
NO. |
DATA |
BUILDING WITHOUT USING BASE ISOLATION |
BUILDING USING BASE ISOLATION |
|
1 |
Risk Category |
II |
|
|
2 |
Priority Factor (Ie) |
1 |
|
|
3 |
Mapped Acceleration Spectral: |
|
|
|
|
Ss |
0,7806 |
|
|
S1 |
0,3823 |
||
|
4 |
Site Class |
SE |
|
|
5 |
Site Class Coefficient: |
|
|
|
|
Fa |
1,8776 |
|
|
Fv |
1,9177 |
||
|
6 |
Acceleration Response Spectrum: |
|
|
|
|
SDS |
0,6200 |
|
|
SD1 |
0,4900 |
||
|
7 |
Seismic Design Category (KDS) |
D |
|
|
8 |
Lateral System |
SRPMK Dual System with Special
Reinforced Concrete Walls |
|
|
9 |
Koefesien Modifikasi Respons
® |
7 |
|
|
10 |
System Stronger Factor (W0) |
2,5 |
|
|
11 |
Deflection Magnification Factor (Cd) |
5,5 |
|
|
12 |
Period Structure |
|
|
|
|
Tx model |
1,6050 |
3,7780 |
|
Ty model |
1,5000 |
3,5710 |
|
|
|
Cu . Ta |
1,6251 |
|
|
13 |
Koefesien Respons Seismik |
|
|
|
|
Cs = SDS/(R/Ie) |
0,0886 |
|
|
Cs max = SD1/(Ta/(R/Ie)) |
2,1371 |
2,1106 |
|
|
Cs min = 0.044*SDS*Ie |
0,0273 |
||
|
Cs used |
0,0886 |
0,0886 |
|
|
14 |
Seismic Weight (W) |
389725,1433 kN |
|
|
15 |
Minimum Design Base Shear V=0.85*Cs*W |
29340,7358 |
|
|
16 |
Calculated Base Shift on Model: |
|
|
|
|
Vx = Cs . W
|
34518,5127 kN |
34518,5127 kN |
|
Vy = Cs . W
|
34518,5127 kN |
34518,5127 kN |
|
|
17 |
Column |
|
|
|
|
Pu
|
10312,5259 kN |
10312,5259 kN |
|
Mx
|
502,8902 kN.m |
215.890 kN.m |
|
|
My
|
684,8079 kN.m |
271.807 kN.m |
|
|
Vx
|
405,731 kN |
231.944 kN |
|
|
Vy
|
310,768 kN |
156.678 kN |
|
|
18 |
Beam |
|
|
|
|
M max (+)
|
439.975 kN.m |
220.677 kN.m |
|
M min (-)
|
469.975 kN.m |
234.987 kN.m |
|
|
V max (+)
|
299.759 kN |
200.578 kN |
|
|
V min (-)
|
329.867 kN |
220.564 kN |
|
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, several
key conclusions can be drawn.
First, planning building structures with a Dual System using Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) and special reinforced
concrete shear walls involves crucial steps to
ensure the structure can withstand
gravity and lateral loads while meeting
safety standards, including modeling with ETABS
V.18. Second, calculating earthquake loads using the Response
Spectrum method involves identifying earthquake parameters, dynamic analysis, and distributing earthquake forces. Third, comparing structures with and without base
isolation shows that base isolation,
such as Lead Rubber Bearings, significantly increases the natural vibrating period by 2-3 times,
reduces inter-floor drift by 8.57%, and makes the
structure more rigid during an
earthquake, thereby reducing the need
for reinforcement and preventing excessive damage. These conclusions emphasize the importance
of careful planning and advanced
methods in earthquake-resistant
building design.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agus, A., & Cahya, F. O.
(2022). Analisis Perbandingan Desain Struktur Gedung Beton Bertulang Sistem
Rangka Pemikul Momen Khusus (Srpmk) Dan Sistem Ganda
(Dual System) Di Kota Padang. Ensiklopedia of Journal, 4(4),
14–20.
Amin, N. M., Ayub, N., & Alisibramulisi, A. (2019). Design of
base isolated reinforced concrete building subjected to seismic excitation
using EC 8. GEOMATE Journal,
17(63), 23–28.
Firmansyah, A., & Machmoed, S.
P. (2019). Perencanaan struktur gedung lfc beton
bertulang tahan gempa dengan menggunakan sistem ganda pada daerah gempa
tinggi. Axial: Jurnal Rekayasa Dan
Manajemen Konstruksi, 7(2), 83–92.
Handayani, N. K., Setiawan, B.,
& Nurchasanah, Y. (2022). Perencanaan Dinding Geser pada Gedung Kuliah 7
Lantai dengan Sistem Ganda. Prosiding
Seminar Nasional Teknik Sipil UMS, 9–15.
Hasibuan, S. A. R. S., & Ma’arif, F. (2022). OPTIMASI LETAK SHEAR WALL PADA
STRUKTUR GEDUNG. JMTS: Jurnal Mitra Teknik Sipil, 819–830.
Hassoun,
M. N., & Al-Manaseer, A. (2020). Structural concrete: theory and design.
John wiley & sons.
Honarto, R. J., Handono,
B. D., & Pandaleke, R. E. (2019). Perencanaan
Bangunan Beton Bertulang Dengan Sistem Rangka Pemikul Momen Khusus Di Kota
Manado. Jurnal Sipil Statik, 7(2).
Liando, F. J., Dapas,
S. O., & Wallah, S. E. (2020). Perencanaan struktur beton bertulang gedung
kuliah 5 lantai. Jurnal Sipil Statik, 8(4).
Maknun, J., & Rosdiyani, T. (2021). Analisis Beban Gempa Terhadap
Kinerja Struktur Bangunan Rumah Susun Polsek Balaraja Menggunakan Software Sap 2000. Journal
of Sustainable Civil Engineering (JOSCE), 3(02).
Martins, A. M. B., Simões, L. M. C., Negrão, J. H.
J. O., & Lopes, A. V. (2020). Sensitivity analysis and optimum design of reinforced concrete frames according to Eurocode
2. Engineering Optimization, 52(12),
2011–2032.
Nugroho, F. (2017). Pengaruh
Dinding Geser Terhadap Perencanaan Kolom Dan Balok Bangunan Gedung Beton
Bertulang. Jurnal Momentum ISSN 1693-752X, 19(1).
Pranata, A. H., Bagio, T. H., &
Tistogondo, J. (2021). Desain Struktur Gedung 24
Lantai Dengan Sistem Rangka Pemikul Momen Khusus (SRPMK) Dan Sistem Ganda
Menggunakan Perfomance Based
Design Berdasarkan SNI 2847: 2019. Jurnal Ilmiah MITSU (Media Informasi
Teknik Sipil Universitas Wiraraja), 9(2),
109–116.
Rahmawati, D., & Basri, H.
(2019). Sistem Kontrol Base Isolation Untuk
Perencanaan Gedung Tahan Gempa. Jurnal Rekayasa Teknologi Nusa Putra, 6(1),
19–27.
Sakti, T. R., Cornelis, R., &
Karels, D. W. (2022). Analisis Kinerja Kolom Pipih dan Kolom Konvensional pada
Bangunan Bertingkat Rendah. Jurnal Forum Teknik Sipil (J-ForTekS), 2(1), 56–67.
Santoso, A. N., & Astawa, M. D.
(2022). Evaluasi Kinerja Struktur Gedung 34 Lantai Di Surabaya Menurut SNI
1726: 2012 DAN SNI 1726: 2019.
Setiawan, Y., Ryanto, B., Geraldine, M., & Rina, R. (2021). Evaluasi gedung
arsip Politeknik Negeri Jakarta sesuai SNI 1726-2019 dan SNI 2847-2019. Construction and
Material Journal, 3(1), 51–56.
Solikin, M., & Balich, R. P. (2023). Perbandingan Evaluasi Kinerja
Bangunan Gedung Tahan Gempa yang Didesain dengan Metode SRPMM & SRPMK
berdasarkan SNI 1726: 2019 (Studi Kasus Gedung RSUD Rawat Inap Pandanarang Boyolali, Jawa Tengah). Prosiding
Simposium Nasional Rekayasa Aplikasi Perancangan Dan Industri, 8–20.
Subramani,
M. S., & Shanmuganandam, M. (2018). ‘Multistorey Residential Building with Base Isolation Method Using SAP. International Journal
of Engineering and
Technology.
Suryanita, R. (2020). Pengaruh
Penggunaan Base Isolation High
Damping Rubber Bearing
Pada Struktur Beton Bertulang. SIKLUS: Jurnal Teknik Sipil, 6(2),
181–194.
Wicaksana, A., & Rosyidah, A.
(2021). Pembandingan Perancangan Bangunan Tahan Gempa Menggunakan SNI 1726:
2012 Dan SNI 1726: 2019. Jurnal Ilmiah Rekayasa Sipil, 18(1),
88–99.
|
Copyright
holder: Yogi Sepriawan, Pariatmono (2024) |
|
First
publication right: Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and
Health (AJESH) |
|
This
article is licensed under: |