Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64

2nd International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction

Materials 2014 (SCESCM 2014)

Engineering characteristics of the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake

ground motions and its implication on the inelastic response of RC
structure
Widodo Pawirodikromoa*
a
Department of Civil Engineering and Disaster Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Planning
Islamic University of Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Abstract

Elnashai et al. [1] published the best estimated ground motion records of the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake; however, the digitized
data was not available. By using manual processes, the approximate digitized data could finally be made. By using spectral
matching, the approximate ground motion digitized data was modified to match up to the original response spectrum published
by Elnashai et al. [1]. Multi-storey reinforced concrete (RC) structure was used as a building model and Ruaumoko Computer
Package Programs [13] was used in this investigation. Since earthquake records in Indonesia are very rare, engineering
characteristics of the 2006 Yogyakarta and its implications to the inelastic structural response needs to be explored as compared
to the 1940 El Centro earthquakes. Results of the investigation show that the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake caused higher results
in almost all of the ground motion parameters as compared to the 1940 El Centro NSC earthquake. Moreover, the inelastic
structural responses subjected to the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake were also much higher than those caused by the 1940 El Centro
NSC earthquake.
©2014
© 2014TheThe Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering
Structures and Construction Materials 2014.
Structures and Construction Materials 2014

Keywords: the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake ground motions; engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motion;
ground motion parameters; inelastic structural response

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address:widodo355@gmail.com

1877-7058 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering
Structures and Construction Materials 2014
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.165
 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64 55

1. Introduction

Since the beginning of the 21th century, there had been many devastating earthquakes in Indonesia such as the
M9.3 26th December 2004 Aceh earthquake, the M8.5 28th March 2005 Mentawai earthquake, and the M6.1 27th
May 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake. Several parties said that there were no earthquake records except for the over
scale seismograms found at YOGI station Yogyakarta. After a lot of effort, the best estimated ground motion
records of the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake were finally published by Elnashai et al. [1]. For the purpose of
structural analysis, the digitized earthquake record is strongly required; however, the digitized data was not available
in Indonesia.
By using manual processes, the approximate digitized data could be made. However, the corresponding spectrum
response did not match with the spectrum published by Elnashai et al. [1]. By using spectral matching principles, the
approximate ground motion digitized data was modified to match up to the original response spectrum published by
Elnashai et al. [1]. It means that after two spectra match, the new digitized data of the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake
ground motion could be obtained.
The engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motion have been discussed by researchers since Werner
[2], Sucuoglu, and Nurtug [3] assessed the sensitivity of seismic energy dissipation to ground motion and its
characteristics. Midorikawa et al. [4] examined the strong motion characteristics of the 2011 Great Tohuku (M9.0),
the 2001 Peru (M8.4), and the 2010 Chile (M8.8) earthquakes in terms of attenuation, duration and spectral shape.
Engineering characteristics of ground motions can be grouped in peak values, intensity groups, earthquake
durations, and frequency contents. Discussion of the ground motion characteristic is intended to describe what kinds
of earthquake records contain high destructive potentials to the building structures.
Since ground motion records in Indonesia are very rare, investigation of the engineering characteristics of the
2006 Yogyakarta earthquake record as well as its implications on the inelastic responses of building structures are
essential and interesting to discuss.

2. Characteristics of the earthquake ground motions

Lee [5] described that three orthogonal direction records of earthquake waves are very complicated in 3-D. The
seismic energy during earthquakes with magnitude M, accordingly, attenuates in 3-dimensional directions. The
characteristics of the earthquake ground motions are utilized in attempting to describe those complex earthquake
occurrences into parameters that can be determined quantitatively.
In 2-D, the seismic energy from the source travels through rock and soil (with particular types of geological
media) and reaches the base rock beneath the site under consideration. It is common to assume that from base rock,
the seismic energy (which is represented by shear wave) propagates vertically to the ground surface. There are 4-
aspects that influence the characteristics of earthquake ground motions: earthquake mechanism and magnitude,
source to site transmission path, soil-site effects, and topographical effects. It has been discussed elsewhere that
reverse fault earthquake mechanism generally generates higher ground motions than strike-slip; the mega-thrust
earthquake causes a higher earthquake magnitude than shallow crustal earthquakes. Meanwhile the source to site
transmission path affects the reflection and refraction of the waves, the energy absorption by material damping, the
lengthening of the earthquake duration, and modifies the shape of the response spectrum. Soil-site and topography
may cause ground motion amplification and modification of the earthquake frequency contents.

3. Ground motion (GM) parameters

The engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions are still in qualitative expression. The technical
expressions of the characteristics have been proposed by researchers in terms of ground motion parameters.
According to several researchers, those parameters in general can be expressed in several categorizations [5-8];
these are presented in the Table 1. Meanwhile, the ground motion parameters used in this study are presented in the
following descriptions.
56 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64

Table 1.Category and ground motion parameters.

Category Parameters
1. Peak values Peak acceleration, velocity, displacement, response spectrum
2. Earthquake durations Total duration, effective durations (Brackets, Trifunac & Brady, Arias etc)
3. Frequency Contents Predominant spectral period, number of zero crossing, A/V ratio etc.
4. Intensity values Arias, Housner, earth. power PE, root-mean square (RMS) ,CAV
5. Combinations Destructiveness potential PD, mean input energy IEM , damage capacity ID.

According to Trifunac and Brady [9] the effective earthquake duration te, is presented in,

t 0.95
te ³
t 0.05
yb 2 (t ) dt (1)

where ÿb(t) is the ground acceleration.

Kramer’s [10] proposed cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) is defined as an area under absolute ground
accelerations or,
td

CAV ³ y (t ) dt
0
b (2)

The Areas Intensity (IA) total energy per unit mass and can be obtained by,
td
S
2.g ³
2
IA y b (t ) dt (3)
0

Where g is acceleration due to gravity.

Another intensity value was proposed by Housner or Housner’s Intensity IH which can be determined by,

2.5
IH ³0.1
PSV dt (4)

Where PSV is pseudo spectral velocity of the earthquake ground acceleration.

At the side of Housner’s intensity IH , Housner also proposed earthquake power, PE which is written as,
t 0.95
1
PE
te ³
t 0.05
yb 2 (t ) dt (5)

Meantime Saragoni et al. [11] presented the destructiveness potential PD of the earthquake ground motion as
written in the following formula,
t0

³ y
2
b (t ).dt
S 0
PD (6)
2.g Q 02

Where vo is the ground acceleration per second.

 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64 57

4. Input and mean input energy

Input energy can also be used as a parameter. According to the principle of structural dynamics, the input energy
IE can be presented as [6],

td td

IE ³
o
m.yb d y ³ m.y . y.dt
o
b (7)

Where ẏ, y and t are velocity, displacement and time respectively.

Meanwhile taking the mean earthquake input energy IEM can be computed by,

IE
I EM (8)
t 0.95  t 0.05

5. Inelastic structure analysis

Under a particular level of earthquake excitation, structure elements may undergo beyond its elastic response.
Those structural responses can be carried out by applying inelastic structural analysis. When the structural element
response is already beyond the elastic range, it means that the elements of the structure have already reached
damage conditions. Damage itself is a qualitative expression; therefore, a quantitative representation is urgently
required. Damage index, DI is a common term to illustrate the level of structural damage quantitatively. There are
numbers of damage indices that have been proposed by researchers. Those damage indices were determined
according to displacement, curvature, stiffness, energy or combination based. The damage could also be calculated
based on deterministic, probabilistic, accumulative or non-accumulative values. The combination based damage
index according to Park and Ang [12] is used in this study and is expressed as:

DI
dm
E
dE ³ (9)
du Fy .d u

Where dm and du are maximum and ultimate displacement, β is the cyclic parameter, Fy is yield force and E is
dissipated hysteretic energy.

6. Method of investigation

The structural model used in this study is of ordinary reinforced concrete (RC) building frames with frame
sections as presented in Fig.1. A normal concrete compressive strength of f’c = 30 MPa and steel bar yield stress fy =
400 MPa were used. The structural model has a 10-stories symmetric frame, such as shown in the figure. The
building was assumed to be located in the region of Yogyakarta on medium soil strength. The RC frame was
designed based on both Indonesian loadings and design Codes.
The building structure was excited by two ground motion time histories, i.e the 2006 Yogyakarta matching
ground motions EWC and the 1940 El Centro NSC ground motions. At the beginning, the analysis was emphasized
more on calculating the ground motion parameters such as discussed before. In the inelastic structural analysis, the
structural model was then excited by two earthquake ground motions. The Ruaumoko [13] computer package
program was used in the inelastic structural analysis.
58 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
41 4m

8m 8m 8m

Fig. 1. Structural Model.

7. Results and discussions

7.1. Ground motions and spectral matching

Such as stated before, there were no official acceleration records of the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake. However,
Elnashai et al. [1] published the best estimated ground motion record after much effort based on the available
seismograms. Since the digitized data was not available then by manual processes, the approximate record could
then be made. Even though at first glance, the two ground motion time histories seem identical, the two response
spectrums slightly differ from each other such as presented in Fig.2(a).
After the matching process, the spectral matching between the two spectrums is presented in Fig.2 (b) and its
corresponding ground acceleration time history (GATH) is shown in Fig.3(a). It can be seen that the two spectrums
match now and the matching ground motion time history (Fig.3(a)) will be used in the inelastic structural analysis.
The 3-response spectrums including the 1940 El Centro NSC are presented in Fig.3(b).

1.4 1.4
1.2 SR Elnashai 1.2 SR Elnashai
Spectr. Acc.,SA (g)

SR Appr.Dit. SR Matching
1 1
SA (g)

0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 a) 0.2 b)
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period T (s) Tim e (s)

Fig. 2. (a) Comparison of two response spectrum ; (b) Matching spectrums

 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64 59

0.3 1.4
Matching TH 1.2 SR Elnashai
0.2 SR Matching
Ground Acc. (g)

1
0.1 SR ELEQ NSC

SA (g)
0.8
0 0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.1 0.4

-0.2 0.2 b)
a)
0
-0.3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period T (s)

Fig. 3. (a) Matching ground acc. time history, GATH; (b). Comparison of Elnashai [1], Matching and ELEQ spectrums

7.2. GM characteristics and energy response

A number of ground motion parameters are used in this study, starting from the peak ground acceleration ÿb,m,
effective earthquake durations te, cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), Arias intensity IA, Housners’s intensity IH,
earthquake power PE, destructiveness potential PD, input energy IE, and mean input earthquake energy IEM.

Table 2. Comparison of the ground motion parameters.

Earthquake te (s) ÿb,m Ia Ih PE PD IE IEM CAV
(g) (cm/s) (cm) (cm/s2)2 (cm/s) (kg.cm) (kg.cm/s) (cm/s)
Brckt Trf&Bd
2006YKEQEWC 44.66 25.92 0.302 193.86 154.17 3466.57 4.91 110.44 4.26 1.561
1940ELEWNSC 25.38 20.78 0.313 170.14 129.75 5110.82 4.03 49.405 1.94 1.336

The computed ground motion parameters of the two earthquakes are presented in Table 2. Graphic
representations of those ground motion parameters are presented in Fig.4, Fig.5 and Fig.6 respectively. The total
duration td of the 2006 YKEQ ground motion is 50.0 s, and only 40.0 s for the 1940 ELEQ. However, the
comparison of ground motion parameters was only based on 40.0 s time history. Based on the results presented by
those figures, almost all of the ground motion parameters of the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake are
bigger/higher/longer than those for the 1940 El Centro NSC.

250 200
193.86 207.64 175 2006YKEQEWC 154.17
Housner Intensity Ih

200
Arias Intensity, Ia

150
1940ELEQNSC
125
150 170.14 129.75
100
100 75
2006YKEQEWC
50 1940ELEQNSC 50
25
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Tim e (s) Period T(s)

Fig. 4. (a) Arias Intensity I A comparison; (b). Housner’s Intensity IH comparison

60 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64

Reviews and results presented by Hancock [7], indicated that the effective earthquake duration t e did not affect
drift ratio and member rotations significantly, but affected dissipated hysteretic energy significantly. Relative to the
1940 El Centro earthquake (ELEQ), the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake (YKEQ) possesses a longer and more effective
earthquake duration te (Fig.5(a)), higher acceleration spectrum area SA (Fig.5(b)), and caused much higher
dissipated hysteretic energy HE as presented in Fig.6(a) and Fig.6(b). This result confirms Hancock [7] conclusions
as stated before.

140000 1.2
2006YKEQ 1.088
120000 1
1940ELEQ 1.003
100000
³ a2.dt (cm2/s3)

37.39 s 0.8

SA Area
80000
25.92 s 0.6 2006YKEQEWC
60000
1940ELEQNSC
0.4
40000 20.78 s
0.2
20000 a) b)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Tim e (s) Period T (s)

Fig.5.(a) Duration effective, t e comparison; (b). Spectral Acceleration Area

140 140
Viscous En. IE=130.16 Viscous En.
120 Hyst.Energy 120 Hyst.Enrgy
IE=110.44
Kinetic Enrgy Kinetic Enrgy
100 100
Input Enrgy HE=50.61 Input Enrgy
Energy (Tm)
Energy (Tm)

1 80
80
HE=43.43 IE=49.405
1 HE=7.309
60 VE=76.34 60
VE=63.90 9
40 9 40
VE=40.76
20 20 5
a) b)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Tim e (sec) Tim e (sec)

Fig.6. (a) Dissipated energy responses under the 2006 YKEQ; (b) Dissipated energy responses under the1940 ELEQ

7.3. Response along the building height

Responses along the building height are presented in term of horizontal story displacement (Fig.7(a)), drift ratio
(Fig.7(b)), the beam’s curvature (Fig.7(c)), the beam’s curvature ductility (Fig.8(a)), the beam’s plastic hinge
rotation (Fig.8(b)), and the beam’s damage index (Fig.8(c)), Fig.7(a)) shows that the storey’s horizontal
displacements subjected to the 2006 YKEQ are 41.35 % greater than those subjected to the 1940 ELEQ. It clearly
appears in Fig.7(b), Fig.7(c), and Fig.8 that structural response, according to the 2006 YKEQ, is greater in the lower
storeys as compared to the 1940 ELEQ. These results are mainly caused by lower frequency effects such as
discussed by Widodo [14] and Faizah [15]. Fig.8(b) shows that the beam’s damage index is DI < 0.40, which means
 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64 61

that under the 2006 YKEQ, the damage to the beam’s structure is still relatively low. In addition, it also shows that
even the beams of several storeys will still remain elastic or with DI = 0.

10 10 10 Min YKEQ
0.1251 0.2065 Max YKEQ
9 9 9
Min ELEQ
8 8 8 Max ELEQ

7 7 7
6 6 6

Story
Story

Story
5 5 5
Min DR YKEQ
4 4 4
Max DR YKEQ
3 3 Min DR ELEQ 3
2006YKEQEWC Max DR ELEQ
2 2 2
1940ELEQNEC
1 1 1
a) b) c)
0 0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Hor.Displ.(m ) Drift Ratio Beam 's Curvature

Fig. 7. (a). Story horizontal displacement, (b) drift ratio and (c) beam’s curvature

10 10 10
YKEQ YKEQ YKEQ
9 9 9
ELEQ ELEQ ELEQ
8 8 8
7 7 7
6 6 6
Story
Story

Story

5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 a) 1 b) 1 c)
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Curv.Ductility Beam 's Dam age Index Plast.Hinge Rot.

Fig. 8. (a). Curvature ductility; (b) beam’s damage index and (c) plastic hinge rotation

7.4. Time history response

Fig. 9(a) shows that the maximum base shear, according to the 2006 YKEQ, is 17.16 % greater than that caused
by the 1940 ELEQ. In addition, Fig.9 (b) also shows that the 2006 YKEQ caused 77.17 % greater maximum base
shear as compared to the 1940 ELEQ. Meanwhile, the percentage of the beam’s stiffness time history of element 41
(see Fig.1) caused by two considered earthquakes are presented in Fig.10. Those figures illustrate that the 2006
YKEQ caused the beam’s average stiffness to be 59.82 % and the average of 84.67 % caused by the 1940 ELEQ. It
means that the 2006 earthquake caused a higher stiffness degradation and a higher damage index compared to those
subjected to the 1940 ELEQ.
62 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64

300 0.8
243.15 2006YKEQ
207.71 2006YKEQ 0.6 0,399

3rd floor Drift Rat. (%)

200 1940ELEQ
1940ELEQ 0.4 2
Base Shear (T)

100 0.2

0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 -0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-100
-0.4
-200
b) -0.6 0,707 a)
-300 -0.8 3

Fig. 9. (a). Base shear time history; (b) time history of 3rd floor drift ratio

120 120
YKEQ, Elm.41i 84.67 ELEQ, Elm.41i
100 100
% Stiffness

% Stiffness
80 80
59.82
60 60
40 40

20 20
a) b)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40
Tim e (sec) Tim e (sec)

Fig. 10. Percentage of stiffness element 41 ; (a) according to YKEQ; (b) according to ELEQ

7.5. Relationships of response

The relationship response of the beam is presented in Fig.11. The figures indicate that even though the
relationship looks scattered, the higher the story drift-ratio, the higher the beam’s curvature and the beam’s damage
index will likely be. A strong relationship between the beam’s curvature and the beam’s damage index is presented
in Fig.11(c). The figures also indicate that the 2006 YKEQ caused a higher beam response than those caused by the
1940 ELEQ.

0.014 0.25 0.25

YKEQ YKEQ YKEQ
0.012 ELEQ ELEQ ELEQ
0.2 0.2
Beam's Dmg Index

0.01
Beam's Dmg Index
Beam's Curvature

0.15 0.15
0.008

0.006 0.1 0.1

0.004
0.05 0.05
0.002
a) b) c)
0 0 0
0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Drift Ratio Drift Ratio Beam s's Curvature

Fig. 11. (a) drift vs beam’s curvature; (b) drift vs beam’s damage index; (c) curvature vs damage index
 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64 63

7.6. Hysteretic response

Hysteretic loops are a representation of the load and deformation relationship of the member beyond the elastic
response. A comparison of the hysteretic response of element no.41 (beam) can be identified by comparing
Fig.12(a) to Fig.13(a). It can be seen that the 2006 YKEQ produced greater dissipated hysteretic energy than the
1940 ELEQ. This result confirms with the results as presented before.

150 250 250

200 200
100 150
150
100 100
50
50 50
0 0 0
-0.015 -0.005 0.005 0.015 -0.006 -0.003 -50
0.000 0.003 0.006 -0.006 -0.003 -50
0.000 0.003 0.006
-50
-100 -100
Inner col.base
YKEQ.El.41i -150
Outer col.base
-100 -150
a) -200 b) -200 c)
-150 -250 -250

Fig. 12. (a) hysteretic loops of element 41; (b) outer column’s base hyst. loops; (c) hyst.of inner column’s base

150 250 250

200 200
100
150 150
100 100
50
50 50
0 0 0
-0.015 -0.005 0.005 0.015 -0.006 -0.003 -50
0.000 0.003 0.006 -0.006 -0.003 -50
0.000 0.003 0.006
-50
-100 -100
ELEQ, El.41i Outer col.base Inner col.base
-150 -150
-100
a) -200
b) -200 c)
-150 -250 -250

Fig. 13. (a) hysteretic loops of element 41; (b) outer column’s base hyst. loops; (c) hyst.of inner column’s base

Similar comparisons can also be identified by comparing Fig.12(b) and Fig.13(b). Those figures are hysteretic
loops of the column’s base subjected to the 2006 YKEQ and the 1940 ELEQ respectively. Again, the 2006 YKEQ
induced greater dissipated hysteretic energy than that caused by the 1940 ELEQ. It can be seen from Fig.12(c) and
Fig.13(c) that the column responses are still in elastic response.

8. Conclusions

Based on the aforementioned discussions, the following conclusions can be drawn:

x The 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake ground motion contents greater/higher/longer ground motion parameters
than the 1940 El Centro NSC.
x Greater ground motion parameters caused greater inelastic responses of the reinforced concrete building
under consideration.
64 Widodo Pawirodikromo / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 54 – 64

References

[1] A.S. Elnashai, S.J. Kim, G.J. Yun, D. Sidarta, The Yogyakarta Earthquake of May 27 th, 2006, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Newmark
Civil Engineering Lab, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 2006.
[2] S.D. Werner, Engineering characteristics of earthq. Ground Motions, Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Design , Vol.36 (1976),pp.367-395.
[3] H. Sucuoglu, A. Nurtug, Earthquake ground motion characteristics and seismic energy dissipation, Journal on Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol.2 (1995), pp.1195-1213.
[4] S. Midorikawa, H. Miura, T.Atsumi, Char. of strong ground motion from the 2011 gigantic Tohoku, Japan EQ, The Int. Symposium for
CSMID 25th Anniversary Technological Advances and Learned Lessons from last Great EQ and Tsunami in the World, 2012.
[5] J. Lee, Engineering characterization of earthquake ground motions, PhD Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, 2009.
[6] C.M. Uang, V.V. Bertero, Implication of recorded earthquake ground motions on seismic design of building structures, Report No.
UCB/EERC-88, University of Berkeley, 1988.
[7] J. Hancock, The influence of duration and the selection and scaling of accelerograms in engineering design and assessment, PhD Thesis Dep.
of Civil and Environmental Eng. Imperial College University of London, 2006.
[8] Widodo, Seismologi Teknik dan Rekayasa Kegempaan, Pustaka Pelajar Yogyakarta, 2012.
[9] M.D. Trifunac, A.G. Brady, A study on duration of strong earthquake ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 65 (1975), 581–626.
[10] S. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1996.
[11] G.R. Saragoni, M. Astroza, S. Ruiz, Study of the accelerogram destructiveness of nazca plate subduction earthquakes, The 14thWorld
Conference on Earthq. Engineering October 12-17, Beijing, China, 2008.
[12] Y.J. Park, A.H.S.Ang, Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 111 (4)( 1985),
722–739.
[13] Carr,Ruaumoko Program Library, UCNZ, 1988.
[14] Widodo, The inelastic seismic response of setback buildings including the soil-pile interaction, 1st European Conf. on Earthq. Engineering
and Seismology 3-8 September, Geneva, 2006.
[15] R. Faizah, Analisis distribusi vertikal gaya gempa dan implikasinya pada respons bangunan bertingkat, MS Tesis, Magister Teknik Sipil
Universi-tas Islam Indonesia, 2013. (in Bahasa)