STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF DAMAGED BRI · PDF file• SNI 03-1729-2002: Standard of Design...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1170 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 10, October 2017, pp. 1170–1180, Article ID: IJCIET_08_10_120

Available online at http://http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=10

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF DAMAGED

BRI BRANCH OFFICE BUILDING AT JALAN

KHATIB SULAIMAN PADANG DUE TO

EARTHQUAKE

Zaidir

Civil Engineering Department

Faculty of Engineering, University of Andalas, Padang, Indonesia

Fauzan



Abdul Hakam



Febrin Anas Ismail



ABSTRACT

The earthquake 30 September 2009 in West Sumatera has caused damage to many

buildings in Padang City, Indonesia. One of building that also suffered severe damage

is BRI branch office which is located at Jalan Khatib Sulaiman Padang. This paper

discussed the structural evaluation of damaged BRI branch office building whether it

can be used again or not. Evaluation was done on non-structural and structural

elements of the building. The structural analysis was used ETABS program ver. 9.7.1

with properties of material is taken from the test results of existing structures. The

standard code is used is Earthquake Resilience Planning Standard for Building

Structure 2002 (SNI 03 - 1726 - 2002) and the Hazard map Indonesia earthquake in

2010 with location of Padang city. From the results of the evaluation it was found that

the building is not structurally feasible and recommended not to be use or to be

destroyed

Keywords: Earthquake 30 September 2009, structural evaluation, non-structural and

structural elements

Zaidir, Fauzan, Abdul Hakam and Febrin Anas Ismail


Cite this Article: Zaidir, Fauzan, Abdul Hakam and Febrin Anas Ismail, Structural

Evaluation of Damaged Bri Branch Office Building At Jalan Khatib Sulaiman Padang

Due to Earthquake, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(10),

2017, pp. 1170–1180

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=10

1. INTRODUCTION

The BRI branch office building located on Jalan Khatib Sulaiman Padang is one building that

suffered severe damage due to tectonic earthquake of 7.9 SR which occurred on September

30, 2009 in West Sumatera. The earthquake has resulted various damages both facilities and

physical infrastructure and casualties on various area in West Sumatera Province. Based on

data published by Satkorlak PB West Sumatra and BNPB were known the facilities and

infrastructure sector loss reached Rp. 963 billion. The education sector also suffered damage

due to the earthquake. A total of 1,384 school buildings were heavily damaged, 1,018 were

moderately damaged and 744 were slightly damaged with damage value of Rp.588,7 billion

(Fauzan, 2012).

The structural evaluation of the BRI branch office is intended to conduct the structural

evaluation of the building, is it still feasible to be used or not. The evaluation was conducted

on the existing building condition and the necessary data for structural analysis is taking

directly. The dimension of structural elements buildings such as columns, beams and plates

are obtained from as built drawings and a concrete quality using a hammer test. The structural

analysis using computer simulation of ETABS program ver. 9.7.1. A building code used the

Earthquake Resilience Planning Standard for Structures Building 2002 (SNI 03 - 1726 - 2002)

and The Hazard map of Indonesia earthquake in 2010 with the location of Padang city, West

Sumatera. The bearing capacity of the foundation was evaluated using the data of DCP (Ducth

Cone Penetrometer)

2. BUILDING GENERAL DATA

2.1. Building Data

The three floors of BRI branch office building is a rectangular RC frame with size of 19,20 m

x 24,00 m. Figure 1 and 2 show the lay-out of building and the beam column position of

second, third and roof floors. Table 1 shows a column and beam dimensions of building.

Figure 1 Building lay-out and column-

beam position at 2nd

and 3rd

floor

Figure 2 Building lay-out and column-

beam position at roof floor

Structural Evaluation of Damaged Bri Branch Office Building At Jalan Khatib Sulaiman Padang Due

to Earthquake


Tabel 1 Column and beam dimensions of building

Floor Column dimension

(in mm)

Beam dimension

(in mm)

1

400 x 400

250 x 400

350 x 650

350 x 450

300 x 300 250 x 400

350 x 650

2

400 x 400

250 x 450

350 x 650

350 x 450

300 x 300 250 x 450

350 x 650

3 400 x 400

250 x 450

250 x 500

300 x 600

300 x 300 300 x 600

2.2. Code and Standards

The code and standards for a loading and a structural evaluation which was used are below :

• SNI 03-1726-2002: Earthquake Resilience Planning Standard for Building Structure

• SNI 03-2847-2002: Standard of Design of Reinforced Concrete and Buildings

Structures

• SNI 03-1729-2002: Standard of Design Steel Structure for Building Structures

• SNI 03-1727-1989: Standard of Loading Design for Housing and Buildings.

• ACI 318-08-2008: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and

Commentary

• Hazard Map of the Indonesia Earthquake 2010 as the Basic of Planning and Design of

Earthquake Resistant Infrastructures.

2.3. Material Quality

The structural concrete quality data is obtained directly by a concrete hammer test. The

concrete quality which is obtained from the hammer test is quite good. For beams and plates,

the average concrete quality is fc’ = 22,5 MPa and a columns is fc' = 30 MPa. The steel

reinforcement quality is used are BJTP-24 (fy = 240 MPa) for plain bar and BJTD-39 (fy = 390

MPa) for deformed bar respectively.

3. DAMAGE EVALUATION OF EXISTING BUILDING

Based on a direct field observation, the damage of building can be categorized to non-

structural and structural elements. Damages of non-structural element are a damage that

occurs in the non-structural parts of buildings such as brick walls, ceilings, floor covering etc.

The structural damages are a cracked or broken of structural elements building, such as

columns, beams, plates and foundation.



3.1. Non-structural Damages

The most dominant non-structural damages were found at first floor of building. The damages

are found in the form of cracks and collapse of the brick walls, ceiling and ceramic removal

on the floor building.

Damages of the brick wall occur almost in all parts of the wall building on the first floor.

Damage occurs in the form of a large crack until the collapse of some parts of the wall. Some

typical damage of brick walls that occurs in building can be seen in Figure 3. At the 2nd and

3rd floors the non-structural damage that occurs on the walls is only a fine crack up to

medium crack at some parts of the wall.

Figure 3 Typical non-structural damage of brick wall at the first floor of building.

Damage of the ceiling occurs in several places. Damage occurs in the form of frame

ceiling damage that resulted ceiling detached. At some point of the floor, damage occurred in

the form of ceramic floor covering removal. The damage occurs due to the movement of

structural elements such as beams and columns at the time of the earthquake. Figure 4 shows

the damage of ceiling where the damage of floor covering is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4 Damage of ceiling Figure 5 Damage of floor covering

3.2. Structural Damage

Structural damage are the damages that occurs in columns, beams, plates and stairs related to

the strength of the building structure. Dominantly the structural damages occur on the first

floor of the building.

Damages of column structure are in the form of concrete failure and shear reinforcement

release on the top column. Some location and forms of the damage of columns are shown in

Figure 6. The main stair connecting the first to second floor was severely damaged as shown


to Earthquake


in Figure 7. This is due to the different structural behavior of stair with the behavior of overall

building structure

Figure 6 Column damage and released of

shear reinforcement Figure 7 Damage of stair structure

4. EVALUATION OF CAUSES OF BUILDING DAMAGES

Evaluation of the non-structural and structural damage occurs in the building it can be

concluded that the building suffered severe damage, especially on the 1st floor of the building.

From direct field observation it can be identified possible cause of damage to buildings as

follows:

a. The beam-column joint is not monolith. This condition could be seen at all the

damaged 1st floor columns. Visually it can seen that the concrete on the 1

st floor

column was damage in the area beam-column joint, but the concrete on the beam is

not damaged.

b. The hook of the shear reinforcement does not meet the standards. At damaged column

it appears that the shear reinforcement split apart. This occurs due to hooks of stirrups

do not meet standards

c. Strong column weak beam mechanism is not implemented

From the field observation and verification of as built drawing it is obtained data that the

size a column is smaller than the size of a beam. This is tends the concrete damage occurs in

the part of column only.

5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

5.1. Structural Modeling and Loading

Structural modeling is done in 3-dimensional form. Technical specifications structure for

structural analysis is as follows:

• Building location : Jl. Khatib Sulaiman Padang

• Earthquake Region : Padang city : Padang

• Soil type: Soft soil

Concrete quality



Column: K - 300 kg / cm2

Beam: K - 225 kg / cm2

Plates: K - 225 kg / cm2

• Reinforced Steel quality:

BJTP-24 (fy = 240 MPa) for plain bar

BJTD-39 (fy = 390 MPa) for deformed bar

Figure 8 shows the structure modeling in 3-dimensional form. Design of loading of dead

load (DL) and live load (LL) based on SNI 03-1727-1989 Standard of Loading Design for

Housing and Buildings. The design of earthquake load using the Hazard Map of the Indonesia

Earthquake 2010 as shown in Figure 9. Structural analysis using ETABS program version

9.7.1.

The combination of loading taken is as follows:

1. U = 1,4 DL

2. U = 1,2 DL + 1,6 LL

3. U = 1.2 DL + 1,0 LL + 1,0 DNX1 + 0,3 DNY1

4. U = 1,2 DL + 1,0 LL + 1,0 DNX1 – 0,3 DNY2

5. U = 1.2 DL + 1,0 LL – 1,0 DNX2 + 0.3 DNY1

6. U = 1,2 DL + 1,0 LL – 1,0 DNX2 – 0,3 DNY2

7. U = 1,2 DL + 1,0 LL + 0,3 DNX1 + 1,0 DNY1

8. U = 1.2 DL + 1,0 LL + 0,3 DNX1 – 1,0 DNY2

9. U = 1,2 DL + 1,0 LL – 0,3 DNX2 + 1,0 DNY1

10. U = 1,2 DL + 1,0 LL – 0,3 DNX2 – 1,0 DNY2

Where:

DL = dead load

LL = live load

DNX1 = earthquake load from right

DNX2 = earthquake load from left

DNY1 = earthquake load from front

DNY2 = earthquake load from behind

Figure 8 Building structural modeling Figure 9 Design of earthquake load for

Padang city


to Earthquake


5.2. Capacity Analysis of Column Section

Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the interaction diagram curves of axial force and bending

moment (P-M) and plotting axial forces and bending moments obtained from structural

analysis for column K1 at the first and second floors. From Figure 10 and 11 it can be seen

that for the axial force (P) the column capacity is greater than the axial load, but for bending

forces the column capacity is less than the bending load. This is evident from the presence of

a number of bending loads located outside the interaction diagram curves, either on the first or

second floor.

Figure 10 Column interaction diagram of K1 at

1st floor

Figure 11 Column interaction diagram of K1

at 2nd

floor

Tables 2 show the bending and shear capacity of all columns for every building floors.

From the table it can be seen that the bending capacity of the columns on the first and second

floors is insufficient, while for shear capacity is still sufficient.

Table 2 Bending and shear capacity of all columns

Column Dimension

(mm)

Bending

capacity

Shear capacity

installed Necessary remarks

1

K1 400x400 not Ok 165,66 kN 120,30 kN Ok

K2 400x400 not Ok 165,66 kN 121,74 kN Ok

K3 400x400 not Ok 165,66 kN 125,31 kN Ok

K4 400x400 not Ok 165, 66 kN 130,63 kN Ok

K5 400x400 not Ok 165.66 kN 107,01 kN Ok

K6 300x300 not Ok 165,66 kN 51,73 kN Ok

2

K1 400x400 not Ok 165,66 kN 83,23 kN Ok

K2 400x400 not Ok 165,66 kN 92,27 kN Ok

K3 400x400 not Ok 165,66 kN 93,06 kN Ok

K4 400x400 not Ok 165,66 kN 94,52 kN Ok

K5 400x400 not Ok 165,66 kN 73,50 kN Ok

K6 300x300 not Ok 102,88 kN 42,68 kN Ok

3

K1 400x400 Ok 165,66 kN 42,72 kN Ok

K3 400x400 Ok 165,66 kN 45,57 kN Ok

K4 400x400 Ok 165,66 kN 54,09 kN Ok



K5 400x400 Ok 165,66 kN 36,27 kN Ok

K6 300x300 Ok 102,88 kN 21,65 kN Ok

5.3. Capacity Analysis of Beam Section

The actual bending and shear capacity of beam are summarized in Table 3. It can be seen that

some of bending and shear capacity of beam section is insufficient.

Table 3 Bending and shear capacity of beam

No. Beam Reinforcement

position

Max.

capacity

Internal

forces Remarks

��Mn- /

��Vn Mu - / Vu

1 (250/450)

L = 4,800 mm

Ben

din

g Top support 168.30 kNm 162.58 kNm Ok

Bottom support 87.34 kNm 117.29 kNm Not Ok

Top centre 87.34 kNm 116.56 kNm Not Ok

Bottom centre 168.30 kNm 152.69 kNm Ok

Sh

ear

Support 169.49 kN 117.23 kN Ok

Centre 131.79 kN 99.15 kN Ok

2 (350/650)

L = 7,200 mm

Ben

din

g Top support 330.80 kNm 453.48 kNm Not Ok

Bottom support 201.74 kNm 274.91 kNm Not Ok

Top centre 330.80 kNm 268.22 kNm Ok

Bottom centre 201.74 kNm 128.39 kNm Ok

Sh

ear

Support 288.08 kN 274.67 kN Ok

Centre 231.53 kN 233.17 kN Not Ok

5.4. Bearing Capacity Analysis of Foundation

The bearing capacity of building foundation is determined by comparing the permit bearing

capacity of existing foundation to a total working load, with and without earthquake for every

building column. The bearing capacity of the foundation (Qa) is calculated by the Meyerh of

formula (1956) using DCP (Dutch Cone Penetrometer) test results as follows :

�� = 0,025. � . � ; � �� (1)

� = 14� . �. �� ; �� (2)

Where:

qc = value of DCP test (= 15,000 kPa.

Ap = area of foundation cross section

D = diameter of foundation (= 1,50 m)

Table 4 shows the axial load on each foundation point, with and without earthquake

compared to bearing capacity of foundation. From Table 4 it can be seen that the bearing

capacity of existing foundation is insufficient to support the design load.


to Earthquake


Table 4 Bearing capacity of foundation with and without earthquake load

Point

Axial load of column Total

without

earthquake

Total

with

earthquake

Allowable

bearing

capacity

Remarks

DL LL Eqx Eqy without

earthquake

with

earthquake (tonf) (tonf) (tonf) (tonf) (tonf) (tonf) (tonf)

1 66.49 8.37 2.54 23.96 74.87 98.82 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

2 64.30 8.55 1.10 24.96 72.86 97.81 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

3 82.67 14.75 3.18 16.63 97.41 114.05 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

4 71.61 10.07 24.95 17.37 81.67 106.62 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

5 53.73 17.88 2.69 6.43 71.62 84.37 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

6 57.50 15.53 2.36 6.64 73.02 85.74 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

9 63.27 19.33 2.90 1.54 82.59 95.38 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

10 59.56 16.83 2.99 1.77 76.39 89.24 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

11 51.33 8.07 4,53 21.35 59.40 80.75 66.27 Ok Not Ok

12 40.91 7.99 4,98 22.27 48.89 71.17 66.27 Ok Not Ok

13 83.65 12.32 25.38 17.15 95.97 121.34 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

14 96.55 14.67 3.91 15.59 111.22 126.80 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

15 69,28 6.70 2.52 37.90 75.98 113.88 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

16 58.31 6.73 1.67 39.04 65.04 104.07 66.27 Ok Not Ok

17 73.98 14.70 3.82 16.81 88.68 105.49 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

18 83.99 11.57 24.61 16.98 95.56 120.17 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

19 92.00 16.41 22.61 1.78 108.41 131.01 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

20 91.53 16.50 22.49 2.26 108.02 130.52 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

21 83.01 12.23 24.93 16.83 95.24 120.17 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

22 75.19 14.78 22.13 2.03 89.97 112.10 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

23 70.58 15.27 22.45 2.21 85.85 108.30 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

24 84.66 14.84 4.37 15.31 99.50 114.80 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

25 66.35 14.74 3.70 1.31 81.09 95.58 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

26 59.45 14.48 3.12 1.55 73.93 88.38 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

27 67.17 14.72 4.22 1.24 81.89 96.70 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

28 48.11 14.74 4.02 1.26 62.84 77.52 66.27 Ok Not Ok

29 37.88 6.50 6.93 2.49 44.37 51.31 66.27 Ok Ok

30 37.35 6.25 6.44 3.10 43.60 50.04 66.27 Ok Ok

Max

96.55 19.33 25.38 39.04 111.22 131.01 66.27 Not Ok Not Ok

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1. Conclusion

From the results of the structural evaluation of BRI branch office building at Jl. Khatib

Sulaiman Padang, it can be summarized as follows :

1. Non structural damage occurs at the walls, ceilings, and removal of floor tiles at

several locations.

2. Structural damage occurs on the first floor, namely with heavily damaged conditions

on column and stair structures.



3. In the implementation of the work of building structures found many implementation

errors which occurs in the field, for instance the beam column joint are not monoliths,

hooks reinforcement for shear do not meet a standard.

4. The concrete quality testing with hammer test is still quite good for concrete quality

standard that is above K-225 kg / cm2.

5. The bending capacity at the first and second floor columns insufficient compared to

design bending capacity.

6. The bearing capacity of the existing foundation is not capable to support the building

axial load.

7. Based on the above points, it is concluded that the building of BRI branch office at

Khatib Sulaiman no. 50 Padang cannot more used and should be destroyed.

6.2. Recommendation

Based on the conclusion, it is recommended that the damaged BRI branch office building at

Jalan Khatib Sulaiman no. 50 Padang cannot more used and proposed to be destroyed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thanks to the foundation of Dana Pensiun BRI Jakarta to perform

the structural evaluation of damaged BRI Branch Office at Jalan Khatib Sulaiman no. 50

Padang.

REFERENCES

[1] Boen,T.,& Rekan, Cara Memperbaiki Bangunan Sederhana yang Rusak akibat Gempa

Bumi Cetakan Kedua, 2010

[2] EERI Special Earthquake Report, Learning from Earthquakes, The Mw 7.6 Western

Sumatra Earthquake of September 30, 2009, December 2009.

[3] Fauzan, Zaidir and Laura M. P, Analisa kegagalan Struktur dan Perkuatan (Retrofitting)

Kolom Gedung B SMA N 10 Padang yang rusak akibat Gempa 30 September 2009,

Jurnal Teknika, ISSN: 0854-8471No. 34 vol 1, 2010.

[4] Fauzan , Febrin Anas Ismail, Zaidir , Abdul Hakam, Nugrafindo Yanto , Rahmat Ramli.,

Identifikasi Kerusakan dan Metode Perkuatan Struktur Kantor Gubernur Sumatera Barat”,

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknik Sipil 1 (SeNaTS 1) Tahun 2015, Sanur - Bali, 25

April 2015, ISBN 978-602-294-052-4,2015.

[5] Fauzan, Analisis Metode Pelaksanaan Retrofitting pada Bangunan Sederhana (Studi

Kasus: SD Negeri 43 Rawang Timur, Padang), Jurnal Rekayasa , Vol. 8 No. 1, ISSN:

1838-2133, 2012.

[6] Febrin Anas Ismail, Abdul Hakam and Fauzan, Kerusakan Bangunan Hotel Bumi Minang

Akibat Gempa 30 September 2009, Jurnal Teknik Sipil ITB, ISSN 0853-2982, Vol 10 no.

2 pp 119-125, 2011

[7] Febrin Anas I, et.al, Retrofitting of Bumiminang Hotel Building in Padang, The 6th Civil

Engineering Conference in Asia Region (CECAR6), 20-22 Agust 2013, Jakarta

[8] Paul Grundy, The Padang Earthquake 2009 – Lessons and Recovery Australian

Earthquake Engineering Society 2010 Conference, Perth, Western Australia, Department

of Civil Engineering, Monash University.

[9] Thermou, G. and Elnashai, A.S. (2002), Performance Parameters and Criteria for

Assessment and Rehabilitation, Seismic Performance Evaluation and Retrofit of

Structures (SPEAR), European Earthquake Engineering Research Network Report,

Imperial College, UK.


to Earthquake


[10] Zaidir, Maizul N and Laura M.P, Evaluasi kelayakan bangunan bertingkat pasca gempa 30

September 2009 Sumatera Barat, Jurnal Rekayasa Sipil, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp.61-73, 2012

[11] Zaidir, Fauzan, Dina Angreini, Evaluasi Kelayakan Struktur Bangunan Gedung Ex.

PO.ANS berdasarkan SNI Gempa 1726:2012, Prosiding 3rd

Andalas Civil Engineering

National Conference, pp.75-89, ISBN 978-602-9081-16-9,2016

[12] Zaidir , Fauzan, Abdul Hakam, Febrin A Ismail dan Teddy Boen, Retrofitting Gedung

Balaikota Padang dengan Menggunakan Kawat Anyam, Seminar Nasional Strategi

Pengembangan Infrastruktur , Kampus ITP, Padang 27-28 Agustus 2014, ISBN : 978-602-

70570-1-2

[13] G. Tirupathi Naidu, Dr. Balaji. K.V.G.D, M. Pavan Kumar and L. Manikanta, A Study on

Behaviour of Structural Elements of Berthing Structure with Raker Pile and Anchored

Wall, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 2017, pp. 1111–

1124.

[14] M. Balaji, K. Manikanda Prasath, S. Venkatesh and A.P. Arun, An Application of

Interpretive Structural Modeling To Assess Agility Index, International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology, 8(9), 2017, pp. 219–228.

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF DAMAGED BRI · PDF file• SNI 03-1729-2002: Standard of Design...

Documents

Transcript of STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF DAMAGED BRI · PDF file• SNI 03-1729-2002: Standard of Design...