JURUTERA

THE MONTHLY BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, MALAYSIA

JURUTEA
JANUARY 2016
KDN PP 1050/12/2012 (030192)

C ONT E NT S
ISSN 0126-9909

SPECIAL ISSUE
Front Cover : Mount Kinabalu, Sabah Public Safety In
Number 01, January 2016 IEM Registered on 1 May 1959 EARTHQUAKE
Event
MAJLIS BAGI SESI 2015/2016 (IEM COUNCIL SESSION 2015/2016)
YANG DIPERTUA / PRESIDENT
Y.Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Lim Chow Hock
TIMBALAN YANG DIPERTUA / DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Ir. Tan Yean Chin
NAIB YANG DIPERTUA / VICE PRESIDENTS COVER NOTE
Y.Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Dr Andy Seo Kian Haw, Ir. Lee Weng Onn, Ir. Gopal Narian Kuty, Ir. Prof. Dr
Ruslan bin Hassan, Ir. Lai Sze Ching, Ir. Lee Boon Chong, Ir. David Lai Kong Phooi
SETIAUSAHA KEHORMAT / HONORARY SECRETARY
Finalising Malaysian National Annex (NA) on
Eurocode 8 (EC8): Design of Structures for
5
Ir. Yam Teong Sian Earthquake Resistance
BENDAHARI KEHORMAT / HONORARY TREASURER
Ir. Prof. Dr Jefrey Chiang Choong Luin
BEKAS YANG DIPERTUA TERAKHIR / IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Ir. Choo Kok Beng
COVER STORY
Development of Malaysia’s National Annex to
6 - 10
BEKAS YANG DIPERTUA / PAST PRESIDENTS
Y.Bhg. Academician Tan Sri Dato’ Ir. (Dr) Hj. Ahmad Zaidee bin Laidin, Y.Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Dr Eurocode on Earthquake Resistance ..................6
Gue See Sew, Y.Bhg. Academician Dato’ Ir. Prof. Dr Chuah Hean Teik, Ir. Vincent Chen Kim
Kieong
WAKIL AWAM / CIVIL REPRESENTATIVE
Ir. Prof. Dr Mohd. Zamin bin Jumaat
WAKIL MEKANIKAL / MECHANICAL REPRESENTATIVE
FEATURE ARTICLES
Evolution of IEM Study Group ..............................12
12 - 44
Ir. Dr Kannan M. Munisamy
WAKIL ELEKTRIK / ELECTRICAL REPRESENTATIVE
Y.Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Ali Askar bin Sher Mohamad Elastic Response Spectrum Models for
WAKIL STRUKTUR / STRUCTURAL REPRESENTATIVE Rock Sites ............................................................16
Ir. Hooi Wing Chuen
WAKIL KIMIA / CHEMICAL REPRESENTATIVE Site Classiication and Elastic Response
Ir. Prof. Dr Thomas Choong Chean Yaw Spectrum Model for Soil Sites ..............................20
WAKIL LAIN-LAIN DISPLIN / REPRESENTATIVE TO OTHER DISCIPLINES
Ir. S. Kumar a/l Subramaniam Performance Criteria and Design Parameters ......30
WAKIL MULTIMEDIA DAN ICT / ICT AND MULTIMEDIA REPRESENTATIVE
Engr. Abdul Fatah bin Mohd. Yaim, M.I.E.M.
Static and Dynamic Analysis Methods ..................36
AHLI MAJLIS / COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ir. Dr Tan Chee Fai, Ir. Tiong Ngo Pu, Ir. Yau Chau Fong, Ir. Teh Piaw Ngi, Ir. Kim Kek
Seong, Ir. Chong Chin Meow, Ir. Chin Kuan Hwa, Ir. Assoc. Prof. Dr Vigna Kumaran Summary Update of Cost Implication on
Ramachandaramurthy, Ir. Lee Cheng Pay, Ir. Ong Ching Loon, Ir. Gary Lim Eng Hwa, Proposed Malaysian NA for EC8 on
Y.Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Noor Azmi bin Jaafar, Ir. Aminuddin bin Mohd Baki, Ir. Mohd Radzi bin
Salleh, Ir. Ong Sang Woh, Ir. Mohd Khir bin Muhammad, Ir. Assoc. Prof. Dr Norlida Bini
Ofice Buildings and Link Houses ...........................42
Buniyamin, Y. Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Hanapi bin Mohamad Noor, Ir. Dr Ahmad Anuar bin Othman,
Ir. Ishak bin Abdul Rahman, Ir. PE Chong, Ir. Ng Yong Kong, Ir. Tejinder Singh, Ir. Sreedaran
GLOBE TREKKING
a/l Raman, Ir. Roger Wong Chin Weng
AHLI MAJLIS JEMPUTAN / INVITED COUNCIL MEMBERS
Y. Bhg. Datuk Ir. Rosaline Ganendra, Y. Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Abdul Rashid bin Maidin,
Magical White Cliffs of Mons Klint 45
Y.Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Mohd Azmi bin Ismail
PINK PAGE
PENGERUSI CAWANGAN / BRANCH CHAIRMAN
1. Pulau Pinang: Ir. Dr Mui Kai Yin
2. Selatan: Ir. Assoc. Prof. Hayai bini Abdullah
Professional Interview 47
3. Perak: Ir. Lau Win Sang
BLUE PAGE
4. Kedah-Perlis: Ir. Hj. Abdullah bin Othman
5. Negeri Sembilan: Ir. Shahrin Amri bin Jahari
6. Kelantan: Ir. Mohamad Zaki bin Mat
7. Terengganu: Ir. Abdullah Zawawi bin Haji Mohd. Noor
Membership List 48
8. Melaka: Ir. Nur Fazil Noor Mohamed
9. Sarawak: Ir. Haidel Heli
10. Sabah: Ir. Yahiya bin Awang Kahar
11. Miri: Ir. Steven Chin Hui Seng
12. Pahang: Y. Bhg. Dato’ Ir. Hj. Abdul Jalil bin Hj. Mohamed

AHLI JAWATANKUASA INFORMASI DAN PENERBITAN /

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS 2015/2016
Pengerusi/Chairman: Ir. Prof. Dr Ruslan Hassan
Naib Pengerusi/Vice Chairman: Ir. Mohd. Khir Muhammad
Seiausaha/Secretary: Ir. Lau Tai Onn
Ketua Pengarang/Chief Editor: Ir. Prof. Dr Ruslan Hassan
Pengarang Bulein/Bullein Editor: Ir. Mohd. Khir Muhammad
Pengarang Prinsipal Jurnal/Principal Journal Editor: Ir. Prof. Dr Dominic Foo Chwan Yee
Pengerusi Perpustakaan/Library Chairman: Ir. C.M.M. Aboobucker
Ahli-Ahli/Commitee Members: Y.Bhg. Datuk Ir. Prof. Dr Ow Chee Sheng, Engr. Abdul
Fatah bin Mohamed Yaim M.I.E.M., Ir. Dr Kannan a/l M. Munisamy, Ir. Chin Mee Poon,
Ir. Yee Thien Seng, Ir. Ong Guan Hock, Engr. Dr Wang Hong Kok F.I.E.M., Ir. Dr Oh Seong Por,
Ir. Dr Aminuddin Mohd Baki, Ir. Tejinder Singh

LEMBAGA PENGARANG/EDITORIAL BOARD 2015/2016

Ketua Pengarang/Chief Editor: Ir. Prof. Dr Ruslan Hassan
Pengarang Bulein/Bullein Editor: Ir. Mohd. Khir Muhammad
Pengarang Jurnal/Journal Editor: Ir. Prof. Dr Dominic Foo Chwan Yee
Ahli-ahli/Commitee Members: Ir. Ong Guan Hock, Ir. Lau Tai Onn, Ir. Yee Thien Seng,
Engr. Dr Wang Hong Kok F.I.E.M.
Secretariats: Janet Lim, May Lee

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, MALAYSIA

Bangunan Ingenieur, Lots 60 & 62, Jalan 52/4, P.O. Box 223, (Jalan Sultan),
46720 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan.
Tel: 603-7968 4001/4002 Fax: 603-7957 7678
E-mail: sec@iem.org.my Homepage: htp://www.myiem.org.my January 2016 JURUTERA 3
 COVER NOTE

Finalising Malaysian National Annex (NA) on Eurocode

8 (EC8): Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance

By Ir. Prof. Dr Jeffrey Chiang
Chairman of IEM-SWO Technical
Committee on Earthquake
Dr Jeffrey Chiang, currently IEM
Honorary Treasurer, has previously
served as IEM Honorary Secretary,
Chairman of IEM Civil & Structural
Engineering Technical Division,
Chairman of IEM-SWO Technical
Committee on Wind Loads, as
well as Secretary of IEM-SWO
Technical Committee on Eurocode
2 Concrete Structures Design. Dr
Chiang is the Dean of the Faculty of
Engineering & the Built Environment
in SEGI University, Kota Damansara
Campus, Petaling Jaya.
T
his is the last segment on the National Annex To Eurocode 8, which will be available
for public comment soon. Apart from a word of thanks to the Technical Committee
and Working Group members involved in the finalisation of the standards document, I
would also like to thank the International Panel of Experts and Advisors for voluntary services
rendered since 2008.
We had a fruitful and eye-opening dialogue session with Sabah engineers, Government
officials and other stakeholders in early December 2015, to hear their opinions on how the
National Annex should reflect the experience of Sabah residents in view of local earthquakes
there. The Technical Committee and the Working Group involved were committed to ensuring
that the standards would uphold the intention to keep and maintain public safety. At the same
time, where there was a possibility to adjust to accommodate, the Study Group in the Technical
Committee worked tirelessly to review additional data supplied by the Sabah stakeholders.
To that end, the finalised version of the Malaysian National Annex will be truly
representative of the expectations of all stakeholders in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and
Sarawak – in terms of the recommendations there in for the peak ground acceleration values
and other related design parameters, to be adopted for the design of building structures for
the relevant return periods for a range of building structures. NA to EC8 is unique because
it provides recommended response spectra to cover for far distance earthquakes as well as
local earthquake events.
Last but not least, sincere thanks also go to the secretariat staff of IEM for their hard
work in planning and administering the running of the Technical Committee and its activities,
especially in organising meetings, courses, seminars, workshops and symposia over the years,
since the inception of the Technical Committee.

Chairman ROBERT MEBRUER

DIMENSION PUBLISHING SDN. BHD. (449732-T) CEO/Publisher PATRICK LEUNG

Level 18-01-03, PJX-HM Shah Tower, No. 16A, Persiaran Barat, General Manager SHIRLEY THAM
46050 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. shirley@dimensionpublishing.com
Tel: +(603) 7493 1049 Fax: +(603) 7493 1047
E-mail: info@dimensionpublishing.com Head of Markeing & Business Development JOSEPH HOW
Website: www.dimensionpublishing.com joseph@dimensionpublishing.com

Editor TAN BEE HONG

For adverisement placements and subscripions, please contact: bee@dimensionpublishing.com
DIMENSION PUBLISHING SDN. BHD. (449732-T) Contribuing Writers PUTRI ZANINA & ZOE PHOON
at +(603) 7493 1049, or E-mail: info@dimensionpublishing.com
putri@dimensionpublishing.com
Subscripion Department zoe@dimensionpublishing.com
E-mail: info@dimensionpublishing.com
Senior Graphic Designer SUMATHI MANOKARAN
Printed by sumathi@dimensionpublishing.com
HOFFSET PRINTING SDN. BHD. (667106-V)
No. 1, Jalan TPK 1/6, Taman Perindustrian Kinrara, Graphic Designer NABEELA AHMAD
47180 Puchong, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. beela@dimensionpublishing.com
Tel: +(603) 8075 7222 Fax: +(603) 8075 7333
Adverising Consultants AZIM SHAARI & THAM CHOON KIT
Mailer azim@dimensionpublishing.com
PERFECT MAIL SERVICES. (648839-P)
ckit@dimensionpublishing.com
14 Jalan TSB 2, Taman Perindustrian Sungai Buloh,
Sungai Buloh, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
Accounts cum Admin Execuive YEN YIN
Tel: +(603) 6156 5288 yenyin@dimensionpublishing.com

JURUTERA MONTHLY CIRCULATION: 36,000 COPIES PUBLICATION DISCLAIMER

Submission or placement of aricles in JURUTERA could be made to the:-
Chief Editor
THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS, MALAYSIA (IEM)
Bangunan Ingenieur,
Lots 60 & 62, Jalan 52/4, P.O. Box 223 (Jalan Sultan),
46720 Petaling Jaya, Selangor.
Tel: +(603) 7968 4001/4002 Fax: +(603) 7957 7678
E-mail: pub@iem.org.my or sec@iem.org.my
IEM Website: htp://www.myiem.org.my
© 2016, The Insituion of Engineers, Malaysia (IEM) and
Dimension Publishing Sdn. Bhd.
The publicaion has been compiled by both IEM and Dimension with great care and they
disclaim any duty to invesigate any products, process, services, designs and the like which may
be described in this publicaion. The appearance of any informaion in this publicaion does
not necessarily consitute endorsement by IEM and Dimension. There is no guarantee that the
informaion in this publicaion is free from errors. IEM and Dimension do not necessarily agree
with the statement or the opinion expresssed in this publicaion.
COPYRIGHT
JURUTERA Bullein of IEM is the oicial magazine of The Insituion of Engineers,
Malaysia (IEM) and is published by Dimension Publishing Sdn. Bhd. The Insituion
and the Publisher retain the copyright over all materials published in the magazine.
No part of this magazine may be reproduced and transmited in any form or stored in any
retrieval system of any nature without the prior writen permission of IEM and the Publisher.
January 2016 JURUTERA 5
 COVER STORY

Development of
Malaysia’s National Annex
to Eurocode on Earthquake Resistance

he fruit of the labour to realise the completion of the inal version of the

T Malaysian National Annex to MS EN 1998 Part 1: Design of Structures for

Earthquake Resistance is now in sight. The internal process of developing
the National Annex spearheaded by the IEM Technical Committee (TC) on
Earthquake has been progressing well with all major issues and comments
being properly attended to ahead of public balloting at the end of 2015.

The progress could not have been achieved without
the commitment and active participation of seismic
experts from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore
and other countries. These experts volunteered their
time and services without expecting any remuneration.
They came forward in the spirit of sharing their
knowledge, expertise and ideas that could strengthen
international collaboration. More importantly, they
shared a common concern to help mitigate the impact
of earthquakes and how the practice of earthquake
engineering and monitoring of seismic activities could
help to save lives.
One of the international experts who has devoted his
time and efforts gratis to our country is Prof. Nelson Lam,
Associate Professor and Reader, Department of Infrastructure
Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
JURUTERA speaks to Prof. Lam to learn more about his
involvement in the development of earthquake code for
Malaysia and the National Annex to Eurocode 8 (EC 8) for
the Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance.

6 JURUTERA January 2016


How did you get involved in the drafting
of Malaysia’s National Annex to EC8,
considering you come from Australia?
Prof. Lam: Currently, I am a reader at The University
of Melbourne. At the university, we have the Centre for
Disaster Management and Public Safety (CDMPS), which
focuses on conducting multi-disciplinary research and
training on disaster management and public safety both
nationally and internationally. Our work includes providing
research and development input into managing natural
disasters to countries all over the world. I am one of the key
members of this centre and I have a strong earthquake
engineering background. One of my core responsibilities
at the university is to get involved in earthquake disaster
mitigation and code development not only for Australia
but also for other countries.
I have been researching into earthquake engineering
in the last 26 years. I am also experienced in code
development in Australia itself and have been appointed
as member of the code drafting committee of Australia
(known as Standards Australia), which is responsible
for continuous development of earthquake loading
standards for the country.
From the perspective of research, I also have a long-
term understanding of earthquake conditions in this
region, including Sumatra, Indonesia and around Peninsula
Malaysia. Because of my background and expertise, I am
well placed to be part of the IEM study group, formed
about seven years ago. Ir. Adjunct Prof. M.C. Hee (the
principal of M.C. Hee & Associates, Malaysia) approached
me to get involved in providing advice and support on
earthquake design code development for Malaysia. Over
the years, we have been undertaking a lot of study and
research work with a view of coming up with the National
Annex. The drafting of this Annex is a result of years of hard
work and the involvement of many industry experts, and
IEM TC on Earthquake Engineering , which is actually my
host in this country. In the initial five years, we gradually
formed the study group co-led by M.C. Hee himself before
the formation of IEM TC (Technical Commitee).
We also gradually trained talented Malaysian
engineers to assist in the earthquake code development
exercise. This was how both M.C. Hee and I have been
co-leading this group and moving it forward.
I am not directly engaged by the Malaysian
government. Basically the development of the National
Annex is not in the form of a consultant contract to do
the work. It is actually a long-term collaborative work that
forms part of my research agenda being an academic at
The University of Melbourne. I provide service and advice
not only to Malaysia but also South Korea, and I am
also involved in seismic hazard study in Hong Kong and
Sri Lanka. To a lesser extent, I also have a strong interest
in the seismic conditions in Singapore. Overall, I have
knowledge of seismic conditions in this region.
COVER STORY
What are the key objectives and guiding
principles in this code development activity?
Why 2,475 and 475 years of return period?
Prof. Lam: The main objective of having this code
development is to protect lives. It is about life and the
safety of the public – the occupants of buildings. I must
also emphasise that the code is to protect all buildings,
not just key government facilities. Let me clarify that the
return period of 475 years (of seismic wave transmission at
bedrock level indicating occurrence of earthquakes) has
been the tradition held for a long time but over the last 10
years, it has been recognised by the research community
around the world that this return period is not really
appropriate or is not long enough for certain countries
which are not experiencing earthquakes frequently
enough, for example Malaysia.
The same thing applies to other countries like the
eastern part of North America – they have for long done
away with the return period of 475 years and are now using
2,475 years as a benchmark. I must say that although the
Eurocode originally specified 475 years, a lot of countries
like the United Kingdom have decided to go for a higher
return period. So following a lot of research (not just done
by me but also) by the world community of research,
Malaysia should be bench marking on 2,475 years.
I must emphasise that the return period of 2,475 years
does not mean that we will experience an earthquake
in every 2,000 years – it seems to be a long time and
this is actually quite misleading to a layperson. It is a
figure for reference based on the prediction of ground
motion intensity of any given position in the country.
In fact the length of time should not be interpreted as
we are having an earthquake over that long period of
time. It is not. It is a figure that is recommended for use as
reference for design of buildings. Of course, the longer
the return period is, the higher the intensity. Referring to
the benchmark for ground motion intensity is critical to
emergency response to earthquakes. The return period
requirements are actually more stringent than that for
ordinary buildings. But then no matter what type of
building it is, you always use 2,475 years as reference.
Then there is also a factor called the Importance Factor
according to the classes of buildings. Different building
types have different design ground motion intensity
– there is no one design intensity for all building types.
For example, it is important that hospital buildings or
buildings with emergency response functionality are
designed to a return period of 2,475 years in terms of
ensuring a satisfactory level of potential performance of
buildings in an earthquake.
Considering that Malaysia is classiied as
low to moderate seismicity region with lack
of local earthquake data, where was the
knowledge base developed originally?
January 2016 JURUTERA 7
 COVER STORY
Prof. Lam: The knowledge base is widely shared
because knowledge nowadays is not owned by one
country. Lots of research papers are published in peer
reviewed international literature. Of course having worked
in this field in the last 26 years, I am myself well informed on
this topic. I also contributed to the international literature
as well as being recognised for helping to develop the
seismic code for Australia. Over the last 15 years, I have
also invested a lot of time studying earthquakes affecting
Malaysia from a long distance, for example, offshore of
Sumatra including the Aceh earthquake of 2004.
I have also published papers and conducted research
on long distance earthquakes of mega magnitude
exceeding ML8 on the Richter scale. I had the experience
of studying and predicting ground motion generated by
long distance earthquakes. This exercise of mine did not
happen recently. My first publication on earthquakes in
this region was way back in the early 2000, that is more
than 10 years ago. Over the years, I have maintained my
interest in this region. While a lot of research work has been
carried out on earthquakes generated from Indonesia, we
must however not overlook the risk of having earthquakes
occurring locally. Local earthquakes affecting Malaysia
are rarely reported in the local literature. But I have also
worked on this local data in recent times when working
on the National Annex. We have attended to both long
distance earthquakes and risks of earthquakes from
within Malaysia itself. It’s a feature worth covering in the hazards depending on soil conditions where buildings are
Malaysia National Annex because this is something that
has not been well discussed in the academic literature.
Is the inal version of the Malaysian National
Annex to EC 8 ready for adoption as the
code of practice for earthquake design
in local structural engineering practices?
Please elaborate on some intricacies and
issues involved in determining the nationally
accepted parameters and specify, if
possible, the date for the oficial release of
the EC8 National Annex.
Prof. Lam: Currently a lot of dialogues are going
on because the IEM TC also has the mechanism to
interface with design engineers from around different
parts of Malaysia. I understand that there is also internal
consultation with engineers and experts in this country
about the National Annex draft. Professional people in
different parts of Malaysia are giving us feedbacks and
this is part of the whole process of finalising the draft.
As discussed earlier, the 475 years return period
provision is not sufficient. So that is why for the National
Annex we have set design requirements to exceed this
period. I must emphasize that it’s not just the case for model is different from that of Singapore. The Singapore
Malaysia. Many countries have already done that – code only considers long distance earthquakes. For the
increasing the return period. If we are developing a
code for this country, we must draft the code properly
8 JURUTERA January 2016
according to the latest development around the
world, including in the United States, Canada and
United Kingdom. I feel that they are the major countries
which, although are far away from Malaysia, represent
the forefront of knowledge in the field of earthquake
engineering. Even in Australia there has been a code
review. Although they call it a 500-year return period,
their design of gound motions is actually higher than this
figure so as to protect lives. The 500-year terminology is
retained only as a matter of convention.
Earthquake engineering is evolving and it is a complex
form of engineering so that is why it is not always straight
forward. Hence it is expected that various professionals
raise queries and we have responded to these in great
details. We are receptive to opinions expressed by all. And
we have good documentations that allow us to attend to
all feedbacks seriously and clarify issues.
The return period is also a major issue raised by the
professionals in Malaysia. Some Malaysian engineers feel
that we do not need to go so high from 475 to 2,475 years.
I have provided the explanations. If you refer to world
literature, you will also find a lot of explanations on this
issue.
Another issue raised in Malaysia is about costs. In
fact we have also done a lot of studies about cost
implications. We have to consider that there are certain
types of buildings and there are also different seismic
constructed. For certain soil conditions, the cost increase
is minimal. The cost will be higher for conditions which are
more onerous, such as softer soils. So that is why when it
comes to cost analysis, there is no one figure that can fit
all conditions. You cannot generalise how much it is. The
costs vary. When there is some increase in cost on certain
types of construction and on certain soil conditions, it
shows that we need to pay more attention to the safety
of certain buildings in those conditions. By and large,
the general total increase in the cost of construction is
actually insignificant. The cost increase is approximately
5 to 8% on stiff soil which is the typical and fairly common
soil type in built-up areas. Soft soil is more hazardous and
this has been observed worldwide from past earthquake
events where buildings suffered a lot of damage and
high casualty on soft soil conditions. The figures quoted
are structural costs only, and not the total costs of the
building. Therefore the difference in costs boils down to
much less than 5%.
Overall, cost analysis indicates that there are certain
types of buildings on certain types of soil conditions that
can be more hazardous than others; so this indicates that
it cannot be business as usual. We have to put extra effort
in attending to it.
Another issue for Malaysia is that this country’s code
Malaysian National Annex, we consider both short and
long distance earthquakes. It has been expressed by

experts in this area that local earthquakes occurring in
Malaysia must not be ignored although the data has not
been well expressed in the literature. These mainly record
mega earthquakes happening elsewhere but if we want
to protect lives, we must look at both local and long
distance earthquakes. This is very important.
Now we have already received a lot of feedbacks
and properly responded to all of them. And according
to our timetable, this internal process will conclude by
November or December 2015, after which the draft will
go to the public ballot, as per the standard procedure
for codification. This stage of public balloting will take
place up to March 2016. The next stage is to submit the
National Annex to the Department of Standards Malaysia
(Standards Malaysia), which is the national regulatory
body for standards and accreditation. This is the timetable
of our study group. Our responsibility is to submit the final
draft of the National Annex to Standards Malaysia. We
hope that Standards Malaysia will handle it swiftly and
launch the National Annex by the early part of next year.
We have invested so much effort and time and so we
would like to see it being used.
Our relationships with the government bodies such
as the Public Works Department (PWD) involved in the
development of the National Annex has been good. They
are fairly receptive to our point of view. We also have all
the other industry players in the IEM TC, including PAM
(Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia), Master Builders and CIDB
(Construction Industry Development Board). It is a broad-
based TC, and our code development is industry-driven.
Please elaborate on the efforts that have
been taken so far to prepare the industry
to apply the National Annex to EC8 in terms
of training and development of human
resources, development of new construction
techniques to comply with the latest code of
practice and other pertinent areas to ensure
full compliance to the code.
Prof. Lam: The National Annex is a regulatory document
but more importantly is the knowledge base of the
engineers who are going to put it into use. Ultimately
we rely on the skills and knowledge of engineers on the
ground to use the code properly. This is why education
and training is very important.
We have been conducting short courses and workshops
to educate engineers as well as government officers. On
average, we run short courses once a year to introduce
basic knowledge on earthquake engineering because
this country has no experience in dealing with earthquake
hazards. We have also run courses specifically to introduce
and release the contents of the National Annex. We would
like the engineers to be prepared for it so that is why we
provide the details during the short courses.
COVER STORY
In previous years, we have also held symposiums. We
invited international experts from Canada, Europe, Korea,
Singapore, Hong Kong and other countries to speak at
these symposia. They are experts at the forefront of codes
development. They came from a long way to Malaysia to
review the most suitable approach to seismic design for
the country. This has been happening regularly in the last
three to four years to make sure that our approach has
the necessary check and balance. It is not only reviewed
by international professionals but is also exposed to
review by experts from major countries. The reason
why we single out countries like Canada, Korea and
Germany is because the conditions in these countries are
similar to Malaysia in terms of seismicity. The approach
to earthquake engineering for places like Japan and
California are different from countries like Malaysia. The
seismic condition in Malaysia is more aligned to countries
like Australia and Korea which have earthquakes occurring
infrequently. That is why we have close relationships with
these countries. There is a lot of misconception that
earthquake experts from high seismicity countries that
are suffering from frequent earthquake events are the
ones that Malaysia should invite, but it must be noted that
conditions in those countries are not the same as those
in Malaysia so this is not something that we can take up.
Our study group also plans to publish a handbook
because the National Annex itself is a legal document
which is brief and only prescribes what is required. We still
need to have the detailed descriptions of the background
– why the National Annex made some decisions, what are
the intentions, what is the right way of applying those rules
and what are the work examples. The handbook will have
all these so that we can assist engineers in understanding
and applying the code effectively. This handbook will be
specific for use in Malaysia unlike textbook on the book
shelves which do not really focus on Malaysian conditions.
We also plan to educate young engineers who have just
graduated from Malaysian universities. The National Annex
and Eurocode are fairly new so we cannot automatically
expect universities to provide adequate education and
training on the use of the National Annex on their own.
This is part of our long-term planning for training and
development in the industry.
What are your recommendations for
Malaysia to strengthen networking and
co-operation amongst all stakeholders,
including the government sector and the
industry players encompassing engineers,
architects and other industry professionals,
in adopting and enforcing the use of EC as
MS EN standards?
Prof. Lam: As mentioned earlier, the IEM TC already
has representations from PWD, CIDB, PAM and other
government and professional bodies, so there is already
January 2016 JURUTERA 9
 COVER STORY

a well set up network to accommodate professionals
from the different corners of the country. All of them
contribute to the consultation process. There are also the
participation by universities, for example, Universiti Malaya
and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The TC is balanced with
professionals and academics.
In light of the recent earthquake that hit
Ranau in Sabah, please give us an update
of your assessment of earthquake risks in
Sabah particularly, and the rest of Malaysia.
Prof. Lam: Earthquakes are expected in Sabah,
which is considered as having a high level of seismicity
than Sarawak and Peninsula Malaysia. Yes, the recent
earthquake was expected. AM5.9 earthquake on the
Richter scale could happen in places like Sabah, which is
of higher seismic risk. But we cannot make the judgement
that earthquakes of that nature would only occur in
Sabah. It can also happen in other parts of Malaysia.
Ranau, where the recent Sabah earthquake
occurred,was only about 50km away from the capital city
Kota Kinabalu. We have explained to professionals around
Sabah that although the epicentre was 50km away from
the capital city of Kota Kinabalu, we cannot rule out the
possibility that future earthquakes can be closer to built-
up areas. There have also been concerns about how
we specify ground motion intensity requirements for the
different parts of Sabah because future earthquakes here
can even be worse than that that happened in Ranau.
What are your recommendations for
Malaysia to monitor seismic activities and
mitigate the impact of earthquakes? What
should the priorities be for Malaysia?
Prof. Lam: I must say that the standard of structural
and civil engineering in Malaysia is advanced. We
are confident that the engineers here have the basic
knowledge to properly apply our code for seismic design
purposes provided that we also give them adequate
training. We don’t consider it to be anything that’s
substantially new in terms of approach and techniques.
It’s all about getting the engineers to analyse buildings
for seismic loads in order that they are able to identify
vulnerable structures in the future, and put more strength
on certain parts of the building. That’s really what we think
the skill and know-how required. So it’s not required for
engineers to learn any new sets of skills that they don’t
already possess.
I always support making investment as a priority
to maintain a good level of seismic monitoring in the
country. When earthquakes occur, we should get a good
recording of ground motion. The study on future seismic
risks is also not enough if we only base our prediction on
what has occurred in the recent past. That on its own is
not enough. That is why our study has involved surveying
earthquake recurrence behaviour from around the world
in seismic environments similar to that of Malaysia.
By area, Malaysia is a small country. This is something I
like to put across. Because of the small size, over a period
of time, the amount of data that can possibly be collected
is naturally very limited. This can be a major issue. Basing
on Malaysian data alone is not a good approach to take.
It is better to study data from around the world so that we
will get sufficient data to help in coming out with effective
mitigating measures.
In Malaysia, Sabah has conducted such a study.
The Ranau earthquake has spurred everything. It’s more
urgent now to come out with the National Annex. We
must get the Annex to be out as soon as possible.
In Peninsula Malaysia, we must remember the
earthquake of 4.2 magnitude that occurred in Bukit Tinggi,
Pahang several years ago. It does not mean that future
earthquakes will occur in the same spot. Given that we
have limited data, this may just be the assumption here.
But in future, Kuala Lumpur may also be susceptible. It is
not that far from Bukit Tinggi. Earthquakes can happen in
any part of the country. For argument sake, there could
also be equal chance of similar local occurrence in the
south of the Peninsula, close to Singapore. So the launch
of the Malaysian earthquake code will have certain
implications on Singapore.

NELSON LAM has 33 years of experience in structural engineering. In the past 25

years, he has been working in the specialised ield of earthquake engineering
and structural dynamics. He is a member of the standing committee for future
revisions to the Australian standard for seismic actions of an Expert Advisory
Group commissioned by the London Headquarter of The Institution of Structural
Engineers to give advice over the international strategy in relation to earthquake
engineering. He has delivered keynote addresses in Australia, Singapore,
Hong Kong, Malaysia, China (at Tsinghua & Tongji) and Sri Lanka. Many of
his international journal publications have been frequently referred to in the
seismic code development for Australia and many countries in Asia. He is also
actively delivering short courses in the ield of structural dynamics, earthquake
engineering and impact technology to practising engineers in Australia and
internationally.

10 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

Evolution of IEM Study Group

by Ir. Adjunct Prof. M C Hee, Prof. Nelson Lam, Dr Tsang Hing Ho, Engr. Looi Ting Wee Grad. IEM, Engr. Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem Grad. IEM, Ir. Lim Ek Peng.
(Photos and details of authors on page 44.)

I
n 1959, Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM) was established with the primary function to promote
and advance the science and profession of engineering as well as to facilitate the exchange of
information and ideas related to engineering. IEM is divided into different engineering divisions.
One of these is Civil And Structural Engineering Technical Engineering. Since it was established as an
engineering society, the Civil And Structural Engineering Technical Division had taken the initiative
to conduct courses and workshops for consulting engineers and academicians to develop their
practical and academic skills.

IEM EARTHQUAKE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AND WG1
The earthquake disaster in Sumatra in 2004, raised concerns
in Malaysia. To address these concerns, the Civil and
Structural Engineering Technical Division took the initiative to
form a Technical Committee (TC) on earthquakes. Publishing
a position paper in 2007 (IEM, 2007), it looked into mitigation
policies and design guidelines on earthquake safety. Since
the primary concern was long distant earthquakes in
Indonesia, the local scenario was neglected until a small
earthquake of M4.2 was recorded in Bukit Tinggi. Such
recent activities in what was already considered an inactive
intraplate fault, further spiked concerns among the IEM
technical committee.
With the adoption of Eurocode by Malaysia and most
countries worldwide, the Malaysian government appointed
IEM to develop the Malaysian National Annex (NA) to EC8
(CEN, 2004). Different working groups were established,
with the technical committee assigned to various tasks. Ir.
Adjunct Prof. M.C.Hee headed Working Group 1 (WG1)
which was assigned to the development of the response
spectrum model and looked into both regional earthquakes
in neighbouring Indonesia and here.
Since Malaysia is a country with low to moderate
seismicity, we lack local data which is required to support
the development of a representative seismic hazard model
by the conventional approach of modelling. The task of
quantifying local seismic hazard is a unique challenge that
requires fundamental research input to resolve. There are
many other challenges that are unique to regions of low and
moderate seismicity. So the conventional approach of seismic
hazard modelling will not produce a satisfactory solution in
Malaysia. In view of this, IEM chose to work in consultation
with a study group comprising local experienced engineers
and international experts to integrate input over a number of
years instead of hiring a commercial consultant to undertake
the task on a contractual basis. Facilitated by this international
(industry-academia) partnership, IEM was able to produce
the draft of the NA which was accompanied by a seismic
design handbook which is suitable for use in the country.
YOUNG ENGINEERS
In developing the draft of Malaysian NA to EC8, under the
above-mentioned industry - academia partnership, the
WG1 industry side was led by M.C.Hee while the academia
side was led by Associate Prof. Nelson Lam from University
of Melbourne, Australia, and Dr H.H. Tsang, Swinburne
University of Technology, Australia. With the technical
committee’s focus on development of young engineers,
the WG1 of the IEM Earthquake TC initiated a programme
where young engineers would be developed and groomed
to advance in the field of earthquake engineering, under
the guidance of professional engineers and academicians
of the study group.
To kick off the programme, Daniel T.W. Looi was picked
as the prime candidate for the working group. Under the
mutual trust between IEM Earthquake TC and Nelson Lam,
Daniel was sent to The University of Melbourne for technical
knowledge transfer training which encapsulated the essential
elements of seismology and earthquake engineering from
the structural engineer's perspective. These include the use
of:
a) Component Seismological Modelling through GENQKE to
generate artificial time history on rock site with the combination
of earthquake magnitude (M) and distance (R),
b) Finite difference method through ETAMAC to transform
time history into response spectrum and,
c) Dynamic site response analysis using SHAKE.
The above tasks were completed within a month, with
enormous support from two PhD students (Ali Altheeb and
Abdulrahman Albidah) from Nelson Lam's research group.
The parameters were determined based on research work
published in the book, Seismic Hazard Assessment in Regions
of Low-to-Moderate Seismicity (Tsang and Lam, 2010).
Continuous development on the topic of Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) to draft Malaysian NA
to EC8 was supported by IEM TC, through the invitation
of HH Tsang to Malaysia. A two-day technical knowledge
transfer was carried out to complement the training in
Melbourne. All work done was summarised in written reports
and presentations made to the WG1 and the Technical
Committee.
After Daniel Looi was fully groomed into the study
group, Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem was brought in as candidate
No. 2. Working directly under M.C.Hee, he was involved
in the cost implication work of the WG1, which aimed
at giving a clear cut presentation to the consulting

12 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

engineers on the cost implications and design progress

under EC8. Daniel Looi held a knowledge transfer and
training session for Ahmed Zuhalon the development
of Response Spectra and the knowledge he gained in
Melbourne. As the NA to EC8 took shape and the workload
increased, Ir. EP Lim joined the WG1 to offer input on the
ongoing work from a practicing engineer’s perspective.
With his help, the current updated draft NA to EC8 was
developed for both academicians and engineers, with
special attention given to the development and training
of young engineers.

LIST OF MEETINGS, SEMINARS AND SYMPOSIUMS

1. 2-Day Course on Analysis & Design to EC8 Demystified
(Armada Hotel Petaling Jaya, 2-3 November 2011)
2. 1-Day Symposium and 1-Day Workshop on Earthquake
Engineering in Malaysia and Asia Pacific Region.
(Armada Hotel, Petaling Jaya, 6-7 December 2011)
3. Sequel to 2-Day Course on Analysis & Design to
EC8 Demystified. (Hotel Armada, Petaling Jaya, 5-6
November 2012)
4. 2-Day Symposium/Workshop on Earthquake Engineering
in Malaysia and Asia Pacific Region. (Armada Hotel,
Petaling Jaya, 10-11 April 2013)
5. Final Sequel to 2-Day Course on Analysis & Design to
EC8 Demystified. (Armada Hotel, Petaling Jaya, 28-29
November 2013)
6. 2-Day Workshop on Recommended Earthquake Loading
Model in The Proposed NA to EC 8 for Sabah, Sarawak &
Updated Model for Peninsular Malaysia. (Armada Hotel,
Petaling Jaya, 16-17 July 2014)
7. 2-Day International Seminar and Workshop on Presentation
and Reviewing of the Draft Malaysian NA for EC8. (Armada
Hotel Petaling Jaya, Selangor, 9-10 February 2015)
8. 2-Day Course on How to Utilise Our Proposed EC8
Malaysian NA for Our Practising Consulting Engineers.
(Armada Hotel, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, 29-30
September 2015)

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AUTHORED BY THE IEM STUDY

GROUP
1. D.T.W.Looi, M.C.Hee, H.H.Tsang and N.T.K. Lam, (2013)
“Recommended earthquake loading model for
Peninsular Malaysia”, JURUTERA (the monthly bulletin of
the Institution of Engineers, Malaysia). April Issue. pp 6-20.
2. D.T.W. Looi, M.C. Hee, H.H. Tsang and N.T.K. Lam,
(2013) “Earthquake loading model in the proposed
National Annex to Eurocode 8 for Peninsular Malaysia”,
Proceedings of presentation IStructE Conference on
Structural Engineering in Hazard Mitigation 2013, 28
October – 31 November, Tsinghua University Beijing and
Tongji University Shanghai, China.
3. D.T.W. Looi, M.C. Hee, H.H. Tsang and N.T.K. Lam, (2015)
“Drafting the Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 8:
Recommended Seismic Loadings and Cost Implication”
IStrcutE Internationl Conference.
4. D.T.W. Looi, M.C. Hee, H.H. Tsang and N.T.K. Lam, (2015)
“Draft National Annex to Eurocode 8 for Malaysia and

January 2016 JURUTERA 13

 FEATURE

cost implication for residential buildings with thin size

2 Days Short Course and Workshop On:
High Rise Buildings’ Foundation
and Deep Excavation
Course Presenter: Dato’ Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew
Past president of the Institution of Engineers, Malaysia
(IEM), Past International Chairman of the Head
Commissioner of ASEAN Engineers Register (AER),
Chairman of the Penang Hillsite Advisory Panel &
Past International Chairman of the Coordinating
Committee of APEC Engineer
Founding Fellow of the ASEAN Academy of Engineering &
Technology, Fellow of Academy of Sciences Malaysia and
the Representative of the World Federation of Engineering
Organisations (WFEO) to the International Consortium on
Landslides
Awarded The Construction Professional of the
Year Award & ASEAN Outstanding Engineering Award
Managing Director of G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
Course Presenter: Ir. Chow Chee Meng
Won the Chan Sai Soo prize for the best engineering
undergraduate thesis
Involved in a number of award winning projects such as
Bandar Botanic, Klang (ACEM Silver Award of Merit),
Sg. Damansara Flood Mitigation (ACEM Gold Award of
Special Merit) and was awarded the Outstanding
Performance Award from Sunrise Berhad for geotechnical
consultancy
Design of numerous jack-in pile foundations for
high rise buildings in different parts of Malaysia ranging
from granite to limestone formation and has contributed
to widely referenced jack-in pile specifications in
Malaysia
Director of G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
Understand the design and construction of foundation and deep excavation
for high rise buildings based on practical experience and state of art
knowledge. Able to appreciate and apply different construction techniques
of foundation as well as deep excavation design and construction.
Session 5:
Session 1:
- Subsurface Investigation for - Practical Foundation Construction
Foundation and Deep Excavation Considerations for High Rise
for High Rise Buildings Buildings
elements” Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference
on Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake-
Resilient Pacific 6-8 November 2015, Sydney, Australia
5. D.T.W. Looi, M.C. Hee, H.H. Tsang and N.T.K. Lam, (2015)
“Seismic analysis in the low to moderate seismicity region
of Malaysia based on the draft design handbook”,
Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on
Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake-Resilient
Pacific 6-8 November 2015, Sydney, Australia.
TIMELINE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EC8 NA
In 2007, IEM formed The Technical Committee for Earthquake,
with different working groups assigned to different tasks. The
aim was to produce the first National Annex for EC8. Working
Group 1 (WG1) was assigned to produce the response
design spectrum for Malaysia. In 2012, the first design
spectrum with a return period of 2,475 years was produced
for the peninsula on rock sites. In 2013, the design spectrums
for Sarawak and Sabah were produced. In 2014, the design
spectrums with the latest research was developed into a
spectrum with a return period of 2,475 years. Together with
this modification, the soil spectrum was developed in 2014
and, with a symposium backed by international experts in
2015, it was introduced to the public.
REFERENCES
[1] CEN (2004) EN 1998 1. 2004. “Eurocode 8: Design of Structures
for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions
and Rules for Building”. European Committee for Standardisation,
Brussells.
[2] IEM position document (2005, approved 2007). “Position paper on
issues related to earthquake” The Institution of Engineers Malaysia.
http://www.myiem.org.my/content/position_papers-301.aspx.
[3] The Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM). http://www.myiem.org.my/
content/introduction-261.aspx
[4] H.H.Tsang, and N.T.K.Lam(2010). “Seismic Hazard Assessment in
Regions of Low-to-Moderate Seismicity”.Lambert Academic Publishing.
ERRATA OF DIGITAL E-BOOKS ANNOUNCEMENT

Session 2: Session 6: Error on E-LIBRARY REPORT – MEMBERS’ USAGE RATE -

- Practical Foundation Design - Design and Planning of Deep published in JURUTERA December 2015 page 40. We wish to
for High Rise Buildings Excavation inform that TOTAL of PAGES VIEWED was wrongly calculated.
The correct figures are as below:
Session 3: Session 7:
- Foundation Design and - Construction and Monitoring of
Deep Excavation PAGES PAGES
Construction for High Rise Buildings PERIOD PERIOD
VIEWED VIEWED
Session 4: Session 8: 2014 2015
-Workshop on Foundation Design - Workshop on Deep Excavation
DATE VENUE PRICE
September 501 January 891
18th-19th Armada Hotel, Petaling Jaya RM2120 (Individual) October 910 February 418
MARCH 2016 RM1908 (Group)
November 1278 March 835
Closing Date: 11th MARCH 2016 December 1211 April 814
* Prices shown above inclusive of 6% GST. Price before GST is RM 2000 (Individual),
RM1800 (Group). TOTAL 3900 May 394
Please Contact Applied Technology Group Sdn Bhd: EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT JUNE 823
Phone: 03-5634 7905 / 012-3174 863 RM100
JULY 419
Fax: 03-5637 9945 Pay Before: 18th February 2016
Email: admin@apptechgroups.net AUGUST 1952
14.5 BEM Approved CPD-Hours (Ref No.: IEM15/PP/055/C) SEPTEMBER 533
20 CIDB Approved CCD-Points (Ref No: CIDBSL/C/2015/0475)
14 Approved PEB PDUs Singapore OCTOBER 226
TOTAL 7305
Please visit our website at www.apptechgroups.net
for detailed course brochure or other engineering related courses.
The error is much regretted.

14 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

Elastic Response Spectrum

Models for Rock Sites
by Prof. Nelson Lam, Dr Tsang Hing Ho, Engr. Looi Ting Wee Grad. IEM, Prof. John Wilson, Ir. Adjunct Prof. M C Hee.
(Photos and details of authors on page 44.)

T
his paper introduces the elastic response spectrum models for rock sites for different parts of
Malaysia for incorporation into the draft of National Annex to Eurocode 8. Both distant and local
seismic hazards have been taken into account in the development of the elastic response
spectra by the use of a hybrid modelling approach. The design peak ground acceleration (PGA)
on rock sites is 0.1g for Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak and 0.18g for Sabah bench marked on a
return period (RP) of 2,475 years; this corresponds to reference PGA values (for notional 475 years RP
being two-thirds of the design values for 2,475 years) of 0.07g and 0.12g respectively.

KEYWORDS including the Sunda Arc subduction fault source off-shore of

National Annex to Eurocode 8, Seismic Design Actions, Sumatra, the strike-slip fault source on the island of Sumatra
Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah. and local fault sources from within the peninsula. Most
seismological studies and hazard modelling undertaken to
INTRODUCTION
date, are based on ground motions generated from distant
Like other companion papers published in this issue of
fault sources, mainly because of their high representation in
JURUTERA, the purpose of this paper is to outline and explain
the strong motion database (Balendra et al., 2002; Balendra,
proposed key features in the planned National Annex (NA)
2008; Lam et al., 2009; Megawati & Pan, 2010; Megawati et
to Eurocode 8 (EC8) for Malaysia (MS EN1998): Design Of
al., 2005; Pan & Megawati, 2002; Pan et al., 2007; Petersen et
structures For Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General
al., 2004; Pappin et al., 2011).
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. This paper
While potential hazards generated locally can be
was authored by members of the study group formed to
significant, little is known of seismic activities within the
undertake seismic hazard study for different parts of Malaysia
peninsula. So, results generated from conventional PSHA
and to guide the drafting of the NA.
and the associated use of empirical data is considered not
In view of the range of peak ground acceleration (PGA)
sufficiently robust and may result in the level of hazard being
values being too narrow to justify the use of a contour map,
underrated. In view of this unique pattern of combined
separate response spectrum models for rock sites have been
seismicity, a hybrid modelling approach has been adopted
developed for Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah.
to take into account both the regional and local seismic
The model proposed for the peninsula is a composite model
hazards. This approach was endorsed by both international
which encapsulates results from the probabilistic seismic
and local participants in IEM workshops in April 2013 and July
hazard assessment (PSHA) of recorded regional earthquakes
2014 (Lam et al., 2014; Looi et al., 2014; Hee, 2015).
as well as from the predictions of the local earthquakes,
With the lack of data for local earthquakes, the major
based on broad source zone modelling in accordance with
challenge is in the development of the local component of
global seismicity data. This approach best capitalises on the
the hybrid model. There is very low frequency of occurrence
benefits of abundant data of distant events, while obtaining
of intraplate earthquakes in the Sunda Plate. Developing a
robust estimates of locally generated hazards.
reliable model based on these low quantities of occurrence
Details of the modelling methodology have been
data, is not statistically practicable or robust. Since there is
published internationally (Lam et al., 2009 & 2015; Looi et
still seismic activity, these activities inside the Plate are still
al., 2015; Hee et al., 2015) and presented at a recent IEM
comparable globally to areas with enough statistical data of
workshop and short course (Lam, 2015; Lam et al., 2014; Looi
intraplate events. Hence the collection of intraplate records
et al., 2014) and summarised in JURUTERA (Hee, 2015). All
globally from different parts of the world with similar tectonic
the models introduced in this paper for rock site conditions,
settings, to develop a model of the rate of occurrence was
are to be combined with the site amplification model to be
adopted (Lam et al., 2015). Seismic actions to be considered
introduced in the companion paper in Tsang et al., (2016) for
for ordinary (Type II) buildings, which are defined herein as
defining the design seismic actions on a building for given
“reference seismic actions”, are based on a notional 475-
site conditions, and in Lam et al., (2016) for importance class
year return period (RP) being scaled by a factor of 2/3 of
and its behaviour factor (q).
the benchmarked 2,475 year RP earthquake action. The
RESPONSE SPECTRUM MODELS reference PGA value is accordingly 0.07g whereas the
Peninsular Malaysia is subjected to a combination of design peak ground acceleration value for important (Type
earthquake hazards generated from different sources, IV) built facilities is 0.1g (Lam et al., 2016). Refer to Figures 1a

16 JURUTERA January 2016


& 1b for response spectrum model for rock sites presented
in the displacement and acceleration formats in Peninsular
Malaysia to encapsulate both distant and local hazards for
2,475 year RP.
(a) Displacement Response Spectrum
(b) Acceleration Response Spectrum
Figure 1: Elastic Response Spectrum on rock for Peninsular Malaysia for Type
IV lifeline facilities (Design PGA = 0.1g, RP = 2,475 years)
(a) Displacement Response Spectrum
(b) Acceleration Response Spectrum
Figure 2: Elastic Response Spectrum on rock for Sarawak for Type IV lifeline
facilities (Design PGA = 0.1g, RP = 2,475 years)
FEATURE
(a) Displacement Response Spectrum
(b) Acceleration Response Spectrum
Figure 3: Elastic Response Spectrum on rock for Sabah for Type IV lifeline
facilities (Design PGA = 0.18g, RP = 2,475 years)
Sarawak is also subject to distant seismic hazard from the
Kelawit Fault and the Bukit Mersing Fault some 500km from the
capital of Kuching, but ground motions predicted from these
identified fault sources are not as critical as the background
hazards. Consequently, the response spectrum model for
Sarawak was essentially based on the considerations of
local hazards only. Refer to Figures 2a & 2b for the seismic
action model for rock sites in Sarawak, presented in the
displacement and acceleration formats. The values of PGA
for the notional 475 year RP and the benchmarked 2,475
year RP are 0.07g and 0.1g respectively, as for Peninsular
Malaysia but differs in the higher period range (> 1.25s), due
to different frequency of occurrence of regional seismicity.
Unlike Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah is closer
to areas of higher seismicity. Many fault zones and their
focal mechanisms were identified, namely Belait Fault zone,
Jerudong Fault zone and Mulu Fault zone in the south-
west near Brunei, Crocker Fault zone and Mensaban Fault
zone which lies in the vicinity of Ranau and Kota Kinabalu
in the central-north, Labuk Bay-Sandakan Basin zone near
Sandakan, Pegasus Tectonic Line near Lahad Datu and the
Semporna Fault in the Dent-Semporna Peninsula Zone (JMM
and MOSTI, 2009).
So, the response spectrum model for Sabah is essentially
based on results generated from conventional PSHA based
on recorded seismicity data. Refer to Figures 3a & 3b for the
seismic action model for rock sites in Sabah, presented in the
displacement and acceleration formats. The values of PGA
for the notional 475 year RP and the benchmarked 2,475
year RP are 0.12g and 0.18g respectively.
CONCLUSION
Separate elastic response spectrum models have been
presented for rock sites in Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and
January 2016 JURUTERA 17
 FEATURE
ANCHOR-REINFORCED EARTH
Our Strength is Your Confidence
APPLICATION
Bridge Abutment
Land Reclaimation
Housing Development &
Temporary Embankment
Other Civil
Engineering Application
CT CRIB TM
The Most Reliable & Cost Effective
Retaining Wall System
APPLICATION
Slope Protection
Embankment Stabilization
Housing & Road Project
Other Civil
Engineering Application
For enquiry please contact :
CRIB TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD (564096-A),
ARE WALL (M) SDN BHD (542608-W)
46-A, SS 22/25, Damansara Jaya,
47400 Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
Tel: +603-7731 7391 Fax: +603-7725 7868
Email: groadesb@yahoo.com
Website: http://www.ctsbare.com
18 JURUTERA January 2016
Sabah. The response spectrum model proposed for the peninsula makes use of
the hybrid modelling approach which takes into account both regional and
local seismic hazards.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the continuous support from IEM in the facilitation of the
many workshops and meetings over the years, culminating in the drafting of the
National Annex. We also acknowledge the intellectual input by E.P. Lim, Ahmed
Zuhal Zaeem and other active participants from EC8 TC.
Notations
SDe(T) elastic displacement response spectrum spectrum
Se(T) elastic horizontal ground acceleration response
T vibration period of a linear single degree of freedom system
q behaviour factor.
REFERENCES
[1] Balendra T., Lam N.T.K., Wilson J.L., Kong K.H. (2002). Analysis of long-distance tremors and
base shear demand for buildings for Singapore. Engineering Structures 24, 99-108.
[2] Balendra T., Li Z. (2008). Seismic Hazard of Singapore and Malaysia. EJSE Special Issue:
Earthquake Engineering in the low and moderate seismic regions of SEA and Australia.
[3] CEN (2004) EN 1998 1. 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance
– Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussells.
[4] Hee, M.C. (2015). Preview of National Annex to EC8: Seismic Loadings for Peninsular Malaysia,
Sabah and Sarawak”, JURUTERA (the monthly bulletin of the Institution of Engineers, Malaysia).
September Issue. 32-35.
[5] Hee, M.C., Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Looi, D.T.W. (2015). Draft National Annex to Eurocode 8 for
Malaysia and cost implication for residential buildings with thin size elements. Proceedings of the
10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 6 - 8 November 2015, Sydney, Australia.
[6] JMM and MOSTI (2009). Final report on seismic and tsunami hazards and risks study in
Malaysia. Academy of Sciences Malaysia.
[7] Lam, N.T.K. (2015). Earthquake Environment Surrounding Different parts of Malaysia. Lecture
notes on How to utilise our proposed EC8 Malaysia NA for our practising consulting engineers,
IEM professional short course, 29 – 30 September 2015, Armada Hotel Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
[8] Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Wilson, J.L., Looi, D.T.W., Hee, M.C. (2016). Performance criteria and
design parameters. JURUTERA (the monthly bulletin of the Institution of Engineers, Malaysia).
January Issue.
[9] Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Lumantarna, E., Wilson, J.L. (2015). Local intraplate earthquakes
considerations for Singapore. Institution of Engineering Singapore Part A: Civil & Structural
Engineering. Published on line 21 November 2014. (In press)
[10] Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Lumantarna, E., Wilson, J.L. (2014). Background Seismicity of Local
Intraplate Earthquakes. Proceedings of presentation at 2 day workshop on recommended
earthquake loading model in the propose N.A. to EC8 for Sabah, Sarawak & updated model for
Peninsular Malaysia, 16 – 17 July 2014, Armada Hotel Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
[11] Lam, N.T.K., Balendra, T., Wilson, J.L., Srikanth, V. (2009), Seismic Load Estimates of Distant
Subduction Earthquakes Affecting Singapore, Engineering Structures, 31(5): 1230-1240.
[12] Looi, D.T.W., Hee, M.C., Tsang, H.H., Lam, N.T.K. (2014). Updated Design Spectrum for
Peninsular Malaysia. Proceedings of presentation at 2 day workshop on recommended
earthquake loading model in the propose N.A. to EC8 for Sabah, Sarawak & updated model for
Peninsular Malaysia, 16 – 17 July 2014, Armada Hotel Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
[13] Looi, D.T.W., Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Hee, M.C. (2015). Seismic analysis in the low to moderate
seismicity region of Malaysia based on the draft handbook. Proceedings of the 10th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 6 - 8 November 2015, Sydney, Australia.
[14] Megawati K., Pan T.C. (2010). Ground-motion attenuation relationship for the Sumatran
megathrust earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 39, 827-845.
[15] Megawati K., Pan T.C., Koketsu K. (2005). Response spectral attenuation relationships for
Sumatran-subduction earthquakes and the seismic hazard implication to Singapore and Kuala
Lumpur. Soil Dynamics and Earthquakes Engineering 25, 11-25.
[16] Pan T.C., Megawati K. (2002). Estimation of PGA of the Malay Peninsula due to Distant Sumatra
Earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92:3, 1082-1094.
[17] Pan T.C., Megawati K., Lim C.L. (2007). Seismic shaking in Singapore due to past Sumatran
earthquakes. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami 1:1, 49-70.
[18] Pappin J.W., Yim P.H.I., Koo C.H.R (October 2011). An approach for seismic design in Malaysia
following the principles of Eurocode 8. IEM Jurutera Magazine, 22-28.
[19] Petersen M.D., Dewey J., Hartzell S., Mueller C., Harmsen S., Frankel A.D., Rukstales K. (2004).
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Sumatra, Indonesia and across the Southern Malaysian
Peninsula. Tectonophysics 390, 141-158.
[20] Tsang, H.H., Lam, N.T.K., Looi, D.T.W., Wilson, J.L., Hee, M.C. (2016). Site Classification and
Response Spectrum Model for Soil Sites. JURUTERA (the monthly bulletin of the Institution of
Engineers, Malaysia). January Issue.
 FEATURE

Site Classification and Elastic

Response Spectrum Model for Soil Sites
by Dr Tsang Hing Ho, Prof. Nelson Lam, Engr. Looi Ting Wee Grad. IEM, Prof. John Wilson, Ir. Adjunct Prof. M C Hee.
(Photos and details of authors on page 44.)

T
his paper introduces the elastic response spectrum models for different ground conditions, with
a particular emphasis on the phenomenon of periodic ground shaking in lexible soil sites. The
natural period of the site, which is closely correlated with the depth of the soil sediments, has
been incorporated as a parameter in the construction of the soil response spectrum.

This model, to be introduced in the draft National Annex (NA)
to Eurocode 8 (EC8) for Malaysia, resembles real behaviour
much better than the response spectrum models stipulated
by EC8 itself. The need to address the effects of site periodicity
is particularly justified in regions of low-to-moderate seismicity
such as Malaysia, where structures are typically of limited
ductility and so, are vulnerable to the elastic amplification
phenomenon as described in the paper.
on rock and soil sites at Oakland Outer Harbour in the
1989 earthquake at Loma Prieta, California, United States
(Dickenson et al., 1991). In the draft NA to EC8 for Malaysia,
the site natural period (TS) is incorporated as a parameter in
the construction of the response spectrum for structures.

INTRODUCTION
Soil modification of seismic waves within soil sedimentary
layers overlying bedrock can have significant effects on
both their amplitude and frequency properties. Multiple
reflected seismic waves that are trapped within the soil layers
are periodic in nature as a result of filtering and wave super
position. The deeper the soil layers, the longer it takes for the
reflected wave front to travel through the soil medium. Thus,
the natural period of the site is controlled by the thickness of
the soil layers.
The extent of soil amplification also depends on the level
of shaking, the properties of the soil materials (including its
shear modulus and plasticity) and the shear modulus of the
underlying bedrock materials. Amplification of the response
of structures to periodic excitation is very selective in nature,
in that the effects are only pronounced in structures of a
certain period range. In conditions of severe ground shaking,
site amplification associated with the periodic motions can
be suppressed by energy dissipation in an in elastically
responding ductile structure and in the soil medium itself.
Thus, its effects have not been explicitly parameterised in
major codes of practices that were derived from research
and experiences in regions of high seismicity. The issue of
periodicity has much greater design implications in regions
of low-to-moderate seismicity such as Malaysia, where
structures are typically of limited ductility and motions in the
soil are not as intensive, as the amount of energy dissipation
is much less than that in regions of high seismicity.
Site effects can be conveniently observed on response
spectra. In situations where a distinct soil-rock interface
exists, the amplification ratio usually has a maximum value
close to the natural period of the soil layer (TS). Figure 1 is a
good example of amplification driven by soil site periodicity;
it shows the acceleration response spectrum recorded
Figure 1: Acceleration response spectrum recorded on rock and soil sites at Oakland
Outer Harbour in the 1989 earthquake at Loma Prieta, California, United States.
The spectral acceleration values are a few times larger on
a soil site in comparison with a rock site, while the amplification
ratio is in the order of four times for the peaks at 0.7s. Such
significant and selective amplification phenomenon has to
be taken into account in the construction of the response
spectrum as per design code of practices
BRIEF REVIEW OF EXISTING EC8 MODEL
EC8 recommends two types of elastic response spectrum:
Type 1 for high seismicity areas and Type 2 for less active
areas. The spectral shapes mimick the spectral shapes of
large (M = 7~7.5) and small (M = 5.5) magnitude events
occurring at a site-source distance of 10km, which will in
effect, result in different sets of corner periods. However, it is
stated clearly in EC8, Part 1: Clause 3.2.2.2 (2)P that suitable
values of corner periods could be investigated and specified
in the NA of a country and that it is not necessary to stick to
the use of either Type 1 or Type 2 response spectrum.
Although the importance of the total thickness of soil
layer is well recognised, site classification nowadays is based
solely on the properties to a certain fixed depth of near-
surface materials. In EC8, a site shall be classified according
to the value of the average shear wave velocity (SWV)
(Vs,30), or the value of Standard Penetration Resistance Test
(SPT) – N (for cohesion-less soil), or the value of undrained
shear strength cu (for cohesive soil), over the upper 30m.

20 JURUTERA January 2016


A site shall be classified as either Site Class A, B, C, D, E, S1
or S2 based on site soil properties. Profiles containing distinctly
different soil and/or rock layers shall be subdivided into those
layers designated by a number from 1 to n at the bottom
where there are a total of n distinct layers in the upper 30m.
The symbol i then refers to any one of the layers between
1 and n. The average shear wave velocity Vs,30 can be
computed by Equation (1). The same equation also applies
to the computation of the values of SPT–N and undrained soil site (which combines the original ground type B and C
shear strength.
(1)
where Vs,i = The shear wave velocity in m/s;
di = The thickness of any layer between 0 and 30m.
A uniform soil factor, S, shall be applied across the
whole response spectrum for each site class (ground type),
which is up to 1.4 (for Type 1) and 1.8 (for Type 2). The
first corner period TC varies between 0.4 s to 0.8s (for Type
1) and between 0.25s to 0.3s (for Type 2) elastic response
spectrum. Larger values of TC essentially translate to a higher
demand at the intermediate-to-long-period range. TD is fixed
at 2.0s (for Type 1) or 1.2s (for Type 2). Noted that TC is the
first corner period at the upper limit of the constant spectral
acceleration region of the elastic response spectrum model,
whilst TD is the second corner period at the beginning (lower
limit) of the constant spectral displacement region.
PROPOSED SITE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
In the proposed scheme, a site shall be characterised by
the weighted average initial SWV (VS), depths of soils (HS)
and the initial low-amplitude natural period (TS) of all the soil
layers down to the depth of very stiff sedimentary materials
or bedrock. This site-period approach recognises that deep
deposits of stiff or dense soils exhibit high-period site response
characteristics not shown by deposits of only a few 10s of
metres of the same material.
The value of TS can be estimated based on geophysical
(or geotechnical) measurements, with the use of Equation
(2). It can be computed based on four times the shear-wave
travel-time through materials from the surface to underlying
stiff sediments or bedrock, if the thickness (di) and initial SWV
(Vs,i) of the individual soil layers are known. Alternatively, the
value of TS can be expressed in terms of the total thickness of
the soil layers (HS) and its weighted average SWV (VS).
(2)
In the proposed site classification scheme, a site with TS <
0.15s, where the soil layers are very thin and/or stiff, the site
can be classified as a rock site (equivalent to the original
ground type A in EC8). The elastic response spectra for rock
sites for the three regions have already been fully discussed
in a companion article (Lam et al., 2016a).
The site amplification for such very thin and/or stiff ground
would mainly concern structures with a natural period lower
FEATURE
than 0.2s, while the amplification for a natural period higher
than 0.2s is minimal. It is note worthy that the corresponding
peak displacement demand for such low period structures
is very small in regions of low-to-moderate seismicity. Most
structures that are not brittle, would be capable of sustaining
this very minor peak displacement demand without being
subjected to any significant risks of collapse.
A site with TS between 0.15s and 0.5s is classified as a stiff
in EC8, for simplicity and practicality). When the site natural
period TS is greater than 0.5s, the site can be considered as
flexible soil site. However, for TS > 1.0s, or deposits consisting
of at least 10m thick of clays/silts with a high plasticity index
(PI > 50), dynamic site response analyses shall be performed
or Type 1 elastic response spectrum for ground type D shall
be adopted. A soil column with TS > 1.0s is considered very
flexible and there may be significant higher modes effects
in the site response behaviours. For deposits of 10m thick
(or more) of clays/silts with a high plasticity index (PI > 50),
special consideration should be taken, as exceptionally high
amplification can happen.
The proposed site classification scheme is presented in
Table 1. This scheme was designed for simplicity, which is
more suitable for application in regions of low-to-moderate
seismicity, and for using site natural period as the sole
parameter for site classification. More features of the
response spectrum model for each site will be discussed in
a later section.
Table 1: Proposed site classiication scheme
Description Site Period TS (s)
Rock (R) TS < 0.15
Stiff Soil (SS) 0.15 ≤ TS < 0.5
Flexible Soil (FS) 0.5 ≤ TS ≤ 1.0 *
* For TS > 1.0 s, or deposits of at least 10m thick of clays/silts with a high
plasticity index (PI > 50), dynamic site response analyses shall be performed or
Type 1 elastic response spectrum for ground type D shall be adopted.
ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM FORMAT
The Elastic Response Spectrum model can be constructed
using Equation (3) in the displacement (RSD) format, as
expressed in terms of four spectral parameters, SD (TD), TC,
TD and m. The emphasis on the prediction of the value of
RSD is to align with displacement-based seismic design
methodology.
T ≤ TC : SDe(T) = SD(TD)
( T2
TCTD
(
TC ≤ T ≤ TD : SDe(T) = SD(TD)
( T
TD
( (3)
TD ≤ T ≤ 4 : SDe(T) = SD(TD) + m x (T - TD)
The elastic response spectrum model in the acceleration
(RSA) format can be conveniently obtained by direct
transformation from the displacement format using Equation (4).
2
2ρ
Se (T) = SDe (T) x
( T
( (4)
This response spectrum format is nearly identical to that
currently adopted in EC8 and is similar in form to those
January 2016 JURUTERA 21
 FEATURE

adopted in various codes of practice worldwide. The only Table 2: Proposed spectral parameters, SD (TD), TC and TD
difference is at the constant-displacement range, where a Ground TS (s) SD (TD) (mm) Slope m TC (s) TD (s)
linear function has been proposed for reflecting the unique Type
seismicity pattern of the region. Rock (R) TS < 0.15 γI x SDR (1.25) γI x mR
PROPOSED SPECTRAL PARAMETERS
Stiff Soil 0.15 ≤ TS γI x SDR (1.25) γI x mR 0.3 1.25
(SS) < 0.5 x 1.5
For rock (R) sites, SD(TD) is the region-specific spectral
displacement on rock SDR(T ) at T = 1.25s. This value is 16mm Flexible 0.5 ≤ TS ≤ γI x SDR (1.5 TS ) γI x mF 1.2 TS 1.5 TS
Soil (FS) 1.0 *
(24mm) for Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak, and 28mm x 3.6
(42mm) for Sabah, for a notional return period of 475 years * For TS > 1.0 s, or deposits consisting of at least 10m thick of clays/silts with a high
plasticity index (PI > 50), dynamic site response analyses shall be performed or
(values in parenthesis for return period of 2,475 years).
Type 1 elastic response spectrum for ground type D shall be adopted.
For stiff soil (SS) sites, a uniform S-factor of 1.5 shall be
applied across the whole response spectrum on rock. This Table 3: Proposed regional-dependent hazard parameters, agR, SDR (1.25), mR
and mF for notional 475 years return period.
recommendation is consistent with that for ground type
D of EC8 Type 2 spectrum (for regions of low-to-moderate Region agR (g) SDR (1.25)(mm) mR mF
seismicity). The values of the two corner periods TC and TD
are taken as the same as that for rock sites, which are equal Peninsular 0.07 16 6.7
0
Malaysia
to 0.3s and 1.25s respectively. TB is fixed as 0.1s for all ground
types in the proposed scheme. However, it is noted that the Sarawak 0.07 16 0 0
form of the response spectrum in the NA has not explicitly Sabah 0.12 28 40 26.7
indicated TB as it is undesirable in practice, given uncertainties
in the value of the natural period of vibration of the structure.
For flexible soil (FS) sites, a response spectrum model that
takes into account resonant-like amplification phenomenon
is proposed (Lam et al., 2001; Tsang et al., 2006a; Tsang et al.,
2006b; Tsang et al., 2013; Tsang et al., 2015). SD(TD), TC and TD,
shall be computed using Equations (5)-(7):
where SDR (1.5TS) is the response spectral displacement
(RSD) on rock at T = 1.5TS. Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the proposed model for (a) rock and stiff soil sites,
as well as (b) lexible soil sites (in RSD format).
SD (TD) = SDR(1.5TS) x S (5)
WORKED EXAMPLE
TC = 1.2TS (6) In order to demonstrate the proposed model for incorporation
into the draft NA for flexible soil (FS) sites, a typical
TD = 1.5TS (7) engineering borehole record was taken from a soil site in
Peninsular Malaysia as example (See Figure 3). For clarity,
Response spectral velocity (RSV) of a soil spectrum typically
Table 4 shows the SPT-N values for individual soil layers.
peaks between 1.2TS and 1.5TS (Tsang et al., 2006b), with
It is noted that the computation of equivalent values of
respect to the level of ground shakings in regions of low-
N > 50 for certain soil layers is above the normally considered
to-moderate seismicity. S is the site amplification factor of
“saturated limit” of 50 (e.g. at depth of 33m, N = 50 with a
3.6 (Tsang et al., 2006a), which is applied at the constant-
penetration depth P = 270mm; the equivalent N should be
velocity range (intermediate period range). For example,
calculated as 50x300/270 = 55.6).
the equivalent amplification ratio at T = 1.0s ranges from
In view of the lack of local studies, empirical formulas that
2.5 to 5.9 in other major codes of practice (including EC8,
are applicable to all types of soils as summarised in Wair et al.,
International Building Code, Australian Standard and New
2012 were referenced. Table 4 also shows computations of
Zealand Standard). In fact, the largest amplification ratio at
SWV values and the corresponding SPT–N values based on two
the low-period range would be 1.8, which is consistent with
empirical formulas that are applicable to all types of soils (i.e.,
that for ground type D of EC8 Type 2 spectrum.
Imai and Tonouchi, 1982 and Sisman, 1995). The individual soil
Table 2 shows a summary of the proposed models for all site
layers thickness (di) over initial SWV (Vs,i) ratio were calculated
classes. Table 3 summarises the key regional-dependent hazard
to obtain the weighted average SWV (VS) by the use of Eq.
parameters. Importance factor γI should be referred to another
(1). In this case, VS = 42/0.19 = 221 m/s. The value of TS can be
companion paper (i.e. Lam et al., 2016b). The parameters slope
expressed in terms of the total thickness of the soil layers (HS)
mR and mF are aimed at capturing the long period spectral
and its weighted average SWV (VS) via the use of Eq. (2), TS =
shape of distant events. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of
4 x 42/221 ≈ 0.7s, which falls in between 0.5s and 1.0s, and is
the proposed response spectrum models for the three ground
categorised as FS (as in Table 2).
types (in RSD format). The model has been well validated
Based on the spectral parameters in Tables 2 and 3, the
through comparison with results obtained from computational
following calculations show steps for construction of the
site response analysis of soil columns derived from real borehole
response spectrum for this FS site in Peninsular Malaysia for a
records, as well as from strong motion data recorded in the
notional 475 years return period (γI = 1):
Northridge earthquake, 1994.

22 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

Figure 3. Sample engineering borehole log record in Peninsular Malaysia

Table 4: Computation of site natural period TS

depth di Imai & Tonouchi Sisman Vs,i di /Vs,i 28.5 1.5 34 294 198 246 0.006
SPT-N
(m) (m) (1982) (1995) (m/s) (s)
30 1.5 31 285 189 237 0.006
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000
31.5 1.5 33 291 195 243 0.006
1.5 1.5 6 170 82 126 0.012
33 1.5 55.6 343 255 299 0.005
3.5 2 7 179 88 134 0.015
34.5 1.5 60 351 265 308 0.005
4.5 1 10 200 106 153 0.007
36 1.5 88.2 396 322 359 0.004
6 1.5 10 200 106 153 0.010
37.5 1.5 107 421 356 388 0.004
7.5 1.5 16 232 135 183 0.008
39 1.5 100 412 343 378 0.004
9 1.5 17 236 139 188 0.008
40.5 1.5 150 468 422 445 0.003
10.5 1.5 17 236 139 188 0.008
42 1.5 214 523 506 515 0.003
12 1.5 21 252 155 204 0.007
Σ = 42.0 Σ = 0.190
13.5 1.5 19 245 147 196 0.008
15 1.5 21 252 155 204 0.007 NOTE: the Malaysia EC8 NA suggested that sedimentary layers with
16.5 1.5 24 263 166 214 0.007 SPT-N value greater than 100 can be omitted in the computations of
site natural period and weighted average SWV; nonetheless more
18 1.5 27 273 176 225 0.007
layers of soil after SPT-N 100 can be included for calculation as
19.5 1.5 25 267 169 218 0.007 shown in Table 4.
21 1.5 27 273 176 225 0.007
22.5 1.5 28 276 179 228 0.007 Step 1: Calculate TC and TD for flexible soil site according to
24 1.5 24 263 166 214 0.007 Equations (6)-(7):
25.5 1.5 29 279 183 231 0.006 TC = 1.2 x TS = 1.2 x 0.7 = 0.84s
27 1.5 31 285 189 237 0.006 TD = 1.5 x TS = 1.5 x 0.7 = 1.05s

24 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

Step 2: Calculate SDR (TD) on rock according to Equation (3)
and Table 3:
For rock site, TC = 0.3s and TD = 1.25s, hence
SDR(TD) = SDR (1.5TS) = SDR (1.05) = SD (TD)
( T
TD
( = (16 x 1.05 / 1.25) = 13.44 mm
Step 3: Calculate SD (TD) on soil according to Equation (5)
SD (TD) = SDR (1.5 TS) x S = 13.44 x 3.6 = 48.38mm
Step 4: Calculate the whole range of SDe (T) on soil according
to Equation (3); corner periods are shown in detail and
summarised in Table 5
T ≤ 0.84s: SDe (T ) = 48.38 [T2 / (0.84 x 1.05)]
0.84s ≤ T ≤ 1.05s: SDe (T ) = 48.38 (T / 1.05)
1.05s ≤ T ≤ 4s: SDe (T ) = 48.38 + 0 (T – 1.05), where m = mF = 0
Step 5: Transformation into acceleration (RSA) format in unit
of g from the displacement (RSD) format using Equation (4),
both of which are shown in detail and summarised in Table 5
T ≤ 0.84s: Se (T ) = 48.38 [T2 / (0.84 x 1.05)] x (2π / T)2 / 9810
0.84s ≤ T ≤ 1.05s: Se (T ) = 48.38 (T / 1.05) x (2π / T)2 / 9810
1.05s ≤ T ≤ 4s: Se (T ) = [48.38 + 0 (T – 1.05)] x (2π / T)2 / 9810
COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SPECTRUM MODEL FOR
FLEXIBLE SOIL SITE WITH EC8 MODEL
The elastic response spectrum constructed in accordance
with the proposed model as per the draft NA for a flexible
soil (FS) site with TS = 0.7s (in the range of 0.5 s to 1.0 s) is
shown in Figure 4, along with that stipulated by EC8 for Class
D and E sites of Type 1 and Type 2 spectra. Both soil spectra
are based on a common spectrum for rock, which is based
on notional peak ground acceleration of 0.1g (2,475 years
return period) in Peninsular Malaysia. The selective nature of
response spectral amplification on a flexible soil layer is well
reflected in the shape of the proposed soil spectrum. Whilst
the amount of amplification of the proposed RS in the higher
period range falls in between Type 1 and Type 2 model of
EC8, the proposed model is not as conservative in the short
period range. In summary, the proposed RS model resembles
real behaviour of elastically responding structures much
better than that of the existing EC8 model.

Table 5. Summary of response spectral ordinates for an example FS site with

TS = 0.7s for notional 475 years return period (γI = 1).

TS = 0.7s
Period ( T ), s
SDe (mm) Se (g)
0.00 0.00 0.22
0.10 0.55 0.22
0.20 2.19 0.22 Figure 4. Comparison of proposed response spectrum model for lexible soil (a)
0.30 4.94 0.22 RSA format (b) RSD format, for 2,475 years return period in
Peninsular Malaysia.
0.40 8.78 0.22
0.50 13.71 0.22 COMMENTS ON VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE ACTIONS
0.60 19.75 0.22 Vertical action is particularly important for near fault ground
motion which is the design earthquake scenarios in higher
0.70 26.88 0.22
seismicity regions. Nonetheless, provisions for vertical
0.80 35.11 0.22
earthquake actions as per recommendations by EC8 are
0.84 (TC) 38.70 0.22
introduced, whilst the ratio of avg/ag is taken as 0.7 based on
0.90 41.47 0.21
the recent research findings reported by Elgamal and He
1.00 46.08 0.19
(2004). Given that the design horizontal action in Malaysia
1.05 (TD) 48.38 0.18
is generally low it is of the opinion of the NA drafting team
1.10 48.38 0.16 that vertical action would not be the controlling factor in
1.20 48.38 0.14 the design of most building structures. It is also noted that
1.30 48.38 0.12 horizontal ground motion is amplified much more than
1.40 48.38 0.10 vertical ground motion on soil sites.
1.50 48.38 0.09
1.60 48.38 0.08
CONCLUSIONS
A set of elastic response spectrum models for various ground
1.80 48.38 0.06
conditions is to be incorporated into the NA to EC8 for
2.00 48.38 0.05
Malaysia to replace the original provisions in EC8. Central to
2.20 48.38 0.04
the construction of the response spectrum is the site natural
2.40 48.38 0.03
period (TS) which is to be estimated using relationships
2.60 48.38 0.03 presented in the paper. The selective nature of response
2.80 48.38 0.02 spectral amplification on a flexible soil layer is well reflected
3.00 48.38 0.02 in the shape of the proposed soil spectrum which resembles
3.20 48.38 0.02 real behaviour much better than the response spectrum
3.40 48.38 0.02 models stipulated by EC8 itself.
3.60 48.38 0.02 Notations
3.80 48.38 0.01 HS depths of soils
4.00 48.38 0.01 N SPT values

January 2016 JURUTERA 25

 FEATURE

S soil factor
SD(TD) region-specific spectral displacement on rock
SDe(T) elastic displacement response spectrum
SDR(T) elastic displacement response spectrum on rock
Se(T) elastic horizontal ground acceleration response
T vibration period of a linear single degree of freedom system
TB lower limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch
TC first corner period
TD second corner period
TS initial low-amplitude site natural period (note: this symbol is different from EC8
where Ts is referred as the duration of the stationary part of the seismic motion)
VS weighted average initial shear wave velocity
Vs,i shear wave velocity of individual soil layer
Vs,30 average value of propagation velocity of S waves in the upper 30 m of the
soil profile
ag notional design peak ground acceleration on rock
avg design ground acceleration in the vertical direction
di thickness of any layer between 0 and 30 m
m slope parameter to capture long period spectral shape of distant events
mF slope parameter on flexible soil
mR slope parameter on rock
q behaviour factor
γI importance factor

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the continuous support from IEM in the facilitation of the
many workshops and meetings over the years, culminating in the drafting
of the National Annex. We also acknowledge the intellectual input from
E.P. Lim, Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem and other active participants from EC8 TC.

REFERENCES
[1] Australian Standard: AS 1170.4-2007, Structural Design Actions, Part 4: Earthquake Actions in Australia.
Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia; 2007.
[2] Dickenson S.E., Seed R.B., Lysmer J., Mok C.M. (1991). Response of soft soils during the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake and implications for seismic design criteria, Proceedings of the 4th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 191-204, New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 20-23 November, 1991.
[3] Elgamal A., and He L. (2004). Vertical earthquake ground motion records: an overview. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 8: 663-697.
[4] EN 1998-1:2004, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules,
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. United Kingdom: European Committee for Standardisation;
2004.
[5] Imai T., and Tonouchi K. (1982). Correlation of N value with S-wave velocity and shear modulus. In:
Proc. of the 2nd European Symp. on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, 67–72.
[6] International Building Code (IBC). Country Club Hill, Illinois, USA: International Code Council; 2012.
[7] Lam N.T.K., Wilson J.L., Chandler A.M. (2001). Seismic displacement response spectrum estimated
from the frame analogy soil amplification model. Engineering Structures 23: 1437-1452.
[8] Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Looi, D.T.W., Wilson, J.L., Hee, M.C. (2016a). Design response spectrum
models for rock sites. JURUTERA (the monthly bulletin of the Institution of Engineers, Malaysia).
January Issue
[9] Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Wilson, J.L., Looi, D.T.W., Hee, M.C. (2016b). Performance criteria and
design parameters. JURUTERA (the monthly bulletin of the Institution of Engineers, Malaysia). January
Issue.
[10] New Zealand Standard: NZS 1170.5:2004, Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions – New
Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Standards New Zealand; 2004.
[11] Sisman H. (1995). An Investigation on Relationships between Shear Wave Velocity, and SPT and
Pressuremeter Test Results. Master of Science Thesis, Ankara University, Turkey.
[12] Tsang H.H., Chandler A.M., Lam N.T.K. (2006a). Estimating non-linear site response by single period
approximation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics;35(9):1053-1076.
[13] Tsang H.H., Chandler A.M., Lam N.T.K. (2006b). Simple models for estimating period-shift and damping
in soil. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics;35(15):1925-1947.
[14] Tsang H.H., Lam N.T.K, Wilson J.L. (2013). A displacement based soil amplification model for low
and moderate seismicity regions. Proceedings of the IStructE Conference on Structural Engineering in
Hazard Mitigation, Beijing, China, October 28-29, 2013.
[15] Tsang H.H., Wilson J.L., Lam N.T.K. (2015). Recommended Site Classification Scheme and Design
Spectrum Model for Regions of Lower Seismicity. Proceedings of the Pacific Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Sydney, Australia, November 6-8, 2015.
[16] Wair B.R., DeJong J.T., Shantz T. (2012). Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles,
PEER Report 2012/08.

January 2016 JURUTERA 27

 ADVERTORIAL

A GLOBAL SHIFT TOWARDS DIGITAL FABRICATION

The ENDUROFRAME® building system is proving to be a smart,
simple solution for builders, manufacturers and developers

roof trusses and floor trusses, the building
system is thus a combination of finished
building system that can be used to
design, detail and manufacture steel
frames for residential and commercial
structures, adding that the company
has customers who are using the
ENDUROFRAME® building system for lost
formwork and curtain wall applications
as well.
A SMART, SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR
HOUSING
The ENDUROFRAME® business was set up
about four years ago in Australia to bring
together all BlueScope’s intellectual “Again, this is something we did
design light gauge steel frames but there
are companies which are using it for
various purposes that are beyond what
the ENDUROFRAME® building system was
originally intended for.
“For example, we have a licensee in
Malaysia that is using our system in a lost
formwork application and it is something
that we have never originally designed
the system for. We sold the building system
to a Melbourne-based company that
intends to use it for a facade application.
We also have companies that bought
the building system for making modular
buildings.

T
hink about this: Design your building property in steel framing. This includes not originally foresee. In the hands of
in software, get the design printed ways to build with light gauge steel engineers, it has many areas that can be
by a special machine and have frames, especially in developing smart used and explored,” he shared.
the parts installed and assembled on software, installation and manufacturing The ENDUROCADD® software system
site. With that, the building business of steel frames. also offers features such as curved roofs
has just become easier for builders, One of the main components of and walls in both plan and elevation
manufacturers and developers. the ENDUROFRAME® building system views – by making them in small and short
It does sound like a 3D printing is the smart software system called segments.
system that is doing the job but ENDUROCADD®. It is a brain child of In addition, the ENDUROCADD®
ENDUROFRAME® building system Business more than 20 years of light gauge steel software system and its associated
Manager Paul Jones from Australia research and development conducted design manuals are helpful resources
described it as a “digital fabrication”. by BlueScope and construction feedback for users because these are based on
“The key thing about the from thousands of past projects. hundreds of hours of testing to confirm
ENDUROFRAME® building system is about Described as the core of the their performance.
digital fabrication. The entire building ENDUROFRAME® building system, it is Furthermore, various trainings are
can be built in a computer. smart and versatile, thanks to the power provided locally through NS BlueScope
“We are able to model, detail and of the digital age. Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. and one of them
engineer a building, to see exactly what “It’s smart because it’s all about is how to use the software by drawing
it looks like and whether the building technology. We believe that one of on experiences from other countries.
fits with other elements such as the the big movements that is happening It includes demonstrations on how the
mechanical and electrical features as around the world at the moment is the ENDUROFRAME® building system can
well as the architecture. shift towards digital fabrication. be used in low-rise, mid-rise and multi-
“All these can be checked before “You could have an architect and storey buildings, in addition to providing
the digital file is downloaded into the builder in Malaysia, someone doing the assistance to support the machines
roll former, which is similar to a 3D printer, design of the components in Australia and (ENDURO® rollformer) that manufacture
to literally print out a house.” Jones an engineer in the United States. And it is the frames.
explained. all about shifting around digital files. Jones believes that this is an essential
He added that the ENDUROFRAME® “You could have collaborations from step to ensure that the machines are
building system “pretty much” provides many people in different locations to get running efficiently, working productively
all the features that a builder or the building correct,”Jones explained. and able to manufacture as many
developer needs to build a light gauge Unlike design software which is products as possible.
steel building. available in the market today, the The ENDUROCADD® software system
Essentially, it is a light gauge framing ENDUROCADD® software system is said can also create strong, reliable truss
system, made from steel of between to be easy to work with. A specialist designs which are self-certified by the
0.5mm and 1.2mm thick, manufactured with CAD skills is not required to operate software for non-cyclonic regions such
by a special machine called the the software – all that is needed is the as Malaysia. It is the only steel framing
ENDURO® rollformer. building skills of the user. software that is entirely self-certified and
Jones said that as the building system In terms of its versatility, Jones said the audited in accordance with the ABCB
consists of elements such as wall frames, software system is a tool to help users to Protocol for Structural Software.

28 JURUTERA January 2016

 ADVERTORIAL

For manufacturing steel frames, Jones

said the steel frames for all parts required
for a building frame manufactured from
the ENDURO® rollformer machine at high
speed to half a millimetre to accuracy.
For its operation, the ENDURO®
rollformer machine requires only one
person to operate it.
Besides being smart, the
ENDUROFRAME® steel frames are also
easy to fit together. With the use of the
ENDUROWALL® framing system, a light
weight wall framing system that has pre-
punched holes and recessed dimples,
the builders need only relatively unskilled
workers to fit the entire structure together.
This also applies to the use of the
ENDUROTRUSS® framing system where
only little re-skilling is required to detail or
install it. The ultimate roof framing solution
is designed to work similarly to timber
is the complete trace ability in the
trusses and it is hassle-free.
manufacturing system.
It is entirely “self-jigging” with the
“Every part produced by the
fixing frame from one side and it uses a
ENDURO® rollformer machine has three
combination of industry standard timber
things on it: the machine number,
frame bracketry and brackets which
the manufacturing date and the raw
are manufactured by the ENDURO®
materials that are used (it has an inkjet
rollformer.
mark that tells us the standard that the
The ENDUROTRUSS® framing system
steels are manufactured to).
features a wide range of truss designs
“This means that we can trace it
which are easily suited to the designs of
back to the individual machines, and
all types of houses. They are also made in
to the quality control records, through
accurate dimensions.
to the design, the steel coils used, and
With the flexibility of such framing
back to the original manufacturing of
system, they can be factory assembled
the steel if there is a problem found in
or installed on site.
the steel frame that has been installed or
MALAYSIA A VIABLE MARKET assembled on site,”he explained.
Jones believes that Malaysia is a great Jones also believes that it is
market for the ENDUROFRAME® building “almost unprecedented” to have such
system and is a perfect solution to the traceability and quality assurance that
local housing issues. the ENDUROFRAME® building system can
“With the government looking provide in the construction of houses.
forward to build 500,000 houses over the Locally, mobile training units are also
next five years and effectively doubling available on site to train the builders and
the number of houses that need to be installers to adequately equip them, in
built each year, the ENDUROFRAME® addition to maintaining the quality of the
building system is the perfect solution to building system as well as to upskilling the
achieve that. workers.
“They need a quicker and more support to push the ENDUROFRAME® “It is a similar programme available
efficient solution and I think the building system into the market,” Jones in Thailand. The mobile training units
ENDUROFRAME® building system is added. will go to the actual site and provide
perfectly suited for these opportunities.” Another key part of what the onsite training. It is a flexible approach in
With the wave of building more ENDUROFRAME® business does is that “it terms of reaching out to the Malaysian
homes starting to come through, he will supply the quality system that goes market,” said Alan Lee, Sales Manager at
opined that it will be a great opportunity with the machines”. NS BlueScope Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
for the building system. Jones said, “We have quality
“We currently have three licensees assurance around the design checks that For more information please visit:
in Malaysia and soon we will have the need to be done in the manufacture and www.bluescope.com.my/product/
fourth. They are located in the north of the assembly of the frames. These are enduroframe/
Malaysia, the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur documented and licensees are trained enquiries@bluescope.com
and in Sarawak. Soon, we will have one when the machines are installed.” +603-3361 6888
in Sabah. In addition to training and quality
“So we do have a good area assurance checks, another key
coverage and this will also enable us to the good quality system of the
to work with the licensees which we will ENDUROFRAME® building system

Disclaimer:
IEM and Dimension do not give any warranty as to the completeness or accuracy of any information, instruction, advice and /or opinion stated in this
Publication and IEM and/ or Dimension shall not held responsible for the outcome of any action or decision based on such information, instruction, advise and/
or opinion. Unless speciied, nothing herein shall be deemed to be an endorsement of any product or opinion by IEM or Dimension.

January 2016 JURUTERA 29

 FEATURE

Performance Criteria and Design

Parameters
by Prof. Nelson Lam, Dr Tsang Hing Ho, Prof. John Wilson, Engr. Looi Ting Wee Grad. IEM, Ir. Adjunct Prof. M C Hee.
(Photos and details of authors on page 44.)

I
n the proposed seismic action model to be incorporated into the National Annex (NA) to Eurocode
8 (EC8) for Malaysia, the design seismic actions for important built facilities are benchmarked on a
2,475 years return period (RP) earthquake action whereas the reference seismic action (notional 475
year RP) to be considered for ordinary buildings is the design action scaled by a factor of 2/3. Decisions
leading to the proposal are explained and terminologies clariied in the paper which draws frequent
references to the literature citing major codes of practices.

KEYWORDS criterion as defined in SEAOC Vision 2000 document (SEAOC,

National Annex to Eurocode 8, Seismic Design Actions.
INTRODUCTION
The decision on the return period of the design seismic
actions and the resulting design peak ground acceleration
value for buildings of different importance classes in different
parts of Malaysia, is a major item of consideration to be
discussed in this paper along with performance criteria for
buildings of different classifications.
STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND
PARAMETERS FOR DESIGN SEISMIC ACTIONS
Performance Criteria
According to EC8 – Part 1 (CEN, 2004), building structures
shall be designed and constructed in such a way that
the requirements of (i) No Collapse (NC) and (ii) Damage
Limitations (DL) are met. The state of No Collapse is
essentially in alignment with designing to the ultimate limit
state which entails the protection of life in a rare earthquake
event, by ensuring that no part of the structure collapses
and that adequate residual lateral resistant capacity of
the structure remains after the event to withstand strong
aftershocks should these occur. The safety of the occupants
can be assured, but the built facility can be inhabitable or
the damage can be too costly to repair.
The “no collapse”, or “no local collapse”, design criterion
as described, is comparable to the “life safety” performance
Table 1: Performance Criteria of Building Structures
1995) in the United States and the “significant damage”
(SD) performance criterion stipulated in EC8 – Part 3, which
contains provisions for the seismic assessment and retrofitting
of existing buildings. The No Collapse performance criterion
is not to be confused with the “near collapse”, or “collapse
prevention”, performance criterion of SEAOC Vision 2000
which is about ensuring that the building is able to sustain
sufficient vertical load carrying capacity in a very rare
earthquake event when the structure is on the verge of
wholesale collapse with little or no residual lateral resistance,
and some falling hazards may be present (Booth, 2014;
Fardis, 2009).
The Damage Limitations (DL) performance criterion,
which corresponds to the service ability limit state criterion (in
the conventional limit state design approach), has also been
written into both Part 1 and Part 3 of EC8 and is intended to
address the damaging potentials of frequent or occasional
earthquake events in the design of ordinary buildings. The
DL performance criterion is comparable to the “immediate
occupancy”, or “operational”, performance criterion of
SEAOC Vision 2000 which is to ensure no permanent drift and
no loss of lateral strength and stiffness of the building structure.
The built facility is then fit for continuous occupation during
the recovery period and the functionality of the building will
not be interrupted significantly by repair activities. In regions
of low or moderate seismicity that are remote from tectonic

Eurocode Eurocode SEAOC

No. Descriptions
8 part 1 8 part 3 Vision 2000
Fully Components that are sensitive to drift and/or acceleration remains fully functional
1. - -
Operational in a frequent event.
Operational
Damage Damage No permanent drift and no loss of lateral strength or stiffness of the building. The built
2. or Immediate
Limitation Limitation facility remains to be fit for continuous occupation in an occasional event.
Occupation
No part of the structure collapses and adequate residual lateral resistant capacity
Significant remains in the structure after a rare event to withstand strong aftershocks in order
3. (DL) Life Safe
Damage that safety of the occupants can be secured but building may be inhabitable and
repair too costly.
Collapse
Structure is able to sustain sufficient vertical load carrying capacity in a very rare
No Near Prevention
4. earthquake event when the structure is at the edge of wholesale collapse. Residual
Collapse Collapse or Near
lateral resistant capacity of the building might have been lost.
Collapse

30 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

plate boundaries, only rare or very rare earthquake events are of concern. So, the DL
performance criterion need not be checked in such an environment except for built
facilities forming part of lifeline facilities in the aftermath of an earthquake disaster or
buildings containing hazardous materials.
Refer to Table 1 for a summary of the performance criteria of building structures
as defined by the two parts of EC8 and the SEAOC Vision 2000 document.
Parameters for design seismic actions
In this section, recommendations for the value of the return period of seismic
actions and PGA values for buildings of different importance classes and the
behaviour factor are discussed. The return period of the considered seismic actions
that are aligned with the No Collapse (NC) performance criterion, is to be decided
on a country-by-country basis, given that factors governing such a decision would
involve social, economic and political considerations. Thus, the return period for
the NC performance criterion is to be specified in the respective NA of the country.
It is stated in the footnote attached to Clause 2.1 in EC8 – Part 1, that ground
motion intensity in a rare earthquake event consistent with a 10% chance
of exceedance for a design life of 50 years (i.e. return period of 475 years) is
recommended as the design seismic action. It was noted that this recommendation
was drafted in the late 1990s, at a time when it was still the norm to not consider
return periods exceeding 475 years in the design of structures supporting ordinary
buildings (Booth, 2014). Implicit in the NC performance criterion is that the building
is expected to have sufficient additional reserve capacity to sustain a very
rare, and extreme, earthquake event without experiencing wholesale collapse
(Fardis, 2009).
Seismic design provisions around the world have evolved over the decades,
during which time experience gained through field observations from places like
California, have been taken into account in numerous code revisions. In such an
environment dominated by active faults, the intensity of ground shaking is increased
by a factor which is slightly greater than 1.5 as the return period is increased from
475 years to 2,475 years (Tsang, 2014). Code compliant constructions that have
been designed to fulfil NC performance criterion are expected to have sufficient
additional reserve capacity to also fulfil collapse prevention criterion when subject
to seismic actions that are 1.5 times the design level. Despite this margin of safety
from collapse that is implicit in contemporary practices, major earthquake disasters
in recent years, including the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan and the 2008 Sichuan
earthquake in China, prompted a critical review of the adequacy of this long
established convention of designing to a return period of 475 years (Tsang, 2011).
In regions of low or moderate seismicity (where earthquakes occur infrequently
and active faults are difficult to identify), ground shaking intensity ratio that is
associated with an increase in return period from 475 years to 2,475 years, can be
escalated to a value much greater than 1.5. A factor varying between 2.4 and 5 is
predicted for earthquakes in an intraplate environment (Tsang, 2014, Geoscience
Australia, 2012). Given these predictions, building structures designed on a return
period of 475 years to fulfil NC performance criterion in an intraplate environment,
would not automatically possess adequate additional reserve capacity to prevent
collapse in a very rare event.
The trend of moving away from the conventional practice of designing to a
return period of 475 years was initiated by the influential FEMA450 document (BCCS,
2003) which was to guide the design of new buildings in the United States. The
design seismic action was recommended to be based on a maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) of 2,475 years, scaled down by a factor of 2/3 (reciprocal of 1.5).
This scaling factor can be interpreted as the margin between the state of NC and
collapse prevention of the structure in order that code compliant buildings can
always be assured of the capacity to prevent collapse in a very rare earthquake
event.
The 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NRCC, 2005)
increased the return period from 475 years to 2,475 years without applying a scaled
down factor of 2/3 (Mitchell et al., 2010) but a generous 2.5% drift limit, which was
consistent with the Collapse Prevention performance criterion, was specified. The
January 2016 JURUTERA 31
 FEATURE

NA to EC8 for the United Kingdom (BSI, 2008) also specified a return period of 2,475
years to override the recommendation of 475 years in EC8 – Part 1 (CEN, 2004)
for designing to No Collapse (Life Safe) performance criterion, which was more
stringent than requirements in Canada.
In perspective, a design return period of 2,475 years is actually not overly
conservative, given that the annual fatality risk of an occupant in a building which
has been designed to a return period of 2,475 years is of the order of 10-6, which is
consistent with involuntary fatality risk affecting building occupants in other types
of natural disasters (Tsang, 2014).
In view of the facts presented in the above design, seismic actions
presented in terms of PGA values on rock sites are recommended herein for
various importance classes of buildings as summarised in Table 2 for Peninsular
Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah. It is shown that all built facilities of importance
class IV, including hospitals, emergency services and other lifeline facilities,
are to be designed to a return period of 2,475 years to fulfil NC performance
criterion in order that these facilities are safe to occupy in the aftermath of a
very rare event as well as fit to continue to operate in more frequent events.
Reference seismic actions to be considered in the design of ordinary buildings of
importance class II in Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak, are accordingly based
on a reference PGA value of 0.07g (being 0.1g/1.5) which provides adequate
protection of ordinary buildings from collapse in a very rare earthquake event.
By interpolation a design PGA of 0.08g is stipulated for buildings of intermediate
class III such as condominium, schools and public buildings which can house a
large number of occupants at times.

Table 2: Design PGA on rock sites for Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah.

Importance
Importance Recommended Building
Factor, Notional design PGA, ag (g's)
Class Categories
γI
Peninsular
Malaysia and Sabah
Sarawak
0.10 (0.8 x
I 0.8 Minor constructions 0.06 (0.8 x 0.07)
0.12)
0.12 Reference
Ordinary buildings (individual 0.07 Reference
PGA
II 1.0 dwellings or shops in low rise PGA (notional
(notional 475
buildings) 475 years RP)
years RP)
Buildings of large occupancies
(condominiums, shopping 0.14 (1.2 x
III 1.2 0.08 (1.2 x 0.07)
centres, schools and public 0.12)
buildings)
Lifeline built facilities (hospitals,
emergency services, power 0.10 (2,475 0.18 (2,475
IV 1.5
plants and communication years RP) years RP)
facilities)

Seismic actions to be considered for design purposes for any building class
at any location in Malaysia are to be derived from the benchmark model based
on a return period of 2,475 years and then scaled down in accordance to the
respective design PGA value as listed in one of the tables. The allowed inter-storey
drift limit is 1.5% to fulfil NC, or life safe, performance criterion.
The proposed seismic actions to be considered for the design of built facilities
for Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak are less stringent in many ways than those
adopted in Canada and in the United Kingdom where ordinary building structures
are to be designed to a return period of 2,475 years, and can be described as
comparable to the planned revision to the Australian Standard which stipulates
a minimum design PGA value of 0.08g for ordinary buildings irrespective of results
from updated probabilistic seismic hazard analyses.
Finally, a behaviour factor (q) is to be stipulated to take into account the
capacity of the structure at the member level to withstand seismic actions beyond
its notional capacity limits. The elastic spectrum is to be scaled down by the factor
of 1/q into the design spectrum (refer Clause 3.2.2.5) for linear analysis, from which

January 2016 JURUTERA 33

 FEATURE

the displacements shall be multiplied by the displacement

behaviour factor qd (assumed equal to q unless otherwise
specified) (refer Clause 4.3.4).
For damage limitation requirement (i.e., level 2 in Table
1), while it is deemed to satisfy for Class I to III buildings, only
Class IV buildings need to be checked in the calculation of
interstorey drifts dr (or deformation). With lifeline facilities such
as a hospital (a class IV building), non-structural installations
must also be designed to a RP of 475 years (i.e., 10% probability
of exceedance in a life span of 50 years) to ensure that the
functionality of the facility is not significantly compromised
by earthquakes. This level of ground shaking is not to be
confused with that used for checking NC compliance of
Class II structures, which is based on a notional RP of 475
years (being 2/3 of the intensity associated with a RP of 2,475
years by definition). The reduction factor for displacement
of ν = 0.5 is to take into account the difference between the
two levels of intensities (refer Clause 4.4.3.2).
In the Australian Standard (AS1170.4, 2007), the
additional capacity to withstand seismic actions is resolved
into the performance factor (Sp) which takes into account
contributions from the over-strength of materials and the
structural system as a whole in sustaining earthquake
generated lateral forces whereas the ductility ratio (μ) takes
into account contributions from the ability of the structure to
deform in a ductile manner (AEES, 2009). The value of Sp is
taken by default as 0.77 and the value of μ is taken as 2.0 by
default for limited ductile reinforced concrete, structural steel
or composite structures which employ concrete and steel as
construction materials. The composite factor of 2.6 (being μ/
Sp or 2/0.77) that is used as default design value in Australia
can be compared to a slightly lower, more conservative, q
value of 2.0 recommended in the National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC) since its 2005 edition. Given that the
default q value stipulated in the NA for Singapore is 1.5 which
is consistent with recommendations by EC8, members of the
study group have agreed to this figure for use in Malaysia,
pending further studies in the future to justify a higher value.
A local study (Chiang et al., 2012) revealed that the mean
strength to characteristic strength ratio of thousands of
concrete cube tests up to grade C40 in Malaysia was 1.2,
which justified the recommendation for over-strength factor.
The inherent ductility of concrete structures is conservatively
assumed as 1.25 to arrive at a q value of 1.5 in totality. The
recommended and default values of q that is stipulated
in regulatory documents in countries of low to moderate
seismicity for limited ductile structures are listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Recommended and default values of behaviour factor q for limited ductile
structures.
Over-
Region/ Standards/ Behaviour
strength Ductility
Country Codes factor
factor
Proposed
Malaysia 1.2 1.25 1.5
NA to MS
Europe Eurocode 8
1.5 1.0 1.5
Singapore NA to SS
Canada NBCC 1.3 1.5 2.0
Australia AS1170.4 1.3 2.0 2.6

34 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

COMMENTS ON THRESHOLD OF LOW SEISMICITY dr design interstorey drift

EC8 recommends an upper threshold value of ag = 0.78 m/ q behaviour factor
s2 for low seismicity, which is based on a RP of 475 years. As qd displacement behaviour factor
the hazard level of Malaysia is benchmarked on a 2,475 year γI importance factor
RP, such threshold value has been scaled up by the actual μ ductility ratio
demand ratio of RP 2,475 years to 475 years which is equal ν reduction factor for interstorey drift limit associated
to 2.4 (Lam et al., 2015). Hence, a value of ag = 1.87 m/s2 for with the damage limitation requirement.
a RP of 2,475 years shall be adopted as the upper threshold
value for low seismicity, while the whole of Malaysia can be REFERENCES
classified as low seismicity. [1] AS 1170.4 (2007) Structural Design Actions – Part 4 Earthquake
Actions. Standards Australia.
EC8 recommends an upper threshold value of ag = 0.39
[2] AEES (2009) AS 1170.4 Commentary: Structural Design Actions
m/s2 for very low seismicity, which is based on a RP of 475 – Part 4 Earthquake Actions. Victoria: Australian Earthquake
years. Likewise, a value of ag = 0.94 m/s2 for a RP of 2,475 Engineering Society.
years can be adopted as the upper threshold value for [3] BC3 (2013) Guidebook for Design of Buildings in Singapore to
Design Requirements in SSEN-1998-1. Singapore: Building and
very low seismicity. Hence, no part of Malaysia is classified Construction Authority.
as very low seismicity. In other words, no parts of Malaysia [4] Booth, E. (2014) Personal communications in December 2014.
should be put into the “no requirement for seismic design” [5] BSI (2008) NA to BS EN1998-1: 2004 UK National Annex to
Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance.
category. In an intraplate region like Malaysia, areas that Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings,
have never experienced earthquake tremors should not British Standards Institution (BSI), London, U.K.
be automatically declared free of local earthquakes in the [6] CEN (2004) EN 1998 1. 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures
for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic
future. That is an unsafe assumption to make. Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussells.
CONCLUSION [7] Chiang, J.C.L., Tu, Y.E., Tan, C.S. (2012), Gauging the reliability of
i. Lifeline facilities, including hospitals and infrastructure structural design for buildings and infrastructures from Malaysian
Engineers’ viewpoint, The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference
in support of emergency services, are to be designed on Structural Engineering and Construction (EASEC-12), Hong
to fulfil “no collapse” (life safe) performance criterion Kong Special Administrative Region, China, 24-26 January 2011.
for a return period of 2,475 years. Lower design seismic [8] Fardis, M.N. (2009) Seismic Design Assessment and Retrofitting
of Concrete Buildings based on EN – Eurocode 8, Springer.
actions are recommended for buildings of other
[9] Lam, N.T.K., Lumantarna, E., Tsang, H.H., Wilson, J.L. (2015).
importance classes. Results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis assuming
ii. Response spectrum to be used for design purposes, is uniform distribution of seismicity. Proceedings of the 10th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 6 - 8 November 2015,
scaled in accordance with the considered notional Sydney, Australia.
design peak ground acceleration values on rock sites [10] Mitchell, D., Paultre, P., Tinawi, R., Saatcioglu, M., Tremblay,
R., Elwood, K., Adams, J., and DeVall, R. (2010) “Evolution
which vary between 0.06g and 0.10g for Peninsular of seismic design provisions in the National building code of
Malaysia and Sarawak and between 0.10g and 0.18g Canada” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 37: 1157-1170.
for Sabah for various importance classes and return [11] NA to SS EN 1998 1. 2013. Singapore National Annex to
Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance –
periods. Exact values as presented in the tables Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings.
depend on the importance classification of the Singapore: SPRING Singapore.
building. [12] NRCC (2005) National Building Code of Canada, Associate
Committee on the National Building Code, National Research
iii. The allowable inter-storey drift limit to satisfy no collapse Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
criterion is recommended to be 1.5%. [13] SEAOC (1995) Vision 2000: Performance-Based Seismic
Engineering of Buildings, Structural Engineers Association of
iv. Design actions at the member level, such as bending
California Sacramento, California, U.S.
moments and shear forces, are to be scaled down by [14] Tsang, H.H. (2011) “Should we design buildings for lower-
1/q where q is the behaviour factor. Members of the probability earthquake motion?” Natural Hazards 58: 853-857.
study group have agreed to the default value of 1.5 [15] Tsang, H.H. (2014) “Seismic Performance Requirements and
Collapse Risk of Structures” Proceedings of the Annual Seminar
consistent with practice in Singapore but larger values entitled “Advances in Seismic Engineering” HKIE/IStructE Joint
could be adopted. The default values adopted in Structural Division. 58-75.

Canada and Australia are higher.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IEM DIARY OF EVENTS

We acknowledge the continuous support from IEM in the Title: Half Day Seminar on Selection of Steel Materials
facilitation of the many workshops and meetings over the And Compliance With Structural Eurocodes
years, culminating in the drafting of the National Annex. We
20 January 2016
also acknowledge the intellectual input by E.P. Lim, Ahmed
Organised by : Civil and Structural Engineering
Zuhal Zaeem and other active participants from EC8 TC as Technical Division
well as Edmund Booth, who provided the first author with Time : 8.30 a.m. – 1.00 p.m.
very useful advice in relation to Eurocode 8. CPD/PDP : 3.5

Notations Kindly note that the scheduled events below are subject
Sp performance factor to change. Please visit the IEM website at www.myiem.
ag notional design peak ground acceleration on rock org.my for more information on the upcoming events.

January 2016 JURUTERA 35

 FEATURE

Static and Dynamic Analysis

Methods
by Prof. Nelson Lam, Dr Tsang Hing Ho, Prof. John Wilson, Engr. Looi Ting Wee Grad. IEM, Ir. Adjunct Prof. M C Hee.
(Photos and details of authors on page 44.)

T
his paper introduces a quasi-static method of analysis which circumvents issues generated by
uncertainties in the natural period properties of real building structures. Decisions leading to the
proposal are explained and terminologies clariied.

KEYWORDS analysis on structures can be counter-productive when the

National Annex to Eurocode 8, Seismic Design Actions, quasi- underlying principles are not well understood. A static analysis,
static method of analysis. despite its short comings of not allowing for higher mode
effects in a dynamic response, has the merit of being easy to
INTRODUCTION comprehend by the average structural engineering designer.
A quasi-static method of analysis, which is essentially the The vertical regularity prerequisite in EC8 should be relaxed
“Code Lateral Force Method”, offers an alternative to the in view of recent findings from the literature that buildings with
conventional procedure to circumvent issues generated T1 < 1.5s (which is fulfilled by most buildings with height of up
by uncertainties in the natural period properties of real to 50m, or 16 storeys) are unlikely to experience any significant
buildings. Eurocode 8 (EC8) (CEN, 2004) makes reference higher mode effects in their dynamic response to earthquake
to the lateral force method of analysis and the dynamic ground shaking. Analyses that have been reported to support
modal response spectrum method of analysis. The lateral this proposition include buildings possessing mass and stiffness
force method is essentially a static analysis method based irregularity in the elevation of the building (Su et al., 2011;
on a pre-determined lateral force which is representative Fardipour et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2007). In Australia (AS 1170.4,
of the design seismic actions. The dynamic analysis method 2007; AEES, 2009), dynamic analysis is only required for buildings
is particularly encouraged in EC8 and is regarded as the exceeding 50m (16 storeys) which are found on rock or stiff soil.
“Reference Method” in view of the availability of commercial In Singapore (NA to SS EC8, 2013; BC3, 2013), only one of the
packages possessing dynamic analysis capability in most two prerequisites listed in the above need to be fulfilled.
structural design offices in Europe and other advanced In view of findings reported from the literature and
economies in other parts of the globe. prerequisites imposed by codes of practices in other areas of
Static analysis is still permitted by EC8 but stringent pre- low to moderate seismicity, it is recommended that buildings
requisites apply as summarised in the following: of up to 25m in height be subjected to lateral force analysis
i. The fundamental natural period of vibration (T1) of the method, irrespective of its regularity conditions in elevation.
building does not exceed 4Tc or 2s whichever is the less,
where Tc (the corner period of the response spectrum) is LATERAL FORCE METHOD OF ANALYSIS
0.3s on rock or stiff soil sites. The lateral force method of analysis, as stipulated in EC8, entails
ii. Criteria for verticality of the building in elevation, or the determination of the natural period of vibration, T1, using
vertical regularity must be satisfied. equation (1a), the determination of the design base shear, Fb,
The first criterion is controlled by the 4Tc (or 1.2s) threshold using equation (1b) and the determination of lateral forces, Fi,
on rock or stiff soil sites. Most buildings of up to 50m in applied to individual floor levels in the building using Eq. (1c).
height (16 storeys) comply with this requirement. In view T1 = 0.05H 0.75 where H is the building height. (1a)
of most structures having some form of irregularity to fulfil Fb = Sd (T1) / λm (1b)
architectural and functional requirements, the second
where Sd (T1) is the design response spectral acceleration at
criterion can be described as very stringent and this may
preclude the majority of building structures from design by period T1, and λm is the effective mass of the building and λ
static analysis only. can be taken as 85% of the total mass (Clause 4.3.3.2.2(1)P).
Although most design offices possess software having δimi
Σ
dynamic analysis capability, most undergraduate degree Fi = Fb (1c)
δimi
programs in civil/structural engineering do not have
substantial coverage on this topic in the core curriculum. The i
average engineering graduate may not have adequate where δi is the deflection at floor level i of the building when
knowledge and training to review dynamic analysis results subject to the lateral force and mi is the floor mass.
generated by the computer and have them incorporated in While the prescriptive based lateral force method, as
the calculation of design actions (namely bending moment summarised above, appears straight forward, the estimated
and shear force) at the member level. Enforcing dynamic lateral actions on the building may be significantly higher than

36 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

the actual values, mainly because of uncertainties in the natural period properties
of the building concerned. The conservatism stems from inconsistencies in the
natural period value calculated by equation (1a) and that reported by the
computer analysis of the structural frame model of the building. This problem can
be circumvented by introducing the capacity spectrum method (in a linear elastic A Nehemiah Group of Companies
analysis setting) which makes use of the calculated static deflection of the building Formerly Neusynthetics Sdn. Bhd.

to infer on an improved estimate of the fundamental natural period of vibration We are a supplier of high quality
of the building. The revised lateral forces and the corresponding deflection can geosynthetic products used for soft soil
be significantly lower than that estimated by equations (1a) to (1c). Only static stabilization, slope reinforcement, coastal
erosion protection, river bank protection,
analyses are involved and these are easy for the average structural engineer to
landfills, drainage, road and railway
understand. construction.

Our Products:
ILLUSTRATION BY A WORKED EXAMPLE
The lateral force method and the capacity spectrum method (which is referred NEXTILE NON-WOVENS
herein collectively as the quasi-static method of analysis) are illustrated in the NEXFORCE HIGH-STRENGTH WOVENS
following eight-storey building under Malaysian seismic actions. The reinforced
NEXGRID GEOGRIDS
concrete hospital building (Figure 1), corresponding to Class IV importance level
and situated on a flexible soil site (site period TS = 0.5 s), measures 31.2m × 93.8m We also provide design, specification, bill of
on plan and stands at a height of 25.6m above ground. The lateral force resisting quantities, cost estimate and drawings
free-of-charge.
system is contributed by wall-frame interaction. The typical storey height is 3.2m,
typical span is 7.8m with 600mm × 600mm secondary beams separating the 150mm-
thick slabs into one-way action. The main beams are sized at 800mm × 600mm. The
wall thickness is 250mm, dimension of major columns is 850mm × 800mm, except
for the 450mm × 450mm corner columns at the two wings. For gravity load, a
superimposed dead load of 5.2 kPa is estimated for partitions, finishes and ceilings,
and an average live load of 5 kPa is adopted (Looi et al., 2015).

Figure 1: Eight-storey RC hospital building

LATERAL FORCE METHOD

The Lateral Force method of analysis, as stipulated in EC8, entails the determination
of the natural period of vibration, T1, using equation (1a), the determination of the
design base shear, Fb, using equation (1b) and the determination of lateral forces,
Fi, applied to individual floor levels in the building using equation (1c).
Step One: Identifying building height (H), calculating codified natural period of
vibration (T1) using equation (1a) and calculating response spectral acceleration
(Figure 2).
H = 25.6 m
T1 = 0.05 (25.6)0.75 = 0.57 s
Get in touch with us:
Tel: 03-6142 6638 (Ext. 215)
Fax: 03-6142 6693

sales@neusynthetics.com

Sales Team:
Saufi (012-568 5611)
Gordon (012-355 0872)
Figure 2: Elastic and design response spectrum (a) displacement and (b)
acceleration on a Flexible Soil Site (TS = 0.5 s) for Class IV building N E H E M IA H G E O S Y N T H E T IC S S D N . B H D .
No. 45-3, Jalan PJU 5/20,
The Strand, Kota Damansara,
Sd = Se γI / q = 0.31g × 1.5 / 1.5 = 0.31g, where γI is the importance factor (1.5 47810 Petaling Jaya,
www.neusynthetics.com
Selangor Darul Ehsan.
for Class IV) and q is the behaviour factor (1.5 proposed in the NA). Malaysia.

January 2016 JURUTERA 37

 FEATURE

Step Two: Finding base shear FB using equation (1b)

Mass, m = 76,862 ton
Fb = 0.31g (0.85)(76,862) = 198,683 kN

Step Three: Distributing the base shear into equivalent static

force at each storey using equation (1c) by replacing lateral
displacement (δ) with heights (z) of the masses, assuming
Figure 3: ETABS simulation results
fundamental mode shape is approximated by δ increasing
Step Seven: Calculate seismic demand and superpose demand
with z (see Table 1). The static load should be applied to
diagram on the acceleration-displacement diagram for the
two orthogonal directions on plan. The lateral force method
building (Figure. 4).
as required by EC8 is completed at this point. Analysis may
continue with the quasi-static method for obtaining improved
estimates.

Quasi-static method analysis

Step Four: Structural analysis to obtain the force at each floor
(Fi), displacement at each floor (δi) (see Table 1) and effective
displacement value (δeff) are calculated using equation (2).
Table 3: Force and displacement at individual loors in lateral Y direction.
zi
Mass
Flr. cumu- Fi, δi, δi2,
mi, mi zi m i δi mi δi2
no. lative, (kN) (mm) (mm2)
(ton)
(m)
Figure 4: Capacity spectrum method
8 8700 25.6 222,720 41,523 72.8 5295.0 633,070 46,066,436
7 8864 22.4 198,554 37,017 67.0 4494.3 594,237 39,837,308 Step Eight: Repeat Step Three with the improved accuracy
6 8864 19.2 170,189 31,729 59.5 3535.8 527,073 31,340,917 of demand.
5 8864 16 141,824 26,441 50.3 2528.6 445,726 22,413,344 Fb = 0.22g (0.8)(76,862) = 132,707 kN
4 10,370 12.8 132,736 24,747 39.7 1577.1 411,814 16,354,018
Table 4: Improved force estimation and displacement at individual loors in
3 10,400 9.6 99,840 18,614 29.1 846.5 302,580 8,803,314 lateral Y direction.
2 10,400 6.4 66,560 12,409 18.2 331.6 189,391 3,448,948
Flr. Mass mi, δi , Improved
mi δi δe , (mm)
1 10,400 3.2 33,280 6,205 7.8 61.5 81,590 640,090 no. (ton) (mm) Fi, (kN)
SUM 76,862 1,065,702 198,683 3,185,482 168,904,374
8 8700 72.8 633,070 28,022 51.6

Σ m δ (
(
2
i i 168,904,374 7 8864 67.0 594,237 26,303 47.6
δeff
= = ≈ 53mm
(2)
Σmδ i i 3,185,482 6 8864 59.5 527,073 23,330 42.3

Step Five: Calculating effective mass (meff) and improved 5 8864 50.3 445,726 19,729 35.8

estimate of response spectral acceleration (Sd) from equation 4 10,370 39.7 411,814 18,228 28.3
(1b)
3 10,400 29.1 302,580 13,393 20.7
(Σ m δi ((
(Σ
2
i (3,185,482)2
eff =
m 2 = ≈ 60,077
tons (3) 2 10,400 18.2 189,391 8383 13.0
miδi 168,904,374
1 10,400 7.8 81,590 3611 5.6

Fb Fb 198,683 SUM 76,862 3,185,482 141,001

Sd = λm = meff = 9.81 ≈ 0.34g
60,077 Table 5. Interstorey drift ratio check in the Y-direction
Design Reduced Reduced
Step Six: Calculating effective stiffness (keff), natural period of Flr.
Floor ds = qd
interstorey interstorey interstorey
EC8 Cl.
height zi de, 4.4.3.2
vibration (Teff) and drawing acceleration-displacement diagram no.
(mm) (mm)
drift dr , drift v dr , drift ratio
(1) a)(%)
(mm) (mm) (%)
for the building structure.
8 3200 77.4 6.0 3.0 0.093 0.5

keff = 198 ,683 0.005

5 3 = 3,747,103 kN/m 7 3200 71.4 7.9 4.0 0.124 0.5

meff 60
60 ,077 6 3200 63.5 9.7 4.9 0.152 0.5
Teff = 2 p = 2p = 0.8 s
keff 3,747,103
5 3200 53.8 11.3 5.6 0.176 0.5

Compared to the results obtained from ETABS (CSI, 2003) 4 3200 42.5 11.4 5.7 0.178 0.5
simulation, the first mode shape period is 0.81 s in the X direction 3 3200 31.1 11.7 5.8 0.182 0.5
and second mode shape period is 0.79 s in the Y direction 2 3200 19.4 11.1 5.5 0.173 0.5
(Figure 3). 1 3200 8.4 8.4 4.2 0.131 0.5

38 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

Figure 5: Interstorey drift in the Y-direction

Subsequent rigorous design based on acceptance criteria for ultimate strength

and damage limitation (service ability) drift check of structural members should
be carried out accordingly. An example of damage limitation check in the
Y-direction for the hospital (Class IV building) is shown in Table 5 and Fig. 5. The
displacement behaviour factor (qd) is assumed equal to q as 1.5, the reduction
factor (ν) is taken as 0.5 (Lam et al., 2016) and the limitation for interstorey drift
ratio for “buildings having non-structural elements of brittle materials attached
to the structure" is assumed as 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Lateral Force method of analysis is allowed for buildings of up to 50m (16
storeys) in height and is recommended for buildings of up to 25m (8 storeys),
irrespective of the regularity conditions in elevation.
2. Estimates by the Lateral Force method may be overly conservative because
of uncertainties in the natural period properties of the building concerned.
3. The predicted lateral forces and the corresponding deflections may be
revised to lower values by applying the capacity spectrum method (in
a linear elastic analysis setting) which makes use of the calculated static
deflection of the building to infer an improved estimate of the fundamental
natural period of vibration of the building.
4. The Lateral Force method and the Capacity Spectrum method are
collectively described as the quasi-static method of analysis, which is
illustrated by an example eight-storey building.
5. It is shown by example that the lateral force and deflection demand
have been overstated by the Lateral Force method by a factor of 1.4
approximately.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the continuous support from IEM in the facilitation of the
many workshops and meetings over the years, culminating in the drafting of the
National Annex. We also acknowledge the intellectual input by E.P. Lim, Ahmed
Zuhal Zaeem and other active participants from EC8 TC.

Notations
Fb design base shear
Fi lateral force at floor level i
H height of building
SD(T) design displacement response spectrum
SDe(T) elastic displacement response spectrum
Sd(T) design response spectral acceleration
Sd(T1) design response spectral acceleration at period T1
Se(T) elastic horizontal ground acceleration response
T1 fundamental natural period of vibration
TC first corner period
TD second corner period

January 2016 JURUTERA 39

 FEATURE

TS initial low-amplitude site natural period (note: this symbol is different

from EC8 where Ts is referred as the duration of the stationary part of the
seismic motion)
Teff effective natural period of vibration
de displacement of the same point of the structural
system, as determined by a linear analysis based
on the design response spectrum
dr design interstorey drift
ds displacement of a point of the structural system
induced by the design seismic action
keff effective stiffness
meff effective mass
mi floor mass at floor level i
q behaviour factor
zi floor height at floor level i
δi deflection at floor level i
γI importance factor
λ mass correction factor
ν reduction factor for interstorey drift limit associated
with the damage limitation requirement.

REFERENCES
[1] AS 1170.4 (2007) Structural Design Actions – Part 4 Earthquake Actions. Standards
Australia.
[2] AEES (2009) AS 1170.4 Commentary: Structural Design Actions – Part 4 Earthquake
Actions. Victoria: Australian Earthquake Engineering Society.
[3] BC3 (2013) Guidebook for Design of Buildings in Singapore to Design Requirements in
SSEN-1998-1. Singapore: Building and Construction Authority.
[4] CSI (2003). ETABS Integrated Building Design Software Introductory User's Guide.
Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California, USA.
[5] CEN (2004) EN 1998 1. 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance
– Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee
for Standardisation, Brussells.
[6] Fardipour, M., Lumantarna, E., Lam, N., Wilson, J., Gad, E. (2011). Drift Demand
Predictions in Low to Moderate Seismicity Regions, Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering 11(3), 195-206.
[7] Lam, N.T.K. (2011), “Use of Spreadsheets for Analyses in Structural Engineering”,
Applications of Spreadsheets in Education: The Amazing Power of a Simple Tool, (Ed.
Sugen, S. & Kwan, M.), Bentham Science Publisher: Chapter 2, 16–40.
[8] Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Wilson, J.L., Looi, D.T.W., Hee, M.C. (2016). Performance
criteria and design parameters. JURUTERA (the monthly bulletin of the Institution of
Engineers, Malaysia). January Issue.
[9] Looi, D.T.W., Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Hee, M.C. (2015). Seismic analysis in the low
to moderate seismicity region of Malaysia based on the draft handbook. Proceedings of
the 10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 6 - 8 November 2015, Sydney,
Australia.
[10] NA to SS EN 1998 1. 2013. Singapore National Annex to Eurocode 8: Design of Structures
for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for
Buildings. Singapore: SPRING Singapore.
[11] Su, R.K.L, Tsang, H.H. and Lam, N.T.K. (2011) Seismic Design of Buildings in Hong Kong,
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong.
[12] Zhu, Y., Su, R.K.L. and Zhou, F.L. (2007). Cursory Seismic Drift Assessment for Buildings
in Moderate Seismicity Regions, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 6(1),
85-97.

IEM DIARY OF EVENTS

Title: Technical Visit to Boustead Shipyard and Royal Malaysian Navy
Base, Lumut
22 - 23 January 2016
Organised by : Project Management Technical Division
Time : 7.00 a.m. – 5.00 p.m.
CPD/PDP : 5.5

Kindly note that the scheduled events below are subject to change. Please
visit the IEM website at www.myiem.org.my for more information on the
upcoming events.

40 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

Summary Update of Cost Implication

on Proposed Malaysian NA for EC8
on Office Buildings and Link Houses
by Ir. Adjunct Prof. M C Hee, Prof. Nelson Lam, Dr Tsang Hing Ho, Engr. Looi Ting Wee Grad. IEM, Engr. Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem Grad. IEM, Ir. Lim Ek Peng.
(Photos and details of authors on page 44.)

I
n order to understand the implications of earthquake design in Malaysia, a cost study was undertaken
by the Working Group 1 of IEM Technical Committee for Earthquake. Since Malaysia would soon
adopt Eurocode as the design standard and, with the development of the Malaysian NA to EC8,
studying all aspects of earthquake engineering is deemed necessary. Therefore with the introduction
of the design spectrum for Malaysia, the cost study is a stepping stone for engineers in understanding
the implication of earthquake design guidelines in Malaysia.

GENERAL BUILDING DESCRIPTION

Typical office buildings ranging from 1-storey, 5-stories,
10-stories, 20-stories and 30-stories degenerated into 2
Dimensional buildings for ease and simplicity in analysis (Fig.
1a to Fig. 1e) and typical link houses ranging from 1-storey
and 2-stories were used in the study (Fig. 1f to Fig. 1g). Given
that the majority of structures built in Malaysia are reinforced
concrete, the study limits all the buildings to reinforced
concrete. All the buildings were analysed and designed Figure 1c: 10-storey ofice building degenerated into a 2D model
using structural design programme, Midas Gen 2015 and for
quantities taking off, Midas DShop was utilised. The office
buildings are built out of reinforced concrete of grade C30/37
and the link houses are built out of reinforced concrete of
grade C20/25. For reinforcing steel, yield strength of Class
B rebar for longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups is utilised.
Two models were developed for each type of building. One
was subjected to static loading and one was subjected to
both static and earthquake loading. The two replicas were
Figure 1d: 20-storey ofice building degenerated into a 2D model
analysed and designed on the assumption that they were
uncracked. They were subjected to pushover analysis in
order to determine whether the sections weare cracked or
not. If the buildings fall under cracked sections, the property
of the building is assumed cracked, thus reducing the stiffness
of all members by 50% as per BS-EN1998-1:2004

Figure 1e: 30-storey ofice building degenerated into a 2D model

Figure 1a: 1-storey ofice building degenerated into a 2D model

Figure 1b:.5-storey ofice building degenerated into a 2D model Figure 1f: 1-storey link house Figure 1g: 2-storey link house

42 JURUTERA January 2016

 FEATURE

LOADING APPLIED imperfection load) and under combined static and

Each of the office buildings was designed to a uniform earthquake load. One standard deviation is calculated
building density of 3.4 kN/m3. For link houses, superimposed with the two samples of 1-storey and 2-storey buildings and
dead load of 2.5 kPa and a live load of 1.5 kPa was adopted. applied to the costing to cover uncertainties.
Wind loads were applied as per BS-EN1991-1-4 2005, with a The percentage differences in costs is estimated as
basic wind speed of 20 m/s inside city. Notional imperfection shown in Fig. 3a for office buildings and Fig. 3b for link houses.
load was applied, taking maximum inclination of 1/200 for 1 The highest increase in cost is predicted for Sabah (8.1% for
and 2-stories buildings and 1/400 for 5, 10, 20 and 30-stories a 10-storey office building and 4.8% for 2-storey link house).
buildings. This amounted to 0.5% of the ultimate dead and
live load for the 1 and 2-stories buildings and 0.25% of the
ultimate dead and live load for the 5, 10, 20 and 30-stories
buildings. Earthquake loading was also been applied as
per the Malaysian hybrid design spectrum of the Malaysian
National Annex EC8. All buildings were assumed to be
located on stiff soil sites consistent with most Malaysian soil
condition. As for computations of the natural period of
vibration, which was a function of stiffness and mass of the
building, the design seismic mass was formulated using
equation 1.

m= ∑Gk,i+ ∑ΨE,j .Qk j (1)

Figure 3a: Preliminary cost estimation for ofice buildings (Structural building
where Gk and Qk the characteristic dead and imposed cost) for Stiff Soil

mass respectively. Ψ is taken as 0.3 taking into account the

likelihood that imposed load is not present over the entire
structure during the earthquake.

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS AND STIFFNESS REDUCTION

Under the clause 4.3.1 of EC8, the stiffness of the cracked
structural elements can be taken as 50% of its original un-
cracked stiffness. In order to determine whether the structure
is cracked or un-cracked, a pushover analysis is performed.
The capacity curve (Fig. 2a) for 1-storey link house gives the
maximum displacement in metres of the building against
lateral load in kilo Newton. The building experiences its first
crack at 360kN (α1). Hence the pushover capacity curve Figure 3b: Preliminary cost estimation for link houses, (structural building cost)
for stiff soil
was superimposed over the acceleration displacement
response spectrum of Peninsular Malaysia to determine the SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
performance point (Fig. 2b). Since the performance point is The highest cost estimation (with 1 standard deviation) for
above the α1 (which is the first crack), this indicates that the Peninsular Malaysia/Sarawak for office buildings is 0.7% and
structure has cracked, hence concluding that the building 0.6% respectively for 10-storey office building. The highest
has cracked and the analysis is carried out under cracked increase in cost for Sabah is 8.1% for 10-storey. For Peninsular
section properties. This reduction in stiffness increased the Malaysia and Sarawak, link houses have no change in the
first mode period of the 1-storey link house from 0.25s to 0.35s structural cost. For Sabah the cost increases for single and
and the 2-storey building from 0.48s to 0.67s. double storey houses are 2.0% and 4.8% respectively.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the IEM Earthquake Technical
Committee for the technical and financial support given
to conduct the research. Valuable intellectual inputs
by various participants from EC8 TC are also gratefully
acknowledged.

Figure 2a: Pushover capacity curve Figure 2b: Pushover demand curve REFERENCES
[1] CEN (2004) EN 1998 1. 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions
Cost Estimation is calculated under static load conditions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardisation,
Brussells.
(dead load, imposed load, wind load and notional

January 2016 JURUTERA 43

 FEATURE

[2] CEN (2005) EN 1991 1. 2005. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. General actions – Wind actions-Part 4. European Committee for Standardisation,
Brussells.
[3] CEN (2004) EN 1992 1. 2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussells.
[4] Hee, M. C., Tsang, H. H., and Lam, N. T. K., Looi, D.T.W., (2015) “Drafting the Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 8: Recommended Seismic Loadings and Cost
Implication” IStrcutE Internationl Conference.
[5] Hee, M. C., Tsang, H. H., and Lam, N. T. K., Looi, D.T.W., (2015) “Draft National Annex to Eurocode 8 for Malaysia and cost implication for residential buildings with
thin size elements” Proceedings of the Ninth Paciic Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake-Resilient Paciic 6-8 November 2015, Sydney,
Australia.
[6] Lam, N.T.K. (2015). Earthquake Environment Surrounding Different parts of Malaysia. Lecture notes on How to utilise our proposed EC8 Malaysia NA for our
practising consulting engineers, IEM professional short course, 29 – 30 September 2015, Armada Hotel Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
[7] Looi, D.T.W., Hee, M.C., Tsang, H.H., Lam, N.T.K. (2014). Updated Design Spectrum for Peninsular Malaysia.Proceedings of presentation at 2-day workshop on
recommended earthquake loading model in the propose NA to EC8 for Sabah, Sarawak & updated model for Peninsular Malaysia, 16 – 17 July 2014, Armada Hotel
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
[8] MIDAS (2015). MidasGen Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Building Tutorial. MIDAS Information Technology Co., Ltd, Korea.
[9] MIDAS (2014). Midas DShopBasic Tutorial Reinforced Concrete Structure. MIDAS Information Technology Co., Ltd, Korea.
[10] Tsang, H.H., Lam, N.T.K., Looi, D.T.W., Wilson, J.L., Hee, M.C. (2016). “Site Classiication and Response Spectrum Model for Soil Sites” JURUTERA (the monthly
bulletin of the Institution of Engineers, Malaysia). January Issue.

AUTHORS' BIODATA

Ir. Adjunct Prof. M C Hee is a practicing Structural
Consulting Engineer and Principal of M C Hee
& Associates. His expertise is in the design and
construction of high-rise buildings particularly in
value engineering and alternative design. His
philosophy is "design for simplicity and buildability''
with a "total concept approach". He has over 40 years
of experience in this ield. He was a Vice President
of IEM and the chairman of IEM C&S WG1 for Malaysia EC8 earthquake
code annex drafting. He is an Adjunct Professor in Civil Engineering at the
Department of Civil Engineering, University Malaya.
Engr. Looi Ting Wee Grad. IEM, is a PhD candidate
in University of Hong Kong under supervision of
Assc. Prof. Ray Su, researching on earthquake
and structural engineering. Prior to postgraduate
study, he worked as a structural application
engineer serving both high-rise building and plant
industry. Around 5 years of experience, he has done
numerous demonstration, training and professional
consultancy to various companies in South East Asia, Australia, New
Zealand, India and the Middle East. He is actively involved in IEM C&S
WGl for Malaysia EC8 earthquake code annex drafting

Prof. Nelson Lam, Reader in Civil Engineering at
The University of Melbourne, is an internationally
recognized expert in earthquake engineering and
structural dynamics. In the past 20 years, he has
been researching and consulting widely in this ield.
He served as member of the sub-committee for
developing the new standard for Earthquake Actions
in Australia and wasco-editor and co-author of the
standard’s commentary. His early career was with Scott Wilson International
as structural engineer in their Hong Kong Ofice through out the 1980’s and
attained chartered engineer status in 1986.
Dr Tsang Hing Ho, is a Senior Lecturer Faculty of
Science, Engineering and Technology School of
Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology,
Australia. He has taught at The University of
Hong Kong, and is currently a visiting professor
at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany. He
has published over 80 technical publications. He
is currently serving as an Advisor for the Hong
Kong Housing Authority on seismic design of building structures.

Ir. Lim Ek Peng is a practicing engineer with Engr. Ahmed Zuhal Zaeem Grad. IEM, is pursuing
Perunding Hashim & NEH Sdn. Bhd. He has his post graduate studies on earthquake and
extensive experience in civil and structural structural engineering in Universiti Malaya.
engineering design and construction. He was a Concurrently working for M C Hee & Associates
member of technical committees of (IEM-SWO) for gaining experience in structural engineering. He is
Standards in Design of Concrete Structures. actively involved in IEM C&S WGl for Malaysia EC8
earthquake code annex drafting.

Prof. John Wilson, is Executive Dean of Engineering and Industrial Sciences at Swinburne University of Technology in
Melbourne. He was the Victorian Division Chairman of Engineers Australia in 2002, and is a member of the steering committee
for the Victorian Infrastructure Report Card 2005 and 2010, Chairman of BD6/11, the committee responsible for the earthquake
loading standard for Australia, a member of ACI307 Committee and Chairman of Judges for the 2011 and 2013 Victorian
Engineering Excellence Awards.

44 JURUTERA January 2016


Magical White Cliffs of Mons Klint
Engr. Izni Zahidi
Grad. IEM
Engr. Izni Zahidi is
currently attached
with CH2M as a water
engineer and inishing a
PhD in water resources
engineering at Universiti
Putra Malaysia. She
has lived in ive different
countries as part of her
studies and travelled to
many more.
ancy discovering a fossil or two? Just bring
F your brushes to Mons Klint on the island of
Mon in South Zealand, Denmark. I may
not be Indiana Jones, but I simply grabbed the
opportunity to see the cliffs when my Danish
host kindly offered to drive us there.
It took us nearly three hours to get there from
Copenhagen because we stopped a few times
along the way to see the mills, wheat fields and
little villages. Blame the tourist in me, but these
were too picturesque to just drive through and
be content with looking out the car window.
As we got close to the cliffs, a peaceful
forest opened up to reveal a futuristic building – 30 years, they can now be seen again.
Geocenter Mons Klint. This geological museum
first opened in 2007. Most of the structure was
built underground to reduce the effect on the
environment as it would have looked out of
place amidst the lush green forest. Visiting the
museum was like taking a crash course in the
cliffs formation and fossils you could unearth
such as octopus, sea urchin or mussel.
The 7km-long Mons Klint itself is a
spectacular sight of bright white chalk cliffs, a
stunning contrast against the blue and green
shades of the Baltic Sea. Some 70 million years
ago, Denmark was under the sea, lands were
raised and mountains were formed. The chalky
prehistoric ocean floor was uncovered after the
ice from the last Ice Age (dated 12,000 years
ago) melted. The chalk came from settled
micro-organisms which were compressed in the
Editor’s Note: We welcome contributions from all members on travel stories.
GLOBE TREKKING
ancient seabed. That explains why the country is
generally flat; at 128m, Mons Klint is already the
highest point in the country.
This highest point of the cliffs is also called
“The Queen’s Chair” or known locally as
Dronningestolen (photo). According to a
romantic legend, whenever the Cliff King sailed
off on an expedition, the Queen would sit there
and watch out over the ocean.
During the Ice Age, the limestone was pushed
to the surface by glaciers covering northern
Europe. It did not stop there. The cliffs are still
changing and 20-40cm have disappeared into
the sea.
Just a few years back, in 2007, a grand cliff
formation called Store Taler, collapsed by 100m
due to erosion and moved horizontally into the
Baltic Sea by another 300m. Although you can
still see the fallen cliff as a white peninsula, it
will, in due course, be swallowed by the sea. I
wouldn’t be surprised if the cliffs I saw a couple
of years ago looked slightly different today.
There are several trails available which
provide different views. We trekked the 267m-long
wooden boardwalk along the edge of the cliffs;
this had an amazing view of the Baltic Sea and
the rich bird life.
We were lucky that the day was clear and
we could even see neighbouring Sweden and
Germany. We also saw the world’s fastest animal
(no, not the cheetah!), the peregrine falcon. These
majestic birds had almost become extinct, but the
natural caves on the steep chalky cliffs provided
them with ideal nests for breeding. So after a spell of
Apart from the birds (and butterflies too),
Mons Klint is famous for orchids which flourish
here due to the high content of limestone in
the soil. Go on a hike in the virgin forest and you
can see a number of rare orchids, including 20
different species of wild orchids. As tempting as it
may be, you are not allowed to pick the flowers
as they are all protected.
There is a huge rock in the middle of the trail
and one cannot help but wonder where it came
from. Legend had it that a Swedish sorceress,
outraged that Christianity was spreading in the
north, used her garter to hurl agranite stone at the
church of Magleby, 5km from the cliffs. However,
the stone only hit the church tower, ricocheted
and landed in the forest.
I cannot say if the legends are real, but I do
know Mons Klint is definitely magical.
January 2016 JURUTERA 45
 TEMUDUGA PROFESIONAL

Tarikh: 7 December 2015 KEJURUTERAAN MEKANIKAL

23383 KHAIRUL SALLEH BIN BE HONS (UTM) (MECHANICAL, 2003)
To All Members, BASARUDDIN
30774 MOHD RAZLI ISHAM BIN MD BE HONS (UNITEN) (MECHANICAL, 2008)

SENARAI CALON-CALON YANG LAYAK 64610

RADZI DZULKHAIRI
TAN KIAN KEONG BE HONS (UKM) (MECHANICAL, 2012)
MENDUDUKI TEMUDUGA PROFESIONAL
KEJURUTERAAN ALAM SEKITAR
TAHUN 2016 26793 FAZLI BIN RAHIM BE HONS (UTP) (CHEMICAL, 2001)
MSc (UKM) (CIVIL & STRUCTURAL, 2012)
Berikut adalah senarai calon yang layak untuk menduduki Temuduga
KEJURUTERAAN LEBUHRAYA
Profesional bagi tahun 2016.
45804 MUHAMAD RAZUHANAFI BIN BE HONS (UTM) (CIVIL, 1997)
MAT YAZID
Mengikut Undang-Undang Kecil IEM, Seksyen 3.8, nama-nama
seperi tersenarai berikut diterbitkan sebagai calon-calon yang KEJURUTERAAN KAWALAN & INSTRUMENTASI
layak untuk menjadi Ahli Insitusi, dengan syarat bahawa mereka 34371 OH LAY SHAN BE HONS (UTP)(ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS,
2006)
lulus Temuduga Profesional tahun 2016.
KEJURUTERAAN BAHAN
Sekiranya terdapat Ahli Korporat yang mempunyai bantahan 37286 JULIE JULIEWATTY BINTI BE HONS (USM) (MATERIAL, 2001)
terhadap mana-mana calon yang didapai idak sesuai untuk MOHAMED MSc (USM) (MATERIALS, 2004)
PhD (USM) (2008)
menduduki Temuduga Profesional, surat bantahan boleh
dikemukakan kepada Seiausaha Kehormat, IEM. Surat bantahan KEJURUTERAAN KIMIA
64585 AMIZA BINTI SURMI BE HONS (UTP) (CHEMICAL, 2006)
hendaklah dikemukakan sebulan dari tarikh penerbitan dikeluarkan. 49967 NORAZIAH BINTI MUDA@OMAR BE HONS (SHEFFIELD) (CHEMICAL PROCESS
& FUEL TECHNOLOGY, 1998)
Ir. Yam Teong Sian
Seiausaha Kehormat, IEM, PERMOHONAN BARU MENJADI AHLI KORPORAT
KEJURUTERAAN MEKANIKAL
PERMOHONAN BARU - NG BOON WAI BE HONS (UKM) (MECHANICAL & MATERIALS,
1993)
Nama Kelayakan
KEJURUTERAAN AWAM
KHADIJAH BINTI ABDUL RAZAK BE HONS (UTM) (CIVIL, 2007) ERRATA
LIM BEE KOON, CORINNE BE (HONS) (UTM) (CIVIL, 2003) SENARAI CALON-CALON YANG LAYAK MENDUDUKI TEMUDUGA PROFESIONAL
MOHD ALFIAN BIN ABU BAKAR BE HONS (UiTM) (CIVIL, 2007) TAHUN 2015 - SEPTEMBER 2015
MOHD HAZULLAH BIN ZULKIFLI BE HONS (UTM) (CIVIL, 2008)
PERPINDAHAN AHLI
SHAMSUL BIN ABD MANAF BE HONS (UiTM) (CIVIL, 2006)
KEJURUTERAAN ELEKTRONIK
KEJURUTERAAN ELEKTRIKAL 71187 MOHAMAD FAZLI BIN MOHAMAD BE HONS (UNITEN) (ELECTRICAL &
SALLEH ELECTRONICS, 2009)
LIM JOO SIANG BE HONS (UNITEN) (ELECTRICAL POWER, 2008)
MOHAMAD SUHAIMI BIN ANUAR BSc (NEW MEXICO) (ELECTRICAL, 1996)
SENARAI CALON-CALON YANG LAYAK MENDUDUKI TEMUDUGA PROFESIONAL
KEJURUTERAAN AERONAUTIKAL TAHUN 2015 - NOVEMBER 2015
AZIIZUR RAHMAN BIN ABDUL AZIZ BE HONS (UTM) (MECHANICAL-AERONAUTICS, 2009)
PERMOHONAN BARU
KEJURUTERAAN KAWALAN & INSTRUMENTASI KEJURUTERAAN AERONAUTIKAL
FRANKLIN ANAK UCAR BE HONS (UKM) (ELECTRICAL,
KHAIRINI MELISSA NG SAU CHENG BE HONS (UPM) (AEROSPACE, 2008)
ELECTRONIC & SYSTEM, 1995)
ME (UPM) (ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, 2006)

KEJURUTERAAN MARIN
MOHD FAZLI BIN MOHD YUSOF BE HONS (UTM) (MECHANICAL - MARINE TECHNOLOGY,
IEM DIARY OF EVENTS
2007)

Title: Talk on Commission of Enquiry Into the Failure

PERPINDAHAN AHLI
No. Ahli Nama Kelayakan of Two Civil Structures in Penang
KEJURUTERAAN AWAM 28 January 2016
21588 AHONG ANAK MANCHU BE HONS (UNIMAS) (CIVIL, 2000)
22419 HONG POH TECK BE HONS (RMIT) (CIVIL, 2000)
Organised by : Standing Committee on Professional
27654 LIM LIANG JIN BE HONS (UTM) (CIVIL, 2006) Practice
MSc (TUDelft) (CIVIL, 2012)
Time : 5.30 p.m. – 7.30 p.m.
43518 MA CHAU KHUN BE HONS (UTM) (CIVIL, 2008)
PhD (UTM) (CIVIL, 2015) CPD/PDP :2
23916 MAGESWARAN PAVADAI BE HONS (MALAYA) (CIVIL, 2000)
17835 NG KIM SENG BE HONS (MALAYA) (CIVIL, 1999)
58004 ZAINI BIN IBRAHIM BE HONS (UTM) (CIVIL, 2012)

Title: Talk on “Reduction of Blast-Induced Vibration

KEJURUTERAAN ELEKTRIKAL
64743 JOHN A/L R.AROKIASAMY BE HONS (UMP) (POWER SYSTEMS, 2011) in Tunnelling Using Barrier Boles and Air-Deck”
60623 LAILATUL AKMAL ABDUL RAUF ME HONS (IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON)
(ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC, 2009)
16 February 2016
58642 MOHAMAD HELMEE BIN MOHD BE HONS (UiTM) (ELECTRICAL, 2008) Organised by : Tunneling and Underground Space
RORTI
78422 MOHD ALFITRI BIN ZAILAN BE HONS (UniMAP) (ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS,
Engineering Technical Division
2010) Time : 5.30 p.m. – 7.30 p.m.
50756 MOHD SUFI BIN ABDUL RAHMAN BE HONS (UniMAP) (ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS,
2009)
CPD/PDP :2
78415 SHEFIAN BIN MD DOM BE HONS (UiTM) (ELECTRICAL, 2005)

KEJURUTERAAN ELEKTRONIK Kindly note that the scheduled events below are subject
16394 JA'AFAR SIDEK BIN BUDIN BE HONS (UTM) (ELECTRICAL, 2012) to change. Please visit the IEM website at www.myiem.
33913 NOOR ZAIHAH BINTI JAMAL BE HONS (USM) (ELECTRONIC, 2005)
org.my for more information on the upcoming events.
79323 RUZITA BINTI ABU BAKAR BSc (INDIANA) (ELECTRICAL, 1989)
MSc (UPM) (COMPUTER & COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS, 2001)

January 2016 JURUTERA 47

 KEAHLIAN

79014 TAN YEE LIANG, B.E.HONS.(UITM) 79109 MOHAMAD ARIF B.E.HONS.(UITM) Note: Remaining list would be published in the February
WILLIAM (ELECTRICAL, 2015) AFNAN BIN YAHYA (ELECTRONIC, 2015) 2016 issue. For the list of approved “ADMISSION TO
78416 TAY ENG CHONG B.E.HONS.(MONASH) 79105 MOHAMAD AZIZAN B.E.HONS.(UITM) THE GRADE OF STUDENT”, please refer to IEM web
(ELECTRICAL, 2013) BIN MOHAMAD SAID (ELECTRONIC, 2015) portal at http://www.myiem.org.my.
78861 TUAN NUR LIYANA B.E.HONS.(UNITEN) 79143 MOHAMAD FAISAL B.E.HONS.(UITM)
BINTI RAJA HASSAN (ELECTRICAL POWER, BIN AZLAN (ELECTRONIC, 2015)
2012)
79088 WAN HUZAIRI BIN B.E.HONS.(UITM)
WAN HUSSIN (ELECTRICAL, 2015)
79096 WAN NURFAZWINA B.E.HONS.(UITM)
BINTI MAT SOTI (ELECTRICAL, 2015)
Pengumuman
78453 WAN ZUHARI BIN B.E.HONS.(UTM) yang ke-87
WAN ISMAIL (ELECTRICAL, 2001)
79296 YEE HAN MIN, B.E.HONS.(UMS)
STEPHEN (ELECTRICAL &
ELECTRONICS, 2011) SENARAI PENDERMA KEPADA WISMA DANA BANGUNAN IEM
79074 ZAIDI FAIQ BIN MOHD B.E.HONS.(UITM)
NOH (ELECTRICAL, 2015) Institusi mengucapkan terima kasih kepada semua yang telah
79093 ZULKIFLI BIN MOHD B.E.HONS.(CURTIN)
SALLEHAN (ELECTRONIC & memberikan sumbangan kepada tabung Bangunan Wisma IEM.
COMMUNICATION, 2009)
Ahli-ahli IEM dan pembaca yang ingin memberikan sumbangan
KEJURUTERAAN ELEKTRONIK boleh berbuat demikian dengan memuat turun borang di laman
79066 ADAM BIN HAIRUL B.E.HONS.(IIUM) web IEM http://www.iem.org.my atau menghubungi secretariat
ERWAN (COMMUNICATION, 2012)
79160 AHMAD MUHAYMIN B.E.HONS.(MELBOURNE) di +603-7968 4001/5518 untuk maklumat lanjut. Senarai penyumbang
BIN NISAR AHMAD (ELECTRICAL, 2012)
SALIMI
untuk bulan November 2015 adalah seperti jadual di bawah:
79148 AHMAD SHAZWAN B.E.HONS.(MMU)
BIN AHMAD SUHAIMI (ELECTRONICS- NO. NO. AHLI NAMA
ROBOTICS &
AUTOMATION, 2008)
1 15680 AHMAD HUSAIRI BIN ABDULLAH
79111 ARIFFIN NARWES BIN B.E.HONS.(UTM)
MUHAMMAD JUHIN (ELECTRICAL-
INSTRUMENTATION & 2 26586 CHEE JEN YIH
CONTROL, 2011)
79121 AZZIZATUL HUDA B.SC.(UTM)(ELECTRICAL, 3 58691 CHIA WAN HOONG
SABANI 1999)
79009 CHANG TZIN, B.SC.(UTM)(ELECTRICAL, 4 54569 CHRISTOPHER ANAK KAYAD
RAYMOND 2002)
79065 CHE NORZAKIMAN B.E.HONS.(UITM) 5 42457 FADHLI BIN ABDULLAH
BIN CHE AHMAD (ELECTRONIC, 2015)
78897 CHEW HOO BENG B.E.HONS.(UTAR) 6 07524 LEE PAK CHOONG
(ELECTRONIC
&COMMUNICATION, 2012) 7 70558 LEE YEN EU
78459 DR. LAW KAH HAW M.E.HONS.
(NOTTINGHAM) 8 44712 LU TSUI MING
(ELECTRICAL &
ELECTRONIC, 2010) 9 58487 NAZURA ZAILAH BT. HAJI ZAINORIN
P.HD.(NOTTINGHAM)
(2015)
10 15859 NG LIN HONG @ PAUL NG
79154 FAIDHI AMIN BIN B.E.HONS.(UITM)
MOHD NAZARNA (ELECTRONIC, 2015)
11 65845 NUR HAFIZAH ZAINUDIN
79149 FELIX CEILOMOND B.E.HONS.(UITM)
ANAK SAMAM (ELECTRONIC, 2015)
12 61194 ONG KIN BEING
79064 HABIB BIN SHAWAL B.E.HONS.(UITM)
(ELECTRONIC, 2015)
13 27992 PATRICK TUIN
79142 HAFIDZ BIN AZMI B.E.HONS.(UITM)
(ELECTRONIC, 2015)
14 14979 RAYMON MANGALARAJ
78450 HERMAN BIN ABU B.E.HONS.(UTM)
SAINI (ELECTRICAL-MEDICAL
ELECTRONICS, 2001) 15 45374 SHARUL A-RASHID
79144 ISMAIL BIN IBRAHIM B.E.HONS.(UITM)
EDHAM (ELECTRONIC, 2015) 16 24713 SHIA SIN SAN
79061 IZAIDI BIN WAN B.E.HONS.(UITM)
IBRAHIM (ELECTRONIC, 2015) 17 71592 SITI NOORJANNAH BT IBRAHIM
79136 IZHAM KHAIRULFATHI B.E.HONS.(UITM)
BIN BAHRO (ELECTRONIC, 2015) 18 07366 TAI KIM FUI
79038 LAI SUN YUENN B.E.HONS.(UITM)
(ELECTRONIC, 2015) 19 44025 TAN SOON HAW
79058 MD BAHARIN SABRI B.E.HONS.(UITM)
BIN NASIR (ELECTRONIC, 2015) 20 65885 WAN NOR ADMATIZA BT. SUHAIMI
79104 MIZY SHAMIRUL BIN B.E.HONS.(UITM)
MASRULHISHAM (ELECTRONIC, 2015) 21 55821 ZYKAMILIA BINTI KAMIN

CONTRIBUTIONS TO WISMA IEM BUILDING FUND

RM 2,743,456.20 contributed by IEM Members and Committees

RM 741,502.00 contributed by Private Organisations
TOTAL RM 3,484,958.20
(ANOTHER RM 3,582,273.31 IS NEEDED)
The Insituion would like to thank all contributors for donaing generously towards the IEM Building Fund
HELP US TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES TO YOU AND TO THE FUTURE GENERATION

48 JURUTERA January 2016