Topik Pilihan tentang Beban Gempa

pada Fondasi
sesuai
SNI 1726 2019 and SNI 8460 2017

GEO – Talk XIII

4 Juni 2020
Web Seminar HATTI F. X. Toha
 Selamat Idul FItrI

1 Syawal 1441 H

moHon maaF laHIr dan BatHIn

 • SNI 1726 2019:
• Merujuk ASCE 7-16
SNI 1726 • Berbasis berbasis kinerja (performance based) peluang
kegagalan bersyarat dan kekuatan (strength based).
2019 • Menggunakan MCER dan MCEG 2500 tahun

dan • Menggunakan Peta Gempa 2017.

• SNI 8460 2017
SNI 8460 • Merujuk ASCE 7-10, AASHTO 2012, FHWA, ICOLD, SNI
1726 2012, SNI 2833 2008 dll.
2017 • Performance based dan strength based
• Menggunakan Perioda Ulang 1000, 2500 dan 10000
tahun
Kriteria Kinerja (Performance Criteria)

• SNI 1726 2019

• Peluang kegagalan bersyarat akibat MCER : 10, 5 dan 2.5% untuk Kategori Risiko I, II, II dan IV (1.2)
(Lihat Tabel 1 dan Tabel 2)
• Pengaruh Kegempaan dan Kategori Risiko Kategori Desain A, B, C, D, E dan F (6.5, 6.6, 6.7)
• Berbasis kekuatan dan deformasi (Cd)

• SNI 8460 2017 (Tabel 52 untuk gempa)

• Berbasis kekuatan (SF) dan kemampulayanan (non linier) (9.3.2)
• Kinerja (sesuai dengan struktur bangunan, jembatan, bendung, terowongan dsb) terhadap service loads.
• Pelabuhan Port of Long Beach 2009:
• Operating Level Earthquake(OLE): Periode Ulang 75 tahun (50% exceedance in 50 years)
(kerusakan struktur tidak siginifikan, dapat dengan mudah terlihat, dan dapat diperbaiki tanpa gangguan opersional)
• Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE): Periode Ulang 500 tahun (10% exceedance in 50 years)
(kerusakan struktur terkontrol, dapat dicapai, dan dapat diperbaiki dengan gangguan operasional ringan selama beberapa bulan)

• Code Level Design Earthquake (DE): Periode Ulang 1000, 2500, 10000 tahun
(Nyaris runtuh, kerusakan struktur tidak catastrophic, DL peralatan masih bisa dipikul, pencegahan korban jiwa)

POLB: kerusakan  batas

SNI 8460 2017 – Tabel 52
Umur Prob.
Periode Ulang
Peruntukan Rencana Terlampaui Kriteria Keamanan Referensi
(tahun)
(tahun) (%)
Gedung & Non Gedung 50 2 2500 Peluang Kegagalan, Kategori Risiko dan SNI 1726 2019
Kategori Desain
Jembatan 75 7 1000 SNI 2833
Konvensional AASHTO 2012
Dinding Penahan 75 7 1000 Statik: Geser FK > 1.5; Guling FK > 2 WSDOT
Abutment Jembatan Pseudostatik: FK > 1.1 FHWA 2005
Timbunan Oprit FK > 1.1

Bendungan 100 1 10000 (Safety • Tidak terjadi aliran air yang tak ICOLD No. 148
Evaluation terkendali 2016
Earthquake) • Deformasi  0.5 tinggi jagaan
• Deformasi  0.5 tebal filter
• Spillway tetap berfungsi pasca gempa

100 50 145 (Operating Kerusakan minor pasca gempa

Basis Earthquake)
Bangunan Pelengkap 50 2 2500
Bendungan
Terowongan 100 10 1000
 Peta Gempa 2017
http://rsapuskim2019.litbang.pu.go.id/
LRFD dan WSD Dalam SNI 1726 2019

• LRFD (4.2.2.3) (ASCE 12.13.5) •  RN

1.2 D + Ev + Eh + L Eh =  QE (7.4.2.1) ASCE  =
 = faktor redudansi 1.0 atau 1.3 (7.3.4.2) 0.45 – 0.85
QE = SDS/[R/Ie] W (7.8.1, 7.2.2R koef mod resp, 4.1.2Ie )
SDS = 2/3 SMS (6.3, FEMA 388 C3 commentary for 2/3)  = 0.6 ~ 0.8
SMS = Fa SS (6.2) AASHTO,
Fa (6.2: Tabel 6, tergantung Klas Situs) FHWA,
Ss = Sa MCER Eurocode,
(Peta Gempa 2017) Australian,
Canada

• WSD (4.2.3.3)  Global load factor 1.4 (=1/0.7) diadopsi (ASCE 7-05: C.11) • RN/SF
1.0 D + 0.7 Ev + 0.7 Eh + 0.75 L SNI 8460 2017
0.9 D – 0.7 Ev + 0.7 Eh
 Tabel 6 Koefisien situs, Fa
Parameter respons spektral percepatan gempa maksimum yang
Kelas Situs dipertimbangkan risiko-tertarget (MCER) terpetakan pada periode
pendek, T = 0,2 detik, SS
SS ≤ 0,25 SS = 0,5 SS = 0,75 SS = 1,0 SS = 1,25 SS ≥ 1,5
SA 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8
SB 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9

Tentang Fa, Fv, SC

SD
1,3
1,6
1,3
1,4
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,1
1,2
1,0
1,2
1,0
FPGA SE
SF
2,4 1,7 1,3
SS (a)
1,1 SS* 0,9 SS* 0,8 SS*

(terkait Kelas Situs) SS*ASCE 7-16 mensyaratkan Site Specific Analysis

(5.3)
Tabel 10 Koefisien situs, FPGA
Kelas Situs PGA ≤ 0,1 PGA = 0,2 PGA = 0,3 PGA = 0,4 PGA = 0,5 PGA ≥ 0,6
SA 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8
SB 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9
SC 1,3 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2
SD 1,6 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,1
SE 2,4 1,9 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,1
SF SS (a)
 Tabel 7 Koefisien situs, Fv

Parameter respons spektral percepatan gempa maksimum yang

Kelas Situs dipertimbangkan risiko-tertarget (MCER) terpetakan pada periode
T = 1 detik, S1
S1 ≤ 0,1 S1 = 0,2 S1 = 0,3 S1 = 0,4 S1 = 0,5 S1 ≥ 0,6
SA 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8
SB 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8
Tentang Fa, Fv, SC
SD
1,5
2,4
1,5
2,2
1,5
2,0
1,5
1,9
1,5
1,8
1,4
1,7
FPGA SE 4,2 3,3 SS* 2,8 SS* 2,4 SS* 2,2 SS* 2,0 SS*
SF SS(a)
(terkait Kelas Situs) SS*ASCE 7-16 mensyaratkan Site Specific Analysis
(5.3)
SNI 1726 2019: 5.3
Tabel 5 Klasifikasi Situs

Kelas Situs 𝒗s (m/detik) 𝑵 atau 𝑁ch 𝑺u (kPa)

SA (batuan keras) > 1500 N/A N/A
SB (batuan) 750 sampai 1500 N/A N/A
SC (tanah keras sangat
padat dan batuan 350 sampai 750 > 50 ≥ 100
lunak)
SD (tanah sedang) 175 sampai 350 15 sampai 50 50 sampai 100
SE (tanah lunak) < 175 < 15 < 50
Atau setiap profil tanah yang mengandung lebih dari 3 m tanah dengan
karateristik sebagai berikut :
1. Indeks plastisitas, PI > 20,
2. Kadar air, w ≥ 40%,
3. Kuat geser niralir 𝑆 < 25 kPa
SF (tanah khusus, yang Setiap profil lapisan tanah yang memiliki salah satu atau lebih dari karakteristik
membutuhkan berikut :
investigasi geoteknik - Rawan dan berpotensi gagal atau runtuh akibat beban gempa seperti mudah
spesifik dan analisis likuifaksi, lempung sangat sensitif, tanah tersementasi lemah
respons spesifik-situs - Lempung sangat organik dan/atau gambut (ketebalan H > 3 m)
yang mengikuti 6.9 & - Lempung berplastisitas sangat tinggi (ketebalan H > 7,5 m dengan indeks
6.10) plastisitas PI > 75)
- Lapisan lempung lunak/setengah teguh dengan ketebalan H > 35 m dengan
𝑆̅u < 50 kPa
Average Soil Properties:
SNI 1627 2019: 5.4 • Batuan dasar desain
(engineering bed rock) adalah
lapisan dengan vs ~ 750
m/det. (SBSC)
• Berbasis kecepatan rambat
gelombang geser ekivalen
dalam ketebalan lapisan 30
m. (5.1)

Permukaan • Untuk Klas Situs yang lebih

baik dari SE harus dari 2
pengukuran independen (5.1)
• NSPT < 100 (5.4.2)
• Bilamana 𝑁𝑐ℎ dan 𝑆̅u
menghasilkan kriteria yan
Engineering bedrock
berbeda, harus diambil yang
terburuk (5.3.3)
• (12.2.2.1 butir l) Klas situs
Nilai d/vsi, d/Ni, atau d/Sui yang besar harus diambil dari yang
(lapisan lunak dan tebal) akan terburuk bilamana pada
mempengaruhi kinerja lapisan kedalaman > 30 m dijumpai
keseluruhan klas situs yang lebih buruk
dari 30 m paling atas.
 Catatan FEMA 368 Chapter 3 (Commentary to FEMA 450:2003) and ASCE 7-05:
The approach adopted in the Provisions is intended to provide for a uniform margin against collapse at
the design ground motion. In order to accomplish this, ground motion hazards are defined in terms of

mengenai maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motions. The maximum considered earthquake ground
motions are based on a set of rules that depend on the seismicity of an individual region. The design
ground motions are based on a lower bound estimate of the margin against collapse inherent in

factor 2/3 structures designed to the Provisions. This lower bound was judged, based on experience, to
correspond to a factor of about 1.5 in ground motion. Consequently, the design earthquake ground
motion was selected at a ground shaking level that is 1/1.5 (2/3) of the maximum considered
earthquake ground motion.

ASCE 7-10: C 11.4:

The approach adopted in Section 11.4 is intended to provide for a more uniform collapse risk for
structures designed using the MCER ground motions. The MCER ground motions are expected to result
in structures with a 1% probability of collapse in 50 years, based on the probabilistic seismic hazard at
each site and a probabilistic estimate of the margin against collapse inherent in structures designed to
the seismic provisions in the standard (collapse fragility). In previous editions of ASCE/SEI 7, the lower
bound margin was judged, based on experience, to correspond to a factor of about 1.5 in ground
motions. In ASCE/SEI 7-10 the uncertainty in this margin is accounted for with the collapse fragility
defined in Section 21.2.1.2. Nevertheless, the design earthquake ground motion is based on 1/1.5 (or
2/3) of MCER ground motion for consistency with previous editions of the standard. This factor has
been taken into account in developing the MCER ground motions

ASCE 7-16: C11.4

The basis for the mapped values of the MCER ground motions in ASCE 7-16 is identical to that in ASCE 7-
10. Both of these are significantly different from mapped values of MCE ground motions in earlier
editions of ASCE 7. These differences include use of (1) probabilistic ground motions that are based on
uniform risk, rather than uniform hazard, (2) deterministic ground motions that are based on the 84th
percentile (approximately 1.8 times median), rather than 1.5 times median response spectral
acceleration for sites near active faults, and (3) ground motion intensity that is based on maximum
rather than average (geometric mean) response spectral acceleration in the horizontal plane. These
differences are explained in detail in the Commentary of the 2009 NEHRP Recommended Provisions.
Except for determining the MCEG PGA values in Chapters 11 and 21, the mapped values are given as
MCER spectral values.
 ASCE 7-05: C2.4:

Catatan COMBINING LOADS USING ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN

C2.4.1 Basic Combinations. …..The earthquake load effect is multiplied by 0.7 to align allowable stress

mengenai
design for earthquake effects with the definition of E in Section 12.4, which is based on strength
principles. Most loads, other than dead loads, vary significantly with time.

0.7
Ilustrasi besar beban kerja (untuk analisis deformasi dan penggunaan SF):

1.0 D + 0.7 Ev + 0.7 Eh + 0.75 L

Eh =  QE
= (1.0 s/d 1.3) (2/3) Fa Sa MCER /[R/Ie] W

(menggunakan margin ambang bawah untuk gempa peruntuh)

(ada kuat lebih dan duktilitas struktur)

Analisis Geoteknik:

(…??) FPGA Sa MCEG W

(ada kemampuan deformasi non linear/plastifikasi??)

0.7 Eh ~ 0.47 FPGA Sa MCEG W

 Model analitik fondasi dalam analisis terhadap beban gempa:
Analisis interaksi dinamik tanah - fondasi – struktur (Direct Method)

Gravitasi

Gempa
Dinamik Boundary
element
model

Unbounded
media Unbounded
FE Model media
 NEHRP 12-917-21 2015
– Pengaruh Interaksi Tanah-Fondasi-Struktur

• Interaksi beban inersial struktur atas dan bawah (rakit, fondasi

tiang dan basement) dengan tanah.
• Perbedaan antara Gerak Lapangan Bebas (Free Field Motion, FF)
dan Gerak Masukan Fondasi (Foundation Input Motion, FIM)
karena kelenturan/kekakuan elemen struktur fondasi dalam
tanah.
• Deformasi pada elemen structural fondasi akibat pengaruh
struktur atas dan media tanah.

NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, “Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST GCR
12-917-21, 2015
Beban Gempa pada Fondasi:
Beban gempa pada fondasi dari struktur atas (terjepit, tanpa interaksi)

Gempa
Struktur
Atas akibat
FF motion

Fixed Fixed
7.7.1
 Ketentuan
SNI 1726 SNI 1726 2019 (7.2.3.1):
2019 tentang • Bila RSA > Rf: Gunakan (R, Cd dan 0)SA untuk bangunan
sistem atas, dan untuk bangunan bawah digunakan (R, Cd dan
struktur atas 0)f dan gaya Rf / RSA
• Bila RSA < Rf : Gunakan (R, Cd dan 0)SA untuk bangunan
terjepit di MT atas dan bawah.

SNI 1726 2019 (7.2.3.2):

• Asumsi penjepitan diperkenankan bila kekakuan

bangunan bawah  10 kekakuan bangunan atas.
• Tsistem dibatasi maksimum 1.1 x Tterjepit
• Ff  1.5 (R/)SA /(R/)f
 Beban Gempa pada Fondasi:
Interaksi tanah – fondasi (beban struktur terjepit)

Gempa
Struktur Atas
(Terjepit)

Soil Pressure
Beban Kinematik Resistance on
Basement dan Tiang: Foundation
Basement Wall
(14.4), ASCE 7-16 14.2.3 Resistance
Beban dari Tanah: Soil Friction
+ M&O (1930)
+ Seed & Whitman Beban Inersia Resistance on
+ Wood (1973)
Basement & Basement Wall
+ Westergaard (1931)
+ Chwang and Housner (1977) Fondasi:
+ Sherif & Fang (1984) + SNI 1726 2019 7.8.1.1
+ Mikola & Sitar (2013) + Historis SNI 1726 2002:
10 % x PGA;
+ Lateral Spread merujuk ketentuan Jepang
+ Slopes
 Interaksi inersial umumnya
Inersia Struktur Atas menguntungkan bila h/(VsT) < 0.1, yakni
untuk struktur fleksibel pada tanah
(14.2& 14.3) keras/teguh. Merugikan bila strukturnya
kaku dan tanahnya lunak

Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures, NIST GCR 12-917-21,

2012
Beban Inersia Gempa pada Basement
dan Fondasi Tiang

• Provisi Gempa Minimum: (7.8.1.1)

Eh = 0.044 SDS Ie Wb = 0.044 2/3 Fa Sa,MCER  0.01
• Historis (SNI 1726 2002):
Fb = 0.10 Ao I Wb di mana Ao = PGA (setara 2/3 PGAMCEG dengan FPGA ~ Fa)
• Merujuk Japan’s Building Standard Law (2001):
Fb = k Wb
0.1 𝐴 1 − for 𝐷 ≤ 20m
di mana 𝑘 =
0.05 𝐴 for 𝐷 > 20 m

.
Ftiang = (EU-Str +  k Wb) ( 1 – 0.2 H / Df0.25)  0.2 H / Df0.25 vs backstay effect

di mana EU-Str adalah beban gempa struktur atas,

H adalah tinggi total bangunan
Df adalah kedalaman COL fondasi dari permukaan tanah

Karimi, M., et al., “Relationship for prediction of backstay effect in tall buildings with core-wall system,” Advances in Computational Design, Vol 5. No. 1 (20220)
Building Research Institute, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, “The Technical background of structural requirements in the revised Building Standard
Law, “ in Japanese, 2001
 Beban Kinematik Gempa pada Basement

• Basement: Base Slab Averaging (14.4):

⁄
RRSbsa = 0.25 + 0.75 1 − exp −2𝑏 𝐵

1+ 𝑏 +𝑏 + + + 𝑏 ≤1
Bbsa =
exp 2𝑏 √
1− 𝑏 >1
√
𝑏 = 0.0023 di mana Abase  80 m
and
RRSe = 0.25 + 0.75 cos di mana e = embedment depth, dan T > 0.2 detik

• Beban kinematic pada basement??

Beban Kinematik Gempa pada Fondasi Tiang

• Modifikasi Respon Spektra:

• (Turner, B.J., Brandenberg, S.J., Stewart, J.P., Influence of Kinematic SSI on Foundation Input Motions for Bridges on Deep Foundations, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. California, Berkeley, PEER Report No. 2017/08, November 2017).

• Tiang: ASCE 7-16 14.2.3:

• Persyaratan tulangan fondasi tiang beton (panjang tulangan memanjang dan transverse,
terkait dengan perbedaan kekakuan antar lapisan, momen retak tiang beton dsb).
ASCE 7-16
Section
14.2.3:
ASCE 7-16
Section
14.2.3:
 Fungsi Transfer Respon Spektra Percepatan,
Kinematic PSAFIM = Percepatan Puncak Spektra FIM
PSAFFM = Percepatan Puncak Spektra FF
Tiang B = diameter of pile

Turner, B. J., Brandenberg, S. J., Stewart, J. P., 2017, “Influence of

Kinematic SSI on Foundation Input Motions for Bridges on Deep
Foundations,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER
Report No. 2017/08.
 Fungsi Transfer Kinematik,
Kinematic Hu = up/ug
up = deformasi lateral tiang di muka tanah
Tiang ug = deformasi muka tanah FF
 Fungsi Transfer Kinematik,
Kinematic Hu = up/ug
up = deformasi lateral tiang di muka tanah
Tiang ug = deformasi muka tanah FF
 Fungsi Transfer Kinematik,
Kinematic H = p/g
p = rotasi tiang di muka tanah
Tiang g = rotasi muka tanah FF
 Mononobe-Okabe (1929):
Based on Coulomb active/passive lateral pressure theory
Tekanan
lateral gempa 𝐾 =
cos 𝜑 − 𝜃 − 𝜓

pada dinding cos 𝜓 cos 𝜃  cos 𝛿 + 𝜃 + 𝜓   1 +

sin 𝛿 + 𝜑  sin 𝜑 − 𝛽 − 𝜓
cos 𝛿 + 𝜑 + 𝜓  cos 𝛽 − 𝜃

di mana ( - )  ;  = d ;  = tan-1 [kh/(1 - kv)]

− tan 𝜑 − 𝜓 − 𝛽 + 𝐶
𝛼 = 𝜑 − 𝜓 + tan
𝐶
𝐶 = tan 𝜑 − 𝜓 − 𝛽   tan 𝜑 − 𝜓 − 𝛽 + cot 𝜑 − 𝜓 − 𝜃   1 + tan 𝛿 + 𝜓 + 𝜃 cot 𝜑 − 𝜓 − 𝜃

𝐶 = 1 + tan 𝛿 + 𝜓 + 𝜃   tan 𝜑 − 𝜓 − 𝛽 + cot 𝜑 − 𝜓 − 𝜃

Mononobe, N., dan Matsuo, H. (1929), “On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes,”
Proceedings, World Engineering Congress.
 Seed and Whitman (1970):
Tekanan
lateral gempa KAE = KA +  KAE

pada dinding  KAE  ¾ PGA

 PAE = 3/8 PGA  H2

= 0.6 H

Seed, H. B., dan Whitman, R. V, (1970), “ Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads,” ASCE
Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca, NY.
 Wood (1973):
Tekanan
lateral gempa
pada dinding

Wood, J. H. (1973), Earthquake induced soil pressures on structures, PhD Thesis, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Tekanan
lateral gempa Others:
pada dinding • Steedman, R. S., dan Zeng, X., (1990), “The seismic response of
waterfront retaining walls,” Proceedings, ASCE Specialty
Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining
Structures, STP Publication 25, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.
• Wu, G., dan Finn, W. D. L., (1996), “Seismic Pressures against
Rigid Walls,” ASCE STP No. 80.
• Mylonakis, G., Kloukinas, P., dan Papatonopoulos, C., (2007),
“An alternative to the Mononobe-Okabe Equation for Seismic
Earth Pressures,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
(27) 10.
 Westergaard (1931)
Tekanan Fluida
di luar Dinding •
(Outboard Fluid
Pressure)
•

• = 0.6 H

Chwang and Housner (1977):

Pf
H pf
Momentum,
𝑦 = 0.6 H
Hydrodynamic Flow:

Westergaaard, H.M., (1931), “Water Pressures on Dams during Earthquakes,” ASCE Transactions, Nov. 1931.
Chwang, A. T., dan Housner, G., (1977), “Hydrodynamic Pressures on Sloping Dams during Earthquakes,” Part 1 – Momentum Methods, Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 87 Part 2.
Uji Model Sherif & Fang (1984)
Uji Centrifugal Nakamura (2006)
 Uji Centrifugal Mikola and Sitar (2013)

Mikola, R. G., dan Sitar, N., 2013, “Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures in Cohesionless Soils,” Univ. of
California Berkeley, Report No. UCB GT 13-01
Uji Centrifugal Mikola and Sitar (2013)
Uji Centrifugal Mikola and Sitar (2013)
Uji Centrifugal Mikola and Sitar (2013)
 SNI 8460 2017

• (12.2.4.1)
• Beban kinematic
• Beban inersia
• Kehilangan daya dukung dan kekakuan karena likuifaksi
• Deformasi paksa akibat sebaran lateral (lateral spreading)
• Beban seret ke bawah (down drag)

• (12.2.4.2)
• Pengujian kriteria likuifaksi (ASTM)
• Metode analisis dengan CSR dan CRR

• (12.2.5)
• (Butir b.3) Untuk deformable retaining structure kh = 0.5 PGAM

• (12.2.7)
• (Butir a) Untuk lereng, kh = 0.5 PGAM
Marshall Lew, et al., “Seismic Earth
Pressures on Deep Building
Basements,” SEAOC 2010 Convention
Proceedings

• Untuk tanah tak jenuh, cukup gunakan

tekanan lateral Ko (dengan faktor beban
1.6), dan abaikan tekanan seismic.
• Bilamana tekanan aktif statik disertakan,
gunakan kh  60 % PGA dan gunakan
faktor beban =1.0 (bukan 1.6) untuk
komponen seismik.
Taiebat, M., Amirzehni, E., and Finn,
W.D.L.,” Seismic design of basement
walls: evaluation of current practice in
British Columbia,” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 51, 2014

1. Paling berbahaya pada basement paling

atas, terutama bila ukuran basement
atas lebih besar strukturnya lebih sedikit
kekanganannya dari bagian di bawahnya.
2. Tipikal kh = 0.5 to 0.6 PGA sudah
memadai untuk kejadian gempa dengan
keterlampauan 2% dalam 50 years.
3. MO + Seed & Whitman biasanya OK.
Tokimatsu, et al., “Effects of Inertial and
Kinematic Forces on Pile Stresses in
Large Shaking Table Tests,” 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada, 2004
• Bila Ts < Tg, gaya gempa inersial dan
kinematic bekerja bersamaan.
• Bila Ts > Tg, gaya gempa inersial dan
kinematic akan berbeda fase, sehingga
cukup ditinjau penagruh maximum dari
salah satunya.
• Tekanan tanah pada tanah kering
biasanya berlawanan dengan gaya
inersia; sedangkan untuk tanah jenuh
terlikuifaksi, tekanannya akan bekerja
bersama dengan gaya inersia.
• If the natural period of the structure is less
than that of the ground, the kinematic force
tends to be in phase with the inertial force,
increasing the stress in piles. The maximum
pile stress tends to occur when both inertial
force and ground displacement take
maxima and act in the same direction.
• If the natural period of the structure is
greater than that of the ground, the
kinematic force tends to be out of phase
with the inertial force, restraining the pile
stress from increasing. The maximum pile
stress tends to occur when either inertial
force or ground displacement take maxima
with the other being very small or when
both inertial force and ground displacement
do not become maxima at the same time.
• The earth pressure in dry sand tends to act
against the inertial force, while that in
saturated liquefied sand tends to act with
the inertial force. This is because the
ground displacement becomes large with
the development of liquefaction.
Murono, Y, and Nishimura, A., “Evaluation of
Seismic Force of Pile Foundation Induced by
Inertial and Kinematic Interaction,“ 12th
World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000 • For the linear pier model: The seismic
response of soil-pile-structure system is
much dependent on the relationship
between the period of structure Ts and
soil deposit Tg. If Ts<Tg, the inertia and the
• Tiang linier, bila Ts < Tg, gaya gempa kinematic loading will act on the pile with
inersial dan kinematic bekerja nearly the same phase, while Ts>Tg, the
bersamaan. Bila Ts > Tg, gaya gempa delay in phase between them will be very
inersial dan kinematic akan berbeda large.
jauh fasenya. • For the non-linear pier model: Though
inertial force itself is reduced due to the
• Tiang non-linier (terjadi sendi plastis di pier yielding, the possibility becomes high
kontras antar lapisan), gaya gempa that the soil displacement and the inertial
inersial dan kinematic bekerja force take maximum values
bersamaan, karena gelombang simultaneously, because the acceleration
percepatan mempunyai bentuk yang wave pattern has a flat shape.
landai.
Pengaruh lereng tanah pada beban
seismic basement dan fondasi

Agusti, G. C., dan Sitar, N., (2013), “Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures in Cohesive Soils,” Univ. of California,
Berkeley, Report No. UCB GT 13-02
Pengaruh lereng tanah pada beban
seismic basement dan fondasi

Wu, G., (2010), “Seismic lateral pressures for design of rigid walls,” Proc. 5th International Conference on Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, Ca.
Pengaruh likuifaksi pada basement dan
fondasi
SNI 1726 2019 dan AASHTO 2017

• Analisis dilakukan dalam kondisi liquefied dan non-

liquefied (7.13.8, ASCE 7-16 12.13.9, AASHTO 2017).
• Kasus 1. Spektra tanpa likuifaksi, 100 % gaya inersial
dan kinematik (tanpa sebaran lateral).
• Kasus 2. Tanah terlikuifaksi, 100% kinematic (dengan
sebaran lateral) + 50% inersial.
• Kasus 3. Tanpa likuifaksi, menggunakan plastic demand
struktur atas.
• Kasus 4. Dengan likuifaksi, menggunakan plastic
demand struktur atas.
p-y curve for liquefied sand
(residual strength approach)

p-y curve for liquefied sand

(=soft clay, saturated, cyclic load)
p-y curve for liquefied sand
(degradation factor approach)
Terima kasih
Yang ringan-ringan
• Ambang bawah vs. lower
bound
• Likuifaksi atau likuefaksi??
vs.. Liquefaction?
• Pondasi atau
Fondasi/Fundasi?? vs..
Foundation?
• Seret turun vs down drag
• Tebaran atau serakan
lateral vs lateral spreading?