One Day Seminar - Post Disaster Housing: Resilience Perspective

Seismic Capacity of
Post Disaster Reconstructed Houses
in Yogyakarta and Padang

Erwin Lim

Institut Teknologi Bandung

February 28, 2018

 Acknowledgement
• Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
• Kyoto University
• Team Members
– Prof. Krishna S. Pribadi, Institut Teknologi Bandung
– Prof. Kenzi Okazaki, Kyoto University
– Asst. Prof. Chiho Ochiai, Kyoto University
– Assoc. Prof. Jane Singer, Kyoto University
– Nafesa Ismail, Kyoto University
– Dr. Mahditia Paramita, Housing Resource Center
– Dr. Benny Hidayat, Universitas Andalas
– Dr. Heri Zulfiar, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
– Miftahul Jannah, Institut Teknologi Bandung
– Yolanda Agustiani, Institut Teknologi Bandung
– Hermawan Sutejo, Institut Teknologi Bandung
– Silvester Sandy, Institut Teknologi Bandung
 Outline
• Introduction
• Field Survey and Material Tests
• Analysis
• Results and Discussions
• Conclusions

One Day Seminar - Post Disaster Housing: Resilience Perspective

Introduction

One Day Seminar - Post Disaster Housing: Resilience Perspective

 Post Disaster Reconstructed House
• Yogyakarta EQ (2006) MW = 6.4 and Padang EQ
(2009) MW = 7.6

• A lot of post disaster houses have been

developed with various funding schemes

• After 10 years, house owners added extension to

their houses
 Objectives
• To evaluate seismic capacity of reconstructed
house after 10 years
One Day Seminar - Post Disaster Housing: Resilience Perspective

Field Survey and

Material Tests
 Location
1. Yogyakarta
Klaten and Bantul
2. Padang
Pasir Jambak and Limpato
 Survey
• Geometry survey
• Non-destructive test:
Hammer Test  concrete quality
• Interview related to concrete mix proportion
and size of reinforcement bars
• Laboratory tests:
Concrete mix proportion  compression tests
Brick compression tests
Re-bar tensile tests
 Yogyakarta - Klaten
House No. 73 (unmodified)

f8 4f12
Grid A

Grid B

A B C
 Yogyakarta - Klaten
House No. 65 (modified)

4f12 4f8
F8-100/150

F8-200

150x150 150x150
original new
 5
Grid 5

Grid 3

Grid 1
Yogyakarta – Material Tests
Concrete
Hammer Test Compression Test
Klaten (1:2:3) 16.3 MPa 16.6 MPa
Bantul (1:3:2) 28.3 MPa 15.6 MPa

Reinforcement Bar
f6 f 10 f 12
Yogyakarta - 354.8 MPa 381.1 MPa

Brick
fb
Yogyakarta 2.6 MPa
 Padang – Pasir Jambak
House No. 75 (unmodified)

4f8
f6

100x100
 Padang – Pasir Jambak
House No. 12 (modified)

f6-100 4f8 4f10

f6-100

100x100 100x100
 Padang – Material Tests
Concrete
Hammer Test Compression Test
Pasir Jambak (1:1:3) 19.3 MPa 19.8 MPa
Limpato (1:2:3) 35.5 MPa 18.6 MPa
Reinforcement Bar
f6 f 10 f 12
Padang 380.0 MPa 315.1 MPa 290.2 MPa

Brick
fb
Pasir Jambak 3.9 MPa
Limpato 8.2 MPa
 Field Observation
Unmodified Modified
House House
Strucural System Confined Masonry Confined Masonry

Plane layout Square Rectangular

Tie column
Longitudinal bar 4 f12 (4 f 8) 4f8
Transverse bar f8 – 100/150 f8 -200
(f 6) ( f 6)
Regularity Regular Irregular
 Analysis

One Day Seminar - Post Disaster Housing: Resilience Perspective

 Analysis Methods
Analysis 3:
Pushover Analysis
ASCE 41 (2013)
Analysis 2:
Riahi, et al. (2009)
Analysis 1:
EERI Method (2011)

V    Aw
 Analysis 1: EERI Method (2011)
• Shear Capacity of a Confined Masonry:

V    Aw
   0.5m  0.3   1.5m
m  0.35MPa
 0

• V = 0 if opening > 10%

tw
Lw
 Analysis 2: Riahi et al. (2009)
Riahi, Z., Elwood, K. J., Alcocer, S. M., “ Backbone Model for Confined Masonry Walls for
Performance-Based Seismic Design”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, pp. 644 – 654.
n
Cracking Point
nmax 20%
nult
cr   0.424m  0.374   m
ncr
m  0.184 fcm [MPa]
 0
dcr dmax dult d
Opening effect

cr   0   2.2  1cr

 0  0
n cr
d cr  
tw fcm
Lw
 Analysis 2: Riahi et al. (2009)
n
Maximum Point
nmax
ncr
20%
nult
max  0.21m  0.363  0.0141 vc f yvc fc  cr

d max  0.65dult

dcr dmax dult d

Ultimate Point

ult  0.8max
n max
d ult  
fm
tw
Lw
 Analysis 3: Pushover Analysis (ASCE 41-13)
ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, 2013, 518 pp.

Columns and beams

Brick walls
 Summary
Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3
(EERI 2011) (Riahi 2009) (ASCE 2013)
Strength Cracking Trilinear curves Continuous
strength (cracking,
maximum, ultimate
Opening Neglected if > empirical neglected
10%
Tie Column No empirical more rational
Deformation No empirical more rational
Strength No yes Yes
degradation
Torsional effect No n No Yes

V    Aw nmax
ncr
20%
nult

dcr dmax dult d

 Test Verification
Wijaya, W, Kusumastuti, D., Suarjana, M., Rildova, Pribadi, K. (2011), “Experimental
Study on Wall Frame Connection of Confined Masonry Walls,” Procedia Engineering.
Test Verification

Riahi EERI

ASCE

Test Results
Results and
Discussions

One Day Seminar - Post Disaster Housing: Resilience Perspective

 Klaten: House 73 (unmodified)

X - Direction

Riahi

ASCE
EERI
demand
y

x
 Klaten: House 73 (unmodified)

Y - Direction

Riahi

EERI
ASCE

y demand

x
 Klaten: House 65 (modified)
X - Direction

Riahi

EERI

ASCE

demand

x
 Klaten: House 65 (modified)

Y - Direction

Riahi
EERI

ASCE

demand

x
 Typical curves
Riahi
Riahi
EERI

ASCE ASCE
EERI
demand
demand

• All methods show sufficient seismic capacity

• ASCE pushover analysis gives the most conservative

estimation  might be due to neglection of walls with openings

• ASCE pushover analysis is used for future analysis

 Comparisons of Capacity curves for
unmodified and modified house
(Klaten)
modified

unmodified
X-dir
unmodified

modified

Y-dir unmodified

x modified
 Failure Sequences
(Klaten)

Middle stage

Early stage

Tie column at extended part of house

failed first Final stage
 Comparisons of Capacity curves for
unmodified and modified house
(Bantul)

X-dir unmodified
modified

modified

unmodified
Y-dir
 Comparisons of Capacity curves for
unmodified and modified house
(Pasir Jambak)

unmodified
X-dir
modified
unmodified

modified
unmodified
Y-dir

x modified
Conclusions

One Day Seminar - Post Disaster Housing: Resilience Perspective

• Typical structural system: confined masonry

• Modified part tends to be “weaker”

• Seismic capacity is sufficient, assuming all

detailings are proper

• Houses with modified part tends to be stiffer

and “stronger” due to addition of wall,
assuming connections are proper
Thank You
 Yogyakarta - Klaten
House No. 73 (unmodified)

f8 4f12
Grid A

Grid B

A B C
Grid 1 3

Grid 2

Grid 3
 Yogyakarta - Klaten
House No. 65 (modified)

4f12 4f8
F8-100/150

F8-200

150x150 150x150
original new
Grid A

Grid B

A B C

Grid C
 5

Grid 1

Grid 3
1

Grid 5
 Yogyakarta - Bantul
House No. 65 (unmodified)

4f12
f8

150x150
 Yogyakarta - Bantul
House No. 69 (modified)

4f12
f8-100/150
f8-200 4f8

120x120
150x150
original new
 Padang – Limpato
House No. 24 (unmodified)

4f12
 Padang – Limpato
House No. 96 (modified)

4f12 4f8

original new
f8 f6
 Typical curves

Riahi
Riahi
EERI

ASCE ASCE
EERI
demand
demand

• All methods show sufficient seismic capacity

• EERI strength is related to Riahi’s cracking strength
EERI (2011) Riahi et al. (2009)

   0.5m  0.3   1.5m cr   0.424m  0.374   m

m  0.35MPa m  0.184 fcm [MPa]
  0.1  0 cr   0   2.2  1cr