Advertisement

Structural Response of Building in Ranau, Kota Kinabalu and Lahad Datu, Sabah Under Different Earthquake Scenarios

  • Zheng Yang Khoo
  • Tze Liang LauEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 53)

Abstract

In June 2015 Malaysia experienced the strongest earthquake in recent years as a magnitude 6.0 earthquake struck Ranau and damaged many buildings in the region of Ranau and Kundasang. Since this earthquake event, seismic design for East Malaysia has become a concern for many engineers and researchers to prevent seismic damage of important structures and infrastructures in the future. This paper covers the structural analysis of a typical four storey reinforced concrete building in three main cities of Sabah namely Ranau, Kota Kinabalu and Lahad Datu. Four earthquake scenarios were considered in the structural analysis including two largest historical earthquakes and two forecast earthquakes. It is found that out of the three cities included in this study, building in Lahad Datu has the most drastic structural response followed by Ranau and Kota Kinabalu. Based on the result of this study, buildings in Ranau and Lahad Datu is expected to experience damage in forecast earthquake. Assessment and retrofitting of important building is required to increase seismic capacity of buildings.

Keywords

Earthquake Seismic Sabah Structural response Building 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge financial support for conducting the study given by Universiti Sains Malaysia (Grant No. 1001.PAWAM.8014107). Special appreciation also goes to Malaysia Meteorological Department for providing seismic record used in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheng K-H (2016) Plate tectonics and seismic activities in Sabah area. Trans Sci Technol 3:47–58Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fukushima Y, Tanaka T (1990) A new attenuation relation for peak horizontal acceleration of strong earthquake ground motion in Japan. B Seismol Soc Am 80:757–783Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guevara-Perez LT (2012) “Soft Story” and “Weak Story” in earthquake resistant design: a multidisciplinary approach. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering 2012, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 856–865Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khoo ZY (2019) Ground motion prediction equation and structural response of building in main cities for East Malaysia. Undergraduate dissertation, Universiti Sains MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCloskey J, Nalbant SS, Steacy S (2005) Earthquake risk from co-seismic stress. Nature 434:291–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parsons T, Ji C, Kirby E (2008) Stress changes from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and increased hazard in the Sichuan basin. Nature 454:509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parsons T, Toda S, Stein RS, Barka A, Dieterich JH (2000) Heightened odds of large earthquakes near Istanbul: an interaction-based probability calculation. Science 288:661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parsons T (2002) Global Omori law decay of triggered earthquakes: large aftershocks outside the classical aftershock zone. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stein RS (1999) The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence. Nature 402:605–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stein RS, Barka AA, Dieterich JH (1997) Progressive failure on the North Anatolian fault since 1939 by earthquake stress triggering. Geophys J Int 128:594–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tamboli HR, Umesh NK (2012) Seismic analysis of RC frame structure with and without masonry infill walls. Indian J Nat Sci 3:1137–1147Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tongkul F (2017) Active tectonics in Sabah—seismicity and active faults. Bull Geol Soc Malays 64:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia

Personalised recommendations