Evaluation on cost increment of structural work due to consideration of seismic design in Sabah

Abstract

On the globe, Malaysia is located far from a region known as the Pacific Ring-Fire. The latter is recognized as one of high seismic region in the world. However, the nation is still exposed to the tremors originated from Sumatra-Andaman and Philippines earthquakes. Besides, Malaysia also has its own local earthquakes originated from local faults. After experiencing both local and global earthquakes, the government came out with initiative to launched the Malaysia National Annex in order to implement seismic design for new buildings. However, the suggestion is still not fully implemented yet. This is due to uncertainty about the effect of considering seismic design on the cost increment. Hence, this paper presents an investigation to analyze and evaluate the increment of cost of structural work if earthquake load is considered in design. A 6-story reinforced concrete hotel building had been designed repeatedly for two parameters which is the level of seismicity and the soil type by referring to Malaysia National Annex. Based on results, the weight of steel as reinforcement increased for models which considering seismic design. Total cost for structural work increases around 0.9% to 8.8%, which depend on the level of seismicity and the soil type. Therefore, considering seismic design for new RC buildings in Sabah is worth for the sake of safety and to prevent greater damage and loss.

Full text

AIP Conference Proceedings 2532, 040002 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0110136 2532, 040002
© 2022 Author(s).
Evaluation on cost increment of structural
work due to consideration of seismic design
in Sabah
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2532, 040002 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0110136
Published Online: 28 November 2022
Mohd Irwan Adiyanto
ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
Biomass waste as waterproofing for new or existing concrete
AIP Conference Proceedings 2532, 040009 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0111027
The effect of glass stiffness on the distribution of heat on the glass panel
AIP Conference Proceedings 2532, 040018 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0112710
Seismic assessment of multi-storey residential building using fragility curve and capacity
demand response spectrum
AIP Conference Proceedings 2532, 040008 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0110054

Evaluation on Cost Increment of Structural Work due to
Consideration of Seismic Design in Sabah
Mohd Irwan Adiyanto1, a)
1Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Gambang, 26300, Pahang,
Malaysia
a) Corresponding author: mirwan@ump.edu.my
Abstract. On the globe, Malaysia is located far from a region known as the Pacific Ring-Fire. The latter is recognized as
one of high seismic region in the world. However, the nation is still exposed to the tremors originated from Sumatra-
Andaman and Philippines earthquakes. Besides, Malaysia also has its own local earthquakes originated from local faults.
After experiencing both local and global earthquakes, the government came out with initiative to launched the Malaysia
National Annex in order to implement seismic design for new buildings. However, the suggestion is still not fully
implemented yet. This is due to uncertainty about the effect of considering seismic design on the cost increment. Hence,
this paper presents an investigation to analyze and evaluate the increment of cost of structural work if earthquake load is
considered in design. A 6-story reinforced concrete hotel building had been designed repeatedly for two parameters which
is the level of seismicity and the soil type by referring to Malaysia National Annex. Based on results, the weight of steel as
reinforcement increased for models which considering seismic design. Total cost for structural work increases around 0.9%
to 8.8%, which depend on the level of seismicity and the soil type. Therefore, considering seismic design for new RC
buildings in Sabah is worth for the sake of safety and to prevent greater damage and loss.
INTRODUCTION
Generally, standard design practice of low-rise buildings in Malaysia only considering gravity load which acting
vertically. For medium and high-rise buildings, horizontal load also has to be taken into account. The only horizontal
load being considered is the wind load. Earthquake load, which also acting horizontally never being considered in the
nation except for a few important structures. This is mainly caused by the fact that the nation is located outside the
highly seismic region. However, for the last 17 years since the great earthquake with magnitude Mw9.1 in Acheh,
Northern Sumatra, in December 2004 earthquake hazard cannot be taken lightly in Malaysia. Between 2007 and 2009,
a series of small earthquakes occurred in Janda baik and Bukit Tinggi which are located in Peninsular Malaysia.
Seismic activities in Janda Baik and Bukit Tinggi were declared as reactivation of Paleo fault line which was triggered
by the 2004 Acheh earthquake [1].
In the past 140 years ago, Sabah state which located in East Malaysia had recorded a large number of earthquake
events [2]. In that region, several area including Ranau, Lahad Datu, Tawau, Pitas, and Kundasang was reported as
having risk of earthquake. In 1976 a magnitude Mw5.8 earthquake had occurred in Lahad Datu which was recorded
as the largest local event strike in Sabah at that moment. Then, a medium earthquake was recorded in June 2015 as
magnitude Mw6.1 in Ranau, Sabah. The earthquake originated around 16km northwest from Ranau City. It also caused
damage on the mount Kinabalu where the released energy broke the famous ‘donkey ear’ of the mountain. During a
preliminary onsite evaluation, the technical team had observed that the earthquake event had caused minor to severe
damages to structural elements including beams, columns, and beam-column joints [3]. Based on detail study by [4],
the structural damages were mostly caused by the effect of Weak Column – Strong Beam and soft story effect. In
Proceeding of the International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering and Science Technology (ICACEST2021)
AIP Conf. Proc. 2532, 040002-1–040002-11; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0110136
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4274-0/$30.00
040002-1

addition, shear failure was the main cause of the X-mark damages to brickwall [5]. Besides, the Ranau earthquake in
2015 also triggered damages to a few nonstructural elements such as brickwall and ceiling [6].
As mentioned in earlier paragraph, Malaysia never considered earthquake load in structural design practice except
for a few important buildings. For reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, design practice referred to BS8110 which is
not covering any seismic provision. Based on research and evaluation, it was found that earthquake action may cause
concrete deterioration to at least 50% of selected buildings in Malaysia [7]. In other word, the columns were declared
as inadequate to resist the earthquake load. After felt vibration on buildings which caused by a few series of
earthquakes, Malaysian started to aware about safety of their buildings against earthquake. Hence, to reduce damage
and avoid total collapse, design practice with seismic provision shall be implemented for new development especially
in Sabah [8]. This suggestion is supported by the government via Malaysia National Annex [9] which will be coupled
with Eurocode 8 [10] for seismic design provision. The Malaysia National Annex [9] proposes seismic hazard maps
for Malaysian region as well as the coefficient value namely as soil factor, S to be considered in design.
However, the suggestion for seismic design to new development still not fully implemented yet. This is due to
uncertainty about the effect of seismic design on cost increment. In order to study the effect of considering seismic
design on the cost increment, a few studies had been conducted based on Malaysian buildings [11-18]. The latter
shows that there are a few factors strongly influencing the result of seismic design namely as level of seismicity, soil
type, concrete grade, and ductility class.
Generally, majority of past studies [11-18] concluded that considering seismic design results in higher usage of
steel as reinforcement for concrete which will directly increasing the cost. However, all studies directly referred the
coefficient of soil factor, S to the value recommended by Eurocode 8 [10], and not the Malaysia National Annex [9].
Recent works [19-22] which referred to Malaysia National Annex [9] also proved that seismic design will cause
increment on the usage of steel reinforcement as well as on the total cost for structural work. Depend on the soil type
as well as level of seismicity, total cost for steel reinforcement for beam and column increases up to 22% to 41% if
earthquake load was considered in design [19,20]. In addition, total cost for structural works increases around 12% in
Sabah [21]. In Sarawak, the increment is lower which is around 5% only [22]. However, all works form recent studies
[19-22] only based on analysis and design of 2 to 5 story RC buildings, which can be categorized as low rise. Except
for [12,20], all past studies only used Lateral Force Method in analysis. In this study, the focus was given to study the
effect of considering seismic design on the cost of structural work of a medium rise RC hotel building based on modal
response spectrum analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study had been conducted based on three main stages as presented by Figure 1. In Stage 1, a basic model of
6 story RC building had been generated and designed without earthquake load consideration. This model representing
current practice in Malaysia. Then, in Stage 2 the similar model had been designed based on different level of
seismicity and soil type. Finally, taking off process had been conducted in Stage 3 for cost evaluation and comparison
purpose.
FIGURE 1. Research work flowchart
Stage 1
Generating Basic Model
Stage 2
Structural Analysis
Seismic Design
Stage 3
Taking Off & Cost Evaluation
040002-2

Basic Model
This study used a simple 6 story RC hotel building as the basic model. The latter consists 2 wings which is
connected by lift core at the center. Figure 2 presents the elevation view of the basic model while Figure 3 presents
the plan view. Total length and width of the model is equal to 51m and 28m, respectively. The basic model has total
height, H equal to 24.3m.
FIGURE 2. Elevation view of 6 story RC hotel building
FIGURE 3. Plan view of 6 story RC hotel building
Various size of beam had been assigned to the model. The depth of beam was in range of 300mm to 600mm,
depend on the length of span. The width of beam was in range of 150mm to 250mm. The model consists of 62 unit of
400mm x 400mm square column. The model also strengthened by two sets of lift core having thickness equal to
300mm. The model was designed by considering concrete grade C30/37 which have cylinder compressive strength,
fcu = 30N/mm2. Besides, the yield strength of steel reinforcement bar, fy = 500N/mm2. By referring to Eurocode 1 [23],
the imposed load on slab, Qk was in range of 2 to 4kN/m2. The latter depends on the floor function such as guest room,
toilet, lobby, corridor, and staircase. Since this model is a medium rise building, the wind load also was considered
where the value of basic wind speed was equal to 32.5m/s [24]. In Stage 1, the basic model was designed for gravity
and wind load by referring to Eurocode 2 [25]. Due to earthquake actions, the basic model without seismic design is
expected to experience minor to severe damages as occurred to buildings in the 2015 Ranau earthquake [3,4].
Therefore, seismic design has to be implemented in order to reduce damage and to provide safer facilities to human
live.
040002-3

Seismic Design
In Stage 2, the basic model was re-designed by considering earthquake load. Six models in total had been designed
in this stage as listed in Table 1. Three level of seismicity, which is represented by reference peak ground acceleration,
ĮgR = 0.07g, 0.10g, and 0.13g had been considered in design. All three level of seismicity is located in Sabah as
medium seismicity case. Therefore, all 6 models with seismic consideration were designed based on ductility class
medium as recommended by Eurocode 8 [10]. The latter also proposed the behavior factor, q for ductility class
medium and structural configuration equal to 3.9.
As mentioned in previous paragraph, soil type also influencing result of seismic design. Therefore, two types of
soil known as Soil Type B and Soil Type D had been considered to represent different site condition. Hard and soft
soil characteristic are represented by Soil Type B and Soil Type D, respectively [10]. Figure 4 to Fig. 6 depict the
shape of design response spectrum for all three level of seismicity. Based on modal analysis, the fundamental period
of vibration, T1 of all models was estimated to be equal to 0.89 sec.
TABLE 1. Design parameters for all models
Model Design Consideration Reference peak ground acceleration, ĮgR (g) Soil Type
NS Nonseismic Non-applicable Non-applicable
B-007 Seismic 0.07 B
B-010 Seismic 0.10 B
B-013 Seismic 0.13 B
D-007 Seismic 0.07 D
D-010 Seismic 0.10 D
D-013 Seismic 0.13 D
All models with seismic design were identified as important class III. Therefore, the importance factor, ȖI equal to
1.2 [9]. The earthquake load action on building was determined as base shear force, Fb which can be manually derived
based on Equation (1). The magnitude of base shear force, Fb is proportional to the effective mass of the building, m
the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of vibration, Sd(T1) and the correction factor, Ȝ [10]. In this study,
models with seismic design applied correction factor, Ȝ = 0.85.
Fb = Sd(T1).m.Ȝ (1)
Then, the analysis and design utilized load combination as shown in Equation (2) as proposed by Eurocode [26].
Ed Gkj + AEd Ȍ2iQki (2)
where Ed and Gkj represents the design action effect and permanent load, respectively. The seismic action which acting
horizontally on each story joints was represented by AEd while the reduced variable load was represented by Ȍ2iQki.
All models with earthquake load consideration also had been designed by using concrete grade C30/37 which have
cylinder compressive strength, fcu = 30N/mm2. Besides, the yield strength of steel reinforcement, fy = 500N/mm2.
Therefore, the design result for all models is comparable.
Taking Off
As mentioned in earlier paragraph, this work ended up by Stage 3 which is the taking off. The latter is the process
of measuring the total materials required for structural works. In this study, focus was given to measuring the concrete
volume, area of timber formwork, and total weight of steel bar as reinforcement for slab, beams, columns, and the lift
core. The final evaluation had been made base on comparison of total cost for structural work as conducted in previous
studies [21,22,27,28]. The cost of every mentioned element had been calculated based on the standard price given in
the Schedule of Rates (SOR). The latter is a document provided by the Malaysian Department of Work, an official
government agency under Ministry of Work which is responsible for construction industry in the nation.
040002-4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Based on analysis and design on all 7 models, the results and discussion had been made based on 3 main parts.
First part discusses the of base shear force, Fb acting on every model considering earthquake load. Then, the discussion
focuses on the effect of considering seismic design on the total weight of steel for reinforcement. Finally, the total
cost estimated for structural work is presented to investigate the cost increment due to implementation of seismic
design.
Earthquake Load
The action of earthquake load on model number 2 to 7 is derived as base shear force, Fb as presented by Table 2.
The base shear force, Fb was proportionally distributed to every story joint as lateral story force, Fi [10]. Higher value
of base shear force, Fb result in higher value of lateral story force, Fi vice versa [22,27].
TABLE 2. Earthquake load acting on all models
Model Reference peak ground
acceleration, ĮgR (g) - Soil Type
Spectral acceleration at the fundamental
period of vibration, Sd(T1) (g)
Base shear force, Fb (kN)
NS Not-relevant Not-relevant Not-relevant
B-007 0.07 – B 0.034 2150.9
B-010 0.10 – B 0.048 3072.7
B-013 0.13 - B 0.063 3860.5
D-007 0.07 - D 0.065 3994.6
D-010 0.10 – D 0.093 5515.0
D-013 0.13 – D 0.121 7169.4
From Table 2, the value of base shear force, Fb are varying for every models. All models have similar size of
corresponding elements. This means that the effective mass of the building, m is similar for every model which is
estimated to be around 7704 tons. The correction factor, Ȝ is fixed as 0.85 [10]. Therefore, the value of base shear
force, Fb were governed by the value of spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of vibration, Sd(T1). This result
can be observed in Table 2 where models which having higher value of spectral acceleration at the fundamental period
of vibration, Sd(T1) tend to have higher value of base shear force, Fb. This result is following the same pattern to
previous finding [13-17]. Higher value of the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of vibration, Sd(T1)
representing higher level of seismicity as shown in Figure 4 to Figure 6.
It is also observed that different type of soil tends to give different value of base shear force, Fb although having
similar level of seismicity. For example, model B-103 and D-103 having similar level of seismicity which is equal to
0.13g. However, due to different soil type both models were exposed to different value of base shear force, Fb. For
this case, the value of base shear force, Fb for model D-013 is almost twice compared to model number B-013. This
result was strongly influenced by the value of soil factor, S which is different for every soil type [9]. This result also
depending on the shape of design response spectrum for both soil type. As can be seen in Figure 4 to Figure 6, Soil
Type B which having lower value of upper limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration branch, Tc [9]
compared to Soil Type D seems to have lower value of spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of vibration,
Sd(T1). Therefore, the value of base shear force, Fb for models on Soil Type B are lower than models on Soil Type D
regardless the level of seismicity.
040002-5

FIGURE 4. Design response spectrum for ĮgR = 0.07g FIGURE 5. Design response spectrum for ĮgR = 0.10g
FIGURE 6. Design response spectrum for ĮgR = 0.12g
Effect of Seismic Design on Usage of Steel as Reinforcement
As presented in previous studies [13-17,19,22,27] steel bar used as shear and flexural reinforcement for beams and
columns had been compared in form of total weight. Total weight of steel reinforcement for models with seismic
design is normalized to the total weight of model without seismic design. This is to investigate the effect of considering
seismic design on the usage of steel as reinforcement [27]. This study also considering the existence of wall from lift
core as seismic force resistance system. Therefore, the total weight of steel bar for reinforcement of the lift core also
presented for comparison purpose.
Figure 7 presents the normalized total weight of steel reinforcement for beams. Result shows that models which
considering seismic design require higher weight of steel for reinforcement. Regardless the soil type, the total weight
of steel increases as the level of seismicity increases. This result is in line with previous works [13-15]. From Figure
7, the total weight of steel increases in range of 2% to 11% for models considering Soil type B. For Soil Type D, the
increment is higher which is around 11% to 40%. This result can be related to the value of earthquake load, which is
represented by base shear force, Fb. As the latter increases, the internal forces known as bending moment, M and shear
force, V also increase. The increasing of internal forces results in higher amount of steel required and provided as
reinforcement [19,22,27]. In this study, model D-013 which have the largest base shear force, Fb have the highest
amount of steel reinforcement for beam, which is around 40% higher than the nonseismic model. The amount of steel
reinforcement for all models is still within the limit required by Eurocode 8 [10] for ductility class medium. All beams
with seismic design also passed the checking for local ductility demand as per Clause 5.4.3.1.2 (4) as stated in
Eurocode 8 [10].
040002-6

FIGURE 7. Normalized total weight of steel for beams
Column plays important role in buildings. It determines the stability of structural system [15]. During ordinary
situation, column resist the vertical gravitational loads and connecting the load path to the rigid foundation. During
earthquake event, the role of column become crucial since it also has to resist the lateral load from earthquake.
Therefore, the design for column needs special attention. Figure 8 shows the normalized total weight of steel as
reinforcement in columns. The result shows that considering seismic design also increasing the total weight of steel
as reinforcement in columns. This pattern is similar to beams where models with seismic design require higher tonnage
of steel than the nonseismic model, regardless the soil type. In this study, the weight of steel as reinforcement increases
around 13% for models on Soil Type B. This means that all models on Soil Type B have similar amount of steel
reinforcement.
For models on Soil Type D, the weight of steel used as reinforcement increases around 13% to 76%. This result is
developed by the rules in Eurocode 8 [10] which stated that the Strong Column – Weak Beam philosophy shall be
adopted for seismic design. This is important to make sure that the columns are stronger than the beams in order to
avoid global damage. To achieve this objective, the design bending moment, MEd of a column had been derived to be
equal to 1.3 times the resistance bending moment, MR of a beam which connected to it [10]. In other word, the design
of column strongly related to the design of its beam. For example, model D-013 have the highest weight of steel as
reinforcement in columns, which is similar to the case of beams. Therefore, higher weight of steel reinforcement in
beams will require higher weight of steel reinforcement in columns, vice versa [27].
In this study, the amount of longitudinal reinforcement for all models is within the limit of 1% to 4% of column
cross-sectional area as required by Clause 5.4.3.2.2 (11)b in Eurocode 8 [10]. All columns with seismic design
consideration also fulfil the requirement of confinement reinforcement as stated in Clause 5.4.3.2.2 in Eurocode 8
[10]. According to [14], increasing of weight of steel as reinforcement for columns which considering seismic design
also influenced by the rules from Eurocode 8 [10] which stated that the spacing of link, s for column with ductility
class medium shall be limited to 175mm. Therefore, closer spacing of link, s had been provided result in higher amount
of steel for shear reinforcement. This result is in similar pattern with previous findings [13-15,19,22].
This study also utilized the existence of lift core to resist the lateral load form earthquake. In this study, the lift
core had been designed as shear wall. Figure 9 shows the comparison for the normalized weight of steel reinforcement.
It can be seen that the increment of steel used as reinforcement in lift core also following the same pattern as in the
case of beams and columns. Models imposed with higher of base shear force, Fb tend to have higher weight of steel
as reinforcement, vice versa. From Figure 9, the amount of steel reinforcement increases around 1% to 52%. This
result is obtained from all three level of seismicity regardless the soil type.
040002-7

FIGURE 8. Normalized total weight of steel for columns
FIGURE 9. Normalized total weight of steel for life core
Evaluation on Cost of Structural Work due to Seismic Design
In this study, the final evaluation is made based on the total cost for structural work. It is more effective in order
to give clearer answer to the stakeholders in construction industry about the effect of considering seismic design on
cost increment [22,27]. In this study, the cost for structural work had been estimated by referring to the SOR published
by the Malaysian Department of Work. Based on current practice, the SOR documents will be published for every 2
years. Until this paper is written, the SOR for 2021 is not published yet. Therefore, the cost estimation for structural
work had been conducted by referring to the SOR documents for 2015, 2017, and 2019 [29-31]. This is to check the
pattern of increment for every 2 years’ time.
As mentioned earlier, the cost for structural work had been estimated for the cost of concrete, area of timber
formwork, and steel used as reinforcement. Since the size of cross section for corresponding slabs, beams, columns,
and lift core are similar for every model, the cost for concrete and timber formwork are also similar. Besides, the steel
reinforcement for slabs is also similar for every model because the design of slab is typical and not influenced by
consideration of seismic design. This similarity result in similar cost for steel used as reinforcement for slab. Therefore,
the cost of steel reinforcement for beams, columns, and lift core had governed the cost increment.
Table 3 presents the normalized cost of structural work for all models with seismic design to the model without
seismic design for Soil Type B and Soil Type D. Result shows that the increment of cost for structural work is in
similar pattern. The difference of increment for every SOR is insignificant regardless the soil type. For example, in
Table 3 the increment of cost for structural work for model B-013 is equal to 2.3%, 1.8%, and 2.1% based on SOR of
2015, 2017, and 2019, respectively. From the same table, the increment of cost for structural work for model D-010
is equal to 4.5%, 3.6%, and 4.2% based on SOR of 2015, 2017, and 2019, respectively. Therefore, it can be predicted
that the increment of cost for structural work is almost similar for current year.
040002-8

TABLE 3. Normalized cost of structural work to nonseismic model
Standard of Rates NS B-007 B-010 B-013 D-007 D-010 D-013
2015 1.00 1.010 1.014 1.023 1.023 1.045 1.097
2017 1.00 1.008 1.011 1.018 1.018 1.036 1.076
2019 1.00 1.009 1.013 1.021 1.021 1.042 1.090
Average 1.00 1.009 1.012 1.021 1.020 1.041 1.088
The average percentage of increment for Soil Type B and Soil Type D is depicted by Figure 10. It is clear that the
cost for structural work increases around 0.9% to 2.1% for all models on Soil Type B. For models on Soil Type D, the
cost increment is higher which is around 2.0% to 8.8%. This result is in similar pattern with previous findings
[19,21,22,27]. As expected, the cost for structural work increases as the level of seismicity increases due to higher
value of base shear force, Fb. As discussed before, higher value of base shear force, Fb result in higher internal forces
which required higher amount of steel reinforcement. Figure 10 also shows that the increment for models on Soil Type
D is higher compared to models on Soil Type B. This result proved that the soil type also affecting the cost for
structural work. Therefore, the selection of site based on geological consideration also important due to economical
reason.
FIGURE 10. Average percentage of cost increment
CONCLUSION
This paper presents the evaluation on the increment of cost for structural work due to consideration of seismic
design. A medium rise of 6 story RC hotel building had been used as basic model. Six models had been designed by
considering earthquake load based on two parameters namely as level of seismicity and soil type. Value of both
parameters had been determined by referring to Malaysia National Annex [9] for seismic region in Sabah. A control
model which not considering earthquake load also had been designed in order to represent current practice. The
following conclusions had been obtained based on the results:
x The total weight of steel as reinforcement for beams, columns, and lift core is strongly influenced by the
design approach. Models with seismic design tend to use higher steel than the model without seismic design.
Higher level of seismicity result in higher weight of steel reinforcement. Based on result, the total weight of
steel reinforcement increases around 2% to 40% for beams. For columns and lift core, the increment is around
13% to 76% and 1% to 52%, respectively.
x Soil type also strongly affecting the result. In this study, models on Soil Type D tend to have higher total
weight of steel as reinforcement than models on Soil Type B. Therefore, site selection for new development
also important to be considered during planning stage.
040002-9

x By considering seismic design, the total cost for structural work increases in range of 0.9% to 8.8%, which
depend on the level of seismicity and the soil type. Therefore, it can be concluded that considering seismic
design for new RC buildings in Sabah is worth for the sake of safety and to prevent greater damage and loss.
However, the conclusion only valid for 6 story RC hotel building considering concrete grade C30/37. At the moment
this paper is written, an ongoing study is conducted by using models with higher number of story and various concrete
grade. Besides, the ongoing study also considering Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak seismic regions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author acknowledges the financial support from Research Grant sponsored by Universiti Malaysia Pahang (No.
RDU200740). Author also acknowledge the facility provided in Design Lab, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang.
REFERENCES
1. A. H. Abdul Latiff and Khalil Amin Esmail, Seismic Site Effect along Bukit Tinggi Fault Line from Microtremor
Analysis, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Sciences, 244, 012042 (2019).
2. N. S. H. Harith, A. Adnan, F. Tongkul and A. V. Shoushtari, Analysis on Earthquake Databases of Sabah Region
and its Application for Seismic Design, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Geo-Environmental, Special
Publication NCWE2017, 1-5 (2017).
3. T. A. Majid, A. Adnan, M. I. Adiyanto, M. Z. Ramli and T. C. Ghuan, Preliminary Damage Assessment due to
2015 Ranau Earthquake, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Geo-Environmental, Special Publication
NCWE2017, 49-54 (2017).
4. S. C. Alih and M. Vafaei, Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings and Wooden Structures during the
2015 Mw 6.0 Sabah Earthquake in Malaysia, Engineering Failure Analysis, 102, 351-368 (2019).
5. M. A. Khoiry, N. Hamzah, S. A. Osman, A. A. Mutalib and R. Hamid, Physical Damages Effect on Residential
Houses caused by the Earthquake at Ranau, Sabah Malaysia, International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 10(5), 414-418 (2018).
6. M. I. Adiyanto, T. A. Majid and F. M. Nazri, Nonstructural Damages of Reinforced Concrete Buildings due to
2015 Ranau Earthquake, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1865, 090002 (2017).
7. Mosti, Seismic and Tsunami Hazards and Risks Study in Malaysia, Final Report, 59-142 (2009).
8. N. H. Hamid, A. Azmi, M. I. Adiyanto and M. Mohamad, Seismic Performance of Two-Bay Two-Storey RC
Frame under in-plane Lateral Cyclic Loading, Malaysian Construction Research Journal, 25 (2), 61-73 (2018).
9. Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 1: General Rules,
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, Department of Standards Malaysia, Selangor, 4-16 (2017).
10. CEN Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and
Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels (2004).
11. M. I. Adiyanto and T. A. Majid, Seismic Design of Two Storey Reinforced Concrete Building in Malaysia with
Low Class Ductility, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 9(1), 27-46 (2014).
12. M. Z. Ramli, A. Adnan, M. A. A. Kadir and M. N. A. Alel, Cost Comparison for Non-Seismic (EC@) and
Seismic (EC8) Design in Different Ductility Class, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Geo-
Environmental, Special Publication NCWE2017, 38-42 (2017).
13. S. A. H. S. Mustapa, M. I. Adiyanto, T. A. Majid and M. I. Ali, Influence of Soil Type on Steel Reinforcement of
Four Storey Reinforced Concrete Building with Seismic Design, Malaysian Construction Research Journal,
Special Issue 7(2), 81-87 (2019).
14. M. I. Adiyanto, N. H. M. Rashid, S. A. H. S. Mustapa and N. I. Ramli, Comparison on Total Weight of Steel
Reinforcement for 5 Story Reinforced Concrete Building with and without Seismic Design, Lecture Notes in Civil
Engineering, 53, 685-694 (2020).
15. H. A. Roslan, M. I. Adiyanto, S. A. H. S. Mustapa, T. A. Majid and N. S. H. Harith, Increment of Steel Tonnage
for Reinforced Concrete School Building Considering Seismic Design, International Journal of Recent
Technology and Engineering, 8(3S3), 351-355 (2019).
040002-10

16. N. I. A. Azman, M. I. Adiyanto, S. A. H. S . Musta pa, A . Adnan a nd A. Rashi di, Steel Reinforcement and Concrete
for Multipurpose Hall Building with Seismic Design, International Journal of Recent Technology and
Engineering, 8(3S3), 543-547 (2019).
17. M. I. Adiyanto, T. A. Majid, F. Ahmad Jani, S. A. H. S. Mustapa and S. W. Ahmad, Estimation on Amount of
Steel Reinforcement for Six Storey Hospital with Seismic Design Consideration in Malaysia, IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Sciences, 244, 012015 (2019).
18. J. Y. Hong, S. W. Ahmad, A. Adnan, K. Muthusamy, N. F. Ariffin, F. M. Yahaya and S. M. S. Mohsin, Seismic
Performance and Cost Analysis for Reinforced Concrete School Building under Different Type of Soil, Physics
and Chemistry of The Earth, 120, 102933 (2020).
19. H. A. Roslan, M. I. Adiyanto and S. A. H. S. Mustapa, Cost Evaluation of Steel Tonnage for Reinforced Concrete
Hostel Building with Seismic Design, Malaysian Construction Research Journal, 9(1), 1-9 (2020).
20. F. Faisal, S. S. Zaini and T. Selokumar, Evaluation of Cost Analyses for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced
Concrete Buildings based on Malaysian National Annex to Eurocode 8, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 53,
1485-1492 (2020).
21. H. A. Roslan, M. I. Adiyanto, N. S. H. Harith, Ade Faisal and S. M. S. A, Razak, Impact of Seismic Design on
Cost of Structural Materials for Two Storey Hostel Building in Sabah, IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Sciences, 682, 012024 (2021).
22. M. I. Adiyanto, P. J. Ramadhansyah, N. I. Ramli, N. S. H. Harith, S. M. S. A. Razak and S. A. H. S. Mustapa,
Increment of Material Usage in Construction of Four Storey Reinforced Concrete Building due to Seismic
Design, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Sciences, 682, 012051 (2021).
23. CEN Eurocode 1, Action on Structures Part 1: General Actions - Densities, Self-Weight, Imposed Loads for
Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels (2002).
24. MS1553:2002, Code of Practice on Wind Loading for Building Structure, Department of Standards Malaysia,
Selangor (2002).
25. CEN Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels (2004).
26. CEN Eurocode, Basis of Structural Design, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels (2002).
27. M. I. A diy anto, T. A. Maji d and S . A. H. S . Mu sta pa, Cost Evaluation of RC School Building Considering Seismic
Design based on Malaysia National Annex to EC8, 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
September 13-18, Sendai, 2b-0137 (2020).
28. J. X. Lim and N. Z. N. Azizan, Comparison of the Performance of High-Rise Building based on Various Design
Code, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Sciences, 682, 012001 (2021).
29. Standard Rate Malaysia, Schedule of Rates JKR 2015, 20800-0196-15, Department of Works, Kuala Lumpur
(2015).
30. Standard Rate Malaysia, Schedule of Rates JKR 2017, 20800-0209-17, Department of Works, Kuala Lumpur
(2017).
31. Standard Rate Malaysia, Schedule of Rates JKR 2019, 20800-0220-19, Department of Works, Kuala Lumpur
(2019).
040002-11