Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
[EN] Indonesia lies in a region of high seismic intensity, so earthquake-resistant design is essential for buildings in high-risk categories. This study evaluates the seismic performance of the Public Service Building (GLU) of Institut Teknologi Sumatera (ITERA), a seven-story reinforced concrete building with an irregular plan, classified as Risk Category IV, under five shear wall placement configurations: SWC-Full, CW-Only, SW-Only, SWC-Dist and SW-Multi. The structure was modeled in ETABS as a dual system and analyzed using response spectrum analysis in accordance with SNI 1726:2019 and nonlinear static pushover analysis based on FEMA 440. Seven parameters were assessed: structural period and modal response, inter-story drift, P-Delta stability, dual system effectiveness, element compliance with the Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF) requirements of SNI 2847:2019, shear wall capacity, and pushover performance level. The results show that the centralized configuration (SWC-Full) produces a dominant torsional first mode (RZ), whereas the distributed configuration (SWC-Dist) produces a translational first mode (UX). The X-direction period ranges from 0.876 s (SWC-Dist) to 1.673 s (SW-Only). Only SWC-Full and SWC-Dist satisfy all seven evaluation criteria simultaneously, with drift-based performance levels between Immediate Occupancy (IO) and Life Safety (LS) and practically equivalent relative scores (0.92 and 0.90). Removing the core wall (SW-Only) causes drift and beam failures, including a 42% exceedance of beam flexural strength, and leaves the walls only 13% of the X-direction base shear. These findings indicate that, for irregular Risk Category IV buildings, the shear wall–core wall combination is the decisive factor in satisfying the seismic requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aprilia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 9 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: