Attach-1 LPP-40-A06-BR-201-R Basic Engineering Design For Coal Shed Steel Structure

.... .........
Discipline Sign
LOMBOK CFSPP FTP-2 Civil
(2X50 MW) PROJECT Mechanical
Review
CONTRACTOR DOCUMENT Electrical
I&C
Log Date : Support
In Comm. No.
A Approved
Contractor
B Approved as Note
Record
Working
C Not Approved
Document
I Information
Distribution
APPROVAL DOES NOT RELIEVE
CONTRACTOR FROM RESPONSIBILITY
FOR ERRORS AND DEVIATIONS FROM
CONTRACT REQUIREMENT
By : Date :
Log Date :
Out Comm. No :
Owner :
PT. PERUSAHAAN LISTRIK NEGARA (PERSERO)
UNIT INDUK PEMBANGUNAN NUSA TENGGARA
Engineer :
PT. PERUSAHAAN LISTRIK NEGARA (PERSERO)
PUSAT ENJINIRING KETENAGALISTRIKAN
Contract No :
PLN Doc No :
- - - - - - -
Title : BASIC ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR

COAL SHED STEEL STRUCTURE
Purpose
P ;
ISSUE FOR INFORMATION
Rev. Description Prepared Checklist Aprroved Date
0 IFI AA FA/CYK/BM AN 10-January-19

Contractor : Consortium of: Doc. No :
LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
Sheet 2 of 10.......
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
BASIC ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR 0
DATE BY CHKD APVD
10/01/19 AA FA/CYK/BM AN
REVISION HISTORICAL SHEET
Rev No Date Description

0 10-January-19 Issued for Information
Sheet 3.of 10.....
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
1. GENERAL 4
1.1 OUTLINE PROJECT AND SCOPE 4
1.2 APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION, CODES, AND STANDARDS 4
1.3 MATERIAL SPECIFICATION 4
1.4 STABILITY PARAMETER 5
1.5 LANGUAGE 6
1.6 MEASUREMENT UNIT 6
1.7 SOIL BEARING & PILE CAPACITY 6
1.8 DESIGN FLOWCHART 7
2. DESIGN CONDITION 8
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS 8
3. LOADING DATA AND LOADING CALCULATION 9

3.1 DEAD LOAD (D) 9
3.2 LIVE LOAD 9
3.3 WIND LOAD 9
3.4 SEISMIC LOAD 9
3.5 LOAD COMBINATION 9
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT 1 LOMBOK CFSPP PSHA REPORT
Sheet 4 of 10.....
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
1. GENERAL
1.1 OUTLINE PROJECT AND SCOPE
This report is prepared to convey the technical requirements of
facility : Coal Shed Steel Structure
project : Lombok 2 X 50 MW CFSPP FTP 2
location : Sambelia, Lombok, NTB
owned by : PT. PLN (Persero)
contractor : Consortium of PT. Rekayasa Industri and RAFAKO
1.2 APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION, CODES, AND STANDARDS

PROJECT SPECIFICATION
LPP-00-A12-ES-201-R Design Specification for Civil and Structure
LPP-00-A12-ES-203-R Design Specification for Architectural Building
LPP-00-A12-WS-201-R Definition & Measurement for Civil, Structural, and Architectural
LPP-00-A12-WS-205-R Construction Specification for Fabrication of Steel Structure
LPP-00-A12-WS-206-R Construction Specification for Erection of Steel Structure
LPP-00-A12-WS-207-R Construction Specification for Roofing & Siding Work
LPP-00-A12-MR-215-R Requisition for EPC of Dry Coal Shed
CODES AND STANDARDS

SNI-03-1729:2002 Indonesian Steel Design for Building
SNI-03-2847:2002 Indonesian Reinforced Concrete Design
SNI-1726:2012 Indonesian Seismic Code for Building and Non Building.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 American Society of Civil Engineers
ACI 318-14 Building Code requirement for Structural Concrete
Other References
Anchor Bolt ASTM A307 gr-C
Steel Structure ASTM A36 for common steel structure
ASTM A572 Gr-50 for special steel structure
Bolt ASTM A307 Gr. A for non structural bolt
ASTM A325 for structural bolt
Nut ASTM A563
Steel Tolerance ASTM A6
Concrete Shall conform to ACI 318 and ASTM C33 or equivalent
1.3 MATERIAL SPECIFICATION

Concrete `
Lean blinding concrete fcl = 150 kg/cm2 = 15 MPa Ec = 18020 Mpa
Structural concrete fcs = 250 kg/cm2 = 25 MPa Ec = 23264 Mpa
Reinforcing Rebar SNI-07-2052-2002 BJTP-24 SNI-07-2052-2002 BJTD-40

yield strength fydb = 235 MPa fydb = 390 MPa
ultimate strength fudb = 380 MPa fudb = 560 MPa
Sheet 5 of 10.....
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
Anchor bolt ASTM A307 gr-C

Yield strength fyab = 235 MPa
Tensile strength fuab = 400 MPa
Steel Structure ASTM A36

Elastic Modulus Es = 2E+05 MPa
Yield strength fus = 240 MPa
Ultimate stregth fys = 400 MPa
Ry = 1.5
Structural Bolt ASTM A325

Yield strength fysb = 660 MPa
Ultimate stregth fusb = 830 MPa
Material specific weight

Steel Structure = 77.01 kN/m3
Concrete Structure = 23.54 kN/m3
Lean blinding concrete = 21.58 kN/m3
Water = 9.81 kN/m3
Soil = 16.5 kN/m3
1.4 STABILITY PARAMETER

Allowable service displacement
Allowable vertical deflection for structure are summarized as following:
1 Floor Beam, walkway, platform, stair = L/300
2 Floor plate = L/100
3 Grating = L/200 (max 4mm)
4 Equipment supporting beam = L/500
5 Trolley beam, crane track = L/600
6 Pipe rack beam = L/300
7 Main roof beam and purlin = L/240
8 Cantlever = L/200 (L=2Lo)
9 Pipe rack and open structure = L/200
10 For pipe supporting beam = L/240
11 For crane girder = L/600 or manufacture requirement
12 For purlin, girt and joist = L/180
13 For platform at standard maximum live load = L/360
14 For platform load with live load plus dead load = L/240
Allowable horizontal deflection for structure are summarized as following:
15 For column displacement (for pipe rack) = H/150
16 For column displacement (for others) = H/200
Sheet 6 of 10.....
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
Allowable seismic displacement

Seismic Displacemet refer to SNI Gempa 2012 Requirements, Tabel 16 or ASCE7-10 Tabel 12.12-1 consist of :
Risk Category
Structure Description
I or II III IV
Structures, other than masonry shear wall structures, 4 stories or less
above the base as deﬁ ned in Section 11.2, with interior walls, partitions,
0.025 hsx 0.020 hsx 0.015 hsx
ceilings, and exterior wall systems that have been designed to
accommodate the story drifts.
Masonry cantilever shear wall structures d 0.010 hsx 0.010 hsx 0.010 hsx
Other masonry shear wall structures 0.007 hsx 0.007 hsx 0.007 hsx
All other structures 0.020 hsx 0.015 hsx 0.010 hsx
* hsx is the story height below Level x.
1.5 LANGUAGE
This report calculation is described in English
1.6 MEASUREMENT UNIT

Unit of measurement uses Metric, kg or ton for force unit, meter for distance, kg/cm2 for pressure
1.7 PILE CAPACITY

Pile capacity below are refer to Soil Investigation Report by Soilens.
a. Borehole Number = BH-11

Head Type = Pinned
Pile Diameter dcp = 600 mm
Ultimate Allowable SF
Lateral capacity H = 24.46 ton 12.23 ton 2
Compression Capacity C = 444.34 ton 148.11 ton 3
Tension Capacity U = 110.09 ton 55.05 ton 2
Sheet 7 of 10.....
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
1.8 DESIGN FLOWCHART

Sheet 8.of 10.....
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
2. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA

2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS
Coal Shed Steel Structure shall be designed to be structurally performed, dimensionally sufficient, and costly
efficient to meet the required dimension and to withstand permanent and temporary load combination during
structural service lifetime, without exceeding maximum allowable unit stresses for each components and without
exceeding the allowable deflections as in accordance with previously described Project Specifications and applied
Design Codes and Standards.
In addition to upper structure, the bidder shall also provide reinforce concrete barrier wall in the surrounding coal
yard boundary with minimum 2 meter height to protect coal spill out from coal yard area.
Prior to final awarding, the bidder shall also provide preliminary upper structure Design Report specifically issued
for piling stage. This document is subject to be updated when the entire structural design is finally completed.
The minimum operating-required indoor size and arrangement are shown below.
Figure 1 Isometric View of Coal Shed

Sheet 9 of 10.....
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
3. LOADING DATA AND LOADING CALCULATION

This section summarizes comparative study result described on previous section, alongwith loading application on
software used.
3.1 DEAD LOAD (D)
Dead load shall consist of structural selfweight and all materials permanently attached/mounted to the structure.
Unit weight of dead load shall refer to Design Specification of Civil and Structure, otherwise not being mentioned
thereby shall be as per ASCE 7-10.
3.2 LIVE LOAD

Live load means the load not permanently fixed to the structure such as load caused by personnel, furniture tools,
miscellaneous equipment, movable partition, temporary storage material, etc. Minimum live load for general
structures shall be refer to ASCE 7-10 Table 4-1 except for the particular facilities that have been stated on Design
Specification of Civil and Structure. Reduction of live load shall be refer to Section 4.7 and Section 4.8 ASCE 7-10.
3.3 WIND LOAD

Wind load calculation for Coal Shed Steel Structure shall be in accordance with ASCE 7-10 by using following parameters
Basic wind speed, V = 45 m/s
Exposure = C
Structure type = Arched Roof
Velocity pressure and wind force shall be calculated at specified structural maximum height, with considering wind
load factors/coefficients for above parameters.
3.4 SEISMIC LOAD

Seismic load is calculated by using seismic parameters as given in Lombok CFSPP PSHA Report in accordance
with SNI 03-1726-2012 and ASCE 7-10. In addition to these references, Coal Shed Steel Structure shall be
considered as Architectural component (other flexible component with high deformability elements and
attachments), and therefore, shall be designed with seismic reduction factor (R) of 3.5 and importace factor (I) of
1.5.
3.5 LOAD COMBINATION

Loading combination refers to Design Specification for Civil and Structure as in accordance with ASCE7-10.
A. Basic Load combination for Foundation Stability, Steel Structure and Serviceability
Sheet 10 of 10.....
DOC. NO.: REV

LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
B. Basic Load combination for Concrete Reinforcement

DOC. NO.: REV
LPP-40-A12-BR-201-R
DATE BY CHKD APVD
10/01/19 AA FA/CYK AN
ATTACHMENT 1 - LOMBOK CFSPP PSHA REPORT

LOMBOK CFSPP PSHA Document Number
s Organisation Validation:
LAPI ITB
Document No. : LAPI-HJ-2018001

Rev. :0
Date : 9 November 2018
LOMBOK COAL-FIRED STEAM POWER PLANT
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
PROJECT: Lombok Coal Fired Steam Power Plant FTP

2 (2 x 50 MW)
OWNER: PT. Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero)
LOCATION: Labuhan Pandan Village, Sambelia District,

East Lombok Regency, Nusa Tenggara Barat Province
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

OF LOMBOK COAL FIRED STEAM POWER PLANT
PROJECT: Lombok Coal Fired Steam Power Plant FTP

2 (2 x 50 MW) Approval Sheet
OWNER: PT. Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero) Name Title Date Signature
LOCATION: Labuhan Pandan Village, Sambelia District, Hendra Jitno PhD Principal Geotechnical Engineer 9/11/2018
East Lombok Regency, Nusa Tenggara Barat Province
FINAL REPORT
Revision Status
LAPI ITB
Rev Issue Date Issue Purpose Owner Signature
A 20/09/2018 Hy/HJ HJ/Hy HJ IFI (Preliminary)
0 9/11/2018 Hy/HJ HJ/Hy HJ IFI (Final)
TOTAL OR PARTIAL REPRODUCTION AND/OR UTILIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE FORBIDDEN WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF THE OWNER
PT LAPI ITB Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Lombok CFSPP Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Lombok CFSPP
PT LAPI ITB
Revision Log Register

TABLE OF CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................... 1
Document Number : LAPI-HJ-2018001 1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2
Document Title : Lombok CFSPP Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 1.4 Team Members ................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Project Location................................................................................................... 3
Revision : A 1.6 Codes and Standards .......................................................................................... 4
2 REGIONAL TECTONIC SETTINGS .................................................................... 5
Page Date Revision Reviewer 2.1 Slip Rates ............................................................................................................ 6
3 HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES ........................................................................... 7
A 20/9/2018 IFI (Preliminary)
4 SEISMIC SOURCE ZONES ................................................................................ 9
0 9/11/2018 IFI (Final) 5 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS (PSHA) ................................. 11
- Recommendation for 5.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 11

Design 5.2 Ground Motion Prediction Equations ................................................................. 12
5.2.1 Epistemic Uncertainty and Aleatory Variability ...................................................... 12
5.2.2 Rupture Directivity Effects ..................................................................................... 12
5.2.3 Review and Selection of Ground Motion Equations .............................................. 12
5.2.4 Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes ................ 13
5.2.5 Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Earthquakes ....................... 13
5.3 Hazard Deaggregation ...................................................................................... 13
5.4 Conditional Mean Spectra (CMS) ...................................................................... 14
5.5 Wave Propagation Analysis ............................................................................... 15
6 PSHA RESULTS ............................................................................................... 17
6.1 Uniform Hazard Spectra at bedrock ................................................................... 17
6.2 Seismic Source Hazard Contribution ................................................................. 18
6.3 Hazard Deaggregation by Source-Distance and Earthquake Magnitude ........... 20
6.4 Conditional Mean Spectra (CMS) ...................................................................... 22
6.5 Earthquake Design Ground Motions at bedrock ................................................ 25
6.6 Ground Motion Spectral Matching ..................................................................... 25
6.7 Wave Propagation Analysis and Local Site Effects ............................................ 27
6.8 Design Response Spectra at Ground Surface ................................................... 28
6.9 Potential implications to design ......................................................................... 31
6.10Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration for Slope Design and Liquefaction Analysis31
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 32
8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 36
9 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................... 38
ATTACHMENT
Page i
[Type here]
PT LAPI ITB Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Lombok CFSPP PT LAPI ITB Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Lombok CFSPP
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 22. Soil properties used in the wave propagation analysis. (a). Soil layers. (b). Unit
weight. c). Dynamic shear modulus (Gmax) vs depth. (d). Measured shear wave velocity (vs)
(Soilens, 2018). ................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 1. Regional tectonic settings of Lombok Island (Koulali et al., 2016). ......................... 5 Figure 23. Response spectra at the ground surface at the Lombok CFSPP Power Plant site
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the subduction zone in Lombok. .......................................... 6 from total of 42 input ground motions computed using SHAKE2000, plotted together with the
MCER response spectra obtained from SNI 1726-2012 for 2% in 50 years (SNI Section 6.4)-
Figure 3. Slip rates at Java Trench, Timor through, and Flores & Wetar Thrust (Koulali et al, green, the 2017 (red) & 2018 (black) PSHA average response spectra (dashed lines) and
2016). ................................................................................................................................... 6 the MCER probabilistic response spectra according to SNI Section 6.10.2.1 (Method 1) and
Figure 4. Historical earthquakes surrounding Lombok Island with different focal depths. ...... 7 80% of the response spectra from SNI1726-2012 (blue). .................................................... 29
Figure 5. Most recent earthquakes at Lombok Island with different magnitude and age (data Figure 24. MCER (solid lines) and Design (dashed lines) Response spectra at the ground
taken from USGS website on 21st of August 2018). .............................................................. 8 surface at the Lombok CFSPP site from the SNI 1726 (green line), 2017 PSHA (red line) and
2018 PSHA (black line) results............................................................................................ 30
Figure 6. Seismic areas sources surrounding the site (Fugro, 2015). The red circle denotes
200km distance from the site. ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 7. Seismic fault sources surrounding the site (Fugro, 2015). The red circle denotes
200km distance from the site. ............................................................................................. 10
Figure 8. Four steps of Probabilitsic Seismic Hazard Analysis (Kramer, 1996).................... 11
Figure 9. Wave propagation analysis to obtain ground motion at the ground surface
(Schnabel et al., 1972). ....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 10. Uniform Hazard Spectra for Lombok CFSPP Power Plant site at bedrock, 5%
damping, for the 2017 and 2018 earthquake data. .............................................................. 17
Figure 11. Seismic source contribution for spectral period of 0.0s (PGA) for Lombok CFSPP
site at bedrock, 5% damping, 2018 earthquake data. .......................................................... 19
Figure 12. Seismic source deaggregation for spectral period of 0.2s for Lombok CFSPP
Power Plant site at bedrock, 5% damping, 2018 earthquake data. ...................................... 20
Power Plant site at bedrock, 5% damping, 2018 earthquake data. ...................................... 20
Figure 14. Distance and Mw deaggregation for spectral period of 0.0s for 2475 year return
period at bedrock, 5% damping, for 2018 earthquake data. ................................................ 21
Figure 17. Conditional Mean Spectra vs Uniform Hazard Spectra for spectral periods of 0,
0.2s and 1s for the 2475 year return period at bedrock, for the 2017 earthquake data. ....... 23
Figure 18. Conditional Mean Spectra vs Uniform Hazard Spectra for spectral periods of 0,
0.2s and 1s 2475 year return period at bedrock, for the 2018 earthquake data. .................. 23
Figure 19. Target and matched response spectra for the Kern County Taft Station
earthquake for spectral periods of 0 s (PGA) for 2475 year return period at bedrock. ......... 26
Figure 20. The original and modified time histories of acceleration, velocity and displacement
for the Kern County Taft Station earthquake for spectral periods of 0 s (PGA) for 2475 year
return period (ULS) at bedrock. ........................................................................................... 26
Figure 21. Variation of peak ground acceleration at soft soil sites with those recorded at rock
sites (Idriss, 1990). .............................................................................................................. 27
Page ii Page iii

PT LAPI ITB Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Lombok CFSPP
Lombok Coal Fired Steam Power Plant PSHA
LIST OF TABLES
1 INTRODUCTION
Table 1. List of earthquakes that recently occurred at the Flores back-arc thrust, close to the
site (USGS, 2018). ................................................................................................................ 8 PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN) Persero intends to develop a 2x50 MW Coal Fired Steam
Power Plant Fast Track Project 2 (CFSPP FTP 2) in Lombok. PT Rekayasa Industri and Rafako
Table 2. Potentially active faults within 200km from the Lombok CFSPP site (Fugro, 2015) . 9
S.A consortium has been awarded to carry out the EPCM work for this project. The scope of the
Table 3. Crustal Earthquake GMPEs and Weights .............................................................. 13 project includes a range of buildings and structures at the power station and other related
infrastructures.
Table 4. Subduction Intraslab GMPEs and Weights ............................................................ 13
The project is located in Sambelia District, East Lombok Regency, Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB)
Table 5. Spectral accelerations for Uniform Hazard Spectra at various return periods for
Province. The preliminary seismic design loads were based on the SNI 1726 (2012) which was
Lombok CFSPP Power Plant site at bedrock with 5% damping, the 2017 and 2018
based on the 2010 Indonesia seismic zonation map. Due to the importance of the facilities, and
earthquake data. ................................................................................................................. 18
the most recent earthquakes with epicenters relatively close to the site, a site specific seismic
Table 6. Summary of controlling earthquakes based on the deaggregation of Distance and hazard study which include the effects of most recent earthquake is required for this Coal Fired
Mw for all earthquake sources, including crustal and subduction zones., for the 2018 data. 21 Steam Power Plant site. We have been awarded to carry out the Probabilistic Seismic Study by
PT Rekind and Rafako S.A consortium. This report presents the results of this study.
Table 7. Conditional Mean Spectra (in g's) at the Lombok CFSPP site for three spectral
periods, 5% damping, for 2475 year return period, for the 2017 earthquake data. .............. 23
1.1 Objectives
Table 8. Conditional Mean Spectra (in g's) at the Lombok CFSPP Power Plant site for four
spectral periods, 5% damping, for 2475 yr return period, 2018 data.................................... 24 The objectives of the probabilistic seismic hazard study are as follows:
Table 9. Selected Earthquake Design Ground Motions for the Lombok CFSPP Power Plant 1. To develop Uniform Hazard Response spectra and Conditional Mean Response Spectra at
site for ULS (2475yrs return period) for periods of PGA (0), 0.2s and 1s. ............................ 25 the bedrock for 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years or corresponds to 2475 year
return periods of earthquake, using earthquake data up to the end of 2017, and up to the end of
Table 10. Recommended Earthquake Design Parameters for the Lombok CFSPP site from August 2018. The latter was intended to check the effects of recent earthquakes on the seismic
the 2017 and 2018 earthquake data.................................................................................... 30 hazard level at the site.
2. To obtain time histories of accelerations at the bedrock for return period of 2475 years, for
both 2017 and 2018 earthquake data.
3. To develop Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake MCER and Design response
spectra based on the results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for 2475 years hazard level,
for both 2017 and 2018 earthquake data.
1.2 Scope of Work

The scopes of work to undertake this study are as follows:
1. Undertake probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) using an up to date historical
earthquake catalogue, and utilising the most applicable ground motion prediction models
(attenuation relationships) to the seismic setting at the site. In this analysis, the average
shear wave velocity in the upper 30-m (vs30) was assumed to be 760m/s to represent
bedrock outcrop. The spectral accelerations at the surface will be determined based on
the results of the wave propagation analysis from the bedrock to surface using the vs
values of the top 30-m from the ground surface.
2. Develop Uniform Hazard Response Spectra for return periods of 2,475 years Return
Period at bedrock.
3. Undertake deaggregation analysis to determine the most controlling earthquake and

distance to select the appropriate time histories at bedrock in the next step.
4. Develop Conditional Mean Spectra for the 2,475 year return periods at bedrock. The
Conditional Mean Spectra (CMS) will be centred on the spectral periods of 0s (PGA),
0.2s and 1.0 seconds. The results will be used to derive the design earthquake loads for
Page iv
the power plant civil, mechanical and electrical structures.
Page |1
Lombok Coal Fired Steam Power Plant PSHA Lombok Coal Fired Steam Power Plant PSHA
5. For each of the three target CMS above, select and spectrally match the horizontal Task 5. Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE)
components of the seven earthquake ground motion records (total 21 records to use) to
the target CMS at bedrock. These selected earthquakes will reflect the results of de- Review appropriate ground motion prediction equations that are compatible with the tectonic
earthquake categories and site conditions and select several that are considered to be most
aggregation of the hazard at the return periods in point 4.
applicable to the site. The average shear wave velocity in the upper 30-m (vs30) of 760m will be
6. Undertake wave propagation analysis to develop design earthquake ground motions at used to represent the bedrock outcrop at the site.
the ground surface. The wave propagation analysis will be carried out using the shear Task 6. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard and Deaggregation Anslyses
wave velocity data obtained at the proposed power plant site.
Undertake a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the Lombok CFSPP site. The analysis is
7. Develop MCER Response Spectra based on the results of wave propagation analyses for done using logic trees to take account of uncertainties in the earthquake source and ground
both 2017 and 2018 earthquake data, and compare them with the response spectra motion prediction equations. The hazard calculations will use a lower bound magnitude of Mw
5.0. Probabilistic ground motion response spectra will be developed for return periods of 2,475
derived based on SNI 1726 (2012).
years at bedrock outcrop.
8. Provide recommendation on the design response spectra for use in the seismic analysis Based on the results of seismic hazard analysis, de-aggregate the hazard to identify the
of the power plant and other geotechnical structures at the site. magnitude and distance combinations of the earthquakes that control the seismic hazard for
return periods of 2,475 years.
9. Prepare draft and final reports.
Task 7. Conditional Mean Response Spectra
Develop conditional mean spectra to form the targets for spectral matching derived from the
2,475 years return period Uniform Hazard Spectra. The three central periods of the conditional
1.3 Methodology mean spectra will be PGA (0), 0.2 and 1.0 seconds. The conditional mean spectra will be
The methodology and steps for development of the seismic hazard analysis are summarised constructed using the correlation coefficients of Baker and Jayaram (2008).
under the following sub-headings. Task 8. Ground Motion Time Histories
Task 1. Desktop Seismic Source Assessment
A suite of seven ground motion time histories will be selected to represent each of the three
Review and analyse available literature and reports on the regional tectonics, geology, and conditional mean spectra, for a total of 21 time histories. The selected time histories will be
seismicity. spectrally matched to the relevant conditional mean response spectra using the method of Atik
and Abrahamson (2010).
Task 2. Historical Seismicity Compilation
Task 8. Design Response Spectra at the ground surface.
Obtain regional seismicity data from all available sources of these data and prepare a historical
seismicity catalog that contains the following information for each earthquake event: date & time, Perform wave propagation analysis using the spectrally matched earthquake records in Task 8 to
epicentral location, focal depth, and magnitude (or intensity if magnitude is unknown). determine the design response spectra at the ground surface for both the 2017 and 2018
earthquake data and compare them with the spectra derived from the Indonesian Seismic Code
Task 3. Characterize Regional and Local Seismic Sources SNI 1726-2012.
Review the literature compiled during Task 1 and the seismicity data compiled in Task 2 and Task 9. Draft and Final Report
develop the regional seismic source model for use in the analysis, consisting of individual active
faults along the Flores back-arc Thrust around the site, zones of shallow crustal seismicity, and A draft report will be prepared for client review. A final report will be prepared incorporating client
the Bali slab subduction zone. The maximum distance considered in this analysis is 200km from review comments.
the site. Generally, earthquakes with epicenters located more than 200km from a given site has
negligible contribution to the seismic hazard. 1.4 Team Members
Task 4. Estimate Earthquake Recurrence Rates The members of the team who carried out the work are as follows:
1. Dr. Hendra Jitno, MASc., PhD., RPEQ, CPEng., FIEAust (Team Leader).
Determine earthquake recurrence equations for each area of seismic source delineated in Task
3. Where available and applicable, geologic slip rates and GPS rates will be considered in 2. Dr Hendriyawan, ST, MT (Reviewer).
developing the recurrence rates. The recurrence equations will be truncated at maximum
magnitudes, which will be determined from the seismicity and tectonics. Multiple magnitudes and
associated weights will be assigned for each significant seismic source to account for the
1.5 Project Location
uncertainty in this parameter. The Lombok CFSPP site is located in Sambelia District, East Lombok Regency, Nusa Tenggara
Barat (NTB) Province, about 1,115 km straight distance SSE of Jakarta, and approximately at
Latitude of 8.42 degrees South and Longitude of 116.71 degrees East. The site is about 2 hour
Page |2 Page |3
drive from Mataram, the capital city of Lombok. There are direct flights available from Jakarta to
Mataram, which can be reached in about 2 hours. 2 REGIONAL TECTONIC SETTINGS
The CFSPP site is located in Lombok Island, which is tectonically part of the larger Eastern
1.6 Codes and Standards Indonesia tectonic environment involving the convergence of four major tectonic Plates in the
The analyses were performed in accordance with Codes and Standards as follows: world: the Australian, Pacific, Philippine Sea Plates, and the Sunda Block. As shown in Figure 1,
the Australian Plate subducts northward beneath eastern Java, Nusa Tenggara (114 E 125 E),
1. SNI 1726-2012 Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk Bangunan Gedung and the Banda Arc. These three arc segments accommodate a transition in the style of plate
dan Non Gedung (Manual for Seismic Resistance Designing for Buildings and Other convergence from ocean-continent subduction in east Java, to arc-continent collision in Nusa
Structures) Tenggara and then to the island arc subduction in the Banda Sea (Hamilton, 1979). The
subduction zone between the Australia plate and the Sunda Block is schematically shown in
2. ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures Figure 2.
Figure 1. Regional tectonic settings of Lombok Island (Koulali et al., 2016).

Marine geophysical surveys (Silver et al., 1983) have revealed evidence for two major back-arc
thrusts: the 450 km long Flores thrust north of Sumbawa and western Flores, and the 350 km
long Wetar thrust north of Timor (Figure 1). It has been speculated (Silver et al., 1983) that the
thick crust beneath Sumba and Timor, respectively, facilitates transfer of stress from the fore-arc
to the back-arc, while the thinner crust elsewhere (e.g., Savu basin) enables convergence to be
partitioned onto fore-arc and back-arc thrusts and strike-slip faults that cut the arc at angles
oblique to the convergence (McCaffrey, 1988).
Page |4 Page |5
movement along a major NE-SW strike-slip fault west of Timor. They also identified that the slip
rate of the Flores thrust is not uniform for the whole segment, but reduces slowly from about
30mm/year at the Flores Sea to about 5mm/year at the north of Lombok and Bali.
3 HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES
While historical earthquake observations for this region are poorly known, at least seven large
earthquakes have occurred between 1648 and 1891 (Soloviev and Go, 1974; Musson, 2012).
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the subduction zone in Lombok. Six of these events were associated with high seismic intensities of IX X of Modified Mercalli
scale and four generated regional tsunamis in the Flores Sea with estimated runup of 3m or
Early geodetic investigations (Genrich et al., 1996) concluded that the Timor Trough is inactive greater (Soloviev and Go, 1974). In recent years, four major events were reported in the area
and most of the convergence between Australia, Sunda-land, and Eurasia occurs to the north at between 112 E and 128 E (Ekström et al., 2012) (Figure 1). The Mw 7.9 1992 Flores earthquake
a rate of 50 mm/yr. In contrast, later studies (Bock et al., 2003; Nugroho et al., 2009) estimated was the largest thrust event recorded and generated a large, destructive tsunami. Most of
15 to 20 mm/yr of motion across the Timor Trough and 60 mm/yr of shortening across the Flores earthquakes occurred here during the last century are attributed to the back-arc segments of
Sea. The discrepancies in these results reflect the degree of uncertainty in understanding and Flores and Wetar and have thrust style focal mechanisms (Ekström et al., 2012).
assigning slip partitioning, mainly due to the lack of observations in the vicinity of the back-arc
fault system. Historical earthquakes at Lombok area are plotted in Figure 4, showing the earthquake epicentre
with different focal depths. As can be seen from the figure, the Lombok CFSPP site is located in
2.1 Slip Rates highly seismic zone, with hundreds for historical earthquakes occurred in the vicinity of the site,
with focal depths ranging from less than 50km to more than 600 km. The occurrence of deep
Most recent work on the slip rate in this region has been carried out by Koulali et al (2016) using earthquakes with focal depth of more than 150km seems to less frequent and concentrated at
Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements of surface deformation as shown in Figure 3 the subduction zone beneath the Lombok Island. The shallow earthquakes at the northern part of
below. the island were mainly occurred at the Flores back arc thrust (Figure 3b).
Figure 3. Slip rates at Java Trench, Timor through, and Flores & Wetar Thrust (Koulali et Figure 4. Historical earthquakes surrounding Lombok Island with different focal depths.
al, 2016).
The most recent major earthquakes (M>6.0) occurred at the Flores Thrust are shown below. The
They demonstrated that the convergence between the Australian Plate and Sunda Block in data were obtained from the USGS website on 21st of August 2018 (local time), which is slightly
eastern Indonesia is partitioned between the megathrust and a continuous zone of back-arc different than the magnitudes obtained from the BKMG website (eg BKMG estimated M7 for the
thrusting extending 2000 km from east Java to north of Timor. Although deformation in this back- 20th of August event instead of M6.9). As shown below, there were 4 major earthquakes with
arc region has been reported previously, its extent and the mechanism of convergence shallow focal depths of 30km or less.
partitioning have been speculative. GPS observations establish that partitioning occurs via a
combination of anticlockwise rotation of an arc segment called the Sumba Block, and left-lateral
Page |6 Page |7
Table 1. List of earthquakes that recently occurred at the Flores back-arc thrust, close to 4 SEISMIC SOURCE ZONES
the site (USGS, 2018).
Earthquake sources can generally be divided into three classifications, i.e. fault source zones,
subduction zone (including interface/megathrust and intraslab), and area source zone. Based on
regional tectonic conditions, the potentially active tectonic zonation and seismic sources within
200 km from the site are shown in Figure 6 and 6 and the key seismic source parameters are
summarized in the following Table:
Table 2. Potentially active faults within 200km from the Lombok CFSPP site (Fugro, 2015)
Seismic Source Seismic Fault Activity Slip Depth Length Mmin Mmax
Zones Mechanism Rate Rate (km) (km) or
(#/yr) (mm/yr) Area
(km2)
1. Flores
Fault Reverse - 5 33 450 6.65 7.15
Thrust
2. Java Arc
Area Normal 0.71 - 20 115,449 5.0 6.5
3. Lombok
Fault Normal 1.21 - 60,308 5.0 6.5
Volcanic Arc
4. Java/Bali
Area Reverse 0.15 - 10 98,214 5.0 7.5
Forearc
5. Bali Thrust
Fault Reverse 0.0016 - 45 200 8.75 8.85
6. Bali Slab
Subduction Intraslab 3.22 - 745 550 5.00 7.80
7. SEA Fault #2
Fault Strike-slip - 0.1 15 230 6.55 6.95
8. SEA Fault #3
Fault Interface - 0.1 15 220 6.55 6.95
9. Lombok
Area Reverse 0.154 - 10 32,150 5.0 7.5
Fore Arc
10. Makassar
Area Strike-slip 1.82 - 20 259,290 5.0 7.0
Strait/Bali
Block
Figure 5. Most recent earthquakes at Lombok Island with different magnitude and age
(data taken from USGS website on 21st of August 2018).
Figure 6. Seismic areas sources surrounding the site (Fugro, 2015). The red circle denotes
200km distance from the site.
Page |8 Page |9
5 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS (PSHA)
5.1 Methodology
The PSHA approach is based on the model mainly developed by Cornell (1968). The occurrence
of earthquakes in seismic source zones or on faults can be modelled as a Poisson process,
which is reasonable assumption where data is sufficient to provide only an estimate of average
recurrence rate (Cornell, 1968). The steps involved in the PSHA generally follow the four
procedures as shown in Figure 8 as follows (Kramer, 1996):
1. Identification and characterization of earthquake sources;
2. Characterization of temporal distribution of the earthquake recurrence of each source

zone.
3. Characterization of the ground motion produced at the site by earthquakes of any

possible size occurring at any possible point in each source zone using the appropriate
Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GCMPs).
4. Assessment of the probability of the ground motion parameter will be exceeded during a
particular time period by combining the uncertainties in earthquake location, earthquake
Figure 7. Seismic fault sources surrounding the site (Fugro, 2015). The red circle denotes
200km distance from the site. size and ground motion prediction equations.
Figure 8. Four steps of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (Kramer, 1996).
The seismic-hazard calculations can be represented by the following equation, which is an

application of the total-probability theorem.
P a g e | 10 P a g e | 11
adequate representation of the ground motion effects expected at each site. The GMPEs
adopted in this study generally similar to those used by Irsyam et al (2016) in updating the
(Equation 1) Indonesia Seismic Zonation Maps as described in the following sections.
In this equation, the hazard H(a) is the annual frequency of earthquakes that produce a ground 5.2.4 Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes
motion amplitude A higher than a. Amplitude A may represent peak ground acceleration,
A suite of ground motion equations for the prediction of strong ground motions from shallow
velocity or displacement, or it may represent spectral pseudo-acceleration for a given frequency.
crustal earthquakes was developed in the PEER/NGA Program, summarized by Abrahamson
and Silva (2008). Response spectral equations were developed by five groups: Abrahamson and
annual rate of earthquakes (with magnitude higher than some threshold Moi) in source I, and fMi
Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008); Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), Chiou and Youngs
(m) and fRi|Mi (r;m) are the probability density functions on magnitude and distance,
(2008), and Idriss (2008). Only three of the five GMPE above were used in this analysis as
respectively. P[A > a|m, r ] is the probability that an earthquake of magnitude m at distance r
shown in the table below. We believe that all three NGA West 2 equations are viable equations
produces a ground-motion amplitude A at the site that is greater than a. Details of the theoretical
and can be used equally to describe ground motions at the site. The weights of the three ground
background can be found in Kramer (1996) or McGuire (2004).
motion prediction equations are summarised below.
The seismic hazard analysis was carried out using widely used PSHA software EZ-FRISK 7.65
Table 3. Crustal Earthquake GMPEs and Weights
Build 004 (Fugro, 2015).
Equation Weight
5.2 Ground Motion Prediction Equations
Boore-Atkinson NGA (2008) 0.1
5.2.1 Epistemic Uncertainty and Aleatory Variability
Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA (2008) 0.8
As a result of the epistemic uncertainty due to limited data to derive each available ground
motion prediction equation, it is necessary to develop a set of ground motion prediction Chiou-Young NGA (2008) 0.1
equations for use in the seismic hazard analysis which are considered to best represent the site-
specific conditions. The selection is based on an assessment of how well each equation
addresses the influence on earthquake ground motions, including the near-fault region, tectonic 5.2.5 Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Earthquakes
earthquake category, style of faulting effect, hanging wall effect, directivity effect, basin effect etc.
For subduction earthquake, we adopted the prediction models developed by Atkinson and Boore
Aleatory (random) variability is a variation that does not have any physical explanation yet and is from Cascadia and worldwide subduction zones, as well as the model proposed by Youngs
treated using random variables. An example of this is the random variability in ground motion (1997) derived from Japanese subduction zone. The weight for all three ground motion prediction
level that is recorded at different locations at the same distance from a given earthquake on the equations are shown below.
same site conditions. The random variability in ground motion level is represented by the
standard deviation of the various measurements about the median value. Table 4. Subduction Intraslab GMPEs and Weights
5.2.2 Rupture Directivity Effects Equation Weight
This near-source directivity method implemented in EZ-FRISK is based on research done by Atkinson-Boore (2003) rocks-Cascadia 0.8
Somerville et al. (1997) and Abrahamson (2000). When the rupture of an earthquake
propagates towards a near-fault site, it generates a strong pulse of ground motion that is oriented Atkinson-Boore (2003) rocks-worldwide 0.1
in the direction perpendicular to the fault plane (Somerville et al., 1997). The effect of forward Youngs (1997) Japan subduction 0.1
rupture directivity is to cause the fault-normal component of motion to be stronger than the fault-
parallel component at periods longer than 0.5 seconds; peak acceleration is not affected.
They also found that amplitudes are greater in the perpendicular direction from the fault than 5.3 Hazard Deaggregation
those in the parallel direction. The Abrahamson (2000) paper shows a method of adapting the
results of Somerville et al to PSHA. In addition to the tapering of directivity effect, EZ-FRISK To identify the contribution by magnitude (M), distance(R), and the deviation parameter in the
(Fugro, 2015) also tapers the reduction in sigma estimated by Abrahamson for small magnitude attenuation equation ( ) to the annual frequency of exceedance, the seismic hazard can be
or large distance events. This tapering is required to avoid reducing the hazard when including
deaggregated for a specified spectral periods and ground motion amplitudes. This deaggregation
near source directivity when all the sources are in the far-field.
is useful for identifying which sources contribute the most to hazard, i.e. whether the earthquakes
5.2.3 Review and Selection of Ground Motion Equations near the maximum magnitude on a fault, or rare ground motions (high values), and other
sensitivities that contribute significantly.
To manage the epistemic uncertainty in the ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs), it is
standard practice to include multip Deaggregating the hazard at high amplitudes of shaking generally indicates that large M, small
weights assigned to each equation in proportion to its estimated reliability. In selecting the set of R, and large contribute most to hazard (large and close distance from the site). Low
ground motion prediction equations used in the seismic hazard analysis, it is important to frequencies of shaking are usually associated with larger M with larger R (larger but more distant
consider the degree to which the available ground motion prediction equations provide an
P a g e | 12 P a g e | 13
earthquakes). Attenuation equations that show lower dependence on M (or magnitude number of logarithmic standard deviations by which the probabilistic response spectrum in the
saturation at high amplitudes) generally show more contribution from lower magnitudes than period range of importance differs from that of the median response spectrum for that magnitude
those with high dependence on M (or no magnitude saturation). Also, magnitude-dependent and distance as predicted by the ground motion equation used in generating the probabilistic
response spectrum.
terms on attenuation equations (where decreases with increasing M) tend to shift the
EZ-FRISK uses the closest-distance-to-rupture as its distance measure for deaggregation.
contribution to lower magnitude values (Somerville and Thio, 2011).
However, in the general case, attenuation equations depend on a suite of distance metrics such
The deaggregation of hazard is generally used to select design ground motions that closely as depth at closest-distance-to-rupture, Joyner-Boore distance, depth at top of rupture, etc. The
replicate the target response spectrum (UHS or CMS) for any chosen return periods. In this method used to estimate these different distance metrics varies depending on the source
study, deaggregation was carried out for spectral period of 0 (PGA), 0.2s and 1s, for 2475 year category. In calculating the correlation coefficient for the epsilon at various periods, EZ-FRISK
return period design earthquake (ULS), use the Baker-Jayarama (2008) methodology. Consequently, the results are only accurate to a
spectral period of 10 seconds. Details of the method can be found in Ez-Frisk manual (Fugro,
5.4 Conditional Mean Spectra (CMS) 2015).
The probabilistic uniform hazard response spectrum (UHS) is usually used as the target 5.5 Wave Propagation Analysis
spectrum in structural/geotechnical analysis or in spectral matching techniques. The UHS has
the same probability of exceedance for different spectral periods. However, it should be clear Several methods for evaluating the effect of local soil conditions on ground response during
that this spectrum is an envelope of separate spectral acceleration values at different periods, earthquakes are presently available. Most of these methods are based on the assumption that
each of which may have come from a different earthquake event. The probability of observing all the main response in a soil deposit is caused by the upward propagation of shear waves from
of those spectral amplitudes in any single ground motion is unlikely. Therefore, this spectrum will the underlying rock formation (Figure 9). Analytical procedures based on this concept
generally be a conservative target spectrum, particularly for large and rare ground motions. incorporating nonlinear soil behavior have been shown to give results in good agreement with
Baker and Cornell (2006) has proposed a method for developing a more realistic target spectrum field observations in a number of cases. Accordingly, there are increasing use of this method for
that accounts for the magnitude ( ), distance ( ) and values likely to cause a given target predicting responses within soil deposits and the characteristics of ground surface motions.
ground motion intensity at a given site. This alternative target spectrum is called Conditional
Mean Spectrum (CMS).
Due to their ductility, the first mode period of concrete and steel structures tends to progressively
lengthen as they yield to earthquake ground motions whose levels exceed their elastic limit.
Thus, they may experience larger displacement demands than those that are indicated from their
response at their first mode elastic period. Similarly, the response of some structures may have
significant contributions from higher modes, which are prominent at periods that are shorter than
the first mode period. Therefore, to appropriately represent the response of the structure across
the full period range to which it is sensitive, it is usually necessary to develop a suite of CMS at
different periods, and to match time histories to each of the CMS.
EZ-FRISK calculates the conditional mean spectrum corresponding to a particular PSHA
deaggregation by calculating the weighted average conditional mean spectrum over all of the
sources. Each source is weighted by its contribution to the total deaggregated hazard instead of
attempting to directly apply the procedure described in Baker (2011). This averaging is done Figure 9. Wave propagation analysis to obtain ground motion at the ground surface
because generally mean epsilon, distance, and magnitude for particular sources can be (Schnabel et al., 1972).
dramatically different from the the mean epsilon, distance, and magnitude from the
deaggregation, and different attenuation equations are used with different sources. The The analytical procedure generally involves the following steps:
averaging is done over the amplitudes from the various conditional mean spectrums, not the log Determine the characteristics of the motions likely to develop in the rock formation
of the amplitudes. Hence it is an arithmetic average, not a geometric average. underlying the site, and select an accelerogram with these characteristics for use in the
The conditional mean spectrum for a particular source is calculated using the weighted average analysis. The maximum acceleration, predominant period, and effective duration are the
conditional mean spectrum over all of the attenuation equations used with the particular source. most important parameters of an earthquake motion. This step can be done using
Each attenuation equation is weighted by its contribution to the deaggregated hazard for the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis described in previous section.
source.
The conditional mean spectrum for a particular source and a particular attenuation equation is Selection of design ground motions with the desired characteristics from the strong
calculated using the mean distance, and magnitude for that particular source averaged over all motion accelerograms that have been recorded during previous earthquakes (Seed and
attenuation equations used with that source. EZ-FRISK does not retain deaggregated results for Idriss, 1969) or from artificially generated accelerograms (Housner and Jennings, 1964).
distance, and magnitude on a per attenuation equation basis, so it is not currently possible to use
the mean distance and magnitude for a particular source and attenuation equation. The value of Determine the dynamic properties of the soil deposit based on the results of geotechnical
epsilon is calculated for a particular attenuation equation so that the CMS will pass exactly site investigation. Average relationships between the dynamic shear moduli and damping
through amplitude of deaggregation at the spectral period of deaggregation. Epsilon is the
P a g e | 14 P a g e | 15
ratios of soils, as functions of shear strain and static properties, have been established for
various soil types (Hardin and Drnevich, 1970; Seed and Idriss, 1970). Thus, a relatively
simple testing program to obtain the static properties for use in these relationships will
often serve to establish the dynamic properties with a sufficient degree of accuracy.
However more elaborate dynamic testing procedures are required for especial problems
and for cases involving soil types for which empirical relationships with static properties
have not been established. In this case, we have calculated the dynamic properties of
soils based on the shear wave velocity of soil deposits obtained from down-hole tests.
Compute the response of the soil deposit to the base-rock motions. A one-dimensional
method of analysis can be used if the soil structure is essentially horizontal. The results of
the analyses include the design time history of accelerations and the design response
spectra at the ground surface.
The wave propagation analyses were carried out using a computer program SHAKE2000
(Geomotions, 2018). The program can compute the responses for a design motion given
anywhere in the system. The accelerograms obtained from instruments on soil deposits can be
used to generate new rock motions which, in turn, can be used as design motion for other soil
deposits ((Figure 9). The program also incorporates nonlinear soil behavior, the effect of the
elasticity of the base rock and systems with variable damping. The back ground of wave
propagation analysis used in the program can be found in many text books such as Kramer
(1996) and will not be presented and discussed here.
P a g e | 16
Table 5. Spectral accelerations for Uniform Hazard Spectra at various return periods for
Lombok CFSPP Power Plant site at bedrock with 5% damping, the 2017 and 2018
earthquake data.
Figure 11. Seismic source contribution for spectral period of 0.0s (PGA) for Lombok
CFSPP site at bedrock, 5% damping, 2018 earthquake data.
As can be seen in the Figure above, the hazard at the site at zero spectral period (PGA) is
controlled by the seismic hazard coming from the Flores thrust (blue curve) almost for all return
periods. The next contribution is coming from the Bali Slab (light blue curve), particularly for low
probability of exceedance (high return periods). The contributions from other faults are small or
negligible. This trend is also observed from the hazard curves at period of 0.2s and 1 s as shown
in Figure 12 and Figure 13 in the next page.
6.2 Seismic Source Hazard Contribution

To understand the controlling seismic source at the site, the hazard contribution of each seismic
source at the site for the 2475 year return period earthquakes were analysed. Plot of the hazard
contribution by seismic source for spectral period of 0.0 (PGA) is shown in the figure below and
tabulated in Table 6. Plots of seismic source contributions for other periods of 0.2s and 1s are
presented in Figure 12 to Figure 13.
P a g e | 18 P a g e | 19
As can be seen in the Table, for structures with low natural periods (stiff structures) of 0 to 0.2s,
the hazard is dominated by earthquakes in the magnitude range of Mw 7.0-7.2 occurring at
distances 34 to 52 km from the site for the 2475 years return periods. For flexible structures with
natural period of 1s, the hazard is also dominated by Mw 7.1 but at distance about 44 km from
the site. Thus, the seismic hazards for both stiff and flexible structures are controlled by
earthquake of M7.1 with distance from 34km to 52 km. The results for both the 2017 and 2018
earthquake data are similar.
Table 6. Summary of controlling earthquakes based on the deaggregation of Distance and
Mw for all earthquake sources, including crustal and subduction zones., for the 2018 data.
Return Period (years) 2475 year

Spectral Period (s) PGA (T=0) T=0.2s T=1s
Spectral Acc (g)-bedrock 0.65 1.09 0.34
Mean Mw 7.18 7.06 7.14
Mean D (km) 52.7 34.5 44.1
Power Plant site at bedrock, 5% damping, 2018 earthquake data.
period at bedrock, 5% damping, for 2018 earthquake data.
Power Plant site at bedrock, 5% damping, 2018 earthquake data.
6.3 Hazard Deaggregation by Source-Distance and Earthquake Magnitude

The results of hazard deaggregation by magnitude (Mw) and distance (D) are shown in Figure 11
to 13 for PGA, 0.2s, and 1s, for the 2475 year return period. The results are also summarized in
Table 6.
P a g e | 20 P a g e | 21
6.4 Conditional Mean Spectra (CMS)

The Uniform Hazard Spectra has been considered as overly conservative due to the
unrealistically high spectral acceleration for wide range of periods (Naeim and Lew, 1995). Baker
(2011) proposed to use more realistic Conditional Mean Spectra for design, which is adopted
here. The CMS for spectral periods of 0,0.2s and 1s for the 2475 year return period earthquake
P a g e | 22
6.5 Earthquake Design Ground Motions at bedrock

Based on the de-aggregation results discussed previously, the following earthquake records
have been selected for the 2475year return period and different spectral periods. These seven
earthquake ground motions will be spectrally matched with the CMS at PGA, 0.2s and 1s,
resulting in 21 modified earthquake ground motions as will be discussed in the section to follow.
Table 9. Selected Earthquake Design Ground Motions for the Lombok CFSPP Power
Plant site for ULS (2475yrs return period) for periods of PGA (0), 0.2s and 1s.
Table 8. Conditional Mean Spectra (in g's) at the Lombok CFSPP Power Plant site for
four spectral periods, 5% damping, for 2475 yr return period, 2018 data.
6.6 Ground Motion Spectral Matching

The selected ground motions in the previous sections are usually modified to spectrally match
with the Uniform Hazard Spectrum as target spectra. However, as discussed previously, the
ground motions will be spectrally matched against the CMS at selected spectral periods of PGA,
0.2s and 1s for 2475 year return period. Typical results of the modified and target spectra for
Kern County Earthquake records for PGA are shown in Figure 19, plotted together with the
original ground motion and response spectrum.
P a g e | 24 P a g e | 25
The other results of spectral matching are presented in Attachment 1.
6.7 Wave Propagation Analysis and Local Site Effects

Based on the soil investigation results conducted by PT PLN and PT Soilens, the site at the
Power Plant can be classified as class SD or SE depending on the method used. Due to
potential attenuation of strong earthquake ground motions at the site, it is strongly recommended
to undertake wave propagation analysis from the bedrock to the ground surface to determine the
earthquake design ground motion at the Power Plant site.
The wave propagation analyses will be carried out using SHAKE2000 software (Geomotions,
2018), with the input motions which have been spectrally matched to the CMS target spectra for
different periods, as discussed in the previous section. The small strain shear modulus of the soil
deposit at the site was computed directly from the shear wave velocity data instead of using the
SPT N correlations. The shear wave velocity input data is deemed to give more accurate results.
The results of wave propagation analyses are presented in terms of ground response spectra at
the surface and are used to derive the recommended design spectra. It is important to note that
the higher peak ground acceleration at bedrock does not always mean higher design
acceleration at the surface. Due to local site effects, low earthquake acceleration can be
amplified up to 5 times higher such as those happened during the 1985 Mexico City earthquake.
On the contrary, very high earthquake acceleration (PGA>0.5g) can be attenuated when the
waves propagate from the bedrock to the ground surface, as demonstrated by Idriss (1990)
below.
Figure 19. Target and matched response spectra for the Kern County Taft Station
earthquake for spectral periods of 0 s (PGA) for 2475 year return period at bedrock.
Figure 20. The original and modified time histories of acceleration, velocity and Figure 21. Variation of peak ground acceleration at soft soil sites with those recorded at
displacement for the Kern County Taft Station earthquake for spectral periods of 0 s rock sites (Idriss, 1990).
(PGA) for 2475 year return period (ULS) at bedrock.
P a g e | 26 P a g e | 27
6.8 Design Response Spectra at Ground Surface As discussed previously in Section 6.7, strong ground motions (PGA>0.5g) tend to be attenuated
when they propagate through the soil layers upward due to yielding and thus higher damping
Wave propagation analysis has been conducted at the Power Plant site using SHAKE2000 ratio. This phenomenon was observed in the field during previous earthquakes as shown by
software, developed originally by Schnabel, Lysmer and Seed (1972). The soil stratigraphy and Idriss (1990). The attenuation factor highly depends on the ground motion intensity, the
unit weight were obtained from the results of soil investigation carried out by PT Soilens. Shear frequency content of the earthquake input motions and the natural period of the soil deposit. The
wave velocity data was also obtained from the results of down-hole tests carried out by PT results of wave propagation analyses here also showed quite strong attenuation (FPGA) of up to
Soilens (2018). Some adjustment was needed to consider possible spatial variability of the soil 0.88 for the 2017 PSHA and 0.75 for the PSHA 2018, as shown in Table 12. The attenuation
layers at the site. The plots of soil model adopted in the wave propagation analysis, unit weight, factors are found to be more significant than initially reported in the preliminary results.
shear wave velocity and dynamic soil shear modulus are presented in Figure 22. Bedrock
(vs>760m/s) was assumed to be located at 40m depth from the ground surface. The SPT N
values at this depth are more than 50.
Figure 23. Response spectra at the ground surface at the Lombok CFSPP Power Plant site
from total of 21 input ground motions computed using SHAKE2000, plotted together with
the MCER response spectra obtained from SNI 1726-2012 for 2% in 50 years (SNI Section
6.4)-green, the 2017 (red) & 2018 (black) PSHA average response spectra (dotted lines)
and the MCER probabilistic response spectra according to SNI Section 6.10.2.1 (Method 1)
and 80% of the response spectra from SNI1726-2012 (blue).
As can be seen from Figure 23, the peak values from the average response spectra (multiplied
by CR coefficient) for the 2017 and 2018 earthquake data (dotted red and black curves)
respectively are slightly above the 2475 year Return Period response spectrum (Green) from the
SNI-1726-2012. The blue curve shows the lower bound spectra obtained as 80% of the response
Figure 22. Soil properties used in the wave propagation analysis. (a). Soil layers. (b). Unit spectra from the SNI 1726:2012.
weight. c). Dynamic shear modulus (Gmax) vs depth. (d). Measured shear wave velocity
(vs) (Soilens, 2018). The Risk-targeted maximum Considered Earthquake spectra (MCER) derived from the 2017 and
2018 PSHA results are shown in the red and black solid curves. The black curve represents the
2018 PSHA results and the red curve represents the 2017 PSHA results. For clarity, the MCER
The results of wave propagation analyses for the earthquake design ground motions listed in curves are replotted in Figure 24 together with the design response spectra.
Table 12 which have been spectrally matched with UHS at t=PGA, 0.2s and 1s are plotted in
terms of response spectra in Figure 23 (thin lines). The design response spectra derived from
the SNI-2012 for Medium Site (SD) for the 2475 year return period is also plotted in this figure
(Green curve). The probabilistic (MCER) response spectra (black curves) derived from the
average 2017 and 2018 PSHA (blue curves) are also plotted.
P a g e | 28 P a g e | 29
6.9 Potential implications to design

As can be seen in Figure 24 and Table 10, the MCER response spectrum from the SNI1726 code
has similar To value (0.12s vs 0.16s), but quite different Ts values (0.6s vs 0.8s), as compared to
the results of the 2017 and 2018 PSHA. For rigid structures with short natural periods, the
difference in the spectral shapes shown in Figure 24, will not have significant impact on the
earthquake design loads. However, the structures with higher natural periods (eg for T > 0.6s)
will experience higher design ground motions. For example, structures with T=1s will need to be
designed to withstand MCER spectral acceleration of 0.63g (2018 PSHA) as compared to 0.45g
Figure 24. MCER (solid lines) and Design (dashed lines) Response spectra at the ground according to SNI 1726.
surface at the Lombok CFSPP site from the SNI 1726 (green line), 2017 PSHA (red line)
and 2018 PSHA (black line) results. 6.10 Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration for Slope Design and Liquefaction
Based on SNI 1726:2012 Section 6.10.3, the design response spectral acceleration for different Analysis
periods should be determined using the following formulation:
Based on SNI 1726:2012 for slope design, lateral pressure on basement wall or retaining walls,
Sa = 2/3* SaM (Equation 1) and liquefaction analysis we should use peak ground acceleration at the surface based on the
following equation:
in which SaM is MCER earthquake response spectral acceleration obtained using the procedure
described in Section 6.10.1 of SNI 1726-2012 (black and red curves in Figure 23) using
CRS=1.06 and CR1=0.95, as shown in Table 10.
PGAM = FPGA x PGA (Equation 2)
Summary of the earthquake design parameters for the Lombok CFSPP site at the ground
surface is presented in the table below. where:
Table 10. Recommended Earthquake Design Parameters for the Lombok CFSPP site from PGA = 0.48g from the PGA map Figure 11 of SNI 1726:2012
the SNI 1726, the 2017 and 2018 PSHA results. FPGA = site coefficient from Table 8 of SNI 1726:2102
= 1.02 for site class SD with PGA = 0.48g
PGAM = 1.02 x 0.48g = 0.49g.
From site response analysis the average peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the surface for
MCER is 0.46g (2017) and 0.49g (2018). Therefore, for slope design, seismic lateral pressure,
liquefaction analysis and any analysis involving horizontal peak ground acceleration, we
recommend using horizontal peak ground acceleration of 0.49g from SNI and 2018 PSHA, with
earthquake magnitude Mw of 7.1.
P a g e | 30 P a g e | 31
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) has been carried out using two sets of earthquake
data: up to the end of 2017 and up to the 21st of August 2018, and the most applicable ground
motion prediction models to the seismic setting at the site. In this analysis, the average shear
wave velocity in the upper 30-m (vs30) was assumed to be 760m/s to represent bedrock outcrop.
The seismic hazard analysis was undertaken using the most widely used PSHA software EZ-
FRISK (Fugro, 2015).
The Risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral accelerations at the
surface was determined based on the results of the wave propagation analysis from the bedrock
to surface using the shear wave velocity values of the top 30-m from the ground surface. It is
important to note that the higher peak ground acceleration at bedrock does not always mean
higher design acceleration at the surface. Due to local site effects, low peak ground earthquake
accelerations can be amplified up to 5 times higher such as those happened during the 1985
Mexico City earthquake. On the contrary, very high peak ground accelerations (PGA>0.5g) can
be attenuated when the waves propagate from the bedrock to the ground surface, as discussed
in Section 6.7. Thus, although the computed PGA from the 2017 and 2018 are high (PGA>0.5g),
the surface ground accelerations could be attenuated due to yielding of the soil medium when
the strong motions propagate from the bedrock upward through the soil layers. It was found that
a quite strong attenuation was computed for the input ground motions used for the analyses. The
attenuations are found to be more significant than initially reported in the preliminary results.
The results of the study are summarized as follows:
1. Uniform Hazard Response Spectra for return periods of 2,475 years at bedrock, have been
computed using the 2017 and 2018 earthquake data. The spectra are shown below:
3. A total of seven earthquake ground motion records were selected based on the results of
earthquake source de-aggregation. These seven earthquakes ground motions were then
spectrally matched to three different target CMS response spectra of 0s,02s and 1s, resulted
in a total of 21 earthquake ground motions, respectively for the 2017 and 2018 PSHA results.
These earthquake ground motions were subsequently used to undertake wave propagation
analyses to estimate the local site effects at the power plant when the earthquake waves
propagate from the bedrock to the ground surface through the soil medium.
4. Wave propagation analyses were carried out using the shear wave velocity data obtained
from down-hole tests undertaken by Soilens (2018). The results of the wave propagation
analyses for the twenty-one earthquake design motions in point 3 were plotted together and
compared with the response spectra derived based on SNI 1726 (2012). The MCER and
Design response spectra for the 2017 and 2018 were developed and compared with those
2. The Conditional Mean Spectra for the 2,475 year return periods at bedrock which were obtained from the SNI 1726 (2012) for the Medium Site (SD), as shown below.
centered on the UHS spectral periods: 0, 0.2 and 1.0 seconds, have also been computed.
The spectral values and the plot of the spectra are shown below:
P a g e | 32 P a g e | 33
6. For rigid structures with low natural periods, the difference in the spectral shapes shown in
Figure 24, will not have significant impact. However, the structures with longer natural
periods (eg for T > 0.6s) will experience higher design ground motions. For example,
structures with T=1s will need to be designed to withstand MCER spectral acceleration of
0.63g (2018 PSHA) as compared to 0.45g according to SNI 1726.
7. For structural design, foundation design, slope design, seismic lateral pressures, liquefaction
analysis and any analysis involving horizontal peak ground acceleration, we strongly
recommend using horizontal peak surface acceleration of 0.49g and other seismic
acceleration values from SNI 1726 and 2018 PSHA as shown on Table 10 and point 5 of this
conclusions, with earthquake magnitude Mw of 7.1.
5. The key seismic design parameters at the bedrock and ground surface for the 2475 year
return period are presented below:
P a g e | 34 P a g e | 35
8 REFERENCES Fugro (2015).EZ-FRISK 7.65 Build 004. A computer program for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analyses.
Abrahamson, N. and Silva, W.J. (2008). Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground- Genrich, J. F., Y. Bock, R. McCaffrey, E. Calais, C.W. Stevens, and C. Subarya (1996),
motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 24, 67-97. Accretion of the southern Banda arc to the Australian plate margin determined by Global
Positioning System measurements, Tectonics, 15(2), 288 295, doi:10.1029/95TC03850.
Abrahamson, N., W. Silva and R. Kamai (2014). Update of the AS08 Ground-Motion Prediction
Equations Based on the NGA-West2 Data Set. Earthquake Spectra: August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, Hamilton, W., Tectonics of the Indonesian region, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1078, 345 pp.,
pp. 1025-1055. 1979.
Abrahamson, N.A. (2000). "Effects of rupture directivity on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis," Idriss, I.M. (1991). Earthquake Ground Motions at Soft Soil Sites. Second International
Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Palm Springs. Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering & Soil Dynamics.
Atik, L. A. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2010). An Improved Method for Non-Stationary Spectral Koulali, A., S. Susilo, S. McClusky, I. Meilano, P. Cummins, P. Tregoning, G. Lister, J. Efendi,
Matching, Earthquake Spectra 26, pp. 601-617 (2010); doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/1.3459159.
eastern Sunda-Banda Arc, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 1943 1949, doi:10.1002/2016GL067941.
Atkinson, G.M. and Boore, D.M. (2003). Empirical Ground-Motion Relations for Subduction-Zone
Earthquakes and Their Application to Cascadia and Other Regions. Bulletin of the Seismological Kramer, Steven L. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, 653 pp.
Society of America, Volume 93, No. 4, pp. 1703-1729, August 2003.
McCaffrey, R. (1988), Active tectonics of the Eastern Sunda and Banda Arcs, J. Geophys. Res.,
Baker, J.W (2011). "Conditional Mean Spectrum: Tool for ground motion selection," Journal of 93(B12), 15163 15182, doi:10.1029/JB093iB12p15163.
Structural Engineering, 137(3), pages 322-331.
Musson, R. M. W. (2012), A provisional catalogue of historical earthquakes in Indonesia, Open
Baker, J.W and Cornell, C.A (2006). "Spectral shape, epsilon, and record selection", Earthquake Report OR/12/073, pp. 21, Geological Survey, Edinburgh, British.
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(9), pages 1077-1095.
Naeim, F and Lew, M. (1995). On the Use of Design Spectrum Compatible Time Histories.
Baker, J.W and Jayaram, N (2008). "Correlation of Spectral Acceleration Values from NGA Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 111-127.
Ground Motion Models", Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 1, pages 299 317, February
2008; © 2008, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Nugroho, H., R. Harris, A. W. Lestariya, and B. Maruf (2009), Plate boundary reorganization in
the active Banda Arc-continent collision: Insights from new GPS measurements, Tectonophysics,
Bock, Y., L. Prawirodirdjo, J. F. Genrich, C. W. Stevens, R. McCaffrey, C. Subarya, S. S. O. 479, 52 65, doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2009.01.026.
Puntodewo, and E. Calais (2003), Crustal motion in Indonesia from Global Positioning System
measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 2367, doi:10.1029/2001JB000324.
Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J. and Seed, H.B., 1972, SHAKE - A computer program for earthquake
analysis of horizontally layered sites, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
Boore, D. M. and Atkinson, G. M. (2008). Ground-motion prediction equations for the average California, Berkeley, Report No. EERC 72-12.
horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s
and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra, 24, 99-138.
Silver, E. A., D. Reed, R. McCaffrey, and Y. Joyodiwiryo (1983), Back-arc thrusting in the
Eastern Sunda Arc Indonesia: A consequence of arc-continent collision, J. Geophys. Res.,
Campbell, K. W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (2008). NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean 88(B9), 7429 7448, doi:10.1029/JB088iB09p07429.
horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for
periods ranging from 0.01 to 10s. Earthquake Spectra 24, 173-215.
Soilens (2018). Lombok CFSPP Geotechnical Site Investigation. Draft Report
Campbell, K.W. and Y. Bozorgnia (2014). NGA-West2 Campbell-Bozorgnia Ground Motion
Soloviev, S. L., and Ch. N. Go (1974), A Catalogue of Tsunamis on the Western Shore of the
Model for the Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped Elastic Pseudo-
Pacific Ocean, pp 308, Nauka Publishing House, Moscow.
Acceleration Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 sec. Earthquake Spectra:
August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1087-1115.
Somerville, P. and H.K. Thio (2011). Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Seismic
Design. Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Building an
Chiou, B. S. J. and Youngs, R. R. (2008). Chiou-Youngs NGA ground motion relations for the
Earthquake-Resilient Society, 14-16 April, 2011, Auckland, New Zealand.
geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters.
Earthquake Spectra, 24, 173-215.
Somerville, P.G., et al (1997). "Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation
Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity,", Seismological
Ekström, G., M. Nettles, and A. M. Dziewonski (2012), The global CMT project 2004 2010:
Research Letters, Volume 68, Number 1, pp. 199.
Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet Inter., 1 9, 200 201.
P a g e | 36 P a g e | 37
9 LIMITATIONS
This report is prepared solely for the use of the person or company to whom it is addressed. No
responsibility or liability to any third party is accepted for any damages howsoever arising out of
the use of this report by any third party.
Unless specifically agreed otherwise in the contract of engagement, we retain our Intellectual
Property Rights over the contents of this report. The client is granted a licence to use the report
for the purposes for which it was commissioned.
We do not accept responsibility for the consequences of extrapolation, extension or transference

of the findings and recommendations of this report to different sites, cases or conditions.
This report is based in part on information which was provided to us by the client and/or others
and which is not under our control. We do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of this
information.
We believe the conclusions and recommendations contained herein were reasonable and
appropriate at the time of issue of the report. However, the user is cautioned that fundamental
ATTACHMENT
responsibility to ensure that input assumptions remain valid.
This report must be read in its entirety. This notice constitutes an integral part of the report, and
must be reproduced with every copy.
Page 39 of 46
PT LAPI ITB
P a g e | 38

Attach-1 LPP-40-A06-BR-201-R Basic Engineering Design For Coal Shed Steel Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attach-1 LPP-40-A06-BR-201-R Basic Engineering Design For Coal Shed Steel Structure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attach-1 LPP-40-A06-BR-201-R Basic Engineering Design For Coal Shed Steel Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.... .........

Title : BASIC ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR

0 IFI AA FA/CYK/BM AN 10-January-19

DOC. NO.: REV

REVISION HISTORICAL SHEET

Rev No Date Description

DOC. NO.: REV

3. LOADING DATA AND LOADING CALCULATION 9

DOC. NO.: REV

1.2 APPLICABLE SPECIFICATION, CODES, AND STANDARDS

CODES AND STANDARDS

1.3 MATERIAL SPECIFICATION

Reinforcing Rebar SNI-07-2052-2002 BJTP-24 SNI-07-2052-2002 BJTD-40

DOC. NO.: REV

Anchor bolt ASTM A307 gr-C

Steel Structure ASTM A36

Structural Bolt ASTM A325

Material specific weight

1.4 STABILITY PARAMETER

DOC. NO.: REV

Allowable seismic displacement

1.6 MEASUREMENT UNIT

1.7 PILE CAPACITY

a. Borehole Number = BH-11

DOC. NO.: REV

1.8 DESIGN FLOWCHART

DOC. NO.: REV

2. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA

Figure 1 Isometric View of Coal Shed

DOC. NO.: REV

3. LOADING DATA AND LOADING CALCULATION

3.2 LIVE LOAD

3.3 WIND LOAD

3.4 SEISMIC LOAD

3.5 LOAD COMBINATION

DOC. NO.: REV

B. Basic Load combination for Concrete Reinforcement

ATTACHMENT 1 - LOMBOK CFSPP PSHA REPORT

Document No. : LAPI-HJ-2018001

PROJECT: Lombok Coal Fired Steam Power Plant FTP

OWNER: PT. Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero)

LOCATION: Labuhan Pandan Village, Sambelia District,

PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

PROJECT: Lombok Coal Fired Steam Power Plant FTP

Revision Log Register

- Recommendation for 5.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 11

Page ii Page iii

Lombok Coal Fired Steam Power Plant PSHA

1.2 Scope of Work

3. Undertake deaggregation analysis to determine the most controlling earthquake and

Figure 1. Regional tectonic settings of Lombok Island (Koulali et al., 2016).

5 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS (PSHA)

2. Characterization of temporal distribution of the earthquake recurrence of each source

3. Characterization of the ground motion produced at the site by earthquakes of any

Figure 8. Four steps of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (Kramer, 1996).

The seismic-hazard calculations can be represented by the following equation, which is an

5.2.2 Rupture Directivity Effects Equation Weight

6.2 Seismic Source Hazard Contribution

Return Period (years) 2475 year