A FRAMEWORK ON SITE-SPECIFIC PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC

HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF TABUNG HAJI HOTEL AND

CONVENTION CENTRE IN KUCHING, SARAWAK, MALAYSIA

Raudhah Ahmadi 1, Azrin Ahmad2, Ahmed Faysal Abdullahi3, Imtiyaz Akbar Najar4 and
Muhammad Haniz Azahari Muhamad Suhaili5

1
Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kota Samarahan,
94300, Sarawak, Malaysia. e-mail: araudhah@gmail.com * Corresponding author.
2
PhD Research student, Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kota
Samarahan, 94300, Sarawak, Malaysia. e-mail: azrinahmad@gmail.com
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dhofar University, Salalah, P.O. Box
2509, Salalah, Sultanate of Oman. e-mail: aabdullahi@du.edu.om
45
, Research students, Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kota
Samarahan, 94300, Sarawak, Malaysia. e-mail: imtiyaznajar999@gmail.com, haniz_ariey@yahoo.com

Abstract
Site specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment was carried out to Tabung Haji Hotel and
Convention Centre Complex (THHCCC) in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, as a safety input to
the structural design of the complex. Ground data are collected from 27 boreholes from the
specific site. This paper outlines a framework to carry out site-specific probabilistic seismic
hazard assessment (PSHA). Applying Guttenberg-Richter law and ground motion prediction
equation (GMPE) from Abrahamson and Silva (1997) via CRISIS 2007 software as a platform,
seismic hazard map of Sarawak is first, produced. Building structural design requires intensity
value of 475 years return period that is determined from the seismic hazard map for location
of 1.4898° N, 110.3387° E i.e. the THHCCC. Actual ground motion captured in Kuching
Station classified ID: KSM Channel 1: HGE 05/01/2004 23:24:15 (GMT) is applied and
matched the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for returned period of 475 years attained from
the seismic hazard map. The amplification function, AF, is defined as the ratio of spectral
acceleration of ground surface motion to the spectral acceleration of rock motion for the same
frequency 𝑓, later plotted combining all spectrum from 27 boreholes. Eurocode 8
recommended design spectra is super-imposed to compare with the value of site-specific
spectrum. Site-specific seismic design response spectra show 2.0 AF is imposed at the
THHCCC site, which should be utilised as a seismic input to the structural building design.
Keywords: framework, site-specific, probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, response
spectra
1.0 Introduction
Earthquakes and seismic activities previously are not considered a threat in Malaysia. This is
due to the believe that Malaysia is situated within a stable, and exterior of the, seismic zone.
This is despite that Malaysia is enclosed by the agile interplate borders similar to the
borderlines on either side of Eurasian and Philippines Ocean plates eastwardly, and also on
either side of the Indo-Australian and Eurasian plates westwardly (Metcalf, 2017).
East Malaysia which consist of Sabah and Sarawak as shown in Figure1 is categorised as the
most seismically active zone in Malaysia. It is considered as low-to-moderately active in
seismicity (Adnan, 2005). It has encountered seismic events of native origin, some which have
resulted in significant damage and fatalities, which a number of them induced several
destructions on the possessions and also fatalities to the living souls. According to Abas (2001),
apart from local seismic occurrences, East Malaysia is also impacted by immense seismic
trembles situated around Southward Philippines and from the Channels of Macassar, Sulu
Ocean and Celebes Watery. To date, the highest recorded magnitude on the MMI standard of
measurement is VII. The region has also experienced seismic vibrations of native origin with
intensities as high as 5.8 on the Richter magnitude.

Sarawak

Figure 1: Locality of Malaysia on the Sunda Plate, with the tectonic setting around Malaysia
and and fault lines on land (Loi et al., 2018)

Sabah, in particular, is in close proximity to areas of high seismicity due to several fault zones
(Leyu, 1976). The south-west near Brunei consists of the Belait fault zone, Jerudong fault zone
and Mulu fault zone, while in the locality of Ranau and Kota Kinabalu (KK) exists the
Kundasang-Ranau fault zone. Not far from Sandakan is the Labuk bay-Sandakan basin zone,
while in the east of Sabah there is the Lahad Datu-Kunak-Tawau fault zone. The Lahad Datu
fault has been active and recorded an earthquake of magnitude Mw=5.8 in 1976. Recently in
2015 Ranau experienced an earthquake of Mw = 6.0 (Hajar, 2015).
Sarawak has also experienced a number of seismic events of native origins (Adnan et al., 2015).
There were 21 seismic tremors in Sarawak between 1874 and 2011, with intensity between 3.5
and 5.3 Mb (Yan and Wah, 2011). Also a few local seismic inducing faults were discovered in
Sarawak e.g., Belait fault line, West Baram fault line, Tubau fault line, Anyau Nyalau fault
line, Kelawit fault line, Bukit Mersing fault line, Lupar fault line, Sebangkoi fault line, Oya
fault line, Melarang fault line, Bakong fault line, and Mulu fault line. The seismic inducing
faults had been asserted under the aegis of According to the Malaysian Meteorological
Department (MMD), there are three active fault lines from, these are Tubau fault line, Bukit
Mersing fault line and Lupar fault line, as shown in Figure 2. The 100 km long Tubau fault line
has resulted in seismic tremors of 5.2 Mb and 3.5 Mb in May 2004 and January 2010
respectively (Bernama, 2004). Apart from experiencing seismic activities of native origin,
Sarawak is also influenced by distant seismic actions originating from Southward Philippines
and the Channels of Macassar, Sulu Ocean and Celebes Watery. These have resulted in
movements of magnitudes of V on the MMI scale developing in Sarawak (Abas, 2001).

Sabah
Brunei

Sarawak

Kuching
(Case study Indonesia
area)

Figure 2: Geological and structural setting of Sabah and Sarawak in Borneo – (Wang et al.,
2016)
Previously Malaysian codes had no requirements for seismic consideration in structural design.
Earthquakes were not considered a significant occurrence that merited seismic checks (Pappin
et al., 2011). Therefore, embracing the British Standard (BS) and Eurocode (EC) in the design
of structures is typical engineering practice in Malaysia. Recently the Malaysia National Annex
to Eurocode 8 for Structural Design for Seismic Resilience has been established for the
reference of local engineers to comply with the requirement of the Department of Standard
Malaysia.
The work and findings in this paper contributed to the drafting of the Malaysia National Annex
to Eurocode 8, in particular to the seismic hazard map of Sarawak. This paper outlines a
framework to carry out site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) using a
case study of Tabung Haji Hotel and Convention Centre Complex (THHCCC) in Kuching,
Sarawak, Malaysia.
2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Issues pertaining to seismic hazard risks are a concern to those involved in disaster mitigation
(Pitilakis, Riga, & Anastasiadis, 2012)(Spectra et al., 2014)(Yilmaz, Eser, & Berilgen,
2009)(Cipta et al., 2016)(Pappin, Yim, & Koo, 2011). The recent Haiti and Chile earthquakes
in exemplify the urgent need for scholars to develop effective methods of assessment for
seismic hazard and to mitigate these hazards through structural design (Tesfamariam & Goda,
2013) and (Panza et al., 2011). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is considered by
some scholars as unreliable due to inadequate data input defective logic (Castaos & Lomnitz,
2002). However, site-specific PSHA have shown different and reliable results for higher
Amplification Function, 𝐴𝐹 and low seismicity area like Sarawak, Malaysia. In this research,
site-specific PSHA is extended works to determine the 𝐴𝐹 for specific site. The framework
used in this study is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The framework of site-specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment used in this
study
2.1 Input data in PSHA for Sarawak
It is important to identify any source of damaging ground motions at the site. These sources
are earthquakes history (point source, hypocentre) and active faults as shown in section I-01
and I-02 in the framework (see Figure 3). In the Sarawak case, these are typically planar
surfaces identified through various means such as observations of past earthquake origins, and
geological evidence. However, if individual faults are not identifiable, then earthquake sources
may be described by areal regions. Once all possible sources, geologic evidence, and geodetic
strains (derived from GPS data) are identified, the distribution of magnitudes and source-to-
site distances associated with earthquakes from each source could be identified as in process
P-01 and P-02 in the framework. In this particular study, earthquake catalogue is developed
based on the records obtained from various international seismological databases e.g., the
National Earthquake Information Centre, U.S. Geological Survey (NEIC-USGS), International
Seismological Centre (ISC), Department of Mineral and Geoscience Malaysia and Malaysian
Meteorological Department (MMD). Fault lines data were supplied by the Department of
Mineral and Geoscience Malaysia of which similar data are as shown in Figure 2.

2.1.1 Area of study

The reference peak ground acceleration (agR), for each seismic zone, corresponds to the
reference return period TNCR. The recommended value for the no-collapse requirement is TNCR
= 475 years. The methodology determining PGA starts with grid setting 0.8N, 109E to 6.2N,
116E at equal grid increment of 0.2 x 0.2.
The territory under study is first divided into seismic sources according to geo-tectonic
considerations. It is assumed that, within a seismic source, an independent earthquake-
occurrence process is taking place. For each seismic source, magnitude exceedance rates, λ(M),
are estimated by means of statistical analysis of earthquake catalogues. These rates are the
number of earthquakes, per unit time, in which magnitude M is exceeded, and they characterize
the seismicity of the source.

2.1.2 Seismic source model

Tectonic faults at the point within the earth where an earthquake rupture starts are capable of
producing earthquakes of various magnitudes. Gutenberg and Richter (1944) noted that the
distribution of earthquake sizes in a region generally follows a particular distribution and can
be modelled as Equation 1:-

log10 N = a – bM (Equation 1)
• where N = is the number of events having a magnitude > M
• a value indicates the overall rate of earthquakes in a region
b value indicates the relative ratio of small and large magnitudes (typical b values are
approximately equal to 1).

For each fault, the average event rate is estimated, using both instrumental and historical
seismicity data, and geodetic strains. Seismic sources are usually lines, areas or volumes, so a
spatial integration process is carried out to account for all possible focal locations. Usually, it
is assumed that, within a seismic source, all points are equally likely to be an earthquake focus.
Acceleration exceedance rates due to a single source are computed with the following
expression in Equation 2:

𝑀𝑢 −𝑑𝜆𝑖(𝑀)
vi (a) = ∑𝑗 𝑤𝑖𝑗 ∫𝑀0 ( )Pr(A>a│M,Rij)dM (Equation 2)
𝑑𝑀

Where, M0 and Mu are, respectively, the smallest and largest magnitudes considered in the
analysis, Pr(A>a|M,Rij) is the probability that acceleration exceeds the value a at the site, given
that at a distance Rij , an earthquake of magnitude M originates. Rij are the distances between
the site and the sub-elements into which the source has been divided. A weight wij has been
assigned to each sub-element, and the expression above assumes that Σwij=1. Finally, the
contributions of all the sources, N, to earthquake hazard at the site are added as following in
Equation 3:

v (a) = ∑𝑁
𝑖=1 𝑣 i(a) (Equation 3)

For each source, using a physical model, infer the average future occurrence rate λ = N/Δt,
(where N is the number of events in the time interval Δt), commonly expressing it in terms of
the recurrence time: T = 1/λ. In this case, the earthquake magnitude exceedance rate is given
by the modified Gutenberg-Richter model in Equation 4:

𝜆(𝑀) = 𝜆0 [e-βM – e-βMu / e-βM0 – e-βMu], M0≤M≤Mu (Equation 4)

Where, λ0 is the exceedance rate of magnitude M0, β is a parameter equivalent to the "b-value"
for the source (except that it is given in terms of the natural logarithm) and Mu is the maximum
magnitude for the source. “b-value” is determined by a maximum likelihood method as
described below in Equation 5:-

b = log10 e / (Mave – Mmin) (Equation 5)

= 0.434 / (4.74 – 3.5) = 0.27
where, Mmin = 3.5 because smaller magnitudes are not a threat.

2.1.3 Ground Motion Prediction Equation and Combining All Information

The spectrum of ground motion from each source is attenuated to the given site through an
empirical function derived from the ground motion prediction equation (GMPE). There are
many attenuation models developed to estimate earthquake peak ground acceleration (PGA)
and elastic response spectral ordinates, published between 1964 and 2010 (Douglas, Faccioli,
Cotton, & Cauzzi, 2010; Report, 2011). However, for this study comparison has been made
between Abrahamson & Silva (1997), Spudich et al. (1999), García et al. (2005) against the
ground-motion captured at various local stations in Sarawak during the earthquake on 1st May
2004 (as shown in Table 1.0). It is concluded that the GMPE model by Abrahamson & Silva
(1997) was an accurate representation of the actual event (see Figure 4). The Ground-motion
model used are Equations 6 and 7:

ln pgarock = θ1+ θ2M + θ3 ln[r + exp (θ4 + θ5M)] + θ11F1 (Equation 6)

ln pgasoil = θ6 + θ7M + θ8 ln[r + exp (θ9 + θ10)] + θ11F1 (Equation 7)

 where pga is in g, θ1 = −4.364, θ2 = 1.016, θ3 = −1.285, θ4 = −3.34, θ5 = 0.79, θ6 = −8.698, θ7
= 1.654, θ8 = −1.166, θ9 = −6.80, θ10 = 1.40, θ11 = 0.17, σ = 0.44, Շ = 0.00 and σtotal = 0.44.

PGA, ms-2
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
- 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1,000.0 1,200.0
GMPE (g) Ambrason&Silva (1997) Dist, km
GMPE (g) Spudich (1997)
GMPE (g) Garcia (2005)
Station Kuching, KSM (g)
Station Sibu, SBM (g)
Station Bintulu, BTM (g)
Station Sapulut, SPM (g)
Station K.Kinabalu, KKM (g)

Figure 4: Ground-Motion Prediction Equation Analysis

Table 1.0: List of observation data at 6 stations in East Malaysia after Mw= 4.1, Sebuyau,
Sarawak Earthquake, 2004, (Source: MMD)
Station of Observation Latitude Longitude Distance from PGA (g)
Epicentre (Km)
BTM Bintulu 3.20N 113.08E 312.46 0.000088
KKM Kota Kinabalu 6.04N 116.21E 778.99 0.000010
SBM Sibu 2.45N 112.21E 202.20 0.000019
KSM Kuching 1.47N 110.31E 98.83 0.000185
TSM Tawau 4.29N 117.87E 843.50 0.000005
SPM Sapulut 4.70N 116.47E 725.73 0.000103

This research paper uses the following combination rules to compute the mean and the
variance, respectively, of the exceedance rates derived from the logic-tree combination:

E[v(a)] = ∑𝑁
𝑖=1 𝐸[𝑣(𝑎|𝑗)wj (Equation 8)

VAR[v(a)] = ∑𝑁 𝑁 2
𝑖=1 𝑉𝐴𝑅[𝑣(𝑎|𝑗)]𝑤𝑗 + ∑𝑖=1{𝐸 [𝑣(𝑎│𝑗)] − 𝐸[𝑣(𝑎)} wj (Equation 9)

Where, wj is the weight or probability assigned to model j, E[v(a|j)] is the mean exceedance
rate of acceleration a, as predicted by model j, while VAR[v(a|j)] is its corresponding variance.
The sums extend for the N computing models. Note that the first term in the right-hand side of
Equation 9 is the mean of the variances, while the second term is the variance of the means.
In section P-03 of the framework, macrozonation analysis of the PSHA is carried out to produce
the PSHA map of Sarawak region. Computing the ground motion is categorized as an
engineering variable similar of the peak ground acceleration (PGA), and is expressed in terms
of the probability of exceedance p. The expected return period, T = 1/p, of a given level of
shaking i.e. a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is equivalent to a return period
of 475 years. The seismic hazard map was produced in this research study with a return period
of 475 years as shown in Figure 5. This seismic hazard map of Sarawak was published in the
Malaysia National Annex: 2015 by the Mineral and Geoscience Department of Malaysia in
December 2017.

THHCCC

Figure 5: Seismic Hazard Map of Sarawak: 10% rate of exceedance in 50 years

The annual probability of exceeding some magnitude of ground shaking at the THHCCC site
is presented in Figure 6 in the form of site-specific seismic hazard curve. The chart shows that
low levels of intensity are exceeded relatively often, while high intensities are infrequent. In
the case of 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years, the PGA value will be 0.002g PGA to
be exceeded in 475 years return period, which means THHCCC is in the safe low seismic zone.
 0.001 0.00278 0.00774 0.0215 0.0599 0.167 0.464 1.29 3.59 10 2
m/s
100
1
0.01
0.0001
0.000001
1E-08
1E-10
1E-12
1E-14
1E-16

Figure 6: Exceedance Rate (1/year) Vs Intensity of Ground Motion at THHCCC (site-specific

seismic hazard curve)

2.2 Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis

When an Mw 5.2 earthquake hit Sarawak in 2004, Kuching seismic station had captured the
ground motion as shown in Figure 7. Questions were raised as to whether the builidings in
Sarawak are resistant to ground shaking, particularly in the capital city of Kuching, and to what
extend are building designed to withstand ground movement. There are cases where moderate
size earthquake result in significant damahe, e.g., the Dinar Earthquake in Turkey in 1995
which resulted in 90 fatalities and the destruction of over 4,000 buildings. One of the main
reason for the damage was the poor soil conditions. Therefore appropriate soil investigation is
crucial especially to determine VS30 that is related to the PGA. Structural engineer can then
use it as an input parameter in future design. Hence, the framework continues with stage P-04
up to P-06 (as shown in Figure 3) to finally come out with the site-specific design response
spectra.

For this site-specific study, the Tabung Haji Hotel and Convention Centre Complex
(THHCCC) located 400m northwest of Kuching International Airport is selected. This
proposed complex consist of a 9 storey hotel, 6 storey office block and a convention hall. Initial
soil investigation carried out at 27 locations within aproximately 6 acres. Standard Penetration
Test (SPT), was carried out and the results were processed as per study requirements to
determine the shear velocity, VS30. Peak Groud Acceleration at soil surface, Peak Ground
Velocity and Peak Ground Displacement are later derived numerically from the excitation at
bedrock with the aid of DeepSoil software using the PSHA result at the THHCCC site. Spectral
matching of local earthquake time histories are carried out for the site-specific ground response
analysis.
 Figure 7: Ground motion captured in Kuching Station ID: KSM Channel 1(Mw 5.2, 2004)
Fundamental performance requirements for Tabung Haji Hotel and Convention Centre
Complex (THHCCC) in Kuching was chosen to the level of no-collapse and classified as
building class II. The structure is required to be designed and constructed to withstand the
design seismic action without local or global collapse, thus retaining its structural integrity and
a residual load bearing capacity after the seismic event. However, the random nature of the
seismic events and the limited resources available to counter their effects making the attainment
of the design objectives only partially possible and only measurable in probabilistic terms. The
recommendation of design seismic action is 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years which
corresponds to a mean return period of 475 years at bedrock level.

Researchers have studied the relationship between VS and the SPT N values since the 1960s.
Imai and Tonouchi [1982] analysed the largest dataset, containing 1654 data pairs from 386
borings at 250 sites throughout Japan. Imai and Tonouchi (1982) developed VS correlation
equations based on N-value, soil type, and geologic age. N-values ranged from less than one
blow per feet (bpf) to nearly 400 bpf. In this research, the relationship between VS and SPT
relationship values defined by Imai and Tonouchi (1982) are used.

It is widely recognised, specifically in high and moderate seismicity area, that the earthquake
vibration at the surface is strongly influenced by the underlying ground conditions and
consequently the ground characteristics siginicantly influence the seismic response of
structures. It is also considered in MS EN 1998-1:2015 that appropriate site soil investigation
must be carried out in order to identify the ground conditions. This is to allow the classification
of the soil profile, in view of defining the ground motion appropriate to the site and allowing
the selection of the relevant spectral shape to determine the PGA properly and to identify the
possible soil behaviour during an earthquake i.e., the peak ground displacement (PGD). The
soil profiles were segregated into 5 site classes from type A, B, C, D and E.

Describing seismic hazard by the values of the spectral ordinates (at certain key periods in the
response spectrum) is needed upon completion of the soil investigation and analysis. Ground
motion data captured in 2004 during the Miri earthquake is matched with the PGA value
determined from the seismic hazard map of 475 years returned period (RP). This value is used
in horizontal elastic response spectra analysis.
Soil spectra of horizontal elastic analysis is carried out using the matched wave to replicate the
attenuation. The result is then used to obtain the ratio between the elastic spectrum of each
borelog and the corresponding design spectrum for site class C and earthquake type 2, i.e., MW
< 5.5. The site specific soil response spectra for analysis of the 27 boreholes is presented in
Figure 8.
 7.00 Proposed EC8 Soil C T1 EC8 Soil C T2
KuchStn_1 KuchStn_2 KuchStn_3
6.00 KuchStn_4 KuchStn_5 KuchStn_6
KuchStn_7 KuchStn_8 KuchStn_9
KuchStn_10 KuchStn_11 KuchStn_12
5.00 KuchStn_13 KuchStn_14 KuchStn_16
KuchStn_17 KuchStn_18 KuchStn_19
4.00 KuchStn_15 KuchStn_20 KuchStn_21
Sa/PGA

KuchStn_22 KuchStn_23 KuchStn_24

KuchStn_25 KuchStn_26 KuchStn_27
3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)

Figure 8: Design response spectra for site-specific THHCCC – Site class C

The final site amplification factor resulted from the analysis of 27 boreholes at THHCCC site
is 2.0. Comparison of site amplification factor for soil type C as proposed by EC 8 and MS EN
1998-1:2015 (National Annex) for Sarawak is given in Table 2. It can be clearly seen that site-
specific PSHA will give a higher safety factor for structural design.
Table 2: Result of response spectra and soil amplification (AF) for soil class C
Soil Type C Se TB(s) TC(s) TD(s)
(AF)
Site-specific (THHCCC) 2.0 0.10 0.30 1.2
EC8 Type 2 1.5 0.10 0.25 1.2
MS EN 1998-1:2015 (Sarawak) 1.3 0.20 0.5 1.2

3.0 Conclusion
PSHA alone is insufficient to provide safe data for structural design due to soil amplification
from bedrock to the soil surface at the top. Seismic code such as Eurocode 8 and MS EN1998-
1:2015 also have provided Malaysian engineers with data required for all soil class. However,
site-specific PSHA will provide a higher safety factor for structural building design. In this
study, THHCCC site with soil type C has soil amplification factor of 2.0, higher than the codes.

Acknowledgement
This research is supported by the MyRA grant, F02/SpSTG/1380/16/22.
References
Abas, M. R. B. C. (2001). Earthquake Monitoring in Malaysia. Earthquake Monitoring in Malaysia, 10.
Abrahamson, N. a. (n.d.). 4 Probability for Seismic Hazard Analyses. Distribution, 1–17.
Adnan Azlan, Hendriyawan, Aminaton Marto & Masyhur Irsyam (2005) “Seismic Hazard Assessment
for Peninsular Malaysia using Gumbel Distribution Method”, Jurnal Teknologi, 42(B) Jun. 2005:
57–73 © Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Adnan, A., Ramli, M., & Abd Razak, S. (2015). Disaster Management and Mitigation for Earthquakes:
 Are We Ready? 9th Asia Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference
(APSEC2015), (December). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
profile/Sk_Muiz_Sk_Abd_Razak/publication/286360217_Disaster_Management_and_
Mitigation_for_Earthquakes_Are_We_Ready/links/56680f9008aef42b5788f90b/Disaster-
Management-and-Mitigation-for-Earthquakes-Are-We-Ready.pdf
Bernama (2004) earthquake tremors felt in Miri, Bintulu. Malaysian News National Agency,
2/May/2004.
Castaos, H., & Lomnitz, C. (2002). PSHA: Is it science? Engineering Geology, 66(3–4), 315–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00039-X
Cipta, A., Robiana, R., Griffin, J. D., Horspool, N., Hidayati, S., & Cummins, P. (2016). A probabilistic
seismic hazard assessment for Sulawesi, Indonesia. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, (Hall 2011), SP441.6-. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP441.6
Douglas, J., Faccioli, E., Cotton, F., & Cauzzi, C. (2010). Selection of ground-motion prediction
equations for GEM1. Earthquake, (September).
Hajar, S. (6 June 2015), Tremors felt in heart of capital. Retrieved from Borneo Bulletin:
http://www.borneobulletin.com.bn/tremors-felt-in-heart-of-capital/
Leyu. C (1976). Earthquake Swarn in Eastern Sabah, June-October.
Loi, D. W., Raghunandan, M. E., & Swamy, V. (2018). Revisiting seismic hazard assessment for
peninsular Malaysia using deterministic And probabilistic approaches. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences Discussions, 1-40.
Metcalf, I. (2017). Tectonic evolution of Sundaland. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia,
63(June), 27–60. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.12.011
MS EN 1998-1:2015 (2017) Malaysia National Annex to MS EN1998-1:2015, Eurocode 8. Department
of Standard Malaysia. 2017
Panza, G. F., Irikura, K., Kouteva, M., Peresan, A., Wang, Z., & Saragoni, R. (2011). Advanced seismic
hazard assessment. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168(1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-
010-0179-9
Pappin, J. W., Yim, P. H. I., & Koo, C. H. R. (2011). An approach for seismic design in Malaysia
following the principles of Eurocode 8. Bulletin Jurutera, (1968), 22–28.
Pitilakis, K., Riga, E., & Anastasiadis, A. (2012). Design spectra and amplification factors for Eurocode
8. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 10(5), 1377–1400.
Ground-motion prediction equations. RESISTANT DESIGN. (n.d.).
Shrey Kumar Shahi January 2013. (2013), (January).
Spectra, E., Ontario, W., Bozorgnia, Y., Abrahamson, N. A., Al Atik, L., Ancheta, T. D., … Youngs,
R. (2014). NGA-West2 research project. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3), 973–987.
https://doi.org/10.1193/072113EQS209M
Tesfamariam, S., & Goda, K. (2013). Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil
infrastructure systems.
Wair, B. R., Dejong, J. T., & Shantz, T. (2012). Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity
Profiles. Pacific Earthquake Engineering, 8(December), 68.
Wang, P.C., Li, S.Z., Guo, L.L., Jiang, S.H., Somerville, I.D., Zhao, S.J., Zhu, B.D., Chen, J., Dai, L.M.,
Suo, Y.H. and Han, B. (2016) Mesozoic and Cenezoic accretionary orogenic process on Borneo
and their machanisms. Geological Journal 51(S1):464-489 (2016)
Yan, A., & Wah, S. (2011). Geological Assessment of the Earthquake Sources. Seminar Teknikal
Gempabumi, (December), 71. Retrieved from http://www.met.gov.my/web/metmalaysia/
publications/reports/presentationpaper/2011/earthquaketechnicalseminar2011/presentation/6369
7/alex_jmg.pdf
Yilmaz, O., Eser, M., & Berilgen, M. (2009). Applications of engineering seismology for site
characterization. Journal of Earth Science, 20(3), 546–554.