Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Analysis of long-distance earthquake tremors and base shear

demand for buildings in Singapore
a,*
T. Balendra , N.T.K. Lam b, J.L. Wilson b, K.H. Kong a

a
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, 119260, Singapore
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Received 30 November 2000; received in revised form 31 May 2001; accepted 2 June 2001

Abstract

The seismic faults which cause long distance earthquakes for Singapore have been analysed and the maximum possible earthquake
in each of these faults have been identified. A seismic hazard predictive model developed from geophysical principles, known as
the component attenuation model (CAM), has been used to estimate the bedrock motion in Singapore. CAM has been validated
by comparison of the estimated ground motion parameters with historical attenuation data. Earthquakes considered in the study
originated from the Indonesian Arc and the Burmese Arc in the south-western part of the Eurasian plate spanning between 90°E
and 105°E, and between ⫺5°S and 25°N. An earthquake of 7.6 in Richter Magnitude, from a 400 km distance has been shown to
be critical for buildings up to 25 storeys. The elastic base shear demand corresponding to this bedrock motion when accounted for
amplification by soft soil is found to be below 10% of the weight of the building.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Response spectum; Component attenuation model; Seismological model; Distant earthquakes; Base shear demand; Soil amplification; Sin-
gapore

1. Introduction ground motion can develop further resonance with build-

Seismic waves originating from major seismic fault
sources in the region travel long distances before they
reach Singapore. The high frequency earthquake waves
are typically damped out rapidly as they propagate away
from the source. However, low frequency or long period
waves are more robust to energy dissipation and hence
can transmit more energy over much longer distances.
Thus, seismic waves reaching Singapore bedrock are
often rich in long period waves. Consequently, ground
motions generated by distant earthquakes have very low
peak ground acceleration but can be very destructive due
to its large displacement properties. In addition, seismic
waves propagating through soil layers can be signifi-
cantly amplified by resonance if the soil layers possess
natural periods that are similar to the dominant period of
the seismic waves transmitted from the bedrock. Hence
earthquake ground motions are significantly affected by
the natural period of the soil layer. Such amplified
* Corresponding author.
ings that possess natural periods similar to the site natu-
ral period. Hence, tall buildings located on soft soil sites
tend to suffer the most severe vibration due to multiple
resonances developed in both the building and the soil.
The potential hazards of distant earthquakes and their
effects on buildings in Singapore have been assessed in
this investigation which comprises the following steps:
1. Identify major potential seismic fault sources in the
region that can generate significant bedrock motions
at the site of interest.
2. Adapt the component attenuation model (CAM) to
model the attenuation of seismic waves transmitted
from the identified fault sources. (Historical intensity
data has been used to verify the accuracy of CAM.)
3. Determine the magnitude–distance combinations of
the Design Earthquakes (DE) based on information
obtained in Steps (1) and (2). The bedrock spectra of
the DE was then determined by CAM whilst synthetic
random phase-angle accelerograms generated by
stochastic simulations based on the targeted pre-
defined time independent Fourier amplitude spectrum.

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 5 - 7
100 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108
4. Conduct one-dimensional shear wave analysis of
selected soft soil sites using the program shake91 [1]
and the input excitations developed from Step (3).
The design elastic base shear for buildings were then
determined in accordance with the soil response spec-
tra.
2. Seismic faults in the region surrounding
Singapore
Singapore is on a stable part of the Eurasian plate.
The closest fault is the Sumatra fault which is ⬎1500
km long and runs through the entire length of Sumatra
(Fig. 1). At the closest point this fault is about 400 km
from Singapore. It is a strike slip fault and hence the
energy is stored through shear deformation of the rock
when the plates on either side of the fault become inter-
locked while in motion. It is considered that only a lim-
ited amount of energy can be stored by the shear inter-
lock, since fracture can occur at a weak point in the rock
at a relatively low stress level. Thus, the energy that
could be released from this fault will not exceed the
Richter magnitude (ML) of 7.5–7.6 (MW=7.8). There is
also a subduction zone at the Java trench where the Indo-
Australian plate subducts under the Eurasian plate at a
rate of about 67 mm per year. The displacement between
the two plates is partly accommodated by sudden move-
ments which cause large earthquakes. This subduction
zone is about 700–800 km from Singapore. The histori-
cal record for the last 300 years reveals that two great
earthquakes have occurred, viz. moment magnitude
(MW) of 8.75 in 1833 and moment magnitude of 8.25–
8.5 in 1861 [2]. The maximum possible earthquake from
this subduction zone was estimated by Heaton and Kana-
mori [3] to be of magnitude ML=8.0–8.5 (MW=8.9) based
Fig. 1. Sumatra fault and subduction of the Indian–Australian Plate
into Eurasian Plate.
on the rate of convergence and the age of the subduction
plates. The earthquake ground motions considered in this
study is accordingly based on a MW=7.8 earthquake at
a distance of 400 km and a MW=8.9 earthquake at a dis-
tance of 600 km.
3. Attenuation modelling and introduction to
“CAM”
In regions possessing an abundance of indigenous
strong motion records, statistical regression analyses
may be used to develop empirical predictive attenuation
models which relate the ground motion parameters (e.g.
peak ground acceleration and peak ground velocity) to
magnitudes and distances [4–7]. For the subject region
under consideration, earthquakes are largely originated
from the south-western part of the Sunda Arc, viz.
Indonesian arc and Burmese arc. Since only limited
strong motion accelerogram records are available in this
region, it is not feasible to adopt the conventional
empirical modelling approach.
An alternative approach is to adopt attenuation models
developed from analogue regions which are considered
to possess similar seismo-tectonics and geological con-
ditions. Traditionally, Western North America (WNA)
was a popular candidate of an “analogue” region, only
because similar regions from which extensive data have
been collected and widely published were rare. In recent
years, seismological attenuation models have been
developed for the central and eastern regions of North
America (CENA). Since the seismo-tectonic and geo-
logical conditions of CENA are in great contrast to those
of WNA, the available choice of a representative attenu-
ation model seems to have broadened considerably.
However, the simplistic notion of applying ENA models
to low seismicity regions, and WNA models to high seis-
micity regions, is not recommended as it has no sound
rational basis. The attenuation of seismic waves is larg-
ely a function of the regional crustal conditions (in parti-
cular regard to energy dissipation) rather than the
regional seismicity level. Further, the effects of attenu-
ation accumulate with distance, and hence the accurate
representation of the regional crustal properties is parti-
cularly important in the modelling of distant earth-
quakes. Thus, the already developed North American
attenuation models are still very restrictive if they are to
be applied to other parts of the globe.
Seismological monitoring studies can be used to deter-
mine regional attenuation properties of the earth crust,
including the Quality Factor which defines energy losses
during wave transmission. Since such studies involve
only very low intensity measurements, valuable infor-
mation on attenuation has been established for many
areas worldwide, and is not restricted to high activity
areas. Other important achievements are the establish-
 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108
ment of the crustal wave-guide model by Somerville [8]
and the upper-crust model by Boore and Joyner [9].
These and other seismological achievements have
resolved many uncertainties concerned with the trans-
mission and crustal modifications of seismic waves.
These crustal models are complimentary to the concur-
rent development of the generic source models of Atkin-
son [10] and Atkinson and Boore [11]. There is now
evidence that the average characteristics of seismic body
waves generated at the source of the earthquake (i.e. all
crustal modification effects removed) is rather generic,
and the regional averages varies only moderately
between CENA and WNA [11], with the CENA source
model being more conservative. Thus, the CENA source
model can be applied generically in different regions
when combined with suitable crustal models. It was
demonstrated by Lam et al. [12] that the existing empiri-
cal response spectrum models of California are remark-
ably similar to the averaged response spectra derived
from the stochastic simulations of the generic source
model of CENA in combination with the crustal model
of WNA (mainly California), for earthquakes exceeding
magnitude 7. This finding supports the independent
observation by Somerville [13] that variations amongst
large magnitude earthquakes are mainly due to path
(crustal) and site effects.
The recently developed seismological Fourier spec-
trum models have been transformed by Lam et al. [14]
into a set of response spectral attenuation relationships
to develop the CAM. The transformation involves: (i)
stochastic simulations of the Fourier spectra to generate
large number of random phase angles synthetic accelero-
grams [15] (see Appendix A for further details and a
specimen of the generated accelerogram); (ii) response
spectral analysis of the generated accelerograms; and
(iii) mathematical curve-fitting and modelling of the
ensemble averaged response spectra [12,14].
CAM is made up of a number of source and crustal
factors which can be modified to suit the crustal proper-
ties of the region of interest. Regional crustal models of
CAM has been applied in Australia [16,17], the Coastal
Region of South China [18–20], Shanghai [21] and Viet-
nam [22]. Significantly, good agreement between
CAM’s ground motion predictions and historical data
has been found. For example, ground motion predictions
by CAM for Taiwan (F-crust) are supported by field rec-
ordings of the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake up to some 700
km away from the earthquake source [20]. New attenu-
ation relationships developed within the CAM frame-
work provide suitable choices of an analogue model for
the neighbouring regions. In this investigation, the F-
crust model is used and verified as the analogue attenu-
ation model for the region surrounding Singapore as
described in the following section.
101
4. Proposed attenuation model for Singapore
The subject region to be considered in this investi-
gation is on the south-western part of the Eurasian plate,
spanning between 90°E and 105°E in longitude, and
between ⫺5°S and 25° N in latitude. Singapore and
neighbouring countries including Malaysia, Sumatra,
Thailand and Burma, and the south-western part of the
Sundra Arc lie within this region. The F-crust attenu-
ation model developed within the latest framework of
CAM [20] contains expressions which predict peak
response spectral accelerations, velocities and displace-
ments. These parameters can be translated into the peak
acceleration on bedrock (PRA) which is defined by the
following expressions:
PRA(g)⫽aGbg (1)
a⫽0.192g[0.40⫹0.60(MW⫺5)1.5] (2)
冉冊
0.5
2 75
G⫽ ; R⬎75 km (3)
3 R
冉冊
C
30
b⫽ (4)
R
C⫽0.009[9.9⫺1.28(MW⫺6)]R0.48 (5)
g⫽0.585 (6)
where PRA(g)=peak acceleration on bedrock (in units of
gravitational acceleration); a=source factor; G=cylindr-
ical attenuation factor which accounts for the crustal-
wave guide effects; R=epicentral distance in km; b=anel-
astic attenuation factor which accounts for energy dissi-
pation; and g=factor combining the effects of the mid-
crust and upper-crust modifications.
The accuracy of Eqs. (1)–(6) been verified by the
comparison with the peak ground accelerations recorded
from five earthquakes generated in the subduction region
of the Indonesian Arc and the Burmese Arc. The
locations of these earthquakes are shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 3 shows the comparison of the PGAs calculated
by Eqs. (1)–(6) with that indicated by the respective iso-
seismal maps of the Burmese earthquakes of: (i) Manda-
lay (May 1912, MW=8); and (ii) Pegu (May 1930,
MW=7.2). In addition, Table 1 shows similar compari-
sons for the three Sumatra earthquakes of: (i) 1926,
ML=6.75; (ii) April 1998, ML=6.8 and (iii) June 2000,
ML=7.9. The validity of the model from 250 to 700 km
is further exemplified in Table 1 by including some field
data from the Burmese earthquake. The application of
the CAM F-crust model [20] in generating accelero-
grams for Singapore conditions is further supported by
Fig. 4 which compares two accelerograms recorded in
orthogonal directions from the MW=8 earthquake
(originated in Sumatra in June 2000 at a distance of 700
km from Singapore) with the ensemble averaged
102 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108
Fig. 2. Location and year of earthquakes generated in the subduction
region of the Indonesian Arc and the Burmese Arc. A, Outer Burmese
Arc; B, Inner Burmese Arc; C, Indonesian Arc. Burmese earthquakes:
(i) 1912, earthquake at Mandalay, MW=8; (ii) 1930, earthquake at Pegu,
MW=7.2. Sumatra earthquakes: (i) 1926, ML=6.75; (ii) 1998, ML=6.8;
(iii) 2000, ML=7.9.
response spectrum of six synthetic accelerograms simu-
lating the earthquake. The response spectra are presented
for 1% damping.
Next, the response spectra obtained from the ensemble
average of six synthetic accelerograms associated with
the F-crust model for different combinations of distance
and magnitude are shown in Fig. 5. Earthquake of mag-
nitude MW of 8.9 occurring at 600 km has been included
to identify the worst scenario. These bedrock response
spectra form the basis of soil response predictions as
described in the next section.
5. Base shear in buildings on soft soil
Sedimentary soil layers or reclamation can signifi-
cantly amplify seismic waves as they propagate upward
through the soil layers. The seismic actions on buildings
founded on soft soil would depend on the soil response
and the site natural period. The soil response in turn
depends on the site period in relation to the location of
the peaks in the bedrock response spectrum. The bedrock
spectra in Fig. 5 show that sites possessing a period of
between 0.4 and 0.8 s would respond very severely to a
ML=7.6 earthquake generated from a strike–slip fault at
Fig. 3. Comparison of the peak ground acceleration’s calculated by
the CAM with that of iso-seismial maps of the Burmese earthquakes of
(a) Pegu (May 1930, MW=7.2) and (b) Mandalay (May 1912, MW=8).
R=400 km. Whereas, the very flexible sites possessing
a higher period (⬎1.2 s) would respond more severely
to the very large magnitude “mega” earthquakes (e.g.
MW=8.9) originating from the subduction zone at
R=600 km.
The natural period of 15–25 storey buildings (typical
in Singapore) have been found to be in the range of
approximately between 0.7 and 1.6s. A recently conduc-
ted field study [23] revealed that buildings are often
much stiffer than that predicted by the computer analysis
of the skeletal frame due to the participation of infill
brick walls which maintain their integrity during low
excitations caused by earth tremors. Thus, both earth-
quake scenarios described above have been considered
in the study of the soil and building responses.
Three sites in the Kallang formation on the eastern
part of Singapore have been selected in accordance with
the predominant period range of the seismic bedrock
motions that have been predicted for the design earth-
quake scenarios. The selected sites are located at Marine
Parade (MP), Katong Park (KAP) and the Katong area
(KAT). The borehole data for each of these sites are
given in Tables 2–4. The site periods are 0.7, 1.1 and
 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108 103

Table 1
Prediction of peak rock motion

Event Magnitude Distance (km) Peak rock motion (gals) (computed) Peak rock motion (gals) (measured)

ML MW

Burma, 1912 8.0 400 5.5 5–10

Burma, 1912 8.0 300 12.5 11–14
Burma, 1930 7.2 400 2.4 1–4
Burma, 1930 7.2 300 6 2–10
Sumatra, 1926 6.75 250 11.6 7–14
Sumatra, 1998 6.8 600 0.42 0.31
Sumatra, 2000 7.9 700 0.69 0.36

Fig. 4. Comparison of the simulated velocity response spectrum with the recorded spectra of the June 2000 Sumatra earthquake.

Fig. 5. Response spectra from and ensemble of six synthetic accelograms for different combinations of earthquake magnitude and distance.

1.6 s for the MP, KAP and KAT sites, respectively,
which are comparable to the period range estimated for
the 15–25 storeys buildings. Ensembles of synthetic
accelerograms stochastically simulated [15] for the
design earthquake scenarios (M–R combinations) have
been used as bedrock excitations for input to program
shake91 [1] for computing the soil surface motions. The
response spectrum of the input motion used in the
shake91 analysis is depicted in Fig. 6(a) for the MP and
KAP sites, and in Fig. 6(b) for the KAT site. Assuming
one-dimensional shear wave propagation in the vertical
direction, the surface motions are computed using pro-
gram shake91 [1].
Soil shear modulus was computed using the
expression given by Hardin and Drnevich [24] with the
reference shear strain proposed by Lam and Wilson [25].
Soil damping was computed using the expression given
by Poulos [26] with the similar reference shear strain as
104 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108

Table 2
Soil data for the marine parade (MP) site

Undrained shear
Thickness SPT N-value Relative Unit weight
Layer No Description strength
(m) (blow/30 cm) density (%) 2 (kN/m3)
(kN/m )

Backfill — very loose light yellowish brown clayey

1 6 2.5 35 – 19.7
SAND. Ground water is 3.0 m below ground
2 Soft grey Marine CLAY 3 0 – 14 16.3
3 Loose brownish-yellowish and whitish grey silty SAND 3 8 45 – 18.0
4 Medium dense light whitish grey silty SAND 3 19 60 – 19.1
5 Very loose yellowish brown silty SAND 3 4 35 – 18.0
6 Stiff light bluish grey sandy SILT 3 12 – 50 17.7
7 Very stiff dark brown and bluish grey silty CLAY 9 21 – 87.5 20.3
8 Hard bluish grey silty CLAY 3 46 – 191.7 20.3
9 Hard reddish brown and blueish grey silty CLAY 6.45 79 – 330.6 22.0
10 Bedrock – 100 22.0
Total soil depth 39.45

Table 3
Soil data for Katong Park (KAP) site

Undrained shear
Layer Thickness SPT N-value Relative Unit weight
Description strength
No. (m) (blow/30 cm) density (%) 2 (kN/m3)
(kN/m )

Fill — brownish grey. Loose clayey silt with some fine

1 to coarse grain sand. Below ground level of 1.5 m 6.5 11 35 – 17.3
material becomes loose SAND
Upper marine CLAY — blueish grey. Very soft, high
2 plasticity and high water content. Ground water table is 13 0 – 21.6 15.6
at this level
CLAY — stiff brown, low water content, moderate
3 2 15 – 59.9 18.7
plasticity
Lower marine CLAY — blueish grey. Very soft, high
4 9 0 – 23.9 16.2
plasticity and high sensitive silt clay
Organic CLAY — very soft, very sensitive,high water
5 4 2 – 26.3 16.2
content, lots of organic material
Stiff to very stiff silty CLAY— low water content,
6 5 13 – 52 18.7
moderate plasticity
7 Slightly weathered silty SAND — very dense and stiff 5.9 75 100 – 21.1
8 Slightly weathered SILT — very stiff 1.9 100 – 400 22.0
9 Bedrock – 100 – 22.0
Total soil depth 47.3

Table 4
Soil data for Katong (KAT) site

Undrained shear
Layer Thickness SPT N-value Relative Unit weight
Description strength
No. (m) (blow/30 cm) density (%) 2 (kN/m3)
(kN/m )

1 Fill — loose fine SAND 7.9 5 35 – 17.1

2 Marine CLAY — very soft to medium stiff 27.9 0 – 18.7 16.2
CLAY — reddish brown, medium stiff with organic
3 13.2 10 – 40.2 20.3
matter
4 CLAY — medium stiff to stiff 4.2 50 – 200.0 20.3
5 Bedrock 100 – 21.1
Total soil depth 53.2
 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108
Fig. 6. (a) Response spectra from 18 synthetic accelograms for
design earthquake of magnitude, MW=7.8 and distance, R=400 km. (b)
Response spectra from 18 synthetic accelograms for design earthquake
of magnitude, MW=8.9 and distance, R=600 km.
above and using recommendations of initial and
maximum soil damping presented in Ref. [25]. For clay,
a 50% plasticity index was used to input into the equa-
tions to plot the shear modulus and soil damping curve.
This value is reasonable because in the Kallang forma-
tion, clay plasticity index can range from around 40 to
70% (Tan and Lee [27]). For sand, a plasticity index of
0% was used. The variation of shear modulus and damp-
ing with respect to strain in the soil, used in shake91
is depicted in Figs 7(a) and 7(b) for clay and sand,
respectively.
The ensemble average of the acceleration response
spectra of the surface response for 5% structural damp-
ing are depicted in Fig. 8(a) for the MP, KAP and KAT
sites. The corresponding soil amplification factor which
is defined as the ratio of peak acceleration response spec-
tra at surface to bedrock is 12.2, 9.5 and 10.3 for MP,
KAP and KAT sites, respectively [Fig. 8(b)]. Such a
high site amplification factor is seldom observed in
strong motion responses, but is not unreasonable in dis-
tant earthquakes in view of the highly periodic nature of
the seismic waves generated from the very far-field. The
soil response results in a maximum elastic base shear
105
Fig. 7. (a) Shear modulus/shear modulus at low strain 0.001%
(G/Gmax) vs shear strain (%) for clay and sand. (b) Soil damping ratio
versus shear strain (%) for clay and sand.
demand of about 10% of the weight of the building (i.e.
0.10 W) as shown by the soil response spectra. (Similar
soil amplification effects were observed in 1986 at Mex-
ico City which was some 400 km away from the epi-
centre of a magnitude 8 earthquake [28].)
This soil amplification factor estimate is conservative
as all shake analyses conducted in the study assumed a
high impedance contrast between the soil and the bed-
rock that possesses a shear wave velocity of ⬎1500 m/s
(e.g. site class A “hard rock” as defined in IBC2000
[29]). It can be shown that the amplification can be
reduced significantly for a more moderate impedance
contrast at the soil–rock interface. A parametric study
undertaken recently by the authors [30] (in collaboration
with Adrian Chandler of Hong Kong University) shows
a 20–30% reduction of the soil amplification factor in
106 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108
Fig. 8. (a) Spectral acceleration at the surface of MP, KAP and KAT
sites for structural damping of 5% due to design earthquakes at bed-
rock. (b) Soil amplification (ratio of surface to bedrock spectral
acceleration) for MP, KAP and KAT sites for structural damping of
5% due to design earthquakes at bedrock.
soft bedrock which possesses a relatively low shear wave
velocity (e.g. Vs=350–750 m/s as defined for class C sites
in IBC2000). A 20% reduction (reduction factor=0.8)
was recommended in Ref. [30].
Incidentally, the standard penetration test (SPT) blow
counts of 100 as recorded on the bedrock surface at the
selected soil sites (Tables 2–4) were consistent with the
range of shear wave velocity defined for site class C
[25,29]. A comparison was made between the soil sur-
face spectra recorded at the KAP site from the ML=6.8
(April 1998 Sumatra) event with the spectra computed
by shake based on the synchronised recording of the
bedrock exictation taken at the bottom of a nearby bore-
hole. Interestingly, the recorded soil spectra show an
amplification factor some 20–30% lower than the initial
estimate by shake which was based on the high imped-
ance contrast of a hard bedrock (Vs⬎1500 m/s) (see
Appendix B). This observed modifications by the soft
rock was consistent with the analytical findings of Ref.
[30]. Consequently, the elastic base shear demand may
be lowered from the initial estimate of 0.10 W to 0.07–
0.08 W if the bedrock shear wave velocity has been con-
firmed to be in the “class C” (also known as “soft
rock”) category.
The design elastic base shear demand may also be
reduced for sites which have a soil depth significantly
shallower than the three soil sites analysed in the study.
Site specific soil response analysis would be required to
quantify such reductions.
In addition, buildings generally possess a reasonable
amount of over-strength and ductility (with exceptions)
and it is common practice in building codes to reduce
the elastic strength demand by a structural response fac-
tor (or load reduction factor). For example, the appropri-
ate factor for reinforced concrete moment resisting build-
ings designed according to BS8110 is 5 (Balendra et al.
[31]). The corresponding value for a typical shear wall-
frame building is found to be around 8–10 (Balendra et
al. [32]). The latter value is more appropriate for tall
buildings as they are invariably built with a dual system.
Investigations are currently being undertaken to ascer-
tain the extent in which these established structural
response factors can be applied in conditions associated
with distant earthquakes.
6. Conclusion
The CAM developed from geophysical principles has
been employed in this study to estimate the properties
of bedrock motion generated from large magnitude
earthquakes in the south western part of the Eurasian
Plate, bounded by 90°E to 105°E and ⫺5°S to 25°N.
The F-crust model developed within the framework of
CAM has been validated for applications in Singapore,
based on comparison with historical data of earthquakes
occurring in the Indonesian Arc and the Burmese Arc.
Analyses using CAM show that the critical earthquake
for buildings up to 25 storeys is of Richter magnitude
7.6 occurring at an epicentral distance of 400 km. When
amplification of the corresponding bedrock motion by
the soft soil has been accounted for, the maximum elastic
base shear demand due to this critical earthquake is esti-
mated to be within 10% of the weight of the building
(0.10 W). This base shear estimate may be lowered to
0.07–0.08 W depending on the shear wave velocity
(which measures the hardness) of the bedrock underlying
reclamation or soil sediments.
Acknowledgements
The work reported in this paper was supported by the
National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Univer-
sity of Melbourne (MU). The financial support by “The
International Exchange Agreements Collaborative
Research Awards” (IEACRA) of MU in funding this
 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108
international collaborative research is acknowledged.
The assistance provided by T.K. Lim of the Meteoro-
logical Service Singapore and Michael Cheng of MU in
the preparation of Appendix B are gratefully acknowl-
edged. Contributions by Professor C.G. Koh at NUS and
Professor A.M. Chandler and his research team at Hong
Kong University in related investigations are also
acknowledged.
Appendix A. Synthetic accelerogram sample
This appendix shows a sample synthetic random
phase-angle accelerogram which was generated by
stochastic simulations based on a targeted pre-defined
time independent Fourier amplitude spectrum. Full
details of the accelerogram generation procedure have
been presented and reviewed in Ref. [15] which also
demonstrates that the ensemble averaged Fourier ampli-
tude spectrum of the generated accelerograms would
always be reasonably consistent with the targeted Four-
ier amplitude spectrum. The duration of the synthetic
accelerograms is dependent on both the moment magni-
tude and distance, and was determined in accordance
with the recommendations by the seismological litera-
ture [11]. The recommended duration accounts for both
the time required for the fault to rupture and the time
for wave transmission through the earth crust. The
adopted time–domain intensity envelope was defined in
accordance with the recommendations of Ref. [15]
(Fig. 9).
Appendix B. Comparison of shake analysis result
with field measurements
This appendix shows the comparison between the soil
surface response spectrum (NS direction) recorded at the
KAP site from the ML=6.8 (April 1998 Sumatra) event
Fig. 9. One of the six synthetic accelerograms simulating June 2000
Sumatra event (MW=8, R=700).
107
Fig. 10. Comparison of recorded and computed soil surface response
spectra for KAP site (NS direction).
with the response spectrum computed by shake based
on the synchronised recording of the bedrock excitations
taken at the bottom of a nearby borehole. The recorded
spectrum show an amplification factor some 20–30%
lower than the initial estimate by shake which was
based on the high impedance contrast of a hard bedrock
(Vs⬎1500 m/s). This 20–30% reduction is reasonably
consistent with the reduction factor of 0.8 recommended
in Ref. [30] for soil amplification over soft bedrock
(Fig. 10).
References
[1] Idriss IM, Sun JI. User’s manual for shake91 — A computer
program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analy-
ses of horizontally layered soil deposits — program modified
based on the original shake program published in December
1972 by Schnabel, Lysmer and Seed. Centre for Geotechnical
Modelling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis (California). November 1992.
[2] Newcomb KR, McCann WR. Seismic history and seismotecton-
ics of the Sunda Arc. Journal of Geophysical Research
1987;92:421–39.
[3] Heaton K. Seismic potential associated with subduction in the
northwestern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America 1984;74(3):933–41.
[4] Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ. Prediction of horizon-
tal response spectra in Europe. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1996;25:371–400.
[5] Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE. Equation for estimating hori-
zontal response spectra and peak acceleration from Western
North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismo-
logical Research Letters 1997;68:128–53.
[6] Sadigh K, Chang CY, Egan JA, Makdisi F, Youngs RR. Attenu-
ation relationship for shallow crustal earthquake based on Cali-
fornian strong motion data. Seismological Research Letters
1997;68:180–9.
[7] Balendra T, Koh CG, Wang MJ, Lim TK. Peak Bedrock acceler-
108 T. Balendra et al. / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 99–108
ation and soil amplification factor for buildings in Singapore. In:
Proceedings Seventh East Asia–Pacific Conference on Structural
Engineering and Construction, Japan; 1999.
[8] Somerville P. Recent advances in strong ground motion predic-
tion. In: Proceedings of the 8th Canadian conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Vancouver; 1999:7–28.
[9] Boore DM, Joyner WB. Site amplification for generic rock sites.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1997;87:327–
41.
[10] Atkinson G. Earthquake source spectra in Eastern North America.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
1993;83:1778–98.
[11] Atkinson G, Boore DM. Evaluation of models for earthquake
source spectra in Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismo-
logical Society of America 1998;88:917–34.
[12] Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM, Hutchinson GL. Response
spectrum modelling for rock sites in low and moderate seismicity
regions combining velocity, displacement and acceleration pre-
dictions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2000;29(10):1491–526.
[13] Somerville P. Seismic hazard evaluation (state-of-the-art paper).
In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference of Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand; 2000, paper no. 2833.
[14] Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM, Hutchinson GL. Response
spectral relationship for rock sites derived from the component
attenuation model. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2000;29:1457–89.
[15] Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Generation of synthetic
earthquake accelerograms using seismological modelling: a
review. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2000;4(3):321–54.
[16] Koo R, Cheng M, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL, Griffith
MC. Modelling of the earthquake ground motions generated by
the Newcastle earthquake. In: Proceedings of a conference held
by the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society, Sydney, New
South Wales; 1999, paper no. 5.
[17] Koo R, Brown A, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Gibson G. A full range
response spectrum model for rock sites in the Melbourne Metro-
politan Area. In: Proceedings of the Australian Earthquake Engin-
eering Society Annual Conference, Hobart, Tasmania; 2000,
paper no. 16.
[18] Lam NTK, Chandler AM, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Seismic
hazard determination for the coastal region of South China (I)
generic crustal modelling. International Journal of Seismology
and Earthquake Engineering 1999;2(1):1–18.
[19] Lam NTK, Chandler AM, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Seismic
hazard determination for the coastal region of South China (II)
regional crustal modelling. International Journal of Seismology
and Earthquake Engineering 1999;2(2):1–16.
[20] Lam NTK, Chandler AM, Wilson JL. The component attenuation
model for predicting earthquake ground motions affecting Hong
Kong from the far-field. In: Proceedings of the Mini-workshop
on Design ground motion for East-Asia Region, The University
of Tokyo, 4th March 2000:74–88.
[21] Luo QF. Estimation of ground motions affecting Shanghai by
long distance earthquake. Proceedings of the Advanced Structural
Dynamics Conference Hong Kong 2000;1:225–32.
[22] Ngo T, Koo R, Lam NTK, Wilson JL. Estimates of seismic load-
ing for concrete structures in Hanoi, Vietnam. In: Proceedings of
the International Conference on Advanced Technologies in
Design, Construction and Maintenance of Concrete Structure,
Hanoi, Vietnam, March 2001:160–166.
[23] Balendra T, Tan CL. Full-scale measurement of wind induced
response of a high-rise building. In: Conspectus Technical Jour-
nal 2000 of the Structural Engineering Department. Singapore:
Housing Development Board, 2000:61–8.
[24] Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soils:
measurement and parameter effects. ASCE Journal of Soil Mech-
anics and Foundations 1972;98(SM6):602–24.
[25] Lam NTK, Wilson JL. Estimation of the Site Natural Period from
borehole records. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
1999;SE1(3):179–99.
[26] Poulos HG. Relationship between local soil conditions and struc-
tural damage in the 1989 Newcastle earthquake. Australian Civil
Engineering Transactions, Institution of Engineers Australia
1991;CE33(3):181–8.
[27] Tan SB, Lee KW. Engineering geology of the marine member
of the Kallang Formation in Singapore. In: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Soft Clay, July 1975:75-88.
[28] EFFIT Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team. The
Mexican earthquake of 19 September 1985, a field report. Lon-
don: EEFIT 1986, Institution of Structural Engineers, 1986.
[29] IBC 2000 International Code Council. International building
code. USA: IBC 2000 International Code Council, 2000.
[30] Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM. Seismic displacement
response spectrum estimated from the frame analogy soil ampli-
fication model. Journal of Engineering Structures
2001;23:1437–52.
[31] Balendra T, Tan KH, Kong SK. Vulnerability of reinforced con-
crete frames in low seismic region when designed according to
BS 8110. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1999;28:1361–81.
[32] Balendra T, Tan KH, Kong SK. Ultimate strength of a reinforced
concrete frame-wall structure designed according to BS8110. In:
ICCMC/IBST International Conference on Advanced Techno-
logies in Design, Construction and Maintenance of Concrete
Structures, Hanoi, Vietnam:66-72.