| dc.identifier.citation | Bappeda. (2011). Pedoman Harga untuk Pengadaan Barang dan Jasa di Provinsi DIY. Bappeda DIY, Yogyakarta. Bappenas. (2006). Preliminary Damage and Loss Assessment: Yogyakarta and Central Java Natural Disaster. The Consultative Group on Indonesia Jakarta, June 14, 2006. DPU (2006). Penyelenggaraan Bangunan Gedung Negara. Direktorat Jenderal Cipta Karya, Jakarta. Edwards, E. (2011). The Role of Earthquake Vulnerability Research in Risk Mitigation, The Second International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation (ICEEDM-2), Surabaya, Indonesia FEMA/Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1999). Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology HAZUS 99: Technical Manual. FEMA Publication, Washington DC. FEMA/Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2005). Seismic Considerations for Communities at Risk, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C. Riggs, J.L. Bedwort, D.D. dan Randhawa, S.U. (1998). Engineering Economics. McGraw-Hill. New York. Pemerintah Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. (2012). Geologi, http://portal.jogjaprov.go.id, diakses September 2012 Tim Revisi Peta Gempa Indonesia. (2010). Ringkasan Hasil Studi Tim Revisi Peta Gempa Indonesia 2010. Bandung. Widodo (2007). Rumah Tahan Gempa (RTG) TUKU KALI (MenyaTU, Kuat, Kaku,Liat). Rumah Produksi Informatika, Yogyakarta. Winarno, S., Griffth, A., and Stephenson, P. (2009). Earthquake Risk to Non-Engineered Buildings in Indonesia. International Innovation and Research Awards, Highly Commended-Research Paper, CIOB UK, Ascot UK, 14 May 2009 Winarno, S., Griffith, A., and Stephenson, P. (2010). Reducing Earthquake Risk to Non-Engineered Buildings: A Study of Design and Construction Practice in Indonesia. The International Journal of Construction Management, Volume. 10 Issue 1, pp 75-86. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Many residential houses in Indonesia have been collapsed during earthquake because they do not implement seismic features
correctly. Although the implementation of seismic features will add construction cost, people need to better understand about
the benefit which is acquired through this additional cost. This paper presents the effectiveness of additional cost for the implementation
of seismic features for residential house using benefit-cost ratio method. There were 10 existing houses in Sleman
District as samples which had seismic features. To achieve an easy measurement of the benefit, the existing houses were
also assumed to be unreal or virtual houses which did not have seismic features. The benefit was measured by the difference
of damage cost, if an earthquake happened, between the seismic featured existing houses and the non-seismic featured virtual
houses. Damage cost was expressed as percentage damage multiplied by collapsed house replacement cost. Damage percentage
is comprised by damage state which was done by subjective judgment to four earthquake experts who had got actively involved
in disaster management in Yogyakarta 2006‘s earthquake and damage ratio presented in FEMA. House replacement
cost followed the current Yogyakarta cost standard. Additional cost has been accomplished by the cost of seismic features
which included cost of tie beam, column, lintel beam, and ring beam. The findings have shown that the average benefit-cost
ratios on earthquake scenarios on year-0, year-10, year-20, year-30, year-40, and year-50 are 14.63; 17.47; 20.87; 27.27;
37.35; and 52.90 respectively. This finding depicts that the additional cost is truly effective to reduce the damage which is
expressed by regression equation Y = 13.53.x 1.026x which indicates that benefit-cost ratio (y-axis) will increase exponentially
whenever the span of time for occurring earthquake (x-axis) is longer. | en_US |
