Impact of Earthquakes on the Transportation Infrastructure of Indonesia: A Preliminary Study

Anita Amirsardari, Massoud Sofi, Elisa Lumantarna, Iswandi Imran, Colin Duffield


Indonesia is a high seismic region and one of the most vulnerable countries prone to experiencing damaging earthquakes. It is critical that lifeline infrastructure remain operational or is quickly remediated after an earthquake to minimise physical, social, and economical losses. Not much work has been carried out in understanding the effect of earthquakes on transportation infrastructure systems. This study aims to gain a better understanding of the impact of earthquakes on the transportation infrastructure in Indonesia. This is achieved by firstly reviewing the frameworks and tools for conducting seismic risk assessment of lifeline infrastructure. The critical components of the transportation system are then identified. Various forms of transportation infrastructure damage caused by earthquakes are discussed. An overview of the damaging earthquakes for the past 20 years is presented. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are provided about the future work required for conducting risk assessment of the transportation infrastructure in Indonesia


Earthquake vulnerability; transportation system; infrastructure; Indonesia; seismic risk


  1. UNISDR & the World Bank, Synthesis report on ten ASEAN countries disaster risks assessment: ASEAN Disaster Risk Management Initiative. 2010, The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) (United Nations), and the World Bank.

  2. Applied Technology Council, ATC 25/FEMA 224: Seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of lifelines in the conterminous United States, in Earthquake Hazard Reduction Series 58. 1991, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

  3. Rosidi, D., Seismic risk assessment of levees. Civil Engineering Dimension, 2007. 9(2): p. 57-63.

  4. Lumantarna, E., N. Lam, and J. Wilson, Seismic assessment of structures in regions of low to moderate seismicity. Civil Engineering Dimension, 2012. 14(3): p. 156-165.

  5. Kappos, A., et al., Seismic Risk of Inter-urban Transportation Networks. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2014. 18: p. 263-270.

  6. Stergiou, E. and A.S. Kiremidjian, Treatment of uncertainties in seismic-risk analysis of transportation systems, in PEER Report 2008/02. 2008, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

  7. Werner, S.D., et al., REDARS 1: Demonstration software for seismic risk analysis of highway systems. n.d, Federal Highway Administration.

  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Using HAZUS-MH for risk assessment, in FEMA 433 - HAZUS-MH Risk Assessment and User Group Series. 2004: Washington, D.C.

  9. InaSAFE documentation. 2014 [cited 2018 1/11]; Available from:

  10. AHA Centre & Japan International Cooperation Agency, Country Report Indonesia: Natural disaster risk assessment and area business continuity plan formulation for industralia agglomerated areas in the ASEAN region. 2015, ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre), Japan International Cooperation Agency, OYO International Corporation, Mitsubishi Research Institute Inc, CTI Engineering International Co. Ltd.

  11. EERI, Learning from earthquakes: The Northern Sumatra earthquake of March 28, 2005. 2005, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

  12. Central United States Earthquake Consortium, Earthquake vulnerability of transportation systems in the Central United States. 2000, Central United States Earthquake Consortium, Department of Transportation; United States of America.

  13. EERI, Learning from earthquakes: The Mw 7.6 Western Sumatra earthquake of September 30, 2009. 2009, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

  14. Collins, L.B., et al., Build Change, AARGI, and EERI earthquake reconnaissance report: M6.5 Pidie Jaya earthquake, Aceh, Indonesia on December 7, 2016. 2017, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI): Oakland, California.

  15. Slawinski, A., et al., Virtual Earthquake Reconnaissance Team (VERT): Immediate response to M7.5 & Tsunami, Palu-Indonesia, October 2018. 2018, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

  16. Saatcioglu, M., A. Ghobarah, and I. Nistor, Effects of the December 26, 2004 Sumatra earthquake and tsunami on physical infrastructure. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 2005. 42(4).

  17. Abercrombie, R.E., M. Antolik, and G. Ekström, The June 2000 Mw 7.9 earthquakes south of Sumatra: Deformation in the India-Australia Plate. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2003. 108(B1): p. 6-16.

  18. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. UNDAC team mission report Bengkulu earthquake, Sumatra, Indonesia 6-16 June 2000. 2000 [cited 2018 1/11]; Available from:

  19. The World Bank, Indonesia: Advancing a national disaster risk financing strategy - options for consideration. 2011, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

  20. The Consultative Group on Indonesia, Indonesia: Preliminary damage and loss assessment - the December 26, 2004 natural disaster. 2005, BAPPENAS and the International Donor Community,.

  21. WHO, Emergency Situation Report No. 16, 18 May 2005: Earthquake in North Sumatra province and NAD province, Indonesia. 2005, World Health Organization (WHO), Indonesia.

  22. The Consultative Group on Indonesia, Preliminary damage and loss assessment: Yogyakarta and Central Java Natural Disaster. 2006, National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS), the Yogyakarta and Central Java Provincial Development Planning Agencies (BAPEDAs), international partners.

  23. Reese, S., et al., Tsunami vulnerability of buildings and people in South Java - field observations after the July 2006 Java tsunami. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2007: p. 573-589.

  24. Muhari, A., S. Diposaptono, and F. Imamura, Toward an integrated tsunami disaster mitigation: Lessons learned from previous tsunami events in Indonesia. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 2007. 29(1): p. 13-19.

  25. Mori, J., et al., The 17 July 2006 tsunami earthquake in West Java, Indonesia. Seismological Research Letters, 2007. 78(2).

  26. EERI, Learning from earthquakes: Observations on the Southern Sumatra earthquake of September 12-13, 2007. 2007, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

  27. Aydan, O., et al., A reconnaissance report on the Bengkulu earthquake on September 12, 2007. 2007, Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering (JAEE), Andalas University and KOGAMI

  28. BNPB, West Sumatra and Jambi natural Disasters: Damage, loss and preliminary needs assessment. 2009, Government of Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), with vital input from the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), the provincial governments of West Sumatra and Jambi, and international partners.

  29. EERI, Learning from earthquakes: Indonesia earthquake and tsunami. 2010, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

  30. Mullen, J. and K. Quiano. Death toll in Indonesia quake rises to 35; rescuers search for missing. 2013 [cited 2018 1/11]; Available from:

  31. AHA Centre, The 2018 Lombok earhtquake, Indonesia, in Situation Update No. 8. 2018, ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre).


CED is published by The Institute of Research & Community Outreach - Petra Christian University, Surabaya, Indonesia

©All right reserved 2016.Civil Engineering Dimension, ISSN: 1410-9530, e-ISSN: 1979-570X

View My Stats