This research was conducted to determine the extent of the internal forces that occur in a four-storey office building in the Semarang area with equivalent static earthquake loading calculations compared to dynamic earthquake calculations (response spectrum). This is important for students and the construction industry to know in order to apply it in designing earthquake-resistant buildings, especially in the city of Semarang. Some of the problems that will be discussed in this study are as follows: How to calculate the parameter response of a building structure with static equivalent analysis? How to calculate the parameter response of a structure building with response spectrum analysis? What is the accuracy of the static equivalent analysis of the response spectrum analysis from the comparison of the response parameters of the structure of a four-storey office building in the city of Semarang. The limitation of the problem in this study is devoted to the Calculation Analysis ofEquivalent Static Earthquake Loading with Calculation of Dynamic Earthquake Response Spectrum Based on SNI 1726:2012 Earthquake on Buildings Four-storey office building in Semarang City. The purpose of this study was to compare the response parameters of the four-storey office building structure which were analyzed by static equivalent and response spectrum analysis. So that from the analysis it will be obtained the accuracy of the static equivalent analysis of the dynamic analysis of the response spectrum in calculating the response parameters of the structure of a four-storey office building in the city of Semarang. The response parameters of the structure to be compared are beam and column reinforcement, and displacement at the top of the building. Based on the discussion of the research results, the following conclusions can be drawn, Column reinforcement in dynamic and static designs has a ratio of 0.00%, meaning that the reinforcement gets the same results. The shear reinforcement is smaller in the dynamic design by 29.69%. The beam reinforcement for the top reinforcement in the dynamic design is smaller by 18.59%, for the bottom reinforcement it is 10.74% smaller, for the shear reinforcement it is smaller by 16.49%. As for reinforcement, the torsion of the side beams and the torsion of the stirrups are smaller, respectively 4.37% and 12.28%. The difference in deformation is 17.21 mm. The difference ratio on the dynamic design is smaller at 35.29%.

Keywords : Equivalent Static Analysis, Dynamic Analysis, ResponseSpectrum, SNI 1726: 2012 (SNI Gempa 2012)