metode penentuan volume aggregat pondasi jalan berdasarkan variasi dan kesalahan: studi kasus
Clicks: 8
ID: 161242
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
2.1
/100
8 views
3 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #32 of 33 articles by views in estudios de asia y África
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Variations between plans and reality can hardly be avoided in construction projects. These variations may be
accepted when they are still in the acceptance limits, or rejected when they are beyond the acceptance limits.
The former is called variation in acceptance and the later is called error. Distinguishing these two in a
completed construction work is very important, as rejected variations (errors) may be considered as breaching a
contract, thus may have legal implications. The research aims to evaluate the traditional calculation method
(MeTrad) and to promote variation acceptance and error approach (MeVE) that is able to draw a clear line
whether a particular work to be accepted and rejected. The research was conducted by comparing the results of
calculation of the aggregate volume between MeTrad and MeVE. The data was collected from Mauponggo-
Puuwada road project in Nangakeo in 2010. The results show that there was no difference in the volumes
calculated using both methods. The volume of Class B aggregate based on MeTrad calculation is 386.01m 3and
the volume based on MeVE is 386.01m3; where 16.67m3 of which (3.34% of the planned volume) is in the range
of acceptance and 369.34m3 of which (73.94% of the planned volume)is the volume that is rejected (error). The
results suggest that MeTrad cannot distinguish clearly whether the work is within the limits of acceptance or
rejection, while on the other hand MeVE can describe in detail parts of the work to be accepted or rejected.
Using this MeVE calculation, an assessment of a construction workis expected to be more objective and
detailed.
accepted when they are still in the acceptance limits, or rejected when they are beyond the acceptance limits.
The former is called variation in acceptance and the later is called error. Distinguishing these two in a
completed construction work is very important, as rejected variations (errors) may be considered as breaching a
contract, thus may have legal implications. The research aims to evaluate the traditional calculation method
(MeTrad) and to promote variation acceptance and error approach (MeVE) that is able to draw a clear line
whether a particular work to be accepted and rejected. The research was conducted by comparing the results of
calculation of the aggregate volume between MeTrad and MeVE. The data was collected from Mauponggo-
Puuwada road project in Nangakeo in 2010. The results show that there was no difference in the volumes
calculated using both methods. The volume of Class B aggregate based on MeTrad calculation is 386.01m 3and
the volume based on MeVE is 386.01m3; where 16.67m3 of which (3.34% of the planned volume) is in the range
of acceptance and 369.34m3 of which (73.94% of the planned volume)is the volume that is rejected (error). The
results suggest that MeTrad cannot distinguish clearly whether the work is within the limits of acceptance or
rejection, while on the other hand MeVE can describe in detail parts of the work to be accepted or rejected.
Using this MeVE calculation, an assessment of a construction workis expected to be more objective and
detailed.
| Reference Key |
simamora2012teknikmetode
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Marsinta Simamora;Jati Utomo Dwi Hatmoko |
| Journal | estudios de asia y África |
| Year | 2012 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.