MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903103212

PERENCANAAN DAYA DUKUNG PONDASI TIANG PANCANG DENGAN METODE FORMULA DINAMIS ( STUDI KASUS PADA PEMBANGUNAN JEMBATAN KRUENG CUT-BANDA ACEH)

2018· article· id· W2903103212 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Binsar Muharry Lumban Tobing

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic theses and dissertations (Syiah Kuala University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesForestryGeographyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRAKPondasi adalah bagian penting dalam suatu bangunan, dimana pondasi menjadi struktur bagian bawah (sub-structure) bagi setiap bangunan sipil, termasuk jembatan. Penelitian ini meninjau daya dukung pondasi tiang pancang dengan metode formula dinamis pada pembangunan Jembatan Krueng Cut. Jembatan Krueng Cut ini dilewati oleh kendaraan berat, karena jembatan ini menghubungkan antara kawasan kota menuju ke pelabuhan Malahayati demikian juga sebaliknya. Ruang lingkup penulisan adalah melakukan perhitungan kapasitas daya dukung dinamis tiang pancang abutment 2 dengan menggunakan data pemancangan (kalandering) pada pembangunan Jembatan Krueng Cut-Banda Aceh, dengan menggunakan sepuluh rumus dinamis masing-masing adalah metode Janbu, AASHTO, ENR Modified, Danish, Eytelwein, Gates, Navy-Mckay, Canadian National Building, Pasific Coast Uniform Building Code (PCUBC), dan Hiley, penggunaan perhitungan formula dinamis ini bertujuan untuk mengkontrol daya dukung tiang di lapangan. Dari penelitian ini diketahui bahwa semakin kecil nilai penetrasi maka nilai daya dukung tiang yang dihasilkan akan semakin besar, begitu juga sebaliknya semakin besar nilai penetrasi maka nilai daya dukung tiang yang dihasilkan akan semakin kecil. Hasil yang didapatkan dari penelitian ini berupa nilai daya dukung tiang pancang di lapangan, daya dukung yang dihasilkan pada penggunaan setiap metode formula dinamis dengan nilai kalendering (final set) 1,0 mm pada PC-280 masing-masing adalah, metode Janbu = 122,818 ton, metode AASTHO = 1704,545 ton, metode ENR-Modified = 460,69 ton, Metode Navy-McKay = 484,91 ton, metode Gates = 1191,55 ton, metode Danish = 168,186 ton, metode Eytelwein = 105,31 ton, metode CNB = 59,031 ton, metode PCUBC = 52,026 ton, dan metode Hiley = 69,572 ton. Dari nilai di atas disimpulkan bahwa penggunaan metode Janbu, AASHTO, ENR Modified, Danish, Eytelwein, Gates,dan Navy-Mckay memiliki resiko yang rendah apabila digunakan sebagai control daya dukung tiang di lapangan. Sedangkan penggunaan metode Canadian National Building, Pasific Coast Uniform Building Code (PCUBC), dan Hiley memiliki resiko yang tinggi. Nilai daya dukung tiang yang paling besar diperoleh dengan menggunakan metode AASTHO dan Gates, sedangkan nilai daya dukung yang paling kecil didapatkan dengan menggunakan metode Canadian National Building, Pasific Coast Uniform Building Code (PCUBC), dan Hiley.Kata kunci : pondasi, daya dukung tiang, metode formula dinamis, kalandering (final set),

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic theses and dissertations (Syiah Kuala University)Same topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207