Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
3.753
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Teras Jurnal JPPM (Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat) International Journal of Engineering, Science and Information Technology Jurnal Tika Multica Science and Technology Sisfo: Jurnal Ilmiah Sistem Informasi Jurnal Teknologi Terapan and Sains 4.0 Lentera Jurnal Malikussaleh Mengabdi Jurnal Solusi Masyarakat Dikara
Emi Maulani
Unversitas Malikussaleh
Religion Humanities Astronomy Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology Chemical Engineering, Chemistry & Bioengineering Chemistry Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Computer Science & IT Control & Systems Engineering Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Earth & Planetary Sciences Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Electrical & Electronics Engineering Energy Engineering Environmental Science Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Library & Information Science Materials Science & Nanotechnology Mathematics Mechanical Engineering Physics Public Health Social Sciences Transportation Other

Published : 29 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search
Journal : Multica Science and Technology

 1 
MODEL DECISION ANALYSIS IN DETERMINING BUILDING QUALITY BASED ON THE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS Burhanuddin Burhanuddin; Emi Maulani; Veri Ilhadi
Multica Science and Technology Vol 3 No 1 (2023): Multica Science and Technology
Publisher : Universitas Mulia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.47002/mst.v3i1.424

Abstract

Building infrastructure consisting of several types of alternatives that provide the need for selection of various kinds of assessments for ranking in carrying out repairs. The purpose of this study is to determine the priority order and condition of building quality, which is useful as a reference in improvement activities related to seeing the satisfaction of policy makers. Problems with building quality can result from various factors, one of which is related to facilities, building repairs and their handling which are feared to affect productivity in assessments and influence policy making. Primary data can be used as research data to be included in the decision model and direct observations can be made at the research location for each building in Dilhokseumawe. This study uses the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model, to determine the weight of the components obtained from the results of the interest assessment of building components which include the level of building damage, building age, ease of access, building structure, roof structure, building safety level. The results of the analysis show that factors the main consideration is improving the level of building security with a value of 0.297858847, the second ranking is the Building Structure factor with a priority value of 0.257685234%, the third ranking is the Ease of Access factor with a priority value of 0.128154963 and the Fourth is Building Age with a value of 0.076683671%. Finally the Roof Structure with a priority value of 0.072065172%. The results of this study can be used as recommendations for decision making in view of the quality of buildings and buildings.
Determining the Quality of Earthquake Resistant House Buildings Using Simple Additive Weighting (Saw) and Technique For Order Of Preference By Similarity To Ideal Solution (Topsis) Burhanuddin Burhanuddin; Bakhtiar; Emi Maulani; Edi Yusuf
Multica Science and Technology Vol 4 No 1 (2024): Multica Science and Technology
Publisher : Universitas Mulia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.47002/mst.v4i1.850

Abstract

This research aims to evaluate the quality of house buildings using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) model and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). This research uses six main criteria to assess building quality: Material strength, structural design, foundation, construction technology, construction quality, construction costs. With these six variables in determining the evaluation of house building materials. Determining the final ranking of these alternatives is based on their proximity to the ideal solution. Type A House, Type B House, Type C House, Type D House, Type E House and the weight value for each house C1 = 0.2; C2 = 0.1 ; C3 = 0.15 ; C = 0.20 ; C = 0.15; C = 0.2%. The ranking results for Type A Houses were 0.871, Type B Houses 0.874, Type C Houses 0.813, Type D Houses 0.976 and Type E Houses 0.959. The largest value is in Type D House 0.976 so the alternative Type D House 0.976 is the alternative chosen as the best alternative. Meanwhile, the ranking results for the topsis model for Type A Houses are 0.5423, Type B Houses are 0.5302, Type C Houses are 0.2709, Type D Houses are 0.8515 and Type E Houses are 0.959. The largest value is for Type D House 0.976 so that the Type E House alternative 0.8227 is the alternative chosen as the best alternative for Type E house. The research results show that the combination of the SAW and TOPSIS methods is effective in providing a comprehensive and objective evaluation of the quality of earthquake resistant house buildings. . The results of this research can be applied practically in the construction industry to improve the quality of earthquake-resistant house buildings, helping make more accurate and objective decisions.
Determining the Quality of Earthquake Resistant House Buildings Using Simple Additive Weighting (Saw) and Technique For Order Of Preference By Similarity To Ideal Solution (Topsis) Burhanuddin Burhanuddin; Bakhtiar; Emi Maulani; Edi Yusuf
Multica Science and Technology (ACCREDITED-SINTA 5) Vol. 4 No. 1 (2024): Multica Science and Technology
Publisher : Universitas Mulia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.47002/mst.v4i1.850

Abstract

This research aims to evaluate the quality of house buildings using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) model and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). This research uses six main criteria to assess building quality: Material strength, structural design, foundation, construction technology, construction quality, construction costs. With these six variables in determining the evaluation of house building materials. Determining the final ranking of these alternatives is based on their proximity to the ideal solution. Type A House, Type B House, Type C House, Type D House, Type E House and the weight value for each house C1 = 0.2; C2 = 0.1 ; C3 = 0.15 ; C = 0.20 ; C = 0.15; C = 0.2%. The ranking results for Type A Houses were 0.871, Type B Houses 0.874, Type C Houses 0.813, Type D Houses 0.976 and Type E Houses 0.959. The largest value is in Type D House 0.976 so the alternative Type D House 0.976 is the alternative chosen as the best alternative. Meanwhile, the ranking results for the topsis model for Type A Houses are 0.5423, Type B Houses are 0.5302, Type C Houses are 0.2709, Type D Houses are 0.8515 and Type E Houses are 0.959. The largest value is for Type D House 0.976 so that the Type E House alternative 0.8227 is the alternative chosen as the best alternative for Type E house. The research results show that the combination of the SAW and TOPSIS methods is effective in providing a comprehensive and objective evaluation of the quality of earthquake resistant house buildings. . The results of this research can be applied practically in the construction industry to improve the quality of earthquake-resistant house buildings, helping make more accurate and objective decisions.
Co-Authors Adatta, Rizkyari Roa Al Hadi, Yassin Angga Pratama Angga Pratama ANNISA KARIMA Annura, Shahifa Arfiandi, Joni Arief Rahman Arief Rahman Badriana, Badriana Bakhtiar Bakhtiar Bakhtiar Burhanuddin Burhanuddin Burhanuddin Burhanuddin Burhanuddin Burhanuddin Edi Yusuf Adiman EDI YUSUF, EDI Eri Saputra Ersa, Nanda Savira Fadliani, Fadliani Fitri, Cut Azmah Hamzani Hamzani Irma Yurni Irmawandi, Rozi Jafrizal, Jafrizal Khairul Amna Khairul Amna, Khairul Leni Maulinda Liza Afra M FAUZAN Mahmudy, Ash Shiddiq Maizuar Maizuar Mutammimul Ula Muthmainnah Muthmainnah Nura Usrina Prasetia, Gigih Ridwan, T M Risnawati Risnawati Said Jalalul Akbar, Said Jalalul Salahuddin Salahuddin Sarana , David sofyan sofyan syarifah asria nanda, syarifah asria Syukriah Syukriah, Syukriah Ulya, Athiyatul Veri Ilhadi Yovi Chandra Yulisa, Sara Yulisda, Desvina Yurni, Irma Yuslinda, Yuslinda Yusuf, Khairullah Zahratul Fitri, Zahratul Zurhijjah Zurhijjah