Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Info-Teknik

ANALISA DAYA DUKUNG PONDASI KACAPURI DI ATAS TANAH GAMBUT YANG DISTABILISASI Muhammad Afief Ma’ruf; Wiku Adhiwicaksana Krasna; J.C. Heldiansyah
INFO-TEKNIK Vol 14, No 2 (2013): INFOTEKNIK VOL. 14 NO. 2 2013
Publisher : Universitas Lambung Mangkurat

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20527/infotek.v14i2.300

Abstract

The traditional society of south borneo has a traditional form of building foundation that has been used for a very long time for their traditional house. This is called Kacapuri foundation that use a combination of Ulin wood and Galam wood. But right now because the lack of Ulin wood, this form is  not familiar anymore in south borneo.The rising in number of people forced the use of peat soil in borneo to be used as an alternative for their settlement. But the natural form of peat soil itself has become a challenge to the construction, therefore needs to be reinforced, one of the method is stabilisation. The optimum composition of lime and rice husk ash used for stabilization is 15% from the peat soil wet unit weight for the peat that got influence by surrounding water.Because of the few things above, the research in kacapuri foundation above the stabilized peat soil is established. From the test conclude that the value of GS rise to 1,584, water content lowered to 221,393 % and the unit weight is rise 1,158 t/m3. Pore value lowered to 3,386 and pH rise to 5,2.From the consolidation test the total settlements and vertical strain is concluded. The total settlements is lowered to 0,18 mm. The shear strength parameter is rise with the cohesion 0,1 and internal friction 30,646o. The ultimate bearing capacity qu for kacapuri foundation above the stabilized peat soil according to terzaghi formula is 87,675 t/m2.
SHEAR BEHAVIOR HOLLOW CORE REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM Wiku A. Krasna
INFO-TEKNIK Vol 14, No 1 (2013): INFOTEKNIK VOL. 14 NO. 1 2013
Publisher : Universitas Lambung Mangkurat

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20527/infotek.v14i1.312

Abstract

I cross-section of reinforced concrete reduce weight and concrete needs, but the reduction in strength is not too large. Based on observations I section reinforced concrete beam is quite complicated and takes much longer time for the manufacturing. Therefore another form of cross-section which is equivalent to weight reduction in I cross-section concrete beam, with hollow square cross-section of reinforced concrete beam. It is expected that hollow square cross-section of reinforced concrete has a same strength with I cross-section of reinforced concrete. So this research may provide an alternative lightweight concrete beam, efficient in materials, easy installation in the implementation of shear reinforcement, and easy in formwork manufacture. This research was conducted to identify and compare the behavior of the shear of hollow core reinforced concrete beam with an I cross-section beam that equivalent with its. This experiment is using four reinforced concrete beam length 2000 mm, a T beam with bottom flange as control beam (BK) with measurement: bfa = 600 mm, bw = 125 mm, bfb = 200 mm, h = 300 mm, tf = 100 mm and three hollow core T beam as test beam (BB1, BB2 and BB3) with measurement: bf = 600 mm, bw = 200 mm, blubang = 75 mm h = 300 mm, tf = 100 mm. This experiment is testing the static and dynamic. Static loading is performed with a four-point system load, static loads are given by the hydraulic jack. Observations on the static load carried on the first crack and at each initial crack addition until the ultimate fracture. With the parameters used is the amount of deflection, the strain of reinforcing steel and concrete, the crack pattern that has happened.From the results of the experiments can be concluded that the hollow core reinforced concrete beam can be used as an alternative to I section reinforced concrete beam. It is seen from the difference in the shear load capacity is not much different between control beam (BK) and hollow beam (BB), with the difference between BK (299.3 kN) and BB1 (337.6 kN) is 12.79%, with BB2 (350, 6 kN) or 17.14% and with BB3 (289.4 kN) or -3.31%.