| dc.identifier.citation | Asroni, A., 1997. Struktur Beton I (Balok dan Plat Beton Bertulang), Jurusan Teknik Sipil Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta. Asroni, A., 2001. Struktur Beton Lanjut, Jurusan Teknik Sipil Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum, 1982. Persyaratan Umum Bahan Bangunan Di Indonesia (PUBI – 1982), Yayasan Lembaga Penyelidikan Masalah Bangunan, Bandung. Dipohusodo, I., 1994. Struktur Beton Bertulang, Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta. Kenneth, M. L.,1997. Reinforced Concrete Design, Mc.Graw Hill, Singapore. Kusuma, G., 1997. Dasar-dasar Perencanaan Beton Bertulang, Erlangga, Jakarta. LPMB, 1991. Tata Cara Perhitungan Struktur Beton untuk Bangunan Gedung (SK SNI T-15-1991-03), Departemen Pekerjaan Umum, Bandung. Murdock, L. J. and K.M. Brook,1991. Bahan dan Praktek Beton, Terjemahan Stephany Hindarko, Erlangga, Jakarta. Neville, A. M., 1987. Concrete Technology, Longman Group UK Limited, England. Wahyudi, L., 1997. Struktur Beton Bertulang, Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Reinforced concrete needs reinforcement steel for flexural reinforcement and shear force
reinforcement. Flexural reinforcement is used to support flexural bending, and shear force
reinforcement is used to support shear force load. Generally the part of shear force reinforcement
in beam which support the shear force load is vertical part of that reinforment and the horizontal
part is not supporting the shear force load. The vertical part of reinforcement is used to prevent
the concrete beam broken caused of the shear force load. This research is carried out to analize
about the existing of the horizontal part of reinforcement in concrete beam if it is used or not.
This horizontal part of reinforcement now can be called as alternative reinforcement in shear
force reinforcement in concrete beam. This research is carried out to know about ; maximum
shear force load, capacity of shear force, and the differences about that two matters above
between konvensional reinforcement and alternative reinforcement in shear force reinforcement
in concrete beam.
This research is carried out in 5 steps, they are : preparation materials and researh
equipments, controlling quality of research materials, making test sampels, processing the test of
stress capacity of concrete, strain capacity of steel, and shear force capacity of the reinforcement
for the shear force in concrete beam, and the final step is analise and conclusion. This research is
held in Material Laboratorium in Civil Engineering UMS. Sampels made in this research are
totally in the sum of 18 sampels. Sampels are made in 6 various, they are in spacing 50 mm, 100
mm, 150 mm for konvensional and alternative reinforcement. Dimensions of concrete beam are
wide section 15 cm, high section 20 cm, and length of beam is 100 cm.
Based on the result of investigation, generally can be stated that conventional cross bar is
much stronger then alternative cross bar model “U” cause it supported by 2 sample groups which
give the difference value significantly. On the other side, the opposite result only supported by
just 1 sample group, which the difference value smaller then the 2 sample groups, it is only
49,51% < 50%. From these result in above they show that the shear force capacity between
conventional cross bar and alternative cross bar model”U” is not same and the capacity of
alternative cross bar model”U” is lower then conventional cross bar. This matter causes that
alternative cross bar model “U” can not give efficiency in material but can causes decreasing the
capacity of shear force in it. | en_US |
