Critical Path Method (CPM) pada pengerjaan pipeline dan analisis resiko pada pengelasan

Febriti Aryan Kumala, Endang Pudji Purwanti, Mochammad Karim Al Amin

Abstract


The pipeline construction project at PT. Gearindo Prakarsa often delays because many activities are not in accordance with the target, this is due to the repair process on welding and lack of manpower in some activities. This results in the actual duration being longer than the planning duration. So it is necessary to control the control through optimizing the schedule and implementation costs as well as risk analysis for the welding process. CPM and crashing methods are one of the methods used in controlling to get a more optimal time and cost duration. Meanwhile, to overcome any improvements made by conducting a risk analysis to determine the risk of defects from safety, environmental and cost factors. If the welding activity does not change the welding process, using the CPM and crashing methods, the optimal time is 59 days by adding 15 workers and costs Rp. 9,001,453. If the overall welding process changes with SMAW or GTAW, by analyzing the increase in consumption costs of Rp. 27,72,000 for the SMAW process and Rp. 44,366,169, for the GTAW process. In terms of the level of risk, porosity defects and incomplete fusion in the SMAW process are at a high risk level for safety, environmental and cost factors. Meanwhile, in the GTAW process, complete fusion defects are at a high risk level for the cost factor.

Keywords


Critical Path Method (CPM), Crashing, SMAW, GTAW, Risk Analysis

Full Text:

PDF

References


M. R. A. Simanjuntak and B. Christin, “ANALISIS FAKTOR-FAKTOR RISIKO CONTINGENCY COST PROYEK EPC PIPELINE,” Pros. SNITT POLTEKBA, vol. 4, pp. 429–437, 2020.

A. Mills, “A systematic approach to risk management for construction,” Struct. Surv., 2001.

J. James, “ANALISA PENILAIAN RESIKO PADA PROSES PENGELASAN DENGAN METODE JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS: STUDI KASUS: PT. MEINDO ELANG INDAH,” IDENTIFIKASI J. Ilm. Keselamatan, Kesehat. Kerja dan Lindungan Lingkung., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 18–29, 2017.

J. L. F. Freire, R. D. Vieira, P. M. Fontes, A. C. Benjamin, L. S. Murillo C, and A. C. Miranda, “The critical path method for assessment of pipelines with metal loss defects,” in International Pipeline Conference, 2012, vol. 45134, pp. 661–671.

Y. B. Suryono and H. Hasbullah, “ANALYSIS OF NEW PRODUCTION LINE PROJECT IMPROVEMENT THROUGH CRITICAL PATH METHOD (CPM), DESIGN STRUCTURE MATRIX (DSM) AND PROGRAM EVALUATION AND REVIEW (PERT),” J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Res., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 9–17, 2020.

S. J. Mantel, J. R. Meredith, S. M. Shafer, and M. M. Sutton, Project management in practice 4. United States: John Wiley & Sons. Inc, 2011.

D. Jin, “Construction Project Schedule Risk Analysis and Assessment Using Monte Carlo Simulation Method,” 2008.

A. Frederika, “Analisis percepatan pelaksanaan dengan menambah jam kerja optimum pada proyek konstruksi,” J. Ilm. Tek. Sipil, vol. 14, no. 2, 2010.

D. N. Versitas, “DNV-RP-G101,” 2010.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30811/jowt.v3i1.2068

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

  

   

 

 Lisensi Creative Commons

Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.


Mailing Address:

Politeknik Negeri Lhokseumawe

Jl. Banda Aceh-Medan
Km. 280,3, Buketrata, Mesjid Punteut, Blang Mangat,
Kota Lhokseumawe, 24301

Propinsi Aceh,
Indonesia