CD Tesis

Analisis Perbandingan Daya Dukung Fondasi Tiang Pancang Dengan Metode Analitik Menggunakan Rumus Empiris Terhadap Daya Dukung Lapangan Menggunakan Pda (Pile Driving Analyzer) Dan Hspd (Hidraulic Static Pile Driver) Pada Proyek Pembangunan Gedung Pascasarjana Uni-versitas Riau

---

The accurate determination of pile foundation bearing capacity is a fundamental aspect of geotechnical engineering design, as it plays a significant role in ensuring structural stability and construction efficiency. Inaccurate estimation of bearing capacity may result in uneconomical foundation design or potential structural failure. Therefore, selecting appropriate analytical methods that can provide reliable predictions consistent with field conditions is essential. This study aims to evaluate and compare the estimated bearing capacity of pile foundations using several analytical approaches based on three different data sources, namely laboratory soil parameters, Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data, and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data. The calculated results are further assessed by coMParing them with field test measurements obtained from the Hydraulic Static Pile Driver (HSPD) and the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). The Mayerhof (1976), Vesic (1977), and Janbu (1976) methods were employed for analyses based on laboratory soil parameters. For CPT-based analysis, the Schmertman & Nottingham (1975) and Tumay & Fakhroo (1981) methods were utilized, while the Mayerhof (1956) and Reese & Wright (1977) methods were applied for SPT-based analysis. The analysis results indicate that the Vesic (1977) method demonstrates the highest level of agreement for laboratory-based calculations, with conformity values ranging from 75%–93% when compared with HSPD results and 59%–76% when compared with PDA measurements. In the CPT-based analysis, the Tumay n Fakhroo method shows closer agreement with field test results than the Schmertman & Nottingham (1975) method. Meanwhile, for SPT-based analysis, the Meyerhof (1956) method provides higher consistency with field measurements than the Reese & Wright (1977) method. Overall, the findings suggest that the Vesic (1977), Tumay & Fakhroo (1981), and Mayerhof (1956) methods yield bearing capacity estimates that are more consistent with field test results for their respective data sources. In contrast, the Janbu (1976), Reese & Wright (1977), and Schmertman & Nottingham (1975) methods tend to produce more conservative estimates that may not fully represent actual field conditions.
Keywords : Pile foundation bearing capacity; Meyerhof method; CPT; SPT; HSPD; PDA; geotechnical analysis.

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

2210247011

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Pascasarjana – Magister Teknik Sipil., 2026

Deskripsi Fisik

-

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

2210247011

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

Magister Teknik Sipil

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

Vina

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar