A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PILE BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL METHOD (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST) AND THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

This study aims to compare the bearing capacity of steel pile foundations using two approaches: an empirical method based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data with Meyerhof’s formula, and a numerical method based on the Finite Element Method (FEM). The research object is a steel pipe pile foundation with a diameter of 850 mm and a depth of 43 meters, used in a port dock structure. Data were obtained from field tests, including bore logs and corrected N-SPT values. The Meyerhof method was applied to manually calculate the end-bearing and shaft friction capacity of the pile, while the FEM approach involved two-dimensional geometric modeling using soil parameters derived from field data and technical assumptions. The analysis results indicate that the Meyerhof method yields an allowable bearing capacity of 7855.23 kN/m², whereas the FEM method results in a capacity of 1432.16 kN/m², with a comparison ratio of 0.1823. This discrepancy suggests that the finite element method provides more conservative and realistic results by thoroughly considering soil-structure interaction. Therefore, the finite element method is recommended for foundation design in large-scale projects or cases requiring high accuracy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Sipil
Published
2024-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.24843/jits.2024.v28.i02.p01
Primary Topic
Engineering Structural Analysis Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PILE BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL METHOD (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST) AND THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

Yerry Kahaditu Firmansyah, Dian Purnamawati Solin, Alfin Reza Saputra Alfin
Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Sipil
Engineering Structural Analysis Methods
article

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PILE BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL METHOD (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST) AND THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

Yerry Kahaditu Firmansyah, Dian Purnamawati Solin, Alfin Reza Saputra Alfin
article en

Abstract

This study aims to compare the bearing capacity of steel pile foundations using two approaches: an empirical method based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data with Meyerhof’s formula, and a numerical method based on the Finite Element Method (FEM). The research object is a steel pipe pile foundation with a diameter of 850 mm and a depth of 43 meters, used in a port dock structure. Data were obtained from field tests, including bore logs and corrected N-SPT values. The Meyerhof method was applied to manually calculate the end-bearing and shaft friction capacity of the pile, while the FEM approach involved two-dimensional geometric modeling using soil parameters derived from field data and technical assumptions. The analysis results indicate that the Meyerhof method yields an allowable bearing capacity of 7855.23 kN/m², whereas the FEM method results in a capacity of 1432.16 kN/m², with a comparison ratio of 0.1823. This discrepancy suggests that the finite element method provides more conservative and realistic results by thoroughly considering soil-structure interaction. Therefore, the finite element method is recommended for foundation design in large-scale projects or cases requiring high accuracy.

Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik SipilVol. 28(2)
University of Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jawa Timur (ID)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Engineering Structural Analysis Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.