Evaluation of Static Methods for Predicting Axial Bearing Capacity of Minipiles Using PDA Test Results
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56904/j-gers.v5i1.216Keywords:
axial bearing capacity, cone penetration test, minipile, pile driving analyzer, static prediction methodsAbstract
Accurate prediction of the axial bearing capacity of pile foundations is essential for ensuring structural safety and optimizing foundation design. Although static prediction methods based on Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data are widely used because of their simplicity and cost-effectiveness, their predictive accuracy varies depending on the adopted analytical approach. This study evaluates the performance of three commonly used static methods (Meyerhof, Schmertmann, and Terzaghi) in predicting the axial bearing capacity of precast concrete minipiles using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) test results as the field reference. The analysis was conducted using CPT data collected from six sounding locations at a two-story residential building project in Pekanbaru, Indonesia. The predicted bearing capacities obtained from each method were compared with the ultimate capacity derived from PDA and CAPWAP analyses using absolute and relative differences as evaluation indicators. The results show that all three static methods overestimated the measured pile capacity, although the magnitude of deviation varied considerably. The Schmertmann method produced the highest average predicted capacity (50.35 tons), followed by the Meyerhof method (37.08 tons), while the Terzaghi method yielded the lowest prediction (33.54 tons). Compared with the PDA-derived ultimate capacity of 30.10 tons, the Terzaghi method exhibited the smallest relative difference (11.43%), indicating the closest agreement with field measurements. CAPWAP analysis further revealed that approximately 90.7% of the pile capacity was mobilized through shaft resistance, confirming the predominance of frictional load transfer at the study site. These findings demonstrate that the Terzaghi method provides the most representative prediction of minipile axial bearing capacity under the investigated soil conditions and may serve as a practical alternative for preliminary foundation design when field load testing is unavailable.
References
[1] S. L. Carvalho, M. M. Sales, and A. L. B. Cavalcante, “Systematic literature review and mapping of the prediction of pile capacities,” Soils and Rocks, vol. 46, no. 3, 2023, Art. no. e2023011922. doi:10.28927/SR.2023.011922
[2] K. Gwizdała and P. Więcławski, “Displacement piles: Classification and new methods for the calculation of bearing capacity,” Scientific Review Engineering and Environmental Sciences, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 497–511, 2020.
[3] H. Fattahi, H. Ghaedi, F. Malekmahmoodi, and D. J. Armaghani, “Optimizing pile bearing capacity prediction: Insights from dynamic testing and smart algorithms in geotechnical engineering,” Measurement, vol. 230, Art. no. 114563, 2024.
[4] B. Ozturk, A. Kodsy, and M. Iskander, “Using Machine Learning to Predict Axial Pile Capacity,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 2678, no. 11, pp. 370–384, 2024.
[5] M. M. Shoaib and M. Y. Abu-Farsakh, “Exploring Tree-Based Machine Learning Models to Estimate the Ultimate Pile Capacity from Cone Penetration Test Data,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 2678, no. 1, pp. 404–420, 2023.
[6] R. Cesaro, R. Di Laora, C. Iodice, et al., “Interaction domains for capacity- and performance-based design of pile groups,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 19, pp. 4695–4714, 2024.
[7] B. M. Das and K. Sobhan, Principles of Foundation Engineering, 9th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Cengage Learning, 2018.
[8] H. F. Schmertmann, “Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test: Performance and Design,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA, FHWA Report FHWA-TS-78-209, 1978.
[9] K. Terzaghi, R. B. Peck, and G. Mesri, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
[10] G. G. Meyerhof, “Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol. 102, no. GT3, pp. 197–228, 1976.
[11] P. Ningrum, M. Toyeb, and R. Hamdani, “Perbandingan Kuat Dukung Pondasi Tiang Mini berdasarkan Hasil Hydraulic Static Pile Driver (HSPD) dan Metode Empiris”, js, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 21–28, Jun. 2025. doi:10.35583/js.v13i1.295
[12] Momeni, E., Maizir, H., Gofar, N., & Nazir, R. (2013). Comparative study on prediction of axial bearing capacity of driven piles in granular materials. Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences and Engineering), 61(3), 15–20. doi:10.11113/jt.v61.1777
[13] F. M. L. Taqwa, R. Muktadir, F. Hariati, M. Lutfi, and A. Apriliyandi, “Studi Perbandingan Daya Dukung Aksial Tiang Pancang Tunggal Persegi Berdasarkan Hasil Uji Pembebanan Statik (SLT) dan Uji PDA pada Pembangunan Apartemen Loftville City Kota Tangerang Selatan”, komposit, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 129–138, Aug. 2023.
[14] Mishra, A., Sawant, V.A. & Deshmukh, V.B. Prediction of Pile Capacity of Socketed Piles Using Different Approaches. Geotech Geol Eng 37, 5219–5230 (2019). doi: 10.1007/s10706-019-00976-0
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Puspa Ningrum, Fadli Azzuhri

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- Abstract 19
- PDF (English) 13

