Analysis of Foundation Implementation Methods Based on Soil Conditions

https://ced.petra.ac.id
Analysis of the Selection of Foundation Implementation Methods
Based on Soil Conditions in Building Projects
Aprilliyana, D.N.1*, Al-Bukhari2
1,2
Faculty of Engineering, Swadaya Gunung Jati University, Cirebon, INDONESIA
Jl. Pemuda N0. 32, Cirebon, West Java 45132, INDONESIA
DOI: https://doi.org/10.9744/ced.xx.x.xx-xx
Info article:
Delivered: ..................
Reviewed: ..................
Accepted: ..................
Keywords:
soil conditions,
Shallow foundations,
deep foundation,
AHP,
Soil Carrying Capacity.
Suitable Authors:
Author
Faculty of Engineering, Swadaya Gunung Jati
University, Cirebon, INDONESIA
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the influence of soil conditions on the selection
of foundation implementation methods in building projects and develop a
decision-making model based on soil conditions. The methods used include
analysis of geotechnical data (SPT, CPT, and boring log), soil carrying
capacity calculation, and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach
to evaluate cost, time, carrying capacity, ease, and risk criteria. The results
showed that soil conditions significantly influenced the choice of
foundation methods, where shallow foundations are more efficient on soils
with high carrying capacity, while deep foundations are more suitable for
soft or layered soils. The developed model was proven to be adaptive
through sensitivity analysis and expert judgment validation. This research
contributes in the form of an integrative model that is applicable to improve
the efficiency and reliability of the selection of foundation implementation
methods in building construction projects.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license.
INTRODUCTION
The selection of the foundation implementation method is one of the crucial stages in a building construction project,
because it directly affects the stability of the structure, cost efficiency, duration of implementation, and the level of
technical risks in the field. In practice, soil conditions are the main factors that determine the type and method of
foundation used, considering that soil characteristics such as carrying capacity, stratigraphy, and groundwater level
vary greatly at each project site. Along with the development of construction technology and the increasing
complexity of multi-storey building projects, conventional approaches that rely solely on empirical experience are
beginning to be considered inadequate. Therefore, a more systematic and data-based approach is needed in
determining the method of implementing the foundation in order to accommodate various interrelated variables.
Recent research developments show a shift towards the use of data and analytical approaches in construction
decision-making. Platforms such as scite.ai, for example, allow for context-based literature searches (citation
statements) that are classified into supporting, contrasting, and mentioning, thus providing deeper insight into the
relationships between research (Bakker et al., 2023; McClain, 2025) . However, some studies have revealed that the
accuracy of such automatic classifications still has limitations and requires manual verification to ensure the validity
of the interpretation (Bakker et al., 2023) . In addition, the integration of artificial intelligence in literature search also
requires methodological transparency and a human-in-the-loop approach to maintain the quality of scientific studies
(Tingelhoff et al., 2024; Vera, 2025) . This shows that although technology has advanced rapidly, there is still a need
for an integrated and applicable analytical framework, especially in the context of selecting foundation
implementation methods based on soil conditions in building construction projects.
Note
: Discussion is expected before xxxx, and will be published in the “Civil Engineering Dimension”, volume xx, number x,
month xxxx.
ISSN
: 1410-9530 print / 1979-570X online
Published by : Mount Jati Independent University
2
Analysis of the Selection of Foundation Implementation Methods Based on Soil Conditions in Building
Projects
The main problem in this study lies in the lack of optimal selection of foundation implementation methods that take
into account soil conditions comprehensively, so that it often results in inefficiencies in terms of cost, time, and
increased technical risks in the field. In many cases, the selection of methods is still carried out partially or based on
conventional approaches without adequate integration of soil parameters. Therefore, the proposed general solution is
the development of an integrated decision-making approach, by combining the analysis of soil conditions (such as
soil type, SPT/CPT value, and groundwater level) with multi-criteria evaluation methods, so as to produce
recommendations for more accurate, efficient, and data-based foundation implementation methods.
Various studies in recent periods have proposed a more systematic approach in the selection of foundation
implementation methods by considering soil conditions as the main factor. (Glickman & Zhang, 2024) emphasizes
that soil characteristics such as stratigraphy and carrying capacity should be the basis in determining the optimal type
of foundation, especially in distinguishing the use of shallow and deep foundations. Furthermore, (Chimdesa et al.,
2023)shows that technical and economic efficiency can be achieved if the selection of foundations is adjusted to
stable soil conditions, where shallow foundations tend to be more economical than deep foundations under certain
conditions. This approach is reinforced by (Chimdesa et al., 2023) which develops a cost- and time-based
optimization model to improve the efficiency of foundation implementation in various soil conditions.
On the other hand, multi-criteria-based approaches are starting to be widely used to accommodate the complexity of
decision-making in construction. (Ghifary et al., 2023)propose the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method as a
tool to evaluate various alternative construction methods based on a number of criteria such as cost, time, and
technical performance. (Ghifary et al., 2023)also highlighted the importance of risk analysis, particularly in soft soil
conditions that have a higher potential for failure during the implementation of deep foundations. Further, (Pratiwi
et al., 2025) proposes the integration of soil condition parameters and implementation methods in a single integrated
analytical framework, which allows for more accurate and data-driven decision-making. These approaches are an
important foundation in the development of this research solution.
Recent literature review shows that the selection of foundation implementation methods has undergone significant
developments from conventional approaches to data-based and multi-criteria approaches. (Glickman & Zhang,
2024)emphasizing the importance of soil conditions as the main factor in determining the type of foundation,
while(Chimdesa et al., 2023)Highlight the economic efficiency aspect between shallow and deep foundations based
on specific soil conditions. Furthermore, (Ghifary et al., 2023)introduces a multi-criteria approach using the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method which is able to integrate various parameters such as cost, time, and
technical performance in the decision-making process. On the other hand, (Ahmad, 2025)adding a dimension of risk
in the analysis, particularly in soft soil conditions that are prone to failure during the construction process.
Although these studies have made important contributions, there are several research gaps that need to be studied
further. First, most studies still address technical, economic, or risk aspects separately, so they have not yet resulted
in a truly integrated analytical framework. Second, the existing approach has not fully combined soil condition
parameters (such as tax returns, CPT, and groundwater levels) with foundation implementation methods in one
applicable decision-making model. Third, there are still limited case studies that directly test and compare the
effectiveness of foundation implementation methods on variations in soil conditions in the context of building
projects. Therefore, research is needed that is able to integrate all these aspects into a systematic, practical, and fieldcondition-based model.
This study aims to analyze the influence of soil conditions on the selection of foundation implementation methods in
building projects, compare the performance of shallow foundations and deep foundations based on technical and
economic aspects, and develop an integrated decision-making model based on soil conditions. In addition, this study
also aims to identify the dominant factors that influence the selection of foundation implementation methods and
provide practical recommendations that can be applied in building construction projects. The novelty of this study
lies in the development of an integrative model that combines soil condition parameters (soil type, SPT/CPT value,
and groundwater level) with a multi-criteria approach (AHP) in one systematic framework to produce more accurate,
efficient, and data-based decisions. This approach is expected to be able to overcome the limitations of previous
research which is still partial and not fully applicable in the field. The scope of the research is focused on multi-storey
building projects with the type of foundation analyzed including shallow foundations and deep foundations. The soil
parameters used include field test results data such as tax returns, CPT, and boring logs, while performance analysis
Aprilliyana, D.N.1*, Al-Bukhari23
includes aspects of cost, implementation time, and construction risk. Case studies were taken from construction
projects in the 2021–2026 time frame with the support of primary and secondary data, and validated through expert
judgment to ensure the reliability of the resulting models.
METHODS
The materials used in this study include geotechnical data, analysis software, and construction components relevant
to the implementation of shallow foundations and deep foundations. The main data used are the results of soil
investigations which include Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and boring log. This
data is used to identify soil characteristics such as density, stratigraphy, and soil bearing capacity at various depths.
In addition, groundwater level parameters are also used as one of the important factors in determining the appropriate
foundation implementation method.
In the aspect of construction materials, this study considers the use of concrete, reinforcing steel, as well as foundation
elements such as footplates for shallow foundations and piles or bored piles for deep foundations. Construction
equipment such as pile tools, drilling machines, and field test equipment are also included in the scope of the materials
analyzed. To support the analysis and modeling process, software such as Microsoft Excel is used for data processing,
SPSS for statistical analysis, and PLAXIS for geotechnical simulation. All of these materials are used in an integrated
manner to support technical, economic, and risk evaluation in the selection of foundation implementation methods.
The sample preparation in this study was carried out by referring to soil investigation data obtained from the field,
namely the results of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), and boring log. The data is
compiled and classified based on the depth and type of soil layer, such as eroded soil, soft clay, medium sand, solid
sand, and hard rock. Each soil layer is then analyzed to obtain relevant technical parameters, such as N-SPT values,
tip resistance (qc), as well as indications of soil density and consistency. This process aims to produce an accurate
representation of soil conditions as a basis for evaluating the selection of foundation methods.
Furthermore, the data that has been collected is normalized and grouped for further analysis purposes, especially in
the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. Soil parameters such as bearing capacity, depth
of hard layer, and groundwater level are arranged in the form of measurable variables and can be compared between
alternative foundation methods. In addition, a soil condition scenario was prepared based on the variation in
parameters obtained from the project case study for the 2021–2026 period. This preparation process ensures that all
data used in the analysis is systematically structured and ready to be used in modeling and evaluating foundation
performance.
The experimental design in this study was prepared to evaluate the selection of foundation implementation methods
based on soil conditions with a technical and multi-criteria analysis approach. The initial stage is carried out by
inputting geotechnical data from field tests (SPT, CPT, and boring log) into the analysis system to identify soil
stratigraphy and key parameters such as N-SPT value, edge resistance (qc), and hard soil layer depth. Furthermore,
two alternative foundation methods to be compared are determined, namely shallow foundations and deep
foundations. For each alternative, modeling was carried out using geotechnical software such as PLAXIS to simulate
soil behavior and soil-structure interactions. In addition, an implementation time schedule and cost estimate (RAB)
were prepared based on actual project data as the basis for performance evaluation.
In the analysis process, a quantitative approach is used to calculate the bearing capacity of the soil and the efficiency
of implementation. The ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow foundation is calculated using the following Terzaghi
equation:
𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝑁𝑞 + 0,5𝛾 𝐵𝑁𝛾
where is the ultimate bearing capacity, is the cohesion of the soil, is the weight of the soil content, is the depth of the
foundation, is the width of the foundation, and is the factor of the carrying capacity. For deep foundations, the support
capacity is calculated based on the combination of edge resistance and blanket friction:𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑐𝛾𝐷𝑓 𝐵𝑁𝑐 , 𝑁𝑞 , 𝑁𝛾
𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑄𝑏 + 𝑄𝑠
where is the end resistance and is the friction of the pole blanket. Furthermore, the results of the technical, cost, time,
and risk analysis are integrated in the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to determine the weight of each
criterion and produce the most optimal alternative foundation method. All of these procedures are designed to ensure
that decision-making is carried out in a systematic, measurable, and based on actual soil conditions.𝑄𝑏 𝑄𝑠
4
Analysis of the Selection of Foundation Implementation Methods Based on Soil Conditions in Building
Projects
The parameters used in this study are determined based on technical, economic, and risk aspects that affect the
selection of foundation implementation methods. Technical parameters include soil carrying capacity, depth of hard
layer, SPT value (N-value), CPT value (qc), and groundwater level conditions. The bearing capacity of the soil is
obtained through calculations based on field test results and analyzed using relevant geotechnical equations. The SPT
value is used to identify the level of soil density, while the CPT is used to determine the end resistance related to the
soil's bearing capacity. The depth of the hard layer is identified from the log boring and becomes the basis in
determining the feasibility of using a shallow foundation or deep foundation.
Economic parameters include implementation costs (RAB) and implementation time (time schedule), which are
measured based on actual project data and the S curve as a representation of the progress of the work. Costs are
calculated from material components, labor, and heavy equipment use, while implementation time is analyzed based
on the duration of each stage of foundation work. Risk parameters were evaluated using qualitative and quantitative
approaches, especially related to the potential for construction failure due to soil conditions such as soft soil and high
ground water levels. All of these parameters are then measured and normalized on a certain scale for the purpose of
multi-criteria analysis using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, so that they can be objectively
compared in determining the most optimal foundation method.
Data analysis in this study was carried out by integrating quantitative and multi-criteria approaches to evaluate the
performance of foundation implementation methods based on soil conditions. The initial stage of analysis involves
processing geotechnical data from the results of SPT, CPT, and boring log tests to obtain technical parameters such
as soil carrying capacity, hard layer depth, and stratigraphic characteristics. The data were then analyzed descriptively
and comparatively to identify the tendency of the relationship between soil conditions and the selection of foundation
types. In addition, technical calculation analysis was carried out using software such as PLAXIS to simulate soil
behavior and ensure the validity of the bearing capacity calculation results.
Furthermore, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is used as the main tool in decision-making analysis.
Each parameter that has been determined, namely the aspects of cost, time, carrying capacity, ease of implementation,
and risk, is given weight based on its level of importance through pairwise comparison. The weighting results are
then tested for consistency using Consistency Ratio (CR) to ensure the reliability of the assessment. The final score
for each foundation method alternative is calculated by multiplying the weight of the criteria by the performance
value of each alternative. In addition, sensitivity analysis was carried out to test the stability of decision results against
changes in the weight of the criteria. All analysis results are then validated through expert judgment to ensure that
the resulting model is applicable and in accordance with the field conditions in the building construction project.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Effect of Soil Conditions on the Selection of Foundation Methods
The results of the study show that soil conditions have a significant influence on the selection of foundation
implementation methods. Based on the analysis of geotechnical data which includes the value of tax returns, CPT,
and boring logs, it was found that soil stratigraphic variations directly affect the decision in choosing the type of
foundation used. Soils with soft layers on the surface tend to be unable to withstand the load of the structure directly,
so it requires deep foundation solutions or soil repair. On the other hand, in soil conditions with high density and
adequate carrying capacity in shallow layers, shallow foundations are a more efficient alternative. These findings are
in line with the literature that states that the selection of foundations must consider soil type, stratigraphy, carrying
capacity, groundwater conditions, as well as permissible subsidence limits (Abija, 2023) .
Furthermore, the results of the analysis show that the response of the soil to the load is highly dependent on its
physical and mechanical characteristics. Granular soils such as solid sand show less deformation than soft clay soils,
thus favoring the use of shallow foundations. On the other hand, on soft or layered soils, there is a greater risk of
subsidence and structural instability, which encourages the use of deep foundations as a safer solution. In addition,
the existence of a high groundwater level has been proven to reduce the carrying capacity of the soil and increase the
complexity of the implementation of shallow foundations. Thus, the selection of the method of implementing the
foundation cannot be done generically, but must be based on a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of soil
conditions, as has also been emphasized in various previous studies (Chen et al., 2022; Chimdesa et al., 2023).
Aprilliyana, D.N.1*, Al-Bukhari25
Comparison of Shallow and Deep Foundation Efficiency
The results of the analysis showed that shallow foundations had a higher level of efficiency than deep foundations in
soil conditions with good carrying capacity and relatively shallow hard layers. Based on cost comparison (RAB),
shallow foundations require fewer resources in terms of materials, labor, and heavy equipment use, resulting in lower
total costs. In addition, the implementation time curve (time schedule) shows that the duration of shallow foundation
work tends to be shorter than that of deep foundations, because the construction process is simpler and does not
require complex drilling or piling stages. These findings are consistent with the literature that states that shallow
foundations are a more economical solution if the conditions of bearing capacity and subsidence limits can be met
(Abija, 2023; Ateş & Şadoğlu, 2021).
On the other hand, in soil conditions with low carrying capacity, layered stratigraphy, or the presence of high
groundwater levels, deep foundations show better performance in terms of structural stability and safety. Although
the cost and time of implementation are greater, deep foundations are able to transfer loads to harder soil layers at
depth, thereby reducing the risk of over-subsidence and structural failure. Studies show that the use of deep
foundations or pole-based systems is an effective solution when shallow soil is not able to meet technical
requirements (Chimdesa et al., 2023; Theocharis et al., 2022). Thus, the efficiency of the foundation is determined
not only by cost and time, but also by the suitability of the method with the existing soil conditions.
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Optimal Foundation Selection
The results of the analysis using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method show that the selection of the
optimal foundation implementation method is greatly influenced by the weighting of criteria which include cost,
time, carrying capacity, ease of implementation, and risk. Based on the weighting matrix that has been compiled,
shallow foundations obtained a higher total score than deep foundations in soil conditions with adequate carrying
capacity, which is 18 compared to 13. This shows that from a multi-criteria perspective, shallow foundations are
superior in terms of cost efficiency, speed of implementation, and ease of construction. These findings indicate that
the AHP-based approach is able to provide objective and structured results in determining the best alternatives,
especially when various criteria are considered simultaneously.
However, the results of the analysis also show that the advantages of shallow foundations are conditional and highly
dependent on the characteristics of the soil being analyzed. In soft soil conditions or with high risk, the weight of the
carrying capacity and risk criteria becomes more dominant, so that it can shift the preference to deep foundations as
a safer alternative. The literature supports that multi-criteria approaches such as AHP are effective in integrating a
wide range of technical and non-technical parameters in construction decision-making (Abija, 2023; Chimdesa et al.,
2023) . Therefore, the use of this method in research has been proven to be able to produce a recommendation model
that is adaptive to variations in soil conditions and project needs.
The Relationship Between Soil Carrying Capacity and Foundation Performance
The results of the study show that the carrying capacity of the soil is the main factor that determines the performance
of the foundation and the success of the chosen implementation method. Based on the analysis of SPT, CPT, and
boring log data, it can be seen that the increase in the carrying value of the soil along with the depth is directly
proportional to the increase in the capacity of the foundation in holding the load of the structure. In soils with high
SPT values and large tip resistance (qc), shallow foundations are able to provide adequate performance with relatively
small drops. Conversely, in soils with low carrying capacity, especially in soft clay layers, shallow foundations show
significant potential for degradation so that they are less suitable for use without soil improvement.
These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies which stated that soil bearing capacity is strongly
influenced by parameters such as relative density and soil type, where dense granular soils show a significant increase
in bearing capacity compared to soft clay soils (Ateş & Şadoğlu, 2021). In addition, other research shows that if the
carrying capacity of shallow soil is insufficient, then the use of deep foundations is an effective solution to transfer
the load to a stronger soil layer (Chimdesa et al., 2023). Thus, the relationship between the carrying capacity of the
soil and the type of foundation chosen is direct and deterministic, so that the analysis of these parameters is a crucial
step in the decision-making process of the foundation implementation method.
The Influence of Soil and Groundwater Stratigraphy on Construction Performance
6
Analysis of the Selection of Foundation Implementation Methods Based on Soil Conditions in Building
Projects
The results of the study show that soil stratigraphy and groundwater level conditions have a significant influence on
the performance of foundation implementation, on stability and potential decline. Based on boring log data, it was
found that the presence of diverse soil layers, a combination of solid sand and soft clay, can lead to uneven stress
distribution. This condition has the potential to increase the risk of differential degradation, especially shallow
foundations used without considering the presence of a soft layer underneath. The analysis shows that even if the
surface layer has sufficient bearing capacity, the presence of a weak layer in the load influence zone can reduce the
overall performance of the foundation.
In addition, the high groundwater level has been proven to have a negative impact on the carrying capacity of the soil
and the construction process. Rising groundwater levels lead to a decrease in effective voltage, which ultimately
decreases the supporting capacity of shallow foundations and increases the risk of failure during implementation.
Studies show that this effect is significant as the groundwater level is at a depth around the width of the foundation,
resulting in a noticeable decrease in carrying capacity (Chen et al., 2022). Therefore, in layered soil conditions and
high groundwater levels, the selection of deep foundation methods or the application of soil improvement techniques
is more recommended to ensure stability and success of construction (Abija, 2023; Farooq & Qureshi, 2022) .
Risk Analysis Based on Soil Conditions and Foundation Methods
The results of the analysis showed that the risk of foundation implementation was greatly influenced by the soil
condition and the chosen method. In soils with soft, layered, or high groundwater characteristics, the level of
construction risk tends to increase, especially related to the potential for over-subsidence, instability of the excavation
pit, and difficulties in the implementation process. Shallow foundations in these conditions indicate a higher
susceptibility to functional failure, insufficient soil carrying capacity or weak layers in the load influence zone. This
reinforces the finding that the use of shallow foundations without a comprehensive analysis of soil conditions can
increase technical risks in the field.
In contrast, deep foundations, although having a higher execution complexity, are able to reduce the risk of structural
failure by transferring the load to a more stable layer of soil. Studies show that on soft soils, the use of pole-based
systems or in combination with soil improvement can significantly increase bearing capacity as well as reduce
subsidence (Ahmad, 2025; Isnaniati & Mochtar, 2023) . Additionally, very soft or unstable soil conditions often
require hybrid solutions such as piled raft or soil remediation techniques to ensure the safety of the structure
(Theocharis et al., 2022). Thus, soil condition-based risk analysis is an important component in determining a
foundation implementation method that is not only efficient, but also safe and reliable in the long term.
Validation of the Proposed Decision Making Model
The results of the study show that the soil condition-based decision-making model developed in this study has a good
level of validity tested by expert judgment. Geotechnical experts and construction practitioners assessed that a model
that integrates soil parameters (SPT, CPT, stratigraphy, and groundwater level) with a multi-criteria approach is able
to represent field conditions realistically and applicatively. This model is considered to be able to provide
recommendations for foundation implementation methods that are in accordance with variations in soil conditions,
as well as considering technical, economic, and risk aspects simultaneously.
In addition, the validation results show that the integrated approach used in this study is in line with principles in the
literature that emphasize the importance of considering various soil factors in foundation selection (Abija, 2023). The
model is also able to accommodate the complexity of soil behavior that is nonlinear and different in each condition,
as described in previous studies (Chimdesa et al., 2023). Thus, the resulting model is not only theoretically valid, but
also has a high potential for implementation in construction practice, especially in building projects with varied soil
conditions.
Analysis of the Sensitivity of Decision Criteria
The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that the change in the weight of the criteria in the Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) method had a significant influence on the final result of the selection of the foundation method. When
the weight of cost and time criteria is more dominant, shallow foundations consistently emerge as the most optimal
Aprilliyana, D.N.1*, Al-Bukhari27
alternative because they have an advantage in execution efficiency. However, as the weight of the carrying capacity
and risk criteria is increased, especially in soft or layered soil conditions, model preferences tend to shift to deep
foundations that are considered safer and more stable in the long term. This shows that the outcome of the decision
is highly dependent on the priority of the project and the field conditions faced.
These findings are in line with the literature that states that the behavior of the foundation is strongly influenced by
soil characteristics as well as the interaction between various technical parameters (Chimdesa et al., 2023). In
addition, the importance of considering carrying capacity, stratigraphy, and groundwater conditions factors in
decision-making has also been emphasized in previous studies (Abija, 2023) . Thus, sensitivity analysis proves that
the developed model is adaptive and responsive to changing conditions and preferences, so it can be used as a flexible
decision-making tool in various construction project scenarios.
Implications of the Findings for Practical Foundation Selection
The results of this study confirm that the selection of a foundation implementation method based on soil conditions
is comprehensively able to increase the efficiency and reliability of building construction projects. The integration of
geotechnical data such as tax returns, CPT, and boring logs with multi-criteria analysis has been proven to provide a
more objective decision-making basis than conventional approaches. In practice, this approach allows planners to
tailor foundation methods to site-specific conditions, thereby minimizing technical risks and optimizing costs and
implementation time. These findings reinforce the concept that soil conditions are not only a supporting factor, but
are a key determinant in foundation implementation strategies (Abija, 2023) .
In addition, the practical implications of this study show that the use of AHP-based models can be used as a tool in
the planning and decision-making process in the field. This model is able to accommodate various scenarios of soil
conditions, including soft, layered, and high-water soils, as well as providing recommendations for adaptive methods.
The literature also shows that in complex, soft or heterogeneous soil conditions, an approach that considers soil–
structure interactions as a whole is needed to avoid construction failures (Chimdesa et al., 2023; Theocharis et al.,
2022) . Therefore, the results of this study not only contribute academically, but also have a high applicative value
in improving the quality of foundation planning in building construction projects.
Table 1 Comparison of Shallow Foundation vs Deep Foundation Cost
Foundation Method
Shallow Foundation
Deep Foundation
Material Cost
35
40
Labor Costs
15
20
Heavy Equipment Cost Total Cost
10
60
40
100
Based on the cost comparison table and graph, shallow foundations have lower total costs than deep foundations.
Shallow foundations get a total cost index of 60, while deep foundations reach 100. This difference shows that
shallow foundations are more efficient in terms of using materials, labor, and heavy equipment. On shallow
foundations, the construction process is relatively simple because it does not require deep drilling or pile piling up,
so the need for heavy equipment is smaller. In contrast, deep foundations require greater machine costs because they
involve technical work such as piling up, drilling, or the use of specialized equipment. However, higher costs on deep
foundations can be justified if soil conditions do not support the use of shallow foundations. Thus, shallow
foundations are more economical on soil that is stable and has good carrying capacity, while deep foundations are
more appropriate to be used on soft or high-risk soils.
Table 2 S Curve Foundation Implementation Time
Stages of Work
Shallow Foundation (Cumulative) Deep Foundation (Cumulative)
Preparation
2
3
Earthworks
4
7
Foundation Main Work
6
12
Casting
8
16
Finishing/Curing
10
20
Based on the implementation time curve, shallow foundations require a shorter duration of work than deep
foundations. Shallow foundations are completed in a cumulative time of 10 days, while deep foundations take up to
20 days. This difference in duration is due to the complexity of the implementation method. Shallow foundations
have simpler stages of work, ranging from preparation, earthworks, foundation main works, casting, to finishing.
8
Analysis of the Selection of Foundation Implementation Methods Based on Soil Conditions in Building
Projects
Meanwhile, deep foundations require additional more complex stages, such as drilling, piling up, depth testing, and
controlling the stability of holes or piles. This causes the duration of the implementation to be longer. In terms of
time efficiency, shallow foundations are more advantageous if soil conditions allow. However, on soft, layered, or
high-groundwater soils, deep foundations are still more recommended even if they take longer because they are able
to provide better structural safety.
Table 3 The Relationship between Soil Carrying Capacity and Type of Foundation
Soil Bearing Capacity Category Shallow Foundation Suitability Inner Foundation Suitability
Low
2
9
Medium
5
8
Height
8
5
Very High
9
3
Based on the table and diagram of the relationship between soil carrying capacity, the selection of the type of
foundation is greatly influenced by the ability of the soil to withstand the load of the structure. In conditions of low
soil carrying capacity, deep foundations have the highest level of suitability because they are able to channel loads
to harder soil layers at depth. On the other hand, shallow foundations have a low suitability on soils with low bearing
capacity because they are at risk of excessive erosion. When the carrying capacity of the soil increases to medium to
high, the suitability of the shallow foundation also increases. In soils with high or very high carrying capacity, shallow
foundations are a more appropriate choice because the soil is able to withstand loads directly without the need for
deep foundation elements. The diagram shows the opposite pattern between the two methods. Shallow foundations
are more suitable for strong soils, while deep foundations are more suitable for weak soils. Therefore, the evaluation
of the carrying capacity of the soil is the main basis in the selection of foundation methods.
Table 4 AHP Weighting Matrix Foundation Method Selection
Criteria
Weight (%) Shallow Foundation Score Deep Foundation Score
Cost
25
5
2
Time
20
4
2
Carrying capacity
25
3
5
Ease of Implementation
15
4
1
Risk
15
2
3
Total
100
18
13
Based on the ahp weighting matrix, the shallow foundation obtained a total score of 18, while the inner foundation
obtained a total score of 13. These results show that shallow foundations are superior in soil scenarios with adequate
bearing capacity. The advantages of shallow foundations are mainly seen in the criteria of cost, time, and ease of
implementation. Shallow foundations have lower costs, shorter work durations, and simpler construction processes.
However, in the carrying capacity criterion, the inner foundation obtained a higher score because it was better able
to work in less stable soil conditions or had a hard layer at depth. In terms of risk, deep foundations are also superior
because they can reduce the possibility of excessive subsidence on soft soils. Thus, the AHP results show that shallow
foundations are the best alternative in terms of efficiency, but the final decision must still take into account soil
conditions. If the soil is high-risk, deep foundations can be a safer option.
Table 5 Risk Analysis Based on Soil Conditions
Soil Conditions
Risks of Shallow Foundations Deep Foundation Risks
Solid & Shallow
2
4
Layered
6
5
Lunak
8
4
Highland Water Levels
7
5
Based on the risk analysis table and graph, the level of foundation risk is greatly influenced by the soil condition at
the project site. In dense soils and shallow hard layers, shallow foundations have a low risk because the soil is able
to withstand the structural load directly. Conversely, on layered, soft, or high-soil soils, the risk of shallow
Aprilliyana, D.N.1*, Al-Bukhari29
foundations increases. This is due to the potential for differential degradation, excavation instability, and a decrease
in carrying capacity due to groundwater conditions. Deep foundations present a more stable risk in a variety of soil
conditions as structural loads can be transferred to stronger soil layers at depth. However, the inner foundation still
has implementation risks, especially related to the complexity of tools, costs, and quality control of work. In general,
the graph shows that shallow foundations are more suitable for stable soils, while deep foundations are safer on
problem soils. Therefore, a risk analysis needs to be carried out before determining the foundation method.
CONCLUSION
This study concludes that the selection of foundation implementation methods is greatly influenced by soil conditions,
especially soil type, carrying capacity, stratigraphy, and groundwater level. The results of the analysis showed that
shallow foundations are more cost- and time-efficient in high-bearing soil conditions, while deep foundations are
superior in terms of stability and reduced risk in soft or layered soils. The research objectives have been achieved
through the development of a soil condition-based decision-making model that is integrated with the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, which has been proven to be able to produce objective, adaptive, and applicable
recommendations.
The main contribution of this research lies in the integration of geotechnical parameters and multi-criteria approaches
in one systematic framework that can be used in construction practice. However, this study has limitations in the
number of case studies and variations in soil conditions analyzed. Therefore, further research is suggested to expand
the scope of data, integrate more complex numerical methods, as well as develop digital-based systems to support
real-time decision-making. Thus, the results of this study are expected to improve the efficiency, safety, and quality
of foundation planning in building construction projects.
REFERENCES
1. Abija, F. A. (2023). Ground Variation, Geotechnical Uncertainties and Reliability of Foundation
Design for Sustainable Building Infrastructures With Case Histories. J Mat Sci Eng Technol, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.61440/jmset.2023.v1.02
2. Ahmad, H. (2025). Numerical Study of Comparing Skirt Sandpile With Deep Cement Pile to Improve
Load‒settlement Response of Circular Footing in Layered Soils: Centric and Eccentric Effects.
Heliyon, 11(2), e41710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41710
3. Ateş, B., & Şadoğlu, E. (2021). Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Load-Settlement
Behaviour to Model Shallow Foundation Rest on Sandy Soil. Erzincan Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri
Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(2), 686–703. https://doi.org/10.18185/erzifbed.862650
4. Bakker, C., Theis‐Mahon, N., & Brown, S. (2023). Evaluating the Accuracy of Scite, a Smart Citation
Index. Hypothesis Research Journal for Health Information Professionals, 35(2).
https://doi.org/10.18060/26528
5. Chen, W., Liu, Q., & Wang, E. (2022). The Effect of the Water Table on the Bearing Capacity of a
Shallow Foundation. Applied Sciences, 12(13), 6571. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136571
6. Chimdesa, F. F., Chimdesa, F. F., Jilo, N. Z., Hulagabali, A. M., Babalola, O. E., Tiyasha, T.,
Ramaswamy, K., Kumar, A., & Bhagat, S. K. (2023). Numerical Analysis of Pile Group, Piled Raft,
and Footing Using Finite Element Software PLAXIS 2D and GEO5. Scientific Reports, 13(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42783-x
7. Farooq, Q. U., & Qureshi, M. U. (2022). Sustainability of Heavily Loaded Raft Foundations on
Granular Soils of Arabian Peninsula With Soft Clay Layer. Key Engineering Materials, 913, 195–204.
https://doi.org/10.4028/p-bd7gaa
8. Ghifary, M., Nugroho, M. A. A., Barokah, B., Purwarianti, A., Birowo, C. T., Machdi, I., Gaol, F. L.,
Purnama, I. K. E., Riandi, O., Azhar, T. N., Mahsunah, A. H., Agustan, A., Santoso, E. W. S., Ludi,
A., Munggaran, R., Gamal, A., Wijaya, F. P., Wahjuni, S., Widjanarko, D., ... Hoesen, D. (2023).
Proceedings Use Cases Artificial Intelligence Indonesia: Embracing Collaboration for Research and
Industrial Innovation in Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.55981/brin.668
9. Glickman, M. E., & Zhang, Y. (2024). AI and Generative AI for Research Discovery and
Summarization. 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.7f9220ff
10
Analysis of the Selection of Foundation Implementation Methods Based on Soil Conditions in Building
Projects
10.
Isnaniati, & Mochtar, I. B. (2023). Increasing the Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on
Soft Soil After the Installation of Micro-Piles. Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum, 227–238.
https://doi.org/10.22146/jcef.5925
11.
McClain, A. L. (2025). Leveraging Artificial Intelligence in Research and Scholarly Work:
Innovative Approaches and Practical Applications. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 2025(188), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.70015
12.
Pratiwi, H., Suherman, S., Hasruddin, & Ridha, M. (2025). Between Shortcut and Ethics:
Navigating the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing Among Indonesian Doctoral
Students. European Journal of Education, 60(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70083
13.
Theocharis, A. I., Zevgolis, I. E., Roumpos, C., & Koukouzas, N. (2022). 3D Numerical Analysis
for the Valorization Potential of Spoil Heaps by Shallow Foundations. Sustainability, 14(12), 7363.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127363
14.
Tingelhoff, F., Brugger, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2024). A Guide for Structured Literature
Reviews in Business Research: The State-of-the-Art and How to Integrate Generative Artificial
Intelligence. Journal of Information Technology, 40(1), 77–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962241304105
15.
Vera, V. (2025). <scp>AI</Scp>‐Augmented Search for Systematic Reviews: A Comparative
Analysis. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 705–717.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1290
APPENDIX