Analisis Komparatif Volcanic dan Flamed Andesite Stone sebagai Material Fasad Gedung Pesisir: Pendekatan AHP, LCC, dan Standar SMKK: Comparative Analysis of Volcanic and Flamed Andesite Stone as Facade Materials for Coastal Buildings: AHP, LCC, and SMKK Standard Approaches - Darma, Cici Aulia; Andreas, Azaria (JURNAL SAINTIS, 2026)
[IN] Proyek konstruksi di kawasan pesisir memiliki tingkat kompleksitas tinggi akibat pengaruh lingkungan yang ekstrem, seperti salinitas udara laut, kelembaban tinggi, serta paparan radiasi ultraviolet. Kondisi tersebut menuntut pemilihan material fasad yang tidak hanya memenuhi aspek estetika, tetapi juga mempertimbangkan ketahanan material, biaya siklus hidup (life cycle cost), serta risiko keselamatan dan kesehatan kerja (K3) selama proses pemasangan. Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh kebutuhan pemberi kerja dalam menentukan alternatif material fasad yang paling optimal pada tahap perencanaan Proyek Gedung yang berlokasi di kawasan pesisir Bali. Dua alternatif material yang dianalisis adalah volcanic andesite stone dan Flamed andesite stone. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah melakukan komparasi perbandingan 2 material dari sisi kecenderungan faktor pemilihan material, analisis  biaya LCC dan keselamatan kerja pada saat pemasangan. Metode penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dengan AHP sebagai alat pengambilan keputusan multikriteria, analisis komparasi berbasis LCC dan keselamatan kerja. Hasil analisis AHP menunjukkan bahwa faktor ekonomi merupakan kriteria paling dominan dengan bobot 47,14%. Analisis perbandingan LCC, Volcanic andesite stone memiliki nilai LCC sekitar 75,4% dari Flamed andesite stone, yaitu sebesar Rp 7.384.544.524 dan Rp. 9.790.992.117, meskipun perbandingan nilai konstruksi Volcanic andesite stone lebih besar 1,43x. Dari sisi K3, pemasangan volcanic andesite stone memiliki risiko pemasangan lebih rendah karena karakteristik material yang lebih mudah ditangani. [EN] Construction projects in coastal areas are highly complex due to extreme environmental factors, such as seawater salinity, high humidity, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation. These conditions require the selection of facade materials that not only meet aesthetic requirements but also take into account material durability, life cycle costs, and occupational safety and health (OSH) risks during the installation process. This study was motivated by the need for the client to determine the most optimal facade material alternatives during the planning phase of the Building Project, located in the coastal area of Bali. The two material alternatives analyzed are volcanic andesite stone and Flamed andesite stone. The objective of this study is to compare two materials in terms of material selection criteria, LCC cost analysis, and workplace safety during installation. The research method used a quantitative approach with AHP as a multi-criteria decision-making tool, along with LCC-based comparative analysis and occupational safety considerations. The results of the AHP analysis indicate that the economic factor is the most dominant criterion, with a weight of 47.14%. A comparative LCC analysis shows that volcanic andesite stone has an LCC value of approximately 75.4% of that of flamed andesite stone, amounting to Rp 7,384,544,524 and Rp 9,790,992,117, respectively, even though the construction cost of volcanic andesite stone is 1.43 times higher. From an occupational safety and health perspective, the installation of volcanic andesite stone poses lower installation risks due to the material’s easier-to-handle characteristics.