AHP Model for Evaluation of Pile Installation Methods

Abstract:

As an economical way of transmitting the loads from structures to the soil or rock layer, pile foundations have been widely applied in construction projects. With an objective of developing a model for selecting the optimum pile installation method for a project, this study investigated three alternative methods that are commonly used in Taiwan. Based on a review of related researches, a generic evaluation framework of a hierarchy comprising 21 factors in four groups is proposed and a model using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to produce the weight of the factors and the ratings of the pile installation methods is presented. The model is illustrated using an example, in which the rankings of the alternative methods from best to worst are precast pre-stressed bored piles (PPBP), cast-in-situ concrete piles (CISP) and precast pre-stressed driven piles (PPDP). Practitioners may use the model as a structured, systematic and effective approach in evaluating and selecting the installation method for a project.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 858)
• Pages: 67-72
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.858.67
• Online since: November 2016
• Authors: Chiang Pin Kuo*, Li Chung Chao
• Keywords: Cast In Situ Pile, Pile Installation, Precast Pre-Stressed Pile

References

[1] Ken Fleming, Austin Weltman, Mark Randolph, Keith Elson, Piling Engineering, third Ed., Taylor & Francis, New York, (2008).

[2] D. A. Brown, Practical considerations in the selection and use of continuous flight auger and drilled displacement piles. Advances in auger pressure grouted piles: design, construction and testing. Advances in Designing and Testing Deep Foundations, ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 129, (2005).

DOI: 10.1061/40772(170)4

[3] L. J. Kheng, N. W. Kuan, Study Of Prebored Precast Pile System- A Qualitative Approach, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Malaysia, (2006).

[4] F. J. Westcott, J. W. N. Smith, C. M. B. Lean, Piling in contaminated ground: environmental impacts, regulatory concerns and effective solutions, Eng. Geol. 70(3-4) (2003) 259-268.

DOI: 10.1016/s0013-7952(03)00094-2

[5] T. L. Satty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, (1980).

[6] K. C. Hyun, S. Y. Min, H. S. Choi, J. J. Park, I. M. Lee, Risk analysis using fault-tree analysis (FTA) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) applicable to shield TBM tunnels, Tunnel. Undergr. Space Technol. 49 (2015) 121-129.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2015.04.007

[7] M. J. Skibniewski, L. -C, Chao, Evaluation of advanced construction technology with AHP method, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 118 (3) (1992) 577-593.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1992)118:3(577)

[8] I. M. Mahdi , K. Alreshaid, Decision support system for selecting the proper project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process (AHP), Int. J. Project Manag. 23(7) (2005) 564-572.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.007

[9] Y. T. Lai, W. C. Wang, H. H. Wang, AHP- and simulation-based budget determination procedure for public building construction projects, Autom. Constr. 17(5) (2008) 623-632.

DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2007.10.007

[10] Y. L. Yang, B. H. Li, R. M. Yao, A method of identifying and weighting indicators of energy efficiency assessment in Chinese residential buildings, Energy Policy, 38(12) (2010) 7687-7697.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.018