Selection of Pile Foundation Systems:An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Year 2021, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 133 - 145, 13.01.2021

Ender Başarı , Özgür Eski , Mustafa Erkan Turan , Özlem Uzun Araz

https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.740120

Abstract

Pile foundations have been used for transmitting loads from structure to the soil. Design of pile foundation involves the determination of the design parameters such as pile type, pile diameter, pile length, pile layout etc. This study proposes an integrated methodology for selecting the most appropriate pile foundation design for a given soil profile. The methodology incorporates Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR)/Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) and Finite Element Analysis (FEM). While AHP is used for determining the weights of criteria, VIKOR and PROMETHEE are employed in order to acquire final rankings of alternatives. Then, a finite element analysis is applied on a selected set of best alternatives to provide precise results. Finally, a case study is conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed methodology. Based on the findings of the case study, the methodology proposed paves the way for making an efficient decision for pile foundation selection.

Keywords

Pile Foundations, Multi Criteria Decision Making, AHP, Vikor, Promethee

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

Kazık Temel Sistemlerinin Seçimi: Bütünleşik Çok Kriterli Karar Verme

Abstract

Yüklerin yapıdan zemine iletilmesi için kazıklı temeller kullanılmaktadır. Kazık temel tasarımı, kazık tipi, kazık çapı, kazık uzunluğu, kazık düzeni vb. gibi tasarım parametrelerinin belirlenmesini içerir. Bu çalışmada, belirli bir zemin profili için en uygun kazıklı temel tasarımını seçmek amacıyla bütünleşik bir metodoloji önerilmiştir. Bu metodoloji, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) ve sonlu Elemanlar Analizi içerir. AHP, kriterlerin ağırlıklarını belirlemek için kullanılırken, VIKOR ve PROMETHEE alternatiflerin nihai sıralamayı elde etmek için kullanılır. Daha hassas sonuçlar elde etmek için seçilen en iyi alternatifler kümesine sonlu eleman analizi uygulanır. Önerilen metodolojinin etkinliğini göstermek için bir örnek çalışma yapılmıştır. Örnek çalışmasının sonuçları, önerilen metodolojinin kazıklı temel seçimi için uygun bir karar verme yaklaşımı olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

Kazıklı temeller, Çok kriterli karar verme, AHP, Vikor, Promethee

Project Number

-

References

• Vuji´c, S.; Hudej, M.; Miljanovi´c, I. Results of the promethee method application in selecting the technological system at the majdan III open pit mine. Arch. Min. Sci. 2013, 58, 1229–1240.
• Büyüközkan, G.; Görener, A. “Evaluation of product development partners using an integrated AHP-VIKOR model,” Kybernetes, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 220–237, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1108/K-01-2014-0019.
• Thirugnanam, A.; Singh Sivam, S.P.S.; Saravanan, K.; Harshavardhana, N.; Kumaran, D. “Conventional Super Plastic Forming and Multi-attribute Optimization through VIKOR and ANOVA,” Int. J. Veh. Struct. Syst., vol. 12, no. 1, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.4273/ijvss.12.1.07.
• Zavadskas, E.K.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Kapliński, O. Multi-criteria decision making in civil engineering. Part II – applications. Eng. Struct. Technol. 2015, 7, pp.151–167. doi:10.3846/2029882X.2016.1139664.
• Navarro Martínez, I.; Martí Albiñana, J.V.; Yepes Piqueras, V. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques in Civil Engineering Education for Sustainability. ICERI2018 Proc. 2018, 1, 9798–9807.
• Rehman, A.U.; Abidi, M.H.; Umer, U. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Selecting Wind Energy Power Plant Locations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6112.
• Kolios, A.; Collu, M.; Chahardehi, A; Brennan, F.P.; Patel, M.H. A multi-criteria decision making method to compare support structures for offshore wind turbines, EWEC, Warsaw, Poland, 2010.
• Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Vilutiene, T. Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2010, 10, pp.123–141. doi:10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60141-1
• Sušinskas, S.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Multiple Criteria Assessment of Pile-Columns Alternatives, Balt. J. Road Bridg. Eng. 2011, 6, pp.145–152. doi:10.3846/bjrbe.2011.19.
• Zavadskas, E.K.; Sušinskas, S.; Daniūnas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Sivilevičius, H. Multiple criteria selection of pile-column construction technology. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2012, 18, pp.834–842. Doi:10.3846/13923730.2012.744537
• Dachowski R. and Gałek K. Selection of the Best Method for Underpinning Foundations Using the PROMETHEE II Method, Sustainability 2020, 12, 5373; doi:10.3390/su12135373
• Turskis, Z.; Daniūnas, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Medzvieckas, J. Multicriteria Evaluation of Building Foundation Alternatives. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 31, pp.717–729. doi:10.1111/mice.12202
• Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, California, 1980, p.287, ISBN 0-07-054371-2.
• Opricovic, S. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 1998, p.1302.
• Brans J-P. L’ingénierie de la décision: Elaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. In: Nadeaeu R, Landry M (eds) L’aide à la décision: nature, instruments et perspectives d’avenir. Presse de l’Université de Laval, Québec, 1982, pp.183–213.
• Brans J.P.; Vincle, P. A Preference Ranking Organization Method, Manage. Sci. 1985, 31(6), pp.647–656.
• Tomlinson, M. J; Woodward J. Pile Design and Construction Practice. Spon Press, Fifth Edition, London, and New York, 2007, p.551.
• Meyerhof, G.G. Bearing Capacity and settlement of Pile Foundations, ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 1976, 102(GT3), pp.195–228.
• Turkish Ministry of Environment and Urbanism, “2019 Construction and Installation Unit Prices,” Ankara, 2019.