Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 31 (2016) 717–729

Multicriteria Evaluation of Building
Foundation Alternatives

Zenonas Turskis, Alfonsas Daniūnas, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas* & Jurgis Medzvieckas
Research Institute of Smart Building Technologies, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius LT-10223, Lithuania

Abstract: In real conditions, decision makers usually in a much more responsible way, carefully considering
deal with multiple objectives and should make a deci- and weighing all the details. Everyone wants to have a
sion in a state of certainty or uncertainty. The selection quality and durable house at the lowest possible cost.
of the best constructions for a building from a number About one-third of Europeans live in individual houses.
of alternatives is of great importance for owners, con- A lot of works and materials to design and construct
tractors, and stakeholders. Dozens of multicriteria/multi- such houses is consumed. Nevertheless, scientists and
attribute decision-making (MCDM/MADM) models de- researchers pay little attention to examine and investi-
veloped for evaluating the performance of the available gate simple problems. This occurs because they believe
alternatives can be used for selecting the most suitable that implementation of simple construction projects is
alternative from a given finite set of options based on a very easy, and not worth any more attention. In their
set of attributes. A guide to systematic selection among point of view, it is better to focus on optimization of
the available alternatives of building structures is the in- a complex and large project. However, when a simple
tegrated methodology, thoroughly analyzed in the article. problem is solved and is being implemented hundreds of
The article presents a MCDM model for selecting the type thousands of times, the problems solution brings much
of foundation for a single-storey dwelling house based more benefit than an optimization of a single complex
on the WASPAS-G (Weighted Aggregated Sum Prod- project. In fact, only expenditures will be determined
uct Assessment) method and Analytic Hierarchy Pro- bigger depending on the building size, whereas ranking
cess (AHP) approach. The aggregate criteria weights are of possible discrete alternatives will remain the same or
determined by using the AHP and experts’ judgement similar. The construction scheme of an economic single-
methods. storey dwelling house is usually simple. It consists of
masonry (brick, ceramic, etc.) walls installed on shallow
1 INTRODUCTION foundation or piles. It is clear that engineering and tech-
nological projects are also business projects. They in-
The increasing competition and stakeholders’ demands, volve such aspects associated with business as customer
as well as the scale of production and consumption satisfaction, resource utilization, deadlines, costs, prof-
cause a lot of construction problems. In the report of its, etc. The variables, such as the environment, terrain,
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living soil conditions, zoning laws, labor market, and local
and Working Conditions (Eurofound, 2013), the main utilities, make every project unique. This requires doing
factor, reflecting a negative effect on life satisfaction of something different from what has been done before.
people which is associated with housing, is the feeling One of the most important activities in management is
of insecurity in their houses. In the European countries, the performance measurement-based decision making
living in cities and medium-to-large towns has been (Li et al., 2011; Zavadskas et al., 2012c). A great ma-
associated with some loss of life satisfaction compared jority of numerous papers published on optimization of
to living in the countryside. This has been caused by structures deal with multicriteria optimization (Sarma
housing problems. Now, people build or buy houses and Adeli, 2000). The total structural optimization of
the building material cost involves many components,
∗ Towhom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: edmundas. including foundation, slabs, beams, columns, bracings,
zavadskas@vgtu.lt. 

C 2016 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.

DOI: 10.1111/mice.12202

1981. the installation of a building. c denotes 0. 2013. belt or outrigger trusses. it is lution is associated with multicriteria decision-making necessary to take into account engineering-geological or multi-attribute decision-making methods (MCDM conditions. 2015). Xu. 2. the scope of the work. The foundation schedule. depending on the input parameters.0 and 1. such and scope of knowledge of individuals. The part of the total house construction cost. The plan of walls with the applied loads and foundation alternatives: a shows shallow foundations deepened to 1. 2004. the excavated soil. When selecting a type of foundation. a 4150 d 50 kN/m 120 kN/m b 60 kN/m 80 kN/m 180 kN/m 350 kN b 120 kN/m 50 kN/m b 65 kN/m 350 kN 110 kN/m 160 kN/m c 160 kN/m 180 kN/m 40 kN/m 50 kN/m b 40 kN/m 65 kN/m Fig. Daniūnas. 1995. ground water levels. materials. 2014). but also accounts for a significant etc. and builder’s technological Nemery. 2012). Adeli. Zavadskas & Medzvieckas Fig. The decision-making scheme of foundations.718 Turskis. A foundation is a very important element Tezcan and Ozdemir.5 m. The choice as the production rate. of building structures. time is objective and seldom systematic. and shear walls (Aldwaik and capabilities (Oloufa and Ikeda. 2014). The procedure of selecting . regardless of the to make proper decisions concerning the time and cost specific engineering-geological conditions and features schedules of their investments (Beran and Hromada. Lepre et al. maximum and minimum types are usually chosen based on the designers’ and deviations from the volume of work. of the house structure (Mangushev. model predicts the expected cost and the duration of the idea of selection is based on subjective preferences the project. which does not only ensure the stability cost. In many cases.3 m diameter bored piles. 2010. determine the foundation type selection. Sušinskas 2008). the equipment used. Usually. b denotes 0. bonding conditions. One of the ways to find the most suitable so- et al. Clients are able builders’ opinions and experience.. 1.. specific or MADM) (Hwang and Yoon. Ishizaka and features of the structure.5 and 0.6 m diameter short bored piles. climate impact.

2010). concrete monolithic founda. 2013).0–10. The increase in the bearing lithic or prefabricated. Sandy ground has been chosen for eval. sign and construction of foundations require the pro. Sands try’s territory (Dundulis.0–5. The de. ϕ is the internal friction angle. pared to that of the normal bored piles (Nguyen et al. in- tions or prefabricated foundations are laid. The plan of the loads on the building wall foundations and their alternatives are pre- sented in Figure 2. the foun- EN 1997-1 (2006). the compressed sand cushions ate choice of technologies make the most challenging (Usmanov. 2013).50 37–39 12. then. has shown that maximum efficiency was achieved un- low foundations are constructed. ties. the excavation is filled with of these foundations is lower. of Lithuania consists of quaternary sediments which are struction sites.0 The foundations were designed according to a standard single-storey house project. 1997).. The bottom of foundation is placed on the lev. drilling machines. The foundation installation technol. Short piles are rigid. The expenditure of ma- and their spatial variability (Sivilevičius et al. but also by the lateral surface.5 m are designed for found knowledge of the mechanical behavior of soils various types of sandy ground. therefore. and when the transverse lations of base bearing capacity are regulated by LST forces and/or bending moments are acting. 3 Dense sand (DS) 19. because the load on the base is transmitted not only by pact the soil before installing the foundation. and gradually de- the areas whose potential for urban development leads creased later (Bulatov and Kolosova. standard shal. The calcu. The top layer of the soil throughout most parts is the cone resistance) is one of the most common con. The installation process is quick: the holes are drilled but not necessarily the foundation installation cost. the extrac- soil which is compacted layer after layer. When the the tip. 2013) and soil reinforcement are used in tasks in real life (Zavadskas et al. Rationality of construction works and the appropri. The settlement foundations are installed. Compared to shal- pad level on the site.. sections of various forms. ment of pile bases after concrete placement. sults obtained show that the postgrouting to the shaft tributes the load to the base.0–20. short piles have many advantages. glacial sand and clay derivatives cover 79% of the coun- erties of sandy ground are presented in Table 1. A trench is excavated to the foundation from the conventional bored piles. The city plan can show der the minimum depth of 2 meters. Naturally formed uating the foundation alternatives. Foundations deepened to 1. The width cluding more effective use of materials and sub-grade of the pit should be sufficient to smooth out and com. This is their main difference ogy is simple. The re- elled ground.0 and 1. The reinforcement amount for capacity of piles is now often achieved by special treat- shallow foundations of one-storey building is negligi. the ground required for the foundation is excavated. as well ble.. dation does not deform. This reduces the amount of the required material.0 The foundation alternatives for a single-storey dwelling 2 Average density sand (AS) 18. These derivatives are of various densities cover 32% of Lithuanian territory relatively strong and suitable for the foundation base.. 2012). qc dations. the foundations are often Short piles are easy to install by using the effective installed in these soils. loose and high compressibility soils (Kolay et al. civil engineering practice. terials for shallow foundations is presented in Table 2. 2012a). Geotechnical prop. Sandy ground having different geotechnical properties Short bored piles are also often used as building foun- (γ is the unit weight. 1997).50 31–32 3. to occupation suitable for the construction of shallow Researchers have shown that quantitative values of foundations in one-storey residential buildings (Lorandi pile efficiency are approximately the same for cross- and Mendes. (Dundulis. Densities and geotechnical properties of sands Soil properties 2 THE SELECTION OF THE FOUNDATION FOR γ qc A SINGLE-STOREY DWELLING HOUSE Type Soil (kN/m3 ) ϕ° (MPa) 1 Loose sand (LS) 17. Multicriteria evaluation of building foundation alternatives 719 the best alternative of the foundation type is given in Table 1 Figure 1. 2013). The bottom part may be wider and it dis. pacity is sufficient to withstand the loads. Moreover. Wall units can be placed fected bored piles two times and by about 20% com- directly on the levelled ground if the base bearing ca. shaped by the receding ice shield.50 34–36 6. The analysis of piles of various forms In most cases for one-storey houses. The walls or foundation and tip of the pile can increase bearing capacity of de- blocks are installed on pads. as by increasing the pile length and diameter.0 house were selected for multiple criteria evaluation. In on the site and filled with concrete after inserting the . Shallow foundations can be mono. A base of the tive work during installation is reduced because only foundation can be strengthened to improve its proper. low foundations.

4–46. Table 3 inforced beam is installed. continuous flight auger piles known as CFA Pile Pile cap piles are often installed..3 178. and suggested multiple.9 201. 2005).4 DS 35. attributes.5 189.2 DS 46. the cavity is more Concrete ment Concrete ment often formed during drilling. Zavadskas & Medzvieckas Table 2 Expenditure of materials for shallow foundations Depth. inserting the reinforcement.7 A2 LS 1.8–162. Soil is raised to the surface.2–8.7–200.5 186.4 127.2 14. The expenditure of mate- Reinforce. Reinforce.9–39.0 after it filled up with concrete.3–287. Essentially. Expenditure of materials for 0. LS is assumed to be inap.4 190.0 226. and removing the protective tube.6 3 MULTI-ATTRIBUTE EVALUATION OF AS 19. Piles of 0.3 14.1 127. Tube is pulled out AS 14.2–28.9–53. The rein.1–378. This technology ensures fast and reliable installation of piles (Zayed.3–216.4 AS 46. displacement piles are usually installed (Kelevišius Soil (m3 ) kG (m3 ) kG et al.. Pile foundations are designed by LST EN 1997-1 (2006) and LST EN 1997-2 (2009) rec. Reinforce- forcement is placed after placing the concrete.9–47. Reinforce- rials for piles is presented in Table 3.9–226.0 37.6 m diameter piles are obtained too short and cannot be used.6 m diameter bored piles ommendations.3 294. a re. The problem of a workable solution. On the top of bored foundations.3 207.0–367. Using a vibrator.6 cap at the end is pressed into soil.9–225. Reinforce- For a single-storey dwelling house.1–59.0–328.3–35.0 727. In DS 0. Expenditure of materials for pile alternatives signed in accordance with the National Building Code Expenditure of materials for 0.7–196. an inventory tube with a A4 LS 29.8–23.8 113. Pile Pile cap propriate for pile installation.1 279.4 installed on the piles. . pro- MADM involves making preference decisions over the viding moral or prudential algebra for coordinating available set of alternatives that are characterized by multiple attributes in everyday decisions. The design strength of the ground is defined by the cone resistance qc determined by the Pile Pile cap cone penetration test (CPT). Bored pile installation embraces the DS 5. posed a procedure and rules for decision making.6 is used in drilling.6–18. 1973) in 1772 pro- of modern operations research science.2 232. the protective tube A3 AS 9.4 FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES MADM (also called multi-objective decision making with finite alternatives) is an important component Benjamin Franklin (MacCrimmon. 2014).5 m diameter bored piles At present. Soil (m3 ) kG (m3 ) kG In weak and water-saturated soils.1–177. Concrete Reinforcement Excavated soil Alternatives Soil d (m) (m3 ) kG (m3 ) A1 LS 1.3–306.0–48.9 reinforcement. usually conflicting.0 727.3 m in diameter are designed for the selected type of soil.5 48. Expenditure of materials for 0.0 186.1–257.2–37. A reinforced beam is DS 12.3 m diameter bored piles RSN 91-85 (1987).2–187.8 AS 36. Bored foundations are de.0 14.0 118.3 199.7–196. Even (Jato-Espino et al. In weak Concrete ment Concrete ment soil.8 190. There are lots of MCDM methods making the appropriate decisions by individuals and that are suitable for multi-attribute problems solution institutions was discussed by Aristotle (1990).0 727. Reinforce.8–184.4–185.720 Turskis.5 procedures of preparing the borehole cavity.3 205. Concrete ment Concrete ment Soil (m3 ) kG (m3 ) kG A6 LS 34. Daniūnas.1–301.6 314. 2014).

Incomplete structural information. attributes. which are called the lower and upper limits ticriteria adaptive DE (MADE) for global numerical of a grey number (interval number) ⊗G = [G α . grey statistics. and Arce et al. (Fang et al. {x|G α ≤ x ≤ G β . 6. (2008) presented the selection of the effective dwelling ments. The Weighted Aggregated Sum Product (WASPAS) ally developed (Xu and Zhou. and grey prediction. Grey programming. G α and G β ∈ R}. respectively. −. especially. multiple objectives and need to make a decision in a 2..1 Operations with grey numbers well as the associated parameter values online had be- come an ad-hoc research topic. state of uncertainty (Xu and Yao. period and provided a new method for predicting the rough multi-objective decision making. Grey rules of situation: Grey rules of situation deal 1. G 1β ) + (G 2β ) Addition (1) by Deng (1982). Grey systems 3. According to the in- data. Cheng et al. 5. uncertain multi-objective decision making were gradu. integrating several strategies into one algorithm and determining the application rate of each strategy as 3. grey relational methods could be used in basic operations with positive grey numbers ⊗G 1 and research works. grey cluster- 4. which share a common number of steps as follows: are as follows (Liu and Lin. grey relational space. subtraction. denote the operations of addition. more knowledge about uncertain events. 3. Score each attribute of each alternative. Incomplete information of system’s behavior. Grey decision-making group: This field includes alternatives. 2011). Select a scoring method and calculate the multi. with strategy making based on multi-objects that 2. Define the relevant goals. decision makers are usually faced with 1. A great number of method was originally described and presented by researchers have been applying intuitionistic fuzzy sets Zavadskas et al. 2010): 1. Determine the alternatives to be evaluated. 2014). are contradictory in an ordinary way. to the investigation of MADM under uncertain environ. the methods of Tserng et al. 2009): In real life. For example. 2006. some constraint. They proposed a novel Let a grey number ⊗G be defined by two parameters differential evolution (DE) algorithm related to mul. multipli- lems with analyzing a MADM problem is a lack of cation. In the following four general cases. Identify the relevant attributes for evaluating the 2. and tion manifests itself as incomplete or grey information 7. Determine weights (relative importance) of the ing. There ⊗ G 1 − ⊗G 2 = (G 1α − G 2β . 1985). 3. 2015). probability and statistics. There is a limited number to multi-attribute decision making in various situations of the WASPAS method with crisp values applications (Xu. theory. ×. Multicriteria evaluation of building foundation alternatives 721 Most of multi-attribute decision-making methods are three types of grey model construction. and division. An- Furthermore. in empirical works. 2011). Recently. (2012c). Perform postevaluation analysis. and fuzzy mathemat. ics are the three most frequently used methods deal- ing with unascertained problems. much more attention has been paid theory in construction. and two-fold probability of the construction firm default. As people were getting ideas of a new COPRAS-G method were presented). 4. Due to the increasing There are dozens of studies and problem solution complexity and uncertainty of objects and the fuzziness models dealing with the application of the grey system of human thought. G β ] = optimization. fuzzy multi-objective decision making. and fruitful research results have been achieved house walls based on grey attribute values (the main over the last decades (Xu. To address this terval of confidence (Kaufmann and Gupta. (2015) have developed and presented volve multiple criteria. global optimization problems also in. α and β. Zavadskas et al. The grey system theory and method ⊗G 2 can be expressed as follows: applicable to the study of unascertained problems with few data and (or) poor information were first proposed ⊗ G 1 + ⊗G 2 = (G 1α + G 2α . to solving the construction problems. system informa- attribute utilities of various options. Incomplete information of boundaries. (2015) stated that the WASPAS-G method. tuchevičienė et al. Incomplete information of elements (parameters). (2015) pointed out that one of the prob. Grey-related analysis is a technique that can be applied to both fuzzy and crisp data. (2015) integrated the grey system theory research into the problems of random multi-objective with all available firm-year samples during the sample decision making. Let +. G 1β − G 2α ) Subtraction (2) .

⎥ ⎢ . ⎢ X̃ = ⎢ ⊗xi1 · · · ⊗xi j · · · ⊗xin ⎥ ⎥ The sum of weights w j would be limited as follows: ⎢ . . ⎥ and G 2β does not contain 0 division (4) ⎢ ⎥ ⊗ X̄ = ⎢ ⎢ ⊗x̄i1 ··· ⊗x̄i j ··· ⊗x̄in ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ .2 Grey extension of WASPAS method: WASPAS-G ⊗x̄ij = ⊗xi j method (10) The Weighted Sum Model (WSM) is one of the best min xi jα min xi jα i i known and commonly used MADM methods for evalu. . (⊗G 1 )k = ((G 1α )k . i (9) xi jα xi jβ G 1α if and G 1β ≺ 1 and k = 0 . G 2α .   are normalized as follows: 1 1 (⊗G 1 )−1 = .. It is based on the assumption that the phenomena of the complicated world could be un. ⎦ ⊗xm1 · · · ⊗xm j · · · ⊗xmn n wj = 1 (11) j=1 i = 0. ⎥ (8) ⎣ . the initial values of all the attributes are normalized by defining the val. j = 1. Daniūnas. (⊗G 1 ) = (1. G 1β ×G 2β ) Multiplication (3) ues ⊗x̄i j of the normalized decision-making matrix ⊗ X̄ :   G 1α G 1β ⎡ ⎤ ⊗G 1 ÷ ⊗G 2 = . n The attributes.. ⊗ x̂i j = ⊗x̄i j × ⊗w j . ..⊗ X̂ .. (G 1β )k ) G 1β G 1α ⊗xi j ⊗x̄ij = max ⊗xi j k if G 1α and G 1β ≺ 1 . ⎦ ⊗x̄m1 ··· ⊗x̄m j ··· ⊗x̄mn k × (⊗G 1 ) = (kG 1α . .. n ⊗xi j = (⊗xi jα . . Zavadskas & Medzvieckas ⊗ G 1 ×⊗G 2 = (G 1α ×G 2α . whose preferable values are maximal. 1) . ... In the GMADM of a Usually. ⎥ (7) ⎣ . . ... only if G 1α . . weighted decision-making matrix ⊗ X̂ : At the second stage. m. ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ usually determined by the expert evaluation method. ⊗x̄01 ··· ⊗x̄0 j ··· ⊗x̄0n G 2β G 2α ⎢ . . m (12) . whose preferable values are minimal. . . When the dimensionless values of the attributes are derstood based on simple comparisons. m reasonable alternatives (rows) rated on n attributes The third stage is defining normalized-weighted (columns) describing each alternative as follows: matrix . ... kG 1β ) Grey number multiplied by positive real number k (5) i = 0.. . . . are normalized as follows: min ⊗xi j i 3. j = 1. . . and k  1 . . It is possible to evaluate the attributes with weights 0 < ⊗w j < 1. . ⎥ and influence the solution. ... i = 0. m. . . Only well-founded weights ⎡ ⎤ ⊗x01 · · · ⊗x0 j · · · ⊗x0n should be used because weights are always subjective ⎢ .722 Turskis. . or x̄ijα = and x̄i jβ = ating the number of alternatives in terms of the number xi jβ xi jα of decision attributes. . known. . originally having different di- The first stage is associated with the formation of grey mensions. Exponentiation by a or x̄ija = max xi jβ and x̄i jb = max xi jβ i i natural power k (6) The attributes. . ⊗xi jβ ) is a grey value representing the The values of all the normalized attributes are performance of the ith alternative in terms of the jth at.. . The values of weight ⊗wj are ⎢ . .. can be compared. .. . .. . G 1β . . weighted by defining the values ⊗x̂i j of the normalized- tribute. all the attributes... the performance values ⊗xi j and the at- discrete optimization problem any problem to be solved tribute weights ⊗w j (denotes the relative significance is represented by the following DMM of preferences for of the attribute) are viewed as the entries of a DMM. decision-making matrix (GDMM).

4 7244.1 Diameter (m) A3 0.9 A2 1. .1 73.0 48. .7 185.0303 0.9 39.3 7464. .7 87.90 226.7 190.4 34. ⎥ (13) ⊗w j ⎣ .88 165.4 385.0447 0.3 306..76 135..1958 0.2055 0.4 890 83. .4444 0.5 46..0652 w (without x4 ) 0.0 232.70 196. .6 419.0 52.8 9385. Multicriteria evaluation of building foundation alternatives 723 Table 4 Foundation alternatives considered for LS Criteria Concrete Excavated Duration of Installation Reinforcement Mechanisms Alternatives Depth (m) (m3 ) soil (m3 ) works (hours) cost (€) (kg) (hours) x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 α β α β α β α β α β α β Weight (w) 0.2 201.1823 0.3 257.5 48.4 911.9 241.0447 0.4388 0.50 27.7 200.6 934.7 1028. ⊗x̂01 · · · ⊗x̂0 j · · · ⊗x̂0n the total relative importance of the alternative i denoted ⎢ .1304 0.8 855.4 252.1983 0.2 245.2464 0. .1330 0.2568 0.6 9485.0789 0.9 7584.5 9567.4 48.. ⎥ ⎢ ..9 314.1304 0.9 47.1823 0.0789 0.4 190.4 238.2055 0.90 225.2 109.1 953.30 35.84 50.6 65.2 205.6 32.9 72.8 37.2376 0.10 257.4388 0.2464 0.2 846.0539 0.0539 0.3092 0.1 A5 0.0 328..5 A4 0. .0 57.3 216.9 29.2 308.56 44. . .5 Table 5 Foundation alternatives considered for AS Criteria Concrete Excavated Duration of Installation Reinforcement Mechanisms Alternatives Depth (m) (m3 ) soil (m3 ) works (hours) cost (€) (kg) (hours) x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 α β α β α β α β α β α β Weight (w) 0.1 8291.7 80.3 23.5 28.4 913.4 294.8 35.2376 0.1 21015.3 12638.6 276. .3092 0. ⎥ by ⊗Pi is defined as follows: ⎢ ⎥ ⊗ X̂ = ⎢⎢ ⊗ x̂ i1 · · · ⊗ x̂ ij · · · ⊗ x̂ ⎥ in ⎥ n ⎢ .0 19288.2568 0. .0652 0.9 100.0 105.1983 A1 1.4 315. ⎦ ⊗ Pi = ⊗x̄i j .1983 0.0520 0.8 249.3 28.0303 0.4 33.6 43.0 36. .0652 w (without x4 ) 0.0 9298. or j=1 ⊗x̂m1 · · · ⊗x̂m j · · · ⊗x̂mn n .8 321.30 28.6 215.4444 0.3 12103. .2 37.6 311.0 10766.3603 0 0 0.1 Diameter (m) A4 0.4 A2 1.1 9786.0652 0.1699 0.1983 A1 1.0 37. .7 9606.3603 0 0 0.6 28. .1958 0.6 48.1330 0.2 56.9 67.3 189.8 13847.5 A5 0.5 43.5 199.32 38.2 42 39.6 1094..6 33.8 36.0520 0.7 1105. ..0 where w j is the weight (significance) of the jth attribute where ⊗Q i is the value of the additive optimality func- and x̄i j is the normalized value of the jth attribute...7 6794. tion for ith alternative.1699 0.8 7845.60 32. ⎡ ⎤ According to the Weighted Product Model (WPM).

5 ⊗ Q i + 0. ⊗w ⊗w i = 0. n ⊗Pi = 0. assuming equal contribution of WSM (ࣹ Qi ) and WPM (ࣹ Pi ) to the n total score: ⊗Q i = 0. 2012b) ⊗ Qi = ⊗x̂i j . m.5 ⊗ Pi (16) .5 ⊗x̄i jα jβ + ⊗x̄i jβ jα (15) j=1 The following task is the determining of the optimal- ity function values: An attempt was made to use an integrated multi- attribute utility value for determining the total perfor- n mance of the alternative Kt (Zavadskas et al. i = 0.5 (x̂i jα + x̂i jβ ) . m (14) j=1 K i = 0.. or j=1 according to the WASPAS method. j = 1.

4444 0. In this case.3 m diameter bored piles.1 28.6 186. A2 is a shallow foundation deepened to 1.5 m .9 27. .8 33.16 154.1 7715.2 7715.0303 0.3092 0.2 Based on the previous research and supposing the in- crease of ranking accuracy.16 32.5 m.5 26. 2012b): n n ⊗w j Ki = λ ⊗x̂i j + (1 − λ) ⊗x̄i j j=1 j=1 λ = 0. λ is determined as a lever based on the as- sumption that the total WSM performance score of all alternatives should be equal to the total of WPM per- formance score: m i=1 Pi λ = m m (18) i=1 Q i + i=1 Pi Archimedes explained lever’s mechanical advantage.2464 0.2 235. The foundation selection problem is solved by apply.5 279.3603 0 0 0.2055 0.7 232.2 841 841 40. .4388 0. is equal to the weight (or downward force) of the load multiplied by its distance from the fulcrum.4 127. 3.70 196.2 7164.0652 0. Determining of criteria weights. The values of the cri.3 19.0 35.4 185.. or leverage.0652 w (without x4 ) 0.3 A2 1.1 5527. According to the load pre- sented in Figure 2. which is the wanted order of precedence.0789 0.3 35.4 46.1699 0.2 22.8 26.2376 0.3 190. it was offered to determine K i as follows (Zavadskas et al.1304 0.1823 0.0 m.5 46. 1 (17) The value λ could be determined in different ways.0447 0. teria describing the foundation installation are calcu- lated using standard tariffs.1 23.0520 0. notes the 0.52 110. five alternatives of foundations are 3.1983 A1 1.1 154.9 9285.8 178. A4 denotes a 0. . the input force multiplied by its distance from the fulcrum.9 305. .8 32.1983 0. Daniūnas.30 26.20 187.2 854. 1] and can be arranged in the ascending order.3 6362. The calculated values K i are in the interval [0. A3 de- ing the above described model.04 26.6 9305. as well as the effectiveness of decision making.2568 0.2 305.2 A4 0.7 905.1330 0. Fig.4 35.724 Turskis.2 40.3 Problem’s solution possible: A1 is a shallow foundation deepened to 1. Zavadskas & Medzvieckas Table 6 Foundation alternatives considered for DS Criteria Concrete Excavated Duration of Installation Reinforcement Mechanisms Alternatives Depth (m) (m3 ) soil (m3 ) works (hours) cost (€) (kg) (hours) x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 α β α β α β α β α β α β Weight (w) 0.5 7064. in his work “On the Equilibrium of Planes” and is noted for his claim “Give me a place to stand and a long enough lever and I can move the Earth”.10 35. Archimedes’ explanation of the theory of the lever is based on the principle of balancing the input and output torques about the fulcrum of the device so that.1958 0.5 Diameter (m) A3 0.0539 0.3 287.

using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. presented in Tables 4–6.6 m diameter bored the installation of foundations in LS. x2 is the excavated soil. it was not con. Because the cost of materials. Multicriteria evaluation of building foundation alternatives 725 Fig. x5 denotes the age civil engineering problems (Ahmadlou and Adeli. representing the 0.3 m di. 2010. ious complicated problems and providing advice (Lee crete. out taking into account the installation cost criterion not be treated as a short pile. sidered as an alternative. ameter bored piles. Six criteria were selected for Expert systems have been employed for solving var- evaluating foundations: x1 denotes the amount of con. and work duration make the basic cost. Table 7 Weight coefficients based on experts’ judgement. (weight of x4 is equal to 0). These solutions have been adopted to man- of works.. The considered alternatives representing et al. the alternative A5 . Therefore. x4 denotes the installation cost. representing a 0. x3 denotes the duration et al. The alternative A3 . AS. A5 is a 0. is too short and. Entering input data into MCDSS WEAR for one expert. Reuter and Moller. reinforcement amount. was considered to be inappropriate mechanisms. x6 denotes the working time of 2010. and DS are short pile. can. For DS.6 alternatives given in Tables 4–6 were calculated with- m diameter bored pile. the for LS. taking into account the installation cost diameter bored short pile. 2011). 4. therefore. 2012).. . Hasanzadehshooiili mechanisms.

465 0.915 2.449 5 – – – – ࢣ= 2.591 0.588 4 0.423 0.353 λ = 0.682 0.447 3.661 0.421 0.814 0.530 0.528 0.620 1 A5 0.686 0.712 0. not taking into account the installation cost Table 9 The integrated ranks of foundation alternatives obtained using WASPAS-G method.288 λ = 0. Zavadskas & Medzvieckas Table 8 Weight coefficients based on experts’ judgement. Different theories of criteria 1.559 2 0.585 3 A3 – – – – 0.572 0.329 1.517 4 0.446 0.687 1 0.634 1=2 A4 0.758 0.747 0.471 0.581 0.480 0.403 0.290 λ = 0.895 0.606 0.873 0.456 3. The role three main approaches to determining the relative sig- of the weights is to reflect relative importance of each of nificance of attributes (Hwang and Yoon.226 2.660 0.394 0.512 0.741 2 0.511 0.522 0.576 0. 1981): the attributes with respect to other attributes.596 0.570 3 A3 – – – – 0.575 3 0.526 3 0.509 Final ranks A1 1 1 4 A2 2 3 3 A3 – 2 2 A4 3 4 1 A5 4 5 – Not all the criteria are of equal importance. Daniūnas.400 2. it is often difficult to determine the relative im- portance of the criteria.720 2 0.577 2 A4 0. .803 0.650 0.634 1=2 A5 0.760 0. Type of sand Loose Average density Dense Expenditures are included R R R Alternatives Q P K (Rank) Q P K (Rank) Q P K (Rank) A1 0.550 0. The weight determination have been developed.709 0.682 0.095 λ = 0. There are Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP method).480 0.634 2 0.489 3 0.390 4 A2 0.203 2.460 4 0.547 0.206 0.778 0.838 λ = 0.485 Expenditures are not included A1 0.649 1 0.494 4 0.634 0. In prac- tice.578 0.203 2. The subjective approach: Delphi Method.688 0.726 Turskis.560 3 0.753 0.609 0.726 0.131 λ = 0.584 0.197 0.453 0.487 5 – – – – ࢣ= 2.731 2.626 0.489 0.564 0.645 0.821 1 0.844 1 0.393 4 A2 0.356 2.

cording to the algorithm presented in Figure 3. & Granada. it should be noted that the WASPAS-G Multicriteria evaluation was performed using the method has a promising future in the decision mak- WASPAS-G method. E7 ) assessed the importance of managerial implication is that the obtained data will the criteria. for AS. Structural and Multidisci- For the average density sand. E.. whereas the alternative A2 . As a result. 1980). & Turskis. company by using novel method for multi-attribute anal- the alternative A4 .3 m diameter bored piles. changing their weights. Saavedra. second. (2010). representing 0.5 m is ranked 210. whereas the alternative and Control. Another important Seven experts (E1 . Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering. duration of works. making activities and performance evaluation. sta. DS are shown in Table 9. M. Besides this. costs were assessed are presented in Table 7 and those Weighting results show that stakeholders are more obtained when these costs were not evaluated are pre.0 neural network with local decision circles: a robust clas- m is best suited. The integrated method. is the best. Z. (2015). The ranks assigned in the evalua. 197– ing shallow foundations deepened to 1. and for support. depending on the correlation between the frequencies of the two interested persons and the environment in which deci- attribute characteristics or between the observed sions are made. The criteria weights were determined ac. sis of building foundation alternatives by applying sim- ple and clearly defined procedures. H. L. 17(3). whereas the alternative A1 . representing shallow foundations deepened to 1. Finally. the integrated evaluation of alternatives is presented. the alternative A3 . For LS. Mı́guez J. Expert Judge. mechanisms. H. representing shallow foun. M. but does not show the real cedures for analyzing building foundation alternatives importance of criteria and preferences of decision and ranking the attributes in terms of their significance maker): Entropy method (generates the criteria level. Ap- Through Intercriteria Correlation: determination plying the MCDM is automated selection from several of objective weights of criteria based on the level alternatives. concerned with the installation cost and reinforcement sented in Table 8. (2014). A. Zavadskas. prediction accuracy. E. K. & Adeli. . Evaluating and selecting a contractor for a construction dations deepened to 1. depending on a particular case.0 m. the alternative Ahmadlou. 2. J. ing because it offers a methodological basis for decision tion of expenditures for the case of LS.. E.3 m diameter bored piles. They were determined by using the than with the consumption of concrete. is ranked Arce. Researchers and stakeholders have found a way to For that purpose. ables (attributes). 4 CONCLUSION ment Method.. or AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) approach (Saaty. as well as simpler and clearer pro- natives and criteria. A3 . second. as well as for decision- of subjectivity or lack of decision makers). 24(2). 50. Advances in optimization of highrise building structures. SWARA method. the modified software MCDSS evaluate and rank the alternatives by applying grey val- WEAR was used (Zavadskas et al. plinary Optimization. Studies in Informatics pile foundations is the best. Weight co. The objective approach (which deals only with The suggested problem solution model offers higher the criteria values in the defined set of alter. 899–910. representing 0. The contrast between the results show the ap- weights directly from the value of the criterion plicability of this model as a valuable tool to be used for each alternative and eliminates the problem by construction work managers. which combines the two use the model as a means of fast and convenient analy- previous approaches. Multicriteria evaluation of building foundation alternatives 727 Additive Normalization Method. For DS. & Adeli. . The use of grey-based methods in multi-criteria . which tistical methods (CRITIC – CRiteria Importance contains multiple alternatives and multiple criteria. MCDM methods provide a well-structured of contrast and conflict observed in the structure procedure (sequence of steps) to select the type of struc- of the decision problem. sifier. M. is ranked second. representing 0. REFERENCES culations made with and without the installation cost assessment give similar results. practitioners may directly 3.. Cal. frequencies and the frequencies expected in a The suggested model includes only six ranked vari- particular hypothesis). Antuchevičienė. 2012c). ture. vary. Enhanced probabilistic A1 . in Table 9. ues and to compare their scores with that of the ideal efficients (Figure 4) determined when the installation alternative. represent. etc. 141–50. (2015).5 m diameter bored ysis: Weighted Aggregated Sum Product ASsessment with Grey values (WASPAS-G) method. Chi-square test: calcu. The algorithm can be easily modified to include lating whether there is a statistically significant new variables. Aldwaik.

. S. Grey Information: Theory and Prac- systems: a review. Turskis. (2014)..-G. 30(2). 126(11). Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering.). pile. 168–71. RSN 91-85 (1987). Oloufa. tion. 20(1). Vilnius. (Eurocode criteria adaptive differential evolution for global numeri. Lakirouhani. (Eurocode 7.. 69–79. J. Springer-Verlag. & Canteras-Jordana. (2010). (2011). Vilnius. 4727–32. Z. Berlin Heidelberg. Tserng.-L. tem for auditing quality management systems in construc. L. Systems MacCrimmon. 1(5).. vol. (1997). 55 p. B.. Kaufmann. Vestnik oping Countries. & Arditi. S. Berlin Heidelberg. Sušinskas. 15(1). Gabrielaitis. 612–31. (1982). & applying acceleration record. 18(4). McGraw- Jato-Espino. S. H. Magazine of Civil Engineer.M. Li. testing). Analysis of foundation installation for Quality of life in Europe: Subjective Well-Being. New York. S. Oxford University tions. Oxford. 1339–47. C. optimization of steel structures. ing. The Lithuanian Unified Soil Classification leny (eds. A. J. X. Multiple Criteria Decision Making.728 Turskis. Cochrane and M. U. (2013). Amšiejus. Z.. & Yao. Press. G. P. (2015). (2011). R. 409–19. Deng. & Hromada. V. L. K. grid reinforced silty clay and sand. . (2013). A. A. Heidelberg. 45. Daniūnas. Zavadskas & Medzvieckas decision analysis for the evaluation of sustainable energy Liu. 29–43. University System. C. Multi-Criteria Deci. (2009). FL. Improve. K. cision Making. A. A review of application Sarma. for buildings with bearing walls for Lithuania ground condi- Kolay. jective decision making. J. cision Making. Pagrindo tyrinėjimai ir bandymai. Wiley. Ngo. Journal of Construction Tezcan. 139–46. 41(5). Geotechni- Bulatov. Geotechninis projektavi- Cheng. H. Columbia. 25(5). ness failure prediction. S. 5. sion Analysis: Methods and Software. Lithuanian Geological Society Publ. CRC ment post-grouting to increase the load capacity for bored Press.. & Lin. M. 47(2015). Daniūnas. T. LST EN 1997-1 (2006). Berlin. Eurokodas 7. & Lin. Y. Turskis. 151–62. Bywater. Zhang. Ze- Dundulis.. H. Ethica Nicomachea. & Yoon. views. Geotechnical design – Part 2: Ground investigation and cal optimization. A.. Bored foundation design. 103–07. J. J. old buildings in downtown Saint Petersburg. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 48(1). Stasiškis. P. K. 655–61.(Lithuanian construction regulation.. Gre˛žtinių Ishizaka. (2013). (2014). tions. Van Nostrand Rein. Article ID 293809 10 pp. L. & Moller. A. Z. E. & Arithmetic: Theory and Applications. Norkus. (2000). Springer-Verlag. P. A. Y. E. in J. Barriers and ture Engineering. & Nemery. Shi. Lietuvos standartizacijos departamentas. MGSU. Grey Game Theory Nguyen. L. (2010). Engineering and Hasanzadehshooiili. 67–76. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastruc- Lepre. Acta Poly. mas: 1 dalis. Caraffini. 159 p. T. (1973). K. Hybridizing Xu. Originally published in 350 BC. E. & Han. & Ikeda. Boca Raton. Technology. & Zhang. 18–43. 20(1). 4(2). Liu. J. UK. Journal of Construction in Devel. & Gupta. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. F. construction firms. Efficiency of piles of cal design – Part 1: General rules). R. L. mas: 2 dalis. L. (1981). M. Luxembourg.. C. Springer-Verlag. Q. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Earth Science Research. 02(01). (2011). 42(7). N. Lim.. (2012).and terrain-dependent applications. An overview of multiple ob- and Controls Letters. S. 2013. Journal of Civil Engineering Rudžionis. English edi. Z. Reuter. SC. Eurofound (2013). R. H. J. & Civil Engineering and Management. H. & Zhou. (2010). S. and Foundation Engineering. Journal of Structural Engi- Automation in Construction. 138 p. 30–35. Computers & Operations Research. 7. Springer-Verlag.... 5(19). Random-Like Multiple Objective De- principles of TOPSIS with case-based reasoning for busi.. & Ozdemir. P. (2015). Geospatial analysis of tion by I. & Tiwari. Grey Systems: Theory and Applica- Aristotle (1990). neering. Hill. Fang. 142–48. Xu. H. Saaty. J. Publica. C. 1(1). & Kolosova. (2010). L. (1985). 23–31. & Neri. Research Journal of Applied Sciences. Fuzzy-Like Multiple Objective De- 38(2). forecasting of fuzzy time series. pp. 18(5). K. Automation bolts. Third European Quality of Life Survey – Mangushev. J. Survey. & Medzvieckas. LST EN 1997-2 (2009). L.. Liu. of South Carolina Press. An expert sys. Sikora. R. & Lin. (2014). (1980). Dynamic simulations in cost Journal of Geographic Information System. & Mendes. Y. (2008). D. Respublikinės statybos normos.-E. Berlin. V. A. T. Superiority of artificial neural networks over sta. 142–48. K. Chichester.. J. & Tran. D. in Construction. S. Artificial neural networks for Hwang. 512–18. Vilnius. (2006). New York. (2012).. (1995). Adeli. Multiple Attribute Deci. departamentas. 22(2). Nie. G. London. Castillo-Lopez. The efficiency analysis of foundations and Management. Zavadskas. Geotechninis projektavi- technica. Allowable bearing pres- Engineering. Study of bearing capacity of vibratory pile Sušinskas. opportunities in developing ‘do-it-yourself’ (DIY) products Usmanov. 98–108. Ž. D. 288–94. and time estimation of the construction process. Method ce- and Its Applications in Economic Decision-Making. K. Sun. Lee. An automated environment tistical methods in prediction of the optimal length of rock for soils.. (2013). sure in soils and rocks through seismic wave velocities. M. tical Applications. (2012). Fuzzy discrete multicriteria cost of multi-criteria decision making methods in construction. 120–34. Springer. P. pamatų projektavimas. (2004). Computer-Aided Civil and sion Making-Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Infrastructure Engineering. Improvement of efficiency of appli- for low-income housing. B.. 924–32. (2013). (2011).. M. Lietuvos standartizacijos various cross-sectional forms. Lorandi. Introduction to Fuzzy Sivilevičius. Rocha. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re. Kumar. 186. & Dos Santos. A. Control problems of grey systems. geotechnical data applied to urban infrastructure planning. Soil Mechanics tions Office of the European Union. G.. A grey system theory-based default prediction model for 26(8). ment of bearing capacity of shallow foundation on geo. L.. Experimental study on technological hold. Vilnius. & Adeli. D. Multi. K. cation of condensed soil cushions to loose soils. indicators of pile-columns at a construction site. 363–74. Eurokodas 7. R. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. Rodriguez-Hernandez.).-K. Z. F. A. Journal of Kelevišius. S.. Beran. H. Valickas. Pagrindinės taisyklės. Chen. Y.

. Zayed. (2005). Sušinskas. 6. tinuous flight auger piles. (2012c).. Turskis. 18(6).. A. ing and Management. 501–20. 11(2). Zavadskas.. Vainiunas. S.. Zavadskas. 1468. 677–88.. Kaklauskas. E. Z. Multicriteria evaluation of building foundation alternatives 729 Xu. J. K. Zavadskas. M. Z. tional Journal of Information Technology & Decision Mak- Zavadskas. (2012a). E. Berlin Heidelberg. 834–42. T. H.. E. & ing. & Zakare- tive Decision Making. (2008). & Tamošaitienė. 85–93. (2012b). & Tamosaitiene. (2015). Z. Z. Uncertain Multi-Attribute Decision Mak. Intuitionistic Preference Modeling and Interac. Springer-Verlag. Antucheviciene. Daniūnas. Berlin 3–6. (2014). E. 14(2). Productivity and cost assessment for con- column construction technology.php/elt/article/download/1810/ Heidelberg. http://erem. Springer-Verlag. 131(6).. . Z. sum product assessment. K.. K. Turskis. Multiple criteria selection of pile.lt/index. Elektronika irelektrotechnika.ktu. Turskis. Turskis. ing: Methods and Applications. Z. P. Multiple criteria decision support system for applying attribute values determined at intervals. Sivilevičius. Journal of Construction Engineer- ing and Management. A. Interna- of Civil Engineering and Management. J. A. Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by J. vicius. Optimization of weighted aggregated Xu. Journal assessment of projects managers in construction. Journal of Civil Engineer. K.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.