Productivity and Cost Assessment for Continuous Flight

Auger Piles
Tarek M. Zayed1

Abstract: Continuous flight auger 共CFA兲 piles do not receive sufficient research attention although they are widely used in the United
States, United Kingdom, and other countries in the world. Therefore, this paper focuses on describing the CFA pile installation features,
exploring its construction methods, and determining the factors that affect the CFA pile productivity and cost. A productivity index 共PI兲
is developed to quantify the effect of subjective factors on the CFA process productivity. Current research concludes a PI value of 0.78 out
of 1.0 共efficiency兲. Several models are designated to assess the CFA pile’s cycle time, productivity, and cost using deterministic approach.
Various charts are developed to show this assessment based upon these models. Results show that the cycle time for 12.19 m depth and
共0.36 m兲 共14 in兲 diameter piles is 16 min; however, its productivity is 24 piles 共holes兲/day. The developed tools play an essential role in
the CFA decision making process. This paper is relevant to both researchers and practitioners. It provides charts for practitioners’ usage
to schedule and price out the CFA pile construction projects. In addition, it provides the researchers with a methodology of applying the
deterministic approach to the CFA pile construction process and its limitations.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2005兲131:6共677兲
CE Database subject headings: Productivity; Costs; Decision making; Piles; Construction equipment; Augers.

Introduction
Continuous flight auger 共CFA兲 and auger cast-in-place 共ACIP兲
piles are synonyms for the same pile drilling technique. It is a
special form of continuous spoil removal 共Web-1 2004兲. Zayed
and Halpin 共2004兲, in their study on bored pile productivity,
stated that subsurface obstacles, lack of contractor experience,
and site planning difficulties in addition to other factors compli-
cated the process of pile installation. They further summarized the
factors that affect pile installation productivity as follows: 共1兲 site
preinvestigation coverage; 共2兲 soil type; 共3兲 lack of contractor
experience; 共4兲 piling machine mechanical and drilling problems;
共5兲 job and management problems; 共6兲 problems due to site re-
strictions and disposal of excavated spoil; and 共7兲 rebar installa-
tion and pouring concrete. All these problems, no doubt, greatly
affect the production of CFA piles.
Current study aims at achieving the following goals: 共1兲 re-
viewing literature for the CFA pile installation features and pro-
cedures; 共2兲 determining the factors that affect the CFA piles pro-
ductivity; 共3兲 designating a tool for adjusting the CFA pile
productivity estimate through a productivity index 共PI兲; and 共4兲
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Construction Engineering and
Management, Zagazig Univ., Zagazig, Egypt; presently, Assistant
Professor, Dept. of Building, Civil & Environmental Engineering,
Concordia Univ., BE-357, 1257 Guy St., Montreal, Canada, H3G 1M7.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on June 24, 2004; approved on January 31, 2005. This
paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, Vol. 131, No. 6, June 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2005/6-
677–688/$25.00.
assessing the CFA pile’s cycle time, productivity, and cost using
deterministic approach.
Background
The CFA piles are constructed by drilling a CFA auger into the
ground and, on reaching the required depth, pumping concrete
down the hollow stem as the auger is steadily withdrawn 共Mure et
al. 2002兲. During the auger withdrawal, which then is not rotated,
the auger passes through an auger cleaner that removes the spoil
soil 共Web-1 2004兲. Because the CFA operation combines all main
piling operations in a single process, it is able to achieve high
drilling production rates 共Web-1 2004兲. Since their introduction in
the 1940s in North America, the CFA piles, also known as auger
cast piles, have become increasingly popular, as they can be con-
siderably cheaper than alternative pile types 共Web-1 2004兲. It be-
comes the most common type of pile in use in the United King-
dom 共Web-2 2004兲.
The CFA piles are available in various sizes: 0.3, 0.45, 0.6, and
0.75 m diameter, and exceptionally 0.9 m diameter; however,
they can be constructed to depths in excess of 30 m 共Web-1
2004兲. The CFA pile has no open bore at any time 共Web-2 2004兲.
This technique is appropriate for most ground conditions includ-
ing soft rocks, but becomes particularly economical in noncohe-
sive sands, gravels, or silts where otherwise long casings or drill-
ing would be required 共Web-3 2004 and Web-4 2004兲. For
successful operation of rotary auger, the soil must be reasonably
free of tree roots, cobbles, and boulders, and it must be self sup-
porting 共Web-3 2004兲.
Continuous Flight Auger Construction Method
Weele 共1988兲, Web-1 共2004兲, Web-5 共2004兲, Web-6 共2004兲,
Web-4 共2004兲, Das 共2004兲, Coduto 共2001兲, DFI 共2003, 1994兲,

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 677

 Stage 3: Shaft Formation
During the withdrawal of the auger, the concrete or mortar 共grout兲
is pumped through the stem. This should be done with an over-
pressure in order to make sure that enough concrete is always
supplied near the base, so as to compensate for the volume in-
crease caused by the lifting of the auger.

Stage 4: Placement of Reinforcement

Immediately upon completion of the pile shaft, the reinforcement
cage is lowered down to its proper location and height.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Continuous Flight

Auger Piles: Web-1 „2004…, Web-4 „2004…, Web-5 „2004…,
Web-6 „2004…, and Peurifoy et al. „2002…

Fig. 1. Continuous flight auger construction method stages 共adapted
from DFI 1994兲
Fleming et al. 共1992兲, and Peurifoy et al. 共2002兲 summarized the
installation stages for these kinds of piles 共Fig. 1兲 as follows:
Stage 1: Augering Hole
The auger is used to excavate the hole with the proper size. When
the CFA piles are formed, the hole in the ground does not need to
be stable or stand open. The auger however should be kept full of
soil, so that the surrounding soil will be supported.
Stage 2: Completion of Augering and Start Shaft Formation
After the auger has reached full depth, the temporary closure plate
below the central stem is to be pushed away by the concrete or
mortar 共grout兲. Usually the auger is for that purpose lifted without
rotating and the start of concrete pumping should do the rest.
Advantages
• Low mobilization cost.
• Low noise and vibration.
• Auger protects the hole from caving.
• Grout is injected under pressure, so there is good soil bond and
some soil compaction.
• Used in a wide variety of soils.
Disadvantages (Limitation)
• Must have good contractor quality control and skills.
• Auger can draw up more soil than it should under some con-
ditions.
• If equipment breaks down, pile is lost.
• Cannot be used with cobbles and boulders.
• Poor and/or inconsistent quality and load carrying capacity.
• Sensitivity to operator performance.
Weele 共1988兲 was in favor of the CFA against driven piles
because CFA piles are friendlier for the inhabitants of nearby
buildings compared to driven piles, but driven displacement piles
are better for buildings and their foundation than CFA piles.
Fleming et al. 共1992兲 reported that the CFA piles offer consid-
erable environmental advantages during construction. Vibration is
minimal, and noise outputs are low. In permeable soils with a
high water table, their use removes the need for concreting by the

Table 1. Methods of Producing Boreholes in Soft Ground 共Adapted from Harris 1983兲
Maximum depth Maximum diameter
Method Category 共m兲 共mm兲 Soil type
Soil investigation Rotary boring When 150–200 All
boring bedrock is
reached
Continuous flight Rotary boring 30 Up to 600 Firm uniform soils
Auger
Intermittent flight Rotary boring 50 Up to 2,500 Firm uniform soils
Auger
Rotary boring with Rotary boring 50 Up to 1,500 Free-flowing soils
bucket
Rotary boring with Rotary boring 30–40 Up to 6,000 Cohesive soils
belling bucket
Grabbing Conventional 100 500–2,000 Difficult soils and those
grabbing containing small boulders
Circulation drilling Conventional 100 300–2,000 Soft rock
grabbing

678 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005

tremie method, and temporary support for the borehole walls
using casing or bentonite slurry is not necessary. This method is
suitable in sands, gravels, and clays.
Harris 共1983兲 reported that there were two principal methods
for drilling holes: 共1兲 rotary, or auger, boring, and 共2兲 conven-
tional grabbing with a bucket. The selection of each type depends
upon ground conditions, diameter, and depth of borehole re-
quired, and the cost and availability of the equipment. The capa-
bilities of each method are summarized in Table 1.
Continuous Flight Auger Productivity Factors
The factors that affect drilling are identified by Peurifoy et al.
共2002兲 and Zayed and Halpin 共2004兲: type of drill and size of bit;
hardness of the soil; depth of holes; drilling pattern; terrain; and
time lost waiting for other operations. If pneumatic drills are
used, the rate of drilling varies with the pressure of the air. An-
other item that influences the rate of drilling is the machine avail-
ability factor. Drills are subjected to severe vibration and wear,
which may result in frequent failure of critical parts, or deterio-
ration of the whole unit, entailing mechanical delays. The portion
of time that a drill is operative is defined as the availability factor,
which is usually expressed as a percent of the total drilling time.
Subjective Factors Quantification Model
Zayed and Halpin 共2004兲 designated three models to quantify the
effect of several major qualitative factors on the piling process
productivity. These factors are shown in Fig. 2. Current study
considers the same factors to quantify their effect on the CFA pile
productivity. Therefore, current study implemented the designated
models by Zayed and Halpin 共2004兲, which are summarized in the
following models:
n moved to another pile location.
QFW = 兺
i=1
Wi ⫻ Vi共xi兲 共1兲
Fig. 2. Continuous flight auger piles productivity qualitative factors 共adapted from Zayed and Halpin 2004兲
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 679
PI = 1 − QFW 共2兲
P f = Pr ⫻ PI 共3兲
where QFW= qualitative factors worth and PI= productivity
index.
The PI is the complement of the QFW because the latter rep-
resents the bad effect 共deficiency兲 of the qualitative factors on
productivity while the former represents the work efficiency. Con-
sequently, productivity is equivalent to the optimistic productivity
estimate multiplied by the PI. For example, if QFW results in
20% deficiency; then the work is done with 80% efficiency.
Hence, productivity is equivalent to 0.8⫻ Pr. For more details on
how these models have been derived and their rationale, the
reader is referred to Zayed and Halpin 共2004兲.
Continuous Flight Auger Pile Productivity Model
Development
The CFA pile cycle time activities’ durations are estimated as
crisp numbers 共deterministic approach: statistical mean for the
collected data sample兲. To build the conventional 共deterministic兲
productivity model for the CFA pile, construction steps have to be
defined in detail. Fig. 1 depicts the detailed construction steps of
the CFA piling process starting from the axis adjustment until
pouring concrete and finishing the pile. The construction steps
共algorithm兲 can be summarized as follows:
1. Adjust the CFA machine on the pile axis and adjust vertical-
ity.
2. Start drilling until the auger reached the designed depth for
the pile.
3. Withdraw the auger while pouring concrete or grout.
4. Clean the auger where it is withdrawn from the hole.
5. Unload the dirt in the unloading area.
6. Upon finishing grout or concrete pouring, the machine is
7. Repeat steps 1–6 for the second pile 共CFA machine兲, and so
on.
8. Move the rebar cage from the shop to the pile location.
9. Erect the rebar cage guide.
10. Left the rebar cage using excavator, crane, or the CFA ma-
chine itself based upon the availability and site conditions.
11. Erect the rebar cage and finish the pile.
Based upon previous algorithm, the CFA machine productivity
and cost can be assessed. To determine productivity, cycle time
has to be assessed. The CFA machine cycle time depends upon
the activities that the machine will perform. There are two major
construction method options to construct a complete pile using
the CFA machine:
Option 1
The CFA machine will perform drilling, pouring, and moving to
another pile location; however, another crane or excavator will
perform the rest of activities, such as move the cage to pile loca-
tions, lift the cage, and erect it. This is the common construction
method option for the CFA piles.
Option 2
The CFA machine will perform all the activities starting from
drilling until rebar cage erection because there is no other crane or
excavator available or there is no room in the construction site to
have another machine in.
Cycle Time Model Development
According to the previous two construction method options, cycle
time for both the CFA pile machine and the other in-site auxiliary
machines 共excavator or crane兲 can be determined. Let us suppose
that there are j various soil types that the CFA machine can work
in and there are i number of pile sizes as required by the pile
design company. Then, the time taken from the CFA machine to
drill one pile hole can be determined using the following model:
Tij = Dij/Rij 共4兲
Similar to drilling time, the time required to pour concrete or
mortar 共grout兲 and withdraw the CFA from the hole can be deter-
mined using the following model:
Pij = Dij/Lij 共5兲
From models 共4兲 and 共5兲, the total CFA machine time per pile can
be determined from the following models for options 1 and 2,
which have been discussed earlier:
TMT1 = 共Dij/Rij兲 + 共Dij/Lij兲 + M + U
= 共Dij/Lij ⫻ Rij兲 ⫻ 共Rij + Lij兲 + M + U 共option 1兲
共6a兲
TMT2 = 共Dij/Lij ⫻ Rij兲 ⫻ 共Rij + Lij兲 + M + U + A
+ 共Li + Si + Ci兲 共option 2兲 共6b兲
where TMT= total machine time.
Productivity Model Development
Productivity can be determined after calculating the total duration
to construct a pile 共TMT1兲 and/or 共TMT2兲. The working hours
共WH兲 per day have to be defined to determine how many pile
holes can be performed per day. The regular working hours per
680 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005
day are 8. But in this study, the term working hours 共WH兲 is left
as a variable for the user to adjust according to company policy.
Because the TMT1 model 共6a兲 and the TMT2 model 共6b兲 use
minutes as a duration unit, the WH have to be converted into
minutes; therefore, the working time per day will be 共60
⫻ WH兲 min. To calculate the productivity, the total working time
per day 共60⫻ WH兲 has to be divided by the TMT1 共option 1兲 or
by the TMT2 共option 2兲. The outcome is the number of pile holes
that can be constructed per day. But this result considers produc-
tive time of 60 min/ h; however, this is not realistic. This result
only considers the effect of the quantitative factors on productiv-
ity and neglects the qualitative factors, such as operator effi-
ciency, weather conditions, site conditions, job management, site
investigation, mechanical problems, etc. Therefore, the PI term
that accounts for the effect of these qualitative variables has to be
considered in the productivity model. This term has been deter-
mined using the analytic hierarchy process 共AHP兲 and fuzzy logic
as explained earlier in this paper. The final outcome of this quali-
tative evaluation is the productivity index 共PI兲. Hence, productiv-
ity can be determined using the following models:
productivity 共holes/day兲 = 60 ⫻ WH ⫻ PI/TMT1 共option 1兲
共7a兲
productivity 共holes/day兲 = 60 ⫻ WH ⫻ PI/TMT2 共option 2兲
共7b兲
Then, based on models 共7a兲 and 共7b兲,
60 ⫻ WH ⫻ PI 共holes/day兲
productivity = 共option 1兲
共Dij/Lij ⫻ Rij兲 ⫻ 共Rij + Lij兲 + M + U
共8a兲
productivity
60 ⫻ WH ⫻ PI 共holes/day兲
=
共Dij/Lij ⫻ Rij兲 ⫻ 共Rij + Lij兲 + M + U + A + 共Li + Si + Ci兲
共option 2兲 共8b兲
The productivity models in models 共8a兲 and 共8b兲 provide only
the number of holes per day. Common practice uses the produc-
tivity in cu yd/day or ft/day; therefore, the models 共9a兲, 共9b兲,
共10a兲, and 共10b兲 have been developed. Productivity can be deter-
mined in cu yd/day or ft/day by multiplying model 共8a兲 and 共8b兲
by the pile volume and cross-sectional area, respectively. Models
共9a兲 and 共9b兲 determine productivity in terms of cu yd/day
whereas models 共10a兲 and 共10b兲 determine productivity in terms
of linear foot of depth per day. Both models can be depicted as
follows:
productivity
1.75 ⫻ WH ⫻ PI ⫻ ␾2 ⫻ i ⫻ d 共yd3/day兲
= 共option 1兲 共9a兲
共Dij/Lij ⫻ Rij兲 ⫻ 共Rij + Lij兲 + M + U
productivity
1.75 ⫻ WH ⫻ PI ⫻ ␾2 ⫻ i ⫻ d 共yd3/day兲
=
共Dij/Lij ⫻ Rij兲 ⫻ 共Rij + Lij兲 + M + U + A + 共Li + Si + Ci兲
共option 2兲 共9b兲
 60 ⫻ WH ⫻ PI ⫻ i ⫻ d 共ft/day兲
productivity = 共option 1兲
共Dij/Lij ⫻ Rij兲 ⫻ 共Rij + Lij兲 + M + U
共10a兲
productivity
60 ⫻ WH ⫻ PI ⫻ i ⫻ d 共ft/day兲
= in models 共1兲, 共2兲, and 共3兲. They are implemented to the available
共Dij/Lij ⫻ Rij兲 ⫻ 共Rij + Lij兲 + M + U + A + 共Li + Si + Ci兲
共option 2兲 共10b兲
Cost Model Development
The cost breakdown of the CFA process can be tackled in differ-
ent ways because it depends on the available resources that serve
the need of this process. The writer designated the CFA process
resources based upon the common sites that data were collected
from. The CFA resources consists of: 共1兲 crane mounted drill rig;
共2兲 its associated labor crew; 共3兲 two service crews 共guide rig
crew and rebar cage installation crew兲; 共4兲 two excavators: one to
move the rebar cages from the workshop to the pile location and
the other to help erecting the rebar cage in the pile hole; 共5兲
foreman with pickup; 共6兲 concrete or grout material; 共7兲 concrete
or grout pump; and 共8兲 rebar. Therefore, the direct cost break-
down for the CFA process includes 共1兲 material cost: rebar and
concrete; 共2兲 labor cost: drilling rig, rebar, and erection crews;
and 共3兲 equipment cost: crane mounted drill rig, concrete or grout
pump, and excavators. The cost and price models can be deter-
mined using the following models, based upon the previous dis-
cussion:
total cost 共TC兲 = 共Ce + Cl兲/P + Qr ⫻ Cr + Qc ⫻ Cc + O 共11兲
Designated Models Application
Productivity Index Determination
The designated models by Zayed and Halpin 共2004兲 were used to
determine the PI for the CFA pile construction projects based
upon the collected data set. The proposed models are summarized
data set to calculate Vi共xi兲, Wi, QFW, and PI as follows:
(1) Vi共xi兲 Determination
The questionnaire provides the qualitative evaluation of produc-
tivity factors in the CFA pile construction process. This qualita-
tive evaluation was done according to the performance scale that
was designated by Zayed and Halpin 共2004兲. It has been collected
for the 10 qualitative factors and analyzed to get the mean value
and standard deviation for each factor as shown in Fig. 3. It
shows that the largest factors that affect productivity are site con-
ditions and soil removal system. These two factors have an aver-
age of 2.88 and 2.75 on the performance scale with standard
deviation of 0.53 and 0.35, respectively. There is a big difference
between this subjective evaluation and the factors’ relative weight
because this evaluation discusses whether these factors cause
problems in the site regardless their importance in the CFA piling
process. Sometimes, a factor that is less important, has small
weight, might cause lots of problems in the construction site and
vice versa. The average values of the 10 factors have been evalu-
ated using the performance worth scale. For example, site condi-
tion has a value of 2.88 while the soil removal system has 2.75.
The corresponding worth scores for these values are 0.288 and
0.275. Similarly, the 10 factors have been evaluated. Hence, the
factors’ worth Vi共xi兲 is determined, which represents the second
term of the right hand side of model 共1兲.

price = TC + F 共12兲 (2) Wi Determination

The total expenses can be determined using model 共11兲 in
different units: $/ft, $/m, $ / yd3, or $ / m3. Accordingly, the total
expenses in $/pile can be determined. Therefore, this developed
model facilitates the estimator job in estimating the expenses of
the CFA process projects. By adding the profit or markup to the
total expenses, the price of this item can be determined as shown
in model 共12兲.
The weight of each factor in the CFA Pile construction process is
calculated using the concept of AHP methodology as explained
earlier. Pairwise comparison matrices have been collected from
the questionnaire reviewers. Consistency ratio 共CR兲 has been de-
termined for each collected matrix. If CR⬍ 0.1, then, the matrix is

Data Collection

Several techniques in collecting data have been used in this re-

search. These techniques are questionnaires, site interviews, site
visits, direct data collection, and telephone calls. A questionnaire
was designated to collect data from contractors and consultants
who are specialists in the CFA pile construction and design. This
questionnaire was used to collect the CFA piles cycle time, pro-
ductivity, and soil characteristics. Reviewers were asked to pro-
vide information based on one of the most average projects that
they have done or are currently doing. Accordingly, each ques-
tionnaire represents a full set of information about at least one
project. The second technique utilized a questionnaire. The ques-
tionnaire replies represent 40.37% 共9 out of 23 questionnaires兲. In
addition, four sites were visited to collect data. Most question-
naire replies and direct data collected covered only one type of
soil 共granular soil such as sand, gravel–sand, etc兲. Therefore, the
results of this research only represent one soil type; however, the Fig. 3. Average rating and standard deviation for each productivity
other soil types are recommended for future studies. factor out of ten

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 681

consistent, otherwise it has to return back to the reviewer to adjust Table 2. Qualitative Factors Worth 共QFW兲 and Productivity Index 共PI兲
his/her evaluation. All collected matrices were consistent. Determination
The final outcome of the AHP method application to the CFA i Qualitative factors Wi Vi共xi兲 Wi ⫻ Vi共xi兲
pile construction process is the average vector of relative weights
1 Operator efficiency 0.1431 0.2250 0.0322
as shown in Fig. 4. It is noticed that the job management has the
maximum relative weight of 0.16 out of 1.0 with a standard de- 2 Weather conditions 0.0822 0.2375 0.0195
viation 共SD兲 of 0.01. Operator efficiency, rate of pouring, and site 3 Site conditions 0.1085 0.2875 0.0312
investigation are competing for the following three ranks where 4 Job management 0.1583 0.2250 0.0356
their relative weights are 0.14, 0.12, and 0.11 with a SD of 0.01. 5 Soil removal system 0.0694 0.2750 0.0191
The lowest relative weight is 0.07 for soil removal system with 6 Rate of pouring system 0.1187 0.2000 0.0237
standard deviation of 0.03. 7 Mechanical problems 0.0754 0.1250 0.0094
8 Owner/consultant problem 0.0703 0.2625 0.0185
(3) Qualitative Factor Worth and Productivity Index 9 Site investigation 0.0849 0.1875 0.0159
Determination 10 Production estimate accuracy 0.0894 0.2125 0.0190
Both terms of model 共1兲 right-hand side 共Wi and Vi共xi兲兲 have been QFW= Sum 共Wi ⫻ Vi共xi兲兲 0.22
determined to calculate the QFW, which is equivalent to the sum- PI= 1 − QFW 0.78
mation of Wi ⫻ Vi共xi兲. The final outcome of the QFW is 0.22 as
shown in Table 2 that shows the qualitative factors, their relative
weight and worth, the QFW, and the PI. Since the PI is the of 14 in diameter 共0.36 m兲 and 12.19 m depth, the cycle time is
complement of the QFW 关model 共2兲兴, then the PI is equivalent to approximately 16 min if construction option 1 is used 共Fig. 5兲.
0.78. The PI is the index that is multiplied by the optimistic pro- However, if construction option 2 is used, the cycle time is ap-
ductivity, generated by using the deterministic technique applica- proximately 30 min 共Fig. 6兲. Consequently, 14 min/ pile can be
tion, to cope with the real world practice 关model 共3兲兴. In other saved if a piece of equipment is added on site to erect the rebar
words, the PI represents the effect of qualitative factors on pro- cage instead of using the drill rig. It is the role of the estimator to
ductivity of the CFA pile construction process. decide whether using one more piece of equipment on site is
economical or not. Various factors affect this decision including:
Cycle Time and Productivity Determination 共1兲 the availability of the equipment; 共2兲 site conditions; 共3兲 the
hourly cost difference between the drill rig and the required extra
The designated cycle time and productivity deterministic models equipment; 共4兲 criticality of the CFA activity; and 共5兲 job man-
have been applied to the CFA process collected data to calculate agement and equipment flow on site. Therefore, if site conditions
its cycle time and productivity. Cycle time is calculated using permit one more piece of equipment, which is available, and the
models 共6a兲 and 共6b兲; however, productivity has been determined hourly cost for this selected equipment is cheaper than that of the
using models 共8a兲, 共8b兲, 共9a兲, 共9b兲, 共10a兲, and 共10b兲. Figs. 5 and drill rig, then the decision will favor adding this piece of equip-
6 show the CFA pile cycle time for different pile depths and sizes ment to the site fleet 共option 1兲. If not, and the CFA activity is not
based upon the two discussed construction options: 1 and 2, re- critical, then, the decision might favor keeping the drill rig per-
spectively. The estimator can predict the cycle time knowing the forming all the CFA pile activities 共option 2兲.
pile depth and size. For example, for a project that has CFA piles Based upon the cycle time, productivity in holes/day can be
determined as shown in models 共8a兲 and 共8b兲. Figs. 7 and 8 show
this productivity for different depths, pile sizes, and construction
options. Fig. 7 shows that the productivity is approximately 24
piles 共holes兲/day for 12.19 m depth and 共0.36 m兲 共14 in.兲 diam-
eter using construction option 1. However, it is approximately 13
piles 共holes兲/day for the same pile features if construction option
2 is used as shown in Fig. 8. Therefore, both figures represent
essential prediction tools that enable the estimator to assess pro-
ductivity for different pile sizes, depths, and construction meth-
ods. Productivity can be predicted in different units related to the
common practice in this field. Models 共9a兲, 共9b兲, 共10a兲, and 共10b兲
assess productivity in yd3 / day and ft/day, respectively. Using
these models, Figs. 9 and 10 are developed to match common
practice units using different construction options 1 and 2. In Fig.
9, the productivity is approximately 30.5 m3 / day using option 1;
however, it is 16 m3 / day using option 2 for 共0.36 m兲 共14 in.兲
diameter CFA piles. Fig. 10 shows that productivity equals
305 m / day 共option 1兲 and 150 m / day 共option 2兲 for 共0.36 m兲
共14 in.兲 diameter CFA piles. Therefore, Figs. 7–10 are considered
as important tools to estimate CFA activities durations by assess-
ing the CFA piles productivity.

Cost Determination
Fig. 4. Average qualitative factor weights and standard deviation Current study tried to collect cost data for the CFA piles but the
generated from analytic hierarchy process application response from the reviewers was negative. They consider cost as

682 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005

 Fig. 5. Total machine time 共option 1兲 for various continuous flight auger pile depths and sizes in granular soils

confidential and not for public use. Therefore, the cost of the CFA
process was estimated based upon two main references: R. S.
Means 共2004兲 and Richardson’s manual 共2003兲. The total ex-
penses consider material, equipment, labor, and overhead ex-
penses.
Figs. 11 and 12 are developed, based upon models 共11兲 and
共12兲, to assess the cost per pile and the unit cost of the CFA piles
at different depths and sizes. In Fig. 11, a pile of 0.36 m 共14 in.兲
diameter with 12.19 m depth, costs approximately $900/pile;
however, it costs approximately $745/ m3 as shown in Fig. 12.
Accordingly, the total expenses and its associated cost elements
can be determined using models 共11兲 and 共12兲 supported by Figs.
11 and 12.
Previous discussion shows the great necessity of the developed
tools for the CFA piles decision makers and estimators. Current
research developed these tools to facilitate the process of estimat-
ing cycle time, productivity, and cost. In addition, these tools can
be used to schedule the CFA projects and plan the CFA drill rig
operation throughout different projects.

Fig. 6. Total machine time 共option 2兲 for various continuous flight auger pile depths and sizes in granular soils

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 683

 Fig. 7. Productivity in piles/day 共option 1兲 for various depths in granular soil

Productivity Models Validation
The collected data set is divided into model building and valida-
tion data sets: 70 and 30%, respectively. The validation data set is
used to validate the designated productivity models. After valida-
tion, these models will be proper to fit the problem and predict
productivity of the CFA piling process. Therefore, productivity
models 共8a兲 and 共8b兲 are used to estimate productivity for the
validation data set. Being determined, the estimated productivity
is compared with the collected productivity from the CFA
projects. If the model provides close numbers to the collected
data, it is valid and can be used to represent this process is real
world practice and vice versa. To exactly determine how accurate
the predicted results of the productivity model, a validation factor
共VF兲 has to be calculated using the following model:
validation factor 共VF兲 = PMR/CP 共13兲
where PMR= productivity model result and CP= collected pro-
ductivity.

Fig. 8. Productivity in piles/day 共option 2兲 for various depths in granular soil

684 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005

 Fig. 9. Productivity in unit volume per day in granular soil
The VF has been calculated for each validation data point
considering its corresponding productivity model result. Fig. 13
shows the VF value against the validation data points. The VF
values range from 0.94 to 1.2 with an average of 1.03 and a SD of
0.07. Although there is a significant variation in the designated
models predicted values, the average value is acceptable because
it is very close to 1.0. Therefore, the designated productivity mod-
els are robust and can be used to estimate the real world CFA
projects.
Illustrative Example
A project of 95 CFA pile holes with 0.46 m 共18 in.兲 diameter and
共12.19 m兲 共40 ft.兲 depth in granular soil need to be constructed.
How many working days does the contractor need the CFA piling
machine in each project? How many holes/day, m3 / day, and
m/day can the contractor do in this project?
Fig. 10. Productivity in unit length per day in granular soil
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 685
Solution
Based on the developed set of charts, the total cycle time for the
CFA machine can be determined. This project has 95 holes with
共12.19 m兲 共40 ft.兲 depth in granular soil, then the cycle time for
option 1 共Fig. 5兲 is 20.5 min. However, it is almost 35 min for
option 2 共Fig. 6兲. Based on this total cycle time for each pile
in option 1, the CFA machine is needed for 关95 piles
⫻ 20.5 共min/ pile兲 / 60 共min/ h兲 ⫻ 8 共h / day兲兴 4.1 days without
considering the subjective factors effect on cycle time. Moreover,
the CFA machine will last 关95 piles⫻ 35.0 共min/ pile兲 /
60 共min/ h兲 ⫻ 8 共h / day兲兴 6.9 days using option 2. If the PI value
is considered, project time will be 关4.1/ 0.78= 5.3 days兴 and
关6.9/ 0.78= 8.9 days兴 for options 1 and 2, respectively.
Productivity in piles/day can be determined from Figs. 7 and 8
for both options. It is almost 19.5 and 11 piles/day for options 1
and 2, respectively. However, productivity is 38.0 and
22.0 m3 / day for options 1 and 2, respectively 共Fig. 9兲. In addi-
tion, it is 230.0 and 130.0 m / day for both options 共Fig. 10兲.
Conclusions
The assessment of cycle time, productivity, and cost of the CFA
piles does not receive sufficient attention from researchers. There-
fore, current study developed sufficient tools to assess these ele-
ments. The CFA pile installation features and construction meth-
ods were reviewed. The factors that affect the CFA piles
productivity and cost were determined. A PI was developed to
quantify the effect of subjective factors on the CFA process pro-
ductivity. A quantification model was used to assess the value of
PI equal to 0.78 共efficiency兲. This value shows that the qualitative
factor’s effect on the CFA process is 22% 共deficiency兲. Several
models have been developed to assess the CFA pile’s cycle time,
productivity, and cost using deterministic technique. Various
charts were developed to show this assessment based upon these
models. Results show that the cycle time for a 12.19 m depth and
 Fig. 11. Cost per pile for various depths in granular soil

Fig. 12. Cost per cubic meter in granular soil

686 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005

 Fig. 13. Validation factor chart
共0.36 m兲 共14 in.兲 diameter pile is 16 min using option 1; however,
it is 30 min using option 2. They also show that productivity is 24
piles 共holes兲/day using option 1 and 13 piles 共holes兲/day using
option 2. The developed models were validated to show its ro-
bustness in representing the CFA features. The validation factor
showed a robust average of 1.03.
This research is relevant to both industry practitioners and
researchers. It provides charts for practitioners’ usage to schedule
and price out the CFA pile construction projects. In addition, it
provides the researchers with the methodology of applying the
deterministic approach to the CFA pile construction process, its
limitations, and future suggestions.
Acknowledgments
The writer wishes to express his gratitude and appreciation to the
CFA drilling companies, which generously allowed him to collect
data and access their sites. The cooperation and assistance of
project managers and operators are also gratefully acknowledged
and appreciated.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A ⫽ clean and adjust verticality for auger;
Cc ⫽ concrete or grout cost in $/lb or $/kg;
Ce ⫽ equipment hourly cost in $/h;
Ci ⫽ rebar cage erection time for i pile size;
Cl ⫽ labor hourly cost in $/h;
Cr ⫽ rebar cost in $/lb or $/kg;
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 687
CP ⫽ collected productivity;
Dij ⫽ pile 共hole兲 depth for i number of pile sizes and j
number of soil types;
F ⫽ profit in $/ft, $/m, $ / yd3, or $ / m3;
Li ⫽ lift rebar cage time for i pile size;
Lij ⫽ pouring and withdrawal rate for i number of pile
sizes and j number of soil types;
M ⫽ machine moving time to another pile location;
n ⫽ number of qualitative factors 共ten factors兲;
O ⫽ overhead cost in $/ft, $/m, $ / yd3, or $ / m3;
P ⫽ productivity in ft/h, m/h, yard3 / h, m3 / h;
P f ⫽ final productivity value using deterministic or
simulation technique;
Pij ⫽ pouring and withdrawal time for one complete
hole for i number of pile sizes and j number of
soil types;
Pr ⫽ resulted optimistic productivity value using both
techniques;
PI ⫽ productivity index represents qualitative factors;
PMR ⫽ productivity model result;
Qc ⫽ concrete or grout quantity in lb/ft or kg/m;
Qr ⫽ rebar quantity in lb/f or kg/m;
QFW ⫽ qualitative factors worth;
Rij ⫽ drilling rate for i number of pile sizes and j
number of soil types;
Si ⫽ transfer rebar cage time to pile location for i pile
size;
Tij ⫽ drilling time for one complete hole for i number
of pile sizes and j number of soil types;
TC ⫽ total cost in $/ft, $/m, $ / yd3, or $ / m3;
TMT1 ⫽ total machine time for option number 1;
TMT2 ⫽ total machine time for option number 2;
U ⫽ adjust axis time;
 Vi共xi兲 ⫽ worth value for each qualitative factor 共xi兲;
VF ⫽ validation factor;
Wi ⫽ relative weight for each factor i using eigenvalue
method; and
xi ⫽ different qualitative factors i.
References
Coduto, D. P. 共2001兲. Foundation design: Principles and practices, 2nd
Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Das, B. M. 共2004兲. Principles of foundation engineering, 5th Ed., Brooks/
Cole, Thomson Learning Inc., Calif.
Deep Foundation Institute 共DFI兲 Pile Committee 共1994兲. Inspector’s
guide to augered cast-in-place piles, 1st Ed., Joel Moskowitz, ed.,
N.J.
Deep Foundation Institute 共DFI兲 Pile Committee 共2003兲. Augered cast-
in-place pile manual, 2nd Ed., Rudolph Frizzi, ed., N.J.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. E., and Wlson, W. K.
共1992兲. Piling engineering, 2nd Ed., Blackie & Son.
Harris, F. 共1983兲. Ground engineering equipment and methods, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Mure, N., Scott, J. N., Seward, D. W., Quayle, S. D., Clayton, C. R., and
Rust, M. 共2002兲. “Just-in-time continuous flight auger piles using an
688 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / JUNE 2005
instrumented auger.” Proc., 19th International Symp. on Automation
and Robotics in Construction, ISARC, Washington, D.C.
Peurifoy, R. L., Ledbetter, W. L., and Schexnayder, C. J. 共2002兲. Con-
struction, planning, equipment, and methods, 6th Ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Richardson’s manual 共2003兲. “General construction cost estimating stan-
dards.” Vol. I, Aspen Technology, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
Means, R. S. 共2004兲. Building construction cost data, 62nd annual Ed..
Web-1 共2004兲. http://www.geoforum.com/info/pileinfo/view.asp?ID⫽8
共April 23, 2004兲.
Web-2 共2004兲. 具http://www.fps.org.uk/Position%20Papers%20and
%20Documents/aquifers.htm典 共April 23, 2004兲.
Web-3 共2004兲. http://sbe.napier.ac.uk/projects/piledesign/guide/
chapter8.htm 共April 23, 2004兲.
Web-4 共2004兲. www.simplex-foundations.co.uk 共April 23, 2004兲.
Web-5 共2004兲. http://www.pennine-group.co.uk/cfa-pilling-continuous-
flight-auger-piling.html 共April 23, 2004兲.
Web-6 共2004兲. http://www.franki.co.za/cfa.html 共April 23, 2004兲.
Weele, A. F. V. 共1988兲. “Cast-in-situ piles-Installation methods, soil dis-
turbance and resulting pile behavior.” Deep foundations on bored and
auger piles, W. F. Van Impe, ed., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
Zayed, T. M., and Halpin, D. W. 共2004兲. “Quantitative assessment for
piles productivity factors.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130共3兲, 405–414.