Congrs annuel de la Socit canadienne de gnie civil Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Montral,

Qubec, Canada 5-8 juin 2002 / June 5-8, 2002

CONCRETE BORED PILES CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTIVITY ASSESSMENT USING REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Tarek M. Zayed and Daniel W. Halpin A Assist. Professor at Construction Eng. and Management Dept., Faculty of Eng., Zagazig University, Egypt. Currently Visiting Assist. Prof. at Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, U.S.A. B Head of Division of Construction Engineering and Management, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1294, U.S.A.
A B

ABSTRACT: The installation of pile (drilled shaft) foundations is complicated by an enormous number of problems. They include unseen subsurface obstacles, lack of contractor experience, and site planning. These major problems and other minor ones make it difficult for the estimator to evaluate the piling project productivity and cost. This study is designed to assess these problems using regression technique. The piling process activities duration, productivity, and cost assessment are addressed. Data were collected for this study through designed questionnaires, site interviews, and telephone calls to experts in different construction companies. Many variables have been considered in the piling construction process. Seven regression linear models have been designed and validated to assess productivity, cycle time, and cost.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The installation or construction of pile foundations is complicated by an enormous number of problems relating to subsurface obstacles, lack of contractor experience, and site planning difficulties. These problems can be summarized in the following statements. The site pre-investigation usually consists of statistical samples around the foundation area that do not cover the entire area. Soil types differ from site to site due to cohesion or stiffness, natural obstacles, and subsurface infrastructure construction obstacles. Lack of experience in adjusting the pile axis, length, and size present a further complication. Piling machine mechanical and drilling problems must be considered. Problems due to site restrictions and disposal of excavated spoil have great effect on productivity. The rate of steel installation and pouring concrete is impacted by the experience of steel crew and method of pouring. All these problems, no doubt, greatly affect the production of concrete piles on site. There is a lack of research in this field. Therefore, the objective of this study is to analyze the piling process productivity factors and assess productivity considering most of the above factors. It is difficult for the estimator to evaluate piling process productivity. Therefore, it is necessary to use sophisticated techniques to analyze the problem and determine the closest optimal solution. This study highlights the problem features and solution. The objective of this study is to provide the piling process decision-maker with a tool for assessing its productivity, cycle time, and cost using the regression analysis technique.

2.

PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS

Literature review, site interviews, telephone calls, and a questionnaire analysis were used to collect the factors that affect piling installation productivity. Based on studies of the construction process and literature, the following factors were identified (Peurifoy et al., 1996): Soil type (i.e. sand, clay, stiff clay, etc). Drill type. (e.g., auger, bucket) Method of spoils removal, the size of hauling units, and space considerations at the construction site. Pile axis adjustment. Equipment operator efficiency. Weather conditions. Concrete pouring method and efficiency. Waiting time for other operations (i.e. pile axis adjustment). Job and management conditions. Cycle time.

3.

PRODUCTIVITY VARIABLES ATTRIBUTES MATRIX

A tremendous number of variables affect piling process productivity. Considering all of these variables is impossible. This study concentrates on some of the major variables, such as pile size, soil type, pile depth, pouring system, and auger height as shown in Table 1. The pile size ( varies in the range 18", ) 30", 48", and 60". Therefore, this study concentrates only on these four categories of pile sizes. The soil types that are included in this study are clay, middle, and sand. Middle soil type represents all the types between pure clay and sand. Different depths may be encountered but the collected data were available only for the 30, 40, 50, and 60 depths. Two pouring systems or techniques are used: tremie and funnel. Tremie technique is used in the wet method; however, funnel is used in the dry method. Various auger heights are considered 3 4, 5, and 6. This study considers only the above-mentioned factors and their , specified limits when estimating piling process productivity. There are five variables with seventeen attributes. Therefore, the collected data have been divided into several data sets to cope with the selected variables and their attributes. Data have been divided into four main sets based on pile size, one set for each size. Within each set, data are classified into three categories according to soil type attributes: clay, middle, and sand. Each category has enough information to indicate the remaining variables, such as pile depth, pouring method, and auger height.

4.

DATA COLLECTION

A questionnaire was designed to collect data from contractors and consultants who are specialists in concrete bored pile construction and design, respectively. This questionnaire was used to collect the piling process cycle time, productivity, and soil characteristics. Reviewers were asked to provide information based on one of the most average projects that they have done or are currently doing. Accordingly, each questionnaire represents a full set of information about at least one project. Two types of data collection techniques were used in this study. The first technique was direct data collection, such as site interviews, site visits to collect data, and telephone calls. The second technique utilized a questionnaire. For further information, the reader is referred to Zayed (2001).

5.

STUDY METHODOLGY

The regression model can be built using the three-phase framework as shown in Figure 1. The first phase includes model building that can be summarized as follows:

1- Collect quantitative and qualitative data and select models variables. 2- Check the significance of model variables based on statistical criteria. 3- Build the regression model. In the second phase, comparing results with the collected data validates the regression model. If these results do not match, then, the model should be improved to produce better results. The t ird phase h includes sensitivity analysis that changes one input while the other inputs are fixed to test the model limitation and build a range of inputs that corresponds to the same output if applicable.

I. R E G R E S S I O N M O D E L B U I L D I N G PHASE
Quantitative Data (Times) Qualitative Data (Subjective Factors weights)

Model Variables Selection Statistical Check For Variables Significance Building Regression Statistical Model

Fix the Problem

II. VALIDATION PHASE

Inputs from Validation Set to the Regression Model Regression Model Outputs

Model is Invalid

No

Are Model Outputs Match True Outputs?

Yes

III. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PHASE

Change All the Inputs to the Model Each at a Time Model Outputs
Build Sensitivity Range for Inputs to Get the Same Outputs

Model Limitation

Figure 1. Regression model framework for concrete pile construction.

Table 1: Piling process productivity variables attributes matrix. 18" 30" 48" Pile Size () Soil Type Pile Depth Pouring Method Auger Length (Height) Clay Middle Sand 50 30 40 Tremie Funnel (Wet Method) (Dry Method) 3 4

60" 60

5.1

Building of Regression Models

The SAS package has been used to build all the models while the MINITAP package is used for the lack of fit (LOF) test for the models with replications. This guarantees that the model best fits the data. The SAS codes are designed to build the six different models for different conditions as explained above in the previous sub-section. Due to the wide spectrum of piling process variables, many regression models have been designed. The variety of variables in this study addresses only pile sizes (18, 30, 48, and 60), soil types (clay, middle, and sand), and construction method (dry and wet). For example, a productivity model for pile size -18 in clay soil using wet method was developed. According to this classification, there are 24 productivity models that cover the combination of 2 construction methods, 4 pile sizes, and 3 soil types. These productivity models are shown in Table 2 along with their statistical analysis terms. Productivity models address the relation of productivity based on both depth and auger height. Similarly, drilling time models have been built according to soil types and pile sizes. This study builds only 12 drilling time models as shown in Table 3. Drilling time models represent the relation of drilling time against both depth and auger height. The four remaining models indicate the relation of cage, tremie erection, funnel erection, and pouring times against pile depth for different pile sizes. Therefore, 16 models have been built for 4 pile sizes and 4 time variables, as shown in Table 4. Hence, the total number of regression models that have been designed in this study counts for 52 models. Linear statistical models have been used for several reasons: (1) they can easily be used by construction site engineers and management, (2) visual data inspection shows linear trends in data as shown in the scatter diagrams, and (3) statistical analysis for quadratic and cubic models does not enhance outputs more than linear models. 5.2 Statistical Analysis of Piling Process Regression Models

Tables 2, 3, and 4 show statistical analysis terms for all the designed models. These statistical terms can be used to check the models statistical competence. They include (1) the p-value of F-test for the model as a whole (P(F)), (2) R-square for the model (coefficient of determination), (3) p-value of t-test for the coefficients of regression models (P(t)), and (4) p -value of the lack of fit test (LOF). These are the criteria that are used to check the models statistical validity as discussed below. 5.2.1 Test regression models statistically

Productivity regression models represent productivity against depth and auger height. Interaction between depth and auger height has been checked to determine whether it is statistically valid to be embedded in the model. This interaction does not meet the criteria to be included in t e productivity h models. Similarly, it fails to be included in the drilling time models. Hence, productivity and drilling time models include two independent variables as shown in Tables 2 and 3. Three different criteria are used to 2 test the model as a whole, such as (1) p -value for F-test (P(F)), (2) coefficient of determination (R ), and (3) p-value for lack of fit test (P(F) LOF), as shown in Table 2. Furthermore, three other different criteria are used to check the models coefficients (e.g. p-value of t-test (P(t)) for intercept and coefficients of the two independent variables). Statistical validity or regression models are checked using P(F), R , and P(F) LOF. To determine P(F) for the model as a whole, a test of hypothesis is carried out to accept or reject the null hypothesis. Assume
2

that 0, 1, 2 are the regression models coefficients in the linear relation. Therefore, to test regression models linear relationship, the null hypothesis (H0) assumes that 0 = 1 = 2 = 0 where the alternative hypothesis (Ha) assumes that not all of them equal to zero. Based on SAS package outputs that are included in Table 2, the p-value for the first model is 0.0001. This means that Ha is accepted at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance where there is a linear relation between productivity and both depth and auger height. Hence, the linear relationship is accepted with 99% confidence that it is the best fit for the data. All models in Tables 2, 3, and 4 concluded Ha at 1% level of significance that indicated the utmost convenience of linear relation to the data. R-square for the same model is 0.8887 where it represents the coefficient of multiple determination that measures the proportional reduction of total variation in productivity using depth and auger height as independent variables. Data have very little variation around the fitted model. This does not necessarily imply that the fitted model is not a useful one. Checking most of the models in the three tables indicates that R -square is almost above 0.8 or most of them. This implies that data vary little around the fitted f models. Some of the models have R -square value less than 0.50, which indicates that the data vary greatly around the fitted model but this does not mean that these models are not useful. Lack of fit test (LOF) has been performed for productivity models because they have productivity data replications at the x-axis levels of both depth and auger height. The F-test has been carried out to test the models lack of fit to determine whether these models best fit the data. The p-value of F-test is shown in the last column of Table 2. If the p -value is less than the level of significance, the model fails to fit the data. If not, the model is a best fit for the data. All models in this table are best fit where they pass the LOF test. For further details, the reader is referred to Neter et. al. (1996). 5.2.2 Test regression models coefficients statistically

After regression models are statistically checked, the models coefficients have to be checked to confirm that the models are a good fit for the data. Each independent variables coefficient as well as the intercept are checked for every designed model. Three t-tests are accomplished for the intercept and the two independent variables coefficients (depth and auger height). The hypothesis t-test of null hypothesis (H0) assumes that 0 = 0 while the alternative hypothesis (Ha) assumes that 0 0 is performed for the intercept. Similarly, the other two t-tests assuming null hypotheses for 1 = 0 and 2 = 0 and the alternative hypotheses of 1 0 and 2 0 are checked for the independent variables coefficients (depth and auger height), respectively. The outcomes of these t-tests are shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4 in the form of a p-value for each test (P(t)). The results indicate that most of the models have p-values of 0.0001 for the three tests. Consequently, alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels of significance where depth and auger height variables have linear relations individually with productivity and drilling time. This means that 0 0, 1 0, and 2 0 at 99% confidence. Some of the p-values for several variables in a group of models have values less than 0.08, which still can be accepted at 90% confidence or at 10% level of significance. Accordingly, all the designed models are tested for their robustness to fit the data sets. Based on statistical checks, all the designed regression models fit the data well. The validation process is an important step to guarantee that the model best fits the data based on real world experience. All models are tested statistically and practically to determine that they are efficient in predicting real world results. The following sub-section discusses the validation procedure for all the regression models. 5.3 Validation of Regression Models

The collected data set is divided into two main sets: model-building and validation data sets. The modelbuilding data set is used to build all regression models where the other set is used to validate the regression models. The regression models statistical significance does not imply that they are ready to be used in real practice. Models results have to be validated and compared with real world data to ensure that the designed models are good enough for real construction practice use. The validation process includes substituting validation data inputs to the designed models, concluding the outputs, and

Table 2. Piling process productivity models statistical regression analysis. Case Productivity P (t) 2 No. Description Model P (F) R Intercept 1 Wet-18-C 8.4174 - 0.0766 Depth + 0.0001 0.8887 0.0001 0.8347 Auger Height 2 Wet-18-M 9.1232 - 0.1046 Depth + 0.0001 0.9179 0.0001 0.8722 Auger Height 3 Wet-18-S 7.4366 - 0.0672 Depth + 0.0001 0.9044 0.0001 0.9239 Auger Height 4 Dry-18-C 12.4190 - 0.1061 Depth + 0.0008 0.4957 0.0001 0.5939 Auger Height 5 Dry-18-M 12.9042 - 0.1072 Depth + 0.0001 0.8856 0.0001 0.4595 Auger Height 6 Dry-18-S 12.3319 - 0.1093 Depth + 0.0001 0.8272 0.0001 0.5984 Auger Height

P (t) Depth 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001

P (t) Auger 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0613 0.0002 0.0001

P (F) LOF 0.815 0.960 0.970 1.000 0.875 0.789

Table 3. Piling process drilling time models statistical regression analysis. Case Drilling Time 2 No. Description Model P (F) R 1 Clay-18 15.5 + 0.464 Depth 0.0001 0.9328 4.02 Auger Height 2 Middle-18 14.63 + 0.499 Depth 0.0001 0.9342 4.194 Auger Height 3 Sand-18 14.705 + 0.499 Depth 0.0001 0.9059 3.834 Auger Height

P (t) Intercept 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

P (t) Depth 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

P (t) Auger 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Table 4. Piling process cage, tremie, funnel, and pouring time models statistical Regression analysis. Case Cage, Tremie, Funnel, P (t) P (t) No. 1 2 3 Description Cage-18 Tremie-18 Funnel-18 and Pouring Time Model (-3.6 + 0.24 Depth) 6.6041 + 0.1403 Depth 2.873 + 0.043 Depth P (F) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 R 0.4224 0.6816 0.6469
2

Intercept 0.0068 0.0001 0.0001

Depth 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

comparing them with real world collected data. If the models results are close to the real world data, then, the models are valid and can be used in real construction practice. If not, they cannot be used and other models have to be designed to fit this process. This validation process has been carried out for all the designed models. The outcome of this process shows that all the models are valid and reasonable for real practice use. To exactly determine accurately the productivity model predicted results from the collected data, a validation factor (VF) was calculated for each data point using equation (1) as follows:

Validation Factor (VF) = PMR / CP

(1)

The VF has been calculated for each validation data point considering its corresponding productivity model result. This has been done for different soil types: clay, middle, and sand. Table 5 shows the calculated validation factor for clay, middle, and sand soils using wet and dry methods in different pile sizes. It shows that for -18 bores in clay soil using wet method, the VF is 0.96 while it is 0.92 for dry method. This indicates that the model fits the productivity for wet method with 96% fitness while it is 92% for dry method. Therefore, this table shows productivity model behavior regarding different piling process variables. The concept of validation factor (VF) has been designed to check the fitness degree of the designed models. The value of VF for more than 52 % of the models outputs is more than 95%

fitness, which expresses its utmost fitness of the available data sets. Consequently, 83% of the models outputs have been predicted with more than 90% confidence.

6.

PILING PROCESS COST ESTIMATION

The study of Reese and ONeill (1988) collected cost data from ADSC contractors. The cost figures that their study presented did not consider the mobilization and demobilization costs because they were project specific costs. The current study considers the average of Reese and ONeill (1988) cost figures. The important outcome of this cost analysis is the relative construction cost of one major activity to another in the piling process. Table 6 shows the cost figures that have been indicated in Reese and ONeill (1988) and its conversion using the RSMeans 2000 conversion factor. The outcome conversion factor that converts cost figures from year 1987 prices to year 2000 prices is 1.3637. The resulted cost figures as of year 2000 have been used to calculate the cost of piling process in this current study. Most of costs in Table 6 are in $/cy except the rebar cage cost which is estimated in $/hole. It shows the details of each cost figure and explains each abbreviation. The converted total costs for constructing the complete pile are shown in Table 7. The cost per cy has been taken from Table 6 and multiplied by the volume of each pile to get the total cost per hole in equation (2) as follows:
-4

TCl = 2.02 * 10

((DCl + PC)* * D) + RC

(2)

The cost model in equation (2) has been applied to the different four construction methods of piling process. Drilling cost and concrete pouring cost are substituted in the cost model (2) in $/cy while the pile diameter and depth are embedded into the model in inches and foot, respectively. The final outcome of the cost model based on equation (2) is shown in Table 7. It is clear that the total cost per pile is different from one construction method to the other for different diameters and depths. Cost curves have been constructed to predict the cost value per hole in different depths within different pile sizes. Each piles construction method cost is represented by curves covering different pile depths and sizes. Figure 2 shows the t tal cost curves for various pile sizes: 18'', 30'', 48'', and 60'' and with o different depths: 30', 40', 50', and 60' using two construction methods: Dry Method Soil Uncased (DMSUC) and Wet Method Soil Slurry (WMSS). The continuous curves represent DMSUC costs and the dotted curves represent WMSS costs. Similarly, Figure 3 shows the same information for the two other construction methods: Dry Method Soil Cased (DMSC) and Wet Method Soil Cased (WMSC).

7.

CONCLUSIONS

The regression technique is used to assess piling process productivity, cycle time, and cost. Several models have been designed to assess these items. These models have been validated to assure their appropriateness. The concept of the validation factor (VF) has been designed to check the level of fit between the theory and actual production results of the designed models. The value of VF for more than 52 % of the models outputs is about 95% fit. Consequently, 83% of the models outputs have been predicted with about 90% accuracy. Several sets of charts that represent productivity, cycle times, and cost have been developed. A comprehensive discussion of the application of these regression models to productivity, cycle time, and cost is available in Zayed, 2001.

8.

REFERENCES

Mahoney, W. D. (2000) Means Construction Cost Data, R. S. Means Company, Inc., Kingston, MA, USA. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. (1996) Applied Linear Statistical Models, IRWIN, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., USA.

Table 5. Validation factor (VF) using regression technique. Validation Validation Factor for Clay Soil Points Wet-18 Dry-18 Wet-30 Dry-30 Wet-48 1 0.96 0.92 0.98 1.06 0.88 2 0.94 0.94 1.11 1.07 0.95 3 1.02 0.94 0.97 0.97 1.02 4 0.98 0.96 1.10 1.08 0.95 Validation Factor for Middle Soil 5 0.96 1.11 0.95 1.00 0.95 6 0.94 1.00 1.08 1.03 1.08 7 1.06 1.04 1.09 0.96 0.94 8 1.01 1.03 0.98 1.00 1.07 Validation Factor for Sand Soil 9 1.17 1.21 0.95 1.02 0.94 10 1.12 1.09 1.06 1.04 0.92 11 0.94 1.15 0.94 0.96 1.03 12 0.94 1.16 0.94 0.97 1.00 13 1.03 0.95 14 1.00 0.97 Table 6. Cost of piling process activities. Cost Item Ave. Cost Conversion Ave. Cost ($/cy)1987 Factor** ($/cy)2000 Drilling Cost $62.00 1.3637 $84.55 (DMSUC) Drilling Cost $96.00 1.3637 $130.92 (DMSC) Drilling Cost $113.00 1.3637 $154.10 (WMSS) Drilling Cost $139.00 1.3637 $189.56 (WMSC) Rebar Cage $57.00 1.3637 $77.73 Cost* Concrete Pouring $23.00 1.3637 $31.37 Cost* * This cost is per hole. ** This factor is based on RSMeans 2000. Notes: Drilling Cost = Machine Cost + Crew Cost Placing Cage Cost = Crane Cost + Crew Cost. Placing Concrete Cost = Tremie/Funnel Cost + Crew Cost + Pump Cost. The available average costs cover typical diameter from 12" to 72". Typical depth ranges from 15 to more than 50. Abbreviations: DMSUC : Dry Method in Soil Uncased DMSC : Dry Method in Soil using Case WMSS: Wet Method in Soil using Slurry WMSC: Wet Method in Soil using Case

Dry-48 0.86 0.92 0.99 1.05 0.94 0.98 1.03 1.07 0.97 0.98 0.89 0.99

Wet-60 0.88 0.95 1.02 0.95 1.12 1.08 0.90 1.01 1.00 0.88 1.04 1.07

Dry-60 1.00 1.12 1.03 1.14 1.12 1.08 0.90 1.01 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.88

Table 7. Cost of piling process construction methods. Construction Dia. Total Cost ($/hole) (As year 2000 prices) at Depths (ft): Method (in) 30 40 50 60 DMSUC : Dry Method in Soil Uncased DMSC : Dry Method in Soil using Case WMSS: Wet Method in Soil using Slurry WMSC: Wet Method in Soil using Case 18" 30" 48" 60" 18" 30" 48" 60" 18" 30" 48" 60" 18" 30" 48" 60" $305 $710 $381 $457 $533

$921 $1,131 $1,342

$1,696 $2,235 $2,775 $3,314 . $2,606 $3,450 $4,292 $5,135 $396 $503 $609 $715

$963 $1,258 $1,553 $1,848 $2,343 $3,098 $3,854 $4,609 $3,618 $4,798 $5,978 $7,157 $442 $563 $685 $806

$1,089 $1,426 $1,763 $2,101 $2,667 $3,530 $4,393 $5,256 $4,123 $5,472 $6,820 $8,169 $511 $656 $801 $945

$1,282 $1,684 $2,086 $2,487 $3,162 $4,190 $5,218 $6,246 $4,897 $6,503 $8,109 $9,716

Cost per Hole ($).

Cost per Hole ($).

$8,500.00 $8,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,000.00 $5,500.00 $5,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $0.00 30' 40' 50' 60'

Dry-18" Dry-30" Dry-48" Dry-60" Wet-18" Wet-30" Wet-48" Wet-60"

$10,000.00 $9,500.00 $9,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,000.00 $5,500.00 $5,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $0.00 30' 40' 50' 60'

Dry-18" Dry-30" Dry-48" Dry-60" Wet-18" Wet-30" Wet-48" Wet-60"

Shaft Depth (ft).

Shaft Depth (ft).

Figure 2. DMSUC / WMSS construction methods costs.

Figure 3. DMSC / WMSC construction methods costs.

Peurifoy, R. L., Ledbetter, W. L., and Schexnayder, C. J. (1996) Construction, Planning, Equipment, and th Methods, 5 edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., USA. Reese, L. C. and ONeill, M. W. (1988) Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods, Publication No. FHWA.HI-88-042 and ADSC-TL-4, USA. Zayed, T. M. (2001) Assessment of Productivity for Concrete Bored Pile Construction, Ph.D. Thesis submitted to School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, May. Zayed, T. M. and Halpin, D. W. (2001) Construction Productivity Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE) Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, May 30 June 2. Zayed, T. M. and Halpin, D. W. (2001) Simulation of Bored Piles Construction, Winter Simulation Conference, Arlington, Virginia, Dec 9-12, pp 1495-1503.

9. VF PMR CP X1 X2 D TCl DCl PC RC WH TDT N Pr 9.1

APPENDIX I: NOTATION = Validation Factor = Productivity Model Result. = Collected Productivity. = Depth (ft) as a regression variable. = Auger Height (ft) as a regression variable. = Pile diameter (ft). = Pile depth (ft). = Total piles cost for different methods ($/hole). = Drilling Cost per cy for different methods ($/cy). = Pouring Cost per cy for concrete ($/cy). = Rebar cage placing cost ($/hole). = Working hours per day = Total drilling time. = Number of pile holes. = Productivity per day Subscripts and Superscripts

l = Different construction methods (DMSUC, DMSC, WMSS, and WMSC). l = 1, 2, 3, and 4. r = Number of different depths. r = 1,2,3,4 for 30,40,50,60 depths, respectively.