Construction Management and Economics (June 2005) 23, 531543

Deterministic models for assessing productivity and

cost of bored piles
TAREK M. ZAYED1* and DANIEL W. HALPIN2
1

Assistant Professor, Construction Engineering and Management Department, faculty of Engineering, Zagazig
University, Zagazig, Egypt; Presently Assistant Professor Department of Building, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Concordia University, 1257 Guy Street, BE Building, Room 8779, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M7, Canada
2
Head of Division of Construction Engineering and Management, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN 47907-1294, USA
Received 20 May 2004; accepted 25 November 2004

The assessment process of productivity and cost of bored pile construction is dictated by unseen subsurface
obstacles, lack of contractor experience and site planning. These problems complicate the estimators role in
evaluating pile equipment productivity and cost. Current research discusses the assessment of piling process
productivity and cost using the deterministic technique. Data are collected through questionnaires, site
interviews and telephone calls to experts in various construction companies. Many variables have been
considered in the piling construction process, such as pile size, depth, pouring method, soil type and
construction method. Five deterministic models have been designated to assess productivity, cycle time and
cost. The developed models are validated whereas 79% of the outputs have been predicted with more than 75%
accuracy. Consequently, three sets of charts have been developed to provide the decision-maker with a solid
planning, scheduling and control tool for piling projects. If a pile has 609 depth with w-18 (180 diameter pile) in
clay soil using a 59 auger height, the cycle time is estimated as 56 and 65.5 minutes; however, productivity is 6
and 5 holes/day for dry and wet methods, respectively.
Keywords: Bored pile, cost, cycle time, deterministic models, productivity

Introduction
Several problems face the installation or construction of
pile foundations. Some of these problems are subsurface obstacles, lack of contractor experience, and site
planning difficulties. 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 the steel crew
and method of pouring. All these problems, no doubt,
greatly affect the production of concrete piles on site.
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: zayed@bcee.concordia.ca

There is a lack of research in this field. Therefore, this

study analyzes the piling process productivity factors
and assesses productivity considering most of the above
factors. Due to the above-mentioned problems, it is
difficult for the estimator to evaluate piling productivity. Therefore, it is necessary to use sophisticated
techniques to analyze the problem and determine the
closest optimal solution. The objective of this study is
to provide the piling process decision-maker with a tool
for assessing piling process productivity, cycle times,
and cost of the piling process using the deterministic
analysis technique.

Attributes matrix of productivity variables

A large number of variables affect the piling process
productivity, which is impossible to consider all of them
in one study. Based on studies of the construction
process and literature, the variables that affect productivity were identified (Peurifoy et al., 1996): (1) soil

Construction Management and Economics

ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/01446190500039911

532

Zayed and Halpin

type (i.e. sand, clay, stiff clay, etc.); (2) drill type (e.g.
auger, bucket); (3) method of spoil removal, the size of
hauling units and space considerations at the construction site; (4) pile axis adjustment; (5) equipment driver
efficiency; (6) weather conditions; (7) concrete pouring
method and efficiency; (8) waiting time for other
operations (i.e. pile axis adjustment); (9) job and
management conditions; and (10) cycle time. Out of
these variables, current research only concentrates on
the variables: pile size; soil type; pile depth; pouring
system; and auger height as shown in Table 1. The pile
size (w) varies within 180, 300, 480 and 600. 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 that in between pure clay and sand.
Different depths were planned to be encountered in
this study but the collected data were available only for
the 309, 409, 509 and 609 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 have
been involved in this study, such as 39, 49, 59 and 69.
This study considers only the above-mentioned five
variables, with seventeen attributes according to the
specified limits, when estimating piling process productivity. Therefore, the collected data have been
divided into several data sets to cope with the selected
variables and their attributes.

Conventional (deterministic) model design

The piling process cycle time activities durations are
estimated as crisp numbers (statistical mean for the
collected data sample). To build the conventional
(deterministic) model for the piling process, construction steps have to be defined in detail. Figure 1 depicts
the detailed construction steps of the piling process
Table 1
matrix

Piling process productivity variables attributes

Pile size (w)

Soil type
Pile depth
Pouring method
Auger length
(height)

180

300

Clay
Middle
309
409
Tremie (wet Funnel (dry
method*)
method**)
39
49

480

600

Sand
509

609

59

69

Notes: *Wet method is the pile construction method that uses

bentonite slurry to prevent the drilled holes sides from caving. **Dry
method is the pile construction method that does not use any means
of soil support because the soil can stand alone depending on its
cohesion.

starting from the axis adjustment until pouring

concrete and finishing the pile. The construction steps
(algorithm) can be summarized as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)

Adjust the piling machine on the pile axis.

Haul with the auger to the drilling place.
Start drilling until the auger is filled.
Return from the drilling place up to the top of
the pile hole.
Swing to the unloading area.
Unload the dirt in the unloading area.
Swing back to the top of the hole.
Repeat steps 27 until the pile is completely
drilled.
Relocate the machine and start steps 18.
Start erecting the rebar cage using a crane.
Erect the concrete pouring tool, either funnel
or tremie, into the hole.
Use funnel for dry method and tremie for wet
method.
Start pouring the concrete and finish the pile.

Accordingly, the deterministic model is designated to

assess the productivity and cost of the piling process.
The time required to construct a pile has to be
determined before productivity assessment. Both piling
machine and crane activities times have to be assessed
so that the time required to construct the pile is
defined. Consequently, the piling machine is responsible for performing the activities: axis adjustment,
drilling and machine relocation. The crane is responsible for the rest of the activities. Drilling time is the key
activity in this process, which depends mainly upon soil
type. The following designated generic models will be
applied to different soil types as shown in the analysis.
Hence, the following steps are considered in designating the deterministic models.
1. Drilling machine cycle time determination
Drilling has six main activities: hauling to the drilling
place, loading the auger (drilling), returning to the top of
the hole, swinging to unload area, unload dirt, and swing
back to the top of the hole. The pile has to be divided into
equal small depth segments (d) to facilitate cycle time
calculation as shown in Figure 2. The cycle time at the
beginning of the depth segment is, of course, different
from that at the end of the depth segment. To consider
this concept, the segment depth (d) has to be so small that
the cycle time difference between the upper and lower
segments edges is small. Therefore, it is assumed that the
cycle time does not change inside each depth segment,
which is the center (average) point. Hence, the cycle time
at the center of each depth segment represents the cycle
time through the entire segment. Then, the cycle time for
one segment can be calculated using Equation 1 as

Assessing productivity and cost of bored piles

Figure 1 Flow diagram for pile construction on steps

533

534

Zayed and Halpin

erection, concrete pouring, machine relocation, and the
pile axis adjustment times. These different activities
times have to be considered in determining the total
time to construct a pile. Each activity is discussed in
detail as follows:
(a) rebar cage erection (Cr), funnel erection (Fr),
tremie erection (Tr) and concrete pouring (Pr)
determination:
Cr, Fr, Tr and Pr depend upon the pile depth. Four
different categories of depth have been considered in
this study: 309, 409, 509 and 609. The term r has been
added to the variables to represent the different depth
categories.

Figure 2 Pile depth segments

follows: Cycle time (CT)5summation of the six activities times. Then,

CTi ~

m X
n
X

xij

i~1 j~1

Time to drill one segment (T) is calculated based on

Equation 1 as follows:
Ti ~CTi
d=hk

Hence, the total drilling time (TDT) to drill the pile is

calculated based on Equation 2 as follows:
X
TDT ~
Ti
TDT ~CT1
d=hk zCT2
d=hk z
CT3
d=hk z . . . . . . . . . zCTi
d=hk
Because the pile is divided into small equal depth
segments and the auger height is similar for all
segments, then,

(b) Wet and dry methods representation:

(a)
The only difference between the piling process dry
and wet methods of construction is the concrete
pouring tool. In the case of the wet method, a tremie
has to be used whereas a funnel is used in the dry
method. The tremie always takes a longer time to be
erected than the funnel. To include both terms in the
deterministic model, a switch term has to be used to
alternate between the two different values. In other
words, a d term is multiplied by the funnel and tremie
expressions to enable the deterministic model to use
only one of them according to the suggested method of
construction. Therefore, if the method of construction
is wet, the term (d) will enable the tremie expression
(Rr) and disable the funnel expression (Fr) and vise
versa. The term d, a 0/1 gate term, can be represented
as:
8
1 if the wet method is used
>
>
>
< tremie has to be erected
d~
> 0 if the dry method is used
>
>
:
funnel has to be erected

9
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
;

TDT ~
d=hk
CT1 zCT2 zCT3 z . . . . . . . . . zCTi

X

CTi
TDT ~d=hk

From Equations 1 and 3, then,

TDT ~d=hk

m X
n
X

xij

i~1 j~1

2. Other activities times determination

Several other activities have to be considered as well as
drilling time, such as cage erection, funnel or tremie

Then, in the deterministic productivity model,

the term (12d) will be multiplied by (Fr) and the term
(d) will be multiplied by (Tr). For example, in case of
the dry method d50, then (12d51) opens the gate for
the funnel erection time to be included in the
deterministic model, the tremie erection time is erased
and vise versa.
(a)
(c) Adjusting the pile axis (A) and machine relocation (M) times determination:
These two cycle time activities depend upon machine
power and the labor crew. Therefore, they will be used
as a single value for each.
Based on the discussion in the above points (a), (b)
and (c), the other activities times (OAT) can be

535

Assessing productivity and cost of bored piles

expressed in Equation 5 as follows:
5

OAT ~Cr z(1{d)
Fr zd
Tr zPr zAzM

3. Total pile duration (TD) determination

The total duration to install a pile is the sum of the total
drilling time (TDT) and the other activities times (OAT).
Hence, based on Equations 4 and 5, the total duration per
pile in minutes (TD) can be calculated as follows:
TD~TDT zOAT
TD~
("
d=hk

m P
n
P

"

xij z

i~1 j~1

Cr z1{d
Fr z

#)

d
Tr zPr zAzM

minutes

the working time per day will be (60*WH) minutes.

Hence, to calculate the productivity, the total working
time per day (60*WH) has to be divided by the TD
(option 1) or by the DED (option 2). The outcome is the
number of pile holes that can be constructed per day. But
this result considers productive time of 60 minutes per
hour; however, this is not realistic. This result considers
only the effect of the quantitative factors on productivity
and neglects the qualitative factors, such as operator
efficiency, weather conditions, site conditions, job
management, site investigation, mechanical problems,
etc. Therefore, a term for the effect of these qualitative
variables has to be considered in the productivity model.
This term has been calculated using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) and fuzzy logic (Zayed, 2001;
Zayed and Halpin, 2004a). The final outcome of this
qualitative evaluation is the Productivity Index (PI). The
PI is estimated as 0.7 (Zayed, 2001; Zayed and Halpin,
2004a). The productivity model considers PI as a
variable; however, it has an average value of 0.7 in
current study based upon (Zayed, 2001; Zayed and
Halpin, 2004a, b). Hence, productivity can be determined using equation (8a and b) as follows:

4. Drilling equipment duration for each pile

There are two major options related to the determination
of drilling equipment duration (DED). First, drilling
equipment can work as the major machine that drill, help
in erecting the rebar cage, and help in pouring the pile.
Therefore, its DED equals TD (Equation 6). Secondly,
drilling equipment can drill and then move to another pile
location; however, another crane and/or excavator can
complete the rebar cage erection and pouring concrete
activities (this option is the most popular). Considering
the second option, the DED for each pile can be
determined using Equation 7 as follows:
("
DED~

d=hk

m X
n
X

#
xij zAzM  minutes 7

i~1 j~1

5. Productivity model determination

Productivity can be determined after calculating the
total duration to construct a pile (TD) and/or (DED).
The working hours (WH) per day have to be defined to
determine how many pile holes can be performed per
day. The regular working hours per day are 8. In this
study, the term working hours (WH) is left as a variable
for the user to adjust according to company policy.
Because the TD model (Equation 6) and the DED model
(Equation 7) use minutes as a duration unit, the working
hours (WH) have to be converted to minutes; therefore,

Productivity holes=day~
60
WH
PI=TD

option 1

Productivity holes=day~
60
WH
PI=DED

option 2

8a

8b

Then, based on models (8a&b),

Productivity~
60
WH
PI option 1
9
8"
#
m
n
>
>
>
>
=
< d=hk P P xij z
i~1 j~1
>
>
>
>
;
:
Cr z1{d
Fr zd
Tr zPr zAzM 

9a

60
WH
PI option 2
9 9b
Productivity~ 8
n
>
>
=
<m


P P
d=hk
xij zAzM 
>
>
;
:
i~1 j~1
The productivity models in Equations 9a and 9b
provide only the number of holes per day. Common
practice uses the productivity in cy/day or lf/day;
therefore, the models in Equations 10a and 10b and
11a and 11b have been developed. Productivity can be
determined in cy/day or lf/day by multiplying Equations
8a and 8b by the pile volume and cross-sectional
area, respectively. Equations 10a and 10b determine

536

Zayed and Halpin

productivity in terms of cy/day whereas Equations 11a

and 11b determine productivity in terms of linear foot
of depth per day. The equation nominator for productivity model (10a and 10b) include the number 1.75
that result from units conversion: 60*(p/4)*(1/27 cf per
cy)51.75. Both equations can be depicted as follows:
Productivity cy=day~


1:75
WH
PI
w2
i
d TD
Productivity cy=day~


1:75
WH
PI
w2
i
d DED

option 1

10b
option 2

Productivity lf =day~
60
WH
PI
i
d =TD

option 1

Productivity lf =day~
60
WH
PI
i
d =DED

10a

option 2

11a

11b

Because the PI has a value of 0.7, regular working

hours are 8 hours/day, and segments depth (d) is 109,
Equations 9a and 9b, 10a and 10b and 11a and 11b
turn out to be:
Productivity holes=day~
336=TD

option 1

12a

Productivity holes=day~
336=DED option 2
Productivity cy=day~


98
w2
i TD option 1

13a

Productivity cy=day~


2
98
w
i DED option 2

13b

Productivity lf =day~
3360
i =TD option 1

14a

Productivity lf =day~
3360
i =DED

option 2

a questionnaire. A questionnaire was designated to

collect data from contractors and consultants who are
specialists in concrete bored pile construction and
design. 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
conducted or are currently conducting. Accordingly,
each questionnaire represents a full set of information
about at least one project. The reply percentage for the
questionnaire is 35.42%. The collected data include
cycle time activities durations, productivity, expenses
breakdown and quantitative assessment for the qualitative factors that affect productivity using a unified
scale. For further details, the reader is referred to Zayed
(2001) and Zayed and Halpin (2004a).

14b

Deterministic model application

The designed deterministic models have been applied
to the piling process collected data to calculate its
productivity and cycle time. The productivity has been
determined using Equations 12a and 12b, 13a and 13b
and 14a and 14b. Equations 12a and 12b calculate the
productivity in terms of holes per day and Equations
13a and 13b in terms of cubic yard per day. Equations
14a and 14b determine productivity in terms of linear
foot of depth per day. The cycle time is calculated using
models (4) and (5). The application of these models is
discussed in the following sections.

Drilling time model application to w-18

The deterministic model in Equation 4 calculates the
total excavation (drilling) time. It is used to develop the
chart in Figure 3 that draws the relationship of drilling
time against the drilling depth using different auger
heights for clay soil with the wet method. Hence, these
curves are used to assess the drilling time that is
extremely important in planning piling projects. For
instance, if a project has a 609 depth with w-18 (180
diameter pile) in clay soil using a 59 auger height, its
drilling time is 21 minutes.

Data collection
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 fill data forms
and telephone calls. The second technique utilized

Other activities times model application to

w-18
The drilling time is calculated using Equation 4 and the
remaining cycle time activities duration is calculated

537

Assessing productivity and cost of bored piles

time. For instance, if a project has a 609 depth with

w-18 (180 diameter pile) in clay soil using a 59 auger
height, its other activities time is 35 and 44.5 minutes
for dry and wet methods, respectively.

Productivity model application to w-18

using Equation 5. Figure 4 shows the outcome of the

model in Equation 5 applied to the w-18 data set. This
figure shows other cycle time activities against different
pile depths: 309, 409, 509, and 609. Two curves have
been developed to represent the activities times using
the wet and the dry construction methods. Figure 4 can
be used to assess all cycle time activities except drilling

One of the major goals of this study is to determine the

piling process productivity considering different variables, such as auger height, depth, pile size and soil
type. The deterministic productivity model is indicated
in Equations 12a and 12b, 13a and 13b and 14a and
14b. Productivity models in the three previous equations have been applied to the available model building
and validation data sets considering various soil types.
The outcome of model building data set application is
shown in Figure 5. It shows the productivity in terms of
holes per day for the wet and dry construction methods
in clay soil. It provides a set of productivity curves at
different depths with a maximum depth of 609, using
different auger heights, such as 39, 49, 59, and 69. The
continuous curves represent the productivity using the
dry method and the dotted curves represent productivity using the wet method. Hence, for a project in clay
soil with a known depth, in the range that is considered
in this chart, productivity can be assessed in holes per
day. Moreover, the construction method, the drilling
tool and the pouring tool must be defined prior to
starting the work. For instance, if a project has a 609

Figure 4 Other activities times for W-18 pile

Figure 5

Figure 3 Drilling time for W-18 pile in clay soil

Productivity for W-18 pile in clay soil

538

Zayed and Halpin

depth with w-18 (180 diameter pile) in clay soil using a

59 auger height, its productivity is 6 and 5 holes/day for
dry and wet methods, respectively.

Productivity model validation for w-18

Validation is so important because a model cannot be
used in practice unless it is valid. The results of a
productivity model have to be validated so that it can be
used for productivity estimating. After validation, the
model will be proper to fit the problem and predict the
productivity of piling process. Therefore, the productivity model in Equations 12a and 12b is used to
estimate the productivity for the validation data set.
Being determined, the estimated productivity is compared with the collected productivity from the reviewers.
If the model provides close numbers to the collected data;
hence, it is valid and can be used to represent this process
in real world practice and vice versa. The available
validation data set is divided into four different data subsets: w-18, w-30, w-48 and w-60. Each data sub-set is
categorized into three categories according to soil type:
clay, middle and sand. The deterministic productivity
model is applied to each category. To exactly determine
how accurate the predicted results of the productivity
model, a validation factor (VF) has to be calculated using
equation (15) as follows:
Validation factor VF ~EP=AP

15

The VF has been calculated for each validation data

point considering its corresponding productivity model
result. Table 2 shows the VF for clay, middle and sand
soils using wet and dry methods in w-18. It shows that
Table 2

VF for w-18 in clay soil with 309 depth using 39 auger

height and wet method is 0.88 while it is 0.97 for 49
auger height. This indicates that the model fits the
productivity for 39 auger height with 88% fitness while
it is 97% for 49 auger height. 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 the VF for
more than 36 % of the models outputs is more than
90% fitness, which expresses its good fitness of the
available data sets because construction projects have
large number of variables that affect production and
cost. About 30% of the outputs have the VF in the
range of 8090% fitness while 13% of them have the
VF in the range of 7580% fitness. Consequently, 79%
of the models outputs have been predicted with more
than 75% fitness, which is fairly good and acceptable.

Piling process cost estimation

Prior to approaching the cost analysis, it is better to
address the factors that influence the piling process
costs. There are large number of factors that affect pile
construction and dictate its construction method. This
study mentioned the major cost factors based on Reese
and ONeill (1988), as shown in Table 3.
Accordingly, the cost estimate procedure is complicated and hard to achieve. The data collected by Reese
and ONeill (1988) from ADSC contractors did not
consider the mobilization and demobilization costs
because they were project-specific costs. Current study
considers the average of Reese and ONeill (1988) cost

Validation factor (VF) for w-18

Construction method at various auger heights
Wet method

Pile Depth
309
409
509
609

Auger 39
0.88
0.77
0.73
0.70

Auger 49
0.97
0.86
0.82
0.79

309
409
509
609

0.81
0.70
0.65
0.62

0.89
0.78
0.73
0.69

309
409
509
609

0.82
0.71
0.66
0.62

0.90
0.79
0.74
0.70

VF for clay soil

Auger 59
Auger 69
Auger 39
1.04
1.09
1.04
0.92
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.93
0.87
0.85
0.90
0.80
VF for middle soil
0.95
0.99
0.96
0.83
0.87
0.82
0.79
0.83
0.76
0.74
0.78
0.70
VF for sand soil
0.96
1.00
0.97
0.84
0.88
0.84
0.79
0.83
0.77
0.75
0.79
0.71

Dry method
Auger 49
1.17
1.03
0.99
0.91

Auger 59
1.27
1.12
1.08
1.00

Auger 69
1.34
1.19
1.15
1.07

1.08
0.93
0.87
0.80

1.16
1.01
0.94
0.87

1.23
1.07
1.01
0.93

1.09
0.94
0.88
0.81

1.17
1.02
0.96
0.88

1.24
1.08
1.02
0.94

539

Assessing productivity and cost of bored piles

Table 3

Factors that affect piling process cost

Factor

Factor description

Sub-surface (soil) conditions

Site conditions

It has a great effect on the cost because of drilling difficulties in different soil types
It includes trafficability, under ground lines, trees, ground surface elevations,
overhead lines, and nearby structures. All these sub-factors affect cost greatly
Cost varies for different pile depths and sizes
The way specifications is written down is very important in cost estimation because
the contractor will determine his/her prices according to the inspection procedure in
the project
Weather conditions
Location to the closest means of travel and unions

Geometry of pile (depth)

Specifications including inspection
procedure
Expected weather conditions
Location of the project and its closest
means of travel and unions
Governmental environmental regulations
Availability of proper equipment
Contractor experience and economic
conditions
Contract requirements

This is important regarding the cost of spoil soil removal

Number of pieces of equipment that can fit in the site is critical in productivity
estimation and hence cost estimation
Contractor financial status
It includes bonding and insurance capacities, terms of payment, and terms of
reference in the contract

figures to be used as a general value. The important

outcome of this cost analysis is the relative construction
cost of major activities in the piling process. Table 4
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 1987
prices to 2000 prices is 1.3637. The resulted cost
figures as of 2000 have been calculated for current
study use. Most costs in Table 4 are estimated 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 cost per cy has been taken from
Table 4 and multiplied by the volume of each pile to get
the total cost per hole in equation (16) as follows:


16
TCl ~2:02
10{4 DCl zPC
w2
D zRC
The cost model in Equation 16 has been applied to
the four construction methods of piling process as

Table 4

shown in Table 5. It is clear that the total cost per pile is

different from construction method to the other for
different pile sizes 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 6 shows
the total cost curves for pile of sizes: 180, 300, 480, and
600 with different depths: 309, 409, 509, and 609 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 7 shows the same information for the two other
construction methods: Dry Method Soil Cased
(DMSC) and Wet Method Soil Cased (WMSC). For
further details about the above-mentioned construction
methods, the reader is referred to Reese and ONeill
(1988) and Zayed (2001). For instance, if a project has

Cost of piling process activities

Cost item

Average cost ($/cy)

1987

Drilling cost (DMSUC)

Drilling cost (DMSC)
Drilling cost (WMSS)
Drilling cost (WMSC)
Rebar cage cost*
Concrete pouring cost*

$62.00
$96.00
$113.00
$139.00
$57.00
$23.00

Conversion

Average cost

factor**

2000 ($/cy)

1.3637
1.3637
1.3637
1.3637
1.3637
1.3637

$84.55
$130.92
$154.10
$189.56
$77.73
$31.37

Notes: Drilling cost5machine cost+crew cost. Placing cage cost5crane cost+crew cost. Placing concrete cost5tremie/funnel cost+crew
cost+pump cost. The available average costs cover typical diameter from 120 to 720. Typical depth ranges from 159 to more than 509.
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. *This cost is per hole. **This factor is based on RSMeans 2000.

540
Table 5

Zayed and Halpin

Cost of piling process construction methods

Construction Method

Diameter (ft)

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

180
300
480
600
180
300
480
600
180
300
480
600
180
300
480
600

Total cost ($/hole) (as 2000 prices) at depths:

309

409

509

609

$305.29
$709.85
$1 695.95
$2 606.19
$396.32
$962.69
$2 343.23
$3 617.58
$441.83
$1 089.12
$2 666.88
$4 123.27
$511.44
$1 282.47
$3 161.86
$4 896.68

$381.15
$920.55
$2 235.35
$3 449.01
$502.51
$1 257.68
$3 098.40
$4 797.52
$563.20
$1 426.24
$3 529.92
$5 471.78
$656.01
$1 684.05
$4 189.90
$6 502.99

$457.00
$1 131.26
$2 774.76
$4 291.83
$608.71
$1 552.67
$3 853.57
$5 977.47
$684.56
$1 763.37
$4 392.97
$6 820.29
$800.58
$2 085.63
$5 217.94
$8 109.31

$532.86
$1 341.96
$3 314.16
$5 134.65
$714.90
$1 847.65
$4 608.73
$7 157.42
$805.93
$2 100.50
$5 256.02
$8 168.80
$945.14
$2 487.21
$6 245.98
$9 715.62

a 609 depth with w-18 (180 diameter pile) in clay soil

using a 59 auger height, its drilling time is 21 minutes.

Illustrative example
(A) A project of 105 pile holes with w-18 and 409
depth in clay soil needs to be constructed. How
many working days does the contractor need
the piling machine in each project? Knowing
that dry method can only be used in the project
of clay soil but wet method can be used for all of
them, the contractor decided to use wet method
for 36 holes of the clay soil project and dry
method for the rest due to the water table. How
many holes/day, cy/day, and lf/day can the
contractor do in this project? How many days
the contractor will take to perform this project?
(B) Suppose that a drilling contractor has to
estimate the costs of two different drilled shaft
bids. The first bid is 67 piles (drilled shafts)
with 300 diameter and 559 depth in stiff clay soil
with low water table. The second bid is 49 piles
(drilled shafts) with 600 diameter and 609 depth
in clay soil and 159 sand layer on top with low
water table. What will be the optimum cost
associated with each bid?
Solution of Part A: based on the developed set of charts,
the drilling time for the machine is calculated. This
project has 105 holes with 409 depth in clay soil. The
first 36 holes use wet method while the other 69 holes
use dry method. Drilling time does not depend on the
construction method because it affects only the pouring

tool that can be used. Therefore, the drilling time will

be the same for both dry and wet methods. According
to Figure 2, drilling time is 22, 16.5, 13.2, or 11 min/
hole using 39, 49, 59 or 69 auger height, respectively.
Hence, this project needs the piling machine for 7, 5, 4,
or 3 days, respectively. Table 6 shows the calculation of
these values. Hence, the drilling time (day) is calculated
in equation (17) as follows:

Figure 6 Cost of DMSUC/WMSS construction methods

541

Assessing productivity and cost of bored piles

technical office of the company can plan its piling

machines time among different sites.
Based on productivity figures, the machine productivity in each project is calculated. For 105 holes, 409
depth, clay soil, the first 36 holes use wet method while
the other 69 holes use dry method. Figure 5 shows that
productivity of constructing piles of 180 diameter with
409 depth is 7.25, 8.23, 8.95, and 9.5 holes/day for dry
method and 6.18, 6.88, 7.38, and 7.75 holes/day for
wet method using 39, 49, 59, and 69 auger height,
respectively. Table 7 shows productivity and time
calculations for the three projects. Hence, this project
will be accomplished using wet method in 36 holes,
which take 6, 5, 5, or 5 days using 39, 49, 59, or 69 auger
height, respectively. Furthermore, the other 69 holes
that have to be accomplished using dry method will
take 9, 8, 8, or 7 days to complete 15, 13, 13, or, 12
days for the 105 holes. The total piling process time
value in days is calculated as follows:

N
TDT
days
Project Drilling Time~
60
WH
PI

17

Then,
Project Drilling Time~
105 holes
22 min=hole
~
60 min=hr
8 hours=day
0:7
7 days
Accordingly, the project manager has the flexibility
to select the convenient auger height and time that the
machine is required in the site. Furthermore, the
Table 6

Table 7

The application of Equation 18 is indicated in

Table 7. This table shows the productivity corresponding to the required depth using different auger heights
and construction methods. The total pile installation
duration (TD) consists of the drilling time using the
piling machine and the other activities times that are
accomplished using a crane. Therefore, this time
represents the total duration that the contractor needs
to spend in each project. It is a very good tool that can
be used to estimate the project duration from piling
contractor perspective.
Solution of Part B: based on the given information,
the first bid can use dry method soil uncased
(DMSUC) because the soil can stand-alone without

Drilling time for the illustrative example

No. of holes

105

18

Piling Process Time~N=Pr

Figure 7 Cost of DMSC/WMSC construction methods

Depth

409

Drilling time per hole (minutes)

Total drilling time (days)

Auger 39

Auger 49

Auger 59

Auger 69

Auger 39

Auger 49

Auger 59

Auger 69

22

16.5

13.2

11

Productivity in holes/day
Wet method

No. of holes
36
No. of holes
69

Depth
409
Depth
409

Productivity (holes/day) in clay soil

Total piling process time
Auger 49 Auger 59 Auger 69 Auger 39 Auger 49 Auger 59
6.88
7.25
7.75
6
5
5
Dry method
productivity (holes/day) in clay soil
Total piling process time
Auger 39
Auger 49 Auger 59 Auger 69 Auger 39 Auger 49 Auger 59
7.38
8.23
8.95
9.5
9
8
8

Auger 39
6.18

(days)
Auger 69
5
(days)
Auger 69
7

542
caving and the water table is low. Therefore, using
Figure 6, at Dry-300 with 559 depth, the total cost is
$1250/hole. Hence, the bid cost for 67 piles will be
$83750. This cost does not include overheads. Then,
the contractor can add the overhead costs and markup
to this cost to get the bid price.
Similarly, the second bid can use either dry method
soil cased (DMSC) or wet method soil slurry (WMSS).
Figure 7 shows that the total cost for DMSC with 600
diameter and 609 depth is $7,150/hole. From Figure 6,
the WMSS total cost for 600 diameter and 609 depth is
$8,160/hole. Hence, the optimum cost method is to use
DMSC of $7,150/hole. Then, the total bid cost is
$350 350. The total bid price can be calculated by
adding this total cost to the overheads and markup.
Accordingly, these cost figures can be used to select
the optimal construction method for the piling project
in addition to its cost for bid use. Consequently,
Figures 6 and 7 are good tools for piling projects cost
estimate process.

Zayed and Halpin

R.S. Means (2000) Building Construction cost data, 58th
Annual Edition, R.S. Means Company, Inc., Kingston,
MA.
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, Federal Highway
Administration, USA.
Zayed, T.M. (2001) Assessment of productivity for concrete
bored pile construction, PhD thesis submitted to School of
Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
USA, May.
Zayed, T.M. and Halpin, D.W. (2004a) Quantitative
assessment for piles productivity factors. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 130(3),
40514.
Zayed, T.M. and Halpin, D.W. (2004b) Simulation as a tool
for piles productivity assessment. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, 130(3), 394404.

Appendix I.
Notation

Conclusions
Five models have been designated to assess piling
process productivity, cycle time, and cost using the
conventional (deterministic) technique. These models
have been validated to assure their appropriateness in
piling process analysis. The concept of validation factor
(VF) has been designated to check their accuracy of
fitting. The value of VF for more than 36 % of the
models outputs is more than 90% accuracy, which
expresses its extreme fit for the available data sets.
About 30% of the outputs have the VF in the range of
8090% accuracy while 13% of them have the VF in
the range of 7580% accuracy. Consequently, about
79% of the models outputs have been predicted with
more than 75% accuracy.
Several sets of charts that represent productivity,
cycle times and cost have been developed. Based upon
these charts, the cycle time is 56 and 65.5 minutes for
dry and wet methods, respectively, if the constructed
pile has a 609 depth with w-18 (180 diameter pile) in
clay soil using a 59 auger height. In addition, its
productivity is 6 and 5 holes/day for dry and wet
methods, respectively. Therefore, the developed charts
are very beneficial for the contractor and the client to
plan bid their jobs.

References
Peurifoy, R.L., Ledbetter, W.L. and Schexnayder, C.J.
(1996) Construction, Planning, Equipment, and Methods,
5th edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., USA.

CTi5Piling machine cycle time at segment i

xij5Cycle times activity j estimated time in segment i
(i51, 2, ...., m and j51, 2, ........, n)
n5Maximum number of cycle time activities, which
is 6 in this process
m5Number of chosen depth segments
Ti5Time to drill segment i
d5Depth of equal segments (ft)
hk5Auger height, k53, 4, 5, or 6 corresponding to
auger heights 39, 49, 59, or 69, respectively (ft)
TDT5Total drilling time per pile
OAT5Total other activities time per pile
Cr5Rebar cage time for depth r (r51, 2, ...., p)
Fr5Funnel erection time for depth r (r51, 2, ...., p)
Tr5Tremie erection time for depth r (r51, 2, ...., p)
Pr5Concrete pouring time for depth r (r51, 2, ...., p)
A5Adjusting the pile axis time
M5Machine relocation time
WH5Working hours per day
PI5Productivity index (qualitative variables effect)
TD5Total duration to construct a pile
w5Pile diameter (ft)
N5Number of pile holes
Pr5Productivity per day
VF5Validation factor
EP5Estimated productivity
AP5Actual (field) productivity
TCl5Total piles cost for different methods l
($/hole)
DCl5Drilling cost per cy for different methods l
($/cy)
PC5Pouring cost per cy for concrete ($/cy)

Assessing productivity and cost of bored piles

RC5Rebar cage placing cost ($/hole)
D5Total pile depth (ft)

Subscripts and superscripts

i5Number of segments. It has a range from 1 to m

543
j5Cycle time activities number. It has a range from 1
to n
l5Different construction methods (DMSUC, DMSC,
WMSS, and WMSC)
l51, 2, 3 and 4
r5No.
of
different
depths.
r51,2,3,4
for
309,409,509,609 depths, respectively
p5Max. number of chosen depths. p54 in this study