Hybrid AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for Selecting Deep Excavation Support System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces and further applies an approach to support the decision makers in construction projects differentiating among a variety of deep excavation supporting systems (DESSs). These kinds of problems include dealing with uncertainty in data, multi-criteria affecting the decision, and multi-alternatives to select one from them. The proposed approach combines the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with the fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (fuzzy TOPSIS) in a multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) model. The MCDM model emphasize the ability to combine expert knowledge, cost calculations, and laboratory test results for soil properties to achieve the scope. The model proved it had a superior ability to deal with the complexity and vague data that are related to construction projects. Furthermore, it was applied to a real case study for a governmental housing project in Egypt. Secant pile walls, sheet pile walls, and soldier piles and lagging are selected and studied as being the most common DESSs and as they satisfy the project requirements. The model utilized four criteria and fourteen comparing factors, including site characteristics, safety, cost, and environmental impacts. Based on the results of the model application on the investigated case study, a decision was reached that using secant piles as a supporting system in this project is mostly preferred. Furthermore, sheet pile wall, and soldier piles and lagging, come next in the ranking order. A sensitivity analysis is carried out to investigate how sensitive the results are to the criteria weights. In addition, the paper discusses in detail the reasons and factors which affect and control the decision-making process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".