A Decision-Support Framework for Early-Stage Pile Foundation Selection

Ainur Montayeva, A. Dąbska, Yergen Ashkei, Gulnaz Zhakapbayeva, A Izbassar, D. Mikhailov

Buildings, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/buildings16183701
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Early-stage selection of pile foundation systems is associated with considerable uncertainty due to limited site information and the need to consider multiple geotechnical, structural, and construction-related factors simultaneously. This study proposes a rule-based decision-support framework, named GeoSupport Decision Platform (GSDP), for transparent and systematic evaluation of pile foundation alternatives across varying engineering conditions. A multicriteria scoring procedure is introduced into the proposed framework to evaluate the recommended pile alternative for the application. The implemented procedure combines compatibility scores and weighting coefficients based on engineering judgement and related to soil type, groundwater conditions, frost depth, load level, vibration/noise restrictions, and site accessibility. The ranked pile alternative list, closely linked to the suitability scores, is an outcome of the framework. The applicability of the GSDP framework is illustrated through two case studies based on construction sites in Kokshetau and Astana, Kazakhstan, representing different geotechnical and construction conditions. For the Kokshetau construction site, the GSDP framework recommends driven piles with a suitability score of 0.975 as the most suitable foundation alternative, followed by bored piles and micropiles, with suitability scores of 0.905 and 0.845, respectively. In contrast, for the Astana case, bored/CFA piles are ranked first with a suitability score of 0.970, followed by micropiles (0.825) and driven piles (0.775). In both cases, the highest-ranked pile alternative corresponds to the pile foundation system adopted at the respective construction site. The results show that the framework generates transparent, interpretable recommendations through a weighted scoring procedure and provides brief explanations that align with the engineering solution chosen for the case study. The contrasting rankings, which demonstrate the ability of the framework to respond to site-specific conditions rather than systematically favoring a single pile type, indicate the GSDP’s practical engineering significance for the preliminary selection of pile foundations when site investigation data are limited.