IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p12075-d1212092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Sustainable Slope Stability with Anti-Slide Piles Using an Integrated AHP-VIKOR Methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Yesim Tuskan

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa 45140, Turkey)

  • Ender Basari

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa 45140, Turkey)

Abstract

The sustainable design of major civil engineering projects, such as landslide management and slope stability, provides new opportunities for our society regarding the global energy crisis. These sources offer an effective solution to environmental issues and human energy needs. Slope stability, as a critical aspect of ensuring public safety and protection of infrastructure, often leads to disastrous consequences, highlighting the significance of designing effective and sustainable measures to mitigate the risks associated with landslides. Although anti-slide piles have become a widely used method to enhance slope stability, this paper investigates how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) methodologies can be combined to achieve a sustainable design for anti-slide piles, simultaneously considering environmental, economic, safety, and technical factors. Through the integration of AHP-VIKOR and a case study, this paper demonstrates an effective approach to prioritizing sustainability in the design process of anti-slide pile systems, evaluating five main criteria—slope stability, sustainability, anti-slide pile capacity, cost, and ease of construction—and five sub-criteria. The proposed methodology is validated through a case study, wherein various design alternatives for anti-slide piles are evaluated based on sustainable requirements. The results indicate that the slope stability criterion has the highest weight of 0.404, followed by anti-slide pile capacity (0.283), sustainability (0.129), and cost (0.146) criteria. The ease of construction has the lowest weight of 0.038. As a result of the evaluations, it has been seen that, if the sustainability criteria are included in the analyses, the anti-slide pile alternatives are determined in the range of ξ = 0.1–0.3 and s/D = 2.0–3.0, compared to the scenarios where only the economic and technical criteria are satisfied. A pile geometry of diameter, D = 1.00 m, is the most sustainable value within the selected pile spacing intervals, meeting the criteria of slope safety, pile capacity, cost, and ease of construction. This hybrid approach allows for a more balanced consideration of a multi-criteria decision, while considering the sustainability aspects of anti-slide pile selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Yesim Tuskan & Ender Basari, 2023. "Evaluation of Sustainable Slope Stability with Anti-Slide Piles Using an Integrated AHP-VIKOR Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:12075-:d:1212092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/12075/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/12075/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryszard Dachowski & Katarzyna Gałek, 2020. "Selection of the Best Method for Underpinning Foundations Using the PROMETHEE II Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Irene Josa & Nikola Tošić & Snežana Marinković & Albert de la Fuente & Antonio Aguado, 2021. "Sustainability-Oriented Multi-Criteria Analysis of Different Continuous Flight Auger Piles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Amin Mahmoudi & Mehdi Abbasi & Xiaopeng Deng, 2022. "Evaluating the Performance of the Suppliers Using Hybrid DEA-OPA Model: A Sustainable Development Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 335-362, April.
    4. Okada, H. & Styles, S.W. & Grismer, M.E., 2008. "Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to irrigation project improvement: Part I. Impacts of irrigation project internal processes on crop yields," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 199-204, March.
    5. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    6. Lozano-Minguez, E. & Kolios, A.J. & Brennan, F.P., 2011. "Multi-criteria assessment of offshore wind turbine support structures," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 2831-2837.
    7. Oriol Pons & Albert De la Fuente & Antonio Aguado, 2016. "The Use of MIVES as a Sustainability Assessment MCDM Method for Architecture and Civil Engineering Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bahareh Maleki & Maria del Mar Casanovas-Rubio & Konstantinos Daniel Tsavdaridis & Albert de la Fuente Antequera, 2024. "Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment of Modular Residential Towers: Case Study: Ten Degrees Croydon and Apex House in London," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-19, January.
    2. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    3. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    4. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    5. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    6. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Styliani Karamountzou & Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2023. "Suitability and Sustainability Assessment of Existing Onshore Wind Farms in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Kuldeep Kavta & Arkopal K. Goswami, 2021. "A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3059-3084, December.
    9. Rudimar Caricimi & Géremi Gilson Dranka & Dalmarino Setti & Paula Ferreira, 2022. "Reframing the Selection of Hydraulic Turbines Integrating Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy VIKOR Multi-Criteria Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-26, October.
    10. Dragan Pamučar & Ibrahim Badi & Korica Sanja & Radojko Obradović, 2018. "A Novel Approach for the Selection of Power-Generation Technology Using a Linguistic Neutrosophic CODAS Method: A Case Study in Libya," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-25, September.
    11. Oriol Pons & Saeid Habibi & Diana Peña, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Household Waste Based Solar Control Devices for Workshops in Primary Schools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-23, November.
    12. Muhammad Ikram & Qingyu Zhang & Robert Sroufe, 2020. "Developing integrated management systems using an AHP‐Fuzzy VIKOR approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2265-2283, September.
    13. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    14. Chia-Liang Lin & Jwu-Jenq Chen & Yu-Yu Ma, 2023. "Ranking of Service Quality Solution for Blended Design Teaching Using Fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS in the Post-COVID-19 Era," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, March.
    15. Antonio Nesticò & Piera Somma, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Methods for the Enhancement of Historical Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    16. Irene Josa & Albert de la Fuente & Maria del Mar Casanovas-Rubio & Jaume Armengou & Antonio Aguado, 2021. "Sustainability-Oriented Model to Decide on Concrete Pipeline Reinforcement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-25, March.
    17. Oliveira, Gilson Adamczuk & Tan, Kim Hua & Guedes, Bruno Turmina, 2018. "Lean and green approach: An evaluation tool for new product development focused on small and medium enterprises," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 62-73.
    18. Misbah Anjum & Vernika Agarwal & P. K. Kapur & Sunil Kumar Khatri, 2020. "Two-phase methodology for prioritization and utility assessment of software vulnerabilities," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(2), pages 289-300, July.
    19. Juan Diego Araya & Ana Hernando & Rosario Tejera & Javier Velázquez, 2023. "Sustainable Tourism around Ecosystem Services: Application to a Case in Costa Rica Using Multi-Criteria Methods," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    20. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:12075-:d:1212092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.