Applsci 10 03232

applied
sciences
Article
Optimal Design of Cantilever Soldier Pile Retaining
Walls Embedded in Frictional Soils with Harmony
Search Algorithm
Gebrail Bekdaş 1 , Zülal Akbay Arama 1 , Aylin Ece Kayabekir 1, * and Zong Woo Geem 2, *
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul University–Cerrahpaşa, 34320 Istanbul, Turkey;
bekdas@istanbul.edu.tr (G.B.); zakbay@istanbul.edu.tr (Z.A.A.)
2 College of IT Convergence, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea
* Correspondence: aylinecekayabekir@ogr.iu.edu.tr (A.E.K.); geem@gachon.ac.kr (Z.W.G.)

Received: 13 April 2020; Accepted: 1 May 2020; Published: 6 May 2020
Abstract: In this paper, the design of cantilever soldier pile retaining walls embedded in frictional
soils is investigated within the insight of an optimization algorithm to acquire cost and dimension
equilibrium by ensuring both geotechnical and structural requirements simultaneously. Multivariate
parametric analyses with different fictionalized cases are performed to evaluate the effects of design
variants and to compare the effectiveness of the preference of optimization solutions rather than
detailed advanced modeling software. The harmony search algorithm is used to conduct parametrical
analyses to take into consideration the effects of the change of excavation depth, shear strength angle,
and unit weight of soil, external loading condition, and coefficient of soil reaction. The embedment
depth and diameter of the soldier pile are searched as design dimensions, and the total cost of a
cantilever soldier pile wall is calculated as an objective function. The design dimension results of
the parametric optimization analysis are used to perform finite element analysis with a well-known
commercial geotechnical analysis software. The results of optimization and finite element solutions
are compared with the use of maximum bending moment, factor of safety, and pivot point location
values. As the consequence of the study, the influence rates of design variants are procured, and
the effectiveness of the usage of optimization algorithms for both cost and dimensional equilibrium
is presented.
Keywords: cantilever soldier piles; embedment depth; optimization; frictional soils; harmony
search algorithm
1. Introduction
Achievement of the stability of an excavation is the main design objective in order to avoid failure.
In such a case, soldier piles are frequently used to support structures in geotechnical engineering
applications that are constructed to resist lateral earth pressures caused by vertical excavation works
or to restrain the movement of inclined ground. The ease and speed of construction works of soldier
piles increase their preferability, and no advanced exclusive techniques are required for structuring [1].
In the design process of all retaining structures, it is a basic application to determine the lateral earth
pressures that are affecting as active and passive for the acquirement of resisting and destabilizing
forces. It will be proper to say that the active lateral earth pressure is the major effective force that is
leading the structure to fail. The passive lateral earth pressure can be defined as the resisting force to
failure occurrence. These lateral pressures and their distribution through the depth can be changed
depending on the nature of the surrounding soil profile and environmental conditions [2]. Therefore,
it is necessary to obtain the soil characterization of the site and to predict the geotechnical properties
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232; doi:10.3390/app10093232 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 2 of 17
of related soil layers accurately to acquire a stable system and sustainable usage life. Following in
the development process of lateral earth pressure theories; several theoretical, experimental, and
empirical studies are conducted to determine the generation of lateral pressures through the pile
depth depending on the soil properties, depth of excavation, and environmental conditions [3–7].
In most of these studies, the limit equilibrium method is selected as a premise prediction tool to design
soldier pile retaining walls [8–13], and it is typically proposed that the stability of cantilever soldier
piles can be supplied uttermost approximately within 4–8 m excavations [14,15]. Deeper excavation
works commonly necessitate external supports such as wales and struts [6]. Nevertheless, strutted
excavations seems not to be an economical solution when an open-cut excavation is done that is
necessitated for a large area. At this stage, the installation and cancellation works are conducted for
struts, while the construction process reduces the construction efficiency [5]. Thus, if circumstances
allow, it is mostly preferred to solve lateral earth pressure problems with the use of cantilever soldier
piles. Although there are differences between their structures, soldier pile retaining walls are sometimes
being designed similar to sheet pile walls [4,5,16,17]. It is supposed as a sheet pile wall to ensure both
force and moment equilibrium concurrently with the use of two equations. These equations when
coupled can be written with the functions of the embedment depth and the location of the pivot point
where it is assumed that the wall rotates under the effect of unbalanced forces [2,16]. In addition to
this mentioned method, another perspective is presented in the related literature. The soldier piles
can be assumed to behave similar to beams on elastic soil, and the piles are considered to locate
tangent [5,18–22]. However, it has to be noted that all these mentioned methods can give conservative
results by not considering the deformation profile of the soil, which is playing a key role both in
design and sustainable usage term. Recently, according to the ignorance of deformation determination,
advanced methods based on new computer technologies are preferred to be used at the geotechnical
design stage to enable faster and more accurate results [1,23–27]. From this point of view, most of the
geotechnical engineering software that are used to model the cantilever soldier piles only depends
on the calculation of lateral balance through the wall system according to the defined cross-sections.
The well-known pre-design methods [14] that are mostly based on experience are used to model the
pile wall system to check against the stability considerations. The results of the conducted analyses are
also evaluated dependent on the stability and deformation boundaries of the geotechnical perspective.
This condition means that no predictions about the dimensions of the pile system are included in the
logic of the used software within the theme of geotechnical modeling. According to this situation,
back analysis has to be conducted to obtain the applicable dimensions of the retaining structure with
ensuring certain safety degree and deformation criteria. Besides, conducting stability analyses of
an excavation case can contribute to obtaining the embedment depth and diameter of the cantilever
soldier pile wall, but it is also necessary to calculate the bending moment and shear force of the
structure to design the reinforced concrete columns. In addition to all these, in order to complete
the structural design process, the number and diameter of the reinforcement required in reinforced
concrete columns should also be determined. Most of the currently used software cannot ensure
procuring the results of both geotechnical and structural design; also, the literature studies about this
whole design process including both geotechnical and structural design process are missing. In order
to overcome this absence in the present study, the design of the cantilever soldier piles has been done
by the use of the harmony search algorithm with Matlab software. It is aimed to show the novelty of
the use of optimization techniques to design a cantilever soldier pile system dependent on the selection
of dimensions with the consideration process of geotechnical stability and structural requirements
simultaneously with the cost efficiency. Besides, multivariate parametrical analyses are conducted, and
the results are obtained to see the effects of the prediction of soil geotechnical properties such as the
shear strength, unit weight, and coefficient of soil reaction on design. Environmental effects such as
external loading and the change of excavation depth are also investigated. The results are interpreted
by the determination of the cost of construction of a pile, the soldier pile diameter, and the embedment
depth. Besides, discussions are performed to compare the optimization results with the geotechnical
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x3232
FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 18
17
optimization results with the geotechnical finite element method-based software analysis results to
finite
assesselement
whethermethod-based
the proposed software analysis
design process is results to assess whether the proposed design process
satisfactory.
is satisfactory.
2. Design and Methodology
2. Design and Methodology
The design of retaining structures consists of the integrated analysis of two different fields such
The design of retaining structures consists of the integrated analysis of two different fields such as
as geotechnical and structural engineering, as before mentioned. In addition to these design issues,
geotechnical and structural engineering, as before mentioned. In addition to these design issues, the
the cost of the structural system is the identifier parameter of the design process to select the
cost of the structural system is the identifier parameter of the design process to select the applicable
applicable type. However, it is hard to acquire both the safety and economy simultaneously saving
type. However, it is hard to acquire both the safety and economy simultaneously saving time and
time and labor by the usage of traditional design methods [28]. Therefore, in recent studies, the
labor by the usage of traditional design methods [28]. Therefore, in recent studies, the techniques that
techniques that allow saving time and cost have been used in the design process of retaining
allow saving time and cost have been used in the design process of retaining structures. In this regard,
structures. In this regard, Weng et al. used optimization algorithms with a single objective optimistic
Weng et al. used optimization algorithms with a single objective optimistic model using the m-method
model using the m-method of piles in a row design and discussed the wall displacement via cost [29].
of piles in a row design and discussed the wall displacement via cost [29]. Xu and Qian used genetic
Xu and Qian used genetic algorithm to optimize the design parameters of the retaining pile system
algorithm to optimize the design parameters of the retaining pile system [30]. In a similar vein, within
[30]. In a similar vein, within the present study, optimization of the cantilever soldier pile retaining
the present study, optimization of the cantilever soldier pile retaining walls has been investigated with
walls has been investigated with the use of harmony search algorithm but differentiated from the
the use of harmony search algorithm but differentiated from the reference studies, the design rules of
reference studies, the design rules of the pile system is defined with the beams on elastic soil
the pile system is defined with the beams on elastic soil assumption. Besides this, the present study
assumption. Besides this, the present study is differentiated from other studies by the type of selected
is differentiated from other studies by the type of selected design variants (project necessities, soil
design variants (project necessities, soil properties, and environmental conditions), by used design
properties, and environmental conditions), by used design rules (beam on elastic soil assumption),
rules (beam on elastic soil assumption), and by the applied comparison procedure (comparisons with
and by the applied comparison procedure (comparisons with a well-known commercial geotechnical
a well-known commercial geotechnical analysis software). Therefore, the design procedures of
analysis software). Therefore, the design procedures of cantilever soldier piles based on the mentioned
cantilever soldier piles based on the mentioned method are described step by step to detail all these
method are described step by step to detail all these differences.
differences.
The cross-section of a simple cantilever soldier pile wall is given in Figure 1a. In Figure 1a,
The cross-section of a simple cantilever soldier pile wall is given in Figure 1a. In Figure 1a, the
the symbols h, d, L, and D represent the excavation depth, embedment depth, and total length of
symbols h, d, L, and D represent the excavation depth, embedment depth, and total length of the pile
the pile and the diameter of the pile, respectively. The stability of soldier pile walls relies upon the
and the diameter of the pile, respectively. The stability of soldier pile walls relies upon the
mobilization of earth pressures on both sides of the wall stem [8,9]. Active and passive stresses which
mobilization of earth pressures on both sides of the wall stem [8,9]. Active and passive stresses which
are generated according to this earth pressures are shown in Figure 1b according to the beam on
are generated according to this earth pressures are shown in Figure 1b according to the beam on
elastic soil assumption. Rankine Earth Pressure Theory is used to calculate lateral earth coefficients.
elastic soil assumption. Rankine Earth Pressure Theory is used to calculate lateral earth coefficients.
qa describes the external load that is affecting the soldier pile at the active side of the wall. qa is
qa describes the external load that is affecting the soldier pile at the active side of the wall. qa is
converted to lateral load (Pqa ) by the use of active lateral earth coefficient of natural soil conditions. Pa
converted to lateral load (Pqa) by the use of active lateral earth coefficient of natural soil conditions. Pa
and Pp define the lateral soil reaction forces of the active and passive side, respectively.
and Pp define the lateral soil reaction forces of the active and passive side, respectively.
Figure 1. The cross-section of a cantilever soldier pile (a); Distribution of earth pressure along the pile
Figure
(b); 1. The cross-section
Continuous of a cantilever
elastic support assumption soldier
(c,d). pile (a); Distribution of earth pressure along the pile
(b); Continuous elastic support assumption (c, d).
Within this paper, cantilever soldier piles are assumed to behave similar to beams on elastic soil
Within
and the pilesthis
arepaper, cantilever
considered soldier piles
to constitute are assumed
a continuous wallto behave
system bysimilar
locatingto tangent.
beams onDepending
elastic soil
andthe
on thecontinuous
piles are considered to constitute
elastic support a continuous
assumption, wall
the soil is system by
described by an
locating
elastictangent.
continuum Depending
[18–21],
on the continuous elastic support assumption, the soil is described by an elastic continuum
and the reaction of the soil at a specified section of a pile is only dependent on the deformation [18–21],
andthat
of thepart
reaction of the
and not onsoil
the at a specified
deflections ofsection of a pile
pile above and is only itdependent
below [20,22,31].onFor thethis
deformation
reason, it ofis
that part and
assumed thatnot
theon the deflections
calculation of theofembedment
pile above and below
depth anditpivot
[20,22,31].
pointFor this reason,
location it is
is only assumed
dependent
that the calculation of the embedment depth and pivot point location is only dependent on the
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 4 of 17
on the equilibrium of forces, which are activated through the penetrated part of the pile in the soil.
The main important feature supplied by using soil as a continuum medium is that input variables can
be directly related to measurable and realistic soil properties such as the stiffness and strength of the
material [5]. The representative parameters of the flexural rigidity and characteristic length of the pile
are EI and l0 , respectively. In the case of an acting single horizontal force or moment at the edge of the
beam (Figure 1c), with the use of the constant and variable coefficient of soil reaction through depth
(KS ), the change of deflection, rotation, bending moment, and shear force for different depths can be
calculated by Equations (1)–(4).
P0 l30 Ml30
w(x) = awp (x) w(x) = amp (x) (1)
EI EI
P0 l20 Ml20
Q(x) = atp (x) Q(x) = atp (x) (2)
EI EI
P0 l0 Ml0
M(x) = amp (x) M(x) = amm (x) (3)
EI EI
M0
V (x) = P0 avp (x) V (x) = avm (x) (4)
l0
The characteristic length of the pile is described by l0 ; it can be calculated by the use of Equation (5)
for the constant coefficient of reaction, and it can be calculated by using Equation (6) for a linear change
of the coefficient of reaction through the depth. The embedment depth of the pile can be determined
with the “πl0 ” equation for soldier piles to behave similar to beam-supported elastic soil [32]. The total
length of the pile can be calculated by the sum of excavation depth and embedment depth.
l40 = 4EI/kh t (5)

!
kb
l50 = 4EI/ (6)
x
Depending on the above-mentioned assumption to design cantilever soldier pile walls, the first
step of the present study is decided and multivariate parametric analyses are conducted to obtain
the effects of design parameters. This method is applied to numeric analyses that are carried out by
using Matlab software, the harmony search algorithm (HS), and the effects of the change of excavation
depth, shear strength angle, and unit weight of soil, external loading condition, and coefficient of soil
reaction are investigated. The harmony search algorithm was developed by Geem et al. in 2005 as
a meta-heuristic algorithm that is based on the natural musical performance process to search for a
perfect state of harmony similar to during jazz improvisation [33]. The Jazz improvisation investigates
to obtain musically pleasing harmony as a perfect state that can be determined by an aesthetic standard,
and the optimization process researches to acquire a global solution as a perfect state that can be
calculated by an objective function [34]. The HS algorithm process can be arranged with five steps.
Step 1: A harmony memory is initialized [35]. The definition of design constants, upper and lower
limits of design variables, maximum iteration number, and the values of algorithm-specific parameters
are done. Three special parameters are used for HS that are named harmony memory size (HMS),
harmony memory consideration rate (HMCR), and the t pitch adjustment rate (PAR), respectively.
Step 2: A new harmony is improvised [35] from the creation of a harmony vector with the
generation of a random value (rnd(0,1)) within a range. The upper (upper limit (Xi,max ) and lower
limits (Xi,min )) are defined for each design variable (Xi ) (Equation (7)). With the usage of the constants
and design variables of the problem, the motion equation is solved; following, the solution of the
objective function is procured, and the result of this objective function is stored in harmony vector.
Xi = Xi,min + rnd(0,1)·(Xi,max − Xi,min ) (7)

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 5 of 17
This process is repetitive, as much as the size of the harmony memory and every harmony vector
is stored in a matrix named the initial solution matrix.
Step 3: The iteration process is started, and the New Harmony vector is created. This creation
can be done in two ways based on the algorithm rules. It is possible to generate the design variables
randomly within the identified upper and lower limits, or a new vector can be activated using a chosen
vector (Xi,old ) from the solution matrix (Equation (8)). New (Xi,new ) values are generated randomly
by the multiplication difference of design variable limits and the pitch adjusting rate (PAR) while the
process is loading. The selection of the proper way to evaluate the new vector is based on the value
of HMCR. Correspondingly, the generation of a random value takes place, and if the random value
becomes less than the value of HMCR, the first way is selected; otherwise, the second way is applied.
Xi,new = Xi,old + rnd(0,1)·PAR ·(Xi,max − Xi,min ) (8)
Step 4: Comparison of the new vector with the vectors stored in a solution matrix is done. With
regard to the objective function, the existing vector is replaced with a new one if the next vector is
better than the existing vector defined in the matrix. If not, the solution matrix is saved in its current
form. The better solution is evaluated by the comparison of the value obtained from the objective
function, and the minimum one is chosen. The design constraint is also taken into consideration during
comparisons. In addition to this, the amounts of violations are controlled, and if the violations of the
design constraints exist, the solution with minimum violation is chosen as the best solution.
Step 5: Controlling the stopping criterion. Iterations are continued until the satisfaction of
stopping criterion. This criterion can be identified in different ways, and it has been calculated as the
maximum number of iterations in the present study.
Three different design parameters were considered to apply the HS algorithm to the cantilever
soldier pile problem. The variables are related to the cross-sectional dimensions (X1 ) and the
reinforcement design of the wall (X2 , X3 ), and the details of the definitions of variables are given in
Table 1.
Table 1. Definitions of wall design variables.
Symbol Description of Parameter

Variables in relation to
X1 Diameter of soldier pile (D)
Cross-section dimension
Variables in relation to X2 Diameter of reinforcing bars of soldier pile (φp )
reinforced concrete design X3 Number of reinforcing bars of soldier pile
The reinforced concrete requirements are defined according to ACI 318-05 code [36]. The ACI 318
code proposes to use equivalent rectangular compressive stress distribution rather than other stress
distributions such as parabolic. With the use of equivalent compressive stress distribution, the moment
capacity of the cross-section of the cantilever soldier pile can be determined. The critical section of
the pile is only checked for reinforcement design. The flexural moment (Mu ), the shear force (Vu ),
the spacing between two bars (S), the area of reinforcing bars (As ), and the diameter of bars (db ) are
defined. National and international pre-design guidelines are used to identify the lower and upper
limits of design constraints. The design constraints on strength and dimensions are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Design constraints on strength and dimensions.
Description Constraints
Flexural strength capacities of critical sections (Md ) g1 (X) : Md ≥ Mu
Shear strength capacities of critical sections (Vd ) g2 (X) : Vd ≥ Vu
Minimum reinforcement areas of critical sections (Asmin ) g3 (X) : As ≥ Asmin
Maximum reinforcement areas of critical sections (Asmax ) g4 (X) : As ≤ Asmax
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 6 of 17
The supposed objective function of the design includes the unit cost of concrete Cc , volume of
concrete Vc , unit cost of reinforcing bars Cs , the unit weight of reinforcing bars Ws items. The minimum
cost of the cantilever soldier pile walls can be determined mathematically by the use of Equation (9).
min f (X) = Cc .Vc + Cs .Ws (9)
For the second step of the study, numerical analyses are conducted by a well-known commercial
geotechnical finite element method based software Plaxis 2D-Version 2020. The aim of the numerical
analysis is to compare the optimization results to know if the envisaged dimensions are proper to
ensure adequate stability and limited deformation conditions. Reference cases are selected to control
the accuracy of optimization results. The fictionalized reference projects are modeled with the finite
element software by 15 node triangular elements with plain strain conditions. The sandy soil profile
is modeled with an elastic–perfect plastic material model Mohr Coulomb with a single layer and
the cantilever soldier pile is modeled with embedded beam row elements. It is assumed that the
ground water level is deep and far from the ground surface. The diameter and length values of the
embedded beam row are changed in relation with optimization results for every analysis performed
by the use of finite element software. The element distribution mesh used for analysis is defined
with fine sensitivity. Phases of the numerical analysis are identified as an actual construction process
that is beginning from the installation process of the pile and ended after reaching the envisaged
excavation depth. The calculation type is selected as static and plastic; then, the staged construction
loading type is assumed, and drained conditions are used. Following, safety analysis is performed
with the calculation of global safety factor by means of the strength reduction method. The output of
the numerical analysis is arranged to obtain the maximum moment, shear force, factor of the safety
value, and the location of the pivot point. Consequently, these mentioned values are compared with
the results of the optimization analysis for verification.
3. Parametrical Analyses
In order to investigate the cost and time effective design of cantilever soldier pile retaining wall
structures, parametric analysis is presented with the division of two steps. The first step involves the
analyses conducted with optimization techniques to show the change effects of design variants, and
the second step shows the comparison details of optimization results with finite element software
to control the appropriateness of the usage of optimization algorithm to design cantilever soldier
piles. For the application of step 1, the HS algorithm is used with the application of beams on elastic
soil assumption to evaluate the minimum costs of the cantilever soldier pile retaining walls that
are fictionalized according to different project situations in the present study. The design constants
and variables of fictionalized cases are given in Table 3. According to the national and international
literature studies, manuals, and technical reports, the depth of excavation is assumed to be between
3 and 12 m [16,37–39]. At the design stage of retaining piles, it is clear that the designers need the
soil parameters, especially the unit weight and the shear strength angle, to determine the lateral
earth pressures [3–7]. It is assumed to embed the pile into a homogenous soil layer that is formed
by non-cohesive soils, and the values of the geotechnical parameters are selected from the literature
according to the allowable limits [4,14]. The unit weight of the soil, the internal friction angle, and the
ultimate bearing pressure values are taken as variables, and different cases are fictionalized to compare
the effects of soil properties on the design of retaining walls and costs. The unit weight of the soil is
defined according to the suggestions of Bowles [4] and Das [14]. Bowles defined the unit weights of
granular soils due to the relative density and internal friction angle values of specimens. The unit
weight values are defined as within 14–18 kN/m3 , 17–20 kN/m3 , and 17–22 kN/m3 for loose, medium,
and dense sand, respectively [14]. Das defined the unit weight of some typical soils in the natural state.
14.5 kN/m3 is defined for loose uniform sand, and 18 kN/m3 is defined for dense uniform sand [4].
Correspondingly, the unit weight values of sandy soils are assumed to be between 14 and 20 kN/m3
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 7 of 17
to perform parametrical analysis. Shear strength angle values are also identified by the use of the
suggestions of Bowles and Das. According to the mentioned boundaries, the shear strength angle is
selected between 27◦ and 38◦ for parametric analyses. Based on the beams on elastic soil assumption,
another influencer parameter can be identified as the coefficient of soil reaction to determine the
characteristic length of the pile [14,32]. It is already a big challenge for geotechnical engineers and
researchers to determine the reaction of soil in contact with structure. According to this problem, first
investigations are made by Winkler [40] and a model that assumes the stiffness of the soil, which is
considered as the ratio between the contact pressure and the related linear vertical displacement.
Table 3. The design constants and design variables of cantilever soldier piles.
Symbol Definition Value Unit

h Depth of excavation 3 to 12 m
fy Yield strength of steel 420 MPa
f’c Compressive strength of concrete 25 MPa
cc Concrete cover 30 mm
Esteel Elasticity modulus of steel 200 GPa
Econcrete Elasticity modulus of concrete 23,5 GPa
γsteel Unit weight of steel 7.85 t/m3
γconcrete Unit weight of concrete 25 kN/m3
Cc Cost of concrete per m3 50, 75, 100, 125, 150 $
Cs Cost of steel per ton 700 $
q Surcharge load located adjacent the top of the wall 0–5–10–15–20 kPa
β Backfill slope angle 0 ◦
φ Shear strength angle 27 to 38 ◦
γ Unit weight of soil 14 to 20 kN/m3

D Diameter of pile 0.3–2 m
φp Diameter of reinforcing bars of soldier pile 14–40 -
n Number of reinforcing bars of soldier pile 6–20 -
This relationship can be defined the coefficient of subgrade reaction, Ks with MN/m3 unit.
This theory is governed by a linear–elastic model that models the soil behavior as a group of
independent springs. This theory is firstly used to perform analysis for rigid plates, but recently, it has
been extended to include the determination of the stresses of flexible structures. The coefficient of
the soil reaction can be determined by conducting both laboratory (consolidation, triaxial, California
bearing ratio tests) and field tests (plate loading test) or using semi-empirical or empirical [14,41]
equations or selected from tabulated values [14]. Based on these tabulated values, the coefficient of soil
reaction is assumed 200 and 300 MN/m3 for medium dense and dense sandy soils, respectively [14].
The external loads that are acting on the retained soil side are assumed to be another variant of
the analysis as classified as the environmental conditions. An infinite uniformly distributed load is
applied to the top of the wall with the values of 0-5-10-15-20 kPa. The unit cost change of concrete
material is also investigated. Five different costs ($50, $75, $100, $125, $150) are used to evaluate the
material cost effect on the dimensions of the cantilever soldier pile. For the application of step 2,
a geotechnical design software is used to model the obtained dimensions of the cantilever soldier pile
from optimization analyses.
4. Result and Discussion

Within the discussion part of this study, the data obtained as a result of the application of the HS
algorithm were interpreted by expressing them as a function of the pile diameter, pile length, and
unit pile cost. In total, 42,000 analyses are conducted to evaluate the relationship between design
dimensions and cost. In addition to this, 72 finite element analyses are performed to control the
acceptableness of the application of the HS algorithm to design the cantilever soldier pile retaining
walls. The first discussions are constituted according to the change of excavation depth. Some reference
cases are selected that can be representative of the behavior of all the fictionalized cases to interpret
the results. Figure 2 reflects the change of the cantilever soldier pile diameter (a), length (b), and unit
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 8 of 17
cost
Appl. (c)
Sci. based
2020, 10,on thePEER
x FOR increase
REVIEWof the excavation depth. The diameter of soldier pile is represented 8 of 18
by D, the length of the pile is L, and the unit cost of the pile is defined by Ct symbols. It is assumed
to embed the ◦ , while the unit
is assumed topile
embedintothea sandy soila formation
pile into sandy soil that has a shear
formation that hasstrength
a shearangle of 30
strength angle of 30°, while
weight is weight 3
16 kN/mis , 16 thekN/m
coefficient
3, the of reaction isof200 3
MN/mis, and
the unit coefficient reaction 200 the
MN/m surcharge
3, and theloadsurcharge
application is
load
absent. The unit cost of the concrete is selected as $50. It can be seen from Figure 2
application is absent. The unit cost of the concrete is selected as $50. It can be seen from Figure 2 thatthat the increase of
the
the depth
increaseof of
thetheexcavation
depth of theenlarges the pile
excavation diameter
enlarges and diameter
the pile extends the andpile length.
extends theThepileunit costThe
length. of
the
unitcantilever
cost of thesoldier pile soldier
cantilever is calculated
pile isas the indirect
calculated function
as the indirectoffunction
pile diameter
of pileand length;and
diameter therefore,
length;
the cost is raised
therefore, the cost withis the deepening
raised with the of excavation,
deepening as of expected.
excavation,Theaschange of theThe
expected. cantilever
changesoldier
of the
pile diameter,
cantilever length,
soldier pileand cost exhibits
diameter, length,sameand trend as the reference
cost exhibits same trend caseasfor
theall the fictionalized
reference other
case for all the
cases. The increased
fictionalized ratiosThe
other cases. of all the dependent
increased variables
ratios of are relatively
all the dependent smallerare
variables for relatively
shallow excavations,
smaller for
but exhibit
shallow a raising tendency
excavations, but exhibitbased on thetendency
a raising increment of depth.
based on the increment of depth.
(a) (b) (c)

Figure2.2. Change
Figure Changeof ofthe
thediameter
diameterofofcantilever
cantileversoldier
soldierpile
pile (a),
(a), the
the length
length of of pile
pile (b),(b),
andand
thethe unit
unit costcost
of
of concrete
concrete (c) via
(c) via excavation
excavation depth.
depth.
In
In Figure
Figure3, 3, the
the effects
effects ofof the
the change
change of of soil strength
strength angle are shown for a specific reference case.
The ◦ and 38◦ to represent the sand formation’s relative
The shear
shear strength
strength angle
angle isischanged
changed between
between 27 27° and 38° to represent the sand formation’s relative
density
density beginning
beginning from a loose to aa dense dense state. state.TheThedepth depthofofexcavation
excavationisisassumed
assumedtoto bebe constant
constant (h
= 9=m).
(h 9 m).
TheThe surcharge
surcharge loadload application
application is not
is not taken
taken intointo consideration,
consideration, andandthe the
unitunit
weightweight
of theof the
soil
soil is assumed 3 . Figure 3a represents the change of pile length, Figure 3b shows the
is assumed to beto18bekN/m
18 kN/m
3. Figure 3a represents the change of pile length, Figure 3b shows the change
change of pile diameter,
of pile diameter, and Figureand 3c Figure 3c represents
represents the costthe cost change.
change. The increase
The increase of the
of the shear shear strength
strength angle is
angle
directlyis directly proportional
proportional to the increase
to the increase of soil of soil strength.
strength. Therefore,Therefore,
the risethe
ofrise
the of the shear
shear strengthstrength
angle
angle straightens
straightens the length
the length of the of pile
the pile
and and embedment
embedment depth.
depth. TheThe relative
relative decrease
decrease of of pile
pile length
length is
is approximately
approximately 9%9% in in such
such a case
a case that
that thethe shear
shear strength
strength angle
angle increases
increases from
from 27°27to◦ 38°. ◦ . Then,
to 38Then, the
relative
the decrease
relative decrease of pile diameter
of pile diameter is approximately
is approximately 25% 25%in such a casea that
in such case the
thatshear strength
the shear angle
strength
increases
angle from 27°
increases from to27 ◦ toTherefore,
38°. 38◦ . Therefore,it can it becansaid bethatsaidthethatincrease of soilofthe
the increase shear
soil strength
the shear angle
strength
affectsaffects
angle the pile diameter
the pile diametermore more thanthanthethe length
length of of thethepile.
pile.However,
However,in ingeotechnical
geotechnical applications,
generally,aastandard
generally, standarddiameter
diameterisispreferred
preferredto tobebeused
usedin inorder
orderto toreduce
reducethetheequipment
equipmentcost. cost. That’s
That’s
why ifif the pile diameter
why diameter is is selected
selectedas asaaconstant
constantvalue valuefor forallall
thetheexcavation
excavation depths,
depths,thethe
length
length of the
of
pilepile
the willwill
be directly
be directlyaffected by this
affected change
by this change more morethanthan the change
the change of the
of internal friction
the internal angle.
friction The
angle.
costcost
The of the
of unit pilepile
the unit is influenced
is influenced from the the
from changechange of the shear
of the strength
shear angle
strength directly.
angle TheThe
directly. riserise
of the
of
strength
the strengthof the soilsoil
of the leads
leads to to
decreasing
decreasingthe thecosts
costsby byapproximately
approximately46%. 46%. InInsuch
such aa case that the the soil
soil
44shearstrength
44shear strengthangle
angleincreases
increasesfrom from38 38°◦ from
from27 ◦ , the
27°, the cost
cost of
of the
the construction
construction has has decreased
decreasedto to $1010
$1010
from$1873.
from $1873.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
Appl. Sci.
Appl. 2020,
Sci. 10,10,3232
2020, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of917
of 17
(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3. The effects of the change of the shear strength angle to the diameter of the cantilever soldier
pile (a), the
Figure
Figure length
3.3.The (b),ofof
Theeffects
effects and thethe
the unit cost
change
change ofshear
of the
of the the pile
shear (c) (for
strength
strength h = to
angle
angle 9tom
theexcavation
thediameter
diameterofdepth).
thethe
of cantilever soldier
cantilever soldier
pile (a), the length (b), and the unit cost of the pile (c) (for h = 9 m excavation
pile (a), the length (b), and the unit cost of the pile (c) (for h = 9 m excavation depth). depth).
Figure 4 is acquired for the decrease of excavation depth of 6 m. All the other parameters are
Figure
Figure
selected 4 4isis
as the acquired
acquired
same as the forcase
the
the decrease
decreaseofofexcavation
calculated for Figure depth
excavation Theof relative
3. depth 6ofm.6 All the
Allother
m.decreasethe ofparameters
other are is
pileparameters
length
areselected
selected
approximately asas thethe
9% same
same
when asthe
asthe
the case
casecalculated
increase calculated
of the shear forfor
Figure
Figure3. 3.
strength TheThe
anglerelative
relative
is fromdecreaseto of
decrease
27° 38°pile
ofagainlength
pile for 6ismis
length
approximately
approximately 9%
9% when
when the
the increase
increase of
of the
the shear
shear strength
strength angle
angle is
excavation depth. However, the relative decrease of pile diameter in such a case that the increase isfrom
from 27°
27 to 38°
◦ to 38 again
◦ again for 6 m6of
for m
the excavation
excavation depth.
depth. angle
shear strength However,
However, the
the 27°
is from relative
relative
to 38°, decrease
decrease of pile diameter
of pile diameter
is approximately 17%.in in such a case
such a case
Similarly that
withthat the increase
the increase
Figure 3, the rise of
of the
of
the shear
shear strength
strength angle angle is from 27°
◦ to 38to◦ , 38°, is approximately 17%. Similarly withFigure
Figure3,3,the
therise
riseof
ofthe
the strength of the soilisleads
from to27the costs is approximately
decreasing 17%.
by approximatelySimilarly46%.with
In such a case that the soil
the strength
strength of theof the leads
soil soil leads to the
to the costscosts decreasingbybyapproximately
decreasing approximately 46%. 46%. In Insuch
such a acase
casethat the soilsoil
shear strength angle increases to 38° from 27°, the cost of the construction has decreased tothat
$170thefrom
shear strength angle increases to 38° from 27°,
◦ from the cost of the construction has decreased to $170 from
shearAs
$315. strength
a result,angle
the increases
decrease to of 38
excavation 27◦depth
, the cost of thethe
reduces construction
influence has ratiodecreased to $170
of the change offrom
the
$315. As a result, the decrease of excavation depth reduces the influence ratio of the change of the
$315. As a result, the decrease of excavation depth reduces the influence
shear strength angle. Besides, this reference case is analyzed for 3 m excavation depth, but there is no ratio of the change of the
shear strength angle. Besides, this reference case is analyzed for 3 m excavation depth, but there is no
shear strength
noticed change angle.
of pile Besides,
length orthis referencedue
dimension casetoisthe
analyzed
changefor 3 m shear
of soil excavation depth,
strength but there is no
angle.
noticed change of pile length or dimension due to the change of soil shear strength angle.
noticed change of pile length or dimension due to the change of soil shear strength angle.
(a) (b) (c)

(a) effects of the change of shear strength
Figure 4. The (b)angle to the diameter of the cantilever
(c)soldier pile
(a), the length (b), and the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 6 m excavation depth).
Figure
Figure4.4.TheTheeffects
effectsofofthe
thechange
changeofofshear
shearstrength
strengthangle
angletotothe
thediameter
diameterofofthe
thecantilever
cantileversoldier
soldierpile
pile
(a),
(a),the
thelength
length(b),
(b),and
andthe theunit
unitcost
costof
ofpile
pile(c) (forhh==66mmexcavation
(c)(for excavationdepth).
depth).
The change of soil shear strength angle is also evaluated according to the change of excavation
length. Figure
change5ofof
Thechange is soil
illustrated to understand
shearstrength
strength the
angleis change
isalso
also of pile length
evaluated (a), pile
according tothediameter
the change(b), and unit
ofexcavation
excavation
The soil shear angle evaluated according to change of
pile cost
length.Figure (c), respectively.
Figure55isisillustrated It can be
illustratedtotounderstanddirectly
understandthe seen from
thechange the comparison
changeofofpilepilelength
length(a),of Figure
(a),pile 5a
pilediameter and
diameter(b), 5b that
(b),andandtheunit
length. unit
change of shear strength angle has a greater effect on the pile diameter than the pile length, especially
pile cost (c), respectively. It can be directly seen from the comparison of Figure 5a and 5b that theof
pile cost (c), respectively. It can be directly seen from the comparison of Figure 5a,b that the change
for deeper excavations. This condition causes encountering unexpected pile lengths for deep
shear strength
change of shearangle
strengthhas angle
a greaterhas effect
a greateron the pileon
effect diameter
the pile than
diameterthe pile
than length,
the pileespecially for deeper
length, especially
excavation projects. In Figure 5, the main dimension change begins to occur at the depth of 5 m. In
excavations.
for deeper This condition
excavations. Thiscauses encountering
condition causes unexpected
encountering pileunexpected
lengths for deeppile excavation
lengths forprojects.
the context of this study, according to the worked parameters, it can be a general approach that 5deep
m
In Figure
excavation 5, the main
projects. dimension change begins to occur at the depth of 5 m. In the context of this study,
excavation depth isInassumed
Figure 5,tothebe amain
limitdimension
length of the change
changebegins
of theto occurItatisthe
design. depth of point
a noticeable 5 m. In
according
the to the worked parameters, it can be a general approach that 5 m excavation
that for loose sands that have a shear strength angle between 27° and 30° according to Bowles [14],m
context of this study, according to the worked parameters, it can be a general depth
approach is assumed
that 5
to be aoptimization
excavation
the limit length
depth of the change
isanalysis
assumed can’t beofathe
to find limit
an design.
lengthItof
appropriate iscross-section,
a noticeable
the change of point that
the design.
which for It
is ensuringloose a sands
isboth that have
noticeable
geotechnical pointa
shear ◦ and 30◦ according to Bowles [14], the optimization analysis can’t find
that forstrength anglethat
loose sands between
have 27
a shear strength angle between 27° and 30° according to Bowles [14],
an appropriate cross-section, which is ensuring both geotechnical and structural design requirements.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 10 of 17
Appl.
the Sci. 2020, 10, x analysis
optimization FOR PEERcan’t
REVIEW 10 of 18
find an appropriate cross-section, which is ensuring both geotechnical
and structural design requirements. For this reason, approximately 10 m depth can be assumed to be
For this
the reason,
optimization approximately
analysis can’t10 m an
find depth can be assumed
appropriate to be
cross-section, the is
which upper bound
ensuring bothof the applicable
geotechnical
the upper bound of the applicable excavation with the construction of cantilever soldier piles.
and structural
excavation with the design requirements.
construction For this reason,
of cantilever soldierapproximately
piles. 10 m depth can be assumed to be
the upper bound of the applicable excavation with the construction of cantilever soldier piles.
(a) (b) (c)
FigureFigure 5. The
5. The effects
(a)
effects ofof thechange
the changeof of shear
shear strength
strength angle
(b)
angletoto
thethe
diameter of the
diameter of cantilever
(c)soldier
the cantilever pile pile
soldier
(a), the length (b), and the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 6 m excavation depth) via the excavation depth.
(a), the length
Figure (b),effects
5. The and the unitchange
of the cost of
ofpile
shear(c) (for h =
strength 6 mtoexcavation
angle depth)
the diameter of thevia the excavation
cantilever depth.
soldier pile
(a), change
The the length
of(b),
theand
unitthe unit cost
weight of pile
of the soil(c)profile
(for h =is6also
m excavation depth)
investigated via the
within excavation
the depth.
context of present
The change of the unit weight of the soil profile is also investigated within the context of present
study. Figure 6 is drawn for 9 m excavation depth to reflect the effect of soil unit weight on the
study. Figure 6 is drawn
The change for weight
of the unit 9 m excavation depthis to
of the soil profile reflect
also the effect
investigated within of the
soilcontext
unit weight
of presenton the
dimension and cost change of the pile. The shear strength angle of the surrounding soil is assumed
study. and
dimension Figure 6 is drawnof for 9 m excavation depth to reflect the of
effect of soil unit weight onassumed
the
to be 32°, andcost change
surcharge load theis notpile. The shear
applied. Then, strength angle
the unit weight thesoil
of the surrounding
is increased soil is
beginning
32◦ ,14
dimension
to befrom and and cost change
surcharge load ofnot
is the pile. The shear
applied. Then, strength
the unit angle
weightof the
of
kN/m to reach 20 kN/m one by one. Figure 6a shows that the increase ratio of the pile length
3 3 surrounding
the soil is soil is assumed
increased beginning
fromisto
14 be
kN/m32°, 3and
approximately
surcharge
to reach load 3isone
20 kN/m
7% for a 6 kN/m
not applied.
by one.ofThen,
3 increase Figure the
6aunit
unit weight. showsweight ofthe
The that
the soil is increased
increase increase
of unit weightratio of beginning
of soil
the pile length
leads
from 14 kN/m3 to reach 20 kN/m33 one by one. Figure 6a shows that the increase ratio of the pile length
is approximately
to widening the7% fordiameter
pile a 6 kN/m increase
by nearly 22%.ofThis
unitcondition
weight.isThe based increase
on the of unit weight
computation of soil leads
equations
is approximately 7% for a 6 kN/m3 increase of unit weight. The increase of unit weight of soil leads
of both active
to widening and diameter
the pile passive lateral forces.22%.
by nearly The unit
Thisweight is theis
condition direct
based multiplier of these equations.
on the computation equations
to widening the pile diameter by nearly 22%. This condition is based on the computation equations
The
of both increase of unit weight affects passive lateral forces more than active
active and passive lateral forces. The unit weight is the direct multiplier of these equations. lateral forces due to the
of both active and passive lateral forces. The unit weight is the direct multiplier of these equations.
relative
The increase difference
of unit between
weight active
affects and passive lateral earth coefficients. Active lateral earth pressure
The increase of unit weight affectspassive
passivelateral
lateral forces morethan
forces more thanactive
active lateral
lateral forces
forces due dueto theto the
is determined by the Rankine Active Earth Pressure Theory with the Ka = tan2 (45 − Φ/2) equation, and
relative difference
relative between
difference betweenactive
activeand andpassive
passive lateral
lateralearth
earthcoefficients. Activelateral
coefficients. Active lateralearth
earth pressure is
pressure
passive lateral earth pressure is calculated by Rankine Passive Earth Pressure2Theory with Kp = tan2
determined by theby
is determined Rankine Active
the Rankine ActiveEarth Pressure
Earth Pressure Theory
Theorywith with the
the KKaa==tantan2 (45(45 − Φ/2)
− Φ/2) equation,
equation, and and
(45 + Φ/2). The difference of coefficients is directly related to the shear strength angle. However, the
p = tan
passive
passive laterallateral
earth earth pressure
pressure is is calculatedby
calculated byRankine
Rankine Passive
Passive EarthEarth Pressure
Pressure Theory
Theory with Kp =Ktan
with 2 2
shear strength angle is not a direct multiplier of lateral forces. Therefore, it can be said that the change
(45 +of(45
Φ/2).
+ Φ/2).
the unit
The
Theweight difference
difference
of theof
of coefficients isdirectly
coefficients
soil influences is
directly related to
the unit costrelated
of pile to
the
moretheshear
shear
than
strength angle.
thestrength
change of
However, the the
angle.
shear However,
strength
shear
shearangle strength
strength angleangle is not a
is not a cases direct multiplier
directofmultiplier of lateral forces. Therefore, it can be said that the change
for the fictionalized this study of lateral
within theforces.
selectedTherefore,
parameter itlimits.
can be Thesaid that
change thethe
in change
of the unit weight of the soil influences the unit cost of pile more than the change of shear strength
of the
unitunit
costweight of the
of the pile can soil influences
be calculated theapproximately
to be unit cost of pile 66% more than the
from Figure 6c. In change
such a ofcaseshear strength
that the
angle for the fictionalized cases of this study within 3, the the selected parameter limits. The change in the
angleunit
forweight of soil increases
the fictionalized cases to of
20 this
fromstudy
14 kN/mwithin costselected
the of the construction
parameterhas increased
limits. to $1642 in the
The change
unit cost of the pile can be calculated to be approximately 66% from Figure 6c. In such a case that the
from
unit cost $1017.
unit of the pile
weight canincreases
of soil be calculated
to 20 from to be 14approximately
kN/m3, the cost of 66% thefrom Figure 6c.
construction has In such a to
increased case that the
$1642
unit weight 3
of soil increases to 20 from 14 kN/m , the cost of the construction has increased to $1642
from $1017.
from $1017.
(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6. The effects of the change of soil unit weight to the diameter of cantilever soldier pile (a),
the length (b), and the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 9 m excavation depth).
Figure 6. The effects of the change of soil unit weight to the diameter of cantilever soldier pile (a), the
length
Figure (b), andeffects
6. The the unit costchange
of the of pile of
(c)soil
(forunit
h = weight
9 m excavation depth). of cantilever soldier pile (a), the
to the diameter
Appl. length (b),
Sci. 2020, 10,and
3232the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 9 m excavation depth). 11 of 17
The same reference case with common variables is evaluated in such a case that the excavation
depthThe is same
assumedreference
to be case
6 m.with common
Figure 7 shows variables is evaluated
the change of pile in such adiameter,
length, case that the
andexcavation
unit cost,
depthThe
respectively. same
is assumed
The reference
to be 6case
change ofm. with
Figure
soil common
unit 7 shows
weight variables
the change
causes is evaluated
obtaining of apile in such
length,
similar adiameter,
case that
behavior trend the
andasexcavation
unit
shown cost,
in
depth 6.
Figure is The
respectively. assumed
The to be
change
increase 6 m.
of
ratio soil Figure
of theunit 7length
weight
pile shows the obtaining
causes
between change ofapile
the lower length,
similar
and diameter,
behavior
upper limittrend and
of the unit cost,
asenvisaged
shown in
respectively.
values
Figure of The change
unit increase
6. The weight isratio of soil
computed unit weight
to belength
of the pile causes
7%. This obtaining
pile length
between a similar
increment
the lower behavior
ratio was
and upper trend
limitfound as
of theto shown
be same
envisaged in
Figure
values
for 6. The increase
of unit weight
all fictionalized ratio of
is computed
analyses the
conducted pile length
to befor7%. between
theThis the
pile length
evaluation lower and
increment
of the upper limit
ratiochange.
unit weight of the envisaged
was found to be same
values
for of unit weight
all fictionalized is computed
analyses to befor
conducted 7%.the
This pile length
evaluation of increment ratio was
the unit weight found to be same for
change.
all fictionalized analyses conducted for the evaluation of the unit weight change.
(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7. The effects of the change of soil unit weight to the diameter of the cantilever soldier pile (a),
the length
Figure
Figure (b),effects
7.7.The
The and the
effectsofofunit
the cost of pile
thechange
change (c)unit
ofofsoil
soil (for hweight
= 6 mto
unitweight excavation
tothe depth).
thediameter
diameterofofthe
thecantilever
cantileversoldier
soldierpile
pile(a),
(a),
the
thelength
length(b),
(b),and
andthe
theunit
unitcost
costof
ofpile
pile(c) (forhh==66mmexcavation
(c)(for excavationdepth).
depth).
The change of pile diameter is determined to be approximately 20%, and the unit cost change is
Thechange
The
calculated change
to be 64% ofpile
of pile diameter
diameter
between theisisupper
determined
determined
($278) totobe
and belower
approximately
approximately
limits of 20%, 20%,
the and
and
soil theweight
the
unit unitcost
unit cost change
change
($170). Theisis
calculated
calculated
same to becase
to
reference 64%
64%isbetween
appliedthe
between to upper
thethe upper ($278)
($278)
condition and
and
thatlower limits
lower
the of the
limits
excavation soil soil
ofdepth
the unit weight
is 3 unit
m. ($170).
weight
However, The same
($170).
similar The
to
reference
same
the previous case
reference is applied
case
analyses to the
is performed
applied tocondition
the that that
condition
in the change the excavation
theshear
of the excavationdepth
strength depthis 3 is
angle m.3ofHowever,
m. However,
soil, similar
the change tothe
similar
of the
to
previous
the
soil previous analyses
unit weight analysesperformed
has effectinfor
performed
no the change
in the change
relatively of smaller
the shear
of the strength
shear strength
excavations. angle of soil,
angle
In thetothe
of soil,
addition change of of
allchange the soil
of the
these, in
unitunit
soil weight
representative hascharts
weight no effect
has no for
are relatively
effect
given forFigure
in smaller
8 to excavations.
relatively smallerthe
realize In addition
excavations.
alteration Intoaddition
effect all
ofof these,
soil to in
unit allrepresentative
of these,
weight via thein
charts are
increase of given
representative depth. inThe
chartsFigure
are 8 to realize
increase
given tendency
in Figuretheofalteration
8 the effect
pile length
to realize of
andsoil uniteffect
diameter
the alteration weight
can via
of be the increase
classified
soil unit ofvia
as the
weight depth.
same
the
The
as increase
increase
those of
shown tendency
depth. inThe of the
increase
Figure pile length
tendency
5. After and
of thediameter
4 m excavation can and
pile length
depth, be
theclassified
change as
diameter the
ofcan besame
pile as those
classified
diameter shown
as the same
dominantly in
Figure 5.
as those the
governs After
shown 4 m excavation
in Figurebetween
relationship depth, the
5. Afterstability change
4 m excavation of pile diameter
depth, the
and dimensions. This dominantly
change
situation of pile governs
candiameter the
be the proof relationship
dominantly
that the
between
governs
change stability
ofthe and
hasdimensions.
relationship
diameter a between
significant This
effectsituation
stability onand can be the
thedimensions.
stability proof
of This
piled that thecan
situation
systems. change
be the
However, of different
diameter
proof thatfromhas
thea
significant
change
Figure iseffect
5,ofitdiameter onhas
theastability
a noticeable significant
point that of piled
effect
the systems. However,
on the stability
optimization different
of piled
algorithm cansystems.
find from Figure
However,
an appropriate 5, itdifferent
iscross-section
a noticeable
from
point
Figure
for that the optimization
5, excavations,
deep it is a noticeable point
although algorithm
thatsoil
the canweight
theunit find anincreases.
optimization appropriate
algorithm can cross-section
find an appropriatefor deepcross-section
excavations,
although
for the soil unitalthough
deep excavations, weight increases.
the soil unit weight increases.
(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
the length (b), and the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 6 m excavation depth) via the excavation depth.
Figure 8. The
the length (b),effects
and theof unit
the change
cost of of soil
pile (c)unit
(for weight
h = 6 mtoexcavation
the diameter of the
depth) viacantilever soldier
the excavation pile (a),
depth.
the length (b), and the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 6 m excavation depth) via the excavation depth.
Appl. For the evaluation
Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 of the influence of surcharge load on the behavior of cantilever soldier 12 piles,
of 17
For the evaluation of the influence of surcharge load on the behavior
only the load magnitudes are selected as variables, and the other mentioned variable parameters are of cantilever soldier piles,
only
fixedthe load magnitudes
as specific values. Three are selected
reference as excavation
variables, and the other
depths mentioned
are selected (h = variable
9-6-3 m),parameters
and a specific are
fixed Forspecific
as the evaluation
values. of the reference
Three influence excavation
of surcharge load on
depths arethe behavior
selected (h =of9-6-3
cantilever
m), andsoldier
a piles,
specific
soil profile with 18 kN/m unit weight and 32° shear strength angle is used for the comparison of the
3
only
soil the load
profile withmagnitudes
18 kN/m are selected
3 unit as variables,
weightadjacent
and 32° to
shear and the other mentioned forvariable parameters are
effects of surcharge load application the strength
top of the angle is usedpile
retaining the comparison
system. The change of theof
fixed as
effects ofspecific
surcharge values. Three reference excavation depths are
theselected (h =pile
9-6-3 m), and a specific
change soil
surcharge load that loadis application
applied on theadjacent
active to the
side of top
the of retaining
structural system is system.
taken The
into account of
by
profile with
surcharge 18 kN/m
load that
3
is unit
appliedweight and 32◦ shear strength
of the angle is used for theiscomparison into of the effects
selecting the load values 0, 5, 10,on 15,the
andactive
20 kPa.side
In Figure structural
9, the referencesystem taken depth
excavation account
is selectedby
of surcharge
selecting the load
load application
values 0, 5, adjacent
10, 15, and to20the top
kPa. In of the
Figure retaining
9, the pile
referencesystem. The
excavation change
depth ofissurcharge
selected
as 9 m, and dimensions of the systems are selected according to this situation. The increase of the
load
as 9 m,that
and is dimensions
applied on the active
of and
the side of theselected
systems structural system to is taken into account The by selecting the
external loading lengthens enlargesare the pile andaccording
raises the unit this situation.
costs as expected. increase
The length of theof
load
externalvalues 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 kPa. In Figure 9, the reference excavation depth is selected as 9 m, and
the pile loading
is increasedlengthens and enlarges
approximately 5%,theand
piletheanddiameter
raises theofunit thecosts
pile asis expected.
increasedThe 20% length
by theof
dimensions
the of the systems
pile is increased are selected5%,
approximately according
and to this situation. Thepile
increaseincreased
of the external loading
differentiation of surcharge loading between thethe diameter
upper and lowerof the bounds.isBesides this, 20% by
the increase the
lengthens
differentiation and enlarges
of surcharge the pile and
loading raises
between the unit
the costs
upper as
and expected.
lower The
bounds. length of
Besides the pile
this, is
the increased
increase
of surcharge load to 20 kPa raises the material costs 50%, and this ultimate rising happens directly
approximately
of surcharge load 5%, and the raises
diameter of the pilecosts
is increased and20% by the differentiation of surcharge
proportional with to the20 kPa
increase stepsthe material
of load. The cost has 50%, raised this ultimate
to $2126 fromrising
$1422 happens directly
with the increase
loading
proportional between the upper and lower bounds. Besides this, the increase of surcharge load to 20 kPa
of surcharge with load to the20increase
kPa. steps of load. The cost has raised to $2126 from $1422 with the increase
raises the material
of surcharge load to 20 kPa. costs 50%, and this ultimate rising happens directly proportional with the increase
steps of load. The cost has raised to $2126 from $1422 with the increase of surcharge load to 20 kPa.
(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 9. The effects of the change of external load to the diameter of the cantilever soldier pile (a),
Figure
the 9.9.The
length
Figure Theeffects
(b) and theofof
effects the
unit change
cost
the ofofexternal
of pile
change (c) (for hload
external 9 mtoto
=load the
thediameter
excavation ofofthe
depth).
diameter thecantilever
cantileversoldier
soldierpile
pile(a),
(a),
the length (b) and the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 9 m excavation depth).
the length (b) and the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 9 m excavation depth).
Figure 10 is drawn for 6 m excavation depth to examine the surcharge loading effect for
Figure
Figure
relatively 10 is drawn
10 is
shallow drawn for6 m
depth.for 6 excavation
m excavation depth
depth to examine
to examine the surcharge
the surcharge loadingloading
effect foreffect for
relatively
relatively shallow depth.
shallow depth.
(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure
Figure10.
10.The
The effects ofof
effects thethe
change
changeof of
external load
external to the
load diameter
to the of cantilever
diameter soldier
of cantilever pile (a),
soldier pilethe
(a),
Figure
length 10. The
(b), and
the length effects
(b), the
andunit of the change
cost cost
the unit of pile of
of (c) external
pile(for
(c) h load to the diameter
= 6hm= excavation
(for of
depth).
6 m excavation cantilever
depth). soldier pile (a), the
length (b), and the unit cost of pile (c) (for h = 6 m excavation depth).
In this case, the length of the pile is raised 8%, the pile diameter is increased 28%, and the unit
cost is increased 77% due to the increase of external load to 20 kPa. The cost has raised to $423
from $239 with the increase of surcharge load to 20 kPa. This situation exhibits that surcharge load
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 13 of 17
application is a significant parameter in the design of cantilever soldier piles, especially for shallow
depths.
Appl. Sci.The
2020,analyses are repeated
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW by changing the excavation depth of 3 m, but there are no differences
13 of 17
of the design dimensions of the pile. If only the soil is loose and the unit weight of the soil is high,
is approximately
an high, an approximately
1% change1% of
change of pilehappens
pile length length happens
for 3 mfor 3 m excavation
excavation depth. depth.
FigureFigure 11 is to
11 is drawn
drawn to show the change of design and cost of the cantilever soldier pile via the excavation depth
show the change of design and cost of the cantilever soldier pile via the excavation depth for different
for different loading situations. The shear strength angle of the soil is selected ◦to be 32°, and the unit
loading situations. The shear strength angle of the soil is selected to be 32 , and the unit weight is
weight is assumed to be 18 kN/m3 for the reference case. It is clearly seen from the comparison of
assumed to be 18 kN/m3 for the reference case. It is clearly seen from the comparison of Figure 11a,b
Figure 11a and 11b that the pile diameter is the parameter that has the most influence on the design.
that the pile diameter is the parameter that has the most influence on the design. The increase rate of the
The increase rate of the external load does not have any significant effect on the length of the pile.
external load does not have any significant effect on the length of the pile. Besides, for the excavation
Besides, for the excavation depths that are deeper than 11 m, according to the increase of external
depths that
load, the are deeper than
optimization 11 m,cannot
algorithm according to the
obtain increase
a proper of external
design ensuringload,
boththe optimization
geotechnical algorithm
safety and
cannot obtain a
structural adequacy.proper design ensuring both geotechnical safety and structural adequacy.
(a) (b) (c)

Figure11.
Figure 11. The
The effects
effects of
of the
the change
changeof ofexternal
externalloadloadtoto
the diameter
the of of
diameter thethe
cantilever soldier
cantilever pile pile
soldier (a), (a),
the length (b), and the unit cost of the pile (c) (for h = 6 m excavation depth) via the excavation depth.
the length (b), and the unit cost of the pile (c) (for h = 6 m excavation depth) via the excavation depth.
InInFigure
Figure12,
12,thetheeffect
effectof
ofthe
thecoefficient
coefficient ofof soil
soil reaction
reaction change
change isis investigated.
investigated.AllAllanalyses
analysesup up to
this part of the study were repeated for KS = 300 MN/m . The coefficient of reaction can be identified
to this part of the study were repeated for KS = 300 MN/m 3.3 The coefficient of reaction can be identified
asasthe
thepreliminary
preliminaryeffective
effectiveparameter
parameterfor forthe
thedetermination
determinationof ofthe
theembedment
embedment depth
depth of
of the
the soldier
soldier pile
pile according to Equations (5) and (6). This parameter is inversely proportional
according to Equations (5) and (6). This parameter is inversely proportional to the length of embedment,to the length of
embedment, so it is expected that the increase of coefficient of soil reaction from
3 200
so it is expected that the increase of coefficient of soil reaction from 200 MN/m to 300 MN/m shortens MN/m 3 to 300
3
MN/m3 shortens the pile length and/or straightens the diameter of the pile. This prediction is proven
the pile length and/or straightens the diameter of the pile. This prediction is proven in Figure 12 that
in Figure 12 that the increase of the coefficient of soil reaction leads to decreasing the design
the increase of the coefficient of soil reaction leads to decreasing the design dimensions and related
dimensions and related cost. The Ks values used to perform optimization analyses of this study are
cost. The Ks values used to perform optimization analyses of this study are selected from a well-known
selected from a well-known tabulated suggestion [14] to define dense sands. However, it has to be
tabulated suggestion [14] to define dense sands. However, it has to be noted that the proposed value
noted that the proposed value of coefficient of soil reaction is changed between3 64,000 and 200,000
ofkN/m
coefficient of soilto
3 for medium reaction is changed between 64,000 and 200,000 kN/m for medium to dense
dense sandy soils [43]. In addition to all these, the change of concrete cost is
sandy soils [42]. In addition to all these, the
evaluated, reanalyzing all the fictionalized change
cases again.of concrete cost is evaluated, reanalyzing all the
fictionalized cases again.
The second part of the study involves controlling the design dimensions, which are obtained
from the solutions of the harmony search algorithm with well-known two-dimensional finite element
software. A total of 72 different case analyses are done to control the acceptableness of the optimization
algorithms to the geotechnical cantilever soldier pile wall design problem.
However, only the results of three different excavation depths and two different loading conditions
are shown for the discussion of two methods. Some of the design parameters are selected as constant
values. The shear strength angle of the surrounding soil mass is assumed to be 32◦ , and the unit weight
of the soil is 18 kN/m3 for all the analyses conducted. The pile dimensions acquired from the HS
algorithm analyses are given in Table 4 for q = 0 kPa and in Table 5 for the q = 10 kPa loading condition.
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 12. Effect of coefficient of soil reaction to the diameter of cantilever soldier pile (a), the length
(b), and the unit cost of pile (c) via the excavation depth.
MN/m shortens the pile length and/or straightens the diameter of the pile. This prediction is proven
in Figure 12 that the increase of the coefficient of soil reaction leads to decreasing the design
dimensions and related cost. The Ks values used to perform optimization analyses of this study are
selected from a well-known tabulated suggestion [14] to define dense sands. However, it has to be
noted that the proposed value of coefficient of soil reaction is changed between 64,000 and 200,000
Appl. kN/m 3 for medium to dense sandy soils [43]. In addition to all these, the change of concrete cost is
Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 14 of 17
evaluated, reanalyzing all the fictionalized cases again.
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 12. Effect of coefficient of soil reaction to the diameter of cantilever soldier pile (a), the length
Figure 12. Effect of coefficient of soil reaction to the diameter of cantilever soldier pile (a), the length (b),
(b), and the unit cost of pile (c) via the excavation depth.
and the unit cost of pile (c) via the excavation depth.
Table 4. The design dimensions of cantilever soldier pile walls based on the excavation depth (q = 0 kPa
loading condition).
Excavation Depth (m) Embedment Length (m) Total Pile Length (m) Pile Diameter (m)
4 2.6 6.6 0.3
5 3.4 8.4 0.4
6 4.2 10.2 0.5
Table 5. The design dimensions of cantilever soldier pile walls based on the excavation depth (q = 10 kPa
loading condition).
Excavation Depth (m) Embedment Length (m) Total Pile Length (m) Pile Diameter (m)
4 2.9 6.9 0.3
5 3.8 8.8 0.5
6 4.7 10.7 0.6
A finite element model is created according to the calculated dimensions, and the model boundaries
are considered too large not to affect the distribution of stresses. The maximum moment values,
shear stresses, and pivot point locations are compared, and also the safety of the envisaged system
is procured. Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 represent the results of the analyses conducted with both
methods studied in this study.
Table 6. Comparison of optimization results and numerical analysis for 4 m excavation depth.
q = 0 kPa q = 10 kPa
Parameter
OR PR OR PR
FoS - 1.289 - 1.311
Mmax (kNm/m) 17.04 16.38 31.18 31.425
V (kN/m) 9.11 9.275 13.34 13.08
Zmax 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.8
Parameter
OR PR OR PR
FoS - 1.245 - 1.174
Mmax (kNm/m) 51.35 49.39 82.20 82.25
V (kN/m) 30.29 26.335 26.19 28.37
z (m) 6.1 6.0 6.3 6.0
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 15 of 17
Parameter
OR PR OR PR
FoS - 1.15 - 1.24
Mmax (kNm/m) 123.74 122.99 181.43 181.4
V (kN/m) 34.99 44.56 45.75 50.38
z (m) 7.4 7.0 7.6 7.8
The results of the HS algorithm solutions are represented with the “OR” abbreviation, and the
results of the finite element solutions are represented with the “PR” abbreviation in the tables.
In Tables 6–8, the compatibility of OR and PR results ensures a satisfaction. The application of
static limit equilibrium equations for the application of beams on elastic soil theory supplies the safety
degree to be at the boundary situation (Factor of Safety: FoS: 1.0).
The factor of safety values obtained from finite element analyses shows that the envisaged design
dimensions are partially safe (FoS > 1.0). However, the admissibility criteria of this safety degree can
change in terms of the project type and requirements.
A comparison of the values given in Tables 6 and 8 shows that the increase of the excavation
depth causes an increase in the relative result difference between the suggested methods. This relative
difference is greatly increased for the excavation depths bigger than 8 m, and stability conditions cannot
be ensured after 9 m excavation depth in the analysis conducted with the software. It is a remarkable
detail that the optimization analysis cannot also solve the stability problem for 10 m excavation depth
when the shear strength angle is low. The integrated evaluation of both methods shows that the
applicability of cantilever soldier piles is limited to a critical excavation depth. In this context, it can be
said that the application of the HS algorithm gives more optimistic results.
5. Conclusions
In this study, 42,000 parametrical case analyses were conducted to investigate the appropriateness
of the use of the HS algorithm for the design of the cantilever retaining walls. The main aim was to
evaluate the effects of the change of the design variables on the cost-effective design process. In addition
to this, 72 different finite element analyses were performed to check the envisaged design dimensions
obtained from optimization results. The results of the analysis show that the most effective factor
in the design of cantilever soldier piles is the excavation depth. The application depth of cantilever
soldier piles without an additional support structure is limited due to their safety inadequateness.
This safety adequateness cannot be obtained with the increase of design dimensions with regard to the
envisaged constraints of the solution. It will be an appropriate result to say that 10 m depth can be the
upper limit of the excavations, which are supported by cantilever soldier piles. The surrounding soil
properties are selected as the most significant factors to designate the design dimensions. The increase
of shear strength reduces the necessity to build a retaining structure for resisting lateral earth pressures.
In contrast, the decrease of shear strength angle can extend the length and enlarge the diameter of
pile in an unforeseen way. The change of unit weight of soil formation is also an important effect but
not as much as the change of shear strength. The determination of the coefficient of soil reaction also
necessitates a hard process and has an apparent influence on the length of the pile system. Therefore,
caution is warranted for the determination or the selection phenomenon of the coefficient of the soil
reaction. The application of external load is a problem that can be overcome by the extension of the
cantilever soldier pile for the cases applied in the context of this study. Consequently, the integrated
evaluation of design variables and results of finite element analyses show that the application of the
HS algorithm to cantilever soldier pile retaining walls is an acceptable approach to design cantilever
soldier pile retaining wall systems.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 16 of 17
Author Contributions: G.B. and A.E.K. generated the analysis codes. G.B., A.E.K., and Z.A.A developed the
theory background and formulations of the active control system. The text of the paper was formed by Z.A.A.
and G.B., Z.W.G. supervised the research direction. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the
Korea government (MSIT) (2020R1A2C1A01011131). This research was also supported by the Energy Cloud
R&D Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science,
ICT (2019M3F2A1073164).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Athmarajah, G.; De Silva, L.I.N. Analysis of Stability Enhancement of Soldier Pile Retaining Wall. In
Proceedings of the 2019 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), Moratuwa, Sri Lanka,
3–5 July 2019; pp. 644–650.
2. Godavarthi, V.R.; Mallavalli, D.; Peddi, R.; Katragadda, N.; Mulpuru, P. Contiguous pile wall as a deep
excavation supporting system. Leonardo Electron. J. Pract. Technol. 2011, 19, 144–160.
3. Coduto, D.P. Foundation Design: Principles and Practices; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2001.
4. Das, B.M. Principles of Foundation Engineering, 6th ed.; Thomson: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2007.
5. Lee, C.J.; Wei, Y.C.; Chen, H.T.; Chang, Y.Y.; Lin, Y.C.; Huang, W.S. Stability analysis of cantilever double
soldier-piled walls in sandy soil. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2011, 34, 449–465. [CrossRef]
6. Macnab, A. Earth Retention Systems Handbook; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 319–322.
7. Lyndon, A.; Pearson, R.A. Pressure distribution on a rigid retaining wall in cohesionless material.
In Proceedings of the Symposium Application of Centrifuge Modeling to Geotechnical Design, Manchester,
UK, 16–18 April 1984; pp. 271–280.
8. Clayton, C.R.I.; Militisky, J. Earth Pressure and Earth Retaining Structures; Blackie Academic & Professional:
New York, UK, USA, 1993.
9. King, G.J.W. Analysis of cantilever sheet-pile walls in cohesionless soil. J. Geotech. Eng. 1995, 121, 629–635.
[CrossRef]
10. Bica, A.V.D.; Clayton, C.R.I. Limit equilibrium design methods for free embedded cantilever walls in granular
soils. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 1989, 86, 879–898.
11. Mattos, Á.J.; Osorio, J.P.; Viviescas, J.C. Diseño por confiabilidad de pantalla de pilas contiguas en voladizo
en suelos arenosos. Master’s Thesis, Jornada Académica de Posgrados Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín,
Colombia, 2018.
12. Bica, A.V.D.; Clayton, C.R.I. Limit equilibrium design methods for free embedded cantilever walls in granular
materials: Inst Civ Engr Proc V86, Ptl, Oct 1989, P879–888. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1990,
27, A114. [CrossRef]
13. Bica, A.V.D.; Clayton, C.R.I. The preliminary design of free embedded cantilever walls in granular soil.
In Proceedings of the Conference Retaining Structures Organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Cambridge, UK, 20–23 July 1992; pp. 731–740.
14. Bowles, J.E. Foundation Analysis and Design; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
15. Azizi, F. Applied Analyses in Geotechnics; E & FN Spon; Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK; New York,
NY, USA, 1999.
16. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Design Manual 7.2: Foundations and earth Structures; Department of
the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command: Washington, DC, USA, 1982.
17. Gajan, S. Normalized relationships for depth of embedment of sheet pile walls and soldier pile walls in
cohesionless soils. Soils Found. 2011, 51, 559–564. [CrossRef]
18. Poulos, H.G. Behavior of laterally loaded piles I. Single Piles. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1971, 97, 711–731.
19. Randolph, M.F. The response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Geotechnique 1981, 31, 247–259. [CrossRef]
20. Kay, S.; Griffiths, D.V.; Kolk, H.J. Application of pressuremeter testing to assess lateral pile response in clays.
In Pressuremeter and its Marine Applications: Second International Symposium; Briaud, J., Audibert, J., Eds.;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1985.
21. Verruijt, A.; Kooijman, A.P. Laterally loaded piles in a layered elastic medium. Geotechnique 1989, 39, 39–49.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232 17 of 17
22. Konagai, K.; Yin, Y.; Murono, Y. Single beam analogy for describing soil–pile group interaction. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 2003, 23, 31–39. [CrossRef]
23. Rashidi, F.; Shahir, H. Numerical investigation of anchored soldier pile wall performance in the presence of
surcharge. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2019, 13, 162–171. [CrossRef]
24. Johari, A.; Kalantari, A.R. Evaluation of rainfall infiltration and dynamic loads effects on soldier piled
excavation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics,
Tehran, Iran, 14–16 November 2016; pp. 15–17.
25. Hong, S.H.; Lee, F.H.; Yong, K.Y. Three-dimensional pile-soil interaction in soldier-piled excavations. Comput.
Geotech. 2003, 30, 81–107. [CrossRef]
26. Dharshan, K.G.B.S.K. Stability Enhancement of Cantilever Earth Retaining Wall with Pressure Relief Shelf by
Soft Computing Technique. Adv. Eng. Appl. Sci. Int. J. 2016, 6, 65–68.
27. Chalmovsky, J.; Fiala, R.; Mica, L. Soldier pile walls–3D numerical analysis of soldier pile embedment.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Plasticity, Fundamentals and
Applications, COMPLAS XI, Barcelona, Spain, 7–9 September 2011; pp. 1274–1283.
28. Uray, E.; Tan, Ö. Optimization of inclined base cantilever retaining walls with the harmony search
algorithm. In Proceedings of the International Civil Engineering & Architecture Conference, Trabzon,
Turkey, 17–20 April 2019.
29. Weng, J.; Tan, Y.H.; Jin, F.N. MATLAB Based Structural Optimization for Design of Piles in Row. J. PLA Univ.
Sci. Technol. Nat. Sci. 2004, 63–66.
30. Xu, X.J.; Qian, D.L. Optimization design of cantilever soldier pile retaining structure based on the genetic
algorithm. J. Hefei Univ. Technol. Nat. Sci. 2007, 1993, 33.
31. Poulos, H.G. Behavior of laterally loaded piles II. Pile groups. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1971, 97, 733–751.
32. Celep, Z.; Kumbasar, K. Betonarme Yapılar; Beta Basım Yayın Dağıtım: İstanbul, Turkey, 2005.
33. Geem, Z.W.; Lee, K.S.; Park, Y. Application of harmony search to vehicle routing. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2005, 2,
1552–1557. [CrossRef]
34. Khajehzadeh, M.; Taha, M.R.; El-Shafie, A. Harmony search algorithm for probabilistic analysis of earth
slope. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2010, 15, 1647–1659.
35. Askarzadeh, A.; Rashedi, E. Harmony search algorithm: Basic concepts and engineering applications. In
Intelligent Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018;
pp. 1–30.
36. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary on Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14); American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI,
USA, 2014.
37. Kazı Çukurlarının Stabilitesi ve İksa Sistemi Etüt, Proje, Uygulama ve Kontrolleri ile İlgili Uyulacak Esaslar hakkında
Kazı Güvenliği ve Alınacak Önlemler; Çevre ve şehircilik Bakanlığı: Ankara, Turkey, 2018.
38. FHWA-IF-99-015, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems; Federal
Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
39. British Standards Institution. Eurocode 7: Part 1, General Rules; British Standards Institution: London,
UK, 1995.
40. Winkler, E. Die Lehre von Elastizitat und Festigkeit (on Elasticity and Fixity); Dominicus: Prague, Czech Republic, 1867.
41. Elachachi, S.M.; Breysse, D.; Houy, L. Longitudinal variability of soils and structural response of sewer
networks. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 31, 625–641. [CrossRef]
42. Naeini, S.A.; Ziaie Moayed, R.; Allahyari, F. Subgrade Reaction Modulus (Ks) of Clayey Soils Based on Field
Tests. J. Eng. Geol. 2014, 8, 2021.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Applsci 10 03232

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Applsci 10 03232

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

applied

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3232; doi:10.3390/app10093232 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

l40 = 4EI/kh t (5)

Xi = Xi,min + rnd(0,1)·(Xi,max − Xi,min ) (7)

Xi,new = Xi,old + rnd(0,1)·PAR ·(Xi,max − Xi,min ) (8)

Table 1. Definitions of wall design variables.

Symbol Description of Parameter

Table 2. Design constraints on strength and dimensions.

min f (X) = Cc .Vc + Cs .Ws (9)

Symbol Definition Value Unit

φ Shear strength angle 27 to 38 ◦

γ Unit weight of soil 14 to 20 kN/m3

4. Result and Discussion

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen