Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07591-w (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Efficiency of the evolutionary methods on the optimal design of secant

pile retaining systems in a deep excavation
F. Taiyari1 • M. Hajihassani2 • M. Kharghani3

Received: 30 September 2020 / Accepted: 29 June 2022 / Published online: 22 July 2022
 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Deep large excavations in urban areas are an important engineering challenge, whereas secant piling techniques are among
the best solutions to have a safe workplace environment. Optimal design of these structures will increase efficiency as well
as reduce costs. In this paper, the optimum design of secant pile walls as a retaining system of a deep excavation pit is
evaluated. For this purpose, an on-going Tabriz metro station project is investigated as the case study. The structural piles
are made of steel material with a hollow pipe section. A layer of struts is also considered for the horizontal bracing of the
excavation pit. A detailed finite element model is developed in the OpenSees platform in order to perform static analyses.
The optimization of the retaining system is conducted by the mean of four different metaheuristic algorithms including
genetic, particle swarm optimization, bee, and biogeography-based optimization algorithms. The total cost of retaining
structures is considered as an objective function, which should be minimized in the design space of the variables. The
results highlight the excellence of the bees algorithm in achieving a minimum cost, lower dispersion, and rapid conver-
gence rate. The optimum placement of the bracing system and its effect on the soil shear stress are also investigated based
on the obtained optimal results.

Keywords Metaheuristic optimization technique  Retaining system  Steel piles  Deep excavation  Static analysis 
Optimal design

1 Introduction employed for the construction of different components

such as railway stations.
As the population of the world increases, controlling the The stability of deep excavations under the external
facilities and the way of the utilization of space become applied forces such as the lateral earth pressure, surcharge
more critical. As an alternative, deep excavation may be load, hydrostatic pressure, and earthquake loads can be
achieved by some structural members called retaining
systems. The cantilever retaining walls, contiguous bored
piles, secant piles, and sheet piling are some examples of
retaining systems that are frequently used in the excavation
& M. Hajihassani
m.hajihassani@urmia.ac.ir pits. The application of the proper retaining structures
depends on the soil condition, economy of the project, and
F. Taiyari
f-taiyari@tvu.ac.ir the possibility of the implementation of the system in the
project location [1]. The advantages and the disadvantages
M. Kharghani
Kharghani.m@gmail.com of different retaining systems are fully discussed by
Muthomi [2].
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical and Vocational Design and performance of supporting systems under
University (TVU), Tehran 1435761137, Iran both static and dynamic loading conditions are studied by
2
Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, several researchers lately [3–8]. Feng et al. [9] used an
Urmia University, Urmia, Iran innovative pre-stressed support (IPS) to restrict the lateral
3
Faculty of Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Science and displacement of the excavation pit. Vahedifard et al. [10]
Research Branch of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

123
20314
investigated the effects of negative pore pressure on the
active soil pressure and presented an approximate method
for involving it during the design process. The reliability
index of the cantilever retaining structures has been studied
by Chakraboty et al. [4]. The behaviour of the reinforced
soil retaining walls under horizontal and vertical seismic
loadings is investigated by Fan et al. [8]. It was demon-
strated that the vertical ground acceleration may change the
shear wave propagation in the reinforced soil and mostly
increase the reinforcement load.
Although deep excavations and their supporting struc-
tures are mostly temporary; however, they are classified as
the high-risk projects in the engineering field. The list of
catastrophic failure of the retaining systems during the last
decades focused concentrations on providing a reliable
design guideline [11–13]. Peck [11] developed a simple
method based on dimensionless curves to estimate the site
settlement near the excavation pit which is widely accepted
by engineers. Poulos and Chen [12] presented the two-
stage analysis method to determine bending moments and
deflections of a pile. Despite the simplicity and the appli-
cability of the mentioned design methods, they are not
suitable in the economical point of view [14, 15]. For
instance, according to the observations discussed by Xu
and Hatami [15], the reinforced soil retaining walls have
demonstrated great seismic performance with respect to the
traditional gravity retaining systems. However, the typical
design approach based on the pseudo-static method is the
same for all systems and does not consider the specific
details of each system. Therefore, the great potential of the
reinforced retaining walls cannot be accounted in their
design [15].
Since the retaining systems are usually multi-parameter
problems, the application of the classical techniques may
not result in an optimum solution in most of the time. In
contrary, the optimum design approaches based on the
metaheuristic techniques in the geotechnical engineering as
well as the retaining structures are very successful in
estimating the optimal solutions.
In the past few years, various artificial intelligence
techniques have extensively been utilized for advanced
analysis in a diversity of science and engineering applica-
tions [16–28]. These techniques have been used along with
optimization methods for advanced analysis in a diversity
of civil engineering applications, and the use of them is
increasing [29–31]. Several studies have also been con-
ducted on the optimum design of the retaining systems
based on the various metaheuristic optimization algorithms
[32–51]. These optimization techniques are able to solve
complicate problems by searching a large possible design
space. However, due to their stochastic form, the final
outcome cannot be guaranteed as the global optimal
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325
solution. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt different
metaheuristic algorithms to a specific problem [42].
Aydogdu [43] used a new version of biogeography-
based optimization technique with levy flight distribution
(LFBBO) to optimize reinforced concrete cantilever
retaining walls under seismic loading. The influence of the
seismic load on the optimal cost of the wall was also
investigated in the above-mentioned reference. Ceranic
et al. [32] and Yepes et al. [33] optimized a reinforced
concrete cantilever retaining structure by applying the
simulated annealing optimization algorithm. The outputs of
the studies are satisfying and highlight the efficiency of the
applied algorithms in minimizing the retaining walls cost.
The optimization of the safety factors of retaining walls
conducted by Gordan et al. [31] through network and bee
colony techniques under both static and dynamic condi-
tions. Mergos et al. [32] and Koopialipoor et al. [33]
applied novel optimization techniques for designing the
retaining walls and compared their performance with some
other algorithms. Kaveh et al. [34] used eleven meta-
heuristic algorithms in order to obtain the optimum design
of concrete cantilever retaining walls under both static and
dynamic loadings. They applied the Rankine and the
Coulomb methods to determine the lateral earth pressure
and compared the performance of the utilized algorithms.
Dahake and Saraf [35] solved the same optimization
problem by the aid of relief shelve. They showed the
excellence performance of this algorithm on reducing the
lateral earth pressure. Garcia et al. [36] applied a k-means
cuckoo search hybrid algorithm to optimize the perfor-
mance of counterfort retaining walls and compared the
results with the corresponding outputs based on the har-
mony search.
Due to the availability of the design guideline of the
cantilever retaining systems in most of the design codes
which provides a straightforward formulation of these
systems, almost all the optimization researches are focused
on these types of retaining walls. In addition, study of the
other related systems requires a detailed finite element
model which makes its study harder. Therefore, there is
lack of information dealing with other retaining structures.
One of the most popular retaining systems which is
mostly used for the deep excavations is secant pile walls.
These systems comprised of two different parts of struc-
tural and non-structural piles. The structural piles are made
of reinforced concrete or steel material and designed to
resist the lateral exerted forces, while the non-structural
piles are usually made of cement-bentonite–sand slurries
and transfer the soil and/or ground water pressure to the
closely adjacent structural piles.
In this paper, the complementary evaluations for con-
sidering the effects of pile materials are investigated. The
temporary excavation pit of the on-going Tabriz metro
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325
station project is selected for this purpose. The piles
dimensions (pipe thickness and outer diameter) together
with six extra parameters are selected as design variables
which should be minimized in the design space. The secant
pile wall and the step-by-step excavation process are sim-
ulated in a finite element software. Subsequently, opti-
mization process is performed by the use of some
metaheuristic optimization algorithms including genetic,
particle swarm optimization, bees, and biogeography-based
optimization algorithms. At the end, the best-obtained
solution of four considered optimization techniques is
presented, and the efficiency of the algorithms in reducing
the total cost of the system is fully discussed.
2 Metaheuristic optimization techniques
2.1 Genetic algorithm
The genetic algorithm (GA) is a stochastic optimization
technique which follows the principle of natural competi-
tion of individuals in order to appropriate limited sources.
It is clear that the rate of success generally depends on the
genes of the winners. Therefore, reproducing the winner
individuals results in spreading their genes. The selection
and reproduction of superior individuals lead to achieve
more natural resources. Cross-over and mutation are two
key factors which are used to reproduce stronger
individuals.
The GA computes the optimum objective function by
simulating this process. In this algorithm, an initial popu-
lation is generated in the search space and evolved towards
best solution. The individuals have specific genes repre-
senting their capability during the competition. These
genes can be altered by the use of cross-over or mutation.
The process is done for some iterations with a new gen-
eration, and its objective function is evaluated at each
iteration. The iteration process is terminated when either a
maximum number of populations is generated, or a satis-
fying result is reached. The initial form of the algorithm
was first introduced by John Holland in 1960 based on the
well-known evolution theory of Darwin. Then, it was
extended to more practical type by Goldberg [52].
2.2 Particle swarm optimization
The particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is one of
the most well-known metaheuristics which was proposed
by Kennedy and Elbert [53]. PSO is inspired from social
behaviour of bird flocking and schooling in nature. In the
standard PSO, a number of particles randomly scattered
into the search space and generate an initial population.
The location of each particle is estimated by their specific
20315
velocity and displacement terms [54]. These terms can be
updated in every iteration, according to Eqs. (1–2).
X tþ1
i ¼ X ti þ V tþ1
i ð1Þ
V tþ1
i ¼ xV ti þ C 1 r 1 ðPi  X ti Þ þ C 2 r 2 ðPg  X ti Þ ð2Þ
where X ti and V ti are the current position and velocity of ith
particle, and X tþ1i , and V i
tþ1
are its updated position and
velocity, respectively. Pi , and Pg are the best local and
global positions, respectively; x is the inertia weight within
[0,1.2]; C 1 , and C 2 are random weighting values within [0,
2]; r 1 , and r 2 are stochastic values within [0,1]. According
to Eq. (2), there are three different contributions in the
movement of each particles. The first term is the previous
motion of the particle, the second term is the particles
cognition, and the third one is their social learning.
2.3 Bees algorithm
The bees algorithm (BA) is another metaheuristic algo-
rithm which has both local and global search capability
using exploitation and exploration strategies, respectively
[55]. This algorithm was developed by Pham et al. [56] and
models the foraging behaviour of honey bees to minimize
the objective function.
In the BA, n scout bees are randomly sent to selected
sites. The fitness functions of the locations (sites) are
evaluated and sorted. The m top locations are divided into
two group of elite and non-elite sites. The neighbourhood
of the best sites (elite sites) is locally searched by recruiting
some forager bees. In addition, a random search process is
done for the (n-m) non-best sites as a global search process.
At the end, the overall sites are sorted based on their
finesses.
2.4 Biogeography-based optimization
The biogeography-based optimization (BBO) algorithm is
a recently developed metaheuristic algorithm which was
introduced by Simon [57]. The algorithm is inspired by the
biogeography science which simulate the geographical
distribution of biological organisms in nature.
BBO models the migration and the extinction of a
species between islands based on probabilistic mathemat-
ical relations. In fact, each habitat in the algorithm is a
solution candidate for the optimization problem, and the
position of it in the search space is represented by suit-
ability index variable (SIVs). The quality of the habitats is
estimated by the habitat suitability index (HSI) which is
proportional to its fitness. Accordingly, habitats with higher
HSI include better living standards for the species (i.e.
indicates a better solution); therefore, immigration and
123
20316
emigration rates of these habitats are low and high,
respectively.
The BBO algorithm consists of two key operators, i.e.
the migration and the mutation. According to the first
operator, a new solution is created by some modification in
the design variables of the current solution. The modifi-
cation probability depends on the immigration rate of that
solution. The modification is done by using the roulette
wheel selection method which is directly related to the
probability of the emigration. According to the second
operator, the population in the islands is increased.
Therefore, the new solution is created randomly.
3 Case study
Figure 1 demonstrates the place and surrounding space of
an on-going Tabriz metro station (highlighted in blue). The
station is positioned on the North East side of Tabriz, Iran.
It is in a crowded residential area and is classified as a
high-risk project. The overall length and width of the
excavation pit are 70 and 25 m, respectively, and the
railway line is going to pass through the station at about
22 m underground. One of the possible scenarios for the
retaining system of the excavation sides is the secant pile
system together with a layer of struts, which is going to be
investigated in this paper. The project applies the cut-and-
cover technology.
The details of the structural and non-structural pile
arrangements are given in Fig. 2. The implementation of
the considered retaining system is started by driving the
Fig. 1 Location of the project
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325
structural steel piles to a depth of (22 ? X5) m on both
sides of excavation pit (X5 is the required buried height of
the piles) and will be continued by the 22 step excavations.
A layer of soil with 1 m thickness is extracted in each
excavation step until the X4 level. Then, a layer of struts is
perpendicularly connected to the pile system to avoid it
from further lateral deformation. This is also illustrated in
Fig. 2.
A thorough soil investigation was conducted for the
studied project. Table 1 summarizes the important infor-
mation of the soil properties, which are required for the
numerical modelling. It is clear that the soil parameters are
generally on the conservative side. Additionally, the water
table is located 12 m below the ground surface.
4 Numerical simulation
The simulation of the pile wall retaining system during the
different excavation stages is conducted by using OpenSees
platform. For sake of simplicity, a two-dimensional model
with the soil domain of (22 ? X5) m tall and 50 m wide
with the maximum allowable soil element size of 0.5 m is
created. Because of the symmetry, only half of the whole
span is modelled in the software. The lateral extents of the
soil domain were set to reduce the effects of the boundaries
on the performance of the pile–soil system. The out of
plane thickness of the soil elements is X3 (see Fig. 2).
Figure 3 illustrates the archetype plane strain model of the
excavation. This figure represents the interface modelling
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325 20317

Fig. 2 The applied secant pile

retaining system for the
considered excavation pit

Table 1 Soil properties of the case study area

Layer Soil Thickness Weight density (kN/ Cohesion Friction angle Shear modulus Bulk modulus
group (m) m3) (kPa) () (MPa) (MPa)

1 CL-ML 12 16.5 15 22 7194 30,303

2 SM-ML 13 19.5 15 27 12,963 38,889
3 SM-ML 14 19.5 20 31 19,084 43,860

123
20318 Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325

Fig. 3 The modelling details of

the retaining system in the
software

approach, the configuration of the retaining system, bracing
element, and the soil layers.
The constitutive behaviour of the soil elements in the
present study is defined by the use of the Pres-
sureDependMultiYield02, and the PressureInde-
pendMultiYield options of the OpenSees for the sandy and
clayey soils, respectively. The required parameters of these
models are selected based on both measured parameters of
Table 1, and the recommended values of the developer
[58].
Two translational degrees of freedom are assigned to the
soil elements, which are fixed in a way that no relative
movement is allowed in vertical translation along the lower
boundary as well as the lateral translation on the right- and
left-hand boundaries. Other soil elements are set free.

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325 20319

In order to set the steel piles, the central corresponding 5 Optimal design of secant pile retaining
soil elements are removed, and a hollow section tube is systems
replaced instead. The definition of the pile element in the
software is done by the use of the element dis- Basically, an optimization problem is to find the best
pBeamColumn option with 10 Gauss–Lobatto integration solution among all feasible solutions. This can be done by
points. The fibre sections are characterized by the inelastic minimizing an objective function f(x), which is subjected to
behaviour of steel S355 with an elastic modulus of 205 some constraints (i.e. inequality constraints (g(x)), and
GPA, yield strength of 355 MPa, and ultimate strength of equality constraints (h(x))) as follows:
520 MPa. Figure 3 illustrates the modelling details of the
gi ð xÞ  0i ¼ 1:2:. . .:nhj ð xÞ ¼ 0j ¼ 1:2:. . .:pLk  X k  U k k
steel pile in OpenSees software. Two translational and one
¼ 1:2:. . .:m
rotational degrees of freedom are assigned on the pile
elements, and unless the vertical translation of the bottom ð3Þ
side, all the degrees of freedom are set free. where L and U are boundary constraints.
The bracing systems (struts) are modelled in the soft- It is clear that the selection of an objective function, f(x),
ware in the X4 level to resist the applied compression force is considered as an important step in every optimization
by the excavation sides. A uni-length truss element char- problem, which directly affects the obtained results. The
acterized by the uniaxialMaterial ElasticPP is defined for objective function in these types of problems is defined by
this purpose. The S235 steel material with an elastic the cost or the weight of the system [61]. Herein, the total
modulus of 205 GPA, yield strength of 235 MPa, and cost of the structural system is defined as an objective
ultimate strength of 370 MPa is used for the strut elements. function, which is computed by Eq. (4).
The cross section of the struts is considered as a box. A
f ð xÞ ¼ C p W p þ C s W s ð4Þ
small gap in the force–deformation relationship of the
bracing element is considered to account the pile lateral where W p is the weight of pile material, W s is the weight of
deformation until that level. the strut material, and C p , and Cs are their corresponding
In order to capture the pile–soil interaction in the unit costs, respectively.
numerical modelling, the ContactMaterial2D behaviour is The constraints which control the design process can be
assigned on the BeamContact2D element. The connection classified into two main categories of behavioural and
approach of the BeamContact2D element between the pile geometric constraints. The behavioural constraints such as
and soil nodes is depicted in Fig. 3. This also allows a shear and moment capacity of structural piles, their over-
kinematic condition between the pile and the adjacent soil turning, sliding and bending capacities must satisfy the
in order to share their identical horizontal and vertical code limitation [62]. In contrast, the geometry constraints
displacements [59, 60]. The hydrostatic pressure below the are boundary constraints defining lower and upper limits of
water table is applied with triangular distribution. The each design variables. The used geometry constraints in
adjacent surface load is assumed to be 50 kN/m. this paper are listed in Table 2. The pseudo-code for design
After creating the finite element model, the static gravity of secant pile retaining systems for the considered algo-
loads are applied to establish the initial stress state in the rithms of this paper is given in Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7.
soil. Then, the excavation process is simulated by incre-
mentally removing solid layers from one side of the
retaining system. The remained is analysed for a sufficient
number of steps in a way that equilibrium is reached before
the next layer excavation. The excavation process contin- Table 2 Geometric constraints indicating lower and upper bounds
ues until the depth of - 22 m. Design variables Unit Lower bound Upper bound
For the optimization purpose, an integration of the
X1 m 0.5 2.0
OpenSees software with the MATLAB platform is done to
join the modelling space with the mentioned optimization X2 m 0.005 0.05
algorithms. The number of iterations for each run is con- X3 m 0.4 4.0
sidered to be 400, and it is assumed as a termination cri- X4 m 5.0 20.0
terion. During each iteration, the design variables are X5 m 1.0 10.0
imposed to the OpenSees software, and the outputs are sent X6 m 0.2 1.0
back to the MATLAB platform for the evaluation phase. X7 m 0.005 0.05
The optimization process is done 50 times for each X8 m 2.0 10.0
algorithm.

123
20320 Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325

Fig. 4 GA pseudo-code for

design of secant pile retaining
systems

Fig. 5 PSO pseudo-code for

design of secant pile retaining
systems

6 Results and discussion
The optimal design parameters of the secant pile walls of
the studied excavation pit based on the design variable
boundary limitation of Table 2 are evaluated and presented
in this section. For all considered optimization techniques,
the best, mean, and standard deviation (SD) of the objec-
tive function are calculated and presented in Table 3.
According to the results of Table 3, the obtained results of
PSO, BA and GA are approximately the same and corre-
spond to best answers, while the application of the BBO
algorithm leads to higher cost. However, the results of BA
during the whole analyses have lower standard deviation
among the other utilized optimization algorithms which
represents a steady performance with higher reliability
(lower variation). In contrary, the results of the PSO
algorithm correspond to higher variation comparing to

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325 20321

Fig. 6 BA pseudo-code for

design of secant pile retaining
systems

Table 3 Design cost values for the considered project

Optimization algorithm Cost ($)
Best Mean SD

GA 152,744.34 153,664.34 642.90

PSO 136,262.82 138,300.10 1034.25
BA 144,572.10 144,986.56 203.35
BBO 189,829.00 191,824.12 956.01

Fig. 7 BBO pseudo-code for design of secant pile retaining systems

other optimization techniques, which is not preferred in

these types of design techniques. For better comparison,
Fig. 8 The convergence rate plot for the optimal design of retaining
the results are normalized relative to the result of BA,
piles
which represents acceptable solution with lower standard
deviation. As a result, relative objective values of the GA corresponding result of PSO algorithm is 1% lower than
and BBO algorithms are 6%, 47% higher, and the the BA objective value.

123
20322
Figure 8 demonstrates the convergence rates of the best
solutions obtained by the considered metaheuristic algo-
rithms. In this figure, the vertical axis represents the total
structural cost in dollar and the horizontal axis is the iter-
ation number. As it is obvious, the PSO, GA, and BA
techniques have presented great performance in both eco-
nomical point of view and achieving rapid convergence. As
shown in Fig. 8, the convergence reaches in less than 200
iteration, and it is minimum and maximum when the GA
and the PSO algorithms are selected, respectively. Table 4
presents the final outputs of the utilized optimization
algorithms in this paper.
Figure 9 investigates the pile lateral deflection during
the 22-stage excavations for all the utilized techniques in
their best solutions (as given in Table 4). It is obtained that
the pile lateral deformation is increased as the excavation
proceeds. During the optimization process, the maximum
permitted deflection of the piles is selected to be 10 cm
with 20% tolerance. Comparing the results of all opti-
mization techniques, it can be concluded that the optimal
placement of the bracing system (struts) is achieved to be
in the middle-third of the excavation depth, which made
the maximum pile deflection to be occurred at the top of
the pile system. It should be noted that the utilization of a
layer of struts is sufficient for the maximum allowed pile
deflection.
The soil shear stress contours which are directly exerted
to the retaining piles are depicted in Fig. 10. This fig-
ure demonstrates the soil shear distribution during its
height and width at the final stage of the excavation.
According to the figure, the parts with dark red colour
represent active performance of soil, while the rest of the
colour ranges show soil passive performance. It is clear that
the maximum soil shear stress is taken place at the strut
location, where the soil movement is hindered by the
bracing system.
The pattern of soil shear stress obtained from all con-
sidered optimization techniques is approximately the same,
while the values are various. It is also observed from the
figure that the obtained optimal design based on the PSO
algorithm leads to lower maximum soil shear stress, while
the contours corresponding to the GA and BBO design
variables have higher maximum shear stress values. In
addition, it can be also obtained that the deepest buried
Table 4 Final optimal design
Optimization algorithms X1 (m)
parameters of the considered
project GA 0.74
PSO 0.70
BA 0.79
BBO 1.49
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325
depth of the piles is for the BA, while it is the minimum,
considering the PSO technique.
7 Conclusion
The efficiency of the evolutionary optimization techniques
on the optimal design of pile wall retaining structures is
evaluated in this article. For this purpose, the on-going
Tabriz metro station project is selected as the case study.
The precise modelling of the pile wall retaining system as
well as its surrounding soil layers is performed by intro-
ducing a detailed finite element model, where different
excavation steps are defined in order to catch its effects on
the formation of the soil shear stress. This will help to
reduce the uncertainties of the modelling phase and gives
the possibility of monitoring the system behaviour in all the
excavation process. The GA, PSO, BA, and BBO algo-
rithms are selected in order to optimize the eight design
variables of a considered retaining system. The objective
function is defined as the total structural cost, which should
be minimized in the design space of the variables. The
optimization process is done by integration of the Open-
Sees software together with MATLAB platform. Although
the obtained results are limited to the Tabriz metro station
project; however, the modelling and the design procedures
can be extended to other similar projects. The main find-
ings of the results can be summarized as follows:
• The PSO, BA and GA have been demonstrated
approximately the same finesses which correspond to
best answers, while the results of the BBO algorithm
lead to higher cost.
• Normalized objective values of the utilized algorithms
relative to the BA’s are 6, 47% higher considering the
GA, and BBO algorithms, while it is 1% lower when
the PSO is selected.
• Considering the standard deviation of the obtained
results, the BA leads the best answer with lower
variation among the other utilized optimization algo-
rithms, which is mostly preferred in these types of
problems.
• The PSO, GA, and BA techniques have presented great
performance in achieving rapid convergence.
X2 (m) X3 (m) X4 (m) X5 (m) X6 (m) X7 (m) X8 (m)
0.01 2.98 15 3 0.72 0.014 6.68
0.01 2.99 16 3 0.99 0.010 5.63
0.008 2.89 18 6 0.87 0.012 6.95
0.008 3.38 13 3 0.71 0.015 5.19
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325 20323

Fig. 9 The retaining system lateral deflection in different excavation stages for: a GA, b PSO, c BA, and d BBO design techniques

Fig. 10 The soil shear stress in

the final excavation stage for:
a GA, b PSO, c BA, and d BBO
design techniques

• The lateral pile deflection obtained by all optimization • The optimal placement of the struts is obtained to be in
techniques is increased as the excavation depth the middle-third of the excavation depth, considering all
increases. The maximum deflection is occurred at the the applied optimization algorithms. Therefore, soil
top of the piles. shear stress pattern is approximately the same in all of

123
20324
the design techniques, and the maximum soil shear
stress is occurred at the strut location.
• The deepest buried depth of the piles is for the BA
optimization technique, while it is the minimum,
considering the PSO technique.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Helwany S (2007) Applied soil mechanics with ABAQUS
applications. Wiley
2. Muthomi MA (2013) A Study of deep excavations and excava-
tion support systems in soft soils. University of Nairobi
3. Dismuke TD (1991) Retaining structures and excavations.
Foundation Engineering Handbook. Springer, pp 44–510
4. Chakraborty M, Krishna AM, Chakraborty A (2011) Reliability
based performance evaluation of earth retaining structures. In
Geo-Risk: Risk Assessment and Management 762–769.
5. Clayton CR, Woods RI, Bond AJ, Milititsky J (2014) Earth
pressure and earth-retaining structures. CRC Press
6. Lim A, Ou CY, Hsieh PG (2020) A novel strut-free retaining wall
system for deep excavation in soft clay: numerical study. Acta
Geotech 15(6):1557–1576
7. Santhoshkumar G, Ghosh P (2020) Seismic stability analysis of a
hunchbacked retaining wall under passive state using method of
stress characteristics. Acta Geotech 15(10):2969–2982
8. Fan C, Liu H, Cao J, Ling HI (2020) Responses of reinforced soil
retaining walls subjected to horizontal and vertical seismic
loadings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 129:105969
9. Feng T, Liu L, Tong T, Zhou M (2017) Numerical study on
lateral wall displacement of deep excavation supported by IPS
earth retention system. Underground Space 2(4):259–271
10. Vahedifard F, Leshchinsky BA, Mortezaei K, Lu N (2015) Active
earth pressures for unsaturated retaining structures. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 141(11):04015048
11. Peck RB (1969) Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft groun-
d.In: Proc. 7th ICSMFE 225–290
12. Poulos HG, Chen LT (1997) Pile response due to excavation-
induced lateral soil movement. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng
123(2):94–99
13. Gao GY, Gao M, Yang CB, Yu ZS (2010) Influence of deep
excavation on deformation of operating metro tunnels and
countermeasures. Chin J Geotech Eng 32(3):453–459
14. Bueno BS, Benjamim CVS, Zornberg JG (2005) Field perfor-
mance of a full-scale retaining wall reinforced with Nonwoven
geotextiles. In Slopes and retaining structures under seismic and
static conditions 1–9
15. Xu P, Hatami K (2019) Sliding stability and lateral displacement
analysis of reinforced soil retaining walls. Geotext Geomembr
47(4):483–492
16. Hajihassani M, Armaghani DJ, Kalatehjari R (2018) Applications
of particle swarm optimization in geotechnical engineering: a
comprehensive review. Geotech Geol Eng 36(2):705–722
17. Liu Z, Fang L, Jiang D, Qu R (2022) A machine-learning based
fault diagnosis method with adaptive secondary sampling for
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325
multiphase drive systems. IEEE Trans Power Electr
37(8):8767–8772
18. Asteris PG, Lourenço PB, Roussis PC, Adami CE, Armaghani
DJ, Cavaleri L, Pilakoutas K (2022) Revealing the nature of
metakaolin-based concrete materials using artificial intelligence
techniques. Constr Build Mater 322:126500
19. Zhao C, Zhu Y, Du Y, Liao F, Chan CY (2022) A novel direct
trajectory planning approach based on generative adversarial
networks and rapidly-exploring random tree. IEEE Trans Intell
Transp Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3164391
20. Li B, Feng Y, Xiong Z, Yang W, Liu G (2021) Research on AI
security enhanced encryption algorithm of autonomous IoT sys-
tems. Inf Sci 575:379–398
21. Xiong Z, Mo F, Zhao X, Xu F, Zhang X, Wu Y (2022) Dynamic
texture classification based on 3D ICA-Learned filters and Fisher
vector encoding in big data environment. J Signal Proc Syst.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11265-021-01737-0
22. Vakitbilir N, Hilal A, Direkoğlu C (2022) Hybrid deep learning
models for multivariate forecasting of global horizontal irradia-
tion. Neural Comput Appl 34:8005–8026. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00521-022-06907-0
23. Zhang L, Zheng H, Cai G, Zhang Z, Wang X, Koh LH (2022)
Power-frequency oscillation suppression algorithm for AC
microgrid with multiple virtual synchronous generators based on
fuzzy inference system. IET Renew Power Gener
16(8):1589–1601
24. Dong J, Cong Y, Sun G, Fang Z, Ding Z (2021) Where and how
to transfer: knowledge aggregation-induced transferability per-
ception for unsupervised domain adaptation. IEEE Trans Pattern
Anal Mach Intell. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3128560
25. Liu F, Zhang G, Lu J (2020) Heterogeneous domain adaptation:
An unsupervised approach. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst
31(12):5588–5602
26. Sun G, Cong Y, Wang Q, Zhong B, Fu Y (2020) Representative
task self-selection for flexible clustered lifelong learning. IEEE
Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.
27. Wang S, Guo H, Zhang S, Barton D, Brooks P (2022) Analysis
and prediction of double-carriage train wheel wear based on
SIMPACK and neural networks. Adv Mech Eng. https://doi.org/
10.1177/16878132221078491
28. Gong X, Wang L, Mou Y, Wang H, Wei X, Zheng W, Yin L
(2022) Improved four-CHANNEL PBTDPA control strategy
using force feedback bilateral teleoperation system. Int J Control
Autom Syst 20(3):1002–1017
29. Hosseini S, Poormirzaee R, Hajihassani M, Kalatehjari R (2022)
An ANN-fuzzy cognitive map-based Z-number theory to predict
flyrock induced by blasting in Open-Pit mines. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 55:4373–4390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-022-02866-z
30. Namazi E, Hajihassani M, Gilani SO, Zolfegharifar SY (2022)
Risk assessment of building damage induced by tunnelling
through a gene expression programming model. Geotech Geol
Eng, 1–14
31. Hasanipanah M, Monjezi M, Shahnazar A, Armaghani DJ,
Farazmand A (2015) Feasibility of indirect determination of blast
induced ground vibration based on support vector machine.
Measurement 75:289–297
32. Ceranic B, Fryer C, Baines RW (2001) An application of simu-
late annealing to the optimum design of reinforced concrete
retaining structures. Comput Struct 79(17):1569–1581
33. Yepes V, Alcala A, Perea C, Gonzalez-Vidosa F (2008) A
parametric study of optimum earth-retaining walls by simulated
annealing. Eng Struct 30:821–830
34. Ahmadi-Nedushan B, Varaee H (2009) Optimal design of rein-
forced concrete retaining walls using a swarm intelligence tech-
nique. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on soft
Neural Computing and Applications (2022) 34:20313–20325
computing technology in civil, structural and environmental
engineering. Stirlingshire (UK): Civil-Comp Press
35. Kaveh A, Abadi ASM (2010) Harmony search based algorithm
for the optimum cost design of reinforced concrete cantilever
retaining walls. Int J Civil Eng 9(1):1–8
36. Khajehzadeh M, Taha MR, El-Shafie A, Eslami M (2010) Eco-
nomic design of retaining wall using particle swarm optimization
with passive congregation. Aust J Basic Appl Sci
4(11):5500–5507
37. Khajehzadeh M, Taha MR, El-Shafie A, Eslami M (2011)
Modified particle swarm optimization for optimum design of
spread footing and retaining wall. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A
12(6):415–427
38. Ghazavi M, Bonab SB (2011) Learning from ant society in
optimizing concrete retaining walls. J Technol Educ
5(3):205–212
39. Camp CV, Akin C (2012) Design of retaining walls using big
bang-big crunch optimization optimum design of cantilever
retaining walls. J Struct Eng 138:438–448
40. Kaveh A, Behnam AF (2013) Charged system search algorithm
for the optimum cost design of reinforced concrete cantilever
retaining walls. Arab J Sci Eng 38:563–570
41. Sheikholeslami R, Gholipour Khalili B, Zahrai SM (2014)
Optimum cost design of reinforced concrete retaining walls using
hybrid firefly algorithm. Int J Eng Technol 6(6):465
42. Gandomi AH, Kashani AR, Roke DA, Mousavi M (2015) Opti-
mization of retaining wall design using recent swarm intelligence
techniques. Eng Struct 103:72–84
43. Aydogdu I (2017) Cost optimization of reinforced concrete
cantilever retaining walls under seismic loading using a bio-
geography-based optimization algorithm with Levy flights. Eng
Optim 49(3):381–400
44. Kaveh A, Hamedani KB, Zaerreza A (2020) A set theoretical
shuffled shepherd optimization algorithm for optimal design of
cantilever retaining wall structures. Eng Comput 37:3265–3282.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-00999-9
45. Konstandakopoulou F, Tsimirika M, Pnevmatikos N, Hatzigeor-
giou GD (2020) Optimization of reinforced concrete retaining
walls designed according to european provisions. Infrastructures
5(6):46
46. Gordan B, Koopialipoor M, Clementking A, Tootoonchi H,
Mohamad ET (2019) Estimating and optimizing safety factors of
retaining wall through neural network and bee colony techniques.
Eng Comput 35(3):945–954
47. Mergos PE, Mantoglou F (2020) Optimum design of reinforced
concrete retaining walls with the flower pollination algorithm.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 61(2):575–585
20325
48. Koopialipoor M, Murlidhar BR, Hedayat A, Armaghani DJ,
Gordan B, Mohamad ET (2020) The use of new intelligent
techniques in designing retaining walls. Eng Comput
36(1):283–294
49. Kaveh A, Hamedani KB, Bakhshpoori T (2020) Optimal design
of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls utilizing eleven
meta-heuristic algorithms: a comparative study. Period Polytech
Civil Eng 64(1):156–168
50. Dahake AG, Saraf AS (2020) Optimal design of cantilever
retaining wall using relief shelve: a review. Int J Struct Eng Anal
6(1):29–39
51. Garcı́a J, Yepes V, Martı́ JV (2020) A hybrid k-means cuckoo
search algorithm applied to the counterfort retaining walls
problem. Mathematics 8(4):555
52. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, Optimization
and machine learning. MA: Addison-Wesley, Reading
53. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In:
Proceeding of the IEEE on international conference on neural
networks. Perth, Australia 1942–8
54. Paian Purba SR, Amarilies HS, Rachmawati NL, Perwira Redi
AAN (2021) Implementation of particle swarm optimization
algorithm in cross-docking distribution problem. Acta Inform
Malays 5(1):16–20
55. Yan Z (2018) Artificial Bee Colony Constrained Optimization
Algorithm with Hybrid Discrete Variables and Its Application.
Acta Electr Malays 2(1):18–20
56. DT Pham A Ghanbarzadeh E Koc S Otri S Rahim M Zaidi (2005)
The Bees Algorithm. Technical Note, Manufacturing Engineering
Centre, Cardiff University, UK
57. Simon D (2008) Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Trans
Evol Comput 12(6):702–713
58. Yang Z, Lu J, Elgamal A (2008) OpenSees soil models and solid-
fluid fully coupled elements user’s manual
59. Randolph MF, Wroth CP (1981) Application of the failure state
in undrained simple shear to the shaft capacity of driven piles.
Geotechnique 31(1):143–157
60. Loukidis D, Salgado R (2008) Analysis of the shaft resistance of
non-displacement piles in sand. Géotechnique 58(4):283–296
61. Saribas A, Erbatur F (1996) Optimization and sensitivity of
retaining structures. J Geotech Eng 122(8):649–656
62. Iranian National Building Codes Compilation Office (2014) Ira-
nian National Building Code, Part 9: Reinforced Concrete
Buildings Design, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
(MHUD)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123