Structures 23 (2020) 245–253

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Design of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining wall using Grey wolf T

optimization algorithm
⁎
Elif Nur Kalemci, Sabriye Banu İkizler , Tayfun Dede, Zekai Angın
Civil Engineering Department, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this article to design a low-weight cantilever reinforced concrete retaining wall with shear key by
Metaheuristic algorithms using an optimization algorithm, which is programmed in MATLAB. Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) is an op-
Optimization timization technique which is developed by mimicking hierarchy and hunting methods of grey wolves. The
Retaining wall design Retaining Wall was formulated as an optimization problem based on ACI 318–05 code and Rankine's theory for
Grey Wolf optimization
lateral earth pressure. The constrains based on safety factors and design factors were used to reach the best
design. The geotechnical constraints were determined as the factor of safety against overturning, bending,
bearing capacity failure and the structural constraints were determined as the moment and shear capacities of for
elements of the wall. Two numerical examples for optimal design of retaining wall with/without shear key were
considered to evaluate the efficiency of GWO algorithm compared to similar studies.

1. Introduction
Earth mass may lose its stability due to natural or artificial effects.
One of the earth retaining structures is the retaining wall which sup-
ports material behind it and resists to the pressure. In this study, the
cantilever earth retaining wall was chosen.
Cantilever walls of reinforced concrete are still fairly common in
urban areas because they are less susceptible to vandalism and often do
not require select backfill. Typically, they compete well in costs where
the wall is short (20 to 50 m in length) and not very high. They are also
widely used for basement walls and the like in buildings [1].
A cantilever retaining wall is a common application for highway,
bridge and railway constructions and many other civil engineering
activities. These types of constructions entail cut and fill processes
which can form soil slopes with the angle of inclination. A vertical stem
and a base slab are basically the elements which comprise a cantilever
retaining wall. The Stem provides lateral support to the fill. In this case
there is a shear key on the bottom of the base slab. Soil may be retained
at the two sides of the cantilever retaining wall; therefore, soil exert
pressure from both sides, passive and active earth pressures. The shear
key increases stability of the wall with passive earth pressure arising
from the soil in front of it.
The designing process of cantilever wall is mostly based on people.
Designers scientific intuition, vision, and experience are essential for
assuming the dimensions which they meet the geotechnical and
structural restrictions. Once the dimensions are decided, designers must
check sufficiency of the wall for resistance to sliding and tipping,
bearing capacity of foundation, strength against bending and shear
moment. These designing and analyze processes repeat with iterations
until the designer reach the final solution. Although this kind of rig-
orous approach, there is no guarantee that the last design is the best
solution. The infeasibility of this method is an unignorable fact. At this
point, optimization techniques may be helpful to prevent misusing
material and time.
Optimization refers to the process of finding the best possible so-
lution(s) for a particular problem [2]. One can achieve the optimum
design by formulating the process as a maximization or minimization
problem. There are many different problems and algorithms for opti-
mization and thus this subject has been studied in various fields at
several times. Optimization techniques for cantilever retaining walls
were developed in many years [3–7].
Metaheuristic algorithms, which they are highly popular recently,
can be convenient for this kind of complex structural optimization
problems. In this method, sort of natural phenomenon is utilized to find
the best candidates around all the other solutions. Kaveh and Soleimani
[8] used Democratic Particle Swarm Optimization (DPSO) and Col-
liding Bodies Optimization (CBO) algorithms, then compared to results
with Improved Harmony Search (HIS) and Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO) algorithms. Mohammed and Hemin [9] implemented to the
problem the evolutionary method which is a combination of genetic

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: banuh@ktu.edu.tr (S.B. İkizler).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.09.013
Received 5 September 2019; Received in revised form 26 September 2019; Accepted 30 September 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.N. Kalemci, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 245–253

algorithm and local search techniques. Gandomi et al. [10] applied X4

interior search algorithm (ISA) on the cantilever retaining wall. They
aim to enhance the performance of the optimization technique by ap-
plying boundary constraint handling (BCH) approaches to the algo-
rithm.
The evolutionary optimization methods for nonlinear constrained
optimal design of a cantilever retaining wall is presented by Gandomi
et al. [11]. Biogeography-based optimization algorithm (BBO), evolu-
tionary strategy (ES) and differential evolution (DE) were used. BBO
algorithm gave the best results among other algorithms for two design,
the retaining wall with and without a shear key.
Lopez [12] used Backtracking Search Algorithm (BSA) and Search
Group Algorithm (SGA) and Gandomi et al. [13] used some recent
swarm intelligence techniques: firefly algorithm (FA), accelerated par-
ticle swarm optimization (APSO), and cuckoo search (CS) for a canti-
lever retaining wall design optimization.
Optimum design of cantilever retaining wall under earthquake
loading conditions are examined in many studies. Aydogdu [14] in-
troduced biogeography-based optimization algorithm with Levy flight
distribution (LFBBO). The optimum cost of the wall was calculated
based on the effects of seismic load and PGA. Kaveh and Laien [15] are
also utilized the vibrating particles system (VPS), Enhanced Colliding
Bodies of Optimization (ECBO) and Colliding Bodies of Optimization
(CBO) methods for the same case.
Tonne and Mohite [16] studied the optimum design of cantilever
wall, increased its stability with the relief shelf. Molina-Moreno et al.
[17] examined optimization of buttressed earth-retaining walls, using a
harmony search with an intensification stage through threshold ac-
cepting. The calibration of the resulting algorithm has been obtained as
a result of several test runs for different parameters: types of ground fill,
total height, wall-friction angle. Different types of algorithms have been
studied for cantilever retaining wall: modified particle swarm optimi-
zation (MPSO) algorithm [18], teaching learning based optimization
(TLBO) algorithm [19], Big Bang-Big Crunch Optimization [20], im-
proved firefly algorithm with a harmony search algorithm (IFA-HS)
[21,22], using ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm [23], genetic
algorithm (GA) [24], Differential Evolution Algorithm (DEA) [25].
In this present study, a metaheuristic algorithm, namely Grey Wolf
Optimization (GWO) method is used for optimal design of reinforced
concrete (RC) cantilever retaining wall with the shear key, programmed
in MATLAB. Seyedali Mirjalili et al. [26] presented this algorithm,
which is inspired by Grey Wolves in nature. The weight of structure is
conceived as the objective functions. Design is formulated by means of
Rankine Theory under static loading condition, based on ACI 318–05
[27].
R1
H
shrinkageandtemprature
reinforcement
R3
X5 R2
R4
X8
X2 X3
X6 X7
X1
Fig. 1. Design Variables for Reinforced Cantilever Retaining Wall.
as shown in Fig. 1. Geometric design variables were chosen with re-
ference to geometry of the wall and structural design variables were
modelled concerning to the critical sections of the wall.
Variables, which express the sections of the wall, are X1: width of
the base slab, X2: width of toe slab, X3: stem thickness at the bottom of
the wall, X4: stem thickness at the top of the wall, X5: base slab
thickness, X6: distance from the front of the toe slab to front of the
shear key, X7: width of the base shear key, X8: height of the base shear
key.
Variables, which express the steel reinforcement of the wall, are R1:
the vertical steel area in the stem per unit length of the wall, R2: the
horizontal steel area of the toe slab, R3: the horizontal steel area of the
heel slab, R4: the vertical steel area of the shear key per unit length of
wall. Reinforcement design variables represent the notation of number
and diameter of bars as one variable each of them. Number of these
notations are 264 i.e., combination number of 3–28 numbers and 10–30
diameters of the bars as organized in Table 1. The optimization problem
was composed with continuous geometric design variables, and discrete
structural design variables.

2. Optimization process 2.1.1. Geotechnical modelling

The forces fundamental for calculation were depicted in Fig. 2: Wc , is
The RC cantilever retaining wall is formulated with the help of se- the weight of the RC cantilever retaining wall for 1 m length, Q is the
lected design variables and constrained based on safety factors against
sliding, overturning and bearing stress failure modes. The main purpose Table 1
of this design process is, called objective function, to define minimized Reinforcement Variable Pool.
weight of the RC wall. The objective function may be formulated as the Reinforcement
sum of the weight of the concrete and steel reinforcement material. Index No.(η) Bars(#) Bar Size As (cm2 )
The objective function is: 1 3 10 2.356
2 4 10 3.141
fobj = Wst + Wc → Wc = 100Vc γc (1) 3 3 12 3.393
4 5 10 3.927
Wst is the weight of steel bars used for construction, Wc is the weight 5 4 12 4.524
of concrete elements and Vc is the volume of concrete. γc is the unit 6 3 14 4.618
7 6 10 4.712
weight of concrete and it is multiplied by 100 to convert kN to kg.
. . . .
. . . .
2.1. Design variables . . . .
262 28 24 126.669
263 18 30 127.234
There are eight geometric and four structural design variables for 264 24 26 127.423
the reinforcement concrete cantilever retaining wall with the shear key

246
E.N. Kalemci, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 245–253

Q vertical components of active forces.

∑ N = Wc + WF + Q + Pa1y + Pa2y (8)

q
Passive forces are expressed as:
1
PA Pp1 = γ D12 K P1 + 2cD12 KP 1
WF
2 fill (9)
1
WC Pp2 = γ hsk2 KP 2 + 2cbase hsk2 KP 2
2 base (10)

∑ PP = Pp1 + Pp2 (11)

D1 is the total depth of the retained soil causing passive earth pressure.
The unit weight and cohesion of the retained soil are, γfill and c , re-
spectively. KP1 is the passive earth pressure coefficient of the retained
Pp1
soil. hsk is the depth of the base soil in front of the shear key and γbase is
Pp2 the unit weight of the base soil. KP2 is the passive earth pressure
coefficent of the base soil. φbase is the internal friction angle of base soil,
cbase is the cohesion of the base soil.
The foundation of the retaining wall was considered as a shallow
foundation. Therefore, the factor of safety for bearing capacity in-
vestigation is described as:
PB
qu
FSB =
Fig. 2. The Forces Acting on Reinforced Cantilever Retaining Wall. qmax (12)
qu and qmax are the ultimate bearing capacity and the maximum
surcharge load, WF is the weight of backfill on the heel, Wt is the weight applied bearing stress, respectively. To reach the ultimate bearing ca-
of soil on the toe, WC is the weight of the structure, PA is the active earth pacity, Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Theory is used.
pressure, PP1 and PP2 are the passive earth pressures on the base shear
1
key and front part of the toe section andPB is the bearing stress force, as qu = cbase Nc + γfill D1 Nq + γ Ng (B − 2e )
shown in Fig. 2. 2 base (13)
Equilibriums of Rankine Theory were utilized for active and passive Nc , Nq and Ng are Terzaghi coefficients. B is the width of the base
earth pressures calculations and thus active and passive earth pressure slab (X1). e is the eccentricity and γfill is the unit weight of the retained
coefficients, which the coefficients are expressed as: soil.
The minimum and maximum bearing stresses of shallow foundation
K a = cosβ ∗ (cosβ − (cosβ )2 − (cos∅)2 )/(cosβ + (cosβ )2 − (cos∅)2 ) are:
(2)
∑V 6e
qmin, max = ⎛1 ∓ ⎞
∅ 2 B ⎝ B⎠ (14)
Kp = ⎡tan ⎛45 + ⎞ ⎤
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ (3) where e is eccentricity, Mo is the sum of the moment of all forces
∅ is the friction angle of backfill and β is backfill slope angle. about the middle point of the base slab,
An overturning moment is emerged due to the above mentioned ∑ MR − ∑ MO
forces may be caused a failure. The safety factor for overturning, the e=
∑V (15)
ratio between the sum of the moments of resisting forces (∑ MR ) and the
sum of the moments of driving forces( ∑ MD ) about front face of toe,
must be determined for avoiding the hazard. Passive earth pressure was 2.1.2. Structural modelling
not included to the resisting moments. The factor of safety for over- For the structural modelling, critical sections of the wall (heel, toe,
turning is expressed as: stem and shear key) must meet the shear and moment capacity condi-
tions.
∑ MR
FSO = ɸMn ≥ Md (16)
∑ MD (4)

For sliding analyze, the forces acting on the base slab are con- Mn is nominal flexural strength. Nominal strength is the strength
sidered. which is calculated by using required assumptions and equations of a
The ratio of resisting and driving forces is the factor of safety: cross section. A safer design strength can be reached by multiplying
nominal strength by a reduction factor (ɸ ). Md is the design moment at
∑ FR critical section which is calculated by using applied factored loads and
FSS =
∑ FD (5) forces. The design strength must be equal or greater than required
strength.
The driving force is the sum of the horizontal components of active
Flexural strength reduction factor is 0.9 according to the ACI
force:
318–05 [27] for tension-controlled sections. Nominal flexural strength
∑ FD = PAcosβ (6) can be described as:
a
Resisting forces: Mn = T ⎛d − ⎞
⎝ 2⎠ (17)
2 2
∑ FR = (∑ N ) ∗ tan ⎛ ∗ φbase ⎞ + ∗ B ∗ cbase + ∑ PP (7)
T is the tension force acting on a nodal zone:
⎝3 ⎠ 3
T = As f y (18)
∑ N: Sum of the weight of the retaining wall, surcharge load and

247
E.N. Kalemci, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 245–253

C is the compression force on a nodal zone: q q

Mdtoe = ⎡1.7 ⎛ 2 + max ⎞ − 0.9(γc X 5 + γfill D) ⎤ ltoe
2

C = 0, 85. fc ba (19) ⎣ ⎝6 3 ⎠ ⎦ (31)

where As is area and f y is the yield strength of reinforcement, fc is qdt + qmax

Vdtoe = ⎡1.7 ⎛ ⎞ − 0.9(γc X 5 + γfill D) ⎤ (ltoe − dt )
the concrete compression strength d is the effective depth of the stress ⎢
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎦ (32)
block, b is the width of stress block, and a is the depth of equivalent
D is the depth of soil above the toe. The q2 term, which is calculated
rectangular stress block. The equivalent rectangular compressive stress
by using qmax and qmin , is the pressure on the intersection of stem with
block is used to provide convenience. The depth of stress block is de-
the toe slab. The qdt term is the soil pressure at the critical section of toe
fined as:
slab and ltoe is the length of the toe.
a = β1 c (20) Shear strength and moment calculations for heel;

wherec is distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis. 1.7q + 1.4γc X 5 + 1.4γfill H 1.4Wbs q + 2qmin ⎤ 2
Mdheel = ⎡
⎢⎜
⎛ ⎞
⎟ + ⎛ ⎞−⎛ 1 ⎞ LH
β1, which is a factor based on fc , is 0,85 for fc ≤ 28MPa. β1 shall be
⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ 6 ⎠⎥
⎦
reduced linearly at a rate of 0.05 for each 7 MPa of strength in excess of
(33)
28 MPa, but β1 shall not be taken less than 0.65 according to the ACI
318–05 code [27] Chapter 10. W + Wbsdh
With C = T Vdheel = ⎡ (1.7q + 1.4γc X 5 + 1.4γfill H ) + 1.4 ⎛ bs ⎞
⎢
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠
As f y = 0, 85. fc ba (21) qdh + qmin
− 0.9 ⎛ ⎞ ⎤ (Lh − dh)
⎝ 2 ⎠⎦⎥ (34)
As f y
a= Similarly, the q1 calculated by using qmax and qmin is pressure on the
0.85. fc b (22)
intersection of stem with the heel slab. Wbs is the weight of the soil at
For shear capacity design: the triangle area above stem. So, qdh is the soil pressure at the critical
section of heel slab, which is at the distance dh (=X5-cc) away from
ɸVn ≥ Vd (23) front face of the wall. Wbsdh is the weight of the soil at the triangle area
ɸ is 0,75 for shear and torsion according to the code. The nominal above stem at the critical section.
shear strength is: The shear key acts during the sliding, it is not considered as a safety
factor under other conditions.
Vn = ɸ0.17 fc bd (24) Moment and shear strength calculations for shear key;
Required shear and moment strengths of the structure (Md , Vd ) are ⎡ K p γbase (X 8) ⎞ ⎤
3

calculated for stem, toe, heel and the shear key separately base on the Mdkey = ⎢ ⎜⎛ 2 ⎟
⎥
3 (35)
code. ⎣⎝ ⎠⎦
Required shear and moment strengths of the stem, a vertical beam,
K p γbase dsh + K p2 γbase X 8 ⎞
are combination of horizontal earth pressure and surcharge load. Vdkey = ⎡ ⎜⎛ 2 ⎟ max ([(X 8 − dsh ) 0]) ⎤
⎢ 2 ⎥
According to ACI 318–05 [27] the required strength can be calculated ⎣⎝ ⎠ ⎦ (36)
with the load factors which are shown in the equation below. Critical section of shear key is selected at the dsh = (X 7 − cc ) dis-
U = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7H (25) tance away from junction of base slab and shear key for shear strength.
As , minimum area of flexural reinforcement, shall not be less than
Where D or L reduce the effect of H the equation become:
that given by
U = 0.9D + 1.7H (26)
fc
D is dead load, L is live load and the H is the load caused by earth A smin = 0.25 bd
fy (37)
pressure, groundwater pressure.
Stem; and not less than (1.4/ f y bd ) according to ACI 318–05 [27] Chapter
10.
(Hs + H )2 (Hs + H )3
Mdstem = 1.7 ⎡qK a cos β + K a γfill cos β ⎤ The minimum steel reinforcement ratio (ρmin ) can be calculated with
⎢
⎣ 2 6 ⎥
⎦ (27)
given formula:
(Hs + H − ds )2 ⎤ As
Vdstem = 1.7 ⎡qK a cos β (Hs + H − ds ) + K a γfill cos β ρ=
⎢
⎣ 2 ⎥
⎦ bd (38)
(28) The reinforcement ratio, ρb, which produces balanced strain condi-
Hs = (Lh)tanβ (29) tions under flexure, is the limit for maximum steel reinforcement ratio
ρmax.
ds = X 5 − cc (30)
⎛ 0.85β1 fc ⎞ ⎛ 600 ⎞
Lh is the heel part of the base slab and cc is the depth of concrete ρb = ⎜
f y ⎟ ⎜ 600 + f y ⎟ (39)
cover. ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
The critical sections of the structure must be checked. For stem, due Development length, ld , must be adequate to make the desired bond
to the maximum moment, the base of the stem is a critical section for strength between concrete and steel. For the no.6 and smaller bars
moment and shear. (db < 19mm), ld is described by ACI 318–05 [27] as:
Moment and shear force at the base slab are resulted from the
weight of retained soil and concrete, and the surcharge load above the ⎛ 12f y ψt ψe λ ⎞
ld = ⎜ db
slab and the earth pressure below the slab. For the shear strength, the 25 fc ⎟ (40)
⎝ ⎠
critical section of the toe is at distance dt (X 5 − cc ) away from rear face
of the wall. where db is the diameter of the bar. For the no.7 and larger bars
Moment and shear strength calculations for toe; (db > 19mm):

248
E.N. Kalemci, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 245–253

⎛ 12f y ψt ψe λ ⎞ Table 2
ld = ⎜ db Input Parameters for Example 1.
20 fc . ⎟ (41)
⎝ ⎠
Input parameters Symbol Value Unit
In adding to this ld shall not be less than 300 mm. In this case ψt
Stem height H 3 m
(modification factor for casting location), ψe (modification factor for
Reinforcing steel yield strength fy 400 MPa
development length), λ (factor base on reinforcement coating) are
Concrete compressive strength fc 21 MPa
coefficients which are taken as 1.0.
Concrete cover cc 7 cm
The development length of a standard hook, ldh , defined by code as : Shrinkage and temperature reinforcement percentage ρst 0,002 –
Surcharge load Q 20 kPa
⎛ 0.24f y ⎞ Backfill slope Β 10 °
ldh = ⎜ db
fc ⎟ (42)
Internal friction angle of base soil φbase 0 °
⎝ ⎠ Internal friction angle of retained soil φ 36 °
but ldh shall not be less than the smaller 8db and 150 mm. Unit weight of retained soil γfill 17,5 kN/m3
Unit weight of base soil γbase 18,5 kN/m3
Unit weight of steel Gs 78,5 kN/m3
3. Constrains
Unit weight of concrete γc 23,5 kN/m3
Depth of soil in front of wall D 0,5 m
The possible candidates for solution of the optimization problem Cost of steel CS 0,4 $/kg
must be searched in a confined space. Constrains, which constitute the Cost of concrete CC 40 $/kg
search spaces, were determined for structural and geotechnical design. Factor of safety for overturning stability FSO
design
1,5 –
Factor of safety for sliding FS S 1,5 –
design
3.1. Geotechnical constrains Factor of safety for bearing capacity FS B 1,5 –
design
Cohesion of the base soil cbase 125 kPa
Factor of safety based on stability against slippage, overturning and
bearing capacity failure must be adequate compared to design factor of
safety. Table 3
FSO design The boundaries of design variables for Example 1 (Camp and Akin, [20]).
g (1) = −1≤0
FSO (43) Design variable Unit Lower bound Upper bound

FSS design X1 m 1,3090 2,3333

g (2) = −1≤0 X2 m 0,4363 0,7777
FSS (44) X3 m 0,2000 0,3333
X4 m 0,2000 0,3333
FSB design X5 m 0,2722 0,3333
g (3) = −1≤0
FSB (45) R1 – 1 264
R2 – 1 264
R3 – 1 264

3.2. Structural constrains

X2 + X3
Elements of the retaining wall must meet required conditions for g(21) = −1≤0
X1 (54)
moment and shear capacity, reinforcement.
X6 + X7
Md g(22) = −1≤0
g(5 − 8) = −1≤0 X1 (55)
Mn (46)
and there is a condition about allowable bearing stress for founda-
V tion.
g(9 − 12) = d −1≤0
Vn (47)
g (4) = qmin ≥ 0 (56)
A Smin
g(13 − 16) = −1≤0
As (48) 4. Grey wolf optimization
As
g(17 − 20) = −1≤0 Grey wolves are predators which travel and hunt in packs. Just as
Asmax (49)
every team has a leader, so do wolf packs. Leader named alpha leads the
l dbstem l dhstem pack and makes decisions. Subordinate wolf, beta helps alpha. Omega is
g(23) = − 1 ≤ 0org(23) = −1≤0
X 5 − cc X 5 − cc (50) the lowest rank in the hierarchy. The rest of the wolves of pack are
called delta. Their hunting behavior is the subject of Grey Wolf
l dbtoe 12l dhtoe Optimization (GWO) which proposed by Mirjalili et al. [26].
g(24) = − 1 ≤ 0org(23) = −1≤0
X 1 − X 2 − cc X 5 − cc (51) One of the meta-heuristic optimization techniques, GWO mimics the
l dbheel 12l dhheel social behavior and hunting process of the wolves as steps. According to
g(25) = − 1 ≤ 0org(25) = −1≤0 GWO, the best candidate for solution of the optimization problem is
X 2 + X 3 − cc X 5 − cc (52)
alpha (α). Therefore, beta (β), delta (δ) and omega (ω) are hierarchized
l dbkey l dhkey as candidates. Muro et al. [28] summarized hunting process as follows:
g(26) = − 1 ≤ 0org(26) = −1≤0
X 5 − cc X 5 − cc (53)
• Encircling maneuver around the prey
In this case g(5) , g(9) , g(13) , g(17) , g(23) notations are constraints for
• Pursuing the prey and surrounding it
stem, g(6) , g(10) , g(14) , g(18) , g(24) notations are constraints for toe, g(7) ,
g(11) , g(15) , g(19) , g(25) notations are constraints for heel, g(8) , g(12) , g(16) ,
• Stop pursuing the prey and waiting in ambush until the prey stops
moving
g(20) , g(26) notations are constraints for shear key section.
In addition, there are geometrical constraints as: • Following and capturing the escaped prey
249
E.N. Kalemci, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 245–253

Table 4
Low-weight design variables for Example 1.
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 R1 R2 R3

GWO (This study) 1.80 0.67 0.21 0.20 0.28 82 (28 * 10 mm) 15 (3 * 18 mm) 15 (3 * 18 mm)
SGA 1.71 0.65 0.20 0.20 0.27 77 (27 * 10 mm) 23 (12 * 10 mm) 17 (10 * 10 mm)
BSA 1.71 0.64 0.20 0.20 0.27 77 (27 * 10 mm) 14 (9 * 10 mm) 14 (9 * 10 mm)
BB-BC 1.74 0.65 0.20 0.20 0.27 77 (27 * 10 mm) 17 (10 * 10 mm) 17 (10 * 10 mm)
ISA 1.84 0.75 0.29 0.20 0.27 34 (6 * 16 mm) 15 (3 * 18 mm) 15 (3 * 18 mm)
DE 1.87 0.62 0.29 0.20 0.27 34 (6 * 16 mm) 19 (4 * 16 mm) 16 (5 * 14 mm)
GA 1.91 0.58 0.27 0.20 0.28 40 (17 * 10 mm) 21 (8 * 12 mm) 15 (3 * 18 mm)
BBO 1.84 0.74 0.27 0.20 0.27 37 (16 * 10 mm) 14 (9 * 10 mm) 14 (9 * 10 mm)
ES 1.84 0.69 0.32 0.22 0.28 26 (9 * 12 mm) 22 (6 * 14 mm) 29 (7 * 14 mm)
APSO 1.84 0.57 0.27 0.20 0.27 40 (17 * 10 mm) 28 (13 * 10 mm) 17 (10 * 10 mm)
PSO 1.84 0.74 0.29 0.20 0.27 33 (15 * 10 mm) 14 (9 * 10 mm) 14 (9 * 10 mm)

Table 5 Table 6
Low-weight design final results for Example 1. Input Parameters for Example 2.
Steel Concrete Design Objective (kg/m ) Input Parameters Symbol Value Unit
kg/m m3/m Best Mean
Stem height H 4,5 m
GWO (This study) 94.3013 1.1181 2721.7915 2748.7809 Reinforcing steel yield strength fy 400 MPa
SGA 83.1023 1.0644 2584.46 2589.00 Concrete compressive strength fc 21 MPa
BSA 80.6929 1.0646 2582.2 2582.4 Concrete cover cc 7 cm
BB-BC 82.1383 1.0750 2608.38 – Shrinkage and temperature reinforcement percentage ρst 0,002 –
ISA – – 2665.8027 2677.5681 Surcharge load q 30 kPa
GA – – 2744.8 2850.9 Backfill slope β 0 °
DE – – 2726.5 2851.0 Internal friction angle of retained soil φ 28 °
ES – – 2762.4 2845.0 Unit weight of retained soil γfill 18,5 kN/m3
BBO – – 2665.8 2677.7
Internal friction angle of base soil φbase 34 °
PSO – – 2665.8 2668.3
APSO – – 2668.0 2687.6 Unit weight of concrete γc 23,5 kN/m3
FA – – 2666.5 2673.4 Unit weight of base soil γbase 17 kN/m3
CS – – 2665.8 2665.8 Unit weight of steel Gs 78,5 kN/m3
Depth of soil in front of wall D 0,3 m
Cost of steel CS 0,4 $/kg
Cost of concrete CC 40 $/kg
10000
Factor of safety for overturning stability FSO 1,5 –
design
Factor of safety for sliding FS S 1,5 –
8000 design
–
Weight (kg/m)

Factor of safety for bearing capacity FS B 1,5

design

6000 Cohesion of the base soil cbase 0 kPa

4000
Table 7
The boundaries of design variables for Example 2 (Camp and Akin, [20]).
2000
Design variable Unit Lower bound Upper bound

0 X1 m 1,96 5,5
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 m
X2 0,65 1,16
Iteration X3 m 0,25 0,5
X4 m 0,25 0,5
X5 m 0,4 0,5
Fig. 3. Convergence history for low-weight design for Example 1.
X6 m 1,96 5,5
X7 m 0,20 0,5
X8 m 0,20 0,5
R1 – 1 264
2500 R2 – 1 264
R3 – 1 264
–
Weight (kg/m)

2000 R4 1 264

1500
The mathematical model which represents the encircling process is:
1000 → → → →→ →
X (t + 1) = Xp (t ) − A |C X p (t ) − X (t )| (57)
500 →
where t is the current iteration, x (t + 1) is the next location of the
→ →
wolf, x p (t ) is the location of the prey. A denotes a coefficient factor:
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 →
A = 2→
a r1 − →
a (58)
Run no
→
where a is a vector whose value decreases linearly from 2 to 0 over
Fig. 4. The low-weight design for each run for Example 1. the course of iterations.
→ →
X (t ) indicates the current location of the wolf. C is another

250
E.N. Kalemci, et al. Structures 23 (2020) 245–253

Table 8
Low-weight design variables for Example 2.
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 R1 R2 R3 R4

GWO (This study) 3,21 0,66 0,39 0,25 0,47 2,49 0,20 0,49 140 (19 * 16 mm) 51 (20 * 10 mm) 90 (21 * 12 mm) 5 (4 * 12 mm)
SGA 3,45 0,65 0,41 0,25 0,42 2,23 0,20 0,50 125 (22 * 14 mm) 51(20 * 10 mm) 102(24 * 12 mm) - (27 * 10 mm)
BSA 3,46 0,65 0,41 0,25 0,42 2,72 0,20 0,50 - (30 * 12 mm) 37(16 * 10 mm) 107(25 * 12 mm) 7 (6 * 10 mm)
BB-BC 3.76 0.68 0.41 0.25 0.40 3.22 0.20 0.49 124 (22 * 14 mm) 45 (18 * 10 mm) 116 (20 * 14 mm) 7 (6 * 10 mm)

Table 9 → → → →→ →
X1 = Xα − A1 |C1 X α − X | (60)
Low-weight design final results for Example 2.
→ → → →→ →
Steel Concrete Design objective (kg/m ) X2 = Xβ − A2 |C2 X β − X | (61)
kg/m m3/m Best Mean
→ → → →→ →
X3 = Xδ − A3 |C3 X δ − X | (62)
GWO (This study) 267.1167 3.0840 7514.6204 7606.1421
BB-BC 270.9573 3.087 7525.407 – → → →
SGA 263,1200 3,0552 7442.92 7483.89 → X + X2 + X3
X (t + 1) = 1
BSA 246,0707 3,0561 7428.5 7484.3 3 (63)

The grey wolves do not attack until the prey stop. This deceleration
→ →
10000
of the prey modelled by decreasing the value of a i.e. value of A .
→
|A | < 1 situation forces the wolves to attack towards the prey.
→
8000 |A | > 1 situation forces the wolves to find a better prey.
→
Weight (kg/m)

However, C is another coefficient factor it does not decrease line-

6000 arly it takes random values during all the iteration process. The reason
of this modelling is imitating the nature properly. There are obstacles,
→
4000 which make difficult the hunting process, in the wildlife. The C vector
can encourage the exploration tendency by providing random weights
→
2000 for prey (C > 1).
Like the other population based optimization algorithm, the GWO
0 algorithm used an initial population before the optimization process.
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 This initial population is created at randomly. The pseudo code for the
Iteration
initial population is given below.

Fig. 5. Convergence history for low-weight design for Example 2.

for i=1:PopSize
for j=1:dim
7750 a=ub(j);
b=lb(j);
initial_population (i,j)=rand*(a-b)+b;
7700 end
Weight (kg/m)

end
7650 Where dim, ub, lb and PopSize are the number design variables, upper
bound and lover bound for design variables and the population size,
7600 respectively. rand is a random number ranging from 0 to 1.

7550 5. Numerical examples

7500 Optimum design, which is found by using metaheuristic algorithms,

0 5 10 15 20
Run no
Fig. 6. The low weight design for Example 2.
coefficient factor:
→ ciency of the proposed algorithm. The results were compared with the
C = 2r2
r1 and r2 are random vectors ranging between 0 and 1.
Under normal circumstances, alpha wolf conducts the hunting to-
wards the location of the prey in accompany with beta and delta.
Unfortunately, that location, optimum, is unspecified for an optimiza-
tion problem. Therefore, it is considered alpha is the first, beta is the
second and delta is the third closest searching agents to the optimum
solution. The other agents, which are led by alfa, beta and delta, up-
dates their positions according to the three best candidates. New posi-
tions are formulated as:
25 30 35 may be an approximate result, but may not be the best result of all
candidates. That result will change as long as the program, which is
written in MATLAB, is run. Each example was run 30 times to reach a
better solution. Results were stated as the best and mean values. The
population size and numbers of iterations were selected as 50 and 1000,
respectively.
Two numerical examples were considered for evaluating the effi-
(59)
similar works.
5.1. Example 1
In this case, sum of the weight of the steel and concrete was chosen
as objective function. The RC retaining wall without shear key was
studied. The design parameters, dimensions of the wall, indicated in the
Table 2.
There are five geometrical dimensions of the wall (X1-X5), which
are continuous variables, and three structural variables related to

251
E.N. Kalemci, et al.
reinforcement (R1-R3), which are discrete variables, as indicated in
Table 3. The upper and lower boundaries of design variables were
shown in the Table 3.
Objective function of the design is weight of the structure. Previous
studies considered for comparison based on same boundaries and de-
sign parameters. The best results obtained in this study using GWO and
the results obtained by Lopez [12] according to Search Group Algo-
rithm and Backtracking Search Algorithm (SGA), Camp and Akin [20]
according to Big Bang–Big Crunch Algorithm (BB-BC), Gandomi et al.,
[11] according to Genetic Algorithm (GA), Differential Evolution (DE),
Evolutionary Strategy (ES), Biogeography Based Optimization Algo-
rithm (BBO), Gandomi et al., [13] according to Particle Swarm Opti-
mization (PSO), Accelerated Particle Swarm Optimization (APSO),
Firefly Algorithm (FA), Cuckoo Search Algorithm (CS), Gandomi et al.,
[10] according to Interior Search Algorithm (ISA) were summarized in
Table 4.
As listed in Table 4, similar results were gotten from stated algo-
rithms as design variables. Table 5 shows the best and mean objective
function value for each algorithm. Best objective function,
2721.7915 kg/m, obtained with proposed method is approximately
lighter 0.84% than the design presented by Gandomi et al., [11] ac-
cording to GA, 1.5% lighter than ES, 0.17% lighter than DE. In com-
parison with similarity between results of GWO and the subjected op-
timization algorithms, the difference between them looks insignificant.
Still, it may be mentioned as the design of proposed method approxi-
mately 1.6% heavier than the design of subjected algorithms. Dissim-
ilarity might result from many factors. For instance, the formulations
were not stated clearly in the subjected studies. There may be some
inconsistencies, which effect the results directly, in the formulation
process. Secondly, in this study each example was run 30 times, while
the others were run 100 times. So, it is possible that proposed method
did not reach its best solution among the candidate solutions. Elapsed
time for one run of this example is 269.988677s.
In Fig. 3, convergence history for low-weight design is shown. As
seen from this figure, after initial solution, optimal results for this ex-
ample can be obtained in the iteration number 1000. To show the
convergence of the objective function the developed program was
continued until the maximum iteration number 2000.
Fig. 4 shows the low weight design for each run.
5.2. Example 2
In this case, the RC retaining wall with base shear key was studied
for the same objective function. Cohesionless soil conceived for this
example to design a better structure for long-term. The design para-
meters, dimensions of the wall, indicated in the Table 6.
The upper and lower boundaries were shown in the Table 7. Four
new variables were arisen with the shear key: 3 geometric variables for
the geometrical dimensions of the wall (X1-X8) and one reinforcement
of the shear key (R1-R4).
Previous studies considered for comparison based on same bound-
aries and design parameters. The best results of proposed method
(GWO) and the results obtained by Lopez [12] according to Search
Group Algorithm and Backtracking Search Algorithm (SGA), Camp and
Akin [20] according to, Big Bang–Big Crunch Algorithm (BB-BC) were
indicated in Table 8.
Table 9 shows that similar results were gotten from stated algo-
rithms as design variables. The best and mean objective function value
for each algorithm were indicated in Table 8. Best objective function,
7514.6204 kg/m, obtained with proposed method is lighter 0.14% than
the design presented by Camp and Akin [20] according to BB-BC and
approximately heavier %0.66 the design of subjected algorithms. Dis-
similarity might result from the factors which is mentioned before. The
elapsed time required for one run of this example is 372.074457s.
In Fig. 5, convergence history for low-weight design is shown. As
seen from this figure, after initial solution, optimal results for this
252
Structures 23 (2020) 245–253
example can be obtained in the iteration number 1000. To show the
convergence of the objective function the developed program was
continued until the maximum iteration number 2000.
Fig. 6 shows the low weight design for each run.
6. Conclusions
The RC cantilever retaining wall with the shear key was designed
and analyzed by using the opensource software of GWO algorithm
MATLAB code. One of the metaheuristic algorithms, Grey Wolf
Optimization algorithm proposed by Mirjalili et al. [26]. Because of the
simplicity of the method, mathematical formulations of the design were
coded easily. Low-weight design of the wall was aimed in this study.
Two numerical examples were studied to evaluate the performance of
GWO algorithm. Each problem was executed 30 times. The results were
examined and compared with the similar works. The results were
consistent with the results of the other similar studies. It shows that the
GWO algorithm is a competitive optimization method for a RC canti-
lever retaining wall with the shear key design, obviously.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] J.E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design Ed. Mc Graw Hill, USA, 2002.
[2] Mirjalili S. Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a novel nature-inspired heuristic
paradigm. Knowl. Based Syst. 2015;89:228–49.
[3] Saribas A, Erbatur F. Optimization and sensitivity of retaining structures. J.
Geotech. Eng. 1996;122(8):649–56.
[4] Singla S, Gupta S. Optimization of reinforced concrete retaining walls of varying
heights using relieving platforms. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2015;4(06):1071–7.
[5] U.A. Mahmood, B. Alam, Design optimization of cantilever retaining wall using
direct optimal design simulation, Int. J. Adv. Struct. Geotech. Eng. 4 (4) (2015)
ISSN: 2319-5347.
[6] K.S. Sable, A. Patil Archana, Optimization of retaining wall by using optimtool in
MATLAB, Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. (IJERT) 1 (6) (2012) ISSN: 2278-0181.
[7] M.A. Bhatti, Retaining Wall Design Optimization with MS Excel Solver 2006, 1–15.
10.1061/40878(202)34.
[8] Kaveh A, Soleimani N. CBO and DPSO for optimum design of reinforced concrete
cantilever retaining walls. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2015;16(6):751–74.
[9] Mohammad FA, Ahmed HG. optimum design of reinforced concrete cantilever re-
taining walls according Eurocode 2. Athens J. Technol. Eng. 2018;5(3):277–96.
[10] Gandomi AH, Kashani AR, Zeighami F. Retaining wall optimization using interior
search algorithm with different bound constraint handling. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Meth. Geomech. 2017;41:1304–31.
[11] Gandomi AH, Kashani AR, Roke DA, Mousavi M. Optimization of retaining wall
design using evolutionary algorithms. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 2017;55(3):809.
[12] R. Holdorf Lopez, Optimum project of cantilever retaining wall using search group
algorithm and backtracking search algorithm, Rev. Int. métodos numér. cálc. diseño
ing (2017).
[13] Gandomi AH, Kashani AR, Roke DA, Mousavi M. Optimization of retaining wall
design using recent swarm intelligence techniques. Eng. Struct. 2015;103:72–84.
[14] Aydogdu İ. Cost optimization of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls
under seismic loading using a biogeography-based optimization algorithm with
Levy flights. Eng. Optim. 2017;49(3):381–400.
[15] Kaveh A, Jafarpour Laiden D. Optimal design of reinforced concrete cantilever re-
taining walls using CBO ECBO and VPS algorithms. Asian J. Civil Eng.
2017;18(4):657–71.
[16] Tonne VR, Mohite PM. Optimization and improvement in stability of counterfront
retaining wall with relief shelf. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2015;4(4):447–51.
[17] Molina-Moreno F, García-Segura T, Martí JV, Yepes V. Optimization of buttressed
earth-retaining walls using hybrid harmony search algorithms. Eng. Struct.
2017;134:205–16.
[18] Khajehzadeh M, Taha MR, El-Shafie A, Eslami M. Modified particle swarm opti-
mization for optimum design of spread footing and retaining wall. J. Zhejiang
University-Sci. A 2011;12(6):415–27.
[19] Temur R, Bekdaş G. Teaching learning-based optimization for design of cantilever
retaining walls. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2016;57(4):763–83.
[20] Camp CV, Akin A. Design of retaining walls using big bang-big crunch optimization.
J. Struct. Eng. 2012;138(3):438–48.
[21] Sheikholeslami R, Gholipour Khalili B, Zahrai SM. Optimum cost design of re-
inforced concrete retaining walls using hybrid firefly algorithm. IACSIT Int. J. Eng.
Technol. 2014;6(6):465–70.
E.N. Kalemci, et al.
[22] Sheikholeslami R, Khalili BG, Sadollah A, Kim JH. Optimization of reinforced
concrete retaining walls via hybrid firefly algorithm with upper bound strategy.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2016;20:2428.
[23] M. Ghazavi, B.S. Bonab, Optimization of reinforced concrete retaining walls using
ant colony method, in N. Vogt, B. Schuppener, D. Straub, G. Bräu (Hg.),
Geotechnical Safety and Risk. ISGSR 2011, Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau, Karlsruhe,
2011, pp. 297–305.
[24] Jasim NA, Al-Yaqoobi AM. Optimum design of tied back retaining wall. Open J. Civ.
Eng. 2016;6(2):139–55.
253
Structures 23 (2020) 245–253
[25] Kumar VN, Suribabu CR. Optimal design of cantilever retaining wall using differ-
ential evolution algorithm. Int. J. Optim. Civil Eng. 2017;7(3):433–49.
[26] Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A. Grey Wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw.
2014;69:46–61.
[27] American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary (ACI 318-05), Detroit, 2005.
[28] Muro C, Escobedo R, Spector L, Coppinger RP. Wolf-pack (Canis lupus) hunting
strategies emerge from simple rules in computational simulations. Behav. Process.
2011;88(3):192–7.