International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 5, May 2017, pp. 9991007, Article ID: IJCIET_08_05_107

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=5
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

APPLICATION OF GENETIC ALGORITHM

TECHNIQUE FOR OPTIMIZING DESIGN OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
Sasidhar T
M.Tech Student, Structural Engineering,
VIT University, Vellore, Tamilnadu, India

Neeraja D
Associate Professor, Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering,
VIT University, Vellore, Tamilnadu, India

V Samba Murthy Sudhindra

Senior Engineer in Bridges, HBS Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd,
Hyderabad, Telangana, India

ABSTRACT
Retaining walls are generally used in geotechnical engineering applications such
as bridge abutments supporting deep excavations, tied back retaining wall, etc. The
design of retaining walls is majorly based on thumb rules and the experience of the
designer in taking out initial dimensions and to make necessary checks for complying
against design codes. Most procedures consider cross-section dimensions and
material grades. On the trial and error basis, the conventional procedures lead to
safe designs. But the cost of retaining wall depends on experience of the structural
engineer. Here structural optimization techniques are clear alternative to design
based on experience. Optimum design is a structural synthesis which collects all
engineering aspects to develop structures not only safe but also economic. In the
present study optimum design is performed for cantilever retaining wall of different
heights for various cases using genetic algorithm technique provided with Mat Lab.
Comparisons are made with results obtained from conventional method of retaining
wall design. This justifies the effectiveness and efficiency of genetic algorithm
technique in the optimum design of cantilever retaining wall.
Key words: Retaining walls, Optimization, Genetic Algorithm, Mat lab.
Cite this Article: Sasidhar T, Neeraja D and V Samba Murthy Sudhindra,
Application of Genetic Algorithm Technique for Optimizing Design of Reinforced
Concrete Retaining Wall. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
8(5), 2017, pp. 9991007.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=5

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 999 editor@iaeme.com

 Sasidhar T, Neeraja D and V Samba Murthy Sudhindra

1. INTRODUCTION
Retaining wall is a structural element which is intended to support back fill soils, e.g. support
deep excavations, as abutments of bridge and as anchored retaining wall, etc. Retaining walls
are known to be simplest structures but there design should satisfy some stability
requirements. Those are internal and external stability conditions. First one talks about
structural stability of different parts of retaining wall where as second one gives the wall-soil
interaction after construction will be in equilibrium. While designing a structure, engineers
need to adopt many technological and managerial decisions at different stages. At present the
optimizing design in structural elements mainly follows rules which are formed according to
experience of designer. Most of the designs will be done by assuming cross sectional
dimensions and material grades and then lead to safety design by compiling them with design
code requirements.
In this type of designs optimization techniques are best alternative to designs which
depends on experience. Optimum design is the process of structural synthesis which give
designs not only safe but economical. In any design optimization is done on reliability base or
cost minimization. The constraints are formed by using stability conditions. Mathematically
it is defined as minimization task of constrained function. And it is solved by a method based
on simple mathematical Program. In recent years new developments in numerical methods
has given some optimization techniques which are conceptually different from traditional
methods. These methods are termed as non traditional methods of optimization. These
methods work depending on biological behavior, molecular swarm of insects and system of
neutral biologics.
Genetic algorithm belongs to methods of stochastic search that is formed by natural
biological evolution processes. The primary reason behind use of genetic algorithm is
optimization. This algorithm works on population which belongs to potential solutions by the
application of survival of the fittest principal to produce best solution to a particular problem.
The various stages in genetic algorithm technique are selection, recombination and mutation.
This genetic algorithm Optimum tool of Mat Lab is used for optimizing design of retaining
wall. The optimization mode is combination of design variables and objective function.
Objective function is cost per structure. Results obtained from design of retaining wall using
genetic algorithm are compared with that of obtained from conventional method. The
efficiency and effectiveness of genetic algorithm in optimizing design is studied from the
comparison of results obtained from two methods.

2. LITERATURE ON APPLICATION OF ALGORITHM TECHNIQUE

IN OPTIMIZING DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL
Algorithm techniques are used in optimizing design of many structural elements such as
beams, culverts, girders retaining walls etc. Many studies have been carried out for
comparison with conventional method of design. Some of them are:

2.1. Nabeel A.Jasim et al (2016): Optimum design of tied back retaining wall
Presents an optimization algorithm for the design of tied back retaining wall. The aim of the
study is to find the values of design variables which minimize the cost function subjected to
constraints of the problem. The optimization of such structure is done by using genetic
algorithm optimum tool of Mat lab program.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1000 editor@iaeme.com

 Application of Genetic Algorithm Technique for Optimizing Design of Reinforced Concrete
Retaining Wall

2.2. Amir H.Gandomi et al (2015): Optimization of retaining wall design using

recent swarm intelligence technique
Considered two different bench mark cases. They are particle swarm intelligence algorithm
and classical swarm intelligence algorithm. A code is developed to model retaining wall
design based on ACI 318-05 procedure. In this study continuous variables are used for wall
geometry, discrete variables are used for steel reinforcement to optimize the structural design.

2.3. George papazafeiropoulos et al (2013): Optimum design of cantilever walls

retaining linear elastic backfill by use of genetic algorithm
Optimum design of retaining wall is performed for two heights using numerical two
dimensional simulations and genetic algorithm. Numerical simulations are performed using
the finite element code ABAQUS where as for optimization purposes, the genetic algorithm
provided with MAT LAB is utilized. The results on the optimum solutions are presented and
comparisons are made with corresponding results according to conventional methods.

3. OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT
The objective of study is to study the maximum height of retaining wall with both horizontal
and surcharge load considering optimization as the main factor. Application of genetic
algorithm technique is studied for the optimizing design of reinforced concrete retaining wall.

4. METHODOLOGY
The geometrical parameters like height, width and thickness etc., are considered as design
variables in the analysis.
Genetic algorithm technique is applied to solve the formed constraints (using MAT Lab) such
as factor of safety against overturning and sliding, base soil pressures etc., within the defined
number of trails.
The effectiveness and efficiency of the applied optimization technique can be validated by
comparing the results obtained from conventional design method.
The maximum height and the properties of retaining wall to which genetic algorithm
technique can be applied considering the optimization as the main function is justified.

4.1. Description of Structural Element

In this project, Retaining wall considered is a cantilever type retaining wall. Different cases
have been formed by varying parameters which are involved in the design such as angle of
internal friction, surcharge load, depth of foundation, water table level etc. Each case is tried
for different heights of retaining wall from 3 meters to 10 meters for every 1 meter interval.

Table 1 Description of retaining wall

Parameter Value / Properties
Type of backfill Horizontal backfill with surcharge
Density of soil 20 kN/m3
Angle of repose 300
S.B.C of soil 160 kN/m3
Surcharge load 40 kN/m3
Coefficient friction 0.5

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1001 editor@iaeme.com

 Sasidhar T, Neeraja D and V Samba Murthy Sudhindra

4.2. Optimization Scheme

4.2.1. Design Variables

Figure 1 Design variables in design by using algorithm technique

The above figure 1 shows 8 design variables included in this study. This variables
includes 5 geometrical design variables and 3 reinforcement design variables. The 5 design
variables are Length of base slab(x1), thickness of base slab(x2), top and bottom width of
vertical wall (x3 and x4) and depth of foundation(x5).

4.2.2. Objective Function

Cost function of cantilever retaining wall is considered as objective function. This cost
function includes cost per one cubic meter of concrete and cost of reinforcement per one
linear meter. Remaining things like labour, formwork, material losses etc. are neglected in
order to simplify the analysis.
Volume of concrete per m3 x cost per cubic meter
Fitness function = +
Area of reinforcement per meter x unit weight x cost per kg

4.2.3. Design Constraints

The design of retaining wall should provide safety and stability against failure modes and
satisfy the code requirements. These requirements are used to form the constraint equations in
the design optimization procedure.

Table 2 Failure modes of retaining wall

Failure mode Equation
Sliding failure 1 - (Fr / (Fs x Pa1)) < 0
Overturning failure 1 - (Mr / Mo x Pa2) < 0
Bearing capacity 1 - (qu / (Fb x qapp))<0
Eccentricity of resultant force 1 - (2 x B/ 3 x C) < 0, 1- (3 x C / B) < 0
Minimum area of reinforcement 1 - (Asreq/Asmin)<0
In the above table 2, Fr represents resisting force, Fs represents sliding force, Mr
represents resisting force, Mo represents overturning moment, Pa1 and Pa2 represents factor of

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1002 editor@iaeme.com

 Application of Genetic Algorithm Technique for Optimizing Design of Reinforced Concrete
Retaining Wall

safety values for sliding and overturning respectively, qu represents safe bearing capacity of
soil, qapp is applied load on soil, B represents base slab length, C is distance of resultant force
from toe.

4.2.4. Program for Algorithm

The program for algorithm to solve the created fitness function involves linking of fitness
function, defining number of variables has to be defined, stating lower and upper bound
values, linking of Constraint function and final code for algorithm. The program code for
algorithm is given below.
[X, fval] = ga (objFcn, nvars, [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], LB, UB, consFcn)

Figure 2 Fitness function Figure 3 Constraint function

Figure 4 Program for genetic algorithm

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1003 editor@iaeme.com

 Sasidhar T, Neeraja D and V Samba Murthy Sudhindra

5. RESULTS
5.1. Design of retaining wall by conventional method and optimization technique
In this chapter comparisons of various parameters for the retaining wall by conventional
method and optimization technique method have been done. The results have been shown
both in tabular and graphical form.

Case 1: Angle of Internal Friction

Design by using conventional method

Table 3 Angle of internal friction by conventional method

Angle of Quantity of concrete (m3/m)
internal
friction 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
28o 2.03 2.96 4.16 5.67 9.44 `13.87 19.92 26.03
30o 1.99 2.87 2.87 5.61 8.86 13.46 19.48 25.52
32o 1.94 2.84 2.85 5.58 8.84 13.23 19.12 24.65
34o 1.91 2.82 2.82 5.55 8.89 13.15 18.75 24.05
36o 1.87 2.72 2.72 3.82 8.8 12.74 18.59 23.22

Design by using optimization technique

Table 4 Angle of internal friction by optimization technique

Angle of Quantity of concrete (m3/m)
internal
friction 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
28o 1.86 2.68 4.10 5.60 9.04 13.22 19.12 24.08
30o 1.83 2.64 2.63 5.03 8.06 12.50 18.75 24.30
32o 1.92 2.76 2.73 5.25 8.12 12.61 18.38 24.16
34o 1.77 2.74 2.66 5.42 8.74 12.23 18.08 23.41
36o 1.85 2.72 2.67 3.77 8.71 12.64 18.55 22.94
Tables 3 and 4 shows the quantity of concrete required for different angle of internal
friction and for different heights of wall. From the results obtained from both methods, the
variation in concrete quantity has been noticed.

Case 2: Surcharge Load

Design by using conventional method

Table 5 Surcharge load by conventional method

Surcharge Quantity of concrete (m3/m)

load(kN/m3) 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
0 1.26 1.87 2.76 3.96 7.21 11.11 16.33 22.24
10 1.33 2.08 3.08 4.36 7.65 11.77 17.12 23
20 1.54 2.35 3.37 4.91 8.2 12.22 17.93 23.93
30 1.74 2.65 3.72 5.42 8.91 12.92 18.62 24.89
40 1.99 2.87 4.05 5.61 8.86 13.46 19.48 25.52

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1004 editor@iaeme.com

 Application of Genetic Algorithm Technique for Optimizing Design of Reinforced Concrete
Retaining Wall

Design by using optimization technique

Table 6 Surcharge load by optimization technique

Surcharge Quantity of concrete (m3/m)

load(kN/m3) 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
0 1.22 1.72 2.75 3.88 7.16 10.65 15.97 22.13
10 1.32 2.04 3.02 4.26 7.48 11.63 16.71 22.27
20 1.50 2.25 3.34 4.64 8.11 11.54 17.06 22.97
30 1.58 2.52 3.50 5.03 8.68 12.45 17.32 24.22
40 1.81 2.64 3.71 5.03 8.09 12.50 19.04 24.36
Tables 5 and 6 shows the quantity of concrete required for different surcharge load
conditions and for different heights of wall. From the results obtained from the both methods,
the variation in concrete quantity has been noticed.

Case 3: Water Table Level

Design by using conventional method

Table 7 Water table level by optimization technique

Water table Quantity of concrete(m3/m)

level(m) 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
0 1.99 2.87 4.05 5.61 8.86 11.46 19.48 25.52
of h 1.99 2.87 3.99 5.63 8.86 12.11 19.87 25.98
of h 2.03 2.87 3.99 5.87 8.87 15.09 19.93 26.53
of h 2.09 2.93 3.93 6.07 8.93 15.11 22.01 26.69
h 2.15 2.93 4.14 6.28 8.98 15.27 23.11 27.67

Design by using optimization technique

Table 8 Water table level by optimization technique

Water table Quantity of concrete(m3/m)

level(m) 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
0 1.82 2.59 3.79 5.26 8.20 10.48 17.64 23.39
of h 1.87 2.77 3.78 5.45 8.61 11.32 19.34 25.55
of h 1.97 2.77 3.92 5.62 8.36 14.00 19.06 25.12
of h 2.03 2.88 3.91 5.93 8.85 14.60 21.28 26.29
h 2.13 2.85 4.08 6.17 8.89 14.98 22.02 26.83
Tables 7 and 8 shows the quantity of concrete required for different levels of water table
in backfill soil and for different heights of wall. From the results obtained from the both
methods, the variation in concrete quantity has been noticed. And the variation has been
noticed which is positive.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1005 editor@iaeme.com

 Sasidhar T, Neeraja D and V Samba Murthy Sudhindra

Case 4: Depth of Foundation

Design by using conventional method

Table 9 Depth of foundation by conventional method

Depth of Quantity of concrete (m3/m)

foundation 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
Varying 1.71 2.77 4.66 6.55 10.11 12.71 20.53 25.06
Constant 1.71 2.77 4.66 6.2 9.92 12.43 20.21 23.74

Design by using optimization technique

Table 10 Depth of foundation by optimization technique

Depth of Quantity of concrete (m3/m)

foundation 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
Varying 1.71 2.64 4.43 6.26 9.74 11.97 19.93 24.36
Constant 1.69 2.62 3.98 5.48 9.00 11.18 18.44 22.20
Tables 9 and 10 shows the quantity of concrete required for variation of depth of
foundation and for different heights of wall. From the results obtained from the both methods,
the variation in concrete quantity has been noticed. And the variation has been noticed which
is positive.

Case 5: Grade of Concrete

Design by using conventional method

Table 11 Grade of concrete by conventional method

Grade of Quantity of steel (mm2/m)

concrete 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
M20 2052 3242.7 5006.96 6356.78 6454.74 6963.34 8083.18 9528.12
M25 2045.6 3265.55 4965.15 6323.2 6407.82 6926.99 8047.86 9480.05
M30 2041.18 3215.11 4938.72 6291.31 6377.73 6903.45 7873.75 9450.35

Design by using optimization technique

Table 12 Grade of concrete by optimization technique

Grade of Quantity of steel (mm2/m)

concrete 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m
M20 1963.15 3106.18 4987.43 6323.09 6074.56 6585.93 7516.55 8899.26
M25 2013.07 3190.44 4957.70 6272.61 6157.92 6645.06 7563.38 8733.97
M30 2033.22 3150.49 4755.99 6229.66 6229.66 6592.79 7424.95 8854.98
Tables 11 and 12 shows the quantity of concrete required for different grades of concrete
and for different heights of wall. From the results obtained from the method, the variation in
concrete quantity has been noticed.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1006 editor@iaeme.com

 Application of Genetic Algorithm Technique for Optimizing Design of Reinforced Concrete
Retaining Wall

6. CONCLUSION
Use of genetic algorithm technique in the design of retaining wall has given considerable
percentage of cost optimization in all the cases which are taken for the analysis. This genetic
algorithm technique is found to be useful in the designs where number of trails have to be
done for making it more economical. It requires lower and upper bound values of considered
variables. The range of boundary conditions will alter the objective function value. Hence, the
provision of genetic algorithm technique in the design of retaining wall is advantageous in
optimization of cost. But it is time taking method as it requires new program for every change
properties of retaining wall. There is more scope to work on this modern optimization
technique in the design of structural elements.

REFERENCES
[1] Amir H.Gandomi, Ali R.Kashani, David A. Roke, Mehdi Mousavi (2015), Optimization
of retaining wall design using recent swarm intelligence techniques. Engineering
structures 103(2015): 72-84
[2] C.M.Chan, L.M.Zang, Zenny TM (2016), Optimization of pile group using hybrid genetic
algorithm. Geotechnical Engineering 135(4) :497-405
[3] Charles V.Camp, Alper Akin (2012), Design of retaining wall using big-bang big crunch
optimization, Structural Engineering 2012 ,138(3):438-448
[4] Mathivanan Periasamy, Behavior of Tensile, Flexural and Interlaminar Shear Strength of
Microfilled Aluminium-Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Sandwich Panels, International
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp. 604608
[5] Nabeel A.Jasim, Ahmed M.Al-Yaqoobi (2016), Optimum design of tied back retaining
wall. Engineering structures 7(2016) :139-155
[6] Yaoyao Pei, Yuanyou Xia (2012), Design of reinforced cantilever retaining wall using
Heuristic optimization algorithms. Procedia earth and planetary science 5(2012): 32-36
[7] Sayyad Khaseem Babu, P. Venkata Sarath and P. Polu Raju, Comparative Study on
Compressive and Flexural Strength of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) Using Fly
Ash. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(3), 2017, pp. 1094
1102.
[8] D. Satyanarayana and M. Pramila Devi, Special Heuristics For Flowshop Scheduling
Based on Hybrid Genetic Algorithm Under SDST Environment, International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 327-336

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1007 editor@iaeme.com