Optimization of Pile Groups PDF

DEGREE PROJECT, IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND BRIDGES , SECOND
LEVEL
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2014
Optimization of Pile Groups

A PRACTICAL STUDY USING GENETIC
ALGORITHM AND DIRECT SEARCH WITH
FOUR DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS
ANN BENGTLARS & ERIK VÄLJAMETS
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Optimization
of Pile Groups
A practical study using Genetic Algorithm and Direct
Search with four different objective functions
ANN BENGTLARS
ERIK VÄLJAMETS
Master of Science Thesis

Stockholm, Sweden 2014
TRITA-BKN. Master Thesis 409, 2014 KTH School of ABE
ISSN 1103-4297 SE-100 44 Stockholm
ISRN KTH/BKN/EX--409--SE SWEDEN
© Ann Bengtlars & Erik Väljamets 2014

Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering
Division of Structural Engineering and Bridges
Abstract
Piling is expensive but often necessary when building large structures, for example bridges.
Some pile types, such as steel core piles, are very costly and it is therefore of great interest to
keep the number piles in a pile group to a minimum.
This thesis deals with optimization of pile groups with respect to placement, batter and angle
of rotation in order to minimize the number of piles. A program has been developed, where
two optimization algorithms named Genetic Algorithm and Direct Search, and four objective
functions have been used. These have been tested and compared to find the most suitable for
pile group optimization. Three real cases, two bridge supports and one culvert, have been
studied, using the program.
It has been difficult to draw any clear conclusions since the results have been ambiguous. This
is probably because only three cases have been tested and the results are very problem-
dependent. The outcome depends, for example, on the starting guess and settings for the
optimization. However, the results show that the Genetic Algorithm is somewhat more robust
in its ability to remove piles than Direct Search and is therefore to prefer in pile group
optimization.
Keywords: Pile group optimization, objective functions, Genetic Algorithm, Direct Search, Pattern Search
i
Sammanfattning
Pålning är en dyr men ofta nödvändig åtgärd vid byggande av större konstruktioner såsom
exempelvis broar. Vissa påltyper, såsom stålkärnepålar, är mycket kostsamma och det är
därför av stort intresse att hålla ner antalet pålar i en pålgrupp.
Denna rapport behandlar optimering av pålgrupper med avseende på placering, lutning och
rotationsvinkel med syftet att minimera antalet pålar. Ett program har utvecklats, där två
optimeringsalgoritmer, Genetic Algorithm och Direct Search, samt fyra målfunktioner har
använts. Dessa har testats och jämförts för att hitta de bäst anpassade för pålgruppsoptimering.
Tester med det färdigställda programmet har även utförts på tre olika verkliga fall, två brostöd
och en kulvert.
De erhållna resultaten har varit tvetydiga och några tydliga slutsatser har varit svåra att dra.
Detta kan förklaras av att endast tre fall har studerats och att resultaten är mycket
problemberoende. Resultaten är bland annat beroende av startgissningen och
optimeringsinställningar. Dock visar resultaten att Genetic Algorithm är något mer robust i sin
förmåga att ta bort pålar än Direct Search och är därför att föredra vid pålgruppsoptimering.
Nyckelord: Pålgruppsoptimering, målfunktioner, Genetic Algorithm, Direct Search, Pattern Search
iii
Preface
This thesis has been written for the Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, the
division of Structural Engineering and Bridges at the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH.
First we would like to thank our supervisors Christoffer Svedholm and Majid Solat Yavari for
their support and advice. We would also like to thank our examiner Costin Pacoste who has
been encouraging during the project.
Our gratitude to ELU Konsult AB for the opportunity to carry out the project there, and for
lending us material for our case studies. Thanks to all coworkers at ELU for inspiration and
support.
Finally we would like to give special thanks to Christoffer Svedholm for the great enthusiasm
he has shown and for his help in developing the computer program.
Stockholm, June 2014
Ann Bengtlars & Erik Väljamets
v
Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... i
Sammanfattning ...................................................................................................................... iii
Preface ....................................................................................................................................... v
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... ix
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Previous Studies ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Aim and Scope ........................................................................................................ 3
1.3.1 Aim ............................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Scope .......................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Outline of Thesis ..................................................................................................... 4
2 Theory ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Optimization ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Genetic Algorithm ................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Overview .................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Search method ............................................................................................ 7
2.2.3 Genetic Algorithm in Matlab ..................................................................... 8
2.2.4 Genetic Algorithm for pile group optimization........................................ 11
2.3 Direct Search ......................................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 11
2.3.2 Direct search in Matlab ............................................................................ 12
2.3.3 Direct search for pile group optimization ................................................ 13
2.4 Pile Group Analysis ............................................................................................... 14
2.4.1 Forces and deformations .......................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Resisting earth pressure ............................................................................ 16
2.4.3 Pile centre ................................................................................................. 17
vii
3 Method .......................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Pile Group Optimization Program ......................................................................... 19
3.1.1 General structure ...................................................................................... 19
3.1.2 Variables ................................................................................................... 20
3.1.3 Objective function .................................................................................... 21
3.1.4 Constraints ................................................................................................ 25
4 A Simple Two-variable Optimization ........................................................................ 27

4.1 Method................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Results ................................................................................................................... 30
5 Case Studies .................................................................................................................. 35

5.1 General .................................................................................................................. 35
5.2 Case I - Intermediary Bridge Support A................................................................ 37
5.2.1 Background .............................................................................................. 37
5.2.2 Results ...................................................................................................... 40
5.3 Case II – Culvert .................................................................................................... 48
5.3.1 Background .............................................................................................. 48
5.3.2 Results ...................................................................................................... 50
5.4 Case III – Intermediary Bridge Support B ............................................................ 53
5.4.1 Background .............................................................................................. 53
5.4.2 Results ...................................................................................................... 54
5.5 Summary and Comparison .................................................................................... 58
6 Discussion and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 63

6.1 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 63
6.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 66
6.3 Future Research ..................................................................................................... 66
References ............................................................................................................................... 69
A Number of Piles with Discrete Values ........................................................................ 71
B Load Cases – Support A .............................................................................................. 72
C Pile Groups ................................................................................................................... 75

Case I ............................................................................................................................... 76
Case II .............................................................................................................................. 82
Case III............................................................................................................................. 86
viii
List of Abbreviations
α weight factor
λi Lagrange multiplier estimates, nonnegative and components of vector λ
ρ the positive penalty parameter
ϕj penalty parameter
Aq transformation matrix
ci the nonlinear inequality constraint
ceqi the nonlinear equality constraint
Cq transformation matrix
DX horizontal deformation in x-direction
EI pile bending stiffness
f fitness value
f1-6 forces and moments in pile
fT maximum shear force
fM maximum bending moment
Fq force vector
GA Genetic Algorithm
i number of load combinations
kd modulus of soil reaction
Kq pile stiffness matrix
L length of construction in y-direction
ix
Le buckling length
Nd,max,i maximum design normal force in piles in load combination i
Nd,min,i minimum design normal force in piles in load combination i
Pi ith pile
PCdist,start sum of distances to pile centre in starting guess
PCX x-coordinate of pile centre
PCZ z-coordinate of pile centre
Pq force vector at pile cap origin
PS Pattern Search
R external forces acting on pile cap origin
Rd,c,i design compression capacity of piles in load combination i
Rd,t,i design tension capacity of piles in load combination i
U displacement vector at pile cap origin
S global stiffness matrix of pile group
si nonnegative shifts and components of the vector s
VZ rotation around z-axis
x1-6 displacements and rotations in pile
xint,ij x-coordinate of intersection between line i and j
Xq displacement vector
zint,ij z-coordinate of intersection between line i and j
x
INTRODUCTION. BACKGROUND
Chapter 1
Introduction
This chapter starts with a description of the background of the topic and presents previous
studies made in the area of pile group optimization. The aims and scope of this thesis are then
stated and followed by a brief outline of the report.
1.1 Background
Pile groups are an essential part of many bridge constructions in Sweden. Piling is needed
when the soil beneath the bridge supports is too weak to carry the loads, which is often the
case. Designing a pile group is a difficult and sometimes very time-consuming task. One of
the main reasons is that a pile group has a great number of input parameters and variables.
There are geometric parameters such as the pile cap thickness, pile type and diameter,
location, angle of rotation and batter (slope) of the piles and pile length. Other important
parameters are the pile bearing capacity and external loads. All these parameters can be
combined in an almost infinite number of ways. The larger the pile group is, the more
complex the task becomes.
A designer is always searching for an optimal solution, which usually means the most cost
effective solution. Some pile types are very expensive, costing up to 300.000 SEK per pile.
Therefore, finding a solution with as few piles as possible is often the most cost effective. It is
difficult however for a designer to find an optimal solution when the problem is this complex.
There are no strict rules or guidelines when designing a pile group, instead designers mostly
rely on experience and engineering judgement to establish some of the parameters before
starting the analysis. Today, most pile groups are designed by calculating the section forces
and deformations in the piles for a specific pile group configuration and then slightly
adjusting the configuration and recalculating, until the results are satisfactory. Satisfactory
meaning, for example, that the pile group is able to carry the design loads and that there are as
few piles as possible in the pile group. Even though several of the parameters have been set,
the process of finding a satisfactory solution becomes very iterative.
The iterative process and the large number of parameters makes pile group design an ideal
target for computer optimization. One of the first attempts at pile group optimization using
computers was made in 1981 by James Hill. Since then several more attempts focusing on
1
INTRODUCTION. PREVIOUS STUDIES
different aspects have been made, such as those by Hoback and Truman and Chan et. al.
(1992a) (2009).
This thesis will examine optimization of pile groups. Different optimization algorithms will
be used and compared to develop a computer program that performs the design and
optimization of a pile group with respect to location, batter and angle of rotation. Today there
are computer programs that calculate the forces and deformations in the piles but no programs
that provide a practical design and optimization of pile groups such as the one developed in
this thesis project.
1.2 Previous Studies

As mentioned above, one of the earliest attempts at computerized pile group optimization was
made by Hill (1981). In his report Hill presented a computer program that optimized the
location and batter in order to reduce the cost of the pile foundation. The optimization was
divided into several parts. First the pile cap was divided into a grid where piles were placed at
all grid points and then the optimal batter was calculated. When the optimal batter had been
obtained a search for the optimal spacing was carried out. This was done by a series of
deletion passes where the least or most loaded piles were removed. When a set number of
piles had been removed the spacing was increased. The process was repeated until the least
number of piles possible was found. In the optimization Hill used the Nelder-Mead simplex
method to find the optimal batter. The Nelder-Mead simplex method is a deterministic search
method for unconstrained optimization. Hill transforms the constrained variables from the pile
group optimization to unconstrained variables in order to use the Nelder-Mead method, which
is said to be less time-consuming than methods for constrained optimization.
Hoback and Truman presented two papers where they used the Optimality Criteria to
optimize the weight of steel in pile foundations (1992a) (1992b). The Optimality Criterion is a
numerical gradient-based optimization method, which requires that the problem is modelled
mathematically. In their solution, Hoback and Truman varied the pile diameter and batter.
Hurd and Truman published a similar research where they optimized the weight of steel for
pile foundations varying batter, pile diameter and number of piles using a 3-D computer
program (2006). The optimization was performed using the Optimality Criteria. No details are
given explaining how the computer program works.
The Genetic Algorithm has been used in different forms to optimize pile groups. A hybrid
Genetic Algorithm was used to minimize the material volume of the foundation by mainly
varying the pile diameter (Chan, et al., 2009). Liu et. al. used an Automatic Grouping Genetic
Algorithm to minimize the cost (2012). They varied the pile diameter and the layout of the
pile group. The piles were divided into different modules where all the piles had the same
characteristics.
Another example of pile optimization was performed by Kim et. al., who used recursive
quadratic programming to minimize differential settlements in a piled raft foundation (2001).
Hwang et. al. used a discrete Lagrange multiplier method to minimize the construction cost of
a bridge foundation (2011). There are two examples of pile foundation optimization where
only pile length is varied in order to minimize differential settlements of the pile cap. (Chow
2
INTRODUCTION. AIM AND SCOPE
& Thevendran, 1987) (Leung, et al., 2010). Similar to Hill, Chow and Thevendran used a
direct search method for unconstrained optimization, transforming their variables from
constrained to unconstrained, however using a different method of transformation.
Several articles have been published where different global optimization algorithms are used
to optimize piled grillage foundations (Šešok, et al., 2010) (Belevičius & Šešok, 2008)
(Belevičius, et al., 2011). They focus on the optimization methods Genetic Algorithm and
Simulated Annealing. Belevičius et al. compared seven different algorithms and found that for
grillages Simulated Annealing, Genetic Algorithm and the NEWUOA-algorithm were the
best suited (2011).
Several of the authors mentioned above have based their optimization programs on the current
national design codes. This allows for a more complete design tool, but limits the use of the
program to those specific codes. The program developed in this thesis project is based on
basic structural mechanics and does not depend on design codes, which makes it a more
general tool and will not need updating if the codes are changed.
1.3 Aim and Scope
1.3.1 Aim
In this master thesis project a computer program will be developed that can design a pile
group that is optimized with respect to certain parameters. These parameters are the
coordinates in the horizontal plane, angle of rotation, batter and number of piles. Using this
program, two main issues will be investigated.
The first issue concerns the optimization algorithm. The two different optimization algorithms
Genetic Algorithm and Direct Search will be compared to find out which one is most suitable
for the task of optimizing a pile group.
The second issue is the objective function of the algorithms. An objective function is the
function that is optimized by the optimization algorithm and is the foundation for the
optimization. Four different objective functions have been formulated and will be compared
to see which is the most suitable for this problem.
To conclude, this thesis will answer the following two questions. Which optimization
algorithm in this thesis is the most suitable for optimizing pile groups? Which objective
function gives the best results in pile group optimization? The answers to these questions will
aid in the development of a program for practical optimization of pile groups, which is the
final aim of the thesis.
1.3.2 Scope
The thesis project will mainly focus on infrastructure foundations with end-bearing piles only.
The optimization will be carried out in the programming language Matlab using two different
3
INTRODUCTION. OUTLINE OF THESIS
algorithms, Genetic Algorithm and a type of Direct Search called Pattern Search. These
algorithms are available in the Matlab optimization toolbox. An external program will be used
to analyse the structural mechanics of the pile groups, i.e. no calculations on pile forces and
deformations will be performed in the scope of the thesis project. The variables that will be
used in the optimization are coordinates in the horizontal plane, angle, batter and number of
piles.
To improve the possibility of receiving good and usable results, some restrictions and
limitations have been set up. Pile type, pile length, thickness of slab and economics in the
form of prices of steel and concrete are not optimized. Including all of these parameters in the
optimization would have made the problem too complex and too large to fit into the time
frame of the thesis work. Even though the parameters pile type, pile length and the thickness
of the slab are not optimized, they are still part of the optimization as constant parameters.
The designer using the program will be able to define what type of pile or thickness of slab
that is to be used in the current solution.
Constraints are needed to ensure that the pile group obtained from the optimization works in
practice. The following constraints are taken into account in the program; pile capacity,
distance between piles, distance between piles and the edge of the slab, deformations and
moment capacity.
The optimization program will be tested on three different cases. To make the testing of the
algorithms and objective functions as general as possible, these cases are different in type,
size, number of piles, pile type and loading.
1.4 Outline of Thesis

This thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the topic and gives an overview of
previous studies. The aims and scope of the thesis are also stated here. In chapter 2 a
theoretical description of the optimization algorithms are presented. Here the Genetic
Algorithm and Direct Search methods are explained in detail. The theory of pile group
analysis is also described. Chapter 3 presents the structure of the optimization program.
Chapter 4 presents a simple two-variable optimization in order to study the algorithms.
Chapter 5 deals with the three case studies. Chapter 6 discusses the results and draws
conclusions. Future research is also proposed in the final chapter.
4
THEORY. OPTIMIZATION
Chapter 2
Theory
Chapter 2 starts with an overview of optimization and optimization methods in general and
motivates the choice of optimization algorithms used in the thesis. Further, the two algorithms
chosen are presented and explained in detail. Finally, the theory of pile group analysis used
for the program is described.
2.1 Optimization
Optimization is the process of searching for the optimal value of a function. The optimal
value can be a maximum or a minimum value, a local extreme point or a global extreme
point. A function can have only one optimum or many, depending on the type of function.
There are a large number of different search methods and different ways to categorize them.
One way is to divide methods into local and global optimization methods, aiming at finding
either local or global optima. In a book on the Genetic Algorithm, the author Goldberg
mentions three main types of traditional search methods, namely: calculus-based, enumerative
and random search methods (1989). The calculus-based methods are, as the name suggests,
based on classic calculus. The idea of the enumerative search methods is to search the whole
function space one point at a time. These methods are very time consuming and are not
practical in the case of pile group optimization, since the number of variables and the function
space is to large. The random search methods search the function space at total random and
are, similar to the enumerative methods, too inefficient to work for larger problems. Apart
from these, there are natural algorithms, such as the Genetic Algorithm, which is discussed
further on.
Search methods can also be divided into gradient- and non-gradient-based depending on
whether they use the derivatives of the objective function. The gradient- or calculus-based
methods are either direct or indirect (Goldberg, 1989). The indirect methods solve a system of
equations based on the fact that the derivative is equal to zero at an extreme point. The direct
method uses the concept of “hill climbing” moving in the direction of the steepest gradient to
find an extreme point. The gradient-based methods are all local optimization methods, since
they only find local optima.
5
THEORY. OPTIMIZATION
The non-gradient-based methods are usually global optimization methods. They can be
divided into deterministic and stochastic methods (Zabinsky, 1998). The stochastic methods
use some form of randomness to aid the search while the deterministic methods use a
predetermined procedure, which results in the same solution every time. Some search
methods are capable of handling discrete values and others are restricted to continuous values.
Figure 1 below describes one example of how Genetic Algorithm and Pattern Search can be
categorized. Pattern Search can be either deterministic or stochastic depending on the poll
method used.
Gradient-based
(local) Deterministic Pattern Search
Optimization
algorithms Non-gradient-
based (usually
global) Pattern Search
Stochastic
Genetic
Algorithm
Figure 1 – One example of categorization of algorithms.
An optimization problem always needs an objective function, in Genetic Algorithm called the
fitness function, stating what is to be optimized (Pedregal, 2004). It also needs a clear
definition of constraints and boundaries that limit the variables and the objective function
itself.
For the problem of pile group optimization an algorithm is required that can handle non-linear
constraints and a large number of variables. A non-gradient-based algorithm is preferable
since the function space is non-smooth and the objective function cannot be modelled
mathematically. It would be possible to use a gradient-based algorithm that approximates the
derivatives, but this approximation can lead to errors such as loss of accuracy (Powell, 1998).
The algorithm needs to be robust and efficient, since the problem includes many parameters
and variables and uses a “black box” function. It is also favourable if the algorithm can handle
discrete values, since all variables in a pile group are discrete in practice. Even though it is
possible to calculate the coordinate of piles down to the last millimetre, the limited accuracy
when constructing makes this impossible to carry out. To reduce the risk of error when
constructing, it is also good to keep the coordinates as even as possible and to keep the
number of different angles to a minimum.
Table 1 shows the different algorithms available in the Matlab global optimization toolbox.
Simulated Annealing is a powerful optimization algorithm, which would have been a good
6
THEORY. GENETIC ALGORITHM
option if it was capable of handling nonlinear constraints. There are two algorithms that fulfil
all the requirements above, namely the Genetic Algorithm and Pattern Search. That is why
they were chosen for this project.
Table 1 - The different algorithms available in Matlab optimization toolbox (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013).
Smooth objective function Non-smooth objective function
Linear constraints or Global Search, MultiStart Simulated Annealing

bounds only
All types of constraints Pattern Search, Genetic Pattern Search, Genetic Algorithm
Algorithm
2.2 Genetic Algorithm
2.2.1 Overview
One of the algorithms chosen for this thesis is the Genetic Algorithm (GA). The GA was
developed by John Holland and his colleagues and students at the University of Michigan
(Goldberg, 1989). The original aim was to create a search method that was more robust than
traditional methods at the time. Inspiration was taken from nature and Darwin’s theory of
evolution and survival of the fittest. It has since then been proved both theoretically and
empirically to be a robust algorithm even in complex problems. In engineering problems one
is often searching for a solution that is good enough within the available time-frame and not
the best possible solution. This fits well with what Goldberg writes: The most important goal
of optimization is improvement and It would be nice to be perfect: meanwhile, we can only
strive to improve. This is one of the GA’s strong points.
The GA is a non-gradient-based global optimization algorithm (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013)

(Goldberg, 1989). This means that GA can treat problems that are not clearly mathematically
defined and thus have no derivatives. GA only uses the value of the objective function or
fitness function called the fitness value.
2.2.2 Search method
When optimizing, GA starts by creating a set of starting points. In GA-terminology this is

called a population of individuals (Goldberg, 1989). This is as opposed to other search
methods that operate on a single point. From the initial population, individuals, or parents are
chosen and are combined to make children or new individuals for the next generation. The
choice of parents is based on the fitness values of the individuals. In a simple Genetic
Algorithm, the next generation of individuals is created in three different ways, namely
reproduction, crossover and mutation, see Figure 2 in section 2.2.3. These three operators are
simple in themselves but combined they make a powerful tool for searching through large
complex spaces.
7
Reproduction, sometimes also called selection, is the process of selecting individuals and
placing them in a mating pool (Goldberg, 1989) (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013). This can be
done in many different ways. Goldberg describes the roulette process where individuals are
given a probability of being selected based on their fitness values, higher fitness value means
higher probability of being placed in the mating pool (1989).
Crossover means that parents in the mating pool are combined to produce children for the
next generation (Goldberg, 1989). The combination is done by randomly exchanging parts of
the individuals to create new ones.
A mutation is a random change of an individual that is passed on to the next generation

(Goldberg, 1989). Mutation is described by Goldberg to be a secondary mechanism of
evolution, compared to reproduction and crossover which are primary mechanisms. It is, all
the same a necessary mechanism that prevents valuable genetic material from being lost.
2.2.3 Genetic Algorithm in Matlab
In Matlab a special version of the reproduction operation, called elite children, is available
(The MathWorks, Inc., 2013). Elite children are individuals with the best fitness values that
are sent directly to the next generation without undergoing any changes. This ensures that the
best fitness values are preserved and not left behind. Apart from the elite children, the rest of
the new population is created by crossover and mutation, as described in Figure 2. The ratio
between mutation and crossover and the number of elite children can be specified in the
algorithm.
Elite child
Crossover child
Mutation child
Figure 2 - The three different operators, reproduction in the form of elite children, crossover and mutation (The
MathWorks, Inc., 2013).
Figure 3 shows a short example, illustrating how GA works. Suppose that one is searching for
the optimal combination of patterns on a square. There are three different patterns: stripes,
grid pattern and dots. A square is divided in two parts, which can have any of the three
patterns. Suppose that each combination of patterns scores a certain number of points,
representing a fitness value that one wants to minimize. There are nine different
combinations, which are shown in Figure 3, together with their respective fitness values.
8
The population size is then set to three and three random squares are chosen to be the starting
guess for the optimization. The fitness values of these squares are calculated before starting
the creation of the next generation. Each new individual will be created using a one of the
three operators described above. First of all the square with the lowest fitness value is sent
directly to the next generation as the elite child. Secondly, two of the squares are combined to
form a crossover child. Finally, one of the squares randomly changes one of its patterns to
form a new mutation child. The fitness values of the new generation are calculated and the
process is repeated. Since this is a simple example, the optimal solution is found already in
generation two.
Possible combinations and

their fitness values
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
3 8 4 Starting Guess
Elite child Crossover child Mutation child
3 8 2 Generation 1
Elite child Crossover child Mutation child
2 1 9 Generation 2
Figure 3 - Example showing how Genetic Algorithm works.

In a case with more variables and a larger population, individuals with lower fitness values
have a higher probability of being chosen to become a parent of crossover children. This
means that better genes, or combinations of patterns, are carried on, while weaker ones are
left behind. The mutation operator minimizes the risk of completely losing valuable genetic
material and can diversify the search by finding new combinations, such as the dotted pattern
in the example above.
9
The Genetic Algorithm in Matlab can handle both continuous and discrete values of its
variables. Using discrete variables is preferable since it makes the algorithm more time
efficient and narrows down the number of possible solutions.
Constraints
GA handles all types of constraints, such as linear and nonlinear equalities and in-equalities. It
also handles bounds, which can be applied to the variables as lower and upper bounds. In a
practical problem such as a pile group all variables need to have defined bounds. In the pile
group optimization program only bounds and nonlinear inequality constraints are used,
therefore only these are described further. The nonlinear inequality constraints are in the form
c ≤ 0, where c is a vector containing all the different constraints. The constraints used are
presented further in section 3.1.4. The bounds are in the form ub ≤ x ≤ lb, where x is the
variable and lb and ub are the lower and upper bounds.
Nonlinear constraints are handled in two different ways depending on whether using discrete
variables or not. When using continuous variables only GA uses the Augmented Lagrangian
Genetic Algorithm (ALGA) (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013). ALGA formulates a subproblem
where the fitness function and nonlinear constraints are combined using the Lagrangian and
the penalty parameter.
Equation (2.1) defines a subproblem as:
Θ , , , = − log − + +
2
(2.1)
GA minimizes a subproblem until a required accuracy is achieved and the feasibility

conditions are satisfied (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013). Then the Lagrangian estimates are
updated and a new subproblem is formulated. This process is repeated until the stopping
criteria are met. The structure of subproblems increases the number of function evaluations
per generation significantly compared to when using only linear constraints. If no solution is
found, the penalty parameter is increased by a penalty factor and a new subproblem is
formulated.
If any of the variables in the optimization have been defined as discrete a different method for
handling the nonlinear constraints is used. GA then substitutes the fitness function for a
penalty function (Deep, et al., 2009). Equation (2.2) describes the fitness function for an
individual.
! , ! $ %&
! ="
'()* + +,- ! + , . ℎ 01
(2.2)
-
This means that when Xi fulfils the constraints, its fitness value is equal the value of the
objective function f (Deep, et al., 2009). Otherwise, the fitness value is the sum of the worst
feasible fitness value in the population and a penalty parameter, which is connected to the
inequality constraints.
10
THEORY. DIRECT SEARCH
2.2.4 Genetic Algorithm for pile group optimization
There are several reasons for using the Genetic Algorithm in pile group optimization. It is an
algorithm that handles non-linear problems well, since it is non-gradient-based and the
problem of pile group optimization is definitely nonlinear. It has also been used several times
before in earlier attempts at pile group optimization such as those by Liu et. al. and Chan et.
al. (2012) (2009). In Chan et. al. it is stated that GAs are suitable for pile group optimization
since they have many variables that are discrete in nature and the objective function cannot be
modelled mathematically (2009).
GA has several advantages. One is its robustness, which allows it to be applicable in many
types of problems, including complex pile groups with a large number of variables (Goldberg,
1989). The fact that GA operates on a population of points instead of a single point widens the
search area and reduces the possibility of finding a local optimum instead of the global.
There are a few downsides with GA. In some cases when working with complex models and
when many generations are needed to reach a good result the calculations can become
computationally costly, especially if evaluation of the objective function is time-consuming
(Javadi, et al., 2005). The GA can also experience convergence problems in cases where the
crossover function is too effective and all individuals become the same. The GA then risks
getting stuck without finding the optimal solution. Since the GA is specialized at finding
global optima, it can have difficulties finding local optima (Chan, et al., 2009). To
compensate for these shortcomings attempts have been made to combine GA with other
search methods, forming hybrid Genetic Algorithms (Chan, et al., 2009) (Javadi, et al., 2005).
It is possible to combine GA with other algorithms in Matlab to form hybrids, however this
has not be done in this thesis.
As mentioned above, GA only uses the values of the objective function without having any
knowledge about the function itself. Goldberg describes it as being blind (1989). In
engineering problems the objective function often acts as a “black box” (Zabinsky, 1998). In
this thesis project the analysis of the pile groups has been performed using an external
program, functioning as a black box. Therefore, GA is well suited for the optimization task in
this project.
2.3 Direct Search
2.3.1 Overview
Direct Search is a method for optimization available in Matlab. The term is, however not
clearly defined and is sometimes used as a general expression for all non-gradient-based
search methods (Kolda, et al., 2003). According to Kolda et. al. the term originally refers to
the method presented by Hooke and Jeeves. Hooke and Jeeves describe the Direct Search as
a: sequential examination of trial solutions involving comparison of each trial solution with
the "best" obtained up to that time together with a strategy for determining (as a function of
earlier results) what the next trial solution will be (1961).
11
Since the definition from Hooke and Jeeves is quite general, many algorithms today fall under
this category. Powell published a paper describing seven different algorithms, all under the
title of Direct Search (1998). Storn and Price even categorize the Genetic Algorithm as a
Direct Search method (1997). In this thesis project the Direct Search method used is the one
available in the Matlab Global optimization toolbox and is described below.
2.3.2 Direct search in Matlab
In Matlab the Direct Search method is a non-gradient-based method, which operates from a
single point (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013). Direct Search uses three different Pattern Search
algorithms. The algorithms create a mesh of points around the current point. The mesh is
created by adding the current point to a set of vectors, called pattern, multiplied by a scalar.
Then the algorithm searches through the mesh point-by-point to find a point where the
objective function has a better value. When a point with a better function value is found, this
point becomes the current point at the next iteration.
The search through the mesh is called polling and the three different algorithms are the
Generalized Pattern Search (GPS), the Generating Set Search (GSS) and the Mesh Adaptive
Search (MADS) (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013). These three polling methods differ in the way
the pattern vectors are created and chosen. GPS and GSS are deterministic methods, while
MADS is a stochastic method. If the polling is successful, a point with a better function value
is found, the mesh size expands. If it the polling on the other hand is unsuccessful, the mesh
size shrinks.
In Pattern Search (PS), a search can also be used (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013). A search is an
algorithm that runs before the poll, aiming to find a point better than the current point. If the
search finds a better point with lower function value no polling is made that iteration.
Different search types can be chosen in Matlab, including the three different polling methods
presented earlier. However, since the search runs before the poll a search can be comparable
to using a different starting guess. Figure 4 below describes how the algorithm works with the
help of a flow chart.
12
Start
Stop
Yes
Update
current Done?
point
No
Yes Search
Search
enabled?
No
Yes No
Success? Poll
Yes No
Expand mesh Success? Refine mesh
Figure 4 - Flow chart describing how Pattern Search works (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013).
Pattern Search can only handle continuous values of its variables. This is a minus because by
using continuous values, the algorithm risks being less time efficient, since the search area
will become infinitely large.
Constraints
Pattern Search can handle the same types of constraints as GA such as bounds and linear and
nonlinear constraints (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013). Since Pattern Search only uses
continuous values for its variables it uses only the Augmented Lagrangian to solve the
nonlinear constraints, as described above in section 2.2.3.
2.3.3 Direct search for pile group optimization
No earlier published work on pile group optimization using Direct Search, as defined here,
has been found. However, there are several reasons to try. Pattern Search meets all the criteria
13
THEORY. PILE GROUP ANALYSIS
mentioned in section 2.1 and the MADS-method is stochastic, which should make it suitable
for black-box objective functions as suggested by Zabinsky (1998). Since Pattern Search only
operates on one point at a time, it might also be more time efficient than the GA, despite only
being able to handle continuous variables.
2.4 Pile Group Analysis

The pile group optimization program uses an external program to analyse the pile groups. The
external program calculates normal forces and deformations in the piles, based on input data
given by the designer. It is used as a black box, where data is given as input and results come
out with no attention given to the process in between. To calculate the forces and
deformations in the piles the external program uses a method specified by the Swedish
Commission on Pile Research in a report from 1978 (Bredenberg & Broms). A summary of
the method is presented below, where all equations and derivations are taken from that report.
2.4.1 Forces and deformations
The method presupposes a rigid pile cap and linear elastic conditions. All coordinate systems
are orthogonal and are defined using the right-hand rule. The forces and deformations in a
single pile are calculated by assembling a stiffness matrix for that pile. A coordinate system 1-
2-3 is defined at the head of the pile with direction 3 along the length of the pile. The forces,
moments, rotations and translations are shown in Figure 5.
f3
x3
f6
x6
x4
f2 x5
f1 f4 x1
f5
x2
Figure 5 - Forces, moments, translations and rotations at pile head (Bredenberg & Broms, 1978).
The relationship between the forces and displacements is described by equation (2.3).
23 = 45 !3 (2.3)
Where Fq is the force vector, Xq is the displacement vector and Kq is the stiffness matrix as
shown below.
14
() ( ) ()
f1 k11 0 0 0 k15 0 x1
f2 0 k22 0 k24 0 0 x2
f3 0 0 k33 0 0 0 x3
Fq = Kq = Xq =
f4 0 k42 0 k44 0 0 x4
f5 k51 0 0 0 k55 0 x5
f6 0 0 0 0 0 k66 x6
A new coordinate system is defined which is parallel to the one of the pile cap. Fq and Xq can
be transformed into this system using a transformation matrix Aq defined as:
( )
cos( β) cos( α) −sin( α) sin( β) cos( α)
Aq =
( )
A' 0
0 A'
where, A' = cos( β) sin( α) cos( α)
−sin( β) 0
sin( β) sin( α)
cos( β)
and α is the direction of the horizontal projection of the pile and β is the angle between the
pile and the vertical plane.
( )
The pile forces and displacements can now be transformed again to the coordinate system of
the pile cap using a transformation matrix Cq.
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
Cq = 0 −z3 z2 m 0 0
z3 0 −z1 0 m 0
−z2 z1 0 0 0 m
Where z1-3 are the pile coordinates in the pile cap coordinate system and m states whether the
piles are fixed or hinged at the connection with the pile cap, m=0 for hinged and m=1 for
fixed connection.
The force vector in the pile head, Fq, is at equilibrium with a force vector at the pile cap
origin, Pq. This gives equation (2.4):
63 = 75 85 23 (2.4)
The displacements at the pile head can be expressed as in equation (2.5):
!3 = 85 9 75 9 : (2.5)
15
where U is the displacement vector at the pile cap origin.
The external forces, R, acting on the pile cap origin are equal to the sum of all the pile forces
Pq. See equation (2.6).
<
;= 63 (2.6)
3
where n is the number of piles.
The relationship between the forces and movements of the pile cap can be expressed as in
equation (2.7):
; = =: (2.7)
where S is the global stiffness matrix assembled from all the individual piles.
By combining equations (2.3) and (2.5) the pile forces can be calculated. This is shown in
equation (2.8).
23 = 45 85 9 75 9 : (2.8)
2.4.2 Resisting earth pressure
In some cases it is necessary to take into account a resisting earth pressure on the piles. This
can greatly reduce the normal forces but requires that shear forces and moments in the piles
are calculated.
Calculating the maximum shear force, fT, in a pile is done by combining the shear forces f1
and f2 obtained from equation (2.8) using equation (2.9).
> =? + (2.9)
The maximum bending moment, fM, in a pile is dependent on the connection type between the
pile and pile cap. If the connection is pinned the moment depends on the soil type and the
modulus of soil reaction. For cohesion soil the maximum moment occurs 0.8Le below ground
level and is determined by equation (2.10)
@ = 0.32 > DE (2.10)
where Le is the buckling length of a beam supported by a Winkler bed, calculated in equation
(2.11).
DE = ? IJ
K FGH
(2.11)
16
In which kd is the modulus of soil reaction and EI is the pile bending stiffness.
If the connection between pile and pile cap is fixed the maximum moment, fM, occurs at the
connection and is calculated by combining the bending moments f4 and f5 using equation
(2.12).
@ =? F + L
(2.12)
2.4.3 Pile centre
The pile centre is a geometrical entity, which can help guide the designer when trying to find
a solution to a pile group. It is common practice, when designing pile groups, to use the 2D-
pile centre. The pile centre is then considered in two orthogonal planes, usually the transversal
and longitudinal directions of the pile cap and is defined as follows. For the 2D-case, if the
stiffness matrix of the pile group is assembled in a coordinate system, which has its origin in
the pile centre and the correct orientation, then all three rows in the stiffness matrix are
independent as can be seen in equation (2.13) (Samuelsson & Wiberg, 1995). If only the
position of the pile centre is considered then the rotation is independent of the translations, as
in equation (2.14).
( ) ( )( )
f1 x1
k 0 0
f3 = 0 k 0 x3 (2.13)
f4 0 0 k
x4
( ) ( )( )
f1 x1
k k 0
f3 = k k 0 x3 (2.14)
f4 0 0 k
x4
When designing a pile group it is favourable to try to place the piles such that most of the
applied loads act as close to the pile centre as possible, see Figure 6 below. This is because a
load that acts through the pile centre only gives rise to a displacement in the pile group.
Having loads that act close to the pile centre reduces the moments in the pile group and
thereby the normal forces in the piles.
17
Force lines and pile centre ZX

15
Pile centre
10
Z [m]
−5
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
X [m]
Figure 6 - Example showing the pile centre and force lines from the applied loads in one direction.
18
METHOD. PILE GROUP OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM
Chapter 3
Method
The Method chapter presents the pile group optimization program. All the objective functions
tested are also described in detail.
3.1 Pile Group Optimization Program
3.1.1 General structure
The pile group optimization program is built around the optimization algorithm. First, the
program needs a starting guess, supplied by the designer, to begin the optimization. The
starting guess can be anything from a wild guess to a pile group that has already been
analysed. One of the main concepts of the program is to remove piles to find a pile group with
as few piles as possible. The program can remove piles but never add more piles than there
are in the starting guess. The designer is able to choose the piles that can be removed from the
starting guess.
Another main concept of the program is instructions. The designer defines instructions that
describe in which way the pile variables are to vary. Instructions can be given to single piles
or sets of piles for the coordinates in the horizontal plane, the batter and angle of rotation.
Figure 7 shows the definition of the angle of rotation and batter for a pile. Since instructions
can be given to sets of piles the program can keep piles in straight rows and columns with a
certain relative distance between themselves. The program can also be instructed to keep the
pile group double or single symmetric. If the solution is to be symmetric, only part of the pile
group needs to be supplied as input, the rest is created by a mirroring function in the program.
This means, if the pile group is to be double symmetric, only one quarter of the pile group is
given as input. Symmetric pile groups are desirable since it reduces the risk for errors during
construction.
19
y
x
Angle of rotation [°]
Batter [N:1]
Pile
Figure 7 - Angle of rotation and batter of piles.

The program consists mainly of a function that receives the starting guess with instructions
and converts them into input data for the optimization algorithm, an objective function and a
nonlinear constraints function. The objective function calculates the function that is to be
optimized and the nonlinear constraints function handles all the constraints and limits of the
optimization. After the optimization the best pile group is saved and can be used as a new
starting guess or as a final solution.
3.1.2 Variables
The variables in the optimization depend on the instructions given by the designer. If the
designer only gives instructions concerning the angle of rotation of the piles, the variables in
the optimization will be only the angle of rotation. The more instructions that are given, the
more variables are in the optimization. Since every single pile can be given these instructions,
the number of variables will most likely increase significantly with increasing number of
piles.
It is possible to give any number of instructions to a pile group as long as the instructions do
not contradict each other. Defining sets of piles and giving instructions to them is a way to
reduce variables since all the piles in a set, for a given instruction, are represented by one
variable. When using the number of piles as the objective function another set of variables is
added as described below.
When using PS and Number of piles with GA, continuous variables are used. Since the
variables need to be discrete in order to follow the instructions, they are converted. This
conversion is done before evaluating the fitness values and nonlinear constraints.
20
3.1.3 Objective function
Four different types of objective functions have been tested for the optimization program.
Three of them concern pile forces and are therefore similar. The other is the number of piles,
which differs in several ways. The largest difference is the way in which piles are removed
and the type of variables used. When the objective function is the number of piles, piles are
removed directly by the algorithm and in this implementation, all variables are continuous. In
the other three cases, the algorithm searches for a solution that satisfies the constraints. When
a solution is found, the least compressed pile is removed. The program continues to remove
the least compressed pile until the pile capacities are exceeded, then the algorithm starts over
to find a solution with the new number of piles. For GA, the variables in these three cases are
discrete. The four objective functions are described in detail below.
Force capacity ratio
The first objective function uses the ratio between the compression and tension normal forces
and the pile capacities and is a measure of utilization. The maximum and minimum forces are
normalized with respect to their capacities in order to obtain a more even weighting between
them. The tension ratio is only used if the minimum force in the pile group is a tension force,
i.e. is negative. The sum of the force ratios is used to prevent the algorithm from being stuck
with to low or to high forces in the piles. If the tension capacity is close or equal to zero, ten
percent of the compression capacity is used instead to stop the second term going towards
infinity. Equation (3.1) shows the definition of the force capacity ratio objective function, or
Force ratio.
S S
P Q$ R J, TU, W + Q$ RX J, <, XW , ;J, , < −1 $ [ SJ, <, < 0
N ;J,V, ;J, ,
N
SJ, TU, +SJ, <, +
= Q$ R W + Q$ R W, ;J, , > −1 $ [ SJ, <, < 0
O ;J,V, 0.1 ∗ ;J,V,
(3.1)
N
N Q$ RSJ, TU, W , S
J, <, > 0
M ;J,V,
Figure 8 shows a plot of the fitness function. The capacities have been set to ± 1000 kN and
the maximum normal force varies from 0 to 200 kN while the minimum normal force varies
from -100 to 100 kN. It is clear that the function will strive to minimize both forces, without
getting any tension and the minimum value is where both forces are zero.
21
0.3
0.25
0.35
0.2
0.3
0.25
0.15
f [-] 0.2
0.15
0.1
0.1 200
150
0.05 0.05
100
0
100 50 Nmax [kN]
50
0 0
−50 0
Nmin [kN] −100
Figure 8 - Fitness function of the objective Force ratio.
Force difference
The second objective function, called the Force difference, gives the absolute value of the
difference between the maximum pile force and the minimum force. This gives a measure of
the distribution of forces in the pile group. A large difference between the maximum and
minimum forces gives a high function value and vice versa. Equation (3.2) shows the
definition of the function.
= Q$ S TU, −Q S <, (3.2)
Figure 9 shows a plot of the Force difference function. The forces vary in the same span as in
Figure 8. This function surface differs from the Force ratio function since it has its minimum
value along a line where the maximum and minimum forces are positive and equal. The
function will strive to lower the maximum forces, get rid of tension forces and keep the
difference between the maximum and minimum forces as small as possible.
22
300
250
300
200
250
200 150
f [-]
150
100
100
200
50 150
50
100
0
100 50 Nmax [kN]
50
0 0
−50 0
Nmin [kN] −100
Figure 9 - Fitness function of the objective Force difference.
Force ratio and distance to pile centre
The position of the pile centre is often used by designers to find working pile groups. As
mentioned earlier, it is usually preferable that the pile centre is located at the intersection of
force lines. In this objective function, the distance from the pile centre to the intersections of
the force lines is used as guidance.
The following section describes the distance between the intersection of the force lines and
the pile centre. Since the two different directions, ZX and ZY, are calculated analogously,
only the ZX-direction is defined below. The equation of the force line i and j respectively can
be described by equation (3.6). These equations are derived from the different load cases.
Each load case consists of three forces, Fx, Fy and Fz and three moments, Mx, My and Mz. The
slope of the force lines is calculated in equation (3.3). An eccentricity e is calculated in
equation (3.4). The intersection with the z-axis is calculated by multiplying ex by kx as is
shown in equation (3.5). The values for the ZY-plane are calculated by exchanging x for y
and vice versa. The intersection between the force lines can be calculated as in equation (3.7).
2_
^U =
2U
(3.3)
=
@`
U ab
(3.4)
23
cU = U ∗ ^U (3.5)
d =^ ∗ + c , d- = ^- ∗ + c- (3.6)
c- − c c- − c
= , d < = ^ ∗ e f+c
< ,-
^ − ^- ,-
^ − ^-
(3.7)
The sum of the distance from the intersection between the force lines to the pile centre can
then be calculated as shown in equation (3.8) below.
jklm
6gJ * ,hi = ? 6gi − < ,- + 6gh − d < ,- (3.8)
The objective function is stated as follows in equation (3.9). The function is similar to the
force ratio objective function, but here the distance to the pile centre has been added to guide
the optimization. A weight factor, α, has been added and set to 0.5. Further on this objective
function is written as the Force PC function.
S S 6gJ *
P Q$ R J, TU, W + Q$ RX J, <, XW + n , ;J, , < −1 $ [ SJ, <, < 0
N ;J,V, ;J, , 6gJ * ,* T)
N
S +S + 6gJ *
= Q$ R J, TU, W + Q$ R J, <, W + n , ;J, , > −1 $ [ SJ, <, < 0
O ;J,V, 0.1 ∗ ; J,V, 6g J * ,* T)
(3.9)
N
N Q$ RSJ, TU, W + n 6gJ * , SJ, <, > 0
M ;J,V, 6gJ * ,* T)
where,
6gJ * = 6gJ * ,hi + 6gJ * ,ho
The function surface of the Force PC function will probably be similar to the Force ratio
function seen in Figure 8. However, the PC-term in the function is very difficult to predict
since it is a function of all the piles in the pile group and is therefore hard to visualize.
Number of piles
Since the final goal of pile group optimization usually is to reduce the number of piles, it is
natural to let one of the objective functions be the number of piles. When the objective
function is the number of piles, each removable pile gets a variable, true or false, that is
entered into the optimization. An obvious downside to this objective function is that is does
not work when the goal is to only find an optimal placement and not to remove any piles.
Equation (3.10) shows the objective function.
= 6 (3.10)
The number of piles objective function uses continuous variables instead of discrete. This is
because it was shown during testing that discrete variables gave very poor results, see
appendix A.
24
3.1.4 Constraints
In the optimization program, there are two types of constraints. All variables have upper and
lower bounds that are defined through the instructions given by the designer. Apart from these
bounds there are nonlinear inequalities defined in the nonlinear constraints function. The
nonlinear inequalities form a vector, c. The optimization algorithm aims to keep the elements
of c equal to or below zero. The nonlinear inequalities used are:
• Smallest distance between piles minus the smallest allowed distance

• Smallest distance to edge of pile cap minus the smallest allowed distance
• Number of piles too close to each other
• Number of piles closer to edge than allowed
• Maximum pile force minus compression pile capacity for each load combination
• Minimum pile force minus tension capacity for each load combination
• Maximum moment in piles minus moment capacity (in case of resisting earth
pressure)
• Maximum deformations minus allowed deformations (only in Case II)
These constraints are necessary to obtain a practical pile group, since the algorithm only
considers a solution successful if the constraints are fulfilled.
25
A SIMPLE TWO-VARIABLE OPTIMIZATION. METHOD
Chapter 4
A Simple Two-variable Optimization
This chapter presents a simple example where the two algorithms are tested in order to
visualize how the search procedures work.
4.1 Method
To gain a better understanding of how the two algorithms work, a simple two-variable
optimization has been carried out. A double symmetric pile group containing eight piles
subjected to one vertical load of 500 kN and two horizontal loads of 100 kN each was set up.
Since the pile group was double symmetric, only two piles were needed to start the
optimization. Each pile was given only the angle of rotation, ϕ, as its variable, leading to an
optimization with two variables. The two piles used to set up the optimization were piles
number one and two in Figure 10, which shows the whole pile group. The resultant of the
horizontal forces applied at a 45°-angle as shown in Figure 10. Piles 1 and 2 were given the
angles 270° and 0° (360°). They were allowed to vary between 270° and 360° in one-degree
increments, 91 different angles for each pile. This meant a total of 8281 combinations. The
pile capacities were set to 2000 kN in compression and -500 kN in tension.
27
1.5 1.5
φ1
φ2
1 1 3 1
1 2 4 3
2 4
0.5 0.5
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 0
F 45˚
−0.5 −0.5
6 8 5 6 8 7
−1
−1 5 7
−1.5 −1.5
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
X [m] X [m]
Figure 10 – First starting guess of the pile group with the Figure 11 – The second starting guess of the pile
applied force, F. group.
The function to be minimized was the Force ratio objective function. Since there were only
two variables the function surface could easily be plotted. Combinations where the piles
collided or the pile forces became too high or too low were not plotted. Figure 12-Figure 14
show the function surface. The starting point is in the upper left corner (270,360) of Figure 12
and has a function value of 0.94.
360 5
350
4
340
330 3
320
φ2 [°] 2
310
300 1
290
0
280
270 −1
270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360
φ1 [°]
Figure 12 – Overview of the function surface.
28
4
30
20
3
f [-]
10
0 2
360
340
1
320
360
300 0
340
φ2 [°] 320
280
300
280 φ1 [°] −1
260 260
Figure 13 – The function surface, showing the extreme values of the function.
5
25
20
15
f [-]
2
10
0
360 340 340 360 −1
320 300 300 320
280 260 280
φ2 [°] φ1 [°]
Figure 14 – The function surface, where the global minimum is visible between high peaks.
29
A SIMPLE TWO-VARIABLE OPTIMIZATION. RESULTS
It is clear that the function is non-smooth with a number of local minima. The global
minimum is located at (289,289), as can be seen in Figure 12 and Figure 14. The function
value there is 0.26. A pile group with those angles is shown in Figure 15. This solution is
obviously very difficult for any algorithm to find since it is located at a single point between
two very high ridges as can be seen in Figure 14. This means that at exactly the specified
angles the pile forces will be low, but any deviation from those angles due to errors or
inaccuracies in construction or variations in the force angle leads to very high forces in the
piles and a high risk of failure. Hence, the best available solution would be the point
(360,270) which is exactly at the other end of the surface from the starting point, see Figure
12. The function value at that minimum point is approximately 0.49.
1.5
1
1 2 4 3
0.5
Y [m]
−0.5
−1
5 6 8 7
−1.5
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
X [m]
Figure 15 – The optimal but unstable solution of the pile group configuration.
Since the initial starting guess happened to be located at a local minimum point so far from
the desired minimum point another starting guess was created with the angles 340° and 310°,
closer to the desired point. This is to get a comparison between a difficult and an easy starting
guess. Figure 11 shows the second starting guess.
The optimization was run with both algorithms on both starting guesses to see how they
performed. Settings were chosen to fit this case as well as possible and to show the search
paths of the algorithms in a clear way. GA was given a population size of 6 and a maximum
number of generations of 5. Pattern Search used the MADSPositiveBasisNp1 poll method and
was given an initial mesh size of 150. The function values were plotted on the function
surface to give an idea of the search path.
4.2 Results
Figure 16 shows the performance of the Genetic Algorithm on the first starting guess, where
number one shows the position of the starting guess. Identical function values have been
sorted out to give a clearer picture. Since GA works with a population of individual solutions,
it takes the starting guess as the first individual and then randomly creates other individuals to
fill the initial population. One can see that after trying several random locations at point 3, 4,
5 and 8, GA is gradually directed towards the best function values. Had it been allowed to
30
continue over more generations it would most likely have continued towards the minimum
point in the bottom right corner.
1
360 5
350
4
340
330 3
320
φ2 [°]
2
310 5
300 1
3
290
7
6 2 0
280 4 10
11 9 13
8 14
270
12 −1
270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360
φ1 [°]
Figure 16 – Result for GA, when the first starting guess (270,360) was used.
The performance of the Pattern Search algorithm is shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18. It is
clear that even though it finds its way over the first ridge, it gets stuck in the local minimum
point (270,305). The performance of PS is very dependent on the initial mesh size. Since the
mesh size is decreased if no better solution is found, it is difficult for PS to make large jumps
in order to find new areas to search. GA has a clear advantage here, since it can search many
points simultaneously over the whole search area. Figure 18 shows that the area around the
minimum at (270,305) is thoroughly searched. This, however, does not help the algorithm
move towards the desired point at (360,270).
31
360 1 5
350
4
340
330 3
320
φ2 [°] 6 2
10
310 27 3
1412
815
11
18
1613
19
1795 4
300 1
290
0
280
270 −1
270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360
φ1 [°]
Figure 17 - Result for PS, when the first starting guess (270,360) was used.
318
316
314
6
10
312
310
2 7 3
φ2 [°] 8 14 12
308
15
306
11 18 13
16
19 9
304
17
302
5 4
300
298
268 270 272 274 276 278 280
φ1 [°]
Figure 18 – Closer view of the result of PS, first starting guess.

When starting from the easier starting guess, both GA and PS find their way to the minimum
rather quickly, GA needing slightly fewer function evaluations than PS. One can also see that
GA searches a wider area than PS, with search points over the whole function surface. It is
important to point out that, in this case, a gradient-based algorithm would be the best choice
32
since the function surface is a smooth slope between the starting point and the minimum.
Figure 19 to Figure 22 show the search paths of GA and PS respectively.
360
8 5
5
350
4 4
340
2
330 3
320
φ2 [°] 3 2
17
310
9 12
300 1
290
0
280
6
1615
11
14
17192527
10 1813
2122
23
20
2628
24 29
270 −1
270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360
φ1 [°]
Figure 19 - Result for GA, when the second starting guess (340,310) was used.
277
276
275
6 15
274
16 11 14 17 19
273
φ2 [°] 13 25 27
272
10 18 21 22 23 20 28
271
24 26 29
270
269
268
344 346 348 350 352 354 356 358 360 362
φ1 [°]
Figure 20 - Closer view of the result of GA, second starting guess.
33
360 5
350
4
340
330 3
320
2
φ2 [°]
310 1
300 1
4
290
2 0
3 7
280 8 33 12
20
5 6 139
213419 23
11 14151016352624
270 32 340 17 182522
2927
3130
28
36 −1
270 280 290 300 310 320 330 350 360
φ1 [°]
Figure 21 - Result for PS, when the second starting guess (340,310) was used.
278
277
6 13 9
276
34
275
21 19 23
274
φ2 [°] 15 16
273
10 24
272
35 26
271
17 18 25 29 22 27 30
270
31 28 36
269
268
348 350 352 354 356 358 360 362
φ1 [°]
Figure 22 - Closer view of the result of PS, second starting guess.
34
CASE STUDIES. GENERAL
Chapter 5
Case Studies
This chapter deals with the case studies. The background for each case is presented followed
by the results. In each case, the performance of the optimization algorithms and objective
functions are compared. The final section of the chapter summarizes and compares the results
from all the cases.
5.1 General
To test the two different algorithms and the different objective functions three real cases have
been studied. On two of the cases several different starting guesses have been tested to better
understand the influence of the quality of the input given to the program. The settings for the
algorithms that are best suited for this problem have been established through experimental
testing. The settings that have been used for GA and PS respectively can be seen in Table 2.
Each algorithm has been tested with every objective function on all starting guesses for every
case. Since the algorithms are stochastic, each run was repeated ten times to minimize the
influence of chance.
35
CASE STUDIES. GENERAL
Table 2 – Settings used in the case studies for the two algorithms.
Genetic Algorithm Pattern Search
MADS Positive
Generations 30 Poll Method
Basis 2N
Population Size 12 Polling Order Success
Crossover Fraction 0.4 Mesh Tolerance 10-6
Function Tolerance 10-10 Complete Poll Off
Stall Generation Limit 500 Function Tolerance 10-10
Initial Mesh Size 50
Stall generation limit is the number of generations the algorithm continues while the change
in function value is less than the function tolerance. The polling order specifies in which
direction the polling begins. Success means that the poll starts in the direction of the previous
successful point. The complete poll setting states whether the algorithm stops its search when
it finds a successful point or if it continues to search the whole mesh. Mesh tolerance is the
smallest allowed mesh size. The stopping criteria for the algorithms are the number of
generations for GA and the mesh tolerance for PS.
A factor that greatly influences the optimization is the number of variables. More variables
means more possible solutions. The number of variables in an optimization is mostly
dependent on the number and type of instructions, the number of piles in the starting guess
and the type of objective function. The number of variables for each starting guess can be
seen in Table 3.
36
CASE STUDIES. CASE I - INTERMEDIARY BRIDGE SUPPORT A
Table 3 - Number of variables for each starting guess and objective function.
Starting guess Objective function Number of variables
Force objective functions 38

Support A Symmetric case
Number of piles 53

Support A Asymmetric case
Number of piles 87

Culvert
Number of piles 171

Support B x-axis symmetric
Number of piles 42

Support B y-axis symmetric
Number of piles 43
5.2 Case I - Intermediary Bridge Support A
5.2.1 Background
The first case is an intermediary bridge support, designated Support A, located by the new
Friends Arena in Stockholm. Figure 23 and Figure 24 show an overview and an elevation of
the support. As can be seen in Figure 23, Support A is connected to two other supports, but
the pile groups for each support are assumed to act as individual pile groups. The pile cap for
Support A is of concrete quality C35/45 and is assumed to be 6x6 m large. The piles used are
reinforced concrete piles of dimension 350x350 mm, concrete class C50/60 and are assumed
to be 11 m in length.
37
Support A
Figure 23 - Overview of Support A.
Figure 24 – Elevation of Support A.
38
Support A is designed for three main load combinations, serviceability limit state (VB),
ultimate limit state (IVA) and accident loads (VIII). Accident loads have been neglected in
this case study and the loads regarded can be seen in appendix B. The pile compression
capacity is 946 kN in the ultimate limit state and 701 kN in the serviceability limit state. The
capacity is assumed to be zero in tension.
The real designed pile group was symmetric and had 25 piles. This solution was used to
compare against in the case study. The placement of the piles was used for the starting
guesses of the optimization. In total, four different starting guesses were tested. Two of the
starting guesses were identical to the original solution. The other two had the same placement
but with all piles vertical.
Symmetric Starting Guesses
The first two starting guesses have to remain symmetric around the x-axis through the
optimization. The first starting guess has the exact same configuration as the original design.
Figure 25 shows the layout of that starting guess, also called the symmetric good guess. The
second case, the symmetric bad guess, has the same placement of the piles but all piles are set
to be vertical, see Figure 26. This is quite a bad starting guess since the pile group is unstable
and the determinant of the stiffness matrix becomes equal to zero. This means that the
constraints are violated and the starting guess is not feasible. A non-feasible starting guess
means that the fitness values is not valid, which makes it more difficult for the program to
solve. For the pile group to become stable, the algorithms need to direct at least two piles in
each direction.
3 3
1 3 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 4 2
7 8 9 7 8 9 10
1 1 6
y 10 y
6
Y [m]
14
Y [m]
14 15
0 11 15 0 11 12
13 x 13 x
12
−1 −1
−2 −2
−3 −3
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
Figure 25 - Symmetric good starting guess of the pile Figure 26 - Symmetric bad starting guess of the pile
group for case 1, Support A. group for case 1, Support A.
The program was given instructions to keep the piles in straight rows and columns and to vary
the angles of the outer piles in 45-degree increments. The piles were allowed to have a batter
of 4:1 or to be vertical.
39
Asymmetric Starting Guesses
These cases are the same as the first starting guesses except that the pile groups do not have to
stay symmetric during the optimization. Piles can therefore be removed on one side without
having to be removed from the other. As in the symmetry case, one starting guess, the
asymmetric good guess, has the same configuration as the original solution. The other has the
same placement but vertical piles and can be considered as a bad starting guess. The bad
guess violates the constraints in the same way as in the symmetric case and is therefore not
feasible. The same instructions as in the symmetry case are given. The starting guesses are
shown in Figure 27 and Figure 28.
4 4
3 3
1 3 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 4 2
7 8 9 1 7 8 9 10
1 y 6
10 y
6
Y [m]
14
Y [m]
14 15
0 11 13 15 0 11 12 13
12 x x
16 20
−1 18 −1 16
17 19 17 18 19 20
−2 22 24 −2
21 23 25 21 22 23 24 25
−3 −3
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m] X [m]
Figure 27 - Asymmetric good starting guess of the Figure 28 - Asymmetric bad starting guess of the pile
pile group for case 1, Support A. group for case 1, Support A.
5.2.2 Results
Symmetric Good Starting Guess
In Table 4 the statistics for the four different objective functions when using GA for this
starting guess are shown. There it can be seen that all four objectives have almost the same
time and almost the same number of piles in their best pile groups, 20 to 21 piles. However,
one objective function, Number of piles, has slightly better results compared to the rest when
the mean and the worst number of piles are considered.
The results from the runs using PS are presented in Table 5. Force ratio performs worst while
Number of pile gets the best mean value and the best worst value. Number of piles is also
more time-efficient than the other objective functions in this example.
40
Table 4 – Statistics for the symmetric good starting guess, with GA used.
Objective Average time Nr of piles Utilization ratio,
[s] best pile group [%]
Best Mean Worst IVA VB
Force ratio 853 21 23.7 25 98.4 98.3
Force 940 20 22.8 25 89.4 99.2

difference
Force PC 926 21 23.4 25 95.2 98.4
Number of piles 974 20 21.3 23 88.7 95.6
Table 5 - Statistics for the symmetric good starting guess, with PS used.
Force ratio 1372 22 23 24 84.1 89.5
Force 1495 20 21.6 25 88.4 97.5

difference
Force PC 1406 20 22.4 25 91.5 98.2
Number of piles 465 20 20.5 21 93.1 97.3
Figure 29 shows a diagram where the best, mean and worst results from the different runs are
presented. The best solution found overall is 20 piles and has been found in more than half of
the cases. The difference between the cases is not great, however there are a few results that
stand out. For both algorithms, the objective function Number of piles gets the lowest mean
and worst values, with Pattern Search performing the best, always finding a solution with 21
piles or less. The objective function Force ratio performs worst, never finding the best
solution of 20 piles. Overall PS performs slightly better than GA, the mean values being
lower for each objective function. The best pile groups from this starting guess are shown in
Appendix C.
41
26
25
24
23
22
Best
21
Mean
20
Worst
19
18
17
16
GA Force GA Force GA Force GA Nr. PS Force PS Force PS Force PS Nr. Piles
Ratio Diff PC Piles Ratio Diff PC
Figure 29 - Diagram showing number of piles in the pile group for the best, mean and the worst run respectively.
Symmetric Bad Starting Guess
The results for the symmetric pile group with the bad starting guess when using GA can be
seen in Table 6. Only in a few cases has the program found working pile groups. Force PC
managed to find one solution with 20 piles and one with 21 piles, which is as good as the best
results for the good starting guess. Force ratio found one solution with 24 piles. The Force
difference and Number of piles objective functions did not find any working solutions, but
there was still a significant difference in their performance. Number of piles never found
anything better than the starting guess, but Force difference changed the layout of the pile
groups moving closer to a working solution.
Pattern Search did not find any solutions when running the symmetric bad starting guess. All
the results from the optimizations had the same layout as the starting guess with all piles
vertical.
Table 7 shows the average time for the different objective functions. It should be pointed out
that it is virtually impossible for PS to find a solution to this starting guess. This is because
the pile group is unstable, and will remain so until two piles are directed in each direction at
the same time. This means that the algorithms have to change the batter and angle of rotation
of several piles at once to receive a better fitness value. Since PS works by usually only
changing one variable at a time, it is very unlikely that a solution could be found.
42
Table 6 - Statistics for the symmetric bad starting guess, with GA used.
Force ratio 493 24 24.9 25 86.9 97.3
Force 414 25 25 25 - -
difference
Force PC 523 20 24.1 25 92.7 96.7
Number of piles 239 25 25 25 - -
Table 7 – Average time for the symmetric bad starting guess, with PS used.
Objective function Force ratio Force difference Force PC Number of piles
Average time (s) 1195 1186 1193 813
Figure 30 shows a diagram that summarizes the results. The diagram shows the number of
successful runs and the number of close runs where the solutions found were less than 50 kN
from the capacities. It is clear that the three Force objective functions on GA performed the
best. A possible explanation to this is the instability of the pile group, explained earlier and
the type of variables used. The first three objective functions use discrete variables and
Number of piles on GA and all the objective functions on PS use continuous variables. When
using discrete variables, GA uses the penalty parameter to handle nonlinear constraints while
the Augmented Lagrangian is used when the variables are continuous. It seems that the
penalty parameter works better when the starting guess is non-feasible and unstable, as is the
case here. The best pile groups from GA for this case are shown in Appendix C.
43
6 Successful
runs
5
4 Close runs
(less than 50
3 kN from limit)
Close runs
2
(between 50
kN and 100 kN
1 from limit)
Total
0
GA Force GA Force GA Force GA Nr of PS Force PS Force PS Force PS Nr of
Ratio Diff PC Piles Ratio Diff PC Piles
Figure 30 - Diagram showing number of successful and close runs for every objective function and algorithm
respectively.
Asymmetric Good Starting Guess
The good starting guess with no restriction of symmetry gave more even results when using
GA than when symmetry was required. All the objective functions found solutions with 20
piles and the worst guess was 22 piles in one of the runs with Number of piles as the objective
function. The difference between the objective functions is very small and is probably due to
chance. Table 8 shows the results from the different objective functions using GA.
Also when using PS, the results are very even between the objective functions and similar to
GA, as can be seen in Table 9. The objective function Number of piles is however the fastest
of the four.
Table 8 - Statistics for the asymmetric good starting guess, with GA used.
Force ratio 815 20 20.5 21 88.5 99.6
Force 844 20 20.5 21 89.6 99.4

difference
Force PC 845 20 20.5 21 89.8 99.2
Number of piles 989 20 20.9 22 96.6 96.7
44
Table 9 - Statistics for the asymmetric good starting guess, with PS used.
Force ratio 1365 20 20.8 21 92.2 97.5
Force 1452 20 20.5 21 92.0 96.8

difference
Force PC 1421 20 20.6 21 92.3 97.1
Number of piles 653 20 20.5 22 93.3 97.1
Figure 31 shows a summary of the results in the runs on the asymmetric pile group with the
good starting guess. It is clear that the three Force objective functions perform equally well
while using GA, all of them finding solution of 21 piles or less in all the runs. The Number of
piles objective function on both GA and PS performs the worst, failing to find solutions of 21
piles or less on the worst run. In PS the mean value for the Number of piles is lower than for
GA despite having the same worst values. The best pile groups for the different objective
function with each algorithm are shown in Appendix C.
24
23
22
21
20 Best
Mean
19
Worst
18
17
16
GA Force GA Force GA Force GA Nr. PS Force PS Force PS Force PS Nr. Piles
Ratio Diff PC Piles Ratio Diff PC
Figure 31- Diagram showing number of piles in the pile group for the best, mean and the worst run respectively.
Asymmetric Bad Starting Guess
This starting guess turned out to be the most difficult of all the starting guesses in Case I.
However, even though GA found no working solutions, it managed, in some cases, to find
solutions that almost worked. As in the case with the bad starting guess on the symmetric pile
group, the task proved more difficult than when a good guess was supplied. Removing the
45
restriction of symmetry seems to have made the problem even harder to solve, probably
because of the increase in variables and possible solutions. Table 10 shows the average times
for the case with GA.
Pattern Search did even worse than GA, since it could not improve the starting guess at all.
None of the objective functions managed to find a better solution than the non-working
starting guess, see the starting guess in Figure 28 above. The reason for this is the same as
mentioned above for the symmetric pile group with the bad starting guess. The algorithms
have to direct piles in all four directions to make the pile groups stable and thereby get a
fitness value. Time was the only thing that differed between the objective functions, which
can be seen in Table 11.
Table 10 - Average time for the asymmetric bad starting guess, with GA used.
Average time (s) 395 391 405 263
Table 11 - Average time for the asymmetric bad starting guess, with PS used.
Average time (s) 1188 1189 1202 230
Figure 32 below shows how badly this starting guess works. There, close runs that are less
than 50 kN from the limit and close runs that are between 50 and 100 kN are shown. None of
the algorithms made a successful run, in other words no pile group that fulfilled the
constraints and bounds were found. GA managed though to improve the starting guess and the
two objective functions, Force ratio and Force PC, were quite close to finding a solution. PS
on the other hand, as mentioned above, did not do anything at all. All the best pile groups
from GA are shown in Appendix C.
46
5
Successful runs
4
Close runs (less than 50
3 kN from limit)
Close runs (between 50

2 kN and 100 kN from
limit)
1 Total
0
Figure 32- Diagram showing number of successful and close runs for every objective function and algorithm
respectively.
47
CASE STUDIES. CASE II – CULVERT
5.3 Case II – Culvert
5.3.1 Background
The second case is a large concrete culvert, approximately 9x43 m and of concrete quality
C35/45, which is to be built in the new Slussen in Stockholm. A 3D model of the Culvert can
be seen in Figure 33 and a drawing in Figure 34.
Figure 33 - Overview of the Culvert.
Figure 34 - Drawing of the Culvert.

The Culvert will be founded on steel core piles and resisting earth pressure along the piles has
been used when calculating the pile forces. Using resisting earth pressure lowers the pile
forces, but introduces shear forces and moments into the piles, which have to be taken into
account. The moment capacity of the piles is dependent on the normal force. Figure 35 shows
the graph for the moment capacity. The normal force capacity is set to ± 3000 kN. A diameter
of 180 mm is chosen for the piles and all piles are assumed to be 40 m long in the
calculations. The pile group is optimized for the ultimate limit state.
48
160
140
120
Moment [kNm]
100
80
60
40
M = -2E-06N2 - 0,0317N + 199,7
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Normal force [MN]
Figure 35 – Relation between the moment capacity of steel core piles ϕ180 and normal force.
There is also a restriction for the total deformations of the Culvert. The largest deformations
occur as a result of large horizontal forces pulling the Culvert in the x-direction. The
maximum deformation is therefore calculated as the sum of the horizontal deformation in the
x-direction and the deformation from the rotation as described by equation (5.1).
p = pi + qh ∗ D (5.1)
The total deformation was restricted to 4 cm. In this case study both the deformation and the
moment capacity of the piles were entered as nonlinear constraints.
The initial placement of the piles was based on the preliminary design that was presented
early in the Slussen project. Four additional piles were added to places were the distance
between piles was large to give the program more freedom to find an optimal solution. This
made the total number of piles in the starting guess 54, as shown in Figure 36.
49
33
40 32 31
30 35
29
35 28 27
26 36
25
54
30 24
23 37
22 21
25
Y [m]
20 19 38
18 39
17
20 40
16 15 41
14
13 12
15
42
11 10
43
9 44
10 8
45
7 46 47
6
48
5 5 4 49
3 53
2 51
0 1 52 50
0 5 10
X [m]
Figure 36 - Starting guess of the pile group for the Culvert.
The program was given instructions to vary the y-coordinate of all the piles on the left side.
Instructions concerning the angle of rotation were given to all piles, allowing them to change
their rotation approximately plus minus 45 degrees from their starting position. The piles in
all corners were not allowed to be removed, since that would risk introducing large moments
in the slab.
In the current solution in the project documentation, the pile group includes only 35 piles,
which has been achieved through many hours of work, using engineering judgement and the
trial and error procedure described in the beginning of this report.
5.3.2 Results
When using the Genetic Algorithm, all of the four objective functions managed to improve
the starting guess significantly and were able to remove many piles. All the Force objective
functions with GA managed to find solutions with 31 piles, as can be seen in Table 12. The
Force difference function was marginally better in terms of mean and worst values.
With PS, all the objective functions were able to remove piles and thereby improve the
starting guess, as shown in Table 13. Number of piles was the one, which performed best,
50
when regarding the best, mean and worst number of piles. It had also better time than the
other three objectives.
Table 12 - Statistics for the starting guess, with the algorithm GA used.
Best Mean Worst Compression Tension
Force ratio 4129 31 32.4 37 76.5 21.1
Force 3703 31 32.0 34 76.0 19.0

difference
Force PC 3628 31 32.5 35 73.7 21.7
Number of piles 3969 35 37.7 41 82.1 16.7
Table 13 - Statistics for the starting guess, with the algorithm PS used.
Best Mean Worst Compression Tension
Force ratio 4119 38 39.6 40 62.8 8.5
Force 4268 33 37.8 40 68.4 11.4

difference
Force PC 4074 33 37.6 40 68.4 6.1
Number of piles 2961 32 33.8 37 93.4 12.4
Both algorithms, GA and PS, performed well on Case II. Almost all the objective functions
managed to find solutions with fewer piles than the current solution in the project
documentation. The Force objective function with GA all had mean values below 35 piles. In
Figure 37, it can be seen that GA has better results than PS. The three Force objective
functions with GA are very even in performance together with Number of piles on PS.
Number of Piles with GA and Force ratio with PS were the objective functions on each
algorithm that performed worst. This shows the difficulties with drawing any conclusions
after observing only one case. The best pile group configuration for each objective function
can be seen in Appendix C
51
45
Best
40 Mean
Worst
35
30
25
20
GA Force GA Force GA Force GA Nr. PS Force PS Force PS Force PS Nr.
Figure 37 - Diagram showing number of piles in the pile group for the best, mean and the worst run respectively.
52
CASE STUDIES. CASE III – INTERMEDIARY BRIDGE SUPPORT B
5.4 Case III – Intermediary Bridge Support B
5.4.1 Background
The third case is a larger bridge support, designated Support B, located at Friends Arena in
Stockholm. The pile cap consists of concrete C32/40 and is approximately 6x12 m. The piles
used are reinforced concrete piles of dimension 350x350 mm, concrete class C50/60 and are
assumed to be 15 m in length. The support has two columns with different shapes, which can
be seen in Figure 38.
Figure 38 - Overview of bridge Support B.

The support is optimized for the two main load combinations, ultimate limit state (IVA) and
serviceability limit state (VB). The pile capacity in compression is set to 1110 kN in IVA and
785 kN in VB. The capacity is assumed zero in tension.
Support B is considered to be a more difficult case than Support A, since there are large
horizontal loads in different directions and asymmetric vertical loads. The real pile group in
the final design had 16 piles, placed in a nearly symmetric pattern around the y-axis. This
solution has been developed during a long time by designers and is more or less an optimal
design for this pile group. In the optimal solution, there are piles placed asymmetrically facing
inwards to lower the pile centre. This is difficult for the program to achieve without very
precise instructions.
Since the real solution is already optimized, two different starting guesses with 24 piles have
been used. The first one is symmetric around the x-axis and the second is symmetric around
the y-axis. In both starting guesses the piles have been given a batter of 4:1, with instructions
53
to vary individually with the batter 3.5:1, 8:1 and vertical. Moreover, the locations of the piles
are restricted to rows and columns in both cases. In the first starting guess, symmetric around
the x-axis, the piles are instructed to face outwards with respect to the angle of rotation, and
vary with 45º-intervals. For the second starting guess, the angle of rotation is free to vary
between 0º and 315º in 45º-increments. The two different starting guesses can be seen in
Figure 39 and Figure 40. Both the starting guesses violate the constraints since they have piles
in tension, meaning that none of the starting guesses are feasible. This makes this case
considerably more difficult to solve than Support A.
6 6
2 3 2
1 4 1
4 4
5 8 3
6 7 4
2 10 2 6
y 11 y
9 12 5
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 x 0
x
7
8
−2 −2
10
9
−4 −4
11
12
−6 −6
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
Figure 39 - First starting guess of the pile group for Figure 40 - Second starting guess of the pile group for
Support B, symmetric around the x-axis. Support B, symmetric around the y-axis.
5.4.2 Results
X-axis Symmetric Starting Guess
For GA the three first objective functions performed quite similar, with a best pile group with
18 piles and the same worst number of piles, see Table 14. Force Ratio had however the best
mean value and is therefore the best performed objective function since Number of piles did
not make any changes from the starting guess.
For PS the first three objectives accomplished almost the same as the ones in GA, this can be
seen in Table 15 below. These three had the best pile groups with the smallest number of
piles. However, Number of piles had the best mean value of them all and is therefore a bit
more robust than the first three.
54
Table 14 - Statistics for symmetric starting guess around x-axis, with the algorithm GA used.
Force ratio 3374 18 22.2 24 90.3 91.1
Force 2805 18 23.4 24 92.8 94.8

difference
Force PC 2675 18 23.4 24 88.5 93.7
Number of piles 1110 24 24 24 - -
Table 15 - Statistics for symmetric starting guess around x-axis, with the algorithm PS used.
Force ratio 2814 18 23 24 89.1 89.5
Force 4252 18 22 24 87.4 94.9

difference
Force PC 3270 18 22.6 24 89.8 91.2
Number of piles 2443 20 21.8 24 82.4 83.0
A comparison of each objective function and algorithm can be seen in Figure 41 below. It
shows that PS has more successful runs than the GA. On the other hand, GA has several close
runs and consequently more runs in total that are successful or close, than PS. One interesting
result is that Number of piles performed absolutely worst in total when the GA was used, but
one of the best when it was used with PS. In Appendix C the best pile group configuration of
each run is shown.
55
12
Successful runs
10
8
Close runs (less
6 than 50 kN from
limit)
4 Total
2
0
Figure 41 - Diagram showing number of successful and close runs respectively for each objective function and
algorithm.
Y-axis Symmetric Starting Guess
None of the objective functions found a working solution with GA. The three Force objective
functions all changed the pile layout in order to get closer to a solution, while Number of Piles
only came up with the starting guess. Table 16 below shows the average time for each
objective function.
PS on the other hand found working solutions in all four objective functions. Force PC
performed worst, since it could not remove any piles and only found one solution with 24
piles. Number of piles had the best pile group with only 18 piles and almost the same mean
value as the Force difference, which had the best mean value. The difference is though very
small and Number of piles is considered the best objective function for PS. Table 17 shows a
summary of the runs on this case.
Table 16 - Average time for symmetric starting guess around y-axis, with GA used.
Average time (s) 2325 2306 2347 1112
56
Table 17 - Statistics for symmetric starting guess around y-axis, with the algorithm PS used.
Force ratio 3385 20 23.6 24 79.4 83.9
Force 4137 22 22.8 24 81.8 91.7

difference
Force PC 2809 24 24 24 68.5 75.2
Number of piles 1709 18 23 24 90.5 95.2
Since the starting guess was non-feasible, it was difficult for the optimization program to
improve the guess and find working solutions. This is clear from the results where only a few
of the total number of runs were successful. GA found no working solutions and had only one
close run, where the force limit was not exceeded by more than 50 kN. PS on the other hand
found nine working solutions, but had no close runs apart from the successful ones.
There is a great difference between PS and GA, PS has at least one successful run on each
objective function while GA has none. This can be seen in Figure 42, which summarizes the
runs on this starting guess. Even though GA does not have many successful runs it very often
improves the starting guess and many of the runs are not far away from being considered as
“close runs”. PS on the other hand has either successful runs as shown in the diagram below,
or it does not change from the starting guess at all.
5
Successful runs
4
3 Close runs (less

than 50 kN
2 from limit)
Total
1
0
Figure 42 - Diagram showing number of successful and close runs respectively for each objective function and
algorithm.
57
CASE STUDIES. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
5.5 Summary and Comparison

This section summarizes the case studies and compares the performance of the four different
objective functions and the two optimization algorithms. The first diagram, Figure 43, shows
how GA, with the four objectives, performs. The percentage of runs, in which the program
removed piles from the starting guess, is shown for each objective function on every starting
guess. This gives an indication of how often the objective functions find solutions with fewer
piles than the starting guess and can be seen as a measure of robustness. All objective
functions manage to remove piles when the starting guess is feasible, as the green and the two
blue columns in Figure 43 indicate. Number of piles has difficulties removing any piles in the
other four non-feasible starting guesses. The three Force objective functions, on the other
hand, remove piles in two or three cases where the starting guess is non-feasible. Therefore,
they seem to be more robust than the objective function Number of piles.
100%
Genetic Algorithm
Support A (Sym, good)
90%
80% Support A (Sym, bad)
70%
Support A (Asym,
60%
good)
50% Support A (Asym, bad)
40%
30% Culvert
20% Support B (Sym, x-axis)
10%
0% Support B (Sym, y-axis)
Force Ratio Force Diff Force PC Nr of Piles
Figure 43 - Diagram showing percentage of runs, which removed piles from starting guess, for each objective
function for GA.
The same type of diagram is shown for Pattern Search in Figure 44. As the diagram shows,
PS is more even between the different objective functions than GA. Number of piles is the
one that stands out, since it managed to remove piles more often than the first three
objectives. Number of piles is therefore the best performing objective function with PS, when
this kind of statistics is considered. It is worth mentioning, that even though Number of piles
performed best with PS, it was the objective function that performed worst with GA.
58
Pattern Search
100%
90% Support A (Sym, good)
80% Support A (Sym, bad)
70%
Support A (Asym, good)
60%
50% Support A (Asym, bad)
40%
Culvert
30%
20% Support B (Sym, x-axis)
10% Support B (Sym, y-axis)
0%
Force Ratio Force Diff Force PC Nr of Piles
Figure 44 - Diagram showing percentage of runs, which removed piles from starting guess, for each objective
function for PS.
When comparing GA and PS in Figure 43 and Figure 44 respectively, it is difficult to tell
which algorithm that did best. They have similar results for the feasible starting guesses for
Support A and Culvert, but for the other non-feasible starting guesses, the results differ. GA
removes piles from the symmetric bad guess on Support A while PS removes piles from the
Y-axis Symmetric guess on Support B. None of the algorithms could remove piles from the
asymmetric bad starting guess on Support A. However, in GA’s favour is that it has many
close runs where PS has none, as can be seen in Figure 30, Figure 32, Figure 41 and Figure
42.
Since the ultimate goal of pile group optimization is to minimize the number of piles in a pile
group it is relevant to compare the total number of removed piles for the different cases. Table
18 and Table 19 show a summary of this. The total number of removed piles for the ten runs
made on each starting guess with every objective function is presented to the left in each
column. To the right is the percentage of the total number of removable piles in all the runs,
i.e. the number of removed piles divided by the number of piles in the starting guess times the
number of runs. Table 18 shows the results for GA. There the difference between the Force
objective functions is negligible while Number of piles performs slightly worse.
59
Table 18 - Total number of removed piles for each objective function on every starting guess and percentage of
total number of removable piles in all runs with GA. The best runs are marked bold.
Genetic Algorithm
Case Force Ratio Force Difference Force PC Nr of Piles
[Nr] [%] [Nr] [%] [Nr] [%] [Nr] [%]
Support A (Sym, 13 5.2 22 8.8 16 6.4 37 14.8

good)
Support A (Sym, 1 0.4 0 0.0 9 3.6 0 0.0

bad)
Support A 45 18.0 45 18.0 45 18.0 41 16.4

(Asym, good)
Support A 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

(Asym, bad)
Culvert 216 40.0 220 40.7 215 39.8 163 30.2
Support B (Sym, 18 7.5 6 2.5 6 2.5 0 0.0

X-axis)
Support B (Sym, 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Y-axis)
Total 293 14.5 293 14.5 291 14.4 241 11.9
In Table 19 the results for PS are shown. Here the Force objective functions are also quite
similar with Force Difference performing better than the other two. The Number of piles
objective function, on the other hand, outperforms the others by a rather large margin, as
opposed to what is shown in Table 18 where Number of piles is the worst.
60
Table 19 - Total number of removed piles for each objective function on every starting guess and percentage of
total number of removable piles in all runs with PS. The best runs are marked bold.
Pattern Search
Case Force Ratio Force Difference Force PC Nr of Piles
[Nr] [%] [Nr] [%] [Nr] [%] [Nr] [%]
Support A (Sym, 14 5.6 34 13.6 26 10.4 45 18.0

good)
Support A (Sym, 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

bad)
Support A 42 16.8 45 18.0 44 17.6 45 18.0

(Asym, good)
Support A 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

(Asym, bad)
Culvert 144 26.7 162 30.0 164 26.1 202 37.4
Support B (Sym, 10 4.2 20 8.3 14 4.2 22 9.2

X-axis)
Support B (Sym, 4 1.7 12 5.0 0 0.0 10 4.2

Y-axis)
Total 214 10.6 273 13.5 248 12.3 324 16.0
61
Figure 45 shows a diagram where the results from Table 18 and Table 19 are presented. It is
clear that Number of piles with PS performs best, removing the most piles. On all the other
objective functions, GA removes more piles than PS. The results from the bad starting
guesses in Case I are included in the diagram even though PS did not actually have a
reasonable chance to remove piles in those cases. Since GA only removed 10 piles in total on
those starting guesses, the results are hardly affected by this.
Force Ratio
18,0%
16,0% GA
14,0%
12,0% PS
10,0%
8,0%
6,0%
4,0%
2,0%
Force
Number of Piles 0,0%
Difference
Force PC
Figure 45 – Total number of piles removed as percentage of total number of removable piles in all runs.
A final comparison is shown in Table 20 where the results from Table 18 and Table 19 have
been added for each algorithm. The Genetic Algorithm managed to remove more piles than
Pattern Search even though the difference between them is small.
Table 20 - Total number of removed piles and percentage of removable piles, total values for the algorithms.
GA Total PS Total
1118 13.8% 1059 13.1%
62
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. DISCUSSION
Chapter 6
Discussion and Conclusion
In Chapter 6 the methods and results are discussed and conclusions are drawn about the
performance of the different optimization algorithms and objective functions. Future research
is also presented in the final section.
6.1 Discussion
Discussion of method
There are several issues, concerning the method used in the testing process that should be
mentioned. First, since the optimization algorithms are stochastic there is the influence of
chance. To restrict the influence of chance ten runs were made for every case. However, more
runs would have decreased the effect further. Since the difference between the algorithms is
rather small in Table 20, it is difficult to say whether this is due to actual difference between
them or due to chance. More than ten runs on each case would not have fitted into the time-
frame of the thesis project, which is why only ten were made.
Secondly, the settings for the algorithms influence the results. Settings, such as the population
size for GA or the initial mesh size for PS can have a considerable effect on the outcome of an
optimization. To simplify the proceedings, the same settings were used for all the different
cases tested. It is possible that some of the settings fit very well for a certain case and not so
well for another case. The initial mesh size had a huge influence in the two-variable
optimization presented in chapter 4. Only when the mesh size was set in the region of 150 did
PS manage to find its way over the first ridge. GA on the other hand was not as sensitive,
even though a small population size tends to weaken the performance. The number of
generations affects the solution up to a point. In the two-variable optimization, where the
desired solution was relatively easy to find, increasing the number of generations increased
the likelihood of finding the minimum. In larger pile group optimization problems, this is not
a guarantee.
The crossover fraction for GA can be an important factor. In the case studies, it was set to 0.4,
which is a rather low value. The reason to set it low was to decrease the risk of the algorithm
63
getting stuck with a population that is too homogenous and thereby not being able to find
better solutions. With a crossover fraction of 0.4, 60 % of the new generation is created by
mutation and elite children.
A third factor that greatly influences the results in the optimization is the instructions given by
the designer. The possibility of finding a pile group with fewer piles than in the starting guess
is very low if the instructions given are very poor. In the case studies, the instructions have
been given according to engineering judgment, to the authors’ best ability. However, it is
possible that other results could be achieved given different instructions.
As has been shown, the starting guess has a large effect on the outcome of an optimization.
The results from good guesses on Support A and the Culvert all show a greater consistency
than the non-feasible starting guesses. However, the best results on the bad guesses match the
best results on the good guesses. Hence, a bad starting guess only lessens the probability of
finding a good solution, it does not prevent it entirely.
When performing experimental tests such as this, there is always a question of external
validity. Do the results from the cases studied apply in general? The cases studied in this
thesis are different in many ways and have been chosen to represent different types of pile
groups. Support A is a standard bridge support with a square pile cap, relatively short
concrete piles and mostly symmetrical conditions. Support B is a larger bridge support with
two columns with asymmetric vertical loads and concrete piles. Culvert is a much larger
construction with steel core piles and large horizontal loads. The algorithms and objective
functions all perform differently on the different cases without any clear pattern. They do
however find solutions in all the three different cases, which implies that they do work in
general and not only on these single cases. It is however difficult to say which algorithm or
objective function that works best in a general sense, since the external circumstances have
such a large effect.
There is one part of the program that could influence the results greatly, namely the way in
which piles are removed. For the three Force objective functions, piles are removed when a
working solution is found. This is done outside the optimization algorithm by removing the
least compressed pile, recalculating the pile forces and removing the least compressed pile
again, until the constraints are violated. This method suggests that the best pile to remove is
the least compressed pile. One can argue that this is rational since the least compressed pile is
the pile, which is the least utilized. However, pile groups are complex structures and
removing a pile can have unexpected and unwanted consequences. Therefore, it could be
relevant to try other methods of removing piles. As mentioned in section 1.2, Hill tried a
method of both removing the least and most compressed pile and comparing the two
alternatives (1981). Removing the most compressed pile can have a positive effect on a pile
group since that pile could be pushing the pile group in one direction, creating tension forces
in other piles. Applying this method, or some other method, to the program could give
different results than have been found here.
For the Number of piles objective function the piles are removed directly by the algorithms
through a variable. This gives an entirely different kind of freedom to remove any piles in the
pile group and not only the least compressed. This could be an advantage in pile groups were
the least compressed piles play an important role.
64
Discussion of results
As mentioned above, the results from the tests do not show very large differences between the
objective functions. There are a few interesting points worth mentioning even so. The three
Force objective functions are quite similar in formulation and it is therefore not surprising that
the results are quite similar. The Force PC however could be expected to perform differently
than the Force ratio, but does not, to any great extent. This could be due to several reasons.
First of all the weighting factor for the PC part of the function was chosen to 0.5. This was
done with the intent for the PC to be a guiding factor and not a decisive factor. The distance to
the pile centre should help the algorithm find better solutions, but should not outweigh the
normal forces. If a different weighting factor was chosen, better results could be achieved.
The Number of piles objective function performed rather unevenly. In some cases it
outperformed all other objective functions and in some cases it did not improve the starting
guess at all, as with GA in the x-axis symmetric case on Support B and the symmetric bad
guess on Support A. With PS however, Number of piles stood out as the best objective
function in almost all the cases. There is nevertheless a clear downside to Number of piles. If
the aim of the optimization is to find the best layout, without removing any piles, this
objective function is helpless since it cannot distinguish two solutions with the same number
of piles from one another.
The distinction between the algorithms is even harder to discern than the one between the
objective functions. There are small differences in the results that point in GA’s favour
however. As is shown in Table 20 GA removed more piles in total than PS, even though the
margin is small. Also, as is shown in several figures that summarize the non-feasible starting
guesses, GA has many more close runs than PS, indicating that it usually works its way
towards a solution and may find one if given more time. In the Culvert GA performed much
better than PS, removing more than 100 piles more than PS. On the other hand, PS performed
much better on Support B.
A possible explanation to the differences between the algorithms is the way in which
nonlinear constraints are handled. GA with the Force objective functions use discrete
variables and therefore the penalty parameter, while all the other objective functions use the
Augmented Lagrangian. A difference in the operation of these two methods is that the penalty
parameter allows a calculation of the fitness value, adding a penalty factor if the constraints
are violated. The Augmented Lagrangian on the other hand does not calculate a fitness value
until it finds a solution to the nonlinear constraints. It could be that the penalty parameter
guides the optimization towards a feasible solution in a better way.
A difference between the algorithms that proved to be of great importance is the way in which
they change the variables. In unstable starting guesses such as in Case I many variables might
need to be changed at the same time. This is no problem for GA, since the crossover and
mutation operators handle this. PS on the other hand usually only changes one variable and
therefore has difficulties in finding such solutions. This could be an explanation to the poor
performance by PS in the bad starting guesses in Case I.
GA seems to be less sensitive to the settings given and slightly more robust than PS, since it
usually, when using the Force objective functions, manages to move towards the solution
even though it does not find one. Figure 30 and Figure 32 show this clearly. The results in
these figures, where PS has no successful or close runs while GA has quite a few, could be
65
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. CONCLUSION
due to several reasons. It could be due to the instability of the starting guess as was discussed
above or it could be that the settings used for PS did not fit these cases at all. Even on Support
B where PS removed more piles than GA, GA together with the Force functions had several
close runs and always managed to improve the starting guess.
GA’s robustness has a number of reasons. First, since it operates on a population of points,
rather than on one point, its search area is much wider than PS’s. Secondly, its crossover and
mutation functions are powerful tools in searching complex search spaces. As was shown in
the two-variable optimization, GA is better than PS at finding its way over high ridges.
Operating on a population of points is computationally costly, however the ability to use
discrete variables somewhat compensates for this. PS would have been much faster than GA
if it had not been for the discrete variables.
6.2 Conclusion
To conclude, in pile group optimization, when using the Genetic Algorithm, one of the three
Force objective functions is preferable. When using Pattern Search, the Number of piles
objective function is the best choice. When choosing between the Genetic Algorithm and
Pattern Search the external circumstances influence the performance to such a degree that it
cannot be decided for sure which is the best choice. However, the Genetic Algorithm has
shown evidence of a slightly greater robustness when it comes to improving the starting guess
and removing piles than Pattern Search.
6.3 Future Research

Even though the developed program works quite well, some improvements can be done in the
future. As discussed earlier, only a simple test for the settings of the two algorithms was
made. Further investigations of the settings can therefore be done, in order to find more
suitable settings for the algorithms. The optimal settings may also vary with different types of
cases, which could also be an interesting problem to study in the future. Moreover, hybrid
algorithms could be implemented, to make the algorithm more efficient and increase the
chance of finding a solution.
To get clearer and more certain results, future research could include doing more numerous
tests, perhaps with 100 runs on each case. This would restrict the influence of chance to a
greater degree than the ten runs that were done here. Also more starting guesses could be
tested. It would be interesting to see how the algorithms and objective functions performed if
the starting guess had double the amount of piles compared to the optimal solution. Different
feasible guesses could also be compared.
Only two algorithms were used in this thesis, they were chosen based on earlier published
work and the type of problem. There are however many algorithms available, both in Matlab
and others that have not been implemented in Matlab, such as the Firefly, Ant and Bee
algorithms. It is impossible to say whether they would work better or worse in pile group
optimization, but it would be interesting to test other algorithms.
66
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. FUTURE RESEARCH
As mentioned in the discussion, investigating new ways to remove piles during the
optimization could be a relevant topic to research. Another further development that could
save time for the designer would be to develop instructions that were applicable for a standard
case.
As shown and discussed in the two-variable optimization, the extreme point and optimal
solution may be located between high ridges. This makes the optimal solution very sensitive,
because a small change in the variables can make the solution non-feasible. Since pile groups,
as mentioned earlier, have a large number of variables, it is more or less impossible to
illustrate the function space or to locate the optimal solution. Therefore, it is also hard to tell if
the solution of an optimization is sensitive or not, and if so, how sensitive. This could
however be investigated further and there may be ways to tell more about how sensitive a
solution is. One method could be to study the determinant of the stiffness matrix, since this
often is a measure of sensitivity. Another way would be to simply investigate each and every
variable of the optimization and see how the pile group behaves when one variable changes.
This is a large and time-consuming task, but of high importance since a driven pile group very
often differs from the first calculated one. A measure of sensitivity of a pile group would
therefore save both time and money for the designer.
67
REFERENCES
References
Belevičius, R. o.a., 2011. Optimal Placement of piles in real grillages: Experimental

comparison of optimization algorithms. Information technology and control, 40(2), pp. 123-
132.
Belevičius, R. & Šešok, D., 2008. Global optimization of grillages using genetic algorithms.
Mechanika, 74(6), pp. 38-44.
Bredenberg, H. & Broms, B., 1978. Pålgrupper med sidomotstånd och inspänning, Rapport
54, Stockholm: Pålkommisionen.
Chan, C. M., Zhang, L. M. & Ng, J. T. M., 2009. Optimization of Pile Groups Using Hybrid
Genetic Algorithms. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(4), pp.
497-505.
Chow, Y. K. & Thevendran, V., 1987. Optimisation of Pile Groups. Computers and
Geotechnics, 4(1), pp. 43-58.
Deep, K., Singh, K. P., Kansal, M. & Mohan, C., 2009. A real coded genetic algorithm for
solving integer and mixed integer optimization problems. Applied Mathematics and
Computation, 212(2), pp. 505-518.
Goldberg, D. E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine learning.
USA: Addison Wesley Longman Inc..
Hill, J. L., 1981. User's guide: Computer program for optimal design and analysis of pile
foundations (PILEOPT), Tuscaloosa: Systems Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Hoback, A. S. & Truman, K. Z., 1992a. Optimization of Steel Pile Foundations Using
Optimality Criteria, St. Louis: Washington University, Sever Institute of Technology
Department of Civil Engineering.
Hoback, K. Z. & Truman, A. S., 1992b. Optimization of steel piles under rigid slab
foundations using optimality criteria. Structural Optimization, 5(1-2), pp. 30-36.
Hooke, R. & Jeeves, T. A., 1961. "Direct Search" solution of numerical and statistical
problems. Journal of the ACM, 8(2), pp. 212-229.
Hurd, A. J. & Truman, K. Z., 2006. Optimization method of pile foundations. i: M. Pandey,
W. Xie & L. Xu, red. Advances in Engineering Structures, Mechanics & Construction.
Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 653-661.
69
REFERENCES
Hwang, J.-H.o.a., 2011. Practical optimization of group piles using discrete Lagrange
multiplier method. Optimization and Engineering, 12(1-2), pp. 83-109.
Javadi, A. A., Farmani, R. & Tan, T. P., 2005. A hybrid intelligent genetic algorithm.
Advanced engineering informatics, 19(4), pp. 255-262.
Kim, K. N. o.a., 2001. Optimal pile arrangement for minimizing differential settlements in
piled raft foundations. Computers and Geotechnics, 28(4), pp. 235-253.
Kolda, T. G., Lewis, R. M. & Torczon, V., 2003. Optimization by Direct Search: New
perspectives on some classical and modern methods. SIAM Review, 45(3), pp. 385-482.
Leung, Y. F., Klar, A. & Soga, K., 2010. Theoretical Study on Pile Length Optimization of
Pile Groups and Piled Rafts. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
136(2), pp. 319-330.
Liu, X., Cheng, G., Wang, B. & Lin, S., 2012. Optimum Design of Pile Foundation by
Automatic Grouping Genetic Algorithms. ISRN Civil Engineering, Volym 2012, pp. 1-16.
Pedregal, P., 2004. Introduction to optimization. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Powell, M. J. D., 1998. Direct search algorithms for optimization calculations. Acta
Numerica, Volym 7, pp. 287-336.
Samuelsson, A. & Wiberg, N.-E., 1995. Byggnadsmekanik -Strukturmekanik. Göteborg:

Studentlitteratur.
Šešok, D., Mockus, J., Belevičius, R. & Kačeniauskas, A., 2010. Global optimization of
grilages using simulated annealing and high performance computing. Journal of civil
engineering and management, 16(1), pp. 95-101.
Storn, R. & Price, K., 1997. Differential evolution - A simple and efficient heuristic for global
optimization over continous spaces. Journal of global optimization, 11(4), pp. 341-359.
The MathWorks, Inc., 2013. Global Optimization Toolbox User’s Guide, Natick: The
MathWorks, Inc..
Zabinsky, Z. B., 1998. Stochastic methods for practical global optimization. Journal of global
optimization, 13(4), pp. 433-444.
70
NUMBER OF PILES WITH DISCRETE VALUES
Appendix A
Number of Piles with Discrete Values
This appendix deals with a test done to assess the performance on the Number of piles
objective function with discrete variables. Figure 46 shows that even when the number of
generations was set to 100 and the population size to 20 the program was not able to improve
the value of the fitness function. It took the algorithm about 14 minutes to complete the run,
but it was not able to improve the starting guess.
Best: 1 Mean: 1.48341

3
Best penalty value
Mean penalty value
2.8
2.6
2.4
Penalty value
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Generation
Figure 46 - Test of using discrete values on the objective function Number of piles.
When continuous values were used, as in the case studies, great improvement was achieved in
only 30 generations with a population size of 12.
71
LOAD CASES – SUPPORT A
Appendix B
Load Cases – Support A
For Support A eleven load cases from IVA were used and six from VB, which can be seen in
Table 21 and Table 22.
Table 21 - Load Cases for support A in ultimate limit state (IVA).
Load case Fx [kN] Fy [kN] Fz [kN] Mx [kNm] My [kNm] Mz [kNm]
1 -640 106 -9439 -509 -5549 12
2 896 108 -11051 -545 6109 6
3 611 -25 -9994 193 4744 -7
4 269 120 -12579 -507 2492 9
5 129 120 -12579 -507 -547 9
6 852 89 -8838 -455 6123 1
7 852 89 -8838 -455 5329 1
8 -251 239 -9893 -1225 -2885 22
9 -125 239 -9893 -1225 -367 22
10 -67 -1 -9745 43 -1070 -4
11 -67 -1 -9745 43 -1965 -4
72
LOAD CASES – SUPPORT A
Table 22 - Load Cases for Support A in serviceability limit state (VB).

Load case Fx [kN] Fy [kN] Fz [kN] Mx [kNm] My [kNm] Mz [kNm]
1 385 64 -9955 -247 3222 2
2 -292 94 -9405 -430 -3448 6
3 504 53 -9720 -187 4080 0
4 -219 96 -8932 -427 -2753 5
73
PILE GROUPS. FUTURE RESEARCH
Appendix C
Pile Groups
In this appendix, the best pile group layout for every algorithm and objective function and for
each case and starting guess is shown.
75
PILE GROUPS. CASE I
Case I
Here the best pile groups from Case I, Support A, are shown in Figure 47 to Figure 70.
Genetic Algorithm (Sym, Good)
3 3
1 3 4 5 5
2 2 2 1 2 3 4
10
7 9 9
1 1 10
7
Y [m]
Y [m]
11 12 13 14 15
0 0 11 12 13 15
−1 119 120 121 −1 118 119 120
−2 −2 116
114 115 116 117 118
−3 −3 113 114 115 117
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
Figure 47 - Best pile group configuration for GA when Figure 48 - Best pile group configuration for GA when
the objective function Force ratio was used. the objective function Force difference was used.
3 3
1 3 5 1 3 5
2 2 2 4
2 4
8 9 7 9
1 1 6
7 10 10
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 11 12 15 0 11 15
118 119 120 121 121 125

−1 −1
122 124
114 116 −2 117 119
−2
113 115 117 116 118 120
−3 −3
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
the objective function Force PC was used. the objective function Number of piles was used.
76
PILE GROUPS. CASE I
Pattern Search (Sym, Good)
3 3
2 3
5 1 4 5
2 1 4 2
2
7 9
1 8 10 1 7 9
8 10
Y [m]
11 12
Y [m]
0 13 15 0 11 12 14 15
118 120
−1 119 120 121 122 −1
117 119
−2 114 117 −2
−3 115 116 118 113 114 115 116

−3
−4
−4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
Figure 51 - Best pile group configuration for PS when Figure 52 - Best pile group configuration for PS when
3 3
1 4 5 1 3 5
2 2 2 2 4
1 7 8 9 10 7 9
1
10
Y [m]
6
Y [m]
0 11 13 14 15 0 11 13 15
121 124 125
−1 −1
117 118 119 120 122
−2 −2
−3 113 114 115 116 −3 116 118 120

117 119
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
77
PILE GROUPS. CASE I
Genetic Algorithm (Sym, Bad)
3 5 3
3 4 1 4 5
2 1 2 2 2 3
8 9
7 10 7 8 9 10
1 1
6 6
13
Y [m]
0 0 11 12
Y [m]
12 13 14 15 14 15
121
−1 120 −1
121
−2 −2 122 123 124 125
122 123 124
−3 115 116 117 118 119 −3 116 119 120

117 118
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
3 3
1
1 2 3 4 5
2 2 3 4 5 2
6
1 7 8 9 10
1 6
8 9 10
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 11 12 0
11 12 13 14 15
118 119 120
−1 −1
121
117 122 123 124 125
−2 −2
112 113 114 115 116 116 117 118 119 120
−3 −3
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
78
PILE GROUPS. CASE I
Genetic Algorithm (Asym, Good)
3 3
1 3 5 1 3 5
2 2 4 2 2 4
7 9 1 7 9
1 10
10
Y [m]
Y [m]
13 13
0 11 15 0 11 15
12 12
16 16
20 −1 20
−1 17 19
17 19
−2 24 −2 24
21 23 25 21 23 25
−3 −3
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
3 3
1 3 5 1 5
2 2 4 2 2 4
7 9 7 9
1 1 10
10 6
Y [m]
Y [m]
14
0 11 13 15 0 11 15
12 12
16 16 18 20
−1 20 −1
17 19 17 19
−2 24 −2
21 23 25 21 23 25
−3 −3
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
79
PILE GROUPS. CASE I
Pattern Search (Asym, Good)
3 3
1 3 5 1 3 5
2 2 4 2 2 4
7 9 7 9
1 1
10 10
Y [m]
11
0 12 13 15 0 11 12 13 15
Y [m]
16 16 20
19 20 −1
−1 17 19
17
−2 24 −2 24
21 23 25 21 23 25
−3 −3
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
3 3
1 3 5 1 3 5
2 2 4
2 4
7 9 1 7
1
10 10
6 14
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 11 12 13 15 0 11 13 15
12
20 −1 18 20
−1
16 17 19
16 17 19
−2 24 −2
21 23 25 −3 21 23 25
−3
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
80
PILE GROUPS. CASE I
Genetic Algorithm (Asym, Bad)
3 3
1 3 4 2 1 3 5
2 2 2 4
5
7 8 9 10 1 7 8 9 10
1 6
6
Y [m]
Y [m]
13 14 12 13 14
15 0 11 15
0 11 12
19
16 17 18 −1 17 18 19 20
−1 20 16
21 −2 21
−2 22 23 24 25 22 24 23 25
−3
−3
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
3 3
1 2 3 4 5
2 3 5 2
2 1 4
10 1 7 8 9 10
1 6 6
7 8 9
Y [m]
11 13
Y [m]
0 11 12 13 14 15
0
12 14 15
16 17 −1 16
−1 18 19 17 18 19 20
20
−2
−2 22 21 22 23 24 25
21 24 23 25
−3
−3
−4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
X [m] X [m]
81
PILE GROUPS. CASE II
Case II
Here the best pile groups from Case II, the Culvert, are shown in Figure 71 to Figure 78.
Genetic Algorithm
45 34 45
33 34
33
40 30 40 32
35 30 35
26
35 35
24 36 36
26
22 54 54
30 30
37 24
20 37
22
25 18 25
Y [m]
Y [m]
38 20 38
20
16 20 18
40 40
13
15 15 13
42
11 11
43 43
44 44
10 10 45
45
7 7 46
46 47
48 48
5 5
3 49 49
3
2 53 2 52 53
52
0 1 50
0 1 50
0 5 10 0 5 10
X [m] X [m]
Figure 71 - Best pile group configuration for GA Figure 72 - Best pile group configuration for GA
when the objective function Force ratio was used. when the objective function Force difference was
used.
82
45 45
34 34
33 33
40 32 40 32 31
30 35 30 29 35
35 35 28
27
36 36
26 26
54 24
30 24 30
37 23 37
20 22
25
Y [m]
25 38 38
Y [m]
20
18 18
20 20
40 40
13 41
41
15 13 15
42 42
11
43
9 43 44
10 45 10
46
45
7 47 46
48 5 5 48
5 5
49 49
3 2 53
2 53 52
0 1 50
0 50
1
0 5 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
X [m] X [m]
Figure 73 - Best pile group configuration for GA when Figure 74- Best pile group configuration for GA when
83
Pattern Search
45 45
33 34
33 34
40 40 32
32
35 35
30 30
35 35
28 36
36
26
26
54 54
30 30
24 37 24 37
22 20
25 38 25 38
Y [m]
20
Y [m]
18 39 18 39
20 20
16 40
40
41 41
13 15 13
15
42 42
11 11
43 43
9 9
10 44 10 45
45
7 46 46
7
47 47
48 5 5 48
5 5
3 49 3 49
53 2 53
2
0 1 52 50 0 50
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
X [m] X [m]
84
45
45
33 34 34
33
40 32 35 40 32
30 30 35
29
35 35 28 27
36
26 26
54 25 54
30 30
24 37 24 37
25 38
25 38
Y [m]
20
Y [m]
20
18
18
20 20
16 40
40
41 41
15 13 15 13
42 11
43
9 44 43
10 45 10 44
7 46 46 47
47
5 48 48
5 5
3 49 49
2
2 53 5152
0 50 0 1 50
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10
X [m] X [m]
85
PILE GROUPS. CASE III
Case III
Here the best pile groups from Case III, Support B, are shown in Figure 79 to Figure 94.
Genetic Algorithm (Sym, X)
6 6
2 3 2 3
1
5 8
4 4 5 6 8
10 11
9 12 10 11
9 12
2 2
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 0
−2 −2
115 116 117 118
115 116 117 118
−4 −4
113 114
113 114
112
111 112 110 111
−6 −6
110
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m] X [m]
6
2 3 4
5 8 6
2 3
4 1 4
10 11
4
9 12 5 8
2 6 7
2
Y [m]
9 10 11 12
Y [m]
0
0
121 122 123 124
−2 −2
115 116 117 118 117 118 119 120
−4 −4
113 114 113 114 115 116
112 −6
−6 110 111
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m] X [m]
86
Pattern Search (Sym, X)
6 6
2 4 2 4
1 1
5 8 5 8
4 4
10 11
9 12
9 10 11 12
2 2
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 0
−2 −2
115 116 117 118
115 116 117 118
−4 −4
113 114 113 114
110 110
111 112 111 112
−6 −6
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m] X [m]
Figure 83 - Best pile group configuration for PS Figure 84 - Best pile group configuration for PS when the
when the objective function Force ratio was used. objective function Force difference was used.
6
2 3 4 6
1 2 3 4
1
4 5 8
5 8
4
2 10 12 2
9 9 10 11 12
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 0
116 118
−2 117 −2 121 122 123 124
−4 114 115 −4 117

120
110 116
−6 113
−6 114 115
111 112 113
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m]
X [m]
Figure 85 - Best pile group configuration for PS Figure 86 - Best pile group configuration for PS when the
when the objective function Force PC was used. objective function Number of piles was used.
87
Genetic Algorithm (Sym, Y)
6 6
2 2
1 114 113 1 114 113
4 4
3 3
4
4 116 115
116 115
2 6 2
118 6
5 118 117
Y [m]
Y [m]
5 117
0
0
7 8 120 119 7 8 120 119

−2
−2
9 10 122 121 10 122 121
9
−4
−4
11 12 124 123 11 12 124 123
−6
−6
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m] X [m]
6 6
2 114 2
1 113 1 114 113
4 4 115
3 3
4 116 115 4 116
2 2 118
6 6
5 118 117 5 117
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 0
7 120 119
7 120 119 8
8 −2
−2
10 122 121
10 122 9
9
−4
−4 121
11 124 123
11 12 124 123 12
−6
−6
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 X [m]
X [m]
88
Pattern Search (Sym, Y)
6 6
2
1 112 111 1 2 113 112
4 4
3 113 3 114
2 2
5 6 115 114 5 6 116 115
Y [m]
Y [m]
0 0
8 118
7 117
−2 7 117 116
8 −2
10 120
9
−4 9 118 119
−4
11 120 119
−6 12
−6
11 12 122 121
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m] X [m]
Figure 91 - Best pile group configuration for PS Figure 92 - Best pile group configuration for PS when
when the objective function Force ratio was used. the objective function Force difference was used.
6 2 114 6
2
1 113 1 114 113
4 4
3 3 115
4 116 115
2 6 118 2
5 117
5 117
Y [m]
Y [m]
0
0
7 8 120 119
7 8 120 119 −2
−2
9 121
10 122
9 −4
−4 121
11 12 124 123
−6
−6
11 12 124 123
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m]
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
X [m]
Figure 93 - Best pile group configuration for PS Figure 94- Best pile group configuration for PS when
when the objective function Force PC was used. the objective function Number of piles was used.
89
TRITA Master Thesis 409, 2014
ISSN 1103-4297
ISRN KTH/BKN/EX--409--SE
www.kth.se

Optimization of Pile Groups PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Optimization of Pile Groups PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

DEGREE PROJECT, IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND BRIDGES , SECOND

Optimization of Pile Groups

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Master of Science Thesis

© Ann Bengtlars & Erik Väljamets 2014

Nyckelord: Pålgruppsoptimering, målfunktioner, Genetic Algorithm, Direct Search, Pattern Search

Stockholm, June 2014

Ann Bengtlars & Erik Väljamets

Sammanfattning ...................................................................................................................... iii

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... ix

4 A Simple Two-variable Optimization ........................................................................ 27

5 Case Studies .................................................................................................................. 35

6 Discussion and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 63

A Number of Piles with Discrete Values ........................................................................ 71

B Load Cases – Support A .............................................................................................. 72

C Pile Groups ................................................................................................................... 75

λi Lagrange multiplier estimates, nonnegative and components of vector λ

ρ the positive penalty parameter

ci the nonlinear inequality constraint

ceqi the nonlinear equality constraint

DX horizontal deformation in x-direction

EI pile bending stiffness

f1-6 forces and moments in pile

fT maximum shear force

fM maximum bending moment

i number of load combinations

kd modulus of soil reaction

Kq pile stiffness matrix

L length of construction in y-direction

Nd,max,i maximum design normal force in piles in load combination i

Nd,min,i minimum design normal force in piles in load combination i

PCdist,start sum of distances to pile centre in starting guess

PCX x-coordinate of pile centre

PCZ z-coordinate of pile centre

Pq force vector at pile cap origin

R external forces acting on pile cap origin

Rd,c,i design compression capacity of piles in load combination i

Rd,t,i design tension capacity of piles in load combination i

U displacement vector at pile cap origin

S global stiffness matrix of pile group

si nonnegative shifts and components of the vector s

VZ rotation around z-axis

x1-6 displacements and rotations in pile

xint,ij x-coordinate of intersection between line i and j

zint,ij z-coordinate of intersection between line i and j

1.2 Previous Studies

1.3 Aim and Scope

1.4 Outline of Thesis

Figure 1 – One example of categorization of algorithms.

Linear constraints or Global Search, MultiStart Simulated Annealing

2.2 Genetic Algorithm

The GA is a non-gradient-based global optimization algorithm (The MathWorks, Inc., 2013)

2.2.2 Search method

When optimizing, GA starts by creating a set of starting points. In GA-terminology this is

A mutation is a random change of an individual that is passed on to the next generation

2.2.3 Genetic Algorithm in Matlab

Possible combinations and

Elite child Crossover child Mutation child

Elite child Crossover child Mutation child

Figure 3 - Example showing how Genetic Algorithm works.

Equation (2.1) defines a subproblem as:

GA minimizes a subproblem until a required accuracy is achieved and the feasibility