Article
A Comparative Study of Embedded Wall Displacements Using
Small-Strain Hardening Soil Model
Tzuri Eilat 1 , Amichai Mitelman 1 , Alison McQuillan 2 and Davide Elmo 3, *
Citation: Eilat, T.; Mitelman, A.;
McQuillan, A.; Elmo, D. A
Comparative Study of Embedded
Wall Displacements Using
Small-Strain Hardening Soil Model.
Geotechnics 2024, 4, 309–321.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
geotechnics4010016
Received: 17 February 2024
Revised: 1 March 2024
Accepted: 4 March 2024
Published: 8 March 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Geotechnics 2024, 4, 309–321. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics4010016
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 4077625, Israel; tzuri.eilat@msmail.ariel.ac.il (T.E.);
amichaim@ariel.ac.il (A.M.)
2 Rocscience Inc., Toronto, ON M5T 1V1, Canada; alison.mcquillan@rocscience.com
3 Department of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
* Correspondence: delmo@mining.ubc.ca
Abstract: Traditional analysis of embedded earth-retaining walls relies on simplistic lateral earth
pressure theory methods, which do not allow for direct computation of wall displacements. Contem-
porary numerical models rely on the Mohr–Coulomb model, which generally falls short of accurate
wall displacement prediction. The advanced constitutive small-strain hardening soil model (SS-HSM),
effectively captures complex nonlinear soil behavior. However, its application is currently limited, as
SS-HSM requires multiple input parameters, rendering numerical modeling a challenging and time-
consuming task. This study presents an extensive numerical investigation, where wall displacements
from numerical models are compared to empirical findings from a large and reliable database. A
novel automated computational scheme is created for model generation and advanced data analysis
is undertaken for this objective. The main findings indicate that the SS-HSM can provide realistic
predictions of wall displacements. Ultimately, a range of input parameters for the utilization of
SS-HSM in earth-retaining wall analysis is established, providing a good starting point for engineers
and researchers seeking to model more complex scenarios of embedded walls with the SS-HSM.
Keywords: embedded walls; earth-retaining walls; hardening soil model; geotechnical analysis;
numerical modeling; machine learning
1. Introduction
Embedded retaining walls are ubiquitous structures installed prior to excavation
and designed to support the lateral pressures due to different ground levels on each
side of the wall. The stability of embedded walls relies on the penetration beneath the
level of the lower side. These walls are used for a wide range of construction projects,
including basements, cut-and-cover tunnels, landscaping, and underground infrastructure
installation. Types of walls include pile walls, sheet pile walls, diaphragm walls, and
more. For shallow excavations, cantilever walls are sufficient. For deep excavations, lateral
supports, such as struts or ground anchors, are installed according to a staged excavation
plan. The increase in urbanized areas is pressuring the geotechnical community, which is
currently challenged by a demand to better predict wall behaviour and displacement [1]. In
turn, advancing geotechnical analysis methods is crucial for obtaining safe and economic
structural design [2].
The design methods for these walls are varied, while traditional analysis largely relies
on limit equilibrium approaches, according to earth lateral pressure theory [3]. Under this
approach, active and passive pressures are imposed on the wall according to the assumed
wall movements, and the resultant internal forces and bending of the wall are computed.
An excellent review of the embedded cantilever wall problem is given by [4]. The process
of computing the embedment depth and internal forces in the wall is described in detail.
Figure 1 shows typical problem geometry and the active and passive lateral pressures
for the cantilever problem. Accordingly, H is the excavation depth, O is the point of wall
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/geotechnics
Geotechnics 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 2

Geotechnics 2024, 4 310

described in detail. Figure 1 shows typical problem geometry and the active and passive
lateral pressures for the cantilever problem. Accordingly, H is the excavation depth, O is
the point of wall rotation, d is the depth of wall embedment, S is the distance from the top
rotation, d is the depth of wall embedment, S is the distance from the top surface to the
surface to the point O, and 𝛿 is the maximum wall displacement, which, for a can-
point O, and δh−max is the maximum wall displacement, which, for a cantilever wall, will
tilever wall, will occur at the top of the wall.
occur at the top of the wall.

Figure 1. Distribution of lateral pressures (on the right) and problem geometry (on the left).

Figure 1.Limit equilibrium

Distribution methods
of lateral have
pressures (onsince beenand
the right) refined according
problem geometryto(on
empirical
the left). findings
and integrated into building codes [5]. However, limit equilibrium methods are limited to
simple
Limitassumptions.
equilibrium Importantly,
methods have these
sincemethods cannotaccording
been refined be used totocompute
empirical wall displace-
findings
andments altogether.
integrated Embedded
into building walls
codes [5].are increasingly
However, limit applied in dense
equilibrium urbanare
methods environments,
limited to
whereassumptions.
simple predicting displacements
Importantly,isthese crucial for avoiding
methods cannot damage
be used to nearby
to computestructures
wall due
dis- to
excessive ground movement, underscoring a significant gap in
placements altogether. Embedded walls are increasingly applied in dense urban environ- traditional methods.
ments, Numerical methods
where predicting have revolutionized
displacements is crucial thefor analysis
avoidingand design
damage of geotechnical
to nearby struc-
structures [6]. Numerical methods, such as the finite element
tures due to excessive ground movement, underscoring a significant gap in traditionalmethod (FEM), account for
soil–structure interaction and compute the resultant stresses, strains, and displacements
methods.
accordingly.
Numerical Hence,
methods nohave
a priori assumptionsthe
revolutionized areanalysis
requiredand for design
the distribution of earth
of geotechnical
pressures. Numerical methods can be used to account for
structures [6]. Numerical methods, such as the finite element method (FEM), accountvarious scenarios, as well
for as
for the incorporation of advanced soil constitutive models, such
soil–structure interaction and compute the resultant stresses, strains, and displacements as the hardening soil
accordingly. Hence, no a priori assumptions are required for the distribution of earth pres-the
model (HSM). Schanz et al. (1999) developed the framework for HSM and provided
mathematical formulation. Experience gained by others has shown that HSM can simulate
sures. Numerical methods can be used to account for various scenarios, as well as for the
soil behavior under complex stress paths [7]. Total strains depend on a stiffness that
incorporation of advanced soil constitutive models, such as the hardening soil model
varies with stress and is distinct for initial loading compared to subsequent unloading or
(HSM). Schanz et al. (1999) developed the framework for HSM and provided the mathe-
reloading. Plastic strains are determined through a multi-surface yield criterion. The HSM
matical formulation. Experience gained by others has shown that HSM can simulate soil
assumes isotropic hardening, influenced by both the plastic shear and volumetric strains.
behavior under complex stress paths [7]. Total strains depend on a stiffness that varies
It employs a non-associated flow rule for frictional hardening and an associated flow
with stress and is distinct for initial loading compared to subsequent unloading or reload-
rule for cap hardening. Accordingly, the HSM thoroughly accounts for fundamental soil
ing. Plastic strains are determined through a multi-surface yield criterion. The HSM as-
properties, including strain hardening and dilatancy, and differentiates between loading
sumes isotropic hardening, influenced by both the plastic shear and volumetric strains. It
and unloading stiffness. These nuances enable the HSM to better predict the nonlinear
employs a non-associated flow rule for frictional hardening and an associated flow rule
stress-strain response of soils.
for cap hardening. Accordingly, the HSM thoroughly accounts for fundamental soil prop-
The traditional linear elastic–perfectly plastic Mohr–Coulomb (MC) material model
erties, including
is widely usedstrain
due to hardening and dilatancy,
its simplicity. However,and for differentiates
the problem of between
embedded loading andthe
walls,
unloading stiffness. These nuances enable the HSM to better predict
MC model does not provide reliable wall displacement results, to the degree that such the nonlinear stress-
strain response
models of soils.
often yield reversed lateral and vertical displacements at the top of the wall [8]. This
The traditional linear elastic–perfectly
matter has been demonstrated plastic study
in a comparative Mohr–Coulomb
of a benchmark(MC) problem
material ofmodel
a deep
is widely used due to its simplicity. However, for the problem of embedded
excavation in Berlin sand [9]. This study demonstrates the demonstrates the limitations walls, the MC of
model
the MCdoes not provide
model reliable
in accurately wall displacement
predicting the behavior results, to the degree
of soil–structure that suchinmodels
interaction complex
often yield reversed lateral and vertical displacements at the top
geotechnical scenarios, highlighting the need for more advanced constitutive models of the wall [8]. Thislike
the HSM.
Geotechnics 2024, 4 311

Owing to its complexity, the HSM requires assessing and calibrating many input
parameters, which in turn require several laboratory and field tests. Indeed, many re-
searchers have conducted rigorous tests to compare these with numerical modeling results
(e.g., [10,11]. Depending on the project scope and stage, it is often the case that limited data
are available for selecting proper input parameters for the HSM. Hence, establishing input
parameters for specific geotechnical problems is still a difficult and time-consuming task.
Arguably, surveys answered by geotechnical engineers can provide a good assess-
ment of the current state of practice of geotechnical design and identify knowledge gaps.
Therefore, an industry survey was conducted where practicing geotechnical engineers were
requested to answer the following question: “What methods or techniques do you predomi-
nantly use for the design of embedded retaining walls in your projects?”. As listed in Table 1,
multiple choices were given, with the instruction to select all that apply. Table 1 shows
the percentage and counts for each response. Based on 33 responders, results suggest
that diverse approaches are being employed in the industry, with an inclination towards
more sophisticated, computer-aided design approaches. This reflects upon the industry’s
adaptation to the rapid technological advancements. When used in conjunction, more
straightforward methods contribute a reliable source for verifying that the results of ad-
vanced numerical methods are within reason. This claim is valid for analysis of internal wall
forces used for structural design of the wall in compliance with civil engineering building
codes. However, concerning earth-retaining wall displacements, simplified methods that
rely on limit equilibrium and spring models cannot be used as a benchmark comparison.
Therefore, comparison to empirical data is crucial. It is noted that the survey question is
part of an ongoing industry survey, and full results and their analysis are planned to be
published and discussed in the future.

Table 1. Responses to the question: What methods or techniques do you predominantly use to design
embedded retaining walls in your projects?

Percentage Count
Manually and/or spreadsheets, according to
48% 16
simplified methods.
Structural analysis code of the wall subjected
27% 9
to ground loads.
Computer program tailored explicitly for
52% 17
earth-retaining wall design.
Numerical modeling of the wall and soil
61% 20
(e.g., finite element method).
Other 3% 1

This paper aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice by conducting a
rigorous numerical investigation of embedded walls with the HSM and comparing results
against empirical data. According to this comparison, the ranges of HSM parameters
that best align with the field data are inferred. Arguably, this approach offers a valuable
starting point for engineers who wish to model embedded walls with the HSM, particularly
when faced with limited data availability. To achieve this, we devised an automated
computational scheme so that a series of numerical model results are compared to actual
wall movements from the extensive global database provided by Long (2001) [12].

2. Assumptions and Methodology

As mentioned briefly in the Introduction section, the objective of this study was
to conduct a comparative analysis between numerical modeling results of embedded
retaining walls and empirical data. To effectively address this objective, our research
focused on the problem of cantilever walls rather than deep excavations that require
lateral supports. This decision was rooted in the principle of beginning with a simpler
problem, as deep excavations with lateral supports involve additional phenomena and
Geotechnics 2024, 4 312

inputs. Furthermore, the initial phase of many deep excavation projects is identical to
cantilever wall scenarios, rendering the classical cantilever wall problem a good starting
point for future investigations that include more complex geotechnical conditions.
The predictive power of numerical simulations is limited by the database they have
been calibrated against [13]. As discussed by [14], large databases often exhibit biases
stemming from their data collection process. Therefore, to properly conduct and interpret a
numerical study, a deep understanding of the database used for empirical data is crucial.
The Long (2001) [12] Database, hereinafter referred to as LDB, which the current
analysis relies on, adopts a generalist approach. Accordingly, data are collected from
worldwide locations rather than focusing on a limited geological formation with distinct
characteristics. The approach adopted for the LDB allows for the identification of general
trends. In turn, the LDB allows engineers to gain an intuition for the range of anticipated
wall movements. The soils in LDB include residual soils, sands, gravel, and stiff clays,
with soil shear strength ranging from weak to strong soils. Previous research has shown
that the wall type (e.g., pile wall, diaphragm wall, etc.) has no notable impact on wall
displacements [15].
The wall displacements in LDB are normalized according to the excavation depth, i.e.,
δh−max is some percentage of H, as defined in Figure 1. The results in LDP are somewhat
surprising, as they show that δh−max /H values were confined within a relatively narrow
band of 0–0.5%, and an average of about 0.35%. Another interesting finding is that displace-
ments were smaller than assumed by simplified and more traditional analysis methods.
This finding has an important implication for cost-effective wall design, as data suggest
that less stiff walls should perform adequately in many instances, rendering worldwide
design practice overly conservative.
As discussed by Long (2001) [12], analysis of the LDB implies that wall movements are
relatively small in most cases. To replicate empirical data more realistically, we selected the
small-strain hardening soil model (SS-HSM) for the modelling process. Alongside the HSM,
SS-HSM has emerged as a significant advancement in geotechnical numerical modelling.
The SS-HSM is an extension of the traditional HSM, which can capture nonlinear behaviour
under small strains. Small strains are common in many geotechnical problems [11]. Ac-
cordingly, SS-HSM is especially relevant in the case of embedded walls, where the majority
of walls exhibit both small strains and nonlinear behaviour. The improved accuracy of
SS-HSM does not come without a price, as this material model requires mode input param-
eters compared to the standard HSM. However, as the objective of the current paper was
to establish general guidelines for initial parameter selection when in situ data are scarce,
these additional inputs did not bear a significant limitation.
For the numerical modelling, the commercial finite element (FE) code RS2 was
used [16]. For typical embedded wall projects, plane strain conditions apply, render-
ing 2D models acceptable. Note that for basement excavations, where the excavation width
and length are relatively similar, a 3D model is recommended for both a more realistic and
cost-effective design [6]. In our FE models, the embedded wall was simulated via line (or
beam) elements. Line elements are zero-thickness elements, which efficiently capture wall
axial, shear, and bending forces. Given the zero-thickness of the elements, the end-bearing
resistance of the wall was not accounted for. To compensate for this, a lateral spring element
was added to the base of the wall, thus realistically transferring vertical loads to the soil
elements beneath the wall.
To model the interface between the wall and soil, special joint elements were assigned
on both sides of the wall. The joint boundary stiffness is a numerical construct that simulates
relative slip within an FE mesh. There are no definitive guidelines for accurately assessing
the normal and shear stiffness values, which should be calibrated for each analysis [17].
Additionally, a slip failure criterion was applied to the joint elements. The friction angle
for this failure criterion can be estimated using empirical guidelines, and is typically
assumed to be in the range of 0.6–0.8 of the soil internal friction angle [4]. Similarly to the
 [17]. Additionally, a slip failure criterion was applied to the joint elements. The friction
angle for this failure criterion can be estimated using empirical guidelines, and is typically
assumed to be in the range of 0.6–0.8 of the soil internal friction angle [4]. Similarly to the
Geotechnics 2024, 4 subdivision of data in LDB, no distinction was made between differences in soil 313
layers
and a homogeneous soil medium was assigned for all FE models.
To enhance the simulation process, we applied an automated computational scheme
sosubdivision
that a series of models
of data in LDB, were generated
no distinction waswith
madevarying
betweenSS-HSM
differences input parameters.
in soil layers and In ad-
a homogeneous
dition, soil medium
other properties thatwas wereassigned
variedfor all FE
were the models.
joint slip friction angle, the wall stiff-
To enhance
ness, and the simulation
excavation and embedmentprocess, we applied
depths. Toanestablish
automated computational
the range of material schemeproperties
so
that a series of models were generated with varying SS-HSM input
of SS-HSM for the automated scheme, a comprehensive review was conducted, including parameters. In addition,
other properties that were varied were the joint slip friction angle, the wall stiffness, and
[11,18–20]. On this basis, ranges and rules were established for generating a variation of
excavation and embedment depths. To establish the range of material properties of SS-HSM
input
for theparameters. The models
automated scheme, were thenreview
a comprehensive computed, and results
was conducted, were [11,18–20].
including comparedOn to LDP.
this Table 1 listsand
basis, ranges therules
varied
were input parameters
established and their
for generating respective
a variation ranges.
of input In this table,
parameters.
various inputs are varied directly, while other
The models were then computed, and results were compared to LDP. inputs are varied according to some as-
sumption,
Table as detailed
1 lists in theinput
the varied table.parameters
For example, 𝐸 , the
and their unloading
respective ranges.modulus,
In this is known to
table,
be significantly larger than 𝐸 , and was, therefore, assigned a value increased by a factor
various inputs are varied directly, while other inputs are varied according to some assump-
oftion,
2–7.asThe
detailed in the table.
relationship between For example, Eurmodulus
the shear , the unloading 𝐺 and modulus,
𝐸 is known
was to be
also limited to a
re f
significantly larger than
range of 1.1–1.7 [19]. External E 50 , and was, therefore, assigned a value increased
Python codes were written for the automated generation of by a factor
re f re f
of 2–7.
the models The and
relationship between the
their subsequent shear modulus
analysis. A detailed G0 review
and Eurofwas thealso limiteddata
technical to a for the
range of 1.1–1.7 [19]. External Python codes were written for
numerical models and the computational scheme is given in the following section.the automated generation of
the models and their subsequent analysis. A detailed review of the technical data for the
numerical models and the computational scheme is given in the following section.
3. Numerical Investigation
3. Numerical
To conductInvestigation
a systematic investigation, a basic geometric configuration was defined
according to typical
To conduct engineering
a systematic scenarios,
investigation, as shown
a basic in Figure
geometric 2. The was
configuration geometry
definedwas de-
accordingaccording
termined to typical to
engineering
two primaryscenarios, as shown
variables: (1) thein Figure 2. height
excavation The geometry
H and (2)wasthe wall
determined according to two primary variables: (1) the excavation height H
embedment depth d. To limit the geometric variation and focus on the impact of the SS-and (2) the
wall parameters,
HSM embedment depth
these d.
twoTodimensions
limit the geometric
were setvariation
equal forand
all focus on the
models, i.e.,impact of
H = d, assumed
the SS-HSM parameters, these two dimensions were set equal for all models, i.e., H =
to be sufficient for typical conditions. The height H varied from 3–8 m with 1 m incre-
d, assumed to be sufficient for typical conditions. The height H varied from 3–8 m with
ments.
1 m increments.

Figure2.
Figure Model geometry
2. Model geometryand
andexcavation stages.
excavation stages.
The excavation process in all models was divided into stages, where the ground level
was lowered by 1 m in each stage. This staged approach allowed for a detailed analysis
of the soil–structure interaction, where element yielding gradually progresses. Before the
excavation stages, two initial stages were assigned for each model, the first for application
of the in situ geostatic stresses, and the second for the installation of the wall. The lower
excavation level was moderately sloped, as shown in Figure 2. The angle of this slope was
set to be lower than the friction angle, preventing additional and unwanted slope failure
mechanisms that could erroneously impact results. On the other hand, it is argued that
 of the in situ geostatic stresses, and the second for the installation of the wall. The lower
excavation level was moderately sloped, as shown in Figure 2. The angle of this slope was
set to be lower than the friction angle, preventing additional and unwanted slope failure
Geotechnics 2024, 4 mechanisms that could erroneously impact results. On the other hand, it is argued 314 that
adding a slope is more realistic than a full removal of the entire portion of the lower level,
as this could introduce unrealistic effects.
adding
Figurea slope is more
3 shows the realistic
flowchart thanfor
a full
theremoval of the entire
computational portion
scheme to of the lowerthe
automate level,
numeri-
as this could introduce unrealistic effects.
cal investigation. Before automation, the initial six models were built and tested manually.
Figure 3 shows the flowchart for the computational scheme to automate the numerical
Manual checking is particularly important in the face of advanced computational tools
investigation. Before automation, the initial six models were built and tested manually.
rapidly
Manual becoming
checkingmore powerful.
is particularly With insufficient
important human
in the face of advancedlearning at the preliminary
computational tools
stages of modeling,
rapidly becoming moretherepowerful.
is a greater
Withrisk for the human
insufficient garbage-in-garbage-out phenomenon
learning at the preliminary
[13].stages of modeling, there is a greater risk for the garbage-in-garbage-out phenomenon [13].

Figure 3. Computational
Figure 3. Computationalscheme
scheme for automating
for automating numerical
numerical investigation.
investigation.

Two Two Pythonscripts

Python scripts were
were written
writtenforforthe
theautomation
automation process, corresponding
process, correspondingto the to the
two arrows shown in Figure 3. The first script interfaces with the FE model files by
two arrows shown in Figure 3. The first script interfaces with the FE model files by ma-
manipulating baseline models. Within this process, a total of six baseline models that
nipulating baseline models. Within this process, a total of six baseline models that corre-
correspond to the variation in height (i.e., H = 3, 4, . . ., 8) were created. A Monte Carlo
spond
schemeto the variation
replaced in height
the original input(i.e., H = 3, 4,from
parameters …, 8)thewere created.
baseline A MontetoCarlo
files, according Table 2.scheme
replaced
This process assigns input parameter values a random value according to a uniform2. This
the original input parameters from the baseline files, according to Table
process assignsItinput
distribution. parameterthat
is acknowledged values a random
the variation value according
of geological materialsto a uniform
regularly distribu-
follows
a normal
tion. distribution [21].
It is acknowledged Forthe
that probabilistic
variationanalysis, where materials
of geological modelling aims to estimate
regularly the a nor-
follows
maldistribution
distribution of [21].
outcomes, assigning a normal
For probabilistic distribution
analysis, to parameters
where modelling aimsisto
fundamental.
estimate the dis-
However, for the current analysis, the objective was to capture the range of results and
tribution of outcomes, assigning a normal distribution to parameters is fundamental.
compare this to the LDB. Given that the LDB itself consists of 26 case studies, it lacks the
However, for the current analysis, the objective was to capture the range of results and
statistical significance for a more rigorous comparison. Another reason to generate evenly
compare this to
distributed the is
inputs LDB. Given that
for applying ML the
toolsLDB itself consists
to interpret of 26 case
the numerical studies,
results. it lacks the
ML models
statistical significance for a more rigorous comparison.
perform better when trained on evenly distributed data [22]. Another reason to generate evenly
distributed inputs is
Accordingly, thefor applying
input ML were
parameters toolsrandomly
to interpret the numerical
generated 50 times forresults. ML models
each baseline
perform (i.e., j when
modelbetter = 50 according
trained on to the notation
evenly shown indata
distributed Figure 3). Considering that there
[22].
were six baseline models, a total of 300 FE models were created. The script arranges the
input parameters from the models as a matrix. Using standard hardware, computer solving
time for these 300 models could range between several hours and a few days, rendering
the proposed modeling methodology feasible for practical purposes.
Geotechnics 2024, 4 315

Table 2. Assumed input parameter statistical ranges and relationships.

Parameter Unit Min Max Relationship

re f
E50 [MPa] 1 150
re f re f .
Eoed [MPa] 0.5 225 Eoed re f
0.5 < E50 < 1.5

re f re f .
Eur [MPa] 1 1575 Eur re f
2.0 < E50 < 7

m [-] 0.5 1

SS-HSM υ [-] 0.2 0.3

parameters K0NC [-] 0.4 0.6
ϕ [Deg] 20 40
cohesion [MPa] 0 0.01
Rf [-] 0.6 0.9
ψ [Deg] 0 10 max{0, −30}
re f re f .
G0 [MPa] 1.1 2677.5 G re f
1.1 < 0 Eur < 1.7

γ0.7 [-] 0.0001 0.001

Beam thickness [m] 0.5 0.9
Other varied Joint friction [Deg] 12 32 {0.6 − 0.8} ∗ ϕ
parameters
Residual Joint friction [Deg] 12 32 {0.6 − 0.8} ∗ ϕ

The second Python script (represented by the second arrow in Figure 3) extracts the
main results of the numerical models and arranges them as a column vector. Addition-
ally, two important checks are applied within the script: (1) non-converging models are
identified and (2) the displacement profile is checked for acceptability. The first check is
crucial for detecting potential erroneous results due to numerical issues and loss of wall
stability [16]. The second check is applied to identify erroneous reversed displacements,
typical for MC-based FE models [23], as discussed in the Introduction section.
Finally, the results were compared to the actual displacements from the LDB. For this
purpose, two plots devised by Long (2001) [12] were reproduced. The vertical axis for
both these plots is the normalized wall displacements, i.e., δh−max /H (see Figure 1). The
horizontal axes for the plots are the excavation height and the wall stiffness. The wall
stiffness is represented by the expression ln( EI ), where E is the concrete Young’s modulus,
and I is the wall’s second moment of area. For all models, the E was kept constant and
t3
equal to 30,000 MPa, and I was calculated according to I = 12 , where t is the varied wall
thickness. The concrete unit weight and Poisson ratio were kept constant and assigned
the typical values of 25 KN/m3 and 0.2, respectively. This comparative analysis aimed
to assess the simulation results’ reliability by examining their statistical alignment with
empirically observed displacement patterns.
Regarding the general settings for the FE models, for SS-HSM in RS2, experience has
shown that model performance is sensitive to stress analysis settings. Primarily, these
settings influence the imitation of nonlinear behaviour using linear steps. Accordingly,
the model tolerance was set to 0.001, the number of load steps was set to adaptive, the
initial load increment was set to 0.0001, and the maximum load step was equal to 0.25.
For the FE mesh, six-noded triangle elements were used, and elements as fine as 0.25 m
were assigned to the zone of influence, i.e., the vicinity of the wall. Each model consisted
of 10,251 elements at the initial stage before excavation. Model boundaries were set to
30 × 50 m, which extended beyond excavation-induced displacements. This can be ob-
served in the horizontal displacement contours of an example model shown in Figure 4.
 which extended beyond excavation-induced displacements. This can be observed in
horizontal displacement
FE mesh, six-noded contours
triangle elementsofwerean example
used, andmodel shown
elements inas
as fine Figure
0.25 m4.were
The as-
bo
and lateral
signed to theboundaries are fully
zone of influence, i.e.,restrained.
the vicinityThe numerical
of the wall. Eachinvestigation
model consistedresults and
of 10,251
elements at the
comparison initial
to the LDB stage
are before
presentedexcavation. Model boundaries
in the following section. were set to 30 × 50 m,
Geotechnics 2024, 4 which extended beyond excavation-induced displacements. This can be observed 316 in the
horizontal displacement contours of an example model shown in Figure 4. The bottom
and lateral boundaries are fully restrained. The numerical investigation results and their
The bottom and
comparison lateral
to the LDB boundaries are fully
are presented in restrained. The numerical
the following section. investigation results
and their comparison to the LDB are presented in the following section.

Figure 4. Typical results of horizontal displacement contours from one of the FE models.

4. Results and Discussion

Figure 4.
Figure Typical results
4. Typical resultsofof
horizontal displacement
horizontal contours
displacement from one
contours fromofone
the FE models.
of the FE models.
In total, 300 models were computed via the RS2 solver, which allows for autom
4. Results andof
computation Discussion
numerous models. It was found that only four numerical models fail
4. Results and Discussion
In total,
converge, and300these
models were computed
models via the RS2
were, therefore, solver, whichNone
disregarded. allowsofforthe
automated
models yielde
In total, of
computation 300numerous
models were
models.computed via the
It was found thatRS2
onlysolver, which allows
four numerical modelsfor automated
failed
versed displacements. The numerical data, thus consisting of 296 results of norma
computation
to converge, and of numerous
these modelsmodels. It was found
were, therefore, that onlyNone
disregarded. fourofnumerical
the models models
yieldedfailed to
wall displacements,
reversed displacements. were plotted alongside
The numerical data, thus the LDB, of
consisting as296
shown inofFigures 5 and 6. B
converge, and these models were, therefore, disregarded. Noneresults normalized
of the models yielded re-
on a displacements,
wall
versed visual comparison
displacements.wereThe ofnumerical
plottedthe data, data,
alongside empirical
the LDB, and numerical
thusasconsisting
shown of 2965results
in Figures are
and 6. Based
results in
ongood ag
of normalized
ment,
a visualas the vast majority
comparison
wall displacements, of the of datapoints
data,
were plotted alongsideare
empirical and
theconcentrated
numerical results
LDB, as shown within
are in a narrow
good
in Figures 5 andbandwid
agreement,
6. Based
as the vast
0–1%, with majority
several ofoutlier
datapoints are concentrated
results. Also, withintoa the
similarly narrow
LDB bandwidth
findings, ofnumerical
0–1%, re
on a visual comparison of the data, empirical and numerical results are in good agree-
with several outlier results. Also, similarly to the LDB findings, numerical results are
are
ment,independent of excavation
as the vast majority depth and
of datapoints are wall stiffness.within a narrow bandwidth of
concentrated
independent of excavation depth and wall stiffness.
0–1%, with several outlier results. Also, similarly to the LDB findings, numerical results
are independent of excavation depth and wall stiffness.

5. Normalized
Figure 5.
Figure Normalized maximum
maximum wallwall
displacements vs. excavation
displacements depth of numerical
vs. excavation depth ofresults via resul
numerical
RS2 models and the empirical data from LDB.
RS2 models
Figure and the empirical
5. Normalized maximumdata wallfrom LDB.
displacements vs. excavation depth of numerical results via
RS2 models and the empirical data from LDB.
Geotechnics 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW
Geotechnics 2024, 4 317

Figure 6. Normalized maximum wall displacements vs. wall stiffness of numerical results via the
Figure 6. Normalized maximum wall displacements vs. wall stiffness of numerical results
RS2 models and the empirical data from LDB.
RS2 models and the empirical data from LDB.
For a more rigorous comparison, a basic statistical analysis was applied. The average
of theFor
normalized
a moredisplacements of the LDB is a
rigorous comparison, 0.35%,
basicwhereas the numerical
statistical analysisresults yielded The a
was applied.
a lower mean value of 0.21%. The quartile distribution of the numerical results shows that
of the normalized displacements of the LDB is 0.35%, whereas the numerical
25% of the values are below 0.046%, 50% (median) are below 0.11%, and 75% are below
yielded
0.18%. Thesea lower
resultsmean
indicatevalue
that a of 0.21%.portion
significant The quartile
of the data distribution
are concentrated of the numerical
at lower
shows that 25%
displacement values,ofsimilarly
the valuesto theare
LDB.below 0.046%,data
The empirical 50% and(median)
numericalare below
results have 0.11%,
a a
similar standard deviation of 0.42 and 0.43, respectively. Thus, the
are below 0.18%. These results indicate that a significant portion of the data are c numerical investigation
results generally
trated at lowerprove that the RS2values,
displacement models similarly
with the SS-HSM
to thematerial
LDB. The model successfully
empirical data and
replicate embedded wall behavior.
ical results have a similar standard deviation of 0.42 and 0.43, respectively. Thus,
To augment the interpretation of the numerical data, we computed feature importance,
merical investigation
a data analysis results learning
tool from machine generally (ML).prove that the
Coupling RS2 with
ML tools models with anal-
numerical the SS-HSM
rial
ysis model
has beensuccessfully replicate
shown to accelerate embedded
back-analysis wall
tasks andbehavior.
assistance in other modelling
tasks To
[24].augment
Feature importance analysis shows the
the interpretation of the numerical impact of each varied
data,input
we parameter
computed featu
on the desired outcomes, thus providing insight into which inputs require greater attention.
portance, a data analysis tool from machine learning (ML). Coupling ML tools w
The computational method for feature importance was first derived by [25]. To compute
merical analysis has
feature importance, beenML
a proper shown
model to must accelerate back-analysis
first be built. Accordingly, the tasks
inputand assistance i
parame-
modelling
ters from the tasks
numerical[24].models
Featurewereimportance
arranged as ananalysis
X matrix,shows
and the the impact
resultant of each varie
normalized
displacements
parameter onwere
thedefined
desired as aoutcomes,
corresponding thusY-column
providingvector.insight
The open-source
into which Scikit-inputs
learn library was imported into Python for ML analysis.
greater attention. The computational method for feature importance was A comprehensive review of MLfirst der
applications and the Sci-kit learn library is given by [25].
[25].TheTo compute
random forest feature importance,
regression model was a proper ML model
implemented usingmust firstfrom
functions be built.
this Accor
the input
library. The parameters from the
correlation between thenumerical
X and Y data models
was low, were arranged
such that R2 <as0.5.an The
X matrix,
resultant normalized displacements were defined as a corresponding Y-column
coefficient of determination R2 provides a straightforward assessment of the ML model
performance;
The open-source a resultScikit-learn
of one indicates perfect
library wasaccuracy, and zero
imported intoindicates
Pythonnofor correlation.
ML analysis.
The interpretation of this low correlation is not conclusive and could stem from several
prehensive review of ML applications and the Sci-kit learn library is given by [25]
issues. A greater number of models is likely required, as the SS-HSM consists of many
inputThe random
parameters withforest regression
highly model In
nonlinear results. was
thisimplemented
context, it should using functions
be noted that from
brary.
the factThe
that correlation between
both the empirical the X
data and and Y data
numerical was
results arelow, such that
not evenly R2 < 0.5.
distributed butThe coe
consist of small wall movements with few large outliers
of determination R2 provides a straightforward assessment of the ML model renders such datasets difficult to perfor
train accurately [26].
a result of one indicates perfect accuracy, and zero indicates no correlation. The in
Due to the low performance of the random forest model, feature importance results
tation
should beof treated
this low withcorrelation is not conclusive
caution [24]. Nevertheless, whetherand could
feature stem from
importance results several
are is
greater number of models is likely required, as the SS-HSM consists of many in
rameters with highly nonlinear results. In this context, it should be noted that the f
both the empirical data and numerical results are not evenly distributed but co
small wall movements with few large outliers renders such datasets difficult to t
curately [26].
Geotechnics 2024,
Geotechnics 4, FOR
2024, 4 PEER REVIEW 318 10

meaningful can be tested, as hereby described. Feature importance was computed using
are predominantly dictated by the SS-HSM three Young’s moduli (i.e., E_ref50, E_oed,
the built-in function in the Sci-Kit library [25]. The results showed that the displacements
and E_ur), while the impact of the other parameters importance is secondary.
are predominantly dictated by the SS-HSM three Young’s moduli (i.e., E_ref50, E_oed, and
Accordingly,
E_ur), Figure
while the impact of 7 shows
the other aparameters
modified importance
plot of the is
data, where the numerical results
secondary.
were divided intoFigure
Accordingly, three 7even
showsquantiles:
a modified upper,
plot ofmiddle, and
the data, lower
where thequantile.
numericalThe quantiles
results
correspond
were divided to into
the Young’s
three even moduli ranges
quantiles: listed
upper, in Table
middle, and2.lower
Notequantile.
that the Young’s
The quan-moduli
tiles
are correspond
dependent ontoeach
the Young’s
other andmoduli ranges
roughly listed in Table
proportional, as 2. Note that
defined the Young’s
in Table 2. Observing
moduli7,are
Figure dependent
it can on eachthat
be identified other
theand roughlymoduli
Young’s proportional, as defined
quantile largely in Table 2.the
predicts Ob-magni-
serving Figure 7, it can be identified that the Young’s moduli quantile largely
tude of normalized wall displacement. Thus, the results of the feature importance are con- predicts
the magnitude of normalized wall displacement. Thus, the results of the feature impor-
firmed. This finding could assist others in faster calibrating their embedded wall models,
tance are confirmed. This finding could assist others in faster calibrating their embedded
aswall
displacement results can be controlled by adjusting the SS-HSM Young’s moduli pa-
models, as displacement results can be controlled by adjusting the SS-HSM Young’s
rameters.
moduli parameters.

Figure
Figure7.7.Numerical resultsdivided
Numerical results dividedinto
into 3 quantiles
3 quantiles according
according to SS-HSM
to SS-HSM average
average Young’s
Young’s moduli,moduli,
thus
thushighlighting theirimpact
highlighting their impactonon normalized
normalized displacement
displacement results.
results.

As discussed
As discussed ininthe Introduction
the section,
Introduction underunder
section, the current state of practice,
the current state oftraditional
practice, tradi-
analytical limit equilibrium methods are frequently being used for embedded wall design.
tional analytical limit equilibrium methods are frequently being used for embedded wall
The design process involves computing the internal forces and selecting the suitable cross-
design.
section,The design
as well process
as the involves computing
steel reinforcement for concretethewalls.
internal Forforces
each ofand
the selecting
300 models, the suit-
able cross-section,
we computed as well as internal
the maximum the steelbending
reinforcement
momentfor concrete
using simplewalls. For each
analytical of the 300
analysis
models, we computed the maximum internal bending moment
of active and passive forces based on the soil internal friction angle, based on simpleusing simple analytical
analysis of active
lateral earth pressureand passive
theory. forcescomputations,
For these based on the soilsoil internal
cohesion wasfriction angle,
disregarded. based on
Note
that this
simple simplification
lateral is assumed
earth pressure to beFor
theory. negligible, as the cohesionsoil
these computations, values assigned
cohesion to disre-
was
the FE models lie within a very low range of 0–0.1 MPa (see Table
garded. Note that this simplification is assumed to be negligible, as the cohesion values 2). Safety factors
were notto
assigned applied
the FEtomodels
the analytical calculation,
lie within a very lowin order
range to allow
of 0–0.1for MPa
a valid comparison.
(see Table 2). Safety
Figure 8 shows these results juxtaposed alongside the SS-HSM FE model results obtained
factors were not applied to the analytical calculation, in order to allow for a valid compar-
from RS2. The results are divided according to the wall heights. As can be observed,
ison. Figure 8 shows these results juxtaposed alongside the SS-HSM FE model results ob-
the bending moments from the analytical calculations are larger, and increase with wall
tained
height.from
ThisRS2. The results
discrepancy canare
be divided
primarilyaccording
attributedtotothe thewall heights.more
FE models’ As can be observed,
accurate
the
representation of soil–structure interaction, which takes into account the soil’s stiffnesswith
bending moments from the analytical calculations are larger, and increase in wall
height. This
resisting discrepancy
movement—a canoverlooked
factor be primarily attributed
in simpler to theapproaches.
analytical FE models’This more accurate
finding is rep-
in line with the
resentation observation reported
of soil–structure by Longwhich
interaction, [12], that design
takes intopractices
accountbased
theonsoil’s
analytical
stiffness in
methodsmovement—a
resisting are overly conservative.
factor overlooked in simpler analytical approaches. This finding
is in line with the observation reported by Long [12], that design practices based on ana-
lytical methods are overly conservative.
Geotechnics
Geotechnics2024,
2024,4,4 FOR PEER REVIEW 11
319

Figure 8. Comparison
Figure 8. Comparisonofofmaximum
maximum wall
wall bending
bending moment
moment fromfrom analytical
analytical andmodels
and RS2 RS2 models accord-
according
ing to wall height.
to wall height.

Summary and
5. Summary andConclusions
Conclusions
Embedded
Embedded walls wallsare areubiquitous
ubiquitousgeotechnical
geotechnical structures
structures andandaccurate prediction
accurate predictionof of
wall displacements remains a significant engineering challenge.
wall displacements remains a significant engineering challenge. Simplified methods, such Simplified methods, such
as lateral
as lateral pressure
pressuretheory,
theory,do donot provide
not provide displacement
displacement results, andand
results, FE analyses
FE analyseswithwith
the the
Mohr–Coulomb material model have been shown to fall short of yielding realistic dis-
Mohr–Coulomb material model have been shown to fall short of yielding realistic dis-
placement results. In this regard, the SS-HSM model has generally demonstrated promis-
placement results. In this regard, the SS-HSM model has generally demonstrated promis-
ing results for various geotechnical applications but requires the knowledge of multiple
ing results for various geotechnical applications but requires the knowledge of multiple
input parameters.
inputThisparameters.
paper presents an extensive numerical investigation of embedded walls to system-
This paper presents
atically compare FE modelling an extensive
results with numerical
a database investigation
of actual wall of movements.
embedded walls to sys-
For this
tematically
purpose, an automated computational scheme was developed, and the power of computer For
compare FE modelling results with a database of actual wall movements.
this purpose,
automation wasanemployed.
automated computational
Through this process,scheme
a largewas developed,
number andwere
of models the power
computedof com-
puter
accordingautomation
to variedwas employed.
SS-HSM Through this
input parameters, process,
as well a large
as other number such
parameters, of models
as wallwere
computed
thickness and according
soil–walltointerface.
varied SS-HSM input parameters, as well as other parameters,
suchThe SS-HSM
as wall inputand
thickness parameter
soil–wall variation
interface. was established according to research by
others,Theas SS-HSM
well as practical experiencevariation
input parameter gained bywas the authors.
established Theaccording
results of the comparative
to research by oth-
study
ers, asdemonstrate that the
well as practical numerical
experience resultsby
gained are
thein authors.
close agreement
The resultswithofempirical data.
the comparative
For both,
study the majority
demonstrate of results
that are confined
the numerical resultswithin
are small,
in closenormalized
agreement displacements,
with empirical anddata.
the statistical distribution is similar. Hence, it is argued that the
For both, the majority of results are confined within small, normalized displacements, andranges of SS-HSM input
parameters assumed for this paper, as listed in Table 2, can be used as a good starting point
the statistical distribution is similar. Hence, it is argued that the ranges of SS-HSM input
for others who wish to simulate embedded walls. The three Young’s modulus parameters
parameters assumed for this paper, as listed in Table 2, can be used as a good starting
for the SS-HSM have been found to impact displacement results significantly. Thus, proper
point for others who wish to simulate embedded walls. The three Young’s modulus pa-
assessment of these parameters is crucial for obtaining realistic predictions.
rameters for the SS-HSM
Additionally, our analysis haveshowsbeen that
found thetoFEimpact
modelsdisplacement results
align more closely significantly.
with actual
Thus,
embedded wall behavior, potentially leading to less conservative, yet realistic,predictions.
proper assessment of these parameters is crucial for obtaining realistic design
Additionally,
outcomes comparedour analysis shows
to traditional analyticalthatmethods.
the FE models align more
This observation closely withour
complements actual
embedded
primary findingswall behavior, potentially
by highlighting leading to of
the advantage less conservative,
advanced yet realistic,
FE modeling design out-
in capturing
comes
complex compared to traditional
geotechnical behaviors.analytical methods. This observation complements our pri-
maryItfindings by highlighting
is essential to acknowledge the the
advantage
limitationsof advanced FE modeling
of the current work. The in capturing
models arecom-
limited
plex to several simplifying
geotechnical behaviors. assumptions. Consequently, predictions for specific cases
should be essential
It is made with tocaution
acknowledgeand subject
the to thorough review,
limitations as the consequences
of the current work. The modelsof wall are
failure can be catastrophic. Additionally, only the simplest
limited to several simplifying assumptions. Consequently, predictions for specific case of a cantilever wall wascases
analyzed; therefore, further investigation is required for deep and
should be made with caution and subject to thorough review, as the consequences of wall sequenced excavations,
which involve
failure can be additional
catastrophic. geotechnical
Additionally,phenomena.
only the simplest case of a cantilever wall was
analyzed; therefore, further investigation is required for deep and sequenced excavations,
which involve additional geotechnical phenomena.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.E. and A.M. (Amichai Mitelman); methodology, A.M.
(Amichai Mitelman); software, A.M. (Amichai Mitelman) and A.M. (Alison Mcquillan); validation,
T.E. and A.M. (Amichai Mitelman); formal analysis, T.E.; investigation, A.M. (Amichai Mitelman),
Geotechnics 2024, 4 320

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.E. and A.M. (Amichai Mitelman); methodology, A.M.
(Amichai Mitelman); software, A.M. (Amichai Mitelman) and A.M. (Alison Mcquillan); validation,
T.E. and A.M. (Amichai Mitelman); formal analysis, T.E.; investigation, A.M. (Amichai Mitelman),
and T.E.; resources, A.M. (Alison Mcquillan) and T.E.; data curation, T.E. and A.M. (Alison Mcquillan);
writing—original draft preparation, A.M. (Amichai Mitelman) and A.M. (Alison Mcquillan);
writing—review and editing, D.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing does not apply to this article due to confidentiality and
non-disclosure constraints.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge Alireza Azami of Rocscience Inc. for his
assistance with the program functionality of RS2 and HSM.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Alison Mcquillan was employed by Rocscience Inc., Toronto. The
remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Mitelman, A.; Yang, B.; Urlainis, A. Coupling Geotechnical Numerical Analysis with Machine Learning for Observational Method
Projects. Geosciences 2023, 13, 196. [CrossRef]
2. Gaba, A.R. Embedded Retaining Walls: Guidance for Economic Design. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 2003, 177, 13–16.
[CrossRef]
3. Schmitt, P. French Practice for Design of Embedded Walls: History and Background, Overview of Limitations of Different Models
and Design Approaches. Rev. Française Géotechnique 2023, 175, 7. [CrossRef]
4. Budhu, M. Soil Mechanics and Foundations; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
5. Orr, T.L.L.; Farrell, E.R. Geotechnical Design to Eurocode 7; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
6. Lees, A. Geotechnical Finite Element Analysis; ICE Publishing: London, UK, 2013.
7. Wu, J.T.H.; Tung, S.C.-Y. Determination of Model Parameters for the Hardening Soil Model. Transp. Infrastruct. Geotechnol. 2020, 7,
55–68. [CrossRef]
8. Obrzud, R.F. On the Use of the Hardening Soil Small Strain Model in Geotechnical Practice. Numer. Geotech. Struct. 2010, 16, 1–17.
9. Schweiger, H.F. Benchmarking in Geotechnics. Part 1: Results for Benchmarking; Part 2: Reference Solution and Parametric Study; Graz
University of Technology, Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: Graz, Austria, 2002.
10. Saleh, S. Numerical Simulation with Hardening Soil Model Parameters of Marine Clay Obtained from Conventional Tests. SN
Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 156. [CrossRef]
11. Huynh, Q.T. Verification of Soil Parameters of Hardening Soil Model with Small-Strain Stiffness for Deep Excavations in Medium
Dense Sand in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2022, 7, 15. [CrossRef]
12. Long, M. Database for Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due to Deep Excavations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001, 127,
203–224. [CrossRef]
13. Mitelman, A.; Yang, B.; Elmo, D. Choosing between Prediction and Explanation in Geological Engineering: Lessons from
Psychology. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 2023, 48, 651–668. [CrossRef]
14. Yang, B. Why the Future of Rock Mass Classification Systems Requires Revisiting Their Empirical Past. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol.
2022, 55, qjegh2021-039. [CrossRef]
15. Clough, G.W. Construction Induced Movements of Insitu Wall, Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structure. In
Proceedings of the ASCE, New York, NY, USA, 18–21 June 1990; pp. 439–479.
16. Rocscience. Phase2 Version 6.020; Rocscience Inc.: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2007.
17. McQuillan, A.; Mitelman, A.; Elmo, D. Back-Analysis of Structurally Controlled Failure in an Open-Pit Mine with Machine
Learning Tools. Geotechnics 2023, 3, 1207–1218. [CrossRef]
18. Bilotta, E.; Stallebrass, S.E. Prediction of Stresses and Strains around Model Tunnels with Adjacent Embedded Walls in Overcon-
solidated Clay. Comput. Geotech. 2009, 36, 1049–1057. [CrossRef]
19. Cao, M. Experimental Study of Hardening Small Strain Model Parameters for Strata Typical of Zhengzhou and Their Application
in Foundation Pit Engineering. Buildings 2023, 13, 2784. [CrossRef]
20. Cudny, M.; Truty, A. Refinement of the Hardening Soil model within the small strain range. Acta Geotech. 2020, 15, 2031–2051.
[CrossRef]
21. Hoek, E.; Bray, J.D. Rock Slope Engineering; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1981.
22. Mitelman, A.; Yang, B.; Elmo, D. Implementation of Surrogate Models for the Analysis of Slope Problems. Geosciences 2023, 13, 99.
[CrossRef]
23. Furtney, J.K. Surrogate Models in Rock and Soil Mechanics: Integrating Numerical Modeling and Machine Learning. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 2022, 55, 2845–2859. [CrossRef]
Geotechnics 2024, 4 321

24. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [CrossRef]
25. Géron, A. Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2022.
26. Kelleher, J.D.; Tierney, B. Data Science; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.