Earthwork Allocation and Transportation (EAT) significantly impacts construction cost in Railway Alignment (RA) optimization, but slight research has been devoted to this problem. To this end, an RA-EAT bi-level optimization framework is developed. A concurrent RA-EAT design model is formulated at the upper-level. At the lower level, the EAT system is modelled by incorporating earthwork allocation sections partition, soil waste/borrow pits selection and access roads generation. To solve this bi-level model, a tailored solution strategy is proposed. Specifically, a candidate pool for borrow/waste pits is established via a moving window method. Then, RA alternatives are generated using a Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Afterward, the EAT model is solved with a hierarchical approach, including determining EAT sections along an RA with a divide-and-conquer method and configuring access roads with a modified Dijkstra's algorithm. Thus, the total RA-EAT solution can be iteratively evolved through the PSO rationale. Finally, the proposed method is verified and analyzed in a real-world case via a sensitivity analysis and a comparative experiment.
SongTPuHSchonfeldP, et al.Mountain railway alignment optimization integrating layouts of large-scale auxiliary construction projects. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2023; 38: 433–453.
2.
SongTSchonfeldPPuH. A review of alignment optimization research for roads, railways and rail transit lines. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2023; 24: 4738–4757.
3.
KimEJhaMKSchonfeldP, et al.Highway alignment optimization incorporating bridges and tunnels. J Transp Eng2007; 133: 71–81.
4.
ZhangHPuHSchonfeldP, et al.Multi-objective railway alignment optimization considering costs and environmental impacts. Appl Soft Comput2020; 89: 106105.
5.
PuHXieJSchonfeldP, et al.Railway alignment optimization in mountainous regions considering spatial geological hazards: a sustainable safety perspective. Sustainability2021; 13: 1661.
6.
WanXPuHSchonfeldP, et al.Mountain railway alignment optimization based on landform recognition and presetting of dominating structures. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2023; 39: 1.
7.
ArugaK. Tabu search optimization of horizontal and vertical alignments of forest roads. J For Res2017; 10: 275–284.
8.
GhoreishiBShafahiYHashemianSE. A model for optimizing railway alignment considering bridge costs, tunnel costs, and transition curves. Urban Rail Transit2019; 5: 207–224.
9.
JhaMKSchonfeldPMJongJ-C, et al.Intelligent road design. UK: WIT Press, 2006.
10.
PuHSongTSchonfeldP, et al.A three-dimensional distance transform for optimizing constrained mountain railway alignments. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2019; 34: 972–990.
11.
SongTPuHSchonfeldP, et al.Mountain railway alignment optimization considering geological impacts: a cost-hazard bi-objective model. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2020; 35: 1365–1386.
12.
GaoYGaoTWuY, et al.Low-construction-emission cross-section optimization for mountainous highway alignment designs. Transp Res Part D Transport Environ2022; 105: 103249.
13.
PuHCaiLSongT, et al.Minimizing costs and carbon emissions in railway alignment optimization: a bi-objective model. Transp Res Part D Transport Environ2023; 116: 103615.
14.
SongTPuHSchonfeldP, et al.Many-objective optimization of railway alignments with strengthened pareto dominance analysis. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2025; 26: 11372–11387.
15.
JongJCSchonfeldP. An evolutionary model for simultaneously optimizing three-dimensional highway alignments. Transp Res B, Methodol2003; 37: 107–128.
16.
JongJ-C. Optimizing highway alignments with genetic algorithms. College Park: University of Maryland, 1998.
17.
KimEJhaMKLovellDJ, et al.Intersection modeling for highway alignment optimization. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2004; 19: 119–129.
18.
KangMWYangNSchonfeldP, et al.Bilevel highway route optimization. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board2010; 2197: 107–117.
19.
KangM-WJhaMKSchonfeldP. Applicability of highway alignment optimization models. Transp Res C Emerg Technol2012; 21: 257–286.
20.
JhaMKSchonfeldP. A highway alignment optimization model using geographic information systems. Transp Res A Policy Pract2004; 38: 455–481.
21.
KangMWSchonfeldPYangN. Prescreening and repairing in a genetic algorithm for highway alignment optimization. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2009; 24: 109–119.
22.
YangNKangM-WSchonfeldP, et al.Multi-objective highway alignment optimization incorporating preference information. Transp Res C Emerg Technol2014; 40: 36–48.
23.
de SmithMJ. Determination of gradient and curvature constrained optimal paths. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2006; 21: 24–38.
24.
LiWPuHSchonfeldP, et al.Methodology for optimizing constrained 3-dimensional railway alignments in mountainous terrain. Transp Res C Emerg Technol2016; 68: 549–565.
GaoTLiZGaoY, et al.A deep reinforcement learning approach to mountain railway alignment optimization. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2021; 37: 73–92.
30.
CostaALSousaRLEinsteinHH. Probabilistic 3D alignment optimization of underground transport infrastructure integrating GIS-based subsurface characterization. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol2018; 72: 233–241.
31.
CasalGSantamarinaDVazquezmendezME. Optimization of horizontal alignment geometry in road design and reconstruction. Transp Res C Emerg Technol2017; 74: 261–274.
32.
EasaSM. Earthwork allocations with linear unit costs. J Constr Eng Manag1988; 114: 641–655.
33.
EasaSM. Selection of roadway grades that minimize earthwork cost using linear programming. Transp Res Part A Gen1988; 22: 121–136.
34.
FernandesPGPSJúniorEFNPrataBA. Optimization of earthworks planning: a systematic mapping study. Can J Civ Eng2022; 49: 1781–1795.
35.
KimS-KRussellJS. Framework for an intelligent earthwork system: part II. Task identification/scheduling and resource allocation methodology. Autom Constr2003; 12: 15–27.
36.
GwakH-SSeoJLeeD-E. Optimal cut-fill pairing and sequencing method in earthwork operation. Autom Constr2018; 87: 60–73.
37.
HajarianAOsanlooM. A new developed model to determine waste dump site selection in open pit mines: an approach to minimize haul road construction cost. Int J Eng Trans A2020; 33: 1413–1422.
38.
BurdettRLKozanE. An integrated approach for earthwork allocation, sequencing and routing. Eur J Oper Res2014; 238: 741–759.
39.
BurdettRKozanEKenleyR. Block models for improved earthwork allocation planning in linear infrastructure construction. Eng Optim2015; 47: 347–369.
40.
GüdenHSüralH. A polynomial algorithm for the earthwork allocation problem with borrow and waste site selection. J Oper Res Soc2017; 68: 1085–1093.
41.
ChoiGHanS. Reinforcement learning-based dynamic planning of cut and fill operations for earthwork optimization. Autom Constr2023; 156: 105111.
42.
HareWLKochVRLucetY. Models and algorithms to improve earthwork operations in road design using mixed integer linear programming. Eur J Oper Res2011; 215: 470–480.
43.
MondalSLucetYHareW. Optimizing horizontal alignment of roads in a specified corridor. Comput Oper Res2015; 64: 130–138.
44.
SarmaKCAdeliH. Bilevel parallel genetic algorithms for optimization of large steel structures. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2002; 16: 295–304.
45.
LinZYWongSCZhangP, et al.Bilevel dynamic continuum model for housing allocation and transportation emission problems in an urban city. Int J Sustainable Transp2019; 15: 55–69.
46.
Administration (CNR). Code for railway alignment design, TB10098-2017. Beijing: China Railway Press, 2017.
47.
ShiJZhangYChenY, et al.A smoothness optimization method for horizontal alignment considering ballasted track maintenance. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2022; 38: 739–761.
48.
SongTPuHSchonfeldP, et al.Simultaneous optimization of 3D alignments and station locations for dedicated high-speed railways. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2021; 37: 405–426.
49.
DagostinoFRFeigenbaumL. Estimating in building construction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2003.
50.
Standardization (CAFEC). Technical specification for earth disposal site engineering. T/CECS 1240-2023. Beijing. 2023.
51.
TransportCMO. Technical standard of low volume rural highway engineering. JTG 2011–2019. Beijing. 2019.
52.
WangHGaoTGanM, et al.Auxiliary road design and optimization for railway construction in mountainous areas. J Transp Eng Part A Syst2023; 149: 1–14.
53.
BertiMCorsiniADaehneA. Comparative analysis of surface roughness algorithms for the identification of active landslides. Geomorphology2013; 182: 1–18.
54.
ShiYEberhartR. A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, pp.69-73. 1998.
55.
SongTPuHYangTY, et al.Optimizing net present values of risk avoidance for mountain railway alignments with seismic performance evaluation. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2023; 39: 944–962.
56.
SongTPuHYangTY, et al.Modeling earthquake-induced landslide risk for mountain railway alignment optimization. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertainty Eng Syst Part A Civil Eng2024; 10: 04024005.
57.
DijkstraEW. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math1959; 1: 269–271.
58.
AranhaCCamacho VillalónCLCampeloF, et al.Metaphor-based metaheuristics, a call for action: the elephant in the room. Swarm Intelligence2022; 16: –6.
59.
ParkHSAdeliH. Distributed neural dynamics algorithms for optimization of large steel structures. J Struct Eng1997; 123: 880–888.
60.
AkhandMAHAyonSIShahriyarSA, et al.Discrete spider monkey optimization for travelling salesman problem. Appl Soft Comput2020; 86: 105887.
61.
WangJZhongDAdeliH, et al.Smart bacteria-foraging algorithm-based customized kernel support vector regression and enhanced probabilistic neural network for compaction quality assessment and control of earth-rock dam. Expert Syst2018; 35: e12357.
62.
HareWHossainSLucetY, et al.Models and strategies for efficiently determining an optimal vertical alignment of roads. Comput Oper Res2014; 44: 161–173.
63.
Blanco-ValcarcelPCastroAVázquez-MéndezME. On the numerical computation of earthworks in road and railway projects. Results Eng2025; 27: 106824.
