## 1 Introduction
In addition, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [15] stated that a reduction in the lateral pressures takes place due to changing the state of soil from an at-rest to an active condition caused by retaining wall movement. [PERSON] et al. [16] and [PERSON] et al. [17] pointed out that the current methods computing earth pressure have some limitations due to a lack of consideration of the impact of retaining wall displacement. [PERSON] [18] observed that the lateral capacity of a pile-wall nearby a strip footing is improved by decreasing the pile spacing and increasing pile embedment length and diameter. [PERSON] [19] indicated that the distance between a footing and a pile-wall has a significant impact on the footing bearing capacity. [PERSON] et al. [20] formulated an equation, as shown in Equation (1) below, to describe the effects of footing width, \(\mathrm{B_{f}}\), footing length, \(\mathrm{L_{f}}\), and internal friction angle of soil, \(\mathrm{\phi}\), on the footing-wall critical distance, \(\mathrm{B_{cr}}\). Therefore, a footing does not interact with a pile-wall located beyond the footing-wall critical distance, \(\mathrm{B_{cr}}\). \[\frac{\mathrm{B_{cr}}}{\mathrm{B_{f}}}=\sqrt[5]{1875+1.995\bigg{(}\frac{ \mathrm{L_{f}}}{\mathrm{B_{f}}}\bigg{)}^{5}+107729(\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\phi} )^{5}} \tag{1}\]  
[PERSON] et al. [21] pointed out that the degree of interaction between a strip footing and a sheet pile-wall is greatly dependent on the footing location and wall thickness, where the footing and wall displacements and wall lateral earth pressure increase while the ultimate bearing capacity of adjacent footing decreases. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [22] indicated, based on an experimental study, that the performance of a sheet pile-wall adjacent to a footing is substantially influenced by the footing distance to the sheet pile-wall. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [23] studied the behavior of an axially loaded-piled retaining wall where the ultimate axial capacity of the tested pile-wall was significantly increased with the increase in soil relative density and wall-penetration depth. In addition, the lateral wall deformation and maximum bending moment with the ultimate axial capacity were considerably reduced by 50% due to the existence of surcharge stress within the active zone behind the piled retaining wall in accordance with their results. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [24] analyzed the effect of the load from stockpiled materials and construction machinery near the edge of a rectangular retaining wall on a soil foundation resting on an incompressible base. Their analyses indicated that the displacement of horizontal stresses toward a retaining wall results in extra internal forces in the retaining wall, which should be considered for reinforcing concrete retaining walls. They also pointed out that there are still no theoretical solutions considering a large range of factors forming the stress-strain statement of a soil basis, the distance of the building from the pit, the load on the foundation, and the width and length of the foundation. [PERSON] et al. (2015) studied embedded cantilever retaining walls (piles) by considering the displacement control of walls and reported that the wall rotation point is located in proximity to the wall base. They concluded that, in spite of research being conducted for the deformation control design of an embedded cantilever retaining pile-wall, a realistic and simple-to-use design method to determine the required embedment depth based on the deformation control is still to be investigated. [PERSON] et al. (2016) numerically investigated embedded walls by using a database of actual wall movements. They observed that the wall bending moments are greater and increase with wall height based on analytical calculations and, therefore, an accurate prediction of wall deflections remains a significant engineering challenge.