DSheet Piling
DSheet Piling is a tool used to design retaining walls and horizontally loaded piles. DSheet Piling ’s graphical interactive interface requires just a short training period, allowing the user to focus their skills directly on the input of sound geotechnical data and the subsequent design of the wall or single pile.
Besides features generally found in other retaining wall design software, DSheet Piling offers several specific design features:
 Automatic interpretation of CPT´s
All geotechnical parameters needed for input are interpretated from CPT data.  Length optimization
The critical length for the retaining structure is checked automatically by reducing the length of the wall stepbystep, until instability or unacceptable displacement occurs.  Safety
DSheet Piling verifies the safety of the sheet pile wall for selected construction stages by applying partial safety factors defined according to the Eurocode 7, including Eurocode annexes for The Netherlands and Belgium. The user can also define their own partial safety factors.  Anchor wall stability
The stability of the anchor wall is checked according to the Kranz theory.  Overall stability
A Bishop slipcircle analysis is used to check the overall stability of the wall and soil.  Feasibility comparison
Projects can be compared to experiences of real projects and guidelines to help to ascertain if installation/vibration of a sheet pile wall of this type is feasible.
Stability of anchor for short anchor (Kranz theory)
DSheet Piling comes as a standard module, which can be extended further with other modules to fit more advanced applications:
Modules
Demo / images
Service packages
DSheet Piling is available in the following packages:
Basic package
 Earth pressure coefficients
 Feasibility
Full package
 Earth pressure coefficients
 Feasibility
 Culmann
 Eurocode7 Verification
 Single Pile
 Plastic Wall
Educational package
The Educational package is the same as the Full package, but available at a reduced price.
License packages
Support
We are here to help you with all your Deltares software products and solutions.
Over the last decades, Deltares has been developing and improving DSheet Piling, which comes with everything a modelling professional needs in a flexible, stable, robust, easytouse modelling suite. Deltares offers high quality software services to consultancy firms, governmental organizations, universities and research institutes worldwide, using these software products.
To obtain the support of your convenience, please contact software@deltares.nl. For those with Maintenance & Support in place, please contact software.support@deltares.nl.
Known issues
Solved in 16.1.4.1  Long anchor stability: uniform loads are not taken into account During a stability calculation of long anchor, for the calculation of the passive pressure on the anchor wall (Ep) only the surcharge loads used, not the uniform loads. Note that this problem does not occur for Kranz calculation (short anchor), as both (surcharges and uniform) loads are used.Workaround: Change the uniform load(s) into surcharge(s) with a large width. 
Solved in 16.1.4.1  For a Verification calculation according to EC7B, the passive side is not correctly determined when the option “DSheet Piling determined” is used The program uses always the right side as passive side for a Verification calculation according to EC7Belgium Annex, when the option “DSheet Piling determined” is selected in the Stages Overview window.Workaround:In the “Stages Overview” window, the user must set the passive side manually (not using “DSheet Piling determined”). 
Solved in 16.1.4.1  In Report: the Stress State Chart for all phases and CURsteps is always the chart of phase 1 step 6.1 
Solved in 16.1.1.1  The result of the Vertical Balance in the Overview of the Report is not correct The ‘Overview per stage and step’ table in the Report gives always that the vertical balance is not sufficient even if it is sufficient.However, the result given in the section “Vertical Balance” of the Report (per phase and per step) is correct. 
Solved in 16.1.1.1  The option “DSheet Piling determined” for the favorable or unfavorable effect of a load when the passive side is determined with the option “DSheet Piling determined” does not work properly for a Verification calculation When the option “DSheet Piling determined” is selected for the effect of a load, the choice between favorable or unfavorable does not work correctly. Workaround: The user must set the effet manually (not using “DSheet Piling determined”). 
Solved in 15.1.1.5  For a verification calculation with CUR or EC7NL, the controle of the calculated moment is not completely correctly done The controle of the calculated moment (i.e. M_calculated < M_max) is performed for steps 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 (with a calculation error message in the report “Calculated moment exceeds maximum moment in one or more stages”) but not for step 6.5 * 1.2. 
Solved in 15.1.1.5  The definition of the ksifactor for a vertical balance check is according to NEN6743:2006 but not according to Eurocode NENEN 99971:2012 For the vertical balance check, DSheet Piling uses the formula from the old Dutch norm NEN6743:2006 to calculate the maximal bearing force Fr;max. In this formula, the maximal point resistance Pr;max;point is multiplied by ksi which has a value between 0.72 and 0.91. In the formula from the Eurocode NENEN 99971:2012, Pr;max;point is divided by ksi which has a value higher than 1 (often between 1.26 and 1.34). This can be confusing for the user. Workaround: To use the ksifactor from the Eurocode NENEN 99971:2012, the inverse must be inputted in the program (in the Sheet Piling window). 
Solved in 14.1.2.2  For a verification calculation with EC7Belgian annex, method B does not work properly For EC7B and method B, the partial factors (design values) are not applied only in the verified stage, so as expected, but they are applied in all stages, such as in method A. Methods A and B give then always the same result. 
Solved in 14.1.2.2  The input field “Material type” in the Sheet Piling window does not work properly The construction of a sheet pile wall with several elements, which are entered manually, does not work properly. The first element can be entered with no problem. When the mat erial type of the second element is entered, the window gets stuck: it is not possible anymore to click on a cell or to fill it. Workaround: First fill in the field “Name”, then select the “Material type” and then press the Escape button of the keyboard. After that, the other fields can be entered. 
Solved in 14.1.2.2  The text about the modification factor for the profiles (in the Sheet Piling window) applies only for synthetic profiles In the Sheet Piling window, the following text is shown for the profiles: “For long term situation, the Dutch norm NEN 6702 prescribes a modification factor of 0.45 and for short term situation a factor of 0.5.” This text applies only for synthetic sheet piling walls, but you see the text also for steel, concrete or wooden wall. For steel and concrete, no modification factor is used. For wooden, modification factors are applied and can be found in the European norm NENEN 1995. Workaround: to apply a modification factor on wooden profiles, change the material type to “Userdefined”. 
Solved in 14.1.2.2  For a verification calculation acc. to EC7–General or EC7B, the overview table in the report may contain errors For a verification calculation acc. to EC7–General and EC7B, the maximum moment resp. the maximum shear force given in the last row of the “Overview per stage and test” table can be the moment resp. shear force calculated at SLS (Deformation) and multiplied by a factor 1,2. This is not correct: this should be one of the results per phase and per test. However, the results of the different calculations per phase and per test are correct. 
Solved in 14.1.2.2  For a verification calculation acc. to EC7 – General and DA 3 with unfavourable temporary load(s), the results are not correct For a verification calculation acc. to EC7 – General and DA 3, the program does not take into account the inputted partial factor on unfavourable temporary load(s), and always uses a partial factor of 1. The results are therefore not correct. There is also an error in the Report: in paragraph “Calculation options”, it says that the partial factor on unfavourable temporary load(s) was manually defined to 1.00, whatever the inputted value. 
Solved in 14.1.2.2  The earth pressure coefficients calculated with the ‘c, phi, delta’ method are not always correct The calculation of the lambdas (fictive earth pressure coefficients) for the c, phi, delta method (Culmann) is wrong for slip planes at the passive side which have an angle with the wall more than 90 degrees. 
Solved in 9.3.1.1  In special cases (especially very deep sheet piles), no option is available under the ‘Results’ menu (version 9.2.1.5) The calculation is performed properly but it is not possible to view the results. When writing the slide plane data to determine the fictitious earth pressure coefficients, a space is not added. For large numbers of the calculated q, two numbers are written together and can therefore not be read. Workaround: The dump file (*. shd) must be updated manually (for example in Notepad). If you search for [SLIDE PLANE] you can quickly find the tables, which are going wrong. By adding a space between two numbers where needed, the file can be correctly read. 
Solved in 9.2.3.2  For ‘Single Pile’ , the pile stiffness EI is not reduced by the inputted reduction factor Workaround: The user must enter a reduced EI in the ‘Pile’ window. 
Solved in 9.2.2.2  Anchor stability by Kranz: incorrect evaluation of the allowable anchor force (P) For the Anchor Force Verification, the calculation of the factor due to angle (Es) is incorrect. This has an influence on the result of the allowable anchor force by Kranz (P). Workaround: To get the correct factor Es, subtract the calculated factor by [1cos(angle anchor)]. To get the correct anchor force P, multiply the calculated anchor force by the calculated factor Es and divide it by the correct Es. 
Solved in 9.2.1.5  Single pile loaded by calculated soil displacements For “Single pile loaded by calculated soil displacements” model, the modulus of subgrade reaction for the layers situated above level 0m +NAP are not calculated. Workaround: The geometry of the project must be modified by shifting the ground layers, the sheet piling and the water table downwards, so that they are situated below level 0m +NAP. 
Solved in 9.2.1.5  Reduction factor If a reduction factor on moment is used, (for instance because of oblique bending), this factor will be used in the table from the report. However if this corrected maximum moment is exceeded no warning is given by MSheet. 
Solved in 9.2.1.5  Sheet piling: incorrect evaluation maximum allowable moment In the graphical output (menu Results/Moment/Force/Displacement charts) dotted lines indicate the maximum allowed moment; the acting width factor has been applied to these. The program does not apply this factor when evaluating whether or not the maximum moment has been exceeded. Therefore, it can occur that in the graphic output the sheet pile is OK, but the report indicates the maximum moment has been exceeded. During calculation the program then indicates errors in the calculation. Workaround: set the maximum allowable moments to zero; in that case the software does not evaluate the moments. 
Frequently asked questions

When performing a vertical balance check on a combined wall, I get unexpected results
The vertical balance is not suitable for combined walls. It can not be separated out what is the point of resistance for the upper part. Calculations are based on the point resistance of the bottom part; point the resistance of the upper portion is not taken into consideration.

To what extent is DSheet Piling suitable to perform an undrained calculation for a layered soil with cohesive properties?
Undrained calculation is not directly available as a special option in DSheet Piling; but it can be simulated using phi = 0 and c = cu and moreover by adjusting the water pressures. The user has to calculate or estimate himself the under/over stresses and enter them in the program.

Is it possible to model a pile with the Sheet Piling module?
In some cases (eg nonehorizontal ground surface), the Single Pile can not be used to model a pile. In such a case, the Sheet Piling module can be used to model a pile by:
 entering the stiffness EI [in kNm2], the maximum moment Mmax [in kNm] and the section modulus W [in cm3] divided by the pile diameter (because with the Sheet Piling module EI, Mmax and W must be entered respectively in kNm2/m ‘, kNm/m and cm3/m’)
 entering the pile diameter as acting width
 entering a shell factor to multiply the passive earth pressure coefficient Kp and the modulus of subgrade reaction k and to divide the active earth pressure coefficient Ka by this shell factor. Note that Kp and k (resp. Ka) are automatically increased (resp. decreased) by the program with the shell factor
 entering a pile force in kN divided by the pile diameter (because with the Sheet Piling module, the horizontal force must be entered in kN/m’).

Why do the moments in the output window "Moment/Force/Displacement Charts" not always correspond to the moments in the summary table of the report?
In a verification calculation with EC7General of EC7B, in design approaches DA 1 set 1 and DA 2, the partial factors on the loads are applied on the effect. These factors are not included in the main graph of “Moment/Force/Displacement Charts” and in the figures below (black continuous line) because the factors are included after the calculation. But there are included in the red dotted line. The pictures are not wrong, but the factors are not applied here. The factors are apllied in the summary table of the report.
In DA 1 set 2 and DA 3, the factors are applied on the parameters. In both case, it is therefore calculated using updated values, and this is visible in the graphs. 
CUR verification: Why does Step 9.1 does not appear as a separate paragraph in the report?
If an anchor stiffness multiplication factor unequal to1 is used, step 9.1 of the CUR applies. Step 9.1 (Anchor verification) has no separate paragraph anymore. This step is reflected in the summary and the pictures in the beginning of the report. In the separate paragraph only the different anchor load was of interest, but this is already covered by the summary. The moments and forces as displayed in the paragraph step 9.1 are not relevant for the CUR check. For these reasons it was decided to remove the paragraph for version 7.9.1.5 onward.

Why do resulting moments divert from calculations made with older software versions?
Calculations made using version 7.9.1.5, and above, divert from older versions. The reduction of friction angle(s) delta according to CUR 166, introduced in version 7.7 was not correct. This reduction concerns values of phi over 30 degrees. Refer to the ‘known bugs’ for a work around if one cannot make use of the updated version.

Why has my anchor only a plate below the anchor rod?
In the MSheet user interface only the anchor plate is drawn below the anchor rod. Only the distance rodbottom anchor plate is entered in the user interface. For the Kranz stability this distance is required; in the calculations it is assumed that the plate runs up to the surface. For the reasons above it was decided to only draw the lower halve of the anchor plate.

Why do results for modelling for under water concrete provides unusual results?
Calculating the vertical force balance (also under the CUR design code), it is of importance which side is passive, as the direction of the vertical force is upward on the passive side. Whether or not the side is passive is determined based on the which side has the largest percentage of soil mobilized. If one is modeling for under water concrete, the high strength of the material may incorrectly results in the assumption of a passive opposite side. If one is modeling using CUR design code, the lowering of the active side may have a likewise effect. This should be overruled within the stage overview by indicating which side is passive.

CUR verification: Why are steps 6.1 and 6.2 are not always calculated?
In step 6.1 and 6.2 the phreatic level on the passive side is increased. This can be unfavourable when the phreatic level is below surface. When the phreatic level is upon or above the surface an increase is always favourable. Therefor steps 6.1 and 6.2 are not calculated.

CUR verification: Why is the maximum value for an anchor/strut not always displayed in the report summary "Anchors and Struts"?
When method I is used, MSheet determines the highest anchor force over all stages and verification steps (6.16.5). The verification of the anchor force is made with the verification step with the highest anchor force.
A verification with method II shows a slightly different result, because for each stage the verification step with the highest anchor force is selected.
If multiple anchors are present, both methods do the verification using the same step. 
Why do I receive a warning when I try to export my report to pdf?
The most likely cause is a memory problem. If you select the Export Report option in the File menu it is possible to choose a lower resolution for the images: Choose Options and select a smaller Picture quality. Another option is to increase your available memory either by shutting down other applications or increasing the RAM size.

Why can't I open the Help from within DSheet Piling?
See FAQ Installation

What is the difference between 'fine' and 'coarse' in the calculation options?
In MSheet the earth pressure coefficients are calculated for each element. On the elements intermediate nodes are placed. These nodes use the earth pressure coefficients of the element, this is the ‘coarse’ option.
For the option ‘first stage represents initial situation’ it was found that the earth pressure coefficients had to be determined at the intermediate nodes otherwise installation with neutral stresses at both sides was not correctly modleled, this is the ‘fine’ option. However this means that five times more earth pressure coefficients are calculated compared to when using the ‘coarse’ option, so the calculation time is significantly longer.
The results of both methods may differ. These differences occur mostly at slopes or loads close to the sheet piling. In these cases the ‘fine’ option is recommended, in other cases faster calculations can be made using the ‘coarse’ option. 
What are the differences and similarities between the old DOS program MHORPILE and the new Single Pile module in MSheet?
In principle they are the same, but the Single Pile module is somewhat more limited than the old MHORPILE program. In the Single Pile module no raking piles can be calculated and the ‘de Leeuw’ tables are not incorporated for the soil displacements.

Why do I see support forces that were not introduced in the project?
MSheet calculates support reactions for each node based on equilibrium considerations for every phase. Support reactions larger than a certain value are reported. However, in some cases there are support reactions in nodes where the user did not introduce a support. In these cases, the magnitude of the support reaction is a measure of a certain error made in the calculation as the basic equation for the sheet pile wall assumed relatively small deformations and bending. When the deformations and bending become larger, extra forces and moments are introduced in the calculation to try to satisfy the basic equation. You can consider the calculation to be accurate enough when these values are small compared to the actual forces and moments. However, when these values are relatively large the sheet pile wall will not react according to the assumption of the basic equation anymore. In that case the deformations will often be unacceptable in practice. Unintentional support reactions can also occur when there is a large difference in stiffness between neighbouring elements.

What is meant by “acting width”?
The MSheet manual contains the differential comparison used by MSheet:
b.d2/dx2.EI.d2w/dx2 + d/dx.N.dw/dx = b.f(x,w)
Where b is the acting width. This is the width of the soil that is pressing against the pile or wall. The EI must be specified for each acting width.
For a sheetpile wall, the calculation is actually performed using a standard acting width of 1m. The EI that is specified is therefore the EI of 1m of wall. The results are also per acting width – that is, per 1m.
For piles, calculations are often made with an acting width other than 1m. For example if the pile is 0.5m wide, and the width of the soil pressing against it is 1.5m, the acting width is 1.5m. The EI of the pile must then be divided by 1.5m. This models a situation in which 1.5m of soil is pressing against a pile of 0.5m.Another use is for constructions such as combiwalls and Berliner walls, where the acting width changes over the depth. See for example manual, tutorial “Modelling of combiwalls”.

What does the option "Reduce delta friction angles according to CUR" do?
CUR 166 states that for rough steel walls or comparable walls, the calculation of the passive earth pressure coefficient may be based on straight slip planes, provided that delta is a maximum of 30 degrees. For a rough concrete surface, a maximum delta of 35 degrees applies. For higher values, curved or angled slip planes must be used for the calculation.
The reason for this is that straight slip planes give values that are too optimistic for the passive earth pressure coefficient and that the value in the case of an increasing resistant strength will start deviating from the value determined with curved slip planes. This occurs even if, as is usual, calculations are made with a lower wall friction angle for straight slip planes.
In Table 1, Columns 2 and 3, a comparison is made between curved and straight slip planes, based on a rough wall surface. In the fourth column, the passive earth pressure coefficient is calculated for a straight slip plane with reduced wall friction angle. It has been reduced in such a way that the passive earth pressure coefficient matches that of a straight slip plane. The angle used is displayed in Column 5.d [degrees] Straight slip plane Curved slip plane Straight slip plane* degrees 30 5,74 4,98 4,98 16,6 32 6,83 5,68 5,68 16,6 34 8,26 6,37 6,37 16,6 36 10,18 7,36 7,36 17,2 38 12,85 8,35 8,35 17,2 40 16,73 9,54 9,54 17,2 Table 1: Passive earth pressure coefficient p
Straight slip plane : Calculated with = 2/3*
Curved slip plane : Calculated with = 2.5 with a maximum of 27.5 degrees. Formulas of CaquotKérisel
Straight slip plane *: Calculated with the (reduced angle) from Column 5.When calculating using the (c,phi,delta) method (straight slip planes), the value should be reduced to the value in Column 5. The reduction applies to steel walls with a delta larger then 30 degrees and rough concrete walls with a delta larger then 35 degrees.

Why does the results of a ‘Design Sheetpiling’ calculation differ from a usual calculation?
Assuming that the ‘Representative’ class has been used with ‘Design Sheetpiling’, it may be that the ‘Manual’ option is active. In that case the earth pressure coefficients are not recalculated but are extracted from a file.
Notice that when a safety class is chosen, under the Design option not a complete verification will be made. This requires the Verification option. 
Why is the horizontal button bar not displayed In the ‘Design Sheetpile Length’, ‘Verify Sheetpile’ and ‘Allowable Anchor Force’ windows?
This is an error in MSheet that occurs only with the Windows setting ‘Large Fonts’. The easiest way to solve this is to choose to use ‘Small Fonts’. However, if you want to continue working with ‘Large Fonts’, you can operate the buttons using the keyboard by pressing the key combinations: Alt+S for Start, Alt+C for Close and Alt+P for Print. You can also use the arrow keys (up and down) to select another construction phase.

Why is it that after adding construction phases or anchors, the answers for the unchanged construction phases also change (somewhat)?
MSheet creates nodes on all supports and layer boundaries. If an anchor is added, for example, the total node layout (even in the phases where nothing changes) may be adjusted. This can result in small differences in the outcomes.

Minor alterations in the input give rise to major differences in the outcome. Why is this?
This can occur if the calculation process does not converge properly. In the report of the calculation, this is reflected in the number of iterations required for the calculation. Approximately six iterations are quite normal, but if the number exceeds ten, this indicates an improper calculation result. One of the causes can be a small ratio between the rigidity of the sheetpile wall and the modulus of subgrade reaction. This problem can be solved by using a more rigid sheetpile wall.

How are (prestressed) anchors implemented?
 Anchors:
The wall can be supported by one or more anchors, either prestressed or not. In successive phases, it is possible to remove or introduce anchors, or to modify the prestressing force. The size of the anchor force is executed at the end of every phase.  Nonprestressed anchor:
The nonprestressed anchor is considered to be a spring support. The flow force that is specified applies as the upper limit of the anchor force. The lower limit has the value 0, so that no compression can occur in the anchor. After flow, hysteresis is taken into account.  Prestressed anchor:
The load from the wall as a consequence of a prestressed anchor is considered to be a point load the size of the specified prestressing force.
When the prestressing force is specified for an anchor, the resulting anchor force is equal to the specified prestressing force. This can be modified for each phase. When a prestressing force specified earlier is omitted in a subsequent phase, the anchor is considered to be just a spring support (see ‘Nonprestressed anchors’ above). The program does assume, however, that the prestressing force will be maintained. The total anchor force is then equal to the prestressing force, increased or reduced by the force caused in the anchor by the extra displacement in the relevant phase.
 Anchors:

Why is the passive resistance calculated with delta=2/3 * phi, where according to the Spundwand Handbuch delta=0 should be applied at the location of horizontal anchorage by an anchor plate?
The deltas specified together with the soil characteristics are applied. For an anchor plate, a delta greater than 0 may in principle be used if that delta satisfies the vertical equilibrium. If not, the delta with the soil characteristics must be adapted.

Why do I have problems reading DXF exported files in Autocad?
The option to export pictures in DXF format was developed for, and tested with, AutoCad 14. In more recent releases of AutoCad something has changed in relation to the import of DXF files. This means that these versions do not read our DXF files properly (detected by us in versions 2005 and 2006). The majority of viewers, for instance “Bentley view”, do not experience problems with our exported DXF files.
Technical specifications
 Operating systems:
 Windows 7 – 32 bits
 Windows 7 – 64 bits
 Windows 8
 Hardware specifications:
 1 GHz Intel Pentium processor or equivalent
 512 MB of RAM
 400 MB free hard disk space
 SVGA video card, 1024 768 pixels, High colors (16 bits)
 General Information
 CDROM drive
 Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0 or newer (download from www.microsoft.com)
 For use of the Feasibility module an Internet connection is needed.