DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.

Page|1

DEEPXCAV

A SOFTWARE FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF RETAINING WALLS

THEORY MANUAL

RELEASE 9.1.1.9 - November 2011
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|2

TableofContents
Section Title Page
1 Introduction 4
2 GeneralAnalysisMethods 4
3 Groundwateranalysismethods 4
4 UndrainedDrainedAnalysisforclays 4
5 ActiveandPassiveCoefficientsofLateralEarthPressures 5
5.1 ActiveandPassiveLateralEarthPressuresinConventional
Analyses
6
5.2 ActiveandPassiveLateralEarthPressuresinPARATIEmodule 6
5.3 PassivePressureEquations 10
5.4 ClassicalEarthPressureOptions 11
5.4.1 Active&PassivePressuresfornonLevelGround 11
5.4.2 Peck1969EarthPressureEnvelopes 13
5.4.3 FHWAApparentEarthPressures 14
5.4.4 FHWARecommendedApparentEarthPressureDiagramfor
SofttoMediumClays
16
5.4.5 FHWALoadingforStratifiedSoilProfiles 16
5.4.6 ModificationstostiffclayandFHWAdiagrams 19
5.4.7 VerificationExampleforSoftClayandFHWAApproach 22
5.4.8 CustomTrapezoidalPressureDiagrams 24
5.4.9 TwoStepRectangularPressureDiagrams 25
5.5 Verticalwalladhesioninundrainedloading 26
6 Eurocode7analysismethods 27
6.1 SafetyParametersforUltimateLimitStateCombinations 28
6.2 Automaticgenerationofactiveandpassivelateralearth
pressurefactorsinEC7typeapproaches.
35
6.3 DeterminationofWaterPressures&NetWaterPressure
Actionsinthenewsoftware(ConventionalLimitEquilibrium
Analysis)
36
6.4 Surcharges 37
6.5 LineLoadSurcharges 38
6.6 StripSurcharges 40
6.7 Other3Dsurchargeloads 40
7 AnalysisExamplewithEC7 42
8 Groundanchorandhelicalanchorcapacitycalculations
GroundAnchorCapacityCalculations
61
8.1 GroundAnchorCapacityCalculations 61
8.2 Helicalanchorcapacitycalculations 67
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|3

Section Title Page

9 GeotechnicalSafetyFactors 71
9.1 Introduction 71
9.1.1 Introduction 71
9.1.2 CantileverWalls(conventionalanalysis) 72
9.1.3 Wallssupportedbyasinglebracinglevelinconventional
analyses.
73
9.1.4 Wallssupportedbyamultiplebracinglevels(conventional
analysis)
73
9.2 CloughPredictions&BasalStabilityIndex 74
9.3 Groundsurfacesettlementestimation 76
10 HandlingunbalancedwaterpressuresinParatie 78
11 WallTypesStiffnessandCapacityCalculations 79
12 SeismicPressureOptions 83
12.1 Selectionofbaseaccelerationandsiteeffects 84
12.2 DeterminationofretainingstructureresponsefactorR 85
12.3 SeismicThrustOptions 87
12.3.1 Semirigidpressuremethod 87
12.3.2 MononobeOkabe 88
12.3.3 RichardsShimethod 89
12.3.4 Userspecifiedexternal 89
12.3.5 WoodAutomaticmethod 90
12.3.6 WoodManual 90
12.4 WaterBehaviorduringearthquakes 90
12.5 WallInertiaSeismicEffects 91
12.6 VerificationExample 92
13 Verificationoffreeearthmethodfora10ftcantilever
excavation
96
14 Verificationof20ftdeepsinglelevelsupportedexcavation 100
15 Verificationof30ftexcavationwithtwosupportlevels 105

AppendixA APPENDIX:VerificationofPassivePressureCoefficient
Calculations
109
AppendixB APPENDIX:SampleParatieInputFileGeneratedbyNew
SoftwareProgram
113
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|4

1. Introduction
ThisdocumentbrieflyintroducesthenewDeepXcavParatiecombinedsoftwarefeatures,analysis
methods,andtheoreticalbackground.ThehandlingofEurocode7isemphasizedthroughan
exampleofasimplesingleanchorwall.

2. GeneralAnalysisMethods
ThecombinedDeepXcavParatiesoftwareiscapableofanalyzingbracedexcavationswith
conventionallimitequilibriummethodsandbeamonelasticfoundations(i.e.thetraditional
PARATIEengine).Anexcavationcanbeanalyzedinoneofthefollowingsequences:
a) Conventionalanalysisonly
b) Paratieanalysisonly
c) CombinedConventionalParatieAnalysis: 1
st
Conventionalanalysiswithtraditionalsafety
factorsstoredinmemory.Oncethetraditionalanalysisiscompleted,thentheParatie
analysisislaunched.

3. Groundwateranalysismethods
Thesoftwareoffersthefollowingoptionsformodelinggroundwater:
a) Hydrostatic: ApplicableforbothconventionalandParatieanalysis.InParatie,
hydrostaticconditionsaremodeledbyextendingthewallliningeffectto100timesthe
walllengthbelowthewallbottom.
b) Simplifiedflow: ApplicableforbothconventionalandParatieanalysis.Thisisasimplified
1Dflowaroundthewall.IntheParatieanalysismode,thetraditionalParatiewaterflow
optionisemployed.
c) FullFlowNetanalysis: ApplicableforbothconventionalandParatieanalysis.Water
pressuresaredeterminedbyperforminga2Dfinitedifferenceflowanalysis.InPARATIE,
waterpressuresarethenaddedbytheUTABcommand.Theflownetanalysisdoesnot
accountforadropinthephreaticline.
d) Userpressures: ApplicableforbothconventionalandParatieanalysis.Waterpressures
definedbytheuserareassumed.InPARATIE,waterpressuresarethenaddedbytheUTAB
command.
IncontrasttoPARATIE,conventionalanalysesdonotgenerateexcessporepressuresduring
undrainedconditionsforclays.

4. UndrainedDrainedAnalysisforclays
Claybehaviordependsontherateofloading(orunloading).Whenfaststresschangestakeplace
thenclaybehavioristypicallymodeledasUndrainedwhileslowstresschangesorlongterm
conditionsaretypicallymodeledasDrained.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|5

Inthesoftware,thedefaultbehaviorofaclaytypesoilissetasUndrained.However,thefinal
Drained/UndrainedanalysismodeiscontrolledfromtheAnalysistab.Thesoftwareoffersthe
followingDrained/UndrainedAnalysisOptions:
a) Drained: All clays are modeled as drained. In this mode, conventional analysis methods
use the effective cohesion c and the effective friction angle to determine the appropriate
lateral earth pressures. For clays, the PARATIE analysis automatically determines the effective
cohesionfromthestressstatehistoryandfromthepeakandconstantvolumeshearingfriction
angles(
peak
and
cv
respectively)anditdoesnotusethedefinedcinthesoilstab.
b) Undrained: Allclaysaremodeledasundrained.Inthismode,conventionalanalysismethods
usetheUndrainedShearStrengthS
u
andassumeaneffectivefrictionangle=0
o
todetermine
the appropriate lateral earth pressures. For clays, the PARATIE analysis automatically
determinestheUndrainedShearStrengthfromthestressstatehistoryoftheclayelementand
from the peak and constant volume shearing friction angles (
peak
and
cv
respectively), but
limitstheupperS
u
tothevalueinthesoilstab.
c) Undrainedforonlyinitiallyundrainedclays: Onlyclayswhoseinitialbehaviorissetto
undrained(Soilsform)aremodeledasundrainedasdescribedinitemb)above.Allotherclays
aremodeledasdrained.
IncontrasttoPARATIE,conventionalanalysesdonotgenerateexcessporepressuresduring
undrainedconditionsforclays.

5. ActiveandPassiveCoefficientsofLateralEarthPressures
ThenewsoftwareoffersanumberofoptionsforevaluatingtheActiveandPassivecoefficients
that depend on the analysis method employed (Paratie or Conventional). An important difference
with PARATIE is that the old concept of Uphill and Downhill side has been changed to Driving
sideandResistingSide.Sections5.1and5.2presentthemethodsemployedindeterminingactive
andpassivecoefficients/pressuresinConventionalandParatieanalysesrespectively.However,inall
casesthemethodslistedinTable1availableforcomputingactiveandpassivecoefficients.

Table1:AvailableExactSolutionsforActiveandPassiveLateralEarthPressureCoefficients
Method
ActiveCoefficient PassiveCoefficient
Available
Surface
angle
Wall
Friction EQ.
2
Available
Surface
angle
Wall
Friction EQ.
Rankine Yes No
1
No
1
No Yes No
1
No
1
No
Coulomb Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
CaquotKeriselTabulated No Yes Yes Yes No
CaquotKeriselTabulated No Yes Yes Yes No
Lancellota No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
1. RankinemethodautomaticallyconvertstoCoulombifasurfaceangleorwallfrictionisincluded.
2. Seismiceffectsareaddedasseparately.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|6

5.1 ActiveandPassiveLateralEarthPressuresinConventionalAnalyses
In the conventional analysis the software first determines which side is generating driving earth
pressures. Once the driving side is determined, the software examines if a single ground surface
angleisassumedonthedrivingandontheresistingsides.Ifasinglesurfaceangleisusedthenthe
exact theoretical equation is employed as outlined in. If an irregular ground surface angle is
detectedthentheprogramstartsperformingawedgeanalysisontheappropriateside.Horizontal
ground earth pressures are then prorated to account for all applicable effects including wall
friction.Itshouldbenotedthattheactive/passivewedgeanalysescantakeintoaccountflownet
waterpressuresifaflownetiscalculated.

The computed active and passive earth pressures are then modified if the user assumes another
type of lateral earth pressure distribution (i.e. apparent earth pressure diagram computed from
activeearthpressuresabovesubgrade,dividepassiveearthpressuresbyasafetyfactor,etc.).

All of the above Ka/Kp computations are performed automatically for each stage. The user has
onlytoselecttheappropriatewallfrictionbehaviorandearthpressuredistribution.

5.2 ActiveandPassiveLateralEarthPressuresinPARATIEmodule
Paratie 7.0 incorporates the active and passive earth pressure coefficients within the soil data.
Hence,intheexistingParatie7.0eventhoughKa/Kpareinthesoilpropertiesdialog,theuserhas
to manually compute Ka/Kp and include wall friction and other effects (such as slope angle, wall
friction). If a slope angle surface change takes place on a subsequent stage, then the existing
Paratie user has to manually compute and change Ka/Kp to properly account for all required
effects.Thenewsoftwareoffersadifferent,morerationalizedapproach.

In the new SW the default Ka/Kp (for both

peak
and
cv
) defined in the soils tab are by default
computedwithnowallfrictionandforahorizontalgroundsurface.Theuserstillhastheabilityto
use the default PARATIE engine Ka/Kp by selecting a check box in the settings (Tabulated Butee
values). This new approach offers the benefit that the same soil type can easily be reused in
different design sections without having to modify the base soil properties. Otherwise, while
stronglynotrecommended,wallfrictionandgroundsurfaceanglecanbeincorporatedwithinthe
defaultKa/KpvaluesintheSoilDataDialog.IngeneralthelayoutlogicindeterminingKaandKpis
describedinFigure1.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|7

Options 1 2 3
Default Ka, Kp =Rankine
(RECOMMENDED)
Default engine Ka/Kp (Butee) for zero
wall friction and horizontal ground gives
same numbers as Rankine
User defined Ka/Kp
that can include slope
and wall friction (NOT
RECOMMENDED)
Default KaBase, KpBase defined for each soil type
(Performed for each stage)
1. Default Option (YES) 2. No
SW automatically determines slope angle, wall friction, and other effects KaBase
Options: A. Enable Kp changes for seismic effects (Default =Yes) KpBase
B. Enable Ka/Kp changes for slope angle (Default =Yes)
C. Enable wall friction adjustments (Default =Yes)
For each stage then Options 1.1 and 1.2 are available:
Ka= Kabase x Ka(selected method, slope angle, wall friction)
Ka Rankine (i.e. ground slope =0, wall friction = 0)
Kp= Kpbase x Kp(selected method, slope angle, wall friction, EQ)
Kp Rankine (i.e. ground slope =0, wall friction = 0)
Ka= Ka(selected method, slope angle, wall friction)
Kp= Kp(selected method, slope angle, wall friction, EQ)
IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS
A) Ka/Kp for irregular surfaces is not computed and is treated as horizontal.
B) Seismic thrusts are not included in the default Ka calculations.
Sub option 1.2: Use Actual Ka/Kp as determined from Stage Methods and Equations
(see Table 1)
3. Examine material changes. The latest Material change property will always override the above equations.
Soil Type Dialog/Base Ka-Kp
Enable automatic readjustment of Ka/Kp for slope angle, wall friction etc?
Sub option 1.1: Prorate base Ka/Kp for slope and other effects (Default)

*notewallfrictioncanbeindependentlyselectedonthedrivingortheresistingside.However,basic
wall friction modeling is limited to three options a) Zero wall friction, b) % of available soil friction,
andc)setwallfrictionangle.

Figure1:Ka/KpdeterminationoptionsforParatiemoduleinnewsoftware
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|8

When the software detects that the user is running an analysis with nonhorizontal soil layers
(i.e. custom line mode is turned on), the software will calculate the appropriate active and passive
lateral earth pressure coefficients by performing a series of wedge analysis. Each wedge analysis is
performed at the bottom elevation of each layer by assuming a linear wedge failure with no wall
friction.Then,ifwallfrictionisassumed,theKaandKpvaluesareproratedbytheratioofthehorizontal
layer Ka with the selected method (Coulomb, Caquot, etc) to the Rankine Ka or Kp values. Last, the
computed Ka and Kp coefficients are multiplied or divided by the appropriate partial safety factors if a
EC7 type approach is selected. For clays, the wedge analysis is performed for both the peak and the
constantvolumefrictionangleKaandKpvalues(KaCV,KpCV,KaPeak,KpPeak).Moreinformationabout
thewedgeanalysisequationsispresentedinsections5.4and5.5.
InmostcasesthisapproachyieldsgoodroughapproximationstotheactualKaandKpvaluesin
complex geological stratigraphies. However, results should be more closely inspected as in some
conditions more conservative coefficients may be generated when block type failures are initiated. In
these cases, it might be more appropriate to define a custom increased Ka and decreased Kp from the
soilsinputdialogandtheResistanceTab.Theprogramoffersawaytoquicklyinspectthewedgeanalysis
values(withoutthewallfrictionprorating)bytypingthefollowingcommandsintheCommandPrompt
textbox:
GENWEDGES0LEFT =GeneratestheequivalentKaandKpfortheleftsideoftheleftwall
GENWEDGES0RIGHT =GeneratestheequivalentKaandKpfortherightsideoftheleftwall
GENWEDGES1LEFT =GeneratestheequivalentKaandKpfortheleftsideoftherightwall
GENWEDGES1RIGHT =GeneratestheequivalentKaandKpfortherightsideoftherightwall
Note: The commands can be executed only when the excavation section has been analyzed atleast
once.
The following example presents a case where the previous commands were verified with no wall
friction.

Figure2.1.a:Wedgeanalysisexamplefornonlinearanalysis
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|9

Inthisexamplethelayerpropertiesare:

FortheGenWedges0Rightcommandthefollowingmessagewillbeproduced:

For sand layers the reported KaWedge and KpWedge is also reported in the CV and Peak Values. For
clays,theKaWedgeandKpWedgerepresentthevaluesusedinthelimitequilibriumanalysis,whilethe
KaCV,KpCV,KaPK,KpPKrepresentthevaluesusedinthenonlinearanalysis(Paratieengine).Negative
andzerovaluesarereportedwhenalayerisnotintersectedbythewall.Uponcloserinspectionofthe
previously presented results one can see that the calculated Ka and Kp values are very close to the
theoreticalhorizontalKaandKpRankinevalues.Someexpectedsmalldifferencesarealsoobservedbut
theseareexpectedbecausethetypicallyusedKaandKpequationsformultilayeredsoilsassumeastep
wisewedgefailure(whichisalsoaroughapproximation)whereasthewedgeanalysisassumesasingle
anglefromthewalltothesurface.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|10

5.3 PassivePressureEquations
This section outlines the specific theoretical equations used for determining the passive lateral
earthpressurecoefficientswithinthesoftware.
a) Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient: This coefficient is applicable only when no wall
frictionisusedwithaflatpassivegroundsurface.Thisequationdoesnotaccountforseismic
effects.

b) Coulomb passive earth pressure coefficient: This coefficient can include effects of wall
friction,inclinedgroundsurface,andseismiceffects.TheequationisdescribedbyDasonhis
book Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 3
rd
Edition, pg. 430 and in many other
textbooks:

Where = Slopeangle(positiveupwards)
= Seismiceffects= with
ax= horizontalacceleration(relativetog)
ay= verticalacceleration,+upwards(relativetog)
= Wallanglefromvertical(0radianswallfaceisvertical)

c) Lancellotta: According to this method the passive lateral earth pressure coefficient is given
by:

Where
And

d) CaquotKerisel(Tabbuttee):RefertomanualbyParatieandtabulatedvalues.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|11

5.4 ClassicalEarthPressureOptions
5.4.1 Active&PassivePressuresfornonLevelGround
Occasionally nonlevel ground surfaces and benches have to be constructed. The current version
of DeepXcav can handle both single angle sloped surfaces (i.e single 10degree slope angle) and
complex benches with multiple points. DeepXcav automatically detects which condition applies.
Forsingleangleslopes,DeepXcavwilldetermineusethetheoreticalRankine,Coulomb,orCaquot
Keriselactive,orpassivelateralthrustcoefficients(dependingonuserpreference).
For non level ground that does not meet the single slope criteria, DeepXcav combines the
solutions from a level ground with a wedge analysis approach. Pressures are generated in a two
stepapproach:a)first,soilpressuresaregeneratedpretendingthatthesurfaceislevel,andthen
b)soilpressuresaremultipliedbytheratioofthetotalhorizontalforcecalculatedwiththewedge
method divided by the total horizontal force generated for a level ground solution. This is done
incrementally at all nodes throughout the wall depth summing forces from the top of the wall.
Wall friction is ignored in the wedge solution but pressures with wall friction according to
Coulombforlevelgroundareproratedasdiscussed.
This approach does not exactly match theoretical wedge solutions. However, it is employed
becauseitisveryeasywiththeiterativewedgesearch(asshowninthefigurebelow)tomissthe
most critical wedge. Thus, when lateral active or passive pressures have to be backfigured from
the total lateral force change a spike in lateral pressure can easily occur (while the total force is
still the same). Hence, by prorating the activepassive pressure solution a much smoother
pressure envelope is generated. In most cases this soil pressure envelope is very close to the
actual critical wedge solution. The wedge methods employed are illustrated in the following
figures.
Surcharge loads are not considered in the wedge analyses since surcharge pressures are derived
separatelyusingwellacceptedlinearelasticityequations.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|12

Figure 2.1: Active force wedge search solution according to Coulomb.

Figure 2.2: Passive force wedge search solution according to Coulomb.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|13

5.4.2 Peck1969EarthPressureEnvelopes
AfterobservationofseveralbracedcutsPeck(1969)suggestedusingapparentpressureenvelopes
withthefollowingguidelines:

istaken astheeffectiveunitweightwhilewaterpressuresareaddedseparately(privatecommunicationwithDr.
Peck).
Figure2.3:ApparentEarthPressuresasOutlinedbyPeck,1969

For mixed soil profiles (with multiple soil layers) DeepXcav computes the soil pressure as if each
layeractedonlybyitself.AfterprivatecommunicationwithDr.Peck,theunitweightgrepresents
either the total weight (for soil above the water table) or the effective weight below the water
table. For soils with both frictional and undrained behavior, DeepXcav averages the "Sand" and
"Soft clay" or "Stiff Clay" solutions. Note that the Ka used in DeepXcav is only for flat ground
solutions. The same effect for different Ka (such as for sloped surfaces), can be replicated by
creatingacustomtrapezoidalredistributionofactivesoilpressures.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|14

5.4.3 FHWAApparentEarthPressures
The current version of DeepXcav also includes apparent earth pressure with FHWA standards
(Federal Highway Administration). The following few pages are reproduced from applicable FHWA
standards.

Figure2.4:RecommendedapparentearthpressurediagramforsandsaccordingtoFHWA

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|15

TOTALLOAD(kN/m/meterofwall)=3H
2
to6H
2
(Hinmeters)
Figure2.5:RecommendedapparentearthpressurediagramforstifftohardclaysaccordingtoFHWA.
Inbothcasesforfigures2.4and2.5,themaximumpressurecanbecalculatedfromthetotalforceas:
a. Forwallswithonesupport:p=2xLoad/(H+H/3)
b. Forwallswithmorethanonesupport:p=2xLoad/{2H2(H
1
+H
n+1
)/3)}

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|16

5.4.4 FHWARecommendedApparentEarthPressureDiagramforSofttoMediumClays
Temporaryandpermanentanchoredwallsmaybeconstructedinsofttomediumclays(i.e.N
s
>4)
if a competent layer of forming the anchor bond zone is within reasonable depth below the
excavation. Permanently anchored walls are seldom used where soft clay extends significantly
belowtheexcavationbase.

Forsofttomediumclaysandfordeepexcavations(andundrainedconditions),theTerzaghiPeck
diagram shown in figure 2.5 has been used to evaluate apparent earth pressures for design of
temporary walls in soft to medium clays. For this diagram apparent soil pressures are computed
withacoefficient:

Where m is an empirical factor that accounts for potential base instability effects in deep
excavationsissoftclays.WhentheexcavationisunderlainbydeepsoftclayandN
s
exceeds6,mis
set to 0.4. Otherwise, m is taken as 1.0 (Peck, 1969). Using the Terzaghi and Peck diagram with
m=0.4incaseswhereN
s
>6mayresultinanunderestimationofloadsonthewallandistherefore
not conservative. In this case, the software uses Henkels equation as outlined in the following
section.

An important realization is that when Ns>6 then the excavation base essentially undergoes basal
failure as the basal stability safety factor is smaller than 1.0. In this case, significant soil
movementsshouldbeexpectedbelowtheexcavationthatarenotcapturedbyconventionallimit
equilibriumanalysesandmaynotbeincludedinthebeamonelastoplasticsimulation(Paratie).

ThesoftwareinthecaseofasinglesoillayerwillusethethisequationifNs>4andNs<=6.

5.4.5 FHWALoadingforStratifiedSoilProfiles
The apparent earth pressure diagrams described above were developed for reasonably
homogeneous soil profiles and may therefore be difficult to adapt for use in designing walls in
stratifiedsoildeposits.Amethodbasedonredistributingcalculatedactiveearthpressuresmaybe
usedforstratifiedsoilprofiles.Thismethodshouldnotbeusedforsoilprofilesinwhichthecritical
potential failure surface extends below the base of the excavation or where surcharge loading is
irregular.Thismethodissummarizedasfollows:
Evaluatetheactiveearthpressureactingovertheexcavationheightandevaluatethetotalload
imposed by these active earth pressures using conventional analysis methods for evaluating
the active earth pressure diagram assuming full mobilization of soil shear strength. For an
irregular ground surface the software will perform a trial wedge stability analysis to evaluate
thetotalactivethrust.
The total calculated load is increased by a factor, typically taken as 1.3. A larger value may be
usedwherestrictdeformationcontrolisdesired.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|17

Distribute the factored total force into an apparent pressure diagram using the trapezoidal
distributionshowninFigure2.4.
Where potential failure surfaces are deepseated, limit equilibrium methods using slope stability
maybeusedtocalculateearthpressureloadings.
TheTerzaghiandPeck(1967)diagramsdidnotaccountforthedevelopmentofsoilfailurebelow
the bottom of the excavation. Observations and finite element studies have demonstrated that
soil failure below the excavation bottom can lead to very large movements for temporary
retainingwallsinsoftclays.ForN
s
>6,relativelargeareasofretainedsoilneartheexcavationbase
are expected to yield significantly as the excavation progresses resulting in large movements
belowtheexcavation,increasedloadsontheexposedportionofthewall,andpotentialinstability
oftheexcavationbase.Inthiscase,Henkel(1971)developedanequationtodirectlyobtainK
A
for
obtaining the maximum pressure ordinate for soft to medium clays apparent earth pressure
diagrams (this equation is applied when FHWA diagrams are used and the program examines if
N
s
>6):

Wherem=1accordingtoHenkel(1971).Thetotalloadisthentakenas:

Figure2.6:Henkelsmechanismofbasefailure
Figure2.7showsvaluesofK
A
calculatedusingHenkelsmethodforvariousd/Hratios.Forresults
in this figure S
u
= S
ub
. This figure indicates that for 4<N
s
<6, the Terzaghi and Peck envelope with
m=0.4isoverlyconservativerelativetoHenkel.Also,forN
s
<5.14theHenkelequationisnotvalid
and apparent earth pressures calculated using m=1.0 in the Terzaghi and Peck envelope are
unrealistically low. For the range 4<N
s
<5.14, a constant value of Ka=0.22 should be used to
evaluate the maximum pressure ordinate for the soft to medium clay apparent earth pressure
envelope.Atthetransitionbetweenstiffhardclaystosoftmediumclays,i.e.N
s
=4,thetotalload
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|18

usingthesofttomediumapparentearthpressurediagramwithKa=0.22is0.193H
2
resultingina
maximumpressurep=0.26H.UseofKa=0.22,accordingtoFHWA,representarationaltransition
valueforthesecases.
Henkels method is limited to cases where the clays soils on the retained side of the excavation
and below the excavation can each be reasonably characterized using a constant value for
undrained shear strength. Where a more detailed shear strength profile is required, limit
equilibriummethodsmaybeusedtoevaluatetheearthpressureloadingsonthewalldescribedin
section5.7.3oftheFHWAmanual(notperformedwithinthesoftware).

Figure2.7:Comparisonofapparentlateralearthpressurecoefficientswithbasalstabilityindex
(FHWA2004).

Forclaysthestabilitynumberisdefinedas:

Pleasenotethatsoftwareusestheeffectiveverticalstressatsubgradetofindanequivalentsoil
unitweight,Waterpressuresareaddedseparatelydependingonwaterconditionassumptions.
This is slightly different from the approach recommended by FHWA, however, after personal
communication with the late Dr. Peck, has confirmed that users of apparent earth pressures
shouldusetheeffectivestressatsubgradeandaddwaterpressuresseparately.
By ignoring the water table, or by using custom water pressures, the exact same numerical
solutionaswiththeoriginalFHWAmethodcanbeobtained.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|19

5.4.6 ModificationstostiffclayandFHWAdiagrams
Overtheyearsvariousresearchersandengineershaveproposednumerousapparentlateralearth
pressure diagrams for braced excavations. Unfortunately, most lateral apparent pressure
diagramshavebeentakenoutofcontextormisused.Historically,apparentlateralearthpressure
diagrams have been developed from measured brace reactions. However, apparent earth
pressurediagramsareoftenarbitrarilyusedtoalsocalculatebendingmomentsinthewall.

In excavations supporting stiff clays, many researchers have observed that the lower braces
carriedsmallerloads.Thishasmisledengineerstoextrapolatetheapparentlateralearthpressure
to zero at subgrade. In this respect, many apparent lateral earth pressure diagrams carry within
them a historical unconservative oversight in the fact that the lateral earth pressure at subgrade
wasneverdirectlyorindirectlymeasured.Konstantakos(2010)hasproventhatthezeroapparent
lateral earth pressure at the subgrade level assumption is incorrect, unconservative, and most
importantly unsubstantiated. This historical oversight, can lead to severe underestimation of the
requiredwallembedmentlengthandoftheexperiencedwallbendingmoments.

Iflargerdisplacementscanbetoleratedordrainedconditionsareexperiencedtheapparentearth
pressurediagramsmustnot,ataminimum,dropbelowthetheoreticalactivepressure,unlesssoil
arching is carefully evaluated. Alternatively, in these cases, for fast calculations or estimates, an
engineer can increase the apparent earth pressure from 50% at midway between the lowest
support level and the subgrade to the full theoretical apparent pressure or the active pressure
limitatthesubgradelevel(seeFigure2.8).Asalways,theseequationsrepresentasimplificationof
complexconditions.

If tighter deformation control is required or when fully undrained conditions are to be expected,
then the virtual reaction at the subgrade level has to take into account increased lateral earth
pressures that can even reach close to fifty percent of the total vertical stress at the subgrade
level. The initial state of stress has to be taken into consideration as overconsolidated soil strata
will tend to induce larger lateral earth stresses on the retaining walls. In such critical cases, a
designengineermustalwayscomplimentapparentearthpressurediagramcalculationswithmore
advancedandwellsubstantiatedanalysismethods.

Theabovemodificationscanbeappliedwithinthesoftwarebydoubleclickingonthedrivingearth
pressurebuttonwhentheFHWAorPeckmethodisselected.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|20

Figure2.8:MinimumlateralpressureoptionforFHWAandPeckapparentpressurediagrams(check
box).
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|21

Figure 2.9: Proposed modifications to stiff clay and FHWA apparent lateral earth
pressure diagrams (Konstantakos 2010).

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|22

5.4.7 VerificationExampleforSoftClayandFHWAApproach
A10mdeepexcavationisconstructedinsoftclaysandthewallisembedded2minasecondsoft
claylayer.Thewallissupportedbythreesupportsatdepthsof2m,5m,and8mfromthewalltop.
Assumedsoilpropertiesare:
Clay1: From0to10mdepth, Su=50kPa = 20kN/m
3

Clay2: From10mdepthandbelow Su=30kPa = 20kN/m

3

Thedepthtothefirmlayerfromtheexcavationsubgradeisassumedasd=10m(whichisthe
modelbase,i.e.thebottommodelcoordinate)

Figure2.10:VerificationexampleforFHWAapparentpressureswithasoftclay
Thetotalverticalstressattheexcavationsubgradeis:
o
v
=20kN/m
3
x10m=200kPa

Thebasalstabilitysafetyfactoristhen:
FS=5.7x30kPa/200kPa=0.855(verifiedfromFig.2.10)

ThenaccordingtoHenkelKaiscalculatedas(m=1):

Thetotalthrustabovetheexcavationisthen:P
total
=0.5K
A
o
v
xH=647kN/m
Themaximumearthpressureordinateisthen:
p=2xLoad/{2H2(H
1
+H
n+1
)/3)}=2x647kN/m/{2x10m2x(2m+2m)/3}=74.65kPa
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|23

Thesoftwarecalculates74.3kPaandessentiallyconfirmstheresultsasdifferencesareattributed
toroundingerrors.

Thetributaryloadinthemiddlesupportisthen3mx74,3kPa=222.9kN/m(whichisconfirmedby
the program). When performing only conventional limit equilibrium analysis it is important to
properly select the number of wall elements that will generate a sufficient number of nodes. In
thisexample,195wallnodesareassumed.Ingeneralitisrecommendedtouseatleast100nodes
whenperformingconventionalcalculationswhile200nodeswillproducemoreaccurateresults.

Nowexaminethecaseifthesoilwasasandwithafrictionangleof30degrees.

Figure2.11:VerificationexampleforFHWAsoftclayanalysis
Inthiscase,thetotalactivethrustiscalculatedas:P
total
=0.65K
A
o
v
xH=432.9kN/m
Themaximumearthpressureordinateisthen:
p=2xLoad/{2H2(H
1
+H
n+1
)/3)}=2x432.9kN/m/{2x10m2x(2m+2m)/3}=49.95kPa

Thisapparentearthpressurevalueisconfirmedbythesoftware.

Next,wewillexaminethesameexcavationwithamixedsandandclayprofile.
Sand: From0to5mdepth, |=30
o
= 20kN/m
3

Clay1: From5to10mdepth, Su=50kPa = 20kN/m
3

Clay2: From10mdepthandbelow Su=30kPa = 20kN/m

3

Inthisexample,Ns=6.67.AsaresultwewillhavetouseHenkelsequationbutaveragetheeffects
ofsoilfrictionandcohesion.Thismethodisaroughapproximationandshouldbeusedwith
caution.

From0mto5mthefrictionforceonaverticalfaceinSand1canbecalculatedas:
F
friction
=0.5x20kN/m
3
x5mxtan(30degrees)x5m=144.5kN/m
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|24

TheavailablesidecohesiononlayerClay1is:5mx50kPa=250kN/m

Thetotalsideresistanceontheverticalfaceisthen:250kN/m+144.5kN/m=395.5kN/m
Theaverageequivalentcohesioncanbecomputedas:
S
u.ave
=395.5kN/m/10m=39.55kPa

ThenaccordingtoHenkelKaiscalculatedas(m=1):

Thetotalthrustabovetheexcavationisthen:P
total
=0.5K
A
o
v
xH=849kN/m
Themaximumearthpressureordinateisthen:
p=2xLoad/{2H2(H
1
+H
n+1
)/3)}=2x647kN/m/{2x10m2x(2m+2m)/3}=98kPa
Thisresultisconfirmedbythesoftwarethatproduces99.2kPa.

Figure2.12:VerificationexampleforFHWAmixedsoilprofilewithsoftclayandsand

5.4.8 CustomTrapezoidalPressureDiagrams
With this option the apparent earth pressure diagram is determined as the product of the active
soilthrusttimesauserdefinedfactor.Thefactorshouldrangetypicallyfrom1.1to1.4depending
on the user preferences and the presence of a permanent structure. The resulting horizontal
thrust is then redistributed as a trapezoidal pressure diagram where the top and bottom
triangularpressureheightsaredefinedasapercentageoftheexcavationheight.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|25

5.4.9 TwoStepRectangularPressureDiagrams
Very often, especially in the US, engineers are provided with rectangular apparent lateral earth
pressures that are defined with the product of a factor times the excavation height. Two factors
areusuallydefinedM1forpressuresabovethewatertableandM2forpressuresbelowthewater
table.M1andM2shouldalreadyincorporatethesoiltotalandeffectiveweight.Useofthisoption
should be carried with extreme caution. The following dialog will appear if the rectangular
pressureoptionisselectedinthedrivingpressuresbutton.

Figure2.10:Twosteprectangularearthpressurecoefficients.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|26

5.5 Verticalwalladhesioninundrainedloading
Shorttermtotalstressconditions(i.e.undrainedloading)representthestateinthesoilbeforethe
porewaterpressureshavehadtimetodissipatei.e.immediatelyafterconstructioninacohesive
soil.Fortotalstressthehorizontalactiveandpassivepressuresarecalculatedusingthefollowing
equations:
p
a
=K
a
(z+q)S
u
K
ac

p
p
=K
p
(z+q)+S
u
K
pc

Where:
(z+q)representsthetotaloverburdenpressure
K
a
=K
p
=1.0forcohesivesoils.
Designs
u
=s
ud
=s
umc
/FSs
u
whereFssuistypically1.5.Theearthpressurecoefficients,K
ac
andK
pc
,
makeanallowanceforwall/soiladhesionandarederivedasfollows:

K
ac
=K
pc
=2(1+Sw
max
/S
ud
)
0.5

According to the Piling Handbook by Arcelor (2005), the limiting value of wall adhesion Sw
max
at
the soil/sheet pile interface is generally taken to be smaller than the design undrained shear
strengthofthesoil,s
ud
,byafactorof2forstiffclays.i.e.Swmax=xSud,where=0.5.Lower
values of wall adhesion, however, may be realized in soft clays. In any case, the designer should
refer to the design code they are working to for advice on the maximum value of wall adhesion
they may use. Currently, these modifications can be used only in conventional limit equilibrium
analyses.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|27

6. Eurocode7analysismethods
In the US practice excavations are typically designed with a service design approach while a
StrengthReductionApproachisusedinEuropeandinmanyotherpartsoftheworld.Eurocode7
(strength design, herein EC7) recommends that the designer examines a number of different
Design Approaches (DA1, DA2, DA3) so that the most critical condition is determined. In
Eurocode 7 soil strengths are readjusted according to the material M tables, surcharges and
permanentactionsarereadjustedaccordingtotheactionAtables,andresistancesaremodified
according to the R tabulated values. Hence, in a case that may be outlined as A2 + M2 +
R2onewouldhavetoapplyalltherelevantfactorstoActions,Materials,andResistances.
A designer still has to perform a service check in addition to all the ultimate design approach
cases. Hence, a considerable number of cases will have to be examined unless the most critical
condition can be easily established by an experienced engineer. In summary, EC7 provides the
followingcombinationswherethefactorscanbepickedfromthetablesinsection6.1:
DesignApproach1,Combination1: A1+M1+R1
DesignApproach1,Combination2: A2+M2+R1
DesignApproach2: A1
*
+M1+R2
DesignApproach3: A1
*
+A2
+
+M2+R3
A1
*
=Forstructuralactionsorexternalloads,andA2
+
=forgeotechnicalactions
EQK(fromEC8): M2+R1
(TheItaliancodeDM08usesDA11,DA12,andEQKdesignapproachmethodsonly).

IntheoldParatie(version7andbefore),thedifferentcaseswouldhavebeenexaminedinmany
LoadHistories.ThetermLoadHistoryhasbeenreplacedinthenewsoftwarewiththeconcept
ofDesignSection.EachdesignsectioncanbeindependentfromeachotheroraDesignSection
can be linked to a Base Design Section. When a design section is linked, the model and analysis
options are directly copied from the Base Design Section with the exception of the Soil Code
Options(i.e,Eurocode7,DM08etc).
InEurocode7,variousequilibriumandothertypechecksareexamined:
a) STR: Structuraldesign/equilibriumchecks
b) GEO: Geotechnicalequilibriumchecks
c) HYD: Hydraulicheavecases
d) UPL: Uplift(onastructure)
e) EQU: Equilibriumstates(applicabletoseismicconditions?)
The new software handles a number of STR, GEO, and HYD checks while it gives the ability to
automaticallygenerateallEurocode7casesforamodel.Unfortunately,Eurocode7asawhole
ismostlygearedtowardstraditionallimitequilibriumanalysis.Inmoreadvancedanalysismethods
(such as in Paratie), Eurocode 7 can be handled according to the letter of the code only when
equal groundwater levels are assumed in both wall sides. However, much doubt exists as to the
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|28

mostappropriatemethodtobeemployedwhendifferentgroundwaterlevelshavetobemodeled.
Section6.1presentsthesafety/strengthreductionparametersthatthenewsoftwareuses.
6.1 SafetyParametersforUltimateLimitStateCombinations
Table 2.1 lists all safety factors that are used in the new software and also provides the used
safetyfactorsaccordingtoEC72008.Thelast4tablecolumnslistthecodesafetyfactorsforeach
code case/scenario (i.e. in the first row Case 1 refers to M1, Case 2 refers to M2). Table 2.2 lists
thesamefactorsfortheItaliancodeNTC08,whiletables2.3,2.4,and2.5listthesafetyfactorsfor
theGreek,theFrench,andtheGermancodesrespectively.

Last, table 2.6 presents the load combinations employed by AASHTO LRFD 5th edition (2010).
AASHTOslightlydiffersfromEuropeanstandardsinthatsoilstrengthisnotfactored.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|29

Table2.1:ListofsafetyfactorsforstrengthdesignapproachaccordingtoEurocode7
InternalSW
Parameter Description
Type
Eurocode
Parameter
Eurocode
Reference
Eurocode
Checks
Case1
DA1:
comb1.
A1+M1+R1
Case2
DA1:
comb2.
A2+M2+R1
Case3
DA2:
A1+M1+R2
Case4
DA1:
A1+M1+R1
EQU:
M2+R1
F_Fr SafetyfactorontanFR M
M
SectionA.3.2 STRGEO 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.25
F_C Safetyfactorc' M
M
STRGEO 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.25
F_Su SafetyfactoronSu M
M
STRGEO 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.40
F_LV
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
Q
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 1.50 1.30 1.50 1.50 0.00
F_LP
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg130 STRGEO 1.35 1.00 1.35 1.35 1.00
F_Lvfavor
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(favorable)
A
Q
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
F_Lpfavor
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(favorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg130 STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_EQ
Safetyfactorforseismic
pressures
A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
F_ANCH_T
Safetyfactorfortemporary
anchors
R
a;t
SectionA.3.3.4 STRGEO 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10
F_ANCH_P
Safetyfactorforpermanent
anchors
R
a;p
TableA.12.pg
134
STRGEO 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10
F_RES
Safetyfactorearthresistance
i.e.Kp
R
R;e
SectionA.3.3.5
TableA.13pg.
135
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00
F_WaterDR
SafetyfactoronDrivingWater
pressures(appliedinBeam
ANALYSISONLYtoaction)
A
G
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 1.35 1.00 1.35 1.00 1.00
F_WaterRES
SafetyfactoronResisting
waterpressures(appliedin
BeamAnalysistoaction)
A
G
TableA.3.pg130 STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgDST
HydraulicCheck
destabilizationfactor
A
G;dst
SectionA.5 HYD 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.00
F_HYDgSTAB
SafetyfactoronHydraulic
checkstabilizingaction
A
G;stb
TableA.17.pg
136
HYD 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
F_gDSTAB
FactorforUNFAVORABLE
permanentDESTABILIZING
ACTION
UPL
G;dst
SectionA.4 UPL 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_gSTAB
Factorforfavorable
permanentSTABILIZINGaction
UPL
G;stb
TableA.15.pg
136
UPL 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
F_DriveEarth
multiplicationfactorapplied
todrivingearthpressures
A
G
onactions TableA.3 STRGEO 1.35 1.00 1.35 1.00 1.00
F_DriveActive N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F_DriveAtRest N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F_Wall Safetyfactorforwallcapacity STR Modelfactorforwallcapacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
TableA.4pg.130
EUROCODE7,EN19971:2004(2007) CodeCase

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|30

Table2.2:ListofsafetyfactorsforstrengthdesignapproachaccordingtoItalianNTC2008code
InternalSW
Parameter Description
Type
Eurocode
Parameter
Eurocode
Reference
Eurocode
Checks
Case1 Case2 Case3* Case4 EQK
F_Fr SafetyfactorontanFR M
M
SectionA.3.2 STRGEO 1.00 1.25 1.25
F_C Safetyfactorc' M
M
STRGEO 1.00 1.25 1.25
F_Su SafetyfactoronSu M
M
STRGEO 1.00 1.40 1.4
F_LV
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
Q
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 1.50 1.30 1
F_LP
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 1.30 1.00 1
F_Lvfavor
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(favorable)
A
Q
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 0.00 0.00 1
F_Lpfavor
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(favorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1
F_EQ
Safetyfactorforseismic
pressures
A 0.00 0.00 1
F_ANCH_T
Safetyfactorfortemporary
anchors
R
a;t
Section
A.3.3.4
STRGEO 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.1
F_ANCH_P
Safetyfactorforpermanent
anchors
R
a;p
TableA.12.pg
134
STRGEO 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.2
F_RES
Safetyfactorearthresistance
i.e.Kp
R
R;e
Section
A.3.3.5Table
STRGEO 1.00 1.40 1
F_WaterDR
SafetyfactoronDriving
Waterpressures(appliedin
A
G
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 1.30 1.00 1
F_WaterRES
SafetyfactoronResisting
waterpressures(appliedin
BeamAnalysistoaction)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgDST
HydraulicCheck
destabilizationfactor
A
G;dst
SectionA.5 HYD 1.35
F_HYDgSTAB
SafetyfactoronHydraulic
checkstabilizingaction
A
G;stb
TableA.17.pg
136
HYD 0.90
F_gDSTAB
FactorforUNFAVORABLE
permanentDESTABILIZING
ACTION
UPL
G;dst
SectionA.4 UPL 1.10
F_gSTAB
Factorforfavorable
permanentSTABILIZING
action
UPL
G;stb
TableA.15.pg
136
UPL 0.90
F_DriveEarth
multiplicationfactorapplied
todrivingearthpressures
A
G
onactions TableA.3 STRGEO 1.30 1.00 1
F_Wall Safetyfactorforwallcapacity STR Modelfactorforwallcapacity 1.00 1.00 1
TableA.4pg.
130
ITALIAN,NTC2008 CodeCase

Note: F_WallisnotdefinedinEC7.TheseparameterscanbeusedinanLRFDapproachconsistentwithUSAcodes.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|31

Table2.3:ListofsafetyfactorsforstrengthdesignapproachGreekdesigncode2007
InternalSW
Parameter Description
Type
Eurocode
Parameter
Eurocode
Reference
Eurocode
Checks
Case1
DA2*:
A1+M1+R2
Case2
DA3:A1
A2+M2+R1
EQU:
M2+R1
F_Fr SafetyfactorontanFR M
M
Section
A.3.2
STRGEO 1.00 1.25 1.25
F_C Safetyfactorc' M
M
STRGEO 1.00 1.25 1.25
F_Su SafetyfactoronSu M
M
STRGEO 1.00 1.40 1.40
F_LV
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
Q
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 1.50 1.50 1.00
F_LP
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 1.35 1.35 1.00
F_Lvfavor
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(favorable)
A
Q
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 0.00 0.00 0.00
F_Lpfavor
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(favorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_EQ
Safetyfactorforseismic
pressures
A 0.00 1.00 1.00
F_ANCH_T
Safetyfactorfortemporary
anchors
R
a;t
Section
A.3.3.4
STRGEO 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_ANCH_P
Safetyfactorforpermanent
anchors
R
a;p
TableA.12.
pg134
STRGEO 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_RES
Safetyfactorearthresistance
i.e.Kp
R
R;e
Section
A.3.3.5Table
A.13pg.135
STRGEO 1.40 1.00 1.00
F_WaterDR
SafetyfactoronDrivingWater
pressures(appliedinBeam
ANALYSISONLYtoaction)
A
G
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 1.35 1.35 1.00
F_WaterRES
SafetyfactoronResisting
waterpressures(appliedin
BeamAnalysistoaction)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgDST
HydraulicCheck
destabilizationfactor
A
G;dst
SectionA.5 HYD 1.35 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgSTAB
SafetyfactoronHydraulic
checkstabilizingaction
A
G;stb
TableA.17.
pg136
HYD 0.90 0.90 0.90
F_gDSTAB
FactorforUNFAVORABLE
permanentDESTABILIZING
ACTION
UPL
G;dst
SectionA.4 UPL 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_gSTAB
Factorforfavorable
permanentSTABILIZINGaction
UPL
G;stb
TableA.15.
pg136
UPL 0.90 0.90 0.90
F_DriveEarth
multiplicationfactorapplied
todrivingearthpressures
A
G
onactions TableA.3 STRGEO 1.35 1.35 1.00
F_DriveActive N/A N/A N/A
F_DriveAtRest N/A N/A N/A
F_Wall Safetyfactorforwallcapacity STR Modelfactorforwallcapacity 1.00 1.00 1.00
EUROCODE7,GREEK2007 CodeCase
TableA.4pg.
130

Note:ForslopestabilitythedesignapproachisequivalenttoEQU
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|32

Table2.4:PartialsafetyfactorsforstrengthdesignapproachwithFrenchcodesXP240andXP220
Case1 Case2 Case3 Case4 Case5 Case6 Case7 Case8
12a
(stand)
2b
(sens)
12a
(stand)
2b
(sens)
12a
(stand)
2b
(sens)
12a
(stand)
2b
(sens)
F_Fr SafetyfactorontanFR M
M
Section
A.3.2
STRGEO 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
F_C Safetyfactorc' M
M
STRGEO 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
F_Su SafetyfactoronSu M
M
STRGEO 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
F_LV
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
Q
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 0.00 0.00
F_LP
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_Lvfavor
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(favorable)
A
Q
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F_Lpfavor
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(favorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
F_EQ
Safetyfactorforseismic
pressures
A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_ANCH_T
Safetyfactorfortemporary
anchors
R
a;t
Section
A.3.3.4
STRGEO 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_ANCH_P
Safetyfactorforpermanent
anchors
R
a;p
TableA.12.
pg134
STRGEO 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_RES
Safetyfactorearthresistance
i.e.Kp
R
R;e
Section
A.3.3.5Table
A.13pg.135
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_WaterDR
SafetyfactoronDrivingWater
pressures(appliedinBeam
ANALYSISONLYtoaction)
A
G
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_WaterRES
SafetyfactoronResistingwater
pressures(appliedinBeam
Analysistoaction)
A
G
TableA.3.pg
130
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgDST
HydraulicCheckdestabilization
factor
A
G;dst
SectionA.5 HYD 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35
F_HYDgSTAB
SafetyfactoronHydrauliccheck
stabilizingaction
A
G;stb
TableA.17.
pg136
HYD 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
F_gDSTAB
FactorforUNFAVORABLE
permanentDESTABILIZING
ACTION
UPL
G;dst
SectionA.4 UPL 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_gSTAB
Factorforfavorablepermanent
STABILIZINGaction
UPL
G;stb
TableA.15.
pg136
UPL 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
F_DriveEarth
multiplicationfactorappliedto
drivingearthpressures
A
G
onactionsTableA.3 STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_DriveActive N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F_DriveAtRest N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F_Wall Safetyfactorforwallcapacity STR Modelfactorforwallcapacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fundamental Accidental
TableA.4pg.
130
EUROCODE7,FRENCH2007 CodeCase
InternalSW
Parameter Description
Type
Eurocode
Parameter
Eurocode
Reference
Eurocode
Checks
XP240 XP220
Fundamental Accidental

Note:Frenchcodestandardsareparticularlyimportantforsoilnailingwalls.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|33

Table2.5:PartialsafetyfactorsforstrengthdesignapproachwithGermanDIN2005
InternalSW
Parameter Description
Type Eurocode
Parameter
Eurocode
Reference
Eurocode
Checks
Case1
GZ2
(SLS)
Case2
GZ1B
(LC1)
Case3
GZ1B
(LC2)
Case4
GZ1B
(LC3)
Case5
GZ1C
(LC1)
Case6
GZ1C
(LC2)
Case7
GZ1C
(LC3)
F_Fr SafetyfactorontanFR M
M
Section
A.3.2
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.15 1.10
F_C Safetyfactorc' M
M STRGEO 1.00 1.25 1.15 1.10 1.25 1.15 1.10
F_Su SafetyfactoronSu M
M STRGEO 1.00 1.25 1.15 1.10 1.25 1.15 1.10
F_LV
Safetyfactorforvariablesurcharges
(unfavorable)
A
Q
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 1.00 1.50 1.30 1.00 1.30 1.20 1.00
F_LP
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
G
TableA.3.
pg130
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_Lvfavor
Safetyfactorforvariablesurcharges
(favorable)
A
Q
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F_Lpfavor
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(favorable)
A
G
TableA.3.
pg130
STRGEO 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
F_EQ Safetyfactorforseismicpressures A 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_ANCH_T Safetyfactorfortemporaryanchors R
a;t
Section
A.3.3.4
STRGEO 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_ANCH_P Safetyfactorforpermanentanchors R
a;p
TableA.12.
pg134
STRGEO 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
F_RES Safetyfactorearthresistancei.e.Kp R
R;e
Section
A.3.3.5
TableA.13
STRGEO 1.00 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.40 1.00 1.00
F_WaterDR
SafetyfactoronDrivingWater
pressures(appliedinBeam
ANALYSISONLYtoaction)
A
G
Section
A.3.1
STRGEO 1.00 1.35 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_WaterRES
SafetyfactoronResistingwater
pressures(appliedinBeamAnalysis
toaction)
A
G
TableA.3.
pg130
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgDST
HydraulicCheckdestabilization
factor
A
G;dst
Section
A.5
HYD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgSTAB
SafetyfactoronHydrauliccheck
stabilizingaction
A
G;stb
TableA.17.
pg136
HYD 1.00 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90
F_gDSTAB
FactorforUNFAVORABLE
permanentDESTABILIZINGACTION
UPL
G;dst
Section
A.4
UPL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_gSTAB
Factorforfavorablepermanent
STABILIZINGaction
UPL
G;stb
TableA.15.
pg136
UPL 1.00 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90
F_DriveEarth
multiplicationfactorappliedto
drivingearthpressures
A
Gonactions TableA.3 STRGEO 1.00 1.35 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_DriveActive N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
F_DriveAtRest N/A 1.20 1.10 N/A N/A N/A N/A
F_Wall Safetyfactorforwallcapacity STR Modelfactorforwallcapacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
EUROCODE7,GERMAN2005
TableA.4
pg.130
CodeCase

Note: 1.Case5,6,and7areonlyusedinslopestabilityanalysisinconjunctionwithcases1,2,and3respectively.
2.Atrestearthpressurefactorisusedinmultiplyingearthpressuresonlyinlimitequilibriumanalyses.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|34

Table2.6:PartialsafetyfactorsforstrengthdesignapproachwithAASHTOLRFD5thedition2010
InternalSW
Parameter Description
Type
Eurocode
Parameter
Eurocode
Reference
Eurocode
Checks
Service
I
Strength
Ia
Strength
Ib
Strength
II
Extreme
I
F_Fr SafetyfactorontanFR M
M
SectionA.3.2 STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_C Safetyfactorc' M
M
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_Su SafetyfactoronSu M
M
STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_LV
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
Q
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 1.00 1.75 1.75 1.35 0.50
F_LP
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(unfavorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg130 STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.35 1.35
F_Lvfavor
Safetyfactorforvariable
surcharges(favorable)
A
Q
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F_Lpfavor
Safetyfactorforpermanent
surcharges(favorable)
A
G
TableA.3.pg130 STRGEO 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_EQ
Safetyfactorforseismic
pressures
A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_ANCH_T
Safetyfactorfortemporary
anchors
R
a;t
SectionA.3.3.4 STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_ANCH_P
Safetyfactorforpermanent
anchors
R
a;p
TableA.12.pg
134
STRGEO 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
F_RES
Safetyfactorearthresistance
i.e.Kp
R
R;e
SectionA.3.3.5
TableA.13pg.
135
STRGEO 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00
F_WaterDR
SafetyfactoronDrivingWater
pressures(appliedinBeam
ANALYSISONLYtoaction)
A
G
SectionA.3.1 STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_WaterRES
SafetyfactoronResisting
waterpressures(appliedin
BeamAnalysistoaction)
A
G
TableA.3.pg130 STRGEO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgDST
HydraulicCheck
destabilizationfactor
A
G;dst
SectionA.5 HYD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_HYDgSTAB
SafetyfactoronHydraulic
checkstabilizingaction
A
G;stb
TableA.17.pg
136
HYD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_gDSTAB
FactorforUNFAVORABLE
permanentDESTABILIZING
ACTION
UPL
G;dst
SectionA.4 UPL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_gSTAB
Factorforfavorable
permanentSTABILIZINGaction
UPL
G;stb
TableA.15.pg
136
UPL 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_DriveEarth
multiplicationfactorapplied
todrivingearthpressures
A
G
onactions TableA.3 STRGEO 1.00 1,35 1.35 1.35 1.35
F_DriveActive N/A 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
F_DriveAtRest N/A 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35
F_Wall Safetyfactorforwallcapacity STR Modelfactorforwallcapacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AASHTOLRFD(2010)5thEdition CodeCase
TableA.4pg.130

Note: 1. AASHTOrecommendsthatslopestabilityanalysisisperformedonlywiththeServiceI
combination.
2. Atrestandactiveearthpressurefactorsareusedinmultiplyingearthpressuresonlyinlimitequilibrium
analyseswhentheuserhasselectedarelevantmethod.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|35

6.2 Automatic generation of active and passive lateral earth pressure factors in EC7 type
approaches.
Figure3outlinesthecalculationlogicfordeterminingtheactiveandpassivelateralearthpressure
coefficients. In conventional analyses, the resistance factor is applied by dividing the resisting
lateralearthpressureswithasafetyfactor.
1:GetBasesoilstrengthparameters
(Slope,wallfriction,etc)
2.Modifysoilpropertiesaccordingtothecode'M"case
3:DeterminebaseKa&Kpaccording
Section5.1forConventionalAnalysis
Section5.2forParatieAnalysis
4.Multiply/DivideKaandKpbyAppropriateFactor
4.1PARATIEANALYSIS
Kp.Base
F_RES
InDA11thesoftwareusesinternallyFS_DriveEarth=1andstandardizes
theexternalloadsbyFS_DriveEarth.Then,attheendoftheanalysis,
wallmoments,shearforces,andsupportreactionsaremultipliedby
FS_DriveEarthandtheultimatedesignvaluesareobtained:
WallmomentM
ULT
=M
CALC
xFS_DriveEarth
WallShearV
ULT
=V
CALC
xFS_DriveEarth
SupportReactionR
ULT
=R
CALC
xFS_DriveEarth
4.2CONVENTIONALANALYSIS
Ka.used= Ka.Base
Kp.used=Kp.Base
DetermineInitialDrivingandResistingLateralEarthPressures
4.2.a: FinalDrivingLateralEarthPressures=InitialxFS_DriveEarth
(FS_DriveEarth=1EC7,DM08)
4.2.b: FinalResistingLateralEarthPressures=Initial/F_RES
Kp.used= Ka.used= Ka.BasexFS_DriveEarth

Figure3:CalculationlogicfordeterminingK
a
andK
p
anddrivingandresistinglateralearthpressures.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|36

6.3 Determination of Water Pressures & Net Water Pressure Actions in the new software
(ConventionalLimitEquilibriumAnalysis)
ThesoftwareprogramofferstwopossibilitiesfordeterminingwateractionsonawallwhenEC7is
employed.Inthecurrentapproach,theactualwaterpressuresorwaterlevelsarenotmodified.

Option1(Default):Netwaterpressuremethod
Inthedefaultoption,theprogramdeterminesthenetwaterpressuresonthewall.Subsequently,
the net water pressures are multiplied by F_WaterDR and then the net water pressures are
appliedonthebeamaction.Thenetwaterpressureresultsarethenstoredforreferencechecks.
Hence,thismethodcanbeoutlinedwiththefollowingequation:
W
net
=(W
drive
W
resist
)xF_WaterDR

Option 2: Water pressures multiplied on driving and resisting sides (This Option is not yet
enabled.)
Inthisoption,theprogramfirstdeterminesinitialnetwaterpressuresonthewall.Subsequently,
thenetwaterpressuresaredeterminedbymultiplyingthedrivingwaterpressuresbyF_WaterDR
and by multiplying the resisting water pressures. The net water pressure results are then stored
forreferencechecks.Hence,thismethodcanbeoutlinedwiththefollowingequation:
W
net
=W
drive
xF_WaterDRW
resist
xF_WaterRES

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|37

6.4 Surcharges
The new software enables the user to use a number of different surcharge types. Some of these
surchargesarecommonwithPARATIE,however,mostsurchargetypesarenotcurrentlyincluded
intheParatieEngine.Table3liststheavailabletypesofsurcharges.

Table3:Availablesurchargetypes
SurchargeType
Permanent/
Temporary
(P/T)
Existsin
Paratie
Engine
Existsin
Conventional
Analysis
ConventionalAnalysis
Comments
SurfaceLineload P&T No Yes
Theoryofelasticity.
CanincludebothHorizontal
andVerticalcomponents.
Lineload P&T No Yes Sameasabove
WallLineLoad P&T No Yes Sameasabove
SurfaceStrip
Surcharge
P&T Yes Yes Sameasabove
Wallstrip
Surcharge
P&T Yes Yes Sameasabove
ArbitraryStrip
Surcharge
P&T No Yes
Theoryofelasticity.
VerticalDirectiononly.
Footing(3D) P No Yes
Building(3D) P No Yes
3DPointLoad P&T No Yes
Vehicle(3D) T No Yes
AreaLoad(3D) P&T No Yes
Moment/Rotation Yes No

WhenEC7(orDM08)isutilized,thefollowingitemsareworthnoting:
a) In the PARATIE module: In the default option the program does not use the Default
Paratie Engine for determining surcharge actions, but calculates all surcharges according
totheconventionalmethods.
IftheParatieSimplifiedLoadOptionsareenabled(Figure4.1),thenallconventionalloads
areignored.OnlyloadsthatmatchtheParatieenginecriteriaareutilized.
b) Unfavorable Permanent loads are multiplied by F_LP while favorable permanent loads are
multipliedby1.0.
c) Unfavorable Temporary loads are multiplied by F_LV while favorable temporary loads are
multipliedby0.

Thesoftwareoffersgreatversatilityforcalculatingsurchargeloadsonawall.Surchargesthatare
directlyonthewallarealwaysaddeddirectlytothewall.Inthedefaultsetting,externalloadsthat
arenotdirectlylocatedonthewallarealwayscalculatedusingtheoryofelasticityequations.
Mostformulasusedaretrulyapplicableforcertaincaseswheregroundisflatortheloadiswithin
aninfiniteelasticmass.However,theformulasprovidereasonableapproximationstootherwise
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|38

extremelycomplicatedelasticsolutions.WhenPoison'sratioisusedthesoftwarefindsanduses
theapplicablePoissonratioofvateachelevation.

Figure4.1:SimplifiedParatieloadoptions Figure4.2:Elasticitysurchargeoptions

6.5 LineLoadSurcharges
Lineloadsaredefinedwithtwocomponents:a)averticalPy,andb)ahorizontalPx.Itisimportant
tonotethatthemanyoftheequationslistedbeloware,onlybythemselves,applicableforaload
inaninfinitesoilmass.Forthisreason,thesoftwaremultipliestheobtainedsurchargebyafactor
mthataccountsforwallrigidity.Thesoftwareassumesadefaultvaluem=2thataccountsforfull
surcharge reflection from a rigid behavior. However, a value m=1.5 might be a reasonably less
conservativeassumptionthatcanaccountforlimitedwalldisplacement.

For line loads that are located on the surface (or the vertical component strip loads, since strip
loadsarefoundbyintegratingwithlineloadcalculations),equationsthatincludefullwallrigidity
can be included. This behavior can be selected from the Loads/Supports tab as Figure 4.2
illustrates.Inthiscase,thecalculatedloadsarenotmultipliedbythemfactor.

Forverticallineloadsonthesurface:WhentheUseEquationswithWallRigidityoptionisnot
selected,thesoftwareusestheBoussinesqequationlistedinPoulosandDavis,1974,Equation
2.7a

HorizontalSurcharge

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|39

Foraverticalsurfacelineload,whentheUseEquationswithWallRigidityoptionisselected,the
softwareusestheBoussinesqequationasmodifiedbyexperimentforridigwalls(Terzaghi,1954).

Forverticallineloadswithinthesoilmass:ThesoftwareusestheMelansequationlistedin
PoulosandDavis,1974,Equation2.10bpg.27

andm=(1v)/v

HorizontalSurcharge

Forthehorizontalcomponentofasurfacelineload:ThesoftwareusestheintegratedCerruti
problemfromPoulosandDavisEquation2.9b

HorizontalSurcharge

Forthehorizontalcomponentofalineloadwithinthesoilmass:ThesoftwareusesMelans
problemEquation2.11bpg.27,fromPoulos&Davis

HorizontalSurcharge
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|40

6.6 StripSurcharges
Strip loads in the new software can be defined with linearly varying magnitudes in both vertical
and horizontal directions. Hence, complicated surcharge patterns can be simulated. Surcharge
pressuresarecalculatedbydividingthestriploadintoincrementswhereanequivalentlineloadis
considered.Thenthelineloadsolutionsareemployedandnumericallyintegratedtogivethetotal
surcharge at the desired elevation. The software subdivides each strip load into 50 increments
where it performs the integration of both horizontal and vertical loads. On surface loads, the
verticalloadiscalculatedfromintegrationalongxandnotalongthesurfaceline.

6.7 Other3Dsurchargeloads
Thesoftwareoffersthepossibilitytoincludeother3dimensionalsurcharges.Inessence,allthese
loadsareextensions/integrationsofthe3Dpointverticalloadsolution.

For3Dfootings,thesurchargeonthewallcanbecalculatedintwoways:
a) Byintegratingthefootingbearingpressureoversmallersegmentsonthefootingfootprint.In
thiscasethefootingissubdividedintoanumberofsegmentsandthesurchargecalculations
areslightlymoretimeconsuming.
b) Byassumingthatthefootingloadactsasa3Dpointloadatthefootingcentercoordinates.
Forloadsthatarelocatedonthesurface:ThesoftwareprogramusestheBoussinesqequation.
Resultsfromthefollowingequationsaremultipliedbytheelasticloadadjustmentfactormas
previouslydescribed.

Theradialstressincrementisthencalculatedas:

Thehoopstressisdefinedas:

Withtheanglesdefinedas:
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|41

Then,thehorizontalcomponentsurchargeis:

Forverticalpointloadswithinthesoilmass:ThesoftwareusestheMindlinsolutionasoutlinedby
PoulosandDavis,1974equations2.4.a,and2.4.g

6.8 Loadbehaviorandfactorswhenadesignapproachisused
When an analysis uses design approach such as EC7, each external load must be categorized as
favorable or unfavorable. In the default mode when no load combination is used, the software
program automatically categorizes loads as favorable or unfavorable based on their location and
direction relative to the wall and the excavation. Hence, loads that push the wall towards the
excavationaretreatedasunfavorable,whileloadsthatpushthewalltowardstheretainedsoilare
treated as favorable. In all design approach methods, favorable variable loads are ignored in the
analysiswhilefavorablepermanentloadsaremultipliedbyasafetyfactorequalto1.Unfavorable
loadsgettypicallymultipliedwithfactorsrangingfrom1to1.5dependingontheexamineddesign
approachandtheloadnature(permanentvs.variable).

Whenaloadcombinationisused,theuserhastheoptiontomanuallyselectthebehaviorofeach
load.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|42

7. AnalysisExamplewithEC7
A simplified analysis example is presented in this section for the purpose of illustrating use of EC7
methods. The example involves the analysis of steel sheet pile wall supported by a single level of
tiebackswiththefollowingassumptions:
Retainedgroundsurfacelevel(uphillside)El.+200
Maximumexcavationlevel(downhillside)El.+191
WaterlevelonretainedsideEl.+195
WaterlevelonexcavatedsideEl.+191
Waterdensity
WATER
=10kN/m
3

Soilproperties:
TOTAL
=20kN/m
3
,
DRY
=19kN/m
3
,c=3kPa,=32deg,
Exponentialsoilmodel:E
load
=15000kPa,E
reload
=45000kPa,a
h
=1,a
v
=0
K
pBase
=3.225(Rankine),K
aBase
=0.307(Rankine)
UltimateTiebackbondcapacityq
ult
=150kPa
UserspecifiedsafetyonbondvaluesFSGeo=1.5
TiebackData: ElevationEl.+197,
Horizontalspacing=2m
Angle=30degfromhorizontal
Prestress=400kN(i.e.200kN/m)
StructuralProperties:4strands/1.375cmdiametereach,
Thus A
STEEL
= 5.94cm
2

Steelyieldstrength F
y
= 1862MPa
FixedbodylengthL
FIX
= 9m
FixedbodyDiameterD
FIX
= 0.15m

WallData: SteelSheetpileAZ36,Fy=355MPa
Walltop.El.+200
Walllength18m
MomentofInertiaI
xx
=82795.6cm
4
/m
SectionModulusSxx=3600cm
3
/m
Surcharge: Variabletriangularsurchargeonwall
Pressure5kPaatEl.+200(topofwall)
Pressure0kPaatEl.+195

The construction sequence is illustrated in Figures 4.1 through 4.4. For the classical analysis the
followingassumptionswillbemade:
Rankinepassivepressuresonresistingside
Cantileverexcavation: Activepressures(Freeearthanalysis)
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|43

Finalstage: Apparentearthpressuresfromactivex1.3,redistributedtopfrom0kPaatwall
toptofullpressureat25%ofHexc.,Activepressuresbeneathsubgrade.
Freeearthanalysisforsingleleveloftiebackanalysis.
Waterpressures: Simplifiedflow
Figure5.1:InitialStage(Stage0,DistortedScales)

Figure5.2:Stage1,cantileverexcavationtoEl.+196.5(tiebackisinactive)

Figure5.3:Stage2,activateandprestressgroundanchoratEl.+197
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|44

Figure5.4:Stage3,excavatetofinalsubgradeatEl.+191
Thefirststepwillbetoevaluatetheactiveandpassiveearthpressuresfortheservicecaseasillustrated
inFigure5.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|45

Top triangular pressure height= 0.25 Hexc = 2.25 m Hexc= 9 m

Apparent Earth Pressure Factor: 1.3 (times active)
Eurocode Safety factors 1 1 1
SOIL
UNIT
WEIGHT
DRY UNIT
WEIGHT
WATER UNIT
WEIGHT
WATER
TABLE
ELEV. Ka Kp c'
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (m) (deg) (kPa) (m) m m/m
32 0.307 3.255 3 195 22 0.1818
20 19 10 195 32.00 0.307 3.255 3.000
ELEV.
TOTAL
VERTICAL
STRESS
WATER
PRESSURE
EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL
STRESS
Acive
LATERAL
SOIL STRESS
Apparent
Earth
Pressures
TOTAL
LATERAL
STRESS
TOTAL
VERTICAL
STRESS
WATER
PRESSURE
EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL
STRESS
LATERAL
SOIL
STRESS
TOTAL
LATERAL
STRESS NET
(m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
199.43 10.82 0.00 10.82 0.00 -7.93 -7.93 -7.93
197.75 42.75 0.00 42.75 -9.81 -31.33 -31.33 -31.33
195 95 0 95 -25.86 -31.33 -31.33 -31.33
191 175 -32.7 142.3 -40.39 -31.33 -64.06 -64.06
191 175 -32.7 142.3 -40.39 -40.39 -73.12 0 0 0 10.82 10.82429 -62.3
182 355 -106.4 248.64 -73.07 -73.07 -179.43 180 106.4 73.64 250.48 356.84 177.4
Total active earth force above subgrade:
Fx
From El. 200.00 to El. 199.43 0.0 kN/m
From El. 199.43 to El. 197.75 8.2 kN/m
From El. 197.75 to El. 195.00 49.1 kN/m
From El. 195.00 to El. 191.00 132.5 kN/m
Sum= 189.8 kN/m
Factored Forc 246.7
Max. Apparent Earth Pressure= 31.3 kPa
LEFT EXCAVATION SIDE PRESSURES RIGHT SIDE PRESSURES (PASSIVE)
Modified for calculation/Strength Reductions
Hydraulic
travel length
Hydraulic loss
gradient i
WATER
TABLE
ELEV.
180
182
184
186
188
190
192
194
196
198
200
202
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

(
m
)
LATERAL STRESS (kPa)
LEFT LAT SOIL
LEFT WATER
LEFT TOTAL
RIGHT LAT SOIL
RIGHT WATER
RIGHT TOTAL
NET

Figure6:Calculationoflateralearthandwaterpressuresforservicecase
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|46

AsFigure6shows,thecalculatedmaximumapparentearthpressureis31.3kPawhichisverycloseto
the31.4kPaapparentearthpressureenvelopecalculatedfromthesoftware(Figure7.1).Allother
pressurecalculationsarealsoverywellconfirmed(withinroundingerroraccuracy).

Figure7.1:Apparentlateralearthpressuresfromconventionalanalysis
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|47

Figure7.2:Simplifiedflowgroundwaterpressuresfromconventionalanalysis

Figure7.3:Simplifiedflownetgroundwaterpressuresfromconventionalanalysis
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|48

Figure7.4:Wallsurchargepressures(unfactored)

Figure7.5:Walldisplacementsfromconventionalanalysis(laststage)

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|49

Figure7.6:Shearandmomentdiagramswithsupportreactionandstresschecksdrawn(redlineson
momentdiagramshowwallcapacity).

Figure7.7:Shearandmomentdiagramenvelopes(forcurrentdesignsectiononly)

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|50

Next,theEC7combinationDA3approachwillbeexaminedindetail.However,allEC7design
approacheswillbeanalyzedsimultaneously.Themodelislinkedtothebasedesignsection.

Figure8.1:GeneralmodelforEC7DA3Approach

Thecorrespondingsafetyfactorsare:
FS(tan())= 1.25
FS(c)= 1.25
FS(Su)= 1.5(thisisalsousedfortheultimatebondresistance)
FS(Actionstemp)= 1.3
FS(Anchors)= 1.1
FS(WaterDrive)= 1.0
FS(Drive_Earth)= 1.0

Nexttheactiveandpassiveearthpressures,aswellasthenetwaterpressuresfortheDA3approachwill
becalculatedasillustratedinFigure8.2.AsFigures8.3through8.4demonstrate,thesoftwarecalculates
essentiallythesamelateralearthpressuresasthespreadsheetshowninFigure8.2.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|51

Top triangular pressure height= 0.25 Hexc = 2.25 m Hexc= 9 m

Apparent Earth Pressure Factor: 1.3 (times active)
Eurocode Safety factors 1.25 1 1.25
SOIL
UNIT
WEIGHT
DRY UNIT
WEIGHT
WATER UNIT
WEIGHT
WATER
TABLE
ELEV. Ka Kp c'
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (m) (deg) (kPa) (m) m m/m
32 0.307 3.255 3 195 22 0.1818 1 1 1
20 19 10 195 26.56 0.382 2.618 2.400
ELEV.
TOTAL
VERTICAL
STRESS
UNFACTORED
WATER
PRESSURE
EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL
STRESS
Acive
LATERAL
SOIL STRESS
Apparent
Earth
Pressures
TOTAL
LATERAL
STRESS
(factored
earth)
TOTAL
VERTICAL
STRESS
WATER
PRESSURE
EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL
STRESS
LATERAL
SOIL
STRESS
TOTAL
LATERAL
STRESS
Net water
pressure
(factored) NET
(m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
199.59 7.77 0.00 7.77 0.00 -7.37 -7.37 0 -7.37
197.75 42.75 0.00 42.75 -13.37 -40.60 -40.60 0 -40.60
195 95 0 95 -33.33 -40.60 -40.60 0 -40.60
191 175 -32.7 142.3 -51.39 -40.60 -73.33 -32.73 -73.3
191 175 -32.7 142.3 -51.39 -51.39 -84.11 0 0 0 7.77 7.765837 -32.73 -76.3
182 355 -106.4 248.64 -92.02 -92.02 -198.39 180 106.4 73.64 200.51 306.88 0.00 108.5
Total active earth force above subgrade:
Fx
From El. 200.00 to El. 199.59 0.0 kN/m
From El. 199.59 to El. 197.75 12.3 kN/m
From El. 197.75 to El. 195.00 64.2 kN/m
From El. 195.00 to El. 191.00 169.4 kN/m
Sum= 245.9 kN/m
Factored Forc 319.7
Max. Apparent Earth Pressure= 40.60 kPa
Modified for calculation/Strength Reductions
LEFT EXCAVATION SIDE PRESSURES RIGHT SIDE PRESSURES (PASSIVE)
WATER
TABLE
ELEV.
Hydraulic
travel length
Hydraulic loss
gradient i
Safety
factor on
net water
pressures
Safety
factor on
earth
pressures
Safety
factor on
Passive
Resistance
180
182
184
186
188
190
192
194
196
198
200
202
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

(
m
)
LATERAL STRESS (kPa)
LEFT LAT SOIL
LEFT WATER
LEFT TOTAL
RIGHT LAT SOIL
RIGHT WATER
RIGHT TOTAL
NET Water
Net

Figure8.2:CalculationoflateralearthandwaterpressuresforDA3Approach
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|52

Figure8.2:ApparentlateralearthpressuresforDA3Approach(40.7kPapressureverifiedspreadsheet
calculations)

Figure8.3:FactoredlateralsurchargepressuresforDA3Approach(7.5kPapressure=5kPax1.5)
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|53

Figure8.4:NetFactoredwaterpressuresforDA3Approach
32.73kPapressure=32.73kPax1.0 ,32.7kPafromFigure6.3
Spreadsheetcalculation32.7kPa

Figure8.5:WallshearandmomentforDA3Approach
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|54

NextweexaminethecaseofDA11whereearthandwaterpressuresaremultipliedbysafetyfactors
whilethesoilstrengthparametersaremaintained.
Top triangular pressure height= 0.25 Hexc = 2.25 m Hexc= 9 m
Apparent Earth Pressure Factor: 1.3 (times active)
Eurocode Safety factors 1 1 1
SOIL
UNIT
WEIGHT
DRY UNIT
WEIGHT
WATER UNIT
WEIGHT
WATER
TABLE
ELEV. Ka Kp c'
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (m) (deg) (kPa) (m) m m/m
32 0.307 3.255 3 195 22 0.1818 1.35 1.35 1
20 19 10 195 32.00 0.307 3.255 3.000
ELEV.
TOTAL
VERTICAL
STRESS
UNFACTORED
WATER
PRESSURE
EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL
STRESS
Acive
LATERAL
SOIL STRESS
Apparent
Earth
Pressures
TOTAL
LATERAL
STRESS
(factored
earth)
TOTAL
VERTICAL
STRESS
WATER
PRESSURE
EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL
STRESS
LATERAL
SOIL
STRESS
TOTAL
LATERAL
STRESS
Net water
pressure
(factored) NET
(m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
200 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
199.43 10.82 0.00 10.82 0.00 -7.93 -10.71 0 -10.71
197.75 42.75 0.00 42.75 -9.81 -31.33 -42.30 0 -42.30
195 95 0 95 -25.86 -31.33 -42.30 0 -42.30
191 175 -32.7 142.3 -40.39 -31.33 -75.02 -44.18 -86.5
191 175 -32.7 142.3 -40.39 -40.39 -87.25 0 0 0 10.82 10.82429 -44.18 -87.9
182 355 -106.4 248.64 -73.07 -73.07 -205.01 180 106.4 73.64 250.48 356.84 0.00 151.8
Total active earth force above subgrade:
Fx
FromEl. 200.00 to El. 199.43 0.0 kN/m
FromEl. 199.43 to El. 197.75 8.2 kN/m
FromEl. 197.75 to El. 195.00 49.1 kN/m
FromEl. 195.00 to El. 191.00 132.5 kN/m
Sum= 189.8 kN/m
Factored Forc 246.7
Max. Apparent Earth Pressure= 31.33 kPa
Safety
factor on
earth
pressures
Safety
factor on
Passive
Resistance
WATER
TABLE
ELEV.
Hydraulic
travel length
Hydraulic loss
gradient i
Modified for calculation/Strength Reductions
LEFT EXCAVATION SIDE PRESSURES RIGHT SIDE PRESSURES (PASSIVE)
Safety
factor on
net water
pressures
180
182
184
186
188
190
192
194
196
198
200
202
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

(
m
)
LATERAL STRESS (kPa)
LEFT LAT SOIL
LEFT WATER
LEFT TOTAL
RIGHT LAT SOIL
RIGHT WATER
RIGHT TOTAL
NET Water
Net

Figure8.6:CalculationoflateralearthandwaterpressuresforDA11Approach
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|55

Figure8.7:ApparentlateralearthpressuresforDA11Approach(42.4kPapressureverified
spreadsheetcalculations)

Figure8.8:NetFactoredwaterpressuresforDA11Approach
44.18kPapressure=32.73kPax1.35 ,32.7kPafromFigure6.3
Spreadsheetcalculation44.18kPa

Inthefollowingpages,thenonlinearsolutiontothesameproblemisbrieflypresented.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|56

Figure9.1:WallbendingmomentsandshearforcesforParatieSolutionforservicecase.

Figure9.2:WallbendingmomentsandshearforcesforParatieSolutionforDA3case.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|57

Figure9.3:NetwaterpressuresforParatieSolutionforDA3case(notyetfactored)

Figure9.4:WallbendingmomentsandshearforcesforParatieSolutionforDA11case.
IMPORTANTForDA11:
In Paratie when Water Unfavorable or Earth Unfavorable are greater than 1, wall bending, wall shear,
and support reaction results are obtained from an equivalent service analysis approach. In this
approach, all surcharge magnitudes are standardized by Earth Unfavorable (1.35 in DA11), thus,
unfavorablevariableloadswillbemultipliedby1.5/1.35=1.111whilepermanentloadsby1.35/1.35=1.
Whentheanalysisiscompletedthewallmoment,wallshear,andsupportreactionresultsaremultiplied
x1.35.Thedisplacementshoweverarenotmultiplied.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|58

ThetiebackSTR&GEOcapacitycalculationswillbeperformedforCaseDA11:

R
= 1.1(temporarytieback)

SU
= 1(Shearstrengthalsousedforbondvalues)
FSGeo= 1.0Userspecifiedsafetyfactorinthisexample,
recommendedvalue1.35inotherconditions.

FixedbodylengthL
FIX
= 9m
FixedbodyDiameterD
FIX
= 0.15m
UltimateSkinfrictionq
ULT
= 150kPa
Thentheultimategeotechnicalcapacityis:
R
ULT.GEO
=L
FIX
xxD
FIX
xq
ULT
/ (
R
)

R
ULT.GEO
=578.33kNpergroundanchor
Thedesigngeotechnicalcapacity(forstresscheckratios)iscalculatedas:
R
DES.GEO
=L
FIX
xxD
FIX
xq
ULT
/ (
R
x
SU
xFSGeo)=578.33kN

TheUltimateStructuralcapacitycanbecalculatedas:
R
ULT.STR
=A
FIX.STEEL
xF
y
/ (
M
)
Notethat1/
M
=intheEC=0.87
R
ULT.STR
=0.87A
FIX.STEEL
xF
y

R
ULT.STR
=0.87x5.94cm
2
x1862MPa=961.8kN
Theseresultsareverifiedbythesoftwareprogram:
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|59

Figure9.6:Individualsupportreactions/capacity

ThetiebackGEOcapacitycalculationsforCaseDA12:

R
= 1.1(temporarytieback)

SU
= 1.4(Shearstrengthalsousedforbondvalues)
FSGeo = 1.0InM2casesthisfactorisautomaticallysetto1.0in
ordertoproduceconsistentcapacitieswithavailabledesignchartsforbond
resistanceofgroundanchors(whereanFS=2.0).

FixedbodylengthL
FIX
= 9m
FixedbodyDiameterD
FIX
= 0.15m
UltimateSkinfrictionq
ULT
= 150kPa
Thentheultimategeotechnicalcapacityis:
R
ULT.GEO
=L
FIX
xxD
FIX
xq
ULT
/ (
R
x
SU
xFSGeo)

R
ULT.GEO
=578.33kNpergroundanchor
Thedesigngeotechnicalcapacity(forstresscheckratios)iscalculatedas:
R
DES.GEO
=L
FIX
xxD
FIX
xq
ULT
/ (
R
x
SU
xFSGeo)=413.1kN

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|60

Figure9.7:Individualsupportreactions/capacityforDA12

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|61

8. Groundanchorandhelicalanchorcapacitycalculations
8.1 GroundAnchorCapacityCalculations
A ground anchor has two forms of capacity, a geotechnical and a structural resistance. The
structuralresistanceofthetendonsisdefinedbyECsteelstandardswhilethebondedzonehas
to be examined for its pullout capacity (geotechnical check). The new software includes a
numberofgroundanchor(tieback)sections.Hence,agroundanchorsectioncanbereusedover
and over in many different support levels and in many different design sections (the same
approachisalsoutilizedforsteelstruts,rakers(inclinedstruts),andconcreteslabs).Thetieback
capacities(ultimateandpermissible)canbecalculatedusingthefollowingequations:

a) Ultimategeotechnicalcapacityusedforthegeotechnicalyieldingis:
R
ULT.GEO
=L
FIX
xxD
FIX
xq
ULT
/ (
R
)

b) Thedesigngeotechnicalcapacity(forstresscheckratios)iscalculatedas:
R
DES.GEO
=L
FIX
xxD
FIX
xq
ULT
/ (
R
x
SU
xFSGeo)
Where:
q
ULT
= UltimateSkinfriction(optionsavailable)
L
FIX
= Fixedbodylength
D
FIX
= Fixedbodydiameter(0.09mto0.15mtypically)
FSGeo = 1.0to2.0userspecifiedsafetyfactor.
FSGeo=1.0inM2designapproachmethods.

R
= 1to1.2Resistancefactorgeotechnicalcapacity

SU
= 1to1.4(Shearstrength,usedforbondvalues)
Note that
R
and
SU
are by default 1, but take Eurocode or DM08 specified values when a
designapproachisused.

c) TheultimateanddesignStructuralcapacitycanbecalculatedas:
P
ULT.STR
=
ULT.CODE
x(AreaofTendons)xF
y

ULT.CODE
=Materialstrengthreductionfactortypically0.9

P
DES.STR
=
DES
x(AreaofTendons)xF
y

DES
=Materialstrengthreductionfactor0.6to0.9
The ultimate capacity is used to determine the structural yielding of the element while the
permissible is used for the stress checks.
ULT.CODE
is always picked up from the structural
code that is used.
DES
can be specified by the user or can be set automatically when the
some code settings are specified. When Eurocodes are used
ALL
should be the same as

ULT.CODE
.
Notethat=1/
M

InthedefaultsettingduringaParatieanalysis,thenewsoftwaremodelsatiebackautomatically
as a yielding element (Wire with yielding properties) with its yielding force determined as the
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|62

minimum STR or GEO capacity. A ground anchor can also be modeled as a nonyielding wire
element by selecting the appropriate option in the Advanced Tab of the Tieback dialog.
However,itisfeltthatduetolegalreasonsitisbettertoincludeatiebackasyieldingelementby
default.

Figure10.1showsthemaintiebacksectiondialog.Themainparametersofinterestarethesteel
material,thecrosssectionalareaofthesteeltendons,andthefixedbodydiameter(Dfix).

Figure10.1:Maintiebacksectiondialog(ElasticWirecommandinRed)

The geotechnical capacity represents the capacity of the soil to resist the tensile forces
transferred by the steel strands to the grouted body. The new software subdivides the fixed
bodyintoanumberofelementsweresoilresistanceiscomputed.Aspreviouslymentioned,the
geotechnical tieback capacityisevaluatedforevery stage.Withinthecurrent Paratieengine,it
is currently possible to change the yield limit of an ELPL spring from stage to stage. Initially, in
the Paratie mode the software uses the capacity at the stage of installation. The capacity is
adjustedateachstageandthefinalsupportcheckisperformedfortheactualcapacityforeach
stage.Anumberofoptionsexistfordefiningthegeotechnicalcapacityofatieback:

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|63

a) Soil resistance is computed from frictional and cohesive components. For the frictional
component, DeepXcav uses the average of the vertical and lateral atrest stress times the
tangentofthefrictionangle.Forthecohesivecomponent,adhesionfactorscanbeapplied.
Furthermore,individualdensificationfactorscanbeappliedseparatelytothefrictionaland
cohesivecomponentstosimulatetheeffectofpressuregrouting.Endbearingatthestartof
the grouted body is ignored. These calculations should be considered as a first order
estimate.Hence,inthiscasetheultimateskinfrictioncanbedefinedas:
t
ULT
=F1x0.5x(
V
+
HKo
)xtan()+F2xx(corS
U
)

In an undrained analysis the software will use S

U
and =0. For a drained analysis the
programwilluseandc.
Where:
F1= Frictionaldensificationfactor(default1)
F2= Cohesionaldensificationfactor(default1)
= Adhesion factor (default =1), but program also offers a dynamic trilinear
approachfordefiningthisparameterbasedoncorSu.Inthisapproach:
=Value1=0.8ifcorSu<=Climit1
=Value2=0.5ifcorSu>=Climit2
=LinearinterpolationforcorSubetweenClim1andClim2.

b) Userdefinedgeotechnicalcapacity(andstructural)definedfromtheadvancedtiebacktab.

Figure10.2:Advancedtiebackdialogtab

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|64

c) Ultimatespecificbondresistancefortiebacksection.
t
ULT
=q
ULT
inGeotechnicaltaboftiebacksection

Figure10.3:Geotechnicaltiebackdialogtab(WirecommandinRed)

d) Ultimatebondresistancedeterminedfromintegratingsoilultimateskinfrictionresistances
overthefixedlength.
t
ULT
=q
ULT
fromSoiltype(BondTab)

In this case, the skin friction can be determined from the Bustamante design charts (Fig.
10.5.1,10.5.2)whenpressuremetertestdataareavailable.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|65

Figure10.4:BondtabinSoiltypedialog(>buttonoffersabilitytoestimatefrom
Pressuremetertests).

e) WhenaEurocodedesignapproachisappliedultimatepulloutresistanceiscalculatedfrom
bondvaluesbyapplyingthesamesafetyfactor(incombinationwithallothersafetyfactors)
as for the undrained shear strength S
u
. However, in certain cases like the M2 the program
does not apply the User Specified FS_geo in order to produce consistent capacity results.
Thus,whenEurocode7orNTCsettingsareapplied,theuserspecifiedFS_Geoisonlyusedin
caseswhereM1factorsareapplied.

When the pullout resistance is calculated from soil cohesion and friction, then the skin
friction is calculated directly from the adjusted friction angle and shear strength/cohesion
valuesaccordingtheMsafetyfactors.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|66

Figure10.5.1:EstimationofbondresistancefortiebacksfromTA95accordingtoBustamante.

Figure10.5.2:EstimationofbondresistancefortiebacksfromPressuremetertestsFHWAand
Frenchrecommendations.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|67

8.2 Helicalanchorcapacitycalculations
Ahelicalanchor/pileconsistsofoneormorehelixshapedbearingplatesattachedtoacentralshaft,
whichisinstalledbyrotatingor"torqueing"intotheground.Eachhelixisattachednearthetip,is
generallycircularinplan,andformedintoahelixwithadefinedpitch.Helicalanchors/pilesderive
theirloadcarryingcapacitythroughbothendbearingonthehelixplatesandskinfrictiononthe
shaft(Figure10.6.1).

Figure10.6.1:Typicalhelicalanchordetailandgeotechnicalcapacitybehavior
AccordingtoIBC2009,theallowableaxialdesignload,P
a
,ofhelicalpilesshallbedeterminedas
follows:
P
a
=0.5P
u
(IBC2009Equation184)
WhereP
u
istheleastvalueof:
1.Sumoftheareasofthehelicalbearingplatestimestheultimatebearingcapacityofthesoilor
rockcomprisingthebearingstratum.
2.Ultimatecapacitydeterminedfromwelldocumentedcorrelationswithinstallationtorque.
3.Ultimatecapacitydeterminedfromloadtests.
4.Ultimateaxialcapacityofpileshaft.
5.Ultimatecapacityofpileshaftcouplings.
6.Sumoftheultimateaxialcapacityofhelicalbearingplatesaffixedtopile.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|68

AnexplanationandsummaryofeachofthesixdesigncriterionsrequiredpertheIBCforhelicalpile
designhavebeenlistedbelowtobetterexplainthedesignprocessandintentofthecode.Item1is
in reference to the Individual Bearing Method. This method requires prior knowledge of the soil
propertiesatthesiteviaasoilsreportorboringlogs.Pleasenotethatmostsoilreportsonlyreport
the allowable bearing capacity of a soil or stratum. This allowable capacity normally has a safety
factoroftwoorthreeapplied.

Item 1 is in reference to the Individual Bearing Method. This method requires prior knowledge of
thesoilpropertiesatthesiteviaasoilsreportorboringlogs.Pleasenotethatmostsoilreportsonly
report the allowable bearing capacity of a soil or stratum. This allowable capacity normally has a
safetyfactoroftwoorthreeapplied.ApplyinganotherfactorofsafetyoftwopertheIBCwouldbe
extremelyconservative.

Typicalhelicalplatesizesare8,10,12,14and16indiameter.Themaximumnumberofhelical
plates placed on a single pile is normally set at six (6). The central area of the shaft is typically
omittedfromtheeffectiveareaofthehelicalplatewhenusingtheIndividualBearingMethod.

Thetotalcapacityoftheanchorcanbecalculatedas:
Q
ult
=Q
shaft
+Q
h

where:
Q
ult
=TotalMultihelixAnchor/PileUltimateCapacity
Q
h
=IndividualHelixUltimateCapacity
Q
h
=A
h
(N
c
c+DN
q
)Q
h.str

Q
h
=A
h
(9c+DN
q
)Q
h.str

where:
A
h
= Projectedeffectiveareaofhelix
N
c
= 9forratiooftophelixdepthtohelixdia.>5(programassumesvalue=9)
D= Depthofhelixplatebelowgroundline
N
q
= Bearingcapacityfactorforsand
Q
h.str
= Uppermechanicallimitdeterminedbyhelixstrength
Q
shaft
= Geotechnical shaft resistance can be also included. Within the program, the shaft
resistance is calculated only within from the starting point of the fixed length of the
anchor to the first encountered helical plate. In most cases, the shaft resistance is
conservativelyignored.

ThesoftwareprogramreplacestheaboveDtermwiththeverticaleffectivestressateachhelix.

Accordingtoastandardpractice(ABChancecorporationpresentation),N
q
canbecalculatedas
adaptedfromG.G.MeyerhofFactorsforDrivenPilesinhispaperBearingCapacityandSettlement
ofPileFoundations,1976

Equation:
N
q
=0.5(12*)
/54

Withafewexceptions,theshaftresistancecanbecalculatedinasimilarmannerasthegeotechnical
capacity of ground anchors. When the capacity is calculated with side frictional methods, a
distinctioncanbemadebetweenagroutedanongroutedshaft(i.e.agroutedshafthasfrictionof
cementgroutwithsoilwhileanongroutedshaftbetweensteelandsoil).
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|69

Item 2 is in reference to the Torque Correlation Method. The Torque Correlation Method is an
empirical method that distinguishes the relationship between helical pile capacity and installation
torque and has been widely used since the 1960s. The process of a helical plate shearing through
the soil or weathered bedrock in a circular motion is equivalent to a plate penetrometer test. The
method gained notoriety based on the study performed by Hoyt and Clemence (1989). Their study
analyzed 91 helical pile load tests at 24 different sites within various soil types ranging from sand,
siltandclaysoils.Theydemonstratedthedirectcorrelationoftheinstallationtorqueofahelicalpile
to its ultimate capacity in compression or tension. The common denominator discovered from the
studywasaparameterreferredtoasthetorquecorrelationfactor,K
t
.

Theequationis:
P
u
=K
t
T
Where:
P
u
istheultimatecapacityofthehelicalpileoranchor[lb(kN)].
K
t
istheempiricaltorquefactorofthecentralshaftofthepile[ft1(m1)].
Tisthefinalinstallationtorque[ftlb(mkN)].

ItsimportanttopointoutthatthetestsanalyzedbyHoytandClemence(1989)wereintension.It
wasshowninsubsequentialstudiesthatthetensioncapacityofhelicalpileswas16to33percent
less than the measured compression capacity. The difference is attributed to the fact that the lead
helical plate is bearing on relatively undisturbed soil in compression applications. In tension
applications,theleadingandtrailinghelicalplatesarebearingonsoilaffectedbytheinstallationof
the helical plates. It has become common practice to use the same torque correlation factor for a
helical pile of the same size for tension and compression and ignore the slight increase in
compressioncapacity.Thiscreatesamoreconservativecompressioncapacityforhelicalpileswhen
comparedtotheIndividualBearingMethod.AlsounliketheIndividualBearingMethod,thenumber
of helical plates on a pile is completely independent of the piles capacity based on the Torque
CorrelationMethod.

Figure10.6.2:Typicalrecommendedtorquefactors

When helical anchors are used in a nonlinear analysis, the elastic behavior of the helical anchor
must be first estimated. In most cases, the ultimate geotechnical pullout resistance of a helical
anchor is controlled by the bearing at each helix. As a result, the ultimate resistance of a helical
anchor is realized at much greater strains than shaft resistance, and may require as much
displacement as 10% of the helix diameter. A reasonable, albeit rough assumption, is to use an
additional displacement 4% of the largest helix diameter at 65% of the ultimate anchor capacity
(Figure 10.6.3). This additional strain/displacement is added to the elastic anchor elongation and
mustbeverifiedbyloadtests.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|70

Figure10.6.3:Elasticbehaviorofhelicalanchorsadvancedtab

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|71

9. GeotechnicalSafetyFactors
9.1 WallEmbedmentStability(toestability)
9.1.1 Introduction
Support walls must be embedded sufficiently to prevent toe stability failure. DeepXcav uses
classical methods in determining the toe embedment depth for a safety factor of 1.0 and the
availablesafetyfactor.Thefollowingparagraphsdescribetheavailablemethodsforcalculatingtoe
stability for cantilever, single support, and multiple level braced walls. The following safety factor
definitionsareavailable:

1) PassiveResistanceSafetyFactor(ConventionalAnalysis):

2) RotationalSafetyFactor(ConventionalAnalysis):

3) Lengthbased(ConventionalAnalysis):

4) Mobilizedpassiveresistance(PARATIE)

Themobilizedpassiveresistanceiscurrentlycalculatedwithconventionalanalysismethods
(thatcanincludetheeffectsofnonlineargroundsurface).

5) Zcutmethod(PARATIE)
TheinternalParatieenginegraduallyreducesthewalllengthuntilthewallcollapses.

WhenboththeconventionalandPARATIEmethodsareused,thesoftwarefirstanalyzesthemodel
withtheconventionalapproachandstoresthecalculatedconventionalsafetyfactors(Equations9.1,
9.2,9.3).Subsequently,oncethePARATIEanalysisissuccessfullyperformed,thesoftwareevaluates
the toe safety based on Eq. 9.4. In this way the user has the benefit of evaluating all conventional
safetyfactorswhileperformingaPARATIEanalysisatthesametime.

Note that in equations 9.1 and 9.2 the water contribution is included as a net driving (i.e.
unfavorable)componentinthedenominator.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|72

9.1.2 CantileverWalls(conventionalanalysis)
For cantilever walls, on may use the "free" earth method or the "fixed" earth method as
illustratedin thefigure below.Thesafetyfactor isdefinedas theavailableembedmentdepthover
the embedment depth for a safety factor of 1.0 using the given set of pressure assumptions. The
fixed earth method uses an iterative search solution to find the minimum depth were stability is
satisfied. Note that in some instances, the fixed earth method may fail to converge when very stiff
soilswithhighcohesionvaluesareused.Insuchacaseyoumighthavetousethefreeearthmethod
toobtainresults.

Inthefreeearthmethodthesoftwarefindsthedepthofwallwheretheoverturningmomentis
equal to the resisting moment and this depth is then set as the FSrotation= 1.0 depth. In this
method,thehorizontalforcesarenotbalancedandforstablewallsthepassiveresistanceisgreater
thanthedrivingresistance(wallshearisnotautomaticallybalanced).Thesoftwarethencalculatesa
safety factor for resisting to driving moments, and also an embedment safety factor just based on
depth (FS= Depth from subgrade to wall bottom / depth from subgrade to elevation of zero
moment).Theoverallreportedsafetyfactoristheminimumofthetwovalues.

Figure11.1:FixedEarthMethodforacantileverwall

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|73

9.1.3 Wallssupportedbyasinglebracinglevelinconventionalanalyses.
For walls supported by a single level of bracing the software uses the free earth method as
illustrated below. For multiple support walls, moments are taken in the same fashion about the
lowest support level. However, only pressures below the lowest support level are considered. The
safetyfactorisdefinedas:

FS=ResistingMomentaboutanchorpoint/OverturningMomentaboutanchorpoint

Figure11.2:FreeEarthMethodforawallsupportedbyasinglelevelofanchors

9.1.4 Wallssupportedbyamultiplebracinglevels(conventionalanalysis)
For walls supported by multiple braces the software can calculate both the horizontal force
safetyfactorandtherotationalsafetyfactor(Eq.9.1and9.2):

FSrotation=ResistingMomentaboutlowestbrace/OverturningMomentaboutlowestbrace

Onlytheforce/pressuresbelowthelowestbraceareaccountedintheaboveequation.

Forthepassivesafetyfactor,thesoftwareofferstwopossibilitiesdependingonhowthesupport
forcesaredetermined:
a) IfthewallisanalyzedwithabeamanalysisBlumsmethod,thenthesoftwarefindsthe
virtualnethorizontalreactionthatactsonthevirtualfixitypointbeneaththesubgrade.The
passivesafetyfactoristhentakenas:

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|74

a) Ifthesupportreactionsaredeterminedwiththetributaryareamethod,thenthesoftware
determinestheapparenthorizontalreactionthatactsatthesubgradelevel(i.e.atthe
excavationelevation).Thepassivesafetyfactoristhentakenas:

Drivingpressures=SoilPressureatdrivingside+NetWaterPressures

9.2 CloughPredictions&BasalStabilityIndex
Clough (Clough et. al., 1989) developed a method for predicting wall deflections based on a
normalized system using a stiffness factor and on a factor of safety for basal stability. Clough
definesthesystemstiffnessfactorastheproductofthemodulusofelasticity(E)timestheinertia
(I) of the wall divided by the unit weight of water (
W
) times the average brace spacing. This
approach of predicting wall deflections has some obvious limitations when applied to stiff walls
because: a) the typical spacing between vertical supports varies little from project to project
(average 9ft to 12 ft) with 7ft minimum and 17ft maximum, b) the wall thickness typically varies
from 2 to 3, c) the effects of prestressing braces are totally ignored, and d) the effect of soil
conditions is partially accounted in the basal stability factor that is not directly applicable for the
majorityofthewallsthatwerekeyedintoastiffstratum.
It is clear that the big limitation of the system stiffness approach is the generic assumption that
wall deflections are primarily related to deformations occurring between support levels. In
individualprojects,theremaybeseverallengthscalesaffectingthewalldeflectionsdependingon
the toe fixity of the wall, the depth to bedrock, the wall embedment below the base of the
excavation,thewidthoftheexcavation,thesizeofberms,andtheinitialunsupportedexcavation
depth. Furthermore, the proposed method of Clough et. al. [1989] takes not account of the
stiffnessprofileintheretainedsoil.
Recently, a much more detailed finite element study has carried out by Jen [1998]. These finite
analyses consisted of three main groups of parametric analyses to quantify the effects of
excavation geometry, soil profile, and support system. The parameters she studied included: I)
Geometry (wall length, excavation width, depth to bedrock), II) Soil Profile (overconsolidation
ratiooftheclay,cohesionlesslayeroveraclaystratum,presenceofclaycrustoverlowOCRclay
stratum),andIII)SupportSystem(stiffnessofsupportwall,andbracingcomponents).
Jen [1998] found that walls basically undergo three phases of deformation: i) Unsupported
cantilever deflections; ii) bulging (subgrade bending); and iii) toe kickout. She concluded that the
actualdeformationphasewasdeterminedbythewallembedmentdepth.Wallstiffnesswasmore
effective in reducing deformations for soft soils but had a smaller effect in stiffer soils. She also
foundthat thedepthtobedrockhadasignificantimpactonthesurfacesettlementatadistance
fromtheexcavation.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|75

Figure11.3:PredictedwalldisplacementsversussystemstiffnessaccordingtoCloughet.al.

Table4.1:Limitequilibriumcalculationsofbasestability(afterTerzaghi,1943).
N
c
s
ub
__
FS=ForD<(2/2)B
s
ub
/D

N
c
s
ub
__
FS=ForD>(2/2)B
2s
uu

2B
s
ub
=undrainedstrengthofbasalclay
s
uu
=undrainedstrengthofclayabovetheexcavationgrade
B=Breadthofexcavation
D=Depthfromexcavationgradetofirmstratum
Nc=5.4
SincemultiplesoiltypescanbeincludedDeepXcavaveragestheundrainedshearstrengthofthe
soil below the subgrade within one excavation depth below subgrade or until a rock layer is
encountered.NotethatthefrictionalcomponentofasoilisincludedbyaddingtoSuthesumof
theverticaleffectivestresstimesthetangentofthefrictionangleontheleftandrightwallside.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|76

9.3 Groundsurfacesettlementestimation
Boone and Westland reported an interesting approach to estimating ground settlements. This
approachassociatesgroundsettlementstothebasalstabilityindex,amodifiedsystemstiffness
value, and individual wall displacement components as seen in the following figure. Wall
displacementsandsurfacesettlementsaredividedintwomajorcategories:
a) CantileverwallgeneratingthesprandelsettlementvolumetroughA
vs

b) BendingwallmovementsgeneratingtheconcavesettlementtroughA
vc

The combination of sprandel and concave settlement troughs results in the combined total
settlement profile. Both these areas A
vs
and A
vc
are taken as a certain percentage of the
correspondingwallmovements.
When a nonlinear solution is performed (beam on elastic foundations), DeepXcav offers the
ability to estimate surface settlements directly from computed wall displacements. In addition,
DeepXcav will add a component for toe translation to the concave settlement. This additional
volumeisestimatedasatrianglebyextrapolatingalinefromthemaximumdisplacementabove
the wall toe to the displacement at the wall base. The following table provides detailed
informationandrecommendationsaboutusingthismethod.
If settlements are used, it is strongly recommended to enable the modifications from the
surface settlements tab in the main form (otherwise surface settlements may be greatly
overestimated).

Figure11.4:Definitionsoflateralandverticaldisplacementparameters:concaveonleft,sprandelon
right(afterBoone2003).

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|77

Table4.2:Summaryofdisplacementestimationequationsbasedoncurvefittingofnonlinear
numericalmodelingresults.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|78

10. HandlingunbalancedwaterpressuresinParatie
As discussed before, automatic handing of water pressures in Paratie when Eurocode is used can
be a very tricky subject. The following paragraphs list some available options for reasonably
modelingwaterinParatiesimulations:

AutomaticGeneration:
AlternativeA: Inclusionofamodelfactoronwallandsupportresults
In this approach, wall bending/shear and support reactions are multiplied by a model factor to
account for the additional net water forces. The software uses the safety factor on unfavorable
earth resistance as the model factor which in all Eurocode 7 and DM08 approaches is equal to
thewaterunfavorablefactor.Thisphilosophicalcontraststemsfromthefactthat,inthiscase,we
wouldhavegonethroughalltheeffortofreadjustingsoilproperties,actions,etc.onlytocomeat
theendofouranalysisandessentiallyuseanallowablesafetyfactor.Thisapproachisused

ManualGeneration(Mustbespecifiedexternallybyuser)
AlternativeB: Readjustmentofwaterlevels(Manual)
From a theoretical standpoint, the most appropriate solution if the groundwater table is beneath
thesurfacewouldbetosimplyraisethegroundwaterelevation(butoneshouldbecarefulnotto
elevate the ground water elevation above). However, in this approach an automatic groundwater
elevation change might not make much sense all together in many cases. For example, in a 15 m
excavation beneath the groundwater one would multiply the retained water height by 1,35
resultingin:
NewwaterheightH=1.35x15m=20.25m

It is obvious, that for a typical excavation elevating the water table by 5.25m would create
unrealistic modeling of the soil stressstate history. For example, if one were to do this in Milan
(wherethereisacanalandthewatertableis3mbelowthestreet)thenthesimulatedassumption
wouldbethatthewaterhasraised2.25mabovethestreetlevel,essentiallyfloodingtheentrance
ofmanybuildings.

Thus, a reasonable automatic generation procedure for readjusting water levels can be very
challengingandisnotimplementedwithinthesoftware.

AlternativeC: Additionofnetwaterpressuresasexternalpressures
In this approach, the additional net factored water pressures (above the normal water pressures
calculatedfromgroundwaterflowanalysis)areaddedautomaticallyasanexternalsurcharge.With
thisalternativeadditionalwaterpressuresshouldbeaccountedoneverystage

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|79

11. WallTypesStiffnessandCapacityCalculations

The new software offers a number of different wall options for calculating wall stiffness and wall
capacity. The different wall types control also the manner by which soil and water pressures are
accounted beneath the excavation subgrade (i.e. bottom of excavation). The following tables
summarizesthebasicstiffnesscalculationsusedforeachdifferentwalltype.

Table5.1:WallTypeandAutomaticStiffnessCalculationsSoldierPile&SheetPileWalls
WallType Subtype WallStiffness(EachElement)
SoldierPileWalland
Lagging

WithSteel
Hbeam

ThestrongaxismomentofinertiaofthesteelelementIxx
WithSteel
PipeOnly
Forthreadreductionpleaseseetablenotes.

WithSteel
Pipefilled
with
Concrete
Allpropertiessameasaboveexcept:

Reinforced
Concrete

(Onlyonreinforcedpiles,canalsobedefinedbyuser)
Soilmix
(only
concrete)

(Onlyonreinforcedpiles,canalsobedefinedbyuser)

Steelsheet
piles
ThemomentofinertiaofthesheetpileIxx/unitlength.
Notes: Often with steel pipes smaller elements have to be sequentially connected in order to
formthefullwalllength.Inthiscase,thejointsbetweendifferentsegmentsaretypicallythreaded.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|80

These threads must be fully welded to provide the full pipe strength. Otherwise, the pipe strength
(notstiffness)hastobeempiricallyreducedbythethreadreductionfactor.

Table5.2:WallTypeandAutomaticStiffnessCalculations,Secant&TangentPileWalls
WallType Subtype WallStiffness(EachElement)
SecantPileWalls

Effectiveconcreteblock

I
UsedBlock
=I
Block
/4

Whereo= Intersection
angleinradians

WithSteel
Hbeam
D=Beam
Depth
ThestrongaxismomentofinertiaofthesteelelementIxx
is combined with Ceffect typically taken as 25% of the
equivalentrectangularconcreteblockstiffness.

WithSteel
PipeOnly

D=Pipe
Diameter
Forthreadreductionpleaseseetablenotes.

WithSteel
Pipefilled
with
Concrete
D=Pipe
Diameter
Allpropertiessameasaboveexcept:

Reinforced
Concrete
D=W

(Onlyonreinforcedpiles,canalsobedefinedbyuser)
Soilmix
(only
concrete)

D=W

(Onlyonreinforcedpiles,canalsobedefinedbyuser)
TangentPileWalls Sameas
secantpile
walls
Same as soldier pile walls but Effective width is limited to
theflangesize.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|81

Fromversion8.0.9.33,forsoldierpileandtangentpilewalls,thesoftwareprogramofferstheabilityto
model walls with piles that are offset in respect to the wall axis (as the following figure shows). The
program offers the ability to include a stiffness increase that simulates the pile offset. In this case, the
wallstiffnessincreaseisaccountedby:
Momentofinertiaincrease/pile=EffectivenessFactor(%)xAreax(Offset/2)
2

Theincreaseinmomentofinertiaisonlyaccountedfortheequivalentwallthickness(orwallstiffness)
andnotforthemomentofinertiaofeachindividualpile.

Where:
Area= Steelpileareaforwallswithsteelmembers,orconcreteareaforconcretepiles
Effectivenessfactor= The effectiveness factor (0 to 100%) for the stiffness increase due to the wall
offset.Itisimportanttonote,thatarigidpilecapconnectionmustbeutilizedif
this factor is included. In essence, the wall stiffness can be increased if there is
sufficientfrictionbetweenadjacentpiles.Afactorof100%wouldimplythatthe
wall is fully braced all along the whole length and especially at the top and
bottomendpoints(acasethatisnotrealisticinmostconditions).

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|82

Table5.3:WallTypeandAutomaticStiffnessCalculations,DiaphragmandSPTCWalls
WallType Subtype WallStiffness(EachElement)

Always
Reinforced
Concrete
OnlyConcretestiffnessisconsideredbydefault.

However, note that while this value is automatically calculated

the program uses the specified Ixx within the Wall Sections
dialog.
SPTCWalls(SoldierPile
andTremiedConcrete)

Onlypile
stiffnessis
considered
Only pile stiffness is considered. Usually concrete is
ignoredasitisveryweak,butthesoftwareprogramallows
the user to include a percentage of the rectangular block
stiffnessthus:

EquivalentThicknessCalculationsforParatie:
Thenonlinearmoduleworkswithanequivalentstiffnessapproachwherethewallthicknessandthe
materialelasticityaredefined.Inthisapproachthewallistreatedwithintheengineasacontinuousslab
withanequivalentthicknessT
eq
.
TheequivalentthicknessiscalculatedbyusingtheIxxdefinedinTables5.1through5.3anddividingit
bythewallspacingS.Thus:

Typicallyinmostcases
Ixx and S are always converted in consistent units. However, since a wall may be composite, the wall
thicknessmaybeadjustedinternallytoaccountforthestandardmaterialthatisbeingusedforthewall.
Theequivalentthicknessandstiffnesscalculationsarealwaysreportedintheparatieinputfile.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|83

12. SeismicPressureOptions
Earth retaining structures such as braced excavations and anchored bulkheads experience
additional forces during seismic events. The true wall behavior is very complex and can rarely be truly
simulated for most earth retaining structures. Instead, engineers have long used widely acceptable
simplified models and methods that allow seismic effects to be added as external pressure diagrams.
Theseadditionalseismicpressurescanbeessentiallydividedinthreeparts:
a) Theadditionalforceduetothesoilskeleton
b) Theadditionalhydrodynamicforces.
c) Inertiaeffectsontheretainingstructure
Unyielding walls (i.e. rigid walls that do not move) experience greater forces compared to yielding
walls.Hence,permissiblewalldisplacementinfluencesthemagnitudeoftheexternalforcesthatawall
might experience during an earthquake. In an elastoplastic analysis (i.e. Paratie engine) an automatic
simplifiedprocedureisavailablethatgraduallyreducespressuresfromthetheoreticalrigidwalllimitas
the wall displaces. The details of this method are outside the scope of this text and are covered in the
Paratieenginetheoreticalmanual.
Further,waterinhighlypermeablesoilsmaybefreetomoveindependentlyfromthesoilskeleton,
thus adding hydrodynamic pressures on a wall. Water above the ground surface will also add
hydrodynamic effects. The following sections provide full details for all available methods within the
newsoftware.Ingeneralthefollowingprocedurehastobefollowed:
a) Determinationofsitefactors,baseacceleration.
b) Selectionofthebasicwallbehavior(flexibleorrigid).Forrigidwallbehaviorthewoodmethodis
selectedandthenweproceedtostepe).
c) Forflexiblewalls,determinationofthestructureresponse(Rfactor).
d) Selectionofmethodforseismicpressuresduetosoil.
e) Optiontoselectseismicpressurestobeincludedforfullwallheightorjustexcavationheight.
f) Selectionofmethodforcalculatinghydrodynamiceffects(ifany).
g) Optiontoincludeinertiaeffectsduetothewallmass.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|84

Figure12.1:Seismicoptionsdialog
12.1 Selectionofbaseaccelerationandsiteeffects
The horizontal design acceleration in most building codes is defined by determining the base
acceleration(atthebedrockbase)andincludingadjustmentfactorsthataccountforsoilconditions,site
topography, structure behavior, and finally structure importance. The horizontal design acceleration is
generallydefinedas:

Where: A
xDES
= Maximumhorizontaldesignacceleration
A
BASE
= Baseaccelerationdeterminedforarequiredreturnperiod
S
S
= Soiltypeamplificationfactor(typicalvalues1to2)
S
T
= Topographic site amplification factor (valley, ridge, flat ground) typical
valuesrangefrom1to1.4
I

= Importancefactor(dependsonstructureusage).1fortypicalstructures,
seeindividualbuildingcodesforactualvalues.

Some building codes (i.e. Italian) provide detailed methods for determining various factors
automatically(see12.5).
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|85

12.2 DeterminationofretainingstructureresponsefactorR
For flexible walls (i.e. yielding walls) the software offers a number of options for calculating the
structureresponsefactorR:
a) When the user site response option is selected, the permissible displacement and responsed
factorRcanbedefinedaccordingtoEurocode8andSimonella(2004).

Figure12.2:SeismicresponsefactorRaccordingtoSimonella2004
b) RichardsElms displacement control based method: Richards and Elms (1979) outlined a
procedure for determining the design acceleration based on the acceptable permanent wall
displacement.Thismethodisessentiallysummarizedinthefollowingequation:

Or

Where: o
PERM
= Permanenthorizontaldesigndisplacement
v
max
= Maximumbasevelocity
o
MAX
= Maximum surface ground acceleration (units of length/sec
2
)
thatincludesallsiteandimportanceeffects.
o
X
= Horizontaldesignaccelerationincluding(unitsoflength/sec
2
)

Kramer(1996)suggeststhefollowingpreliminaryvaluesforv
max
/o
MAX

Stratigraphy v
max
/o
MAX

Rocksorrigidprofiles 0.05sec
Deformablelayersoverarigidbase 0.15sec

c) LiaoWhitmandisplacementcontrolmethod:
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|86

Liao and Whitman provided an alternative way to calculate the design acceleration from the
permissibledisplacement.

d) Italianbuildingcode(NTC2008)automaticprocedure:
TheItalian20087buildingcodeoffersastraightforwardmannerforestimatingthehoritzontal
designseismicacceleration.
a
h
=k
h
g =o| a
MAX
(NTC 2008 eq. 7.11.9)

amax =Sag =S
S
S
T
ag (NTC 2008 eq. 7.11.10)

The software program then determines the design acceleration with:

The o and | parameters are determined with the aid of the following design charts
where:
H = Excavation height (automatically determined during analysis)
u
s
= design permanent wall displacement (defined by user)

Figure12.3:Siteresponsefactoro according to Italian building code NTC 2008

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|87

Figure12.4:Siteresponsefactor| according to Italian building code NTC 2008

12.3 SeismicThrustOptions
12.3.1 Semirigidpressuremethod

In the semirigid approach the seismic pressure is calculated as the product of the total
vertical stress at the bottom of the wall (or excavation subgrade depending on user
selection) times a factor B. The seismic thrust is then included as an external rectangular
pressurediagram.

Where:
B

= Multiplicationfactor(typically0.75,i.e.HellenicSeismicCode)
o
VTOTAL
= Totalverticalstressatwallbottomorexcavationsubgrade
u
TOP
= Water pressure, if any, at the ground surface (if water is above ground
surface)
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|88

12.3.2 MononobeOkabe
Okabe (1926) and Mononobe and Matsuo (1929) developed the basis of a pseudostatic
analysis of seismic earth pressures that has become popularly known at the Mononobe
Okabe (MO) method. The MO method is a direct extension of the static coulomb theory
thataccountsforaccelerationwhereseismicaccelerationsareapplied toaCoulombactive
(orpassive)wedge.Thesoftwareprogramalwaysincludesseismicpressurescalculatedwith
theMOmethodasexternalloads.

Where = Slopeangle(positiveupwards)
= Seismiceffects=Drysoil
Impervioussoil= (EC.Eq.E.13)
Pervioussoil= (EC.Eq.E.16)
o
X
= horizontalacceleration(relativetog)
o
Y
= verticalacceleration,+upwards(relativetog)
= Wallanglefromvertical(0radianswallfaceisvertical)

Foraverticalwallthenetseismicthrustisthencalculatedby:

The seismic thrust is then redistributed according to the Seed & Whitman (1970)
recommendation as an inverse trapezoid with the resultant force acting at 0.6H above the
wallbottom(orbottomofexcavationdependingontheselectedheightoption).Thisresults
inthepressureatthetopandbottombeingequalto:

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|89

12.3.3 RichardsShimethod
The RichardsShi method (1994) provides an extension to the MO approach that includes
frictional soils that have cohesion. For free field conditions the proposed equation is
outlinedas:

Withzeroaccelerationtheaboveequationbecomes:

Where: o
Z
=(1o
Y
)zU
TOP
(programusestotalverticalstress)
o
Z0
=zU
TOP
(programusestotalverticalstress)
t
XZ
=o
X
z

Theprogramthencalculates:

Thenetseismicthrustincreaseisthencalculatedas:

The seismic pressures are then redistributed as an inverse trapezoid in a similar manner
outlined for the MO method. In this approach, the soil is inherently treated as
impermeable. Inclusion of hydrodynamic pressures will always provide a conservative
approach. The software program always includes seismic pressures calculated with the
RichardsShimethodasexternalloads.

12.3.4 Userspecifiedexternal
Inthisapproachtheusercandirectlyinputtheseismicpressuresasanexternaltrapezoidal
orrectangularpressurediagram.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|90

12.3.5 WoodAutomaticmethod
Inthisapproachthefirststepistodeterminetheaveragelateralthrustofthesoilaccording
tothewoodapproachwith:

Where
APPLIED
=Applicablesoilunitweightwiththefollowingpossibilities(alsosee12.4):
a) Dryabovethewatertable
b) Totalwhenthesoilbelowthewatertableistreatedasimpervious,or
c) Total minus unit weight of water for soil below the water table that is
treatedasperviouswherewatercanmoveindependentlyfromthesoil
skeleton.

Thentheseismicpressurescanbecalculatedas:

In the limit equilibrium approach the calculated pressures are applied directly on the wall.
Thereforewiththisapproachthewallisimplicitlyassumedtoberigid.

WithintheParatieanalysisthesepressuresareappliedastheinitialseismicthrustpressures
at zero additional seismic strain (i.e. rigid wall behavior when the seismic pressures are
initially applied). The initial seismic pressures are then gradually readjusted (typically
reduced)asthewallgraduallydisplacesduetotheadditionalseismicloaduntilequilibrium
is reached. Details of this automatic procedure are fully outlined in the Paratie engine
theorymanual.

12.3.6 WoodManual
ThisapproachbehavesinexactlythesamemannerastheAutomaticWoodMethodwith
theonlydifferencebeingthatthezerostrainseismicpressuresaredefineddirectlybythe
user.

12.4 WaterBehaviorduringearthquakes
For retaining walls hydrodynamic water pressures are typically calculated with Westergaards
solution (Westergaard, 1931) and are always applied as external pressures to a wall where the
hydrodynamicpressureiscalculatedas:

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|91

For retained water above the ground surface external hydrodynamic pressures are included with
the previous equation. In case of water above the subgrade (excavation level) on the excavated
side,hydrodynamicreliefpressuresarealsoincludedintheexcavatedsideinthedirectionofthe
horizontalacceleration.
Depending on soil permeability, water within the soil can move with or independently from the
soilskeleton.Whensoilistreatedaspervioushydrodynamicpressuresfromgroundwaterwillbe
added(onbothretainedanexcavationside,buttowardsthesamedirection).Theprogramoffers
thefollowingoptions:
a) All soils are treated as impervious. Water is not free to move independently, hydrodynamic
effectsforgroundwaterarenotincludedforanysoils.
b) All soils are treated as pervious. Water is free to move independently, hydrodynamic effects
forgroundwaterareincludedforallsoils.
c) Automatic determination of behavior according to Eurocode 8 recommendations. Soils with
permeabilitygreaterthan5x10
4
m/secareautomaticallytreatedasperviouswhilesoilswith
smallerpermeabilityaretreatedasimpermeable.
Incaseofwaterflowanalternativeapproachistocalculatethehydrodynamicpressurebasedon
theactualwaterpressures(Konstantakos,2009):

Note: This equation is an extension of the Westegaard theory that is difficult to verify in real
projects. In steady flow conditions, the above equation will produce smaller pressures compared
tothetraditionalWestegaardequation.

12.5 WallInertiaSeismicEffects
Traditionally wall inertia effects (acceleration of the wall mass directly) are not included for
flexibleretainingstructures.Theprogramofferstheabilitytoincludetheseeffects

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|92

12.6 VerificationExample
Letsimagineawallthatis10mdeep,withwateratthesameelevationonbothsidesofthewall.
The example involves the analysis of steel sheet pile wall supported by a single level of tiebacks
withthefollowingassumptions:
Retainedgroundsurfacelevel(uphillside)El.+0
Maximumexcavationlevel(downhillside)El.10
WaterlevelonretainedsideEl.0
WaterlevelonexcavatedsideEl.0
Waterdensity
WATER
=10kN/m
3

Horizontaldesignaccelerationax=0.25g
Verticaldesignaccelerationaz=0.125g(upwards)
Wallfrictiono=11degress
Soilproperties:
TOTAL
=21.55kN/m
3
,
DRY
=18.55kN/m
3
,c=0kPa,=32deg,
PermeabilityKx=0.001m/sec
Exponentialsoilmodel:E
load
=15000kPa,E
reload
=45000kPa,a
h
=1,a
v
=0
K
pBase
=3.225(Rankine),K
aBase
=0.307(Rankine)

NotethataccordingtoCoulombwithwallfriction11degreesweobtain:
K
pCoulomb
=3.301,K
aCoulomb
=0.278

Part A: Calculate the driving seismic thrust from soil and water and the corresponding pressures
withtheMononobeOkabemethodassumingthatthesoilispervious.
u atan
d Ax
t w ( ) 1 Ay ( )

(
(

:=
for pervious soil
| 0 = | 0deg = u 24.649deg =
According to Mononobe Okabe if B <FR - THETA
test1 | u := test1 7.351deg =
K
AE
sin | + u ( ) ( )
2
cos u ( ) sin ( ) ( )
2
sin u o1 ( ) 1
sin o1 | + ( ) sin | | u ( )
sin u o1 ( ) sin | + ( )
|

\
|
|
.
0.5
+

(
(

:=
K
AE
0.756 =
In the horizontal direction
K
AE.h
K
AE
cos
t
2
o1 +
|

\
|
|
.
:= K
AE.h
0.742 =

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|93

Theeffectiveverticalstressatthewallbottomis:
o
V
=zU

=21.55x1010x10=115.5kN/m
2

Thenetseismicthrustduetothesoilforceisthencalculatedas:
Fx.SoilEQ=(K
AE.H
x(1ay)K
A.Coul
)o
V
H/2=214.4kN/m
Thentheseismicsoilpressureatthewalltopandbottomcanbecalculatedas:

=8.57kPa

Thehydrodynamicpressurefromonewallsideatthewallbottoniscalculatedas:

21.875 kPa

Since water is also found on the excavated side, the hydrodynamic force must be accounted
twice, thus:

8.57kPa+2x21.875kPa=52.33kPa
Theprogramproducesalmostthesameresults:

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|94

Figure12.5:VerificationofMOseismicpressureswithsoftware,PartA,Automaticwater
behavior(perviousinthiscase).
Part B: Next we will examine if the soil behaves in as impervious. In this case, hydrodynamic
pressuresmustbeaccountedonlyintheexcavatedside:
u atan
t Ax
t w ( ) 1 Ay ( )

(
(

:=
for impervious soil
| 0 = | 0deg = u 28.061deg =
According to Mononobe Okabe if B <FR - THETA
test1 | u := test1 3.939deg =
K
AE
sin | + u ( ) ( )
2
cos u ( ) sin ( ) ( )
2
sin u o1 ( ) 1
sin o1 | + ( ) sin | | u ( )
sin u o1 ( ) sin | + ( )
|

\
|
|
.
0.5
+

(
(

:=
K
AE
0.936 =
In the horizontal direction
K
AE.h
K
AE
cos
t
2
o1 +
|

\
|
|
.
:= K
AE.h
0.919 =

Thenetseismicthrustduetothesoilforceisthencalculatedas:
Fx.SoilEQ=(K
AE.H
x(1ay)K
A.Coul
)o
V
H/2=303.8kN/m

=12.15kPa

12.15kPa+21.875kPa=34.02kPa

These results are verified by the program, (note that the maximum pressure is found below the
walltop):
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|95

Figure12.6:VerificationofMOseismicpressureswithsoftware,PartB,imperviouswater
behavior.

PartC:CalculatetheseismicthrustassumingthesemirigidmethodwithB=0.75andnowateron
bothsides.Inthiscase,theeffectiveverticalstressatthewallbottomis:
o
V
=zU

=18.55x100=185.5kN/m
2

Then the seismic thrust, as also verified by the software, is taken as a rectangular diagram equal
to:

Figure12.7:VerificationofMOseismicpressureswithsoftware,PartC,nowater.

Ifarigidbehaviorisassumedthen

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|96

13. Verificationoffreeearthmethodfora10ftcantileverexcavation
Thepurposeofthisexerciseistocalculatelateralstresses,toeembedment,andbendingmomentswith
thefreeearthmethodfora10ftcantileverexcavation.Pressurecalculationsandassumptionsare:
LeftSideEl.=0FT RightSideEl.=10FT Gen.WaterEl=10FT
Soil=120pcf FrictionAngle=30deg Water=62.4pcf
Activeonleftsideka=0.333 Passiveonrightsidekp=3

Figure13.1:Cantileverexcavationlateralpressurecalculations
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|97

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|98

Figure13.2:Outputfor10ftcantileverexcavation.
The same problem in DEEP can be seen in Figure 13.2. DEEP generates the same lateral pressures and
predicts FS. 1 embedment is EL. 24.5 ft. Our calculations have showed that the FS. 1 elevation is El.
24.76 ft. DeepXcav essentially finds the same number. The difference stretches an important aspect of
how discretization (i.e. dividing the wall into many elements) can generate slight differences from the
actualsolution.
Thesafetyfactoronembedmentlengthiscalculatedas:
FSembed=40ft/(10ft(24.5ft))=2.758
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|99

The embedment safety factor based on the horizontal forces is calculated by dividing the resisting
horizontalforcesbythedrivinghorizontalforces.DeepXcavcalculatesasafetyfactorof4.136whereas
the following calculation shows FS=2.213. The discrepancy is likely due to rounding errors as all the
significantdigitsarecarriedininternalcalculationswithinDeepXcav.
TheeffectiveverticalstressatEl.10ftandatEl.50ftis:
o
V10
=zU

=0.120kcfx10ft0=1.2ksf
o
V50
=o
V10
+(
w
)z=1.2ksf+(0.1200.0624)kcfx40ft=3.504ksf
However, the water is calculated with the net method where the right side water pressures are
subtractedfromtheleftsidewaterpressures.Hence,inthisexamplethenetwaterpressureisequalto
zero.
Drivingforce= 0.333x1.20ksfx10ft/2+0.333x(1.2ksf+3.504ksf)x40ft/2=33.35kips/ft
Resistingforce=3x(0.1200.0624)kcfx40ftx40ft/2=138.24k/ft
Thenthehorizontalpassiveforcesafetyfactoris:
FSpas=138.24/33.35=4.145whilethesoftwareproduces4.136

DeepXcav generates a bending moment of 22.4 kft which verifies the calculated maximum moment
above. The slight discrepancy is because of rounding and because when the wall is divided into small
elements the exact maximum moment position will likely be missed by the wall node where the
maximummomentisreported.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|100

14. Verificationof20ftdeepsinglelevelsupportedexcavation
Using the same general parameters as in section 14.1, we will now verify analyze a problem of a 20 ft
excavationthatissupportedbyasinglesupportlevelatEl.10ft(10ftdepthfromtopofwall).Theaim
ofthistaskwillbetofindtherequiredtoeembedmentforasafetyfactorof1.0,thesupportreaction,
andthemaximumwallbendingmoment.LateralpressurescalculationsareshowninFigure1.

Figure14.1:Lateralpressurecalculationsfor20ftsinglelevelsupportedexcavation.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|101

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|102

Figure14.2:DeepXcavoutputfor20ftdeepexcavationwithsinglesupportat10ftdepth.
As we can see in Figure 2, DEEP predicts that the FS=1.0 elevation is at El. 35.75 ft while the previous
calculations show EL. 35.9 ft. Therefore, our calculations essentially confirm the numbers found by
DeepXcav.
Thewallembedmentsafetyfactorbasedonlengthiscalculatedas:
FSembed.length=30ft/(20ft(35.75ft)=1.904

DeepXcavfindsthesamenumberforthesupportreactionwhichiscalculatedat
Rsupport=10.48kips(perfootofwalllength).
Usingacommercialstructuralanalysissoftwareprogramwecaninputtheparametersandcalculatethe
moment easily while we can also verify the calculated support reactions above. As it can be seen in
Figure 14.3, the calculated maximum moment is 45.9 kft/ft while DeepXcav predicts a maximum
bendingmomentof44.6kft/ft.Thus,DeepXcavpredictsthemaximumbendingmomentaccurately.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|103

Figure14.3:CalculatedMomentswithastructuralanalysisprogramfor20ftexcavation.
Following are calculations for the safety factor against rotation. The safety factor is calculated by the
ratio of resisting to driving moments about the support level. DeepXcav calculates a safety factor of
1.915 whereas the following calculations show a safety factor of 1.915. Thus DeepXcav captures the
correctsafetyfactoraccurately.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|104

Thehandcalculationsconfirmthecalculatedrotationalsafetyfactorsoftwarecalculatesarotational
safetyfactorof1.915

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|105

15. Verificationof30ftexcavationwithtwosupportlevels
Thissectionverifiesa30ftexcavationwithtwosupportlevels,oneat10ftdepth,andthesecondat20
ftfromthetopofthewall.Allotherprojectparametersremainthesameasintheprevioustwosections
(14.1 and 14.2). Figure 15.1 shows pressure calculations for the 30 ft excavation. DeepXcav calculates
thesamelateralpressuresascalculationsinFigure15.1.

SOIL UNIT
WEIGHT
WATER UNIT
WEIGHT
WATER
TABLE
ELEV. Ka Kp
WATER
TABLE ELEV.
(kcf) (kcf) (FT) (FT)
0.12 0.0624 -10 0.333 3 -30
ELEV.
TOTAL
VERTICAL
STRESS
WATER
PRESSURE
EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL
STRESS
LATERAL
SOIL
STRESS
TOTAL
LATERAL
STRESS
TOTAL
VERTICAL
STRESS
WATER
PRESSURE
EFFECTIVE
VERTICAL
STRESS
LATERAL
SOIL
STRESS
TOTAL
LATERAL
STRESS NET
(FT) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-10 1.2 0 1.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4
-20 2.4 -0.624 1.776 -0.592 -1.216 -1.216
-30 3.6 -1.248 2.352 -0.784 -2.032 0 0 0 0 0 -2.032
-43.22 5.186 -2.073 3.113 -1.038 -3.111 1.586 0.825 0.761 2.284 3.109 -0.001
-50 6 -2.496 3.504 -1.168 -3.664 2.4 1.248 1.152 3.456 4.704 1.04
LEFT EXCAVATION SIDE PRESSURES RIGHT SIDE PRESSURES
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

(
F
T
)
LATERAL STRESS (KSF)
LEFT LAT SOIL
LEFT WATER
LEFT TOTAL
RIGHT LAT SOIL
RIGHT WATER
RIGHT TOTAL
NET

Figure15.1:Lateralpressurecalculationsfora30ftexcavation
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|106

Figure15.2:Lateralpressuresandbendingmomentsfora30ftdeepexcavationbyDeepXcav.

Figure15.3:30ftExcavationmodeledwithastructuralanalysissoftware
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|107

Theexcavationhasbeenmodeledwithanindependentstructuralsoftwareprogramwithabasesupport
atEl43.22wherethenetpressureisequaltozero.Resultsfromtheindependentsoftwareprogramare
showninFigure15.3.Thesoftwareprogramresultsinwallmomentsof72.5kft/ftatEl.20ftand65.0
kftmaximumpositiveontherightside.DeepXcavproducesamomentof72.6kft/ftatEl.20and65.0
kft/ft on the right wall side. Support reactions in DEEP are 1.24 k/ft at the first support level and
32.01k/ftatthesecondsupportlevel(El.20ft).Therefore,DeepXcavwithinacceptableaccuracylevels
calculatesmomentsandsupportreactions.

Figure15.4:Wallembedmentsafetyfactors,wallmoments,andsupportreactionsbyDEEPfora30ft
excavationexample.
Nowcalculatethetoeembedmentsafetyfactors.
Reaction at pin support at El -43.22 ft
F
B
9.000kip :=
Note that the pressure at El -43.22 is zero. Now calculate the net passive resistance to the
bottom of the wall.
o
BOT
0.944ksf :=
Therefore, the next passive resisting force below El. -43.22 is
R
NET
50ft 43.22ft ( )
o
BOT
1 ft
2
:= R
NET
3.2kip =
Passive force safety factor
FS
PAS
R
NET
F
B
:= FS
PAS
0.356 =

DeepXcav calculates 0.36 which verifies the hand calculated safety factor.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|108

u
30
1.248ksf :=
Moment for water from El. -20 to El. -30ft
M
1w
10ft u
20
10 ft
2
u
30
u
20
( ) 10 ft
2
10ft 2
3
+

(
(

1 ft := M
1w
52kipft =
Below El. -30 the net water pressure has a rectangular distribution
u
net
u
30
:= u
net
1.248ksf =
and the moment contribution is
M
2w
u
net
20 ft 10ft
20ft
2
+
|

\
|
|
.
1 ft := M
2w
499.2kipft =
The driving moment is then:
M
DR
M
DRs
M
1w
+ M
2w
+ :=
Resisting moment comes from a triangular pressure distribution pressure at bottom 3.456 ksf
onky due to soil contribution as water moment is added as a net moment on the driving side
F
R
3.456ksf 20 ft 1
ft
2
:= M
R
F
R
10ft 20ft
2
3
+
|

\
|
|
.
:= M
R
806.4kipft =
Now we can calculate the rotational safety factor
FS
ROT
M
R
M
DR
:= FS
ROT
0.814 =
Now calculate rotational safety factor about lowest support. In this method, driving and resisting
moments below the lowest support are calculated. The safety factor is then calculated at the
ratio of resistring to driving moments. Note that moments above the lowest support are ignored.
Soil pressure at El- 20
o
DRs20
0.592ksf :=
o
DRsbot
1.168ksf :=
Soil pressure at bottom of left wall side El- 50ft
From the rectangular portion of the driving soil pressures
F
DRrectS
30ft 1 ft o
DRs20
( ) := F
DRrectS
17.76kip =
M
DRrectS
F
DRrectS
30
ft
2
:= M
DRrectS
266.4kipft =
From the triangular portion of the driving pressures
F
DRtriS
o
DRsbot
o
DRs20
( ) 30 ft 1
ft
2
:= F
DRtriS
8.64kip =
M
DRtriS
F
DRtriS
30 ft
2
3
:= M
DRtriS
172.8kipft =
And total driving moment due
to soil pressures on left side
M
DRs
M
DRrectS
M
DRtriS
+ := M
DRs
439.2kipft =
Now calculate the net driving moment due to water below El. -20ft
u
20
0.624ksf :=

AsFigure15.4shows,DeepXcavcalculatesthesamesafetyfactorascalculatedabove.

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|109

A. APPENDIX:VerificationofPassivePressureCoefficientCalculations
K
P1
cos | u + | ( ) ( )
2
cos u ( ) ( )
2
cos | ( ) ( )
2
cos o1 u | + ( ) 1
sin o1 | + ( ) sin | o + | ( )
cos o1 u | + ( ) cos o u ( )
|

\
|
|
.
0.5

(
(

:=
K
P
K
P1
1 Ay ( ) := K
P
15.976 =
K
PH
K
P
cos o1 u ( ) := K
PH
15.734 =
3. Calculate Kp according to Lancellotta 2007, note equation does not account for wall inclination
O2 asin
sin o1 ( )
sin | ( )
|

\
|
|
.
asin
sin o | ( )
sin | ( )
|

\
|
|
.
+ o1 + o | ( ) + 2| + := O2 1.029 =
O2 58.981deg =

1
1 Ay ( )
2
Ax
2
+

0.5
:=
1
1.013 =
K
PE
cos o1 ( )
cos o1 ( ) sin | ( ) ( )
2
sin o1 ( ) ( )
2

0.5
+

cos o | ( ) sin | ( ) ( )
2
sin o | ( ) ( )
2

0.5

(
(
(
(

e
O2 tan | ( )
:= K
PE
10.401 =
K
PH.Lancellotta
K
PE

1
cos o | ( ) := K
PH.Lancellotta
10.477 =
K
P.Lancellotta
K
PH.Lancellotta
cos o1 ( )
:= K
P.Lancellotta
10.639 =
1. Calculate Kp according to various equations, define basic parameters
Soil friction angle
| 40deg :=
Slope angle
o 15deg :=
Note that positive slope angle is upwards
o1 10deg :=
Wall friction
Wall inclination
u 0deg :=
Note vertical face angle theta is 0
Seismic accelerations
Ax 0.16 := Ay 0 :=
| atan
Ax
1 Ay
|

\
|
|
.
:= | 0.159 = | 9.09deg =
2. Calculate Kp according to Coulomb, DAS pg. 430, Principles of Geotechnical Engineering

Inthefollowingpage,theresultsbythesoftwareprogramarepresented.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|110

ThesoilKpestimationformcanberaisedintwowaysa)FromtheSoilDatadialogwhentheParatie
analysisisselected,andb)bywritingKpEstimateinthetextcommandandpressing
enter.
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|111

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|112

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|113

B. APPENDIX:SampleParatieInputFileGeneratedbyNewSoftwareProgram

**
*PARATIEANALYSISFORDESIGNSECTION:EC7,2007:DA1,Combination2:A2+M2+R1
*1:DefineGeneralCalculationSettings
delta0.2
unitmkN
optionparamitemax200

*2.ADDGENERALWALLS&DIMESIONS
wallLeftwall0182200

*3.1DEFINESURFACEFORLEFTWALL
soil0_LLeftwall18220010
soil0_RLeftwall1822002180

*4:DEFINESOILLAYERELEVATIONS&STRENGTHS
*BORINGBoring1
*DATAFORLAYER:1,SOILTYPE=1,F
LdataL1200
weight191010
Resistance3320.3073.255
atrest0.470.51
Moduli150003011000.5
permeabil0.03048
Endl

*5.1:DEFINESTRUCTURALMATERIALS
*STARTGENERALMATERIALS
*GENERALCONCRETEMATERIALSCONVERTEDTOCONSISTENTUNITSWITHFORCE/LENGTH^2
*Concretematerial:0Name=3ksiConcrete,E=21541.9MPa
materialCONC_0_321541900
*Concretematerial:1Name=4ksiConrete,E=24874.5MPa
materialCONC_1_424874500
*Concretematerial:2Name=5ksiConrete,E=27810.5MPa
materialCONC_2_527810500
*GENERALSTEELMEMBERMATERIALSCONVERTEDTOCONSISTENTUNITSWITHFORCE/LENGTH^2
*Steelmaterial:0Name=Fe510,E=206000MPa
materialSTEEL_0_206000000
*Steelmaterial:1Name=A50,E=200100MPa
materialSTEEL_1_200100000
*GENERALREBARMATERIALSCONVERTEDTOCONSISTENTUNITSWITHFORCE/LENGTH^2,USEDFORANCHORS
*Rebarmaterial:0Name=Grade60,E=200100MPa
materialREB_0_Gr200100000
*Rebarmaterial:1Name=Grade75,E=200100MPa
materialREB_1_Gr200100000
*Rebarmaterial:2Name=Grade80,E=200100MPa
materialREB_2_Gr200100000
*Rebarmaterial:3Name=Grade150,E=200100MPa
materialREB_3_Gr200100000
*Rebarmaterial:4Name=Strands270ksi,E=200100MPa
materialREB_4_St200100000
*USERDEFINEDMATERIALSCONVERTEDTOCONSISTENTUNITSWITHFORCE/LENGTH^2,USEDFORANCHORS
*Usermaterial:0Name=Usermat0,E=1MPa
materialUSER_0_U1000
*ENDGENERALMATERIALS

*5.2Defineaverystiffmaterialforrigidsupports
matestiffMAT100000000000

*6.1LEFTWALLSTRUCTURALPROPERTIES
*CalculateequivalentSteelSheetPileIxx.xWallSpacing
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|114

*Ewall=206000MPa,StiffnessIxx=82795.6cm4/mx1m=82795.6cm4
*Iequivalent=EwallxIxxxConvEI/(EstandardxConvELxWallSpacing)=>
*Iequivalent=206000MPax82795.6cm4/mx1m=82795.6cm4x1E08/(206000x1x1)=0.00083(m^4/m)
*NowcalculateEquivalentWallThicknessfromIxx/Length
*Wallthick=(12xIxx/L)^(1/3)=(12x0.00083)^(1/3)=0.21498(m)
BEAMLeftwall_BEAMLeftwall182200STEEL_0_0.2149790000

*7.1:GENERATESUPPORTSFORLEFTWALL
*ConvertTiebacktoWire:Stiffnessa/L=(Area/ConvA)/[Spacingx(FreeLength+FixedLengthxStiffnessRatio/100]=>
*Stiffnessa/L=(5.94cm2/10000cm2/m2)/[2mx(7m+50x9m/100]=2.58261E05
WIRESPL_0Leftwall197REB_4_St2.58261E052003000

*8.1:ADDWALLLOADS&PRESCRIBEDCONDITIONSFORLEFTWALL
NODE0Leftwall195
*ENDOFNODEADDITION

*9.A1stwallcomputeexternalwallsurcharges.Stage0
*9.A1stwallcomputeexternalwallsurcharges.Stage1
*9.A1stwallcomputeexternalwallsurcharges.Stage2
*9.A1stwallcomputeexternalwallsurcharges.Stage3
*Stage:3,examinesurchargeload01stpointatElev.200,x=0,qx=5,qz=0
*2ndpointatElev.195,x=0,qx=0,qz=0
*AutoProcedure:Excavationontheright,loadispushingtotheright.LoadistreatedasunfavorablevariableloadLF=1.3
*****ENDdeterminationofloadfactorsforstripsurchargeload0

****************************************************************
*10:GENERATEALLSTEP/STAGES
*****************************************************************
*STARTDATAFORSTAGE:0Name:Stage0
step0:Stage0

*10.a:DESCRIBEKp,KaChangesforthisstageduetoDefinedWallFriction,SlopeorStrengthCodeChanges
*LAYER1Stage0
*StandardSoilCodeUsed:EC7,2007,Case:DA1,Comb.2:A2+M2+R1
*FS_FR=1.25,FS_c'=1.25,FS_DriveEarth=1,FS_gStab=0.9,FS_RES=1
*FS_LoadVar=1.3,FS_LoadPerm=1,FSSeismic=0,FS_AnchPerm=1.1,FS_AnchTemp=1.1
*KaUH=KaHBasexFS_DriveEarthx[Rankine_Kah(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kah(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KaDH=0.307x1x0.382/0.307=0.382
*KpDH=[KpHBase/FS_Resist]x[Rankine_Kph(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kph(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KpDH=[3.255/1]x2.618/3.255=2.618
*ENDLAYER1Stage:0
*IfSection10.bisnotspecifiedthenparametersaresameasinpreviousstage.
*END10.a

*10b:STARTGENERATESOILPROPERTYCHANGECOMMANDSFORSTAGE
*ThesechangesmightbeassociatedwiththeuseofaStrengthreductioncodesuchasEUR7
*orwiththeuserchangingfromdrainedtoundrainedinthisstageetc.
changeL1ufrict26.56Leftwall
changeL1dfrict26.56Leftwall
changeL1ucohe2.4Leftwall
changeL1dcohe2.4Leftwall
changeL1uka0.381719868280688Leftwall
changeL1dka0.381719868280688Leftwall
changeL1ukp2.61784906429131Leftwall
changeL1dkp2.61784906429131Leftwall
*10a:ENDGENERATINGCHANGESFORSTAGE.

*DATAFORLEFTWALL
setwallLeftwall

*10.1Generateleftwallwaterelevationsforstage0
geom200200
water19503830

*11:ADDLEFTWALLSUPPORTS

*13.1:ADDLEFTWALLSURCHARGESNOTFROMLOADSDIRECTLYLOADINGTHEWALL
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|115

*13.2.1:ADDLEFTWALLSURCHARGESCALCULATEDOUTSIDEFROMPARATIEENGINE

*13.3:ADDWALLSURCHARGESTHATAREDIRECTLYONTHELEFTWALL
*13.3:ENDADDINGWALLSURCHARGESONLEFTWALL
*ENDDATAFORLEFTWALL

*19.1EXAMINEIFSUPPORTSAREREMOVEDFORLEFTWALL
*19:ENDSUPPORTREMOVAL

*20:ADDLATERALLINELOADSPLACEDDIRECTLYONWALL

ENDSTEP
*ENDDATAFORSTAGE0NAME:Stage0
***************************************************************

*****************************************************************
*STARTDATAFORSTAGE:1Name:Stage1
step1:Stage1

*10.a:DESCRIBEKp,KaChangesforthisstageduetoDefinedWallFriction,SlopeorStrengthCodeChanges
*LAYER1Stage1
*StandardSoilCodeUsed:EC7,2007,Case:DA1,Comb.2:A2+M2+R1
*FS_FR=1.25,FS_c'=1.25,FS_DriveEarth=1,FS_gStab=0.9,FS_RES=1
*FS_LoadVar=1.3,FS_LoadPerm=1,FSSeismic=0,FS_AnchPerm=1.1,FS_AnchTemp=1.1
*KaUH=KaHBasexFS_DriveEarthx[Rankine_Kah(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kah(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KaDH=0.307x1x0.382/0.307=0.382
*KpDH=[KpHBase/FS_Resist]x[Rankine_Kph(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kph(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KpDH=[3.255/1]x2.618/3.255=2.618
*KaDH=KaHBasexFS_Drivex[Rankine_Kah(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kah(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KaDH=0.307x1x0.382/0.307=0.382
*KpUH=[KpHBasex/FS_Resist]x[Rankine_Kph(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kph(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KpUH=[3.255/1]x[2.618/3.255]=2.618
*c'_Uphill=c_base/(FS_cxFS_DriveEarth)=3/(1.25x1)=2.4
*c'_Down=c_base/(FS_cxFS_Res)=3/(1.25x1)=2.4
*ENDLAYER1Stage:1
*IfSection10.bisnotspecifiedthenparametersaresameasinpreviousstage.
*END10.a

*DATAFORLEFTWALL
setwallLeftwall

*10.1Generateleftwallwaterelevationsforstage1
geom200196.5
water19503830

*11:ADDLEFTWALLSUPPORTS

*13.1:ADDLEFTWALLSURCHARGESNOTFROMLOADSDIRECTLYLOADINGTHEWALL
*13.2.1:ADDLEFTWALLSURCHARGESCALCULATEDOUTSIDEFROMPARATIEENGINE

*13.3:ADDWALLSURCHARGESTHATAREDIRECTLYONTHELEFTWALL
*13.3:ENDADDINGWALLSURCHARGESONLEFTWALL
*ENDDATAFORLEFTWALL

*19.1EXAMINEIFSUPPORTSAREREMOVEDFORLEFTWALL
*19:ENDSUPPORTREMOVAL

*20:ADDLATERALLINELOADSPLACEDDIRECTLYONWALL

ENDSTEP
*ENDDATAFORSTAGE1NAME:Stage1
***************************************************************

*****************************************************************
*STARTDATAFORSTAGE:2Name:Stage2
step2:Stage2

DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|116

*10.a:DESCRIBEKp,KaChangesforthisstageduetoDefinedWallFriction,SlopeorStrengthCodeChanges
*LAYER1Stage2
*StandardSoilCodeUsed:EC7,2007,Case:DA1,Comb.2:A2+M2+R1
*FS_FR=1.25,FS_c'=1.25,FS_DriveEarth=1,FS_gStab=0.9,FS_RES=1
*FS_LoadVar=1.3,FS_LoadPerm=1,FSSeismic=0,FS_AnchPerm=1.1,FS_AnchTemp=1.1
*KaUH=KaHBasexFS_DriveEarthx[Rankine_Kah(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kah(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KaDH=0.307x1x0.382/0.307=0.382
*KpDH=[KpHBase/FS_Resist]x[Rankine_Kph(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kph(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KpDH=[3.255/1]x2.618/3.255=2.618
*KaDH=KaHBasexFS_Drivex[Rankine_Kah(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kah(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KaDH=0.307x1x0.382/0.307=0.382
*KpUH=[KpHBasex/FS_Resist]x[Rankine_Kph(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kph(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KpUH=[3.255/1]x[2.618/3.255]=2.618
*DATAFORLEFTWALL
setwallLeftwall

*10.1Generateleftwallwaterelevationsforstage2
geom200196.5
water19503830

*11:ADDLEFTWALLSUPPORTS
ADDSPL_0

*13.1:ADDLEFTWALLSURCHARGESNOTFROMLOADSDIRECTLYLOADINGTHEWALL
*13.2.1:ADDLEFTWALLSURCHARGESCALCULATEDOUTSIDEFROMPARATIEENGINE

*13.3:ADDWALLSURCHARGESTHATAREDIRECTLYONTHELEFTWALL
*13.3:ENDADDINGWALLSURCHARGESONLEFTWALL
*ENDDATAFORLEFTWALL

*19.1EXAMINEIFSUPPORTSAREREMOVEDFORLEFTWALL
*19:ENDSUPPORTREMOVAL

*20:ADDLATERALLINELOADSPLACEDDIRECTLYONWALL

ENDSTEP
*ENDDATAFORSTAGE2NAME:Stage2
***************************************************************

*****************************************************************
*STARTDATAFORSTAGE:3Name:Stage3
step3:Stage3

*10.a:DESCRIBEKp,KaChangesforthisstageduetoDefinedWallFriction,SlopeorStrengthCodeChanges
*LAYER1Stage3
*StandardSoilCodeUsed:EC7,2007,Case:DA1,Comb.2:A2+M2+R1
*FS_FR=1.25,FS_c'=1.25,FS_DriveEarth=1,FS_gStab=0.9,FS_RES=1
*FS_LoadVar=1.3,FS_LoadPerm=1,FSSeismic=0,FS_AnchPerm=1.1,FS_AnchTemp=1.1
*KaUH=KaHBasexFS_DriveEarthx[Rankine_Kah(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kah(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KaDH=0.307x1x0.382/0.307=0.382
*KpDH=[KpHBase/FS_Resist]x[Rankine_Kph(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kph(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KpDH=[3.255/1]x2.618/3.255=2.618
*KaDH=KaHBasexFS_Drivex[Rankine_Kah(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kah(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KaDH=0.307x1x0.382/0.307=0.382
*KpUH=[KpHBasex/FS_Resist]x[Rankine_Kph(degFR=26.56,DFR=0,Asur=0)]/[Rankine_Kph(degFR=32,DFR=0,Asur=0)]=>
*KpUH=[3.255/1]x[2.618/3.255]=2.618
*DATAFORLEFTWALL
setwallLeftwall

*10.1Generateleftwallwaterelevationsforstage3
geom200191
water1954

*11:ADDLEFTWALLSUPPORTS

*13.1:ADDLEFTWALLSURCHARGESNOTFROMLOADSDIRECTLYLOADINGTHEWALL
*13.2.1:ADDLEFTWALLSURCHARGESCALCULATEDOUTSIDEFROMPARATIEENGINE
DeepXcav theory manual: Developed by Ce.A.S. srl, Italy and Deep Excavation LLC, U.S.A.
Page|117

*13.3:ADDWALLSURCHARGESTHATAREDIRECTLYONTHELEFTWALL
*Stage:3,examinesurchargeload01stpointatElev.200,x=0,qx=5,qz=0
*2ndpointatElev.195,x=0,qx=0,qz=0
*AutoProcedure:Excavationontheright,loadispushingtotheright.LoadistreatedasunfavorablevariableloadLF=1.3
*****ENDdeterminationofloadfactorsforstripsurchargeload0

dloadstepLeftwall19502006.5
*13.3:ENDADDINGWALLSURCHARGESONLEFTWALL
*ENDDATAFORLEFTWALL

*19.1EXAMINEIFSUPPORTSAREREMOVEDFORLEFTWALL
*19:ENDSUPPORTREMOVAL

*20:ADDLATERALLINELOADSPLACEDDIRECTLYONWALL

ENDSTEP
*ENDDATAFORSTAGE3NAME:Stage3
***************************************************************

setcountryenglish
*
*