Known bugs

Unsolved

Combined wall and vertical balance
The vertical balance cannot be calculated correctly under combined walls. It is not possible to indicate CPT resistances for both toe levels. The calculation only takes into account the lower toe resistance, the upper toe resistance is neglected.

Unsolved

Sheet piling: incorrect evaluation maximum allowable moment
In the graphical output (menu Results/Moment/Force/Displacement charts) dotted lines indicate the maximum allowed moment; the acting width factor has been applied to these. The program does not apply this factor when evaluating whether or not the maximum moment has been exceeded. Therefore, it can occur that in the graphic output the sheet pile is OK, but the report indicates the maximum moment has been exceeded. During calculation the program then indicates errors in the calculation.
Workaround: set the maximum allowable moments to zero; in that case the software does not evaluate the moments.

Solved in version 8.2.2.1

Incorrect data may be provided in table of graph "Moment/Force/Displacement"
The data provided upon right click [view data] on the graph "Moment/Force/Displacement" does not always contain the correct values. This occurs predominantly when one does a CUR verification calculation over multiple fases. Using method (B) on a single fase provides the proper values. This will be solved in the next version of MSheet. Note that the lines drawn in the graph and the tables in the report provide the correct values.

Solved in version 8.2.2.1

Loading by soil displacement
Loading by soil displacement is not taken into account for sheet piled walls.

Solved in version 8.2.2.1

Allowable anchor force: Actual Anchor force CUR not available  
After use of "anchor stiffness multiplication factor = 1" under calculation of "Allowable anchor force" one gets "Actual Anchor force CUR (1.5 * Fa;Max): not available". In the software it was assumed that if this factor equals 1, it is not required to remember both the representative and the design value of the anchor force.
The work around is to assign 1,002 to the anchor stiffness multiplication factor, so the values differ, and will both be kept in memory.

Solved in version 8.2.2.1

Water Levels in Stage Overview
Adjusting the value for Water Levels in the Stage Overview dialogue does not work properly for the Single Pile model. The dialogue 'locks' once you change the selection, and the buttons Ok and Cancel do not react anymore.
Workaround:
Press the ESC key after changing the selection. This will save the new setting, and 'unlock' the dialogue again.

Solved in 7.9.2.1

Total stability per stage
Under verification calculation in the results of the report under "1.3 Total stabilty per stage" only the final stage is displayed in stead of all stages.

Solved in 7.9.2.1

Brinch Hanssen and Phi =0
Under Brinch Hanssen (Ka/Ko/Kp) the calculation is not correct when phi = 0 is used. When calculating the fictive cohesion (manual paragraph 32.2) a division by zero is omitted by setting the values to zero. Workaround (previous versions): use phi = 0.1. Note that the consequent high effective cohesion is most likely not causing any problem.

Solved in 7.9.2.1

Inappropriate values for representative values under CUR, step 6.1 and 6.5
If the method Ka, Ko, Kp is applied in a verification calculation the reduction of the delta friction is not correct. This implies that when Ka or Kp is adjusted (using Breslau or Kotter) the Kp will be below its intended value, resulting in a conservative calculation.
The workaround(previous versions) is, if possible,  to calculate using c, phi, delta.

Solved in 7.9.1.5

Manual editing earth pressure coefficients
The optional use of manual editor for the recalculation of earth pressure coefficients (menu/calculation/start) may lead to erroneous results as the coefficients of stages outside of the stage edited may be cleared of their data.

Solved in 7.9.1.5

Design Sheet Piling Length, no moments with EuroCode
In the design sheet piling length calculation, the EuroCode approach does not display the maximum moments.

Solved in 7.9.1.5

Single Pile en Earth pressure coefficients
In case of one is using the model "Sheet piling", and subsequently changes the model to "Single pile", the "Earth pressure coefficients" are incorrectly used to divide/multiply by the shell factors that have been entered under "Sheet piling".
Workaround (previous versions):
Set the shell factors to 1, this is done under model "Sheet piling" (menu: Soil / Layers) with checked options Muller-Breslau / Kotter.

Solved in 7.9.1.5

The reduction of friction angle(s) delta
The reduction of friction angle(s) delta according to CUR 166 is not applied correctly. Instead of testing if the value of phi is between certain boundaries, the value of delta is tested. In the manual this is also described wrongly.
Workaround (previous versions):
It is adviced not to apply the reduction, one can change the setting under [Menu/Calculation options].

Solved in 7.7.1.5

Horizontal cohesion force in allowable anchor force calculation according to Kranz
In the allowable anchor force calculation according to Kranz, in the calculation of the horizontal cohesion force along the slip circle (bottom sheet piling, bottom anchor wall) the materials are chosen incorrectly. The calculation will be allright when one of the following conditions is met:

• the soil in that section is homogeneous
• the thickness of the layers in that section are about the same
• the cohesion in the several layers are not too different

In other cases the results can be wrong.

Solved in 7.7.1.5

Solved in 7.7.1.5

Design Sheet Piling, anchor force
In the Design Sheet Piling calculation, sometimes no anchor force is presented when it should. This happens when an anchor/strut in the calculation stage is not used in the last stage, but also when it is used in the last fase but when it is not the first one in the anchor/strut list.
Workaround (previous versions): Save the project with a new name and delete the last stage(s).

Solved in 7.7.1.5

Verification anchor (in allowable anchor force calculation) rep * 1.2
In the verification of the anchor rep * 1.5 is used, but this has to be (rep * 1.2 ) * 1.5.

Solved in 7.7.1.5

Single pile module, Brinch Hansen
In MSheet the next formula is used: sigma_p = sigma'_v * Kp + 2 * c root(Kp). To use this formula with Brinch-Hansen too (sigma_p = sigma'_v * Kq + Kc * c) the Kp is made equal to the Kq of Brinch-Hansen and a fictive cohesion is calculated as c_fictive := c * kc /(2 * root(kp)). This is not correct when the Kp is 0.
Workaround (previous versions): When you enter a phi of 1 at least the cohesion is taken into account in the formula.

Solved in 7.7.1.5

Single Pile, Brinch Hansen: same layer used twice
In the Single Pile calculation with Brinch Hansen an error (Invalid floating point operation) can occur when the same layer is used twice in one profile.
Workaround (previous versions): Copy the layer and adjust the profile.

Solved in 7.7.1.5

Verification anchor (step 9.1) with CUR method II.
In CUR verification method II, the verification of the anchor (step 9.1) is sometimes wrongly calculated with representative values. Therefore it is advisable to check all anchor forces.

Solved in 7.1.5.1

Error in calculation of earth pressure coefficients with negative forces
In the calculation of the earth pressure coefficients an error ("floating point overflow") can occur in MSheet. This happens when the force on the sheet piling (in the slip circle calculation with method "C, phi, delta") does not increase with the depth.

Solved in 7.1.5.1

No soil on one side of the sheet piling
During the calculation with method "C, phi, delta", an error ("floating point overflow") occurs when there is no soil on one side of the sheet piling.

Solved in 7.1.5.1

Single pile several diameters across height
In the single pile module it is possible to define a pile with several elements and give every element another diameter. In the calculation of the modulus of subgrade reaction according to Menard and the K-passive according to Brinch Hansen, only the diameter of the upper element was used.

Solved in 7.1.5.1

Start surface at sheet piling
The surface has to start at the sheet piling (In the screen "Surfaces", the "Distance" of the first point should be zero). When this is not te case there should be a warning before the calculation, but in MSheet version 7.1 this message is not displayed. Then the result of the calculation is not correct.

Solved in 7.1.5.1

Partial factor verification of zero on loads causes error
When the partial factor verification on the loads is defined as 0.00 an error can occur during the verification calculation. In a next version this problem will be solved.
Workaround (previous versions): Change the factor to 0.01.

Solved in 7.1.4.1 (setup june 14th 2006)

Coating area Hoesch and Larssen too large
MSheet uses the coating area to calculate the vertical balance. Now it is found that the table of Hoesch and Larssen contains a double sided coating area. This has to be halved for the calculation in MSheet.
The file MSheetProfilesStandard.xml is modified in the setup that is now on the download page. To check if the correct xml-file is on your computer, you have to check the date of the file. The old version is of october 5th 2005, the new version is of june 14th 2006.

Solved in 7.1.4.1

Stages Overview with more than 5 stages
Unfortunately in version 7.1.3.2 an error occurred in the Stages Overview screen. When there are more than 5 stages the first column becomes very wide. When there are more than 9 stages it becomes almost impossible to view or modify the stages.
An update of MSheet will be released very soon to solve this problem.

Solved in 7.1.4.1

Phi is not reduced when delta is 0
The value of phi is not reduced for a verification calculation, in case the delta of one of the materials is zero.
Workaround (previous versions): Supply a small value for delta i.e. 0.01 instead of zero.

Solved in 7.1.3.2

Partial factor on surcharge load on left side
The surcharge load on the left side is accidently multiplied once too much with the partial factor (default 1). I.e. the load is multiplied with the partial factor once when the partial factor should not be used and the load is multiplied twice with the partial factor when the partial factor should be used. On the right side the calculation is made correctly.

Solved in 7.1.3.2

Wrong maximum anchor force in resume Verification report
Sometimes, the value for the maximum anchor force displayed in the resume of the Verification report is wrong. MSheet calculates, wrongly, the maximum anchor force of the first anchor from the list. Even when this anchor is not used at all.
Workaround (previous versions): If you use only one anchor: In the input screen for Anchors, move the anchor that is used to the top of the list. When you use more than one anchor there is unfortunately no workaround, please contact Support@DelftGeoSystems.nl.

Solved in 7.1.3.2

No resume in report
When you make a Verification calculation and then a normal calculation, the resume is not written to the dumpfile and therefore not included in the report.
Workaround (previous versions): The problem can be solved by closing MSheet after a Verification calculation and start MSheet again to make a normal calculation.

Solved in 7.1.3.2

Solved in 7.1.3.2

Vertical balance
When the resulting force in the vertical balance is upwards, de equation with the bearing capacity is still evaluated in MSheet. However, in this case it is not relevant. In a next version of MSheet this will be corrected.

Solved in 7.1.3.2

Verify anchor
In the verification of the loadfactor of 1.2 on the calculated representative forces (CUR166 step 6.5) the moment * 1.2 is taken into account, but not the anchor force. Dit is not correct. The achor force should also be multiplied with 1.2 in the test.

Solved in 7.1.3.2

Unexpected passive side
In older versions of MSheet, in the CUR verification, the passive side was determined by comparing the surface levels and water levels close to the sheet piling. Sometimes this provides wrong results. In the new version, first a representative calculation is made and with these results the passive side per construction stage is determined. However, now it is found that when a very strong material - like concrete - is modelled as soil the side where the concrete is situated will be chosen as the active side. This is a result of the definition that MSheet uses to determine the passive side. The passive side is the side with the highest degree of mobilisation. A very strong material causes a relatively low degree of mobilisation. In de next release this problem will be solved.
Workaround (previous versions): model a submerged concrete floor with a spring.

Solved in 7.1.3.2

Tangent phi
In the new CUR, a factor is set on tangent phi for the safety classes. In MSheet the same factor is set on tangent delta. This is not correct, since there is presumed to be a constant relation between phi and delta according to CUR. This is only a minor error. It will be solved in a new version of MSheet.

Solved in 7.1.2.1

Error in calculation of earth pressure coefficients with negative forces
When determining the earth pressure coefficients using the c,phi,delta method, a slip plane calculation is used to examine the pressure that the soil active Qa and passive Qp is exerting on the wall. Such a slip plane calculation is made for every point between two nodes on the sheet-pile wall. The passive earth pressure coefficient is determined by subtracting the Qp above a node from the Qp below that node. In such a case, the earth pressure coefficient is (Qp under - Qp above ) / Sigma vertical in the node. When the Qp above a node is greater than the Qp located somewhat lower (which is unusual), it becomes negative. The value for Kp that is calculated here is wrong. You can find these values in het report in the tabel with calculated earth pressure coefficients by looking where the "horizontal pressure passive" becomes negative. (In the row above there is a zero) The Kp values at this negative force and the zero above are too high and should be corrected manually (for instance equal to the Ko, this is always safe).

Solved in 7.1

Error in calculation of lambdas for single pile module with Brinch Hansen
In de calculation of the lambdas, the first soil profile from the list is used and also the first surface level. When another soil profile or surface was chosen for the calculation, the calculated lambdas will be wrong.
Workaround (previous versions): In the input screens, move the soil profile or surface level that has te be used in the calculation upwards so it becomes the first in the list.

Solved in 7.1

Error in report for single pile module with Brinch Hansen
There is an error in the report when Brinch Hansen is used. MSheet looks for the cohesion in the material list instead of the layer list. Therefore the cohesion that is shown for the first layer is in reality the cohesion of the first material from the list.
Also when there are, for instance, 4 layers but only 3 materials, an 'access violation' is given when the report is generated.
N.B. This mistake concerns only the report, the calculation is correct.
Workaround (previous versions): Make a different material for each layer and put these in the same order in the material list as they are in the layer list (the profile).

Solved in 7.1

Partial safety factors
It is now possible for the Sheetpiling calculation in MSheet to specify partial safety factors. They are only suitable for use in combination with method c, phi, delta since the partial safety factors have no influence on the lambdas of the materials (as is already the case for the CUR verification). In a next version a warning will be given when method Ka, Ko, Kp is also used in the calculation.

Solved in 7.1

Manual calculation Course/Fine
When a calculation makes use of a Lambda file ("Lambda recalculation" on "Manual") that is made earlier, this file is sometimes wrongly read. This is the case when the calculation with "Earth pressure coefficients" on "Course" (in Calculation Options)  is made, while the last calculation that was made with "Lambda recalculation" on "Automatic" was done with "Fine". The same problem occurs when the calculation is made with "Earth pressure coefficients" on "Fine", while the last calculation that was made with "Lambda recalculation" on "Automatic" was done with "Course".  When there has no Automatic calculation been made since starting up MSheet, the Lamda file will be read as if it was made with "Fine".
Workaround (previous versions): First make a copy of your project and calculate the copy with Lambda recalculation on Automatic. Then open the first file again (without closing MSheet) en calculate this project.

Solved in 6.1

Supports in report
While writing the report, MSheet has trouble to make a distinction between the supports that have the same level of application. 
Workaround (previous versions): Move one of the supports 1 cm.

Solved in 6.1

Invalid floating point operation for Verify Sheet Pile and Design Sheet Pile Length
With the calculation options Verify Sheet Pile and Design Sheet Pile, an Invalid floating point operation may appear during calculation.
For users who encounter this problem, an upate of MSheet is available via Support@delftgeosystems.nl.

Solved in 6.1

Printing on both sides
Printing the report on both sides of the paper does not work. Changing the printer settings in the M-Serie is overruled by the default printer settings.
Workaround (previous versions): in Window settings..printers.. set printing on both sides for the printer concerned.

Solved in 6.1

Anchor plate in allowable anchor force calculation
When for an allowable anchor force calculation a load expands over an anchor, the load on the active side of the anchor plate is not taken in account. This happens when there is no load point between the anchor plate and the load.
Workaround (previous versions): split the load in two parts by adding an extra point between the anchor plate and the end of the load

Solved in 6.1

Surcharge loads in report
MSheet puts the Surcharge loads of the left side also on the right side in the report. When there is nog load on the left side there is only a header displayed on the right side. This is only displayed wrong in the report, the calculation is done with the correct loads.

Solved in 6.1