DeepEX met en œuvre toutes les méthodes scientifiques approuvées pour la conception de projets d'excavation profonde. Réalisez facilement une analyse classique de l'équilibre limite, une méthode d'analyse non linéaire avec des ressorts de Winkler élastoplastiques (poutre sur fondations élastoplastiques), ou une analyse complète par éléments finis. Une analyse par éléments finis peut être effectuée si vous ajoutez et activez notre moteur d'analyse par éléments finis DeepFEM dans n'importe quelle version de DeepEX : Méthode d'analyse d'équilibre limite (LEM) Méthode d'analyse non linéaire (NL) Méthode d'analyse par éléments finis (FEM) Analyse combinée (LEM+NL) Analyse combinée (LEM+FEM)

Générez, analysez et concevez des modèles d'excavation 3D à grande échelle de manière transparente avec notre puissant moteur d'analyse par éléments finis 3D. Générez n'importe quel modèle FEM 3D en quelques secondes avec nos assistants performants Création et modification de modèles paramétriques – accédez et modifiez tous les éléments dans la zone du modèle en quelques secondes Effectuez une FEM 3D en considérant l'interaction complète sol-structure Examinez les résultats dans des tableaux pour tous les murs, les étançons et les supports Réalisez des vérifications structurelles sur tous les supports et les étançons Revoyez les ombrages FEM 3D pour le sol, les murs et les supports pour toutes les étapes

Les excavations profondes nécessitent le respect à la fois des normes structurales et géotechniques. Nous avons ce qu'il vous faut avec de nombreux codes de conception et normes internationales pour la conception et l'analyse (structurale et géotechnique) de tous les types de murs et systèmes de support. Vous pouvez effectuer une conception de service ou facteur avec des normes américaines, européennes, australiennes ou chinoises et sélectionner et changer facilement entre plusieurs normes de codes: ACI 318 2019 (Membres en béton armé) ASD 1989 (Conception selon la contrainte admissible - Membres en acier) AASHTO LRFD 9e édition (Membres en acier) AISC 360 et 360-Allowable (2010 et 2016) Spécifications EUROCODE 2, 3, 7 et 8 Combinaisons de charges AASHTO LRFD 9e Combinaisons de charges CALTRANS LRFD 2012 Combinaisons de charges PEN DOT AASHTO 2012 Codes européens (DIN, BS, XP94, DM, DA) BS 6349 Parties 1-2 (Structures marines-Murs de quai) Codes canadiens (CSA, NR24-28-2018) Normes australiennes (AS 3600, AS/NZS 4100) Normes chinoises (CN)

DeepEX software offers a comprehensive suite of analysis methods for evaluating deep excavations, catering to diverse engineering needs. The versatility of the software lies in its inclusion of three fundamental methods: the conventional Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM), the Non-linear Analysis method with elastoplastic Winkler springs (NL), and the Finite Element Analysis method (2D and 3D FEM). This unique feature empowers users to assess deep excavation models using various recognized approaches, effectively addressing and surmounting potential method limitations. Fig.: Analysis method selection in DeepEX model wizard - Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) In the LEM, walls undergo analysis independently. The software meticulously computes soil, water, seismic, and external surcharge diagrams on the wall through multiple implemented methods. It performs a comprehensive beam analysis, calculating applied moment, shear, and displacement diagrams, along with determining support reactions. Notably, the fixed supports and independent stages make it particularly suitable for scenarios involving multiple supports, although resulting deflections may not precisely represent complex cases. Fig.: Braced excavation – LEM analysis results in DeepEX - Non-Linear Elastoplastic Analysis (NL) Utilizing an elastoplastic analysis approach with Winkler springs on active and passive sides, NL considers the initial geostatic stage with no excavation. Displacements, wall bending moments, and other parameters depend on construction staging, soil characteristics, and support elasticity. - Combination Method (LEM+NL) This method combines the strength of both LEM and NL. Initially, walls are analyzed using the limitequilibrium approach, and wall embedment safety factors are stored. Subsequently, an elastoplastic analysis is conducted, yielding comprehensive results such as wall moments, deflections, shear force diagrams, and support reactions. Fig.: Braced excavation – Non-Linear analysis results in DeepEX - Finite Element Analysis (FEM) DeepEX's optional Finite Element Analysis (FEM) module provides an advanced capability to perform FEM analysis on any model within the software. This analysis considers all construction stage effects and facilitates the modeling of full soil-structure interaction. The software employs 6-node triangular finite elements with quadratic shape functions to simulate soil, handling all stiffness calculations and aiding in the estimation of FEM analysis parameters. Fig.: Braced excavation – 2D FEM analysis results in DeepEX Fig.: Braced excavation – 3D FEM analysis results in DeepEX

Why Use Apparent Earth Pressures in Supported Excavations? In the design of supported deep excavations (with struts, tiebacks, or rakers), engineers often apply apparent earth pressure diagrams to estimate lateral loads on retaining structures during various construction stages. These diagrams are empirical representations of soil loads observed in braced excavations and are particularly useful for preliminary design and for verifying more advanced models. They offer a practical and conservative method to account for complex soil-structure interaction without requiring full numerical analysis. Using apparent pressures rather than simply applying active pressures leads to safer, more realistic designs. Apparent pressures reflect observed behaviors, such as load redistribution across multiple support levels and changes during staged construction. This approach is supported by major guidelines including FHWA, NAVFAC, AASHTO, and Peck's 1969 recommendations. Apparent Earth Pressure Methods Available in DeepEX DeepEX provides a comprehensive suite of apparent earth pressure methods to accommodate a wide range of international design standards, soil conditions, and project requirements. These methods include: • Active x Load Factor • Peck 1969 Apparent Earth Pressures • FHWA Apparent Earth Pressures (NHI-05-046) • German EAB • New York City DEP • Adaptive (DeepEX proprietary method) • AASHTO 17 - GSBTW 2 • CTA 2017 (Chicago Transit Authority Manual) • WMATA (Washington Metro Adjacent Construction Manual) • Custom Trapezoidal • 2-Step Rectangular These options enable engineers to align with local guidelines, project-specific requirements, or historical project comparisons. The flexibility to switch between these methods within the same project allows for rapid assessment and validation of design choices. How to Apply Apparent Earth Pressures in DeepEX Applying apparent earth pressures in DeepEX is an intuitive process designed to fit seamlessly into your workflow. Follow these steps: 1. Navigate to the Analysis Tab Open your project and go to the Analysis tab in the main toolbar. 2. Access the Apparent Earth Pressure Options Locate the dropdown menu labeled "Drive Pressures." This menu lists all available methods in DeepEX. 3. Select Your Desired Method Choose the method appropriate for your project based on soil type, design guidelines, or project specifications. For example: Peck 1969 for classic braced cuts. FHWA for transportation-related excavations. German EAB for compliance with German standards. New York City DEP for projects within NYC jurisdiction. 4. Assign Apparent Pressures to Construction Stages You can assign these diagrams to specific stages where support systems (e.g., struts, tiebacks) are installed. This ensures that the lateral pressures accurately reflect the expected soil behavior during each excavation phase. 5. Run the Analysis Once applied, DeepEX incorporates the apparent earth pressures into its calculations. You can then review wall diagrams, support reactions, internal forces, and displacement results based on these defined pressure envelopes. Why This Matters By offering a range of apparent earth pressure diagrams, DeepEX enables engineers to perform both rapid preliminary designs and more detailed comparative studies. These tools provide transparency and flexibility, helping to validate FEM or nonlinear analyses and ensuring designs are robust, conservative, and aligned with recognized engineering practice.

DeepEX offers several advanced methods for analysing the behaviour of shoring walls modelled as beams on multiple supports. Choosing the right method is crucial for an accurate and efficient design. Below is a breakdown of the available options. Figure 1 illustrates how to access the different methods available in DeepEX, and Figure 2 to 6 show the results of those methods in the same model. 1. What is Blum’s Method? This is a classical approach for analysing anchored or strutted walls. How it works: The method assumes hinges at each support level. A virtual support (representing a point of fixity) is added at the point of zero net shear in the soil below the excavation level. This simplifies the analysis into a statically determinate system. Best for: Quick, traditional designs and for understanding fundamental wall behaviour. 2. What is the FHWA Simple Span Method? This is a widely recognized method described in FHWA guidelines. How it works: It assumes hinges below the first level of supports and a final hinge at the excavation subgrade. Moments are calculated using a simple span method between these hinges. Best for: Designs requiring compliance with common US federal transportation standards. 3. What is the "Simple Span with Negative Moments" Method? This method is a refinement of the FHWA Simple Span approach. How it works: Similar to the FHWA method, but a virtual hinge is placed below the excavation at the point of zero loading shear (instead of at the subgrade). Crucially, it allows for the calculation of negative moments (at the supports) by approximating them as a user-defined percentage of the positive span moments. Key Feature: The "Define negative moment percent" option gives the engineer direct control over this approximation. Best for: Designs where accounting for support moments is important, providing a more realistic moment distribution than the basic simple span method. 4. What is the California Trenching and Shoring Manual 2011 Method? This method follows the procedures outlined in the official CALTRANS manual. How it works: It assumes a point of fixity deep in the soil where simple rotational moment equilibrium about the lowest support is achieved. This method incorporates specific design philosophies from the California practice. Best for: Projects in California or those requiring adherence to CALTRANS specifications. 5. What is the WMATA Adjacent Construction Manual 2015 Method? This method is based on standards from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. How it works: It performs a continuous beam analysis with a fixed (fully restrained) support assumed at the excavation subgrade. This models the wall as a continuous member, which can lead to different moment distributions compared to methods that assume hinges. Best for: Projects adjacent to WMATA infrastructure in Washington D.C. or for engineers who prefer a continuous beam analysis approach. 6. What are the Advanced Options for Treating the Wall as Lagging? This is a specialized option for certain wall types where arching effects are significant. How it works: When selected, the software treats the wall as lagging spanning between wafers or horizontal supports (e.g., in soldier pile and lagging systems, ring walls, or corrugated sheets). It assumes soil arching occurs, which significantly reduces the calculated bending moments in the wall. Best for: Designing soldier pile and lagging walls, sheet pile walls, or other systems where the structural element primarily spans between discrete supports and soil arching is a key design consideration. How do I choose the right method? The choice depends on the user project's location, governing design codes, and the specific wall type. Always select the method that aligns with the user local regulations and best represents the expected structural behaviour of the user shoring system. The flexibility of DeepEX allows the user to compare methods and choose the most appropriate one for the user design.

In DeepEX software the interaction between two walls can be considered when we simulate and analyze wall systems like stepped excavations or deadman walls, always depending on the selected analysis method. Limit Equilibrium Analysis (LEM) When we apply the LEM method and try to analyze a deadman wall system or a stepped excavation, if the passive pressures of the back wall do not have enough space to be distributed into the soil, a portion of them will be added in the active pressures of the front wall as an additional impact load. The magnitude of the impact load typically depends on parameters like the distance between our model walls and the height of the back wall. The impact load is distributed on the wall, directly affecting the active pressures diagram on the front wall. Non-Linear Analysis with Soil Springs (NL) and Combination method (LEM+NL) In DeepEX, this additional load in calculated when you use the Limit Equilibrium method (LEM), or the combination method (LEM+NonLinear analysis), and the impact load is distributed on the wall, affecting directly the active pressures on the front wall. In reality, not all this pressure is transferred. A big portion of it will be actually held by the back wall, because of the back wall passive resistance. This reduction is not taken into consideration automatically in DeepEX. In the program, we have a factor for this case, called Impact Load Adjustment Factor. There is a semi-empirical method that suggests to run the analysis and review the passive wall embedment FS of the back wall, and use a value like 1/FSpassive (or more if you wish to be more conservative) as an impact load adjustment factor.

Within our DeepEX - Shoring & Tunnel design software, we've incorporated a comprehensive suite of standard code load combinations, encompassing AASHTO LRFD, CALTRANS, Eurocode 7, AASHTO-17, Canadian, Chinese, British, Indian, and more. Users benefit from the flexibility of selecting any of these predefined code load combinations, with the software automatically incorporating the corresponding factors and multipliers associated with the chosen code. 1. Accessing User-Defined Combinations: To apply a custom load combination, users can navigate to the Analysis tab and click on the "Mult." button. This action prompts the load combinations dialog to appear, providing access to the "UserDefined Combinations" tab. 2. Defining Factors Manually: Within the "User-Defined Combinations" tab, users can manually define factors for each relevant property. The parameter names are designed to be self-explanatory in most cases, simplifying the customization process. 3. Applying User-Defined Approach: After configuring the custom load combinations, users can close the dialog. Subsequently, they can access the drop-down menu next to the "Single" button in the Analysis tab, allowing for the assignment of the User-Defined Approach. This user-friendly approach empowers engineers and designers to tailor load combinations according to specific project requirements. By providing a seamless interface for custom load combination definition, DeepEX ensures that users have the flexibility needed to address unique design scenarios and optimize shoring and tunnel structures for a diverse range of loading conditions.

In our DeepEX - Shoring & Tunnel design software, we've incorporated an extensive range of industrystandard load combinations, including AASHTO LRFD, CALTRANS, Eurocode 7, AASHTO-17, Canadian, Chinese, British, Indian, and more. This ensures that engineers and designers have the flexibility to adhere to diverse international codes and standards during the analysis and design of shoring and tunnel structures. Single Load Combination To apply a specific load combination from a selected code, users can effortlessly navigate to the Analysis tab and click the "Single" button. This initiates a straightforward process where the user selects the desired code and then chooses the specific load combination. A detailed yellow table on the right side of the screen expands, presenting the factors associated with the selected code load combination. Multiple Load Combinations For scenarios where multiple load combinations need to be considered, users can access the Analysis tab and click on the arrow next to the "Mult." button. By selecting the desired standard, the software automates the generation of a series of duplicated 2D design sections for the chosen model. Each section corresponds to a load combination of the selected standard. Importantly, these generated models are interconnected, allowing any structural optimization in one section to seamlessly propagate to all linked design sections. This connection streamlines the optimization process, enabling engineers to refine their models efficiently, accounting for the most critical conditions across various load combinations. This intuitive and versatile load combination functionality within DeepEX empowers users to conform to global design standards effortlessly. Whether applying a single load combination or considering a multitude of combinations, the software ensures a streamlined and comprehensive approach to optimizing shoring and tunnel structures for diverse and critical loading scenarios.

A basal heave assessment in DeepEX is performed as part of the excavation stability evaluation using limit-equilibrium–based methods. The process involves first creating a complete excavation model, defining soil stratigraphy, groundwater conditions, and construction staging, and then explicitly enabling the basal heave (basal stability) check within the Stability+ module. Basal heave is primarily a short-term undrained stability problem, most relevant for deep excavations in cohesive soils. For this reason, the accuracy of the assessment depends strongly on the correct definition of undrained shear strength for clay layers and on the excavation stage being evaluated. DeepEX allows the basal heave check to be applied selectively to specific stages and to individual walls, recognising that basal stability often governs at intermediate excavation depths and may differ from one side of the excavation to the other. Once enabled, the software evaluates basal stability using established analytical formulations and reports the factor of safety for each selected stage. These results allow the user to identify critical stages, assess whether basal heave governs the design, and determine whether mitigation measures or changes in excavation sequencing are required. Step-by-step Step 1 — Create the base model (Figure 1) Define the soil stratigraphy, ensuring that cohesive layers beneath the excavation base include appropriate undrained shear strength parameters. Set the groundwater conditions in line with the design assumptions. Define the excavation staging, including excavation depths and support installation. Basal heave is assessed stage-by-stage, so a realistic construction sequence is essential. Step 2 — Enable basal heave assessment (Figure 2) Navigate to Stability+ → Basal stability and Clough method. Open the basal stability calculation options and activate the basal stability (basal heave) factor of safety check. Step 3 — Select the basal heave method (Figure 3) Choose the basal heave method or methods to be evaluated (for example, standard or Prandtl-based approaches). Multiple methods may be enabled to support comparison or internal design checks. Step 4 — Define the applicable stages and wall (Figure 4) Specify whether the basal heave assessment should apply to: the current stage only, all stages, or a selected range of stages. Select the wall to which the check applies, particularly important in asymmetric excavations or non-uniform ground conditions. Step 5 — Run the analysis and interpret results Run the analysis and review the reported factor of safety against basal heave for each selected stage. Identify the critical stage and evaluate whether basal stability governs the excavation design. Example of basal heave results in DeepEX: how to read and interpret them (Figure 5) This example illustrates how basal heave assessment results are presented in DeepEX, combining outputs from both limit equilibrium–based checks (LEM) and finite element analysis (FEM). The two result types serve different but complementary purposes. FEM results – surface displacements (||du||) The FEM output shows surface and subsurface displacement contours, typically expressed as vertical displacements (||du||). These results provide a deformation-based view of the excavation response: Zones of higher displacement near the excavation base indicate stress relief and upward movement tendencies. The displacement pattern reflects soil–structure interaction, wall stiffness, and excavation staging. FEM results help identify whether basal instability is developing progressively, even when a clear failure mechanism is not yet formed. It is important to note that FEM does not directly report a basal heave factor of safety. Instead, it provides insight into the mechanisms and deformation trends associated with base instability. LEM results – basal heave factors of safety The LEM output presents a tabulated summary of basal heave factors of safety, calculated using multiple analytical approaches. These typically include: Basal standard method Prandtl-based methods (average and code-based formulations) Circular failure mechanisms Additional basal stability indices where applicable Each method evaluates base stability using an idealised failure mechanism and reports a factor of safety for the selected wall and excavation stage. This allows: direct verification of basal heave stability, comparison between different analytical formulations, and identification of the governing (lowest) factor of safety. The governing value is normally used for design checks and compliance with project or code requirements. How FEM and LEM results should be used together LEM basal heave checks provide an explicit and conservative measure of base stability and are typically used for formal design verification. FEM results support interpretation by showing how deformation develops in the ground and whether instability is likely to manifest progressively. A low or marginal basal heave factor of safety in LEM should be examined alongside FEM displacement patterns to understand the failure mechanism and sensitivity to assumptions. Conversely, acceptable FEM deformations do not eliminate the need for an explicit basal heave safety check. Practical takeaway In DeepEX, basal heave assessment is best interpreted by combining LEM and FEM outputs: use LEM tables to verify safety against basal heave using recognised analytical methods, and use FEM displacement contours to understand deformation behaviour and support engineering judgement. Together, these results provide a robust basis for assessing excavation base stability and identifying whether mitigation measures or changes in staging are required. Summary Basal heave assessment in DeepEX is a structured, stage-dependent process that integrates a well-defined excavation model with established limit equilibrium stability checks. By activating basal stability evaluation for the relevant excavation stages and walls, users can reliably assess short-term base stability in cohesive soils and identify critical conditions early in the design process. The results are most effectively interpreted by combining limit equilibrium methods (LEM) and finite element analysis (FEM). LEM provides explicit factors of safety against basal heave using recognised analytical formulations and therefore forms the primary basis for stability verification and design compliance. FEM complements this by offering a deformation-based perspective, illustrating stress relief and upward ground movements as excavation progresses. Used together, these approaches allow engineers to both verify stability and understand the governing mechanisms. The controlling basal heave factor of safety from the LEM analysis should be adopted for design checks, while FEM displacement patterns support assessment of response realism, identification of progressive instability, and informed decisions on excavation staging and mitigation measures.