https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/ Sat, 14 Nov 2026 08:17:05 +0000 MyBB https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-783.html Sat, 07 Mar 2026 07:09:30 +0100 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-783.html
===
For accurate results of Ww and Iw (of the pipe wall), the transverse Poisson's ratio may also be taken into account. Ww and Iw should therefore still be multiplied by a factor of 1/(1-ν²). 
===

This would reduce the stress and ovalisation calculations a little bit.
So when this is implemented in the new NEN 3650-1 code end Q2/begin Q3, PLE then needs to change its sources.]]>
===
For accurate results of Ww and Iw (of the pipe wall), the transverse Poisson's ratio may also be taken into account. Ww and Iw should therefore still be multiplied by a factor of 1/(1-ν²). 
===

This would reduce the stress and ovalisation calculations a little bit.
So when this is implemented in the new NEN 3650-1 code end Q2/begin Q3, PLE then needs to change its sources.]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-782.html Sat, 07 Mar 2026 06:48:38 +0100 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-782.html
The NEN working group has clarified the correct pipe diameter for the assessment of deflection. For the assessment of ovalisation (vertical deflection and 'piggability') of steel pipes, the new design standard Draft NEN 3650-2:2025 uses the average diameter Dg, see screenshot below. When the NEN 3650-2:2026 code is released end Q2/begin Q3 the sources in PLE needs to be changed everywhere where the ovalisation calculation is used. For the General analysis method the avarage diameter should also be used according to other material NEN 3650 codes then steel (NEN 3650-2).

Source: Draft NEN 3650-2:2025

  Dg.png (Size: 39,56 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]>
The NEN working group has clarified the correct pipe diameter for the assessment of deflection. For the assessment of ovalisation (vertical deflection and 'piggability') of steel pipes, the new design standard Draft NEN 3650-2:2025 uses the average diameter Dg, see screenshot below. When the NEN 3650-2:2026 code is released end Q2/begin Q3 the sources in PLE needs to be changed everywhere where the ovalisation calculation is used. For the General analysis method the avarage diameter should also be used according to other material NEN 3650 codes then steel (NEN 3650-2).

Source: Draft NEN 3650-2:2025

  Dg.png (Size: 39,56 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-743.html Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:37:23 +0200 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-743.html https://help.ple4win.nl/index.html?longi...iction.htm

  Naamloos0.png (Size: 13,21 KB / Downloads: 10)

According to NEN 3650-1:2020 the deadweight has also a large influence in pipe-soil friction for large diameters. This is missing in the formula, see green box below. The additional deadweight value has a positive or negative influence in the pipe-soil friction.

Source: NEN 3650-1

  Naamloos.png (Size: 11,46 KB / Downloads: 10)

I know you can take this manually into account by using the CFA factor in the F input table. I can't check if the Soil Model Wizard also generates for CFA = tan(delta) in the F (longitudinal friction) table. This isn't mentioned in the help file at: https://help.ple4win.nl/index.html?longi...iction.htm

Another issue is given below that peat is set to zero. This can't be the case, because it has an angle of internal friction of 15 degrees and has an adhesion value. I know the value is low, but not zero. So, setting the pipe-soil friction for peat to zero is incorrect in the Soil Model Wizard. It is not mentioned in the NEN 3650-1 to set the value on zero for peat.

https://help.ple4win.nl/index.html?longi...iction.htm

  Naamloos2.png (Size: 88,86 KB / Downloads: 10)

Also for HDD you can't set the friction on zero by default for example for low temperature pipelines like gas (RTL and HTL) and water pipelines. You have to use the bentonite friction, see C.4.5.5.3 and C.4.5.6 (NEN 3650-1:2020). So this is incorrect in the Soil Model Wizard.

Only for 'hot' or 'warm' pipelines for example above 50 degrees Celsius you can set the friction on zero, see article C.4.5.5.2 (NEN 3650-1:2020).

  Warm.png (Size: 6,27 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]> https://help.ple4win.nl/index.html?longi...iction.htm

  Naamloos0.png (Size: 13,21 KB / Downloads: 10)

According to NEN 3650-1:2020 the deadweight has also a large influence in pipe-soil friction for large diameters. This is missing in the formula, see green box below. The additional deadweight value has a positive or negative influence in the pipe-soil friction.

Source: NEN 3650-1

  Naamloos.png (Size: 11,46 KB / Downloads: 10)

I know you can take this manually into account by using the CFA factor in the F input table. I can't check if the Soil Model Wizard also generates for CFA = tan(delta) in the F (longitudinal friction) table. This isn't mentioned in the help file at: https://help.ple4win.nl/index.html?longi...iction.htm

Another issue is given below that peat is set to zero. This can't be the case, because it has an angle of internal friction of 15 degrees and has an adhesion value. I know the value is low, but not zero. So, setting the pipe-soil friction for peat to zero is incorrect in the Soil Model Wizard. It is not mentioned in the NEN 3650-1 to set the value on zero for peat.

https://help.ple4win.nl/index.html?longi...iction.htm

  Naamloos2.png (Size: 88,86 KB / Downloads: 10)

Also for HDD you can't set the friction on zero by default for example for low temperature pipelines like gas (RTL and HTL) and water pipelines. You have to use the bentonite friction, see C.4.5.5.3 and C.4.5.6 (NEN 3650-1:2020). So this is incorrect in the Soil Model Wizard.

Only for 'hot' or 'warm' pipelines for example above 50 degrees Celsius you can set the friction on zero, see article C.4.5.5.2 (NEN 3650-1:2020).

  Warm.png (Size: 6,27 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-738.html Wed, 28 May 2025 17:12:40 +0200 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-738.html
I have seen in the Ple4Win help file that ASME B31.4 is under development, see below.

  ASME B31.4.png (Size: 23,52 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]>
I have seen in the Ple4Win help file that ASME B31.4 is under development, see below.

  ASME B31.4.png (Size: 23,52 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-735.html Tue, 20 May 2025 11:08:59 +0200 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-735.html
Ultimate horizontal soil reaction [RH]

  RH.png (Size: 341,82 KB / Downloads: 1) ]]>
Ultimate horizontal soil reaction [RH]

  RH.png (Size: 341,82 KB / Downloads: 1) ]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-649.html Tue, 08 Feb 2022 16:57:21 +0100 Dr. J Foerster]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-649.html In certain cases/models the differences in calculated values using NEN3650-1:2017 and NEN3650-1:2020 can be significant.

This is mainly due to the way the Young's modulus of the material in a trench is calculated. According to members of the NEN3650 commission in the 2017 version the so-called Leonhardt method is applied (usually used for concrete pipes). There a constrained modulus is calculated based on the Young's modulus of the pipe. In combination with soil, this approach usually leads to too high values. Therefore, in the 2020 version of the NEN3650-1 the approach described in the NEN-EN 1997 is used, leading to different results.

As a result we advise to use the latest NEN version for the calculation of soil parameters (which is the default for new Ple4Win projects).]]> In certain cases/models the differences in calculated values using NEN3650-1:2017 and NEN3650-1:2020 can be significant.

This is mainly due to the way the Young's modulus of the material in a trench is calculated. According to members of the NEN3650 commission in the 2017 version the so-called Leonhardt method is applied (usually used for concrete pipes). There a constrained modulus is calculated based on the Young's modulus of the pipe. In combination with soil, this approach usually leads to too high values. Therefore, in the 2020 version of the NEN3650-1 the approach described in the NEN-EN 1997 is used, leading to different results.

As a result we advise to use the latest NEN version for the calculation of soil parameters (which is the default for new Ple4Win projects).]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-577.html Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:30:25 +0200 Bas]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-577.html

I have attached the plex-file.

  zinker.zip (Size: 1,62 MB / Downloads: 1) ]]>

I have attached the plex-file.

  zinker.zip (Size: 1,62 MB / Downloads: 1) ]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-470.html Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:34:46 +0100 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-470.html
According to the helpfile RVS is calculated (NEN 3650-1:2012) as:

Ref: Wizards > Soil Model Wizard > Methodology > Calculation > Sub-soil bearing capacity [RVS] / ID: Sub-soil_bearing_capacity_RVS
[attachment=650]

In the NEN 3650-1:2012 the value 0.48 should be 0.5
The 0.48 from the NEN 3650:1992 is not the same 0.48 in the NEN 3650-1:2012 which is taken into account in helpfile. Ple4Win is calculating with a value 0.95 * 0.48 = 0.456 for the first part of the formula.

The 0.95 * 0.5 = 0.475 (approximate 0.48 from the NEN 3650:1992) which is according to the NEN 3650-1:2012.]]>
According to the helpfile RVS is calculated (NEN 3650-1:2012) as:

Ref: Wizards > Soil Model Wizard > Methodology > Calculation > Sub-soil bearing capacity [RVS] / ID: Sub-soil_bearing_capacity_RVS
[attachment=650]

In the NEN 3650-1:2012 the value 0.48 should be 0.5
The 0.48 from the NEN 3650:1992 is not the same 0.48 in the NEN 3650-1:2012 which is taken into account in helpfile. Ple4Win is calculating with a value 0.95 * 0.48 = 0.456 for the first part of the formula.

The 0.95 * 0.5 = 0.475 (approximate 0.48 from the NEN 3650:1992) which is according to the NEN 3650-1:2012.]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-440.html Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:21:55 +0100 Dr. J Foerster]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-440.html
We already presented a first implementation on the last "PLE gebruikersdag", and have collected feedback on that presentation plus other feedback from our users.

We are now working on a second, more complete implementation. If you have input for us, such as ideas, requests, wishes, background information, problems you encounter "in the field" etc., please share them here or contact us directly.]]>
We already presented a first implementation on the last "PLE gebruikersdag", and have collected feedback on that presentation plus other feedback from our users.

We are now working on a second, more complete implementation. If you have input for us, such as ideas, requests, wishes, background information, problems you encounter "in the field" etc., please share them here or contact us directly.]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-436.html Sun, 17 Aug 2014 17:44:21 +0200 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-436.html
Hello, there is a omission in the calculated values of Z_GROUND in the PROFILE output table. An example is given below:

[attachment=548]

The educational PLE project file (zipped) has also been attached for the analysis.

At the 'start' (node 6) and 'end' (node 22) of the bend I get a Z_GROUND of 1707.1 mm in AutoCAD. PLE gives in the PROFILE output table a Z_GROUND of 1655 mm at the bend ends, see picture below:

[attachment=549]

This calculation error is always reproducible when bends are used in the POLYDIF.
Column W_LEVEL in the PROFILE table is also affected with the same error.

I have also tried different configurations in AutoCAD to verify the Z_GROUND. The error of the Z_GROUND at bend nodes are structural in PLE.
It is important that the Z_GROUND is correct, because PLE uses the PROFILE output table in the Soil Model Wizard to calculate the soilparameters.]]>
Hello, there is a omission in the calculated values of Z_GROUND in the PROFILE output table. An example is given below:

[attachment=548]

The educational PLE project file (zipped) has also been attached for the analysis.

At the 'start' (node 6) and 'end' (node 22) of the bend I get a Z_GROUND of 1707.1 mm in AutoCAD. PLE gives in the PROFILE output table a Z_GROUND of 1655 mm at the bend ends, see picture below:

[attachment=549]

This calculation error is always reproducible when bends are used in the POLYDIF.
Column W_LEVEL in the PROFILE table is also affected with the same error.

I have also tried different configurations in AutoCAD to verify the Z_GROUND. The error of the Z_GROUND at bend nodes are structural in PLE.
It is important that the Z_GROUND is correct, because PLE uses the PROFILE output table in the Soil Model Wizard to calculate the soilparameters.]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-386.html Tue, 07 May 2013 17:22:40 +0200 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-386.html
I am getting an error when I want to do a calculation in the NEN 3650 analysis type mode. The Q-module isn't normally available in this analysis type. The key I used doesn't has the Q-module. According to the printscreen below I am doing a Non-Lineair calculation with a Non-Ovalising section model (so no Q-module is needed).
[attachment=487]

I don't understand this warning:
[attachment=484]

According to the helpfile this is the case:
[attachment=485]

I will sent the project file for further analysis to info@eds-ple.nl]]>
I am getting an error when I want to do a calculation in the NEN 3650 analysis type mode. The Q-module isn't normally available in this analysis type. The key I used doesn't has the Q-module. According to the printscreen below I am doing a Non-Lineair calculation with a Non-Ovalising section model (so no Q-module is needed).
[attachment=487]

I don't understand this warning:
[attachment=484]

According to the helpfile this is the case:
[attachment=485]

I will sent the project file for further analysis to info@eds-ple.nl]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-308.html Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:14:39 +0200 peipei]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-308.html
Does anyone get an error "E610/MQ: Supprim. serie connects too great (32)"?

I have only changed the LOCASE Temp. load factor from 1 to 0 of the existing calculation which has no problem. And after that I got this error.

Which does it mean actually? ]]>
Does anyone get an error "E610/MQ: Supprim. serie connects too great (32)"?

I have only changed the LOCASE Temp. load factor from 1 to 0 of the existing calculation which has no problem. And after that I got this error.

Which does it mean actually? ]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-175.html Thu, 12 May 2011 16:37:56 +0200 shaswin]]> https://www.forum.ple4win.nl/thread-175.html
[attachment=178]

Iteration process will not be satisfied (within MAXGIT=50) due to this warning, can someone explain it.

]]>
[attachment=178]

Iteration process will not be satisfied (within MAXGIT=50) due to this warning, can someone explain it.

]]>