| Wiki Markup |
|---|
{import:NavigationMenu}
|
Deltares
...
Systems
...
commitment
...
to
...
quality
...
control
...
and
...
quality
...
assurance
...
has
...
leaded
...
them
...
to
...
develop
...
a
...
formal
...
and
...
extensive
...
procedure
...
to
...
verify
...
the
...
correct
...
working
...
of
...
all
...
of
...
their
...
geotechnical
...
engineering
...
tools.
...
An
...
extensive
...
range
...
of
...
benchmark
...
checks
...
have
...
been
...
developed
...
to
...
check
...
the
...
correct
...
functioning
...
of
...
each
...
tool.
...
During
...
product
...
development
...
these
...
checks
...
are
...
run
...
on
...
a
...
regular
...
basis
...
to
...
verify
...
the
...
improved
...
product.
...
These
...
benchmark
...
checks
...
are
...
provided
...
in
...
the
...
following
...
sections,
...
to
...
allow
...
the
...
users
...
to
...
overview
...
the
...
checking
...
procedure
...
and
...
verify
...
for
...
themselves
...
the
...
correct
...
functioning
...
of
...
D-FLOW
...
SLIDE
...
.
...
The
...
benchmarks
...
for
...
Deltares
...
Systems
...
are
...
subdivided
...
into
...
five
...
separate
...
groups
...
as
...
described
...
below:
...
...
- 1 – Benchmarks from literature (exact solution)
Simple benchmarks for which an exact analytical result is available from literature. - Group 2 – Benchmarks from literature (approximate solution)
More complex benchmarks described in literature for which an approximate solution is known. - Group 3 – Benchmarks from spreadsheets
Benchmarks which test program features using Excel spreadsheets. - Group 4 – Benchmarks generated by the program itself
Benchmarks for which the reference results are generated using D-FLOW SLIDE. - Group 5 – Benchmarks compared with other programs
Benchmarks for which the results of D-FLOW SLIDE are compared with the results of other programs.
As much as software developers would wish they could, it is impossible to prove the correctness of any non-trivial program. Re-calculating all the benchmarks and making sure the results are as they should be will prove to some degree that the program works as it should. Nevertheless there will always be combinations of input values that will cause the program to crash or produce wrong results. Hopefully by using the verification procedure the number of times this occurs will be limited.
The benchmarks will all be described to such detail that reproduction is possible at any time. In some cases, when the geometry is too complex to describe, the input file of the benchmark is needed. The results are presented in text format with each benchmark description.
The input files belonging to the benchmarks can be downloaded from those pages.
Overview of the benchmarks
Legend:
= Results of D-Flow Slide and results of the Benchmark are identical.
= Results of D-Flow Slide and results of the Benchmark differ.
Group | Input file (*.fsx) | Title | Global (VTV) | Simple (CUR-113) | Detailed (TR) | Advanced (SLIQ2D) | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Study Case described in Technisch Rapport Voorland Zettingsvloeiing | |
| |
|
| |
2 | Spui dike - hmp 63.9 (location Nieuw Beijerland) | |
| |
|
| |
| Spui dike - hmp 65.0 (between locations Oud Beijerland and Nieuw Beijerland) | |
| |
|
| |
| Spui dike - hmp 67.8 (location Oud Beijerland) | |
| |
|
| |
3 | bm3-1a | Global check with traject: step 1 = No (Passed) | |
|
|
|
|
| bm3-1b | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = No (Passed) | |
|
|
|
|
| bm3-1c | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = Yes, step 5 = No (Passed) | |
|
|
|
|
| bm3-1d | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = Yes, step 5 = Yes (Failed) | |
|
|
|
|
| bm3-1e | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = Yes (Failed) | |
|
|
|
|
4 | bm4-1 | Test on the level indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
| bm4-2 | Test on the units |
|
|
|
|
|
5 | Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM1 |
|
|
| |
| |
| Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM2 |
|
|
| |
| |
| Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM3 |
|
|
| |
| |
| Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM4 |
|
|
| |
| |
| Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case SIMPLETA |
|
|
| |
| |
| Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LG1D5N5H |
|
|
| |
| |
| Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case HBPZBUI3 |
|
|
| |
| |
| Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 2 layers partially saturated |
|
| |
|
| |
| bm5-3 | Comparison with DZettingsVloeiing - Study Case described in Technisch Rapport Voorland Zettingsvloeiing |
|
| |
|
|
| bm5-4 | Comparison with HMBreach/HMTurb - 1 layer |
|
|
|
|
|
| bm5-5 | Comparison with HMBreach/HMTurb - 2 layers |
|
|
|
|
|
a The detailed check with D-FLOW SLIDE not succeeds whereas it should succeed acc. to the benchmark.