...
| Unit | Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Fictive channel depth (Hr) | [m] | 21.571 | 21.571 | 0.00 % |
Fictive slope (cotan αr) | [-] | 10.500 | 10.500 | 0.00 % |
Probability of liquefaction | [-] | 2.93 × 1E-03 | 2.93 × 1E-03 | 0.00 % |
Representative probability of failure | [-] | 3.52 × 1E-03 | 3.52 × 1E-03 | 0.00 % |
β | [-] | 3.749 | 3.749 | 0.00 % |
P(L > Lallowable) | [-] | 8.87 × 1E-05 | 8.86 × 1E-05 | 0.08 % |
Probability of failure | [-] | 3.12 × 1E-07 | 3.12 × 1E-07 | 0.00 % |
Allowable probability of failure | [-] | 2.50 × 1E-06 | 2.50 × 1E-06 | 0.00 % |
Result of Detailed Check |
| Succeeded | Succeeded |
|
1.2. Critical slope for Global breaching check
Description
The average slope given in CUR is modeled in D-Flow Slide for both type of sand (not too fine and fairly coarse).
Different cases are considered:
Benchmarks results
The values of the slope is given in xxx.
D-Flow Slide results
Results of benchmark 1-1 for the Global Check
| Unit | Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Marge | [m] | 35 | 35 | 0.00% |
X coordinate of the observation profile (Xsign) | [m] | -35 | -35 | 0.00% |
X coordinate of the liquefaction point (XZV) | [m] | 30 | 30 | 0.00% |
Question 1 : Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? |
| Yes | Yes | OK |
| Question 2: Criterion on slope protection met (<1:2,5)? | - | - | ||
Question 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreland? |
| No | No | OK |
Question 4: Flow slide possible based on geometry only? |
| Yes | Yes | OK |
| Question 5: Is liquefaction possible? | - | Yes | ||
Question 6: Are there any sensitive to liquefaction layers present? |
| Yes | Yes | OK |
| Question 7: Is unstable breaching possible? | - | Yes | ||
Result of the Global check |
| Failed | Failed | OK |
Results of benchmark 1-1 for the Detailed Check