...
Group | Input file (*.fsx) | Title | Global (VTV) | Detailed (TR) | Advanced liquefaction(SLIQ2D) | Advanced breaching |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | bm1-1 | Study Case described in Technisch Rapport Voorland Zettingsvloeiing |
|
|
|
|
| bm1-2a | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case A |  | ||||
| bm1-2b | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case B | | ||||
| bm1-2c | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case C | | ||||
| bm1-2d | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case D | | ||||
| bm1-2e | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case E | | ||||
| bm1-2f | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case F | | ||||
| bm1-2g | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case G | | ||||
| bm1-2h | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case H | | ||||
| bm1-2i | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case I | | ||||
2
| bm2-1 | Spui dike - hmp 63.9 (location Nieuw Beijerland) |
|
|
|
|
bm2-2 | Spui dike - hmp 65.0 (between locations Oud Beijerland and Nieuw Beijerland) |
|
|
|
| |
bm2-3 | 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 3 = Yes (Failed) | | ||||
bm3-1c | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 3 = No, step 4 = No (Passed) |
|
|
|
| |
bm3-1d | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = Yes, step 5 = No (Passed) |
|
|
|
| |
bm3-1e | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = Yes, step 5 = Yes (Failed) |
|
|
|
| |
bm3-1f | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = Yes (Failed) |
|
|
|
| |
4 | bm4-1 | Test on the level indicator |
|
|
|
|
5
| bm5-1a | Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM1 |
|
|
|
|
bm5-1b | Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM2 |
|
|
|
| |
bm5-1c | Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM3 |
|
|
|
| |
bm5-1d | Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM4 |
|
|
|
| |
bm5-1e | Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case SIMPLETA |
|
|
|
| |
bm5-1f | Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LG1D5N5H |
|
|
|
| |
bm5-1g | Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case HBPZBUI3 |
|
|
|
| |
bm5-2 | 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 - 1 layer |
|
|
| |
(a) The Global and Detailed checks with D-FLOW SLIDE fail whereas according to the by hand calculation they should succeed. However, by lack of information, the input value of several parameters (state parameter, critical retrogression length and migration velocity foreshore) is set arbitrary. Therefore, this comparison is not completely relevant, and it can't be concluded that the program gives incorrect results.