...
| Case | Step 1 | Step 3 | Step 4 | Step 5 | Step 6 | Step 7 | Global check | Detailed check | Overall result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | No | Pass | Pass | Pass | |||||
| B | Yes | Yes | Fail | Pass | Fail | ||||
| C | Yes | No | No | Pass | |||||
| D | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Fail | Pass | Pass | ||
| E | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | Pass | Pass | |
| F | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Fail | Fail | Fail |
| G | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Pass | Fail | Warning message |
...
For case E, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except for the state parameter which is equal to -0.06 instead of -0.03.
For case F, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except that the diameters D50 and D15 are equal to 250 μm and 150 μm resp. for sand layers and the channel slope is 1 : 2 instead of 1 : 6.
Benchmarks results
Hereafter are given the analytical results per case.
...
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|
Marge | 35 | 35 | 0.00 % |
| Slope [1:xxx] | 15 | 15 | 0.00 % |
Assessment level | -10 | -10 | 0.00 % |
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes | OK |
Step 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | No | No | OK |
| Step 4: Flow slide possible based on geometry only? | Yes | Yes | OK |
| Step 5: Is liquefaction possible based on state parameter? | No | No | OK |
| Step 6: Layers present with a thickness of minimal 5m, in which D50<200 μm or D15<100 μm ? | Yes | yesYes | OK |
Result of the Global check | Fail | Fail | OK |
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 21.571 | 21.571 | 0.00 % |
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.5 | 10.5 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 6.24 × 10-7 | 6.24 × 10-7 | 0.00 % |
| Reliability index β | 3.749 | 3.749 | 0.00 % |
| P(L > Lallowable) | 8.86 × 10-5 | 8.88 × 10-5 | 0.23 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 5.53 × 10-11 | 5.54 × 10-11 | 0.18 % |
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % |
Result of the Detailed check | Pass | Pass | OK |
| Overall result | Pass | Pass | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case F
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|
Marge | 35 | 35 | 0.00 % |
| Slope [1:xxx] | 15 | 15 | 0.00 % |
Assessment level | -10 | -10 | 0.00 % |
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes | OK |
Step 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | No | No | OK |
| Step 4: Flow slide possible based on geometry only? | Yes | Yes | OK |
| Step 5: Is liquefaction possible based on state parameter? | No | No | OK |
| Step 6: Layers present with a thickness of minimal 5m, in which D50<200 μm or D15<100 μm ? | No | No | OK |
| Step 7: Is breaching possible? | Yes | Yes | OK |
Result of the Global check | Fail | Fail | OK |
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 18.524 | 18.524 | 0.00 % |
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.5 | 10.5 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 1.03 × 10-4 | 1.03 × 10-4 | 0.00 % |
| Reliability index β | 1.289 | 1.289 | 0.00 % |
| P(L > Lallowable) | 9.88 × 10-2 | 9.87 × 10-2 | 0.10 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 1.02 × 10-5 | 1.02 × 10-5 | 0.00 % |
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % |
Result of the Detailed check | Fail | Fail | OK |
| Overall result | Fail | Fail | OK |