Group 3: Benchmarks from spreadsheets
This section uses tests performed by hand or by means of an Excel spreadsheet.
3.1 Test of all possible trajectories of the Global check and the Overall result
Description
This benchmark tests all possible trajectories according to the Global check and all possible combinations between the Global and the Detailed checks:
...
For case G, 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 and except for the diameters D50 and D15 which are equal to 250 μm and 150 μm resp. for sand layers.For the Detailed check, the required probability of failure is 1 per 40000 years instead of 1 per 4000 years and the migration velocity is 0.5m/year instead of 10 mm /year.
Benchmarks results
Hereafter are given the analytical results per case.
Case A:
Global check - Step 1:
Channel depth: H = 15 m
Thickness of the sensitive layer: Hvw = 25 m
Marge = 2 Hvw + 1.5 (H - Hvw) = 35 m
...
Overall check: as Global and Detailed check pass, the Overall check passes.
Case B:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
...
Overall check: as step 3 of Global check fails, the Overall check fails whatever the Detailed check result.
Case C:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
...
Overall check: As the Detailed check result is not known, the Overall result can't be deduced.
Case D:
Results are identical to benchmark 1-1 and can be found in Group 1.
Case E:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
...
Overall check: as Detailed check passes, the Overall check passes.
Case F:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
...
Overall check: Global and Detailed checks fail, so the Overall check fails.
Case G:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
...
Overall check: Global passes and Detailed checks fails, that's not logical, so a warning message is displayed in the Overall check.
D-Flow Slide results
D-FLOW SLIDE results are in accordance with the results by hand as show in the tables below.
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case A
| 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: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? | No | No | OK |
Result of the Global check | Pass | Pass | OK |
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 19.087 | 19.087 | 0.00 % |
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 23.000 | 23.000 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 9.14 × 10-7 | 9.14 × 10-7 | 0.00 % |
| Reliability index β | 3.749 | 3.748 | 0.03 % |
| P(L > Lallowable) | 8.86 × 10-5 | 8.90 × 10-5 | 0.45 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 8.10 × 10-11 | 8.13 × 10-11 | 0.37 % |
| 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 B
The overall result is not correctly determined in D-Flow Slide if the foreshore is artificial: D-Flow Slide uses the Detailed check result but it should directly conclude that the Overall check fails.
| 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? | Yes | Yes | 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] | 1.24 × 10-6 | 1.24 × 10-6 | 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] | 1.10 × 10-10 | 1.10 × 10-10 | 0.00 % |
| 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 | Fail | not OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case C
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|
Marge | 31.514 | 31.514 | 0.00 % |
| Slope [1:xxx] | 15 | 15 | 0.00 % |
Assessment level | -10.775 | -10.775 | 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? | No | No | OK |
Result of the Global check | Pass | Pass | OK |
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 17.762 | 17.762 | 0.00 % |
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.5 | 10.5 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 3.29 × 10-7 | 3.29 × 10-7 | 0.00 % |
| Reliability index β | Not available | 3.749 | |
| P(L > Lallowable) | Not available | 8.88 × 10-5 | |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | Not available | 1.10 × 10-10 | |
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % |
Result of the Detailed check | Not available | Pass | - |
| Overall result | Not available | Pass | - |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case D
See results of benchmark 1-1 in Group 1.
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case E
| 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 | Yes | 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 |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case G
| 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? | No | No | OK |
Result of the Global check | Pass | Pass | 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] | 3.09 × 10-3 | 3.09 × 10-3 | 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] | 2.74 × 10-7 | 2.75 × 10-7 | 0.36 % |
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-7 | 2.50 × 10-7 | 0.00 % |
Result of the Detailed check | Fail | Fail | OK |
| Overall result | Warning | Warning | OK |