...
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] Slope [1:xxx] Assessment level [m + NAP] |
No 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
No 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
OK 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % |
| Step 1c: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | No | No | OK |
Step 1d: Flow slide possible based on criteria "steepest slope aver 5m" ? Average slope over a height of at least 5 m [1:xxx] |
No 6 |
No 6 |
OK 0.00 % |
Step 1e: Flow slide possible based on average geometry only? Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible? |
Yes 6 Yes |
Yes 6 Yes |
OK 0.00 % 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 % |
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 150.000 | 150.000 | 0.00% |
| Probability of occurence P(ZV) [/km/year] | 2.92 × 10-7 | 2.92 × 10-7 | 0.00 % |
| Reliability index critical length β | - | 39.999 | - |
| Probability P(L > Lallowable) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 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 | Warning | Warning | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case B
...
:
...
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] Slope [1:xxx] Assessment level [m + NAP] |
Yes 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
Yes 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
OK 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % |
| Step 1c: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | Yes | Yes | OK |
Step 1d: Flow slide possible based on criteria "steepest slope aver 5m" ? Average slope over a height of at least 5 m [1:xxx] |
No 6 |
No 6 |
OK 0.00 % |
Step 1e: Flow slide possible based on average geometry only? Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible? |
Yes 6 Yes |
Yes 6 Yes |
OK 0.00 % 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 % |
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 3.95 × 10-7 | 3.95 × 10-7 | 0.00 % |
| Reliability index β | - | 1.712 | - |
| P(L > Lallowable) | 4.34 × 10-2 | 4.34 × 10-2 | 0.23 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 1.72× 10-8 | 1.72 × 10-8 | 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 | Fail | Fail | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case C:
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marge | 31.514 | 31.514 | 0.00 % | |||||
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] Slope [1:xxx] | 15.000Assessment level [m + NAP] |
Yes 28.016 15.000 | 0.00 % | Assessment level | -10.331 |
Yes 28.016 15.000-10.775 -10.775331 |
OK 0.00 % | |
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes | OK | |||||
00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % | ||||||||
| Step 1c | Step 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | No | No | OK | ||||
Step | 41d: Flow slide possible based | on geometry only?No | No | OK | on criteria "steepest slope aver 5m" ? Average slope over a height of at least 5 m [1:xxx] |
Yes 3.901 |
Yes 3.901 |
OK 0.00 % |
Step 1e: Flow slide possible based on average geometry only? Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible? |
Yes 7.395 Yes |
Yes 7.395 Yes |
OK 0.00 % OK | |||||
Result of the Global check | Fail | Fail | OK | |||||
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 23.791 | 23.791 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 8.413 | 8.413 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 5.63 × 10-8 | 5.63 × 10-8 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Reliability index β | - | -1.334 | - | |||||
| P(L > Lallowable) | 9.09 × 10-1 | 9.09 × 10-1 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 5.12 × 10-8 | 5.12 × 10-8 | 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 | Fail | Fail | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case D:
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] Slope [1:xxx] Assessment level [m + NAP] |
Yes 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
Yes 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
OK 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % | ||
| Step 1c: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | No | No | OK | ||
Step 1d: Flow slide possible based on criteria "steepest slope aver 5m" ? Average slope over a height of at least 5 m [1:xxx] |
No 6 |
No 6 |
OK 0.00 % | ||
Step 1e: Flow slide possible based on average geometry only? Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible? |
Yes 6 No |
Yes 6 No |
OK 0.00 % OK | ||
Result of the Global check | PassFailPass | Fail | OK | ||
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 1721.76257117 | 25.762571 | 0.00 % | ||
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.5500 | 10.5500 | 0.00 % | ||
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % | ||
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 3.29 92 × 10-7 | 3.29 × 92 × 10-7 | 0.00 % | ||
| Reliability index β | Not available- | 31.749712 | - | ||
| P(L > Lallowable) | Not available | 4.34 × 10-2 | 4.34 8.88 × 10-52 | 0.00 % | |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | Not available | 1.70 × 10-8 | 1.70 1.10 × 10-108 | 0.00 % | |
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % | ||
Result of the Detailed check | Not availablePass | Pass | -OK | ||
| Overall result | Not availablePass | Pass | - |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case D
See results of benchmark 1-1 in Group 1.
| OK |
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 |
...
| 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 |