...
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] | Marge | 35 | 35 | 0.00 % Slope [1:xxx] | 15 | 15 | 0.00 % | Assessment level [m + NAP] |
Yes 30.000 15.000Assessment level -10.000 |
Yes 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
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?Yes | Yes | OK | |||||||
| Step 5: Is liquefaction possible based on state parameter? | No | No | OK | ||||||||
on criteria "steepest slope aver 5m" ? Average slope over a height of at least 5 m [1:xxx] |
Yes 2.000 |
Yes 2.000 |
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 2.000 Yes |
Yes 2.000 Yes |
OK 0.00 % 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] | 2118.57152421 | 18.571524 | 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] | 6.24 52 × 10-75 | 6.24 52 × 10-75 | 0.00 % | ||||||||
| Reliability index β | 3.749-3 | 0.7490.00 % 773 | - | ||||||||
| P(L > Lallowable) | 82.86 20 × 10-518 | 2.88 20 × 10-51 | 0.23 % | ||||||||
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 51.53 43 × 10-115 5 | 1.54 43 × 10-115 | 0.18 % | ||||||||
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % | ||||||||
Result of the Detailed check | PassFailPass | Fail | OK | ||||||||
| Overall result | PassFailPass | Fail | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case F:
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] | Marge | 35 | 35 | 0.00 % Slope [1:xxx] | 15 | 15 | 0.00 % | Assessment level [m + NAP] |
Yes 25.352 15.000Assessment level -10.775 |
Yes 25.352 15.000 -10.775 |
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?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 | ||||||||
on criteria "steepest slope aver 5m" ? Average slope over a height of at least 5 m [1:xxx] |
No 7.099 |
No 7.100 |
OK 0.01 % | ||||||||
Step 1e: Flow slide possible based on average geometry only? Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible? |
Yes 7.100 Yes |
Yes 7.100 Yes |
OK 0.00 % OK | ||||||||
Result of the Global check | Fail | Fail | OK | ||||||||
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 1825.52487418 | 25.524874 | 0.00 % | ||||||||
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.5 | slope cotan αr | 6.641 | 6.641 | 0.00 % | ||||||
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 6010.5 | 0.00 % % | ||||||||
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 12.03 67 × 10-471 | 2.03 67 × 10-47 | 0.00 % | ||||||||
| Reliability index β | 1.289-1 | 0.2890.00 % 974 | - | ||||||||
| P(L > Lallowable) | 91.88 65 × 10-219 | 1.87 65 × 10-21 | 0.10 % | ||||||||
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 14.02 40 × 10-58 1 | 4.02 40 × 10-58 | 0.00 % | ||||||||
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % | ||||||||
Result of the Detailed check | FailPassFail | Pass | OK | ||||||||
| Overall result | FailWarningFail | Warning | 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 |
...