...
Case A:
Global check - Step 11a:
Channel depth: H = 15 m
Marge Marge = 2 H = 30 m
Slope of the observation profile: 1:15
Assessment level: Z = -10 m
XSsign = 80 m
XSzv = 30 m
...
Case B:
Global check - Step 1a:
Channel depth: H = 15 m
Marge = 2 H = 30 m
Slope of the observation profile: 1:15
Assessment level: Z = -10 m
XSsign (-10 m ) < XSzv (50 m) => Flow : Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee ) => Go to step 31c.
Global check - Step 31c: The foreland is artificial => Global and Detailed check fail, an Advanced check is needed.
Detailed check: (see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction < Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check passes.
Overall check: as step 3 step 1c 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 1a:
Channel depth: H = 14.008 m
Marge = 2 H = 28.016 m
Slope of the observation profile: 1:15
Assessment level: Z = -10.331 m
XSsign (1.904 m) < XSzv (40.943 m) => Flow slide would lead to damage on levee ) => Go to step 31c.
Global check - Step 31c: The foreland is natural => Go to step 41d.
Global check - Step 41d: The slope channel is 1:7,1 so softer average slope over a height of at least 5 m is 1:3.901 so steeper than 1:7 4 => Flow slide is not possible based on geometry criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Global check passesfails.
Detailed check: The determination of the reliability index for the Detailed check is not possible using the spreadsheet because the formula implemented in the spreadsheet applies only for horizontal foreland, which is not the case here(see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction < Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check passes.
Overall check: As the Detailed check result is not known, the Overall result can't be deduced. the Overall result fails (even if the Detailed check passes) because the criteria on "steepest slope over 5 m" is met, an Advanced check is therefore needed.
Case D:
Results are identical to benchmark 1-1 and can be found in Group 1Global check - Step 1a:
Channel depth: H = 14.008 m
Marge = 2 H = 28.016 m
Slope of the observation profile: 1:15
Assessment level: Z = -10.331 m
XSsign (1.904 m) < XSzv (40.943 m) => Flow slide would lead to damage on levee => Go to step 1c.
Global check - Step 1c: The foreland is natural => Go to step 1d.
Global check - Step 1d: The average slope over a height of at least 5 m is 1:3.901 so steeper than 1:4 => Flow slide is possible based on criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Global check fails.
Detailed check: (see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction < Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check passes.
Overall check: the Overall result fails (even if the Detailed check passes) because the criteria on "steepest slope over 5 m" is met, an Advanced check is therefore needed.
Case E:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
...