...
| 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 27.280 15.000 -10.453 |
Yes 27.280 15.000 -10.453 |
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 6.596 |
No 6.596 |
OK 0.02 % | |
Step 1e: Flow slide possible based on average geometry only? Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible? |
No 6.600 No |
No 6.600 No |
OK 0.00 % OK | |
Result of the Global check | Pass | Pass | OK | |
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 19.038 | 19.038 | 0.00 % | |
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.500 | 10.500 | 0.00 % | |
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % | |
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/year] | 5.80 × 10-4 | 5.80 × 10-4 | 0.00 % | |
| Reliability index β | - | 139.285999 | - | |
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 9.95 × 10-2 | 0 | 09.95 × 10-2 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 5.77 × 10-5 | 0 | 05.77 × 10-5 | 0.00 % |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case I:
...