...
| Case | Step 1a | Step 1c | Step 1d | Step 1e Average slope | Step 1e Breach flow | Step 1e | Global check | Detailed check | Warning message(s) | Information message | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | No | Pass | Pass- | D50 < 200 μm (a) | |||||||
| B | Yes | Yes | Fail | Fail- | Artificial foreland (b) | ||||||
| C | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | Pass- | Steepest slope over 5 m (c) | |||||
| D | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | Pass- | |||
| E | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Fail | Pass- | D50 < 200 μm (a) Very fine sand (d) | ||
| F | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Fail | Fail- | D50 < 200 μm (a) Very fine sand (d) | ||
| G | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | PassPass | - | |||
| H | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Pass | Fail | - | Illogical result (e) | |
| I | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Pass | Not available | |||
| J | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | Not available |
...
d The selected sand type is "Very fine" so the breach flow check in step 1e could not be performed, Advanced check needed.
e Global passes but Detailed fails, check the input.
For case A, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except:
...
XSsign > XSzv => Flow slide would not lead to damage on levee => Global check passes.
Detailed check: ( see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction (= 0.00) < Allowable probability of failure (2.50 × 10-6) => Detailed check passes.D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: as Global and Detailed check pass, the The Overall check gives a Warning message because D50 < 200 μm , an Advanced check is therefore needed.
...
Global check - Step 1c: 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.D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: as step 1c of The Overall check gives a Information message because the Global check fails, the Overall check fails whatever the Detailed check result.
Case C:
Global check - Step 1a:
...
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.D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: the Overall result gives a warning Warning because the criteria on "steepest slope over 5 m" is met, an Advanced check is therefore needed.
...
But the total slope is 1:6 so steeper than 1:7 => Flow slide is possible based on average slope => 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 passes.
D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: No message.
Case E:
Global check - Step 1a:
...
And the total slope is 1:5 so steeper than 1:7 => Flow slide is possible based on average slope => Global check fails.
Detailed check: ( see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction < Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check passes.D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: the Overall check gives a two Warning message messages because D50 < 200 μm and because the selected sand type is "Very fine", an Advanced check is therefore needed.
...
=> Flow slide is possible based on average slope => Global check fails.
Detailed check: ( see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction < Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check passes.D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: as Detailed check passes, the The Overall check gives a two Warning message messages because D50 < 200 μm and because the selected sand type is "Very fine", an Advanced check is therefore needed.
...
=> Flow slide is not possible based on average slope => Global check passes.
Detailed check: ( see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction < Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check passes.D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: as Global and Detailed check pass, the Overall passes. No message.
Case H:
Global check - Step 1a: Flow slide would lead to damage on levee => Go to step 1c.
...
=> Flow slide is not possible based on average slope => Global check passes.
Detailed check: ( see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction > Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check fails.D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: Global passes and Detailed checks fails, that's not logical, so a warning message is displayed in the Overall check. No message.
Case I:
Global check : idem case H => Global check passes.
Detailed check: Results not available.
Overall check: the Global check passes and the Detailed check is not available. Therefore, the Overall check passes and no warning is given about illogical resultsNo message.
Case J:
Global check : idem case B => Global check fails.
Detailed check: Results not available.
Overall check: the Global check fails and the Detailed check is not available. Therefore, the Overall result is not available, a detailed check is needed No message.
D-Flow Slide results
D-FLOW SLIDE results are in accordance with the results by hand as show in the tables below.
...
| 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 28.016 15.000 -10.331 |
Yes 28.016 15.000 -10.331 |
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] |
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) [/year] | 7.04 × 10-8 | 7.04 × 10-8 | 0.00 % | |
| Reliability index β | --1 | 39.334999 | - | |
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 9.09 × 10-1 | 0 | 09.09 × 10-1 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 6.40 × 10-8 | 0 | 06.40 × 10-8 | 0.00 % |
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 36.000 15.000 -9.000 |
Yes 36.000 15.000 -9.000 |
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 5.000 |
No 5.000 |
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 5.000 Yes |
Yes 5.000 Yes |
OK 0.00 % OK |
Result of the Global check | Fail | Fail | OK |
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 25.143 | 25.143 | 0.00 % |
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 14 | 14 | 0.00 % |
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/year] | 1.80 × 10-6 | 1.80 × 10-6 | 0.00 % |
| Reliability index β | -0 | 1.234 | - |
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 51.00 08 × 10-15 | 1.00 08 × 10-1 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 81.98 95 × 10-7 8 | 1.98 95 × 10-7 | 0.00 % |
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] Slope [1:xxx] Assessment level [m + NAP] |
Yes 25.360 15.000 -10.775 |
Yes 25.360 15.000 -10.775 |
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 7.094 |
No 7.096 |
OK 0.03 % | ||
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] | 25.864 | 25.864 | 0.00 % | ||
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 6.646 | 6.646 | 0.00 % | ||
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % | ||
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/year] | 3.33 × 10-7 | 3.33 × 10-7 | 0.00 % | ||
| Reliability index β | - | 039.976999 | - | ||
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 1.65 × 10-1 | 0 | 01.65 × 10-1 | 0.00 % | |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 5.48 × 10-8 | 0 | 0 5.48 × 10-8 | 0.00 % |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case G:
| 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 6.595 |
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] | 19.308 | 19.308 | 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] | 2.30 × 10-7 | 2.31 × 10-7 | 0.43 % | |
| 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] | 2.29 × 10-8 | 0 | 02.29 × 10-8 | 0.00 % |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case H:
| 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:
...