Group 3: Benchmarks from spreadsheets
This section uses tests performed by hand or by means of an Excel spreadsheet.
3.1 Test of all possible trajectories of the Global check and the Overall result
Description
This benchmark tests all possible trajectories according to the Global check . Those trajectories are:and all possible combinations between the Global and the Detailed checks:
| Case | Step 11a | Step 31c | Step 41d | Step 51e Average slope | Step 61e Breach flow | Step 71e | Global check | Detailed check | Warning message(s) | Information message | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | No | Pass | - | D50 < 200 μm (a) | |||||||
| B | Yes | Yes | Fail | - | Artificial foreland (b) | ||||||
| C | Yes | NoNo | Yes | Fail | - | Pass | Steepest slope over 5 m (c) | ||||
| D | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | - | Fail | ||
| E | Yes | No | No | YesNo | Yes | Yes | Fail | - | D50 < 200 μm (a) Very fine sand (d) | ||
| F | Yes | No | YesNo | NoNo | Yes | Yes | Fail | - | D50 < 200 μm (a) Very fine sand (d) | ||
| G | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Pass | - | |||
| H | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Pass | - | |||
| I | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Pass | Not available | |||
| J | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | Not available |
a D50 < 200 μm in the Detailed check, Advanced check needed.
b The criteria on "steepest slope over 5 m" is met, Advanced check needed.
c Artificial foreland, Advanced check needed.
d The selected sand type is "Very fine" so the breach flow check in step 1e could not be performed, Advanced check needed.
For case A, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except:
- for the distribution of the stochastic parameters of the Detailed check (LogNormal instead of Deterministic/Normal)
- for the surface line
...
- (the length of the foreland is increased to 160 m
...
- instead of 60 m)
- a "Distance influence zone" of 10 m is used.
For case B, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except for xxx: xxx.:
- for the distribution of the stochastic parameters of the Detailed check (LogNormal instead of Deterministic/Normal)
- for the foreland: an artificial instead of a natural foreland is assumed.
For case C, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except for xxx: xxx.:
- for the distribution of the stochastic parameters of the Detailed check (LogNormal instead of Deterministic/Normal)
- for the position of the characteristic point "Insert river channel" which is lowered to get a slope channel of 1 : 7,1.
For case D, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used .except:
- for the distribution of the stochastic parameters of the Detailed check (LogNormal instead of Deterministic/Normal)
- for the grain diameters:
- for Calais sand : D50 = 230 μm (instead of 180) and D15 = 130 μm (unchanged)
- for Compacted sand : D50 = 210 μm (instead of 160) and D15 = 110 μm (unchanged)
For case E, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except:
- for the distribution of the stochastic parameters of the Detailed check (LogNormal instead of Deterministic/Normal)
- for the channel slope which is 1:5 instead of 1:6
For case F, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except:
- for the distribution of the stochastic parameters of the Detailed check (LogNormal instead of Deterministic/Normal)
- for the channel slope which is 1:7.1 instead of 1:6.
For case G, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except:
- for the distribution of the stochastic parameters of the Detailed check (LogNormal instead of Deterministic/Normal)
- for the channel slope which is 1:6.6 instead of 1:6.
- for the grain diameters:
- for Calais sand : D50 = 230 μm (instead of 180) and D15 = 130 μm (unchanged)
- for Compacted sand : D50 = 210 μm (instead of 160) and D15 = 110 μm (unchanged)
For case H, the same input as benchmark 1-1 (see group 1) is used except for xxx: xxx.
Benchmarks results
:
- for the distribution of the stochastic parameters of the Detailed check (LogNormal instead of Deterministic/Normal)
- for the channel slope which is 1:6.6 instead of 1:6.
- for the state parameter which is equal to -0.06 instead of -0.03
- for the grain diameters:
- for Calais sand : D50 = 230 μm (instead of 180) and D15 = 130 μm (unchanged)
- for Compacted sand : D50 = 210 μm (instead of 160) and D15 = 110 μm (unchanged)
- for the Detailed check, the required probability of failure is 1 per 40000 years instead of 1 per 4000 years and the migration velocity is 0.5m/year instead of 10 mm /year.
For case I, the same input as case H is used except that the Detailed check is not performed.
For case J, the same input as case D is used except that the Detailed check is not performed.
Benchmarks results
For each cases, the Global and Detailed checks are worked out in an Excel spreadsheet.
Hereafter, the main results are given per case,
NOTE: For the Detailed check, the reliability index (β) can't be easily calculated by an analytical solution, as the four stochastics (cotan(β), cotan(γ), D/H and c) have a LogNormal distribution. Therefore, the value of the reliability index (β) calculated by D-Flow Slide (using a FORM analysis, invoked from a probabilistic library largely tested) is used in the spreadsheetHereafter are given the analytical results per case.
Case A:
Global check - Step 1a:
Channel depth: H = 15 m
Marge = 2 H = 30 m Thickness of the sensitive layer: Hvw = 25 m
Marge = 2 Hvw + 1.5 (H - Hvw) = 35 m
Slope of the observation profile: 1:15
Assessment level: Z = -10 m
XSsign = 80 m
XSzv = 30 m
XSsign > XSzv => Flow slide would not lead to damage on levee => Global check passes.
Detailed check: see table below for D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: The Overall check gives a Warning message because D50 < 200 μm , an Advanced check is therefore needed.
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 slide would lead to damage on levee => Go to step 1c.
Global check - Step 1c: The foreland is artificial => Global and Detailed check fail, an Advanced check is needed.
Detailed check: see table below for D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: The Overall check gives a Information message because the Global check fails.
Case C:
Global 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 D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: the Overall result gives a Warning because the criteria on "steepest slope over 5 m" is met, an Advanced check is therefore needed.
Case D:
Global check - Step 1a:
Channel depth: H = 15 m
Marge = 2 H = 30m
Slope of the observation profile: 1:15
Assessment level: Z = -10 m
XSsign = 85 m
XSzv = 30 m
XSsign > XSzv => Flow slide would not lead to damage on levee
D-Flow Slide results
(-10 m) < XSzv (50 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 1:6 so softer than 1:4 => Flow slide is not possible based on criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Go to step 1e.
Global check - Step 1e:
The slope channel is 1:6, so the slope is softer than the critical (local) slope from the CUR table (not too fine sand with D50 = 230 μm and D15 = 130 μm) => Breaching is not possible.
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 D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: No message.
Case E:
Global check - Step 1a:
Channel depth: H = 15 m
Marge = 2 H = 30m
Slope of the observation profile: 1:15
Assessment level: Z = -10 m
XSsign (-70 m) < XSzv (30 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 1:5 so steeper than 1:4 => Flow slide is not possible based on criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Go to step 1e.
Global check - Step 1e:
D50 = 180 μm < 200 μm => Breaching is possible.
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 D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: the Overall check gives two Warning messages because D50 < 200 μm and because the selected sand type is "Very fine", an Advanced check is therefore needed.
Case F:
Global check - Step 1a: 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 1:7.1 so softer than 1:4 => Flow slide is not possible based on criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Go to step 1e.
Global check - Step 1e:
D50 = 180 μm < 200 μm => Breaching is possible.
And the total slope is 1:7.1 so softer than 1:7
=> Flow slide is possible based on average slope => Global check fails.
Detailed check: see table below for D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: The Overall check gives two Warning messages because D50 < 200 μm and because the selected sand type is "Very fine", an Advanced check is therefore needed.
Case G:
Global check - Step 1a: 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 1:7.1 so softer than 1:4 => Flow slide is not possible based on criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Go to step 1e.
Global check - Step 1e:
The slope channel is 1:6.600, so the slope is softer than the critical (local) slope from the CUR table (not too fine sand with D50 = 230 μm and D15 = 130 μm) => Breaching is not possible.
And the total slope is 1:6.600 so softer than 1:651 as (HR/24)1/3 = 1.651 with HR = 19.308 m.
=> Flow slide is not possible based on average slope => Global check passes.
Detailed check: see table below for D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: No message.
Case H:
Global check - Step 1a: 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 1:7.1 so softer than 1:4 => Flow slide is not possible based on criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Go to step 1e.
Global check - Step 1e:
The slope channel is 1:7.1, so the slope is softer than the critical (local) slope from the CUR table (not too fine sand with D50 = 230 μm and D15 = 130 μm) => Breaching is not possible.
And the total slope is 1:7.1 so softer than 1:7
=> Flow slide is not possible based on average slope => Global check passes.
Detailed check: see table below for D-Flow Slide results
Overall check: No message.
Case I:
Global check : idem case H => Global check passes.
Detailed check: Results not available.
Overall check: No message.
Case J:
Global check : idem case B => Global check fails.
Detailed check: Results not available.
Overall check: No message.
D-Flow Slide results
D-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 | 35 | 35 | 0.00 |
Assessment level | -10 | -10 | 0.00 |
X-coordinate of the observation point Ssign | 85 | 85 | 0.00 |
X-coordinate of the liquefaction point SZV | 30 | 30 | 0.00 |
[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) [/year] | 3.66 × 10-7 | 3.66 × 10-7 | 0.00 % |
| Reliability index critical length β | - | 39.999 | - |
| Probability P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 % |
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 | Step 1: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? | No | No |
OK 0.00 % | OK |
Result of the Global check | PassFail | Pass | OK | 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) [/year] | 4.94 × 10-7 | 4.94 × 10-7 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Reliability index β | - | 1.712 | - | ||||
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 4.34 × 10-2 | 4.34 × 10-2 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 2.15× 10-8 | 2.15 × 10-8 | 0.00 % |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case
...
C:
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|
Marge | xxx | xxx | xxx |
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 | - | 39.999 | - |
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 0 | 0 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 0 | 0 | 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 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
Yes 30.000 15.000 -10.000 |
OK 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % | |||
| Step 1c | ||||||
Assessment level | xxx | xxx | xxx | |||
X-coordinate of the observation point Ssign | xxx | xxx | xxx | |||
X-coordinate of the liquefaction point SZV | xxx | xxx | xxx | |||
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes |
| |||
| : 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 4: Is liquefaction possible on the basis of the geometry? | No | No | 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 | Passed | Passed |
| Fail | Fail | OK |
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 21.571 | 21.571 | 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] | 4.90 × 10-7 | 4.90 × 10-7 | 0.00 % | |||
| Reliability index β | - | 1.712 | - | |||
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 4.34 × 10-2 | 4.34 × 10-2 | 0.00 % | |||
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 2.13 × 10-8 | 2.13 × 10-8 | 0.00 % |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case
...
E:
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|
Marge | xxx | xxx | xxx |
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 | - | 1.234 | - |
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 1.08 × 10-1 | 1.08 × 10-1 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 1.95 × 10-7 | 1.95 × 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 | ||||||||||
Assessment level | xxx | xxx | xxx | |||||||
X-coordinate of the observation point Ssign | xxx | xxx | xxx | |||||||
X-coordinate of the liquefaction point SZV | xxx | xxx | xxx | |||||||
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes |
| |||||||
| : 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 4: Is liquefaction possible on the basis of the geometry? | Yes | Yes |
| Step 5: Are there any sensitive to liquefaction layers present? | No | No | 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 | Passed | Passed | 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 | - | 39.999 | - | |||||||
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 0 | 0 | 0.00 % | |||||||
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 0 | 0 | 0.00 % |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case
...
G:
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
|---|---|---|---|
Marge | xxx | xxx | xxx |
Assessment level | xxx | xxx | xxx |
X-coordinate of the observation point Ssign | xxx | xxx | xxx |
X-coordinate of the liquefaction point SZV | xxx | xxx | xxx |
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes |
|
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 | - | 39.999 | - |
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 0 | 0 | 0.00 % |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 0 | 0 | 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 | Step 2: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | No | No | OK |
Step 4: Is liquefaction possible on the basis of the geometry? | Yes | Yes |
| |
Step 5: Are there any sensitive to liquefaction layers present? | Yes | Yes |
| Result of the Global check | Failed | Failed |
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 | - | 39.999 | - | |
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 0 | 0 | 0.00 % | |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 0 | 0 | 0.00 % |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case
...
I:
| 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 0.01 % |
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 |
Result of the Detailed check | Not available | Not available | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case J:
| 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 | |||||
Marge | xxx | xxx | xxx | ||
Assessment level | xxx | xxx | xxx | ||
X-coordinate of the observation point Ssign | xxx | xxx | xxx | ||
X-coordinate of the liquefaction point SZV | xxx | xxx | xxx | ||
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes |
| ||
| : 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 | Failed | Failed | Fail | Fail | OK |
Result of the Detailed check | Not available | Not available | OK |