Group 1: Benchmarks from literature (exact solution)
This section describes a number of benchmarks for which an exact analytical solution can be found in the literature.
1.1. Study Case described in "Technisch Rapport Voorland Zettingsvloeiing"
Description
The example given in "Annex A - Case Study" of the Deltares report 1200503-001-GEO-0004 "Concept Technisch Rapport Voorland Zettingsvloeiing" of G.A. van den Ham & Co is used.
In this example, both global and detailed checks are completed on the basis of a (fictitious) dike section, which with regard to geometry and soil structure is typical of the Southwest Delta.
The dike has a height of NAP+5 m, a crest width of 3 m and a slope of 1:3.
The foreshore begins to imaginary toe of the dike at an elevation of NAP and is 60 m wide. The toe of the trench is NAP-15 m and has a slope of 1:6. The dike section is 800 m long. The phreatic level is at NAP-2 m.
The soil profile is as follows:
- from NAP+3.5 m to NAP+1 m: peat
- from NAP+1 m to NAP-5 m: silty clay
- from NAP-5 m to NAP-18 m: moderately to loosely compacted sand (Calais)
- from NAP-18 m to NAP-30 m: densely compacted sand
For the Detailed check, the following input is used:
- Required probability of failure of the dike: 1:4000 year
- Percentage probability of failure by liquefaction: 1 %
- Maximum allowable retrogression length: Lallowable = 60 m (length of the foreland)
- Considered dike length: 800 m
- Mean value of the area ratio (c = A2/A1): 1.4
Benchmarks results
The details of the calculation can be found in annex A of the report. The main results are given in the table below. The global check fails but the detailed check passes.
Global check - Step 1a:
Thickness of the sensible to liquefaction layer: Hvw = 25 m
Channel depth: H = 15 m
Marge = 2 Hvw + 1.5 (H - Hvw) = 35 m
Slope of the observation profile: 1:15
Assessment level: Zbeoord = -10 m
XSsign = Xdike toe at river - marge - (Zvoorland - Zbeoord) * slope = -15 m
XSzv = 30 m
XSsign > XSzv => Flow slide would not lead to damage on levee => Global check passes.
Detailed check: see table below: Probability of flood damage by liquefaction (= 8.10 × 10-11) < Allowable probability of failure (2.50 × 10-6) => Detailed check passes.
Overall check: as Global and Detailed check pass, the Overall check passes.
D-Flow Slide results
D-Flow Slide needs extra input parameters compared to the Study Case:
- Ψ5m = -0.03
- D50 = 180 μm and D15 = 130 μm for Calais sand
- D50 = 160 μm and D15 = 110 μm for Compacted sand
- According to the values of D50, the sand type is set to "Very fine sand"
- Cohesive layers factor = 0.2
- Migration velocity = 0.0001 mm/year
Results of benchmark 1-1 for the Global Check
| Unit | Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marge | [m] | 353035 | 30 | 0.00% | |||||||||
X coordinate of the observation profile (Xsign)Slope | [m-]-35 | 15 | -3515 | 0.00% | |||||||||
X coordinate of the liquefaction point (XZV)Assessment level | [m] | 30-1030 | -10 | 0.00% | |||||||||
Question 1 1a : Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? |
| Yes | Yes | OK | |||||||||
Question 21b: Criterion on slope protection met (<1:2,5)? | - | - | |||||||||||
Question 31c: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreland? |
| No | No | OK | |||||||||
Question 41d: Flow slide possible based on geometry onlyon criterion "steepest slope over 5 m"? |
| YesNoYes | No | OK | |||||||||
Question 51e: Is liquefaction possibleFlow slide possible based on average geometry only? | - | Yes | Question 6: Are there any sensitive to liquefaction layers present? | Yes | Yes | OK | Question 7: Is unstable breaching possible? | - | Yes | ||||
Result of the Global check |
| Failed | Failed | OK |
Results of benchmark 1-1 for the Detailed Check
| Unit | Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fictive channel depth (Hr) | [m] | 21.571 | 21.571 | 0.00 % |
Fictive slope (cotan αr) | [-] | 10.500 | 10.500 | 0.00 % |
Probability of liquefaction | [-] | 2.93 × 1E-03 | 2.93 × 1E-03 | 0.00 % |
Representative probability of failure | [-] | 3.52 × 1E-03 | 3.52 × 1E-03 | 0.00 % |
β | [-] | 3.749 | 3.749 | 0.00 % |
P(L > Lallowable) | [-] | 8.87 × 1E-05 | 8.86 × 1E-05 | 0.08 % |
Probability of failure | [-] | 3.12 × 1E-07 | 3.12 × 1E-07 | 0.00 % |
Allowable probability of failure | [-] | 2.50 × 1E-06 | 2.50 × 1E-06 | 0.00 % | Result of Detailed Check |
...
Succeeded
...
Succeeded
...
1.2. Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check)
Description
The average slope local critical profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b profile without flat berms:is CUR113b is modeled in D-Flow Slide for both type of sand (not too medium fine and fairly coarse sand).
Different cases are considered:
Case | Type of sand | Number of flat berm | Description | Expected result for breaching | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anot too | medium fine | sandsand | 0 | The inputted soil profile is the same as in surface line coincides with the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b | Fail | Fail | ||||
B | 0 | The surface line is steeper than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b (local slope are 1:X-0.1m instead of 1:X) | Fail | |||||||
C | 0 | The inputted profile surface line is the same as in softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b except that the slope from depth 0 to 5 m is steeper (1:1.9) | Fail | 0 | (local slope are 1:X+0.1m instead of 1:X) | Pass | ||||
D | 0 | The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b, but is steeper than the critical average profile at one point only | Fail | |||||||
E | coarse sand | 0 | The surface line coincides with the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b | Fail | ||||||
F | 0 | The surface line is steeper than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b (local slope are 1:X-0.1m instead of 1:X) | Fail | |||||||
G | 0 | The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in The profile is the same as in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b except that the slope from depth 0 to 5 m is softer (1:1.2.1)(local slope are 1:X+0.35m instead of 1:X) | Pass | |||||||
H | 0 | The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b, but is steeper than the critical average profile | Fail | |||||||
I | medium fine sand | 0 | The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b (local slope are 1:X+0.1m instead of 1:X), but the channel is deeper than 40m. | Fail |
Benchmarks results
The inputted channel slope is given in the tables below per case, and compared with the allowed slope (from CUR table) for the breaching step 7 of the Global check.
Case A:
The surface line coincides with the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b as can be seen in the table below.
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 200.1 μm and D15 = 100.1 μm, which corresponds to "Medium fine" sand type.
The local and average checks for all the points along the channel slope fail, so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching fails.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Medium fine sand" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check | |
260 | 0 | Pass|||||||
254 | -3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail | |
250 | -5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail | |
239.5 | -8.5 | 3 | 2.4118 | 3 | 2.5 | Fail | Fail | |
235 | -10 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 2.5 | Fail | Fail | |
219 | -14 | 4 | 2.9286 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Fail | |
215 | -15 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Fail | |
190 | -20 | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | 3.5 | Fail | Fail | |
160 | -25 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | Fail | Fail | |
120 | -30 | 8 | 4.6667 | 8 | 4.67 | Fail | Fail | |
70 | -35 | 10 | 5.4286 | 10 | 5.43 | Fail | Fail | |
20 | -40 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 6 | Fail | Fail |
Case B:
The surface line is steeper than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b (local slope are 1:X-0.1m instead of 1:X).
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 200.1 μm and D15 = 100.1 μm, which corresponds to "Medium fine" sand type.
The local and average checks for all the points along the channel slope fail, so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching fails.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Medium fine sand" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check |
256 | 0 | ||||||
250.3 | -3 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
246.5 | -5 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
236.35 | -8.5 | 2.9 | 2.3118 | 3 | 2.5 | Fail | Fail |
232 | -10 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 3 | 2.5 | Fail | Fail |
216.4 | -14 | 3.9 | 2.8286 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Fail |
212.5 | -15 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Fail |
188 | -20 | 4.9 | 3.4 | 5 | 3.5 | Fail | Fail |
158.5 | -25 | 5.9 | 3.9 | 6 | 4 | Fail | Fail |
119 | -30 | 7.9 | 4.5667 | 8 | 4.67 | Fail | Fail |
69.5 | -35 | 9.9 | 5.3286 | 10 | 5.43 | Fail | Fail |
20 | -40 | 9.9 | 5.9 | 10 | 6 | Fail | Fail |
Case C:
The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b (local slope are 1:X+0.1m instead of 1:X).
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 200.1 μm and D15 = 100.1 μm, which corresponds to "Medium fine" sand type.
The local and average checks for all the points along the channel slope pass, so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching passes.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Medium fine sand" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check |
264 | 0 | ||||||
257.7 | -3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
253.5 | -5 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
242.65 | -8.5 | 3.1 | 2.5118 | 3 | 2.5 | Pass | Pass |
238 | -10 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 3 | 2.5 | Pass | Pass |
221.6 | -14 | 4.1 | 3.0286 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass |
217.5 | -15 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass |
192 | -20 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 5 | 3.5 | Pass | Pass |
161.5 | -25 | 6.1 | 4.1 | 6 | 4 | Pass | Pass |
121 | -30 | 8.1 | 4.7667 | 8 | 4.67 | Pass | Pass |
70.5 | -35 | 10.1 | 5.5286 | 10 | 5.43 | Pass | Pass |
20 | -40 | 10.1 | 6.1 | 10 | 6 | Pass | Pass |
Case D:
The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b, but is steeper than the critical average profile at one point.
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 200.1 μm and D15 = 100.1 μm, which corresponds to "Medium fine" sand type.
The local and average checks for all the points along the channel slope pass except for one point for which the average check fails, so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching fails.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Medium fine sand" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check |
263.83 | 0 | ||||||
257.53 | -3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
253.33 | -5 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
242.65 | -8.5 | 3.05 | 2.4912 | 3 | 2.5 | Pass | Fail |
238 | -10 | 3.1 | 2.5825 | 3 | 2.5 | Pass | Pass |
221.6 | -14 | 4.1 | 3.0161 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass |
217.5 | -15 | 4.1 | 3.0883 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass |
192 | -20 | 5.1 | 3.5913 | 5 | 3.5 | Pass | Pass |
161.5 | -25 | 6.1 | 4.093 | 6 | 4 | Pass | Pass |
121 | -30 | 8.1 | 4.7608 | 8 | 4.67 | Pass | Pass |
70.5 | -35 | 10.1 | 5.5236 | 10 | 5.43 | Pass | Pass |
20 | -40 | 10.1 | 6.0956 | 10 | 6 | Pass | Pass |
Case E:
The surface line coincides with the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b .
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 500.1 μm and D15 = 250.1 μm, which corresponds to "Coarse sand/Gravel" soil type.
The local check for all the points along the channel slope fails, so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching fails.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Coarse sand/Gravel" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check |
170 | 0 | ||||||
164 | -3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
160 | -5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
153 | -8.5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
150 | -10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
138 | -14 | 3 | 2.2857 | 3 | 2.3333 | Fail | Fail |
135 | -15 | 3 | 2.3333 | 3 | 2.3333 | Fail | Pass |
120 | -20 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 2.5 | Fail | Fail |
100 | -25 | 4 | 2.8 | 4 | 2.8 | Fail | Fail |
80 | -30 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Fail |
50 | -35 | 6 | 3.4286 | 6 | 3.43 | Fail | Fail |
20 | -40 | 6 | 3.75 | 6 | 3.75 | Fail | Fail |
Case F:
The surface line is steeper than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b (local slope are 1:X-0.1m instead of 1:X).
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 500.1 μm and D15 = 250.1 μm, which corresponds to "Coarse sand/Gravel" soil type.
The local and average checks for all the points along the channel slope fail, so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching fails.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Coarse sand/Gravel" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check | ||||
166 | 0 | ||||||||||
Benchmarks results
The values of the slope is given in xxx.
D-Flow Slide results
Results of benchmark 1-1 for the Global Check
160.3 | -3 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
156.5 | -5 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
149.85 | -8.5 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
147 | -10 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2 | 2 | Fail | Fail |
135.4 | -14 | 2.9 | 2.1857 | 3 | 2.3333 | Fail | Fail |
132.5 | -15 | 2.9 | 2.2333 | 3 | 2.3333 | Fail | Fail |
118 | -20 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 3 | 2.5 | Fail | Fail |
98.5 | -25 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 4 | 2.8 | Fail | Fail |
79 | -30 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 4 | 3 | Fail | Fail |
49.5 | -35 | 5.9 | 3.3286 | 6 | 3.43 | Fail | Fail |
20 | -40 | 5.9 | 3.65 | 6 | 3.75 | Fail | Fail |
Case G:
The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b (local slope are 1:X+0.35m instead of 1:X).
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 500.1 μm and D15 = 250.1 μm, which corresponds to "Coarse sand/Gravel" soil type.
The local and average checks for all the points along the channel slope pass, so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching passes.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Coarse sand*/Gravel" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check |
184 | 0 | ||||||
176.95 | -3 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
172.25 | -5 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
164.03 | -8.5 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
160.5 | -10 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
147.1 | -14 | 3.35 | 2.6557 | 3 | 2.3333 | Pass | Pass |
143.75 | -15 | 3.35 | 2.6833 | 3 | 2.3333 | Pass | Pass |
127 | -20 | 3.35 | 2.85 | 3 | 2.5 | Pass | Pass |
105.25 | -25 | 4.35 | 3.15 | 4 | 2.8 | Pass | Pass |
83.5 | -30 | 4.35 | 3.35 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass |
51.75 | -35 | 6.35 | 3.7786 | 6 | 3.43 | Pass | Pass |
20 | -40 | 6.35 | 4.1 | 6 | 3.75 | Pass | Pass |
Case H:
The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b, but is steeper than the critical average profile.
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 500.1 μm and D15 = 250.1 μm, which corresponds to "Coarse sand/Gravel" soil type.
The local and average checks for all the points along the channel slope pass except for one point for which the average check fails, so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching fails.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Coarse sand/Gravel" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check |
171.84 | 0 | ||||||
165.69 | -3 | 2.05 | 2.05 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
161.59 | -5 | 2.05 | 2.05 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
154.42 | -8.5 | 2.05 | 2.05 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
151.34 | -10 | 2.05 | 2.05 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
139.3 | -14 | 3.01 | 2.3243 | 3 | 2.3333 | Pass | Fail |
136.25 | -15 | 3.05 | 2.3727 | 3 | 2.3333 | Pass | Pass |
121 | -20 | 3.05 | 2.542 | 3 | 2.5 | Pass | Pass |
100.75 | -25 | 4.05 | 2.8436 | 4 | 2.8 | Pass | Pass |
80.5 | -30 | 4.05 | 3.0447 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass |
50.25 | -35 | 6.05 | 3.474 | 6 | 3.43 | Pass | Pass |
20 | -40 | 6.05 | 3.796 | 6 | 3.75 | Pass | Pass |
Case I:
The surface line is softer than the critical (local) profile given in Table A.4.2a from CUR113b (local slope are 1:X+0.1m instead of 1:X), but the channel is deeper than 40m.
The soil has grain diameters of D50 = 200.1 μm and D15 = 100.1 μm, which corresponds to "Medium fine" sand type.
The local and average checks for all the points along the channel slope pass but the channel is deeper than 40m (which is not covered by the CUR table), so the Global check for Step 7 - Breaching fails.
Inputted profile along channel slope | Critical profile from CUR table A.4.2a for "Medium fine sand" | Result Global check - step 7 per point | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X [m] | Z [m +GL] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local slope [1:xxx] | Average slope [1:xxx] | Local check | Average check |
274.1 | 0 | ||||||
267.8 | -3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
263.6 | -5 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2 | 2 | Pass | Pass |
252.75 | -8.5 | 3.1 | 2.5118 | 3 | 2.5 | Pass | Pass |
248.1 | -10 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 3 | 2.5 | Pass | Pass |
231.7 | -14 | 4.1 | 3.0286 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass |
227.6 | -15 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 4 | 3 | Pass | Pass |
202.1 | -20 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 5 | 3.5 | Pass | Pass |
171.6 | -25 | 6.1 | 4.1 | 6 | 4 | Pass | Pass |
131.1 | -30 | 8.1 | 4.7667 | 8 | 4.67 | Pass | Pass |
80.6 | -35 | 10.1 | 5.5286 | 10 | 5.43 | Pass | Pass |
20 | -41 | 10.1 | 6.1976 | 10 | 6 | Pass | Pass |
D-Flow Slide results
Results of benchmark 1-2 for the Global Check - Step 7 (Breaching)
Unit
Benchmark
D-FLOW SLIDE
Relative error
Marge
[m]
35
35
0.00%
X coordinate of the observation profile (Xsign)
[m]
-35
-35
0.00%
X coordinate of the liquefaction point (XZV)
[m]
30
30
0.00%
Question 1 : Would flow slide lead to damage on levee?
Yes
Yes
OK
-
Question 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreland?
No
No
OK
Question 4: Flow slide possible based on geometry only?
Yes
Yes
OK
Question 6: Are there any sensitive to liquefaction layers present?
Yes
Yes
Question 7: Is unstable breaching possible? | Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
case A | Yes | |||
Result of the Global check |
| Failed | Failed | OK |
Results of benchmark 1-1 for the Detailed Check
(Fail) | Yes (Fail) | OK | |
case B | Yes (Fail) | Yes (Fail) | OK |
case C | No (Pass) | No (Pass) | OK |
case D | Yes (Fail) | Yes (Fail) | OK |
case E | Yes (Fail) | Yes (Fail) | OK |
case F | Yes (Fail) | Yes (Fail) | OK |
case G | No (Pass) | No (Pass) | OK |
case H | Yes (Fail) | Yes (Fail) | OK |
case I | Yes (Fail) | Yes (Fail) | OK |