...
| Case | Step 1a | Step 1c | Step 1d | Step 1e Average slope | Step 1e Breach flow | Step 1e | Global check | Detailed check | Overall result | Warning message(s) | Information message | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | No | Pass | Pass- | Warning | D50 < 200 μm in the Detailed check, Advanced check needed (a) | |||||||
| B | Yes | Yes | Fail | Fail | Fail- | Artificial foreland , Advanced check needed (b) | ||||||
| C | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | Fail- | Fail | Criteria on "steepest Steepest slope over 5 m " met, Advanced check needed (c) | |||||
| D | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | Pass- | Pass | |||
| E | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Fail | Pass | Pass | - | D50 < 200 μm (a) Very fine sand (d) | |
| F | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Fail | Fail | 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 | Pass- | H | |||
| I | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | Pass | Not available | ||||
| J | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Fail | Warning | Not available | Global passes but Detailed fails, check input |
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 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 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 state parameter which is equal to -0.06 instead of -0.03for 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 state parameter which is equal to -0.06 instead of -0.03
- for the diameters D50 and D15 which are equal to 250 μm and 150 μm resp. for sand layersfor the channel slope which is 1: 2 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 state parameter which is equal to -0.06 instead of -0.03
- for the diameters D50 and D15 which are equal to 250 μm and 150 μm resp. for sand layers.
- 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.
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 spreadsheet.
Case A:
Global check - Step 1:
Channel depth: H = 15 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 = 85 m
XSzv = 30 m
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.
Overall check: as Global and Detailed check pass, the Overall check passes.
Case B:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
Global check - Step 3: 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 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 slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
Global check - Step 3: The foreland is natural => Go to step 4.
Global check - Step 4: The slope channel is 1:7,1 so softer than 1:7 => Flow slide is not possible based on geometry => Global check passes.
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.
Overall check: As the Detailed check result is not known, the Overall result can't be deduced.
Case D:
Results are identical to benchmark 1-1 and can be found in Group 1.
Case E:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
- 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 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 spreadsheet.
Case A:
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 = 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 1cGlobal check - Step 3: The foreland is natural => Go to step 41d.
Global check - Step 41d: The slope channel is 1:6 average slope over a height of at least 5 m is 1:3.901 so steeper than 1:7 4 => Flow slide is possible based on geometry => Go to step 5.
Global check - Step 5: The state parameter is -0.06 so less than -0.05 => Liquefaction is not possible based on the state parameter => Go to step 6.
Global check - Step 6: The average diameters over a thickness of 5m are D50 = 180 μm and D15 = 130 μm. So layers are present with D50 < 200 μm and D15 < 100 μm => Global check fails and Detailed check 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 Detailed check passes, the Overall check passes.
Case F:
Global check - Step 1: Same results as benchmark 1-1 (flow slide would lead to damage on levee) => Go to step 3.
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 (-10 m) < XSzv (50 m) => Flow slide would lead to damage on levee => Go to step 1c.
Global check - Step 1c: Global check - Step 3: The foreland is natural => Go to step 41d.
Global check - Step 41d: The slope channel is average slope over a height of at least 5 m is 1:6 so steeper softer than 1:7 4 => Flow slide is not possible based on geometry criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Go to step 51e.
Global check - Step 51e:
The state parameter is -0.06 so less than -0.05 => Liquefaction is not possible based on the state parameter => Go to step 6.
Global check - Step 6: The average diameters over a thickness of 5m are D50 = 250 μm and D15 = 150 μm. So no layers are present with D50 < 200 μm and D15 < 100 μm => Go to step 7.
Global check - Step 7: The slope channel is 1:2, so the slope is steeper than the critical (local) slope from the CUR table => Global check fails and Detailed check needed.
Detailed check: (see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction > Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check fails.
Overall check: Global and Detailed checks fail, so the Overall check fails.
Case G:
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 Global check - Step 1: 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 natural => Go to step 41d.
Global check - Step 41d: The slope channel is average slope over a height of at least 5 m is 1:6 5 so steeper than 1:7 4 => Flow slide is possible not possible based on geometry criterium "steepest slope over 5 m" => Go to step 51e.
Global check - Step 5: The state parameter is -0.06 so less than -0.05 => Liquefaction is not possible based on the state parameter => Go to step 6.1e:
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 1cGlobal check - Step 6: The average diameters over a thickness of 5m are D50 = 250 μm and D15 = 150 μm. So no layers are present with D50 < 200 μm and D15 < 100 μm => Go to step 7.
Global check - Step 71c: The slope channel is 1:6, so the slope is softer than the critical (local) slope from the CUR table => Global check passes.
Detailed check: (see table below for intermediary results) Probability of flood damage by liquefaction > Allowable probability of failure => Detailed check fails.
Overall check: Global passes and Detailed checks fails, that's not logical, so a warning message is displayed in the Overall check.
D-Flow Slide results
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
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-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 [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 |
OK 0.00 % OK |
Result of the Global check | Fail | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
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: 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 No |
Yes 6 No |
OK 0.00 % OK |
Result of the Global check | Fail | Fail |
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marge | 35.000 | 35.000 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Slope [1:xxx] | 15.000 | 15.000 | 0.00 % | ||||
Assessment level | -10.000 | -10.000 | 0.00 % | ||||
Step 1: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? | No | No | OK | ||||
Result of the Global check | Pass | Pass | OK | ||||
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 1921.08757119 | 21.087 571 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Fictive slope cotan αr [-] | 2310.00050023 | 10.000 500 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 150.000 | 60 | 60150.000 | 0.00%00 % | |||
| Probability of occurence preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 94.14 90 × 10-79 | 4.14 × 90 × 10-7 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Reliability index critical length ββ | - | 391.999 712 | - | ||||
| Probability P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 0.00 | 4.34 × 10-2 | 4.34 × 10-20.00 | 0.00 %% | |||
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 % | Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 13 × 10-68 2 | 2.50 13 × 10-68 | 0.00 % |
Result of the Detailed check | Pass | Pass | OK | ||||
| Overall result | Pass | Pass | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case B
The overall result is not correctly determined in D-Flow Slide if the foreshore is artificial: D-Flow Slide uses the Detailed check result but it should directly conclude that the Overall check fails.
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case E:
| 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 % | |
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | |
Marge | 35.000 | 35.000 | 0.00 % | |
| Slope [1:xxx] | 15.000 | 15.000 | 0.00 % | |
Assessment level | -10.000 | -10.000 | 0.00 % | |
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes | OK | |
Step 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | Yes | Yes OK | ||
Result of the Global check | Fail | Fail | OK | |
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 2125.57114321 | 25.571143 | 0.00 % | |
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.5 | 14 | 1410.5 | 0.00 % |
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % | |
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 1.24 80 × 10-6 | 1.24 80 × 10-6 | 0.00 % | |
| Reliability index β | - | 1.712253127713234 | - | |
| P(L > Lallowable) [/year] | 41.34 08 × 10-214 | 1.34 08 × 10-21 | 0.23 00 % | |
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 51.38 95 × 10-875 | 1.38 95 × 10-87 | 0.00 % | |
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % | |
Result of the Detailed check | Pass | Pass | OK | |
| Overall result | Fail | Fail | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case C
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 % |
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marge | 31.514 | 31.514 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Slope [1:xxx] | 15.000 | 15.000 | 0.00 % | |||||
Assessment level | -10.775 | -10.775 | 0.00 % | |||||
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes | OK | |||||
Step 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | No | No | OK | |||||
| Step 4: Flow slide possible based on geometry only? | No | NoOK | ||||||
Result of the Global check | PassFailPass | Fail | OK | |||||
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 1725.76286417 | 25.762864 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 106.564610 | 6.5646 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 3.29 × 10-7 | 3.29 × 10-7 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Reliability index β | Not available | 3.749 | ||||||
| P(L > Lallowable) | Not available | 8.88 × 10-5 | ||||||
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % | |||||
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | Not available | 1.10 × 10-10 | Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 3.33 2.50 × 10-67 2 | 3.50 33 × 10-67 | 0.00 % | ||
Result of the Detailed check | Not available | Pass | - | |||||
| Overall result | Not available | Pass | - |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case D
| 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 % |
See results of benchmark 1-1 in Group 1.
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case
...
G:
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marge | 35 | 35 | 0.00 % | ||||||
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] Slope [1:xxx] | 15 | 15Assessment level [m + NAP] |
Yes 27.280 15.000 -10.453 |
Yes 27.280 15.000 -10.453 |
OK 0.00 % | ||||
Assessment level | -10 | -10 | 0.00 % | ||||||
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes | OK | ||||||
Step 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore? | No | No | OK | ||||||
| Step 4: Flow slide possible based on geometry only? | Yes | Yes | OK | ||||||
| Step 5: Is liquefaction possible based on state parameter? | No | No | OK | ||||||
| Step 6: Layers present with a thickness of minimal 5m, in which D50<200 μm or D15<100 μm ? | Yes | Yes | OK | ||||||
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 | FailPassFail | Pass | OK | ||||||
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 2119.57130821 | 19.571308 | 0.00 % | ||||||
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.5500 | 10.5500 | 0.00 % | ||||||
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % % | ||||||
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 62.24 30 × 10-76 | 2.24 31 × 10-7 | 0.00 43 % | ||||||
| Reliability index β | 3.749-3 | 39.7490999 | -.00 % | ||||||
| P(L > Lallowable) | 8.86 × 10-5 | 8.88 × 10-5 | 0.23 % | Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 5.53 × 10-11 | 0 | 0 5.54 × 10-11 | 0.18 00 % | |
| Allowable probability of failure Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0 | 0 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % | |||||
Result of the Detailed check | Pass | Pass | OK | ||||||
| Overall result | Pass | Pass | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case
...
H:
| Benchmark | D-FLOW SLIDE | Relative error | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marge | 35 | 35 | 0.00 % | ||||
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] Slope [1:xxx] Assessment level [m + NAP] | 15
| 15 Yes | 027. | 00 %280 15.000Assessment level -10.453 |
Yes 27.280 15.000 -10.453 |
OK 0.00 % | |
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry? | Yes | Yes | OK | ||||
00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % | |||||||
| Step 1c | Step 3: 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 geometry on average geometry only? | Yes | Yes | OK | ||
| Step 5: Is liquefaction possible based on state parameter? | No | No | OK | ||||
| Step 6: Layers present with a thickness of minimal 5m, in which D50<200 μm or D15<100 μm ? | No | No | OK | ||||
Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible? |
No 6.600 No |
No 6.600 No | Step 7: Is breaching possible? | Yes | Yes |
OK 0.00 % | OK |
Result of the Global check | FailPassFail | Pass | OK | ||||
| Fictive channel depth Hr [m] | 1819.52403818 | 19.524038 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Fictive slope cotan αr | 10.5500 | 10.5500 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Max. allowable retrogression length Lallowable [m] | 60 | 60 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year] | 15.03 80 × 10-41 | 5.03 80 × 10-4 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Reliability index β | 1.289-1 | 39.2890999 | -.00 % | ||||
| P(L > Lallowable) | 9.88 × 10-2 | [/year] | 0 | 09.87 × 10-2 | 0.10 00 % | ||
| Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen|ZV) [/year] | 1.02 × 10-5 | 1.02 × 10-5 | 0.00 % | ||||
| Allowable probability of failure [/year] | 2.50 × 10-6 | 2.50 × 10-6 | 0.00 % | ||||
Result of the Detailed check | Fail | Fail | OK | ||||
| Overall result | Fail | Fail | OK |
Results of benchmark 3-1 for case G
...
...
Benchmark
...
D-FLOW SLIDE
...
Relative error
...
Marge
...
35
...
35
...
0.00 %
...
Assessment level
...
-10
...
-10
...
0.00 %
...
Step 1: Is liquefaction damaging on basis of geometry?
...
Yes
...
Yes
...
OK
...
Step 3: Artificially underwater installed and non-compacted sandy foreshore?
...
No
...
No
...
OK
...
Result of the Global check
...
Pass
...
Pass
...
OK
...
Result of the Detailed check
...
| 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: 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 | Fail | Fail | OK |
Result of the Detailed check | Not available | Not available | OK |
...