Page History

...

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	Pass-	Fail		Steepest Criteria on "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-	Warning	D50 < 200 μm in the Detailed check, Advanced check needed Selected sand type is "Very fine", breach flow check in step 1e could not be performed, Advanced check needed		F	^(a) Very fine sand ^(d)
F	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Fail	Fail-	Fail	D50 < 200 μm in the Detailed check, Advanced check needed ^(a) Very fine sand ^(d)Selected sand type is "Very fine", breach flow check in step 1e could not be performed, Advanced check needed
G	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Pass	Pass	Pass-
H	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Pass	Fail-	Warning	Global passes but Detailed fails, check input
I	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Pass	Not availablePass
J	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Fail	Not available	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 channel slope which is 1: 5 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: 77.1 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: 76.1 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 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 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.

...

X_Ssign > X_Szv => 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: The Overall check gives a Information message because the Global check fails.Overall check: as step 1c of 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.D-Flow Slide results

Overall check: the Overall result passesNo 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.

...

Global check - Step 1e:

The slope channel is 1:76.1600, 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 1:76.1 600 so softer than 1:7651 as (H_R/24)^1/3 = 1.651 with H_R = 19.308 m.

=> 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 results.No 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

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.

...

	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 H_r [m]	19.087	19.087	0.00 %
Fictive slope cotan α_r [-]	23.000	23.000	0.00 %
Max. allowable retrogression length L_allowable [m]	150.000	150.000	0.00%
Probability of occurence P(ZV) [/km/year]	23.92 × 66 × 10^-72	3.92 × 66 × 10^-7	0.00 %
Reliability index critical length β	-	39.999	-
Probability P(L > L_allowable) [/year]	0.00	0.00	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 × 10^-6	2.50 × 10^-6	0.00 %
Result of the Detailed check	Pass	Pass	OK
	0.00 %	Overall result	Warning	Warning	OK

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 H_r [m]	21.571	21.571	0.00 %
Fictive slope cotan α_r	10.5	10.5	0.00 %
Max. allowable retrogression length L_allowable [m]	60	60	0.00 %
Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year]	34.95 × 94 × 10^-7	34.95 94 × 10^-7	0.00 %
Reliability index β	-	1.712	-
P(L > L_allowable) [/year]	4.34 × 10^-2	4.34 × 10^-2	0.23 00 %
Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen\|ZV) [/year]	12.72× 15× 10^-8	1.72 × 10^-8	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
	2.15 × 10^-8	0.00 %	Overall result	Fail	Fail	OK

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 H_r [m]	23.791	23.791	0.00 %
Fictive slope cotan α_r	8.413	8.413	0.00 %
Max. allowable retrogression length L_allowable [m]	60	60	0.00 %
Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year]	57.63 04 × 10^-85	7.63 04 × 10^-8	0.00 %
Reliability index β	--1	39.334999	-
P(L > L_allowable)	9.09 × 10^-1	[/year]	0	09.09 × 10^-1	0.00 %
Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen\|ZV) [/year]	5.12 × 10^-8	5.12 × 10^-8	0.00 %	Allowable probability of failure [/year]	2.50 × 10^-6	0 2.50 × 10^-6	0.00 %Result of the Detailed check	Pass	Pass	OK
Overall result	Warning	Warning	OK

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	OK
Fictive channel depth H_r [m]	21.571	2521.571	0.00 %
Fictive slope cotan α_r	10.500	10.500	0.00 %
Max. allowable retrogression length L_allowable [m]	60	60	0.00 %
Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year]	34.92 90 × 10^-73	4.92 × 90 × 10^-7	0.00 %
Reliability index β	-	1.712	-
P(L > L_allowable) [/year]	4.34 × 10^-2	4.34 × 10^-2	0.00 %
Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen\|ZV) [/year]	12.70 × 13 × 10^-8	12.70 13 × 10^-8	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	Pass	Pass	OK

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 3036.000 15.000 -109.000	Yes 3036.000 15.000 -109.000	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 H_r [m]	25.143	25.143	0.00 %
Fictive slope cotan α_r	14	14	0.00 %
Max. allowable retrogression length L_allowable [m]	60	60	0.00 %
Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year]	1.44 80 × 10^-6	1.44 80 × 10^-6	0.00 %
Reliability index β	-0	1.234	-
P(L > L_allowable) [/year]	51.00 08 × 10^-15	1.00 08 × 10^-1	0.23 00 %
Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen\|ZV) [/year]	7.18 × 10^-7	7.18 × 10^-7	0.18 %	Allowable probability of failure [/year]	2.50 1.95 × 10^-67 2	1.50 95 × 10^-67	0.00 %Result of the Detailed check	Pass	Pass	OK
Overall result	Warning	Warning	OK

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 25.352360 15.000 -10.775	Yes 25.352360 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 7.099094	No 7.100096	OK 0.01 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 H_r [m]	25.874864	25.874864	0.00 %
Fictive slope cotan α_r	6.641646	6.641646	0.00 %
Max. allowable retrogression length L_allowable [m]	60	60	0.00 %
Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year]	23.67 33 × 10^-72	3.67 33 × 10^-7	0.00 %
Reliability index β	-	039.974999	-
P(L > L_allowable)	1.65 × 10^-1	[/year]	0	01.65 × 10^-1	0.10 00 %
Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen\|ZV) [/year]	4.40 × 10^-8	4.40 × 10^-80	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	Warning	Warning	OK

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 2527.352280 15.000 -10.775453	Yes 2527.352280 15.000 -10.775453	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 76.099595	No 76.100596	OK 0.01 02 %
Step 1e: Flow slide possible based on average geometry only? Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible?	No 76.100600 No	No 76.100600 No	OK 0.00 % OK
Result of the Global check	Pass	Pass	OK
Fictive channel depth H_r [m]	2519.87430825	19.874308	0.00 %
Fictive slope cotan α_r	610.6415006	10.641500	0.00 %
Max. allowable retrogression length L_allowable [m]	60	60	0.00 %
Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year]	2.65 30 × 10^-7	2.65 31 × 10^-7	0.00 43 %
Reliability index β	-	039.974999	-
P(L > L_allowable)	1.65 × 10^-1	1.65 × 10^-1	0.00 %	Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen\|ZV) [/year]	4.38 × 10^-8	0	04.38 × 10^-8	0.00 %
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
Step 1a: Would flow slide lead to damage on levee? Marge [m] Slope [1:xxx] Assessment level [m + NAP]	Yes 2527.352280 15.000 -10.775453	Yes 2527.352280 15.000 -10.775453	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 76.099596	No 76.100596	OK 0.01 02 %
Step 1e: Flow slide possible based on average geometry only? Total inclination of the channel slope [1:xxx] Is breaching possible?	No 76.100600 No	No 76.100600 No	OK 0.00 % OK
Result of the Global check	Pass	Pass	OK
Fictive channel depth H_r [m]	2519.87403825	19.874038	0.00 %
Fictive slope cotan α_r	610.6415006	10.641500	0.00 %
Max. allowable retrogression length L_allowable [m]	60	60	0.00 %
Probability of preventing a liquefaction P(ZV) [/km/year]	65.66 80 × 10^-46	5.66 80 × 10^-4	0.00 %
Reliability index β	-	039.974999	-
P(L > L_allowable)	1.65 × 10^-1	[/year]	0	01.65 × 10^-1	0.00 %
Probability of flood damage by liquefaction P(falen\|ZV) [/year]	1.10 × 10^-4	1.10 × 10^-4	0.00 %	Allowable probability of failure ) [/year]	2.50 × 10^-7	0	0 2.50 × 10^-7	0.00 %
Result of the Detailed check	Fail	Fail	OK
Overall result	Warning	Warning	OK

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 2527.352280 15.000 -10.775453	Yes 2527.352280 15.000 -10.775453	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 76.099595	No 76.100596	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 76.100600 No	No 76.100600 No	OK 0.00 % OK
Result of the Global check	Pass	Pass	OK
Result of the Detailed check	Not available	Not available	OK
Overall result	Pass	Pass	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	Overall result	Fail	Fail	OK

Child pages

Versions Compared

Old Version 91

New Version Current

Key

Case C:

Case E:

Case H:

Case I:

Case J:

D-Flow Slide results

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case B:

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case C:

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case D:

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case E:

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case F:

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case G:

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case H:

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case I:

Results of benchmark 3-1 for case J: