Introduction
Deltares Systems commitment to quality control and quality assurance has leaded them to develop a formal and extensive procedure to verify the correct working of all of their geotechnical engineering tools. An extensive range of benchmark checks have been developed to check the correct functioning of each tool. During product development these checks are run on a regular basis to verify the improved product. These benchmark checks are provided in the following sections, to allow the users to overview the checking procedure and verify for themselves the correct functioning of D-FLOW SLIDE.
The benchmarks for Deltares Systems are subdivided into five separate groups as described below:
- Group 1 – Benchmarks from literature (exact solution)
Simple benchmarks for which an exact analytical result is available from literature. - Group 2 – Benchmarks from literature (approximate solution)
More complex benchmarks described in literature for which an approximate solution is known. - Group 3 – Benchmarks from spreadsheets
Benchmarks which test program features using Excel spreadsheets. - Group 4 – Benchmarks generated by the program itself
Benchmarks for which the reference results are generated using D-FLOW SLIDE. - Group 5 – Benchmarks compared with other programs
Benchmarks for which the results of D-FLOW SLIDE are compared with the results of other programs.
As much as software developers would wish they could, it is impossible to prove the correctness of any non-trivial program. Re-calculating all the benchmarks and making sure the results are as they should be will prove to some degree that the program works as it should. Nevertheless there will always be combinations of input values that will cause the program to crash or produce wrong results. Hopefully by using the verification procedure the number of times this occurs will be limited.
The benchmarks will all be described to such detail that reproduction is possible at any time. In some cases, when the geometry is too complex to describe, the input file of the benchmark is needed. The results are presented in text format with each benchmark description.
The input files belonging to the benchmarks can be downloaded from those pages.
Overview of the benchmarks
Group |
File name |
Title |
Global |
Simple CUR-113 |
Detailled (TR) |
Advanced-SLIQ2D |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
bm1-1 |
Study Case described in "Technisch Rapport Voorland Zettingsvloeiing" |
Failed |
|
Passed |
|
2 |
bm2-1 |
Spui dike - hmp 63.9 (location Nieuw Beijerland) |
Failed |
|
Failed |
|
|
bm2-2 |
Spui dike - hmp 65.0 (between locations Oud Beijerland and Nieuw Beijerland) |
Passed |
|
Passed |
|
|
bm2-3 |
Spui dike - hmp 67.8 (locationoud Beijerland) |
Failed |
|
Passed |
|
3 |
bm3-1 |
Global check with traject: step 1 = no, step 3 = yes |
|
|
|
|
|
bm3-2 |
Global check with traject: step 1 = no, step 3 = no |
|
|
|
|
|
bm3-3 |
Global check with traject: |
|
|
|
|
4 |
bm4-1 |
Test on the level indicator |
|
|
|
|
5 |
bm5-1a |
Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM1 |
|
|
|
Failed |
|
bm5-1b |
Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM2 |
|
|
|
Failed |
|
bm5-1c |
Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM3 |
|
|
|
Failed |
|
bm5-1d |
Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LGZM4 |
|
|
|
Failed |
|
bm5-1e |
Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case SIMPLETA |
|
|
|
Failed |
|
bm5-1f |
Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case LG1D5N5H |
|
|
|
Failed |
|
bm5-1g |
Comparison with SLIQ2D - Case HBPZBUI3 |
|
|
|
Failed |
|
bm5-2 |
Comparison with DZettingsVloeiing - Study Case described in "Technisch Rapport Voorland Zettingsvloeiing" |
|
|
Passed |
|
According to hand-calculation, the Advanced check passes but according to D-Flow Slide it fails.
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.
Group 2: Benchmarks from literature (approximate solution)
This section uses the results of a by-hand calculation performed for three profiles of the Spui dike project (see figure below):
- hmp 63.9 (Nieuw Beijerland)
- hmp 65.0 (between Oud Beijerland and Nieuw Beijerland)
- hmp 67.8 (oud Beijerland)
XXX Insert figure
As the details of the calculation performed by hand are not available, those benchmarks are set in group 2.
hmp 63.9 (Nieuw Beijerland)
Description
The dike profile at hmp 63.9 is given in the figure below.
XXX Insert figure
The soil profile and the material properties are given in the following table:
Level top layer (m NAP) |
Material |
Formation |
Material sensitive to liquefaction |
D r (%) |
n (%) |
n min (%) |
n max (%) |
Gamma unsat (kN/m 3) |
Gamma sat (kN/m 3) |
Gamma grains (kN/m 3) |
D 50 (mm) |
D 15 (mm) |
Phi (deg) |
c (kPa) |
Eps voldm0 |
s max |
s 2 |
k so (kN/m 2) |
m |
r |
u |
v |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grond level |
Clay |
Dunkirk / anthropogenic |
No |
|
|
|
|
18 |
18 |
26.5 |
|
|
25 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-0.5 |
Clay/Sand |
Dunkirk |
No |
|
|
|
|
18 |
18 |
26.5 |
|
|
25 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-6.5 |
Peat |
Holland |
No |
|
|
|
|
10 |
10 |
26.5 |
|
|
25 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-7.5 |
Clay |
Calais |
No |
|
|
|
|
18 |
18 |
26.5 |
|
|
25 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-8.5 |
Sand clayey/Sand |
Calais |
Yes |
35 |
45 |
36.5 |
49.5 |
19 |
19 |
26.5 |
160 |
80 |
25 |
0 |
0.00044 |
1.575 |
1.2 |
43.2 |
3 |
7 |
1.2 |
1 |
-9.5 |
Sand |
Calais |
Yes |
35 |
45 |
36.5 |
49.5 |
19 |
19 |
26.5 |
160 |
80 |
25 |
0 |
0.00044 |
1.575 |
1.2 |
43.2 |
3 |
7 |
1.2 |
1 |
-12.5 |
Sand |
Calais |
Yes |
35 |
45 |
36.5 |
49.5 |
19 |
19 |
26.5 |
160 |
80 |
25 |
0 |
0.00044 |
1.575 |
1.2 |
43.2 |
3 |
7 |
1.2 |
1 |
-18 |
Sand |
Pleistocene |
Yes |
35 |
45 |
36.5 |
49.5 |
19 |
19 |
26.5 |
160 |
80 |
25 |
0 |
0.00044 |
1.575 |
1.2 |
43.2 |
3 |
7 |
1.2 |
1 |
Benchmark results
D-FLOW SLIDE results
hmp 65.0 (between Oud Beijerland and Nieuw Beijerland)
hmp 67.8 (oud Beijerland)
Group 3: Benchmarks from spreadsheets
This section contains tests that are missing in the other groups, for example for the CUR-113 method.
Group 5: Benchmarks compared with other programs
These benchmarks are intended to verify the advanced method by comparing D-FLOW SLIDE results with those from the older program SLIQ-2D, using both DOS and Windows version of this program.
Benchmark name |
Original file name (SLIQ 2D DOS) |
Soil type |
Slope height (m) |
Slope angle |
n (%) |
n min (%) |
n max (%) |
Eps voldm0 |
m |
r |
s 2 |
s max |
v |
k so (kN/m 2) |
u |
Unit weight (kN/m 3) |
D r (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
bm5-1a |
LGZM1 |
Sand clay |
21.9 |
1:4.5 |
45.5 |
50 |
35 |
0.0025 |
1.7 |
7 |
1.28 |
1.7 |
1 |
50000 |
1 |
8.856 |
30 |
bm5-1b |
LGZM2 |
Sand clay |
21.9 |
1:5.5 |
45.5 |
50 |
35 |
0.0035 |
1.7 |
7 |
1.28 |
1.7 |
1 |
50000 |
1 |
8.856 |
30 |
bm5-1c |
LGZM3 |
Sand clay |
21.9 |
1:7 |
45.5 |
50 |
35 |
0.005 |
1.7 |
7 |
1.28 |
1.7 |
1 |
50000 |
1 |
8.856 |
30 |
bm5-1d |
LGZM4 |
Sand clay |
21.9 |
1:7.5 |
45.5 |
50 |
35 |
0.006 |
1.7 |
7 |
1.28 |
1.7 |
1 |
50000 |
1 |
8.856 |
30 |
bm5-1e |
SIMPLETA |
Sea sand |
10 |
1:3.25 |
47.4 |
50 |
37 |
0.0092 |
3 |
7 |
1.23 |
1.35 |
1 |
39460 |
1.33 |
8.547 |
20 |
bm5-1f |
LG1D5N5H |
Sand clay |
20.9 |
1:6.5 |
40.2 |
50 |
35 |
0.0022 |
1.7 |
7 |
1.18 |
1.4 |
1 |
85000 |
1 |
9.717 |
65.333 |
bm5-1g |
HBPZBUI3 |
Sea sand |
22 |
1:6.5 |
45.5 |
50 |
35 |
0.0054 |
2 |
7 |
1.25 |
1.4 |
1.25 |
50000 |
1 |
8.856 |
30 |