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 (*.fsx, *.mbr, *.slq) of all benchmarks can be downloaded here.
The test document used to check to program manually has been attached to this page.
The spreadsheets used for benchmarks in group 3 can be downloaded here.
Overview of the benchmarks
Legend:
= Results of D-Flow Slide and results of the Benchmark are identical.
= Results of D-Flow Slide and results of the Benchmark differ.
Group | Input file (*.fsx) | Title | Global | Detailed | Overall | Advanced liquefaction(SLIQ2D) | Advanced breaching |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | bm1-1 | Study Case described in Technisch Rapport Voorland Zettingsvloeiing |
|
| |
|
|
| bm1-2a | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case A | | |||||
| bm1-2b | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case B | | |||||
| bm1-2c | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case C | | |||||
| bm1-2d | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case D | | |||||
| bm1-2e | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case E | | |||||
| bm1-2f | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case F | | |||||
| bm1-2g | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case G | | |||||
| bm1-2h | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case H | | |||||
| bm1-2i | Determination of the steepest possible breaching profile (step 7 of the Global check) - Case I | | |||||
2
| bm2-1 | Spui dike - hmp 63.9 (location Nieuw Beijerland) |
|
| |
|
|
bm2-2 | Spui dike - hmp 65.0 (between locations Oud Beijerland and Nieuw Beijerland) |
|
| (a) |
|
| |
bm2-3 | Spui dike - hmp 67.8 (location Oud Beijerland) |
|
| |
|
| |
3
| bm3-1a | Global check with traject: step 1 = No (Global passes) |
|
| |
|
|
| bm3-1b | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 3 = Yes (Global fails) | | | (b) | |||
bm3-1c | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 3 = No, step 4 = No (Global passes) |
|
|
|
| ||
bm3-1d | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = Yes, step 5 = Yes (Global fails) |
|
| |
|
| |
bm3-1e | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = Yes, step 5 = No, step 6 = Yes (Global fails) |
|
| |
|
| |
bm3-1f | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = Yes, step 5 = No, step 6 = No, step 7 = Yes (Global fails) |
|
| |
|
| |
| bm3-1g | Global check with traject: step 1 = Yes, step 2 = No, step 4 = Yes, step 5 = No, step 6 = No, step 7 = No (Global passes) | | | | |||
5
| bm5-1a | Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 1 saturated layer (Case LGZM1) |
|
|
|
| |
bm5-1b | Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 1 saturated layer (Case LGZM2) |
|
|
|
| ||
bm5-1c | Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 1 saturated layer (Case LGZM3) |
|
|
|
| ||
bm5-1d | Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 1 saturated layer (Case LGZM4) |
|
|
|
| ||
bm5-1e | Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 1 saturated layer (Case SIMPLETA) |
|
|
|
| ||
bm5-1f | Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 1 saturated layer (Case LG1D5N5H) |
|
|
|
| ||
bm5-1g | Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 1 saturated layer (Case HBPZBUI3) |
|
|
|
| ||
bm5-2 | Comparison with SLIQ2D-Windows - 2 layers partially saturated |
|
|
|
| ||
bm5-3 | Comparison with HMBreach - 1 layer |
|
|
| |
(a) The Global and Detailed checks with D-FLOW SLIDE fail whereas according to the by hand calculation they should succeed. However, by lack of information, the input value of several parameters (state parameter, critical retrogression length and migration velocity foreshore) is set arbitrary. Therefore, this comparison is not completely relevant, and it can't be concluded that the program gives incorrect results.
(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.
