MWDAM-1057/1056: For design results, the actual values for all kind of Z-values which are based on the redesigned surface line are corrrected in the new UI. MWDAM-1057/1056/1155 For design results, the profilename and the profile probability are now always filled. MWDAM-1057/1056 When performing a calculation, selected but not relevant calculations are now given back in the calcultion log as not relevant to inform the user. An example of this is when a location is selected with both piping as well as stability profiles but only a stability calculation is performed. The, for each piping profile a message is logged to say that this is not relevant. Also, when calculations fail the preparation stage of the calculation this is logged to inform the user. MWDAM-1057 The combination of outwards stability and zone areas is no longer allowed. MWDAM-1161 In Release, when for model BishopUpliftVan an UpliftVan calculation failed for one the location-profile combinations, all the combinations for this location were not calculated with Bishop anymore. In new version all combinations are calculated. When one the calculations fails, the overall result for this combination is the failed one. MWDAM-1034 The displayed uplift factor for Piping (Bligh, Sellmeijer4Forces and SellmeijerVNK) was not correct. The calculation was made correctly. MWDAM-1034 The PL3/PL4 values in Piping results in Dam 15.1 were corrected for uplift. This should only be done for stability calculations. MWDAM-1180 The parameter UseNewMinDistanceDikeToeStartDitch is not correctly applied. While testing you have to work around this. To correctly compare with Dam 15.1.2.24738, the parameter should always be set to True (because that is the current behaviour). MWDAM-1219 As must be clear from the issue itself, the actual problem is not with the determination of the pl-line 4 but with the determination of the correct scenario (i.e. Hydraulic Shortcut versus No Hydraulic Shortcut). This was due that in the original dam a mistake was made in the determination of the Location With Lowest UpliftFactor. In that old version, it was assumed that eacht surface line (in RD) is given from left to right but never bothered to check this. So, for surface lines running from right to left (as is the case here) this produced a wrong result. In the new (engine) version this mistake has been corrected by the fact that the engine always uses localised surface lines which always run from left to right. So the engine results are the correct results. MWDAM-1223 When design was made for piping calculations in combination with DTH adaption the Sf piping was set to '1' if crest was adapted to DTH. Now real safety factor is calculated. MWDAM-1225 Message The surfaceline points are not ascending (x-values) for same project no message in DAM 15.1 Surfaceline validator in DAM 15.1 was not correct and accepted vertical lines in surfacelines. Vertical lines has to be avoided in D-Geo Stability due to possible failing calculations. MWDAM-1227 As with MWDAM-1219 the real problem is the correct determination of the Location With Lowest UpliftFactor. Old DAM uses (wrongly) global surface line whereas the engine uses the correct localised surface line. The effect here is a different value for xCoordinateLastUpliftPoint which is passed on to the DGSMStabDam.dll which determines the grid. MWDAM-1237 DAM 15.1 always calculated with Psi=Phi since Psi wsa no input in D-Geo Stability 15. Later versions of D-Geo Stability (also 18.1) consider Psi as input. Also DAM 18.1 always calculates with Psi=Phi. Note: When *.sti files are used with a different value for Psi are 'reset' to psi=phi. MWDAM-1238 Piping design calculation with geometry adaption gives wrong safety factor in result in release 15.1. This issue has been solved, so the safety factors in design calculation with geometry adaption will be different than in the 15.1 release version. The new answers are the correct answers. MWDAM-1261-DAM Design: Undo/Redo does not work properly; same bug but different effect in 15.1 to 18.1 MWDAM-1272 DAM 15.1 assigned PL4 to a layer which was intercepted by the surface line. MWDAM-1273 See MWDAM-1219 above as this has the same cause for the problem: In Old DAM, the determination of the regional scenarios is done based on een suface line given in global RD coordinates. This while all plline data is local. So trying to find the proper phreatic level for any given point of the surface line ALWAYS results in the last level of line PL1 as the point of the surfacel line is way betong the PL1 line. The new version has all data in local coordinates so the proper phreatic level is found, resulting in a better uplift factor and therefor other results (amongst which the proper status for hydraulic shortcut). MWDAM-1274 In v15.1, in the determination of regional assessment scenarios, extending the 1D geometry to the surface level (when needed) was done by stretching the top layer. This should have been done by adding a layer on top of the original top layer with DikeEmbankmentMaterial as material. In v18, this correct way is implemented. Note that the difference in results may be neglectable is most cases.