From 56d764a8902ec16cdcecc02ccaf9d92ba4127bbb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 18:31:46 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Add the CLE Core Compaction Screening technical reference manual to the System Response Library New document, registered as an active draft. --- .../v1.0/00-document-info.mdx | 25 ++ .../v1.0/00-version-history.mdx | 23 ++ .../v1.0/01-preface.mdx | 42 +++ .../v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx | 140 +++++++++ .../v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx | 157 ++++++++++ .../v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx | 277 ++++++++++++++++++ .../v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx | 179 +++++++++++ .../v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx | 114 +++++++ .../v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx | 104 +++++++ .../v1.0/_input-needed.md | 124 ++++++++ src/docConfig.js | 2 +- .../v1.0/bib.json | 17 ++ 12 files changed, 1203 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md create mode 100644 static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..56831d574 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +title: Document Info +reportDate: October 2026 +reportType: Technical Reference +reportTitle: CLE Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual +reportSubTitle: System Response Library +reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.'] +reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) core compaction screening model in the System Response library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level for concentrated leak erosion through a continuous zone of poorly compacted soil within the embankment core. The probability of the flaw is estimated by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of the core compaction category, the width and width-to-height ratio of the embankment section, and borrow variability, followed by a flaw-continuity stage keyed to the compaction category; an observation of embankment leakage or wet spots overrides the flaw probability to certainty and sets the flaw elevation. Initiation is evaluated by a Monte Carlo cylindrical-pipe hydraulic shear stress analysis at the base of the flaw, and the remaining nodes of the eight-node CLE event tree follow the methods shared by the CLE screening family. The model applies simplifications appropriate for screening-level risk analysis. +reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Core Compaction', 'Poor Compaction', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Critical Shear Stress', 'Monte Carlo'] +citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, CLE Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual, Lakewood, CO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, 2026.' +--- + +import Link from '@docusaurus/Link'; +import DocumentMetadata from '@site/src/components/DocumentMetadata'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; + + + +# Document Information + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..27589fe61 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +--- +title: Version History +--- + +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableVersionHistory from '@site/src/components/TableVersionHistory'; + + + +# Version History + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fb9876ab3 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +--- +title: Preface +--- + +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; + + + +# Preface + +This document provides a technical reference for the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) core compaction screening model in the System Response +library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) as a function of headwater elevation for concentrated leak erosion through a +continuous zone of poorly compacted soil within the embankment core. It is a screening-level model: it applies simplifications intended to reduce +input burden while avoiding false negatives, and any application that performs screening-level risk analysis can use it. + +The model is one of eight CLE screening models that share one event tree and most of their methods. Those shared methods are documented once, in +the [Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), +and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared method documented in the +[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface). +This document covers what is specific to the core compaction mechanism: its flaw assessment, its mechanism-specific inputs, how it populates each +node of the shared event tree, the assumptions it adds, and the results it reports. Each section that relies on a shared method links the chapter +that documents it. + +The intended audience includes dam safety engineers evaluating whether the model is appropriate for their assessment, and peer reviewers checking +the technical basis of screening-level results. Readers are assumed to have a general background in internal-erosion risk analysis — event trees, +concentrated leak erosion mechanics, and probability concepts — but no familiarity with the software implementation is required. + +## Document Organization + +- **[Model Overview](./02-model-overview.mdx)** — The model's purpose and intended use, a summary of its execution pathway from inputs to + results, its engineering basis, a comparison with detailed methods, and how it relates to the shared CLE methods and the toolbox methods. +- **[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)** — The mechanism-specific inputs (the normal pool elevation, the core compaction category, the + leakage observation and its elevation, and the optional flaw base width and height), and how the model takes each of the inputs it shares with + the CLE family. +- **[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)** — The three scored factors, the weighted sum and its flaw-probability curve, the flaw-continuity + stage, the resulting flaw probabilities, the observation override, and the base-of-flaw elevation. +- **[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)** — How the model populates each of the eight nodes, including the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis and + the continuation method it delegates to, and how the SRP is computed. +- **[Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx)** — Each assumption the model adds to the shared CLE assumptions, with its + engineering basis, its effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold. +- **[Output and Interpretation](./07-output-and-interpretation.mdx)** — The results the model produces, how to read the flaw assessment and the + system response curve, checks on a result, and the role of screening results relative to detailed analysis. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c101b334b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@ +--- +title: Model Overview +--- + +import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation'; +import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Model Overview + +## Purpose + +The CLE core compaction screening model computes a system response curve for concentrated leak erosion through a continuous zone of poorly +compacted soil within the embankment core, as a function of headwater elevation. The system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level is +the conditional probability of breach of the embankment by concentrated leak erosion along such a zone, given that pool level. + +The flaw is a zone of poorly compacted soil that runs continuously through the core from the upstream face to the downstream face, so that water +from the reservoir can flow along it. The model idealizes the zone as a horizontal cylindrical pipe at a base-of-flaw elevation. Erosion begins when +the hydraulic shear stress of the flow on the pipe wall exceeds the critical shear stress of the core soil, and breach requires the further +conditions common to every concentrated leak erosion failure mode: an unfiltered exit, a pipe that stays open and is neither filled nor starved of +flow, unsuccessful intervention, and an uncontrolled release of the impounded water (see the +[Model Overview](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#purpose) of the CLE Common Methods +manual). + +## Intended Use + +The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion through poorly compacted core material. Like the other CLE screening models, +it makes simplifying and generally conservative assumptions with two goals +(see [Intended Use](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) in the CLE Common +Methods manual): + +- **Preventing false negatives** — The model is designed to avoid underestimating risk at the screening level, so that embankments with a + potential core compaction concern are flagged for further analysis. +- **Reducing input burden** — A qualitative core compaction category and the dimensions of the embankment section stand in for a detailed review of + construction records, and default distributions cover the critical shear stress of the core soil and the initial diameter of the flaw. Where the + compaction of the core is not known, the user selects Unknown rather than guessing. + +The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments. For those, the concentrated leak erosion toolbox methods and the +internal-erosion probability methods of Fell et al. (2024) provide the complete methodologies (see +[Comparison with Detailed Models](#comparison-with-detailed-models)). + +## How the Model Works + +The model executes three stages: + +1. **Flaw assessment** — The model scores three factors: the core compaction category, the continuity of the embankment section (its base width and + its width-to-height ratio), and borrow variability, which is fixed. The weighted sum of the scores is converted to a raw flaw probability, which + is multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to the compaction category. The base of the flaw is placed one third of the way from the + normal pool to the crest. An observation of embankment leakage or wet spots replaces both results: the flaw probability becomes 1.0 and the base + of the flaw becomes the observed elevation. The flaw probability is the same at every pool level (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)). + +2. **Pathway resolution** — The flaw is at one elevation, so the failure pathway is fixed: the user states whether a filter intercepts it by + supplying, or omitting, the filter and base-soil description, and lists the embankment materials the pipe passes through and the upstream + seepage-limiting elements present. A wall whose top is below the base of the flaw is set aside (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). + +3. **Event-tree assembly** — At each headwater level, the model multiplies the probabilities of the eight CLE event-tree nodes to produce the SRP. + Initiation is evaluated by a Monte Carlo cylindrical-pipe analysis of the hydraulic shear stress at the base of the flaw and is the only node that + varies with pool level; the other seven nodes are each one value (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). + +## Physics Basis + +The model combines the following engineering methods: + +- **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** for the probability that a continuous poorly compacted zone exists, in which each factor is + assigned a likelihood factor, weighted by a risk factor, and the weighted sum is mapped to a flaw probability + (see the [Risk-Factor and Likelihood-Factor Scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) + section of the CLE Common Methods manual) +- **Hydraulic shear stress on the wall of a cylindrical pipe**, compared with the critical shear stress of the core soil, for the initiation of + erosion, as documented in the + [Cylindrical Pipe](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe) chapter + of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation manual +- **Filter evaluation** for the probability that erosion continues past a filter intercepting the pathway, through the shared continuation method + documented in the + [Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil) + chapter and the method chapters of the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual +- **Roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation probabilities** for the progression conditions , as + documented in the + [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) + chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual + +## Comparison with Detailed Models + +The detailed counterparts of the screening model are the concentrated leak erosion toolbox methods and the internal-erosion probability methods of +Fell et al. (2024) applied in full. The comparison that holds for the whole CLE family is given in +[Comparison with Detailed Models](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#comparison-with-detailed-models) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. summarizes the differences specific to a core +compaction flaw. + + + +## Relationship to the Common Methods and Toolbox Models + +The core compaction model is one of the four compaction models of the CLE family (see +[The Two Model Groups](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#the-two-model-groups) in the CLE +Common Methods manual). It shares the following with the family, and this manual links the shared documentation rather than repeating it: + +- **The eight-node event tree and the SRP computation** — the + [Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual. +- **The scoring scheme, the flaw-continuity stage, and the normal-pool heuristic for the base of the flaw** — the + [Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions) chapter. +- **The cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis**, which the model hands to the same method as the standalone Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation + toolbox, supplying the base of the flaw, the embankment section, and default distributions for the critical shear stress and the initial pipe + diameter — the + [Delegated Method: Cylindrical Pipe Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) + section of the Initiation chapter. +- **The continuation, roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation nodes** — the + [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) + chapter, with the continuation method itself in the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual. + +What this manual documents in full is the flaw assessment ([Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)), the mechanism-specific inputs +([Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)), and the choices this model makes where the family allows more than one +([Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..24d546506 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@ +--- +title: Input Parameters +--- + +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Input Parameters + +The core compaction model takes two kinds of input. Most are the inputs shared by the CLE family, documented in full in the +[Common Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the CLE Common +Methods manual: the hydraulic loading, the units and datum convention, the embankment description, the failure-pathway inputs, the upstream +seepage-limiting elements, the initiation material inputs of the compaction models, and the intervention and breach probabilities. The rest are +specific to this mechanism: the normal pool elevation, the flaw inputs, and two optional dimensions that replace the section geometry in the flaw +scoring. This chapter documents the mechanism-specific inputs in full, then states how the model takes each shared input where the family allows +more than one form. + +## Mechanism-Specific Inputs + + lists the mechanism-specific inputs. All elevations are on the datum of the +headwater series and all lengths are in its unit (see +[Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum) in the CLE Common +Methods manual). + +np', '—', '—', 'zlk', 'W', 'H'], + ['elevation', 'selection', 'yes or no', 'elevation', 'length', 'length'], + [ + 'Finite; below the crest', + 'One of four categories', + 'Yes or no', + 'Finite; within the embankment section', + '> 0', + '> 0', + ], + [ + 'Required', + 'Required unless leakage is observed', + 'No', + 'Required when leakage is observed', + 'Derived from the section', + 'Derived from the section', + ], + ]} +/> + +### Normal pool elevation + +The normal pool elevation $z_{np}$ is the lower reference of the heuristic that places the base of the flaw one third of the way from the normal +pool to the crest (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-the-flaw)). It is supplied by the user and is not taken from the headwater +series. The crest elevation $z_c$ must be above it. The normal pool is required even when an observation of leakage sets the base of the flaw, +although it then has no effect on the result. + +### Core compaction category + +The core compaction category describes the compaction of the core material and is the most heavily weighted factor of the flaw assessment (see +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#compaction-factor)). The choices are: + +- **Well compacted** — the least likely condition for a continuous poorly compacted zone. +- **Poorly compacted** +- **Very poorly compacted** — the most likely condition for a continuous poorly compacted zone. +- **Unknown** — the compaction of the core cannot be judged from the available information. + +The category is required unless an observation of leakage or wet spots is reported. When the observation is reported, the category is optional; if +it is supplied, the model still scores it and reports the scores, but the scores do not affect the result. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-01 — Definition] +The four core compaction categories (Well compacted, Poorly compacted, Very poorly compacted, Unknown) are offered without a definition. State what +construction practice or evidence each category represents — for example, the compaction equipment, lift thickness, moisture control, and density +testing that place a core in each category — so that the user can select between them, or cite the table in Fell et al. (2024) that defines them. +State also when Unknown should be selected rather than a judged category, given that Unknown scores between Poorly compacted and Very poorly +compacted (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#compaction-factor)). +::: + +### Embankment leakage or wet spots observed + +Reporting that leakage or wet spots have been observed on the embankment states that the flaw is demonstrated. The flaw probability is then 1.0, +whatever the compaction category and the section geometry would score, and the base of the flaw is set to the observed elevation (see +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#observation-override)). When no observation is reported, the flaw probability is scored. + +### Leakage or wet-spot elevation + +The leakage or wet-spot elevation $z_{lk}$ is the elevation of the observed leakage or wet spots. It is required when an observation is reported +and becomes the base of the flaw, replacing the normal-pool heuristic. Like any base of the flaw, it must lie within the embankment section used for +initiation: at or below the top of that section, at or above the lowest segment bottom of each face, and at a positive elevation (see +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-the-flaw)). What the elevation should represent is requested at marker IN-08 in +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#observation-override). + +### Flaw base width and flaw height + +The continuity factor of the flaw assessment bands the base width $W$ of the embankment section and its width-to-height ratio $W/H$ (see +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#continuity-factor)). By default both are derived from the embankment section the model uses — the core +section when one is supplied, the shell section otherwise — as described in +[Section Geometry Used in Scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#section-geometry-used-in-scoring) +in the CLE Common Methods manual: $W$ is the top width of the section plus the horizontal spans of both faces down to its lowest segment bottom, and +$H$ is the height of the section from that bottom to its top. + +Either dimension may be supplied instead, and each must then be positive. A supplied value replaces the derived value in the flaw scoring only; the +initiation analysis always uses the embankment section itself. The section must still resolve to a positive height and base width. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-02 — Definition] +State what the user-supplied flaw base width $W$ and flaw height $H$ are meant to represent and when they should be supplied in place of the +dimensions derived from the embankment section — for example, where the low-permeability part of the section is bounded by a drain or filter zone +that the slope-segment tables do not describe, or where the core section is not supplied. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): $W$ is the horizontal width of the section at its base, measured from the upstream toe to the first drain or filter zone the +pathway meets (or from toe to toe when there is none), and $H$ is the height from the crest to the lower of the two toes. Confirm or replace. +::: + +## How the Model Takes the Shared Inputs + +The shared inputs are documented in the CLE Common Methods manual. Where the family allows a choice, the core compaction model takes them as +follows. + +- **Hydraulic loading** — a headwater series and an optional tailwater series, as described in + [Hydraulic Loading](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#hydraulic-loading). Tailwater + reduces the net head across the flaw in the initiation analysis. +- **Embankment description** — the crest elevation $z_c$, the embankment type, the shell section, and the optional core section, as described in + [Embankment Description](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#embankment-description). + When a core section is supplied, it is used for both the flaw scoring and the initiation analysis, whatever the embankment type; + otherwise the shell section is used. A partially described core section leaves the inputs inconsistent, and the analysis is not evaluated; the shell is not substituted for it. The embankment type sets only the crack-filling probability. The crest elevation, not the top of the core, + is the upper reference of the base-of-flaw heuristic. +- **Filter presence and continuation inputs** — this model has no separate filter-presence selection. Supplying the filter and base-soil + description of the shared continuation method states that a filter intercepts the failure pathway at the base of the flaw; omitting it states + that none does (see + [Failure-Pathway Inputs](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#failure-pathway-inputs) and + the [Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the Continuation (Filter + Evaluation) Screening manual). The model does not compare the filter with any elevation, so the user decides whether the filter reaches the base + of the flaw. +- **Embankment materials** — the USCS classes of the materials the pipe passes through, at least one, which set the roof-support probability. The + core soil classification is not added to this list automatically; the core material is listed here if the pipe passes through it. +- **Upstream seepage-limiting elements and top-of-wall elevation** — as described in + [Upstream Seepage-Limiting Elements](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#upstream-seepage-limiting-elements). + A top-of-wall elevation may be given only when a wall is among the elements, and is compared once with the base of the flaw. +- **Initiation material inputs** — the core soil classification and the optional critical shear stress, initial pipe diameter, and seepage path + length, as described in + [Initiation Material Inputs](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#initiation-material-inputs). + Left blank, the initial pipe diameter defaults to a triangular distribution with a low value of 2 mm, a most likely value of 3 mm, and a high + value of 5 mm (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-2-initiation)). +- **Intervention and breach** — the probabilities of unsuccessful intervention and of breach, each defaulting to 1.0, as described in + [Intervention and Breach](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach). diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c32fa9c45 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,277 @@ +--- +title: Flaw Assessment +--- + +import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation'; +import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote'; +import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation'; +import EquationReference from '@site/src/components/EquationReference'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Flaw Assessment + +Node 1 of the event tree is the probability $P_{flaw}$ that a continuous zone of poorly compacted soil exists through the embankment core. The flaw +assessment also fixes the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$, which sets the pipe invert of the initiation analysis (Node 2) and is the elevation the +top of any upstream wall is compared with (Node 6); the other nodes do not use it. The assessment is deterministic and does not depend on pool level, so $P_{flaw}$ and $z_f$ are the same at every headwater. + +The assessment follows the conventions shared by the CLE family, documented in the +[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions) chapter of the CLE Common Methods +manual. It runs in two stages: + +1. **Scoring** — three factors are scored and combined into a weighted sum, which is converted to a raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$. +2. **Flaw continuity** — $P_{raw}$ is multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$ keyed to the compaction score, giving $P_{flaw}$. + +An observation of embankment leakage or wet spots overrides both stages and the base-of-flaw heuristic (see +[Observation Override](#observation-override)). + +## Factors + +The model scores the three factors of by the risk-factor and likelihood-factor +scheme of Fell et al. (2024) , described in +[Risk-Factor and Likelihood-Factor Scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. Each factor carries a risk factor $RF$, its weight, and a likelihood factor $LF$ on a scale on which 1 is the least +likely condition for a flaw and 4 the most likely. + + + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-03 — Engineering Basis] +The choice of the three factors and their risk factors (core compaction 3, continuity 2, borrow variability 1) requires an engineering basis. +Provide the table of Fell et al. (2024) from which the factors and weights are taken, or the engineering-judgment attribution to state here. +::: + +### Compaction factor + +The likelihood factor of the core compaction factor, $LF_{comp}$, is set by the core compaction category +(). The table also gives the flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$ that the same +score selects in the second stage (see [Flaw Continuity](#flaw-continuity)). + +-3', '1 × 10-1', '1 × 10-2'], + ]} +/> + +No category carries a likelihood factor of 2. The Unknown category scores 3.5, between Poorly compacted and Very poorly compacted, so selecting +Unknown gives a higher flaw probability than selecting Poorly compacted. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-04 — Engineering Basis] +The compaction likelihood factors of (Well compacted 1, Poorly compacted 3, +Very poorly compacted 4, Unknown 3.5) require an engineering basis. State the source of the values, why no category scores 2, and why Unknown is +scored at 3.5 — above Poorly compacted — rather than at a central value. Provide the table of Fell et al. (2024) they are taken from, or the +engineering-judgment attribution. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): Unknown is scored toward the poorly compacted end of the scale as a conservative screening posture, so that a core whose +compaction cannot be judged is not credited as better compacted than the evidence supports. Confirm or replace. +::: + +### Continuity factor + +The continuity factor scores the dimensions of the embankment section through which a poorly compacted zone would have to run. Its likelihood +factor $LF_{cont}$ is the larger of two banded scores, one of the base width $W$ and one of the width-to-height ratio $W/H$: + + + + + +where $W$ and $H$ are the base width and height of the embankment section — the core section when one is supplied, otherwise the shell — or the +user-supplied flaw base width and flaw height (see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-base-width-and-flaw-height)). The section +height $H$ is the quantity written $H_s$ in +[Section Geometry Used in Scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#section-geometry-used-in-scoring) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. The base width is in the length unit of the elevations. lists the bands. + + + +Taking the larger of the two scores means that either a narrow section or a slender one is enough to make a continuous flaw more likely: a section +scores 1 only when it is both wider than 50 and more than twice as wide as it is high. A band boundary itself belongs to the band below it; for +example, a base width of exactly 50 scores 2. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-05 — Engineering Basis] +The continuity bands of (base width boundaries 50, 30, and 15; width-to-height +boundaries 2, 0.75, and 0.25) and the rule that the larger of the two scores governs () +require an engineering basis. Provide the source table or the engineering-judgment attribution, and state the unit of the base-width boundaries: +the model applies them to the base width in whatever length unit the elevations use, with no conversion. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): the base-width boundaries are in feet, so a user working in meters should convert the section before running the model. +Confirm or replace. +::: + +### Borrow variability factor + +The borrow variability factor has a fixed likelihood factor $LF_{var} = 2.5$. It is not a user selection and does not vary between sites. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-06 — Engineering Basis] +The borrow variability factor and its fixed likelihood factor of 2.5 require a definition and an engineering basis. State what the factor represents +physically (for example, the variability of the borrow material placed in the core, which can leave zones of more erodible or less compactable +soil), why it is fixed rather than selected by the user, and the basis for the value of 2.5, between likelihood factors 2 and 3. +::: + +## Weighted Sum and Raw Flaw Probability + +The three scores combine into the weighted sum + + + +with $LF_{var} = 2.5$, which ranges from 7.5 (well compacted, continuity score 1) to 22.5 (very poorly compacted, continuity score 4). The raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$ is +interpolated from , linearly in the logarithm of the probability between +tabulated points, as described in +[Flaw Probability from the Weighted Sum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. + +-4', '5 × 10-4', '2 × 10-3', '4 × 10-2', '5 × 10-1'], + ]} +/> + +Every attainable weighted sum lies inside the tabulated range, so the end values are never held. Because the lowest point carries a negligible +probability, the raw probability falls steeply below a weighted sum of 9; at the lowest attainable sum of 7.5 it is several orders of magnitude +below 1 × 10-4. That range matters only for a well-compacted core, whose flaw probability is negligible after the flaw-continuity stage +in any case. The model applies no lower threshold and no incompatible-condition factor, so no score forces $P_{raw}$ to zero. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-07 — Engineering Basis] +The tabulated raw flaw probabilities of (weighted sum 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 24 → +negligible, 1 × 10-4, 5 × 10-4, 2 × 10-3, 4 × 10-2, 5 × 10-1) require an engineering +basis. Provide the figure or table of Fell et al. (2024) from which they are taken, or the engineering-judgment attribution, including the basis for +anchoring the curve at a negligible probability at a weighted sum of 6, below the lowest attainable sum of 7.5. +::: + +## Flaw Continuity + +The second stage multiplies the raw probability by the flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$, interpolated log-linearly from the compaction score +on the curve the model shares with the wall or cliff and the foundation or abutment compaction models (see +[Flaw-Continuity Stage](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-continuity-stage) in the CLE +Common Methods manual): + + + +The value for each category is listed in . The Unknown score of 3.5 is +interpolated between the points at 3 and 4, giving 1 × 10-2. The point of the curve at a score of 2 (1 × 10-4) is not used +by this model, because no category scores 2. + +The compaction category therefore enters the flaw probability twice: through its weight of 3 in the weighted sum, and again through $P_{cf}$. The +section geometry enters only through the weighted sum. + +## Resulting Flaw Probability + +Because borrow variability is fixed, the flaw probability depends only on the compaction category and the continuity score. + lists every combination. + +-6', '1.6 × 10-3', '6.6 × 10-5'], + ['Negligible', '8.9 × 10-6', '4.9 × 10-3', '2.2 × 10-4'], + ['Negligible', '3.0 × 10-5', '1.1 × 10-2', '6.1 × 10-4'], + ['Negligible', '7.5 × 10-5', '2.7 × 10-2', '1.4 × 10-3'], + ]} +/> + +A well-compacted core has a negligible flaw probability whatever the section geometry, because its flaw-continuity +probability is negligible. For the other categories, each step in the continuity score raises the flaw probability by a factor of about 2 to 3.5, +while moving from Poorly compacted to Very poorly compacted raises it by a factor of about 350 to 600, with Unknown in between. + +### Example + +An embankment section with a base width of 350 and a height of 60 (from its base at elevation 205 to a crest at elevation 265), a core of Unknown +compaction, and a normal pool at elevation 235 scores as follows: + +- $W = 350$ is greater than 50, so $LF_W = 1$; $W/H = 5.83$ is greater than 2, so $LF_{W/H} = 1$; hence $LF_{cont} = 1$. +- Unknown compaction gives $LF_{comp} = 3.5$. +- $\Sigma = 3 \times 3.5 + 2 \times 1 + 2.5 = 15$. +- Between the tabulated points at 13 and 18, $P_{raw} = 2 \times 10^{-3} \times (20)^{0.4} \approx 6.6 \times 10^{-3}$. +- $P_{cf}(3.5) = 1 \times 10^{-2}$, so $P_{flaw} \approx 6.6 \times 10^{-5}$. +- The base of the flaw is $z_f = 235 + (265 - 235)/3 = 245$. + +## Observation Override + +When embankment leakage or wet spots are reported as observed, the flaw is taken as demonstrated: + + + +where $z_{lk}$ is the observed leakage or wet-spot elevation. The override replaces the scored probability and the normal-pool heuristic together. +It is the only CLE compaction override that also moves the flaw elevation (see +[Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in the CLE +Common Methods manual). If a compaction category is supplied with the observation, the factors are still scored and reported, but they do not +affect the result; without a category, no scores are reported. The override sets only Node 1 and the flaw elevation: every downstream node is +evaluated as usual at the observed elevation. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-08 — Definition] +State which elevation the user should enter as the leakage or wet-spot elevation $z_{lk}$ — for example, the elevation of the observed seepage exit +on the downstream face, or the lowest observed wet spot when several are observed — and the basis for taking it as the invert of a horizontal pipe +through the core. The pipe is analyzed at this elevation from the upstream face to the downstream face, so an exit that the flaw reaches by a +sloping path would place the pipe at the exit elevation rather than at the elevation of the flaw within the core. +::: + +## Base of the Flaw + +Without an observation, the base of the flaw is placed by the normal-pool heuristic shared with the abutment case of the foundation or abutment +compaction model, one third of the way from the normal pool elevation $z_{np}$ to the crest elevation $z_c$: + + + +The heuristic is documented in +[Compaction Models: Base of the Flaw](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. The upper reference is always the crest of the embankment, even when a core section with a lower top is supplied. + +Whichever way it is resolved, the base of the flaw is the invert of the pipe in the initiation analysis and must lie within the embankment section +used for initiation: at or below the top of that section (the core top when a core section is supplied, otherwise the crest), at or above the lowest +segment bottom of each face, and at a positive elevation. An analysis whose base of the flaw falls outside these limits — for example, a core top +below the heuristic elevation — is not evaluated, because its inputs are inconsistent. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..554ec17e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ +--- +title: Event Tree +--- + +import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Event Tree + +The core compaction model computes the SRP at each headwater level from the eight-node event tree shared by the CLE family. The structure of the +tree, how it relates to the concentrated leak erosion trees of the Typical Event Tree Database, the headwater grid on which it is evaluated, and the +general form of each node are documented in the +[Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual. This +chapter states how the core compaction model populates each node. + +## Node Summary + + summarizes the nodes. Only initiation varies with pool level: the flaw is at +one elevation, so the filter it meets, the materials it passes through, and the walls that reach it are the same at every pool level (see +[Pool Dependence](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#pool-dependence) in the CLE Common Methods +manual). + + + +## Node 1: Flaw + +*Question:* Does a continuous zone of poorly compacted soil exist through the embankment core? + +$P_{flaw}$ and the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$ come from the flaw assessment documented in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx). + +## Node 2: Initiation + +*Question:* At each pool level, does the flow through a pipe of initial diameter $D$ at the base of the flaw exert a hydraulic shear +stress on the pipe wall that exceeds the critical shear stress $\tau_c$ of the core soil? + +The model hands this question to the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis, documented for the compaction models in +[Delegated Method: Cylindrical Pipe Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) +in the CLE Common Methods manual, with its theory in the +[Cylindrical Pipe](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe) chapter of the +Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation manual. The analysis compares the two stresses over Monte Carlo realizations of $\tau_c$ and $D$, and the +initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ at each pool level is the fraction of realizations in which the hydraulic shear stress exceeds $\tau_c$. + +The core compaction model supplies the analysis with: + +- **The pipe invert** — the base of the flaw $z_f$ from the flaw assessment: the normal-pool heuristic, or the observed leakage elevation. +- **The embankment section** — the core section when one is supplied, otherwise the shell section, from which the seepage path length is measured + as a horizontal line at the invert (see + [Seepage Path Length](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) in the CLE Common + Methods manual), unless the user supplies a seepage path length. +- **The critical shear stress** — a triangular distribution over the range for the core soil classification (see + [Critical Shear Stress](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress) in the CLE + Common Methods manual), unless the user supplies a distribution. +- **The initial pipe diameter** — a triangular distribution with a low value of 2 mm, a most likely value of 3 mm, and a high value of 5 mm, the + range the model shares with the foundation or abutment compaction model (see + [Initial Pipe Diameter](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#initial-pipe-diameter) in the CLE + Common Methods manual), unless the user supplies a distribution. +- **The headwater and tailwater series** — evaluated on the headwater grid described in + [Headwater Grid](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#headwater-grid) in the CLE Common Methods + manual. + +The model makes no adjustment to the analysis beyond the screening-level choices common to the compaction models (see +[Screening-Level Adjustments](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#screening-level-adjustments) in +the CLE Common Methods manual). Because the pipe invert is at the base of the flaw, initiation is zero at every pool level at or below $z_f$. + +## Node 3: Continuation + +*Question:* Does a filter intercepting the failure pathway at the base of the flaw fail to stop the erosion, so that the eroded soil +leaves the embankment through an unfiltered exit? + +Where a filter intercepts the pathway, the model hands this question to the shared continuation method, which selects a method for each base soil +from the information supplied and takes the governing result, as documented in +[Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil) +in the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual. The model's use of it is documented in +[Node 3: Continuation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-3-continuation) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. The core compaction model applies it as follows: + + + +where $P_{ce}$ is the probability of continuing erosion from the continuation method. Supplying the filter and base-soil description is how the +user states that a filter intercepts the pathway; the model has no separate filter-presence selection and does not compare the filter with the +base of the flaw or with any other elevation. Because the base of the flaw is fixed, $P_{cont}$ is one value at every pool level. The +continuation method is not evaluated when no filter inputs are supplied. + +The user resolves the filter question at the base of the flaw $z_f$, whichever way it is set. A filter whose top lies below $z_f$ — the +heuristic elevation or the observed leakage elevation $z_{lk}$ — does not intercept the pathway at the flaw elevation and should not be supplied. +For example, when the base of the flaw comes from the normal-pool heuristic, its elevation is $z_{np} + (z_c - z_{np})/3$ (see +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-the-flaw)), and only a filter whose top reaches that elevation should be supplied. + +## Node 4: Progression — Roof Support + +*Question:* Does a continuous stable roof form over the enlarging pipe, so that it stays open? + +$P_{roof}$ is the minimum of the roof-support probabilities of the embankment materials the user lists, from the table in +[Node 4: Progression — Roof Support](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-4-progression--roof-support) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. At least one material must be listed. The same value applies at every pool level. + +## Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling + +*Question:* Does the enlarging pipe remain unfilled by material carried in from upstream? + +$P_{nf}$ is set by the embankment type, from the table in +[Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-5-progression--no-crack-filling) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. The embankment type has no other effect in this model. + +## Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation + +*Question:* Does the flow into the enlarging pipe remain unrestricted by upstream seepage-limiting elements? + +$P_{nl}$ is the minimum of the probabilities of no flow limitation of the upstream elements that apply, or 1.0 when none is listed, from the table +in +[Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-6-progression--no-flow-limitation) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. When a top-of-wall elevation $z_{tw}$ is supplied, the walls are judged once against the base of the flaw, as +described in +[Walls That Stop Below the Crest](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#walls-that-stop-below-the-crest): + +- $z_{tw} \ge z_f$ — the wall reaches the flaw, and every listed element applies. +- $z_{tw} < z_f$ — the walls drop out, and only the upstream facing element, if listed, applies. + +With no top-of-wall elevation, every listed element applies. Under an observation override, the comparison is made against the observed leakage +elevation, since that is then the base of the flaw. Either way, one value applies at every pool level. + +## Nodes 7 and 8: Unsuccessful Intervention and Breach + +*Questions:* Do detection and intervention fail (Node 7)? Does an uncontrolled release of impounded water occur (Node 8)? + +$P_{int}$ and $P_{br}$ are the user-specified values, each defaulting to 1.0, applied at every pool level (see +[Nodes 7 and 8](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#nodes-7-and-8-unsuccessful-intervention-and-breach) +in the CLE Common Methods manual). + +## SRP Computation + +The SRP at each pool level $h$ is the product of the eight node probabilities, of which only initiation depends on $h$: + + + +A product smaller than a negligibly small value, including a product of zero, is reported as that value instead (see +[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the CLE Common Methods +manual). The SRP takes this value at every pool level at or below the base of the flaw, where initiation is zero, and at every pool level when the +core is well compacted and no observation override applies, because its flaw probability is smaller still. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..02c7ca3c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +--- +title: Assumptions and Limitations +--- + +import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation'; +import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; + + + +# Assumptions and Limitations + +The core compaction model makes every assumption shared by the CLE family — the product form of the event tree, the cylindrical-pipe idealization +of a compaction flaw, the default critical shear stress ranges, the fixed failure pathway of a compaction flaw, and the tabulated progression +probabilities — each listed with its basis, effect, and limits in the +[Assumptions and Limitations](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) chapter of the +CLE Common Methods manual. This chapter lists the assumptions the core compaction model adds or makes specific. Each states its engineering basis, +its effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold. Where a basis is still awaiting confirmation, the assumption +cross-references the input marker at its primary location. + +## Flaw Assessment + +1. **The likelihood of a continuous poorly compacted zone is captured by three factors: core compaction, the continuity of the section, and borrow + variability.** No other influence on the flaw is scored (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#factors)). + - *Engineering basis:* The risk-factor and likelihood-factor scheme of Fell et al. (2024) ; the basis of the + factors and weights is requested at marker IN-03 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#factors). + - *Effect on results:* The core compaction factor, with a weight of 3, moves the weighted sum by up to 9; the continuity factor, with a weight of + 2, by up to 6; borrow variability adds a constant 2.5. + - *When it may not hold:* Where site information bears on the flaw in ways the three factors do not represent; the risk team's estimate then + replaces the screening value. +2. **The compaction of the core is described by one of four qualitative categories, and Unknown is scored between Poorly compacted and Very poorly + compacted.** + - *Engineering basis:* Requested at markers IN-01 in [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#core-compaction-category) and IN-04 in + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#compaction-factor). + - *Effect on results:* Selecting Unknown gives a flaw probability about 19 to 25 times that of Poorly compacted for the same section (see + [Resulting Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#resulting-flaw-probability)). + - *When it may not hold:* Where the core's compaction varies along its length or with depth; one category represents the whole core. +3. **The continuity of a poorly compacted zone is scored from the base width and width-to-height ratio of the section, and the less favorable of the + two governs.** + - *Engineering basis:* Requested at marker IN-05 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#continuity-factor). + - *Effect on results:* Without an observation, a narrow or slender section raises the flaw probability by a factor of about 2 to 3.5 per band + for a Poorly compacted, Very poorly compacted, or Unknown core. A well-compacted core stays negligible whatever the geometry, and under the + observation override the geometry does not affect the flaw probability. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the section is described in a length unit other than the one the base-width bands assume (see marker IN-05), or + where the low-permeability part of the section differs from the section described by the slope-segment tables; the flaw base width and height + can then be supplied (see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-base-width-and-flaw-height)). +4. **Borrow variability is fixed at a likelihood factor of 2.5 for every site.** + - *Engineering basis:* Requested at marker IN-06 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#borrow-variability-factor). + - *Effect on results:* Borrow variability contributes the same 2.5 to every weighted sum, so it never distinguishes between sites. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the borrow sources are known to be uniform, the fixed 2.5 overstates the flaw probability; where they are known + to be highly variable, it understates it. +5. **The compaction category enters the flaw probability twice** — through its weight in the weighted sum and again through the flaw-continuity + probability (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-continuity)). + - *Engineering basis:* The flaw-continuity stage shared with the wall or cliff and foundation or abutment compaction models, documented in the + [Flaw-Continuity Stage](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-continuity-stage) + section of the CLE Common Methods manual. + - *Effect on results:* A well-compacted core has a negligible flaw probability whatever the section geometry, and the flaw probability spans + many orders of magnitude across the four categories. + - *When it may not hold:* Where compaction records conflict with field performance, such as observed seepage through a core rated well + compacted; the observation override then applies. +6. **An observation of embankment leakage or wet spots demonstrates the flaw and locates it.** The flaw probability is set to 1.0 and the base of the + flaw to the observed elevation (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#observation-override)). + - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment that an observation demonstrates the flaw, as for every CLE observation override (see the + [assumptions of the CLE Common Methods manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations#flaw)); + the meaning of the observed elevation is requested at marker IN-08 in + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#observation-override). + - *Effect on results:* The SRP is governed entirely by the downstream nodes, and initiation, flow limitation, and the user's filter judgment are + all evaluated at the observed elevation. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the leakage or wet spots have another source, such as seepage through the foundation or along a conduit, or where + the observed exit lies below or above the flaw within the core. +7. **Without an observation, the base of the flaw is one third of the way from the normal pool to the crest, measured to the crest even when a lower + core top is described.** + - *Engineering basis:* The normal-pool heuristic shared with the abutment case of the foundation or abutment compaction model, documented in + [Compaction Models: Base of the Flaw](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw) + in the CLE Common Methods manual. + - *Effect on results:* The SRP is negligible at pool levels at or below this elevation, and a wall is credited only if its top reaches it. A + core top below this elevation leaves the inputs inconsistent, and the analysis is not evaluated. + - *When it may not hold:* Where construction records or performance locate the poorly compacted zone. A zone lower in the core carries more + head at every pool level and begins to initiate at a lower pool, so the heuristic is unconservative there: the SRP at normal pool, for + example, is negligible even if the zone lies below normal pool. When leakage or wet spots locate the zone, the observation override should be + used. + +## Failure Pathway and Initiation + +8. **The user decides whether a filter intercepts the pathway, and the continuation probability is one value at every pool level.** Supplying the + filter and base-soil description states that a filter is present; the model does not compare the filter with the base of the flaw (see + [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-3-continuation)). + - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment: a compaction flaw is at one elevation, so the filter it meets does not change with the pool (see + the [assumptions of the CLE Common Methods manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations#failure-pathway-and-progression)). + - *Effect on results:* A supplied filter multiplies the SRP at every pool level by the continuation probability $P_{ce}$, which lowers it + whenever $P_{ce}$ is below 1.0. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the filter's top lies near the base of the flaw, or where the base of the flaw is uncertain; supplying a filter + that does not reach the flaw credits it wrongly, so the user should confirm that it reaches the base of the flaw. +9. **When a core section is supplied, it governs both the flaw scoring and the initiation analysis, whatever the embankment type.** + - *Engineering basis:* The pipe-length measurement of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, which measures across the impervious core + of a zoned embankment with very permeable outer zones (see + [Seepage Path Length](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) in the CLE + Common Methods manual); for the flaw scoring, the dimensions the continuity factor should measure are requested at marker IN-02 in + [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-base-width-and-flaw-height). + - *Effect on results:* A core narrower than the shell gives a shorter seepage path, a steeper gradient, and a higher initiation probability, and + can raise the continuity score. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the shells are not free draining and share the head loss with the core; the shell section or a supplied seepage + path length then describes the flaw better. +10. **The default initial pipe diameter is a triangular distribution from 2 mm to 5 mm, most likely 3 mm.** + - *Engineering basis:* See + [Initial Pipe Diameter](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#initial-pipe-diameter) in the CLE + Common Methods manual. + - *Effect on results:* The hydraulic shear stress is proportional to the diameter, so the range sets how high the pool must rise before + initiation becomes likely; larger diameters (a range shifted upward) lower that pool level. The critical shear stress and the seepage path + length also set that pool level. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the poorly compacted zone is expected to carry a larger or smaller initial opening; a site-specific distribution + should then be supplied. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..55f45e743 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +--- +title: Output and Interpretation +--- + +import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation'; +import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote'; +import EquationNoRef from '@site/src/components/EquationNoRef'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; + + + +# Output and Interpretation + +The core compaction model reports the SRP at each evaluated pool level together with the probability of each of the eight nodes and the supporting +results of the flaw assessment and the initiation analysis. The results it shares with the other compaction models — the pool-independent node +values, the pool-dependent series, and the initiation results — are described in the +[Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the CLE +Common Methods manual. This chapter describes the results specific to this model and how to read them. + +## Results + +**Pool-independent results:** + +- **Flaw probability** $P_{flaw}$ — Node 1, from the flaw assessment; 1.0 when the observation override applies. +- **Continuation probability** $P_{cont}$ — Node 3: the continuation method's result when filter inputs are supplied, otherwise 1.0. When the + continuation method is evaluated, its own results are reported with it — the governing base soil and method and the result for each base soil + (see the [Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the + Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual). +- **Roof-support probability** $P_{roof}$ — Node 4, the minimum across the embankment materials. +- **Crack-filling probability** $P_{nf}$ — Node 5, for the embankment type. +- **Flow-limitation probability** $P_{nl}$ — Node 6, after any wall below the base of the flaw has dropped out. + +**Pool-dependent series**, at every evaluated pool level: the pool level, the tailwater, the initiation probability, the flow-limitation, +unsuccessful-intervention, and breach probabilities (each the same at every pool level), and the SRP. Where there is no tailwater, the tailwater +entry is the base-of-flaw elevation, the level at which tailwater gives no submergence. + +**Flaw assessment results:** + +- The compaction, continuity, and borrow variability likelihood factors $LF_{comp}$, $LF_{cont}$, and $LF_{var}$. +- The weighted sum $\Sigma$, the raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$, and the flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$. +- The base width $W$, the height $H$, and the ratio $W/H$ that the continuity factor scored — the user-supplied values when given, otherwise those + of the section. +- The base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$, and whether the observation override applied. + +When the override applies with no compaction category, no scoring is performed, so the flaw probability rests on the observation alone. + +**Initiation results:** at each pool level, the upstream and downstream heads above the pipe invert, the hydraulic gradient, and the mean and 5th, +50th, and 95th percentiles of the hydraulic shear stress; the seepage path length; and the low, most likely, and high values of the critical shear +stress and initial pipe diameter distributions used. + +## Reading the Flaw Assessment + +The flaw assessment results show what sets the level of the curve: + +- **The compaction category** acts through two stages. Without an observation, a well-compacted core gives a negligible flaw probability and a + negligible curve at every pool level, whatever the other inputs; for the same section, the other three categories differ from each other by one to three orders of magnitude (see + [Resulting Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#resulting-flaw-probability)). Because Unknown scores above Poorly compacted, replacing + Unknown with a judged category of Poorly compacted lowers the flaw probability by a factor of about 19 to 25. +- **The continuity score** shows whether the section's width or its slenderness is raising the probability. The reported $W$ and $H$ show which + dimensions were scored; if they are not the intended dimensions of the low-permeability section, the flaw base width and height can be supplied. +- **Whether the observation override applied** shows whether the observation set the flaw probability to 1.0. With the override, the curve reflects the observed + elevation, not the heuristic. + +## Interpreting the System Response Curve + +The curve has the shape described for the compaction models in +[Interpreting the System Response Curve](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#interpreting-the-system-response-curve) +in the CLE Common Methods manual. It is negligible at and below the base of the flaw and rises with pool level as the hydraulic gradient through the +pipe grows. Because only initiation varies with pool level, the curve approaches the product of the other seven nodes, + + + +as the initiation probability approaches 1.0. The pool level at which the curve begins to rise depends on the base of the flaw, the seepage path +length (measured from the section, or as supplied), the tailwater, and the critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter ranges; how close it comes to $\mathrm{SRP}_{max}$ within the evaluated pool range depends on how many +realizations initiate before the highest headwater. The node breakdown shows which node limits the curve (see +[Reading the Node Breakdown](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#reading-the-node-breakdown) +in the CLE Common Methods manual). + +## Checking the Result + +The checks of +[Checking the Result](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#checking-the-result) in +the CLE Common Methods manual apply. In addition: + +- **Flaw probability** — without the observation override, the reported $P_{flaw}$ can be reproduced from the reported likelihood factors with + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#resulting-flaw-probability), and should match the entry of the table for the reported category and + continuity score. +- **Base of the flaw** — without the override, the reported $z_f$ equals $z_{np} + (z_c - z_{np})/3$. A curve that rises from an unexpected pool + level can point to a normal pool or crest elevation on a different datum from the headwater series. +- **Filter credit** — a continuation probability below 1.0 means filter inputs were supplied; confirm that the filter reaches the reported base of + the flaw. +- **Wall credit** — when a top-of-wall elevation below $z_f$ is given, the reported flow-limitation probability $P_{nl}$ should equal the value + for the upstream elements other than walls (or 1.0 when no other element is listed). + +## Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis + +The core compaction model is a screening tool. Its result indicates whether concentrated leak erosion through poorly compacted core material +warrants detailed analysis; it is not a substitute for a detailed assessment. The compaction category, the continuity bands, the fixed borrow +variability score, the normal-pool heuristic for the flaw elevation, and the default critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter ranges are +screening values. Where the result is significant to a decision, the governing nodes should be re-examined with site-specific information — +construction records, compaction test data, erodibility testing, and the location of any observed seepage — and the detailed toolbox methods, the +methods of Fell et al. (2024) , and the judgment of the risk team should replace the screening values. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d49606e72 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +# Input Needed — CLE Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual (v1.0) + +Answer inline and return this file (or paste its contents into the conversation). Leave an +Answer blank to keep that marker in place. Do not renumber — the IDs tie each entry to its +admonition in the document. + +The bases of the methods this model shares with the CLE family (the log-linear interpolation of +the flaw-probability curves, the flaw-continuity curve, the normal-pool heuristic for the base +of the flaw, the default critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter ranges, and the +progression tables) are requested in the CLE Common Methods manual and are not repeated here. + +--- + +## IN-01 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The four core compaction categories (Well compacted, Poorly compacted, Very +poorly compacted, Unknown), offered without a definition. + +**Needed:** What construction practice or evidence each category represents (for example, +compaction equipment, lift thickness, moisture control, and density testing), or the table of +Fell et al. (2024) that defines them; and when Unknown should be selected rather than a judged +category, given that Unknown scores between Poorly compacted and Very poorly compacted. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-02 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The optional user-supplied flaw base width W and flaw height H, which replace the +dimensions derived from the embankment section in the continuity scoring only. + +**Needed:** What W and H are meant to represent and when they should be supplied in place of +the derived dimensions. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** W is the horizontal width of the section at its base, measured from +the upstream toe to the first drain or filter zone the pathway meets (or toe to toe when there +is none), and H is the height from the crest to the lower of the two toes. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-03 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The choice of the three scored factors and their risk factors (core compaction 3, +continuity 2, borrow variability 1). + +**Needed:** The table of Fell et al. (2024) from which the factors and weights are taken, or the +engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-04 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The compaction likelihood factors (Well compacted 1, Poorly compacted 3, Very +poorly compacted 4, Unknown 3.5). + +**Needed:** The source of the values, why no category scores 2, and why Unknown is scored at 3.5 +(above Poorly compacted) rather than at a central value; the table of Fell et al. (2024) they are +taken from, or the engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** Unknown is scored toward the poorly compacted end of the scale as a +conservative screening posture, so that a core whose compaction cannot be judged is not +credited as better compacted than the evidence supports. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-05 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The continuity bands (base width boundaries 50, 30, 15; width-to-height +boundaries 2, 0.75, 0.25) and the rule that the larger of the two scores governs. + +**Needed:** The source table or the engineering-judgment attribution, and the unit of the +base-width boundaries (the model applies them in whatever length unit the elevations use, with +no conversion). + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The base-width boundaries are in feet, so a user working in meters +should convert the section before running the model. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-06 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The borrow variability factor and its fixed likelihood factor of 2.5. + +**Needed:** What the factor represents physically, why it is fixed rather than selected by the +user, and the basis for the value of 2.5. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-07 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The raw flaw probability curve (weighted sum 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 24 → negligible, +1e-4, 5e-4, 2e-3, 4e-2, 0.5). + +**Needed:** The figure or table of Fell et al. (2024) from which the values are taken, or the +engineering-judgment attribution, including the basis for anchoring the curve at a negligible +probability at a weighted sum of 6, below the lowest attainable sum of 7.5. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-08 — Definition — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The leakage or wet-spot elevation, which becomes the base of the flaw (the invert +of a horizontal pipe through the core) under the observation override. + +**Needed:** Which elevation the user should enter (for example, the elevation of the observed +seepage exit on the downstream face, or the lowest wet spot when several are observed), and the +basis for taking it as the invert of a horizontal pipe through the core. + +**Answer:** + +--- diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js index 94aa4cf81..8ced72a0a 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ const docs = [ software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening', doc_name: 'CLE Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', - active: false, + active: true, draft: true, }, { diff --git a/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e5c80cf3b --- /dev/null +++ b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +[ + { + "citationKey": "Fell2024", + "entryType": "report", + "author": [ + "R. Fell", + "M.A. Foster", + "J. Cyganiewicz", + "R.R. Davidson", + "G.L. Sills" + ], + "title": "Methods for Estimating Probability of Failure of Embankment Dams by Internal Erosion and Piping (The Piping Toolbox 2024)", + "year": 2024, + "institution": "University of New South Wales, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering", + "report": "Report No. 470" + } +] From 059643ebb7ba05e6c4c7194a0297e0ff993e33af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 06:43:57 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Link the shared CLE and Continuation manuals by full URL until they publish The two shared manuals are on their own branches, so relative links to them break this branch's build. Revert this commit after both merge. --- .../v1.0/01-preface.mdx | 4 +-- .../v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx | 22 ++++++------- .../v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx | 20 ++++++------ .../v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx | 14 ++++---- .../v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx | 32 +++++++++---------- .../v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx | 14 ++++---- .../v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx | 10 +++--- 7 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx index fb9876ab3..594c550ea 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx @@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ continuous zone of poorly compacted soil within the embankment core. It is a scr input burden while avoiding false negatives, and any application that performs screening-level risk analysis can use it. The model is one of eight CLE screening models that share one event tree and most of their methods. Those shared methods are documented once, in -the [Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), +the [Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared method documented in the -[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface). +[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface). This document covers what is specific to the core compaction mechanism: its flaw assessment, its mechanism-specific inputs, how it populates each node of the shared event tree, the assumptions it adds, and the results it reports. Each section that relies on a shared method links the chapter that documents it. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx index c101b334b..4d4039bda 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx @@ -23,14 +23,14 @@ from the reservoir can flow along it. The model idealizes the zone as a horizont the hydraulic shear stress of the flow on the pipe wall exceeds the critical shear stress of the core soil, and breach requires the further conditions common to every concentrated leak erosion failure mode: an unfiltered exit, a pipe that stays open and is neither filled nor starved of flow, unsuccessful intervention, and an uncontrolled release of the impounded water (see the -[Model Overview](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#purpose) of the CLE Common Methods +[Model Overview](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#purpose) of the CLE Common Methods manual). ## Intended Use The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion through poorly compacted core material. Like the other CLE screening models, it makes simplifying and generally conservative assumptions with two goals -(see [Intended Use](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) in the CLE Common +(see [Intended Use](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) in the CLE Common Methods manual): - **Preventing false negatives** — The model is designed to avoid underestimating risk at the screening level, so that embankments with a @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ The model combines the following engineering methods: - **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** for the probability that a continuous poorly compacted zone exists, in which each factor is assigned a likelihood factor, weighted by a risk factor, and the weighted sum is mapped to a flaw probability - (see the [Risk-Factor and Likelihood-Factor Scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) + (see the [Risk-Factor and Likelihood-Factor Scoring](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) section of the CLE Common Methods manual) - **Hydraulic shear stress on the wall of a cylindrical pipe**, compared with the critical shear stress of the core soil, for the initiation of erosion, as documented in the @@ -75,18 +75,18 @@ The model combines the following engineering methods: of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation manual - **Filter evaluation** for the probability that erosion continues past a filter intercepting the pathway, through the shared continuation method documented in the - [Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil) + [Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil) chapter and the method chapters of the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual - **Roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation probabilities** for the progression conditions , as documented in the - [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) + [Failure Pathway and Progression](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual ## Comparison with Detailed Models The detailed counterparts of the screening model are the concentrated leak erosion toolbox methods and the internal-erosion probability methods of Fell et al. (2024) applied in full. The comparison that holds for the whole CLE family is given in -[Comparison with Detailed Models](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#comparison-with-detailed-models) +[Comparison with Detailed Models](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#comparison-with-detailed-models) in the CLE Common Methods manual. summarizes the differences specific to a core compaction flaw. @@ -117,20 +117,20 @@ compaction flaw. ## Relationship to the Common Methods and Toolbox Models The core compaction model is one of the four compaction models of the CLE family (see -[The Two Model Groups](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#the-two-model-groups) in the CLE +[The Two Model Groups](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#the-two-model-groups) in the CLE Common Methods manual). It shares the following with the family, and this manual links the shared documentation rather than repeating it: - **The eight-node event tree and the SRP computation** — the - [Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual. + [Event Tree](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual. - **The scoring scheme, the flaw-continuity stage, and the normal-pool heuristic for the base of the flaw** — the - [Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions) chapter. + [Flaw Conventions](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions) chapter. - **The cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis**, which the model hands to the same method as the standalone Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, supplying the base of the flaw, the embankment section, and default distributions for the critical shear stress and the initial pipe diameter — the - [Delegated Method: Cylindrical Pipe Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) + [Delegated Method: Cylindrical Pipe Initiation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) section of the Initiation chapter. - **The continuation, roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation nodes** — the - [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) + [Failure Pathway and Progression](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) chapter, with the continuation method itself in the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual. What this manual documents in full is the flaw assessment ([Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)), the mechanism-specific inputs diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx index 24d546506..5fdcda1ed 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; # Input Parameters The core compaction model takes two kinds of input. Most are the inputs shared by the CLE family, documented in full in the -[Common Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the CLE Common +[Common Input Parameters](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual: the hydraulic loading, the units and datum convention, the embankment description, the failure-pathway inputs, the upstream seepage-limiting elements, the initiation material inputs of the compaction models, and the intervention and breach probabilities. The rest are specific to this mechanism: the normal pool elevation, the flaw inputs, and two optional dimensions that replace the section geometry in the flaw @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ more than one form. lists the mechanism-specific inputs. All elevations are on the datum of the headwater series and all lengths are in its unit (see -[Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum) in the CLE Common +[Units and Datum](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum) in the CLE Common Methods manual). by the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scheme of Fell et al. (2024) , described in -[Risk-Factor and Likelihood-Factor Scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) +[Risk-Factor and Likelihood-Factor Scoring](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) in the CLE Common Methods manual. Each factor carries a risk factor $RF$, its weight, and a likelihood factor $LF$ on a scale on which 1 is the least likely condition for a flaw and 4 the most likely. @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ factor $LF_{cont}$ is the larger of two banded scores, one of the base width $W$ where $W$ and $H$ are the base width and height of the embankment section — the core section when one is supplied, otherwise the shell — or the user-supplied flaw base width and flaw height (see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-base-width-and-flaw-height)). The section height $H$ is the quantity written $H_s$ in -[Section Geometry Used in Scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#section-geometry-used-in-scoring) +[Section Geometry Used in Scoring](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#section-geometry-used-in-scoring) in the CLE Common Methods manual. The base width is in the length unit of the elevations. lists the bands. , linearly in the logarithm of the probability between tabulated points, as described in -[Flaw Probability from the Weighted Sum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum) +[Flaw Probability from the Weighted Sum](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum) in the CLE Common Methods manual. @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ When embankment leakage or wet spots are reported as observed, the flaw is taken where $z_{lk}$ is the observed leakage or wet-spot elevation. The override replaces the scored probability and the normal-pool heuristic together. It is the only CLE compaction override that also moves the flaw elevation (see -[Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in the CLE +[Observation Overrides](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in the CLE Common Methods manual). If a compaction category is supplied with the observation, the factors are still scored and reported, but they do not affect the result; without a category, no scores are reported. The override sets only Node 1 and the flaw elevation: every downstream node is evaluated as usual at the observed elevation. @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ compaction model, one third of the way from the normal pool elevation $z_{np}$ t /> The heuristic is documented in -[Compaction Models: Base of the Flaw](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw) +[Compaction Models: Base of the Flaw](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw) in the CLE Common Methods manual. The upper reference is always the crest of the embankment, even when a core section with a lower top is supplied. Whichever way it is resolved, the base of the flaw is the invert of the pipe in the initiation analysis and must lie within the embankment section diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx index 554ec17e2..e15699192 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx @@ -14,14 +14,14 @@ import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; The core compaction model computes the SRP at each headwater level from the eight-node event tree shared by the CLE family. The structure of the tree, how it relates to the concentrated leak erosion trees of the Typical Event Tree Database, the headwater grid on which it is evaluated, and the general form of each node are documented in the -[Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual. This +[Event Tree](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual. This chapter states how the core compaction model populates each node. ## Node Summary summarizes the nodes. Only initiation varies with pool level: the flaw is at one elevation, so the filter it meets, the materials it passes through, and the walls that reach it are the same at every pool level (see -[Pool Dependence](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#pool-dependence) in the CLE Common Methods +[Pool Dependence](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#pool-dependence) in the CLE Common Methods manual). A product smaller than a negligibly small value, including a product of zero, is reported as that value instead (see -[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the CLE Common Methods +[SRP Computation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the CLE Common Methods manual). The SRP takes this value at every pool level at or below the base of the flaw, where initiation is zero, and at every pool level when the core is well compacted and no observation override applies, because its flaw probability is smaller still. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx index 02c7ca3c9..ac6f14de8 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; The core compaction model makes every assumption shared by the CLE family — the product form of the event tree, the cylindrical-pipe idealization of a compaction flaw, the default critical shear stress ranges, the fixed failure pathway of a compaction flaw, and the tabulated progression probabilities — each listed with its basis, effect, and limits in the -[Assumptions and Limitations](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) chapter of the +[Assumptions and Limitations](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual. This chapter lists the assumptions the core compaction model adds or makes specific. Each states its engineering basis, its effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold. Where a basis is still awaiting confirmation, the assumption cross-references the input marker at its primary location. @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ cross-references the input marker at its primary location. 5. **The compaction category enters the flaw probability twice** — through its weight in the weighted sum and again through the flaw-continuity probability (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-continuity)). - *Engineering basis:* The flaw-continuity stage shared with the wall or cliff and foundation or abutment compaction models, documented in the - [Flaw-Continuity Stage](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-continuity-stage) + [Flaw-Continuity Stage](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-continuity-stage) section of the CLE Common Methods manual. - *Effect on results:* A well-compacted core has a negligible flaw probability whatever the section geometry, and the flaw probability spans many orders of magnitude across the four categories. @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ cross-references the input marker at its primary location. 6. **An observation of embankment leakage or wet spots demonstrates the flaw and locates it.** The flaw probability is set to 1.0 and the base of the flaw to the observed elevation (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#observation-override)). - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment that an observation demonstrates the flaw, as for every CLE observation override (see the - [assumptions of the CLE Common Methods manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations#flaw)); + [assumptions of the CLE Common Methods manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations#flaw)); the meaning of the observed elevation is requested at marker IN-08 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#observation-override). - *Effect on results:* The SRP is governed entirely by the downstream nodes, and initiation, flow limitation, and the user's filter judgment are @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ cross-references the input marker at its primary location. 7. **Without an observation, the base of the flaw is one third of the way from the normal pool to the crest, measured to the crest even when a lower core top is described.** - *Engineering basis:* The normal-pool heuristic shared with the abutment case of the foundation or abutment compaction model, documented in - [Compaction Models: Base of the Flaw](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw) + [Compaction Models: Base of the Flaw](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw) in the CLE Common Methods manual. - *Effect on results:* The SRP is negligible at pool levels at or below this elevation, and a wall is credited only if its top reaches it. A core top below this elevation leaves the inputs inconsistent, and the analysis is not evaluated. @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ cross-references the input marker at its primary location. filter and base-soil description states that a filter is present; the model does not compare the filter with the base of the flaw (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-3-continuation)). - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment: a compaction flaw is at one elevation, so the filter it meets does not change with the pool (see - the [assumptions of the CLE Common Methods manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations#failure-pathway-and-progression)). + the [assumptions of the CLE Common Methods manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations#failure-pathway-and-progression)). - *Effect on results:* A supplied filter multiplies the SRP at every pool level by the continuation probability $P_{ce}$, which lowers it whenever $P_{ce}$ is below 1.0. - *When it may not hold:* Where the filter's top lies near the base of the flaw, or where the base of the flaw is uncertain; supplying a filter @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ cross-references the input marker at its primary location. 9. **When a core section is supplied, it governs both the flaw scoring and the initiation analysis, whatever the embankment type.** - *Engineering basis:* The pipe-length measurement of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, which measures across the impervious core of a zoned embankment with very permeable outer zones (see - [Seepage Path Length](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) in the CLE + [Seepage Path Length](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) in the CLE Common Methods manual); for the flaw scoring, the dimensions the continuity factor should measure are requested at marker IN-02 in [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-base-width-and-flaw-height). - *Effect on results:* A core narrower than the shell gives a shorter seepage path, a steeper gradient, and a higher initiation probability, and @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ cross-references the input marker at its primary location. path length then describes the flaw better. 10. **The default initial pipe diameter is a triangular distribution from 2 mm to 5 mm, most likely 3 mm.** - *Engineering basis:* See - [Initial Pipe Diameter](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#initial-pipe-diameter) in the CLE + [Initial Pipe Diameter](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#initial-pipe-diameter) in the CLE Common Methods manual. - *Effect on results:* The hydraulic shear stress is proportional to the diameter, so the range sets how high the pool must rise before initiation becomes likely; larger diameters (a range shifted upward) lower that pool level. The critical shear stress and the seepage path diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx index 55f45e743..50658d0da 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; The core compaction model reports the SRP at each evaluated pool level together with the probability of each of the eight nodes and the supporting results of the flaw assessment and the initiation analysis. The results it shares with the other compaction models — the pool-independent node values, the pool-dependent series, and the initiation results — are described in the -[Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the CLE +[Output and Interpretation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual. This chapter describes the results specific to this model and how to read them. ## Results @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Common Methods manual. This chapter describes the results specific to this model - **Flaw probability** $P_{flaw}$ — Node 1, from the flaw assessment; 1.0 when the observation override applies. - **Continuation probability** $P_{cont}$ — Node 3: the continuation method's result when filter inputs are supplied, otherwise 1.0. When the continuation method is evaluated, its own results are reported with it — the governing base soil and method and the result for each base soil - (see the [Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the + (see the [Output and Interpretation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual). - **Roof-support probability** $P_{roof}$ — Node 4, the minimum across the embankment materials. - **Crack-filling probability** $P_{nf}$ — Node 5, for the embankment type. @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ The flaw assessment results show what sets the level of the curve: ## Interpreting the System Response Curve The curve has the shape described for the compaction models in -[Interpreting the System Response Curve](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#interpreting-the-system-response-curve) +[Interpreting the System Response Curve](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#interpreting-the-system-response-curve) in the CLE Common Methods manual. It is negligible at and below the base of the flaw and rises with pool level as the hydraulic gradient through the pipe grows. Because only initiation varies with pool level, the curve approaches the product of the other seven nodes, @@ -73,13 +73,13 @@ pipe grows. Because only initiation varies with pool level, the curve approaches as the initiation probability approaches 1.0. The pool level at which the curve begins to rise depends on the base of the flaw, the seepage path length (measured from the section, or as supplied), the tailwater, and the critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter ranges; how close it comes to $\mathrm{SRP}_{max}$ within the evaluated pool range depends on how many realizations initiate before the highest headwater. The node breakdown shows which node limits the curve (see -[Reading the Node Breakdown](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#reading-the-node-breakdown) +[Reading the Node Breakdown](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#reading-the-node-breakdown) in the CLE Common Methods manual). ## Checking the Result The checks of -[Checking the Result](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#checking-the-result) in +[Checking the Result](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#checking-the-result) in the CLE Common Methods manual apply. In addition: - **Flaw probability** — without the observation override, the reported $P_{flaw}$ can be reproduced from the reported likelihood factors with From d935d693fce9c095c915df0ff6a73419206b044d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:20:19 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Spell out Concentrated Leak Erosion in the manual title --- .../cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx | 4 ++-- .../cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md | 2 +- src/docConfig.js | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx index 56831d574..f907f8c5c 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx @@ -2,12 +2,12 @@ title: Document Info reportDate: October 2026 reportType: Technical Reference -reportTitle: CLE Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual +reportTitle: Concentrated Leak Erosion Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual reportSubTitle: System Response Library reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.'] reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) core compaction screening model in the System Response library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level for concentrated leak erosion through a continuous zone of poorly compacted soil within the embankment core. The probability of the flaw is estimated by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of the core compaction category, the width and width-to-height ratio of the embankment section, and borrow variability, followed by a flaw-continuity stage keyed to the compaction category; an observation of embankment leakage or wet spots overrides the flaw probability to certainty and sets the flaw elevation. Initiation is evaluated by a Monte Carlo cylindrical-pipe hydraulic shear stress analysis at the base of the flaw, and the remaining nodes of the eight-node CLE event tree follow the methods shared by the CLE screening family. The model applies simplifications appropriate for screening-level risk analysis. reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Core Compaction', 'Poor Compaction', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Critical Shear Stress', 'Monte Carlo'] -citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, CLE Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual, Lakewood, CO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, 2026.' +citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, Concentrated Leak Erosion Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual, Lakewood, CO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, 2026.' --- import Link from '@docusaurus/Link'; diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md index d49606e72..c08a60f70 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Input Needed — CLE Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual (v1.0) +# Input Needed — Concentrated Leak Erosion Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual (v1.0) Answer inline and return this file (or paste its contents into the conversation). Leave an Answer blank to keep that marker in place. Do not renumber — the IDs tie each entry to its diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js index 8ced72a0a..f0a5b56b8 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ const docs = [ category: 'web-applications', software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening', - doc_name: 'CLE Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', + doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', active: true, draft: true, }, From 51e86a5970de826b958529a0234b98d7f61aedd6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:50:50 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Set the manual's sidebar and breadcrumb name --- src/docConfig.js | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js index f0a5b56b8..edc675ca9 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@ const docs = [ software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-core-compaction-screening', doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Core Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', + sidebar_label: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Core Compaction Screening', active: true, draft: true, },