[Content] Add the Concentrated Leak Erosion Conduit Compaction Screening technical reference manual to the System Response Library

docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: Document Info
+reportDate: October 2026
+reportType: Technical Reference
+reportTitle: Concentrated Leak Erosion Conduit Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual
+reportSubTitle: System Response Library
+reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.']
+reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) conduit 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 zone of poorly compacted earthfill adjacent to a conduit through an embankment. The probability of a continuous flaw is estimated by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of four conduit factors, namely the conduit type and surround, cutoff collars, the compaction of the fill adjacent to the conduit, and the conduit trench details, and an observation of leakage adjacent to the conduit can override it. The flaw is placed at the bottom of the conduit and idealized as a cylindrical pipe, for which the initiation probability is evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation. A diaphragm filter around the conduit, when present, is evaluated by the shared continuation method, and the progression, intervention, and breach nodes follow the conventions of the CLE screening family, with no credit taken for flow limitation by upstream elements. The methods shared with the other CLE screening models are documented in the CLE Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual.
+reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Conduit', 'Poor Compaction', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Cutoff Collar', 'Diaphragm Filter', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Monte Carlo']
+citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, <i>Concentrated Leak Erosion Conduit Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual</i>, 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';
+
+<NavContainer
+  link="/web-applications/system-response"
+  linkTitle="System Response Library"
+  document="web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening"
+/>
+
+# Document Information
+
+<DocumentMetadata metadata={frontMatter} />

docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: Version History
+---
+
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableVersionHistory from '@site/src/components/TableVersionHistory';
+
+<NavContainer link="/web-applications/system-response" linkTitle="System Response Library" document="web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening" />
+
+# Version History
+
+<TableVersionHistory
+  versions={['1.0']}
+  dates={['October 2026']}
+  descriptions={['Initial release as an online document.']}
+  modifiedBy={['-']}
+  reviewedBy={['-']}
+  approvedBy={['-']}
+/>

docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+title: Preface
+---
+
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+<NavContainer link="/web-applications/system-response" linkTitle="System Response Library" document="web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening" />
+
+# Preface
+
+This document provides a technical reference for the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) conduit 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 zone
+of poorly compacted earthfill adjacent to a conduit that passes through an embankment. 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. All eight share one event-tree structure and one set of failure-pathway and progression
+conventions; seven of the eight share one scoring scheme for the flaw probability, and the four compaction models among them share one initiation
+analysis. The exception to the shared scoring scheme is the cross-valley settlement model, which derives its flaw probability from settlement and
+crack-strain relationships.
+Those common methods are documented once, in the
+[CLE 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). The
+continuation node, where a filter is present, is evaluated by the shared continuation method documented in the
+[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 conduit compaction model — the flaw and the four conduit factors that score it, the bottom-of-conduit
+flaw elevation, the observation of leakage adjacent to the conduit, the diaphragm filter that gates continuation, the default initial pipe
+diameter, the absence of a flow-limitation node, the assumptions specific to the mechanism, and the results the model reports — and cites the
+specific chapters of those two manuals for the rest.
+
+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 its relationship to the shared CLE methods and the typical event tree for a crack
+  along an embedded structure.
+- **[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)** — The inputs specific to the model (the four conduit factors, the leakage observation, the
+  bottom-of-conduit elevation, the diaphragm filter, and the initial pipe diameter default), and which of the shared CLE inputs the model takes.
+- **[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)** — The scoring of the four conduit factors, the weighted sum and its conversion to a flaw
+  probability, the attainable range of the result, the leakage observation override, and the flaw elevation.
+- **[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)** — How each of the eight nodes is populated for a conduit flaw, including the cylindrical-pipe initiation
+  analysis, the diaphragm-filter gate on continuation, and the flow-limitation node held at 1.0, and how the SRP is computed.
+- **[Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx)** — Each assumption specific to the conduit compaction model, 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 system response curve and
+  its node breakdown for a conduit flaw, how to check a result, and the role of screening results relative to detailed analysis.

docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+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';
+
+<NavContainer link="/web-applications/system-response" linkTitle="System Response Library" document="web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening" />
+
+# Model Overview
+
+## Purpose
+
+The conduit compaction screening model computes a system response curve for concentrated leak erosion through poorly compacted earthfill adjacent
+to a conduit, 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 the conduit, given that pool level.
+
+The flaw is a continuous zone of loose or poorly compacted earthfill along the conduit, through which water from the reservoir can flow and erode
+the surrounding soil. The model scores the likelihood of such a flaw from four factors that describe the conduit and the placement of the fill
+around it, places the flaw at the bottom of the conduit, and carries it through the eight-node CLE event tree.
+
+## Intended Use
+
+The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion along a conduit. Like the other CLE screening models (see the
+[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) section of the CLE Common
+Methods manual), it makes simplifying and generally conservative assumptions to avoid false negatives, and it substitutes qualitative selections
+for site-specific measurements to reduce input burden. Each of the four conduit factors accepts Unknown where the information is not available.
+
+The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments. A detailed analysis of a conduit flaw assesses the flaw, its
+location, and each progression condition directly (see [Comparison with Detailed Models](#comparison-with-detailed-models)).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-01 — Applicability]
+State the scope of the flaw the model is intended to represent. The model scores the likelihood of a continuous zone of poorly compacted fill
+adjacent to a conduit. The typical event tree for a crack along an embedded structure also names a low-stress zone (for example, from differential
+settlement or arching over the conduit) as a cause of the flaw, and erosion of embankment soil into the conduit through open joints or defects is a
+further conduit-related mechanism. Neither enters the model's flaw factors. State whether a low-stress zone or hydraulic fracture along the conduit
+is intended to be screened with this model, with another model, or not at the screening level, and whether erosion into a defective conduit is
+outside the model's scope.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the model screens poor compaction adjacent to the conduit only; low-stress zones and erosion into the conduit are
+separate failure modes that the model does not address. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## How the Model Works
+
+The model executes the three stages common to the CLE screening models
+(see [How the Model Works](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#how-the-model-works) in the
+CLE Common Methods manual), with these conduit-specific elements:
+
+1. **Flaw assessment** — Four conduit factors (the conduit type and surround, cutoff collars, the compaction of the fill adjacent to the conduit,
+   and the conduit trench details) are each scored with a likelihood factor, weighted, and summed, and the weighted sum is converted to a flaw
+   probability. An observation of leakage adjacent to the conduit sets the flaw probability to 1.0. The flaw elevation is the bottom of the
+   conduit, which the user supplies (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)).
+
+2. **Pathway resolution** — The failure pathway runs through the embankment at the bottom of the conduit. The user states whether a diaphragm
+   filter surrounds the conduit, and lists the soils the pipe passes through. The model has no upstream seepage-limiting elements to resolve (see
+   [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)).
+
+3. **Event-tree assembly** — At each headwater level, the model multiplies the eight node probabilities. Initiation is evaluated by Monte Carlo
+   simulation of a cylindrical pipe at the bottom of the conduit, continuation is evaluated by the shared continuation method only when a diaphragm
+   filter is present, and the flow-limitation node is held at 1.0 (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)).
+
+## Physics Basis
+
+The model combines the following engineering methods:
+
+- **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** of four conduit factors for the probability of a continuous flaw <Citation citationKey="Fell2024" />,
+  following the scheme documented in the
+  [Flaw Conventions](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)
+  chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx))
+- **Hydraulic shear stress on the walls of a cylindrical pipe** at the bottom of the conduit, compared with the critical shear stress of the
+  adjacent soil, following the
+  [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)
+  chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual
+- **Filter evaluation** of a diaphragm filter around the conduit, through the shared continuation method documented in the
+  [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 of the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual
+- **Roof-support probabilities by soil classification** and **crack-filling probabilities by embankment type** for the progression of the pipe <Citation citationKey="Fell2024" />, as tabulated
+  in the
+  [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#node-4-progression--roof-support)
+  chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual
+
+## Comparison with Detailed Models
+
+The detailed counterparts of the screening model are the internal-erosion probability methods of Fell et al. (2024) <Citation citationKey="Fell2024" />
+applied in full, with the
+[Cylindrical Pipe](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe) method of
+the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox for initiation and the
+[Filter Evaluation (Continuation)](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/filter-evaluation-continuation/v1.0/general-overview)
+toolbox for continuation. <TableReference tableKey="cle-conduit-compaction-screening-table-1" /> summarizes the differences specific to a conduit
+flaw; the differences common to the CLE family are summarized in the
+[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)
+section of the CLE Common Methods manual.
+
+<TableVertical
+  tableKey="cle-conduit-compaction-screening-table-1"
+  alt="Comparison of the conduit compaction screening model and a detailed analysis"
+  caption="Comparison of the conduit compaction screening model and a detailed analysis of a conduit flaw."
+  headers={[[{ value: 'Aspect' }, { value: 'Screening Model' }, { value: 'Detailed Analysis' }]]}
+  columns={[
+    [
+      'Flaw probability',
+      'Flaw cause',
+      'Flaw location',
+      'Flaw geometry for initiation',
+      'Exit condition',
+      'Flow limitation',
+    ],
+    [
+      'Scored from four conduit factors; leakage observation overrides',
+      'Poor compaction adjacent to the conduit',
+      'Bottom of the conduit',
+      'Cylindrical pipe of default or supplied diameter',
+      'Diaphragm filter present or absent',
+      'Not credited',
+    ],
+    [
+      'Estimated by the risk team from the totality of the evidence',
+      'Poor compaction or a low-stress zone, as assessed',
+      'Located by the risk team',
+      'Pipe or crack geometry selected by the analyst',
+      'Filters and constricted exits, by the filter evaluation toolbox',
+      'Assessed for upstream zones',
+    ],
+  ]}
+/>
+
+## Relationship to the Shared CLE Methods
+
+The model is one of the four compaction models of the CLE family (see
+[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 with the other three the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis, the critical shear stress table, and the rule
+that every node except initiation is the same at every pool level. It differs from them in three ways:
+
+- **Four flaw factors, weighted 3, 2, 2, and 2,** where the other compaction models score three, and **no flaw-continuity stage**: the scored
+  probability is the flaw probability.
+- **A directly supplied flaw elevation**, the bottom of the conduit. The core compaction model and the abutment case of the foundation and
+  abutment compaction model place the flaw by a normal-pool heuristic, the foundation case of that model takes the embankment-foundation contact
+  elevation directly, and the wall and cliff compaction model takes the crest elevation minus the wall or cliff height.
+- **No flow-limitation node input**: Node 6 is fixed at 1.0, so no upstream cutoff or facing reduces the SRP.
+
+Two further features are shared with only some of the other compaction models. The observation override leaves the flaw elevation unchanged, as
+in the wall and cliff compaction model; the core compaction model's observation also relocates the flaw, and the foundation and abutment
+compaction model has no observation override. Like the wall and cliff and the foundation and abutment compaction models, the model gates
+continuation on an explicit yes-or-no answer about the filter and ignores the continuation inputs when the answer is no; the core compaction model
+instead evaluates continuation whenever a filter description is supplied. The form of the filter, a diaphragm around the conduit, is specific to
+this model.
+
+It also carries its own default initial pipe diameter range, larger than that of the core compaction model (see
+[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-2-initiation)).
+
+## Relationship to the Typical Event Tree
+
+The [embedded-structure](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/risk-calculations-suite/typical-event-tree-database/v1.5/Concentrated-Leak-Erosion#along-embedded-structure)
+tree of the Typical Event Tree Database, written for a crack along a structure such as a conduit, carries eight events that correspond to those of
+the screening tree: a transverse crack along the structure, initiation, continuation, crack stability, flow limitation by upstream zones, crack filling by
+upstream zones, unsuccessful intervention, and breach. The screening model differs from it in three respects, so the database tree is not
+presented here as the model's structure:
+
+- The database flaw node allows a low-stress zone or poor compaction; the screening flaw is poor compaction only.
+- The screening model does not evaluate flow limitation: the node is held at 1.0.
+- The screening model orders crack filling before flow limitation. Because the SRP is a product of the node probabilities, the order does not
+  affect the result.
+
+<CitationFootnote />