From ed6df4ebb08849060243ce5dd4450da633ecacf4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 18:31:45 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Add the CLE Wall/Cliff 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 | 19 ++ .../v1.0/01-preface.mdx | 43 +++ .../v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx | 139 ++++++++++ .../v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx | 163 +++++++++++ .../v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx | 253 ++++++++++++++++++ .../v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx | 180 +++++++++++++ .../v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx | 113 ++++++++ .../v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx | 109 ++++++++ .../v1.0/_input-needed.md | 171 ++++++++++++ src/docConfig.js | 2 +- .../v1.0/bib.json | 17 ++ 12 files changed, 1233 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md create mode 100644 static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..495d4fa3e --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +title: Document Info +reportDate: October 2026 +reportType: Technical Reference +reportTitle: CLE Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual +reportSubTitle: System Response Library +reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.'] +reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) wall or cliff 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 fill placed against a wall or cliff, using the eight-node CLE event tree. The probability of a continuous flaw is estimated by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of three site factors — the compaction of the fill against the wall, the slope of the wall, and the presence of a concrete buttress — multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to the compaction of the fill, and an observation of leakage adjacent to the wall overrides it to certainty. The base of the flaw is placed at the crest elevation less the wall or cliff height. Initiation is evaluated by a Monte Carlo cylindrical-pipe hydraulic shear stress analysis, and continuation by the shared continuation method when a filter intersects the flaw. 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', 'Poor Compaction', 'Wall', 'Cliff', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Monte Carlo'] +citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, CLE Wall/Cliff 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-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..11bbea4e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-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'; + + + +# Version History + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7837cb333 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +--- +title: Preface +--- + +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; + + + +# Preface + +This document provides a technical reference for the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) wall or cliff 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 fill placed against a wall or a cliff that the embankment abuts. 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 evaluate the same eight-node event tree, seven of the eight (all but cross-valley differential +settlement) share a scoring scheme for the probability of a flaw, and all eight share the treatment of initiation, continuation, and progression that their flaw geometry calls for. Those common methods are documented +once, in the +[CLE 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 manual documents what is specific to the wall or cliff compaction mechanism — its flaw, its inputs, how it populates each node of the common +event tree, and its assumptions — and links the chapter of the shared manuals that documents each common step. + +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 manuals and the toolbox methods. +- **[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)** — The inputs specific to this model — the wall or cliff height, the three flaw-factor + selections, the observation of leakage adjacent to the wall, and the statement of whether a filter intersects the flaw — and how the inputs + shared with the other CLE models apply to it. +- **[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)** — The scoring of the three flaw factors, the conversion of their weighted sum to a raw flaw + probability, the flaw-continuity stage, the leakage observation override, and the base-of-flaw elevation passed to the downstream nodes. +- **[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 specific to this 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 + for this mechanism, which inputs shape it, and the role of screening results relative to detailed analysis. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e6061a296 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +--- +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 wall or cliff compaction screening model computes a system response curve for concentrated leak erosion through poorly compacted fill placed +against a wall or a cliff. The system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level is the conditional probability of breach of the embankment +by concentrated leak erosion through such a zone, given that pool level. The curve of SRP values across the range of headwater levels characterizes +the embankment's vulnerability to this mechanism. + +The flaw is a zone of poorly compacted fill along the face of the wall or cliff, continuous through the embankment from its upstream side to its +downstream side. The model judges the likelihood of such a zone from three conditions: how the fill against the face was compacted, how steep the +face is, and whether a concrete buttress is present. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-01 — Applicability] +State which structures and faces the model is intended to cover — for example concrete walls of spillways, outlet works, or powerhouses that the +embankment abuts, and natural rock faces at a steep abutment — and whether a wall and a cliff are intended to be treated identically by every input, +including the concrete-buttress factor, which has no direct counterpart on a natural cliff. Provide also the physical description of the mechanism +to state here (why fill against a face is prone to poor compaction, and how face slope and a buttress affect it), with its literature source. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): the model applies to any steep, effectively rigid face against which embankment fill was placed, natural or constructed, +and a cliff is scored with the concrete buttress absent; fill against a face is prone to poor compaction because compaction equipment cannot work +tight against it, and a steeper face or a projecting buttress enlarges the zone that receives less compactive effort. Confirm or replace. +::: + +## Intended Use + +The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion along a wall or cliff. Like the other CLE screening models, it makes +simplifying and generally conservative assumptions to avoid false negatives and to reduce input burden: three qualitative selections describe the +likelihood of a flaw, the base of the flaw follows from the wall or cliff height, and default distributions cover the erodibility and initial-opening +properties that are typically unavailable at the screening stage (see +[Intended Use](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) in the CLE Common Methods +manual). + +The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments. For higher-level analyses, the concentrated leak erosion toolbox +methods and the internal-erosion probability methods they draw on provide the complete methodologies (see +[Comparison with Detailed Models](#comparison-with-detailed-models)). + +## How the Model Works + +The model executes the three stages common to the CLE compaction models (see +[How the Model Works](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#how-the-model-works) in the CLE +Common Methods manual): + +1. **Flaw assessment** — The compaction of the fill against the wall, the slope of the wall, and the presence of a concrete buttress are each scored + with a likelihood factor. Their weighted sum is converted to a raw flaw probability, which is multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to + the compaction score. An observation of leakage adjacent to the wall sets the flaw probability to 1.0. The base of the flaw is placed at the crest + elevation less the wall or cliff height (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)). +2. **Pathway resolution** — The failure pathway runs through the embankment section at the base of the flaw. The user states whether a filter + intersects it, lists the materials it passes through, and lists the upstream seepage-limiting elements; a cutoff wall whose top is below the base + of the flaw does not limit flow through it. +3. **Event-tree assembly** — At each headwater level, the flaw probability is multiplied by the initiation probability from a Monte Carlo + cylindrical-pipe analysis at the base of the flaw and by the continuation, progression, intervention, and breach probabilities, which are the + same at every pool level (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). + +## Physics Basis + +The model combines the following engineering methods, each documented in a shared manual: + +- **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** for the probability of a continuous flaw , as documented in + [Flaw Conventions](/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. The three factors and their scores are documented in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx). +- **Hydraulic shear stress on the walls of a cylindrical pipe** compared with the critical shear stress of the soil, as documented in + [Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) + in the CLE Common Methods manual and 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 intersecting the flaw, 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 of the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual. +- **Tabulated progression probabilities** for roof support, crack filling, and flow limitation , as documented in + [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) + in the CLE Common Methods manual. + +## Comparison with Detailed Models + +The detailed counterpart of the screening model is an internal-erosion risk analysis by the methods of Fell et al. +(2024) , with initiation evaluated by the concentrated leak erosion toolbox methods. + summarizes the differences specific to this mechanism; the differences +common to the CLE family are listed 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. + + + +## Relationship to the Shared Manuals + +This model belongs to the compaction group of the CLE screening models, with the core, conduit, and foundation or abutment compaction models (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 with that group the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis, the single flaw elevation at which every downstream node +is evaluated, and the tabulated progression nodes. What is specific to it is: + +- **The flaw assessment** — three factors weighted 3, 2, and 1, a weighted-sum curve, and the flaw-continuity stage keyed to the compaction of the + fill against the wall (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)). +- **The base of the flaw** — derived from the wall or cliff height rather than from a normal-pool heuristic or a direct input, and unchanged by the + leakage observation (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-the-flaw)). +- **The default initial pipe diameter** — a triangular distribution from 5 to 10 mm whose most likely value is its low value (see + [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-2-initiation)). +- **The filter statement** — whether a filter intersects the flaw is stated directly; the continuation inputs are used only when it does (see + [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#filter-at-the-flaw)). + +The model uses no toolbox method other than the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis, and it delegates the continuation node to the shared +continuation method when a filter is stated. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0a02346e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,163 @@ +--- +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 + +This chapter documents the inputs specific to the wall or cliff compaction model: the wall or cliff height, the three flaw-factor selections, the +observation of leakage adjacent to the wall, and the statement of whether a filter intersects the flaw. The model also takes the inputs shared by +the CLE compaction models, documented in +[Common Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) in the CLE Common Methods +manual; the first section below lists them and notes how each applies to this model. + +## Inputs Shared with the CLE Family + +- **Hydraulic loading** — the headwater series and the optional tailwater series, as documented 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 where it stands above the base of the flaw. +- **Units and datum** — every elevation and length on one datum and in one unit, with the base of the flaw and the top of the section used for + initiation at positive elevations, as documented in + [Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum). +- **Embankment description** — the crest elevation $z_c$, the embankment type, the shell section, and the optional core section, as documented in + [Embankment Description](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#embankment-description). In + this model the crest elevation is also the elevation from which the wall or cliff height is measured + (see [Wall or Cliff Geometry](#wall-or-cliff-geometry)). The embankment type sets the crack-filling node only; the core section, when supplied, + replaces the shell for the seepage path length whatever the embankment type. +- **Embankment materials** — the soil classifications of the materials the flaw passes through, which govern roof support, as documented in + [Failure-Pathway Inputs](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#failure-pathway-inputs). + At least one is required. +- **Upstream seepage-limiting elements** — the upstream facing and cutoff walls present and, when one is a wall, its top elevation $z_{tw}$, as + documented in + [Upstream Seepage-Limiting Elements](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#upstream-seepage-limiting-elements). + The wall in this input is an upstream cutoff or seepage-barrier wall that limits flow into the flaw; it is a different structure from the wall + or cliff against which the fill was placed. Its top elevation is compared with the base of the flaw, not with the pool. +- **Initiation material inputs** — the core soil classification and the optional critical shear stress, initial pipe diameter, and seepage path + length, as documented in + [Initiation Material Inputs](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#initiation-material-inputs). + The core soil classification is the soil of the fill against the wall or cliff, in which the flaw would erode. The default initial pipe + diameter of this model is documented in [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 documented in + [Intervention and Breach](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach). + +## Wall or Cliff Geometry + +w'], + ['length'], + ['> 0, and no taller than the embankment'], + ['Required'], + ]} +/> + +- **Wall or cliff height** $h_w$ — the height of the wall or cliff against which the fill was placed. It is distinct from the pool level $h$. The base of the flaw is placed at the crest + elevation less this height, $z_f = z_c - h_w$ (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-the-flaw)). The height must be positive, + and the wall or cliff may not be taller than the embankment: the resulting base of the flaw may not lie below the lowest segment bottom of the + shell section. It must also lie within the section used for initiation — not above its top (the core top, when a core section is supplied) and + not below the lowest segment bottom of either of its faces — as 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. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-02 — Definition] +State how the wall or cliff height $h_w$ is to be measured. The model places the base of the flaw at $z_c - h_w$, which reads the height as the +depth below the embankment crest of the lowest point of the face in contact with the fill. State whether that is the intended definition, and how the +user should enter the height when the wall or cliff does not reach the crest, when its foot varies in elevation along the embankment, or when the +fill against it rests on a foundation above the wall's foot. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): $h_w$ is the vertical distance from the embankment crest down to the lowest elevation at which fill is in contact with the +wall or cliff face on the section being screened. Confirm or replace. +::: + +## Flaw-Factor Selections + +The flaw assessment scores three factors, each selected from a list of categories +(). Each selection is required unless leakage adjacent to the wall is +reported (see [Leakage Observation](#leakage-observation)). The likelihood factor each category carries, and how the three combine into the +flaw probability, are documented in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#likelihood-factors). + +comp', 'LFslope', 'LFbut'], + ['selection', 'selection', 'selection'], + ['One of five categories', 'One of four categories', 'One of three categories'], + ['Required', 'Required', 'Required'], + ]} +/> + +- **Wall-fill compaction** — how the fill against the wall or cliff was placed and compacted. The choices are: + - **Mechanical, slightly wet of optimum** — the fill was compacted with mechanical equipment at a water content slightly wet of optimum. + - **Hand, slightly dry of optimum** — the fill was compacted by hand-operated equipment at a water content slightly dry of optimum. + - **Hand, thick layers, dry of optimum** — the fill was compacted by hand-operated equipment in thick layers at a water content dry of optimum. + - **No formal compaction** — the fill was placed against the face without formal compaction. + - **Unknown** — the compaction of the fill against the face is not known. +- **Wall slope** — the inclination of the wall or cliff face, expressed as the ratio of its horizontal run to its vertical rise ($H/V$). The + choices are: + - **Vertical** — the face is vertical. + - **H/V from 0.1 to 0.25** — the face is battered, with a horizontal run of 0.1 to 0.25 per unit of vertical rise. + - **H/V above 0.25** — the face is battered more flatly than 0.25 horizontal per unit of vertical rise. + - **Unknown** — the slope of the face is not known. +- **Concrete buttress** — whether a concrete buttress is present at the wall. The choices are: + - **Absent** — no concrete buttress is present at the wall or cliff. + - **Present** — a concrete buttress is present at the wall or cliff. + - **Unknown** — whether a concrete buttress is present is not known. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-03 — Definition] +The wall-fill compaction categories do not state their boundaries, and they do not cover every combination of compaction method and water content. +State (1) what layer thickness distinguishes "thick layers" from the layers of the other categories; (2) what range of water content is meant by +"slightly wet" and "slightly dry" of optimum; and (3) which category the user should select for fill that does not match any category exactly — for +example mechanically compacted fill dry of optimum, or hand-compacted fill wet of optimum. +::: + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-04 — Definition] +The wall-slope categories leave two conditions undefined. State which category the user should select (1) for a face battered at less than 0.1 +horizontal per unit of vertical rise, which is neither vertical nor within the 0.1 to 0.25 band, and (2) for an overhanging face. State also +whether the slope is that of the face over its full height or of its steepest part, and whether a cliff's slope is to be judged the same way as a +wall's. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): "Vertical" covers every face steeper than 0.1 horizontal per unit of vertical rise, including an overhanging face, and the +slope is judged over the height in contact with the fill. Confirm or replace. +::: + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-05 — Definition] +State what qualifies as a concrete buttress for this factor — for example a buttress or counterfort projecting from the wall face into the fill, +a buttress supporting the wall from the embankment side, or a concrete block placed against a cliff — and what physical effect of the buttress +makes a flaw more likely (the Present category scores higher than Absent). + +Proposed (unconfirmed): a concrete buttress is any concrete element projecting from the face into the fill, which creates confined corners and +re-entrant zones against which fill is difficult to compact. Confirm or replace. +::: + +## Leakage Observation + +- **Leakage adjacent to the wall observed** — a report that leakage has been observed adjacent to the wall or cliff. When it is reported, the flaw + probability is set to 1.0 and the three flaw-factor selections become optional; when all three are still supplied they are scored and reported, + but they do not change the flaw probability. The base of the flaw is unchanged (see + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#leakage-observation-override)). The default is that no leakage has been observed. + +## Filter at the Flaw + +- **Filter at the flaw** — whether a filter intersects the failure pathway at the base of the flaw, for example a filter zone against the wall. + The default is that no filter intersects it. When no filter is stated, continuation is certain and the + continuation inputs are not used. When a filter is stated, the continuation inputs are required. +- **Continuation inputs** — the filter description and the base soils upstream of it, evaluated by the shared continuation method as documented in + [Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) in the Continuation (Filter + Evaluation) Screening manual. They are required, and evaluated, only when a filter is stated; otherwise they are ignored. + +The model takes no filter elevation and does not check the filter statement against the base of the flaw, so the user states a filter as present +only after confirming that it intersects the pathway at that elevation. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fbc43edc0 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,253 @@ +--- +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 fill exists along the wall or cliff, through the +embankment. The model estimates it in two stages, following the conventions shared by the CLE scoring models (see +[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions) in the CLE Common Methods +manual): three site factors are scored by the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scheme of Fell et al. (2024) +and their weighted sum is converted to a raw flaw probability, which is then multiplied by a flaw-continuity +probability keyed to the compaction of the fill. An observation of leakage adjacent to the wall replaces the estimate with certainty. The +assessment also fixes the base-of-flaw elevation used by every downstream node. The flaw probability is the same at every pool level. + +## Factors and Risk Factors + +The three factors and their risk-factor weights $RF$ are: + +- **Wall-fill compaction**, $RF = 3$ — the compaction of the fill against the wall or cliff. +- **Wall slope**, $RF = 2$ — the inclination of the face. +- **Concrete buttress**, $RF = 1$ — whether a concrete buttress is present. + +The weights follow the pattern of most CLE scoring models, in which the three factors are weighted 3, 2, and 1 (see +[Factors](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#factors) in the CLE Common Methods manual). + +## Likelihood Factors + +Each selection described in [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-factor-selections) carries the likelihood factor $LF$ of +, on the common scale on which 1 is the condition least likely to produce a +flaw and 4 the most likely. + + + +The scores rise as the compaction effort falls, as the face steepens, and where a buttress is present. Two categories carry the intermediate score +3.5: a vertical face and a buttress that is present. The Unknown categories score 3 for the compaction and the slope of the face, and 2 for the +buttress. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-06 — Engineering Basis] +The risk-factor weights (3 for wall-fill compaction, 2 for wall slope, 1 for the concrete buttress) and the likelihood factors of + require an engineering basis. State whether they are taken from +Fell et al. (2024), and if so cite the table that gives them, or provide the engineering-judgment attribution — including the basis for the +intermediate score of 3.5 assigned to a vertical face and to a buttress that is present. +::: + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-07 — Engineering Basis] +The scores assigned to the Unknown categories require an engineering basis: 3 for unknown wall-fill compaction, 3 for an unknown wall slope, and 2 +for an unknown buttress. The buttress Unknown score of 2 lies below the midpoint of its Absent (1) and Present (3.5) scores, while the other two +Unknown scores lie at or above the midpoints of their scales. State the reasoning for each, or the literature source. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): an Unknown selection is scored at a moderately unfavorable level to avoid a false negative where information is lacking, +and buttresses are judged uncommon enough that an unknown buttress is scored nearer to Absent. Confirm or replace. +::: + +## Weighted Sum + +The three scores combine into the weighted sum of +[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum): + + + +where $LF_{comp}$, $LF_{slope}$, and $LF_{but}$ are the likelihood factors of the wall-fill compaction, the wall slope, and the concrete buttress. +The attainable weighted sum runs from 6, with every factor at its least likely score, to 22.5, with no formal compaction, a vertical face, and a +buttress present. + +## Raw Flaw Probability + +The weighted sum is converted to a raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$ by the curve of +, interpolated linearly in the logarithm of probability between tabulated +points and held at its end values beyond them, as documented 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', '1 × 10-3', '1 × 10-2', '1 × 10-1'], + ]} +/> + +A weighted sum of 9 or less gives a negligible raw flaw probability: the curve's lowest point is negligible and sums below it take that end value. +Between 9 and 11 the probability rises steeply from negligible to 1 × 10-4. The curve's +highest point, a weighted sum of 24, lies beyond the attainable range; the largest attainable sum of 22.5 gives a raw flaw probability of about +5.6 × 10-2. No factor is an incompatible-condition factor — a factor whose least likely score forces the flaw probability to zero (see +[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) — so no single score forces the raw flaw probability to zero. The flaw +probability itself can still be negligible from one selection: mechanical compaction slightly wet of optimum makes it negligible through the +flaw-continuity stage (see [Flaw-Continuity Stage](#flaw-continuity-stage)). + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-08 — Engineering Basis] +The tabulated points of (weighted sums 9, 11, 13, 18, and 24 mapped to +negligible, 1 × 10-4, 1 × 10-3, 1 × 10-2, and 1 × 10-1) require an engineering basis. Cite the +source of the curve for this mechanism (for example the table or figure of Fell et al. (2024) that relates the weighted sum to the probability of +a flaw), or provide the engineering-judgment attribution, and state why the curve extends to a weighted sum of 24 when the largest attainable sum +is 22.5. +::: + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-09 — Decision] +The model applies a single weighted-sum curve at every pool level and takes no pool-of-record input. The curve it applies is the one its source +assigns to pool levels above the pool of record; the source's companion curve for pool levels at or below the pool of record is not used. Decide +whether this manual should state that the flaw probability takes no credit for the embankment's past performance up to its pool of record, and +provide the engineering basis for applying the above-pool-of-record curve at every pool level. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): applying the above-pool-of-record curve throughout is a conservative screening simplification that removes the pool of +record as an input; past performance can be credited in a detailed analysis. Confirm or replace. +::: + +## Flaw-Continuity Stage + +The raw flaw probability is multiplied by the flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$, interpolated in the logarithm of probability from the +wall-fill compaction score on the curve shared with the core and 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, where its engineering basis is requested): + + + +For the wall-fill compaction categories, $P_{cf}$ takes the values of +. Every compaction score of this model is a whole number, so no +interpolation between the tabulated points is needed. + +-4', '1 × 10-3', '1 × 10-1', '1 × 10-3'], + ]} +/> + +The compaction selection therefore enters the flaw probability twice — with the heaviest weight in the weighted sum, and again through the +flaw-continuity probability. Mechanically compacted fill slightly wet of optimum gives a negligible flaw probability whatever the other two factors +score. Without a leakage observation, the largest attainable flaw probability is about 5.6 × 10-3 (no formal compaction, a vertical face, +and a buttress present); with every selection Unknown, the weighted sum is 17 and the flaw probability is about 6.3 × 10-6. + +## Worked Example + +For fill placed against a wall without formal compaction ($LF_{comp} = 4$), a face battered between 0.1 and 0.25 horizontal per unit of vertical +rise ($LF_{slope} = 2$), and an unknown buttress ($LF_{but} = 2$): + +- The weighted sum is $\Sigma = 3(4) + 2(2) + 2 = 18$, a tabulated point, so $P_{raw} = 1 \times 10^{-2}$. +- The flaw-continuity probability for no formal compaction is $P_{cf} = 1 \times 10^{-1}$. +- The flaw probability is $P_{flaw} = (1 \times 10^{-2})(1 \times 10^{-1}) = 1 \times 10^{-3}$. + +For a crest elevation of 265 ft and a wall height of 30 ft, the base of the flaw is at 265 − 30 = 235 ft (see +[Base of the Flaw](#base-of-the-flaw)). + +## Leakage Observation Override + +When leakage adjacent to the wall is reported, the flaw probability is set to 1.0 whatever the factors score, as documented in +[Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in the +CLE Common Methods manual. The three selections become optional: when all three are supplied, their scores, weighted sum, raw flaw probability, and +flaw-continuity probability are still computed and reported for reference; when any is omitted, the scoring is not performed. Either way the flaw +probability is 1.0. + +The override sets the flaw probability only. The base of the flaw remains at the crest elevation less the wall or cliff height, because it follows +from the geometry of the wall rather than from the scoring; the elevation at which the leakage was observed is not an input. + +## Base of the Flaw + +The flaw is idealized for initiation as a cylindrical pipe whose invert is the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$, placed at the crest elevation $z_c$ less +the wall or cliff height $h_w$: + + + +This is the third of the ways the compaction models resolve the base of the flaw, alongside the normal-pool heuristic and direct input (see +[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 base of the flaw sets the pipe invert of the initiation analysis and the elevation against which the top of an +upstream cutoff wall is compared (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). The restrictions on where it may lie are listed under +[Wall or Cliff Geometry](./03-input-parameters.mdx#wall-or-cliff-geometry). + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-10 — Engineering Basis] +Placing the base of the flaw at the foot of the wall or cliff () +requires an engineering basis to state here — why the flaw is evaluated at the lowest elevation of the fill against the face rather than at another +elevation along it, or over a range of elevations. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): a poorly compacted zone may extend over the full height of the face, and its lowest point carries the largest head above +the flaw at any pool and is the first to be loaded as the pool rises. The seepage path across the section is also longest at the foot, so the +hydraulic gradient is not necessarily largest there; state whether evaluating initiation at the foot is intended to be conservative. Note also that +the foot is the unconservative location for the upstream cutoff-wall comparison, since a cutoff whose top reaches the foot is credited even where +the poorly compacted zone extends above it. Confirm or replace. +::: + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c39a8d459 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@ +--- +title: Event Tree +--- + +import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation'; +import EquationNoRef from '@site/src/components/EquationNoRef'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Event Tree + +The model evaluates the eight-node event tree shared by every CLE screening model, documented in +[Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) in the CLE Common Methods manual, at every pool +level of the headwater grid described there. This chapter documents how the wall or cliff compaction model populates each node. Because the flaw +sits at one elevation, the base of the flaw $z_f$, only the initiation node varies with pool level; the other seven nodes 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)). + +## Node Summary + + + +## Node 1: Flaw + +*Question:* Does a continuous zone of poorly compacted fill exist along the wall or cliff, through the embankment? + +The flaw probability $P_{flaw}$ is the result of the assessment documented in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx): the raw flaw probability +from the weighted sum of the three factor scores, multiplied by the flaw-continuity probability, or 1.0 when leakage adjacent to the wall is +reported. + +## 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 fill against the wall? + +The model hands this question to the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis documented 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, whose theory is 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 initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ at each pool level is the fraction of Monte Carlo +realizations in which the shear stress exceeds the critical shear stress. The model supplies the analysis with: + +- **Pipe invert** — the base of the flaw, $z_f = z_c - h_w$ (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-the-flaw)). At pool levels at + or below it, initiation is zero. +- **Hydraulic loading** — each pool level and its tailwater, which together set the net head across the pipe. +- **Seepage path length** — the user-supplied length, or else the length of a horizontal line at $z_f$ across the core section when one is + supplied and across the shell section otherwise, as documented in + [Seepage Path Length](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length). The same length + applies at every pool level. +- **Critical shear stress** — the user-supplied distribution, or else the triangular distribution for the core soil classification documented in + [Critical Shear Stress](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress). Whether or + not a critical shear stress distribution is supplied, the clean and nearly clean sands and gravels are not accepted as the soil of the fill + against the wall. +- **Initial pipe diameter** — the user-supplied distribution, or else this model's default triangular distribution, described below. + +The default initial pipe diameter is a triangular distribution with a low value of 5 mm, a most likely value of 5 mm, and a high value of 10 mm. +Because its most likely value equals its low value, the probability density is greatest at 5 mm and falls linearly to zero at 10 mm, and the mean +diameter is + + + +The range lies above the 2 to 5 mm default of the core compaction model and within the 5 to 12.5 mm default of the conduit 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, where the engineering basis of every model's default range is requested). +The shape of the distribution places most realizations near 5 mm. Because the shear stress is proportional to the diameter, those smaller pipes +need a higher pool to initiate than pipes near 10 mm. A site-specific distribution replaces the default. + +The screening-level adjustments the compaction models make to the toolbox method — the cylindrical-pipe geometry only, the probabilistic analysis +always, and the default distributions and derived seepage path length — apply unchanged (see +[Screening-Level Adjustments](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#screening-level-adjustments)). + +## Node 3: Continuation + +*Question:* Where a filter intersects the failure pathway at the base of the flaw, does erosion continue past it? + +When the user states that a filter intersects the flaw, the continuation probability $P_{cont}$ is the probability of continuing erosion +$P_{ce}$ computed by the shared continuation method from the filter and base-soil description, as documented in the +[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil) +manual, which selects the evaluation method the supplied information supports and the governing base soil. When no filter is stated, the exit is +unfiltered, $P_{cont} = 1.0$, and the continuation method is not evaluated: + + + +The value is the same at every pool level (see +[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 model applies the continuation method's result without adjustment. + +## Node 4: Progression — Roof Support + +*Question:* Does the material over the enlarging pipe hold a roof, so that the pipe stays open? + +The roof-support probability $P_{roof}$ is the minimum roof-support probability across the listed embankment materials, by the table of +[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. It is the same at every pool level. + +## Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling + +*Question:* Does the enlarging pipe remain unfilled by material carried in from upstream? + +The probability of no crack filling $P_{nf}$ depends only on the embankment type, by the table of +[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. + +## Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation + +*Question:* Does the flow into the enlarging pipe remain unrestricted by upstream seepage-limiting elements? + +The probability of no flow limitation $P_{nl}$ is the minimum across the listed upstream elements that reach the flaw, or 1.0 when none is listed, +by the table of +[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 for an upstream cutoff wall, the cutoff wall is compared once with the +base of the flaw, as documented 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): + +- When $z_{tw} \ge z_f$, the cutoff wall reaches the flaw and every listed element applies. +- When $z_{tw} < z_f$, the walls drop out and only an upstream facing element, if listed, still limits the flow. + +Because $z_f = z_c - h_w$, a cutoff wall limits flow through the flaw only when its top reaches at least the foot of the wall or cliff. The result is +one value applied 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)? + +The probabilities of unsuccessful intervention $P_{int}$ and of breach $P_{br}$ are the user-specified values documented in +[Intervention and Breach](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach), +each applied at every pool level. + +## SRP Computation + +The system response probability at each pool level $h$ is the product of the eight node probabilities, as documented in +[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation). For this model, every +node except initiation is the same at every pool level: + + + +where the symbols are those of and the sections above. The SRP is never +reported below a negligibly small floor: wherever the product falls below that floor — including where it is zero, at pool levels at or below the +base of the flaw — the SRP is reported at the floor instead (see +[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation)). Mechanically compacted fill +slightly wet of optimum always gives a product below the floor, because its negligible flaw-continuity probability sits at that floor before the +other nodes multiply it (see [Flaw-Continuity Stage](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-continuity-stage)), so its SRP is the floor at every pool level. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a12b7e3a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +--- +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 wall or cliff compaction model applies deliberate simplifications relative to a detailed internal-erosion risk analysis. They reduce input +requirements and are designed to avoid false negatives at the screening level. The model makes every assumption shared by the CLE compaction +models — the eight-node product, the pool-independent flaw probability, the cylindrical-pipe idealization and its default distributions, the +single-elevation failure pathway, and the tabulated progression probabilities — each listed with its basis in +[Assumptions and Limitations](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) in the CLE +Common Methods manual. This chapter lists the assumptions specific to this model. 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 in this document. + +## Flaw Assessment + +1. **The likelihood of a continuous poorly compacted zone along the face is judged from three factors**: the compaction of the fill against the + face, the slope of the face, and the presence of a concrete buttress, weighted 3, 2, and 1. + - *Engineering basis:* The risk-factor and likelihood-factor scheme of Fell et al. (2024) ; the source of the + weights and scores is requested at marker IN-06 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#likelihood-factors). + - *Effect on results:* The compaction of the fill has the largest effect on the weighted sum; the buttress has the smallest. + - *When it may not hold:* Where other conditions control the quality of the fill against the face — for example an irregular or benched face, + or a soil against the face that compacts less readily, as its plasticity may make it. The soil of the fill enters the initiation analysis, but + the scoring does not account for how compactable it is. The risk team's estimate then replaces the screening value. +2. **An Unknown selection is scored 3 for the compaction and the slope of the face, and 2 for the buttress.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-07 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#likelihood-factors). + - *Effect on results:* Unknown compaction scores as hand compaction in thick layers dry of optimum (3); an unknown slope scores 3, between a + battered face (2) and a vertical one (3.5); an unknown buttress scores below the midpoint of its Absent and Present scores. With every selection Unknown, the flaw probability is about + 6.3 × 10-6. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the available records suggest a condition better or worse than the Unknown score; selecting the indicated + category, or bracketing the result with the neighboring categories, then shows the sensitivity. +3. **One weighted-sum curve applies at every pool level, with no credit for the pool of record.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see markers IN-08 and IN-09 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#raw-flaw-probability). + - *Effect on results:* The flaw probability does not depend on how high the reservoir has stood without signs of a flaw. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the embankment has performed satisfactorily under pools close to those of interest; a detailed analysis can then + credit that performance. +4. **The compaction of the fill enters the flaw probability twice** — through its weight in the weighted sum and through the flaw-continuity + probability. + - *Engineering basis:* The flaw-continuity stage shared with the core and foundation or abutment compaction models, whose basis is requested in + [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. + - *Effect on results:* Mechanically compacted fill slightly wet of optimum gives a negligible flaw probability whatever the slope and buttress + selections, and each step from hand compaction slightly dry of optimum toward no formal compaction raises the flaw probability by one to two + orders of magnitude through the flaw-continuity probability alone. The two stages are not independent evidence about the fill — both read the + same compaction selection — so the double count magnifies the sensitivity of the flaw probability to that one selection. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the compaction records of the fill against the face are uncertain. A single selection of Mechanical, slightly + wet of optimum then removes the mechanism whatever the face slope and buttress, so a misjudged selection can produce a false negative. + Bracketing the result with the neighboring compaction categories shows how much the selection controls it. +5. **An observation of leakage adjacent to the wall sets the flaw probability to 1.0 and leaves the base of the flaw unchanged.** + - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment shared by the CLE observation overrides: an observation of leakage demonstrates the flaw (see + [Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in + the CLE Common Methods manual). The base of the flaw follows from the wall geometry and is not an observation. + - *Effect on results:* The SRP is governed entirely by the downstream nodes, and initiation is still evaluated at the foot of the wall or cliff. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the leakage emerges well above the foot of the face, or has another source; the observed leakage elevation is not + an input, so a flaw at a higher elevation is evaluated at the foot. + +## Flaw Location + +6. **The base of the flaw is at the crest elevation less the wall or cliff height.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-02 in [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#wall-or-cliff-geometry) for the + measurement of the height and marker IN-10 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-the-flaw) for placing the flaw at the foot. + - *Effect on results:* The taller the wall or cliff, the lower the base of the flaw and the lower the pool at which initiation can begin. Where + tailwater is below the base of the flaw, a lower base also gives a larger net head across the flaw at a given pool; where tailwater stands + above the base, the net head is the pool less the tailwater, whatever the wall or cliff height. Where the seepage path length is derived + rather than supplied, a lower base also lengthens the path, because an embankment section widens downward, so the hydraulic gradient — and with it + the initiation probability at a given pool — does not necessarily increase with the wall or cliff height. Only the pool at which initiation + can begin is certain to drop. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the wall or cliff does not reach the crest, where its foot varies in elevation along the embankment, or where the + fill in contact with it ends above its foot. +7. **The default initial pipe diameter is triangular from 5 to 10 mm with its most likely value at 5 mm.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested in + [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:* Most realizations carry a diameter near the low end of the range, so the initiation curve is shaped mainly by the + smaller diameters. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the opening along the face is known to be larger or smaller than the default range; a site-specific + distribution should then be supplied. + +## Failure Pathway + +8. **Whether a filter intersects the flaw is stated by the user, with no filter elevation.** + - *Engineering basis:* The single-elevation pathway convention of the compaction models (see + [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#the-failure-pathway) + in the CLE Common Methods manual): the filter either intersects the flaw at its base or does not, at every pool level. + - *Effect on results:* A stated filter scales the SRP by the continuation probability at every pool level (no change when it is 1.0); no + filter leaves continuation certain. + - *When it may not hold:* Where a filter intersects only part of the face, for example only above a certain elevation; the user should then judge + whether it intersects the pathway at the base of the flaw. +9. **An upstream cutoff wall limits flow through the flaw only if its top reaches the foot of the wall or cliff.** + - *Engineering basis:* The flow-limitation gating of the compaction models, whose basis is requested 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) + in the CLE Common Methods manual. + - *Effect on results:* A cutoff wall whose top is below the base of the flaw receives no credit, however effective it is. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the poorly compacted zone extends well above the foot of the face. The cutoff wall is compared only with the foot, + so a cutoff whose top just reaches the foot receives full credit even though flow can pass over its top into the poorly compacted zone higher + on the face; the credit is then unconservative. A cutoff whose top is below the foot cannot intersect a zone that sits above it, so giving it + no credit is consistent. + +## Applicability + +10. **A wall and a cliff are treated alike.** Every input applies in the same way to fill against a constructed wall and against a natural cliff. + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-01 in [Model Overview](./02-model-overview.mdx#purpose). + - *Effect on results:* The concrete-buttress factor is scored for a cliff as for a wall. + - *When it may not hold:* Where a cliff face is irregular, fractured, or erodible, conditions the model does not describe. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ba80cac5a --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +--- +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 model reports the SRP at each evaluated pool level together with the probability of each of the eight nodes, in the form shared by the CLE +compaction models (see [Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) +in the CLE Common Methods manual). This chapter describes the results specific to this model and how to read the system response curve of the wall +or cliff compaction mechanism. + +## Results + +**Pool-independent results:** + +- **Flaw probability** — Node 1 (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)); 1.0 when leakage adjacent to the wall is reported. +- **Continuation probability** — Node 3: the continuation method's probability of continuing erosion when a filter is stated, otherwise 1.0. +- **Roof-support probability** — Node 4, the minimum across the embankment materials. +- **Crack-filling probability** — Node 5, the probability of no crack filling for the embankment type. +- **Flow-limitation probability** — Node 6, after any cutoff wall whose top is below the base of the flaw has dropped out; 1.0 when no upstream + element applies. + +**Pool-dependent series**, over every supplied headwater value and the additional levels between them: the pool levels, the tailwater (reported +as the base-of-flaw elevation where there is no tailwater), the initiation probability, the unsuccessful-intervention and breach +probabilities, the flow-limitation probability (the same value at every pool level as the pool-independent result above), and the SRP. + +**Supporting results:** + +- **Flaw assessment** — the likelihood factors of the wall-fill compaction, the wall slope, and the concrete buttress; the weighted sum; the raw + flaw probability; the flaw-continuity probability; the flaw probability; whether the leakage observation override applied; and the base-of-flaw + elevation $z_f$. When leakage is reported and a flaw-factor selection is omitted, the scoring results are not reported; the flaw probability + (1.0), the override, and the base of the flaw still are. +- **Continuation** — when a filter is stated, the results of the continuation method, read as documented in + [Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) in the Continuation + (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual. When no filter is stated, no continuation results are reported. +- **Initiation analysis** — at each pool level, the upstream and downstream heads above the base of the flaw, the hydraulic gradient, and the + mean and 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the hydraulic shear stress; and the seepage path length used, either the supplied length or the + length derived from the section (see + [Supporting Results](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#supporting-results)). + +## Interpreting the System Response Curve + +The curve is negligible at and below the base of the flaw, $z_f = z_c - h_w$. Above it, where the node product exceeds the negligibly small floor +at which the SRP is reported (see [SRP Computation](./05-event-tree.mdx#srp-computation)), the curve rises with pool level as the hydraulic gradient +through the pipe grows, following the initiation probability. A rising tailwater that reduces the net head across the pipe can flatten or lower the curve +over that range. Every other node is the same at every pool level, so the curve approaches their product as +the initiation probability approaches 1.0: + + + +The rise and the bound both hold only where the node product exceeds the reporting floor. Where it falls below the floor — always for mechanically +compacted fill slightly wet of optimum — the curve stays flat at the floor at every pool level and can sit above the stated bound. + +The wall or cliff height sets where the curve begins: the taller the wall or cliff, the lower the pool at which initiation can begin. How quickly the +curve rises above that level is set by the critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter distributions and the seepage path length (see +[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). + +Without a leakage observation, the flaw probability is at most about 5.6 × 10-3 (see +[Flaw-Continuity Stage](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-continuity-stage)), which bounds the curve at every pool level. With a leakage observation, the +flaw probability is 1.0 and the curve is set entirely by the downstream nodes. + +## Reading the Node Breakdown + +The readings of +[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 apply. For this model: + +- **The flaw probability** reflects the three selections, and the flaw assessment results show which drives it. The wall-fill compaction selection + acts twice — through its weight of 3 in the weighted sum and through the flaw-continuity probability — so the flaw probability is especially + sensitive to it. +- **A stated filter** scales the whole curve by the continuation probability (no change when it is 1.0). +- **An upstream cutoff wall** lowers the curve by its flow-limitation probability only if its top is at or above the base of the flaw; otherwise + only an upstream facing element, if listed, does. + +## Checking the Result + +In addition to 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: + +- **Flaw probability** — without a leakage observation, it can be reproduced by hand from the reported likelihood factors with + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx): the weighted sum, the raw flaw probability read from the weighted-sum curve, and the flaw-continuity + probability for the compaction category. +- **Base of the flaw** — the reported base-of-flaw elevation equals the crest elevation less the wall or cliff height, and the curve is negligible + at and below it. A curve that rises from an unexpected pool level can point to a wall or cliff height, or a crest elevation, on a different datum + from the headwater series. +- **Flow limitation** — a cutoff wall listed among the upstream elements but given no credit can indicate a top-of-wall elevation below the base + of the flaw. It need not: where a listed facing element governs the minimum, a cutoff wall that reaches the flaw also has no visible effect. + Compare the top-of-wall elevation $z_{tw}$ with the reported base of the flaw $z_f$ directly. + +## Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis + +The model is a screening tool. Its result indicates whether concentrated leak erosion along a wall or cliff warrants detailed analysis; it is not a +substitute for one. Where the result is significant to a decision, the governing nodes should be re-examined with site-specific information — the +construction records of the fill against the face, the face geometry, the location of any observed leakage, and erosion testing of the fill — and the +detailed toolbox methods, the methods of Fell et al. (2024) , and the judgment of the risk team should replace +the screening values (see +[Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#screening-results-relative-to-detailed-analysis) +in the CLE Common Methods manual). + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..72ac3bc17 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ +# Input Needed — CLE Wall/Cliff 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. + +Several bases this model relies on are requested once, in the CLE Common Methods Screening +Technical Reference Manual, and are not repeated here: the log-linear weighted-sum interpolation +(its IN-03), the flaw-continuity curve (its IN-04), the default critical shear stress table and +the exclusion of clean sands and gravels (its IN-07 to IN-10), the default initial pipe diameter +ranges including this model's 5 to 10 mm range (its IN-11), the crack-filling and flow-limitation +conventions (its IN-13 and IN-14), and the intended length unit (its IN-01). + +--- + +## IN-01 — Applicability — `02-model-overview.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The structures and faces the model covers, whether a wall and a cliff are treated +identically by every input (including the concrete-buttress factor, which has no direct +counterpart on a natural cliff), and the physical description of the mechanism. + +**Needed:** The intended scope (types of walls and cliffs), how a cliff is to be scored for the +buttress factor, and a description of why fill against a face is prone to poor compaction and +how face slope and a buttress affect it, with its literature source. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The model applies to any steep, effectively rigid face against which +embankment fill was placed, natural or constructed; a cliff is scored with the buttress absent; +compaction equipment cannot work tight against a face, and a steeper face or a projecting +buttress enlarges the zone that receives less compactive effort. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-02 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** How the wall or cliff height is measured. The model places the base of the flaw at +the crest elevation less the height. + +**Needed:** The intended definition, and how to enter the height when the wall or cliff does not +reach the crest, when its foot varies in elevation along the embankment, or when the fill against +it rests on a foundation above the wall's foot. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The vertical distance from the embankment crest down to the lowest +elevation at which fill is in contact with the face on the section being screened. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-03 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** Boundaries of the wall-fill compaction categories (mechanical slightly wet of +optimum; hand slightly dry of optimum; hand, thick layers, dry of optimum; no formal compaction; +unknown). + +**Needed:** (1) The layer thickness that distinguishes "thick layers"; (2) the water-content range +meant by "slightly wet" and "slightly dry" of optimum; (3) which category to select for fill that +matches none exactly (for example mechanically compacted fill dry of optimum, or hand-compacted +fill wet of optimum). + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-04 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The wall-slope categories (vertical; H/V from 0.1 to 0.25; H/V above 0.25; +unknown). + +**Needed:** Which category applies to a face battered at less than 0.1 H/V and to an overhanging +face; whether the slope is that of the full height or the steepest part; whether a cliff's slope +is judged the same way. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** "Vertical" covers every face steeper than 0.1 H/V, including an +overhanging face, judged over the height in contact with the fill. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-05 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** What qualifies as a concrete buttress, and why its presence makes a flaw more likely +(Present scores 3.5, Absent 1). + +**Needed:** The definition to print and the physical effect of the buttress. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** Any concrete element projecting from the face into the fill, which +creates confined corners and re-entrant zones against which fill is difficult to compact. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-06 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The risk-factor weights (3 wall-fill compaction, 2 wall slope, 1 concrete buttress) +and the likelihood factors of every category (compaction 1, 2, 3, 4; slope H/V above 0.25 → 1, +0.1 to 0.25 → 2, vertical → 3.5; buttress absent → 1, present → 3.5), including the intermediate +score of 3.5. + +**Needed:** Confirmation that they are taken from Fell et al. (2024) with the table number, or the +engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-07 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The scores of the Unknown categories: 3 for wall-fill compaction, 3 for wall slope, +2 for the buttress (below the midpoint of its Absent and Present scores, unlike the other two). + +**Needed:** The reasoning for each, or the literature source. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** An Unknown selection is scored moderately unfavorably to avoid a false +negative; buttresses are judged uncommon enough that an unknown buttress is scored nearer to +Absent. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-08 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The weighted-sum curve: sums 9, 11, 13, 18, 24 → negligible, 1e-4, 1e-3, 1e-2, +1e-1. + +**Needed:** The source of the curve for this mechanism (table or figure of Fell et al. (2024)) or +the engineering-judgment attribution, and why the curve extends to 24 when the largest attainable +sum is 22.5. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-09 — Decision — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The model applies one weighted-sum curve at every pool level, with no pool-of-record +input. The curve applied is the one its source assigns to pools above the pool of record; the +companion curve for pools at or below the pool of record is not used. + +**Needed:** Whether the manual should state that no credit is taken for past performance up to the +pool of record, and the engineering basis for applying the above-pool-of-record curve throughout. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** A conservative screening simplification that removes the pool of record +as an input; past performance can be credited in a detailed analysis. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-10 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** Placing the base of the flaw at the foot of the wall or cliff (crest elevation less +the wall or cliff height) rather than at another elevation along the face or over a range of +elevations. + +**Needed:** The literature source or the engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** A poorly compacted zone may extend over the full height of the face, +and its lowest point carries the largest head above the flaw at any pool and is the first to be +loaded as the pool rises. The seepage path is also longest at the foot, so the gradient is not +necessarily largest there; state whether evaluating initiation at the foot is intended to be +conservative. The foot is the unconservative location for the upstream cutoff-wall comparison, +since a cutoff whose top reaches the foot is credited even where the zone extends above it. + +**Answer:** + +--- diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js index 94aa4cf81..81fa233c7 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ const docs = [ software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening', doc_name: 'CLE Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', - active: false, + active: true, draft: true, }, { diff --git a/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e5c80cf3b --- /dev/null +++ b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-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 53ec8c714efe7c16d7f69b3c7a0cc96e265c4ea1 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 | 16 +++++----- .../v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx | 20 ++++++------ .../v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx | 16 +++++----- .../v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx | 32 +++++++++---------- .../v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx | 12 +++---- .../v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx | 14 ++++---- 7 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx index 7837cb333..eacfcfc9d 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx @@ -16,9 +16,9 @@ and any application that performs screening-level risk analysis can use it. The model is one of eight CLE screening models. All eight evaluate the same eight-node event tree, seven of the eight (all but cross-valley differential settlement) share a scoring scheme for the probability of a flaw, and all eight share the treatment of initiation, continuation, and progression that their flaw geometry calls for. Those common methods are documented once, in the -[CLE Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), and +[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), 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 manual documents what is specific to the wall or cliff compaction mechanism — its flaw, its inputs, how it populates each node of the common event tree, and its assumptions — and links the chapter of the shared manuals that documents each common step. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx index e6061a296..2744f9db9 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion along a w simplifying and generally conservative assumptions to avoid false negatives and to reduce input burden: three qualitative selections describe the likelihood of a flaw, the base of the flaw follows from the wall or cliff height, and default distributions cover the erodibility and initial-opening properties that are typically unavailable at the screening stage (see -[Intended Use](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) in the CLE Common Methods +[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). The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments. For higher-level analyses, the concentrated leak erosion toolbox @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ methods and the internal-erosion probability methods they draw on provide the co ## How the Model Works The model executes the three stages common to the CLE compaction models (see -[How the Model Works](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#how-the-model-works) in the CLE +[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): 1. **Flaw assessment** — The compaction of the fill against the wall, the slope of the wall, and the presence of a concrete buttress are each scored @@ -69,19 +69,19 @@ Common Methods manual): The model combines the following engineering methods, each documented in a shared manual: - **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** for the probability of a continuous flaw , as documented in - [Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) + [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) in the CLE Common Methods manual. The three factors and their scores are documented in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx). - **Hydraulic shear stress on the walls of a cylindrical pipe** compared with the critical shear stress of the soil, as documented in - [Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) + [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) in the CLE Common Methods manual and 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 intersecting the flaw, 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 of the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual. - **Tabulated progression probabilities** for roof support, crack filling, and flow limitation , as documented in - [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) in the CLE Common Methods manual. ## Comparison with Detailed Models @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ The detailed counterpart of the screening model is an internal-erosion risk anal (2024) , with initiation evaluated by the concentrated leak erosion toolbox methods. summarizes the differences specific to this mechanism; the differences common to the CLE family are listed 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. and their weighted sum is converted to a raw flaw probability, which is then multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to the compaction of the fill. An observation of leakage adjacent to the wall replaces the estimate with certainty. The @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ The three factors and their risk-factor weights $RF$ are: - **Concrete buttress**, $RF = 1$ — whether a concrete buttress is present. The weights follow the pattern of most CLE scoring models, in which the three factors are weighted 3, 2, and 1 (see -[Factors](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#factors) in the CLE Common Methods manual). +[Factors](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#factors) in the CLE Common Methods manual). ## Likelihood Factors @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ and buttresses are judged uncommon enough that an unknown buttress is scored nea ## Weighted Sum The three scores combine into the weighted sum of -[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum): +[Flaw Conventions](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum): , interpolated linearly in the logarithm of probability between tabulated points and held at its end values beyond them, as documented 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. -4. The curve's highest point, a weighted sum of 24, lies beyond the attainable range; the largest attainable sum of 22.5 gives a raw flaw probability of about 5.6 × 10-2. No factor is an incompatible-condition factor — a factor whose least likely score forces the flaw probability to zero (see -[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) — so no single score forces the raw flaw probability to zero. The flaw probability itself can still be negligible from one selection: mechanical compaction slightly wet of optimum makes it negligible through the flaw-continuity stage (see [Flaw-Continuity Stage](#flaw-continuity-stage)). @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ record as an input; past performance can be credited in a detailed analysis. Con The raw flaw probability is multiplied by the flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$, interpolated in the logarithm of probability from the wall-fill compaction score on the curve shared with the core and 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 +[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) in the CLE Common Methods manual, where its engineering basis is requested): This is the third of the ways the compaction models resolve the base of the flaw, alongside the normal-pool heuristic and direct input (see -[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 base of the flaw sets the pipe invert of the initiation analysis and the elevation against which the top of an upstream cutoff wall is compared (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). The restrictions on where it may lie are listed under [Wall or Cliff Geometry](./03-input-parameters.mdx#wall-or-cliff-geometry). diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx index c39a8d459..38a0966a2 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx @@ -13,10 +13,10 @@ import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; # Event Tree The model evaluates the eight-node event tree shared by every CLE screening model, documented in -[Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) in the CLE Common Methods manual, at every pool +[Event Tree](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) in the CLE Common Methods manual, at every pool level of the headwater grid described there. This chapter documents how the wall or cliff compaction model populates each node. Because the flaw sits at one elevation, the base of the flaw $z_f$, only the initiation node varies with pool level; the other seven nodes 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)). +level (see [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)). ## Node Summary @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ reported. stress on the pipe wall that exceeds the critical shear stress $\tau_c$ of the fill against the wall? The model hands this question to the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis documented in -[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) in the CLE Common Methods manual, whose theory is 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 initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ at each pool level is the fraction of Monte Carlo @@ -77,10 +77,10 @@ realizations in which the shear stress exceeds the critical shear stress. The mo - **Hydraulic loading** — each pool level and its tailwater, which together set the net head across the pipe. - **Seepage path length** — the user-supplied length, or else the length of a horizontal line at $z_f$ across the core section when one is supplied and across the shell section otherwise, as documented in - [Seepage Path Length](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length). The same length + [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). The same length applies at every pool level. - **Critical shear stress** — the user-supplied distribution, or else the triangular distribution for the core soil classification documented in - [Critical Shear Stress](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress). Whether or + [Critical Shear Stress](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress). Whether or not a critical shear stress distribution is supplied, the clean and nearly clean sands and gravels are not accepted as the soil of the fill against the wall. - **Initial pipe diameter** — the user-supplied distribution, or else this model's default triangular distribution, described below. @@ -92,14 +92,14 @@ diameter is The range lies above the 2 to 5 mm default of the core compaction model and within the 5 to 12.5 mm default of the conduit compaction model (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, where the engineering basis of every model's default range is requested). The shape of the distribution places most realizations near 5 mm. Because the shear stress is proportional to the diameter, those smaller pipes need a higher pool to initiate than pipes near 10 mm. A site-specific distribution replaces the default. The screening-level adjustments the compaction models make to the toolbox method — the cylindrical-pipe geometry only, the probabilistic analysis always, and the default distributions and derived seepage path length — apply unchanged (see -[Screening-Level Adjustments](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#screening-level-adjustments)). +[Screening-Level Adjustments](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#screening-level-adjustments)). ## Node 3: Continuation @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ always, and the default distributions and derived seepage path length — apply When the user states that a filter intersects the flaw, the continuation probability $P_{cont}$ is the probability of continuing erosion $P_{ce}$ computed by the shared continuation method from the filter and base-soil description, as documented in the -[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil) +[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil) manual, which selects the evaluation method the supplied information supports and the governing base soil. When no filter is stated, the exit is unfiltered, $P_{cont} = 1.0$, and the continuation method is not evaluated: @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ unfiltered, $P_{cont} = 1.0$, and the continuation method is not evaluated: /> The value is the same at every pool level (see -[Node 3: Continuation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-3-continuation) +[Node 3: Continuation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/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 model applies the continuation method's result without adjustment. ## Node 4: Progression — Roof Support @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ in the CLE Common Methods manual). The model applies the continuation method's r *Question:* Does the material over the enlarging pipe hold a roof, so that the pipe stays open? The roof-support probability $P_{roof}$ is the minimum roof-support probability across the listed embankment materials, by the table of -[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) +[Node 4: Progression — Roof Support](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) in the CLE Common Methods manual. It is the same at every pool level. ## Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ in the CLE Common Methods manual. It is the same at every pool level. *Question:* Does the enlarging pipe remain unfilled by material carried in from upstream? The probability of no crack filling $P_{nf}$ depends only on the embankment type, by the table of -[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) +[Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/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. ## Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation @@ -142,10 +142,10 @@ in the CLE Common Methods manual. The probability of no flow limitation $P_{nl}$ is the minimum across the listed upstream elements that reach the flaw, or 1.0 when none is listed, by the table of -[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) +[Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/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 for an upstream cutoff wall, the cutoff wall is compared once with the base of the flaw, as documented 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): +[Walls That Stop Below the Crest](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#walls-that-stop-below-the-crest): - When $z_{tw} \ge z_f$, the cutoff wall reaches the flaw and every listed element applies. - When $z_{tw} < z_f$, the walls drop out and only an upstream facing element, if listed, still limits the flow. @@ -158,13 +158,13 @@ one value applied at every pool level. *Questions:* Do detection and intervention fail (Node 7)? Does an uncontrolled release of impounded water occur (Node 8)? The probabilities of unsuccessful intervention $P_{int}$ and of breach $P_{br}$ are the user-specified values documented in -[Intervention and Breach](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach), +[Intervention and Breach](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach), each applied at every pool level. ## SRP Computation The system response probability at each pool level $h$ is the product of the eight node probabilities, as documented in -[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation). For this model, every +[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). For this model, every node except initiation is the same at every pool level: and the sections above. The SRP is never reported below a negligibly small floor: wherever the product falls below that floor — including where it is zero, at pool levels at or below the base of the flaw — the SRP is reported at the floor instead (see -[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation)). Mechanically compacted fill +[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)). Mechanically compacted fill slightly wet of optimum always gives a product below the floor, because its negligible flaw-continuity probability sits at that floor before the other nodes multiply it (see [Flaw-Continuity Stage](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-continuity-stage)), so its SRP is the floor at every pool level. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx index a12b7e3a4..a7e796122 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ The wall or cliff compaction model applies deliberate simplifications relative t requirements and are designed to avoid false negatives at the screening level. The model makes every assumption shared by the CLE compaction models — the eight-node product, the pool-independent flaw probability, the cylindrical-pipe idealization and its default distributions, the single-elevation failure pathway, and the tabulated progression probabilities — each listed with its basis in -[Assumptions and Limitations](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) in the CLE +[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) in the CLE Common Methods manual. This chapter lists the assumptions specific to this model. 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 in this document. @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ primary location in this document. 4. **The compaction of the fill enters the flaw probability twice** — through its weight in the weighted sum and through the flaw-continuity probability. - *Engineering basis:* The flaw-continuity stage shared with the core and foundation or abutment compaction models, whose basis is requested in - [Flaw-Continuity Stage](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-continuity-stage) in + [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) in the CLE Common Methods manual. - *Effect on results:* Mechanically compacted fill slightly wet of optimum gives a negligible flaw probability whatever the slope and buttress selections, and each step from hand compaction slightly dry of optimum toward no formal compaction raises the flaw probability by one to two @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ primary location in this document. Bracketing the result with the neighboring compaction categories shows how much the selection controls it. 5. **An observation of leakage adjacent to the wall sets the flaw probability to 1.0 and leaves the base of the flaw unchanged.** - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment shared by the CLE observation overrides: an observation of leakage demonstrates the flaw (see - [Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in + [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). The base of the flaw follows from the wall geometry and is not an observation. - *Effect on results:* The SRP is governed entirely by the downstream nodes, and initiation is still evaluated at the foot of the wall or cliff. - *When it may not hold:* Where the leakage emerges well above the foot of the face, or has another source; the observed leakage elevation is not @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ primary location in this document. fill in contact with it ends above its foot. 7. **The default initial pipe diameter is triangular from 5 to 10 mm with its most likely value at 5 mm.** - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested in - [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:* Most realizations carry a diameter near the low end of the range, so the initiation curve is shaped mainly by the smaller diameters. @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ primary location in this document. 8. **Whether a filter intersects the flaw is stated by the user, with no filter elevation.** - *Engineering basis:* The single-elevation pathway convention of the compaction models (see - [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#the-failure-pathway) + [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#the-failure-pathway) in the CLE Common Methods manual): the filter either intersects the flaw at its base or does not, at every pool level. - *Effect on results:* A stated filter scales the SRP by the continuation probability at every pool level (no change when it is 1.0); no filter leaves continuation certain. @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ primary location in this document. whether it intersects the pathway at the base of the flaw. 9. **An upstream cutoff wall limits flow through the flaw only if its top reaches the foot of the wall or cliff.** - *Engineering basis:* The flow-limitation gating of the compaction models, whose basis is requested 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) + [Walls That Stop Below the Crest](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#walls-that-stop-below-the-crest) in the CLE Common Methods manual. - *Effect on results:* A cutoff wall whose top is below the base of the flaw receives no credit, however effective it is. - *When it may not hold:* Where the poorly compacted zone extends well above the foot of the face. The cutoff wall is compared only with the foot, diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx index ba80cac5a..cae9590ee 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; # Output and Interpretation The model reports the SRP at each evaluated pool level together with the probability of each of the eight nodes, in the form shared by the CLE -compaction models (see [Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) +compaction models (see [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) in the CLE Common Methods manual). This chapter describes the results specific to this model and how to read the system response curve of the wall or cliff compaction mechanism. @@ -38,12 +38,12 @@ probabilities, the flow-limitation probability (the same value at every pool lev elevation $z_f$. When leakage is reported and a flaw-factor selection is omitted, the scoring results are not reported; the flaw probability (1.0), the override, and the base of the flaw still are. - **Continuation** — when a filter is stated, the results of the continuation method, read as documented in - [Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) in the Continuation + [Output and Interpretation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) in the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual. When no filter is stated, no continuation results are reported. - **Initiation analysis** — at each pool level, the upstream and downstream heads above the base of the flaw, the hydraulic gradient, and the mean and 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the hydraulic shear stress; and the seepage path length used, either the supplied length or the length derived from the section (see - [Supporting Results](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#supporting-results)). + [Supporting Results](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#supporting-results)). ## Interpreting the System Response Curve @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ compacted fill slightly wet of optimum — the curve stays flat at the floor at The wall or cliff height sets where the curve begins: the taller the wall or cliff, the lower the pool at which initiation can begin. How quickly the curve rises above that level is set by the critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter distributions and the seepage path length (see -[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). Without a leakage observation, the flaw probability is at most about 5.6 × 10-3 (see @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ flaw probability is 1.0 and the curve is set entirely by the downstream nodes. ## Reading the Node Breakdown The readings of -[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 apply. For this model: - **The flaw probability** reflects the three selections, and the flaw assessment results show which drives it. The wall-fill compaction selection @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ in the CLE Common Methods manual apply. For this model: ## Checking the Result In addition to 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: - **Flaw probability** — without a leakage observation, it can be reproduced by hand from the reported likelihood factors with @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ substitute for one. Where the result is significant to a decision, the governing construction records of the fill against the face, the face geometry, the location of any observed leakage, and erosion testing of the fill — and the detailed toolbox methods, the methods of Fell et al. (2024) , and the judgment of the risk team should replace the screening values (see -[Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#screening-results-relative-to-detailed-analysis) +[Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#screening-results-relative-to-detailed-analysis) in the CLE Common Methods manual). From beebffe8da398e7308746186036110628c550925 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 --- .../v1.0/00-document-info.mdx | 4 ++-- .../cle-wall-cliff-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-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx index 495d4fa3e..c5c246a39 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx @@ -2,12 +2,12 @@ title: Document Info reportDate: October 2026 reportType: Technical Reference -reportTitle: CLE Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual +reportTitle: Concentrated Leak Erosion Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual reportSubTitle: System Response Library reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.'] reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) wall or cliff 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 fill placed against a wall or cliff, using the eight-node CLE event tree. The probability of a continuous flaw is estimated by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of three site factors — the compaction of the fill against the wall, the slope of the wall, and the presence of a concrete buttress — multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to the compaction of the fill, and an observation of leakage adjacent to the wall overrides it to certainty. The base of the flaw is placed at the crest elevation less the wall or cliff height. Initiation is evaluated by a Monte Carlo cylindrical-pipe hydraulic shear stress analysis, and continuation by the shared continuation method when a filter intersects the flaw. 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', 'Poor Compaction', 'Wall', 'Cliff', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Monte Carlo'] -citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, CLE Wall/Cliff 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 Wall/Cliff 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-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md index 72ac3bc17..d11936188 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Input Needed — CLE Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual (v1.0) +# Input Needed — Concentrated Leak Erosion Wall/Cliff 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 81fa233c7..98d518a16 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ const docs = [ category: 'web-applications', software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening', - doc_name: 'CLE Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', + doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', active: true, draft: true, }, From 782831ae5285dae740d2fd81f6008364131218d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:50:51 -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 98d518a16..384bc60b2 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -385,6 +385,7 @@ const docs = [ software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening', doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', + sidebar_label: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening', active: true, draft: true, },