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

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: 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, <i>Concentrated Leak Erosion Wall/Cliff Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual</i>, Lakewood, CO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, 2026.'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import DocumentMetadata from '@site/src/components/DocumentMetadata';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+<NavContainer
+  link="/web-applications/system-response"
+  linkTitle="System Response Library"
+  document="web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening"
+/>
+
+# Document Information
+
+<DocumentMetadata metadata={frontMatter} />

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';
+
+<NavContainer link="/web-applications/system-response" linkTitle="System Response Library" document="web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening" />
+
+# Version History
+
+<TableVersionHistory
+  versions={['1.0']}
+  dates={['October 2026']}
+  descriptions={['Initial release as an online document.']}
+  modifiedBy={['-']}
+  reviewedBy={['-']}
+  approvedBy={['-']}
+/>

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

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+title: Preface
+---
+
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+<NavContainer link="/web-applications/system-response" linkTitle="System Response Library" document="web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening" />
+
+# 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](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](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.
+
+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.

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';
+
+<NavContainer link="/web-applications/system-response" linkTitle="System Response Library" document="web-applications/system-response/cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening" />
+
+# 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](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
+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](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
+   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 <Citation citationKey="Fell2024" />, as documented in
+  [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](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](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 <Citation citationKey="Fell2024" />, as documented in
+  [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
+
+The detailed counterpart of the screening model is an internal-erosion risk analysis by the methods of Fell et al.
+(2024) <Citation citationKey="Fell2024" />, with initiation evaluated by the concentrated leak erosion toolbox methods.
+<TableReference tableKey="cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening-table-1" /> summarizes the differences specific to this mechanism; the differences
+common to the CLE family are listed in
+[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.
+
+<TableVertical
+  tableKey="cle-wall-cliff-compaction-screening-table-1"
+  alt="Comparison of the wall or cliff compaction screening model and a detailed analysis"
+  caption="Comparison of the wall or cliff compaction screening model and a detailed analysis."
+  headers={[[{ value: 'Aspect' }, { value: 'Screening Model' }, { value: 'Detailed Analysis' }]]}
+  columns={[
+    ['Flaw probability', 'Flaw location', 'Flaw geometry', 'Filter at the flaw', 'Seepage path length'],
+    [
+      'Scored from three qualitative factors, or 1.0 when leakage is observed',
+      'Crest elevation less the wall or cliff height',
+      'Cylindrical pipe of uncertain initial diameter',
+      'Stated present or absent by the user',
+      'Derived from the embankment section, or supplied',
+    ],
+    [
+      'Estimated by the risk team from the totality of the evidence',
+      'Located by the risk team from the available evidence',
+      'Cylindrical pipe or crack geometry (analyst selects)',
+      'Evaluated by the filter evaluation methods',
+      'Measured or specified by the analyst',
+    ],
+  ]}
+/>
+
+## 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](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#the-two-model-groups) in the CLE
+Common Methods manual). It shares with 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.
+
+<CitationFootnote />