From a1f975f395a35050db5cc7d67cb6c4f909623535 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 18:31:46 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Add the CLE Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening technical reference manual to the System Response Library New document, registered as an active draft. --- .../v1.0/00-document-info.mdx | 25 ++ .../v1.0/00-version-history.mdx | 23 ++ .../v1.0/01-preface.mdx | 44 +++ .../v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx | 135 ++++++++ .../v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx | 209 ++++++++++++ .../v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx | 310 ++++++++++++++++++ .../v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx | 175 ++++++++++ .../v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx | 123 +++++++ .../v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx | 98 ++++++ .../v1.0/_input-needed.md | 193 +++++++++++ src/docConfig.js | 2 +- .../v1.0/bib.json | 17 + 12 files changed, 1353 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md create mode 100644 static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e86f844d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +title: Document Info +reportDate: October 2026 +reportType: Technical Reference +reportTitle: CLE Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual +reportSubTitle: System Response Library +reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.'] +reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) screening model for poor compaction along the foundation or abutment contact in the System Response library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level from the eight-node CLE event tree. The probability of a continuous flaw is scored from three site factors (the preparation of the foundation or abutment surface, the method used to compact the embankment fill against it, and the width and width-to-height ratio of the embankment section) by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring, and is multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to the compaction method; a well-prepared surface forces the flaw probability to a negligible value. The flaw sits at the embankment-foundation contact, or for an abutment at an elevation one third of the way from normal pool to the crest. Initiation is evaluated by a Monte Carlo cylindrical-pipe shear stress analysis. This manual documents what is specific to the mechanism and refers to the shared CLE and continuation manuals for the common methods. +reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Foundation Contact', 'Abutment Contact', 'Compaction', 'Foundation Preparation', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Monte Carlo'] +citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, CLE Foundation/Abutment 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-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..42720a5b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +--- +title: Version History +--- + +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableVersionHistory from '@site/src/components/TableVersionHistory'; + + + +# Version History + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1c8e22042 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +title: Preface +--- + +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; + + + +# Preface + +This document provides a technical reference for the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) screening model for poor compaction along the foundation or +abutment contact 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 embankment fill placed against the foundation or an abutment. It is a screening-level +model: it applies simplifications intended to reduce input burden while avoiding false negatives, and any application that performs +screening-level risk analysis can use it. + +The model is one of eight CLE screening models that share one event tree, one flaw-scoring scheme, one initiation analysis for compaction flaws, +and one set of failure-pathway and progression rules. Those common methods are documented once, in the +[Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), +and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared method of the +[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface). +This manual documents only what is specific to the foundation or abutment compaction mechanism — its flaw, its inputs, where it departs from the +common event tree, and its assumptions — and refers to the specific chapters of the two shared manuals for the rest. + +The intended audience includes dam safety engineers evaluating whether the model is appropriate for their assessment, and peer reviewers checking +the technical basis of screening-level results. Readers are assumed to have a general background in internal-erosion risk analysis — event trees, +concentrated leak erosion mechanics, and probability concepts — but no familiarity with the software implementation is required. + +## Document Organization + +- **[Model Overview](./02-model-overview.mdx)** — The model's purpose and intended use, a summary of its execution pathway, its engineering basis, + a comparison with detailed methods, and how it draws on the shared CLE and continuation methods. +- **[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)** — The inputs specific to the mechanism: the choice between a foundation and an abutment + contact and the elevations it requires, the three flaw-factor selections, the optional section dimensions for scoring, the initial pipe diameter + default, and the filter-presence selection, with a guide to the inputs shared with the family. +- **[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)** — The base-of-flaw elevation, the three scored factors and their likelihood factors, the + weighted sum and its flaw-probability curve, the well-prepared-surface rule, and the flaw-continuity stage, with the resulting range of flaw + probabilities. +- **[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)** — How the model populates each of the eight nodes, where it follows and where it departs from the common + tree, and how the SRP is computed. +- **[Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx)** — Each assumption specific to the mechanism, 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 flaw-assessment results the model reports, how they bound the system + response curve, and how to read and check a result. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3e6539932 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +--- +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 model computes a system response curve for concentrated leak erosion through poorly compacted fill along the foundation or abutment contact, +as a function of headwater elevation. The system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level is the conditional probability of breach of +the embankment by this mechanism, given that pool level. + +The mechanism is a continuous zone of loose or poorly compacted embankment fill against the surface the embankment is built on — the foundation +along the valley floor, or the abutment along the valley walls. Such a zone forms where the foundation surface was left irregular or poorly +prepared, or where the fill against it could not be, or was not, compacted as well as the body of the embankment. Water from the reservoir flowing +along the zone can erode its walls; if the exit is unfiltered and the enlarging pipe stays open, the erosion can progress to breach. + +## Intended Use + +The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion along the foundation or abutment contact. Like the other CLE screening +models, it makes simplifying and generally conservative assumptions to prevent false negatives and to reduce input burden (see +[Intended Use](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) in the common methods +manual). The placement of an abutment flaw by the normal-pool heuristic is an exception: for a flaw that lies lower on the abutment it is +unconservative, because it gives a negligible SRP from the actual flaw elevation up to the heuristic elevation above normal pool (see Assumption 2 +in [Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx#flaw-location)). For this mechanism the input burden is reduced to three qualitative selections describing the contact — the foundation material, how its +surface was prepared, and how the fill against it was compacted — together with the embankment section and the screening inputs shared by the +family. + +The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments (see +[Comparison with Detailed Models](#comparison-with-detailed-models)). + +## How the Model Works + +The model executes the three stages common to the CLE family (see +[How the Model Works](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#how-the-model-works) in the +common methods manual), with the following mechanism-specific content: + +1. **Flaw assessment** — The model places the base of the flaw at the embankment–foundation contact elevation for a foundation contact, or at + one third of the way from normal pool to the crest for an abutment contact. It scores three factors: the preparation of the foundation or + abutment surface, the method used to compact the fill in the contact zone, and the width and width-to-height ratio of the embankment section. + The weighted score is converted to a raw flaw probability, which is multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to the compaction method. + A well-prepared surface forces the flaw probability to a negligible value. The model has no observation override + (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 + intercepts it; the materials it passes through set roof support; and the upstream seepage-limiting elements are checked against the base of the + flaw (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). + +3. **Event-tree assembly** — At each headwater level, the model multiplies the eight node probabilities. Initiation is the cylindrical-pipe Monte + Carlo analysis of the common methods, with this model's default initial pipe diameter; every other node is the same at every pool level + (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). + +## Physics Basis + +The model combines the methods of the CLE family (see +[Physics Basis](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#physics-basis) in the common methods +manual). Specific to this mechanism: + +- **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** of the probability of a continuous flaw along the contact , with + three factors that describe the contact surface, the compaction of the contact zone, and the embankment section, and a flaw-continuity stage + keyed to the compaction method (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)). +- **Hydraulic shear stress on the walls of a cylindrical pipe** at the base of the flaw, compared with the critical shear stress assigned + through the core soil classification, by the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis shared by the four compaction models (see + [Cylindrical Pipe Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) + in the common methods manual). Which soil along the contact that classification describes is requested at marker IN-14 in + [Initiation Default](./03-input-parameters.mdx#initiation-default). +- **Tabulated progression probabilities** for roof support, crack filling, and flow limitation , applied as for + every compaction model, and **filter evaluation** by the shared continuation method when a filter intercepts the pathway. + +## Comparison with Detailed Models + +The detailed counterpart is an internal-erosion risk analysis of a flaw at the soil–rock or soil–soil contact, following +Fell et al. (2024) in full. The common methods manual compares the CLE screening family with the detailed methods (see +[Comparison with Detailed Models](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#comparison-with-detailed-models)). + lists the differences specific to this mechanism. + + + +## Relationship to the Shared Methods + +The model shares everything except its flaw assessment with the other CLE compaction models: + +- **Common CLE methods** — the event tree and SRP product, the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring and flaw-continuity conventions, the + cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis with its critical shear stress table, and the roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation tables are + documented in the + [Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface). + [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx) links each node to its section there. +- **Continuation** — when a filter intercepts the pathway, the continuation node is the result of the shared continuation method documented in the + [Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface) + (see [Node 3: Continuation](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-3-continuation)). + +Within the family, the model is closest to the core compaction model: both band the width and width-to-height ratio of the embankment section, +both place a flaw by the normal-pool heuristic (here only for an abutment contact), both apply the flaw-continuity stage, and both use the same +default initial pipe diameter range. It differs in having a foundation-preparation factor in place of a core-compaction category, a +well-prepared-surface rule in place of an observation override, and in the factor that keys the flaw-continuity stage: both key it to their +compaction factor, but here that factor carries a risk factor of 2, while in the core compaction model it is the factor with the highest risk +factor, 3. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..26375b874 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,209 @@ +--- +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 foundation or abutment compaction model: the flaw location and the elevations it requires, the +three flaw-factor selections, the optional section dimensions used in scoring, the default initial pipe diameter, and the filter-presence +selection. The model also takes the inputs shared by the CLE family, documented in the +[Common Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the common +methods manual and listed under [Inputs Shared with the Family](#inputs-shared-with-the-family) below. Each group gives the short facts for its +quantities in a table, followed by a description of each input and, for selections, a list of the choices and what each implies. + +## Flaw Location + +The user states whether the flaw lies along the foundation contact or along an abutment contact. The choice decides how the base-of-flaw +elevation $z_f$ is resolved (). + +fc', 'znp'], + ['selection', 'elevation', 'elevation'], + ['Foundation or abutment', 'Positive; within the section used for initiation', 'Below the crest'], + ['Required', 'Required for a foundation contact', 'Required for an abutment contact'], + ]} +/> + +- **Contact location** — the contact along which the poorly compacted zone lies: + - **Foundation** — the fill placed on the foundation along the valley floor. The base of the flaw is the embankment–foundation contact + elevation $z_{fc}$. + - **Abutment** — the fill placed against an abutment along the valley wall. The base of the flaw is placed one third of the way from the + normal pool elevation $z_{np}$ to the crest (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-flaw-elevation)). +- **Embankment–foundation contact elevation** — the elevation of the base of the embankment on the foundation at the section analyzed. It is + used only for a foundation contact and is ignored for an abutment contact. +- **Normal pool elevation** — the normal operating pool. It is used only for an abutment contact, where the crest must lie above it, and is + ignored for a foundation contact. + +In either case the resolved base of the flaw must satisfy the conditions common to the compaction models: it must be a positive elevation, no +higher than the top of the embankment section used for initiation and no lower than the lowest segment bottom of either face of that section (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 common methods manual). + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-01 — Applicability] +The model treats the foundation and abutment contacts as two alternative locations of one flaw, selected by the user, and evaluates one of them +per run. State how the user should choose between them for a given embankment — for example, whether an abutment contact is any contact against a +valley wall steeper than some inclination, and whether an embankment whose foundation and abutment contacts are both of concern should be +evaluated once for each location, with the larger result or both results carried forward. +::: + +## Flaw-Factor Selections + +Three selections describe the contact, and two optional dimensions replace the section width and height in scoring +(). How each selection is scored is documented in +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx). + +s'], + ['selection', 'selection', 'selection', 'length', 'length'], + ['Soil or rock', 'One of four, consistent with the material', 'One of five', '> 0', '> 0'], + ['Required', 'Required', 'Required', 'Derived from the section', 'Derived from the section'], + ]} +/> + +- **Foundation material** — the material the embankment is placed against at the contact: + - **Soil** — a soil foundation or abutment. + - **Rock** — a rock foundation or abutment. + + No combined soil-and-rock choice is offered. The preparation choices that score a likelihood factor above 1 — Irregular or poorly prepared, and + Unknown — score the same for both materials, so the material selection decides only which well-prepared choice is available. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-02 — Applicability] +The foundation material choice is either soil or rock; no choice describes a contact that is partly soil and partly rock, such as a valley floor of +alluvium against rock abutments, or weathered rock grading to soil. State how the user should select the material for such a contact. +::: + +- **Foundation preparation** — the condition of the foundation or abutment surface on which the fill was placed. The well-prepared choice depends + on the material, and selecting the well-prepared choice of the other material is not accepted: + - **Compacted soil** (soil only) — the soil surface on which the fill was placed was compacted. Forces the flaw probability to a negligible value + (see [Well-prepared surface](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#well-prepared-surface)). + - **Regular or treated rock surface** (rock only) — a rock surface that is regular, or has been treated to make it so. Forces the flaw + probability to a negligible value. + - **Irregular or poorly prepared** (soil or rock) — a surface that is irregular or was not well prepared. + - **Unknown** (soil or rock) — the preparation is not known; scored as irregular or poorly prepared. +- **Contact-zone compaction method** — how the embankment fill in the zone against the foundation or abutment was compacted: + - **Special methods with good documentation** — special compaction methods were used in the contact zone, and their use is well documented. + - **Special methods** — special compaction methods were used, without good documentation. + - **Bulldozer, layer at the limit of compaction** — the fill was compacted by bulldozer, in layers at the limit of compaction. + - **Poor compaction, thick layers** — the fill was poorly compacted in thick layers. + - **Unknown** — the compaction method is not known; scored as bulldozer compaction. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-03 — Definition] +The foundation preparation choices (Compacted soil; Regular or treated rock surface; Irregular or poorly prepared) and the contact-zone +compaction method choices (Special methods with good documentation; Special methods; Bulldozer, layer at the limit of compaction; Poor +compaction, thick layers) are described above only by their names. Define what each covers so the user can select between them — for example, +what treatment makes a rock surface "regular or treated" (dental concrete, slush grouting, removal of overhangs, shaping of steps), what counts as +"special methods" of contact-zone compaction (hand-operated or rubber-tired compaction, moisture conditioning, placement of a selected contact +fill), and what layer thickness separates the bulldozer and poor-compaction choices — or cite the table in Fell et al. (2024) that defines them. +::: + +- **Flaw base width and flaw height** — optional replacements for the base width $W$ and height $H_s$ of the embankment section, which the model + otherwise derives from the section geometry (see + [Section geometry used in scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#section-geometry-used-in-scoring) + in the common methods manual). Each may be supplied alone. A supplied value replaces the derived value in the scoring of the geometry factor + only; the initiation analysis keeps the section geometry. + +## Initiation Default + +The model takes the initiation material inputs of the compaction models — the core soil classification, and 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) +in the common methods manual. Only the default of the initial pipe diameter is specific to the model +(). + + 0'], + ['Triangular: low 2, most likely 3, high 5'], + ]} +/> + +- **Initial pipe diameter** — the diameter of the cylindrical pipe idealizing the poorly compacted contact zone. Left blank, it is a triangular + distribution with a low value of 2 mm, a most likely value of 3 mm, and a high value of 5 mm, the same range as the core compaction model. A + site-specific distribution replaces the default. The basis of the default ranges of the four compaction models is addressed in + [Initial pipe diameter](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#initial-pipe-diameter) in the + common methods manual. + +The model assigns one critical shear stress to the wall of the pipe, from the core soil classification or the user's distribution (see +[Critical shear stress](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress) in the +common methods manual). Only one soil is classified, although the pipe lies against both the contact-zone fill and the foundation or +abutment surface. The clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes — SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP — are not accepted as the +classification, even when the user supplies a critical shear stress distribution in place of the default range, so a contact whose erodible material is a clean sand or gravel, such as fill placed on a clean sand foundation, cannot be +represented by its own classification. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-14 — Applicability] +State which soil the core soil classification (and any user-supplied critical shear stress distribution) should describe for a flaw along the +foundation or abutment contact: the contact-zone fill, an erodible soil foundation forming the floor of the pipe, or the more erodible of the +two. State also how the user should proceed where the erodible material at the contact is a clean or nearly clean sand or gravel, which the model +does not accept as the classification. +::: + +## Filter Presence and Continuation + + + +- **Filter presence at the contact** — whether a filter intercepts the failure pathway along the contact at the base of the flaw: + - **Present** — the continuation inputs are required, and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared continuation method. + - **Absent** — the exit is unfiltered and continuation is certain. The continuation inputs are not used. +- **Continuation inputs** — the filter description and the base soils it must protect, as documented in the + [Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the continuation manual. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-04 — Definition] +State what counts as a filter intercepting the pathway along a foundation or abutment contact — for example, a filter or drain zone placed on the +foundation downstream of the core, a chimney filter reaching the foundation, or a filter blanket on an abutment — and which soils the user should +supply as the base soils to the continuation method: the contact-zone fill, the core soil, the foundation soil, or each of them. +::: + +## Inputs Shared with the Family + +The model also takes the following inputs, each documented in the common methods manual: + +- **Hydraulic loading** — the headwater series and optional tailwater series (see + [Hydraulic Loading](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#hydraulic-loading)), on the + common datum and in the units of [Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum). +- **Embankment description** — the crest elevation, the embankment type, the shell section, and the optional core section (see + [Embankment Description](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#embankment-description)). + The crest also serves as the top of dam in the abutment heuristic. +- **Embankment materials** — the soil classifications of the materials the pipe passes through, which govern roof support (see + [Failure-Pathway Inputs](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#failure-pathway-inputs)). +- **Upstream seepage-limiting elements** — the elements present and the optional top-of-wall elevation, which is checked against the base of the + flaw (see + [Upstream Seepage-Limiting Elements](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#upstream-seepage-limiting-elements)). +- **Intervention and breach** — the probabilities of unsuccessful intervention and of breach (see + [Intervention and Breach](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach)). diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4fab0f676 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,310 @@ +--- +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 + +The flaw assessment populates Node 1 of the event tree with the probability $P_{flaw}$ that a continuous zone of poorly compacted fill exists along +the foundation or abutment contact, and passes the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$ to the downstream nodes. It follows the conventions shared by the +CLE family (see the [Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions) chapter of the +common methods manual): risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of three factors, conversion of the weighted sum to a raw flaw probability, +and a flaw-continuity stage. This chapter documents the factors, tables, and rules specific to the mechanism. The assessment is deterministic and +the same at every pool level. + +## Base-of-Flaw Elevation + +The flaw is idealized for initiation as a cylindrical pipe whose invert is the base of the flaw. Its elevation follows the contact location the +user selects (see [Flaw Location](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-location)): + + + +where $z_{fc}$ is the embankment–foundation contact elevation, $z_{np}$ the normal pool elevation, and $z_c$ the crest elevation. A foundation +flaw sits on the contact itself, where the fill was placed on the foundation. An abutment contact spans a range of elevations up the valley wall, +and the model places the flaw on it by the normal-pool heuristic that the core compaction model also uses (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 common methods manual, where the basis of the heuristic is addressed). The crest must lie above the normal pool. + +The base of the flaw sets the pool level above which initiation can occur, the elevation of the seepage path through the section, and the level +against which the top of an upstream wall is checked (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-05 — Engineering Basis] +The placement of an abutment-contact flaw at one third of the way from the normal pool to the crest requires an engineering basis specific to the +abutment case: why a single elevation on the abutment contact is representative of a flaw that can lie anywhere up the valley wall, and why the +normal-pool heuristic, rather than for example the lowest abutment elevation below normal pool or a user-supplied elevation, is used. The basis +should also address that the placement is unconservative for a flaw lower on the abutment, because it gives a negligible SRP up to the heuristic +elevation above normal pool (see Assumption 2 in +[Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx#flaw-location)). +::: + +## Scored Factors + +Three factors are scored, each with a risk factor $RF$ and a likelihood factor $LF$ on the scale of 1 (least likely condition for a flaw) to 4 +(most likely), following the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scheme of Fell et al. (2024) +(). + + + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-06 — Engineering Basis] +The risk factors of — 3 for foundation preparation, 2 for the +contact-zone compaction method, and 1 for the section geometry — require an engineering basis. Cite the table in Fell et al. (2024) that assigns +these weights to the factors of a flaw along the foundation or abutment contact, or provide the engineering-judgment attribution. +::: + +### Foundation preparation + +The likelihood factor $LF_{fdn}$ of the foundation preparation factor is read from the material and preparation selections +(). The two materials have separate tables, which differ only in the +well-prepared choice each allows. + + + +No preparation choice scores 2, 3, or 4: the factor takes the value 1 for a well-prepared surface and 3.5 otherwise, and an Unknown preparation is +scored as an irregular or poorly prepared one. A likelihood factor of 1 on this factor forces the flaw probability to a negligible value (see +[Well-Prepared Surface](#well-prepared-surface)). + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-07 — Engineering Basis] +The likelihood factors of require an engineering basis: 1 for compacted +soil and for a regular or treated rock surface, 3.5 for an irregular or poorly prepared surface, and 3.5 for an Unknown preparation (scored the +same as irregular or poorly prepared, rather than at an intermediate value). Cite the source table in Fell et al. (2024), or provide the +engineering-judgment attribution, including why the factor has no intermediate categories between 1 and 3.5. +::: + +### Contact-zone compaction method + +The likelihood factor $LF_{comp}$ of the contact-zone compaction method is read from the selection +(). It enters the assessment twice: in the weighted sum, and as the key of +the flaw-continuity stage (see [Flaw-Continuity Stage](#flaw-continuity-stage)). + + + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-08 — Engineering Basis] +The likelihood factors of require an engineering basis: 1, 2, 3, and 4 +for the four compaction methods, and 3 for an Unknown method (scored the same as bulldozer compaction at the limit of compaction). Cite the source +table in Fell et al. (2024), or provide the engineering-judgment attribution, including the reason for the Unknown value. +::: + +### Section geometry + +The section geometry factor scores the base width $W$ and the height $H_s$ of the embankment section — the core section when one is supplied, +otherwise the shell — as derived in +[Section geometry used in scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#section-geometry-used-in-scoring) +in the common methods manual, or the values the user supplies in their place. The base width and the width-to-height ratio are each placed in a +band (), and the less favorable of the two governs: + + + +s' }]]} + columns={[ + ['1', '2', '3', '4'], + ['Greater than 50', 'Greater than 30, up to 50', 'Greater than 15, up to 30', '15 or less'], + ['Greater than 2', 'Greater than 0.75, up to 2', 'Greater than 0.25, up to 0.75', '0.25 or less'], + ]} +/> + +A narrow section scores a higher likelihood factor than a wide one. A value exactly on a threshold takes the higher likelihood factor (the +band of the narrower section): a base width of exactly 50 scores 2, and a ratio of exactly 2 scores 2. The base width is banded at fixed numerical thresholds in the length unit of the inputs (see +[Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum) in the common +methods manual). The common methods manual writes the base width as $W = W_t + S_{us} + S_{ds}$, where $W_t$ is the top width of the section and +$S_{us}$ and $S_{ds}$ are the horizontal spans of its upstream and downstream faces. For a section whose faces each have a single segment +extending over the full height $H_s$, the spans are $S_{us} = m_{us} H_s$ and $S_{ds} = m_{ds} H_s$, where $m_{us}$ and $m_{ds}$ are the upstream +and downstream face slopes (horizontal per vertical), so the ratio is $W/H_s = W_t/H_s + m_{us} + m_{ds}$: the top width over the height plus the +two face slopes. Such a section whose two face slopes sum to more than 2 always scores 1 on the ratio, and its geometry factor is then set by the +base width alone. The ratio band governs when its likelihood factor exceeds that of the base width, as it can for +steep-sided sections such as a narrow central core. The identity holds only for dimensions derived +from the section; where the user supplies the base width, the height, or both in their place, the ratio is the ratio of the values used and need +not follow the face slopes. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-09 — Engineering Basis] +The banding of requires an engineering basis: the base width thresholds of +50, 30, and 15, the width-to-height ratio thresholds of 2, 0.75, and 0.25, and the rule that the larger of the two likelihood factors governs. +State the length unit the base width thresholds assume (they are applied without unit conversion), and cite the source table in Fell et al. (2024) +or provide the engineering-judgment attribution. +::: + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-10 — Applicability] +The section geometry factor scores the embankment section supplied for the analysis, which also sets the seepage path length of initiation. +For an abutment contact, the section through the flaw lies toward the side of the valley and is lower and narrower than the maximum section. State +whether the user should supply the section at the flaw location, or supply the maximum section and enter the base width and height at the flaw +location in the optional flaw base width and flaw height inputs. +::: + +## Weighted Sum and Raw Flaw Probability + +The three likelihood factors combine into the weighted sum of +[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum) in the common +methods manual, with this model's risk factors: + + + +The weighted sum is converted to the raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$ by interpolating the logarithm of the probability linearly between the points +of , as described in +[Flaw probability from the weighted sum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum) +in the common methods manual. The model has no lower threshold on the weighted sum. + +-4', '7 × 10-4', '1 × 10-2', '1 × 10-1'], + ]} +/> + +Unless the surface is well prepared, the foundation preparation factor scores 3.5, so the weighted sum lies between 13.5 (every other factor at 1) +and 22.5 (every other factor at 4). Only the part of the curve between 13 and 24 is therefore used, and the raw flaw probability ranges from about +9.1 × 10-4 to about 5.6 × 10-2. A well-prepared surface does not consult the curve. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-11 — Engineering Basis] +The weighted-sum curve of (weighted sums 9, 11, 13, 18, 24 → negligible, +1 × 10-4, 7 × 10-4, 1 × 10-2, 1 × 10-1) requires an engineering basis. Cite the figure or table in +Fell et al. (2024) from which it is read for a flaw along the foundation or abutment contact, or provide the engineering-judgment attribution, +including the value of 7 × 10-4 at a weighted sum of 13, where the wall or cliff compaction model, on the same weighted sums, +uses 1 × 10-3. +::: + +## Well-Prepared Surface + +The foundation preparation factor is an incompatible-condition factor in the sense of +[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 common methods manual: when it scores 1 — compacted soil on a soil foundation, or a regular or treated rock surface on a rock foundation — +the raw flaw probability is zero whatever the other two factors score, and the final flaw probability is negligible. Such a surface is taken as +incompatible with a continuous zone of poor compaction along the contact. + +The model has no observation override: no observation of leakage or wet spots sets the flaw probability to 1.0 (see +[Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in the +common methods manual). The well-prepared-surface rule is the only rule that sets the flaw probability without scoring it. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-12 — Engineering Basis] +Two decisions require an engineering basis: (1) a well-prepared foundation or abutment surface (a foundation preparation likelihood factor of 1) +forces the flaw probability to a negligible value regardless of how poorly the contact zone was compacted or how narrow the section is; and (2) the +model accepts no observation — such as seepage, wet spots, or sinkholes along the contact — that sets the flaw probability to 1.0, unlike the core, +conduit, and wall or cliff compaction models. Provide the literature source or the engineering-judgment attribution for each. +::: + +## Flaw-Continuity Stage + +The raw flaw probability is multiplied by the flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$, read from the curve shared by the three compaction models that +apply the stage (see +[Flaw-Continuity Stage](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-continuity-stage) in the +common methods manual, where the basis of the curve is addressed). In this model the curve is keyed to the likelihood factor of the contact-zone +compaction method, the factor with a risk factor of 2, and not to the foundation preparation factor, which carries the highest risk factor: + + + +The flaw-continuity probability is negligible for special methods with good documentation, 1 × 10-4 for special methods, +1 × 10-3 for bulldozer compaction or an Unknown method, and 1 × 10-1 for poor compaction in thick layers. The final flaw +probability is never reported as exactly zero: where the product is zero or smaller than the negligible value, the negligible value is reported, as +for the SRP (see +[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the common methods +manual). + +## Range of the Flaw Probability + +Because every factor takes one of a few values, the flaw probability takes one of a small set of values. + lists them for a surface that is not well prepared ($LF_{fdn} = 3.5$); +a well-prepared surface gives a negligible flaw probability throughout. + +comp' }, { value: 'LFgeom = 1' }, { value: 'LFgeom = 2' }, { value: 'LFgeom = 3' }, { value: 'LFgeom = 4' }]]} + columns={[ + ['1', '2', '3', '4'], + ['Negligible', '2.6 × 10-7', '7.7 × 10-6', '1.8 × 10-3'], + ['Negligible', '4.5 × 10-7', '1.2 × 10-5', '2.6 × 10-3'], + ['Negligible', '7.7 × 10-7', '1.8 × 10-5', '3.8 × 10-3'], + ['Negligible', '1.2 × 10-6', '2.6 × 10-5', '5.6 × 10-3'], + ]} +/> + +Across the table, the compaction method moves the flaw probability far more than the section geometry does: each step from one compaction method to +the next poorer one raises it by more than an order of magnitude, through both the weighted sum and the flaw-continuity probability, while the +section geometry moves it by a factor of about 3 to 5 across its full range. The largest flaw probability any combination of inputs can produce is about 5.6 × 10-3, for poor compaction in +thick layers on a section that scores 4 on geometry, so the SRP of the model never exceeds that value. + +### Example + +For a soil foundation of Unknown preparation ($LF_{fdn} = 3.5$), an Unknown compaction method ($LF_{comp} = 3$), and a section with a base width +greater than 50 and a width-to-height ratio greater than 2 ($LF_{geom} = 1$): + +- The weighted sum is $\Sigma = 3 \times 3.5 + 2 \times 3 + 1 = 17.5$ (). +- Interpolating the logarithm of the probability nine tenths of the way from 7 × 10-4 at 13 to 1 × 10-2 at 18 gives + $P_{raw} \approx 7.7 \times 10^{-3}$. +- The flaw-continuity probability for $LF_{comp} = 3$ is 1 × 10-3, so + $P_{flaw} \approx 7.7 \times 10^{-6}$ (). + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5957e3989 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ +--- +title: Event Tree +--- + +import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Event Tree + +The model evaluates the eight-node event tree shared by the CLE screening models, documented in the +[Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the common methods manual. It is a +compaction model: the flaw sits at one elevation, so only initiation varies with pool level and every other node is the same at every pool level +(see [Pool Dependence](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#pool-dependence)). The tree is +evaluated at every supplied headwater value and at the intermediate pool levels described in +[Headwater Grid](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#headwater-grid). + + summarizes how the model populates each node. The sections that follow +state the question each node answers, link the section of the shared manuals that documents it, and note what is specific to this mechanism. + + + +## Node 1: Flaw + +*Question:* Does a continuous zone of poorly compacted fill exist along the foundation or abutment contact? + +The flaw probability $P_{flaw}$ is the result of the flaw assessment documented in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx). It is the same at +every pool level, never exceeds about 5.6 × 10-3, and is negligible for a well-prepared surface or for special compaction methods with +good documentation. + +## 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 $\tau_c$ assigned through the core soil classification? + +The model hands the question to the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis shared by the four compaction models, 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 common methods manual. The analysis computes the heads above the pipe invert, the hydraulic gradient along the seepage path, and the shear +stress on the pipe wall, and reports the fraction of Monte Carlo realizations of $\tau_c$ and $D$ in which the shear stress exceeds the critical +shear stress, which is the initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ at pool level $h$. This model supplies to it: + +- **The pipe invert** — the base of the flaw $z_f$ of + [Base-of-Flaw Elevation](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-flaw-elevation): the embankment–foundation contact for a foundation flaw, or the + normal-pool heuristic elevation for an abutment flaw. Initiation is zero, and the SRP negligible, at pool levels at or below it. +- **The seepage path length** — unless the user supplies it, the horizontal length through the section at $z_f$ (see + [Seepage path length](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) in the common + methods manual). For a foundation flaw whose contact elevation is the lowest segment bottom of the section, this is the full base width of the + section; an abutment flaw, higher in the section, has a shorter path and so a steeper gradient for the same net head. +- **The critical shear stress** — the default range for the core soil classification, or the user's distribution (see + [Critical shear stress](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress) in the + common methods manual). One soil is classified for the pipe wall, although the pipe lies against both the contact-zone fill and the + foundation or abutment surface; which soil the classification describes is requested at marker IN-14 in + [Initiation Default](./03-input-parameters.mdx#initiation-default). The clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes are not accepted as the + classification, even when the user supplies a critical shear stress distribution in place of the default range, so a contact whose erodible + material is a clean sand or gravel cannot be represented by its own classification. +- **The initial pipe diameter** — the model's default triangular distribution of 2, 3, and 5 mm, or the user's distribution (see + [Initiation Default](./03-input-parameters.mdx#initiation-default)). + +The screening-level adjustments to the toolbox method are those common to the compaction models (see +[Screening-level adjustments](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#screening-level-adjustments) +in the common methods manual); the model makes none of its own. + +## Node 3: Continuation + +*Question:* Does an unfiltered exit allow erosion along the contact to continue? + +Continuation is one value at every pool level, set by the filter-presence selection (see +[Filter Presence and Continuation](./03-input-parameters.mdx#filter-presence-and-continuation)): + + + +where $P_{ce}$ is the probability of continuing erosion computed by the shared continuation method from the filter and base-soil description: the +largest probability over the base soils the filter protects (see +[Governing Base Soil](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil#governing-base-soil) +and [Node Result](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#node-result) in the continuation +manual). When no filter is present, the continuation method is not evaluated. Filter presence is stated by the user and is not compared with the +base-of-flaw elevation (see +[Node 3: Continuation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-3-continuation) +in the common methods manual). + +## 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 over the embankment materials the pipe passes through, read from 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 common methods manual. Only the materials the user lists enter the minimum; the model does not add the foundation material to them. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-13 — Applicability] +State which materials the user should list for a pipe along the foundation or abutment contact. The pipe lies between the embankment fill and the +foundation or abutment, so its roof may be the contact-zone fill, while an erodible soil foundation forms its floor. State whether the foundation +soil (for a soil foundation) should be listed with the fill, and whether only the contact-zone fill or every embankment zone the contact passes +beneath should be listed. +::: + +## Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling + +*Question:* Does the enlarging pipe remain unfilled by material from upstream? + +The probability $P_{nf}$ is read from the embankment type, as documented in +[Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-5-progression--no-crack-filling) +in the 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 $P_{nl}$ is the minimum over the applicable upstream elements, with the walls gated once against the base of the flaw, as for every +compaction model except conduit compaction (see +[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 common methods manual): + +- When no top-of-wall elevation $z_{tw}$ is given, or $z_{tw} \ge z_f$, every listed element applies. +- When $z_{tw} < z_f$, the walls drop out and only an upstream facing element, if listed, applies. + +For a foundation flaw the comparison is with the contact elevation, so a cutoff wall rising from the foundation to any height above the contact +applies. For an abutment flaw the comparison is with the heuristic elevation above normal pool, so a wall whose top lies below that elevation gives +no credit. + +## 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 user-specified probabilities $P_{int}$ and $P_{br}$, each one value at every pool level and each defaulting to 1.0, as documented in +[Nodes 7 and 8](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#nodes-7-and-8-unsuccessful-intervention-and-breach) +in the common methods manual. + +## SRP Computation + +The SRP at each pool level $h$ is the product of the eight nodes (see +[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the common methods +manual). In this model only initiation varies with pool level, so the SRP is the initiation curve scaled by one constant: + + + +Where the product is zero, or smaller than the negligible value, the SRP is reported as the negligible value. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..de4494027 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +--- +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 model shares the assumptions of the CLE screening family — the event-tree product, the pool-independent flaw, the cylindrical-pipe +idealization and its defaults, and the progression tables — listed in the +[Assumptions and Limitations](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) chapter of +the common methods manual, and the assumptions of the continuation method listed in the +[Assumptions and Limitations](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) chapter of the +continuation manual. This chapter lists the assumptions specific to the foundation or abutment compaction mechanism. Each states its engineering +basis, its effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold. Where an engineering basis is awaiting confirmation, the assumption +cross-references the input marker at its primary location in this document. + +## Flaw Location + +1. **A foundation flaw lies on the embankment–foundation contact.** Its base is the contact elevation supplied by the user (see + [Base-of-Flaw Elevation](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-flaw-elevation)). + - *Engineering basis:* Definition of the mechanism: the poorly compacted zone is the fill placed on the foundation surface. + - *Effect on results:* Initiation is zero, and the SRP negligible, at pool levels at or below the contact. The seepage path through a section whose + base is at the contact spans its full base width, which gives the lowest gradient the section allows for a given net head. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the contact steps or slopes across the section, so that the poorly compacted zone lies above the contact + elevation supplied. +2. **An abutment flaw lies one third of the way from the normal pool to the crest.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-05 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-flaw-elevation); the + heuristic itself is addressed 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 common methods manual. + - *Effect on results:* Initiation is zero, and the SRP negligible, at pool levels at or below that elevation, which lies above normal pool, + however low on the abutment the contact runs. For a flaw that lies lower on the abutment, the placement is unconservative: the model gives a + negligible SRP at every pool level from the actual flaw up to $z_f$, including pool levels between normal pool and $z_f$, and above $z_f$ it + applies less net head over the pipe invert than the lower flaw would carry. The higher placement also shortens the seepage path, which steepens + the gradient for a given net head, so above $z_f$ whether initiation is underestimated or overestimated depends on the section. Walls are + judged against the same elevation. + - *When it may not hold:* Where construction records or performance locate the poorly compacted zone on the abutment, such as at a steep or + overhanging section of the valley wall below normal pool. +3. **One run evaluates one contact location.** The foundation and abutment contacts are alternative flaw locations, selected by the user. + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-01 in [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-location). + - *Effect on results:* A site with concerns at both contacts needs a run for each to describe both. + - *When it may not hold:* Where one continuous poorly compacted zone runs from the valley floor up the abutment, so that neither the foundation + contact elevation nor the abutment heuristic elevation represents the flaw on its own. + +## Flaw Scoring + +4. **The flaw probability is scored from three factors, weighted 3, 2, and 1.** The factors are the foundation preparation, the contact-zone + compaction method, and the section geometry. + - *Engineering basis:* The risk-factor and likelihood-factor scheme of Fell et al. (2024) ; the factor + weights and tables are requested at markers IN-06 to IN-09 and IN-11 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#scored-factors). + - *Effect on results:* The flaw probability takes one of the values of + [Range of the Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#range-of-the-flaw-probability), no larger than about 5.6 × 10-3, which + caps the SRP. + - *When it may not hold:* Where other evidence — continuous rock defects, open joints, or erodible foundation soils against the fill — bears on + a flaw along the contact more directly than the three factors do; a detailed analysis then estimates the flaw probability from that evidence. +5. **An Unknown selection is scored as a specific known condition.** An Unknown foundation preparation is scored as irregular or poorly prepared + (3.5), and an Unknown compaction method as bulldozer compaction at the limit of compaction (3). + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see markers IN-07 and IN-08 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#foundation-preparation). + - *Effect on results:* An Unknown preparation receives the least favorable score of its factor. An Unknown compaction method does not: poor + compaction in thick layers scores 4 and, for a surface that is not well prepared, raises the flaw probability more than two orders of + magnitude above the Unknown value. On a well-prepared surface both selections give a negligible flaw probability. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the construction era or practice indicates poor compaction of the contact zone; poor compaction in thick layers + should then be selected. +6. **The section geometry factor scores the width and height of the section supplied.** The core section governs when one is supplied, and the + user may replace both dimensions. + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see markers IN-09 and IN-10 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#section-geometry). + - *Effect on results:* A section scores 1 only if its base width is greater than 50 and its width-to-height ratio is greater than 2. Across + its full range, the factor changes the flaw probability by a factor of about 3 to 5, unless the surface is well prepared or special methods + with good documentation were used, when the flaw probability is negligible whatever the geometry. + - *When it may not hold:* For an abutment flaw, where the section at the flaw is lower and narrower than the section supplied; the flaw base + width and height inputs should then carry the section at the flaw. +7. **A well-prepared foundation or abutment surface rules out the flaw.** Compacted soil on a soil foundation, or a regular or treated rock + surface, forces the flaw probability to a negligible value whatever the other factors score. + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-12 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#well-prepared-surface). + - *Effect on results:* The SRP is negligible at every pool level. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the contact zone was poorly compacted on a well-prepared surface, or where the surface preparation is + recorded but not verified. +8. **No observation sets the flaw probability to 1.0.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-12 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#well-prepared-surface). + - *Effect on results:* Observed seepage or wet spots along the contact do not change the screening result. + - *When it may not hold:* Where such observations are judged to demonstrate a flaw along the contact; the screening flaw probability then + understates the condition, and a detailed analysis should take the observation as evidence. +9. **The flaw-continuity stage is keyed to the contact-zone compaction method.** The scored probability is multiplied by the flaw-continuity + probability of the compaction method's likelihood factor. + - *Engineering basis:* The flaw-continuity curve shared by three compaction models (see + [Flaw-Continuity Stage](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-continuity-stage) in + the common methods manual, where its basis is addressed). + - *Effect on results:* Special methods with good documentation give a negligible flaw probability whatever the surface preparation and + geometry, and the compaction method enters the flaw probability twice, so the result is especially sensitive to that selection. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the continuity of a poorly compacted zone along the contact depends on the surface preparation rather than on + the compaction method, such as a continuous open joint or overhang in a rock abutment. + +## Initiation and Pathway + +10. **The default initial pipe diameter is triangular with 2, 3, and 5 mm**, the same range as the core compaction model. + - *Engineering basis:* The default ranges of the compaction models are addressed in + [Initial pipe diameter](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#initial-pipe-diameter) in the + common methods manual. + - *Effect on results:* The shear stress is proportional to the diameter, so the range sets how high above the base of the flaw the pool must + rise before initiation becomes likely. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the contact has open defects, such as open joints or a gap against an overhanging rock surface, larger than a + few millimeters; a site-specific distribution should then be supplied. +11. **Filter presence at the contact is a user statement, independent of the base-of-flaw elevation.** + - *Engineering basis:* The user resolves the failure pathway against the section and supplies the result (see + [The Failure Pathway](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#the-failure-pathway) + in the common methods manual); what counts as a filter at the contact is requested at marker IN-04 in + [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#filter-presence-and-continuation). + - *Effect on results:* A filter stated present multiplies the SRP by the probability of continuing erosion $P_{ce}$ at every pool level. + - *When it may not hold:* Where a filter covers only part of the contact, such as a foundation filter that does not extend up the abutment. +12. **Walls are judged against the base of the flaw.** A wall whose top is below the base of the flaw gives no flow-limitation credit. + - *Engineering basis:* The flow-limitation convention of the compaction models (see + [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 common methods manual). + - *Effect on results:* A cutoff wall reaching at or above the foundation contact limits flow into a foundation flaw; for an abutment flaw, the wall + top must reach the heuristic elevation above normal pool. + - *When it may not hold:* Where a cutoff wall does not extend along the abutment contact, even though its top is above the base of the flaw. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6a707a948 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +--- +title: Output and Interpretation +--- + +import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation'; +import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; + + + +# Output and Interpretation + +The model reports the results common to the CLE compaction models — the pool-independent node probabilities, the series evaluated at each pool +level, and the supporting results of the initiation analysis — documented in the +[Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the +common methods manual. This chapter describes the flaw-assessment results specific to the model and how they bear on reading and checking the +system response curve. + +## Results Common to the Compaction Models + +- **Pool-independent results** — the flaw, continuation, roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation probabilities (see + [Pool-Independent Results](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#pool-independent-results)). + The flow-limitation probability is the value after the walls are checked against the base of the flaw. +- **Pool-dependent series** — the pool levels, the tailwater, the initiation probability, the flow-limitation, unsuccessful-intervention, and + breach probabilities, and the SRP (see + [Pool-Dependent Series](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#pool-dependent-series)). +- **Initiation analysis** — the heads above the pipe invert, the hydraulic gradient, the shear stress statistics, and the seepage path length (see + [Supporting Results](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#supporting-results)). +- **Continuation results** — when a filter is present, the results of the continuation method (see the + [Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the + continuation manual). When no filter is present, the continuation probability is 1.0 and no continuation results are reported. + +## Flaw-Assessment Results + +The flaw assessment reports each quantity of [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx), so that the flaw probability can be traced from the +selections: + +- **Likelihood factors** — the foundation preparation factor $LF_{fdn}$, the contact-zone compaction factor $LF_{comp}$, and the section geometry + factor $LF_{geom}$. +- **Section dimensions** — the base width $W$, the height $H_s$, and their ratio $W/H_s$ used in scoring: the user's values where supplied, + otherwise those derived from the section. +- **Weighted sum** $\Sigma$ and **raw flaw probability** $P_{raw}$ — the raw flaw probability is zero when the well-prepared-surface rule applies. +- **Flaw-continuity probability** $P_{cf}$ — keyed to the contact-zone compaction factor. +- **Flaw probability** $P_{flaw}$ — the Node 1 value, never reported as exactly zero. +- **Base-of-flaw elevation** $z_f$ — the contact elevation, or the abutment heuristic elevation. +- **Well-prepared surface** — whether the foundation preparation factor scored 1 and forced the flaw probability to a negligible value. + +## Interpreting the System Response Curve + +Only initiation varies with pool level, so the curve is the initiation curve scaled by the product of the other seven nodes +(see [SRP Computation](./05-event-tree.mdx#srp-computation)). It is negligible at and below the base of the flaw $z_f$, rises with pool level as the +gradient through the pipe grows, and approaches the product of the other seven nodes as initiation approaches 1.0. The general reading of a +compaction-model curve — its shape, the effect of tailwater, and a plateau below the product of the other nodes — is described in +[Interpreting the System Response Curve](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#interpreting-the-system-response-curve) +in the common methods manual. + +Two features are specific to the mechanism: + +- **Among the flaw selections, the compaction method moves the ceiling most when the surface is not well prepared.** The flaw probability, and + so the ceiling of the curve, takes one of the values of + [Range of the Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#range-of-the-flaw-probability). For a surface that is not well prepared, changing the + compaction method moves the ceiling by more than an order of magnitude per step, while changing the section geometry moves it by a factor of + about 3 to 5 across its full range; on a well-prepared surface the ceiling is negligible whatever the compaction method. The other nodes that + scale the curve — continuation, roof support, and flow limitation — can move the ceiling as much or more. The flaw-assessment results show + which selection drives a result. +- **For an abutment contact, the curve starts above normal pool.** The base of the flaw lies one third of the way from normal pool to the crest, + so the curve is negligible at every pool level up to that elevation, and the headwater series must extend above it for the curve to rise. + +## Checking the Result + +In addition to the checks common to the compaction models (see +[Checking the Result](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#checking-the-result) in +the common methods manual): + +- **Flaw probability** — the reported flaw probability should be one of the values of + [Range of the Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#range-of-the-flaw-probability), or negligible for a well-prepared surface or for + special methods with good documentation. It can be reproduced by hand from the reported likelihood factors. +- **Upper bound** — the SRP at every pool level is no larger than about 5.6 × 10-3, the largest flaw probability the model can produce. +- **Lower end** — the curve is negligible at and below the reported base-of-flaw elevation. For a foundation contact, that elevation should match + the contact elevation supplied; for an abutment contact, it should lie one third of the way from normal pool to the crest. +- **Wall credit** — the flow-limitation probability excludes the walls only when the top-of-wall elevation is below the reported base of the + flaw. + +Three causes of a negligible curve at every pool level are specific to the model: a well-prepared surface, special compaction methods with good +documentation, and, for an abutment contact, a headwater series that does not rise above the heuristic base of the flaw. The flaw-assessment +results and the base-of-flaw elevation show whether one of them applies. + +## Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis + +The model is a screening tool. Its result indicates whether concentrated leak erosion along the foundation or abutment contact warrants detailed +analysis; it is not a substitute for one. Where the result is significant to a decision — and in particular where the flaw probability rests on +Unknown selections, or where seepage has been observed along the contact, which the model does not take as evidence — the flaw should be +re-examined with construction records, foundation geology, and performance, following Fell et al. (2024) and +the judgment of the risk team (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 common methods manual). + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..90899a1a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md @@ -0,0 +1,193 @@ +# Input Needed — CLE Foundation/Abutment 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. Questions shared by the whole CLE family (the length unit, the +log-linear interpolation, the flaw-continuity curve, the normal-pool heuristic in general, the +critical shear stress table, and the default initial pipe diameter ranges) are asked once in the +CLE Common Methods manual and are not repeated here. + +--- + +## IN-01 — Applicability — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The foundation and abutment contacts are two alternative flaw locations selected by +the user, one per run. + +**Needed:** How the user chooses between them for a given embankment (for example, what makes a +contact an abutment contact), and whether an embankment with concerns at both contacts is +evaluated once for each, with the larger result or both results carried forward. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-02 — Applicability — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The foundation material is either soil or rock; no choice describes a contact that +is partly soil and partly rock. + +**Needed:** How the user selects the material for a mixed contact (for example, an alluvial valley +floor against rock abutments, or weathered rock grading to soil). + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-03 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The foundation preparation choices (Compacted soil; Regular or treated rock surface; +Irregular or poorly prepared) and the contact-zone compaction method choices (Special methods with +good documentation; Special methods; Bulldozer, layer at the limit of compaction; Poor compaction, +thick layers), described in the document only by their names. + +**Needed:** A definition of each choice, or the table in Fell et al. (2024) that defines them. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-04 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The filter-presence selection along the foundation or abutment contact. + +**Needed:** What counts as a filter intercepting the pathway along the contact (for example, a +foundation filter or drain downstream of the core, a chimney filter reaching the foundation, a +filter blanket on an abutment), and which soils are supplied as the base soils to the +continuation method (contact-zone fill, core soil, foundation soil, or each). + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-05 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** An abutment-contact flaw is placed one third of the way from the normal pool to +the crest. + +**Needed:** The abutment-specific basis: why one elevation represents a flaw that can lie anywhere +up the valley wall, and why the normal-pool heuristic is used rather than, for example, the +lowest abutment elevation below normal pool or a user-supplied elevation, given that the +placement is unconservative for a flaw lower on the abutment (negligible SRP up to the heuristic +elevation above normal pool; Assumption 2 in `06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx`). Literature +source or engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-06 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** Risk factors 3 (foundation preparation), 2 (contact-zone compaction method), and 1 +(section geometry). + +**Needed:** The table in Fell et al. (2024) that assigns these weights, or the engineering-judgment +attribution. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-07 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** Foundation preparation likelihood factors: 1 for compacted soil and for a regular or +treated rock surface; 3.5 for irregular or poorly prepared; 3.5 for Unknown. + +**Needed:** The source table in Fell et al. (2024) or the engineering-judgment attribution, +including why Unknown scores the same as irregular or poorly prepared and why the factor has no +intermediate categories between 1 and 3.5. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-08 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** Contact-zone compaction method likelihood factors: 1, 2, 3, 4 for the four methods, +and 3 for Unknown. + +**Needed:** The source table in Fell et al. (2024) or the engineering-judgment attribution, +including the reason Unknown scores the same as bulldozer compaction. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-09 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** Section geometry banding: base width thresholds 50, 30, 15; width-to-height ratio +thresholds 2, 0.75, 0.25; the larger of the two likelihood factors governs. + +**Needed:** The length unit the base width thresholds assume (applied without unit conversion), +and the source table in Fell et al. (2024) or the engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-10 — Applicability — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The geometry factor (and the initiation seepage path) uses the section supplied; for +an abutment contact the section through the flaw is lower and narrower than the maximum section. + +**Needed:** Whether the user supplies the section at the flaw location, or the maximum section with +the base width and height at the flaw entered in the optional flaw base width and flaw height +inputs. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-11 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** Weighted-sum curve 9, 11, 13, 18, 24 → negligible, 1E-4, 7E-4, 1E-2, 1E-1. + +**Needed:** The figure or table in Fell et al. (2024) for a flaw along the foundation or abutment +contact, or the engineering-judgment attribution, including the 7E-4 value at 13 (the wall or +cliff compaction model uses 1E-3 on the same weighted sums). + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-12 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** (1) A well-prepared surface (foundation preparation likelihood factor of 1) forces +the flaw probability to a negligible value regardless of the other factors; (2) the model accepts +no observation (seepage, wet spots, sinkholes along the contact) that sets the flaw probability to +1.0, unlike the core, conduit, and wall or cliff compaction models. + +**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution for each. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-13 — Applicability — `05-event-tree.mdx` + +**Regarding:** Roof support is the minimum over the embankment materials the user lists; the pipe +lies between the fill and the foundation or abutment. + +**Needed:** Which materials the user lists for a contact flaw: whether the foundation soil (for a +soil foundation) is listed with the fill, and whether only the contact-zone fill or every +embankment zone the contact passes beneath is listed. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-14 — Applicability — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The model assigns one critical shear stress to the pipe wall, from the core soil +classification or a user-supplied distribution, although a pipe along the contact lies against both +the contact-zone fill and the foundation or abutment surface. The clean and nearly clean sand and +gravel classes (SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, GP) are not accepted as the classification. + +**Needed:** Which soil the classification (and any user-supplied critical shear stress +distribution) should describe for a contact flaw: the contact-zone fill, an erodible soil +foundation forming the floor of the pipe, or the more erodible of the two; and how the user should +proceed where the erodible material at the contact is a clean or nearly clean sand or gravel. + +**Answer:** + +--- diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js index 94aa4cf81..495c75598 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ const docs = [ software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening', doc_name: 'CLE Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', - active: false, + active: true, draft: true, }, { diff --git a/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e5c80cf3b --- /dev/null +++ b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-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 52c481a36435db7f898b0dc9494ac141b2c37283 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 | 14 ++++----- .../v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx | 26 ++++++++-------- .../v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx | 20 ++++++------- .../v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx | 30 +++++++++---------- .../v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx | 14 ++++----- .../v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx | 16 +++++----- 7 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx index 1c8e22042..101704d9a 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx @@ -16,9 +16,9 @@ screening-level risk analysis can use it. The model is one of eight CLE screening models that share one event tree, one flaw-scoring scheme, one initiation analysis for compaction flaws, and one set of failure-pathway and progression rules. Those common methods are documented once, in the -[Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), +[Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared method of 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 only what is specific to the foundation or abutment compaction mechanism — its flaw, its inputs, where it departs from the common event tree, and its assumptions — and refers to the specific chapters of the two shared manuals for the rest. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx index 3e6539932..a8b72b37d 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ along the zone can erode its walls; if the exit is unfiltered and the enlarging The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion along the foundation or abutment contact. Like the other CLE screening models, it makes simplifying and generally conservative assumptions to prevent false negatives and to reduce input burden (see -[Intended Use](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) in the 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 common methods manual). The placement of an abutment flaw by the normal-pool heuristic is an exception: for a flaw that lies lower on the abutment it is unconservative, because it gives a negligible SRP from the actual flaw elevation up to the heuristic elevation above normal pool (see Assumption 2 in [Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx#flaw-location)). For this mechanism the input burden is reduced to three qualitative selections describing the contact — the foundation material, how its @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments (se ## How the Model Works The model executes the three stages common to the CLE family (see -[How the Model Works](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#how-the-model-works) in the +[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 common methods manual), with the following mechanism-specific content: 1. **Flaw assessment** — The model places the base of the flaw at the embankment–foundation contact elevation for a foundation contact, or at @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ common methods manual), with the following mechanism-specific content: ## Physics Basis The model combines the methods of the CLE family (see -[Physics Basis](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#physics-basis) in the common methods +[Physics Basis](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#physics-basis) in the common methods manual). Specific to this mechanism: - **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** of the probability of a continuous flaw along the contact , with @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ manual). Specific to this mechanism: keyed to the compaction method (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)). - **Hydraulic shear stress on the walls of a cylindrical pipe** at the base of the flaw, compared with the critical shear stress assigned through the core soil classification, by the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis shared by the four compaction models (see - [Cylindrical Pipe Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) + [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 common methods manual). Which soil along the contact that classification describes is requested at marker IN-14 in [Initiation Default](./03-input-parameters.mdx#initiation-default). - **Tabulated progression probabilities** for roof support, crack filling, and flow limitation , applied as for @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ manual). Specific to this mechanism: The detailed counterpart is an internal-erosion risk analysis of a flaw at the soil–rock or soil–soil contact, following Fell et al. (2024) in full. The common methods manual compares the CLE screening family with the detailed methods (see -[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)). lists the differences specific to this mechanism. ). @@ -145,11 +145,11 @@ in the common methods manual. Only the default of the initial pipe diameter is s - **Initial pipe diameter** — the diameter of the cylindrical pipe idealizing the poorly compacted contact zone. Left blank, it is a triangular distribution with a low value of 2 mm, a most likely value of 3 mm, and a high value of 5 mm, the same range as the core compaction model. A site-specific distribution replaces the default. The basis of the default ranges of the four compaction models is addressed in - [Initial pipe diameter](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#initial-pipe-diameter) in the + [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 common methods manual. The model assigns one critical shear stress to the wall of the pipe, from the core soil classification or the user's distribution (see -[Critical shear stress](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress) in the +[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) in the common methods manual). Only one soil is classified, although the pipe lies against both the contact-zone fill and the foundation or abutment surface. The clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes — SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP — are not accepted as the classification, even when the user supplies a critical shear stress distribution in place of the default range, so a contact whose erodible material is a clean sand or gravel, such as fill placed on a clean sand foundation, cannot be @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ does not accept as the classification. - **Present** — the continuation inputs are required, and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared continuation method. - **Absent** — the exit is unfiltered and continuation is certain. The continuation inputs are not used. - **Continuation inputs** — the filter description and the base soils it must protect, as documented in the - [Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the continuation manual. + [Input Parameters](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the continuation manual. :::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-04 — Definition] State what counts as a filter intercepting the pathway along a foundation or abutment contact — for example, a filter or drain zone placed on the @@ -195,15 +195,15 @@ supply as the base soils to the continuation method: the contact-zone fill, the The model also takes the following inputs, each documented in the common methods manual: - **Hydraulic loading** — the headwater series and optional tailwater series (see - [Hydraulic Loading](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#hydraulic-loading)), on the - common datum and in the units of [Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum). + [Hydraulic Loading](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#hydraulic-loading)), on the + common datum and in the units of [Units and Datum](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum). - **Embankment description** — the crest elevation, the embankment type, the shell section, and the optional core section (see - [Embankment Description](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#embankment-description)). + [Embankment Description](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#embankment-description)). The crest also serves as the top of dam in the abutment heuristic. - **Embankment materials** — the soil classifications of the materials the pipe passes through, which govern roof support (see - [Failure-Pathway Inputs](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#failure-pathway-inputs)). + [Failure-Pathway Inputs](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#failure-pathway-inputs)). - **Upstream seepage-limiting elements** — the elements present and the optional top-of-wall elevation, which is checked against the base of the flaw (see - [Upstream Seepage-Limiting Elements](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#upstream-seepage-limiting-elements)). + [Upstream Seepage-Limiting Elements](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#upstream-seepage-limiting-elements)). - **Intervention and breach** — the probabilities of unsuccessful intervention and of breach (see - [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)). diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx index 4fab0f676..481a5f800 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; The flaw assessment populates Node 1 of the event tree with the probability $P_{flaw}$ that a continuous zone of poorly compacted fill exists along the foundation or abutment contact, and passes the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$ to the downstream nodes. It follows the conventions shared by the -CLE family (see the [Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions) chapter of the +CLE family (see the [Flaw Conventions](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions) chapter of the common methods manual): risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of three factors, conversion of the weighted sum to a raw flaw probability, and a flaw-continuity stage. This chapter documents the factors, tables, and rules specific to the mechanism. The assessment is deterministic and the same at every pool level. @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ user selects (see [Flaw Location](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-location)): where $z_{fc}$ is the embankment–foundation contact elevation, $z_{np}$ the normal pool elevation, and $z_c$ the crest elevation. A foundation flaw sits on the contact itself, where the fill was placed on the foundation. An abutment contact spans a range of elevations up the valley wall, and the model places the flaw on it by the normal-pool heuristic that the core compaction model also uses (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 common methods manual, where the basis of the heuristic is addressed). The crest must lie above the normal pool. The base of the flaw sets the pool level above which initiation can occur, the elevation of the seepage path through the section, and the level @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ table in Fell et al. (2024), or provide the engineering-judgment attribution, in The section geometry factor scores the base width $W$ and the height $H_s$ of the embankment section — the core section when one is supplied, otherwise the shell — as derived in -[Section geometry used in scoring](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#section-geometry-used-in-scoring) +[Section geometry used in scoring](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#section-geometry-used-in-scoring) in the common methods manual, or the values the user supplies in their place. The base width and the width-to-height ratio are each placed in a band (), and the less favorable of the two governs: @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ band (), A narrow section scores a higher likelihood factor than a wide one. A value exactly on a threshold takes the higher likelihood factor (the band of the narrower section): a base width of exactly 50 scores 2, and a ratio of exactly 2 scores 2. The base width is banded at fixed numerical thresholds in the length unit of the inputs (see -[Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum) in the common +[Units and Datum](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum) in the common methods manual). The common methods manual writes the base width as $W = W_t + S_{us} + S_{ds}$, where $W_t$ is the top width of the section and $S_{us}$ and $S_{ds}$ are the horizontal spans of its upstream and downstream faces. For a section whose faces each have a single segment extending over the full height $H_s$, the spans are $S_{us} = m_{us} H_s$ and $S_{ds} = m_{ds} H_s$, where $m_{us}$ and $m_{ds}$ are the upstream @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ location in the optional flaw base width and flaw height inputs. ## Weighted Sum and Raw Flaw Probability The three likelihood factors combine into the weighted sum of -[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum) in the common +[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) in the common methods manual, with this model's risk factors: , as described in -[Flaw probability from the weighted sum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum) +[Flaw probability from the weighted sum](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum) in the common methods manual. The model has no lower threshold on the weighted sum. -3. ## Well-Prepared Surface The foundation preparation factor is an incompatible-condition factor in the sense of -[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 common methods manual: when it scores 1 — compacted soil on a soil foundation, or a regular or treated rock surface on a rock foundation — the raw flaw probability is zero whatever the other two factors score, and the final flaw probability is negligible. Such a surface is taken as incompatible with a continuous zone of poor compaction along the contact. The model has no observation override: no observation of leakage or wet spots sets the flaw probability to 1.0 (see -[Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in the +[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 common methods manual). The well-prepared-surface rule is the only rule that sets the flaw probability without scoring it. :::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-12 — Engineering Basis] @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ conduit, and wall or cliff compaction models. Provide the literature source or t The raw flaw probability is multiplied by the flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$, read from the curve shared by the three compaction models that apply the stage (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 common methods manual, where the basis of the curve is addressed). In this model the curve is keyed to the likelihood factor of the contact-zone compaction method, the factor with a risk factor of 2, and not to the foundation preparation factor, which carries the highest risk factor: @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ The flaw-continuity probability is negligible for special methods with good docu 1 × 10-3 for bulldozer compaction or an Unknown method, and 1 × 10-1 for poor compaction in thick layers. The final flaw probability is never reported as exactly zero: where the product is zero or smaller than the negligible value, the negligible value is reported, as for the SRP (see -[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the common methods +[SRP Computation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the common methods manual). ## Range of the Flaw Probability diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx index 5957e3989..8b35cf320 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx @@ -12,11 +12,11 @@ import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; # Event Tree The model evaluates the eight-node event tree shared by the CLE screening models, documented in the -[Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the common methods manual. It is a +[Event Tree](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the common methods manual. It is a compaction model: the flaw sits at one elevation, so only initiation varies with pool level and every other node is the same at every pool level -(see [Pool Dependence](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#pool-dependence)). The tree is +(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)). The tree is evaluated at every supplied headwater value and at the intermediate pool levels described in -[Headwater Grid](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#headwater-grid). +[Headwater Grid](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#headwater-grid). summarizes how the model populates each node. The sections that follow state the question each node answers, link the section of the shared manuals that documents it, and note what is specific to this mechanism. @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ good documentation. pipe wall that exceeds the critical shear stress $\tau_c$ assigned through the core soil classification? The model hands the question to the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis shared by the four compaction models, 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 common methods manual. The analysis computes the heads above the pipe invert, the hydraulic gradient along the seepage path, and the shear stress on the pipe wall, and reports the fraction of Monte Carlo realizations of $\tau_c$ and $D$ in which the shear stress exceeds the critical shear stress, which is the initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ at pool level $h$. This model supplies to it: @@ -76,11 +76,11 @@ shear stress, which is the initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ at pool level $h [Base-of-Flaw Elevation](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#base-of-flaw-elevation): the embankment–foundation contact for a foundation flaw, or the normal-pool heuristic elevation for an abutment flaw. Initiation is zero, and the SRP negligible, at pool levels at or below it. - **The seepage path length** — unless the user supplies it, the horizontal length through the section at $z_f$ (see - [Seepage path length](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) in the common + [Seepage path length](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) in the common methods manual). For a foundation flaw whose contact elevation is the lowest segment bottom of the section, this is the full base width of the section; an abutment flaw, higher in the section, has a shorter path and so a steeper gradient for the same net head. - **The critical shear stress** — the default range for the core soil classification, or the user's distribution (see - [Critical shear stress](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress) in the + [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) in the common methods manual). One soil is classified for the pipe wall, although the pipe lies against both the contact-zone fill and the foundation or abutment surface; which soil the classification describes is requested at marker IN-14 in [Initiation Default](./03-input-parameters.mdx#initiation-default). The clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes are not accepted as the @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ shear stress, which is the initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ at pool level $h [Initiation Default](./03-input-parameters.mdx#initiation-default)). The screening-level adjustments to the toolbox method are those common to the compaction models (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) in the common methods manual); the model makes none of its own. ## Node 3: Continuation @@ -107,11 +107,11 @@ Continuation is one value at every pool level, set by the filter-presence select where $P_{ce}$ is the probability of continuing erosion computed by the shared continuation method from the filter and base-soil description: the largest probability over the base soils the filter protects (see -[Governing Base Soil](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil#governing-base-soil) -and [Node Result](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#node-result) in the continuation +[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#governing-base-soil) +and [Node Result](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#node-result) in the continuation manual). When no filter is present, the continuation method is not evaluated. Filter presence is stated by the user and is not compared with the base-of-flaw elevation (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 common methods manual). ## Node 4: Progression — Roof Support @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ in the common methods manual). *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 over the embankment materials the pipe passes through, read from 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 common methods manual. Only the materials the user lists enter the minimum; the model does not add the foundation material to them. :::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-13 — Applicability] @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ beneath should be listed. *Question:* Does the enlarging pipe remain unfilled by material from upstream? The probability $P_{nf}$ is read from the embankment type, as documented in -[Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-5-progression--no-crack-filling) +[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 common methods manual. ## Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ in the common methods manual. The probability $P_{nl}$ is the minimum over the applicable upstream elements, with the walls gated once against the base of the flaw, as for every compaction model except conduit compaction (see -[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 common methods manual): - When no top-of-wall elevation $z_{tw}$ is given, or $z_{tw} \ge z_f$, every listed element applies. @@ -158,13 +158,13 @@ no credit. *Questions:* Do detection and intervention fail (Node 7)? Does an uncontrolled release of impounded water occur (Node 8)? The user-specified probabilities $P_{int}$ and $P_{br}$, each one value at every pool level and each defaulting to 1.0, as documented in -[Nodes 7 and 8](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#nodes-7-and-8-unsuccessful-intervention-and-breach) +[Nodes 7 and 8](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#nodes-7-and-8-unsuccessful-intervention-and-breach) in the common methods manual. ## SRP Computation The SRP at each pool level $h$ is the product of the eight nodes (see -[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the common methods +[SRP Computation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the common methods manual). In this model only initiation varies with pool level, so the SRP is the initiation curve scaled by one constant: and the judgment of the risk team (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 common methods manual). From 0243dee3c858e82d310b102d3c15afabf332acb2 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 ++-- .../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-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx index e86f844d1..322ebc0a3 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx @@ -2,12 +2,12 @@ title: Document Info reportDate: October 2026 reportType: Technical Reference -reportTitle: CLE Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual +reportTitle: Concentrated Leak Erosion Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual reportSubTitle: System Response Library reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.'] reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) screening model for poor compaction along the foundation or abutment contact in the System Response library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level from the eight-node CLE event tree. The probability of a continuous flaw is scored from three site factors (the preparation of the foundation or abutment surface, the method used to compact the embankment fill against it, and the width and width-to-height ratio of the embankment section) by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring, and is multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to the compaction method; a well-prepared surface forces the flaw probability to a negligible value. The flaw sits at the embankment-foundation contact, or for an abutment at an elevation one third of the way from normal pool to the crest. Initiation is evaluated by a Monte Carlo cylindrical-pipe shear stress analysis. This manual documents what is specific to the mechanism and refers to the shared CLE and continuation manuals for the common methods. reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Foundation Contact', 'Abutment Contact', 'Compaction', 'Foundation Preparation', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Monte Carlo'] -citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, CLE Foundation/Abutment 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 Foundation/Abutment 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-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md index 90899a1a4..55111b898 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Input Needed — CLE Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual (v1.0) +# Input Needed — Concentrated Leak Erosion Foundation/Abutment 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 495c75598..6aa11d18b 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ const docs = [ category: 'web-applications', software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening', - doc_name: 'CLE Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', + doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', active: true, draft: true, }, From 9fb93b457391953ce809279e73e86ede28b74c99 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 6aa11d18b..7620ab1c4 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -393,6 +393,7 @@ const docs = [ software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-foundation-abutment-compaction-screening', doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual', + sidebar_label: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Foundation/Abutment Compaction Screening', active: true, draft: true, },